THE CATHOLIC

ENCYCLOPEDIA

AN INTERNATIONAL WORK OF

REFERENCE ON THE CONSTITUTION,

DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, AND HISTORY

OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

C H A R L E S  G.  H E R B E R M A N N

Copyright © 2014 by Catholic Way Publishing.

All rights reserved.

Copyright © 1907 to 1914 by The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., New York, US.

Retypeset and republished in 2014 by Catholic Way Publishing.

Cover design by Catholic Way Publishing.

CENSOR

NIHIL OBSTAT:

NOVEMBER 1, 1907

REMY LAFORT, S.T.D.,

IMPRIMATUR:

+JOHN CARDINAL FARLEY

ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK

EDITED BY CHARLES G. HERBERMANN, PH.D., LL.D., EDWARD A. PACE, PH.D., D.D., CONDE B. FALLEN, PH.D., LL.D., THOMAS J. SHAHAN, D.D., JOHN J. WYNNE, S.J. ASSISTED BY NUMEROUS COLLABORATORS. UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS CATHOLIC TRUTH COMMITTEE. ORIGINALLY COMPOSED OF FIFTEEN VOLUMES AND INDEX.

This work is published for the greater glory of Jesus Christ through His most holy mother Mary and for the sanctification of the Church militant.

The typography of this book is the property of Catholic Way Publishing and may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without written permission of the Publisher.

Catholic Way Publishing® and the associated logo are registered Trademarks of the Catholic Way Publishing Company.

Kindle E-Book Edition

eISBN-13: 978-1-78379-334-1

eISBN-10: 1-78379-334-1

PUBLISHER

[Paperback] [Kindle] [Website]

True Devotion to Mary: With Preparation for

Total Consecration by Saint Louis de Montfort:

Paperback, Hardback, Kindle

ARTICLES

| A | B | C | D | E |

| F | G | H | I | J |

| K | L | M | N | O |

| P | Q | R | S | T |

| U | V | W | X | Y | Z |

| INDEX |

THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

ARTICLES

TO THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS

ENCYCLOPEDIA PREFACE

TABLES OF ABBREVIATIONS

ILLUSTRATIONS

PUBLISHER II

TO THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS

IN taking under our auspices a special edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia, we are actuated by the motive which originally inspired the production of this work.

From the start, it was determined that this encyclopedia should not be exclusively a Church publication, containing only matters of special interest to the clergy. It is intended for the layman as well as for the priest; and, consequently, it contains all that he needs to know, treated from his point of view.

The Editor-in-Chief and the Managing Editor are laymen, as were fully 500 of the contributors, and 150 editorial assistants. With them the clerical editors and contributors have co-operated in full appreciation of the importance of producing a work which in content and style would satisfy the scholar in his study and yet interest the man in the street.

For this Encyclopedia is designed to be the starting-point of a movement among Catholics, a great educational movement in every Catholic home in the land, the source of a literature that will once more as in the days before the Reformation employ the English tongue in the cause of Catholic truth. It is verily an educational and literary crusade, and as such it must appeal strongly to every member of an Order whose members, in the words of Archbishop Ireland, “aim to be the trusted auxiliaries of the Church, her organized chivalry, ever first and foremost when her call is heard, or her banner leads.”

We have but lately completed our achievement of providing for the Catholic University of America the half million dollar scholarship foundation which is to enable Catholic young men from every part of the land to take advantage of the educational facilities of that great institution.

Here is an offer which brings all the advantages that The Catholic University can at present afford and more right into our own homes. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a veritable Catholic Home University. It has been truly styled “a university in print.” Few, if any, of our membership, are in a position to take advantage of the Catholic University foundation; scarcely one is unable to avail himself of an offer, which brings to every Catholic home the best the University can give.

As if divining that the Knights of Columbus would take on themselves the task of giving the widest possible circulation to The Catholic Encyclopedia, His Grace, Archbishop Ireland, discoursing on “The Typical Catholic Layman of America,” before the Supreme Council of the Order lately assembled in St. Paul, recommended the work in the following eloquent terms:

“An intelligent laity is the prime need of the Church to-day, in America. The battle is opened. It is a flood of contradiction, of misrepresentation, of calumnies. History is perverted; Catholic discipline is travestied. When the Church, as seen daily, cannot with safety be assailed, the appeal is to centuries of long ago, more unfamiliar to the reader—to remote lands whence no contradiction may come. The remedy is intelligence of all important matters concerning the Church at home and abroad, intelligence that Catholics be guarded from poisonous inoculation, and be, at the same time, in a position to influence public opinion in favor of truth and justice. The most ready arm is the press: hence the duty of the hour is to give generous support to the Catholic newspaper, to read it, to distribute it, supplementing it, as occasion permits, with magazine and book. One book, the summary of thousands, I especially recommend, The Catholic Encyclopedia.”

JAMES A. FLAHERTY

JOSEPH C. PELLETIER

WILLIAM J. MOGINLEY

Catholic Truth Committee of the Knights of Columbus

ENCYCLOPEDIA PREFACE

The Catholic Encyclopedia, as its name implies, proposes to give its readers full and authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine. What the Church teaches and has taught; what she has done and is still doing for the highest welfare of mankind; her methods, past and present; her struggles, her triumphs, and the achievements of her members, not only for her own immediate benefit, but for the broadening and deepening of all true science, literature and art—all come within the scope of The Catholic Encyclopedia. It differs from the general encyclopedia in omitting facts and information which have no relation to the Church. On the other hand, it is not exclusively a church encyclopedia, nor is it limited to the ecclesiastical sciences and the doings of churchmen. It records all that Catholics have done, not only in behalf of charity and morals, but also for the intellectual and artistic development of mankind. It chronicles what Catholic artists, educators, poets, scientists and men of action have achieved in their several provinces. In this respect it differs from most other Catholic encyclopedias. The Editors are fully aware that there is no specifically Catholic science, that mathematics, physiology and other branches of human knowledge are neither Catholic, Jewish, nor Protestant; but when it is commonly asserted that Catholic principles are an obstacle to scientific research, it seems not only proper but needful to register what and how much Catholics have contributed to every department of knowledge.

No one who is interested in human history, past and present, can ignore the Catholic Church, either as an institution which has been the central figure in the civilized world for nearly two thousand years, decisively affecting its destinies, religious, literary, scientific, social and political, or as an existing power whose influence and activity extend to every part of the globe. In the past century the Church has grown both extensively and intensively among English-speaking peoples. Their living interests demand that they should have the means of informing themselves about this vast institution, which, whether they are Catholics or not, affects their fortunes and their destiny. As for Catholics, their duty as members of the Church impels them to learn more and more fully its principles; while among Protestants the desire for a more intimate and accurate knowledge of things Catholic increases in proportion to the growth of the Church in numbers and in importance. The Catholic clergy are naturally expected to direct inquirers to sources of the needed information; yet they find only too often that the proper answers to the questions proposed are not to be met with in English literature. Even the writings of the best intentioned authors at times disfigured by serious errors on Catholic subjects, which are for the most part due, not to ill-will, but to lack of knowledge. It would be fatuous to hope to call into immediate existence a Catholic English literature adequate to supply this knowledge and correct errors. The Encyclopedia, therefore, is the most convenient means of doing both, enabling, as it does, the foremost Catholic scholars in every part of the world to contribute articles in the condensed form that appeals to the man of action, and with the accuracy that satisfies the scholar.

Designed to present its readers with the full body of Catholic teaching, the Encyclopedia contains not only precise statements of what the Church has defined, but also an impartial record of different views of acknowledged authority on all disputed questions. In all things the object of the Encyclopedia is to give the whole truth without prejudice, national, political or factional. In the determination of the truth the most recent and acknowledged scientific methods are employed, and the results of the latest research in theology, philosophy, history, apologetics, archæology, and other sciences are given careful consideration.

The work is entirely new, and not merely a translation or a compilation from other encyclopedia sources. The Editors have insisted that the articles should contain the latest and most accurate information to be obtained from the standard works on each subject. Contributors have been chosen for their special knowledge and skill in presenting the subject, and they assume the responsibility for what they have written. Representing as they do Catholic scholarship in every part of the world, they give the work an international character.

The Encyclopedia bears the imprimatur of the Most Reverend Archbishop under whose jurisdiction it is published. In constituting the Editors the ecclesiastical censors, he has given them a singular proof of his confidence and of his desire to facilitate the publication of the work which he has promoted most effectively by his influence and kindly co-operation.

The Editors take occasion to express their gratitude to all who have taken part with them in this enterprise; in particular to the hierarchy for their cordial endorsement; to Catholic publishers and to the editors of the Catholic press for their frequent courtesies; to the contributors for their ready co-operation; to the original subscribers for their generous support; to the directors of the Company organized specially to produce the work, and to many non-Catholics for their kindly encouragement.

TABLES OF ABBREVIATIONS

The following tables and notes are intended to guide readers of The Catholic Encyclopedia in interpreting those abbreviations, signs, or technical phrases which, for economy of space, will be most frequently used in the work. For more general information see the article Abbreviations, Ecclesiastical.

I. -GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS.

a

article.

ad an.

at the year (Lat. ad annum).

an., ann.

the year, the years (Lat. annus, anni).

ap.

in (Lat. apud).

art.

article.

Assyr.

Assyrian.

A.S.

Anglo-Saxon.

A.V.

Authorized Version (i.e. tr. of the Bible authorized for use in the Anglican Church—the so-called “King James,” or “Protestant” Bible.

b.

born.

Bk.

Book.

Bl.

Blessed.

C.,c.

about (Lat. circa); canon; chapter; compagnie.

can.

canon.

cap.

chapter (Lat. caput—used only in Latin context).

cf.

compare (Lat. confer).

cod.

codex.

col.

column.

concl.

conclusion.

const., constit.

Lat. constitutio.

cura.

by the industry of.

d.

died.

dict.

dictionary (Fr. dictionnaire).

disp.

Lat. disputatio.

diss.

Lat. dissertatio.

dist.

Lat. distinctio.

D.V.

Douay Version.

ed., edit.

edited, edition, editor.

Ep., Epp.

letter, letters (Lat. epistola).

Fr.

French.

gen.

genus.

Gr.

Greek.

H. E., Hist. Eccl.

Ecclesiastical History.

Heb., Hebr.

Hebrew.

ib., ibid.

in the same place (Lat. ibidem).

Id.

the same person, or author (Lat. idem).

inf.

below (Lat. infra).

It.

Italian.

1. c., loc. cit.

at the place quoted (Lat. loco citato).

Lat.

Latin.

lat.

latitude.

lib.

book (Lat. liber).

long.

longitude.

Mon.

Lat. Monumenta.

MS., MSS.

manuscript, manuscripts.

n., no.

number.

N. T.

New Testament.

Nat.

National.

Old Fr., O. Fr.

Old French.

op. cit.

in the work quoted (Lat. opere citato).

Ord.

Order.

O. T.

Old Testament.

p., pp.

page, pages, or (in Latin references) pars (part).

par.

paragraph.

passim.

in various places.

pt.

part.

Q.

Quarterly (a periodical), e.g. “Church Quarterly.”

Q., QQ., quæst.

question, questions (Lat. quæstio).

q. v.

which [title] see (Lat. quod vide).

Rev.

Review (a periodical).

R. S.

Rolls Series.

R. V.

Revised Version.

S., SS.

Lat. Sanctus, Sancti, “Saint,” “Saints”—used in this Encyclopedia only in Latin context

Sept.

Septuagint.

Sess.

Session.

Skt.

Sanskrit.

Sp.

Spanish.

sq., sqq.

following page, or pages (Lat. sequens).

St., Sts.

Saint, Saints.

sup.

Above (Lat. supra).

s. v.

Under the corresponding title (Lat. sub voce).

tom.

volume (Lat. tomus).

tr.

translation or translated. By itself it means “English translation,” or “translated into English by.” Where a translation is into any other language, the language is stated.

tr., tract.

tractate.

v.

see (Lat. vide).

Ven.

Venerable.

Vol.

Volume.

II. -ABBREVIATIONS OF TITLES.

Acta SS.

Acta Sanctorum (Bollandists).

Ann. pont. cath.

Battandier, Annuaire pontifical catholique.

Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.

Gillow, Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Catholics.

Dict. Christ. Antiq.

Smith and Cheetham (ed.), Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.

Dict. Christ. Biog.

Smith and Wace (ed.), Dictionary of Christian Biography.

Dict. d’arch. chrét.

Cabrol (ed.), Dictionnarie d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie.

Dict. de théol. cath.

Vacant and Mangenot (ed.), Dictionnaire de théologie catholique.

Dict. Nat. Biog.

Stephen (ed.), Dictionary of National Biography.

Hast., Dict. of the Bible

Hastings (ed.), A Dictionary of the Bible.

Kirchenlex

Wetzer and Welte, Kirchenlexicon.

P. G.

Migne (ed.), Patres Græci.

P. L.

Migne (ed.), Patres Latini.

Vig., Dict. de la Bible

Vigouroux (ed.), Dictionnaire de la Bible.

Note I.—Large Roman numerals standing alone indicate volumes. Small Roman numerals standing alone indicate chapters. Arabic numerals standing alone indicate pages. In other cases the divisions are explicitly stated. Thus “Rashdall, Universities of Europe, I, ix” refers the reader to the ninth chapter of the first volume of that work; “I, p. ix” would indicate the ninth page of the preface of the same volume.

Note II.—Where St. Thomas (Aquinas) is cited without the name of any particular work the reference is always to “Summa Theologica” (not to “Summa Philosophiæ”). The divisions of the “Summa Theol.” are indicated by a system which may best be understood by the following example: “I-II, Q. vi, a. 7, ad 2 um” refers the reader to the seventh article of the sixth question in the first part of the second part, in the response to the second objection.

Note III.—The abbreviations employed for the various books of the Bible are obvious. Ecclesiasticus is indicated by Ecclus., to distinguish it from Ecclesiastes (Eccles.). It should also be noted that I and II Kings in D. V. correspond to I and II Samuel in A. V.; and I and II Par. to I and II Chronicles. Where, in the spelling of a proper name, there is a marked difference between the D. V. and the A. V., the form found in the latter is added, in parentheses.

A

ARTICLES

A

Aachen

Aaron

Abaddon

Abandonment

Pedro Abarca

Abarim

Abba

Antoine d’Abbadie

Abban

Abbé

Jean Baptiste Abbeloos

Abbess

Abbey

Abbo Cernuus

St. Abbon

Abbot

Henry Abbot

Methods of Abbreviation

Ecclesiastical Abbreviations

Abbreviators

Abdera

Abdias of Babylon

Abdication

Sts. Abdon and Sennen

Abduction

Abecedaria

Abecedarians

Abel (1)

Abel (2)

Peter Abelard

Louis Abelly

Abenakis

Abraham-ben-Méir Aben-Ezra

Inscription of Abercius

John Abercromby

Robert Abercromby

The Diocese of Aberdeen

The University of Aberdeen

Moritz von Aberle

The Legend of Abgar

Abiathar

Abila

Abbey of Abingdon

Thomas Abington

Abipones

Abisai

Abjuration

Abner

Abomination of Desolation

Abortion

The Physical Effects of Abortion

Charles François d’Abra de Raconis

Don Isaac Abrabanel

Abraham

Abraham (in Liturgy)

The Bosom of Abraham

Abraham a Sancta Clara

Abraham Ecchelensis

Abrahamites

Nicholas Abram

Abrasax

Absalom

Absalon of Lund

Absinthe

The Absolute

Absolution

Abstemii

Abstinence

Physical Effects of Abstinence

Abstraction

Abthain

Theodore Abucar

Abundius

Abydus

Abyss

Abyssinia

Acacia

The Acacians

Acacius, Bishop of Beroea

Acacius, Bishop of Caesarea

Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople

St. Acacius

Roman Academies

French Academy

Acadia

Acanthus (see)

Acanthus (plant)

Acathistus

St. Acca

Accaron

Accentus Ecclesiasticus

Acceptance

Acceptants

Accession

Accessus

Acciajuoli

Accident

Acclamation

Acclamation (in Papal Elections)

Biblical Accommodation

Accomplice

Francesco Accursius

Acephali

Archdiocese of Acerenza

Achab

Achaia

Achaicus

Achaz

Lucas d’Achéry

Achiacharus

Achimaas

Achimelech

Achitopel

Diocese of Achonry

Achor Valley

Achrida

Johann Heinrich Achterfeldt

Theodore William Achtermann

Valens Acidalius

Diocese of Aci-Reale

Leopold Ackermann

Acmonia

Acoemetae

Acolouthia

Acolyte

Joaquín Acosta

José de Acosta

Diocese of Acquapendente

Acquaviva

Claudius Acquaviva

Diocese of Acqui

Acre

Acrostic

Acta Pilati

Acta Sanctæ Sedis

Acta Sanctorum Hiberniæ

Acta Triadis Thaumaturgæ

Act of Settlement (Irish)

Charles Januarius Acton

John Acton

John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, Baron Acton

John Francis Edward Acton

Canonical Acts

Human Acts

Indifferent Acts

Acts of the Apostles

Acts of Roman Congregations

Actus et Potentia

Actus primus

Actus Purus

Acuas

St. Adalard

Adalbert

Adalbert I

St. Adalbert (of Bohemia)

St. Adalbert (of Germany)

Ad Apostolicae Dignitatis Apicem

Ad Limina Apostolorum

Ad Sanctam Beati Petri Sedem

Ad Universalis Ecclesiae

Adam

Adam in Early Christian Liturgy and Literature

Books of Adam

Adam of Bremen

Adam of Fulda

Adam of Murimuth

Adam of Perseigne

Adam of St. Victor

Adam of Usk

John Adam

Nicholas Adam

Adam Scotus

Andrea Adami da Bolsena

Adamites

St. Adamnan

James Adams

Ven. John Adams

Diocese of Adana

Adar

Ferdinando d’Adda

Addas

Liturgy of Addeus and Maris

Ecclesiastical Addresses

Archdiocese of Adelaide

St. Adelaide, Abbess

St. Adelaide (Adelheid)

John Placid Adelham

Adelmann

Adelophagi

Vicariate Apostolic of Aden

Adeodatus

Pope St. Adeodatus

Adeste Fideles

Adjuration

Administrator

Administrator (of Ecclesiastical Property)

Canonical Admonitions

Admont

St. Ado of Vienne

Adonai

Adonias

Adoption

Canonical Adoption

Supernatural Adoption

Adoptionism

Adoration

Perpetual Adoration

Francis Adorno

Adoro Te Devote

Diocese of Adria

Pope Adrian I

Pope Adrian II

Pope St. Adrian III

Pope Adrian IV

Pope Adrian V

Pope Adrian VI

St. Adrian of Canterbury

Adrian of Castello

Adrianople

Christian Kruik van Adrichem

Adso

Diego Francisco Aduarte

Adullam

Adulteration of Food

Adultery

Advent

Adventists

Book of Advertisements

Advocates of Roman Congregations

Advocates of St. Peter

Advocatus Diaboli

Advocatus Ecclesiæ

Advowson

Adytum

St. Aedan of Ferns

Aedh of Kildare

Aegidius of Assisi

Ægidius of Viterbo

Aelfric, Abbot of Eynsham

Ælnoth

St. Ælred

Æneas of Gaza

St. Aengus (the Culdee)

Ænon

Æons

Aër

Aërius of Pontus

Æsthetics

Æterni Patris (Pius IX)

Æterni Patris (Leo XIII)

Aëtius

Affinity (in the Bible)

Affinity (in Canon Law)

Affirmation

Afflighem

Denis Auguste Affre

St. Afra

Africa

Early African Church

African Liturgy

African Synods

Agabus

Agape

Agapetae

Agapetus

Pope St. Agapetus I

Pope Agapetus II

William Seth Agar

St. Agatha

Agathangelus

Agathias

Pope St. Agatho

Agaunum

Agostini Agazzari

Council of Agde

Canonical Age

Age of Reason

Diocese of Agen

Agents of Roman Congregations

Aggeus (Haggai)

Unjust Aggressor

Raymond d’Agiles

St. Agilulfus

Agios O Theos

Giuseppe Agnelli

Fra Guglielmo Agnelli

Bl. Agnellus of Pisa

Andreas Agnellus of Ravenna

St. Agnes of Assisi

Bl. Agnes of Bohemia

St. Agnes of Montepulciano

St. Agnes of Rome

Maria Gaetana Agnesi

Agnetz

Agnoetae

Agnosticism

Agnus Dei

Agnus Dei (in Liturgy)

Agonistici

Agony of Christ

Paolo Agostini

Bl. Agostino Novello

Charles Constance César Joseph Matthieu d’Agoult

Archdiocese of Agra

Agram

Agrapha

Agrarianism

Maria de Agreda

Agria

St. Agricius

Alexander Agricola

George Agricola

Rudolph Agricola

Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim

Agrippinus

Diocese of Aguas Calientes

Joseph Saenz de Aguirre

Ahicam

Ahriman and Ormuzd

Johann Caspar Aiblinger

Gregor Aichinger

St. Aidan of Lindisfarne

Duchess of Aiguillon

Mary Aikenhead

St. Ailbe

St. Aileran

Family of d’Ailleboust

Pierre d’Ailly

Mateo Aimerich

Diocese of Aire

Giacomo Maria Airoli

Aisle

Archdiocese of Aix

Councils of Aix-en-Provence

Diocese of Ajaccio

Akhmin

Michael and Nicetas Akominatos

Alabama

Alabanda

Alabaster

Diocese of Alagoas

Pietro Alagona

Alain de l’Isle

Alalis

Lucas Alaman

Niccolò Alamanni

Alan of Tewkesbury

Alan of Walsingham

Alanus de Rupe

Alaska

Diocese of Alatri

Alb

Diocese of Alba Pompeia

St. Alban

Albanenses

Albania

Albani

Albano

Diocese of Albany

Diocese of Albenga

Niccolo Albergati

Alberic of Monte Cassino

Alberic of Ostia

Albero de Montreuil

Giulio Alberoni

Albert

Albert II

Bl. Albert

St. Albert

Bl. Albert Berdini of Sarteano

Albert of Aachen

Albert of Brandenburg

Albert of Castile

Albert of Stade

Leandro Alberti

Leone Battista Alberti

Nicolò Albertini

John Baptist Albertrandi

Bl. Albertus Magnus

Archdiocese of Albi

Council of Albi

Juan de Albi

Sigismund Albicus

Albigenses

Albinus

Johann G. Albrechtsberger

Albright Brethren

Afonzo de Albuquerque

University of Alcalá

Military Order of Alcántara

Antonio de Alcedo

Alchemy

St. Alcmund

Andrea Alciati

Alcimus

John Alcock

Alcoholism

Alcuin

St. Aldegundis

Aldersbach

Aldfrith

St. Aldhelm

St. Aldric

Ulissi Aldrovandi

Leonard Alea

Phillipe Alegambe

Francisco Xavier Alegre

Joseph Sadoc Alemany

Giulio Alenio

Archdiocese of Aleppo

Diocese of Ales and Terralba

Diocese of Alessandria della Paglia

Galeazzo Alessi

Diocese of Alessio

Alexander

Alexander (Early Bishops)

Pope St. Alexander I

Pope Alexander II

Pope Alexander III

Pope Alexander IV

Pope Alexander V

Pope Alexander VI

Pope Alexander VII

Pope Alexander VIII

St. Alexander

St. Alexander (II)

St. Alexander (of Alexandria)

Bl. Alexander Briant

Alexander Natalis

Alexander of Abonoteichos

Alexander of Hales

Alexander of Lycopolis

Bl. Alexander Sauli

Dom Jacques Alexandre

Alexandria

Councils of Alexandria

Church of Alexandria

Diocese of Alexandria

Alexandrian Library

Alexandrine Liturgy

Alexian Nuns

Alexians

St. Alexis Falconieri

St. Alexius

Count Vittorio Alfieri

Pietro Alfieri

Alfonso de Zamora

Alfonso of Burgos

Michael Alford

Alfred the Great

St. Alfrida

St. Alfwold

Alger of Liége

Diocese of Alghero

Archdiocese of Algiers

Algonquins

Diocese of Alife

Alimentation

Alimony

Aliturgical Days

All Hallows College

All Saints

All Souls’ Day

Allah

Diocese of Allahabad

Paul Allard

Leo Allatius

Joseph Allegranza

Antonio Allegri

Gregorio Allegri

Alleluia

Jean Allemand

Edward Patrick Allen

Frances Allen

George Allen

John Allen (I)

John Allen (II)

William Allen

August Allerstein

Thomas William Allies

Joseph Franz Allioli

William Allison

Allocution

Allori

William Allot

Claude Allouez

Alma

Alma Redemptoris Mater

Diego de Almagro

John Almeida

Diocese of Almeria

Camillo Almici

Ven. John Almond

John Almond

Oliver Almond

Alms and Almsgiving

St. Alnoth

Alogi

St. Aloysius Gonzaga

A and Ω

Alpha and Omega (in Jewish Theology)

Christian Use of the Alphabet

St. Alphonsus Liguori

St. Alphonsus Rodriguez

Prospero Alpini

Alsace-Lorraine

Diego Francisco Altamirano

Altamura and Acquaviva

Altar (in Liturgy)

Altar (in the Greek Church)

Altar (in Scripture)

History of the Christian Altar

Bl. Altmann

St. Alto

Diocese of Alton

Diocese of Altoona

Altruism

Alumnus

Niccolò Alunno

Fernando Alvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alva

Pedro d’Alva y Astorga

Alonzo de Alvarado

Fray Francisco de Alvarado

Pedro de Alvarado

Balthazar Alvarez

Diego Alvarez

Manoel Alvarez

Alvarez de Paz

St. Alypius

José Antonio Alzate

Johann Baptist Alzog

Ama

Giovanni Antonio Amadeo

Dioceses of Amadia and Akra

Amalarius of Metz

St. Amalberga (1)

St. Amalberga (2)

Amalec

Archdiocese of Amalfi

Amalricians

Amalricus Augerii

St. Amandus

Amasia

Amastris

Thaddeus Amat

Amathus

Diocese of Amazones

Peter Ambarach

Ambition

Ambo

Ambo (in the Russian and Greek Church)

George d’Amboise

Our Lady of Ambronay

August Wilhelm Ambros

St. Ambrose

St. Ambrose of Camaldoli

Bl. Ambrose of Sienna

Ambrosian Basilica

Ambrosian Chant

Ambrosian Hymnography

Ambrosian Library

Ambrosian Liturgy and Rite

Ambrosians

Ambrosiaster

Ambulatory

Diocese of Amelia

Denis Amelote

Amen

Amende Honorable

Veit Amerbach

America

Pre-Columbian Discovery of America

American College in Rome

American College at Louvain

South American College

American Protective Association

Francis Kerril Amherst

Ven. John Amias

Amice

Antonio Amico

Francesco Amico

Diocese of Amida

Diocese of Amiens

Joseph Maria Amiot

Amisus

Daniel Ammen

St. Ammon

Ammon

Ammonian Sections

Ammonites

Amorbach

Amorios

Amorrhites

Eusebius Amort

Amos

Amovibility

Vicariate Apostolic of Amoy

André Marie Ampère

Amphilochius of Iconium

Amphilochius of Sida

Amphoræ

Abbey of Ampleforth

Ampullæ

Diocese of Ampurias

Amra

Amrah

Amraphel

Amsterdam

Amulet

Use and Abuse of Amulets

Amyclae

Jacques Amyot

Anabaptists

Pope St. Anacletus

Anacletus II

Anæsthesia

Diocese of Anagni

Analogy

Analysis

Anaphora

Anarchy

St. Anastasia

Anastasiopolis

St. Anastasius (1)

Pope St. Anastasius I

Pope Anastasius II

Pope Anastasius III

Pope Anastasius IV

St. Anastasius (2)

St. Anastasius Sinaita

Anathema

Anathoth

St. Anatolia

St. Anatolius (1

St. Anatolius (2)

Anatomy

Anazarbus

Pedro de Añazco

Joseph Anchieta

Anchor

Anchorites

Ancient of Days

Ancilla Dei

Ciriaco d’Ancona

Diocese of Ancona and Umana

Ancren Riwle

Ancyra

Councils of Ancyra

Andalusia

William Henry Anderdon

Anthony Maria Anderledy

Henry James Anderson

Lionel Albert Anderson

Patrick Anderson

James Anderton

Ven. Robert Anderton

Roger Anderton

Thomas Anderton

Heinrich Bernhard, Freiherr von Andlaw

Ven. William Andleby

Alonso Andrada

Antonio de Andrada

Diego Andrada de Payva

Bernard André

Yves Marie André

Giovanni d’Andrea

Bl. Andrea Dotti

Andrea Pisano

Andreas of Ratisbon

Felix de Andreis

Juan Andres

St. Andrew (1)

St. Andrew (2)

St. Andrew Avellino

Bl. Andrew Bobola

St. Andrew Corsini

Andrew of Caesarea

St. Andrew of Crete

Andrew of Lonjumeau

Andrew of Rhodes

St. Andrew the Scot

William Eusebius Andrews

Diocese of Andria

Anemurium

Felice Anerio

Giovanni Francesco Anerio

Filippo Anfossi

Ange de Saint Joseph

Ange de Sainte Rosalie

Angel

Angela Merici

Bl. Angela of Foligno

Francesco degli Angeli

Girolamo degli Angeli

Angelicals

Fra Angelico

Bl. Angelo Carletti di Chivasso

Angelo Clareno da Cingoli

Early Christian Representations of Angels

Angels of the Churches

Angelus

Angelus Bell

Angelus Silesius

Anger

Diocese of Angers

University of Angers

Notre Dame des Anges

St. Angilbert

Francesco Angiolini

Priory of Anglesea

Anglican Orders

Anglicanism

Timothy Warren Anglin

Anglo-Saxon Church

Anglona-Tursi

Angola and Congo

Diocese of Angora

Diocese of Angoulême

Diocese of Angra

Pedro Angulo

Vicariate Apostolic of Anhalt

Pope St. Anicetus

College and Church of the Anima (in Rome)

Anima Christi

Animals in Christian Art

Animals in the Bible

Animism

Giovanni Animuccia

Anise

Anna

Anna Comnena

Ecclesiastical Annals

Annas

François Annat

Annates

St. Anne

Sainte Anne d’Auray

Sainte Anne de Beaupré

Diocese of Annecy

Joseph Annegarn

Annibale d’Annibaldi

Giuseppe d’Annibale

Annius of Viterbo

St. Anno

Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Orders of the Annunciation

Louis-Pierre Anquetil

Casto Innocenzio Ansaldi

Giordano Ansaloni

St. Anschar

Councils of Anse

Ansegisus

St. Ansegisus

St. Anselm (1)

St. Anselm (2)

Anselm of Laon

Anselm of Liège

St. Anselm of Lucca, the Younger

Antoine Anselme

Reyer Anslo

Thomas Chisholm Anstey

Antediluvians

Pope St. Anterus

Joseph Anthelmi

Anthemius

St. Anthony

Orders of Saint Anthony

St. Anthony of Padua

Anthony of Sienna

Anthony of the Mother of God

Anthropomorphism

Antichrist

Antidicomarianites

Antidoron

Diocese of Antigonish

Antimensium

Antinoe

Antinomianism

Church of Antioch

Antioch

Antiochene Liturgy

Antiochus of Palestine

Antipater of Bostra

Antipatris

Antiphellos

Antiphon

Antiphon (in the Greek Church)

Antiphon (in Greek Liturgy)

Antiphonary

Gregorian Antiphonary

Antipodes

Antipope

Archdiocese of Antivari

Vicariate Apostolic of Antofogaste

Paul Gabriel Antoine

Anton Ulrich

Giacomo Antonelli

Leonardo Antonelli

Nicolò Maria Antonelli

Giovanni Antoniano

Silvio Antoniano

Charles Antoniewicz

St. Antoninus

Antoninus Pius

St. Antonio Maria Zaccaria

Maria Antonio of Vicenza

Antonius

Franz Joseph Antony

Antwerp

Fray Domingo de la Anunciación

Fray Juan de la Anunciación

Diocese of Aosta

Apaches

Apameia

Antonio Aparisi y Guijarro

Apelles

St. Aphian

Aphraates

Apiarius of Sicca

Apocalypse

Apocatastasis

Apocrisiarius

Apocrypha

Apodosis

Apollinarianism

St. Apollinaris (1)

St. Apollinaris (2)

Apollinaris (the Elder)

St. Apollinaris Claudius

St. Apollonia

Apollonius of Ephesus

Apologetics

Apolysis

Apolytikion

Apophthegmata Patrum

Ferrante Aporti

Apostasy

Apostle (in Liturgy)

Apostle Spoons

Apostles

Apostles’ Creed

Twelve Apostles of Erin

Apostleship of Prayer

Apostolic Camera

Apostolic Churches

Apostolic Church-Ordinance

Apostolic Constitutions

Apostolic Fathers

Apostolic Letters

Apostolic Majesty

Apostolic See

Apostolic Succession

Apostolic Union of Secular Priests

Apostolicae Curae

Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi

Apostolicæ Servitutis

Apostolici

Apostolici Ministerii

Apostolici Regiminis

Apostolicity

Apostolicum Pascendi Munus

Apotactics

Apotheosis

Apparitor

Appeal as from an abuse

Appeals

Appetite

Approbation

Appropriation

Apse

Apse Chapel

Apsidiole

Council of Apt

Aquarians

Archdiocese of Aquila

Aquila and Priscilla

Aquileia

Councils of Aquileia

Diocese of Aquino, Sora, and Pontecorvo

Arabia

Vicariate Apostolic of Arabia

Councils of Arabia

Arabian School of Philosophy

Arabici

Arabissus

Arad

Monastic School of Aran

Council of Aranda

Philip Aranda

Arason Jón

Arator

Prefecture Apostolic of Araucania

Araucanians

Antonio de Araujo

Francisco de Araujo

Arawaks

Ignacio de Arbieto

Arbitration

St. Arbogast

Abbey of Arbroath

Missal of Arbuthnott

Arca

Our Lady of Arcachon

Jacob Arcadelt

Arcadiopolis

Arcae

Arcanum

Arch

Commission of Sacred Archæology

Archange de Lyon

Archbishop

Archconfraternity

Archdeacon

Richard Archdeacon

Archdiocese

Archelais

James Archer

Court of Arches

Archiereus

Archimandrite

Filippo Archinto

Ecclesiastical Archives

Archontics

Archpriest

Arcosolium

Arculf

Diocese of Ardagh

Ardbraccan

Priory of Ardchattan

Edward Arden

Notre Dame des Ardilliers

Prince Charles d’Aremberg

Areopagus

Areopolis

Diocese of Arequipa

Arethas of Caesarea

Arethusa

Faustino Arévalo

Rodríguez Sanchez de Arévalo

Diocese of Arezzo

Pierre de Voyer d’Argenson

Argentine Republic

Charles du Plessis d’Argentré

Argos

Luis Antonio Argüello

Diocese of Argyll and the Isles

John Argyropulos

St. Arialdo

Arianism

Diocese of Ariano

Francis Arias

Pedro Arias de Avila

Benedictus Arias Montanus

Ariassus

Aribo

Arindela

Ludovico Ariosto

Aristeas

Aristides

Aristotle

Arius

Arizona

Ark

Arkansas

Fray José Arlegui

Synods of Arles

Spanish Armada

Archdiocese of Armagh

Book of Armagh

School of Armagh

Georges d’Armagnac

Mariano Armellino

Armenia

Armenierstadt

Fray Nicolás Armentia

Diocese of Armidale

Arminianism

Arnauld

Thomas Augustine Arne

Arni Thorlaksson

Arnobius

Arnold

Arnold of Brescia

Alberto Arnoldi

Bartholomäus Arnoldi

Arnolfo di Cambio

Peter Joseph Arnoudt

Veit Arnpeck

Arnulf of Bavaria

Arnulf of Lisieux

St. Arnulf of Metz

Diocese of Arras

Councils of Arras

Pablo José Arriaga

Juan Arricivita

Nicola Arrighetti

Nicolò Arrighetti

Arsacidæ

Arsenius Autorianos

St. Arsenius

Arsinoe

Artemon

James Arthur

Thomas Arthur

Articles of Faith

Organic Articles

Artoklasia

Bachelor of Arts

Faculty of Arts

Master of Arts

Seven Liberal Arts

Artvin

Thomas Arundel

Thomas Arundell

St. Asaph

Ascalon

Ascelin

Ascendente Domino

Ascension

Feast of the Ascension

Asceticism

Joseph, Ritter von Aschbach

Diocese of Ascoli-Piceno

Diocese of Ascoli, Satriano, and Cirignola

Aseity

Aseneth

Aser

Asgaard

Ash Wednesday

George Ashby

Thomas Ashby

Ashes

Ven. Ralph Ashley

John Ashton

Ven. Roger Ashton

Asia

Asia Minor

Asiongaber

Robert Aske

Asmodeus

Aspendus

Asperges

Martin Aspilcueta

The Ass (in Caricature of Christian Beliefs and Practices)

Prefecture Apostolic of Assam

Assemani

Assemblies of the French Clergy

John Asser

Feast of Asses

Assessor of the Holy Office

Assessors

St. Assicus

Assideans

Physiological Assimilation

Psychological Assimilation

Diocese of Assisi

Assistant at the Pontifical Throne

Assize of Clarendon

Assizes of Jerusalem

Ignaz Assmayer

Right of Voluntary Association

Association of Ideas

Association of Priestly Perseverance

Pious Associations

Assuerus

Little Sisters of the Assumption

Sisters of the Assumption

Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Assur (1)

Assur (2)

Assyria

Asterisk

Asterius

Diocese of Asti

Aston

Diocese of Astorga

Astrology

Astronomy

Paul-Thérèse-David d’Astros

Jean Astruc

Atahuallpa

Juan Santos Atahualpa

Atavism

Vicariate Apostolic of Athabasca

Athanasian Creed

St. Athanasius

Atheism

Abbey of Athelney

Athenagoras

Athenry

Christian Athens

Modern Diocese of Athens

Joseph Athias

Mount Athos

Juan de Atienza

James Atkinson

Nicholas Atkinson

Paul Atkinson of St. Francis

Sarah Atkinson

Ven. Thomas Atkinson

Atom

Atomism

Day of Atonement

Doctrine of the Atonement

Atrib

Atrium

Attainder

St. Attala

Attalia

Michael Attaliates

Atticus

Councils of Attigny

Attila

Jean Denis Attiret

Atto

Atto of Pistoia

Atto of Vercelli

St. Attracta

Divine Attributes

Attrition

Attuda

Jean-Michel-d’Astorg Aubarède

Jean-Antoine d’Aubermont

Joseph Aubery

François Hédelin, Abbé d’Aubignac

Pierre d’Aubusson

Archdiocese of Auch

Diocese of Auckland

Auctorem Fidei

Pontifical Audiences

Giovanni Battista Audiffredi

J. M. Vincent Audin

Guglielmo Audisio

Auditor

Audran

Leopold Auenbrugger

Jobst Bernhard von Aufsees

Edmond Auger

Augilæ

Diocese of Augsburg

Synods of Augsburg

Augusta

Augustin von Alfeld

Rule of Saint Augustine

St. Augustine of Canterbury

Life of St. Augustine of Hippo

Works of St. Augustine of Hippo

Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo

Augustinians of the Assumption

Antonius Augustinus

Augustinus-Verein

Augustopolis

Augustus

Aumbry

St. Aunarius

Aurea

Aurelian

Aureliopolis

Aurelius

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

Petrus Aureoli

Auriesville

Giovanni Aurispa

Aurora Lucis Rutilat

Ausculta Fili

Decimus Magnus Ausonius

John Austin

Australia

St. Austrebertha

St. Austremonius

Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

Authentic

Authenticity of the Bible

Civil Authority

Authorized Version

Autocephali

Autos Sacramentales

Ambrose Autpert

Joseph Autran

Diocese of Autun

Auxentius

Councils of Auxerre

Auxiliary Bishop

Auxilius of Naples

Ava

Nicola Avancini

Avarice

Avatār

Pierre du Bois, Baron d’Avaugour

Ave Maris Stella

Ave Regina

Diocese of Avellino

Avempace

Fernando Avendano

Averroes

Diocese of Aversa

Avesta

Theological Aspects of Avesta

Avicebron

Avicenna

Avignon

University of Avignon

Diocese of Avila

Francisco de Avila

Sancho de Avila

St. Avitus

Order of Aviz

Council of Avranches

Philippe Avril

Axum

Diocese of Ayacucho

Fray Francisco de Ayeta

Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón

James Ambrose Dominic Aylward

Aymará

Aymeric of Piacenza

Féliz de Azara

Aristaces Azaria

Brother Azarias

Luiz de Azevedo

Juan Azor

Azores

Azotus

Aztecs

Azymes

Azymites

Aachen

Aachen, in French, Aix-la-Chapelle, the name by which the city is generally known; in Latin Aquæ Grani, later Aquisgranum, is the capital of a presidency in Rhenish Prussia, and lies in a valley basin, surrounded by wooded heights, on the Wurm, a tributary of the Roer, on its way to the Meuse. Population, 1 December, 1905, 151,922 (including the Parish of Forst); Catholics, 139,485; Protestants, 10,552; Israelites, 1,658; other denominations, 227. The city owes its origin to its salubrious springs which were already known in the time of the Romans. There appears to have been a royal court in Aachen under the Merovingians, but it rose to greater importance under Charlemagne who chose it as his favourite place of residence, adorned it with a noble imperial palace and chapel, and gave orders that he should be buried.

The precious relics obtained by Charlemagne and Otho III for the imperial chapel were the objects of great pilgrimages in the Middle Ages (the so-called “Shrine Pilgrimages”) which drew countless swarms of pilgrims from Germany, Austria, Hungary, England, Sweden, and other countries. From the middle of the fourteenth century onwards, however it became customary to expose the four great relics only once in every seven years, a custom which still holds. These pilgrimages, the coronations of the German emperors (thirty-seven of whom were crowned there between 813 and 1531), the flourishing industries and the privileges conferred by the various emperors combined to make Aachen one of the first cities of the Empire.

The decay of Aachen dates from the religious strife of the German Reformation. Albrecht von Muenster first preached Protestantism there in the year 1524 but was afterwards forbidden to preach the new views and executed on account of two murders committed during his stay in the cities of Maastricht and Wesel. A new Protestant community was soon, however formed in Aachen, which gradually attained such strength as to provoke a rising in 1581, force the election of a Protestant burgomaster, and defy the Emperor for several years. The Ban of the Empire was, therefore, pronounced against the city in 1597 and put in force by the Duke of Julich, the Catholic overlord of the city. The Catholics were restored to their rights, and the Jesuits invited to Aachen, in 1600. In 1611, however, the Protestants rose afresh, plundered the Jesuit college, drove out the Catholic officials in 1612, and opened their gates to troops from Brandenburg. The Ban of the Empire was again laid on the city, and executed by the Spanish general, Spinola. The Protestant ringleaders were tried or exiled, and many other Protestants banished. These troubles, together with a great fire which destroyed 4,000 houses, put an end to the prosperity of the city.

Two treaties of peace were concluded at Aachen during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. By the first, dated 2 May 1668, Louis XIV was compelled, by the Triple Alliance between England, the Netherlands, and Sweden, to abandon the war against the Spanish Netherlands, to restore the Franche Comté, which he had conquered, and to content himself with twelve Flemish fortresses. The second treaty, dated 18 October, 1748, put an end to the War of the Austrian Succession. In 1793 and 1794, Aachen was occupied by the French, incorporated with the French Republic in 1798 and 1802, and made the capital of the Department of the Roer. By the terms of the French Concordat of 1801 Aachen was made a bishopric subject to the Archbishop of Mechlin, and composed of 79 first class, and 754 second class, parishes. The first and only bishop was Marcus Antonius Berdolet (b. 13 September, 1740, at Rougemont, in Alsace 3; d. 13 August, 1809), who, for the most part, left the government of his diocese to his vicar-general, Martin Wilhelm Fonck (b. 28 October, 1752, at Goch; d. 26 June, 1830, as Provost of Cologne Cathedral). After the death of Bishop Berdolet the diocese was governed by Le Camus, Vicar General of Meaux; after his death, in 1814, by the two vicars-general Fonck and Klinkenberg. The Bull of Pius VII, “De Salute Animarum,” dated 16 July, 1821 which regulated church matters in Prussia anew, did away with the bishopric of Aachen, and transferred most of its territory to the archdiocese of Cologne; a collegiate chapter, consisting of a provost and six canons, taking the place of the bishopric in 1825. In 1815 Aachen became Prussian territory. The Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle sat there from 30 September to 11 November, 1818, and was attended by the sovereigns of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and by plenipotentiaries from France and England, to determine the relations between France and the Powers. France obtained a reduction of the war indemnity and the early departure of the army of occupation, and joined the Holy Alliance; the other four Powers guaranteed the throne of France to the Bourbons, against any revolution that might occur. Aachen, under Prussian government, returned to prosperity, chiefly through the development of the coal mines in the neighborhood, which facilitated several extensive industries (such as the manufacture of linen, needles, machinery, glass, woolen, and half-woollen stuffs, etc.), but also in consequence of the large number of visitors to its hot springs.

Ecclesiastically, Aachen constitutes a deanery of the archdiocese of Cologne. It has a collegiate chapter, already mentioned, with a provost, six regular and four honorary, canons; 12 Catholic parishes, 46 Catholic churches and chapels; in 1906, there were 87 secular, and 24 regular, clergy, besides 9 priests from other dioceses. The minster ranks first among the church buildings; it consists of three distinct parts: the octagon, the choir, and the crown, or ring, of chapels, the octagon forming the central portion. This last is the most important monument of Carlovingian architecture; it was built between 796 and 804, in the reign of Charlemagne, by Master Odo of Metz, and modeled after the Italian circular church of San Vitale at Ravenna. It was consecrated by Pope Leo III. It is an eight-angled, domed building, 54 feet in diameter, with a sixteen-sided circumference of 120 feet, and a height of 124 feet. The interior of the dome is adorned with mosaics on a gold ground, executed by Salviati of Venice, in 1882, representing Our Lord surrounded by the four and twenty Ancients of the Apocalypse. The main building was decorated with marble and mosaics in 1902 after the designs of H. Schaper. Over the spot supposed to be the site of Charlemagne’s grave hangs an enormous corona of lamps, the gift of the Emperor Frederick I, Barbarossa; in the choir of the octagon, the so-called upper minster, stands Charlemagne’s throne, made of great slabs of white marble, where, after the coronation, the German emperors received the homage of their nobles. The rich upper choir, built in Gothic style, joins on to the eastern side of the octagon; it was begun in the second half of the fourteenth century, and dedicated in 1414. The thirteen windows, each 100 feet high, have been filled with new colored glass; on the pillars between them stand fourteen statues (the Mother of God, the Twelve Apostles, and Charlemagne), dating from the fifteenth century. Among the treasures of the choir should be mentioned the famous Gospel-pulpit, enriched with gold plates, the gift of the Emperor Henry II, the throne canopy of the fifteenth century, the new Gothic high altar of 1876, and the memorial stone which marks the spot where the Emperor Otto III formerly lay. The lower portions of the bell tower, to the west of the octagon, belong to the Carlovingian period; the Gothic superstructure dates from 1884. Of the chapels which surround the whole building, the so-called Hungarian chapel contains the minster treasury, which includes a large number of relics, vessels, and vestments, the most important being those known as the four “Great Relics.” namely, the cloak of the Blessed Virgin, the swaddling clothes of the Infant Jesus, the loincloth worn by Our Lord on the Cross, and the cloth on which lay the head of St. John the Baptist after his beheading. They are exposed every seven years, and venerated by thousands of pilgrims (139,628 in 1874, and 158,968 in 1881). Among the other Catholic churches of Aachen, the following may be mentioned: the Church of Our Lady, a Gothic church in brick, built by Friederich Statz in 1859; the Church of St. Foillan, the oldest parish church in the city, which dates, in its present form, from the Gothic period, and was renovated between 1883 and 1888; and the Romanesque Church of St. James, built between 1877 and 1888. The most important secular building is the Rathaus, built between 1333 and 1350, on the site of, and out of the ruins of, Charlemagne’s imperial palace, and completely renovated between 1882 and 1903. The facade is adorned with the statues of fifty-four German emperors, the great hall (Kaisersaal) with eight frescoes from designs by Alfred Rethel.

In Aachen there are foundations established by the Franciscans, Capuchins, and Redemptorists. The Alexians have one institution, a sanatorium and hospital for insane men and epileptics. The Franciscan Brothers conduct an apprentices’ home and an asylum for boys. A number of female orders also have establishments. The Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo have charge of an eye hospital, a city asylum for orphans and the aged, with a wing for insane women, and Our Lady’s Hospital, a working-women’s home, and a protectory for girls. The Christensians have but one house, which is devoted to the care of the sick. The Sisters of St. Elizabeth have five: a motherhouse, a city hospital of St. Vincent, a city home for the sick, an asylum for the aged poor under the patronage of St. Joseph, and a city hospital of Our Lady of Help. The Franciscan Sisters have six institutions: a motherhouse, a refuge for working-women, an asylum for homeless girls, a home for servant-girls out of employment and domestics no longer able to work, a hospital of St. Mary, and a sanatorium. The Sisters of the Good Shepherd have one house. The Sisters of the Poor Child Jesus conduct two: a school for neglected girls, with a manual-training school and kindergarten attached, and a hospital and sanatorium for members of the Society, with a boarding house, eight shelters, etc. The Carmelites have one institution, and the Ursulines one, a higher boarding school for girls. The Sisters of St. Vincent have a crèche and two kindergartens, besides six Catholic orphanages. Among the religious and social unions should be mentioned eight congregations and two unions for boys, one workmen’s union, one journeymen’s union with a home of its own, two tradesmen’s unions, one union of female shop-employees, the Catholic Protective Union for girls, women, and children, one vestment society, and one Cecilian society. There are two Catholic daily papers published in Aachen.

Councils of Aachen.—A number of important councils were held here in the early Middle Ages. In the mixed council of 789, Charlemagne proclaimed an important capitulary of eighty-one chapters, largely a repetition of earlier ecclesiastical legislation, that was accepted by the clergy and acquired canonical authority. At the council of 799, after a discussion of six days, Felix, Bishop of Urgel, in Spain, avowed himself overcome by Alcuin and withdrew his heretical theory of Adoptianism. In the synods of 816, 817, 818, and 819, clerical and monastic discipline was the chief issue, and the famous “Regula Aquensis” was made obli—obligatory on all establishments of canons and canonesses (see Monasticism, Western), while a new revision of the Rule of St. Benedict was imposed on the monks of that order by the reformer Benedict of Aniane. The synod of 836 was largely attended and devoted itself to the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline that had been gravely affected by the civil wars between Louis the Pious and his sons. From 860 to 862 three councils were occupied with the question of the divorce of King Lothaire I from his wife, Theutberga. In 1166 took place the famous schismatic council, approved by the Antipope Paschal III, in which was decreed the canonization of Charlemagne, that was solemnly celebrated 29 December of that year.

Bock, Karls d. Grossen Pfalzkapelle und ihre Kunstschätze, Kunstgeschichtliche Beschreibung d. Karoling. Octogons zu Aachen, (Köln, 1867); Fromm, Die Literatur über die Thermen von Aachen seit d. Mitte d. 16. Jahrhunderts (Aachen, 1890); Quix, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Stadt Aachen und ihrer Umgebungen (Aachen, 1840); Lœrsch, Aachener Rechtsdenkmäler aus d. 13., 14., u. 15. Jahrhundert. (Bonn, 1871); Festschrift d. Generalversammlung d. Gesammtvereins d. deutsche. Geschichts- und Altertumsvereine zu Dusseldorf (Aachen, 1902); Fromm, Zeitschrift d. Aachener Geschichtsvereins (Aachen, 1879); Janssen, History of the German People (St. Louis, 1903); Bryce, Holy Roman Empire (New York, 1904); Bigelow, History of the German Struggle for Liberty (New York, 1903), III; Dawson, Germany and the Germans (London, 1898); Tuttle, History of Prussia (Boston, 1884–96). Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 2d. ed., III, IV; Mansi, Coll. Conc. XIII-XV.

JOSEPH LINS

Aaron

Aaron, brother of Moses, and High Priest of the Old Law.

I. Life.—Altogether different views are taken of Aaron’s life, according as the Pentateuch, which is the main source on the subject, is regarded as one continuous work, composed by Moses or under his supervision—hence most trustworthy in the narration of contemporary events—or as a compilation of several documents of divers origins and dates, strung together, at a late epoch, into the present form. The former conception, supported by the decisions of the Biblical Commission, is held by Catholics at large; many independent critics adopt the latter. We shall study this part of the subject under this twofold aspect, although dwelling longer, as is meet, on the former.

(a) Traditional Catholic Standpoint.—According to I Paral., vi, 1–3, Aaron (the signification of whose name is unknown) was the great-grandson of Levi, and the second of the children of Amram and Jochabed, Mary being the eldest and Moses the youngest. From Ex., vii, 7, we learn that Aaron was born eighty-three, and Moses eighty years, before the Exodus. It may be admitted, however, that this pedigree is probably incomplete, and the age given perhaps incorrect. We know nothing of Aaron’s life prior to his calling. The first mention of his name occurs when Moses, during the vision on Mount Horeb, was endeavouring to decline the perilous mission imposed upon him, on the plea that he was slow of speech and lacking in eloquence. Yahweh answered his objection, saying that Aaron the Levite, who was endowed with eloquence, would be his spokesman. About the same time Aaron also was called from on high. He then went to meet Moses, in order to be instructed by him in the designs of God; then they assembled the ancients of the people, and Aaron, who worked miracles to enforce the words of his divine mission, announced to them the good tidings of the coming freedom (Ex., iv). To deliver God’s message to the King was a far more laborious task. Pharao harshly rebuked Moses and Aaron, whose interference proved disastrous to the Israelites (Ex., v). These latter, overburdened with the hard work to which they were subjected, bitterly murmured against their leaders. Moses in turn complained before God, who replied by confirming his mission and that of his brother. Encouraged by this fresh assurance of Yahweh’s help, Moses and Aaron again appeared before the King at Tanis (Ps. lxxvii, 12), there to break the stubbornness of Pharao’s will by working the wonders known as the ten plagues. In these, according to the sacred narrative, the part taken by Aaron was most prominent. Of the ten plagues, the first three and the sixth were produced at his command; both he and his brother were each time summoned before the King, both likewise received from God the last instructions for the departure of the people, to both was, in later times, attributed Israel’s deliverance from the land of bondage; both finally repeatedly became the target for the complaints and reproaches of the impatient and inconsistent Israelites.

When the Hebrews reached the desert of Sin, tired by their long march, fearful at the thought of the coming scarcity of food, and perhaps weakened already by privations, they began to regret the abundance of the days of their sojourn in Egypt, and murmured against Moses and Aaron. But the two leaders were soon sent by God to appease their murmuring by the promise of a double sign of the providence and care of God for His people. Quails came up that same evening, and the next morning the manna, the new heavenly bread with which God was to feed His people in the wilderness, lay for the first time round the camp. Aaron was commanded to keep a gomor of manna and put it in the tabernacle in memory of this wonderful event. This is the first circumstance in which we hear of Aaron in reference to the tabernacle and the sacred functions (Ex., xvi). At Raphidim, the third station after the desert of Sin, Israel met the Amalecites and fought against them. While the men chosen by Moses battled in the plain, Aaron and Hur were with Moses on the top of a neighbouring hill, whither the latter had betaken himself to pray, and when he “lifted up his hands, Israel overcame: but if he let them down a little, Amalec overcame. And Moses’ hands were heavy: so they took a stone, and put under him and he sat on it: and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands on both sides” until Amalec was put to flight (Ex., xvii). In the valley of Mount Sinai the Hebrews received the Ten Commandments; then Aaron, in company with seventy of the ancients of Israel, went upon the mountain, to be favoured by a vision of the Almighty, “and they saw the God of Israel: and under his feet as it were a work of sapphire stone, and as the heaven when clear.” Thereupon Moses, having entrusted to Aaron and Hur the charge of settling the difficulties which might arise, went up to the top of the mountain.

His long delay finally excited in the minds of the Israelites the fear that he had perished. They gathered around Aaron and requested him to make them a visible God that might go before them. Aaron said: “Take the golden earrings from the ears of your wives, and your sons and daughters, and bring them to me.” When he had received them, he made of them a molten calf before which he built up an altar, and the children of Israel were convoked to celebrate their new god. What was Aaron’s intention in setting up the golden calf? Whether he and the people meant a formal idolatry, or rather wished to raise up a visible image of Yahweh their deliverer, has been the subject of many discussions; the texts, however, seem to favour the latter opinion (cf. Ex., xxxii, 4). Be this as it may, Moses, at God’s command, came down from the mountain in the midst of the celebration—at the sight of the apparent idolatry, filled with a holy anger, he broke the Tables of the Law, took hold of the idol, burnt it and beat it to powder, which he strowed into the water. Then, addressing his brother as the real and answerable author of the evil: “ What,” said he, “has this people done to thee, that thou shouldst bring upon them a most heinous sin?” (Ex., xxxii 21). To this so well deserved reproach, Aaron made only an embarrassed answer, and he would undoubtedly have undergone the chastisement for his crime with the three thousand men (so with the best textual authority, although the Vulgate reads three and twenty thousand) that were slain by the Levites at Moses’ command (Ex., xxxii, 28), had not the latter prayed for him and allayed God’s wrath (Deut., ix, 20).

In spite of the sin, God did not alter the choice he had made of Aaron (Hebr., v, 4) to be Israel’s first High Priest. When the moment came, Moses consecrated him, according to the ritual given in Ex., xxix, for his sublime functions; in like manner Nadab, Abiu, Eleazar, and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons he devoted to the divine service. What the high priesthood was, and by what rites it was conferred we shall see later. The very day of Aaron’s consecration, God, by an awful example, indicated with what perfection sacred functions ought to be performed. At the incense-offering, Nadab and Abiu put strange fire into the censers and offered it up before the Lord, whereupon a flame, coming out from the Lord, forthwith struck them to death, and they were taken away from before the sanctuary vested with their priestly garments and cast forth out of the camp. Aaron whose heart had been filled with awe and sorrow at this dreadful scene, neglected also an important ceremony; but his excuse fully satisfied Moses and very likely God Himself, for no further chastisement punished his forgetfulness (Lev., x, Num., iii, 4, xxvi, 61).

In Lev., xvi, we see him perform the rites of the Day of Atonement—in like manner, to him were transmitted the precepts concerning the sacrifices and sacrificers (Lev., xvii, xxi, xxii). A few months later, when the Hebrews reached Haseroth, the second station after Mount Sinai, Aaron fell into a new fault. He and Mary “spoke against Moses, because of his wife the Ethiopian. And they said: Hath the Lord spoken by Moses only? “ (Num., xii). From the entire passage, especially from the fact that Mary alone was punished, it has been surmised that Aaron’s sin was possibly a mere approval of his sister’s remarks; perhaps also he imagined that his elevation to the high priesthood should have freed him from all dependence upon his brother. However the case may be, both were summoned by God before the tabernacle, there to hear a severe rebuke. Mary, besides, was covered with leprosy; but Aaron, in the name of both, made amends to Moses, who in turn besought God to heal Mary. Moses’ dignity had been, to a certain extent, disowned by Aaron. The latter’s prerogatives likewise excited the jealousy of some of the sons of Ruben; they roused even the envy of the other Levites. The opponents, about two hundred and fifty in number, found their leaders in Core, a cousin of Moses and of Aaron, Dathan, Abiron, and Hon, of the tribe of Ruben. The terrible punishment of the rebels and of their chiefs, which had at first filled the multitude with awe, soon roused their anger and stirred up a spirit of revolt against Moses and Aaron who sought refuge in the tabernacle. As soon as they entered it “ the glory of the Lord appeared. And the Lord said to Moses: Get you out from the midst of this multitude, this moment will I destroy them” (Num., xvi, 43–45). And, indeed, a burning fire raged among the people and killed many of them. Then again, Aaron, at Moses’ order, holding his censer in his hand, stood between the dead and the living to pray for the people, and the plague ceased. The authority of the Supreme Pontiff, strongly confirmed before the people, very probably remained thenceforth undiscussed. God, nevertheless, wished to give a fresh testimony of His favour. He commanded Moses to take and lay up in the tabernacle the rods of the princes of the Twelve Tribes, with the name of every man written upon his rod. The rod of Levi’s tribe should bear Aaron’s name: “whomsoever of these I shall choose,” the Lord had said “his rod shall blossom.” The following day, when they returned to the tabernacle, they “ found that the rod of Aaron . . . was budded: and that the buds swelling it had bloomed blossoms, which, spreading the leaves were formed into almonds.” All the Israelites, seeing this, understood that Yahweh’s choice was upon Aaron, whose rod was brought back into the tabernacle as an everlasting testimony. Of the next thirty-seven years of Aaron’s life, the Bible gives no detail; its narrative is concerned only with the first three and the last years of the wandering life of the Hebrews in the desert, but from the events above described, we may conclude that the life of the new pontiff was passed unmolested in the performance of his sacerdotal functions.

In the first month of the thirty-ninth year after the Exodus, the Hebrews camped at Cades, where Mary, Aaron’s sister, died and was buried. There the people were in want of water and soon murmured against Moses and Aaron. Then God said to Moses: “Take the rod, and assemble the people together thou and Aaron thy brother, and speak to the rock before them, and it shall yield waters” (Num., xx, 8). Moses obeyed and struck the rock twice with the rod, so that there came forth water in great abundance. We learn from Ps. cv, 33, that Moses in this circumstance was inconsiderate in his words, perhaps when he expressed a doubt as to whether he and Aaron could bring forth water out of the rock. Anyway God showed himself greatly displeased at the two brothers and declared that they would not bring the people into the Land of Promise. This divine word received, four months later, its fulfilment in Aaron’s case. When the Hebrews reached Mount Hor, on the borders of Edom, God announced to Moses that his brother’s last day had come, and commanded him to bring him up on the mountain. In sight of all the people, Moses went up with Aaron and Eleazar. Then he stripped Aaron of all the priestly garments wherewith he vested Eleazar, and Aaron died. Moses then came down with Eleazar and all the multitude mourned for Aaron thirty days. Mussulmans honour on Djebel Nabi-Haroun a monument they call Aaron’s tomb, the authenticity of this sepulchre, however, is not altogether certain. By his marriage with Elizabeth Nahason’s sister four sons were born to Aaron. The first two, Nadab and Abiu, died without leaving posterity, but the descendants of the two others, Eleazar and Ithamar, became very numerous. None of them, however, honoured Aaron’s blood as much as John the Baptist, who besides being the Precursor of the Messias, was proclaimed by the Word made Flesh “the greatest among them that are born of women” (Matt., xi, 11).

(b) Independent Standpoint.—Aaron’s history takes on an entirely different aspect when the various sources of the Pentateuch are distinguished and dated after the manner commonly adopted by independent critics. As a rule it may be stated that originally the early Judean narrative (J) did not mention Aaron—if his name now appears here and there in the parts attributed to that source, it is most likely owing to an addition by a late redactor. There are two documents, principally, that speak of Aaron. In the old prophetic traditions circulating among the Ephraimites (E) Aaron figured as a brother and helper of Moses. He moves in the shadow of the latter, in a secondary position, as, for instance, during the battle against Amalec; with Hur, he held up his brother’s hands until the enemy was utterly defeated. To Aaron, in some passages, the supreme authority seems to have been entrusted, in the absence of the great leader, as when the latter was up on Mount Sinai; but his administration proved weak, since he so unfortunately yielded to the idolatrous tendencies of the people. According to the document in question, Aaron is neither the pontiff nor the minister of prayer. It is Moses who raises his voice to God at the tabernacle (Ex., xxxiii, 7–10), and we might perhaps understand from the same place (v. 11) that Josue, not Aaron, ministers in the tent of meeting; in like manner, Josue, not Aaron, goes up with Moses on Mount Sinai, to receive the stone Tables of the Law (Ex., xxiv, 13).

In the Priestly narratives (P) Aaron, on the contrary, occupies a most prominent place—there we learn, indeed, with Aaron’s pedigree and age, almost all the above-narrated particulars, all honourable for Moses’ brother, such, for instance, as the part played by Aaron in the plagues, his role in some memorable events of the desert life, as the fall of the manna, the striking of water from the rock, the confirmation of the prerogatives of his priesthood against the pretensions of Core and the others, and, finally, the somewhat mysterious relation of his death, as it is found in Num., xx. From this analysis of the sources of his history Aaron’s great personality has undoubtedly come out belittled, chiefly because of the reputation of the writer of the Priestly narrative; critics charge him with caste prejudices and an unconcealed desire of extolling whatever has reference to the sacerdotal order and functions, which too often drove him to exaggerations, upon which history can hardly rely, and even to forgeries.

II. Priesthood.—Whatever opinion they adopt with regard to the historical value of all the traditions concerning Aaron’s life, all scholars, whether Catholics or independent critics, admit that in Aaron’s High Priesthood the sacred writer intended to describe a model, the prototype, so to say, of the Jewish High Priest. God, on Mount Sinai, instituting a worship, did also institute an order of priests. According to the patriarchal customs, the first born son in every family used to perform the functions connected with God’s worship. It might have been expected, consequently, that Ruben’s family would be chosen by God for the ministry of the new altar. According to the biblical narrative, it was Aaron, however, who was the object of Yahweh’s choice. To what jealousies this gave rise later, has been indicated above. The office of the Aaronites was at first merely to take care of the lamp that should ever burn before the veil of the tabernacle (Ex., xxvii, 21). A more formal calling soon followed (xxviii, 1). Aaron and his sons, distinguished from the common people by their sacred functions, were likewise to receive holy vestments suitable to their office. When the moment had come, when the tabernacle, and all its appurtenances, and whatever was required for Yahweh’s worship were ready Moses, priest and mediator (Gal., iii, 19), offered the different sacrifices and performed the many ceremonies of the consecration of the new priests, according to the divine instructions (Ex., xxix), and repeated these rites for seven days, during which Aaron and his sons were entirely separated from the rest of the people. When, on the eighth day, the High Priest had inaugurated his office of sacrificer by killing the victims. he blessed the people, very likely according to the prescriptions of Num., vi, 24–26, and, with Moses, entered into the tabernacle so as to take possession thereof. As they “ came forth and blessed the people. And the glory of the Lord appeared to all the multitude: And behold a fire, coming forth from the Lord, devoured the holocaust, and the fat that was upon the altar: which when the multitude saw, they praised the Lord. falling on their faces” (Lev . ix. 23. 24 s So was the institution of the Aaronic priesthood inaugurated and solemnly ratified by God.

According to Wellhausen’s just remarks, Aaron’s position in the Law with regard to the rest of the priestly order is not merely superior, but unique His sons and the Levites act under his superintendence (Num., iii, 4), he alone is the one fully qualified priest; he alone bears the Urim and Thummin and the Ephod—he alone is allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, there to offer incense (Lev., xxiii, 27) once a year on the great Day of Atonement. In virtue of his spiritual dignity as the head of the priesthood he is likewise the supreme judge and head of the theocracy (Num., xxvii, 21- Deut., xvii). He alone is the answerable mediator between the whole nation and God, for this cause he bears the names of the Twelve Tribes written on his breast and shoulders; his trespasses involve the whole people in guilt, and are atoned for as those of the whole people, while the princes, when their sin offerings are compared with his, appear as mere private persons (Lev., iv, 3, 13, 22, ix, 7, xvi, 6). His death makes an epoch; it is when the High Priest, not the King, dies, that the fugitive slayer obtains his amnesty (Num., xxxv, 28). At his investiture he receives the chrism like a king and is called accordingly the anointed priest, he is adorned with a diadem and tiara like a king (Ex., xxviii), and like a king, too, he wears the purple, except when he goes into the Holy of Holies (Lev., xvi,4).

Aaron, first High Priest of the Old Law, is most naturally a figure of Jesus Christ, first and sole Sovereign Priest of the New Dispensation. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews was the first to set off the features of this parallel, indicating especially two points of comparison. First, the calling of both High Priests: “Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God as Aaron was. So Christ also did not glorify himself, that he might be made a high priest, but he that said unto him: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee” (Heb., v, 4, 5). In the second place, the efficacy and duration of both the one and the other priesthood. Aaron’s priesthood is from this viewpoint inferior to that of Jesus Christ. If indeed, the former had been able to perfect men and communicate to them the justice that pleases God, another would have been useless. Hence its inefficacy called for a new one, and Jesus’ priesthood has forever taken the place of that of Aaron (Heb., vii, 11–12)

Abaddon

A Hebrew word signifying:

ruin, destruction (Job 31:12);

place of destruction; the Abyss, realm of the dead (Job 26:6; Proverbs 15:11);

it occurs personified (Apocalypse 9:11) as Abaddon and is rendered in Greek by Apollyon, denoting the angel-prince of hell, the minister of death and author of havoc on earth. The Vulgate renders the Greek Apollyon by the Latin Exterminans (that is, “Destroyer”). The identity of Abaddon with Asmodeus, the demon of impurity, has been asserted, but not proved.

In Job 26:6, and Proverbs 15:11, the word occurs in conjunction with Sheol.

A.J. MAAS

Abandonment

(More properly, SELF-ABANDONMENT)

A term used by writers of ascetical and mystical books to signify the first stage of the union of the soul with God by conforming to His Will. It is described as the first step in the unitive or perfect way of approaching God by contemplation, of which it is the prelude. It implies the passive purification through which one passes by accepting trials and sufferings permitted by God to turn souls to Him. It implies also the desolation which comes upon the soul when relinquishing what it prizes inordinately in creatures, the surrender of natural consolations in order to seek God, and the loss for a time of the consciousness of strong and ardent impulses of the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity; and finally aridity or a lack of fervent devotion in prayer and in other spiritual actions. According to some, it is equivalent to the “obscure night,” described by St. John of the Cross, or the darkness of the soul in a state of purgation, without light, amid many uncertainties, risks, and dangers. It is also misused to express a quietistic condition of the soul, which excludes not only all personal effort, but even desires, and disposes one to accept evil with the fatalistic motive that it cannot be helped.

JOHN J. WYNNE

Pedro Abarca

Theologian, born in Aragon in 1619; died 1 October, 1693, at Palencia. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1641, and passed almost all his religious life as professor of scholastic, moral, and controversial theology, chiefly in the University of Salamanca. Though not mentioned by Hurter in the “Nomenclator,” he has left many theological works, among which are five volumes in quarto on the Incarnation and the Sacraments; one in quarto on Grace, and several minor treatises on moral and dogmatic subjects. He wrote also extensively on points of history, via: “The Historical Annals of the Kings of Aragon,” “The First Kings of Pampeluna,” and has left many manuscripts and one work, which he withheld, about the Church of del Pilar.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Abarim

(Hebrew har ha’abharim, hare ha’abharim; Septuagint to oros to Abarim, en to peran tou Iordanou, mountain Abarim, mountains of Abarim).

A mountain range across Jordan, extending from Mount Nebo in the north, perhaps to the Arabian desert in the south. The Vulgate (Deuteronomy 32:49) gives its etymological meaning as “passages.” Its northern part was called Phasga, (or Pisgah) and the highest peak of Phasga was Mount Nebo (Deuteronomy 3:27; 34:1; 32:49; Numbers 23:14; 27:12; 21:20; 32:47). Balaam blessed Israel the second time from the top of Mount Phasga (Numbers 23:14); from here Moses saw the Land of Promise, and here Jeremias hid the ark (II Machabees 2:4–5).

A.J. MAAS

Abba

Abba is the Aramaic word for “father.” The word occurs three times in the New Testament (Mark 14:36; Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6). In each case it has its Greek translation subjoined to it, reading abba ho pater in the Greek text; abba, pater in the Latin Vulgate, and “Abba, Father” in the English version. St. Paul made use of the double expression in imitation of the early Christians, who, in their turn, used it in imitation of the prayer of Christ. Opinions differ as to the reason for the double expression in our Lord’s prayer:

Jesus himself used it;

St. Peter added the Greek translation in his preaching, retaining the archaic direct address;

the Evangelist added the Greek translation;

St. Mark conformed to an existing Christian custom of praying by way of hysteron proteron.

A.J. MAAS

Antoine d’Abbadie

Astronomer, geodetist, genographer, physician, numismatist, philologian, born 1810; died March 20, 1897. While still a young man, he conceived the project of exploring Africa. Having prepared himself by six years’ study, he spent ten years exploring Ethiopia, and achieved scientific results of the greatest value. D’Abbadie was a fervent Catholic, and during his explorations in Ethiopia made every effort to plant there the Catholic Faith. It was at his suggestion and that of his brother Arnauld, companion and colabourer of Antoine, that Gregory XVI sent missionaries to carry on the work. He published in the “Revue des Questions Scientifiques,” the organ of the society, a work on the abolition of African slavery. He gave his estate, called Abbadia, in southern France, to the Academy of Sciences of Paris, to carry on research. His will provided, furthermore, for the establishment of an observatory at Abbadia, where a catalogue of 500,000 stars must be made, the work to be confided to religious andto be completed before 1950. His principal writings are: “Catalogue raisonné de manuscrits éthiopiens” (Paris, 1859); “Résumé Géodésique des positions déterminées en Ethiopie: (Paris, 1859); “Géodésie d’Ethiopie ou Triangulation d’une patrie de la haute Ethiopie: (4 vols., Paris, 1860–73);”Observations relatives à la physique du globe, faites au Brésil et en Ethiopie” (Paris, 1873); “Dictionnaire de la langue Amariñña.”—II. Abbadie, Arnauld Michel D,’ geographer, younger brother of preceding, b. in Dublin, Ireland, 1815; d. 8 November, 1893. In 1837 he accompanied his brother’s expedition to Abyssinia, where he soon acquired considerable influence, and never failed to employ it in the interest of the Catholic missions. His most important work is “Douze ans dans la haute Ethiopie” (Paris, 1868).

Abban

Abban, name of Several Irish Saints.

ST. ABBAN OF MAGHERANOIDHE (Murneave or Murnevin), nephew of St. Ibar, the apostle of Wexford (a predecessor and contemporary of St. Patrick), flourished 570–620. He was the son of Cormac, King of Leinster, and he founded numerous churches in the district of Ui Cennselaigh, almost conterminous with the present County Wexford and Diocese of Ferns, His principal monastery was at Magheranoidhe, subsequently known as “Abbanstown,” today, Adamstown; but he also founded an abbey at Ros-mic-treoin, or New Ross, which afterwards became famous as a scholastic establishment. He died March 16, 620.

His namesake, ST. ABBAN OF NEW ROSS, also known as St. Ewin, Abhan, or Evin, but whose name has been locally corrupted as “Stephen,” “Neville,” and “Nevin,” was his contemporary. Some writers have confounded him with St. Evin of Monasterevan, County Kildare. Even Colgan (followed by Dr. Lanigan) fell into the error of identifying Rosglas (Monasterevan) with Ros-mic-treoin (New Ross). St. Evin of Rosglas, author of the “Tripartite Life of St. Patrick,” died December 22, at his own foundation, afterwards called Monaster Evin (County Kildare), whereas St. Abban, or Evin, of Ros-mic-treoin, died at Ross, County Wexford.

A third saint of this name, ST. ABBAN THE HERMIT, of Abingdon (England), was certainly an Irishman, and is commemorated on May 13, though the year of his death is not definitely known. He was undoubtedly pre-Patrician.

W. H. GRATTAN FLOOD

Abbé

A French word meaning primarily and strictly an abbot or superior of a monastery of men. It came eventually to be applied, in France, to every man who wears the dress of a secular ecclesiastic (Littré). This extension of meaning dates from the time of Francis I (1515–47), who, by consent of the Holy See, named secular clerics Abbots in commendam (See ABBOT, under III, Kinds of Abbot). During the following centuries the name was applied to clerics, often not in sacred Orders, engaged as professors or tutors, or in some similar capacity in the houses of the nobility.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Jean Baptiste Abbeloos

Orientalist, born 15 January, 1836, at Goyck, Belgium; died 25 February, 1906. He was educated in the seminary of Malines, 1849–60. After his ordination to the priesthood, 22 September, 1860, he studied at Louvain and Rome, devoting himself especially to Syriac language and literature. He received the degree of Doctor in Theology from the University of Louvain, 15 July, 1867, spent the following winter in London. and on his return to Belgium was appointed Professor of Holy Scripture in the seminary of Malines. Failing health obliged him to abandon the work of teaching, and he became, in 1876, pastor at Duffel. He was appointed in 1883 vicar-general under Cardinal Dechamps and help that position until 10 February, 1887, when he was appointed Rector of the University of Louvain. During his administration the University grew rapidly in equipment and organization. Abbeloos, although in the midst of his official duties, was always the scholar and the man of high ideals, whose word and example stimulated younger men to earnest work. Modest and unassuming, he realized nonetheless the significance of his position as rector of a great Catholic university, and he exerted his influence in behalf of Church and country so effectually that his retirement in 1900 occasioned regret both in the University and in the whole kingdom. His published works are: De vitâ et scriptis S. Jacobi Sarugensis (Louvain, 1867); Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (Paris and Louvain, 1872–77); Acta Sancti Maris (Brussels and Leipzig, 1885); Acta Mar Kardaghi Martyris (Brussels, 1900).

E.A. P

Abbess

The female superior in spirituals and temporals of a community of twelve or more nuns. With a few necessary exceptions, the position of an Abbess in her convent corresponds generally with that of an Abbot in his monastery. The title was originally the distinctive appellation of Benedictine superiors, but in the course of time it came to be a applied also to the conventual superior in other orders, especially to these of the Second Order of St. Francis (Poor Clares) and to these of certain colleges of canonesses.

HISTORICAL ORIGIN

Monastic communities for women had sprung up in the East at a very early period. After their introduction into Europe, towards the close of the fourth century, they began to flourish also in the West, particularly in Gaul, where tradition ascribes the foundation of many religious houses to St. Martin of Tours. Cassian the great organizer of monachishm in Gaul, founded a famous convent at Marseilles, at the beginning of the fifth century, and from this convent at a later period, St. Caesarius (d. 542) called his sister Caesaria, and placed her over a religious house which he was then founding at Arles. St. Benedict is also said to have founded a community of virgins consecrated to God, and to have placed it under the direction of his sister St. Scholastica, but whether or not the great Patriarch established a nunnery, it is certain that in a short time he was looked upon as a guide and father to the many convents already existing. His rule was almost universally adopted by them, and with it the title Abbess came into general use to designate the superior of a convent of nuns. Before this time the title Mater Monasterii, Mater Monacharum, and Praeposisa were more common. The name Abbess appears for the first time in a sepulchral inscription of the year 514, found in 1901 on the site of an ancient convent of virgines sacræ which stood in Rome near the Basilica of St. Agnes extra Muros. The inscription commemorates the Abbess Serena who presided over this convent up to the time of her death at the age of eighty-five years: “Hic requieescit in pace, Serena Abbatissa S. V. quae vixzit annos P. M. LXXXV.”

MODE OF ELECTION

The office of an Abbess is elective, the choice being by the secret suffrages of the sister. By the common law of the Church, all the nuns of a community, professed for the choir, and free from censures, are entitled to vote; but by particular law some constitutions extend the right of an active voice only to those who have been professed for a certain number of years. Lay sister are excluded by the constitutions of most orders, but in communities where they have the right to vote their privilage is to be respected. In nonexempt monasteries the election is presided over by the ordinary of the diocese of his vicar; in exempt houses, under the immediate jurisdiction of the Holy See, the Bishop likewish presides, but only as the delegate of the Pope. In those under the jurisdiction of a regular prelate the nuns are obliged to inform the diocesan of the day and time of election, so that if he wish, he or his representative may be present. The Bishop and the regular prelate preside jointly, but in no instance have they aa vote, not even a casting vote. And the Council of Trent prescribes, further, that “he who preside at the election, whether it be the Bishop or other superior, shall not enter the enclosure of the monastery, but shall listen to or receive the vote of each at the grille.” (Cone. Trid., Sess. XXV, De regular, et monial., Cap. Vii.) The voting must be strictly secret, and if secrecy be not observed (whether through ignorance of the law or not), the election is null and void. A simple majority of votes for one candidate is sufficient for a valid election, unless the constitutions of an order require more than the bare majority. The result is to be proclaimed at once, by announcing the number of votes cast for each nun, so that in case of a dispute an immediate opportunity may be afforded for checking the vote. In case no candidate should receive the require number of votes, the Bishop or the regular prelate orders a new election, and for the time appoints a superior. If the community again fails to agree upon any candidate, the Bishop or other superior can nominate the one whom he judges to be the most worthy and depute her as Abbess. The newly appointed Abbess enters upon the duties of her office immediately after confirmation, which is obtained for non-exempt convents from the diocesan, and for exempt houses either from the regular prelate, if they be under his jurisdiction, or from the Holy See directly. (Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca; Abbatisa.-Cf. Taunton, The Law of the Church.)

ELIGIBILITY

Touching the age at which a nun becomes eligible for the office, the discipline of the Church has varied at different times. Pope Leo I prescribed forty years. St. Gregory the Great insisted that the Abbesses chosen by the communities should be at least sixty-women to whom years had given dignity, discretion, and the power to withstand temptation. He very strongly prohibited the appointment of young women as Abbesses (Ep. 55 ch. xi). Popes Innocent IV and Boniface VIII, on the other hand, were both content with thirty years. According to the present legislation, which is that of the Council of Trent, no nun “can be elected as Abbess unless she has completed the fortieth year of her age, and the eighth year of her religious profession. “But should no one be found in any convent with these qualifications, one may be elected out of another convent of the same order. But if the superior who presides over the election shall deem even this an inconvenience, there may be chosen, with the convent of the Bishop or other superior, one from amongst those in the same convent who are beyond their thirtieth year, and have since their profession passed at least five of those years in an upright manner . . . In other particulars, the constitution of each order or convent shall be observed.” (Conc. Trid., Sess, xxv, De regular. et monial., Cap. vii.) By various decision of the Sacred Congregation of the Council and of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, it is forbidden, without a dispensation from the Holy See, to elect a nun of illegitimate birth; one not of virginal integrity of body; or one who has had to undergo a public penance (unless it were only salutary); a widow; a blind or deaf nun; or one of three sisters alive at the same time in the same convent. No nun is permitted to vote for herself. (Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheea; Abbatissa.-Taunton, op, cit.) Abbesses are generally elected for life. In Italy, however, and the adjacent islands, by the Bull of Gregory XIII. “Exposcit debitum” (1 January, 1583), they are elected for three years only, and then must vacate the office for a period of three years, during which time they cannot act even as vicars.

RITE OF BENEDIICTION

Abbesses elected for life can be solemnly blessed according to the rite prescribeed in the Pontificale Romanum. This benediction (also called ordination or consecration) they must seek, under pain of deprivation, within a year of their election, from the Bishop of the diocese. The ceremony, which take place during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, can be performed of any day of the week. No mention is made in the Pontificale of a conferring of the staff, customary in many places at the installation of an Abbess, but the rite is prescribed in many monastic rituals, and as a rule the Abbess, like the Abbot, bears the crosier as a symbol of her office and of her rank; she has also a right to the ring. The induction of an Abbess into office early assumed a liturgical character. St. Redegundis, in one of her letters, speaks of it, and informs us that Agnes, the Abbess of Sainte-Croix, before entering on her charge, received the solemn Rite of Benediction from St. Germain, the Bishop of Paris. Since the time of St. Gregory the Great, the blessing was reserved to the bishop of the diocese. At present some Abbesses are privileged to receive it from certain regular prelates.

AUTHORITY OF ABBESS

An Abbess can exercise supreme domestic authority (potestas dominativa) over her monastery and all its dependencies, but as a female, she is debarred from exercising any power of spiritual jurisdiction, such as belongs to an abbot. She is empowered therefore to administer the temporal possessions of the convent; to issue commands to her nuns “in virtue of holy obedience,” thus binding them in conscience, provided the obedience she demands be in accordance with the rule and statutes of the order; and to prescribe and ordain whatever may be necessary for the maintenance of discipline in the house, or conducive to the proper observance of the rule, and the preservation of peace and order in the community. She can also irritate directly, the vows of her professed sisters, and indirectly, those of the novices, but she cannot commute those vows, nor dispense from them. Neither can she dispense her subjects from any regular and ecclesiastical observances, without the leave of her prelate, though she can, in particular instance declare that a certain precept ceases to bind. She cannot publicly bless her nuns, as a priest or a prelate blesses, but she can bless them in the way that a mother blesses her children. She is not permitted to preach, though she may in chapter, exhort her nuns by conferences. An Abbess has, morever, a certain power of coercion, which authorizes her to impose punishments of a lighter nature, in harmony with the provisions of the rule, but in no instance has she a right to inflict the graver ecclesiastical penalties, such as censures. By the decree “Quemadmodum,” 17 December, 1890, of Leo XIII, abbesses and other superiors are absolutely inhibited “from endeavouring, directly or indirectly, by command, counsel, fear, threats, or blandishments, to induce their subjects to make to them the secret manifestations of conscience in whatsoever manner or under what name soever.” The same decree declares that permission or prohibition as to Holy Communion “belongs solely to the ordinary or extraordinary confessor, the superiors having no right whatever to interfere in the matter, save only the case in which any one of their subjects had given scandal to the community since . . . her last confession, or had been guilty of some grievous public fault, and this only until the guilty one had once more received the Sacrament of Penance.” With regard to the administration of monastic property it must be noted that in affairs of greater moment an Abbess is always more or less dependent on the Ordinary, if subject to him, or on the regular prelate if her abbey is exempt. By the Constitution “Inscrutabili,” 5 February, 1622, of Gregory XV, all Abbesses, exempt as well as non-exempt, are furthermore obliged to present an annual statement of their temporalities to the bishop of the diocese.

In medieval times the Abbesses of the larger and more important houses were not uncommonly women of great power and distinction, whose authority and influence rivalled, at times, that of the most venerate bishops and abbots. In Saxon England, “they had often the retinue and state of princesses, especially when they came of royal blood. They treated with kings, bishops, and the greatest lords on terms of perfect equality; . . . they were present at all great religious and national solemnities, at the dedication of churches, and even, like the queens, took part in the deliberation of the national assemblies, and affixed their signatures to the charters therein granted.” (Montalembert, “The Monks of the West,” Bk. XV.) They appeared also at Church councils in the midst of the bishops and abbots and priests, as did the Abbess Hilda at the Synod of Whitby in 664, and the Abbess Elfleda, who succeeded her, at that of the River Nith in 705. Five Abbesses were present at the Council of Becanfield in 694, where they signed the decrees before the presbyters. At a later time the Abbess “took titles from churches impropriated to her house, presented the secular vicars to serve the parochia churches, and had all the privileges of a landlord over the temporal estates attached to her abbey. The Abbess of Shaftesbury, for instance, at one time, found seven knights’ fees for the King’s service and held manor courts, Wilton. Barking, and Nunnaminster, as well as Shaftesbury, ‘held of the king by an entire barony,’ and by right of this tenure had, for a period, the privilge of being summoned to Parliament.” (Gasquet, “English Monastic Life,” 39.) In Germany the Abbesses of Quedimburg, Gandersheim, Lindau, Buchau, Obermünster, etc., all ranked among the independent princes of the Empire, and as such sat and voted in the Diet as members of the Rhenish bench of bishops. They lived in princely state with a court of their own, ruled their extensive conventual estates like temporal lords, and recognized no ecclesiastic superior except the Pope. After the Reformation, their Protestant successors continued to enjoy the same imperial privileges up to comparatively recent times. In France, Italy, and Spain, the female superiors of the great monastic houses were likewise very powerful. But the external splendour and glory of medieval days have now departed from all.

CONFESSION TO THE ABBESS

Abbesses have no spiritual jurisdiction, and can excrcise no authority that is in any way connceted with the power of the keys or of orders. During the Middle Ages, however, attempts were not infrequently made to usurp this spiritual power of the priesthood, and we read of Abbesses who besides being guilty of many minor encroachments on the functions of the sacerdotal office, presumed to interfere even in the administration of the sacrament of penance and confessed their nuns. Thus, in the Capitularics of Charlemagne, mention is made of “certain Abbesses, who contrary to the established discipline of the Church of God, presume to bless the people, impose their hands on them, make the sign of the cross on the foreheads of men, and confer the veil on virgins, employing during that ceremony the blessing reserved exclusively to the priest,” all of which practice the bishops are urged to forbid absolutely in their respective dioceses. (Thomassin, “Vetus et Nova Ecclesae Disciplina,” pars I, lib. II, xii, no. 17.) The “Monastieum Cisterciense “ records the stern inhibition which Innocent III, in 1220, place upon Cistercian Abbesses of Burgos and Palencia in Spain, “who blessed their religious, heard the confession of their sins, and when reading the Gospel, presumed publicly to preach.” (Thomassin, op. cit., pars I, lib. III. xlix, no. 4.) The Pope characterized the intrusion of these women as a thing “unheard of, most indecorous, and highly preposterous.” Dom Martene, the Benedictine savant, in his work “De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus,” speaks of other Abbesses who likewish confessed their nuns, and adds, not without a touch of humour, that “these Abbesses had evidently overated their spiritual powers a trifle.” And as late as 1658, the Sacred Congregation Rites categorically condemned the acts of the Abbess of Fontevrault in France, who of her own authority, obliged the monks and nuns of her obedience to recite offices, say Masses, and observe rites and ceremonies which had never been sanctioned or approved of by Rome. (Analecta Juris Pontificii, VII, col. 348.) In this connection it must, however, be observed, that when the older monastic rule prescribe confession to the superor, they do not refer to sacramental confession, but to the “chapter of faults” or the culpa, at which the religious accuse themselves of ordinary external fault patent to all, and of minor infractions of the rule. This “confession” may be made either privately to the superior or publicly in the chapter-house; no absolution is given and the penance assigned is merely disciplinary. The “chapter of faults” is a form of religious exercise still practised in all the monasteries of the ancient orders.

But reference must be made to certain exceptional cases, where Abbesses have been permitted, by Apstolical concession and privilege, it is alleged, to exercise a most extraordinary power of jurisdiction. Thus, the Abbess of the Cistercian Monastery of Santa Maria la Real de las Huelgas, near Burgos, in Spain, was, by the terms of her official protocol, a “noble lady, the superior, prclate, and lawful administratrix in spirituals and temporals of the said royal abbey, and of all the conents, churches, and hermitages of its filiation, of the villages and places under its jurisdiction, seigniory, and vassalage, in virtue of Bulls and Apostolical concessions, with plenary jurisdiction, privative, quasi-episopal, nullius diacesis.” (Florez, “España sagada,” XXVII, Madrid 1772, col. 578.) By the favour of the king, she was, moreover, invested with almost royal prerogatives, and exercised an unlimited secular authority over more than fifty villages. Like the Lord Bishops, she held heer own courts, in civil and criminal cases, granted letters dismissorial for ordination, and issued licenses authorizing priests, within the limits of her abbatial jurisdicttion, to hear confessions, to preach, and to engage in the cure of souls. She was privilege also to confirm Abbesses, to impose censures, and to convoke synods. (“España sagrada,” XXVII, col. 581.) At a General Chapter of the Cistercians held in 1189, she was made Abbess General of the Order for the Kingdom of Leon and Castile, with the privilege of convoking annually a general chapter at Burgos. The Abbess of Las Huelgas retained her ancient prestige up to the time of the Council of Trent.

A power of jurisdiction almost equal to that of the Abbess of Las Huelgas was at one time exercised by the Cistercian Abbess of Converano in Italy. Among the many privileges enjoyed by this Abbess may be specially mentioned, that of appointing her own vicar-general through whom she governed her abbatial territory; that of selecting and approving confessors for the laity; and that of authorizing clerics to have the cure of souls in the churches under her jurisdiction. Every newly appointed Abbess of Converano was likewise entitiled to receive the public “homage” of her clergy,—the ceremony of which was sufficiently elaborate. On the appointed day, the clergy, in a body repaired to the abbey; at the great gate of her monastery, the Abbess, with mitre and corsier, sat enthroned under a canopy, and as each member of the clergy passed before her, he made his obeisance, and kissed her hand. The clergy, however, wished to do away with the distasteful practice, and, in 1709, appealed to Rome; the Sacred Congregatior of Bishops and Regulars thereupon modified some of ceremonial details, but recognized the right of the Abbess to the homage. Finally, in 1750, the practice was wholly abolished, and the Abbess deprived of all her power of jurisdiction. (Cf. “Analecta Juris Pontificii,” XXXVIII, col. 723: and Bizzari, “Collectanea,” 322.) among other Abbesses said to have exercised like powers of jurisdiction, for aa period at least, may be mentioned the Abbess of Fontevrault in France, and of Quedlinburg in Germany. (Ferraris, “Biblioth. Prompta; Abbatissa.”)

PROTESTANT ABBESSES OF GERMANY

In some parts of Germany, notably in Hanover, Wurtemberg, Brunswick, and Schleswig-Holstein, a number of Protestant educational establishments, and certain Lutheran sisterhoods are directed by superiors who style themselves Abbesses even to the present day. All these establishments were, at one time, Catholic convents and monasteries, and the “Abbesses” now presiding over them, are, in every instance, the Protestant successors of a former line of Catholic Abbesses. The transformation into Protestant community houses and seminaries was effected, of course, during the religious revolution of the sixteenth century, when the nuns who remained loyal to the Catholic faith were driven from the cloister, and Lutheran sisterhoods put in possessing of their abbeys. In many religious communities, Protestantism was forcibly imposed on the members, while in some few, particularly in North Germany, it was voluntarily embraced. But in all these houses, where the ancient monastic offices were continued the titles of the officials were likewise retained. And thus there have been, since the sixteenth century, both Catholic and Protestant Abbesses in Germany. The Abbey of Quedinburg was one of the first to embrace the Reformation. Its last Catholic Abbess, Magdalena, Princess of Anhalt, died in 1514. As early as 1539, the Abbess Anna II of Stolberg, who had been elected to the office when she was scarcely thirteen years of age, introduced Lutheranism in all the houses under her jurisdiction. The choir service in the abbey church was abandoned, and the Catholic religion wholly abrogated. The monastic offices were reduced to four, but the ancient official titles retained. Thereafter the institution continued as a Lutheran sisterhood till the secularization of the abbey in 1803. The last two Abbesses were the Princess Anna Amelia (d. 1787), sister of Frederick the Great, and the Princess Sophia Albertina (d. 1829), daughter of King Adolphus Frederick of Sweden. In 1542, under the Abbess Clare of the house of Brunswick, the Sclamalkaldic League forcibly imposed Protestantism on the members of the ancient and venerable Benedictinre Abbey of Gandersheim; but though the Lutheran intruders were driven out again in 1547 by Clare’s father, Duke Henry the Younger, a loyal Catholic, Lutheranism was permanently introduced, a few years laater, by Julius, Duke of Brunswick. Margaret, the last Catholic Abbess, diied in 1589, and after that period Lutheran Abbesses were appointed to the foundation. These continued to enjoy the imperial privileges of their predecessors till 1802, when Gandersheim was incorporated with Brunswick. Among the houses of minor importance still in existence, the Abbey of Drubeck may be specially noticed. At one time a Catholic convent, it fell into Protestant hands during the Reformation. In 1687, the Elector Frederick William I of Brandenburg granted the revenues of the house to the Counts of Stolberg, stipulating, however, that women of noble birth and professing the Evangelical faith, should always find a home in the convent, be adequately provided for, and live there under the government of an Abbess. The wish of the Elector is apparently still respected.

SECULAR ABBESS IN AUSTRIA

In the Hradschin of Prague, there is a noted Catholic Imperial Institute, whose directress always bears the title Abbess. The institute, now the most exclusive and the best endowed of its kind in Austria, was founded in 1755 by the Empress Maria Theresa for impoverished noblewomen of ancient lineage. The Abbess is always an Austrian Archduchess, and must be at least eighteen years of age before she can assume the duties of her office. Her insignia are a pectoral cross, the ring, the staff, and a princely cornet. It was formerly an exclusive privilege of this Abbess to crown the Queen of Bohemia—a ceremony last performed in 1808, for the Empress Maria Louisa. Candidates for admission to the Institute must be twenty-nine years of age, of irreproachable morals and able to trace back their noble ancestry, paternal and maternal, for eight generations. They make no vows, but live in community and are obliged to assist twice daily at divine service in the Stifskirche, and must go to confession and receive Holy Communion four times a year on appointed days. They are all Hoffähig.

NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION, BY COUNTRIES, OF ABBESSES

The Abbesses of the Black Benedictines number at present 120. Of these there are 71 in Italy, 15 in Spain, 12 in Austro-Hungary, 11 in France (before the Associations Law), 4 in England, 3 in Belgium, 2 in Germany, and 2 in Switzerland. The Cisterecians of all Observances have a total of 77 Abbesses. Of these 74 belong to the Cisterecians of the Common Observance, who have most of their houses in Spain and in Italy. The Cistercians of the Strict Observance have 2 Abbesses in France and 1 in Germany. There are no Abbesses in the United States. In England the superior of the following houses are Abbesses: St. Mary’s Abbey, Stanbrook, Worcesster: St. Mary’s Abbey, East Bergholt, Suffolk; St. Mary’s Abbey, Oulton, Staffordshire; St. Scholastica’s Abbey, Teignmouth, Devon; St. Bridget’s Abbey of Syon, Chudleigh, Devon (Brigttine); St. Clare’s Abbey, Darlington, Durham (Poor Clares). In Ireland: Convent of Poor Clares, Ballyjamesduff.

MONTALEMBERT, The Monks of the West (GASQUET’S ed., in 6 vols., New York, 1896), Bk. XV; GASQUET, English Monastic Life (London, 1808), viii; TAUSTON, The English Black Monks of St. Benedict (London, 1808), I, vi; TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (St. Louis, 1906), ECNENSTEIX, Women under Monasticism (London 1896), FERRAIS, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica (Rome 1885); BIZZARRI, Collectanea S. C. Episc. Et Reg. (Rome 1885); PETRA, Comment. ad Constitut. Apostolicas (Rome 1705); THOMASSINI, Vetus et Nova Ecclesia Disciplina (Mainz, 1787); FAGNANI, Jus Conon., s. Comment. in Decret, (Cologne, 1704); TAMBURINI, De jure et privilegiis abbat. pralat., abbatiss., et monial (Cologne, 1691); LAURAIN, De Vinterrention des laiques, des diacres et des abbesses dans Vadministration de lapcnitence (Paris, 1897); SAGULLER, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1904).

THOMAS OESTREICH

Abbey

A monastery canonically erected and autonomous, with a community of not fewer than twelve religious; monks under the government of an abbot; nuns under that of an abbess.

An autonomous priory is ruled by a superior who bears the title of prior instead of that of abbot; but this distinction was unknown in the first centuries of monastic history. Such were the twelve great cathedral priories of England, immediately governed by a prior, the diocesan being considered the abbot. Other priories were founded as cells, or offshoots from the great abbeys, and remained dependent on the parent house, by whose abbot the prior was appointed, and was removable at will. Originally the term monastery designated, both in the East and in the West, the dwelling either of a solitary or of a community; while caenobium, congregatio, fraternitas, asceterion, etc. were applied solely to the houses of communities. Monasteries took their names from either their locality, their founders, or from some monk whose life has shed lustre upon them; and later, from some saint whose relics were there preserved, or who was locally an object of special veneration. The monks of Egypt and Palestine, as may be gathered from the “Peregrinatio Etheriae,” also selected for their monasteries sites famous for their connection with some biblical event or personage. The first monks generally settled in solitary places, away from the haunts of men, though sometimes they were to be found also in cities like Alexandria, Rome, Carthage, and Hippo. Monasteries, founded in country places, not infrequently gathered around them settlements which, particularly in England and Germany, in the course of time developed into great centres of population and industry. Many important towns owe their origin to this cause; but the tendency never showed itself in Africa and the East. Though the sites selected were often beautiful, many settlements, especially in Egypt, were of set purpose made amid arid deserts. Nor was this form of austerity confined to them. In the Middle Ages, the more dismal and savage did this site appear to be, the more did it appeal to the rigid mood of the Cistercians. Still, the preference, at least with the majority of the monks of the West, was for fertile lands, suitable for cultivation and agriculture.

The formation of communities dates from pre-Christian times, as witness the Essenes; but the earliest Christian monastic foundations of which we have definite knowledge were simply groups of huts without any orderly arrangement, erected about the abode of some solitary famous for holiness and asceticism, around whom had gathered a knot of disciples anxious to learn his doctrine and to imitate his way of life. Communities that had outgrown the accommodation afforded by their monasteries founded branch houses, and thus propagated themselves like the swarming of a beehive. Bishops founded many monasteries, while others owed their existence to the piety of princes and nobles, who also generously endowed them. The Council of Chalcedon (451) forbade the foundation of any monastery without the permission of the local bishop, thus obviating the difficulties likely to arise from irresponsible action. This became the universal law, and it also safeguarded these institutions against disbandment or ruin, since they enjoyed a certain sacredness of character in popular estimation. Double monasteries were those in which dwelt communities both of men and women at one and the same time, under the government of a common superior, either an abbot or an abbess. The Emperor Justinian suppressed them in the East on account of the abuses which this arrangement might lead to; but the custom long prevailed in England, France, and Spain, where strict rules, keeping the sexes entirely separate at all times, minimized the danger of scandals. Examples of these were the houses of the Order of St. Gilbert of Sempringham; and in France, Faremoutiers, Chelles, Remiremont, etc.

In the beginning, solitaries attached no importance whatever to the form of design of their dwellings. They made use of anything that Nature afforded, or their circumstances suggested. In the East, especially in Egypt, abandoned tombs and burial caves; in the West, cave and rude huts constructed of branches of trees, mud, or sun-dried bricks, and furnished with the barest necessities, sheltered many an early solitary. When the number of such solitaries in a certain locality grew, and huts increased in proportion, gradually they came to subject themselves to a common superior and to follow a common rule of life; but they had no common buildings except a church to which they all repaired for the Sunday services. At Tabennae on the Nile, in Upper Egypt, however, St. Pachomius laid the foundations of the coenobitical life, arranging everything in an organized manner. He built several monasteries, each containing about 1,600 separate cells laid out in lines as an encampment, where the monks slept and performed some of their manual tasks; but there were large halls for their common needs, as the church, refectory, kitchen, even an infirmary and a guest-house. An enclosure protecting all these buildings gave the settlement the appearance of a walled village; but every part was of the utmost simplicity, without any pretense to architectural style. It was this arrangement of monasteries, inaugurated by St. Pachomius, which finally spread throughout Palestine, and received the name of laurae, that is “lanes” or “alleys.” In addition to these congregations of solitaries, all living in huts apart, there were caenobia, monasteries wherein the inmates lived a common life, none of them being permitted to retire to the cells of a laurae before they had therein undergone a lengthy period of training. In time this form of common life superseded that of the older laurae.

Monasticism in the West owes its development to St. Benedict (480–543). His Rule spread rapidly, and the number of monasteries founded in England, France, Spain, and Italy between 520 and 700 was very great. More than 15,000 Abbeys, following the Benedictine Rule, had been established before the Council of Constance in 1415. No special plan was adopted or followed in the building of the first caenobia,or monasteries as we understand the term today. The monks simply copied the buildings familiar to them, the Roman house or villa, whose plan, throughout the extent of the Roman Empire, was practically uniform. The founders of monasteries had often merely to install a community in an already existing villa. When they had to build, the natural instinct was to copy old models. If they fixed upon a site with existing buildings in good repair, they simply adapted them to their requirements, as St. Benedict did at Monte Cassino, not disdaining to turn to Christian uses what had before served for the worship of idols. The spread of the monastic life gradually effected great changes in the model of the Roman villa. The various avocations followed by the monks required suitable buildings, which were at first erected not upon any premeditated plan, but just as the need for them arose. These requirements, however, being practically the same in every country, resulted in practically similar arrangements everywhere.

The monastic lawgivers of the East have left no written record of the principal parts of their monasteries. St. Benedict, however, mentions the chief component parts with great exactness, in his Rule, as the oratory, dormitory, refectory, kitchen, workshops, cellars for stores, infirmary, novitiate, guest-house, and by inference, the conference-room or chapter-house. These, therefore, find a place in all Benedictine abbeys, which all followed one common plan, occasionally modified to suit local conditions. The chief buildings were arranged around a quadrangle. Taking the normal English arrangement, it will be found that the church was situated as a rule on the north side, its high and massive walls affording the monks a good shelter from the rough north winds. The buildings of the choir, presbytery, and retrochapels extending more to the east, gave some protection from the biting east wind. Canterbury and Chester, however, were exceptions, their churches being on the southern side, where also they were frequently found in warm and sunny climates, with the obvious purpose of obtaining some shelter from the heat of the sun. The choir was ordinarily entered, in the normally planned English monasteries, by a door at the junction of the northern and eastern cloisters, another door at the western end of the north cloister being reserved for the more solemn processions. Although in the course of time there came into existence private rooms (chequer or saccarium) wherein the officials transacted their business, and later still private cells are to be met with, the cloisters were, in the main, the dwelling-place of the entire community, and here the common life was lived. The northern cloister, looking south, was the warmest of the four divisions. Here was the prior’s seat, next to the door of the church; then those of the rest, more or less in order. The abbot’s place was at the northeastern corner. The novice-master with his novices occupied the southern portion of the eastern cloister, while the junior monks were opposite in the western limb. The cold, sunless, southern walk was not used; but out of it opened the refectory, with the lavatory close at hand. In Cistercian houses it stood at right angles to the cloister. Near the refectory was the conventual kitchen with its various offices. The chapter-house opened out of the eastern cloister, as near the church as possible. The position of the dormitory was not so fixed. Normally, it communicated with the southern transept, hence it was over the eastern cloister; occasionally it stood at right angles to it, as at Winchester, or on the western side, as at Worcester. The infirmary usually appears to have been to the east of the dormitory, but no fixed position was assigned to it. The guest-house was situated where it would be least likely to interfere the privacy of the monastery. In later days, when books had multiplied, a special building for the library was added, at right angles to one of the walks of the cloister. To these may be added the calefactory, the parlour, or locutorium, the almonry, and the offices of the obedientiaries; but these additional buildings fitted into the general plan where they best might, and their disposition differed somewhat in the various monasteries. The English Cistercian houses, of which there are so many extensive and beautiful remains, were mainly arranged after the plan of Citeaux, in Burgundy, the mother-house, with slight local variations.

The Carthusian monastery differed considerably in its arrangements from those of other orders. The monks were practically hermits, and each occupied a small detached cottage, containing three rooms, which they left only to attend the services of the church and on certain days when the community met together in the refectory. These cottages opened out of three sides of a quadrangular cloister, and on the fourth side were the church, refectory, chapter-house, and other public offices. Both laurae and caenobium were surrounded by walls which protected the inmates either from the intrusion of seculars or from the violence of marauders. No monk might go beyond this enclosure without permission. The monks of the earlier period considered this separation from the outer world as a matter of prime importance. Women were never permitted to enter the precincts of monasteries for men; even access to the church was oftentimes denied them, or, if accorded admission, as at Durham, they were relegated to a strictly limited space, farthest removed from the monks’ choir. Even greater strictness was observed in safe-guarding the enclosure of nuns. The danger of attack from Saracen hordes necessitated, in the case of Eastern monasteries, the erection of lofty walls, with only one entrance place many feet above the ground, reached by a stairway or drawbridge that could be raised for defense. The monks of the West, not standing in fear of such incursions, did not need such elaborate safeguards, and therefore contented themselves with ordinary enclosure walls. A religious of mature age and character was selected for the responsible office of porter, and to act as the channel of communication between the inmates and the outside world. His chamber was always close by, so that he might be at hand to fulfill his duties of receiving the poor and of announcing the arrival of guests. In the Egyptian monasteries the guest-house, situated near the entrance gateway, was place under the charge of the porter, who was assisted by the novices. St. Benedict so arranged that it should be a building distinct from the monastery itself, although within the enclosure. It had its own kitchen, served by two of the brethren appointed for that purpose annually; a refectory where the abbot took his meals with distinguished guests, and, when he thought fit, invited some of the seniors to join him there; an apartment for the solemn reception of guests, in which the ceremony of washing their feet, as prescribed by the Rule was performed by the abbot and his community; and a dormitory suitably furnished. Thus the guests received every attention due to them by the laws of charity and hospitality, and the community, while gaining the merit of dispensing them in a large-hearted way, through the appointed officials, suffered no disturbance of their own peace and quiet. It was usual for the buildings dedicated for hospitality to be divided into four: one for the reception of guests of distinction, another for poor travelers and pilgrims, a third for merchants arriving on business with the cellarer, and the last for monk-visitors.

Formerly, as now, monastic communities always and everywhere extended a generous hospitality to all comers as an important way of fulfilling their social duties; hence monasteries lying on or near the main highways enjoyed particular consideration and esteem. Where guests were frequent and numerous, the accommodation provided for them was on a commensurate scale. And as it was necessary for great personages to travel accompanied by a crowd of retainers, vast stables and other outhouses were added to these monastic hostels. Later xenodochia, or infirmaries, were attached to these guest-houses, where sick travelers could receive medical treatment. St. Benedict ordained that the monastic oratory should be what its name implied, a place exclusively reserved for public and private prayer. In the beginning it was a mere chapel, only large enough to hold the religious, since externs were not admitted. The size of these oratories were gradually enlarged to meet the requirements of the liturgy. There was also usually an oratory, outside the monastic enclosure, to which women were admitted.

The refectory was the common hall where the monks assembled for their meals. Strict silence was observed there, but during the meals one of the brethren read aloud to the community. The refectory was originally built on the plan of the ancient Roman triclinium, terminating in an apse. The tables were ranged along three sides of the room near the walls, leaving the interior space for the movements of the servers. Near the door of the refectory was invariably to be found the lavatory, where the monks washed their hands before and after meals. The kitchen, was, for convenience, always situated near the refectory. In the larger monasteries separate kitchens were provided for the community (where the brethren performed the duties in weekly turns), the abbot, the sick, and the guests. The dormitory was the community bed-chamber. A lamp burned in it throughout the night. The monks slept clothed, so as to be ready, as St. Benedict says, to rise without delay for the night Office. The normal arrangement, where the numbers permitted it, was for all to sleep in one dormitory, hence there were often very large; sometimes more than one was required. The practice, however, gradually came in of dividing the large dormitory into numerous small cubicles, one being allotted to each monk. The latrines were separated from the main buildings by a passage, and were always planned with the greatest regard to health and cleanliness, a copious supply of running water being used wherever possible.

Although St. Benedict makes no specific mention of a chapter-house, nevertheless he does order monks to “come together presently after supper to read the ‘Collations.’“ No chapter-house appears on the plan of the great Swiss monastery of St. Gall, dating back to the ninth century; in the early days, therefore, the cloisters must have served for the meetings of the community, either for instruction or to discuss the affairs of the monastery. But convenience soon suggested a special place for these purposes, and there is mention of chapter-rooms in the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle (817). The chapter-room was always on the cloister level, on to which it opened. The cloisters, though covered, were generally open to the weather, and were an adaptation of the old Roman atrium. Besides providing a means of communication between the various parts of the monastery, they were both the dwelling-place and the workshop of the monks, and thus the word cloister became a synonym for the monastic life. How the monks managed to live in these open galleries during the winter months, in cold climates, is a mystery; a room, called a “calefactory,” heated by flues, or in which a fire was kept up, where the monks might retire occasionally to warm themselves, was provided in English monasteries. On the Continent the practice in regard to the novices differed somewhat from that prevailing in England. Not being as yet incorporated into the community, they were not permitted to dwell in the interior of the monastery. They had their places in choir during the Divine Office, but they spent the rest of their time in the novitiate. A senior monk, called the novice-master, instructed them in the principles of the religious life, and “tried their spirits if they be of God,” as St. Benedict’s Rule prescribed. This period of probation lasted a whole year. Abroad, the building set apart for the novices was provided with its own dormitory, kitchen, refectory, workroom, and occasionally even its own cloisters; it was, in fact, a miniature monastery within a larger one.

The infirmary was a special building set apart for the accommodation of the sick and infirm brethren, who there received the particular care and attention they needed, at the hands of those appointed to the duty. A herbal garden provided many of the remedies. When death had brought its reward, the monks were laid to rest in a cemetery within the monastic precincts. The honour of burial amongst the religious, a privilege highly esteemed, was also sometimes accorded bishops, royal personages, and distinguished benefactors.

No monastery was complete without its cellars for the storing of provisions. There were, in addition, the granaries, barns, etc., all under the care of the cellarer, as also such buildings and outhouses as were used for agricultural purposes. Gardens and orchards provided such vegetables and fruit as were cultivated in the Middle Ages. The work of the fields did not, however, occupy all the time of the monks. Besides cultivating the arts, and transcribing manuscripts, they plied many trades, such as tailoring, shoe-making, carpentering, etc., while others baked the bread for daily consumption. Most monasteries had a mill for grinding their own corn. It will thus be seen that an Abbey, especially if it maintained a large community, was a little city, self-contained and self-sufficing, as St. Benedict wished it to be, to obviate as far as possible any necessity for the monks to leave the enclosure. The enormous development of the monastic life brought in its train a similar development in the accommodation suitable for it. The monastic buildings, at first so primitive, grew in time till they presented a very imposing appearance; and the arts were requisitioned and ancient models of architecture copied, adapted, and modified. The Basilican plan, indigenous to Italy, was, naturally, that first adopted. Its churches consisted of a nave and aisles, lighted by clerestory windows, and terminating in a semicircular sanctuary or apse. As time went on, the round arch, typical of Basilican and Romanesque architecture, gradually gave place to the pointed arch, peculiar to the new Gothic style, which is defined as “perfected Romanesque.” In England a tendency developed of making the sanctuary rectangular instead of apsidal. The Normans adopted this arrangement; and in their church-planning the English oblong type of chancel gradually took the place of the Romanesque and continental apse, and the Basilica plan was abandoned for that of the Gothic, of a crossing or transept, separating nave from chancel, the latter being extended to make room for the choir. The final evolution of the style peculiar to England is due to the Cistercians, the characteristic of whose Abbeys was extreme simplicity and the absence of needless ornament; their renunciation of the world was evidenced in all that met the eye. Pinnacles, turrets, traceried windows, and stained glass were, in their early days at least, proscribed. And during the twelfth century Cistercian influence predominated throughout Western Europe. The Cistercian churches of this period, Fountains, Kirkstall, Jervaulx, Netly, and Tintern, have rectangular chancels. These and other twelfth century churches belong to what is known as the Transitional or Pointed Norman style. Then followed the greater elaboration of Early and Decorated English, as seen at Norwich and Worcester, or rebuilt Westminster, culminating in the splendours of the Perpendicular, or Tudor style, of which Henry VII’s Chapel, at Westminster, is so superb an example. Few English Abbeys of note, however, were of homogeneous architecture; in fact, the mixture of styles, though sometimes almost bewildering, adds to what is left of these stately piles a greater picturesqueness ever pleasing to archaeologist and artist.

The routine of a monastery could be maintained and supervised only by the delegation of some of the abbot’s authority to various officials, who thus shared with him the burden of rule and administration, and the transaction of business—considerable and ever increasing in volume, where a large and important monastery was concerned. The rule was exercised in subordination to the abbot by the claustral prior and sub-prior; the administration, by officials termed obedientiaries who possessed extensive powers in their own spheres. Their number varied in different houses; but the following were the ordinary officials, together with their duties, most commonly named in old Customals: The cantor, or precentor, regulated the singing in the church service, and was assisted by the succentor or sub-cantor. He trained the novices to render the traditional chant properly. In some places he acted as master to the boys of he claustral school. He was the librarian and archivist, and in this capacity, had charge of the precious tomes and manuscripts preserved in a special aumbry or book-cupboard, and had to provide the choirbooks and those for reading in the refectory. He prepared and sent round the briefs, or mortuary-rolls, announcing the death of any of the brethren to other monasteries. He was also one of the three official custodians of the convent seal, holding one of the keys to the chest where it was kept. To the sacrist and his assistants was committed the care of the church fabric, together with its sacred plate and vestments. He had to see to the cleaning and lighting of the church, its decking for great festivals, and the vestments used by the sacred vestments. The cemetery was also under his charge. To his office pertained the lighting of the entire of the entire monastery: and thus he superintended the candle-making, and bought the necessary stores of wax, tallow, and cotton for wicks. He slept in the church, and took his meals near at hand, so that day and night the church was never left without a guardian. His chief assistants were a revestiarius, who saw to the vestments, the linen, and the hangings of the church, and was responsible for their being kept in repair, or replaced when worn out; and the treasurer, who was in special charge of the shrines, reliquaries, sacred vessels, and other plate.

The cellarer was the purveyor of all food-stuffs and drink for the use of the community. This entailed frequent absences, and hence exemption from much of the ordinary choir duties. He had charge of the hired servants, whom he alone could engage, dismiss, or punish. He superintended the serving up of the meals. To his office belonged the supplying of fuel, carriage of goods, repairs of the house, etc. He was aided by a sub-cellarer and, in the bakery, by a granatorius, or keeper of the grain, who saw to the grinding and quality of flour. The refectorian had charge of the refectory, or “fratry,” keeping it clean, supplied with cloths, napkins, jugs, and dishes, and superintended the laying of the tables. To him, too, was assigned the care of the lavatory, and the providing it with towels and, if necessary, hot water. The office of the kitchener was one of great responsibility, for to him fell the portioning out of the food, and it was only great experience which could preserve the happy mean between waste and niggardliness. He had under him an emptor, or buyer, experienced in marketing. He had to keep a strict account of his expenditures and of the stores, presenting in books weekly to the abbot for examination. He presided over the entire kitchen department, seeing particularly that all the utensils were kept scrupulously clean. The discharge of his duty entailed frequent exemption from choir. The weekly servers helped in the kitchen, under the kitchener’s orders, and waited at table during the meals. The concluded their week’s work on Saturday evenings by washing the feet of the brethren. The infirmarian had to tend the sick with affectionate sympathy, and, as far as might be necessary, was excused from regular duties. If a priest, he said Mass for the sick; if not, he got a priest to do so. He always slept in the infirmary, even when there were no sick there, so as to be found on the spot in case of emergency. The curious practice of blood-letting, looked on as so salutary in ancient times, was carried out by the infirmarian. The chief duty of the almoner was to distribute the alms of the monastery, in food and clothing, to the poor, with kindness and discretion; and; while ministering to their bodily wants, he was not to forget those of their soul also. He superintended the daily maundy or washing of the feet of the poor selected for that purpose. Another of his duties was to take charge of any school, other than the claustral school, connected with the monastery. To him also fell the task of seeing to the circulation of the mortuary-rolls.

In medieval days the hospitality extended to travelers by the monasteries was of such constant occurrences that the guest-master required a full measure of tact, prudence, and discretion, as well as affability, since the reputation of the house was in his keeping. His first duty was to see that the guest-house always ready for the reception of visitors, whom he was to receive, as enjoined by the Rule, as he would Christ Himself, and during their stay to supply their wants, entertain them, conduct them to the church services, and generally to hold himself at their disposal. The chief duties of the chamberlain of a monastery were concerned with the wardrobe of the brethren, repairing or renewing their worn-out garments, and preserving cast-off clothes for distribution to the poor by the almoner. He had also to superintend the laundry. As it belonged to him to provide cloth and other material for the clothing, he had to attend the neighbouring fairs to purchase his stock. On him, too, devolved the task of making preparation for the baths, feet-washing, and shaving of the brethren.

The novice-master was of course one of the most important officials in every monastery. In church, in the refectory, in the cloister, in the dormitory, he kept a watchful control over the novices, and spent the day teaching them and exercising them in the rules and traditional practices of the religious life, encouraging and helping those who showed real signs of a monastic vocation. The weekly officials included, besides the servers already referred to, the reader in the refectory, who was enjoined to make careful preparation so as to avoid mistakes. Also, the antiphoner whose duty it was to read the invitatory at Matins, intone the first antiphon of the Psalms, the versicles and responsories, after the lessons, and the capitulum, or little chapter, etc. The hebdomadarian, or priest of the week, had to commence all the various canonical Hours, give all the blessings that might be required, and sing the High Mass each day.

The greater Abbeys in England were represented through their superiors in Parliament, in Convocations, and in Synod. Their superiors were regularly included in the Commissions of Peace, and in all things acted as, and were considered the equals of, their great feudal neighbours. The alms bestowed on the poor by the monasteries, together with those furnished by law, by the parish priests, served to support them without recourse to the more recent poor-laws. The lot of the poor was lightened, and they knew that they could turn for help.and sympathy to the religious houses. Poverty as witnessed in these days was impossible in all the Middle Ages, because the monks, spread over all the country, acted as merely stewards of God’s property, and dispensed it, if lavishly, yet with discretion. The relations between the monks and their tenants were uniformly kindly; the smaller cottagers were treated with much consideration, and if it became necessary to inflict fines, justice was tempered with mercy. The monastic manors were worked somewhat on the principle of a co-operative farm. If we may form a judgment on the whole of England from the “Durham Halmote Rolls,” the conditions of village life left little to be desired. Provisions for watching over the public health were enforced, a guard kept over water supplies, stringent measures taken in regard to springs and wells, and the cleansing of ponds and milldams. A common mill ground the tenants’ corn, and their bread was baked in a common oven. The relation of the monks to their peasant-tenants was rather that of rent-chargers than of absolute owners.

HENRY NORBERT BIRT

Abbo Cernuus

(“The crooked”).

French Benedictine monk of St-Germain-des-Prés in Paris, sometimes called Abbo Parisiensis. He was born about the middle of the ninth century, was present at the siege of Paris by the Normans (885–86), and wrote a description of it in Latin verse, with an account of subsequent events to 896, “De bellis Parisiacae urbis.” He also left some sermons for the instructions of clerics in Paris and Poictiers (P.L., CXXII).

THOMAS WALSH

St. Abbon

Abbon (or Abbo), Saint, b. near Orléans c. 945; d. at Fleury, 13 November, 1004, a monk of the Benedictine monastery of Fleury sur Loire (Fleuret), conspicuous both for learning and sanctity, and one of the great lights of the Church in the stormy times of Hugh Capet of France and of the three Ottos of Germany. He devoted himself to philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy. In early life he was called to England to direct the school of the newly founded monastery of Ramsey, in the County of Huntingdon, after which he returned to Fleury. On the death of the Abbot Oilbold, Abbon was selected to succeed him, but one of the monks who had secured the support of the King and his son Robert, the Bishop of Orléans, contested the choice, and the matter assumed national importance in the political forces it brought into play. It was finally settled by the famous Gerbert (later Pope Sylvester II) in favour of Abbon. He was present at the Synod of St. Basolus (St. Basle), near Reims, at which Archbishop Arnolf was tried for treason and deposed, to make way for Gerbert.When the question arose about the marriage of Robert the Pious and Bertha, Abbon was commissioned to arrange it with the Pope. On the way to Rome he met Pope Gregory V, who was a fugitive from the city from which the Antipope John XVII had expelled him. Between the Pontiff and the Abbot the greatest esteem and affection existed. The royal petition for a dispensation was rejected. Abbon succeeded in bringing about the restoration of Arnulf to the see of Reims. His influence contributed largely to calm the excitement about the fear of the end of the world which is said to have been general in Europe in 1000. His glourious life had a sad ending. In 1004 he attemped to restore discipline in the monastery of La Reole, in Gascony, by transferring some of the monks of Fleury into that community. But the trouble increased; fighting began between the two parties and when St. Abbon endeavoured to separate them he was pieced in the side by a lance. He concealed the wound and reached his cell, where he died in the arms of his faithful disciple Aimoin, who has left an account of his labours and virtues. The miracles wrought at his tomb soon caused him to be regarded in the Church of Gaul as a saint and martyr. His feast is kept 13 November.

Cochard, Les Saints de l’église d’Orléans (1879), 362–383; The Month (1874), XX, 163; XXI, 28–42; Sackur, Die Cluniacenser (1892), I, 270, 297; Pardiac, Hist. de St. Abbon de Fleury (Paris, 1872).

T. J. CAMPBELL

Abbot

Abbot, a title given to the superior of a community of twelve or more monks. The name is derived from abba, the Syriac form of the Hebrew word ab, and means “father.” In Syria, where it had its origin, and in Egypt, it was first employed as a title of honour and respect, and was given to any monk of venerable age or of eminent sanctity. The title did not originally imply the exercise of any authority over a religious community. From the East the word passed over to the West, and here it was soon received into general use to designate the superior of an abbey or a monastery. In this article we shall treat:

I. HISTORICAL ORIGIN

Monastic communities were first organized in Egypt at the beginning of the fourth century. St. Anthony introduced one form of community life the eremitical when, about the year A.D. 305, he undertook the direction and organization of the multitude of hermits who had gathered about him in the Thebaid; a second—the coenobitical, or conventual, type of monachism—was instituted by St. Pachomius, who, about the same time, founded his first coenobium, or conventual monastery, at Tabennae in the far south of Egypt. Both systems spread rapidly and were soon firmly established in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor. By the middle of the fourth century monachism had also made its appearance in Europe, and here, at the beginning of the sixth, St. Benedict of Nursia, gave it the definite form and constitution which ultimately assured its triumph in the West. Every group of hermits and every coenobium naturally had its superior. The title given him varied. In the East he was usually styled the elder, the senior, or also father of the monastery. In Asia Minor and among the Greeks generally he was called archimandrite (archos, a chief, and mandra, a fold, monastery) or hegumenos. Originally there seems to have been no appreciable difference in the signification of these two words, but after the period of Justinian the title archimandrite was jealously reserved for the superiors of the older or of the more important monasteries. Both names have, however, been permanently retained, and are to this day the titles given to monastic superiors in the Eastern Church. Cassian, who at the beginning of the fifth century had transplanted Egyptian monachism to Gaul, was addressed as Abbas, Pater, and Dominus; he himself termed the superior of the monastery Praepositus. The word praepositus, in the signification of a monastic ruler, appears also in Roman Africa and elsewhere in the West, but towards the close of the fifth century it had been almost entirely supplanted by the term abbas. St. Benedict, in his Rule, written about 529, assigned a subordinate position in the community to the praepositus, and restricted the use of the title abbas to the superior of the monastery. Through the Rule of the great Patriarch of Western Monachism the application of the title abbas was definitely fixed, and its use made general in the West.

II. NATURE OF THE OFFICE

St. Benedict’s conception of a monastic community was distinctly that of a spiritual family. Every individual monk was to be a son of that family, the, Abbot its father, and the monastery its permanent home. Upon the Abbot therefore, as upon the father of a family, devolves the government and direction of those who are committed to his dare, and a paternal solicitude should characterize his rule. St. Benedict says that “an abbot who is worthy to have the charge of a monastery ought always to remember by what title he is called,” and that “in the monastery he is considered to represent the person of Christ, seeing that he is called by His name” (Rule of St. Benedict, ii). The monastic system established by St. Benedict was based entirely upon the supremacy of the abbot. Though the Rule gives directions as to an abbot’s government, and furnishes him with principles upon which to act, and binds him to carry out certain prescriptions as to consultation with others in difficult matters etc., the subject is told to obey without question or hesitation the decision of the superior. It is of course needless to say that this obedience did not extend to the commission of evil, even were any such command ever imposed (Gasquet, English Monastic Life, London, 1904, p. 42). The obedience shown to the Abbot is regarded as obedience paid to God Himself, and all the respect and reverence with which he is treated by the brethren of his house is paid him for Christ’s love, because as abbot—father—he is the representative of Christ in the midst of the brethren. The whole government of a religious house depends upon the Abbot. His will is supreme in all things; yet, as the Rule says, nothing is to be taught, commanded, or ordered beyond the precepts of the Lord. All the officials who are to assist him in the government of the house, are appointed by him and have their authority from him. He may dismiss them at his discretion. The Abbot, by virtue of his office, administers the temporal possessions of the community, exercises a general supervision for the maintenance of monastic discipline, provides for the keeping of the Rule, punishes and, if need be, excommunicates the refractory, presides in choir during the recitation of the Office, and at Divine Service, and gives the blessings. In a word, uniting in his person the threefold office of father, teacher, and ruler, it is the duty of the Abbot to see that all things are administered wisely in the House of God.

III. KINDS OF ABBOTS

An Abbot canonically elected and confirmed, and exercising the duties of his office, is by the law of the Church styled a Regular Abbot. Regular Abbots are prelates in the full sense of the word, and their dignity is of three grades. An Abbot who presides only over such persons, ecclesiastical and lay, as are attached to his monastery, belongs to the lowest grade, and his jurisdiction carries with it what is called the simple passive exemption (exemptio passiva) from the authority of the diocesan bishop. If an Abbot’s jurisdiction extends beyond the limits of his abbey, over the inhabitants—clergy and laity—of a certain district or territory which forms an integral part of a bishop’s diocese, he belongs to the middle grade (praelatus quasi nullius dioecesis) and his exemption is termed active (exemptio activa). And when an Abbot has jurisdiction over the clergy and laity of a district or territory (comprising one or several cities and places) which forms no part whatever of any diocese, his abbey is styled vere nullius dioecesis (of no diocese) and, excepting a few rights only, for the exercise of which the ordo episcopalis is required, his authority is in all things equal to that of a bishop. This is the third and highest grade of the dignity. There are no abbeys vere nullius in the United States or in England. Among abbeys of this class in other countries may be mentioned: in Italy, the arch-abbey of Monte Cassino, founded by St. Benedict himself about 529; the abbey of Subiaco, of which the titular is always a cardinal; the abbey of St. Paul extra Muros (Rome); that of Monte Vergine near Avellino, founded by St. William of Vercelli in 1124; and the abbey of the Most Holy Trinity at Cava, dating back to 1011; in Switzerland, the abbey of Einsiedeln, founded about 934; in Hungary (Austria), the arch-abbey of St. Martin’s, (Martinsberg), established A.D. 1001 by St. Stephen, King of Hungary; and in West Australia the abbey of New Norcia. All exempt abbeys, no matter what the canonical title or degree of their exemption, are under the immediate jurisdiction of the Holy See. The term exempt is, strictly speaking, not applied to an Abbot nullius, because his jurisdiction is entirely extraterritorial. Within the limits of his territory such an Abbot has, with few exceptions, the rights and privileges of a bishop, and assumes all a bishop’s obligations. Abbots of the second grade, however, whose authority (though quasi-episcopal) is intra-territorial, cannot be considered ordinaries, nor can they lay any claim to the rights and privileges of bishops, excepting those, of course, which have been especially granted them by the Holy See.

When the monasteries in which the same regular observance is followed, or the abbeys of the same province, district, or country form a congregation i.e. a federation of houses to promote the general interest of the order, the presiding Abbot is styled the “Abbot President,” or the “Abbot General.” Thus, the Cassinese Congregation of the Primitive Observance has at its bead an Abbot General; the English Congregation, the American-Cassinese, and the American-Swiss, have each an Abbot President. The authority of the Abbot President is defined in the statutes or constitution of each congregation. In the recent confederation of the Benedictine Order all the Black Monks of St. Benedict were united under the presidency of an “Abbot Primate” (Leo XIII, Summum semper, 12 July, 1893); but the unification, fraternal in its nature, brought no modification to the abbatial dignity, and the various congregations preserved their autonomy intact. The powers of the Abbot Primate are specified, and his position defined, in a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars dated 16 September, 1893. The primacy is attached to the Abbey and International Benedictine College of St. Anselm, Rome, and the Primate, who takes precedence of all other Abbots, is empowered to pronounce on all doubtful matters of discipline, to settle difficulties arising between monasteries to hold a canonical visitation, if necessary, in any congregation of the order, and to exercise a general supervision for the regular observance of monastic discipline. Of late, however, certain branches of the Benedictine Order seem to have lost their original autonomy to some extent. The Reformed Cistercians of La Trappe, for instance, are by a Decree of Pope Leo XIII, 8 May, 1892, placed under the authority of an Abbot-General. The Abbot-General has full authority to pass decision upon all current affairs and difficulties. On account of the antiquity or the preeminence of the abbeys over which they preside, the honorary title of Arch-abbot is bestowed upon the superiors of certain monasteries. Monte Cassino, “the Cradle of Western Monachism,” St. Martinsberg in Hungary, St. Martin’s of Beuron, in Germany, and St. Vincent’s, Pennsylvania, the first Benedictine foundation in America, are presided over by Arch-abbots.

A further variety of Abbots-Regular are the “Titular Abbots.” A Titular Abbot holds the title of an abbey which has been either destroyed or suppressed, but he exercises none of the functions of an Abbot, and has in actu no subjects belonging to the monastery whence he derives his title. The law of the Church recognizes also “Secular Abbots,” i.e. clerics who, though not professed members of any monastic order, nevertheless possess an abbacy as an ecclesiastical benefice, with the title and some of the honours of the office. These benefices belonged originally to monastic houses, but on the suppression of the abbeys the benefice and the title were transferred to other churches. There are various classes of Secular Abbots; some have both jurisdiction and the right to use the pontifical insignia; others have only the abbatical dignity without either jurisdiction or the right to pontificalia; while yet another class holds in certain cathedral churches the first dignity and the privilege of precedence in choir and in assemblies, by reason of some suppressed or destroyed conventual church now become the cathedral. In the early Middle Ages the title Abbot was borne not only by the superiors of religious houses, but also by a number of persons, ecclesiastical and lay, who had no connection whatever with the monastic system. St. Gregory of Tours, for instance, employed it in his day to designate the principal of a body of secular clergy attached to certain churches; and later, under the Merovingians and Carlovingians, it was applied to the chaplain of the royal household, Abbas Palatinus, and to the military chaplain of the king, Abbas Castrenisis. From the time of Charles Martel onward to the eleventh century it came to be adopted even by laymen, the Abbacomites, or Abbates Milites, mostly nobles dependent on the court, or old officers, to whom the sovereign would assign a portion of the revenues of some monastery as a reward for military service. “Commendatory Abbots” (secular ecclesiastics who held an abbacy not in titulo, but in commendam) had their origin in the system of commendation prevalent during the eighth and succeeding centuries. They were in the first instance merely temporary trustees, appointed to administer the estates of an abbey during a vacancy; but in the course of time they retained the office for life, and claimed a portion of the revenues for their maintenance. The practice of nominating Commendatory Abbots eventually led to serious abuses; it was greatly checked by the Council of Trent, and has in modern times entirely disappeared from the Church.

IV. MODE OF ELECTION

In the early days of monastic institutions the founder of a religious house was usually its first superior; in every other instance the Abbot was appointed or elected. Some Abbots indeed selected their own successors, but the cases were exceptional. In many places, when a vacancy occurred, the bishop of the diocese would choose a superior from among the monks of the convent, but it appears that from the very beginning the appointment of an Abbot rested generally with the monks themselves. St. Benedict ordained (Rule, lxiv) that the Abbot should be chosen “by the general consent of the whole community, or of a small part of the community, provided its choice were made with greater wisdom and discretion.” The bishop of the diocese, the Abbots and Christian men of the neighbourhood were called upon to oppose the election of an unworthy man. Every religious house professing his Rule adopted the method prescribed by the great monastic legislator, and in the course of time the right of the monks to elect their own Abbot came to be generally recognized, particularly so when it had been solemnly confirmed by the canons of the Church see Thomassin, Vetus et Nova Eccl. Disciplina, Pt. I, III, c. xxxii, no. 6). But during the Middle Ages, when monasteries had grown wealthy and powerful, kings and princes gradually encroached on the rights of the monks, until in most countries the sovereign had wholly usurped the power of nominating abbots for many of the greater houses in his realm. This interference of the court in the affairs of the cloister was in the process of time the source of many evils and the occasion of grave disorders, while in its effect, on monastic discipline it was uniformly disastrous. The rights of the cloister were finally restored by, the Council of Trent. According to the present legislation, the Abbot is elected for life by the secret suffrages of the community’s professed members in sacris. To be eligible he must have all the qualifications required by the canons of the Church. It is furthermore necessary that he should be a priest, a professed member of the order, of legitimate birth, and at least twenty-five years of age. The election, to be valid, must be herd in the manner prescribed by the common law of the Church (cf. Quia propter.—De elect., I, 6; and Cone. Trid., sess. XXV, c. vi, De reg.), and as determined in the statutes or constitutions of each congregation. In the English and American congregations the Abbot of a monastery is elected for life by a two-thirds vote of the professed members in sacris of the chapter. The Abbots themselves elect the abbot president. Exempt abbeys under the immediate jurisdiction of the Pope must, within the space of a month, apply to the Holy See for a confirmation of the election; non-exempt houses, within three months, to the bishop of the diocese. The confirmation confers upon the Abbot-elect the jus in re, and having obtained it he enters at once upon the duties and privileges of his office. A canonical perpetuity attaches to the abbatial dignity; semel abbas, semper abbas; and even after a resignation the dignity endures, and the title is retained. Benedictine abbeys in the United States and in England enjoy exemption; for America, the newly-elected Abbots are confirmed directly by the Pope; in England, however, according to the recent Constitution, “Diu quidem est” (1899), they are confirmed by the Abbot President in the name of the Holy See.

V. BENEDICTION OF THE ABBOT

After his ecclesiastical confirmation, the newly elected Abbot is solemnly blessed according to the rite prescribed in the “Pontificale Romanum” (De benedictione Abbatis). By the Constitution of Benedict XIII, Commissi Nobis, 6 May, 1725, all Regular Abbots elected for life are now obliged to receive this blessing (or, at least, to thrice formally request it) within the space of a year, from the bishop of the diocese; if they fail to have the ceremony performed within the required time, they incur ipso jure a suspension from office for the period of one year. Should the petition be refused for the third time, either by the diocesan or the metropolitan, an Abbot is free to receive benediction from any bishop in communion with Rome. The Constitution at the same time expressly declares that the Abbot-elect may licitly and validly perform all the duties of his office during the interval preceding his solemn benediction. It must be noted, however, that the legislation enforced by Benedict XIII does not affect those Abbots who are privileged to receive the blessing from their regular superiors, nor those who by their election and confirmation are ipso facto regarded as blessed by the Pope. The blessing is not in se essential for the exercise of an Abbot’s order and office; it confers no additional jurisdiction, and imparts no sacramental grace or character. An Abbot nullius may call upon any bishop in union with the Holy See to bestow the abbatial blessing. By the recent Constitution of Leo XIII, “Diu quidem est.” 1899, the Abbots of the English Congregation are bound within six months of their election to present themselves to the ordinary of the diocese to be blessed by Apostolical authority; and, if the diocesan be prevented, they can receive the blessing from any Catholic bishop.

The ceremony, which in solemnity differs but slightly from that of a bishop’s consecration, takes place during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, after the Epistle. The essentials of the episcopal order are of course omitted, but before his benediction the Abbot takes the oath of allegiance to the Holy See and, like the bishop, is subjected to a canonical examination. He receives the insignia of his office—the mitre, crosier, ring, etc.—from the hands of the officiating prelate, and at the Offertory presents to him two small casks of wine, two loaves of bread, and two large wax tapers; he says the Mass. with the bishop and receives Holy Communion from him. During the singing of the Te Deum the newly blessed Abbot, with mitre and crosier, is conducted through the nave of the church by the two assistant Abbots, and blesses the people. Upon his returning to his seat in the sanctuary (if in his own church), the monks of the community come, one by one, and, kneeling before their new superior, pay him their homage, and receive from him the kiss of peace. The ceremony is concluded by a solemn blessing bestowed by the newly installed Abbot standing at the High Altar. According to the Pontificale Romanum, the day set apart for the function ought to be a Sunday or a feast day. The solemn rite of benediction, once conferred, need not be again received when an Abbot is translated from one monastery to another.

VI. AUTHORITY OF THE ABBOT

The authority of an Abbot is of two; kinds, one relating to the external government of the house, the other to the spiritual government of his subjects. The first is a paternal or domestic authority, based on the nature of religious life and on the vow of obedience, the second a power of quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, by virtue of which he is truly a prelate. His domestic authority empowers the Abbot to administer the property of the abbey, to maintain the discipline of the house, to compel the religious, even by penalties, to observe the Rule and the Constitutions of the Order, and to ordain whatever else may be essential for the preservation of peace and order in the community. The power of jurisdiction which the Abbot possesses, both in foro interno and in foro externo, authorizes him to absolve his subjects from all cases of conscience not specially reserved, and to delegate this power to the priests of his monastery; to reserve to himself the eleven eases enumerated in the Constitution of Clement VIII, “Ad futuram rei memoriam”; to inflict ecclesiastical censures; and to dispense the members of his house in certain eases for which a dispensation is usually obtained from the bishop of the diocese. He cannot, of course, dispense a religious from the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Abbots, like the monks over whom they ruled, were originally laymen, and subject to the bishop of the diocese. It was not long, however, before they were enrolled in the ranks of the clergy. Towards the close of the fifth century by far the greater number of Abbots in the East had received ordination. The change was effected more slowly in the West, but even here few were found at the end of the seventh century who had not been clothed with the dignity of the priesthood. A council held at Rome, 826, under Pope Eugene II, enjoined the ordination of Abbots, but the canon seems not to have been rigidly enforced, for as late as the eleventh century we read of some who were only deacons. The Council of Poitiers (1078) finally obliged all Abbots under pain of deprivation to receive priest’s orders. (Thomassin, Pt. I, I, iii, passim.) From this time forward the power and influence of Abbots steadily increased in Church and State, until towards the close of the Middle Ages their position was everywhere regarded as one of the highest distinction. In Germany eleven Abbots held rank as princes of the Empire, and with all the rights and privileges of princes took part in the deliberation of the Diets. The Abbots of Fulda exercised even sovereign power over ten square miles round the abbey. In the Parliament of England “abbots formed the bulk of the spiritual peerage. The position held by them throughout every part of the country gave yet a further weight to their great position as noblemen and local magnates. As such they went pari passu with baron or earl of the noblest lineage. On the blazoned Roll of the Lords, the Lord Richard Whiting and the Lord Hugh Farringdon (Abbots of Glastonbury and of Reading) went hand in hand with a Howard and a Talbot” [Gasquet, Henry VIII and the English Monast. (London, 1888), I, 25]. In France, Spain, Italy, and Hungary their power and influence were equally great, and continued so generally up to the time of the Council of Trent.

VII. RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

All regular Abbots have the right to give the tonsure and to confer minor orders on the professed members of their house. As early as 787 the Second Council of Nicaea permitted Abbots (provided they were priests, and had received the solemn rite of benediction) to give the tonsure and to advance their monks to the order of lector (Thomassin, Pt., I. c., I. iii, c. xvii, no. 3). The privilege granted by this Council was gradually extended until it embraced all the minor orders, and in the course of time Abbots were authorized to confer them not only on their regular but also on their secular subjects [Wernz, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899) ii, 47, note]. The Council of Trent, however, decreed that “it shall not henceforth be lawful for abbots, . . . howsoever exempted, . . . to confer the tonsure and minor orders on any but their regular subjects, nor shall the said abbots grant letters dimissory to any secular clerics to be ordained by others” [Can. et Decret. Conc. Trid. (ed. Richter et Schulte), p. 197]. From this decree of the Council it is quite clear that Abbots still have the right to confer the tonsure and minor orders, but it is equally clear that they may confer them lawfully only on their regular subjects. Novices, therefore. oblates, regulars of another order or congregation, and seculars cannot be advanced by the Abbot. Even the Abbots styled vere nullius, who exercise an episcopal jurisdiction in their territory, may not without a special privilege give minor orders to their secular subjects [Santi, Praelect. Jur. Can. (New York, 1898), I, 125 sq., and Can. et Decret. Cone. Trid. (ed. Richter et Schulte), 197 sq., where also the decisions of the Sacred Cong. of the Council on this subject may be found]. On the question of the validity of orders conferred by an Abbot who goes beyond the limits of the faculties extended by the Holy See, canonists disagree. Some pronounce such orders absolutely invalid, others maintain that they are illicitly conferred but nevertheless valid. The opinion of the latter seems to be sustained by various decisions of the Sacred Cong. of the Council (Santi, op. cit., p. 128 sq.; cf. Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioec. II, c. xi, no. 13). It is a much-disputed question whether Abbots have ever been permitted to confer the subdiaconate and the diaconate. Many canonists hold that the subdiaconate, being of merely ecclesiastical institution, was formerly amounted one of the minor orders of the Church, and infer that before the time of Urban II (1099), Abbots could have given that order. But the further claim that Abbots have also conferred the diaconate cannot, apparently, be sustained, for the Bull of Innocent VIII, “Exposcit tuae devotionis” (9 April, 1489), in which this privilege is said to have been granted to certain Cistercian Abbots, makes no reference whatever to the diaconate—“Factâ inspectione in Archivis (Vaticani) . . . bulla quidem ibidem est reperta, sed mentio de diaconatu in eâdem deest.” [See Gasparri, Tract. can. de S. Ordinatione, II, n. 798; cf. also P. Pie de Langogne, “Bulle d Innoeent VIII aux abbés de Cîteaux pour les ordinations in sacris” (Etudes franciscaines, fév., 1901, 129 sq.)] Pauhölzl, in “Studien und Mittheil. aus dem Benedictiner und Cistercienser-Orden,” 1884, I, 441 sq. gives the Bull and defends its authenticity. By the law of the Church Abbots may grant letters dimissorial to their regular subjects, authorizing and recommending them for ordination, but they cannot give dimissorials to seculars without incurring suspension. Abbots are furthermore privileged to dedicate their abbey church and the cemetery of the monastery, and authorized to reconcile them in case of desecration. They can bless church vestments, altar linens ciboria, monstrances, etc., for their own subjects, and consecrate altars and chalices for their own churches. As prelates, they hold the rank immediately after the bishops, being preceded only by the protonotarii participantes (see CURIA ROMANA), and by the vicar-general in his diocese. It may be added that the Abbots nullius dioecesis are preconized by the Pope in a public consistory, and that, within the territory over which they exercise jurisdiction, their name, like that of a diocesan, is inserted in the canon of the Mass.

The use of the pontifical insignia—mitre, crosier, pectoral cross, ring, gloves, and sandals—which Abbots commonly have, is one of their most ancient privileges. It cannot be definitely ascertained when the privilege was first granted, but as early as 643 the Abbey of Bobbio in Italy is said to have obtained a constitution from Pope Theodore confirming a grant made to the Abbot by Honorius I. In England the pontifical insignia were assigned first to the Abbot of St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, in 1063 and nearly a hundred years later to the Abbot of St. Alban s. The privilege was gradually extended to other abbeys until, at the close of the Middle Ages, every monastic house of importance in Europe was presided over by a mitred Abbot. The rights of Abbots to pontificalia are now regulated by the Decree of Pope Alexander VII (S. Cong. of Rites, 27 September, 1659). By the terms of this decree the days on which an Abbot is permitted to pontificate are limited to three days in the year. The use of the seventh candle, customary at a solemn pontifical Mass, is forbidden. The Abbot’s mitre is to be made of less costly material than a bishop’s, and the pastoral staff is to be used with a white pendant veil. The Abbot is not to have a permanent throne in his monastic church, but is allowed, only when celebrating pontifically, to have a movable throne on two steps and a simple canopy. He has also the privilege of using mitre and crosier whenever the ritual functions require them. As a mark of special distinction, some Abbots are permitted by the Holy See to use the cappa magna, and all abbots nullius may wear a violet biretta and zucchetto. “A recent decree of the S.C.R. (13 June, 1902) has regulated in accordance with former legislation the rights of the abbots of the English Congregation to pontificalia. According to this decree the English abbots can celebrate pontifically not only in their own abbatial churches, but also without the leave of the diocesan bishop in all other churches served by their monks with cure of souls. They can also give leave to other abbots of their Congregation to pontificate in their churches. They can use the prelatical dress i.e. rochet, mozzetta and mantelletta outside their own churches” [Taunton, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), p. 3]. The Abbots of the American-Cassinese and of the American-Swiss Congregations have the same privileges.

VIII. ASSISTANCE AT COUNCILS

Ecclesiastical councils were attended by Abbots at a very early period. Thus, in 448, twenty-three archimandrites or Abbots assisted at that held by Flavian, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and with thirty bishops signed the condemnation of Eutyches. In France under the Merovingian kings, they frequently appeared at ecclesiastical synods as the delegates of bishops, while in Saxon England and in Spain the presence of monastic superiors at the councils of the Church was nothing uncommon. Their attendance did not, however, become a general practice in the West until after the Eighth Council of Toledo (653) where ten Abbots had been present, and had subscribed to the decrees by virtue of their pastoral charge. From the eighth century onward Abbots had a voice also in the oecumenical councils of the Church. It must be remarked that in later centuries Abbots were invited to assist at such councils and were permitted to give a decisive vote, mainly because they too, like the bishops, exercised a power of jurisdiction in the Church of God. In this connection Pope Benedict XIV says: “Item sciendum est quod quando in Conciliis generalibus soli episcopi habebant vocem definitivam, hoc fuit quia habebant administrationem populi . . . Postea additi fuere Abbates eâdem de causâ, et quia habebant administrationem subjectorum (De Syn. dioec. XIII, c. ii, no. 5). A newly appointed Abbot, before he receives the solemn benediction at the hands of the bishop takes an oath that he will discharge faithfully ail the duties of his office, specifying among others that of attending councils: “Vocatus ad synodum, veniam, nisi praepeditus fuero canonica praepeditione” (Pontif. Rom., De Benedictione Abbatis). In the performance of this duty the Abbot must be guided by the regulations of the sacred canons. According to the present practice of the Church all Abbots nullius dioecesis, or with quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, have a right to assist at oecumenical councils. They have moreover, the right of a decisive vote, and may subscribe to the decrees. The Abbots-President of congregations and the abbots-general of an entire order are also present and cast a decisive vote, though only by virtue of privilege. Other classes of Abbots were not admitted to the Vatican Council in 1870. In provincial synods and in plenary or national councils the Abbots nullius have de jure a decisive vote, and sign the decrees after the bishops. Attendance at these synods is for them not merely a right, but also an obligation. By the terms of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, De ref., c. ii) they are obliged, “like the bishops who are not subject to any archbishop, to make choice of some neighbouring metropolitan, at whose synods they shall be bound to appear,” and they are further directed “to observe and to cause to be observed whatsoever shall be therein ordained.” Though other Abbots must not be called de jure to provincial or to national councils, it is yet the custom, in most countries, to invite also the mitred Abbots who have actual jurisdiction only over their monasteries. Thus, at the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (1866) both the Abbot of the Cistercians and the Abbot-President of the American-Cassinese Benedictines were present, and signed the decrees. At the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884) six mitred Abbots assisted, two of whom, the Abbots-President of the American-Cassinese and of the American-Swiss Congregations of Benedictines, exercised the right of a decisive vote, while the other four had only a consultative voice and subscribed to the decrees merely as assenting, not as defining. And this is the practice of the Church generally. Exempt Abbots have no obligation to attend diocesan synods.

IX. DISTRIBUTION OF ABBOTS

The Black Monks of St. Benedict have at present seven Abbots nullius dioecesis, located as follows: Italy, 4; Switzerland, 1; Hungary, 1; and West Australia, 1; 86 Abbots exercising actual jurisdiction over their monasteries: Austria, 19; United States, 14; France, 9 (before the Law of Associations); Italy, 9; Germany, 7; England, 6; Hungary, 5; Switzerland, 4; Brazil, S. A., 3; Holland, 3; Spain, 3; Belgium, 2; Scotland1; West Australia 1. They have also nine titular, and three resigned Abbots.

The Cistercian Abbots of the Three Observances number fifty-seven. Of these the Cistercians of the Common and of the Lesser Observance have nineteen: Italy, 3; Belgium, 2; Austro-Hungarian Province, 8; and the Swiss-German Congregation 3. The Congregation of Sénanque, to which the three Abbots of the Lesser Observance belong, is now dispersed by the Associations Law of France. The Cistercians of the Strict Observance (Trappists) have thirty-eight: France, 18 (not expelled); Belgium, 4; Italy, 3; United States, Austria, and Ireland, two each; Canada, China, England, Germany, Holland, and Spain, one each. The Cistercians have also two Abbots nullius dioecesis.

In Italy, the Camaldolese Vallombrosans, Silvestrines, and Olivetans, all branches of the Benedictine Order, have each a small number of Abbots. Monte Oliveto Maggiore belonging to the Olivetans is an abbey nullius dioecesis. Some few houses of the various Congregations of Canons Regular, of the Antonians, of the Armenian Benedictines, and of the Basilians, are also under the direction of Abbots. Mitred Abbots in the United States are the Abbots of St. Vincent’s Arch-Abbey, Beatty, Pa.; St. John’s Abbey, Collegeville, Minn.; St. Benedict’s Abbey Atchison, Kan.; St. Mary’s Abbey, Newark, N. J.; Maryhelp Abbey, Belmont, N. C.; St. Bernard’s Abbey, St. Bernard, Ala.; St. Procopius’s Abbey Chicago, Ill.; St. Leo’s Abbey, St. Leo, Fla.; St. Meinrad’s Abbey, St. Meinrad, Ind.; Immaculate Conception Abbey, Conception, Mo.; New Subiaco Abbey, Spielerville, Ark.; St. Joseph’s Abbey, Covington, La.; St. Mary’s Abbey, Richardton, N. Dak.; St. Benedict’s Abbey, Mount Angel, Ore.; Gethsemani Abbey, Ky.; New Melleray Abbey, near Dubuque, Iowa; and the Sacred Heart Abbey, Oklahoma.

Mitred Abbots in England are the Titular Abbot of Reading, the Abbot of St. Gregory’s Abbey, Downside, Bath; St. Lawrence’s Abbey, Ampleforth York; St. Edmund’s Abbey of Douay, Woolhampton, Reading; St. Augustine’s Abbey, Ramsgate; St. Thomas’s Abbey, Erdington, Birmingham; Buckfast Abbey, Buckfastleigh, Devon; St. Michael’s Abbey, Farnborough (Benedictines of Solesmes) Abbey of St. Pierre, Appuldurcombe, Isle of Wight (Benedictines of Solesmes); St. Bernard’s Abbey Coalville, near Leicester (Cistercian), The Canons Regular of the Lateran, Spettisbury, Dorsetshire.

In Scotland; St. Benedict’s Abbey, Fort Augustus, Inverness.

In Ireland: Mt. Melleray Abbey, Cappoquin, Mt. St. Joseph’s Abbey, Roscrea, Tipperary.

In West Australia: Holy Trinity Abbey, New Norcia (nullius dioecesis).

In Canada: Abbey of Notre Dame du Lac, Lac des Deux Montagnes.

Rule of St. Benedict in P.L., LXVI, 933 sq. (ed. SCHMIDT Ratisbon, 1880; 2d ed., ibid., 1893) GASQUET, English Monastic Life (London, 1904); TAUNTON, the English Black Monks of St. Benedict (London, 1898); IDEM, The Law of the Church (St. Louis, 1906); DIGBY, Mores Catholici; The Ages of Faith (London, 1845 reprint, New York, 1906 Bk. X, vol. III); MONTALEMBERT, The Monks of the West from St. Benedict to St. Bernard (ed. GASQUET, New York 1896) DOYLE, The Teaching of St. Benedict (London, 1887), DUGDALE, Monasticon (London, 1817) MABILLON, Annales Ordinis S. Benedicti (Lucca, 1739), I, ii; THOMASSIN, Vetus et Nova Eccl. Discipl. (Mainz, 1787) MARTÈNE, De Antiq. Eccl. Ritibus (Bassano, 1788), II; Du CANGE, Gloss. Med. et Infim. Latinit., s. v. Abbas; FERRARIS, Prompta Bibl. Can. (Rome, 1885) TAMBURINI, De Jure et Privileg. Abbat. Praelat. (Cologne, 1691) FAGNANI, Jus Canon., s. Commentaria in V Libros Decretalium (ibid., 1704) LUCIDI, De Visitatione Sacrorum Liminum (Rome, 1878); BESSE, Les moines d orient (Paris, 1900); CHAMARD, Abbés au moyen âge, in Rev. des questions historiques (1885), XXXVIII, 71–108 BESSE, in Dict. d’archéol. chrét. (Paris, 1903) LANGOGNE, in Dict. de théol. cath., s.v. Abbés (Paris, 1905) SÄGMÜLLER, Lehrb. des kathol. Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1905) HERGENR THER-HOLWECK, Lehrb. des kathol. Kirchenrechts (ibid. 1905); HEUSER in Kirchenlex., s.v. Abt (2d ed., ibid., 1882) For an extensive bibliography, see SCHERER, Handbuch des Kirchenrechts (Gratz, 1886), II, 729 sq. 753.

THOMAS OESTREICH

Henry Abbot

Layman, martyred at York, 4 July, 1597, pronounced Venerable in 1886. His acts are thus related by Challoner:

A certain Protestant minister, for some misdemeanour put into York Castle, to reinstate himself in the favour of his superiors, insinuated himself into the good opinion of the Catholic prisoners, by pretending a deep sense of repentance, and a great desire of embracing the Catholic truth . . . So they directed him, after he was enlarged, to Mr. Henry Abbot, a zealous convert who lived in Holden in the same country, to procure a priest to reconcile him . . . Mr. Abbot carried him to Carlton to the house of Esquire Stapleton, but did not succeed in finding a priest. Soon after, the traitor having got enough to put them all in danger of the law, accused them to the magistrates . . . They confessed that they had explained to him the Catholic Faith, and upon this they were all found guilty and sentenced to die.

The others, Errington, Knight, and Gibson, were executed on 29 November, 1596; Abbot was reprieved till the next July.

PATRICK RYAN

Methods of Abbreviation

The use of abbreviations is due, in part, to exigencies arising from the nature of the materials employed in the making of records, whether stone, marble, bronze, or parchment. Lapidaries engravers, and copyists are under the same necessity of making the most of the space at their disposal. Such abbreviations, indeed, are seldom met with at the beginning of the Christian era material of all kinds was plentiful and there was consequently, no need to be sparing in the use of it. By the third or fourth century, however, it had grown to be scarce and costly, and it became the artist’s aim to inscribe long texts on surfaces of somewhat scanty proportions. We shall not pause here to discuss the use of abbreviations in ordinary writing. The Romans possessed an alphabet known by the name of Notae Tironienses, which served the same purpose as our modern systems of Stenography. Its use necessitated a special course of study and there is still much uncertainty as to the significance of the characters employed.

It is when we come to consider the subject of inscriptions cut in stone that we find the most frequent use of abbreviations. At certain late periods for example, in Spain in the Middle Ages this custom becomes abused to such an extent as to result in the invention of symbols which are undecipherable. In the best period of epigraphy certain rules are strictly observed. The abbreviations in common use fall under two chief heads:

The reduction of the word to its initial letter;

The reduction of a word to its first letters in a bunch or to several letters taken at intervals in the body a the word and set side by aide.

This latter arrangement is almost conclusively Christian, whereas in heathen inscriptions the number of letters left in the abbreviation is more or less limited, yet no intermediate letter is omitted. The following readings may be noted: PON., PONT., PONTF., for Pontifex; DP., DEP., DPS., for Depositus; MCP for Municipii. Occasionally a phrase which has become stale by constant use and has grown into a formula, is rarely found in any other form than that of its abbreviation e.g. D.M. for Diis Manibus, IHS for Jesus, just as we have kept R.I.P. for requiescat in pace. Lastly a whole epitaph is often met with on tombs where the husband’s epitaph to his wife takes the following form: DE qua N(ullum) D(olorem) A(cceperat) N(isi) M(ortis). Another form of Abbreviation consisted in doubling the last consonant of the word to be shortened as many times as there were persons alluded to, e.g. AVG for Augustus, AVGG for Augusti duo. Stone cutters however, soon began to take liberties with this rule, and, instead of Putting COSS for Consulibus duobus, invented the form CCSS. Still, when there was occasion to refer to three or four people this doubling of the last consonant gave way of necessity, in abbreviations, to the simple sign of the plural. A horizontal line over a letter or set of letters was also much used, and was destined indeed, to become almost universal in the Middle Ages. There is never any difficulty in settling the date of monuments where this sign of abbreviation occurs; the undulating line, or one curved at each end and rising in the middle only came into use at a comparatively late period.

Certain marks of Abbreviation have had so widespread a use as to merit special note. The ancient liturgical manuscripts which contain recensions of Masses, and are known as Sacramentaries all have the letters VD at the beginning of the Preface, set side by side and joined by a transverse bar. Mabillon interprets this monogram as being that of the formula, “Vere dignum et justum est, aequum et salutare,” an interpretation which is certainly the correct one. According to the various manuscripts, the monogram stands for the words vere dignum, or else for the whole formula; in the majority of instances the letters VD stand for the phrase Vere dignum et Justum est, which is followed by the rest of the context, oequum et, etc. In a large number of manuscripts these letters VD have fired the imagination of illuminators And copyists. It is however, impossible to enter into a general description of the subject. Under a growth of arabesques of foliage, of fancies of all kinds the outline of the two letters is sometimes hard to distinguish. The symbol encroaches more and more, and grows from a mere initial into an ornamental page. The essential type varies little, though variants of some importance are met with. It was inevitable that medieval writers should build a whole system of mysticism and allegory on the VD of the Preface. John Beleth rector of the theological school at Pads, devised an interpretation which found acceptance. The D, he wrote, a letter completely closed, signifies the Godhead, Which has neither beginning nor end; the half open V means the Manhood of Christ, which had a beginning, but has no end; the bar which intersects the upright lines of the VD and forms a cross, teaches us that the cross makes us fit for the life of God. Fancies of the same kind are to be found in Sicardus of Cremona and in Durandus of Mende. Various manuscripts contain hundreds of variable prefaces; the initial letters however are not drawn on a uniform pattern and tie chief attempts at ornamentation are invariably confined to the Praefatio Communis immediately preceding the Canon of the Mass. The first two letters of the Canon TE have also been made the theme of various decorations, though less curious and less varied than those above referred to.

A word may be said concerning the abbreviation D.O.M., sometimes seen over the doors of our churches and which whatever may be said to the contrary, has never been a Christian symbol. The formula in full is Deo Optimo Maximo and referred originally Jupiter. The abbreviation, IHV, is found on a great number of different objects: ancient gems, coins, epitaphs, dedications and diplomas. The symbol IHS was destined to endure for many ages, but it is only since the time of St. Bernardine of Sienna that it has come into such widespread use. It is impossible, with the information available, to say whether it is of Greek or Latin origin. Lastly, the abbreviation, XM(GAMMA), meaning, Christon Maria genna is often found on monuments of eastern origin.

LECLERCQ, in Dict. d arch ol. chr t. et de liturgie, I, 155–183, s.v.; MURATORI, Novus thesaurus veterum inscriptionum (Milan, 1739); DE ROSSI, Inscr. christ. urb. Romae (Rome, 1861); DUCHESNE, Origines du culte chr tien (Paris, 1898); ZELL, Handbuch der r mischen Epigraphik, 1850–57.

H. LECLERCQ

Ecclesiastical Abbreviations

The words most commonly abbreviated at all times are proper names, titles (official or customary), of persons or corporations, and words of frequent occurrence. A good list of those used in Roman Republican and early Imperial times may be seen in Egbert’s Latin Inscriptions (New York, 1896), 417–459. The Jewish scribes and Talmudic scholars also had frequent recourse to abbreviations.

Between the seventh and ninth centuries the ancient Roman system of abbreviations gave way to a more difficult one that gradually grew up in the monastic houses and in the chanceries of the new Teutonic kingdoms. Merovingian, Lombard, and Anglo-Saxon scripts offer each their own abbreviations, not to speak of the unique scotica manus or libri scottice scripti (Irish hand, or books written in the medieval Irish hand). Eventually such productive centres of technical manuscripts as the Papal Chancery, the theological schools of Paris and Oxford, and the civil-law school of Bologna set the standards of abbreviations for all Europe. The medieval manuscripts abound in abbreviations, owing in part to the abandonment of the uncial, or quasi-uncial, and the almost universal use of the cursive, hand. The medieval writer inherited a few from Christian antiquity; others he invented or adapted, in order to save time and parchment. They are found especially in manuscripts of scholastic theology and canon law, annals and chronicles, the Roman law, and in administrative documents, civil and privileges, bulls, rescripts). They multiplied with time, and were never so numerous as on the eve of the discovery of printing; many of the early printed books offer this peculiarity, together with other characteristics of the manuscript page. The development of printing brought about the abandonment of many abbreviations, while it suggested and introduced new ones a process also favoured by the growth of ecclesiastical legislation, the creation of new offices, etc. There was less medieval abbreviation in the text of books much used on public occasions, e.g. missals, antiphonaries, bibles; in one way or another the needs of students seem to have been the chief cause of the majority of medieval abbreviations. The means of abbreviation were usually full points or dots (mostly in Roman antiquity), the semicolon (eventually conventionalized), lines (horizontal, perpendicular, oblong, wavy curves, and commas). Vowel-sounds were frequently written not after, but over, the consonants. Certain letters, like p and q, that occur with extreme. frequency, e.g. in prepositions and terminations, became the source of many peculiar abbreviations; similarly, frequently recurring words like et (and), est (is).

Habit and convenience are today the principal motives for using abbreviations. Most of those in actual use fall under one or other of the following heads:

I. Administrative;

II. Liturgical;

III. Scholastic;

IV. Chronological.

I. The first class of abbreviations includes those used in the composition of Pontifical documents. They were once very numerous, and lists of them may be seen in the works quoted below (e.g. Quantin, Prou). It may be well to state at once that since 29 December, 1878, by order of Leo XIII, the great papal documents (Litterae Apostolicae) are no longer written in the old Gothic hand known as bollatico; all abbreviations, with the exception of a few obvious ones, like S.R.E., were abolished by the same authority (Acta S. Sedis, XI, 465–467). In the transaction of ordinary business the Roman Congregations are wont to use certain brief and pithy formulas (e.g. Negative = “No”; Negative et amplius = “No with emphasis”). They are not, correctly speaking, abbreviations. For a list of these see CANON LAW. This class includes also the abbreviations for the names of most sees. The full Latin titles of all existing (Latin) dioceses may be seen in the Roman annual, “Gerarchia Cattolica,” a complete list of the Latin names of all known dioceses (extant or extinct) is found in the large folio work of the Comte de Mas Latrie, “Trésor de chronologie, d’histoire et de géographie” (Paris, 1884). For the same purpose the reader may also consult the episcopal catalogues of the Benedictine Gams, “Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae” (Ratisbon, 1873–86), and the Franciscan Conrad Eubel, “Hierarchia Catholica Medii Ævi” (Münster, 1898–1902). Under this general heading may be included all abbreviated forms of addresses in ordinary intercourse, whether of individuals or of members of religious orders, congregations, institutes, to which may be added the forms of addresses usual for members of Catholic lay societies and the Papal orders of merit. (See CATHOLIC SOCIETIES, ORDERS OF MERIT.) The abbreviations of the titles of Roman Congregations, and of the individual canonical ecclesiastical authorities, belong also to this class.

II. A second class of abbreviations includes those used in the description of liturgical acts or the directions for their performance, e.g. the Holy Mass. the Divine Office (Breviary), the ecclesiastical devotions, etc. Here may also be classed the abbreviated forms for the name of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost; also for the names of the Blessed Virgin, the saints, etc.; likewise abbreviations used in the administration of the Sacraments, mortuary epitaphs, etc. (to which class belong the numerous Catacomb inscriptions); finally some miscellaneous abbreviations like those used in the publication of documents concerning beatification and canonization.

III. In the third class belong scholastic abbreviations, used to designate honorific titles acquired in the schools, to avoid the repetition of lengthy titles of books and reviews, or to facilitate reference to ecclesiastical and civil legislation.

IV. In the fourth class of abbreviations belong all such as are used to describe the elements of the year, civil or ecclesiastical.

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN APOSTOLIC RESCRIPTS

Absoluo.—Absolutio (“Absolution”)

Alr.—Aliter (“Otherwise”)

Aplica.—Apostolica (“Apostolic”)

Appatis.—Approbatis (“Having been approved”)

Archiepus.—Archiepiscopus (“Archbishop”)

Aucte.—Auctoritate (“By the Authority”)

Canice.—Canonice (“Canonically”)

Card.—Cardinalis (“Cardinal”)

Cens.—Censuris (“Censures”—abl. or dat. case)

Circumpeone.—Circumspectione (“Circumspection”—abl. case)

Coione.—Communione (“Communion”—abl. case)

Confeone.—Confessione (“Confession”—abl. case)

Consciae.—Conscientiae (“Of [or to] conscience”)

Constbus—Constitutionibus (“Constitutions”—abl. or dat. case)

Discreoni.—Discretioni (“To the Discretion”)

Dispensao.—Dispensatio (“Dispensation”)

Dnus—Dominus (“Lord,” “Sir,” or “Mr.”)

Ecclae.—Ecclesiae (“Of [or to] the Church”)

Ecclis.—Ecclesiasticis (“Ecclesiastical”)

Effum.—Effectum (“Effect”)

Epus.—Episcopus (“Bishop”)

Excoe.—Excommunicatione (“Excommunication”—abl. case)

Exit.—Existit (“Exists”)

Fr.—Frater (“Brother”)

Frum.—Fratrum (“Of the Brothers”)

Gnalis—Generalis (“General”)

Humil.—Humiliter (“Humbly”)

Humoi.—Hujusmodi (“Of this kind”)

Igr.—Igitur (“Therefore”)

Infraptum.—Infrascriptum (“Written below”)

Intropta.—Introscripta (“Written within”)

Irregulte.—Irregularitate (“Irregularity”—abl. case)

Lia.—Licentia (“License”)

Litma.—Legitima (“Lawful”)

Lre.—Litterae (“Letters”)

Lte.—Licite (“Lawfully,” or “licitly”)

Magro.—Magistro (“Master”—dat. or abl. case)

Mir.—Misericorditer (“Mercifully”)

Miraone.—Miseratione (“Pity”—abl. case)

Mrimonium.—Matrimonium (“Matrimony”)

Nultus.—Nullatenus (“Nowise”)

Ordinaoni.—Ordinationi (“Ordination”—dat. case)

Ordio.—Ordinario (“Ordinary”—dat. or abl. case)

Pbr.—Presbyter (“Priest”)

Penia.—Poenitentia (“Penance,” or “repentance”)

Peniaria.—Poenitentiaria (“Penitentiary”; i.e. Bureau of the Apostolic Penitentiary)

Pntium.—Praesentium (“Of those present,” or, “Of this present writing”)

Poe.—Posse (“To be able,” or, “The ability to do a thing”)

Pontus.—Pontificatus (“Pontificate”)

PP.—Papa (“Pope”)

Pr.—Pater (“Father”)

Pror.—Procurator

Ptur.—Praefertur (“Is preferred,” or, “Is brought forward”)

Ptus.—Praefatus (“Aforesaid”)

Qd.—Quod (“Because,” “That,” or, “Which”)

Qmlbt.—Quomodolibet (“In any manner whatsoever”)

Qtnus.—Quatenus (“In so far as”)

Relione.—Religione (“Religion,” or, “Religious Order”—abl. case)

Rlari.—Regulari (“Regular”)

Roma.—Romana (“Roman”)

Salri.—Salutari (“Salutary”)

Snia.—Sententia (“Opinion”)

Sntae., Stae.—Sanctae (“Holy,” or, “Saints”—feminine)

Spealer. Specialiter (“Specially”)

Spualibus Spiritualibus (“In spiritual matters”)

Supplioni. Supplicationibus (“Supplication”—dat. or abl. case)

Thia, Theolia. Theologia (“Theology”)

Tli. Tituli (“Titles”)

Tm.—Tantum (“So much,” or, “Only”)

Tn.—Tamen (“Nevertheless”)

Venebli—Venerabili (“Venerable”)

Vrae.—Vestrae (“Your”)

ABBREVIATIONS IN GENERAL USE, CHIEFLY ECCLESIASTICAL

A.B.—Artium Baccalaureus (“Bachelor of Arts”)

Ab.—Abbas (“Abbot”)

Abp.—Archbishop

Abs.—Absens (“Absent”)

A.C.—Auditor Camerae (Auditor of the Papal Treasury)

AC—Ante Christum (“Before Christ”)

ACN—Ante Christum Natum (“Before the Birth of Christ”)

A.D.—Anno Domini (“Year of Our Lord”)

A.D.—ante diem (“The day before”)

Adm. Rev.—Admodum Reverendus (“Very Reverend”)

Adv.—Adventus (“Advent”)

Alb.—Albus (“White”—Breviary)

al.—alii, alibi, alias (“others,” “elsewhere,” “otherwise”)

A.M.—Anno Mundi (“Year of the World”)

A.M.—Artium Magister (“Master of Arts”)

A.M.D.G.—Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam (“For the greater glory of God”)

An.—Annus (“Year”)

Ann.—Anni (“Years”)

Ana, Ant.—Antiphon

Apost.—Apostolus (“Apostle”)

Ap. Sed.—Apostolica Sedes (“Apostolic See”)

Ap. Sed. Leg.—Apostolicae Sedis Legatus (“Legate of the Apostolic See”)

Archiep.—Archiepiscopus (“Archbishop”)

Archid.—Archidiaconus (“Archdeacon”)

Archiprb.—Archipresbyter (“Archpriest”)

A.R.S.—Anno Reparatae Salutis (“In the year of Our Redemption”)

A.U.—Alma Urbs (“Beloved City”—i.e., Rome)

Authen.—Authentica (“Authentic”—e.g. letters)

Aux.—Auxilium, Auxilio (“Help,” “With the help of”)

B.A.—Baccalaureus Artium (“Bachelor of Arts”)

B. BB.—Beatus, Beati (“Blessed”)

B.C.—Before Christ

B.C.L.—Baccalaureus Civilis [or Canonicae] Legis (“Bachelor of Civil [or Canon] Law”)

B.D.—Bachelor of Divinity

B.F.—Bona Fide (“In Good Faith”)

Ben.—Benedictio (“Blessing”)

Benevol.—Benevolentia (“Benevolence”)

Bon. Mem.—Bonae Memoriae (“Of Happy Memory”)

B.P.—Beatissime Pater (“Most Holy Father”)

Bro.—Brother

B. Se.—Baccalaureus Scientiarum (“Bachelor of Sciences”)

B.U.J.—Baccalaureus Utriusque Juris (“Bachelor of Both Laws”—i.e., civil and canon)

B.T.—Baccalaureus Theologiae (“Bachelor of Theology”)

B.V.—Beatitudo Vestra (“Your Holiness”)

B.V.—Beata Virgo (“Blessed Virgin”)

B.V.M.—Beata Virgo Maria (“Blessed Virgin Mary”)

Cam.—Camera (Papal Treasury)

Cam. Ap.—Camera Apostolica (“Apostolic Camera”—i.e. Papal Treasury)

Can.—Canonicus

Canc.—Cancellarius (“Chancellor”)

Cap.—Capitulum (“Little Chapter”—Breviary)

Cap. de seq.—Capitulum de Sequenti (“Little chapter of the following feast”—Breviary)

Capel.—Capella (“Chapel”)

Caus.—Causa (“Cause”)

C.C.—Curatus (“Curate”—used chiefly in Ireland)

CC. VV.—Clarissimi Viri (“Illustrious Men”)

Cen. Eccl.—Censura Ecclesiastica (“Ecclesiastical Censure”)

Cla.—Clausula (“Clause”)

Cl., Clico.—Clericus, Clerico (“Cleric”)

Clun.—Cluniacenses (“Monks of Cluny”)

C.M.—Causa Mortis (“On occasion of death”)

Cod.—Codex (Manuscript)

Cog. Leg.—Cognatio Legalis (“Legal Cognation”)

Cog. Spir.—Cognatio Spiritualis (“Spiritual Cognation”)

Coll. Cone.—Collectio Conciliorum (“Collection of the Councils”)

Comm. Prec.—Commemoratio Praecedentis (“Commemoration of the preceding feast”—Breviary)

Comm. Seq.—Commemoratio Sequentis (“Commemoration of the following feast”—Breviary)

Compl.—Completorium (“Compline”—Breviary)

Con.—Contra (“against”)

Cone.—Concilium (“Council”)

Conf.—Confessor

Conf. Doct.—Confessor et Doctor (Breviary)

Conf. Pont.—Confessor Pontifex (“Confessor and Bishop”—Breviary)

Cons.—Consecratio (“Consecration”)

Consecr.—Consecratus (“Consecrated”)

Const. Ap.—Constitutio Apostolica (“Apostolic Constitution”)

Cr.—Credo (“Creed”—Breviary)

D.—Dominus (“Lord”)

d.—dies (“day”)

D.C.L.—Doctor Civilis [or Canonicae] Legis (“Doctor of Civil [or Canon] Law”)

D.D.—Doctores (“Doctors”)

D.D.—Donum dedit; Dedicavit (“Gave,” “dedicated”)

D.D.—Doctor Divinitatis (“Doctor of Divinity”—i.e. Theology)

Dec.—Decanus (“Dean”)

Def.—Defunctus (“Deceased”)

D.G.—Dei Gratia (“By the Grace of God”)

D.N.—Dominus Noster (“Our Lord”)

D.N.J.C.—Dominus Noster Jesus Christus (“Our Lord Jesus Christ”)

DN, DNS, DNUS—Dominus (“Lord”)

Doct.—Doctor (Breviary)

Dom.—Dominica (“Sunday”)

D.O.M.—Deo Optimo Maximo (“To God, the Best and Greatest”)

Doxol.—Doxologia (“Doxology”—Breviary)

D.R.—Decanus Ruralis (“Rural Dean”)

DS—Deus (“God”)

D.Se.—Doctor Scientiarum (“Doctor of Sciences”)

D.V.—Deo Volente (“God willing”)

Dupl.—Duplex (“Double feast”—Breviary)

Dupl. Maj.—Duplex Major (“Double Major feast”)

Dupl. I. Cl.—Duplex Primae Classis (“Double First Class feast”—Breviary)

Dupl. II. Cl.—Duplex Secundae Classis (“Double Second Class feast”—Breviary)

Eccl.—Ecclesiasticus (“Ecclesiastic”)

E., Eccl.—Ecclesia (“The Church”)

El.—Electio, Electus (“Election,” “Elect”)

Emus—Eminentissimus (“Most Eminent”)

EPS, EP., Episc.—Episcopus (“Bishop”)

Et.—Etiam (“Also, Even”)

Evang.—Evangelium (“Gospel”—Breviary)

Ex.—Extra (“Outside of”)

Exe.—Excommunicatus, Excommunicatio (“Excommunicated, Excommunication”)

Fel. Mem.—Felicis Memoriae (“Of Happy Memory”)

Fel. Rec.—Felicis Recordationis (“Of Happy Memory”)

Fer.—Feria (“Weekday”)

Fr., F.—Frater, Frere (“Brother”)

Fund.—Fundatio (“Foundation”)

Gen.—Generalis (“General”)

Gl.—Gloria (“Glory to God,” etc.)

Gr.—Gratia (“Grace”)

Grad.—Gradus (“Grade”)

Grat.—Gratias (“Thanks”); or Gratis (“Without expense”)

hebd.—Hebdomada (“Week”)

Hom.—Homilia (“Homily”—Breviary)

hor.—hora (“hour”)

IC—Jesus (first and third letters of His name in Greek)

Id.—Idus (“Ides”)

Igr.—Igitur (“Therefore”)

I.H.S.—Iesus Hominum Salvator (“Jesus Saviour of Men”—usual interpretation). Really a faulty Latin transliteration of the first three letters of JESUS in Greek (IHS for IHC).

Ind.—Indictio (“Indiction”)

Ind.—Index

Inq.—Inquisitio (“Inquisition”)

i.p.i.—in partibus infidelium (“among the infidels”)

Is.—Idus (“Ides”)

J.C.—Jesus Christus (“Jesus Christ”)

J.C.D.—Juris Canonici Doctor, Juris Civilis Doctor (“Doctor of Canon Law,” “Doctor of Civil Law”)

J.D.—Juris Doctor (“Doctor of Law”)

J.M.J.—Jesus, Maria, Joseph (“Jesus, Mary, Joseph”)

Jo., Joann.—Joannes (“John”)

J.U.D.—Juris Utriusque Doctor (“Doctor of Both Laws”—Civil and Canon)

Jud.—Judicium (“Judgment”)

J.U.L.—Juris Utriusque Licentiatus (“Licentiate of Both Laws”)

Jur.—Juris (“Of Law”)

Kal.—Kalendae (“Calends”)

Laic.—Laicus (“Layman”)

Laud.—Laudes (“Lauds”—Breviary)

L.C.D.—Legis Civilis Doctor (“Doctor of Civil Law”)

1.c.; loc. cit.—Loco citato (“at the place already cited”)

Lect.—Lectio (“Lesson”)

Legit.—Legitime, Legitimus (“Legally,” “legitimate”)

L.H.D.—Litterarum Humaniorum Doctor (“Doctor of Literature”)

Lib., Lo.—Liber, Libro (“Book,” “In the book”)

Lic.—Licentia, Licentiatus (“License,” “Licentiate”)

Litt.—Littera (“Letter”)

LL.B.—Legum Baccalaureus (“Bachelor of Laws”)

LL.D.—Legum Doctor (“Doctor of Laws”)

LL.M.—Legum Magister (“Master of Laws”)

Loc.—Locus (“Place”)

Lov.—Lovanium (“Louvain”)

Lovan.—Lovanienses (Theologians of Louvain)

L.S.—Loco Sigilli (“Place of the Seal”)

Lud.—Ludovicus

M.—Maria (“Mary”)

M.A.—Magister Artium (“Master of Arts”)

Mag.—Magister (“Master”)

Mand.—Mandamus (“We command”)

Mand. Ap.—Mandatum Apostolicum (“Apostolic Mandate,” e.g. for a bishop’s consecration)

Mart., M., MM.—Martyr, Martyres (“Martyr,” “Martyrs”—Breviary)

Mat.—Matutinum (“Matins”—Breviary)

Matr.—Matrimonum (“Marriage”)

Mgr.—Monseigneur, Monsignore (“My Lord”)

Miss.—Missa (“Mass”—Breviary); Missionarius (“Missionary”)

Miss. Apost., M.A.—Missionarius Apostolicus (“Missionary Apostolic”)

M.R.—Missionarius Rector (“Missionary Rector”)

m.t.v.—mutatur terminatio versiculi (“the termination of the little verse is changed”—Breviary)

Nativ. D.N.J.C.—Nativitas Domini Nostri Jesu Christi (“Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ”)

N. D.—Nostra Domina, Notre Dame (“Our Lady”)

Nigr.—Niger (“Black”—Breviary)

No.—Nobis (“to us,” “for us”)

Nob.—Nobilis, Nobiles (“Noble,” “Nobles”)

Noct.—Nocturnum (“Nocturn”)

Non.—Nonae (“Nones”)

Nostr.—Noster, nostri (“Our,” “of our”)

Not.—Notitia (“Knowledge”)

N.S.—Notre Seigneur, Nostro Signore (“Our Lord”)

N.S.—New Style

N.T.—Novum Testamentum (“New Testament”)

Ntri.—Nostri (“Of our”)

Nup.—Nuptiae (“Nuptials”)

Ob.—Obiit (“Died”)

Oct.—Octava (“Octave”—Breviary)

Omn.—Omnes, Omnibus (“All,” “to all”)

Op. Cit.—Opere Citato (“In the work cited”)

Or.—Oratio (“Prayer”—Breviary)

Ord.—Ordo, Ordinatio, Ordinarius (“Order,” “Ordination,” “Ordinary”)

Or. Orat.—Orator (“Petitioner”), Oratorium (“Oratory”)

O.S.—Old Style

O.T.—Old Testament

Oxon.—Oxonium, Oxonienses (“Oxford,” “Theologians or Scholars of Oxford”)

P.—Pater, Pere (“Father”)

Pa.—Papa (“Pope”); Pater (“Father”)

Pact.—Pactum (“Agreement”)

Pasch.—Pascha (“Easter”—Breviary)

Patr.—Patriarcha (“Patriarch”)

Pent.—Pentecostes (“Pentecost”—Breviary)

Ph.B.—Philosophiae Baccalaureus (“Bachelor of Philosophy”)

Ph.D.—Philosophiae Doctor (“Doctor of Philosophy”)

Phil.—Philosophia (“Philosophy”)

Ph.M.—Philosophiae Magister (“Master of Philosophy”)

P.K.—Pridie Kalendas (“The day before the Calends”)

Poenit.—Poenitentia (“Penance”)

Poenit. Ap.—Poenitentiaria Apostolica (“Office of the Apostolic Penitentiary”)

Pont.—Pontifex (“Pontiff,” i.e. Bishop—Breviary)

Pont.—Pontificatus (“Pontificate”)

Pont. Max.—Pontifex Maximus (“Supreme Pontiff”)

Poss.—Possessor, Possessio (“Possessor,” “Possession”)

PP.—Papa (“Pope”); Pontificum (“Of the popes”)

P.P.—Parochus (“Parish Priest”—used mostly in Ireland)

PP. AA.—Patres Amplissimi (“Cardinals”)

P.P.P.—Propria Pecunia Posuit (“Erected at his own expense”)

P.R.—Permanens Rector (“Permanent Rector”)

Praef.—Praefatio (“Preface” of the Mass—Breviary)

Presbit.—Presbyter, Priest

Prof.—Professus, Professio, Professor (“Professed,” “Profession,” “Professor”)

Prop. Fid.—Propaganda Fide (Congregation of the Propaganda, Rome)

Propr.—Proprium (“Proper”—Breviary)

Prov.—Provisio, Provisum (“Provision,” “Provided”)

Ps.—Psalmus (“Psalm”)

Pub., Publ.—Publicus, Publice (“Public,” “Publicly”)

Purg. Can.—Purgatio Canonica (“Canonical Disculpation”)

Quadrag.—Quadragesima (“Lent,” also the “Fortieth day” before Easter—Breviary)

Quinquag.—Quinquagesima (The “Fiftieth day” before Easter—Breviary)

R.—Responsorium (“Responsory”—Breviary)

R.—Roma (Rome)

Rescr.—Rescriptum (“Rescript”)

R.D.—Rural Dean

Req.—Requiescat (“May he [or she] rest,” i.e. in peace)

Resp.—Responsum (“Reply”)

R.I.P.—Requiescat In Pace (“May he or she rest in peace”)

Rit.—Ritus (“Rite,” “Rites”)

Rom.—Romanus, Romana (“Roman”)

R. P.—Reverendus Pater, Reverend Pere (“Reverend Father”)

RR.—Rerum (“Of Things, Subjects”—e.g. SS. RR. Ital., Writers on Italian [historical] subjects); Regesta

Rt. Rev.—Right Reverend

Rub.—Ruber (“Red”—Breviary)

Rubr.—Rubrica (“Rubric”)

S., Sacr.—Sacrum (“Sacred”)

Sab., Sabb.—Sabbatum (“Sabbath,” Saturday)

Saec.—Saeculum (Century)

Sal.—Salus, Salutis (“Salvation,” “of Salvation”)

Salmant.—Salmanticenses (Theologians of Salamanca)

S.C.—Sacra Congregatio (“Sacred Congregation”)

S.C.C.—Sacra Congregatio Concilii (“Sacred Congregation of the Council,” i.e. of Trent)

S.C.EE.RR.—Sacra Congregatio Episcoporum et Regularium (“Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars”)

S.C.I.—Sacra Congregatio Indicis (“Sacred Congregation of the Index”)

S.C.P.F.—Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (“Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith”)

SCS—Sanctus (“Saint”)

s.d.—sine datâ (undated book)

S.D.—Servus Dei (Servant of God)

Semid.—Semiduplex (“Semi” double feast—Breviary)

Septuag—Septuagesima (“Seventieth day” before Easter; always a Sunday—Breviary)

Sexag.—Sexagesima (“Sixtieth day” before Easter—Breviary)

Sig.—Sigillum (“Seal”)

Simpl.—Simplex (“Simple” feast—Breviary)

Sine Com.—Sine Commemoratione (“Without commemoration” of other feast, or feasts—Breviary)

s.1.—sine loco (“without indication” of place of printing)

s.1.n.d.—sine loco nec data (“without indication of place” or “without date of printing”)

S.M.—Sanctae Memoriae (“Of Holy Memory”)

Soc.—Socius, Socii (“Companion,” “Companions”—Breviary)

S. Off.—Sanctum Officium (Congregation of the Holy Office, Inquisition)

S.P.—Sanctissime Pater (“Most Holy Father”)

S.P., S. Petr.—Sanctus Petrus (“St. Peter”)

S.P.—Summus Pontifex (“Supreme Pontiff,” Pope)

S.P.A.—Sacrum Palatium Apostolicum (“Sacred Apostolic Palace,” Vatican, Quirinal)

Sr.—Sister

S.R.C.—Sacra Rituum Congregatio (“Sacred Congregation of Rites”)

S.R.E.—Sancta Romana Ecclesia, Sanctae Romanae Ecclesia (“Most Holy Roman Church”; or, “of the Most Holy Roman Church”)

SS.—Scriptores (“Writers”)

SS.D.N.—Sanctissimus Dominus Noster (“Our Most Holy Lord [Jesus Christ],” also a title of the Pope)

S., SS.—Sanctus, Sancti (“Saint,” “Saints”)

S.T.B.—Sacrae Theologiae Baccalaureus (“Bachelor of Sacred Theology”)

S.T.D.—Sacred Theologiae Doctor (“Doctor of Sacred Theology”)

S.T.L.—Sacrae Theologiae Licentiatus (“Licentiate of Sacred Theology”)

Suffr.—Suffragia (“Suffrages”—i.e. prayers of the saints; Breviary)

S.V.—Sanctitas Vestra (“Your Holiness”)

Syn.—Synodus (“Synod”)

Temp.—Tempus, Tempore (“Time,” “in time”)

Test.—Testes, Testimonium (“Witnesses,” “Testimony”)

Theol.—Theologia (“Theology”)

Tit.—Titulus, Tituli (“Title,” “Titles”)

Ult.—Ultimo (“Last”—day, month, year)

Usq.—Usque (“As far as”)

Ux.—Uxor (“Wife”)

V., Ven., VV.—Venerabilis, Venerabiles (“Venerable”)

V., Vest.—Vester (“Your”)

Vac.—Vacat, Vacans (“Vacant”)

Val.—Valor (“Value”)

Vat.—Vaticanus (“Vatican”)

Vba.—Verba (“Words”)

Vers.—Versiculus (“Versicle”—Breviary)

Vesp.—Vesperae (“Vespers”—Breviary)

V.F., Vic. For.—Vicarius Foraneus (“Vicar-Forane”)

V.G.—Vicarius Generalis (“Vicar-General”)

Vid.—Vidua (“Widow”—Breviary)

Vid., Videl.—Videlicet (“Namely”)

Vig.—Vigilia (“Vigil” of a feast—Breviary)

Viol.—Violaceus (“Violet”—Breviary)

Virg.—Virgo (“Virgin”—Breviary)

Virid.—Viridis (“Green”—Breviary)

V.M.—Vir Magnificus (“Great Man”)

V. Rev.—Very Reverend

V.T.—Vetus Testamentum

XC., XCS.—Christus (“Christ”—first, middle, and last letters of the Greek name)

ABBREVIATIONS IN CATACOMB INSCRIPTIONS

A.D.—Ante Diem (e.g. in the phrase, “Ante Diem VI [or Sextum] Kal. Apriles,” is equivalent to the sixth day before the Calends of April, counting both the Calends and the day intended to be indicated); or Anima Dulcis (“Sweet Soul”)

A.Q.I.C.—Anima Quiescat In Christo (“May his [or her] Soul Repose in Christ”)

B., BMT.—Bene Merenti (“To the Well-Deserving”)

B.M.—Bonae Memoriae (“Of Happy Memory”)

B.F.—Bonae Feminae (“To the Good Woman”)

B.I.C.—Bibas [for Vivas] In Christo (“May you Live In Christ”)

B.M.F.—Bene Merenti Fecit (“He erected this to the Well-Deserving”)

B.Q.—Bene Quiescat (“May he [or she] Rest Well”)

C.—Consul

CC.—Consules (“Consuls”)

C.F.—Clarissima Femina (“Most Illustrious Woman”)

Cl. V.—Clarissimus Vir (“Most Illustrious Man”)

C.O.—Conjugi Optimo (“To my Excellent Husband”)

C.O.B.Q.—Cum Omnibus Bonis Quiescat (“May he [or she] Repose With All Good souls”)

COI.—Conjugi (“To my Husband [or Wife]”)

CS., COS.—Consul

COSS.—Consules (“Consuls”)

C.P.—Clarissima Puella (“Most Illustrious Maiden”)

D.—Depositus (“Laid to rest”); or Dulcis (“Dear One”)

D.D.—Dedit, Dedicavit (“Gave,” “Dedicated”)

DEP.—Depositus (“Laid to rest”)

D.I.P.—Dormit In Pace (“Sleeps in Peace”)

D.M.—Diis Manibus (“To the Manes [of]”)

D.M.S.—Diis Manibus Sacrum (“Sacred to the Manes [of]”)

D.N.—Domino Nostro (“To Our Lord”)

DD. NN.—Dominis Nostris (“To Our Lords”)

E.V.—Ex Voto (“In Fulfilment of a Vow”)

EX. TM.—Ex Testamento (“In accordance with the Testament of”)

E VIV. DISC.—E Vivis Discessit (“Departed from Life”)

F.—Fecit (“Did”); or Filius (“Son”); or Feliciter (“Happily”)

F.C.—Fieri Curavit (“Caused to be made”)

F.F.—Fieri Fecit (“Caused to be made”)

FF.—Fratres (“Brothers”); Filii (“Sons”)

FS.—Fossor (“Digger”)

H.—Haeres (“Heir”); Hic (“Here”)

H.L.S.—Hoc Loco Situs (“Laid [or Put] in This Place”)

H.M.F.F.—Hoc Monumentum Fieri Fecit (“Caused This Monument to be Made”)

H.S.—Hic Situs (“Laid Here”)

ID.—Idibus (“On the Ides”)

IDNE.—Indictione (“In the Indiction”—a chronological term)

I.L.H.—Jus Liberorum Habens (“Possessing the Right of Children”—i.e., eligibility to public office under age)

INB.—In Bono (“In Good [odour]”)

IND.—Same as IDNE

INP—In Pace (“In Peace”)

I.X.—In Christo (“In Christ”)

K.—Kalendas (“Calends”); or Care, Carus, Cara (“Dear One”); or Carissimus[a] (“Dearest”)

K.B.M.—Karissimo Bene Merenti (“To the Most Dear and Well-deserving”)

L.—Locus (“Place”)

L.M.—Locus Monumenti (“Place of the Monument”)

L.S.—Locus Sepulchri (“Place of the Sepulchre”)

M.—Martyr, or Memoria (“Memory”) or Monumentum (“Monument”)

MM.—Martyres (“Martyrs”)

M.P.—Monumentum Posuit (“Erected a Monument”)

MRT.—Merenti (“To the Deserving”)

N.—Nonas (“Nones”); or Numero (“Number”)

NN.—Nostris (“To Our”—with a plural) or Numeri (“Numbers”)

O.—Hora (“Hour”); Obiit (“Died”)

OB. IN XTO.—Obiit In Christo (“Died In Christ”)

OMS.—Omnes (“All”)

OP.—Optimus (Excellent, or Supremely Good)

P.—Pax (“Peace”); or Pius (“Dutiful”); or Ponendum (“To be Placed”); or Pridie (“The Day Before”); or Plus (“More”)

P.C.—Poni Curavit (“Caused to be Placed”)

P.C., P. CONS.—Post Consulatum (“After the Consulate”)

P.I.—Poni Jussit (“Ordered to be Placed”)

p.m.—Plus Minus (“More or Less”); or Piae Memoriae (“Of Pious Memory”); or Post Mortem (“After Death”)

PP.—Praepositus (“Placed over”)

PR.K.—Pridie Kalendas (“The Day Before the Calends”)

PRB.—Presbyter (“Priest”)

PR.N.—Pridie Nonas (“The Day Before the Nones”)

P.T.C.S.—Pax Tibi Cum Sanctis (“Peace to Thee With the Saints”)

PZ.—Pie Zeses (“May you Live Piously”—Greek)

Q., Qui.—Quiescit (“He Rests”)

Q.B.AN.—Qui Bixit [for Vixit] Annos (“Who lived . . . years”)

Q.I.P.—Quiescat In Pace (“May he [or she] Rest in Peace”)

Q.V.—Qui Vixit (“Who Lived”)

R.—Requiescit (“He Rests”); or Refrigerio (“In [a place of] Refreshment”)

Reg.—Regionis (“Of the Region”)

S.—Suus (“His”); or Situs (“Placed”); or Sepulchrum (“Sepulchre”)

SC. M.—Sanctae Memoriae (“Of Holy Memory”)

SD.—Sedit (“He sat”)

SSA.—Subscripta (“Subscribed”)

S.I.D.—Spiritus In Deo (“Spirit [rests] in God”)

S.P.—Sepultus (“Buried”); or Sepulchrum (“Sepulchre”)

SS.—Sanctorum (Of the Saints)

S.V.—Sacra Virgo (“Holy Virgin”)

T., TT.—Titulus, Tituli (“Title,” “Titles”)

TM.—Testamentum (“Testament”)

V.—Vixit (“He Lived”); or Vixisti (“Thou didst Live”)

VB.—Vir Bonus (“A Good Man”)

V.C.—Vir Clarissimus (“A Most Illustrious Man”)

VV. CC.—Viri Clarissimi (“Most Illustrious Men”)

V.H.—Vir Honestus (“A Worthy Man”)

V. X.—Vivas, Care [or Cara] (“Mayest thou Live, Dear One”); or Uxor Carissima (“Most Dear Wife”)

X., XPC., XS.—Christus (“Christ”)

ABBREVIATIONS OF TITLES OF THE PRINCIPAL RELIGIOUS ORDERS AND CONGREGATIONS OF PRIESTS

A.A.—Augustiniani Assumptionis (Assumptionists)

A.B.A.—Antoniani Benedictini Armeni (Mechitarists)

C.J.M.—Congregation Jesu et Mariae (Eudist Fathers)

C.M.—Congregatio Missionis (Lazarists)

C.M.—Congregatio Mariae (Fathers of the Company of Mary)

C.P.—Congregatio Passionis (Passionists)

C.PP.S.—Congregatio Pretiosissimi Sanguinis (Fathers of the Most Precious Blood)

C.R.—Congregatio Resurrectionis (Resurrectionist Fathers)

C.R.C.S.—Clerici Regulares Congregationis Somaschae (Somaschi Fathers)

C.R.I.C.—Canonici Regulares Immaculate Conecptionis (“Canons Regular of the Immaculate Conception”)

C.R.L.—Canonici Regulares Lateranenses (“Canons Regular of the Lateran”)

C.R.M.—Clerici Regulares Minores (“Clerks Regular Minor,” Mariani)

C.R.M.D.—Clerici Regulares Matris Dei (“Clerks Regular of the Mother of God”)

C.R.M.I.—Clerici Regulares Ministrantes Infirmis (“Clerks Regular Attendant on the Sick,” Camillini, Camilliani)

C.R.P.—Congregatio Reformatorum Praemonstratensium (Premonstratensians)

C.R.S.P.—Clerici Regulares Sancti Pauli (Barnabites)

C.R.S.P.—Clerici Regulares Pauperum Matris Dei Scholarum Piarum (“Clerks Regular of the Poor Men of the Mother of God for Pious Schools,” Piarists)

C.R.T.—Clerici Regulares Theatini (Theatines)

C.S.B.—Congregatio Sancti Basilii (Basilians)

C.S.C.—Congregatio Sanctae Crucis (Fathers and Brothers of the Holy Cross)

C.S.P.—Congregatio Sancti Pauli (Paulists)

C.S.Sp.—Congregatio Sancti Spiritus (Fathers of the Holy Ghost)

C.S.V.—Clerici Sancti Viatoris (Clerks, or Clerics, of St. Viateur)

C.SS.CC.—Congregatio Sacratissimorum Cordium (Missionaries of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary)

C. SS. R.—Congregatio Sanctissimi Redemptoris (Redemptorists)

Inst. Char.—Institutum Charitatis (Rosminians)

M.C.—Missionaries of Charity

M.S.—Missionaries of La Salette [France]

M.S.C.—Missionarii Sancti Caroli (“Missionaries of St. Charles”)

M.S.C.—Missionarii Sacratissimi Cordis (“Missionaries of the Most Sacred Heart”)

O.C.—Ordo Charitatis (Fathers of the Order of Charity)

O. Camald.—Ordo Camaldulensium (Camaldolese)

O. Cart.—Ordo Cartusiensis (Carthusians)

O. Cist.—Ordo Cisterciensium (Cistercians)

O.C.C.—Ordo Carmelitarum Calceatorum (Carmelites)

O.C.D.—Ordo Carmelitarum Discalceatorum (Discalced, or Barefoot, Carmelites)

O.C.R.—Ordo Reformatorum Cisterciensium (Cistercians, Trappists)

O.F.M.—Ordo Fratrum Minorum (Observant Franciscans)

O.M.—Ordo [Fratrum] Minimorum (Minims of St. Francis of Paul)

O. Merced.—Ordo Beatae Mariae Virginis de Redemptione Captivorum (Mercedarians, Nolaschi)

O.M.C.—Ordo Minorum Conventualium (Conventual Franciscans)

O.M. Cap., O.F.M. Cap., O.M.C.—Ordo Minorum Cappucinorum (Capuchins)

O.M.I.—Oblati Mariae Immaculatae (Oblate Fathers of Mary Immaculate)

O.P., Ord Fratr. Praed.—Ordo Praedicatorum (Dominicans)

Ord. Praem.—Ordo Praemonstratensium (Premonstratensians, Norbertines)

O.S.A.—Ordo [Eremitarum] Sancti Augustini (Augustinians)

O.S.B.—Ordo Sancti Benedicti (Benedictines)

O.S.C.—Oblati Sancti Caroli (Oblate Fathers of St. Charles)

O.S.F.C.—Ordinis Sancti Francisci Capuccini (Franciscan Capuchins)

O.S.F.S.—Oblati Sancti Francisci Salesii (Oblate Fathers of St. Francis of Sales)

O.S.H.—Ordo [Eremitarum] Sancti Hieronymi (Hieronymites)

O.S.M.—Ordo Servorum Mariae (Servites)

O.SS.C.—Oblati Sacratissimi Cordis (“Oblate Fathers of the Sacred Heart”)

O. Trinit.—Ordo Sanctissimae Trinitatis (Trinitarians)

P.O.—Pr tres de 10ratoire, Presbyteri Oratorii (Oratorians)

P.S.M.—Pia Societas Missionum (Fathers of the Pious Society of Missions, Pallottini)

P.S.S.—Presbyteri Sancti Sulpicii, Pr tres de S. Sulpice (Sulpicians)

S.C.—Salesianorum Congregatio (Congregation of St. Francis of Sales—Salesian Fathers)

S.D.S.—Societas Divini Salvatoris (“Society of the Divine Saviour”)

S.D.V.—Societas Divini Verbi (Fathers of the Divine Word)

S.J.—Societas Jesu (“Society of Jesus,” i.e. the Jesuits)

S.M.—Societas Mariae (Marists)

S.P.M.—SOCIETAS PATRUM MISERICORDIAE (FATHERS OF MERCY)

S.S.S.—Societas Sanctissimi Sacramenti (Fathers of the Blessed Sacrament)

Most manuals of palaeography (Greek and Latin) contain lists of Abbreviations (ancient and medieval), some of which are yet of ecclesiastical interest, while others have long since become obsolete or rare, and concern only the reader of manuscripts. Some manuals of diplomatics, likewise, have useful lists of pontifical chancery abbreviations, e.g. QUANTIN, Dict. de diplomatique chrétienne (Paris, 1846). 26–42, and Prou (Paris, 1902). in the latter work may be seen the original script-forms of these Abbreviations. Facsimiles of abbreviated pontifical documents may be seen, e.g. in Denifle, Specimina Palaeographica ab Innoc. III ad Urban. V. (Rome, 1888) The Abbreviations in Greek manuscripts were first scientifically studied by the Benedictine MONTFAUCON in his famous Palaeographica Graeca (Paris, 1708); see the lntroductions to Greek Palaeography of GARDTHAUSEN and WATTENBACH The little work, Modus legendi abreviaturas in jure tam civili quam pontificio occurrentes (Venice, 1596), is one of the earliest attempts at a dictionary of medieval abbreviations. A very useful work for all Latin abbreviations is that of CAPELLI, Dizionario delle abbreviature latine ed italiane (Milan, 1900); it is written mostly in Latin and describes all the abbreviations ordinarily used in Latin and Italian documents, civil or ecclesiastical Other valuable works dealing specifically with abbreviations in pontifical documents are DE LA BRANA, Signos y Abreviaturas que se usan en los documentos pontificios (Leon, 1884); RODENBERG, Epistolae saec. XIII e regestis RR. PP. selectae (Berlin, 1883), I, 323. For an extensive list of the abbreviations in the epitaphs of the Catacombs see KRAUS, Real-Encycl. der Christi. Alterth. (Freiburg, 1886), I, 47–51. The chapters on abbreviations of medieval manuscripts in the palaeographical manuals of DE WAILLY (Paris, 1843), CHASSANT (Paris, 1885), PAOLI (Florence, 1891), REUSENS (Louvain, 1899), CARINI (Rome, 1889), and THOMPSON (London, 1903) are recommended, also the excellent Lateinische Paläographie of STEFFENS (Freiburg, Switzerland, 1903, 3 vols. fol. with many plates). See BATTANDIER, Abbréviations, in Ann. Pont. Cath. (Paris 1900), 527–538.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Abbreviators

(Abbreviare = “shorten,” “curtail”).

Abbreviators are those who make an abridgment or abstract of a long writing or discourse. This is accomplished by contracting the parts, i.e. the words and sentences; an abbreviated form of writing common among the Romans. Abbreviations were of two kinds,

the use of a single letter for a single word,

the use of a sign, note, or mark for a word or phrase.

The Emperor Justinian forbade the use of abbreviations in the compilation of the “Digest” and afterwards extended his prohibition to all other writings. This prohibition was not universally obeyed. The abbreviators found it to their own convenience and interest to use the abbreviated form, and especially was this the case at Rome. The early Christians practised the abbreviated mode, no doubt as an easy and safe way of communicating with one another and safeguarding their secrets from enemies and false brethren.

ECCLESIASTICAL ABBREVIATORS

In course of time the Apostolic Chancery adopted this mode of writing as the curial style, still further abridging by omitting the diphthongs ae and oe, and likewise all lines and marks of punctuation. The ecclesiastical Abbreviators are officials of the Holy See, inasmuch as they are among the principal officials of the Apostolic Chancery, which is one of the oldest and most important offices in the Roman Curia. The scope of its labour, as well as the number of its officials, has varied with the times. Up to the twelfth or thirteenth century, the duty of the Apostolic, or Roman Chancery was to prepare and expedite the pontifical letters and writs for collation of church dignities and other matters of grave importance which were discussed and decided in Consistory. About the thirteenth or fourteenth century, the popes, whilst they lived at Avignon in France, began to reserve the collation of a great many benefices, so that all the benefices, especially the greater ones, were to be conferred through the Roman Curia (Lega, Praelectiones Jur. Can., I, ii, 287). As a consequence, the labour was immensely augmented, and the number of Abbreviators necessarily increased. To regulate the proper expedition of these reserved benefices, Pope John XXII instituted the rules of chancery to determine the competency and mode of procedure of the Chancery. Afterwards the establishment of the Dataria and the Secretariate of Briefs lightened the work of the Chancery and led to a reduction in the number of Abbreviators. According to Ciampini (Lib. de Abbreviatorum de parco majore etc., cap. i) the institution of abbreviators was very ancient, succeeding after the persecutions to the notaries who recorded the acts of the martyrs. Other authors reject this early institution and ascribe it to Pope John XXII (1316). It is certain that he uses the name Abbreviators, but speaks as if they had existed before his time, and had, by overtaxation for their labour, caused much complaint and protest He (Extravag. Joan. tit. xiii, “Cum ad Sacrosanctae Romanae Ecclesiae”) prescribes their work, determines how much they may charge for their labour, fixes a certain tax for an abstract or abridgment of twenty-five words, or their equivalent, 150 letters, forbids them to charge more, even though the abstract goes over twenty-five words but less than fifty words, enacts that the basis of the tax is the labour employed in writing, expediting, etc., the Bulls, and by no means the emoluments accruing to the recipient of the favour or benefice conferred by the Bull, and declares that whoever shall charge more than the tax fixed by him shall be suspended for six months from office, and upon a second violation of the law, shall be deprived of it altogether, and if the delinquent be an abbreviator, he shall be excommunicated. Should a large letter have to be rewritten, owing to the inexact copy of the abbreviator, the abbreviator and not the receiver of the Bull must pay the extra charge for the extra labour to the apostolic writer. Whatever may be the date of the institution of the office of abbreviator, it is certain that it became of greater importance and more highly privileged upon its erection into a college of prelates. Pope Martin V (Constit. 3 “In Apostolicae,” ii and v) fixed the manner for their examination and approbation and also the tax they should demand for their labour and the punishment for overcharge. He also assigned to them certain emoluments. The Abbreviators of the lower, or lesser, were to be promoted to the higher, or greater, bar or presidency. Their offices were compatible with other offices, i.e. they can hold two benefices or offices at one and the same time, some conferred by the Cardinal Vice-Chancellor, others by the Holy Father.

ERECTION OF THE OFFICE INTO A COLLEGE OF PRELATES

In the pontificate of Pius II, their number, which had been fixed at twenty-four, had overgrown to such an extent as to diminish considerably the individual remuneration, and, as a consequence, able and competent men no longer sought the office, and hence the old style of writing and expediting the Bulls was no longer used, to the great injury of justice, the interested parties, and the dignity of the Holy See. To remedy this evil and to restore the old established chancery style, the Pope selected out of the great number of the then living Abbreviators seventy, and formed them into a college of prelates, and decreed that their office should be perpetual, that certain emoluments should be attached to it, and granted certain privileges to the possessors of the same. He ordained further that some should be called “Abbreviators of the Upper Bar” (de Parco Majori), the others of the Lower Bar (de Parco Minori); that the former should sit upon a slightly raised portion of the chamber, separated from the rest of the hall or chamber by lattice work, assist the Cardinal Vice-Chancellor, subscribe the letters and have the principal part in examining, revising, and expediting the apostolic letters to be issued with the leaden seal; that the latter, however, should sit among the apostolic writers upon benches in the lower part of the chamber, and their duty was to carry the signed schedules or supplications to the prelates of the upper bar. Then one of the prelates of the upper bar made an abstract, and another prelate of the same bar revised it. Prelates of the upper bar formed a quasi- tribunal, in which as a college they decided all doubts that might arise about the form and quality of the letters, of the clauses and decrees to be adjoined to the apostolic letters, and sometimes about the payment of the emoluments and other contingencies. Their opinion about questions concerning chancery business was held in the highest estimation by all the Roman tribunals. Paul II suppressed this college; but Sixtus IV (Constitutio 16, “Divina”) reestablished it. He appointed seventy-two abbreviators, of whom twelve were of the upper, or greater, and twenty-two of the lower, or lesser, presidency (Parco), and thirty-eight examiners on first appearance of letters. They were bound to be in attendance on certain days under penalty of fine, and sign letters and diplomas. Ciampini mentions a decree of the Vice-Chancellor by which absentees were mulcted in the loss of their share of the emoluments of the following chancery session. The same Pope also granted many privileges to the College of Abbreviators, but especially to the members of the greater presidency. Pius VII suppressed many of the chancery offices, and so the Tribunal of Correctors and the Abbreviators of the lower presidency disappeared. Of the Tribunal of Correctors, a substitute-corrector alone remains. Bouix (Curia Romana, edit. 1859) chronicles the suppression of the lower presidency and puts the number of Abbreviators at that date at eleven. The present college consists of seventeen prelates, six substitutes, and one sub-substitute, all of whom, except the prelates, may be clerics or laymen. Although the duty of Abbreviators was originally to make abstracts and abridgments of the apostolic letters, diplomas, etc., using the legal abbreviations, clauses, and formularies, in course of time, as their office grew in importance they delegated that part of their office to their substitute and confined themselves to overseeing the proper expedition of the apostolic letters. Prior to the year 1878, all apostolic letters and briefs requiring for their validity the leaden seal were engrossed upon rough parchment and in Gothic characters (round letters, also called Gallicum and commonly Bollatico, but in Italy today Teutonic) without lines, or diphthongs, or marks of punctuation. Bulls engrossed on a different parchment, or in different characters with lines and punctuation marks, or without the accustomed abbreviations, clauses, and formularies, would be rejected as spurious. Pope Leo XIII (Constitutio Universae Eccles., 29 Dec., 1878) ordained that they should be written henceforth in ordinary Latin characters upon ordinary parchment, and that no abbreviations should be used except those easily understood.

TITLES AND PRIVILEGES

Many great privileges were conferred upon Abbreviators in the past. By decree of Leo X they were created nobles, Counts Palatine, familiars and members of the papal household, so that they might enjoy all the privileges of domestic prelates and of prelates in actual attendance on the Pope, as regards plurality of benefices as well as expectives. They and their clerics and their properties were exempt from all jurisdiction except the immediate jurisdiction of the Pope, and they were not subject to the judgments of the Auditor of Causes, or to the Cardinal Vicar. He also empowered them to confer (today within strict limitations) the degree of Doctor, with all university privileges, create notaries (now abrogated), legitimize children so as to make them eligible to receive benefices vacated by their fathers (now revoked), also to ennoble three persons and to make Knights of the Order of St. Sylvester (Militiae Aureae), the same to enjoy and to wear the insignia of nobility. Pope Gregory XVI rescinded this privilege and reserved to the Pope the right of creation of such knights (Acta Pont. Greg. XVI, Vol. III, 178–179–180). Pope Paul V, who in early manhood was a member of the College (Const. 2, “Romani”), made them Referendaries of Favours, and after three years of service, Referendaries likewise of Justice, enjoying the privileges of Referendaries and permitting one to assist in the signatures before the Pope, giving all a right to a portion in the papal palace and exempting them from the registration of favours as required by Pius IV (Const., 98) with regard to matters pertaining to the Apostolic Chamber. They follow immediately after the twelve voting members of the Signature in capella. Abbreviators of the greater presidency are permitted to wear the purple cassock and cappa, as also rochet in capella. Abbreviators of the lower presidency before their suppression were simple clerics, and according to permission granted by Sixtus IV (loc. cit.) might be even married men. These offices becoming vacant by death of the Abbreviator, no matter where the death take place, are reserved in Curia. The prelates could resign their office in favour of others. Formerly these offices as well as those of the other chancery officers from the Regent down were occasions of venality, which many of the popes, especially Benedict XIV and Pius VII, laboured most strenuously to abolish. Leo XIII (Motu Proprio, 4 July, 1898) most solemnly decreed the abolition of all venality in the transfer or Collation of the said offices. As domestic prelates, prelates of the Roman Court, they have personal preeminence in every diocese of the world. They are addressed as “Reverendissimus,” “Right Reverend,” and “Monsignor.” As prelates, and therefore possessing the legal dignity, they are competent to receive and execute papal commands. Benedict XIV (Const. 3, “Maximo”) granted prelates of the greater presidency the privilege of wearing a hat with purple band, which right they hold even after they have ceased to be abbreviators.

FERRARIS, Bibliotheca, s.v. Abbreviatores; ANDRE-WAGNER, Dict. de Droit Canon., s.v. Abreviateurs; VAN ESPEN, Jurist Eccles. Univ., Pt. I, tit. xxiii, Cap. i; BRANCATI DE LAUREA-PARAVICINA-POLYANTHEA, Sac. Can., s.v. Abbreviatores; RIGANTI, In Reg. Cancell., IV, Index; LEGA, Proelect. Jur. Can., Lib. I, vol. II, De Cancellaria Apostolica, p. 285; CIAMPINI, De Abbreviatorum de Parco Majori, etc.; DE LUCA, Relatio Romanae Curiae Forensis., Disc. x, n. 9; PETRA, Commentaria in Constit. Apostolicas, IV, 232–233; V. 302–303.

P.M.J. ROCK

Abdera

A titular see in the province of Rhodope on the southern coast of Thrace, now called Bouloustra. It was founded about 656 B.C.

Abdias of Babylon

An apocryphal writer, said to have been one of the seventy-two Disciples of Christ, and first Bishop of Babylon, consecrated by Sts. Simon and Jude. Very little is known about him, and the main reason for mentioning him is a work in ten books called Historia Certaminis Apostolici which is imputed to him. It tells of the labours and deaths of the Apostles. This compilation purports to have been translated from Hebrew into Greek by Eutropius, a disciple of Abdias, and, in the third century, from Greek into Latin by (Julius) Africanus, the friend of Origen. But it is really a Latin work, for in it are cited, with the Vulgate of St. Jerome, the Ecclesiastical History of Rufinus and his Latin translation of the “Recognitiones” of Clement. The interest of the work is due to what the author claims to have drawn from the ancient Acta of the Apostles, and to many ancient legends which have thus been brought down to us. The text of the pseudo-Abdias may be found in Fabricius, Codex Apocryphus Novi Testimenti (Hamburg, 1700), 402–742, though there are parallel texts of single books printed in the Acta Sanctorum. According to R.A. Lipsius, the work was compiled during the latter half of the sixth century, in some Frankish monastery, for the purpose of satisfying the natural curiosity of Western Christians. At the same time he used much older pseudo-Apostolic materials that he abridged or excerpted to suit his purpose, and often revised or expurgated in the sense of Catholic teaching, for not a few of the writings that he used were originally Gnostic compositions, and abounded in speeches and prayers destined to spread that heresy.

BATIFFOL, in Dict. de la Bible, 24; LIPSIUS, Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten (Brunswick, 1883), 1, 177–178; BATIFFOL, in Dict. de th ol. cath., I, 23; LIPSIUS, in Dict. of Christ. Biogr., I, 1–4.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Abdication

Abdication, ecclesiastically considered, is the resignation of a benefice or clerical dignity. Every such honour or emolument, from the papal throne to the humblest chantry, may be resigned by the incumbent. The general ecclesiastical law concerning Such abdications (exclusive of a papal resignation) is that the benefice must be resigned into the hands of the proper ecclesiastical superior. Moreover, the resignation must be prompted by a just cause, be voluntary and free from contracts involving simony. Resignations, however, may be made with accompanying stipulations, such as that the resigned benefice be bestowed upon a designated person, or that the abdicating cleric be provided with another office. It is also required that the one who resigns his benefice, if in sacred orders, should have other certain means of support commensurate with his dignity. Resignations may be not only express but also tacit. The latter is presumed to have taken place when a cleric accepts an office or commits an act incompatible with the holding of an ecclesiastical dignity, such as solemn profession in a religious order, enrolment in the army, contracting marriage, and the like. No resignation takes effect until it is accepted by the proper authority. Hence, those who hold office from a bishop must resign into his hands and obtain his acquiescence. Bishops, in like manner, must resign into the hands of the Pope. Vicars-general cannot accept resignations unless they receive powers ad hoc from the bishop. When a bishop abdicates his see, he may renounce both the episcopal benefice and dignity or only the benefice. If he resigns both he cannot in future perform any episcopal functions, even with the consent of the ordinary of the diocese where he resides. If he resign, however, only the benefice, and not the dignity, he still remains capable of performing such episcopal functions as other bishops may request him to exercise. Of course, in the former case, if an abdicated bishop should nevertheless ordain candidates, such action would be valid, as his episcopal character is indelible, but it would be entirely illicit and entail grave consequences both for ordainer and ordained. A bishop’s Abdication of his see goes into effect as soon as the Pope has accepted it in a papal consistory. The bishopric then becomes vacant, but the actions of the prelate retain their validity until he receives official notice of the acceptance of his resignation.

Like every other ecclesiastical dignity, the papal throne may also be resigned. The reasons which make it lawful for a bishop to abdicate his see, such as the necessity or utility of his particular church, or the salvation of his own soul, apply in a stronger manner to the one who governs the universal church. It is true that the Roman Pontiff has no superior on earth into whose hands he can resign his dignity, yet he himself by the papal power can dissolve the spiritual marriage between himself and the Roman Church. A papal Abdication made without cause may be illicit, but it is unquestionably valid, since there is no one who can prohibit it ecclesiastically and it contravenes no divine law. The papacy does not, like the episcopacy, imprint an indelible character on the soul, and hence by his voluntary Abdication the Pope is entirely stripped of all jurisdiction, just as by his voluntary acceptance of the election to the primacy he acquired it. All doubt as to the legitimacy of papal abdications and all disputes among canonists were put an end to by the decree of Pope Boniface VIII which was received into the Corpus Juris Canonici (Cap. Quoniam I, de renun., in 6). The Pontiff says:

Our predecessor, Pope Celestine V, whilst he governed the Church, constituted and decreed that the Roman Pontiff can freely resign. Therefore lest it happen that this statute should in the course of time fall into oblivion, or that doubt upon the subject should lead to further disputes, We have determined with the counsel of our brethren that it be placed among other constitutions for a perpetual memory of the same.

Ferraris declares that the Pope should make his abdication into the hands of the College of Cardinals, as to that body alone pertains the election of his successor. For whilst it is true that the Cardinals did not bestow the papal jurisdiction upon him, yet they designated him as the successor of Peter, and they must be absolutely certain that he has renounced the dignity before they can validly proceed to the election of another pontiff. Church history furnishes a number of examples of papal abdications. Leaving aside the obscure case of Pope Marcellinus (296–308) adduced by Pezzani, and the still more doubtful resignation of Pope Liberius (352–366) which some historians have postulated in order to solve the perplexing position of Pope Felix II, we may proceed to unquestioned abdications. Pope Benedict IX (1033–44), who had long caused scandal to the Church by his disorderly life, freely renounced the pontificate and took the habit of a monk. He repented of his abdication and seized the papal throne again for a short time after the death of Pope Clement II, but he finally died in a private station. His immediate successor, Pope Gregory VI (1044–46) furnishes another example of papal Abdication. It was Gregory who had persuaded Benedict IX to resign the Chair of Peter, and to do so he had bestowed valuable possessions upon him. After Gregory had himself become Pope, this transaction was looked on by many as simoniacal; and although Gregory’s intentions seem to have been of the best, yet it was deemed better that he too should abdicate the papal dignity, and he did so voluntarily. The classic example of the resignation of a Pope is that of St. Celestine V (1294). before his election to the pontificate, he had been a simple hermit, and his sudden elevation found him unprepared and unfit for his exalted position. After five months of pontificate, he issued a solemn decree in which he declared that it was permissible for the Pope to abdicate, and then made an equally solemn renunciation of the papacy into the hands of the cardinals. He lived two years after his abdication in the practice of virtues which afterwards procured his canonization. Owing to the troubles which evil minded persons caused his successor, Boniface VIII, by their theories about the impossibility of a valid Abdication of the papal throne, Boniface issued the above-cited decree to put the matter at rest for all time. The latest instance of a papal resignation is that of Pope Gregory XII (1406–15). It was at the time of the Great Schism of the West, when two pretenders to the Chair of Peter disputed Gregory’s right, and rent the faithful into three so-called “obediences.” To put an end to the strife, the legitimate Pope Gregory renounced the pontificate at the General Council of Constance in 1415. It is well known that Pope Pius VII (1800–23), before setting out for Paris to crown Napoleon in 1804, had signed an abdication of the papal throne to take effect in case he were imprisoned in France (De Montor). Finally, a valid Abdication of the Pope must be a free act, hence a forced resignation of the papacy would be null and void, as more than one ecclesiastical decree has declared.

SMITH, Elem. of Eccl. Law (New York, 1895), I; DE LUCA, Praelect. Jur. Can. (Rome, 1897), II; CRAISSON, Manuale Jur. Can. (Paris, 1899), I. For Papal Abdication see FERRARIS, Bibl. Jur. Can., art. Papa (Rome, 1890); PEZZANI, Codex S.R.E. Ecclesiae (Rome, 1893), I: WERNZ, Jus Decretal, (Rome, 1899), II; DE MONTOR, Lives of Rom. Pont. (New York, 1866); HERGENRÖTHER, Handb. der allg. Kircheng. (Freiburg, 1886).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Sts. Abdon and Sennen

(Variously written in early calendars and martyrologies Abdo, Abdus; Sennes, Sennis, Zennen.)

Persian martyrs under Decius, about A.D. 250, and commemorated 30 July. The veneration paid them dates from as early as the third century, though their Acts, written for the most part prior to the ninth century, contain several fictitious statements about the cause and occasion of their coming to Rome and the nature of their torments. It is related in these Acts that their bodies were buried by a subdeacon, Quirinus, and transferred in the reign of Constantine to the Pontian cemetery on the road to Porto, near the gates of Rome. A fresco found on the sarcophagus supposed to contain their remains represents them receiving crowns from Christ. Accordin to Martigny, this fresco dates from the seventh century. Several cities, notably Florence and Soissons, claim possession of their bodies, but the Bollandists say that they rest in Rome.

Acta SS., 30 July. MARTIGNY, Dict. des antiq. chret., 1; CHEETHAM, in Dict. Christ. Antiq,; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, July 30.

JOHN J. WYNNE

Abduction

Abduction may be considered as a public crime and a matrimonial diriment impediment. Viewed as a crime, it is a carrying off by force, physical or moral, of any virtuous woman, or even man, from a free and safe place to another place morally different and neither free nor safe from the captor’s power, with intent to marry her or to gratify lust. Abduction considered as a matrimonial Impediment is a violent taking away of any woman whatsoever, chaste or unchaste, from a place free and safe to a morally different place, and there detaining her in the power of her abductor until he has coerced her into consenting to marry him. Abduction as a crime is of wider scope than is the impediment, inasmuch as the former includes man-captors and intent to gratify lust, both of which are excluded from the scope of the impediment. On the other hand, the impediment is of wider import than the crime in as far as it includes all women, chaste as well as unchaste, while the crime excludes the corrupt. This difference arises from the fact that the State aims to suppress the public crime as a menace to the safety of the commonwealth, while the Church cares, directly and immediately, for the freedom and the dignity of the Sacrament of Marriage. Abduction is often divided into Abduction by Violence (Raptus Violentiae) and Abduction by Seduction, or Elopement (Raptus Seductionis). The former is when (a) a woman evidently reluctant, and not consenting either to the flight or to the marriage, is forcibly transferred with a matrimonial intent from a secure and free place to a morally different one and there held under the abductor’s influence by force, physical or moral, i.e. threats, great fear, or fraud equivalent to force, as it is a well-known axiom that “it is equal to be compelled to do a thing as to know that it is possible to be compelled to do it,” (b) a woman enticed by fair words and fraud and deception consents to go with a man for other reason than matrimony from one place to another where he detains her by force or fraud equivalent to force, in order to coerce her into a marriage to which she objects; (e) a woman who, although she had already consented to a future marriage by act of betrothal, vet strenuously objects to abduction, is carried off violently by her betrothed or his agents from a free and safe place to another morally different and there detained until she consents to marry him. Some deny, however, that the raptor in this case is guilty of abduction, saying that he has a right to his betrothed. He has, indeed, a right to compel her to fulfil her engagement by public authority, not, however, by private authority. His carrying off of the woman against her will is the exercise of private authority, and therefore violence to her rights. Abduction by Seduction (Raptus Seductionis), or Elopement, is the taking away from one place to another, by a man, of (1) a woman of age or under age who consents to both the flight and the marriage without consent of her parents or guardians; or (2) a woman who, although she refuses at first, finally, induced thereto by caresses, flattery, or any allurement, not however equivalent to force, physical or moral, consents to both flight and marriage without knowledge or consent of her parents or guardians. Abduction by seduction, as defined is held by Roman law to be abduction by violence inasmuch as violence can be offered to the woman and her parents simultaneously, or to the woman alone, or to the parents and guardians alone; and in the elopement, while no violence is done to the woman, violence is done to the parents or guardians. On the contrary, the Church does not consider violence done to parents, but the violence done only to the parties matrimonially interested. Hence, elopement, or abduction by seduction, does not induce an impediment diriment. Pius VII, in his letter to Napoleon I (26 June, 1805), pronounced this kind of abduction no abduction in the Tridentine sense. The Church considers it, indeed, a wrong against parental authority, but not a wrong to the abducted woman.

The old Roman law (Jus Vetus), mindful of the actual or imaginary “Rape of the Sabines,” dealt leniently with woman-stealers. If the woman was willing, her marriage with her abductor was allowed and solemnized by the lictor leading her by the hand to the home of the raptor. Constantine the Great, to protect female virtue and safeguard the State, forbade (A.D. 320) such marriages. The law was neither universally received nor observed. The Emperor Justinian (A.D. 528, 533, and 548) forbade these marriages and fixed the punishment, for the principal and his accomplices in the crime, at death and confiscation of all their property. Legal right to avenge the crime was given to parents, relations, or guardians; to put to instant death the abductor caught in the act of Abduction. Appeal by the victim in behalf of her abductor, on the plea that she gave consent, was denied. The law awarded the confiscated property to the woman, if she had not consented to the abduction; to her parents, if they were ignorant of, or adverse to, it, and their daughter consented to the abduction; but if the woman and her parents consented to the carrying off, then all the property lapsed to the State, and the parents were banished (Codex Just., IX, Tit. xiii; Auth. Collat., IX, Tit. xxvi; Novell., 143; Auth. Collat., IX, Tit. xxxiii; Novell. 150). The Byzantine Emperor, Leo VI (886–912), called the Philosopher, approved (Constit. XXXV) the former laws in all particulars, with the exception that if swords or other deadly weapons were carried by the abductor and his accomplices during the abduction a much severer punishment was inflicted than if they were not carried. The old Spanish law condemned to death the abductor who also ravished the woman, but the abductor who did not ravish was let off with a money fine to be equally shared by the abducted and the State. If the woman had consented to the abduction, the whole fine reverted to the State. Athenian law commanded the abductor to marry the abducted, if she so willed, unless the woman or her parents or guardians had already received money instead. The earlier Byzantine law enjoined, but the later law forbade, the marriage. Among the Germanic nations the crime of abduction was compounded by pecuniary gifts to the parents or guardians. The Church did not accept the Roman law which declared all the marriages of the abductor with the abducted, without exception, entirely and perpetually null and void. She held as valid all marriages in which there was present true and real consent of the captured women. According to St. Basil (2 Canon. Epist. to St. Amphilochius, xxii, xxx, fixed date, an. 375, Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d series, VIII, Scribner’s ed.), the Church issued no canons on abduction prior to his time. Such a crime was, doubtless, extremely rare among the early Christians. In the fourth century, as men grew more audacious, the number of wife-captors became exceedingly numerous. To check this, the Church in several particular councils, besides the punishment of service, confiscation of goods, and public penance, decreed sentence of excommunication (to be judicially pronounced) against laics, and deposition from ecclesiastical rank against clerics, who had violently carried off, or helped to carry off, women. Pope Gelasius (496) permitted the marriage of the abductor with his captive if she was willing, and they had been betrothed, or had mutually discussed their future marriage prior to the abduction. Antecedent to the ninth century, however, the canons make no mention of abduction (raptus) as a matrimonial impediment, either diriment or impedient. In the Western Church, at least from the ninth century, the marriage of the captor with his captive, or any other woman, was perpetually prohibited. This was not, however, the universal church discipline, but rather the discipline peculiar to those nations among whom the absence of strict laws made abductions more numerous. The bishops of the Frankish nation felt the necessity of severe legislation to meet the evil, and therefore, in many particular Councils, e.g. Aix-la-Chapelle (817), Meaux (845), etc., issued stringent canons which continued as the peculiar law of the Franks until it was abolished by Innocent III. Furthermore, the impediment was impedient, not diriment (according to the most common opinion). Marriages celebrated in opposition to the prohibition were held to be valid, although illicit. The Council of Meaux (845) forbade the abductor ever to marry the rapt woman, but permitted his marriage with any other woman after he had performed the prescribed public penance. Gratian (“Decretum Caus.,” XXXVI, quaest. ii, ad finem) inaugurated a milder discipline. He, relying upon the (supposed) authority of St. Jerome, taught that an abductor ought to be allowed to marry the abducted, provided she was willing to have him for a husband.

After the publication of his decree in the twelfth century, this milder discipline was generally observed and met with the approval of many popes. Finally, Innocent III (“Decret. Greg.,” lib. V, tit. xvii, cap. vii, “De Raptoribus”) decreed for the universal Church (especially aiming at the perpetual prohibition by the particular councils) that such marriages might take place as often as a prior reluctance and dissent on the part of the woman should change to willingness and consent to the marriage, and this (according to the common interpretation) even if the woman was in the power of the captor at the time she consented. This decree practically did away with the impedient impediment of abduction, which was merged into the impediment of vis et metus. The Innocentian law continued to be the ecclesiastical discipline up to the sixteenth century. The Council of Trent introduced an entirely new discipline. To guard the liberty and dignity of marriage, to show its detestation of a horrible crime dangerous alike to the purity of morals and the peace and security of society, and to bar the criminal from gaining the result intended by his crime, the Fathers decreed: between the abductor and abducted there can be no marriage, as long as she remains in the power of the raptor; but if the abducted, having been separated from the abductor, and having been placed in a safe and free place, consents to have him for a husband, let her marry him; yet, notwithstanding, the abductor with all his advisers, accomplices and abettors, are by the law itself excommunicated and declared forever infamous, incapable of acquiring dignities, and, if they be clerics, deposed from their ecclesiastical rank. Furthermore, the abductor is bound, whether he marries the abducted or not, to dower her with a decent dowry at the discretion of the judge (Concil. Trid., Sess. XXIV, vi, “De Reform Matrim.”). This law was to take immediate effect, requiring no promulgation in individual parishes. Such also is the law in the Oriental Churches (Synod. Mont. Liban., 1736, Collect. Lacens., II, 167; Synod. Sciarfien. Syror., 1888). The difference between this law and that of the Decretals (Innocent III) is evident. According to the Decretals, the woman’s consent, given even while she was in the raptor s power, was deemed sufficient. The Council of Trent does not consider such consent of any avail, and requires consent given after the woman has been entirely separated from the control of the raptor and is dwelling in a place safe and free from his influence. Should she desire to marry him, the marriage may be celebrated, the priest having first obtained permission from the bishop (according to some) whose duty it is to testify to the cessation of the impediment and that the dowry prescribed by the Council has been made over and is subject to the sole use and discretion of the abducted. The general law of the Church does not require the aforesaid bishop’s permission, but individual bishops can and do make laws to that effect. The Council of Trent by this law safeguarded the freedom of marriage (1) on the part of the man, by allowing him to marry the abducted woman, and (2) on the part of the woman, by protecting her from being coerced while in the abductor’s power into a marriage against her free will and consent. This impediment of abduction (raptus) is one entirely distinct from that of vis et metus. The latter entirely looks to the freedom of consent; the former, to the freedom of the place where true consent must be elicited. Of ecclesiastical origin, this impediment is temporary and public, and does not bind two unbaptized persons unless the civil law of their country invalidates such marriages. It does, however, govern the marriage of an unbaptized abductor with a Catholic abducted woman, and vice versa.

Amidst the conflicting opinions of canonists and moralists as to whether abduction by seduction, abduction of a betrothed, abduction of a minor against the will of her parents, or the abduction of a man by a woman, induces the impediment or not, it is necessary to remember that this impediment is of Tridentine origin, and therefore the Council of Trent was sole judge of the necessary conditions; that the Roman or any other civil law or any prior ecclesiastical law had nothing to say in the matter; that the question under investigation was the impediment, not the crime, of abduction; and that in rebus odiosis, which this is, the words of the Council of Trent must be strictly adhered to and interpreted. Four elements are essential in an abduction in order to induce thereby the Tridentine diriment impediment, to wit: (1) a woman; (2) change of locality; (3) violence; (4) matrimonial intent.

(1) Any woman, whether moral or immoral, maid or widow, betrothed or not, even a public woman, may be the object of a violent Abduction inducing the Tridentine impediment and punishment. Lessius, Avancini, and others hold that a man is not guilty of abduction who carries off his betrothed. The Council of Trent makes no exception, hence we should not. The abduction of a man by a woman is not included in the Tridentine law. the contrary opinion (De Justis and other earlier authors) is at variance with the language of the Council, which always speaks of the raptor, but nowhere of the raptrix. A woman can be guilty of the crime of raptus; but the question here is not about crime, but about the Tridentine impediment. She may be an agent or accomplice of the abductor and, as such, incur the penalties decreed by the Council; but it does not admit her as raptrix.

(2) Change of Locality.—Two places are necessary to an abduction—one, the place from which, the other, the place to which, the reluctant woman is violently taken, and in which she is also violently detained. These two places must be morally (some say physically, some virtually) different—the one, from which may be her own or her parents’ home, where she is a free agent; the other, to which, must be subject to the power or influence of the abductor, where, though she is free in very many of her actions, she is not perfectly free in all. It is not necessary that the place to which be the house of the abductor; it suffices if it be under his control or influence. Two rooms or two stories in a small dwelling, the home of one family; a street and an adjoining house; a public highway and a nearby field, would not afford the necessary change of locality. Removal, though violent, from room to room as above, would not induce the impediment under consideration, though some hold the contrary opinion. In case of a large castle, or mansion, or tenement-house, where many families dwell, the violent transference of a reluctant woman from a part where her family dwells to another remote part where a different family lives would constitute sufficient change of locality. If a woman is violently seized, v.g. in a room, and is violently kept there without change to another room, or if she willingly, without any enticement on the part of the man, goes to a place and is there violently detained with matrimonial intent, she does not suffer abduction in the Tridentine sense. It is a mere sequestration, or detention. Some jurists, however, think otherwise, claiming virtual change (from state of freedom to that of subjection) to be sufficient to induce the Council’s impediment. Physical transference from one place to another, however, is absolutely necessary to constitute raptus; virtual transference does not suffice. Should a woman be forcibly removed from a place to which she went willingly to another where she is detained against her will with matrimonial intent, it is abduction.

(3) Violence.—Abduction always presumes that the abducted dissents, and that her unwillingness is overcome either by physical force, i.e. laying hands upon her, or moral force, i.e. threats, great fear, and fraud equivalent to force. Mere importunities, fair words, sweet phrases, gifts, and promises are not sufficient to constitute the moral force requisite for abduction. It is immaterial whether the principal, of and by himself, or through his agents and accomplices, uses this force, moral or physical. Women as the agents of the principal, may exercise it, and not infrequently do so.

(4) Matrimonial Intent.—The intention or motive of the criminal act is all important. To induce the impediment the intent must be to marry the abducted woman. Were the motive other than marriage, e.g. vengeance, pecuniary gain, or gratification of lust, there would be no abduction, no impediment, no penalties (S. Cong. Cone., 23 Jan., 1585). This is evident also from the custom of the Roman Curia, which, in all dispensations given or faculties granted to ordinaries to dispense in eases of affinity, consanguinity, etc., prefixes “provided that the woman was not abducted on account of this [marriage].” This impediment exists only between the abducted and abductor who, of and by himself, or with the assistance of others, had carried her off with intent to marry her. No impediment arises between the abducted and the agent or abettors of the abduction. She could validly, therefore, marry one of the agents or accomplices while still under the control of the abductor. When the intention is doubtful, judgment is arrived at from consideration of the circumstances. Thus, if a man violently carries off his betrothed or a woman with whom he has had conversations looking to future marriage, it is presumed that his intention was marriage. If doubts still remain, the law presumes the motive to be matrimonial. Where it is abundantly evident that the initial motive of the abduction was lust, it is not abduction, but sequestration, or detention, although afterwards, during the captivity, the captor promise marriage in order to attain his lustful object. The contrary opinion, held by Rosset (De Matrimonio, II, 1354), Krimer, and others, is at variance with the principle of law, that in crimes the beginning, and not what happens accidentally is what the law considers. Were the intent twofold, v.g. lust and marriage, then the carrying off is abduction and induces the impediment. The abduction must be proved, not presumed. The mere word of the abducted woman, especially as against the oath of the so-called abductor and the absence of all rumour, does not establish the fact. The existence of the abduction once admitted, the burden of proof rests upon the abductor. He must conclusively prove that the abducted willingly consented to both abduction and marriage. If she admits consent to the flight, he must still prove conclusively that she gave willing consent also to the marriage; otherwise the impediment holds and the penalties are incurred. Should he claim (in order to exclude impediment) that his motive in the beginning of the transaction was not marriage, but lust, and that he proposed marriage in order to attain his initial purpose, then he must, by the most conclusive evidence, establish his assertion, since the law presumes that his motive was matrimonial.

PUNISHMENTS

The abductor and his advisers and abettors and accomplices in a complete (copula not required), not merely an attempted, abduction are, by the law itself (Tridentine), excommunicated (not reserved), and made perpetually infamous, incapable of acquiring dignities; if they be clerics, they also incur deposition from their ecclesiastical rank. The abductor is also bound, whether the woman marries him or not, to dower her with a decent dowry at the discretion of the bishop. The priest who celebrates the marriage while the woman is under restraint does not incur the excommunication nor any other penalty, unless he has advised the abductor that he would aid him in his abduction by his presence and ministry. The agents and the like, in an abduction of a woman validly and freely betrothed, but unwilling to be carried off, do not incur excommunication and other Tridentine punishments (S. C. Prop. Fid., 17 April, 1784). The vindictive punishments are incurred, at least in the ecclesiastical court, by a declaratory sentence. The abducted woman, not the abductor, has the right to challenge the validity of her marriage celebrated while under control of the abductor. No particular time is prescribed by law, but she should, however, unless prevented by reasonable cause, present her plea as soon as possible after her entire separation from the control of the abductor.

DISPENSATION

The Church as a rule does not dispense with this impediment. It even refuses to grant other dispensations, v.g. affinity, if the woman was abducted; indeed any dispensation granted, in which mention of the abduction has been omitted, is held as invalid. There are some cases in which the Church has dispensed when it is abundantly evident that the consent of the woman was really free, although circumstances prevented her entire separation from the control of the abductor. The late Instruction of the Congregation of the Inquisition (15 February, 1901, in the “Analecta Ecclesiastica,” Rome, 1901, 98) to the bishops of Albania (where abduction is of very frequent occurrence) refused a general repeal of the law for their country, adding that the frequency mentioned, far from being a reason for relaxing, was rather a reason for insisting on the Tridentine law; yet, where it was abundantly evident that the consent of the woman under restraint was truly a free consent, and that there were reasons sufficient for the dispensation, recourse should be had to Rome in each single case. Further, in the extraordinary faculties given to bishops (20 February, 1888) for dispensing in public impediments persons in danger of death, the impediment of raptus is not excluded. The civil codes of today, as a rule, do not recognize abduction as an impediment diriment to civil marriage, but consider it as a species of vis et metus. The codes of Austria and Spain, however, still hold it as an impediment, and among the jurists of Austria there is an earnest endeavour to make it an impediment absolute and perpetual, so that the abducted woman, if still under control of her abductor, may not marry even a third party.

RIGANTI, Comment. in Reg., in Reg. xlix, nn. 46 sq.; SCHMALZGRÜBER, V, xvii, De Rapt. Pers., nn. 1–54, GONSALEZ TELLEZ, Comment. Perpet., V, xvii; BERARDI, Comment. in Jus. Eccles., II, 81 sqq.; WERNZ, IV, Jus Matrim, 408 sqq.; ROSSET, De Sac. Matrim., II, 1344 sqq.; VECCHIOTTI, Instit. Can., III, 234 sqq.; SANTI-LEITNER, IV, 58–65; FEIJE, De Imped. et Dispens.; KUTSCHKER, Das Eherecht (1856), III, 456 sqq.; Analecta Ecclesiastica (Rome, April, 1903); HOWARD, Hist. of Matrimonial inst., I, 156 sq., s.v. Wife-Captor; Acta Sanctae Sedis, I, 15–24; 54 sq.; GASPARI, De Matrim., I, 364 sqq.

P.M.J. ROCK

Abecedaria

Complete or partial lists of letters of the alphabet, chiefly Greek and Latin, inscribed on ancient monuments, Pagan and Christian. At, or near, the beginning of the Christian era, the Latin alphabet had already undergone its principal changes, and had become a fixed and definite system. The Greek alphabet, moreover, with certain slight modifications, was becoming closely assimilated to the Latin. Towards the eighth century of Rome, the letters assumed their artistic forms and lost their older, narrower ones. Nor have the three letters added by the Emperor Claudius ever been found in use in Christian inscriptions. The letters themselves, it may be said, fell into disuse at the death of the Emperor in question. The alphabet, however, employed for monumental inscriptions differed so completely from the cursive as to make it wholly impossible to mistake the one for the other. The uncial, occurring very rarely on sculptured monuments, and reserved for writing, did not make its appearance before the fourth century. The number of Christian objects bearing the Abecedaria, with the exception of two vases found at Carthage, is extremely limited. On the other hand, those of heathen origin are more plentiful, and include certain tablets used by stone-cutters apprentices while learning their trade. Stones have also been found in the catacombs, bearing the symbols A, B, C, etc. These are arranged, sometimes, in combinations which have puzzled the sagacity of scholars. One such, found in the cemetery of St. Alexander, in the Via Nomentana, is inscribed as follows:

AXBVCTESDR. . . . . . BCCEECHI

EQGPH. . . . M MNOPQ

RSTVXYZ

This represents, in all probability, a schoolboy’s task, which may be compared with a denarius of L. Cassius Caecinianus, whereon the inscription runs thus:

AX, BV, CT, DS, ER, FQ, GP, HO, IN, KM

It is to St. Jerome that we owe an explanation of this curious trifle. He tells us that, in order to train the memory of young children, they were made to learn the alphabet in a double form, joining A to X, and so on with the other letters. A stone found at Rome in 1877, and dating from the sixth or seventh century, seems to have been used in a school, as a model for learning the alphabet, and, points, incidentally, to the long continuance of old methods of teaching. (See CHRISTIAN USE OF THE ALPHABET.)

H. LECLERCQ

Abecedarians

A sect of Anabaptists who affected an absolute disdain for all human knowledge, contending that God would enlighten His elect interiorly and give them knowledge of necessary truths by visions and ecstasies. They rejected every other means of instuction, and pretended that to be saved one must even be ignorant of the first letters of the alphabet; whence their name, A-B-C-darians. They also considered the study of theology as a species of idolatry, and regarded learned men who did any preaching as falsifiers of God’s word.

At Wittenberg, in 1522, Nicholas Storch (Pelargus) and the Illuminati of Zwickau began to preach this doctrine, mixing it up with other errors. Carlstadt allowed himself to be drawn away by these singular views, and to put them thoroughly into practice he abandoned his title of Doctor and became a street porter. He preached the new doctrine for some time to the people and to the students of Wittenberg.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Abel (1)

(From the Hebrew word for Vanity, “probably so called from the shortness of his life”—Gesenius; Gr., Abel, whence Eng. form).

Abel was the second son of Adam. Vigouroux and Hummelauer contend that the Assyrian aplu or ablu, const. Abal, i.e. “son,” is the same word, not a case of orthographic coincidence, especially as Hebrew and Assyrian are closely related tongues. Some, with Josephus (Ant., I, ii), think it means “Sorrow” or “Lamentation.” Cheyne holds that “a right view of the story favours the meaning shepherd, or more generally herdsman”; Assyrian ibilu (Ency. Bib., s.v.) “ram, camel, ass, or wild sheep.”

Cain, the first-born, was a farmer. Abel owned the flocks that lived upon the soil. The two were, therefore, doubly brothers, by birth and by calling. Abel is not mentioned in the Old Testament except in Gen., iv. St. Augustine makes him a type of the regenerate, and Cain of the natural, man. “Cain founded a city on earth, but Abel as a stranger and pilgrim looked forward to the city of the saints which is in heaven” (De Civ. Dei, XV, i). The descendants of Cain were wicked, but, as nothing is said about those of Abel, it is supposed that he had none; or at least that no son was alive at the birth of Seth, “whom God has given me for Abel,” as Eve expressed it (Gen., iv, 25). The Abelians, or Abelites, a sect in northern Africa mentioned by St. Augustine (de Haer., lxxxvii), pretended that they imitated Abel by marrying, yet condemned the use of marriage. They adopted children who also married and lived in the same manner as their foster-parents. The biblical account of the sacrifices of the brothers and of the murder of Abel states that Cain offered “of the fruits of the earth “, Abel “of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat.” Cain’s offerings are not qualified, Abel’s show that he gave with generosity and love, and therefore found favour with God. Josephus says (Ant., I, ii), “God was more delighted with the latter (Abel’s) oblation, when He was honoured with what grew naturally of its own accord than He was with what was the invention of a covetous man, and gotten by forcing the ground.” St. John gives the true reason why God rejected Cain’s sacrifice and accepted that of Abel: “his own works were wicked; and his brother’s just” (I John, iii, 12). God said later, “I will not receive a gift of your hand” (Mal., i, 10). The love of the heart must sanctify the lifting of the hands. Cain offered dans Deo aliquid suum, sibi autem seipsum (de Civ. Dei, XV, vii), but God says to all what St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “I seek not the things that are yours, but you” (II Cor., xii, 14).

In Hebrew, Christian, and Arabic traditions and legends it is said that God showed his acceptance of Abel’s sacrifice by sending fire to consume it, as in III Kings, xviii, 38. Cain thereupon resolved to kill his brother, thinking the latter would supplant him as Jacob did Esau later; or because he thought the seed of Abel would have the honour of crushing the serpent’s head (Gen., iii, 15.-Hummelauer, Curs. Com. S. Sac.). St. Jerome (Com. in Ezech., VIII, xxvii, no. 316), following Jewish tradition, makes the plain of Damascus the scene of the murder, and interprets the name of the city sanguinem bibens (blood-drinking). A traveller quoted with approval by the Rev. S. Baring-Gould (Legends of the Old-Testament Characters) places the scene half a mile from Hebron; but there is no such local tradition in the neighbourhood of Hebron. The Damascus referred to is certainly the Syrian city. The Koran (Sura v, 30, etc.) agrees with the Bible in the main facts about the sacrifices and murder, but adds the legend that God sent a raven which by scratching in the earth showed Cain how to bury his brother. According to Jewish tradition, Adam and Eve were taught by the raven how to bury their son, and God rewarded the raven by granting three things: (1) his young were to be inviolable,(2)abundance of food (3) his prayer for rain should be granted (Pirke Rab: Eliezer, XXI).

In the New Testament Abel is often mentioned. His pastoral life, his sacrifice, his holiness, his tragic death made him a striking type of Our Divine Saviour. His just works are referred to in I John, iii, 12; he is canonized by Christ himself (Matt., xxiii, 34, 35) as the first of the long line of prophets martyred for justice’ sake. He prophesied not by word, but by his sacrifice, of which he knew by revelation the typical meaning (Vigouroux); and also by his death (De Civ. Dei, XV, xviii). In Heb., xii, 24, his death is mentioned, and the contrast between his blood and that of Christ is shown. The latter calls not for vengeance, but for mercy and pardon. Abel, though dead, speaketh (Heb., xi, 4), Deo per merita, hominibus per exemplum (Piconjo), i.e. to God by his merits, to men by his example. For a rabbinic interpretation of the plural Hebrew word meaning “bloods,” in Gen., iv, 10, see Mishna San., IV, 5, where it is said to refer to Abel and to his seed. The Fathers place him among the martyrs. Martyrium dedicavit (St. Aug., op. cit., VI, xxvii); he is associated with St. John the Baptist by St. Chrysostom (Adv. Judaeos, viii, 8); others speak in similar terms. In the Western Church, however, he is not found in the martyrologies before the tenth century (Encycl. théol., s.v.).

In the canon of the Mass his sacrifice is mentioned with those of Melchisedech and Abraham, and his name is placed at the head of the list of saints invoked to aid the dying. The views of radical higher criticism may be summed up in the words of Cheyne: “The story of Cain and Abel is an early Israelitish legend retained by J as having a profitable tendency” (Encyci. bib., s.v.). The conservative interpretation of the narrative differs from that of the radical school of critics, because it accepts the story as history or as having at least a historic basis, while they regard it as only one of the legends of Genesis.

Patristic references in P.G. and P.L.; GEIKIE, Hours with the Bible; ID., The Descendants of Adam; ID., Creation to Patriarchs (New York, 1890); HUMMELAUER, Cursus Scrip. Sac. (Paris 1895); PALIS in VIG., Dict. de la Bible. FOR LEGENDS SEE: The Bible, the Koran, and the Talmud, tr. from the Germ by WEIL (London, 1846), 23–27; STANLEY, Sinai and Palestine; Id., Legends about Cain and Abel, 404, sqq.; BARING-GOULD, Legends of the Old Testament Characters (Lon- don 1871) I, 6; GUNKEL, The Legends of Genesis (tr., Chicago, 1901). For a strong presentation of the HISTORICITY of the Old Test., against the claims of the critical school, consult ORR, The Problems of the Old Testament (New York, 1906); DRIVER, Genesis (1904).

JOHN J. TIERNEY

Abel (2)

(“Meadow”)

Name of several places distinguished by additional words: (1) Abel-Beth-Maacha (meadow of the house, or family, of Maacha). In Vulgate also “Abeldomus and Maacha,” “Abeldomus Mancha,” “Abela and Maacha”; identical with Abel-Maim (meadow of water), II Par., xvi, 4. It was a, city in Upper Galilee, a little west of Dan.—II K., xx. 14–19; III K., xv, 20; IV K., xv, 29; II Par., xvi, 4. (2) Abel-Keramim (meadow of vineyards), a village of the Ammonites, about six miles from Philadelphia. Jud., xi, 33. (3) Abelmehula, Abelmeula (Abelmechola, “a meadow of the dance”), in the Jordan valley near Bethsan.—Jud., vii, 23; III K., iv, 12; xix, 16. (4) Abel-Misraim (Vulg. “the mourning of Egypt”), according to St. Jerome identical with the “threshing floor of Atad.” Gen., 1, 10 sq. (5) Abelsatim, Settim, Setim, Hebr. abhel hashshittim (meadow of acacias) is a place in the plains of Moab. Num., xxv, 1; xxxiii, 49; xxxiv-xxxvi; Jos., ii, 1; iii, 1; Mich. vi, 5. (6) The great Abel in I K., vi, 18, is a misreading for the great ebhen (stone).

VIGOUROUX, in Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1895); HAGEN, Lex. Bibl. (Paris, 1905); HOLZAMMER, in Kirchenlex. (Freiburg, 1882); CONDER, in Dict. of the Bible (New York, 1903).

A.J. MAAS

Peter Abelard

Dialectician, philosopher, and theologian, born 1079; died 1142. Peter Abelard (also spelled Abeillard, Abailard, etc., while the best manuscripts have Abaelardus) was born in the little village of Pallet, about ten miles east of Nantes in Brittany. His father, Berengar, was lord of the village, his mother’s name was Lucia; both afterwards entered the monastic state. Peter, the oldest of their children, was intended for a military career, but, as he himself tells us, he abandoned Mars for Minerva, the profession of arms for that of learning. Accordingly, at an early age, he left his father’s castle and sought instruction as a wandering scholar at the schools of the most renowned teachers of those days. Among these teachers was Roscelin the Nominalist, at whose school at Locmenach, near Vannes, Abelard certainly spent some time before he proceeded to Paris. Although the University of Paris did not exist as a corporate institution until more than half a century after Abelard’s death, there flourished at Paris in his time the Cathedral School, the School of Ste. Geneviève, and that of St. Germain des Pré, the forerunners of the university schools of the following century. The Cathedral School was undoubtedly the most important of these, and thither the young Abelard directed his steps in order to study dialectic under the renowned master (scholasticus) William of Champeaux. Soon, however, the youth from the province, for whom the prestige of a great name was far from awe-inspiring, not only ventured to object to the teaching of the Parisian master, but attempted to set up as a rival teacher. Finding that this was not an easy matter in Paris, he established his school first at Melun and later at Corbeil. This was, probably, in the year 1101. The next couple of years Abelard spent in his native place “almost cut off from France,” as he says. The reason of this enforced retreat from the dialectical fray was failing health. On returning to Paris, he became once more a pupil of William of Champeaux for the purpose of studying rhetoric. When William retired to the monastery of St. Victor, Abelard, who meantime had resumed his teaching at Melun, hastened to Paris to secure the chair of the Cathedral School. Having failed in this, he set up his school in Mt. Ste. Genevieve (1108). There and at the Cathedral School, in which in 1113 he finally succeeded in obtaining a chair, he enjoyed the greatest renown as a teacher of rhetoric and dialectic. Before taking up the duty of teaching theology at the Cathedral School, he went to Laon where he presented himself to the venerable Anselm of Laon as a student of theology. Soon, however, his petulant restiveness under restraint once more asserted itself, and he was not content until he had as completely discomfited the teacher of theology at Laon as he had successfully harassed the teacher of rhetoric and dialectic at Paris. Taking Abelard’s own account of the incident, it is impossible not to blame him for the temerity which made him such enemies as Alberic and Lotulph, pupils of Anselm, who, later on, appeared against Abelard. The “theological studies” pursued by Abelard at Laon were what we would nowadays call the study of exegesis.

There can be no doubt that Abelard’s career as a teacher at Paris, from 1108 to 1118, was an exceptionally brilliant one. In his “Story of My Calamities” (Historia Calamitatum) he tells us how pupils flocked to him from every country in Europe, a statement which is more than corroborated by Ihe authority of his contemporaries. He was, In fact, the idol of Paris; eloquent, vivacious, handsome, possessed of an unusually rich voice, full of confidence in his own power to please, he had, as he tells us, the whole world at his feet. That Abelard was unduly conscious of these advantages is admitted by his most ardent admirers; indeed, in the “Story of My Calamities,” he confesses that at that period of his life he was filled with vanity and pride. To these faults he attributes his downfall, which was as swift and tragic as was everything, seemingly, in his meteoric career. He tells us in graphic language the tale which has become part of the classic literature of the love-theme, how he fell in love with Heloise, niece of Canon Fulbert; he spares us none of the details of the story, recounts all the circumstances of its tragic ending, the brutal vengeance of the Canon, the flight of Heloise to Pallet, where their son, whom he named Astrolabius, was born, the secret wedding, the retirement of Heloise to the nunnery of Argenteuil, and his abandonment of his academic career. He was at the time a cleric in minor orders, and had naturally looked forward to a distinguished career as an ecclesiastical teacher. After his downfall, he retired to the Abbey of St. Denis, and, Heloise having taken the veil at Argenteuil, he assumed the habit of a Benedictine monk at the royal Abbey of St. Denis. He who had considered himself “the only surviving philosopher in the whole world” was willing to hide himself—definitely, as he thought—in monastic solitude. But whatever dreams he may have had of final peace in his monastic retreat were soon shattered. He quarrelled with the monks of St. Denis, the occasion being his irreverent criticism of the legend of their patron saint, and was sent to a branch institution, a priory or cella, where, once more, he soon attracted unfavourable attention by the spirit of the teaching which he gave in philosophy and theology. “More subtle and more learned than ever,” as a contemporary (Otto of Freising) describes him, he took up the former quarrel with Anselm’s pupils. Through their influence, his orthodoxy, especially on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, was impeached, and he was summoned to appear before a council at Soissons, in 1121, presided over by the papal legate, Kuno, Bishop of Praneste. While it is not easy to determine exactly what took place at the Council, it is clear that there was no formal condemnation of Abelard’s doctrines, but that he was nevertheless condemned to recite the Athanasian Creed, and to burn his book on the Trinity. Besides, he was sentenced to imprisonment in the Abbey of St. Médard, at the instance apparently, of the monks of St. Denis, whose enmity, especially that of their Abbot Adam, was unrelenting. In his despair, he fled to a desert place in the neighbourhood of Troyes. Thither pupils soon began to flock, huts and tents for their reception were built, and an oratory erected, under the title “The Paraclete,” and there his former success as a teacher was renewed.

After the death of Adam, Abbot of St. Denis, his successor, Suger, absolved Abelard from censure, and thus restored him to his rank as a monk. The Abbey of St. Gildas de Rhuys, near Vannes, on the coast of Brittany, having lost its Abbot in 1125, elected Abelard to fill his place. At the same time, the community of Argenteuil was dispersed, and Heloise gladly accepted the Oratory of the Paraclete, where she became Abbess. As Abbot of St. Gildas, Abelard had, according to his own account, a very troublesome time. The monks, considering him too strict, endeavoured in various ways to rid themselves of his rule, and even attempted to poison him. They finally drove him from the monastery. Retaining the title of Abbot, he resided for some time in the neighbourhood of Nantes and later (probably in 1136) resumed his career as teacher at Paris and revived, to some extent, the renown of the days when, twenty years earlier, he gathered “all Europe” to hear his lectures. Among his pupils at this time were Arnold of Brescia and John of Salisbury. Now begins the last act in the tragedy of Abelard’s life, in which St. Bernard plays a conspicuous part. The monk of Clairvaux, the most powerful man in the Church in those days, was alarmed at the heterodoxy of Abelard’s teaching, and questioned the Trinitarian doctrine contained in Abelard’s writings. There were admonitions on the one side and defiances on the other; St. Bernard, having first warned Abelard in private, proceeded to denounce him to the bishops of France; Abelard, underestimating the ability and influence of his adversary, requested a meeting, or council, of bishops, before whom Bernard and he should discuss the points in dispute. Accordingly, a council was held at Sens (the metropolitan see to which Paris was then suffragan) in 1141. On the eve of the council a meeting of bishops was held, at which Bernard was present, but not Abelard, and in that meeting a number of propositions were selected from Abelard’s writings, and condemned. When, on the following morning, these propositions were read in solemn council, Abelard, informed, so it seems, of the proceedings of the evening before, refused to defend himself, declaring that he appealed to Rome. Accordingly, the propositions were condemned, but Abelard was allowed his freedom. St. Bernard now wrote to the members of the Roman Curia, with the result that Abelard had proceeded only as far as Cluny on his way to Rome when the decree of Innocent II confirming the sentence of the Council of Sens reached him. The Venerable Peter of Cluny now took up his case, obtained from Rome a mitigation of the sentence reconciled him with St. Bernard, and gave him honourable and friendly hospitality at Cluny. There Abelard spent the last years of his life, and there at last he found the peace which he had elsewhere sought in vain. He donned the habit of the monks of Cluny and became a teacher in the school of the monastery. He died at Chalôn-sur-Saône in 1142, and was buried at the Paraclete. In 1817 his remains and those of Heloise were transferred to the cemetery of Père la Chaise, in Paris, where they now rest. For our knowledge of the life of Abelard we rely chiefly on the “Story of My Calamities,” an autobiography written as a letter to a friend, and evidently intended for publication. To this may be added the letters of Abelard and Heloise, which were also intended for circulation among Abelard’s friends. The “Story” was written about the year 1130, and the letters during the following five or six years. In both the personal element must of course, be taken into account. Besides these we have very scanty material; a letter from Roscelin to Abelard, a letter of Fulco of Deuil, the chronicle of Otto of Freising, the letters of St. Bernard, and a few allusions in the writings of John of Salisbury. Abelard’s philosophical works are “Dialectica,” a logical treatise consisting of four books (of which the first is missing); “Liber Divisionum et Definitionum” (edited by Cousin as a fifth book of the “Dialectica”); Glosses on Porphyry, Boëius, and the Aristotelian “Categories”; “Glossulae in Porphyrium” (hitherto unpublished except in a French paraphrase by Rémusat); the fragment “De Generibus et Speciebus,” ascribed to Abelard by Cousin; a moral treatise “Scito Teipsum, seu Ethica,” first published by Pez in “Thes. Anecd. Noviss.” All of these, with the exception of the “Glossulae” and the “Ethica,” are to be found in Cousin’s “Ouvrages inédits d’Abélard” (Paris, 1836). Abelard’s theological works (published by Cousin, “Petri Abselardi Opera,” in 2 vols., Paris, 1849–59, also by Migne, “Patr. Lat.,” CLXXVIII) include “Sic et Non,” consisting of scriptural and patristic passages arranged for and against various theological opinions, without any attempt to decide whether the affirmative or the negative opinion is correct or orthodox; “Tractatus de Unitate et Trinitate Divinâ,” which was condemned at the Council of Sens (discovered and edited by Stölzle, Freiburg, 1891); “Theologia Christiana,” a second and enlarged edition of the “Tractatus” (first published by Durand and Martène “Thes. Nov.,” 1717); “Introductio in Theologiam’ (more correctly, “Theologia”), of which the first part was published by Duchesne in 1616; “Dialogus inter Philosophum, Judaeum, et Christianum”; “Sententiae Petri Abaelardi,” otherwise called “Epitomi Theologiae Christianae,” which is seemingly a compilation by Abelard’s pupils (first published by Rheinwald, Berlin, 1535); and several exegetical works hymns, sequences, etc. In philosophy Abelard deserves consideration primarily as a dialectician. For him, as for all the scholastic philosophers before the thirteenth century, philosophical inquiry meant almost exclusively the discussion and elucidation of the problems suggested by the logical treatises of Aristotle and the commentaries thereon, chiefly the commentaries of Porphyry and Boëtius. Perhaps his most important contribution to philosophy and theology is the method which he developed in his “Sic et Non” (Yea and Nay), a method germinally contained in the teaching of his predecessors, and afterwards brought to more definite form by Alexander of Hales and St. Thomas Aquinas. It consisted in placing before the student the reasons pro and contra, on the principle that truth is to be attained only by a dialectical discussion of apparently contradictory arguments and authorities. In the problem of Universals, which occupied so much of the attention of dialecticians in those days, Abelard took a position of uncompromising hostility to the crude nominalism of Roscelin on the one side, and to the exaggerated realism of William of Champeaux on the other. What, precisely, was his own doctrine on the question is a matter which cannot with accuracy be determined. However, from the statements of his pupil, John of Salisbury, it is clear that Abelard’s doctrine, while expressed in terms of a modified Nominalism, was very similar to the moderate Realism which began to be official in the schools about half a century after Abelard’s death. In ethics Abelard laid such great stress on the morality of the intention as apparently to do away with the objective distinction between good and evil acts. It is not the physical action itself, he said, nor any imaginary injury to God, that constitutes sin, but rather the psychological element in the action, the intention of sinning, which is formal contempt of God. With regard to the relation between reason and revelation, between the sciences—including philosophy—and theology, Abelard incurred in his own day the censure of mystic theologians like St. Bernard, whose tendency was to disinherit reason in favour of contemplation and ecstatic vision. And it is true that if the principles “Reason aids Faith” and “Faith aids Reason” are to be taken as the inspiration of scholastic theology, Abelard was constitutionally inclined to emphasize the former, and not lay stress on the latter. Besides, he adopted a tone, and employed a phraseology, when speaking of sacred subjects, which gave offence, and rightly, to the more conservative of his contemporaries. Still, Abelard had good precedent for his use of dialectic in the elucidation of the mysteries of faith; he was by no means an innovator in this respect; and though the thirteenth century, the golden age of scholasticism, knew little of Abelard, it took up his method, and with fearlessness equal to his, though without any of his flippancy or irreverence, gave full scope to reason in the effort to expound and defend the mysteries of the Christian Faith. St. Bernard sums up the charges against Abelard when he writes (Ep. cxcii) “Cum de Trinitate loquitur, sapit Arium; cum do gratiâ, sapit Pelagium; cum de personâ Christi, sapit Nestorium,” and there is no doubt that on these several heads Abelard wrote and said many things which were open to objection from the point of view of orthodoxy. That is to say, while combating the opposite errors, he fell inadvertently into mistakes which he himself did not recognize as Arianism, Pelagianism, and Nestorianism, and which even his enemies could characterize merely as savouring of Arianism, Pelagianism, and Nestorianism. Abelard’s influence on his immediate successors was not very great, owing partly to his conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities, and partly to his personal defects, more especially his vanity and pride, which must have given the impression that he valued truth less than victory.

His influence on the philosophers and theologians of the thirteenth century was, however, very great. It was exercised chiefly through Peter Lombard, his pupil, and other framers of the “Sentences.” Indeed, while one must be careful to discount the exaggerated encomiums of Compayré, Cousin, and others, who represent Abelard as the first modern, the founder of the University of Paris, etc., one is justified in regarding him, in spite of his faults of character and mistakes of judgment, as an important contributor to scholastic method, an enlightened opponent of obscurantism, and a continuator of that revival of learning which occurred in the Carolingian age, and of which whatever there is of science, literature, and speculation in the early Middle Ages is the historical development.

WILLIAM TURNER

Louis Abelly

Louis Abelly (1603–91) was Vicar-General of Bayonne, a parish priest in Paris, and subsequently Bishop of Rodez in 1664, but in 1666 abdicated and attached himself to St. Vincent de Paul in the House of St. Lazare, Paris. His ascetical works reveal his deep and sincere piety. He was a bitter foe of the Jansenists, chiefly of St. Cyran, against whom he directed his Life of St. Vincent de Paul, a work which Hurter describes as “full of unction.” His Medulla Theologica went through many editions, and is characterized by its “solidity, directness, and usefulness.” According to St. Alphonsus, Abelly is “a classic in probabilism.” His Défense de la hiérarchie de l’Eglise was directed against an anonymous Gallican writer. He wrote also two Enchiridions, one for bishops, another for priests; a treatise entitled De l’obéissance et soumission due au Pape; and another called Traité des Hérésies. Replying to a Jansenist work known as Monita Salutaria, he published his Sentiments des SS. Pères, touchant les excellences et les prérogatives de la T.S. Vierge.

HURTER, Nomenclator, VII, 586.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Abenakis

A confederation of Algonquin tribes, comprising the Penobscots, Passamaquoddies, Norridgewocks, and others, formerly occupying what is now Maine, and southern New Brunswick. Their territory joined that of the Micmacs on the northeast, and that of the Penobscots on the southwest. Their speech is a dialect of the Micmac language of the North American Indians. They took sides with the French and maintained an increasing hostility against encroachments of the English. When their principal town, Norridgewock, was taken, and their missionary, Rasle, was killed (1724), the greater part of them removed to St. Francis, in the province of Quebec, Canada, whither other refugees from the New England tribes had preceded them. They are now represented by the Amalectites on the St. John River, New Brunswick, and Quebec (820); the Passamaquoddies, on the bay of that name, in Maine (300); the Penobscots, at Old Town, Maine (400), and the Abnakis at St. Francis and Becancourt, Quebec (430). There are a dozen variations of the name Abenakis, such as Abenaquiois, Abakivis, Quabenakionek, Wabenakies, etc. They are described in the “Jesuit Relations” as not cannibals, and as docile, ingenious, temperate in the use of liquor, and not profane. Their language has been preserved in the monumental dictionary of Sebastian Rasle. After the unsuccessful attempt of de la Saussaye, in 1613, to plant a colony as Mount Desert—where the Jesuit Fathers Biard, Masse, and Quentin proposed to evangelize the Indians—the Capuchins and the Recollects, aided by secular priests from the seminary of Quebec, undertook the work, but met with indifferent success. The Jesuit Druillettes was sent to them in 1646, but remained only a short time. Subsequently, other missionaries like Bigot, Thury, and de la Chasse laboured among them, but three years after the murder of Father Rasle, that is to say in 1727, when Fathers Syvesme and Lauverjat withdrew, there was no resident pastor in Maine, though the Indians were visited by priests from time to time. They remained unalterably attached to the Faith, and during the Revolution, when Washington sent to ask them to join with the colonies against England, they assented on condition that a Catholic priest should be sent to them. Some of the chaplains of the French fleet communicated with them, promising to comply with their request, but beyond that nothing was done. At the present time there are Indian missions for the remnants of the tribe at Calais, Eastport, and Old Town.

Jesuit Relations, passim; Shea, Catholic Church in Colonial Days, 1521–1763 (New York, 1886); Maurault, Hist. des Abénakis depuis 1605 a nos jours (Quebec, 1866).

T.J. CAMPBELL

Abraham-ben-Méir Aben-Ezra

(Or IBN ‘EZRA).

A celebrated Spanish Rabbi, born at Toledo in 1092; died on his Journey from Rome, or Rodez, to his native land, 23 January, 1167. He excelled in philosophy, astronomy, medicine, poetry, linguistics, and exegesis. He was called the Wise, the Great, the Admirable Doctor. Having to leave his native city on account of the vexations inflicted on the Jews, he travelled through a great part of Europe, through Egypt and Palestine. Rome, London, Narbonne, Mantua, Verona, and Rodez are some of the places he visited. His chief work is his commentary on the Sacred Books, which is nearly complete, the Books of Paralipomenon being the only ones missing. His commentary on the Pentateuch appeared in several revisions. In his commentary Aben-Ezra adheres to the literal sense of the Sacred Books, avoiding Rabbinic allegories and Cabbalistic extravagances, though he remains faithful to the Jewish traditions. This does not prevent him from exercising an independent criticism, which, according to some writers, even borders on rationalism. But in his other works he follows the Cabbalistic views. The Book of the Secrets of the Law, The Mystery of the Form of the Letters, The Enigma of the Quiescent Letters, The Book of the Name, The Book of the Balance of the Sacred Language, The Book of Purity [of the Language] are perhaps the most important of his works of this kind. They were written during his life of travel, and they reflect the unsteadiness of his outward circumstances. Taking Aben-Ezra’s work as a whole, it consists rather in popularizing Rabbinic Andalusian ideas on Latin and Saxon soil than in producing original thought.

LEVESQUE, in VIG., Dict. de la Bible (Paris 1895); WELTE, in Kirchenlex. (Freiburg, 1882); Jewish Encyclopedia, VI, 520 sq. (New York, 1904).

A.J. MAAS

Inscription of Abercius

A Greek hagiographical text, which has, however, undergone alterations, and a Greek inscription of the second century have made known to us a certain Abercius, Bishop of Hieropolis, in Phrygia, who, about the middle of the century in question, left his episcopal city and visited Rome. On his way home he travelled through Syria and Mesopotamia, and was received with great honours in various places. He died shortly after his return to Hieropolis, but not before he had composed his own epitaph, conveying a most vivid impression of all he had admired during his stay in Rome. This epitaph may well have inspired the Life of Abercius such as it has come down to us, since all its details may be explained by the hints contained in the inscription, or else belong to the common foundation of all legends of saints. The Life, as a matter of fact, includes a transcription of the epitaph. Tillemont was greatly struck by the ideas therein expressed, and Pitra endeavoured to prove its authenticity and its important bearing on Christian symbolism. Renan regarded both the Life and inscription as fanciful compositions, but in 1882 an English traveller, W. Ramsay, discovered at Kelendres, near Synnada, in Phrygia Salutaris (Asia Minor), a Christian stele (inscribed slab) bearing the date of the year 300 of the Phrygian era (A.D. 216). The inscription in question recalled the memory of a certain Alexander, son of Anthony. De Rossi and Duchesne at once recognized in it phrases similar to those in the epitaph of Abercius. On comparison it was found that the inscription in memory of Alexander corresponded, almost word for word, with the first and last verses of the epitaph of the Bishop of Hieropolis; all the middle part was missing. Mr. Ramsay, on a second visit to the site of Hieropolis, in 1883, discovered two new fragments covered with inscriptions, built into the masonry of the public baths. These fragments, which are now in the Vatican Christian Museum, filled out the middle part of the stele inscribed with the epitaph of Abercius. It now became possible, with the help of the text preserved in the Life, to restore the original text of the epitaph with practical certainty. Certain lacunae, letters effaced or cut off by breaks in the stone, have been the subject of profound discussions, resulting in a text which may henceforth be looked on as settled, and which it may be useful to give here. The capital letters at the beginning and end of the inscription represent the parts found on the inscription of Alexander, the son of Anthony, those of the middle part are the remaining fragments of the epitaph of Abercius, while the small letters give the reading according to the manuscripts of the Life:

ἐκΛΕΚΤΗΣ ΠΟλεΩΣ Ο ΠΟΛΕΙ

της τΟΥΤ ΕΠΟΙΗσα

ζῶν ΙΝ ΕΧΩ καιρῷ

ΣΩΜΑΤΟΣ ΕΝΘΑ ΘΕΣΙΝ

ΟΥΝΟΜ Ἀβέρκιος ὢν ὁ

ΜΑΘΗΤΗΣ ΠΟΙΜΕΝΟΣ ΑΓΝΟΥ

ὅ βόσκει προβάτων ἀγέλας

ὅρεσιν πεδίοις τε

ὀφθαλμοὺς ὃς ἔχει μεγάλους

πάντη καθορῶνται

οὗτος γὰρ μ’ ἐδίδαξε

(τὰ ζωῆς) γράμματα πιστά

ΕΙΣ ΡΩΜΗν ὃς ἔπεμψεν

ΕΜΕΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣσαν ἰδεῖν Χρυσοσ

ΤΟΛΟΝ ΧΡυσοπέδιλον

ΛΑΟΝ Δ ΕΙΔΟΝ ἐκεῖ λαμπρὰν

ΣΦΡΑΓΕΙΔΑΝ Εχοντα

ΚΑΙ ΣΥΡΙΗΣ ΠΕδον εἶδα

ΚΑΙ ΑΣΤΕΑ ΠΑντα Νίσιβιν

ΕΥΦΡΑΤΗΝ ΔΙΑβὰς παν—ΤΗ Δ ΕΣΧΟΝ ΣΥΝΟμίλους

ΠΑΥΛΟΝ ΕΧΟΝ ΕΠΟ

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ πάντη δὲ προῆγε

ΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΗΘΗΚΕ τροφὴν

ΠΑΝΤΗ ΙΧΘΥΝ Απὸ πηγῆς

ΠΑΝ ΜΕΓΕΘΗ ΚΑΘαρὸν ὃν

ΕΔΡΑΞΑΤΟ ΠΑΡΘενὸς ἁγνή

ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥΤΟΝ ΕΠΕδωκε φί—ΛΟΙΣ ΕΣΘίειν διὰ παντὸς

οἶνον χρηστὸν ἔχουσα

κέρασμα διδοῦσα μετ’ ἄρτου

ταῦτα παρεστὼς εἶπον

Ἀβέκιος ὧδε γραφῆναι

ἑβδομήκοστον ἔτος καὶ

δεύτερον ἦγον ἀληθῶς

ταῦθ’ ὁ νοῶν εὔξαιτο ὑπὲρ

Ἀβερκίου πάς ὁ συνῳδός

ΟΥ ΜΕΝΤΟΙ ΤΥΜΒω ΤΙΣ ΕΜΩ

ΕΤΕΡΟΝ ΤιΝΑ ΘΗΣΕΙ

ΕΙΔ ΟΥΝ ΡΩΜΑΙΩΝ ΤΑμΕΙΩ

ΘΗΣΕι ΔΙΣΧΕΙΛΙΑ χΡΥΣΑ

ΠΟΛΕΙ ΧΕΙΛΙΑ ΧΡΥΣΑ

“The citizen of a chosen city, this [monument] I made [while] living, that there I might have in time a resting-place of my body, [I] being by name Abercius, the disciple of a holy shepherd who feeds flocks of sheep [both] on mountains and on plains, who has great eyes that see everywhere. For this [shepherd] taught me [that the] book [of life] is worthy of belief. And to Rome he sent me to contemplate majesty, and to see a queen golden-robed and golden-sandalled; there also I saw a people bearing a shining mark. And I saw the land of Syria and all [its] cities Nisibis [I saw] when I passed over Euphrates. But everywhere I had brethren. I had Paul. . . . Faith everywhere led me forward, and everywhere provided as my food a fish of exceeding great size, and perfect, which a holy virgin drew with her hands from a fountain and this it [faith] ever gives to its friends to eat, it having wine of great virtue, and giving it mingled with bread. These things I, Abercius, having been a witness [of them] told to be written here. Verily I was passing through my seventy-second year. He that discerneth these things, every fellow-believer [namely], let him pray for Abercius. And no one shall put another grave over my grave; but if he do, then shall he pay to the treasury of [the] Romans two thousand pieces of gold and to my good native city of Hieropolis one thousand pieces of gold.”

The interpretation of this inscription has stimulated ingenious efforts and very animated controversies. In 1894 G. Ficker, supported by O. Hirschfeld, strove to prove that Abercius was a priest of Cybele. In 1895 A. Harnack offered an explanation which was sufficiently obscure, making Abercius the representative of an ill-defined religious syncretism arbitrarily combined in such a fashion as to explain all portions of the inscription which were otherwise inexplicable. In 1896, Dieterich made Abercius a priest of Attis. These plausible theories have been refuted by several learned archaeologists, especially by De Rossi, Duchesne, and Cumont. Nor is there any further need to enter into the questions raised in one quarter or another; the following conclusions are indisputably historical. The epitaph of Abercius is generally, and with good reason, regarded as older than that of Alexander, the son of Anthony, i.e. prior to the year of Our Lord 216. The subject of it may be identified with a writer named Abercius Marcellus, author of a work against the Montanists, some fragments of which have been preserved by Eusebius. As the treatise in question was written about the year 193, the epitaph may be assigned to the last years of the second, or to the beginning of the third, century. The writer was bishop of a little town, the name of which is wrongly given in the Life, since he belongs to Hieropolis in Phrygia Salutaris, and not to Hierapolis in Phrygia Pacatiensis. The proof of this fact given by Duchesne is all that could be wished for. The text of the inscription itself is of the greatest possible importance in connection with the symbolism of the early Church. The poem of sixteen verses which forms the epitaph shows plainly that the language used is one not understood by all; Let the brother who shall understand this pray for Abercius. The bishop’s journey to Rome is merely mentioned, but on his way home he gives us the principal stages of his itinerary. He passed along the Syrian coast and, possibly, came to Antioch, thence to Nisibis, after-having traversed the whole of Syria, while his return to Hieropolis may have been by way of Edessa. The allusion to St. Paul the Apostle, which a gap in the text renders indecipherable, may originally have told how the traveller followed on his way back to his country the stages of St. Paul’s third missionary journey, namely: Issus, Tarsus, Derbe, Iconium, Antioch in Pisidia, and Apamea Cibotus, which would bring him into the heart of Phrygia. The inscription bears witness of no slight value to the importance of the Church of Rome in the second century. A mere glance at the text allows us to note: (1) The evidence of baptism which marks the Christian people with its dazzling seal; (2) The spread of Christianity, whose members Abercius meets with everywhere; (3) The receiving of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and of Mary, in the Eucharist, (4) under the species of Bread and Wine. The liturgical cultus of Abercius presents no point of special interest; his name appears for the first time in the Greek menologies and synaxaries of the tenth century, but is not found in the Martyrology of St. Jerome.

PITRA, in the Spicilegium Solesmense (Paris, 1855, III, 533; IV, 483); DUCHESNE, Abercius, eveque d’Hieropolis, in the Revue des questions historiques (1883), XXXIV, 533; LECLERCQ, in Dict. d arch ol. chr t. et de liturgie, I, 66- 87; LIGHTFOOT, Apostolic Fathers (London, 1889), II, i, 492–501.

H. LECLERCQ

John Abercromby

Died 1561. During the Scottish Reformation we know that the Catholic clergy were treated with great violence, but particulars of their misfortunes are hard to find. Thomas Dempster, a diligent writer of the next century, whose accuracy, however, cannot always be trusted, in his Historia Gentis Scotorum (Edinburgh, 1829), 28, names Abercromby as having lost his life from such violence. He adds that he thinks the sufferer was a Benedictine, and that he had written in behalf of the Faith.

JOHN HUNGERFORD POLLEN

Robert Abercromby

(Sometimes known as Sanders and as Robertson).

A Jesuit missionary in Scotland in the time of the persecutions, born 1532; died at Braunsberg, in Prussia, 27 April, 1613. He was brought into prominence chiefly by the fact that he converted the Queen of James I of England, when that monarch was as yet James IV of Scotland. The Queen was Anne of Denmark, and her father, an ardent Lutheran, has stipulated that she should have the right to practice her own religion in Scotland, and for that purpose sent with her a chaplain named John Lering who, however, shortly after his arrival, became a Calvinist. The Queen, who abhorred Calvinism, asked some of the Catholic nobles for advice, and it was suggested to call Father Abercromby, who, with some other Jesuits, was secretly working among the Scotch Catholics and winning many illustrious converts to the Church. Though brought up a Lutheran, Queen Anne had in her youth lived with a niece of the Emperor Charles V, and not only knew something of the Faith, but had frequently been present at Mass with her former friend. Abercromby was introduced into the palace, instructed the Queen in the Catholic religion, and received her into the Church. This was about the year 1600. As to the date there is some controversy. Andrew Lang, who merely quotes Mac Quhirrie as to the fact of the conversion, without mentioning Abercromby, puts it as occurring in 1598. Intelligence of it at last came to the ears of the King, who, instead of being angry, warned her to keep it secret, as her conversion might imperil his crown. He even went as far as to appoint Abercromby Superintendent of the Royal Falconry, in order that he might remain near the Queen. Up to the time that James succeeded to the crown of England, Father Abercromby remained at the Scottish Court, celebrating Mass in secret, and giving Holy Communion nine or ten times to his neophyte. When the King and Queen were crowned sovereigns of Great Britain, Anne gave proof of her sincerity by absolutely refusing to receive the Protestant sacrament, declaring that she preferred to forfeit her crown rather than take part in what she considered a sacrilegious profanation. Of this, Lang, in his “History of Scotland,” says nothing. She made several ineffectual attempts to convert the King. Abercromby remained in Scotland for some time, but as a price of 10,000 crowns was put upon his head he came to England, only to find that the King’s kindly dispositions toward him had undergone a change. The alleged discovery of a Gunpowder Plot in 1605, and the attempts made to implicate the Jesuits in the conspiracy had excited in the mind of the King feelings of bitter hostility to the Society. He ordered a strict search to be made for Abercromby, who consequently left the country and betook himself to Braunsberg, in Eastern Prussia, where he died, in his eighty-first year.

Bellesheim, Hist, of the Cath. Church in Scotland, VIII, 346; Rostowski, Lituanic, S. J., Hist., 236; Abercromby’s Narrative in the Biblioth. Nation., Paris, Fonds latins, 6051, fol. 50.

T.J. CAMPBELL

The Diocese of Aberdeen

(Scotland).

A see was founded in 1063 at Mortlach by Bl. Beyn. The earliest mention of the old See of Aberdeen is in the charter of the foundation, by the Earl of Buchan, of the Church of Deer (c. 1152), which is witnessed by Nectan, Bishop of Aberdeen. But the first authentic record of the see is in the Bull of Adrian IV (1157), confirming to Edward, Bishop of Aberdeen, the churches of Aberdeen and St. Machar, with the town of Old Aberdeen and other lands. The granite cathedral was built between 1272 and 1277. Bishop Thomas Spence founded a Franciscan house in 1480, and King’s College was founded at Old Aberdeen by Bishop Elphinstone, for eight prebendaries, chapter, sacristan, organist, and six choristers, in 1505. The see was transferred to Old Aberdeen about 1125, and continued there until 1577, having had in that time a list of twenty-nine bishops. From 1653, when the Scottish clergy were incorporated into a missionary body by the Congregation of the Propaganda, until 1695, the Catholics of Scotland were governed by prefects-apostolic. Then followed vicars-apostolic until 4 March, 1878, when Leo XIII, in the first year of his pontificate, restored the hierarchy of Scotland by the Bull Ex supremo Apostolatus apice, and Vicar-Apostolic John MacDonald was translated to the restored See of Aberdeen as its first bishop.

The Bull made Aberdeen one of the four suffragan sees of the Archbishopric of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, and defined as its territory “the counties of Aberdeen, Kincardine, Banff, Elgin or Moray, Nairn, Ross (except Lewis in the Hebrides), Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, the Orkney and Shetland Islands, and that portion of Inverness which lies to the north of a straight line drawn from the most northerly point of Loch Luing to the eastern boundary of the said county of Inverness, where the counties of Aberdeen and Banff join.” In 1906, out of a population of over 800,000 there were nearly 4,000 Catholics; 48 secular priests; 24 regulars; 57 churches, chapels, and stations; 1 college; 1 industrial school for girls; 1 orphanage for boys; 1 orphanage for girls. There are also Benedictine nuns, Poor Sisters of Nazareth, Franciscan Sisters, Religious of the Sacred Heart, and Sisters of Mercy. There have been four Bishops of Aberdeen since the restoration, the present incumbent, the Rt. Rev. AEneas Chisholm, having been consecrated 24 February, 1899. There is a Benedictine Abbey at Fort Augustus, at which the restored hierarchy met in a Provincial Council, August, 1886, under the presidency of the Archbishop of St. Andrews, three hundred and twenty-six years after the downfall of the Faith in Scotland. The Provincial Council of 1 March, 1559, at Edinburgh, under Archbishop Hamilton, was the last council before this, and that had adjourned after appointing Septuagesima Sunday of 1560, for the next meeting of the synod. Fort Augustus was raised to the rank of an abbey, immediately subject to the Holy See, by a brief of Leo XIII, 12 December, 1882. The munificence of Lord Lovat and other liberal benefactors called it into being.

The Catholic Directory (London, 1906); BELLESHEIM, History of the Catholic Church in Scotland (London, 1887, tr. HUNTERBLAIR), I, 239, 425, passim.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

The University of Aberdeen

The founder of this, one of the three universities established in Scotland in Catholic times, was William Elphinstone, who was Bishop of Aberdeen from 1483 to 1514. Early in his episcopate a petition had been sent to Rome in the name of King James IV, but probably framed by Elphinstone himself, representing the ignorance which prevailed in the greater part of his diocese, and in the northern districts of the kingdom generally. The Papal Bull for the erection of Aberdeen University was issued 24 February, 1491 (1495 according to our modern way of reckoning). Bishop Elphinstone had been a professor at Paris and at Orleans for nine years, and it was on the University of Paris, both as to form and organization, and also in its wide scope of general mental training, that the new establishment was modelled by its founder. In 1495 Elphinstone procured a royal charter assigning to academic purposes certain ecclesiastical revenues and conceding to the new university all the privileges enjoyed by the universities of Paris, St. Andrews, and Glasgow. Hector Boece, professor of philosophy at Paris, was appointed first principal of the university, which was established in what is now known as Old Aberdeen, near the ancient Cathedral of St. Machar. In 1593, George Keith, fifth Earl Marshal of Scotland, founded a second university (hence called Marischal College) in the new town of Aberdeen, and granted to it the buildings of the dispossessed Black (Dominican), Grey (Franciscan), and White (Carmelite) Friars as endowment. The two universities were united for a time (from 1640 until after the Restoration), and many schemes for their permanent reunion were promulgated in the 18th century; but it was not until 1859 that their fusion was finally affected, after much local opposition. New professorships and lectureships have been recently founded, and at Marischal College, now the seat of the faculties of science, law, and medicine, a scheme of building extension on a great scale is at present (1905) being carried out. The number of students is about 700, and the number of professors 24.

RASHDALL, History of Universities (1805) II, 309; INNES, Sketches of Early Scotch History (Edinburgh, 1871), 254.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Moritz von Aberle

Catholic theologian, b. at Rottum, near Biberach, in Swabia, 25 April, 1819; d. at Tübingen, 3 November, 1875. He became professor in the Obergymnasium, at Ehingen, in 1845; director of the Wilhelmstift, in 1848; professor of moral theology and New Testament exegesis in the university at Tübingen, in 1850, a position he retained till the day of his death. He had a considerable number of pupils in both branches, but he was especially devoted to Scriptural studies. He emphasized the activity of the human bearers of revelation, without changing it into a purely natural process. The results of his investigations he published in a series of articles contributed to the Tübingen theol. Quartalschrift, 1851–72, and to the Bonner theol. Lit.-Blatt. The main thoughts of these articles were collected and published under the title, Introduction to the New Testament, by Dr. Paul Schanz (Freiburg, 1877). Aberle’s view that the Gospels and the Book of Acts are apologetic writings, meeting certain needs of the Apostolic times, cannot be sustained. He took also an active part in the struggle for ecclesiastical liberty in Würtemberg, and his strong newspaper articles forced the State to arrange Church matters on a tolerable basis.

HIMPEL, Theologische Quartalschrift, 1876, 177–228; WERNER, Geschichte der neuzeitl. christlich-kirchl. Apologetik (Schaffhausen, 1867).

A.J. MAAS

The Legend of Abgar

Abgar, The Legend of.—The historian Eusebius records a tradition (H.E., I, xii), which he himself firmly believes, concerning a correspondence that took place between Our Lord and the local potentate at Edessa. Three documents relate to this correspondence: (1) the letter of Abgar to Our Lord; (2) Our Lord’s answer; (3) a picture of Our Lord, painted from life. This legend enjoyed great popularity, both in the East and in the West, during the Middle Ages: Our Lord’s letter was copied on parchment, marble, and metal, and used as a talisman or an amulet. In the age of Eusebius the original letters, written in Syriac, were thought to be kept in the archives of Edessa. At the present day we possess not only a Syriac text, but an Armenian translation as well, two independent Greek versions, shorter than the Syriac, and several inscriptions on stone, all of which are discussed in two articles in the “Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgies” cols. 88 sq. and 1807 sq. The only two works to be consulted in regard to this literary problem are the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius, and the “Teaching of Addaï,” which professes to belong to the Apostolic age. The legend, according to these two works, runs as follows: Abgar, king of Edessa, afflicted with an incurable sickness, has heard the fame of the power and miracles of Jesus and writes to Him, praying Him to come and heal him. Jesus declines, but promises to send a messenger, endowed with His power, namely Thaddeus (or Addaï), one of the seventy-two Disciples. The letters of Our Lord and of the king of Edessa vary in the version given in Eusebius and in that of the “Teaching of Addaï.” That which follows is taken from the Teaching of Addaï,” as being less accessible than the History of Eusebius:

Abgar Ouchama to Jesus, the Good Physician Who has appeared in the country of Jerusalem, greeting:

I have heard of Thee, and of Thy healing; that Thou dost not use medicines or roots, but by Thy word openest (the eyes) of the blind, makest the lame to walk, cleansest the lepers, makest the deaf to hear; how by Thy word (also) Thou healest (sick) spirits and those who are tormented with lunatic demons, and how, again, Thou raisest the dead to life. And , learning the wonders that Thou doest, it was borne in upon me that (of two things, one): either Thou hast come down from heaven, or else Thou art the Son of God, who bringest all these things to pass. Wherefore I write to Thee, and pray that thou wilt come to me, who adore Thee, and heal all the ill that I suffer, according to the faith I have in Thee. I also learn that the Jews murmur against Thee, and persecute Thee, that they seek to crucify Thee, and to destroy Thee. I possess but one small city, but it is beautiful, and large enough for us two to live in peace.

When Jesus had received the letter, in the house of the high priest of the Jews, He said to Hannan, the secretary, “Go thou, and say to thy master, who hath sent thee to Me: ‘Happy art thou who hast believed in Me, not having seen me, for it is written of me that those who shall see me shall not believe in Me, and that those who shall not see Me shall believe in Me. As to that which thou hast written, that I should come to thee, (behold) all that for which I was sent here below is finished, and I ascend again to My Father who sent Me, and when I shall have ascended to Him I will send thee one of My disciples, who shall heal all thy sufferings, and shall give (thee) health again, and shall convert all who are with thee unto life eternal. And thy city shall be blessed forever, and the enemy shall never overcome it.’“ According to Eusebius, it was not Hannan who wrote answer, but Our Lord Himself.

A curious legendary growth has sprung up from this imaginary occurrence. The nature of Abgar’s sickness has been gravely discussed, to the credit of various writers’ imaginations, so holding that it was gout, others leprosy; the former saying that it had lasted seven years, the latter discovering that the sufferer had contracted his disease during a stay in Persia. Other chroniclers, again, maintain that the letter was written on parchment, though some favour papyrus. The crucial passage in Our Lord’s letter, however, is that which promises the city of Edessa victory over all enemies. It gave the little town a popularity which vanished on the day that it fell into the hands of conquerors. It was a rude shock to those who believed the legend; they were more ready to attribute the fall of the city to God’s anger against the inhabitants than to admit the failure of a safeguard which was no less trusted to at that time than in the past.

The fact related in the correspondence has long since ceased to be of any historical value. The text is borrowed in two places from that of the Gospel, which of itself is sufficient to disprove the authenticity of the letter. Moreover, the quotations are made not from the Gospels proper, but from the famous concordance of Tatian, compiled in the second century, and known as the “Diatessaron,” thus fixing the date of the legend as approximately the middle of the third century. In addition, however, to the importance which it attained in the apocryphal cycle, the correspondence of King Abgar also gained a place in liturgy. The decree, “De libris non recipiendis,” of the pseudo-Gelasius, places the letter among the apocrypha, which may, possibly, be an allusion to its having been interpolated among the officially sanctioned lessons of the liturgy. The Syrian liturgies commemorate the correspondence of Abgar during Lent. The Celtic liturgy appears to have attached importance to the legend; the “Liber Hymnorum,” a manuscript preserved at Trinity College, Dublin (E. 4, 2), gives two collects on the lines of the letter to Abgar. Nor is it by any means impossible that this letter, followed by various prayers, may have formed a minor liturgical office in certain churches.

The account given by Adda contains a detail which may here be briefly referred to. Hannan, who wrote at Our Lord’s dictation, was archivist at Edessa and painter to King Abgar. He had been charged to paint a portrait of Our Lord, a task which he carried out, bringing back with him to Edessa a picture which came an object of general veneration, but which, after a while, was said to have been painted by Our Lord Himself. Like the letter, the portrait was destined be the nucleus of a legendary growth; the “Holy Face of Edessa” was chiefly famous in the Byzantine world. A bare indication, however, of this fact must suffice here, since the legend of the Edessa portrait forms part of the extremely difficult and obscure subject of the iconography of Christ, and of the pictures of miraculous origin called acheiropoietoe (“made without hands”).

[Sources missing.]

H. LECLERCQ

Abiathar

(Hebrew ebhyathar, Father of plenty, or, the great one is father).

Descendant of Achimelech, Achitob, Phinees, Heli, Ithamar, Aaron, a high priest who escaped from the slaughter at Nob, went to David in his banishment (I K., xxii, 20–23,; xxiii, 6) and assisted him with his advice (I K., xxiii, 9–14; xxx, 7). Together with the high priest Sadoc, he assisted at the transportation of the ark to Jerusalem (I Par., xv, 11, 12), and tried to follow David in his flight (II K., xv, 24), but instead aided him by counsel (II K., xv, 29–36; xvii, 15 sq.; xix, 11; I Par., xxvii, 34). He favoured Adonias (III K., i, 7, 19, 25, 42), and was banished by Solomon to Anathoth (III K., ii, 22–27), thus completing the ruin of the house of Ithamar (I K., ii, 30–36; iii, 10–14). As to II K., viii, 17, see Commentaries.

A.J. MAAS

Abila

A titular see of Phoenicia, in the region of Mt. Libanus, now Suk Wady Barada, near Damascus, and the capital and stronghold of Abilina (Luke 3:1).

Abbey of Abingdon

Abingdon, The Abbey of, in the County of Berkshire, England, was founded A.D. 675, by Cyssa, Viceroy of Kinwine, King of the West Saxons, or by his nephew Heane, in honour of the Virgin Mary, for twelve Benedictine monks. Endowed by successive West Saxon kings, it grew in importance and wealth until its destruction by the Danes in the reign of King Alfred, and the sequestration of its estates by Alfred because the monks had not made him a sufficient requital for vanquishing their enemies. There is a collection of 136 charters granted to this Abbey by various Saxon Kings (Cottonian MSS. apud; Dugdale). Among its abbots were St. Ethelwold, afterwards Bishop of Winchester (954), and Richard de Hendred, for whose-appointment the King’s consent was obtained in 1262. It is recorded of him that he wore both mitre and pontificals on the Feast of Holy Trinity in 1268. Hence Willis supposes that lie was the first abbot to possess the privilege; He was present at the (Council of Lyons in 1272; The last Abbot of Abingdon was Thomas Pentecost (alias Rowland), who was among the first to acknowledge the Royal Supremacy. With the rest of his community he signed the surrender of his monastery in 1538, receiving the manor of Cumnor for life or until he had preferment to the extent of £223 per annum. The revenues of the Abbey (26 Hen. VIII) were valued at £1876, 10s, 9d.

Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon (ed. Stevenson); DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum; LYSONS, Magna Brittania (Berkshire); COOPER-KING, History of Berkshire, s.v.

FRANCIS AVELING

Thomas Abington

Abington (or Habington), Thomas, an English antiquarian, b. 1560; d. 1647. His father, who was treasurer to Queen Elizabeth, had him educated at Oxford, Reims, and Paris. For six years he was imprisoned in the Tower, being accused, with his brother Edward, of having taken part in the plot of Babington to effect the escape of Mary Queen of Scots. On his release he retired to Hinlip Castle in Lancaster, where he gave asylum to the Jesuit Fathers, Henry Garnett and Oldcorne, accused of complicity in the Gunpowder Plot. For this he was condemned to death, but through the intervention of his son-in-law, Lord Monteagle, the sentence was commuted to exile. His “History of Edward IV” was published after his death and also an English translation of “Gildas” (London, 1638). He also left in manuscript a “History of the Cathedral of Worcester” and “Researches into the Antiquities of Worcester.”

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. English Catholics, s.v.

THOMAS WALSH

Abipones

Abipones, Missions among the.—This Indian tribe, linguistically of Guaycuru stock, formerly roaming the east side of the Paraná river, was finally concentrated between the Rio Bermejo on the north, the Rio Salado on the south, and the Parana on the east, on the soil of the present Argentine Republic. Their customs appear to have been the same of those of South American tribes in general; clanship, an elaborate animism, or fetishism, complete sway of the medicine-men over private and tribal matters; chiefs eligible, or imposed through the impression created by casual achievements combined with wiles of the Shamans. Their weapons were lances, bows, and arrows, though the lance was preferred. They had most of the customs of the Guaycuru, including the couvade. In 1641 the Abipones had already obtained the horse from the Spanish settlers. At that time they were, according to tradition, still north of the Rio Bermejo, whence it is likely they were driven south by the Tobas, a warlike tribe of their own linguistic stock. Their horses, thriving on the grassy plains, soon made the Abipones very dangerous to Spanish colonization by means of raids on the settlements, by which they increased their own stocks of horses and cattle. In the first half of the eighteenth century, the Jesuits undertook the task of taming these unruly centaurs of the “Grand Chaco.” With great difficulty, Fathers Casado, Sanchez, and especially Father Martin Dobrizhoffer, who was for eighteen years a missionary in Paraguay, succeeded in forming several settlements of Christianized Abipones near the Parana. These colonies were maintained in spit of the turbulent spirit of the neophytes, which caused incessant trouble with Spanish settlers, and above all, in spite of the murderous onslaughts made by the Tobas and Moobobis, strong and warlike tribes, upon the missions, when these showed signs of material prosperity. The expulsion of the Jesuits from Paraguay in 1768 and 1769 was the deathknell of the Abipones. The Tobas and Moobobis destroyed them in the course of less than half a century. It is to the work of Father Martin Dobrizhoffer, S.J., that we know most of our knowledge of the Abipones.

Dobrizhoffer, Historia de Abiponibus, equestri, bellicosaque Paraguariae natione, etc. (Vienna, 1784; German version, 1784; English tr. 1822). References to the language are found in Hervas, Origine, Formazione, Mecanismo, ed Armonia degli Idiomi (Cesena, 1785); Id., Vocabulario poliglotto (1787); Saggio practico delle Lingue etc. (1787); Adrian Balbi, Atlas ethnographique du globe (Paris, 1826); Alcide d’Orbrigny, L’Homme americain (Paris, 1839); Brinton, The American Race.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Abisai

(Abhishay, abhshay; Sept. Abessa, Abisai).

Son of David’s sister Sarvia, and brother of Joab, a most valiant warrior (II K. xxiii, 18, 19; I Par., xi, 20, 21), and a faithful friend of David in his struggles against Saul (I K. xxvi, 6–9; II K. ii, 24; iii, 30), against the Ammonites, Syrians, and Edomites (II K., viii, 13; x, 9–14; I Par., xviii, 12; xix, 11–15), against Absalom (II K. xvi, 9, 10; xix, 21, 22; xviii, 2), Seba (II K., xx, 6), and the Philistines (II K., xxi, 15–17).

HAGEN, Lexicon Biblicum (Paris, 1905); PALIS in VIG., Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1895); WHITE in HAST., Dict. of the Bible (New York, 1903).

A.J. MAAS

Abjuration

A denial, disavowal, or renunciation under oath. In common ecclesiastical language this term is restricted to the renunciation of heresy made by the penitent heretic on the occasion of his reconciliation with the Church. The Church has always demanded such renunciation, accompanied by appropriate penance. In some cases the abjuration was the only ceremony required; in others abjuration was followed by the imposition of hands or by unction, or both by the laying on of hands and by unction. St. Gregory the Great (A.D. 590–604) in a letter (Epistolae, lib. XI, Ep. lxvii, P.L., Tom. LXXVII, Col. 1204–08; Decret. Gratiani, Pars III, Dist. iv, c. xliv) to Quiricus and the Bishops of Iberia concerning the reconciliation of Nestorians, sets forth the practice of the ancient Church in this matter. According to this testimony of St. Gregory, in cases where the heretical baptism was invalid, as with the Paulinists, Montanists, or Cataphrygians (Conc. Nicaen., can. xix, P.L., II, 666; Decret. Gratiani, Pars II Causa I, Q. i, c. xlii), Eunomians (Anomoeans), and others, the rule was that the penitent should be baptized (cum ad sanctam Ecclesiam veniunt, baptizantur); but where the heretical baptism was considered valid converts were admitted into the Church either by anointing with chrism, or by the imposition of hands or by a profession of faith (aut unctione chrismatis, aut impositione manus, aut professione fidei ad sinum matris Ecclesiae revocantur).

Applying this rule, St. Gregory declares that Arians were received into the Church in the West by the imposition of hands, in the East by unction (Arianos per impositionem manus Occidens, per unctionem vero sancti chrismatis . . . Oriens, reformat), while the Monophysites, who separated from the Church in the fifth and sixth centuries, were treated with less severity, being admitted, with some others, upon a mere profession of the orthodox faith [sola vera confessione recipit (Ecclesia)]. St. Gregory’s statement applies to the Roman Church and to Italy (Siricius, Epist., i, c. i; Epist., iv, c. viii; Innoc. I, Epist. ii, c. viii; Epist. xxii, c. iv), but not to the whole Western Church, since in Gaul and Spain the rite of unction was also in use [Second Coun. of Arles, can. xvii; Coun. of Orange (A.D. 529), can. ii; Coun. of Epaon, can. xxi; Greg. of Tours, Historia, lib. II, c. xxxi; lib. IV, cc. xxvii, xxviii; lib. V, c. xxxix; lib. IX, c. xv].

As to the Eastern Church, St. Gregory’s phrase entirely agrees with the rule laid down in the seventh canon of Constantinople, which, though not emanating from the Ecumenical Council of 381 bears Witness nevertheless to the practice of the Church of Constantinople in the fifth century [Duchesne, Christian Worship (London, 1904), 339, 340]. This canon, which was inserted in the Trullan or Quinisext Synod (canon xcv), and thus found a place in Byzantine canon law, distinguishes between sects whose baptism, but not confirmation, was accepted and those whose baptism and confirmation were rejected. With the Arians, consequently, are classed the Macedonians, Novatians (Conc. Nicaen., I, can. ix; Nicaen., II, can. ii), Sabellians, Apollinarists, and others, who were to be received by the anointing with chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears. Some identify this ceremony of the laying on of hands with the rite of confirmation, and not merely an imposition of hands unto penance. A similar discussion prevails in regard to the anointing with chrism.

I. IMPOSITION OF HANDS

The imposition of hands, as a sign that due penance had been done, and in token of reconciliation (Pope Vigilius, P.L., CXXX, 1076), was prescribed first for those who had been baptized in the Church and who had later fallen into heresy. St. Cyprian in a letter to Quintus (epist. lxxi, in P.L., IV, 408–411) is witness of this practice, as is also St. Augustine (De baptismo contra Donatistas, lib. III, c. xi, in P.L., XLIII, 208). This rite was prescribed, secondly, for those who had been baptized in heresy. Regarding Pope Eusebius (A.D. 309 or 310) we read in the Liber Pontificalis (edit. Duchesne, I, 167): Hic hereticos invenit in Urbe Roma, quos ad manum impositionis [sic] reconciliavit. The same work (I, 216) declares of Pope Siricius (A.D. 384–399): Hic constituit hereticum sub manum impositionis reconciliari, prsesente cuncta ecclesia. [This latter was doubtless copied from the first chapter of the decretals of Pope Siricius, writing to Himerius, Bishop of Tarragona in Spain (P.L., XIII, 1133, 1134; Duchesne, Liber Pontif;, I, 132, 133).] Pope St. Stephen declares this rite to be sufficient (see St. Cyprian, Epist. lxxiv, in P.L., IV, 412, 413; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, iii, in P.G., XX, 641). The first Council of Arles (A.D. 314), can. viii [Labbe, Concilia (Paris, 1671), I, 1428; P.L., CXXX, 376] inculcates the same law. (See also St. Leo, Epist. clix, c. vii; Epist. clxvi, c. ii; Epist. clxvii, Inquis. 18; P.L., LIV.)

II. UNCTION

The unction alone or together with the imposition of hands was also in vogue. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 373) in canon vii (Labbe, Concilia, I, 1497) confirms this usage in the abjuration of Novatians, Photinians, and Quartodecimans. The second Council of Arles (A.D. 451) in canon xvii (Labbe, IV, 1013) extends the discipline to adherents of Bonosius, adversaries of the virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Bonosianos . . . cum chrismate, et manus impositione in Ecclesia recipi sufficit). The Council of Epaon (A.D. 517), canon xvi (Labbe, IV, 1578), allows the same rite (Presbyteros, . . . si conversionem subitam petant, chrismate subvenire permittimus).

III. PROFESSION OF FAITH

Especially after the birth of Nestorianism and Eutychianism, to abjuration of heresy was added a solemn profession of faith. It was thus the bishops who, in the Second Council of Ephesus, had espoused the cause of Eutyches and Dioscurus were reconciled to the Church. St. Cyril of Alexandria (Epist. xlviii, ad Donat. Epis. Nicopol., P.G., LXXII, 252) received a like profession from Paul of Emesa, who was thought to be affected with Nestorianism. St. Leo (Epist. i, Ad Episc. Aquilens. c. ii, in P.L., LIV, 594) required the same from the votaries of Pelagianism, as did also a council, held at Aachen in 799, from Felix, Bishop of Urgel [Alzog, Universal Church Hist. (tr. Cincinnati, 1899), II, 181].

It is to be noted that as clerics, unless degraded or reduced to the lay state, were not submitted to the humiliation of public penance, so, consequently, their admission into the Church involved no imposition of hands or other ceremony except a profession of faith (Fratres Ballerini, in Epist. S. Leon., n. 1594, P.L., LIV, 1492). In all cases there was demanded the presentation of a libellus, or form of abjuration, in which the convert renounced and anathematized his former tenets. After declaring his abjuration to be free from compulsion, fear, or other unworthy motive, he proceeded to anathematize all heresies in general and in particular that sect to which he had belonged, together with its heresiarchs, past, present, and future. He then enumerated the tenets accepted by said sect, and, having repudiated them singly and generally, he ended with a profession of his belief in the true Faith. Sometimes there was added, under pain of punishment, a promise to remain in the Church. Accidental differences only are found in the ancient formulas of abjuration extant. Later, in the countries especially where the Inquisition was established, three sorts of abjuration were practised:

Abjuration de formali (of formal heresy), made by a notorious heretic or apostate;

de vehementi (of strong suspicion of heresy), made by a Catholic strongly suspected of heresy;

de levi (of slight suspicion of heresy), made by a Catholic slightly suspected of heresy.

The abjuration demanded of converts in the present discipline of the Church is essentially the same as the above. A convert to the Church who has never been baptized is not obliged to abjure heresy. A convert, whose baptism is considered valid, or who, at most, on his reception into the Church is rebaptized conditionally, is required to make a profession of faith, which contains an abjuration of heresy. A salutary penance also is imposed (S. Cong. S. Off., Nov., 1875. See Appendix Conc. Plen. Balt., II, 277, 278; American edit. Roman Ritual, 1, 2, 3). No abjuration is required from converts under the age of fourteen (S. Cong. S. Off., Mar. 8, 1882, in Collectanea S. Cong. de Propag. Fid., n. 1680, ed. 1903). ERMONI, in Dictionnaire d arch ologie chr tienne et de liturgie (Paris, 1903); DESHAYES, in Dict. de th ol. cath. (Paris, 1899), I, 75; MAUREL, Guide pratique de la liturgie romaine (Paris, 1878), Par. I, 2, 104, art. 6; BENEDICT XIV, de Synodo Dioecesana, V, ix, n. 10, lib. IX, e. iv, n. 3; Gelasian Sacramentary, I, 85, 86; BUTLER, in Dict. of Christ. Antiq. (London, 1893) MARTENE AND DURAND, De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus, II, lib. CXI, e. vi; FERRARIS, Prompta Bibliotheca, I, 32 sqq.

ANDREW B. MEEHAN

Abner

A son of Ner, a cousin of Saul, and commander-in-chief of Saul’s army (I Kings xiv, 50: xvii, 55; xxvi, 5, 7, 14). After Saul with three of his sons had fallen at Mount Gelboe, Abner made Isboseth, the fourth son of Saul, king over the whole land of Israel excepting Judea, which adhered to David. For seven years and a half Abner fought for the throne of Isboseth. After his defeat near Gabaon, he was hotly pursued by Asael, brother of Joab, who was David’s commander-in-chief, and in self-defense he reluctantly slew his enemy (II Kings ii, 12 sq.). This embittered the hostility between the two factions, since Joab considered himself the avenger ofhis brother Asael. Abner now married Respha, a concubine f Saul, and thus incurred the suspicion of aspiring to the throne. Isboseth remonstrated with the warrior, and the latter became so angry that he made advances to David. David demanded that Abner should first restore to him his wife Michol, daughter of Saul, who had been given to Phaltiel. Abner complied with this condition, and came to a full understanding with David. After his departure Joab, David’s commander-in-chief, sent for him, and killed him at the city gate. David bewailed Abner, made Joab walk in mourning-garb before Abner’s bier, and on his death-bed enjoined on Solomon to avenge Abner’s murder.

Palis in Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s.v.

A.J. MAAS

Abomination of Desolation

The importance of this Scriptural expression is chiefly derived from the fact that in St. Matthew, xxiv, 15, and St. Mark, xiii, 14, the appearance of the “abomination of desolation” standing in the Holy Place” (Matt.), or where “it ought not” (Mark), is given by Our Lord to His disciples as the signal for their flight from Judea, at the time of the approaching ruin of Jerusalem (Luke, xxi, 20). The expression itself is confessedly obscure. To determine its meaning, interpreters have naturally betaken themselves to the original Hebrew of the book of Daniel; for our first Evangelist distinctly says that “the abomination of desolation” he has in view “was spoken of by Daniel the prophet”; and further, the expression he makes use of, in common with St. Mark, is simply the Greek phrase whereby the Septuagint translators rendered literally the Hebrew words shíqqûç shômem found in Daniel, xii, 11; ix, 27; xi, 31. Unfortunately, despite all their efforts to explain these Hebrew terms, Biblical scholars are still at variance about their precise meaning. While most commentators regard the first “shíqqûç,” usually rendered by “abomination,” as designating anything (statue, altar, etc.) that pertains to idolatrous worship, others take it to be a contemptuous designation of a heathen god or idol. Again, while most commentators render the second “shômem” by the abstract word “desolation,” others treat it as a concrete form referring to a person, “a ravager,” or even as a participial known meaning “that maketh desolate.” The most recent interpretation which has been suggested of these Hebrew words is to the following effect: The phrase shíqqûç shômem stands for the original expression bá’ ál shámáyîm (Baal of heaven), a title found in Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions, and the semitic equivalent of the Greek Zeus, Jupiter, but modified in Daniel through Jewish aversion for the name of a Pagan deity. While thus disagreeing as to the precise sense of the Hebrew phrase usually rendered by “the abomination of desolation,” Christian scholars are practically at one with regard to its general meaning. They commonly admit, and indeed rightly, that the Hebrew expression must needs be understood of some idolatrous emblem, the setting up of which would entail the ultimate desolation of the Temple of Jerusalem (I Mach. i, 57; iv, 38). And with this general meaning in view, they proceed to determine the historical event between Our Lord’s prediction and the ruin of the Temple (A. D. 70), which should be regarded as “the abomination of desolation” spoken of in St. Matthew, xxiv, 15, and St. Mark, xiii, 14. But here they are again divided. Many scholars have thought, and still think, that the introduction of the Roman standards into the Holy Land, and more particularly into the Holy City, shortly before the destruction of the Temple, is the event foretold by Our Lord to His disciples as the signal for their flight from Judea. It is true that the standards were worshipped by the Roman soldiers and abhorred by the Jews as the emblem of Roman idolatry. Yet they can hardly be considered as the “the abomination of desolation” referred to in St. Matthew, xxiv, 15. The Evangelist says that this “abomination” is to stand in the “holy place,” whereby is naturally meant the Temple (see also Daniel, ix, 27, where the Vulgate reads: “there shall be in the Temple the abomination of the desolation”), and the Roman standards were actually introduced into the Temple only after it had been entered by Titus, that, too late to serve as a warning for the Christians of Judea. Other scholars are of the mind that the desecration of the Temple by the Zealots who seized it and made it their stronghold shortly before Jerusalem was invested by Titus, is the even foretold by Our Lord. But this view is commonly rejected for the simples reason that “the abomination of desolation” spoken of by Daniel and referred to in St. Matthew’s Gospel, was certainly something connected with idolatrous worship. Others, finally, interpret Our Lord’s warning to His disciples in the light of the history of attempt to have his own statue set up and worshipped in the Temple of Jerusalem. The following are the principal facts of that history. About A. D. 40, Caius Caligula issued a peremptory decree ordering the erection and worship of his statute in the Temple of God. He also appointed to the government of Syria, bidding him carry out that decree even at the cost of a war against the rebellious Jews. Whereupon the Jews in tens of thousands protested to the governor that they were willing to be slaughtered rather than to be condemned to witness that idolatrous profanation of their holy Temple. Soon afterwards Petronius asked Caligula to revoke his order, and Agrippa I, who than lived at Rome, prevailed upon the Emperor not to enforce his decree. It seems, however, that Caligula soon repented of the concession, and that but for his untimely death (A. D. 41) he would have had his statue set up in Jerusalem (E. Schurer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ, I Div. II, 95–105; tr.). In view of these facts it is affirmed by many scholars that the early Christians could easily regard the forthcoming erection of statue in the Temple as the act of idolatrous Abomination which, according to the prophet Daniel, ix, 27, portended the ruin of the House of God, and therefore see in it the actual sign given by Christ for their flight from Judea. This last interpretation of the phrase “the abomination of desolation” is not without its own difficulties. Yet it seems preferable to the others that have been set for by commentators at large.

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Abortion

Abortion (from the Latin word aboriri, “to perish”) may be briefly defined as “the loss of a fetal life.”

In it the fetus dies while yet within the generative organs of the mother, or it is ejected or extracted from them before it is viable; that is, before it is sufficiently developed to continue its life by itself. The term abortion is also applied, though less properly, to cases in which the child is become viable, but does not survive the delivery. In this article we shall take the word in its widest meaning, and treat of abortion as occurring at any time between conception and safe delivery. The word miscarriage is taken in the same wide sense. Yet medical writers often use these words in special meanings, restricting abortion to the time when the embryo has not yet assumed specific features, that is, in the human embryo, before the third month of gestation; miscarriage occurs later, but before viability; while the birth of a viable child before the completed term of nine months is styled premature birth. Viability may exist in the seventh month of gestation, but it cannot safely be presumed before the eighth month. If the child survives its premature birth, there is no abortion—for this word always denotes the loss of fetal life.

It was long debated among the learned at what period of gestation the human embryo begins to be animated by the rational, spiritual soul, which elevates man above all other species of the animal creation and survives the body to live forever. The keenest mind among the ancient philosophers, Aristotle, had conjectured that the future child was endowed at conception with a principle of only vegetative life, which was exchanged after a few days for an animal soul, and was not succeeded by a rational soul till later; his followers said on the fortieth day for a male, and the eightieth for a female, child. The authority of his great name and the want of definite knowledge to the contrary caused this theory to be generally accepted up to recent times. Yet, as early as the fourth century of the Christian era, St. Gregory of Nyssa had advocated the view which modern science has confirmed almost to a certainty, namely, that the same life principle quickens the organism from the first moment of its individual existence until its death (Eschbach, Disp. Phys., Disp., iii). Now it is at the very time of conception, or fecundation, that the embryo begins to live a distinct individual life. For life does not result from an organism when it has been built up, but the vital principle builds up the organism of its own body. In virtue of the one eternal act of the Will of the Creator, Who is of course ever present at every portion of His creation, the soul of every new human being begins to exist when the cell which generation has provided is ready to receive it as its principle of life. In the normal course of nature the living embryo carries on its work of, self-evolution within the maternal womb, deriving its nourishment from the placenta through the vital cord, till, on reaching maturity, it is by the contraction of the uterus issued to lead its separate life. Abortion is a fatal termination of this process. It may result from various causes, which may be classed under two heads, accidental and intentional.

Accidental causes may be of many different kinds. Sometimes the embryo, instead of developing in the uterus, remains in one of the ovaries, or gets lodged in one of the Fallopian tubes, or is precipitated into the abdomen, resulting, in any of these cases, in an ectopic, or extra-uterine gestation. This almost invariably brings on the death of the fetus, and is besides often fraught with serious danger to the mother. Even if an ectopic child should live to maturity, it cannot be born by the natural channel—but, once it has become viable, it may be saved by a surgical operation. Most commonly the embryo develops in the uterus; but there, too, it is exposed to a great variety of dangers, especially during the first months of its existence. There may be remote predispositions in the mother to contract diseases fatal to her offspring. Heredity, malformation, syphilis, advanced age, excessive weakness, effects of former sicknesses, etc. may be causes of danger; even the climate may exercise an unfavorable influence. More immediate causes of abortion may be found in cruel treatment of the mother by her husband or in starvation, or any kind of hardship. Her own indiscretion is often to blame; as when she undertakes excessive labours or uses intoxicating drinks too freely. Anything in fact that causes a severe shock to the bodily frame or the nervous system of the mother may be fatal to the child in her womb. On the part of the father, syphilis, alcoholism, old age, and physical weakness may act unfavourably on the offspring at any time of its existence. The frequency of accidental abortions is no doubt very great; it must differ considerably according to the circumstances, so that the proportion between successful and unsuccessful conceptions is beyond the calculation of the learned.

Intentional abortions are distinguished by medical writers into two classes.

When they are brought about for social reasons, they are called criminal abortions; and they are rightly condemned under any circumstances whatsoever. “Often, very often,” said Dr. Hodge, of the University of Pennsylvania, “must all the eloquence and all the authority of the practitioner be employed; often he must, as it were, grasp the conscience of his weak and erring patient, and let her know, in language not to be misunderstood, that she is responsible to the Creator for the life of the being within her” (Wharton and Stille’s Med. Jurispr., Vol. on Abortion, 11).

The name of obstetrical abortion is given by physicians to such as is performed to save the life of the mother. Whether this practice is ever morally lawful we shall consider below.

It is evident that the determination of what is right or wrong in human conduct belongs to the science of ethics and the teaching of religious authority. Both of these declare the Divine law, “Thou shalt not kill.” The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away. The State cannot give such right to the physician; for it has not itself the right to put an innocent person to death. No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations accept the maxim, that “evil is never to be done that good may come of it”; or, which is the same thing, that “a good end cannot justify a bad means.” Now it is an evil means to destroy the life of an innocent child. The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parents have put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life.

The teachings of the Catholic Church admit of no doubt on the subject. Such moral questions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that “it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform . . . any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother.” Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. After these and other similar decisions had been given, some moralists thought they saw reasons to doubt whether an exception might not be allowed in the case of ectopic gestations. Therefore the question was submitted: “Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?” The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: “No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for.” Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires.

However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:

That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;

That the immediate effect be good in itself;

That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that Good might come of it—a procedure never allowed;

That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.

All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother’s life, is good—no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother—the saving of the mother’s life is in itself as good as the saving of the child’s life. Of course provision must be made for the child’s spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian. History contains no mention of criminal abortions antecedent to the period of decadent morality in classic Greece. The crime seems not to have prevailed in the time of Moses, either among the Jews or among the surrounding nations; else that great legislator would certainly have spoken in condemnation of it. No mention of it occurs in the long enumeration of sins laid to the charge of the Canaanites. The first reference to it is found in the books attributed to Hippocrates, who required physicians to bind themselves by oath not to give to women drinks fatal to the child in the womb. At that period voluptuousness had corrupted the morals of the Greeks, and Aspasia was teaching ways of procuring abortion. In later times the Romans became still more depraved, and bolder in such practices; for Ovid wrote concerning the upper classes of his countrymen:

Nunc uterum vitiat quae vult formosa videri,

Raraque, in hoc aevo, est quae velit esse parens.

Three centuries later we meet with the first record of laws enacted by the State to check this crime. Exile was decreed against mothers guilty of it; while those who administered the potion to procure it were if nobles, sent to certain islands, if plebeians, condemned to work in the metal mines. Still the Romans in their legislation appear to have aimed at punishing the wrong done by abortion to the father or the mother, rather than the wrong done to the unborn child. The early Christians are the first on record as having pronounced abortion to be the murder of human beings, for their public apologists, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Minutius Felix (Eschbach, “Disp. Phys.,” Disp. iii), to refute the slander that a child was slain, and its flesh eaten, by the guests at the Agapae, appealed to their laws as forbidding all manner of murder, even that of children in the womb. The Fathers of the Church unanimously maintained the same doctrine. In the fourth century the Council of Eliberis decreed that Holy Communion should be refused all the rest of her life, even on her deathbed, to an adulteress who had procured the abortion of her child. The Sixth Ecumenical Council determined for the whole Church that anyone who procured abortion should bear all the punishments inflicted on murderers. In all these teachings and enactments no distinction is made between the earlier and the later stages of gestation. For, though the opinion of Aristotle, or similar speculations, regarding the time when the rational soul is infused into the embryo, were practically accepted for many centuries still it was always held by the Church that he who destroyed what was to be a man was guilty of destroying a human life. The great prevalence of criminal abortion ceased wherever Christianity became established. It was a crime of comparatively rare occurrence in the Middle Ages. Like its companion crime, divorce, it did not again become a danger to society till of late years. Except at times and in places influenced by Catholic principles, what medical writers call “obstetric” abortion, as distinct from “criminal” (though both are indefensible on moral grounds), has always been a common practice. It was usually performed by means of craniotomy, or the crushing of the child’s head to save the mother’s life. Hippocrates, Celsus, Avicenna, and the Arabian school generally invented a number of vulnerating instruments to enter and crush the child’s cranium. In more recent times, with the advance of the obsteric science, more conservative measures have gradually prevailed. By use of the forceps, by skill acquired in version, by procuring premature labour, and especially by asepticism in the Caesarean section and other equivalent operations, medical science has found much improved means of saving both the child and its mother. Of late years such progress has been made in this matter, that craniotomy on the living child has passed out of reputable practice. But abortion proper, before the fetus is viable, is still often employed, especially in ectopic gestation; and there are many men and women who may be called professional abortionists.

In former times civil laws against all kinds of abortion were very severe among Christian nations. Among the Visigoths, the penalty was death, or privation of sight, for the mother who allowed it and for the father who consented to it, and death for the abortionist. In Spain, the woman guilty of it was buried alive. An edict of the French King Henry II in 1555, renewed by Louis XIV in 1708, inflicted capital punishment for adultery and abortion combined. Later French law (i.e., early twentieth century) punished the abortionist with imprisonment, and physicians, surgeons, and pharmacists, who prescribe or furnish the means, with the penalty of forced labour. For England, Blackstone stated the law as follows:

Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins, in contemplation of law, as soon as an infant is able to stir in its mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb, or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But the modern law does not look upon this offence in so atrocious a light, but merely as a heinous misdemeanour.

In the United States, legislation in this matter is neither strict nor uniform, nor are convictions of frequent occurrence. In some of the States any medical practitioner is allowed to procure abortion whenever he judges it necessary to save the mother’s life.

The Catholic Church has not relaxed her strict prohibition of all abortion; but, as we have seen above, she has made it more definite. As to the penalties she inflicts upon the guilty parties, her present legislation was fixed by the Bull of Pius IX “Apostolicae Sedis.” It decrees excommunication—that is, deprivation of the Sacraments and of the Prayers of the Church in the case of any of her members, and other privations besides in the case of clergymen—against all who seek to procure abortion, if their action produces the effect. Penalties must always be strictly interpreted. Therefore, while anyone who voluntarily aids in procuring abortion, in any way whatever, does morally wrong, only those incur the excommunication who themselves actually and efficaciously procure the abortion. And the abortion here meant is that which is strictly so called, namely, that performed before the child is viable. For no one but the lawgiver has the right to extend the law beyond the terms in which it is expressed. On the other hand, no one can restrict its meaning by private authority, so as to make it less than the received terms of Church language really signify. Now Gregory XIV had enacted the penalty of excommunication for abortion of a “quickened” child but the present law makes no such distinction, and therefore it must be differently understood.

That distinction, however, applies to another effect which may result from the procuring of abortion; namely, he who does so for a child after quickening incurs an irregularity, or hindrance to his receiving or exercising Orders in the Church. But he would not incur such irregularity if the embryo were not yet quickened. The terms “quickened” and “animation” in present usage are applied to the child after the mother can percieve its motion, which usually happens about the one hundred and sixteenth day after conception. But in the old canon law, which established the irregularity here referred to the “animation” of the embryo was supposed to occur on the fortieth day for a male child, and on the eightieth day for a female child. In such matters of canon law, just as in civil law, many technicalities and intricacies occur, which it often takes the professional student to understand fully. In regard to the decisions of the Roman tribunal quoted above it is proper to remark that while they claim the respect and loyal adhesion of Catholics, they are not irreformable, since they are not definitive judgments, nor do they proceed directly from the Supreme Pontiff, who alone has the prerogative of infallibility. If ever reasons should arise, which is most improbable, to change these pronouncements those reasons would receive due consideration.

C. COPPENS

The Physical Effects of Abortion

Definition. The expulsion of the human ovum occurring during the first three months of pregnancy, and occurring from any cause whatsoever, is called abortion. In the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh months—i.e., from the formation of the placenta to the period of viability—the occurrence is called immature delivery, or miscarriage, and a delivery occurring from the twenty-eighth week (the earliest period of viability) to the thirty-eighth week is called premature.

Causes of abortion. To understand the physical effects of abortion we must know something of the causes, which are in the main the same as the causes of miscarriage and premature delivery. Abortion may be due to pathological changes in the ovum, the uterus, or its adnexa one or both—to the physical or nervous condition of the woman, to diseases either inherited or acquired (syphilis, tuberculosis, rheumatism); to any infectious, contagious, or inflammatory disease; to shock, injury, or accident. It may be induced knowingly, willingly, and criminally by the pregnant person herself, or by someone else, with the aid of drugs, or instruments, or both.

Physical effects of abortion. Naturally, therefore, the physical effects of abortion will depend in direct ratio on the causation thereof, and the comparative malignity or benignity of such causation. In any case, abortion is fraught with serious consequences, direct and indirect—and is a sad miscarriage of nature’s plan, greatly to be deplored, and earnestly, strenuously, and conscientiously to be avoided. Of course, when brought about with criminal intent, abortion is nothing less than murder in the first degree; and if the law of the land does not discover and punish the criminal, the higher law of the God of Nature and of Nature’s inexorable reprisals for interference with, or destruction of her beneficent designs, will sooner or later most certainly do so.

When abortion is due to pathological causes it is usually preceded by the death of the fetus; so that the causes of abortion are really the causes producing the death of the fetus. The abortion may be complete or partial. If complete, the danger is principally from shock and haemorrhage; if incomplete and any debris remains, there is danger of septicaemia, uraemia, endometritis, perimetritis, diseases of the tubes, ovaries, bladder, cervix uteri, vaginal canal, and rectum; together with catarrhal discharges from one or more of these parts, displacements, impoverished blood supply, various neuroses, and usually a long and expensive convalescence.

The retention of the dead fetus is not always so dangerous. Even if decomposition or putrefaction occur, Nature frequently—possibly more often than we are willing to give her credit for—eliminates the offending foreign mass without the aid of the obstetrician. But it is not wise to advocate the waiting for such happy and spontaneous events. However while it is true that with proper medical care and attention most cases of abortion (excluding criminal cases and those complicated with other morbid conditions) present a modicum of danger, yet we must not forget that reports and statistics on this subject are very unreliable. First, there may be a false diagnosis; and secondly, concealment on the part of the patient, attendants, and all concerned is exceedingly common today.

Obstetrical science has made many and important advances; but abortions from one cause or another (especially criminal abortion) continue in abundance; and their results have been and are still crowding the medical offices. To tear out the living products of conception by the roots is, in most cases, to give the pregnant woman gratuitous transportation for eternity. Even in spontaneous cases, as we have seen, death may occur from various causes. How much greater the danger, then, when the vandal hand of the professional abortionist adds wounds and injuries to complete his diabolical work.

Conclusion. Since so many people today have ceased to look on abortion as a calamity at all times, and as a moral monstrosity in its criminal aspect, they should be deterred from committing it by the fear of physical consequences, if they are not moved by the love of morality and righteousness.

J.N. BUTLER

Charles François d’Abra de Raconis

A French bishop, born at the Château de Raconis in 1580 of a Calvinistic family; died 1646.

In 1592, this family was converted to the Catholic faith, of which Charles then twelve sears of age, was to become an earnest defender. He taught philosophy at the College of Plessis, in 1609; theology at the College of Navarre, in 1615, and three years later was appointed court preacher and royal almoner. At this epoch he took an active part in religious polemics and wrote works of controversy. In 1637, he was appointed Bishop of Lavaur, but was not consecrated until 1639. In 1643 he was back in Paris, and controversies with the Jansenists engaged him up to his death. St. Vincent de Paul spurred him on and encouraged him. Two years before his death he published his “Examen et jugement du livre de la fréquente communion fait contre la fréquente communion et publié sous le nom du sieur Arnauld” (Paris, 1644). The following year he published a rejoinder to the reply to this. Arnauld affected great contempt for him, and declared that his works were “despised by all respectable persons.” Raconis also wrote against the heresy of “two heads of the Church [Sts. Peter and Paul],” formulated by Martin de Barcos. The bishop’s “Primauté et Souveraineté singulière de saint Pierre” (1645) roused the wrath of his opponents. Towards the close of 1645, the report was circulated in Paris that he had written to the Pope, denouncing the dangerous teachings in the “Fréquente Communion,” and telling the Pope that some French bishops tolerated and approved of these impieties The Bishop of Grasse informed a general assembly of the clergy of this fact. This aroused their animosity, all the more since some of them had recommended Arnauld’s work. They entered a complaint with the Nuncio, and then compelled Raconis to say whether he had written the Setter or not. Although he denied having done so, they drew up a common protestation against the accusations of which they were the objects and sent it to Innocent X.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Don Isaac Abrabanel

(Also: Abravanel, Abarbanel).

Jewish statesman, apologist and exegete, born in Lisbon 1437; died in Venice, 1508, buried in Padua. From his early youth, he was carefully instructed in the Talmudlc and Rabbinic literatures, and mastered the various branches of secular learning. His keen intellect and, above all, a great business ability drew to him the attention of Alfonso V of Portugal, who made him his treasurer, a position that he held until 1481. The favour shown by a Catholic prince to a Jew shocked the public opinion of those times, and under John II Abrabanel was accused of conspiring with the Duke of Braganza, and barely saved his life by fleeing to Castile, 1483. Soon afterwards he entered the service of Ferdinand and Isabella, 1484–92. After the fall of Granada, he shared the fate of his race, and was banished from Spain in 1492. He repaired to Naples and, owing to various vicissitudes went successively to Messina, Corfu, Monopoli, and finally to Venice. Most of Abrabanel’s works date from the last years of his life, when, on account of his misfortunes, he found more leisure for collecting and ordering his thoughts. Abrabanel knew Plato and Aristotle, and is often ranked among the Jewish philosophers. His philosophy, however, was intended by him simply as a means of defending his religious convictions. He can hardly be said to have written any work professedly philosophical, with the possible exception of a juvenile treatise on the form of the natural elements; his views in this respect must be gathered from his various theological and exegetical treatises. As a theologian and apologist Abrabanel shows himself a champion of the most rigid Jewish orthodoxy, and does not hesitate to oppose even Maimonides when the latter seems to depart from the traditional belief. In the field of Biblical exegesis, Abrabanel has the merit of having anticipated much of what has been advanced as new by modern investigators, and of having considered systematically not only the letter of the sacred text, but also the persons of its authors, their aim and surroundings. Each commentary is furnished with a preface in which these preliminary questions are treated. His familiarity with Christian authors his acquaintance with court life and customs, a keen sense of his misfortunes, joined with a very extensive knowledge and a great power of observation, fitted him eminently for the task of a Biblical interpreter. We have from him a commentary on Deuteronomy; on the first four books of the Pentateuch; on the earlier and on the later Prophets. They have been warmly lauded both by Jews and by Christians, have passed through several editions, and many of them have been, in whole or in part, translated into Latin. Of his other works we may mention “The Crown of the Ancients,” “The Pinnacle of Faith,” “The Sources of Salvation,” in the form of a commentary on Daniel, “The Salvation of His Anointed” “The Herald of Salvation,” in which are collected and explained all the Messianic texts. His works the titles of which are here rendered in English were written in a clear, refined, but occasionally diffuse modern Hebrew.

ROMAIN BUTIN

Abraham

The original form of the name, Abram, is apparently the Assyrian Abu-ramu. It is doubtful if the usual meaning attached to that word “lofty father,” is correct. The meaning given to Abraham in Genesis 17:5 is popular word play, and the real meaning is unknown. The Assyriologist, Hommel suggests that in the Minnean dialect, the Hebrew letter Hê (“h”) is written for long a. Perhaps here we may have the real derivation of the word, and Abraham may be only a dialectical form of Abram.

The story of Abraham is contained in the Book of Genesis, 11:26 to 25:18. We shall first give a brief outline of the Patriarch’s life, as told in that portion of Genesis, then we shall in succession discuss the subject of Abraham from the viewpoints of the Old Testament, New Testament, profane history, and legend.

BRIEF OUTLINE OF ABRAHAM’S LIFE

Thare had three sons, Abram, Nachor, and Aran. Abram married Sarai. Thare took Abram and his wife, Sarai, and Lot, the son of Aran, who was dead, and leaving Ur of the Chaldees, came to Haran and dwelt there till he died. Then, at the call of God, Abram, with his wife, Sarai, and Lot, and the rest of his belongings, went into the Land of Chanaan, amongst other places to Sichem and Bethel, where he built altars to the Lord: A famine breaking out in Chanaan, Abram journeyed southward to Egypt, and when he had entered the land, fearing that he would be killed on account of his wife, Sarai, he bade her say she was his sister. The report of Sarai’s beauty was brought to the Pharao, and he took her into his harem, and honoured Abram on account of her. Later, however finding out that she was Abram’s wife, he sent her away unharmed, and, upbraiding Abram for what he had done, he dismissed him from Egypt. From Egypt Abram came with Lot towards Bethel, and there, finding that their herds and flocks had grown to be very large, he proposed that they should separate and go their own ways. So Lot chose the country about the Jordan, whilst Abram dwelt in Chanaan, and came and dwelt in the vale of Mambre in Hebron. Now, on account of a revolt of the Kings of Sodom and Gomorrha and other kings from Chodorlahomor King of Elam, after they had served him twelve years, he in the fourteenth year made war upon them with his allies, Thadal king of nations, Amraphel King of Senaar, and Arioch King of Pontus. The King of Elam was victorious, and had already reached Dan with Lot a prisoner and laden with spoil, when he was overtaken by Abram. With 318 men the patri arch surprises, attacks, and defeats him, he retakes Lot and the spoil, and returns in triumph. On his way home, he is met by Melchisedech, king of Salem who brings forth bread and wine, and blesses him And Abram gives him tithes of all he has; but for] himself he reserves nothing. God promises Abram that his seed shall be as the stars of heaven, and he shall possess the land of Chanaan. But Abram does not see how this is to be, for he has already grown old. Then the promise is guaranteed by a sacrifice between God and Abram, and by a vision and a supernatural intervention in the night. Sarai, who was far advanced in years and had given up the idea of bearing children, persuaded Abram to take to himself her hand-maid, Agar. He does so, and Agar being with child despises the barren Sarai. For this Sarai afflicts her so that she flies into the desert, but is persuaded to return by an angel who comforts her with promises of the greatness of the son she is about to bear. She returns and brings forth Ismael. Thirteen years later God appears to Abram and promises him a son by Sarai, and that his posterity will be a great nation. As a sign, he changes Abram’s name to Abraham, Sarai’s to Sara, and ordains the rite of circumcision. One day later, as Abraham is sitting by his tent, in the vale of Mambre, Jehovah with two angels appears to him in human form. He shows them hospitality. Then again the promise of a son named Isaac is renewed to Abraham. The aged Sarah hears incredulously and laughs. Abraham is then told of the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha for their sins but obtains from Jehovah the promise that he will not destroy them if he finds ten just men therein. Then follows a description of the destruction of the two cities and the escape of Lot. Next morning Abraham, looking from his tent towards Sodom, sees the smoke of destruction ascending to heaven. After this, Abraham moves south to Gerara, and again fearing for his life says of his wife, “she is my sister.” The king of Gerara, Abimelech, sends and takes her, but learning in a dream that she is Abraham’s wife he restores her to him untouched, and rebukes him and gives him gifts. In her old age Sarah bears a son, lsaac, to Abraham, and he is circumcised on the eighth day. Whilst he is still young, Sarah is jealous, seeing Ismael playing with the child Isaac, so she procures that Agar and her son shall be cast out. Then Agar would have allowed Ismael to perish in the wilderness, had not an angel encouraged her by telling her of the boy’s future. Abraham is next related to have had a dispute with Abimelech over a well at Bersabee, which ends in a covenant being made between them. It was after this that the great trial of the faith of Abraham takes place. God commands him to sacrifice his only son Isaac. When Abraham has his arm raised and is in the very act of striking, an angel from heaven stays his hand and makes the most wonderful promises to him of the greatness of his posterity because of his complete trust in God. Sarah dies at the age of 127, and Abraham, having purchased from Ephron the Hethite the cave in Machpelah near Mambre, buries her there. His own career is not yet quite ended for first of all he takes a wife for his son Isaac, Rebecca from the city of Nachor in Mesopotamia. Then he marries Cetura, old though he is, and has by her six children. Finally, leaving all his possessions to Isaac, he dies at age 170, and is buried by Isaac and Ismael in the cave of Machpelah.

VIEWPOINT OF OLD TESTAMENT

Abraham may be looked upon as the starting-point or source of Old Testament religion. So that from the days of Abraham men were wont to speak of God as the God of Abraham, whilst we do not find Abraham referring in the same way to anyone before him. So we have Abraham’s servant speaking of “the God of my father Abraham” (Gen. xxiv, 12). Jehovah, in an apparition to Isaac, speaks of himself as the God of Abraham (Gen. xxvi, 24), and to Jacob he is “the God of my father Abraham” (Gen. xxxi, 42). So, too, showing that the religion of Israel does not begin with Moses, God says to Moses: “I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham” etc. (Ex. iii, 6). The same expression is used in the Psalms (xlvi, 10) and is common in the Old Testament. Abraham is thus selected as the first beginning or source of the religion of the children of Israel and the origin of its close connection with Jehovah, because of his faith, trust, and obedience to and in Jehovah and because of Jehovah’s promises to him and to his seed. So, in Genesis, xv, 6, it is said: “Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.” This trust in God was shown by him when he left Haran and journeyed with his family into the unknown country of Chanaan. It was shown principally when he was willing to sacrifice his only son Isaac, in obedience to a command from God. It was on that occasion that God said: “Because thou hast not spared thy only begotten son for my sake I will bless thee” etc. (Gen., xxii, 16, 17). It is to this and other promises made so often by God to Israel that the writers of the Old Testament refer over and over again in confirmation of their privileges as the chosen people. These promises, which are recorded to have been made no less than eight times, are that God will give the land of Chanaan to Abraham and his seed (Gen., xii, 7) that his seed shall increase and multiply as the stars of heaven; that he himself shall be blessed and that in him “all the kindred of the earth shall be blessed” (xii, 3). Accordingly the traditional view of the life of Abraham, as recorded in Genesis, is that it is history in the strict sense of the word. Thus Father von Hummelauer, S.J., in his commentary on Genesis in the “Cursus Scripturae Sacrae” (30), in answer to the question from what author the section on Abraham first proceeded, replies, from Abraham as the first source. Indeed he even says that it is all in one style, as a proof of its origin, and that the Passage, xxv, 5-11, concerning the goods, death, and burial of Abraham comes from Isaac. It must, however, be added that it is doubtful if Father von Hummelauer still adheres to these views, written before 1895, since he has much modified his position in the volume on Deuteronomy.

Quite a different view on the section of Genesis treating of Abraham, and indeed of the whole of Genesis, is taken by modern critical scholars. They almost unanimously hold that the narrative of the patriarch’s life is composed practically in its entirety of three writings or writers called respectively the Jahvist, the Elohist, and the priestly writer, and denoted by the letters J, E, and P. J and E consisted of collections of stories relating to the patriarch, some of older, some of later, origin. Perhaps the stories of J show a greater antiquity than those of E. Still the two authors are very much alike, and it is not always easy to distinguish one from the other in the combined narrative of J and E. From what we can observe, neither the Jahvist nor the Elohist was a personal author. Both are rather schools, and represent the collections of many years. Both collections were closed before the time of the prophets; J some time in the ninth century B.C., and E early in the eighth century, the former probably in the South Kingdom, the latter in the North. Then towards the end of the kingdom, perhaps owing to the inconvenience of having two rival accounts of the stories of the patriarchs etc. going about, a redactor R.JE (?) combined the two collections in one, keeping as much as possible to the words of his sources, making as few changes as possible so as to fit them into one another, and perhaps mostly following J in the account of Abraham. Then in the fifth century a writer who evidently belonged to the sacerdotal caste wrote down again an account of primitive and patriarchal history from the priestly point of view. He attached great importance to clearness and exactness; his accounts of things are often cast into the shape of formulas (cf. Genesis, i); he is very particular about genealogies, also as to chronological notes. The vividness and colour of the older patriarchal narratives, J and E, are wanting in the later one, which in the main is as formal as a legal document, though at times it is not wanting in dignity and even grandeur, as is the case in the first chapter of Genesis. Finally, the moral to be drawn from the various events narrated is more clearly set forth in this third writing and, according to the critics the moral standpoint is that of the fifth century B.C. Lastly, after the time of Ezra, this last history, P was worked up into one with the already combined narrative J.E. by a second redactor R. JEP, the result being the present history of Abraham, and indeed the present book of Genesis; though in all probability insertions were made at even a later date.

VIEWPOINT OF NEW TESTAMENT

The generation of Jesus Christ is traced back to Abraham by St. Matthew, and though in Our Lord’s genealogy, according to St. Luke, he is shown to be descended according to the flesh not only from Abraham but also from Adam, still St. Luke shows his appreciation of the fruits of descent from Abraham by attributing all the blessings of God on Israel to the promises made to Abraham. This he does in the Magnificat, iii, 55, and in the Benedictus, iii, 73. Moreover, as the New Testament traces the descent of Jesus Christ from Abraham, so it does of all the Jews; though as a rule, when this is done, it is accompanied with a note of warning, lest the Jews should imagine that they are entitled to place confidence in the fact of their carnal descent from Abraham, without anything further. Thus (Luke, iii, 8) John the Baptist says: “Do not begin to say: We have Abraham for our father, for I say to you God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” In Luke, xix, 9 our Saviour calls the sinner Zacheus a son of Abraham, as he likewise calls a woman whom he had healed a daughter of Abraham (Luke, xiii, 16); but in these and many similar cases, is it not merely another way of calling them Jews or Israelites, just as at times he refers to the Psalms under the general name of David, without implying that David wrote all the Psalms, and as he calls the Pentateuch the Books of Moses, without pretending to settle the question of the authorship of that work? It is not carnal descent from Abraham to which importance is attached; rather, it is to practising the virtues attributed to Abraham in Genesis. Thus in John, viii, the Jews, to whom Our Lord was speaking, boast (33): “We are the seed of Abraham,” and Jesus replies (39): “If ye be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.” St. Paul, too, shows that he is a son of Abraham and glories in that fact as in II Cor., xi, 22, when he exclaims: “They are the seed of Abraham, so am I.” And again (Rom., xi,1): “I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham,” and he addresses the Jews of Antioch in Pisidia (Acts, xiii, 26) as “sons of the race of Abraham.” But, following the teaching of Jesus Christ St. Paul does not attach too much importance to carnal descent from Abraham; for he says (Gal., iii 29): “If you be Christ’s, then you are the seed of Abraham,” and again (Rom., lx, 6): “All are not Israelites who are of Israel; neither are all they who are the seed of Abraham, children.” So, too, we can observe in all the New Testament the importance attached to the promises made to Abraham. In the Acts of the Apostles, iii, 25, St. Peter reminds the Jews of the promise, “in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” So does St. Stephen in his speech before the Council (Acts, vii), and St. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, vi, 13. Nor was the faith of the ancient patriarch less highly thought of by the New Testament writers. The passage of Genesis which was most prominently before them was xv, 6: “Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.” In Romans, iv, St. Paul argues strongly for the supremacy of faith, which he says justified Abraham; ‘ for if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God.” The same idea is inculcated in the Epistle to the Galatians, iii, where the question is discussed: “Did you receive the spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” St. Paul decides that it is by faith, and says: “Therefore they that are of faith shall be justified with faithful Abraham.” It is clear that this language, taken by itself, and apart from the absolute necessity of good works upheld by St. Paul, is liable to mislead and actually has misled many in the history of the Church. Hence, in order to appreciate to the full the Catholic doctrine of faith, we must supplement St. Paul by St. James. In ii, 17–22, of the Catholic Epistle we read: “So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works, show me thy faith without works, and I will show thee by works my faith. Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well; the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, and by works faith was made perfect?”

In the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, St. Paul enters into a long discussion concerning the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ. He recalls the words of the 109th psalm more than once, in which it is said: “Thou art a Driest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.” He recalls the fact that Melchisedech is etymologically the king of justice and also king of peace; and moreover that he is not only king, but also priest of the Most High God. Then, calling to mind that there is no account of his father, mother, or genealogy, nor any record of his heirs, he likens him to Christ king and priest; no Levite nor according to the order of Aaron, but a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech.

IN THE LIGHT OF PROFANE HISTORY

One is inclined to ask, when considering the light which profane history may shed on the life of Abraham: Is not the life of the patriarch incredible? That question may be, and is, answered in different ways, according to the point of view of the questioner. Perhaps it will not be without interest to quote the answer of Professor Driver, an able and representative exponent of moderate critical views:

Do the patriarchal narratives contain intrinsic historical improbabilities? Or, in other words, is there anything intrinsically improbable in the lives of the several patriarchs, and the vicissitudes through which they severally pass? In considering this question a distinction must be drawn between the different sources of which these narratives are composed. Though particular details in them may be improbable, and though the representation may in parts be coloured by the religious and other associations of the age in which they were written, it cannot be said that the biographies of the first three patriarchs, as told in J and E, are, generally speaking, historically improbable; the movements and general lives of Abraham Isaac, and Jacob are, taken on the whole, credible (Genesis, p. xlvi).

Such is the moderate view; the advanced attitude is somewhat different.” The view taken by the patient reconstructive criticism of our day is that, not only religiously, but even, in a qualified sense, historically also, the narratives of Abraham have a claim on our attention” (Cheyne, Encyc. Bib., 26). Coming now to look at the light thrown by profane history upon the stories of Abraham’s life as given in Genesis, we have, first of all, the narratives of ancient historians, as Nicholas of Damascus, Berosus, Hecateus, and the like. Nicholas of Damascus tells how Abraham, when he left Chaldea lived for some years in Damascus. In fact in Josephus he is said to have been the fourth king of that city. But then there is no practical doubt that this story is based on the words of Genesis, xiv, 15, in which the town of Damascus is mentioned. As to the great man whom Josephus mentions as spoken of by Berosus, there is nothing to show that that great man was Abraham. In the “Praeparatio Evang.” of Eusebius there are extracts recorded from numerous ancient writers, but no historical value can be attached to them. In fact, as far as ancient historians are concerned, we may say that all we know about Abraham is contained in the book of Genesis. A much more important and interesting question is the amount of value to be attached to the recent archaeological discoveries of Biblical and other explorers in the East. Archaeologists like Hommel, and more especially Sayce, are disposed to attach very great significance to them. They say, in fact, that these discoveries throw a serious element of doubt over many of the conclusions of the higher critics. On the other hand, critics, both advanced as Cheyne and moderate as Driver, do not hold the deductions drawn by these archaeologists from the evidence of the monuments in very high esteem, but regard them as exaggerations. To put the matter more precisely, we quote the following from Professor Sayce, to enable the reader to see for himself what he thinks (Early Hist. of the Hebrews, 8):” Cuneiform tablets have been found relating to Chodorlahomor and the other kings of the East mentioned in the 14th chapter of Genesis, while in the Tel-el-Amarna correspondence the king of Jerusalem declares that he had been raised to the throne by the ‘arm’ of his God, and was therefore, like Melchisedech, a Driest-king. But Chodorlahomor and Melchisedech had long ago been banished to mythland and criticism could not admit that archaeological discovery had restored them to actual history. Writers, accordingly, in complacent ignorance of the cuneiform texts, told the Assyriologists that their translations and interpretations were alike erroneous.” That passage will make it clear how much the critics and archaeologists are at variance. But no one can deny that Assyriology has thrown some light on the stories of Abraham and the other patriarchs. Thus the name of Abraham was known in those ancient times; for amongst other Canaanitish or Amorite names found in deeds of sale of that period are those of Abi-ramu, or Abram, Jacob-el (Ya’qub-il), and Josephel (Yasub-il). So, too, of the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, which relates the war of Chodorlahomor and his allies in Palestine, it is not so long ago that the advanced critics relegated it to the region of fable, under the conviction that Babylonians and Elamites at that early date in Palestine and the surrounding country was a gross anachronism. But now Professor Pinches has deciphered certain inscriptions relating to Babylonia in which the five kings, Amraphel King of Senaar, Arioch King of Pontus, Chodorlahomor King of the Elamites, and Thadal King of nations, are identified with Hammurabi King. of Babylon, Eri-aku, Kudur-laghghamar, and Tuduchula, son of Gazza, and which tells of a campaign of these monarchs in Palestine. So that no one can any longer assert that the war spoken of in Genesis, xiv, can only be a late reflection of the wars of Sennacherib and others in the times of the kings. From the Tel-el-Amarna tab]ets we know that Babylonian influence was predominant in Palestine in those days. Moreover, we have light thrown by the cuneiform inscriptions upon the incident of Melchisedech. In Genesis, xiv, 18, it is said: “Melchisedech, the King of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the Most High God, blessed him.” Amongst the Tel-el-Amarna letters is one from Ebed-Tob, King of Jerusalem (the city is Ursalim, i. e. city of Salim, and it is spoken of as Salem). He is priest appointed by Salem, the god of Peace, and is hence both king and priest. In the same manner Melchisedech is priest and king, and naturally comes to greet Abraham returning in peace; and hence, too, Abraham offers to him as to a priest a tithe of the spoils. On the other hand, it must be stated that Professor Driver will not admit Sayce’s deductions from the inscriptions as to EbedTob, and will not recognize any analogy between Salem and the Most High God.

Taking archaeology as a whole, it cannot be doubted that no definite results have been attained as to Abraham. What has come to light is susceptible of different interpretations. But there is no doubt that archaeology is putting an end to the idea that the patriarchal legends are mere myth. They are shown to be more than that. A state of things is being disclosed in patriarchal times quite consistent with much that is related in Genesis, and at times even apparently confirming the facts of the Bible.

VIEWPOINT OF LEGEND

We come now to the question: how far legend plays a part in the life of Abraham as recorded in Genesis. It is a practical and important question, because it is so much discussed by modern critics and they all believe in it. In setting forth the critical view on the subject, I must not be taken as giving my own views also.

Hermann Gunkel, in the Introduction to his Commentary on Genesis (3) writes: “There is no denying that there are legends in the Old Testament, consider for instance the stories of Samson and Jonah. Accordingly it is not a matter of belief or scepticism, but merely a matter of obtaining better knowledge, to examine whether the narratives of Genesis are history or legend.” And again: “In a people with such a highly developed poetical faculty as Israel there must have been a place for saga too. The senseless confusion of ‘ legend ‘ with ‘ Iying ‘ has caused good people to hesitate to concede that there are legends in the Old Testament. But legends are not lies; on the contrary, they are a particular form of poetry.” These passages give a very good idea of the present position of the Higher Criticism relative to the legends of Genesis, and of Abraham in particular.

The first principle enunciated by the critics is that the accounts of the primitive ages and of the patriarchal times originated amongst people who did not practise the art of writing. Amongst all peoples, they say, poetry and saga were the first beginning of history; so it was in Greece and Rome, so it was in Israel. These legends were circulated, and handed down by oral tradition, and contained, no doubt, a kernel of truth. Very often, where individual names are used these names in reality refer not to individuals but to tribes, as in Genesis, x, and the names of the twelve Patriarchs, whose migrations are those of the tribes they represent. It is not of course to be supposed that these legends are no older than the collections J, E, and P, in which they occur. They were in circulation ages before, and for long periods of time, those of earlier origin being shorter, those of later origin longer, often rather romances than legends, as that of Joseph. Nor were they all of Israelitish origin; some were Babylonian, some Egyptian. As to how the legends arose, this came about, they say, in many ways. At times the cause was etymological, to explain the meaning of a name, as when it is said that Isaac received his name because his mother laughed (cahaq); sometimes they were ethnological, to explain the geographical position, the adversity, or prosperity, of a certain tribe; sometimes historical, sometimes ceremonial, as the account explaining the covenant of circumcision; sometimes geological, as the explanation of the appearance of the Dead Sea and its surroundings. AEtiological legends of this kind form one class of those to be found in the lives of the patriarchs and elsewhere in Genesis. But there are others besides which do not concern us here.

When we try to discover the age of the formation of the patriarchal legends, we are confronted with a question of great complexity. For it is not merely a matter of the formation of the simple legends separately, but also of the amalgamation of these into more complex legends. Criticism teaches us that that period would have ended about the year 1200 B.C. Then would have followed the period of remodeling the legends, so that by 900 B.C. they would have assumed substantially the form they now have. After that date, whilst the legends kept in substance to the form they had received, they were modified in many ways so as to bring them into conformity with the moral standard of the day, still not so completely that the older and less conventional ideas of a more primitive age did not from time to time show through them. At this time, too, many collections of the ancient legends appear to have been made, much in the same way as St. Luke tells us in the beginning of his Gospel that many had written accounts of Our Saviour’s life on their own authority.

Amongst other collections were those of J in the South and E in the North. Whilst others perished these two survived, and were supplemented towards the end of the captivity by the collection of P, which originated amidst priestly surroundings and was written from the ceremonial standpoint. Those that hold these views maintain that it is the fusion of these three collections of legends which has led to confusion in some incidents in the life of Abraham as for instance in the case of Sarai in Egypt, where her age seems inconsistent with her adventure with the Pharao. Hermann Gunkel writes (148): “It is not strange that the chronology of P displays everywhere the most absurd oddities when injected into the old legends, as a result, Sarah is still at sixty-five a beautiful woman whom the Egyptians seek to capture, and Ishmael is carried on his mother’s shoulders after he is a youth of sixteen.”

The collection of P was intended to take the place of the old combined collection of J and E. But the old narrative had a firm hold of the popular imagination and heart. And so the more recent collection was combined with the other two, being used as the groundwork of the whole, especially in chronology. It is that combined narrative which we now possess.

J. A. HOWLETT

Abraham (in Liturgy)

While of peculiar interest to the liturgiologist (especially in the classification of the liturgies of the East and of the West, as is noted below under MISSAL), the inclusion of noted names of the Old Testament in the liturgies of Christian Churches must be a subject of sufficiently general interest to warrant some brief notice here. Of all the names thus used, a special prominence accrues to those of Abel, Melchisedech, Abraham through their association with the idea of sacrifice and their employment in this connection in the most solemn part of the Canon of the Mass in the Roman rite. The inclusion in the Litany for the Dying (Roman Ritual) of only two (Abel and Abraham) out of all the great names of the Old Testament must give these a special prominence in the eyes of the faithful, but of these two, again, the name of Abraham occurs so often and in such a variety of connections, as to make his position in the liturgy one of very decided pre-eminence. Of first interest will be the present use of the word Abraham in the Roman liturgy:

Martyrology (9th October)

“Eodem die memoria S. Abrahae Patriarchae et omnium credentium Patris” (The same day, the memory of S. Abraham Patriarch and Father of all believers).

RITUAL

(a) In the Ordo commendationis animae (Recommendation of a soul departing), the brief litany includes but two names from the Old Testament, that of the Baptist belonging to the New Testament:

Holy Mary, pray for him.

All ye holy Angels and Archangels, pray for him.

Holy Abel, pray for him.

All ye choirs of the just, pray for him.

Holy Abraham, pray for him.

St. John Baptist, pray for him.

St. Joseph, pray for him.

In the Libera (Deliver, etc.), which follows shortly after, many names of the Old Testament are mentioned, including Abraham, but omitting Abel: “Deliver . . . as thou didst deliver Abraham from Ur of the Chaldeans.” (b) Benedictio peregrinorum (Blessing of pilgrims etc.). The second prayer reads: “O God, who didst guide Abraham safely through all the ways of his journey from Ur of the Chaldeans. . . .

BREVIARY

(a) On Septuagesima Sunday the lessons from Scripture begin with the first verse of Genesis, and the formal narrative of Abraham begins with Quinquagesima Sunday, the lessons ending on Shrove Tuesday with the sacrifice of Melchisedech.

(b) The antiphon to the Magnificat on Passion Sunday is: “Abraham your father rejoiced . . .” (John, viii, 56). Again, the first antiphon of the second nocturn of the Common of Apostles reads: “The princes of the people are gathered together with the God of Abraham.” The occurrence of the name in the last verse of the Maynificat itself: “As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham and his seed forever” and in the Benedictus (sixth verse): “The oath which he swore to Abraham our father . . .” make the name of daily occurrence in the Divine Office, as these two Canticles are sung daily the former at Vespers, the latter at Lauds. In the Psaltery, also, recited during every week, the name occurs in Pss., xlvi, 10; civ, 9, 42. See also the third strophe of the hymn Quicumque Christum quaeritis (Vespers of Transfiguration D. N. J. C. and various Lessons in the Nocturns, e.g. Feria 3a infra Hebd. vi p. Pent., Feria 3a infra oct. Corp. Christi, 2d nocturn).

MISSAL

(a) The third of the twelve lessons called “ Prophecies” read on Holy Saturday between the lighting of the Paschal Candle and the Blessing of the Font deals wholly with the sacrifice of Isaac imposed upon Abraham. The lesson (Gen., xxii, 1–19) is, like the others, not only read quietly by the priest at the altar, but also chanted in a loud voice simultaneously by a cleric. The dramatic incidents thus rehearsed must have impressed the catechumens deeply, as is evidenced by the reproduction of the incidents on the walls of catacombs and on sarcophagi. The lesson is followed by a prayer: “O God, the supreme Father of the faithful, who throughout the world didst multiply the children of thy promise . . . and by the paschal mystery dost make Abraham thy servant the father of all nations. . . .”

(b) Again, in the prayer after the fourth lesson: “O God, grant that the fulness of the whole world may pass over to the children of Abraham. . . .”

(c) The Epistle of the thirteenth Sun day after Pentecost: “To Abraham were the promises made. . . . But God gave it to Abraham by promise. . . .” (Gal., iii, 16–22).

(d) Offertory of the Mass for the Dead: “O Lord . . . may the holy standard-bearer Michael introduce them to the holy light which Thou didst promise of old to Abraham. . . .”

(e) In the Nuptial Mass, the blessing reads: “May the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, be with you . . .”

(f) Of greater interest than anything thus far cited is the prayer in the Canon of the Mass, when the priest extends his hands over the Consecrated Species: “Upon which do Thou vouchsafe to look . . . and accept them, as Thou didst vouchsafe to accept the gift of Thy just servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham. . . .” Here the Canon insists on the idea of sacrifice, a fact common to Western liturgies, while those of the East, except the Maronite, omit in their epicleses all reference to the typic sacrifices of the Old Testament, and appear concerned with impressing the faithful with the idea rather of sacrament and communion. This is esteemed a fact of capital importance towards a classification of the liturgies.

(g) In the Sequence of Corpus Christi while Abraham is not named, his sacrifice (unbloody, like that of the altar) is commemorated in the lines In figuris praesignatur, Cum Isaac immolatur. . . .

Pontifical

In one of the Prefaces of the Consecration of an altar we read: “May it have as much grace with Thee as that which Abraham, the father of faith, built when about to sacrifice his son as a figure of our redemption . . .” Again, in the Blessing of a Cemetery (third Prayer) and in connection with Isaac and Jacob (sixth Prayer). Finally, in two of the Prayers for the Blessing and Coronation of a King. The exalted position of Abraham in Sacred History, and the frequent use of his name in invocations etc. in the Old Testament (e. g. Gen. xxviii, 13; xxxii, 9; xlviii, 15,16; Exod., iii, 6,15,16, iv, 5; Tob., vii, 15 etc.), and the continued use thereof by the early Christians (Acts, iii, 13; vii, 32) made his name of frequent occurrence in prayers, exorcisms and even amongst Pagans, ignorant of the significance of the formula “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob” etc., in magical rites and incantations, as Origen testifies.

H.T. HENRY

The Bosom of Abraham

In the Holy Bible, the expression “the Bosom of Abraham” is found only in two verses of St. Luke’s Gospel (xvi, 22, 23). It occurs in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus the imagery of which is plainly drawn from the popular representations of the unseen world of the dead which were current in Our Lord’s time. According to the Jewish conceptions of that day, the souls of the dead were gathered into a general tarrying-place the Sheol of the Old Testament literature, and the Hades of the New Testament writings (cf. Luke, xvi, 22 in the Gr. xvi, 23). A local discrimination, however, existed among them, according to their deeds during their mortal life. In the unseen world of the dead the souls of the righteous occupied an abode or compartment of their own which was distinctly separated by a wall or a chasm from the abode or compartment to which the souls of the wicked were consigned. The latter was a place of torments usually spoken of as Gehenna (cf. Matt., v, 29, 30; xviii, 9- Mark, ix, 42 sqq. in the Latin Vulgate)- the other, a place of bliss and security known under the names of “Paradise” (cf. Luke, xxiii, 43) and “the Bosom of Abraham” (Luke, xvi, 22 23). And it is in harmony with these Jewish conceptions that Our Lord pictured the terrible fate of the selfish Rich Man, and on the contrary, the glorious reward of the patient Lazarus. In the next life Dives found himself in Gehenna, condemned to the most exeruciating tor ments, whereas Lazarus was carried by the angels into “the Bosom of Abraham,” where the righteous dead shared in the repose and felicity of Abraham “the father of the faithful.” But while commentators generally agree upon the meaning of the figurative expression “the Bosom of Abraham,” as designating the blissful abode of the righteous souls after death, they are at variance with regard to the manner in which the phrase itself originated. Up to the time of Maldonatus (A.D. 1583), its origin was traced back to the universal custom of parents to take up into their arms, or place upon their knees, their children when they are fatigued, or return home, and to make them rest by their side during the night (cf. II Kings, xii, 2; III Kings, iii, 20; xvii, 19; Luke, xi, 7 sqq.), thus causing them to enjoy rest and security in the bosom of a loving parent. After the same manner was Abraham supposed to act towards his children after the fatigues and troubles of the present life, hence the metaphorical expression “to be in Abraham’s Bosom” as meaning to be in repose and happiness with him. But according to Maldonatus (In Lucam, xvi, 22), whose theory has since been accepted by many scholars, the metaphor “to be in Abraham’s Bosom” is derived from the custom of reclining on couches at table which prevailed among the Jews during and before the time of Christ. As at a feast each guest leaned on his left elbow so as to leave his right arm at liberty, and as two or more lay on the same couch, the head of one man was near the breast of the man who lay behind, and he was therefore said “to lie in the bosom” of the other. It was also considered by the Jews of old a mark of special honour and favour for one to be allowed to lie in the bosom of the master of the feast (cf. John 13:23). And it is by this illustration that they pictured the next world. They conceived of the reward of the righteous dead as a sharing in a banquet given by Abraham, “the father of the faithful” (cf. Matt., viii, 11 sqq.), and of the highest form of that reward as lying in “Abraham’s Bosom.” Since the coming of Our Lord, “the Bosom of Abraham” gradually ceased to designate a place of imperfect happiness, and it has become synonymous with Heaven itself. In their writings the Fathers of the Church mean by that expression sometimes the abode of the righteous dead before they were admitted to the Beatific Vision after the death of the Saviour, sometimes Heaven, into which the just of the New Law are immediately introduced upon their demise. When in her liturgy the Church solemnly prays that the angels may carry the soul of one of her departed children to “Abraham’s Bosom,” she employs the expression to designate Heaven and its endless bliss in company with the faithful of both Testaments, and in particular with Abraham, the father of them all. This passage of the expression “the Bosom of Abraham” from an imperfect and limited sense to one higher and fuller is a most natural one, and is in full harmony with the general character of the New Testament dispensation as a complement and fulfilment of the Old Testament revelation.

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Abraham a Sancta Clara

A Discalced Augustinian friar, preacher, and author of popular books of devotion, b. at Messkirch, Baden, 1644; d. 1 December, 1709. The eighth of nine children born to Matthew Megerlin, or Megerle, a well-to-do serf who kept a tavern in Kreenheinstetten, he received in Baptism the name John Ulrich. At the age of six he attended the village school in his native place, and about three years later he began his Latin studies in Messkirch. During the years 1656–59, he passed successively through the three classes of the Jesuit untergymnasium in Ingolstadt. At his father’s death, which occurred about this time, the boy was adopted by his uncle, Abraham von Megerlin, canon of Altötting, who removed him to the Benedictine school in Salzburg. In the fall of 1662, at the age of 18, John joined the Discalced Augustinians at the age Vienna, choosing the name Abraham doubtless out of respect to his uncle with the addition a Sancta Clara. He made his novitiate and completed his theological studies at Mariabrunn, not far from Vienna. On his ordination in Vienna (1666) he was sent, after a brief preparation, as preacher to the shrine of Taxa, near Augsburg, but after about three years he was recalled to Vienna, a centre of greater activity. On 28 April, 1677, he was appointed imperial court preacher by Leopold I, and while holding this office experienced the terrors of the year of the plague, 1679. After a rest of five months as chaplain to the Land marshal of Lower Austria, he once more ascended the pulpit. For the year 1680 he is recorded as being prior of the convent at Vienna, while two years later we find him chaplain to the monastic church of his order in Gratz, where he remained three years as Sunday preacher, and later as prior. It was in this capacity that he went to Rome in 1687. In 1690 he is mentioned once more by the house chronicle of the Vienna monastery as court preacher, and the following year as having the rank of provincial. In this capacity he undertook his second journey to Rome (1692), where he took part in the general chapter of his order. Upon his return he took up his customary duties, besides filling the office of definitor. He eventually became the definitor provinciae. These manifold sustained exertions, however, had gradually undermined his strength, still further impaired by years of suffering from gout, and finally resulted in his death. Abraham had at his command an amazingly large amount of information which, with an abundant wit in keeping with the taste of his time, made him an effective preacher. His peculiar talent lay in his faculty for presenting religious truths, even the most bitter, with such graphic charm that every listener, both high and low, found pleasure in his discourse, even though certain of his contemporaries expressed themselves with great virulence against “the buffoon, the newsmonger, and the harlequin of the pulpit.” Even in his character of author, he stands as it were in the pulpit, and speaks to his readers by means of his pen. His works are numerous. His first occasion for literary work was furnished by the plague, on which he wrote three treatises. Merk’s, Wien! or a detailed description of destructive death (Vienna, 1680), shows how death spares neither priests, nor women, nor learned men, nor married people, nor soldiers. The second tract, Lösch Wien (Vienna, 1680), which is less powerful, exhorts the survivors of the plague to extinguish with their good works the torments of Purgatory for those who had fallen victims. Die grosse Totenbruderschaft (1681) enumerates the people of prominence who died in 1679–80, in order to illustrate forcibly, and almost rudely, the reflection “that after death the prince royal is as frightfully noisome as the newborn child of the peasant.” Similarly based on a critical event of history was the little book entitled Auf, auf, ihr Christen (Vienna, 1683), a stirring exhortation to Christians in arms against the Turk. This has become chiefly celebrated as the original of the sermon in the Wallenstein’s Lager of Schiller. A collection of sermons which had been actually preached appeared in Salzburg in 1684 under the title of Reim dich, oder ich lis dich. In the following year a little pilgrimage book was printed for the monastery of Taxa entitled Gaik, Gaik, Gaik a Ga einer wunderseltsamen Hennen. This grotesque title arose from the story of the origin of the monastery, according to which a picture of the Blessed Virgin was seen imprinted on a hen’s egg. Abraham’s masterpiece, the fruit of ten years’ labour, is Judas der Erzschelm (Judas, the archknave, Salzburg, 1686–95). This treats of the apocryphal life of the traitor Judas, and is varied with many moral reflections. While still at work upon this extensive book, he published a compendium of Catholic moral teaching, Grammatica religiosa (Salzburg, 1691), consisting of fifty-five lessons, and embracing the themes of thirty-three sermons. This appeared in a German translation (Cologne, 1699). The remaining works of the celebrated barefoot preacher are for the most part a confused mixture of verses, reflections, and sermons. Thus: Etwas für alle (Something for All Persons; Würzburg, 1699); Sterben und Erben (Death and Inheritance; Amsterdam, 1702); Neu eröffnete Welt-Galleria (Newly-Opened World-Gallery; Nürnberg, 1703); Heilsames Gemisch-Gemasch (A Salutary Mix-Mash; Würzburg, 1704); Huy! und Pfuy der Welt (Ho! And Fie on the World; Würzburg, 1707). All these treatises showed the influence of Sebastian Brant’s Narrenschiff (Ship of Fools), which was even more apparent in the two following works: Centifolium stultorum in Quarto (A Hundred excellent fools in Quarto; Vienna, 1709), and Wunderwürdiger Traum von einem grossen Narrenest (Wonderful Dream of a Great Nest of Fools, Salzburg, 1710; also printed during the lifetime of Abraham). A year after his death there appeared Geistliche Kramerladen (Spiritual Haberdasher’s Shop); Wohl angefüllter Weinkeller (A Well-filled Wine-cellar; Würzburg); and Besonders meublirt und gezierte Toten-Kapelle (A Strangely Furnished and Adorned Mortuary Chapel; Nürnberg). Five quarto volumes of his literary remains were published posthumously: Abrahamisches Bescheidessen (Abraham’s Honour Feasts; Vienna, Br nn, 1717); Abrahamische Lauberhutt (Abraham’s Leafclad Arbour; Vienna and Nürnberg, 1721–23); Abrahamisches Gehab dich wohl! (Abraham’s Farewell; Nürnberg, 1729). A collective edition of his works appeared (Passau, 1835–46) in nineteen octavo volumes. Schiller, a Swabian compatriot of Abraham, has passed this interesting judgment on the literary monk in a letter to Göthe: “This Father Abraham is a man of wonderful originality, whom we must respect, and it would be an interesting, though not at all an easy, task to approach or surpass him in mad wit and cleverness.” Moreover, Schiller was greatly influenced by Abraham; even more were Jean Paul Richter and other lesser minds. Even to the most recent times Abraham’s influence is chiefly noticeable in the literature of the pulpit, though but little to its advantage. To honour the memory of Abraham the city of Vienna has begun a new edition of his works.

VON KARAJAN, Abraham a Sancta Clara (Vienna, 1867) (still the best work on the celebrated monk); SCHERER, Vortrage und Aufsatze zur Geschichte des geistlichen Lebens in Deutschland und osterreich (Berlin, 1874); ID., MARETA, on Abraham in the Allgemeine deutsche Biographie; MARETA uber Judas den Erzschelm, in Programm des Schottengymnasium (Vienna, 1875); BOBERTAG, Abraham a Sancta Clara, Judas der Erzschelm, in KURSCHNER’S Deutsche National literatur; BLANlKENBURG, Studien uber die Sprache Abrahams a Sancta Clara (Halle, 1897); NAGL, Die erziehische Einwirkung Abrahams a Sancta Clara auf das osterreicherische Volk in DITTES Paedagogium (1891); NAGL AND ZEIDLER, Deutsch-sterreichische Literatur Geschichte (Vienna, 1899) 621–651.

N. SCHEID

Abraham Ecchelensis

A learned Maronite, born in Hekel, or Ecchel (hence his surname), a village on Mount Lebanon, in 1600; died 1664 in Rome. He studied at the Maronite College in Rome, published a Syriac grammar (1628), and taught Syriac and Arabic at the College of the Propaganda. In 1630 he began to teach the same languages in the Royal College Paris, and to assist in editing Le Jay’s “Polyglot Bible,” working with Gabriel Sionita on the Syriac and Arabic texts and their Latin translation. He contributed III Mach. in Arabic, and Ruth in Syriac and Arabic, with a Latin translation. Abraham and Gabriel soon quarrelled, and the former wrote three letters explaining this difference, and defending his work against its depreciators, especially Valerian Flavigny. In 1642 he resumed his teaching in Rome, but returned to Paris in 1645; after eight years he again went to Rome, where he remained until his death. Among his many works we may mention: a “Synopsis of Arab Philosophy” (Paris, 1641); some disciplinary canons of the Council of Nice, according to Eastern attribution, though unknown to the Latin and Greek churches (Paris, 1641) “Abr. Ecchellensis et Leon. Allatii Concordantia Nationum Christianarum Orientalium in Fidei Catholicae Dogmate” (Mainz, 1655); “De Origine nominis Papae, necnon de illius Proprietate in Romano Pontifice, adeoque de ejus Primatu contra Joannem Seldenum Anglum” (Rome, 1660); “Epistola ad J. Morinum de variis Graecorum et Orientalium ritibus”; “Chronicon Orientale nunc primum Latinitate donatum, cui Accessit Supplementum Historiae orientalis (Paris, 1653); “Catalogus librorum Chaldaeorum tam Eccl. quam profanor., Auctore Hebed-Jesu Latinitate Donatus et Notis Illustratus” (Rome,1653); a “Life of St. Anthony”; a Latin translation of Abulfath’s “Paraphrase of Apollonius’ Conic Sections, 5, 6, and 7.”

A.J. MAAS

Abrahamites

(1) Syrian heretics of the ninth century. They were called Brachiniah by the Arabs, from the name of their head, Ibrahim, or Abraham of Antioch. They denied the Divinity of Christ, and were looked on by some as allied to the Paulicians.

(2) A sect of Bohemian Deists. They claimed that they held what had been Abraham’s religion before his circumcision. They believed in one God, but rejected the Trinity, original sin, and the perpetuity of punishment for sin, and accepted nothing of the Bible save only the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer. On their refusal to adopt some one of the religions tolerated in Bohemia, Joseph II banished them to Transylvania in 1783. Some became converted later on to the Catholic Faith. There are still found in Bohemia some whose religious belief suggests that of the Abrahamites.

(3) Martyrs in the time of the Byzantine Emperor Theophilus, when a persecution of Catholics took place on account of the revival of the heresy of the Iconoclasts. At this time there was a monastery of monks in Constantinople called St. Abraham’s. When the Emperor called on them to renounce the cult of holy images they defended the practice with great zeal, and were consequently subjected (832) to martyrdom.

Kirchenlex., I, 119, 120.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Nicholas Abram

Jesuit theologian, born in 1589, at Xaronval, in Lorraine; died 7 September, 1655. He taught rhetoric at Pont-à-Mousson, then engaged in missionary work, and finally taught theology at Pont-à-Mousson for seventeen years. His principal works are:

“Nonni Panopolitani Paraphrasis Sancti secundum Joannem Evangelii. Accesserunt Notae P.N.A., Soc. Jes.” (Paris, 1623);

“Commentarii in P. Virgilii Maronis Bucolica et Georgica. Accessit diatriba de quatuor fluviis et loco paradisi” (Pont-à-Mousson, 1633–35);

“Pharus Veteris Testamenti, sive sacrarum quaestionum libri XV. Quibus accesserunt ejusdem auctoris de veritate et mendacio libri IV” (Paris, 1648). This is the principal exegetical work of Father N. Abram.

His other works may he found in Sommervogel “Bibliothèque de la compagnie de Jésus” (Brussels, 1890).

A.J. MAAS

Abrasax

The study of Abrasax is, at first sight, as discouraging as it is possible to imagine. The name has been given to a class of ancient stone articles, of small dimensions, inscribed with outlandish figures and formulas, sometimes wholly indecipherable, specimens of which are to be found in almost every museum and private collection. These, for the most part, have hitherto resisted all attempts at interpretation, though it would be rash to conclude that a fuller knowledge may not solve enigmas which remain closed to us. The true name, moreover, is Abrasax, and not, as incorrectly written, Abraxas, a reading due to the confusion made by the Latins between Sigma and Xi. Among the early Gnostics, Abrasax appears to have had various meanings. Basilides gave this title to Almighty God, and claimed that the numerical value of its letters gave the sum of 365, because the Abrasax is enclosed in the solar cycle. Sometimes the number 365 signifies the series of the heavens. In view of such imaginings, it is easy to guess at the course taken by an untrammelled Gnostic fancy, whereby its adherents strove to discover the meaning of the mysterious word. It is, however, an error to give the name Abrasax to all stones of Gnostic origin, as has been done up to the present day. It is not the name which applies to talismans, any more than the names of Jupiter and Venus apply to all ancient statues indiscriminately. Abrasax is the name given by the Gnostics to the Supreme Deity, and it is quite possible that we shall find a clue to its etymological meaning in the influences of numbers. The subject is one which has exercised the ingenuity of many savants, but it may be said that all the engraved stones to which the name is commonly given fall into three classes: (1) Abrasax, or stones of Basilidian origin; (2) Abrasaxtes, or stones originating in ancient forms of worship, and adapted by the Gnostics to their peculiar opinions; (3) Abraxoïdes, or stones absolutely unconnected with the doctrine of Basilides. Bellermann, following Montfaucon, made a tentative classification of Gnostic stones, which, however, is nowadays looked upon as wholly inadequate. His mistake consisted in wishing, as it were, to make a frontal attack on Gnosticism. Kopp, endowed with greater skill and patience, seems to have realized in some measure how wide the problem actually is. Ad. Franck and, quite lately, Moses Schwab have made diligent researches in the direction of the Cabbala. “The demonology devised by the Cabbalists”; according to the former writer, “was nothing more than a carefully thought out personification of the different degrees of life and intelligence which they perceived in external nature. All natural growths, forces, and phenomena are thus typified.” The outline here furnished needs only to be extended indefinitely in order to take in quite easily the countless generations of Gnosticism. The whole moral and physical world, analyzed and classified with an inconceivable minuteness, will find place in it. Thence, also, will issue the bewildering catalogues of Gnostic personalities. The chief difficulty, however, arises from the nomenclature of Gnosticism, and here the “Sepher Raziel” supplies a first and valuable hint. “To succeed in the operations of divination,” it says, “it is necessary to pronounce the mystic names of the planets or of the earth.” In fact, stones of Gnostic origin often show designs made up out of the initial letters of the planets. Another parallel is still more suggestive. The Jews, as is well known, would never pronounce the Ineffable Name, Jehovah, but substituted either another name or a paraphrase; a rule which applied, not only to the Ineffable Name and its derivatives, but to others as well, ending, in order to evade the difficulty which arose, in a series of fantastic sounds which at first seem simply the outcome of a hopeless confusion. It became necessary to resort to permutations, to the use of other letters, to numerical and formal equivalents. The result was an outlandish vocabulary, only partially accounted for, yet one which nevertheless reveals in Gnosticism the existence of something more than mere incoherences. Very many secrets of Gnosticism remain unexplained, but it may be hoped that they will not always be shrouded in mystery.

KING, The Gnostics and their Remains (London, 1887); BELLERMANN, Versuch uber die Gemmen der Alten mit dem Abraxas-Bilde (Berlin, 1817–19); DIETERICH, Die Abraxas (Leipzig, 1892); LECLERCQ, in Dict. d’archeol. chret. et de liturgie, I, 127 sq.; MATTER, Hist. du gnosticisme (Paris, 1843); MONTFAUCON, L’antiquite expliquee (Paris, 1722), II, 2, 353.

H. LECLERCQ

Absalom

(Abhshalom in Hebrew; Abessalom, Apsalomos in Greek).

The name of several distinguished persons mentioned in the Old Testament (Kings, Par., Mach.), interpreted “The Father of Peace.”

(1) Absalom, Son of David

He is third in the order mentioned by the chronicler (II Kings, iii, 2, 3) of the sons born at Hebron during the first turbulent years of David’s reign over Judah, when Isboseth, son of Saul, still claimed by right of inheritance to rule over Israel. His mother was Maacha, daughter of Tholmai, King of Gessur. The sacred writer who sketches for us the career of Absalom (II Kings, xiii-xviii) lays stress upon the faultless beauty of the youth’s appearance, and mentions in particular the luxurious wealth of his hair, which, when shorn, weighed over ten ounces. The significance of this latter note becomes apparent when we remember the important part which the culture of the hair played in the devotions of the Eastern people (note even at this day the ceremonial prayers of the Dervishes). As shaving the head was a sign of mourning, so offering a comely growth of hair to the priest was a token of personal sacrifice akin to the annual offering of the first fruits in the sanctuary. Probably the chronicler had also in mind that it was this gift of nature which became the occasion of Absalom’s fatal death. To a pleasing exterior the youth Absalom joined a temperament which, whilst fond of display, was nevertheless reserved, bold, and thoughtful. These qualifications were calculated to nourish a natural desire to be one day the representative of that magnificent power created by his father, from the prospective enjoyment of which his minority of birth alone seemed to debar him. Despite his ambition, there appears to have been in the youth that generous instinct of honour which inspires noble impulses where these do not clash with the more inviting prospects of self-interest. Under such circumstances it is not strange that Absalom, idolized by those around him, whilst his natural sense of gratitude and filial duty became gradually dulled, was led to cultivate that species of egotism which grows cruel in proportion as it counts upon the blind affection of its friends.

There were other causes which alienated Absalom from his father. David’s eldest son, Amnon, born of a Jezrahelite mother, and prospective heir to the throne by reason of his seniority, had conceived a violent passion for Thamar, Absalom’s beautiful sister. Unable to control his affection, yet prevented from gaining access to her by the conventionalities of the royal court, which separated the King’s wives and kept Thamar in her mother’s household, Amnon, on the advice of his cousin Jonadab, feigns illness, and upon being visited by the King, his father, requests that Thamar be permitted to nurse him. It was thus that Amnon found opportunity to wrong the innocence of his stepsister. Having injured the object of his passion, he forthwith begins to hate her, and sends from him the aggrieved maiden, who must be to him a constant reminder of his wrongdoing. Thamar, departing in the bitterness of her sorrow, is met by Absalom, who forces from her the secret of Amnon’s violence to her. David is informed, but, apparently unwilling to let the disgrace of his prospective heir become public, fails to punish the crime. This gives Absalom the pretext for avenging his sister’s wrong, for which now not only Amnon, the heir to the throne, but also David appears responsible to him. He takes Thamar into his house and quietly but determinedly lays his plan. The sacred writer states that Absalom never spoke to Amnon, neither good words nor evil, but he hated him with a hatred unto death.

For two years Absalom thus carried his resentment in silence, when at length he found occasion to act openly. From the days of the patriarchs it had been customary among the shepherd princes of Israel to celebrate as a public festival of thanksgiving the annual sheep-shearing. The first clip of the flocks was ordained for the priests (Deut., xviii, 4), and the sacredness of the feast made it difficult for any member of the tribal family to absent himself. The sacred writer does not state that there was in the mind of David a secret suspicion that Absalom meditated mischief, but to one whose in sight into past and future events was so clear as that of the Royal Seer, it might easily have occurred that there had been in the days of his forefather, Jacob, another Thamar (Gen., xxxviii, 6) who figured at a sheep-shearing, and who found means of avenging a similar wrong against herself, though in a less bloody way than that contemplated by Absalom on the present occasion. Although David excuses himself from attending the great sheep-shearing, he eventually yields to Absalom’s entreaty to send Amnon there to represent him. The festive reunion of the royal household takes place at Baalhasor, in a valley east of the road that leads to Sichem, near Ephraim. When the banquet is at its height, and Amnon has fairly given himself over to the pleasures of wine, he is suddenly overpowered by the trusted servants of Absalom, and slain. The rest of the company flee. Absalom himself escapes the inevitable anger of his father by seeking refuge in the home of his maternal grandfather at Gessur. Here he hopes to remain until, the grief of his father having died out, he might be forgiven and recalled to the royal court. But David does not relent so quickly. After three years of banishment, Absalom, through the intervention of Joab, David’s nephew and trusted general is allowed to return to the city, without, however, being permitted to enter the King’s presence. In this condition Absalom lives for two years, seeking all the while to regain through the instrumentality of Joab the favour of his father. Joab himself is reluctant to press the matter, until Absalom, by setting fire to the crops of his kinsman, forces Joab to come to him with a view of seeking redress for the injury. Absalom turns the opportunity of this altercation with Joab to good account by pleading his own neglected and humiliated condition: I would rather die ignominiously, he argues, than have this rancour of the King against me all the days of my life. As a result Absalom is received by the King.

Restored to his former princely dignity and the apparent confidence of his father, Absalom now enters upon that course of secret plotting to which his ambition and his opportunity seemed to urge him, and which has stamped his name as a synonym of unnatural revolt. By ingratiating himself in the good will of the people, and at the same time fostering discontent with the conditions of his father’s reign, he succeeds in preparing the minds of the disaffected for a general uprising. After four years [the Septuagint has “forty,” which is evidently a misreading, as appears from the Hebrew (Keri), Syriac, and Arabic versions] of energetic secret activity, Absalom asks leave of the King to repair to Hebron, that he might fulfil a self-imposed vow made while in captivity at Gessur. Preparations had already been consummated for a simultaneous uprising of the secret adherents of Absalom in different parts of the country, and emissaries were ready to proclaim the new king. Achitophel, one of David’s oldest counsellors, had joined the conspirators, and by his design a strong current was being directed against David. When, amid the sound of trumpets and the shouts of the military, the proclamation of the new king reaches David, he quickly assembles his trusted followers and flies towards Mount Olivet, hoping to cross the Jordan in time to escape the ambitious fury of his son. On the way he meets his faithful officer Chusai, whom he advises to join Absalom.

“You will be of no use to me if you go with us. But if you join Absalom, and say to him: I am thy follower, O King, as once I was thy father’s, he will receive thee, and thou wilt have it in thy power to frustrate the designs of Achitophel who has betrayed me.”

Chusai acts on the advice, and succeeds in gaining the confidence of Absalom. So skilfully does he play his role as adherent of the rebel party that his suggestion, pretending the uselessness of pursuing David, prevails against the urgent counsel of Achitophel, who urges Absalom to attack the King, lest he gain time to organize his bodyguard, lately strengthened by the accession of six hundred Gethaean soldiers. The event proves the accuracy of Achitophel’s foresight. David is secretly informed of Absalom’s delay, and forthwith sends his three generals, Joab, Abisai, and Ethai, to attack the rebel hosts from the eastern side of the hill. Shielded by a forest, David’s men proceed and meet Absalom’s unguarded forces on the edge of the woods which fringe the circular plain at a point marked by the present site (presumably) of Mukaah. A frightful slaughter ensues, and the disorganized rebel party is quickly routed. Absalom madly flies. Suddenly he finds himself stunned by a blow while his head is caught in the fork of the low hanging branches of a terebinth tree. At the same time his long loose hair becomes entangled in the thick foliage, whilst the frightened animal beneath him rushes on, leaving him suspended above the ground. Before he is able to extricate himself he is espied by one of the soldiers, who, mindful of the King’s words, “Spare me the life of Absalom,” directs Joab’s attention to the plight of the hapless youth. The old general, less scrupulous, and eager to rid his master of so dangerous a foe, thrice pierces the body of Absalom with his javelin. When the news of Absalom’s death is brought to David, he is inconsolable.

“My son Absalom, Absalom my son: would to God that I might die for thee, Absalom my son, my son Absalom.”

The sacred text states that Absalom was buried under a great heap of stones (II Kings, xviii, 17) near the scene of his disaster. The traveller today is shown a tomb in Graeco-Jewish style, east of the Kidron, which is designated as the sepulchre of Absalom, but which is evidently of much later construction and probably belongs to one of the Jewish kings of the Asmonean period (Josephus, De Bello Jud., V, xii, 2). Absalom had three sons, who died before him. He left a daughter Maacha (Thamar), who was afterwards married to Roboam, son of Solomon (II Par., xi, 20), although there is some doubt as to the identity of this name mentioned in the Book of Kings and in Paralipomenon.

(2) Absalom, father of Mathathias

(I Mach., xi, 70). Perhaps identical with Absalom, father of Jonathan (I Mach., xiii, 11).

(3) Absalom, father of Jonathan

One of the two ambassadors whom Judas Machabeus sent to Lysias, procurator of Antiochus (II Mach., xi, 17), identical with the foregoing.

H.J. HEUSER

Absalon of Lund

Also known as AXEL, a famous Danish prelate, b. in 1128, at Finnestoë in Seeland; d. 21 March, 1201, in the Benedictine monastery of Soröe (Sora) founded by his father. He was a graduate of the University of Paris, and taught for a while in the school of Ste. Geneviève. In 1158 he was made Bishop of Roskilde, and in 1178 Archbishop of Lund, Primate of Denmark and Sweden, and eventually Papal Legate. In this capacity he labored zealously for the final extirpation of paganism in the Scandinavian world, notably on the Isle of Rügen, its last stronghold. He exercised great political influence under King Waldemar I (1155–81) and Canute VI. It was at his request that Saxo Grammaticus composed his “Historiæ Danicæ Libri XVI.” A tribute to Absalon is found in the fourteenth book of that work.

HEFELE, in Kirchenlex., art. Axel , 1, 1708; monographs by ESTRUP-MOHNIKE (Leipzig, 1832), and HAMMERICH (Copenhagen, 1863).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Absinthe

(Hebrew la’anah.)

Wormwood, known for its repulsive bitterness (Jer., ix, 15; xxiii, 15; Deut., xxix, 18; Lam., iii, 19; Prov., V, 4). Figuratively it stands for a curse or calamity (Lam., iii, 15), or also for injustice (Amos, V, 7; vi, 13). In Apoc., viii, 11, the Greek equivalent ho apsinthos is given as a proper name to the star which fell into the waters and made them bitter. The Vulgate renders the Hebrew expression by absinithium, except in Deut., xxix, 18, where it translates it amaritudo. It seems that the biblical absinthe is identical with the Artemisia monosperma (Delile), or the Artemisia herba-alba (ASSO); or, again, the Artemisia juidaica Linné. (See PLANTS IN BIBLE.)

HAGEN, Lexicon Biblicum (Paris, 1905); VIGOUROUX, in Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1895); TRISTAM, Natural History of the Bible (London, 1889).

A.J. MAAS

The Absolute

A term employed in modern philosophy with various meanings, but applied generally speaking to the Supreme Being. It signifies (1) that which is complete and perfect; (2) that which exists by its own nature and is consequently independent of everything else; (3) that which is related to no other being; (4) the sum of all being, actual and potential (Hegel). In the first and the second of these significations the Absolute is a name for God which Christian philosophy may readily accept. Though the term was not current in the Middle Ages, equivalent expressions were used by the Scholastic writers in speaking, e.g. of God as Pure Actuality (Actus Purus), as uncaused Being, or as containing pre-eminently every perfection. St. Thomas, in particular, emphasizes the absoluteness of God by, showing that he cannot be classed under any genus or species, and that His esseuce is identical with His existence. Aquinas also anticipates the difficulties which arise from the use of the term Absolute in the sense of unrelated being, and which are brought out quite clearly in modern discussions, notably in that between Mill, as critic of Sir William Hamilton’s philosophy, and Mansel as its defender. It was urged that the Absolute could not consistently be thought of or spoken of as First Cause, for the reason that causation implies relation, and the Absolute is outside of all relation; it cannot, therefore, be conceived as producing effects. St. Thomas, however, offered a solution. He holds that God and created things are related, but that the relation is real in the effects only. It implies no conditioning or modification of the Divine Being; it is in its application to, God merely conceptual. The fashion of our thought obliges us to conceive God as one term of a relation, but not to infer that the relation affects Him as it affects the created thing which is the other term. This distinction, moreover, is based on experience. The process of knowledge involves a relation between the known object and, the knowing subject, but the character of the relation is not the same in both terms. In the mind it is real because perception and thought imply the exercise of mental faciilties, and consequently a modification of the mind itself. No such modification, however, reaches the object; this is the same whether we perceive it or not.

Now it is just here that a more serious difficulty arises. It is claimed that the Absolute can neither be known nor conceived. “To think is to condition”; and as the Absolute is by its very nature unconditioned, no effort of thought can reach it. To say that God is the Absolute is equivalent to saying that He is unknowable.—This view, expressed by Hamilton and Mansel, and endorsed by Spencer in his “First Principles,” affords an apparently strong support to Agnosticism, while it assails both the reasonableness and the possibility of religion. It is only a partial reply to state that God, though incomprehensible, is nevertheless knowable according to the manner and capacity of our intelligence. The Agnostic contends that God, precisely because He is the Absolute, is beyond the range of any knowledge whatever on our part. Agnosticism, in other words, insists that we must believe in the existence of an absolute and infinite Being and at the same time warns us that we can have no idea of that Being. Our belief must express itself in terms that are meaningless. To avoid this conclusion one may reject altogether a term out of which all significance has evaporated; or (and this seems a wiser course) one may retrace the genesis of the term and bold fast to the items of knowledge, however imperfect and however in need of criticism, which that genesis involves. In proving the existence of God as First Cause, or as Absolute Being, we take as our starting-point facts that are knowable and known. So far as, in reasoning upon these facts, we are led beyond them to the concept of an Absolute, some remnant of the knowableness which facts present must be found in that whichis the ultimate explanation of the facts. If, as Spencer affirms, “every one of the arguments by which the relativity of our knowledge is demonstrated distinctly postulates the positive existence of something beyond the relative,” it follows that by getting clearly before our thought the meaning of those arguments and their force for distinctly postulating we must obtain some knowledge of the Being whose existence is thus established. Spencer, indeed, does not realize the full import of the words “positive existence,” “ultimate reality,” and “incomprehensible power,” which he uses so freely. Otherwise he could not consistently declare that the Being to which these various predicates apply is unknowable. It is in fact remarkable that so much knowledge of the Absolute is displayed in the attempt to prove that the Absolute cannot be known. Careful analysis of a concept like that of First Cause certainly shows that it contains a wealth of meaning which forbids its identification with the Unknowable, even supposing that the positive existence of the Unknowable could be logically demonstrated. Such an analysis is furnished by St. Thomas and by other representatives of Christian philosophy. The method which St. Thomas formulated, and which his successors adopted, keeps steadily in view the requirements of critical thinking, and especially the danger of applying the forms of our human knowledge, without due refinement, to the Divine Being. The warning against our anthropomorphic tendency was clearly given before the Absolute had taken its actual place in philosophic speculation, or had yielded that place to the Unknowable. While this warning is always needful, especially in the interest of religion, nothing can be gained by the attempt to form a concept of God which offers a mere negation to thought and to worship. It is of course equally futile to propose an unknowable Absolute as the basis of reconciliation between religion and science. The failure of Spencer’s philosophy in this respect is the more disastrous because, while it allows full scope to science in investigating the manifestations of the Absolute, it sets aside the claim of religion to learn anything of the power which is thus manifested. (See AGNOSTICISM, ASEITY, ANALOGY, GOD, KNOWLEDGE, THEOLOGY. For Hegel’s conception of the Absolute, see HEGELIANISM, IDEAISM, PANTHEISM.)

SCHUMACHER, The Knowableness of God (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1905), contains good bibliography; ST. THOMAS, Summa, I, Q. xiii; Contra Gentes, II, 12, 13; HAMILTON, Discussions (New York, 1860); MILL, An Examination of Sir W. Hamilton’s Philosophy (Boston, 1865); MANSEL, The Philosophy of the Conditioned (London, 1866); CAIRD, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Glasgow, 1901); ROYCE, The World and the Individual (New York, 1900); FLINT, Agnosticism (New York, 1903).

E.A. PACE

Absolution

(Ab = from; solvere = to free)

Absolution is the remission of sin, or of the punishment due to sin, granted by the Church. (For remission of punishment due to sin, see CENSURE, EXCOMMUNICATION, INDULGENCE.) Absolution proper is that act of the priest whereby, in the Sacrament of Penance, he frees man from sin. It presupposes on the part of the penitent, contrition, confession, and promise at least of satisfaction; on the part of the minister, valid reception of the Order of Priesthood and jurisdiction, granted by competent authority, over the person receiving the sacrament. That there is in the Church power to absolve sins committed after baptism the Council of Trent thus declares: “But the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance, when, being raised from the dead, He breathed upon His disciples saying, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ By which action so signal, and words so clear the consent of all the Fathers has ever understood that the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles, and to their lawful successors for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen after baptism” (Sess. XIV, i). Nor is there lacking in divine revelation proof of such power; the classical texts are those found in Matthew, xvi, 19; xviii, 18, and in John, xx, 21–23. To Peter are given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Sin is the great obstacle to entrance into the kingdom, and over sin Peter is supreme. To Peter and to all the Apostles is given the power to bind and to loose, and this again implies supreme power both legislative and judicial: power to forgive sins, power to free from sin’s penalties. This interpretation becomes more clear in studying the rabbinical literature, especially of Our Lord’s time, in which the phrase to bind and to loose was in common use. (Lightfoot, Horæ Hebraicæ; Buxtorf, Lexicon Chald.; Knabenbauer, Commentary on Matthew, II, 66; particularly Maas, St. Matthew, 183, 184.) The granting of the power to absolve is put with unmistakable clearness in St. John’s Gospel: “He breathed upon them and said, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven them; and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained’“ (xx, 22, 23). It were foolish to assert that the power here granted by Christ was simply a power to announce the Gospel (Council of Trent, Sess. XIX, Can. iii), and quite as unwise to contend that here is contained no power other than the power to remit sin in the Sacrament of Baptism (Ibid., Sess. XIV); for the very context is against such an interpretation, and the words of the text imply a strictly judicial act, while the power to retain sins becomes simply incomprehensible when applied to baptism alone, and not to an action involving discretionary judgment. But it is one thing to assert that the power of absolution was granted to the Church, and another to say that a full realization of the grant was in the consciousness of the Church from the beginning. Baptism was the first, the great sacrament, the sacrament of initiation into the kingdom of Christ. Through baptism was obtained not only plenary pardon for sin, but also for temporal punishment due to sin. Man once born anew, the Christian ideal forbade even the thought of his return to sin. Of a consequence, early Christian discipline was loath to grant even once a restoration to grace through the ministry of reconciliation vested in the Church. This severity was in keeping with St. Paul’s declaration in his Epistle to the Hebrews: “For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come and are fallen away, to be renewed again to penance” etc. (vi, 4–6). The persistence of this Christian ideal is very clear in the “Pastor” of Hermas, where the author contends against a rigorist school, that at least one opportunity for penance must be given by the Church (III Sim., viii, 11). He grants only one such chance, but this is sufficient to establish a belief in the power of the Church to forgive sins committed after baptism. St. Ignatius in the first days of the second century seemingly asserts the power to forgive sins when he declares in his letter to the Philadelphians that the bishop presides over penance. This tradition was continued in the Syrian Church, as is evident from passages found in Aphraates and Ephrem, and St. John Chrysostom voices this same Syrian tradition when he writes “De Sacerdotio” (Migne P. G., LXVII, 643), that “Christ has given to his priests a power he would not grant to the angels, for he has not said to them, ‘Whatsoever ye bind, will be bound,’“ etc.; and further down he adds, “The Father hath given all judgment into the hands of his Son, and the Son in turn has granted this power to his priests.”

Clement of Alexandria, who perhaps received his inspiration from the “Pastor” of Hermas, tells the story of the young bandit whom St. John went after and brought back to God, and in the story he speaks of the “Angel of Penance,” meaning the bishop or priest who presided over the public penance. Following Clement in the Catechetical school of Alexandria was Origen (230). In the commentary on the words of the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our trespasses,” he alludes to the practice of penance in the Church, recalling the text of John, xx, 21. He asserts that this text is proof of the power to pardon sin conferred by Christ upon His Apostles and upon their successors. True it is that in writing of the extent of the power conferred, he makes exception for the sins of idolatry and adultery, which he terms irremissible, although Dionysius of Corinth (170) years before held that no sin was excepted from the power of the keys granted by Christ to His Church (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iv, xxiii). In the Alexandrian Church we have also the testimony of Athanasius, who in a fragment against the Novatians pointedly asserts: “He who confesses his sins, receives from the priest pardon for his fault, in virtue of the grace of Christ (just as he who is baptized).” Asia Minor is at an early date witness of this power to absolve. St. Firmihan, in his famous letter to St. Cyprian, asserts that the power to forgive sins was given to the Apostles and to their successors (Epp. Cyp., LXXV), and this tradition is more clearly expressed both in Basil and Gregory Nazianzen (P. G., XXXI, 1284; XXXVI, 356, 357). The Roman tradition is clear in the “Pastor” of Hermas, where the power to forgive sins committed after baptism is defended (Sim., viii, 6, 5; ibid., ix, 19). This same tradition is manifest in the Canons of Hippolytus, wherein the prelate consecrating a bishop is directed to pray: “Grant him, O Lord, the power to forgive sins” (xxii). This is still more clearly expressed in the “Constitutiones Apostolicæ” (P. G., I, 1073): “Grant him, O Lord Almighty, by Thy Christ the fulness of Thy spirit, that he may have the power to pardon sin, in accordance with Thy command, that he may loose every bond which binds the sinner, by reason of that power which Thou hast granted Thy Apostles.” (See also Duchesne, “Christian Worship,” 439, 440.) True, this power seems to Hermas to be strangely limited, while Origen, Tertullian, and the followers of Novatian principles were unwilling to grant that the Church had a right to absolve from such sins as apostasy, murder, and adultery. However, Calixtus settled the question for all time when he declared that in virtue of the power of the keys, he would grant pardon to all who did penance—Ego . . . delicta pœnitentiâ functis dimitto, or again, Habet potestatem ecclesia delicta donandi (De Pud., xxi). In this matter, see Tertullian, “De Pudicitiâ,” which is simply a vehement protest against the action of the Pope, whom Tertullian accuses of presumption in daring to forgive sins, and especially the greater crimes of murder, idolatry, etc.—“ Idcirco præsumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et alligandi potestatem, id est, ad omnem Ecclesiam Petri propinquam.” Tertullian himself, before becoming a Montanist, asserts in the clearest terms that the power to forgive sins is in the Church. “Collocavit Deus in vestibulo pœnitentiam januam secundam, quæ pulsantibus patefaciat [januam]; sed jam semel, quia jam secundo, sed amplius nunquam, quia proxime frustra” (De Pœnitentiâ, vii, 9, 10). Although Tertullian limits the exercise of this power, he stoutly asserts its existence, and clearly states that the pardon thus obtained reconciles the sinner not only with the Church, but with God (Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, I, note 3, 407). The whole Montanist controversy is a proof of the position taken by the Church and the Bishops of Rome; and the great Doctors of the West affirmed in the strongest terms the power to absolve granted to the priests of the Church by Christ. (Leo the Great, P. L., LIV, 1011–1013; Gregory the Great, P. L., LXVI, 1200; Ambrose, P. L., XV, 1639; XVI, 468, 477, etc.; Augustine, P. L., XXXIX, 1549–59.)

From the days, therefore, of Calixtus the power to absolve sins committed after baptism is recognized as vested in the priests of the Church in virtue of the command of Christ to bind and loose, and of the power of the keys. At first this power is timidly asserted against the rigorist party; afterwards stoutly maintained. At first the sinner is given one opportunity for pardon, and gradually this indulgence is extended; true, some doctors thought certain sins unpardonable, save by God alone, but this was because they considered that the existing discipline marked the limits of the power granted by Christ. After the middle of the fourth century, the universal practice of public penance precludes any denial of a belief in the Church’s power to pardon the sinner, though the doctrine and the practice of penance were destined to have a still further expansion.

LATER PATRISTIC AGE

Following the golden age of the Fathers, the assertion of the right to absolve and the extension of the power of the keys are even more marked. The ancient sacramentaries—Leonine, Gelasian, Gregorian, the “Missale Francorum”—witness this especially in the ordination service; then the bishop prays that “whatever they bind, shall be bound” etc. (Duchesne, Christian Worship, 360, 361). The missionaries sent from Rome to England in the seventh century did not establish a public form of penance, but the affirmation of the priest’s power is clear from the “Pœnitentiale Theodori,” and from the legislation on the Continent, which was enacted by the monks who came from England and Ireland (Council of Reims, can. xxxi, Harduin). The false decretals (about 850) accentuated the right of absolution; and in a sermon of the same century, attributed perhaps wrongly to St. Eligius, a fully developed doctrine is found. The Saint is speaking of the reconciliation of penitents and warns them to be sure of their dispositions, their sorrow, their purpose of amendment; for “we are powerless,” he says, “to grant pardon, unless you put off the old man; but if by sincere repentance you put off the old man with his works, then know that you are reconciled to God by Christ, yea and by us, to whom He gave the ministry of reconciliation.” And this ministry of reconciliation which he claims for the priesthood is that ministry and that power granted to the Apostles by Christ when He said, “Whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven” (P. L., LXXXVII, 609, 610). The theologians of the medieval period, from Alcuin to St. Bernard, insist that the right to absolve from sin was given to the bishops and priests who succeeded to the apostolic office (Alcuin, P. L., CI, 652–656; Benedict Levita, P. L., C, 357; Jonas of Orléans, P. L., CVI, 152; Pseudo-Egbert, P. L., LXXXIX, 415; Haymo of Halberstadt, P. L., CXVIII, 762 sqq.). Following the theologians, the canonists, such as Regino of Prüm, Burchard of Worms, Ivo of Chartres, furnish us with fuller proofs of the same power, and Harduin (Councils, VI, i, 544) cites the fifteenth canon of the Council of Troslé (909), which states expressly that penance through the ministry of Christ’s priests is “fruitful unto the remission of sins.” This epoch closes with St. Bernard, who takes Peter Abelard to task for daring to assert that Christ gave the power to forgive sins only to His disciples, and consequently that the successors of the Apostles do not enjoy the same privileges (P. L., CLXXXII, 1054). But while Bernard insists that the power of the keys given to the Apostles is lodged in the bishop and in the priests, he with equal stress insists that such power be not exercised unless the penitent make a full confession of wrong committed (ibid., 938). When the great scholastic epoch began, the doctrine which obtained was a power to absolve sins and this power distinctly recognized, in virtue of the power granted by Christ to His Apostles. On the part of the penitent, sorrow and a promise of better life were necessary, and also a declaration of sin made to him whom Christ had appointed judge.

SCHOLASTIC AGE

At the beginning of the scholastic age, special stress is laid upon the power of contrition to secure pardon. St. Anselm of Canterbury, in a commentary upon Luke xvii, 14, likens this power to that possessed of old by the Jewish priest in the case of leprosy (P. L., CLVIII, 662; ibid., 361–430). At first sight, the doctrine of St. Anselm seemed to annul the power to absolve which antiquity had granted to the priesthood, and to reduce the office of reconciliation to a mere declaration that sin had been forgiven. Hugo of St. Victor (1097–1141) took ground against Anselm, not because Anselm insisted on contrition, but because he seemingly left no place for the power of the keys. But how admit the one and not the other? Hugo says the sinner is “bound down by obduracy of soul, and by the penalty of future damnation”; the grace of God frees man from the darkness brought on by sin, while the absolution of the priest delivers him from the penalty which sin imposes—“The malice of sin is best described as obduracy of heart, which is first broken by sorrow, that later, in confession, the sin itself, i.e. the penalty of damnation, be remitted.” There is some obscurity in the text, but Hugo seems inclined to hold that the priest absolves from the punishment due to sin, rather than from sin itself. The Master of the Sentences, Peter Lombard, took issue with Hugo, and asserted in clear terms that charity not only blotted out the stain of sin, but also freed the sinner from punishment due to sin. Not understanding, however, that penance as a sacrament is a moral unit, Peter Lombard in turn used language which is far from exact. He seems to hold that contrition takes away sin and its consequences, and when questioned concerning the power granted to the priest, he seems to recur to the opinion of Anselm that it is declarative. “They remit or retain sins when they judge and declare them remitted or retained by God” (P. L., CXCII, 888). He also grants to the priest certain power in reference to the temporal punishment due to sin (ibid.). Richard of St. Victor, though he speaks of the opinion of Peter Lombard as frivolous, in reality differs but little from the Master of the Sentences. Peter’s opinion indeed exercised great influence over the minds both of his contemporaries and of the following generation. With William of Auvergne (who taught up to 1228, when he became Archbishop of Paris) comes the distinction between contrition and attrition in the Sacrament of Penance. Contrition takes away all stain of guilt, while attrition prepares the way for the real remission of sin in the sacrament. Theologians had recognized the distinction between contrition and attrition even before William of Paris, but neither Alexander of Hales nor Albert, the master of Aquinas, advanced much beyond the teaching of Peter Lombard. Both seemingly insisted on real contrition before absolution, and both also held that such contrition in reality took away mortal sin. They did not, however, deny the office of the minister, for they both held that contrition involved a promise of confession [Alb. Mag., IV Sent., Dist. xvi-xvii (Paris, 1894), XXIX, 559, 660, 666, 670, 700]. St. Bonaventure (IV, Dist. xvii) also admits the distinction between contrition and attrition; he asserts the power of contrition to take away all sin, even without the priest’s absolution, confession being necessary only when possible. As regards the priest’s power to pardon sin, he not only admits it, not only asserts that absolution forgives sin and its eternal consequences, but calls it the forma sacramenti. He even goes so far as to say that attrition is sufficient for pardon if accompanied by absolution (ibid., Dist. xviii). When questioned as to the manner in which absolution produces its sacramental effect, he distinguishes between two forms of absolution employed by the priest: the one deprecatory, “Misereatur tui” etc., and the other indicative, “Ego te absolvo.” In the former the priest intercedes for the sinner, and this intercession changes his attrition into real contrition and secures pardon for sin committed. In the latter, which is indicative and personal, the priest exercises the power of the keys, but remits only a temporal punishment due still on account of sin. This after all is but a new way of putting the theory of Peter Lombard (ibid., Dist. xviii). St. Thomas Aquinas treats this subject in his Commentary on the Master of the Sentences (IV, Dist. xvii, xviii, xix; Summa Theologica III, QQ. lxxxiv-xc; Supplement, QQ. i-xx; Opuscula, Do Formâ Absolutionis). Taking the many distracted theories of the schoolmen with this partial truth, he fused them into a united whole. In the commentary on the “Libri Sententiarum” he shows clearly that the ministry of the priest is directly instrumental in the forgiveness of sin; for “if the keys had not been ordained for the remission of sin, but only for release from the penalty (which was the opinion of the elder scholastics), there would be no need of the intention to obtain the effect of the keys for the remission of sin”; and in the same place he clearly states: “Hence if before absolution one had not been perfectly disposed to receive grace, one would receive it in sacramental confession and absolution, if no obstacle be put in the way” (Dist. xvii, 2, I, art. 3, Quæstiuncula iv). He sees clearly that God alone can pardon sin, but God uses the instrumentality of absolution which, with confession, contrition, and satisfaction, concurs in obtaining forgiveness, in blotting out the stain, in opening the kingdom of heaven, by cancelling the sentence of eternal punishment. This doctrine is expressed again with equal clearness in the “Summa” and in the “Supplement.” In the “Summa,” Q. lxxxiv, art. 3, he states that the absolution of the priest is the forma sacramenti, and consequently confession, contrition, and satisfaction must constitute “in some way, the matter of the sacrament.” When asked whether perfect contrition secured pardon for sin even outside the Sacrament of Penance, St. Thomas answers in the affirmative; but then contrition is no longer an integral part of the sacrament; it secures pardon because forgiveness comes from perfect charity, independently of the instrumentality of the sacramental rite (Supplement, Q. v, a. 1). Duns Scotus not only grants the power of a solution in the forgiveness of sin, but goes a step farther and asserts that the sacrament consists principally in the absolution of the priest, because confession, contrition, and satisfaction are not integral parts or units in the sacrament, but only necessary previous dispositions to the reception of divine grace and forgiveness. “There is no similarity, therefore, between the priest of the Law in regard to leprosy and the priest of the Gospel in regard to sin,” and he adds that the priest of the New Law, “exercet actum qui est signum prognosticum, efficax mundationis sequentis” etc. (edit. Vivès, XVIII, 649, 650, in Dist. XIX; ibid., 420, 421). Some think this opinion of Scotus more in conformity with the Council of Treat, which calls contrition, confession, and satisfaction not “the matter,” but quasi materia, “as if the matter,” of the sacrament; others doubt whether the Council thus meant to class contrition, confession, and satisfaction as mere necessary dispositions. This doctrine, as taught by St. Thomas and Scotus finds its echo in the Council of Florence, in the decree of Eugene IV, as it does in the Council of Trent, which defines (Sess. XIV, chap. iii), “That the form of the Sacrament of Penance, wherein its force principally consists, is placed in those words of the priest: ‘I absolve thee’ etc., but the acts of the penitent himself are quasi materia of this Sacrament.”

MINISTER

In the closing years of the first century, Ignatius of Antioch asserts that Penance is in the hands of the bishop; soon the same power is recognized in the priests, and in St. Cyprian, the deacon on extraordinary occasions performed the office of reconciliation (Batiffol, Théol. pos., 145 sqq.). The deacon’s power is recognized later on in Alcuin, in a council held at York, 1194, and in the Council of London, 1200 (cap. iii).

TIME

The ceremonial rite connected with the sacrament of reconciliation has also varied with the changing discipline of the Church. The earliest tradition hints at a public penance—vide tradition supra—but very soon there appears the Presbyter Pœnitentiarius; certainly as early as 309 Pope Marcellus divided Rome into twenty-five districts propter baptismum et pœnitentiam, and Innocent I (416) mentions the “priest whose office it was to judge anent sin, to receive the confession of the penitent, to watch over his satisfaction, and to present him for reconciliation at the proper time.” The case of Nectarius who abolished the Presbyter Pœnitentiarius is classical (381–98). This reconciliation generally took place on Holy Thursday, and the bishop presided. Surely absolution was pronounced on Maundy Thursday. This all the sacramentaries attest (Duchesne, Christian Worship, 439, 440); but the practice of public penance has given rise to the important and difficult question, whether or not the absolution granted at the public function of Holy Thursday was really the sacramental absolution. Theologians have questioned this, many preferring to believe that the sacramental absolution was really imparted by the Presbyter Pœnitentiarius at the early stage of public penance, even before the satisfaction was complete. They allege as their reasons the long delay which otherwise would have been necessary and the fact that the bishop absolved on Holy Thursday, while the confession had been heard previously by the Presbyter Pœnitentiarius (Palmieri, De pœnit., App. II, nn. 8, 9). But there are many others who think the traditional truth concerning the Sacrament of Penance cannot be safeguarded unless it is admitted that, ordinarily speaking, sacramental absolution was given only after the completion of the penance imposed and in the public session of Holy Thursday. What was done, they ask, before the institution of the Presbyter Pœnitentiarius, or where there was no such functionary? And they answer the objections brought forward above by saying that there is no evidence in early history that a first absolution was imparted by the priests who determined the necessity of undergoing public satisfaction, nor are we permitted a priori to judge of ancient ways in the light of our modern practice (Boudinhon, Revue d’histoire de littérature relig., II, sec. iii, 329, 330, etc.; Batiffol, Théolog. posit., Les origines de la pénitence, IV, 145 sqq.). Moreover, there is full evidence of a reconciliation on Holy Thursday; there are canons as late as the sixth century forbidding priests to reconcile penitents, inconsulto episcopo (Batiffol, ibid. 192, 193), and even as late as the ninth century there is clear testimony that absolution was not given until after the imposed penance had been completed (Benedict Levita, P. L., XCVII, 715; Rabanus Maurus, P. L., CVII, 342; Harduin, Councils, V, 342); and when absolution was granted before Holy Thursday it was after the fashion of an exception (Pseudo Alcuin, CI, 1192): “Denique admonendi sunt ut ad cœnam Domini redeant ad reconciliationem: si vero interest causa itineris . . . reconciliet eum statim” etc. This exception gradually became the rule, especially after the Scholastics of the Middle Age period began to distinguish clearly the different parts which make up the Sacrament of Penance.

FORM

It is the teaching of the Council of Treat that the form of the Sacrament of Penance, wherein its force principally consists, is placed in these words of the minister, “I absolve thee”; to which words certain prayers are, according to the custom of Holy Church, laudably added etc. (Sess. XIV, iii). That the public penance was concluded with some sort of prayer for pardon, is the doctrine of antiquity, particularly as contained in the earliest sacramentaries (Duchesne, Christian Worship, 440, 441). Leo the Great (450) does not hesitate to assert that pardon is impossible without the prayer of the priest (“ut indulgentia nisi supplicationibus sacerdotum nequeat obtineri”). In the early Church these forms certainly varied (Duchesne, loc. cit.). Surely all the sacramentaries assert that the form was deprecatory, and it is only in the eleventh century that we find a tendency to pass to indicative and personal formulæ (Duchesne, loc. cit.). Some of the forms used at the transition period are interesting: “May God absolve thee from all thy sins, and through the penance imposed mayst thou be absolved by the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, by the Angels, by the Saints, and by me, a wretched sinner” (Garofali, Ordo ad dandam pœnitentiam, 15). Then come really indicative and personal formulæ, often preceded by the supplicatory prayer, “Misereatur tui” etc. These forms, while much the same in substance, vary in wording not a little (Vacant, Dict. de théol. 167). It was not until the scholastic doctrine of “matter and form” in the sacraments reached its full development that the formula of absolution became fixed as we have it at present. The form in use in the Roman Church to-day has not changed since long before the Council of Florence. It is divided into four parts as follows:—(1) Deprecatory prayer. “May the Almighty God have mercy on you, and forgiving your sins, bring you to life everlasting. Amen.” Thea, lifting his right hand towards the penitent, the priest continues: “May the Almighty and Merciful God grant you pardon, absolution, and remission of your sins.”

(2) “May Our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you, and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication [suspension, in the case of a cleric only] and interdict as far as I can and you may need.”

(3) “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” (While repeating the names of the Trinity, the priest makes the sign of the cross over the penitent.)

(4) “May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all the Saints, what good you have done or what evil you have suffered be to you for the remission of (your) sins, growth in grace and the reward of everlasting life. Amen.” In the decree “Pro Armenis,” 1439, Eugene IV teaches that the “form” of the Sacrament is really in those words of the priest: “Ego absolvo te a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris” etc., and theologians teach that absolution would be valid should the priest use, “Absolvo te,” “Absolvo to a peccatis tuis,” or words that are the exact equivalent (Suarez, Disp., XIX, i, n. 24; Lugo, Disp., XIII, i, nn. 17, 18; Lehmkuhl, de Pœnit., 9th ed., 199).

In the Oriental churches the present forms are deprecatory, though they by no means exclude the idea of a judicial pronouncement on the part of the minister. Such are the forms of absolution among

(a) Greeks,

(b) Russians,

(c) Syrians,

(d) Armenians,

(e) Copts. Is the indicative form necessary? Many learned Catholics seem to hold that the indicative form as used at present in the Roman Church is necessary even for the validity of the Sacrament of Penance. The great Doctor of the Sacrament, St. Alphonsus (De Sac. Pœnit., n. 430), declares that no matter what may be the verdict from the point of view of history, it is of faith since the Council of Treat that the indicative form is essential. St. Thomas and Suarez also declare that the indicative form is necessary. Others equally learned, and perhaps better versed in history, hold that in the light of the Divine institution the deprecative form must not be excluded, and that the Council of Trent in its decree did not intend to make final pronouncement in the premises. They point out with Morinus (De Pœnit., Lib. VIII) that up to the twelfth century the deprecatory form was employed both in the East and in the West: that it is still in use among the Greeks and among Orientals generally. In the light, therefore, of history and of theological opinion it is perfectly safe to conclude that the deprecatory form is certainly not invalid, if it exclude not the idea of judicial pronouncement (Palmieri, Parergon, 127; Hurter, de Pœnit.; Duchesne, loc. cit.; Soto, Vasquez, Estius, et al.). Theologians, however, have questioned whether or not the deprecatory form would be valid to-day in the Latin Church, and they point out that Clement VIII and Benedict XIV have prescribed that Greek priests should use the indicative form whensoever they absolve penitents belonging to the Latin Rite. But this is merely a matter of discipline, and such decrees do not give final decision to the theological question, for in matters of administration of the Sacraments those in authority simply follow the safest and most conservative opinions. Morinus is followed by Tournely in asserting that only the indicative form is to-day valid in the Latin Church (Morinus, De pœnit., Lib. VIII; Tournely, ibid., do absolutionis formâ); but many hold that if the deprecatory form exclude not the judicial pronouncement of the priest, and consequently be really equivalent to the ego te absolvo, it is surely not invalid, though all are agreed that it would be illicit as contravening the present law and discipline of the Roman Church. Some, not pronouncing judgment on the real merits of the case, think that the Holy See has withdrawn faculties from those who do not use the indicative form, but in the absence of positive ordinance this is by no means certain.

CONDITIONAL ABSOLUTION

Antiquity makes no mention of conditional absolution. Benedict XIV alludes in “De Synodo” (Bk. VII, c. xv) to a passage of Gandavensis (d. 1293), but it is doubtful whether the learned pontiff caught the meaning of the theologian of Ghent. Gerson in the fifteenth century, both in “De schismate tollendo” and “De unitate ecclesiæ,” stands as sponsor for conditional absolution, although Cajetan, a century later, calls Gerson’s position mere superstition. But Gerson’s position gradually obtained, and in our day all theologians grant that under certain circumstances such absolution is not only valid but also legitimate (Lehmkuhl-Gury, De pœnit., absol. sub conditione); valid, because judicial pronouncements are often rendered under certain conditions, and the Sacrament of Penance is essentially a judicial act (Counc. of Trent, Sees. XIV); also, because God absolves in heaven when certain conditions are fulfilled here below. The fulfilment may escape man’s judgment, but God no man may deceive. This very doubt makes conditional absolution possible. Conditions are either

(a) present,

(b) past, or

(c) future. Following a general law, whensoever the condition leaves in suspense the effect intended by the Sacrament, the Sacrament itself is null and void. If the condition does not suspend the sacramental efficacy, the Sacrament may be valid. As a consequence, all future conditions render absolution invalid: “I absolve you if you die to-day.” This is not true of conditions past or present, and absolution given, for example, on condition that the subject has been baptized, or is still alive, would certainly not invalidate the Sacrament. What is in itself valid may not be legitimate, and in this important matter reverence due the holy Sacrament must ever be kept in mind, and also the spiritual need of the penitent. The doctrine commonly received is that whenever conditional absolution will safeguard the holiness and dignity of the Sacrament it may be employed, or whenever the spiritual need of the penitent is clear, but at the same time dispositions necessary for the valid reception of the Sacrament are in doubt, then it would be a mercy to impart absolution even if under condition.

INDIRECT ABSOLUTION

Closely allied to conditional is the absolution termed indirect. It obtains whenever absolution is granted for a fault that has not been submitted to the judgment of the minister in the tribunal of penance. Forgetfulness on the part of the penitent is responsible for most cases of indirect absolution, though sometimes reservation (see RESERVED CASES) may be.

GRANTING OF ABSOLUTION

In virtue of Christ’s dispensation, the bishops and priests are made judges in the Sacrament of Penance. The power to bind as well as the power to loose has been given by Christ. The minister therefore must have in mind not only his own powers, viz., order and jurisdiction, but he must also keep in mind the dispositions of the penitent. If

(a) the penitent is well-disposed, he must absolve;

(b) if the penitent lack the requisite dispositions, he must endeavour to create the proper frame of mind, for he cannot and may not absolve one indisposed;

(c) when dispositions remain doubtful, he employs the privilege given above in conditional absolution.

When the minister sees fit to grant absolution, then he pronounces the words of the form (supra) over the penitent. It is commonly taught that the penitent must be physically present; consequently, absolution by telegraph has been declared invalid, and when questioned in regard to absolution by the telephone the Sacred Congregation (1 July, 1884) answered Nihil respondendum.

ABSOLUTION OUTSIDE THE LATIN CHURCH

(I) In the Greek Church

The belief of the ancient Greek Church has been set forth above. That the Greeks have always believed that the Church has power to forgive sin, that they believe it at present, is clear from the formulæ of absolution in vogue among all branches of the Church; also from the decrees of synods which since the Reformation have again and again expressed this belief (Alzog on Cyril Lucaris III, 465; Synod of Constantinople, 1638; Synod of Jassy, 1642; Synod of Jerusalem, 1672). In the Synod of Jerusalem the Church reiterates its belief in Seven Sacraments, among them Penance, which the Lord established when He said: “Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain they are retained.” The formulæ of absolution are generally deprecatory, and if now and then the indicative form appears, it may be traced to Latin sources.

(II) Russian Church

The belief of the Greek Church is naturally also that of the Russian. Russian theologians all hold that the Church possesses the power to forgive sins, where there is true repentance and sincere confession. The form in use at present is as follows: “My child, N. N., may our Lord and God Christ Jesus by the mercy of His love absolve thee from thy sins; and I, His unworthy priest, in virtue of the authority committed to me, absolve thee and declare thee absolved of thy sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.”

(III) Armenians

Denzinger, in his “Ritus Orientalium “(1863), gives us a full translation of the penitential ritual used by the Armenians. The present version is from the ninth century. The form of absolution is declarative, though it is preceded by a prayer for mercy and for pardon. It is as follows: “May the merciful Lord have pity on thee and forgive thee thy faults; in virtue of my priestly power, by the authority and command of God expressed in these words, ‘whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be hound in heaven,’ I absolve thee from thy sins, I absolve thee from thy thoughts, from thy words, from thy deeds, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and I restore thee to the Sacrament of the Holy Church. May all thy good works be for thee an increase of merit, may they be for the glory of life everlasting, Amen.”

(IV) Copts

Dr. Hyvernat asserts that the liturgical books of the Copts have no penitential formulæ, nor is this surprising, for they inscribe in the ritual only those things not found in other rituals. Father du Bernat, writing to Père Fleurian (Lettres édifiantes), says, in reference to the Sacrament of Penance among the Copts, that the Copts believe themselves bound to a full confession of their sins. This finished, the priest recites over them the prayer said at the beginning of the Mass, the prayer asking pardon and forgiveness from God; to this is added the so-called “Benediction,” which Father Bernat says is like the prayer said in the Latin Church after absolution has been imparted. Dr. Hyvernat, however, asserts that Father Bernat is mistaken when he likens the Benediction to our Passio Domini, for it is like the Latin prayer only inasmuch as it is recited after absolution.

(V) Jacobites

(For the earliest tradition in the Syrian Church see above, Absolution in Patristic age.)

The Syrians who are united with the Roman See now use the declarative form in imparting absolution. This formula is, however, of recent date. The present Jacobite Church not only holds and has held the power to absolve from sin, but its ritual is expressive of this same power. Denzinger (Ritus Orientalium) has preserved for us a twelfth-century document which gives in full the order of absolution.

(VI) Nestorians

The Nestorians have at all times believed in the power to absolve in the Sacrament of Penance. Assemani, Renaudot, Badger (Nestorians and their Rituals), also Denzinger, have the fullest information on this point. It is noticeable that their formula of absolution is deprecatory, not indicative.

(VII) Protestants

The earliest Reformers attacked virulently the penitential practice of the Catholic Church, particularly the confession of sins to a priest. Their opinions expressed in their later theological works do not differ as markedly from the old position as one might suppose. The Lutheran tenet of justification by faith alone would make all absolution merely declarative, and reduce the pardon granted by the Church to the merest announcement of the Gospel, especially of remission of sins through Christ. Zwingli held that God alone pardoned sin, and he saw nothing but idolatry in the practice of hoping for pardon from a mere creature. If confession had aught of good it was merely as direction. Calvin denied all idea of sacrament when there was question of Penance; but he held that the pardon expressed by the minister of the Church gave to the penitent a greater guarantee of forgiveness. The Confession styled “Helvetian” contents itself with denying the necessity of confession to a priest, but holds that the power granted by Christ to absolve is simply the power to preach to the people the Gospel of Jesus, and as a consequence the remission of sins: “Rite itaque et efficaciter ministri absolvunt dum evangelium Christi et in hoc remissionem peccatorum prædicant.”

(VIII) Anglican Church

In the “Book of Common Prayer” there is a formula of Absolution in Matins, at the communion service, and in the visitation of the sick. The first two are general, akin to the liturgical absolution in use in the Roman Church; the third is individual by the very nature of the case. Of the third absolution the rubric speaks as follows: “Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which confession, the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort: Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences and by His authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” This is the form generally employed by the Anglican clergymen when they absolve after having heard private confessions. These formulæ, even the last, are indeed vague, and in the light of Anglican interpretation (always excepting the advanced Ritualists) mean little more than the power to declare sins forgiven. (Convocation, 1873; Lambeth Conference, 1877; Liddon’s “Life of Pusey”).

The Ritualists, since the Pusey sermon of 1846, have held with more or less variance that Christ has granted to His priests the power to forgive sins. They have also held that this power should be exercised after confession has been made to the minister of the Church. Among Ritualists themselves some have insisted that confession to the priest was necessary either in re or in voto, others have not gone to such lengths. On the discussion in the year 1898, Dr. Temple wrote a Pastoral. One may consult with profit Mashell’s “Enquiry upon the Doctrine of the Anglican Church on Absolution”; Boyd’s “Confession, Absolution and Real Presence”; Father Gallwey’s “Twelve Lectures on Ritualism” (London, 1879).

EDWARD J. HANNA.

Abstemii

An abstemius is one who cannot take wine without risk of vomiting. As, therefore, the consecration at Mass must be effected in both species, of bread and wine, an abstemius is consequently irregular. St. Alphonsus, following the opinion of Suarez, teaches that such irregularity is de jure divino; and that, therefore, the Pope cannot dispense from it. The term is also applied to one who has a strong distaste for wine, though able to take a small quantity. A distaste of this nature does not constitute irregularity, but a papal dispensation is required, in order to excuse from the use of wine at the purification of the chalice and the ablution of the priest’s fingers at the end of Mass. In these cases the use of wine is an ecclesiastical law from whose observance the Church has power to dispense. A decree of Propaganda, dated 13 January, 1665, grants a dispensation in this sense to missionaries in China, on account of the scarcity of wine; various similar rulings are to be found in the collection of the decrees of the Congregation of Rites. Abstention from the use of wine has, occasionally, been declared obligatory by heretics. It was one of the tenets of Gnosticism in the second century. Tatian, the founder of the sect known as the Encratites, forbade the use of wine, and his adherents refused to make use of it even in the Sacrament of the Altar; in its place they used water. These heretics, mentioned by St. Irenæus (Adv. Hær., I, xxx), are known as Hydroparastes, Aquarians, and Encratites. The great Manichean heresy followed a few years later. These heretics, in their turn, professed the greatest possible aversion to wine, as one of the sources of sin. St. Augustine, in his book against heresies, ch. xlvi, says of them, “Vinum non bibunt, dicentes esse fel principum tenebrarum”—“ They drink no wine, for they say it is the gall of the princes of darkness.” They made use of water in celebrating Mass. At the beginning of the Reformation, one of the grievances alleged against the Church was that she did not allow the faithful to communicate under both kinds. “We excuse the Church,” so runs the Augsburg Confession, “which has suffered the injustice of only receiving under one kind, not being able to have both; but we do not excuse the authors of this injustice, who maintain that it was right to forbid the administering of the complete Sacrament.” How, then, were those to be admitted to the Lord’s Table, who were unable to communicate under the species of wine? A decree of the Synod of Poitiers, in 1560, reads: “The Bread of the Lord’s Supper shall be administered to those who cannot drink the wine, on condition that they shall declare that they do not abstain out of contempt.” Other Protestant synods also lay down the rule that persons unable to take wine shall be admitted to the Lord’s Table on condition that they shall at least touch with their lips the cup which holds the species of wine; Jurieu, on the other hand, starting from the principle that Christ has founded the essence of the Eucharist on the two species, held that an abstemius does not receive the Sacrament, because it consists of two parts, and he receives only one. A great controversy ensued among the Protestants themselves on this point. Bossuet held that communion under both kinds could not be of divine obligation, since many would thereby be deprived of the Sacrament owing to a natural weakness.

BENEDICTO OJECTI, Synopsis Rerum Moralium et Juris Pontificii (1904); Theologia Moralis Sti. Alphonsi, Lib. VII, 409; Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propagandâ Fide, N. 798; BOSSUET, La Tradition défendue sur la matière de la communion sous une espèce, VI; JEROME in Dict. de théol. cath., s.v.; Abstème; CORBLET, Hist. du Sacrement de l’Eucharistie (Paris, 1886).

JOS. N. GIGNAC

Abstinence

Inasmuch as abstinence signifies abstaining from food, the Bible narrative points to the first instance wherein such a course of conduct was imposed by law (Gen., ii, 16, 17). The obvious purpose of this mandate was to lead the moral head of the human race to recognize the necessary dependence of creature upon Creator. The hour which witnessed the transgression of this law marked an increase in the debt which the creature owed the Creator. Adam’s disobedience rendered all men criminal, and liable to the necessity of appeasing God’s justice. To meet this new exigency nature dictated the necessity of penance; positive legislation determined the ways and means whereby this natural obligation would best be concreted. The chief results of this determination are positive statutes concerning fasting and abstinence. Laws relating to fasting are principally intended to define what pertains to the quantity of food allowed on days of fasting, while those regulating abstinence, what refers to the quality of viands. In some instances both obligations coincide; thus, the Fridays of Lent are days of fasting and abstinence. In other instances the law of abstinence alone binds the faithful; thus ordinary Fridays are simply days of abstinence. The purpose of this article is to trace the history of ecclesiastical legislation regarding the law of abstinence, as well as to examine the motives which underlie this legislation.

THE BIBLE: ABSTINENCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Fasting implying abstinence was ordained by law for the Day of Atonement (Lev., xvi, 29 sq.). The ceremony incident to this feast was observed by the Jews on the fifth day before the feast of Tabernacles. From evening of the ninth until evening of the tenth day labour and eating were strictly prohibited. Besides this passage the sacred narrative contains many others which show how adversity moved the Jews to assume the burden of fasting and abstinence in a spirit of penance (Judges, xx, 26; Judith, vi, 20; Joel, 1, 14; ii, 15). Moreover, the Jews abstained on the ninth day of the fourth month, because on that day Nabuchodonosor captured Jerusalem (Jer., lii, 6); on the tenth day of the fifth month, because on that day the temple was burned (Jer., lii, 12 sq.); on the third day of the seventh month, because on that day Godolias had been murdered (Jer., xli, 2); and on the tenth day of the tenth month, because on that day the Chaldees commenced the siege of Jerusalem (IV Kings, xxv, 1 sq.). They were told that fidelity to these regulations would bring joy, gladness, and great solemnities to the house of Juda (Zach., viii, 19). During the month of new corn they were obliged to spend seven days without leaven, and to eat the bread of affliction in memory of their delivery from Egypt (Deut., xvi, 3). In addition to those indications concerning the seasons of abstinence amongst the Jews, the sacred text contains passages regarding the ways and means whereby the law of abstinence assumed more definite shape amongst them. After the deluge God said to Noe: “Everything that moveth upon the earth shall be a meat for you, saving that flesh with blood you shall not eat” (Gen., ix, 3, 4; similar passages are contained in Lev., vii, 26 sq.; xvii, 14 sq.; Deut., xii, 15,16). A prohibition whereby corn, oil, wine, and the first-born of herds and cattle are forbidden in towns is set forth in Deut., xii, 17. Priests were forbidden to drink any intoxicant lest they die (Lev., x, 9). The eleventh chapter of Leviticus contains a detailed enumeration of the various beasts, birds, and fish that fall under the ban. Such were reputed unclean. Abstinence from things legally unclean was intended to train the Israelites in the pursuit of spiritual cleanness.

The Old Testament furnishes several instances of celebrated personages who betook themselves to this chastisement of the flesh. David kept fast on account of the child born of the wife of Urias (II Kings, xii, 16); Esther humbled her body with fasts (Esth., xiv, 2); Judith fasted all the days of her life (Jud., viii, 6); Daniel ate neither bread nor flesh till the days of three weeks were accomplished (Dan., x, 3), and Judas Machabeus and all the people craved mercy in tears and fasting (II Mach., xiii, 12). Moreover, Esdras commanded a fast by the river Ahava (I Esd., viii, 21). The King of Ninive proclaimed a fast in Ninive whereby neither man nor beasts should taste anything, whether of food or drink (Jonas, iii, 7). Moses (Ex., xxxiv, 28) and Elias (III Kings, xix, 8) spent forty days in abstinence and fasting. Finally, the Pharisee in the Temple declared that he fasted “twice in a week” (Luke, xviii, 12). Apropos of this passage Duchesne says that Monday and Thursday were days of fasting among the pious Jews (“Christian Worship,” London, 1903, 228).

THE NEW TESTAMENT

In the first portion of his Gospel St. Matthew relates how Christ passed forty days in the desert, during which time neither food nor drink passed his lips. No doubt this penance of the God-man was not only expiatory, but also exemplary. True, Christ did not explicitly define the days nor the weeks wherein his followers would be obliged to fast and abstain. At the same time his example, coupled with his reply to the disciples of the Baptist, is an evidence that the future would find his followers subjected to regulations whereby they would fast “after the bridegroom had been taken away.” The only piece of clearly defined legislation concerning abstinence embodied in the New Testament was framed by the Council of Jerusalem, prescribing “abstinence from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled” (Acts, xv, 29). Nevertheless the Acts of the Apostles give evidence of a tendency on the part of the Church, as an organized body, to prepare the way for important events by abstinence and fasting (Acts, xiii, 3; xiv; 22). In fine, St. Paul sets forth the necessity of abstinence when he says that “everyone striving for the mastery must abstain from all things (I Cor., ix, 25); and “let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of Christ in labours, watchings, and fastings “ (II Cor., vi, 5), which he had often practiced (II Cor., xi, 27).

THE LATIN CHURCH: SUBJECTS UNDER, AND MATERIAL ELEMENT OF, THE LAW

Throughout the Latin Church the law of abstinence prohibits all responsible subjects from indulging in meat diet on duly appointed days. Meat diet comprises the flesh, blood, or marrow of such animals and birds as constitute flesh meat according to the appreciation of intelligent and law-abiding Christians. For this reason the use of fish, vegetables, mollusks, crabs, turtles, frogs, and such-like cold-blooded creatures is not at variance with the law of abstinence. Amphibians are relegated to the category whereunto they bear most striking resemblance. This classification can scarcely preclude all doubt regarding viands prohibited by the law of abstinence. Local usage, together with the practice of intelligent and conscientious Christians, generally holds a key for the solution of mooted points in such matters, otherwise the decision rests with ecclesiastical authority. Furthermore, on many fasting days during the year the law of abstinence bars the use of such viands as bear some identity of origin with flesh meat. For this reason eggs, milk, butter, cheese, and lard are interdicted (St. Thomas, Summa, II-II, Q. cvii, art. ult., ad 3). The Church enjoins the ways and means whereby her subjects must satisfy the obligation of doing penance inculcated by natural law. Many of the Fathers allude to the exercise of ecclesiastical authority in reference to the obligation of abstinence. The disciplinary canons of various councils bear witness to the actual exercise of authority in the same direction. Texts of theology and catechisms of Christian doctrine indicate that the obligation of abstaining forms an element in one of the Commandments of the Church. Satisfaction for sin is an item of primary import in the moral order. Naturally enough, abstinence contributes no small share towards the realization of this end. As a consequence, the law of abstinence embodies a serious obligation whose transgression, objectively considered, ordinarily involves a mortal sin. The unanimous verdict of theologians, the constant practice of the faithful, and the mind of the Church place this point beyond cavil. They who would fain minimize the character of this obligation so as to relegate all transgressions, save such as originate in contempt, to the category of venial sin are anathematized by Alexander VII [Cf. Prop. 23, ap. Bucceroni, Enchiridion Morale, 145 (Rome, 1905)]. In fine, the Trullan synod (can. 58, ap. Hefele, “History of the Councils of the Church,” V, 231, Edinburgh, 1896) inflicts deposition on clerics and excommunication on laymen who violate this law. Furthermore, theologians claim that a grievous sin is committed as often as flesh meat is consumed in any quantity on abstinence days (Sporer, Theologia Moralis super Decalogum, I, De observ. jejunii, # 2, assert. II), because the law is negative, and binds semper et pro semper. In other words, the prohibition of the Church in this matter is absolute. At times, however, the quantity of prohibited material may be so small that the law suffers no substantial violation. From an objective standpoint such transgressions carry the guilt of venial sin. Moralists are by no means unanimous in deciding where the material element of such minor disorders passes into a material disorder of major importance. Some think that an ounce of flesh meat suffices to constitute a serious breach of this law, whereas others claim that nothing short of two ounces involves infringement of this obligation. Ordinarily, the actual observance of the law is confined to such circumstances as carry no insupportable burden. This is why the sick, the infirm, mendicants, labourers, and such as find difficulty in procuring fish diet are not bound to observe the law as long as such conditions prevail.

DAYS OF ABSTINENCE

(1) Friday

From the dawn of Christianity, Friday has been signalized as an abstinence day, in order to do homage to the memory of Christ suffering and dying on that day of the week. The “Teaching of the Apostles” (viii), Clement of Alexandria (Strom., VI, 75), and Tertullian (De jejun., xiv) make explicit mention of this practice. Pope Nicholas I (858–867) declares that abstinence from flesh meat is enjoined on Fridays. There is every reason to conjecture that Innocent III (1198–1216) had the existence of this law in mind when he said that this obligation is suppressed as often as Christmas Day falls on Friday (De observ. jejunii, ult. cap. Ap. Layman, Theologia Moralis, I, iv, tract. viii, ii). Moreover, the way in which the custom of abstaining on Saturday originated in the Roman Church is a striking evidence of the early institution of Friday as an abstinence day.

(2) Saturday

As early as the time of Tertullian, some churches occasionally prolonged the Friday abstinence and fast so as to embrace Saturday. Tertullian (De jejunio, xiv) calls this practice continuare jejunium—an expression subsequently superseded by superponere jejunium. Such prolongations were quite common at the end of the third century. The Council of Elvira (can. xxvi, ap. Hefele, op. cit., I, 147) enjoins the observance of one such fast and abstinence every month, except during July and August. At the same time the fathers of Elvira abrogated the “superposition” which had up to that time been obligatory on all Saturdays (Duchesne, op. cit., 231). Moreover, Gregory VII (1073–85) speaks in no uncertain terms of the obligation to abstain on Saturdays, when he declares that all Christians are bound to abstain from flesh meat on Saturday as often as no major solemnity (e. g. Christmas) occurs on Saturday, or no infirmity serves to cancel the obligation (cap. Quia dies, d. 5, de consecrat., ap. Joannes, Azor. Inst. Moral. I, Bk. VII, c. xii). Various authors have assigned different reasons to account for the extension of the obligation so as to bind the faithful to abstain not only on Fridays, but also on Saturdays. Some hold that this practice was inaugurated to commemorate the burial of Christ Jesus; others that it was instituted to imitate the Apostles and Disciples of Christ, who, together with the Holy Women, mourned the death of Christ even on the seventh day; while others claim that it owes its origin to the conduct of St. Peter, who passed Saturday in prayer, abstinence, and fasting, to prepare to meet Simon Magus on the following day (Acts, viii, 18 sq.; cf. Migne, P. L. XLIX, coll. 147, 148). Though the Roman Pontiffs have constantly refused to abrogate the law of abstaining on Saturday, special indults dispensing with the obligation have been granted to the faithful in many parts of the world.

(3) Lent

In point of duration, as well as in point of penitential practices, Lent has been the subject of many vicissitudes. In the days of St. Irenaeus (177–202) the season of penance preceding Easter was of rather short duration. Some fasted and therefore abstained from flesh meat etc. for one day, others for two days, and others again for a greater number of days. No distinct traces of the quadragesimal observance are discernible until the fourth century. The decrees of the Council of Nicaea in 325 (can. v, ap. Hefele, op. cit., I, 387) contain the earliest mention of Lent. Thenceforward ecclesiastical history contains numerous allusions to those forty days. Nevertheless, the earliest references to the quadragesimal season indicate that it was then usually considered a time of preparation for baptism, or for the absolution of penitents, or a season of retreat and recollection for people living in the world. True, fasting and abstinence formed part of the duties characterizing this season, but there was little or no uniformity in the manner of observance. On the contrary, different countries adopted a different regime. At Rome it was customary to spend but three weeks, immediately before Easter, in abstinence, fasting, and praying (Socrates, H. E., V, 22). Many attempts were made to include Holy Week in Quadragesima. The attempt succeeded at Rome, so that thenceforward the Lenten season consisted of six weeks. During these six weeks Sundays were the only days not reached by the law of fasting, but the obligation to abstain was not withdrawn from Sundays. As a consequence, the Lenten season numbered no more than thirty-six days. Hence St. Ambrose (Serm. xxxiv, de Quadrag.) notes that the beginning of Lent and the first Sunday of Lent were simultaneous prior to the reign of Gregory I. In the seventh century four days were added. Some claim that this change was the work of Gregory I; others ascribe it to Gregory II (Layman, loc. cit.). Duchesne (op. cit., 244) says that it is impossible to tell who added four days to the thirty-six previously comprised in the Lenten season. It is likely, at all events, that the change was made so as to have forty days in which to commemorate Christ’s forty days in the desert. Be this as it may, the Church has never deviated from the ordinance of the seventh century whereby the Lenten season comprises forty days over and above Sundays.

(4) Ember Days

The beginning of the four seasons of the year is marked by Ember Week, during which Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday are days of fasting and abstinence. Ember Week occurs after the first Sunday of Lent, after Pentecost, after the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, and after the third Sunday in Advent. According to some writers the Ember Days in December were introduced by the Apostles as a preparation for the ordinations which occurred during that month (Layman, loc. cit.). The scriptural basis for this practice is to be found in Acts, xiii, 2 sq. The summer Ember Days were observed during the octave of Pentecost (St. Leo I, Sermo ii, de Pentecost.), and the autumn Ember Days in September (Idem, Sermo viii, De jejunio septimi mensis). In the False Decretals (c. 840–50) Pope Callistus (217–22) is made to add a fourth week. We decree, he says, that the fast which you have learned to keep three times yearly, shall henceforward be made four times a year (Epist., Decr. lxxvi, cap., i; Migne, P. G., X, 121). St. Jerome, in his commentary on the eighth chapter of Zachary, believes that the Ember Days were instituted after the example of the Jews, who fasted and abstained four times during the year, as noted in the preceding paragraph. St. Leo I (Sermo vii, De jej. sept. mensis) considers that the purpose of penance during Ember Week is to urge the faithful to special efforts in the cause of continency. The two views are entirely compatible.

(5) Advent

Radulphus de Rivo (Kalendarium eccles. seu de observations canonum, Prop. xvi) and Innocent III (De observ. jej., cap. ii) testify that the Roman Church appointed a period of fasting and abstinence as a preparation for the solemnization of Christmas. Traces of this custom are still to be found in the Roman Breviary indicating the recitation of ferial prayers during Advent just as on days of fasting and abstinence. Radulphus de Rivo (loc. cit.) remarks that the Roman Church appointed the first Sunday after St. Catharine’s feast as the beginning of Advent.

(6). Vigils

In former times the clergy assembled in church, on the eves of great festivals, and chanted the divine office. In like manner the laity also repaired to their churches and passed the time in watching and praying. Hence the term vigil. Innocent III (op. cit., i) mentions the vigils of Christmas, the Assumption, and the Apostles (28 June). It is likely that the obligation of abstaining on the vigils of Pentecost, St. John Baptist, St. Lawrence, and All Saints was introduced by custom (cf. Azor., op. cit., VII, xiii), for, according to Duchesne (op. cit., 287), the element of antiquity is not the fasting, but the vigil. Formerly, the obligation of abstaining on vigils was anticipated as often as a vigil fell on Sunday. This practice is still in vogue.

(7) Rogation Days

These days occur on the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday preceding the Ascension. Mamertus, Bishop of Vienne, introduced (some time before 474) the custom of reciting the Litanies on these days. He also prescribed fasting and abstinence thereon. This practice was extended to the whole of Frankish Gaul in 511 by the first Council of Orléans (can. xxvii). About the beginning of the ninth century Leo III introduced the Rogation Days into Rome (Duchesne op. cit., 289). An almost similar observance characterizes the feast of St. Mark, and dates from about the year 589 (Duchesne, op. cit., 288).

APPLICATION OF THE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES

Diversity in customs, in climate, and in prices of food have gradually paved the way for modifications of the law of abstinence. Throughout the United States the ordinary Saturday is no longer a day of abstinence. During Lent, in virtue of an indult, the faithful are allowed to eat meat at their principal meal on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, the second and last Saturdays excepted. The use of meat on such days is not restricted to the principal meal for such as are exempt from fasting by reason of ill health, age, or laborious occupations. Eggs, milk, butter, and cheese, formerly prohibited, are now permitted without restriction as far as the day of the week is concerned The use of lard or dripping in preparing fish and vegetables at all meals and on all days is allowed by an indult issued 3 August, 1887. It is never lawful to take fish with flesh, at the same meal, during Lent, Sundays included (Benedict XIV, Litt. ad Archiep. Compostel., 10 June, 1745, ap. Bucceroni, Enchiridion Morale, 147). At other times this is not prohibited (Bucceroni, ib.). On Wednesdays and Fridays, as well as on the second and last Saturdays of Lent, flesh meat is not permitted. Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays during Ember Week are still days of abstinence and fasting. The vigils of Christmas, Pentecost, Assumption, and All Saints are also days of abstinence and fasting. In virtue of faculties granted by the Holy See, workingmen, and their families as well, may use flesh meat once a day on all abstinence days throughout the year except Fridays, Ash Wednesday, Holy Saturday, and the vigil of Christmas. This indult was issued for ten years, 15 March 1895, and renewed for another decade on 25 February, 1905. (See “Exposition of Christian Doctrine,” Philadelphia, 1899, II, 528–529 Spirago-Clarke, “The Catechism Explained,” New York, 1900; Diocesan Regulations for Lent.)

In Great Britain and Ireland, Fridays during the year, Wednesdays during Advent, weekdays during Lent, Ember Days, the vigils of Christmas, Pentecost, the Assumption, All Saints, Sts. Peter and Paul, and St. Andrew (in Scotland only) are days of abstinence. Meat is allowed by indult at the principal meal on all days during Lent except Wednesdays, Fridays, Holy Thursday, and the second and last Saturdays. Eggs are allowed at the principal meal during Lent except on Ash Wednesday and the last three days of Lent. Milk, butter, and cheese are allowed at the principal meal, and at the collation during Lent, except on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Lard and drippings are allowed at the chief meal and at the collation, except on Good Friday. Suet is prohibited whenever meat is not allowed. Fish and flesh are never allowed at the same meal on any fast day during the year (Catholic Directory, London, 1906). In Australia, Fridays during the year, Wednesdays and Saturdays during Lent, Holy Thursday, Wednesdays during Advent, Ember Days, the vigils of Christmas, Pentecost, the Assumption, Sts. Peter and Paul, and All Saints are days of abstinence. There is a somewhat general practice whereby the use of meat is allowed at the chief meal on ordinary Saturdays throughout the year. For the rest, the application of the law of abstinence is much the same as in Ireland (The Year Book of Australia, Sydney, 1892). In Canada, Fridays during the year, Wednesdays during Lent and Advent, Ember Days, the vigils of Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, the Assumption, Sts. Peter and Paul, and All Saints are days of abstinence. The abstinence incident to the feasts of Sts. Peter and Paul and the Assumption is transferred to the eve of the transferred solemnity. Milk, butter, cheese, and eggs are allowed during Lent even at the collation; lard and drippings as in the United States. (See “Expos. of Christian Doctrine,” Philadelphia, 1899, II, 528, 529.)

THE GREEK CHURCH

In the Greek Church the law of abstinence is designated by the term xerophagy in contradistinction to monophagy, signifying the law of fasting. In its strictest sense xerophagy bars all viands except bread, salt, water, fruits, and vegetables (St. Epiphanius, Expositio Fidei, xxii; Migne, P.G., XLII, col. 828; Apost. Const., V, xviii, ap. Migne, P.G., I, col. 889). On days of abstinence meat, fish, eggs, milk, cheese, oil, and wine’ are rigorously interdicted. This traditional custom of rigorous abstinence still binds the Greeks on all Wednesdays and Fridays, on all days of their Major Lent, including Saturdays and Sundays, except Palm Sunday, on which day oil, wine, and fish are now permitted, and on the vigils of Christmas and Epiphany. Xerophagy seems to have been obligatory only on these days. Another less severe form of abstinence, still common among the Greeks, prohibits the use of meat, eggs, milk, and sometimes fish on certain occasions. According to their present regime, the Greeks observe this mitigated form of abstinence during their Lent of the Apostles (i.e. from Monday after the feast of All Saints, celebrated on the first Sunday after Pentecost, until 29 June); during Mary’s Lent (1–14 August); during Christmas Lent, or Advent (also called St. Philip’s Lent, 15 November to 24 December); 29 August (commemoration of the Beheading of St. John Baptist) and on 14 September (feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross). The canonical regulations determining obligatory abstinence have suffered no substantial alteration during the lapse of many centuries. In its general outlines this legislation is the same for the Greek Church Uniat and non-Uniat. The Uniat Greek Church is not allowed to father any innovation without explicit authorization from the Holy See (Benedict XIV, Decret. Demandatam, # vi, in his Bullarium, I, 128, Venice ed., 1778). Though usage and dispensations have led the way to certain modifications, the canons covering this matter remain unchanged. Custom has made the use of vine and oil legitimate on xerophagy days. In many places fish is likewise allowed, except during the first and last week of their Major Lent. Goar (Euchologium, Venice, 1730, 175) says that the Greeks of his day were allowed by an unwritten law to eat fish, eggs, snails, and such-like viands on xerophagy days.

Innovations in the duration of the Greek penitential seasons have originated in usage. Thus arose their practice of spending the week preceding their Major Lent in minor abstinence, as a prelude to the more rigorous observance of the Lenten season (Nilles, Kalendarium, II, 36, Innsbruck, 1885; Vacant, Dict. de théol. cath., I, 264). This custom lapsed into desuetude, but the decrees of the Synod of Zamosc, 1720 (tit. xvi, Collect. Lacensis, II), show that the Ruthenians had again adopted it. The Melchites have reduced their xerophagy during Christmas Lent to fifteen days. The same tendency to minimize is found amongst the Ruthenians (Synod of Zamosc, loc. cit.). The Apostles’ Lent counts no more than twelve days for the Melchites. Goar says that their Christmas Lent is reduced to seven days. Other alterations in these seasons have been made at various times in different places. The Greeks enjoy some relaxation of this obligation on a certain number of days during the year. Accordingly, when feasts solemnized in the Greek Church fall on ordinary Wednesdays and Fridays, or on days during their various Lenten seasons (Wednesdays and Fridays excepted), a complete or partial suspension of xerophagy takes place. The obligation of abstaining from flesh is withdrawn on Wednesdays and Fridays between Christmas and 4 January; whenever Epiphany falls on Wednesday or Friday; Wednesday and Friday during the week preceding the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross; during the octaves of Easter and Pentecost. Some of the Greeks, especially the Melchites, hold that xerophagy does not bind from Easter to Pentecost [cf. Pilgrimage of Etheria (Peregrinatio Sylviae) ap. Duchesne, op. cit. 569]. In their partial suspension of the xerophagy the Greeks maintain the obligation of abstaining from flesh meat, but they countenance the use of such other viands as are ordinarily prohibited when the law is in full force. This mitigation finds application as often as the following festivals fall on Wednesdays or Fridays not included in their Lenten seasons, or any day (Wednesdays and Fridays excepted) during their Lenten seasons: 24 November, Feast of St. Philip; 21 November, Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary; 7 January, Commemoration of St. John Baptist; 2 February; Presentation of Christ in the Temple; 25 March, Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary; 29 June, The Apostles; 6 August, Transfiguration, 15 August Assumption; and Palm Sunday. St. Basil’s rule in followed by all monks and nuns in the Greek Church. Xerophagy is their general rule for penitential practices. The law of abstaining from meat admits no relaxation. The greater solemnities entitle them to use fish, eggs, milk, oil, and wine. Feasts of minor solemnity, falling on days other than Wednesday or Friday, admit fish, eggs, milk, oil, and wine, otherwise wine and oil only. Finally, simple feasts admit the use of oil and wine. The obligation of xerophagy on Wednesdays and Fridays dates its origin to apostolic tradition (cf. Teaching of the Apostles, viii, I; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VI, lxxv; Tertullian, De jejunio, xiv). The xerophagy of Major Lent is likewise of ancient growth. There is strong reason to think that the question was mooted in the second century, when the Easter controversy waxed strong. Writings of the fourth century afford frequent references to this season. According to the Pilgrimage of Etheria (Duchesne, op. cit., 555), the end of the fourth century witnessed Jerusalem devoting forty days (a period of eight weeks) to fasting and abstinence. The season comprised eight weeks because Orientals keep both Saturday (save Holy Saturday) and Sunday as days of rejoicing, and not of penance. There are several noteworthy evidences of those forty days thus appointed by the Greeks for abstinence and fasting (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatech., no. 4, and Catech., iv, 3, ap. Migne, P. G., XXXIII, 341, 347; Eusebius, De solemnitate pascuali, no. 4, Migne, P. G., XXIV, 697; Apostolic Canons, can. lxviii, ap. Hefele, op. cit., I, 485). The canons of Greek councils show no traces of legislation regarding their Christmas Lent etc. prior to the eighth century. No doubt the practice of keeping xerophagy during these seasons originated in monasteries and thence passed to the laity. In the beginning of the ninth century St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, states that all are obliged to observe xerophagy during those seasons (Pitra, Juris Ecclesiastici Graeci Historia et Monumenta, Rome, 1868, II, 327). It is scarcely necessary to note here that the Greek Church has legislated nearly half of the year into days of fasting or abstinence or both. Nevertheless, many Oriental writers protest against a lessening of this number. In point of fact, however, many Greeks claim that many days of this kind scarcely win proper recognition from the faithful.

THE RUSSIAN CHURCH

The legislation of the Russian church relating to abstinence consists of an elaborate program specifying days of penance whereon various sorts of food are forbidden, and indicating several festivals whereon the rigor of the law is tempered to a greater or lesser degree according to the grade of solemnity characterizing the fast. Good Friday is signalized by their most severe form of exterior penance, namely complete abstinence. During their Major Lent cold, dried fare is prescribed for Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, as well as for the first three days of Holy Week. On Saturdays and Sundays during this period fish is prohibited, and crustaceans are allowed. On Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year, as well as on the vigil of Christmas, baked fare and fruit are enjoined. Oil is prohibited, and wine allowed, on Holy Saturday, on Thursday of the Major Canon (Thursday of the fifth week in Lent), and on Good Friday, whenever the Annunciation coincides therewith. Fish is interdicted, but fish eggs are permitted on the Saturday preceding Palm Sunday, and on the feast of St. Lazarus. Wine and oil are allowed on Holy Thursday. During their Christmas Lent, Mary’s Lent, and the Apostles’ Lent meat is prohibited, but wine and oil are allowed on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays. The same regulation applies to 14 September, 29 August, and 5 January. During Mary’s Lent milk diet is interdicted; fish diet is permitted on Saturdays and Sundays. During the other two minor Lents the same injunction holds on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. The same regulation binds on Palm Sunday, as well as on Wednesdays and Fridays of Paschaltide. Finally, the feasts of the Transfiguration, Mary’s Nativity, Annunciation, Purification, Presentation, and Assumption, the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, Sts. Peter and Paul, and the Commemoration of St. John the Baptist, 7 January, occurring during Lent, or on Wednesday or Friday, are marked by this same degree of abstinence. Meat diet is under the ban, except during the whole of carnival week. Russian monks are obliged to observe this part of the program during the whole year. The Russian Church suspends the obligation of abstinence during Christmastide (25 December to 6 January, minus the vigil of Epiphany), during Eastertide, and during the octave of Pentecost.

SYRIAN CHURCH

All branches of the Syrian Church abstain on Wednesdays and Fridays and during Lent, in keeping with the Apostolic Canons (Can. lxviii, Hefele, loc. cit). The Council of Laodicea (can. 1), recognized by all Syrians, enjoins xerophagy for Lent (Hefele, op. cit., II, 320). Nevertheless, changes and abuses have been gradually introduced into various portions of the Syrian Church.

JACOBITES

(a) Among the laity all adults are obliged to abstain on all Wednesdays and Fridays. On those days eggs, milk, and cheese are interdicted. During Lent their rigorous regime excludes the use of eggs, milk, butter, cheese, fish, and wine. The Apostles’ Lent is observed from Pentecost to 29 June. Abstinence is then recommended, not imposed. Mary’s Lent lasts fifteen days. The Christmas Lent is kept by monks forty days longer than by laics. During these periods a less rigorous regime is in vogue. Finally, their ninivitic, or rogation, abstinence continues for three days.

(b) Following the example of James of Edessa, the Jacobite monks and nuns observe alternately seven weeks of fasting and abstinence, with seven other weeks wherein such obligations apply on Wednesdays and Fridays only. Some eat no meat during the entire Year. Sozomen (Hist. Eccl., VI; Migne, P.G., LXVII, col. 393) speaks of Syrian anchorites who live on herbs without eating even so much as bread, or drinking wine. Rabulas, Bishop of Edessa (d. 435), and the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (420) (Hefele, op. cit., II, 449 sq.) forbade monks and nuns to eat meat.

NESTORIANS

As a general rule, the laity follow the same regime as the Jacobites. With them Lent begins on Quinquagesima Sunday. Contrary to their ancient discipline, they abstain on Saturdays and Sundays. They observe the same minor penitential seasons as the Jacobites. Their ninivitic, or rogation, season is kept on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of the third week before Lent. The canonical regulations for monks and nuns prescribe fasting and abstinence as observed in other branches of the Syrian Church. Nevertheless, at various periods, innovations and relaxations have found their way into Nestorian communities of men and women (Vacant, op. cit., I, 268).

MARONITES

Lent for the laity commences on Monday of Quinquagesima week and continues until Holy Saturday. Saturdays and Sundays (Holy Saturday excepted), together with obligatory feasts occurring during Lent, are not fasting days, but even then meat and milk diet are strictly forbidden. Their Christmas Lent begins on 5 December and ends on 24 December. Mary’s Lent begins on 1 August and ends on 14 August; 6 August is not included therein. The Apostles’ Lent begins 15 June and ends 28 June, although 24 June is not therein included. Meat, eggs, and milk diet are interdicted on all Wednesdays and Fridays except such as occur during Christmastide, Eastertide, or the octave of Pentecost. This mitigation takes place during the week preceding their Major Lent and on the feasts of the Transfiguration, St. John the Baptist, and Sts. Peter and Paul. Their legislation for monks and nuns is simple and austere. They are forbidden to eat flesh meat under penalty of grievous sin, unless a physician should order it for them in case of illness. When obliged to make long journeys, they must have recourse to the bishop or their own local superior for permission to eat meat during the journey (Vacant, op. cit., I, 269).

ARMENIANS

Vartan, whom the Armenians regard as the leading: exponent of their ecclesiastical traditions, held that they were bound not only to abide by the legislation framed in the Council of Jerusalem, but also to adhere to the Mosaic law regarding unclean animals (Vacant, op. cit., I, 269). The Council of Florence condemned this rigorism and decided that the decrees enacted in the Council of Jerusalem concerning this matter, as well as the Mosaic regulations regarding unclean animals, have no longer the binding force of law. The Armenians recognize the sixty-eighth canon of the Apostles, which prescribes abstinence on Wednesdays and Fridays, and on all days of Major Lent. The Greek canonists Zonaras and Balsamon liken the abstinence of Wednesdays and Fridays to that of Lent. During Lent nothing save bread, salt, herbs, and wine is allowed the laity. Meat, fish, milk, cheese, butter, eggs, and oil are under the ban. Nevertheless, with time there become visible traces of innovation in this discipline. At present the Armenians observe the law of abstinence on Wednesdays and Fridays, except during the octave of Epiphany and during Eastertide, i.e. from Easter Sunday to Ascension Day. Their Major Lent begins on Monday of Quinquagesima week and terminates on Holy Saturday. From Ash Wednesday until Easter Day they keep xerophagy except on Saturdays and Sundays, when milk diet is allowed. Besides, they devote the week preceding the feasts of the Transfiguration, the Assumption, the Holy Cross, and St. Gregory to abstinence and fasting. They are likewise obliged to abstain for one week during Advent, one week preceding the feast of St. James, and another immediately before the Epiphany. The Armenian monks and nuns never eat meat. With them the law of abstinence is quite rigorous. They may eat fish whenever the laity are allowed to eat meat.

COPTS

Lay people are obliged to abstain from flesh meat, eggs, and milk diet during all the penitential seasons. Such are Major Lent, Mary’s Lent, Christmas Lent, and the Apostles’ Lent. They are bound by the law of abstinence on all Wednesdays and Fridays, except during the interval between Easter and Pentecost, and whenever Christmas or Epiphany falls on Wednesday or Friday. The law of abstinence extends to Saturdays and Sundays during their penitential seasons. During Major Lent and Holy Week fish is prohibited. At other times its use is lawful. Some time has elapsed since the rigor peculiar to seasons of penance in the Orient was mitigated amongst the Copts. It was then restricted to the observance of abstinence during all seasons except Major Lent. Nevertheless, a goodly number of Copts continue to keep Mary’s Lent with pristine rigor. While residing in their monasteries, the Coptic monks and nuns are bound to abstain from meat, eggs, and milk diet throughout the year. Whenever they dwell outside the monastery they may conform to the regulations binding the laity.

MOTIVES OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS PERTAINING TO ABSTINENCE

According to the vagaries of the Manicheans, Montanists. and Encratites, flesh meat is intrinsically evil and merits the most rigorous kind of prohibition. Keenly sensible of this heterodoxy, the Church of Christ has not based her ordinances enjoining abstinence on any such unwarranted assumption. As the exponent of revelation, the Church knows and teaches that every creature in the visible universe is equally a work of the divine wisdom, power, and goodness, which defy all limitations. This is why the first pages of the inspired text indicate that the Creator “saw all the things that he had made and they were very good” (Gen., i, 31). St. Paul is, if anything, still more explicit in condemning the folly of those sectaries, though they originated after his day. “Now, the Spirit manifestly says that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils . . . forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful and by them that know the truth. For, every creature is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving” (I Tim, iv, 1, 2, 3). Neither is the Church, in her legislation on abstinence, animated by any such gross superstition as influences the adherents of Brahmanism or Buddhism. Moved by their theories regarding the transmigration of souls, they are logically induced to abstain from eating the flesh of animals, lest they should unconsciously consume their parents or friends. In consequence of those notions their diet is vegetarian. So rigorous is the law prescribing this diet that transgressions are visited with social and domestic ostracism. At the same time this ultra conservatism has not been espoused by all who share the doctrine regarding the transmigration of souls. Many of them have not hesitated to temper their belief in this creed with a mitigated form of abstinence from flesh meat.

Eagerness to harmonize her disciplinary regime with the exigencies of the Mosaic legislation did not prompt the Church in shaping the measures which she set before her children in regard to abstinence. Though the Law of Moses embodies a detailed catalogue of forbidden viands, Christ abrogated those prohibitions when the Law was fulfilled. The Apostles, assembled in the Council of Jerusalem, gave definite shape to their convictions concerning the passing of the Old Law, as well as to their divinely founded right to shape and mould the tenor of ecclesiastical legislation so as best to meet the spiritual needs of those entrusted to their charge (Acts, xv, 28, 29). Nevertheless, legislation alone is well-nigh powerless in attempting to change abruptly the current of traditions and prejudices, when they are so deeply rooted in national institutions as to form an important factor in the growth and development of a nation. This was precisely the sort of problem that confronted the missionary enterprises of the Apostles. Their converts were recruited from Paganism and Judaism. Though Jews and Gentiles were doubtless sincere in their conversion to the new religion, previous habits of thought and action had left more than superficial traces in their character. As a consequence, many Jewish converts were unwilling to forego the Mosaic law concerning unclean meats, while Gentile converts could see no reason whatsoever for adopting the tenets of Judaism. This diversity of sentiment paved the way to misunderstanding, and all but open rupture, in various communities of the early Church. This is why St. Paul speaks so unequivocally regarding the lawfulness of all meats, but recommends due consideration for those Christians whose conscience will not brook this liberty (Rom., xiv; Gal., iii, 28; Rom., ii). Centuries of Christian life have so greatly simplified this matter that it is now well-nigh impossible to realize how there could then have been anything more than a passing controversy. At the same time it is well to bear in mind that in the beginning of the present era the Apostles were called upon to deal amicably with those who based their conservatism on the traditions of two thousand years of adhesion to the Mosaic legislation.

Daily experience testifies that the phenomena circumscribing the evolution of life in the material world are rooted in laws involving a process of transition from death unto life. “The struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest” is simply the dictum of science admitting the presence of this law in the animal kingdom. This law, so widespread in the material order. has been embodied in that economy wherein they who would imitate Christ must deny themselves, take up the cross, and follow Him. Hence, in molding her penitential discipline, the Church is inspired by the maxims and example of her Divine Founder. As a consequence, she is not the author of arbitrary measures in this matter; she simply frames her laws of abstinence to meet the exigencies of fallen nature. Darkness in the understanding, weakness in the will, and turbulence in the passions must ever remain to reveal the ravages: of sin in fallen man. Though the passions are destined to satisfy the legitimate cravings of human nature, and enable man to develop his being according to the dictates of reason, still they give unquestionable evidence of a vicious propensity to invade the domain of reason and usurp her sovereignty. In order to check this lawless invasion of the passions, and to subordinate their movements to the empire of reason, man is obliged to labor unceasingly; else he is sure to become the slave of unbridled passion. This is what St. Paul means when he says: “The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh” etc. (Gal., v, 17). The substance of certain viands, especially meat, renders inestimable service to man in his efforts to gain and retain the desired supremacy. This is what St. Jerome means when, quoting Terence, he says: Sine Cerere et Baccho, friget Venus (Cont. Jov., II, 6), or, to use the words of St. Thomas (II-II, q. cxlvii, art. 1), “the ardor of lust is dampened by abstinence from food and drink.” Besides, abstinence exercises a salutary influence in leading man to suprasensible pursuits. For, according to St. Augustine (De oratione et jejunio, sermo ccxxx, de temp.), abstinence purifies the soul, elevates the mind, subordinates the flesh to the spirit, begets a humble and contrite heart, scatters the clouds of concupiscence, extinguishes the fire of lust, and enkindles the true light of chastity. This is summarized in the official message of the Church found in the Mass-preface used during Lent: “Who by bodily fasting suppresses vice, ennobles the mind, grants virtue and rewards.” It is no exaggeration, therefore, to maintain that Christians must find in abstinence an efficacious means to repair the losses of the spirit and augment its gains. Inspired by such motives, the Church wisely prohibits the use of flesh meat at duly appointed times. Seemingly harsh, the law of abstinence, in its last analysis, serves to promote bodily and spiritual well-being. The mechanism of the body stamps man as an omnivorous animal. Hence, all nations have adopted a mixed diet. Nay. more, a priori and a posteriori reasons prove that the occasional interruption of meat diet conduces to bodily and spiritual health. In case of less rugged constitutions, the Church tempers the rigors of her legislation with the mildness of her dispensations. Finally, the experience of nineteen centuries proves that transgression of this law neither promotes health nor prolongs life. Hence, consummate wisdom and prudence, seeking to safeguard the welfare of soul and body, inspire the Church in her laws pertaining to abstinence. (See ADVENT; LENT)

TERTULLIAN, De Jejunio, P.L., II, ST. LEO I, Sermones, P. L., LIV; HERMAS Pastor, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York), II; CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, ibid., II; Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, ibid., VII, DUCHESNE, Christian Worship: Its origin and evolution (tr. London, 1904); Pilgrimage of Etheria (Sylviae), in DUCHESNE, op. cit., 547–577; HEFELE, A History of the Councils of the Church (tr. Edinburgh, 1896), I, II, V; ST. THOMAS, Summa, II-II, QQ. cxivii, cxlvii THOMASSIN, Traité des jeùnes d’ I’Egise (Paris, 1680); LAYMAN, Theologia Moralis (Padua, 1733); SPORER, Theologia Moralis super Decalogum (Venice, 1761), I; VACANT, Dict. de théol. cath (Paris, 1899), I, 262–277.

JAMES D. O’NEIL

Physical Effects of Abstinence

The effects on the human system of abstinence from flesh meats divide themselves naturally and logically into two parts:

Effects due to total abstinence (in other words vegetarianism);

Effects due to partial or periodic abstinence, such as is enjoined by the Catholic Church. These abstinences comprise the fish observance of Fridays, the fasts before feasts, the forty days of Lent, and the ember days. It is the partial, or Catholic, phase of the subject with which we have to deal.

Physiologically, man is an omnivorous animal, as evidenced by the structure and consequent nomenclature of the teeth; and a mixed diet into which meat or flesh food largely enters, would seem to be the natural requirement for such a complex physio-anatomical entity. Additional corroboration of this view is afforded by researches of physiological chemistry, and the discovery of elements produced at various points along the digestive tract, whose function it is to peptonize milk foods, emulsify fats and oils, destroy the insulation of muscular fiber, and prepare the nucleines for absorption and nutrition. Granting, therefore, that flesh food in some form is necessary for the human race as a whole, what are the physical effects of partial Abstinence therefrom?

These effects are as numerous and divergent as the causes. We have first, the family history of the individual (diseases or tendencies inherited or acquired); second, age; third, personal history of the individual (diseases or tendencies inherited or acquired), natural or artificial infantile feeding; fourth, education and environment; fifth, climatic conditions, sixth, occupation and its effects on the physical and mental state of the individual, seventh, status præsens, and last—but really the most important of all—that indefinable but very tangible element which we may call the personal equation in each individual, the observer as well as the observed.

Additional facts to be remembered are:

That women bear Abstinence better than men, because as a rule the former have greater development of fatty and less development of muscular tissue;

that mature age bears deprivation of customary food better than youth or old age;

that a very damp atmosphere, extremes of heat and gold, un-hygienic surroundings (tenements, prisons, workhouses, etc.), insufficient, improper, and unwholesome food, the state of pregnancy, alcoholism, and the premature physical and mental decadence, due to the stress and strain in the modern battle of life, are all to be considered as important matters for investigation in any case that has to do with the question of Abstinence.

The Church has so wisely, and with a foreknowledge of scientific investigation and present proof so accurate as to be almost supernatural, taken all the above mentioned conditions into consideration, in framing her laws regarding. Abstinence, that there is not the slightest danger of any physical ills accruing to those to whom these laws apply. On the contrary, it is abundantly demonstrated by the highest scientific authority that temporary. Abstinence from solid food—particularly flesh food, in which there is a great proportion of waste material, and consequently, increased wear and tear on the organs of excretion, such as the lungs, liver, and kidneys—is greatly to be desired in all persons, but particularly in those suffering from acute infectious and inflammatory diseases. Those who lead a physically active life, like the manual laborer, seem to need animal food more continuously and feel its temporary withdrawal more acutely than the sedentary or brain worker. Here, also, the important element is the personal equation. The history of mankind seems to show that while the meat eating nations of the earth have been the most powerful, aggressive, and sanguinary (growing, in other words, like the things they feed on), yet they have been and continue to be conservative forces in civilization, prolific and enduring contributors to the arts and sciences, and, in the final analysis, strenuous upholders of civil and religious liberty and morality. The dietetic question raised by some as the result of the late Russo-Japanese War means nothing as a basis of comparison. It is a well known feet that battles have been fought, and lost, and won, alike by men suffering from too much, too little, or no food at all. Wars and their eventualities depend, not so much on foods as on civil, religious, and politico-economical conditions. The medical and scientific world of today seems to be well satisfied:

that while man, by structure and development, is omnivorous, there is too much animal food consumed by the average individual, particularly in large centers of population.

That owing to this large consumption of food, which has an amount of waste out of proportion to its nutritive value, the vital organs are overtaxed in their excretory functions, and that consequently, human life and usefulness is very frequently curtailed.

That this over ingestion of animal food is in some way—as yet undetermined—closely associated with the rapid increase of diseases like cancer.

That over-feeding—particularly with strong, meaty foods—together with leek of proper muscular exercise have much to do with the question of so-called “race suicide.” This last suggestion arises from the well known analogy between the reproductive processes in human and brute animals. Too much and too rich food combined with physical inactivity has a tendency to replace (by a process of degeneration) the muscular fibers of the reproductive organs by fat cells, and hence render such organs either sterile or incapable of carrying a pregnancy to term.

YARRELL in HARVEY, The Sea Side Book (1857), Chapter on Fish and Fish Diet; LICHTENFELT, Ueber die chemische Zusammensetzung einiger Fischarten, etc. (Archw. Physiol. de Menschen, Bonn. 1904); LATHAM, Milbank Penitentiary (]823); SLOANE, Med. Gaz., XVII, 389, MCNAUGHTON, Am. Jour. of Med. Sci. VI, 543, FRENCH ACADEMY, Archives génér. de médecine, XXVII, 130, s. v. Pestilence and Famine in Ireland, 1847 Human Foods (U.S. Agricultural Dep’t Year Book, 1894), 547–558; (1895), 573580; (1897), 676682; DENS-MORE, How Nature Cures; The Natural Food of Man (London, 1892), X, 61–413; KALLE, Nutrition Tables (1892); THOMPSON, Diet (London, 1902), Annales d’hygiène publique (1902); Nutrition Investigations, U.S. Gov. (1894–1904); CASPARI, Physiologische Studien über Vegetarismus Archiv. f.d. gesammte Physiol. (Bonn, 1905), CIX, 475–595.

J.N. BUTLER

Abstraction

(Lat. abs, from trahere, to draw).

Abstraction is a process (or a faculty) by which the mind selects for consideration some one of the attributes of a thing to the exclusion of the rest. With some writers, including the Scholastics, the attributes selected for attention are said to be abstracted; with others, as Kant and Hamilton, the term is applied to the exclusion of the attributes which are ignored; the process, however, is the same in both cases. The simplest-seeming things are complex, i.e. they have various attributes; and the process of abstraction begins with sensation, as sight perceives certain qualities; taste, others; etc. From the dawn of intelligence the activity progresses rapidly, as all of our generalizations depend upon the abstraction from different objects of some phase, or phases, which they have in common. A further and most important step is taken when the mind reaches the stage where it can handle its abstractions such as extension, motion, species, being, cause, as a basis for science and philosophy, in which, to a certain extent at least, the abstracted concepts are manipulated like the symbols in algebra, without immediate reference to the concrete. This process is not without its dangers of fallacy, but human knowledge would not progress far without it. It is, therefore, evident that methods of leading the mind from the concrete to the abstract, as well as the development of a power of handling abstract ideas, are matters of great importance in the science of education.

With this account of the place of abstraction in the process of knowledge, most philosophers—and all who base knowledge on experience—are in substantial agreement. But they differ widely concerning the nature and validity of abstract concepts themselves. A widely prevalent view, best represented by the Associationist school, is that general ideas are formed by the blending or fusing of individual impressions. The most eminent Scholastics, however, following Aristotle, ascribe to the mind in its higher aspect a power (called the Active Intellect) which abstracts from the representations of concrete things or qualities the typical, ideal, essential elements, leaving behind those that are material and particular. The concepts thus formed may be very limited in content, and they vary in number and definiteness with the knowledge of particulars; but the activity of the faculty is always spontaneous and immediate; it is never a process of blending the particular representations into a composite idea, much less a mere grouping of similar things or attributes under a common name. The concept thus obtained represents an element that is universally realized in all members of the class, but it is recognized formally as a universal only by means of further observation and comparison. The arguments for the existence of such a faculty are not drawn from a study of its actual operation, which eludes our powers of introspection, but from an analysis of its results. Its defenders rely mainly on the fact that we possess definite universal concepts, as of a triangle, which transcend the vague floating images that represent the fusion of our individual representations; and also on the element of universality and necessity in our judgments. It is in connection with this latter point that the question is of most importance, as systems of philosophy which reject this power of direct abstraction of the universal idea are naturally more or less sceptical about the objective validity of our universal judgments.

Porter, The Human Intellect (New York, 1869), 377–430; Maher, Psychology (London and New York, 1900), 294, 307, 310; Spencer, Psychology (New York, 1898), I, viii; Mill, Logic (London and New York, 1898), I, ii; IV, ii; Mivart, The Origin of Human Reason (London, 1889), ii; Van Becelaere, The Philos. Rev., Nov., 1903; Newman, Grammar of Assent (London 1898), viii; Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge (New York, 1897), xi; Bain, Education as a Science (New York, 1879), vii; Sully, Teacher’s Psychology (New York, 1887), xii, xiii.

F.P. DUFFY

Abthain

(Or ABTHANE).

An English or Lowland Scotch form of the middle-Latin word abthania (Gaelic, abdhaine), meaning abbacy. The exact sense of the word being lost, it was presumed to denote some ancient dignity, the holder of which was called abthanus or abthane. Dr. W.F. Skene (Historians of Scotland, IV; Fordun, II, 413) holds that the correct meaning of abthain (or abthane) is not “abbot” or “over-thane,” but “abbey” or “monastery.” The word has special reference to the territories of the churches and monasteries founded by the old Celtic or Columban monks, mostly between the mountain chain of the Mounth and the Firth of Forth. Dr. Skene recommends the use of the word abthany or abthanry. Many of these abthains passed into the hands of laymen, and were transmitted from father to son: They paid certain ecclesiastical tributes, and seem to have closely resembled the termon lands of the early Irish Church.

SKENE, Celtic Scotland (Edinburgh, 1887), III, 83, 261, 283; A New English Dictionary (Oxford, 1888).

THOMAS WALSH

Theodore Abucar

A bishop of Caria in Syria; d., probably, in 770. In his anti-heretical dialogues (P.G., XCVII, 1461–1609) he claimed frequently to reproduce the identical words of the great Eastern theologian, St. John of Damascus, whose disciple he was. St. John addressed to him three famous discourses in defence of the sacred images. There are attempts to identify him with a Bishop Theodore of Caria who attended the Eighth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (869).

MARIN, in Dict. th ol. cath., I, 287.

THOMAS WALSH

Abundius

An Italian bishop, b. at Thessalonica early in the fifth century; d. 469. He was the fourth Bishop of Como, in Italy, was present at the Council of Constantinople in 450, and took an active part against the Eutychian heresy at Chalcedon (451), where he was the representative of Pope Leo the Great. In 452 he also took part in the Council of Milan, convened to refute the same heresy. Abundius is one of those to whom the authorship of the is occasionally attributed.

WESTCOTT, in Dict. of Christ. Biogr., I, 10; TILLEMONT, Mém., X, 962.

THOMAS WALSH

Abydus

(ABYDOS).

A titular see of Troas in Asia Minor, suffragan of Cyzicus in the Hellespontic province. It was situated at the narrowest point of the Hellespont, and was famous as the legendary spot where Leander swam over to Sestus to visit his mistress, Hero. Here, too, Xerxes built the famous bridge of boats (480 s.c.) on which he crossed with his troops to a promontory on the opposite European shore.

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr. (London, 1878), I, 7 8; MAS LATRIE, Trésor de chronologie, etc. (Paris, 1887); I, 1978; LEQUIEN, Oriens Christianus, III, 1115–16

Abyss

(Greek abyssos).

Abyss is primarily and classically an adjective, meaning deep, very deep (Wisd., x, 19; Job, xxxviii, 16). Elsewhere in the Bible, and once in Diog. Laert., it is a substantive. Some thirty times in the Septuagint it is the equivalent of the Hebrew tehom, Assyrian tihamtu, and once each of the Hebrew meculah, “sea-deep,” culah, “deep flood,” and rachabh, “spacious place.” Hence the meanings: (1) primeval waters; (2) the waters beneath the earth; (3) the upper seas and rivers; (4) the abode of the dead, limbo; (5) the abode of the evil spirits, hell. The last two meanings are the only ones found in the New Testament.

A.J. MAAS

Abyssinia

GEOGRAPHY

Abyssinia, extending from the sixth to the fifteenth degree of north latitude, and situated to the south of Nubia, is, by reason of its peculiar contour, unique among the countries of the African continent. It has been compared, indeed, to a vast fortress, towering above the plains of eastern Africa. It is, in fact, a huge, granitic, basaltic mass, forming a great mountainous oval, with its main ridge toward the east. A chain runs for over 650 miles from north to south; seen from the shores of the Red Sea, it looks like a vast wall, some 8,000 feet high near Kasen, opposite Massowah; over 10,300 at Mount Souwaira; 11,000 at the plateau of Angolala, and more than 10,000 in Shoa. The Abyssinian chain, however, is mountainous only on the eastern side. On the other, it consists of plateaux of varying altitudes, broken up by mountains shattered by volcanic forces, the summits of which are over 6,500 feet high in Tigré, and from 13,000 to 16,000 in Simien. A comparative depression, that of Lake Tana, hollows out the highlands to the southwest. The lake itself is at an elevation of some five thousand feet, and the neighboring plateaux, from that height to six thousand. The volcanic mass of Gojam, on the south, attains a height of more than 13,000 feet, while the peaks of Kaffa arise to an altitude of some 12,000 feet. The remarkable elevation of Abyssinia gives it a peculiar climate, and savants have classified its territory into three chief zones. That of the low valleys, or kollas, is a district having the Sudanese climate, great heat, and a heavy summer rainfall. The soil is sandy, dry, and stony; the crops, maize, sugar cane, and cotton. Various kinds of acacias and mimosas form the sole vegetations of these arid, unhealthy regions, whose rushing torrents of the rainy season are but stony beds during the dry. The rocks and caverns are the haunts of lions and leopards; the trees swarm with monkeys. The scattered inhabitants of these burning plains are small, withered, nervous, irritable, and quarrelsome, devoid of the dignity which marks those who live in the high lands. The middle zone, or Voina-dega, with an elevation of from 6,000 to 8,000 feet, is by far the largest part of Abyssinia, with an equable heat little greater than that of the Mediterranean. Thus Gondar (6,000 feet) has a mean annual temperature of 19° C. (66.2°F), with 16°C (60.8°F) as the minimum of the coldest month. This is a temperature slightly higher than that of Southern Spain, Italy, and Greece, but as, in Abyssinia, the summer is the rainy season, the heat is by no means so unbearable as the summer months of the South of Europe. The lands of this region form a series of vast plateaux, covered with rich pasturage, the grazing ground of great herds of sheep and cattle. The air is pure and dry, the temperature moderate, water plentiful and of good quality; vines, olives, lemons, and pomegranates thrive there. Nearly the whole population of Abyssinia lives in this region. Here, too, are the cities, which are seldom found elsewhere, as the natural divisions of the country are such as keep the inhabitants in a state of patriarchal feudalism. The climate is very healthy, and sickness very infrequent. The cold zone, or dega, at an altitude of more than 8,000 feet, is marked by a variable temperature, and by chilly nights. The British army at a height of 10,400 feet met with four degrees of frost on 28 March. On the heights are found the rhododendrons, mosses, and lichens of the Alps.

ETHNOLOGY

Few eastern or African nations exhibit such various aspects as the aborigines. Descendants of Cush are locally known as Agas, or “Freemen,” and still form the basis of the Abyssinian nation. On the west, they have intermarried with the ancient Berbers, and with the blacks of the Soudan, who must not be confused with the Niger, Congo, and Zambesi tribes. On the east, Semitic peoples, Arabs and Himyarites, having crossed the Red Sea in the fourth century B.C., conquered the whole eastern coast of Africa, and settled chiefly in the province called, after them, Amhara. The invasion of the Galla tribes, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, spread through all this region, and especially towards the south. These invasions and mingling of races in all ages have resulted in such diversity of type that the neighboring Arab tribes never speak of the country but as Habech (from which the name Abyssinia is derived), which means “a crowd” or “heap of sweepings.” Abyssinia answers to the Upper, or Eastern, Ethiopia of the ancients, and comprises four provinces: Tigré, Amhara, Goggiam, and Shoa, four small kingdoms entrusted to as many Ras, or Negus, whence the title, negus-se-néghest, i.e., “King of Kings,” assumed by the emperor of Abyssinia. The whole empire contains some 4,000,000 inhabitants. According to the vague traditional legend of the “Glorious memories of the Empire,” or Kébrè-néghest, the dynasty of the Ethiopian kings goes back to King Solomon and Makkeda, Queen of Sheba; and by it the worship of the true God and the Mosaic law were brought to Ethiopia. Whatever truth may be in the legend, it is certain that ancient Ethiopia was evangelized in Apostolic times by the eunuch of Queen Candace, baptized by Philip the deacon, but was not wholly converted to the faith until the year 341, when St. Frumentius (Keddous Faramanatos), who was tutor to the emperor’s two young sons, won his pupils to Christianity. It was they who made both the capital and the empire Christian. Nor could St. Athanasius, patriarch of Alexandria, find one whom he thought better fitted to rule this infant Church, than its first apostle, Frumentius.

CHRISTIANITY

The whole great Ethiopian empire did not, however, become Christian at that period; since, at the very gates of Gondar, the aboriginal tribes of the Komant are pagans to-day, as they have been for fourteen centuries. Moreover, even the converted provinces retain, despite their Christian faith and Christian morality, many traces of pagan and Judaic atavism. Even in the nineteenth century, idolatrous superstitions, fetishism, serpent-worship, and the cult of various jinns, Jewish practices, rest on the Sabbath, and the custom of vowing children to the keeping of certain religious observances till the age of puberty are still active almost everywhere. In the sixteenth century, King Ghelaodieos found them so deeply rooted in the national habits that he tried to justify these in the eyes of the Church as purely civil customs in no way contrary to the laws of Christianity. So long as Christian Abyssinia could remain in touch with the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria, it was preserved from the taint of Arianism, victorious almost everywhere else, as well as the errors of Macedonius and Nestorius. In the seventh century, however, the Caliph Omar, after his conquest of Egypt, came to an understanding with the Jacobite Patriarch Benjamin, whereby the Copts and the Abyssinians were forbidden all intercourse with the Roman Pontiff, but were promised toleration on that condition. Still, the Ethiopian Church, even after the ruin of the Alexandrian Church and of the Byzantine Empire in Egypt, resisted more or less successfully for nearly three centuries the heresies which infected all other churches of the East. Moreover, during the times of schism, and of Byzantine or Muslim persecution, it became the refuge of the proscribed Catholics. Many monuments of the tenth and eleventh centuries, due to the Egyptian refugees, bear witness to this fact by their Latin character, and it is also borne out by the manuscripts of Lalibéla.

MODERN MISSIONS

Communication between Rome and Abyssinia became more difficult, and from the end of the eleventh to the beginning of the thirteenth century one could see no bond existing between Abyssinia and the centre of Catholicism. The Sovereign Pontiffs, nevertheless, have bestowed a constant solicitude on the Christians of Ethiopia. The first missionaries sent to their aid were the Dominicans, whose success, however, roused the fanaticism of the Monophysites against them, and caused their martyrdom. For more than a hundred years silence enfolded the ruins of this Church. At a later period, the fame of the Crusades having spread, pilgrim monks, on their return from Jerusalem, wakened once more, by what they told in the Ethiopian court, the wish to be reunited to the Church. The Acts of the Council of Florence tell of the embassy sent by the Emperor Zéra-Jacob with the object of obtaining this result (1452). The union was brought about; but on their home journey, the messengers, while passing through Egypt, were given up to the schismatic Copts, and to the Caliph, and put to death before they could bring the good news to their native land. More than a hundred years later, in 1557, the Jesuit Father Oviedo penetrated into Ethiopia. One of his successors, Father Paëz, succeeded in converting the Emperor Socinios himself. On 11 December, 1624, the Church of Abyssinia, abjuring the heresy of Eutyches and the schism of Dioscorus, was reunited to the true Church, a union which, unfortunately, proved to be only temporary. In 1632, the Negus Basilides mounted the throne. Addicted as he was to polygamy and to every vice, he showed himself the relentless enemy of Catholicism, and of its moral law. The Jesuits were handed over to the axe of the executioner, and Abyssinia remained closed to the missionaries until 1702. In that year, three Franciscans got as far as Gondar, the capital, where they converted several princes. The Negus wrote with his own hand to Clement XI, professing his submission to His Holiness. Once more the hope proved futile. A palace revolution overthrew the Negus, and heresy again assumed the reigns of power. From then until the middle of the nineteenth century, a silence as of death lay on the Church of Abyssinia. In 1846, the Holy See divided Ethiopia into two Apostolic vicariates: that of Abyssinia, trusted to the Lazarists, and that of Galla, given to the Capuchins. In the former, the labors and successes of M. de Jacobus awakened the jealousy of the schismatic clergy. An ex-Emir of Cairo, who had become Abouna of Ethiopia, and a man of low birth named Kassa, who had been anointed Negus under the name of Theodoros, joined forces to persecute the Catholics, drive out the missionaries,and put them to death. The Negus Johannes IV, who succeeded Theodoros, followed in his predecessor’s footsteps. His reign of twenty years was a time of trouble and suffering for the Catholics of Abyssinia. At last, however, Menelik, the king of Shoa, who became Negus and was crowned in March, 1889, restored tranquility to the missions. Under his rule Catholic priests rest assured of justice and protection throughout the whole Empire of Abyssinia.

CHURCH CONSTITUTION

Abyssinia is a province of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Church of Abyssinia is a daughter of the Egyptian Church, and there is nothing to show that the daughter ever really tried to withdraw herself from the maternal jurisdiction. Today the Abyssinians are governed as they were in the time of St. Athanasius. by a special delegate, who is practically the vicar of the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria, and is locally known as Abouna, or Abou-Salama, “Father of Peace.” He has the sole right, throughout Ethiopia and in perpetuity, of anointing the Negus “King of Kings”; of consecrating bishops, or ordaining priests and deacons, of blessing altar-stones, of superintending theological instruction, and of settling, as a last court of appeal, disputed or difficult questions of dogma, morals, and discipline. The law of Ethiopia demands that the Abouna shall always be a foreigner, an Egyptian, whom the Negus obtains, or rather buys, from the Khedive and the Coptic Patriarch of Cairo, the alleged successor to St. Mark in the See of Alexandria. Immediately after obtaining his episcopal consecration, and his primatial jurisdiction, the Abouna sets out for Ethiopia, with no hope of return; but lands and large revenues ensure him a comfortable existence there. The Itchagué, or Ethiopian Archbishop, is the second religious personage in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian primate is forbidden by the Patriarch of Alexandria to consecrate more than seven bishops, but there are a considerable number of secular and religious clergy, recruited with little discretion, and deplorably ignorant. The Ethiopian Church has, in addition to the priests and monks, an intermediate class, the Deftaras, or literati, who duty it is to preserve, interpret, and apply the written law, a vast collection of ordinances of the Lower Empire, modified and altered by the Copts in order to ensure the supremacy of the See of Alexandria over the whole of Ethiopia. The liturgical language is the Gheez, a mixture of Greek and Arabic.

Since the settlement of the Italians at Massowah and on the shores of the Red Sea, where they have founded the colony of Erythraea, Abyssinia has been divided into three missionary divisions. The vicariate of Abyssinia, entrusted to the Lazarists, and comprising Tigré, Amhara, and Gondar, contained, in 1904, 4,000 Catholics, two churches, two chapels, six Lazarist priests, and four native secular priests, with more than sixty seminarians studying Gheez at Altiniena. The Prefecture of Erythraea, in the charge of the Capuchins, comprises the entire colony of that name, and contains 14,000 Catholics, thirty-three churches, and fifty-one priests, nine of whom are Capuchins. The vicariate of the Gallas, in the kingdom of Shoa, and among several tribes independent of the Negus, contains 18,000 Catholics and twenty churches. It is administered by twenty Capuchins, French for the most part, and eight secular priests. There are in Abyssinia, 200,000 Mussulmans, with much influence in the country, and filling the most important positions at court; 100,000 Pagans, and 50,000 Jews. The only Protestants who have succeeded in gaining a foothold in Abyssinia during the nineteenth century are the missionaries of the Swedish National Society, who, however, may only labour in Erythraea, where they have two principal centers, at Mancullo, near Massowah, and at Geleb, as well as certain stations in Cunana land and in the province of Hamasen. Their statistics give them 380 church members. The Catholic apostolate in Abyssinia must always exercise a courageous discretion and an unfailing mildness. The missionaries will have to contend for many years against the Eutychian fanaticism of the monks, and the quarrelsome nature of the inhabitants. Moreover, the frequent political revolutions of the past give little hope of settled peace and continued security.

POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS, WARS

The Galla, or Oromo race in the south has been the terror of Abyssinia ever since the sixteenth century. The importation of European rifles, as well as the dissensions among the Galla tribes gave an opportunity (1870) to Menelik, King of Shoa, to undertaken the conquest of all the colonies of the Oromo nation as far as Lake Victoria-Nyanza and Uganda. This conquest was not achieved until more than thirty years after the time it was undertaken.

In 1846, Gregory XVI appointed as vicar apostolic to the Galla missions Father William Massaia, an Italian Capuchin, formerly tutor to King Humbert. The new prelate belonged to the Order of St. Francis, which was the only one that succeeded (1636–1752) in introducing Catholic priests into Abyssinia. The few apostles who braved the schismatics, however, were all martyred. The first Franciscan missionaries were beheaded at Suakin, and Blessed Agathange of Vendome and Cassianus of Nantes were ignominiously hanged (1638). More than a century later (1752), three other were stoned to death in a public square of Gondar. From this time, Abyssinia, as if barred from the rest of the world by a wall of iron, was an impenetrable region for the Church, and it was almost a century later that Mgr. Massaia landed at Massowah to undertake to reanimate the old faith of the Ethiopians. In the disguise of a merchant, under the constant espionage of the mercenaries of the Abouna-Salama and Theodoros, now welcomed by certain chiefs, again attacked by a frenzied crowd, often bound and condemned to death, he always contrived to escape. He left Abyssinia to go to France and England, where he conferred with Napoleon III and Queen Victoria. Having received from them important help in his work, he returned to his mission, in September, 1853. On his arrival, he compiled a Galla dictionary, translated the Bible, converted a prince of Lagamara, vaccinated a hundred people daily during smallpox epidemic, and once more fell into the hands of Theodoros, who put him in chains. Mocked and flouted by the populace, he was thrown into a hut open to the four winds of heaven. His patience, however, won the esteem of Theodoros, who released him. Having been summoned by Menelik, the young King of Shoa, he gained his affection and aroused in him an admiration of the Catholic religion. “You have saints,” said the king to the bishop, “and that is a wonder which neither my priests nor my deptera [doctors] can accomplish.” After a fruitful apostolic mission of thirty-five years among the Galla tribes, Mgr. Massaia was created a Cardinal by Leo XIII, and died in 1889, leaving 10,000 Christians in the country.

The British Counsel, Walter Plowden, a hardy adventurer, frequently gave the Negus Theodoros such timely assistance as led to his success in several wars. Plowden was assassinated, however, and his successor, Captain Charles Duncan Cameron, failed to establish a good understanding with the African emperor. Suspected of having had an understanding with the Musselmans of Egypt, who had just defeated Theodoros at Gédaril in the Sudan, he was imprisoned (July, 1863) with some German missionaries accused of having spoken ill of the Negus. After various promises to release the prisoners, Theodoros wound up by brutally consigning the British Consul and the members of his suite, together with some other Europeans, tied together in pairs, to the fortress of Magdala, which he had chosen as his capital. On hearing of this outrageous infringement of international law, the patience of the British gave way, and they declared war (July, 1867). Sir Robert Napier, who had already made a name by his victories in India, was placed in command of the troops assigned to this expedition. Colonel Merewether, whose activities in this campaign did much to win for him the rank of general, having previously reconnoitered the ground, suggested that the landing be made at Adulis in Annesley Bay. The British army comprised 16,000 combatants, an equal number of servants, forty-five elephants, and a great many pack mules. Napier, on landing in Abyssinia, (3 January, 1868), issued a proclamation to the Ethiopians to the effect that the sole object of the invasion was to deliver the captives, and that he had nothing but friendly feelings except for those who should seek to interfere with his progress. With this, the army boldly began its march through the steep defiles of the “great African citadel.” After marching about fifty-three miles, the vanguard reached the plateau of Senafé, where they found a delightful climate, a temperature of 30° to 40°F, and a most fertile country. Word reached them that several Ras and governors of the provinces, discontented with the suspicious Theodoros, stood ready to replenish their commissary and to supply them with horses. Napier made this plateau his base of operations. He was obliged to cover his line of march by three entrenched camps, the first at Senafé, the second at Addizerat, the third at Antolo. At last, on 10 April, the troops reached the slopes of Silassia without having encountered a single hostile soldier, when suddenly a cannon was fired on the heights, and 6,000 Abyssinians hurled themselves down upon the 16,000 British. The Snider rifles, however, which the British used for the first time in this engagement, quickly brought the assailants to a halt, and disabled the greater number. By 13 April, the British were beneath the walls of Magdala, which surrendered after a two hours’ siege. As soon as Theodoros saw the British soldiers entering the city, feeling himself abandoned by all, and conquered, he put a pistol to his mouth, and killed himself. The victorious army then released the prisoners, whom they had hardly hoped to find alive. On 17 April, Napier, henceforth Lord Napier of Magdala, ordered the inhabitants to evacuate the city, after which the walls were demolished and the public buildings given to the flames. It was necessary to hasten the return of the troops to the sea, as the rains had already made the passage difficult. The troops embarked as they arrived at the Red Sea, on descending from the heights of Senafé.

This prompt and lucky campaign of the English was to inspire the Italians twenty-eight years later to make a like bold attempt. Their ambition designs, however, roused the whole country against them, and the bloody battle of Adua (March, 1896), in which almost 20,000 were killed, put an end to their rash undertaking. In 1897, Mr. Rodd, first secretary of the British Ligation at Cairo, was entrusted with a mission to the Negus. A treaty was signed 14 May, and Menelik proclaimed the Mahdists enemies of his empire. He also asked for the adjustment of the frontiers between Harrar and Somaliland. Lastly, a Franco-Anglo-Italian agreement was concluded which guaranteed the independence of Ethiopia and assured to the three Powers bordering on the kingdom their respective rights and interests.

THE ABYSSINIAN CHURCH

The chief distinction between the Abyssinian Church and the Catholic Church is the erroneous doctrine that there is but one nature in Christ, the divine nature and the human nature being in some manner unified by a species of fusion. It was in Mary’s womb according to some, or at the baptism of Christ according to others, that the Holy Ghost effected this union. Then assuming that the two natures in Christ, human and divine, form but one, Mary is the mother of the divine as well as the human nature of her Son, and becomes by that very fact, almost equal to God the Father. To these, so to speak, original errors of the Monophysites, the Ethiopian Church added some of its own: e.g., the belief that the faith of the parents suffices to save their children that die unbaptized; the wholesale repudiation of all Ecumenical Councils held since the council of Ephesus, and the belief in traducianism as an explanation of the soul’s origin. Moreover, they still retain in full force various practices of the primitive Church which have long since fallen into desuetude elsewhere: e.g., abstinence from the flesh and blood of animals that have been strangled; Baptism by immersion; the custom of administering Communion to little children under the species of wine; resting from work on the Sabbath, and the celebration of the Agape. It may be added that no church has kept to this very day a more visible imprint of the Jewish religion. Children of both sexes are circumcised by women two weeks after birth. They are then baptized, girls on the eightieth and boys on the fortieth day. As in Judaism, they distinguish by the term “Nazarenes” children dedicated by their parents to the observance of certain practices or prohibitions, such as drinking hydromel and shaving the head. The canon of Scripture admitted by the Ethiopians comprises, besides the books accepted by Catholics, certain apocryphal works, such as the “Book of Enoch,” the “Ascension of Isaiah,” etc. The oldest translation of the Bible into Ethiopian dates from the fourth century, having been made in Gheez. Pell, Platt, and Dillman have edited some of the manuscripts in London and Leipzig, but the majority remain untouched, in convents of Abyssinian monks. The present clergy are buried in a state of deplorable ignorance. Little is required of secular priests beyond the ability to read and to recite the Nicene creed, and a knowledge of the most necessary liturgical rites. The monks in their numerous convents receive an education somewhat more complete, and occasionally there are found among them men versed in sacred hermenuetics, who can recite by heart the entire Bible.

Piolet. Missions catholiques francaises au XIXe siecle (Paris, 1900), I, 1–44; Ludolf, historia Aitheopiae (Frankfurt, 1681); Arnaud d’Abbadie, Douze ans en Ethiope (1838–50) (Paris); Massaia, I miei trenta cinque anni nel l’ata Etiopia (Rome. Propaganda, 1895); Holland and Hozier, Record of the Expedition to Abyssinia (London, 1870); Tellez, historia de Ethiopia aita (Coimbra, 1660); Wansleb, Biographie de Pierre Heyling, missionnaire protestant en Abyssinie, 1635; Etudes historiques sur l’Ethiopie [Text of the imperial chronicles (incomplete) and translation with notes by Basset (Paris)].

JEAN-BAPTISTE PIOLET

Acacia

(In Hebrew shíttah, plural shíttîm; Theod. pyxos; Vulgate, spina, thorn). The Hebrew shíttah is probably a contraction of Shinttah, and thus identical with the Egyptian shent; the Coptic shonte, thorn; the Arabic sunt. Hence the Greek name akantha, thorn, the Latin, acanthus for the Egyptian acacia. Acacia wood is designated, “incorruptible wood,” in the Septuagint, and lignum setim, “setim-wood” in the Vulgate. The Biblical Acacia belongs to the genus Mimosa, and is no doubt identical with the Acacia seyal (Del.) or the Acacia tortilis (Hayne); both are called seyyal, or torrent trees, sayl meaning torrent. They grow in the desert wadis, or torrent valleys, of Sinai. The wood is light, hard, and durable, and grows almost as black as ebony with age. The ark of the covenant, the table of the loaves of proposition, the altar of holocausts, the altar of incense, the wooden parts of the tabernacle, were made of setim-wood (Ex. xxv, 5). (See PLANTS OF THE BIBLE.)

VIGOUROUX, in Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1895); CHAPMAN in HASTINGS, Dictionary of the Bible, art. Shittah Tree (New York, 1902).

A.J. MAAS

The Acacians

Known also as the HOMOEANS, an Arian sect which first emerged into distinctness as an ecclesiastical party some time before the convocation of the joint Synods of Ariminum (Rimini) and Seleucia in 359. The sect owed its name as well as its political importance to Acacius, Bishop of Caesarea, oi peri Akakion, whose theory of adherence to scriptural phraseology it adopted and endeavoured to summarize in its various catch words: homoios, homoios kata panta, k.t.1.

In order to understand the theological significance of Acacianism as a critical episode, if only an episode, in the logical, as well as in the historical progress of Arianism, it is needful to recall that the great definition of the Homo usion, promulgated at Nicaea in 325, so far from putting an end to further discussion, became rather the occasion for keener debate and for still more distressing confusion of statement in the formulation of theories on the relationship of Our Lord to His Father, in so far as that relationship constituted a distinct tenet of orthodox belief. Events had already begun to ripen towards a fresh crisis shortly after the advent of Constantius to sole power, on the death of his brother Constans in the year 350. The new Augustus was a man of vacillating character with an unfortunate susceptibility to flattery and a turn for theological debate (Ammianus, XXI, xvi) that soon made him a mere puppet in the hands of the Eusebian faction. Roughly speaking there were at this period but three parties in the Church: the Orthodox or Nicaean party, who sympathized for the most part with Athanasius and his supporters and who insisted on making his cause their own; the Eusebian or Court party and their bewildered Semi-Arian followers; and, last of all, and not least logical in their demands, the Anomoean party which owed its origin to A tius. In the summer of 357, Ursacius and Valens, the astute, but not always consistent advocates of this latter group of dissidents in the West, through the influence which they were enabled to bring to bear upon the Emperor by means of his second wife, Aurelia Eusebia (Panegyr. Jul. Orat., iii; Ammianus, XX, vi, 4), succeeded in bringing about a conference of bishops at Sirmium.

In the Latin creed put forth at this meeting there was inserted a statement of views drawn up by Potamius of Lisbon and the venerable Hosius of Cordova, which, under the name of the Sirmian Manifesto, as it afterwards came to be known, roused the whole of the Western Church and threw the temporizers of the East into disorder. In this statement the assembled prelates, while declaring their confession in “One God, the Father Almighty, and in His only-begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, generated from Him before the ages,” recommended the disuse of the terms ousia (essence or substance), homoousion (identical in essence, or substance), and homoiousion (similar in essence, or substance), “by which the minds of many are perturbed”; and they held that there “ought to be no mention of any of them at all, nor any exposition of them in the Church, and for this reason and for this consideration that there is nothing written about them in divine Scripture and that they are above men’s knowledge and above men’s understanding” (Athan., De Syn., xxviii; Soz., ii, xxx; Hil., De Syn., xi). The effect of these propositions upon conservative opinion was like that of the proverbial spark in a barrel of gunpowder. As we look back from the standpoint of modern Catholicism upon the circumstances of this publication, it is impossible not to see that they occasioned the crisis upon which the whole subsequent history of Arianism turned. In spite of the scriptural disclaimer against the employment of inscrutable terms, nearly all parties instinctively perceived that the Manifesto was nothing else but a subtly Anomoean document.

The situation was assuredly rich in possibilities. Men began to group themselves along new lines. In the East, the Anomoeans turned almost as a matter of course to Acacius of Caesarea, whose influence was growing stronger at court and who was felt to be a shrewd and not too scrupulous temporizer. In the West, bishops like Ursacius and Valens began to carry on a like policy; and everywhere it was felt that the time called once more for concerted action on the part of the Church. This was precisely. what the party in favour with the Emperor Constantius were eager to bring about; but not in the way in which the Nicaeans and Moderates expected. A single council might not be easily controlled; but two separate synods, sitting, one in the East and the other in the West, could be kept better in hand. After a number of preliminary conferences accompanying an inevitable campaign of pamphleteering in which Hilary of Poitiers took part, the bishops of the Western portion of the Empire met at Ariminum towards the end of May, and those of the East at Seleucia in the month of September, 359. The theological complexion of both Synods was identical, at least in this, that the party of compromise, represented at Seleucia by Acacius and at Ariminum by Ursacius and Valens, was politically, though not numerically, in the ascendant and could exercise a subtle influence which depended almost as much on the argumentative ability of their leaders as on their curial prestige. In both councils, as the result of dishonest intrigue and an unscrupulous use of intimidation, the Homoean formula associated with the name of Acacius ultimately prevailed. The Homo usion, for which so much had been endured by saintly champions of orthodoxy for over half a century was given up and the Son was declared to be merely similar to—no longer identical in essence with—the Father. St. Jerome’s characterization of the issue still affords the best commentary, not only on what had come to pass, but on the means employed to obtain it. The whole world groaned in wonderment to find itself Arian—ingemuit totus orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est. It was Acacius and his followers who had skilfully managed the whole proceeding from the outset. By coming forward as advocates of temporizing methods they had inspired the Eusebian or Semi-Arian party with the idea of throwing over A tius and his Anomoeans. They thus found themselves thrust into a position of importance to which neither their numbers nor their theological acumen entitled them. As they had proved themselves in practice all through the course of the unlooked-for movement that brought them to the front, so were they now, in theory, the exponents of the Via Media of their day. They separated themselves from the orthodox by the rejection of the word homoousios; from the Semi-Arians by their surrender of the homoiousios; and from the Aetians by their insistence upon the term homoios. They retained their influence as a distinct party just so long as their spokesman and leader Acacius enjoyed the favour of Constantius. Under Julian the Apostate, A tius, who had been exiled as the result of the proceedings at Seleucia, was allowed to regain his influence. The Acacians seized the occasion to make common cause with his ideas, but the alliance was only political; they threw him over once more at the Synod of Antioch held under Jovian in 363. In 365 the Semi-Arian Synod of Lampsacus condemned Acacius. He was deposed from his see; and with that event the history of the party to which he had given his name practically came to an end.

ATHANASIUS, De Syn., XII, XXIX, XL, in P.G., XXVI, 701, 745, 766; ST. HILARIUS, Contra Constant., xii-xv, in P.L. X; ST. EPIPHANIUS, Haer., lxxiii, 23–27, in P.G., XLII; SOCRATES AND SOZOMEN, in P.G., LXVII; THEODORET, in P.G., LXXXII; TILLEMONT, Mémoires, VI (ed. 1704); HEFELE, Hist. Ch. Counc. (tr. CLARK), II; NEWMAN, Ar. IV Cent., 4th ed.; GWATKIN, Studies in Arianism, 2d ed. (Cambridge, 1900).

CORNELIUS CLIFFORD

Acacius, Bishop of Beroea

Bishop of Beroea. Born in Syria c. 322; died c. 432. While still very young he became a monk in the famous community of solitaries, presided over by Asterius, at a place just outside Antioch. He seems to have been an ardent champion of orthodoxy during the Arian troubles, and suffered greatly for his courage and constancy. After Eusebius of Samosata returned from exile on the death of Valens in 378, he gave public recognition to the great services of Acacius and ordained him to the See of Beroea. We next hear of Acacius in Rome, apparently as a deputy on the part of Meletius and the Fathers of the Antiochene Synod, when the questions connected with the heresy of Apollinaris came up for discussion before Pope Damasus. While fulfilling this difficult embassy he attended the meeting of the prelates summoned to decide upon the errors of Apollinaris, and subscribed the profession of faith in the Two Natures. It was thus largely due to his efforts that the various schismatical movements at Antioch were ended. A little later we find him at Constantinople whither he had gone to take part in the second General Council convened in 381 to reemphasize the Nicene definitions and to put down the errors of the Macedonians or Pneumatomachians. Meletius of Antioch died in the same year and Acacius, unfortunately, took part in the illegitimate consecration of Flavian. For this constructively schismatical proceeding—schismatical in the sense that it was an explicit violation of the agreement entered into between Paulinus and Meletius and tended unhappily to keep the Eustathian party in power—Acacius fell under the displeasure of Pope Damasus, who refused to hold communion with him and his supporters. This Roman excommunication lasted some ten or eleven years until the Council of Capua readmitted him to unity in 391 or 392 (Labbe, Conc., II, 1072). In 398 Acacius, who was now in his seventy-sixth year, was charged once more with a delicate mission to the Roman Church. Having been selected by Isidore of Alexandria to convey to Pope Siricius the news of St. John Chrysostom’s election to the See of Constantinople, he was especially exhorted by the Egyptian metropolitan to do all in his power to remove the prejudice which still existed in the West against Flavian and his party. In this, as in the previous embassy, he displayed a tactfulness that disarmed all opposition. The reader will find in the pages of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret an estimate of the high value which the entire Oriental episcopate put upon the services of Acacius who is described as “famous throughout the world” (Theod., V, xxiii). We now come to the two incidents in the career of this remarkable man which throw so perplexing a light upon the problem of his real character that he may be called one of the enigmas of ecclesiastical history. We refer to his sustained hostility towards St. John Chrysostom and to his curious treatment of Cyril of Alexandria during the Nestorian controversy.

Acacius was always an avowed rigorist in conduct and enjoyed great repute for piety. Sozomen (VII, xxviii) tells us that he was “rigid in observing all the regulations of the ascetic life” and that when raised to the episcopate his life was lived practically and austerely “in the open.” Theodoret is consistent in his admiration for his many episcopal qualities and calls him “an athlete of virtue” (V, iv). Early in the episcopate of St. John Chrysostom, in the year 398, Acacius came to Constantinople, where he was treated with less distinction than he had apparently looked for. Whatever may have been the nature of the slight put upon him, he seems to have felt it keenly; for Palladius, St. John’s biographer, records a most unepiscopal saying of the injured prelate to the effect that he would one day give his brother of Constantinople a taste of his own hospitality—ego auto artouo chytran (Pallad., Vita Chrys., VI, viii in P.G., XLVII, 22–29). It is certain, at any rate, that from this time forth, Acacius showed himself indefatigable in working for the great orator-bishop’s removal and was not the least active of those who took part in the disgraceful “Synod of the Oak” in the year 403. Indeed, he was one of the notorious “four” whom the Saint particularly named as men at whose hands he could not expect to obtain common justice. In every one of the various synods convened for the Saint’s undoing, the restless old man of Beroea took a leading and almost acrimonious part, and even made a laborious, but happily futile, effort to win over Pope Innocent to his uncharitable view. He was excommunicated for his pains and remained under ban until 414. Nor was his implacability quenched either by his great antagonist’s death or by the lapse of time. Fourteen years after St. John had died in exile, Acacius is found writing to Atticus of Constantinople, in 421, to apologize for the conduct of Theodotus of Antioch, who had, in spite of his better judgment, placed the Saint’s name upon the diptychs. The same perplexing inconsistency of character, considering his advanced years, his profession, and the wide repute for sanctity he enjoyed, may be seen also in the attitude which Acacius maintained towards Nestorius. When his violent plea for leniency towards the heresiarch failed to produce its effect, he worked adroitly to have Cyril hoist with his own petard and charged with Apollinarianism at Ephesus. Acacius spent the last years of his life in trying, with edifying inconsistency, to pour the water of his charity upon the smouldering embers of the feuds which Nestorianism had left in its train. His letters to Cyril and to Pope Celestine make curious reading on this score; and he has the amazing distinction of having inspired St. Epiphanius to write his “History of Heresies” (Haer., i, 2, in P.G., XLI, 176). He died at the extraordinary age of one hundred and ten years.

The ecclesiastical historians SOCRATES, in P.G., LXVII; SOZOMEN, in P.G., LXVII; THEODORET, in P.G., LXXXII; PALLADIUS, Vita Chrys., VI, viii, in P.G., XLVII; BARONIUS, Ann. Eccl. (PAGI, Crit.); TILLEMONT, Mémoires; NEWMAN, Ar. IV Cent. (4th ed.); GWATKIN, Studies in Arianism (2d ed.); HEFELE, Hist. Ch. Counc. (tr. CLARK; ed. OXENHAM), II.

CORNELIUS CLIFFORD

Acacius, Bishop of Caesarea

Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, disciple and biographer of Eusebius, the historian, whose successor in the See of Caesarea he became in 340. Nothing is known of the date or country of his birth, but he was probably a Syrian; and throughout his life bore the nickname of monophthalmos (one-eyed); no doubt from a personal defect (S. Hier. Viri III., XCVIII), but possibly with a maliciously figurative reference, also, to his general shiftiness of conduct and his rare skill in ambiguous statement. He was a prelate of great learning, a patron of studies (S. Hier., Epist. ad. Marcellam, 141), and was the author of a treatise on Ecclesiastes. He also wrote six books of miscellanies (symmikta zetemata) or essays on various subjects which have come down to us only in fragments. The student may consult these fragments in detail in Fabricius, “Bibliotheca Graeca,” vii, 336, and ix, 254 sqq. (ed. Harless). He is remembered chiefly for his bitter opposition to St. Cyril of Jerusalem and for the part he was afterwards enabled to play in the more acute stages of the Arian controversy. There is a significant passage in the famous twenty-first oration of St. Gregory Nazianzen, in which that champion of orthodoxy speaks of “the tongue of the Arians” (Orat., xxi, 21) in dubiously complimentary terms.

If, as seems probable, it is Acacius who is there referred to, it can only be said that the story of his career fully justifies the implication so darkly made. He was one of those imperial prelates so effectively described by Newman (Arians 4th Cent., 4th ed., 274) as “practised in the gymnastics of the Aristotelic school”; and his readiness in debate and genius for intrigue, joined to the prestige he already possessed as the friend and successor of the great Church historian of Caesarea, naturally singled him out as the likeliest spokesman and guiding spirit of the Court faction, even before their first great leader, Eusebius of Nicomedia, had passed away. He was one of the notorious “ninety” who signed the ambiguous creeds at Antioch, in the presence of Constantius in 341 (Sozomen, III, v), on the occasion of the dedication of the Golden Basilica. For his part in this transaction and for his open advocacy of a policy of reticence towards the Nicaean formula, we find his name mentioned in the list of those who were deposed by the Council of Sardica in 347 (Athanasius, Hist. Ar., XVII; Epist. ad. Ægypt., VII). Refusing to acquiesce in the sentence passed upon him, he withdrew with the other bishops of the Court faction to Philippopolis, where he in turn helped to secure a sentence of excommunication and deposition against his judges and also against Pope Julius, the patron and defender of St. Athanasius, and against Hosius of Cordova (Soc., II, xvi; Soz., III, xiv; Theod., II, xxvi; Labbe, Conc., II, 625–629). These penalties which were inflicted on him at the hands of the orthodox did nothing, of course, to diminish his prestige. If we may trust the testimony of St. Jerome, his credit with Constantius was so great during all these years that when Pope Liberius was deposed and driven into exile, in 355 or 357, Acacius was able to secure the intrusion of Felix the Antipope in his place.

The year 358 marks the culmination of his acrimonious and undignified quarrel with Cyril of Jerusalem. The misunderstanding, which dated. back to a period not long after Cyril’s installation, had arisen ostensibly. over a question of canonical precedence, but was most probably rooted in the chagrin that Acacius characteristically felt at being unable to sway Cyril’s policy entirely to his own liking. Charges and counter-charges of heresy followed for some years, until Acacius managed to secure the deposition of Cyril, through the assistance of the Palestinian bishops, whom he had induced to examine a wholly ridiculous charge of contumacy. Cyril went into exile, but was restored to his church within two years by a decision of the famous Council of Seleucia. But the extraordinary credit enjoyed by Acacius with the weak-minded Constantius was able to undo this act of ordinary justice, and, in 360, Cyril was condemned once more—this time through the influence which Acacius was able to exercise at the Synod of Constantinople. Cyril was forced to yield. He left his see and remained in exile until the accession of Julian, in 361. The fact, however, that Acacius received a temporary check in the reinstatement of Cyril, at the hands of the Synod of Seleucia, must not blind the reader to the real weight of his influence either in the Council itself or in the ecclesiastical politics of the time. He was among the foremost of the Arianizing prelates who succeeded in carrying through the idea of a divided Synod to solve the problems created by the Sirmian manifesto. In this sense he may be charged with the bulk of the mischief created by the definitions of Ariminum and Seleucia. The turbulent and unscrupulous faction which rallied to the support of his ideas in both gatherings was entirely his creation and rightly bore his name—oi peri Akakion.

The detailed account of his activities at Seleucia belongs rather to the history of that gathering than to the present sketch of his life; but some notice of his mode of procedure will not be out of place here. The number of bishops present has been variously estimated as somewhere between one hundred and fifty and one hundred and sixty (Gwatkin, Studies in Arianism, V, note G, where the original authorities are ably discussed). The Semi-Arians were in a large majority; and Acacius had a well-disciplined following, which, with the Anomoeans whom he had won to his side, by holding out hopes of a compromise, amounted to some forty in all. The first critical stage of events was soon marked by the re-adoption of the Semi-Arian Creed of Antioch, known popularly as the “Creed of the Encaenia,” or “Creed of the Dedication” (he en tois egkainiois) which was a negatively unsatisfactory profession of faith—the only distinct character about it being that it was Anti-Nicene in scope and had been framed by men who had deliberately confirmed the deposition of St. Athanasius. The next stage of events was more significant still; for it gave Acacius and his followers the opportunity to reveal their strength. Silvanus of Tarsus proposed to confirm the famous Lucianic Creed, when Acacius and his party arose and left the assembly, by way of protest. In spite of this move the Creed was signed the next morning with closed doors; a proceeding which Acacius promptly characterized as a “deed of darkness.” On Wednesday Basil of Ancyra and Macedonius of Constantinople arrived with Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Eustathius. Cyril was already under censure; and Acacius refused to bring his followers back to the synod until he and some other accused bishops who were present had withdrawn. After a stormy debate his plan was agreed to and Leonas, the Comes, or representative of Constantius at the deliberation, rose and read a copy of a new Creed which Acacius had put into his hands. While not expressly repudiating the Lucianic formulas, it nevertheless objected to the terms homoousion and homoiousion as being alike unscriptural. This led to a very heated discussion, and on Thursday Acacius found himself bluntly attacked by Eleusius, the ex-soldier and Semi-Arian Bishop of Cyzicus.

On Friday Acacius refused once more to take part in any further deliberations and Leonas joined with him, on the plea, as he averred, that the Emperor had not sent him to preside over a council of bishops who could not agree among themselves. The majority thereupon convened without them and deposed Acacius and some fifteen other prelates. That astute leader, however, did not wait for the formal vote of deposition against him, but set out immediately, with eight others, for Constantinople. On arriving there he discovered that his object had already been secured by the advent of a number of disaffected deputies from Ariminum. The famous conference of Niké (near Hadrianople) had taken place and the homoios, without the supposed safeguard of the kata panta, had been adopted. This led to a fresh synod held at the suggestion of Constantius in the imperial city itself. It meant the complete triumph of the indefatigable Acacius. Homoean ideas were established at Constantinople; and, although their influence never lasted very long in the West, they enjoyed a fluctuating but disquieting supremacy in the East for nearly twenty years longer. Acacius returned to his see in 361 and spent the next two years of his life in filling the vacant sees of Palestine with men who were thought to sympathize with his policy of theological vagueness and Anti-Nicenism. With characteristic adroitness he consented to a complete change of front and made a public profession of adherence to the Nicaean formularies on the accession of Jovian in 363. When the Arian Valens was proclaimed Augustus in 364, however, Acacius once more reconsidered his views and took sides with Eudoxius; but his versatility this time served him to little purpose. When the Macedonian bishops met at Lampsacus, the sentence previously passed against him was confirmed and he is heard of no more in authentic history. Baronius gives the date of his death as 366.

For bibliography see ACACIANS.

CORNELIUS CLIFFORD

Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople

Patriarch of Constantinople; Schismatic; d. 489. When Acacius first appears in authentic history it is as the orphanotrophos, or dignitary entrusted with the care of the orphans, in the Church of Constantinople. He thus filled an ecclesiastical post that conferred upon its possessor high rank as well as curial influence; and, if we may borrow a hint as to his real character from the phrases in which Suidas has attempted to describe his undoubtedly striking personality, he early made the most of his opportunities. He seems to have affected an engaging magnificence of manner; was openhanded; suave, yet noble, in demeanour; courtly in speech, and fond of a certain ecclesiastical display. On the death of the Patriarch Gennadius, in 471, he was chosen to succeed him, and for the first five or six years of his episcopate his life was uneventful enough. But there came a change when the usurping Emperor Basiliscus allowed himself to be won over to Eutychian teaching by Timotheus Ælurus, the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria, who chanced at that time to be a guest in the imperial capital. Timotheus, who had been recalled from exile only a short time previously, was bent on creating an effective opposition to the decrees of Chalcedon; and he succeeded so well at court that Basiliscus was induced to put forth an encyclical or imperial proclamation (egkyklios) in which the teaching of the Council was rejected. Acacius himself seems to have hesitated at first about adding his name to the list of the Asiatic bishops who had already signed the encyclical; but, warned by a letter from Pope Simplicius, who had learned of his questionable attitude from the ever-vigilant monastic party, he reconsidered his position and threw himself violently into the debate. This sudden change of front redeemed him in popular estimation, and he won the regard of the orthodox, particularly among the various monastic communities throughout the East, by his now ostentatious concern for sound doctrine. The fame of his awakened zeal even travelled to the West, and Pope Simplicius wrote him a letter of commendation. The chief circumstance to which he owed this sudden wave of popularity was the adroitness with which he succeeded in putting himself at the head of the particular movement of which Daniel the Stylite was both the coryphaeus and the true inspirer. The agitation was, of course, a spontaneous one on the part of its monastic promoters and of the populace at large, who sincerely detested Eutychian theories of the Incarnation; but it may be doubted whether Acacius, either in orthodox opposition now, or in unorthodox efforts at compromise later on, was anything profounder than a politician seeking to compass his own personal ends. Of theological principles he seems never to have had a consistent grasp. He had the soul of a gamester, and he played only for influence. Basiliscus was beaten.

He withdrew his offensive encyclical by a counter-proclamation, but his surrender did not save him. His rival Zeno, who had been a fugitive up to the time of the Acacian opposition, drew near the capital. Basiliscus, deserted on all sides, sought sanctuary in the cathedral church and was given up to his enemies, tradition says, by the time-serving Patriarch. For a brief space there was complete accord between Acacius, the Roman Pontiff, and the dominant party of Zeno, on the necessity for taking stringent methods to enforce the authority of the Fathers of Chalcedon; but trouble broke out once more when the Monophysite party of Alexandria attempted to force the notorious Peter Mongus into that see against the more orthodox claims of John Talaia in the year 482. This time events took on a more critical aspect, for they gave Acacius the opportunity he seems to have been waiting for all along of exalting the authority of his see and claiming for it a primacy of honour and jurisdiction over the entire East, which would emancipate the bishops of the capital not only from all responsibility to the sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, but to the Roman Pontiff as well. Acacius, who had now fully ingratiated himself with Zeno, induced that emperor to take sides with Mongus. Pope Simplicius made a vehement but ineffectual protest, and Acacius replied by coming forward as the apostle of reunion for all the East. It was a specious and far-reaching scheme, but it laid bare eventually the ambitions of the Patriarch of Constantinople and revealed him, to use Cardinal Hergenröther’s illuminating phrase, as “the forerunner of Photius.”

The first effective measure which Acacius adopted in his new role was to draw up a document, or series of articles, which constituted at once both a creed and an instrument of reunion. This creed, known to students of theological history as the Henotikon, was originally directed to the irreconcilable factions in Egypt. It was a plea for reunion on a basis of reticence and compromise. And under this aspect it suggests a significant comparison with another and better known set of “articles” composed nearly eleven centuries later, when the leaders of the Anglican schism were thridding a careful way between the extremes of Roman teaching on the one side and of Lutheran and Calvinistic negations on the other. The affirmed the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (i.e. the Creed of Nicaea completed at Constantinople) as affording a common symbol or expression of faith in which all parties could unite. All other symbola or mathemata were excluded; Eutyches and Nestorius were unmistakably condemned, while the anathemas of Cyril were accepted. The teaching of Chalcedon was not so much repudiated as passed over in silence; Jesus Christ was described as the “only-begotten Son of God . . . one and not two” (homologoumen ton monogene tou theou ena tygchanein kai ou duo . . . k.t.1.) and there was no explicit reference to the two Natures. Mongus naturally accepted this accomodatingly vague teaching. Talaia refused to subscribe to it and set out for Rome, where his cause was taken up with great vigour by Pope Simplicius. The controversy dragged on under Felix II (or III) who sent two legatine bishops, Vitalis and Misenus, to Constantinople, to summon Acacius before the Roman See for trial. Never was the masterfulness of Acacius so strikingly illustrated as in the ascendancy he acquired over this luckless pair of bishops. He induced them to communicate publicly with him and sent them back stultified to Rome, where they were promptly condemned by an indignant synod which reviewed their conduct. Acacius was branded by Pope Felix as one who had sinned against the Holy Ghost and apostolic authority (Habe ergo cum his . . . portionem S. Spiritus judicio et apostolica auctoritate damnatus); and he was declared to be perpetually excommunicate—nunquamque anathematis vinculis exuendus. Another envoy, inappropriately named Tutus, was sent to carry the decree of this double excommunication to Acacius in person: and he, too, like his hapless predecessors, fell under the strange charm of the courtly prelate, who enticed him from his allegiance. Acacius refused to accept the documents brought by Tutus and showed his sense of the authority of the Roman See, and of the synod which had condemned him, by erasing the name of Pope Felix from the diptychs. Talaia equivalently gave up the fight by consenting to become Bishop of Nola, and Acacius began by a brutal policy of violence and persecution, directed chiefly against his old opponents the monks, to work with Zeno for the general adoption of the throughout the East. He thus managed to secure a political semblance of the prize for which he had worked from the beginning. He was practically the first prelate throughout Eastern Christendom until his death in 489. His schism outlived him some thirty years, and was ended only by the return of the Emperor Justin to unity, under Pope Hormisdas in 519.

MANSI, Coll. Concil., (Florence, 1742) VII, 976 1176; Epp. Simplicii, Papae, in P.L., LVIII, 4160; Epp. Felicis, Papae, ibid., 893 967; THEODORET, Hist. Eccl.; EVAGRIUS, Hist. Eccl.; SUIDAS, s. v.; TILLEMONT, Mémoires, XVI; HERGENRÖTHER, Photius, Patr. von Constant. (Ratisbon, 1867) I; MARIN, Les moines de Constantinople (Paris, 1897).

CORNELIUS CLIFFORD

St. Acacius

Bishop of Melitene in the third century. The Greeks venerate him on different days, but especially on 31 March. He lived in the time of the persecution of Decius, and although it is certain that he was cited before the tribunal of Marcian to give an account of his faith, it is not sure that he died for it. He was indeed condemned to death, but the Emperor released him from prison after he had undergone considerable suffering. He was famous both for the splendour of his doctrinal teaching and the miracles he wrought.

There was a younger Acacius, who was also Bishop of Melitene, and who was conspicuous in the Council of Ephesus, but it is not certain that he is ranked among the saints.

Acta SS., March 3.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Roman Academies

The Italian Renaissance at its apogee [from the close of the Western Schism (1418) to the middle of the sixteenth century] found two intellectual centres, Florence and Rome. Scientific, literary, and artistic culture attained in them a development as intense as it was multiform, and the earlier Roman and Florentine academies were typical examples of this variety. We shall restrict our attention to the Roman academies, beginning with a general survey of them, and adding historical and bibliographical notes concerning the more important of these associations of learned men, for the Italian “Academies” were that and not institutes for instruction. The Middle Ages did not bequeath to Rome any institutions that could be called scientific or literary academies. As a rule, there was slight inclination for such institutions. The Academy of Charlemagne and the Floral Academy at Toulouse were princely courts at which literary meetings were held. A special reason why literature did not get a stronger footing at Rome is to be found in the constant politico-religious disturbances of the Middle Ages. Owing to the oppression of the papacy under the Hohenstaufen emperors, to the struggles for ecclesiastical liberty begun by Gregory VII, to the epic conflict between Guelph and Ghibelline, to the intrusion of a French domination which gave birth to papal Avignon and the Western Schism, medieval Rome was certainly no place for learned academies. But when papal unity was restored, and the popes returned to Rome, the Renaissance was at its height, and the city welcomed and encouraged every kind of intellectual culture. At this favourable moment begins the history of the Roman academies. At Rome, as at Florence, the academies reproduced to a considerable extent the traditions of the Academy of Plato; i.e. they were centres for the cultivation of philosophy in that larger sense dear to Greek and Roman antiquity, according to which it meant the broadest kind of culture. From the earliest days of the Renaissance the Church was the highest type of such an academy and the most prolific source of culture. The neo-Platonic movement was an extremely powerful factor in the Renaissance, implying as it did, a return to classical thought and a reaction against the decadent (Aristotelean) Scholasticism of that age. At the head of this movement in the above named “capitals of thought” were two Greeks, Gemistus Plethon at Florence, and Cardinal Bessarion (d. 1472) at Rome. About 1450 the house of the latter was the centre of a flourishing Academy of Platonic philosophy and of a varied intellectual culture. His valuable library (which he bequeathed to the city of Venice) was at the disposal of the academicians, among whom were the most intellectual Italians and foreigners resident in Rome. This Platonic propaganda (directed vigorously against the “peripatetic” restoration and the anti-Platonic attacks of the neo-Aristotelean school) had an echo in a small Latin folio of Bessarion, “Against the Calumniators of Plato” (Rome, 1469). Bessarion, in the latter years of his life, retired from Rome to Ravenna, but he left behind him ardent adherents of the classic philosophy. Unfortunately, in Rome the Renaissance took on more and more of a pagan character, and fell into the hands of humanists without faith and without morals. This imparted to the academic movement a tendency to pagan humanism, one evidence of which is found in the celebrated Roman Academy of Pomponio Leto.

Giulio, the natural son of a nobleman of the Sanseverino family, born in Calabria in 1425, and known by his academic name of “Pomponius Laetus,” came to Rome, where he devoted his energies to the enthusiastic study of classical antiquity, and attracted a great number of disciples and admirers. He was a worshipper not merely of the literary and artistic form, but also of the ideas and spirit of classic paganism, and therefore a contemner of Christianity and an enemy of the Church. The initial step of his programme was the foundation of the Roman Academy in which every member assumed a classical name. Its principal members were humanists, and nearly all of them were known for their irreligious and epicurean lives, e.g. Bartolomeo Platina and Filippo Buonaccorsi. Moreover, in their audacity, these neo-Pagans compromised themselves politically, at a time when Rome was full of conspiracies fomented by the Roman barons and the neighbouring princes. Paul II (1464–71) caused Pomponio and the leaders of the Academy to be arrested on charges of irreligion, immorality, and conspiracy against the Pope. The prisoners begged so earnestly for mercy, and with such protestations of repentance, that they were pardoned. The Academy, however, collapsed (Pastor, History of the Popes, II, ii, 2). The sixteenth century saw at Rome a great increase of literary and aesthetic academies, more or less inspired by the Renaissance, all of which assumed, as was the fashion, odd and fantastic names. We learn from various sources the names of many such institutes; as a rule, they soon perished and left no trace. At the beginning of the sixteenth century came the “Accademia degl’ Intronati,” for the encouragement of theatrical representations. There were also the Academy of the “Vignaiuoli,” or “Vinegrowers” (1530), and the Academy “della Virtù” (1538), founded by Claudio Tolomei under the patronage of Cardinal Ippolito de’ Medici. These were followed by a new Academy in the “Orti” or Farnese gardens. There were also the Academies of the “Intrepidi” (1560), the “Animosi” (1576), and the “Illuminati” (1598); this last, founded by the Marchesa Isabella Aldobrandini Pallavicino. Towards the middle of the sixteenth century there were also the Academy of the “Notti Vaticane,” or “Vatican Nights,” founded by St. Charles Borromeo; an “Accademia di Diritto civile e canonico,” and another of the university scholars and students of philosophy (Accademia Eustachiana). In the seventeenth century we meet with similar academies; the “Umoristi” (1611), the “Fantastici (1625), and the “Ordinati,” founded by Cardinal Dati and Giulio Strozzi. About 1700 were founded the academies of the “Infecondi,” the “Occulti,” the “Deboli,” the “Aborigini,” the “Immobili,” the “Accademia Esquilina,” and others. As a rule these academies, all very much alike, were merely circles of friends or clients gathered around a learned man or wealthy patron, and were dedicated to literary pastimes rather than methodical study. They fitted in, nevertheless, with the general situation and were in their own way one element of the historical development. Despite their empirical and fugitive character, they helped to keep up the general esteem for literary and other studies. Cardinals, prelates, and the clergy in general were most favourable to this movement, and assisted it by patronage and collaboration.

With the seventeenth century, and while the Roman Academy, in its older form, still survived, there began a new epoch. The Academy was constituted as a public body, i.e. it was no longer confined to a small circle of friends. It set itself a fixed and permanent scope in the field of science, letters, and arts, often of a polemic or apologetic character. Naturally this higher definitive form of the new or remodelled Roman academies was closely allied with the general academic movement of Italy and of foreign countries, whose typical instance was the French Academy founded by Richelieu. It was then that academies became practical and efficacious instruments of culture, with a direct influence on public opinion; in this way, too, they claimed the special attention of the heads of the State. This was especially the case at Rome, where the papacy kept up its traditional patronage of the most varied ecclesiastical and general scholarship. In this period the first Roman academies that call for mention are the “Accademia dei Lincei” (Lynxes), founded in 1603, and the “Arcadia,” founded in 1656. Ecclesiastical academies, whose scope was fixed by the counter-Reformation, were the “Accademia Liturgica,” founded by Benedict XIV, and the “Accademia Theologica,” founded in 1695. All of these are still extant; we shall treat of them in detail farther on. After the French Revolution and the restoration to Rome of the papal government, the new conditions suggested the adoption of the “Academy” as a link between the old and the new, and as a means of invigorating ecclesiastical culture and of promoting the defence of the Church. In this way there sprang up new academies, while old ones were revived. Under Pius VII (1800–23) were founded the “Accademia di Religione Cattolica,” and the “Accademia Tiberina”; in 1835 that of the “Immacolata Concezione.” The “Accademia Liturgica” was reestablished in 1840, and in 1847 the “Accademia dei (Nuovi) Lincei.” Apart from this group we have to chronicle the appearance in 1821 of the “Accademia Filarmonica.” After the Italian occupation of Rome (1870), new Catholic academies were founded to encourage learning and apologetics; such were the “Accademia di Conferenze Storico-Giuridiche” and the “Accademia di San Tommaso,” founded by Leo XIII, to which must be added, though not called an Academy, the “Società di Conferenze di Archeologia Sacra,” founded in 1875. In 1870 the Italian government resuscitated, or better, founded anew, the “Accademia dei Lincei,” and in 1875 the “Accademia Medica.” We shall now deal in closer detail with these various academies.

ACCADEMIA DEI LINCEI AND DEI NUOVI LINCEI (1603)

The Roman prince, Federigo Cesi (1585–1630), a distinguished scholar and patron of letters, assembled in his palace (in which he had a magnificent library, a botanical garden, and a museum of antiquities) a number of scholarly persons, and with them founded (17 August, 1603) the “Accademia dei Lincei,” so called because they took for their emblem the lynx, as denoting the keenness of their study of nature. According to the usage of the time, the Academy, though dedicated to physical, mathematical, and philosophical studies, made way also for literary pursuits. This intellectual circle was worthy of high praise, for it promoted the physico-mathematical studies, then little cultivated, and offset the prevalent tendency to purely literary studies. In the end it devoted itself particularly to the study of the exact sciences, of which it became the chief academic centre in Italy. It was not until 1657 that its Tuscan rival arose in the ducal “Accademia del Cimento.” The Cesi library, to which was added that of Virginio Cesarini, became a powerful aid to scientific labours. Several of the academicians, during the lifetime and under the patronage of Cesi, prepared for publication the great unedited work of Francesco Hernandez on the natural history of Mexico (Rome, 1651). An abridgment of it in ten books by Nardo Antonio Recchi was never published. They contributed also to the issue of the posthumous botanical work of the prince “Tavole Filosofiche.” Other colleagues of Cesi, in the foundation of the Academy, were Fabio Colonna, the author of “Fitobasano” (a history of rare plants), and of other scientific works, and Francesco Stelluti, procurator-general of the Academy in 1612, author of the treatise on “Legno Fossile Minerale” (Rome, 1635) and also of some literary works. The Academy gained great renown through its famous Italian members, such as Galileo Galilei, and through such foreign members as Johann Faber of Bamberg, Marcus Velser of Augsburg, and many others. After the death of Prince Cesi, the Academy met in the house of its new and distinguished president, Cassiano dal Pozzo. But notwithstanding all his efforts the association began to decline, insomuch that after the above-mentioned publication of the works of Hernandez in 1651, the “Accademia dei Lincei” fell into oblivion. Its fame, however, had not perished, and when at the beginning of his pontificate Pius IX sought to provide an academic centre for physico-mathematical studies, he resuscitated Cesi’s society, and on 3 July, 1847, founded the “Pontificia Accademia dei Nuovi Lincei,” inaugurating it personally in the following November, and endowing it with an annual income from the pontifical treasury. Its members were divided into four classes. honorary, ordinary, corresponding, and associate; the last were young men who, on the completion of their studies, showed special aptitude for physico-mathematical sciences. The Academy was directed by a president, a secretary, an assistant secretary, a librarian-archivist, and an astronomer. Its headquarters were in the Campidoglio. Its “Proceedings” from 1847 to 1(970 fill twenty-three volumes. In 1870 some of the members withdrew from the Academy, which insisted on retaining its papal character. Desirous at the same time of a traditional connection with the past, they reassumed the original name, and thus arose the “Regia Accademia dei Lincei.” It was approved and subsidized by the Italian government in 1875, and began its career with an enlarged programme of studies, divided into two classes, the first of which includes physical, mathematical, and natural sciences, and the second, those of a moral, historical, and philological character. It publishes annually its “Proceedings,” and is located in the Corsini Palace, whose library, at the disposal of the Academy, is very rich in manuscripts, printed works, and periodicals. It numbers today about one hundred members, besides correspondents and many foreigners. Its members have published important works on the exact sciences, also in the province of philology. Among the latter are the Oriental texts and dissertations of Professor Ignazio Guidi, many of which are of great value for the ecclesiastical sciences. Since 1870 the “Pontificia Accademia dei Nuovi Lincei” has continued its labours and the publication of its annual “Proceedings” bearing upon the physico-mathematical sciences. It has quarters in the palace of the Cancelleria Apostolica, and has a cardinal-patron. On the original “Accademia dei Lincei” see the work of its historian, Giano Planco (Giovanni Bianchi di Rimini), published in the second edition of the above-described work of Fabio Colonna (II Fitobasano, Florence, 1744). The “Statuto” or constitution of the “Lincei” was published in Latin at Rome in 1624. For other information on the two academies, pontifical and royal, see their “Proceedings.”

PONTIFICIA ACCADEMIA DEGLI ARCADI (1690)

The origins of this famous literary academy were not different from those of similar societies of the same period. A number of literary dilettanti, accustomed to those occasional meetings in villas and gardens that were so pronounced a feature of social life during the eighteenth century, conceived the idea of a better organization of their literary entertainments. In this manner arose the academy to which, in accordance with contemporary taste, they gave the poetical name of “Arcadia.” The members called themselves “shepherds,” and assumed classical names. All this has been narrated more or less sarcastically by various critics and encyclopaedias, with undisguised contempt for such “pastoral follies.” In their easy contempt, however, they fail to explain how such trivial beginnings and puerile aims succeeded in giving to the “Arcadia” its great vigour and repute, even though merely relative. The true reason of its fame lies in the fact that in addition to the usual “pastoral” literature, then and thereafter the peculiar occupation of so many academies, the “Arcadia” carried out an artistic and literary programme of its own, that was then; speaking generally, both opportune and important. It was the era of triumph of that bombastic, meaningless, and paradoxical style known as the “seicentismo” from the century (1600–1700) in which it flourished, and that bore in England the name of “euphuism.” In Italy, this “seicentesco” style had ruined literature and art. It was the time when Achillini wrote a sonnet to say that the cannon of Charles V used the world for a ball, and begged fire to sweat in order properly to fuse the various metals needed for the artillery of Caesar. This detestable taste, which tended to lower not only letters and arts, but also the dignity and gravity of society, found in the “Arcadia” an organized opposition. There is no doubt that in general the “Arcadia” and “Arcadianism” often fell into the contrary extreme and, in opposition to an artificial literature, conceited and bombastic, produced another literature whose simplicity was equally artificial, and for the laboured conceits of sonnets a bomba, such as the aforementioned one of Achillini, substituted only too many in which swains and sheep bleated in unison their farfetched idylls. In spite of these extremes the attitude of the “Arcadia” was beneficial. It called for a return to the simplicity of nature. So imperative was this recall to nature that in various ways it made itself heard elsewhere in Europe. It is well known that precisely at this time in France, the art of Greuze and of Watteau, and the “pastoral” literature, heralded at once and stimulated that cult of simplicity and nature (in itself an art product) which sprang up in letters and art, and even in the court, at the time of Rousseau and Marie Antoinette. This is why the “Arcadia” endured and acquired such high repute that it counted among its members the principal literary men of the time, e.g. Menzini, Sergardi, Redi, Metastasio, Rolli, Filicaia, Guidi, Maggi, and others, some of whose names are still honoured in the history of Italian literature.The beginnings of the “Arcadia” date back to February, 1656, when it arose under the auspices of the celebrated Queen Christina of Sweden, but it did not take on its definite form and official name until after the death of its patroness (1689). The “Arcadia” chose as its emblem the pipe of Pan with its seven unequal reeds. The fourteen founders selected as first “Custode di Arcadia,” or president of the Academy, the somewhat mediocre writer, but enthusiastic votary of letters, Giovanni Mario Crescimbeni (Alfesibeo Cario), b. in Macerata, 1663, d. at Rome, 1728, author of a history of Italian poetry and of various literary works. The first solemn gathering of the “Arcadi was held on the Gianicolo, in a wood belonging to the Reformed Minorites (Franciscans), 5 October, 1690. In 1692, the meetings were transferred to the Esquiline in the gardens of Duke Orsini; in 1696, to the Farnese gardens on the Palatine. Finally, the generosity of John V, King of Portugal, one of its members, under the name of Arete Melleo, enabled the society to secure (1773) on the Gianicolo a site known as the “Bosco Parrasio.” Here they held their meetings on fine summer days, meeting for their winter séances at the “Teatro degli Arcadi,” in the Salviati Palace. While the “Arcadia” was yet on the Palatine, its “Statuto” (constitution) was drawn up. Owing to an exaggerated admiration of antiquity, ever the organic defect of this academy, this constitution (the work of Gravina) was modelled on the ancient Roman laws of the “Twelve Tables,” and was engraved on marble. Unfortunately, differences soon arose between Gravina and the president, Crescimbeni, one of those petty enmities injurious to the society. Nevertheless, “Arcadia” retained its vigour. Soon all the principal cities of Italy had imitated it, and this confirms our previous statement that, apart from its “pastorellerie,” or affected sylvan note, the Arcadian movement marked a positive advance in the reformation of literature. Noblemen, ecclesiastics, and laymen, men famous in every walk of life, held membership in it as an honour; very soon it numbered 1,300. But its very numbers were its undoing. Not a few of them were henceforth mediocre or even dull, and in this way an institution called into being for the improvement of letters became itself a menace thereto. The arrogant rococo style in art and letters had, indeed, merited the attacks made upon it by the “Arcadia,” and for this reason the latter received, directly and indirectly, a large measure of endorsement. But “Arcadianism,” with its own exaggerations and one-sidedness, soon developed into a genuine peril for literature and art. It even reflected on the public intelligence, since the mob of “Arcadia,” while pretending to simplicity and naturalness, frequently hid a great poverty of thought beneath a superficial literary air. Its principal members, moreover, often sounded the depths of bad taste. Among these may be specified one Bettinelli, notorious for his disparagement of Dante. The violence of the anti-Arcadian reaction was owing to its chief leaders, Baretti and Parini, and to the fact that, consciously or not, this reaction gave vent to the new spirit now dominant on the eve of the French Revolution. Arcadianism fell, the, last and unsuccessful tentative, literary and artistic, of the ancient regime. This explains why, in certain quarters, since the Revolution, the Arcadia, both as an academy and as a symbol, has been the object of much contempt, exaggerated at the best when it is not absolutely unjust. Nevertheless, when the first onslaught of the Revolution had lapsed, “Arcadia” strove to renew itself in accord with the spirit of the times, without sacrificing its traditional system of sylvan associations and pastoral names. The academy no longer represented a literary school, but merely a general tendency towards the classic style. Dante came to be greatly honoured by its members, and even to this day its conferences on the great poet are extremely interesting. Furthermore, the academic field was enlarged so as to include all branches of study, in consequence of which history, archaeology, etc. attracted, and continue to attract, assiduous students. The new Arcadian revival was marked by the foundation (1819) of the Giornale Arcadico, through the efforts of the distinguished scholars, Perticari, Biondi, Odescalchi, and Borghesi. Its fifth series closed in 1904. The current (sixth) series began in 1906 as a monthly magazine of science, letters, and arts. On account of its frankly Catholic character the Arcadia has provoked opposition on the part of anti-Catholic critics, who affect to belittle it in the eyes of a thoughtless public, as if even today its “shepherds” did nothing but indite madrigals to Phyllis and Chloe. Nevertheless, its scientific, literary, and artistic conferences, always given by scholars of note, are largely attended. Since 1870 there have been established four sections of philology (Oriental, Greek, Latin, and Italian), one of philosophy, and one of history. The Pope. foremost of the members, promotes its scientific and literary development. Its present location is near San Carlo al Corso, 437 Corso Umberto I. Cf. Crescimbeni, “Storia della volgar Poesia” (Rome 1698) Bk. VI, and “La Storia d’ Arcadia” (Rome, 1709). For its history in recent times see the files of the Giornale Arcadico.

PONTIFICIA ACCADEMIA TEOLOGICA

Like its sister societies at Rome, this academy was of private origin. In 1695, a number of friends gathered in the house of the priest, Raffaele Cosma Girolami, for lectures and discussions on theological matters. These meetings soon took on the character of an academy. In 1707 it was united to the Accademia Ecclesiastica. Clement XII gave it formal recognition in 1718 and assigned it a hall in the Sapienza (University of Rome), thereby making it a source of encouragement for young students of theology. The academy disposed of a fund of eighteen thousand scudi ($18,000), the income of which was devoted to prizes for the most proficient students of theology. Among the patrons were several cardinals, and the professors in the theological faculty in the University acted as censors. The successors of Clement XII continued to encourage the academy. In 1720 Clement XIII ordered that among its members twenty indigent secular priests should receive for six years from the papal treasury an annual allowance of fifty scudi and, other things being equal, should have the preference in competitive examinations. It is on these lines, substantially, that its work is carried on at present. The Academy is located in the Roman Seminary.

PONTIFICIA ACCADEMIA LITURGICA

This academy was the one result of the notable movement in liturgical studies which owed so much to the great theologian and liturgist, Benedict XIV (1745–8). Disbanded in the time of the Revolution, the Academy was reorganized by the Lazarists, under Gregory XV (1840), and received a cardinal-protector. It continues its work under the direction of the Lazarists, and holds frequent conferences in which liturgical and cognate subjects are treated from the historical and the practical point of view. It is located in the Lazarist house, and its proceedings are, since 1886, published in the Lazarist monthly known as “Ephemerides Liturgicae” (Liturgical Diary).

PONTIFICIA ACCADEMIA DI RELIGIONE CATTOLICA

The urgent need of organizing Catholic apologetics with a view to the anti-Christian polemics of the “Encyclopédie” and the Revolution gave rise to this academy. The Roman priest Giovanni Fortunato Zamboni founded it in 1801, with the avowed aim of defending the dogmatic and moral teaching of the Church. It was formally recognized by Pius VII, and succeeding popes have continued to give it their support. It holds monthly meetings for the discussion of various points in dogmatic and moral theology, in philosophy, history, etc. Its conferences are generally published in some periodical, and a special edition is printed for the Academy. A number of these dissertations have been printed, and form a collection of several volumes entitled “Dissertazioni lette nella Pontificia Accademia Romana di Religione Cattolica.” The Academy has for honorary censors a number of cardinals. The president of the Academy is also a cardinal. It includes promoters, censors, resident members, and corresponding members. It awards an annual prize for the members most assiduous at the meetings, and is located in the palace of the Cancelleria Apostolica.

PONTIFICIA ACCADEMIA TIBERINA

In 1809 the well-known archaeologist, A. Nibby, founded the short-lived “Accademia Ellenica.” In 1813 many of its members withdrew to found the “Accademia Tiberina.” One of the members, A. Coppi, drew up its first rules, according to which the Academy was to devote itself to the study of Latin and Italian literature, hold a weekly meeting, and a public session monthly. Great scientific or literary events were to be signalized by extraordinary meetings. It was also agreed that the Academy should undertake the history of Rome from Odoacer to Clement XIV, as well as the literary history from the time of that pontiff. The historiographer of the Academy was to edit its history and to collect the biographies of famous men, Romans or residents in Rome, who had died since the foundation of the “Tiberina.” For this latter purpose there was established a special “Necrologio Tiberiano.” The Academy began in 1816 the annual coinage of commemorative medals. When Leo XII ordered (1825) that all the scientific associations in Rome should be approved by the Sacred Congregation of Studies, the “Tiberina received official recognition; its field was enlarged, so as to include research in art, commerce, and especially in agriculture. Pius VII had done much for the promotion of agriculture in the States of the Church, and Leo XII was desirous of continuing the good work of his predecessor. Under Gregory XVI, in 1831, a year of grave disorders and political plottings, the Academy was closed, but it was soon reopened by the same pontiff, who desired the “Tiberina” to devote itself to general culture, science, and letters, Roman history and archaeology, and to agriculture. The meetings were to be monthly, and it was to print annual reports, or Rendiconti. The Academy was thus enabled to establish important relations with foreign scientists. Its members, resident, corresponding, and honorary, were 2,000. The “Tiberina” is at present somewhat decadent; its proceedings are no longer printed. Its last protector was Cardinal Parocchi. Like several other Roman Academies, it is located in the Palace of the Cancelleria Apostolica.

PONTIFICIA ACCADEMIA ROMANA DI ARCHEOLOGIA

A revival of archaeological study, due as much to love of art as to documentary researches in the interest of history, occurred in Rome towards the end of the seventeenth century, especially after the famous work of Antonio Bosio on the Catacombs had drawn the attention of archaeologists to a world forgotten until then. This revival culminated in an academical organization, in the time of Benedict XIV, under whose learned patronage was formed an association of students of Roman archaeology. In a quiet way this association kept up its activity until the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the renaissance of classical art due, in Italy, to Canova gave a flesh impulse to the study of antiquity. In 1816 Pius VII, on the recommendation of Cardinal Consalvi, and of Canova himself, gave official recognition to the “Accademia Romana di Archeologia” already established under the Napoleonic regime. The Academy became a most important international centre of archaeological study, the more so as there had not yet been established at Rome the various national institutes of history and archaeology. Among the illustrious foreign members and lecturers of whom the Academy could then boast may be named Niebuhr, Akerblad, Thorwaldsen, and Nibby. Popes and sovereigns wished to be inscribed among its members, or to testify in other ways to the esteem in which they held it. Among these were Frederick William IV of Prussia, Charles Albert of Sardinia, and others. Among its distinguished Italian members were Canova, Fea, Piali, and Canina. Prizes were established for the best essays on Roman antiquity, many of which were awarded to learned foreigners (Ruperti, Herzen, etc.). Among the merits of the Academy we must reckon its defence of the rights of art and history in the city of Rome, where, side by side with princely patronage, survived from the old Roman law a certain absolutism of private-property rights which often caused or perpetuated serious damages to the monuments, or inconvenience in their study. Thus, after a long conflict with the owners of hovels that backed upon the Pantheon, the Academy succeeded in obtaining from Pius IX a decree for the demolition of the houses on the left side of the Rotonda (Pantheon), and also protested efficaciously against the digging of new holes in the walls of this famous document in stone. Similarly, the Academy prevented certain profanations projected by bureaucrats or by unscrupulous engineers. When, in 1833, an attempt was made to remove the tomb of Raphael, the earnest protest of the Academy was heeded by Gregory XVI as the expression of a competent judgment. Through one of its members, Giovanni Azzurri, it advocated the restoration of the Tabularium on the Capitoline Hill. Through another member, Pietro Visconti, it succeeded in abolishing the purely commercial administration of the excavations at Ostia, and placed them on a scientific basis. For this purpose it obtained from Pius IX a decree ordaining that all excavations should be kept open, be carefully guarded, and be made accessible to students. In 1824, Campanari, a member of the Academy, proposed the establishment of an Etruscan Museum. The Academy furthered this excellent idea until it was finally realized in the Vatican by Gregory XVI. In 1858, Alibrandi advocated the use of epigraphical monuments in the study of law, and so anticipated the establishment of chairs for this special purpose in many European universities. By these and many other useful services the Academy won in a special degree the good will of the popes. Pius VIII gave it the title of “Pontifical Academy.” On the revival of archaeological studies at Rome, Gregory XVI and Pius IX took the Academy under their special protection, particularly when its guiding spirit was the immortal Giambattista De Rossi. Leo XIII awarded a gold medal for the best dissertation presented at the annual competition of the Academy, on which occasion there are always offered two subjects, one in classical and the other in Christian archaeology, either of which the competitors are free to choose. The seal of the Academy represents the ruins of a classical temple, with the motto: In apricum proferet (It will bring to light). The last revision of its constitution and bylaws was published 28 December, 1894. In 1821 was begun the publication of the “Dissertazioni della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia” which reached in 1864 its sixteenth volume. The Cardinal Camerlengo is its protector. It has a steady membership of one hundred, thirty of whom are ordinary members; the others are honorary, corresponding, and associate, members. The Academy met at first in Campidoglio; under Gregory XVI, at the University. At present its meetings are held in the palace of the Cancelleria Apostolica. See “Leggi della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia” (Rome, 1894); “Omaggio al II Congresso Internazionale di Archeologia Cristiana in Roma” (Rome, 1900); “Bullettino di Archeologia Cristiana” of Giovanni Battista De Rossi (to the end of 1894) passim; “Il Nuovo Bullettino di Archeologia Cristiana” (Rome, 1894–1906).

ACCADEMIA FILARMONICA

It was founded in 1821 for the study and practice of music. It has 200 members, and is located at 225, Piazza San Marcello.

PONTIFICIA ACCADEMIA DELLA IMMACOLATA CONCEZIONE

This academy was founded in 1835 by young students of Sant’ Apollinare (Roman Seminary) and of the Gregorian University. Among its founders Monsignor Vincenzo Anivitti deserves special mention. Its purpose was the encouragement of serious study among the youth of Rome. Hence, two-thirds of the members must be young students. Its title was assumed at a later date. It was approved in 1847 by the Sacred Congregation of Studies. The work is divided into five sections: theology; philology and history; philosophy; physics, ethics and economics. Its meetings are held weekly, and in 1873 it began to publish bimonthly reports of its proceedings under the title “Memorie per gli Atti della Pont. Accademia della Immacolata Concezione.” Twenty-one numbers were issued. Since 1875 the Academy has published many of the lectures read before its members. The most flourishing period of this academy was from 1873 to 1882. Among its most illustrious deceased members may be mentioned Father Secchi, S.J., Monsignor Balan, and Michele Stefano De Rossi. The Academy, now in its decline, is attached to the Church of the Santi Apostoli.

REGIA ACCADEMIA MEDICA

It was founded in 1875 for the study of medical and cognate sciences, has fifty ordinary members, and is located in the University.

PONTIFICIA ACCADEMIA DI CONFERENZE STORICO-GIURIDICHE

This academy was founded in 1878 to encourage among Catholics the study of history, archaeology, and jurisprudence. In 1880 it began to publish a quarterly entitled “Studi e Documenti di Storia e di Diritto,” highly esteemed for its learned articles and for its publication of important documents with apposite commentaries. After an existence of twenty-five years this review ceased to appear at the end of 1905. The president of the Academy is a cardinal, and it holds its meetings in the Roman Seminary.

PONTIFICIA ACCADEMIA ROMANA DI SAN TOMMASO DI AQUINO

When Leo XIII at the beginning of his pontificate undertook the restoration of scholastic philosophy and theology, this academy was founded (1880) for the diffusion of Thomistic doctrine. Its president is a cardinal, and its meetings are held in the Roman Seminary.

ACADEMIC SCHOOLS OF ROME

The following is a brief account of the several academic schools mentioned above. One is ecclesiastical, the others are devoted to the fine arts. Some are Roman, and others are foreign:

PONTIFICIA ACCADEMIA DEI NOBILI ECCLESIASTICI

It was founded in 1701 by Clement XI, to prepare for the diplomatic service of the Holy See a body of men trained in the juridical sciences and in other requisite branches of learning. At the time, European diplomacy was usually confided to the nobility; hence the Academy was instituted and maintained for noble ecclesiastics. However, later, it opened its doors more freely to the sons of families in some way distinguished and in comfortable circumstances. Occasionally this academy languished, especially in the first half of the nineteenth century, but since then it has recovered and has steadily improved. Of late it has become a school of higher ecclesiastical education, with an eye to a diplomatic career for its students. This, however, does not imply that all its students, or even a majority of them, are destined for that career; indeed, the school tends constantly to set aside its earlier limitation. The academic course includes ecclesiastical diplomacy, political economy, diplomatic forms (stile diplomatico), the principal foreign languages, and, in addition, a practical course (after the manner of apprenticeship) at the bureaux of various congregations for such students as wish to prepare themselves for an office in any of these bodies. As a rule, Romans are not admitted to this academy, it having been expressly designed for those who, not being Romans, would have no other opportunity to acquire such a peculiar education and training. Its students pay a monthly fee. It has a cardinal-protector and a Roman prelate for president (rector). It owns and occupies its own palace (70, Piazza della Minerva).

The Roman Academies in the service of the fine arts are the following: Regia Accademia Romana di San Luca (Accademia delle Belle Arti). This academy exhibits the evolution of the Roman corporation of artist-painters, reformed under Sixtus V (1577) by Federigo Zuccari and Girolamo Muziano. It took then the title of academy, and had for its purpose the teaching of the fine arts, the reward of artistic merit, and the preservation and illustration of the historic and artistic monuments of Rome. In respect of all these it enjoyed papal approval and encouragement. It rendered great services and counted among its members illustrious masters and pupils. In 1870 it passed under the control of the new government, and is now under the patronage of the King. It possesses a gallery of paintings and an excellent library, open to the public (44, Via Bonella).

REGIA ACCADEMIA DI SANTA CECILIA

(Accademia di Musica). Pierluigi da Palestrina and G.M. Nanini founded in 1570 a school of music that was later (1583) canonically erected into a confraternity, or congregation, by Gregory XIII. The popes encouraged this association as an ideal instrument for the dissemination of good taste and the promotion of musical science. Urban VIII decreed that no musical works should be published without the permission of the censors of this congregation, and that no school of music or of singing should be opened in any church without the written permission of its deputies. This very rigorous ordinance provoked numerous complaints from interested parties, and its restrictions were soon much neglected. In 1684 Innocent XI conceded to the congregation the right to admit even foreign members, and in 1774 women were admitted as members. Owing to the political troubles of the period, the congregation was suspended from 1799 to 1803, and again from 1809 to 1822. Among its members have been illustrious musicians. We may mention, besides the above-named founders, Carissimi; Frescobaldi, the organist; Giuseppe Tartini, violinist and author of a new system of harmony; the brothers Fede, celebrated singers; and Muzio Clementi, pianist. From 1868 John Sgambati and Ettore Finelli taught gratuitously in this academy. Since 1870 the congregation of St. Cecilia has been transformed into a Royal Academy. In 1876 the “Liceo di Musica” was added to it, with a substantial appropriation from the funds of the province and city of Rome. In 1874 the statutes of this school were remodelled. It is greatly esteemed and is much frequented (18, Via dei Greci).

ACCADEMIA DI RAFFAELE SANZIO

This is a school of modern foundation, with daily and evening courses for the study of art (504, Corso Umberto I).

There are several foreign academies of a scholastic kind. The American Academy, founded in 1896, is located in the Villa del’ Aurora (42, Via Lombardi). The Académie de France was founded by Louis XIV in 1666. This illustrious school has given many great artists to France. Its competitive prize (Prix de Rome) is very celebrated: It owns and occupies its own palace, the Villa Medici on the Pincio. The English Academy was founded in 1821, and possesses a notable library (53, B Via Margutta). The Accademia di Spagna was founded in 1881 (32, B Piazza San Pietro in Montorio). Finally, it should be noted that, as formerly, there are now in Rome various associations which are true academies and may be classed as such, though they do not bear that name.

SOCIETÁ DI CONFERENZE DI SACRA ARCHEOLOGIA

(Founded in 1875 by Giambattista De Rossi). Its name is well merited, expressing as it does the active contributions of its members. In each conference are announced or illustrated new discoveries and important studies are presented. The meetings are held monthly, from November to March and are open to the public. This excellent association has done much to popularize the study of Christian archaeology, especially the study of the Roman catacombs. Its proceedings are published annually in the “Nuovo Bulletino di Sacra Archeologia.” Its sessions are held in the palace of the Cancelleria Apostolica.

CIRCOLO GIURIDICO DI ROMA

It was founded in 1899, and offers a meeting-ground for students and professors of legal and sociological lore, and sciences, through lectures, discussions, etc. Attached to it is the “Istituto di Diritto Romano” founded in 1887 for the promotion of the study of Roman law (307, Corso Umberto I).

THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Founded in 1865 to promote among English-speaking people, through discussions and lectures (for which latter it possesses a convenient library), a broader and more general culture in all that pertains to Rome (72, Via San Nicola da Tolentino).

The general bibliography of the Roman Academies is very deficient, as is that of the greater part of the individual Academies. Besides the best guides and monographs on Rome, the following works may be consulted: JARKINS, specimen historiae Academiarum Italiae (Leipzig, 1725); GISBERTI, Storia delle Accademie d Italia (Venice, 1747); CANTU, Memorie delle Moderne Accademie d Italia, in Annali Universali di Statistica (Milan, 1841). In several of the principal French and Italian encyclopaedias there are noteworthy articles on the Arcadia, the Lincei, the Acad mie de France, etc.

U. BENIGNI

French Academy

The French Academy was founded by Cardinal de Richelieu in 1635. For several years a number of learned gentlemen, such as Godeau, de Gombeaud, Giry, Chaplain, Habert, de Serizay, and the Abbé Cerisy de Malleville, had met once a week at Conrart’s house for the purpose of discussing literary subjects. Through the Abbé de Boisrobert the existence of this society became known to Cardinal de Richelieu, who conceived the idea of making it a national institution. In 1635 the French Academy was formally established by royal letters-patent. The number of its members was fixed at forty, and statutes were drawn up which have suffered scarcely any change since that time. At the head of the Academy were three officers: a director, to preside at its meetings; a chancellor, to have the custody of its archives and the seal; a perpetual secretary, to prepare its work and keep its records. The perpetual secretary was appointed by lot for life with a salary of 6,000 francs a year. The director and the chancellor were at first appointed by lot for two months only. At present they are elected by vote for the term of three months. They are simply primi inter pares, and receive, like all the other members, an annual salary of 1,500 francs. The manner of electing members has been changed several times since 1635. At present, when an Academician dies, candidates who think themselves eligible present themselves to fill the vacancy. The new member is elected by the majority of the entire body. About a year later his public reception takes place. In the early years of the Academy all its members were Catholics. Among the distinguished men who held seats in it are the following: Corneille, Racine, Boileau, La Bruyère, d’Aguesseau, Bossuet, Fénelon, Fléchier, Mabillon, Lamoignon, Séguier, Fleury, Delille, Chateaubriand, Lamartine, de Barante, de Tocqueville, Berryer, Lacordaire, Dupanloup, de Falloux, Gratry Montalembert, Ampère, Pasteur, de Bornier, Cardinal Perraud, all of them faithful sons of the Church. Among other Catholic members of the French Academy we shall mention: Brunetière, Coppée, de Mun, Lamy, Mézières, Duc de Broglie, René Bazin, Comte d’Haussonville, and Thureau-Dangin. The entire number of members of the French Academy from 1634 to 1906 has been 500. Of these fourteen were cardinals, nine archbishops, and twenty-five bishops; three belonged to reigning families: Comte de Clermont, Lucien Bonaparte and Duc d’Aumale: one member, A. Thiers, was President of the French Republic; fifteen were prime ministers; forty-nine, ministers; thirty-six, ambassadors; twenty, dukes and peers; six, grandees of Spain; thirty-nine, knights of the orders of the King, of the Holy Ghost, or of St. Louis, eleven, Knights of the Golden Fleece; and thirty, grand cross of the Legion of Honour. Twenty-four members were elected to the French Academy before they were twenty-three years of age; twenty-three were at least seventy years of age before their reception took place; fifteen died before reaching the age of forty-five; eighteen were about ninety years old when they died and two lived to be almost centenarians.

THE DICTIONARY

The object for which the Academy was founded as set forth in its statutes, was the purification of the French language. To attain this end it proposed to compile a dictionary, a grammar, a treatise on rhetoric, and a treatise on poetics. Only the dictionary has been carried out. From 1694 to 1878 seven editions of this work were published. The office of the Academy is not to create but to register words approved by the authority of the best writers and by good society. The dictionary is prepared by six members named for life, who are assisted by the perpetual secretary. Each word is submitted by the chairman of this committee to the Academy for approval. Besides this dictionary, the French Academy, at the suggestion of Voltaire, in 1778, began an “Historical Dictionary of the French Language,” which, however, never progressed beyond the letter A. This undertaking was abandoned some twenty years ago. Every year the Academy awards a number of prizes. Previous to 1780 only two prizes were distributed. Since that period legacies and donations have provided an annual sum of more than 200,000 francs for the “Prix de Vertu,” and the literary prizes. Some prizes for prose and poetry are given after competition. The “Prix Monthyon” (for literature, 19,000 francs), the “Prix Thérouanne” (for historical works, 4,000 francs), the “Prix Marcellin Guérin” (for literary works, 5,000 francs), and the “Prix Gobert” (for French history, 10,000 francs), are the most important. The “Prix de Vertu,” of which the first was established by M. de Monthyon in 1784, are given to poor persons who have accomplished some remarkable act of charity or courage. Many of these have gone to missionaries and sisters belonging to various religious orders.

HISTORY

At first the Academicians held their sessions at the house of Conrart, then at that of S guier, after whose death Louis XIV placed a large room at their disposal, with ample provision for clerks, copyists, and servants. In 1793 the Convention suppressed the French Academy, also the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres the Academy of Sciences, the Academy of Painting and Sculpture, and the Academy of Architecture. They were reestablished in 1795, under the name of a National Institute, composed of three sections: the first comprising the sciences of physics and mathematics; the second, the moral and political sciences; the third, literature and the fine arts. From that period dates the uniform which is still worn by the members of the institute at public ceremonials and other solemn functions. It consists of a long coat, the collar and the lapels of which are embroidered in green, a cocked hat trimmed with black feathers, and adorned with a tricoloured cockade, and dress sword with a hilt of mother-of-pearl and gold. Bonaparte, after his election as First Consul, gave a new organization to the Institute, which henceforth was to be composed of four sections, the first being a section of sciences, corresponding to the former Academy of Science; the second that of French Language and Literature, corresponding to the former French Academy; the third, that of History and Ancient Literature, corresponding to the Academy of Inscriptions; and the fourth, that of Fine Arts, corresponding to the former Academy of Fine Arts. In 1806 Napoleon I granted to the Institute the College of the Four Nations. Here the Academy holds its sessions, and here are its offices and library. This building received the name of Palace of the Institute. Louis XVIII officially reestablished the name of Academy. Louis Philippe added a fifth section to the Institute under the name of Academy of Moral and Political Sciences. Since then no modifications have been made in the organization of the Institute. It therefore includes at present: (1) The French Academy; (2) The Academy of Fine Arts; (3) The Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres; (4) The Academy of Sciences; (.5) The Academy of Moral and Political Sciences. What has been the influence of the French Academy? Some critics have reproached it with a tendency to hamper and crush originality. But it is the general opinion of scholars that it has corrected the judgment, purified the taste, and formed the language of French writers. Matthew Arnold, in his essay on “The Literary Influence of the Academies,” praised it as a high court of letters and a rallying point for educated opinion. To it he ascribed the most, striking characteristics of the French language, its purity, delicacy, and flexibility.

ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS

The Academy of Fine Arts replaced, in 1795, the Academy of Painting and Sculpture founded by Louis XIV in 1648, and the Academy of Architecture founded in 1675. It was reorganized 23 January, 1803, and again 21 March, 1816. It is now composed of forty members: fourteen painters, eight sculptors, eight architects, four engravers, and six musical composers. There are, besides, ten honorary members, forty corresponding members, and ten honorary corresponding members. From among the members are chosen the Directors of the “Ecole des Beaux Arts,” and of the Villa Medici, the Art Academy of France at Rome, founded by Colbert in 1666, for young painters, sculptors, architects, and musicians who, having been chosen by competition, are sent to Italy for four years to complete their studies at the expense of the Government.

ACADEMY OF INSCRIPTIONS AND BELLE-LETTRES

In 1663, at the suggestion of Colbert, Louis XIV appointed a committee of four members of the French Academy charged with the duty of furnishing legends and inscriptions for medals. This was the origin of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres, founded in 1701. It was composed of ten honorary members, ten pensionnaires, ten associates, and ten pupils. The Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres deals with the history, geography, and antiquities of France, with Oriental, Greek, and Latin antiquities, the history of science among the ancients, and comparative philology.

ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

The Academy of Sciences was founded in 1666, at the suggestion of Colbert. At first it dealt only with geometry, astronomy, mechanics, anatomy, chemistry, and botany. At present it numbers sixty-six members, divided into eleven sections of six members each: geometry, mechanics, physics, astronomy, geography and navigation, chemistry, mineralogy, botany, agriculture, anatomy and zoology, medicine and surgery. There are, besides, two perpetual secretaries, ten honorary members, eight foreign members, eight foreign associates, and one hundred French and foreign corresponding members.

ACADEMY OF MORAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCES

The Academy of Moral and Political Sciences was founded in 1795. Suppressed by Napoleon in 1803, it was reestablished by Louis Philippe in 1832. It was then composed of thirty members divided into five sections: philosophy; morals; legislation, public law, and Jurisprudence; political economy; general and philosophic history. Another section was added in 1855: politics, administration, and finances. In 1872 the number of the members was fixed at forty, besides ten honorary members, six associates, and from thirty to forty corresponding members. Every year on 5 October, the five sections of the Institute hold a general public session, when prizes awarded by the several Academies are distributed. In 1877, the Duc d’Aumale left to the Institute of France by his will the château of Chantilly with its art collections.

HOUSSAYE, The Forum, February, 1876; VINCENT, The French Academy (Boston, 1901); FUNCK-BRENTANO, Richelieu et l’Académie (Paris, 1904); FABRE, Chapelain et nos deux premières Academies (Paris, 1890); TASTET, Histoire des guarante fauteuils de l’Académie française depuis sa fondation jusqu’-à nos jours (Paris, 1855); PELISSON-OLIVET, ed. LIVET, Histoire de l’Académie française (Paris, 1858); JEANROY-FÉLIX, Fauteuils contemporains de l’Académie française (Paris, 1900); FAGUET, Histoire de la littérature française (Paris, 1900), II; PETIT DE JULLEVILLE, Histoire de la langue et de la littérature française (Paris, 1897), IV.

JEAN LE BARS

Acadia

The precise location and extent of Acadia was a subject of constant dispute and consequent warfare between the French and English colonists of America for more than one hundred and fifty years. When Henry IV of France granted to the Sieur de Monts the territory of “La Cadie,” as it was called, it was “to cultivate, to cause to be peopled, and to search for gold and silver mines from the 46th to the 40th degree N. lat. “The Marquise de Guercheville, who purchased the claim from de Monts, fancied she owned from Florida to the St. Lawrence. Subsequently it was considered to be the present peninsula of Nova Scotia, and now is usually regarded as the small district on the south shore of the Bay of Fundy from Annapolis to the Basin of Minas. De Monts received his concession 8 November, 1603. Claims had previously been laid to the territory by Cartier’s nephews; and de la Roche, Chauvin, and de Chastes had made attempts to found a colony there; but it had all resulted in nothing. De Monts was a Calvinist, but Henry enjoined on him to teach Catholicity to the tribe of Micmacs who inhabited those regions. With de Monts, on his journey out were Champlain, who was averse to the settlement, as being too near the English; and also Pontgravé, the Baron of Poutrincourt. After wandering: about the coast of Maine, and attempting a settlement on an island which they called Sainte Croix, they entered the harbour to which Champlain gave the name of Port Royal, now Annapolis. De Monts’ charter was revoked the following year, and, on withdrawing to France, he made over Port Royal and surroundings to Poutrincourt. The colony had great difficulty to maintain itself. Mme. de Guercheville attempted the work, but, disgusted with her ill-success, ordered La Saussaye, whom she sent over, to go somewhere else. Touching at Port Royal, he found its number of colonists very inconsiderable, and, taking the two Jesuit priests Biard and Massé, who were there, he with some new settlers established the colony of St. Sauveur at what is now Bar Harbor in Maine. Hardly was the work begun when the notorious pirate Argal of Virginia descended upon it and carried off the priests and some others, intending to hang them in Virginia, bidding the rest to withdraw, as they were in what he declared to be English territory. Returning with three vessels he utterly destroyed the colony, and then sailing across to Port Royal destroyed it also. This was in 1613. Haliburton attributes this raid to the “indigestible malice” of Father Biard, but the testimony of Champlain to the contrary refutes this accusation. Poutrincourt returned to France and died in battle. His son, commonly known as Biencourt, remained with some associates, among whom was Charles de la Tour, subsequently famous in Acadian history, and lived with the Indians as coureurs de bois, waiting for better times.

As it was now considered by the English to be their territory beyond dispute, a grant of it was made in 1627 to Sir William Alexander, who, though he never established a colony there, gave the country the name, which it still retains, of Nova Scotia. Sir William also received other grants of the most extravagant extent elsewhere. Meantime, de la Tour’s father, Claude, who had left Acadia and turned traitor to his country, came over in a vessel furnished by England, having promised the government to induce his son to yield up the entire territory. This, however, the son refused to do. Both the de la Tours were Huguenots, though the younger is said to have later on become a Catholic. In virtue of the treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye, Acadia became French territory again in 1632, and Isaac de Razilly was sent over as Governor. Associated with him were his kinsman Charnisay, young de la Tour, and Denys, each controlling certain assigned portions of the country. On the death of Razilly in 1636, these three lieutenants began a fierce war for possession of the land, and later on a fourth claimant, in the person of Le Borgne, appeared, with the pretence that the territory of Charnisay had been mortgaged to him. The struggle was fought chiefly between de la Tour and Charnisay, both of whom treacherously appealed to the Puritans of Boston for assistance. This shameful strife ended in the English again entering into possession. Oliver Cromwell then ruled England, and de la Tour crossed the ocean and obtained a commission from the Protector to govern the colony, one of the stipulations being that no Catholics should be allowed to settle there. With him were associated two Englishmen, Crowne and Temple. In 1667 it was again restored to France by the treaty of Breda, and Grandfontaine, the new Governor, reported that there were only 400 souls in Acadia, more than three-fourths of whom lived in and around Port Royal; but it is probable that many had married Indians and were coureurs de bois. In 1687 the population had grown to 800. The census of 1714 gives 2,100; of 1737, 7,598; of 1747, about 12,500. After eighty years it had grown to 18,000, though there was little or no immigration. From 1671 the inhabitants began to attach themselves to the soil; agriculture was an almost universal Occupation, and where the population was remote from Port Royal and unmolested it developed into a peaceful, prosperous, and moral people. But from the time of the treaty of Breda till 1712, Port Royal had been besieged no less than five times. In 1690 it was taken and sacked by Admiral Phips, Governor de Menneval and his garrison being carried off as prisoners to Boston; but as Phips was preoccupied with his projected expedition to Qu bec, he took no steps to secure the fort and it soon fell into the hands of the French. This whole period of twenty years was one series of pillage, murder, and devastation. Finally a supreme effort was made to dislodge the French. Four expeditions were sent against Port Royal by the English, under Church, March, Wainwright, and Nicholson. On the French side were Subercase and de Saint-Castin. Nicholson finally entered Port Royal, 12 October, 1710, after a siege of nineteen days. Since then it is known as Annapolis. Finally, by the treaty of Utrecht 13 April, 1713, all Acadia was ceded to England, The French inhabitants then determined to leave the country, and their kindred at Cape Breton and Prince Edward’s Island endeavoured to have them migrate in their direction. This the English Governor opposed, although Queen Anne had commanded him to let them withdraw; but, as she died shortly afterwards, Nicholson had his way, and the Acadians took the oath of allegiance to King George, with the clause, however, that they should not be bound to take arms against the French or their Indian allies. In 1720, General Philipps, then Governor, ordered them to take the oath without reserve, or to withdraw inside of four months; whereupon they prepared to emigrate with their property, but were again prevented. Now began the plot to deport them. The purpose was not to permit them to go to Canada or elsewhere among the French, but to colonize them among the English, “in order to make them true Englishmen,” and get them to change their faith, as is evident from a letter of Craggs, the Secretary of State, to the Governor. The deportation was already settled for that spring, but it did not take place till long years afterwards. During forty years they refused to be cajoled or threatened into taking the complete oath of allegiance. They admitted only an oath of fealty, and were known as the “French Neutrals.” So loyal were they that, when in 1742 the French under Duvivier invaded Acadia, they gave him no assistance, continuing the same course of action during four successive years, even when the French troops under de Ramesay were at the walls of Annapolis, all of which is proved by State documents. In 1745–46 Governor Shirley did his utmost to make them apostatize, and proposed “to drive all Romish priests out of the Province and introduce English schools and French Protestant ministers.” In 1749 an oath without restriction was exacted by Cornwallis, but refused by the whole population, and in 1750 they asked again to quit the country. Finally, when the French made their last stand at Fort Beauséjour, north of the Bay of Fundy, the Acadians gave them no assistance, except 300 who were forced under threat of death. Beauséjour surrendered 16 June, 1755. After the fall of Beauséjour, which was due to the treachery of its French occupants, began the famous deportation of these peaceful peasants, who for forty years had been faithful to the English Government. It is the subject of Longfellow’s “Evangeline.” They were torn from their homes, in what Bancroft calls “the appalling cold of December,” and rudely thrust without money or provisions into the holds of ships; parents separated from their children, husbands from their wives, and cast everywhere along the coast from Massachusetts to Georgia, some wandering over to their compatriots in Louisiana, some to Guianas and the West Indies, and others reaching France. As to the number of victims, some writers put it as low as 8,000, others, who are very reliable, rating it at 18,000. The mortality attending this act of cruelty was very great, particularly among the children. All the farms, cattle, and houses were confiscated and handed over to the English colonists who took their place. After a while many of the Acadians wandered back to their old homes, and finally came in such numbers that on 10 September, 1855, they celebrated in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Cape Breton, and Prince Edward’s Island the centenary of their dispersion. According to Richard in his “Acadia” (II, 342), there are no fewer than 270,000 descendants of the Acadians living today; 130,000 in the Maritime Provinces, 100,000 in French Canada, and 40,000 in Louisiana.

Jesuit Relations (Cleveland, 1896 1901); ROCHEMONTEIX, Les J suites et la nouvelle France au XVII si cle; MURDOCH, History of Nova Scotia (1867); RICHARD, Acadia (1894); HALIBURTON, History of Nova Scotia (Halifax, 1862); PARKMAN, Montcalm and Wolfe (Boston, 1889, 1902).

T.J. CAMPBELL

Acanthus (see)

A titular see of Macedonia, on the Strymonic Gulf, now known as Erisso. Its inhabitants were praised by Xerxes for their zeal in his cause (Herodotus VII, cxxv). There were still extant earlier in the nineteenth century the ruins of a large curving mole built far into the sea.

Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr. (London, 1887) I, 8; LEAKE, Travels in Northern Greece (London, 1835), III, 147

Acanthus (plant)

A plant, indigenous to middle Europe, the leaf of which has served in all ages as an ornament, or for ornamentation. There are two varieties, one wild and thorny, and one with soft branches without spines. The acanthus appears for the first time in the arts in ancient Greece. It was chosen for decorative purposes because of the beauty of its leaves, as well as for its abundance on Greek soil. At first it was taken directly from nature. Greek sculpture rendered it with truthful expression, whether of the soft or the spiky variety, showing the character, texture, and model of the leaf. During the fifth century B.C. the acanthus ornament took an important place especially in architecture, and was the principal ornament of the Corinthian capital. From the conquest of Alexander in the East can be traced the transformation of the acanthus that is found in later Eastern art.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Acathistus

(Greek ἀκάθιστος; ἀ privative, καθίζω “sit”; i.e. not sitting; standing).

The title of a certain hymn (ὁ ἀκάθιστος ὕμνος) or, better, an Office in the Greek Liturgy—in honour of the Mother of God. The title is one of eminence; since, while in other similar hymns the people are permitted to sit during part of the time, this hymn is partly read, partly sung, all standing (or, perhaps, standing all night). The word is employed sometimes to indicate the day on which the hymn is said (i.e. the Saturday of the fifth week of Lent), as on that day it must be said by clergy and laity alike, “none ceasing from the divine praises,” as the long historical Lesson of the Office remarks. It is proper to note in this connection that, while the whole Office is to be said on this day, portions of it are distributed over the first four Saturdays of Lent. When recited entire, it is divided into four parts or stations, between which various Psalms and Canticles may be sung sitting. Francis Junius wrongly interpreted Acathistus as one who neither sits nor rests, but journeys with child; as for instance when the Blessed Virgin was brought by Joseph to Bethlehem. Gretser [Commentarius in Codin. Curop. (Bonn, 1839), 321] easily refutes the interpretation by citing from the Lesson in the Triodion. The origin of the feast is assigned by the Lesson to the year 626, when Constantinople, in the reign of Heraclius, was attacked by the Persians and Scythians but saved through the intervention of the Mother of God. A sudden hurricane dispersed the fleet of the enemy, casting the vessels on the shore near the great church of the Deipara (Mother of God) at Blachernae, a quarter of Constantinople near the Golden Horn. The people spent the whole night, says the Lesson, thanking her for the unexpected deliverance. “From that time, therefore, the Church, in memory of so great and so divine a miracle, desired this day to be a feast in honour of the Mother of God . . . and called it Acathistus” (Lesson). This origin is disputed by Sophocles (Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, s. v.) on the ground that the hymn could not have been composed in one day, while on the other hand its twenty-four oikoi contain no allusion to such an event and therefore could scarcely have been originally composed to commemorate it. Perhaps the kontakion, which might seem to be allusive, was originally composed for the celebration on the night of the victory. However the feast may have originated, the Lesson commemorates two other victories, under Leo the Isaurian, and Constantine Pogonatus, similarly ascribed to the intervention of the Deipara.

No certain ascription of its authorship can be made. It has been attributed to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, whose pious activities the Lesson commemorates in great detail. Quercius (P.G., XCII, 1333 sqq.) assigns it to Georgios Pisides, deacon, archivist, and sacristan of Saint-Sophia whose poems find an echo both in style and in theme in the Acathistus; the elegance, antithetic and balanced style, the vividness of the narrative, the flowers of poetic imagery being all very suggestive of his work. His position as sacristan would naturally suggest such a tribute to Our Lady, as the hymn only gives more elaborately the sentiments condensed into two epigrams of Pisides found in her church at Blachernae. Quercius also argues that words, phrases, and sentences of the hymn are to be found in the poetry of Pisides. Leclercq (in Cabrol, Dict. d’archéol. chrét. et de liturgie, s.v. “Acathistus”) finds nothing absolutely demonstrative in such a comparison and offers a suggestion which may possibly help to a solution of the problem.

In addition to several Latin versions, it has been translated into Italian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Arabic, German, and Russian. Its very great length precludes anything more than the briefest summary here. It is prefaced by a troparion, followed by a kontakion (a short hymnodal summary of the character of the feast), which is repeated at intervals throughout the hymn. As this kontakion is the only part of the hymn which may clearly refer to the victory commemorated, and may have been the only original text (with repetitions interspersed with psalms, hymns, etc., already well known to the populace) composed for the night-celebration, it is translated here:

To thee, O Mother of God, unconquered Empress, do I, thy City freed from evils, offer thanks for the victories achieved; but do thou, by thy invincible power, deliver me from every kind of danger; that I may cry to thee, Hail, maiden Spouse!

The Hymn proper comprises twenty-four oikoi (a word which Gretser interprets as referring to various churches or temples; but the Triodion itself indicates its meaning in the rubric, “The first six oikoi are read, and we stand during their reading”—oikos thus clearly referring to a division of the hymn) or stanzas (which may fairly translate the word—stanza, like oikos, having an architectural value). These oikoi are alternately longer and shorter, and their initial letters form a Greek abecedary. The last (a shorter) one, beginning with the letter omega, reads:

O Mother, worthy of all hymn-tributes, who didst bring forth the Word, Most Holy of all the holy, accept the present offering, deliver all from every evil, and save from future suffering all who cry to thee. Alleluia.

This Alleluia follows each one of the shorter stanzas. The longer ones begin with a sentence of about the same length, which skilfully leads up to a series of salutations beginning with “Hail.” All of these longer stanzas, except the first (which has fourteen) comprise thirteen such sentences, including the last, which, as a sort of refrain, is always “Hail, maiden Spouse!” The first stanza narrates the mission of Gabriel to Mary; and his astonishment at the condescension of the Almighty is so great that he bursts forth into:

Hail, through whom joy shall shine forth!

Hail, through whom evil shall end!

Hail, restorer of fallen Adam!

Hail, redemption of Eve’s tears!

etc. The second stanza gives the questioning of Mary; the third continues it and gives the answer of Gabriel; the fourth narrates the Incarnation; the fifth the visit to Elizabeth, with a series of “Hails” prettily conceived as being translations into words of the joyful leapings of the Baptist; the sixth, Joseph’s trouble of mind; the seventh, the coming of the shepherds, who begin their “Hail” very appropriately:

Hail, Mother of the Lamb and of the Shepherd!

Hail, Sheepfold of rational sheep!

In the ninth stanza the Magi, startled, cry out in joy:

Hail, Mother of the unwestering Star!

Hail, Splendour of the mystic Day!

In the tenth the Magi return home to announce Alleluia; the eleventh has appropriate allusions to the Flight into Egypt:

Hail, Sea that didst overwhelm the wise Pharaoh!

Hail, Rock that gavest life to the thirsty!

—with other references to the cloud, the pillar of fire, the manna, etc. The twelfth and thirteenth deal with Simeon; the fourteenth and twenty-second are more general in character; the twenty-third perhaps consciously borrows imagery from the Blachernian Church of the Deipara and perhaps also alludes distantly to the victory (or to the three victories) commemorated in the Lesson:

Hail, Tabernacle of God and the Word!

Hail, unshaken Tower of the Church!

Hail, inexpugnable Wall!

Hail, through whom trophies are lifted up!

Hail, through whom enemies fall down!

Hail, healing of my body!

Hail, safety of my soul!

P.G., XCII, has the works of Pisides and the Acathistus with much comment; SOPHOCLES, Greek Lexicon, etc., has an interesting note; LECLERCQ, in Dict. d’archæol. chrét. et de lit., gives an extensive bibliography.

H.T. HENRY

St. Acca

Bishop of Hexham, and patron of learning (c. 660–742). Acca was a Northumbrian by birth and began life in the household of a certain Bosa, who afterwards became Bishop of York. After a few years, however, Acca attached himself to St. Wilfrid and remained his devoted disciple and companion in all his troubles. He may have joined Wilfrid as early as 678, and he certainly was with him at the time of his second journey to Rome in 692. On their return to England, when Wilfrid was reinstated at Hexham, he made Acca abbot of St. Andrew’s monastery there; and after Wilfrid’s death (709) Acca succeeded him as bishop. The work of completing and adorning the churches left unfinished by St. Wilfrid was energetically carried on by his successor. In ruling the diocese and in conducting the services of the Church, Acca was equally zealous. He brought to the North a famous cantor named Maban, who had learned in Kent the Roman traditions of psalmody handed down from St. Gregory the Great through St. Augustine. He was famed also for his theological learning, and for his encouragement of students by every means in his power. It was at Acca’s instigation that Eddius undertook the Life of St. Wilfrid, and above all, it was to the same kind friend and patron that Bede dedicated several of his most important works, especially those dealing with Holy Scripture. For some unexplained reason Acca was driven from his diocese in 732. He is believed to have retired to Withern in Galloway, but he returned to Hexham before his death in 742, when he was at once revered as a Saint. Two crosses of exquisite workmanship, one of which is still preserved in a fragmentary state, were erected at the head and foot of his grave. When the body of the Saint was translated, the vestments were found entire, and the accounts of his miracles were drawn up by St. AElred and by Simeon of Durham. Of any true liturgical cultus there is little trace, but his feast is said to have been kept on 20 October. There is also mention of 19 February, which may have been the date of some translation of his relics.

The only writing of Acca’s which we possess is a letter addressed to St. Bede and printed in his works. This document, together with much other material relating to Acca, has also been printed in RAINE’S Priory of Hexham (London, 1864), Surtees Society, 1864. Our knowledge of Acca’s life is derived primarily from BEDE, EDDIUS, SIMEON OF DURHAM, RICHARD OF DURHAM, and AELRED. Adequate accounts may be also found in STANTON’S English Menology (London, 1892), 507; Dict. of Nat. Biog,; Dict. of Christ. Biog. For some archaeological sidelights, cf. BROWNE (Anglican Bishop), Theodore and Wilfrith (London, 1897).

HERBERT THURSTON.

Accaron

(Ekron).

The most northern of the five principal Philistine cities (Jos. xiii, 3; xv, 11, 46). We do not know whether it was founded by the Philistines or the Hevites. It was first given to the tribe of Juda (Jos., xv, 11, 45) and then to Dan (Jos., xix, 43). Juda conquered it for a time (Judg., i, 18), but it fell again into the hands of the Philistines, who brought here the captive ark of the covenant after it had passed through Azotus and Geth (I K., v, 10). It came near being reconquered by Israel after the defeat of Goliath (I K., vii, 14). The city possessed a famous sanctuary of Beelzebub (IV Ii., i, 2, 3, 6 16), and was often denounced by the prophets (Jer., xxv, 20; Am., i, 8; Soph., ii, 4; Zach., ix, 5). King Alexander Bales gave the city to Jonathan Machabeus (I Mach., x, 89). Robinson identified it with the village Akir, a station on the railway from Jaffa to Jerusalem.

HAGEN, Lexicon Biblicum (Paris, 1905); GUERIN in Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1895).

A.J. MAAS

Accentus Ecclesiasticus

The counterpart of concentus. In the ancient Church music all that portion of the liturgical song which was performed by the entire choir, or by sections of it, say two or three singers, was called concentus. Thus hymns, psalms, and alleluias were, generally speaking, included under the term concentus. On the other hand. such parts of the liturgy as the priest, or the deacon, or subdeacon, or the acolyte sang alone were called accentus; such were the Collects, the Epistle and Gospel, the Preface, in short anything which was recited chiefly on one tone, rather than sung, by the priest or one of his assistants. The accentus should never be accompanied by harmonies, whether of voices or of instruments, although the concentus may receive an accompaniment. The words Gloria in excelsis Deo and Credo in Unum Deum, being assigned to the celebrant, should not be repeated by the choir or accompanied by the organ or other musical instrument.

J.A. VÖLKER

Acceptance

Acceptance, in canon law, the act by which one receives a thing with approbation or satisfaction. The collation of a benefice is not complete till it has been accepted by him on whom it has been conferred. Acceptance is the link between the benefice and the benefited. It is therefore necessary to accept the benefice, to have jus in re; till the acceptance, there is at most a jus ad rem. (See RIGHT.) Acceptance is needed for the validity of an election. If the person chosen be absent, a specified time may be given for acceptance, and a further time may be allowed to obtain the confirmation of the election to an office.

Acceptance is of the essence of a gift, which, in law, means a gratuitous transfer of property. Delivery of personal property with words of gift suffices; if delivery is not made, a deed or writing under seal should be executed and delivered. For the transfer of real property, a deed is generally necessary. In all cases acceptance is necessary to make the transfer binding in law. Acceptance of a law is not necessary to impose the obligation of submission. Even in a democracy, where the organized people may, or should, take part in the preparation and making of the laws, it may not refuse to accept and to obey the laws when made and promulgated. Otherwise the legislative authority would be a mockery, and all governmental power would vanish. We are not now posing the question whether an unjust law is binding; nor are we discussing how far either custom or desuetude may take away the binding force of a law; both may imply the assent of the lawmaking power. Acceptance by the faithful is not required for the binding force of ecclesiastical laws. The Apostles received from Christ the power of binding and loosing, and the hierarchy (i.e. the Pope, bishops and other prelates) have inherited this power, as has always been recognized in the Church. In the Catholic Church the lawmaking power established by Christ will ever have the authority to make laws previous to, and independent of, the acceptance of the faithful. If bishops or other prelates should enact a law contrary to the canons, there is the remedy or an appeal to the highest authority of the Church for its annulment. Wyclif attacked this authority when he proclaimed, in the fifteenth thesis condemned by the Council of Constance and Martin V, that “no one was a temporal prince, or prelate, or bishop, who was in mortal sin.” Huss (ibid., Prop. 30) declared that “ecclesiastical obedience was an invention of the priests of the Church, and outside the authority of Scripture.” Luther, in the proposition condemned (1521) by the University of Paris, taught that neither pope nor bishop nor any one among men has the right to impose on a Christian a single syllable without his full acceptance; anything otherwise done is in the spirit of tyranny. The Jansenists favoured the theory that the authority of the bishops and Pope was representative of the will of the whole body of the Church; hence Clement Xl, in 1713, condemned the 90th proposition of Quesnel: “The Church has the power to excommunicate, to be used by the chief pastor, with the (at least presumed) consent of the whole body.” Against a natural or divine law, no custom or desuetude can avail for the cessation of obligation. From a merely ecclesiastical law either custom or desuetude may withdraw the obligation, wherever they may properly imply the assent of the lawmaking power in the Church. (See LAW, CUSTOM.)

D’AVINO, Enc. dell’ Ecclesiastico (Turin, 1878); ANDRE-WAGNER, Dict. de droit can. (3d ed., Paris, 1901); DIDIOT in Dict. de theol. cath. (Paris, 1903), s.v.

R.L. BURTSELL

Acceptants

Those Jansenists who accepted without any reserve or mental restriction the Bull Unigenitus, issued in 1713 against the Jansenist doctrines as set forth in the Réflexions morales sur le Nouveau Testament of the Oratorian, Pasquier Quesnel. As is well known, the error of Jansenius gave rise to two conflicts in the Church: the first, early in the second half of the seventeenth century, centred about his book Augustinus, and ceased with the Pax Clementina, also called the paix fourrée or False Peace (1669); the second, which began with the eighteenth century, was waged around the above-mentioned work of Quesnel. The peace too hastily granted by Clement IX was favourable to Jansenism. The doctrine took deep root in the French Parliaments and affected several religious orders, Benedictines, Fathers of Christian Doctrine, Genevievans, and especially Oratorians. Attention was called to the spread of the heresy by the success of the Réflexions morales. This work, published as a small volume in 1671 with the approval of Vialart, Bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne, had been steadily enlarged in succeeding editions until, in 1693, it numbered four compact volumes bearing always the approbation of Vialart, who died in 1680. De Noailles, the new Bishop of Châlons, sanctioned the work in 1695, but the following year, as Archbishop of Paris, he condemned it. The edition of 1699 was published without the changes demanded by Bossuet, without the preface which he composed for it, and without the approval of the diocesan bishop. The following year (2 July, 1700) the anonymous work Problème ecclésiastique, etc., and the controversies to which it gave rise, again drew attention to the peril of Jansenism. At the Assembly of the French Clergy, in the same year, Bossuet brought about the condemnation of four Jansenist propositions and of 127 others of lax morality. After the death of Bossuet (1704), Fénelon led the contest against Jansenism and especially against the distinction between “fact” and “right” (fait et droit). Finally, at the request of Louis XIV, and following the example of his predecessors, Clement XI condemned in the Bull Vineam Domini (175) the Jansenist evasion known as silentium obsequiosum, or respectful silence, and proscribed (1708) the Réflexions morales. Shortly afterwards, the King caused the Jansenist establishment of Port-Royal to be demolished (1710). Jansenism, however, had not yet been overthrown. Louis XIV then urged the Pope (November, 1711) to publish another Bull, and promised to have it accepted with due respect by the French bishops. On this assurance Clement XI established a special congregation to draw up the new constitution. After eighteen months of careful study, the famous Bull Unigenitus, destined soon to provoke an outburst of wrath on the part of the Jansenists, was promulgated in Rome (8 September, 1713). In it the Pope condemned 101 propositions from Quesnel’s book as “false, misleading, scandalous, suspected and savouring of heresy, bordering upon heresy, frequently condemned; what is more, as being heretical and reviving various propositions of Jansenius, in the very sense for which they were first proscribed.” Noailles at first submitted, but later, in an assembly of forty-nine bishops, who met at the instance of Fénelon in the archiepiscopal palace in Paris, he recalled his submission and with eight of his colleagues ranged himself among the appelants. The forty others voted to accept. The Parliament of Paris registered the Bull (15 February, 1714), and the Sorbonne did the same, albeit under pressure of royal authority. The French Episcopate, with the exception of twenty hesitating or stubborn members, submitted forthwith. To make an end of the matter, Louis XIV, at Fénelon’s suggestion, conceived the idea of holding a national council as a means of restoring unity; but his death prevented this and deferred the hour of final pacification.

The Regent, Philip of Orléans, a man without religious or moral convictions, a “vicious braggart,” as Louis XIV styled him} attempted to hold the balance between the two parties. The Jansenists profited by his neutrality. Noailles was put at the head of a “conseil de conscience pour les affaires ecclésiastiques,” and four doctors of the Sorbonne who had been exiled because of their violent opposition to the Bull were recalled. The Sorbonne, which had accepted the Bull Unigenitus by a mere majority, now cancelled its acceptance (1716). The Pope through a Brief punished the Sorbonne by depriving it of all its privileges. The Parliament of Paris sided with the Faculty and suppressed the Brief, while the Sorbonne itself contested the right of the Sovereign Pontiff to withdraw lawfully granted privileges. The following year four bishops, Soanen of Senez, Colbert of Montpellier, de la Broue of Mirepoix, and de Langle of Boulogne, appealed from the Bull Unigenitus to a future general council. Their example was followed by sixteen bishops, ninety- seven doctors of the Sorbonne, a number of cures of Paris, Oratorians, Genevievans, Benedictines of Saint-Maur, Dominicans, members of female religious orders, and even lay people. This movement extended to the provinces, but not to the universities, all of which, with the exception of Nantes and Reims, supported the Papal Bull. Of the 100,000 priests then in France, hardly 3,000 were among the appelants, and 700 of these were in Paris. The great majority voted for acceptance and counted on their side more than 100 bishops. The appelants had only 20 bishops. Clement XI knew that he must act vigorously. He had used every means of persuasion and had written to the Archbishop of Paris beseeching him to set the example of submission. He even consented to a delay. But the opposition was unyielding. It was then that the Pope published the Bull Pastoralis Officii (28 August, 1718), in which he pronounced excommunication upon all who opposed the Bull Unigenitus. The same year, 2 October, Noailles and his party appealed from this second Bull, and the Faculties of the University of Paris, headed by the famous Rollin, endorsed the appeal. The Regent thought it time to intervene. He was indifferent to the question of doctrine, but was politic enough to see that censorious people like the appelants were no less dangerous to the State than to the Church. Moreover, his old teacher, the Abbé Dubois, now his Prime Minister, with an eye perhaps to the cardinal’s hat, was in favour of peace. He caused to be composed a Corps de Doctrine (1720) explaining the Bull Unigenitus, and about one hundred prelates gave their adhesion to it. Noailles then accepted the Bull (19 November, 1720), “following the explanations which have been approved of by a great number of French bishops.” This ambiguous and uncertain submission did not satisfy Clement XI; he died, however, without having obtained anything more definite.

Louis XV and his aged minister, the Cardinal de Fleury, opposed the sect with vigour. Authorized by them, De Tencin, Archbishop of Embrun, convoked a provincial council (1727) to examine Soanen, the aged Bishop of Senez, who in a pastoral instruction had gone to extremes. Many bishops took part in this council, notably De Belzunce, famous for the zeal he displayed during the plague of Marseilles. Although supported by twelve bishops and fifty advocates, Soanen was suspended and sent to the monastery of Chaise-Dieu where he died, insubordinate, at the age of ninety-three. After numerous evasions, ending in submission, Noailles died in 1729. The only appelants left were the Bishops Colbert of Montpellier, Caylus of Auxerre, and Bossuet of Troyes, a nephew of the great Bishop of Meaux. At the same time 700 doctors of the Sorbonne, of whom thirty-nine were bishops, ratified the earlier (1714) acceptance of the Bull Unigenitus. It was a triumph for the acceptants, that is to say, for the authority of the Pope and of the Church.

LAFITAU, Histoire de la Constitution Unigenitus (Avignon, 1757); SAINT-SIMON, Memoires (prejudiced and untrustworthy); JAGER, Hist. de l’Eglise catholique en France (1862–68); SCHILL, Die Konstitution Unigenitus (Freiburg, 1876); BOWER, History of the Roman Popes, XC, 233 sqq.; BARTHELEMY, Le Cardinal de Noailles (Paris, 1888); LE ROY, La France et Rome de 1700 a 1715 (Paris, 1892); DE CROUSAZ-CASTET, L’Eglise et l’Etat au XVIIIe siecle (Paris 1893); THUILIER, La seconde phase du Jansenisme (Paris 1901), BLIARD, Dubois, cardinal et ministre (Paris, 1902); THENON, L’Eglise au XVIIIe siecle, in LAVISSE AND RAMBAUD, L’Histoire de France (Paris, 1893 97); DE LACOMBE, L’opposition religieuse au debut du XVIIIe siecle, in Le Correspondant, 10 April, 1904.

A. FOURNET

Accession

(From Lat. accedere, to go to; hence, to be added to).

Accession is a method of acquiring ownership of a thing arising from the fact that it is in some way added to, or is the fruit of something already belonging to oneself. This may happen in three ways: (1) naturally; (2) artificially; (3) from the combined operation of nature and industry.

(1) Natural

The increase of an animal, the yield of fields, the rent of a house, etc., belong to the owner of the animal fields, and house, respectively. Thus, the offspring of a female animal is the property of her owner, even though it be the result of intercourse with a male belonging to someone else. The axiom applies in the case that partus sequitur ventrem. The Louisiana Code, in accordance with the Roman law, provided that the issue of slaves though born during the temporary use or hiring of their mothers, belonged not to the hirer but to the permanent owner. But the offspring of a slave born during a tenancy for life belonged to the tenant for life. In the same division is the species of accession due to alluvion. This is an addition to one’s land made by the action of water, as by the current of a river. If this increase is gradual and imperceptible, the augmentation belongs to the owner of the land. If it has been sudden and in large quantity, by the common law it belongs to the State.

(2) Artificial

This sort occurs (a) by specification, when one’s labour or artistic talent is employed upon materials owned by another, so that a new substance or thing is produced. Where this is done in good faith, the product belongs to the artist or labourer with the obligation on his part of indemnifying the owner of the materials. (b) By adjunction, when one’s labour and material have been so united with the property of another that they cannot be separated. The resultant then belongs to him who has contributed the more important component. (c) By blending, when materials of equal value appertaining to different owners, are mixed together. The thing or its price is then to be divided according to natural equity between the original possessors, if the mixture has been made in good faith; otherwise the weight of law is thrown in his favour whose right has been violated.

(3) Mixed

An example of the third kind of accession is the building of a house on another’s ground, or the planting of trees or sowing of vegetables in another s field. The house, trees, etc., belong to the master of the soil after making suitable compensation to the builder, planter, etc.

BOUVIER, Law Dictionary; SABETTI, Theol. Moralis.

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Accessus

A term applied to the voting in conclave for the election of a pope, by which a cardinal changes his vote and accedes to some other candidate. When the votes of the cardinals have been counted after the first balloting and the two-thirds majority has fallen to none of those voted for, at the following vote opportunity is granted for a cardinal to change his vote, by writing, Accedo domino Cardinali, mentioning some one of those who have been voted for, but not the cardinal for whom he has already voted. If he should not wish to change his vote, the cardinal can vote Nemini, i.e. for no one. If these supplementary votes of accession, added to those a candidate has received, equal two-thirds of the total vote, then there is an election. If not, the ballots are burned, and the usual ballot takes place the next day. (See CONCLAVE.)

LUCIUS LECTOR, Le Conclave, origine, histoire, etc. (Paris, 1894); LAURENTIUS, inst. Jur. Eccl. (Freiburg, 1905) n. 126.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Acciajuoli

Name of three cardinals belonging to an illustrious Florentine family of this name.

ANGELO, noted for his learning, experience, and integrity, b. 1349; d. at Pisa, 31 May, 1408. He was made Archbishop of Florence in 1383, and Cardinal in 1385 by Pope Urban VI. He resisted all endeavours that were made to bring him over to the antipope, Clement VII, and defended by word and deed the regularity of the election of Urban VI. After this Pope’s death, half the votes in the succeeding conclave were for Acciajuoli; but to end the schism, he directed the election towards Boniface IX. The new Pope made him Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, and sent him to Germany, Slavonia, and Bulgaria to settle difficulties there. He afterwards became Governor of Naples, and guardian of the young King Ladislaus, whom he brought to Naples, and some time later accompanied on his march into Hungary. On his return he reconciled the Pope with the Orsini, and reformed the Benedictine monastery of St. Paul in Rome. He died on his way to Pisa, and was buried in Florence, at the Certosa, a monastic foundation of his family.

NICCOLÒ, b. at Florence, 1630; d. in Rome, 23 February, 1719, as Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, in his eighty-ninth year.

FILIPPO, b. in Rome, 12 March, 1700. He was nuncio in Portugal, but was expelled with military force by Pombal (August, 1760) because of his interference in behalf of the Jesuits. Clement XIII made him Cardinal in 1759; he died at Ancona, as Bishop of that see, 4 July, 1766 (Duhr, Pombal, 1891, 121 sqq.).

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Accident

[Latin accidere, to happen what happens to be in a subject; any contingent, or nonessential attribute].

I. The obvious division of things into the stable and the unstable, the more or less independently subsistent and the dependent, or essentially inherent, appears beset with obscurity and difficulty as soon as it is brought under reflective consideration. In their endeavour to solve the problem, philosophers have followed two extreme tendencies. Some have denied the objectivity of the substantial or noumenal element, and attributed it wholly or in part to the mind; others have made the phenomenal or accidental element subjective, and accorded objectivity to substance alone. These two extreme tendencies are represented among the ancient Greek materialists and atomists on the one hand and the Eleatic pantheists on the other. Aristotle and his medieval followers steer a middle course. They hold to the objectivity both of substance and of accident, though they recognize the subjective factor in the mode of perception. They use the term accident to designate any contingent (i.e. nonessential) relation between an attribute and its subject. As such it is a merely logical denomination, one of the five predicables or universals, modes of systematic classification genus, difference, species, property, accident. In this sense it is called predicable, as distinguished from predicamental, accident, the latter term standing for a real objective form or status of things, and denoting a being whose essential nature it is to inhere in another as in a subject. Accident thus implies inexistence in substance i.e. not as the contained in the container, not as part in the whole, not as a being in time or place, not as effect in cause, not as the known in the knower; but as an inherent entity or mode in a subject which it determines. Accidents modify or denominate their subject in various ways, and to these correspond the nine “Categories”:

quantity, in virtue whereof material substance has integrant, positional parts, divisibility, location, impenetrability, etc.;

quality, which modifies substance immediately and intrinsically, either statically or dynamically, and includes such inherents of substance as habit, faculty, sense-stimuli, and figure or shape;

relation, the bearing of one substance on another (e.g. paternity).

These three groups are called intrinsic accidents, to distinguish them from the remaining six groups—action, passion, location, duration, position, habiliment—which, as their names sufficiently suggest, are simply extrinsic denominations accruing to a substance because of its bearings on some other substance. Quantity and quality, and, in a restricted sense. relation are said to be absolute accidents, because they are held to superadd some special form of being to the substance wherein they reside. For this reason a real, and not a merely conceptual, distinction between them and their subject is maintained. Arguments for the physical reality of this distinction are drawn from experience

internal-consciousness attesting that the permanent, substantial self is subject to constantly-shifting accidental states—and

external experience, which witnesses to a like permanence of things beneath the incessantly varying phenomena of nature.

The supernatural order also furnishes an argument in the theology of the infused virtues which are habits supervening on, and hence really distinct from, the substance of the natural mind. II. With the reaction against scholasticism, led on by Descartes, a new theory of the accident is devised, or rather the two extreme views of the Greeks referred to above are revived. Descartes, making quantity the very essence of matter, and thought the essence of spirit, denies all real distinction between substance and accident. While teaching an extreme dualism in psychology, his definition of substance, as independent being, gave occasion to Spinoza’s monism, and accidents became still more deeply buried in substance. On the other hand substance seems at last to disappear with Locke, the world is resolved into a congeries of qualities (primary, or extension, and secondary, or sensible properties). The primary qualities, however, still retain a foundation in the objective order, but with Berkeley they become entirely subjectified; only the soul is allowed a substantial element as the support of psychical accidents. This element is likewise dissolved in the philosophy of Hume and the Associationists. Kant considered accidents to be simply subjective categories of sense and intellect, forms according to which the mind apprehends and judges of things—which things are, and must remain, unknowable. Spencer retains Kant’s unknowable noumenon but admits phenomena to be its objective aspects or modifications.

III. Several other classifications of accidents are found in the pertinent treatises. It should be noted that while accidents by inhesion modify substance, they are witnesses to its nature, being the medium whereby the mind, through a process of abstraction and inference, builds its analogical concepts of the constitution of substances. From this point of view material accidents are classed as

proper sensibles—the excitants of the individual senses, colour for sight, sound for hearing, etc.—and

common sensibles—extension and its modes, size, distance, etc.—which stimulate two or more senses, especially touch and sight.

Through these two groups of accidents, and concomitantly with their perception, the underlying subject is apperceived. Substance in its concrete existence, not in its abstract essence, is said to be an accidental object of sense. IV. The modern views of accident, so far as they accord to it any objectivity, are based on the physical theory that all, at least material, phenomena (light, colour, heat, sound, etc.) are simply varying forms of motion. In part, the kinetic element in such phenomena was known to Aristotle and the Scholastics (cf. St. Thomas, De Anima, III, Lect. ii); but it is only in recent times that physical experimentation has thrown light on the correlation of material phenomena as conditioned by degrees of motion. While all Neo-Scholastic philosophers maintain that motion alone will not explain the objectivity of extension, some (e.g. Gutberlet) admit that it accounts for the sensible qualities (colour, sound, etc.). Haan (Philos. Nat.) frees the theory of motion from an extreme idealism, but holds that the theory of the real, formal objectivity of those qualities affords a more satisfactory explanation of sense-perception. The majority of Neo-Scholastic writers favour this latter view. (Pesch, Phil. Nat.)

V. The teaching of Catholic philosophy on the distinct reality of certain absolute, not purely modal, accidents was occasioned by the doctrine of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, though the arguments for the theory are deduced from natural experience. The same doctrine, however, suggests the further question, whether such accidents may not be separable from substance. Reason alone offers no positive arguments for such separability. The most it can do is to show that separability involves no inherent contradiction, and hence no absolute impossibility; the Omnipotence that endows substance with the power of supporting accidents can, it is claimed, supply some other means of support. Nor would the accidents thus separated, and supernaturally supported, lose their character as accidents, since they would still retain their essential property, i.e. natural exigence of inhesion. Of course the intrinsic possibility of such separation depends solely on the supernatural interference of God, nor may it extend to all classes of accidents. Thus, e.g., it is absolutely impossible for vital faculties, or acts, to exist outside their natural subjects, or principles. Theorists who, like the Cartesians, deny the objective, distinct entity of all accidents have been obliged to reconcile this negation with their belief in the Real Presence by maintaining that the species, or accidents, of bread and wine do not really remain in the Eucharist, but that after Consecration God produces on our senses the impressions corresponding to the natural phenomena. This theory obviously demands a seemingly unnecessary multiplication of miracles and has at present few if any serious advocates. (See EUCHARIST.)

JOHN RICKABY, General Metaphysics (New York, 1900); MIVART, On Truth (London, 1899); McCosh, First Truths (New York, 1894); MERCIER, Ontologie; NYS, Cosmologie (I.ouvain, 1903), GUTBERLET, Naturphilosophie, and Ontologie (Munster, 1894); PESCH, Philosophia Naturalis (Freiburg, 1897).

F.P. SIEGFRIED

Acclamation

(Lat. ad, to, clamare, to cry out).

IN CIVIC LIFE

The word acclamatio (in the plural, acclamationes) was used in the classical Latin of Republican Rome as a general term for any manifestation of popular feeling expressed by a shout. At weddings, funerals, triumphs, etc., these acclamations were generally limited to certain stereotyped forms. For example, when the bride was being conducted to her husband’s house the spectators cried: Io Hymen, Hymenaee, or Talasse, or Talassio. At a triumph there was a general shout of Io Triumphe. An orator who gained the approbation of his hearers was interrupted with cries of belle et festive, bene et praeclare, non potest melius, and the like where we should say “Hear, hear!” Under the Empire these acclamations took a remarkable development, more particularly in the circus and in the theatre. At the entrance of the emperor the audience rose and greeted him with shouts, which in the time of Nero were reduced to certain prescribed forms and were sung in rhythm. Moreover, like the guns of a royal salute, these cries were also prolonged and repeated for a definite and carefully recorded number of times. The same custom invaded the senate, and under the later Antonines it would seem that such collective expressions of feeling as would nowadays be incorporated in an address of congratulation or a vote of censure, then took the form of acclamations which must have been carefully drafted beforehand and were apparently shouted in chorus by the whole assembly. A long specimen of denunciatory acclamations which indeed might better be called imprecations, chanted in the Senate after the assassination of the Emperor Commodus (192), is preserved by Lampridius. The original occupies several pages; a few clauses may suffice here:

On every side are statues of the enemy (i.e. Commodus); on every side statues of the parricide; on every side statues of the gladiator. Down with the statues of this gladiator and parricide. Let the slayer of his fellow-citizens be dragged in the dust; let the statues of the gladiator be dragged at the cart’s tail.

More to our present purpose, however, are the favourable acclamations of the Senate, such as those recorded by Lampridius at the election of Alexander Severus:

“Alexander Augustus, may the gods keep thee. For thy modesty; for thy prudence; for thy guilelessness; for thy chastity. From this we understand what sort of a ruler thou wilt be. For this we welcome thee. Thou wilt make it appear that the senate chooses its rulers well. Thou wilt prove that the senate’s judgment is of the highest worth. Alexander Augustus, may the gods keep thee. Let Alexander Augustus dedicate the temples of the Antonines. Our Caesar, our Augustus, our Imperator, may the Gods keep thee. Mayest thou live, mayest thou thrive, mayest thou rule for many years.”

It is only from an examination of the few examples preserved to us that one can arrive at an understanding of the influence which this institution of acclamations shouted in unison was likely to exercise upon the early developments of the Christian liturgy. The general resemblance with certain primitive forms of litany or ektene is sufficiently striking, but the subject is obscure and we may content ourselves primarily here with the acclamations, more properly so called, which had and still have a recognized place in the ceremonial of consecration of popes, emperors, kings, bishops, etc., and those also which are recorded in the acts of certain early councils.

GROWTH OF LITURGICAL ACCLAMATIONS

It seems highly probable that the practices observed in the election of the Pagan emperors were the prototype of most of the liturgical acclamations now known to us. In the long account given by Vopiscus of the election of the Emperor Tacitus (283) we are told that when Tacitus at first declined the honour in the senate on the score of his advanced age,

these were the acclamations of the senators, ‘Trajan, too, acceded to the Empire as an old man!’ (ten times); ‘and Hadrian acceded to the Empire in his old age’ (ten times) . . . ‘Do you give orders, let the soldiers fight’ (thirty times); ‘Severus said: It is the head that reigns not the feet’ (thirty times); ‘It is your mind, not your body, we are electing’ (twenty times); ‘Tacitus Augustus, may the Gods keep you.’

Then Tacitus was taken out to the Campus Martius to be presented to the soldiers and the people.

Whereupon the people acclaimed: ‘Most happily may the gods keep thee, Tacitus,’ and the rest which it is customary to say.

The slender records which we possess of the ceremonial in other cases of the election of an emperor make it clear that these popular acclamations were never discontinued even after the coronation assumed an ecclesiastical character and was carried out in church. Thus the official rituals we possess, one of which dates back to the close of the eighth century, explain how when the crown has been imposed

the people shout, ‘Holy, holy, holy,’ and ‘Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace,’ thrice. And if there is a prince to be crowned as consort of the Empire, the Patriarch takes the second crown and hands it to the Emperor, and he imposes it, and the two choirs shout ‘Worthy.’

After this followed the imperial acta (aktologein is the technical term in Greek for the shouting of these acclamations) or laudes, as they were called in the West. A sort of litany consisting of more than a score of verses was chanted by heralds, while the people repeated each verse once or thrice after the leaders. In this we find such passages as,

“Many, many, many;

R. “Many years, for many years,

“Long years to you, N. and N., autocrats of the Romans,

R. “Many years to you.

“Long years to you, Servants of the Lord,

R. “Many years to you.” etc.

Almost contemporary with these are the acclamations found in our English Egbert Pontifical (probably compiled before 769) which with other English MSS. has preserved to us the earliest detailed account of a coronation in the West. The text is a little uncertain, but probably should read as follows:

Then let the whole people say three times along with the bishops and the priests; ‘May our King, N., live for ever’ (Vivat Rex N. in sempiternum). And he shall be confirmed upon the throne of the kingdom with the blessing of all the people while the great Lords kiss him, saying: ‘For ever. Amen, amen, amen.’

There is also in the Egbertine ritual a sort of litany closely resembling the imperial acclamations just referred to, and this may be compared with the elaborate set of laudes, technically so called, which belong to the time of Charlemagne and have been printed by Duchesne in his edition of the Liber Pontificalis, II, 37. In these imperial laudes the words Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat (Christ conquers, Christ reigns, Christ commands), nearly always find a place. It should be added that these acclamations or some similar feature have been retained to this day in the Eastern coronation rituals and in a few of Western origin, amongst others in that of England. Thus for the coronation of King Edward VII in 1902 the official ceremonial gave the following direction:

When the Homage is ended, the drums beat and the trumpets sound, and all the people shout, crying out: ‘God save King Edward!’ ‘Long live King Edward!’ ‘May the King live for ever!’

FOR POPES AND BISHOPS

It was natural that the practice of acclaiming should not be confined to the person of the sovereign or to the occasion of his election. Just as we read of the king “wearing his crown” upon great feasts in certain favoured cities, a ceremony which seems to have amounted to a sort of secondary coronation, so the elaborate laudes in honour of the emperor were often repeated on festivals, especially at the papal Mass. But more than this the practice of acclaiming the emperor at his election was also extended to the Pope and in some cases to simple bishops. In the case of the Pope our testimonies are not very ancient, but the “Liber Pontificalis” in the eighth century frequently alludes to the practice, associating the words acclamationes and laudes in many combinations; while at a somewhat later date we have the explicit testimony of the “Ordines Romani.” In the case of the coronation of Leo (probably the fourth pope of that name), we learn that the leaders of the people from each district acclaimed him with the words: “The Lord Leo Pope, whom St. Peter has chosen to sit in his see for many years.” At the present day after the Gloria and the Collect of the Mass of the Coronation, the senior Cardinal Deacon, standing before the Pope enthroned, chants the words, “Exaudi, Christe” (Hear, O Christ); to which all present reply “Long life to our Lord Pius who has been appointed Supreme Pontiff and Universal Pope.” This is repeated three times with some other invocations, and it then expands into a short litany in which the repetition of each title is answered by the prayer tu illum adjuva (Do thou help him). This last feature closely reproduces the laudes of the Middle Ages, chanted at the coronation of kings. Similar acclamations seem to have been familiar from very early times at the election of bishops, though it would probably be going much too far to represent them as regularly forming part of the ritual. The classical instance is that recorded by St. Augustine, who proposed Heraclius to the people of Hippo as his successor. Thereupon, he says,

The people shouted: ‘Thanks be to God, Praised be Christ.’ This was said twenty-three times. ‘Hear, O Christ; long live Augustine, sixteen times.’ ‘Thee for our Father, Thee for our Bishop,’ twenty times, ‘Well deserving, truly worthy,’ five times;

and so on (St. Aug., Epist., 212; P.L., XXXIII, 966). In this, however, there was clearly nothing liturgical, though that character may perhaps be better recognized in the cries of, “He is worthy, he is worthy, he is worthy; for many years,” etc., which the people in certain ancient rituals were directed to make when the bishop-elect was presented to them before his consecration.

COUNCILS

Other acclamations meet us in the acts of some of the early councils. They seem in most cases to have taken the form of compliments to the emperors, and may often perhaps be no more significant than a toast to the king and royal family at a modern banquet. But we read of other cries, for instance, that at the first session of the Council of Chalcedon (October, 451) the Fathers shouted, regarding Dioscurus: “The scoffer always runs away. Christ has deposed Dioscurus, Christ has deposed the murderer”; or again: “This is a just verdict; This is a just council”; or again, “God has avenged His Martyrs.” Upon the other meanings which have been attached to the word acclamation some of them rather strained it does not seem necessary to speak at length. (1) The applause of the congregation which often in ancient times interrupted the sermons of favourite preachers. (2) The prayers and good wishes found upon sepulchral monuments, etc., to which the name acclamations is sometimes given. (3) The brief liturgical formulae, such as Dominus vobiscum, Kyrie Eleison, Deo gratias, etc. (4) For election by acclamation, see ELECTION, CONCLAVE, and ACCLAMATION IN PAPAL ELECTIONS.

CABROL in Dict. d archeol. chret., 240–265. This article includes a discussion of inscriptions, liturgical formulae, and other miscellaneous matters. For the subject of Acclamations in classical times, cf. DAREMBERG AND SAGLIO, Dict. des Antiq., s.v.; PAULY-WISSOWA, Real-Encyclopedie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft; MOMMSEN, Rom. Staatsrecht, III, 951, 349; PETER, Die Scriptores Hist. August. (Leipzig, 1892), 221 sqq.; HEER, in Philologus (supplementary vol.), IX (1904), 187 sqq. For CORONATIONS IMPERIAL AND PAPAL, see Le Laudes nell’ Incoronazione del Som. Pontifice, in La Civilta Cattolica, 15 Aug., 1903, 387–404; BRIGHTMAN, Byzantine Imperial Coronations, in Journ. of Theol. Studies, April, 1901; GRISAR, Analecta Romana (Rome, 1899), 229 sqq.; MARTENE, De Ant. Eccl. Rit. (1737), II, 578, 851–852; DIEMAND, Das Ceremoniell der Kaiserkronungen (Munich, 1894), 82; MASKELL, Monumenta Ritualia (2d ed., Oxford, 1882), II, 85; LEGG, English Coronation Records (London, 1901).

HERBERT THURSTON

Acclamation (in Papal Elections)

One of the forms of papal election. The method of electing the Roman Pontiff is contained in the constitutions of Gregory XV, “Æterni Patris Filius” and “Decet Romanum Pontificem.” Urban VIII’s constitution, “Ad Romani Pontificis Providentiam,” is confirmatory of the preceding. According to these documents, three methods of election alone are valid; namely, by scrutiny, by compromise, and by acclamation, or “quasi-inspiration.” This last form of election consists in all the cardinals present unanimously proclaiming one of the candidates Supreme Pontiff, without the formality of casting votes. As this must be done without previous consultation or negotiation it is looked on as proceeding from the Holy Ghost and hence is also designated “quasi-inspiration.” An example of this mode of election in more recent times is found in the case of Clement X (1670–76), formerly Cardinal Altieri, whose election is said to have been determined by the sudden cry of the people outside the conclave, “Altieri Papa,” which was confirmed by the cardinals (Keller). Innocent XI (1676–89) is another example. The cardinals surrounded him in the chapel of the conclave and in spite of his resistance every one of them kissed his hand, proclaiming him Pope (De Montor).

FERRARIS, Bibliotheca, art. Papa (Rome, 1890); WERNZ, Jus Decret. (Rome, 1899), II, tit. 30; DE MONTOR, Lives of Rom. Pont. (News York, 1866); KELLER, Life of Leo XIII (News York, 1888); LECTOR, Le Conclave (Paris, 1898).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Biblical Accommodation

We shall consider (1) what is meant by biblical accommodation; (2) its use in Sacred Scripture; (3) the rules which ought to regulate its use.

(1) What is Biblical Accommodation?

By accommodation is understood the adaptation of words or sentences from Sacred Scripture to signify ideas different from those expressed by the sacred author. Thus, if a sinner excuses his fault by saying, “The serpent deceived me,” he applies the scriptural words of Eve (Gen., iii, 13) to express an idea which the sentence does not convey in the Bible. Similarly, a blind person might use the words of Tob., v, 12, “What manner of joy shall be to me, who sit in darkness, and see not the light of heaven.” Here, again, the words would have a meaning which they do not bear in Sacred Scripture. This accommodation is sometimes incorrectly styled the accommodated, or accommodative, sense of Scripture. From the definition it is clear that it is not a sense of Scripture at all. The possibility of such accommodation may arise, first, from some similarity between the ideas in the sacred text and the subject to which the passage is accommodated; secondly, from the fact that the words of Scripture may be understood in two different senses. The first is called extensive accommodation. Examples of it are found in the Church’s offices, both in the Breviary and the Missal, when the praises bestowed by the Holy Ghost on Noe, Isaac, and Moses are applied to other saints. Thus the words of Ecclus., xxxii, 1, 5: “Have they made thee ruler? . . . hinder not music” are sometimes applied to College presidents assuming the burden of their office; we need not say that the words of Sacred Scripture have quite a different meaning. The second species of accommodation, called allusive, is often a mere play on words and at times seems due to a misunderstanding of the original meaning. The Vulgate text, Mirabilis Deus in sanctis suis (Ps., lxvii, 36) means, in the mouth of the Psalmist, that God is wonderful in His sanctuary (sancta, -orum). The Latin words may also be translated “God is wonderful in his saints” (sancti, -orum), and they are employed in this sense in the Missal. As this second signification was not intended by the inspired writer, the English rendering of the text in the Douay version is a mistranslation.

(2) The Use of Accommodation in the Bible

It is generally held by Catholic authors that certain passages from the Old Testament have been used over again in the New Testament with a change of meaning. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii, 5) the words spoken to Josue, “I will not leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Jos., i, 5), are applied to all Christians. Other examples of accommodation are the use of Exod., xvi, 18 in II Cor., viii, 15; Zach., iv, 14 in Apoc., xi, 4; Ps., vi, 9 in Matt., vii, 2, 3; Mich., vii, 6 in Matt, x, 36. Evidently, the new meaning attached to the words is also inspired. Rationalistic writers have maintained that similar accommodations are to be found in every case where the Evangelists quote the prophecies of the Old Testament. Some few Catholic writers have been willing to grant this explanation for a few passages, but the words in which the Evangelists assert that events in Our Lord’s life took place “in order that” the prophecies might be fulfilled are incompatible with the theory that their wished to indicate only a resemblance between the event and the prophet’s words. It is probable that no prophecy is used in the Gospels merely by accommodation.

(3) Rules for Accommodation

The use of accommodation in the Liturgy and by the Fathers of the Church is sufficient to show that it is legitimate. Hence texts have been, and are frequently, accommodated by preachers and ascetical authors. Many of the sermons of St. Bernard are mosaics of Scripture phrases and owe much of their peculiar unction to his happy use of the sacred words. Latin writers and preachers have not been so reverent and careful in their accommodation, and this was one of the abuses condemned by the Council of Trent when it forbade the wresting of Scripture to profane uses (Sess. IV, Decret. “De editione et usu Sacrorum Librorum “). Interpreters are wont to give the following rules for guidance in the accommodation of Scripture:

Accommodated texts should never be used as arguments drawn from revelation; for the words are not employed in the sense, either literal or typical, intended by the Holy Ghost. Violations of this rule are not rare, either in sermons or in pious literature.

Accommodation should not be farfetched. Allusive accommodations in many cases are mere distortions of the sacred text.

Accommodations should be reverent. Holy words should be employed for purposes of edification, not to excite laughter, much less to cloak errors.

Cornely, Introductio Generalis,, nn. 206–208; Patrizi, De Interpretatione Bibliorum (Rome, 1862), 273 sq.; Vasquez in S. Thom., I, Q. i, a. 7, dist. 14; Serarius, Prolegomena Biblica, 21, 14; Acosta, De vera Scripturas tractandi ratione, III, v-viii; Vigouroux, Manuel biblique, I; Longhaye, La predication (Paris, 1888), 295–301; Bainvel, Les contresens biblioques; Mangenot in Vig. Dict. de la Bible, s.v. Accommodation; cf. works on biblical hermeneutics, and also many of the introductions to Sacred Scripture.

JOHN CORBETT

Accomplice

A term generally employed to designate a partner in some form of evildoing. An accomplice is one who cooperates in some way in the wrongful activity of another who is accounted the principal. From the viewpoint of the moral theologian not every such species of association is straightway to be adjudged unlawful. It is necessary to distinguish first of all between formal and material cooperation. To formally cooperate in the sin of another is to be associated with him in the performance of a bad deed in so far forth as it is bad, that is, to share in the perverse frame of mind of that other. On the contrary, to materially cooperate in another’s crime is to participate in the action so far as its physical entity is concerned, but not in so far as it is motived by the malice of the principal in the case. For example, to persuade another to absent himself without reason from Mass on Sunday would be an instance of formal cooperation. To sell a person in an ordinary business transaction a revolver which he presently uses to kill himself is a case of material cooperation. Then it must be borne in mind that the cooperation may be described as proximate or remote in proportion to the closeness of relation between the action of the principal and that of his helper. The teaching with regard to this subject-matter is very plain, and may be stated in this wise: Formal cooperation is never lawful, since it presupposes a manifestly sinful attitude on the part of the will of the accomplice. Material complicity is held to be justified when it is brought about by an action which is in itself either morally good or at any rate indifferent, and when there is a sufficient reason for permitting on the part of another the sin which is a consequence of the action. The reason for this assertion is patent; for the action of the accomplice is assumed to be unexceptionable, his intention is already bespoken to be proper, and he cannot be burdened with the sin of the principal agent, since there is supposed to be a commensurately weighty reason for not preventing it. Practically, however, it is often difficult to apply these principles, because it is hard to determine whether the cooperation is formal or only material, and also whether the reason alleged for a case of material cooperation bears due proportion to the grievousness of the sin committed by the principal, and the intimacy of the association with him. It is especially the last-named factor which is a fruitful source of perplexity. In general, however, the following considerations will be of value in discerning whether in an instance of material cooperation the reason avowed is valid or not. The necessity for a more and more powerful reason is accentuated in proportion as there is

a greater likelihood that the sin would not be committed without the act of material cooperation;

a closer relationship between the two; and

a greater heinousness in the sin, especially in regard to harm done either to the common weal or some unoffending third party.

It is to be observed that, when damage has been done to a third person, the question is raised not only of the lawfulness of the cooperation, but also of restitution to be made for the violation of a strict right. Whether in that case the accomplice has shared in the perpetration of the injustice physically or morally (i.e. by giving a command, by persuasion, etc.) whether positively or negatively (i.e. by failing to prevent it) the obligation of restitution is determined in accordance with the following principle. All are bound to reparation who in any way are accounted to be the actual efficient causes of the injury wrought, or who, being obliged by contract, express or implied, to prevent it, have not done so. There are circumstances in which fellowship in the working of damage to another makes the accomplice liable to restitution in solidum; that is, he is then responsible for the entire loss in so far as his partners have failed to make good for their share. Finally, mention must be made of the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum Poenitentiae, governing a particular case of complicity. It provides that a priest who has been the accomplice of any person in a sin against the Sixth Commandment is rendered incapable of absolving validly that person from that sin, except in danger of death, and then only if there be no other priest obtainable. GENICOT, Theol. Moralis (Louvain, 1898).

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Francesco Accursius

(Italian Accorso).

(1) FRANCESCO ACCURSIUS (1182–1260)

A celebrated Italian jurisconsult of the Middle Ages, b. at Florence, 1182; d. at Bologna, 1260. After applying himself to various studies until he was twenty-eight, or according to other statements, thirty-seven years old, he took up the law and became one of its most distinguished exponents. He taught at Bologna, and then devoted himself to compiling a glossary or commentary on the whole body of law, which took precedence of any work then extant. Accorso, or Accursius, was not proficient in the classics, but he was called “the Idol of the Jurisconsults.”

(2) FRANCESCO ACCURSIUS (1225–1293)

Son of the preceding, and also a lawyer, b. at Bologna, 1225; d. 1293. The two are often confounded. Francesco was more distinguished for his tact than for his wisdom. Edward I of England, returning from the Holy Land, brought him with him to England. He returned to Bologna in 1282, and practiced law there until his death. His two sons, Cervottus and Guglielmo, and a daughter studied law with him and also practiced in Bologna. Dante places Francesco Accursius in Hell (Inf. XV, 110). The tomb of his father and himself in Bologna bears the inscription: “Sepulchrum Accursii, glossatoris legum, et Francisci, ejus filii.”

Giraud, Bibl., Sac.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Acephali

A term applied to the Eutychians who withdrew from Peter Mongus, the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria, in 482. With the apparent purpose of bringing the orthodox and heretics into unity, Peter Mongus and Acacius of Constantinople had elaborated a new creed in which they condemned expressly Nestorius and Eutyches, but at the same time affected to pass over the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon and rejected them hypocritically. This ambiguous formula, though approved by the Emperor Zeno and imposed by him in his edict of union, or , could only satisfy the indifferent. The condemnation of Eutyches irritated the rigid Monophysites; the equivocal attitude taken towards the Council of Chalcedon appeared to them insufficient, and many of them, especially the monks, deserted Peter Mongus, preferring to be without a head (akephaloi), rather than remain in communion with him. Later, they joined the partisans of the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, Severus. The Deacon Liberatus (Breviarium, P.L., LVIII, 988) supposes the name Acephali (Headless) to have been given to those at the Council of Ephesus who followed neither Cyril of Alexandria nor John of Antioch.

LEONT. BYZANT., De Sectis, in P.G., LXXXII 1230; BARONlUS, Annales, an. 482; HEFELE, Hist. of Councils, II; BARDENHEWER in Kirchenlex. (Freiburg, 1882), I.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Archdiocese of Acerenza

(ACHERONTIA.)

This archdiocese, in the provinces of Lecce and Potenza, Italy, has been united since 1203 with the Diocese of Matera. It lays claim to a very early, even Apostolic, origin. Acerenza was certainly an episcopal see in the course of the fifth century, for in 499 we meet with the name of its first known bishop, Justus, in the Acts of the Roman Synod of that year. The town is situated on an elevated ridge of the Apennines whence the eye dominates both the Adriatic and the Mediterranean; it was known in antiquity as the high nest of Acherontia (Hor., Odes, III, iv, 14). The cathedral is one of the oldest and most beautiful in Italy, and has lately become quite famous for a bust long supposed to be that of St. Canus or Canius (Ascanius?) patron of the city, but now judged to be a portrait-bust of Julian the Apostate, though others maintain that it is a bust of the Emperor Frederick II, after the manner of the sculptors of the Antonine age. Acerenza was in early imperial times a populous and important town, and a bulwark of the territory of Lucania and Apulia. In the Gothic and Lombard period it fell into decay, but was restored by Grimwald, Duke of Beneventum (687–689). An Archbishop of Acerenza (Giraldus) appears in 1063 in an act of donation of Robert Guiscard to the monastery of the Holy Trinity in Venosa. For a few years after 968 Acerenza was forced to adopt the Greek Rite in consequence of a tyrannical order of the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus Phocas (963–969), whereby it was made one of five suffragans of Otranto, and compelled to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople (Moroni, Dizionario, L, 63). Pope Urban VI (1378–89, Bartolommeo Prignano), was once Archbishop of Acerenza. Matera is said to have been created a see by the Greeks. Its cathedral dates from the year 1000, and is likewise a richly ornamented specimen of contemporary ecclesiastical architecture in Southern Italy. The Archdiocese of Acerenza contains 22 parishes, 308 secular priests, and a few priests of religious orders. The population numbers 147,900. The present bishop is Monsignor Raffaele Rossi, successor (1899) of Monsignor Diomede Falconio, now Apostolic Delegate to the United States.

UGHELLI, Italia Sacra (Venice, 1722), VII, 5; CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), XX, 420–431; LENORMANT, A travers l’Apulie et la Lucanie (Paris, 1874), I, 271; VOLPE, Memorie storiche, profane e religiose sulla città di Matera (Naples, 1813).

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Achab

(A’h’abh, Achaab in Jer., xxix, 22, Ehabh, Achiab)

Son of Amri and King of Israel, 918–897 B.C., according to III K., xvi, 29, but 875–854 according to the Assyrian documents. The original reading of III K., xvi, 29, may have been changed. The King was married to Jezabel, a Sidonian princess, and was misled by her into idolatry (III K., xvi, 31 sqq.) the persecution of the prophets (III K., xviii, 13 sqq.), and a most grievious injustice against Naboth (III K., xxi). He was twice victorious in his wars against Syria (III K., xx, 1328), and made an alliance with the Syrian King Benadad in spite of prophetic warning (III K., xx, 33). In the sixth year of Salmanassar II the allies were overcome by the Assyrians near Karkar, and their compact ceased. Achab now allied himself with Josaphat, King of Juda, and they began war against Syria in order to conquer Ramoth Galaad (III K., xxii, 3 sqq.). The false prophets foretold victory, while Micheas predicted defeat. The battle was begun in spite of this warning, and an arrow wounded Achab between the lungs and the stomach (III K., xxii, 34). He died in the evening, and when his chariot was washed in the pool of Samaria, the dogs licked up his blood (III K., xxii, 38).

MECHINEAU in VIG., Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1895); HAGEN, Lexicon Biblicum (Paris, 1905); WELTE in Kirchenlex.

A.J. MAAS

Achaia

(Ægialeia).

The name, before the Roman conquest in 146 B.C., of a strip of land between the gulf of Corinth in the north and Elis and Arcadia in the south, embracing twelve cities leagued together. The Achaean League was prominent in the struggle of the Greeks against Roman domination; It is probably due to this fact that the name was afterwards extended to the whole country south of Macedonia and Illyricum, corresponding approximately to modern Greece. During the Roman period Achaia was usually governed as a senatorial province. The Governor was an ex-Praetor of Rome, and bore the title of Proconsul. Corinth was the capital. When St. Paul came into Achaia (Acts 18), Gallio, a brother of Seneca, was proconsul. His refusal to interfere in the religious affairs of the Jews and the tolerance of his administration favoured the spread of Christianity. In Corinth the Apostle founded a flourishing church. In his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, he salutes Christians “in all Achaia” (i, 1) and commends their charity (ix, 2).

RAMSAY in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible; MOMMSEN, Provinces of the Roman Empire (Rom. Gesch.), V, vii.

W.S. REILLY

Achaicus

A Corinthian Christian, who, together with Fortunatus and Stephanas, carried a letter from the St. Paul, and from St. Paul to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 16:17; cf. also 16:15).

A.J. MAAS

Achaz

(AHAZ).

King of Juda, placed variously, 741–726 B.C., 744–728, 748–727, 724–709, 734- 728. It seems to be certain that Theglathphalasar’s first expedition against Damascus mentioned in the life of Achaz fell in 733 B.C., and the second in 731. Owing to his idolatry (IV K., xvi, 3, 4, II Par., xxviii, 24), Achaz was conquered first by Rasin, King of Syria, and then by Phacee, King of Israel (II Par., xxviii, 5; IV K., xvi, 6). Now, Rasin and Phacee made an alliance in order to dethrone the house of David in Juda, and to make the son of Tabeel king (Is., vii, 26). The prophet Isaias offers to Achaz God’s aid with the promise of safety in case of belief, but with the threat of punishment in case of unbelief (Is., vii, 1221). Achaz is unbelieving, seeks help from Theglathphalasar, offering at the same time rich presents from the temple treasury (IV K., xvi, 7, 8). The king of the Assyrians takes Damascus, afflicts Israel (IV K., xv, 29; xvi, 9), but reduces Juda to the necessity of buying its freedom (IV K., xvi, 17; II Par., xxviii, 20). Achaz was not improved by this affliction, but he introduced into the temple an altar modelled after that at Damascus (IV K., xvi, 14 sq.; II Par., xxviii, 2225). On account of the king’s sin Juda was also oppressed by the Edomites and the Philistines (II Par., xxviii, 17 sq.).

RENARD in VIG, Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1895); PEAKE in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible (New York, 1903); HAGEN, Lexicon Biblicum (Paris, 1905).

A.J. MAAS

Lucas d’Achéry

French Benedictine (Maurist), born 1609 at Saint Quentin in Picardy; died in the monastery of St. Germain des Prés at Paris, 29 April, 1685. He was a profound student of medieval historical and theological materials, mostly in original manuscripts, to the collection, elucidation, and printing of which he devoted his whole life. He entered the Order of St. Benedict at an early age, was professed at the Abbey of the Blessed Trinity, Vendôme, 4 October, 1632, but his health soon obliged him to remove to Paris. He became a member (1637) of the monastery of St. Germain des Pré, and in his long sojourn of nearly fifty years scarcely ever quitted its walls. As librarian of the monastery he was soon acquainted with its rich treasures of medieval history and theology, and by a continuous correspondence with other monasteries, both in and out of France, he soon made himself a bibliographical authority of the first rank, especially in all that pertained to the unedited or forgotten writings of medieval scholars. His first important work was an edition (Paris, 1645) of the “Epistle of Barnabas,” whose Greek text had been prepared for the press, before his death, by the Maurist Hugo Ménard. D’Achéry’s “Asceticorum vulgo spiritualium opusculorum Indiculus” (Paris, 1645) served as a guide to his confrè, Claude Chantelou, in the preparation of the five volumes of his “Bibliotheca Patrum ascetica” (Paris, 1661). In 1648 he published all the works of Blessed Lanfrac of Canterbury (P. L., CL, 9). He published and edited for the first time the works of Abbot Guibert of Nogent (Paris, 1661) with an appendix of minor writings of an ecclesiastical character. In 1656 he edited the “Regula Solitaria” of the ninth century priest Grimlaicus (Grimlaic), a spiritual guide for hermits. His principal work, however, is the famous “Spicilegium, sive Collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothecis, maxime Benedictinorum, latuerunt” (Paris, 1655–77), continued by Baluze and Martène, to whom we owe and enlarged and improved edition (Paris, 1723). D’Achéry collected the historical materials for the great work known as “Acta Ordinis S. Benedicti” but Mabillon added so much to it in the way of prefaces, notes, and “excursus” that it is justly accounted as his work. D’Achéry was the soul of the noble Maurist movement, and a type of the medieval Benedictine, humble and self-sacrificing, virtuous and learned. Despite continued illness he was foremost in all the labours of the French Benedictines of St. Maur, and was the master of many of the most illustrious among them, e. g. Mabillon. His valuable correspondence is preserved in the Bibliothéque Nationale at Paris.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Achiacharus

Achiacharus is mentioned only once in the Vulgate version of Tobias (xi, 20, under the form Achior), but the name occurs four times in the Greek versions. He is represented as a nephew of Tobias, and an influential minister of the Assyrian King Esarhaddon (681–668 B.C.). On the relation, supposed by some critics, of this personage to Ahiakar the Wise, of eastern legend, see E. Cosquin, in Revue biblique Internationale, 1899, 50 sq.

W.S. REILLY

Achimaas

(1) Father of Achinoam, wife of Saul (I Kings 14:50).

(2) Son of Sadoc, the priest. He was a swift-footed messenger in the service of David during the rebellion of Absalom. He brought from Jerusalem news of the enemy’s movements, and, after the battle in which Absalom was slain, he was the first to reach the King with the news of victory. He was “a good man,” according to David (II Kings 15:35–36; 17:17 sq.; 18:19 sq.). This Achimaas is perhaps the same as one of Solomon’s prefects, the governor of Nephtali, and son-in-law of the King (III Kings 4:15).

W.S. REILLY

Achimelech

(1) The priest of Nobe who extended hospitality to David during his flight from the court of Saul. For this he was put to death, together with all the priests of Nobe, except Abiathar, his son, who escaped and joined David (I Kings 21–22).

(2) A Hethite, companion of the outlawed David (I Kings 26:6).

(3) There is an Achimelech spoken of (II Kings 8:17, and I Paralipomenon 18:16; 24:3, 6, 31), as a “son of Abiathar” and an associate of Sadoc in the priesthood. As this position is usually attributed to “Abiathar, son of Achimelech” it is thought that the reading “Achimelech, son of Abiathar” is due to an accidental transposition of the text of Kings, and that this transposition has affected the text of Paralipomenon.

(4) Name given to Achis, King of Geth, in the title of Psalm 33. Some texts have Abimelech.

W.S. REILLY

Achitopel

Achitopel was an able and honoured counsellor of David, who joined the rebellion of Absalom. The King was much affected by this desertion. Hearing that the man on whose word he had been wont to rely as “on an oracle of God” was giving his advice to the enemy, he prayed the Lord to “infatuate the counsel of Achitopel.” Some have seen in Psalms 54:13–15 and 40:10, reflections of David on this faithless friend. It was on the advice of Achitopel that Absalom took possession of his father’s harem, thus cutting off all hope of reconciliation. Understanding the need of energetic measures, he urged that 12,000 men be sent from Jerusalem in pursuit of the King. He offered to lead them himself. Chusai, a secret friend of David, defeated his purpose. Thereupon he proudly withdrew to his town of Gilo, put his house in order, and strangled himself. (See II Kings, xv, 12; xvii, 23; I Par., xxvii, 33.) It would seem from a conjunction of II Kings, xxiii, 34, and xi, 3, that Achitopel was the grandfather of Bethsabee, and it has been suggested, as an explanation of his conduct towards David, that he had kept a secret grudge against the King for the way he had treated Bethsabee, and her first husband, the unfortunate Urias. This, or some motive of ambition, would be in keeping with the haughty character of Achitopel. Dryden has used this name in the title of his famous satire against the Protestant Party, “Absalom and Achitophel.”

W.S. REILLY

Diocese of Achonry

(Gaelic, Achadh-Chonnaire, Connary’s Field).

In Ireland, suffragan to the Archdiocese of Tuam. The village of Achonry occupies a very picturesque situation in the south of the County Sligo. Here St. Finian, who died in 552, established a church and monastery on some land given him by the prince of the Clann Chonnaire. Over this he placed Nathi O Hara, who had been his pupil in the famous school of Clonard and is always spoken of in the annals as Cruimthir-Nathi, i.e. the Priest Nathi. In a short time the monastery and its head acquired a remarkable reputation, and a diocese was formed (c. 560) of which Nathi is reputed to have been the first bishop, though he may have been only the abbot-superior, according to the Irish system of ecclesiastical organization from the sixth to the twelfth century, which permitted in monastic government such peculiar subordination. He is the patron of the diocese, and his feast is celebrated on 9 August. His successors made use of his monastery-church as their cathedral, and traces of it may still be seen. The diocese was formerly sometimes called Leyney from one of its largest and most important baronies, or perhaps because it was coextensive with what is still known as the barony of Leyney. Additions were made to it at different periods until its boundaries were finally fixed in the twelfth century. It now includes some of Roscommon, a considerable part of Mayo, and the greater part of Sligo. At the important Synod of Kells, held in March, 1152, presided over by Cardinal Paparo, and attended by the Bishop of Lismore, then Apostolic Delegate, by twenty other bishops, and by many inferior clergy, the Diocese of Achonry was represented by its bishop, Melruan O’Ruadhan. Its diocesan limits were then fixed, and it was made suffragan to Tuam. From that date the catalogue of its bishops is less fragmentary. Of the three Irish bishops who were members of the Council of Trent, one was Eugene O’Hart, Bishop of Achonry. He is described in the records of the Council as a “professor of Theology and a learned and distinguished ecclesiastic,” and had been a Dominican of Sligo Abbey. He took a prominent part in its deliberations, and left on all its members a deep impression of his zeal and learning. From the death of Dr. O’Hart in 1603, except for a brief interval of four years (1641–45), there was no bishop until 1707, and the diocese was governed by vicars-apostolic. Achonry is one of the most Catholic dioceses in the world. The total population, according to the latest census (1901) is 82,795, of which 2,242 are non-Catholics, so that 97.3 percent of the whole are Catholics. Achonry has twenty-two parishes, twenty of which have parish priests with full canonical rights; the remaining two are mensal parishes of the bishop. There are 51 priests in the diocese, and though at one period of its history Achonry was studded with religious houses, it has at the present time no regular clergy. There are 7 congregations of religious sisters: 3 of the Irish Sisters of Charity, 2 of the Sisters of Mercy, 1 of the Sisters of St. Louis, and 1 of the Marist Sisters. The Christian Brothers have a house in Ballaghaderreen and the Marist Brothers one in Swineford. Full provision is made for the education of the young. In addition to the episcopal seminary with five professors there are day schools under the nuns and brothers and 201 schools under lay teachers. There is besides a boarding-school for young ladies conducted by the Sisters of St. Louis. There are also under the charge of the nuns 2 industrial and 7 technical schools. Since the accession of Dr. M. Nicholas in 1818, the bishop resides in Ballaghaderreen. The cathedral, a very fine Gothic building, erected at great expense by Dr. Durcan, has been completed by the present bishop, Dr. Lyster, by the addition of a magnificent tower and spire. Within the last fifty years many new churches, some very beautiful, have been built, old ones renovated, houses supplied for the clergy, convents established. and schools provided.

GAMS, Series episcop. Eccl. cath. (1873), I, 204, 234 (1886), II, 64; BRADY, Episcopal Succession in England, Scotland, and Ireland (Rome, 1876); LANIGAN, Eccl. Hist. of Ireland (Dublin, 1829), I, 345; LEWIS, Topographical Hist. of Ireland (London, 1837), 6; BURKE, History of the Archbishops of Tuam (Dublin, 1882); Annals of the Four Masters (ed. O’DONOVAN, Dublin, 1658), VII, s. v., Achadh Chonnaire.

E.H. CONINGTON

Achor Valley

The scene of the death of the “troubler” Achan, with whom its name is associated (Jos., vii, 26). Osee foretells the time when this gloomy, ill-omened valley will be for an “opening of hope” to the returning exiles of Israel (Os., ii, 15); another prophet pictures it, in the same glorious future, transformed into a “place for the herds to lie down in” (Is., lxv, 10). It was on the north boundary of Juda, leading past Jericho to the Jordan (Jos., xv, 7).It is commonly identified with the modern Wady-el-Kelt and is usually written Akor.

W.S. REILLY

Achrida

A titular see in Upper Albania, the famous metropolis and capital of the medieval kingdom of Bulgaria, now the little village of Ochrida, on the Lake of Ochrida, the ancient Lacus Lychnitis, whose blue and exceedingly transparent waters in remote antiquity gave to the lake its Greek name. The city was known in antiquity as Lychnidus and was so called occasionally in the Middle Ages. In the conflicts of the Illyrian tribes with Rome it served the former as a frontier outpost and was later one of the principal points on the great Roman highway known as the via Egnatiana. Its first known bishop was Zosimus (c. 344). In the sixth century it was destroyed by an earthquake (Procop., Hist. Arcana, xv), but was rebuilt by Justinian (527–565), who was born in the vicinity, and is said to have been called by him Justiniana Prima, i.e. the most important of the several new cities that bore his name. Duchesne, however, says that this honour belongs to Scupi (Uskub), another frontier town of Illyria (Les églises séparées, Paris, 1856, 240). The new city was made the capital of the prefecture, or department, of Illyria, and for the sake of political convenience it was made also the ecclesiastical capital of the Illyrian or Southern Danubian parts of the empire (Southern Hungary, Bosnia, Servia, Transylvania, Rumania). Justinian was unable to obtain immediately for this step a satisfactory approbation from Pope Agapetus or Pope Silverius. The Emperor’s act, besides being a usurpation of ecclesiastical authority, was a detriment to the ancient rights of Thessalonica as representative of the Apostolic See in the Illyrian regions. Nevertheless, the new diocese claimed, and obtained in fact, the privilege of autocephalia, or independence, and through its long and chequered history retained, or struggled to retain, this character. Pope Vigilius, under pressure from Justinian, recognized the exercise of patriarchal rights by the Metropolitan of Justiniana Prima within the broad limits of its civil territory, but Gregory the Great treated him as no less subject than other Illyrian bishops to the Apostolic See (Duchesne, op. cit., 233–237). The inroads of the Avars and Slavs in the seventh century brought about the ruin of this ancient Illyrian centre of religion and civilization, and for two centuries its metropolitan character was in abeyance. But after the conversion of the new Bulgarian masters of Illyria (864) the see rose again to great prominence, this time under the name of Achrida (Achris). Though Greek missionaries were the first to preach the Christian Faith in this region, the first archbishop was sent by Rome. It was thence also that the Bulgarians drew their first official instruction and counsel in matters of Christian faith and discipline, a monument of which may be seen in the Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum of Nicholas I (858–867), one of the most influential of medieval canonical documents (Mansi, xv, 401; Hefele, Concilieng., iv, 346 sq.). However, the Bulgarian King (Car) Bogaris was soon won over by Greek influence. In the Eighth General Council held at Constantinople (869) Bulgaria was incorporated with the Byzantine patriarchate, and in 870 the Latin missionaries were expelled. Henceforth Greek metropolitans preside in Achrida; it was made the political capital of the Bulgarian kingdom and profited by the tenth- century conquests of its warlike rulers so that it became the metropolitan of several Greek dioceses in the newly conquered territories in Macedonia, Thessaly, and Thrace. Bulgaria fell unavoidably within the range of the Photian schism, and so, from the end of the ninth century, the diocese of Achrida was lost to Western and papal influences. The overthrow of the independent Bulgarian kingdom in the early part of the eleventh century by Basil the Macedonian brought Achrida into closer touch with Constantinople. At a later date some of the great Byzantine families (e.g. the Ducas and the Comneni) claimed descent from the Kings, or Cars, of Bulgaria. In 1053 the metropolitan Leo of Achrida signed with Michael Caerularius the latter’s circular letter to John of Trani (Apulia in Italy) against the Latin Church. Theophylactus of Achrida (1078) was one of the most famous of the medieval Greek exegetes; in his correspondence (Ep., 27) he maintains the traditional independence of the Diocese of Achrida. The Bishop of Constantinople, he says, has no right of ordination in Bulgaria, whose bishop is independent. In reality Achrida was during this period seldom in communion with either Constantinople or Rome. Towards the latter see, however, its sentiments were less than friendly, for in the fourteenth century we find the metropolitan Anthimus of Achrida writing against the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (see TRINITY). Latin missionaries, however, appear in Achrida in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, mostly Franciscan monks, to whom the preservation of the Roman obedience in these regions is largely owing (see ALBANIA). The Latin bishops of Achrida in the seventeenth century are probably, like those of our of own time, titular bishops. The ecclesiastical independence of Achrida seeming in modern times to leave an opening for Roman Catholic influence in Bulgaria, Arsenius, the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, had it finally abolished in 1767 by an order of Sultan Mustapha. At the height of its authority, Achrida could count as subject to its authority ten metropolitan and six episcopal dioceses.

FARLATI, Illyr. Sacr., VIII, 18, 158; LEQUIEN, Oriens Chrtstianus, II, 282–300; III, 953–954; DUCHESNE, Les glises autoc phales. in Les églises séparées (Paris, 1896); GELZER, Das Patriarchat von Akrida (1902); KRUMBACHER, Gesch. d. byzant. Litt. (2d ed., Munich, 1897), 994 sqq.; NEHER, in Kirchenlex., I, 165–167.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Johann Heinrich Achterfeldt

Theologian, b. at Wesel, 17 June, 1788; d. at Bonn, 11 May, 1877. He was appointed professor of theology at Bonn in 1826 and in 1832 he founded with his colleague, J.W.J. Braun (d. 1863), the “Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Katholische Theologie” (1832–52), the chief purpose of which was to defend the teachings of Hermes. He also published under the title “Christkatholische Dogmatik” (Münster, 1834–36) the theological writings which Hermes (d. 1831) had left in MSS. This publication was followed by sharp controversy, and eventually by the condemnation of the works of Hermes, which Pope Gregory XVI placed upon the Index, 26 September, 1835. In 1843, Achterfeldt incurred suspension from his professorial chair rather than sign the declaration of faith required by the Coadjutor Archbishop von Geissel of Cologne. Though Hermesianism lost ground and finally disappeared during the revolution of 1848, Achterfeldt clung to his views. In 1862, however, he was reinstated as professor, and in 1873, having made his submission to ecclesiastical authority, he was freed from suspension.

MÜLLER, in Dict. de théol. catholique, s. v.; HERGENR THER, Handbuch d. allg. Kirchengesch. (Freiburg, 1886), III, 969.

E.A. PACE

Theodore William Achtermann

A German sculptor, was born in 1799, at Munster in Westphalia, of poor parents. After working on a farm he became a cabinetmaker. His carving was so clever and graceful that it attracted attention, and procured him the good will of some art patrons, who sent him to Berlin (1831), where he studied under the direction of Rauch, Tieck, and Schadow, then the foremost sculptors of Germany. Achtermann, however, being of a profoundly religious character, was drawn irresistibly to Rome, where he arrived in 1839 and remained till the end of his life. The first prominent product of his Roman studies was a Pietà which was secured for the Cathedral of Münster and which has often been copied. In 1858 the same cathedral acquired a group of seven life-size figures representing the descent from the Cross which is regarded as one of its chief art treasures. His last great work, finished when the artist had passed his seventieth year, was a Gothic altar with three reliefs representing scenes from the life of Our Saviour. This was set up in the cathedral at Prague in the year 1873. He died at Rome in 1889. Achtermann’s art is characterized by deep religious feeling and great imaginative power, though, on account of his having taken to an artistic career when somewhat advanced in life, he did not attain the technical mastery which he might otherwise have acquired.

HERTKENS, Wilhelm Achtermann (Trier, 1895).

CHARLES G. HERBERMANN

Valens Acidalius

(German, Havekenthal).

Philologist, Latin poet, and convert to the Catholic Church, b. 1567 at Wittstock in the Mark of Brandenburg; d. 25 May, 1595, at Neisse. After his education at the universities of Rost ck, Greifswald, and Helmstädt, he began the study of medicine, but later devoted most of his time to the Latin classics, spending three years in the universities of Padua and Bologna and travelling through the chief Italian cities. After taking his degree of Doctor of Medicine at Bologna, he devoted himself entirely to Latin literature. Returning to Germany in 1593 in feebler health, he found a patron in Johann Matthäus Wacke von Wackenfels, also a convert, and chancellor to the Bishop of Breslau, Andreas von Jerin. In 1595 he became a Catholic, and, about the same time, Rector of the Breslau Gymnasium. He died a few weeks later. Before his death appeared Animadversiones in Q. Curtium (Frankfurt, 1594) and Plautinae divinationes et interpretationes (Frankfurt, 1595). A posthumous work is Notae in Taciti opera, in Panegyricos veteres. Lipsius spoke of him as a “pearl of Germany,” and Ritschl, as having a “remarkable critical faculty.”

BINDER in Kirchenlex.; RÄSS, Convertiten.

F.M. RUDGE

Diocese of Aci-Reale

(JACA REGALIS).

Located in the island of Sicily; includes fourteen communes in the civil province of Catania, immediately subject to Rome. It was created by Gregory XVI, in 1844, though no bishop was appointed until 1872. The episcopal city is picturesquely situated at the foot of Mt. Etna, amid rich gardens of oranges and almonds. There are 18 parishes, 305 churches, 330 secular priests, 70 regulars, and 150,219 inhabitants. Its first bishop was Monsignor Gerlando Maria Genuardi, of the Oratory.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), XXI, 569; GAMS, Series episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae (Ratisbon, 1873), 955; VIGO, Notizie storiche della citta d’Acireale (Palermo, 1836); PIRRI, Sicilia Sacra (Palermo, 1733), continued by MARZO-FERRO (ibid., 1860). For the controversy concerning the cultus of St. Expedite, see Civilta Cattolica, 2, and 16 Dec. 1905, also Analecta Bolland. (1906), I

Leopold Ackermann

A Catholic professor of exegesis, b. in Vienna, 17 November, 1771; d. in the same city, 9 September, 1831. He entered the canons regular of St. Augustine, taking, in religion, the name of Peter Fourrier. He taught Oriental languages and archaeology, and in 1806 became professor of exegesis of the Old Testament in the University of Vienna, succeeding Jahn there. He filled this chair for twenty-five years with success. Two works of his, “Introductio in libros Veteris Foederis usibus academicis accomodata” (Vienna, 1825) and “Archaeologia biblica” (Vienna, 1826), have new and corrected editions by Jahn, third and fourth respectively. The latter was reprinted by Migne (Cursus Scripturae Sacrae, II, 1840, col. 823–1068).He also wrote “Prophetae Minores perpetua annotatione illustrata” (Vienna, 1830), in which he gives nothing new but collects whatever is best in older works, and supplies philological observations upon it. He reproduces the original Hebrew text and comments on it, briefly but excellently.

SEBACK, P.F. Ackermann, biographische Skizze (Vienna, 1832); VIGOROUX in Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1895), I, 149, 150.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Acmonia

A titular see of Phrygia Pacatiana, in Asia Minor, now known as Ahat-Keui. It is mentioned by Cicero (Pro Flacco, 15) and was a point on the road between Dorylaeum and Philadelphia.

Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr. (London, 1878), I, 21; MAS LATRIE, Trésor de chronologie, etc. (Paris, 1887), 1979

Acoemetae

(Greek ἀκοίμηται, from privative ἀ and κοιμᾶν, to rest).

Sometimes, an appellation common to all Eastern ascetics known by the rigour of their vigils; but usually, the name of a special order of Greek or Basilian monks devoting themselves to prayer and praise without intermission, day and night. That order was founded, about the year 400, by a certain Alexander, a man of noble birth, who fled from the court of Byzantium to the desert, both from love of solitude and fear of episcopal honours. When he returned to Constantinople, there to establish the laus perennis, he brought with him the experience of a first foundation on the Euphrates and three hundred monks. The enterprise, however, proved difficult, owing to the hostility of Patriarch Nestorius and Emperor Theodosius. Driven from the monastery of St. Mennas which he had reared in the city, and thrown with his monks on the hospitality of St. Hypathius, Abbot of Rufiniana, he finally succeeded in building at the mouth of the Black Sea the monastery of Gomon, where he died, about 440. His successor, Abbot John, founded on the eastern shore of the Bosphorus, opposite Sostenium or Istenia, the Irenaion, always referred to in ancient documents as the “great monastery” or motherhouse of the Acoemetae. Under the third abbot, St. Marcellus, when the hostility of Patriarch and Emperor had somewhat subsided, Studius, a former Consul, founded in the city the famous “Studium” which later, chiefly under Abbot Theodore (759–826), became a centre of learning as well as piety, and brought to a culmination the glory of the order. On the other hand, the very glamour of the new “Studites” gradually cast into the shade the old Acoemetae. The feature that distinguished the Acoemetae from the other Basilian monks was the uninterrupted service of God. Their monasteries, which numbered hundreds of inmates and sometimes went into the thousand, were distributed in national groups, Latins, Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians; and each group into as many choirs as the membership permitted and the service required: With them the divine office was the literal carrying out of Psalm cxviii, 164: “Seven times a day have I given praise to Thee,” consisting as it did of seven hours: ὀρθρινόν, τρίτη, ἐκτη, ἐνάτη, λυχνικόν, πρωθύπνιον, μεσονύκτιον, which through St. Benedict of Nursia passed into the Western Church under the equivalent names of prime, tierce, sext, none, vespers, compline, matins (nocturns) and lauds. The influence of the Acoemetae on Christian life was considerable. The splendour of their religious services largely contributed to shape the liturgy. Their idea of the laus perennis and similar institutions, passed into the Western Church with St. Maurice of Agaune and St. Denys. Our modern perpetual adoration is a remnant of it. Even before the time of the Studites, the copying of manuscripts was in honour among the Acoemetae, and the library of the “Great Monastery,” consulted even by the Roman Pontiffs, is the first mentioned by the historians of Byzantium. The Acoemetae took a prominent part—and always in the sense of orthodoxy—in the Christological discussions raised by Nestorius and Eutyches, and later, in the controversies of the Icons. They proved strong supporters of the Apostolic See in the schism of Acacius, as did the Studites in that of Photius. The only flaw which marred the purity of their doctrine and their loyalty to Rome, occurred in the sixth century, when, the better to combat the Eutychian tendencies of the Scythian monks, they themselves fell into the Nestorian error and had to be excommunicated by Pope John II. But it was the error of a few (quibusdam paucis monachis, says a contemporary document), and it could not seriously detract from the praise given their order by the Roman Synod of 484: “Thanks to your true piety towards God, to your zeal ever on the watch, and to a special gift of the Holy Ghost, you discern the just from the impious, the faithful from the miscreants, the Catholics from the heretics.”

HELYOT, Histoire des ordres monastiques (Paris, 1714); HEIMBUCHER, Orden u. Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1896); MARIN, Les moines de Constantinople De Studio, Coenobio Constantinopolitano (Paris, 1897); GARDNER, Theodore of Studium (London, 1905).

J.F. SOLLIER

Acolouthia

(From the Greek ἀκολουθέω, to follow.)

In ecclesiastical terminology signifies the order or arrangement of the Divine Office (perhaps because the parts are closely connected and follow in order) and also, in a wide sense, the Office itself. The Acolouthia is composed of musical and rhetorical elements, the first usually given in the musical mode or tone (Ἠχος), according to which the liturgical compositions are chanted. There are eight modes, four primary and four secondary. As the Greeks rarely used texts set to musical notation, they learned by heart the words and music of some standard hymn or canticle, and this served as a model for other hymns of the same rhythm. A strophe or stanza of a standard hymn which indicates the melody of a composition, is known as a hirmos (ἑιρμός). Some believe that a hirmos placed at the end of a hymn should be called a catabasia (καταβασία) while others hold that the catabasia is a short hymn sung by the choir, who descend from their seats into the church for the purpose. The fundamental element of the Acolouthia is the troparion (τροπάριον), which is a short hymn, or one of the stanzas of a hymn. The contakion (κοντάκιον) is a troparion which explains briefly the character of the feast celebrated in the day’s Office. The oikos (oἶκος) is a somewhat longer troparion, which in concise style glorifies the virtues and merits of the subject of the feast. The apolytikion (ἀπολυτίκων) is a troparion which is proper to the day, and is said just before the prayer of dismissal.

The ode (ᾠδή) was originally one of the nine inspired canticles sung in the morning Office, but later the name was also given to uninspired compositions, consisting of a varying number of poetical troparia and modelled after the Scriptural odes. Such odes are often combined to form a canon (κανών) which is usually composed of nine, but sometimes of a smaller number of odes. Finally, the stichos (στίχος) is a short verse taken from the Psalms or some other book of Holy Scripture, while the sticheron (στίχηρον) is a short verse of ecclesiastical composition modelled after the stichos. The parts of the Office are the Little Vespers, the Greater Vespers, the Orthros (dawn), the four little Hours, and the Apodeipnon (compline). The Little Vespers, which are recited before sunset, consist of the invitatory versicles, Psalms 103 and 140, several stichoi and similar stichera, a short hymn, and a psalm, some similar stichera and stichoi, the Nunc dimittis, the trisagion, and the apolytikion.

Greater Vespers, which are said after sunset, begin with the invitatory, Psalm 103 and the greater litany, and then the priest says the prayers of the Lychnic. The choir recites the first cathisma (division of the psalter), and after the deacon has said the litany it chants Psalm 140, and several versicles during the incensation. After changing his vestments in the sacristy, the priest says the prayer for the entrance, the deacon after some versicles recites the litanies, and the priest says the prayer of benediction. During the procession to the narthex, stichera proper to the feast are recited, and then the priest recites a series of prayers, to which the choir answers Kyrie Eleison many times, and the priest blesses all present. Next the stichera proper to the feast are said by the choir with the Nunc dimittis, the trisagion, a prayer to the Trinity, the Lord’s Prayer, and the apolytikion, and Vespers are concluded with lessons from the Scriptures. The first part of the Orthros, or midnight office, consists of twelve prayers, the greater litany, two stichera followed by Psalms 134 and 135, a third sticheron followed by the gradual psalms, an antiphon with the prokeimenon, the reading of the Gospel, many acclamations and three canons of odes, while the second part of the Orthros, corresponding to Lauds in the Roman Office, is composed of Psalms 148, 149, 150, several similar stichera, the greater doxology, a benediction, and the prayer for the dismissal.

Each little Hour is followed by a supplementary hour, called a Μεσώριον. Prime begins with the recitation of three psalms followed by a doxology, two stichoi, a doxology, a troparion in honour of the Theotokos (the Birthgiver of God, i.e. the Blessed Virgin), the trisagion, several variable troparia, the doxology and dismissal, while its supplementary Hour is composed of a troparion, doxology, troparion of the Theotokos, Kyrie Eleison repeated forty times, a prayer, and a doxology. Terce, Sext, and None each contain the invitatory versicles, three psalms, a doxology, two stichoi, a doxology, the troparion of the Theotokos, the trisagion, doxology, another troparion of the Blessed Virgin, and the Kyrie Eleison repeated forty times, and their Mesoria have the invitatory versicles, three psalms, a doxology, troparion, doxology, troparion of the Theotokos, Kyrie Eleison repeated forty times, and a proper prayer.

Before or after None, an office called Τὰ τυπικά is recited, which consists ordinarily of the invitatory versicles, Psalms 102 and 145, and a troparion, but in the seasons of fasting this Office is regulated by different rubrics. The last part of the Office is called the Apodeipnon and corresponds to the Roman Compline. The greater Apodeipnon is said during Lent, the little Apodeipnon during the rest of the year. The latter is composed of a doxology, troparion, the trisagion, the Lord’s Prayer, the Kyrie Eleison repeated twelve times, and invitatory versicles, and Psalms 50, 69, and 162, which are followed by the greater doxology, the Creed, the trisagion, the Lord’s Prayer, the troparion proper to the feast, the Kyrie Eleison repeated forty times, several invocations, and the long prayers of dismissal.

RAYAEUS, Tractatus de Acolouthia, etc., in Acta SS., June II, 13; LECLERCQ in Dict. d’archéol. chrét., II., 340; NEALE, History of the Holy Eastern Church (London, 1850).

J.F. GOGGIN

Acolyte

(Gr. ἀκόλουθος; Lat. sequens, comes, a follower, an attendant).

An acolyte is a cleric promoted to the fourth and highest minor order in the Latin Church, ranking next to a subdeacon. The chief offices of an acolyte are to light the candles on the altar, to carry them in procession, and during the solemn singing of the Gospel; to prepare wine and water for the sacrifice of the Mass; and to assist the sacred ministers at the Mass, and other public services of the Church. In the ordination of an acolyte the bishop presents him with a candle, extinguished, and an empty cruet, using appropriate words expressive of these duties. Altar boys are often designated as acolytes and perform the duties of such. The duties of the acolyte in Catholic liturgical services are fully described in the manuals of liturgy, e.g. Pio Matinucci, “Manuale Sacrarum Caeremoniarum” (Rome, 1880), VI, 625; and De Herdt, “Sacrae Liturgiae Praxis” (Louvain, 1889), II, 28–39.

It is just possible that the obscure passage in the life of Victor I (189–199), erroneously attributed by Ferraris (I, 101) to Pius I (140–155), concerning sequentes may really mean acolytes (Duchesne, Lib. Pont., I, 137; cf. I, 161). Be this as it may, the first authentic document extant in which mention is made of acolytes is a letter (Eus., Hist. Eccl., VI, xliii), written in 251, by Pope Cornelius to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, and in which we possess a definite enumeration of the Roman clergy. There existed at that time in Rome forty-six priests, seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, forty-two acolytes, and fifty-two exorcists, lectors, and doorkeepers. It is worthy of note that two hundred and fifty years later the “Constitutum Silvestri,” a document of about 501 (Mansi, “Coll. Conc.,” II, 626; cf. “Lib. Pont.,” ed. Duchesne, Introd., 138), gives forty-five acolytes as the number in Rome. Pope Fabian (236–250), the immediate predecessor of Cornelius, had divided Rome into seven ecclesiastical districts or regions, setting a deacon over each one. A redistribution of the clergy of the city soon followed according to these seven divisions. The Roman acolytes were subject to the deacon of the region, or, in case of his absence or death, to the archdeacon. In each region there was a deacon, a subdeacon, and according to the numeration above, probably six acolytes. Ancient ecclesiastical monuments and documents lead us to believe that a subdeacon was a sort of head-acolyte or arch-acolyte, holding the same relation to the acolytes as the archdeacon to deacons, with this difference, however, that there was only one archdeacon, while there was a deacon for each region. As late as the first half of the tenth century we meet with the term arch-acolyte in Luitprand of Cremona (“Antapodosis,” VI, 6; Muratori, “SS. Rer. Ital.,” II, 1, 473), where it stands for a “dignity” (q.v.) in the metropolitan church of Capua. We may therefore regard the ministry of the subdeacon and acolyte as a development of that of the deacon. Moreover, these three categories of clerics differ from the lower orders in this, that they are all attached to the service of the altar, while the others are not.

The letters of St. Cyprian (7, 28, 34, 52, 59, 78, 79) give ample proof of the fact that at Carthage also, in the middle of the third century, acolytes existed. Eusebius (De Vita Constant., III, 8) mentions the acolytes present at the Council of Nice (325), not as designated for the service of the altar, but as persons attached to the retinue of bishops. The “Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua,” often referred to as the decrees of the so-called Fourth Synod of Carthage (398), but really belonging to the end of the fifth, or the early part of the sixth, century (Duchesne, “Christian Worship,” 332, 350), prove that this order was then known in the ecclesiastical province of Arles in Gaul, where these decrees were enacted. It would seem, however, that all the churches in the West, and more especially the smaller churches, did not have acolytes. We might conclude that at Reims, in the fifth century, there were no acolytes, if we could attach credence to the will of Bishop Bennadius, predecessor of St. Remigius. He gives all the categories of clerics except this one (Flodoard, Hist. Rem. Eccl., I, ix, in P.L., LXXXV, 43). In the Christian epigraphy of Gaul mention is made, as far as is known, of only one acolyte, viz., at Lyons in 517 (La Blant, “Inser. chrét. de la Gaule,” I, 36), and, in general, very few epigraphs of acolytes are found in the first five centuries. In the Irish Collection of Canons (Collectio Canonum Hibernensis, ed. Wasserschleben, Giessen, 1874, 32) the arch-acolyte is not mentioned among the seven ecclesiastical degrees, but placed with the psalmist and cantor outside the ordinary hierarchy.

In the sixth canon of the aforementioned “Statuta” the duties of acolytes are specified, as they are by a contemporary writer, John the Deacon, in his letter to Senarius (P.L., LIX, 404). Specific information concerning the place and duties of acolytes in the Roman Church between the fifth and ninth centuries is drawn from a series of ancient directions known as the “Ordines Romani” (q.v.-Duchesne, op. Cit., 146 and passim). According to them there were in Rome (perhaps also in Carthage, and other large Western cities) three classes of acolytes, all of whom, nevertheless, had their duties in relation to the liturgical synaxes or assemblies: (1) those of the palace (palatini), who served the Pope (or bishop) in his palace, and in the Lateran Basilica; (2) those of the region (regionarii), who assisted the deacons in their duties in the different parts of the city; (3) those of the station (stationarii), who served in church; these last were not a distinct body, but belonged to the regional acolytes. Regional acolytes were also termed titular (titulares) from the church to which they were attached (Mabillon, “Comm. in Ord. Rom.,” in his “Musaeum Italicum,” II, 20; for an old epigraph in Aringhius, 156, see Ferraris, I, 100; Magani, “Antica Lit. Rom.,” Milan, 1899, III, 61—see also ROME, CITY OF). Acolytes of the palace were destined in a particular manner to the service of the Pope, assisting him not only in church functions, but also as ablegates, messengers of the papal court, in distributing alms, carrying pontifical documents and notices, and performing other duties of like character. These offices, however, acolytes shared with readers and subdeacons, or arch-acolytes. At Rome they carried not only the eulogia (q.v.), or blessed bread, when occasion required, but also the Blessed Eucharist from the Pope’s Mass to that of the priests whose duty it was to celebrate in the churches (tituli). This is evident from the letter of Innocent I (401–417) to Decentius, Bishop of Gubbio, in Italy (P.L., XX, 556). They also carried the sacred species to the absent, especially to confessors of the faith detained in prison (see TARSICIUS). This office of carrying the Blessed Eucharist, St. Justin, who suffered martyrdom about 165 or 166, had previously assigned to deacons (Apolog., I, 67), which would indicate that at that time acolytes did not exist.

We learn still further from the “Ordines Romani” that when the Pope was to pontificate in a designated district all the acolytes of that region went to the Lateran Palace to receive and accompany him. In the sixth or seventh century, perhaps a little earlier, the chief acolyte of the stational church, carrying the sacred chrism covered with a veil, and, directing the procession, preceded on foot the horse on which the Pope rode. The other acolytes followed, carrying the Gospel-book, burses, and other articles used in the holy sacrifice. They accompanied the Pope to the secretarium or sacristy (see BASILICA). One of them solemnly placed the book of Gospels upon the altar. They carried seven lighted candles before the pontiff entering the sanctuary. With lighted candles, two acolytes accompanied the deacon to the ambo (q.v.) for the singing of the Gospel. After the Gospel, another acolyte received the book, which, placed in a case and sealed, was later returned to the Lateran by the head acolyte. An acolyte carried to the deacon at the altar, the chalice and pall; acolytes received, and cared for, the offerings gathered by the Pope; an acolyte held the paten, covered with a veil, from the beginning to the middle of the canon. In due time acolytes bore, in linen bags, or burses suspended from their necks, the oblata, or consecrated loaves from the altar to the bishops and priests in the sanctuary; that they might break the sacred species (see FRACTIO PANIS). It will be seen from these, and other duties devolving upon acolytes, that they were in a large measure responsible for the successful carrying out of pontifical and stational ceremonies. This was particularly true after the foundation of the Schola Cantorum (q.v.) at Rome, of which there is clear evidence from the seventh century onward. Being then the only ones in minor orders engaged in active ministry, acolytes acquired a much greater importance than they had hitherto enjoyed. Cardinal priests had no other assistants in their titular churches. During Lent, and at the solemnization of baptism, acolytes fulfilled all the functions which hitherto had devolved upon the exorcists, just as the subdeacon had absorbed those of the lector or reader. Alexander VII (1655–67) abolished the medieval college of acolytes described above and substituted in their place (26 October, 1655) the twelve voting prelates of the Signature of Justice. As evidence of their origin these prelates still retain, at papal functions, many of the offices or duties described above.

According to the ancient discipline of the Roman Church the order of acolyte was conferred as the candidate approached adolescence, about the age of twenty, as the decree of Pope Siricius (385) to Himerius, Bishop of Tarragona, in Spain, was interpreted (P.L., XIII, 1142). Five years were to elapse before an acolyte could receive subdeaconship. Pope Zosimus reduced (418) this term to four years. The Council of Trent leaves to the judgment of bishops to determine what space should elapse between the conferring of the acolythate and subdeaconship; it is also interesting to note, with Dr. Probst (Kirchenlex., I, 385), that the Council’s desire (Sess. XXIII, c. 17, de ref.) concerning the performance of ministerial services exclusively by minor-order clerics was never fulfilled. In ancient ecclesiastical Rome there was no solemn ordination of acolytes. At communion-time in any ordinary Mass, even when it was not stational, the candidate approached the Pope, or in his absence, one of the bishops of the pontifical court. At an earlier moment of the Mass he had been vested with the stole and the chasuble. Holding in his arms a linen bag (porrigitur in ulnas ejus sacculus super planetam; a symbol of the highest function of these clerics, that of carrying, as stated above, the consecrated hosts) he prostrated himself while the Pontiff pronounced over him a simple blessing (Mabillon, op. Cit., II, 85, ed. Paris, 1724). It may be well to mention here the two prayers of the ancient Roman Mass-book known as the “Sacramentarium Gregorianum” (Mabillon, Lit. Rom. Vetus, II, 407), said by the Pontiff over the acolyte, and the first of which is identical with that of the actual Roman Pontifical “Domine, sancte Pater, aeterne Deus, qui ad Moysen et Aaron locutus es,” etc.

According to the aforementioned “Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua,” which give us the ritual usage of the most important churches in Gaul about the year 500, the candidate for acolyte was first instructed by the bishop in the duties of his office, and then a candlestick, with a candle extinguished, was placed in his hand by the archdeacon, as a sign that the lights of the church would be in his care; moreover, an empty cruet was given him, symbolical of his office of presenting wine and water at the altar for the holy sacrifice. A short blessing followed. (See MINOR ORDERS; FRACTIO PANIS; EUCHARIST; MASS.)

ANDREW B. MEEHAN

Joaquín Acosta

A native of Colombia in South America, who served in the Colombian army and in 1834 attempted a scientific survey of the country between Socorro and the Magdalena River. Seven years later he explored western Colombia from Antioquia to Ancerma studying its topography, its natural history and the traces of its aboriginal inhabitants. In 1845 he went to Spain to examine such documentary material concerning Colombia and its colonial history as was then accessible, and three years later he published his “Compendio,” a work on the discovery and colonization of New Granada (Colombia). The map accompanying this work, now out of date, was very fair for the time, and the work itself is still valuable for its abundant bibliographic references and biographic notes. What he says in it of the writings of Quesada the conqueror of New Granada, is very incomplete and in many ways erroneous, but his biographies of the the ecclesiastics to whom, following upon Quesada, our knowledge of the country, its colonization, is due, remain a guide to the student of Spanish-American history. Without him, we might yet be ignorant of the fundamental works of Zamora, Fresle, and of the linguistic labours of Lugo. One year after the “Compendio,” the “Semenario” appeared at Paris, embodying the botanical papers of Caldas.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

José de Acosta

The son of well-to-do and respected parents, born at Medina del Campo in Spain, 1540; died at Salamanca, 15 February, 1600. He became a novice in the Society of Jesus at the age of thirteen at the place of his birth. Four of his brothers successively joined the same order. Before leaving Spain, he was lecturer in theology at Ocana, and in April, 1569, was sent to Lima, Peru, where the Jesuits had been established in the proceeding year. At Lima, Acosta again occupied the chair of theology. his fame as an orator had proceeded him. In 1571 he went to Cuzco as a visitor of the college of the Jesuits then recently founded. Returning to Lima three years later, to again fill the chair of theology, he was elected provincial in 1576. He founded a number of colleges, among them those of Arequipa, Potose, Chuquisaca, Panama, and La Paz, but met with considerable opposition from the viceroy, Francisco de Toledo. He official duties obliged him to investigate personally a very extensive range of territory, so that he acquired a practical knowledge of the vast province, and of its aboriginal inhabitants. At the provincial, council of 1582, at Lima, Acosta played a very important part. Called to Spain by the King in 1585, he was detained in Mexico, where he dedicated himself to studies of the country and people. returning to Europe, he filled the chair of theology at the Roman college in 1594, as well as other important positions. At the time of his death, he was rector of the college at Salamanca.

Few members of the Society of Jesus in the sixteenth century have been so uniformly eulogized as Father Acosta. Independently of his private character, his learning and the philosophic spirit pervading his works attracted the widest attention in learned circles. Translations of his works exist in many languages of Europe, while the naturalists of the eighteenth century praise his knowledge of the flora of western South America. Aside from his publication of the proceedings of the provincial councils of 1567 and 1583, and several works of exclusively theological import, Acosta is best known as writer through the “De Natura Novi Orbis.” “De promulgatione Evangelii apud Barbaros, sive De Procuranda Indorum salute,” and above all, the “Historia natural y moral de las Indias.” The first two appeared at Salamanca in 1588, the last at Seville in 1590, and was soon after its publication translated into various languages. It is chiefly the “Historia natural y moral” that has established the reputation of Acosta. In a form more concise than that employed by his predecessors, Gomara and Oviedo, he treats the natural and philosophic history of the New World from a broader point of view. Much of what he says is of necessity erroneous, because it is influenced by the standard of knowledge of his time; but his criticisms are remarkable, while always dignified. He reflects the scientific errors of the period in which he lived, but with hints of a more advanced understanding. As far as the work of the Church among the Indians is concerned, the “De procurandâ Indorum salute” is perhaps more valuable than the “Historia,” because it shows the standpoint from which efforts at civilizing the aborigines should be undertaken. That standpoint indicates no common perception of the true nature of the Indian, and of the methods of approaching him for his own benefit.

De Backer, Bibliotheque des equivains de la Cie. de Jesus. Among earlier sources, Father Eusebius Nieremberg, Anella Oliva, Historia del Peru y de los Verones insignes de la Compagnia de Jesus (1639) deserves mention, as well as Nicholas Antonio, Biblioteca Vetustisima and the Bibliography of Beristain de Souza; writers on Spanish-American literature generally mention Acosta. A good Bibliography, and a short Biography of Acosta, are found in Enrique Torres Saldanando, Los antiquos Jesuitas del Peru (Lima, 1882). See also: Mendiburu, Diccionaria historico-biografica del Peru, I (1874).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Diocese of Acquapendente

A diocese in Italy under the immediate jurisdiction of the Holy See, comprising seven towns of the Province of Rome. Acquapendente was under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Orvieto until 1649. That year, in consequence of a conspiracy, Cristoforo Girarda, a Barnabite of Novara, Bishop of Castro, was assassinated. In punishment of this crime, Innocent X ordered Castro to be destroyed, and raised Acquapendente to the dignity of an episcopal city (Bull, 13 September, 1649). Its bishops, however, retain the appellation “post Castrenses.” The first incumbent of the new See was the Hieronymite (il gerosolimitano) Pompeo Mignucci of Offida, who had been Archbishop of Ragusa. He took possession 10 January, 1650. This diocese contains 13 parishes; 80 churches, chapels, and oratories; 47 secular clergy; 35 seminarians; 15 regular priests; 49 religious (women); 30 confraternities. Population, 19,350.

UGHELLI, Italia Sacra (Venice, 1722), I, 583; CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d Italia (Venice, 1866), V, 549; GAMS, Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae (Ratisbon, 1873), 660; RHANGIASI, Bibliografia istorica della città e luoghi dello Stato Pontificio (Rome, 1772).

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Acquaviva

Name of several Italian cardinals.

FRANCESCO, b. 1665 at Naples, of the family of the Dukes of Atri. He filled various offices under Innocent XI, Alexander VIII, Innocent XII, and Clement XI. The latter created him Cardinal, and Bishop of Sabina. He died in 1723, and was buried at Rome in the Church of Santa Cecilia.

GIOVANNI VINCENZO, Bishop of Melfi and Rapolla (1537), Cardinal-priest of Sylvester and Martin (1542), d. in 1566.

GIULIO, b. at Naples, 1546; d. 1574. Nuncio of St. Pius V to Philip II of Spain, made Cardinal by the same pope, whom he assisted on his deathbed.

OTTAVIO (the elder), b. at Naples, 1560; d. 1612; filled various offices under Sixtus V, Gregory XIV, and Clement VIII, was Cardinal-legate in the Campagna and at Avignon, and was instrumental in the conversion of Henri IV. Leo XI made him Archbishop of Naples (1605).

OTTAVIO (the younger), of the family of the dukes of Atri, b. at Naples, 1608; d. at Rome, 1674. He was made Cardinal in 1654 by Innocent IX, and legate at Viterbo and in Romagna, where he checked the ravages of the banditti. He is buried at Rome in the church of Santa Cecilia.

TROIANO, b. 1694 at Naples, of the same ducal family; d. at Rome in 1747. He was employed by Benedict XIII in the administration of the Papal States, made Cardinal by Clement XII in 1732. He represented in the Curia the Kings of Spain, Philip V and Charles III, and at the former’s request was made Archbishop of Toledo, whence he was transferred to Montereale. He was influential in the conclave that elected (17 August, 1740) Benedict XIV. He is buried at Rome in the Church of Santa Cecilia.

PASQUALE, of Avignon, b. 1719 at Naples; d. 1788. He was made Cardinal by Clement XIV in 1773.

STAHL in Kirchenlex., I, 1177–78.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Claudius Acquaviva

Fifth General of the Society of Jesus, born October, 1543; died 31 January, 1615. He was the son of Prince Giovanni Antonio Acquaviva, Duke of Atri, in the Abruzzi, and, at twenty-five, when high in favor at the papal court, renounced his brilliant worldly prospects, and entered the Society. After being Provincial both of Naples and Rome, he was elected General of the Society, 19 February, 1581. He was the youngest who ever occupied that post. His election coincided with the first accusation of ambition ever made against a great official of the Order. Manareus had been named Vicar by Father Mercurian, and it was alleged that he aspired to the generalship. His warm defender was Acquaviva, but to dispel the slightest suspicion, Manareus renounced his right to be elected. Acquaviva was chosen by a strong majority. His subsequent career justified the wisdom of the choice, which was very much doubted at the time by the Pope himself. During his generalship, the persecution in England, wither he had once asked to go as a missionary, was raging; the Huguenot troubles in France were at their height; Christianity was being crushed in Japan; the Society was expelled from Venice, and was oppressed elsewhere; a schism within the Society was immanent; the pope, the Inquisition, and Philip II were hostile. Acquaviva was denounced to the Pope, even by men like Toletus (q.v.), yet such was his prudence, his skill, his courage, and his success, that he is regarded as the greatest administrator, after St. Ignatius, the Society ever had. Even those who were jealous of him admitted his merit, when, to satisfy them, the fifth and sixth Congregations ordered an investigation to be made of his method of government. The greatest difficulty he had to face was the schism organized in Spain by Vasquez (q.v.). The King and Pope had been won over by the dissidents. Open demands for quasi-independence for Spain had been made in the Congregations of the Society. No Jesuit was allowed to leave Spain without royal permission. Episcopal visitation of the houses had been asked for and granted. But finally, through the mediation of the English Jesuit, Robert Parsons (q.v.), who was highly esteemed by Philip, the King was persuaded of the impolicy of the measures, while Acquaviva convinced the Pope that the schism would be disastrous for the Church. Deprived of these supports the rebellion collapsed. Simultaneously the Inquisition was doing its best to destroy the Society. It listened to defamatory accusations, threw the Provincial of Castille into prison, demanded the surrender of the Constitutions for examination, until Acquaviva succeeded in inducing the Pope to call the case to his own tribunal, and revoke the powers which had been given to the Inquisition, or which it claimed. Finally, Pope Sixtus V, who had always been unfriendly to the Society, determined to change it completely. The Emperor Ferdinand implored him not to act; the College of Cardinals resisted; but the Pope was obstinate. The bull was prepared, and Acquaviva himself was compelled to send in a personal request to have even the name changed, when the death of the pontiff saved the situation—a coincidence which gave rise to accusations against the Society. His successor, Gregory XIV, hastened to renew all the former privileges of the Order, and to confirm its previous approbations.

During Acquaviva’s administration, the protracted controversy on Grace, between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, took place, and was carried on with some interruptions for nearly nine years, without either party drawing any decision from the Church, the contestants being ultimately ordered to discontinue the discussion. It was Acquaviva who ordered the scheme of Jesuit studies, known as the “Ratio Studiorum” (q.v.), to be drawn up which, with some modifications, has been followed to the present day. Six of the most learned and experienced scholars of the Society were summoned to Rome, who laid out the entire plan of studies, beginning with theology, philosophy and their cognate branches, and going down to the smallest details of grammar. When finished, it was sent to the different Provinces for suggestions, but was not imposed until 1592, and then with the proviso that the Society would determine what charge was to be to made, which was done in the General Congregation of 1593.

The period of his generalship was the most notable in the history of the Society for the men it produced, and the work it accomplished. The names of Suarez, Toletus, Bellarmine, Maldontus, Clavius, Lessius, Ripalda, Ricci, Parsons, Southwell, Campion, Aloysius Gonzaga, and a host of others are identified with it. Royal and pontifical missions to France, Russia, Poland, Constantinople, and Japan were entrusted to men like Possevin, and Bellarmine, and Vallignani. Houses were multiplied all over the world with an astonishing rapidity. The colleges were educating some of the most brilliant statesmen, princes, and warriors of Europe. The Reductions of Paraguay were organized; the heroic work of the missions of Canada were begun; South America was being traversed in all directions; China had been penetrated, and the Jesuits were the emperor’s official astronomers; martyrs in great numbers were sacrificing their lives in England, America, India, Japan, and elsewhere; and the great struggle organized by Canisius and Nadal to check the Reformation in Germany had been brought to a successful conclusion. The guiding spirit of all these great achievements, and many more besides, was Claudius Acquaviva. He died at the age of seventy-one, 31 January, 1615. Jouvency says the longer he lived the more glorious the Society became; and Cordarius speaks of his election as an inspiration. Besides the “Ratio Studiorum,” of which he is substantially the author, as it was under his initiative and supervision that the plan was conceived and carried out, we have also the “Directorium Exercitiorum Spiritualium S.P.N. Ignatii,” or “Guide to the Spiritual Exercises” which was also suggested and revised by him. This work has been inserted in the “Corpus Instituti S.J.” More directly his are the “Industriae ad Curandos Aninme Morbos.” As General, he wrote many encyclical letters, and he is author of nearly all the “Ordinationes Generalium” which were printed in 1595, with the Approbation of the Fifth General Congregation. Many other documents and letters, relating chiefly to matters of government, are still extant.

Jouvency, Epitome Hist. Soc. Jesu, IV; Crétineau-Joly, Historie de la Comp. de Jesus III; Varones Ilustres, V, 79; Menologium S. J., 31 January.

T. J. Campbell

Diocese of Acqui

A diocese suffragan of Turin, Italy, which contains ninety-three towns in the Province of Alexandria, twenty-three in the Province of Genoa, and one in the Province of Cuneo. The first indubitable Bishop of Acqui is Ditarius. A tablet found in 1753 in the church of St. Peter, informs us that Ditarius, the bishop, died on the 25th of January, 488, in the Consulate of Dinamias and Syphidius. Popular tradition gives Deusdedit, Andreas Severus Masimus, and, earliest of all, Majorinus, as bishops prior to him. Calculating the time that these bishops, Roman certainly in name, governed this see, Majorinus probably lived either at the end of the fourth, or in the beginning of the fifth, century. It is very probable that the diocese of Acqui was erected at the end of the fourth century, about the same time, it would appear, as the dioceses of Novara, Turin, Ivrea, Aosta and perhaps, Asti and Alba: Presupposing the fact that the erection of dioceses in the provinces of the Roman Empire, after Constantine, was not done without previous agreement between the Church and the emperors, it is safe to say that the most propitious time for such organization in Northern Italy was the seven years of the reign of Honorius (395–402), when a complete reorganization of the Provinces of Northern Italy and Southern Gaul was effected. Other arguments could be advanced to confirm the existence and episcopate of St. Majorinus. The name was very common in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries. St. Augustine (De Haer., I, 69) speaks of two bishops of this name; two others appear as signers of the Letter of the Synod of Carthage to Pope Innocent the First (401–417) against Pelagius (Ep. St. Aug., II, 90). Veneration was offered to the saint from time immemorial by the church in Acqui, shown by his statues and relics. This veneration, however, has ceased since a decree of the Congregation of Rites (8 April, 1628) prohibited the veneration of saints whose sanctity had not been declared by the Holy See. In the list of the bishops of Acqui, St. Guido (1034–70) is worthy of note. He was of the Counts of Acquasana under whose government the cathedral was erected, and is the patron saint of Acqui. The bishopric contains 122 parishes; 456 churches, chapels, and oratories; 317 secular priests; 180 seminarians; 42 regular priests; 20 lay-brothers; 75 religious (women); 60 confraternities; 3 boys schools (168 pupils); 4 girls’ schools (231 pupils). Population, 18,120.

UGHELLI, Italia Sacra (Venice, 1722), IV, 326; CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d Italia (Venice, 1866), XIV, 134; GAMS, Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae (Ratisbon, 1873), 808; SAVIO, Gli antichi vescovi d Italia dalle origini al 1300 descritti per regioni, I Piemonte (Turin, 1899), 948; PEDROCCA, Solatia chronologica sacrosanctae Aquensis Ecclesiae (manuscript in the Curia of Acqui, 1628); MORIUNDUS, Monumenta Aquensia adjectae sunt plures Alexandriae ac finitimarum Pedemontanae ditionis provinciarum, Chartae et Chronica (Turin, 1790); BIORCI, Antichità e prerogative d’ Acqui Staziella sua istoria profana-ecclesiastica (Tortona, 1818); MAMIO, Bibliografia provvisoria acquese, in preparazione alla bibliografia storica degli stati della monarchia di Savoia (Turin, 1885).

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Acre

Acre (SAINT-JEAN-D’ACRE), in Hebrew Accho, in the Books of Machabees , in Greek writers Ake (Arke), in Latin writers Ace or Acce, in Assyrian inscriptions Ak-ku-u, in modern Arabic Akka.

Acre is a Syrian seaport on the Mediterranean, in a plain with Mount Carmel on the south, and the mountains of Galilee on the east. Though choked up with sand, it is one of the best harbours on the Syrian coast. The city was built by the Chanaanites, and given to the tribe of Aser (Judges, i, 31), but not conquered (Jos., xix, 24–31). It is mentioned in Mich., i, 10. It was taken by Sennacherib the Assyrian (704–680 B.C.), passed into the power of Tyre, of the Seleucid kings of Syria, and the Romans. At the time of the Macchabees it belonged for a short time to the sanctuary in Jerusalem by gift of Demetrius Soter (I Mach., x, 112, xiii). The Emperor Claudius granted Roman municipal rights to the town; hence it received the name “Colonia Claudii Caesaris.” St. Paul visited its early Christian community (Acts, xxi, 7). The city was taken by the Moslems A.D. 638, by the Crusaders A.D. 1104, again by the Moslems A.D. 1187, by the Crusaders again A.D. 1191 and finally by the Moslems A.D. 1291. Though Napoleon could not conquer it in 1799, it was taken by the Viceroy of Egypt in 1832, but reconquered by the Sultan in 1840. Till about 1400 it was the see of a Latin bishop; it has also been the residence of a few Jacobite bishops, and has now a Melchite bishop who is subject to the Patriarch of Antioch.

HAGEN, Lexicon Biblicum (Paris, 1905); NEHER in Kirchenlex., LEGENDRE in VIG., Dict. de la bible (Paris, 1895); EWING in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible (New York, 1903).

A. J. MAAS.

Acrostic

(ἄκρος στίχος, “at the end of a verse.”)

A poem the initial or final letters (syllables or words) of whose verses form certain words or sentences. Its invention is attributed to Epicharmus. The most remarkable example of such a poem is attributed by Lactantius and Eusebius to the Erythræan sibyl, the initial letters forming the words Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς θεοῦ ὑιὸς σωτὴρ (σταυρός), “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour (cross).” Omitting the doubtful parenthesis, these words form a minor acrostic: Ἰχθύς, fish, the mystical symbol of our Lord. The acrostic is supposed to have been quite popular among the early Christians. In a wider sense the name acrostic is applied to alphabetical or “abecedarian” poems. In this kind of poetry the successive verses or stanzas begin with the successive letters of the alphabet. We see this exemplified is Pss. cxi, cxii, cxix (Vulg. cx, cxi, cxviii); Prov., xxxi, 10–31; Lam., i, ii, iii, iv; and in a less regular manner, in Pss. x, xxv, xxxv, cxlv (Vulg. ix, xxiv, xxxiv, xxxvi, cxliv); Ecclus., li, 18–38. (See HEBREW POETRY, PARALLELISM, PSALMS).

LECLERCQ in Dict. d’archéol. chrét. et de lit. (Paris, 1903); VIGOUROUX in Dict. de la bible, s.v. Alphabétique (Poème) (Paris, 1895).

A.J. MAAS

Acta Pilati

Acta Pilati (or Gospel of Nicodemus).—This work does not assume to have written by Pilate, but to have been derived from the official acts preserved in the prætorium at Jerusalem. The alleged Hebrew original is attributed to Nicodemus. The title “Gospel of Nicodemus” is of medieval origin. The apocryphon gained wide credit in the Middle Ages, and has considerably affected the legends of our Saviour’s Passion. Its popularity is attested by the number of languages in which it exists, each of these being represented by two or more recensions. We possess a text in Greek, the original language; a Coptic, an Armenian and a Latin, besides modern translations. The Latin versions were naturally its most current form and were printed several times in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. One class of the Latin manuscripts contain as an appendix or continuation, the “Cura Sanitatis Tiberii,” the oldest form of the Veronica legend.

The “Acta” consist of three sections, which reveal inequalities of style. The first (i-xi) contains the trial of Jesus based upon Luke, xxiii. The second part comprises xii-xvi; it regards the Resurrection. An appendix, detailing the Descensus ad Infernos, forms the third section, This does not exist in the Greek text and is a later addition. Leucius and Charinus, the two souls raised from the dead after the Crucifixion, relate to the Sanhedrin the circumstances of Our Lord’s descent to Limbo. The well-informed Eusebius (325), although he mentions the Acta Pilati referred to by Justin and Tertullian and heathen pseudo-Acts of this kind, shows no acquaintance with this work. We are forced to admit that is of later origin, and scholars agree in assigning it to the middle of the fourth century. There is no internal relation between the “Acta” and the feigned letter found in the Acts of Peter and Paul. Epiphanius refers to the Acta Pilati similar to our own, as early as 376, but there are indications that the current Greek text, the earliest extant form, is a revision of the original one. The “Acta” are of orthodox composition and free from Gnostic taint. The book aimed at gratifying the desire for extra-evangelical details concerning Our Lord, and at the same time, to strengthen faith in the Resurrection of Christ, and at general edification. The writers (for the work we have is a composite) could not have expected their production to be seriously accepted by unbelievers. (See Apocryha, under Pilate Literature.)

The best Greek and Latin edition of the text, with notes, is that of THILO, Codex Apocryphorum Nove Testamenti, I (Leipzig, 1832; TISCHENDORF, Evangelica Apocrypha (Leipzig, 1853, 1876), is uncritical in this regard. For dissertations: LIPSIUS, Die Pilatus Akten kritisch untersucht (Kiel 1871); WÜLCKER, Das Evangelium Nicodemi in der abendlandischer Litteratur (Paderborn, 1872); DOBSCHÜTZ, art. Gospel of Nicodemus in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, extra volume; LIPSIUS, art. Apocryphal Gospel, in Dict. of Christ. Biog., II, 707–709. The Acta Pilati receives due notice in the histories of ancient Christian literature by BARDENHEWER, ZAHN, HARNACK and PREUSCHEN.

GEORGE J. REID

Acta Sanctæ Sedis

A Roman monthly publication containing the principal public documents issued by the Pope, directly or through the Roman Congregations. It was begun in 1865, under the title of “Acta Sanctæ Sedis in compendium redacta etc.,” and was declared, 23 May, 1904, an organ of the Holy See to the extent that all documents printed in its are “authentic and official.”

Acta Sanctorum Hiberniæ

Acta Sanctorum Hiberniæ, the abbreviated title of a celebrated work on the Irish saints by the Franciscan, John Colgan (Louvain, 1645). The full title runs as follows: “Acta Sanctorum veteris et majoris Scotiae, seu Hiberniae, Sanctorum Insulae, partim ex variis per Europam MSS. codd. exscripta, partim ex antiquis monumentis et probatis authoribus eruta et congesta; omnia notis et appendicibus illustrata, per R.P.F. Joannem Colganum, in conventu F.F. Minor. Hibern. Scrictioris Observ., Lovanii, S. Theologiae Lectorem Jubilatum. Nunc primum de eisdem actis juxta ordinem mensium et dierum prodit tomus primus, qui de sacris Hiberniae antiquitatibus est tertius, Januarium, Februarium, et Martium complectens.” Colgan was an ardent Irishman, of the Mac Colgan sept, b. in the County Derry, 1592. He entered the Irish House of Franciscans, at Louvain, in 1612, and was ordained priest in 1618. Aided by Father Hugh Ward, O.F.M., Father Stephen White, S.J., and Brother Michael O’Cleary, O.F.M., Colgan sedulously collected enormous material for the Lives of the Irish Saints, and at length, after thirty years of sifting and digesting his materials, put to press his “Acta Sanctorum Hiberniae,” a portion of the expense of which was defrayed by Archbishop O’Reilly of Armagh. The first volume, covering the lives of Irish saints for the months of January, February, and March, was intended to be the third volume of the “Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Ireland,” but only one volume was printed at Louvain in 1645. To students of Irish ecclesiastical history Colgan’s noble volume is simply invaluable.

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Acta Triadis Thaumaturgæ

Acta Triadis Thaumaturgæ (The Acts of a Wonder-working Triad), or the lives of St. Patrick, St. Brigid, and St. Columba; published at Louvain, in 1647, by John Colgan, O.F.M., mainly at the expense of Thomas Fleming, Archbishop of Dublin. The full title runs as follows: ““Triadis Thaumaturgæ, seu divorum Patricii, Columbæ, et Brigidæ, trium veteris et majoris Scotiæ, seu Hiberniæ, Sanctorum insulæ, communium patronorum acta, a variis, iisque pervetustis ac Sanctis, authoribus Scripta, ac studio R.P.F. Joannis Colgani, in conventu F.F. Minor. Hibernor, Stritior, Observ., Lovanii, S. Theologiæ Lectoris Jubilati, ex variis bibliothecis collecta, scholiis et commentariis illustrata, et pluribus appendicibus aucta; complectitur tomus secundus sacrarum ejusdem insulæ antiquitatum, nunc primum in lucem prodiens”“. Want of funds alone prevented the publication of all the priceless material which Colgan had transcribed and prepared for press, and from the catalogue of the manuscripts found in his cell after his death, it is evident that the great Irish hagiologist had given a detailed account of the labours of Irish missionaries in England, Scotland, Belgium, Alsace, Lorraine, Burgundy, Germany, and Italy. A small remnant of these unpublished volumes is now in the Franciscan Library, Merchants Quay, Dublin. In 1652 Colgan begged his superiors to relieve him of the duties of guardian and professor, and he died at St. Anthonys, Louvain, 15 January, 1658, aged66.

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

Act of Settlement (Irish)

Act of Settlement (Irish).—In 1662 an act was passed by the Irish Parliament, the privileges of which were restored on the return of Charles II, entitled “an act for the better execution of his majesty’s gracious declaration for the Settlement of his Kingdom of Ireland, and the satisfaction of the several interests of adventurers, soldiers, and other his subjects there.” To understand the provisions of this complicated Act, and the Act of Explanation of it (1664), it is necessary to recall that during the time of Cromwell English adventurers, as they were styled, advanced money for the war, and the soldiers engaged in it had large sums due to them for arrears of pay. To meet these demands, extirpate Papacy, and establish a Protestant interest in Ireland, almost all the land in Munster, Leinster, and Ulster was confiscated under the Cromwellian Settlement. The confiscations were arranged under different categories in such a way that scarcely any Catholic, or even Old Protestant, could escape. All persons who had taken part in the rebellion, before 10 November, 1642, or who had assisted the rebels in any way before that date, and also about 100 named persons, including Ormond, Bishop Bramhall, and a great part of the aristocracy of Ireland, were condemned to death, and their estates declared forfeit. All other landowners who had at any period borne arms against the Parliament, either for the rebels or for the King, were deprived of their estates, but were promised land of a third of the value in Connaught. Catholics who during the whole of the war had never borne arms against the Parliament, but who had not manifested “a constant good affection” towards it, were to be deprived of their estates, but were to receive two-thirds of their value in Connaught. Such a confiscation was practically universal (Lecky, I, 106). The Puritan made no distinction between the rebel and the royalist, and did not, of course, consider himself bound by the Articles of Peace (17 January, 1649). By these Charles I, through Ormond, had engaged that, with the exception of murderers, etc., all Catholics who submitted to the articles should “be restored to their respective possessions and hereditaments,” and that all treason etc., committed since the beginning of the rebellion, should be covered by an “Act of Oblivion” (Articles of Peace, 1649, § 4). And Charles II, in a letter from Jersey, dated 2 February, 1649–50, to Ormond, ratifies and confirms this Peace (Carte, III, 524–590, ed. 1851). Many of the Catholic proprietors had never taken arms against the King, and the rest who had done so, when the English Parliament announced its intention to extirpate the Catholic religion in Ireland, with few exceptions submitted under the Articles of Peace, and supported his cause to the end. All these had a clear title to restoration, but the adventurers and soldiers were in the actual possession of the lands, and were allowed to vote as freeholders at the elections, though they had no legal status, their titles resting on an act of Cromwell’s London Parliament, and an entry and ouster of the old proprietors under it. The Catholics who were legally the true freeholders had, of course, no votes. When the new Parliament met, the Puritan adventurers and soldiers had an enormous majority, while the Catholics were almost unrepresented in the House of Commons (1662). The king had previously issued a Declaration, in November, 1660, which was made the basis of the Act of Settlement. The Irish Parliament, under Poyning’s Act, could not entertain a Bill that had not previously been sanctioned by the Privy Council in England. He confirmed to the adventurers all the lands possessed by them on 7 May, 1659, allotted to them under the Cromwellian settlement. He did the same as regards the soldiers with a few exceptions. Protestants, however, whose estates had been given to adventurers or soldiers, were to be at once restored, unless they had been in rebellion before the cessation (truce) of 1643, or had taken out orders for lands in Connaught or Clare, and the adventurers or soldiers displaced were to be reprised, i.e. get other lands instead. The Catholics were divided into “innocent” and “nocent.” No one was to be esteemed “innocent”

who, before the cessation of 15 September, 1643, was of the rebels’ party, or who enjoyed his estate in the rebels’ quarters, except in Cork and Youghal, where the inhabitants were driven into them by force; or

who had entered into the Roman Catholic Confederacy before the Peace of 1648; or

who had at any time adhered to the nuncio’s party; or

who had inherited his property from anyone who had been guilty of those crimes; or

who had sat in any of the confederate assemblies or councils, or acted on any commissions or powers derived from them.

Those who established their claims as “innocents,” if they had taken lands in Connaught were to be restored to their estates by 2 May, 1661, but if they had sold their lands they were to indemnify the purchaser, and the adventurers and soldiers dispossessed were to be at once reprised. The “nocent” Catholics who had been in the rebellion, but who had submitted and constantly adhered to the Peace of 1648, if they had taken lands in Connaught, were to be bound by that arrangement, and not restored to their former estates. If they had served under his Majesty abroad, and not taken lands in Connaught or Clare, they were to be restored after reprisals made to the adventurers and soldiers. If all this was to be accomplished, “there must” said Ormond, “be new discoveries of a new Ireland, for the old will not serve to satisfy these engagements. It remains, then, to determine which party must suffer in the default of means to satisfy all.” The result was not doubtful. The Protestant interest was resolute and armed, and threatened to use force, if necessary, to defend their possessions. The Catholics were poor, broken, and friendless. “All the other competing interests in Ireland were united in their implacable malice to the Irish and in their desire that they might gain nothing by the King’s return.” The King yielded to the pressure of the Protestants, the vast majority of whom were accessory, before or after the fact, to the execution of his father. He declared that he was for the establishment of an English interest in Ireland. All attempts to carry out his father’s and his own engagements were abandoned. A commission was appointed consisting of thirty-six persons, all Protestants, and they proceeded to appoint from amongst their body a court of claims to hear cases and decide without a jury. Four thousand Catholics claimed to be restored to their former estates. About 600 claims were heard, and in the great majority of cases the claimants proved “innocency.” A loud outcry arose from the Puritan and Protestant interest. The mutterings of an intended insurrection were heard. The anger and panic of the Cromwellians knew no bounds. A formidable plot was discovered. A small outbreak took place (Lord E. Fitzmaurice, “Life of Petty,” p. 131). A new Bill of Settlement, or, as it was called, of Explanation, was then approved in England, and brought in and passed in Ireland (1665). It provided that the adventurers and soldiers should give up one-third of their grants under the Cromwellian settlement, to be applied for the purpose of increasing the fund for reprisals. Protestant adventurers and soldiers serving before 1649, and Protestant purchasers in Connaught or Clare before 1663, removable from restorable lands, were to receive, before the lands were restored, two-thirds equivalent in other lands. Protestant purchasers from transplanted persons in Connaught or Clare before 1 September, 1663, were confirmed in two-thirds of their purchase. Every clause in this and the preceding act was to be construed most liberally and beneficially for protecting and settling the estates and persons of Protestants, whom the Act was principally intended to settle and secure (§ 73). The clause in the first act, empowering the King to restore innocent Catholics to their houses within Corporations, was repealed (§ 221). The Anglican Church regained its estates, including its large revenue of tithes, and its hierarchy was replaced in its former position. Finally (and this is the most important and iniquitous provision in the Act) it was declared “that no person who by the qualifications of the former Act hath not been adjudged innocent, shall at any time hereafter be reputed innocent, so as to obtain any lands or tenements,” etc. This excluded the whole body of the 4,000 innocent claimants, except the 600 already disposed of “without a trial from the inheritance of their fathers, an act of the grossest and most cruel injustice” (Lecky, I 115). After these acts the Protestants possessed, according to Petty, more than two-thirds of the good land, and of the Protestant landowners in 1689, according to Archbishop King, two-thirds held their estates under the Acts of Settlement and Explanation.

ARTHUR UA CLERIGH.

Charles Januarius Acton

An English cardinal, born at Naples, 6 March, 1803; died at Naples, 23 June, 1847. He was the second son of Sir John Francis Acton, Bart. The family, a cadet branch of the Actons of Aldenham Hall, near Bridgnorth, in Shropshire, had settled in Naples some time before his birth. His father was engaged in the Neapolitan trade when he succeeded to the family estate and title through the death of his cousin, Sir Richard Acton, Bart. The Cardinal’s education was English, as he and his elder brother were sent to England on their father’s death in 1811, to a school near London kept by the Abbé Quéqué. they were then sent to Westminster School, with the understanding that their religion was not to be interfered with. Yet, they not only were sent to this Protestant school, but they had a Protestant clergyman as tutor. In 1819 they went to Magdalen College, Cambridge, where they finished their education. After this strange schooling for a future cardinal, Charles went to Rome when he was twenty and entered the Academia Ecclesiastica, where ecclesiastics intending to be candidates for public offices receive a special training. An essay of his attracted the attention of the Secretary of State, della Somaglia, and Leo XII made him a chamberlain and attaché to the Paris Nunciature, where he had the best opportunity to become acquainted with diplomacy. Pius VIII recalled him and named him vice-legate, granting him choice of any of the four legations over which cardinals presided. He chose Bologna, as affording most opportunity for improvement. He left there at the close of Pius VIII’s brief pontificate, and went to England, in 1829, to marry his sister to Sir Richard Throckmorton. Gregory XVI made him assistant judge in the Civil Court of Rome. In 1837 he was made Auditor to the Apostolic Chamber, the highest Roman dignity after the cardinalate. Probably this was the first time it was even offered to a foreigner. Acton declined it, but was commanded to retain it. He was proclaimed Cardinal-Priest, with the title of Santa Maria della Pace, in 1842; having been created nearly three years previously. His strength, never very great, began to decline, and a sever attack of ague made him seek rest and recuperation, first at Palermo and then at Naples. But without avail, for he died in the latter city. His sterling worth was little known through his modesty and humility. In his youth his musical talent and genial with supplied much innocent gaiety, but the pressure of serious responsibilities and the adoption of a spiritual life somewhat subdued its exercise.

His judgment and legal ability were such that advocates of the first rank said that could they know his view of a case they could tell how it would be decided. When he communicated anything in writing, Pope Gregory used to say he never had occasion to read it more than once. He was selected as interpreter in the interview which the Pope had with the Czar of Russia. The Cardinal never said anything about this except that when he had interpreted the Pope’s first sentence the Czar said: “It will be agreeable to me, if your Eminence will act as my interpreter, also.” After the conference Cardinal Acton, by request of the Pope, wrote out a minute account of it; but he never permitted it to be seen. The King of Naples urged him earnestly to become Archbishop of Naples, but he inexorably refused. His charities were unbounded. He once wrote from Naples that he actually tasted the distress which he sought to solace. He may be said to have departed this life in all the wealth of a willing poverty.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

John Acton

Acton, John, a English canonist, after 1329 canon of Lincoln; d. 1350. His name is spelled variously, Achedune, de Athona, Aton, Eaton; Maitland (Roman Canon Law in the Church of England: London, 1898) and Stubbs write Ayton. He was a pupil of John Stratford (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury), and is declared by Maitland (p. 98) to be “one of the three English canonists who after the earliest years of the thirteenth century wrote books that met with any success.” He is best known as a glossator of the legatine “Constitutions” of Cardinals Otho and Ottobone, papal legates to England in the thirteenth century, and contemporary lawyers must have found his notes both full and learned, for many manuscript copies of them are said by Maitland to be still extant at Oxford. They were first printed by Wynkyn de Worde in his edition of William Lyndewood’s “Provinciale” (1496) and partly translated in Johnson’s “Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws” (London, 1720: cf. the English translation of Otho’s “Ecclesiastical Laws,” by J. W. White, 1844). The printed copies must be received with caution, for they contain references to books that were not written until after the death of Acton. His canonical doctrine lends no support to the thesis of a medieval Anglican independence of the papal decretal legislation. “I have been unable,” says Dr. F. W. Maitland in the work quoted below (p. 8), “to find any passage in which either John of Ayton or Lyndewood denies, disputes, or debates the binding force of any decretal” (cf. ib., pp. 11–14) Of Acton the same writer says (pp. 7, 8) that he was “a little too human to be strictly scientific. His gloss often becomes a growl against the bad world in which he lives, the greedy prelates, the hypocritical friars, the rapacious officials.”

F. W. Maitland, Roman Canon Law in the Church of England (London, 1898), 6 sqq.; Dict. of National Biography, s.v.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, Baron Acton

Baron Acton, Professor of Modern History at Cambridge, 1895–1902, born at Naples, 10 January, 1834, Where his father, Sir Richard Acton, held an important diplomatic appointment; died at Tegernsee, Bavaria, 19 June, 1902.

His mother was the heiress of a distinguished Bavarian family, the Dalbergs. The Actons, though of an old English Catholic stock, had long been naturalized in Naples, where Lord Acton’s grandfather had been prime minister. The future historian was thus in an extraordinary degree cosmopolitan, and much of his exceptional mastery of historical literature may be ascribed to the fact that the principal languages of Europe were as familiar to him as his native tongue. In 1843 the boy was sent to Oscott College, Birmingham, were Doctor, afterwards Cardinal, Nicholas Wiseman was then president. After five years spent at Oscott, Acton complete his education at Munich, as the pupil of the celebrated historian Döllinger. With Döllinger he visited France, and both there and in Germany lived on terms of intimacy with the most eminent historical scholars of the day. Returning to England, however, in 1859, to settle upon the family estate of Aldenham in Shropshire, he entered parliament as member for an Irish constituency, and retained his seat for six years, voting with the Liberals, but taking little part in the debates. In the meantime he devoted himself to literary work, and upon Newman’s retirement, in 1859, succeeded him in the editorship of a Catholic periodical called “The Rambler,” which, after 1862, was transformed into a quarterly under the title of “The Home and Foreign Review.” The ultra liberal tone of this journal gave offence to ecclesiastical authorities, and Acton eventually judged it necessary to discontinue its publication, in April, 1864, when he wrote, concerning certain tenets of his which had been disapproved of, that “the principles had not ceased to be true, nor the authority which censured them to be legitimate, because the two were in contradiction.” The publication of the “Syllabus” by Pius IX in 1864 tended to alienate Acton still further from Ultramontane counsels. He had in the meantime become very intimate with Mr. Gladstone, by whom he was recommended for a peerage in 1869, and at the time of the Vatican Council Lord Acton went to Rome with the express object of organizing a party of resistance to the proposed definition of papal infallibility. The decree, when it came, seems to have had the effect of permanently embittering Acton’s feelings towards Roman authority, but he did not, like his friend Döllinger, formally sever his connection with the Church. Indeed in his later years at Cambridge he regularly attended Mass, and he received the last sacraments, at Tegernsee, on his death-bed. The Cambridge Professorship of Modern History was offered to him by Lord Roseberry in 1895, and, besides the lectures which he delivered there, he conceived and partly organized the “Cambridge Modern History,” the first volume of which was only to see the light after his death. Lord Acton never produced anything which deserves to be called a book, but he wrote a good many reviews and occasionally an article or a lecture. As an historian he was probably more remarkable for knowledge of detail than for judgment or intuition. The “Letters of Quirinus,” published in the Allgemeine Zeitung,” at the time of the Vatican Council, and attributed to Lord Acton, as well as other letters addressed to the “Times,” in November, 1874, show a mind much warped against the Roman system. The “Letters to Mrs. Drew” (Mr. Gladstone’s daughter), which we printed by Mr. Herbert Paul in 1903, are brilliant but often bitter. A pleasanter impression is given by another collection of Lord Acton’s private letters (published 1906) under the editorship of Abbot Gasquet. Some of Acton’s best work was contributed to the “English Historical Review.” His article on “German Schools of History,” in the first volume, and on “Döllinger’s Historical Work,” in the fifth, deserve particular mention.

HERBERT THURSTON

John Francis Edward Acton

Acton, John Francis Edward, sixth Baronet of the name, son of a Shropshire physician, born at Besançon, 3 June, 1736; died at Palermo, 12 August, 1811. He entered the military service of the Duke of Tuscany, and distinguished himself in the Algerine war in 1775, during which he rescued 4,000 Spaniards from the Corsairs. Since 1779 he was engaged in the reorganization of the Neapolitan navy. He became a favourite of Queen Caroline and was made successively minister of the marine, of finance, and prime minister of the kingdom to which he rendered notable services. When the Parthenopeian Republic was established by the French at Naples in 1798, Acton fled. After the restoration of the Bourbons he was temporarily reinstated, but was removed in 1806, and retired to Palermo.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Canonical Acts

According to the old Roman jurisprudence, acts are the registers (acta) in which were recorded the official documents, the decisions and sentences of the judges. Acts designate in law whatever serves to prove or justify a thing. Records, decrees, reports, certificates, etc. are called acts. Canonical acts derive their name from connection with ecclesiastical procedure. Acts may be public or private, civil or ecclesiastical.

Public acts are those certified by a public notary or other person holding a public office or position These acts may be judicial, or a part of court-procedure, or voluntary. In contentious trials to secure justice, the acts should be judicial; extra judicial acts are not contentious but voluntary. Both civil and canon law recognize as public acts those that occur before witnesses, if these acknowledge them before the court, otherwise they are private. Public acts include any action taken by the judge, the authorities he may quote, the proceedings in the court, documents drawn from the public archives. An original document of a community, bishop, or public officer, with the official seal, or a copy of these sent by these persons with due authentication, is a public act. Public acts are determinative against anyone, though at times they may not impose personal obligation on those not participating in them. In old public acts, the presumption is in favour of their being rightly done; to upset their value, the burden of proof is upon him who attacks them or argues that they were not executed with due formalities. Ecclesiastically, an exception is made for alienation of Church property, where, for the validity of a deed, a further requisite may be exacted, such as a clear proof of the authorisation of a bishop, or the consent of the chapter. For these presumption does not suffice.

Private acts are those of one or more individuals they tell against those who executed them, not against absent parties not participating in them. While public acts have force from the day of their date, private acts, whose date is not authenticated, have force only from the day of their public registry. When authenticated, fraud alone can upset them. If the authenticating official overstepped his competency, the act would only be a private act, but yet of private value, unless the law requires for its validity the authentication of an official. Thus, a deed transferring real estate, even signed by the parties, becomes valid for public purposes when authenticated by the official designated by law, though the private agreement may be a basis for redress.

It is not easy to draw precise limits between civil and ecclesiastical acts. While civil acts are mainly of the laity, about secular things, and ecclesiastical acts mainly of ecclesiastics, in connection with spiritual things, yet both easily overlap each other. Acts are civil or ecclesiastical by their relations with the State or the Church, by their emanation from either, by touching upon matters belonging to either, or by affecting the dealings of persons with either. The same individuals are subject to both authorities. Thus ecclesiastics do not cease to be citizens, and all Christian citizens are subject to the authority of the Church as well as of the State. Many things, even linked with spiritual affairs, do not lose their natural character of temporalities. Many acts passing between ecclesiastics are purely civil. An ecclesiastic, though a minister of the Church, is also a citizen; his actions as a citizen are purely civil; those emanating from him as a clergyman are ecclesiastical. If the acts are such as could be properly performed by a layman, they would belong to the civil order; if their performance required the clerical state, they are ecclesiastical. Yet a layman’s spiritual duties and exercises are ecclesiastical, coming under the authority of the Church; an ecclesiastic’s money matters come under the authority of the State as far as those of other citizens. This is the basis of the distinction between the civil and ecclesiastical forum. The Church by divine right has inalienable control of strictly spiritual things; the State of strictly temporal things. By the goodwill of peoples and governments the Church obtained many privileges for its forum, respecting the temporalities of ecclesiastics, and even of the laity in matters connected with spiritual things. In other matters assigned to her by Divine Law she cannot yield her authority, though for peace sake she may tolerate aggressions upon it. She may yield (and in concordats and in other ways does yield) those privileges which had for centuries become part of her forum.

Acts also designate certain general formalities for the validity of documents, often essential requisites, such as the date, the signature, the qualifications of persons, the accurate names of witnesses, and other similar conditions which may be demanded by civil or ecclesiastical laws or by the custom of a country.

Acts of a council are the definitions of faith, decrees, canons, and official declarations of the council, whose sphere of action is more or less extended according as it is oecumenical, national, provincial, etc.

Acts of the Martyrs are the documents, narrations, and testimonies of the arrest, interrogatories, answers, torments, and heroic deaths of the Christians who sealed their faith by the shedding of their blood in the times of persecution. The documents of the Congregation of Rites connected with the beatification and canonisation of saints are designated as Acts of the Saints. This is also the title given by the Bollandists to their monumental account of the lives of the saints (Acta Sanctorum). Acts-Capitular are the official discussions of the assembled members of the chapter, the name given to the canons of the cathedral who form a corporation established to aid the bishop in the government of the diocese, and to supply his place when the see is vacant.

WAGNER, Dictionnaire de droit eccles., v. Actes (Paris, 1901); SANTI, Pray. iur. can., II, Lib. XXII, De Fide Instrum. (New York); SMITHY Eccles. Law, II, v, Judicial Proofs; D AVINO, Enciclopedia dell Ecclesiastico (Turin, 1878) v. Atti; CROW ON, Man. tot. iur. can., IV, iii, art. 3, De Instrum. (Poitiers, 1880) PIHRING, Sac. Can. Doctrines II, Lib. XXII, De Fide Instrum (Rome, Propaganda, 1859).

R.L. BURTSELL

Human Acts

Acts are termed human when they are proper to man as man; when, on the contrary, they are elicited by man, but not proper to him as a rational agent, they are called acts of man.

NATURE

St. Thomas and the scholastics in general regard only the free and deliberate acts of the will as human. Their view is grounded on psychological analysis. A free act is voluntary, that is, it proceeds from the will with the apprehension of the end sought, or, in other words, is put forth by the will solicited by the goodness of the object as presented to it by the understanding. Free acts, moreover, proceed from the will’s own determination, without necessitation, intrinsic or extrinsic. For they are those acts which the will can elicit or abstain from eliciting, even though all the requisites of volition are present. They, consequently, are acts to which the will is determined neither by the object nor by its own natural dispositions and habits, but to which it determines itself. The will alone is capable of self-determination or freedom; the other faculties, as the understanding, the senses, the power of motion, are not free; but some of their acts are controlled by the will and so far share its freedom indirectly. The active indeterminateness of the will, its mastery over its own actions, is consequent upon the deliberation of reason. For the intellect discerns in a given object both perfection and imperfection, both good and evil, and therefore presents it to the will as desirable in one respect and undesirable in another. But when an object is thus proposed, the will, on account of its unlimited scope, may love or hate, embrace or reject it. The resultant state of the will is indifference, in which it has the power to determine itself to either alternative. Hence, whenever there is deliberation in the understanding, there is freedom in the will, and the consequent act is free; vice versa, whenever an act proceeds from the will without deliberation, it is not free, but necessary. Wherefore, as deliberate and free actions, so indeliberate and necessary actions are identical. The free act of the will thus analysed is evidently the act proper to man as a rational agent. For it is man who is its determining cause; whereas his necessary actions are unavoidably determined by his nature and environment. He is the master of the former, while the latter are not under his dominion and cannot be withheld by him. These, therefore, are properly styled acts of man, because elicited, but not determined, by him. The human act admits of increment and decrement. Its voluntariness can be diminished or increased. Ignorance, as far as it goes, renders an act involuntary, since what is unknown cannot be willed; passions intensify the inclination of the will, and thus increase voluntariness, but lessen deliberation and consequently also freedom.

PROPERTIES

Human acts are imputable to man so as to involve his responsibility, for the very reason that he puts them forth deliberatively and with self-determination. They are, moreover, not subject to physical laws which necessitate the agent, but to a law which lays the will under obligation without interfering with his freedom of choice. Besides, they are moral. For a moral act is one that is freely elicited with the knowledge of its conformity with or difformity from, the law of practical reason proximately and the law of God ultimately. But whenever an act is elicited with full deliberation, its relationship to the law of reason is adverted to. Hence human acts are either morally good or morally bad, and their goodness or badness is imputed to man. And as, in consequence, they are worthy of praise or blame, so man, who elicits them, is regarded as virtuous or wicked, innocent or guilty, deserving of reward or punishment. Upon the freedom of the human act, therefore, rest imputability and morality, man’s moral character, his ability to pursue his ultimate end not of necessity and compulsion, but of his own will and choice; in a word, his entire dignity and preeminence in this visible universe.

RECENT VIEWS

Recent philosophic speculation discards free will conceived as capability of self-determination. The main reason advanced against it is its apparent incompatibility with the law of causation. Instead of indeterminism, determinism is now most widely accepted. According to the latter, every act of the will is of necessity determined by the character of the agent and the motives which render the action desirable. Character, consisting of individual dispositions and habits, is either inherited from ancestors or acquired by past activity; motives arise from the pleasurableness or unpleasurableness of the action and its object, or from the external environment. Many determinists drop freedom, imputability, and responsibility, as inconsistent with their theory. To them, therefore, the human act cannot be anything else than the voluntary act. But there are other determinists who still admit the freedom of will. In their opinion a free action is that which “flows from the universe of the character of the agent.” And as “character is the constitution of Self as a whole,” they define freedom as “the control proceeding from the Self as a whole, and determining the Self as a whole.” We find freedom also defined as a state in which man wills only in conformity with his true, unchanged) and untrammelled personality. In like manner Kant, though in his “Critique of Pure Reason” he advocates determinism, nevertheless in his “Fundamental Metaphysics of Morals” admits the freedom of the will, conceiving it as independence of external causes. The will, he maintains, is a causality proper to rational beings, and freedom is its endowment enabling it to act without being determined from without, just as natural necessity is the need proper to irrational creatures of being determined to action by external influence. He adds, however, in explanation, that the will must act according to unchangeable laws, as else it would be an absurdity. Free acts thus characterised are termed human by these determinists, because they proceed from man’s reason and personality. But plainly they are not human in the scholastic acceptation, nor in the full and proper sense. They are not such, because they are not under the dominion of man. True freedom, which makes man master of his actions, must be conceived as immunity from all necessitation to act. So it was understood by the scholastics. They defined it as immunity from both intrinsic and extrinsic necessitation. Not so the determinists. According to them it involves immunity from extrinsic, but not from intrinsic, necessitation. Human acts, therefore, as also imputability and responsibility, are not the same thing in the old and in the new schools.

So it comes to pass, that, while nowadays in ethics and law the very same scientific terms are employed as in former ages, they no longer have the same meaning as in the past nor the same in Catholic as in non-Catholic literature.

MASER, Psychology (4th ed., New York, 1900); LADD, Psychology, xxvi (4th ed., New York, 1903); MACKENZIE, Manual of Ethics (4th ed., New York, 1901); SUAREZ, Tract de Voluntario; OFFNER, Willensfreiheit, Zurechnung, und Verantwortung (Leipzig, 1904).

JOHN J. MING

Indifferent Acts

A human act may be considered in the abstract (in specie) or in the concrete (in individuo). Taken in the former sense it is clear the morality of a human act will be determined by its object only, as this may be of a kind that is neither conformable to a moral norm nor contrary to it, we may have an act that can be said to be neither good nor bad, but indifferent. But can this character of indifference be predicated of the act we are discussing, considered not as an abstraction of the mind, but in the concrete, as it is exercised by the individual in particular circumstances, and for a certain end?

To this question St. Bonaventure (in 2, dist. 41, a. 1, q. 3, where, however, it will be observed, the Seraphic Doctor speaks directly of merit only) answers in the affirmative, and with him Scotus (in 2, dist. 40–41, et quodl. 18), and all the Scotist school. So also Sporer (Theol. Moral., 1, III, § v); Elbel (Theol. Moral., tom. I, n. 86); Vasquez (in 1–2, disp. 52); Arriaga (De Act. Hum., disp. 21); and in our own day Archbishop Walsh (De Act. Hum., n. 588 sq.). St. Thomas (In 2, dist. 40., a. 5; De Malo, q. 2, a. 4 et 5; 1–2, q. 18, a. 9), and his commentators hold the opposite opinion. So too do Suarez (De. Bon. Et Mal., disp. Ix); Billuart (diss. IV, a. 5 et 6); St. Alphonsus (L. 2, n. XLIV); Bouquillon (Theol. Moral. Fund., n. 371); Lehmkuhl (Theol. Moral., L. I, tract. I, III); and Noldin (Sum. Theol. Moral., I, 85 sq.).

It must be noted that the Thomists, no less than the Scotists, recognize as morally indifferent acts done without deliberation, such, for instance, as the stroking of one’s beard or the rubbing of one’s hands together, as these ordinarily take place. Admittedly indifferent, too, will those acts be in which there is but a physical deliberation, as it is called, such as is realized when, for instance, we deliberately read or write, without any thought of the moral order. The question here is of those acts only that are performed with advertence to a moral rule. Again, most of the Thomists will allow that an act would be indifferent in the case where an agent would judge it to be neither good nor bad after he had formed his conscience, according to the opinion of Scotists, to which, it must be conceded, a solid probability is attached. Finally, it must be remarked that no controversy is raised regarding the indifference of acts with reference to supernatural merit. The doctrine that all the works of infidels are evil has been formally condemned. Yet clearly, while the deeds of those without grace may be morally good, and thus in the supernatural order escape all demerit, they cannot, at the same time, lay claim to any merit.

Both the Thomists and Scotists will declare that, to be morally good, an act must be in conformity with the exigencies and dignity of our rational nature. But the question is, what is to be reckoned as conformable to the exigencies and dignity of our rational nature? According to the Scotists, the deliberate act of a rational being, to be morally good, must be referred to a positively good end. Hence those acts in which the agent adverts to no end, and which have for their object nothing that is either conformable to our rational nature, nor yet contrary to it, such as eating, drinking, taking recreation, and the like, cannot be accounted morally good. Since, however, these discover no deviation from the moral norm, they cannot be characterized as evil, and so therefore, it is said, must be considered as indifferent.

According to the opinion of St. Thomas, which is the more common one among theologians, it is not necessary, in order to be morally good, that an act should be referred to a positively good end. It is enough that the end is seen to be not evil, and that in the performance of the act the bounds set by right reason be not transgressed. Thus the acts of eating, drinking, taking recreation, and the like, while, in the abstract, they are neither conformable nor contrary to our rational nature, in the concrete, by reason of the circumstance of their being done in the manner and the measure prescribed by reason, become fully in accord with our rational nature, and hence morally good. It will be observed from the foregoing that the Thomists hold as morally good the acts which the Scotists maintain to be only morally indifferent.

According to a third class of theologians, a deliberate act which is not referred to a positively good end must be reputed as morally evil. Hence that which we have described as good in the doctrine of St. Thomas, and as indifferent to the mind of Scotus, must according to these theologians, be deemed nothing else than bad. Wrongly styled Thomists, the advocates of this opinion are one with the Angelic Doctor only in declaring that there are no indifferent deliberate acts. They differ from him radically in the unwarrantable rigour, and their teaching is condemned by the sense and practice of even the mos delicately conscientious persons.

JOHN WEBSTER MELODY

Acts of the Apostles

In the accepted order of the books of the New Testament the fifth book is called The Acts of the Apostles (praxeis Apostolon). Some have thought that the title of the book was affixed by the author himself. This is the opinion of Cornely in his “Introduction to the Books of the New Testament” (second edition, page 315). It seems far more probable, however, that the name was subsequently attached to the book just as the headings of the several Gospels were affixed to them. In fact, the name, Acts of the Apostles, does not precisely convey the idea of the contents of the book; and such a title would scarcely be given to the work by the author himself.

CONTENT

The book does not contain the Acts of all the Apostles, neither does it contain all the acts of any Apostle. It opens with a brief notice of the forty days succeeding the Resurrection of Christ during which He appeared to the Apostles, “speaking the things concerning the Kingdom of God.” The promise of the Holy Ghost and the Ascension of Christ are then briefly recorded. St. Peter advises that a successor be chosen in the place of Judas Iscariot, and Matthias is chosen by lot. On Pentecost the Holy Ghost descends on the Apostles, and confers on them the gift of tongues. To the wondering witnesses St. Peter explains the great miracle, proving that it is the power of Jesus Christ that is operating. By that great discourse many were converted to the religion of Christ and were baptized, “and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls.” This was the beginning of the Judeo-Christian Church. “And the Lord added to them day by day those that were being saved.” Peter and John heal a man, lame from his mother’s womb, at the door of the Temple which is called Beautiful. The people are filled with wonder and amazement at the miracle and run together unto Peter and John in the portico that was called Solomon’s. Peter again preaches Jesus Christ, asserting that by faith in the name of Jesus the lame man had been made strong. “And many of them that heard the word believed,” and the number of the men came to be about five thousand. But now “the priests, and the prefect of the Temple and the Sadducees came upon them, being sorely troubled because they taught the people, and proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them, and put them in prison unto the morrow.” On the morrow Peter and John are summoned before rulers, elders, and scribes, among whom were present Annas, the High-Priest, Caiphas, and as many as were of the kindred of the High-Priest. And when they had set Peter and John in the midst they inquired: “By what power, or in want name have ye done this?” Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, answering gave utterance to one of the most sublime professions of the Christian faith ever made by man: “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, in this name doth this man stand here before you whole. He [Jesus] is the stone which was set at naught by you the builders, which was made the head of the corner [Isaias, xxviii, 16; Matt., xxi, 42]. And in no other is there salvation: For neither is there any other name under Heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.” The members of the council were brought face to face with the most positive evidence of the truth of the Christian religion. They command the two Apostles to go aside out of the council, and then they confer among themselves, saying “What shall we do with these men? For that indeed a notable miracle hath been wrought through them, is manifest to all that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.” Here is one of the splendid instances of that great cumulus of evidence upon which the certitude of the Christian Faith rests. A bitterly hostile council of the chief Jews of Jerusalem is obliged to declare that a notable miracle had been wrought, which it cannot deny, and which is manifest to all that dwell in Jerusalem.

With dreadful malice the council attempts to restrain the great movement of Christianity. They threaten the Apostles, and charge them not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus; Peter and John contemn the threat, calling upon the council to judge whether it be right to hearken unto the council rather than unto God. The members of the council could not inflict punishment upon the two Apostles, on account of the people, who glorified God on account of the great miracle. Peter and John, being freed from custody, return to the other Apostles. They all give glory to God and pray for boldness to speak the word of God. After the prayer the place shakes, and they are filled with the Holy Ghost.

The fervour of the Christians at that epoch was very great. They were of one heart and soul; they had all things in common. As many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them and delivered the price to the Apostles, and this money was distributed as anyone had need. But a certain Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold a possession and kept back part of the price, the wife being accessory to the deed. St. Peter is inspired by the Holy Ghost to know the deception, and rebukes Ananias for the lie to the Holy Ghost. At the rebuke the man falls dead. Saphira, coming up afterwards, and knowing nothing of the death of her husband, is interrogated by St. Peter regarding the transaction. She also keeps back a part of the price, and lyingly asserts that the full price has been brought to the Apostles. St. Peter rebukes her, and she also falls dead at his words. The multitude saw in the death of Ananias and Saphira God’s punishment, and great fear came upon all. This miracle of God’s punishment of sin also confirmed the faith of those that believed and drew disciples to them. At this stage of the life of the Church miracles were necessary to attest the truth of her teaching, and the power of miracles was abundantly bestowed upon the Apostles. These miracles are not reviewed in detail in Acts, but it is stated: “And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people” (Acts. v, 12). Multitudes both of men and women were added to the Christian community. The people of Jerusalem carried out the sick and laid them on beds and couches in the streets that the shadow of St. Peter might fall on them. They brought the sick from the cities round about Jerusalem, and every one was healed.

The most powerful sect among the Jews at this epoch were the Sadducees. They were especially opposed to the Christian religion on account of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The cardinal truth of the Apostles’ teaching was: Life Everlasting through Jesus, Who was crucified for our sins, and Who is risen from the dead. The High-Priest Annas favored the Sadducees, and his son Ananus. who afterwards became High-Priest, was a Sadducee (Josephus, Antiq., XX, viii). These fierce sectaries made with Annas and Caiphas common cause against the Apostles of Christ, and cast them again into prison. The Acts leaves us in no doubt as to the motive that inspired the High-Priest and the sectaries: “They were filled with jealousy.” The religious leaders of the Old Law saw their influence with the people waning before the power which worked in the Apostles of Christ. An angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought the Apostles out, and bade them go and preach in the Temple. The council of the Jews, not finding Peter and John in the prison, and learning of their miraculous deliverance, are much perplexed. On information that they are teaching In the Temple, they send and take them, but without violence fearing the people. It is evident throughout that the common people are disposed to follow the Apostles; the opposition comes from the priests and the classes, most of the latter being Sadducees. The council accuses the Apostles that, contrary to its former injunction not to teach in Christ’s name, they had filled Jerusalem with Christ’s teaching. Peter’s defence is that they must obey God rather than men. He then boldly reiterates the doctrine of the Redemption and of the Resurrection. The council is minded to kill the Apostles. At this point Gamaliel, a Pharisee, a doctor of the Jewish law, held in honour of all the people, arises in the council in defence of the Apostles. He cites precedents to prove that, if the New Teaching be of men, it will be overthrown; and if it be of God, it will be impossible to overthrow it. Gamaliel’s counsel prevails, and the council calls the Apostles, beats them, and lets them go, charging them not to speak in the name of Jesus. But the Apostles departed, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the Name. And every day, in the Temple and privately they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus the Christ.

A murmuring having arisen of the Grecian Jews, that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration, the Apostles, deeming it unworthy that they should forsake the word of God and serve tables, appoint seven deacons to minister. Chief among the deacons was Stephen, a man full of the Holy Spirit. He wrought great signs and wonders among the people. The anti-Christian Jews endeavour to resist him, but are not able to withstand the wisdom and the spirit by which he speaks. They suborn witnesses to testify that he has spoken against Moses and the Temple. Stephen is seized and brought into the council. False witnesses testify that they have heard Stephen say that “this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” All who sat in the council saw Stephen’s face, as it had been the face of an angel. He makes a defence, in which he reviews the chief events in the first covenant, and its relation to the New Law. They rush upon Stephen, drag him out of the city, and stone him to death. And he kneels down and prays: “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge,” and dies. Beginning with the martyrdom of Stephen, a great persecution arose against the Church at Jerusalem; all were scattered abroad throughout Judea and Samaria, except the Apostles. The leader of the persecution was Saul, afterwards to become the great St. Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles. The deacon Philip first preaches in Samaria with great fruit. Like all the preachers of the first days of the Church, Philip confirms his preaching by great miracles. Peter and John go up to Samaria and confirm the converts whom Philip had made. Philip, commanded by an angel, goes down the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, and on the way converts and baptizes the eunuch of Candace Queen of Ethiopia. Philip is thence transported by Divine power to Azotus and preaches to all the coast cities until be comes to Cæsarea.

Saul, breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, sets out for Damascus to apprehend any Christians whom he may find there. As he draws near to Damascus, the Lord Jesus speaks to him out of the heavens and converts him. St. Paul is baptized by Ananias at Damascus, and straightway for some days abides there, preaching in the synagogues that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He withdraws into Arabia; again returns to Damascus; and after three years be goes up to Jerusalem. At Jerusalem Paul is at first distrusted by the disciples of Jesus; but after Barnabas narrates to them Paul’s marvellous conversion, they receive Paul, and he preaches boldly in the name of Jesus, disputing especially against the Grecian Jews. They plot to kill him; but the Christians bring Paul down to Cæsarea, and send him forth to Tarsus, his native city.

At this epoch Acts describes the Church in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee as “at peace, being builded up, and walking in the fear of the Lord, and by the strength of the Holy Ghost it was multiplied.” Peter now goes throughout all parts comforting the faithful. At Lydda he heals the palsied Æneas; and at Joppa he raises the pious widow Tabitha (Greek, Dorcas) from the dead. These miracles still more confirm the faith in Jesus Christ. At Joppa Peter has the great vision of the sheet let down from Heaven containing all manner of animals, of which he, being in a trance, is commanded to kill and eat. Peter refuses, on the ground that he cannot eat that which is common and unclean. Whereupon it is made known to him from God, that God has cleansed what was before to the Jew unclean. This great vision, revealed three times, was the manifestation of the will of Heaven that the ritual law of the Jews should cease; and that henceforth salvation should be offered without distinction to Jew and Gentile. The meaning of the vision is unfolded to Peter, when he is commanded by an angel to go to Cæsarea, to the Gentile centurion Cornelius, whose messengers were even then come to fetch him. He goes, and hears from Cornelius also the centurion’s own vision. He preaches to him and to all assembled; the Holy Ghost descends upon them, and Peter commands that they be baptized. Returning to Jerusalem, the Jews contend with Peter that he has gone in to men uncircumcised, and eaten with them. He expounds to them his vision at Joppa, and also the vision of Cornelius, wherein the latter was commanded by an angel to send and fetch Peter from Joppa, that he might receive from Peter the Gospel. The Jews acquiesce, glorifying God, and declaring that “unto the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life.” Those who had been scattered abroad from Jerusalem at the time of Stephen’s martyrdom had travailed as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch preaching Christ; but they preached to none save the Jews. The calling of the Gentiles was not yet understood by them. But now some converts from Cyprus and Cyrene come up to Antioch, and preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. A great number believe, and turn to the Lord. The report of the work at Antioch comes to the ears of the Church in Jerusalem; and they send Barnabas, “a good man full of the Holy Ghost and of faith,” to them. He takes Paul from Tarsus, and they both dwell at Antioch a whole year, and teach many people. The disciples of Christ are called Christians first at Antioch.

The rest of Acts narrates the persecution of the Christians by Herod Agrippa; the mission of Paul and Barnabas from Antioch by the Holy Ghost, to preach to the Gentile nations; the labours of Paul and Barnabas in Cyprus and in Asia Minor, their return to Antioch; the dissension at Antioch concerning circumcision; the journey of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, the decision of the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, the separation of Paul from Barnabas, in whose stead he takes Silas, or Silvanus; Paul’s visit to his Asiatic Churches, his foundation of the Church at Philippi; Paul’s sufferings for Jesus Christ; Paul’s visit to Athens, his foundation of the churches of Corinth and of Ephesus; Paul’s return to Jerusalem, his persecution by the Jews; Paul’s imprisonment at Cæsarea; Paul’s appeal to Cæsar, his voyage to Rome; the shipwreck; Paul’s arrival at Rome, and the manner of his life there. We see therefore that a more proper title of this book would be “The Beginnings of the Christian Religion.” It is an artistic whole, the fullest history which we possess of the manner in which the Church developed.

THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

In Acts we see the fulfilment of Christ’s promises. In Acts, i, 8, Jesus had declared that the Apostles should receive power when the Holy Ghost should come upon them, and should be His witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. In John, xiv, 12, Jesus had declared: “He that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do, and greater works than these shall he do. Because I go to the Father.” In these passages is found the key-note of the origin of the Church. The Church developed according to the plan conceived by Christ. There is, assuredly, in the narration evidence of the working out of a great plan; for the reason that the writer records the working out of the great design of Christ, conceived in infinite wisdom, and executed by omnipotent power. There is throughout a well-defined, systematic order of narration, an exactness and fullness of detail. After the calling of the first twelve Apostles, there is no event in the history of the Church so important as Paul’s conversion and commission to teach in Christ’s name. Up to Paul’s conversion, the inspired historian of the Acts has given us a condensed statement of the growth of the Church among the Jews. Peter and John are prominent in the work. But the great message is now to issue forth from the confines of Judaism; all flesh is to see the salvation of God; and St. Paul is to be the great instrument in preaching Christ to the Gentiles. In the development of the Christian Church Paul wrought more than all the other Apostles; and therefore in Acts St. Paul stands forth, the prominent agent of God in the conversion of the world. His appointment as the Apostle of the Gentiles does not prevent him from preaching to the Jews, but his richest fruits are gathered from the Gentiles. He fills proconsular Asia, Macedonia, Greece, and Rome with the Gospel of Christ; and the greater part of Acts is devoted exclusively to recording his work.

DIVISION OF BOOK

In the Acts there are no divisions of the narration contemplated by the author. It is open to us to divide the work as we deem fit. The nature of the history therein recorded easily suggests a greater division of Acts into two parts:

The beginning and propagation of the Christian religion among the Jews (1–9);

The beginning and propagation of the Christian religion among the Gentiles (10–28). St. Peter plays the chief role in the first part; St. Paul, in the second part.

OBJECT

The Acts of the Apostles must not be believed to be an isolated writing, but rather an integral part in a well-ordered series. Acts presupposes its readers to know the Gospels; it continues the Gospel narrative. The Four Evangelists close with the account of the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ. St. Mark is the only one who essays to give any of the subsequent history, and he condenses his account into one brief sentence: “And they went forth and preached everywhere: the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed” (Mark, xvi, 20). Now the Acts of the Apostles takes up the narrative here and records succinctly the mighty events which were wrought by the Holy Ghost through chosen human agents. It is a condensed record of the fulfilment of the promises of Jesus Christ. The Evangelists record Christ’s promises which He made to the disciples, regarding the establishment of the Church and its mission (Matt., xvi, 15–20); the gift of the Holy Ghost (Luke, xxiv, 49; John, xiv, 16, 17); the calling of the gentiles (Matt., xxviii, 18–20; Luke, xxiv, 46, 47). Acts records the fulfilment. The history begins at Jerusalem and ends at Rome. With divine simplicity Acts shows us the growth of the religion of Christ among the nations. The distinction between Jew and Gentile is abolished by the revelation to St. Peter; Paul is called to devote himself specially to the Gentile ministry, the Holy Ghost works signs in confirmation of the doctrines of Christ; men suffer and die, but the Church grows; and thus the whole world sees the Salvation of God. Nowhere in Holy Writ is the action of the Holy Ghost in the Church so forcibly set forth as in the Acts. He fills the Apostles with knowledge and power on Pentecost; they speak as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak; the Holy Ghost bids Philip the deacon go to the eunuch of Candace; the same Spirit catches up Philip, after the baptism of the eunuch, and brings him to Azotus; the Holy Ghost tells Peter to go to Cornelius; when Peter preaches to Cornelius and his family the Holy Ghost falls on them all; the Holy Ghost directly commands that Paul and Barnabas be set apart for the Gentile ministry; the Holy Ghost forbids Paul and Silas to preach in Asia; constantly, by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands, the Holy Ghost comes upon the faithful; Paul is directed by the Holy Ghost in everything; the Holy Ghost foretells to him that bonds and afflictions await him in every city; when Agabus prophesies Paul’s martyrdom, he says: “Thus saith the Holy Ghost: ‘So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles’ “. Acts declares that on the Gentiles the grace of the Holy Ghost is poured out; in the splendid description of St. Stephen’s martyrdom he is declared full of the Holy Ghost; when Peter makes his defense before rulers, elders, and scribes, he is filled with the Holy Ghost; often it is declared that the Apostles are filled with the Holy Ghost; Philip is chosen as a deacon because be is full of faith and the Holy Ghost; when Ananias is sent to Paul at Damascus he declares that he is sent that Paul may receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost; Jesus Christ is declared to be anointed with the Holy Ghost; Barnabas is declared to be full of the Holy Ghost; the men of Samaria receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands of Peter and John. This history shows the real nature of the Christian religion; its members are baptized in the Holy Ghost, and are upheld by His power. The source in the Church of infallible truth in teaching, of grace, and of the power that resists the gates of Hell is the Holy Ghost. By the power of the Spirit the Apostles established the Church in the great centres of the world: Jerusalem, Antioch Cyprus, Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Philippi, Thessalonica, Beræa, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome. From these centres the message went to the surrounding lands. We see in the Acts the realization of Christ’s promises just before his Ascension: “But ye shall receive power when the Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.” In the New Testament Acts forms a necessary connecting-link between the Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul. It gives the necessary information concerning the conversion of St. Paul and his apostolate, and also concerning the formation of the great Churches to which St. Paul wrote his Epistles.

AUTHENTICITY

The authenticity of the Acts of the Apostles is proved be intrinsic evidence; it is attested by the concordant voice of tradition. The unity of style of Acts and its artistic completeness compel us to receive the book as the work of one author. Such an effect could never arise from the piecing together bits of writings of different authors. The writer writes as an eyewitness and compaction of Paul. The passages xvi, 10—17; xx, 5–15; xxi, 1–18; xxvii, 1; xxviii, 16 are called the We passages. In these the writer uniformly employs the first person plural, closely identifying himself with St. Paul. This excludes the theory that Acts is the work of a redactor. As Renan has well said, such use of the pronoun is incompatible with any theory of redaction. We know from many proofs that Luke was the companion and fellow-labourer of Paul. Writing to the Colossians, in his salutation Paul associates with himself, “Luke, the beloved physician” (iv, 14). In II Tim., iv, 11 Paul declares: “Only Luke is with me.” To Philemon (24) Paul calls Luke his fellow-worker. Now in this article, we may suppose the Lucan authorship of the third Gospel as proved. The writer of Acts in his opening sentence implicitly declares himself to be the author of the third Gospel. He addresses his work to Theophilus, the addressee of the third Gospel; he mentions his former work and in substance makes known his intention of continuing the history which, in his former treatise, he had brought up to the day when the Lord Jesus was received up. There is an identity of style between Acts and the third Gospel. An examination of the original Greek texts of the third Gospel and of the Acts reveals that there is in them a remarkable identity of manner of thinking and of writing. There is in both the same tender regard for the Gentiles, the same respect for the Roman Empire, the same treatment of the Jewish rites, the same broad conception that the Gospel is for all men. In forms of expression the third Gospel and the Acts reveal an identity of authorship. Many of the expressions usual in both works occur but rarely in the rest of the New Testament; other expressions are found nowhere else save in the third Gospel and in the Acts. If one will compare the following expressions in the Greek, he will be persuaded that both works are of the same author:

Luke, i, 1-Acts, xv, 24–25;

Luke, xv, 13-Acts, i, 5, xxvii, 14, xix, 11;

Luke, i, 20, 80-Acts, i, 2, 22, ii, 29, vii, 45;

Luke, iv, 34-Acts, ii, 27, iv, 27, 30;

Luke, xxiii, 5-Acts, x, 37;

Luke, i, 9-Acts, I, 17;

Luke, xii, 56, xxi, 35-Acts xvii, 26.

The last-cited parallel expression, to prosopon tes ges, is employed only in the third Gospel and in Acts. The evidence of the Lucan authorship of Acts is cumulative. The intrinsic evidence is corroborated by the testimonies of many witnesses. It must be granted that in the Apostolic Fathers we find but faint allusions to the Acts of the Apostles. The Fathers of that age wrote but little; and the injury of time has robbed us of much of what was written. The Gospels were more prominent in the teachings of that day and they consequently have a more abundant witness. The canon of Muratori contains the canon of Scriptures of the Church of Rome in the second century. Of Acts it declares: “But the Acts of all the Apostles are written in one book, which for the excellent Theophilus Luke wrote, because he was an eyewitness of all.” In “‘The Doctrine of Addai,” which contains the ancient tradition of the Church of Edessa, the Acts of the Apostles are declared to be a part of the Holy Scriptures (Doctrine of Addai, ed. Phillips, 1876, 46). The twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth chapters of St. Irenæus’s third book “Against Heresies” are based upon the Acts of the Apostles. Irenæus convincingly defends the Lucan authorship of the third Gospel and Acts, declaring: “But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and was his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so, by the truth itself . . . And all the remaining facts of his courses with Paul, he recounts . . . As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, etc.” Irenæus unites in himself the witness of the Christian Church of the East and the West of the second century. He continues unchanged the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers. In his treatise “On Fasting” Tertullian accepts Acts as Holy Scripture, and calls them the “Commentary of Luke.” In his treatise “On Prescription against Heretics,” xxii, Tertullian is strong in asserting the canonicity of Acts: “And assuredly, God fulfilled his promise, since it is proved in the Acts of the Apostles that the Holy Ghost did come down. Now they who reject that Scripture can neither belong to the Holy Ghost, seeing that they cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost has been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can they presume to be a church themselves, who positively have no means of proving when, and with what infant-nursings this body was established.” Again, in chapter xxiii of the same treatise, he issues a challenge to those who reject Acts: “I may say here to those who reject the Acts of the Apostles: It is first necessary that you show us who this Paul was; both what he was before he became an Apostle, and how he became an Apostle” etc. Clement of Alexandria is a clear witness. In “Stromata,” v, 11, he declares: “Most instructively, therefore, says Paul in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘The God that made the world, and all things in it, being the Lord of Heaven and of earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands’ “ etc. (Acts, xvii, 24, 25). Again, in chapter xii, he states: “As Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, relates that Paul said: ‘Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things, ye are greatly superstitious’ “. In Hom., xiii, on Genesis, ii, Origen asserts the Lucan authorship of Acts as a truth that all the world accepted. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxv) places Acts among ta homologoumena, the books of which no one has doubted. The authenticity of Acts is so well proved that even the sceptical Renan was forced to declare: “A thing beyond all doubt is that the Acts have the same author as the third Gospel, and are a continuation of the same. One finds no necessity to prove this fact, which has never seriously been denied. The prefaces of the two writings, the dedication of both the one and the other to Theophilus, the perfect resemblance of ideas and manner of expression furnish a convincing demonstration of the fact” (Les Apôtres, Introd., p. x). Again he says: “The third Gospel and the Acts form a well-ordered work, written with reflection and even with art, written by the same hand, and with a definite plan. The two works taken together form a whole, having the same style, presenting the same characteristic expressions, and citing the Scripture in the same manner” (ibid., p. xi).

OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE AUTHENTICITY

Nevertheless this well-proved truth has been contradicted. Baur, Schwanbeck, De Wette, Davidson, Mayerhoff, Schleiermacher, Bleek, Krenkel, and others have opposed the authenticity of the Acts. An objection is drawn from the discrepancy between Acts ix, 19–28 and Gal., i, 17, 19. In the Epistle to the Galatians, i, 17, 18, St. Paul declares that, immediately after his conversion, he went away into Arabia, and again returned to Damascus. “Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas.” In Acts no mention is made of St. Paul’s journey into Arabia; and the journey to Jerusalem is placed immediately after the notice of Paul’s preaching in the synagogues. Hilgenfeld, Wendt, Weizäcker, Weiss, and others allege here a contradiction between the writer of the Acts and St. Paul. Their charge is vain: There is here verified what is the usual fact when two inspired writers narrate synchronistic events. No writer of either Testament had in mind to write a complete history. Out of the great mass of words and deeds they grouped together those things which they deemed best for their scope. They always concur on the great lines of the doctrines and the main facts; they differ in that one omits certain things which another relates. The writers of the New Testament wrote with the conviction that the world had already received the message by oral communication. Not all could have a manuscript of the written word, but all heard the voice of those who preached Christ. The intense activity of the first teachers of the New Law made it a living reality in every land. The few writings which were produced were considered as supplementary to the greater economy of preaching. Hence we find notable omissions in all the writers of the New Testament; and every writer has some things proper to himself. In the present instance the writer of Acts has omitted St Paul’s journey into Arabia and sojourn there. The evidence of the omission is in the text itself. In Acts, ix, 19, the writer speaks of St. Paul’s sojourn in Damascus as covering a period of “certain days.” This is the indefinite description of a relatively short space of time. In Acts, ix, 23, he connects the next event narrated with the foregoing by declaring that it came to pass “after many days were fulfilled.” It is evident that some series of events must have had place between the “certain days” of the nineteenth verse, and the “many days” of the twenty-third verse; these events are Paul’s journey into Arabia, his sojourn there, and his return to Damascus. Another objection is urged from I Thess., iii, 1, 2, compared with Acts xvii, 14, 15, and xviii, 5. In Acts, xvii, 14, 15, Paul leaves Timothy and Silas at Beræa, with a commandment to come to him at Athens. In Acts, xviii, 5, Timothy and Silas come out of Macedonia to Paul at Corinth. But in I Thess., iii, 1, 2, Timothy is sent by Paul out of Athens to Thessalonica, and no mention is made of Silas. We must appeal to the principle that when a writer omits one or more members in a series of events he does not thereby contradict another writer who may narrate the thing omitted. Timothy and Silas came down from Beræa to Paul at Athens. In his zeal for the Macedonian churches, Paul sent Timothy back from Athens to Thessalonica, and Silas to some other part of Macedonia. When they return out of Macedonia they come to Paul at Corinth. Acts has omitted their coming to Athens and their return to Macedonia. In Acts many things are condensed into a narrow compass. Thus, to the Galatian ministry of Paul, which must have lasted a considerable time, Acts devotes the one sentence: “They passed through the region of Phrygia and Galatia” (Acts, xvi, 6). The fourth journey of Paul to Jerusalem in described in one verse (Acts, xviii, 22). The objection is urged that, from Acts, xvi, 12, it is evident that the author of the Acts was with Paul in the foundation of the Church at Philippi. Therefore, they say that, since Luke was at Rome with Paul when he wrote thence to the Philippians, had Luke been the author of Acts, Paul would have associated Luke with himself in his salutation to the Philippians in the letter which he wrote them. On the contrary, we find in it no mention of Luke; but Timothy is associated with Paul in the salutation. This is a mere negative argument, and of no avail. The apostolic men of that day neither sought nor gave vain personal recognition in their work. St. Paul wrote to the Romans without ever mentioning St. Peter. There was no struggle for place or fame among those men. It may hare been that, though Luke was with St. Paul at Philippi, Timothy was the better known to that Church. Again, at the moment of St. Paul’s writing Luke may have been absent from Paul.

The rationalists allege that there is an error in the discourse of Gamaliel (Acts, v, 36). Gamaliel refers to the insurrection of Theodas as a thing that had happened before the days of the Apostles, whereas Josephus (Antiq., XX, v, 1) places the rebellion of Theodas under Fadus, fourteen years after the date of the speech of Gamaliel. Here, as elsewhere, the adversaries of Holy Scriptures presuppose every writer who disagrees with the Holy Scriptures to be right. Every one who has examined Josephus must be struck by his carelessness and inaccuracy. He wrote mainly from memory, and often contradicts himself. In the present instance some suppose that he has confused the insurrection of Theodas with that of a certain Mathias, of whom he speaks in Antiq., XVII, vi, 4. Theodas is a contraction of Theodoros, and is identical in signification with the Hebrew name Mathias, both names signifying, “Gift of God.” This is the opinion of Corluy in Vigouroux, “Dictionnaire de la Bible.” Against Corluy’s opinion it may rightly be objected that Gamaliel clearly intimates that the author of the insurrection of which he speaks was not actuated by holy motives. He speaks of him as a seditious man, who misled his followers, “giving himself out to be somebody.” But Josephus describes Mathias as a most eloquent interpreter of the Jewish law, a man beloved by the people, whose lectures those who were studious of virtue frequented. Moreover, he incited the young men to pull down the golden eagle which the impious Herod had erected in the Temple of God. Certainly such an act was pleasing to God, not the act of an impostor. The argument of Gamaliel is based on the fact that Theodas claimed to be something which he was not. The character of Theodas as given by Josephus, XX, v, 1, accords with the implied character of the Theodas of Acts. Were it not for the discrepancy of dates, the two testimonies would be in perfect accord. It seems far more probable, therefore, that both writers speak of the same man, and that Josephus has erroneously placed his epoch about thirty years too late. Of course it is possible that there may have been two Theodases of similar character: one of the days of Herod the Great, whom Josephus does not name, but who is mentioned by Gamaliel; and one in the days of Cuspius Fadus the procurator of Judea, whose insurrection Josephus records. There must have been many of such character in the days of Herod the Great, for Josephus, speaking of that epoch, declares that “at this time there were ten thousand other disorders in Judæa which were like tumults” (Antiq., XVII, x, 4).

It is urged that the three accounts of the conversion of St Paul (Acts, ix, 7; xxii, 9; xxvi, 14) do not agree. In Acts, ix, 7, the author declares that “the men that journeyed with Paul stood speechless, hearing the voice, but beholding no man.” In xxii, 9, Paul declares: “And they that were with me beheld indeed the light; but they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me.” In xxvi, 14, Paul declares that they all fell to the earth, which seems to contradict the first statement, that they “ stood speechless.” This is purely a question of circumstantial detail, of very minor moment. There are many solutions of this difficulty. Supported by many precedents, we may hold that in the several narrations of the same event inspiration does not compel an absolute agreement in mere extrinsic details which in nowise affects the substance of the narration. In all the Bible, where the same event is several times narrated by the same writer, or narrated by several writers, there is some slight divergency, as it is natural there should be with those who spoke and wrote from memory. Divine inspiration covers the substance of the narration. For those who insist that divine inspiration extends also to these minor details there are valid solutions. Pape and others give to the eistekeisan the sense of an emphatic einai, and thus it could be rendered: “The men that journeyed with him became speechless,” thus agreeing with xxvi, 14. Moreover, the three accounts can be placed in agreement by supposing that the several accounts contemplate the event at different moments of its course. All saw a great light; all heard a sound from Heaven. They fell on their faces in fear; and then, arising, stood still and speechless, while Paul conversed with Jesus, whose articulate voice he alone heard. In Acts, ix, 7, the marginal reading of the Revised Edition of Oxford should be accepted: “hearing the sound.” The Greek is akoyontes tes phones. When the writer speaks of the articulate voice of Christ, which Paul alone heard, he employs the phrase outer phrase, ekousan phonen. Thus the same term, phone, by a different grammatical construction, may signify the inarticulate sound of the voice which all heard and the articulate voice which Paul alone heard.

It is urged that Acts, xvi, 6 and xviii, 23 represent Paul as merely passing through Galatia, whereas the Epistle to the Galatians gives evidence of Paul’s longer sojourn in Galatia. Cornely and others answer this difficulty by supposing that St. Paul employs the term Galatia in the administrative sense, as a province, which comprised Galatia proper, Lycaonia, Pisidia, Isauria, and a great part of Phrygia; whereas St. Luke employs the term to denote Galatia proper. But we are not limited to this explanation; St. Luke in Acts often severely condenses his narrative. He devotes but one verse (xviii, 22) to Paul’s fourth journey to Jerusalem; he condenses his narrative of St. Paul’s two years of imprisonment at Cæsarea into a few lines. Thus he may also have judged good for his scope to pass over in one sentence Paul’s Galatian ministry.

DATE OF COMPOSITION

As regards the date of the Book of Acts, we may at most assign a probable date for the completion of the book. It is recognized by all that Acts ends abruptly. The author devotes but two verses to the two years which Paul spent at Rome. These two years were in a certain sense uneventful. Paul dwelt peaceably at Rome, and preached the kingdom of God to all who went in unto him. It seems probable that during this peaceful epoch St. Luke composed the Book of Acts and terminated it abruptly at the end of the two years, as some unrecorded vicissitude carried him out into other events. The date of the completion of Acts is therefore dependent on the date of St. Paul’s Roman captivity. Writers are quite concordant in placing the date of Paul’s coming to Rome in the year 62; hence the year 64 is the most probable date for the Acts.

TEXTS OF THE ACTS

In the Græco-Latin codices D and E of Acts, we find a text widely differing from that of the other codices, and from the received text. By Sanday and Headlam (Romans, p. xxi) this is called the delta text; by Blass (Acta Apostolorum, p. 24) it is called the beta text. The famous Latin Codex now at Stockholm, from its size called the Codex Gigas, also in the main represents this text. Dr. Bornemann (Acta Apost.) endeavoured to prove that the aforesaid text was Luke’s original, but his theory has not been received. Dr. Blass (Acta Apost., p. vii) endeavours to prove that Luke wrote first a rough draft of Acts, and that this is preserved in D and E. Luke revised this rough draft, and sent it to Theophilus; and this revised copy he supposes to be the original of our received text. Belser, Nestle, Zoeckler, and others have adopted his theory. The theory is, however, rejected by the greater number. It seems far more probable that D and E contain a recension, wherein the copyists have added, paraphrased, and changed things in the text, according to that tendency which prevailed up to the second half of the second century of the Christian era.

THE BIBLICAL COMMISSION

The Biblical Commission, 12 June, 1913, published the following answers to various questions about the Acts: The author of the Acts of the Apostles is Luke the Evangelist, as is clear from Tradition, internal evidence in the Acts themselves and in their relation to the third Gospel (Luke i, 1–4; Acts i, 1–2). The unity of their authorship can be proved critically by their language, style and plan of narrative, and by their unity of scope and doctrine. The occasional substitution of the first person plural for the third person so far from impairing, only establishes more strongly their unity of composition and authenticity. The relations of Luke with the chief founders of the Church in Palestine, and with Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles; his industry and diligence as an eyewitness and in examining witnesses; the remarkable agreement of the Acts of the Apostles with the Epistles of Paul and with the more genuine historical records, all go to show that Luke had at his command most trustworthy sources, and that he used them in such a manner as to make his work historically authoritative. This authority is not diminished by the difficulties alleged against the supernatural facts he records, by his manner of condensing statements, by apparent disagreements with profane or Biblical history, or by apparent inconsistencies with his own or with other scriptural writings.

BEELEEN, Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum (2d ed., Louvain); BELSER, Studien zur Apostelgeschichte, in Theol. Quartalschrift (1895), 50–96, Lukas und Josephus, ibid. (1896),1–78; Die Selbstvertheidigung des H. Paulus im Galaterbriefe in Biblishe Studien (Freiburg, 1896), 1—3; Beiträge zur Erklärung der Apostelgeschichte auf Grund der Lesarten des Codex D und seiner Genossen, ibid. . (1897); BLASS, Die zweifache Textüberlieferung in der Apostelgeschichte, in Theologische Studien und Kritiken (1894), 86–119; Acta Apostolorum, sive Lucæ ad Teophilum liber alter (Göttingen, 1895); De duplici forma Actorum Lucæ in Hermathena, (1895), 121–143; Ueber die verschiedenen Textesformen in den Schriften des Lukas, in Neue kirchl. Zeit. (1895), 712–725; Acta Apostolorum secundum formam qua videtur Romana (Leipzig, 1896); Neue Texteszeugen für die Apostelgeschichte, in Theol. Stud. u. Krit. (1896), 436—471; Zu Codex D, in der Apostelgeschichte, ibid. (1898), 539—542; Zu den zwei Texten der Apostelgeschichte, ibid. (1900), 5–28; Priscilla und Aquila, ibid. (1901), 124—126; BORNEMANN, Acta Apostolorum ad Codicis Cantabrigiensis fidem (Grossenhain, 1848); CONYBEARE, On the Western Text of the Acts, in Am. J. Phil. (1896), 135–172; Papias and the Acts of the Apostles, in Class. Rev. (1895), 258; COPPIETERS, De Hist. Text. Act. Apost. (Louvain, 1902); CORNELY, Introductio in Utriusque Test. Libros Sacros (Paris, 1895); ID., Introductio Specialis in Singulos Novi Testamenti Libros (Paris, 1897); CORSSEN, Der Cyprianische Text der Acta Apostolorum (Berlin, 1892); Cross, Note on Acts in (1900), 19–25; GAGNÆUS, Scholia in Actus Apost. (Paris, 1552); HARNACK, Das Aposteidecret und die Blass’sche Hypothese (Berlin, 1899), 150–176; Ueber den ursprünglichen Text Act. Apost. xi, 27–28 (Berlin, 1899), 316—327; HEADLAM, Acts of the Apostles, in Dict. Bibl. (Edinburgh, 1898); HILGENFELD, Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihren Quellenschriften untersucht, in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theol. (1895 and 1896); Der Eingang der Apostelgeschichte, ibid. (1898), 619–625; KNABENBAUER, Commentarius in Actus Apostolorum (Paris, 1899); LUCAS, Textual Criticism and the Acts of the Apostles, in Dub. Rev. (1894), 30–53; RAMSAY, Professor Blass on the two Editions of Acts (1895), 129–142, 212–225; Are there two Lucan texts of Acts? in The Expositor (1897), 460—471; St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. (London, 1900); Some recent Editions of the Acts of the Apostles, in The Expositor (1900, Nov.), 321–335; SABATIER, L’auteur du livre des Actes des Apôtres, a-t-il connu et utilisé dans son récit le Epitres de St. Paul?, in Bioliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes (Paris, 1889), I, 202–229; SOROF, Die Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte (Berlin, 1890); SPITTA, Die Apostelgeschichte, ihre Quellen und deren geschichtlichen Wert (Halle, 1891). Acta Apostolicae Sedis (26 June, 1913); Rome (5 July, 1913).

A.E. BREEN

Acts of Roman Congregations

A term used to designate the documents (called also decrees) issued by the Roman Congregations in virtue of powers conferred on them by the Roman Pontiff. This subject will be treated under the following heads:

I. KINDS

In virtue of their governing and executive powers, the Congregations grant privileges and dispensations from ecclesiastical laws, or issue ordinances to safeguard their observance; in virtue of their power of interpreting laws, they give authentic declarations; in virtue of their judicial power they give decisions between contending parties. All these powers, however, do not belong to each Congregation. (See CONGREGATIONS, ROMAN.) Again, their decrees are particular or universal, according as they are directed to individuals or to the whole Church. Particular decrees, containing simply an authentic interpretation of a universal law, are called equivalently universal. Finally, most decrees are disciplinary, dealing with positive ecclesiastical laws, which they explain, or enforce, or dispense from; but some are doctrinal, e.g., those which declare a doctrine to be untenable, or an act unlawful because contrary to a divine law.

II. AUTHORITY

(a) In general

The authority of these decrees is in a certain sense supreme, inasmuch as they come from the highest ecclesiastical tribunals; but it is not absolutely supreme, for the Congregations are juridically distinct from the Pope and inferior to him; hence their acts are not, strictly speaking, acts of the Roman Pontiff. The Congregations do not always make use of all the authority they possess. Hence it is from the wording of the documents, and by applying the general rules of interpretation, that we must judge in each case of the legal force of their decrees, whether they contain, for instance, orders or instructions, authentic interpretations, or only practical directions.

(b) Authority of doctrinal decrees

Doctrinal decrees are not of themselves infallible; the prerogative of infallibility cannot be communicated to the Congregations by the Pope. On the other hand, owing to the teaching power delegated to the Congregations for safeguarding the purity of Christian doctrine, exterior compliance and interior assent are due to such decrees. However, solid proofs to the contrary may at times justify the learned in suspending their assent until the infallible authority of the Church intervenes.

(c) Authority of disciplinary decrees

Universal decrees bind either all the faithful, or such classes or persons as are directly concerned. Particular decrees affect, first of all, those to whom they are directed. As to other persons, we must distinguish various cases. A particular decree which grants a privilege or a dispensation affects others only by preventing them from disturbing the recipients. A particular decree containing a judicial sentence has not the force of a universal law, unless the same decision has been given repeatedly in similar cases, because such decisions rendered by courts that are supreme form a judicial custom, to which inferior judges must conform (1. 38. D. de legibus). Finally, when particular decrees are equivalently universal, canonists are divided as to the limits of their binding force. Most authors distinguish between comprehensive and extensive interpretations. The latter are held to bind only persons to whom they are directed, unless promulgated to the Universal Church, because, being extensive, they enforce a sense not included in the law and are equivalent to a new law; the former are held to bind all without need of promulgation, because the sense explained in a comprehensive interpretation being already included in the law, such decrees are not new laws and do not need further promulgation. Many canonists follow an opposite view; without distinguishing between comprehensive and extensive interpretations, they maintain that any decree interpreting a law in itself obscure and doubtful binds only those to whom it is directed, unless promulgated to the Universal Church. They base their opinion upon the doctrine that, when a law is in itself doubtful and obscure an authentic interpretation, i.e., a declaration obliging people to put that law into practice in a certain definite sense, is equivalent to a new law; hence the necessity of its promulgation. These authors, however, admit that no promulgation is necessary, either when the same declaration has been repeatedly given, so as to have established what is termed the Stylus Curiae (a custom similar to that mentioned above in connection with the authority of judicial sentences), or when the declaration in question, though given only once, has been universally accepted, so as to have become the common practice of the Church.

III. USE

Their use is determined by their special character and value, according as they are sentences, or declarations and so forth. Moreover, besides settling the cases for which they are issued, they are often useful for professors of canon law and moral theology in discussing disputed questions, as well as for judges in the prudent administration of justice; on the other hand, all, especially clerics, may find, even in those that are not universal, safe directions in matters of religion and morality. This directive effect is all the more reasonable as these acts come from men of learning and experience, well qualified for their offices, who devote the most careful study to each case, according to its relative importance. Decisions of lesser moment are given by the cardinal who is at the head of the Congregation, in a meeting (congresso) composed of the same cardinal, the secretary, and some other officials of the Congregation. More important matters are decided only by the general Congregation. Before the Congregation meets to take action in affairs of very great importance, each cardinal has been fully informed of the question to be treated, by means of a paper in which the matter is thoroughly discussed, and all points of fact and law connected with it are presented, with reasons for both sides. The cardinals then discuss the matter in their meeting, and the decision is reached by voting. These decisions are brought to the Pope for his consideration or approbation in all cases in which custom or law prescribes such procedure. Ordinarily this approval is not legally of such a character as to make these decrees “pontifical acts”; they become such only by the special confirmation, termed by canonists in forma specificâ, which is seldom given. Finally, the act is drawn up in due form, and, having been sealed and signed by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation and the Secretary, is dispatched to its destination.

IV. MANNER OF PRESERVATION

All pending affairs are entered, under progressive numbers, in the register called Protocollo, with a short indication of the stage of the transaction. Suitable alphabetical indexes render easy the work of looking up details. All the documents relating to each case, from the first, containing the petition addressed to the Congregation, to the official copy of the final act, and forming what is technically called the posizione, are kept together, separate from all other documents, and are preserved in the archives of the Congregation, either permanently or for a definite period of time (ordinarily, ten years), when the documents are removed to the Vatican archives. This latter practice prevails in the Congregations of the Council, of Bishops and Regulars, and of Rites.

V. ACCESSIBILITY

The archives of the Congregations are not opened to the public. If one wishes to study the documents, he should ask permission from the authorities of the Congregations. Ordinarily it is sufficient to ask it of the secretary; in the Congregations of Propaganda and of the Index the petition should be addressed to the Cardinal Prefect, and in the Congregation of the Holy Office, to the Congregation itself; finally, in the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, the matter has to be referred to the Pope. When there are sufficient reasons, which should be more or less grave according to the quality of the matter, the petitioner either will be allowed to inspect the original documents or will be supplied with authentic copies.

VI. COLLECTIONS

Many of the acts are accessible in the various collections, which several of the Congregations have permitted to be published. Some of these collections are also authentic, inasmuch as their genuineness and authenticity are vouched for by the authorities of the Congregations. Moreover, editors of periodicals on ecclesiastical subjects have been allowed for several years back to publish in their magazines the acts of the Congregations, and one of these periodicals, Acta Sanctae Sedis, has received the privilege of being declared “authentic and official for publishing the acts of the Apostolic See” (S.C. de Prop. Fid., 23 May, 1904). The following is a list of the chief collections:

Collectanea S. Congr. de Propaganda Fide (Rome, 1893);

Thesaurus Resolutionum S. Congr. Concilii (Rome, 1718);

Zamboni, Collectio Declarationum S.C. Concilii (Arras, 1860);

Pallottini, Collectio Conclusionum et Resolutionum S.C. Concilii (Rome, 1868–93);

Lingen et Reuss, Causae Selectae, in S.C. Concilii Propositae (New York, 1871);

Bizzarri, Collectanea S. Congr. Episcoporum et Regularium (Rome, 1885);

Decreta authentica C. Sacrorum Rituum (Rome, 1898–1901);

Decreta authentica S. Congr. Indulgentiis Sacrisque Reliquiis praepositae (New York, 1883);

Schneider, Rescripta authentica S.C. Indulgentiis Sacrisque Reliquiis praepositae (Ratisbon, 1885);

Ricci, Synopsis Decretorum et Resolutionum S. Congr. Immunitatis (Turin, 1719).

Among the Catholic periodicals that publish regularly, with more or less completeness, the acts of the Congregations are the following (the date after the title indicates the first year of publication):

Archiv für Kathol. Kirchenrecht (1857);

Analecta Juris Pontificii (Rome, 1855), since 1893, Analecta Ecclesiastica;

Le Canoniste Contemporain (Paris, 1893);

American Ecclesiastical Review (New York, 1889);

Irish Ecclesiastical Record (Dublin, 1864);

Nouvelle Revue Théologique (Tournay, 1869);

Acta Sanctae Sedis (Rome, 1865);

Monitore Ecclesiastico (Rome, 1876).

Am. Eccl. R., I, p. 404; BAART, The Roman Court (New York), 230; HUMPHREY, Urbs et Orbis (London, 1899 an English work), 317; Analecta Juris Pontificii, 11 Serie, Les Congregations Romaines et de leur pratique (Paris, 1857) 2230 82, 2364 2424; BANGEN, Die romische Kurie (Munster, 1854); BOUIX, De Curia Romana (Paris, 1880), 293; De Principiis Juris Canonici (Paris, 1852),334; FERRARIS, Bibliotheca Canonica (Rome, 1885–99), II, s. v. Congregationes; HERGENROTHER-HOLWECK, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1905), 292; HINSCHIUS, System d. kath. Kirchenrechts (Berlin, 1869), I, 448 (non-Catholic); LEGA, De Judiciis Ecclesiasticis (Rome, 1896–1901), II, 96; De origine et natura Sacr. Romanarum Congregationum in Analecta Ecclesiastica (Rome 1896), IV, 458; PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht (Ratisbon, 1864), VI, PP. 567–582, 583–673; SIMOR, De Sacris Congregationibus et illarum auctoritate, in Archiv. f. kath. Kirchenrecht (1864), 410; SAGMULLER, Lehrbuch des kathol. Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1900), 325–337, 75–77; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome 1905), I; HASKINS, in Catholic University Bulletin, III, 177.

HECTOR PAPI

Actus et Potentia

A technical expression in scholastic phraseology.

I. The terms actus and potentia were used by the scholastics to translate Aristotle’s ἐνέργεια or ἐντελέχεια, and δύναμις. There is no single word in English that would be an exact rendering of either. Act, action, actuality, perfection, determination express the various meanings of actus; potency, potentiality, power, capacity, those of potentia. In general, potentia means an aptitude to change, to act or to be acted upon, to give or to receive some new determination. Actus means the fulfilment of such a capacity. So, potentia always refers to something future, which at present exists only as a germ to be evolved; actus denotes the corresponding complete reality. In a word, potentia is the determinable being, actus the determined being. The term actus, therefore, has a much greater extension than act or operation. Every operation is an actus, because it is the complement of a power; but all other perfections and determinations, whatever be their nature, are also actus. On the other hand, the being in potentiâ is not to be identified with the possible being. The latter belongs to the logical order; it is a notion whose elements involve no contradiction. The former belongs to the real order; it exists in a subject which, though undetermined, is capable of determination. Potentia is more than a mere statement of futurity, which has reference to time only; it implies a positive aptitude to be realized in the future. It would also be a mistake to identify the scholastic actus and potentia with the actual and potential energy of physics. These terms apply only to material substances, and are exclusively dynamic; they signify the capacity for doing work, or the actual performing of work. The scholastic terms apply to all, even spiritual, beings, and refer to any reality which they possess or can acquire. The Aristotelian “energy” (actus) as such, i.e., considered as actuality, can never be potential, these two terms being opposed to each other. Actuality and potentiality are mutually exclusive, since one means the presence, and the other the absence, of the same determination. Yet, in all beings except God (see ACTUS PURUS) there is a combination of actuality and potentiality; they possess some determinations and are capable of acquiring others. Moreover, the same reality may be considered as actuality or potentiality, according as we take a retrospective or a prospective point of view. In man, skill and science are actualities if we compare them to human nature, which they presuppose. But if we compare them to the actions themselves, or to the actual recall of acquired knowledge to consciousness, they are powers, or potentiae. If we keep the same point of view, it is impossible for the same thing to be at the same time in actu and in potentiâ with regard to the same determination.

Aristotle and St. Thomas explain this theory by many illustrations, one of which will suffice. The statue exists potentially in the block of marble, because marble has an aptitude to receive the shape of a statue. This aptitude is something real in the marble, since many other substances are deprived of it. It is a receptive potentiality. With regard to the same statue, the sculptor has the power, by his action, to carve the marble into the form of a statue. His is an active power, a real skill or ability which is lacking in many other persons. In order to have the actual statue (actus), it is necessary for the sculptor to exercise (actus) his real skill (potentia) on a substance which is not yet a statue, but which has a real aptitude (potentia) to become one. I can form no idea either of the marble’s potentiality or of the sculptor’s skill unless I first know what is meant by an actual statue. In the same manner, the man born blind is unable to understand what is meant by the faculty of vision. In general, potentia has no meaning, and cannot be defined except through the corresponding actus.

II. The distinction between potentia and actus is at the basis of, and pervades, the whole scholastic system of philosophy and theology. Whatever is determinable is considered as potential with regard to the actual determination. Genus and species, subject and predicate, quantity and shape, child and adult, matter and form of the sacraments, etc., are examples of potentiality and actuality. Here we must confine ourselves to the fundamental applications in metaphysics and in psychology. (1) In metaphysics the distinction runs through the ten Aristotelian categories. All being, whether substance or accident, is either in actu or in potentiâ. The essence of creatures is a potentiality with regard to their existence. Material substances are composed of primary matter and substantial form (see Matter and Form), matter being a pure potentiality, i.e., wholly undetermined, and form being the first determination given to matter. Efficient causality is also an application of potentiality and actuality; the cause, when at rest, remains able to act. Change is a transition from the state of potentiality to that of actuality. Generation, growth, and evolution suppose a capacity which becomes fulfilled. (2) In psychology special emphasis is laid on the reality of the potentiae, or faculties, and their distinction both from the soul and from their operations. External senses are determined or actualized by an external stimulus (see Species), which gives them the determination necessary to the act of perception. The internal senses (sensus communis, phantasia, memoria, aestimativa) depend on external sensations for their exercise. Memory and imagination preserve in potentiâ traces of past impressions, and when the proper conditions are verified the image becomes actual. We have no innate ideas, but in the beginning human intelligence is simply a power to acquire ideas. By its operation, the active power of the intellect (intellectus agens) forms the species intelligibilis or the determination necessary to the intelligence (intellectus possibilis) for its cognitive act. All tendency and desire is actualized by some good which one strives to acquire. In rational psychology man is conceived as one substantial being, composed of body and soul, or matter and form, united as potentia and actus.

There is a tendency today in nearly all the sciences towards “actuality” theories. But, if analyzed carefully, such theories will necessarily yield potential elements. In all things we find capacities for further development and evolution, forces and aptitudes which come to be utilized little by little. In scholastic terminology these are now real, but not actual. They exist only as potentiae, which, to manifest themselves, await the proper actualization.

C. A. Dubray

Actus primus

A technical expression used in scholastic philosophy. Actus means determination, complement, perfection. In every being there are many actualities, and these are subordinated. Thus existence supposes essence; power supposes existence; action supposes faculty. The first actuality (actus primus) begins a series; it supposes no other actuality preceding it in the same series, but calls for a further complement, namely, the second actuality (actus secundus). But as the same reality may be called “actuality” when viewed in the light of what precedes, and “potentiality” when viewed in the light of what follows (see ACTUS ET POTENTIA), the meaning of the term “first actuality” may vary according to the view one takes, and the point where the series is made to begin. Primary matter (see MATTER AND FORM) is a pure potentiality, and the substantial form is its first determination, its first actuality. The complete substance constituted by these two principles receives further deternimations, which are, in that respect, second actualities. Yet these may also be conceived as first actualities. Thus the extensive quantity of a substance is a first actuality when compared to the shape. Power is a first actuality when compared to action. And this is the most frequent application of the terms actus primus and actus secundus. The former is the faculty; the latter, the exercise, or function. To see in actu primo simply means to have the sense of vision; to see in actu secundo is to actually perform acts of vision. The modern distinction of potential and kinetic energy might serve as another illustration: the loaded gun, or the engine with steam up represent first actualities; the bullet speeding to the mark, the engine flying over the rails, represent second actualities.

C.A. DUBRAY

Actus Purus

A term employed in scholastic philosophy to express the absolute perfection of God. In all finite beings we find actuality and potentiality, perfection and imperfection. Primary matter, which is the basis of material substance, is a pure potentiality. Moreover, change necessarily supposes a potential element, for it is a transition from a state of potentiality to a state of actuality; and material things undergo manifold changes in substance, quantity, quality, place, activity, etc. Angels, since they are pure spirits, are subject to none of the changes that depend on the material principle. Nevertheless, there is in them imperfection and potentiality. Their existence is contingent. Their actions are successive, and are distinct from the faculty of acting. The fact that all things have in themselves some potentiality warrants the conclusion that there must exist a being, God, from whom potentiality is wholly excluded, and who, therefore, is simply actuality and perfection, Actus Purus.

It is true that in the same being the state of potentiality precedes that of actuality; before being realized, a perfection must be capable of realization. But, absolutely speaking, actuality precedes potentiality. For in order to change, a thing must be acted upon, or actualized; change and potentiality presuppose, therefore, a being which is in actu. This actuality, if mixed with potentiality, presupposes another actuality, and so on, until we reach the Actus Purus. Thus the existence of movement (in scholastic terminology, motus, any change) points to the existence of a prime and immobile motor. Causality leads to the conception of God as the unproduced cause. Contingent beings require a necessary being. The limited perfection of creatures postulates the unlimited perfection of the Creator. The direction of various activities towards the realization of an order in the universe manifests a plan and a divine intelligence. When we endeavour to account ultimately for the series of phenomena in the world, it is necessary to place at the beginning of the series—if the series be conceived as finite in duration—or above the series—if it be conceived as eternal-a pure actuality without which no explanation is possible. Thus at one extreme of reality we find primary matter, a pure potentiality, without any specific perfection, and having, on this account, a certain infinity (of indetermination). It needs to be completed by a substantial form, but does not of itself, demand any one form rather than another. At the other extreme is God, pure actuality, wholly determined by the very fact that He is infinite in His perfection. Between these extremes are the realities of the world, with various degrees of potentiality and actuality.

So that God is not a becoming, as in some pantheistic systems, nor a being whose infinite potentiality is gradually unfolded or evolved. But He possesses at once all perfections. He is simultaneously all that He can be, infinitely real and infinitely perfect. What we conceive as His attributes or His operations, are really identical with His essence, and His essence includes essentially His existence. For all intelligences except His own, God is incomprehensible and indefinable. The nearest approach we can make to a definition is to call Him the Actus Purus. It is the name God gives to Himself: “I am who am,” i.e., I am the fullness of being and of perfection.

ARISTOTLE, esp. “Metaphysics,” Bk. XI (Berlin, ed. 1831); “Physics,” Bks. VII, VIII; ST. THOMAS, “Comment. In lib. VII, VIII Physic.” And “in lib. XII Metaphysic.” (XI of Berlin ed.); “Summa theologica,” esp. P. I. QQ. ii, iii, iv, etc., “Contra Gent.” L. I, c. xiii, xvi, etc.; PIAT, “Dieu et la nature d’apres Aristotle” in “Revue neo-scholastique,” VIII, 1901, p. 167 (reproduced in his book “Aristotle,” L, II, c., ii Paris, 1903); WATSON, “The Metaphysic of Aristotle,” IV-”The divine Reason,” in “Philos. Rev.” VII (1898), p. 341.

C.A. DUBRAY

Acuas

One of the first to spread Manicheism in the Christian Orient. He was probably a Mesopotamian, and introduced the heresy into Eleutheropolis (Palestine). The Manichaeans were sometimes called after him Acuanitae. St. Epiphanius (Adv. Haer., lxvi, 1) calls him a veteranus, i. e. an ex-soldier of the empire, and fixes his propaganda in the fourth year of the reign of Aurelian (273).

COWELL, in Dict. of Christ. Biogr., I, 32.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

St. Adalard

Born c. 751; d. 2 January, 827. Bernard, son of Charles Martel and half-brother of Pepin, was his father, and Charlemagne his cousin-german. He received a good education in the Palatine School at the Court of Charlemagne, and while still very young was made Count of the Palace. At the age of twenty he entered the monastery at Corbie in Picardy. In order to be more secluded, he went to Monte Cassino, but was ordered by Charlemagne to return to Corbie, where he was elected abbot. At the same time Charlemagne made him prime minister to his son Pepin, King of Italy. When, in 814, Bernard, son of Pepin, aspired after the imperial crown, Louis le Debonnaire suspected Adalard of being in sympathy with Bernard and banished him to Hermoutier, the modern Noirmoutier, on the island of the same name. After seven years Louis le Debonnaire saw his mistake and made Adalard one of his chief advisers. In 822 Adalard and his brother Wala founded the monastery of (New) Corvey in Westphalia. Adalard is honoured as patron of many churches and towns in France and along the lower Rhine

BUTLER, Lives of the Saints; BARING-GOULD, Lives of the Saints (London, 1877); LECHNER, Martyrolog. des Benediktiner-Ordens (Augsburg, 1855); WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen (6th ed., Berlin, 1893), I, 250–252; ENCK, De S. Adalhardo (Munster, 1873); RAM, Hagiogr. Belge (1864), I, 16–31.

MICHAEL OTT

Adalbert

Archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen; born about 1000; died 1072 at Goslar; son of Count Friedrich von Goseck, and Agnes of the lineage of the Weimar Counts. He became successively canon in Halberstadt; subdeacon to the Archbishop of Hamburg (1032); Provost of the Halberstadt Cathedral; and Archbishop of Hamburg (1043 or 1045) by royal appointment, with supremacy over the Scandinavian Peninsula and a great part of the Wend lands, in addition to the territory north of the Elbe. He is probably the Adalbert mentioned as the Chancellor for Italy under Henry III in 1045. At the very outset of his episcopal career he took up the old feud of Hamburg with the Billings, in which he had the cooperation of Henry III. Having accompanied the Emperor on a campaign against the Liutzi (1045), he also journeyed with him to Rome (1046). Upon the settlement of the papal schism Henry wished to make Adalbert Pope, but he refused, and presented his friend Suidger (Clement II) as a candidate. He cooperated in the conversion of the Wends, and three new bishoprics were erected, all subject to Hamburg. Adalbert then conceived the idea of a great northern patriarchate, with its seat at Hamburg, but was constantly foiled. The Kings of Norway and Sweden began to send their bishops to England for consecration, and Sven Estrithson, King of Denmark, appealed to Henry and Pope Leo IX for an archbishop of his own, which would mean a loss to Hamburg of lands just yielding fruits after two hundred years of evangelization. The assent of Adalbert was necessary for such a decision, which he promised to ratify only on condition that his dream of a northern patriarchate be realized. The whole discussion was cut short by the death of both Pope (1054) and Emperor (1056).

During the regency of Empress Agnes, Adalbert lost his hold on the court, and the young Emperor, Henry IV, fell under the influence of Anno, Archbishop of Cologne. Despite the ancient feud between Hamburg and Cologne, Adalbert gained control of Henry’s education, eventually superseding Anno in his confidence and esteem. In extenuation of Adalbert’s eagerness to obtain privileges for his archdiocese it must be recalled that he had sacrificed much in the royal service, and that his influence was ever for the more open and straightforward course of action, in contradistinction to that of the opposition party. His flattery and indulgence of Henry, however, were baneful in their effects. Forced to retire from court in 1066, by the jealousy of the nobles, he was again admitted to Henry’s councils in 1069. His ascendency over the Emperor ended only with his death (1072). Archbishop Adalbert is characterized by Adam of Bremen as minax vultu et habitu verborumque altitudine suspectus audientibus. Generous, prudent, and zealous as he was, his character was marred by indomitable pride, which has caused him to be depicted in the blackest colours.

Adami Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum, ed. LAPPENBERG, Mon. Germ., SS. VII, 267; GIESEBRECHT, Deutsche Kaiserzeit, III; WATTENBACH, Geschichtsquellen, II, 63; PASTOR in Kirchenlex., s. v.

F.M. RUDGE

Adalbert I

(Or ALBERT).

Archbishop of Mainz (Mayence) 1111 to 1137. He was of the family of the Counts of Saarbrücken, and under both Henry IV and Henry V of Germany he held the office of imperial chancellor, discharging his duties with energy and skill. In 1110, as head of an embassy sent to Rome to arrange for the coronation of Henry V as Emperor (crowned king 6 January, 1099), he had much to do with bringing about the Treaty of Sutri, in which advantage was taken of the character of Pope Paschal II, formerly Abbot of Cluny, who was a saintly man, but no diplomat. A disagreement arising regarding the treaty, Henry subjected the Pope to a harsh imprisonment of two months. Fearing schism, the Pope finally granted Henry the privilege of conferring the ring and staff on bishops, providing they were elected by papal consent, and soon after he crowned Henry in St. Peter’s at Rome (1111). Henry, according to compact, named Adalbert Archbishop of Mainz in reward for his part in the shameful intrigue against the Supreme Pontiff. From the day when, as Archbishop elect, he received the insignia of his office, Adalbert become a changed man. Whether this marvellous change was due to a realization of his sacred duties or to an awakening to the sacrilegious injustice of Henry’s conduct at Rome, we cannot say. At any rate the ex-chancellor, lately so blindly zealous for the Emperor in right or wrong, became henceforth a brave and loyal defender of the Church and the Pope. In 1112 Henry V was excommunicated, and Adalbert fearlessly promulgated the sentence; whereupon the enraged Emperor cast him into a dark dungeon. After three years of cruel imprisonment had reduced him to a mere skeleton, the people of Mainz, rising in a body, forced Henry to release him. The episcopal consecration, delayed by his confinement, was then received at the hands of Otto, Bishop of Bamberg (1115). Later, when, under Pope Calixtus II, Adalbert was made a legate, Henry seized some pretext for attacking Mainz, whereupon Adalbert aroused the Saxon princes to arms. The two armies met, but arbitration prevented a battle. As a result, the Council of Worms (1122) was finally held, bringing to a close the long strife regarding Investitures. In 1125 Henry V was on his deathbed, and being without male issue sent the imperial insignia to his wife Matilda, daughter of Henry I of England. The politic Adalbert, ever on the alert to ward off any danger of a schism, induced Matilda to return the insignia, and called an assembly of princes, who chose as Henry’s successor Lothair II the Saxon, afterwards crowned Emperor in Rome by Pope Innocent II (1133). Thus the Empire passed from the house of Franconia to that of Saxony, which had so long proved itself loyal to the cause of Rome. Adalbert died in 1137, having atoned for his early injustice by long years of faithful and efficient service in all that touched the interests of truth and the welfare of the Church.

ROHRBACHER, Hist. de l’église, XV; WILL, in Kirchenlex., 1, 194. IDEM, Regesten zür Gesch. der Mainzer Erzb. (Innsbruck, 1877), I; HUPERZ, De Adelberto Archiep. Mogunt. (Münster, 1855).

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

St. Adalbert (of Bohemia)

Born 939 of a noble Bohemian family; died 997. He assumed the name of the Archbishop Adalbert (his name had been Wojtech), under whom he studied at Magdeburg. He became Bishop of Prague, whence he was obliged to flee on account of the enmity he had aroused by his efforts to reform the clergy of his diocese. He betook himself to Rome, and when released by Pope John XV from his episcopal obligations, withdrew to a monastery and occupied himself in the most humble duties of the house. Recalled by his people, who received him with great demonstrations of joy, he was nevertheless expelled a second time and returned to Rome. The people of Hungary were just then turning towards Christianity. Adalbert went among them as a missionary, and probably baptized King Geysa and his family, and King Stephen. He afterwards evangelized the Poles, and was made Archbishop of Gnesen. But he again relinquished his see, and set out to preach to the idolatrous inhabitants of what is now the Kingdom of Prussia. Success attended his efforts at first, but his imperious manner in commanding them to abandon paganism irritated them, and at the instigation of one of the pagan priests he was killed. This was in the year 997. His feast is celebrated 23 April, and he is called the Apostle of Prussia. Boleslas I, Prince of Poland, is said to have ransomed his body for an equivalent weight of gold. He is thought to be the author of the war-song, “Boga-Rodzica,” which the Poles used to sing when going to battle.

T.J. CAMPBELL

St. Adalbert (of Germany)

Apostle of the Slavs, probably a native of Lorraine, d. 981. He was a German monk who was consecrated bishop and sent to establish Christianity in Russia in 961. His mission was the result of a request of the princess Olga who, having appealed in vain to the court of Constantinople for someone to evangelize her people, besought the German Emperor Otho, who sent Adalbert and a number of priests to begin the work. Russia was then in a state of barbarism, and the missionaries were attacked on the way, some of the priests being killed. Adalbert barely escaping with his life. Returning to Germany, he was made Abbot of Weissenburg in Alsace, and in the following year became Bishop of the new see of Magdeburg, which was erected for the purpose of dealing especially with the Slavs. Magdeburg became one of the great bishoprics of the country, the chief one in the North, and ranking with Cologne, Mainz, and Trier. Adalbert was made Metropolitan of the Slavs, and established among them the sees of Naumburg, Meissen, Merseburg, Brandenburg, Havelberg, and Posen. The Pope appointed two legates to assist him in his apostolate. He governed his church until his death in 981.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Ad Apostolicae Dignitatis Apicem

Apostolic letter issued against Emperor Frederick II by Pope Innocent IV (1243–54), during the Council of Lyons, 17 July, 1245, the third year of his pontificate.

The letter sets forth that Innocent, desiring to have peace restored to those parts which were then distracted by dissensions, sent for that purpose three legates to Frederick as the chief author of those evils, pointed out the way to peace, and promised that he would do his own part to restore it. Frederick agreed to terms of peace, which he swore to observe, but which he at once violated. The letter then sets forth the crimes of which Frederick was guilty. It accuses him of perjury; of contempt for the spiritual authority of the Roman Pontiff, by disregarding the excommunication pronounced against him and by compelling others to do so; of invading pontifical territory; of having broken the terms of peace made with Pope Gregory, and which he swore to keep; of oppressing the Church in Sicily; of having taken, persecuted, and done to death bishops and others who were on their way to Rome for a council which he himself had asked to be convoked; of having incurred suspicion of heresy for treating a papal excommunication with contempt; of having conspired with the Saracens and other enemies of Christianity; of being guilty of the death of the King of Bavaria, and of giving his daughter in marriage to a schismatic; of not paying tribute for Sicily, which is the patrimony of St. Peter. For these and for other crimes, Innocent IV, by this apostolic letter, declares Frederick unworthy to rule, and his subjects freed from their duty of obedience to him as sovereign.

Bullar. Roman. (ed., Turin, 1858), III, 510–516; MANSI, Coll. Conc., XXIII, 613–619; HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, V, 1125; ROHRBACHER, Hist. univ. de l’église, IX, 14–16.

M. O’RIORDAN

Ad Limina Apostolorum

An ecclesiastical term meaning a pilgrimage to the sepulchres of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome, i.e., to the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles and to the Basilica of St. Paul “outside the walls.”

Ad Sanctam Beati Petri Sedem

This letter was issued by Alexander VII, and is dated at Rome, 16 October, 1656, the second year of his pontificate. It is a confirmation of the Constitution of Innocent X, by which he condemned five propositions taken from the work entitled Augustinus of Cornelius Jansenius, Bishop of Ypres. The letter opens with an explanation of the reason for its publication. It observes that, although what has already been defined in the Apostolic Constitutions needs no confirmation by any future decisions, yet, since some try to cast doubt upon these definitions or to neutralise their effort by false interpretations, the apostolic authority must not defer using a prompt remedy against the spread of the evil. The letter then refers to the decision of Innocent X, and quotes the words of its title in order to show that it was a decision for all the faithful. But as a controversy had arisen, especially in France, on five propositions taken from the Augustinus, several French bishops submitted them to Alexander VII for a clear, definite decision. The letter thus enumerates these five propositions: (1) There are some divine precepts which are impossible of observance by just men willing and trying to observe them according to their present strength; the grace also is wanting to them, by which those precepts are possible. (2) In the state of fallen nature interior grace is not resisted. (3) For merit and demerit, in the state of fallen nature, libertas a necessitate (liberty to choose) is not necessary for man; libertas a coactione (freedom from external compulsion) is enough. (4) The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of interior preventing grace (praevenientis gratiae interioris) for each and every act, even for the beginning of faith (initium fidei); and in that they were heretical, inasmuch as they held that grace to be such as the human will could resist or obey. (5) It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died, or shed His blood for all men.

The letter then goes on to declare that, those five propositions having been submitted to due examination each was found to be heretical. The letter repeats each proposition singly, and formally condemns it. It next declares that the decision binds all the faithful, and enjoins on all bishops to enforce it, and adds, “We are not to be understood, however, by making this declaration and definition on those five propositions, as at all approving other opinions contained in the above-named book of Cornelius Jansenius.” Moreover, since some still insisted that those propositions were not to be found in the Augustinus, or were not meant by the author in the sense in which they were condemned, the letter furthermore declares that they are contained in the Augustinus, and have been condemned according to the sense of the author.

Bullarium Romanum (ed. Turin, 1869), XVI, 245–247.

M. O’RIORDAN

Ad Universalis Ecclesiae

A papal constitution dealing with the conditions for admission to religious orders of men in which solemn vows are prescribed. It was issued by Pius IX, 7 February, 1862. This Pope had issued from time to time various decrees: e.g. “Romani Pontifices” (25 January, 1848), “Regulari Disciplinae” (for Italy and adjacent isles, 25 January, 1848), and “Neminem Latet” (19 March, 1857). These three decrees found their completion and perfection in the constitution, “Ad Universalis Ecclesiae.” It marks a distinct departure from the Tridentine law, both as to the necessary age and other requirements for admission of men to solemn vows in orders, congregations, and institutes, old and new, in which solemn vows are prescribed. The immediate occasion of its promulgation was the settlement, once and forever, of doubts which had arisen and been presented to the Holy See about the validity of solemn vows made without due observance of the decree, “Neminem Latet,” i.e. without the three years’ profession of simple vows. It gives the reason of the “Neminem Latet” regulation, which was to safeguard the religious orders, congregations, and institutes from losing their genuine spirit and former excellence by hastily and imprudently admitting youths having no true vocation or of whose lives, morals, bodily and mental endowments, no proper investigation had been made and no testimonial to the aforesaid had been requested of, or received from, the bishop of their native place, or of the places where they had sojourned for the year immediately preceding their admission to the house of postulants. This the “Neminem Latet” accomplished by decreeing that novices after the completion of their probation and novitiate and, if clerics, of the sixteenth year of their age (prescribed by the Council of Trent), or of a more advanced age, if the rule of their order approved by the Holy See required it, if lay brothers, the age fixed by Pope Clement VIII (in Suprema), should make profession of simple vows for the term of three full years; and after the completion of said term, to be computed from day of profession to the last hour of the third year, if found worthy, they were to be admitted to solemn profession, unless their superiors, for just and reasonable cause, postponed the solemn profession; such postponement being prohibited beyond the twenty-fifth year of age, except in the orders and countries where a longer term of simple profession was conceded by special indult of the Holy See. The Pope says that, nevertheless, novices had been admitted to solemn profession without the three years’ simple vows, thereby giving great cause for doubt concerning the validity of said solemn profession; and a decision upon that matter was requested from the Holy See. As the “Neminem Latet” said not a word about the nullity of solemn profession made in opposition to its regulation, the solemn profession made without the prescribed three years of simple vows was valid, though illicit. This was decided later (S. Cong. on State of Regulars, 16 August, 1866). “We, therefore,” declares Pius IX in this constitution,

in a matter of such great importance, desiring to remove all occasion of future doubt, of Our own motion and certain knowledge, and in the plenitude of Our Apostolic power as regards the religious communities of men of whatever order, congregation, or institution in which solemn vows are made, do determine and decree to be null and void and of no value the profession of solemn vows, knowingly or ignorantly, in any manner, colour or pretext, made by novices or lay brothers, who, although they had completed the Tridentine probation and novitiate, had not previously made profession of simple vows and remained in that profession for the entire three years, even though the superiors, or they, or both respectively, had the intention of admitting to, or making, solemn vows, and had used all the ceremonies prescribed for solemn profession.

Women were not included in this law. They, unless where special indults were granted, as in Austria (Bizzarri, 158), and Bavaria (Bizzarri, 463), followed the Tridentine regulation until Leo XIII (3 May, 1902, Decretum “Perpensis,” S.C. Epp. et Regul.) enjoined on them the same profession of simple vows for three years prior to the solemn profession, under penalty of nullity. VERMEERSCH, De religiosus institutis et personis, II (Monumenta, 332–336; 233–234; 289 sqq.); BIZARRI, Collectanea in usum Secretariae S. Congr. Epp. et Regul. (Rome. 1885). 831, 843, 853 sqq.; MOCCHEGIANI, Jurisprudentia Eccles., I, lib. II; NERVEGNA, De Jure Practico Regularium, 113 (lib. II, “De professis”); FERRARI, De statu reli. Comment., 95 (vi, De professione); MONTENSI, Praelect. Juris Regularis, II, iii sqq.; LUCIDI-SCHNEIDER, De Visitatione SS. Liminum (ed. 1885), II, 86 sqq.; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Jus Administrat. III, tit. xxiv, De professione religiosa).

P.M.J. ROCK

Adam

The first man and the father of the human race.

ETYMOLOGY AND USE OF WORD

There is not a little divergence of opinion among Semitic scholars when they attempt to explain the etymological signification of the Hebrew word adam (which in all probability was originally used as a common rather than a proper name), and so far no theory appears to be fully satisfactory. One cause of uncertainty in the matter is the fact that the root adam as signifying “man” or “mankind” is not common to all the Semitic tongues, though of course the name is adopted by them in translations of the Old Testament. As an indigenous term with the above signification, it occurs only in Phoenician and Sabean, and probably also in Assyrian. In Gen., ii, 7, the name seems to be connected with the word ha-adamah (“the ground”), in which case the value of the term would be to represent man (ratione materiæ) as earthborn, much the same as in Latin, where the word homo is supposed to be kindred with humus. It is a generally recognized fact that the etymologies proposed in the narratives which make up the Book of Genesis are often divergent and not always philologically correct, and though the theory (founded on Gen., ii, 7) that connects adam with adamah has been defended by some scholars, it is at present generally abandoned. Others explain the term as signifying “to be red,” a sense which the root bears in various passages of the Old Testament (e.g. Gen., xxv, 50), as also in Arabic and Ethiopic. In this hypothesis the name would seem to have been originally applied to a distinctively red or ruddy race. In this connection Gesenius (Thesaurus, s.v., p. 25) remarks that on the ancient monuments of Egypt the human figures representing Egyptians are constantly depicted in red, while those standing for other races are black or of some other colour. Something analogous to this explanation is revealed in the Assyrian expression çalmât qaqqadi, i.e. “the black-headed,” which is often used to denote men in general. (Cf. Delitsch, Assyr. Handwörterbuch, Leipzig, 1896, p. 25.) Some writers combine this explanation with the preceding one, and assign to the word adam the twofold signification of “red earth,” thus adding to the notion of man’s material origin a connotation of the color of the ground from which he was formed. A third theory, which seems to be the prevailing one at present (cf. Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia, 1903, pp. 78, 793), explains the root adam as signifying “to make,” “to produce,” connecting it with the Assyrian adamu, the meaning of which is probably “to build,” “to construct,” whence adam would signify “man” either in the passive sense, as made, produced, created, or in the active sense, as a producer.

In the Old Testament the word is used both as a common and a proper noun, and in the former acceptation it has different meanings. Thus in Genesis ii, 5, it is employed to signify a human being, man or woman; rarely, as in Gen., ii, 22, it signifies man as opposed to woman, and, finally, it sometimes stands for mankind collectively, as in Gen., i, 26. The use of the term, as a proper as well as a common noun, is common to both the sources designated in critical circles as P and J. Thus in the first narrative of the Creation (P) the word is used with reference to the production of mankind in both sexes, but in Gen., v, 14, which belongs to the same source, it is also taken as a proper name. In like manner the second account of the creation (J) speaks of “the man” (ha-adam), but later on (Gen., iv, 25) the same document employs the word as a proper name without the article.

ADAM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Practically all the Old Testament information concerning Adam and the beginnings of the human race is contained in the opening chapters of Genesis. To what extent these chapters should be considered as strictly historical is a much disputed question, the discussion of which does not come within the scope of the present article. Attention, however, must be called to the fact that the story of the Creation is told twice, viz. in the first chapter and in the second, and that while there is a substantial agreement between the two accounts there is, nevertheless, a considerable divergence as regards the setting of the narrative and the details. It has been the custom of writers who were loath to recognize the presence of independent sources or documents in the Pentateuch to explain the fact of this twofold narrative by saying that the sacred writer, having set forth systematically in the first chapter the successive phases of the Creation, returns to the same topic in the second chapter in order to add some further special details with regard to the origin of man. It must be granted, however, that very few scholars of the present day, even among Catholics, are satisfied with this explanation, and that among critics of every school there is a strong preponderance of opinion to the effect that we are here in presence of a phenomenon common enough in Oriental historical compositions, viz. the combination or juxtaposition of two or more independent documents more or less closely welded together by the historiographer, who among the Semites is essentially a compiler. (See Guidi, L’historiographie chez les Sémites in the Revue biblique, October, 1906.) The reasons on which this view is based, as well as the arguments of those who oppose it, may be found in Dr. Gigot’s Special Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament, Pt. I. Suffice it to mention here that a similar repetition of the principal events narrated is plainly discernible throughout all the historic portions of the Pentateuch, and even of the later books, such as Samuel and Kings, and that the inference drawn from this constant phenomenon is confirmed not only by the difference of style and viewpoint characteristic of the duplicate narratives, but also by the divergences and antinomies which they generally exhibit. Be that as it may, it will be pertinent to the purpose of the present article to examine the main features of the twofold Creation narrative with special reference to the origin of man.

In the first account (Ch. i, ii, 4a) Elohim is represented as creating different categories of beings on successive days. Thus the vegetable kingdom is produced on the third day, and, having set the sun and moon in the firmament of heaven on the fourth, God on the fifth day creates the living things of the water and the fowls of the air which receive a special blessing, with the command to increase and multiply. On the sixth day Elohim creates, first, all the living creatures and beasts of the earth; then, in the words of the sacred narrative,

he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

Then follows the blessing accompanied by the command to increase and fill the earth, and finally the vegetable kingdom is assigned to them for food. Considered independently, this account of the Creation would leave room for doubt as to whether the word adam, “man,” here employed was understood by the writer as designating an individual or the species. Certain indications would seem to favour the latter, e.g. the context, since the creations previously recorded refer doubtless to the production not of an individual or of a pair, but of vast numbers of individuals pertaining to the various species, and the same in case of man might further be inferred from the expression, “male and female he created them.” However, another passage (Gen., v, 15), which belongs to the same source as this first narrative and in part repeats it, supplements the information contained in the latter and affords a key to its interpretation. In this passage which contains the last reference of the so-called priestly document to Adam, we read that God

created them male and female . . . and called their name adam, in the day when they were created.

And the writer continues:

And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years and he begot sons and daughters. And all the time that Adam lived came to nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

Here evidently the adam or man of the Creation narrative is identified with a particular individual, and consequently the plural forms which might otherwise cause doubt are to be understood with reference to the first pair of human beings. In Genesis, ii, 4b-25 we have what is apparently a new and independent narrative of the Creation, not a mere amplification of the account already given. The writer indeed, without seeming to presuppose anything previously recorded, goes back to the time when there was yet no rain, no plant or beast of the field; and, while the earth is still a barren, lifeless waste, man is formed from the dust by Yahweh, who animates him by breathing into his nostrils the breath of life. How far these terms are to be interpreted literally or figuratively, and whether the Creation of the first man was direct or indirect, see GENESIS, CREATION, MAN. Thus the creation of man, instead of occupying the last place, as it does in the ascending scale of the first account, is placed before the creation of the plants and animals, and these are represented as having been produced subsequently in order to satisfy man’s needs. Man is not commissioned to dominate the whole earth, as in the first narrative, but is set to take care of the Garden of Eden with permission to eat of its fruit, except that of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the formation of woman as a helpmeet for man is represented as an afterthought on the part of Yahweh in recognition of man’s inability to find suitable companionship in the brute creation. In the preceding account, after each progressive step “God saw that it was good,” but here Yahweh perceives, as it were, that it is not good for man to be alone, and he proceeds to supply the deficiency by fashioning the woman Eve from the rib of the man while he is in a deep sleep. According to the same narrative, they live in childlike innocence until Eve is tempted by the serpent, and they both partake of the forbidden fruit. They thereby become conscious of sin, incur the displeasure of Yahweh, and lest they should eat of the tree of life and become immortal, they are expelled from the garden of Eden. Henceforth their lot is to be one of pain and hardship, and man is condemned to the toilsome task of winning his sustenance from a soil which on his account has been cursed with barrenness. The same document gives us a few details connected with our first parents after the Fall, viz.: the birth of Cain and Abel the fratricide, and the birth of Seth. The other narrative, which seems to know nothing of Cain or Abel, mentions Seth (Chap. v, 3) as if he were the first born, and adds that during the eight hundred years following the birth of Seth Adam begat sons and daughters.

Notwithstanding the differences and discrepancies noticeable in the two accounts of the origin of, mankind, the narratives are nevertheless in substantial agreement, and in the esteem of the majority of scholars they are easiest explained and reconciled if considered as representing two varying traditions among the Hebrews—traditions which in different form and setting embodied the selfsame central historic facts, together with a presentation more or less symbolical of certain moral and religious truths. Thus in both accounts man is clearly distinguished from, and made dependent upon, God the Creator; yet he is directly connected with Him through the creative act, to the exclusion of all intermediary beings or demigods such as are found in the various heathen mythologies. That man beyond all the other creatures partakes of the perfection of God is made manifest in the first narrative, in that he is created in the, image of God, to which corresponds in the other account the equally significant figure of man receiving his life from the breath of Yahweh. That man on the other hand has something in common with the animals is implied in the one case in his creation on the same day, and in the other by his attempt, though ineffectual, to find among them a suitable companion. He is the lord and the crown of creation, as is clearly expressed in the first account, where the creation of man is the climax of God’s successive works, and where his supremacy is explicitly stated, but the same is implied no less clearly in the second narrative. Such indeed may be the significance of placing man’s creation before that of the animals and plants, but, however that may be, the animals and plants are plainly created for his utility and benefit. Woman is introduced as secondary and subordinate to man, though identical with him in nature, and the formation of a single woman for a single man implies the doctrine of monogamy. Moreover, man was created innocent and good; sin came to him from without, and it was quickly followed by a severe punishment affecting not only the guilty pair, but their descendants and other beings as well. (Cf. Bennett in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, s.v.) The two accounts, therefore, are practically at one with regard to didactic purpose and illustration, and it is doubtless to this feature that we should attach their chief significance. It is hardly necessary to remark in passing that the loftiness of the doctrinal and ethical truths here set forth place the biblical narrative immeasurably above the extravagant Creation stories current among the pagan nations of antiquity, though some of these, particularly the Babylonian, bear a more or less striking resemblance to it in form. In the light of this doctrinal and moral excellence, the question of the strict historical character of the narrative, as regards the framework and details, becomes of relatively slight importance, especially when we recall that in history as conceived by the other biblical authors, as well as by Semitic writers generally, the presentation and arrangement of facts—and indeed their entire role—is habitually made subordinate to the exigencies of a didactic preoccupation.

As regards extra-biblical sources which throw light upon the Old Testament narrative, it is well known that the Hebrew account of the Creation finds a parallel in the Babylonian tradition as revealed by the cuneiform writings. It is beyond the scope of the present article to discuss the relations of historical dependence generally admitted to exist between the two cosmogonies. Suffice it to say with regard to the origin of man, that though the fragment of the “Creation Epic,” which is supposed to contain it, has not been found, there are nevertheless good independent grounds for assuming that it belonged originally to the tradition embodied in the poem, and that it must have occupied a place in the latter just after the account given of the production of the plants and the animals, as in the first chapter of Genesis. Among the reasons for this assumption are:

the Divine admonitions addressed to men after their creation, towards the end of the poem;

the account of Berosus, who mentions the creation of man by one of the gods, who mixed with clay the blood which flowed from the severed head of Tiamat;

a non-Semitic (or pre-Semitic) account translated by Pinches from a bilingual text, and in which Marduk is said to have made mankind, with the cooperation of the goddess Aruru.

(Cf. Encyclopedia Biblica, art. “Creation,” also Davis, Genesis and Semitic Tradition, pp. 36–47.) As regards the creation of Eve, no parallel has so far been discovered among the fragmentary records of the Babylonian creation story. That the account, as it stands in Genesis, is not to be taken literally as descriptive of historic fact was the opinion of Origen, of Cajetan, and it is now maintained by such scholars as Hoberg (Die Genesis, Freiburg, 1899, p. 36) and von Hummelauer (Comm. in Genesim, pp. 149 sqq.). These and other writers see in this narrative the record of a vision symbolical of the future and analogous to the one vouchsafed to Abraham (Gen., xv, 12 sqq.), and to St. Peter in Joppe (Acts, x, 10 sqq.). (See Gigot, Special Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament, pt. I, p. 165, sqq.) References to Adam as an individual in the later Old Testament books are very few, and they add nothing to the information contained in Genesis. Thus the name stands without comment at the head of the genealogies at the beginning of I Paralipomenon; it is mentioned likewise in Tobias, viii, 8; Osee, vi, 7; Ecclus., xxxv, 24, etc. The Hebrew word adam occurs in various other passages, but in the sense of man or mankind. The mention of Adam in Zacharias, xiii, 5, according to the Douay version and the Vulgate, is due to a mistranslation of the original.

ADAM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

In the New Testament references to Adam as an historical personage occur only in a few passages. Thus in the third chapter of St. Luke’s Gospel the genealogy of the Saviour is traced back to “Adam who was of God.” This prolongation of the earthly lineage of Jesus beyond Abraham, who forms the starting point in St. Matthew, is doubtless due to the more universal spirit and sympathy characteristic of our third Evangelist, who writes not so much from the viewpoint of Jewish prophecy and expectation as for the instruction of the Gentile recruits to Christianity. Another mention of the historic father of the race is found in the Epistle of Jude (verse 14), where a quotation is inserted from the apocryphal Book of Enoch, which, rather strange to say, is attributed to the antediluvian patriarch of that name, “the seventh from Adam.” But the most important references to Adam are found in the Epistles of St. Paul. Thus in I Tim., ii, 11–14, the Apostle, after laying down certain practical rules referring to the conduct of women, particularly as regards public worship, and inculcating the duty of subordination to the other sex, makes use of an argument the weight of which rests more upon the logical methods current at the time than upon its intrinsic value as appreciated by the modern mind:

For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.

A similar line of argument is pursued in I Cor., xi, 8, 9. More important is the theological doctrine formulated by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, v, 12–21, and in I Cor., xv, 22–45. In the latter passage Jesus Christ is called by analogy and contrast the new or “last Adam.” This is understood in the sense that as the original Adam was the head of all mankind, the father of all according to the flesh, so also Jesus Christ was constituted chief and head of the spiritual family of the elect, and potentially of all mankind, since all are invited to partake of His salvation. Thus the first Adam is a type of the second, but while the former transmits to his progeny a legacy of death, the latter, on the contrary, becomes the vivifying principle of restored righteousness. Christ is the “last Adam” inasmuch as “there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts, iv, 12); no other chief or father of the race is to be expected. Both the first and the second Adam occupy the position of head with regard to humanity, but whereas the first through his disobedience vitiated, as it were, in himself the stirps of the entire race, and left to his posterity an inheritance of death, sin, and misery, the other through his obedience merits for all those who become his members a new life of holiness and an everlasting reward. It may be said that the contrast thus formulated expresses a fundamental tenet of the Christian religion and embodies in a nutshell the entire doctrine of the economy of salvation. It is principally on these and passages of similar import (e.g. Matt., xviii, 11) that is based the fundamental doctrine that our first parents were raised by the Creator to a state of supernatural righteousness, the restoration of which was the object of the Incarnation. It need hardly be said that the fact of this elevation could not be so clearly inferred from the Old Testament account taken independently.

ADAM IN JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN TRADITION

It is a well-known fact that, partly from a desire to satisfy pious curiosity by adding details to the too meagre biblical accounts, and partly with ethical intent, there grew up in later Jewish as well as in early Christian and Mohammedan tradition a luxuriant crop of legendary lore around the names of all the important personages of the Old Testament. It was therefore only natural that the story of Adam and Eve should receive special attention and be largely developed by this process of embellishment. These additions, some of which are extravagant and puerile, are chiefly imaginary, or at best based on a fanciful understanding of some slight detail of the sacred narrative. Needless to say that they do not embody any real historic information, and their chief utility is to afford an example of the pious popular credulity of the times as well as of the slight value to be attached to the so-called Jewish traditions when they are invoked as an argument in critical discussion. Many rabbinical legends concerning our first parents are found in the Talmud, and many others were contained in the apocryphal Book of Adam now lost, but of which extracts have come down to us in other works of a similar character (see MAN). The most important of these legends, which it is not the scope of the present article to reproduce, may be found in the Jewish Encyclopedia, I, art. “Adam,” and as regards the Christian legends, in Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, s.v.

PALIS in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, s.v.; BENNETT and ADENEY in HAST., Dict. of the Bible, s.v. For New Testament references, see commentaries; for Old Testament, GIGOT, Special Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament, I, iv; VON HUMMELAUER, Comm. in Genesis.

James F. Driscoll.

Adam in Early Christian Liturgy and Literature

Adam’s importance to the Fathers and to the authors of the many apocryphal writings of the first five centuries of the Christian Era is clearly shown by their frequent allusions to him. His p]ace in the liturgy is however, by no means a prominent one. His name occurs in the calendar, and in one hymn of the Eastern Church, nor does he fare much better in the Western. The sections which refer to him are the first prophecy on Holy Saturday and the readings of the Book of Genesis at Septuagesima time. In literature, on the other hand, he is more generously treated, and has become the hero of several books, such as: The Book of the Penance or Combat of Adam (Migne, Dictionnaire des apocryphes, vol. II); The Struggle of Adam and Eve which they underwent after being driven out of the Garden, and during their stay in the cave of treasures, by the command of The Lord their Creator (Migne, op. cit.). The Codex Nazaraeus (ibid.); the Testament of Adam; the Apocalypse of Adam; the Book of the Daughters of Adam; the Penance of Adam, etc. also show to what an extent the memory of the first man was made use of in literature.

The Testament of Adam, now consisting of merely a few fragments, is of great interest. Its precise place in the history of literature can only be determined after a study of the connection which exists between it and writings of the same or of an earlier period. The liturgical fragments which have to do with the division of the hours of the day and night make it possible to perceive in what way Persian ideas influenced Gnosticism. Passages may be found in the Apostolical Constitutions of the Copts which seem to bear some relation to the ideas contained in the liturgical fragments. The following is a translation of one of them:

First fragment. Night hours. First hour: This is the hour in which the demons adore; and, so long as they are adoring, they cease to do harm to man, because the hidden power of the Creator restrains them.

Second hour: This is the hour in which the fish adore, and all the reptiles that are in the sea.

Third hour: Adoration of the lower abysses, and of the light that is in the abysses, and of the lower light which man cannot fathom.

Fourth hour: Trisagion of the Seraphim. Before my sin saith Adam I heard at this hour, O my son, the noise of their wings in Paradise; for the Seraphim had gone on beating their wings, making a harmonious sound, in the temple set apart for their worship. But after my sin, and the transgression of God’s order, I ceased to hear and see them, even as was just.

Fifth hour: Adoration of the waters that are above the heavens. At this hour, O my son Seth, we heard, I and the angels, the noise of the great waves, lifting their voice to give glory to God, because of the hidden sign of God which moves them.

Sixth hour: A gathering of clouds, and great religious awe, which veils the middle of the night.

Seventh hour: Rest of the powers, and of all natures, while the waters sleep; and at this hour, if one shall take water, let the priest of God mix holy oil therewith. and sign with this oil those who suffer, and do not sleep; they shall be healed.

Eighth hour: Thanks given to God for the growth of plants and seeds, when the dew of heaven falls upon them.

Ninth hour: Service of the angels who stand before the throne of God.

Tenth hour: Adoration of men. The gate of heaven opens that the prayer of all that lives may enter in; they prostrate themselves, and then withdraw. At this hour all that man asks of God is granted him, when the Seraphim beat their wings or the cock crows.

Eleventh hour: Great joy of all the earth when the sun rises from the paradise of the Living God over all creation, and lifts itself over the universe.

Twelfth hour: Waiting and deep silence amid all the orders of light and spirits, until the priests shall have set perfumes before God. Then all the orders and all the powers of heaven draw apart.

There is a long and important article on the Liber Adami by Sylvestre de Sacy in the Journal des Savants for 1819–20. The book condemns continence, and prescribes marriage; allows the eating of the flesh of animals, fish, and birds. The liturgical ritual provided for prayer three times a day: after sunrise, at the seventh hour, and at sunset. The Nazarenes are bound to almsgiving and to preaching, must baptize their children in the Jordan, and choose the first day of the week for the ceremony.

H. LECLERCQ

Books of Adam

The Book of Adam or “Contradiction of Adam and Eve,” is a romance made up of Oriental fables. It was first translated from the Ethiopian version into German by Dillman, “Das christliche Adambuch” (Göttingen, 1853), and into English by Malan, “The Book of Adam and Eve” (London, 1882). The “Pénitence d’Adam,” or “Testament d’Adam,” is composed of some Syrian fragments translated by Renan (Journal asiatique, 1853, II, pp. 427–469). “The Penitence of Adam and Eve” has been published in Latin by W. Meyer in the “Treatises of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Sciences,” XIV, 3 (Munich, 1879). To these are added “The Books of the Daughters of Adam,” mentioned in the catalogue of Pope Saint Gelasius in 495–496, who identifies it with the “Book of Jubilees,” or “Little Genesis,” and also the “Testament of Our First Parents,” cited by Anastasius the Sinaïte, LXXXIX, col. 967.

GEORGE J. REID

Adam of Bremen

A German historian and geographer of the eleventh century. The dates of his birth and death are unknown. He wrote the “Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum,” a history of the See of Hamburg and of the Christian missions in the North from A.D. 788 to 1072. It is the chief source of our knowledge concerning the history and ethnography of the Northern regions before the thirteenth century. Little is known of the author’s life; he himself gives us very scanty information. In the preface to his history he merely signs himself by his initial letter, A. That this stands for Adam, we know through Helmold’s Slavic Chronicle, which refers distinctly to Adam as the author of a history of the Hamburg Church. That he was a native of Saxony, and more particularly of Meissen, is a mere conjecture based on evidence furnished by dialectic traces occurring in the work. He came to Bremen in 1068, at the invitation of Archbishop Adalbert of Bremen, in the 24th year of that prelate’s reign. From a passage in the epilogue it would seem that he was at that time still a young man. He was made a canon of the cathedral and magister scholarum “director of schools.” As such, his name is signed to an official document dated 11 June, 1069. Shortly after his arrival at Bremen he made a journey to the Danish King Svend Estridson (1047–76), who enjoyed a great reputation for his knowledge of the history and geography of the Northern lands. Possibly this meeting took place in Seeland; we have no evidence that Adam ever visited the North in person. He was well received by the King, and obtained from him much valuable information for the historical work which he intended to write, and which he began after the death of Archbishop Adalbert. The preface is dedicated to Adalbert’s successor, Liemar (1072- 1101). The work itself, at least in part, was finished before the death of King Svend, in 1076, for in the second book he refers to this king as still living. We do not know how long Adam retained his office. The Church record gives 12 October as the day of his death, but does not mention the year. According to tradition, he lies buried in the convent of Ramesloh, in a grove which he himself had donated to the cloister.

His work is divided into four books, the first three being mainly historical, while the last is purely geographical. The first book gives an account of the Bremen Church, of its first bishops, and of the propagation of Christianity in the North. The second book continues this narrative, and also deals largely with German affairs between 940 and 1045. It relates the wars carried on by the Germans against the Slavs and Scandinavians. The third book is devoted to the deeds of Archbishop Adalbert. The fourth book is a geographical appendix entitled “Descriptio insularum Aquilonis,” and describes the Northern lands and the islands in the Northern seas, many of which had but recently been explored. It contains the earliest mention of America found in any geographical work. The passage is as follows (IV, 38):

Furthermore he [King Svend] mentioned still another island found by many in that ocean. This island is called Winland, because grapevines grow there wild, yielding the finest wine. And that crops grow there in plenty without having been sown, I know, not from fabulous report, but through the definite information of the Danes.

Adam bases his knowledge partly on written sources, partly on oral communication. He made diligent use of the records and manuscripts in the archives of his church, as well as of the official documents of popes and kings. He also knew the work of preceding chroniclers, such as Einhard and Gregory of Tours. Besides this, he was well versed in the writings of ancient Roman authors. He cites from Virgil, Horace, Lucan, Juvenal, Persius, Cicero, Sallust, Orosius, Solinus, and Martianus Capella. He also quotes from the Venerable Bede and the Latin Fathers, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory the Great. But his most valuable information was obtained orally from persons who had actually visited the lands which he describes. The most notable of these witnesses is the Danish King Svend Estridson, “who remembered all the deeds of the barbarians as if they had been written down” (II, 41). Adam’s journey to this king, undertaken for the express purpose of obtaining information, has been mentioned. He also learned much from Archbishop Adalbert himself, who took great interest in the Northern missions and was well informed about the lands where they were located. Much information was imparted to him also by the traders and missionaries who were continually passing through Bremen, the great centre for all travel to and from the North. Adam assures us repeatedly that he has taken great pains to make his account both truthful and accurate. “If I have not been able to write well,” so he says in his epilogue, “I have at any rate written truthfully, using as authorities those who are best informed about the subject.” As for the style in which the work is written, it cannot receive unqualified praise. It is closely modelled on Sallust, whole phrases and sentences from that author being often incorporated in Adam’s work. Besides being obscure and difficult, his Latin shows a number of Germanisms, and is not free from positive grammatical errors. Of the manuscripts of the “Gesta” none are older than the thirteenth century, excepting one at Leyden, which, however, is very fragmentary. The best manuscript is at Vienna. The first edition was brought out by Andreas Severinus Velleius (Vedel), at Copenhagen, in 1579. Two subsequent editions were published at Hamburg, in 1595 and 1609 respectively, by Erpold Lindenbruch, a canon of the Hamburg Church; a fourth edition by Joachim Johannes Maderus appeared at Helmstadt in 1670; it is based on the preceding one. The best edition is that of Lappenberg in Pertz “Monum. Germ. Hist. Scriptores” (1846) VII, 267–293, reprinted in P.L., CXLVI, and reedited by Waitz in “Script. rer. Germ.” (Hanover, 1876). The best translation is the German one by J. C. M. Laurent in “Geschichtschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit” (Berlin, 1850, ed. by Wattenbach; 2d edition, revised by Wattenbach Berlin, 1893). (See PRE-COLUMBIAN DISCOVERY OF AMERICA.)

Preface to LAPPENBERG’S ed. of Adam of Bremen. Also ASMUSSEN, De Fontibus Adami Bremensis (Kiel, 1834); BERNARD, De Adamo Bremensi Geographo (Paris, 1895); LÖNBORG, Adam of Bremen, och hans skildrina af Nordeuropas 1nder och folk (Upsala, 1877).

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Adam of Fulda

Born about 1450, died after 1537, one of the most learned musicians of his age. He was a monk of Franconia, deriving his name from the capital city of that country. At that time the contrapuntal music, of which Josquin was such a brilliant star, flourished above all in the Netherlands. Adam of Fulda, himself a disciple of the Dutch teachers ultimately became their rival. He is best known for a famous treatise on music, written in 1490, and printed by Gerbert von Hornan, in his “Scriptores eccles. de Mus. Sacra,” III. This treatise is divided into forty-five chapters, some of which treat of the invention and the praise of music, of the voice, of sound, of tone, of keys, of measured and figured music, of tone relations, intervals, consonances, etc. A list of his compositions may be found in the “Quellen-Lexikon.” As he called himself musicus ducalis, he was probably in the service of some prince, possibly of the Bishop of Würzburg.

KORNMÜLLER, Lex. der kirchl. Tonkunst; GROVE, Dict. of Music and Musicians.

J. A. VÖLKER

Adam of Murimuth

An English chronicler of about the middle of the fourteenth century. He was a canon of St. Paul’s, London, and took an active part in the affairs of Church and State during the reigns of Edward II and Edward III. His history of his own times is entitled “Chronicon, sive res gestae sui temporis quibus ipse interfuit, res Romanas et Gallicas Anglicanis intertexens, 1302–1343” (Cottonian Library MSS.).

Adam of Murimuth continues to be a principal witness for events up to the year 1346, after which the narrative is carried on by his unknown continuator to the year 1380. His statements are for the most part made on good authority, or as the result of personal observation, and the impression we derive is that of one who was an honest and veracious chronicler, although possessed of no descriptive literary power. [Gardiner and Mullinger, “English History for Students” (New York, 1881), 284].

STUBBS, Chron. Edward I-II (1882), I, lxx-xxiv; GROSS, Sources and Literature of English History, etc. (New York, 1900), s. v.

THOMAS WALSH

Adam of Perseigne

A French Cistercian, Abbot of the monastery of Perseigne in the Diocese of Mans, b. about the middle of the twelfth century. he is thought to have been first a canon regular, later a Benedictine of Marmoutier and then a Cistercian. About the year 1180, he became Abbot of Perseigne, wither his reputation for holiness and wisdom drew the great personages of his time to seek his counsel. He had at Rome a conference with the celebrated mystic, Joachim, Abbot of Flora, (in Calabria, Italy), on the subject of the latter’s revelations, and aided Foulques de Neuilly in preaching the Fourth Crusade. His letters and sermons were published at Rome in 1662 under the title “Adami Abbatis Perseniæ Ordinis Cisterciensis Mariale.”

Mignon in Dict. de théol. cath., s. v.

THOMAS WALSH

Adam of St. Victor

A prominent and prolific writer of Latin Hymns, born in the latter part of the twelfth century, probably at Paris; died in the Abbey of Saint Victor then in the suburbs of Paris by included in it subsequently through the city’s growth, some time between 1172 and 1192. By those more nearly his contemporaries he is styled “Brito,” a word which means “Briton,” or “Breton.” But as he was educated in Paris, and entered the Abbey of Saint Victor when quite young, he was presumably French. He lived in the abbey, which was somewhat of a theological center, until his death. Adam of Saint Victor is the most illustrious exponent of the revival of liturgical poetry which the twelfth century affords. Archbishop Trench characterizes him as “the foremost among the sacred Latin poets of the Middle Ages.” Of his hymns and sequences some thirty-seven were published in the “Elucidatorium Ecclesiasticum” of Clichtoveus, a Catholic theologian of the sixteenth century. Nearly all of the remaining seventy were preserved in the Abbey of Saint Victor up to the time of its dissolution in the Revolution. They were then transferred to the Bibliothèque Nationale, where they were discovered by Léon Gautier, who edited the first complete edition of them (Paris, 1858). Besides these poetic works, some prose ones are attributed to Adam of Saint Victor, biz., “Summa Britonis, seu de difficilioribus verbis in Biblia contentis,” a dictionary of all the difficult words in the Bible for the use of novices and beginners in the study of the Scriptures; and a sequel to this, “Expositio super omnes prologos,” an historical commentary on the prologues of St. Jerome. Fabricius, Pits, and others deny his authorship of these prose works, saying they were written by Guillaume le Breton. Levesque advances some plausible reasons for believing them the work of Adam, while Abbé Lejay declares emphatically that none of the prose works ascribed to him can be regarded with any likelihood as his. Some of his best hymns are “Laudes crucis attolamus,” “Verbi vere substantivi,” and “Stola regni laureatus.”

Gautier, (Euvres poétiques d’Adam de St. Victor (Paris 1858) with an Essai sur sa vie et ses ouvrages, tr. Wrangham (London, 1881); Julian, Dict. of Hymnology (New York, 1892), 14, 15; Levesque in Vig., Dict. de la Bible; Lejay in Dict. de théol. cath.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Adam of Usk

An English priest, canonist, and chronicler, born at Usk, in Monmouthshire, between 1360 and 1365; date of death unknown. He studied at Oxford, where he obtained his doctorate and became extraordinarius in canon law. He practised in the archiepiscopal court of Canterbury, 1390–97, and in 1399 accompanied the Archbishop and Bolingbroke’s army on the march to Chester. After Richard’s surrender Adam was rewarded with the living of Kemsing and Seal in Kent, and later with a prebend in the church of Bangor. However, he forfeited the King’s favour by the boldness of his criticisms, and was banished to Rome in 1402, where in 1404 and later he was successively nominated to the sees of Hereford and St. David’s, but was unable to obtain possession of either. He left a Latin chronicle of English history from 1377 to 1404, edited by Edward Maunde Thompson for the Royal Society of Literature, as “Chronicon Adæ de Usk” (London, 1876).

Thompson, in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; Hurter, Nomenclator, s.v.; Balzani, La storia di Roma nella Cronaca di Adamo da Usk, in Archiv soc. Rom. stor. patr. (1880), III, 473–488; Gairdner, in Academy (1877), XI, 4–5; Gross, Sources and Lit. of Eng. History (New York, 1900), s.v.

THOMAS WALSH

John Adam

A distinguished preacher and a strenuous opponent of Calvinists and Jansenists, born at Limoges in 1608; died at Bordeaux, 12 May, 1684. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1622. He wrote “The Triumph of the Blessed Eucharist”; “A Week’s Controversy on the Sacrament of the Altar”; “Calvin Defeated by Himself”; “The Tomb of Jansenism”; “An Abridgement of the Life of St. Francis Borgia”; Lenten sermons; some books of devotion; and translations of hymns. His views on St. Augustine brought him in collision with Cardinal Noris who attacked Father Adam in his “Vindiciæ Augustinianæ.” A book by Noël de Lalanne also assailed what is called “the errors, calumnies, and scandalous invectives which the Jesuit Father Adam has uttered in a sermon, on the second Thursday of Lent, in the Church of St. Paul.”

Southwell, Bayle, Crétineau-Joly, Remarques sur Bayle, 57; Sommervogel, I, 47; Varin, La vérité sur les Arnauld (Biog. univ. I, 145).

T.J. CAMPBELL

Nicholas Adam

Linguist and writer, b. in Paris, 1716; d. 1792. He achieved distinction by a peculiar grammar of which he was the author. It bore the title: “La vraie manière d’apprendre une langue quelconque, vivante ou morte, par le moyen de la langue française.” It consisted of five grammars: French, Latin, Italian, German, and English. He published another book which he called “Les quatre chapitres,” on reason, self-love, love of our neighbour, and love of virtue writing it in good and bad Latin, and good and bad French. He has also left many translations of classic works, among them, Pope’s “Essay on Man,” Johnson’s “Rasselas,” Addison’s “Cato,” Young’s “Night Thoughts,” etc. He was a favorite of Choiseul, who sent him as French ambassador to Venice. It is said that he knew all the languages of Europe and possessed a rare gift of communicating his knowledge to others. For many years he had been professor of eloquence at the College of Lisieux.

MICHAUD, Biogr. Univ., I, 228.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Adam Scotus

(Or THE PREMONSTRATENSIAN).

A theologian and Church historian of the latter part of the twelfth century. He was born either in Scotland or England, and joined the newly-founded order of Saint Norbert. It is also believed that he became Abbot and Bishop of Candida Casa, or Whithorn in Scotland, and died after 1180. His works consist of “Sermones” (P. L., CXCVIII, 91–440); “Liber de Ordine, Habitu et Professione Canonicorum Ordinis Prsemonstratensis” (Ibid., CXCVIII, 439–610), a work which is sometimes entitled the “Commentary on the Rule of St. Augustine”; “De Tripartito Tabernaculo” (CXCVIII, 609–792); “De Triplici Genere Contemplationis” (CXCVIII, 791–842); “Soliloquiorum de Instructione animae libri duo” (CXCVIII, 841–872). He was one of the most appreciated mystical authors of the Middle Ages; both in style and matter his works show unusual sweetness and spirituality. He is also known as Adam Anglicus and Anglo-Scotus.

Dict. of Nat. Biogr., s.v.; WRIGHT, Biogr. Brit. Litt. (1846) II, 322; BOURGAIN, La chaire française au XII siècle (Paris, 1879), 135–136; JÉROME;, in Dict. de théol, cath., s.v.

THOMAS WALSH

Andrea Adami da Bolsena

An Italian musician b. at Bolsena, 1663; d. in Rome, 1742. Through the influence of Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni he was appointed master of the papal choir. He left a history of this institution, with portraits and memoirs of the singers, under the title of “Osservazioni per ben regolare il coro dei cantori della Cappella Pontificia” (Rome, 1711). He was highly esteemed by the Romans for his personal as well as his musical gifts.

GROVE, Dict. of Music and Musicians; RIEMANN, Dict. of Music.

J. A. VÖLKER

Adamites

An obscure sect, dating perhaps from the second century, which professed to have regained Adam’s primeval innocence. St. Epiphanius and St. Augustine mention the Adamites by name, and describe their practices. They called their church Paradise; they condemned marriage as foreign to Eden, and they stripped themselves naked while engaged in common worship. They could not have been numerous. Various accounts are given of their origin. Some have thought them to have been an offshoot of the Carpocratian Gnostics, who professed a sensual mysticism and a complete emancipation from the moral law. Theodoret (Haer. Fab., I, 6) held this view of them, and identified them with the licentious sects whose practices are described by Clement of Alexandria. Others, on the contrary, consider them to have been misguided ascetics, who strove to extirpate carnal desires by a return to simpler manners, and by the abolition of marriage. Practices similar to those just described appeared in Europe several times in later ages. In the thirteenth century they were revived in the Netherlands by the Brethren and Sisters of the Free Spirit, and, in a grosser form, in the fourteenth by the Beghards (q.v.) in Germany. Everywhere they met with firm opposition. The Beghards became the Picards of Bohemia, who took possession of an island in the river Nezarka, and gave themselves up to a shameful communism. Ziska, the Bussite leader, nearly exterminated the sect in 1421 (cf. Höfler, Geschichtsquellen Böhmens, I, 414, 431); A brief revival of these doctrines took place in Bohemia after 1781, owing to the edict of toleration issued by Joseph II; these communistic Neo-Adamites were suppressed by force in 1849.

CLEM. of ALEX., Strom., III, iv; EPIPH., Haer., lii; AUGUSTINE, De Haer., XXXI; BOSSUET, Variations of Prot. Churches; RUDINGER, De Eccles. Frat. in Bohemia; SVATEK, Adamiten und Deisten in Böhmen in culturhist. Bilder aus Böhmen (Vienna, 1879), I, 97; HERGENRÖTHER, in Kirchenlex. I., 216–218.

FRANCIS P. HAVEY

St. Adamnan

Or Eunan).

Abbot of Iona, born at Drumhome, County Donegal, Ireland, c. 624; died at the Abbey of Iona, in 704. He was educated by the Columban monks of his native place, subsequently becoming a novice at Iona in 650. In 679 he succeeded to the abbacy of Iona, which position he held up to his death. He was also president-general of all the Columban houses in Ireland. During his rule he paid three lengthy visits to Ireland, one of which is memorable for his success in introducing the Roman Paschal observance. On his third visit (697) he assisted at the Synod of Tara, when the Cain Adamnain, or Canon of Adamnan (ed. Kuno Meyer, London, 1905) was adopted, which freed women and children from the evils inseparable from war, forbidding them to be killed or made captive in times of strife. It is not improbable, as stated in the “Life of St. Gerald” (d. Bishop of Mayo, 732), that Adamnan ruled the abbey of Mayo from 697 until 23 Sept., 704, but in Ireland his memory is inseparably connected with Raphoe, of which he is patron. From a literary point of view, St. Adamnan takes the very highest place as the biographer of St. Columba (Columcille), and as the author of a treatise “De Locis Sanctis.” Pinkerton describes his “Vita Columbae” as “the most complete piece of biography that all Europe can boast of, not only at so early a period but even through the whole Middle Ages.” It was printed by Colgan (from a copy supplied by Father Stephen White, S.J.), and by the Bollandists, but it was left for a nineteenth-century Irish scholar (Dr. Reeves, Protestant Bishop of Down, Connor and Dromore) to issue, in 1837, the most admirable of all existing editions. St. Bede highly praises the tract “De Locis Sanctis,” the autograph copy of which was presented by St. Adamnan to King Aldfrid of Northumbria, who had studied in Ireland. The “Four Masters” tells us that he was “tearful, penitent, fond of prayer, diligent and ascetic, and learned in the clear understanding of the Holy Scriptures of God.” His feast is celebrated 23 September.

W. H. Grattan-Flood.

James Adams

Professor of humanities at St. Omers, born in England in 1737; died at Dublin, 6 December, 1802. He became a Jesuit at Watten, 7 September, 1756, and worked on the mission in England. He wrote a translation from the French of “Early Rules for Taking a Likeness,” by Bonomaci; and was honored with the thanks of the Royal Society of London, for a treatise on “English Pronunciation, with appendices on various dialects, and an analytical discussion and vindication of Scotch.” He composed also a volume of Roman History, and projected a book on a “Tour through the Hebrides,” which was never printed.

Foley, Records of the English Province: Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la c. de J., I, 50.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Ven. John Adams

Priest, martyred at Tyburn, 8 October, 1586. He had been a Protestant minister, but being converted, went to Reims in 1579, where he was ordained a priest. He returned to England in March, 1581. Father William Warford, who knew him personally, described him as a man of “about forty years of age, of average height, with a dark beard, a sprightly look and black eyes. He was a very good controversialist, straightforward, very pious, and pre-eminently a man of hard work. He laboured very strenuously at Winchester and in Hampshire, where he helped many, especially of the poorer classes.” Imprisoned in 1584, he was banished with seventy-two other priests in 1585; but having returned was again arrested, and executed, with two others, Ven. John Lowe and Ven. Robert Dibdale.

PATRICK RYAN

Diocese of Adana

A diocese of Armenian rite in Asia Minor (Asiatic Turkey). This ancient Phoenician colony “of willows” is situated about nineteen miles from the sea, on the right bank of the Sarus, or Seyhoun, in the heart of Cilicia Campestris. It was once a part of the kingdom of the Seleucidae, and after the passing of Antiochus Epiphanes it took (171 n. C.) the name of Antioch of Sarus. Later it received from Emperor Hadrian (117–138) the title of Hadriana and from Emperor Maximianus that of Maximiana. It has some political importance as capital of thevilayet or district. Adana appears in the fourth century as a see subject to the metropolitan of Tarsus and the patriarch of Antioch. In the Middle Ages the Greek hierarchy disappeared, and is now represented in Cilicia by only one prelate who styles himself Metropolitan of Tarsus and Adana, and resides in the latter town. Most of his diocesans are foreigners, and come from Cappadocia or the Archipelago. They are much attached to Hellenism, and desire to be under the patriarchate of Constantinople and not of Antioch. They even live in open strife with the latter, since the election (1899) of an Arabic-speaking prelate. In medieval times Adana, deprived of a Greek bishop, had an Armenian one, subject to the Catholics of Sis. The first of this line known to history is a certain Stephen, who distinguished himself in 1307 and 1316. Under him a great national Armenian council (the last of its kind), attended by the patriarch and the king, the clergy and the nobility, was held at Adana (1316). Thirty years earlier, in 1286, another Armenian council met for forty days in Adana for the purpose of electing the Catholics Constantine and to dispose of several other questions. Today the Armenians of Adana are divided into Gregorians, Catholics, and Protestants. For the Gregorians it is the centre of one of the fourteen or fifteen districts governed by the Catholics of Sis; he is represented in Adana by a bishop. For the Catholics there is an episcopal see at Adana. As regards Protestants, Adana is a mission station of the Central Turkey Mission of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (about 1,000 members). The Reformed Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) holds it as a missionary station attended from Tarsus. There are, moreover, at Adana some Maronite and Syrian merchants and some Europeans employed in various capacities. The total population amounts to about 45,000 inhabitants during the two or three months when the decortication and the cleaning of cotton attract a great many workers. During the rest of the year the population does not exceed 30,000 inhabitants, viz.: 14,000 Mussulmans, 12,575 Armenians, 3,425 Greeks, and a few others. There are in the town 18 mosques, 37 medresses, and 8 tekkes, 2 Armenian churches, 1 Latin church, 1 Greek church, and 1 Protestant church; 29 Turkish schools of which 28 are elementary schools and one is secondary, 2 Greek schools, 1 Armenian school, 1 Protestant school, and 2 French educational establishments one for boys directed by the Jesuit Fathers, the other for girls, under the Sisters of St. Joseph of Lyons. The latter includes a day-school and a boarding-school.

J. PARGOIRE

Adar

(1) A frontier town in the South of Chanaan (Num., xxxiv, 4; Jos., xv, 3). It has not been identified.

(2) King of Edom, Gen., xxxvi, 39, called Adad (R. V., Hadad), I Par., i, 50.

(3) The twelfth month of the Jewish year, corresponding approximately to the latter half of February and the first half of March.

(4) A Chaldean god. The name is found in the compound word Adramelech (Adar is Wing) in IV K., xvii, 31.

W.S. REILLY

Ferdinando d’Adda

Cardinal and Papal Legate, b. at Milan, 1649; d. at Rome, 1719. He was made Cardinal-Priest in 1690, and in 1715 Cardinal-Bishop of Albano. He was also Prefect of the Congregation of Rites. As Papal Nuncio in London during the reign of James II (1685–88) he was charged by Innocent XI with the delicate task of inducing the English King to intercede with Louis XIV (then quite inimical to the Holy See) in favour of the oppressed Protestants of France.

CARDELLA, Memorie storiche de’ Cardinali (Rome, 1793), VIII, 7.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Addas

One of the three original disciples of Manes (q.v.), who according to the Acts of Archelaus introduced the heretical teachings of Manes into Scythia and later went on a similar mission to the East, being also commissioned to collect Christian books. He is called Baddas by Cyril of Jerusalem. Photius refers to a work of his (Biblioth. Cod. 85) entitled “Modion” (Mark, iv, 21) which was refuted by Diodorus of Tarsus. A work against Moses and the Prophets by Addas and Adimantus is also mentioned.

COWELL in Dict. of Christ. Biogr., I, 43.

THOMAS WALSH

Liturgy of Addeus and Maris

This is an Oriental liturgy, sometimes assigned to the Syrian group because it is written in the Syriac tongue; sometimes to the Persian group because it was used in Mesopotamia and Persia. It is known as the normal liturgy of the Nestorians, but probably it had been in use before the rise of the Nestorian heresy. According to tradition, it was composed by Addeus and Maris, who evangelized Edessa, Seleucia-Ctesiphon and the surrounding country. This tradition is based on the narrative contained in the “Doctrine of Addai,” a work generally ascribed to the second half of the third century. The account states that King Abgar the Black, having heard of the wonderful works of Christ, besought Our Lord to come and cure him of a serious malady, but that he obtained only the promise that Our Lord would send one of His disciples, a promise which was fulfilled after the ascension, when Thaddeus (in Syriac, Addai), one of the seventy-two disciples, was sent by St. Thomas to Edessa to cure the King. Addeus and his disciple Maris are said to have converted the King and people of Edessa, to have organized the Christian Church there, and to have composed the liturgy which bears their names. There seem to be no documents earlier than the “Doctrine of Addai” to confirm this tradition. Although good historical evidence concerning the foundation of the Church of Edessa is wanting, still it is quite certain that Christianity was introduced there at a very early date, since towards the end of the second century the king was a Christian, and a bishop (Palouth) of the see was consecrated by Serapion of Antioch (1902–03). It was only natural that the Edessans should regard Addeus and Maris as the authors of their liturgy, since they already regarded these men as the founders of their Church. The Nestorians attribute the final redaction of the text of the Liturgy of Addeus and Maris to their patriarch Jesuyab III who lived about the beginning of the seventh century. After the condemnation of Nestorianism, the Nestorians retreated into the Persian kingdom, and penetrated even into India and China, founding churches and introducing their liturgy wherever the Syriac language was used. At the present time this liturgy is used chiefly by the Nestorians, who reside for the most part in Kurdistan. It is also used by the Chaldean Uniats of the same region, but their liturgy has, of course, been purged of all traces of Nestorian tenets. Finally, it is in use among the Chaldean Uniats of Malabar, but it was very much altered by the Synod of Diamper held in 1599.

EXPOSITION OF PARTS

The liturgy may be divided conveniently into two parts: the Mass of the catechumens, extending as far as the offertory, when the catechumens were dismissed, and the Mass of the faithful, embracing all from the offertory to the end. Or again, it may be divided into the preparation for the sacrifice extending as far as the preface, and the anaphora or formula for consecration corresponding to the Roman canon. “The order of the Liturgy of the Apostles, composed by Mar Addai and Mar Mari, the blessed Apostles” begins with the sign of the cross, after which the verse “Glory to God in the highest” etc. (Luke, ii, 14), the Lord’s Prayer, and a prayer for the priest on Sundays and feasts of Our Lord, or a doxology of praise to the Trinity on saints’ days and ferials are recited. Several psalms are then said, together with the anthem of the sanctuary (variable for Sundays and feasts or Saints’ days) and a prayer of praise and adoration.

The deacon then invites the people “to lift up their voices and glorify the living God,” and they respond by reciting the Trisagion. Then the priest says a prayer and blesses the reader of the lessons. Ordinarily two lessons from the Old Testament are read, but during Eastertide a lesson from the Acts of the Apostles is substituted for the second Old Testament lesson. After an anthem and a prayer the deacon reads the third lesson (called the Apostle), which is taken from one of the epistles of St. Paul. The priest prepares for the Gospel by reciting the appropriate prayers and blessing the incense, and after the alleluia is sung he reads the Gospel. This is followed by its proper anthem, the diaconal litany, and a short prayer recited by the priest, after which the deacons invite the people “to bow their heads for the imposition of hands and receive the blessing” which the priest invokes upon them. The Mass of the catechumens is thus concluded, so the deacons admonish those who have not received baptism to depart, and the Mass of the faithful begins. The priest offers the bread and wine, reciting the prescribed prayers, covers the chalice and paten with a large veil, goes down from the altar and begins the anthem of the mysteries. The recital of the Creed at this point is a late addition to the liturgy.

Having entered within the arch, the priest makes the prescribed inclinations to the altar, washes his hands and begins the preparatory prayers for the anaphora. He recites an invitation to prayer corresponding to the Roman Orate fratres, and then beseeches the Lord not to regard his sins nor those of the people, but in all mercy to account him worthy to celebrate the mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ and worthily praise and worship the Lord, after which he crosses himself and the people answer “Amen.” At this point on Sundays and feasts of Our Lord the deacon seems to have read the diptychs, called by the Nestorians the “Book of the Living and the Dead.” The kiss of peace is then given, and a prayer recited for all classes of persons in the church. The anaphora proper begins with the preface. The deacon now invites the people to pray, and the priest recites a secret prayer, lifts the veil from the offerings, blesses the incense, and prays that “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with us all now and ever world without end,” and signs the mysteries, and the people answer “Amen.” The priest then begins the preface with the words: “Lift up your minds.” The preface is followed by the sanctus and the anamnesis (commemoration of Christ). In present usage the words of institution are here inserted, although they seem to have little connection with the context. He pronounces a short doxology, and signs the mysteries, and the people answer “Amen.” After the deacon says “Pray in your minds. Peace be with us,” the priest recites quietly the great intercession or memento. The epiclesis, or invocation of the Holy Ghosts follows as a sort of continuation of the intercession. The priest then says a prayer for peace and one of thanksgiving, and incenses himself and the oblations, reciting the appropriate prayers in the meantime. While the deacon recites a hymn referring to the Eucharist, the priest, taking the Host in both hands, says a prayer alluding to the life-giving power of this bread which came down from Heaven (in the Chaldean Uniat liturgies the words of institution are placed after the first part of this prayer), breaks the Host into two parts, one of which he places on the paten, while with the other he signs the chalice, and after dipping it into the chalice signs the other half of the Host, reciting meanwhile the proper prayers for the consignation. Joining the parts together he says a prayer referring to the ceremonies just completed, cleaves with his thumb the Host where it was dipped in the chalice, signs his forehead with his thumb, and recites a prayer of praise to Christ and to the Trinity. After kissing the altar, he invokes a blessing upon all “The grace of Our Lord” etc., as quoted above.

While the priest breaks the Host, the deacon invites the people to consider the meaning of these holy mysteries and to have the proper dispositions for receiving them; to forgive the transgressions of others, and then to beseech the Lord to forgive their own offences. The priest, continuing this idea, introduces the Lord’s Prayer (which all recite) and says a prayer that expands the last two petitions. After a short doxology the priest gives the Chalice to the deacon, blesses the people, and then both distribute Communion. A special anthem is said during the distribution. The deacon then invites all who have received Communion to give thanks, and the priest recites aloud a prayer of thanksgiving and one of petition. Mass is concluded with a blessing pronounced by the priest over the people. The chief characteristic in this, as in the other Nestorian liturgies, is the position of the general intercession or memento. It occurs, not after the epiclesis as in the Syrian liturgies, but immediately before it. It seems to be a continuation of the anamnesis. Of minor differences, it might be noted that the Nestorians use one large veil to cover paten and chalice; they use incense at the preface; and they have two fractions of the Host, one symbolical recalling the passion of Christ, the other necessary for the distribution of Communion.

Liturgia SS. Apostolorum Addei et Maris in BRIGHTMAN, Liturgies Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1896), I; BADGER, The Nestorians and their Rituals (London, 1852); ERMONI in Dict. d’archéol. caret. (Paris, 1903), COI. 519, RENAUDOT, Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio (Frankfort, 1847), II; ASSEMANI, Bibliotheca Orientalis (Rome, 1728), III; NEALE, History of the Holy Eastern Church (London, 1858), I.

J.F. GOGGIN

Ecclesiastical Addresses

It is from Italy that we derive rules as to what is fitting and customary in the matter of ecclesiastical correspondence. These rules the different Catholic nations have adopted with greater or lesser modifications, according to local conditions, resulting in differences which will be here dealt with.

PRELIMINARIES

Before describing how an address should be written, or how a letter to an ecclesiastical personage should be begun and ended, it may be well to say that the paper must always be white, no other colour being allowed. The size and form of stationery considered appropriate is that known in Italy as palomba; it is used by the Roman Congregations, and is so called because it has the watermark of a dove (It., palomba). In other countries the paper used for protocols or ministerial correspondence may be employed, but it should be handmade, as both stronger and more suitable.

The ink must always be black; coloured inks are forbidden; first, because they are contrary to traditional usage, and next because they are liable to changes, having, for the most part, a basis of aniline or of animal oil; moreover, these inks on being exposed to the light lose colour rapidly and soon make the letter impossible to read.

The letter must be written as our fathers wrote, and not, as business letters are now sometimes written, first on the right hand sheet and then on the left, in inverse order to that of the leaves of a book. This is expressly laid down in an instruction issued by Propaganda when Monsignor Ciasca was secretary, and rests on the necessity of providing for the due order of the archives and for facility of classification.

Lastly, it is better not to write on the back of the sheet, as the ink may soak through the paper and make the document less easy to read; in any case, it is a rule of politeness to facilitate the reading of a letter in every possible way.

Ten years ago the use of a typewriter was not permissible; at the present day it is. Many decrees of the Congregation of Rites are written in this way; the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars allow it in the case of documents addressed to them, and other ecclesiastical courts have followed their example, but letters addressed to the Sovereign Pontiff personally must still be written by hand. If the letter be sealed, red wax must be used, any other colour, or even black, being forbidden; but the use of wafers, made to look like seals of red wax, which are gummed on to the envelope, is now tolerated. Moreover, according to the practice of the ecclesiastical chanceries, the seal used should be smaller in proportion to the dignity of the person addressed. In practice, however, it is not easy to follow this rule, since it is not everyone who possesses seals of different sizes.

FORMS OF ADDRESS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

Italy

The Pope

The Sovereign Pontiff is addressed at the commencement of a letter as “Most Holy Father” (Beatissimo Padre); in the body of the letter as “His Holiness” (Sua or Vostra Santità). It is customary to speak to him always in the third person, and the letter ends with: “Prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness, I have the honour to profess myself, with the most profound respect, Your Holiness’s most humble servant.”

If, instead of a letter, a petition is sent to the Sovereign Pontiff, to be examined by him or by one of the Roman Congregations, it should begin: “Most Holy Father, Prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness, the undersigned N., of the diocese of N., has the honour to set forth as follows:”—and the statement of the request ends with the words: “And may God . . .” (meaning, “May God enrich Your Holiness with His gifts”). If written in Italian the petition ends with the formula, Che della grazia . . . , the beginning of a phrase implying that the favour asked is looked for from the great kindness of the Sovereign Pontiff. After folding the petition lengthways to the paper, the petitioner should write at the top, “To His Holiness, Pope N. . . . .”; in the middle, “for the petitioner” (per l’infrascritto oratore), and at the bottom, to the right, the name of the agent, or the person charged with the transaction of that particular business at the Roman court.

Cardinals

In writing to an Italian cardinal, the letter should begin with the words, “Most Reverend Eminence” (Eminenza Revma.); if he should be of a princely family, “Most Illustrious and Reverend Eminence.” In the body of the letter itself he should always be addressed in the third person and as “Your Eminence,” or “His Eminence,” and the letter should end: “Embracing the purple of His Most Reverend Eminence, I am His Eminence’s very humble and obedient servant.” This is an adaptation of the more complicated Italian formula, “Prostrato al bacio della sacra porpora, ho l’onore di confermarmi dell’ Eminenza Vostra Rev’ma dev’mo ed oss’mo servo.” The Cardinal’s address, as written on the envelope, must be repeated at the left-hand lower corner of the first page of the letter, and this must be done in all letters of this kind, being intended to show that there has been no mistake made in the address.

Bishops

A Bishop’s title is “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord.” The words, “Your Greatness,” a translation of the Latin, Amplitudo Vestra, used in chancery letters, are not customary in Italy, except when writing in Latin. On the other hand, bishops there generally receive the title of “Excellency” (Eccellenza). A decree of the Congregatio Ceremonialis, 3 June, 1893, assigns this title to patriarchs, instead of “His Beatitude,” wrongly assumed by them. Traditional usage, indeed, reserves this title to the Sovereign Pontiff, one of the most ancient instances being met with in a letter from St. Jerome to Pope St. Damasus (d. 384), but in practice patriarchs still use it, and it is still given to them. Nuncios take the title of “Excellency” in accordance to the usage of European courts, and custom accords it to legates of the Holy See in virtue of their office (see LEGATE), of whom the best known is the Archbishop of Reims, in France. As all Bishops in Italy take, or accept, this title, a letter should be addressed: “To His Excellency, the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Monsignore N. . . . , Bishop of . . .” and should end with the words: “Kissing his pastoral ring, I am His Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Excellency’s very humble and very obedient servant.”

Other prelates

Moreover, custom requires that the title should be given to the four prelates known in Italian as di fiochetti (those who have the right to have tufts on their carriage-harness), namely: The Vice-Chamberlain, the Auditor of the Apostolic Chamber, the Treasurer of the same Chamber (an office not filled since 1870), and the Majordomo. The other prelates di mantelletta, whether enrolled in a college of prelates or not, have the title of “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord.” The letter should begin: “To the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord, Monsignore N. . . .” and end: “I am Your Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lordship’s very humble servant.” In addressing a privy chamberlain, honorary chamberlain, or papal chaplain, the term “Monsignore” should be used (in French Monseigneur) “Monsignore Reverendissimo” in Italian, and the letter should end: “I am Your Lordship’s very devoted [or very humble] servant,” according to the writer’s rank.

Religious

A religious should be addressed as “Reverend Father” or “Most Reverend Father” (“Reverendo padre” or “Reverendissimo Padre”), according to his rank in his order, and the words “Vostra Paternità” or “Vostra Riverenza,” “Your Paternity” or “Your Reverence,” used in the letter itself. There are, indeed, certain fine distinctions to be made in the use of these expressions, according as the religious written to belongs to one order or another, but nowadays these chancery formulas, once clearly distinguished, are commonly used indiscriminately. In writing to one of a community of Brothers, such as the Christian Brothers, a simple religious should be addressed as “Very Dear Brother” (the customary form among the Christian Brothers); should he hold a position in his congregation, as “Honoured Brother,” or “Much Honoured Brother.”

Other titles

By the motu proprio of Pius X (21 February, 1905), he conferred on vicars-general during their tenure of office the title “My Lord,” on canons “Reverendo Signor, Don N. . . . canonico di . . .,” in French “Monsieur le Chanoine,” in English “The Very Reverend Canon.” Consultors of the Roman Congregations have the title of “Most Reverend,” and must be so addressed at the beginning and end of letters written to them.

Priests

Lastly, parish priests should be addressed in Italian as “Reverendo Signor Parroco” or “Curato di,” in French, as “Monsieur le Curé,” in English as “The Reverend A. . . . B. . . .” “Parish Priest” (curé) is a general term. Most of the Italian provinces have special names for the office, such as “pievano,” “prevosto,” and others which it would take too long to enumerate, but “Reverendo Signor Parroco” may always be used safely. All priest in Italy have the title “Don,” an abbreviation of Dominus (Lord), and should therefore be addressed as “Reverendo Don” (or “D.”); or, in the case of a doctor, “Reverendo [or Rev.] Dott., Don N. . . .” Various formulas of respect still occasionally used by Italian politeness may be noted, such as: “All’ Ill’ mo e Rev’mo Padrone [Pdne] Coltissimo [Colmo] ed Osservantissimo [Ossmo] Signor,” titles without equivalent in French or English, now very rarely given, even in Rome, and which belong rather to the archæology of ecclesiastical civility.

FRANCE

The epistolary style of France is more simple. A cardinal should be addressed as “Eminence Révérendissime” (Most Reverend Eminence); not as “Monseigneur le Cardinal,” the title “Monseigneur” being below the cardinalitial dignity. Only the kings of France said “Monsieur le Cardinal,” the formula which the Pope uses when speaking to them—“Signor Cardinale”—but one of inferior rank should never presume to use this form of address, and will evade the difficulty by writing, “Eminence Révérendissime” at the beginning of a letter, in the body of the letter “Your Eminence” or “His Eminence”; at the end, “I have the honour to be, with profound respect, Your Most Reverend Eminence’s very humble and very obedient servant” (J’ai l’honneur d’être, avec un profond respect, de Votre Eminence Révme. le trés humble et trés obéissant serviteur). Bishops in France have the title of “Grandeur”; the envelope would, accordingly, be addressed: “A sa Grandeur, Monseigneur N., évêque de . . .,” and the letter should end: “I have the honour to be Your Grandeur’s very humble servant.” Prelates, vicars-general, and chamberlains should be called “Monseigneur” and, both in the letter itself and at the end, “Votre Seigneurie” (“Your Lordship”); religious “Reverend Father” or “Very Reverend Father,” as the case may be; the words “Paternité” and “Révérence” being but seldom used in France. Benedictines have the title “Dom,” so that a religious of that order would be addressed as “The Rev. Father, Dom N. . . .” an abbot as “The Right Rev. [Revme] Father, Dom N., Abbot of——.” There are, finally, the titles “Monsieur le Chanoine” and Monsieur le Curá,” the latter being used for all parish priests.

SPAIN

The forms used in Spain are as follows: “Emmo. y Revmo. Sr. Cardenal, Dr. D.N.” [Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinal Doctor (if he have that title) Don N.] The letter should end with: “I kiss Your Eminence’s pastoral ring, of whom I profess myself, with the deepest respect. . . .” The same formula is used in the case of archbishops and bishops, only that the word “Excellency” takes the place of “Eminence.” Vicars-general have the title of “Most Illustrious,” shortened into “Muy Iltr. Señor,” which is also given to the great dignitaries of the diocese, and to the canons of the cathedral church. In the letter itself, “Your Lordship” should be used, which is abbreviated into “V.S.” (Vuestra Señoría), nor must the academic titles of doctor or licentiate, belonging to the person addressed, be omitted, but they must precede the name, thus “Señor Doctor [or Señor Licenciado], Don” [abbreviated, D.], followed by the proper title of his charge. In the case of regulars the rule to be followed is that which has been indicated for Italy. All simple priests have the title of “Don.”

GERMANY

In writing to a cardinal one should address the envelope, “An seine Eminenz den hochwürdigsten Herrn Kardinal N.” (“To His Eminence the most worthy Lord Cardinal”—Herr, of which Herrn is the accusative, meaning “Lord,” or “Mister”). In the body of the letter the cardinal should be addressed as “Eminenz,” and the ending should be: “Your Eminence’s most humble servant” (Eurer Eminenz unterth nigster Diener). A Bishop has the title of “His Episcopal Grace” (Bisch fliche Gnaden), and his letter should be addressed, “An seine bisch flichen Gnaden den hochw rdigsten Herrn” (To His Episcopal Grace the most worthy Lord); in the case of an archbishop, “Erzbischöflichen” (archiepiscopal) is used instead of “Bischöflichen”; in that of a prince bishop, “Fürstbischöflichen.” There are several sees in Germany and in Austria whose titulars have the rank of prince-bishops; such are Breslau, Gratz, Gurk, Lavant, Salzburg, and Trent. The letter should end: “Your Episcopal [or Archiepiscopal] Grace’s most humble servant.” It should be noted that in Germany the title of “Excellency” belongs only to those to whom it has been granted by the Government, so that it is well to ascertain whether the prelate addressed has obtained it. A prelate di mantelletta should be addressed as “hochwürdigster Herr Prälat” (Most worthy Lord Prelate). There is no title in Germany equivalent to that of the Monsignore given to chamberlains and Papal chaplains; it has, therefore become customary to address them as “Monsignore” or, if more respect is to be shown them, “An seine Hochwürden, Monsignore” (His High Worthiness, Monsignore). “Hochwürden” is also commonly used in the case of parish priests, the superlative, “hochwürdigster,” being applied to canons and great diocesan dignitaries. Letters so addressed should end, “Your High Worthiness’s [Euer Hochwürden] very humble servant.”

ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES

“The Catholic Directory” (London, 1906) gives the following brief directions for forms of address, which, with the slight exceptions noted, may be safely taken as representing the best custom of the United States, the British Isles, Canada, Australia, and the British colonies in general:

“CARDINALS. His Eminence Cardinal . . . If he is also an Archbishop: His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of . . . ; or His Eminence Cardinal . . . , Archbishop of . . . ; [to begin a letter] My Lord Cardinal, or My Lord; Your Eminence. “ARCHBISHOPS. His Grace the Archbishop of . . . ; or The Most Reverend the Archbishop of . . . ; My Lord Archbishop, or My Lord; Your Grace.

“BISHOPS. The Lord Bishop of . . . ; or The Right Reverend the Bishop of . . . ; or His Lordship the Bishop of . . . ; My Lord Bishop, or My Lord; Your Lordship. In Ireland, Bishops are usually addressed as The Most Reverend. [In the United States the titles My Lord and Your Lordship are not usually given to Bishops.] An Archbishop or Bishop of a Titular See may be addressed, 1. by his title alone, as other Archbishops and Bishops; or 2. by his Christian name and surname, followed by the title of his See, or of any office, such as Vicar Apostolic, that he holds, as The Most Rev. (or The Right Rev.) A.B., Archbishop (or Bishop, or Vicar Apostolic) of . . . ; or 3. by his surname only, preceded by Archbishop or Bishop, as The Most Rev. Archbishop (or The Right Rev. Bishop). . . . The addition of D.D., or the prefixing of Doctor or Dr., to the names of Catholic Archbishops or Bishops, is not necessary, and is not in conformity with the best usage. [It is, however, the usual custom in the United States.] When an Archbishop or Bishop is mentioned by his surname, it is better to say Archbishop (or Bishop) . . . than to say Dr. . . . ; for the latter title is common to Doctors of all kinds, and does not of itself indicate any sacred dignity or office. “Vicars-General, Provosts, Canons.—1. The Very Rev. A. B. (or, if he is such, Provost . . . , or Canon . . . ), V. G.; or The Very Reverend the Vicar-General. 2. The Very Rev. Provost . . . (surname). 3. The Very Rev. Canon . . . (surname); or (Christian name and surname) The Very Rev. A. Canon B. [The various ranks of Domestic Prelates are addressed in English-speaking countries according to rules laid down above under ITALY].—Mitred Abbots. The Right Rev. Abbot . . . (surname). Right Rev. Father.—Provincials. The Very Rev. Father . . . (surname); or The Very Rev. Father Provincial. Very Rev. Father.—Some others (heads of colleges, etc.) are, at least by courtesy, addressed as Very Reverend; but no general rule can be given. The title of Father is very commonly given to Secular Priests, as well as to Priests of Religious Orders and Congregations.

Even, however, with these explanations, which might have been developed at greater length, some difficulty may occasionally occur, in which case it is better to make a free use of titles of respect, rather than to run the risk of not using enough, and of thus falling short of what is due and fitting. BATTANDIER, Annuaire pontifical catholique (1899), 500 sq.; FRANCESCO PARISI, Istruzioni per la giovent impiegata nella segretaria (Rome, 1785). Some information may be obtained in BRANCHEREAU, Politesses et convenances eccl siastiques (1875).

ALBERT BATTANDIER

Archdiocese of Adelaide

Centred in Adelaide, capital of South Australia. It comprises all the territory of South Australia south of the counties of Victoria and Burra to Northwest Bend. The River Murray from this point forms the boundary to the confines of New South Wales. The counties of Flinders, Musgrave, and Jervois form the western portion of the Archdiocese, with the adjacent islands. Area, 40 320 square miles. South Australia was founded by a chartered company in 1836. It was intended to be a “free” (that is, non-convict) English Protestant colony. “Papists and pagans” were to have been excluded. A few Catholics were, however. among the first immigrants. Dr. Ullathorne (Sydney) visited Adelaide in June, 1840. Governor Gawler roughly refused the Government school (commonly used for religious services) “either to the Popish priest to go through his Mass, or to the ignorant Catholics to be present at it.” A store was lent by a generous Protestant, and there the first Mass was celebrated for a congregation of about fifty. The first resident priest was the Rev. William Benson (1841–44). Adelaide (hitherto part of the Diocese of Sydney) was created an episcopal see in 1843. Its first Bishop was the Right Rev. Francis Murphy, the first prelate consecrated in Australasia. At the census of 1844 there were in South Australia only 1,055 Catholics in a total white population of 17,366. Bishop Murphy had then only one priest, no presbytery or school, and his only church was a small weather-board store which was rented. Three years of hard poverty, broken by a convert’s gifts, were followed by four years (1847- 51) of State aid for churches and ministers of religion (withdrawn by the first elective parliament in 1852) and by capitation grants to denominational schools (1847–51). The wild exodus to the gold- fields of Victoria in 1851 almost emptied Adelaide of its adult male inhabitants. Some of the clergy had to seek missions elsewhere, and the Bishop and the two who remained had, until timely aid from the gold-fields arrived, to exist on a total income of 8s. 6d. per week, in a diocese burdened with a debt of §4,000. Prosperous years followed. The Passionists were introduced in 1846; Jesuits, 1848; Sisters of Mercy, 1857; Sisterhood of St. Joseph founded 1867; secular public instruction established 1878; Adelaide created an archbishopric, and part of its territory formed into the Diocese of Port Augusta, 1887. The bishops and archbishops of Adelaide have been: Bishops Francis Murphy (1844–58); Patrick B. Geoghegan, O.S.F. (1858–64); Lawrence B. Shiel, O.S.F. (1866–72); Archbishops Christopher A. Reynolds (1873–93); and John O Reilly, transferred from Port Augusta (1895). Archbishop O Reilly, who relieved his former diocese of a heavy debt, has gone far towards performing a like service for that of Adelaide. Two gifted scientists of the Archdiocese were Father Hinterocker, S.J., a skilled naturalist. and Father Julian Tenison Woods, a prolific writer on Australian geology. Catholic weekly, “The Southern Cross” (Adelaide).

Statistics (April, 1906)

Parochial districts, 27; churches, 73; secular priests, 34; regular priests 11 Jesuit Fathers (14 lay brothers), 4 Dominicans, 5 Passionist Fathers (1 lay brother), 4 Carmelites; Christian and Marist Brothers, 45; nuns (302) 127 Sisters of St. Joseph, 86 Dominicans, 80 Sisters of Mercy, 5 Good Samaritans, 4 Loreto; colleges, 2; boarding schools (girls), 8; superior day schools, 16; primary schools, 35; charitable institutions, 9; children in Catholic schools, 4,306; Catholic population (estimate, 1905), 40,460 about one-seventh of total population.

Statistical Register (various dates); BENNETT, South Australian Almanac (Adelaide, 1841); ULLATHORNE, Autobiography (London, 1892); HODDER, History of South Australia (London, 1893); MORAN, History of the Catholic Church in Australasia (Sydney, undated); WOODS, The Province of South Australia (Adelaide, 1895); BYRNE, History of the Catholic Church in South Australia (Adelaide, I, 1896; II, 1902); HODDER, The Founding of South Australia (London, 1898); WOODS, Port Augusta.

HENRY W. CLEARY

St. Adelaide, Abbess

Abbess, born in the tenth century; died at Cologne, 5 February, 1015. She was daughter of Megingoz, Count of Guelders, and when still very young entered the convent of St. Ursula in Cologne, where the Rule of St. Jerome was followed. When her parents founded the convent of Villich, opposite the city of Bonn, on the Rhine, Adelaide became Abbess of this new convent, and after some time introduced the Rule of St. Benedict, which appeared stricter to her than that of St. Jerome. The fame of her sanctity and of her gift of working miracles soon attracted the attention of St. Herbert, Archbishop of Cologne, who desired her as abbess of St. Mary’s convent at Cologne, to succeed her sister Bertha, who had died. Only upon the command of Emperor Otho III did Adelaide accept this new dignity. While Abbess of St. Mary’s at Cologne, she continued to be Abbess of Villich. She died at her convent in Cologne in the year 1015, but was buried at Villich, where her feast is solemnly celebrated on 5 February, the day of her death.

RANBECK, The Benedictine Calendar (London, 1896); LECHNER, Martyrologium des Benediktiner-Ordens (Augsburg, 1855); STADLER, Heiligen-Lexikon (Augsburg, 1858); MOOSMUELLER, Die Legende, VII, 448.

MICHAEL OTT

St. Adelaide (Adelheid)

(ADELHEID).

Born 931; died 16 December, 999, one of the conspicuous characters in the struggle of Otho the great to obtain the imperial crown from the Roman Pontiffs. She was the daughter of Rudolph II, King of Burgundy, who was at war with Hugh of Provence for the crown of Italy. The rivals concluded a peace in 933, by which it was stipulated that Adelaide should marry Hugh’s son Lothaire. The marriage took place, however, only fourteen years later; Adelaide’s mother meantime married Hugh. By this time Berengarius, the Marquis of Ivrea, came upon the scene, claiming the Kingdom of Italy for himself. He forced Hugh to abdicate in favour of Lothaire, and is supposed to have afterwards put Lothaire to death by poison. He then proposed to unite Adelaide in marriage with his son, Adalbert. Refusing the offer, Adelaide was kept in almost solitary captivity, in the Castle of Garda, on the lake of that name. From it she was rescued by a priest named Martin, who dug a subterraneous passage, by which she escaped, and remained concealed in the woods, her rescuer supporting her, meantime, by the fish he caught in the lake. Soon, however, the Duke of Canossa, Alberto Uzzo, who had been advised of the rescue, arrived and carried her off to his castle. While this was going on the Italian nobles, weary of Berengarius, had invited Otho to invade Italy. He met with little resistance, and betook himself to Canossa where he met Adelaide, and married her on Christmas day, 951, at Pavia. This marriage gave Otho no new rights over Italy, but the enthusiasm of the people for Adelaide, whose career had been so romantic, appealed to them and made Otho’s work of subjugating the peninsula easy. In Germany she was the idol of her subjects, while her husband lived. During the reign of her son Otho II, her troubles began, chiefly owing to the jealousy of her daughter-in-law, Theophano, and possibly also because of her excessive liberality in her works of charity. It resulted in her withdrawing from court and fixing her residence at Pavia, but a reconciliation was effected by the Abbot of Cluny, St. Mayeul. The same troubles broke out when her grandson came to the throne, the jealous daughter-in-law being yet unreconciled, and Adelaide was again forced into seclusion. But Theophano dying suddenly, Adelaide was recalled to assume the burden of a Regency. Her administration was characterized by the greatest wisdom. She took no revenge upon her enemies; her court was like a religious house; she multiplied monasteries and churches in the various provinces, and was incessant in her efforts to convert the pagans of the North. In the last year of her reign she undertook a journey to Burgundy to reconcile her nephew Rudolph with his subjects, but died on the way at Seltz, in Alsace. She is not mentioned in the Roman martyrology, but her name appears in several calendars of Germany, and her relics are enshrined in Hanover. St. Odilo of Cluny wrote her life.

Vite de’ Santi Gentilucci, Decembre.

T.J. CAMPBELL

John Placid Adelham

Or ADLAND).

A Protestant minister, born in Wiltshire, who became a Catholic and joined the Benedictines. He was professed at St. Edward’s Monastery, Paris, 1652. He was Prior of St. Lawrence’s Monastery, at Dieulward from 1659 to 1661, and was then sent to England and stationed at Somerset House from 1661 to 1675. Banished that year, he returned to England again and became a victim of the “Popish Plot” of Titus Oates. He was tried and condemned to death merely as a priest, 17 January, 1678–79. Though reprieved, he was detained in Newgate Prison, where he died between the years 1681 and 1685.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of Engl. Cath.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Adelmann

Bishop of Brescia in the eleventh century. Of unknown parentage and nationality, he was educated at the famous school of Chartres, in France, founded by Fulbert, and was considered one of his favourite scholars. Among his fellow students was Berengarius, to whom, at a later period, he addressed two letters. The second (incomplete) letter (P.L., CXLIII, 1289) is a valuable dogmatic exposition of the teaching of the Church on the Blessed Sacrament (Epist. de Eucharistiae Sacramento); the Benedictine editors of the “Histoire littéraire de la France” call it “one of the finest literary documents of the period.” It breathes a tender affection for Berengarius, the friend of the writer’s youth. Calvin called him “barbarus, imperitus, et sophista.” Adelmann seems to have become Bishop of Brescia in 1050, and to have taken an active share in the church-reform movement of the period, especially against the clerical abuses of simony and concubinage.

BRISCHAR in Kirchenlex., I, 222; UGHELLI, Italia Sacra, IV, 540; Hist. Litt. de la France, VIII, 542. The edition of Schmid (Brunswick, 1770) is fuller than the one reprinted in Migne from the Bibl. Lugd., XVIII, 438.

FRANCIS W. GREY

Adelophagi

(ἀδήλως = secretly, and φάγω = I eat).

A sect mentioned by the anonymous author known as Praedestinatus (P.L., LIII, 612). They pretended that a Christian ought to conceal himself from other men to take his nourishment, imagining that thus he imitated the Prophets, and basing their view on certain passages of Scripture. The author of Praedestinatus said this was their only error, but Philastrius intimates that they also rejected the divinity of the Holy Ghost. They seem to have flourished in the latter part of the fourth century.

Hort in Dict. Christ. Biog., I, 43.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Vicariate Apostolic of Aden

(ADANE).

It comprises all Arabia, and is properly known as the Vicariate Apostolic of Arabia and Aden. The present incumbent is the Rt. Rev. Bernardine Thomas Clark. It includes also the islands that depend geographically on Arabia, notably Perim and Socotra. From 1839 to 1851, it was part of the Vicariate Apostolic of Egypt, when it was united to the African Vicariate of the Gallas of Abyssinia, under the Capuchins. In 1854 a secular priest, Aloysius Sturla, became Prefect Apostolic there. Later the mission was given back to the Capuchins, under the Vicariate Apostolic of Bombay. In 1859 it became an independent mission, and in 1875 it was again united to the African Vicariate. It was made an independent Vicariate Apostolic again in 1888, and committed to the care of the Capuchins. The population of Aden, now a strongly fortified place, is about 40,000, Arabs, Somalis, Jews, and Indians, besides the British garrison and officials. The large and important harbour furnishes one of the principal coaling-stations of the British Empire. Being a free port, it has become the chief trading-centre for all the neighbouring countries. The British settlement dates from 1839, and the site is almost the most southerly on the Arabian coast, “being a peninsula of an irregular oval form, of about fifteen miles in circumference, connected with the mainland by a narrow, sandy isthmus.” There are in this Vicariate Apostolic 11 missionary priests; 6 churches and chapels; 6 stations; 2 religious orders of men, and 1 of women; 4 orphanages and 6 elementary schools. The Catholic population is about 1,500.

Annuario Ecclesiastico (Rome, 1906); BATTANDIER, Annuaire pont. cath. (Paris, 1905), 344; WERNER, Orbis Terr. Cath. (Freiburg, 1890),144; Missiones Catholicae, (Rome, 1901.)

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Adeodatus

Son of St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, b. 372; d. 388. St. Augustine was not converted to the Faith until he was thirty-two years of age. At seventeen he contracted an illicit relation with a young woman and Adeodatus was born of this union. Augustine, in his delight, named him “Adeodatus,” i.e. the “gift of God.” When Augustine went to Rome, and, later, to Milan, this young woman and the child went with him, and she and Augustine continued their guilty relations. The young Adeodatus was the pride and hope of his parents, and possessed of an extraordinary mental endowment. Bound by this natural enthralment, Augustine would not bring himself to break from it; and as the sinful union was an obstacle to his receiving the gift of faith, St. Monica, his mother, desired him to marry the mother of his child, feeling that then his mind would be enlightened by grace. Just as the name of the mother of Adeodatus has never been told, so also there has never been given the reason why she and Augustine did not marry at this juncture, though there was evidently some strong if not insurmountable one. Finally they separated. “She was stronger than I,” wrote St. Augustine, “and made her sacrifice with a courage and a generosity which I was not strong enough to imitate.” She returned to Carthage, whence she had come, and the grace which had led her to sacrifice the object of her affection further impelled her to bury herself in a monastery, where she might atone for the sin which had been the price so long paid for it. She left the brilliant young boy, Adeodatus, with his father. Seeing the wonderful intelligence of his son, Augustine felt a sort of awe. “The grandeur of his mind filled me with a kind of terror,” he says himself (De beata vita, c. vi). Augustine received baptism at the age of thirty-two from the hands of St. Ambrose, the intimate friend of St. Monica and himself. To augment his joy, Adeodatus, Alypius, Augustine’s life-long associate, and a number of his closest friends, all became Christians on the same occasion and received baptism together. Monica, Augustine, Adeodatus, who was now fifteen, and a son of Grace, if indeed “the child of my sin,” as Augustine had styled him in the bitterness of self-reproach and contrition, together with the loyal Alypius, dwelt together in a villa at Cassiciacum, near Milan. The many conversations and investigations into holy questions and truths made it a Christian Academy, of more exalted philosophy than Plato’s. Adeodatus had his full share in many of these learned discussions. He appears as interlocutor in his father’s treatise De beata vita (puer ille minimus omnium—that boy, the youngest of them all), and contributed largely to the treatise De Magistro, written two years later. He appears to have died soon after, in his sixteenth year.

MOBERLY in Dict. of Christ. Biog., I, 43; POUJOULAT, Hist. de St. Augustin, sa vie ses oeuvres, etc., 7th ed., 1886; WOLFSGRÜBER, Augustinus (Paderborn, 1888); DESJARDINS, Essai sur les confessions de St. Augustin (Paris, 1855).

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Pope St. Adeodatus

(Reigned 672–676).

A monk of the Roman cloister of St. Erasmus on the Coelian Hill. He was active in the perfection of monastic discipline and in the repression of the Monothelite heresy, Little else is known of him. Of his correspondence only the letters for the Abbeys of St. Peter of Canterbury and St. Martin of Tours have been preserved. He is sometimes called Adeodatus II, his predecessor, Deusdedit, being occasionally known as Adeodatus I.

Liber Pont., ed. DUCHESNE, I 346–347; JAFF , Reg. RR. Pont., I 237; MANSI, Coll. Conc., XI, 101.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Adeste Fideles

A hymn used at Benediction at Christmastide in France and England since the close of the eighteenth century. It was sung at the Portuguese Legation in London as early as 1797. The most popular musical setting was ascribed by Vincent Novello, organist there, to John Reading, who was organist at Winchester Cathedral from 1675–81, and later at Winchester College. The hymn itself has been attributed to St. Bonaventure, but it is not found among his works. It is probably of French or German authorship. It invites all the faithful to come to Bethlehem to worship the new-born Saviour.

JULIAN, Dict. of Hymnology s.v.

JOSEPH OTTEN

Adjuration

(Lat. adjurare, to swear; to affirm by oath).

An urgent demand made upon another to do something, or to desist from doing something, which demand is rendered more solemn and more irresistible by coupling with it the name of God or of some sacred person or thing. Such, too, was the primitive use of the word. In its theological acceptation, however, adjuration never carries with it the idea of an oath, or the calling upon God to witness to the truth of what is asserted. Adjuration is rather an earnest appeal, or a most stringent command requiring another to act, or not to act, under pain of divine visitation or the rupture of the sacred ties of reverence and love. Thus, when Christ was silent in the house of Caiphas, answering nothing to the things that were witnessed against Him, the High Priest would force Him to speak and so said to Him: “I adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou tell us if Thou be the Christ the Son of God.” (Matt., xxvi, 63.) Adjuration may be either deprecatory or imprecatory. The one implies deference, affection, reverence, or prayer; the other, authority, command, or menace. The one may be addressed to any rational creature except the demon; the other can be addressed only to inferiors and the demon. In Mark (v, 7) the man with the unclean spirit cast himself at the feet of Jesus saying: “What have we to do with Thee Jesus the Son of the Most High God? I adjure Thee that Thou torment me not.” The wretched man recognized that Christ was his superior, and his attitude was that of humility and petition. Caiphas, on the contrary, fancied himself vastly superior to the Prisoner before him. He stood and commanded Christ to declare Himself under pain of incurring the wrath of Heave. It is hardly necessary to insist that one mode of adjuration is to be employed when addressing the Deity and quite another when dealing with the powers of darkness. Helpless man, calling upon Heaven to assist him, adds weight to his naked words by joining with them the persuasive names of those whose deeds and virtues are written in the Book of Life. No necessity is thereby laid upon the Almighty, and no constrain save that of benevolence and love. But when the spirit of darkness is to adjured, it is never allowable to address him in the language of peace and friendship. Satan must ever be approached as man’s eternal enemy. He must be spoken to in the language of hostility and command. Nor is there aught of presumption in such treatment of the evil one. It were indeed egregious temerity for man to cope single-handed with the devil and his ministers, but the name of God, reverently invoked, carries with it an efficacy which demons are unable to withstand. Nor should it be supposed that adjuration disrespect for the Almighty. If it is allowable to invoke the adorable name of God in order to induce others to build more securely upon our world, it must be equally permissible to make use of the made means in order to impel others to action. Indeed, when used under due conditions, that is “in truth, in justice, and in judgment,” adjuration is a positive act of religion, for it presupposes on the part of the speaker faith in God and his superintending Providence, as well as an acknowledgment that He is to be reckoned with in the manifold affairs of life. What more beautiful form of prayer that that of the litany, wherein we beg immunity from evil through the Advent, the Birth, the Fasting, the Cross, the Death and Burial, the Holy Resurrection, and the wonderful Ascension of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity? Christ Himself recommends this form of invocation: “Whatsoever you shall ask the Father in My name, that will I do: that the Father may be Glorified in the Son” (John, xiv, 13). Acting upon this promise, the Church send all her more solemn prayers with the adjuration: Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum (Through Our Lord Jesus Christ). St. Thomas declares that the words of Christ, “in My name that shall cast out devils” (Mark, xvi, 17) give all believing Christians warrant to adjure the spirit of evil. This, however, must not be done out of mere curiosity, for vainglory, or for any other unworthy motive. According to Acts (xix, 12) St. Paul was successful in casting out wicked spirits, whereas the Jewish exorcists, using magic arts purporting to come from Solomon, “attempted to invoke over them that had evil spirits, the name of the Lord Jesus, saying: ‘I conjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preaches,’“ were leaped upon and overcome by those possessed, in such sort that they found it convenient “to flee out of that house, naked and wounded.” In adjuring the demon one may bid him depart in the name of the Lord, or in such other language as faith and piety may suggest; or he may drive him forth by the formal and fixed prayers of the Church. The first manner, which is free to all Christians, is called private adjuration. The second, which is reserved to the ministers of the Church alone, is called solemn. Solemn adjuration, or adjuration properly so called, corresponds to the Greek exorkismos. It properly means an expelling of the evil one. In the Roman Ritual there are many forms of solemn adjuration. These are to be found, notably, in the ceremony of baptism. One is pronounced over the water, another over the salt, while many are pronounced over the child. Manifold and solemn as are the adjurations pronounced over the catechumen in baptism, those uttered over the possessed are more numerous and, if possible, more solemn. This ceremony, with its rubrics, takes up thirty pages of the Roman Ritual. It is, however, but rarely used, and never without the express permission of the bishop, for there is room for no end of deception and hallucination when it is question of dealing with the unseen powers. (See BAPTISM; DEVIL; EXORCISM.)

BILLUART, Summa Sancti Thomae, V; BALLERINI, Opus Theologicum Morale, IV; LEHMKUHL, Theologia Moralis, I; MARC, Institutiones Morales Alphonsianae, I; LIGUORI, V, 2, appendix.

T.S. DUGGAN

Administrator

The term Administrator in its general sense signifies a person who administers some common affairs, for a longer or shorter period, not in his own name or in virtue of the ordinary jurisdiction attached to a certain office, but in the name and by the authority of a superior officer by whom he is delegated. In this sense vicars, and prefects-apostolic, vicars-capitular and even vicars-general are sometimes classed as administrators. In the stricter sense, however, this term is applied by modern writers to a person, usually a cleric and but rarely a layman, to whom the provisional administration of certain ecclesiastical affairs is entrusted by special papal or episcopal appointment. Although in itself delegated, the power of an administrator may be quasi-ordinary with the right of subdelegating. Its extent depends entirely on the tenor of his commission. His jurisdiction may extend to temporalities only, or to spiritual matters exclusively, or it may comprise both. There are three kinds of administrators who deserve special mention: (1) Administrators of dioceses; (2) Administrators of parishes; (3) Administrators of ecclesiastical institutions.

(1) Administrators of dioceses

Inasmuch as these administrators are appointed only by the Apostolic See, the title of Administrator Apostolic applies principally to clergymen, bishops, or priests, who are appointed directly by the Holy See, with episcopal jurisdiction to administer the affairs, temporal, or spiritual, or both, of a diocese. Their power is very nearly the same as that of vicars, and prefects-apostolic. A provicar is in fact simply an administrator apostolic. Unless it be otherwise stated in the brief of appointment, the administrator apostolic has full episcopal jurisdiction, although in its exercise he is bound by the same laws as the bishop himself. Thus, for instance, in the United States the administrator of the diocese is bound to take the advice or to get the consent of the diocesan consultors, in the same manner as the bishop (III Pi. C. Balt., n. 22). For the event of his death, the administrator apostolic may designate in advance his own successor. His support must come from the diocese which he administers, unless otherwise provided for. While the jurisdiction of the administrator apostolic is similar to that of the bishop, yet his honorary rights are greatly limited. Even if he has episcopal orders, he cannot use the throne, nor the seventh candle, nor honorary deacons, although he has the right of the crosier. His name is not mentioned in the canon, nor is the anniversary of his consecration commemorated. Administrators apostolic may be appointed in two cases:

Sede impeditâ; that is, when the bishop of the diocese is unable any longer to administer the affairs of the diocese either through infirmity, insanity, imprisonment, banishment, or because of excommunication or suspension. In this case the jurisdiction of the administrator, though he were a simple priest, is the same as that of the bishop, who can no longer interfere in the affairs of the diocese. On the death of the bishop the administrator remains in office until recalled by Rome, or until the new bishop takes charge of the diocese;

Sede vacante, when a diocese which has no cathedral chapter becomes vacant by the resignation, or the removal, or the death of its bishop. Where there is a cathedral chapter it will in those cases elect a vicar-capitular to administer the diocese. Otherwise an administrator must be chosen or appointed who will provisionally administer the diocese until confirmed by the Holy See.

In missionary countries the bishop or vicar-apostolic may himself designate the future administrator of the diocese or vicariate. If he neglects to do so, after his death an administrator is appointed by the nearest bishop or vicar-apostolic, or, in the United States, by the metropolitan and in his absence by the senior bishop of the province. In China and East India, if no provision for a provicar is made by the vicar-apostolic, the priest longest in the mission becomes administrator apostolic of the vicariate. In case of doubt or other difficulties, the decision rests with the nearest vicar-apostolic. When a diocese becomes vacant by the resignation of the bishop, he may be appointed by Rome administrator of the same diocese until his successor take possession of it. When a diocese is divided, the bishop may become administrator of the new diocese, or, if transferred to the new diocese, become administrator of the old one, until a bishop is appointed for the vacant see.

(2) Administrators of parishes

Sometimes called parish vicars, curates, or coadjutors. They may be appointed for the same reasons as an administrator apostolic, namely, for a vacant parish, or during the lifetime of the rector or pastor who has become unfit for the administration of the parish, or during his absence for a longer period. Such an administrator is usually appointed by the bishop of the diocese, with full Jurisdiction over parish affairs and with a sufficient revenue for his support, which according to circumstances may be derived from the parish, or from the pastor, or from both. His office and jurisdiction cease either by recall or by appointment of a new pastor. In the United States, when an irremovable rector of a parish makes an appeal against his removal by the bishop, the bishop must appoint an administrator of the parish until the appeal is decided by the higher authority (III P1. C. Balt., n. 286). Among these parish administrators may be classed the so-called perpetual or permanent curates of parishes which are under the jurisdiction of some convent or monastery, and of which the rector or curate is appointed not by the bishop of the diocese, but by the superior of such convent. The case is far more frequent in Europe than in America. The charge of the parish is considered to be with the monastery, and the curate is merely the administrator of the parish for the convent.

(3) Administrators of Ecclesiastical Institutions

In the language of canon law, seminaries, colleges, hospitals, asylums, convents, etc., are usually called loca pia, pious places; that is, religious and charitable institutions. Inasmuch as all ecclesiastical institutions within a diocese, with the exception of those privileged by papal exemption , are subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop, it is evidently within his power to appoint a special or extraordinary administrator for any of these institutions, whenever he considers such a measure necessary for the welfare or the protection of such institution. It is true, the institution may, under certain conditions, appeal against the appointment of such an administrator or against the person so appointed. The Holy See having supreme jurisdiction over all institutions within the Church, may appoint administrators for any ecclesiastical institution, according to its own judgment, without recourse or appeal against its action. Administrators (executors) may also be appointed by popes or bishops to take charge of certain pious bequests and legacies made in favour of the Church or for the spiritual good of her members. Although the administration of all ecclesiastical affairs, even those of a temporal and material nature, belongs by the constitutional law of the Church exclusively to the hierarchy, yet she often allows laymen to take part in the administration of her temporalities.

In regard to Administrators of Dioceses, consult FERRARI, Theorica et Praxis Regiminis Diocesani praesertim Sede Vacante (Paris, 1876); SMITES Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1877), I, 425; Concilium Plenarium Baltimorense, II, nn. 96–99.

S.G. MESSMER

Administrator (of Ecclesiastical Property)

One charged with the care of church property. Supreme administrative authority in regard to all ecclesiastical temporalities resides in the Sovereign Pontiff, in virtue of his primacy of jurisdiction. The pope’s power in this connection is solely administrative, as he cannot be said properly to be the owner of goods belonging either to the universal Church or to particular churches. Pontifical administrative authority is exercised principally through the Propaganda, the Fabrica of St. Peter, the Camera Apostolica, the Cardinal Camerlengo, and finds frequent recognition and expression in the decrees of councils held throughout the world. In each diocese the administration of property belongs primarily to the bishop, subject to the superior authority of the Holy See. From the very beginning of the life of the Church, this power has been a part of the episcopal office (can. 37, Can. Apost., Lib. II, cap. xxv, xxvii, xxxv. Const. Apost.). On him all inferior administrators depend, unless they have secured an exemption by law, as in the case of religious orders. Therefore, if an arrangement exists by which the administration of certain diocesan or parish property is entrusted to some members of the clergy or to laymen, the discipline of the Church, nevertheless, maintains the bishop in supreme control with the right to direct and modify, if need be, the action taken by subordinate administrators. One of the important duties of a parish priest is the administration of the moneys and goods belonging to his church. The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, Tit. IX, Cap. iii, gives detailed regulations concerning the manner in which a rector is to acquit himself of this obligation. Among other things, it is required that he shall keep an accurate record of receipts, expenditures, and debts; that he shall prepare an inventory containing a list of all things belonging to the church, of its income and financial obligations; that one copy of this inventory shall be deposited in the archives of the parish and another in the diocesan archives; that every year necessary changes shall be made in this inventory and signified to the chancellor. The authority of the parish priest is circumscribed by the general authority of the bishop and by special enactments which prevent him from taking any important step without the express written permission of the ordinary.

In many places laymen are called to a part in the care of church property, sometimes in recognition of particular acts of generosity, more often because their cooperation with the parish priest will be beneficial on account of their experience in temporal matters. Although the origin of the modern fabrica, or board of laymen, is placed by some in the fourteenth and by others in the sixteenth century, the intervention of laymen really goes back to very early times, since we find it referred to in councils of the seventh century. Lay administrators remain completely subject to the bishop in the same manner as the parish priest. The difficulties caused by the illegal pretensions of trustees in the United States during the early part of the last century evoked from the Holy See a reiteration of the doctrine of the Church regarding diocesan and parish administration notably in a brief of Gregory XVI (12 August, 1841) wherein the Pope declared anew that the right of such inferior administrators depends entirely on the authority of the bishop, and that they can do only what the bishop has empowered them to do. In some dioceses where the system of administration by lay trustees is in vogue the regulations and discipline of the Catholic Church are made a part of the bylaws of church corporations, a measure which is of great advantage in case of a process before the secular courts. The administration of property belonging to religious institutes under the jurisdiction of the ordinary rests naturally with their superiors, but the bishop may reserve to himself in the constitutions a large right of control and supervision. In reference to institutes under the jurisdiction of the Holy See the bishop’s right is limited to signing the report sent to Rome every third year by the superior. Religious orders are exempt from diocesan control in the administration of their property, but are bound, when engaged in parochial work, to present to the bishop a report of the amounts they have received for parochial purposes, and of the use made of such contributions. The exclusive rights of ecclesiastical authorities in the administration of church property have been denied in practice by civil authorities, often with the result of serious injustice and hardship to particular churches especially during the last two centuries. Hence the care taken in various councils to admonish administrators to secure the titles to church property in accordance with the provisions of secular law, e.g. III Plen. Balt., no. 266.

ZECH, De jure rerum ecclesiasticarum; MEURER, Begriff und eigenth mer der heiligen Sachen; II Concilium Plenarium Baltimorense, IV; 111 Concilium Plenarium Baltimorense, IX.

JOHN T. CREAGH

Canonical Admonitions

A preliminary means used by the Church towards a suspected person, as a preventive of harm or a remedy of evil. In the Instruction emanating in 1880, by direction of Leo XIII, from the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars to the bishops of Italy, and giving them the privilege to use a summary procedure in trials of the clergy for criminal or disciplinary transgressions, Article IV decrees: “Among the preservative measures are chiefly to be reckoned the spiritual retreat, admonitions, and injunctions”; Article VI: “The canonical admonitions may be made in a paternal and private manner (even by letter or by an intermediary person), or in legal form, but always in such a way that proof of their having been made shall remain on record.”

These admonitions are to be founded upon a suspicion of guilt excited by public rumour, and after an investigation to be made by one having due authority, with the result of establishing a reasonable basis for the suspicion. Upon slender foundation the superior should not even admonish, unless the suspected person has given on previous occasions serious motive for faultfinding. Admonitions may be either paternal or legal (canonical), If the grounds are such as to produce a serious likelihood, or half-proof, they will suffice for a paternal admonition, which is administered after the following manner: The prelate either personally or through a confidential delegate informs the suspected person of what has been said about him, without mentioning the source of information, and without threat, but urges amendment. If the party suspected can at once show that there is no basis for suspicion, nothing further is to be done in the matter. If his denial does not banish the doubts about him, the prelate should try by persuasion, exhortation, and beseechings to induce him to avoid whatever may be a near occasion of wrong, and to repair the harm or scandal given. If this is not effective, the prelate may begin the judicial procedure. If the proofs at hand are inadequate, this is not advisable; he should rather be content with watchfulness, and with using negative penalties, such as withholding special offices and, where no slur could be manifest on the suspect’s reputation, by withdrawing those before held. If the suspect does not answer to the summons, the prelate’s suspicion reasonably increases, and he should then depute a reliable person to seek an interview with him, and to report to him the result. If he should refuse to deal with the delegate, the latter in the name of the delegating prelate should through another or by letter send a second and a third peremptory call, and give proof of the further refusal, with evidence that the summons has been received; now the suspect is presumed guilty. Thus the way is paved for the above-mentioned canonical or legal admonition. The assumed half-proof is strengthened, first, by the contumacy of the suspect; secondly, by his confession of the charge in question. An accusation issuing from a reliable person, as also a prevalent evil reputation, may supply for the defect of proof needed for indictment. For the paternal admonition it is enough that this evil reputation should be spread among less responsible persons, but for the legal admonition the evil reputation should emanate from serious and reliable persons. The legal admonition is to a great extent akin to the summons to judgment. It is always desirable for the suspect, and for the honour of the Church, that the prelate should arrange the matter quietly and amicably. Hence he should, by letter or through a delegate whose authority is made known, summon the suspect, informing him that a serious charge has been made against him. The summons, if not responded to. should be made a second and a third time. If contumacious, the suspect gives ample ground for an indictment. If there be any urgency in the case, one peremptory summons, declaring it to take the place of the three, will suffice. The prelate may still feel that he has not enough evidence to prove the delinquency. He may allow the suspect to purge himself of the suspicion or accusation by his oath and the attestation of two or more reliable persons that they are persuaded of his innocence and that they trust his word. If he cannot find such vouchers for his innocence, and yet there be no strictly legal proof of his guilt (though there are grave reasons for suspicion), the prelate may follow the legal admonition by a special precept or command, according to the character of the suspected delinquency. The infringement of this precept will entail the right to inflict the penalty which should be mentioned at the time the command is given. This must be done by the prelate or his delegate in a formal legal way before two witnesses and the notary of his curia, be signed by them, and by the suspect if he so desires. The paternal admonition is to be kept secret; the legal admonition is a recognized part of the “acts” for future procedure.

PIERANTONELLI, Praxis Fori Eccl. (Rome, 1883); DROSTE-MESSMER, Canon. Proced. in Crim. and Dioc. Cases (New York, 1886); SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1877).

R.L. BURTSELL

Admont

A Benedictine abbey in Styria, Austro-Hungary, on the river Enns, about fifty miles south of Linz. St. Hemma, Countess of Friesach and Zeltschach, is regarded as its foundress, for upon entering the convent at Gurk she left her lands for the building of a monastery near the salt works of Hall. The foundation, however, was not begun until 1072, more than a quarter of a century after the Saint’s death, and two years later the abbey church was consecrated by Gebhard von Helfenstein, Archbishop of Salzburg, in honour of St. Blasius. This prelate also brought twelve Benedictines from Salzburg as a nucleus for the new community. During the first century of its existence, Admont rose into prominence particularly under the Abbots Wolfhold and Gottfried of Venningen; the former founded a convent for the education of girls of noble families while under the latter thirteen of its monks were chosen abbots of other monasteries. A period of decline followed after the middle of the thirteenth century, when war and rapine did much injury. A new era opened under Abbot Henry VII (1275–97), and the work of restoration was completed by Engelbert (1297–1331). The abbey suffered again in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries from the inroads of the Turks and the prevailing social disturbances, and the Reformation made itself felt within the cloister. The Abbot Valentine was even forced to resign on account of his leaning towards the new doctrines. With the return of more peaceful times the educational work of the abbey extended and a faculty of philosophy and theology was added to the gymnasium, of which the cloister school had been the germ. The gymnasium, however, was afterwards transferred to Leoden and later to Judenburg, when it became independent of Adrnont. In 1865 the abbey and church were burnt, but were soon rebuilt. The first abbot was Isingrin. Not a few of his successors were men of great learning and zeal, and under their guidance Admont became an important factor in the history of Styria. The second abbot, Giselbert, introduced the reform of (puny. Engelbert was the author of a number of works, chiefly theological. Albert von Muchar, who taught at the University of Graz and is known for his historical works, may also be mentioned.

WICHNER, Geschichte d. Benedictinerstiftes Admont (Graz, 1874–80); WOLFSGRUBER, in Kirchenlex., I, 235–237; CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894–99) s. v.

H. M. BROCK

St. Ado of Vienne

Born about 800, in the diocese of Sens; d. 16 December, 875. He was brought up at the Benedictine Abbey of Ferrières, and had as one of his masters the Abbot Lupus Servatus, one of the most celebrated humanists of those times. By his brilliant talents and assiduous application Ado gained the esteem of his masters and schoolmates, while his ready obedience, deep humility, and sincere piety foreshadowed his future holiness. Though urged on all sides to enter upon a career in the world, to which his nobility of birth and great intellectual abilities entitled him, he consecrated himself entirely to God by taking the Benedictine habit at Ferrières. When Markward, a monk of Ferrières, became Abbot of Prüm near Trier, he applied for Ado to teach the sacred sciences there. His request was granted. Soon, however, certain envious monks of Prüm conceived an implacable hatred against Ado, and upon the death of Markward, turned him out of their monastery. With the permission of his abbot, Ado now made a pilgrimage to Rome, where he remained five years. He then went to Ravenna, where he discovered an old Roman martyrology which served as the basis for his own renowned martyrology published in 858, which is generally known as the “martyrology of Ado.” At Lyons he was received with open arms by the Archbishop, St. Remigius, who, with the consent of the Abbot of Ferrières, appointed him pastor of the Church of St. Roman near Vienne. In 860 he became Archbishop of Vienne, and a year later received the pallium from Nicholas I. By word and example he began reforming the laxity of his priests, and he gave them strict orders to instruct the laity in the necessary doctrines of Christianity. His own life was a model of humility and austerity. When Lothaire II, King of Lorraine, had unjustly dismissed his wife Theutberga and the papal legates at the Synod of Metz had been bribed to sanction the King’s marriage to his concubine Waldrada, Ado hastened to Rome, and reported the crime to the Pope, who thereupon annulled the acts of the synod. Besides the “Martyrology” mentioned above Ado wrote a chronicle from the beginning of the world to A. D. 874, “Chronicon de VI ætatibus mundi,” and the lives of St. Desiderius and St. Theuderius. Ado’s name is in the Roman martyrology and at Vienne his feast is celebrated on 16 December, the day of his death.

Butler, Lives of the Saints, 16 Dec.; for his praise Mabillon, Acta SS. Ord. S. Bened. (1680), IV (2), 262–275; Ebert, Gesch. der lat. Litt. des Mittelalters (1880), II, 384–387; Lechner, Martyrologium des Benediktiner-Ordens (Augsburg, 1858); H. Achelis, Die Martyrologien ihre Geschichte und ihr Wert (Berlin, 1900). For his martyrology P.L., CXXIII, 9 sqq.

MICHAEL OTT

Adonai

Adonai (Hebrew meaning “lord, ruler”) is a name bestowed upon God in the Old Testament. It is retained in the Vulgate and its dependent versions, Exod., vi, 3; Judith, xvi, 16. No other name applied to God is more definite and more easily understood than this. Etymologically it is the plural of Adon, with the suffix of the possessive pronoun, first person, singular number. This plural has been subjected to various explanations. It may be looked upon as a plurale abstractum, and as such it would indicate the fullness of divine sway and point to God as the Lord of lords. This explanation has the endorsement of Hebrew grammarians, who distinguish a plurale virium, or virtutum. Others prefer to designate this form as plurale excellentiæ, magnitudinis, or plurale majestatis. To look upon it as a form of politeness such as the German Sie for du, or French volts for to is certainly not warranted by Hebrew usage. The possessive pronoun has no more significance in this word than it has in Rabbi (my master), Monsieur, or Madonna. Adonai is also the perpetual substitute for the ineffable Name Yahve, to which it lends its vowel signs. Whenever therefore, the word Yahve occurs in the text, the Jew will read Adonai.

KAUTZSCH-GESENTIUS Hebræische Grammatik (Leipzig, 1896), DALMAN Der Gottesname and seine Geschichte (Berlin 1889); STADE, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments (Tübingen, 1905).

E. HEINLEIN

Adonias

(Hebrew: Adoniyah, Adoniyahuh, Yahweh is Lord; Septuagint: Adonias.)

Adonias, fourth son of King David

Born in Hebron, during his father’s sojourn in that city (III Kings, i, 4, 5; I Paralip., iii, 1. 2). Nothing is known of his mother, Haggith, except her name. Nothing is known; likewise, of Adonias himself until the last days of his father’s reign, when he suddenly appears as a competitor for the Jewish crown. He was then thirty-five years old, and of comely appearance (III Kings, i, 6). Since the death of Absalom he ranked next in succession to the throne in the order of birth, and as the prospect of his father’s death was now growing near, he not unnaturally cherished the hope of securing the succession. A younger son of David, Solomon, however, stood in the way of his ambition. The aged monarch had determined to appoint as his successor this son of Bethsabee, in preference to Adonias, and the latter was well aware of the fact. Yet, relying on his father’s past indulgence, and still more on his present weakened condition, Adonias resolved to seize the throne, without, however, arousing any serious opposition. At first he simply set up a quasi-royal state, with chariots, horses, and fifty running footmen. As this open profession of his ambition did not meet with a rebuke from the too indulgent King, he proceeded a step farther. He now strove to win to his cause the heads of the military and the religious forces of the nation, and was again successful in his attempt. Joab, David’s oldest and bravest general and Abiathar, the ablest and most influential high-priest in David’s reign, agreed to side with him. It was only then that, surrounded by a powerful party, he ventured to take what was practically the last step towards the throne. He boldly invited to a great banquet in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem all his adherents and all his brothers, except of course Solomon, to have himself proclaimed king. The sacrificial feast took place near the fountain Rogel, southeast of the Holy City, and everything seemed to presage full success. It is plain, however, that Adonias had misconceived the public feeling and overestimated the strength of his position. He had formidable opponents in the prophet Nathan, the high priest Sadoc, and Banaias, the valiant head of the veteran bodyguard; and in going away from Jerusalem he had left the weak old king subject to their united influences. Quick to seize the opportunity, Nathan prevailed upon Bethsabee to remind David of his promise to nominate Solomon as his successor, and to acquaint him with Adonias’s latest proceedings. During her interview with the aged ruler Nathan himself entered, confirmed Bethsabee’s report, and obtained for her David’s solemn reassertion that Solomon should be king. Acting with a surprising vigour, David summoned at once to his presence Sadoc, Nathan, and Banaias, and bade them take Solomon upon the royal mule to Gihon (probably “the Virgin’s Fountain”), and there to anoint and proclaim the son of Bethsabee as his successor. His orders were promptly complied with; the anointed Solomon returned to Jerusalem amidst the enthusiastic cheers of the people, and took solemn possession of the throne.

Meanwhile, Adonias’ banquet had quietly proceeded to its end, and his guests were about to proclaim him king, when a blare of trumpets sounded in their ears, causing Joab to wonder what it might mean. Suddenly, Jonathan, Abiathar’s son, entered and gave a detailed account of all that had been done in Gihon and in the Holy City. Whereupon all the conspirators took to flight. To secure immunity, Adonias fled to the altar of holocausts, raised by his father on Mount Moria, and clung to its horns, acknowledging Solomon’s royal dignity, and begging for the new king’s oath that his life should be spared. Solomon simply pledged his word that Adonias should suffer no hurt, provided that he would henceforth remain loyal in all things. This was indeed a magnanimous promise on the part of Solomon, for in the East Adonias’s attempt to seize the throne was punishable with death. Thus conditionally pardoned, Adonias left the altar, did obeisance to the new monarch, and withdrew safely home (III Kings, i, 5–53).

It might be naturally expected that after this utter failure of his ambitious efforts, Adonias would be satisfied with the peaceful obscurity of a private life. Solomon was now in possession of the royal power, and although his first exercise of it had been an act of clemency towards his rival, it could hardly be supposed that he would treat with the same leniency a second attempt of Adonias to secure the crown. Gratitude, fidelity, and due regard for his own safety should, therefore, have caused Adonias to give up his ambitious dreams. He seems, however, to have looked upon Solomon’s deed of clemency as an act of weakness, and to have thought that he might be more successful in another attempt to reach the throne. In fact, soon after his father’s death he adroitly petitioned, through Bethsabee, the queen mother, to be allowed to marry the Sunamitess, Abisag, one of the wives of the deceased monarch. The petition was made with a view to reassert his claim to the royal dignity, and he apparently relied on Solomon’s supposed weakness of character not to dare to refuse his request. But again the event soon proved how greatly mistaken he was in his calculation. Scarcely had his request reached Solomon when the king’s wrath broke forth against Adonias’ perfidy. With the most solemn oath the monarch pronounced him worthy of death, and without the least delay the sword of Banaias carried out the royal sentence (III Kings, ii, 13–24), Thus did Adonias perish, a victim of his own heedless ambition. The Scriptural account of his vain efforts to deprive Solomon of the throne which God had expressly intended for him (II Kings, vii, 12–16; I Paralip., xxii, 7–10) teaches how divine Providence overrules man’s ambitious schemes. It is a model of vivid narration and of perfect faithfulness to Oriental life. In particular, if it nowhere charges Solomon with excessive severity in putting Adonias to death, it is because, according to Eastern notions, the latter’s conduct fully deserved that punishment.

Adonias the Levite One of the Levites sent by Wing Josaphat to teach the people in the cities of Juda (II Paralip., xvii, 8).

F.E. GIGOT

Adoption

IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Adoption, as defined in canon law, is foreign to the Bible. The incidents in Exod., ii, 10, and Esther, ii, 7, ii, 15, cannot be adduced as examples to the contrary, for the original text contains but a vague expression instead of the word adopted, and the context merely implies that Moses and Esther were the protégés of their respective benefactors. The people of Israel enjoyed a similar privilege at the hands of God. The facts mentioned in Gen., xlviii, 5, however, bear close resemblance to adoption taken in its strict sense.

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

St. Paul introduces the word adoption (houiothesia) into the New Testament (Rom., viii, 15, 23; Gal., iv, 5; Eph., i, 5), and applies it to a special relationship (sonship) of man towards God, brought about by the indwelling in our soul of the “Spirit of God.” This Spirit gives us a new, a supernatural life, the life of grace, together with the consciousness (Rom., viii, 16) that this new life comes from God and that we are consequently the children of God, endowed with the privilege of calling Him Abba, “Father,” and of being His heirs (Rom., viii, 17; Gal., iv, 6). This adoption will be consummated when to the “first fruits of the Spirit,” of which our soul is made the recipient in this life, is added the “redemption of our body” (Rom., viii, 23) in the life to come.

CORNELY, Epistola ad Romanos (Paris, 1896); ESTIUS, In Pauli Epistolas (Mainz, 1858); VAN STEENKISTE, in Pauli Epistolas (Bruges, 1886); LIGHTFOOT, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Cambridge, London, 1865); SANDAY, Epistle to the Romans (New York, 1895); ZÖCKLER, Galaterbrief (Munich, 1894); LUTHARDT, Der Brief Pauli an die Römer (Munich, 1894); MANY in VIG., Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1895) s.v.

E. HEINLEIN

Canonical Adoption

In a legal sense, adoption is an act by which a person, with the cooperation of the public authority, selects for his child one who does not belong to him. In Roman law adrogatio was the name given to the adoption of one already of full age (sui juris); datio in adoptionem, when one was given in adoption by one having control or power over him. The adoption was full (plena) if the adopting father was a relative in an ascending scale of the one adopted; less full (minus plena) if there was no such natural tie. Perfect adoption placed the adopted under the control of the adopter, whose name was taken, and the adopted was made necessary heir. The adoption was less perfect which constituted the adopted necessary heir, in case the adopter should die without a will. The rule was that a man, not a woman, could adopt; that the adopter should be at least 18 years older than the adopted; that the adopter should be of full age, and older than 25 years. In Athens the power of adoption was allowed to all citizens of sound mind. Adoption was very frequent among the Greeks and Romans, and the custom was very strictly regulated in their laws.

The Church made its own the Roman law of adoption, with its legal consequences. Pope Nicholas I (858–867) spoke of this law as venerable, when inculcating its observance upon the Bulgarians. Hence adoption, under the title cognatio legalis, or “legal relationship,” was recognized by the Church as a diriment impediment of marriage. This legal relationship sprang from its resemblance to the natural relationship (and made a bar to marriage):

civil paternity between the adopter and the adopted, and the latter’s legitimate natural children, even after the dissolution of the adoption;

civil brotherhood between the adopted and the legitimate natural children of the adopter, until the adoption was dissolved, or the natural children were placed under their own control (sui juris);

affinity arising from the tie of adoption between the adopted and the adopter’s wife, and between the adopter and the adopted’s wife. This was not removed by the dissolution of the adoption.

The Church recognized in the intimacy consequent upon these legal relations ample grounds for placing a bar on the hope of marriage, out of respect for public propriety, and to safeguard the morals of those brought into such close relations. The Code of Justinian modified the older Roman law by determining that the rights derived from the natural parentage were not lost by adoption by a stranger. This gave rise to another distinction between perfect and imperfect adoption. But as the modification of Justinian made no change in the customary intimacy brought about by the adoption, so the Church at no time expressly recognized any distinction between the perfect and less perfect adoption as a bar to marriage. There arose, however, among canonists a controversy on this subject, some contending that only the perfect adoption was a diriment impediment to marriage. Benedict XIV (De Syn. Dioec., I, x, 5) tells of this discussion and, while giving no positive decision, lays down the principle that all controversies must be decided in this matter in accord with the substantial sanctions of the Roman law. This is a key to the practical question which today arises from the more or less serious modifications which the Roman, or Civil, law has undergone in almost all the countries where it held sway, and hence flows the consequent doubt, at times, whether this diriment impediment of legal relationship still exists in the eyes of the Church. Wherever the substantial elements of the Roman law are retained in the new codes, the Church recognizes this relationship as a diriment impediment in accord with the principle laid down by Benedict XIV. This is thoroughly recognized by the Congregation of the Holy Office in its positive decision with regard to the Code of the Neapolitan Kingdom (23 February, 1853). In Great Britain and the United States legal adoption, in the sense of the Roman law, is not recognised. Adoption is regulated in the United States by State statutes; generally it is accomplished by mutual obligations assumed in the manner prescribed by law. It is usually brought before the county clerk, as in Texas, or before the probate judges, as in New Jersey. In such cases the relation of parent and child is established; but the main purpose is to entitle the adopted to the rights and privileges of a legal heir. Adoption, or contract by private authority, or under private arrangements, is not recognized by the Church as productive of this legal relationship. The Congregation of the Holy Office (16 April, 1761) had occasion to make this declaration with regard to it, as customary among the Bulgarians. Hence, generally in the United States adoption is not a diriment impediment to marriage, nor in the eyes of the Church in any way preventive of it. A different view is taken by the Roman Congregations of the Holy Office and of the Sacred Penitentiary of adoption as recognised in other countries which have retained the substantial elements of the Roman law establishing this relationship. The French Code (art. 383) decides that the adopted will remain with his natural family and preserve all his rights, but it enforces the prohibitions of marriage as in the Roman law. Hence the Congregation of the Penitentiary decided (17 May, 1826) that if the adoption took place in accordance with the French law, it involved the canonical diriment impediment of marriage. In Germany, by the new law taking effect in 1900, there is prescribed the procedure by which adoption is effected, and by which the adopted passes into the family of the adopter, losing the rights coming from his natural family. In Germany, however, many subtile distinctions have been engrafted upon this adoption. The restrictions of the relationship by the German law are not, however, accepted by the Church. When adoption is in accord with the substantial elements of the Roman law, as in the case of the German code, in the eyes of the Church it carries with it all the restrictions in the matter of marriage accepted by the Church from the Roman law. Thus, by the German law, the wife of the adopter is not united by affinity to the adopted, nor the adopter to the adopted’s wife. But the Church still recognises this affinity to hold even in Germany. The Austrian Code has almost the same prescriptions as the German. When there is a reasonable doubt or difference of opinion among canonists or theologians upon the fact of legal relationship, the safe rule is to ask for a dispensation. In the Legislature of Quebec, a few years ago, an attempt was made to introduce into the Civil Code the almost identical principles of the Napoleonic Code for adoption, but the proposal was rejected by the Chamber. The Church authorities in Canada do not recognise that any impediment to marriage arises from whatever private arrangements of adoption may be there recognized. BENEDICT XIV, De Syn. Disc., IX, e. w; FEIJE, De Imped. et Disp. Matr. (Louvain, 1885), tit. xvii, p. 288, sqq.; DE ANGELIS, Prael. Jur. Can. (Rome, 1880), III, i, lib. IV, tit. xii; SANTI, Pries. Jur. Can. (New York), lib. IV, tit. xii; CRAISSON, Man. Jur. Can., lib. II, e. viii, de Matr.; KENRICK, Theol. Mor. (Malines, 1861), II, Tract. xxi, De Matr., s. v.; D’AMINO, Dizionario dell’ Ecclesiastico (Turin, 1878); ANDR -WAGNER, Dictionnaire de droit canonique (Paris, 1901), s.v.

R.L. BURTSELL

Supernatural Adoption

(Lat. adoptare, to choose.)

Adoption is the gratuitous taking of a stranger as one’s own child and heir. According as the adopter is man or God, the adoption is styled human or divine, natural or supernatural. In the present instance there is question only of the divine—that adoption of man by God in virtue of which we become His sons and heirs. Is this adoption only a figurative way of speaking? Is there substantial authority to vouch for its reality? What idea are we to form of its nature and constituents? A careful consideration of the presentation of Holy Scripture, of the teachings of Christian tradition, and of the theories set forth by theologians relative to our adopted sonship, will help to answer these questions.

The Old Testament, which St. Paul aptly compares to the state of childhood and bondage, contains no text that would point conclusively to our adoption. There were indeed saints in the days of the Old Law, and if there were saints there were also adopted children of God, for sanctity and adoption are inseparable effects of the same habitual grace. But as the Old Law did not possess the virtue of giving that grace, neither did it contain a clear intimation of supernatural adoption. Such sayings as those of Exodus (4:22), “Israel is my son, my firstborn,” Osee (1:10), “Ye are the sons of the living God,” and Romans (9:4), “Israelites to whom belongeth the adoption as of children,” are not to be applied to any individual soul, for they were spoken of God’s chosen people taken collectively.

It is in the New Testament, which marks the fullness of time and the advent of the Redeemer, that we must search for the revelation of this heaven-born privilege (cf. Galatians 4:1). “Son of God” is an expression of no infrequent use in the Synoptic Gospels, and as therein employed, the words apply both to Jesus and to ourselves. But whether, in the case of Jesus, this phrase points to Messiahship only, or would also include the idea of real divine filiation, is a matter of little consequence in our particular case. Surely in our case it cannot of itself afford us a sufficiently stable foundation on which to establish a valid claim to adopted sonship. As a matter of fact, when St. Matthew (v, 9, 45) speaks of the “children of God,” he means the peacemakers, and when he speaks of “children of your Father who is in Heaven,” he means those who repay hatred with love, thereby implying throughout nothing more than a broad resemblance to, and moral union with God. The charter of our adoption is properly recorded by St. Paul (Romans 8; Ephesians 1; Galatians 4); St. John (Prologue and I Epistle 1, 3); St. Peter (I Epistle 1); and St. James (I Epistle 1). According to these several passages we are begotten, born of God. He is our Father, but in such wise that we may call ourselves, and truly are, His children, the members of His family, brothers of Jesus Christ with whom we partake of the Divine Nature and claim a share in the heavenly heritage. This divine filiation, together with the right of co-heritage, finds its source in God’s own will and graceful condescension. When St. Paul, using a technical term borrowed from the Greeks, calls it adoption, we must interpret the word in a merely analogical sense. In general, the correct interpretation of the Scriptural concept of our adoption must follow the golden mean and locate itself midway between the Divine Sonship of Jesus on the one hand, and human adoption on the other—immeasurably below the former and above the latter. Human adoption may modify the social standing, but adds nothing to the intrinsic worth of an adopted child. Divine adoption, on the contrary, works inward, penetrating to the very core of our life, renovating enriching, transforming it into the likeness of Jesus, “the firstborn among many brethren.” Of course it cannot be more than a likeness, an image of the Divine Original mirrored in our imperfect selves. There will ever be between our adoption and the filiation of Jesus the infinite distance which separates created grace from hypostatical union. And yet, that intimate and mysterious communion with Christ, and through Him with God, is the glory of our adopted sonship: “And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them—I in them and thou in me” (John, xvii, 22, 23).

The oft-repeated emphasis which Holy Writ lays on our supernatural adoption won great popularity for that dogma in the early Church. Baptism, the laver of regeneration, became the occasion of a spontaneous expression of faith in our adopted sonship. The newly baptised were called infantes, irrespective of age. They assumed names which suggested the idea of adoption, such as Adeptus, Regeneratus, Renatus, Deigenitus, Theogonus, and the like. In the liturgical prayers for neophytes, some of which have survived even to our own day (e.g. the collect for Holy Saturday and the preface for Pentecost), the officiating prelate made it a sacred duty to remind them of this grace of adoption, and to call down from Heaven a like blessing on those who had not yet been so favoured. (See BAPTISM.) The Fathers dwell on this privilege which they are pleased to style deification. St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haereses, iii, 17–19); St. Athanasius (Cont. Arianos, ii, 59); St. Cyril of Alexandria (Comment. on St. John, i, 13, 14); St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on St. Matthew, ii, 2); St. Augustine (Tracts 11 and 12 on St. John); St. Peter Chrysologus (Sermon 72 on the Lord’s Prayer)—all seem willing to spend their eloquence on the sublimity of our adoption. For them it was an uncontradicted primal principle, an ever ready source of instruction for the faithful, as well as an argument against heretics such as the Arians, Macedonians, and Nestorians. The Son is truly God, else how could He deify us? The Holy Ghost is truly God, else how could His indwelling sanctify us? The Incarnation of the Logos is real, else how could our deification be real? Be the value of such arguments what it may, the fact of their having been used, and this to good effect, bears witness to the popularity and common acceptance of the dogma in those days.

Some writers, like Scheeben, go further still and look in the patristic writings for set theories regarding the constituent factor of our adoption. They claim that, while the Fathers of the East account for our supernatural sonship by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, the Fathers of the West maintain that sanctifying grace is the real factor. Such a view is premature. True it is that St. Cyril lays special stress on the presence of the Holy Spirit in the soul of the just man, whereas St. Augustine is more partial towards grace. But it is equally true that neither speaks exclusively, much less pretends to lay down the causa formalis of adoption as we understand it today. In spite of all the catechetic and polemic uses to which the Fathers put this dogma, they left it in no clearer light than did their predecessors, the inspired writers of the distant past. The patristic sayings, like those of Holy Scripture, afford precious data for the framing of a theory, but that theory itself is the work of later ages.

What is the essential factor or formal cause of our supernatural adoption? This question was never seriously mooted previous to the scholastic period. The solutions it then received were to a great extent influenced by the then current theories on grace. Peter the Lombard, who identifies grace and charity with the Holy Ghost, was naturally brought to explain our adoption by the sole presence of the Spirit in the soul of the just, to the exclusion of any created and inherent God-given entity. The Nominalists and Scotus, though reluctantly admitting a created entity, nevertheless failed to see in it a valid factor of our divine adoption, and consequently had recourse to a divine positive enactment decreeing and receiving us as children of God and heirs of the Kingdom. Apart from these, a vast majority of the Schoolmen with Alexander Hales, Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, and preeminently St. Thomas, pointed to habitual grace (an expression coined by Alexander) as the essential factor of our adopted sonship. For them the same inherent quality which gives new life and birth to the soul gives it also a new filiation. Says the Angel of the Schools (III:9:23, ad 3am), “The creature is assimilated to the Word of God in His Unity with the Father; and this is done by grace and charity. . . . Such a likeness perfects the idea of adoption, for to the like is due the same eternal heritage.” (See GRACE.) This last view received the seal of the Council of Trent (sess. VI, c. vii, can. 11). The Council first identifies justification with adoption: “To become just and to be heir according to the hope of life everlasting” is one and the same thing. It then proceeds to give the real essence of justification. “Its sole formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just.” Furthermore, it repeatedly characterises the grace of justification and adoption as “no mere extrinsic attribute or favour, but a gift inherent in our hearts.” This teaching was still more forcibly emphasized in the Catechism of the Council of Trent (De Bapt., No. 50), and by the condemnation by Pius V of the forty-second proposition of Baius, the contradictory of which reads: “Justice is a grace infused into the soul whereby man is adopted into divine sonship.” It would seem that the thoroughness with which the Council of Trent treated this doctrine should have precluded even the possibility of further discussion. Nevertheless the question came to the fore again with Leonard Leys (Lessius), 1623; Denis Petau (Petavius), 1652; and Matthias Scheeben, 1888. According to their views, it could very well be that the unica causa formalis of the Council of Trent is not the complete cause of our adoption, and it is for this reason that they would make the indwelling of the Holy Ghost at least a partial constituent of divine sonship. Here we need waste no words in consideration of the singular idea of making the indwelling of the Holy Ghost an act proper to, and not merely an appropriation of, the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. As to the main point at issue, if we carefully weigh the posthumous explanations given by Lessius; if we recall the fact that Petavius spoke of the matter under consideration rather en passant; and if we notice the care Scheeben takes to assert that grace is the essential factor of our adoption, the presence of the Holy Ghost being only an integral part and substantial complement of the same, there will be little room for alarm as to the orthodoxy of these distinguished writers. The innovation, however, was not happy. It did not blend with the obvious teaching of the Council of Trent. It ignored the terse interpretation given in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It served only to complicate and obscure that simple and direct traditional theory, accounting for our regeneration and adoption by the selfsame factor. Still it had the advantage of throwing a stronger light upon the connotations of sanctifying grace, and of setting off in purer relief the relations of the sanctified and adopted soul with the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity: with the Father, the Author and Giver of grace; with the Incarnate Son, the meritorious Cause and Exemplar of our adoption; and especially with the Holy Ghost, the Bond of our union with God, and the infallible Pledge of our inheritance. It also brought us back to the somewhat forgotten ethical lessons of our communion with the Triune God, and especially with the Holy Ghost, lessons so much insisted upon in ancient patristic literature and the inspired writings. “The Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost,” says St. Augustine (Tract 76; In Joan), “come to us as long as we go to Them, They come with Their help, if we go with submission. They come with light, if we go to learn; They come to replenish, if we go to be filled, that our vision of Them be not from without but from within, and that Their indwelling in us be not fleeting but eternal.” And St. Paul (I Cor., iii, 16, 17), “Know you not that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? But if any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are.” From what has been said, it is manifest that our supernatural adoption is an immediate and necessary property of sanctifying grace. The primal concept of sanctifying grace is a new God-given and Godlike life superadded to our natural life. By that very life we are born to God even as the child to its parent, and thus we acquire a new filiation. This filiation is called adoption for two reasons: first, to distinguish it from the one natural filiation which belongs to Jesus; second, to emphasize the fact that we have it only through the free choice and merciful condescension of God. Again, as from our natural filiation many social relations crop up between us and the rest of the world, so our divine life and adoption establish manifold relations between the regenerate and adopted soul on the one hand, and the Triune God on the other. It was not without reason that Scripture and the Eastern Church singled out the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity as the special term of these higher relations. Adoption is the work of love. “What is adoption,” says the Council of Frankfort, “if not a union of love?” It is, therefore, meet that it should be traced to, and terminate in, the intimate presence of the Spirit of Love.

WILHELM AND SCANNELL, A Manual of Catholic Theology based on Scheeben’s Dogmatik (London, 1890); HUNTER, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology (New York, 1894); NIEREMBERG-SCHEEBEN, The Glories of Divine Grace (New York, 1885); DEVINE, Manual of Ascetic Theology or the Supernatural Life of the Soul (London, 1902); NEWMAN, St. Athanasius, II, Deification, Grace of God, Divine Indwelling, Sanctification (London, 1895); BELLAMY, La vie surnaturelle (Paris, 1895); TERRIEN, La Grâce et La Gloire (Paris, 1897); LESSIUS, De Perfectionibus Moribusque Divinis; De Summo Bono et Æternâ Beatitudine (Antwerp, 1620; Paris, 1881); PETAVIUS, Opus de Theologicis Dogmatibus (Bar-le-Duc, 1867); SCHEEBEN, Handbuch der kathol. Dogmatik (Freiburg, 1873); see also current treatises on grace: MAZZELLA, HURTER, PESCH, KATSCHTHALER.

J.F. SOLLIER

Adoptionism

Adoptionism, in a broad sense, a christological theory according to which Christ, as man, is the adoptive Son of God; the precise import of the word varies with the successive stages and exponents of the theory. Roughly, we have (1) the adoptionism of Elipandus and Felix in the eighth century; (2) the Neo-Adoptionism of Abelard in the twelfth century; (3) the qualified Adoptionism of some theologians from the fourteenth century on.

(1) Adoptionism of Elipandus and Felix in the Eighth Century

This, the original form of Adoptionism, asserts a double sonship in Christ: one by generation and nature, and the other by adoption and grace. Christ as God is indeed the Son of God by generation and nature, but Christ as man is Son of God only by adoption and grace. Hence “The Man Christ” is the adoptive and not the natural Son of God. Such is the theory held towards the end of the eighth century by Elipandus, Archbishop of Toledo, then under the Mohammedan rule, and by Felix, Bishop of Urgel, then under the Frankish dominion. The origin of this Hispanicus error, as it was called, is obscure. Nestorianism had been a decidedly Eastern heresy and we are surprised to find an offshoot of it in the most western part of the Western Church, and this so long after the parent heresy had found a grave in its native land. It is, however, noteworthy that Adoptionism began in that part of Spain where Islamism dominated, and where a Nestorian colony had for years found refuge. The combined influence of Islamism and Nestorianism had, no doubt, blunted the aged Elipandus’s Catholic sense. Then came a certain Migetius, preaching a loose doctrine, and holding, among other errors, that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity did not exist before the Incarnation. The better to confute this error, Elipandus drew a hard and fast line between Jesus as God and Jesus as Man, the former being the natural, and the latter merely the adoptive Son of God. The reassertion of Nestorianism raised a storm of protest from Catholics, headed by Beatus, Abbot of Libana, and Etherius, Bishop of Osma. It was to maintain his position that Elipandus deftly enlisted the co-operation of Felix of Urgel, known for his learning and versatile mind. Felix entered the contest thoughtlessly. Once in the heat of it, he proved a strong ally for Elipandus, and even became the leader of the new movement called by contemporaries the Haeresis Feliciana. While Elipandus put an indomitable will at the service of Adoptionism, Felix gave it the support of his science and also Punic faith. From Scripture he quoted innumerable texts. In the patristic literature and Mozarabic Liturgy he found such expressions as adoptio, homo adoptivus, ouios thetos, supposedly applied to the Incarnation and Jesus Christ. Nor did he neglect the aid of dialectics, remarking with subtilty that the epithet “Natural Son of God” could not be predicated of “The Man Jesus,” who was begotten by temporal generation; who was inferior to the Father; who was related not to the Father especially, but to the whole Trinity, the relation in questions remaining unaltered if the Father or the Holy Ghost had been incarnate instead of the Son. Elipandus’s obstinacy and Felix’s versatility were but the partial cause of the temporary success of Adoptionism. If that offspring of Nestorianism held sway in Spain for wellnigh two decades and even made an inroad into southern France, the true cause is to be found in Islamitic rule, which practically brought to naught the control of Rome over the greater part of Spain; and in the over-conciliatory attitude of Charlemagne, who, in spite of his whole-souled loyalty to the Roman Faith, could ill afford to alienate politically provinces so dearly bought. Of the two heresiarchs, Elipandus died in his error. Felix, after many insincere recantations, was placed under the surveillance of Leidrad of Lyons and gave all the signs of a genuine conversion. His death would even have passed for a repentant’s death if Agobar, Leidrad’s successor, had not found among his papers a definite retraction of all former retractions. Adoptionism did not long outlive its authors. What Charlemagne could not do by diplomacy and synods (Narbonne, 788; Ratisbon, 792; Frankfort, 794; Aix-la-Chapelle, 799) he accomplished by enlisting the services of missionaries like St. Benedict of Aniane, who reported as early as 800 the conversion of 20,000 clerics and laymen; and savants like Alcuin, whose treatises “Adv. Elipandum Toletanum” and “Contra Felicem Urgellensem” will ever be a credit to Christian learning.

The official condemnation of Adoptionism is to be found (1) in Pope Hadrian’s two letters, one to the bishops of Spain, 785, and the other to Charlemagne, 794; (2) in the decrees of the Council of Frankfort (794), summoned by Charlemagne, it is true, but “in full apostolic power” and presided over by the legate of Rome, therefore a synodus universalis, according to an expression of contemporary chroniclers. In these documents the natural divine filiation of Jesus even as man is strongly asserted, and His adoptive filiation, at least in so far as it excludes the natural, is rejected as heretical. Some writers, mainly Protestant, have tried to erase from Adoptionism all stain of the Nestorian heresy. These writers do not seem to have caught the meaning of the Church’s definition. Since sonship is an attribute of the person and not of the nature, to posit two sons is to posit two persons in Christ, the very error of Nestorianism. Alcuin exactly renders the mind of the Church when he says, “As the Nestorian impiety divided Christ into two persons because of the two natures, so your unlearned temerity divided Him into two sons, one natural and one adoptive” (Contra Felicem, I, P. L. CI, Col. 136). With regard to the arguments adduced by Felix in support of his theory, it may be briefly remarked that (1) such scriptural texts as John, xiv, 28, had already been explained at the time of the Arian controversy, and such others as Rom., viii, 29, refer to our adoption, not to that of Jesus, Christ is nowhere in the Bible called the adopted Son of God; nay more, Holy Scripture attributes to “The Man Christ” all the predicates which belong to the Eternal Son (cf. John, i, 18; iii, 16; Rom., viii, 32). (2) The expression adoptare, adoptio, used by some Fathers, has for its object the sacred Humanity, not the person of Christ; the human nature, not Christ, is said to be adopted or assumed by the Word. The concrete expression of the Mozarabic Missal, Homo adoptatus, or of some Greek Fathers, ouios thetos, either does not apply to Christ or is an instance of the not infrequent use in early days of the concrete for the abstract. (3) The dialectical arguments of Felix cease to have a meaning the moment it is clearly understood that, as St. Thomas says, “Filiation properly belongs to the person.” Christ, Son of God, by His eternal generation, remains Son of God, even after the Word has assumed and substantially united to Himself the sacred Humanity; Incarnation detracts no more from the eternal sonship than it does from the eternal personality of the Word. (See NESTORIANISM.)

(2) New-Adoptionism of Abelard in the Twelfth Century

The Spanish heresy left few traces in the Middle Ages. It is doubtful whether the christological errors of Abelard can be traced to it. They rather seem to be the logical consequence of a wrong construction put upon the hypostatical union. Abelard began to question the truth of such expressions as “Christ is God”; “Christ is man.” Back of what might seem a mere logomachy there is really, in Abelard’s mind, a fundamental error. He understood the hypostatical union as a fusion of two natures, the divine and the human. And lest that fusion become a confusion, he made the sacred Humanity the external habit and adventitious instrument of the Word only, and thus denied the substantial reality of “The Man Christ”—“Christus ut homo non est aliquid sed dici potest alicuius modi.” It is self-evident that in such a theory the Man Christ could not be called the true Son of God. Was He the adoptive Son of God? Personally, Abelard repudiated all kinship with the Adoptionists, just as they deprecated the very idea of their affiliation to the Nestorian heresy. But after Abelard’s theory spread beyond France, into Italy, Germany and even the Orient, the disciples were less cautious than the master. Luitolph defended at Rome the following proposition—“Christ, as man, is the natural son of man and the adoptive Son of God”; and Folmar, in Germany, carried this erroneous tenet to its extreme consequences, denying to Christ as man the right to adoration. Abelard’s new-Adoptionism was condemned, at least in its fundamental principles, by Alexander III, in a rescript dated 1177: “We forbid under pain of anathema that anyone in the future dare assert that Christ as man is not a substantial reality (non esse aliquid) because as He is truly God, so He is verily man.” The refutation of this new form of Adoptionism, as it rests altogether on the interpretation of the hypostatical union, will be found in the treatment of that word. (See HYPOSTATIC UNION.)

(3) Qualified Adoptionism of Later Theologians

The formulas “natural Son of God,” “adopted Son of God” were again subjected to a close analysis by such theologians as Duns Scotus (1300); Durandus a S. Portiano (1320); Vasquez (1604); Suarez (1617). They all admitted the doctrine of Frankfort, and confessed that Jesus as man was the natural and not merely the adoptive Son of God. But besides that natural sonship resting upon the hypostatical union, they thought there was room for a second filiation, resting on grace, the grace of union (gratia unionis). They did not agree, however, in qualifying that second filiation. Some called it adoptive, because of its analogy with our supernatural adoption. Others, fearing lest the implication of the word adoption might make Jesus a stranger to, and alien from God, preferred to call it natural. None of these theories runs counter to a defined dogma; yet, since sonship is an attribute of the person, there is danger of multiplying the persons by multiplying the filiations in Christ. A second natural filiation is not intelligible. A second adoptive filiation does not sufficiently eschew the connotation of adoption as defined by the Council of Frankfort. “We call adoptive him who is stranger to the adopter.” The common mistake of these novel theories, a mistake already made by the old Adoptionists and by Abelard, lies in the supposition that the grace of union in Christ, not being less fruitful than habitual grace in man, should have a similar effect, viz., filiation. Less fruitful it is not, and yet it cannot have the same effect in Him as in us, because to Him it was said: “Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee” (Hebr., i, 5); and to us, “You were afar off” (Eph., ii, 13).

J.F. SOLLIER

Adoration

In the strict sense, an act of religion offered to God in acknowledgment of His supreme perfection and dominion, and of the creature’s dependence upon Him; in a looser sense, the reverence shown to any person or object possessing, inherently or by association, a sacred character or a high degree of moral excellence. The rational creature, looking up to God, whom reason and revelation show to be infinitely perfect, cannot in right and justice maintain an attitude of indifference. That perfection which is infinite in itself and the source and fulfilment of all the good that we possess or shall possess, we must worship, acknowledging its immensity, and submiting to its supremacy. This worship called forth by God, and given exclusively to Him as God, is designated by the Greek name (latinized, latria), for which the best translation that our language affords is the word Adoration. Adoration differs from other acts of worship, such as supplication, confession of sin, etc., inasmuch as it formally consists in self-abasement before the Infinite, and in devout recognition of His transcendent excellence. An admirable example of adoration is given in the Apocalypse vii 11, 12: “And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the ancients, and about the living creatures; and they fell before the throne upon their faces, and adored God, saying: Amen. Beneditiction and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, honour, and power, and strength to our God. forever and ever. Amen.” The revealed precept to adore god was spoken to Moses upon Sinai and reaffirmed in the words of Christ: “The Lord thy God thou shalt adore, and Him only shalt thou serve” (Matt, iv, 10).

The primary and fundamental element in adoration is an interior act of mind and will; the mind perceiving that God’s perfection is infinite, the will bidding us to extol and worship this perfection. Without some measure of this interior adoration “ion spirit and in truth” it is evident that anyt outward show of divine worship would be mear pnatomime and falsehood. But equally evident is that the adoration felt within will seek outward expression. Human nature demands physical utterance of some sort for its spiritual and emotional moods; and it is to this instinct for self-expression that our whole apparatus of speech and gesture is due. To Suppress this instinct in religion would be as unreasonable as to repress it in any other province of our experience. Moreover, it would do religious grievous harm to check its tendency to outward manifestation, since the external expression reacts upon the interior sentiment, quickening, strengthening, and sustaining it. As St Thomas teaches: “it is connatural for us to pass from the physical signs to the spiritual basis upon which they rest” (Summa II-II:48:2). It is to be expected, then, that men should have agreed upon certain conventional actions as expressing adoration of the Supreme Being. Of these actions, one has pre-eminently and exclusivly signified adoration, and that is sacrifice. Other acts have been widely used for the same purpose, but most of of them—sacrifice always excepted—have not been exclusively reserved for Divine worship; they have also been employed to manifest friendship, or reverence for high personages. Thus Abram “fell flat on his face” before the Lord (Gen, xvii, 3). This was clearly an act of adoration in its highest sense; yet that it could have other meaning, we know from, e. g., I Kings, xx, 41, which says that David adored “falling on his face to the ground” before Jonathan, who had come to warn him of Saul’s hatred. In like manner Gen xxxi;; 3 narrates tbat Jacob, on meeting his brother Esau “bowed down with he face to the ground seven times.” We read of other forms of adoration among the Hebrews, such as taking off the shoes (Exod. iii, 5), bowing (Gen. xxiv, 26), and we are told that the contrite publican stood when he prayed, and that St Paul knelt when he worshipped with the elders of Ephesus. Among the early Christians it was common to adore God, standing with outstretched arms and facing the east. Finally, we ought perhaps to mention the act of pagan adoration which seems to contain the etymological explanation of our word adoration. The word adoratio very probably originated from the phrase (manum) ad os (mittere), which designated the act of kissing the hand to the statue of the god one wished to honour. Concerning the verbal manifestation of adoration—that is, the prayer of praise—explanation is not necessary. The connection between our inner feelings and their articulate utterance is obvious.

Thus far we have spoken of the worship given directly to God as the infinitely perfect Being. It is clear that adoration in this sense can be offered to no finite object. Still, the impulse that leads us to worship God’s perfection in itself will move us also to venerate the traces and bestowals of that perfection as it appears conspicuously in saintly men and women. Even to inanimate objects, which for one reason or another strikingly recall the excellence, majesty, love, or mercy of God, we naturally pay some measure of reverence. The goodness which these creatures possess by participation or association is a reflection of God’s goodness; by honouring them in the proper way we offer tribute to the Giver of all good. He is the ultimate end of our worship in such cases as He is the source of the derived perfection which called it forth. But, as was intimated above, whenever the immediate object of our veneration is a creature of this sort, the mode of worship which we exhibit towards it is fundamentally different from the worship which belongs to God alone. , as we have already said, is the name of this latter worship; and for the secondary kind, evoked by saints or angels, we use the term The Blessed Virgin, as manifesting in a sublimer manner than any other creature the goodness of God, deserves from us a higher recognition and deeper veneration than any other of the saints; and this peculiar cultus due to her because of her unique position in the Divine economy, is designated in theology hyperdulia, that is dulia in an eminent degree. It is unfortunate that neither our own language nor the Latin possesses in its terminology the precision of the Greek. The word latria is never applied in any other sense than that of the incommunicable adoration which is due to God alone. But in English the words adore and worship are still sometimes used, and in the past were commonly so used, to mean also inferior species of religious veneration and even to express admiration or affection for persons living upon the earth. So David “adored” Jonathan. In like manner Miphiboseth “fell on his face and worshipped” David (II Kings, ix, 6). Tennyson says that Enid in her true heart, adored the queen. Those who perforce adopted these modes of expression understood perfectly well what was meant by them and were in no danger of thereby encroaching upon the rights of the Divinity. It is hardly needful to remark that Catholics, too, even the most unlearned, are in no peril of confounding the adoration due to God with the religious honour given to any finite creature even when the word worship, owing to the poverty of our language, is applied to both. The Seventh General Council, in 757, puts the natter in a few words when it says that “true latria is to be given to God alone”; and the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV) makes clear the difference between invocation of saints and idolatry.

A few words may be added in conclusion on the offences which conflict with the adoration of God. They may be summed up under three categories:

worship offered to false gods;

worship offered to the true God, but in a false, unworthy and scandalous manner; and

blasphemy.

The first class comprises sins of idolatry. The second class embraces sins of superstition. These may take manifold forms, to be treated under separate titles. Suffice it to say that vain observances which neglect the essential thing in the worship of God and make much of purely accidental features or which bring it into contempt through fantastic and puerile excesses, are emphatically repudiated in Catholic theology. Honouring, or pretending to honour, God by mystic numbers or magical phrases, as though adoration consisted chiefly in the number or the physical utterance of the phrases, belongs to the Jewish Cabbala or pagan mythology, not to the worship of the Most High. (see BLASPHEMY; IDOLATRY; MARY; SAINTS; WORSHIP.) WILLIAM L. SULLIVAN

Perpetual Adoration

A term broadly used to designate the practically uninterrupted adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. The term is used in a truly literal sense, i.e. to indicate that the adoration is physically perpetual; and, more frequently, in a moral sense, when it is interrupted only for a short time, or for imperative reasons, or through uncontrollable circumstances, to be resumed, however, when possible, or it may indicate an uninterrupted adoration for a longer or shorter period, a day, or a few days, as in the devotion of the Forty Hours, or it may designate an uninterrupted adoration in one special church, or in different churches in a locality or diocese, or country, or throughout the world.

No trace of the existence of any such extra-liturgical cultus of the Blessed Sacrament can be found in the records of the early Church. Christian Lupus, indeed, argues that in the days of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine it was customary for the neophytes to adore, for eight days following their baptism, the Blessed Sacrament exposed, but no sound proof is adduced. It first appears in the later Middle Ages, about the beginning of the thirteenth century. It certainly may be conjectured that such adoration was really connoted by the fact of reservation in the early Church, especially in view of the evident desire to have the Eucharist represent the unity and continuity of the Church, as it is unlikely that there should not be some continuation of the adoration evidently given to the Host at the Synaxis. But such conjecture cannot be insisted upon

in view of the remarkable fact that no trace of any such adoration is to be found in the lives of saints noted for their devotion to the Blessed Sacrament in Holy Communion; thus it is remarkable that St. Ignatius in “The Spiritual Exercises,” when directing attention to the abiding presence of God with His creatures as a motive for awakening love says not a word of the Blessed Sacrament;

because of the practice of even the present-day Greek Church which, although believing explicitly in transubstantiation, has never considered Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament “our companion and refuge as well as our food” (Thurston).

The slowness with which the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament came into vogue, and the also slow development of the custom of paying visits to the Blessed Sacrament [Father Bridgett asserting that he had not come across one clear example in England of a visit to the Blessed Sacrament in pre-Reformation times (Thurston, ib.)], render it increasingly difficult to make out a case for any adoration, perpetual or temporary, outside the Mass and Holy Communion, as these various forms of devotion are closely linked together. Most liturgists rightly attribute the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and its special adoration to the establishment of the Feast of Corpus Christi. But it is worthy of note that the first recorded instance of Perpetual Adoration antedates Corpus Christi, and occurred at Avignon. On 11 September 1226, in compliance with the wish of Louis VII, who had just been victorious over the Albigensians, the Blessed Sacrament, veiled, was exposed in the Chapel of the Holy Cross, as an act of thanksgiving. So great was the throng of adorers that the bishop, Pierre de Corbie, judged it expedient to continue the adoration by night, as well as by day, a proposal that was subsquently ratified by the approval of the Holy See. This really Perpetual Adoration, interrupted in 1792, was resumed in 1829, through the efforts of the “Confraternity of Penitents-Gris” (Annales de Saint-Sacrement, III, 90). It is said that there has been a Perpetual Adoration in the Cathedral of Lugo, Spain, for more than a thousand years in expiation of the Priscillian heresy. (Cardinal Vaughan refers to this in an official letter to the Cardinal Primate of Spain, 1895.)

History

Exposition and consequently adoration became comparatively general only in the fifteenth century. It is curious to note that these adorations were usually for some special reason, e.g. for the cure of a sick person, or, on the eve of an execution, in the hope that the condemned would die a happy death. The Order of the “Religiosi bianchi del corpo di Gesù Christo,” a Benedictine reform, united to Cîteaux in 1393, and approved later as a separate community, devoted themselves to the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Philip II of Spain founded in the Escorial the Vigil of the Blessed Sacrament, religious in successive pairs remaining constantly, night and day, before the Blessed Sacrament. But, practically, the devotion of the Forty Hours, begun in 1534, and officially established in 1592, developed the really general Perpetual Adoration, spreading as it did from the Adoration in one or more churches in Rome until it gradually extended throughout the world, so that it may be truly said that during every hour of the year the Blessed Sacrament, solemnly exposed is adored by multitudes of the faithful. In 1641 Baron de Renty, famous for devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, founded in St. Paul’s parish, in Paris an association of ladies for practically a Perpetual Adoration; and, in 1648, at St-Sulpice the Perpetual Adoration, day and night, was established as a reparation for an outrage committed by thieves against the Sacred Host. The Perpetual Adoration was founded at Lyons, in 1667, in the Church of the Hôtel-Dieu. In various places, and by different people, lay and religious, new foundations have been made since then, the history of which can be traced in the valuable “Histoire du Sacrement de l’Eucharistie,” by Jules Corblet (II, xviii). The last development that it is important to notice here is the organization at Rome, in 1882, of “The Perpetual Adoration of Catholic Nations represented In the Eternal City.” Its object was to offer to God a reparation that is renewed daily by some of the Catholic nations represented in Rome, in the churches in which the Forty Hours was being held, as follows:

on Sunday by Portugal, Poland, Ireland, and Lombardy;

on Monday by Germany, Austria, Hungary and Greece;

on Tuesday by Italy;

on Wednesday by North and South America, and Scotland,

on Thursday by France;

on Friday by the Catholic Missions and Switzerland;

on Saturday by Spain, England and Belgium.

This society has affiliations throughout the world.

It is interesting to note the propagation in France during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of the Perpetual Adoration in all the churches and chapels of certain dioceses. The earliest mention of this practices is in 1658, when the churches in the Diocese of Chartres were opened for this purpose from six o’clock in the morning to six in the evening and wherever there were religious communities possessing a chapel the adoration was continued day and night. So, too, in Amiens (1658); in Lyons (1667); Evreux (1672); Rouen (1700), Boulogne (1753). In this last diocese the parishes were divided into twelve groups, representing the twelve months of the year, each group containing as many parishes as there were days in the month it represented. To each church in every group was assigned a day for the adoration. In Bavaria the work of the Perpetual Adoration, begun in 1674, fell into desuetude, but was re-established in 1802, and on a larger scale in 1873. Interrupted in France by the Revolution, the Perpetual Adoration was restored under Louis Philippe in some dioceses but especially in 1848, by the influence of the celebrated pianist Hermann Cohen, who afterwards became a Discalced Carmelite under the name of Père Augustin of the Blessed Sacrament. In six French dioceses the adoration is strictly perpetual. It flourishes also in Belgium, in different dioceses of Germany, in Italy, in Mexico, in Brazil, and other South American countries, in the United States, and Canada, and even in Oceanica.

The Nocturnal Adoration is carried on in many countries by associations of men. The first confraternity for the Nocturnal Adoration called “Pia Unione di Adoratori del SS. Sagramento” was founded in Rome, in 1810. In Paris, before the passage of the Associations Law, the Nocturnal Adoration was practised in upwards of one hundred and thirty churches and chapels by more than twenty-five hundred men. The Nocturnal Adoration, at Rome, founded in 1851, and erected into an archconfraternity in 1858, practically completes the chain of associations that render perpetual, in a strict sense, the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. It would be impossible to give here an adequate notice of the enormous number of Eucharistic associations, lay and clerical, formed for the work of the Perpetual Adoration. In addition to the communities and associations mentioned above, we shall here enumerate only the most important societies whose object has been Perpetual Adoration. A comparatively exhaustive list will be found in Corblet (op. cit., II, 444 sqq.).

The Society of Picpus was founded in 1594, having as one of their objects to honour the hidden life of Christ, by the Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

In 1868 the privilege of Perpetual Adoration was granted by Pope Pius IX to the Sisters of the Second Order of St. Dominic in the monastery of Quellins, near Lyons, France. This order was founded by St. Dominic himself in 1206, the constitutions being based on the Rule of St. Augustine. The privilege of Perpetual Adoration was extended to the few monasteries, such as those of Newark, New Jersey, and Hunt’s Point, New York City, which were founded from Quellins, but not to the other convents of the order.

In 1647 the Bernardines of Port Royal were associated to the Institute of the Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, and joined to their original name that of the Daughters of the Blessed Sacrament.

Anne of Austria founded, through Mère Mechtilde, a Benedictine, the first community of Benedictines of the Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, in 1654, an institute widely spread throughout continental Europe. The members take a solemn vow of Perpetual Adoration. During the conventual Mass one of the community kneels in the middle of the choir, having a rope around her neck, and holding a lighted torch, as a reparation to the Blessed Eucharist so frequently insulted. Their password is “Praised be the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar.” It is their salutation in their letters and visits, at the beginning of their office, the first word pronounced on waking, the last said on retiring.

The Order of Religious of St. Norbert, founded in 1767 at Coire (Switzerland), perpetually adore the Blessed Sacrament, singing German hymns.

The Perpetual Adorers of the Blessed Sacrament (women), commonly known as Sacramentines, were founded at Rome, by a Franciscan sister, and were approved by Pius VII in 1807. During their nocturnal adoration the Blessed Sacrament remains in the tabernacle.

The Sisters of the Perpetual Adoration at Quimper were founded in 1835. In addition to the Perpetual Adoration, they train young girls to become domestics, or teach them a trade.

A Congregation of Religious of the Perpetual Adoration was founded in 1845 at Eisiedeln, Switzerland. The sisters wear a small ostensorium on the breast, to indicate their special function of perpetual adorers.

The Congregation of Ladies of the Adoration of Reparation, founded after the Revolution of 1848, have three classes of members, whose common duty is the Perpetual Adoration.

The Congregation of the Sisters of the Perpetual Adoration and of the Poor Churches, founded originally in Belgium, has houses all over the world. By a special decree of the Congregation of Indulgences the seat of this archconfraternity was transferred to Rome in 1879, where it absorbed the archconfraternity of the same name already existing there. Its work, however, is not strictly a Perpetual Adoration.

The Society of the Most Blessed Sacrament, founded in 1857 by Père Eymard, is perhaps the best known of all. The members are divided into three classes: (a) the religious contemplatives consecrated to the perpetual adoration; (b) the religious, both contemplative and active, who are engaged in the sacred ministry; (c) a Third Order, priests or laics, who follow only a part of the rule. This society maintains a Eucharistic monthly called “Le Très Saint Sacrement.” It has an auxiliary society of female religious, and has houses all over the world. Its houses in Montreal, Canada, and in New York City are well known.

The Eucharistic League of Priests through its monthly, “Emmanuel,” practically maintains the Perpetual Adoration among its priestly members.

It would be impossible to enumerate the special indulgences belonging to these different associations.

JOSEPH H. MCMAHON

Francis Adorno

A celebrated Italian preacher, b. 1531; d. at Genoa, 13 January, 1586. He was a member of the family of the last Doge of Genoa, and was born three years after the name of the Adorni was suppressed, and the office of Doge abolished. This measure was taken to put an end to the strife of 165 years between that family and the Fregosi, whose name also was changed. This political revolution was effected by Andrew Doria, the famous Genoese admiral. Francis entered the Society of Jesus in Portugal, whither he had been sent to pursue his studies. He was recalled to Rome, where he taught theology, and gained at the same time the reputation of being one of the greatest orators in Italy. He was the first rector of the College of Milan, and was subsequently charged with the administration of several houses of the Order. He was the friend, adviser, and confessor of St. Charles Borromeo. Besides two volumes “De Disciplina Ecclesiasticâ,” which he wrote at the request of St. Charles, there remain his sermons, some Latin verse, counsels to Herbert Foglieta “De Ratione Illustrandæ Ligurum Historiæ,” and, in the Ambrosian library, a treatise on “Usury.”

SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Adoro Te Devote

(“I adore Thee devoutly”).

A hymn sometimes styled Rhythmus, or Oratio, S. Thomæ (sc. Aquinatis) written c. 1260 (?), which forms no part of the Office or Mass of the Blessed Sacrament, although found in the Roman Missal (In gratiarum actione post missam) with 100 days indulgence for priests (subsequently extended to all the faithful by decree of the S.C. Indulgent., 17 June, 1895). It is also found commonly in prayer and hymn-books. It has received sixteen translations into English verse. The Latin text, with English translation, may be found in the Baltimore “Manual of Prayers” (659, 660). Either one of two refrains is inserted after each quatrain (a variation of one of which is in the Manual), but originally the hymn originally the hymn lacked the refrain.

MONE, Lateiniiche Hymnen des Mittelalters, I, 275–276, for MSS. variations and elucidations and for two refrains; DANIEL, Thesaurus Hymnologicus, I, 255–256, and IV, 234–235; JULIAN, Dict of Hvmnology, s. v., for first lines of English versions; American Eccles Rev., Feb., 1896, 143–147, for text, transl., rhythmic analysis, etc.; also ibid., 167, for indulgence extended.

H.T. HENRY

Diocese of Adria

An Italian bishopric, suffragan to Venice, which comprises 55 towns in the Province of Rovigo, and a part of one town in the Province of Padua. Tradition dates the preaching of the Gospel in Adria from the days of St. Apollinaris, who had been consecrated bishop by St. Peter. The figure of this Bishop of Ravenna has a singular importance in the hagiographical legends of the northeast of Italy. Recent investigation has shown that even if Emilia, Romagna, and the territory around Venice were Christianized and had bishops (the two facts are concomitant) before Piedmont, for example, still their conversion does not go back beyond the end of the second century. (See Zattoni, Il valore storico della Passio di S. Apollinare e la fondazione dell episcopato a Ravenna e in Romagna, in the Rivista storico-critica delle scienze teologiche, I, 10, and II, 3.) The first bishop of Adria of whose name we are positive is Gallonistus, who was present at a synod in Rome (649) under Martin I (Mansi, XII). Venerable Bede, in his Martyrology, mentions a St. Colianus, Bishop of Adria, but we know nothing about him. Amongst the bishops of Adria is the Blessed Aldobrandinus of Este (1248–1352). This diocese contains 80 parishes; 300 churches, chapels, and oratories; 250 secular priests; 72 seminarians; 12 regular priests; 9 lay-brothers; 90 confraternities; 3 boys schools (97 pupils); 6 girls schools (99 pupils). Population, 190,400.

UGHELLI, Italia Sacra (Venice, 1722), II, 397; CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), X, 9; GAMS, Series episcoporum Ecclesiae catholicae (Ratisbon, 1873), 768; SPERONI, Adriensium episcoporum series historico-chronologica monumentis illustrata (Padua, 1788); F.G., Dissertazione su d’un antico vaso battesimale d’Adria (Rovigo, 1840); DE VIT, Adria e le sue antiche epigrafi illustrata (Florence, 1888); DE LARDI, Serie cronologica dei vescovi d’Adria (Venice, 1851).

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Pope Adrian I

From about 1 February, 772, till 25 December, 795; date of birth uncertain; d. 25 December, 795. His pontificate of twenty-three years, ten months, and twenty-four days was unequalled in length by that of any successor of St. Peter until a thousand years later, when Pius VI, deposed and imprisoned by the same Frankish arms which had enthroned the first Pope-King, surpassed Adrian by a pontificate six months longer. At a critical period in the history of the Papacy, Adrian possessed all the qualities essential in the founder of a new dynasty. He was a Roman of noble extraction and majestic stature. By a life of singular piety, by accomplishments deemed extraordinary in that iron age, and by valuable services rendered during the pontificate of Paul I and Stephen III, he had so gained the esteem of his unruly countrymen that the powerful chamberlain, Paul Afiarta, who represented in Rome the interests of Desiderius, the Lombard king, was powerless to resist the unanimous voice of the clergy and people demanding for Adrian the papal chair. The new pontiff’s temporal policy was, from the first, sharply defined and tenaciously adhered to; the keynote was a steadfast resistance to Lombard aggression. He released from prison or recalled from exile the numerous victims of the chamberlain’s violence; and, upon discovering that Afiarta had caused Sergius, a high official of the papal court, to be assassinated in prison, ordered his arrest in Rimini, just as Afiarta was returning from an embassy to Desiderius with the avowed intention of bringing the Pope to the Lombard court, “were it even in chains.” The time seemed propitious for subjecting all Italy to the Lombard rule; and with less able antagonists than Adrian and Charles (to be famous in later ages as Charlemagne), most probably the ambition of Desiderius would have been gratified. There seemed little prospect of Frankish intervention. The Lombards held the passes of the Alps, and Charles was engrossed by the difficulties of the Saxon war; moreover, the presence in Pavia of Gerberga and her two sons, the widow and orphans of Carloman, whose territories, on his brother’s death, Charles had annexed, seemed to offer an excellent opportunity of stirring up discord among the Franks, if only the Pope could be persuaded, or coerced, to anoint the children as heirs to their father’s throne. Instead of complying, Adrian valiantly determined upon resistance. He strengthened the fortifications of Rome, called to the aid of the militia the inhabitants of the surrounding territory, and, as the Lombard host advanced, ravaging and plundering summoned Charles to hasten to the defence of their common interests. An opportune lull in the Saxon war left the great commander free to act. Unable to bring the deceitful Lombard to terms by peaceful overtures, he scaled the Alps in the autumn of 773, seized Verona, where Gerberga and her sons had sought refuge, and besieged Desiderius in his capital. The following spring, leaving his army to prosecute the siege of Pavia, he proceeded with a strong detachment to Rome, in order to celebrate the festival of Easter at the tomb of the Apostles. Arriving on Holy Saturday, he was received by Adrian and the Romans with the utmost solemnity. The next three days were devoted to religious rites; the following Wednesday to affairs of state. The enduring outcome of their momentous meeting was the famous “Donation of Charlemagne,” for eleven centuries the Magna Charta of the temporal power of the Popes. (See CHARLEMAGNE.) Duchesne’s thorough and impartial investigation of its authenticity in his edition of the Liber Pontificalis (I, ccxxxv-ccxliii) would seem to have dissipated any reasonable doubt. Two months later Pavia fell into the hands of Charles; the kingdom of the Lombards was extinguished, and the Papacy was forever delivered from its persistent and hereditary foe. Nominally, Adrian was now monarch of above two-thirds of the Italian peninsula; but his sway was little more than nominal. Over a great portion of the district mentioned in the Donation, the papal claims were permitted to lapse. To gain and regain the rest, Charles was forced to make repeated expeditions across the Alps. We may well doubt whether the great King of the Franks would have suffered the difficulties of the Pope to interfere with his more immediate cares, were it not for his extreme personal veneration of Adrian, whom in life and death he never ceased to proclaim his father and best friend It was in no slight degree owing to Adrian’s political sagacity, vigilance, and activity, that the temporal power of the Papacy did not remain a fiction of the imagination.

His merits were equally great in the more spiritual concerns of the Church. In cooperation with the orthodox Empress Irene, he laboured to repair the damages wrought by the Iconoclastic storms. In the year 787 he presided, through his legates, over the Seventh General Council, held at Nicaea, in which the Catholic doctrine regarding the use and veneration of images was definitely expounded. The importance of the temporary opposition to the decrees of the Council throughout the West, caused mainly by a defective translation, aggravated by political motives, has been greatly exaggerated in modern times. The controversy elicited a strong refutation of the so-called Libri Carolini from Pope Adrian and occasioned no diminution of friendship between him and Charles. He opposed most vigorously, by synods and writings, the nascent heresy of Adoptionism (q.v.), one of the few Christological errors originated by the West. The Liber Pontificalis enlarges upon his merits in embellishing the city of Rome, upon which he is said to have expended fabulous sums. He died universally regretted, and was buried in St. Peter’s. His epitaph, ascribed to his lifelong friend, Charlemagne, is still extant. Rarely have the priesthood and the empire worked together so harmoniously, and with such beneficent results to the Church and to humanity, as during the lifetime of these two great rulers. The chief sources of our information as to Adrian are the Life in the Liber Pontificalis (q.v.), and his letters to Charlemagne, preserved by the latter in his Codex Carolinus. Estimates of Adrian’s work and character by modern historians differ with the varying views of writers regarding the temporal sovereignty of the popes, of which Adrian I must be considered the real founder.

Liber Pontificalis (ed. DUCHESNE), I, 486–523, and praef. CCXXXIV sq.; ID., Les premiers ternps de l’état pontifical (Paris, 1898); JAFF , Regesta RR. PP. (2d ed.), I, 289–306, Il. 701; ID., Bibl. Rer. Germanic. (Codicis Carol. Epistolae), IV, 13–306; CENNI, Monum. dominat. pontif. (1761), II, 289–316, also in P.L. XCVIII; MANN, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1902), I, II, 395–496; HEFELE, History of the Councils (tr.), III, passim; NIEHUES, Gesch. d. Verh ltnisses zwischen dem Kaiserthum u. Papsthum im Mittelalter (Munster, 1877), I, 517–546; GOSSELIN, Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages (Baltimore, 1853), I, 230 sq.; SCHN RER, Entstehung des Kirchenstaates (Cologne, 1894). For a bibliography of Adrian I see CHEVALIER, Bio-Bibliogr. (2d ed., Paris, 1905), 55, 56.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Adrian II

(Reigned 867–872.)

After the death of St. Nicholas I, the Roman clergy and people elected, much against his will, the venerable Cardinal Adrian, universally beloved for his charity and amiability, descended from a Roman family which had already given two pontiffs to the Church, Stephen III and Sergius II. Adrian was now seventy-five years old, and twice before had refused the dignity. He had been married before taking orders, and his old age was saddened by a domestic tragedy. As pope, he followed closely in the footsteps of his energetic predecessor. He strove to maintain peace among the greedy and incompetent descendants of Charlemagne. In an interview at Monte Cassino he admitted to communion the repentant King Lothair of Lorraine, after exacting from him a public oath that he had held no intercourse with his concubine since the pope’s prohibition, that he would take back his lawful wife Theutberga, and abide by the final decision of the Roman See. He upheld with vigour against Hincmar of Reims the unlimited right of bishops to appeal to the Sovereign Pontiff. At the Eighth General Council, which he convened at Constantinople in 869, and presided over through ten legates, he effected the deposition of Photius and the restoration of unity between the East and the West. He was unsuccessful in retaining the Bulgarians for the western patriarchate; that nation unwisely determined to adhere to Constantinople, a course which was destined to bring upon it ruin and stagnation. Adrian saved the western Slavs from a similar fate by seconding the efforts of the saintly brothers, Cyril and Methodius. Of enduring influence, for good or evil, was the endorsement he gave to their rendering of the liturgy in the Slavonic tongue. Adrian died towards the close of the year 872.

Liber Pontif. (ed. DUCHESNE), 173–190; JAFFÉ, Regesta RR. PP. (2d ed.), I, 368–375, II, 703, 704, 745, 746; MANSI Coll. Conc., XV, 819 sq.; WATTERICH, Vitae Rom. Pont 631 sq.; LAPOTRE, Hadrien II et les fausses d cr tales, in Rev. des Quest. Hist. (1880), XXVII, 377–431; ARTAUD DE MONTOR, Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs (tr. New York, 1867), I, 225, 226; GORINI, Defense de l’Eglise (1866), III, 20–38, 160–176; ALEX. NATALIS, Hist. Eccl. (1778), VI, 399–409.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope St. Adrian III

Pope St. Adrian III, of Roman extraction, was elected in the beginning of the year 884, and died near Modena in the summer of the following year, while on his way to the diet summoned by Charles the Fat to determine the succession to the Empire. He was buried in the monastery of Nonantula, where his memory has ever since been held in local veneration. By decree of Pope Leo XIII the clergy of Rome and Modena celebrate his Mass and office ritu duplici on 7 September.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Adrian IV

Born 1100 (?); died 1 September, 1159. Very little is known about the birthplace, parentage, or boyhood of Adrian. Yet, as is usual in such cases, very various, and sometimes very circumstantial, accounts have reached us about him.

Our only reliable information we owe to two writers, Cardinal Boso and John of Salisbury. The former wrote a life of Adrian, which is included in the collection of Nicolas Roselli, made Cardinal of Aragon in 1356 during the pontificate of Innocent VI. Boso’s life, published by Muratori (SS. Rer. Ital. III, I 441–446) and reprinted in Migne (P.L., CLXXXVIII, 135–160), also edited by Watterich (Vitae Pontificum II, 323- 374), and now to be read in Duchesne’s edition of the Liber Pontificalis (II, 388–397; cf. proleg XXXVII-XLV), states that Boso, the author of it; was created cardinal-deacon of the title of Sts Cosmas and Damian, was chamberlain to Adrian and in constant and familiar attendance upon him from the commencement of his apostolate. [Ciacconius says that Boso was the nephew of Adrian, but Watterich observes (op. cit. prolegomena) that he finds no proof of this.]

Boso tells us that Adrian was born in England in or near the burg of St. Albans, and that he left his country and his relations in his boyhood to complete his studies, and went to Arles in France. During the vacation he visited the monastery of St. Rufus near Avignon, where he took the vows and habit of an Austin canon. After some time he was elected abbot and, going to Rome on important business connected with the monastery, was retained there by Pope Eugenius III, and made a cardinal and Bishop of Albano (1146). Matthew Paris agrees in some measure with this, for he tells us that on Adrian’s applying to the abbot of St. Alban’s to be received as a monk, the abbot, after examining him, found him deficient and said to him kindly: “Have patience, my son, and stay at school yet a while till you are better fitted for the position you desire.” He states further that he was “a native of some hamlet under the abbey, perhaps Langley,” and I may add that it is now tolerably certain that he was born at Abbot’s Langley in Hertfordshire, about the year 1100; that his father was Robert Brekespear, a man of humble means, though of a decent stock; and that Adrian went abroad as a poor wandering scholar, like John of Salisbury and many others at that time. However, William of Newburgh, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, an Austin canon and a historian of high repute (1136–98?), gives a very different account, which he probably had from the neighbouring Cistercian houses of Rievaulx and Byland. “Eugenius III,” he tells us,

was succeeded by Nicolas, Bishop of Albano, who, changing his name with his fortune, called himself Adrian. Of this man it may be well to relate how he was raised as it were from the dust to sit in the midst of princes and to occupy the throne of apostolic glory. He was born in England, and his father was a clerk of slender means who, abandoning his youthful son, became a monk at St. Albans. As the boy grew up, seeing that through want he could not afford the time to go to school, he attended the monastery for a daily pittance. His father was ashamed of this, taunted him with bitter words for his idleness, and, highly indignant, drove him away disconsolate. The boy, left to himself, and compelled to do something by hard necessity, ingenuously ashamed either to dig or beg, crossed over to France.

He then states that after Adrian was elected Abbot of St. Rufus the canons repented of their choice and came to hate him, and appealed to the Pope on two occasions, bringing divers charges against him (II, vi). This narrative is not only contrary to Boso’s but to what Adrian himself told John of Salisbury. “The office of Pope, he assured me, was a thorny one, beset on all sides with sharp pricks. He wished indeed that he had never left England, his native land, or at least had lived his life quietly in the cloister of St. Rufus rather than have entered on such difficult paths, but he dared not refuse, since it was the Lord’s bidding” (Polycraticus, Bk. IV, xxviii). How could he have looked back with regret to quiet and happy days if he had encountered parental cruelty at St. Albans and monastic insubordination at St. Rufus?

In 1152 Adrian was sent on a delicate and important mission to Scandinavia, as papal legate, in which he acquitted himself to the satisfaction of everybody. He established an independent archiepiscopal see for Norway at Trondhjem, which he selected chiefly in honour of St. Olaf, whose relics reposed in its church. He reformed the abuses that had crept into the usages of the clergy, and even aided in bettering the civil institutions of the country. Snorro relates that no foreigner ever came to Norway who gained so much public honour and deference among the people as Nicholas Brekespear. He was prevented for the time from establishing an archiepiscopal see in Sweden by the rivalry between Sweden and Gothland, the one party claiming the honour for Upsala, the other for Skara. But he reformed abuses there also, and established the contribution known as Peter’s pence.

On his return to Rome he was hailed as the Apostle of the North, and, the death of Anastasius IV occurring at that time (2 December, 1154), he was on the following day unanimously elected the successor of St. Peter; but the office was not a bed of roses. King William of Sicily was in open hostility, and the professed friendship of Frederick Barbarossa (q. v.) was even more dangerous. The barons in the Campagna fought with each other and with the Pope and, issuing from their castles, raided the country in every direction, and even robbed the pilgrims on their way to the tombs of the Apostles. The turbulent and fickle populace of Rome was in open revolt under the leadership of Arnold of Brescia. Cardinal Gerardus was mortally wounded in broad daylight, as he was walking along the Via Sacra.

Adrian, a determined man, at once laid the city under an interdict and retired to Viterbo. He forbade the observance of any sacred service until the Wednesday of Holy Week. “Then were the senators impelled by the voice of the clergy and laity alike to prostrate themselves before His Holiness.” Submission was made, and the ban removed. The Pope returned to Rome, and Arnold escaped and was taken under the protection of some of the bandit barons of the northern Campagna. He was subsequently delivered up and executed. Meanwhile Barbarossa was advancing through Lombardy, and after receiving the Iron Crown at Pavia had approached the confines of the papal territory, intending to receive the imperial crown in Rome at the hands of the Pope.

After some negotiations a famous meeting took place at Sutri, about 30 miles north of Rome, on the 9th of June, 1155, between Frederick of Hohenstauffen, then the most powerful ruler in Europe, and the humble canon of St. Rufus, now the most powerful spiritual ruler in the world. As the Pope approached, the Emperor advanced to meet him, but did not hold the Pope’s stirrup, which was part of the customary ceremony of homage. The Pope said nothing then, but dismounted, and the Emperor led him to a chair and kissed his slipper. Custom required that the Pope should then give the kiss of peace. He refused to do so, and told Frederick that until full homage had been paid he would withhold it. This implied that he would not crown him. Frederick had to submit, and on the 11th of June another meeting was arranged at Nepi, when Frederick advanced on foot and held the Pope’s stirrup, and the incident was closed.

Frederick was afterwards duly crowned at St. Peter’s, and took the solemn oaths prescribed by ancient custom. During the ceremonies a guard of imperial troops had been placed on or near the bridge of St. Angelo to protect that suburb, then known as the Leonine City. The bridge was stormed by the republican troops from the city proper, and a fierce battle ensued between the imperial army and the Romans. Fighting lasted through the hot summer’s day and far on into the evening. Finally the Romans were routed. Over 200 fell as prisoners into Frederick’s hands, including most of the leaders, and more than 1,000 were killed or drowned in the Tiber. The citizens, however, held the city and refused to give the Emperor provisions; the latter, now that he was crowned, made no serious effort either to help the Pope against the Normans or to reduce the city to subjection. Malaria appeared among his troops. “He was obliged to turn,” says Gregorovius, in his in History of the City of Rome, “and, not without some painful self-reproach, to abandon the Pope to his fate.” He took leave of him at Tivoli, and, marching north by way of Farfa, reduced to ashes on his route the ancient and celebrated city of Spoleto.

William I succeeded his father on the throne of Sicily in February, 1154. Adrian refused to recognize him as king, and addressed him merely as Dominus (Lord). Hostilities followed. The Sicilians laid siege to Beneventum without result, and afterwards ravaged the southern Campagna and retired. Adrian excommunicated William. After the departure of Frederick, Adrian collected his vassals and mercenaries and marched south to Beneventum, a papal possession, where he remained until June, 1156. It was during this time that John of Salisbury spent three months with him, and obtained from him the famous Donation of Ireland (see page 158). The fortune of war favoured William. He captured Brundusium, with an immense store of provisions and munitions of war, and five thousand pounds’ weight of gold that the Greek Emperor, Manuel I, intended for his ally the Pope. He also took captive many wealthy Greeks, whom he sent to Palermo, some for ransom, but the greater number to be sold into slavery. This practically determined the issue of the war. Peace was made in June, 1153, and a treaty concluded. The Pope agreed to invest William with the crowns of Sicily and Apulia, the territories and states of Naples, Salerno, and Amalfi, the March of Ancona, and all the other cities which the King then possessed. William on his part took the feudal oath and became the liegeman of the Pope, and promised to pay a yearly tribute, and to defend the papal possessions (Watterich, op. cit., II, 352). After this, the Pope went to Viterbo, where he came to an agreement with the Romans, and in the beginning of 1157 returned to the City. The Emperor deeply resented the act of the Pope in investing William with territories which he claimed as part of his dominions, and for this and other causes a conflict broke out between them. (See ALEXANDER III, FREDERICK I, INVESTITURES.) Adrian died at Anagni, in open strife with the Emperor, and in league with the Lombards against him. Alexander III carried out the intentions of Adrian, and shortly afterwards excommunicated the Emperor.

THE DONATION OF IRELAND

It was during the Pope’s stay at Beneventum (1156), as we have stated, that John of Salisbury visited him. “I recollect,” he writes, “a journey I once made into Apulia for the purpose of visiting his Holiness, Pope Adrian IV. I stayed with him at Beneventum for nearly three months” (Polycraticus, VI, 24; P.L. CXCIX, 623). In another work, the Metalogicus, this writer says:

At my solicitation [ad preces meas] he gave and granted Hibernia to Henry II, the illustrious King of England, to hold by hereditary right as his letter [which is extant] to this day testifies. For all islands of ancient right, according to the Donation of Constantine, are said to belong to the Roman Church, which he founded. He sent also by me a ring of gold, with the best of emeralds set therein, wherewith the investiture might be made for his governorship of Ireland, and that same ring was ordered to be and is still in the public treasury of the King.

It will be observed that he says, “at my solicitation,” and not at the request of Henry, and that he went “for the purpose of visiting” (causâ visitandi), not on an official mission. The suggestion that because he was born in England Adrian made Ireland over to the Angevin monarch, who was no relation of his does not merit serious attention. The Metalogicus was written in the autumn of 1159 or early in 1160, and the passage quoted occurs in the last chapter (IV, xlii; P.L., vol. cit., col. 945). It is found in all manuscripts of the work, one of which was written possibly as early as 1175, and certainly before 1200. Nobody questions the truthfulness of John of Salisbury, and the only objection raised to the statement is that it may be an interpolation. If it is not an interpolation, it constitutes a complete proof of the Donation, the investiture by the ring being legally sufficient, and in fact the mode used in the case of the Isle of Man, as Boichorst points out. Adrian’s Letter, however, creates a difficulty. His Bull, usually called Laudabiliter, does not purport to confer Hibernia “by hereditary right,” but the letter referred to was not Laudabiliter, but a formal letter of investiture, such as was used in the case of Robert Guiscard in Italy, e.g. “I Gregory, Pope, invest you, Duke Robert, with the land of,” etc. (Ego Gregorius Papa investio te, Roberte Dux, de terra, etc.; Mansi, Coll. Conc., XX, 313). The question of the genuineness of the passage in the Metalogicus, impugned by Cardinal Moran, W.B. Morris, and others, must be kept quite separate from the question of the genuineness of Laudabiliter, and it is mainly by mixing both together that the passage in the Metalogicus is assailed as a forgery. Boichorst (Mittheilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung IV, supplementary vol., 1893, p. 101) regards the Donation as indisputable, while rejecting Laudabiliter as a forgery. Liebermann (Deutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 1892, I, 58) holds the same view. Thatcher, in Studies Concerning Adrian IV; I. The Offer of Ireland to Henry II, printed in the fourth volume of the Decennial Publications for the University of Chicago (Series I, Chicago, 1903), reproduces the arguments of Boichorst. Bishop Creighton held John of Salisbury to be unanswerable (Tarleton, p. 180). The overwhelming weight of authority is therefore in favour of the genuineness of the passage in Metalogicus. The Bull Laudabiliter stands on a different footing. Opinions have hitherto been sharply divided as to its genuineness, as will be seen by a reference to the end of this article; but these opinions have been formed without a knowledge of the text of the Laudabiliter in the Book of Leinster, except in the case of Boichorst, who refers to it casually in a note which has been recently published for the first time by the writer (New Ireland Review March, 1906; cf. his History of Ireland, xxvi, Dublin, 1906). To the text of the Bull are prefixed the following headings: “Ah! men of the faith of the world, how beautiful [so far Gaelic] when over the cold sea in ships Zephyrus wafts glad tidings” [Latin] a Bull granted to the King of the English on the collation, i.e. grant, of Hibernia, in which nothing is derogated from the rights of the Irish, as appears by the words of the text. This was almost certainly written, and probably by his old tutor Aedh McCrimthainn, during the lifetime of Diarmaid MacMurchada, who was banished in 1157, and died in 1171. The text of the Bull was therefore no medieval scholastic exercise. Assuming the statements in the Metalogicus to be correct, the texts relating to the Donation of Adrian may be conjecturally arranged as follows: (1) The Letter of Investiture referred to by John of Salisbury, 1156; (2) Laudabiliter, prepared probably in 1156, and issued in 1159(?); (3) A Confirmation of the Letter of Investiture by Alexander III in 1159 (?); (4) Three Letters of Alexander III, 20 September, 1172, in substance a confirmation of Laudabiliter. The Bull was not sent forward in 1156 because the offer of Adrian was not then acted on, though the investiture was accepted. Robert of Torrigny (d. 1186 or 1184) tells us that at a Council held at Winchester, 29 September, 1156, the question of subduing Ireland and giving it to William, Henry’s brother, was considered; “but because it was not pleasing to the Empress, Henry’s mother, the expedition was put off to another time” [intermissa est ad tempus illa expedite]. This clearly implies an acceptance of the investiture and supports the genuineness of the passage in the Metalogicus. Henry, then twenty-two, had his hands full of domestic troubles with the refractory barons in England, with the Welsh, and with the discordant elements in his French dominions, and could not undertake a great military operation like the invasion of Ireland. And not having done so in the lifetime of Adrian, he would certainly require a confirmation of the Donation by Alexander before leading an army into a territory the overlordship of which belonged to the latter. The Letter of Confirmation is found only in Giraldus Cambrensis, first in the De Expugnatione Hiberniae (II, v, in Rolls Series V, 31t5), and again in the De Instructione Principis (II, c. xix, in Rolls Series VIII, 197), where the text states that the genuineness of the confirmation was denied by some. This, however, may be a later interpolation, as some maintain. The three letters of 20 September, 1172, do not contain any direct confirmation of the Donation of Adrian. They are addressed to Henry II, the bishops, and the kings and chieftains of Ireland respectively. The letter addressed to Henry congratulates him on his success, and exhorts him to protect and extend the rights of the Church, and to offer the first fruits of his victory to God. A point is made that there is no grant of Ireland contained in the letter, nor any confirmation of a previous grant, but how could we expect a second confirmation if Adrian’s grant had in fact been already confirmed according to the text in Giraldus? There is no question as to the genuineness of the three letters of the 20th of September. They are found in the Liber Scaccarii, and are printed in Migne (P.L. CC, col. 882).

The Donation of Adrian was subsequently recognized in many official writings, and the Pope for more than four centuries claimed the overlordship of Ireland In 1318 (1317?) Domhnall O’Neill and other kings and chieftains, and the whole laity of Ireland, forwarded to Pope John XXII a letter of appeal and protest. They state in the letter that Pope Adrian, induced by false representations, granted Ireland to Henry II, and enclose a copy of the Bull which the context shows was Laudabiliter. On 30 May, 1318, the Pope wrote from Avignon a letter of paternal advice to Edward II, urging him to redress the grievances of the Irish, and enclosed O’Neill’s letters and “a copy of the grant which Pope Adrian is said to have made to Henry II.” Edward II did not deny that he held under that grant. By an Act of the Irish Parliament (Parliament Roll, 7th Edward IV, Ann. 1467), after reciting that “as our Holy Father Adrian, Pope of Rome, was possessed of all sovereignty of Ireland in his demesne as of fee in the right of his Church of Rome, and with the intent that vice should be subdued had alienated the said land to the King of England . . . by which grant the said subjects of Ireland owe their allegiance to the King of England as their sovereign Lord,” it was enacted “that all archbishops and bishops shall excommunicate all disobedient Irish subjects, and if they neglect to do so they shall forfeit £100.” In 1555, by a consistorial decree followed by a Bull, Paul IV, on the humble supplication of Philip and Mary, erected into a kingdom the Island of Hibernia, of which, from the time that the kings of England obtained the dominion of it through the Apostolic See, they had merely called themselves Lords (Domini), without prejudice to the rights of the Roman Church and of any other person claiming to have right in it or to it. [Bull. Rom (ed. Turin.) VI, 489, 490.] In 1570 the Irish had offered or were about to offer the kingship of Ireland to Philip of Spain. The Archbishop of Cashel acted as their envoy. The project was communicated to the Pope through Cardinal Alciato, who wrote to the Archbishop of Cashel (9 June, 1570):

His Holiness was astonished that anything of the kind should be attempted without his authority since it was easy to remember that the kingdom of Ireland belonged to the dominion of the Church, was held as a fief under it, and could not therefore, unless by the Pope, be subjected to any new ruler. And the Pope, that the right of the Church may be preserved as it should be, says he will not give the letters you ask for the King of Spain. But if the King of Spain himself were to ask for the fief of that Kingdom in my opinion the Pope would not refuse. (Spicil. Ossor., ed. Card. Moran, I, 69).

In conclusion there is not in my judgment any controverted matter in history about which the evidence preponderates in favour of one view so decisively as about the Donation of Adrian.

The principal authorities for the life of Adrian are collected in WATTERICH S Vitae Pontificum Romanorum (saec. IX-XIII) adjectis suis cuique et annalibus et documentis gravioribus (Leipzig, 1862), II. He gives the Life of Adrian by BOSO, and extracts from the annals of WILLIAM OF NEWBURGH, WILLIAM OF TYRE, ROMUALD OF SALERNO, OTTO OF FREISING, RADEWIN, and GODFREY OF COLOGNE, as well as several letters (II, 323). There is also a valuable chapter (v) of Prolegomena (I, LXXI). TO Watterich may be added JOHN OF SALISBURY and GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS, already mentioned, RABY, Pope Adrian the Fourth, an Historical Sketch, 1849; ALFRED TARLETON, Nicholas Breakspear (Adrian IV), Englishman and Pope (London, 1906). As to the genuineness of Laudabiliter, the literature is very voluminous. The following names may be mentioned: against it, JOHN LYNCH, Cambrensis Eversus (1662), STEPHEN WHITE (d. before 1650), CARDINAL MORAN, DOM GASQUET, W. B. MORRIS, the writer in Analecta Juris Pontificii (1882), A. BELLESHEIM PFLUGK- HARTUNG, GINNELL, HERGENR THER, DAMBERGER, SCHEFFER-BOICHORST, F. LIEBERMANN, and O. THATCHER; in favour of it: LINGARD, LANIGAN, J. DIMOCK (editor of GIRALDUS in Rolls Series, V, 316 he says that it is indisputably genuine), J. C. O CALLAGHAN S. MALONE, O. P.L., KATE NORGATE, A. TARLETON, L. CASARTELLI. None of these writers, except Scheffer-Boichorst, refer to the text of Laudabiliter in the Book of Leinster, which is by far the most important piece of evidence bearing on the question. An extensive bibliography of the subject is given in CHEVALIER, Rep. des sources hist. du moyen âge (Bio.-bibl., 2d ed., Paris 905), 56, 57. Cf. also O. J. THATCHER op. cit., 154.

ARTHUR UA CLERIGH

Pope Adrian V

(OTTOBUONO FIESCHI).

A Genoese, and nephew of Innocent IV. He was elected at Viterbo 12 July 1276. As Cardinal Fieschi, he had laboured to restore harmony in England between Henry III and the rebellious barons. He annulled the rigid enactments of Gregory X relating to the papal conclaves, but died before substituting milder ones, 18 August. He lived just long enough to experience “how great the mantle weighs.” Dante (Purg., c. xix) held an interesting conversation with him in Purgatory.

Liber Pontif. (ed. DUCHESNE I, 457; Raynaldus, Ann eccl. ad an., 1276; 26, 27; MURATORI, SS. Rer. Ital., III, 605; ARTAUD DE MONTOR, Lives and Times of The Roman Pontiffs (tr. New York, 1867), I, 454.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Adrian VI

The last pontefice barbaro (Guicciardini, XIV, v), and the only pope of modern times, except Marcellus II, who retained his baptismal name. succeeded Pope Leo X, from 9 January, 1522, to 14 September, 1523. He was born of humble parentage in Utrecht, 2 March, 1459. He lost his pious father, Florentius Dedel, at an early age, and was kept at school by the fortitude of his widowed mother, first at home, later at Zwolle with the Brothers of the Common Life, finally at the University of Louvain. After a thorough course in philosophy, theology, and jurisprudence he was created Doctor of Divinity in 1491. Margaret of Burgundy defrayed the expenses of the poor student. His popularity as professor of theology in Louvain is shown to have been deserved by his two chief works, Quaestiones quodlibeticae (1521), and his Commentarius in Lib. IV Sententiarum Petri Lombardi (1512), which was published without his knowledge from notes of students, and saw many editions. As dean of the collegiate church of St. Peter in Louvain, and vice-chancellor of the university, he laboured to advance the arts and sciences, sacred and profane, and gave universal edification by a life of singular piety and severe asceticism. In 1506, he was, happily for the Church, selected by the Emperor Maximilian as tutor to his grandson, the future Charles V, then in his sixth year. Whatever accomplishments Charles possessed, beyond the art of war, he owed to the efforts of Adrian; most precious of all, his unalterable attachment to the Faith of his fathers. Transferred from the academic shades into public life, the humble professor rose to eminence with wonderful celerity. Within a decade he was the associate of Ximenes, Bishop of Tortosa, Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish peninsula, Cardinal of the Roman Church, and finally Regent of Spain. He was no less surprised than the rest of mankind when the intelligence reached him that the unanimous voice of the Sacred College had raised him to the highest dignity on earth. Appalling tasks lay before him in this darkest hour of the Papacy. To extirpate inveterate abuses; to reform a court which thrived on corruption, and detested the very name of reform; to hold in leash young and warlike princes, ready to bound at each other’s throats; to stem the rising torrent of revolt in Germany; to save Christendom from the Turks, who from Belgrade now threatened Hungary, and if Rhodes fell would be masters of the Mediterranean—these were herculean labours for one who was in his sixty-third year, had never seen Italy, and was sure to be despised by the Romans as a “barbarian.” Adrian accepted the responsibilities of his office with a full conception of their magnitude. Charles was elated at the news of the elevation of his tutor, but soon found that the new pontiff, notwithstanding his affection for him, was resolved to reign impartially. Francis I, on the contrary, who had looked upon Adrian as a mere tool of the Emperor, and had uttered threats of a schism, before long acquiesced, and sent an embassy to present his homage. Apprehensions of a Spanish Avignon were baseless; at the earliest possible date Adrian embarked for Italy, and made his solemn entry into Rome on 29 August. Two days later he received the triple crown. History presents no more pathetic figure than that of this noble pontiff, struggling single-handed against insurmountable difficulties. Through the reckless extravagances of his predecessor, the papal finances were in a sad tangle. Adrian’s efforts to retrench expenses only gained for him from his needy courtiers the epithet of miser. Vested rights were quoted against his attempts to reform the curia. His nuncio to Germany, Chierigati, received but scant courtesy. His exaggerated acknowledgment that the Roman Court had been the fountainhead of all the corruptions in the Church was eagerly seized upon by the Reformers as a justification of their apostasy. His urgent appeals to the princes of Christendom to hasten to the defence of Rhodes found unheeding ears; on 24 October that valiantly defended bulwark of the Christian Faith fell into the hands of the Turks, a disaster which hastened the Pontiff’s death. His unrelaxing activity and Rome s unhealthy climate combined to shatter his health. He died appropriately on the feast of the Exaltation of that Cross to which he had been nailed for more than a year (14 September, 1523). His monument, erected by his faithful friend, Wilhelm Enckenvoert, is still seen at Rome, in the national church of the Germans, Santa Maria dell’ Anima, with its quaint inscription, so often admired, to the effect that even the best of men may be born in times unsuited to their virtues: “Proh Dolor! Quantum refert in quae tempora vel optimi cujusque virtus incidat” [Gregorovius-Ampère Les tombeaux des papes Romains (Paris, 1859), 200, 201, 294,295]. To the times, in fact, was it owing, not to any fault of his, that the friendship of the sixth Adrian and the fifth Charles did not revive the happy days of the first Adrian and the first and greatest of the Charleses.

BURRMANN, Analecta Historica de Hadriano VI (Utrecht, 1727); REUSSENS, Syntagma Theolog. Adriani VI; Anecdota de vitâ et scriptis Adriani VI (Louvain, 1862); GACHARD, Correspondence de Charles Quint et d’Adrien VI (Bruxelles, 1859); ROBINSON, The Month (1877), XXXI, 350; PASTOR, Hist. Jahrb. (1882), III, 121–130. The classic studies on this pope’s life are those of CONSTANTINE VON H FLER, among others Der deutsche Kaiser und der letzte deutsche Papst (Vienna, 1876); Leben des Papstes Adrian VI (Vienna, 1880); cf. his article on Adrian VI in Kirchenlex., V, 1426–27. ARTAUD DE MONTOR, Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs (tr. New York, 1867), I, 698–707. For an extensive bibliography of Adrian VI see CHEVALIER Bio-Bibliogr. (2d ed., Paris, 1905), 57, 58.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

St. Adrian of Canterbury

An African by birth, died 710. He became Abbot of Nerida, a Benedictine monastery near Naples, when he was very young. Pope Vitalian intended to appoint him Archbishop of Canterbury to succeed St. Deusdedit, who had died in 664, but Adrian considered himself unworthy of so great a dignity, and begged the Pope to appoint Theodore, a Greek monk, in his place. The Pope yielded, on condition that Adrian should accompany Theodore to England and be his adviser in the administration of the Diocese of Canterbury. They left Rome in 668, but Adrian was detained in France by Ebroin, the Mayor of the Palace who suspected that he had a secret mission from the Eastern Emperor, Constans II, to the English kings. After two years Ebroin found that his suspicion had been groundless and allowed Adrian to proceed to England. Immediately upon his arrival in England, Archbishop Theodore appointed him Abbot of St. Peter in Canterbury, a monastery which had been founded by St. Augustine, the apostle of England, and became afterwards known as St. Austin’s. Adrian accompanied Theodore on his apostolic visitations of England and by his prudent advice and co-operation assisted the Archbishop in the great work of unifying the customs and practices of the Anglo-Saxon Church with those of the Church of Rome. Adrian was well versed in all the branches of ecclesiastical and profane learning. Under his direction the School of Canterbury became the centre of English learning. He established numerous other schools in various parts of England. In these schools of Adrian were educated many of the saints, scholars, and missionaries, who during the next century rekindled the waning light of faith and learning in France and Germany. After spending thirty-nine years in England Adrian died in the year 710 and was buried at Canterbury. His feast is celebrated 9 January, the day of his death.

MICHAEL OTT

Adrian of Castello

Also called DE CORNETO from his birthplace in Tuscany; an Italian prelate distinguished as a statesman and reviver of learning; born about 1460, died about 1521. In 1488 he was sent by Innocent VIII as nuncio to Scotland, but was recalled when the news of the death of James III reached Rome. However, Adrian had arrived in England and gained the favour of Henry VII, who appointed him as his agent at Rome. In 1489 he returned to England as collector of Peter’s-pence and in 1492 obtained the prebend of Ealdland in St. Paul’s Cathedral, and the rectory of St. Dunstan-in-the-East. On the death of Innocent VIII, he returned to Rome, where he acted as a secretary in the Papal treasury and also as ambassador of Henry VII. In 1502, he was promoted to the Bishopric of Hereford. In 1503 Alexander VI raised him to the cardinalate with the title of St. Chrysogonus. After the death of Alexander VI, Adrian’s influence in Rome declined. In 1504 he was translated to the Bishopric of Bath and Wells, but never occupied the see. In 1509, fearing the displeasure of Julius II, he left Rome for Venice, and later for Trent, where he remained until the death of Julius and the election of Leo X, when he returned to Rome (1511). He was again, in 1517, implicated in a charge of conspiring with Cardinal Petrucci to poison the Pope, and confessed to having been privy to the affair. He was forgiven by Leo, but found it safer to escape from Rome to Venice. He never appeared in Rome again. He had previously been deprived of his office of collector of Peter’s-pence, and on 5 July, 1518, was degraded from the cardinalate and his Bishopric of Bath given to Cardinal Wolsey. He was long associated with the scholar Polydore Vergil, who was his sub-collector of Peter’s-pence in England. Among his writings are a poem in elegant Latinity, entitled “Venatio” (Aldus, 1505), and treatises, “De Verâ Philosophiâ” (Bologna, 1507; Cologne, 1548, Rome, 1775); and “De Sermone Latino et modo Latine loquendi” (Baste, 1513).

Pastor, History of the Popes, tr. Antrobus, V 144 146; VI, 56, 129, 132, 179, 281, 353. 363, 376, 380 (London, 1891–98 St. Louts, 1902); VACANT in Dict. théol, cath., s.v.; STEPHENS, Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; POLYD. VERGIL, Hist. Anglic.; HURTER, Nomenclator literarius, IV, 940; WHARTON, Anglica Sacra, I 576; Calendar of State Papers, Henry VII, I and II; Calendar of Venetian Sate Papers, I-V.

THOMAS WALSH

Adrianople

A city of Turkey in Europe. According to legend, Orestes, son of Agamemnon, built this city at the confluence of the Tonsus (Toundja) and the Ardiscus (Arda) with the Hebrus (Maritza). The Emperor Hadrian developed it, adorned it with monuments, changed its name of Orestias to Hadrianopolis, and made it the capital of the province of Haemimont, or Thrace. Licinius was defeated there by Constantine in 323, and Valens killed by the Goths in 378. During the existence of the Latin Empire of Constantinople, Theodore, Despot of Epirus, took possession of it in 1227, and two years later was killed there by Asên, King of the Bulgarians. It was captured by Ainurat I in 1360, and it was the capital of the Turks from 1362 to 1453. It was occupied by the Russians in 1829, during the war for Grecian independence, and in 1878, in the war for Bulgarian independence. Adrianople is today the principal city of a vilayet (province) of the same name, which has about 960,000 inhabitants. It has a thriving commerce in woven stuffs, silks, carpets, and agricultural products. Adrianople contains the ruins of the ancient palace of the Sultans, and has many beautiful mosques, the most remarkable being that of Selim II, of an altogether grandiose appearance and with a cupola three or four feet higher than that of St. Sophia. The city suffered greatly in 1905, from a conflagration. It then possessed about 80,000 inhabitants, of whom 30,000 were Mussulmans. (Turks and some Albanians, Tzigani, and Circassians); 22,000 Greeks, or those speaking Greek; 10,000 Bulgarians; 4;000 Armenians; 12,000 Jews; 2,000 not classifiable. The see of a Greek metropolitan and of a Gregorian Armenian bishop, Adrianople is also the centre of a Bulgarian diocese, but it is not recognized and is deprived of a bishop. The city also has some Protestants. The Latin Catholics, foreigners for the most part, and not numerous, are dependents of the vicariate-apostolic of Constantinople. At Adrianople itself there are the parish of St. Anthony of Padua (Minors Conventual) and a school for girls conducted by the Sisters of Charity of Agram. In the suburb of Kara-Aghatch there are a church (Minor Conventuals), a school for boys (Assumptionists), and a school for girls (Oblates of the Assumption). Each of its mission stations, at Rodosto and Dédé-Aghatch, has a school (Minor Conventuals), and there is one at Gallipoli (the Assumptionists). From the standpoint of the Oriental Catholics, Adrianople is the residence of a Bulgarian vicar-apostolic for the Uniats of the vilayet (province) of Thrace and of the principality of Bulgaria. There are 4,600 of them. They have 18 parishes or missions, 6 of which are in the principality, with 20 churches or chapels, 31 priests, of whom 6 are Assumptionists and 6 are Resurrectionists; 11 schools with 670 pupils. In Adrianople itself there are only a very few United Bulgarians, with an Episcopal church of St. Elias, and the churches of St. Demetrius and Sts. Cyril and Methodius. The last is served by the Resurrectionists, who have also a college of 90 pupils. In the suburb of Kara-Aghatch, the Assumptionists have a parish and a seminary with 50 pupils. Besides the United Bulgarians, the above statistics include the Greek Catholic missions of Malgara and Daoudili, with 4 priests and 200 faithful, because from the civil point of view they belong to the Bulgarian Vicariate.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Christian Kruik van Adrichem

(Christianus Crucius Adrichomius).

Catholic priest and theological writer, b. at Delft, 13 February, 1533; d. at Cologne, 20 June, 1585. He was ordained in 1566, and was Director of the Convent of St. Barbara in Delft till expelled by the storm of the Reformation. His works are: Vita Jesu Christi (Antwerp, 1578); Theatrum Terrae Sanctae et Biblicarum Historiarum (Cologne, 1590). This last work gives a description of Palestine, of the antiquities of Jerusalem, and a chronology from Adam till the death of John the Apostle, A. 9. 109.

VAN HEUSSEN and VAN RIJN, Kerkelijke historic en Outheden der 10 vereen. provinc., III, 713; Beschryving der Stadt Delft, 1729, 704 sqq.; THIJM in Kirchenlex.

A.J. MAAS

Adso

Abbot of the Cluniac monastery of Moutier-en-Der, d. 992, on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem; one of the foremost writers of the tenth century. Born of rich and noble parents, he was educated at the Abbey of Luxeuil, was called to Toul as instructor of the clergy, and made Abbot of Moutier-en-Der in 960. He was the friend of Gerbert, afterwards Silvester II, of Abbo of Fleury, and other famous men of his time. His writings include hymns, lives of saints, among them a life of St. Mansuetus, Bishop of Toul (485–509), a metrical rendering of the second book of the Dialogues of Gregory the Great, and a tractate De Antichristo in the form of a letter to Queen Gerberga, wife of Louis IV (d’Outremer). This latter work has been attributed to Rabanus Maurus, Alcuin, and even to St. Augustine, and is quoted by Döllinger among other writings of the medieval conception of Antichrist. It is printed among the works of Alcuin (P.L., CI, 1289–93). The other writings of Adso axe also found in Migne (P.L., CXXXVI, 589–603).

SCHRÖDL in Kirchenlex.; RIVET, Hist. Litt. de la France, VI. 471; D LLINGER, Prophecies and the Prophetic Spirit in the Christian Era (London. 1873), 83.

FRANCIS W. GREY

Diego Francisco Aduarte

Missionary and historian, b. 1566, at Saragossa, in Spain; d. at Nueva Segovia, in the Philippines, about 1635. He was educated at the University of Alcal and entered the Dominican Order. In 1594, with other members of that Order, he sailed for the Philippines, landing at Manila in 1595. As a missionary he was conspicuous even among the heroic apostles of that period. He first devoted himself to the difficult task of catechizing the Chinese residents in the Philippines, and met with unusual success. Shortly after, he was selected as one of two Dominicans to accompany a military expedition in aid of the native ruler of Cambay. After an eventful journey of more than a year they landed in Siam, only to find that the aid arrived too late, and that they were in danger from the treachery of the natives. They then entered Cochin China for the purpose of evangelizing the heathen, but were obliged to retire before the ferocity of the natives. Several such journeys by sea and land, some extending over many months and even years, during which he suffered hunger and thirst and equatorial heats, fell to his lot during the laborious years of his middle and later life. Yet no obstacles could cause him to waver in the work of spreading the light of faith. From Cochin China he returned to Manila, and went thence to Spain (1603) in the interests of the missions. After two years spent in recruiting suitable missionaries, he sailed for the Philippines in 1605. He had already (1595) been made prior of the Dominican convent and rector of the College of San Tomás. In 160S, he was called again to Spain to act as Procurator in the interests of his order, and he began here his famous history of the Dominican Province of the Philippines, one of the most important sources of early Spanish history in the islands. It throws much light on the relations of Church and State in the Philippines. The civil governors of the islands, often unscrupulous men, bent on enslaving and demoralizing the natives, had put these relations in a false light. The work of Fra Diego exhibits truthfully the constant checks which the religious orders put upon the rapacity of the Spanish seekers of wealth. His principal works are Relación de muchos cristianos que han decidido por la fe católica en el Japón desde el año 1616 haste el de 1628 (Manila, 1632, 1640); Relación de algunas entradas que han hecho los religiosos de la orden de Predicadores de la provincia del Santo Rosario (Manila, 1638); Historia de la provincia del Santisimo Rosario de Filipinas, Japón y Chyna (Manila, 1640, and Saragossa, 1693); Relación de los gloriosos martirios de seis religiosos de San Domingo de la provincia del Santo Rosario (Manila, 1634; Valladolid, 1637), a rare and curious work.

TOURON, Hist. des hommes illustres de l’ordre de S. Dominique, s.v.; DICE, Enciclop. Hispano-Americana, s.v.; BLAIR AND ROBERTSON, Collection of Documents relating to the Philippine Islands (vols. XXX-XXXII).

M.S. WELSH

Adullam

Hebr. Adhullam, Vulg. Odollam, but Adullam in Jos., xv, 35.)

(1) A Chanaanite city, to the west of Bethlehem, at the foot of the mountains of Juda. From the hands of the Chanaanites (Gem, xxxviii, 1 sqq.) it passed into the power of Juda (Jos., xii, 15; xv, 35), was fortified by Roboam (II Par., xi, 7), mentioned by the prophet Micheas (i, 15), and after the exile re-peopled by Jews (II Esdr., xi, 30; II Mach., xii, 38).

(2) The Cave of Adullam, the shelter of David and his followers (I K., xxii, 1, 2), is situated, according to some, six miles southeast of Bethlehem, in the Wady Khareitun; but more probably near the city of Adullam.

CLERMONT-GANNEAU and CONDER, Palestine Exploration Fund, Mere., III, 361–367; MUIR in HAST., Dict. of the Bible, I (New York, 1903).

A. J. MAAS

Adulteration of Food

(Lat. adulterare, to pollute, to adulterate).

This act is defined as the addition of any non-condimental substance to a food, such substance not constituting a portion of the food. Even this carefully-worded definition is not perfect. Some kinds of salt provisions have so much salt added that some of it has to be removed by soaking, to render the food edible, yet this does not constitute adulteration. Adulteration of food has long been practiced. It is mentioned in the case of bread by Pliny, who also says that difficulty was experienced in Rome in procuring pure wines. Athens had its public inspector of wines. England and France early passed laws to guard against the adulteration of bread, and as far back as the days of Edward the Confessor public punishment was provided for the brewers of bad ale. The legal status of adulteration is largely a matter of statute, varying with each governmental body which attacks the subject. Food is declared adulterated if there is added to it a substance which depreciates or injuriously affects it; if cheaper or inferior substances are substituted wholly or in part for it; if any valuable or necessary constituent has been wholly or in part abstracted; if it is an imitation; if it is colored or otherwise treated, to improve its appearance; if it contains any added substance injurious to health. These are examples of statutory provisions. Political considerations, such as the desire to protect the food-producers of a country, may affect legislation. Thus adulteration may be so defined as to include foreign products, which otherwise might be treated as unobjectionable. Food-preservatives have a very extensive use, which often constitutes adulteration. Salt is the classic preservative, but is also a condiment, and is seldom classed as an adulterant. Salicylic, benzoic, and boric acids, and their sodium salts, formaldehyde, ammonium fluoride, sulphurous acid and its salts are among the principal preservatives. Many of these appear to be innocuous, but there is danger that the continued use of food preserved by their agency may be injurious. Extensive experiments on this subject have been performed by the United States Bureau of Chemistry and by the German Imperial Board of Health, among others. Some preservatives have been conclusively shown to be injurious when used for long periods, although their occasional use may be attended with no bad effect. Boric acid is pretty definitely Condemned, after experiments on living subjects. Salicylic, sulphurous, and benzoic acids are indicated as injurious. The direct indictment against preservatives is not very strong. The principal point is that while the amount of preservative in a sample of food might be innocuous, the constant absorption of a preserving chemical by the system may have bad effects. Preservatives are often sold for household use, as for the preparation of “cold process” preserves. If really made without heat, the tendency is, on the housekeeper’s part, to use a proportion of the chemical larger than that employed by the manufacturer, thus increasing any bad effect attributable to them. Coloring matters are much used. Coal-tar colors are employed a great deal, and have received legal recognition in Europe. In the United States the tendency is rather to favor vegetable colors. Pickles and canned vegetables are sometimes colored green with copper salts; butter is made more yellow by anatta; turmeric is used in mustard and some cereal preparations. Apples are the basis for many jellies, which are colored so as to simulate finer ones. This is an instance of the use of coloring matter fraudulently, to imitate a more expensive article. But in confectionery dangerous colors, such as chrome yellow, Prussian blue, copper and arsenic-compounds are employed. Yellow and orange-colored candy is to be suspected. Fruit syrups, and wines, and tomato catsup are often artificially colored. Canned peas are especially to be suspected; often the fact that they are colored is stated on the label. Artificial flavouring-compounds are employed in the concoction of fruit syrups, especially those used for soda water. The latter are often altogether artificial. Among this class are: pear essence (amylic and ethylic acetates); banana essence (a mixture of amyl acetate and ethyl butyrate), and others. Milk is adulterated with water, and indirectly by removing the cream. It is also a favorite subject for preservatives. The latter are condemned partly because they render extreme cleanliness less necessary, for milk ordinarily exacts a high degree of purity in its surroundings. The addition of water may introduce disease germs. Cream is. adulterated with gelatin, and formaldehyde is employed as a preservative for it. Butter is adulterated to an enormous extent with oleomargarine, a product of beef fat. It is a lawful product, but it is required by many enactments that its presence in butter be medicated on the package. Lard is another adulterant of butter. Cheese is made from skim-milk some times, and cottonseed oil and other cheap fats are substituted for the cream. There are two principal sugar substitutes. One is glucose, with which sugar products are adulterated. It has less than two-thirds the sweetening power of sugar. The other is saccharine. This is the sweetest substance known; it is 230 times sweeter than sugar. It may be regarded as practically harmless. Sugar itself is generally pure. Meat is not much adulterated. It is generally only open to adulteration with preservatives, and cold storage causes these to be little used. It is sometimes dusted over with a preservative while in the piece, and sausages and similar products are often treated with preservatives and coloring matter. Boric acid and borax are typical preservatives, and sulphurous acid salts are used to restore a fresh appearance to stale meat. Starch is added to sausages. It is claimed that it prevents them from shrinking in cooking. Flour is adulterated by the addition of lower-grade meals, such as rye flour, corn meal, 0r potato starch; their use is not very common. Alum is employed to disguise the presence of damaged flour, and to prevent decomposition. Alum is a still more frequent adulterant of bread; it is considered injurious to the animal system. Coffee is much adulterated, when sold ground. The root of chicory is a common adulterant, and even this has been supplanted by ocher and cheaper substances such as peas, beans, wheat, ground up after roasting. Attempts Have been made to produce a counterfeit of the berry, an imitation being moulded out of some paste, but this has made no inroads. If coffee is bought unground, it will generally be pure, although the country of its origin may not be truthfully stated. Tea is generally pure, except that it may be of much lower grade than stated. Spent leaves are sometimes used, and the appearance is sometimes improved by “facing.” This is the agitation with soapstone, Prussian blue, etc.

For discussion of the morality of adulteration of food see INJUSTICE; DECEPTION.

HASSELL, Food: its Adulteration and the Methods for their Detection (London, 1876); BATTERSHALL, Food Adulteration and its Detection (New York, 1887); BLYTH, Foods, their Composition and Analysis (London, 1896); CHAPIN, Municipal Sanitation in the United States (Providence, R.I., 1901); LEACH, Food Inspection and Analysis (New York, 1904); SONBEIRAU, Nouveau dictionnaire des falsifications et des alterations (Paris, 1874); Canadian Reports on Adulteration of Food (Ottawa, 1876 et seq.); Report of the Municipal Laboratory (Paris, France); Report of the National Academy of Science and of the Normal Board of Health (Washington, D.C.); Ann. Reports of the Board of Health of Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York; Reports and Bulletins of Bureau of Chemistry; U.S. Department of Agriculture on Food Adulteration, especially Bulletin No. 100.

THOMAS O’CONOR SLOANE

Adultery

It is the purpose of this article to consider adultery with reference only to morality. The study of it, as more particularly affecting the bond of marriage, will be found under the head of Divorce. The discussion of adultery may be ordered under three general divisions:

I. NATURE OF ADULTERY

Adultery is defined as carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another. It is seen to differ from fornication in that it supposes the marriage of one or both of the agents. Nor is it necessary that this marriage be already consummated; it need only be what theologians call matrimonium ratum. Sexual commerce with one engaged to another does not, it is most generally held, constitute adultery. Again, adultery, as the definition declares, is committed in carnal intercourse. Nevertheless immodest actions indulged in between a married person and another not the lawful spouse, while not of the same degree of, guilt, are of the same character of malice as adultery (Sanchez, De Mat., L. IX. Disp. XLVI, n. 17). It must be added, however, that St. Alphonsus Liguori, with most theologians, declares that even between lawful man and wife adultery is committed when their intercourse takes the form of sodomy (S. Liguori L. III, n. 446).

Among savages generally adultery is rigorously condemned and punished. But it is condemned and punished only as a violation of the husband’s rights. Among such peoples the wife is commonly reckoned as the property of her spouse, and adultery, therefore, is identified with theft. But it is theft of an aggravated kind, as the property which it would spoliate is more highly appraised than other chattels. So it is that in some parts of Africa the seducer is punished with the loss of one or both hands, as one who has perpetrated a robbery upon the husband (Reade, Savage Africa, p. 61). But it is not the seducer alone that suffers. Dire penalties are visited upon the offending wife by her wronged spouse in many instances she is made to endure such a bodily mutilation as will, in the mind of the aggrieved husband, prevent her being thereafter a temptation to other men (Schoolcraft, Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the History, Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States, I, 236; V, 683, 684, 686; also H.H. Bancroft, The Native Races of the Pacific States of North America, I, 514). If, however, the wronged husband could visit swift and terrible retribution Upon the adulterous wife, the latter was allowed no cause against the unfaithful husband; and this discrimination found in the practices of savage peoples is moreover set forth in nearly all ancient codes of law. The Laws of Manu are Striking on this point. In ancient India, “though destitute of virtue or seeking pleasure elsewhere, or devoid of good qualities, yet a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife”; on the other, hand, “if a wife, proud of the greatness of her relatives or [her own] excellence, violates the duty which she owes to her lord, the king shall cause her to be devoured by dogs in a place frequented by many” (Laws of Manu, V, 154; VIII, 371).

In the Graeco-Roman world we find stringent laws against adultery, yet almost throughout they discriminate against the wife. The ancient idea that the wife was the property of the husband is still operative. The lending of wives practiced among some savages was, as Plutarch tells us, encouraged also by Lycurgus, though, be it observed, from a motive other than that which actuated the savages (Plutarch, Lycurgus, XXIX). The recognized license of the Greek husband may be seen in the following passage of the Oration against Neaera, the author of which is uncertain, though it has been attributed to Demosthenes: “We keep mistresses for our pleasures, concubines for constant attendance, and wives to bear us legitimate children, and to be our faithful housekeepers. Yet, because of the wrong done to the husband only, the Athenian lawgiver Solon, allowed any man to kill an, adulterer whom he had taken in the act” (Plutarch, Solon).

In the early Roman Law the jus tori belonged to the husband. There was, therefore, no such thing as the crime of adultery on the part of a husband towards his wife. Moreover, this crime was not committed unless one of the parties was a married woman (Dig., XLVIII, ad leg. Jul.). That the Roman husband often took advantage of his legal immunity is well known. Thus we are told by the historian Spartianus that Verus, the colleague of Marcus Aurelius, did not hesitate to declare to his reproaching wife: “Uxor enim dignitatis nomen est, non voluptatis.” (Verus, V). Later on in Roman history, as the late William E.H. Lecky has shown the idea that the husband owed a fidelity like that demanded of the wife must have gained ground at least in theory. This Lecky gathers from the legal maxim of Ulpian: “It seems most unfair for a man to require from a wife the chastity he does not himself practice” (Cod. Just., Digest, XLVIII, 5–13; Lecky, History of European Morals, II, 313).

In the Mosaic Law, as in the old Roman Law, adultery meant only the carnal intercourse of a wife with a man who was not her lawful husband. The intercourse of a married man with a single woman was not accounted adultery, but fornication. The penal statute on the subject, in Lev., xx, 10, makes this clear: “If any man commit adultery with the wife of another and defile his neighbor’s wife let them be put to death both the adulterer and the adulteress. “(See also Deut., xxii, 22.) This was quite in keeping with the prevailing practice of polygamy among the Israelites. In the Christian law this discrimination against the wife is emphatically repudiated. In the law of Jesus Christ regarding marriage the unfaithful husband loses his ancient immunity (Matt., xix, 3–13). The obligation of mutual fidelity, incumbent upon husband as well as wife, is moreover implied in the notion of the Christian sacrament, in which is symbolized the ineffable and lasting union of the Heavenly Bridegroom and His unspotted Bride, the Church, St. Paul insists with emphasis upon the duty of equal mutual fidelity in both the marital partners (I Col., VII, 4); and several of the Fathers of the Church, as Tertullian (De Monogamia, cix), Lactantius (Divin. Instit., LVI, c. xxiii), St. Gregory Nazianzen (Oratio, xxxi), and St. Augustine (De Bono Conjugati, n. 4), have given clear expression to the same idea. But the notion that obligations of fidelity rested upon the husband the same as upon the wife is one that has not always found practical exemplification in the laws of Christian states. Despite the protests of Mr. Gladstone, the English Parliament passed, in 1857, a law by which a husband may obtain absolute divorce on account of simple adultery in his wife, while the latter can be freed from her adulterous husband only when his infidelity has been attended with such cruelty “as would have entitled her to a divorce a mensâ et toro.” The same discrimination against the wife is found in some of our early New England colonies. Thus, in Massachusetts the adultery of the husband, unlike that of the wife, was not sufficient ground for divorce. And the same most likely was the case in Plymouth Plantation (Howard, A History of Matrimonial Institutions, II, 331–351). At present, in our States there is not this discrimination, but divorce, when granted on the ground of adultery, is obtainable by the wife just as by the husband.

II. GUILT OF ADULTERY

We have referred to the severe punishment meted out to the adulterous woman and her seducer among savages. It is clear, however, that the severity of these penalties did not find their sanction in anything like an adequate idea of the guilt of this crime. In contrast with such rigour is the lofty benignity of Jesus Christ towards the one guilty of adultery (John, viii, 3, 4), a contrast as marked as that which exists between the Christian doctrine regarding the malice of this sin and the idea of its guilt which prevailed before the Christian era. In the early discipline of the Church we see reflected a sense of the enormity of adultery, though it must be admitted that the severity of this legislation, such as that, for instance, which we find in canons 8 and 47 of the Council of Elvira (c. 300), must be largely accounted for by the general harshness of the times. Considering now the act in itself, adultery, forbidden by the sixth commandment, has in it a twofold malice, In common with fornication it violates chastity, and it is, besides, a sin against justice. Drawing a distinction between these two elements of malice, certain casuists, early in the seventeenth century, declared that intercourse with a married woman, when her husband gave his consent, constituted not the sin of adultery, but of fornication. It would, therefore, they contended, be sufficient for the penitent, having committed this act, to accuse himself of the latter sin only in confession. At the instance of the Archbishop of Mechlin, the Academy of Louvain, in the year 1653, censured as false and erroneous the proposition: “Copula cum conjugata consentiente marito non est adulterium, adeoque sufficit in confessione dicere se esse fornicatum.” The same proposition was condemned by Innocent XI, 2 March, 1679 (Denzinger, Enchir., p. 222, 5th ed.). The falsity of this doctrine appears from the very etymology of the word adultery, for the term signifies the going into the bed of another (St. Thom., II-II:154:8). And the consent of the husband is unavailing to strip the act by which another has intercourse with his wife of this essential characterization. Again, the right of the husband over his wife is qualified by the good of human generation. This good regards not only the birth, but the nourishment and education, of offspring, and its postulates cannot in any way be affected by the consent of parents. Such consent, therefore, as subversive of the good of human generation, becomes juridically void. It cannot, therefore, be adduced as a ground for the doctrine set forth in the condemned proposition above mentioned. For the legal axiom that an injury is not done to one who knows and wills it (scienti et volenti non fit injuria) finds no place when the consent is thus vitiated.

But it may be contended that the consent of the husband lessens the enormity of adultery to the extent that whereas, ordinarily, there is a double malice—that against the good of human generation and that against the private rights of the husband with the consent of the latter there is only the first-named malice; hence, one having had carnal intercourse with another’s wife, her husband consenting, should in confession declare the circumstance of this permission that he may not accuse himself of that of which he is not guilty: In answer to this, it must be said that the injury offered the husband in adultery is done him not as a private individual but as a member of a marital society, upon whom it is incumbent to consult the good of the prospective child. As such, his consent does not avail to take away the malice of which it is question. Whence it follows that there is no obligation to reveal the fact of his consent in the case we have supposed (Viva, Damnatae Theses, 318). And here it may be observed that the consenting husband may be understood to have renounced his right to any restitution.

The question has been discussed, whether in adultery committed with a Christian, as distinct from that committed with a Pagan, there would be special malice against the sacrament constituting a sin against religion. Though some theologians have held that such would be the case, it should be said, with Viva, that the fact that the sinful person was a Christian would create an aggravating circumstance only, which would not call for specification in confession.

It need hardly be said that when the parties to adultery are both married the sin is more grievous than when one of them is single. Nor is it sufficient for a married person whose guilty partner in this act was also married to declare in confession the fact simply of having committed adultery. The circumstance that both parties to the sin were married is one that must be made known. Again the adulterer in his confession must specify whether, as married, he violated his own marriage pledge or; as single he brought about the violation of the marriage pledge of another. Finally, it is to be observed that in case only one of the parties to adultery is married, a more heinous sin is committed when the married person is the woman than when she is the unmarried agent. For in the former instance the due process of generation is not infrequently interfered with, to the injury of the lawful husband; moreover, uncertainty of parentage may result, and even a false heir may be imposed upon the family. Such a distinction as is here remarked, therefore, calls for specification in the confessional.

III. OBLIGATIONS ENTAILED UPON THE OFFENDERS

As we have seen, the sin of adultery implies an act of injustice. This is committed against the lawful spouse of the adulterer or adulteress. By the adultery of a wife, besides the injury done the husband by her infidelity, a spurious child may be born which he may think himself bound to sustain, and which may perhaps become his heir. For the injury suffered in the unfaithfulness of his wife restitution must be made to the husband, should he become apprised of the crime. Nor is the obligation of this restitution ordinarily discharged by an award of money. A more commensurate reparation, when possible, is to be offered. Whenever it is certain that the offspring is illegitimate, and when the adulterer has employed violence to make the woman sin, he is bound to refund the expenses incurred by the putative father in the support of the spurious child, and to make restitution for any inheritance which this child may receive. In case he did not employ violence, there being on his part but a simple concurrence, then, according to the more probable opinion of theologians, the adulterer and adulteress are equally bound to the restitution just described. Even when one has moved the other to sin both are bound to restitution, though most theologians say that the obligation is more immediately pressing upon the one who induced the other to sin. When it is not sure that the offspring is illegitimate the common opinion of theologians is that the sinful parties are not bound to restitution. As for the adulterous mother, in case she cannot secretly undo the injustice resulting from the presence of her illegitimate child, she is not obliged to reveal her sin either to her husband or to her spurious offspring, unless the evil which the good name of the mother might sustain is less than that which would inevitably come from her failure to make such a revelation. Again, in case there would not be the danger of infamy, she would be held to reveal her sin when she could reasonably hope that such a manifestation would be productive of good results. This kind of issue, however, would be necessarily rare.

The following works may be particularly consulted: SANCHEZ, De Matrimonio; VIVA, Damnatae Theses; CRAISSON, De Rebus Venereis; LETOURNEAU, The Evolution of Marriage; WESTER-MARCK, The History of Human Marriage.

JOHN WEBSTER MELODY

Advent

(Latin ad-venio, to come to).

According to present [1907] usage, Advent is a period beginning with the Sunday nearest to the feast of St. Andrew the Apostle (30 November) and embracing four Sundays. The first Sunday may be as early as 27 November, and then Advent has twenty-eight days, or as late as 3 December, giving the season only twenty-one days.

With Advent the ecclesiastical year begins in the Western churches. During this time the faithful are admonished

to prepare themselves worthily to celebrate the anniversary of the Lord’s coming into the world as the incarnate God of love,

thus to make their souls fitting abodes for the Redeemer coming in Holy Communion and through grace, and

thereby to make themselves ready for His final coming as judge, at death and at the end of the world.

SYMBOLISM

To attain this object the Church has arranged the Liturgy for this season. In the official prayer, the Breviary, she calls upon her ministers, in the Invitatory for Matins, to adore “the Lord the King that is to come,” “the Lord already near,” “Him Whose glory will be seen on the morrow.” As Lessons for the first Nocturn she prescribes chapters from the prophet Isaias, who speaks in scathing terms of the ingratitude of the house of Israel, the chosen children who had forsaken and forgotten their Father; who tells of the Man of Sorrows stricken for the sins of His people; who describes accurately the passion and death of the coming Saviour and His final glory; who announces the gathering of the Gentiles to the Holy Hill. In the second Nocturn the Lessons on three Sundays are taken from the eighth homily of Pope St. Leo (440–461) on fasting and almsdeeds as a preparation for the advent of the Lord, and on one Sunday (the second) from St. Jerome’s commentary on Isaias 11:1, which text he interprets of the Blessed Virgin Mary as “the rod out of the root of Jesse.” In the hymns of the season we find praise for the coming of Christ, the Creator of the universe, as Redeemer, combined with prayer to the coming judge of the world to protect us from the enemy. Similar ideas are expressed in the antiphons for the Magnificat on the last seven days before the Vigil of the Nativity. In them, the Church calls on the Divine Wisdom to teach us the way of prudence; on the Key of David to free us from bondage; on the Rising Sun to illuminate us sitting in darkness and the shadow of death, etc. In the Masses the intention of the Church is shown in the choice of the Epistles and Gospels. In the Epistle she exhorts the faithful that, since the Redeemer is nearer, they should cast aside the works of darkness and put on the armour of light; should walk honestly, as in the day, and put on the Lord Jesus Christ; she shows that the nations are called to praise the name of the Lord; she asks them to rejoice in the nearness of the Lord, so that the price of God, which surpasses all understanding, may keep their hearts and minds in Christ Jesus; she admonishes them not to pass judgment, for the Lord, when He comes, will manifest the secrets hidden in hearts. In the Gospels the Church speaks of the Lord coming in glory; of Him in, and through, Whom the prophecies are being fulfilled; of the Eternal walking in the midst of the Jews; of the voice in the desert, “Prepare ye the way of the Lord.” The Church in her Liturgy takes us in spirit back to the time before the incarnation of the Son of God, as though it were really yet to take place. Cardinal Wiseman says:

We are not dryly exhorted to profit by that blessed event, but we are daily made to sigh with the Fathers of old, “Send down the dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the Just One: let the earth be opened, and bud forth the Redeemer.” The Collects on three of the four Sundays of that season begin with the words, “Lord, raise up thy power and come”—as though we feared our iniquities would prevent His being born.

DURATION AND RITUAL

On every day of Advent the Office and Mass of the Sunday or Feria must be said, or at least a Commemoration must be made of them, no matter what grade of feast occurs. In the Divine Office the Te Deum, the joyful hymn of praise and thanksgiving, is omitted; in the Mass the Gloria in excelsis is not said. The Alleluia, however, is retained. During this time the solemnization of matrimony (Nuptial Mass and Benediction) cannot take place; which prohibition binds to the feast of Epiphany inclusively. The celebrant and sacred ministers use violet vestments. The deacon and subdeacon at Mass, in place of the dalmatics commonly used, wear folded chasubles. The subdeacon removes his during the reading of the Epistle, and the deacon exchanges his for another, or for a wider stole, worn over the left shoulder during the time between the singing of the Gospel and the Communion. An exception is made for the third Sunday (Gaudete Sunday), on which the vestments may be rose-coloured, or richer violet ones; the sacred ministers may on this Sunday wear dalmatics, which may also be used on the Vigil of the Nativity, even if it be the fourth Sunday of Advent. Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) states that black was the colour to be used during Advent, but violet had already come into use for this season at the end of the thirteenth century. Binterim says that there was also a law that pictures should be covered during Advent. Flowers and relics of Saints are not to be placed on the altars during the Office and Masses of this time, except on the third Sunday; and the same prohibition and exception exist in regard to the use of the organ. The popular idea that the four weeks of Advent symbolize the four thousand years of darkness in which the world was enveloped before the coming of Christ finds no confirmation in the Liturgy.

HISTORICAL ORIGIN

It cannot be determined with any degree of certainty when the celebration of Advent was first introduced into the Church. The preparation for the feast of the Nativity of Our Lord was not held before the feast itself existed, and of this we find no evidence before the end of the fourth century, when, according to Duchesne [Christian Worship (London, 1904), 260], it was celebrated throughout the whole Church, by some on 25 December, by others on 6 January. Of such a preparation we read in the Acts of a synod held at Saragossa in 380, whose fourth canon prescribes that from the seventeenth of December to the feast of the Epiphany no one should be permitted to absent himself from church. We have two homilies of St. Maximus, Bishop of Turin (415–466), entitled “In Adventu Domini,” but he makes no reference to a special time. The title may be the addition of a copyist. There are some homilies extant, most likely of St. Caesarius, Bishop of Arles (502–542), in which we find mention of a preparation before the birthday of Christ; still, to judge from the context, no general law on the matter seems then to have been in existence. A synod held (581) at Mâcon, in Gaul, by its ninth canon orders that from the eleventh of November to the Nativity the Sacrifice be offered according to the Lenten rite on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of the week. The Gelasian Sacramentary notes five Sundays for the season; these five were reduced to four by Pope St. Gregory VII (1073–85). The collection of homilies of St. Gregory the Great (590–604) begins with a sermon for the second Sunday of Advent. In 650 Advent was celebrated in Spain with five Sundays. Several synods had made laws about fasting to be observed during this time, some beginning with the eleventh of November, others the fifteenth, and others as early as the autumnal equinox. Other synods forbade the celebration of matrimony. In the Greek Church we find no documents for the observance of Advent earlier than the eighth century. St. Theodore the Studite (d. 826), who speaks of the feasts and fasts commonly celebrated by the Greeks, makes no mention of this season. In the eighth century we find it observed not as a liturgical celebration, but as a time of fast and abstinence, from 15 November to the Nativity, which, according to Goar, was later reduced to seven days. But a council of the Ruthenians (1720) ordered the fast according to the old rule from the fifteenth of November. This is the rule with at least some of the Greeks. Similarly, the Ambrosian and the Mozarabic rites have no special liturgy for Advent, but only the fast.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Adventists

A group of six American Protestant sects which hold in common a belief in the near return of Christ in person, and differ from one another mainly in their understanding of several doctrines related to this common belief. They are, excepting the “Seventh Day Adventists” and the branch entitled “The Church of God” congregational in government.

The sects of Adventists are the outcome of a religious agitation begun by William Miller (1781–1849) in 1831, after a minute study of the prophecies of the Bible. Testing the mysterious pronouncements concerning the Messias by a method exclusively historical, he looked for the fulfillment of every prophecy in its obvious surface reading. Every prophecy which had not been literally accomplished in the first coming of Christ must needs be accomplished in His second coming. Christ, therefore, should return at the end of the world in the clouds of heaven to possess the land of Canaan, and to reign in an earthly triumph on the throne of David for a thousand years. Moreover, taking the 2,300 days of the Prophet Daniel for so many years, and computing from 457 B.C.—that is, from the commencement of the seventy weeks before the first coming, Miller concluded that the world would come to an end, and Christ would return, in A.D. 1843. He gave wide circulation to his views and gained a considerable following in a few years. When the year 1843 had passed as any other, and the prediction had failed, Snow, one of his disciples, set himself to correct Miller’s calculations, and in his turn announced the end of the world for 22 October, 1844. As the day drew near groups of Millerites here and there throughout the United States, putting aside all worldly occupations, awaited, in a fever of expectancy the promised coming of Christ, but were again doomed to disappointment. The faithful followers of Miller next met in conference at Albany, N.Y., in 1845, and professed their unshaken faith in the near personal coming of the Son of God. And this has remained the fundamental point of the Adventist creed. According to the official census of 1890, the Adventists had 60,491 communicants; at present they have about 100, 000 adherents all told. The Adventist movement, inaugurated by Miller, has differentiated into the following independent bodies:—

1. Evangelical Adventists (the original stock). They believe the dead are conscious after separation from the body, and will rise again; the just, first to reign with Christ on earth for the Millennium and, after the Judgment, in heaven for all eternity; the wicked to rise at the Day of Judgment to be condemned to hell forever. They may be said to have organized in 1845. They number 1,147 communicants.

2. Advent Christians. These believe that the dead lie in an unconscious state till Christ comes again, when all will arise; the just to receive everlasting life; the wicked to be annihilated; since immortality, once man’s natural birthright, has been forfeited by sin and is now a supernatural gift had only through faith in Christ. The General Association was formed in 1881. The Advent Christians number 26,500.

3. Seventh Day Adventists. These hold to the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. They believe that the dead remain unconscious until Judgment, when the wicked will be destroyed. They attempt, in addition, a detailed interpretation of certain biblical prophecies, and believe the prophetic gift is still communicated, and was possessed latterly by Mrs. E.G. White in particular. They were formed into a body in 1845. They number 76,102 members.

4. The Church of God. An offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists. These dissidents refuse to accept the prophecies of Mrs. White, or the interpretation of the vision in Apocalypse 12:11–17, as applying to the United States. Otherwise they resemble the Seventh Day Adventists, They became an independent body in 1864–65. This church has 647 members.

5. Life and Advent Union. A movement which, begun in 1848 was compacted into an organized body in 1860. This church insists that the wicked will not rise again, but will remain in an endless sleep. It has a membership of 3,800.

6. Age-to-come Adventists. These believe, besides the common Adventist doctrines, that the wicked will ultimately be destroyed, and that eternal life is given through Christ alone. They originated in 1851; the General Conference was organized in 1885. They number 1,872 in the United States.

Taylor, The Reign of Christ (Boston, 1889); Wellcome, History of the Second Advent Message (Yarmouth. Maine, IB74); McKinstrey, The World’s Great Empires (Haverhill, Mass., 1881); Andrews, History of the Seventh and First Day (Battle Creek, Mich., 1873); White, The Great Controversy (Battle Creek, 1870); Smith, Thoughts on Daniel and Revelation (1882); Long, Kingdom of Heaven Upon Earth (1882); The End of The Ungodly (1886); Pile, The Doctrine of Conditional Immortality (Springfield, Mass); Brown, The Divine Key of Redemption (Springfield, Mass).

F.P. HAVEY

Book of Advertisements

A series of enactments concerning ecclesiastical matters, drawn up by Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury (1559–75), with the help of Grindal, Horne, Cox, and Bullingham. It is important as connected with the origin of English Nonconformity, and as being one of a group of documents concerning ritual, the import of which became in the nineteenth century the subject of prolonged and inconclusive discussion. On Elizabeth’s accession (November, 1558), the Latin services and the Catholic ceremonial were in use. The return from exile of the extreme Protestants, whose doctrinal disputes at Frankfort had shown the lengths to which they were prepared to go, was viewed with apprehension by those in authority. The opposition of the House of Lords to the Act of Uniformity (1559), rendering obligatory the use of the English Prayer-Book, made the Government warily follow a policy of compromise. The rubric authorizing (subject to the proviso in the act, “until other order should be taken by the Queen”), the retention of the Catholic ornaments in use in the second year of Edward VI, was in direct opposition to the tone of the rest of the Prayer-Book, for the communion service was substantially that of the second Prayer-Book of Edward VI (1552), which had been said at a bare table by a supliced minister. The Reformers’ dismay was extreme. “Other order,” however, was taken by Elizabeth in the “Injunctions,” of which the provisions, though opposed to the rubric, became the rule of the Anglican Church. The Reformers were further appeased by the wholesale destruction of Catholic vestments and emblems during the General Visitation (August-October, 1559). The Bishops’ Conference held in February, 1560, ended in compromise; the crucifix was rejected, but the cope was retained. Such “rags of the Roman Antichrist” irritated the extreme Reformers, who wanted a worship purified from all taint of popery, and they were, therefore, known as “Puritans.” They would have none of the cap and gown for clerical use in daily life, nor of the surplice in church. Elizabeth peremptorily called upon the bishops (January, 1564–65) to restore uniformity, and Parker with Grindal and others drew up a “Book of Articles,” which he forwarded to Sir William Cecil (3 March, 1564–65). To his intense annoyance they were not approved; but after many delays and alterations they were again submitted to Cecil (28 March, 1566), and published under the title of “Aduertisements, partly for due order in the publique administration of common prayers and usinge the holy sacraments, and partly for the apparell of all persons ecclesiasticall.” Elizabeth withheld her formal assent and support; and the bishops were told to exercise their own lawful authority, and so made to bear all the odium their action aroused. The “Advertisements” recognize that it is impossible to get the cope worn at the communion service, and are content to enforce the use of the surplice. Hence, then, the clerical vestment for all services is the surplice, in the parish church, and the cope for the communion service in cathedral churches. Even that was too much for the liking of the extremists. Conformity was enforced under penalty of deprivation, thus giving rise to violent dissensions which embittered Parker’s closing years, and occasioned the first open separation of Nonconformists from the Church of England.

Correspondence of Archbishop Parker (Parker Society, 1853); Zurich Letters, Second Series, 146–51, 156–64; STRYPE, Parker, I, 313–320 (Oxford ed., 1821); STRYPE, Grindal, (Oxford, 1821), 139–78; the text of the Book of Advertisements is in CARDWELL’s Documentary Annals (Oxford, 1839), I, 287. See Church Quart. Rev., XVII, 54–60; GEE, The Elizabethan Prayer-Book and Ornaments (London, 1902); MAITLAND, The Anglican Settlement, etc., in Cambridge Modern History (1903), II, 550–98.

BERNARD WARD

Advocates of Roman Congregations

Advocates of Roman Congregations are persons, ecclesiastical or lay, versed in canon and civil law, who plead causes before the ecclesiastical tribunals in Rome. The learning required of these advocates is exceptional and profound. Besides a thorough acquaintance with jurisprudence, both canonical and civil, they must also be versed in moral and dogmatic Theology, and in sacred and profane history. Frequent references to the councils and canons of the Church and to the decrees of the Sovereign Pontiffs oblige them to acquire a deep and varied erudition which embraces various languages, ancient and modern. In several ways the advocate of the Roman Court differs from the ordinary legal pleader. In the first place, it is not his duty to establish the facts in a given case. That is the business of another official called the procurator. The advocate assumes the facts delivered to him by the procurator to be true, and on them he builds his legal argument. Dealing as he does directly with points of law and not with the question of establishing facts, he is freed from the temptation of suborning false witnesses or distorting testimony. Again, a Roman advocate pleads always before learned judges. He cannot, therefore, appeal to the passions or indulge in theatrical displays of eloquence, as if he had to deal with a jury. His language is expected to be sober and refined, clear and precise. Having stated plainly the facts in the case, he is required to state equally plainly the laws on which the decision depends. Very frequently the advocate’s plea is made in writing. The recompense of a Roman advocate is a fixed sum, which is to be paid by the client whether the case be gained or lost. There is no temptation, therefore, to proceed to questionable means to obtain a favorable verdict. Moreover, the consistorial advocates are pledged to defend the poor free of charge in case of need. A Pious Society of Advocates exists at Rome whose officers divide the cases of the poor among the members. Consistorial advocates proper were originally only seven in number, forming the Consistorial College. Sixtus IV added five more (called juniors), and this number of twelve was definitely fixed by Benedict XIV in 1744. The other advocates are called titular or simple advocates.

HUMPHREY. Urbs et Orbis (London. 1899); FERRARIS, Prompta Bibl. Can., art. Adv. Consist. (Rome, 1885); BAART, The Roman Court (New York, 1895); WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Advocates of St. Peter

A body of jurists constituting a society whose statutes were confirmed by a brief of Leo XIII, 5 July, 1878. As the name indicates, its main object is the defense of the Holy See in its rights and privileges, both in the spiritual and temporal order. It binds its members to refute calumnies of enemies of the Church, whether derived from distortions of history, jurisprudence, or dogma, but above all are they to devote their legal knowledge to a defense of the Church’s rights before civil tribunals. The society was formed in 1877, on the occasion of the Golden Episcopal Jubilee of Pope Pius IX, and the Advocate Count Cajetan Agnelli dei Malherbi, of Rome, became its first president. Pope Pius IX warmly approved of the undertaking, and desired a wide extension of the society, as the immunities of the Church need defense everywhere, and under every system of government. It has spread rapidly over the Catholic world, and branches of the society are found among the principal nations of Christendom. The ordinary members must be jurists, but the society also enrolls as honorary members distinguished ecclesiastics or laymen who have made it a practice to defend Church interests along the lines of this organization. Colleges of the Advocates of St. Peter, numbering many hundred members, exist in Italy, England, Austria, France, Spain, Germany, Canada. and South America. All of there bodies are affiliated to the directory in Rome.

GRASHOF, in Kirchenlex., I, 253.

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Advocatus Diaboli

(“Advocate of the Devil” or “Devil’s Advocate”).

A popular title given to one of the most important officers of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, established in 1587, by Sixtus V, to deal juridically with processes of beatification and canonization. His official title is Promoter of the Faith (Promotor Fidei). His duty requires him to prepare in writing all possible arguments, even at times seemingly slight, against the raising of any one to the honours of the altar. The interest and honour of the Church are concerned in preventing any one from receiving those honours whose death is not juridically proved to have been “precious in the sight of God” (see BEATIFICATION and CANONIZATION). Prospero Lamertini, afterwards Pope Benedict XIV (1740–58), was the Promoter of the Faith for twenty years, and had every opportunity to study the workings of the Church in this most important function; he was, therefore, peculiarly qualified to compose his monumental work “On the Beatification and Canonization of Saints,” which contains the complete vindication of the rights of the Church in this matter, and sets forth historically its extreme care of the use of this right. No important act in the process of beatification or canonization is valid unless performed in the presence of the Promoter of the Faith formally recognized. His duty is to protest against the omission of the forms laid down, and to insist upon the consideration of any objection. The first formal mention of such an officer is found in the canonization of St. Lawrence Justinian under Leo X (1513–21). Urban VIII, in 1631, made his presence necessary, at least by deputy, for the validity of any act connected with the process of beatification or canonization.

BENEDICT XIV, De Beat. et Canon. Sanctorum, I, xviii.

R.L. BURTSELL

Advocatus Ecclesiæ

A name applied, in the Middle Ages, to certain lay persons, generally of noble birth, whose duty it was, under given conditions, to represent a particular church or monastery, and to defend its rights against force. These advocates were specially bound to represent their clients before the secular courts. They exercised civil jurisdiction in the domain. of the church or monastery, and were bound to protect the church with arms in the event of actual assault. Finally, it was their duty to lead the men-at-arms in the name of the church or monastery, and to command them in time of war. In return for these services the advocate received certain definite revenues from the possessions of the church, in the form of supplies or services, which he could demand, or in the form of a lien on the church property. Such advocates are to be found even in Roman times; a Synod of Carthage decreed, in 401, that the emperor should be requested to provide, in conjunction with the bishops, defensores for the churches (Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 2d ed., I, 83). There is evidence, moreover, for such defensores ecclesiæ in Italy, at the close of the fifth century. Gregory I, however, confined the office to members of the clergy. It was the duty of these defensores to protect the poor, and to defend the rights and possessions of the church. In the Frankish kingdom, and under the Carlovingians, the duties of the church advocate were enlarged and defined according to the principles of government which prevailed in the reign of Charlemagne; henceforward we meet with the advocatus ecclesiæ in the medieval sense. A Capitulary of about 790 (Mon-Germ. Hist., Cap. Reg. Francor., I, 201) ordained that the higher clergy, “for the sake of the churches honour, and the respect due to the priesthood” (pro ecclesiastico honore, et pro sacerdotum reverentia) should have advocates. Charlemagne, who obliged bishops, abbots, and abbesses to maintain advocati, commanded that great care should be exercised in the choice of persons to fill the office; they must be judicious men, familiar with the law, and owning property in the county (Grafschaft.—See Capitulary of 802, and 801–13, 1. c. I, 93, 172). The churches, monasteries, and canonries, as such, alike received advocates, who by degrees assumed the position above defined. In the time of Charlemagne the king had the right to appoint the advocates, but many ecclesiastical institutions obtained the right of election. The office was not, at first, hereditary, nor even for life; in the post-Carlovingian period, however, it developed into an hereditary one, and was held by powerful nobles, who constantly endeavoured to enlarge their rights in connection with the church or the monastery. Conciliar decrees were passed as early as the ninth century to protect ecclesiastical institutions against the excessive claims of their advocates, who, indeed, grew to be in many ways a heavy burden to their clients. They dealt with the possessions entrusted to them as with their own property, plundered the church estate, appropriated the tithes and other revenues, and oppressed in every possible way those whom they were appointed to protect. The office, since it offered many advantages, was eagerly sought after. The excessive claims of the advocates gave rise to many disputes between them and the churches or monasteries. The bishops and abbots, who found their rights seriously curtailed, appealed to the emperor and to the Pope for protection. In the twelfth century grave warnings issued from Rome, restraining the high-handed actions of the advocates under pain of severe ecclesiastical penalties, which did not, however, put an end to all the abuses that prevailed. On certain occasions, emperors and princes exercised the office of advocate, in which case they appointed deputy-advocates (subadvocati) to represent them.

THOMASSIN, Vetus et Nova Ecclesiae Disciplina (Lyons, 1706), III, bk. 2, iv; VAN ESPEN, Jus ecclesiasticum (Louvain, 1753–59), II, § 3, bk. 8, j; FERRARIS, Bibliotheca canonica, etc. (Rome, 1844), s.v. Advocatus Ecclesiarum, I, 143 sq.; BOHMER, De Advocatia Ecclesiarum cum Jure Patronatus, in his Observationes Juris Canonici (Gottingen, 1765), observat. VI; HAPP, De Advocatia Ecclesiastical (Bonn, 1870); G. BLONDEL, De Advocatis Ecclesiasticis in Rhenanis praesertim Regionibus a IX usque ad XIII Saeculum, Dissertatio (Paris, 1892); BRUNNER, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte (Leipzig, 1892), II, 302 sqq.; WAITZ, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte (2 ed., Berlin, 1885), IV, 408 sq. cf. VII, 320 sq.; HINSCHIUS, Kirchenrecht (Berlin, 1878), II, 629.

J.P. KIRSCH

Advowson

(Lat., advocatio; Old Fr., avoëson).

In English law the right of patronage of a church or ecclesiastical benefice, a right exercised by nomination of a clergyman to such church or other benefice. English law recognizes two kinds of advowsons, presentative and collative. Until the year 1898 there was also a third kind, known as advowson donative.

I. In the very early Saxon period parishes and dioceses in England were coterminous, each bishop residing with his clergy at his Cathedral church. The clergy went forth to distant regions of the diocese, preaching and administering the sacraments. But all tithes and oblations were brought into a common fund for support of the bishop and clergy, repair of churches and other works of piety and devotion. In course of time parochial churches arose, in some places through the liberality of the inhabitants, in other places by the action of the bishops themselves. By the eighth century, it is said, great lords, such as the lords of manors, had begun to build and endow churches for the use of their families and tenants, or friends. Bishops would permit the founder of a church to nominate its resident priest; and, moreover, consented that, contrary to the ancient custom, the use of its income should be restricted to such a church. But as the Bishop’s permission was required for the erection of a church, he had to pronounce upon the sufficiency of its endowment unde digne domus Dei sustentaretur (that the house of God should thereby be worthily supported), and the nominee was to be presented to him and approved of by him. The right of presentation constituted an advowson presentative. In those rude ages there followed on this right to nominate, the duty to defend, to become advocatus or advowee, champion or protector of the church of which the patron had named the incumbent. About the year 800 these lay foundations had become common. Moreover, monasteries were often vested with advowsons by act of their founders or benefactors. After the Norman conquest, French or Norman monasteries might hold the advowsons of English parishes. And when at the time of the Reformation the English monasteries were suppressed their advowsons passed with their estates to the lay beneficiaries of the suppression.

II. Advowsons donative were recognized by the law of England until 1898. A statute of that year made all such advowsons presentative. The owner of an advowson donative possessed by law extraordinary privileges. His right of patronage was exercised without presentation of his nominee to the bishop. The latter had not, as in advowsons presentative, the right of institution; that is, the right of conveying or committing the cure to the incumbent; nor the right of induction; that is, of issuing a mandate inducting the incumbent into possession of the church, with its rights and profits. The patron had sole right of visitation, and sole right to deprive the incumbent, and to the patron any resignation of the charge was to be made.

III. An advowson collative is an advowson held by a bishop; who is said to confer the benefice “by the one act of collation,” remarks Sir William Blackstone. For, the same authority explains, as the bishop cannot present to himself, he does, by this one act, “the whole that is done in common cases by both presentation and institution” (Commentaries, II, iii, 22). Advowsons began to be regarded as a kind of property at about the period of the Norman conquest. From the spiritual point of view an ecclesiastical preferment was a duty, a cure of souls, with endowment for support of him to whom this spiritual duty or trust was confided, but from the English legal point of view the preferment (subject to performance of parochial duties) was a benefice enjoyed by the incumbent, who, to quote a reported law case of the year 1303, took the “great tithes, small tithes, oblations, obventions, and other kind of issues.” (See Year Books of the reign of King Edward the First, ed. and tr. by Alfred J. Horwood, London, 1863, 31 Edward I, 338.)

English law rejected the view that presentation was “a personal, Spiritual trust” (Mirehouse v. Rennell, 8 Bingham’s Reports, 490, p. 491), admitting the object of the advowson to be of a spiritual nature, but holding the advowson to be a temporal estate of inheritance with presentation as its mode of enjoyment, profit or rent. The canonical qualifications of the clergyman nominated are to be passed upon by the bishop in the instance of a lay advowson presentative. But the exercise of the right of nomination is subject to the King’s Courts only. Writs even of the reign of King Henry the Second (1154–89) recited “lites de Advocationibus ecclesiarum ad Coronam et dignitatem meam pertinent.” And after the Reformation the king was declared by law to be “the supreme ecclesiastical authority.” As to nomination; “The incorrupt exercise of the trust is secured,” remarks an English judge, “by the penalties against simony, and the selection of a fit clerk by the examination of the ordinary,” (See 8 Bingham’s Reports, 527.) Dr. Samuel Johnson expresses what had doubtless become the rule as to this examination when he states that “the bishop has no power to reject a man nominated by the patron, but for some crime that might exclude him from the priesthood.” (Boswell; Life of Johnson, ed. G. B. Hill, Oxford, 1887, II, 243.)

An advowson, regarded by the law as property, is termed an incorporeal hereditament, “a right issuing out of a thing corporate.” It is a marketable property, which may be granted by deed or will, which passes by a grant of all lands and tenements, and which may, therefore, become the subject of litigation. Blackstone, extolling King Edward the First as “our English Justinian,” mentions among the king’s achievements his having “effectually provided for the recovery of advowsons as temporal rights” (Commentaries, IV, xxxiii, 425, 426). And in the law reports of this king’s reign we find a bishop sued by a prior whose nominee the bishop had refused, pleading that the prior’s nominee was not suitable for reasons which are specified to the court, the bishop thus seeming to submit (at least, to some extent) the propriety of his acts to the court’s judgment. (See Year Books already cited. 32 Edward I, 30, 1304.)

The right of presentation which, originally, was conferred on a person building or endowing a church, appears to have become, by degrees, “appendant to the manor in which it was built” (8 Bingham’s Reports, 491), and, therefore, termed an advowson appendant. And the boundaries of manors became the boundaries of parishes. But in many instances advowsons passed from owners of land to other private persons, or to lay or ecclesiastical corporations. Advowsons thus severed from ownership of land are termed advowsons in gross. There are in the Church of England more than 13,000 benefices; of these, in or about 1878, private persons held the advowsons of some 7,000, and bishops, of only about 2,324, the remainder being divided among deans and chapters, the universities, and parochial clergy. The ancient duty of protection, or championship, ceased, long since, to attach to the right of presentation. An advowson may apparently be held by a Jew, if he be owner in his own right, and not merely in an official capacity. But no Roman Catholic or alien may exercise the rights of a patron or present to a living in the Church of England. To the king, as patron paramount of all benefices in England, belongs the right of presenting to those benefices to which no other person has a right of presentation.

MIREHOUSE, A Practical Treatise on the Law of Advowsons (London, 1824); STEPHEN, New Commentaries on the Law of England (14th ed., London, 1903), II, 681–685; BINGHAM, Reports (anno 1832), VIII (case of Mirehouse v. Rennell); MURRAY, A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles (New York, 1888), s.v.; GLANVILLE, Tractatus De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Angliae (London, 1780); PHILLIMORE, The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England (London, 1895); FREEMAN, The History of the Norman Conquest 07 England (New York, 1876) V, 336 337; IDEM, The Reign of William Rufus and The Accession of Henry the First (Oxford, 1882), I, 420.

CHARLES W. SLOANE

Adytum

(From adyton; sc. a privative + dyo=enter).

A secret chamber or place of retirement in the ancient temples, and esteemed the most sacred spot; the innermost sanctuary or shrine. None but the officiating priests were permitted to enter. From this place the oracles were given. The Holy of Holies, or Sanctum Sanctorum, of the temple of Solomon was of the nature of the pagan adytum; none but the high priest being admitted into it, and he but once a year. Among the Egyptians the secos was the same thing, and is described by Strabo. A well-preserved adytum that has come to our knowledge is in the little temple in Pompeii; it is raised some steps above the level of the temple itself, and is without light. In Christian architecture it sometimes signifies the chancel, or altar end of a church. (See CHANCEL.)

THOMAS H. POOLE

St. Aedan of Ferns

(‘Aedh-og or Mo-Aedh-og).

Bishop and patron of Ferns, in Ireland, b. at Inisbrefny, near Templeport, County Cavan, about 550; d. at Ferns, 31 January, 632. When a youth he was a hostage in the hands of Aedh Ainmire, High-King of Ireland. He studied at the great school of Kilmuine, in Wales, under St. David, and returned to Ireland in 580, landing on the coast of Wexford. In thanksgiving for the victory of Dunbolg, County Wicklow, 10 January 598, in which King Aedh was slain, Bran Dubh, King of Leinster, convened a synod at which, having represented the great services rendered to the kingdom of Leinster by St. Aedan, notably the remission of the Boromha tribute, it was agreed that Ferns be made an episcopal see, with Aedan as first bishop. He was also given a nominal supremacy over the other Leinster bishops by the title of Ard-Escop or Chief Bishop. King Bran Dubh was slain in Ferns in 605. St. Aedan, popularly known as Mogue (Mo-Aedh-og = my dear Aedh) founded thirty churches in the County Wexford. The episcopal seat of Ferns is now at Enniscorthy, where there is a beautiful cathedral dedicated to St. Aedan, whose patronal feast is observed 31 January.

Acta SS. (1867), Jan.III, 727 sqq.; COLGAN, Acta SS. Hiberniae (1645), I, 637; BOASE in Dict. Christ. Biog., s.v. Maidoc; DE SMEDT, Acta SS. Hiberniae (Edinburgh, 1888), 463.

W. H. Grattan-Flood.

Aedh of Kildare

King of Leinster, and an Irish saint, commemorated by Colgan under date of 4 January; but much obscurity attaches to his life-work. The “Annals of the Four Masters” and the “Annals of Ulster” agree in the account of this monarch, who resigned his crown and eventually became Bishop of Kildare. Under the name of Aidus, a latinized form of Aedh, his name is to be found in several martyrologies. The year of his death was 639, according to the corrected chronology of the “Annals of Ulster.” Colgan tells us that he resigned the throne of Leinster in 591 (really, 592), and entered the great monastery of Kildare, where he served God for forty-eight years, becoming successively abbot and bishop. His episcopate was from about 630 to 639. He must not be confounded with Aedh Finn, king of Ossory, known as “Aedh the cleric,” who was a contemporary, and resigned the throne of Ossory for a monastic cell. St. Aedh of Leinster is styled Aedh Dubh, from his dark features, whilst Aedh of Ossory was fair, hence the affix finn (fionn = fair). Another St. Aedh is venerated on 3 May.

Colgan, Acta Sanct. Hiberniae (1645), I, 418–423; Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue of MSS., etc. (1862), I, 1, 165–166; Bibl. hagiogr. Latina (1898), 31–32.

W. H. Grattan-Flood

Aegidius of Assisi

One of the original companions of St. Francis. He is also known as Blessed Giles, and holds the foremost place among the companions of St. Francis, “The Knight of our Round Table” St. Francis called him. Of his antecedents and early life nothing certain is known. In April, 1209, moved by the example of two leading fellow-Assisians, who became the first followers of St. Francis, he begged permission to join the little band. and on the feast of St. George was invested in a poor habit St. Francis had begged for him. Almost immediately afterwards he set out with St. Francis to preach in the Marches of Ancona. He accompanied the saint to Rome when the first Rule was approved orally by Innocent III, and appears to have then received the clerical tonsure. About 1212 Aegidius made a pilgrimage to the tomb of St. James at Compostella, in Spain. Shortly after his return to Assisi he started for Jerusalem, to venerate the Holy Places, visiting on his way home the Italian shrines of St. Michael, at Monte Gargano, and St. Nicholas, at Bari. We next find him in Rome and still later at Tunis. In these journeys Aegidius was ever at pains to procure by manual labour what food and shelter he needed. At Ancona he made reed baskets; at Brindisi he carried water and helped to bury the dead; at Rome he cut wood, trod the wine-press, and gathered nuts; while the guest of a cardinal at Rieti he insisted on sweeping the house and cleaning the knives. A keen observer of men and events, Aegidius acquired in the course of these travels much valuable knowledge and experience, which he turned to good account. For he lost no occasion of preaching to the people. His sermons, if such they can be called, were brief and heartfelt talks, replete with homely wisdom; he never minced his words, but spoke to all with apostolic freedom. After some years of activity Aegidius was assigned by St. Francis to the hermitage of Fabriano, where he began that life of contemplation and ecstasy which continued with very visible increase until his death. It was in 1262, on the fifty-second anniversary of his reception into the Order of Friars Minor, that Aegidius passed away, already revered as a saint. His immemorial cultus was confirmed by Pius VI, and his feast is celebrated on the twenty-third of April.

Aegidius was a stranger to theological and classical learning, but by constant contemplation of heavenly things, and by the divine love with which he was inflamed, he acquired that fullness of holy wisdom which filled his contemporaries with wonder, and which drew men of every condition, even the Pope himself, to Perugia to hear from Aegidius’ lips the Word of Life. The answers and advice these visitors received were remembered, talked over, and committed to writing, and thus was formed a collection of the familiar “Dicta” or “Sayings” of Aegidius, which have often been edited in Latin and translated into different languages. St. Bonaventure held these “Sayings” in high esteem, and they are cited in the works of many subsequent ascetical writers. They are short, pithy, popular counsels on Christian perfection, applicable to all classes. Saturated with mysticism, yet exquisitely human and possessing a picturesque vein of originality, they faithfully reflect the early Franciscan spirit and teaching. The latest and best edition of the “Dicta ‘ is that published at Quaracchi, in 1905. There is a critical English translation of the same: “The Golden Words of the Blessed Brother Giles,” together with a sketch of his life, by the writer of this article (Philadelphia, 1906); also a new German version, “Der selige Aegidius von Assisi, sein Leben und seine Sprüche,” by Gisbert Minge (Paderborn, 1905).

Acta SS., IIl, April, 220 sqq.: Chronica XXIV Generalium (Quaracchi, 1897), 74–115; Vita Beati Aegidii Assisiatis (Quaracchi, 1901); Fratini, Vita del B. Egidio d’Assisi (Assisi, 1898); Sabatier, Actus B. Francisci et sociorum ejus (Paris, 1902), Robinson, The Blessed Giles of Assisi in Franciscan Monthly (London, Jan.-June, 1906).

PASCHAL ROBINSON

Ægidius of Viterbo

Cardinal, theologian, orator, humanist, and poet, born at Viterbo, Italy; died at Rome, 12 November, 1532. He entered the Augustinian Order at an early age and became its general. Ægidius is famous in ecclesiastical history for the boldness and earnestness of the discourse which he delivered at the opening of the Fifth General Council, held in 1512, at the Lateran. It is printed in Harduin’s collection of the councils (IX, 1576). Leo X made him cardinal, confided to him several sees in succession, employed him as legate on important missions, and gave him (1523) the title of (Latin) Patriarch of Constantinople. His zeal for the genuine reformation of ecclesiastical conditions prompted him to present to Adrian VI a “Promemoria,” edited by Constantin Höfler in the proceedings of the Munich Academy of Sciences [III class, IV, 3 (B) 62–89]. He was universally esteemed as a learned and virtuous member of the great pontifical senate and many deemed him destined to succeed Clement VII. He wrote many works, but only a few of his writings have been printed in the third volume of the “Collectio Novissima” of Martène. He was a profound student of the Scriptures and a good scholar in Greek and Hebrew.

When urged by Clement VII to publish his works, he is said, by the Augustinian Thomas de Herrera, to have replied that he feared to contradict famous and holy men by his exposition of Scripture. The Pope replied that human respect should not deter him; it was quite permissible to preach and write what was contrary to the opinions of others, provided one did not depart from the truth and from the common tradition of the Church (Nat. Alex. Hist. Eccl., saec. XV, 1,5,16; XVII, 354). His principal work is an historical treatise yet unpublished: “Historia viginti sæculorum per totidem psalmos conscripta.” It deals in a philosophico-historical way with the history of the world before and after the birth of Christ, is valuable for the history of its own time, and offers a certain analogy with Bossuet’s famous “Discours sur l’histoire universelle.” The six books of his important correspondence (1497–1523) concerning the affairs of his order, much of which is addressed to Gabriel of Venice, his successor, are preserved at Rome in the Bibliotheca Angelica. Cardinal Hergenröther praises particularly the circular letter in which Ægidius made known (27 February, 1519), his resignation of the office of General of the Augustinian Order (Lämmer, “Zur Kirchengeschichte des XVI. und XVII. Jahrhunderts,” Freiburg, 1863, 64–67). Other known works of Ægidius are a commentary on the first book of the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, three “Eclogæ Sacræ,” a dictionary of Hebrew roots, a “Libellus de ecclesiæ incremento,” a “Liber dialogorum,” and an “Informatio pro sedis apostolicæ auctoritate contra Lutheranam sectam.”

Card. Hergenröther, in Kirchenlex., I, 255–256; Ossinger, in Biblioth. Augustiniana (Ingolstadt, 1769) I, 190–198; Fabricius-Mansi, Bibl. Lat., I, 23; Pastor, Gesch. der Päpste (3d ed.), III, 100, 184, 723.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Aelfric, Abbot of Eynsham

Also known as “the Grammarian,” the author of the homilies in Anglo-Saxon, a translator of Holy Scripture, and a writer upon many miscellaneous subjects. He seems to have been born about 955, and to have died about 1020. The identity of this writer has been the subject of much controversy. Even in Freeman’s “Norman Conquest” he is wrongly identified with Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury (1005). But of late years nearly all scholars have come round to the opinion of Lingard and Dietrich that there was but one Aelfric famous in Anglo-Saxon literature, and that this man was never raised to any higher dignity than that of Abbot. Of his career we know but little. He was undoubtedly a monk of the Old Monastery of Winchester under Saint Athelwold, whose life he subsequently wrote in Latin. Some time after his ordination into the priesthood, he was sent to Carne Abbey, or as he himself writes it “Cernel,” in Dorsetshire. Thence he became, in 1005, abbot of the recently-founded monastery of Eynsham, near Oxford, where he probably remained until his death. Of all the writers in Anglo-Saxon who have been preserved to us Aelfric was the most prolific. He is especially remembered for his Homilies, around the theological teaching of which concerning the Blessed Sacrament a great controversy has raged. Already in the reign of Queen Elizabeth it was asserted by Mathew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, that Aelfric in his Homily for Easter Day clearly evinced his belief is Transubstantiation, and that he must, moreover, be regarded as expressing the sentiments of the whole Anglo-Saxon church, of which he was a prominent and trusted representative. The details of the controversy cannot be discussed here. It may, however, be noted that the Anglican writer, W. Hunt, who eighteen years ago in the “Dictionary of National Biography” described Aelfric as vigorously opposing “the doctrine of the Catholic Church on the subject of the Eucharist,” has recently so far modified his view to allow that “it is possible to reconcile Aelfric’s words with the present teachings of Rome; his expressions are loose and unphilosophical, and, therefore, capable of being interpreted according to demand.” (“The English Church to the Norman Conquest,” p. 376.) This latter view is undoubtedly the more correct. Aelfric never intended to attack the doctrine of the Real Presence. He quotes with approval instances of the miraculous appearance of blood at the breaking of the Host. But he had adopted the views of Ratramnus of Corbie, whom he repeatedly paraphrases, insisting that in the Eucharist was a “spiritual” presence as opposed to a “bodily” (i.e., fleshly or carnal) one. That Ratramnus was no opponent of Transubstantiation has recently been proved to demonstration in the monograph of Dr. Aug. Naegle (Vienna, 1903). Aelfric’s numerous works in Anglo-Saxon, which give evidence of much literary power, have been edited with translations; the former in 1846, by Thorpe; the latter in 1906, by Skeat.

HERBERT THURSTON

Ælnoth

Monk and biographer, of whom nothing is known except his Life of St. Canute the Martyr, written in 1109. In this work he describes himself as a priest, a native of Canterbury, and states that he has lived in Denmark for twenty-four years. This gives 1085 as the date at which he left England. In that year certain relics of St. Alban were translated to Denmark, from which fact it has been conjectured that he accompanied them. In the title of his work he is described as a monk; he was probably of the Benedictine monastery of St. Canute, in Odense. No record of his death has been preserved. His Life of St. Canute was first printed by Huitfeld in 1602, reprinted by Meursius in 1746; but the best critical edition was published by the Bollandists in their “Acta Sanctorum” (July 10), edited by Solerius.

BERNARD WARD

St. Ælred

Abbot of Rievaulx, homilist and historian (1109–66). St. Ælred, whose name is also written Ailred, Æthelred, and Ethelred, was the son of one of those married priests of whom many were found in England in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. He was born at Hexham, but at an early age made the acquaintance of David, St. Margaret’s youngest son, shortly afterwards King of Scotland, at whose court he apparently acted for some years as a sort of page, or companion to the young Prince Henry. King David loved the pious English youth, promoted him in his household, and wished to make him bishop, but Ælred decided to become a Cistercian monk, in the recently founded abbey of Rievaulx in Yorkshire. Soon he was appointed master of novices, and was long remembered for his extraordinary tenderness and patience towards those under his charge. In 1143 when William, Earl of Lincoln, founded a new Cistercian abbey upon his estates at Revesby in Lincolnshire, St. Ælred was sent with twelve monks to take possession of the new foundation. His stay at Revesby, where he seems to have met St. Gilbert of Sempringham, was not of long duration, for in 1146 he was elected abbot of Rievaulx. In this position the saint was not only superior of a community of 300 monks, but he was head of all the Cistercian abbots in England. Causes were referred to him, and often he had to undertake considerable journeys to visit the monasteries of his order. Such a journey in 1153 took him to Scotland, and there meeting King David, for the last time, he wrote on his return to Rievaulx, where the news of David’s death reached him shortly afterwards, a sympathetic sketch of the character of the late king. He seems to have exercised considerable influence over Henry II, in the early years of his reign, and to have persuaded him to join Louis VII of France in meeting Pope Alexander III, at Touci, in 1162. Although suffering from a complication of most painful maladies, he journeyed to France to attend the general chapter of his Order. He was present in Westminster Abbey, at the translation of St. Edward the Confessor, in 1163, and, in view of this event, he both wrote a life of the saintly king and preached a homily in his praise. The next year Ælred undertook a mission to the barbarous Pictish tribes of Galloway, where their chief is said to have been so deeply moved by his exhortations that he became a monk. Throughout his last years Ælred gave an extraordinary example of heroic patience under a succession of infirmities. He was, moreover, so abstemious that he is described as being “more like a ghost than a man.” His death is generally supposed to have occurred 12 January, 1166, although there are reasons for thinking that the true year may be 1167. St. Ælred left a considerable collection of sermons, the remarkable eloquence of which has earned for him the title of the English St. Bernard. He was the author of several ascetical treatises, notably the “Speculum Charitatis,” also a compendium of the same (really a rough draught from which the larger work was developed), a treatise “De Spirituali Amicitiâ,” and a certain letter to an anchoress. All these, together with a fragment of his historical work, were collected an published by Richard Gibbons, S.J., at Douai, in 1631. A fuller and better edition is contained in the fifth volume of the “Bibliotheca Cisterciensis” of Tissier, 1662, from which they have been printed in P. L., vol. CXCV. The historical works include a “Life of St. Edward,” an important account of the “Battle of the Standard” (1138), an incomplete work on the genealogy of the kings of England, a tractate “De Sanctimoniali de Watton” (About the Nun of Watton), a “Life of St. Ninian,” a work on the “Miracles of the Church of Hexham,” an account of the foundations of St. Mary of York and Fountains Abbey, as well as some that are lost. No complete edition of Ælred’s historical opuscula has ever been published. A few were printed by Twysden in his “Decem Scriptores,” others must be sought in the Rolls Series or in Raine’s “Priory of Hexham” (Surtees Society, Durham, 1864).

An anonymous Latin Life of St. Ælred is printed by the Bollandists, Acta SS., January, vol. II; while other materials may be gathered from RAINE, Priory of Hexham, and from Ælred’s own writings. An excellent short biography was compiled by Father Dalgairns for NEWMAN’s series of Lives of the English Saints, 1845 (new ed., London, 1903); Dict. of Nat. Biog. s. v. Ethelred (XVIII, 33–35); BARING-GOULD, Lives of the Saints, I, and the great Cistercian collections of HENRIQUEZ and MANRIQUE.

Herbert Thurston.

Æneas of Gaza

A Neo-Platonic philosopher, a convert to Christianity, who flourished towards the end of the fifth century. In a dialogue entitled Theophrastus he alludes to Hierocles (of Alexandria) as his teacher, and in some of his letters mentions as his contemporaries writers whom we know to have lived at the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth. His testimony is often quoted in favor of the miraculous gift of speech conferred on the Christian martyrs whose tongues were cut out by order of the Vandal king Huneric (Baronius, ad ann. 484, n. 91 sqq). Like all the Christian Neo-Platonists, Æneas held Plato in higher esteem than Aristotle, although his acquaintance with Plato’s doctrine was acquired through traditional teaching and the study of apocryphal Platonic writings, and not—to any great extent, at least—through the study of the genuine Dialogues. Like Synesius, Nemesius, and others, he found in Neo-Platonism the philosophical system which best accorded with Christian revelation. But, unlike Synesius and Nemesius, he rejected some of the most characteristic doctrines of the Neo-Platonists as being inconsistent with Christian dogma. For instance, he rejected the doctrine of pre-existence (according to which the soul of man existed before its union with body), arguing that the soul before its union with the body would have been “idle,” incapable of exercising any of its faculties (Migne, P.G., LXXXV, 947). Similarly, he rejected the doctrine of the eternal duration of the world, on the ground that the world is corporeal, and, although the best possible “mechanism,” contains in itself the elements of dissolution (op. cit. 958 sqq). Again, he taught that “man’s body is composed of matter and form,” and that while the matter perishes the “form” of the body retains the power of resuscitating the “matter” on the last day (op. cit., 982).

THEOPHRASTUS is published in P.G., LXXXV; Æneas’s Letters, in FABRICIUS, Bibl. Graeca, I; BOISSONADE, Aeneas Gazaeus, etc. (Paris, 1836); BARTH, Æn. Gaz de immortal. animae . . . (Leipzig, 1655); UEBERWEG, Gesch. der Phil., II, 9 ed. (Berlin, 1905), 140, tr. by Morris (New York, 1871), I, 347; STÖCKL, Lehrb. der Gesch. der Phil. 3 ed. (Mainz, 1888), I, 311.

WILLIAM TURNER

St. Aengus (the Culdee)

An Irish saint who flourished in the last quarter of the eighth century, and is held in imperishable honour as the author of the Feliré, or Festology of the Saints. Born near Clonengh, Ireland, Aengus was educated at the monastic school, founded there by St. Fintan, not far from the present town of Mountrath. Becoming a hermit, he lived for a time at Disert-beagh, where, on the banks of the Nore, he is said to have communed with the angels. From his love of prayer and solitude he was named the “Culdee”; in other words, the Ceile Dé, or “Servant of God.” Not satisfied with his hermitage, which was only a mile from Clonenagh, and, therefore, liable to be disturbed by students or wayfarers, Aengus removed to a more solitary abode eight miles distant. This sequestered place, two miles southeast of the present town of Maryborough, was called after him “the Desert of Aengus,” or “Dysert-Enos.” Here he erected a little oratory on a gentle eminence among the Dysert Hills, now represented by a ruined and deserted Protestant church. His earliest biographer (ninth century) relates the wonderful austerities practiced by St. Aengus in his “desert,” and though he sought to be far from the haunts of men, his fame attracted a stream of visitors. The result was that the good saint abandoned his oratory at Dysert-Enos, and, after some wanderings, came to the monastery of Tallaght, near Dublin, then governed by St. Maelruain. He entered as a lay-brother, concealing his identity, but St. Maelruain soon discovered him, and collaborated with him on the work known as the “Martyrology of Tallaght,” about the year 790. This is a prose catalogue of Irish saints, and is the oldest of the Irish martyrologies. About the year 805 St. Aengus finished his famous Feliré, a poetical work on the saints of Ireland, a copy of which is in the Leabhar Breac. The last touches were given to this work in the cell at Disert-beagh (St. Aengus had left Tallaght, not long after the death of St. Maelruain), where he passed away on Friday, 11 March, 824. He was buried in Clonenagh, as we read in his metrical life, and his death is commemorated 11 March.

Acta SS. (1867), March II, 84–87; Colgan, Acta SS. Hibern. (1645), I, 579–583; O’Hanlon, The Life and Works of Aengus the Culdee, in Irish Eccl. Record (Dublin, 1869); D’Arbois de Jubainville, Revue Critique (1881), B. XI, 183–188; Mabillon, Acta SS. Ord. S. Bened. (1685), V, 906; Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue, etc. (1862), II, ii, 511.

W. H. Grattan-Flood.

Ænon

(Greek Ainon; Vulgate, Ænnon; Douay, Ennon).

Mentioned in John 3:23, as the locality where the forerunner of Christ baptized. It is described as being “near Salim” and as having “much water.” Where is it situated? Barclay’s hypothesis, which gratuitously identifies Salim with Jerusalem and selects the Wady Fara as the scene of the Baptist’s activity, is improbable. Nor should it be sought in the southern extremity of Palestine, where one would look in vain for “much water.” Conder and others favour Ainun, a village to the north-east of ancient Salim. This identification is also open to objections. Ainun is about as near to Nabulus (ancient Sichem) as it is to Salim. Since the former was the more important, we should rather expect the Evangelist to describe Ænon as being “near Sichem.” Moreover, according to this hypothesis, the place selected by the Baptist would have been in the very heart of Samaritan territory, which the Jews avoided, and, therefore, ill-suited for the missionary purpose of Christ’s precursor. The most probable opinion places Ænon in the valley of the Jordan, some two miles to the west of the stream and about seven miles to the south of Beisan (ancient Scythopolis). This site was on the confines of the Samaritan territory and on the road frequented by the Galileans. Van de Velde found a Salim in this place, and close by there are seven wells—“much water.” Eusebius, St. Jerome, and St. Silvia saw the ruins of Salim, and there a guide pointed out to them the place where John baptized.

E. HEINLEIN

Æons

The term appropriated by Gnostic heresiarchs to designate the series of spiritual powers evolved by progressive emanation from the eternal Being, and constituting the Pleroma or invisible spiritual world, as distinct from the Kenoma, or visible material world. The word aeon (aion) signifying “age,” “the ever-existing,” “eternity,” came to be applied to the divine eternal power, and to the personified attributes of that power, whence it was extended to designate the successive emanations from the divinity which the Gnostics conceived as necessary intermediaries between the spiritual and the material worlds. The Gnostic concept of the aeon may be traced to the influence of a philosophy which postulated a divinity incapable of any contact with the material world or with evil, and the desire to reconcile this philosophy with the Christian notion of a direct interference of God in the affairs of the material world, and particularly in the Creation and Redemption of man. Jewish angelology, which represented Jehovah ministered to by a court of celestial beings, and Hellenic religious systems, which imagined a number of intermediaries between the finite and the infinite, suggested the emanation from the divinity of a series of subordinate heavenly powers, each less perfect, the further removed it was from the supreme deity, until at length increasing imperfection would serve as the connecting link between the spiritual world and the material world of evil.

In different Gnostic systems the hierarchy of Aeons was diversely elaborated. But in all are recognizable a mixture of Platonic, mythological, and Christian elements. There is always the primitive all-perfect Æon, the fountain-head of divinity, and a co-eternal companion Æon. From these emanate a second pair who, in turn, engender others, generally in pairs, or in groups of pairs, in keeping with the Egyptian idea of divine couples. One of these inferior Æons, desiring to know the unknowable, to penetrate the secrets of the primal Æon, brings disorder into the Æon-world, is exiled, and brings forth a very imperfect Æon, who, being unworthy of a place in the Pleroma, brings the divine spark to the nether world. Then follows the creation of the material universe.

Finally, there is evolved the Æon Christ, who is to restore harmony in the Æon-world, and heal the disorder in the material world consequent upon the catastrophe in the ideal order, by giving to man the knowledge which will rescue him from the dominion of matter and evil. The number of Æons varies with different systems, being determined in some by Pythagorean and Platonic ideas on the mystic efficacy of numbers; in others by epochs in, or the duration of, the life of Christ. The Æons were given names, each Gnostic system having its own catalogue, suggested by Christian terminology, and by Oriental, or philosophical and mythological nomenclature. There were nearly as many aeonic hierarchies as there were Gnostic systems, but the most elaborate of these, as far as is known, was that of Valentinus, whose fusion of Christianity and Platonism is so completely described in the refutation of this system by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian. (See GNOSTICISM, VALENTINUS, BASILIDES, PTOLEMY.)

The best description of AEONIC systems is to be found in the refutations of Gnosticism by early Christian writers: Irenaeus, Adv. Haereses, in P.G., VII, I. II, tr. In Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York, 1903), I, 315 sq.; Tertullian, Contra Valentinianos, in P.L., II, 523. The introduction contains graphic schemata illustrating the Aeonic geneology, vi sq. (tr. As above III, 503); Hippolytus, Philosophumena, in P.G., XVI, 3, attributed to Origen, tr. Refutation of all Heresies, as above V, 9; Baur, Christliche Gnosis (Tubingen, 1835); DeFaye, Introduction a l’etude du gnosticisme, in Revue de l’histoire des religions, (1902, 166 sq.); DuFourcq, La pensee chretienne, Saint Irenee (Paris, 1905), 41–112; Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l’Eglise (Paris, 1906), I, 153–194; Mead, Fragments of a Faith Forgotten (London, 1900). See also works on Gnosticism and on the heresiarchs referred to above.

JOHN B. PETERSON

Aër

(Greek aer, “the air”).

The largest and outer-most covering of the chalice and paten in the Greek church, corresponding to the veil in the Latin rite. It is slightly larger than the veil used to cover the chalice and paten in the Latin rite, and is beautifully embroidered in the same style and colour as the vestments of the officiating priest. It takes its name either from the lightness of the material of which it was formerly made or from the fact that the priest during the time of the recital of the Nicene Creed in the Mass holds it high in the air and waves it slowly towards the chalice. Its use, like that of the veil, was originally to cover the chalice and to prevent anything from falling therein before the consecration and before the sacred vessels were brought to the altar. It is first mentioned by name in an explanation of the liturgy (Mass) by a writer of the sixth century, and is also alluded to as “the so-called aër” in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople. In the Greek Orthodox church the veil is put on the shoulders of the deacon who brings the paten to the altar at the great entrance, and the same rite is preserved in the Greek Catholic church, where the aër usually has a couple of short strings to secure it over the shoulders. A similar ceremony is still preserved in the Roman rite, where the deacon at high Mass brings the chalice and paten to the altar and places a special veil over his shoulders.

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Aërius of Pontus

A friend and fellow ascetic of Eustathius, who became Bishop of Sebaste (355), and who ordained Aërius and placed him over the hospital or asylum in that city. Aërius fell out with Eustathius, upbraided him for having deserted ascetic practices, and began to preach new doctrines, insisting that there was no sacred character distinguishing bishop or priest from laymen, that the observance of the feast of Easter was a Jewish superstition, and that it was wrong to prescribe fasts or abstinences by law, and useless to pray for the dead. According to some, Aërius was inspired to teach these doctrines by his jealousy of Eustathius. For a time, he had many followers in Sebaste, but he could not make his tenets popular, and gradually he and his sect became an occasion of abuses, which made them odious. His movement is considered important by Protestants as indicating a tendency to some of their views even at this early period; but it also shows how strongly the Christians of his day were opposed to the teaching of Aërius.

ST. EPIPHANIUS, Adv. Hæres, 75, P.G., t. XLII; HEMMER, in Dict. théol. Cath.; Venables in Dict. Christ. Biog.

JOHN J. WYNNE

Æsthetics

Æsthetics may be defined as a systematic training to right thinking and right feeling in matters of art, and is made a part of philosophy by A.G. Baumgarten. Its domain, according to Wolff’s system, is that of indistinct presentations and the canons of sensuous taste (αἰσθητικὴ τέχνη, from αἰστθάνεσθαι, to preceive and feel). It has, however, developed into a philosophy of the beautiful in nature and art, and, finally, into a science of the (fine) arts based on philosophical principles. Natural beauty, particular works of art, pure, that is, not sensual, beauty, and philosophical questions are sometimes treated thoroughly, sometimes merely touched upon. Applied aesthetics is the accurate description and valuation of particular works of art; technical aesthetics, the training of the art-student in individual productions; art-history, the continuous record of the development of art, according to a definite plan. It is the duty of aesthetics always to seek the deepest grounds of the pleasure derived from art, not only in the laws of nature, but, above all, in those of the mind, and thus to come in touch with philosophy; but the fruitful source of sound judgment is to be found in a correct view of the world of art itself. The student of aesthetics, though he cannot wholly dispense with an insight into the technique of artistic production, or with a knowledge of the varied manifestations of beauty in nature and life, or even with an actual exercise of one kind of art or another, must rely Chiefly on a quick perceptive faculty, systematizing talent, and an intelligent appreciation. In this respect aesthetics will, on the one hand, offer more, on the other hand, less than “technical treatises” on any one art, practical instruction in the exercise of the same, or illustrated art books for everyone.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ÆSTHETICS

AEsthetics, as a general science, takes no account of the individual arts. It, investigates the physiological and psychological principles of art, the conceptions of art, of beauty, and of the beautiful in art, and develops the universal laws of artistic activity. Clear and orderly thinking, the presupposition of all scientific discussion, is indispensable in aesthetics, the more so because, otherwise, aimless circumlocution and serious errors are unavoidable. All ideas, moreover, concerning aesthetic beauty and the aim of art need to be carefully examined into. Finally, the subjective conditions of the artist, his relation to nature, and the division and classification of the material that lies to his hand must be taken into account.

THE SCIENCE OF THE ARTS

In a history of art only the imitative arts and, possibly, music are, as a rule, included; aesthetics, on the other hand, takes in the arts of oratory as well, though mere eloquence, because of its eminently practical character, is generally omitted. Originally, aesthetics was chiefly occupied with poetry, the laws of which are the most easily explained. With poetry the ancillary arts of rhythm and acting are inseparably connected. If vocal music be added to these, we have all those which are the direct, though transient, outcome of voice and gesture. Man, however, soon progresses to the use of musical instruments and gives his artistic productions a permanent existence by means of written notes or marks. The constructive arts, on the other hand, always make use of extraneous material, such as color, wood, stone, or metal, with results that are not at the same time complete and visible. The graphic and textile arts are grouped with that of painting; with sculpture, ceramics, relief-work, and every kind of engraving; the lesser decorative arts with painting and architecture. The aesthetics of the individual arts does not bear the abstract impress of aesthetics in general; for although it everywhere seeks out the deeper-lying principles of aesthetic satisfaction, it often invades the domain of art-history in search of illustration, in order to prove the laws of art by means of Characteristic types.

SYSTEMS AND METHODS

This peculiar method of dealing with the subject ensures to AEsthetics the position of an independent and valuable science. For this reason various methods and systems have grown up in it, as in art itself, which lay stress on one aspect rather than on another. Idealism loves great subjects, a lofty conception, monumental execution; it looks to find the divine and the spiritual in all things, be it only allegorically and symbolically. It treats aesthetics from above, and guards most effectually against the debasement of art, but is exposed (as was Platonism in philosophy) to the risk of losing itself in abstraction and, moreover, of not giving due importance to the form of art. With aesthetic formalism, on the contrary, this is the most important matter; it does not ask What, but How; it does not look at the content, but at the form which the artist gives it. It defines what forms are “pleasing” in the absolute sense; that is, combine to make up the image of beauty. When, moreover, it goes beyond experience, and confirms the verdict of the senses by that of the mind, it draws, with perfect justice, the characteristic distinction between artistic conception and scientific treatment. Form, however, without content would be empty; it should be rather, as it were, the blossoming of the idea, and a great subject, unless, indeed, it surpass the powers of the artist, gives his genius an impulse towards the highest possible expression. Realism brings into prominence only the truth and palpable actuality of this content. It sets art on a sure foundation and opens the treasures of the visible world of matter. It brings art into living relationship with life and nature, with national characteristics and current ideas, and leads it, through the favoring influence of artistic industries, into the home life of the people. This system, however, does not always safeguard the true worth of the highest art, whose part it is not to imitate, but to idealize reality, to seek its materials in the world of ideas as well as in that of phenomena; which sets a greater, unchangeable truth side by side with one which is lower in this world of experience, and does not, to take one example, regard, after the coarser manner of realistic art, mere fishermen of Galilee, in working garb and With Jewish features, as true and fitting presentations of the Lord’s Apostles. It may, therefore, be said with a measure of truth that the chief task of art begins precisely at the point where the truth of nature reaches its perfection. Naturalism, again, goes much further than Realism, in that it not only insists on fidelity to nature, to the point 6f illusion, in all arts, whether of painting, drama, romance, or other, but also suppresses as far as possible all that is spiritual or supersensuous. Relapse into merest sensuousness becomes, in such case, inevitable. Not anatomical and organic fidelity of presentation, but the nude, with its allurement, then easily becomes of chief importance, and the artistic conception sinks likewise, with regard to other things, to the level of crude naturalism and sensuous pleasure. In so far, however, as Naturalism holds aloof from this abyss, it champions the autonomy of art in order to maintain its independence of religion and morality. It thereby sets itself in open contradiction to Christianity; since all things human, even art, are subject to the eternal law. Artistic expression is indeed neither the act of a blindly toiling genius nor that of an understanding governed by its own laws, but is the act of a free, responsible will. It affects not only the sight and perception of the spectator, but also his mental disposition and his will. It is in this respect that the laws of morality apply to art as a practical calling. Likewise, as against Naturalism, a moral and religious aim in art must be recognized. “Art is its own aim” (art for art’s sake), is a principle which holds true only of the immediate or inner aim (finis operis). The work must of course, above all, comply with the laws of the art in order to be a complete work of art. But it may, even so, serve other ends, such as the mental and religious betterment of mankind, and, above all, the glory of God. The systems hitherto referred to are old, and have their source in certain fundamental views of art; those which follow owe their origin rather to reflection and reaction. The names: “Classicism,” “Byzantinism,” “Orientalism,” “Romanticism,” “Archaism” and even “Renaissance” (in the ordinary sense of the word) indicate certain tendencies of art, and of aesthetics, which discern the conditions of progress in a reversion to earlier periods of art-development. Witness the aesthetic conceptions of the “Nazarenes,” who laid stress on the poetic, national, and religious temper, in contradistinction to academic stiffness and classical coldness, and who, therefore, reverted to the Italian art of the fifteenth century (the Overbeck school). These ideas exercised an important influence upon the Christian art of Germany, down to the period of Steinle and the Düsseldorf school. Pre-Raphaelitism shares with the Nazarenes their predilection for the Early Renaissance, with its fresh-blossoming, freely-evolving simplicity; shares still more their distaste for a narrowing routine and a conventional uniformity. The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (Rossetti, Holman Hunt, Millais), made noteworthy by Ruskin’s writings on the subject; sought to give English art a greater independence, fidelity to nature, and poetic spirit, by linking it to the “primitive” painters of Italy. This tendency, which showed itself somewhat earlier than the middle of the nineteenth century, endured, under the name of Æstheticism, partly in England, and partly in. America, until the end of the last century (Burne-Jones, William Morris). Its representatives sought chiefly the oldest and best forms of art, and devoted themselves, not Without eccentricities, to furniture and draperies. “Individualism” seeks salvation not in history, but in denial of the historical. It is the so-called “Secession,” however, which has attracted most attention. Having at first been mainly a social movement of revolt (in Munich), it has tended to eschew learning and aspired to create all things anew, with results which are sometimes original, sometimes astonishing, and occasionally ludicrous. Whether the new style sought for will develop from this, is more than doubtful; never, certainly, from the purely negative theory of the tendency, since it tends to do away with ideas, form, and style. Yet this striving after new forms is not without a certain justification. A somewhat widespread theory, which may be called “Akallism,” rejects the old doctrine of the beauty of a true work of art, and aims to set that which has character, or meaning, in the place of the beautiful. As a matter of fact, nearly all writers on aesthetics have made the idea of beauty the foundation of the whole system, and even Jungmann found it impossible to devise a symmetrical system of aesthetics without that idea. There is no need to deny the possibility of devising such a system, but the witness of history is on the side of the so-called aesthetics of beauty. Akallism, however, as a rule, aims at replacing the beautiful not by the great, but by that which is strikingly characteristic, or brutally realistic. Subjectivism threatens scientific aesthetics with an entirely new danger. The forcible emphasis of the subjective side of art, and of the psychological and physiological conditions of artistic expression, is undoubtedly an advance—provided objective conditions and norms suffer no diminution of their rightful sphere. Yet there is a growing tendency to regard all aesthetic principles and judgments as mere fluctuating opinions, and reject all that constitutes system, principle, or definition. Such skepticism, born of spiritual weakness and cowardice, makes an end, once for all, of all science.

A word must be added here concerning the various methods of aesthetics. The older, abstract, treatment of the subject is no longer available, in view of the abundant facilities which perception now has at its disposal. Mere sense-training, however, leads, in its turn, to very superficial knowledge; it is the chief function of perception to prepare the way for mental insight and ideal conception. Nor can we dispense with either the systematic arrangement of the history of art, or the quasi-philosophical basis of aesthetics. The introduction of natural-science methods into aesthetics (Taine, Grant Allen, Helmholtz, Fechner), as well as the close connection between theoretical and practical instruction, and artistic expression (Ruskin), offers great advantages, if not relied on exclusively. At the same time, it remains true that high art can never be wholly dissected by the methods of the exact sciences, but rather itself lays down in turn the governing norms which art expression should follow and, having once attained its proper perfection, is not longer dependent on such expression. The proper subject; therefore, of aesthetics is the great arts; the technique and the theories of the lesser arts have a narrower range of material. As a matter of method, it is advisable to set poetry in the foreground of any discussion concerning art, since it is thereby easier to keep the aesthetics of the other arts from becoming mere technique.

HISTORY OF ÆSTHETICS

Socrates, in Xenophon’s “Memorabilia” and “Symposium,” makes no distinction between the good and the beautiful, and the same indefiniteness extends to Plato’s philosophy (The Republic, Phaedrus, Philebus) and that of Plotinus (Ennead, I, vi). The idealism of this philosophy not only gave rise to the work of Longinus concerning “The Sublime,” but also inspired Dionysius the Areopagite (De Divinis Nominibus) and several Fathers of the Church. Aristotle, on the other hand, gravely analyzed the form and properties of the beautiful as, in his “Poetics,” he analyzed the art of epic, tragic, and comic poetry. The acute incidental comments of St. Thomas Aquinas are chiefly confined to the notion of the beautiful and of art, and to the artistic idea. The systematic treatment of aesthetics begins with A. G. Baumgarten’s “AEsthetica” (1750–58). However little philosophical value his canons of taste, founded on “confused ideas” and “sensitive perceptions” may possess, as a matter of fact, his book had a stronger influence upon the further development of aesthetics than both English and French philosophy had prior to his time. The former, starting from a Platonic idealism, sank further and further into empiricism and sensualism, and insisted, not too philosophically, on the principle of common sense (Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Reid, Hume, Burke). Hogarth devoted himself to painting and proposed as the “line of beauty” the curve which bears his name. Among the French, Batteux, following Aristotle, devised a system of the fine arts, which, however, clung somewhat too closely to the principle of imitating nature. Diderot did the same to an even more marked extent, whereas the later French aesthetics approximated to idealism (Cousin). In Germany aesthetics came to be treated of with much zeal after Baumgarten’s time, both in a philosophical and in a popular fashion. To allude here only to the first, the art-critics Winckelmann and Lessing were among the numerous followers of the Baumgarten school, the former directing his special attention to the art of sculpture. Kant, again, obtained great influence, and, though his pet theory, that beauty is merely a subjective, formal fitness, found no followers, he stimulated activity in many quarters by means of self-contradictory concatenation of various systems. From him, then, is derived the abstract idealism of Schelling and Schopenhauer, wherein the general idea of beauty is not sufficiently absorbed in the form of its manifestation. Concrete idealism also (that of Hegel and Schleiermacher) owes its origin to Kant. It regards beauty not as a universal idea, but as an individual-evolution. To him, too, may be traced the aesthetic formalism of Herbart and Zimmermann, and “aesthetics of feeling” (Kirchmann).

HEGEL, Vorlesungen uber die Æsthetik (Berlin, 1835–38); TH. VISCHER, Æsthetik, oder Wissenschaft des Schonen (Reutlingen, 1846–57); DEUTINGER, Kunstlehre (Ratisbon, 1845); KOSTLIN, Æsthetik (Tubingen, 1863–68); CARRIERE, Æsthetik (Leipzig, 1885); IDEM, Die Kunst im Zusammenhange der Kulturentwicklung (3d ed. Leipzig, 1877–86); ZIMMERMANN, Æsthetik als Formwissenschaft (Vienna, 1865); JUNGMANN, Æsthetik (3d ed., Freiburg, Baden, 1886); KONR. LANCE, Wesen der Kunst (1901); GIETMANN-SORENSEN, Kunstlehre (Freiburg, Baden, 1899–1903). In England RUSKIN’S Modern Painters has had a wide circulation, as have his other numerous works. The following French works may be mentioned: SUTTER, Esthetique generale et appliquee (Paris, 1865); LONGHAYE, Theorie des belles lettres (Paris, 1885).

For the history of aesthetics: MULLER, Gesch. der Theorie der Kunst bei den Alten (Breslau, 1834–37); ZIMMERMANN, Gesch. der Æsthetik (Vienna, 1858); SCHASLER, Kritische Gesch. der Æsthetik (Berlin, 1872); VON HARTMANN, Die deutsche Æsthetik seit Kant (Leipzig, 1886).

For the history of Art: KRAUS, Gesch. der christl. Kunst (Freiburg, Baden, 1896–97); SPRINGER, Handb. der Kunstgesch. (6th ed., Leipzig, 1901–2); KUHN, Allgem. Kunstgesch. (Einsiedeln, 1891, incomplete in 1906); WOESMANN, Gesch. der Kunst aller Zeiten u. Volker (Leipzig, 1905) not yet complete.

G. GIETMANN

Æterni Patris (Pius IX)

The Apostolic Letter of Pius IX, by which he summoned the Vatican Council. It is dated Rome, 29 June, 1868. It begins with the same words, and is therefore quoted under the same title, as the Encyclical of Leo XIII on scholastic philosophy. But their purpose and substance are very different. This letter begins by pointing out the provision which Christ made to have His faith and morals taught, and unity in both secured. He commissioned the Apostles to teach. He placed St. Peter at their head, as Prince of the Apostles. It was an office for the sake of the Church, and, after St. Peter had died, should live on in the persons of a series of successors, one after the other. Hence the same supreme power, jurisdiction, and primacy are transmitted to the Roman Pontiffs who sit in the Chair of Peter. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have always, as their office demands, guarded the Christian faith and Christian morals. Hence, as occasion required, they have summoned General Councils to meet grave needs of the Church. Then follows a rapid review of the existing dangers to faith and morals, to remedy which Pius IX issues this letter summoning the bishops, and others whose right or duty it is to be present, to a General Council to meet in the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome, on the 8th of December, 1869, the anniversary of the definition of the Immaculate Conception. This letter must not be confounded with the Decree Pastor Æternus which was issued by Pius IX at the close of the Council, the following year, and in which the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined.

Acta PII IX (1868), 412–423, tr. in Dub. Rev., 1868, 529–535.

M. O’RIORDAN

Æterni Patris (Leo XIII)

An encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII (issued 4 August, 1879); not to be confused with the apostolic letter of the same name written by Pope Pius IX.

Its purpose was the revival of Scholastic philosophy, according to the mind of St. Thomas Aquinas. It opens with the consideration that the Church, although officially the teacher of revealed truth only, has always been interested in the cultivation of every branch of human knowledge, especially of philosophy on which the right cultivation of other sciences in great measure depends. But the Pope declares that the actual condition of thought makes it a duty for him to do something for the study of true philosophy; because many present evils are to be ascribed to false philosophy, inasmuch as, since man is naturally led by reason, whither the reason leads the will easily follows. The Encyclical then shows how rational philosophy prepares the motives of credibility in matters of faith, and explains and vindicates revealed truths. But the truth unfolded by reason cannot contradict the truths revealed by God; hence, although in the pursuit of natural know]edge philosophy may justly use its own method, principles, and arguments, yet not so as to withdraw from the authority of Divine revelation. The Encyclical next shows, by extracts from many Fathers of the Church, what reason helped by revelation can do for the progress of human knowledge. Then came the Scholastics of the Middle Ages, who brought together and bound into one harmonious whole, by a system of philosophy, the Christian wisdom of the Fathers. Since it was the work of the Scholastic theologians, according to the Encyclical, to unite divine and human science, their theology could never have succeeded, as it did succeed, if their philosophy had not been a complete system.

Leo XIII then marks out St. Thomas as the prince of the Scholastic theologians and philosophers, for which he finds evidence in the acknowledgment of the universities, of popes, general councils, and even of those outside the Church, one of whom boasted that if the works of St. Thomas were taken away he would fight and defeat the Church. That accounts for the unrelenting war which has been made against Scholastic philosophy since the Reformation arose. The Encyclical points out how some have turned away from it, but passes on to show how it can help in the pursuit of metaphysical and social science. It also insists that St. Thomas constantly founded his reasons and arguments on experiments; in the course of the centuries which have passed since his time, experiments have, of course, been disclosing facts and secrets of nature; nevertheless the writings of St. Thomas bear witness that the experimental spirit was as strong in him as it is in us. Hence, in the Pope’s appeal to the bishops of the Christian world to, help in restoring and spreading the “wisdom” (sapientiam) of St. Thomas, he repeats, Sapientiam Sancti Thomae dicimus, because, as he explains, he does not at all ask to have the excessive subtleties of some scholastics revived, nor opinions which later investigations have exploded. The purpose of Leo XIII was the revival of St. Thomas’s philosophy and the continuing of his spirit of investigation, but not necessarily the adoption of every argument and opinion to be found in the works of the scholastics. It is worthy of remark that Leo XIII, following up the Encyclical, addressed (15 October, 1879) a letter to Cardinal de Luca in which, besides ordering that the philosophy of St. Thomas be taught in all the Roman schools, he founded the “Accademia di San Tommaso,” and made provision for a new edition of St. Thomas’s works. The Accademia has done much to help on the movement thus inaugurated, and a Collegium of Dominican Fathers have ever since been working at the new (Leonine) edition of St. Thomas. A great part of the work has already been done, but all will not be completed for some years to come.

Acta Leonis XIII, 283–285 (1879); WYNNE; Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, 34–37 (tr., New York, 1903.)

M. O’RIORDAN

Aëtius

A Roman general, patrician, and consul, b. towards the end of the fourth century; d. 454.

He was the son of an Italian mother and Gaudentius, a Scythian soldier of the empire, and in his youth had been given as a hostage to Alaric (from whom he learned the art of war), and to Rugila, King of the Huns, and in this way; doubtless, acquired among them the prestige and authority that were at once his basis of power and the source of his fall. This deliverer of Europe from the Huns first appears in history as the leader of 60,000 Huns in the pay of the imperial usurper Johannes (424). The ignominious execution of the latter was followed by the pardon of Aëtius and his restoration to the favor of the Empress Placidia. He was made Count (probably of Italy), and became the chief adviser of the Western rulers, Placidia and her son Valentinian III. In this quality it was not long before he came into conflict with the powerful Bonifacius, Count of Africa, and is said by later historians (Procopius of Byzantium, John of Antioch) to have so discredited the latter with Placidia that he was driven to revolt, brought over (428) the Vandals into Africa, and entered Italy (432) with the purpose of overthrowing in civil war his powerful enemy. But Boniface fell in battle near Rimini, and Aëtius retired for some time to the Hunnish camp in Pannonia. In 433 he returned to power at Ravenna, and for the remaining seventeen years of the joint reign of Placidia and Valentinian III was, as before, the ruling spirit of the Western Empire. The peace that he maintained through his alliances with the Huns and the Alani and through a treaty with the Ostrogoths, was broken (450) by the invasion of Attila. In the summer of that year Aëtius, in concert with the brave and loyal Theodoric, King of the Visigoths, relieved Orléans besieged by Attila, and arrested the progress of the great Hun on the Catalaunian Fields, near Troyes, where he won one of the decisive victories of history, and saved Europe for Latins, Teutons, Celts, and Slavs, as against the degraded and odious Huns.

His death followed close upon his triumph; this strong and resourceful man was slain at Ravenna (454) by the weakling Emperor Valentinian III, in a fit of jealous rage, never clearly explained, but supposedly caused by the ambition of Aëtius to place his son upon the imperial throne. The assassination of the savior of Western civilization led to the assassination (455) of Valentinian.

GIBBON, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, xxxiii-v; HODGKIN, Italy and her Invaders (Oxford, 1892), I, ii, 874 sqq; 889–98; BURY, History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1889), I, 159–83. For a critical discussion of certain legendary items in the history of Aëtius see FREEMAN, Aëtius and Boniface, in English Hist., Review, July, 1887.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Affinity (in the Bible)

Scripture recognizes affinity as an impediment to wedlock. This is evident from the legislation contained in Lev., xviii, 8, 14–16, 18; xx, 11, 12, 14, 20, 21. Unlike canonical affinity, which arises both from lawful and unlawful consummated carnal intercourse, affinity in the code of the Old Testament springs from the sponsalia only, which with the Hebrews did not differ substantially from our matrimonium ratum. The above mentioned texts forbid marriage (1) in linea recta, with stepmother, stepdaughter, grand-stepdaughter, mother-in-law, daughter-in-law; (2) in linea collaterali, with paternal uncle’s wife—aunt—(some versions include also maternal uncle’s wife), with sister-in-law, except in those cases where the lex leviratus obtains, with wife’s sister as long as the former is living. Be it remarked here that the Jews considered the relationship existing between the wife and her husband’s family as of a closer nature than that between the husband and his wife’s family.

The laws given in Lev., xviii receive sanction in Lev., xx. Death is indicated as the penalty of those who transgress the ordinances of affinity in linea recta, whereas childlessness is threatened to those who marry within the forbidden degrees in linea collaterali. It is well to note that childlessness here referred to means either that the offspring shall be looked upon as illegitimate, or that they shall be considered as the legitimate descendants of the deceased uncle or brother. In either case they would be childless before the law, and their possessions would pass into another family. No sanction is given to the law prohibiting a man from marrying simultaneously two sisters. From the fact that the separation of the spouses is nowhere enjoined in case they married within the forbidden degree in linea collaterali, we may infer that the existence of these impediments did not void the matrimonial contract. The sanction of the laws in question is, with one exception, rather severe. What reasons dictated this rigor? Moral propriety is one. The expressions “heinous crime” and “great abomination” are tokens of the inspired writer’s unfeigned abhorrence of the acts qualified by them. The welfare of family life is another. People closely related as a rule dwell together, especially in Eastern countries. Were it not for the above-mentioned prohibitions disorders fatal to family life would creep in under the pretext of future marriage. Maimonides and St. Thomas insist strongly on this reason. The Bible finally intimates that the observance of these laws will differentiate the chosen people from heathen nations (Lev., xviii, 24). The New Testament does not contain any legislation on this subject, but narrates two incidents where the laws of Leviticus were Violated. Herod Antipas married Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip (Matt., xiv, 3, 4; Mark, vi, 17–18; Luke, iii, 19), contrary to Lev., xviii, 16. For, even granting that Philip was dead, a much controverted question, the lex leviratus did not obtain since Herodias had a daughter by Philip. The man of Corinth had his father’s wife (I Cor., v, 1) in opposition to Lev., xviii, 8.

DE HUMMELAUER, Commentarius in Leviticum (Paris, 1897); JAMES in HASTINGS, Diet. of the Bible (New York, 1898); MANY in Vie., Diet. de la Bible (Paris, 1895) s.v.; CRELIER, Commentaire sur l’Exode et le Levitique (Paris, 1886).

E. HEINLEIN

Affinity (in Canon Law)

A relationship arising from the carnal intercourse of a man and a woman, sufficient for the generation of children, whereby the man becomes related to the woman’s blood-relatives and the woman to the man’s. If this intercourse is between husband and wife, this relationship extends to the fourth degree of consanguinity, and the degree of affinity coincides with that of blood relationship. Today affinity does not beget affinity. Therefore the relatives of the man do not become relatives of the woman’s relatives, neither do those of the woman become relatives of the man’s relatives. Even if the intercourse were the result of force or committed in ignorance, e.g. in drunkenness, the juridical effect would follow. If the intercourse is licit, it is a diriment impediment of marriage in the collateral line of the fourth degree, as also in the direct line. If the intercourse is illicit or out of marriage, the impediment today is limited to the second degree. The Council of Trent makes no distinction with regard to the extent in either line. Though the Church has no jurisdiction over the not-baptized, yet it considers an affinity arising before baptism as a diriment impediment. The regulations of the Mosaic law, based on considerations of relationship, are contained in Leviticus, xviii. The design of the legislator was apparently to give an exhaustive list of prohibitions; he not only gives examples of degrees of relationship, but he specifies the prohibitions which are strictly parallel to each other, e.g. son’s daughter and daughter’s daughter, wife’s son’s daughter and wife’s daughter’s daughter, whereas had he wished to exhibit the prohibited degree, one of these instances would have been sufficient. He prohibits marriage to a brother’s widow, but not to a deceased wife’s sister. Yet he requires a brother to marry his brother’s widow in case the latter died without issue; and he cautions the man not to hold intercourse with his wife’s sister while the wife is living. The Roman law considered the intercourse of marriage to be a bar to marriage only with the kindred in the direct line. The Christian emperors extended it to the first degree of collateral affinity. The ecclesiastical law extended the juridical effect also to illicit intercourse. In the Council of Elvira (c. 300), the only recognized prohibition is the marriage of a widower with his deceased wife’s sister. The prohibition became slowly more extensive till, in 1059, the eleventh canon of the Council of Rome recognizes the impediment of affinity as well as of consanguinity to extend to the seventh degree. This probably arose from the need of mingling the various barbarian races through marriage, an end that was effected by the extension of prohibitions of marriage between persons related. Innocent III in the Fourth Council of Lateran (1215) limited both affinity and consanguinity to the fourth degree. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, c. iv, De Ref.) limited the juridical effect of the extra-matrimonial intercourse to the second degree of affinity.

The motive for the impediment of affinity is akin to, though not as strong as, that of consanguinity; there arises from the partners’ carnal intercourse a nearness and natural intimacy with the blood-relatives of the other side. The degrees of affinity are determined by the same rule as the degree of blood-relationship. Before the Fourth Council of Lateran two other kinds of affinity were recognized as an impediment to marriage. If a man then married a widow, those who were akin to her by the previous marriage were also akin to the present husband. Moreover, if the first husband of the widow had been a widower, the blood relatives of his first wife were akin to the first husband, were also akin to the new wife, and to the last husband. We give an example: Titius contracted and consummated marriage with Bertha. The blood-relatives of Bertha were akin to Titius. Bertha dies. Titius contracts and consummates marriage with Sarah. The blood-relatives of Bertha, akin to Titius by the first kind, became akin to Sarah by the second kind of affinity. Titius dies and Sarah contracts and consummates marriage with Robert. The blood-relatives of Bertha, akin by second kind to Sarah, become akin by the third kind of affinity to Robert. Affinity also, in the ancient law, arose between the children of a woman from a deceased husband and the children of her husband from a deceased wife. Hence a father and a son could not marry a mother and a daughter. Affinity begot affinity. But the Fourth Council of Lateran took away all but the first kind of affinity; hence the axiom that “affinity does not beget affinity.” There was some really groundless discussion in the eighteenth century as to whether a step-father could marry the widow of his deceased stepson; but it was authoritatively decided, as Benedict XIV states (De Syn. Dioec., IX, xii) that there was no impediment to their marriage, it having been done away with by the Fourth Council of Lateran.

The impediment to marriage from affinity arises from ecclesiastical law. This is clearly recognized today by theologians with regard to collateral affinity. The Church grants dispensation in all the degrees of this affinity. In regard to affinity in the direct line, there was a serious discussion whether in the first degree it arose from a natural, Divine, or ecclesiastical law; by what law was a stepfather forbidden to marry his stepdaughter? The Church refrains from granting the dispensation, but does not disclaim the right to do so. Indeed, a decree of the Holy Office (20 February, 1888) implies that this affinity arises from ecclesiastical law: “The Holy Father permits bishops to dispense from all public impediments diriment of marriage derived from the ecclesiastical law, except from the order of the priesthood, and affinity, in the direct line, arising from lawful intercourse.” Craisson states (Man. Jur. Canon, Lib. II, De affin., n. 4285) that “Collator Andegavensis” quotes (394) Sanchez and Pontius as asserting that “the Pope dispenses converted infidels married within this first degree of affinity, if they had contracted marriage in accord with the law of their country.” This supposes that this affinity in the first degree of the direct line is not an impediment of the natural or Divine law. An additional argument may be drawn from the dispensation which the Church grants in this case where there has been occult unlawful intercourse. Any repugnance of nature would hold then, as where the intercourse proceeded from marriage.

If a married person should have intercourse with the marriage-partner’s blood-relative of the second degree, in the direct or collateral line, a penalty is placed upon the one so sinning of forfeiting the right to ask for marital intercourse from the marriage-partner, though the innocent party does not forfeit the right to claim it. If the wrong had been done through fear, the common teaching is that the penalty is not incurred, and this is also probably so if done without knowledge of the penalty. If incurred, a dispensation from the penalty may be obtained from the bishop. The affinity would become more complicated, and add new bars to marriage, if the person had intercourse with several persons of varying degrees of affinity. By the Roman law, the affinity ceased at the death of the one from whom it originated. Thus when a remarried father died, his second wife was no longer akin to the children of his former wife. By canon law a marriage not consummated does not beget affinity. By a marriage null through a diriment impediment, the affinity probably does not extend beyond the second degree. By the French code the affinity in the direct line, and in the first degree of the collateral line, is a bar to marriage, though the privilege was given to the king to dispense in the second case. The British law forbids the marriage of a man with his deceased wife’s sister, and a marriage of this kind performed in the colonies of the British Empire, where it may be allowed, is not held as valid in Great Britain. In the session of the British Parliament in 1906, a strong effort was made to enact a law to recognize as valid, in Great Britain, such a marriage, if the colonial law recognized its validity where contracted. In Virginia this marriage is null, but it is generally recognized in the other States of the Union. The Greek Church adheres to the law as laid down in Leviticus, xviii, 8, 14, 16, 18; xx, 11, 12, 14, 19, 21. Yet the Greek patriarchs and bishops grant dispensations from some of the affinities therein mentioned. Nestorians allow affinity to beget affinity very extensively. Armenians extend the affinity to the fourth degree. The United Orientals approach the Catholic regulations.

BENEDICT XIV, De Syn. Dioec., IX, xiii; SANTI, Praelect. Jur. Canon. Decret. Gregorii. IX, Lib. iv, Tit. xiv, De affinitate (Ed. Leitner, Ratisbon, 1898); FEIJE, De Imped. et Disp. Matr. (4th ed., 1893); CRAISSON, Manuale Jur. Can., Lib. II; ANDR -WAGNER, Diet. de droit canon., s.v. Affinite (3d ed., Paris, 1901); cf. FREISEN, Geschichts des Kanon. Eherechts (2d ed., 1893), and ESMEIN, Le mariage en droit canonique, I (Paris, 1891).

R.L. BURTSELL

Affirmation

A solemn declaration accepted in legal procedure in lieu of the requisite oath. In England, Canada, and the United States, this is universal. In England and Canada the statutory enactments upon the matter provide that false statements under affirmation shall constitute the crime of perjury in like manner as false statements under oath. The same provision either direct or implied is found in the legislation of the various States of the Union. This right to affirm instead of giving oath is generally conferred in deference to conscientious or religious scruples against swearing, such as are entertained by Quakers, Moravians, Dunkers, and Mennonites. In the court of conscience such an affirmation is not held to have the standing of an oath for the cardinal and obvious reason that the intention to swear, i.e. to call God to witness, is formally excluded.

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Afflighem

A Benedictine abbey near Alost in Brabant, Belgium. It was founded by a party of six knights who, after abandoning their wild life, had resolved to do penance in the religious life on the scene of their former excesses. After building a church, they received, in 1084, a gift of the neighbouring lands from the Countess Adela and her sons. The rule of St. Benedict was adopted, a Benedictine, Wederig, having been the instrument of their conversion, and in after times the abbey became known for its strict observance of religious discipline. The Dukes of Brabant and Lorraine, and the Counts of Flanders, Louvain, Brussels, and Bologne were its patrons and protectors, and regarded it as a coveted privilege to be buried in the abbey church. Several monasteries, among them Maria-Laach, owe their foundation to monks from Afflighem. St. Bernard, who visited the abbey in 1146, declared that he had found angels there. It was during this visit that an image of Our Lady is said to have replied to the salutation of the Saint. In 1523, Afflighem joined the Bursfeld Congregation—a union of Benedictine Monasteries formed in the fifteenth century for the stricter observance of monastic rule. In 1569, the Archbishop of Mechlin became commendatory abbot and exercised his authority through a prior. This continued until the Suppression. Archbishop Boonen desired to sever relations with the Bursfeld Congregation and introduce the Monte Cassino observance. Yielding to his solicitations, the Prior, Benedict Haeften, founded, in 1627, a new congregation, “B. M. V. in Templo Pr(sentat(“. It included Afflighem and several other Belgian monasteries. It was dissolved in 1654. In 1796, in consequence of the French Revolution, the monks were dispersed, the buildings destroyed, and the lands sold. The last Prior, Beda Regauts, preserved the miraculous image of Our Lady, and the staff and chalice which had been presented by St. Bernard. These came into the possession of the Benedictine, Veremund Daens, who, in 1838, began a new foundation at Termonde, which was transferred in 1869 to Afflighem. The first abbot of the old abbey was Fulgentius (1088–1122). Among the more prominent of his successors may be mentioned Franco, (1122–35), the author of twelve books “De Grati(“ (P.L., CLXVI), Albert, whose devotion to Our Lady won him the title Abbas Marianus, and Benedict Haeften, the author of several works of art.

HEIGL, in Kirhenlex., I, 296; PITRA, Notre Dame d’ Afflighem, in Revue Catholique (Louvain, 1849), B. III, 425–431, 457–468; Studien u. Mittheil. In Cisters, Orden (18887), VIII, 423–427 (for the new Abbey).

H.M. BROCK

Denis Auguste Affre

Archbishop of Paris, b. at St. Rome-de-Tam, in the Department of Tam, 27 September, 1793; d. in Paris, 27 June, 1848. At the age of fourteen he entered the seminary of Saint Sulpice, then under the direction of his uncle, Denis Boyer. He completed his studies with great credit, and spent some time as professor of philosophy in the seminary at Nantes. He was ordained a priest 16 May, 1818, and joined the Sulpician community. He was successively Vicar-General of the Dioceses of Luçon and Amiens, and was appointed Coadjutor of Strasburg in 1839. This post, however, he never filled, being called on to act as Vicar-Capitular of Paris, conjointly with MM. Auger and Morel, at the death of Archbishop Quélen. Five months later he was nominated to the vacant see (1840). His tenure of this office was marked by a zealous devotion to the improvement of clerical studies and to the free exercise of the teaching office (liberté d’enseignement). During the insurrection of 1848 the Archbishop was led to believe that his presence at the barricades might be the means of restoring peace. He accordingly applied to General Cavaignac, who warned him of the risk he was about to incur. “My life,” the Archbishop answered, “is of little value, I will gladly risk it.” Soon afterwards, the firing having ceased at his request, he appeared on the barricade at the entrance to the Faubourg Saint-Antoine, accompanied by M. Albert, of the national guard, who wore the dress of a workingman, and bore a green branch as a sign of peace, and by Tellier, a devoted servant. His reception was not very favorable, and he had spoken only a few words, when the insurgents, hearing some shots, and thinking they were betrayed, opened fire on the National Guard, and the Archbishop fell. He was removed to his palace, where he died. Next day the National Assembly issued a decree expressing their great sorrow at his death. The public funeral, 7 July, was one of the most striking spectacles of its kind. Archbishop Afire wrote, in addition to his pastorals and various articles in “La France Chrétienne,” “Traité de l’administration temporelle des paroisses” (Paris, 1827; 11th ed., 1890), “Traité de la propriété des biens ecclésiastiques” (Paris, 1837), “Introduction philosophique à l’étude du Christianisme” (Paris, 5th ed., 1846).

FISQUET, La France pontificale (Paris, 1867), I, 619; D’AVENEL, Les évêques et archevêques de Paris (Paris, 1878), II, 264; The Biographies of DE RIANCEY (Paris, 1848); CRUICE (Paris, 1850); CASTAN (1864).

FRANCIS W. GREY

St. Afra

MARTYR.

The city of Augusta Vindelicorum (the present Augsburg) was situated in the northern part of the Roman province of Rh(tia on the river Lech, not far from its junction with the Danube. It was an important Roman colony, invested with municipal rights (municipium) by the Emperor Hadrian, into which Christianity had penetrated even before the time of Constantine, as is proved beyond question by the martyrdom of St. Afra. It is an indisputable historical fact that a Christian named Afra was beheaded at Augsburg during the persecution of Diocletian (c. 304) for her steadfast profession of faith, and that at an early period her grave was the object of great veneration. The so-called “Martyrologium Hieronymianum,” a compilation from various calendars and lists of martyrs, dating in its original form from the fourth century, mentions, under date of 5 August (in some MSS., 6 or 7 August), St. Afra as having suffered in the city of Augsburg, and as buried there (Martyrologium Hieronym., ed. De Rossi and Duchesne; Acta SS., II, Nov., 1 sqq.). In his poem on St. Martin, Venantius Fortunatus, Bishop of Poitiers in the sixth century, also mentions Augsburg as her burial place (Vita S. Martini, IV, 642 sq.; Pergis ad Augustam quam Virdo et Lica fluentant, Illic ossa sacræ venerabere martyris Afræ). There are extant certain Acts of the martyrdom of St. Afra (Acta SS., II, August, 39 sqq.; ed. Krusch in Mon. Germ. Hist.; SS. RR. Merovingic., III, 56 sqq.), in the opinion of most critics not a coherent whole, but a compilation of two different accounts, the story of the conversion of St. Afra, and the story of her martyrdom. The former is of later origin, and has not the least claim to historical credibility, being merely a legendary narrative of Carlovingian times, drawn up with the intention of connecting with St. Afra the organization of the church of Augsburg. It relates that the grandparents of Afra came from Cyprus to Augsburg and were there initiated into the worship of Venus. Afra was given over as a prostitute to the service of the goddess by her own mother Hilaria, or Hilara. In the persecution of Diocletian, Bishop Narcissus of Gerundum, in Spain, took refuge from his persecutors in Augsburg, and chanced to find an asylum in Afra’s house. Through his efforts the family was converted to Christianity, and baptized. Narcissus, on his departure, ordained presbyter (or bishop) a brother of Hilaria, Dionysius by name. To the same narrative clearly belongs the conclusion of the story of Afra’s martyrdom, in which mention is made of the mother and three handmaidens of Afra (Digna, Eunomia or Eumenia, and Eutropia or Euprepia), who, after the remains of the martyr were placed in the tomb, themselves suffered martyrdom by fire. The second part of the “Acts of Afra,” dealing with her trial and death (Ruinart, Acta Sincera, 482–484, Ratisbon, 1859), is more ancient. In the opinion of Duchesne it dates from the end of the fourth, or the beginning of the fifth, century. It may, therefore, have preserved, not only the fact of the martyrdom, but also reliable details concerning the Saint and her death. In this narrative Afra alone is mentioned, and there is no trace of those exaggerations and fantastic embellishments which characterize the later legends of the martyrs. According to this Passio, Afra (see MARTYRS, ACTS OF) was condemned to the flames because she professed herself a Christian, and refused to participate in pagan rites. She was executed on a little island in the river Lech, and her remains were buried at some distance from the place of her death. The testimony of Venantius Fortunatus shows that her grave was held in great veneration in the sixth century. Her remains are still at Augsburg in the church of Sts. Ulrich and Afra, beside which stands a famous Benedictine abbey. Her feast is celebrated on 7 August.

J.P. KIRSCH

Africa

This name, which is of Phoenician origin, was at first given by the Romans to the territory about the city of Carthage. It gradually came to be applied to the whole Libyan territory occupied by the Romans, and it was understood in this sense, as late as the eleventh century, by Pope St. Leo IX, who, when asked to decide as to the primacy of the bishops of ancient Numidia, wrote these words, now engraved in letters of gold on the modern basilica of Carthage, built by Cardinal Lavigerie: “Sine dubio, post Romanum pontificem, primus Nubiae episcopus et totius Africae maximus metropolitanus est Carthaginiensis episcopus” (There can be no doubt that after the Roman Pontiff the first Bishop of Nubia, and indeed the principal Metropolitan of Africa is the Bishop of Carthage). In their turn the Arabs adopted the name; then the writers of the Middle Ages; finally it has come to include the entire continent.

I. THE COUNTRY

Africa is, in extent, about 12,000,000 square miles, or about three times as large as Europe, and five times as large as the United States, without Alaska. It is joined to the Asiatic continent only by the Isthmus of Suez. Its general shape is that of an irregular triangle, which peculiarity of shape, with the scarcity of bays or harbours, seriously affected its historical development prior to the use of steam. It rests on a rocky foundation, which forms an immense plateau in the interior, whence, in isolated masses, branch off ranges like the Atlas, the mountains of Abyssinia, Cape Colony, the Orange River Colony, the Transvaal, the Kenya, Kilima-Njaro, the Mfumbiro, and the Kameruns. These mountains, which attain in some places a height of 20,000 feet, have the appearance of islets, where rise in stages belts of a wonderfully varied vegetation. This plateau is bounded by a coast depression, whence the land sinks gradually. The west coast, from Morocco to the Cape, is extremely rough and difficult, to approach. On the Equator the rains are frequent and torrential; at Gaboon, for instance, it rains every day for nine months, the atmosphere is heavy with humidity, and the heat is maintained at an almost unchanging temperature. An enormous quantity of water is gathered in aerial seas by the winds, which, meeting, neutralize each other. This water, drawn down by the daily thunder-storms, forms the vast reservoirs of the interior: the lakes of Timbuctu, Tchad, Victoria, Albert, Tanganyika, Bangweolo, Mweru, Nyassa, and others, whence flow the principal rivers: the Niger, the Benue, the Congo, the Zambesi, and the Nile, and others, less known, but of considerable importance. Most of them flow to the sea over rocky beds, forming rapids and waterfalls. These rivers have their sources at a much greater altitude than the rivers of other continents. The source of the Congo is at a height of 6,000 feet; of the Nile at 4,500; and of the Niger at 3,000; while that of the Amazon is not more than 700 feet, and the Mississippi only about 2,000 feet. It has been said that Africa has been less travelled than any other part of the world. It is there that are found, more than anywhere else, huge mountains, such as Kilima-Njaro, Kenya, etc., which rise suddenly from the level surface of great plains; vast lakes of uncertain outlines, which seem at one time to be drying up and at another to be making new inroads on the land; long rivers whose branches cover millions of square miles, and which, like the Nile, flow slowly through valleys as desolate as an unfinished world; solemn forests and the endless desert, vast and well suited to the peculiar nature of such great plants as the baobab, and of strange creatures like the ostrich, the giraffe, the elephant, the hippopotamus, and the gorilla; in very truth it is the primitive world. It is in the Equatorial zone, and especially towards the west, that the forests are largest, while in other parts they are somewhat irregularly scattered, with trees rising straight and mighty above a vigorous undergrowth. It is possible to travel for days, and even months, in these forests without so much as a glimpse of the sky, except in some chance clearing where the natives have cut down a few trees, to build their little village, or to till their fields. Silence reigns everywhere, broken only, in the daytime, by an occasional flapping of wings overhead; and at night by the shrill music of insects in a monotonous chorus. Storms echo in a frightful fashion; the rains cause an invariable humidity, rendering everything impervious to fire, and it is only during the short dry season of three or four months that it is safe to penetrate these forests. On both sides of the Equator, as far as 15 degrees north and 20 degrees south, stretches a zone that has two seasons, a rainy and a dry season. In this region, the great virgin forest and perpetual verdure are but seldom found save in the narrow spaces, stretching ribbonlike along the river banks, or crowding in the valleys, or climbing, in rows, along the mountain-sides. Elsewhere are found great prairies, over which the fire passes at the end of each dry season, and where roam great herds of antelope, giraffe, zebu, and buffalo. Beyond this double zone, which begins with Equatorial landscapes and ends in a semi-desert, stretches another zone of rocks, grass-lands, swamps, clay, and almost wholly barren sand. This, to the north, is the Sahara and the Libyan desert; to the south, the Kalahari and the solitude that surrounds it. It is a land where the sky is without cloud, and the earth without shade. These deserts, which are not lacking in grandeur and attraction, mark, north and south, the true boundaries of Africa. Beyond them, north and south—to the north, Mauretania, Algeria, Egypt; to the south, the region of Cape Colony—the soil, the climate, the fauna and flora, the inhabitants are no longer characteristically African, but European.

THE INHABITANTS

The most recent statistics give the population of Africa as from 160,000,000 to 200,000,000 souls. Of these, 128,000,000 represent the black element very unevenly distributed over the 12,000,000 square miles of surface. In some parts it is very dense, as in the valleys of the Nile and of the Niger; in Algeria, Morocco, and Abyssinia; in certain States of the Sudan; near the lakes of the interior, and in the region of Cape Colony; while it is very sparse in great spaces like the Sahara and the Kalahari desert, or the swamps where the tributaries of the Nile and of the Zambesi pour their sluggish currents. The occupation of the continent by the European nations, which put an end to local wars, slave-raids, and, to some extent, to poisonings, infanticide, and human sacrifices, might well lead men to hope for the repeopling of Africa. These advantages, however, seem, in modern times, sadly outweighed by the spread of the dread sleepingsickness and other contagious diseases, drunkenness, and the breaking up of native family life, due to contact with our civilization. African ethnography presents a very complicated problem. Five thousand years before Christ the valley of the Nile was inhabited by a population already possessing a remarkable civilization. Traces of its occupation even prior to that period, during the Age of Stone, have been found from the Atlas to the Cape, from Somaliland to the Guinea Coast. The question, then, arises, whether these primitive populations may not now be represented by the Negritos, or Pygmies, of Africa, mentioned by ancient authors and once more discovered in modern times. Under the various names of “Akka,” “Ba-twa,” “A-kwa,” “Be-kü,” etc., they are met with in scanty groups throughout Equatorial Africa, from the banks of the Tuba to the valley of the Ogowai (French Congo) and that of the Congo. Near the Cunene they come in contact with another population of similar stature (4 ft. to 4 ft. 2 in.), manners, and physical qualities: the “Sân,” called “Bosjesmannen” by the Dutch, and “Bushmen” in English. There are two types: one black, the other yellowish; but they undoubtedly constitute distinct races, with well marked ethnic characteristics. There are valid reasons for thinking that these tribes formerly lived in Ethiopia and in the Nile basin. Traces of similar populations are found in Europe; and, at the present day a parallel race represented by the Negritos of the Andamans, Moluccas, and the islands in the vicinity of IndoChina. These little men would therefore seem to have occupied the whole of the ancient continent, scattering from a central point, which, if we may trust certain indications, was the valley of the Euphrates. That which is certain, however, is that the Negritos appear in Africa as a primitive population, which was scattered by the stronger and better organized tribes who came after them. This, moreover, is exactly the notion they have formed concerning themselves, and which has been formed of them by the blacks; they look on themselves, and are looked on by their neighbours, as the first owners of the Earth. It is to them that the forest belongs, with all that it contains, animals and fruits; and it is they who possess the secrets of African nature. Their life is everywhere the same; they are nomads, who make no settled encampments, have no trade, commerce, or farming, neither flocks nor domestic animals of any kind, except a small dog, also found all over Africa, whose life is on a level with the wretched life of his master. These people live by hunting, by what they can pick up or beg from the agricultural or pastoral tribes among whom they live, and whom they supply with meat, ivory, and rubber. Their language as a rule resembles that of the people among whom they have stayed longest. It is, however, among the Sân (Bushmen) that we must look for the race which, it would seem, grew up shortly afterwards by mingling their blood, and possibly their speech, with that of the Negritos (dwarfs). These are the Namas, Nama-kwa, Grikwa (Griqua), etc., known to Europeans by the generic name of Hottentots (a name derived from a Dutch word meaning “brute”). Somewhat taller, of a darker colour, with longer hair, equally prone to obesity, they have fixed villages and lead a pastoral life. Their language, which is agglutinative, with pronominal suffixes, is characterized by the use of four different kinds of “clicks,” also used by the San, and which have no equivalent in our alphabet. In the opinion of many scholars—among them, Deniker—the primitive Hottentots before their fusion with the San were the original Bantu. This word (from mu-ntu, “man,” “a being endowed with reason,” plural, ba-ntu) has been used to designate an important family of languages which stretches from one ocean to the other, from the basin of the Congo and the Victoria Nyanza in the north, to the Orange River and the Limpopo, deducting the Hottentot tribes. Although every tribe in this vast region has its own language, the basis of vocabulary and grammar is common to them all. They are agglutinative in structure, and characterized by pronominal prefixes which not only determine the number and category of the noun, but extend to the adjective and the verb by very rational rules, which are always applied. The Bantu, who include, among other better known tribes, the Zulus, Basutos, Matabele, Makua, Wa-swahili, Wa-nyamwezi, Ba-ganda, Ba-congo, Uepongwe, Fang, etc., present a great variety of types, due, no doubt, to divers mixtures of race, which, as a rule, it is difficult to trace very far back. Their manner of life seems to depend chiefly on the country they live in; they are farmers, shepherds, and fishermen. Certain tribes, such as the Ba-ganda, have formed, and still form, large communities with regular institutions, generally in the form of an autocratic government. Most of them, however, have maintained their patriarchal life, and are scattered in little villages, practically independent of each other. Moreover, litigation and war, slavery, polygamy, the practice of a degrading fetishism, with their train of legal infanticide, trials by poison and by fire, arbitrary condemnations, poisonings, human sacrifices, and even cannibalism, prevail more or less extensively, and to a greater or less degree among all these interesting peoples. Besides the lands occupied by the Bantu, there are to be found in the valleys of Senegal, Gambia, of the Niger, Lake Tchad, and Benue, strong and numerous tribes of a more markedly negro type, of great stature, strongly dolichocephalous, with very black skins, rounded foreheads, thick lips, and frequent prognathism. These tribes, sufficiently varied in appearance, are often known under the generic name of Nigritians, and are divided into four principal groups: the Nilotic negroes, such as the Mittu, the Bari, the Bongo, the Sandé, etc.; the negroes of the central Sudan, such as the natives of Bornu, Baghirmi, Wadaï, Darfur, Kordofan, etc.; the negroes of the western Sudan, such as the Sonrhaï, the Mossi, the Mandinké, and their kinsmen (Malinké, Bambara, Soninké); and, finally, the coast, or Guinea, negroes, such as the Volof, the Sener, the Susu, the Aku, the Ashanti, the Fanti, the people of Dahomey, the Egbas, the Yoruba, the Mina, the Ibo, etc. These tribes are, as a rule, stronger than the Bantu, more industrious, better organized for fighting, and for resistance to invasion. Many, indeed, have known real epochs of prosperity and greatness. Moreover, this superiority is most clearly marked in proportion to the “crossing” of races. This is true of the “All-colours,” belonging to a different ethnic type, represented by the Hamites (Chamites), also known as Kushites, Ethiopians, or Nubians. To this group should be joined the Bedja of Nubia, the Abyssinians, the Oromo, or Gallas, the Afora, or Danakil, the Somalis, the Masai, and, in the west, the Fula and the Fulbé. All these tribes, whose skin is black, bronze, or reddish—the result, no doubt of a considerable mingling with the tribes they first met with—are, as a rule, of a regular type, often handsome, with shapely limbs, oval faces, long noses, and hair long and curly; all with an air that appears to greater advantage from their skill in draping themselves in the fashion of antique statues. They are no longer negroes. Most of them lead a pastoral life and, divided into something like clans, tend their flocks on the wide strip of half-desert pasture-land which stretches from Cape Gardafui to Cape Verde. They are intelligent, warlike, independent, given to pillage, and full of scorn for inferior races; they are bad neighbours, but have great influence wherever they may be. From the Hamites we pass, by a natural transition, to the Berbers, who have held northern Africa for many centuries. While the other tribes are of Asiatic origin, the Berbers came from Europe at an unknown period, and belong to two types, the brown and the fair. About A.D. 1100, they founded Timbuctoo, and spread as far as the Canary Islands; then, roused by Islam, they made their way into Spain, and threatened the south of France. They are represented by the Barabra, the Kabyles of the Atlas, the Tuareg of the Sahara, and the Moors of the western coast, and have had a considerable part in the formation of the so-called “Arab” populations of the “Barbary States.” In addition to these various elements, yet another, the Semitic, has settled among, and to some extent mingled with, the people of Africa. This element is to be found chiefly in Egypt, in Abyssinia, and on the East Coast. In more recent times there has been an influx of modern Europeans—the Portuguese in Guinea, Angola, and Mozambique; the Dutch on the Gold Coast, at the Cape, and in the valleys of the Orange and the Limpopo; the English, Germans, Belgians, and French in their recent colonies. Thus, at periods which it is impossible to determine, men evidently of the same species, but not of the same race, settled on this primitive soil, mingling some of their qualities, changing their hues, confounding their customs and their speech, yet, nevertheless, often retaining clear traces of their original descent.

III. RELIGION

A. Native Religion

There is no doubt that there is to be found among the nations of Africa, apart from Christianity and Mohammedanism, a religion, a belief in a higher, living, and personal principle, implying on man’s part the duty of recognizing it by means of some kind of worship. Individuals, families, and even communities may doubtless be found in Africa, as elsewhere, utterly, or almost, devoid of all notion of religion and morality. This fact has led certain travellers, who, it is certain, were not familiar with the native languages, who had not penetrated into the inner secrets of the peoples they professed to have studied, and who, in addition, were often wrongly informed by chance interpreters, into the belief that tribes without a religion exist in Africa. A more careful study, however, makes it possible to assert that in Africa religion is everywhere, as M. Robert H. Nassau says, “closely bound up with the different matters which concern the family, the rights of property, authority, the organization of the tribe—with judicial trials, punishments, foreign relations, and with trade.” Religious beliefs and practices, characterized by the two principal elements of prayer and sacrifice, form part of the daily life of the blacks. What is also true, however, is that no body of doctrine, properly so called, exists anywhere with interpreters bound to ensure its integrity, to explain and to hand it down to others. There is, therefore, no distinct religious code, no official teaching, no books, no schools, as in Islam, Buddhism, and other positive religions. What is known concerning supernatural matters is a sort of common deposit, guarded by everybody, and handed down without any intervention on the part of an authority; fuller in one place, scantier in another, or, again, more loaded with external symbols according to the intelligence, the temperament, the organization, the habits, and the manner of the people’s life. Certain specialists, however, exist, known to us as sorcerers, witch-doctors, etc., who are familiar with the mysterious secrets of things, who make use of them on behalf of those interested, and hand them down to chosen disciples. There are also secret societies which guard what may be called the preternatural tradition of the tribe, and deduce therefrom the decisions to be arrived at. Finally, it is understood that certain things are forbidden; there are prohibitions which cannot be defied save at the risk of misfortune. Nevertheless, that which ethnologists call Naturism, Animism, or Fetishism nowhere constitutes in primitive Africa a body of doctrine, with correlative precepts and settled practice which may be reduced to a system. The idea of a Being higher than man, invisible, inaccessible, master of life and death, orderer of all things, seems to exist everywhere; among the Negritos, the Hottentots, the Bantu, the Nigritians, the Hamites; for everywhere this Being has a name. He is the “Great,” the “Ancient One,” the “Heavenly One,” the “Bright One,” the “Master,” sometimes the “Author,” or “Creator.” The notion, however, concerning Him is clear, obliterated, or vague according to the tribe; nowhere, at least, is He represented under any image, for He is incapable of representation. What does He require of us? What are His relations with man? Has life any aim?—All this is unknown; it is unasked. Man finds himself a being on the earth, like the plants and animals. That fact he is conscious of. He eats, he reproduces himself, he does what he can; he dies also, as a rule, though death is looked on as an accident, the causes of which must always be inquired into. In the hereafter, the spirits or shadows of kings, chiefs, witch-doctors, of great men, rich and powerful, being set free from the bodies to which they were united, wander through space until they find another body into which to enter. They keep after this life the power, often intensified, which they had before; they can injure or give help; they can influence the elements. More, they often bring news of themselves; they cause most of the sicknesses of children; they are seen in dreams; they cause nightmares; they are heard at night; they show themselves in many inexplicable phenomena. The shades of ordinary persons have less power; of no importance after death, as in life, they disappear. It is important, however, to give all these shades a fixed abode. This is done by means of certain complicated ceremonies: by calling them into caves, into sacred groves, to the foot of certain trees, sometimes into living animals, but more often into statuettes of earth, wood, or metal, placed on the skull of the ancestor, or containing some part of his remains—nails, hair, eyebrows, or skin. There are some rebellious shades, however, who are difficult to keep in one spot; they are called back by means of fresh ceremonies. Moreover, on all necessary occasions—for the success of a journey, of a hunt, of a trade, or war, to ward off a plague, to turn aside misfortune—recourse is had to the sacred object; prayers are said to it, and offerings made (glass beads, rice, maize, milk, beer); victims are sacrificed to it, birds, kids, sheep, oxen, men; for the more the shade is to be honoured the more worthy must be the sacrifice, Nor is this all. The offering must, of necessity, be eaten in common; it is by drinking the blood, and by eating the flesh of the animal or man sacrificed, in company with the manes of the ancestors vanished, yet present, that their favours are obtained, and they are satisfied. This satisfaction is most esteemed when it is possible to sacrifice their enemies, those who have caused their death, and on whom they thus wreak the sweetest revenge that can be dreamed of. This is the origin of cannibalism, which in some parts of Africa has taken on peculiarly disgusting forms. Ancestor worship, in one form or other, is thus the chief expression of African religion. But besides shades, there are a number of spirits, whose origin is unknown, who reveal themselves in various ways. Most of these are wicked, some terrible, but others are mischievous, capricious, fanciful; while some, again, are more or less indifferent, and sometimes well-disposed. It is the darksome activity of these spirits which must be held accountable for the epidemics, storms, droughts, floods, and fires—all the ills that seem to have no apparent cause. The same holds true of possession, so common everywhere. To offset these ills it is necessary to consult the “seers,” who, after the necessary ceremonies, will find the name and character of the spirit who is at fault; will indicate the specialist (witch-doctor) to whom recourse must be had, and who will obtain the desired result, a cessation of the trial, a cure of the sickness, an end to the possession, by means of the practices or sacrifices demanded by the spirit. In a word, from the point of view of the black man, the world was formed to progress regularly, and might possibly have attained its end, had its Creator so willed it. But, for unknown reasons, God had left His work exposed to many harmful influences of elements, of animals, of men, of sorcerers, of ghosts, of spirits. And, since He is beyond man’s reach, since man cannot get to where He is, and can do nothing against His action or His inactivity, he is led to placate or to neutralize such influences as can be reached among the thousands that everywhere reveal themselves. It is to the general scheme of these mysterious things that we must reduce the almost universal belief that there exists for each individual, for each family, something sacred or forbidden, the taboo of the Maoris, which cannot be touched without misfortune: a fruit, a tree, a fish, an animal, whose name one bears. It is to this scheme, again, that the use of amulets must be referred, made, as they are, of rare and outlandish things; of mysterious remedies, of protective fetishes for everything and against everything. Moreover, divination, second-sight, philtres, enchantments, horoscopes, forecasts, are equally well known. Judicial trials, held to make known the guilty, are of daily occurrence. But, just as it is possible for man to use to his advantage or to neutralize, these mysterious influences, these secret virtues in things, so he can make use of them to effect his revenge, to do harm to those about him, as do sorcerers, conjurers, or wizards. In league with hidden powers, these practitioners send sicknesses, cause death, bewitch their enemies, and roam at night in the form of a ball of fire, of some bird or animal, to spread their witcheries, They are, consequently, feared and hated. Many have recourse to them, if they can get to know them, in order to join them, or to follow them with their hatred. If they are discovered, they are made to do penance, are sold, killed, or burned, as local justice shall decide. It is curious to meet, in the heart of Africa, with facts of sorcery absolutely identical with those known among us in the Middle Ages, and even at the present day. And, if these wizards and witches practice their arts at the risk of their lives, it may be well to add that they have not seldom merited their fate, for many of them, in addition to and aside from their relations to the supernatural, are undeniably very skilful poisoners. Certain anthropologists and ethnologists, anxious to find in Africa a territory propitious to their theories, endeavour to prove that the religious evolution of man starts from simple Naturism, whence it proceeds to Animism, and thence to Fetishism, to attain at length to a more or less pure Theism. This upward march, which supposes man to have set out from the lowest stage towards an indefinite progress, appears reasonable. But it is reasoning a priori, based on an untenable hypothesis. The actual facts are found on examination to be far from agreement with this theory.

(1) Naturism is the worship paid to personified natural objects: the sky, the sun, the moon, the mountains, the thunder, etc. The Hottentots have been said to adore the moon, in whose honour they perform long dances. This statement, however, is now known to be erroneous. The Hottentots, like all Africans, are fond of dancing by moonlight; they hail the moon’s reappearance and follow her course closely, since it is she who measures time, but this is very far from being worship. The true objects of Hottentot worship are the spirits of their dead. They recognize, moreover, a Power higher than these shades, “Tsu Goab,” an expression which the missionaries have made use of to translate the word “God.” Again, other Bantu tribes use terms which mean either “Sky” or “God,” “Sun” or “God,” etc., but make a clear distinction as to the meaning conveyed by these words. Not one, in fact, imagines that a material identity exists between the planet that gives us light, or the firmament wherein it moves, and the Supreme Being who inhabits or makes use of them. The same may be said concerning the thunder. The blacks, indeed, sometimes say that it is God, who by this sign, foretells the rain, but this is not worship. Naturism, in the strict sense given to the word, does not exist in Africa.

(2) Animism, based on the distinction between matter and spirit, is the belief in beings which have no affinity to any special thing in nature, but are endowed with a higher power; to whom a certain worship is paid, yet who are incapable of being represented in a visible form. Taken in this very vague and general sense, it may be said that Animism is the religion of a great part of Africa: the Negritos, Hottentots, Bantus of the south and east, many of the Nigritians, and most of the Hamites, have practically neither fetishes, idols, nor material images, honoured with any kind of worship. They believe, as we have said, in the survival of the spirits of the departed (under an ill-defined form which they liken, as a rule, to a shadow), in their possession of more or less power, in the need of honouring them, placating them, and settling them in fixed localities. They believe, also, in the existence of spirits differing from these shades; in mysterious influences; lastly, in a Higher Power which they more or less clearly distinguish from visible creation, from the earth, the firmament, etc. However, the want of a true idea of a supreme Deity, and scientific ignorance, are the causes of a great mass of superstition of all kinds among the blacks, even among those who are animists.

(3) Fetishism. The question has been raised whether Animism gave birth to Fetishism, or sprang from a purified Fetishism; but the discussion would be futile. These two forms of religion, if one may call them so, seem to correspond more closely with two divergent subjective dispositions than with two principles, two doctrines, or two traditions. We find, in fact, individuals and families, in the midst of animist populations, who materialize the expression of their worship by making images, into which they summon the souls of their dead; and similarly, in the midst of fetishist populations, a number of individuals and families who have no fetishes. The word “fetish,” derived from the Portuguese feitigo (Lat. facticius), signifies a material object to which is attributed a mysterious influence, in consequence of the presence or action of an invisible power in this sacred thing. Fetishism is the sum of beliefs and practices existing in connection with this idea. It is therefore a mistake to fancy that the negro adores the material of which his fetish is made, or attributes to it a supernatural power. On the contrary, the fetish only possesses influence by means of the particular virtue which the fetishist has fixed in it. But, subject to this reservation, anything may become a fetish: images, bones of men or animals, figures more or less grotesque, stones, trees, huts, etc., according to circumstances or to personal predilection. As to the diffusion of Fetishism, Livingstone called attention to the proofs that the blacks seem to be more superstitious and more idolatrous in proportion as the traveller penetrates into the forest country; an observation that was well founded. And, since western Africa is far more thickly wooded than the eastern part, it is chiefly in the west that we find classic Fetishism, with its material images and its coarse practices. It is practically non-existent among the Hottentots, the Bantus of the east, the Nigritians, the Hamites, and the Negritos. We are thus led to conclude that these peoples, being more given to wandering than the others, often living a pastoral life in a more open country, have been less prone than were the sedentary tribes to materialize their worship in objects difficult to carry about with them. This, possibly, is the explanation of the phenomenon which attracted Livingstone’s attention. However this may be, an impartial study of African religion makes it impossible for anyone, in the present state of acquaintance with the subject, to assert that man began on this great continent by having no religious ideas; that from such a state he passed to Naturism, to rise, by degrees, to Animism, Fetishism, and Theism. Indeed, we find as many, or more, facts indicating that the black man, from a religious standpoint, has degenerated. In fact, from one end of Africa to the other we meet, overgrown by a more or less confused mass of strange superstitions, the essential ideas of that which everywhere has been looked upon as the primitive religion: an unseen God, Master of all things, and Organizer of the world; the survival of the human soul, under a form not clearly defined; at times, the idea of reward and punishment in the other world; the existence and activity of spirits, some of whom help men while others deceive them; prayer, sacrifice, the need of a worship; the sacred nature of a fruit, a tree, or an animal; the duty of abstaining from certain actions, of practising self-restraint; the idea of sin, of the power left in man to wipe out its stain, etc. The sum total of this evidence—and the list might be prolonged—more or less clear, distinct, or scattered, collected from tribes of different origin which cannot possibly have met for centuries, leaves us convinced that at the beginning of the formation of the black race there were common beliefs and practices, such as are found at the beginnings of every human race, and on which Christianity itself rests, as we have it to-day.

B. Judaism

The first historical record of the settlement of the Jews in Africa is the story of Joseph; but it is probable that there had been others there before him. Under Meses, who had been educated at the court of the Pharaoh Rameses “in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts, vii, 22), the Children of Israel once more crossed the Red Sea. Alexander of Macedon however, recalled many of them, in 332 B.C., to take part in the foundation of Alexandria. Alexandrian Jews, merchant princes and good soldiers, have also produced historians such as Alexander of Miletus, surnamed Polyhistor (though modern critics pronounce him a pagan to whom some fragments of a Jewish tendency have been falsely attributed); moralists and philosophers, such as Aristobulus and Philo; elegant writers of Greek verse, such as the tragic poet Ezechiel (c. 200—150 B.C.). It was at Alexandria that the “Seventy” (Septuagint) translated (third century B.C.) the Law and the Prophets into Greek. Thence, the Jews spread over the Cyrenaica, and made their way to Carthage. A second wave of Jewish emigrants, moreover, left Italy on the conquest of the Carthaginian State by the Romans (146 B.C.), and founded trade-exchanges in most of the seaports of northern Africa. Hence, St. Jerome, writing to Dardanus, could say that the Jewish colonies formed in his time an unbroken chain across Africa, “from Mauretania to India.” Yet another scattering of the Children of Israel followed the taking of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70) and the destruction of the Temple, bringing a third wave of Jewish emigrants into Roman Africa. The triumph of Mohammed at Mecca (A.D. 630), and the rapid spread of his religion, obliged a large number of Jews to leave Arabia. Of those who crossed the Red Sea some took refuge in Abyssinia, a country with which they had long had intercourse, and where they doubtless found some of their older colonies. It is from these, probably, that the Falashes and Gondas are descended, although these tribes trace their ancestry to Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. Others took the well-known route to Egypt, and, following the Mediterranean coast, set out to rejoin their co-religionists in the territories of Tripoli and Tunis. Some, by pursuing the caravan route of Dar-Fur, across the Wadaï, Bornü, and Sokoto, arrived, about the middle of the eleventh century, at the valley of the Niger. Finally, when, in 1492, they were driven from Spain, many of them went to Morocco, and others to Tunis. Such varied origins have caused diversities of type, manners, and speech, among the Jews of Africa, but all have kept that peculiar, personal imprint which distinguishes everywhere the Children of Israel. It is estimated that the approximate number of Jews in Africa may be divided thus: 50,000 in Abyssinia; 30,000 in Egypt; 60,000 in Tunis; 57,000 in Algeria; 100,000 in Morocco; more than 10,000 along the border of the Sahara, and 1,800 at the Cape; giving a total of about 300,000. The study of their history in Africa leads to the conclusion that their monotheistic influence was real in Egypt and Numidia, and even in the Sudan. At the present day, however, they carry on no religious propaganda, but are satisfied with keeping their Israelitish worship intact, in communities more or less numerous and faithful, under the guidance of rabbis of various classes—officiating rabbis, sacrificing rabbis, who attend to circumcision, rabbi notaries, and grand rabbis.

C. Islamism

Islamism has found in Africa a boundless sphere of conquest, and its uninterrupted spread, from the seventh century down to the present time, among all the races of the continent is one of the most remarkable facts of history. Today a Mussulman may travel from Monrovia to Mecca, and thence to Batavia without once setting foot on “infidel” soil. Three phases in this movement of expansion may be distinguished. In the first (638—1050) the Arabs, in a rapid advance, propagated Islam along the whole Mediterranean coast, from Egypt to Morocco, a conquest greatly aided by the exploitation of the country by the Byzantine governors, the divisions among the Christians, and political disorganization. In the ninth and tenth centuries, however, the opposition of the Berbers and the too tardy resistance of the Byzantines, assisted by the Normans, but chiefly the mutual strife of the Mussulman emirs, arrested its advance; there were still bishops at Carthage, Hippo, and Constantine in the eleventh century. The second period (1050–1750) is connected with the invasion of the Himyarite (Arabian) Bedouins, sent by El Mestune, Caliph of Cairo, to chastise the Magreb, or country stretching from Tripoli to Morocco. It was then that Mauretania became definitely Islamized, and in its turn the centre of a propaganda carried on among the Berber tribes of the Atlas, and of the Sahara, and among the negroes of the Sudan. This conquest, however, was not unresisted. We learn from an Arab historian, Ibn Khaldun, that the population of northern Africa was forced fourteen times, at the point of the sword, to embrace Islamism, and that it returned fourteen times to its own religion. Traces, moreover, of Christianity are still found among the Kabyles of Algeria, among the Tuaregs, and the Mzabetes of the Sahara. The name Tuareg (singular, Targui) was given by the Arabs to the Berbers of the desert, and means “those forsaken of God.” They were the founders of Timbuctoo (A.D. 1077), Djenné, and of the principal centres of influence in northwest Africa. While this part of the continent was being converted, willingly or by force, to Islam, eastern Africa was invaded in its turn by colonies of merchants, who, however, readily became warriors, and never failed to be apostles. It was thus that Islam gained the shores of the Red Sea, Somaliland, the Zanzibar coast as far as Kiloa, and the islands as far as the Comoto Islands and Madagascar. One nation alone, Ethiopia, entrenched in its huge, mountainous citadel, held out against them. Unfortunately, however, since the sixth century, it has held the Monophysite heresy. It was on these unconquered Christians that the Arabs bestowed the scornful name of Habesh, meaning, “sweepings of the nations,” whence the name Abyssinia is derived. The last period of the Mohammedan expansion extends to the present time. It is due to a veritable recrudescence of fanaticism, zealously fostered by a number of religious societies, whose members, or Khuans, are to be found everywhere, and possess unbounded influence. Daily, one may say, Islam spreads over the great African continent, creeping down from Morocco to Senegal, making inroads on the valley of the Niger and the shores of Lake Tchad, passing from Kordofan into Uganda, and from Zanzibar to the Congo. Bitterly hostile to Europeans by its very nature, it is yet very skilful in adapting itself to circumstances. This is, doubtless, why so many governors, functionaries, travellers and writers, duped by this deep hypocrisy, favour this expansion of Mohammedanism, and are even guilty of flagrant injustice and abuse of power in imposing it on fetishist populations who have no wish to embrace it. As there are no Mohammedan statistics, it is impossible to make an accurate census. The following figures may, however, be quoted: 4,070,000 in Algeria; 1,500,000 in Tunis; 10,000,000 in Morocco; 6,800,000 in French Western Africa; 3,000,000 in the Wadaï and the Sudan, besides those in Egypt, Somaliland, Zanzibar, and the interior. The total numbers of Islam in Africa approximately amount to between thirty and forty millions. Its marvellous spread is due to various causes. In Egypt, to begin with, and throughout northern Africa, it was a forcible conquest of countries and peoples in a state of utter social, political, and religious disorganization. These remnants of peoples were intoxicated by a doctrine of great power, covering all that relates to the interests and concerns of man. From the new groups thus remoulded issued successively other conquerors, down to the recent uprisings of the Samory and the Rabah tribes in the Sudan. Moreover, since Islam is at once a religious doctrine, a social system, a political principle, a commercial interest, a civilization that arrogates to itself all manner of rights against the “infidel,” it follows that each Mussulman is intimately possessed by the spirit of proselytism. To this end he may, and does, make use of every means; all is permissible against the “unbeliever.” Islam, therefore, imposes itself by force, by persuasion, by interest, by alliances, by the spirit of imitation, by fashion. It should be added that there is a real affinity between the manners and customs of the Moors and Arabs and those of the more or less mixed populations of northern Africa; and between these and the negro tribes. Moreover, Mussulman exclusiveness becomes not a little modified by contact with Fetishism, and if Islam imposes certain beliefs and practices on its black disciples, they, in turn, bring into it a number of their superstitions and usages. Finally, the extreme simplicity of its doctrine, the easy yoke of its liturgical discipline, its liberal indulgence in respect of morality, all sustained by the hope of a Paradise made up of well-defined and attractive pleasures, combine to make Islam an ideal religion for the childish intelligence and sensual nature of the African peoples among which it labours. These causes, of themselves, suffice to explain the slight hold that Christianity has gained on the Mohammedan social system. The Mussulman who becomes a Christian must renounce, not only his faith, but also his family, his social standing, his interests, all that binds him to the world. Hence it is evident how utterly mistaken those are who may have held that Islam is a kind of useful, possibly necessary, transition, between Fetishism and Christianity. On the contrary, Islam as it were crystallizes the heart and mind of man. It is not a step taken upward, but a wall that arrests all progress. From a philosophical and religious standpoint, however, Islam is undoubtedly superior to the Fetishism of the negro. It acknowledges but One God Almighty, who rewards good and punishes evil in a future life; it teaches the need of prayer, penance, and almsgiving; of a public worship; of abstaining from the use of fermented liquors, etc. But the absolute freedom with which it preys on the “infidel” by means of polygamy, slavery, thefts, and all kinds of injustice, the utter corruption and the spread of venereal diseases to which it gives rise, the pride, hypocrisy, and laziness which it engenders in its disciples, the formidable cohesion which it gives them, make the expansion of “Mussulman civilization” among fetishist peoples anything but desirable. From the standpoint of their proximate evolution they have more to lose from it than to gain. As fetishists they constitute a reserve for Christian civilization; as Mussulmans, they are lost to it.

D. Parseeism; Buddhism; Brahminism

To be complete, this account should include certain Parsee colonies at Zanzibar, Mombasa, Natal, and the Cape; Chinese and Indian Buddhists in the Transvaal, and the Island of Mauritius; and the Brahminist Banyans, natives of Kurachi, Kach, and Bombay, who trade with intelligence and success in most of the centres of Eastern Africa, from Port Said to the Cape. None of these, however, make any proselytes, and all will receive due treatment under their respective titles.

E. Christianity

Christianity penetrated into Africa through two principal channels. It was first brought by the Evangelist St. Mark to Alexandria, where it soon shone with great splendour and was represented by such men as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, and Cyril. It passed thence into Lower Egypt, then into the Thebaid, Upper Egypt, and Nubia, and, by way of the Red Sea as far as Ethiopia, adopting as its own the Graeco-Jewish civilization, which it found prevailing in Egypt and the Cyrenaica. At the same period, however, about the end of the first century, Roman soldiers and merchants brought the Gospel to Carthage, whence it soon spread to Proconsular Africa, to the Byzacene province, and to Numidia, added a glorious band to the army of martyrs, and produced such Doctors as Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius, Optatus, and the great Bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine.

(1) The Dissident Churches. Unfortunately, African Christianity was constantly exposed to the attacks of schism and heresy; of Gnostics, Monophysites, Arians, Pelagians, Manichæans, Novatians, and Donatists, who divided and enfeebled it, and so paved the way for its destruction, first, by the Vandals and, finally, by Islam. Most of these sects have long since disappeared; but the Monophysites who, following Eutyches, acknowledge only one nature in Christ (the divine nature having absorbed the human), have continued to exist, and form at the present time three distinct churches, namely: The Armenian Church, whose Patriarch, or Catholicos, resides near Erzerum (see ARMENIA); The Jacobite Church of Syria and Mesopotamia, whose head is the Patriarch of Antioch (see JACOBITES, MONOPHYSITES); The Coptic Church of Egypt, governed by the Patriarch of Alexandria, resident at Cairo, who exercises a kind of ecclesiastical suzerainty over the Monophysite Church of Abyssinia. These Copts (from Gr., Aigyptos, Egypt), descendants of the ancient Egyptians, are about 200,000 in number, and are spread over some twenty dioceses, as in the seventh and eighth centuries (see COPTS.) In Ethiopia (see ABYSSINIA), the Monophysites number 3,500,000 out of a total population of nearly 4,000,000. The rest are Mussulmans (200,000), Israelites (50,000), Pagans (100,000), or Catholics (30,000). The liberal proselytism of Protestantism has made, and still makes, considerable efforts on this continent. Every nation in which Protestantism flourishes has taken part in this missionary work: Germany, Norway, Sweden, England, Holland, Switzerland, France, and the United States of America. In 1736 the Moravian Brethren established themselves at the Cape of Good Hope, and formed colonies of farmers and mechanics. . Their influence has contributed to the civilization of the Hottentots and Kafirs. They settled among the Kafirs in 1828, and, in 1885, to the north of Lake Nyassa. The mission which they had founded at Christiansborg, on the Gold Coast, and then abandoned, was taken up in 1828 by the Société des missions évangeliques of Basle, which has since spread to the country of the Ashantis, to the German colony of the Togo, and to the Kameruns, where they have replaced (1887) the English Baptists. From Germany, the Berlin Missions have sent their agents to the Orange River Colony, to Griqualand, the Transvaal, and German East Africa; the Rhenish Mission, to the Hottentots, the Namas, the Herreros, and the Ovambos; the North-German Missions (Bremen and Hermannsburg) to Togoland and the Gold Coast; and, in the Transvaal, to the Basutos and the Zulus. Finally, there are the Scandinavian missions. The Swedes are established in the Italian colony of Erythræa; the Norwegians have an important mission at Betsileo, in Madagascar, numbering 50,000 Malagasy. With the exception of the German mission of Hermannsburg, and the Norwegian mission, which are distinctively Lutheran, all the others have various creeds difficult to specify. The English missions are notably rich and numerous. The most important only need be mentioned here, namely: The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, which dates from 1752, and labours on the Guinea Coast, at the Cape, and in Madagascar; The Church Missionary Society, founded in 1799, which has fifteen bishoprics in Africa; The London Missionary Society, established in 1795 on an undenominational basis, which made its action chiefly felt in South Africa, with Moffat and Dr. Livingstone; The Universities Missions Society, with its centre at Zanzibar; the Baptist Missions at Fernando Po, in the Kameruns and on the Congo; the Methodist Missions of Sierra Leone, the Niger, and the Gold Coast; the Scottish Missions, etc. The French Protestants, in their turn, founded the Société des missions évangeliques at Paris, in 1824, which has sent its agents to the Basutos in northeastern Cape Colony, where they have been very successful; to the French Congo (Gaboon region), where they replaced the American Presbyterians (1892); to the Barotse country on the Upper Zambesi, and, finally, to Madagascar, where they have been called upon to take the place, to some extent, of the English missions (1895). Nor must the American missions be forgotten. Three denominations have taken the chief part in this work: the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Baptist Church, and the Presbyterian Church. The Methodists began their labours in the colony of Liberia from its very foundation (1820), but it was only in 1858 that they were able to establish a permanent bishopric there. The Baptists, also, have stations in Monrovia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Lagos. The most important missions, however, are those of the Presbyterians. In Egypt there is hardly a village on the Nile without one of their schools, under a Coptic master. Protestantism, therefore, shows considerable activity in Africa, seconded, as it is, by the magnificent generosity of its adherents and of its numerous native assistants. It would be impossible in an article of this kind to specify not only all the societies engaged in African missions, but also the stations they occupy, the personnel they employ, the funds at their disposal, or the number of neophytes which they profess to have gathered around them. The figures which might be quoted vary according to the documents consulted. There exists, moreover, no estimate of the total. Each year introduces startling discrepancies into the statistics, and in any attempt at exactitude, there is a risk of manifest error. However the most recent returns are as follows (1906):—

Protestant missionary societies in Africa, 95; Ordained missionaries, 1,158; Lay missionaries, 1,893; Native assistants employed, 15,732; Communicants, 274,650; Christians (approximately), 400,000.

To complete the information given above, we subjoin a list of the principal societies, with their spheres of labour. American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, Benguela, Rhodesia, Natal; American Baptist Union, Congo State; American Lutherans, Liberia; African Methodist Episcopal Missions, Liberia and South Africa; American (North) Presbyterians, Liberia, Kameruns, Gaboon; American (South) Baptists, Liberia, Yoruba; American (South) Presbyterians, Congo State; American Presbyterians (United), Egypt; African Zion Methodists, Liberia; Basler Mission, Gold Coast, Kameruns; Balolo Mission, Congo State; Moravian Mission, Cape, Kaffraria, German Africa; Berliner Mission (Berlin I), Cape, Orange Colony, Transvaal, Rhodesia, German Africa; Church Missionary Society, Sierra Leone, Yoruba, Nigeria, Seychelles, German Africa, East Africa, Uganda, Egypt; Congregational Union, Cape, Orange Colony, Deutsche Baptisten, Kameruns; Evang. Missionsgesellschaft fur Deutsche Africa (Berlin III) German Africa; English Baptist Mission, Congo State; Established Church of Scotland, Nyassa; Evangelska Fosterlands Stiftelse, Erythræa; Friends (Quakers), Madagascar; Finlandische Mission, German Southwest Africa; Hermannsburger Mission, Natal, Zululand, Transvaal; London Missionary Society, Cape, Bechuanaland, Mashonaland, Rhodesia, Madagascar; Leipziger Mission, German East Africa, British East Africa; Methodist Episcopal Missionary Society, Liberia, Congo State, Angola; Mission romance (French Swiss), Transvaal, Mozambique; Nord-Afrika Mission, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt; Norddeutsche Missionsgesellschaft (Bremen), Togoland; Norwegian Society of Missions, Natal, Zululand, Madagascar; Missionsanstalt Neukirchen bei Mörs a.- R., Rhodesia, British East Africa; Open Brethren (formerly Plymouth Brethren, or Darbyites), Algeria, Morocco, Benguela, Lunda; Société des missions évangéliques de Paris, French Guinea, Basutoland, Barotseland, Gaboon, Madagascar; Protestant Episcopal Mission, Liberia; Primitive Methodist Mission, Fernando Po, Cape; Rheinische Missionsgesellschaft, German Southwest Africa, Namaland, Cape; Dutch South African Mission, Transvaal, Rhodesia; Swedish Mission (State Church), Natal, Zululand; Swedish Society of Missions, Congo State; Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, Guinea, Cape, Natal, Basutoland, Orange Colony, Rhodesia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles; United Brethren in Christ, Sierra Leone; United Free Church of Scotland, Calabar, Cape, Kafirland, Natal, Nyassa; United Methodist Free Church, British East Africa; Universities Mission, Zanzibar, Nyassa, German East Africa; Wesleyan Methodist, Senegambia, Sierra Leone, Togoland, Gold Coast, Lagos and Yoruba, Cape, Kafirland, Natal, Basutoland, Orange Colony, Transvaal, Rhodesia.

(2) The Catholic Church. We have already noted the rapid expansion of Christianity throughout northern Africa; the splendour which it derived from its many faithful, its doctors, anchorites, confessors, and martyrs; the divisions that crept in; how it spread, on the one hand, from Alexandria in Egypt to Libya and Ethiopia, on the other, from the metropolis of Carthage to Numidia and Mauretania. Unfortunately, the Lower Empire, under whose sway this country had fallen, was more occupied with its religious quarrels than with its organization or defence, and was unable to withstand the successive inroads of the new peoples. Islam made its inroad, and at the end of the seventh century Africa became, so far as Europe was concerned, to all intents and purposes a closed continent. The Church, however, never wholly forsook it, nor ever ceased to hope that it would one day be again open to her. According to the letters of Pope Leo IX (1049—54) to the Bishop of Gumni, there were, even at this period, three or four Christian bishoprics in the very heart of Mussulman territory: one at Carthage, one at Hippo, and the third at Constantine. The Pope wrote: “Carthage will keep its canonical primacy so long as the name of Christ shall be invoked within its walls, whether its scanty monuments lie in the dust forever, as they lie to-day, or a glorious resurrection shall one day cause its ruins to rise again.” This seems almost a prophecy of the modern restoration of the Catholic Church in Tunis, achieved in our day by Cardinal Lavigerie, under the auspices of Pope Leo XIII. The Crusades and the foundation of the religious orders—those, especially, for the redemption of captives—brought about the establishment of a number of little Christian colonies along the Mussulman shores of the Mediterranean. There was even a Christian bishopric, first at Fez, and then at Marrakesh, in Morocco (1223), which lasted until the sixteenth century. Another was established at Ceuta, after its capture by John I, King of Portugal (1418) Catholic chapels existed at Oran, Tlemcen, Bona, Bougie, Tunis, Tripoli, etc.; that is to say wherever the factories or counting-houses of Spanish, Italian, or French merchants were to be found. The Trinitarians alone, between the date of their foundation by St. John of Matha, in 1198, and the eighteenth century, set free nearly 900,000 slaves, European Christians who had been taken by the Moors. Portugal has the honour of being the first to shake off the yoke of the soldiers of Mohammed, and to regain for Christianity a foothold on the African continent. The taking of Ceuta, followed by that of Tangier and Tetuan, was the starting-point for the exploration of the coasts. Guided by the genius of Prince Henry the Navigator, Portuguese sailors passed Cape Bogador (1433), reached the Rio de Ouro (1442), doubled Cape Verde (1444), and got as far as Sierra Leone. Wherever they landed the discoverers raised a pedras, or stone boundary-pillar, and peopled the new posts with criminals who had been condemned to death. The Equator was crossed in 1471. Diogo Cam discovered the Congo and travelled up it for 1,128 miles; Bartholomew Diaz doubled the Cape of Storms, and, finally, Vasco da Gama, who had sailed from Lisbon, with three caravels on 8 June, 1497, and had followed the Mozambique coast as far as Malindi, reached the East Indies on 20 May, 1498. Their discovery gave a great impulse to missions. Portuguese and Spaniards, French and Italians, gave themselves with an admirable ardour to the work of the foreign apostolate. This period witnessed the founding of the Bishoprics of Las Palmas in the Canary Islands (1409), Funchal in Madeira (1514), Sant’ Iago at Cape Verde; San Thomé and San Salvador (1498), afterwards transferred to Loanda. The Capuchins and Jesuits did wonders in Angola; the Dominicans settled at Mozambique, the bishopric of which dates from 1614; and the Augustinians took Zanzibar, Mombasa, and Paté as their sphere of labour, where they founded numerous Christian communities. Attempts were made at the same time to discover the famous Prester John in Abyssinia, but it was only in the seventeenth century, and for barely forty years, that the Jesuits were able to establish themselves in that country, with the hope, soon destroyed by a violent persecution, of bringing back this ancient church to Catholicism. Unfortunately, however, evil days were destined to blight the fair promise of the African missions. And just as Protestantism at the beginning of the sixteenth century had brought about irreparable divisions of Christianity, and thus hindered the conversion of the world, so now other social, political, and religious disturbances were to check for a while the colonizing activities of the European nations in the countries they had lately discovered. The sectarian policy of the Marquis de Pombal, the bigotry of the Dutch and English governments, and, lastly, the French Revolution, combined to disintegrate the religious orders, and at the same time to destroy the missions. But when the storm was over, the Church set to work to build up the ruins, to make good the harm done, to take up once again her forward march on behalf of civilization. In Africa there were only a few priests and these were at the European trading stations: St. Louis in Senegal, the French island of Goree, the Cape Verde Islands, the Cape of Good Hope, Reunion, and Mauritius. In 1839 M. de Jacobis, a priest of the Mission, with a few of his Lazarist brethren, had succeeded in entering Abyssinia, and in taking up, with many precautions, the old missions of the Portuguese Jesuits; and the Franciscans maintained such remnants of their missions as were left in Egypt, in Tripoli, Tunis, and Morocco. But while the powers of Europe were preparing to make a final division of the African continent between them, God was making ready a new apostle for the evangelization of Africa. This work, which was to mark the close of the nineteenth century, had very lowly beginnings, and originated in America. A philanthropic association had existed in the United States since 1817, whose object was to provide a neutral territory in Africa for liberated negro slaves, where, under the direction of the missionaries, they might build up an independent country for themselves. The first experiment was made on Sherbro Island, to the south of Sierra Leone; this, however, proved a failure. The undertaking was renewed in 1823 with better success, on a point of Cape Mesurado, which was called Monrovia, in honour of President Monroe, and which became the capital of Liberia. In 1829, Bishop England, of Charleston, S.C., called the attention of Propaganda to the undertaking, and the Second Provincial Synod of Baltimore, which was to meet shortly afterwards (1833), received authority to deal with the matter. The Synod decided to apply to the Jesuits, but the negotiations were not carried through. The matter was finally taken in hand by Bishop Kenrick of Philadelphia, and at his request his vicar-general, the Rev. Edward Barron, was sent out, December, 1841, with the title of Prefect Apostolic of Upper Guinea, accompanied by the Rev. John Kelly and Denis Pindar, a catechist, all of Irish origin. These missionaries arrived at Monrovia after a voyage of thirty-four days, but, finding only a few Catholics among the emigrants, proceeded thence to Cape Palmas, where another town was being built. Its inhabitants numbered about 3,000, among whom there were eighteen Catholics. The Prefect Apostolic accordingly began his missionary labours, and having visited Cape Palmas, Elmina, and Accra, where he found hopeful traces of the ancient Spanish and Portuguese missions, went to Europe in search of missionaries, and to ask help of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, which had recently been founded at Lyons. Rome nominated him Vicar Apostolic of the Two Guineas and Sierra Leone (22 January, 1842); the Society for the Propagation of the Faith gave him assistance, and the Minister General of the Capuchins promised him the help of religious from the Spanish Province, one of whom was even named prefect apostolic. Unforeseen delays, however, occurred, and this last arrangement was not carried out. Barron, finding himself at the head of a mission without missionaries, went to the shrine of Our Lady of Victories, in Paris, to pray for them. At that very time, the venerable Father M. F. Libermann, superior of a congregation recently founded for the evangelization of the negroes, had several missionaries at his disposal, and had come to ask Our Lady of Victories to open to him a field of missionary labour. An agreement was quickly made, and it was thus that, under the leadership of a prelate from America, the Fathers of the Holy Ghost were led to take up the missions of the Dark Continent. Not long afterwards, Mgr. Barron, disheartened by illness and disappointment, resigned, and the Vicariate Apostolic of the Two Guineas was entrusted to the Society of the Sacred Heart of Mary, which was soon (1848) to amalgamate with the Congregation of the Holy Ghost. This vicariate extended from Senegal to the Orange river, with the exception of the region, then hardly occupied, included in the Portuguese Diocese of St. Paul de Loanda. This vast country was gradually partitioned out, and there arose the present system of missions, prefectures, and vicariates apostolic, through which the Catholic missions of western Africa are conducted. The Portuguese Bishopric of Angola and Congo had been maintained at Loanda, but the Portuguese missions, properly so called, had entirely disappeared, when the daring initiative of Father Duparquet, another of the Fathers of the Holy Ghost, undertook their revival. In 1872 he founded a permanent post at Landana, which has become the headquarters of the Lower Congo, or Portuguese Congo, Mission. In 1881, the mission of the Huilla Plateau was started, which was to extend its sphere of action beyond the Cunene; in 1884, the Prefecture Apostolic of Cimbebasie included Cassinga, then Caconda, Bihe, Massaca, and Cuanyama, and reached almost as far as the basin of the Upper Zambesi. Finally, in 1887, a post was founded in Loanda itself, whence the mission passed to Malanga in 1890, and, recently, along the Congo, in the very heart of the Lunda country. A vicariate which was established, in 1837, in the Cape region to the south, to serve the needs of the European colony, has also been divided, and we now find there: the Vicariates Apostolic of Western Cape Colony (1837); of Central Cape Colony (1874), and of Eastern Cape Colony (1847), served by English priests; the Orange River Prefecture, established by the Fathers of the Holy Ghost, and then made over to the Oblates of St. Francis of Sales at Troyes, and recently raised to a Vicariate (1898); and lastly, the Prefectures of Basutoland (1894) and the Transvaal (1886); the Vicariates of the Orange Free State, now Orange River Colony (1886) and Natal (1850), served by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate. On the East Coast the missionary movement had its beginning in the Island of Bourbon (Reunion). Two Fathers of the Holy Ghost, Father Dalmond in 1848, and Father Monnet in 1849, who had evangelized the Saint Mary Islands and the Island of Nossi-Bé, were named, one after the other, Vicar Apostolic of Madagascar. Death, however, prevented both from settling on the mainland. The mission was, therefore, entrusted, in 1850, to the Society of Jesus. In 1852, the Capuchin Fathers of the Savoy Province were placed in charge of the Seychelles mission, which was made a vicariate in 1880. It was from Bourbon that Father Fava, one of the local clergy, who died, later, as Bishop of Grenoble, set out for Zanzibar in 1860. Shortly afterwards, the Fathers of the Holy Ghost took possession of this East Coast and extended their jurisdiction from the Portuguese prelature of Mozambique to Cape Gardafui, coming in touch in the mysterious interior of the continent with the vaguely defined boundaries which separated them from their brethren of the West Coast. The work had been begun, but more missionaries were needed to prosecute it. These came, indeed, in greater numbers than men had dared to hope. In addition to the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, founded at Marseilles by Mgr. de Mazenod, the following should be named: The Priests of the African Missions at Lyons, founded in 1859 by Mgr. Marion de Brésilhac, on the lines of the Missions Etrangères at Paris; the Missionaries of Our Lady of Africa in Algeria, or White Fathers, founded by the illustrious Cardinal Lavigerie in 1868, and destined to take an early and brilliant share in evangelization of the continent; the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, at Troyes, already mentioned; the Priests of the Sacred Heart, at St. Quentin, who have recently settled in the Congo Free State. The Society of Jesus, moreover, never vanquished, was resuming its old place on the Dark Continent, in that same colony, as also in the Zambesi basin, and in Egypt. The Spanish Fathers of the Holy Heart of Mary had long (since 1855) been labouring in Fernando Po and its dependencies; the Belgian missionaries of Scheut-lez-Bruxelles had succeeded the Fathers of the Holy Ghost in the missions opened on the left bank of the Congo; German missionaries had followed their countrymen to Togoland, the Kameruns, and Damaraland, in East Africa; the Italian Capuchins, side by side with their French brethren among the Gallas, and the Lazarists in Abyssinia, wished to take their share of missionary labour in the conquered possessions of King Humbert in Erythræa. We should add, to complete our list, that the Institute of Verona, resuming its former undertaking, has been in charge of the Egyptian Sudan since 1872, and that, the English missionaries of St. Joseph, from Mill Hill, have received from the White Fathers the Vicariate of the Upper Nile, in Northern Uganda. In a word, the missionary movement, begun amid so many difficulties, has developed wonderfully, in every direction, and it is comforting for the Catholic to see, at the beginning of this twentieth century, the heroism with which the missionaries are assailing the Dark Continent. In order to give a comprehensive view of the religious activity there, it will be instructive to quote in a single table the various jurisdictions into which Catholic Africa is divided, with their dates of establishment and the society in charge of each. The most recent statistics, which, unfortunately, are very far from being exact, give a total of 300,000 faithful—362,177, according to Father J. B. Piolet—with 1,064 missionaries. The religious statistics of Africa, in 1906, may be given as follows: Animists, Fetishists, 90,000,000; Mussulmans, 36,000,000; Jews (including the Falashes of Ethiopia), 300,000; other non-Christians (Parsees, Buddhists, etc.), 3,000; Christians: Monophysite Copts of Egypt, 150,000; Abyssinian Church, 3,000,000; Schismatic Greeks, Armenians, 2,000; Protestants, 400,000; Catholics, 360,000; Total, 130,215,000.

CATHOLIC AFRICA

1st century. Alexandria (Coptic; Patriarchate, 1895)—Secular clergy/Patriarchate

1st century. Armenian bishopric—Secular clergy/Bishopric

1st century. Hermopolis, Thebes (Coptic bishoprics, 1895)—Secular clergy/Bishoprics

202. Carthage/Tunis (1884)—Secular clergy/Archbishopric

1234. Morocco (1859)—Franciscans/Prefecture Apostolic

1353. Las Palmas (Canaries)—Secular clergy/Bishopric

1421. Ceuta (joined to Cadiz)—Secular clergy/Ancient Bishopric

1514. Funchal (Madeira)—Secular clergy/Bishopric

1532. São Thiago do Cabo Verde—Secular clergy/Bishopric

1534. São Thomé—Secular clergy/Bishopric

1534. Angra (Azores)—Secular clergy and Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Bishopric

1612. Mozambique—Secular clergy and Society of Jesus/Prelature nullius

1640. Portuguese Congo (1865)—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Prefecture apostolic

1654. Tripoli—Franciscans/Prefecture apostolic

1740. Fernando-Po (1855)—Sacred Heart of Mary (Barcelona)/Vicariate Apostolic

1765. Senegal—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Prefecture Apostolic

1818. Western Cape Colony—Secular clergy/Prefecture Apostolic

1819. San Cristobal de la Laguna (Santa Cruz, Teneriffe)—Secular clergy/Prefecture Apostolic

1838. Algiers—Secular clergy and White Fathers/Archbishopric

1838. Abyssinia—Lazarists/Vicariate Apostolic

1839. Egypt—Franciscans/Vicariate Apostolic

1842. Gaboon—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Vicariate Apostolic

1846. Gallas—Capuchins/Vicariate Apostolic

1846. Egyptian Sudan—Institute of Verona/Vicariate Apostolic

1847. Eastern Cape Colony—Secular clergy/Vicariate Apostolic

1847. Port-Louis (Mauritius)—Secular clergy and Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Bishopric

1848. Madagascar (Central)—Jesuits/Vicariate Apostolic

1848. Mayotte Islands, Nossi-Bé, Comores—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Prefecture Apostolic

1850. Saint-Denis (Réunion)—Secular clergy and Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Bishopric

1850. Natal—Oblates of Mary/Vicariate Apostolic

1858. Sierra Leone—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Vicariate Apostolic

1860. Benin—African Missions of Lyons/Vicariate Apostolic

1862. Northern Zanguebar—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Vicariate Apostolic

1863. Senegambia—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Vicariate Apostolic

1866. Oran—Secular clergy/Diocese

1866. Constantine—Secular clergy/Diocese

1868. Sahara (Ghardaia)—White Fathers/Prefecture Apostolic

1874. Central Cape Colony—Secular clergy/Prefecture Apostolic

1879. Upper Cimbebasia—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Prefecture Apostolic

1879. Gold Coast—African Missions of Lyons/Vicariate Apostolic

1879. Zambesia—Jesuits/Missions

1880. Upper Congo—White Fathers/Vicariate Apostolic

1882. Dahomey—African Missions of Lyons/Vicariate Apostolic

1883. Southern Victoria-Nyanza—White Fathers/Vicariate Apostolic

1884. Upper Niger—African Missions of Lyons/Prefecture Apostolic

1884. Orange River—Oblates of St. Francis of Sales (Troyes)/Vicariate Apostolic

1885. Delta of the Nile—African Missions of Lyons/Prefecture Apostolic

1886. Transvaal—Oblates of Mary/Prefecture Apostolic

1886. Orange Free State—Oblates of Mary/Vicariate Apostolic

1886. Loango—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Vicariate Apostolic

1886. Tanganyika—White Fathers/Vicariate Apostolic

1886. Unyanyembe—White Fathers/Vicariate Apostolic

1887. Southern Zanguebar—Bavarian Benedictines/Vicariate Apostolic

1888. Congo Free State—Mission of Scheut/Vicariate Apostolic

1889. Lower Niger—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Prefecture Apostolic

1890. Kamerun—Pallotines/Prefecture Apostolic

1890. French Upper Congo—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Vicariate Apostolic

1891. Sahara and Sudan—White Fathers/Vicariate Apostolic

1892. Seychelles (Port Victoria)—Capuchins/Diocese

1892. Lower Cimbebasia—Oblates of Mary/Prefecture Apostolic

1892. Togo—Foreign Missions of Steyl/Prefecture Apostolic

1892. Koango—Jesuits/Mission

1894. Upper Nile—Foreign Missions of Mill Hill/Vicariate Apostolic

1894. Northern Victoria-Nyanza—White Fathers/Vicariate Apostolic

1894. Erythræa—Capuchins (Italians)/Prefecture Apostolic

1894. Basutoland—Oblates of Mary/Prefecture Apostolic

1895. Ivory Coast—African Missions of Lyons/Prefecture Apostolic

1896. Southern Madagascar—Lazarists/Vicariate Apostolic

1897. Nyassa—White Fathers/Vicariate Apostolic

1897. French Guinea—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Prefecture Apostolic

1898. Welle—Premonstrants/Prefecture Apostolic

1898. Northern Madagascar—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Vicariate Apostolic

1901. Upper Kassai—Missions of Scheut/Prefecture Apostolic

1901. Lunda (Angola)—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Mission

1903. Shire—Company of Mary/Prefecture Apostolic

1903. Liberia—African Missions of Lyons/Prefecture Apostolic

1904. Bata (Spanish Guinea)—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Mission

1904. Stanley Falls—Priests of the Sacred Heart/Prefecture Apostolic

1904. Benadir—Trinitarians/Prefecture Apostolic

1905. Kenya—Institute Consolata (Turin)/Mission

1906. Central Zanguebar—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Vicariate Apostolic

1906. Ubangi-Shari—Fathers of the Holy Ghost/Vicariate Apostolic

RÉSUMÉ OF DIOCESES AND MISSIONS IN 1906

Secular Clergy. 17 dioceses, 1 vicariate apostolic, 1 prefecture, 1 prelature (20 total)

Fathers of the Holy Ghost (Paris). 8 vicariates apostolic, 7 prefectures, 4 missions (19 total)

White Fathers (of Algiers). 7 vicariates apostolics, 1 prefectures (8 total)

African Missions (Lyons). 3 vicariates apostolics, 4 prefectures (7 total)

Oblates of Mary (Rome). 2 vicariates apostolics, 3 prefectures (5 total)

Franciscans (Rome). 1 vicariates apostolics, 2 prefectures (3 total)

Capuchins (Rome). 1 diocese, 1 vicariates apostolics, 1 prefectures, (3 total)

Jesuits (Rome). 1 vicariates apostolics, 2 missions (3 total)

Lazarists (Paris). 1 vicariates apostolics, 2 missions (3 total)

Sons of the Sacred Heart (Verona). 1 vicariates apostolics (1 total)

Fathers of the Heart of Mary (Scheut-lez-Bruxelles). 1 vicariates apostolics, 1 prefectures (2 total)

Fathers of the Divine Word (Steyl). 1 prefectures (1 total)

Seminary of Mill Hill (London). 1 vicariates apostolics (1 total)

Premonstrants (Tongerloo, Belgium). 1 prefectures (1 total)

Oblates of St. Francis of Sales (Troyes). 1 vicariates apostolics (1 total)

Priests of the Seminary of St. Quentin (Rome). 1 prefectures (1 total)

Pallotine Missionaries (Rome). 1 prefectures (1 total)

Missionaries of the Consolata (Turin). 1 mission (1 total)

Missionaries of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Barcelona). 1 vicariates apostolics (1 total)

Trinitarians. 1 prefectures (1 total)

Bavarian Benedictines. 1 vicariates apostolics (1 total)

Company of Mary (Blessed de Montfort). 1 prefectures (1 total)

To these Societies of missionary priests must be added a number of congregations of missionary brothers and sisters. (See also names of Princes, Sees, Vicariates Apostolic, etc.)

BROWN, The Story of Africa and its Explorers (London, 1894); CUST, Africa rediviva (London, 1891); KELTIE, The Partition of Africa (London, 1895); E. RECLUS, Nouvelle geographie universelle—Afrique (Paris, 1885–88, tr. by KEANE, New York; 1893); VIVIEN DE ST. MARTIN ET ROUSSELET, Dict. de geographie universelle, et Supplement (Paris, 1879–97); LE ROY, Les Pygmees (Tours, 1905); NASSAU, Fetichism in West Africa (London, 1904); PIOLET, Les missions catholiques francaises (Paris, 1902); BONNET-MAURY, L’Islamisme et le Christianisme en Afrique. (Paris, 1906); PIOLET, Questions d’Angleterre (Paris, 1906); WERNER ET GROFFIER, Atlas des Missions catholiques (Lyons, 1886); HANSEN, Missionskarte von Afrika (Steyl, 1903). Consult especially the official list of Catholic missions, published in Rome about every three years: Missiones catholicæ curâ S. C. de Propagandâ Fide descriptæ.

ALEXANDER LE ROY

Early African Church

African Church, Early.—The name, Early African Church, is given to the Christian communities inhabiting the region known politically as Roman Africa, and comprised geographically within the following limits, namely: the Mediterranean littoral between Cyrenaica on the east and the river Ampsaga (now the Rummel) on the west; that part of it which faces the Atlantic Ocean being called Mauretania. These Christian communities, apparently, extended only as far as the neighbourhood of Tangiers (Tangi). The evangelization of Africa followed much the same lines as those traced by Roman civilization. Starting from Carthage, it overran Proconsular Africa and Numidia, and grew less thorough as it drew near to Mauretania.

History.—The delimitation of the ecclesiastical boundaries of the African Church is a matter of great difficulty. Again and again the Roman political authority rearranged the provincial divisions, and on various occasions the ecclesiastical authorities conformed the limits of their respective jurisdictions to those of the civil power. These limits, however, were not only liable to successive rectification, but in some cases they were not even clearly marked. Parts of Mauretania always remained independent; the mountainous region to the west of the Aure (Middle Atlas), and the plateau above the Tell never became Roman. The high lands of the Sahara and all the country west of the Atlas range were inhabited by the nomad tribes of the Getuli, and there are neither churches nor definite ecclesiastical organizations to be found there. Christianity filtered in, so to speak, little by little. Bishoprics were founded among the converts, as the need for them arose; were moved, possibly, from place to place, and disappeared, without leaving a trace of their existence. The historical period of the African Church begins in 180 with groups of martyrs. At a somewhat later date the writings of Tertullian tell us how rapidly African Christianity had grown. It had passed the Roman military lines, and spread among the peoples to the south and southeast of the Aure. About the year 200 there was a violent persecution at Carthage and in the provinces held by the Romans. We gain information as to its various phases from the martyrdom of St. Perpetua and the treatises of Tertullian. Christianity, however, did not even then cease to make distant conquests; Christian epitaphs are to be found at Aumale, dated 227, and at Tipasa, dated 238. These dates are assured. If we rely on texts less definite, yet of great value, we may admit that the evangelization of Northern Africa began very early. By the opening of the third century there was a large Christian population in the towns and even in the country districts, which included not only the poor, but also persons of the highest rank. A council held at Carthage about the year 220 was attended by eighteen bishops from the province of Numidia. Another council, held in the time of St. Cyprian, about the middle of the third century, was attended by eighty-seven bishops. At this period the African Church went through a very grave crisis. The long peace had caused the faithful to relax the virtues needed in times of persecution. The Emperor Decius published an edict, the effect of which was to make many martyrs and confessors, and not a few apostates. A certain bishop, followed by his whole community, was to be seen sacrificing to the gods. The apostates (see Lapsi) and the timid who had bought a certificate of apostasy for money (see Libellatici) became so numerous as to fancy that they could lay down the law to the Church, and demand their restoration to ecclesiastical communion, a state of affairs which gave rise to controversies and deplorable troubles. Yet the Church of Africa had martyrs, even at such a time. The names of St. Cyprian of Carthage, of the martyrs of Massa Candida, of Theogenes of Hippo, Agapius and Secundus at Cirta, of James, Marianus, and others; of Lucian, Montanus, and their companions, showed that there were still brave and sincere Christians to be found in her fold. The persecutions at the end of the third, and at the beginning of the fourth, century did not only make martyrs; they also gave rise to a heresy which claimed that Christians could deliver the sacred books and the archives of the Church to the officers of the State, without lapsing from the faith. (See Traditores.)

The accession of Constantine found the African Church rent by controversies and heresies; Catholics and Donatists contended not only in wordy warfare, but also in a violent and sanguinary way. A law of Constantine (318) deprived the Donatists of their churches, most of which they had taken from the Catholics. They had, however, grown so powerful that even such a measure failed to crush them; so numerous were they that a Donatist Council, held at Carthage, in 327, was attended by 270 bishops. Attempts at reconciliation, suggested by the Emperor Constantius, only widened the breach, and led to armed repression, an ever-growing disquiet, and an enmity that became more and more embittered. Yet, in the very midst of these troubles, the Primate of Carthage, Gratus, declared (in the year 349): “God has restored Africa to religious unity.” Julian’s accession (361) and his permission to all religious exiles to return to their homes added to the troubles of the African Church. A Donatist bishop sat in the heretical see of Carthage, in opposition to the orthodox bishop. One act of violence followed another and begot new conflicts. About this period, Optatus, Bishop of Milevi, began to combat the sect by his writings. A few years later, St. Augustine, converted at Milan, returned to his native land, and entered the lists against every kind of error. Paganism had by that time ceased to be a menace; in 399 the temples were closed at Carthage. Nevertheless the energy and genius of Augustine were abundantly occupied in training the clergy and instructing the faithful, as well as in theological controversy with the heretics. For forty years, from 390 to 430, the Councils of Carthage (see African Synods), which reunited a great part of the African Episcopate, public discussions with the Donatists, sermons, homilies, scriptural commentaries, followed almost without interval; an unparalleled activity which had commensurate results. The Pelagian heresy, which had made great strides in Africa, was condemned at the Council of Carthage in 412. Donatism, also, and Semi-Pelagianism (see Donatism, Pelagianism) were stricken to death at an hour when political events of the utmost gravity changed the history and the destiny of the African Church. Boniface, Count of Africa, had summoned the Vandals to Africa in 426, and by 429 the invasion was completed. The barbarians advanced rapidly and made themselves masters of cities and provinces. In 430 St. Augustine died, during the siege of Hippo; nine years later Geiserich, King of the Vandals, took possession of Carthage. Then began for the African Church an era of persecution of a kind hitherto unknown. The Vandals were Arians and sectaries. Not only did they wish to establish their own Arian sect, but they were bent on the destruction of Catholicism. The churches which the invasion had left standing were either transferred to the Arians or withdrawn from the Catholics and closed to public worship. The intervention of the Emperor Zeno (474–491) and the conclusion of a treaty of peace with Geiserich, were followed by a transient calm. The churches were opened, and the Catholics were allowed to choose a bishop (476), but the death of Geiserich, and the edict of Hunnerich, in 484, made matters worse than before. A contemporary writer, Victor of Vita, has told us what we know of this long history of the Vandal persecution. Even in such a condition of peril, the Christians of Africa were far from showing those virtues which might be looked for in a time of persecution. It is true that Salvius of Marseilles is prone to exaggeration in all that he says, but he gives us a most deplorable, and not wholly inaccurate, account of the crimes of all kinds which made Africa one of the most wretched provinces in the world. Nor had the Vandals escaped the effects of this moral corruption, which slowly destroyed their power and eventually effected their ruin. During the last years of Vandal rule in Africa, St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe, exercised a fortunate influence over the princes of the dynasty, who were no longer ignorant barbarians, but whose culture, wholly Roman and Byzantine, equalled that of their native subjects. Yet the Vandal monarchy, which had lasted for nearly a century, seemed less firmly established than at its beginning. Hilderich, who succeeded Thrasamond in 523, was too cultured and too mild a prince to impose his will on others. Gilimer made an attempt to deprive him of power, and, proclaimed King of the Vandals in 531, marched on Carthage and dethroned Hilderich. His cause appeared to be completely successful, and his authority firmly established, when a Byzantine fleet appeared off the coast of Africa. The naval battle of Decimum (13 September, 533) destroyed, in a few hours, the sea power of the Vandals. The landing of the Byzantine army, the taking of Carthage, the flight of Gilimer, and the battle of Tricamarum, about the middle of December, completed their destruction and their disappearance.

The victor, Belisarius, had but to show himself in order to reconquer the greater part of the coast, and to place the cities under the authority of the Emperor Justinian. A council held at Carthage in 534 was attended by 220 bishops representing all the churches. It issued a decree forbidding the public exercise of Arian worship. The establishment of Byzantine rule, however, was far from restoring unity to the African Church. The Councils of Carthage brought together the bishops of Proconsular Africa, Byzacena, and Numidia, but those of Tripolitana and Mauretania were absent. Mauretania had, in fact, regained its political autonomy, during the Vandal period. A native dynasty had been set up, and the Byzantine army of occupation never succeeded in conquering a part of the country so far from their base at Carthage.

The reign of Justinian marks a sad period in the history of the African Church, due to the part taken by the clergy in the matter known as that of the . While one part of the episcopate wasted its time and energies in fruitless theological discussions, others failed of their duty. It was under these circumstances that Pope Gregory the Great sent men to Africa, whose lofty character contributed greatly to increase the prestige of the Roman Church. The notary Hilarus became in some sense a papal legate with authority over the African Bishops. He left them in no doubt as to their duty, instructed or reprimanded them, and summoned councils in the Pope’s name. With the help of the metropolitan of Carthage, he succeeded in restoring unity, peace, and ecclesiastical discipline in the African Church, which drew strength from so fortunate a change even so surely as the See of Rome regained in respect and authority. This renewal of vigour, however, was not of long duration. The Arabs, who had conquered Egypt, made their way into Africa. In 642 they occupied Barca and Cyrenaica; in 643 they conquered part of the Tripolitana. In 647 the Caliph Othman gave orders for a direct attack on Africa, and an army which had gained a victory at Sbeitla withdrew on payment of a large ransom. Some years of respite ensued. The African Church showed its firm attachment to orthodoxy by remaining loyal to Pope Martin I (649–655) in his conflict with the Emperor of Byzantium. The last forty years of the seventh century witnessed the gradual fall of the fragments of Byzantine Africa into the hands of the Arabs. The Berber, or native tribes, which before this had seemed on the way to conversion to the Gospel, passed in a short time, and without resistance, to Islam. Carthage was taken by the Arabs in 695. Two years later it was re-entered by the Patrician John, but only for a brief period; in 698 Hassan once more took possession of the capital of Northern Africa. In this overwhelming disaster of the Arab invasion the Churches of Africa were blotted out. Not that all was destroyed, but that remnant of Christian life was so small as to be matter for erudition rather than for history.

CHRISTIAN LITERATURE OF AFRICA

The ecclesiastical literature of Christian Africa is the most important of Latin Christian literatures. The first name which presents itself is that of Tertullian, an admirable writer, much of whose work we still possess, notwithstanding the lacunae due to lost writings. Such works as the “Passio S. Perpetuae” have been attributed to him, but the great apologist stands so complete that he has no need to borrow from others. Not that Tertullian is always remarkable for style, ideas, and theology, but he has furnished matter for very suggestive studies. His style, indeed, is often exaggerated, but his faults are those of a period not far removed from the great age of Latin literature. Nor are all his ideas alike novel and original, so that what seems actually to be his own gains in importance on that very account. In contradistinction to the apologists of, and before, his time, Tertullian refused to make Christian apologetics merely defensive; he appealed to the law of the Empire, claimed the right to social existence, and took the offensive. His theology is sometimes daring, and even inaccurate; his morality inadmissible through very excess. Some of the treatises which have come down to us were written after he had become separated from the Church; yet, whatever verdict may be passed upon this great man, his works remain among the most valuable of Christian antiquity. The lawyer, Minucius Felix, has shown so much literary skill in his short treatises of a few pages that he has deservedly attained to fame. The correspondence, treatises, and sermons of St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, belong approximately to the middle of the third century, the correspondence forming one of the most valuable sources for the history of Christianity in Africa and the West during his time. His relations with the Church of Rome, the councils of Carthage, his endless disputes with the African bishops, take the place, to some extent, of the lost documents of the period. St. Cyprian, indeed, although an orator before he became a bishop, is not Tertullian’s equal in the matter of style. His treatises are well composed, and written with art; they do not, however, contain that inexhaustible abundance of views and perspectives which are the sole privilege of certain very lofty minds. Arnobius, the author of an apology for Christianity, is of a secondary interest; Lactantius, more cultured and more literary, only belongs to Africa by reason of the richness of his genius. The peculiar bent of his talent is purely Ciceronian, nor was he trained in the schools of his native land. Among these, each of whom has his name and place, there moved others, almost unknown, or hidden under an impenetrable anonymousness. Writings collected among the Spuria of Latin literature have been sometimes attributed to Tertullian, sometimes to St. Cyprian, or even to Pope Victor, the contemporary of the Emperor Commodus; they need not, however, detain us here. Other authors, again, such as Maximius of Madaura and Victorinus, stand, with Optatus of Milevi, in the front rank of African literature in the fourth century, before the appearance of St. Augustine.

The literary labours of St. Augustine are so closely connected with his work as a bishop, that it is difficult, at the present time, to separate one from the other. He wrote not for the sake of writing, but for the sake of doing. From the year 386 onward, his treatises appeared every year. Such profuseness is often detrimental to their literary worth; but what is more injurious, however, was his own carelessness concerning beauty of form, of which he hardly ever seems to think in his solicitude about other things. His one aim above all else is to ensure conviction; the result is that we owe to the mere splendour of his genius the few beautiful passages which have fallen from his pen. It is to the loftiness of his thought, rather than to the culture of his mind, that we owe certain pages which are admirable, but not perfect. The language of Augustine was Latin indeed, but a Latin that had already entered on its decline. His desire was to be understood, not to be admired, which explains the shortcomings of his work in respect of style. But when from his style we pass to his thoughts, we may admire almost unreservedly. Even here we find occasional traces of bad taste, but it is the taste of his period: florid, fond of glitter, puns, refinements-in a word, of the weaknesses of contemporary Latin. Of all St. Augustine’s vast labours those which hold the first place, as they hold one of the first among Christian writings, are: The “Confessions,” the “City of God,” and the “Commentary on the Gospel of St. John.” As regards theology, his works gave Christianity an impulse the effect of which was felt for centuries; the doctrine of the Trinity supplied him with matter for the most finished exposition to be found among the works of the Doctors of the Church. Other writers, theologians, poets, or historians, are to be met with after St. Augustine’s time, but their names, honourable as they are, cannot compare in fame with the great ones which we have recorded as belonging to the third and fourth centuries. The endeavour of St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe, is to think and write as a faithful disciple of St. Augustine. Dracontius, a meritorious poet, lacks elevation; only an occasional line deserves a place among the poetry which does not die. Victor of Vita, an impetuous historian, makes us sometimes wish, in presence of his too literary descriptions, for the monotonous simplicity of the chronicles, with their rigorous exactness. In the theological or historical writings of Facundus of Hermiane, Verecundus, and Victor of Tunnunum, may be found bursts of passion not wholly without merit from a literary standpoint, but which not seldom leave us doubtful as to the historical accuracy of their narratives or their reminiscences.

The writings of African authors, e. g. Tertullian and St. Augustine, are full of quotations drawn from the Sacred Scriptures. These fragmentary texts are among the most ancient witnesses to the Latin Bible, and are of great importance, not only in connection with the formation of the style and vocabulary of the Christian writers of Africa, but also in regard to the establishment of the biblical text. Africa is represented at the present day by a group of texts in which is preserved a version commonly known as the “African Version” of the New Testament. It may now be taken as certain that there never existed in early Christian Africa an official Latin text known to all the Churches, or used by the faithful to the exclusion of all others. The African bishops willingly allowed corrections to be made in a copy of the Sacred Scriptures, or even a reference, when necessary, to the Greek text. With some exceptions, it was the Septuagint text that prevailed, for the Old Testament, until the fourth century. In the case of the New, the MSS. were of the western type. (See Bible, Canon.) On this basis there arose a variety of translations and interpretations. This well-established fact as to the existence of a number of versions of the Bible in Africa does not imply, however, that there was no one version more widely used and more generally received than the rest, i. e. the version which is found nearly complete in the works of St. Cyprian. Yet even this version was not without rivals. Apart from the discrepancies to be found in two quotations of the same text in the works of two different authors, and sometimes of the same author, we now know that of several books of Scripture there were versions wholly independent of each other. No fewer than three different versions of Daniel are to be found in use in Africa during the third century; in the middle of the fourth, the Donatist Tychonius uses and collates two versions of the Apocalypse.

LITURGY

The liturgy of the African Church is known to us from the writings of the Fathers, but there exists no complete work, no liturgical book, belonging to it. The writings of Tertullian, of St. Cyprian, of St. Augustine are full of valuable indications which permit us to conclude that the liturgy of Africa presented many and characteristic points of contact with the liturgy of the Roman Church. The liturgical year comprised the feasts in honour of Our Lord and a great number of feasts of martyrs, which are offset by certain days of penance. Africa, however, does not seem to have conformed rigorously, in this matter, with what was else customary. The days. The fast of these days was not continued beyond the third hour after noon. Easter in the African Church had the same character as in other Churches; it continued to draw a part of the year into its orbit by fixing the date of Lent and of the Paschal season, while Pentecost and the Ascension likewise gravitated around it. Christmas and the Epiphany were kept clearly apart, and had fixed dates. The cultus of the martyrs is not always to be distinguished from that of the dead, and it is only by degrees that the line was drawn between the martyrs who were to be invoked and the dead who were to be prayed for. The prayer (petition) for a place of refreshment, refrigerium, bears witness to the belief of an interchange of help between the living and the departed. In addition, moreover, to the prayer for the dead, we find in Africa the prayer for certain classes of the living. (See African Liturgy.)

DIALECTS

Several languages were used simultaneously by the people of Africa; the northern part seems at first to have been a Latin-speaking country. Indeed, previous to, and during the first centuries of, our era we find there a flourishing Latin literature, many schools, and famous rhetoricians. However, Greek was currently spoken at Carthage in the second century; some of Tertullian’s treatises were written also in Greek. The steady advance of Roman civilization caused the neglect and abandonment of that tongue. At the beginning of the third century an African, chosen at random, would have expressed himself more easily in Greek than in Latin; two hundred years later, St. Augustine and the poet Dracontius had at best but a slight knowledge of Greek. As to local dialects, we know little. No work of Christian literature written in Punic has come down to us, though there can be no doubt but that the clergy and faithful used a language much spoken in Carthage and in the coast towns of the Proconsular Province. The lower and middle classes spoke Punic, and the Circumcellion heretics were to be among the last of its defenders. The Christian writers almost wholly ignore the native Libyan, or Berber, dialect. St. Augustine, indeed, tells us that this speech was only in use among the nomad tribes.

Leclercq, L’Afrique chretienne (Paris, 1904); Idem., in the Dict. d’archeol. chret. et de lit., I, 576–775.

H. LECLERCQ

African Liturgy

African Liturgy.—This liturgy was in use not only in the old Roman province of Africa of which Carthage was the capital, but also in Numidia and Mauretania; in fact, in all of Northern Africa from the borders of Egypt west to the Atlantic Ocean. Christianity was introduced into proconsular Africa in the latter half of the second century, probably by missionaries from Rome, and then spread rapidly through the other African provinces. The language of the liturgy was Latin, modified somewhat by the introduction of many Africanisms. It is probably the oldest Latin liturgy, since it had been in use long before the Roman Church changed her official language from the Greek to the Latin idiom. A study of the African liturgy might thus be very useful to trace the origin and development of the different rites, and to determine what influence one rite had upon another. Since the African Church was always dependent upon Rome, always devoted to the See of St. Peter, and since there was constant communication between Africa and Rome concerning ecclesiastical affairs, it may easily be supposed that liturgical questions were raised, different customs discussed, and possibly the customs or formulas of one church adopted by the other. At a later date the African liturgy would seem to have exercised some influence upon the Mozarabic and Gallican liturgies. The great similarity in some of the phraseology, etc., would show a common origin or a mutual dependence of the liturgies. The African liturgy may be considered in two different periods: the ante-Nicene period, when the Church was suffering persecution and could not freely develop the forms of public worship, and when the liturgical prayers and acts had not become fixed; and the post-Nicene period, when the simple, improvised forms of prayer gave way to more elaborate, set formularies, and the primitive liturgical actions evolved into grand and formal ceremonies.

I. ANTE-NICENE PERIOD

It is a difficult matter to reconstruct the ancient African liturgy since there are so few available data; for instance, owing to the ravages of time and of the Saracens, no liturgical codices now survive; in the works of the early Fathers or ecclesiastical writers, and in the acts of the councils there are but few quotations from the liturgical books, and not many references to the words or ceremonies of the liturgy. In the first, or ante-Nicene period, it may be said there were only two writers who furnish useful information on the subject—Tertullian and St. Cyprian. The writings of Tertullian are especially rich in descriptions of ecclesiastical customs, or in clear allusions to existing rites and usages. Some additional information may be gained from the acts of the early martyrs, e. g. the Acts of St. Perpetua and St. Felicitas, which are quite authentic and authoritative. Finally, the inscriptions on Christian monuments give much confirmatory evidence on the beliefs and practices of the time. From these various sources one may learn some of the customs which were peculiar to the African Church, and what formularies and ceremonies were common to all the Western churches. The prayers of the Christians were either private or liturgical. Privately they prayed every morning and evening, and many of them prayed frequently during the day; for example, at the third, sixth, and ninth hours, before meals, and before undertaking any unusual work or enterprise. The liturgical prayers were said chiefly during the reunions of the faithful to observe the vigils, or to celebrate the agape and the Holy Eucharist. These Christian assemblies in Africa seem to have been modelled on the same plan as those in other countries. They imitated, in a certain measure, the services of the Jewish synagogue, adding thereto the Eucharistic sacrifice and some institutions peculiar to Christianity. In these reunions three elements are easily distinguishable: psalmody, the reading of passages from the Old and New Testaments, and prayer, to which a homily on the Scripture was generally added. Such meetings were sometimes distinct from the Mass, but sometimes they formed a preparation for the celebration of the divine mysteries. The elders of the Church presided over the assembly, instructions and exhortations were given, prayers recited for the needs of the Church, the necessities of the brethren were considered and provided for, and various business pertaining to the Christian community was transacted; and finally, the agape was celebrated as a fitting conclusion to a reunion of the disciples of Christ. The agape seems to have been celebrated in Africa in the same manner as in other countries, and to have degenerated into an abuse to be suppressed here, as well as elsewhere.

These liturgical meetings generally took place at night, or just before dawn, and hence Tertullian speaks of such an assembly as a coetus antelucanus, a “meeting before the dawn” (Apol., ii), while others speak of it as a vigil. Possibly the hour was chosen to commemorate the time of the Resurrection of the Lord, or perhaps it was selected to enable the Christians in times of persecution to evade their persecutors. The true Christian liturgy, in a strict sense of the word, is the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the sacrifice of the New Law. This generally followed the long prayers of a vigil, and even to-day some traces of the vigil survive, since a similarity may easily be noticed between the prayers for the ancient vigils, and the first, or preparatory part of the Mass; or perhaps even more clearly in the first part of the Masses for the Ember days, or the Mass of the Pre-sanctified on Good Friday. Thus the Holy Eucharist was celebrated very early in the morning ordinarily, and the regular day chosen for assisting at the sacrifice and partaking of Holy Communion was the Sunday, in commemoration of the Resurrection of Christ. The Sabbath was not observed by the Christians in the Jewish sense, and the Jewish festivals were also abandoned, as is evident from the words of Tertullian (De idolatria, xiv), speaking of the observance of festivals by Christians, “to whom Sabbaths are strange, and the new-moons and festivals formerly beloved by God.” The Sunday was now the Lord’s day, a day of rejoicing, on which it was forbidden to fast and to pray in a kneeling posture. “We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful.” (Tert., De corona, iii.)

When Sunday was thus kept in honour of the Resurrection it was only natural that Friday should be considered the appropriate day for commemorating the passion and death of Christ and hence the early Christians met for prayer on Friday. There was also a reunion on Wednesdays, whose origin cannot be satisfactorily accounted for. The Wednesday and Friday meetings were known to Tertullian by the name of stations (stationes). In Africa it appears to have been the custom to celebrate the Holy Eucharist on station days, although it does not seem to have been the practice in other churches. Everywhere these were days of fasting, but as the fast lasted only until the ninth hour, the liturgy would be celebrated and communion distributed about that time in the afternoon. Of all the Sundays, the feast of Easter was the greatest, and was celebrated with special solemnity. Good Friday, called by Tertullian “Pascha,” was a day of strict fast, which was prolonged through Holy Saturday. This latter day was only a day for the preparation for the feast of Easter; but still it was the most solemn vigil during the year, and the one on which all the vigils were modelled. Holy Saturday does not seem to have had any special liturgical service assigned, the present service being the ancient Easter vigil anticipated. Possibly the vigil of Easter was observed so solemnly on account of the tradition that the Lord would return to judge the world on the feast of Easter, and the early Christians hoped He would find them watching. Easter in Tertullian’s time was followed by a period of fifty days’ rejoicing until Pentecost, which was considered as the close of the Easter season rather than as a solemn feast with a special significance. In the third century Lent, as a period of forty days’ fasting, was unknown in Africa. Of the greater immovable feasts the earlier writers appear to know nothing; hence Christmas, the Circumcision, the Epiphany, the festivals of the Blessed Virgin and the feasts of the Apostles do not seem to have been celebrated. The festivals of local martyrs seem to have taken precedence over what are now regarded as the greatest feasts of the Church, and their anniversaries were celebrated long before the great immovable feasts were introduced. Such celebrations were purely local, and it was only at a much later date that commemorations of foreign saints were made. The early Christians had a great devotion towards the martyrs and confessors of the faith, carefully preserved and venerated their relics, made pilgrimages to their tombs, and sought to be buried as near as possible to the relics of the martyrs, and hence the anniversaries of the local saints were celebrated with great solemnity. Thus the calendar of the African Church in the ante-Nicene period was rather restricted, and contained but a comparatively small number of feast days.

Among the liturgical functions, the celebration of Mass, or of the Holy Eucharist, occupies the most important place. Although the early writers speak in a guarded manner concerning these sacred mysteries, still they give much precious information on the liturgy of their age. The Mass seems to have been divided into the Mass of the catechumens, and the Mass of the faithful, and among the orthodox Christians the catechumens were rigidly excluded from assisting at the sacrifice proper. Bread and wine are used as the matter of the sacrament, but a little water is added to the wine to signify the union of the people with Christ. St. Cyprian severely condemns certain bishops who used only water in the chalice, declaring that water is not the essential matter of the sacrifice, and its exclusive use renders the sacrament invalid. Both Tertullian and St. Cyprian have passages which seem to give the form of the Eucharist in the very words of Christ as quoted in the Holy Scripture. Sometimes there is great similarity between their words and the phraseology of the Roman canon. There are allusions to the Preface, the Sanctus, the commemoration of Christ, the Pater noster, and to different acclamations. Tertullian speaks often of the kiss of peace, and considers the ceremony very important. References are also made to a litany which was recited during the Mass, but no precise information is given concerning its place in the liturgy. At Mass the faithful received communion under both species, under the species of bread from the bishop or priest, and under the species of wine from the deacon, and each one, after receiving communion, answered “Amen” to profess his faith in the sacrament. Sometimes the faithful carried the Host home, and there communicated themselves, especially in times of persecution. Communion seems to have been received fasting, as Tertullian implies when he inquires what a pagan husband will think of the food of which his Christian wife partakes before any other food. The early Christians appear to have communicated frequently, even every day, especially during a period of persecution. The greatest reverence was shown to the Sacred Species, so the faithful strove to be free from all stain of grievous sin, and deemed it a serious fault to allow any of the consecrated elements to fall to the ground.

Baptism, as the initiatory rite of Christianity, is mentioned frequently by the early writers; Tertullian wrote a special treatise on this sacrament, describing the preparation required for it, and the ceremonies accompanying it. The catechumens should prepare for the reception of baptism by frequent prayers, by fasts, and vigils. Although he usually speaks of the baptism of adults, still he admits the baptism of infants, but seems to be somewhat opposed to this practice, which was commended by St. Cyprian. The time set for the solemn administration of baptism was Easter, or any day between Easter and Pentecost, but Tertullian declares that as every day belongs to the Lord it might be conferred at any time. He holds that it should be administered by the bishop, who, however, may delegate a priest or deacon to act in his place, although in certain cases he would permit laymen to baptize. Any kind of water may serve as the matter of the sacrament, and the water is used to baptize the catechumen “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” The mode of baptizing was by triple immersion in the font, which had already been blessed. Many beautiful symbolical ceremonies accompanied the rite of baptism. Before the candidate for baptism entered the font he renounced the devil with his pomps and his angels. There was also a creed to be recited by the candidate for baptism, probably an African form of the Apostles’ Creed. Tertullian gives several different forms of this rule of faith. After the neophyte ascended from the font he received a drink of milk and honey, and was then anointed with consecrated oil. Tertullian also states that the neophyte was signed with the sign of the cross, that he received the imposition of hands with the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and that the newly baptized Christian then partook of his first holy communion. Tertullian explains many of these ceremonies in his treatise on the Resurrection (viii). “The flesh indeed is washed in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the sign of the cross) that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also may be illuminated by the spirit; the flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God.”

The testimonies relating to the Sacrament of Penance describe principally the public penances imposed for grievous sins, and the absolution of the penitents after the public penances had been performed to the satisfaction of the Church. Tertullian at first asserted that the Church had the power of forgiving all kinds of sins, but after becoming a Montanist he denied that this power extended to certain most heinous crimes, and then ridiculed the practice of the Pope and the Roman Church, who denied absolution to no Christian that was truly penitent for his sins. In writing sarcastically of the mode of procedure in use at Rome in the time of Pope St. Callixtus, he probably gives a good description of the manner in which a penitent sinner was absolved and readmitted into communion with the faithful. He narrates how the penitent, “clothed in a hair-shirt and covered with ashes, appears before the assembly of the faithful craving absolution, how he prostrates himself before the priests and widows, seizes the hem of their garments, kisses their footprints, clasps them by the knees,” how the bishop in the meantime, addresses the people, exhorting them by the recital of the parable of the lost sheep to be merciful and show pity to the poor penitent who asks for pardon. The bishop prayed for the penitents, and the bishop and priests imposed hands upon them as a sign of absolution and restoration into the communion of the Church. Although Tertullian in these words wished to throw ridicule on what he deemed excessive laxity at Rome, still he describes faithfully rites which seem to have been in use in the Church of Africa also, since elsewhere in his writings he mentions doing penance in sack-cloth and ashes, of weeping for sins, and of asking the forgiveness of the faithful. St. Cyprian also writes of the different acts of penance, of the confession of sin, of the manner in which the public penance was performed, of the absolution given by the priest, and of the imposition of the hands of the bishop and priests through which the penitents regained their rights in the Church.

Tertullian speaks of the nuptial blessing pronounced by the Church on the marriage of Christians, asking “how he could sufficiently extol the happiness of that marriage which is cemented by the Church, confirmed by the oblation, sealed with the benediction, which the angels proclaim, which is ratified by the Heavenly Father.” Christian marriage thus seems to have been celebrated publicly before the Church with more or less solemnity, but the nuptial blessing would appear to have been optional and not obligatory, except perhaps by force of custom.

Both Tertullian and St. Cyprian mention ordination and the various orders in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, but unfortunately do not give much information which is strictly liturgical. Tertullian speaks of bishops, priests, and deacons whose powers and functions are pretty well defined, who are chosen on account of their exemplary conduct by the brethren, and are then consecrated to God by regular ordination. Only those who are ordained, says St. Cyprian, may baptize and grant pardon of sins. St. Cyprian distinguishes the different orders, mentioning bishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes, exorcists, and lectors, and in describing the election of St. Cornelius at Rome declares that Cornelius was promoted from one order to another until finally he was elected by the votes of all to the supreme pontificate. All the orders except the minor order of ostiary are enumerated by the early African writers. Both exorcists and lectors appear to have occupied a much more important liturgical position in the early ages than in later times. The exorcist, for example, was frequently called upon to exercise the power he had received at ordination. Tertullian speaks of this extraordinary power which was exercised in the name of Christ. Sometimes the exorcist used the rite of exsufflation, and sometimes, as St. Cyprian states, adjured the evil spirit to depart per Deum verum (by the true God). Lectors also had many liturgical functions to perform. The lector, for example, recited the lessons from the Old and New Testaments, and even read the Gospel from the pulpit to the people. In later ages his duties were divided, and some were given to the other ministers, some to regular chanters.

Among other liturgical ceremonies the early writers often allude to the rites accompanying the burial of the dead, and particularly the entombment of the bodies of the martyrs and confessors. From the earliest times the Christians showed great reverence to the bodies of the faithful, embalmed them with incense and spices, and buried them carefully in distinctively Christian cemeteries. Prayers were said for the repose of the souls of the dead, Masses were offered especially on the anniversary of death and their names were recited in the Memento of the Mass, provided that they had lived in accordance with Christian ideals. The faithful were taught not to mourn for their dead, but to rejoice that the souls of the departed were already living with God and enjoying peace and refreshing happiness after their earthly trials and labours. Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and the Acts of St. Perpetua, all give testimony to the antiquity of these customs. The cemeteries in Africa (called areae) were not catacombs like those in Rome, but above ground in the open air, and often had a chapel (cella) adjoining them, where the reunions of the faithful took place on the anniversaries of the martyrs and of the other Christians who were buried there. The inscriptions on the tombs often state that the departed had lived a life of Christian peace, in pace vixit, or often beautifully express their faith and hope of the faithful in a future life of happiness together with the Lord—spes in Deo—in Deo vivas.

Finally, some ceremonial acts might be considered to which reference is often made by the early writers. Prayers were said sometimes kneeling, sometimes standing; for example, on Sundays, and during the fifty days following Easter, it was forbidden to kneel, while on fast days the kneeling posture was considered appropriate. The Christians prayed with the arms stretched out somewhat in the form of a cross. The sign of the cross was made very frequently, often on some object with the intention of blessing it, often on the forehead of Christians to invoke God’s protection and assistance. Tertullian in his “De Corona” writes: “At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign of the cross.” The early Christians were also accustomed to strike their breasts in sign of guilt and contrition for sin. Tertullian believed that the kiss of peace should be given often; in fact, that it should accompany every prayer and ceremony. Not only are there many ceremonial acts such as those just mentioned which existed in the third century and have been preserved even to the present in the liturgy, but there are also many phrases and acclamations of the early African Church which have found a permanent place in the liturgical formularies. These expressions, and perhaps also the measured style in which they were composed, may have had considerable influence in the development of the other Latin liturgies.

II. POST-NICENE PERIOD

After the edict of Constantine granting freedom of worship to the Christian religion, and especially after the Council of Nicaea, there was a great development in the liturgy of the Church. It was only natural that for some time after the foundation of the new religion, its liturgy should contain only the essentials of Christian worship, and that in the course of time it should develop and expand its ritual according to the needs of the people. Moreover, the first period was an age of persecution and hence the ceremonial was necessarily curtailed. But when persecution ceased, the Church began immediately to expand her ceremonial, changing and modifying the old forms and introducing new rites according to the requirements of public liturgical worship, so that the liturgy would be more dignified, more magnificent, and more impressive. In the beginning great liberty was allowed the individual celebrant to improvise the prayers of the liturgy, provided that he adhered to the strict form in essentials and followed the theme demanded, but at a later date the Church felt the need of a set of formularies and fixed ceremonies, lest dogmatic errors should find expression in the liturgy and thus corrupt the faith of the people. In the fourth century all these tendencies to expansion and development are very noticeable in all the liturgies. This is true, also, of the Church in Africa in the second period of the history of the African liturgy which embraces the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries to the beginning of the eighth century, when Christianity in Africa was practically destroyed by the Mohammedans. No liturgical books or codices belonging to this period are extant, so the liturgy must be reconstructed from contemporary writings and monuments. Of the writers of the period St. Augustine is richest in allusions to ceremonies and formularies, but St. Optatus, Marius Victorinus, Arnobius, and Victor Vitensis give some useful information. The inscriptions, which are more numerous in this period, and the archaeological discoveries also furnish some liturgical data.The beginning of a real ecclesiastical calendar, with definitely fixed feasts and fasts, now appears. The great feast of Easter, upon which all the movable feasts depended, is celebrated with even greater solemnity than in the time of Tertullian. Before Easter there was a period of forty days’ preparation, devoted to fasting and other works of penance. The vigil of Easter was celebrated with the usual ritual, but the length of the offices seems to have been increased. The Paschal solemnity was followed by a season of fifty days’ rejoicing until Pentecost day, which, in the fourth century, appears to have a distinctive character as the commemoration of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles rather than as the close of the Easter season. In Holy Week, Holy Thursday commemorated the institution of the Holy Eucharist, and according to St. Augustine, besides the morning Mass, a Mass was also celebrated in the evening in order to carry out all the circumstances of the institution at the Last Supper. Good Friday was observed by attending the long liturgical offices, while Holy Saturday was celebrated in about the same manner as in the time of Tertullian. Ascension Day seems to have been introduced in the fourth century, but in the time of St. Augustine it was universally observed. As for the immovable feasts, Christmas and Epiphany, which were unknown to Tertullian, were celebrated with the greatest solemnity in the fifth century. The first of January was observed not as the feast of the Circumcision, but as a fast day which had been instituted for the purpose of turning the people away from the celebration of the pagan festivities which took place at that time of the year. Feasts of other than local saints were introduced, for instance, immediately after Christmas, the feast of St. Stephen, of the Holy Innocents and of Sts. John and James, and later in the year, the feasts of St. John the Baptist, of Sts. Peter and Paul, of the Maccabees, of St. Lawrence, St. Vincent, etc. The festivals of the local martyrs were celebrated with even greater solemnity than in early times, and were often accompanied by feasting which was frequently condemned in the sermons of the time, on account of abuses. When such a large number of feasts was annually observed, it was to be expected that a list or calendar would be drawn up, and, in truth, a calendar was drawn up for the use of the Church of Carthage in the beginning of the sixth century, from which very important information concerning the institution and history of the great feast days may be obtained. When Christianity received legal recognition in the Empire, the Christians began to construct churches and adorn them fittingly to serve their purpose. Most of these were built in the old basilica style, with some few differences. The churches were dedicated in honour of the holy martyrs frequently, and relics of the martyrs were placed beneath the altars. The inscriptions of the period mention the dedication to the martyrs and also the fact that the relics were placed in the church or in the altar. The altar itself, called mensa (table), was generally made of wood, but sometimes of stone, and was covered over with linen cloths. There was a special rite for dedicating churches and also for consecrating altars, in which blessed water and the sign of the cross were used.

The Mass became a daily function celebrated every morning when the Christians could meet frequently without fear of persecuting, and when the increased number of feasts required a more frequent celebration of the liturgical offices. Little is known with precision and certitude of the composition of the different parts of the Mass, but still there are many allusions in various authors which give some valuable information. The Mass of the catechumens consisted of psalms and lessons from the Scriptures. These lessons were chosen from both the Old and New Testaments, and it would seem that there were three lessons as in some of the Oriental liturgies, one from the Old Testament, one from the Epistles in the New Testament, and one from the Gospels. The Third Council of Carthage decreed that only lessons from the canonical books of Scripture or from the acts of the martyrs on their feast days might be read in the churches. Between the Epistle and Gospel a psalm containing some idea in harmony with the feast of the day was recited, and corresponded to the gradual or tract in the Roman Mass. An alleluia was also sung, more or less solemnly, especially on Sundays and during the fifty days’ prolongation of the Easter festival. The lessons from the Scriptures were generally followed by a homily, after which both the catechumens and the penitents were dismissed, and the Mass of the faithful commenced. This rule of dismissing the catechumens, etc., seems to have been strictly observed, since nearly all the African writers in their sermons or other works use expressions which indicate that their words would be intelligible only to the initiated, and that the catechumens were ignorant of the mysteries celebrated in the Mass of the faithful. The litany may have been recited after the Gospel, although its precise position cannot be determined with certainty. The litany consisted of short petitions for the various needs of the Church, resembling somewhat the petitions in the present Litany of the Saints, or perhaps the prayers for different classes of persons, or necessities of the Church which are now recited on Good Friday. The people very probably responded with some acclamation like Kyrie eleison, or Te rogamus audi nos.

In the time of St. Augustine a chant for the Offertory was introduced in the Church of Carthage; it consisted of a psalm having some reference to the oblation, and was sung while the people were making their offerings. Each of the faithful was supposed to bring an offering for his communion. The offerings were received by the bishop and placed upon the altar, with the appropriate prayers, and then the bishop proceeded with the Mass. The Dominus vobiscum preceded the Preface, which properly began with the words Sursum corda, Habemos ad Dominum, Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro, Dignun et justum est. The canon of the Mass was known in Africa as the actio, or agenda, and was mentioned but very seldom on account of the “discipline of the secret.” There are, however, some passages in the African writers which show that there was a great similarity between the African actio and the Roman canon, so much so that some of the texts when put in juxtaposition are almost identical. The actio contained the usual prayers, the commemoration for the living and the dead, the words of institution and sanctification of the sacrifice, the commemoration of Christ, the Pater Noster, and the preparation for Communion. The Pater Noster seems to have held the same position that it now has in the Roman canon, and it was said before the Communion, as St. Augustine states, because in the Lord’s Prayer we beseech God to forgive our offences, and thus we may approach the communion table with better dispositions. The kiss of peace followed shortly after the Pater Noster, and was closely connected with the Communion, being regarded as a symbol of the fraternal union existing between all those who partook of the Body and Blood of Christ. The faithful received communion frequently, and were encouraged in the practice of receiving daily communion. At the proper time the communicants approached the altar and there partook of the Eucharist under both species, answering “Amen” to the formula pronounced by the priest in order to profess their faith in the sacrament just received. During the distribution of communion the thirty-third psalm was recited or sung, because that psalm contained some verses considered appropriate for the Communion. Prayers of thanksgiving were then said, and the people dismissed from the church with a benediction.

The prayers accompanying the administration of the other sacraments seem to have become more fixed and to have lengthened since the time of Tertullian. For the more decorous and convenient administration of the Sacrament of Baptism, large baptisteries were erected, in which the ceremony was carried out with great solemnity. The African Church seems to have followed practically the same ritual as the Roman Church during the catechumenate, which lasted for the forty days preceding Easter. St. Augustine, for instance, speaks of teaching the catechumens the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, and of the rites for the Vigil of Easter, as if they were in accord with those in use at Rome; but there appears to be only one unction, that after baptism, and the kiss of peace after baptism is still given as in the days of St. Cyprian. Victor Vitensis asserts that the African Church admitted the feast of the Epiphany as a day appointed for the solemn administration of baptism according to the custom prevailing in Oriental churches. The neophytes were confirmed after baptism through the imposition of hands and the unction with chrism on the forehead in the form of a cross, and on the same day they seem to have received their first holy communion with about the same ceremonies as in the ante-Nicene period. The rite for the Sacrament of Penance shows few peculiarities in Africa, so public penances were imposed and the reconciliation of penitents was effected in the same manner as in the age of Tertullian.

Matrimony is often mentioned, especially by St. Augustine, who speaks of the nuptial blessing and the various other ceremonies, civil and religious, connected with it, as for instance the tabulae nuptiales, etc.

As the Sacrament of Holy Orders had a more public character like the Eucharist, it is frequently alluded to in the writings and inscriptions of the time. Allusions are made to the various orders and to ordination, but there is scarcely ever a description of the rite of ordination, or an explanation of the formulas. It might be noted that the archdeacon now appears and has special functions assigned to him. Clerics began their ecclesiastical career as lectors often at a tender age, and the lectors formed a schola (school), which sang the ecclesiastical offices. Later on, the lectors became chanters, and their duties were given to the other ministers. St. Augustine also speaks frequently of the ceremony of the consecration of virgins, which seems to have been reserved to the bishops. The veil might be received at a much younger age in Africa than at Rome.

The faithful showed the same loving care and respect to the bodies of the departed as in the ante-Nicene period, but now the funeral rites were longer and more solemn. Prayers were said for the dead, Mass was offered for the souls of the faithful departed, and special rites took place while the funeral procession was on the way and when the body was entombed. The names of the dead were recited in the diptychs, and Mass was offered for them on the anniversaries of death. Moreover, the inscriptions of this age contain beautiful sentiments of hope in a happy future life for those who had lived and died in the peace of the Lord, and beseech God to grant eternal rest and beatitude to those who trust in His mercy. Many of these expressions are very similar to the phrases now used in the obsequies of the dead.

The Divine Office was gradually developing, but was still in a very rudimentary state. It consisted of the recitation or chanting of psalms and canticles, of versicles and acclamations, and the reading of portions of the Scriptures. There was a special collection of canticles taken from the Old Testament in use in the African Church, and perhaps, also, a collection of hymns composed by uninspired writers, in which were the hymns of St. Ambrose. Many of the versicles quoted in the writings of the time may be now found in the present Roman liturgy. St. Augustine was evidently opposed to the growing tendency to abandon the simple recitative tone and make the chant of the offices more solemn and ornate as the ceremonial became more formal. Gradually the formularies became more fixed, and liberty to improvise was curtailed by the African councils. Few, however, of the prayers have been preserved, although many shorter verses and acclamations have been quoted in the writings of the period, as for example, the Deo Gratias, Deo Laudes, and Amen, with which the people approved the words of the preacher, or the doxologies and conclusions of some of the prayers. The people still used the sign of the cross frequently in their private devotions as in the days of Tertullian. Other ceremonial acts in common use were striking the breast as a sign of penance, extending the arms in the form of a cross, kneeling during prayers, etc., all of which had been handed down from primitive times. Such are some of the most important data furnished by the early writers and inscriptions concerning the liturgy of the African Church, and they are useful to show the peculiarities of the Latin rite in Africa as well as the similarity between the African and other liturgies.

Cabrol in Dict. d’arch. chret. (Paris, 1903), 591; Duchesne, Christian Worship, tr. McClure (London, 1903); Probst, Liturgie der drei ersten christlichen Jahrhunderte (Tubingen, 1870); Idem, Liturgie des vierten Jahrhunderts und deren Reform (Munster, 1893); Mone, Lateinische und griechische Messen aus dem zweiten bis sechsten Jahrhundert (Frankfort, 1850); Cabrol et Leclercq, Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgica (Paris, 1902), I.

J.F. GOGGIN

African Synods

There was no general council of the entire Church held at any time in North Africa. There were, however, many national or plenary assemblies of bishops representing the North African Church. These are commonly called African or Carthaginian Synods, and are not to be confounded with the district or provincial assemblies, of which there were also very many in the separate provinces of North Africa. These Roman provinces lay between the Sahara and the Mediterranean and extended from Cyrenaica on the east to the Atlantic on the west, corresponding roughly to the part of the continent occupied by modern Tripoli, Algeria, and Morocco. The Church entered into history there at the end of the second century, and disappeared in the beginning of the eighth.

Ecclesiastical Organizations

About the middle of the third century the bishops of the three civil provinces (Proconsular Africa, Numidia, and Mauretania) formed but one ecclesiastical province, but as dioceses were multiplied, they came to be grouped into divisions corresponding to the prevailing political divisions of the country. Diocletian re-districted North Africa into six civil provinces, and by the end of the fourth century the Church had adjusted her organization to these lines. Thus there came to be six ecclesiastical provinces:

Proconsular Africa;

Numidia;

Byzacena;

Tripoli;

Mauretania Sitifensis;

Imperial Mauretania.

This organization lasted till the Arab invasion in the seventh century. Because of its civil importance, Carthage was the primatial see and held control of these suffragan provinces, except perhaps during the period of the Byzantine domination in Africa (534–646), when Tripoli and the two Mauretanias seem to have been independent of Carthage. The Bishop of Carthage was in rank and privilege, though not in name, the Patriarch of the African Church. It was he who called and presided over the general synods, and early in the fifth century, it was his wont to sign the decrees in the name of all. These synods were held, with but few exceptions (e.g. Hippo, 393; Milevum, 402) at Carthage. In several instances we are able to name the church where the meeting took place: as “the Church of the Second District,” or the “Ecclesia Restituta,” or the “Secretarium Basilicae Fausti.”

Number of Synods

In the time of Tertullian there were no synods held in Africa. But about 220, Agrippinus called together seventy bishops from Proconsular Africa and Numidia. From the time of St. Cyprian general synods came to be the wonted resource of Church administration, and they were held in Africa with greater frequency and regularity than elsewhere in Christendom. We know from the letters of St. Cyprian that, except in time of persecution, the African bishops met at least once a year, in the springtime, and sometimes again in the autumn. Six or seven synods, for instance, were held under St. Cyprian’s presidency during the decade of his administration (249–258), and more than fifteen under Aurelius (391–429). The Synod of Hippo (393) ordered a general meeting yearly. But this was found too onerous for the bishops, and in the Synod of Carthage (407) it was decided to hold a general synod only when necessary for the needs of all Africa, and it was to be held at a place most convenient for the purpose. As a matter of fact, the needs were so persistent that general synods were held with perhaps equal frequency up to the Vandal invasion (429), and Carthage continued to be the meeting-place. The Church of Africa then entered on “penal times.” Towards the end of the Vandal domination there was a cessation of persecution, and synods were resumed. The general Synod of Carthage in 525, though numerously attended, shows in reality a humble and diminished church. There was an improvement under the Byzantine control (533–647), and the Synod of 534 (perhaps the only general one for this period) is the second largest in point of numbers of all the African synods. In 646 we still find the bishops meeting in provincial synods, on the very eve of the final dissolution of their ancient organization. The Arab domination spread in successive waves from 647 up to 698, when Carthage fell. Within the following half century the Church of Roman Africa had ceased to be.

Attendance and Representation

Elsewhere in Christendom only bishops attended general synods; but in North Africa there was, at least for a time, a departure from this custom. In the synods held under St. Cyprian, to deal with the lapsed, and in the synod of 256, which considered the question of re-baptism, there were present not only the bishops, but many priests and deacons, and even a very large representation of the laity. Only the bishops, however, had a vote in the final determinations. Not all the bishops of the country were required to assist at the general synod. At the Synod of Hippo (393) it was ordered that “dignities” should be sent from each ecclesiastical province. Only one was required from Tripoli, because of the poverty of the bishops of that province. In the synod held in Carthage in September, 401, it was decreed that each province should be divided into two or three districts, and that each of them should send deputies to the general synod. Attendance was urgently insisted on. There were ninety bishops in attendance at the synod that condemned Privatus (236–248), and more than two hundred and twenty-three, the largest recorded for Africa, at the Synod of 418. It has been through her literature, the writings of Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and, more than all, of St. Augustine, rather than by her synodal action that the great Church of Africa has modified the world’s history. The African synods dealt for the most part, as was natural, with matters of local discipline, and today are chiefly of interest to students of Church History and Canon Law. Nevertheless, at times, their decrees transcended their immediate and local scope and helped, in concert with Rome, to fix the discipline and to define the doctrine of the Church Universal. The penitential decrees drawn up after the Decian persecution and the decrees against Pelagianism are instances in point.

Brief Analysis of Synodal Acts

The synodal decrees show how restless and factional the national temper was, and how ready to break out into violent schism. Those who lapsed under Decius formed a party strong enough to withstand the hierarchy, and the synods of the fourth and fifth centuries are constantly engaged with the bitter and persistent Donatist Schism, which upset all Africa and perplexed both Church and State. Civil intervention was invoked in the Synod of 404. The persecution of Decius left in Africa, as elsewhere, many who had denied or compromised their faith under fear of death. The Church was now called upon to determine whether she might forgive so grave a sin. In the Synod of May, 251, under the presidency of St. Cyprian, it was decided that the lapsed should be admitted to penance, and should be reconciled at least at the moment of death. The next year (Synod of 252) further grace was shown them in view of the persecution of Gallus, and all who had entered seriously upon a course of penance were to be restored to fellowship at once. The Church of Africa was not equally fortunate in finding the solution for the difficult problem of the worth of Baptism as administered outside the Church. The earliest synod (about 220) took the matter up and declared such Baptism invalid, and this decision was reaffirmed in synods held in 255–256 under St. Cyprian. All converts should be re-baptized. St. Cyprian strove to press the African views on Rome, but Pope Stephen (q.v.) menaced excommunication. At the celebrated September Synod of 256 the eighty-seven bishops assembled from the three provinces still maintained their attitude against Baptism by heretics. This error was finally retracted in the Synod (345–348) under Gratus.

These records show how the close relations between Africa and Rome were several times troubled during the course of five centuries. The baptismal controversy put the Church into a state of passive resistance to Rome. In the Synod of September, 256, St. Cyprian was placed in a painful dilemma. While maintaining the right of bishops to think for themselves, he still clung to the necessity of unity in the Church, and would not break the revered bond with Rome. Again, early in the fifth century, the appeal to Rome of Apiarius (q.v.), a deposed priest, stirred up strong feeling among the African bishops, and appeals of priests and laics “over sea” (to Rome) were forbidden in the Synod of 418. Legates came from Rome to adjust the difference. In the Synods of 419 an enquiry was made into the canonical warrant for such appeals. The Roman legates cited by mistake, as canons passed at Nicea (325), the canons of Sardica (343) regulating the appeals of bishops. This led to a tedious delay, and the whole matter was dropped for the moment. It was reopened a few years later, when Apiarius, who had been deposed a second time, on new charges, again appealed to Rome for reinstatement. Faustinus, the Roman legate, reappeared at the Synod of 424 and demanded the annulment of the sentence passed on the priest. Apiarius, however, broke down under examination, and admitted his guilt. So nothing further could be done for him. A synodal letter to Rome emphasized how needful it was that Rome should not lightly credit all complainants from Africa, nor receive into fellowship such as had been excommunicated.

At the Synod of Hippo (393), and again at the Synod of 397 at Carthage, a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up. It is the Catholic canon (i.e. including the books classed by Protestants as “Apocrypha”). The latter synod, at the end of the enumeration, added, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon.” St. Augustine was one among the forty-four bishops who signed the proceedings. Celestius, the friend of Pelagius, came to Carthage to be ordained a priest; Paulinus, the deacon of Milan, warned the Bishop of Carthage against him; and thus, in 411, began the series of synods against Pelagianism. They had a most important influence in checking its spread. The earlier ones seem to have been provincial. The important Synod of 416, under Sylvanus, at Milevum urged Innocent I to stop the heresy, and in the synod of all Africa held at Carthage in 420 the bishops, intensely convinced that vital issues were involved, passed a series of doctrinal utterances with annexed anathemas against the Pelagians. St. Augustine was present. It was, in respect of doctrine, the most important of all the synods of Africa. It is no longer possible from the meagre remains to attempt a complete list of the general synods of Africa; nor is it any longer possible to determine, with exactness in every instance, what synods were general. The following approximate enumeration is made therefore with all due reserve:

Under St. Cyprian. Synods about A.D. 220 under Agrippinus; 236–248 (condemned Privatus of Lambesa). Carthage, 251, 252, 254, 255; Autumn of 255, or Spring of 256; September 256.

Under Gratus. at Carthage, 345–348.

Under Aurelius. at Carthage, Hippo-Regius, 393, 394, 397 (two sessions), June and September; 401; at Milevum, 402; at Carthage, 403–410, end of 417 or beginning of 418; May, 418; May and November, 419; 420, 424.

Under Boniface. Synod of Carthage, 525, 534.

The texts of the Synods are found in the collections of Mansi or of Hardouin. Cf. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils (Edinburgh, 1871) I; Routh, Reliqiae Sacrae, III, 93–217; Leclerq, L’Afrique chretienne (2 vols., Paris, 1904); Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l’Eglise (Paris, 1905), I 388–432.

F.P. HAVEY

Agabus

Mentioned in Acts 11:28, and 21:10, as a prophet of the New Testament. Most probably both passages refer to the same person, who appears to have been a resident of Jerusalem. Tradition makes him one of the seventy-two disciples (Luke 10:1), and one of the martyrs who suffered at Antioch. The Roman Martyrology mentions his name on 13 February, while the Greek Church commemorates him on 8 March. According to Acts 11:27–30, Agabus predicted the famine which apparently must be identified with that happening in the fourth year of Claudius, A.D. 45. In the year 58 the prophet predicted to St. Paul his coming captivity, though he could not induce the Apostle to stay away from Jerusalem (Acts 21:10–11).

A.J. MAAS

Agape

The celebration of funeral feasts in honour of the dead dates back almost to the beginnings of the worship of the departed—that is, to the very earliest times. The dead, in the region beyond the tomb, were thought to derive both pleasure and advantage from these offerings. The same conviction explains the existence of funeral furniture for the use of the dead. Arms, vessels, and clothes, as things not subject to decay, did not need to be renewed, but food did; hence feasts at stated seasons. But the body of the departed gained no relief from offerings made to his shade unless these were accompanied fly the obligatory rites. Yet the funeral feast was not merely a commemoration; it was a true communion, and the food brought by the guests was really meant for the use of the departed. The milk and wine were poured out on the earth around the tomb, while the solid food has passed in to the corpse through a hole in the tomb.

The use of the funeral feast was almost universal in the Græco-Roman world. Many ancient authors may be cited as witnesses to the practice in classical lands. Among the Jews, averse by taste and reason to all foreign customs, we find what amounts to a funeral banquet, if not the rite itself; the Jewish colonies of the Dispersion, less impervious to surrounding influences, adopted the practice of fraternal banquets. If we study the texts relative to the Supper, the last solemn meal taken by Our Lord with His disciples, we shall find that it was the Passover Supper, with the changes wrought by time on the primitive ritual, since it took place in the evening, and the guests reclined at the table. As the liturgical mea1 draws to a close, the Host introduces a new rite, and bids those present repeat it when He shall have ceased to be with them. This done, they sing the customary hymn and withdraw. Such is the meal that Our Lord would have renewed, but it is plain that He did not command the repetition of the Passover Supper during the year, since it could have no meaning except on the Feast itself. Now the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles state that the repast of the Breaking of Bread took place very often, perhaps daily. That which was repeated was, therefore, not the liturgical feast of the Jewish ritual, but the event introduced by Our Lord into this feast when, after the drinking of the fourth cup, He instituted the Breaking of Bread, the Eucharist. To what degree this new rite, repeated by the faithful, departed from the rite and formulæ of the Passover Supper, we have no means, at the present time, of determining. It is probable, however, that, in repeating the Eucharist, it was deemed fit to preserve certain portions of the Passover Supper, as much out of respect for what had taken place in the Cœnaculum as from the impossibility of breaking roughly with the Jewish Passover rite, so intimately linked by the circumstances with the Eucharistic one.

This, at its origin, is clearly marked as funerary in its intention, a fact attested by the most ancient testimonies that have come down to us. Our Lord, in instituting the Eucharist, used these words: “As often as you shall eat this Bread and drink this chalice, you shall show forth the Lord’s Death.” Nothing could be clearer. Our Lord chose the means generally used in His time, namely: the funeral banquet, to bind together those who remained faithful to the memory of Him who had gone. We must, however, be on our guard against associating the thought of sadness with the Eucharistic Supper, regarded in this light. If the memory of the Master’s Passion made the commemoration of these last hours in any measure sad, the glorious thought of the Resurrection gave this meeting of the brethren its joyous aspect. The Christian assembly was held in the evening, and was continued far into the night. The supper, preaching, common prayer, the breaking of the bread, took up several hours; the meeting began on Saturday and ended on Sunday, thus passing from the commemoration of the sad hours to that of the triumphant moment of the Resurrection and the Eucharistic feast in very truth “showed forth the Lord’s Death,” as it will until He come.” Our Lord’s command was understood and obeyed.

Certain texts refer to the meetings of the faithful in early times. Two, from the Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (I Cor., xi, 18, 20—22, 33, 34), allow us to draw the following conclusions: The brethren were at liberty to eat before going to the meeting; all present must be in a fit condition to celebrate the Supper of the Lord, though they must not eat of the funeral supper until all were present. We know, from two texts of the first century, that these meetings did not long remain within becoming bounds. The agape, as we shall see, was destined, during the few centuries that it lasted, to fall, from time to time, into abuses. The faithful, united in bodies, guilds, corporations or “collegia,” admitted coarse, intemperate men among them, who degraded the character of the assemblies. These Christian “collegia” seem to have differed but little from those of the pagans, in respect, at all events, of the obligations imposed by the rules of incorporation. There is no evidence available to show that the collegia from the first undertook the burial of deceased members; but it seems probable that they did so at an early period. The establishment of such colleges gave the Christians an opportunity of meeting in much the same way as the pagans did—subject always to the many obstacles which the law imposed. Little feasts were held, to which each of the guests contributed his share, and the supper with which the meeting ended might very well be allowed by the authorities as a funerary one. In reality, however, for all faithful worthy of the name, it was a liturgical assembly. The texts, which it would take too long to quote, do not allow us to assert that all these meetings ended with a celebration of the Eucharist. In such matters sweeping generalizations should be avoided. At the outset it must be stated that no text affirms that the funeral supper of the Christian colleges must always and everywhere be identified with the agape, nor does any text tell us that the agape was always and everywhere connected with the celebration of the Eucharist. But subject to these reservations, we may gather that under certain circumstances the agape and the Eucharist appear to form parts of a single liturgical function. The meal, as understood by the Christians, was a real supper, which followed the Communion; and an important monument, a fresco of the second century preserved in the cemetery of St. Priscilla, at Rome, shows us a company of the faithful supping and communicating. The guests recline on a couch which serves as a seat, but, if they are in the attitude of those who are at supper, the meal appears as finished. They have reached the moment of the Eucharistic communion, symbolized in the fresco by the mystical fish and the chalice. (See FISH; EUCHARIST; SYMBOLISM.)

Tertullian has described at length (Apolog., vii-ix) these Christian suppers, the mystery of which puzzled the Pagans, and has given a detailed account of the agape, which had been the subject of so much calumny; an account which affords us an insight into the ritual of the agape in Africa in the second century.

The introductory prayer.

The guests take their places on the couches.

A meal, during which they talk on pious subjects.

The washing of hands.

The hall is lit up.

Singing of psalms and improvised hymns.

Final prayer and departure.

The hour of meeting is not specified, but the use made of torches shows clearly enough that it must have been in the evening or at night. The document known as the “Canons of Hippolytus” appears to have been written in the time of Tertullian, but its Roman or Egyptian origin remains in doubt. It contains very precise regulations in regard to the agape, similar to those which may be inferred from other texts. We gather that the guests are at liberty to eat and drink according to the need of each. The agape, as prescribed to the Smyrnæans by St. Ignatius of Antioch, was presided over by the bishop; according to the “Cannons of Hippolytus,” catechumens were excluded, a regulation which seems to indicate that the meeting bore a liturgical aspect. An example of the halls in which the faithful met to celebrate the agape may be seen in the vestibule of the Catacomb of Domitilla. A bench runs round this great hall, on which the guests took their places. With this may be compared an inscription found at Cherchel, in Algeria, recording the gift made to the local church of a plot of land and a building intended as a meeting-place for the corporation or guild of the Christians. From the fourth century onward, the agape rapidly lost its original character. The political liberty granted to the Church made it possible for the meetings to grow larger, and involved a departure from primitive simplicity. The funeral banquet continued to be practised, but gave rise to flagrant and intolerable abuses. St. Paulinus of Nola, usually mild and kindly, is forced to admit that the crowd, gathered to honour the feast of a certain martyr, took possession of the basilica and atrium, and there ate the food which had been given out in large quantities. The Council of Laodicea (363) forbade the clergy and laity who should be present at an agape to make it a means of supply, or to take food away from it, at the same time that it forbade the setting up of tables in the churches. In the fifth century the agape becomes of infrequent occurrence, and between the sixth and the eighth it disappears altogether from the churches.

One fact in connection with a subject at present so much studied and discussed seems to be established beyond question, namely, that the agape was never a universal institution. If found in one place, there is not so much as a trace of it in another, nor any reason to suppose that it ever existed there. A feeling of veneration for the dead inspired the funeral banquet, a feeling closely akin to a Christian inspiration. Death was not looked upon as the end of the whole man, but as the beginning of a new and mysterious span of life. The last meal of Christ with His Apostles pointed to this belief of a life after death, but added to it something new and unparalleled, the Eucharistic communion. It would be useless to look for analogies between the funeral banquet and the Eucharistic supper, yet it should not be forgotten that the Eucharistic supper was fundamentally a funerary memorial.

BATIFFOL, Etudes d’histoire et de théologie positive (Paris, 1902), 277–311; FUNK in the Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique (15 January, 1903); KEATIING, The Agape and the Eucharist in the Early Church (London, 1901); LECLERCQ in Dict. d’archéol. chrét. et de lit., I, col. 775–848.

H. LECLERCQ

Agapetae

(agapetai, beloved).

In the first century of the Christian era, the Agapetae were virgins who consecrated themselves to God with a vow of chastity and associated with laymen. In the beginning this community of spiritual life and mutual support, which was based on St. Paul s First Epistle to the Corinthians (ix, 5), was holy and edifying. But later it resulted in abuses and scandals, so that councils of the fourth century forbade it. The origin of this association was very probably that these virgins, who did not live in community, required laymen to look after their material interests, and they naturally chose those who, like themselves, had takes a vow of chastity. St. Jerome asked indignantly (Ep., xxii, ad Eustochium) after it had degenerated, Unde in ecclesias Agapetarum pestis introiit? A letter St. Cyprian shows that abuses of this kind developed in Africa and in the East (Ep., iv., Ed. Hartel). The Council of Ancyra, in 314, forbade virgins consecrated to God to live thus with men as sisters. This did not correct the practice entirely, for St. Jerome arraigns Syrian monks for living in cities with Christian virgins. The Agapetae are sometimes confounded with the subintroductae, or woman who lived with clerics without marriage, a class against which the third canon of the Council of Nice (325) was directed. The word Agapetae was also the name of a branch of the Gnostics in 395, whose tenet was that the relations of the sexes were purified of impropriety if the mind was pure. They taught that one should perjure himself rather than reveal the secrets of his sect.

HEMMER in Dict. De theol. Cath. s.v.; and in GIRAUD, Bibl. Sac., I, 207–208; ACHELIS, Virgines Subintroductae (Leipzig, 1902).

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Agapetus

A deacon of the church of Sancta Sophia at Constantinople (about 500), reputed tutor of Justinian, and author of a series of exhortations in 72 short chapters addressed (c. 527) to that emperor (P.G., LXXXVI, 1153–86). The first letters of each chapter form an acrostic of dedication that reads: The very humble Deacon Agapetus to the sacred and venerable Emperor Justinian. The little work deals in general terms with the moral, religious, and political duties of a ruler. In form it is quite sententious and rhetorical, and resembles closely a similar work in the romance of Barlaam and Joasaph. Both of these seem to be based on Isocrates, and on Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus. The work of Agapetus was eminently fitted for the use of medieval teachers by reason of its edifying content, the purity of its Greek diction, and its skillful construction. It was translated into Latin, French, and German, and was highly commended by the humanists of the Renaissance. Some twenty editions of it appeared in the sixteenth century.

KRUMBACHER, Gesch. d. byz. Lit., I, 456–457; K. PRAECHTER, Byz. Zeitschr. (1893), II, 444–460; FABRICIUS, Bibl. Gr., VIII, 36 sq.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Pope St. Agapetus I

(Also AGAPITUS.)

Reigned 535–536. Date of birth uncertain; died 22 April, 536. He was the son of Gordianus, a Roman priest who had been slain during the riots in the days of Pope Symmachus. His first official act was to burn in the presence of the assembled clergy the anathema which Boniface II had pronounced against the latter’s rival Dioscurus and had ordered to be preserved in the Roman archives. He confirmed the decrees of the council held at Carthage, after the liberation of Africa from the Vandal yoke, according to which converts from Arianism were declared ineligible to Holy Orders and those already ordained were merely admitted to lay communion. He accepted an appeal from Contumeliosus, Bishop of Riez, whom a council at Marseilles had condemned for immorality, and he ordered St. Caesarius of Aries to grant the accused a new trial before papal delegates. Meanwhile Belisarius, after the very easy conquest of Sicily, was preparing for an invasion of Italy. The Gothic king, Theodehad as a last resort, begged the aged pontiff to proceed to Constantinople and bring his personal influence to bear on the Emperor Justinian. To defray the costs of the embassy Agapetus was compelled to pledge the sacred vessels of the Church of Rome. He set out in midwinter with five bishops and an imposing retinue. In February, 536, he appeared in the capital of the East and was received with all the honours befitting the head of the Catholic Church. As he no doubt had foreseen, the ostensible object of his visit was doomed to failure. Justinian could not be swerved from his resolve to re-establish the rights of the Empire in Italy. But from the ecclesiastical standpoint, the visit of the Pope in Constantinople issued in a triumph scarcely less memorable than the campaigns of Belisarius. The then occupant of the Byzantine See was a certain Anthimus, who without the authority of the canons had left his episcopal see of Trebizond to join the crypto-Monophysites who, in conjunction with the Empress Theodora were then intriguing to undermine the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. . Against the protests of the orthodox, the Empress finally seated Anthimus in the patriarcilal chair. No sooner had the Pope arrived than the most prominent of the clergy entered charges against the new patriarch as an intruder and a heretic. Agapetus ordered him to make a written profession of faith and to return to his forsaken see; upon his refusal, he declined to have any relations with him. This vexed the Emperor, who had been deceived by his wife as to the orthodoxy of her favorite, and he went so far as to threaten the Pope with banishment. Agapetus replied with spirit: “With eager longing have I come to gaze upon the Most Christian Emperor Justinian. In his place I find a Diocletian, whose threats, however, terrify me not.” This intrepid language made Justinian pause; and being finally convinced that Anthimus was unsound in faith, he made no objection to the Pope’s exercising the plenitude of his powers in deposing and suspending the intruder and, for the first time in the history of the Church, personally consecrating his legally elected successor, Mennas. This memorable exercise of the papal prerogative was not soon forgotten by the Orientals, who, together with the Latins, venerate him as a saint. In order to clear himself of every suspicion of abetting heresy, Justinian delivered to the Pope a written confession of faith, which the latter accepted with the judicious proviso that “although he could not admit in a layman the right of teaching religion, yet he observed with pleasure that the zeal of the Emperor was in perfect accord with the decisions of the Fathers.” Shortly afterwards Agapetus fell ill and died, after a glorious reign of ten months. His remains were brought in a leaden coffin to Rome and deposited in St. Peter’s. His memory is kept on 20 September, the day of his deposition. The Greeks commemorate him on 22 April, the day of his death.

Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne), I, 287–289; Cleus in Acta SS., Sept., VI, 163–179; Artaud de Montor, Lives of the Popes (New York, 1867), I, 123, 124.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Agapetus II

A Roman by birth, elected to the papacy 10 May, 946; he reigned, not ingloriously, for ten years, during what has been termed the period of deepest humiliation for the papacy. He proved that the true spiritual dignity of the papacy can be successfully upheld by a saintly and resolute pontiff amid the most untoward surroundings. The temporal power had practically vanished and Rome was ruled by the vigorous Princeps and Senator Albericht, who was the prototype of the later Italian tyrants. Nevertheless, the name and virtues of Agapetus were respected throughout the entire Christian world. He labored incessantly to restore the decadent discipline in churches and cloisters. He succeeded eventually in quieting the disturbances in the metropolitan see of Reims. He supported the Emperor Otto the Great in his plans for the evangelization of the heathens of the North. Seeing no other way of putting an end to anarchy in Italy, he joined with other Italian nobles in persuading the Emperor to make his first expedition into the peninsula. During his lifetime, his successor was virtually appointed in the person of Albericht’s notorious son Octavian, later John XII, whose father forced the Romans to swear that they would elect him as their temporal and spiritual lord upon the demise of Agapetus. The Pope died in August, 956, leaving an unsullied name, and was buried in St. John Lateran.

Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne), II, 245. For his correspondence see JAFFÉ, Regesta RR. PP., 2d ed., I, 459–463; Artaud de Montor, History of the Popes (New York, 1867), 250–251.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

William Seth Agar

An English Canon, born at York, 25 December, 1815; died 23 August, 1872. He was educated at Prior Park, Bath, and was ordained priest there, and appointed (1845) to Lyme, Dorsetshire. Ill health obliged him to leave Lyme twice, and in 1852 he was appointed chaplain to the canonesses of St. Augustine at Abbotsleigh, where he lived uninterruptedly to his death. In 1856 he was installed as Canon of the Plymouth Chapter. He is said to have been “one of the most deeply versed priests in England in ascetical and mystical theology, and in the operations of grace in souls.” He was more a profound thinker than a great reader, although he studied many theological and philosophical works, especially the published writings of his favorite author, Rosmini, which he carefully annotated.

The Tablet (London), 7 Sept., 1872; GILLOW, Bibliogr. Diet. of English Catholics, I, 9.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

St. Agatha

One of the most highly venerated virgin martyrs of Christian antiquity, put to death for her steadfast profession of faith in Catania, Sicily. Although it is uncertain in which persecution this took place, we may accept, as probably based on ancient tradition, the evidence of her legendary life, composed at a later date, to the effect that her martyrdom occurred during the persecution of Decius (250–253).

Historic certitude attaches merely to the fact of her martyrdom and the public veneration paid her in the Church since primitive times. In the so-called Martyrologium Hieronymianum (ed. De Rossi and Duchesne, in Acta SS., Nov. II, 17) and in the ancient Martyrologium Carthaginiense dating from the fifth or sixth century (Ruinart, Acta Sincera, Ratisbon, 1859, 634), the name of St. Agatha is recorded on 5 February. In the sixth century Venantius Fortunatus mentions her in his poem on virginity as one of the celebrated Christian virgins and martyrs (Carm., VIII, 4, De Virginitate: Illic Euphemia pariter quoque plaudit Agathe Et Justina simul consociante Thecla. etc.). Among the poems of Pope Damasus published by Merenda and others is a hymn to St. Agatha (P.L., XIII, 403 sqq.; Ihm, Damasi Epigrammata, 75, Leipzig, 1895). However, this poem is not the work of Damasus but the product of an unknown author at a later period, and was evidently meant for the liturgical celebration of the Saint’s feast. Its content is drawn from the legend of St. Agatha, and the poem is marked by end-rhyme. From a letter of Pope Gelasius (492–496) to a certain Bishop Victor (Thiel. Epist. Roman. Pont., 495) we learn of a Basilica of St. Agatha in fundo Caclano, e.g., on the estate of that name. The letters of Gregory I make mention of St. Agatha at Rome, in the Subura, with which a diaconia or deaconry was connected (Epp., IV, 19; P.L., LXXVII, 688). It was in existence as early as the fifth century, for in the latter half of that century Rieimer enriched it with a mosaic. This same church was given the Arian Goths by Rieimer and was restored to Catholic worship by Pope Gregory I (590–604).

Although the martyrdom of St. Agatha is thus authenticated, and her veneration as a saint had even in antiquity spread beyond her native place, we still possess no reliable information concerning the details of her glorious death. It is true that we have the Acts of her martyrdom in two versions, Latin and Greek, the latter deviating from the former (Acta SS., I, Feb., 595 sqq.). Neither of these recensions, however, can lay any claim to historical credibility, and neither gives the necessary internal evidence that the information it contains rests, even in the more important details, upon genuine tradition. If there is a kernel of historical truth in the narrative, it has not as yet been possible to sift it out from the later embellishments. In their present form the Latin Acts are not older than the sixth century. According to them Agatha, daughter of a distinguished family and remarkable for her beauty of person, was persecuted by the Senator Quintianus with avowals of love. As his proposals were resolutely spurned by the pious Christian virgin, he committed her to the charge of an evil woman, whose seductive arts, however, were baffled by Agatha’s unswerving firmness in the Christian faith. Quintianus then had her subjected to various cruel tortures. Especially inhuman seemed his order to have her breasts cut off, a detail which furnished to the Christian medieval iconography the peculiar characteristic of Agatha. But the holy virgin was consoled by a vision of St. Peter, who miraculously healed her. Eventually she succumbed to the repeated cruelties practised on her. As already stated, these details, in so far as they are based on the Acts, have no claim to historical credibility. Allard also characterizes the Acts as the work of a later author who was more concerned with writing an edifying narrative, abounding in miracles, than in transmitting historical traditions.

Both Catania and Palermo claim the honour of being Agatha’s birthplace. Her feast is kept on 5 February; her office in the Roman Breviary is drawn in part from the Latin Acts. Catania honours St. Agatha as her patron saint, and throughout the region around Mt. Etna she is invoked against the eruptions of the volcano, as elsewhere against fire and lightning. In some places bread and water are blessed during Mass on her feast after the Consecration, and called Agatha bread.

Acta SS., loc. cit.; JOAN DE GROSSIS, Agatha Catanensis sive de natali patria S. Agathae, dissert. histor. (Paris, 1886), II, 301 sqq.; Hymnus de S. Agatha, in IHM, Damasi epigrammata (Leipzig, 1895), 75 sqq.; BUTLER, Lives, 5 Feb.

J.P. KIRSCH

Agathangelus

A supposed secretary of Tiridates II, King of Armenia, under whose name there has come down a life of the first apostle of Armenia, Gregory the Illuminator, who died about 332. It purports to exhibit the deeds and discourses of Gregory, and has reached us in Armenian and in Greek. The Greek text is now recognized as a translation, made probably in the latter half of the sixth century, while the Armenian is original and belongs to the latter half of the fifth century. Von Gutschmid maintains that the unknown author made use of a genuine life of St. Gregory, also of a history of his martyrdom and of that of St. Ripsime and her companions. Historical facts are intermingled in this life with legendary or uncertain additions, and the whole is woven into a certain unity by the narrator, who may have assumed his significant name from his quality of narrator of “the good news” of Armenia’s conversion (Agathallegos).

BARDENHEWER, Patrologie, 2d ed. (1901), 520, 521. The Armenian text was printed at Constantinople (1709, 1824) and at Venice (1835, 1862); the Greek text (with a French translation) is in LANGLOIS, Collection des historiens anciens et modernes d’Armenie (Paris, 1867), I, 97–163, reprinted from Acta SS., Sept., VIII) 1762), 320–402; VON GUTSCHMID, Agathangelos, in Zeitschrift d. deutsch. morgenl. Gesellschaft (1877), XXXI, 1–60.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Agathias

A Byzantine historian and man of letters, born at Myrina in Asia Minor about 536; died at Constantinople 582 (594?). He is a principal authority for the reign of Justinian (527–65), and is often quoted by ecclesiastical historians. He was probably educated at Constantinople, spent some time at Alexandria, and returned to the royal city in 554, where he took up the profession of law and became a successful pleader at the bar. His tastes, however, were literary, and he soon produced nine books of erotic poetry (Daphniaca), also epigrams and sonnets, many of which are preserved in the so-called Palatine Anthology. He wrote also marginal notes on the Periegetes of Pausanias. He is the last in whom we can yet trace some sparks of the poetic fire of the classic epigrammatists. At the age of thirty he turned to the writing of history and composed a work in five books “On the Reign of Justinian.” It deals with the events of 552–558, and depicts the wars with the Goths, Vandals, and Franks, as well as those against the Persians and the Huns. He is the continuator of Procopius, whom he imitates in form and also in the abundance of attractive episodes. Agathias, it has been said, is a poet and a rhetorician, while Procopius is a soldier and a statesman. The former loves to give free play to his imagination, and his pages abound in philosophic reflection. He is able and reliable, though he gathered his information from eye- witnesses, and not, as Procopius, in the exercise of high military and political offices. He delights in depicting the manners, customs, and religion of the foreign peoples of whom he writes; the great disturbances of his time, earthquakes, plagues, famines, attract his attention, and he does not fail to insert “many incidental notices of cities, forts, and rivers, philosophers, and subordinate commanders.” Many of his facts are not to be found elsewhere, and he has always been looked on as a valuable authority for the period he describes. There are reasons for doubting that he was a Christian, though it seems improbable that he could have been at that late date a genuine pagan. Dr. Milligan thinks (Dict. of Chr. Biogr. I, 59) that “he had gained from Christianity those just notions of God and religion to which he often gives expression, but that he had not embraced its more peculiar truths.” His history was edited by B.G. Niebuhr for the “Corpus SS. Byzant.” (Bonn, 1828; P.G., LXXXVIII, 1248–1608), and is also in Dindorf, “Hist. Graeci minores” (1871), II, 132–453.

KRUMBACHER, Gesch. d. byzant. Litt. I, 240–242; BURY, History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1889), II, 179–81.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Pope St. Agatho

Born towards the end of the sixth century in Sicily; died in Rome, 681. It is generally believed that Agatho was originally a Benedictine monk at St. Hermes in Palermo, and there is good authority that he was more than 100 years old when, in 678, he ascended the papal chair as successor to Pope Donus. Shortly after Agatho became Pope, St. Wilfred, Archbishop of York, who had been unjustly and uncanonically deposed from his see by Theodore of Canterbury, arrived at Rome to invoke the authority of the Holy See in his behalf. At a synod which Pope Agatho convoked in the Lateran to investigate the affair, Wilfred was restored to his see. The chief event of Agatho’s pontificate is, however the Sixth Œcumenical Council, held at Constantinople in 680, at which the papal legates presided and which practically ended the Monothelite heresy. Before the decrees of the council arrived in Rome for the approval of the pope, Agatho had died. He was buried in St. Peter’s, 10 January, 681. Pope Agatho was remarkable for his affability and charity. On account of the many miracles he wrought he has been styled Thaumaturgus, or Wonderworker. His memory is celebrated by the Latin as well as the Greek church.

Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1902); Butler, Lives of the Saints (London,1877); Montalembert, The Monks of the West (Boston), II, 383 sqq; Moberly in Dict. of Christ. Biogr. (London, 1877); Lobkowitz, Statistik der Papste (Freiburg and St. Louis, 1905).

MICHAEL OTT

Agaunum

Today ST. MAURICEEN-VALAIS).

Agaunum, in the diocese of Sion, Switzerland, owes its fame to an event related by St. Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons, the martyrdom of a Roman legion, known as the “Theban Legion,” at the beginning of the fourth century. For centuries this martyrdom was accepted as an historical fact, but since the Reformation it has been the subject of long and violent controversies, an exact account of which may be found in the work of Franz Stolle. The sources for the martyrdom of the Thebans are few, consisting of two editions of their “Acts,” certain entries in the calendars and in the martyrologies, and the letter of Bishop Eucherius, written in the year 450. To these may be added certain “Passiones” of Theban martyrs, who escaped from the massacre of Agaunum, but who later fell victims to the persecution in Germany and Italy. It was only in the episcopate of Theodore of Octodurum (369–391), a long time after the occurrence, that attention seems to have been drawn to the massacre of a Roman legion at Agaunum. It was then that, according to St. Eucherius, a basilica was built in honor of the martyrs, whose presence had been made known to Bishop Theodore by means of a revelation. The document of primary importance in connection with this history is the letter of St. Eucherius to Bishop Salvius, wherein he records the successive witnesses through whom the tradition was handed down to his time over a period, that is, of about one hundred and fifty years. He had journeyed to the place of martyrdom; whither pilgrims came in great numbers, and had, he says, questioned those who were able to tell him the truth concerning the matter. He does not, however, appear to have seen a text of the martyrdom, though his account has many excellent qualities, historical as well as literary. Certain facts are related with exactitude, and the author has refrained from all miraculous additions. But on the other hand, the speeches which he attributes to the martyrs, and the allusion by which he strives to connect the massacre of the Theban Legion with the general persecution under Diocletian have given rise to much discussion. The speeches were probably of the Bishop’s Own composition; the historical groundwork on which he professes to base the martyrdom is wholly independent of the original narrative. The objections raised against the fact itself, and the attempts made to reduce the massacre of the legion to the mere death of six men, one of whom was a veteran, do not seem to merit attention. Barbarous as it nay appear, there is nothing incredible in the massacre of a legion; instances might be cited in support of so unusual an occurrence, though it is quite possible that at Agaunum we have to do not with a legion, but with a simple vexillatio. The silence of contemporary historians, which has been appealed to as an unanswerable argument against the truth of the martyrdom of the Thebans, is far from having the weight that has been given it. Paul Allard has shown this very clearly by proving that there was no reason why Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, Prudentius, Eusebius, or Lactantius should have spoken of the Theban martyrs. He fixes the date of the martyrdom as prior to the year 292, not, as generally received, in 303. Dom Ruinart, Paul Allard, and the editors of the “Analecta Bollandiana” are of opinion that “the martyrdom of the legion, attested, as it is by ancient and reliable evidence, cannot be called in question by any honest mind.” This optimistic view, however, does not seem to have convinced all the critics. (See EUCHERIUS OF LYONS; MAURICE, ST.)

The letter of Eucherius gives us no details as to the rule imposed on the priests entrusted by Theodore of Octodurum with the care of the basilica at Agaunum; nor do we know whether they were regulars or seculars, though a sermon of St. Avitus, Bishop of Vienne, would appear to indicate the existence of a monastic foundation, which was replaced and renewed by the foundation of Sigismund, King of the Burgundians. Of the two documents which confirm this view, the “Vita Severini Acaunensis” is utterly unreliable, being a tissue of contradictions and falsehoods; the “Vita Sanctorum Abbatum Acaunensium,” a work of slight value, to be received with caution, though certain facts may be gathered from it. At the date of Sigismund’s first gifts to Agaunum the community was governed by Abbot Enemodus, who died 3 January, 516. His next successor but one, Ambrosius, brought Agaunum into notice by an innovation unknown in the West, the Perpetual Psalmody, in 522 or 523 at latest. This Perpetual Psalmody, or laus perennis, was carried on, day and night, by several choirs, or turmae, who succeeded each other in the recitation of the Divine Office, so that prayer went on without cessation. This laus perennis was practiced in the East by the Acoemetae, and its inauguration at Agaunum was the occasion of a solemn ceremony, and of a sermon by St. Avitus which has come down to us. The “custom of Agaunum,” as it came to be called, spread over Gaul, to Lyons, Chalons, the Abbey of Saint Denis, to Luxeuil, Saint Germain at Paris, Saint Medard at Soissons, to Saint-Riquier, and was taken up by the monks of Remiremont and Laon, though the Abbey of Agaunum had ceased to practice it from the beginning of the ninth century. But Agaunum had gained a world-wide fame by its martyrs and its psalmody. The abbey had some of the richest and best preserved treasures in the West. Among the priceless and artistically exquisite pieces of goldsmith work, we need only mention the châsse (reliquary), decorated with glass mosaic, one of the most important in the West for the study of the beginnings of barbarian and Byzantine art. It ranks with the armour of Childeric, the Book of the Gospels at Monza in Italy, and the crowns of Guarrazar in Spain. It, is decorated not only with mosaics, but with tiles and precious stones, smooth or engraved. The front is ornamented with a medallion, long taken for a cameo, but which is a unique piece of work in spun glass. Its date has been much discussed. The back bears a long inscription, Which Unfortunately affords no solution of the problem, but we may agree with d’Arbois de Jubainville that it is not of earlier date than the year 563.

STOLLE, Das Martyrium der thebaischen Legion (Breslau, 1890); ALLARD, Le Martyre de la legion thebeenne, Hist. des persecutions (Paris, 1890; V, 335–364); Analecta bollandiana (1891, X, 369–370); SCHMIDT, Der hl. Mauritius und seine Genossen (Lucerne, 1893); KRUSCH, La falsification des vies de saints burgondes, in Melanges Julien Havet (Paris, 1895); AUSBERT, Tresor de l’Abbaye de Saint-Maurice d’Agaune (Paris, 1872); LECLERCQ in Dict. d’archeol. chret. et de lit. (1903, I, 850–871).

H. LECLERCQ

Agostini Agazzari

A musical composer, born 2 December 1578, of a noble family of Sienna; died probably 10 April, 1640. He is said to have passed the first years of his professional life in the service of the Emperor Matthias. He went to Rome about 1600, succeeding Anerio as maestro di cappella at the German College, going later in a similar capacity to St. Apollinaris and the Roman Seminary. Viadana of Mantua gave him the final touches of his musical education, and both men are entitled to the distinction of having developed thoroughbass and of having taught the correct method of figuring a bass. Agazzari, in his “Sacrae Cantiones,” give hints as to its use. In 1630 he returned to Sienna, where he became maestro of the cathedral, and died while holding that post. He was a member of the Academy of Armonici Intronati, and one of the most fruitful composers of the Roman school. His numerous publications comprise masses (1596–1608), motets, Magnificats, litanies, etc., republished frequently. They are mentioned with eulogies in Proske’s “Musica divina.” Besides two volumes of madrigals, he also wrote a dramatic composition for a nuptial celebration, entitled “Eumelio, drama pastorale” (Ronciglione, 1614), and a pamphlet (Sienna) containing only sixteen pages, entitled “La Musica ecclesiastica, dove si contiene la vera diffinizione della musica come scienza, non piu veduta e sua nobilta,” showing how church music should conform to the resolutions of the Council of Trent.

J.A. VÖLKER

Council of Agde

Held in 506 at Agatha or Agde in Languedoc, under the presidency of St. Caesarius of Arlos. It was attended by thirty-five bishops, and its forty-seven genuine canons deal with ecclesiastical discipline. One of its canons (the seventh), forbidding ecclesiastics to sell or alienate the property of the church whence they drew their living, seems to be the earliest indication of the later system of benefices. In general, its canons shed light on the moral conditions of the clergy and laity in southern France at the beginning of the transition from the Graeco-Roman social order to that of the new barbarian conquerors. They are also of some importance for the study of certain early ecclesiastical institutions.

Mansl, VIII, 323 sq; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 2d. ed. II, 649–660.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Canonical Age

The word age, taken in its widest meaning, may be described as “a period of time.” The geologist, physiologist, and jurist define it differently, each from his own viewpoint. Jurists define it as “that period of life at which the law allows persons to do acts and discharge functions which, for want of years, they were prohibited from doing or undertaking before” (Bouvier’s Law Dict.). They divide the years of a man into seven ages, to wit: infancy, from the day of birth, not baptism (Sacr. Congr. Conc., 4 December, 1627), to the seventh year; childhood, 7–14; puberty, 14–25; majority (young manhood), 25–40; manhood, 40–50 or 60; old age, 60–70; decrepitude, 70–100, or death. The terminal year in each of the above ages must be complete. Canonical age is the year. fixed by the canons, or law of the Church, at which her subjects become capable of incurring certain obligations, enjoying special privileges, embracing special states of life, holding office or dignity, or receiving the sacraments. Each and every one of these, being a human act, requires a development of mind and body proportioned to the free and voluntary acceptance of these gifts and privileges, also an adequate knowledge of, and capability for, the duties and obligations attached. Hence the Church prescribes that age at which one is generally supposed to have the necessary qualifications. It is evident that a lesser development of body and mind is necessary to the reception of baptism than is required for either matrimony or the priesthood, and greater qualifications for the higher than for the lower offices. Hence, the canonical age necessarily varies as do the privileges, offices, dignities, etc. The three states, ecclesiastical, religious, and laic, embrace all the ecclesiastical enactments concerning age.

ANTE-TRIDENTINE DISCIPLINE

Ecclesiastical State

The ancient discipline was neither universal nor fixed, but varied with circumstances of time and locality. The requisite age, according to Gratian, for tonsure and the first three minor orders, i.e. doorkeeper, reader, and exorcist, was seven and for acolyte, twelve years complete. The present age for tonsure is seven full years (Cap. 4, de romp. ordin. in sexto; Benedict XIV, “Inter sollicitos,” § 9–1795). Subdeaconship called for the attainment of the twentieth year (Cone. Trullanum, 692; Cone. Rothomag., 1074). Deaconship required the thirtieth year complete, according to Pope Siricius (385 Orig. text C. 3, Dist. 77); twenty-five full years according to various councils, including that of Toulouse (1056); and the twentieth year inchoate according to Clement V (1305–16). For priesthood, although Pope Siricius (lot. cit.) demanded thirty-five years, the general discipline up to the Lateran Council exacted only thirty full years. Dispensations from that age were frequently granted, owing to the great need for priests from the eighth century onward. The aforesaid Lateran Council fixed the necessary age for a parochial rector at the twenty-fifth year inchoate, which Clement V (loc. cit.) finally confirmed. The episcopate was not conferred until the completion of the forty-fifth year, according to Pope Siricius (lot. cit.). Various councils fixed the Episcopal age at thirty years complete.

TRIDENTINE DISCIPLINE

The Council of Trent (Sess. xxiii, cap. 4, de Reform.) fixed no certain age for tonsure and minor orders; yet the qualifications specified by it for tonsure and minor orders indicate seven years for the former, and a more advanced age than seven for the latter, which, however, may be licitly received before the fourteenth year (ibid., c. 4).

Major Orders

The Council of Trent (Sess. xxiii, cap. 12) fixed the age of twenty-two for Subdeaconship, twenty-three for Deaconship, and twenty-five for the Priesthood, The first day of the year prescribed suffices for the reception of the Order. Trent (Sess. vii, c. 1, de reform.) confirmed the Lateran age of thirty full years for the episcopate. The age for cardinals (even cardinal-deacons) was fixed by the Council (Sess. xxiv, de reform, cap. 1) at thirty years complete. Sixtus V, however, made the twenty-second year inchoate age sufficient for cardinal-deacons, provided that within a year he can be, and is, ordained deacon, under penalty of loss of active and passive vote in all consistories, and even in the conclave for the election of a pope.

Papacy

No certain age is fixed by law for election to the papacy. History records the election of some very young popes. John XI was scarcely twenty-three (Fuga), or twenty-four (according to Berninus), and John XII was not twenty-two. But they were exceptions. The exalted position and important duties attached to the papacy require qualifications greater than those necessary even for the episcopate. Consequently, a mature age is desired.

Dispensation from the canonical, age is a relaxation of the canon law; hence the pope alone can dispense. He rarely does so in the case of age requisite for subdeaconship or deaconship. But on account of recent military laws in certain European countries, he has dispensed with the age prescribed for candidates for Subdeaconship. Though a cleric who has not completed his thirtieth year cannot be elected; he can be postulated for. (see-ELECTION, POSTULATION) as bishop. The Holy Father Ordinarily refuses unless the cleric is fully twenty-seven years old. Bishops in countries subject to the Congregation of Propaganda (e.g. Great Britain, Ireland; the United States, Holland, Germany, Canada,: Australia, India, and the Orient) have fatalities (Formula; I, art. 3) to dispense (a) with twelve months in the case of candidates for priesthood, whether they are yet in: orders or not. This applies to regular as well as secular candidates. (Holy Office, 29 January, 1896); (b) with fourteen months in the case of deacons, also regular and secular candidates for the priesthood (Formula C, art. 3; etc.). The Canadian bishops are empowered: (Formula T, art. 1) to dispense with eighteen months in case of fifteen deacons (regular and secular) about to be ordained priests. These dispensations do not apply to candidates for subdeaconship or deaconship. Though the censures to be incurred by the violators of the canonical ages, according to ancient law and the constitution of Pius II, have been abrogated (see APOST. SEDIS), nevertheless the vindictive punishments, i.e. prohibition to exercise the order received and privation of benefice annexed, still remain in full force (Santi, I, 120, n. 10; Wernz., Jus Decret., II, 148).

BENEFICES

No special age was fixed by ancient canons for collation of a simple benefice (see BENEFICE, COLLATION), i.e. without any cure of souls attached. The Council of Trent required the fourteenth year inchoate, but it said nothing about the age for benefices whose foundation permitted a lesser age. For such seven years sufficed. The same age was sufficient in the case of canons upon whom collectively, not singly, the cure of souls devolved, as also of recipients of cathedral half-portions and pensions arising from benefices. Canons of collegiate churches whose prebend neither by foundations nor by custom demanded Sacred Orders in its incumbent, were required to be fourteen years old. The Council of Trent did not change this law. Dignitaries of cathedral and collegiate churches with cure of souls attached should have attained their twenty-fifth year. (Cone. Trid., Sess. xxiv, cap. 12). The age of twenty-three years complete for parochial benefices, as fixed by the papal decretals (cap. 14, de elect. in sexto), still holds; the Council of Trent made no innovation in this matter. The decretal age of fourteen years for cathedral and collegiate dignitaries without cure of souls was changed to twenty-two years complete, by the Council of Trent (Sess. xxiv, de reform, cap. 12, § ad caeteras). A vicar-general must be twenty-five, and a penitentiary, or diocesan confessor, forty years inchoate. For cathedral canons there was no fixed decretal age. Clement V, however, decreed that canons not having at least subdeaconship should have no vote in the chapter, and those possessing a prebend to which a major order was affixed should receive that order within a year, under forfeiture of half the daily distributions and of a vote in chapter. Trent decreed that every cathedral prebend should have attached to it one of the three major orders, which must be received within a year from election to the office of canon. It advised all bishops to make division of the canonries, so that the one half should be presbyteral and the other half diaconal and subdiaconal. Hence, for a subdiaconal prebend twenty years complete, for a diaconal twenty-one years complete, and for a presbyteral twenty-three years complete sufficed. Where the Tridentine division was not introduced the Clementine law qualifying the fourteen years holds. Collation of a benefice or ecclesiastical office, without papal dispensation, upon a candidate who lacks even one day of the necessary age, is invalid.

RELIGIOUS STATE

Generals, provincials, abbots, and other regular prelates having quasi- Episcopal jurisdiction must, according to many, have completed their thirtieth year before election (Ferraris, Wernz, et al.); according to others, the twenty-fifth year inchoate: will suffice (Plat, Vermeersch, and Ferrari). The various orders and:congregations, however, have their peculiar rules as to the requisite age for inferior offices and dignities in their respective organizations. The Council of Trent (Sess. xxv, cap. 7, de regular. et monial.) fixed forty years complete and eight years after her profession for an abbess, mother general, or prioress of any religious order of nuns. Could no such one be found in the monastery; then a nun over thirty years old and more than five years a professed, can be elected. An election contrary to these rules is invalid. For clothing with the religious habit or entrance into the novitiate no special age was fixed by decretal law. Clement VIII (Cure ad Regularem, 19 March, 1603) decreed that the constitution of each community should be the guide. He directed, however, that lay brothers and lay sisters should not be admitted before their twentieth year. The Sacred Congregation of the Council (16 July, 1632; 7 April, 1634) forbade the reception of novices until they attained their fifteenth year. The Congregation of Bishops and Regulars (23 May, 1659) prohibited the clothing with the habit before the completion of the fifteenth year. The same Congregation (Normae de Novis Institutis, 28 June, 1901) decreed that no one could be admitted under fifteen, or over thirty, years of age without dispensation from the Holy See. For religious profession the Council of Trent (Sess. xxv, cap. 15) exacted sixteen years complete with one year’s novitiate necessarily preceding. The latest enactment, prescribing simple Vows for three continuous years after the novitiate before solemn profession, fixes the age for solemn profession at nineteen years complete. This applies to women (Congr. of Bishops and Regulars, 3 May, 1902) as well as to men. It is forbidden to postpone the solemn profession of men, who have been under simple vows for three, years, beyond the full twenty-fifth year of their age, except in some localities and institutes, e.g. the Society of Jesus, in which the profession of simple vows is continued for a much longer term of years than three.

ORDINARY CHRISTIAN LIFENo Certain age is fixed for baptism; yet the Holy Office (30 July, 1771) forbids the postponement of infant baptism beyond the third day. According to early ecclesiastical discipline confirmation and Holy Communion were administered to infants after baptism. Today, twelve years is generally recommended for confirmation; but, if urgent reasons exist for not awaiting that age, it is expedient not to confirm before the age of reason, i.e. seven years (Roman Catechism; Holy Office, 11 December, 1850; Second Cone. Balt., V, c. iii, 252). Leo XIII commended Robert, Bishop of Marseilles, for introducing the custom of confirming before Holy Communion (22 June, 1897). For confession the age is seven years, i.e. the age of reason, when a child is generally supposed to be capable of mortal sin and bound by the law of annual confession [Cone. Lat., c. 21; Second Cone. Balt., tit. ix; First Plenary Cone. of S. America (Rome, 1899), tit. V, cap. 4]. Children should receive Holy Communion when they have attained the age of discretion (Innocent III in Conc. Lat., c. 21). There is much controversy as to what that age precisely is. According to some, it ordinarily occurs between the tenth and fourteenth year (Suarez, quoted by Benedict XIV, “Syn. Dioc.,” VII, xii, 3; Raimundi, “Inst. Past.,” tit. I, cap. iv, n. 57; Zitelli, Apparatus Jur. Pont. p. 319, no. 4; Second Plen. Conc. Balt., tit. V); others, e.g. Ferraris (I, 154, n. 39), place it between eleven and twelve years. Children in danger of death, capable of committing and making confession of mortal sin, and of distinguishing the heavenly from the ordinary food, and desiring to receive Holy Communion, must not be denied it, although they may not have reached the minimum year mentioned (Roman Catechism, de Euch., n. 63; Second Plen. Conc. Balt., and First Plen. Conc. of South America, loc. cit.). Extreme unction is to be administered to a child of seven years or younger, capable of sin. Children of seven years complete are bound by the laws of abstinence and of hearing Mass. They can also be sponsors in the conferring of baptism and confirmation; but the Roman Ritual (tit. II, n. 24) says that it is more expedient that they should be fourteen years old and also confirmed. The Congregations of Propaganda (4 May, 1774) and the Holy Office (1 July, 1882) forbid children under fourteen years of age to act as sponsors at confirmation. Only those who have completed their twenty-first year are bound to fast. Betrothals [sponsalia] require seven full years in the contracting parties. The marriageable age is fourteen full years in males and twelve full years in females, under penalty of nullity (unless natural puberty supplies the want of years). Marriages void because of the absence of legal or natural puberty are held as sponsalia, inducing thereby impediment of “public decorum” (Cap. 14, tit. de despon. impub., X, 4, 2). Civil codes generally require a more advanced age than the canonical. Dispensations, however, as to the required ages are expressly granted by France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Roumania, and Russia. The marriageable age in France, Italy, Belgium, and Roumania is eighteen for men, and fifteen for women (France requires also, under penalty of nullity, the consent of parents); Holland, Switzerland, Russia (Caucasian Provinces excepted), fifteen and thirteen; and Hungary fixes the age at eighteen and sixteen; Austria, fourteen for both parties; Denmark, twenty and sixteen; Germany, twenty-one (minors set free by parents at eighteen) and sixteen years respectively. Marriages contracted in Germany below the ages aforesaid are valid but illicit. In India natives marry under canonical age. So also in China, where there is a further deviation from canonical age, owing to the Chinese method of reckoning age by lunar rather than solar years (thirteen lunar months make a solar year). The canonical age holds in England, Spain, Portugal, Greece (Ionian Isles excepted, where it is sixteen and fourteen), and as regards Catholics even in Austria. While in some parts of the United States the canonical marriage age of fourteen and twelve still prevails, in others it has been enlarged by statutes. Such statutes, however, as a rule, do not make void marriages contracted by a male and female of fourteen and twelve years respectively, unless the statute expressly forbids them under penalty of nullity. The English Common Law age of fourteen in males and twelve in females prevails in all the Canadian provinces, with the exception of Ontario and Manitoba. Ontario requires fourteen years, and Manitoba sixteen years, in both parties. Marriages contracted at more youthful ages than these are not irreparably null and void. They can be, and are, ratified by continued cohabitation after the prescribed age. In all the provinces consent of parents or guardians is required where one or both of the parties have not attained a certain age—Ontario, Manitoba, and New Brunswick, eighteen years; in Québec, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Alberta, and Saskatchewan the age is twenty-one. Except in the case of Québec and Prince Edward Island such consent is only directory, and does not affect the validity of marriage after celebration. Such marriages in the former province are not void, and can only be attacked by parties whose consent is required; in the latter province they are null and void by virtue of a pre-confederation law of 1831. The marriage law in nearly every part of the United States requires the consent of parents before license is granted to minors. Such statutes are merely directive, and do not render void marriages without the parents’ consent (“Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law,” art. “Marriage,” 1191). Neither in England is a marriage declared void for want of parental consent (Brown, Hast. Matr. Inst., II, 191).

FERRARIS, Bibliotheca, I, s. v. Aetas; WERNZ, Jus Decret. II, de defec. aetatis, 142 sqq.; IDEM., Jus Matrimoniale, IV de imped. aetatis, 457 sqq.; SANTI-LEITNER, I, 119, nn. 8–12: IV, 101 sqq.; OJETTI, Synop. Rer. Mor. et Jur. Pont. Index, s. v. Aetas; GASPARI, De Matrimonio, I, 491–509; De Ordinat. I, 485–533; MOCCHEGIANI, Jurisprudentia Eccles., III, xxv, 9–13; DESHAYES, Manuale Jur. Ecc. Index, s.v. Aetas; VERMEERSCH, De Religiosis, I, 164, 165, 214; FERRARI, De Statu Religioso, Index, s. v. Aetas; PIATO MONTENSIS, Praeclect. Jur. Reg. Index, s.v. Aetas; BENEDICT XIV, De Syn. Dioec., VII; Collectanea Sac. Cong. de Prop. Fid., s. v. Aetatis, Imped.; PUTZER, Comment. in Fac. Apost., 158 (105), 309 (n. 176), 426 (n. 249), and 462 (8); ZITELLI, Apparat. jur. eccl., 380, 412–487; SALAMANTICENSES, De Beneficiis; BISHOP, Marriage, etc.; American and English Encyc. of Law, 1191; HOWARD ELIOTTE BROWN, History of Matrim. Institutions (II, for statutory laws of the different States); NERVEGNA, De Jure practico regularium index, s.v. Aetas; BASTIEN, Directoire canonique, Index, s.v. Aetas; RAIMUNDI, Instructio Pastoralis, 55 (n. 57); and 59, 92, 497 (n. 670).

P.M.J. ROCK

Age of Reason

The name given to that period of human life at which persons are deemed to begin to be morally responsible. This, as a rule, happens at the age of seven, or thereabouts, though the use of reason requisite for moral discernment may come before, or may be delayed until notably after, that time. At this age Christians come under the operation of ecclesiastical laws, such as the precept of assistance at Mass on Sundays and holydays, abstinence from meat on certain days, and annual confessions, should they have incurred mortal sin. The obligation of Easter Communion literally understood applies to all who have reached “the years of discretion”; but according to the practical interpretation of the Church it is not regarded as binding children just as soon as they are seven years old. At the age of reason a person is juridically considered eligible to act as witness to a marriage, as sponsor at baptism or confirmation, and as a party to the formal contract of betrothal; at this age one is considered capable of receiving extreme unction, of being promoted to first tonsure and minor orders, of being the incumbent of a simple benefice (beneficium simplex) if the founder of it should have so provided; and, lastly, is held liable to ecclesiastical censures. In the present discipline, however, persons do not incur these penalties until they reach the age of puberty, unless explicitly included in the decree imposing them. The only censure surely applicable to persons of this age is for the violation of the clausura of nuns, while that for the maltreatment, suadente diabolo, of clerics is probably so.

Ferraris. Bibliotheca prompta jur. can. s.v. Aetas, (Rome, 1844); Wernz, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899).

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Diocese of Agen

AGINNUM.)

Comprises the Department of Lot and Garonne. It has been successively suffragan to the archdioceses of Bordeaux (under the old regime), Toulouse (1802–22), and Bordeaux (since 1822). Legends which do not antedate the ninth century concerning the hermit, St. Caprasius, martyred with St. Fides by Dacianus, Prefect of the Gauls, during the persecution of Diocletian, and the story of Vincentius, a Christian martyr (written about 520), furnish no foundation for later traditions which make these two saints early bishops of Agen. The first bishop of Agen known to history is St. Phoebadius, friend of St. Hilary, who published (in 357) a treatise against the Arians and figured prominently at the Council of Rimini in 359. Among the bishops of Agen were Wilhelmus II, sent by Pope Urban IV (1261–64) to St. Louis in 1262 to ask his aid in favor of the Latin Empire of Constantinople; Bertrand de Goth, whose uncle of the same name was raised from the Archbishopric of Bordeaux to the Papal See under the name of Clement V (1305–14), and during his pontificate visited the city of Agen; Cardinal Jean de Lorraine (1538- 50); the Oratorian, Jules Mascaron, a celebrated preacher, transferred from the see of Tulle, to that of Agen (1679–1703); Hebert, who was curé of Versailles, had contributed to the withdrawal of Madame de Montespan from the royal court, and who when appointed Bishop of Agen (1703) had as vicar-general until 1709 the celebrated Belsunce; de Bonnac (1767–1801), who in the parliamentary session of 3 January, 1792, was the first to refuse to sign the constitutional oath. The church of St. Caprasius, a splendid specimen of Romance architecture, dating from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, has been made the cathedral in place of the church of St. Etienne, which was unfortunately destroyed during the Revolution. The Diocese of Agen comprised (end of 1905) 278,740 inhabitants, 47 first class parishes, 397 second class parishes, and 27 vicariates, formerly with State subventions.

Gallia Christiana (ed. Nova, 1720), II, 891–936, Instrumenta, 427–38; DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux de 1ancienne Gaule, II, 63–64, 142–146 (Paris, 1900); BARRERE, Histoire religieuse et monumentale du dioc se d Agen (Agen, 1855); CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894–99), 18–19.

GEORGES GOYAU

Agents of Roman Congregations

Persons whose business it is to look after the affairs of their patrons at the Roman Curia. The name is derived from the Latin Agens in Rebus, corresponding to the Greek Apocrisiarius. We first meet these agents for ecclesiastical matters not at the court of Rome, but at the imperial palace of Constantinople. Owing to the close connection between Church and State under the early Christian emperors and the absence of canons concerning many matters of mixed jurisdiction, the principal bishops found it necessary to maintain agents to look after their interests at the imperial court. Until the French Revolution, the prelates of France maintained similar agents at the royal court of St. Denis. (See ASSEMBLIES OF FRENCH CLERGY.) At present the agents of the Roman Congregations are employed by bishops or private persons to transact their affairs in the pontifical courts. Such an agency is undertaken temporarily or perpetually. The principal business of the agents is to urge the expedition of the cases of their patrons. They undertake both judicial and extrajudicial business. If it is a question of favors, such as dispensations or increased faculties, these agents prepare the proper supplications and call repeatedly on the officials of the proper congregation until an answer is obtained. They expend whatever money is necessary to pay for the legal documents or to advance in general the affairs of those who employ them. These agents have a recognized position in the Roman Curia, and rank next in dignity before the notaries. The money they expend and the pay they receive depend entirely on the will of their employers. Some authors include under this name the solicitors and expeditioners of the Roman Curia, whose business it is to assist the procurators in the mechanical details of the preparation of cases for the congregational tribunals. Usually, however, these functionaries are considered as distinct from agents and as outranking them in dignity.

BAART, The Roman Court (New York, 1895); HUMPHREY, Urbs et Orbis (London, 1899); MIGNE, Dict. de droit canon. (Paris, 1846), I; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899), II.

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Aggeus (Haggai)

Name and personal life

Aggeus, the tenth among the minor prophets of the Old Testament, is called in the Hebrew text, Hággáy, and in the Septuagint Haggaios, whence the Latin form Aggeus. The exact meaning of his name is uncertain. Many scholars consider it as an adjective signifying “the festive one” (born on feast-day), while others take it to be an abbreviated form of the noun Hággíyyah, “my feast is Yahweh,” a Jewish proper name found in 1 Paralipomenon 6:15 (Vulgate: 1 Paralipomenon 6:30).

Great uncertainty prevails also concerning the prophet’s personal life. The book which bears his name is very short, and contains no detailed information about its author. The few passages which speak of him refer simply to the occasion on which he had to deliver a divine message in Jerusalem, during the second year of the reign of the Persian King, Darius I (520 B.C.) And all that Jewish tradition tells of Aggeus does not seem to have much, if any, historical basis. It states that he was born in Chaldea during the Babylonian Captivity, was a young man when he came to Jerusalem with the returning exiles, and was buried in the Holy City among the priests. It also represents him as an angel in human form, as one of the men who were with Daniel when he saw the vision related in Daniel 10:7, as a member of the so-called Great Synagogue, as surviving until the entry of Alexander the Great into Jerusalem (331 B.C.), and even until the time of Our Saviour. Obviously, these and similar traditions deserve but little credence.

Historical circumstances

Upon the return from Babylon (536 B.C.) the Jews, full of religious zeal, promptly set up an altar to the God of Israel, and reorganized His sacrificial worship. They next celebrated the feast of Tabernacles, and some time later laid the foundation of the “Second” Temple, called also the Temple of Zorobabel. Presently the Samaritans—that is, the mixed races which dwelt in Samaria—prevented them, by an appeal to the Persian authorities, from proceeding further with the rebuilding of the Temple. In fact, the work was interrupted for sixteen years, during which various circumstances, such as the Persian invasion of Egypt in 527 B.C., a succession of bad seasons entailing the failure of the harvest and the vintage, the indulgence in luxury and self-seeking by the wealthier classes of Jerusalem, caused the Jews to neglect altogether the restoration of the House of the Lord. Toward the end of this period the political struggles through which Persia passed would have made it impossible for its rulers to interfere with the work of reconstruction in Jerusalem, even had they wished to do so, and this was distinctly realized by the Prophet Aggeus. At length, in the second year of the reign of Darius the son of Hystaspes (520 B.C.), Aggeus came forward in the name of the Lord to rebuke the apathy of the Jews, and convince them that the time had come to complete their national sanctuary, that outward symbol of the Divine presence among them.

The prophecies

The book of Aggeus is made up of four prophetical utterances, each one headed by the date on which it was delivered.

The first (1:1,2) is ascribed to the first day of the sixth month (August) of the second year of Darius’ reign. It urges the Jews to resume the work of rearing the Temple, and not to be turned aside from this duty by the enjoyment of their luxurious homes. It also represents a recent drought as a divine punishment for their past neglect. This first utterance is followed by a brief account (1:12–14) of its effect upon the hearers; three weeks later work was started on the Temple.

In his second utterance (2:1–9), dated the twentieth day of the same month, the prophet foretells that the new House, which then appears so poor in comparison with the former Temple of Solomon, will one day be incomparably more glorious.

The third utterance (2:11–20), referred to the twenty-fourth of the ninth month (Nov.-Dec.), declares that as long as God’s House is not rebuilt, the life of the Jews will be tainted and blasted, but that the divine blessing will reward their renewed zeal.

The last utterance (2:20–23), ascribed to the same day as the preceding, tells of the divine favour which, in the approaching overthrow of the heathen nations, will be bestowed on Zorobabel, the scion and representative of the royal house of David.

The simple reading of these oracles makes one feel that although they are shaped into parallel clauses such as are usual in Hebrew poetry, their literary style is rugged and unadorned, extremely direct, and, therefore, most natural on the part of a prophet intent on convincing his hearers of their duty to rebuild the House of the Lord.

Besides this harmony of the style with the general tone of the book of Aggeus, strong internal data occur to confirm the traditional date and authorship of that sacred writing. In particular, each portion of the work is supplied with such precise dates and ascribed so expressly to Aggeus, that each utterance bears the distinct mark of having been written soon after it was delivered.

It should also be borne in mind that although the prophecies of Aggeus were directly meant to secure the immediate rearing of the Lord’s House, they are not without a much higher import. The three passages which are usually brought forth as truly Messianic, are 2:7–8, 2:10, and 2:21–24. It is true that the meaning of the first two passages in the original Hebrew differs somewhat from the present rendering of the Vulgate, but all three contain a reference to Messianic times.

The primitive text of the book of Aggeus has been particularly well preserved. The few variations which occur in the manuscripts are due to errors in transcribing, and do not affect materially the sense of the prophecy.

Besides the short prophetical work which bears his name, Aggeus has also been credited, but wrongly, with the authorship of Psalms 111 and 145 (Hebrew 122, 146). (See .)

Commentaries; KNABENBAUER (1886); PEROWNE (1886); TROCHON (1883); ORELLI (1888; tr. 1803); NOWACK (1897); SMITH (1901), Introductions to the Old Testament: VIGOUROUX RAULT; TROCHON-LESETRE; KEIL; BLEEK-WELLHAUSEN; KAULEN; CORNELY; DRIVER; GIGOT.

F.E. GIGOT

Unjust Aggressor

According to the accepted teaching of theologians, it is lawful, in the defense of life or limb, of property of some importance, and of chastity, to repel violence with violence, even to the extent of killing an unjust assailant. This is admitted to be true with the reservation included in the phrase “servato moderamine inculpatae rutelae.” That is, only that degree of violence may be employed which is necessary adequately to protect one from the attack. For example, if it were enough in the circumstances to maim an enemy it would be unlawful to kill him. It is likewise lawful to aid another to the same extent and within the same limits as are permissible for self-defense. (See HOMICIDE.)

GURY, Comp. Theol. Moral. (Prato, 1901) I, 381; LIGUORI, n. 380.

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Raymond d’Agiles

(Or AGUILERS.)

A chronicler and canon of Puy-en-Velay, France, toward the close of the eleventh century. He accompanied the Count of Toulouse on the First Crusade (1096–99), as chaplain to Adhémar, Bishop of Puy, legate of Pope Urban II. With Pons de Balazuc he undertook to write a history of the expedition, but, Pons having been killed, he was obliged to carry on the undertaking alone. At a sortie of the crusaders during the siege of Antioch (28 June, 1098) Agiles went before the column, bearing in his hands the Sacred Lance. He took part in the entry into Jerusalem, accompanied the Count of Toulouse on his pilgrimage to the Jordan, and was at the battle of Ascalon. After this he is lost sight of. His “Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Hierusalem” (P.L., CLV, 591–668) is the account of an eyewitness of most of the events of the First Crusade. It was first published by Bongars (Gesta Dei per Francos, I, 139–183), and again in the “Recueil des historiens occidentaux des croisades” (1866), 235–309; it is translated into French in Guizot, “Memoires sur l’histoire de France” (1824), XXI, 227–397. The narrative is largely devoted to the visions of Pierre Barthélemy, and the authenticity of the Holy Lance found on the eve of battle. Molinier says of the author that he is partial, credulous, ignorant, and prejudiced. “He may be utilized, but on condition of close criticism.”

MOLINIER, Sources de l’hist. de France (Paris, 1902), no. 2122, 283.

THOMAS WALSH

St. Agilulfus

Abbot of Stavelot, Bishop of Cologne and Martyr, 750. We know but little of this Saint. The account, written of him by a monk of Malmedy and printed by the Bollandists is, as they state, quite untrustworthy. He was of good family, was educated under Abbot Angelinus at Stavelot, and eventually became abbot there. Not long afterwards Agilulfus was elected Bishop of Cologne. He is said to have tried to persuade King Pepin on his death-bed not to leave the succession to Charles Martel, his illegitimate son, and the Bishop’s death by violence soon after is attributed to the vengeance of the prince he sought to exclude. A letter of Pope Zacharias in 747 commends Agilulfus for signing the Charta verae et orthodoxae professionis. His remains were conveyed to the Church of Our Lady of the Steps, at Cologne, where they have recently again received public veneration. His feast is kept on 9 July.

Acta SS., 9 July; STEFFENS, Der heilige Agilolfus (Cologne, 1893).

Herbert Thurston.

Agios O Theos

(O Holy God).

The opening words in Greek of an invocation, or doxology, or hymn-for it may properly receive any of these titles-which in the Roman Liturgy is sung during the Improperia, or “Reproaches” at the ceremony of the Adoration of the Cross, on Good Friday. The brief hymn is then sung by two choirs alternately in Greek and Latin, as follows: First Choir: Agios o Theos (O Holy God). Second Choir: Sanctus Deus. First Choir: Agios ischyros (Holy, Strong). Second Choir: Sanctus fortis. First Choir: Agios athanatos, eleison imas (Holy, Immortal, have mercy on us). Second Choir: Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis. Thus the hymn appears in the Office of Holy Week, with the Greek words ‘Ágios ó theòs, ‘ágios ìskhurò, ‘Ágios àthánatos èléeson èmâs expressed in Latinized characters, chosen to represent the Greek pronunciation (e.g. eleison imas for eleéson émas, the aspirate, as in modern Greek, remaining unheard). The hymn is thus sung twelve times, alternating with a series of varied “Reproaches.”

From the Latin word Sanctus thrice said, the hymn is sometimes referred to as Tersanctus, and is thus apt to be confused with the triple Sanctus at the end of the preface at Mass. In the rubrics of the Greek Liturgy, in which the hymn is said very frequently, it is always referred to as the Trisagion (trís thrice, ‘ágios = holy), and is thus generally and properly known. It is sung at the Lesser Entrance, or solemn processional carrying of the book of the Gospels at Mass, in the Constantinopolitan and Armenian liturgies and in that of St. Mark. In the Gallican Liturgy it was placed both before and after the Gospel. The hymn is certainly of great antiquity, and perhaps much older than the event assigned by the Greek Menology as its origin. The legend, which may be considered a highly improbable one, recounts that during the reign of the younger Theodosius (408–450), Constantinople was shaken by a violent earthquake, 24 September, and that whilst the people, the Emperor, and the Patriarch Proclus (434–446) were praying for heavenly succour, a child was suddenly lifted into midair, to whom forthwith all cried out Kyrie eleison; and that the child, returning again to earth, admonished the people with a loud voice to pray thus: “O Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal,” and immediately expired. The fact that the hymn was one of the exclamations of the Fathers at the Council of Chalcedon (451), and that not only is it common to all the Greek Oriental liturgies, but was used also in the Gallican Liturgy [St. Germanus of Paris, (d. 576), referring to it as being sung both in Greek and in Latin: “Incipiente præsule ecclesia Ajus (that is, Agios) psallit, dicens latinum cum græco,” as also previously in Greek alone, before the Prophetia] suggests from such a widespread and apparently common use the conclusion that the hymn is extremely ancient, perhaps of apostolic origin. Benedict XIV thought that the Greek formula was joined with the Latin in allusion to the divine voice heard at Constantinople. But the explanation seems hardly necessary, in view of the retention of Kyrie eleison in the Roman Liturgy, as well as of such Hebrew words as Amen, Alleluia, Hosanna, Sabaoth. Reverence for antiquity, and the influence of liturgy upon liturgy, would suffice to explain the Greek form. It is true that the Kyrie eleison is not joined to a Latin version. On the other hand, it is so simple and occurs so frequently, that its meaning could easily be learned and remembered; whereas the Trisagion, elaborate and rarely used, might well receive a parallel version into Latin. Various additions made to it from time to time in the East have either disfigured its simplicity or endangered its orthodoxy. Thus, the phrase “Who wast crucified for us,” added to it by Peter the Fuller, in order to spread the heresy of the Theopaschites (who asserted that the Divine Nature suffered upon the cross), while susceptible of a correct interpretation, was inserted nevertheless with heretical intent. Traditionally, the hymn had always been addressed to the Holy Trinity (Isaias, vi, 3). Subsequently, Calandion, Bishop of Antioch, sought both to allay the tumults aroused by the addition and to remove its evil suggestion by prefixing to it the words “Christ, King,” thus making it refer directly and unequivocally to the Incarnate Word: “O Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, Christ, King, Who wast crucified for us, have mercy on us.” His wellmeant effort did not succeed, and his emendation was rejected. Subsequently, the heretic Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, wrote to prove the correct ascription of the hymn to the Son of God, and made the use of the addition general in his diocese.

Gregory VII (1073–85f) wrote to the Armenians, who still used the new formula, bidding them avoid all occasion of scandal and suspicion of wrong interpretation, by cancelling a formula which neither the Roman nor any Eastern Church, save the Armenian, had adopted. The injunction seems to have been disregarded; for when, centuries after, union with the Armenians was again discussed, a question was addressed (30 January, 1635) to Propaganda, whether the Armenians might still use the formula “Who suffered for us,” and was answered negatively. Variations of the traditional formula and Trinitarian ascription are found in the ArmenoGregorian rite. These are addressed to the Redeemer, and vary with the feast or office. Thus, the formula of Peter is used on all Fridays; on all Sundays: “Thou that didst arise from the dead”; on Holy Thursday: “Thou that wast betrayed for us”; on Holy Saturday: “Thou that wast buried for us”; on the Feast of the Assumption: “Thou that didst come to the death of the Holy Mother and Virgin,” etc. The ArmenoRoman rite has suppressed all of these variations. The Trisagion is sung in the Greek Church at all the canonical hours and several times during the long Massservice. In the Latin church it is sung only on Good Friday, as we have seen. Sung throughout the impressive ceremony of the Adoration of the Cross, the polyphonic musical setting of Palestrina for both the “Reproaches” and the Trisagion, assuredly a masterpiece, perhaps the masterpiece of that prince of church song, adds an overpowering pathos of music to the words, and constitutes, like the Hallelujah Chorus of Handel, a marvel of simplicity achieving a marvellous effect.

H.T. HENRY

Giuseppe Agnelli

Chiefly known for his catechetical and devotional works, b. at Naples, 1621; d. in Rome, 17 October, 1706. He entered the Society of Jesus, in Rome, in 1637. He was professor of moral theology, and rector of the colleges of Montepulciano, Macerata, and Ancona, and also Consultor of the Inquisition of the March of Ancona. He passed the last thirty-three years of his life in the professed house at Rome, where he died. He wrote

“Il Catechismo annuale.” It was adapted to the use of parish priests, and contained explanations of the Gospels for every Sunday of the year. It went through three editions.

A week’s devotion to St. Joseph, for the Bona Mors Sodality.

Four treatises on the “Exercises of St. Ignatius,” chiefly with regard to election.

A Raccolta of meditations for a tridium and a retreat of ten days.

Sermons for Lent and Advent.

Beorchia Notes Bibliog,; Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la c. de J., I, 66.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Fra Guglielmo Agnelli

Sculptor and architect, b. at Pisa, probably in 1238; d. probably in 1313. He was a pupil of Niccolo Pisano, who had then brought the art of sculpture to a great perfection, modelled on Greek and Roman ideas, matured by the study of actual truth, and preserving only such traditions of the earlier medieval school as seemed necessary for Christian art at a time when art was truly the handmaid of religion. Agnelli joined the Dominican Order at Pisa in 1257, as a lay brother. He was soon engaged in work on the convent of the brethren at Pisa and built the campanile of the Abbey of Settimo, near Florence. His best work is the series of marble reliefs executed, in conjunction with Pisano, for the famous tomb of St. Dominic in the church of that Saint at Bologna. The figures on the funeral urn, in Mezzo-rilievo, are about two feet high. Fra Guglielmo’s work on the posterior face of the tomb deals with six Dominican legends, vis: the Blessed Reginald smitten by a distemper; the Madonna healing a sick man and pointing to the habit of the Friars Preachers, indicating that he should assume it; the same man freed from a terrible temptation by holding St. Dominic’s hands; Honorius III having his vision of St. Dominic supporting the falling Lateran Basilica; Honorius examining the Dominican rule, and his solemn approbation of it. This work afforded little scope to Fra Guglielmo’s imaginative powers, but its masterly execution places him among the greatest artists of his time, second only to his master, Niccolo Pisano. On the other hand, the figures show some faultiness characteristic of the period in the stiffness and lack of finish in the extremities. They are also crowded into too narrow limits. Fra Guglielmo and Niccolo also embellished the upper cornice of the urn with acanthus leaves and birds. We know no more of Fra Guglielmo until 1293 when we find him occupied on the famous Cathedral of Orvieto. Though his share in the sculptures of this edifice is not fully established, it is believed that the bas-reliefs are in great part his work. The length of time he spnt at orvieto is also unknown. In 1304 he was engaged on works of sculpture and architecture at hsi native Pisa, ans was called upon to adorn the facade of the Church of San Michele di Borgo with historical bas-releifs. These labours, together with his work on other parts of that church, and the construction of a pulpit, engaged him for the remaining nine years of his life. Fra Guglielmo was not only the foremost among the dominican sculptors, but according to Marachese, “by reason of his many and important works, deserves to be ranked among the grandest Italian sculptors, far excelling all contemporaries. Arnolfo, Giovanni Pisano, and his master excepted.”

MARCHESE, Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors and Architacts of the Order of St. Dominic (tr. Dublin, 1852), I, 38–70; MORTIER, Histoire des maitres generaux de l’ordre des Freres Pricheurs (Paris, 1905), II, 46–61; BERTHIER, Le tombeau de Saint Dominique (Paris, 1895): RAZZI, Vite de’ Santi e Beati Domenicani, I 296 sqq.

J.L FINNERTY

Bl. Agnellus of Pisa

Friar Minor and founder of the English Franciscan Province, born at Pisa c. 1195, of the noble family of the Agnelli; died at Oxford, 7 May, 1236. In early youth he was received into the Seraphic Order by St. Francis himself, during the latter’s sojourn in Pisa, and soon became an accomplished model of religious perfection. Sent by St. Francis to Paris he erected a convent there and became custos. Having returned to Italy, he was present at the so-called Chapter of Mats, and was sent thence by St. Francis to found the Order in England. Agnellus, then in deacon’s orders, landed at Dover with nine other friars, 12 September, 1224, having been charitably conveyed from France by the monks of Fecamp. A few weeks afterwards they obtained a house at Oxford and there laid the foundations of the English Province, which became the exemplar for all the provinces of the order. Though not himself a learned man, he established a school for the friars at Oxford, which was destined to play no small part in the development of the university. But his solicitude extended beyond the immediate welfare of his brethren. He sent his friars about to preach the word of God to the faithful, and perform the other offices of the sacred ministry. Agnellus wielded considerable influence in affairs of state and in his efforts to avert civil war between the King and the Earl Marshal, who had leagued with the Welsh, he contracted a fatal illness. Eccleston has left us a brief account of his death. Agnellus’s body, incorrupt, was preserved with great veneration at Oxford up to the dissolution of the religious houses in the time of Henry VIII. The cultus of Blessed Agnellus was formally confirmed by Leo XIII in 1882, and his feast is kept in the Order on 7 May.

STEPHEN DONOVAN

Andreas Agnellus of Ravenna

Historian of that church, b. 805; the date of his death is unknown, but was probably about 846. Though called Abbot, first of St. Mary ad Blachernas, and, later, of St. Bartholomew, he appears to have remained a secular priest, being probably only titular abbot of each abbey. He is best known as the author of the “Liber Pontificalis Eccl. Ravennatis,” an account of the occupants of his native see, compiled on the model of the Roman Liber Pontificalis. It begins with St. Apollinaris and ends with Georgius, the forty-eighth archbishop (846). Though the work contains no little unreliable material, it is a unique and rich source of information concerning the buildings, inscriptions, manners, and religious customs of Ravenna in the ninth century. The author shows a strong bias and loses no opportunity of exalting as traditional the independence or “autocephalia” of the church of Raqvenna as against the legitimate authority of the Holy See. For his time he is a kind of polemical Gallican. His work bears also traces of personal vanity. In his efforts to be erudite he often falls into unpardonable errors. The diction is barbarous, and the text is faulty and corrupt.

The work of Agnellus was edited by BACCHINI (1708), and by MURATORI in the second volume of is Scriptores Rerum Italic. (reprinted in P. L., CVI. 459–752). The latest edition is that of HOLDERr-EGGER, in Mon. Germ. Hist. Scrip. Langob.,265 sqq. (Hanover, 1878). See EBERT, Geschichte der Litteratur des Mittlealters, etc. (Leipzig, 1880), II, 374; BALZANI, Le Cronache Italiane nel medio evo (Milan, 1900), 93–98. For the peculiar autocephalia claimed by the archbishops of Ravenna (akin to that of Milan and Aquileia) see the note of CUCHESNE in his edition of the Roman Liber Pontificalis (Paris, 1886), I, 348, 349.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

St. Agnes of Assisi

Younger sister of St. Clare and Abbess of the Poor Ladies, born at Assisi, 1197, or 1198; died 1253. She was the younger daughter of Count Favorino Scifi. Her saintly mother, Blessed Hortulana, belonged to the noble family of the Fiumi, and her cousin Rufino was one of the celebrated “Three Companions” of St. Francis. Agnes’s childhood was passed between her father’s palace in the city and his castle of Sasso Rosso on Mount Subasio. On 18 March, 1212, her eldest sister Clare, moved by the preaching and example of St. Francis, had left her father’s home to follow the way of life taught by the Saint. Sixteen days later Agnes repaired to the monastery of St. Angelo in Panso, where the Benedictine nuns had afforded Clare temporary shelter, and resolved to share her sister’s life of poverty and penance. At this step the fury of Count Favorino knew no bounds. He sent his brother Monaldo, with several relatives and some armed followers, to St. Angelo to force Agnes, if persuasion failed, to return home. The conflict which followed is related in detail in the “Chronicles of the Twenty-four Generals.” Monaldo, beside himself with rage, drew his sword to strike the young girl, but his arm dropped, withered and useless, by his side; others dragged Agnes out of the monastery by the hair, striking her, and even kicking her repeatedly. Presently St. Clare came to the rescue, and of a sudden Agnes’s body became so heavy that the soldiers having tried in vain to carry her off, dropped her, half dead, in a field near the monastery. Overcome by a spiritual power against which physical force availed not, Agnes’s relatives were obliged to withdraw and to allow her to remain with St. Clare. St. Francis, who was overjoyed at Agnes’s heroic resistance to the entreaties and threats of her pursuers, presently cut off her hair and gave her the habit of Poverty. Soon after, he established the two sisters at St. Damian’s, in a small rude dwelling adjoining the humble sanctuary which he had helped to rebuild with his own hands. There several other noble ladies of Assisi joined Clare and Agnes, and thus began the Order of the Poor Ladies of St. Damian’s, or Poor Clares, as these Franciscan nuns afterwards came to be called. From the outset of her religious life, Agnes was distinguished for such an eminent degree of virtue that her companions declared she seemed to have discovered a new road to perfection known only to herself. As abbess, she ruled with loving kindness and knew how to make the practice of virtue bright and attractive to her subjects. In 1219, Agnes, despite her youth, was chosen by St. Francis to found and govern a community of the Poor Ladies at Monticelli, near Florence, which in course of time became almost as famous as St. Damian’s. A letter written by St. Agnes to Clare after this separation is still extant, touchingly beautiful in its simplicity and affection. Nothing perhaps in Agnes’s character is more striking and attractive than her loving fidelity to Clare’s ideals and her undying loyalty in upholding the latter in her lifelong and arduous struggle for Seraphic Poverty. Full of zeal for the spread of the Order, Agnes established from Monticelli several monasteries of the Poor Ladies in the north of Italy, including those of Mantua, Venice, and Padua, all of which observed the same fidelity to the teaching of St. Francis and St. Clare. In 1253 Agnes was summoned to St. Damian’s during the last illness of St. Clare, and assisted at the latter’s triumphant death and funeral. On 16 November of the same year she followed St. Clare to her eternal reward. Her mother Hortulana and her younger sister Beatrice, both of whom had followed Clare and Agnes into the Order, had already passed away. The precious remains of St. Agnes repose near the body of her mother and sisters, in the church of St. Clare at Assisi. God, Who had favoured Agnes with many heavenly manifestations during life, glorified her tomb after death by numerous miracles. Benedict XIV permitted the Order of St. Francis to celebrate her feast. It is kept on 16 November, as a double of the second class.

PASCHAL ROBINSON

Bl. Agnes of Bohemia

(Also called Agnes of Prague). Born at Prague in the year 1200; died probably in 1281. She was the daughter of Ottocar, King of Bohemia and Constance of Hungary, a relative of St. Elizabeth. At an early age she was sent to the monastery of Treinitz, where at the hands of the Cistercian religious she received the education that became her rank. She was betrothed to Frederick II, Emperor of Germany; but when the time arrived for the solemnization of the marriage, it was impossible to persuade her to abandon the resolution she had made of consecrating herself to the service of God in the sanctuary of the cloister. The Emperor Frederick was incensed at the unsuccessful issue of his matrimonial venture, but, on learning that St. Agnes had left him to become the spouse of Christ, he is said to have remarked: “If she had left me for a mortal man, I would have taken vengeance with the sword, but I cannot take offence because in preference to me she has chosen the King of Heaven.” The servant of God entered the Order of St. Clare in the monastery of St. Saviour at Prague, which she herself had erected. She was elected abbess of the monastery, and became in this office a model of Christian virtue and religious observance for all. God favoured her with the gift of miracles, and she predicted the victory of her brother Wenceslaus over the Duke of Austria. The exact year of her death is not certain; 1281 is the most probable date. Her feast is kept on the second of March.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

St. Agnes of Montepulciano

Born in the neighbourhood of Montepulciano in Tuscany about 1268; died there 1317. At the age of nine years she entered a monastery. Four years later she was commissioned by Pope Nicholas IV to assist in the foundation of a monastery at Proceno, and became its prioress at the age of fifteen. At the entreaty of the citizens of her native town, she established (1298) the celebrated convent of Dominican nuns at Montepulciano which she governed until the time of her death. She was canonized by Benedict XIII in 1726. Her feast is celebrated on 20 April.

E.G. FITZGERALD

St. Agnes of Rome

Of all the virgin martyrs of Rome none was held in such high honour by the primitive church, since the fourth century, as St. Agnes.

In the ancient Roman calendar of the feasts of the martyrs (Depositio Martyrum), incorporated into the collection of Furius Dionysius Philocalus, dating from 354 and often reprinted, e.g. in Ruinart [Acta Sincera Martyrum (ed. Ratisbon, 1859), 63 sqq.], her feast is assigned to 21 January, to which is added a detail as to the name of the road (Via Nomentana) near which her grave was located. The earliest sacramentaries give the same date for her feast, and it is on this day that the Latin Church even now keeps her memory sacred.

Since the close of the fourth century the Fathers of the Church and Christian poets have sung her praises and extolled her virginity and heroism under torture. It is clear, however, from the diversity in the earliest accounts that there was extant at the end of the fourth century no accurate and reliable narrative, at least in writing, concerning the details of her martyrdom. On one point only is there mutual agreement, viz., the youth of the Christian heroine. St. Ambrose gives her age as twelve (De Virginibus, I, 2; P.L., XVI, 200–202: Haec duodecim annorum martyrium fecisse traditur), St. Augustine as thirteen (Agnes puella tredecim annorum; Sermo cclxxiii, 6, P.L., XXXVIII, 1251), which harmonizes well with the words of Prudentius: Aiunt jugali vix habilem toro (Peristephanon, Hymn xiv, 10 in Ruinart, Act. Sinc., ed cit. 486). Damasus depicts her as hastening to martyrdom from the lap of her mother or nurse (Nutricis gremium subito liquisse puella; in St. Agneten, 3, ed. Ihm, Damasi epigrammata, Leipzig, 1895, 43, n. 40). We have no reason whatever for doubting this tradition. It indeed explains very well the renown of the youthful martyr.

SOURCES

We have already cited the testimony of the three oldest witnesses to the martyrdom of St. Agnes:

St. Ambrose, De Virginibus, I, 2;

the inscription of Pope Damasus engraved on marble, the original of which may yet be seen at the foot of the stairs leading to the sepulchre and church of St. Agnes (Sant’ Agnese fuori le muri);

Prudentius, Peristephanon, Hymn 14.

The rhetorical narrative of St. Ambrose, in addition to the martyr’s age, gives nothing except her execution by the sword. The metrical panegyric of Pope Damasus tells us that immediately after the promulgation of the imperial edict against the Christians Agnes voluntarily declared herself a Christian, and suffered very steadfastly the martyrdom of fire, giving scarcely a thought to the frightful torments she had to endure, and concerned only with veiling, by means of her flowing hair, her chaste body which had been exposed to the gaze of the heathen multitude (Nudaque profusum crinem per membra dedisse, Ne domini templum facies peritura videret). Prudentius, in his description of the martyrdom, adheres rather to the account of St. Ambrose, but adds a new episode: The judge threatened to give over her virginity to a house of prostitution, and even executed this final threat; but when a young man turned a lascivious look upon the virgin, he fell to the ground stricken with blindness, and lay as one dead. Possible this is what Damasus and Ambrose refer to, in saying that the purity of St. Agnes was endangered; the latter in particular says (loc. cit.): Habetis igitur in una hostiâ duplex martyrium, pudoris et religionis: et virgo permansit et martyrium obtinuit (Behold therefore in the same victim a double martyrdom, one of modesty, the other of religion. She remained a virgin, and obtained the crown of martyrdom). Prudentius, therefore, may have drawn at least the substance of this episode from a trustworthy popular legend.

Agnes beatae virginis

Still another source of information, earlier than the Acts of her martyrdom, is the glorious hymn: Agnes beatae virginis, which, though probably not from the pen of St. Ambrose (since the poet’s narrative clings more closely to the account of Damasus), still betrays a certain use of the text of St. Ambrose, and was composed not long after the latter work. (See the text in Dreves, Aur. Ambrosius der Vater des Kirchengesanges, 135 Freiburg, 1893.)

The Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Agnes

The Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Agnes belong to a somewhat later period, and are met with in three recensions, two Greek and one Latin. The oldest of them is the shorter of the two Greeks texts, on which the Latin text was based, though it was at the same time quite freely enlarged. The longer Greek text is a translation of this Latin enlargement (Pio Franchi de Cavalieri, St. Agnese nella tradizione e nella legenda, in Römische Quartalschrift, Supplement X, Rome, 1899; cf. Acta SS., Jan. II, 350 sqq). The Latin, and consequently, the shorter Greek text date back to the first half of the fifth century, when St. Maximus, Bishop of Turin (c. 450–470), evidently used the Latin Acts in a sermon (P.L., LVII, 643 sqq.). In these Acts the brothel episode is still further elaborated, and the virgin is decapitated after remaining untouched by the flames.

AFTER HER MARTYRDOM

We do not know with certainty in which persecution the courageous virgin won the martyr’s crown. Formerly it was customary to assign her death to the persecution of Diocletian (c. 304), but arguments are now brought forward, based on the inscription of Damasus, to prove that it occurred during one of the third-century persecutions subsequent to that of Decius.

The body of the virgin martyr was placed in a separate sepulchre on the Via Nomentana, and around her tomb there grew up a larger catacomb that bore her name. The original slab which covered her remains, with the inscriptions Agne sanctissima, is probably the same one which is now preserved in the Museum at Naples. During the reign of Constantine, through the efforts of his daughter Constantina, a basilica was erected over the grave of St. Agnes, which was later entirely remodelled by Pope Honorius (625–638), and has since remained unaltered. In the apse is a mosaic showing the martyr amid flames, with a sword at her feet. A beautiful relief of the saint is found on a marble slab that dates from the fourth century and was originally a part of the altar of her church.

Since the Middle Ages St. Agnes has been represented with a lamb, the symbol of her virginal innocence. On her feast two lambs are solemnly blessed, and from their wool are made the palliums sent by the Pope to archbishops.

J.P. KIRSCH

Maria Gaetana Agnesi

Born at Milan, 16 May. 1718; died at Milan, 9 January, 1799, an Italian woman of remarkable intellectual gifts and attainments. Her father was professor of mathematics at Bologna. When nine years old she spoke Latin fluently, and wrote a discourse to show that liberal studies were not unsuited to her sex: “Oratio qua ostenditur artium liberalium studia femineo sexu neutiquam abhorrere.” This was printed at Milan in 1727. She is said to have spoken Greek fluently when only eleven years old, and at thirteen she had mastered Hebrew, French, Spanish, German, and other languages. She was called the “Walking Polyglot.” Her father assembled the most learned men of Bologna at his house at stated intervals, and Maria explained and defended various philosophical theses. A contemporary, President de Brosses, in his “Lettres sur l’Italie” (I, 243), declares that conversation with the young girl was intensely interesting, as Maria was attractive in manner and richly endowed in mind. So far from becoming vain over her success, she was averse to these public displays of her phenomenal learning, and at twenty years of age desired to enter a convent. Although this desire was not gratified, the meetings were discontinued, and she led a life of retirement, in which she devoted herself especially to the study of mathematics. The 191 these which she defended were published in 1738, at Milan, under the title, “Propositiones Philosophicae.” Maria showed a phenomenal aptitude for mathematics. She wrote an excellent treatise on conic sections, and in her thirteenth year her “Instituzioni Analitiche” was published in two volumes (Milan, 1748), the first treating of the analysis of finite quantities; the second, the analysis of infinitesimals. This, the most valuable result of her labours in this field, was regarded as the best introduction extant to the works of Euler. It was translated into English by Colson of Cambridge, and into French by d’Antelmy, with the notes of Abbé Bossuet. The plane curve, known as versiera, is also called “the Witch of Agnesi.” Maria gained such reputation as a mathematician that she was appointed by Benedict XIV to teach mathematics in the University of Bologna, during her father’s illness. This was in 1750, and two years later her father died. Maria then devoted herself to the study of theology and the Fathers of the Church. Her long aspirations to the religious life were destined to be gratified, for after acting for some years as director of the Hospice Trivulzio of the Blue Nuns in Milan, she joined the order and died a member of it, in her eighty-first year.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Agnetz

(Latin, agnus, lamb), the Slavonic word for the square portion of bread cut from the first loaf in the preparation (proskomide) for Mass according to the Greek rite. The word is used both in the Byzantine Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches of the United States, as well as Europe.

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Agnoetae

(agnoetai) from agnoeo, to be ignorant of).

The name given to those who denied the omniscience either of God or of Christ.

The Theophronians, so named from their leader, Theophronius of Cappadocia (370), denied that God knew the past by memory or the future with certainty; and taught that even for a knowledge of the past He required study and reflection.

The Arians, regarding the nature of Christ as inferior to that of His Father, claimed that He was ignorant of many things, as appears from His own statements about the day of judgment and by the fact that He frequently asked questions of His companions and of the Jews.

The Apollinarists, denying that Christ had a human soul, or, at least, that He had an intellect, necessarily regarded Him as devoid of knowledge.

The Nestorians generally, and the Adoptionists who renewed their error, believed that the knowledge of Christ was limited; that He grew in learning as He grew in age.

The Monophysites logically believed that Christ knew all things, since, according to them, He had but one nature and that divine. But some of them, known as the Severian Monophysites, set limits to the knowledge of Christ.

Luther attributed extraordinary knowledge, if not omniscience, to Christ, but many of the reformers, like Bucer, Calvin, Zwinglius, and others, denied His omniscience.

Some Catholics during the last century have also questioned the omniscience of the human intellect of Christ, e.g. Klee, Gunther, Bougaud, and the controversy has again aroused some interest owing to the speculations of Abbé Loisy.

See KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST; MONOPHYSITISM.

Agnosticism

A philosophical theory of the limitations of knowledge, professing doubt of or disbelief in some or all of the powers of knowing possessed by the human mind.

I. EXPOSITION

(1) The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós “knowing”) was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas. As first employed by Huxley, the new term suggested the contrast between his own unpretentious ignorance and the vain knowledge which the Gnostics of the second and third century claimed to possess. This antithesis served to discredit the conclusions of natural theology, or theistic reasoning, by classing them with the idle vapourings of Gnosticism. The classification was unfair, the attempted antithesis overdrawn. It is rather the Gnostic and the Agnostic who are the real extremists; the former extending the bounds of knowledge, and the latter narrowing them, unduly. Natural theology, or theism, occupies the middle ground between these extremes, and should have been disassociated both from the Gnostic position, that the mind can know everything, and from the Agnostic position, that it can know nothing concerning the truths of religion. (See GNOSTICISM.)

(2) Agnosticism, as a general term in philosophy, is frequently employed to express any conscious attitude of doubt, denial, or disbelief, towards some, or even all, of man’s powers of knowing or objects of knowledge. The meaning of the term may accordingly vary, like that of the other word “Scepticism,” which it has largely replaced, from partial to complete Agnosticism; it may be our knowledge of the world, of the self, or of God, that is questioned; or it may be the knowableness of all three, and the validity of any knowledge, whether of sense or intellect, science or philosophy, history, ethics, religion. The variable element in the term is the group of objects, or propositions, to which it refers; the invariable element, the attitude of learned ignorance it always implies towards the possibility of acquiring knowledge.

(3) Agnosticism, as a term of modern philosophy, is used to describe those theories of the limitations of human knowledge which deny the constitutional ability of the mind to know reality and conclude with the recognition of an intrinsically Unknowable. The existence of “absolute reality” is usually affirmed while, at the same time, its knowableness is denied. Kant, Hamilton, Mansel, and Spencer make this affirmation an integral part of their philosophic systems. The Phenomenalists, however, deny the assertion outright, while the Positivists, Comte and Mill, suspend judgment concerning the existence of “something beyond phenomena.” (See POSITIVISM.)

(4) Modern Agnosticism differs from its ancient prototype. Its genesis is not due to a reactionary spirit of protest, and a collection of sceptical arguments, against “dogmatic systems” of philosophy in vogue, so much as to an adverse criticism of man’s knowing-powers in answer to the fundamental question: What can we know? Kant, who was the first to raise this question, in his memorable reply to Hume, answered it by a distinction between “knowable phenomena” and “unknowable things-in-themselves.” Hamilton soon followed with his doctrine that “we know only the relations of things.” Modern Agnosticism is thus closely associated with Kant’s distinction and Hamilton’s principle of relativity. It asserts our inability to know the reality corresponding to our ultimate scientific, philosophic, or religious ideas.

(5) Agnosticism, with special reference to theology, is a name for any theory which denies that it is possible for man to acquire knowledge of God. It may assume either a religious or an anti-religious form, according as it is confined to a criticism of rational knowledge or extended to a criticism of belief. De Bonald (1754–1840), in his theory that language is of divine origin, containing, preserving, and transmitting the primitive revelation of Good to man; De Lammenais (1782–1854), in his theory that individual reason is powerless, and social reason alone competent; Bonetty (1798–1879), in his advocacy of faith in God, the Scriptures, and the Church, afford instances of Catholic theologians attempting to combine belief in moral and religious truths with the denial that valid knowledge of the same is attainable by reason apart from revelation and tradition. To these systems of Fideism and Traditionalism should be added the theory of Mansel (1820–71), which Spencer regarded as a confession of Agnosticism, that the very inability of reason to know the being and attributes of God proves that revelation is necessary to supplement the mind’s shortcomings. This attitude of criticising knowledge, but not faith, was also a feature of Sir William Hamilton’s philosophy. (See FIDEISM and TRADITIONALISM.)

(6) The extreme view that knowledge of God is impossible, even with the aid of revelation, is the latest form of religious Agnosticism. The new theory regards religion and science as two distinct and separate accounts of experience, and seeks to combine an agnostic intellect with a believing heart. It has been aptly called “mental book-keeping by double entry.” Ritschl, reviving Kant’s separatist distinction of theoretical from practical reason, proclaims that the idea of God contains not so much as a grain of reasoned knowledge; it is merely “an attractive ideal,” having moral and religious, but no objective, scientific, value for the believer who accepts it. Harnack locates the essence of Christianity in a filial relation felt towards an unknowable God the Father. Sabatier considers the words God, Father, as symbols which register the feelings of the human heart towards the Great Unknowable of the intellect.

(7) Recent Agnosticism is also to a great extent anti-religious, criticizing adversely not only the knowledge we have of God, but the grounds of belief in Him as well. A combination of Agnosticism with Atheism, rather than with sentimental irrational belief, is the course adopted by many. The idea of God is eliminated both from the systematic and personal view which is taken of the world and of life. The attitude of “solemnly suspended judgment” shades off first into indifference towards religion, as an inscrutable affair at best, and next into disbelief. The Agnostic does not always merely abstain from either affirming or denying the existence of God, but crosses over to the old position of theoretic Atheism and, on the plea of insufficient evidence, ceases even to believe that God exists. While, therefore, not to be identified with Atheism, Agnosticism is often found in combination with it. (See ATHEISM.)

II. TOTAL AGNOSTICISM SELF-REFUTING

Total or complete Agnosticism—see (2)—is self-refuting. The fact of its ever having existed, even in the formula of Arcesilaos, “I know nothing, not even that I know nothing,” is questioned. It is impossible to construct theoretically a self-consistent scheme of total nescience, doubt, unbelief. The mind which undertook to prove its own utter incompetence would have to assume, while so doing, that it was competent to perform the allotted task. Besides, it would be Impossible to apply such a theory practically; and a theory wholly subversive of reason, contradictory to conscience, and inapplicable to conduct is a philosophy of unreason out of place in a world of law. It is the systems of partial Agnosticism, therefore, which merit examination. These do not aim at constructing a complete philosophy of the Unknowable, but at excluding special kinds of truth, notably religious, from the domain of knowledge They are buildings designedly left unfinished.

III. KANT’S DISTINCTION BETWEEN APPEARANCE AND REALITY EXAMINED

Kant’s idea of “a world of things apart from the world we know” furnished the starting-point of the modern movement towards constructing a philosophy of the Unknowable. With the laudable intention of silencing the sceptic Hume, he showed that the latter’s analysis of human experience into particular sense-impressions was faulty and incomplete, inasmuch as it failed to recognize the universal and necessary elements present in human thought. Kant accordingly proceeded to construct a theory of knowledge which should emphasize the features of human thought neglected by Hume. He assumed that universality, necessity, causality, space, and time were merely the mind’s constitutional way of looking at things, and in no sense derived from experience. The result was that he had to admit the mind’s incapacity for knowing the reality of the world, the soul, or God, and was forced to take refuge against Hume’s scepticism in the categorical imperative “Thou shalt” of the “moral reason.” He had made “pure reason” powerless by his transfer of causality and necessity from the objects of thought to the thinking subject.

To discredit this idea of a “reality “ inaccessibly hidden behind “appearances,” it is sufficient to point out the gratuitous assumptions on which it is based. Kant’s radical mistake was, to prejudge, instead of investigating, the conditions under which the acquisition of knowledge becomes possible. No proof was offered of the arbitrary assumption that the categories are wholly subjective; proof is not even possible. “The fact that a category lives subjectively in the act of knowing is no proof that the category does not at the same time truly express the nature of the reality known,” [Seth, “Two Lectures on Theism” (New York, 1897) p. 19.] The harmony of the mind’s function with the objects it perceives and the relations it discovers shows that the ability of the mind to reach reality is involved in our very acts of perception. Yet Kant, substituting theory for fact, would disqualify the mind for its task of knowing the actual world we live in, and invent a hinterland of things-in-themselves never known as they are, but only as they appear to be. This use of a purely speculative principle to criticize the actual contents of human experience, is unjustifiable. Knowledge is a living process to be concretely investigated, not a mechanical affair for abstract reason to play with by introducing artificial severances of thought from object, and of reality from appearance. Once knowledge is regarded as a synthetic act of a self-active subject, the gap artificially created between subject and object, reality and appearance, closes of itself. (See KANT, PHILOSOPHY OF.)

IV. HAMILTON’S DOCTRINE OF RELATIVITY EXAMINED

Sir William Hamilton contributed the philosophical principle on which modern Agnosticism rests, in his doctrine that “all knowledge is relative.” To know is to condition; to know the Unconditioned (Absolute, or Infinite) is therefore, impossible, our best efforts resulting in “mere negations of thought.” This doctrine of relativity contains two serious equivocations which, when pointed out, reveal the basic difference between the philosophies of Agnosticism and of Theism. The first is in the word “relativity.” The statement that knowledge is “relative” may mean simply that to know anything, whether the world or God, we must know it as manifesting itself to us under the laws and relations of our own consciousness; apart from which relations of self-manifestation it would be for us an isolated, unknowable blank. Thus understood, the doctrine of relativity states the actual human method of knowing the world, the soul, the self, God, grace and the supernatural. Who would hold that we know God, naturally, in any other way than through the manifestations He makes of Himself in mind and nature?

But Hamilton understood the principle of relativity to mean that “we know only the relations of things”; only the Relative, never the Absolute. A negative conclusion, fixing a limit to what we can know, was thus drawn from a principle which of itself merely affirms the method, but settles nothing as to the limits, of our knowledge. This arbitrary interpretation of a method as a limitation is the centre of the Agnostic position against Theism. An ideally perfect possible knowledge is contrasted with the unperfect yet none the less true, knowledge which we actually possess. By thus assuming “ideal comprehension” as a standard by which to criticize “real apprehension,” the Agnostic invalidates, apparently, the little that we do know, as at present constituted, by the more we might know if our mental constitution were other than it is. The Theist, however, recognizing that the limits of human knowledge are to be determined by fact, not by speculation, refuses to prejudge the issue, and proceeds to investigate what we can legitimately know of God through His effects or manifestations.

The second serious equivocation is in the terms “Absolute,” “Infinite,” “Unconditioned.” The Agnostic has in mind, when he uses these terms, that vague general idea of being which our mind reaches by emptying concrete reality of all its particular contents. The result of this emptying process is the Indefinite of abstract, as compared with the Definite of concrete, thought. It is this Indefinite which the Agnostic exhibits as the utterly Unrelated, Unconditioned. But this is not the Absolute in question. Our inability to know such an Absolute, being simply our inability to define the indefinite, to condition the unconditioned, is an irrelevant truism. The absolute in question with Theists is the real, not the logical; the Infinite in question is the actual Infinite of realized perfection, not the Indefinite of thought. The All-perfect is the idea of God, not the All-imperfect, two polar opposites frequently mistaken for each other by Pantheists and Materialists from the days of the Ionians to our own. The Agnostic, therefore, displaces the whole Theistic problem when he substitutes a logical Absolute, defined as “that which excludes all relations outer and inner,” for the real. Examination of our experience shows that the only relation which the Absolute essentially excludes is the relation of real dependence upon anything else. We have no right in reason to define it as the non-related. In fact, it manifests itself as the causal, sustaining ground of all relations. Whether our knowledge of this real Absolute, or God, deserves to be characterized as wholly negative, is consequently a distinct problem (see VI).

V. SPENCER’S DOCTRINE OF THE UNKNOWABLE EXAMINED

According to Herbert Spencer, the doctrine that all knowledge is relative cannot be intelligibly stated Without postulating the existence of the Absolute. The momentum of thought inevitably carries us beyond conditioned existence (definite consciousness) to unconditioned existence (indefinite consciousness). The existence of Absolute Reality must therefore be affirmed. Spencer thus made a distinct advance upon the philosophy of Comte and Mill, which maintained a non-committal attitude on the question of any absolute existence. Hamilton and Mansel admitted the existence of the Infinite on faith, denying only man’s ability to form a positive conception of it. Mansel’s test for a valid conception of anything is an exhaustive grasp of its positive contents—a test so ideal as to invalidate knowledge of the finite and infinite alike. Spencer’s test is “inability to conceive the opposite.” But since he understood “to conceive” as meaning “to construct a mental image,” the consequence was that the highest conceptions of science and religion—matter, space, time, the Infinite—failed to correspond to his assumed standard, and were declared to be “mere symbols of the real, not actual cognitions of it at all.” He was thus led to seek the basis and reconciliation of science, philosophy, and religion in the common recognition of Unknowable Reality as the object of man’s constant pursuit and worship. The non-existence of the Absolute is unthinkable; all efforts to know positively what the Absolute is result in contradictions.

Spencer’s adverse criticism of all knowledge and belief, as affording no insight into the ultimate nature of reality, rests on glaring assumptions. The assumption that every idea is “symbolic” which cannot be vividly realized in thought is arbitrary as to be decisive against his entire system; it is a pre-judgment, not a valid canon of inductive criticism, which he constantly employs. From the fact that we can form no conception of infinity, as we picture an object or recall a scene, it does not follow that we have no apprehension of the Infinite. We constantly apprehend things of which we can distinctly frame no mental image. Spencer merely contrasts our picturesque with our unpicturable forms of thought, using the former to criticize the latter adversely. The contradictions which he discovers are all reducible to this contrast of definite with indefinite thoughts and disappear when we have in mind a real Infinite of perfection, not a logical Absolute. Spencer’s attempt to stop finally at the mere affirmation that the Absolute exists he himself proved to be impossible. He frequently describes the Unknowable as the “Power manifesting itself in phenomena.” This physical description is a surrender of his own position and a virtual acceptance of the principle of Theism, that the Absolute is known through, not apart from, its manifestations. If the Absolute can be known as physical power, surely it can be known as Intelligent Personal Power, by taking not the lowest, but the highest, manifestations of power known to us as the basis for a less inadequate conception. Blank existence is no final stopping-place for human thought. The only rational course is to conceive God under the highest manifestations of Himself and to remember while so doing that we are describing, not defining, His abysmal nature. It is not a question of degrading God to our level, but of not conceiving Him below that level as unconscious energy. Spencer’s further attempt to empty religion and science of their respective rational contents, so as to leave only a blank abstraction or symbol for the final object of both, is a gross confusion, again, of the indefinite of thought with the infinite of reality. A religion wholly cut off from belief, worship, and conduct never existed. Religion must know its object to some extent or be mere irrational emotion. All religion recognizes mystery; truth and reality imperfectly known, not wholly unknowable. The distinction of “knowable phenomena from unknowable reality behind phenomena” breaks down at every turn; and Spencer well illustrates how easy it is to mistake simplified thoughts for the original simplicities of things. His category of the Unknowable is a convenient receptacle for anything one may choose to put into it, because no rational statement concerning its contents is possible. In fact, Spencer calmly affirms the identity of the two “unknowables” of Religion and Science, without appearing to realize that neither in reason nor according to his own principles is there any foundation for this most dogmatic of statements.

VI. THE POWER TO KNOW

The primary fact disclosed in our sense-knowledge is that an external object exists, not that a sensation has been experienced. What we directly perceive is the presence of the object, not the mental process. This vital union of subject and object in the very act of knowledge implies that things and minds are harmoniously related to each other in a system of reality. The real is involved in our acts of perception, and any theory which neglects to take this basic fact into account disregards the data of direct experience. Throughout the whole process of our knowing, the mind has reality, fundamentally at least, for its object. The second fact of our knowledge is that things are known according to the nature of the knower. We can know the real object, but the extent of this knowledge will depend on the number and degree of manifestations, as on the actual conditions of our mental and bodily powers. Whatever be the results reached by psychologists or by physicists in their study of the genesis of knowledge or the nature of reality, there can be no doubt of the testimony of consciousness to the existence of a reality “not ourselves.” Knowledge is, therefore, proportioned to the manifestations of the object and to the nature and conditions of the knowing subject. Our power to know God is no exception to this general law, the non-observance of which is the weakness of Agnosticism, as the observance of it is the strength of Theism. The pivotal assumption in agnostic systems generally is that we can know the existence of a thing and still remain in complete ignorance of its nature. The process of our knowing is contrasted with the object supposedly known. The result of this contrast is to make knowledge appear not as reporting, but as transforming, reality; and to make the object appear as qualitatively different from the knowledge we have of it, not, therefore, intrinsically unknowable. This assumption begs the whole question. No valid reason exists for regarding the physical stimulus of sensation as “reality pure and simple,” or as the ultimate object of knowledge. To conceive of knowledge as altering its object is to make it meaningless, and to contradict the testimony of consciousness. We cannot, therefore, know the existence of a thing and remain in complete ignorance of its nature.

The problem of God’s knowableness raises four more or less distinct questions: existence, nature, possibility of knowledge, possibility of definition. In treating these, the Agnostic separates the first two, which he should combine, and combines the last two, which he should separate. The first two questions, while distinct, are inseparable in treatment, because we have no direct insight into the nature of anything and must be content to study the nature of God through the indirect manifestations He makes of Himself its creatures. The Agnostic, by treating the question of God’s nature apart from the question of God’s existence, cuts himself off from the only possible natural means of knowing, and then turns about to convert his fault of method into a philosophy of the Unknowable. It is only by studying the Absolute and the manifestations together that we can round out and fill in the concept of the former by means of the latter. The idea of God cannot be analyzed wholly apart from the evidences, or “proofs.” Deduction needs the companion process of induction to succeed in this instance. Spencer overlooked this fact, which St. Thomas admirably observed in his classic treatment of the problem.

The question of knowing God is not the same as the question of defining Him. The two do not stand or fail together. By identifying the two, the Agnostic confounds “inability to define” with “total inability to know,” which are distinct problems to be treated separately, since knowledge may fall short of definition and be knowledge still. Spencer furnishes the typical instance. He admits that inquiry into the nature of things leads inevitably to the concept of Absolute Existence, and here his confusion of knowing with defining compels him to stop. He cannot discover in the isolated concept of the Absolute the three conditions of relation, likeness, and difference, necessary for defining it. He rightly claims that no direct resemblance, no agreement in the possession of the same identical qualities, is possible between the Absolute and the world of created things. The Absolute cannot be defined or classified, in the sense of being brought into relations of specific or generic agreement with any objects we know or any concepts we frame. This was no discovery of Spencer’s. The Eastern Fathers of the Church, in their so-called “negative theology,” refuted the pretentious knowledge of the Gnostics on this very principle, that the Absolute transcends all our schemes of classification. But Spencer was wrong in neglecting to take into account the considerable amount of positive, though not strictly definable, knowledge contained in the affirmations which he makes in common with the Theist, that God exists. The Absolute, studied in the light of its manifestations, not in the darkness of isolations, discloses itself to our experience as Originating Source. Between the Manifestations and the Source there exists, therefore, some relationship. It is not a direct resemblance, in the very nature of the case. But there is another kind of resemblance which is wholly indirect, the resemblance of two proportions, or Analogy. The relation of God to His absolute nature must be, proportionally at least, the same as that of creatures to theirs. However infinite the distance and difference between the two, this relation of proportional similarity exists between them, and is sufficient to make some knowledge of the former possible through the latter, because both are proportionally alike, while infinitely diverse in being and attributes. The Originating Source must precontain, in an infinitely surpassing way, the perfections dimly reflected in the mirror of Nature. Of this, the principle of causality, objectively understood, is ample warrant. Spencer’s three conditions for knowledge—namely: relation, likeness, and difference—are thus verified in another way, with proportional truth for their basis. The conclusions of natural theology cannot, therefore, be excluded from the domain of the knowable, but only from that of the definable. (See ANALOGY.)

The process of knowing God thus becomes a process of correcting our human concepts. The correction consists in raising to infinite, unlimited significance the objective perfections discernible in men and things. This is accomplished in turn by denying the limiting modes and imperfect features distinctive of created reality, in order to replace these by the thought of the All-perfect, in the plenitude of whose Being one undivided reality corresponds to our numerous, distinct, partial concepts. In the light of this applied corrective we are enabled to attribute to God the perfections manifested in intelligence, will, power, personality, without making the objective content of our idea of God merely the human magnified, or a bundle of negations. The extreme of Anthropomorphism, or of defining God in terms of man magnified, is thus avoided, and the opposite extreme of Agnosticism discounted. Necessity compels us to think God under the relative, dependent features of our experience. But no necessity of thought compels us to make the accidental features of our knowledge the very essence of His being. The function of denial, which the Agnostic overlooks, is a corrective, not purely negative, function; and our idea of God, inadequate and solely proportional as it is, is nevertheless positive, true, and valid according to the laws which govern all our knowing.

VII. THE WILL TO BELIEVE

The Catholic conception of faith is a firm assent, on account of the authority of God to revealed truths. It presupposes the philosophical truth that a personal God exists who can neither deceive nor be deceived, and the historical truth of the fact of revelation. The two sources of knowledge—reason and revelation—complete each other. Faith begins where science ends. Revelation adds a new world of truth to the sum of human knowledge. This new world of truth is a world of mystery, but not of contradiction. The fact that none of the truths which we believe on God’s authority contradicts the laws of human thought or the certainties of natural knowledge shows that the world of faith is a world of higher reason. Faith is consequently an intellectual assent; a kind of superadded knowledge distinct from, yet continuous with, the knowledge derived from experience.

In contrast with this conception of faith and reason as distinct is the widespread view which urges their absolute separation. The word knowledge is restricted to the results of the exact sciences; the word belief is extended to all that cannot be thus exactly ascertained. The passive attitude of the man of science, who suspends judgment until the evidence forces his assent, is assumed towards religious truth. The result is that the “will to believe” takes on enormous significance in contrast with the “power to know,” and faith sinks to the level of blind belief cut off from all continuity with knowledge.

It is true that the will, the conscience, the heart, and divine grace co-operate in the production of the act of faith, but it is no less true that reason plays an essential part. Faith is an act of intellect and will; when duly analyzed, it discloses intellectual, moral, and sentimental elements. We are living beings, not pure reasoning machines, and our whole nature cooperates vitally in the acceptance of the divine word. “Man is a being who thinks all his experience and perforce must think his religious experience.”—Sterrett, “The Freedom of Authority” (New York, 1905) p. 56.—Where reason does not enter at all, we have but caprice or enthusiasm. Faith is not a persuasion to be duly explained by reference to subconscious will-attitudes alone, nor is distrust of reason one of its marks.

It is also true that the attitude of the believer, as compared with that of the scientific observer, is strongly personal, and interested in the object of belief. But this contrast of personal with impersonal attitudes affords no justification for regarding belief as wholly blind. It is unfair to generalize these two attitudes into mutually exclusive philosophies. The moral ideal of conscience is different from the cold, impartial ideal of physical science. Truths which nourish the moral life of the soul, and shape conduct, cannot wait for acceptance, like purely scientific truths, until theoretical reason studies the problem thoroughly. They present distinct motives for the conscience to appreciate actively, not for the speculative reason to contemplate passively. Conscience appreciates the moral value of testimonies, commands their acceptance, and bids the intellect to “ponder them with assent.”

It is wrong, therefore, to liken the function of conscience to that of speculative reason, to apply to the solution of moral and religious questions the methods of the exact sciences, to give to the latter the monopoly of all certitude, and to declare the region beyond scientific knowledge a region of nescience and blind belief. On the assumption that the knowledge and the definable are synonymous terms, the “first principles of thought” are transferred from the category of knowledge to that of belief, but the transfer is arbitrary. It is too much to suppose that we know only what we can explain. The mistake is in making a general philosophy out of a particular method of scientific explanation. This criticism applies to all systematic attempts to divide the mind into opposite hemispheres of intellect and will, to divorce faith completely from knowledge. Consciousness is one and continuous. Our distinctions should never amount to separations, nor should the “pragmatic” method now in vogue be raised to the dignity of a universal philosophy. “The soul with its powers does not form an integral whole divided, or divisible, into non-communicating compartments of intellect and will; it is a potential inter-penetrative whole.” (Baillie, “Revue de Philos.,” April, 1904, p. 468.) In the solidary interaction of all man’s powers the contributions furnished by will and conscience increase and vivify the meagre knowledge of God We are able to acquire by reasoning.

VIII. AGNOSTICISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

The Agnostic denial of the ability of human reason to know God is directly opposed to Catholic Faith. The Council of the Vatican solemnly declares that “God, the beginning and end of all, can, by the natural light of human reason, be known with certainty from the works of creation” (Const. De Fide, II, De Rev.) The intention of the Council was to reassert the historic claim of Christianity to be reasonable, and to condemn Traditionalism together with all views which denied to reason the power to know God with certainty. Religion would be deprived of all foundation in reason, the motives of credibility would become worthless, conduct would be severed from creed, and faith be blind, if the power of knowing God with rational certainty were called in question. The declaration of the Council was based primarily on scripture, not on any of the historic systems of philosophy. The Council simply defined tile possibility of man’s knowing God with certainty by reason apart from revelation. The possibility of knowing God was not affirmed of any historical individual in particular; the statement was limited to the power of human reason, not extended to the exercise of that power in any given instance of time or person. The definition thus took on the feature of the objective statement: Man can certainly know God by the “physical” power of reason when the latter is rightly developed, even though revelation be “morally” necessary for mankind in the bulk, when the difficulties of reaching a prompt, certain, and correct knowledge of God are taken into account. What conditions were necessary for this right development of reason, how much positive education was required to equip the mind for this task of knowing God and some of His attributes with certainty, the Council did not profess to determine. Neither did it undertake to decide whether the function of reason in this case is to derive the idea of God wholly from reflection on the data furnished by sense, or merely to bring out into explicit form, by means of such data, an idea already instinctive and innate. The former view, that of Aristotle had the preference; but the latter view, that of Plato, was not condemned. God’s indirect manifestations of Himself in the mirror of nature, in the created world of things and persons, were simply declared to be true sources of knowledge distinct from revelation.

EDMUND T. SHANAHAN

Agnus Dei

The name Agnus Dei has been given to certain discs of wax impressed with the figure of a lamb and blessed at stated seasons by the Pope. They are sometimes round, sometimes oval in diameter. The lamb usually bears a cross or flag, while figures of saints or the name and arms of the Pope are also commonly impressed on the reverse. These Agnus Deis may be worn suspended round the neck, or they may be preserved as objects of devotion. In virtue of the consecration they receive, they are regarded, like holy water, blessed palms, etc., as “Sacramentals.”

ORIGIN

The origin of Agnus Deis is a matter of much obscurity. Recent authorities lay stress upon the lack of evidence for their existence before the ninth century. But it seems probable that they had their beginning in some pagan usage of charms or amulets, from which the ruder populace were weaned by the enjoyment of this Christian substitute blessed by prayer. The early history of Catholic ceremonial affords numerous parallels for this Christianizing of pagan rites. It is not disputed that the Agnus Deis originated in Rome. If so, we may probably trace the custom back to the final overthrow of Paganism in that city, say the fifth century. We know that when we first hear of them (c. 820) they were made of the remnants of the preceding year’s paschal candle. We also know from Ennoldius (c. 510) that fragments of the paschal candles were used as a protection against tempests and blight (Migne, P.L., LXIII, pp. 259, 262). It is also possible that a mention of the blessing of wax under Pope Zosimus (418) in the “Liber Pontificalis” (first edition) should be interpreted, with Mgr. Duchesne, of the Agnus Dei, though it more probably refers to the paschal candle. It was at this period and before the Trullan Council of 691 that the symbolism of the Lamb most flourished; see the Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus. The alleged examples of early Agnus Deis, e.g. one of Gregory the Great in the treasury of Monza (see Kraus, “Real-Encyclopadie,” s.v.) cannot be trusted. The earliest certain specimen now in existence seems to belong to the time of Gregory XI (1370).

HISTORY

From the time of Amalarius (c. 820) onwards we find frequent mention of the use of Agnus Deis. At a later period they were often sent by the Popes as presents to sovereigns and distinguished personages. A famous letter in verse accompanied the Agnus Dei despatched by Urban V to the Emperor John Palaeologus in 1366. In the penal laws of Queen Elizabeth Agnus Deis are frequently mentioned among other “popish trumperies” the importation of which into England was rigorously forbidden.

BLESSING AND DISTRIBUTION

We learn from an “Ordo Romanus” printed by Muratori (“Lit. Rom,” II, p. 1,004) that in the ninth century the archdeacon manufactured the Agnus Deis early on Holy Saturday morning out of clean wax mixed with chrism, and that they were distributed by him to the people on the Saturday following (Sabbato in Albis). At a later date the Pope himself generally assisted at both the blessing and the distribution. The great consecration of Agnus Deis took place only in the first year of each pontificate and every seventh year afterwards, which rule is still followed. The discs of wax are now prepared beforehand by certain monks, and without the use of chrism. On the Wednesday of Easter week these discs are brought to the Pope, who dips them into a vessel of water mixed with chrism and balsam, adding various consecratory prayers. The distribution takes place with solemnity on the Saturday following, when the Pope, after the “Agnus Dei” of the Mass, puts a packet of Agnus Deis into the inverted mitre of each cardinal and bishop who comes up to receive them.

SYMBOLISM AND USE

The symbolism of the Agnus Deis is best gathered from the prayers used at various epochs in blessing them. As in the paschal candle, the wax typifies the virgin flesh of Christ, the cross associated with the lamb suggests the idea of a victim offered in sacrifice, and as the blood of the paschal lamb of old protected each household from the destroying angel, so the purpose of these consecrated medallions is to protect those who wear or possess them from all malign influences. In the prayers of blessing, special mention is made of the perils from storm and pestilence, from fire and flood, and also of the dangers to which women are exposed in childbirth. It was formerly the custom in Rome to accompany the gift of an Agnus Dei with a printed leaflet describing its many virtues. Miraculous effects have been believed to follow the use of these objects of piety. Fires are said to have been extinguished, and floods stayed. The manufacture of counterfeits, and even the painting and ornamentation of genuine Agnus Deis, has been strictly prohibited by various papal bulls.

MARTYRS’ PASTE

There are also Agnus Deis of a grey colour, made from wax mingled with the dust which is believed to be that of the bones of martyrs. These, which are called “Paste de’ SS. Martiri,” are held to need no special consecration and are treated as relics.

MANGENOT in Dict de theol. cath., I, 605; HENRY in Dict. d’archeol., I, 909; KRAUS, Real-Encyclopadie, I, 29; BARBIER DE MONTAULT in Analecta Juris Pontificii, VIII, 1475; BALDASSARI, I Pontifici Agnus Dei (Venice, 1714); THURSTON, Holy Year of Jubilee (London, 1900); 247–256; BARBIER DE MONTAULT, Un Agnus Dei de Gregoire II (Poiters, 1886); COZZA LUZZI, Sopra un antico stampo di Agnus Dei in the Romanische Quartalschrift (1893), 263.

HERBERT THURSTON

Agnus Dei (in Liturgy)

A name given to the formula recited thrice by the priest at Mass (except on Good Friday and Holy Saturday) in the Roman rite. It occurs towards the end of the Canon, after the prayer “Haec commixtio,” etc. Having finished saying this prayer, the priest covers the chalice with the pall, genuflects, rises, inclines his head (but not his body) profoundly towards the altar and, with hands joined before his breast (and not, therefore, resting on the altar), says with a loud voice: “Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis” (Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us), repeats the formula unchanged, and still a third time, substituting now “dona nobis pacem” (grant us peace) for “miserere nobis,” meanwhile striking his breast thrice, once at each “miserere nobis” and once at “Dona nobis pacem,” with the right hand (the left hand resting throughout, from the first “Miserere,” on the altar). In Requiem Masses, however, the formula occurs at the same part of the rite, but with the substitution of “dona eis requiem” (grant them rest) for “miserere nobis,” and of “dona eis requiem sempiternam” (Grant them eternal rest) for “dona nobis pacem.” In this case, the priest does not strike his breast, but keeps his hands joined before his breast throughout the whole formula. These rubrical details are given here for the reason that both the formula and the ceremonial accompanying it have undergone various changes in different ages and different places. Into the symbolic reasons for the present practice it is not necessary to enter here.

Slightly changed in respect of one word, peccata for peccatum (peccatum, however, appearing in other sources, such as the Missal of Stowe and other English MSS., and in the Bangor Antiphonary), the formula appears to have been directly taken from the very ancient chant of the “Gloria in excelsis.” In the text of the Roman and Ambrosian rites: “Agnus Dei, Filius Patris, Qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis; Qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram; Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris, miserere nobis,” containing all the words of the original formula of the Agnus Dei, we may find the immediate source of its text. Its remoter source was the declaration of the Baptist: “Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce Qui tollit peccatum mundi” (John, i, 29), supplemented by the cry of the two blind men (Matt. ix, 27): “Miserere nostri, fili David.” The scriptural origin of the formula is therefore evident at a glance. Its symbolism, however, is traced in the Apocalypse through the more than thirty references to “the Lamb that was slain from the beginning of the world” (xii, 8); “the blood of the Lamb” (xii, ii); “they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb” (xxi, 27); and in the following: v, 6, 8, 12, 13; vi, 1, 16; vii, 9, 10, 14, 17; xiv, 1, 4,10; xv 3; xvii, 14; xix, 7, 9; xxi, 9, 14, 22, 23, 27; xxii, 1, 3, 14. From the Apocalypse we trace it backward to the First Epistle of St. Peter (i, 19): “the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled”; to the perplexed reading of the eunuch of Queen Candace (Acts, viii, 32, 33): “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth . . . ;” and thus finally to the great Messianic chapter of Isaias (liii, 7–12), which formed the subject of the eunuch’s query: “I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip, opening his mouth and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus” (Acts, viii, 34, 35). While Isaias compared Our Saviour to a lamb, the Baptist was the first actually to bestow this name upon Our Lord (“Behold the Lamb of God”), and doubtless with a determinate sense derived from ancient type and prophecy. The Christian mind will recall such instances in the Old Testament as the Paschal Lamb of the Jews, “without blemish, a male, of one year” (Exod., xii, 5), whose blood, sprinkled on the door-posts, should save from the Destroying Angel—a figure of the Immaculate Lamb whose blood was to conquer death and to open to men the true Land of Promise; and also the perpetual offering of a lamb morning and night (Exod., xxix, 38, 39)—a figure of the perpetual sacrifice of the altar in the New Dispensation. To the ideas of immaculate purity, gentleness, atoning, and eucharistic sacrifice, the Baptist adds that of universality of purpose: “Who taketh away the sins of the world,” and not alone of Israel. From the Baptist the other John caught the fullness of the symbolism and repeated it in the fourth and fifth chapters of the Apocalypse in such a way as to foreshadow the splendours of the Solemn Mass—the Lamb upon the altar as upon a throne; the attendant clergy as four-and-twenty ancients seated, clothed in white vestments; the chanting of the “Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus”; the incense arising from golden censers, and the music of harps; and then, as by a sudden change, in the midst of all “a Lamb standing as it were slain” (v, 6). Naturally, the symbolism of types and figures of the Old Testament, the Messianic prophecy of Isaias, the declaration of the Baptist, the mystical revelations of the Apocalypse, were early commemorated in the morning hymn of the “Gloria in excelsis,” which was originally a part of the office of Matins. In a slightly different form it is found in the “Apostolic Constitutions” and in the appendixes to the Bible in the “Codex Alexandrinus” of the fifth century. It first appears in use at Rome, appropriately, in the first Mass of the Nativity. Pope St. Symmachus (498–514) extended its use in episcopal Masses. The distinct and condensed formula of the Agnus Dei itself, however, was not apparently introduced into the Mass until the year 687, when Pope Sergius I decreed that during the fraction of the Host both clergy and people should sing the Agnus Dei: “Hic statuit ut tempore confractionis dominici corporis Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis, a clero et a populo decantetur” (Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, I, 381, note 42). Duchesne, accepting the view of Sergius’s reason propounded by Cardinal Bona, says: “il n’est pas defendu de voir, dans ce décret de Sergius, une protestation contre le canon 82 du concile in Trullo, qui proscrivit la representation symbolique du Sauveur sous forme d’agneau.”

In the Liturgy of St. James, the priest when signing the Bread, shortly before communicating himself, says: “Behold the Lamb of God, the Son of the Father, who taketh away the sin of the world, sacrificed for the life and salvation of the world.” The formula is thus said but once. At about the same part of the Mass in the present Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the priest divides the Holy Bread into four parts, “with care and reverence” (in the language of the rubric) and says: “The Lamb of God is broken and distributed; He that is broken and not divided in sunder; ever eaten and never consumed, but sanctifying the communicants” (Neale, History of the Holy Eastern Church, Introduction, 650). These words are absent, however, from the ancient Mass of the Saint (ninth century). In the Office of Prothesis (a sort of preparatory Mass, dealing with the preparation of the “Holy Bread,” or “Holy Lamb,” as it is called) now in use, the prophecy of Isaias is more minutely referred to in the ceremonial; and finally, the deacon, laying the “Lamb” down in the disk, says to the priest: “Sir, sacrifice”; to which the priest, while cutting it crosswise, answers: “The Lamb of God is sacrificed, Who taketh away the sin of the word, for the life and salvation of the world” (Neale, loc. cit., 343, 344). While it is true that, unlike several other liturgies, the Roman contains no longer any chant for the fraction of the Host, the Agnus Dei, although not properly a prayer therefor, occupies the void sufficiently well; and, more condensed than that of St. James, and quite different from that of St. Chrysostom, quoted above, it appears in the Roman Mass with all the symmetry of ceremonial and of appropriate symbolism possible to a liturgy.

The words of the “Liber Pontificalis” (a clero et a populo decantetur) suggest the question whether previously the formula had been sung by the choir alone, as Mabillon infers, and as was the case in the ninth century and in the time of Innocent III (d. 1216). Originally the celebrant did not recite it himself, as his other functions sufficiently occupied his attention; but certainly by the thirteenth century the introduction of this feature must have become common, Durandus noting that some priests recited it with their hands resting on the altar, others with hands joined before the breast. Originally, too, recited or sung but once, Martene shows that its triple recitation was prescribed in some churches—for example, in that of Tours, before the year 1000; and Jean Beleth, a canon of Paris, writing in the twelfth century, remarks: “Agnus Dei ter canitur.” About the same time the custom was introduced of substituting “dona nobis pacem” for the third “miserere nobis”; although by way of exception, the third “miserere” was said on Holy Thursday (perhaps because on that day the “kiss of peace” is not given). A sufficient reason for the substitution of “dona nobis pacem” might be found in its appropriateness as a preparation for the “kiss of peace” (the Pax) which follows, although Innocent III ascribes its introduction to disturbances and calamities affecting the Church. The Lateran Basilica, however, retains the ancient custom of the triple “miserere.” No trace of the Agnus Dei is found in the Roman Mass of the Missal of Bobbio, or in that of Stowe; nor is it found in the Mozarabic, the Gelasian, or Ambrosian (except in Ambrosian Requiem Masses, where it occurs with triple invocation, as in the Roman Missal, but adds to the third invocation the words “et locum indulgentiae cum sanctis tuis in gloria”). It has been said above that the Agnus Dei now follows the prayer “Haec commixtio.” It preceded that prayer, however, in so many manuscripts of the ninth to the thirteenth centuries, that one liturgist looks on the formula as the ordinary conclusion of the Canon of the Mass in the Middle Ages. As in the case of the “Kyrie eleison” and other texts of the Ordinary of the Mass (e.g. the Gloria, Sequence, Credo, Sanctus, Hosanna, Ite, missa est), the words of the Agnus Dei were often considerably extended by tropes, styled by the Romans (In ignorance, perhaps, of their Greek origin) Festivae Laudes. These additions were prefaces, or intercalations, or concluding sentences or phrases, sometimes bearing a strict connection with the meaning of the text, sometimes constituting practically individual compositions with only a titular relation to the text. Cardinal Bona gives an interesting one:

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi,

Crimina tollis, aspera molis, Agnus honoris,

Miserere nobis.

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi,

Vulnera sanas, ardua planas, Agnus amoris,

Miserere nobis.

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi,

Sordida mundas, cuncta foecundas, Agnus odoris,

Dona nobis pacem.

The Cardinal does not mention the date of his source; but the poem is given by Blume and Bannister in their “Tropi Graduales” [Analecta Hymnica (Leipzig, 1905), XLVII, 398], with several dated MS. references. This splendid collection contains no fewer than ninety-seven tropes of the Agnus Dei alone. The following trope of the tenth century will illustrate another form, of which there are many examples, in classical hexameters:

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi,

Omnipotens, aeterna Dei Sapientia, Christe,

miserere nobis, Agnus Dei . . . peccata mundi,

Verum subsistens veo de lumine lumen,

miserere nobis. Agnus Dei . . . peccata mundi,

Optima perpetuae concedens gaudia vitae,

dona nobis pacem. Sometimes the tropes were not in measure, whether classical or accentual, but merely in a rude kind of rhymed, or rather, assonantal prose; as the following (tenth century), which was the triple “miserere nobis” instead of “dona . . .” etc.:

Agnus Dei . . . peccata mundi,

Omnipotens, pie,

te precamur assidue,

miserere nobis.

Agnus Dei . . . peccata mundi,

Qui cuncta creasti,

Nobis semper (te) adiunge,

miserere nobis.

Agnus Dei . . . peccata mundi,

Redemptor, Christe,

Exoramus te supplices,

miserere nobis. Sometimes they were very brief, sometimes extensive, as the following (of which space will allow but one strophe) of the thirteenth century:

Agnus Dei,

Sine peccati macula

solus permanens

cuncta per saecula,

nostra crimina dele,

qui tollis peccata mundi;

Haec enim gloria soli

Domino est congrua;

Miserere nobis. Two other uses of the Agnus Dei may be mentioned briefly. First, before giving Holy Communion, whether during or outside of Mass, the priest holds a particle up for the faithful to see, saying: “Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi. Domine non sum dignus,” etc. The use of the formula in this connection appears to be of comparatively recent date. Anciently the formula used was simply “Corpus Christi,” “Sanguis Christi,” to which the faithful answered “Amen,” a formula similar to that in the Liturgy of St. Mark: “The Holy Body” “The precious Blood of Our Lord and God and Saviour.” Secondly, at the end of litanies the formula appears as follows: “Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi, Parce nobis, Domine” (Spare us, O Lord). “Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi, Exaudi nos, Domine” (Graciously hear us, O Lord). “Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis” (Have mercy on us). Thus, for the litanies of the Saints and for that of Loreto. The litany of the Most Holy Name of Jesus adds the word Jesu to the last word, and substitutes Jesu for Domine in the previous two endings. In the so-called “Litania Romana,” found in an old MS. sacramentary of St. Gregory the Great, the formula appears but once, and then in the words of the formula used at Mass: “Agnus Dei . . . mundi, miserere nobis.” The use of the formula in litanies is of comparatively recent date. It remains to say a word about the musical settings of the Agnus Dei in the Mass. Originally, of course, the melody was plainsong, doubtless very simple and syllabic at first, and subsequently developed into richer forms. Recent studies in musical palaeography have succeeded in rescuing the ancient melodies from oblivion, and in the Vatican “Kyriale” (1905) we find twenty settings substantially reproducing the ancient texts. These melodies range from the syllabic up through various grades of the florid into moderately melismatic chants. A rough idea of the melodic forms may be gained by considering that there are eighteen syllables of text in any one of the three invocations, and that the number of notes accompanying any one of these invocations of eighteen syllables ranges from nineteen (in which case only one syllable of the text can receive two notes) up to sixty-one (as in No. V of the “Kyriale”). In No. V the first syllable has nine notes, however; and a mere enumeration of notes is not sufficiently descriptive of the character and flow of the melody, although such enumeration will help towards forming an idea of the melodic richness or poverty. the familiar melody of the Requiem Mass Agnus Dei, with its twenty notes to eighteen syllables, will illustrate a purely syllabic chant, and will serve to explain its assignment to days of penitential character, such as the ferial days in Lent and Advent, Ember and rogation days, and vigils, to which the “Kyriale” nominally assigns it. With respect to the variety of melody offered in the triple invocation, we find six masses (nos. I, V, VI, XVIII, XIX, XX) in which the melody remains the same for all three invocations—a form which might be indicated as a, a, a; twelve masses in which the melody of the first and third Agnus Dei are identical, but the second different—type a, b, a; one mass in which the first two are identical, while the third varies—type a, a, b; and one mass in which all three are different (No. VII)—type a, b, c. In type a, b, a, however, many correspondences of melody between a and b are found in certain potions of the text; while in type a, b, c, the melody of “nobis” is common to all three. In all this we can perceive the operation of excellent ideas of symmetry and form amid great variety of melody. The plainsong melodies of the Agnus Dei (as, indeed, of other chants as well, the Kyries exhibiting similar obvious symmetries, while the more melismatic chants of the Proper of the Mass will, under enlightened analysis, yield surprisingly beautiful results) are illustrations of the fact that the ancient composers, although working under very different conceptions of music from those which obtain in our days, had clear perceptions of the province of form in musical art, and had canons of construction and criticism which we have not as yet, in all likelihood, fully appreciated [Wagner, “Einfuhrung in die Gregorianischen Melodien” (Freiburg, Schweiz, 1895), 247–250; also, in the Philadelphia quarterly, “Church Music,” June, 1906, 362–380, two articles on the Introit: “Gaudeamus omnes in Domino,” and March, 1906, 222–232, the article on the “Haec dies”].

The text of the Agnus Dei, triple in repetition, and, therefore, possessing its own rights of textual symmetry, was respected by the medieval composers; and the one facts which, in this respect, discriminates their forms of treatment from those of the master-composers of modern church music, is the absence of any separate treatment of the “Dona nobis pacem,” that grand finale movement in which the moderns have been so accustomed to assemble all their energies of technique, voices, and instruments, and to which they assign a movement entirely different from the preceding one. Familiar examples of this are found in Bach’s great Mass in B-minor, where the first two Agnus Deis are alto solos, followed by the “Dona” in four-part fugue. Significant of the musical and liturgical aloofness of the “Dona” from the Agnus Dei in this composition, is the fact that no third Agnus Dei occurs at all. In Beethoven’s monumental Mass in D, solo and chorus sing the “Agnus . . . novis” thrice adagio, the “Dona” forming a new movement in allegretto vivace and requiring more than three times as many pages as the thrice-repeated “Agnus”; so, too, in his Mass in C, the “Dona,” allegro ma non troppo, takes thrice as many pages as the whole preceding text in poco andante. So, too Haydn’s “Third” (“Dona,” allegro vivace, twice as many pages as all the rest adagio); his “First” (“Agnus,” adagio, strings only—“Dona,” allegro, oboes, trumpets, typani, and strings); his “Sixth” (Agnus,” adagio, 3/4—“Dona,” allegro con spirito, 4/4); his “Sixteenth” (“Agnus,” adagio, 4/4—“Dona,” allegro, 3/4, strings, clarinets, trumpets, tympani, and organ). Illustrations might be multiplied without number from other masses, of Mozart, Schubert, and the rest. A very interesting exception is found in the masses of Gounod (quite naturally, in view of his training and polyphonic studies), which respect the triple symmetry of the text; and we find in his “Agnus” almost the primitive plainsong symmetry. Thus, his second mass of the “Orphéonistes” gives us the type a, a, b; his first of the Orphéonistes, the type a, b, c (agreeing, curiously enough, with the single illustration of that type in the “Kyriale,” in having for the two “nobis” and the “dona” the one musical formula); his “Sacred Heart Mass,” the type (with slight variations) a, b, a; his “St. Cecilia” (omitting the interpolation of the “Domine non sum dignus,” etc.), the type a, a, a (with slight variation). Gounod’s interpolation of “Domine non sum dignus” has been very severely criticized as a great liturgical offence—and so it is; but it is additionally interesting to note, even there, an echo of the medieval custom spoken of in the preceding part of this article, of the trope-treatment of the liturgical texts. Gounod’s trope was built up out of his own fancy, but was at least wholly liturgical in the selection of the intercalated text; it was also singularly appropriate to the portion of the Mass then reached, namely, the Communion of priest or of people. Of the quasi-dramatic treatments which the Agnus Dei has received in modern times, it is not worth while to speak (e.g. Haydn’s Mass in tempore belli, Beethoven’s in D, with the roll of drums accentuating the blessings of peace in contrast with the horrors of war), or of the treatments which have thoroughly disfigured, by omissions, insertions, and additions of words, the beauty of the liturgical text; or have so interposed the words as to make nonsense (e.g. Poniatowski’s “Mass in F”—to select from the lesser order, which indiscriminately assigns to each of the “Agnus . . . mundi” a confused jumble of “miserere” and “dona”—a conceit, the symbolism of which is not clearly intelligible). In general, these liturgical excesses resulted from the dramatic instinct working in the field of sacred music.

H.T. HENRY

Agonistici

(ἀγών=“struggle”).

One of the names given by the Donatists to those of their followers who went through cities and villages to disseminate the doctrine of Donatus. They first appeared about 317 (Tillemont, Mém., VI, 96), and claimed that they were champions of Christ, fighting with the sword of Israel. Their war-cry was Laudes Deo (Praises to God). They committed many barbarous acts and deeds of violence. Whether they called themselves “fighters” (Agonistic) because they fought the battles of the Lord, or because they were forced to fight those who sought to protect their property against their invasions, is not clear. The Catholics styled the Agonistici, “Circumcellions,” i.e. circum cellas euntes, because they roved about among the peasants, living on those they sought to indoctrinate.

GIRAUD, Bibl. Sac., I, 226.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Agony of Christ

(From agonia, a struggle; particularly, in profane literature, the physical struggle of athletes in the arena, or the mental excitement previous to the conflict).

The word is used only once in Sacred Scripture (Luke 22:43) to designate the anguish of Our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemani. The incident is narrated also in St. Matthew (26:36–46) and St. Mark (14:32–42); but it is remarkable that only St. Luke mentions the details of the sweat of blood and the visitation of the angel. The authenticity of the verses narrating these details (43–44) has been called in question, because of their absence, not only from the text of the other synoptists, but even from that of St. Luke in several of the ancient codices (notably 1/1a—the revised Sinaiticus—A., B., et al.). The presence of the verses, however, in the majority of the manuscripts, both uncial and cursive, has sufficed to warrant their being retained in the critical editions of the New Testament. Their acceptance by such scholars as Tischendorf, Hammond, and Scrivener, seems to place the question of their authenticity beyond controversy. The “sweat of blood” is understood literally by almost all Catholic exegetes; and medical testimony has been alleged in evidence of the fact that such a phenomenon (haematodrosis), though rare and abnormal, is neither impossible nor preternatural.

DURAND, VACANT, BARABAN, composite article in VACANT, Dict. de theol. cath., s.v. Agonie du Christ.

JAMES M. GILLIS

Paolo Agostini

Born at Vallerano in 1593; died 1629, famous composer and pupil of the celebrated Nanini, whose son-in-law he became. Taking for models his predecessors of the Venetian and Roman school, he studied in a particular manner the art of composing for a number of simultaneous choirs, and so gained the highest esteem of his contemporaries. On one occasion, after assisting at a mass of his for forty-eight voices, Pope Urban VIII expressed his highest admiration for the composition. Manuscript copies of his works are to be found in the Vatican Archives, and in the Corsini Library. The only ones printed were two volumes of Psalms (Rome, 1619); two volumes of Magnificats (ib., 1620), and five volumes of masses, for four to twelve voices (ib., 1624–28). He succeeded Ugolini as maestro at the Vatican Chapel in 1627. His compositions were distinguished by elegance and ingenuity, but he could rise to lofty flights of genius, as in an Agnus Dei reprinted by P. Martini in his “Saggio di Contrappunto.”

KORNMÜLLER, Lexikon der kirchl. Tonkunst; GROVE, Dict. of Music and Musicians

J.A. VÖLKER

Bl. Agostino Novello

(Matteo Di Termini), born in the first half of the thirteenth century, at Termini, a village of Sicily, from which he derived his surname. As that village belonged to the Archdiocese of Palermo, he is sometimes called Panormitano, the Breviary says of him quem Thermenses at Panormitani civem suum esse dicunt. On entering religion he changed his name to Agostino, and later was given the additional name of Novello, a title suggested by his great learning and virtue. His parents, of a noble family originally from Catalonia in Spain, educated him most carefully and had him instructed in all the then known sciences, first at home and afterwards in the city of Bologna, where he carried off high honors, especially in civil and canon law. Returning to his native land, he held many positions of honor in the magistracy, fulfilling all the duties of these posts with such prudence and exactitude that the King of Sicily, Manfred, made him one of his counselors. In this capacity he accompanied the King in the war against Charles of Anjou, who disputed Manfred’s right to the crown of Sicily, and in the battle in which Manfred was killed and his army routed Agostino, thought to be dead, was left on the battlefield among the corpses of other soldiers. Regaining consciousness, he was able to reach his home, and, disillusioned with the world, and the lightness and evanescence of all earthly glory, he determined henceforth to serve the King of kings, Jesus Christ, and forsake all worldly honors and dignities. Following this special inspiration of Heaven. he asked admission as a lay-brother into the Order of St. Augustine, and was received in a convent in Tuscany, where he could live unknown to the world, far from his home and his people. Here, devoted to exercises of piety, he lived tranquilly until an unforeseen incident brought him once more before the world. The title to some property belonging to the convent was claimed by a rich and learned lawyer of Sienna, Giacomo Pallares. Agostino, in a written document, defended the rights of his brethren. Pallares, who at once perceived that the humble habit of a lay-brother concealed a most learned jurist, asked to see him, and to his astonishment recognized his former fellow-student of the University of Bologna, Matteo di Termini. He lost no time in acquainting the ecclesiastical authorities with his identity, begging them to keep no longer in obscurity such a wealth of learning. When Clement of Osimo, General of the Order, heard of this, he compelled Agostino, under obedience, to receive Holy Orders, and, moreover, appointed him one of his associates. Agostino reformed the Constitutions and brought much splendour on his Order, of which he became General, a charge which he finally resigned to live in retirement, giving all his time to study, prayer, and penance, whereby he reached a high degree of perfection. Before he was made General, Nicholas IV appointed him his confessor and Grand Penitentiary, a charge which he accepted only under obedience, and with such manifest reluctance and so many protestations of his unworthiness that the Pope and the cardinals were visibly affected. In his retreat in the convent of San Leonardo, near Sienna, he not only dedicated himself to the practice of the virtues proper to the religious state, which he carried to an heroic degree, but, impelled by an ardent and almost consuming charity, he began collecting alms and was able to enlarge and practically rebuild an excellent orphanage and hospital for the sick and aged who had neither means to care for themselves during sickness, nor a place in which to pass their last days. Many of the miracles wrought through the intercession of Blessed Agostino were verified and authenticated. Clement XIII solemnly beatified him, and Clement XIV authorized his cult on 23 July, 1770.

TIRSO LOPEZ

Charles Constance César Joseph Matthieu d’Agoult

A French prelate, born at Grenoble, 1747; died at Paris, 1824. He studied at the Seminary of St. Sulpice, at Paris, and became Bishop of Pamiers, in 1787. During the French Revolution he emigrated, but returned to France in 1501, after having surrendered his bishopric. He wrote: Projet d’une banque nationale (Paris, 1815); Eclaircissement sur le projet d’une banque nationale (Paris, 1816); Lettre à un Jacobin, ou réflexions politiques sur la constitution d’Angleterre et la charte royale (Paris, 1815); Conversation avec E. Burke, sur l’interêt des puissances de l’Europe (Paris, 1814).

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Archdiocese of Agra

Archdiocese; it is situated in British India, and lies between 25°30’ and 32’ N. lat., and 75° and 81° E. long. The area in square miles is 91,843. The population, according to the last census, is 28,086,364. The predominant religion of India when missions were first introduced was Mohammedanism. The primitive religion is Hinduism. The bulk of the population then, as now, belonged to this sect. The Archdiocese of Agra is an outcome of the Tibet Mission, which was the first regularly established in this part of India. Pellegrino da Forli in his “Annali dei Cappuccini,” IV, 115, states: “Since 1703 the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith has assigned to the Capuchins of the Marca d’Ancona the Mission of Tibet.” The first decree of the Sacred Congregation which refers to the Tibetan Mission is dated 11 January, this instrument Father Felix, a, Montecchio of the Capuchin Order, is appointed Missionary Apostolic for ten years under the Prefect John Francis a Camerino (Bull. Ordin. F. Min. Cap. S. Francisci, t. VII, 250). From 1704 to 1808 thirty hands of missionaries, varying in number from two or three to eleven or twelve, were sent out. Owing to the unsettled condition of Europe, none were sent, from 1808 to 1823, to re-enforce these. Ludovic Micara, a Capuchin of Frascati, was consecrated Bishop on 13 April, 1820, and appointed Apostolic of the Tibet-Hindustan Mission. But circumstances prevented his leaving Europe, where he died, Cardinal Archbishop of Frascati. The Right Rev. Zenobius Benucci, O. C., Bishop of Herma, was appointed Vicar-Apostolic of Agra, and died at Agra, 23 June, 1824. From then up to 1886 there was a regular succession of vicars-apostolic of Agra. Pope Leo XIII, by the Bull “Humanae Salutis Auctor,” 1 September, 1886, constituted and erected the Catholic hierarchy of India, and converted the vicariate apostolic of Agra, into metropolitan see. The Mission of Tibet had been productive of good results, and after two centuries (1703–1906) it has expanded into a metropolitan province. The suffragans of the Archbishop of Agra are the Bishops of Allahabad and Lahore and the Prefects Apostolic of Rajputana, Bettiah and Nepal Kafristan and Kashmer. The Metropolitan, with his suffragans rules over a country comprised in the following political divisions of India: The United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, the Central India Agency, the Punjab, the North-West Frontier Province, Kashmir, and portions of Bengal and the Central Provinces.

The Begum Sumroo, who ruled over Sardhana as a vassal of Delhi, was a convert from Mohammedanism. With this princess the fathers of the Tibetan Mission found a home. She obtained from the Holy See the promotion of Father Giulio Cesare, one of the members of the Mission, to the episcopal dignity. His Holiness Pope Gregory XVI wrote to her, and sent her tokens of his paternal approbation. This gifted and great woman caused Catholicism to be respected even amidst the decay of the great Mogul empire. She bequeathed to her posterity not only an example of regal munificence in her many charitable endowments, but also a holy heritage in the colony of Christians that survive to this day in her beloved Sardhana. The following list of Bishops of Tibet-Hindustan, with their dates of consecration, is culled from the compilation made by Father Felix of the Diocese of Lahore (Cath. Calendar and Directory of the Archdiocese): Rt. Rev. Ludovic Micara, O.C., consecrated 13 April, 1820; Rt. Rev. Zenobius Benucci, O.C., 1823; Anthony Pezzoni, O.C., 1826; Dr. Joseph Angelus Planella, O.C., consecrated Bishop of Toposo with right of succession of the Vicar-Apostolic of Agra; Joseph Anthony Borghi, O.C., consecrated 1839; Cajetan Carli O.C., 1844; Ignatius Persico, O.C., 1854; Angelicus Bedenik, O.C., 1861; Michael Angelus Jacobi, 1868.

Bishop Jacobi was created first Archbishop of Agra 1 September, 1886, and died at Mussoorie 14 October, 1891. The Most Rev. Dr. Emmanuel Van Den Bosch was consecrated Bishop of Lahore in 1891 and transferred to the Archbishopric of Agra in 1892. He resigned in 1898. The Most Rev. Dr. Charles Gentili, O.C., was consecrated Bishop of Allahabad 29 June, 1897, and appointed Archbishop of Agra 27 August, 1898.

The Archdiocese of Agra has a Catholic population of 9,442; regular priests, 38; secular priests, 16; sisters, 228; brothers, 11; parochial schools for boys, 11; for girls, 5; colleges for boys, 2; for girls, 1; convents, 6; orphanages for boys, 3; inmates 403; orphanages for girls, 5; inmates 459; preparatory seminary for native priests, 1.

Imperial Gazetteer; KEENE, India; KEEGAN, Sardhana; PELLEGRINO DA FORLI, Annali dei Cappuccini, Analecta Ordinis Minorun Capuccinorum; Catholic Calendar and Directory of the Archdiocese of Agra and its Suffragan dioceses.

S. O’BRIEN

Agram

(Also ZAGRAB; Latin Zagrabia).

Archiepiscopal see of the ancient kingdom of Croatia, in Austria, founded towards the end of the eleventh century as a suffragan of Kalocsa in Hungary, and made an archdiocese in 1852. Its Latin Catholic population is 1,319,367; there are 1,877 Greek Catholics, 118,304 Greek Orthodox, 9,573 Protestants, and 11,929 Jews, besides a few Mohammedans. Agram has 348 parishes, served by 615 secular and 66 regular priests. The episcopal city (20,000) is pleasantly located in a broad plain, near the Save, and is surrounded to the north and west by vine-clad hills. The castle-like residence of the archbishop and the medieval Gothic cathedral, with its sacristy (itself a church), are remarkable monuments. There are three suffragan sees: Bosnia- Syrmia (with residence at Djakovar), Senj (Zengg, Segnia), and Krizevac (Koros, Kriz, Kreutz). The vernacular of the people is the Croatian tongue. Agram possesses a university for the southern Slavs, opened in 1874, owing chiefly to the endeavours and sacrifices of Bishop Strossmayer of Djakovar. There are also an archiepiscopal seminary and a college for boys, besides a Greek Catholic seminary and gymnasium. Among the ecclesiastical institutes of Agram is the “Piarum summarum praefectura,” a fund of about one million dollars (1882), the interest of which is devoted to the support of establishment of charity and beneficence.

NEHR, in Kirchenlex., I, 347; BATTANDIER, Ann. Pont. Cath. (Paris, 1905), 306; WERNER, Orbis Terr. Cath. (Freiburg, 1890), 90; KERSELICH, His. Eccl. Zabrab (ibid., 1773); FARLATI Illyricum Sacrum, V, 330.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Agrapha

A name first used, in 1776, by J.G. Körner, for the Sayings of Jesus that have come down to us outside the canonical Gospels. After Alfred Resch had chosen the expression, as the title for his learned work on these Sayings (1889), its technical meaning was generally accepted. We shall consider, first, the limits of the Agrapha; secondly, the criteria of their genuineness; thirdly, the list of those that are probably authentic.

LIMITS

The Agrapha must satisfy three conditions:

they must be Sayings, not discourses;

they must be Sayings of Jesus;

they must not be contained in the canonical Gospels.

(a) Being mere Sayings, and not discourses, the Agrapha do not embrace the lengthy sections ascribed to Jesus in the “Didascalia” and the “Pistis Sophia.” These works contain also some brief quotations of alleged words of Jesus, though they may have to be excluded from the Sayings for other reasons. Such seems to be the Saying in “Didasc. Syr.” II, 8 (ed. Lagarde, p. 14); “A man is unapproved, if he be untempted.”

(b) Being Sayings of Jesus, the Agrapha do not embrace: (1) The Sayings contained in religious romances, such as we find in the apocryphal Gospels, the apocryphal Acts, or the Letter of Christ to Abgar (Eus. Hist. Eccl., I, 13). (2) Scripture passages ascribed to Jesus by a mere oversight. Thus “Didasc. Apost. Syr.” (ed. Lagarde, p. 11, line 12) assigns to the Lord the words of Prov., xv, 1 (Sept.), “Wrath destroyeth even wise men.” (3) The expressions attributed to Jesus by the mistake of transcribers. The Epistle of Barnabas, iv, 9, reads: “As the son of God says, Let us resist all iniquity, and hold it in hatred.” But this is merely a rendering of a mistake of the Latin scribe who wrote “sicut dicit filius Dei,” instead of “sicut decet filios Dei,” the true rendering of the Greek òs prépei uìoîs Theoû. (4) The Sayings attributed to Jesus by mere conjecture. Resch has put forth the conjecture that the words of Clem. Alex. Strom. I, 8, 41, “These are they who ply their looms and weave nothing, saith the Scripture,” refer to a Saying of Jesus, though there is no solid foundation for this belief.

(c) Coming down to us through channels outside the canonical Gospels, the Agrapha do not comprise: (1) Mere parallel forms, or amplifications, or, again, combinations of Sayings contained in the canonical Gospels. Thus we find a combination of Matt., vi, 19; x, 9; Luke, xii, 33, in Ephr. Syr. Test. (opp. Græce, ed. Assemani, II, 232): “For I heard the Good Teacher in the divine gospels saying to his disciples, Get you nothing on earth.” (2) Homiletical paragraphs of Jesus, thoughts given by ancient writers. Thus Hippolytus (Demonstr. adv. Judæos, VII) paraphrases Ps. lxviii (lxix), 26: “Whence he saith, Let their temple, Father, be desolate.”

CRITERIA OF GENUINENESS

The genuineness of the Agrapha may be inferred partly from external and partly from internal evidence.

(a) External Evidence.-First determine the independent source or sources by which any Saying in question has been preserved, and then see whether the earliest authority for the Saying is of such date and character than it might reasonably have had access to extracanonical tradition. For Papias and Justin Martyr such access may be admitted, but hardly for a writer of the fourth century. These are extreme cases; the main difficulty is concerned with the intermediate writers.

(b) Internal Evidence.-The next question is, whether the Saying under consideration is consistent with the thought and spirit of Jesus as manifested in the canonical gospels. If a negative conclusion be reached in this investigation, the proof must be completed by finding a fair explanation of the rise of the Saying.

LIST OF AUTHENTIC AGRAPHA

The sources from which the authentic Agrapha may be gathered are: (a) the New Testament and the New Testament manuscripts; (b) the Apocryphal tradition; (c) the patristic citations; and (d) the socalled “Oxyrhynchus Logia” of Jesus. Agrapha contained in Jewish or Mohammedan sources may be curious, but they are hardly authentic. Since the criticism of the Agrapha is in most cases difficult, and often unsatisfactory, frequent disagreement in the critical results must be expected as a matter of course. The following Agrapha are probably genuine sayings of Jesus.

(a) In the New Testament and the New Testament manuscripts: In Codices D and Phi , and in some versions of Matt., xx, 28, “But ye seek from the small to increase, and from the greater to be less.” In Codex D of Luke, vi, 4: “On the same day, seeing one working on the Sabbath, he said to him: Man, if thou knowest what thou doest, blessed art thou; but if thou knowest not, thou art accursed and a transgressor of the Law.” In Acts, xx, 35, “Remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.”

(b) In apocryphal tradition: In the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Jerome, Ezech., xviii, 7): “In the Gospel which the Nazarenes are accustomed to read, that according to the Hebrews, there is put among the greatest crimes he who shall have grieved the spirit of his brother.” In the same Gospel (Jerome, Eph., v, 3 sq.): “In the Hebrew Gospel too we read of the Lord saying to the disciples: And never, said he, rejoice, except when you have looked upon your brother in love.” In Apostolic ChurchOrder, 26: “For he said to us before, when he was teaching: That which is weak shall be saved through that which is strong.” In “Acta Philippi,” 34: “For the Lord said to me: Except ye make the lower into the upper and the left into the right, ye shall not enter into my kingdom.”

(c) In patristic citations: Justin Martyr, Dial. 47: “Wherefore also our Lord Jesus Christ said, In whatsoever things I apprehend you, in those I shall judge you.” Clement of Alexandria, Strom. I, 24, 158: “For ask, he says for the great things, and the small shall be added to you.” Clement of Alexandria, Strom. I, 28, 177: “Rightly therefore the Scripture also in its desire to make us such dialecticians, exhorts us: Be approved moneychangers, disapproving some things, but holding fast that which is good.” Clement of Alexandria, Strom. V, 10, 64: “For not grudgingly, he saith, did the Lord declare in a certain gospel: My mystery is for me and for the sons of my house.” Origen, Homil. in Jer., XX, 3: “But the Saviour himself saith: He who is near me is near the fire; he who is far from me, is far from the kingdom.”

(d) In the Oxyrhynchus Logia: The first Logion is part of Luke, vi, 42; of the fourth, only the word “poverty” is left; the eighth, too, is badly mutilated. The text of the other Logia is in a more satisfactory condition. Second Logion: “Jesus saith, Except you fast to the world, you shall in no wise find the kingdom of God.” Third Logion: “Jesus saith, I stood in the midst of the world, and in the flesh was I seen of them, and I found all men drunken, and none found I athirst among them, and my soul grieved over the sons of men, because they are blind in their heart, and see not.” Fifth Logion: “Jesus saith, Wherever there are two, they are not without God; and wherever there is one alone, I say I am with him. Raise the stone and there thou shalt find me; cleave the wood, and there am I.” Sixth Logion: “Jesus saith, A prophet is not acceptable in his own country, neither doth a physician work cures upon them that know him.” Seventh Logion: “Jesus saith, A city built upon the top of a hill and stablished can neither fall nor be hid.” Eighth Logion: “Jesus saith, Thou hearest with one ear . . .” Resch’s contention that seventyfive Agrapha are probably genuine Sayings of Jesus harmonizes with the assumption that all spring from the same source, but does not commend itself to the judgment of other scholars.

ROPES in HAST., Dict. of the Bible (New York, 1905); Sprüche Jesu, Texte und Untersuch., XIV, 2 (Leipzig, 1896); RESCH, Agrapha, Texte und Untersuch., VI (Leipzig, 1889); GRENFELL and HUNT, LOGIA IESOU, (Egypt Expl. Fund, London, 1897); LOCK AND S ANDAY, Sayings of Jesus (Oxford, 1897); NESTLER, N. T. supplementum (Leipzig, 1896). Complete bibliographies will be found in most of the foregoing works.

A.J. MAAS

Agrarianism

The Latin word agrarius was applied historically to laws, or their partisans, favoring the division of Roman public lands among the poorer citizens. So the English words, agrarianism, and agrarian generally, imply theories and movements intended to benefit the poorer classes of society by dealing in some way with the ownership of land or the legal obligations of the cultivators. In modern German, indeed, the prefix Agrar is used to mean rural or agricultural, and a German political party, roughly corresponding to the former “country party” or “landed interest” in England, is called die Agrarpartei, often translated as the Agrarians, though unlike the stricter use of agrarianism given above. Keeping to that stricter use of the word, we can distinguish two social movements running through history, one being agrarian reform, the other agrarian revolution. The border line is indeed obscure, but the difference, as of night and day, fundamental.

Let us look first at the movements of agrarian reform. Conspicuous is the case of the Hebrew Prophets. How far the land organization of the Mosaic Law was ever in full working order is disputed, probably unascertainable. What can be ascertained is the growth, pari passu with the growth of wealth and commerce under the kings, of ill-treatment of the Hebrew peasantry, mainly by over-taxation to pay for a luxurious court, by corn-jobbery and monopoly, and by usurious loans, which made the peasant a debtor-slave or totally dispossessed him. And we see lawless dispossession: witness the frequent complaints of the oppression of widows and orphans, and the case of Naboth’s vineyard. Against this oppression the Prophets protested so vigorously that by some moderns they have been taken to be Socialists. But they were eminently social reformers, not revolutionists. They incited to no act of human vengeance upon evil-doers, nor to revolt against authority, even when it was misused; but they denounced immorality in home life, fraud in commerce, harshness to debtors, injustice to the poor; and as, under the technical conditions of production in antiquity, the main social problem was the preservation of a free peasantry, and the social question primarily an agrarian question, the Prophets appeared as agrarian reformers, with the not impracticable aim that each man should dwell in security under his own vine and his own fig-tree, on his father’s inheritance. Their exhortations, in fact, kept before the Israelites a high social ideal; and by recalling the ancient law that bond-servants should be freed every seventh year, and that loans in kind and money should be gratuitous, the growth of the slave-cultivation of Punic, Greek, and Roman civilization was restrained, and Palestine preserved as a land of Jewish peasant proprietors.

In secular history two conspicuous examples of agrarian reform are those of Solon in Attica and of the Gracchi in Italy. The release of debtor-slaves and the removal of unlawful enclosures seem the main features of Solon’s economic legislation, of which indeed full trustworthy details are wanting. The character of the Gracchan reform is more accurately known, being mainly to promote the colonization of the public lands by small farmers in accordance with old laws which had been disregarded. The Gracchan land laws were akin to those of modern Australasia. They were partly successful in re-establishing and protecting the free peasantry, but were ultimately frustrated, chiefly through the fatal permission to mortgage and sell, allowing the small holdings to be absorbed by latifundia cultivated by slaves. After the advent of Christianity, the two great processes of agrarian reform were: first, the transformation of rural slaves (often working in chains and sleeping in ergastula), into serfs (coloni), attached to the soil; and secondly, in feudal times, the mitigation of the burdens of serfdom, and the transformation of serfs into a free peasantry, from that of England, in the fifteenth century, to that of Russia, in the nineteenth, a gradual movement from restraint to freedom, from feudal immobility to free trade in land, and to unrestricted agricultural improvements. But then also, as a parallel movement, the checks to usury were withdrawn, as well as those to over-indebtedness, exhaustive cultivation, whole-sale evictions of the peasantry, appropriation of vast tracts by individuals or companies, and the opposite evil of Subdividing small farms into fragments; so that the seeming freedom of the rural classes was leading to poverty and oppression, while reckless competition was leading to the waste of national resources. Hence agrarian reform, suited to the new conditions, social and technical, of rural life, became a necessity, and is in process of being carried out.

The following are some examples:

(1) Legislation in the United States (1862), Canada, Australasia, and some other colonial countries, favoring colonization and bona fide agricultural settlers, as against the occupation of vast tracts for pastoral or speculative purposes;

(2) analogous laws in older countries favoring the creation of small holdings, allotments, and gardens, like the British of 1882–92 and the creation of Rentengüter in Germany (1890–96);

(3)the American Homestead Exemption Laws, spreading since 1849 to most of the States, the maximum value protected from seizure for debt being $5,000 in California; the maximum area 240 acres in Mississippi. These laws have been imitated elsewhere, and the secure homestead, under the title of le bien de famille, is advocated by the Catholics of France;

(4) renewed usury laws, notably in 1880, for Germany, and in 1900 for the United Kingdom and parts of British India;

(5) establishment of a special peasants law in Germany (Anerbenrecht), enabling one son to preserve the small inheritance; special favors by the Belgian law of 1890 to the succession to small holdings;

(6) special legislation against eviction and unfair rents, by the Irish Land Laws of 1881 and 1887, and the Scotch Crofters “Holdings” Act of 1886.

Parallel to such legislation, and its essential auxiliary, has arisen the modern agricultural co-operative movement, resulting in associations like those of the Patrons of Husbandry, the Farmers’ Alliance, and others, in the United States, or the Raiffeisen popular banks among German and Italian peasants, or the peasants league (Boerenbond) of Belgium, or the agricultural co-operative societies of Ireland, And just as the new agrarian legislation is the expression in modern form of the fundamental needs of rural life, protected at other times by feudal immobility, so the new co-operative movement is the expression of the need of mutual help, protected at other times by the patriarchal family and the village community.

Let us turn from the movements of reform, seen in rural history, to the movements of agrarian revolution. These were conspicuous in the declining days of classical Greece. Hereon Roscher said well: “In the Greek world all that we call tradition, and the feeling of national honor, national destiny, and national justice, had in fact been supplanted by rationalistic argumentation, and the argumentation directed with terrible exclusiveness to the opposition between rich and poor” (Nationalökonomie, § 204). This opposition, in conformity with the technical and legal conditions of the time, took the form, not of any system of land-nationalization, but simply of canceling debts and re-dividing lands, revolution alternating with counter-revolution. In time, the agrarian struggles became mixed up with the national movement for Greek independence against Roman dominion, the Romans everywhere taking the side of the rich against the poor (Livy, XXXV, xxxiv). These social revolutions are of importance to us as showing some Significant analogies with our own times. It is otherwise with the peasant risings of later times such as the French Jacquerie in the fourteenth century; the English insurrection under Jack Cade in the fifteenth; the German Peasants War in the sixteenth, and the burning of the chateaux of the French Revolution: all being efforts to remove by violence the legal obligations attached to land or its tillers, and, therefore, being revolutionary agrarianism; but all remote from the agrarian problems of the modern Western World, and very different even from those of the modern Russian Empire.

Rather, it will be more profitable before dealing with the Single-Tax Theory, to glance at the precursors of Henry George.

(1) The Physiocrats taught that land alone yielded a net produce, was thus the ultimate source of taxation, and should be made the immediate source, and all simplified by a single tax (impot unique) on land.

(2) Thomas Spence (1750–1814) urged that landowners should be dispossessed without compensation, and all land held inalienably by the commune.

(3) William Ogilvie’s “Essay on the Right of Property in Land” (1782) denounced the pernicious monopoly of landowners as the cause of social misery, and urged a distribution of land among genuine cultivators of inalienable hereditary small farms.

(4) Ricardo (1772–1823) thought land, labor, and capital to be the three factors of production, yielding rent to the landlord, wages to the laborer, and profit to the capitalists, the increasing demand for food from the increasing population inevitably: giving the landlord an ever larger share of the total produce,[ and leaving less for wages and profits.

(5) J. S. Mill followed Ricardo in believing that, through the progress of society, an ever increasing unearned sum flowed into the pockets of the landlords, but no longer, like Ricardo, appealed to the rights of property in defence of it, but emphasized it by giving it the name of “unearned increment”; and though, in view of the frequent recent changes of ownership, he left past acquisitions untouched, he urged that the State should take not the past, but, any fresh unearned increment in the future.

Then the American Henry George (1839–97) set forth most attractively in his “Progress and Poverty” (1879), the theory that not merely all future, but all actual unearned increment should be intercepted, the method being the total appropriation of rent by taxation, a single tax on land values replacing all other taxes. This “simple yet sovereign remedy” would raise wages and profits, abolish poverty, lessen crime, elevate morals, and purify government. Indeed this single-tax theory appeared to its author so self-evident that he reproached the Pope for not having, in his Labor Encyclical (Rerum Novarum, 1891), accepted its reasoning (Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII, New York, 1891). “Progress and Poverty” was translated into eleven languages; a Land-Nationalization Society still existent (1906), was founded, in England, under Dr. A. Russel Wallace (author of “Land Nationalisation,” London, 1882), who indeed allowed to actual landlords what George calls “the impudent plea” of compensation; the single-tax was advocated by Flürscheim in Germany, and, under the persistent misnomer of “land-reform,” still has a German Society to support it (Adolf Damaschke, “Die Bodenreform,” Berlin, 1902).

Henry George has been criticized from the economic, the juridical, and the socialist standpoint on the following grounds:

(a) That “rent,” in the sense of an unearned increment, is not confined to land, but is seen in all forms of production, wherever a common market price yields a surplus to those who can produce more cheaply than their competitors.

(b) That we cannot separate “the original powers of the soil from the land as transformed by culture” (e.g. drainage or accessibility), or separate “property in things created by God” from “property in things made by man,” much of so-called “rent” being merely interest on previous expenditure, and the part that is really unearned increment rarely ascertainable.

(c) That neither theoretically nor historically true is the alleged tendency to a perpetual rise of rent; the amount depending on differential advantages, the difference incessantly fluctuating up and down, according to every change in production, consumption, and communication; and the final twenty years of George’s life witnessing a serious decline in the value of farming land in the United Kingdom and in New England.

(d) That in one vast section of British India, where for many years the State has attempted by periodical land settlements to absorb the unearned increment, and the single-tax system is in great measure in force, the population is no better off, but rather more penurious, than in the other vast section, where no such system is in force, but the Permanent Settlement of Bengal instead.

(e) That a great unmerited loss is inflicted on those who have recently bought land, or have received land as their part of a testamentary estate, while those who have recently sold land, or have received cash as their part of a testamentary estate, escape scot-free.

(f) That if individuals may not take to themselves the land that God has given to all, no more may nations; and the Irish soil thus belongs no more to the Celts than to the Saxons, the United States no more to the Americans than to the Chinese. Further, from the socialist standpoint.

(g) that George offers an illogical half measure, recovering for the workers only One portion of the “surplus product,” and leaving competitive anarchy and capitalist exploitation untouched; whereas incomes, in the shape of dividends and interest, are just as much “unearned income” as incomes in the shape of rent.

But though there is discord between revolutionary agrarianism and collectivism, they are alike in opposition to the uniform teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church on the lawfulness of private ownership of income-yielding property, whether it be named “land” or “capital.” And they are alike in opposition to the ideal of all great statesmen from Solon to Leo XIII, namely, flourishing populations of small farmers or peasants. Thus George attach any wide distribution of landed property, asserts the productivity of large farms to be the greatest, the tendency of small farms to disappear, the misery of their holders, the pity of multiplying them (Progress and Poverty, VI, i.). Equally hostile is the brilliant socialist Karl Kautsky, “Die Agrarfrage” (Stuttgart, 1899), asserting the technical inferiority and social misery of the small farmer; and, instead of his “sham independence” promising him “redemption from the hell wherein his private property keeps him chained.” Neither George nor Kautsky are true to facts, but both are good witnesses to the importance of agrarian reform as fatal to agrarian socialism. The misuse of the rights of property, such as the misdeeds of Scotch and Irish landlordism, and of the tenement-owners of Europe and America, are the food that feeds agrarian socialism. To make such misdeeds impossible is the task of social reform under a wise government. Nor is it accidental that the Encyclicals of Leo XIII form a manual of social politics. For as grace rests on nature, the religion that is alone truly Divine, must also ipso facto be truly human. But the instinct of private property is truly human; and the proper unfolding of human liberty and personality is historically bound up with it, and cannot develop where each person is only a sharer in a compulsory partnership, or, on the other hand, where property is confined to a privileged few. Suitably, therefore, the same Pope who had defended the true dignity and true liberty of man urged the diffusion of property as the mean between Socialism and Individualism, and that where possible each citizen should dwell secure in a homestead which, however humble, was his own.

FRANZ WALTER, Die Propheten in ihrem sozialen Beruf (Freiburg, 1900), and the bibliography therein; GREENIDGE, History of Rome (London, 1904); ROSCHER, Ackerbau (13th ed., Stuttgart, 1903); FUSTEL DE COULANGES, Origin of Property in Land (London, 1891); JANSSEN, The Social Revolution of 1524–6, being IV of the tr., History of the German People, (London, 1900), but II of the German original; BADEN POWELL, Land Revenue in British India (Oxford, 1894); BUCHENBERGER, Agrarwesen und Agrarpolitik (Leipzig, 1892); CATHREIN, The Champions of Agrarian Socialism (tr. Heinzle, Buffalo, N.Y., 1889). This excerpt from CATHREIN’S Moral-philosophie can be found amended in the fourth German edition (Freiburg, 1904), II, 247,285, and is the classic against Henry George. CAPART, La Propriété individuelle et le collectivisme (Brussels, 1897); MENGER, Right to the whole Produce of Labor (London, 1899; third German ed., Stuttgart, 1905); RIVIERE, Le bien de famille (Paris, 1906); and many of the 93 preceding tracts published by L’Action Populaire; WOLFF, People’s Banks. (London, 1896); VERMEERSCH, Legislation et oeuvres en Belgique (Louvain, 1904).

CHARLES STANTON DEVAS

Maria de Agreda

(Or, according to her conventual title, Maria of Jesus)

A discalced Franciscan nun; born 1602; died 24 May, 1665. Her family name was Coronel, but she is commonly known as Maria de Agreda, from the little town in Old Castile, on the borders of Aragon, where some ancestor, it is said, had built a convent in obedience to commands conveyed in a revelation. La Fuente, in his Historia eclesiastica de España, says the Coronels were una virtuosa y modesta familia de aquel pueblo. By some writers they are described as noble, but impoverished. Maria is said to have made a vow of chastity at the age of eight, but no importance need be attached to that, as, naturally, she could not have known the character of such an obligation, and we are not compelled to suppose any divine guidance in case the vow was made. She and her mother entered the convent together, January, 1619, and simultaneously her father and two brothers became Franciscan friars. When only twenty-five, in spite of her unwillingness, she was made abbess, by papal dispensation. This was almost eight years after her entrance. With the exception of an interval of three years, she remained superior all her life. Under her administration the convent, which was in a state of decay, rose to great material prosperity, and at the same time became one of the most fervent in Spain. She died with the reputation of a saint; and the cause of her canonization was introduced by the Congregation of Rites, 21 June, 1672, at the request of the Court of Spain. This was only seven years after her death. What has given her prominence, however, is not so much the holiness of her life, about which there seems to be general consent, as the character of one of her writings known as La mística ciudad de Dios, historia divina de la Virgen, Madre de Dios. This “Divine History of the Mother of God” was first conceived in 1627; that is to say, nine years after she became a nun. Ten years later, by the express command of her confessor, she set to work at it, and in twenty days wrote the first part, consisting of 400 pages. Although it was her desire to prevent its publication, a copy of it was sent to Philip IV, to whom she wrote a great number of letters in the course of her life, and who had expressed a desire to have it. Later on, in obedience to another confessor, she threw it and all her other writings, into the fire, without any apparent repugnance. A third command of a spiritual director, in 1655, resulted in her beginning again, and in 1660 she finished the book. It was not, however, given to the world until five years after her death. It was printed in Madrid, in 1670. Its lengthy title contains no less than ninety words. “The Mystical City” purports to be the account of special revelations, which the author declares were made to her by God, Who, after raising her to a state of sublime contemplation, commanded:her to write it, and then revealed to her these profound mysteries. She declares that God gave her at first six angels to guide her, the number being afterwards increased to eight, who, having purified her, led her into the presence of the Lord. She then beheld the Blessed Virgin, as she is described in the Apocalypse, and saw also all the various stages of her life: how when she came into the world God ordered the angels to transport her into the empyrean heaven, appointing a hundred spirits from each of the nine choirs to attend her, twelve others in visible and corporeal form to be always near her, and eighteen of the most splendid to be ambassadors perpetually ascending and descending the Ladder of Jacob. In the twentieth chapter she describes all that happened to the Blessed Virgin during the nine months she was in her mother’s womb; and tells how, when she was three years old, she swept the house with the help of the angels. The fifteenth chapter enters into many details, which by some were denounced as indecent. The style, in the opinion of certain critics, is elegant, and the narrative compact. Gorres, on the other hand, while expressing his admiration for the wonderful depth of its speculations, finds that the style is in the bad taste of the period, pompous and strained, and very wearisome in the prolixity of the moral applications appended to each chapter.

The book did not attract much attention outside of Spain until Croset, a Recollect friar, translated and published the first part of it, at Marseilles, 1696. This was the signal of a storm, which broke out especially in the Sorbonne. It had already been condemned in Rome, 4 August, 1681, by the Congregation of the Inquisition, and Innocent XI had forbidden the reading of it, but, at the instance of Charles II, suspended execution of the decree for Spain. But Croset’s translation transgressed the order, and caused it to be referred to the Sorbonne, 2 May, 1696. According to Hergenröther, Kirchengeschichte (trad. franc., 1892, V, vi, p. 418), it was studied from the 2d to the 14th of July, and thirty-two sessions were held during which 132 doctors spoke. It was condemned 17 July, 102 out of 152 members of the commission voting against the book. It was found that

it gave more weight to the revelations alleged to have been received than to the mystery of the Incarnation; that it adduced new revelations which the Apostles themselves could not have supported; that it applied the term ‘adoration’ to Mary; that it referred all her graces to the Immaculate Conception; that it attributed to her the government of the Church; that it designated her in every respect the Mother of Mercy and the Mediatrix of Grace, and pretended that St. Ann had not contracted sin in her birth, besides a number of other imaginary and scandalous assertions.

This censure was confirmed on the 1st of October. The Spanish Cardinal Aguirre, although a friend of Bossuet who fully approved the censure, strove to have it annulled, and expressed his opinion that the Sorbonne could easily do so, as their judgment was. based on a bad translation. Bossuet denounced it as “an impious impertinence, and a trick of the devil.” He objected to its title, The Divine Life, to its apocryphal stories, its indecent language, and its exaggerated Scotist philosophy. However, although this appreciation is found in Bossuet’s works (Œuvres, Versailles, 1817, XXX, pp. 637–640, and XL, pp. 172 and 204–207), it is of questionable authenticity. As to the reproach of indecency, her defenders allege that, although there may be some crudities of expression Which more recent times would not admit, it is absurd to bring such an accusation against one whose sanctity is generally conceded. Near investigations of the book were made in 1729, under Benedict XIII, when her canonization was again urged. On 16 January, 1748, Benedict XIV, in a letter which La Fuente, in his Historia eclesiástica de España, finds “sumamente curiosa,” wrote to the General of the Observantines instructing him as to the investigation of the authenticity of the writings, while conceding that the book had received the approbation of the Universities of Salamanca, Alcalá, Toulouse, and Louvain. It had meantime been fiercely assailed by Eusebius Amort, a canon of Pollingen, in 1744, in a work entitled De revelationibus, visionibus, et apparitionibus privatis, regulae tutae, which, though at first imperfectly answered by Mathes, a Spaniard, and by Maier, a Bavarian, to both of whom Amort replied, was subsequently refuted in another work by Mathes, who showed that in eighty places Amort had not understood the Spanish text of Maria de Agreda. With Mathes, in this exculpation, was P. Dalmatius Kich, who published, at Ratisbon, 1750, his Revelationum Agredanarum justa defensio, cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae. Hergenröther, in his Kirchengeschichte (trad. franc., VI, p. 416—V. Palmé, Paris, 1892), informs us that the condemnation of the book by the Roman Inquisition, in 1681, was thought to have come from the fact either that, in its publication, the Decree of Urban VIII, of 14 March, 1625, had been disregarded, or because it contained apocryphal stories, and maintained opinions of the Scotist school as Divine revelations. Some blamed the writer for having said that she saw the earth under the form of an egg, and that it was a globe slightly compressed at the two poles, all of which seemed worthy of censure. Others condemned her for exaggerating the devotion to the Blessed Virgin and for obscuring the mystery of the Incarnation. The Spaniards were surprised at the reception the book met with in France, especially as the Spanish Inquisition had given it fourteen years of study before pronouncing in its favor. As noted above, the suspension of the Decree of Innocent XI, condemning the book, was made operative only in Spain, and although Charles II asked to have the permission, to read it extended to the whole of Christendom, Alexander VIII not only refused the petition, but confirmed the Brief of his predecessor. The King made the same request to innocent XII, who did nothing, however, except to institute a commission to examine the reasons alleged by the Court of Spain. The King renewed his appeal more urgently, but the Pope died without having given any decision. La Fuente, in his Historia eclesiástica de España (V, p. 493), attributes the opposition to the impatience of the Thomists at seeing Scotist doctrines published as revelations, as if to settle various Scholastic controversies in the name of the Blessed Virgin and in the sense of the Franciscans, to whose order Agreda belonged. Moreover, it was alleged that her confessors had tampered with the text, and had interpolated many of the apocryphal stories which were then current, but her most bitter enemies respected her virtues and holy life, and were far from confounding her with the deluded illuminatae of that period. Her works had been put on the Index, but when the Franciscans protested they were accorded satisfaction by being assured that it was a trick of the printer (supercheria), as no condemnation appeared there.

The other works of Maria de Agreda are:

her letters to Philip IV of Spain edited by Francisco Silvela;

Leyes de la Esposa conceptos y suspiros del corazón pars alcanzar el último y verdadero fin del agrado del Esposo y Señor;;

Meditaciones de la pasión de nuestro Se oré;

Sus exercicios quotidianos;

Escala Spiritual pars subir á la perfección.

The Mística ciudad has been translated into several languages; and there are several editions of the correspondence with Philip IV; but the other writings are still in manuscript, either in the convent of Agreda, or in the Franciscan monastery of Quaracchi in Italy. Sacra Rituum Congregatio, Examen responsionis ad Censuram olim editam super libris misticae civitatis Dei (Rome, 1730); Synopsis observationum et responsionum super libris ven. abbatissae Mariae a Jesu de Agreda (Rome, 1737); Super examine operis a Maria a Jesu de Agreda conscripti (Rome, 1747); DOM GUERANGER, La mystique cite de Dieu, Univers (1858–59); PREUSS, Die romische Lehre von der unbefleckten Empfangnis (Berlin, 1865), 102; ANT. MARIA DE VICENZA, Vita del Ven. S. Maria d Agreda (Bologna, 1870); ID., Della mistica citta di Dio Allegazione storico-apologetica (Bologna, 1873); REUSCH, Der Index der verbotenen B cher (Bonn, 1885), II, 253; Analecta juris pontificii, 1862, p. 1550; MONTUCLA, Histoire des math matiques (Paris, 1758), 1, 44]; MURR, Briefe uber die Jesuiten, 24; BAUMGARTEN, Nachrichten von Merkwurdigen B chern, II, 506, and IV, 208; Vita della Ven. Madre Maria di Gesu, comp. dal R.P. SAMANIEGO, O.S.F. (Antwerp, 1712); VAN DEN GHEYN in Dict. de theol. cath.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Agria

(ERLAU, EGER, JAGER).

An archiepiscopal see of Hungary, founded in 1009, and made an archdiocese in 1304, by Pius VII. It has 633,804 Latin Catholics; 81,217 Greek Catholics, and 503,407 partly Greek Schismatics and partly Protestants, with a sprinkling of Jews. The parishes number 200, and there are 342 secular clergy, and 51 religious. The vernacular tongue is largely Hungarian and German, but Croat, Slavonic, and Armenian are also spoken. The suffragan dioceses are Kosice (Kassa, Kaschau), Rozsnyò (Rosenau), Szathmàr, and Szepes (Zipo, Zipsen).

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (Paris, 1905), 240; WERNER Orbis Terr. Cath. (Freiburg, 1890), 95.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

St. Agricius

Bishop of Trier (Trèves), in the fourth century (332 or 335). A local ninth-century tradition states that he had been Patriarch of Antioch, and that he was translated to the See of Trier by Pope Silvester, at the request of the Empress Helena. He was present at the Council of Arles in 314, and signed the acts immediately after the presiding bishop of that diocese, thus indicating that in the fourth century Trier laid claim to the primacy of Gaul and Germany, a claim which his successor, St. Maximin, made good by signing in a similar way the Decree of the Council of Sardica (343). St. Athanasius, who came as an exile to Trier in 335 or 336, speaks of the large numbers of faithful whom he found there and the number of churches in course of erection. The famous relics of Trier (Holy Coat, Nail of the True Cross, the body of St. Matthias the Apostle) are said by local tradition to have been brought thither by Agricius. The schools of Trier became famous under Agricius. Lactantius taught in them, and St. Maximin and St. Paulinus, later successors to the See of Trier, came from Aquitaine to study there. Agricius died after an active episcopate of twenty years.

KRAFT, in Kirchenlex., I, 352, 353; SAUERLAND, Trierer G. Quellen des XI. Jahrhunderts (1889); Acta SS., Jan. 1; DIEL, Die heiligen Maximinus und Paulinus, Bischofe v. Trier (1875).

FRANCIS W. GREY

Alexander Agricola

A celebrated composer of the fifteenth century, and pupil of Okeghem, was, according to some, of Belgian and, according to other writers, of German, origin. Born about 1446, he was educated in the Netherlands and lived there some time. Even in his youth he was a fine singer and performer. Up to 1474 he was a singer in the ducal chapel, at Milan, then entered the service of the Duke of Mantua, then that of Philip, Duke of Austria and King of the Netherlands, following him to Castile, in 1505. There (at Valladolid) he died in the following year, at the age of sixty. He stood in high esteem as a composer. It is believed that a large number of his compositions are still in the libraries of Spain, awaiting a publisher. Of those published, Petrucci printed (1502–3) thirty-one songs and motets, and a volume of five masses bearing the titles: “Le Serviteur,” “Je ne demande,” Malheur me bat,” “Primi toni,” Secundi Toni.”

J.A. VOELKER

George Agricola

(BAUER, latinized into AGRICOLA).

Physician, mineralogist, historian, and controversialist, b. at Glauchau, in Saxony, 24 March, 1494; d. at Chemnitz, 23 October, 1555. After a wide course of studies in philosophy, philology, and natural sciences, in Germany and in Italy, he practiced medicine for some years at Joachimsthal in Bohemia. In 1530, or 1531, he went, at the invitation of the Elector Maurice of Saxony, to the mining district of Chemnitz, where he continued his favourite studies in geology and mineralogy, and undertook the duties of a Saxon historiographer, a post assigned him by his patron. He approved Luther’s first proceedings. The moral effects of the Reformation, however, and a study of the Fathers, had the effect of confirming him in his Catholic Faith, which, to the day of his death, he continued to defend boldly and strenuously, even in the midst of Protestant surroundings. He is deservedly styled the Father of Mineralogy. His chief work, “De Re Metallica,” gives a minute description of various contemporary methods of mining, smelting, etc., and contains a number of curious woodcuts. It was published at Basle, in 1556, the year after his death. Of his purely historical works, the “Dominatores Saxonici” (Freiberg, 1538) may be mentioned; the results of his patristic studies were embodied in an unprinted treatise, “De traditionibus apostolicis.” A complete collection of his writings was published at Basle, from 1550 to 1558, and again in 1657; his mineralogical works, in German, by Lehmann, in four volumes, at Freiberg, 1806–13.

RICHTER, Vita C. Agricolæ (Annaberg, 1755); BECHER, Die Mineralogen Agricola und Werner (Freiberg, 1819);DÖLLINGER, Reform, I, 580 sqq.; SCHLÖSSER in Kirchenlex, s. v.; JANSSEN, Gesch. d. deutschen Volkes, VII, 319–326.

FRANCIS W. GREY

Rudolph Agricola

A distinguished humanist of the earlier period, and a zealous promoter of the study of the classics in Germany, born in 1442, or 1443, at Bafflo, hear Groningen, Holland; died at Heidelberg, 28 October, 1485. His family name was Huysmann. He began his study of the higher branches at the University of Louvain, where he studied Cicero and Quintilian, gaining distinction by the purity of his Latin diction and his skill in disputation. He had already become adept in French, and, after taking his degree as Master of Arts, he went to Paris. Here he continued his classical work with Heynlin von Stein, and formed a close friendship with John Reuchlin. Early in the seventies he went to Italy, where he associated himself with the humanists, chiefly in Rome and Ferrara. Devoted to the study of the ancients, he won renown for the elegance of his Latin style and his knowledge of philosophy. He delivered a panegyric on the subject of philosophy in the presence of Hercules d’Este, the Maecenas of humanists. After a sojourn of seven years in Italy, Agricola, returning to Germany, got into close touch with his numerous friends, personally and by letter, and roused their enthusiasm for the promotion of classical learning. His love of independence, however, prevented Agricola from accepting any definite position. In 1481 he spent six months in Brussels, at the court of the Archduke, later Emperor Maximilian I, transacting business for the city of Groningen. Resisting all the efforts of his friends to keep him at court, he accepted the invitation of John of Dalberg, Bishop of Worms, to go to the University of Heidelberg, where he began to deliver lectures in 1482. He was admitted into the closest friendship of Dalberg, the generous benefactor of learning. He now began the study of Hebrew, and published an original translation of the Psalms. His fruitful activity in Heidelberg was, unfortunately, of short duration, being brought to a sudden close by his journey to Rome (1485), whither he accompanied John of Dalberg, who was sent as an ambassador to Innocent VIII. Shortly after his return, Agricola was stricken with a fatal illness, and died at Heidelberg.

To Agricola belongs the palm as pioneer of classical learning in Germany. His importance cannot be estimated by the works which he wrote; he must be classed with those who accomplished more by their personal influence, and the powerful stimulus they gave to their contemporaries than by their own literary achievements. Thus we gather the full significance of Agricola’s work from the testimony of his contemporaries, who bestow upon him the highest praise. “It is from my teacher, Agricola,” says the distinguished master, Alexander Hegius, “that I have learned all that I know, or that people think I know.” Notwithstanding the impulse Agricola’s zeal gave to classical learning, he did not neglect his mother tongue. At the same time he was of a deeply religious disposition, and possessed of lively faith. His reputation was stainless. During the last years of his life, he took up the study of theology. His discourse “De Nativitate Christi” breathes a spirit of deep piety. The most important of his pedagogical writings is the treatise “De studio formando,” which he sent to his friend Barbarianus; chief among his philosophical works is “De Inventione Dialectica” A collective edition of his works (Letters, Treatises, Translations, Poems, and Discourses) appeared in two quarto volumes (Cologne, 1539), under the title “Rudolphi Agricolae Lucubrationes aliquot lectu dignissimae in hunc usque diem nusquam prius editae, per Alardum Amstelodamum.”

MELANCHTHON, Oratio in Rud. Agricolam, in Corpus reformater., XI, col. 438–446; SCHOEPERLIN, Dissertatio de Rud. Agricolos Frisii in elegantiores litteras promeritis (Jena, 1753); EPERMANN, Dissert. de Rud. Agricola litterarum per Germaniam instauratore, inter Graecos graecissimo, inter Latinos latinissimo (Upsala, 1762); TRESLING, Vita et merita Rud. Agricolae (Groningen, 1830); BOSSERT, De Rud. Agricola Frisio, litterarum in Germania restitutore (Paris, 1865); MEINERS, Lebensbeschreibungen ber hmter Manner aus der Zeit der Wiederherstellung der Wissenschaften (2 vols., Zurich, 1796), 332–363; GEIGER, Art. Agricola Rud. in Allgemeine deutsche Biographie (Leipzig, 1875), I, 151 sqq.; F. v. BEZOLD, Rudolf Agricola, ein deutscher Vertreter der italienischen Renaissance: Festrede (Munich, 1884); IHM, Der Humanist R. Agricola, sein Leben und seine Schriften, in Sammlung der bedeutendsten p dagogischen Schriften (Paderborn, 1893); JANSSEN, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes (6th ed.), I, 56–58; ERHARD, Geschichte des Wiederaufbl hens wissenschaftl. Bildung, I, 374–415; RITTER, Geschichte der Philosophic, IX, 261–267; RAUMER, Gesch. der Pedagogik veto Wiederaufbl hen klassischer Studien bis auf unsere Zeit, 2d ed. (Stuttgart, 1846), I, 79–87; GEIGER, Humanismus und Renaissance in Italien und Deutschland, in Onckensche Sammlung (Berlin, 1882).

J.P. KIRSCH

Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim

Born 14 September, 1486, at Cologne; died at Grenoble or Lyons in 1534 or 1535. One of the remarkable men of the Renaissance period. Described as a “knight, doctor, and by common reputation, a magician,” Agrippa earned and repaid the bitter enmity of his more conservative contemporaries. We find him a student at Cologne and Paris (1506), in Spain (1507–08), a teacher of Hebrew at D”le (1509), a teacher in England (1510), about which time he finished his work “De occulta philosophiâ (Antwerp, 1531), a mixture of Neoplatanism and the Cabbala. He spent some time in Italy in the military service of the Emperor Maximilian, who rewarded his bravery by making him a Ritter or knight. He soon turned however, to other pursuits, studied medicine, Hebrew, alchemy, theology, and finally devoted himself to “Cabalism” under the influence of Reuchlin (q.v.) and Raymund Lully (q.v.). He lived and taught in various places, making friends or enemies wherever he went, but was apparently not very successful financially, as he was banished from Cologne for debt, and spent his last days in poverty, a typical example of the irregular, vicissitudinous life led by his kind at that time. His numerous works, chiefly philosophical, have a strong bias toward “occultism,” and run counter to the received opinions of his time in theology and scholastic philosophy. He lived and died nominally a Catholic, but was openly in sympathy with Luther, whose tone towards the Church and her institutions he adopted, while professing that he was merely attacking abuses, not the Church, an attitude frequently assumed at that period.

His famous work “De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum,” published in 1527, has been translated into many European vernaculars and is well described as a “compound of erudition and ignorance, gravity and vanity.” It abounds in denunciations of scholasticism, veneration of relics and saints, the canon law and the hierarchy, and calls for a return to the Scriptures as the philosopher’s stone (Lydius lapis) of Christian teaching. For the rest he is no follower of Luther or his companions. They interest him as the first who stood out with success against Catholic orthodoxy. Giordano Bruno (q.v.) made use of his writings, and their influence was long powerful. Among his minor writings are the often quoted booklet “De nobilitate et præcellentia feminei sexus declamatio,” dedicated to Margaret of Austria, “Libellus de sacramento matrimonii,” a commentary on the “Ars Brevrs,” of Raymond Lully, etc. A complete edition of his works appeared at Lyons in 1600.

Stöckl, in Kirchenlex., I, 364–366; Morley, Life of Cornelius Agrippa (London, 1856); Prost, Cornelius Agrippa: sa vie et ses œuvres (Paris, 1881).

FRANCIS W. GREY

Agrippinus

Bishop of Carthage at the close of the second and beginning of the third century. During his episcopacy the question arose in the African Church as to what should be done with regard to converts from schism or heresy. If they had previously been Catholics, ecclesiastical discipline held them subject to penance. But if it were a question of receiving those who had been baptized outside the Church, was their baptism to be regarded as valid? Agrippinus convoked the bishops of Numidia and Africa for the First Council of Africa (probably 215–217) which resolved the question negatively. He consequently decided that such persons should be baptized, not conditionally but absolutely. Heretics, it was argued, have not the true faith; they cannot absolve from sin; the water in their baptism cannot cleanse from sin. These reasons seemed to him to warrant the conclusion arrived at, but it was not the Roman usage. The point, however, had not yet been raised and definitely settled. But assuming their good faith, Agrippinus and the others were not excluded from the unity of the Church. Half a century later, St. Cyprian speaks of the continuous good repute of Agrippinus (bonæ memoriæ vir); and St. Augustine in writing against the Donatists defends Agrippinus and Cyprian by showing that, although they were mistaken, they had not broken the unity of the Church.

BAREILLE in Dict. De théol. Cath., I, 637, 638;BENSON in Dict. Christ. Biog., I, 65; HEFELE, Conciliengesch., 2d ed., I, 104–125.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Diocese of Aguas Calientes

(Lat. AQUAE CALIDAE).

A Mexican see dependent on Guadalaxara; erected by Leo XIII, Decree Apostolicae Sedis, 27 Aug., 1899, by detaching it from Guadalaxara. It comprises the province of Aguas Calientes. The first bishop was Jose Maria Portugal, a Friar Minor; b. in Mexico, 24 Jan., 1838; made Bishop of Sinaloa, 25 Oct., 1888; transferred to Saltillo, 28 Nov., 1898, and to the Diocese of Aguas Calientes, 9 June, 1902. Aguas Calientes is an inland State of Mexico with an area of 2,950 square miles. Its capital, Aguas Calientes, 300 miles northeast of the City of Mexico, is on a plateau 6,000 feet above sea level. Population 30,000 (1895).

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (1906).

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Joseph Saenz de Aguirre

Cardinal, and learned Spanish Benedictine; born at Logro o, in Old Castile, 24 March, 1630; died 19 August, 1699. He entered the congregation of Monte Cassino. He directed the studies in the Monastery of St. Vincent of Salamanca for fifteen years, and became its abbot. He then professed dogmatic theology and inaugurated the course in Holy Scripture at the University of Salamanca. He was councillor and secretary of the Holy Office and president of its congregation of the province of Spain. His work against the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy of 1682 won him a cardinal’s hat and the warm eulogy of Innocent XI. His correspondence with Bossuet shows how vigorously he combated Quietism. His excessive labors undermined his health, and for many years he suffered from epileptic attacks. He died suddenly from a stroke of apoplexy. He was buried in the Spanish Church of St. James in Rome, and his heart was deposited in Monte Cassino, as he had requested.

His more important works are on philosophical and theological subjects, but he also produced valuable writings on ecclesiastical history, commentaries on the theology of St. Anselm, two volumes of miscellanea, and a book to prove that the “De Imitatione Christi” was by the Benedictine, John Gersen.

His principal works on philosophy are: (1) “Philosophia Nova-antiqua” etc., a defense of Aristotle and St. Thomas against their opponents (Salamanca, 1671–2-5, 3 in fol.); (2) “Philosophia Morum” etc. (Salamanca, 1677; Rome, 1698), a commentary in four volumes on Aristotle’s Ethics; (3) “De virtutibus et vitiis disputationes ethicae in quibus disseritur quidquid spectat ad philosophiam moralem ab Aristotele traditam” (Salamanca, 1677; 2d ed. enlarged, Rome, 1697; 3d. ed. Rome, 1717). His principal theological works are (1) a treatise on the Angels, especially the Guardian Angels, which he prepared as his thesis for the degree of Doctor. (2) “S. Anselmi Theologia, commentariis et disputationibus tum dogmaticis tum scholasticis illustrata” (Salamanca, 1678–81, 2d ed. Rome, 1688–90). The third volume, “De natura hominis pura et lapsa,” is especially directed against Jansenist errors. (3) “Auctoritas infallibilis et summa Cathedrae Sancti Petri,” etc. (Salamanca, 1683), a learned refutation of the four articles of the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy of France in 1682. (4) “Collectio maxima conciliorum omnium Hispaniae et novi orbis,” etc. (Salamanca, 1686).

BAYLE, Collectio maxima Conciliorum (2d ed., Rome, 1753), I, 1–32; DUPIN, Bibl. des auteurs ecclesiast. (Paris, 1719), XXI, 273–276; STANONICK in Kirchenlex. (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1882), I, 366–67; MANGENOT in Dict. de théol. cath., s.v.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Ahicam

(“My brother has risen”).

A high court official under Josias and his two sons, who protected Jeremias from the fury of the populace. He was the son of Saphan, “the scribe,” and father of Godolias, later governor of the country under Nabuchodonosor (see IV Kings, xxii, 12; Jer., xxvi, 24; xl, 5).

F. BECHTEL

Ahriman and Ormuzd

(More correctly ORMUZD AND AHRIMAN.)

The modern Persian forms of Anro-Mainyus and Ahura Mazda, the Evil Spirit and the Good Spirit, respectively, of the Avestic or Zoroastrian religion of the Ancient Iranians and modern Parsees. (See AVESTA.)

L.C. CASARTELLI

Johann Caspar Aiblinger

Composer, born 23 February, 1779, at Wasserburg, Bavaria; died at Munich, 6 May 1867. In his eleventh year he commenced his studies at Tegernsee Abbey, where he was instructed in piano and organ-playing. Four years later he entered the gymnasium at Munich, where he studied under Professor Schlett, his countryman. Thence he went (in 1800) to the University of Landshut. Inwardly drawn to the Church, he completed his philosophy and began theology, but the secularization of many religious orders in Bavaria prevented his entrance into a cloister. He now devoted himself solely to music. Led by the then prevailing idea that without a visit to Italy no musical education is complete, he turned his footsteps southward. After a stay of eight years at Vicenza, where he fell under the influence of his countryman Simon Mayr, Aiblinger (1811) went to Venice and there met Meyerbeer, who procured for him an appointment at the Conservatory. His failure to establish a school for classical music led him to Milan to assume the direction of the local ballet. On his return to Bavaria King Max I invited him to Munich to direct the Italian opera. King Ludwig appointed him director of the royal orchestra, and sent him to Italy to collect old Italian masterpieces. On his return be became the organist of the church of All Saints for which he wrote many valuable compositions. In 1864 he resigned, on account of advancing years. Between 1820 and 1830 he tried operatic composition, but was unsuccessful. A crusade against Italian music, which led to the revival of Gluck’s “Iphigenia in Tauris,” followed. Then he took up church music, studying the old masters and procuring performances of their works. He also wrote much church music, which is generally full of simple dignity and great purity, with a certain degree of freedom, but it is stiff, dry, and weakly sentimental. His instrumentation is not strong. He was, however, inspired with the spirit of the Church. Of his numerous compositions, comprising masses and requiems, offertories and graduals, psalms, litanies, and German hymns, many have been published at Augsburg, Munich, Ratisbon, and Mainz. His choicest works, consisting of masses, vespers, motets, etc. (133 in number), are preserved in the archives of the royal court chapel in Munich.

KORNMUELLER, Lex. der kirchl. Tonkunst; GROVE, Dict. of Music and Musicians.

J.A. VÖLKER

Gregor Aichinger

Organist and composer of sacred music, born probably at Ratisbon in 1565; died at Augsburg, 21 January, 1628. He was a priest at least towards the end of his life. As early as 1590 he was the organist to the patrician Jacob Fugger at Augsburg. He paid a visit to Rome in 1599. His musical development was largely influenced by the Venetian school, and especially by Gabrieli. In 1601, or thereabouts, he returned to Augsburg and re-entered the service of the Fuggers. Of his numerous compositions we mention “Liturgica, sive Sacra Officia ad omnes dies festos Magnae Dei Matris,” (Augsburg, 1603); “Sacrae Cantiones,” for four, five, six, eight, and ten voices (Venice, 1590); “Tricinia Mariana” (Innsbruck, 1598); “Fasciculus Sacr. Harmoniarum” (Dillingen, 1606). The full list is found in Eitner’s “Quellen-Lexikon.” Proske thus characterizes Aichinger and his fellow-worker Hassler in the Fugger choir: “Though Hassler excelled in intellect and originality, both masters had this in common that they combined the solid features of German art with the refined froms of Italian genius, which flourished at that time especially in Rome and Venice, and had stamped their works with freer melody and more fluent harmony. Aichinger in particular distinguishes himself by a warmth and tenderness of feeling bordering on mellowness, which is everywhere imbued with deep devotion. Meanwhile he does not lack sublimity nor solemnity, indeed some of his longest compositions satisfy throughout the strictest demands of art.”

KORNMUELLER, Lex. der kirchl. Tonkunst; GROVE, Dict. of Music and Musicians; NAUMANN, Geschichte der Musik.

J.A. VOELKER

St. Aidan of Lindisfarne

An Irish monk who had studied under St. Senan, at Iniscathay (Scattery Island). He is placed as Bishop of Clogher by Ware and Lynch, but he resigned that see and became a monk at Iona about 630. His virtues, however, shone so resplendantly that he was selected (635) as first Bishop of Lindisfarne, and in time became apostle of Northumbria. St. Bede is lavish in praise of the episcopal rule of St. Aidan, and of his Irish co-workers in the ministry. Oswald, king of Northumbria, who had studied in Ireland, was a firm friend of St. Aidan, and did all he could for the Irish missioners until his sad death at Maserfield near Oswestry, 5 August, 642. St. Aidan died at Bamborough on the last day of August, 651, and his remains were borne to Lindisfarne. Bede tells us that “he was a pontiff inspired with a passionate love of virtue, but at the same time full of a surpassing mildness and gentleness.” His feast is celebrated 31 August.

W. H. Grattan-Flood.

Duchess of Aiguillon

Marie de Vignerot de Pontcourlay, Marquise of Combalet and Duchesse d’Aiguillon; niece of Cardinal Richelieu. Born 1604; died at Paris, 1675.

First promised to Comte de Bethune, son of Sully, she married Antoine de Route, Marquis of Combalet, in 1620, who was killed two years later at the siege of Montpellier. A childless widow, she entered the Carmelite convent in Paris, fully determined to end her days there; but after Richelieu became premier of Louis XIII she had to follow him, and was appointed lady of the bed-chamber to Marie de Médicis. Obliged to do the honors of the Cardinal’s palace, she took into her hands the distribution “of his liberality and of his alms,” to use Fléchier’s expressions. Convinced of the vanity of worldly honors, she only busied herself in distributing riches without seeking any enjoyment from wealth. She well deserved, by her virtues and piety, the title of “great Christian” and “heroic woman,” which her panegyrists give to her. Charity was her dominant virtue. She had part in all the beneficence of her, times. She founded, endowed, or enriched especially the establishments of foreign missions in Paris and in Rome; the church and seminary of Saint Sulpice; the hospitals of Marseilles and of Algiers; the convent of the Carmelites; the Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul, and all the religious houses of Paris. She gave fifty thousand francs for the foundation of a general hospital in Paris, which she first established at La Salpêtrière. Patron of St. Vincent de Paul, she was the soul of charitable assemblies, of evangelical missions, and of the greater part of the institutions created by that saint. She gave him the funds needed to found the College des Bons-Enfants. Her charity extended to the missions of China and she defrayed the expenses of sending the first bishops there. But it was above all the colony of Canada which received a large share of her benefits. She especially recommended this work to her uncle, and Richelieu sent some Jesuits there. The Hôtel-Dieu at Qu bec was erected at her expense, and she put the Religieuses Hospitalières of Dieppe in charge of it, after providing for it an annual income of three thousand francs. Masses are still said there daily for the intention of herself and of Richelieu, and an inscription composed by her is over the principal entrance. It was under her exalted patronage that the first Ursulines were sent there. With Olier, she conceived the plan of founding the Colony of Montreal and got the Pope to approve of the society which was formed for this purpose. Finally she had the creation of the bishopric of Qu bec brought before the General Assembly of the French clergy, and obtained from Mazarin a pension of 1,200 crowns for its support.

This woman of great mind was sought in marriage by princes of the royal blood, but she preferred remaining a widow the better to pursue her good works. When she was created Duchesse d Aiguillon she gave twenty-two thousand livres to found a mission for instructing the poor of the duchy. She was equally the enlightened patroness of the writers of her time. Voiture, Scudéry, Molière, Scarron, and Corneille were recipients of her favors. The last named dedicated to her “Le Cid.” After the death of Richelieu, who made her his principal heir, she retired to the Petit-Luxembourg, published her uncle’s works and continued her generous benefactions to all kinds of charities. She carried out the Cardinal’s last request by having the church and the college of the Sorbonne completed, as well as the Hôtel Richelieu, which has since been converted into the Bibliothèque Nationale. The great Fléchier was charged with pronouncing her funeral oration, which is regarded as one of the masterpieces of eloquence of French pulpit oratory.

BONNEAU-AVENANT, La duchesse d’Aiguillon, nièce du cardinal de Richelieu, sa vie et ses oeuvres charitables (Paris, 1879); Revue Canadienne, nouvelle’s rie, II, 735; III, 27.

J. EDMOND ROY

Mary Aikenhead

Foundress of the Irish Sisters of Charity, born in Cork, 19 January, 1787; died in Dublin, 22 July, 1858; daughter of David Aikenhead, a physician, member of the Established Church, and Mary Stacpole, a Catholic. She was brought up in the Church of England, but became a Catholic 6 June, 1802, some time after the death of her father who had been received into the Church on his death-bed. Accustomed as she was to an active life of charity, and feeling called to the religious life, she looked in vain for an order devoted to outside charitable work. Against her will she was chosen by Archbishop Murray, Coadjutor of Dublin, to carry out his plan of rounding a congregation of the Sisters of Charity in Ireland, and in preparation for it made a novitiate of three years (1812–15) in the Convent of the Institute of the Blessed Virgin at Micklegate Bar, York, the rule of which corresponded most nearly to the ideas of the Archbishop. She there assumed the name she kept till death, Sister Mary Augustine, though always known to the world as Mrs. Aikenhead. On 1 September, 1815, the first members of the new Order took their vows, Sister Mary Augustine being appointed Superior-General. The following sixteen years were filled with the arduous work of organizing the community and extending its sphere of labor to every phase of charity, chiefly hospital and rescue work. In 1831 overexertion and disease shattered Mrs. Aikenhead’s health, leaving her an invalid. Her activity was unceasing, however, and she directed her sisters in their heroic work during the plague of 1832, placed them in charge of new institutions, and sent them on missions to France and Australia. After a long period of trial and suffering she passed away in her seventy-second year, having left her Order in a flourishing condition, in charge of ten institutions, besides innumerable missions and branches of charitable work.

S.A., Mary Aikenhead: her Life, her Work, and her Friends (Dublin, 1882); STEPHEN in Dict. of Nat. Biog.

F.M. RUDGE

St. Ailbe

Bishop of Emly in Munster (Ireland); d. about 527, or 541. It is very difficult to sift out the germs of truth from among the mass of legends which have gathered round the life of this Irish saint. Beyond the fact, which is itself disputed, that he was a disciple of St. Patrick and was probably ordained priest by him, we know really nothing of the history of St. Ailbe. Legend says that in his infancy he was left in the forest to be devoured by the wolves, but that a she-wolf took compassion upon him and suckled him. Long afterwards, when Ailbe was bishop, an old she-wolf, pursued by a hunting party, fled to the Bishop and laid her head upon his breast. Ailbe protected his old foster-mother, and every day thereafter she and her little ones came to take their food in his hall. The Acts of St. Ailbe are quite untrustworthy; they represent Ailbe as preaching in Ireland before St. Patrick, but this is directly contradicted by St. Patrick’s biographer, Tirechan. Probably the most authentic information we possess about Ailbe is that contained in Cuimmon’s eulogium: Ailbe loved hospitality. The devotion was not untruthful. Never entered a body of clay one that was better as to food and raiment. His feast, which is 12 September, is kept throughout Ireland as a greater double.

The Acts of St. Ailbe may be found in the Codex Salmanticensis, edited in 1588 by the Bollandists under the title of Acta Sanctorum Hiberniae, at the charges of the Marquis of Bute (cf. SUYSKEN, in Acta SS., Sept., IV, 26–33); HEALY, Irish Schools and Scholars; LANIGAN, Eccl. Hist. of Ireland.

Herbert Thurston.

St. Aileran

An Irish saint, generally known as “Sapiens” (the Wise), one of the most distinguished professors at the School of Clonard in the seventh century. He died of the all-destroying Yellow Plague, and his death is chronicled in the “Annals of Ulster,” 29 December, 664. His early life is not recorded, but he was attracted to the great School of Clonard by the fame of St. Finian and his disciples, and, about 650, was rector, of this celebrated seat of learning. As a classical scholar he was almost without a rival in his day, and his acquaintance with the works of Origen, Philo, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and others, stamps him as a master of Latin and Greek. According to Colgan, numerous works are to be ascribed to St. Aileran, including the “Fourth Life of St. Patrick,” a Latin-Irish Litany, and the “Lives of St. Brigid and St. Fechin of Fore.” As regards the Latin-Irish Litany, there is scarcely a doubt but that St. Aileran was its author. An excellent transcript of it. is in the “Yellow Book of Lecain” (Leabhar Buidhe Lecain), a valuable Irish manuscript copied by the MacFirbises in the fourteenth century. The best known work of St. Aileran is his tract on the genealogy of Our Lord according to St. Matthew. A complete copy of this remarkable scriptural commentary is at Vienna in a manuscript of Sedulius (Siadhuil or Shiel), consisting of 157 folios, large quarto, written in two columns, with red initial letters. It is entitled: “Tipicus ac Tropologicus Jesu Christi Genealogiae Intellectus quem Sanctus Aileranus Scottorum Sapientissimus exposuit.” The Franciscan, Patrick Fleming, published a fragment of this “Interpretatio Mystica Progenitorum Christi” (Mystical Interpretation of the Ancestry of Our Lord Jesus Christ), in 1667, at Louvain—being a posthumous publication passed through press by Father Thomas O’Sheerin, O.F.M., who died in 1673. This was reprinted in the Benedictine edition of the Fathers, in 1677, and again by Migne in his Latin “Patrology” (LXXX, 327 sqq.). The Benedictine editors take care to explain that although St. Aileran was not a member of their order, yet they deemed the work of such extraordinary merit that it deserved being better known. To quote their own words, “Aileran unfolded the meaning of Sacred Scripture with so much learning and ingenuity that every student of the sacred volume, and especially preachers of the Divine Word, will regard the publication as most acceptable.” Another fragment of a work by St. Aileran, namely, “A Short Moral Explanation of the Sacred Names” found in the Latin “Patrology” of Migne, displays much erudition. Archbishop Healy says of it: “We read over both fragments carefully, and we have no hesitation in saying that whether we consider the style of the latinity, the learning, or the ingenuity of the writer, it is equally marvelous and equally honorable to the School of Clonard.” The feast of St. Aileran is celebrated 29 December. Otto Schmid says (Kirchenlex., I, 370) that in medieval times it was customary in the great Swiss monastery of St. Gall to read this admirable work on the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lady as a commentary on the Gospel of the day, i.e. the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matt., i, 1–16).

W. H. Grattan-Flood

Family of d’Ailleboust

(1) Louis d’Ailleboust

Sieur de Coulanges, third Governor of Canada, date of birth unknown; died in Montreal 31 May, 1660. He came to Canada in 1643. He was an associate of the Compagnie de Montréal, aided Maisonneuve in founding Montreal, building the first fortifications, and was commandant of the city from October, 1646, to May, 1647. Sent to France, he obtained help and important reforms in favor of the colonists. He succeeded Montmagny as Governor General, arriving at Québec 20 August, 1648. He formed a flying camp of forty soldiers to guard the communications between the capital and Montreal. During his term of office, the Huron missions of Ontario were destroyed by the Iroquois, and the Jesuits, Brébeuf, Lalemant, Daniel, Garnier, and Chabanel, suffered martyrdom (1648–49). He settled the Huron refugees on the Island of Orleans, and tried to establish an alliance and commercial relations with New England. The Jesuit Druillettes has left an account of the embassy sent on this occasion. On the 21st of October, 1651, Jean Lauzon succeeded d Ailleboust as governor, and the latter was not sorry to resign a post in which he had been left without support. In reward of his services, several important seigniories were granted him (Argentenaye, Coulanges, Saint Villemer). He retired to Montreal, where he took to farming, and was the first to sow French grain in Canada. In 1665 he accompanied Maisonneuve to France, where he induced the Sulpicians to assume possession of the Island of Montreal, and to Send missionaries thither. He also persuaded the Sisters of l’Institut Saint Joseph, of Lafleche, to take charge of the Hôtel-Dieu. Returning to Canada with four Sulpicians, d Ailleboust was entrusted with the interior administration of the colony (18 September, 1657; 4 July, 1658) until the arrival of d Argenson. He laid (23 March, 1658) the first stone of the church of Sainte Anne de Beaupre, the place of pilgrimage which has since become so famous. He died leaving a name as a good Christian, a man of judicious and impartial mind.

(2) Barbe d’Ailleboust

(Née de Boulogne). Date of birth unknown; died 1685. Wife of the foregoing; followed her husband to Canada in order to devote her life to the instruction of the Indians. She learned the Algonquin language, which she taught to the Sulpicians. Jeanne Mance, Sister Bourgeois, and Barbe d Ailleboust, rivals in virtue, have given Canada examples worthy of the great ages of the Church. After the death of her husband, with whom she had lived in continence, in order to fulfill a vow made in early life, she withdrew to the Hôtel-Dieu at Montreal, where she divided her time between prayer and good works. In 1663, with the assistance of the Jesuit Father Chaumonot, she founded the Confraternity of the Holy Family, a devotion which spread all over Canada and did much to preserve good morals. Mgr. de Laval subsequently invited her to Québec, and gave her the general management of this pious confraternity, which was canonically erected 14 March, 1664; and still exists. In 1675, the Bishop had a little book printed in Paris, instructing the members of the confraternity as to the virtues which they should practice, and the rules they should follow (La solide dévotion à la Sainte Famille). He also established the feast of the Holy Family, and caused a mass and office to be drawn up which are proper to the Diocese of Québec. Madame d Ailleboust, who was endowed with great talents, with charms of mind and person, was sought in marriage by the Governor, de Courcelles, and by the Intendant, Talon, but she was faithful to her vow. She died at the Hôtel-Dieu, in Québec, whither she had retired, to which she had given her fortune, and where she is held in veneration.

(3) Charles Joseph d’Ailleboust

Sieur des Musseaux, nephew of the foregoing; b. 1624; d. 1700; came to Canada in 1650, where he commanded the flying column organized to protect the settlements against Iroquois attacks, and was Commandant of Montreal from October, 1651, to September, 1653, during the absence of Maisonneuve, whom he accompanied to France (1653–56). Argenson, the Governor, who had confidence in d Ailleboust’s worth, suggested him to the King as his lieutenant in 1658. He was made civil and criminal judge of Montreal, a position which he held until 1693. A good soldier, a prudent administrator, an upright judge d Ailleboust at his death left, by his marriage with Catherine le Gardeur de Tilly, several children who took service, and distinguished themselves, in the colonial army. They founded the families of d Argenteuil, de Cussy, de Perigny, and de Manthet; names borrowed from Champagne, and still, found in France, near Auxerre (Yonne). The d Ailleboust family was confirmed in its rank of nobility by a decree of the King of France, registered at Québec in 1720. Some of its descendants still live at the village of Caughnawaga, near Montreal.

Histoire de l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec (1761) 267–268: FAILLON, Histoire de la colonie francaise au Canada (1868), III, 52 and 543; DANIEL, Histoire des grandes familles francaises du Canada (1867), 128.

J. EDMOND ROY

Pierre d’Ailly

(PETRUS DE ALLACO).

French theologian and philosopher, bishop and cardinal, born 1350 at Compiègne; died probably 1420 at Avignon. He studied at the College of Navarre, University of Paris. In 1375, by his commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, he furthered the cause of Nominalism in the University of Paris. He received the degree of Doctor of Theology in 1380. At that time he wrote several treatises, in which he maintained, among other doctrines, that bishops and priests hold their jurisdiction from Christ, not from the Pope, that the Pope is inferior to a general council, that neither the Pope nor the council is strictly infallible, but only the universal Church. In 1384 he became director of the College of Navarre; Gerson and Nicholas of Clemanges were among his pupils. He acquired great fame by his sermons, writings, and discussions. The University having censured several propositions of the Dominican John of Monzon, who denied the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, the latter appealed to Clement VII. In behalf of the University, d’Ailly was sent to Avignon as the head of a delegation, and finally (1389) persuaded Clement to maintain the condemnation. The same year d’Ailly was made Chancellor of the University, Confessor of the King, and Treasurer of the Sainte Chapelle. When Benedict XIII succeeded Clement VII at Avignon, d’Ailly’s influence caused him to be recognized at the French court. He was appointed Bishop of Le Puy in 1395, and in 1397 Bishop of Cambrai. He was very active in trying to solve the principal question of the day, the ending of the great schism. He proposed the assembling of a general council—an idea which he had suggested in a sermon as early as 1381—and endeavored to bring the two Popes to resign. On account of Benedict’s hesitations and false promises, d’Ailly withdrew more and more from the Avignon Pope, and when, in 1398, the French King recalled his submission, d’Ailly approved this action. Later, however, he counseled obedience, though only in essential matters, and this course having been accepted by the Council of Paris, he announced it in a sermon in the Church of Notre Dame (1403). At the Council of Aix (Jan., 1409) d’Ailly again advocated the necessity of a general council. The unity of the Church, he claimed, does not depend on the unity of the Pope, but on that of Christ. The Church has a natural and divine right to its unity and self-preservation; hence it can, even without the Pope’s sanction, assemble in a general council. A few months later, in fact, the Council of Pisa was convoked, in which both Popes were deposed, and a third, Alexander V, was elected, thus complicating the difficulty. In 1411 d’Ailly was made cardinal by Alexander’s successor, John XXIII, and assisted at the Council of Rome (1412). In 1414 the Council of Constance was convoked, and was successful in ending the schism by the election of Martin V (1418). D’Ailly took a leading part in the council and presided at its third session (March 26, 1415). He insisted on several principles, some of which had been developed already in his earlier writings. The council, he said, having been duly convoked, could not now be dissolved by any action of the Pope; as its power came from Christ immediately, all the faithful, and the Pope himself, were obliged to submit to its decisions. He favored the method of voting by nations and the extension of the power of voting to the doctors of theology and of canon law, and to the princes and their legates. These were complete departures from the practice of the Church. After the Council of Constance, d’Ailly was appointed by Martin V’s legate at Avignon, where he died.

D’Ailly enjoyed considerable celebrity among his contemporaries, who gave him the titles of Aquila Franciae, et aberrantium a veritate malleus indefessus (The eagle of France and the indefatigable hammer of heretics). If his principles concerning the power in the Church are exaggerated and, in fact, they have been condemned since—they should be considered with reference to the condition of those times when the Church was divided under two heads. In many respects d’Ailly reproduces the theses of Occam and the Nominalists, that the existence of God cannot be strictly demonstrated, that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be established from the Scriptures, that positive law is the only basis of morality, etc. In many instances he shows a tendency to mysticism. His works are numerous (154); some of them have not yet been published. Besides those that have reference to the schism and the reformation of the Church, others treat of Holy Scripture, apologetics, asceticism, theology, philosophy and the sciences. He was a believer in astrology, and in his “Concordance of Astronomy with History” he attempts to show that the dates of the main events of history can be determined by astronomical calculations. In his “Imago mundi” he taught the possibility of reaching the Indies by the West, and in confirmation of his own reasoning he alleged the authority of Aristotle, Pliny, and Seneca. D’Ailly’s views were useful to Columbus and encouraged him in his undertaking. [Cf. La d couverte de 1Am rique et Pierre d’Ailly, by Salembier, in “Revue de Lille,” 1892, V, 622–641.] Columbus had a copy of the “Imago mundi,” on the margin of which he had written many notes with his own hand, and which is still to be seen in the Columbine Library at Seville. In another of Columbus’s books, the “Libro de las profecias,” are to be found many notes taken from d’Ailly’s works on cosmography. Hence Las Casas (Historia de las Indias, vol. I, xi, 89) says that of all “modern” writers d’Ailly exercised the greatest influence on the realization of Columbus’s plans. His dissertation on the reformation of the calendar, composed in 1411, and read at the Council of Constance in March, 1417, was later accepted and completed by Gregory XIII.

SALEMBIER, Petrus de Alliaco (Lille, 1886); ID. in Dict. de th ol. cath. (Paris, 1900); HURTER, Nomenclator, IV, 601 sqq. (Innsbruck, 1899); TSCHACKERT, Peter von Ailli (Gotha, 1877).

C. A. DUBRAY

Mateo Aimerich

A learned philologist, born at Bordil, in Spain, 1715; died at Ferrara, 1799. He entered the Society of Jesus at eighteen, and, having finished his studies, taught philosophy and theology in several colleges of his Order. He was subsequently rector of Barcelona and Cervera, and Chancellor of the University of Gandia. He was at Madrid, supervising the printing of some books, when the decree of the expulsion of the Society from Spain was announced. He went on board ship without a murmur, and thought only of consoling his companions, several of whom were old and infirm. He took up his abode at Ferrara, and it was there, in exile, that he composed the works which have won for him a distinguished place among the philologists and critics of the eighteenth century. What is remarkable about his literary labours was that his only help was the public library, and even that his infirmities often prevented him from consulting. He died, at the age of eighty-four, in sentiments of great piety. Gifted with a fine, judicious mind, he united to his vast erudition the faculty of writing Latin with great eloquence and purity. Besides some works of scholastic philosophy, ascetical works, and discourses, we have from his pen, 1st, “Monina et acta Episcoporum Barcinonencium”; 2d, “Quinti Moderati Censorini de vitâ et morte linguae Paradoxa philologica, criticis nonnullis dissertationibus opposite, asserta, et probata,” of which there were but a few copies printed; the book is consequently very rare; 3d, a defense of the preceding work; 4th, “Specimen veteris romanae literaturae deperditae vel adhuc latentis;” 5th, “Novum Lexicon historicum et criticum antiquae romanae literaturae. This work, which is the sequel to the preceding, was the one which made Aimerich’s reputation. He left also a MS., which was a supplement to his dictionary; and a number of Latin discourses.

Michaud, Biogr. univ.; Guerin, Dictionnaire des dictonaires.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Diocese of Aire

(Abram).

Comprises the territory of the Department of Landes. It was a suffragan of Auch under the old regime, but was not re-established until 1822, when it was again made a suffragan of the re-established Archdiocese of Auch, and was assigned the territory of the former Dioceses of Aire and Acqs (Dax). The first bishop mentioned in history is Marcellus (represented at the Council of Agde 506). Aire, on the river Adour, the home of St. Philibert, numbered among its bishops during the second half of the sixteenth century François de Foix, Count of Candale, an illustrious mathematician, who translated Euclid and founded a chair of mathematics at the University of Bordeaux. The hamlet renowned as the birthplace of St. Vincent de Paul is within the limits of the present Diocese of Aire. In the Gallo-Roman crypt of Mas d’Aire is preserved in a sarcophagus the body of St. Quitteria, daughter of a governor of Gallicia, and martyred, perhaps under Commodus, for her resolution to remain a virgin. The city of Saint-Sever, in the Diocese of Aire. owes its origin to an ancient Benedictine abbey, built in the tenth century by a Duke of Gascony as an act of thanksgiving for a victory over the Northmen, and whose church was dedicated to St. Severus. The beautiful Gothic church of Mimizan is the only survival of a great Benedictine abbey. The church of Carcarés, dating from the year 810, is one of the oldest in France. The Diocese of Aire comprised (end of 1905), 291,586 inhabitants, 28 first class, 293 second class parishes, and 40 vicariates formerly with State subventions. Gallia Chritiana (ed. Nova, 1715), I, 1147–72, and Instrumenta 181–185; DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux de l’ancienne Gaule II, 100; CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894–99), 27.

GEORGES GOYAU

Giacomo Maria Airoli

(Also Ayroli).

A Jesuit Orientalist and Scriptural commentator; born at Genoa, 1660; died in Rome, 27 March, 1721. He was professor of Hebrew in the Roman College, and later succeeded Cardinal Tolomei in the chair of controversy. His knowledge of Hebrew is shown by his Hebrew translation of a homily of Pope Clement XI. He is the author of a number of dissertations on Scriptural subjects, mostly chronological, which were highly thought of. Sommervogel enumerates fourteen, chief among which are:

“Dissertatio Biblica in quâ Scripturæ textus aliquot insigniores, adhibitis linguis hebræa, syriaca, chaldaica, arabica, græca, . . . dilucidantur” (Rome, 1704);

“Liber LXX hebdomadum resignatus, seu in cap. IX Danielis dissertatio” (Rome, 1713), several times reprinted;

“Dissertatio chronologica de anno, mense, et die mortis Domini Nostri Jesus Christi” (Rome, 1718).

A full list of his works is found in SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J. (Paris, 1890), I, 717.

F. BECHTEL

Aisle

(Lat. ala; Old Fr. aile), sometimes written Isle, Yle, and Alley; in architecture one of the lateral or longitudinal divisions of a church, separated from the nave (sometimes called the centre aisle) by rows of piers, pillars, or columns. Sometimes a church has one side-aisle only. Often the aisle is continued around the apse. Occasionally the aisles stop at the transepts. In very large churches transepts may have three aisles. As a rule in Gothic architecture the aisle-roofs are much lower than the nave roof, allowing the admission of light through the clerestory windows, but in most of the Romanesque churches the aisle-roofs are but little lower than that of the nave. The aisle is generally one story, but occasionally there is an upper story, sometimes used as a gallery. As a general rule, churches are divided into three aisles, but there is no fixed rule that governs the number. The cathedrals at Chichester, Milan, and Amiens have five aisles; Antwerp and Paris seven. The most remarkable in this respect, the cathedral of Cordova in Spain, has nineteen. Aisles existed in the Roman basilicas, and in the majority of Christian churches of all periods. Transepts were sometimes called the cross isle or yle. The term is popularly used to describe the passage between pews or seating.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Aistulph

(Also Aistulf, Astulph, Astulf, and Astolph).

King of the Lombards; died 756. He succeeded his brother Ratchis in 749, and set about the conquest of all Italy. After taking from the Greeks the Exarchate of Ravenna he was about to seize the Patrimony of St. Peter when Pope Stephen II (or III—752–57) appealed for aid to Pepin the Short, King of the Franks. Failing to influence the Lombard king by persuasion, Pepin led an army through the passes of the Alps, defeated Aistulph, and besieged him in the city of Pavia (754). A peace was then concluded, Aistulph undertaking to surrender the Exarchate and all other territory conquered by him. But Pepin and his Franks had hardly returned to their own country when Aistulph besieged Rome itself, and laid waste the surrounding territory. A second time responding to the Pontiff’s call, Pepin again besieged Pavia and again overpowered Aistulph. This time Pepin took care to exact substantial guarantees for the fulfilment of Aistulph’s promises; the latter was obliged to pay an indemnity and surrender to his conqueror the town of Comacchio, on the Adriatic, which had not formed part of the Exarchate. Constantine Copronymus, the Byzantine Emperor, asserted that the Exarchate of Ravenna was his by right, and had been violently wrested from him by Aistulph. He demanded its restitution by Pepin. The latter replied that the Exarchate and all other territory rescued from the hands of Aistulph belonged to the victor by right of conquest; he then endowed the Holy See with these territories, his representative, Fulrad, Abbot of St. Denis, formally laying the keys of the fortified places with a deed of gift upon the altar of St. Peter. Aistulph even yet found pretexts to postpone the actual evacuation of some of the theoretically surrendered places, and it is probable that he contemplated another essay of the chances of war. A fall from his horse while hunting (or according to some, a wound received from a wild boar) ended his life before he had time to renew his warlike enterprises. He left no male issue. (See TEMPORAL POWER.)

BARONIUS, Ann. Eccl. ad an. 750, 3–756, 2; Liber Pontif. (ed. DUCHESNE) I; DUCHESNE, Les premiers temps de l’état pontifical (Paris, 1896); HODGKIN, Italy and her Invaders (Oxford, 1896), VI; MANN, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1902).

E. MACPHERSON.

Archdiocese of Aix

(Aquae Sextiae). Full title, the Archdiocese of Aix, Arles, and Embrun.

Includes the districts of Aix and Arles (Department of the Bouches-du-Rhône). Before the Revolution the Archdiocese of Aix had as its suffragans the sees of Apt, Riez, Fréjus, Gap, and Sisteron; the Archdiocese of Embrun, the sees of Digne, Grasse, Vence, Glandève, Senez, and Nice; the Archdiocese of Arles, the sees of Marseille, St. Paul-Trois-Châteaux, Toulon, and Orange. The Archbishoprics of Arles and Embrun do not exist today, and the Archbishopric of Aix has as dependents the sees of Marseille, Fréjus, Digne, Gap, Ajaccio, and Nice. Certain traditions make St. Maximinus the first Bishop of Aix, one of the seventy-two Disciples and the companion of Mary Magdalen in Provence. The Abbé Duchesne seems to have proved that this saint, the object of a very ancient local cult, was not considered the first bishop of Aix, or connected with the life of St. Mary Magdalen, except in very recent legends, devised towards the middle of the eleventh century by the monks of Vezelay. The first historically known bishop of Aix is Lazarus, who occupied this see about the beginning of the fifth century. It was only at the end of the eighth century that Aix became an archbishopric; up to that time it was dependent upon the Bishop of Arles. Arles, which today is not even a bishopric, formerly played a very important ecclesiastical role. Its first incumbent was St. Trophimus, whose episcopate Gregory of Tours places about the year 250. In a letter to Pope Leo, in 450, the bishops of the province of Arles said that Trophimus was sent there by St. Peter. Is the apostolic origin of the episcopate of St. Trophimus authentic, or was it invented to serve the claims of the church of Arles? This is hard to decide, but it is certain that the date given by Gregory of Tours is much too late, as the see of Arles existed before the middle of the third century, and was already flourishing and esteemed in 254 when the Bishop Marcianus was tainted with the Novatian errors. Celebrated names first became connected with the see of Arles in 417 when Pope Zosimus made Bishop Patrocles the metropolitan, not only of the province of Vienne, to which Arles belonged, but of the two provinces of Narbonne; and to prevent the bishops of Gaul from following the custom of appealing to the episcopal see of Milan, Zosimus made Patrocles a kind of intermediary between the episcopate of Gaul and the Apostolic See. Under Pope Boniface, the successor of Zosimus, the Bishops of Narbonne and Vienne were proclaimed metropolitans, and Arles was authorized to keep the southern province of Vienne, the second province of Narbonne, and the Maritime Alps. The church of Arles had then two great bishops at its head, St. Honoratus, founder of the monastery of Lérins (427–429), and St. Hilarius, disciple of St. Honoratus, celebrated as a preacher (429–449), who, after his conflicts with the church of Vienne, had animated disputes with the Pope, St. Leo the Great. Pope Hilary (461–468), intending to confer certain privileges on the Bishopric of Arles, in 474 or 475, reassembled 30 prelates of Gaul against the predestination heresy and increased the importance of the see. With St. Caesarius, Arles (502–542) reached its greatest prosperity; there the Prefect of the Praetorium of Theodoric had his seat, while St. Caesarius represented the Pope with the episcopate of Gaul and Spain, and exercised an indefatigable activity in codifying the canon law of Merovingian Gaul. After Caesarius the superiority of the bishops of Arles was merely nominal; St. Virgilius, monk of Lérins, was made Bishop of Arles in 588, and consecrated the monk St. Augustine, sent to Great Britain by St. Gregory the Great. But after the sixth century there was no longer any question of intermediation; and in the succeeding centuries the metropolitans of Arles and Vienne existed side by side, not without frequent discussion as to the limits of their territory. The creation of the special metropolitans at Aix and at Embrun in 794, at Avignon in 1475, diminished the power of the see of Arles, which was suppressed in 1802. The Blessed Louis Aleman, who played an important part in the councils of the fifteenth century, was Archbishop of Arles from 1423 to 1450.

Among other prelates who brought fame to the see of Aix, must be mentioned Sabran, who was sent to Jerusalem in 1107 by Pascal II, and rounded the see of Bethlehem; Philaster, Alphonse Louis du Plessis de Richelieu (1625–29), and Michel Mazarin (1644–55), nephews of the cardinals of the same name; Monsignor du Lau, killed at the Carmes’ prison in 1792.

The church of Arles honors the memory of the martyr Genesius, public registrar of Arles, at the beginning of the fourth century, who was beheaded for having refused to copy the edict of persecution against the Christians; the church of Aix honors the martyr Mitre. The city of Tarascon has for its patron, St. Martha, who, according to the legend, delivered the country of a monster called “Tarasque.” The church of the “Saintes Maries de la Mer” in the Camargue contains three venerated tombs, which are objects of a pilgrimage; according to a tradition which is attached to the legends concerning the emigration of St. Lazarus, St. Martha, St. Mary Magdalen, and St. Maximinus, these tombs contain the bodies of the three Marys of the Gospel. The principal councils held at Arles were: that of 314, convened by order of Constantine to condemn the Donatists; that of 353, which defended the Arians against St. Athanasius; and that of 1234, which dealt with the Albigensian heresy. A faculty of theology, established at the University of Aix in 1802, was suppressed in 1876. The cathedral of Arles, at first dedicated to the martyr St. Stephen, and in 1152 under the patronage of St. Trophimus, possesses a doorway and Gothic cloister of the most imposing type of beauty. The cemetery of Alyscamps, celebrated in the Middle Ages, contained, up to the end of the thirteenth century, the remains of St. Trophimus, which were finally moved to the cathedral. The ruins of Montmajour, in the suburbs of Arles, perpetuate the memory of a great Benedictine abbey founded in the twelfth century. The cathedral of Aix is a very beautiful edifice of the twelfth century. The Archdiocese of Aix, at the close of the year 1905, had 188, 872 inhabitants, 25 parishes of the first, 106 of the second class and 21 curacies formerly paid by the State.

Gallia Christiana (Nova, 1715), I, 277–344, and instrumenta, 63–70; ALBANES ET CHEVALIER, Gallia Christiana Novissima (Valence, 1901), I; DUCHESNE, Fastes episcopaux de 1ancienne Gaule; VILLEVIEILLE, Nos Saints: la vie et le culte des Saints du diocese. d’Aix (Aix, 1901).

GEORGES GOYAU

Councils of Aix-en-Provence

Councils were held at Aix in 1112, 1374, 1409, 1585, 1612, 1838, and 1850. In that of 1612 the Gallican work of Edmund Richer, “De la puissance ecclésiastique et politique” (Paris, 1611), was censured. In that of 1838 the Fathers requested Gregory XVI to add “Immaculate” to the word “Conception” in the preface of the Mass for that feast of the Blessed Virgin, which he did. In the council of 1850 many modern errors were condemned, rationalism, pantheism, communism, also the arbitrary interpretation of the Scriptures.

HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, 2d ed., V, 322 et al.; Collectio Conc. Lacensis (Freiburg, 1870), IV, 955.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Diocese of Ajaccio

(ADJACENSIS).

Comprises the island of Corsica. It was formerly a suffragan of the Archdiocese of Pisa, but since the French Concordat, has been a suffragan of Aix. The first bishop known to history was Evander, who assisted at the Council of Rome in 313. Before the Revolution Corsica contained five other dioceses: Accia (vacant since 1563); Aleria, an ancient city of the Phocians, whose bishop resided at Corte; Sagone, a vanished city whose bishop resided at Calvi, while the Chapter was at Vico; Marlana, also a vanished city, whose bishop resided at Bastia; and Nebbio. Pius X, when appointing Mgr. Desanti Bishop of Ajaccio (in the summer of 1906), reserved the right of regulating anew the diocesan limits, in virtue of which the Diocese of Bastia may be restored. The Byzantine ruins at Mariana perpetuate the memory of the church built by the Pisans in the twelfth century. There is a legend to the effect that the bishops banished from Africa to Corsica in 484 by Hunneric, King of the Vandals, built with their own hands the primitive cathedral of Ajaccio. The present cathedral, dating from the end of the sixteenth century, owes its construction to the initiative of Gregory XIII, who while still Ugo Buoncompagni, spent some time at Ajaccio as papal legate. The see was left vacant for five years, during which time the diocesan revenues were applied to the building of the cathedral. It was finished by Bishop Giustiniani after his nomination. Services are held according to the Greek rite in the village of Cargese, founded (1676) by the descendants of Stephen Comnenus, whom the Turks had expelled from the Peloponnesus. The Diocese of Ajaccio contained (end of 1905) 295, 589 inhabitants, 70 first class, 351 second class parishes, and 91 vicariates formerly with State subventions.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1861), XVI, 272–404; ARMAN, Notre Dame d Ajaccio (Ajaccio, 1844); Ajaccio, in Cornhill Magazine (1868), XVIII, 496; Eclectic Magazine (1868), LXXI, 1513; ARDOUIN-DUMAZET, La Corse (Paris, 1898); CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894–99), 33.

GEORGES GOYAU

Akhmin

A city of Upper Egypt, situated on the banks of the Nile. Of late years it has attained great importance, on account of the discoveries made in its cemeteries. The hill of Akhmin, some two miles long, is filled with human remains piled up in pits which contain as many as eight or ten small chambers, one above the other, with a dozen coffins in each. There are also caves containing mummies crowded together in the common ditch. Heathens and Christians are heaped together in such a fashion as to make it frequently impossible to say whether the owner of the little articles found near a body was a heathen, a Christian, or a member of some heretical sect, since we know Eutychianism had become the religion of almost the whole Coptic nation, from the fifth century onward.

The city is chiefly famous for its papyri and for its tapestries. Among the former, the fragments known as the “Gospel of Peter,” the “Apocalypse of Peter,” and the “Book of Henoch” hold the first place, but need not be discussed here. The tapestries, however, have furnished material of primary importance to the history of textile handicrafts in ancient times. A few pieces, of uncertain date, were to be found in various European museums. The excavations at Akhmin and the copies made by R. Forrer have now supplied us with a quantity of materials in excellent preservation and of the greatest possible variety. The style of these Akhmin tapestries is sometimes original, but in a great many instances it approximates the decorative type of Roman or Eastern art. The older ones are far superior to the others in design, especially in their treatment of the human figure. The growing want of skill in this regard enables us to trace, step by step, the progress of decadence. These most ancient tapestries are in two colors, yellow and pale brown. With the introduction of polychromy, ornament and animal decoration take the place of human figures. Even this animal decoration is often so angular, so poorly rendered, as to end in outlines resembling geometrical designs.

The discoveries at Akhmin have not been confined to tapestries, though these are of the greatest importance to the history of the industrial arts. Forrer has brought to light ampullae of terracotta, clay, and bronze, also jewels and toilet articles of gold or ivory. The discoveries have, however, revealed but few symbolisms not previously known. One tapestry, indeed, shows the Lamb of God, bearing the little banner, which is probably the most ancient example of this still familiar symbolism.

LECLERCQ, in Dict. d’archéol. chrét. et de liturgie, I, 1042–53; GERSPACH, Les tapisseries coptes (Paris, 1890); FORRER, Die Grüber und Textilfunde von Achmin Tanopolis (Strasburg, 1891); FORRER, Die Textilien von Achmin und ihr Verh ltniss zu den Katakombenmalereien, in Die frühchristleichen Alterthümer aus dem Gräberfelde von Achmin Tanopolis (Strasburg, 1893).

H. LECLERCQ

Michael and Nicetas Akominatos

Michael (d. 1215) and Nicetas (d. 1206); also known as Choniates, from their native city, Chonia (the Colossae of St. Paul).

Two famous Greeks of the later Byzantine period. While studying at Constantinople by their father’s wish, Michael acted as tutor to his younger brother Nicetas. Michael became a priest; Nicetas studied history and jurisprudence, in addition to theology, and rose to high honors in the imperial service. As governor of the province of Philippopolis, he witnessed the passage of the Third Crusade under Frederick Barbarossa, in 1189, a march which entailed great hardships and sufferings on the whole Eastern Empire, and which Walter Scott has dealt with, incidentally, in his “Count Robert of Paris.” Michael, who, by his brother’s influence, had been made Archbishop of Athens in 1175, had a similar experience of “Latin” aggressions, and was even forced to retire to the island of Chios. Nicetas, with his family, fled from Constantinople to Nicaea, where he died. Nicetas is the author of several important works concerning Byzantine theology and history. His “Treasure of Orthodoxy” (Thesauros Orthodoxias) is a historical and polemical work against all anti-Christian heresies, valuable among other reasons for the treatment of contemporary errors, and in a way supplementary to the famous “Armory of Doctrine” (Panoplia Logmatike) of Euthymios Zigabenos. It is also prized for its quotations from the synods of his time and for the fragments it has saved from lost Monophysite and other heretical writings. It has never been printed in its entirety; some portions of it are reprinted from earlier editions in Migne (P.G., CXXXIX, 1101–1444; CXL, 9–281). The work was written probably between 1204 and 1210. His fame as an historian of medieval Constantinople rests on his description in twenty-two books of the period from 1180 to 1206; it is practically an account of the fateful reigns of the last of the Comneni especially the vicissitudes of the royal city during the Fourth Crusade (1204); its siege, capture, and pillage by the Latin Christians (P.G., CXXXIX, 287–1088). Krumbacher vouches for his generally objective temper and equitable treatment of persons and events. The style is bombastic and overladen with rhetorical ornament. His little treatise on the statues destroyed by the Latin “barbarians” (De Signis, P.G., CXXXIX, 287) is highly prized by students of classical antiquities. Michael, of whom Krumbacher says (p. 469) that his tenure of the see of Athens was equivalent to a ray of light amid the obscurity of ages, was a meritorious orator, pastoral writer, poet, and correspondent. His discourses cast a sad light on the wretched conditions of contemporary Attica, as does his iambic elegy “On the City of Athens,” described as “the first and only surviving lamentation for the decay and ruin of the ancient and illustrious city.” Of his letters 180 have reached us. His character is described as energetic, but gentle and upright. He was too much a Byzantine to denounce the imperial authority in the person of the cruel Andronicus, while that monster lived; but after his death, says Krumbacher, he could not find words enough to depict his iniquities. Many of his writings are in Migne (P.G., CXL, 298–384; 124–1258). The best edition of his works is that of Spiridion Lambros (Athens, 1879–80).

KRUMBACHER, Gesch. d. byzant. Litteratur (2d ed., Munich, 1897), 92 sqq., 281 sqq., 468 sqq.; CARL NEUMANN, Griech. Geschichtschreiber, etc. (Leipzig, 1888); WILKEN, Gesch. der Kreuzz ge V (Leipzig, 1829; for the treatise on the statues). The History of Nicetas was edited by BEKKER for the Corpus Script. Byzant. (Bonn, 1835). The portions relating to the Crusades are found in MILLER, Recueil des historiens grecs des croisades (Paris, 1875). For a comparison between Nicetas and the French “Herodotus of the Crusades,” Geoffroy de Villehardouin, see SAINTS BEUVE, Causeries du Lundi (Paris, 1854), IX, 305–40; see also TAFEL, Komnenen und Normannen (1852).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Alabama

The twenty-second State admitted into the Federal Union of America. It lies north of the Gulf of Mexico, and is known as one of the Gulf, or South Central, States. It is bounded north by Tennessee, east by Georgia, south by the Gulf and by Florida, and west by Mississippi. It lies between the parallels of 30°15’ and 35° north latitude, and the meridians of 84°56’ and 88°48’ west of Greenwich. From north to south it is 336 miles; and east to west, from 148 to 200 miles. It has an area of 52,250 square miles, of which 710 is water surface and 51,540 land surface. Its area in acres is 33,440,000. It has about 2,000 miles of navigable rivers, and Mobile is its only seaport. The State may be roughly divided into the Tennessee Valley on the north, highly productive of corn, cotton, cereals, and fruits; the mineral region; the cotton belt; the timber and the coast regions. The vegetation in the north belongs to the temperate zone, while in the south it is semi-tropical. Fine hardwood, as well as ordinary timber, are to be found well distributed over the entire State. The climate of the State is equable, and the extremes of heat and cold are rarely experienced. Animals and birds, usual in the West and Southwest, are to be found. The streams abound in fish of almost every Variety. The principal crop is cotton, the yield in 1905 being 1,249,685 bales, giving the State the third position in cotton production. Corn, wheat, oats, hay, and all other farm and garden products are profitably grown in considerable quantities. Alabama has, in the last quarter of a century, taken very high rank as a mineral State. The following are the statistics for 1905: iron ore, 3,782,831 tons; coal, 11,900,153 tons; coke, 2,756,698 tons; pig iron, 1,604,062 tons. In addition to the items just named, clay, bauxite, cement, graphite, marble, sulphur, and pyrites, silver and gold are mined in paying quantities. The growth of the mineral interests has quickened the laying out of cities, the multiplication of railroad lines, and the development of manufactures. In 1905 there were in the State 1,882 manufacturing establishments with a capital of $105,382,859, employing 3,763 officials, and 62,173 wage earners, and turning out a product valued at $109,169,922. The eleven leading industries in 1905 were: car construction, 16 plants; coke, 24; cotton goods, 46; fertilizers, 19; foundry and machine shops, 78; blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills, 29; lumber and timber products, 590; lumber-planing-mill products, 67; oil, cotton, and coke, 58; printing and publishing, 241; and turpentine and rosin, 144. The following are the statistics of railroad mileage, 1905: 4,227.70 miles of main track; 1,317.36 miles of side track; total value of main line, side track, and rolling stock, $53,706,025.93. The public debt of the State is $9,057,000. The State tax rate cannot exceed sixty-five cents per annum on the hundred dollars.

HISTORY

The territory now included in the State was for hundreds of years the home in part of the Creek, Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw Indian tribes. It is not possible to place any approximate limit to their occupation, and their early history is involved in obscurity. Certain it is that the aboriginal inhabitants, first encountered by European explorers in this region, were the direct ancestors of the tribes named. In the early years of the sixteenth century daring sailors doubtless touched the shores of Mobile Bay; and survivors of the ill-fated Narvaez expedition are believed to have passed across the lower part of the State. In 1540 De Soto traversed the State, entering near Rome, Ca., and passing out not far from Columbus, Miss. On the 18 of October of that year he fought the great battle of Mauvila, the most sanguinary of Indian conflicts on the American Continent. He made no settlements, and his expedition was of no value further than for the record left by his chroniclers concerning the Southern Indians. In 1560 a Spanish colony was located at Nanipacna, believed to be in the present Wilcox county, Ala., but it was short-lived and no details are preserved. A century and a half pass, and a dark veil of obscurity covers the land. In 1697, or 1698, three Englishmen, coming overland from the Carolinas, descended the Alabama River to the village of the Mobilians on the Mobile River. La Salle had in the meantime (1682) taken formal possession of the Mississippi, and named the country Louisiana. Entering the Gulf of Mexico in 1699, Iberville explored the southern coast of what is now the United States, and made temporary settlement at Old Biloxi, near the present Ocean Springs, Miss. In January, 1702, he transferred his colony to 27-Mile Bluff, Mobile River, in the limits of what is now Alabama, and gave it the name of Fort Louis. This was the first attempt at a permanent settlement on the Gulf Coast, and was the site of Old Mobile. It is an interesting fact that in 1707 a number of the colonists went down to Dauphin Island, where they settled and planted small crops, thus becoming the first farmers in this territory. In 1711, the site of Fort Louis proving unsatisfactory, the whole colony Was removed to the present Mobile, and this town was, until 1720, the residence of the governors and the capital of the Province of Louisiana. In 1714, Fort Toulouse, at the confluence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers, was planted as a remote outpost for Indian trade and as a buffer to the English advance from the South Atlantic settlements; in 1721 the first African slaves were landed at Mobile; in 1736, Fort Tombeckbé was built on the Tombigbee River in the heart of the Choctaw country, to keep that tribe under French control; on 18 February, 1763, France ceded all her possessions east of the Mississippi, excepting the Island of Orleans, to Great Britain; by treaty of 30 November, 1782, marking the close of the contest of the colonies with the mother country, Great Britain ceded to them all her claims north of latitude 31; and on 27 October, 1795, Spain relinquished to the United States her claims to West Florida, south of line 31 . Mississippi Territory was created by Act of Congress, 7 April, 1798, and under this and subsequent Acts of enlargement the present States of Alabama and Mississippi constituted one Territory until 1817. The Creek Indian War of 1813 and 1814, fought largely in Alabama, and which started General Andrew Jackson on his long public career, temporarily retarded the growth of the Territory. On 1 March, 1817, Alabama Territory was formed, and after the adoption of a constitution under an Enabling Act of 2 March, 1819, the State was, 14 December, formally admitted into the Federal Union. St. Stephens was the seat of government for the Territory. Cahaba was selected as the capital in 1818; Tuscaloosa, 1826; and Montgomery, 1846. In 1825 General Lafayette, on his last tour through the United States, visited several towns in Alabama. In the thirties the State University was opened, the terms of the judges were fixed for six years, the first railroad track west of the Alleghany Mountains was laid from Tuscumbia in the direction of Decatur, the Indians were removed to the West, a financial panic fell heavily upon the people, a State penitentiary was provided by law, and imprisonment for debt, except in cases of fraud, was abolished. To the struggles of the heroic Texans Alabama contributed a number of brave sons; and to the Mexican War she gave 3,026 volunteers.

Under the leadership of William Lowndes Yancey, Alabama had early taken a most advanced position in opposition to the Abolition sentiment and agitation of the North, and in 1860 the Legislature provided for a convention, in case of the election of Lincoln, to do whatever in the opinion of said convention, the rights, interests and honor of the State of Alabama require to be done for their protection . The convention met 7 January, 1861, and on 11 January passed an Ordinance of Secession by a vote of 61 to 39. After its passage the members of Congress from Alabama withdrew in a body. On 4 February, 1861, in the Senate Chamber of the State capitol at Montgomery, the delegates from six seceding States, including Alabama, met and formed the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America. On 15 April, 1861, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, issued a formal proclamation of war, and at once the brave and patriotic people of the State rallied to her defense. The Tennessee Valley was the theater of numberless raids, and the people suffered many indignities at the hands of the Federals. The forts below Mobile, although strongly defended, were taken in 1864, and the town was taken 1865. The University buildings were wantonly burned in 1865, by an invading force under General Croxton. Selma and Montgomery were taken in 1865. Alabama contributed to the war from 1861 to 1865 more than 100,000 men, out of a total white population, in 1860, of 526,271. There was no important battle east of the Mississippi River in which her troops did not perform an honorable part. Among the general officers credited to Alabama were Longstreet, Gordon, Withers, Forney, Rodes, Clayton, Allen, Pettus, Morgan, Gracie, Battle, Sanders, Kelly, and Gorgas. Admiral Semmes and the gallant John Pelham were on the Confederate rolls as from Alabama. On 21 June, 1865, by the appointment of Lewis E. Parsons as Provisional Governor, civil government was in a measure set in motion, but it was almost ten years before the people of the State finally entered upon a normal and healthy growth. The period from 1865 to 1874, known as the Reconstruction Era, was one continuous series of sickening experiences in social, business, and political life, and as a legacy a debt of many millions was fixed upon the people. Constitutional conventions have been held in 1819, 1861, 1865, 1867, 1875, and 1901.

POPULATION

As previously stated, Mobile and vicinity were the first settled portions of the State. The inhabitants were largely French. For about one hundred years the interior had only an isolated settlement here and there. In 1800, population had so increased on the Tombigbee that the settlements were formed into Washington county. About 1805 the Tennessee Valley; in the vicinity of Huntsville, received its first settler, and in 1808 Madison county was created. After the Creek War, or about 1815, settlers in large numbers rushed in from the South Atlantic seaboard, consisting principally of American pioneers of British origin. The Spanish came to Mobile in considerable numbers from 1780 to 1811 and the Gulf city today is the only community in the State in which there is any very large infusion of the Latin races. The territory embraced in the State is said to have been settled more rapidly than any other section of the United States, and in 1819 passed from territorial pupil age. In 1800 Washington county, then in the Mississippi Territory, had a population of 1,250; in 1810 the counties of Baldwin, Madison, and Washington, also in the Mississippi Territory, had 9,046. In 1820 the population of the State at the first census was 127,901. In 1900 the population was 1,828,697, or more than fourteen times that of 1820. From 1820 to 1830 the population increased 142 per cent, and from 1830 to 1840, 90.9 per cent, but subsequently the rate of increase declined until the decade from 1860 to 1870, when it was only 3.4 per cent. The rate of increase of 1900 over 1890 is 20.9 per cent. The total land surface of the State is approximately 51,540 square miles, and the average number of persons to the square mile was, for 1890, 29.4; for 1900, 35.5. Detailed population statistics are as follows: 1820, white 85,451, colored (including slaves and free Negroes) 42,450, total 127,901; 1830, white 190,406, colored 119,121, total 309,527; 1840, white 335,185, colored 255,571, total 590,756; 1850, white 426,514, colored 345,109, total 771,623; 1860, white 526,271, colored 437,770, total 964,041; 1870, white 521,384, colored 475,510, all others 98, total 996,992; 1880, white 662,185, colored 600,103, all others 217, total 1,262,505; 1890, white 830,796, colored 681,431, all others 790, total 1,513,017; 1900, white 1,001,152, colored 827,307, all others 238, total 1,828,697. The estimated population of Alabama on 31 December, 1905, was 2,017,877, and the estimated population of the following cities, same date, is as follows: Anniston, 10,919; Birmingham, 45,869; Huntsville, 8,110; Mobile, 42,903; Montgomery, 40,808; and Selma, 12,047.

EDUCATION

During the territorial period, or prior to 1819, educational advantages were limited to a few private schools and academies. The Congressional Enabling Act granted seventy-two sections of land “for the use of a seminary of learning,” and all 16th sections, or an equivalent, “to the inhabitants for the use of schools.” The constitution of 1819 provided that “schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.” In the execution of this mandate the Legislature passed a number of Acts regulating (1) the State University and its land grant, (2) the incorporation and regulation of academies, and (3) the management and preservation of the 16th section funds. On 10 January, 1826, the schools of Mobile county were regulated by an Act, through which they were organized in a more or less effective way, but it was not until 15 February, 1854, that “a system of free public schools” was adopted for the State. The State University was incorporated 18 December, 1821, and on 18 April, 1831, it opened its doors for students. The University and well-conducted academies in all parts of the State afforded the principal means for education prior to the Public-school Act of 1854, and even for many years after its passage. The higher education of women received much attention, and in Alabama was located the first chartered institution to grant diplomas to women. The last quarter of a century has witnessed a remarkable increase of interest in education, and at present (1905) about one-half of the State’s revenues go into support of the public or common schools and the higher institutions of learning. The State University, the head of the system, is located at Tuscaloosa; the Alabama Polytechnic Institute (agricultural and mechanical) established in 1872, is located at Auburn; the Alabama Girls’ Industrial School, at Montevallo; four normal colleges, for white pupils, at Florence, Troy, Jacksonville, and Livingston; three normal schools, for Negro pupils, at Montgomery, Tuskegee, and Normal, and nine agricultural schools and experiment stations at Jackson, Evergreen, Abbeville, Sylacauga, Wetumpka, Hamilton, Albertville, Athens, and Blountsville. The common schools are directed by a State superintendent of education, and the local machinery consists of county boards and district trustees. There are fifty separate school districts, self-governing or regulated by special Acts, as Montgomery, Birmingham, etc. Separate State institutions for both white and Negro deaf, dumb, and blind are located at Talladega. A Reform School for white boys is conducted at East Lake. A separate agricultural experiment station is maintained at Uniontown. Expenditures have been made by the State for educational purposes for the fiscal year ending 30 September, 1906, as follows: public, or common, school system, $1,215,115.92; Alabama Polytechnic Institute, $20,280.00; University of Alabama, $27,000.00; Deaf, Dumb, and Blind institutions, $71,322.50; Alabama Girls’ Industrial School, $25,000.00; Alabama Industrial School for White Boys, $8,000.00.

In addition to the institutions maintained from the public treasury, there are the following higher institutions supported and controlled by religious denominations: Spring Hill College, near Mobile; St. Bernard College, Cullman; McGill Institute, Mobile; St. Joseph’s College for Negro Catechists, Montgomery (Catholic); Southern University, Greensboro; North Alabama Conference College, Birmingham; Athens Female College, Athens; and Alabama Conference Female College, Tuskegee (Methodist Episcopal Church, South); Howard College, East Lake; and Judson Female College, Marion (Baptist); Noble Institute, Anniston (Protestant Episcopal); Synodical College for Men, Anniston, and Isbell College, Talladega (Presbyterian). Several institutions of high grade are conducted as private enterprises, notably the Marion Military Institute. Colleges of medicine and pharmacy are located in Birmingham and Mobile; and a school of dentistry at Birmingham. Theological courses are offered at Howard College (Baptist); schools of music and art, and business colleges are in operation in Birmingham, Montgomery, and Mobile. A law department is maintained at the State University.

Co-education obtains in all State institutions, except in the Alabama Girls’ Industrial School and the Livingston State Normal School, There are several schools for the higher education of Negroes in addition to the three normal schools above noted, namely: Talladega College, Talladega; Alabama Baptist Normal and Theological School, Selma; Academic and Industrial Institute, Kowaliga; Calhoun Colored School, Calhoun; and Normal Industrial Institute, Snow Hill. The Theological School at Selma, as the name implies, has a theological department; the Stillman Institute is conducted under the auspices of the Presbyterian Church (white) for the education of Negro preachers, and St. Joseph’s College, at Montgomery, is a Catholic institution for the training of Negro catechists.

RELIGION

The Catholic Church

The Catholic Church on the Alabama Gulf Coast dates from the coming of Iberville’s colony in 1699. He was accompanied by Father Anastase Douay, who had once been an explorer with La Salle Catholic missionaries were abroad in the Mississippi Valley prior to this date, and Biloxi had hardly been located when Father Antony Davion made his appearance. He and Father Dougé ministered to the spiritual wants of the colonists until 1704, and even after, but in this year came the induction, by Davion, of De La Vente as priest of a church formally set up at Fort Louis. This step was taken in consequence of the erection of Mobile into a canonical parish by the Bishop of Québec. From this time on the Church has a continuous history in Mobile. La Vente alternated with Alexander Huvé, his assistant, until 1710, while the later continued to about 1722. Father Jean Mattheu, of the Capuchin Order, officiated at Mobile, 1721 to 1736; while Father Jean Fran ois and Father Ferdinand, also Capuchins, as well as Jesuits, were here from 1736 to 1763. From time to time numbers of other names appear as officiating priests. The quaint manuscript records, showing births, deaths, marriages, and baptisms, are preserved in the church archives at Mobile. Excellent summaries and details from these records are to be found in Peter J. Hamilton’s “Colonial Mobile” (1897). After the occupation of Mobile by the Spanish, in 1780, and the expulsion of the British, the church was called the Immaculate Conception, a name it has since borne. After American occupation, in 1812, for a number of years no substantial advance was made, and in 1825, when Bishop Portier entered upon his office, the church in Mobile was the only one in Alabama, and he was the only priest. The church building was burned in 1827.

The early priests were zealous missionaries, and with consecrated zeal they labored to bring the untutored child of the forest into the fold of the Church. Father Davion, above mentioned, was first a missionary to the Tunicas. In 1709 churches were erected at Dauphin Island, and also ten miles above Mobile for a band of Apalache Indians, who had been earlier converted by Spanish missionaries. Father Charles, a Carmelite, was a missionary among them in 1721. There were missions at Fort Toulouse and Fort Tombecbé, and also at Chickasawhay. Father Michael Baudouin was for eighteen years among the Choctaws. These missions were largely abandoned after 1763, owing to British occupation. Until 1722 the parish of Mobile was a part of the Diocese of Qu bec. In this year, with the subdivision of the southern country for administrative purposes by Law’s Company, there was a parcelling out, or assignment, of the divisions to the different orders of the Church. The Illinois country went to the Jesuits; New Orleans and west of the Mississippi to the Capuchins, and the Mobile district to the Barefoot Carmelites. In a very short time a change was made, and Mobile was given over to the Capuchins. During Spanish occupation Mobile was in the Diocese of Santiago de Cuba. Later the northern part of the territory now embraced in the State was under the Archbishop of Baltimore, while the southern was under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Louisiana and Florida. In 1825 the Vicariate-Apostolic of Alabama and Florida was created, and the Reverend Michael Portier was appointed bishop. He was consecrated 5 November, 1826. On 15 May, 1829, the Diocese of Mobile was created, embracing in its bounds West Florida and all of Alabama. Bishop Portier was continued in his office, and served until his death, in 1859. His successors in order were John Quinlan (1859–1883); Dominic Manucy (1883–1885); and Jeremiah O’Sullivan (1885–1897). These men possessed marked ability and were positive and uplifting forces in the life of the State. The incumbent bishop is the Right Reverend Edward P. Allen (1897). During the life of the Church in the State it has been served, in Mobile and at other points, by many priests of deep piety and extensive learning, and men who have contributed their part as well in shaping the growth of the commonwealth in high civic ideals. In addition to the above-named clergy, the following prominent members of the Catholic Church in Alabama should be noted: Father Abram J. Ryan, poet-priest; Margaret O’Brien Davis, author; Lucian Julian Walker, journalist and author; Raphael Semmes, Admiral in the Confederate States Navy; S.A.M. Wood and Alpheus Baker, Brigadier-Generals, C.S.A.; R.M. Sands and D.S. Troy, Lieutenant-Colonel, C.S.A.; Wm. R. Smith, poet, historian, lawyer, political leader, and Colonel C.S.A; Frank P. O’Brien, political leader and journalist. Arthur and Felix McGill are the names of the founders and patrons of McGill Institute at Mobile. The Catholic population of the State at the present writing is 28,397.

In educational and benevolent enterprises the Catholic Church of Alabama has an enviable record. Institutions devoted to charity and education under its direction are as follows: Spring Hill College, St. Bernard College, Academy of the Visitation, and McGill Institute, at Mobile; St. Vincent’s Hospital, at Birmingham; Providence Infirmary, at Mobile; and St. Margaret s Hospital, at Montgomery. Convents and schools are conducted in Montgomery and Birmingham by the Sisters of Loretto, in Selma by the Sisters of the Sacred Heart, in Cullman by the Sisters of Notre Dame, and in Tuscumbia by the Sisters of St. Benedict. An asylum for boys is conducted at Mobile by the Brothers of the Sacred Heart; and for girls by the Sisters of Charity, of Emmittsburg, Md. St. Joseph’s College for Negro catechists is located near Montgomery. A Catholic newspaper, The Messenger, is published in the same city.

Protestant and other religious efforts

From the very first arrival of American emigrants the Protestant denominations were represented, but it was not until 1808 that formal organization of congregations took place. They entered the field that year most probably in the following order: Methodist, Cumberland Presbyterian, and Baptist. However, in the territorial period the struggle for existence on the part of settlers was so intense that no very general progress was made until the first decade of statehood. From 1819 to 1832 they entered upon a real healthy growth and expansion. A higher state of intellectual cultivation existed among the preachers. Regular houses of worship took the places of the makeshifts of private houses, the county courthouse, and the open air. The camp-meeting grew to be a most potent factor in awakening religious interest, and in advancing the cause of the churches. In October, 1823, the Baptist State Convention was organized. On 1 March, 1821, the Presbytery of Alabama, was formed, and in 1834 the Synod of Alabama was set off from the Mississippi Synod. From its introduction into the State, in 1808, to 1832 the Methodist Church had at various times been in part under the South Carolina, the Tennessee, the Mississippi, and the Georgia Conferences. In the latter year the Alabama Conference was organized. The Methodist Protestant Church was organized in Alabama in 1829. While there were numbers of individual Episcopalians in the State from the date of the occupation of its territory by Great Britain, it was not until 1825 that, in Mobile, its first Episcopal church was organized, but it had no minister until December, 1827. A Primary Convention was held 25 January, 1830, and an organization effected. According to the most reliable information, the Southern Baptists in Alabama number 150,945; the Methodist Episcopalians, 133,000; the Southern Presbyterians, 15,020. The following denominations are also represented in the State: Unitarians, Congregationalists, Universalists, Christian Scientists, Lutherans, Salvation Army, and Campbellites. Nearly all denominations are well represented among the colored population, which also has several religious organizations of its own. The Jews have strong congregations in all of the leading towns. Sectarian schools have already been noted under the head of education. Orphan asylums and other benevolences are conducted by the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and the Salvation Army.

State laws on subjects directly affecting religion

Under the Constitution of 1901, which practically followed earlier instruments, it is provided (Section 2): “That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship, nor to pay any tithes, taxes or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State; and that the civil rights, privileges and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.” In the courts testimony is required to be given under oath or affirmation. No search warrant can issue unless supported by oath. All executive, legislative, and judicial officers are required to take an oath to support the Constitutions of the United States, and of the State, and to faithfully discharge the duties of the office. By statute the word “oath” includes “affirmation.” (See 71 Ala. Reports, 319, for discussion of nature and character of an oath.) The observance of Sunday is not directly enjoined, but the sanctity of the day is recognized in the prohibition against the working of a child, apprentice, or servant, except in “the customary domestic duties of daily necessity or comfort, or works of Charity,” also in the prohibition against shooting, hunting, gaming, card-playing, or racing, or keeping open store or market (except by druggists) on that day. It is to be observed that these provisions “do not apply to the running of railroads, stages, or steamboats, or other vessels navigating the waters of this State, or any manufacturing establishment which requires to be kept in constant operation.” There is no statute against blasphemy or profanity, as such, these subjects being regulated as at Common law. There is no constitutional or statutory provision requiring the use of prayer in the State Senate and House of Representatives, but it has always been customary for each body to provide for such a service to be held at the opening of the day’s session. Usually the clergymen of the capital city, without discrimination, are asked to alternate. Among other holidays, Sunday, Christmas, and Good Friday, are set apart by statute for public observance. Laws on subjects affecting religious work. Members of any church or religious society, or the owners of a graveyard, may become incorporated by complying with a liberal statute on the subject, and may hold real and personal property not to exceed $50,000 in value. The property of institutions devoted exclusively to religious, educational, or charitable purposes is exempt from taxation to a limited, yet liberal, extent. Ministers in charge of churches are exempt from jury duty. Military service is voluntary. Marriage between whites and Negroes is prohibited. Legislative divorce is not allowed under the constitution. With certain limitations the following are the statutory grounds for divorce: physical and incurable incapacity, adultery, voluntary abandonment, imprisonment in the penitentiary, the commission of the crime against nature, habitual drunkenness, and cruelty. The Constitution prohibits the appropriation of public school funds in support of any sectarian or denominational school. Liberal charters of incorporation are allowed to charitable institutions, and their property is exempt from taxation as above, but no public funds can be appropriated to any charitable institution “not under the absolute control of the State.” Cemeteries are not subject to taxation. The sale of liquors is regulated by State, county, and municipal license. Special prohibition laws, local dispensaries, and local option laws are in operation in various parts of the State. A State penitentiary is maintained. State and county convicts, under general or local regulations are worked in the mines, in lumber camps, on the public roads, on farms, and in factories. A reform school for white boys is conducted by the State at East Lake. Insane hospitals, for the whites at Tuscaloosa, and for the Negroes at Mt. Vernon, are generously supported by the State. Liberal regulations obtain on the subjects of wills of real and personal property, limited to soundness of mind, and to persons of twenty-one years, in the case of realty, and eighteen years, in the case of personality. Devises may be made to any person or corporation capable by law of holding real estate. The Supreme Court has held that a bequest to “the Baptist Societies for Foreign and Domestic Missions and the American and Foreign Bible Society,” is valid; also one to “Pilgrim’s Rest Association,” and also one for the erection of monuments to certain named persons. But in the case of Festorazzi vs. St. Joseph’s Church (104 Ala., 327), it was held that a bequest to a church to be expended in saying Mass for the repose of the testator’s soul is invalid, because the church might apply the fund to other uses, and thus defeat the testator’s intent.

Alabama Historical Society, Transactions (1898–1904) and Miscellaneous Collections (1901); BERNEY, Handbook of Alabama (1892); BREWER, Alabama (1872); BROWN, History of Alabama for Schools (1900); JOEL C. DU BOSE, Sketches of Alabama History (1901); JOHN W. DU BOSE, Life and Times of Wm. L. Yancey (1892); FLEMING, Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama (1905); GARRETT, Public Men in Alabama (1872); HALBERT AND T. H. BALL, Creek War of 1813 and 1814 (1893); HAMILTON, Colonial Mobile (1897); HODGSON, Cradle of the Confederacy (1876); McCORVEY, Government of the People of Alabama (1895); MILLER, History of Alabama (1901); MONETTE, History of the Valley of the Mississippi (1848); OWEN, Bibliography of Alabama (1898); PICKETT, History of Alabama, ed. by OWEN (1900); RILEY, History of the Baptists of Alabama (1895); SHEA, Catholic Missions (1854), and History of the Catholic Church within the United States (1886–92); WEST, History of Methodism in Alabama (1898); WHITAKER, History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Alabama (1898).

THOMAS M. OWEN

Alabanda

A titular see of Caria in Asia Minor, supposed to be the present Arab-Hissar. A list of its bishops is known from 451 to 879. In antiquity its inhabitants were noted for their habits of luxury. It was the seat of a district court in imperial times and a very flourishing town.

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Rom. Geogr., I, 81; LEQUIEN, Oriens Christianus (1740), I, 91

Alabaster

(Greek alabastros, -on; Latin alabaster, -trum; of uncertain origin).

The substance commonly known as alabaster is a fine-grained variety of gypsum (calcium sulphate) much used for vases and other ornamental articles. Oriental alabaster, the alabastrites of the classical writers, is a translucent marble (calcium carbonate) obtained from stalagmitic deposits; because of its usually banded structure, which gives it some resemblance to onyx, it is also called onyx marble, or simply, though incorrectly, onyx. From remote times it was highly esteemed for decorative purposes. Among the ancients Oriental alabaster was frequently used for vases to hold unguents, in the belief that it preserved them; whence the vases were called alabasters, even when made of other materials. Such was the “alabastrum unguenti” (Matt., xxvi, 7; Mark, xiv, 3, Luke, vii, 37), with which the sinful woman anointed the Saviour. The vase, however, though probably of alabaster, was not necessarily of that material, as our English translation “alabaster box of ointments” seems to imply.

THOMAS in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, I, 330.

F. BECHTEL

Diocese of Alagoas

A South American diocese, in eastern Brazil, dependent on Bahia. By a decree of Leo XIII, Postremis hisce temporibus, 2 July, 1900, it was separated from the Diocese of Olinda. It comprises the State of Alagoas, bounded by Pernambuco on the north and northwest, the Atlantic on the southeast, and Sergipe on the southwest. Area, 22,583 square miles. Population (1890), 648,009. Monsignor Castilho de Brandao, the first bishop, who resides at Maceio, the capital, a town of 12,000 inhabitants, was consecrated at Belem de Para, 7 Sept., 1894, and transferred to this see, 5 June, 1901.

BATTANDIER, Ann. Pontif. Cath., 1906.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Pietro Alagona

Theologian, born at Syracuse, 1549; died in Rome, 19 October, 1624. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1564, taught philosophy and theology, and was Rector of Trapani. His first works were published under the family name of his mother, Givarra. Later on he used his own name, Alagona, and is best known for his Compendium of the works of Martin Aspilcueta, who was a doctor of theology in Navarre. This Martin Aspilcueta was the uncle of St. Francis Xavier. The “Enchiridion, seu Manuale Confessariorum,” which was compiled by Alagona, went through at least twenty-three editions. A translation of it into French by Legard, was condemned by the Parliament of Rouen, 12 February, 1762. He also published a compendium of the “Summa,” which ran through twenty-five editions, and a compendium of the whole of Canon Law in two volumes, quarto. In the Jesuit College of Palermo there is also found a treatise by Alagona on Logic and Physics.

Southwell; Mongitone; Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la c. de J., I, 108 and in Dict. de theol. cath.; Hunter, Nomenclator, I, 360.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Alain de l’Isle

(Also called ALAIN OF LILLE, ALANUS AB INSULIS, or DE INSULIS, ALAIN VON RYSSEL etc.).

Monk, poet, preacher, theologian, and eclectic philosopher, b. probably at Lille, whence his name, about 1128; d. at Citeaux, 1203. Alain, there is reason to believe, studied and taught for some time in Paris. In 1179 he took part in the Third Council of the Lateran. Later he entered the Monastery of Citeaux, where he died in 1202 or 1203. Alain attained extraordinary celebrity in his day as a teacher and a learned man; he was called Alain the Great, The Universal Doctor, etc. To this the legend alludes, according to which a scholar, discomfited in a dialectical contest, cried out that his opponent was “either Alain or the devil.” Alain’s principal work is “Ars Fidei Catholicæ,” dedicated to Clement III, and composed for the purpose of refuting, on rational grounds, the errors of Mohammedans, Jews, and heretics. With the same view he wrote “Tractatus Contra Hæreticos” and “Theologicæ Regulæ.” He wrote two poems, “De Planctu Naturæ” and “Anticlaudianus.” The only collection of Alain’s works is Migne s somewhat uncritical edition, P.L., CCX. The two poems are published by Wright in “Satirical Poets of the Twelfth Century,” II (Rerum Britannicarum Scriptores). There are several of Alain’s treatises still unpublished for instance, “De Virtutibus et Vitiis” (Codex, Paris, Bibl. Nat., n. 3238). Alain’s theology is characterized by that peculiar variety of rationalism tinged with mysticism which is found in the writings of John Scotus Erigena, and which afterwards reappeared in the works of Raymond Lully. The mysticism is, perhaps, more in the style than in the matter; the rationalism consists in the effort to prove that all religious truths, even the mysteries of faith, flow out of principles that are self-evident to the human reason unaided by revelation. His philosophy is a syncretism, or eclecticism, in which the principal elements are Platonism, Aristoteleanism, and Pythagoreanism. He esteemed Plato as the philosopher; Aristotle he regarded merely as a subtle logician. His knowledge of Plato he derived from Martianus Capella Apuleius, Boethius, and the members of the school of Chartres; his first-hand acquaintance with the “Dialogues” being limited to Chalcidius’s rendering of a fragment of the “Timæus.” He was acquainted with some of Aristotle’s logical writings and with the commentaries of Boethius and Porphyry. He derived his Pythagoreanism from the so-called Hermetical writers, Asclepius and Mercurius. Finally his mystic manner was influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius and John Scotus Erigena.

The effect of all these influences was an attempt on Alain’s part to fuse into one system the various elements derived from different sources, without taking much pains to find a common basis or a principle of organic synthesis. Thus, in psychology he gives at different times three different divisions of the faculties of the soul: a twofold (ratio, sensualitas), a threefold (sapientia, voluntas, voluptas), and a fivefold (sensus, imaginatio, ratio, intellectus, intelligentia). The soul, he teaches, is spirit; the body, matter (in later Platonic sense); and the bond between them is a physical spirit (spiritus physicus). In cosmology he teaches that God first created “Nature,” whose role it was to act as his intermediary (Dei auctoris vicaria) in the details of creating and organizing matter into the visible universe. At every step in this portion of his philosophy the influence of the neo-Pythagoreans appears. As a writer, Alain exhibited an unusual combination of poetic imaginativeness and dialectical precision. He modeled his style on that of Martianus Capella, though in his later years the influence of Boethius was, perhaps, predominant. He is to be enumerated among the medieval writers who influenced Dante.

BAUMGARTNER, Die Philos. d. Alanus de Insulis etc. in Beitr. z. Gesch. d. Philos; d. M.A., (Münster, 1896) Bd. II; BÄUMKER, Handschriftliches zu den Werken des Alanus (Fulda, 1894); UEBERWEG, Gesch. d. Philos., (Berlin, 1905), Bd II, 9 Ed., 214 sqq.; HAURÉAU, Hist. de la phil. scol. (Paris, 1872), I, 521 sq.; DE WULF, Hist. de la phil. scol. dans les Pays-Bas (Louvain, 1895), 41 sq.; TURNER, Hist. of Phil. (Boston, 1903), 301, 302.

WILLIAM TURNER

Alalis

(ALALIUS).

A titular see of Phoenicia (Palmyra), whose episcopal list is known from 325 to 451. It was located near the Euphrates, and was a suffragan of Damascus.

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ. (1740), II, 847–848.

Lucas Alaman

A Mexican statesman and historian of great merit, b. at Guanajuato in Mexico, of Spanish parents, 18 October, 1792; d. in the city of Mexico, 2 June, 1853. He received his early education in the city of Mexico, went to Spain and France in 1814, and returned to America in 1815. He made a second voyage between 1815 and 1823; in 1824 he became Secretary of State of the Mexican Republic. Alaman was a moderate Republican, and, therefore, violently persecuted by the extremistic factions in 1834, and compelled to hide for a full year. After 1836 he dedicated himself to literary and historical work until 1851, when Santa Ana recalled him to the post of Secretary of State. His two monumental works are: “Disertaciones sobre la Historia de la Republica mexicana” (Mexico, 1844), and “Historia de México, desde los primeros movimientos que prepararon su independencia en el año de 1808, hasta la época presente” (Ibid., 1849). With the exception of the (now antiquated) conceptions of the primitive condition of the Mexican Indians, these works are of standard value.

Diccionario universal de historia y de geografía (Mexico, 1853), I, Introduction, An obituary of Alaman; Memorias de la academia mexicana (Mexico, 1878), I, 4; MONTES DE OCA, Oración fúnebre en las honras de D. Juan Ruiz de Obregon.

A.D. F. BANDELIER

Niccolò Alamanni

A Roman antiquary of Greek origin, b. at Ancona, 12 January, 1583; d. in Rome, 1626. He was educated in Rome at the Greek College, founded by Gregory XIII, but was ordained deacon and priest according to the Latin rite. After teaching Greek for some time to persons of rank, he was appointed secretary to Cardinal Borghese, and afterwards made custodian of the Vatican Library. His death is said to have been caused by too close attendance at the erection of the high altar of St. Peter’s, to which honorable duty he had been assigned with orders to see that the sepulchres of the holy martyrs were not interfered with in the course of the work. He wrote a “Syntagma de Lateranensibus parietibus” (Rome, 1625) on the occasion of restorations carried out in the church of St. John Lateran by his patron, Cardinal Borghese, also a dissertation on the relative importance of the right and left side as exhibited in certain old papal coins that place St. Paul to the right of St. Peter, “De dextrae laevaeque manus praerogativa ex antiquis Pontificum nummis Paulum Petro apostolo anteponentibus.” He is known in the history of classical literature as the editor (Lyons, 1623) of the famous “Anecdota,” or “Secret History,” of Procopius, a work that was violently criticized outside of Italy.

MORÉRI, Dict. historique (1740), I, 206; NICIUS ERYTHROEUS, Pinacotheca Imag. Ill., I, lxx.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Alan of Tewkesbury

A Benedictine abbot and writer, d. 1202. Alan is stated by Gervase of Canterbury, a contemporary; chronicler, to have been English by race, i.e. not of Norman, or any immigrant, extraction. He is supposed to have spent some years at Benevento in Italy, before entering the Benedictine novitiate at Canterbury, where he became Prior in 1179. He zealously espoused the cause of the clergy against Henry II in the struggle which led to the martyrdom of St. Thomas; He was removed from Canterbury to the Abbey of; Tewkesbury, where he could less effectively oppose Henry’s encroachments on the rights of the church; The intimacy with St. Thomas which Alan of Tewkesbury enjoyed, and his almost lifelong acquaintance with the politico-ecclesiastical controversies of the time, qualified him to write the “Life of St. Thomas,” which (as Life of Becket) is printed in the second volume of “Materials for the History of Thomas Becket,” edited by the Rev. J.C. Robertson (Rolls Series, London,; 1875–85; Part I, CXC, 1475–88). Alan also collected and arranged a number of the Saint’s epistles. Critics are doubtful as to the genuineness of the other works traditionally ascribed to him.

Dict. of Nat. Biog., s.v.; GERVASE, Chronica, ed. STUBBS (Rolls Series, London, 1879–80); ROBERTSON, preface to Materials for the History of Thomas Becket.

E. MACPHERSON.

Alan of Walsingham

Died c. 1364; a celebrated architect, first heard of in 1314 as a junior monk at Ely, distinguished by his skill in goldsmith’s work, and for his acquaintance with the principles of mechanics. He afterwards turned his attention to the study of architecture, and in 1331, when sub-prior of his convent, designed and began to build the beautiful St. Mary’s Chapel (now Trinity Church), attached to the cathedral. At the same time he was engaged in the erection of Prior Cranden’s chapel, the new sacristy, and many minor works. In December, 1321, he was elected sacristan, with sole charge of the fabric of the cathedral. In February, 1322, the great tower of the cathedral fell, and carried with it the choir and other attached portions of the structure. Instead of rebuilding the four piers, which carried the Norman (square) tower a weak point in cathedral construction from that day to this Alan advanced the supports, to the extent of one bay, into each arm of the cross; and by so doing he not only distributed the weight upon eight piers instead of four, but obtained a magnificent central octagonal hall, which he roofed with a dome surmounted by a lofty lantern. The result was not only very beautiful, but in every sense original. It is almost certain that Alan never traveled beyond the limits of his convent, and that he was not acquainted, except perhaps from hearsay, with the domed Churches of the East, Whose principles of construction, moreover, differ essentially from those employed by Alan. His work remains to this day unique among the cathedrals of Europe. He subsequently rebuilt the bays of the choir, which had been ruined by the fall of the great tower, and these are admittedly amongst the most beautiful examples of Decorated, or Second Pointed, English Gothic. In 1341 Alan was elected prior of his convent, and in 1344 to the bishopric of Ely, rendered vacant by the death of Simon de Montacute. When he thus became bishop-elect the works connected with the fabric of the cathedral had been conducted to a successful termination, leaving for his successor only the decorations and fittings. His election, however, was set aside by the Pope in favor of Thomas L’Isle, a Dominican friar, who was at Avignon with the Pope at the time. A similar honor was destined for Alan in 1361, but the choice of the convent was again overruled, and Simon Langham, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal, was consecrated Bishop of Ely in his stead. The possessions of the convent were said to have increased under his wise and capable administration.

DUGDALE, Monasticon (ed. 1817), I, 468; THOMAS WALSINGHAM, Hist. Anglicana in R. S., II, 104; WHARTON, Anglia Sacra, I, 684; Cotton. MSS., Tit. A. I.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Alanus de Rupe

(Sometimes DE LA ROCHE).

Born about 1428; died at Zwolle in Holland, 8 September, 1475. Some writers claim him as a native of Germany, others of Belgium; but his disciple, Cornelius Sneek, O.P., assures us that he was born in Brittany. Early in life he entered the Dominican Order, and while pursuing his studies at Saint Jacques, Paris, he distinguished himself in philosophy and theology. From 1459 to 1475 he taught almost uninterruptedly at Paris, Lille, Douay, Ghent, and Rostock in Germany, where, in 1473, he was made Master of Sacred Theology. During his sixteen years of teaching he became a most renowned preacher. He was indefatigable in what he regarded as his special mission, the preaching and re-establishment of the Rosary, which he did with success throughout northern France, Flanders, and the Netherlands. His vision of the restoration of the devotion of the Rosary is assigned to the year 1460. Alanus published nothing during his lifetime, but immediately after his death the brethren of his province were commanded to collect his writings for publication. These were edited at different times and have occasioned much controversy among scholars. His relations of the visions and sermons of St. Dominic, supposed to have been revealed to Alanus, are not to be regarded as historical. His works are published by Graesse in Trésor des livres rates et précieux.

CHOQUET, Sancti Relig. O.P. (Douay, 1618); QUÉTIF AND ECHARD, SS. Ord. Praed., I. 849 sqq.; Année Dominicaine (Lyons). 8 Septembre; La vie du B. Alain de la Roche in Le Rosaire (May, June, July, 1869); SCHMITZ, Das Rosenkranzgebet im 15. und Anfange des 16. Jahrhunderts (Freiburg, 1903), containing a Danish poetical version, by MASTER MICHEL, of materials left by Alan.

J.T. MCNICHOLAS

Alaska

I. HISTORY

The first definite knowledge of Alaska was acquired in 1741 through the expedition under Vitus Bering, a Dane in the Russian service, who, in that year, sailed from Okhoysk as far as 58° 30’ N. lat. A couple of years later, Siberian fur hunters began to coast along the mainland of the American continent and the Aleutian Islands in search of the valuable sea-otter. In 1762 Andreian Tolstykh, after a sojourn of three years in these regions, returned to Russia, and on his representation of the commercial importance of Alaska Catherine II sent an expedition to foster trade and colonization. Rival companies began to dispute the territory, but in 1780, two traders, Grigor Shilikof and Ivan Golikof, relying on home influence, chiefly that of Rezanof, Chamberlain to the Emperor, formed the Russian-American Fur company, the history of which is the history of Muscovite domination of Alaska from 1780 until the sale of the territory to the united States in 1867. In 1786, Gerassim Pribilof, an employee of the company, discovered the seal rookeries in the Bering Sea. This discovery occasioned the reopening of trade with china, from which Holland and England, by their greater facilities, had driven Russia. The fur of the seal was especially prized by the Chinese, who had found the secret of plucking and dyeing the skins, and a lucrative trade was the result. Alexander Baranof, who, in 1790, became general manager of the company, was for more than a quarter of a century the presiding genius of a commerce which extended to California and the Sandwich islands as well as to china. Kodiak island was the first head-quarters of the Russians in Alaska, but they afterwards established their capital at Sitka, on Baranof Island, where a new centre of Russian activity was established. Shipbuilding and various other industries were started. Rude agricultural instruments were made for the Mexican and Californian trade; and bells were cast for the Spanish mission churches, which are said to be still in use. The policy of inland exploration which was pursued by the successors of Baranof turned the energies of the fur company into other channels, and necessarily reduced its dividends. The charter granted in 1799 had been renewed in 1821, and 1844. When it expired in 1864, a renewal was not granted, nor was it sought. Negotiations had begun with the United States, which ended in the purchase of Alaska in 1867, for $7,200,000. The official transfer was made in October of that year, General Rousseau acting for the United States and Prince Maksutof for Russia. The Russians were given two years to close up their business in the territory. Meanwhile American activity was rife; squatters and miners flocked into the country, and great commercial companies were organized to exploit the new field. These companies have made fortunes in fisheries and fur-hunting, while in recent years mining of the various metals has been promising similar returns.

II. AREA AND ACCESSIBILITY

According to the census of 1900, Alaska embraces, inclusive of the islands, 590,804 square miles. These figures represent all of the North American continent west of the 141st meridian of western longitude, with a narrow fringe of land between the Pacific and British territory, all the islands along the coast, and the Aleutian chain. The acreage, according to the Governor’s report for 1901, is 360,529,600. This great empire is equal in size to all of the States east of the Mississippi. Its heart is a great central plateau, 600 miles long east to west and 400 miles broad north to south, although its extreme limits are 800 by 1,000 miles; this does not include the Aleutian Islands—the stepping stones to Asia—that stretch from its southwesterly portion westward into the Pacific about 1,500 miles. Numerous inlets provide an easy coastwise intercommunication, but the chief natural highway is the mighty Yukon, navigable for 2,500 miles from east to west. It divides the Alaskan territory near the centre, and is ice-free from June to October. Petrof says that at its mouth it discharges into the Bering Sea a greater volume of water than the Mississippi. Several large navigable rivers, notably the Koyukuk and Tanana, flow into the Yukon, but many of the smaller streams, running into the Bering Sea and the Arctic Ocean, are shallow, and available only for small craft, a circumstance which is retarding the work of prospecting and mining. Various railways in and through Alaska are projected, one or two of which are under construction. The completion of these new channels of inland transportation will advance a hundredfold the interests of the country. Alaska is mountainous, but contains extensive river valleys of productive soil. From Seattle to Skagway is a distance of about 1,000 miles, a little more than from New York to Chicago; and from Seattle to the most distant point of Alaska is about the distance from New York to San Francisco. The gold-fields of the Yukon are reached from Seattle by ocean steamer, rail, and river steamer in about six days. It takes about twice as long to reach the placer mines of Nome. Communication is open during the summer season only; in winter, transportation is carried on with the aid of dog-teams.

III. RESOURCES

The actual wealth of Alaska consists in fur-seals, fisheries, and gold mines. The principal breeding ground of the fur-seal is on the Pribilof Islands, just north of the Aleutian chain. From 1868 to the middle of 1903 the seals taken by the lessees of these islands represent a value of $35,000,000; other furs to the value of $17,000,000 bring the total value of the Alaskan fur trade in this period to the sum of $52,000,000. These figures take no account of the pelagic-seal catch. The salmon fisheries are another source of wealth: in 1901, 19,000 barrels of canned salmon were sent to the United States, and in 1905 the total value of the fish exportation was $9,010,089. The cod fisheries promise, by reason of their vast area and rich supply, to exceed in value those of Newfoundland or any other part of the world. Placer gold has been located in many places in Alaska—a fact which proves that the territory is only beginning to reveal its wealth. Gold mines are being successfully worked in three localities: southeastern Alaska, the Yukon River and its tributaries, and the Cape Nome district opposite the coast of Asia. The output of gold in American Alaska in the fiscal year 1905 was about $10,000,000. It copper, coal, tin, silver, gypsum, and marble now enter into the calculations of commerce. There is abundant supply of valuable timber, especially in southeastern Alaska, but it is not yet legally available for export, as the public lands have not been surveyed. Agriculture is possible in about 100,000 square miles in southeastern Alaska, which owes to the “Japan current” its temperate climate, and which can produce wheat, oats, grasses for cattle, and vegetables in great variety. The latest official reports speak with praise of the supplies raised by the Holy Cross mission on the Yukon. It would be possible for the land to furnish at least a portion of the food supply needed by the present population. The total wealth accruing to the United States from its Alaskan possessions between 1867 and 1905 is calculated at nearly $160,000,000. In 1891, Dr. Sheldon Jackson introduced reindeer from Siberia into northern Alaska, but their usefulness as a means of transportation, and a source of supplies for miners and natives, is still a matter of experiment. The animals are farmed out in herds to various mission centers on the Yukon, along the Bering coast, and on the Kotzebue Sound. Reindeer moss, indigenous to northwestern Alaska, furnishes abundant food for those animals, whose numbers now reach about 6,000.

IV. CLIMATE

Alaska offers a great variety of climates. Along the southern and southeastern coast the “Japan current” distributes a part of its equatorial heat, and creates on the fringe of the islands, and some twenty miles inland, a distinct temperate zone. The mean temperate of Sitka is 32x Fahrenheit. Winter opens in December, and the snows are gone by May, except on the mountain-sides. Little of the warmth of the “Japan current” reaches north of the Aleutian range. The winter in the Yukon and Seward peninsula is rigorous and long; the summer warm and brief. The winter sun rises in the Yukon valley from 9:30 to 10, and sets between 2 and 3. The summer sun rises at 1:30 in the morning and sets at 10 in the evening, and the twenty hours of daylight are followed by a diffused twilight. In general, the changes of climate in the north are rapid and extreme, the mean summer temperature being from 60°-70° Fahrenheit, while the winter cold registers as low as 50° and 60° below zero, and near the Arctic Circle still greater extremes are met with, the thermometer reaching 70x below zero. However, owing to the dryness of the atmosphere, the intense cold is not disagreeable, and white men in those northern regions experience no inconvenience in traveling over the tundras with their dog-teams and sleds.

V. GOVERNMENT AND REVENUE

Alaska, though called a territory, is properly known as the “District of Alaska.” It has no legislature and no territorial form of government, but is governed directly by Congress, and locally administered by a governor, assisted by a secretary, and a surveyor-general, United States marshals, and attorneys, appointed by the President, subject to the approval of the Senate. It constitutes a judicial district, with three subdivisions and three courts. The governor is required to make an annual report to the Secretary of the Interior. The capital is Sitka, on Baranof Island, a city founded by the Russian Governor of that name in 1799, and the oldest town in Alaska. The sale of liquor to the natives is governed by special regulations. From 1867 to 30 June, 1903, the Government revenues amounted to $9,555,909, of which $7,597,331 were paid in as a tax on fur seals, and $528,558 as customs.

VI. EDUCATION

The pupils are under the official supervision of a United States general agent for education in Alaska, who resides in Washington. In 1905, there were fifty-one public schools, with sixty-two teachers and 3,083 pupils. From 1884 to 1901 Congress made a small annual grant for the support of these schools, but in 1901 an act was passed by which license fees collected by unincorporated towns were to be applied in part to the establishment and maintenance of schools “for the education of white children and children of mixed blood who lead a civilized life.” Such schools are placed in charge of the Governor of Alaska as ex-officio superintendent of education. By the same act the education of the Eskimos and Indians remained under the control of the Secretary of the Interior, and provision is made for the work by an annual appropriation ($50,000 in 1905). The principal elements of this public education for the natives are the teaching of the English language, spoken and written, and the arts of reindeer-herding and transportation, helpful at once to the white man and the native. (Statement 351 of the Commissioner of Education to the Secretary of the Interior, 30 June, 1905, 26–48).

VII. NATIVE TRIBES

The Alaskan aborigines fall into four major divisions or groups:

The Aleuts, who occupy the whole of the Aleutian Islands, the north coast of the Alaskan Peninsula, from Cape Stroganof westward;

the Ten’a, or western Athabascans, who are spread over the interior of the territory on both sides of the Yukon river as far west as Koserefsky. A belt of Eskimo hems them in on the northeast and south and separates them completely from the ocean except at one point near Cook’s Inlet on the North Pacific;

the Thlinkets, or Koloshes, as the Russians call them, who people the islands and coasts of southeastern Alaska; and

the Eskimo, or Innuits, who are scattered along the coastline from Alaska to Labrador.

These different groups are subdivided into families, subdivisions which are based mainly on linguistic differences. Like most northern tribes they were at one time, and still are in some degree, addicted to Shamanism, or sorcery, which enters intimately into all their relations, personal, social, and civil. An occult influence, they believe, resides in certain persons, and is hereditary, being transmitted with its mysteries and paraphernalia (masks, drums, straps, bones, etc.) to sons and grandsons. It enables them to reveal the future, to discover lost or hidden things, and with preternatural assistance to avoid misfortunes or disasters. It assures them among their misguided votaries credit for infallibility and makes them in the eyes of believers mediators between the visible and invisible worlds. Ivan Petroff, in his “Population, Resources, etc. of Alaska” (embodied in the United States Census Report for 1880), describes the Shamanistic ceremonies of initiation, incantations, etc. Veniaminof (John Popoff) the most authoritative Russian writer on Alaska, says,

It is a very rare occurrence that the son of a Shaman adopted the trade of his father. Probably the Shaman on his death-bed forbade his son to do so, explaining to him the worst side of his position, and turning his desires in another direction. Many of the Shamans call their occupation the service of the devil, and told the young men that nobody who had any fear or apprehension must lay claim to the title of Shaman, and that they themselves had not adopted the profession voluntarily, but because they were powerless to resist the devil.

There were, of course, numerous errors in a religion allied to such practice. Nevertheless, we do not subscribe to the statement (p. 13) in “Handbook 84 on Alaska,” issued by the Bureau of American Republics, Washington (1880):

Except as their ideas are modified by relations and intercourse with white people, they have no religion, unless certain definite superstitions, having no connections with an definite idea of a supreme supernatural being, be called religion.

On the contrary, it can be seen in the writings of Petroff, Holemberg, and Veniaminof that they possess certain elements of religion. Thus, every tribe recognized a Creator, termed in the tradition of the coast Nunalukhta; throughout the archipelagic circle, Agoughouk; among the Kodiaks, Shliam-Shoa; and along the narrow strip to the southeast, Yeshl, or Yehl. They held an immortality and a state of retributive rewards and punishments even beyond the grave, and this in the uncommon case of cremation of the body. They exhibited at times a wonderfully elaborate moral code. This is especially true of the Hydah branch of the Thlinkets, who, ethnologically, are the most interesting branch of the Alaska natives. They inhabit Prince of Wales Island, and their haunts are visited yearly by hundreds of tourists. The myths attached to their origins—the stories of the descent of their families, one from the bear, another from the whale, a third from the raven, and so on; and the elaborate totem system resulting therefrom, with far-reaching clan restrictions—have given the Hydahs a special place among the aboriginal peoples. The totem system, with its well-known poles, or carved tree trunks, originated with the Hydahs, but in course of time extended to the rest of the Thlinket group. There were three kinds of carved poles: the historical, the death, and the pedigree, or totem pole, the last giving the line of descent of the mother’s family. Children were always known by the totem of their mother. many of those are still standing, but the combinations of figures of birds and other living things, distorted beyond recognition, are no longer intelligible. The encroachment of modern methods and intercourse with the white races have made the Thlinket group more or less oblivious of the past. The totem system is dying out; even the family totem is falling into disuse. It was the cause of much injustice and suffering owing to the unequal and unjust distribution of poverty. Among the traditions of the Alaskan tribes, resemblances can be traced to certain Biblical narratives—the creation of light, the fall of man, the deluge, the confusion of tongues, the dispersion of races, etc. Polygamy was common in a more or less exaggerated form. In northern Alaska, it is no longer so common, though it sometimes occurs. Matrimony, until ratified by the birth of children, is not looked upon as being indissoluble, but rather as a sort of espousals. There was also a belief in metempsychosis. They held, with most savages, that it is a strict duty to revenge insult or injury. The hardships to which females were subjected at critical periods are appalling, and may explain their premature old age.

VIII. MISSIONS

(1) Russian Mission

Christianity was introduced into Alaska in 1794. A few spasmodic attempts were made prior to that date by Russian traders, notably Glottof, but according to the candid chronicler Veniaminof already quoted, it was not so much Christian ardour as business considerations that induced the Russians to persuade the Aleuts to accept baptism. The converted natives were always more manageable. They became attached, to a certain extent, to their godfathers, and gave their trade exclusively to them. The first serious attempt to Christianize the Alaskan tribes was made by Shelikof, one of the organizers of the Russian American fur company, who, in 1787, petitioned the Russian synod to send missionaries to convert the Aleuts. he promised to provide them with transportation, and to support them in their new field. In a ukase, dated June, 1793, Catherine II instructed the metropolitan Gabriel to select the best material for the mission, and in 1794, a band of ten. eight ecclesiastics and two laymen, under the guidance of Archimandrake Ivassof, left St. Petersburg for Okhotsk, whence they sailed for Kodiak. This large island was for some years the head-quarters of the Russian-American Fur Company, and from it the monks dispersed in different directions under the protection of the fur hunters. Makar proceeded to Unalaska and proceeded to baptize the natives; another, Juvenal, laboured among the natives of Kodiak island and those on Cook’s Inlet. This missionary was murdered two years later for trying to put down polygamy.He was a man of great energy, and did more to spread the Russian doctrines than the rest of his companions.In 1798, Ivassof, the leader, was promoted to the rank of Archbishop of Irkutsk, in Siberia, but was lost at sea the following year. Missionary work remained in abeyance until the arrival of Alexander Baranof, who asked for a priest for Sitka, the new headquarters of the Fur Company. In 1816, Sobolof, the first Russian-Greek missionary, apparently, who laboured among the Thlinkets, reached southeastern Alaska. In 1823 Ivan Veniaminof, the most distinguished of the Russian ecclesiastics in Alaska, known as the “Enlightener of the Aleuts,” arrived in Unalaska. During his career of nearly thirty years, he displayed intense zeal. He was instrumental in spreading Christianity over a vast extent of territory, visiting not only the Aleutian Islands, but all the coast of the mainland from Bristol Bay to the Kuskokwim. Veniaminof was a man of exceptional ability. He mastered the Aleut and Thlinket languages, translated portions of the New Testament, composed a catechism and hymnal, and began an exhaustive research into the traditions, beliefs, superstitions, etc. of the nations of the Aleutian group. In 1840, after the division of the diocese of Irkutsk, he was consecrated Bishop of Kamchatka, the Kurile and Aleutian Islands, and assumed, after the Russian custom, the name of Innocentius. During his sojourn in southeastern Alaska, he devoted himself with great zeal to the conversion of the Thlinkets. He established at Sitka a seminary for the training of natives and half-breeds for the priesthood, an institution that was maintained for many years. In 1852, he was transferred to Yakutsk, and died in 1879, Metropolitan of Moscow. Veniaminof, of whom there exists a biography, is highly venerated as a man and a writer. Petroff says of him, however, that the success of his work of conversion was only temporary and was confined altogether to the time of his presence among the natives. In 1859, Archimandrite Peter, rectory of the seminary at Sitka, was made bishop of that place. He was succeeded, in 1867, by Bishop Paul. In 1870 his successor, Bishop John, took the title of Bishop of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. An important event was the transfer, in 1872, of the head-quarters of the Russian missions from Sitka to San Francisco. Bishop Nestor was sent thither, in 1879, in charge of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands; he was lost at sea in 1882. In 1888 Bishop Vladimir was appointed to the same office; in 1891 Bishop Nicholas; in 1898, Bishop Tikhon; and in 1904 Bishop Innocent. In 1893 Russian orphanages were opened at Sitka, Kodiak, and Unalaska; and in 1894 a Russian church and school at Juneau. Parochial schools are attached to every Russian church. The Report on Education for 1903 (2352–53) enumerates in Alaska thirty schools, with 740 pupils, and adds that there are sixteen parishes in Alaska with 10,225 parishioners. The Czar still maintains a salaried hierarchy there, but his influence is destined to dwindle away before American missionary endeavors.

(2) Protestant Missions

Several of the Protestant sects, notably the Moravian, Presbyterian, Swedish, Evangelical, Congregational, and Episcopal, are at work in various parts of Alaska. Their mission statements extend up the Yukon and Kuskowim rivers, and along the main coast as far north as Cape Prince of Wales and Point Barrow. The Presbyterians, who landed in that country in 1878, have been the most successful. They have strongly organized missions in southeastern Alaska. The late Governor of the territory, John B. Brady, was a Presbyterian missionary for years; and the Rev. Sheldon Jackson, another Presbyterian missionary, is Superintendent of education for the territory.

(3) Catholic Missions

Prior to the cession of Alaska to the United States, no Catholic priest had sojourned in the territory. In 1872, Francis Mercier, chief agent of the Alaska Commercial Company at Nuklukhoyit, alarmed at the constantly threatening of the Ten’a on the Yukon and Tanana, took steps to introduce Catholic missionaries among them. He invited the Oblates of Mary Immaculate to take up the work. In the autumn of 1871, Bishop Clut, of the Athabascan-MacKenzie district, with two companions, Father Lecorre and an Indian interpreter named Silvar, crossed over the mountains and wintered at Fort Yukon. The following spring the three sailed down the Yukon river to Nuklukhoyit, where they met a large number of natives from Tanana and Koyokuk districts. They then continued their journey down the river, instructing both Ten’a and Eskimo adults and baptizing their children. Notwithstanding the opposition shown by the Shamans and the Russianized natives, the Oblates considered the prospects so bright that they decided to establish stations on the Yukon. After spending a year in reconnoitering, Bishop Clut returned to his own missions, leaving Father Lecorre in residence at St. Michael at the mouth of the river. The missionary stayed there until 1874, when the news came to him that the spiritual jurisdiction of the Alaskan territory had been entrusted to the Bishop of Victoria, the saintly Charles John Seghers, who ultimately gave up his life in the work. In July, 1877, this prelate, with one companion, Father Mandart, made a preliminary voyage to St. Michael, and went up the river as far as Nulato. During the following winter he visited many native villages, and in doing so underwent severe privations. Before his return to civilization, he promised the Ten’a that he would establish missions among them. In the interval, Bishop Seghers was transferred to Oregon City as Coadjutor to Archbishop Blanchet. However, his first visit to Alaska produced immediate results. In 1878, Father Althoff went to reside at Wrangel, in southeastern Alaska, from which he visited the Cassiar country and the coast. He was transferred to Juneau in 1885, were he was joined by Father Heynen, who was sent to aid him in his labours at Sitka. These two apostolic men were the pioneers of the Church in southeastern Alaska. They lived in a log cabin, in the utter isolation of primitive missionary life, preaching the gospel to Thlinket and white man alike. In September, 1886, Father Althoff brought to Juneau the Sisters of St. Ann, for the service of the new hospital, and thenceforth always ascribed his success to their faithful co-operation. The names of those devoted women—Sr. M. Zeno, Sister M. Bonsecours, and Sister M. Victor—deserve to be recorded. Bishops Seghers had meanwhile secured his reappointment to the See of Victoria, and resumed his plans, long delayed, for the conversion of the Alaskan tribes. He invited the Society of Jesus to undertake the work of evangelizing the territory. In July of that year, the prelate—now Archbishop Seghers—accompanied by two Jesuits, Father Pascal Tosi and Aloysius Robaut, and a hired man named Fuller, started over the Chilcoot Pass for the headwaters of the Yukon. It was decided that the two Jesuits should remain for the winter at the mouth of the Stewart river, while the Bishop, with the servant Fuller, should proceed in haste to Nulato, not only to keep the promise he had made to the Ten’a six years previously, but to forestall the members of a sect who contemplated establishing themselves at that spot. During the 1,100-mile journey, Fuller developed symptoms of insanity, and at times threatened the Archbishop insolently. At Yessetlatoh, near the mouth of the Koyukuk, they took up quarters in an abandoned fishing cabin. On the morning of 25 November Fuller aroused the prelate from his sleep, pointed a rifle at him and shot him through the heart. Death was instantaneous. The remains of the murdered Archbishop were taken down the Yukon river to St. Michael, whence, two years later, they were transferred to the crypt of the cathedral in Victoria, B.C. The murderer was subsequently tried, convicted, and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. This tragedy changed the condition of mission work in Alaska; new and complicated problems presented themselves to the Jesuits. Father Tosi went to Europe, where he met the President of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith at Lyons, who contributed $4,000 towards the support of the Alaskan missions. A decree of the Propaganda, dated 17 July, 1894, raised Alaska to a Prefecture Apostolic, with Father Tosi, S.J. as the first incumbent of the office. He exercised his duties as prefect Apostolic until March, 1897, when he resigned, owing to failing health, and died, at the age of 51, at Juneau, 14 January, 1898. The Very Rev. John B. Rene,’ S.J., was appointed to his place. He resigned in March, 1904, and was succeeded by the present incumbent, the Very Rev. Joseph R. Crimont. The conditions of the Alaskan mission have changed greatly since the advent of the first missionaries. The discovery of placer-gold mines, and the influx of miners into Alaska, during the past six years, have robbed Alaska of much of its primitive isolation. There are resident Jesuit priests at Juneau, Douglas, Fairbanks, Nome, Skagway, St. Michael and Seward. From these centres, white missions are attended at Ketchikan, Wrangel, Eagle City, Circle City, Forty Mile Post, Golden City, Council City, Sitka, Haines, Valdez, Chenilia, Kliketari, Pastolic, Picmetallic, Steben, etc. Among the native tribes there have also been missions, exclusively Ten’a, on the Yukon at Koserefsky and Nulato. The Eskimos in the Nome district on the Kuskokwim and in the Yukon Delta are also attended by Jesuit Fathers and Brothers. In southeastern Alaska, owing to lack of men and means, no Catholic mission among the Thlinkets have yet been established. A training-school for boys and girls exists at Holy Cross mission near Koserefsky. The girls are under the care of the Sisters of St. Ann. These native children are taught the arts of cooking, sewing, etc., the boys, with the Jesuit lay brothers as instructors, are taught gardening, carpentry, and smithing of various kinds. The lives of the missionaries who are devoting themselves exclusively to the native population are lives of intense isolation, but their personal sufferings and inconveniences count for little when there are souls to be saved.

IX. THE PREFECTURE APOSTOLIC

The Prefecture Apostolic comprises the 531,409 square miles that make up the territory of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, From 1867 to 17 July, 1894, these missions were subject to the Bishop of Vancouver Island, B.C.; they were then placed in charge of a Prefect Apostolic who resides at Juneau. The total population is about 72,000 of which about 15,000 are Catholics, one third of these being natives. The mission is entrusted to the Society of Jesus. There are at present (1906) seventeen Jesuit Fathers and one secular priest in charge of twenty-eight stations, of which twelve are provided with resident priests, the others being missions attended occasionally. Nine of the missions are provided with chapels. Jesuit Lay Brothers (8) and Brothers of Christian Instruction (2), from Ploermel in Brittany, attend to the Catholic education of the boys. The girls are in charge of Sisters of Charity of Providence (8), Sisters of St. Ann (22), and Ursaline Sisters (3). There are five convents, two academies (Juneau and Douglas City), three day schools, four hospitals (Juneau, Eagle, Douglas, and Nome), an orphanage for Indian girls and an industrial school for Indian boys (Koserefsky). The total number of children in Catholic institutions is 288. There is as yet no seminary for ecclesiastical students. The orphanage and mission schools are supported mainly by Catholic charity, and the hospitals by organized contributions.

United States Bureau of American Republics, Handbook, 1884; Alaska; Archives of Prefecture Apostolic of Alaska; Devine, Across Wildest America (Montreal, 1905). Also Gibbs, Dall, Nelson, Holmberg, with Petroff, Navy, and other Russian writers.

JOSEPH RAPHAEL CRIMONT

Diocese of Alatri

An Italian bishopric under the immediate jurisdiction of the Holy See, comprising seven towns in the Province of Rome. The close proximity of this city to Rome is an argument for believing that Christianity was taught there at a very early date, though this does not compel belief in the local legends which place the conversion of Ferentino, Alatri, and neighboring towns in the apostolic age. The route followed by the earliest preachers of the Gospel in Italy is still unknown. We first meet the name of a bishop of Alatri in Paschasius (551) who accompanied Pope Vigilius to Constantinople on the occasion of the controversy of the Three Chapters. In the church of St. Mary Major in Alatri, is preserved a wooden statue of the Madonna, a splendid example of Roman art of the twelfth century. (See Fogolari, Sculture in legno del secolo XII, in L’Art, 1903, I, IV; also Venturi, Storia dell’ arte Italiana, III, 382.) Alatri contains 16 parishes; 77 churches, chapels, and oratories; 64 secular priests, 52 seminarians; 42 regular clergy; 31 lay brothers; 81 religious (women); 30 confraternities; 1 boys school (87 pupils); 3 girls schools (30 pupils). Population, 24,000.

UGHELLI, Italia Sacra (Venice, 1722), I, 288; CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d ltalia (Venice, 1866), VI, 433; ORLANDI, Compendiose notizie sacre e profane delle città d’Italia (Perugia, 1770), I; GAMS, Series episcoporum Ecclesiae catholicae (Ratisbon, 1873), 660.

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Alb

A white linen vestment with close fitting sleeves, reaching nearly to the ground and secured round the waist by a girdle (cincture). It has in the past been known by many various names: linea or tunica linea, from the material of which it is made; poderis, tunica talaris, or simply talaris, from the fact of its reaching to the feet (tali, ankles); camisia, from the shirt-like nature of the garment; alba, (white) from its colour; and finally, alba Romana, this last seemingly in contradistinction to the shorter tunics which found favour outside of Rome (cf. Jaffé-Löwenfeld, “Regesta,” 2295). Of these the name alba almost alone survives. Another use of the word alb, commonly in the plural albæ (vestes), occurs in medieval writers. It refers to the white garments which the newly baptized assumed on Holy Saturday, and wore until Low Sunday, which was consequently known as dominica in albis (deponendis), the Sunday of the (laying aside of the) white garments. This robe, however, will be more conveniently discussed under the word “Chrismal.” From the usage mentioned, both Low Sunday and Trinity Sunday, together with the days preceding seem sometimes to have been called Albæ. Possibly our Whit-Sunday, the Sunday after the Pentecost baptisms, may derive its name from a similar practice. In this article we shall treat of the origin, symbolism, use, form, ornamentation, material, and colour of the alb.

It is impossible to speak positively about the origin of this vestment. Medieval liturgists, e.g. Rupert of Deutz, favoured the view that the Christian vestments in general were derived from those of the Jewish priesthood, and that the alb in particular represents the Kethonet, a white linen tunic of which we read in Exodus, xxviii, 39. But a white linen tunic also formed part of the ordinary attire of both Romans and Greeks under the Empire, and most modern authorities, e.g. Duchesne and Braun, think it needless to look further for the origin of our alb. This view is confirmed, first, by the fact that in the Eucharistic scenes of the catacomb frescoes (e.g. those indicated by Monsignor Wilpert in his “Fractio Panis”) the white under-tunic is not always found; and, secondly, by the silence of early Christian writers under circumstances which lead us to expect some allusion to the relation between Jewish and Christian vestments, if any such were recognized (cf. Hieron., “Ad Fabiolam” Ep. 64, P.L., XXII, 607). The fact that a white linen tunic was a common feature of secular attire also makes it difficult to determine the epoch to which we must assign the introduction of our present alb as a distinctly liturgical garment. The word alba, indeed, meets us not infrequently in connection with ecclesiastical vesture in the first seven centuries, but we cannot safely argue from the identity of the name to the identity of the thing. On the contrary, when we find mention of an alba in the “Expositio Missæ: “ of St. Germanus of Paris (d. 576), or in the canons of the Fourth Synod of Toledo (663), it seems clear that the vestment intended was of the nature of a dalmatic. Hence we can only say that the words of the so-called Fourth Synod of Carthage (c. 398), “ut diaconus tempore oblationis tantum vel lectionis albâ utatur,” may or may not refer to a vestment akin to our alb. The slender available evidence has been carefully discussed by Braun (Priesterlichen Gewänder, 24), and he concludes that in the early centuries some sort of special white tunic was generally worn by priests under the chasuble, and that in course of time this came to be regarded as liturgical. A prayer mentioning “the tunic of chastity,” which is assigned to the priest in the Stowe Missal, helps to confirm this view, and a similar confirmation may be drawn from the figures in the Ravenna mosaics, though we cannot be sure that these last have been preserved to us unaltered. Before the time of Rabanus Maurus, who wrote his “De Clericorum Institutione” in 818, the alb had become an integral part of the priest’s sacrificial attire. Rabanus describes it fully (P. L., CVII, 306). It was to be put on after the amice. It was made, he says, of white linen, to symbolize the self-denial and chastity befitting a priest. It hung down to the ankles, to remind him that he was bound to practice good works to his life’s end. At present the priest in putting on the alb says this prayer: “Purify me, O Lord, from all stain, and cleanse my heart, that washed in the Blood of the Lamb I may enjoy eternal delights.” The symbolism has evidently changed but little since the ninth century.

As regards the use of the alb, the practice has varied from age to age. Until the middle of the twelfth century the alb was the vestment which all clerics wore when exercising their functions, and Rupert of Deutz mentions that, on great festivals, both in his own monastery and at Cluny, not only those who officiated in the sanctuary, but all the monks in their stalls wore albs. The alb was also worn at this period in all religious functions, e.g. in taking Communion to the sick, or when assisting at a synod. Since the twelfth century, however, the cotta or surplice has gradually been substituted for the alb in the case of all clerics save those in greater orders, i.e. subdeacon, deacon, priest, and bishop. At present the alb is little used outside the time of Mass. At all other functions it is permissible for priests to wear a surplice.

Beyond a certain enlargement or contraction as to lateral dimensions, no great change has taken place in the shape of the alb since the ninth century. In the Middle Ages the vestment seems to have been made to fit pretty closely around the waist, but it broadened out below so that the lower edge, in some cases, measured as much as five yards, or more, in circumference. No doubt in practice it was pleated and made to hang tolerably close to the figure. Towards the end of the sixteenth century again, when voluminous garments were everywhere in vogue, St. Charles Borromeo prescribed a circumference of over seven yards for the bottom of the alb. But his regulation, though approved, cannot be said to make a law for the Church at large.

Much greater diversity has been shown in the ornamentation of the alb. In the early ages we find the lower edge decorated with a border sometimes both rich and deep. Similar embroideries adorned the wrists and the caputium (head opening), i.e. the neck. In the thirteenth century the fashion of “apparels,” which apparently originated in the north of France, rapidly became general. These were oblong patches of rich brocade, or embroidery, sewn on to the lower part of the alb both before and behind. Similar patches were attached to the wrists, producing almost the effect of a pair of cuffs. Another patch was often sewn on to the breast or back, sometimes to both. To these apparels many names were given. The commonest were paruræ, plagulæ, grammata, gemmata. This custom, though it lingered on for centuries, and in Milan survives until the present day, gave way finally before the introduction of lace as an ornament. The use of lace, though permitted, ought never to lose the character of a pure decoration. Albs, with lace reaching above the knees, are not, strictly speaking, en règle, though there is a special decree of 16 June, 1893, tolerating albs with lace below the cincture for canons at Mass, on solemn feast days. Formerly a decree of the Congregation of Rites prohibited any coloured lining behind the flounce, or cuffs, or lace with which the alb might be decorated, but a more recent decree (12 July, 1892) sanctioned the practice. In point of material the alb must be made of linen (woven of flax or hemp); hence cotton or wool are forbidden. The colour must now be white. Much discussion has been caused by the frequent occurrence in medieval inventories of albs which apparently comply with neither of these regulations. Not only do we read of blue, red, and even black albs, but albs of silk, velvet, and cloth of gold are frequently mentioned. It has been contended that in many cases such designations must be regarded as referring to the apparels with which the albs were adorned; also that the albs of silk, velvet, etc. were probably tunicles or dalmatics. But there is a residue of cases which it is impossible to explain satisfactorily, and the prevalence at least of blue albs seems to be proved by the miniatures of early manuscripts. Moreover, the use of silk and colours instead of albs of white linen has lasted on in isolated instances, both in East and West, down to our own days. It may be added that, like other sacerdotal vestments, the alb needs to be blessed before use.

J. BRAUN, Die priesterlichen Gewänder des Abendlandes (Freiburg, 1897), 16–43. This in the only satisfactory treatise which embraces the whole field. ROCK, The Church of our Fathers (2d ed., London. 1903), I, 347–73; DUCHESNE, Christian Worship (tr., London, 1903), 381; MACALISTER, Ecclesiastical Vestments (London, 1894); MARRIOTT, Vestiarium

Christianum (London, 1868); The Month, September, 1898, 269–77; BARBIER DE MONTAULT, Le costume et les usages ecclésiastiques, II, 231–242 (Paris, 1900); KRAUS, Real-Encyclopädie, s. v. Albe; ROHAULT DE FLEURY, La Messe (Paris, 1889), VII, 11–26; BOCK, Die liturgischen Gewänder des Mittelalters, II, 31–50 (Bonn, 1866); HINZ, Die Schatzkammer der Marienkirche zu Danzig (Danzig, 1870); VON HEFELE, Beiträge, II, 167–174 (Tübingen, 1864); BRAUN, Zeitschrift f. christ. Kunst, art. Vestments of the Castle of St. Elia, XII, 352–55 (1900).

HERBERT THURSTON

Diocese of Alba Pompeia

Comprises eighty towns in the province of Cuneo and two in the province of Alexandria, in Italy. Heading the list of the bishops of Alba is a St. Dionysius, of whom we are told that after serving there for some years he became Archbishop of Milan. He was the Dionysius who so energetically opposed the Arian heresy, and was exiled in the year 355, by the Emperor Constans. Papebroch (Acta SS., VI, 40) disputes the reliability of this tradition, since a bishop of that period was forbidden to leave his diocese for another. A list of nine early bishops of Alba, from another St. Dionysius (380) down to a Bishop Julius (553) was compiled from sepulchral inscriptions found in the cathedral of alba towards the end of the fifteenth century by Dalmazzo Berendenco, an antiquarian. De Rossi, however, on examination proved it a forgery (Boll. di Arch. Crist., 1868, 45–47). The first bishop of Alba of whose existence we are certain is Lampradius who was present at the synod held in Rome (499) under Pope Symmachus. (Mansi, VIII, 235, Mon. Germ. Hist., Auct. Antiq. XII, 400.) In the series of bishops, Benzo is notable as an adversary of Gregory VII and a partisan of the Empire in the struggle of the Investitures. (Orsi, “Un libellista del sec. XI,” in “Rivista storica Italiana,” 1884, p. 427.) The diocese contains 101 parishes; 276 secular priests; 11 regulars; 403 churches and chapels; 10 seminaries.

UGHELLI, Italia sacra (Venice, 1722), IV, 281; CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), XIV, 159; GAMS, Series episcoporum Ecclesiæ catholicæ (Ratisbon, 1873), 809; SAVIO, Gli antichi vescovi d’Italia dalle origini al 1300, descritti per regioni (Turin, 1899), 49; VERNAZZA, Romanorum litterata monumenta Albæ Pompeiæ civitatem et agrum illustrantia (Turin, 1787); CAPPELLI, Notizie storiche della città d’Alba (Turin, 1788).

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

St. Alban

First martyr of Britain, suffered c. 304. The commonly received account of the martyrdom of St. Alban meets us as early as the pages of Bede’s “Ecclesiastical History” (Bk. I, chs. vii and xviii). According to this, St. Alban was a pagan living at Verulamium (now the town of St. Albans in Hertfordshire), when a persecution of the Christians broke out, and a certain cleric flying for his life took refuge in Alban’s house. Alban sheltered him, and after some days, moved by his example, himself received baptism. Later on, when the governor’s emissaries came to search the house, Alban disguised himself in the cloak of his guest and gave himself up in his place. He was dragged before the judge, scourged, and, when he would not deny his faith, condemned to death. On the way to the place of execution Alban arrested the waters of a river so that they crossed dry-shod, and he further caused a fountain of water to flow on the summit of the hill on which he was beheaded. His executioner was converted, and the man who replaced him, after striking the fatal blow, was punished with blindness. A later development in the legend informs us that the cleric’s name was Amphibalus, and that he, with some companions, was stoned to death a few days afterwards at Redbourn, four miles from St. Albans. What germ of truth may underlie these legends it is difficult to decide. The first authority to mention St. Alban is Constantius, in his Life of St. Germanus of Auxerre, written about 480. But the further details there given about the opening of St. Alban’s tomb and the taking out of relics are later interpolations, as has recently been discovered (see Livison in the “Neues Archiv,” 1903, p. 148). Still the whole legend as known to Bede was probably in existence in the first half of the sixth century (W. Meyer, “Legende des h. Albanus,” p. 21), and was used by Gildas before 547. It is also probable that the name Amphibalus is derived from some version of the legend in which the cleric’s cloak is called an amphibalus; for Geoffrey of Monmouth, the earliest witness to the name Amphibalus, makes precisely the same mistake in another passage, converting the garment called amphibalus into the name of a saint. (See Ussher, Works, V, p. 181, and VI, pg. 58; and Revue Celtique, 1890, p. 349.) From what has been said, it is certain that St. Alban has been continuously venerated in England since the fifth century. Moreover, his name was known about the year 580 to Venantius Fortunatus, in Southern Gaul, who commemorates him in the line:

Albanum egregium fecunda Britannia profert.

(“Lo! fruitful Britain vaunts great Alban’s name.”)

(“Carmina,” VII, iii, 155).

His feast is still kept as of old, on 22 June, and it is celebrated throughout England as a greater double. That of St. Amphibalus is not now observed, but it seems formerly to have been attached to 25 June. In some later developments of the legend St. Alban appears as a soldier who had visited Rome, and his story was also confused with that of another St. Alban, or Albinus, martyred at Mainz.

Herbert Thurston.

Albanenses

Manichæan heretics who lived in Albania, probably about the eighth century, but concerning whom little is known, except that they were one of the numerous sects through which the original Manichæism continued to flourish. (See BOGOMILÆ, CATHARI, PAULICIANS.) They appear to have professed a very strict and uncompromising form of the heresy, rejecting all doctrinal modifications as to the eternity of the evil principle, and its absolute equality with the good principle.

HEMMER in Dict. de théol. cath., I, 658.

FRANCIS W. GREY

Albania

The ancient Epirus and Illyria, is the most western land occupied by the Turks in Europe. Its extreme length is about 290 miles, and its breadth from forty to ninety miles. On the west and southwest it is bounded by the Adriatic and the Ionian seas. It is generally divided into three regions: Upper Albania, from the Montenegrin frontier to the river Shkumbi; Lower Albania, or Epirus, from the Shkumbi to the Gulf of Arta; and Eastern Albania, to the east of the Schar-Dagh chain. It is a mountainous and rugged territory, some of its peaks reaching a height of 8,500 feet, and has only one plain of note, that of Scutari (the ancient Scodra, ‘e Skódra), which holds the lake of the same name and is watered by its affluent, the Drin. Many rivers flow from savage, inaccessible heights to the Ionian Sea: the Mati, Shkumbi, Ergent or Devol, Voynassa, Kalamas. Among them are the celebrated Acheron and Cocytus of antiquity. Albania shares with Greece the peculiar phenomenon of subterranean rivers; the waters of the lake of Jamina flow through one of these underground channels into the Gulf of Arta, and this gave rise to the myth that here was the entrance to the infernal world of the ancient Greeks. The surrounding country is covered with Cyclopean ruins. In the region of Lakes Ochrida and Presba there are passages through the mountains, which facilitates communication between Albania and Macedonia; and the Turkish mail post actually follows the old Via Egmatia of the Romans from Durrazzo (the ancient Dyrrachium) to Salonica, passing by Bitolia. Further down, between the Grammos and the Pindar chains, a defile allows communication with the road from Jamina to Larissa. The Mavropotamas, or Acheron, formerly received the affluents of the Cocytus and Phlegeton, which have now disappeared. The soil is barren from want of cultivation and the exports are few, consisting principally of hides, bark for dyeing, and tobacco. If the Boyana river were made navigable, Scutari would be connected with the sea, and trade would assuredly lead to progress of all kinds; but Mussulman rule precludes the attempt.

The Albanians (more of an ethnographic than a geographic term) are called Arnauts (Arnaoots, Arnaouts) by the other peoples of the Balkan peninsula; they give themselves the name of Skipetars or “mountaineers.” They claim descent from the Epirots and Illyrians, and, like the latter, have always been distinguished by their warlike spirit. After having been conquered in the Illyrian wars by Rome, the tribes of this region furnished the best soldiers of the empire, several emperors were of Illyrian stock (Freeman, The Illyrian Emperors, Historical Essays, London, 1892, III, 22–68). Christianity probably penetrated these mountain fastnesses through the Roman soldiers and traders from Epirus and Macedonia; it is doubtful whether any traces of the original apostolate survived the ruin of the Roman State in the West. After the dismemberment of the Roman Empire, the Illyrian population, gradually driven southward by the invading Slavs, became known as Albanians, were long subject to schismatic Constantinople, then fell under the sway of the Serbs, and finally became (1336–56) a province of the medieval Servian Empire under Tsar Stephen Duschan. (See SERVIA.) On its dismemberment, after the battle of Kosovo which took place (1389), the victorious Turks overran the country, but Prince George Castriota, the famous Scanderbeg who was known also as Iskander Bey, or Prince Alexander, maintained an independent rule in Upper Albania for a quarter of a century (1443–67). This hero, whose feats of valour are almost legendary, was bred as a Moslem at the court of Murad II to whom he had been given as a hostage by his father, an Albanian chief; but after having won fame and honour in the Sultan’s service, his race asserted itself, and he broke away to place himself at the head of his own people and embrace Christianity. He defeated the Turkish army in several engagements and secured an honourable peace on his own terms. But, encouraged by the Pope and the promise of help from the Venetians, he again attacked the Turks and gained numerous victories. On his death at Alessio (1467), the Sultan exclaimed: “Now that the infidels have lost their sword and buckler, who can save them from my wrath?” The Albanians became disorganized and were finally subjected (1479) to Mussulman dominion. They have, however, never been subdued, and are, even to-day, treated more like allies than subjects. They now supply the Turkish army with its best soldiers as they once did the legions of Rome, and are exempted from taxes and from compulsory military service. As volunteers, they receive high pay and many privileges. While several tribes have embraced Islam and others belong to the Greek schism, the best of the population is Catholic, and while guarding traditional customs and a primitive manner of life, practise their religion devoutly. The purity of their morals is proverbial throughout the Balkan peninsula, and the zealous Austrian and Italian missionaries have met with conditions most favourable for their teaching. Schools have been opened in all the villages of note by Franciscan and Jesuit Fathers, but the spread of education is hindered by the lack of a gramatically organized language. Many attempts have been made to decide upon an alphabet, but none has yet succeeded owing to the difficulty of expressing the oral sounds by any known combination of European letters. A cultured Albanian, therefore, takes Roumanian, Greek, Servian, or Italian, for his medium of intercommunication. An Albanian journal is published in Bukarest and another in Belgrade. In the country itself there is no attempt at a newspaper, and the periodicals most prevalent in the towns are Italian publications of a religious tone. The tribes which have resisted Mussulman rule successfully and retained their creed have, notwithstanding this, adopted many Moslem customs.

RELIGION

For four centuries the Catholic Albanians have defended their faith with bravery, greatly aided by the Franciscan missionaries, especially since the middle of the seventeenth century, when the cruel persecutions of their Mussulman lords began to bring about the apostasy of many villages, particularly among the schismatic Greeks. The College of Propoganda at Rome was especially prominent in the religious and moral support of the Albanian Catholics. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, particularly, it educated young clerics for service on the Albanian missions, contributed then as now to their support and to that of the churches, in which good work it is aided by the Austrian Government, which gives yearly to those missions about five thousand dollars, in its quality of Protector of the Christian community under Turkish rule. The Church legislation of the Albanians was reformed by Clement XI, who caused a general ecclesiastical visitation to be held (1763) by the Archbishop of Antivari, at the close of which a national synod was held. Its decrees were printed by Propaganda (1705), and renewed in 1803 (Coll. Lucensis Conc. Recent., I, 283 sq.). In 1872, Pius IX caused a second national synod to be held at Scutari, for the renovation of the popular and ecclesiastical life. Apropos of the Austrian interest in Albania, it may be stated that it is the Austrian ambassador who obtains from the Sultan the Berat, or civil document of institution for the Catholic bishops of Albania (Neber, in K. L., XI, 18, 19).

Albania is divided ecclesiastically into several archiepiscopal provinces: (1) Antivari (since 1878 a part of the principality of Montenegro (q.v.); since 1886, without suffragans, and separated from Scutari, with which it had been united in 1867 on terms of equality); (2) Scutari, with the suffragan Sees of Alessio, Pulati, Sappa and (since 1888) the Abbatia millius of St. Alexander of Orosci; (3) Durazzo; (4) Uskup. The latter two are without suffragans, and depend immediately on the Holy See. A seminary, founded in 1858 by Archbishop Topich of Scutari, was destroyed by the Turks, but was later reestablished on Austrian territory and placed under the imperial protection. In Scutari the Catholic women, as well as the Mohammedan, go veiled. The Albanian woman works unceasingly in the field and in the home; so that every houselhold care devolves upon her in the frequent absence of the men who are either regular or irregular fighters in the Albanian or TurkoAlbanian bands. The women are dressed in tight skirts of light colour striped with black, and their heads and shoulders are covered on feast days with masses of gold and silver coins. In the Catholic churches, the women appear unveiled, and the humbler class generally remove their shoes at the entrance. The service in the Cathedral of Scutari is most impressive, although primitive to an extreme degree. There is little quiet, for the congregation rasps out the responses with a fervour that precludes either modulation or rhythm, and the incessant rattle of the coins on the women’s breasts and heads as they bend forward and again kneel upright accompanies every intonation. The scarlet colour predominates in the altar decorations, as well as in the clothes of the worshippers. It is impossible to witness the attitude of the Catholic Albanian at worship and remain unmoved at his simple, wholehearted demonstration of living faith. The admirable work of the friars in dispelling the old vendetta custom is one of the chief factors in the evolution of this semibarbaric race. The Albanians of today give the same promise of a vigorous Christian development as the Franks of the time of Clovis, and it is characteristic of their steadfastness that no bribes or threats have succeeded in drawing them from their first allegiance. While every other race in the Balkans, with the exception of the Western Serbs, called Hroats (Croats), went over to schism, the Roman Catholic faith remained secure in the fastnesses of northern Albania.

When one recalls that to adopt Islamism meant to become a lord and a recognized warrior, while to remain Christian meant to become a slave, deprived of the right to carry weapons, it is easily seen why so many Albanian tribes fell away. The chief tribes of Upper Albania, the Shoshi and the Mirdites, are at once the pioneers of nationality and Catholicity. Long ago the Mirdites were wont to carry off Turkish girls of good family and, after baptizing them, made them their wives, so that there is a strong strain of Turkish blood in the Catholic Mirdites of today. This tribe has special privileges, such as the place of honour in the Sultan’s army under the command of its own chieftain. In accepting a comradeship of arms with Mussulman troops it guards the creed and nationality with the same fidelity with which it serves the Sultan when called upon. The Mirdites, about 40,000 in number, and with a chief town of some four hundred houses, Orosci, treat on equal terms with the Porte. The force of circumstances has driven the Albanian into fierce espousal of one or other of the causes which are being periodically fought out between antagonists whose success or defeat leaves his own condition almost unchanged. It was an Albanian who led the Greeks in the War of Independence, and again an Albanian who commanded the Turkish troops sent to quell the rebellion. The Kings of Naples kept an Albanian regiment styled the Royal Macedonian, and the famous resistance of Silistria in 1854 is due to dogged Albanian bravery. Courage and heroism are inborn qualities of this singular and gifted race. The revival of the national aspirations of Albania dates from the Congress of Berlin (1878), when Austria, in order to compensate Servia and Montenegro for her retention of the Servian lands of Bosnia and Herzegovina, thought to divide the land of Albania between them. The Turks secretly fostered the opposition of both Mussulmans and Catholics, and the Albanian League was formed “for the maintenance of the country’s integrity and the reconstitution of its independence.” The territories alloted to Servia were already occupied by her troops when resistance broke forth, and the idea of dislodging them had to be abandoned; but Montenegro was unable to obtain possession of her share, the rich districts of Gusinie and Plava. The Albanians, undaunted by the unexpected opposition of their former allies, the Turks, now forced by Russia to assist Montenegro, made face against all their enemies with a determination that baffled and dismayed Europe. Mehemet- Ali was routed, his house at Diakovo burned down, and himself massacred. The Albanians had much to avenge. They had not yet forgotten the war of a century before when their women precipitated themselves by hundreds over the roads near Yamina to escape Ali-Pasha’s soldiers. The Turks finally relinquished their efforts to quell the movement they had themselves helped to precipitate, and Montenegro had to content herself with the barren tracts of the Boyana and the port of Dulcigno. She could not have aspired even to these, had not Russia, anxious to spread the doctrines of “Orthodoxy,” advocated the dismemberment of Catholic and Mussulman Albania in favour of the Servian race.

After Scutari, Yanina is the largest and most interesting town of modern Albania. Near it are the ruins of the temple of Dodona, the cradle of pagan civilization in Greece. This oracle uttered its prophecies by interpreting the rustling of oak branches; the fame of its priestesses drew votaries from all parts of Greece. In this neighbourhood also dwelt the Pelagic tribes of Selles, or Helles, and the Graiki, whose names were afterwards taken to denote the Hellenes, or Greeks. The plateau of Tanina is fertile and favourably situated for defence, and the inhabitants of the city have been able to develop many industries, such as the inlaying of metal, weaving gold-threaded stuffs, and the fabrication of firearms. It is difficult to get the exact statistics of any province of the Turkish Empire; the population of Albania is variously estimated, from 1,200,000 to 1,600,000, of which 1,500,000 are strictly Albanian. In the Kirchenlex. (Freiburg, 1899), XI, 18, Father Neher estimates the population at about 1,400,000, one million of which is made up of Mussulmans. There are 318,000 members of the Greek schismatic church, and about 120,000 Catholics. It must be added that there are in Greece proper about 250,000 Albanians, and in Italy about 100,000, the latter being all Catholics. In summing up the characteristics of the race, there are two points on which travellers invariably agree: the chivalry toward the weaker sex of even the unreclaimed Albanian, and the spotless chastity of their women. For the rest, human life is as cheap as in all lands where individuals must reckon on themselves for its preservation. (See ANTIVARI, SCUTARY, DURAZZO, and the other dioceses of Albania.)

LEAKE,Travels in Northern Greece (London, 1835); ELISÉE RECLUS,The Earth and its Inhabitants (New York, 1895, Eng. tr.): Europe, I, 115–126; NIOX, Péninsule des Balkans; DURHAM’S Travels; WILKINSON, Dalmatia and Montenegro; HERDER, Konvers. Lex., s. v.; BONÉ, Turquie d’Europe (Paris, 1889); DEGRAND, Souvenirs (Paris, 1901); PORTAL, Note Albanesi (Palermo, 1903).-The documents of the medieval religious history of Albania are best found in the eight volumes of FARLATI, Illyricum Sacrum (Venice, 1751- 1819). See also THEINER, Vetera Monumenta Slavorum meridionalium historiam illustrantia (Rome, 1863 sqq.). Recent ecclesiastical statistics may be seen in O. WERNER, Orbis Terrarum Catholicus (Freiburg, 1890), 122–124, and 120; also in the latest edition of the Missiones Catholicæ (Rome, Propaganda Press, triennially).

ELIZABETH CHRISTITCH

Albani

A distinguished Italian family, said to be descended from Albanian refugees of the fifteenth century. It soon divided into two branches, those of Bergamo and those of Urbino. They gave to the Church one Pope (Clement XI, 1700–21) and several well-known cardinals.

(1) Gian Girolamo

Solder, statesman, and canonist, b. at Bergamo, 3 January, 1504 d. 25 April, 1591. For services to the Venetian republic he was rewarded with the office of inquisitor at Bergamo, where he made the acquaintance of Cardinal Ghisliero. When the latter became Pius V, he invited Albani to Rome, made him a cardinal (1570), and employed him on diplomatic missions, among them being the formation of an alliance of Christian princes against the Turks Gian Girolamo was a distinguished canonist, and was accounted by his contemporaries a man of “solid judgment rare erudition and eloquence, free and firm in his decisions, pleasant and temperate in speech, in every way a grave and reliable person.” Among his often reprinted works are “De donatione Constantini” (Cologne, 1535), “De cardinalatu” (Rome, 1541) “De potestate papae et concilii” (Venice, 1544) “De immunitate ecclesiarum” (Rome, 1553): cf Hurter, “Nomencl. Lit.” (2d ed.), I, 122.

(2) Francesco

See CLEMENT XI.

(3) Annibale

Cardinal Bishop of Sabina (1711), cousin of Clement XI, b. 15 August, 1682, at Urbino; d. 21 September, 1751 patron of ecclesiastical literature; he left a valuable library, a gallery of paintings and sculpture, and a cabinet of coins that eventually was added to the Vatican collection. He edited, in two volumes, the letters, briefs, and bulls of Clement XI (Rome, 1724), the “Menologium Græcorum” (3 vols., Urbino, 1727), and historical memoirs of Urbino (Rome 1722–24).

(4) Alessandro

Brother of Annibale, b. at Urbino, 19 October, 1692, d. 11 December, 1779. He entered the priesthood at the earnest insistence of Clement XI, but gave no little trouble to that Pope because of his worldly and undisciplined life. In 1721 Innocent XII made him cardinal. He was a friend of Austria during the delicate negotiations of his own time, and sided with the opposition in the reign of Clement XIV (1769–74). He was also an enlightened patron of art and artists, helped to reconcile with the Church the sculptor and art-historian Winckelmann, built the Villa Albani (1760) and filled it with treasures of antique sculpture and other precious relics of Greek and Roman art (dispersed by Napoleon I; the famous Antinous is there still). His coins went to the Vatican Library, over which he presided as bibliothecarius from 1761 (Strocchi, “De vitâ Alex. Albani,” Rome, 1790).

(5) Giovanni Francesco

Born at Rome, 26 February, 1727; died September, 1803; a nephew of Clement XI, and Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia at the age twenty-seven.

(6) Giuseppe

Nephew of the preceding, b. at Rome, 1750, made cardinal 1801 he shared the habitual devotion of his house to Austria, took refuge in Vienna, 1796–1814, returned to Rome after the downfall of Napoleon, and occupied offices of distinction in the papal administration until his death (1834). He left his fortune partly to the Holy See, partly for religious purposes. With his brother Filippo the family died out; its name and part of its possessions passed to the Chigi.

Mazzuchelli, Scrittoi d’ltalia; TIPADDO, Biografia ltaliana; Litta, Famiglie celebri Italiane; Düx in Kirchenlex. For the Palazzo Albani and the Villa Albani, see Létarouilly, Les édifces de Rome moderne (Brussels, 1855–66).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Albano

A suburban see, comprising seven towns in the Province of Rome. Albano (derived from Alba Longa) is situated ten miles from Rome, on the Appian Way. It was a military post, and hence Christian soldiers must have been stationed there at a very early date. Appii Forum and the Three Taverns, where St. Paul was met on his way to Rome by the brethren are not far distant (Acts, xxviii, 14,15). In the very year of his consulate, Acilius Glabrio was compelled by Domitian to fight, unarmed, in the amphitheatre at Albano, a Numidian bear, according to Juvenal (Sat. IV, 99): an enormous lion, according to Dio Cassius (Hist. Rom., LXVI, iii). This same Acilius Glabrio is later included in a Christian group of the Flavian family as a molitor rerum novarum (Suet. D. 10). The “Liber Pontificalis” under the name Silvester (ed. Duchesne, Paris, 1886, I, 185) says: “fecit basilicam Augustus Constantinus in civitate Albanensis, videlicet S. Joannis Baptistae (Harnack, “Die Mission,” Leipzig, 1902, p. 501). This basilica of the time of Constantine was destroyed by fire toward the end of the eighth century or in the beginning of the ninth (Lib. Pont., Leo III; ed. Duchesne, II, 32)” Franconi has established (La catacomba e la basilica Constantiniana di Albano Laziale, Rome, 1877) the identity of this basilica with the present cathedral, which still contains some remains of the edifice dedicated by Leo III to St. Pancratius. Under the basilica there was a crypt, or confessio, from which bodies were transferred to the cemetery near by. The foundation of the episcopal see of Albano is very probably contemporaneous with the erection of the Constantinian basilica. However, the first bishop of the see of whom we have any knowledge is Dionysius (d. 355). It is more than a century later (463) that we meet with another Bishop of Albano, Romanus. To these is to be added Ursinus, whose name is found on an inscription in the Catacomb of Domitilla. The consular date is either 345 or 395. The importance of this early Christian community is apparent from its cemetery, discovered in 1720 by Marangoni. Beeing near Rome, it differs but little from the Christian cemeteries found there. Its plan, clearly mapped out in the “Epitome de locis ss. martyrum quae sunt foris civitatis Romae,” is considered by de Rossi as the synopsis of an ancient description of the cemeteries, written before the end of the sixth century: “per eandem vere viam (Appiam) pervenitur ad Albanam civitatem et per eandem civitatem ad ecclesiam S. Senatoris ubi et Perpetua jacet corpore et innumeri sancti et magna mirabilia ibidem geruntur.” The saints here named are not known. St. Senator is inserted without further explanation in the martyrology for 26 September (et in Albano Senatoris). From this he passed to the Roman martyrology, where he is commemorated on the same day. But the first account of the martyrs of Albano is found in the “Almanac of Philocalus” (fourth century) on the eighth of August: “VI Idus aug. Carpophori, Victorini et Severiani, Albano, et Ostense septimo ballistaria, Cyriaci, Largi, Crescentiani, Memmiae, Julianae, et Smaragdi.” The cemetery has valuable frescoes, painted at various times by unknown artists, which show the progess of Christian art from the fourth to the ninth century. The series of titular Bishops of Albano contains many illustrious names: Peter II, afterwards Pope Sergius IV (1009–12); Boniface (1049) with whom the series of Cardinal-bishops begins; Blessed Peter Igneus (1074–92) of Vallombrosa, the stern associate of Gregory VII in his work of ecclesiastical reform; Nicholas Breakspear, afterwards Pope Adrian IV (1154–59); St. Bonaventure of Bagnorea (d. 1272), the Seraphic Doctor; and Rodrigo Borgia, afterwards Alexandre VI (1492–1503). This see contains 12 parishes, 67 churches, chapels, and oratories; 60 secular priests; 26 seminarians; 79 regular clergy; 45 lay brothers; 289 religious (women); 15 confraternities; 8 boys’ schools (360 pupils); 3 girls’ schools (180 pupils). Population, 41,000.

Ughelli, Italia sacra (Venice, 1722), I, 247; Cappelletti, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), I,657; Gams, Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae (Ratisbon, 1873), XXII, 464; Marucchi, Di alcune inscrizioni recentement trovate e ricomposte nel cimitero di Domitilla, in Nuovo bull. di arch. crist. (1899),24; Ricci, Memorie storiche dell’ antichissima citt di Alba Longa e dell’ Albano moderno (Rome, 1787); Volpi, Latium Vetus, Profanum et Sacrum (Rome, 1726); Gioni, Storia di Albano (Rome, 1842); De Rossi, Le catacombe di Albano, in Bull. di arch. Crist. (1869); Leclercq, Albano (catacombe d’), in Dict. d’archeol. Chret. et de lit. (Paris, 1904).

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Diocese of Albany

Diocese comprising the entire counties of Albany, Columbia, Delaware, Fulton, Greene, Montgomery, Otsego, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Warren, Washington, and that part of Herkimer and Hamilton counties south of the northern line of the townships of Ohio and Russia, Benson and Hope, in the State of New York. It covers a territory of 10,419 square miles. Of the total population (852,471), 180,030 are Catholics. The majority are of Irish, German or French-Canadian origin, but other nationalities and races are also represented-Italian, Polish, Russian, Turkish, Greek, Austro-Hungarian, Slavs, Syrians, and some American Negroes.

COLONIAL PERIOD

Any general account of the early missions within the borders of the present diocese of Albany must include, with more or less detail, the labours of the Jesuits who came into it from Quebec with credentials first from the archbishop of Rouen (France), and afterwards from the bishop of Quebec itself, that ancient centre of Catholic life. From this point of view, the territory embraced in its limits has a unique history of apostolic zeal, undaunted courage, grievous hardships, and privations endured, blood shed for the truth, and for many years an apparently hopeless struggle with the most astute and resourceful of all the Indian tribes who lived on the flats of the Mohawk Valley, and whose cruel nature was finally subdued by the gentleness and perseverance of these French missionaries. Its history starts with the treaty of Saint-Germaini des Prés (1632), when England at last restored Canada to France. Cardinal Richelieu first offered the Canadian missions to the Capuchins, who refused, and then to the Jesuits, who accepted them. Quebec and Montreal, founded in the first half of the seventeenth century, were the two foci of all missionary ardour and enterprise until the consecration of Bishop Carroll in 1790, not only for Canada and the Northwest, but also for all the country adjacent to Canada, including northern and central New York as far as the stockades of Fort Orange or Albany, which from the time of the English occupation in 1664 became subject to the vicar-apostolic of London. The pioneer missionary in the district now known as a part and parcel of the diocese of Albany was Father Isaac Jogues, who reached Ossernenon, or Auriesville, in Montgomery County, 14 August, 1642, as a captive of the cruel and treacherous Mohawks. Mutilated and dismembered, he escaped by the aid of the Dutch at Fort Orange, and, taking passage on a vessel bound for Holland, reached his own country on Christmas day. His successor in captivity and torture by the same tribe was Father Joseph Bressani, a Roman Jesuit (1644). The same year Father Jogues returned to Quebec, and was sent in May, 1646, into the Mohawk country, as an agent to ratify a peace with this tribe. On this journey he reached Lake George on the Feast of Corpus Christi and named it Lac St. Sacrament. Having received their promises of good will he returned to Canada, but, deceived and lured by their wily attitude of friendship, he retraced his steps at once to establish a mission among them. In October, 1646, he was tomahawked, beheaded, and his body thrown into the Mohawk river. In his footsteps and, some of them, in his sufferings followed Fathers Joseph Poncet, Le Moyne, and Jacques de Lamberville, who had the glory of baptizing, on Easter Sunday, 1675, Tegakouita, who is called Catharine in the baptismal record, and “The Lily of the Mohawk” by Catholic tradition.

Within the stockaded settlement of Fort Orange another current of history was running more tranquilly than through these blood-stained Mohawk chronicles. Without straining the verities of history, that foundation named Fort Orange, and surnamed Albany, merits the honour of being the oldest surviving European settlement in the original Thirteen States. Dutch in the beginning, it was wrested from the Dutch in 1664 by Charles II of England, who regardless of their claims, granted to his brother, the Duke of York and Albany, afterwards James II, all the land lying between the Connecticut and Delaware rivers. Before the transfer Catholics were few. Two Portuguese sailors at Fort Orange in 1626, a Portuguese woman, and a transient Irishman, met by Father Jogues in 1643, made up the quota. After the English possession there is credible evidence that several Catholics from the Netherlands settled in Albany in 1677, for whom the Franciscan Father Hennepin provided. In 1682 came Colonel Thomas Dongan as governor, the son of an Irish baronet, afterwards the Earl of Limerick. The project of detaching the Five Nations from the French, who had won them by the disinterested labours of their missionaries, suggested the scheme of colonizing them at Saratoga under English Jesuit influence, to counteract a similar colonization enterprise at La Prairie under French auspices. The Jesuits, Thomas Harvey, Henry Harrison, Charles Gage, and two lay-brothers were the pathfinders under the new regime.

AMERICAN PERIOD

In 1790 John Carroll was consecrated Bishop of Baltimore, and Albany passed over to his jurisdiction from that of the archbishops of Rouen and the archbishops of Quebec. Saint Mary’s, the first church in the diocese, and for many years the only Catholic church between St. Peter’s, Barclay street, New York City, and Detroit, was built in 1797 during the episcopate of John Carroll. Because of its isolation, its corner stone was laid by one of its trustees, Thomas Barry. The earlier priests during this Baltimore era were Fathers Thayer, Whelan, O’Brien, D. Mahoney, James Buyshe, and Hurley. The laymen of mark were James Roubichaux, Louis Le Coulteaux, David McEvers, Thomas Barry, William Duffy, and Daniel Cassidy. On the same day of the year 1808, Baltimore was elevated to the rank of an archdiocese, and three new sees were created: New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. The new Bishop of New York assumed jurisdiction over the entire State, and Albany heard the voice of a new shepherd. From this year to the year of its erection as a diocese (23 April, 1847) there was a steady growth of Catholics, sluggish at first, and afterwards flowing with fuller volume as we approach the years of the Irish famine and the climatictic of immigration. Within this New York era we note the foundation of the following parishes and churches:—St. Peter’s, Troy, 1826; its pioneer priests the Revs. McGilligan, John Shanahan, and James Quinn. St. John’s, Schenectady, 1830, organized by the Rev. Charles Smith, of St. Mary’s, Albany; its first pastor the Rev. John Kelly, succeeded by the Rev. Patrick McCloskey. St. John’s, Albany, 1837; its first priest the Rev. John Kelly, and his successors, the Revs. McDonough and Patrick McCloskey. St. Patrick’s, Watervliet, 1840; the earliest attending priest the Rev. John Shanahan, then pastor of St. Peter’s, Troy. The Rev. James Quinn, assistant at St. Peter’s, became first pastor of this parish, succeeded by the Rev. Thomas Martin. Church of the Assumption, Little Falls, 1841; its first pastor the Rev. Joseph M. Bourke. St. Joseph’s, Albany, 1842: founded by the Rev. Joseph Schneller, then at St. Mary’s, Albany, who was succeeded by the Revs. Newell and P. Hogan. The Rev. John J. Conroy, afterwards Bishop of Albany, was its first pastor. St. Mary’s, Sandy Hill, 1833 (though first mentioned in the Directory in 1842); its first pastor the Rev. Father Guerdet. St. Mary’s, Troy, was built in 1843 by the Rev. Peter Havermans. St. Augustine’s, Lansingburg, 1844, had for its first pastor the Rev. F. Coyle.

The prominent laymen of this epoch were Peter Morange, Thomas Austen, James Mahar, William Hawe, Patrick McQuade, Peter Cagger, John Stuart, Thomas Geough, Thomas Mattimore, John Tracey, Dr. O’Callaghan, of Albany, John Keenan, of Glens Falls, Keating Rawson, Thomas Sausse, and Philip Quinn, of Troy.

BISHOPS OF ALBANY

(1) The Right Rev. John McCloskey, D.D. (afterwards Cardinal), consecrated Coadjutor-Bishop of New York, 10 March, 1844, transferred to Albany as its first bishop, 21 May, 1847. He first selected the venerable St. Mary’s church as his episcopal city for his cathedral, and, that proving unsuitable, he began the erection of the cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, the corner stone of which was laid 2 July, 1848, by Archbishop Hughes. The edifice, completed with the exception of one of its twin towers, was dedicated 21 November, 1852. It is suggestive that the church was christened before the Immaculate Conception was declared an article of faith. He convened the first diocesan synod 7 October, 1855. To provide for the inrush of Irish immigrants he founded many parishes, encouraged the building of many churches, and augmented the number of his priests. The secular clergy proving insufficient, he invited the assistance of Jesuits, to whom he entrusted the large parish of St. Joseph’s, in Troy. He was tireless in visiting every portion of his extensive diocese, which comprised all that territory now included in the dioceses of Albany, Syracuse, and Ogdensburg. He made provision for Catholic education by installing Religious of the Sacred Heart in Albany, and the Christian Brothers in Troy. He disarmed anti-Catholic and anti-Irish bias by the charm of his personality and the winsome graces of his consummate oratory.

(2) The Right Rev. John Joseph Conroy, D.D., consecrated 15 October, 1865. He built the beautiful St. Joseph’s Church in the city of Albany, and established a home for the aged in charge of the Little Sisters of the Poor, and orphanages under the care of the Sisters of Charity and Christian Brothers in the same city. The secular clergy still proving inadequate for the growing and insistent needs of the ministry, he encouraged the Augustinian Fathers and the Minor Conventuals to cast their lot with the diocese. He secured the future of Catholic schools by establishing the celebrated convent of the Sacred Heart at Kenwood, and soliciting and welcoming foundations of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, Mo., Sisters of Mercy, and Sisters of the Holy Names. The second diocesan synod was held in his episcopate.

(3) The Right Rev. Francis McNeirny, D.D., consecrated 21 April, 1872. He purchased the rectory for the cathedral clergy at 12 Madison Place, the chancery at 125 Eagle street, and the historic Schuyler mansion as an additional asylum. The Dominican Tertiaries, Sisters of the Good Shepherd, and Redemptorist Fathers established foundations at his invitation. He systematized the work of the chancery, formulated schedules for complete annual reports from each parish, and initiated the practice of convening synods of the clergy, administering confirmation, and canonically visiting every church in his diocese triennially. Clerical conferences, conducted with method and regularity, were his creation, and he closed his episcopate and his life with their crowning achievement-the enlargement and completion of the cathedral by the addition of an apse and the erection of new sacristies and a tower.

(4) The Right Rev. Thomas M. A. Burke, D.D., consecrated 1 July, 1894. He erected the school and rectory of St. Joseph’s parish, Albany, whilst its rector, and evidenced administrative capacity of a high order in the management of its affairs. As bishop he has enlarged the Boys’ Asylum in Albany, cancelled the indebtedness of the cathedral, refurnished and renewed it, and consecrated it with solemn ceremonial, 16 November, 1902. With characteristic exactitude for all canonical processes and requirements in the matter of synods, visitations, erection of parishes, schools, homes of industry and charity, and the holding of church properties, he is indefatigable and continues the best traditions and labours of his predecessors.

CAUSES OF GROWTH

The growth of this see is explained entirely by immigration. The incentives to it were predominantly industrial. Agriculture played only a moderate part, and, as a rule, the land was second choice. In the early years of the last century New York State entered upon a vast scheme of internal improvements—the linking of the great lakes with the ocean by a system of canals. As Albany was the chief beneficiary of the enterprise, it became the principal distributing centre of the army of labourers who flocked into it in quest of employment. Work on the Erie Canal was begun in 1817 and completed in 1825. Development of the entire system of artificial waterways went on simultaneously. These opened up a vast uninhabited territory to tillage, colonization, and manufacture. From 1831 to 1852 railroad construction was under way, and as Ireland was then pouring into this country a flood-tide of fugitives from the famine, they found remunerative work at once. The earnings of these labourers were the chief contribution to the erection of contemporaneous churches. On the completion of the canals and railways, some of these strangers purchased land and began a farming life; most of them either threw in their lot with the new settlements sprouting promiscuously along the new lines of travel, or sought residence and employment in special localities because of their prosperous industries. Albany drew numbers because of its lumber, iron, stoves, shoes, cattle, and breweries; Glens Falls attracted by its flourishing lumber activities; Ballston by its tanneries; Cohoes by its axe industry, and cotton and woolen mills; Troy by the manufacture of stoves, nails, railway iron, and collars; Schagticoke and Amsterdam by their textile manufactures. During these years facilities of communication made access to most of the diocese comparatively easy, and the people were attended by a growing ministry. Its northern and lower western sections remained isolated and accessible only with great difficulty for many years, and here were some leakages from the Faith. Bigotry was rife in out-of-the-way corners, and met Catholic profession and practice with slander and slight-without violence, however. All this is superseded in our day by juster standards of measurement.

NOTABLE BENEFACTORS

The Right Rev. John J. Conroy, the Right Rev. Monsignor McDermott, and the Rev. P. McCloskey left bequests for education. The Rev. Maurice Sheehan, the Rev. William Cullinan, and Mrs. Peter Cagger were generous patrons of St. Peter’s Hospital, Albany. For various and large benefactions the diocese is indebted to John A. McCall, of New York; Anthony N. Brady, and Eugene D. Wood, of Albany; Thomas Breslin, of Waterford; Edward Murphy, Jr.; James O’Neil, Francis J. Molloy, Edmund Fitzgerald, Peter McCarthy, and Daniel E. Conway, of Troy. In the field of charity and Catholic usefulness, where fidelity to Catholic interests was and is a dominating principle of conduct, the names of Nicholas Hussey, John H. Farrell, Charles Tracey, Peter Cassidy, John W. McNamara, James F. Tracey, John P. McDonough, Edward F. Hussey, of Albany, and Edward Kelly, P.P. Connolly, Cornelius F. Burns, and Stephen Duffy, of Troy, deserve special mention.

IMPORTANT EVENTS

Among the notable events of the diocesan history are the erection of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (1848–52) and its consecration, 16 November, 1902; the phenomenally fruitful career of St. Joseph’s Provincial Seminary, Troy, from 1865 to 1896, at which latter date it was transferred to Dunwoodie, Yonkers, N.Y.; the purchase and consecration of St. Agnes’s Cemetery, Albany, 1867; the formation of the Diocese of Ogdensburg in 1872, and of Syracuse in 1886, both of them previously included in the Diocese of Albany; the incoming of the Sisters of Charity (1840), Jesuits (1849–1900), Christian Brothers (1851), Ladies of the Sacred Heart (1853), Augustinian Fathers (1858), Sisters of St. Joseph (1860), Sisters of the Holy Names (1865), Sisters of Mercy (1865), Minor Conventuals (1867), Little Sisters of the Poor (1871), Dominican Tertiaries of St. Catharine de Ricci (1880), Sisters of the Good Shepherd (1884), Redemptorists (1886).

STATISTICS

The clergy now (1906) number 214, of whom 168 are diocesan priests, and 49 regulars (Franciscans, Augustinians, Redemptorists, and Salesians). The teaching Brothers are 55, among them 44 Christian Brothers. The Sisters, or religious women, number 698; parishes with resident priests, 105; missions with churches, 49. The parochial schools number 42, with 15,133 pupils (7,107 boys and 8,026 girls). A preparatory seminary (Troy) has 59 pupils. There are 2 colleges with 79 pupils, and 19 academies with 894 pupils. There are 11 asylums with 1,455 children; 3 hospitals with a daily list of 197 patients; 2 Houses of the Good Shepherd with 245 inmates; 2 Houses of Little Sisters of the Poor, with 328 inmates; 2 Houses of Retreat, kept by Dominican Sisters, with 35 inmates; 2 Homes for Women, with 15 inmates; and the Seton Home for Working Girls, with 20 inmates.

BRODHEAD, History of the State of New York (New York, 1853–71); MARTIN, Life of Father Jogues, (English tr., New York, 1896); Dongan Reports in vol. III of Documents relating to the Colonial History of New York (Albany 1853); O’CALLAGHAN, Documentary History of the State of New York (Albany, 1849–51); FOLEY, Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus (London, 1877–83); JOHN GILMARY SHEA, History of the Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1886–92); HOWELL—TENNEY, History of Albany and Schenectady Counties (New York, 1886); WEISE, Troy’s One Hundred Years (Troy, 1891); Albany Argus, 26 Jan. 1813; O’CALLAGHAN, History of New Netherland (New York, 1846–48).

JOHN WALSH

Diocese of Albenga

Diocese comprising seventy-nine towns in the province of Port Maurice and forth-five in the province of Genoa, suffragan to the Archdiocese of Genoa, Italy. Legend makes Albenga between the years 121 and 125 the scene of the martyrdom of St. Calocero of Brescia, an officer of the court of Adrian. But the Acts of his martyrdom, together with those of Sts. Faustinus and Jovita with which they are incorporated, are not historically verified. The first bishop of whom we know anything is Quintius, who in the year 451 signed the Synodal Letter of Eusebius, Bishop of Milan, to Leo I, in which the condemnation of Nestorius and Eutyches was sanctioned (Mansi). Albenga contains 170 parishes; 485 secular priests; 86 regulars; 119280 inhabitants; 354 churches and chapels; 90 seminaries.

Ughelli, Italia sacra (Venice 1722), IV, 910; Cappelletti, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice 1866), XIII, 529; Gams, Series episcoporum Ecclesiae catholicae (Ratisbon, 1873), 810; Niccolari, cenni storici della citta d’Albenga (1847); Cattolasso, Saggio storico sull’ antico ed attuale stato della citta d’Albenga (Genoa, 1820).

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Niccolo Albergati

Cardinal and Bishop of Bologna, b. at Bologna in 1357; d. at Sienna, 9 May, 1443. He entered the Carthusian Order in 1394, served as prior in various monasteries, and was made Bishop of Bologna, against his will, in 1417. In this office he still followed the Rule of his Order, was zealous for the reform of regular and secular clergy, and was a great patron of learned men, among whom was Aeneas Sylvius, afterwards Pius II. Martin V and his successor, Eugenius IV, employed him on several important missions, thrice to France (1422, 1431, 1435), and thrice to Lombardy (1426, 1427, 1430). He was made a Cardinal in 1426. attended the Council of Basil in 1432, and again in 1434 and 1436, as legate of Eugenius IV, a position which he also filled in January 1438, at Ferrara, whither Eugenius had transferred the Synod. He took part in the conferences with the Greeks in preparation for the union effected at Florence. The Pope appointed him Grand Penitentiary shortly before his death. Though never formally canonized, he has long been popularly venerated as Blessed (Acta SS., II May, 469 sqq., and Analecta Boll., VIII, 381 sqq.). He is the author of various theological and other treatises, including: “Recollecta multae electionis”; “Apologia pro Eugenio IV”; sermons, prayers, epistles (P.L., CCIV). His life has been written by many different authors, contemporary and since his time.

Eggs, Purp,doctae, III, 14; Ruggeri, Testimonis de Nic. Alb. (Rome 1744); Stanonik in Kirchenlex., I, 408; Pastor, History of the Popes (London, 1892), I, passim.

FRANCIS W. GREY

Alberic of Monte Cassino

Died 1088; cardinal since 1057. He was (perhaps) a native of Trier, and became a Benedictine. He opposed successfully the heresy of Berengarius, defended the measures of Gregory VII, and composed several theological and scientific works, lives of saints, etc. He is the author of the earliest medieval treatise on letter-writing (De dictamine). Many of his letters are to be seen in the works of St. Peter Damian (P.L., CXLV, 621–634).

Ziegelbauere, Hist. Litt. O.S.B., III, 94; Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1903), V, 1051–52; Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen (6th ed.), II, 293; Rockinger, Briefsteller und Formelbucher des XI. bis XIV. Jahrhunderts, 29–46.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Alberic of Ostia

A Benedictine monk, and Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia from 1138–47. Born in 1080, at Beauvais in France; d. at Verdun, 1147. He entered the monastery of Cluny and became its sub-prior and, later, prior of St. Martin-des-Champs, but was recalled (1126) to Cluny by Peter the Venerable, to aid in the restoration of discipline in that famous monastery. In 1131 he was Abbot of Vezelay in the Diocese of Autun, and held that office until he was made Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia by Pope Innocent II (1138). Immediately after his consecration Alberic went as papal legate to England. He was successful in his endeavours to end the war then raging for possession of the throne between the usurper Stephen of Blois and David I of Scotland, who had espoused the cause of Empress Matilda. He then called a council of all the bishops and abbots of England, which assembled at London, December 1138, and at which eighteen bishops and about thirty abbots were present. The chief business of the council, besides some disciplinary measures, was the election of an archbishop for the See of Canterbury. Thibaut, Abbot of Bec, was chosen, and consecrated by Alberic. Accompanied by Thibaut and other bishops and abbots, he returned to Rome in January, 1139. The same year, Alberic was sent to exhort the inhabitants of Bari, a town on the Adriatic, to acknowledge as their lawful sovereign Roger II of Sicily, against whom they were in revolt. They refused, however, to listen to the legate of the Holy See, and shut their gates against him. In 1140 Alberic was appointed to examine into the conduct of Rodolph, Patriarch of Antioch. In a council of eastern bishops and abbots, at which Alberic presided, Rodolph was deposed, and was cast into prison (30 November, 1140). Pope Eugenius III sent Alberic (1147) to combat the Henrician heretics (see ALBIGENSES), who were causing much trouble in the neighbourhood of Toulouse. In a letter written at this time to the bishops of that district, St. Bernard of Clairvaux calls Alberic “the venerable Bishop of Ostia, a man who has done great things in Israel, through whom Christ has often given victory to His Church.” St. Bernard was induced to join the legate, and it was owing chiefly to the miracles and eloquence of the Saint that the embassy was in some degree successful. Three days before the arrival of St. Bernard, Alberic had been given a very cold welcome. The populace, in derision of his office, had gone to meet him, riding on asses, and escorted him to his residence with the music of rude instruments. It is said of him that he could not win the people, but that the leaders of the heresy feared him more than any other cardinal of his time. The last work of Alberic was that of co-operating with St. Bernard in promoting the Second Crusade. He it was who arranged with Louis VII of France the details of the undertaking.

MABILLON. Life and Works of St. Bernard. Abbot of Clairvaux, tr. by EALES (London, 1889–98): LINGARD, History of England, II, iv; FLEURY (Histoire ecclesiastique (Paris, 1751), XIV; ROHRBACHER, Histoire universelle de l’eglise catholique, VI.

M.J. O’MALIA

Albero de Montreuil

Archbishop, of Trier b. near Toul, in Lorraine, about 1080; d. at Coblenz, 18 January, 1152. After acquiring some dignities in the churches of Toul and Verdun, he was made Archdeacon and Provost of St. Arnulf at Metz. Here he became identified with the church reform party which was opposed to Bishop Adalbero IV, and went in person to Rome to secure his deposition from Pope Paschalis II. On his return he brought about the election of Theotger, Abbot of St. George in the Black Forest, who was consecrated against his will in July, 1118, and, being prevented from entering his diocese by the imperial party, died in 1120. Albero then aided in the election of Stephen of Bar, who rewarded his zeal by making him primicerius of Metz. After having been mentioned for the vacant Sees of Magdeburg and Halberstadt, both of which he refused, Albero was in 1130, chosen Archbishop of Trier to succeed Meginher. The position was not an easy one, for the church was in need of reform, and the previous occupants of the see had been dominated by the Burgrave Ludwig. He could not be induced to accept the burden until Innocent II summoned him to the Synod at Reims, and even threatened him with suspension from his priestly functions. He was consecrated by the Pope himself at Vienne.

Albero vigorously prosecuted the work of reform. He restored peace and order in his archdiocese, and before his death made it one of the most important in Germany. In 1136 he accompanied the Emperor, Lothair II, on his expedition into Italy, whither he had been summoned by Innocent II to resist the aggressions of Roger of Sicily, one of the adherents of the antipope Anacletus II. In the dispute which arose between the Pope and the Emperor, Albero showed himself a staunch defender of the Papal cause, and on his return Innocent made him Primate of Belgian Gaul and Papal Legate in Germany. After the death of Lothair he took an active part in the election of Conrad III, founder of the Hohenstaufen dynasty. In 1148, Pope Eugene III visited Trier, after presiding at the Council of Reims, and was entertained by him with great splendour. Albero was a churchman of great zeal and energy. His generosity was unbounded, and though often compelled to take up arms in defence of the rights of the Church, he was none the less a devout priest and a patron of letters. Among his friends he counted St. Norbert and St. Bernard, who seconded his efforts for the restoration of religious discipline in his archdiocese.

Gesta Alberonis Metrica (1132–45) in Mon. Germ. Hist. (1848), VIII, 236 243; Balderico, Gesta Alberonis Archiepiscopi, 243 261, ibid; Panzer, Erzbischof Albero v. Trier u. die deutschen Spielmannsepen (Strasburg, 1902); Marx, Geschichte des Erzstifts Trier (Trier, 1858), I, xvii; for politico-ecclesiastical history of the time: Barry, Papal Monarchy (New York, 1902).

H.M. BROCK

Giulio Alberoni

Cardinal and statesman; b. 30 May, 1664, at Firenzuola in the duchy of Parma; d. 26 June, 1752, at Piacenza. He was the son of very poor parents, and laboured as a farm hand or gardener until his fifteenth year. After that he became a bellringer in the cathedral of Piacenza, where he gained the favourable notice of the Bishop, was ordained priest, and appointed a canon. The Duc de Vendôme, in command of the French troops in Italy, became the patron of Alberoni, took him to Paris (1706), and made use of his talents in several important affairs. Having accompanied Vendôme to the court of Spain in 1711, the reputation of Alberoni’s talents won for him, after the death of his patron, the position of agent of the Duke of Parma in Madrid. He was very active in furthering the accession of the French candidate for the throne of Spain, Philip V, and afterwards became the royal favourite. Upon the death of the Queen (Maria Luisa of Savoy), Alberoni used his influence to bring about, in 1714, a marriage between the widowed King and Elisabetta Farnese, daughter of the Duke of Parma. In consequence of this diplomatic success he became prime minister, a duke and grandee of Spain, and Bishop of Malaga. He also established more satisfactory relations than had existed between the Roman Curia and the court of Philip V. In 1717 Clement XI, yielding to royal pressure, created him Cardinal Deacon of San Adriano. As prime minister, Alberoni’s political economy was decidedly in advance of his times. He strove to make the Spanish a manufacturing nation, and so far anticipated the developments of the nineteenth century as to establish a regular mail service between Spain and her American colonies. He reformed many abuses in the government and instituted a school of navigation for the sons of the nobility. At the same time he did not hesitate to sacrifice the popular liberties of Spain to the interests of the absolute monarchy; while the foreign policy by which he sought to recover Spain’s lost Italian possessions, his efforts to obtain for Philip V the crown of France and, generally, to aggrandize the Spanish monarchy at all costs, must have led to a general European war if they had not resulted in his own downfall (5 December, 1719). He is blamed for the unwarrantable invasion of Sardinia and of Sicily by Spain, in spite of formal assurance to the contrary given to the Pope. Another extravagant scheme of Alberoni’s was the restoration of the Stuart to the British throne by the co-operation of the Tsar and the King of Sweden. At last, in 1719, Philip V, to save himself from being treated as the common enemy of Europe, dismissed and exiled the Cardinal, who returned to Italy to face the indignation of Clement XI. His journey was interrupted at Genoa, where he was placed under arrest to await the decision of a special commission of the Sacred College. He escaped, however, and remained in hiding until the death of Clement XI in 1721. Under the next Pope, Innocent XIII, he was cleared, by a commission of cardinals, of the charges brought against him (1723), and for some time he lived in retirement in a Jesuit house, after which he was promoted to be Cardinal Priest of the Title of San Lorenzo in Lucina. Under Clement XII he served the Holy See as Legate at Ravenna, and under Benedict XIV at Bologna. Cardinal Alberoni’s declining years were spent in retirement. He is buried in the church of the college of San Lazzaro, which he founded at Piacenza.

Bersani, Storia del Cardinale Giulio Alberoni (Piacenza, 1861, 1872); Von Hefele, in Kirchenlex., I, 410–411.

E. MACPHERSON.

Albert

(ALBRECHT.)

Bishop of Riga, Apostle of Livonia, d. 17 January, 1229. After the inhabitants of Livonia had twice lapsed from Christianity into paganism, and heroic measures were necessary to reclaim them, Albert organized a crusade. He sailed up the Duna (April, 1200), with twenty-three ships; conquered the land on both sides; founded the city of Riga (1201), of which he was made bishop; established the famous Order of Knights of the Sword (1202), which served as a standing army; completed the conversion of the country before 1206; and erected the dependent bishoprics of Semgall-Kurland, Dorpat, and Oesel.

FRITZ in Kirchenlex.; Heinric chronicon Livoniae in Mon. Germ. Script., XXIII, 231–232.

F.M. RUDGE

Albert II

(Albrecht II.)

Eighteenth Archbishop of Magdeburg in Saxony, date of birth unknown; d. 1232. He was the son of Gunther III, Count of Kevernburg, and began his studies at Hildesheim, completing them later at Paris and Bologna. At an early age he was made a prebendary of the Magdeburg cathedral, and in 1200 was appointed Provost of the Cathedral Chapter by Innocent III. Through the influence of the Bishop of Halberstadt, he was nominated as the successor of Ludolph, Archbishop of Magdeburg (d.1205). After receiving the papal approbation, which was at first withheld, partly on account of those who had taken part in his election and partly on his account of his attitude towards Philip of Suabia, Albert proceeded to Rome, where he was consecrated bishop by the Pope (Dec., 1206) and received the pallium. He entered Magdeburg on Palm Sunday, 15 April, 1207, and five days later a conflagration destroyed many of the buildings in the city, including his own cathedral. One of his first cares was to repair the damage wrought by fire, and in 1208 he laid the corner-stone of the present cathedral, which, though completed 156 years later, serves as his most fitting memorial. He likewise rebuilt a large part of the city, and is regarded as the founder of the Neustadt. Magdeburg was also indebted to him for several valuable privileges which he obtained from Otto IV after the death of Philip of Suabia. Albert did much to further the interest of religion. He established the Dominicans (1224), and the Franciscans (1225) in the city, and also founded a convent for women in honour of St. Mary Magdalen.

But Albert’s activity was not confined to his diocese. He also played a prominent part in the great struggle for the imperial crown, which marked the close of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth centuries. Even before his consecration, he had inclined to the side of Philip of Suabia, who sought the crown in spite of his nephew Frederick, the son and heir of Henry VI (d.28 Sept., 1197). But later, accepting the papal “Deliberation,” he gave his support to Otto IV, second son of Henry the Lion, who had been set up as anti-king by a party headed by Adolphus of Cologne and crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle. After the assassination of Philip (July, 1208) Albert did much his rival acknowledge as king. Otto proceeded to Rome, accompanied by Albert, where hi was crowned by the Pope on 4 Oct., 1209, and soon after seized Ancona and Spoleto—part of the papal territories. Upon attempting to enter Sicily he was excommunicated by Innocent III (Maundy Thursday, 1211), and his subjects released from their allegiance. Albert, after some hesitation, published the bull of excommunication and thenceforth transferred his allegiance to Frederick II, the Hohenstaufen, son of Henry VI. In 1212 Otto returned to Germany and defied the Pope. The struggles that followed, in which Magdeburg and its neighbourhood suffered severely, did not come to an end until Otto’s power was broken at the battle of Bouvines (1214). Albert is said to have died in 1232 during an interval of peace between the Empire and the Papacy.

Mon. Germ. Hist., XIV, 418, Gesta Archep. Magde; WOLTER, Gesch. der Stadt Magdeburg (1901), 27; FECHTRUP in Kirchenlex.; BARRY, Papal Monarchy, 1902; also articles on Innocent III, Frederick II, Otto IV.

H.M. BROCK

Bl. Albert

Patriarch of Jerusalem, one of the conspicuous ecclesiastics in the troubles between the Holy See and Federick Barbarossa; date of birth uncertain; died 14 September, 1215. He was in fact asked by both Pope and Emperor to act as umpire in their dispute and, as a reward, was made Prince of the Empire. He was born in the diocese of Parma, became a canon regular in the Monastery of Mortara (not Mortura, as Butler has it) in the Milanese, and after being Bishop of Bobbio, for a short time, was translated to the see of Vercelli. This was about 1184. At that time the Latins occupied Jerusalem and, the Patriarchate falling vacant, Albert was implored by the Christians of Palestine to accept the see. As it implied persecution and a prospect of martyrdom, he accepted, and was appointed by Innocent III, who at the same time made him Papal Legate. His sanctity procured him the veneration of even the Muslims. It was while here that he undertook a work with which his name is particularly and peculiarly associated. In Paslestine, at that time, the hermits of Mount Carmel lived in separate cells. One of their number gathered them into a community, and in 1209 their superior, Brocard, requested the Patriarch, though not a Carmelite, to draw up a rule for them. He assented, and legislated in the most rigorous fashion, prescribing perpetual abstinence from flesh, protracted fasts, long silence, and extreme seclusion. It was so severe that mitigations had to be introduced by Innocent IV in 1246.

The end of this great prelate was most tragic. Summoned by Innocent III to take part in the General Council of the Lateran, in 1215, he was assassinated before he left Palestine, while taking part in a procession, on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. He is honoured among the saints by the Carmelites, on 8 April. The Bollandists call attention to this curious anomaly, that not at Vercelli, where he was Patriarch, not among the Canons Regular, to whom he properly belonged, but in the Order of the Carmelites, of which he was not a member, does he receive the honour of a saint. “That holy Order could not and ought not to lose the memory of him by whom it was ranked among the Orders approved by the Roman Church; in saying which,” adds the writer, “I in no way wish to impugn the Carmelite claim of descent from Elias.” At Vercelli Albert does not even figure as Blessed, and the Canons Regular honour him as a saint, but pay him no public cult.

T.J. CAMPBELL

St. Albert

Cardinal, Bishop of Liège, d. 1192 or 1193. He was a son of Godfrey III, Count of Louvain, and brother of Henry I, Duke of Lorraine and Brabant, and was chosen Bishop of Liège in 1191 by the suffrages of both people and chapter. The Emperor Henry VI violently intruded his own venal choice into the see, and Albert journeyed to Rome to appeal to Celestine III, who ordained him deacon, created him cardinal, and sent him away with gifts of great value and a letter of recommendation to the Archbishop of Rheims, where he was ordained priest and consecrated bishop. Outside that city, soon after, he was set upon by eight German knights of the Emperor’s following, who took advantage of the confiding kindness of the saintly bishop, and stabbed him to death. The date of his martyrdom is given variously as 24 November, 1193 (Moroni), 23 November, 1192 (Hoefer), while the Bollandists, placing it in the latter year, give 21 November as its precise date, this being also the day on which the saint’s feast is kept. His body reposed at Rheims until 1612, when it was transferred by the Archduke Albert of Austria to the church of the Carmelite convent, which he had just founded at Brussels. The relics of this strenuous defender of ecclesiastical liberty were, by permission of the Holy See, shared with the cathedral of Liège, in 1822.

GILES OF LIEGE, Gesta Episcoporum Leodiensium (Liège, 1613), 134–186; BARONIUS, Annales (Bar-le-duc, 1869), XIX, 640; ROHRBACHER, Histoire de l’Eglise catholique (Paris, 1872), VIII, 671–673.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Bl. Albert Berdini of Sarteano

Franciscan Friar and missionary, born at Sarteano, in Tuscany, 1385; died at Milan, 15 August, 1450. He entered the order of Minor Conventuals in 1405, but later, attracted by the apostolic life and remarkable virtues of St. Bernardine of Sienna, the fame of whose sanctity was spread throughout Italy, and desirous of following more strictly the rule of St. Francis, he passed over to the Friars Minor and became one of the devout disciples and faithful companions of the great Apostle of the Holy Name. Under the masterful guidance of St. Bernardine his fame as an orator became so renowned that he was commonly known as the “King of Preachers” (Rex Praedicatorum); and it is recorded of the famous rhetorician, Guerimus of Ferrara, that when Blessed Albert was announced to preach at Ferrara, the preceptor anticipated the hour for his lecture and, the lecture finished, took his students to hear the sermon of the missionary, saying to them: “You have heard the theory, let us know go and see it put into practice.” Pope Eugenius IV commissioned him as one of his legates to negotiate with the Greek Schismatics and induce them to be present at the council held in Bologna in 1453. Though the title of Blessed has always been accorded to Albert of Sarteano, principally on account of the fact, as one of the earlier chroniclers of the order tell us, of the numerous miracles he worked after his death at Milan, his cultus has never been explicitly approved by the Church. Active steps have, however, lately been taken for his formal beatification.

BENEDETTO NERI, La Vita e I Tempi del Beato Alberto da Sarteano (Quaracchi, 1902); HAROLDUS, B. Alberti a Sarthiano Vita et Opera, opus posthumum; SBARALEA, Supplementum et Castigatio ad Scriptores trium ordinum S. Francisi (Rome, 1806); LEMMENS, Chronica Beati Bernardini, Aquitani (Rome, 1902); DA CIVEZZA, Storia delle Missioni Francescane (Rome, 1860).

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Albert of Aachen

(ALBERTUS AQUENSIS).

A chronicler of the First Crusade. His “Chronicon Hierosolymitanum de bello sacro,” in twelve books, from 1095 to 1121, printed in Bongars (Gesta Dei per Francos, I, 184–381), is also found in the fourth volume of the “Recueil des historiens des croisades.” It is now usually accepted that he was a canon of Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle), though Wattenbach asserts (Deutsch. Gesch. II, 179) that it is yet doubtfulwhether the earlier locating of him at the church of Aix-en-Provence be not correct. His narrative is written with little order and less critical skill, his chronology in inexact, and his topographical references are often greatly disfigured. But the work is to be looked on as the outpouring of adeeply religious and poetic heart, which saw in the contemporary Christian knighthood the salvation of the civilization of Christendom. From this point of view, says Dr. Pastor, “the severe criticism of von Sybel, in his ‘Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzugs’ (Düsseldorf, 1841), 72–108, loses much of its point.” Wattenbach says that he may have occasionally used good historical material; in general he is the panegyrist of an ideal Christian military service, a brilliant painter of scenes and events; his work and others like it served as bugle calls to summon to the Orient new multitudes of devoted soldiers of Christ.

PASTOR, in Kirchenlex.; WATTENBACH, Deutschland’s Geschichtsquellen (6th ed., Berlin, 1893), II, 178–180; KUGLER, Albert von Aachen (Stuttgart, 1885); KREBS, Zur Kritik Alberts von Aachen (Münster, 1881); PIGEONNEAU, Le cycle de la croisade (St. Cloud, 1877).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Albert of Brandenburg

Cardinal and Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, born 28 June, 1490; died 24 September, 1545. As early as 1509 he was Prebendary in the Cathedral of Mainz; Archbishop of Magdeburg and Administrator of Halberstadt from 1513; Archbishop of Mainz from 1514; Cardinal-Priest from 1518. The Indulgence issued by Leo X in 1514 for the building of the new St. Peter’s in Rome, was entrusted to Albert (1517) for publication in Saxony andBrandenburg, This commission has been made by d’Aubigné and others the ground of many accusations against Albert and Leo X, as though they had used the Indulgence as a means of enriching themselves personally, “dividing beforehand the spoils of the credulous souls of Germany” (d’Aubigné, History of the Reformation). Albert employed Tetzel for the actual preaching of the Indulgence and furnished him a book of instructions: “Instructio summaria ad Subcommissarios Poenitentiarum et Confessores.” Later, Martin Luther addressed a letter of protest to Albert concerning the conduct of Tetzel, found fault with the Bishop’s book of instructions, and asked him to suppress it. Luther’s charges are altogether groundless; the instructions of Albert to the preachers are both wise and edifying. Luther’s letter was disregarded. Though many of the accusations against Albert’s morals were, doubtless, false, Luther was probably justified in thinking that he would findin Albert a strong partisan. The young bishop was somewhat worldly-minded, extravagant, better trained in humanistic studies than in theology, too much given to the patronage of learned men and artists. His long intimacywith Ulrich von Hutten is especially reprehensible. Leo X was obliged tosend an admonition to Mainz because so many books hostile to the Faith were being published under the Bishop’s eye. In later life Albert changed his conduct. In his diocese celebrated defenders of Catholicism were engaged; at Speyer and Ratisbon he met Blessed Peter Faber, S.J., and kept him inhis diocese (1542–43); after this he was always a friend to the new order. Albert strove earnestly to introduce a ore perfect system of religious instruction and brought forward measures for that purpose in the Diet of Nuremberg. He became by the sincerity of his zeal the great defender of the Faith in Germany. As a temporal prince, he ruled his electorate well; he introduced reforms in the administration of justice, into the police system ,and into commerce. He was buried in the Cathedral of Mainz. An artistic memorial marks the resting-place of his remains.

ALZOG, Universal Church History, PABISCH-BYRNE tr. (Cincinnati, 1876); ROSCOE, Life of Leo X; D’AUBIGNE, History of Reformation in Germany and Switzerland, Eng. Tr. (Philadelphia, 1843); SMITH, Luther and Tetzel (Cath. Truth Soc. Publication) 43; ROTHBACHER, Histoire universelle de l’eglise catholique, IX,; PALLAVICINO, Istoria del Concilio di Trento (Rome, 1833); ORLANDINI, Historia Soc. Jesu (Cologne, 1615).

M.J. O’MALIA

Albert of Castile

Historian, born about 1460; died 1522. He entered the Order of St. Dominic at an early age in the Convent of SSTs. John and Paul at Venice and became skilled in nearly every department of contemporary learning. History, however, was his chief study. He is the author of several noteworthy works, among which may be mentioned; “Catalogus Illustrium Ordinis Virorum” (Venice, 1501); “Catalogus Sanctorum a Petro de Natalibus Veneto eregione Costellana episcopo Equilino concinnatus” (Venice, 1501); “Chronica brevis ab initio ordinis usque ad praesens tempus” (Venice, 1504); an account of the Popes, the Dominican Generals, and the illustrious men of the Order, beginning with its foundation, drawn up chiefly from the work of the Dominican Giacomo de Luzato. He is also the editor of the following works:”Biblia Latina cum pleno apparatu tersissime et nitidissime impressa” (Venice, 1506); this he re-edited fifteen tears later with a concordance of theOld and New Testaments; “Pontificale secundum ritum Romanae Ecclessiae emendatum primum a Jacobo de Lutiis episcopo Cafacensi et Joanne Buckardo” (Venice, 1520); “Constitutiones ord. Praed., una cum adjectis ad singulos textus opportune declarationibus” (Venice, 1507); “Liber de instructione officialium venerabilis Humberti magistri ordinis V” (Venice, 1507); “Regula et privilegia Fratrum et Sororum de poenitentia impugnantes Fratres Praedicatores, quod non vivant secundum vitam apostolicam, a Jacobo de Voragine, O.P. archiepiscopo Januensi” (Venice, 1504).

QUETIF and ECHARD, SS. Ord. Prad., II, 48–49.

JOSEPH SCHROEDER

Albert of Stade

A chronicler of the thirteenth century. He was born before the close of the twelfth century. It is known that he became abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Stade (near Hamburg) in 1232. Failing to change (1236) the rule of St. Benedict in his abbey to that of the Cistercians, he resigned his office and in 1240 joined the Franciscans. In the same year he commenced to compile his chronicle, which begins with the creation of the world and comes down to 1256; he may also be the author of the continuations to 1265. The earlier portions appear to have been taken from Bede’s “Libellus de sex aetatibus mundi,” and Ekkehard’s “Chronicle.” As he approaches his own times, Albert becomes, after the manner of medieval chroniclers, both fuller and more reliable. The first and only complete edition is that printed at Helmstadt in 1587; (Wittenberg, 1608). He is also credited with the authorship of a work called “Troilus,” a Latin epic on the Trojan War, in 5,320 lines, a manuscript copy of which is in the Wolfenbuttel library.

VON FUNK, in Kirchenlex., I, 425, 426; WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen (6th ed., Berlin, 1893), II, 439–441. The text of the Chronicle from 1165 to the end is best found in Mon. Germ. Hist.—Scriptores, XVI, 272 sqq., 431 sqq. See HURTER, Nomenclator., IV, 269, 353.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Leandro Alberti

Historian, born at Bologna in 1479; died same place, probably in 1552. In early youth he attracted the attention of the Bolognese rhetorician, Giovanni Garzo, who volunteered to act as his tutor. He entered the Dominican Order in 1493, and after the completion of his philosophical and theological studies was called to Rome by his friend, the Master General, Francesco Silvestro Ferraris. He served him as secretary and socius until the death of Ferraris in 1528. In 1517, he published in six books a treatise on the famous men of his Order. This work has gone through countless editions and been translated into many modern tongues. Besides several lives of the saints, some of which Papebroch embodied in the “Acta Sanctorum,” and a history of the Madonna di San Luca and the adjoining monastery, he published (Bologna, 1514, 1543) a chronicle of his native city (Istoria di Bologna, etc.) to 1273. It was continued by Lucio Caccianemici to 1279. The fame of Alberti rests chiefly on his “Descrizione d’Italia” (Bologna, 1550) a book in which are found many valuable topographical and archaeological observations. Many of the heraldic and historical facts are useless, however, since Alberti followed closely the uncritical work written by Annius of Viterbo on the same subject. The work was translated into Latin in 1567, after having been three times enlarged in the Italian. He also wrote a chronicle of events from 1499 to 1552, and sketches of famous Venetians. His explanations of the prophecies of the Abbot Joachim and his treatise on the beginnings of the Venetian Republic indicate the current of historical criticism of his day. He was a close friend of most of the contemporary literati, who frequently consulted him. He often mentioned in the letters of the poet Giannantius Flamino, who dedicated the tenth book of his poems to the friar. Hardly a man of that day had a better knowledge of the contents of most European libraries than Alberti.

QUÉTIF AND ECHARD, SS. Ord.Praed.,II, 137, 825; TOURON, Hommes illus. de l’ordre de Saint Dominique, IV, 121–127; TIRABOSCHI, Storia della Letteratura Italiana, VII, Pt. III, 798–800.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Leone Battista Alberti

Born 18 February, 1404; died April, 1472, a Florentine ecclesiastic and artist of the fifteenth century. He embraced the ecclesiastical state and became a canon of the Metropolitan Church of Florence, in 1447, and Abbot of San Sovino, or Sant’ Eremita, of Pisa. Although Alberti was a scholar, painter, sculptor, and architect, it is by his works of architecture that he is best known. Among them are the completion of the Pitti Palace at Florence, the chapel of the Rucellai in the church of St. Pancras, the facade of the church of Santa Maria Novella, the choir of the church of the Nunziata, and the churches of St. Sebastian and St. Andrew, at Mantua. His greatest work is generally conceded to be the church of St. Francis at Rimini. His writings on art are his best, and his reputation rests largely on his “De Re Ædificitoriâ,” vol. X, a work on architecture, which was only published after his death. It was brought out in 1485, and the latest edition of it was a folio one at Bologna, in 1782. See ITALY, RENAISSANCE.

Russell Sturgis, Dict. of Arch. and Building, I, 3–7; Roscoe, Lorenzo de Medici; Vasari, Life.

J.J. A’ BECKET

Nicolò Albertini

(AUBERTINI)

Medieval statesman, b. at Prato in Italy, c. 1250; d. at Avignon, 27 April, 1321. His early education was directed by his parents, both of whom belonged to illustrious families of Tuscany. At the age of sixteen (1266) he entered the Dominican Order in the Convent of Santa Maria Novella at Florence, and was sent to the University of Paris to complete his studies. He preached in Italy with success, and his theological lectures were especially well attended at Florence and at Rome. He was entrusted by his superiors with various important duties and governed several houses. He was made Procurator-General of the whole order of St. Dominic by Blessed Nicolò Bocassini, then Master General, and was afterwards elected Provincial of the Roman Province. In 1299, Boniface VIII made him Bishop of Spoleto and soon afterwards sent him as Papal Legate to the Kings of France and England, Philip IV and Edward I, with a view to reconciling them, a seemingly hopeless task. Albertini succeeded in his mission. The Pope in full consistory thanked him, and made him Vicar of Rome. Benedict XI was particularly attached to Albertini, with whom he had lived a long time in the same cloister. Shortly after his accession to the Papacy (22 October, 1303) he made Albertini Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia and Dean of the Sacred College, which office he held for eighteen or nineteen years. The civil wars that in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries had devastated a great part of Italy, especially Tuscany, Romagna, and the March of Trevi, caused the Pope again to invest the new Cardinal with the dignity of Apostolic Legate, and to send him to restore peace in those disturbed provinces. His authority was also extended to the Dioceses of Aquila, Ravenna, Ferara, and those in the territory of Venice. He was well received by the people of Florence, but after many futile efforts to effect a reconciliation between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines he left the city and placed it under interdict. On the 29th of June (1312), in the name of Clement V, he crowned Henry VII of Luxembourg at Rome. Albertini is the leading figure in the trial that exonerated the Dominican, Bernardo da Montepulciano, from the charge of killing this king by giving him a poisoned host for Communion. He crowned King Robert of Sicily, son and successor of Charles II. The Cardinal of Ostia was known for his great love for the poor, especially for the poor of the City of Prato. He also gave generously to religious houses and towards the erection of churches. At Avignon he established a community of nuns similar to those founded by St. Dominic at San Sisto in Rome. He obtained for his Order the office of “Master of the Sacred Palace,” that has always been held by a Dominican. Two small works are all that are known of his writings. One is a treatise on Paradise, the other on the manner of holding assemblies of Bishops. He was buried in the Dominican Church at Avignon.

QU TIF AND ECHARD, S.S. Ord. Praed., I, 546; CORNER, Chronicon rerum Saxonicarum, in SEELEN, De H. Kornero cujusque M.S. commentario (L BECK, 1720); CARTELLIERI, in Neue Heidelberger Jahrb cher (1904), XIII, 121, 129.

T.L. CROWLEY

John Baptist Albertrandi

(Also called Jan Chrzciciel, or Christian.)

A Polish Jesuit, of Italian extraction, born at Warsaw, 7 December, 1731; died August, 1808. He entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus, 14 August, 1748, and left the Society shortly before the suppression, probably in 1769, for his name is not found in the catalog of 1770. After teaching literature for twelve years in the various Jesuit colleges in Poland, he was entrusted with the care of the great library founded by Zaluski, the famous prelate and litterteur, who had revived literature in Poland. This library which he bequeathed to Poland was seized by Russia and now forms the nucleus of the Imperial library. Subsequently Albertrandi accepted the charge of preceptor to the nephew of the Primate, Archbishop Lubienski. With his pupil, who afterwards became Minister of Justice in Poland, he traveled through the various countries of Europe, chiefly Italy, to gather material for a great history of Poland. With his own hand he copied manuscripts referring to Poland wherever he found them and in three years amassed a collection of one hundred and ten folio volumes. Where he was not allowed to copy he read and, on returning home in the evening, wrote out what his prodigious memory retained. Sommervogel says that the net result was two hundred folio volumes. He is called the Polish Polyhistor. His style is rapid, orderly, and methodical. He knew Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and most of the European languages. His published works are: Two volumes of a translation of Macquer’s “Roman History”; and abridged “Annals of Poland”; a great number of articles in the “Moniteur,” a journal of Warsaw. He also collaborated with Father Naruszewicz, S.J., in a periodical called “Agreeable and Useful Recreations,” and produced a work on numismatics, besides many discourses for the Academy of Warsaw, which he founded. After leaving the Society, he became Royal Librarian and Bishop of Zenopolis, and was decorated with the order of St. Stanislaus. In his work in the Royal library, he not only published a catalog in ten volumes octavo, but left critical remarks in each of the books. He also had ready for publication manuscripts on the history of the three last centuries of Poland, explained by medals; Polish annals up to the reign of Vladislaus IV; and a “History of Stephen Bori.” This last has been published.

Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la c. de J., I, 122; 132

T.J. CAMPBELL

Bl. Albertus Magnus

Known as Albert the Great; scientist, philosopher, and theologian, born c. 1206; died at Cologne, 15 November 1280. He is called “the Great,” and “Doctor Universalis” (Universal Doctor), in recognition of his extraordinary genius and extensive knowledge, for he was proficient in every branch of learning cultivated in his day, and surpassed all his contemporaries, except perhaps Roger Bacon (1214–94), in the knowledge of nature. Ulrich Engelbert, a contemporary, calls him the wonder and the miracle of his age: “Vir in omni scientia adeo divinus, ut nostri temporis stupor et miraculum congrue vocari possit” (De summo bono, tr. III, iv).

I. LIFE

Albert, eldest son of the Count of Bollstädt, was born at Lauingen, Swabia, in the year 1205 or 1206, though many historians give it as 1193. Nothing certain is known of his primary or preparatory education, which was received either under the paternal roof or in a school of the neighbourhood. As a youth he was sent to pursue his studies at the University of Padua; that city being chosen either because his uncle resided there, or because Padua was famous for its culture of the liberal arts, for which the young Swabian had a special predilection. The date of this journey to Padua cannot be accurately determined. In the year 1223 he joined the Order of St. Dominic, being attracted by the preaching of Blessed Jordan of Saxony second Master General of the Order. Historians do not tell us whether Albert’s studies were continued at Padua, Bologna, Paris, or Cologne. After completing his studies he taught theology at Hildesheim, Freiburg (Breisgau), Ratisbon, Strasburg, and Cologne. He was in the convent of Cologne, interpreting Peter Lombard’s “Book of the Sentences,” when, in 1245, he was ordered to repair to Paris. There he received the Doctor’s degree in the university which, above all others, was celebrated as a school of theology. It was during this period of reaching at Cologne and Paris that he counted amongst his hearers St. Thomas Aquinas, then a silent, thoughtful youth, whose genius he recognized and whose future greatness he foretold. The disciple accompanied his master to Paris in 1245, and returned with him, in 1248, to the new Studium Generale of Cologne, in which Albert was appointed Regent, whilst Thomas became second professor and Magister Studentium (Master of Students). In 1254 Albert was elected Provincial of his Order in Germany. He journeyed to Rome in 1256, to defend the Mendicant Orders against the attacks of William of St. Amour, whose book, “De novissimis temporum periculis,” was condemned by Pope Alexander IV, on 5 October, 1256. During his sojourn in Rome Albert filled the office of Master of the Sacred Palace (instituted in the time of St. Dominic), and preached on the Gospel of St. John and the Canonical Epistles. He resigned the office of Provincial in 1257 in order to devote himself to study and to teaching. At the General Chapter of the Dominicans held at Valenciennes in 1250, with St. Thomas Aquinas and Peter of Tarentasia (afterwards Pope Innocent V), he drew up rules for the direction of studies, and for determining the system of graduation, in the Order. In the year 1260 he was appointed Bishop of Ratisbon. Humbert de Romanis, Master General of the Dominicans, being loath to lose the services of the great Master, endeavoured to prevent the nomination, but was unsuccessful. Albert governed the diocese until 1262, when, upon the acceptance of his resignation, he voluntarily resumed the duties of a professor in the Studium at Cologne. In the year 1270 he sent a memoir to Paris to aid St. Thomas in combating Siger de Brabant and the Averroists. This was his second special treatise against the Arabian commentator, the first having been written in 1256, under the title “De Unitate Intellectus Contra Averroem.” He was called by Pope Gregory X to attend the Council of Lyons (1274) in the deliberations of which he took an active part. The announcement of the death of St. Thomas at Fossa Nuova, as he was proceeding to the Council, was a heavy blow to Albert, and he declared that “The Light of the Church” had been extinguished. It was but natural that he should have grown to love his distinguished, saintly pupil, and it is said that ever afterwards he could not restrain his tears whenever the name of St. Thomas was mentioned. Something of his old vigour and spirit returned in 1277 when it was announced that Stephen Tempier and others wished to condemn the writings of St. Thomas, on the plea that they were too favourable to the unbelieving philosophers, and he journeyed to Paris to defend the memory of his disciple. Some time after 1278 (in which year he drew up his testament) he suffered a lapse of memory; his strong mind gradually became clouded; his body, weakened by vigils, austerities, and manifold labours, sank under the weight of years. He was beatified by Pope Gregory XV in 1622; his feast is celebrated on the 15th of November. The Bishops of Germany, assembled at Fulda in September, 1872, sent to the Holy See a petition for his canonization; he was finally canonized in 1931.

II. WORKS

Two editions of Albert’s complete works (Opera Omnia) have been published; one at Lyons in 1651, in twenty-one folio volumes, edited by Father Peter Jammy, O.P., the other at Paris (Louis Vivès), 1890–99, in thirty-eight quarto volumes, published under the direction of the Abbé Auguste Borgnet, of the diocese of Reims. Paul von Loë gives the chronology of Albert’s writings the “Analecta Bollandiada” (De Vita et scriptis B. Alb. Mag., XIX, XX, and XXI). The logical order is given by P. Mandonnet, O.P., in Vacant’s “Dictionnaire de théologie catholique.” The following list indicates the subjects of the various treatises, the numbers referring to the volumes of Borgnet’s edition. Logic: seven treatises (I. 2). Physical Sciences: “Physicorum” (3); “De Coelo et Mundo,” “De Generatione et Corruptione.” “Meteororum” (4); “Mineralium” (5); “De Natura locorum,” “ De passionibus aeris” (9). Biological: “De vegetabilibus et plantis” (10) “ De animalibus” (11–12); “De motibus animalium,” “De nutrimento et nutribili,” “De aetate,” “De morte et vita,” “De spiritu et respiratione” (9). Psychological: “De Anima” (5); “De sensu et sensato,” “De Memoria, et reminiscentia,” “De somno et vigilia,” “De natura et origine animae,” “De intellectu et intelligibili,” “De unitate intellectus” (9). The foregoing subjects, with the exception of Logic, are treated compendiously in the “Philosophia pauperum” (5). Moral and Political: “Ethicorum” (7); “Politocorum (8). Metaphysical: “Metaphysicorum” (6); “De causis et processu universitatis” (10). Theological: “Commentary on the works of Denis the Aereopagite” (14); “Commentary on the Sentences of the Lombard” (25–30); “Summa Theologiae” (31–33); “Summa de creaturis” (34–35); “De sacramento Eucharistiae” (38); “Super evangelium missus est” (37). Exegetical: “Commentaries on the Psalms and Prophets” (15–19); “Commentaries on the Gospels” (20–24); “On the Apocalypse” (38). Sermons (13). The “Quindecim problemata contra Averroistas” was edited by Mandonnet in his “Siger de Brabant” (Freiburg, 1899). The authenticity of the following works is not established: “De apprehensione” (5); “Speculum astronomicum” (5); “De alchimia” (38); Scriptum super arborem Aristotelis” (38); “Paradisus animae” (37); “Liber de Adhaerendo Deo” (37); “De Laudibus B. Virginis” (36); “Biblia Mariana” (37).

III. INFLUENCE

The influence exerted by Albert on the scholars of his own day and on those of subsequent ages was naturally great. His fame is due in part to the fact that he was the forerunner, the guide and master of St. Thomas Aquinas, but he was great in his own name, his claim to distinction being recognized by his contemporaries and by posterity. It is remarkable that this friar of the Middle Ages, in the midst of his many duties as a religious, as provincial of his order, as bishop and papal legate, as preacher of a crusade, and while making many laborious journeys from Cologne to Paris and Rome, and frequent excursions into different parts of Germany, should have been able to compose a veritable encyclopedia, containing scientific treatises on almost every subject, and displaying an insight into nature and a knowledge of theology which surprised his contemporaries and still excites the admiration of learned men in our own times. He was, in truth, a Doctor Universalis. Of him it in justly be said: Nil tetigit quod non ornavit; and there is no exaggeration in the praises of the modern critic who wrote: “Whether we consider him as a theologian or as a philosopher, Albert was undoubtedly one of the most extraordinary men of his age; I might say, one of the most wonderful men of genius who appeared in past times” (Jourdain, Recherches Critiques). Philosophy, in the days of Albert, was a general science embracing everything that could be known by the natural powers of the mind; physics, mathematics, and metaphysics. In his writings we do not, it is true, find the distinction between the sciences and philosophy which recent usage makes. It will, however, be convenient to consider his skill in the experimental sciences, his influence on scholastic philosophy, his theology.

IV. ALBERT AND THE EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCES

It is not surprising that Albert should have drawn upon the sources of information which his time afforded, and especially upon the scientific writings of Aristotle. Yet he says: “The aim of natural science is not simply to accept the statements [narrata] of others, but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature” (De Miner., lib. II, tr. ii, i). In his treatise on plants he lays down the principle: Experimentum solum certificat in talibus (Experiment is the only safe guide in such investigations). (De Veg., VI, tr. ii, i). Deeply versed as he was in theology, he declares: “In studying nature we have not to inquire how God the Creator may, as He freely wills, use His creatures to work miracles and thereby show forth His power: we have rather to inquire what Nature with its immanent causes can naturally bring to pass” (De Coelo et Mundo, I, tr. iv, x). And though, in questions of natural science, he would prefer Aristotle to St. Augustine (In 2, Sent. dist. 13, C art. 2), he does not hesitate to criticize the Greek philosopher. “Whoever believes that Aristotle was a god, must also believe that he never erred. But if one believe that Aristotle was a man, then doubtless he was liable to error just as we are.” (Physic. lib. VIII, tr. 1, xiv). In fact Albert devotes a lengthy chapter to what he calls “the errors of Aristotle” (Sum. Theol. P. II, tr. i, quaest. iv). In a word, his appreciation of Aristotle is critical. He deserves credit not only for bringing the scientific teaching of the Stagirite to the attention of medieval scholars, but also for indicating the method and the spirit in which that teaching was to be received. Like his contemporary, Roger Bacon (1214–94), Albert was an indefatigable student of nature, and applied himself energetically to the experimental sciences with such remarkable success that he has been accused of neglecting the sacred sciences (Henry of Ghent, De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, II, x). Indeed, many legends have been circulated which attribute to him the power of a magician or sorcerer. Dr. Sighart (Albertus Magnus) examined these legends, and endeavoured to sift the truth from false or exaggerated stories. Other biographers content themselves with noting the fact that Albert’s proficiency in the physical sciences was the foundation on which the fables were constructed. The truth lies between the two extremes. Albert was assiduous in cultivating the natural sciences; he was an authority on physics, geography, astronomy, mineralogy, chemistry (alchimia), zoölogy, physiology, and even phrenology. On all these subjects his erudition was vast, and many of his observations are of permanent value. Humboldt pays a high tribute to his knowledge of physical geography (Cosmos, II, vi). Meyer writes (Gesch. der Botanik): “No botanist who lived before Albert can be compared with him, unless it be Theophrastus, with whom he was not acquainted; and after him none has painted nature in such living colours, or studied it so profoundly, until the time of Conrad, Gesner, and Cesalpini. All honour, then, to the man who made such astonishing progress in the science of nature as to find no one, I will not say to surpass, but even to equal him for the space of three centuries.” The list of his published works is sufficient vindication from the charge of neglecting theology and the Sacred Scriptures. On the other hand, he expressed contempt for everything that savoured of enchantment or the art of magic: “Non approbo dictum Avicennae et Algazel de fascinatione, quia credo quod non nocet fascinatio, nec nocere potest ars magica, nec facit aliquid ex his quae timentur de talibus” (See Quétif, I, 167). That he did not admit the possibility of making gold by alchemy or the use of the philosopher’s stone, is evident from his own words: “Art alone cannot produce a substantial form.” (Non est probatum hoc quod educitur de plumbo esse aurum, eo quod sola ars non potest dare formam substantialem—De Mineral., lib. II, dist. 3).

Roger Bacon and Albert proved to the world that the Church is not opposed to the study of nature, that faith and science may go hand in hand; their lives and their writings emphasize the importance of experiment and investigation. Bacon was indefatigable and bold in investigating; at times, too, his criticism was sharp. But of Albert he said: “Studiosissimus erat, et vidit infinita, et habuit expensum, et ideo multa potuit colligere in pelago auctorum infinito” (Opera, ed. Brewer, 327). Albert respected authority and traditions, was prudent in proposing the results of his investigations, and hence “contributed far more than Bacon did to the advancement of science in the thirteenth century” (Turner, Hist. of Phil.). His method of treating the sciences was historical and critical. He gathered into one vast encyclopedia all that was known in his day, and then expressed his own opinions, principally in the form of commentaries on the works of Aristotle. Sometimes, however, he hesitates, and does not express his own opinion, probably because he feared that his theories, which were “advanced” for those times, would excite surprise and occasion unfavourable comment. “Dicta peripateticorum, prout melius potui exposui: nec aliquis in eo potest deprehendere quid ego ipse sentiam in philosophia naturali” (De Animalibus, circa finem). In Augusta Theodosia Drane’s excellent work on “Christian Schools and Scholars” (419 sqq.) there are some interesting remarks on “a few scientific views of Albert, which show how much he owed to his own sagacious observation of natural phenomena, and how far he was in advance of his age. . . .” In speaking of the British Isles, he alluded to the commonly received idea that another Island—Tile, or Thule—existed in the Western Ocean, uninhabitable by reason of its frightful clime, “but which,” he says, has perhaps not yet been visited by man.” Albert gives an elaborate demonstration of the sphericity of the earth; and it has been pointed out that his views on this subject led eventually to the discovery of America (cf. Mandonnet, in “Revue Thomiste,” I, 1893; 46–64, 200–221).

V. ALBERT AND SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY

More important than Albert’s development of the physical sciences was his influence on the study of philosophy and theology. He, more than any one of the great scholastics preceding St. Thomas, gave to Christian philosophy and theology the form and method which, substantially, they retain to this day. In this respect he was the forerunner and master of St. Thomas, who excelled him, however, in many qualities required in a perfect Christian Doctor. In marking out the course which other followed, Albert shared the glory of being a pioneer with Alexander of Hales (d. 1245), whose “Summa Theologiae” was the first written after all the works of Aristotle had become generally known at Paris. Their application of Aristotelean methods and principles to the study of revealed doctrine gave to the world the scholastic system which embodies the reconciliation of reason and Orthodox faith. After the unorthodox Averroes, Albert was the chief commentator on the works of, Aristotle, whose writings he studied most assiduously, and whose principles he adopted, in order to systematize theology, by which was meant a scientific exposition and defence of Christian doctrine. The choice of Aristotle as a master excited strong opposition. Jewish and Arabic commentaries on the works of the Stagirite had given rise to so many errors in the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries that for several years (1210–25) the study of Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphysics was forbidden at Paris. Albert, however, knew that Averroes, Abelard, Amalric, and others had drawn false doctrines from the writings of the Philosopher; he knew, moreover, that it would have been impossible to stem the tide of enthusiasm in favour of philosophical studies; and so he resolved to purify the works of Aristotle from Rationalism, Averroism, Pantheism, and other errors, and thus compel pagan philosophy to do service in the cause of revealed truth. In this he followed the canon laid down by St. Augustine (II De Doct. Christ., xl), who declared that truths found in the writings of pagan philosophers were to be adopted by the defenders of the true faith, while their erroneous opinions were to be abandoned, or explained in a Christian sense. (See St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, Q. lxxxiv, a. 5.) All inferior (natural) sciences should be the servants (ancillae) of Theology, which is the superior and the mistress (ibid., 1 P., tr. 1, quaest. 6). Against the rationalism of Abelard and his followers Albert pointed out the distinction between truths naturally knowable and mysteries (e.g. the Trinity and the Incarnation) which cannot known without revelation (ibid., 1 P., tr. III, quaest. 13). We have seen that he wrote two treatises against Averroism, which destroyed individual immortality and individual responsibility, by teaching that there is but one rational soul for all men. Pantheism was refuted along with Averroism when the true doctrine on Universals, the system known as moderate Realism, was accepted by the scholastic philosophers. This doctrine Albert based upon the Distinction of the universal ante rem (an idea or archetype in the mind of God), in re (existing or capable of existing in many individuals), and post rem (as a concept abstracted by the mind, and compared with the individuals of which it can be predicated). “Universale duobus constituitur, natura, scilicet cui accidit universalitas, et respectu ad multa. qui complet illam in natura universalis” (Met., lib. V, tr. vi, cc. v, vi). A.T. Drane (Mother Raphael, O.S.D.) gives a remarkable explanation of these doctrines (op. cit. 344–429). Though follower of Aristotle, Albert did not neglect Plato. “Scias quod non perficitur homo in philosophia, nisi scientia duarum philosophiarum, Aristotelis et Platonis (Met., lib. I, tr. v, c. xv). It is erroneous to say that he was merely the “Ape” (simius) of Aristotle. In the knowledge of Divine things faith precedes the understanding of Divine truth, authority precedes reason (I Sent., dist. II, a. 10); but in matters that can be naturally known a philosopher should not hold an opinion which he is not prepared to defend by reason ibid., XII; Periherm., 1, I, tr.1, c. i). Logic, according to Albert, was a preparation for philosophy teaching how we should use reason in order to pass from the known to the unknown: “Docens qualiter et per quae devenitur per notum ad ignoti notitiam” (De praedicabilibus, tr. I, c. iv). Philosophy is either contemplative or practical. Contemplative philosophy embraces physics, mathematics, and metaphysics; practical (moral) plilosophy is monastic (for the individual), domestic (for the family), or political (for the state, or society). Excluding physics, now a special study, authors in our times still retain the old scholastic division of philosophy into logic, metaphysics (general and special), and ethics.

VI. ALBERT’S THEOLOGY

In theology Albert occupies a place between Peter Lombard, the Master of the Sentences, and St. Thomas Aquinas. In systematic order, in accuracy and clearness he surpasses the former, but is inferior to his own illustrious disciple. His “Summa Theologiae” marks an advance beyond the custom of his time in the scientific order observed, in the elimination of useless questions, in the limitation of arguments and objections; there still remain, however, many of the impedimenta, hindrances, or stumbling blocks, which St. Thomas considered serious enough to call for a new manual of theology for the use of beginners—ad eruditionem incipientium, as the Angelic Doctor modestly remarks in the prologue of his immortal “Summa.” The mind of the Doctor Universalis was so filled with the knowledge of many things that he could not always adapt his expositions of the truth to the capacity of novices in the science of theology. He trained and directed a pupil who gave the world a concise, clear, and perfect scientific exposition and defence of Christian Doctrine; under God, therefore, we owe to Albertus Magnus the “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas.

D.J. KENNEDY

Archdiocese of Albi

Comprises the Department of the Tarn. An archiepiscopal see from 1678 up to the time of the French Revolution Albi had as suffragans the Bishops of Rodez, Castres, Vabres, Cahors, and Mende; it was not re-established until 1822, and by this new distribution it united the ancient Bishopric of Castres and had for suffragans, besides the Dioceses of Rodez (joined with Vabres) of Cahors, and of Mende, the Bishopric of Perpignan. A local tradition which dates from the twelfth century attributes the foundation of the see to St. Clarus, of African birth, who installed his disciple Anthimus as his successor, and went to Lectoure where he was beheaded. The details of this legend have caused the Bollandists to legitimately suspect its authenticity. The first bishop known to history is Diogenianus (about 406). The church at Albi is rich in mementos; it was at Vieux, in the Diocese of Albi, at the end of the fifth century, that the first monastery of the Gauls (coetus sanctorum) was founded by St. Eugene, a bishop exiled from Carthage, St. Longin, and St. Vindemialis, near the tomb of St. Amarandus (martyr of the third century). From the sixth to the eighth centuries, two great families of Albi gave many saints to the Church, the Salvia family, to which belonged St. Desiderius, Bishops of Cahors, also St. Disciola, the companion of St. Radegonda; the Ansbertina family to which belonged St. Goéric and St. Sigisbald, Bishops of Metz, and the latter’s sister, St. Sigolina, abbess of Traclar in the Diocese of Albi. The celebrated Cardinal de Bernis, ambassador of Louis XV, at Rome, was titular Bishop of Albi from 1764 to 1794. The memory of St. Dominic who vigorously combated the Albigensian heresy is still very fresh in the Diocese of Albi; in the vicinity of Castres there is a natural grotto containing several rooms, which is called the grotto of St. Dominic; tradition asserts that it was the retreat of the saint. The Council of Albi, in 1254, triumphed over the Albigensian heresy by organizing the Inquisition in that region. The parish church of Lautrec is said to have been founded in the time of Charlemagne. The cathedral of St. Cecilia of Albi (1282–1512) is a typical model of a fortified church; its sculptured gallery is the largest of its kind in France. The ancient Benedictine abbey of Soréze, founded in 757, was converted into a school in 1854 under the direction of the Dominican Lacordaire. The cities of Castres and Gaillac owe their origin to the Benedictine abbeys, the first of which, it is said, was founded by Charlemagne, and the second by Raimond I, Count of Toulouse, in 960. The Archdiocese of Albi, at the end of the year 1905, contained 339,369 inhabitants, 49 first-class parishes, 447 second-class parishes, and 68 vicariates with salaries formerly paid by the State.

GEORGES GOYAU

Council of Albi

The Council of Albi was held in 1254 by St. Louis on his return from his unlucky Crusade, under the presidency of Zoen, Bishop of Avignon and Papal Legate for the final repression of the Albigensian heresy and the reformation of clergy and people. It also legislated concerning the Jews.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Juan de Albi

(Also, Alba). A Spanish Carthusian of the Convent Val-Christ, near Segovia, date of birth uncertain; died 27 December, 1591. He was familiar with the Oriental languages, especially Hebrew, and had the reputation of being a skilled commentator. His work is: “Sacrarum semioseon, animadversionum et electorum ex utriusque Testamenti lectione commentarius et centuria” (Valencia, 1610); it was re-edited in Venice, 1613, under the title “Selectæ Annotiones in varia utriusque Testamenti loca difficiliora.”

A.J. MAAS

Sigismund Albicus

Archbishop of Prague, a Moravian, born at Mährisch-Neustadt in 1347; died in Hungary, 1427. He entered the University of Prague when quite young and took his degree in medicine in 1387. Desiring to pursue the study of civil and canon law with more profit, he went to Italy and received the Doctor’s degree in 1404, at Padua. On his return to Prague, he taught medicine for twenty years in the University. he was appointed physician-in-chief to Wenceslaus IV who recommended him as successor to the archbishopric of Prague, on the death of its incumbent in 1409. The canons appointed him to the position, although reluctantly. Albicus held it only four years, and when he resigned, in 1413, Conrad was elected in his place. Albicus received later the Priory of Wissehrad, and the title of Archbishop of Cæsarea. he was accused of favouring the new doctrines of John Huss and Wyclif. He retired to Hungary during the war of the Hussites, and died there, in 1427. He left three works on medical subjects, which were published after his death: “Praxis medendi”; “Regimen Sanitatis”; “Regimen pestilentiæ” (Leipzig, 1484–87).

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Albigenses

(From Albi, Lat. Albiga, the present capital of the Department of Tarn).

A neo-Manichæan sect that flourished in southern France in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The name Albigenses, given them by the Council of Tours (1163) prevailed towards the end of the twelfth century and was for a long time applied to all the heretics of the south of France. They were also called Catharists (katharos, pure), though in reality they were only a branch of the Catharistic movement. The rise and spread of the new doctrine in southern France was favoured by various circumstances, among which may be mentioned: the fascination exercised by the readily-grasped dualistic principle; the remnant of Jewish and Mohammedan doctrinal elements; the wealth, leisure, and imaginative mind of the inhabitants of Languedoc; their contempt for the Catholic clergy, caused by the ignorance and the worldly, too frequently scandalous, lives of the latter; the protection of an overwhelming majority of the nobility, and the intimate local blending of national aspirations and religious sentiment.

I. PRINCIPLES

(a) Doctrinal

The Albigenses asserted the co-existence of two mutually opposed principles, one good, the other evil. The former is the creator of the spiritual, the latter of the material world. The bad principle is the source of all evil; natural phenomena, either ordinary like the growth of plants, or extraordinary as earthquakes, likewise moral disorders (war), must be attributed to him. He created the human body and is the author of sin, which springs from matter and not from the spirit. The Old Testament must be either partly or entirely ascribed to him; whereas the New Testament is the revelation of the beneficent God. The latter is the creator of human souls, which the bad principle imprisoned in material bodies after he had deceived them into leaving the kingdom of light. This earth is a place of punishment, the only hell that exists for the human soul. Punishment, however, is not everlasting; for all souls, being Divine in nature, must eventually be liberated. To accomplish this deliverance God sent upon earth Jesus Christ, who, although very perfect, like the Holy Ghost, is still a mere creature. The Redeemer could not take on a genuine human body, because he would thereby have come under the control of the evil principle. His body was, therefore, of celestial essence, and with it He penetrated the ear of Mary. It was only apparently that He was born from her and only apparently that He suffered. His redemption was not operative, but solely instructive. To enjoy its benefits, one must become a member of the Church of Christ (the Albigenses). Here below, it is not the Catholic sacraments but the peculiar ceremony of the Albigenses known as the consolamentum, or “consolation,” that purifies the soul from all sin and ensures its immediate return to heaven. The resurrection of the body will not take place, since by its nature all flesh is evil.

(b) Moral

The dualism of the Albigenses was also the basis of their moral teaching. Man, they taught, is a living contradiction. Hence, the liberation of the soul from its captivity in the body is the true end of our being. To attain this, suicide is commendable; it was customary among them in the form of the endura (starvation). The extinction of bodily life on the largest scale consistent with human existence is also a perfect aim. As generation propagates the slavery of the soul to the body, perpetual chastity should be practiced. Matrimonial intercourse is unlawful; concubinage, being of a less permanent nature, is preferable to marriage. Abandonment of his wife by the husband, or vice versa, is desirable. Generation was abhorred by the Albigenses even in the animal kingdom. Consequently, abstention from all animal food, except fish, was enjoined. Their belief in metempsychosis, or the transmigration of souls, the result of their logical rejection of purgatory, furnishes another explanation for the same abstinence. To this practice they added long and rigorous fasts. The necessity of absolute fidelity to the sect was strongly inculcated. War and capital punishment were absolutely condemned.

II. ORIGIN AND HISTORY

The contact of Christianity with the Oriental mind and Oriental religions had produced several sects (Gnostics, Manichæans, Paulicians, Bogomilae) whose doctrines were akin to the tenets of the Albigenses. But the historical connection between the new heretics and their predecessors cannot be clearly traced. In France, where they were probably introduced by a woman from Italy, the Neo-Manichæan doctrines were secretly diffused for several years before they appeared, almost simultaneously, near Toulouse and at the Synod of Orléans (1022). Those who proposed them were even made to suffer the extreme penalty of death. The Council of Arras (1025), Charroux, Dep. of Vienne (c. 1028), and of Reims (1049) had to deal with the heresy. At that of Beauvais (1114) the case of Neo-Manichæans in the Diocese of Soissons was brought up, but was referred to the council shortly to be held in the latter city. Petrobrusianism now familiarized the South with some of the tenets of the Albigenses. Its condemnation by the Council of Toulouse (1119) did not prevent the evil from spreading. Pope Eugene III (1145–53) sent a legate, Cardinal Alberic of Ostia, to Languedoc (1145), and St. Bernard seconded the legate’s efforts. But their preaching produced no lasting effect. The Council of Reims (1148) excommunicated the protectors “of the heretics of Gascony and Provence.” That of Tours (1163) decreed that the Albigenses should be imprisoned and their property confiscated. A religious disputation was held (1165) at Lombez, with the usual unsatisfactory result of such conferences. Two years later, the Albigenses held a general council at Toulouse, their chief centre of activity. The Cardinal-Legate Peter made another attempt at peaceful settlement (1178), but he was received with derision. The Third General Council of the Lateran (1179) renewed the previous severe measures and issued a summons to use force against the heretics, who were plundering and devastating Albi, Toulouse, and the vicinity. At the death (1194) of the Catholic Count of Toulouse, Raymond V, his succession fell to Raymond VI (1194–1222) who favoured the heresy. With the accession of Innocent III (1198) the work of conversion and repression was taken up vigorously. In 1205–6 three events augured well for the success of the efforts made in that direction. Raymond VI, in face of the threatening military operations urged by Innocent against him, promised under oath to banish the dissidents from his dominions. The monk Fulco of Marseilles, formerly a troubadour, now became Archbishop of Toulouse (1205–31). Two Spaniards, Diego, Bishop of Osma and his companion, Dominic Guzman (St. Dominic), returning from Rome, visited the papal legates at Montpellier. By their advice, the excessive outward splendour of Catholic preachers, which offended the heretics, was replaced by apostolical austerity. Religious disputations were renewed. St. Dominic, perceiving the great advantages derived by his opponents from the cooperation of women, founded (1206) at Pouille near Carcassonne a religious congregation for women, whose object was the education of the poorer girls of the nobility. Not long after this he laid the foundation of the Dominican Order. Innocent III, in view of the immense spread of the heresy, which infected over 1000 cities or towns, called (1207) upon the King of France, as Suzerain of the County of Toulouse, to use force. He renewed his appeal on receiving news of the assassination of his legate, Peter of Castelnau, a Cistercian monk (1208), which judging by appearances, he attributed to Raymond VI. Numerous barons of northern France, Germany, and Belgium joined the crusade, and papal legates were put at the head of the expedition, Arnold, Abbot of Citeaux, and two bishops. Raymond VI, still under the ban of excommunication pronounced against him by Peter of Castelnau, now offered to submit, was reconciled with the Church, and took the field against his former friends. Roger, Viscount of Béziers, was first attacked, and his principal fortresses, Béziers and Carcassonne, were taken (1209). The monstrous words: “Slay all; God will know His own,” alleged to have been uttered at the capture of Béziers, by the papal legate, were never pronounced (Tamizey de Larroque, “Rev. des quest. hist.” 1866, I, 168–91). Simon of Monfort, Earl of Leicester, was given control of the conquered territory and became the military leader of the crusade. At the Council of Avignon (1209) Raymond VI was again excommunicated for not fulfilling the conditions of ecclesiastical reconciliation. He went in person to Rome, and the Pope ordered an investigation. After fruitless attempts in the Council of Arles (1211) at an agreement between the papal legates and the Count of Toulouse, the latter left the council and prepared to resist. He was declared an enemy of the Church and his possessions were forfeited to whoever would conquer them. Lavaur, Dep. of Tarn, fell in 1211, amid dreadful carnage, into the hands of the crusaders. The latter, exasperated by the reported massacre of 6,000 of their followers, spared neither age nor sex. The crusade now degenerated into a war of conquest, and Innocent III, in spite of his efforts, was powerless to bring the undertaking back to its original purpose. Peter of Aragon, Raymond’s brother-in-law, interposed to obtain his forgiveness, but without success. He then took up arms to defend him. The troops of Peter and of Simon of Montfort met at Muret (1213). Peter was defeated and killed. The allies of the fallen king were now so weakened that they offered to submit. The Pope sent as his representative the Cardinal-Deacon Peter of Santa Maria in Aquiro, who carried out only part of his instructions, receiving indeed Raymond, the inhabitants of Toulouse, and others back into the Church, but furthering at the same time Simon’s plans of conquest. This commander continued the war and was appointed by the Council of Montpellier (1215) lord over all the acquired territory. The Pope, informed that it was the only effectual means of crushing the heresy, approved the choice. At the death of Simon (1218), his son Amalric inherited his rights and continued the war with but little success. The territory was ultimately ceded almost entirely by both Amalric and Raymond VII to the King of France, while the Council of Toulouse (1229) entrusted the Inquisition, which soon passed into the hands of the Dominicans (1233), with the repression of Albigensianism. The heresy disappeared about the end of the fourteenth century.

III. ORGANIZATION AND LITURGY

The members of the sect were divided into two classes: The “perfect” (perfecti) and the mere “believers” (credentes). The “perfect” were those who had submitted to the initiation-rite (consolamentum). They were few in number and were alone bound to the observance of the above-described rigid moral law. While the female members of this class did not travel, the men went, by twos, from place to place, performing the ceremony of initiation. The only bond that attached the “believers” to Albigensianism was the promise to receive the consolamentum before death. They were very numerous, could marry, wage war, etc., and generally observed the ten commandments. Many remained “believers” for years and were only initiated on their deathbed. If the illness did not end fatally, starvation or poison prevented rather frequently subsequent moral transgressions. In some instances the reconsolatio was administered to those who, after initiation, had relapsed into sin. The hierarchy consisted of bishops and deacons. The existence of an Albigensian Pope is not universally admitted. The bishops were chosen from among the “perfect.” They had two assistants, the older and the younger son (filius major and filius minor), and were generally succeeded by the former. The consolamentum, or ceremony of initiation, was a sort of spiritual baptism, analogous in rite and equivalent in significance to several of the Catholic sacraments (Baptism, Penance, Order). Its reception, from which children were debarred, was, if possible, preceded by careful religious study and penitential practices. In this period of preparation, the candidates used ceremonies that bore a striking resemblance to the ancient Christian catechumenate. The essential rite of the consolamentum was the imposition of hands. The engagement which the “believers” took to be initiated before death was known as the convenenza (promise).

IV. ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH

Properly speaking, Albigensianism was not a Christian heresy but an extra-Christian religion. Ecclesiastical authority, after persuasion had failed, adopted a course of severe repression, which led at times to regrettable excess. Simon of Montfort intended well at first, but later used the pretext of religion to usurp the territory of the Counts of Toulouse. The death penalty was, indeed, inflicted too freely on the Albigenses, but it must be remembered that the penal code of the time was considerably more rigorous than ours, and the excesses were sometimes provoked. Raymond VI and his successor, Raymond VII, were, when in distress, ever ready to promise, but never to earnestly amend. Pope Innocent III was justified in saying that the Albigenses were “worse than the Saracens”; and still he counselled moderation and disapproved of the selfish policy adopted by Simon of Montfort. What the Church combated was principles that led directly not only to the ruin of Christianity, but to the very extinction of the human race.

N.A. WEBER

Albinus

A scholarly English monk, pupil of Archbishop Theodore, and of Abbot Adrian of St. Peter’s, Canterbury, contemporary of Saint Bede (673–735). He succeeded Adrian in the Abbatial office, and was buried beside him in 732. His chief title to fame lies in the fact that we owe to him the composition by Saint Bede of his “Ecclesiastical History of the English.” The latter gratefully records the fact in the letter he sent to Albinus with a copy of the work, and at greater length in his letter to King Ceolwulf, both of which serve as a preface to the narrative. He calls Albinus a most learned man in all the sciences (Hist. Ecc. Angl., v, 20), and says that to his instigation and help the above-mentioned work was chiefly owing (auctor ante omnes atque adjutor opusculi hujus).Bede learned from him what had happened in Kent since the arrival of St. Augustine, both ecclesiastical and civil matters. Nothelm, a priest of London, served as their intermediary, and when the former returned from Rome with additional documents from the pontifical archives, Albinus was again called on to help in fitting them into their proper places. He seems to have been endowed with a fine historical sense, for the Father of English ecclesiastical history delights in confessing his earnestness, diligence, and erudition in all that pertained to the apostolic period of England’s conversion.

BEDE, Opp. Hist. (ed. Plummer, Oxford, 1896, I, 3,6; Hist. Ecc. Angl., v. 20, for Bede’s references to Albinus; STUBBS in Dict. Of Christ. Biogr., I, 70.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Johann G. Albrechtsberger

Master of musical theory, and teacher of Hummel and Beethoven, b. at Klosterneuburg in Lower Austria, 3 February, 1736; d. in Vienna, 7 March 1809. He began his musical career as a choir-boy at the early age of seven. The pastor of St. Martin’s, Klosterneuburg, observing the boy’s talent and his remarkable industry, and being himself an excellent musician, gave him the first lessons in thoroughbass, and even had a little organ built for him. Young Albrechtsberger’s ambition was so great that he did not even rest on Sundays and holidays. To complete his scientific and musical studies he repaired to the Benedictine Abbey at Melk. Here his beautiful soprano voice attracted the attention of the future Emperor Leopold, who on one occasion expressed his high appreciation and presented the boy with a ducat. The library at Melk gave him the opportunity to study the works of Caldara Fux, Pergolese, Handel, Graun etc. The result was the profound knowledge of music which gave him a high rank among theorists. Having completed his studies he became organist at the cathedral there, where he remained for twelve years. He next had charge of the choir at Raab in Hungary, and at Mariatfel. Subsequently he went to Vienna having been named choir-director of the church of the Carmelites. Here he took lessons from the court organist, Mann, who was highly esteemed at that time. Mann became his friend, as did also Joseph and Michael Haydn, Gassmann, and other excellent musicians. In 1772 he obtained the position of court organist in Vienna, which Emperor Joseph had promised him years before. This position he held for twenty years, and then became choir-master at St. Stephen’s. Here he gathered about him a circle of pupils, some of whom were destined to become musicians of immortal fame. Among them Ludwig von Beethoven, Joseph Eybler, Johann Nepomuk Hummel, Joseph Weigl and others. The Swedish Academy of Music at Stockholm made him an honorary member in 1798. Albrechtsberger will probably always hold a high rank among musical scientists, his treatise on composition especially will ever remain a work of importance by reason of its lucidity and minuteness of detail. His complete works on thoroughbass, harmony and composition were published, in three volumes, by his pupil, Ignaz Von Seyfried. His many church compositions, on the other hand, while technically correct and ornate, are dry, and betray the theorist. Of his compositions, only twenty-seven are printed, out of a total of 261; of the unpublished remainder, the larger part is preserved in the library of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde at Vienna.

KORNMULLER, Lex. Der kirchl. Tonkunst; GROVE, Dict. Of Music and Musicians; NAUMANN, Geschichte der Musik.

J.A. VOLKER

Albright Brethren

(Known as the EVANGELICAL ASSOCIATION).

“A body of American Christians chiefly of German descent,” founded, in 1800, by the Rev. Jacob Albright, a native of Pennsylvania (1759–1808). The association is Arminian in doctrine and theology; in its form of church government, Methodist Episcopal. It numbers 148,506 members, not including children, with 1,864 ministers and 2,043 churches, in the United States, Canada, and Germany.

GESS, Der Methodismus und die evang. Kirche Wurtenberg (Ludwigsburg, 1876); HUNDHAUSEN in Kirchenlex., I, 453.

FRANCIS W. GREY

Afonzo de Albuquerque

(Also DALBOQUERQUE; surnamed “THE GREAT”).

Died at Goa 16 December, 1515. He was second son of Gonzallo de Albuquerque, lord of Villaverde, and became attached to the person of the king of Portugal. He went to Otranto with Alphonso V in 1480, and made his first voyage to the far East in 1503, returning to Lisbon 1504. When Tristan de Cunha sailed for India in 1506, Albuquerque was one of his officers. He formed the plan to monopolize trade with East India for Portugal, by excluding from it both the Venetians and the Saracens, and therefore sought to make himself master of the Red Sea. For that purpose he seized the Island of Socotra and attacked Ormuz, landing 10 October, 1507, and raising fortifications. The attack was repeated in the year following, also at Cochim in December. When the Viceroy of India, d’Almeida, returned to Portugal, 1509, Albuquerque was appointed in his place. In 1513, King Emmanuel calls him “protho-capitaneus noster.” Annoyed by constant hostilities of the people of Calicut, he destroyed the place on 4 January, 1510. To secure a permanent foothold on the coast of India, he took Goa in March, 1510, abandoning it two months afterwards, only to return in November, when he took the place again, and held it thereafter for the Portuguese. Once safely established on the eastern coast of what is generally comprised under the name of Dekkan, Albuquerque turned his attention to the organization of the colonies and to discoveries towards the farthest East. He took Malacca in July, 1511, and attempted to explore the Moluccas in the same year. In pursuance of his policy to prevent other nations from intercourse with India, he occupied a strong position at Aden, on the Red Sea, March, 1513, but about the same time the Turks had conquered Egypt and effectively barred access to the far East to all other nations except by sea. While Albuquerque was thus establishing Portugues colonization in India on a firm footing, and planning advances beyond Eastern Asia, the Crown of Portugal was listening to intrigues to his prejudice. Still it may be that the state of his health, greatly impaired through climate and strain, induced King Emmanuel to provide for a successor. Albuquerque was manifestly broken down physically. So Lope Suarez was sent to supersede him. The news of what he considered an act of ingratitude prostrated him, and although King Emmanuel recommended, in forcible terms to his successor to pay special deference to the meritorious leader, expressing, at the same time regret at having removed him from his high position, Albuquerque pined and died at the entrance of Goa, 16 December, 1515. Fifty-one years later his remains were transported to Lisbon, where a more worthy resting place had been prepared for them. Among the distinguished leaders and administrators that sprang up in southern Europe at the end of the sixteenth century, Afonzo de Albuquerque holds a very prominent position. His achievements, from a military standpoint, were more remarkable than any of the so-called conquerors of the New World; for he had to cope with adversaries armed very nearly like the Europeans, with hosts that were superior to any that were encountered by Cortez or Pizzaro, and had at his command forces hardly more numerous than those that achieved the conquest of Peru and Mexico. His enemies opposed him at sea, as well as on land, and they might, at any time, obtain succour from powerful Mohammedan states interlying between Europe and Asia. His only route for communication and relief was around the Cape of Good Hope. When, during the last five years of his life, he could at last turn to organization and administration, he proved himself a great man in this respect also. His religious zeal was not the less notable. He built churches in Goa and had Franciscans and a famous Dominican with him. The church of the Blessed Virgin at Goa, which he built, is called by Fathers Spellmann, S.J., “the cradle of Christianity, not only in India, but in all East Asia.” (Kirchenlexicon, V, s.v. Goa).

Perhaps the earliest mention of Albuquerque and his achievements in the Far East is due to King Emmanuel himself in his letter of “idus Junias,” 1513, Epistola Potentissimi Regis Portugalensis et Algarbiarum, etc., De Victoriis habitis in India et Malachia (Rome, 9 Aug., 1518), wherein the King calls him (perhaps a misprint) “Albiecherqe.” There are several editions, some without place or date; JOÄN DE BARROS, Asia (second decade, Lisbon, 1553); FERNÄO LOPEZ DE CASTANHEDA, Historia do descubrimiento & conquista da India (Coimbra, 1552), II, III; DAMIÄO DE GOES, Chronica do Serenissimo Senhor Rei d. Manuel (Second ed., Lisbon, 1749, by Reinerio Bocache). An important, but of necessity partial source is the work of his natural son (Albuquerque was never married) Braz, who took the name of AFONSO THE YOUNGER, Commentarios do Grande Afonso Dalboquerque, capitan geral que foy das Indias Orientoes, etc. (First ed., Lisbon 1576, second ed. (Ibid., 1776), English tr. By Hakluyt Society, 1875–84, The commentaries of the great Afonso Dalboquerque, four vols.; Biographie universelle (Paris, 1854), I; SILVA, Diccionario bibliografico portuguez (Lisbon, 1859), I.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

University of Alcalá

This university may be said to have had its inception in the thirteenth century, when Sancho IV, the Brave, King of Castile, conceived the idea of founding a Studium Generale in Alcalá de Henares, and (20 May, 1293), conferred full faculties on the Archbishop of Toledo, Gonzalo Gudiel, to carry out his plan. What success attended these efforts is, however, not known; we know only that on 16 July, 1459, Pius II gave permission to the Archbishop of Toledo, Alonso Carrillo, to establish some professorships where, “on certain days at the time appointed or to be appointed,” grammar and the liberal arts would be taught. It does not appear that the chairs of theology and canon law were established then, and even grammar was taught only irregularly in the Franciscan convent of San Diego. The honour of founding the University, or more properly speaking, the College, of San Ildifonso, belongs to the Franciscans, Francisco Ximenez de Cisneros, Prime Minister of Spain, who submitted his plan to Pope Alexander VI, and received his approbation 13 April, 1499. Nevertheless, prior to this there existed “certain chairs in some of the faculties,” as he himself says in his petition. The Pope granted to the College of San Ildefonso the same concessions allowed to the College of San Bartolomé at Salamanca, and to the college founded at Bologna by Cardinal Albornoz. To the professors and scholars he granted the privileges enjoyed by those of Salamanca, Valladolid, and the other General Colleges. He conferred the degree of Bachelor on the professors, and Doctor of Laws and Master of Arts on the abbot, or, in his absence, on the treasurer, of the Collegiate Church of San Justo and San Pastor. Those who were thus honoured enjoyed the same privileges as the professors of Bologna, and other universities, and could occupy prebendary stalls for which university degrees were necessary (13 May, 1501). In 1505 ecclesiastical benefices were aggregated to the Collegium scholarium, and 22 January, 1512, the archbishop published the statutes of the College. Denfile says that research in Germany regarding this university is incomplete and inexact. Meiners and Savigny know nothing regarding its origin; the dates are not reliable even in Hefele and Gams. Neither can Rashdall’s assertion that “the Universities of Spain were essentially royal creations” (II, pt. I, p. 69) be sustained here. On 24 July, 1508, Cisneros went to Alcalá with a scholastic colony recruited in Salamanca to found his College of San Ildefonso. The rector was to be chosen by the students (not by the professors, as was the custom at Salamanca) each year about the feast of St. Luke when studies were resumed. The older students were obliged to study theology; civil law was excluded, although the canonists introduced it in the seventeenth century. Besides theology and canon law, the course of study included logic, philosophy, medicine, Hebrew, Greek, rhetoric, and grammar. Demetrio de Creta was engaged to teach Greek, and the mathematician, Pedro Ciruelo, explained the theology of St. Thomas. Cisneros not only founded a university, but built a new town, certain portions of which were devoted to the houses of the students and booksellers. Numerous colleges also sprang up; Santa Catalina and Santa Balbina for philosophers; San Eugenio and San Isidoro for grammarians; and the Trilingüe. He erected a hospital in honour of the Mother of God for the students, and established three places of recreation: the Abbey of San Tuy, near Buitrago; the Aldehuela, near Torrelaguna; and the Anchuelo, near Alcalá. Soon, however, a spirit of insubordination began to show itself in the wrangling of the students with the townspeople, the severe Cisneros apparently showing a strange leniency towards the students. This want of discipline caused the faculty in 1518 to consider the advisability of returning to Madrid. Some of the professors left the university because of the reduction of their salaries. In 1623 an effort was once more made to return to Madrid, but the change was not effected until 1822, and even then it was not permanent, as they returned to Alcalá in 1823. The final and definite removal took place in 1836. The revenues left to the College of San Ildefonso by Cisneros reached the sum of 14,000 ducats, and in the sixteenth century reached 42,000, or 6,000 less than those of Salamanca. The celebrated grammarian, Antonio de Nebrija, received 3,333 maravedis a month; the professor of medicine, Dr. Tarragona, was paid 53,000 a year, and Demetrio de Creta an equal sum (100 florins). Cisneros enforced very rigid examinations. In the theological course which was divided into ten terms, there were five tests. The first and most dreaded was the Alfonsina, which corresponded to that of the Sorbonne of Paris. Those who failed usually went to other universities. To the successful licentiates, letras de orden were given, the first being designated by an L, and the others by superior or inferior letters, according to their merit. The number of students never exceeded 2,000, one-third of the attendance at Salamanca. About 1570 the magnificent building of the university was completed, the twenty-five letters of the motto ET LUTEAM OLIM MARMOREAM NUNC being displayed on as many columns. The patronage exercised by the kings over the universities they had founded or protected led to the sending of visitors and reformers. The principal one sent to the University of Alcalá was Don García de Medrano. The reforms which were instituted brought to an end the university autonomy which had been cherished and encouraged by the Catholic Church.

DE CASTRO, De rebus gestis a Francisco Ximeno de Cisneros (1560); DE LA FUENTE, Historia de las Universidades (Madrid, 1885), II sq.; DENIFLE, Die Entstehung der Universitaten des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1855); RASHDALL, The Universities of Europe (Oxford, 1895), II, pt. I, 99.

RAMÓN RUIZ AMADO

Military Order of Alcántara

Alcántara, a town on the Tagus (here crossed by a bridge—cantara, whence the name), is situated in the plain of Estremadura, a great field of conflict for the Moslems and Christians of Spain in the twelfth century. First taken in 1167 by the King of Leon, Fernando II, Alcántara fell again (1172) into the hands of the fierce Jussuf, the third of the African Almohades; nor was it recovered until 1214, when it was taken by Alonzo of Leon, the son of Fernando. In order to defend this conquest, on a border exposed to many assaults, the king resorted to military orders. The Middle Ages knew neither standing armies nor garrisons, a deficiency that the military orders supplied, combining as they did military training with monastic stability. Alcántara was first committed (1214) to the care of the Castilian Knights of Calatrava, who had lately given many proofs of their gallantry in the famous battle of Las Navas de Tolosas against the Almohades (1212). Alonzo of Leon wished to found at Al cantara a special branch of this celebrated order for his realm. But four years later these Knights felt that the post was too far from their Castilian quarters. They give up the scheme and transferred the castle, with the permission of the king, to a peculiar Leonese order still in a formative stage, known as “Knights of St. Julian de Pereiro.” Their genesis is obscure, but according to a somewhat questionable tradition, St. Julian de Pereiro was a hermit of the country of Salamanca, where by his counsel, some knights built a castle on the river Tagus to oppose the Moslems. They are mentioned in 1176, in a grant of King Fernando of Leon, but without allusion to their military character. They are first acknowledged as a military order by a privilege of Pope Celestine III in 1197. Through their compact with the Knights of Calatrava, they accepted the Cistercian rule and costume, a white mantle with the scarlet overcross, and they submitted to the right of introspection and correction from the Master of Calatrava. This union did not list long. The Knights of Alcántara, under their new name, acquired many castles and estates, for the most part at the expense of the Moslems. They amassed great wealth from booty during the war and from pious donations. It was a turning point in their career. However, ambitions and dissensions increased among them. The post of grand master became the aim of rival aspirants. They employed against one another swords which had been vowed only to warfare against the infidels. In 1318, the castle of Alcántara presented the lamentable spectacle of the Grand Master, Ruy Vaz, besieged by his own Knights, sustained in this by the Grand Master of Calatrava. This rent in their body showed no less than three grand masters in contention, supported severally by the Knights, by the Cistercians, and by the king. Such instances show sufficiently to what a pass the monastic spirit had come. All that can be said in extenuation of such a scandal is that military orders lost the chief object of their vocation when the Moors were driven from their last foothold in Spain. Some authors assign as causes of their disintegration the decimation of the cloisters by the Black Death in the fourteenth century, and the laxity which recruited them from the most poorly qualified subjects. Lastly, there was the revolution in warfare, when the growth of modern artillery and infantry overpowered the armed cavalry of feudal times, the orders still holding to their obsolete mode of fighting. The orders, nevertheless, by their wealth and numerous vassals, remained a tremendous power in the kingdom, and before long were involved deeply in political agitations. During the fatal schism between Peter the Cruel and his brother, Henry the Bastard, which divided half Europe, the Knights of Alcántara were also split into two factions which warred upon each other.

The kings, on their side, did not fail to take an active part in the election of the grand master, who could bring such valuable support to the royal authority. In 1409, the regent of Castile succeded in having his son, Sancho, a boy of eight years, made Grand Master of Alcantara. These intrigues went on till 1492, when Pope Alexander VI invested the Catholic King, Ferdinand of Aragon, with the grand mastership of Alcántara for life. Adrian VI went farther, in favour of his pupil, Charles V, for in 1522 he bestowed the three masterships of Spain upon the Crown, even permitting their inheritance through the female line. The Knights of Alcántara were released from the vow of celibacy by the Holy See in 1540, and the ties of common life were sundered. The order was reduced to a system of endowments at the disposal of the king, of which he availed to himself to reward his nobles. There were no less than thirty-seven “Commanderies,” with fifty-three castles or villages. Under the French domination the revenues of Alcántara were confiscated, in 1808, and they were only partly given back in 1814, after the restoration of Ferdinand VII. They disappeared finally during the subsequent Spanish revolutions, and since 1875 the Order of Alcántara is only a personal decoration, conferred by the king for military services. See MILITARY ORDERS.

DE ROBLES, Privilegia militiae de Alcantará a pontificibus (Madrid, 1662); DE VALENCIA, Definiciones y establecimientos de la Orden de Alcántara (Madrid, 1602); MANRIQUE, Annales cistercienses (till 1283) (Lyon, 1642), 4 vols. fol.; RADES Y ANDRADA, Cronicón de las tres órdenes y caballerías (Toledo, 1572); ARAUJO Y CUELLAS, Recopilación histórica de las cuatro ordenes militares (Madrid, 1866); HÉLYOT, Histoire des ordres religieux et militaires, 6 vols. (Tours, 1718); DE LA FUENTE Historia ecl. de Españna, 4 vols. (Madrid, 1874).

CH. MOELLER

Antonio de Alcedo

Soldier, born at Quito (Ecuador), 1755, where his father was President of the Royal Audiencia from 1728 to 1737. He selected the military career, and rose to the rank of Brigadier General in 1792, in the Spanish army. He wrote a dictionary, historical and geographical, of the West Indies, in five volumes, for which the work of Father Giovanni Coletti, S.J., “Dizionario del l’America meridionale” (Venice, 1771) was a substantial basis. The work of Alcedo was translated into English by G. A. Thompson in 1812, and that translation is looked upon by many as an improvement, whereas it in fact teems with errors from which the original is relatively free.

ALCEDO, Diccionario geografico-historico de las Indias occidentales (Madrid, 1786–89); THOMPSON, The Geographical and Historical Dictionary of America and the West Indies (London, 1812); BERISTAIN DE SOUZA, Biblioteca hisp.-americana septentrional (Mexico, 1816); MENDIBURU, Diccionario etc. (Lima, 1874).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Alchemy

(From Arabic al, the, and Greek chemia or chemeia, which occurs first in an edict of Diocletian).

The art of transmuting baser metals into gold and silver. It was the predecessor of the modern science of chemistry, for the first steps in the development of the modern science were based on the work of the old alchemists. Chemistry dates from the latter half of the eighteenth century. About this time the idea was formulated that the formation of an oxide was an additive process; that an oxide was heavier than the original metal, because something was added to it. The discovery of oxygen is often taken as the date of the birth of chemistry. It established the fact that red oxide of mercury is composed of mercury and oxygen. The lack of this seemingly simple conception gave alchemy its definite existence. From old Egyptian times men had studied the chemical properties of bodies without establishing any tangible or tenable theory. The name alchemy has been applied to the work of all early investigations. By their means were determined a vast number of facts, which were only classified and reasonably explained by the new science of chemistry. Many of the alchemists were earnest seekers after truth, and some of the greatest intellects of their time figure among them. Two motives actuated many investigators: the hope of realizing the transmutation of metals, and the search for terrestrial immortality by the discovery of the elixir vitae. The fantastic element apparent in such desires operated to give alchemy a bad reputation, and it is not always accorded the place in the history of science to which it is entitled. As the belief in the possibility of the transmutation of metals was almost universal, much of the work of the alchemists was directed to the production of gold. Often the work was perfectly honest, but many instances of charlatanism are on record. Dishonest men practised on the greed of rulers. If discovered to be guilty of fraud, capital punishment was sometimes administered. Henry IV of England exhorted the learned men of his kingdom to study alchemy, and pay off the debts of the country by discovering the philosopher’s stone. In the sixteenth century practically all rulers patronized alchemists.

Many clerics were alchemists. To Albertus Magnus, a prominent Dominican and Bishop of Ratisbon, is attributed the work “De Alchimia,” though this is of doubtful authenticity. Several treatises on alchemy are attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas. He investigated theologically the question of whether gold produced by alchemy could be sold as real gold, and decided that it could, if it really possess the properties of gold (Sum. Theol., II-II:77:2). A treatise on the subject is attributed to Pope John XXII, who is also the author of a Bull “Spondent quas non exhibent” (1317) against dishonest alchemists. It cannot be too strongly insisted on that there were many honest alchemists. Chemists have never given up the belief that the transmutation of elements might yet be effected, and recent work in radio-activity goes to prove its possible accomplishment in the case of radium and helium.

The literature of the subject is extensive. Many of the works of the old writers have been preserved, often unintelligible on account of the terminology. Modern authors have also written treatises on the history of the subject. Berthelot has edited a work “Collection des anciens Alchimistes Grees” with the Greek texts. He has written “Les Origines de l’Alchimie” and other works on the same subject. Schmieder’s “Geschichte der Alchimie” (Halle, 1832) is useful. Observations on the subject will be found in treatises on the history of chemistry, such as Liebig’s “Familiar Letters,” and Thomson’s “History of Chemistry,” and in the introductory portions of manuals of chemistry.

T. O’CONOR SLOANE

St. Alcmund

Bishop of Hexham; died 781. Though we know practically nothing of the life of St. Alcmund, or Alchmund, it is clear that he was regarded with much veneration at Hexham in Northumberland. The church founded by St. Wilfrid at Hexham became an episcopal see, and Alcmund, succeeding as bishop, in 767, led a life of remarkable piety until his death, 7 September, 781. He was buried beside St. Acca outside the church. About two centuries and a half later, after the country had been laid waste by the Danes, all memory of his tomb seemed to have perished, but the Saint is said to have appeared in a vision to a man of Hexham bidding him toll Alured, or Alfred (Alveredus), sacrist of Durham, to have his body translated. Alured obeyed and, having discovered and exhumed the Saint’s remains, stole one of the bones to take back with him to Durham, but it was found that the shrine could not be moved by any strength of man until the bone was restored. In 1154, the church having again been laid waste, the building was restored, and the bones of the Hexham saints, those of Alcmund among the rest, were gathered into one shrine. The whole, however, was finally pillaged and destroyed by the Scots in a border raid, A.D. 1296.

Acta SS., 7 September, III; Stanton, English Menology (London, 1892), 438; Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; Dict. Christ. Biog.—Our principal information comes from Simeon of Durham, and Ælred, On the Saints of Hexham, both printed in Rolls Series, and a full account will be found in the Preface and Documents of Raine, Priory of Hexham (Surtees Society, London, 1864–65).

Herbert Thurston.

Andrea Alciati

An Italian jurist, born at Alzano, near Milan, 8 May, 1492; died at Pavia, 12 June 1550. He was the only son of a Milanese ambassador to the Republic of Venice. He studied law at Pavia and Bologna, and published (1522) an explanation of the Greek terms in the Roman law, under the title of “Paradoxa juris civilis”; he had composed this work at the age of fifteen. In 1518 he became a professor of law at Avignon, then a Bourges; finally he returned to Milan in 1538, and was appointed professor of law at Pavia, after which he taught at Milan, Bologna, and Ferrara. He was highly honoroured by Paul III and Charles V, and was acknowledged as the first of the scholars of his age who had known how to embellish with literary skill the legal lore that had hitherto been presented in a very barbarous form (De Feller). His works on jurisprudence were collected and published at Padua (1571, 6 vols. Fol.), but he wrote other works not included in that edition: “Historia Mediolanensis” (p! ublished posthumously at Milan, 1625), “Responsa” (Lyons, 1561), “Formula romani imperii” (1559), and “Epigrammata” (1539). His gravity and moderation, and his caution in the solution of legal difficulties, are praised by his biographers. Hi is best known to the modern world by his curious and entertaining “Emblemata,” a metrical collection of moral, proverb-like sayings, in which he ethical teaching is couched in elegant and forceful diction, though it lacks, somewhat, simplicity and naturalness. This work was first edited by Peutinger (Augsburg, 1531); an excellent edition is that of Padua (1661), with commentaries.

De Feller, Biographie Universelle (Paris ed., 1847), 109; Mazzuchelli, Scrittori d’Italia, s. v.; Green, Andrea Alciati and his Book of Emblems (1873); Id., Shakspeare and the Emblem-writers, etc., down to 1616 (1872).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Alcimus

(Alkimos, “brave,” probably a Græcized form of the Heb. Eliacim).

High-priest, the leader of the hellenizing party in the time of Judas Machabeus. By antagonizing the religious and national sentiments of his countrymen, he won favour at court, and though not of high-priestly stock, he was appointed high-priest by Lysias, the regent of Antiochus Eupator (162 B.C.); but the opposition to the Machabean party prevented him from exercising the office. He therefore went to Demetrius Soter, who in the meanwhile had overthrown Eupator and denounced Judas and his adherents as rebels and disturbers. Demetrius reappointed him to the high-priesthood and send Bacchides with an army to install him. But the perfidious slaughter of sixty prominent Assideans, the cruelties of Bacchides, and the excesses of Alcimus’s followers strengthened the Machabean party, and Bacchides had hardly left the country when Alcimus was forced to appeal to the king for help. Demetrius first sent Nicanor with an army, and, after his defeat and death, Bacchides, in fighting against whom Judas died a heroic death at Laisa (Eleasa), 160 B.C. Alcimus now set to work to carry out his hellenizing policy and to persecute those faithful to the law. But that same year he was stricken with paralysis and died in great suffering.

I Mach. VII, 5-ix, 56; II Mach. XIV, 13-xv, 35; Josephus, Antiq., XII, ix, 7-xi, incl.; Schürer, History of the Jewish People, (New York, 1891) I, I, 227–236.

F. BECHTEL

John Alcock

Bishop of Rochester, Worcester, and Ely, b. at Beverley, 1430; d. at Wisbeach Castle, 1 October, 1500. After studies at the grammar school in Beverley, he went to Cambridge. About 1461, he was presented to the Rectory of St. Margaret’s, London, and to the deanery of St. Stephen’s, Westminster. In 1462 he was Master of the Rolls, and in 1468 Prebendary of St. Paul’s, London. In 1470–71 he was Privy Councillor. He was on the commission that treated with James III of Scotland, and his services were enlisted for similar tasks by Richard III and Henry VII. He was tutor to young King Edward V and baptized Prince Arthur. He was an architect of great merit and was buried in a fine chapel which he had erected for himself in Ely Cathedral. His published writings are: “Sponsage of a Virgin to Christ” (1486); “Hill of Perfection” (1491, 1497, 1501); “Sermons upon the Eighth Chapter of Luke”; “Gallecantus Joannis Alcock, episcopi Elisensis ad fratres suos curatos in Sinodo apud Barnwell” (1498); “Abbey of the Holy Ghost,” “Castle of Labour,” translated from the French, (1536). Alcock is also thought to have written a metrical work in English on the Seven Penitential Psalms. Bale says of him that he “made such a proficiency in virtue that no one in England had a greater reputation for sanctity.” He restored many ecclesiastical buildings, and founded Jesus College, Cambridge, on the ruined nunnery of St. Rhadegund. He also endowed Peterhouse. Alcock was a distinguished cononist, but made no provisions for the study of this branch in Jesus College. His life was one marked by the practice of Christian virtues, full of zeal and of a penitential spirit. BENTHAM, History of Ely; Mullinger, History of the University of Cambridge I; COOPER, Athenae Cantabrigienses.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Alcoholism

The term alcoholism is understood to include all the changes that may occur in the human organism after the ingestion of any form of alcohol. These changes vary from the merest transient exhilaration of the cerebral functions up to profound unconsciousness, ending in coma and perhaps in death. These variations depend upon the amount of alcohol taken, the form of alcohol used, the rapidity of its administration, and the habituation of the individual to its effects. A vast amount of literature has grown up around the apparently simple question of the amount of alcohol which can be oxidized or burnt up in the body and its energy made available for the needs of the system. The question as to whether alcohol is really a food has also aroused much discussion and considerable diversity of opinion. The more accurate methods of study in recent days and the careful work now being done in physiological chemistry make it certain that alcohol can be burned in the body, and that the system may derive energy therefrom, as in the oxidation of sugar or fat. But it must be clearly understood that this statement does not carry with it the idea that alcohol is to be recommended for its food value, or that prior to its oxidation it may not exert some physiological action the reverse of beneficial. As a matter of fact, its disadvantages so far outweigh its useful effects, when taken as a food or beverage, that its use in this way must be emphatically condemned, while the damage that the consumption of alcohol does to man’s nervous apparatus, to his intellect and will, and to his moral sense furnishes additional reason why abstinence, during health at least, should be man’s rule of life. To appreciate fully the facts upon which this statement is based we must consider what alcohol is, its chemical composition, the forms of alcohol in common use, its physiological action in the human body, and its poisonous effects in excessive, or in long continued doses.

Alcohol is a liquid composed of ninety-one per cent by weight (94 by volume) of ethylic alcohol and of 9 per cent by weight (6 by volume) of water. Its specific gravity is 0.820 at 60 F. It is a transparent, colourless, volatile, and inflammable substance, with a characteristic, rather pungent, taste and odour. Ethylic alcohol is the alcohol of brandy, whiskey, wine, and the various spirits and cordials. Its effects upon the system are less dangerous than those of other alcohols, such as amylic, methylic, or butylic. During distillation of grain, unless very carefully conducted, considerable amylic alcohol (fusel oil) will pass over with the ethylic, especially if the process be continued too long. By keeping whiskey stored for several years the amylic alcohol becomes changed into various ethers, which impart the flavour to the spirit. Therefore grain-spirit (whiskey) should be at least two years old, and the spirit from fermented grapes (brandy) at least four years old. Wine is made by fermentation without distillation; red wine by fermenting the juice of coloured grapes in the presence of their skins, and white wine by fermenting the unmodified juice of the grape, free from seeds, stems, and stones. Gin is obtained by adding juniper berries to dilute alcohol. Rum, or molasses spirit, by distillation from sugar or molasses which has undergone alcoholic fermentation. Malt liquors—ale, beer, porter, etc.—are produced by fermentation of malt and hops. Absolutely pure alcohol is rarely found, even in the laboratory of the chemist. Owing to its great affinity for water, it will abstract it even from the air. What is known as absolute alcohol of the shops usually contains about 2 per cent of water. In order to estimate the effects of different forms of alcoholic liquors the following comparative strength should be remembered: Brandy, whiskey, rum, gin, cordials, 30 to 50 per cent of absolute alcohol; Spanish and Italian sweet wines, 13 to 17 per cent; hock and claret, 8 to 11 per cent; ale, porter, stout or beer, 4 to 6 per cent; koumyss, 1 to 3 per cent. Champagne contains from 8 to 10 per cent, but the presence of carbonic acid gas makes it more “heady,” that is to say, the cerebral stimulation is produced more quickly, and the carbonic acid acts as a sedative to the stomach, making champagne especially serviceable where prompt stimulation is required and the stomach is irritable, as in seasickness or in yellow fever. Besides the open and undisguised alcoholic preparations cited above, there is a host of patent medicines, proprietary foods, tonics, and other nostrums advertised as entirely harmless and as containing no alcohol, and recommended for inebriates, for convalescents, and for persons weakened by disease. Analysis of many of these has shown alcohol in quantities ranging from 7 to 47 per cent. The use of these substances is having a tremendous, but unrecognized, influence, physical, economical, and moral, upon society at the present day. Although it is unquestionably true that alcohol may take the place of some fat or carbohydrate in the food, it is an extraordinary food, to be used only under certain conditions when its ease of oxidation may be of great benefit, and on account of its peculiar toxic effect it should not be taken except when needed. It has been compared to the furniture of a ship, together with its decks and stanchions, which are undoubtedly fuel substances, yet which no sane captain would use for fuel purposes, except in the direst need. Physiologically, it is both unwise and incorrect to advise that the continued use of alcohol in moderate doses is harmless. Alcohol, like salt water in a steam boiler, should be used only in emergencies. To understand this, we must consider its physiological action in the human body.

Physiologists now universally believe that the cell is the scene of all vital processes. The essential processes of nutrition are the metabolic changes which take place within the cells of the body, all other steps of nutrition being either antecedent or succedent accessories. The antecedent accessories of nutrition are the preparation of the food, its mastication, its deglutition, its digestion, its absorption, its distribution by the circulatory system, and its selection by the individual cells from the capillaries direct or from the tissue plasma. Physiologists and biologists believe that all foods are built up into protoplasm; that is, they are selected and made part of the living cell. A food must therefore satisfy the following conditions: First, it must be digestible and absorbable by the organism which it is to nourish; second, it must be assimilable by the living cells of the organism, in order to build up new tissue; third, after assimilation it must be capable of catabolic changes accompanied by oxidation, in order to liberate energy; fourth, the energy must be liberated at such a time and place as to be advantageous and beneficial to the organism. It is not enough to prove that potential chemical energy is changed into kinetic energy. The oxidation must take place at the right time and place, before the energy liberated can be useful in function. All food is tissue-building in its assimilation; all food is energy-yielding in its catabolism. The only points alcohol possesses in common with the foods are two: first, it is oxidized within the body; secondly, it diminishes carbonaceous and perhaps proteid catabolism—the so-called “sparing” action of alcohol. This “sparing” is accompanied by an accumulation of the carbonaceous materials of the body and an actual deposit of fat. But this condition is brought about by reducing the activity of the cell by the narcotic effect of the alcohol, and is not in any sense to be compared with the increased demand for food by the cell, resulting from proper mental and physical exercise and all conditions which favour vigorous nutrition. Yet the advocates of alcohol as a food in health base upon their physiological misconceptions a superstructure of fallacious reasoning.

A detailed consideration of the effects of alcohol upon the individual organs and tissues will perhaps elucidate the foregoing statements. Applied to the skin, alcohol excites a sense of heat and superficial inflammation if evaporation be prevented. It coagulates the albumen and hardens the animal textures. If evaporation is not prevented, the surface temperature is reduced. The lining of the mouth is corrugated by it—a result due to the abstraction of water and condensation of the albumen. In the stomach it causes a sensation of warmth which is diffused over the abdomen and quickly followed by a general glow of the body. In moderate quantity, it induces an increased blood-supply which enables the mucous follicles and gastric glands to produce a more abundant secretion of stomach juices. When habitually taken, a gastric catarrh is established with the production of a fluid abnormal both in quantity and quality. The increased blood supply also sets up irritation of the structural framework (connective tissue) of the stomach, resulting in its overgrowth, with the crowding out of the working-cells, which gradually shrink. Alcohol also affects directly the chemistry of the gastric secretion by precipitating the pepsin—a necessary ferment to the digestion of albuminoid food. The abnormal mucus, which is elaborated in great quantity, sets up pathological fermentation in the starchy saccharrine and fatty elements of the food, giving rise to acidity, heartburn, regurgitation of food, and a peculiar retching in the morning.

Alcohol enters the blood with great facility, and probably almost all taken into the stomach passes into the blood from this organ, and goes directly to the liver by way of the portal vein. In the liver, it increases at first the functional activity of the working-cells, and a more abundant production of bile is the result. Frequent stimulation and consequent overaction result in impairment or loss of the proper function of the part, as is the universal law. The liver cells shrink, the structural framework increases in size at first but subsequently contracts, producing the small, nodular, hard liver, to which the term cirrhosis has been applied. Alcohol also diminishes the normal storage of glycogen, leaving less to draw upon when needed by the system during stress. In small doses alcohol increases the action of the heart and the cutaneous circulation; a slight rise of temperature is observed, and all the functions are for the time being more energetically performed. On the nervous system its first effect is to increase the functional activity of the brain; the ideas flow more easily, the senses are more acute, the muscular movements more active. With increased action of the alcohol, the excitement becomes disorderly, the ideas incoherent and rambling, the muscular movements uncontrolled and inco-ordinated. With an excessive quantity, the functions of the cerebrum are suspended, and complete unconsciousness results. By an extension of the poisonous influence to the nervous centres governing respiration and circulation, these functions may cease, and death result. Alcohol has a special affinity for nervous tissue, and as a result chiefly of its direct contact, but partly from its effects on the blood current, the working cells of the brain shrink, the supporting structure hardens, the cerebrospinal fluid, which should act as a protective water-jacket, increases in quantity and exerts injurious pressure. giving the familiar picture of “wet brain” so common in the autopsy room of hospitals caring for large numbers of habitual drunkards. Existing in a less degree, these brain changes are objectively shown in the impaired mental power, the muscular trembling, the shambling gait, and the lack of moral sense of the chronic drinker. Delirium tremens is a variety of alcoholism occurring in some subjects from sudden excess of a periodical kind, in others from a failure of the stomach to dispose, not only of food, but of the accustomed stimulus, and in another group—common in hospitals and jails—to sudden deprivation of liquor in steady drinkers when under confinement for injury or crime. Idiosyncrasy is an important factor in the causation of delirium tremens, as is also the use of alcoholic beverages rich in fusel oil—like the cheaper whiskeys. The long-continued action of alcohol on the nervous system produces many other chronic disorders. Loss of sensation, epilepsy, motor-paralysis, and blindness often result from alcoholic excess. It is probable that if alcohol could be stamped out for a century insanity would shrink in prevalence seventy-five per cent. The best and latest authorities all agree that the action of alcohol upon the nervous system is always that of a narcotic, whether the dose be large or small. On the bodily temperature there is no longer any doubt that alcohol produces a reduction, after the primary and transient sensation of heat has passed away. All northern explorers know that the use of alcohol endangers life through cooling of the body. It is useful, in the form of hot drink, to revive a person who has been exposed to cold, but only after the exposure has ceased. Dr. Parkes, in the Ashantee campaign, found that the fatigue of marching in the tropics is better borne without the aid of a spirit ration. The power of alcohol to diminish muscular work and agility is so well known that athletes rigorously abstain during training, and the records of the prize-ring demonstrate that only the pugilist who has no alliance with alcohol is able to remain in the game.

There is no difference of opinion among physiologists regarding the facts of the action of alcohol in the human body. They differ strenuously regarding the conclusions to be drawn from these facts, some contending that alcohol is a “partial food when taken in moderate quantities.” Modern knowledge justifies the belief that in health it is never a food in any sense, be the quantity large or small, but always a poison, biologically or physiologically speaking; in disease it is neither a food nor a poison, but may be a suitable and helpful drug. It should be rightly called what it rightly is, a drug, and not a drink; a narcotic, and not a tonic. Its use as a drug will then be rightly restricted, as in the case of other drugs, to the intelligent direction of men upon whom the State imposes, at the present day, rigid restrictions as to preliminary education, supplemented by study of the technical knowledge of the profession of medicine. Its uses in disease are many, but their consideration does not come within the scope of this article. There are cases of typhoid fever, pneumonia, and diphtheria in which alcohol is a most valuable help, and in some other conditions its use may be advisable. Careful observations of its effects, in private practice and in extensive hospital experience, compel the writer to subscribe to this conclusion: “Alcohol in health is often a curse; alcohol in disease is mostly a blessing.” From a sociological standpoint, we are compelled by incontrovertible evidence to acknowledge that it is of all causes the most frequent source of poverty, unhappiness, divorce, suicide, immorality, crime, insanity, disease, and death.

CHITTENDEN (Yale). Medical News, 22 April, 1905; SHOEMAKER, Materia Medica and Therapeutics (Philadelphia, 1894); BEEBE, New York Medical Journal (15 April. 1905); FOSTER, Textbook of Physiology (London, 1898); FLINT, Handbook of Physiology (New York, 1905); BARTHOLOW, Materia Medica and Therapeutics (New York 1903); HALL, Journal of the American Medical Association (14 July, 1900); ATWATER, Physiological Aspects of the Liquor Problem (Boston, 1903); WELCH, Physiological Aspects of the Liquor Problem (Boston, 1903); BUNGE, Physiologische und Pathologische Chemic (1894), 124; NAMMACK, Alcohol in Typhoid Fever in Medical Record (28 April, 1906); PEABODY, Alcohol in Disease, in Medical News (22 April, 1905); O’GORMAN, Scientific Valuation of Alcohol in Health (London, 1900).

CHARLES EDWARD NAMMACK

Alcuin

(Alhwin, Alchoin; Latin Albinus, also Flaccus).

An eminent educator, scholar, and theologian born about 735; died 19 May, 804. He came of noble Northumbrian parentage, but the place of his birth is a matter of dispute. It was probably in or near York. While still a mere child, he entered the cathedral school founded at that place by Archbishop Egbert. His aptitude, and piety early attracted the attention of Aelbert, master of the school, as well as of the Archbishop, both of whom devoted special attention to his instruction. In company with his master, he made several visits to the continent while a youth, and when, in 767, Aelbert succeeded to the Archbishopric of York, the duty of directing the school naturally devolved upon Alcuin. During the fifteen years that followed, he devoted himself to the work of instruction at York, attracting numerous students and enriching the already valuable library. While returning from Rome in March, 781, he met Charlemagne at Parma, and was induced by that prince, whom he greatly admired, to remove to France and take up residence at the royal court as “Master of the Palace School.” The school was kept at Aachen most of the time, but was removed from place to place, according as the royal residence was changed. In 786 he returned to England, in connection, apparently, with important ecclesiastical affairs, and again in 790, on a mission from Charlemagne. Alcuin attended the Synod of Frankfort in 794, and took an important part in the framing of the decrees condemning Adoptionism as well as in the efforts made subsequently to effect the submission of the recalcitrant Spanish prelates. In 796, when past his sixtieth year, being anxious to withdraw from the world, he was appointed by Charlemagne Abbot of St. Martin’s at tours. Here, in his declining years, but with undiminished zeal, he set himself to build up a model monastic school, gathering books and drawing students, as before, at Aachen and York, from far and near. He died 19 May, 804. Alcuin appears to have been only a deacon, his favourite appellation for himself in his letters being “Albinus, humilis Levita.” Some have thought, however, that he became a priest, at least during his later years. His unknown biographer, in describing this period, says of him, celebrabat omni die missarum solemnia (Jaffé, “Mon. Alcuin., Vita,” 30). In one of his last letters Alcuin acknowledged the gift of a casula, or chasuble, which he promises to use in missarum solemniis (Ep. 203). It is probable that he was a monk, and a member of the Benedictine Order, although this also has been disputed, some historians maintaining that he was simply a member of the secular clergy, even when he exercised the office of abbot at Tours.

I. EDUCATOR AND SCHOLAR

Of his work as an educator and scholar it may be said, in a general way, that he had the largest share in the movement for the revival of learning which distinguished the age in which he lived, and which made possible the great intellectual renaissance of three centuries later. In him Anglo-Saxon scholarship attained to its widest influence, the rich intellectual inheritance left by Bede at Jarrow being taken up by Alcuin at York, and, through his subsequent labours on the Continent, becoming the permanent possession of civilized Europe. The influences surrounding Alcuin at York were made up chiefly of elements from two sources, Irish and Continental. From the sixth century onward Irishmen were busy founding schools as well as churches and monasteries all over Europe; and from Iona, according to Bede, Aidan and other Celtic missionaries bore the knowledge of the classics, along with the light of the Christian faith, into Northumbria. Both Aldhelm and Bede had Irish teachers. Celtic scholarship appears, however, to have entered only remotely and indirectly into Alcuin’s training. The strongly Roman cast which characterized the School of Canterbury, founded by Theodore and Hadrian, who were sent by the Pope to England in 669, was naturally reproduced in the School of Jarrow, and from this, in turn, in the School of York. The influence is discernible in Alcuin, on the religious side, in his devoted adhesion to Roman, as distinguished from particular local or national, traditions, as well as, in an intellectual way, in the fact that his knowledge of Greek, which was a favourite study with Irish scholars, appears to have been very slight.

An important feature of Alcuin’s educational work at York was the care and preservation, as well as the enlargement, of its precious library. Several times he journeyed through Europe for the purpose of copying and collecting books. Numerous pupils, too, gathered around him, from all parts of England and the continent. In his poem “On the Saints of the Church of York,” written, probably, before he took up his residence in France, he has left us a valuable description of the academic life at York, together with a list of the authors represented by its catalogue of books. The course of studies embraced, in the words of Alcuin, “liberal studies and the holy word,” or the seven liberal arts comprising the trivium and the quadrivium, with the study of Scripture and the Fathers for those more advanced. A feature of the school that deserves mention was the organization of studies on the modern plan, the students being separated into classes, according to the subjects and divisions of subjects studied, with a special teacher for each class. But it was when he took charge of the Palace School that the abilities of Alcuin were most conspicuously shown. In spite of the influence of York, learning in England was declining. The country was a prey to dissensions and civil wars, and Alcuin perceived in the growing power of Charlemagne and his eagerness for the development of learning an opportunity such as even York, with all its pre-eminence and scholastic advantages, could not afford. Nor was he disappointed. Charlemagne counted on education to complete the work of empire-building in which he was engaged, and his mind was busy with educational projects. A literary revival, in fact, had already begun. Scholars were drawn from Italy, Germany, and Ireland, and when Alcuin, in 782, transferred his allegiance to Charlemagne, he soon found surrounding him at Aachen, in addition to the youthful members of the nobility he was called upon to instruct, a band of older learners some of whom were ranked among the best scholars of the time. Under his leadership the Palace School became what Charles had hoped to make it, the centre of knowledge and culture for the whole kingdom, and indeed for the whole of Europe. Charlemagne himself, his queen, Luitgard, his sister Gisela, his three sons and two daughters became pupils of the school, an example which the rest of the nobility were not slow to imitate. Alcuin’s supreme merit as an educator lay, however, not merely in the training up of a generation of educated men and women, but above all, in inspiring with his own enthusiasm for learning and teaching the talented youths who flocked to him from all sides. His educational writings, comprising the treatises “On Grammar,” “On Orthography,” “On Rhetoric and the Virtues,” “On Dialectics,” the “Disputation with Pepin,” and the astronomical treatise entitled “De Cursu et Saltu Lunae ac Bissexto,” afford an insight into the matter and methods of teaching employed in the Palace School and the schools of the time generally, but they are not remarkable either for originality or literary excellence. They are mostly compilations—generally in the form of dialogues drawn from the works of earlier scholars, and were probably intended to be used as textbooks by his own pupils.

Alcuin, like Bede, was a teacher rather than a thinker, a gatherer and a distributor rather than an originator of knowledge, and in this respect, it is plain to us now, the bent of his genius responded perfectly to the imperative intellectual need of the age, which was the preservation and the representation to the world of the treasures of knowledge inherited from the past, long buried out of sight by the successive tides of barbarian invasion. Disce ut doceas (learn in order to teach) was the motto of his life, and the supreme value he attached to the office of teaching is recognizable in his admonition to his disciples that the idle youth would never become a teacher in his old age (Qui non discit in pueritia, non docet in senectute, Ep. 27). Alcuin was eminently qualified to be the schoolmaster of his age. Although living in the world and occupied much with public affairs, he was a man of singular humility and sanctity of life. He had an unbounded enthusiasm for learning and a tireless zeal for the practical work of the class-room and library, and the young men of talent whom he drew in crowds around him from all parts of Europe went away inspired with something of his own passionate ardour for study. His warm-hearted and affectionate disposition made him universally beloved, and the ties that bound master and pupil often ripened into intimate friendship that lasted through life. Many of his letters that have been preserved were written to his former pupils, more than thirty being addressed to his tenderly loved disciple Arno, who became Archbishop of Salzburg. Before he died Alcuin had the satisfaction of seeing the young men whom he had trained engaged all over Europe in the work of teaching. “Wherever,” says Wattenbach, in speaking of the period that followed, “anything of literary activity is visible, there we can with certainty count on finding a pupil of Alcuin’s.” Many of his pupils came to occupy important positions in Church and State and lent their influence to the cause of learning, as the above-mentioned Arno, Archbishop of Salzburg; Theodulph, Bishop of Orleans; Eanbald, Archbishop of York; Adelhard, the cousin of Charles, who became Abbot of (New) Corbie, in Saxony; Aldrich, Abbot of Ferrières, and Fridugis, the successor of Alcuin at Tours. Among his pupils also was the celebrated Rabanus Maurus, the intellectual successor of Alcuin, who came to study under him for a time at Tours, and who subsequently in his school at Fulda, continued the work of Alcuin at Aachen and Tours.

The development of the Palace School, however, important as it was, was only a part of the broad educational plans of Charlemagne. For the diffusion of learning, other educational centers had to be established throughout the kingdom, and for this, in an age when education was so largely, under the control of the Church, it was essential that the clergy should be a body of educated men. With this object in view, a series of decrees or capitulars were issued in the name of the Emperor, which enjoined upon all clerics, secular as well as regular, under penalty of suspension deprivation of office, the ability to read and write and the possession of the knowledge requisite for the intelligent performance of the duties of the clerical state. Reading-schools were to be established for the benefit of candidates for the priesthood, and bishops were required to examine their clergy from time to time, to ascertain the degree of their compliance with these educational laws. A scheme for universal elementary education was also projected. A capitular of the year 802 enjoined that “everyone should send his son to study letters, and that the child should remain at school with all diligence until he should become well instructed in learning “ (West, 54). Following the decrees of the Council of Vaison, a primary school was to be established in every town and village to be taught by the priests gratuitously. It is impossible to say to what extent Alcuin deserves credit for the organization of the vast educational system which was thus set up, comprising a central higher institution, the Palace School, a number of subordinate schools of the liberal arts scattered throughout the country, and schools for the common people in every city and village. His hand is nowhere visible in the series of legislative enactments referred to; but there can be no doubt that he had much to do with the instigation, if not with the framing, of these laws. “The voice,” Gaskoin aptly says, “is the voice of Charles, but the hand is the hand of Alcuin.” It was with Alcuin, too, and his pupils that the responsibility rested for carrying out the legislation. True, the laws were only imperfectly carried into effect; the measures planned and partially put into practice for the enlightenment of the people did not meet with complete success; the movement for the revival and diffusion of learning throughout the Empire did not last. Yet much was accomplished that did endure. The accumulated wisdom or the past, which was in danger of perishing, was preserved, and when the greater and more permanent renaissance of learning came, several centuries later, when the light began to pierce through the storm-clouds of feudal strife and anarchy, the foundations laid in the eighth century were still there, ready to receive the weight of the higher learning which the scholars of the new revival should build up” (Gaskoin, 209). Alcuin’s poems range from brief, epigrammatic verses, addressed to his friends, or intended as inscriptions for books, churches, altars, etc., to lengthy metrical histories of biblical and ecclesiastical events. His verses seldom rise to the level of real poetry, and, like most of the work of the poets of the period, they often fail to conform to the rules for quantity, just as his prose, though simple and vigorous, shows here and there a seeming disregard for the accepted canons of syntax. His principal metrical work, the “Poem on the Saints of the Church at York,” consists of 1657 hexameter lines and is really a history of that Church.

II. ALCUIN AS A THEOLOGIAN

Alcuin’s work as a theologian may be classed as exegetical or biblical, moral, and dogmatic. Here again the characteristic that has been noted in his educational work is conspicuous it is that of conservation rather than originality. His nine Scriptural commentaries—on Genesis, The Psalms, The Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Hebrew Names, St. John’s Gospel, the Epistles to Titus, Philemon, and the Hebrews, The Sayings of St. Paul, and the Apocalypse—consist mostly of sentences taken from the Fathers, the idea, apparently, being to collect into convenient form the observations on the more important Scriptural passages of the best commentators who had preceded him. A more important Biblical undertaking by Alcuin was the revision of the text of the Latin Vulgate. At the beginning of the ninth century, this version had displaced in France, as elsewhere throughout the Western Church, the Old Itala (Vetus Itala) and other Latin versions of the Bible; but the Vulgate, as it existed, showed many variants from the original of St. Jerome. Uniformity in the sacred text was in fact, unknown. Every church and monastery had its own accepted readings, and varying texts were often to be found in the Bibles used in the same house. Other scholars besides Alcuin were engaged in the task of endeavouring to remedy this condition. Theodulph of Orléans produced a revised text of the Vulgate which has survived in the “Codex Memmianus.” The original work of Alcuin has not come down to us, the carelessness of copyists and the extensive usage to which it attained having led to numberless, though for the most part unimportant variations from the standard he sought to fix. In his letters he simply mentions the fact that he is engaged, by the order of Charlemagne, “in emendatione Veteris Novique Testamenti” (Ep., 136). Four Bibles are shown by the dedicatory poems affixed to them to have been prepared by him, or under his direction at Tours, probably during the years 799–801. In the opinion of Berger the “Tours Bibles” all represent in a greater or less degree, notwithstanding their variations in detail, the original Alcuinian text (Hist. de la vulg., 242). Whatever the exact changes made by Alcuin in the Bible text may have been, the known temper of the man, no less than the limits of the scholarship of the age, makes it certain that these changes were not of a far-reaching kind. The idea being, however, to reproduce the genuine text of St. Jerome, so far as possible, and to correct the gross blunders which disfigured the Sacred writings, the Biblical work of Alcuin was, from this point of view, important. Of the three brief moral treatises Alcuin has left us, two, “De virtutibus et vitiis,” and “De animae ratione,” are largely abridgments of the writing of St. Augustine on the same subjects, while the third, “On the Confession of Sins,” is a concise exposition of the nature of confession, addressed to the monks of St. Martin of Tours. Closely allied to his moral writings in spirit and purpose are his sketches of the lives of St. Martin of Tours, St. Vedast, St. Riquier, and St. Willibrord, the last being a biography of considerable length.

It is upon his dogmatic writings that the fame of Alcuin as a theologian principally rests. Against the Adoptionist heresy he stood forth as the foremost champion of the Church. It is a proof of his power of penetration—a quality of mind which some historians appear to deny him altogether—that he so clearly perceived the essentially heretical attitude of Felix and Elipandus toward the Christological question, an attitude whose heterodoxy was shrouded perhaps even from their own eyes in the beginning, by the specious distinction between natural and adoptive sonship; and it was a worthy tribute to the range of his patristic scholarship when Felix, the chief intellectual defender of Adoptionism, after the disputation with Alcuin at Aachen, acknowledged the error of his position. The condemnation of the rising heresy by the Synod of Regensburg (Ratisbon), in 792, having failed to check its spread, another and a larger synod, composed of representatives of the Churches of France, Italy, Britain, and Galicia, was convened at Frankfort by the order of Charles, in 794. Alcuin was present at this meeting and no doubt took a prominent part in the discussions and in the drawing up of the “Epistola Synodica,” although, with characteristic modesty, he furnishes no evidence of the fact in his letters. Following up the work of the Synod, he addressed to Felix, for whom he had formerly entertained high esteem, a touching letter of admonition and exhortation. After his transfer to Tours, in 796, he received from Felix a reply which showed that something more than friendly entreaty would be needed to stay the progress of the heresy. He had already drawn up a small treatise consisting mainly of patristic quotations, against the teaching of the heretics, under the title “Liber Albini contra haeresim Felicis,” and he now undertook a larger and more thorough discussion of the theological questions involved. This work, in seven books, “Libri VII adversus Felicem,” was a refutation of the position of the Adoptionists, rather than an exposition of Catholic doctrine, and hence followed the lines of their arguments, instead of a strictly logical order of development. Alcuin urged against the Adoptionists the universal testimony of the Fathers, the inconsistencies involved in the doctrine itself, its logical relation to Nestorianism, and the rationalistic spirit which was forever prompting to just such attempted human explanations of the unsearchable mysteries of faith. In the spring of 799 a disputation took place between Alcuin and Felix in the royal palace at Aachen, which ended by Felix acknowledging his errors and accepting the teachings of the Church. Felix subsequently paid a friendly visit to Alcuin at Tours. Having sought in vain to bring about the submission of Elipandus, Alcuin drew up another treatise entitled “Adversus Elipandum Libri IV,” entrusting it for circulation to the commissioners whom Charlemagne was sending to Spain. In 802 he sent to the emperor the last, and perhaps the most important, of his theological treatises, the “Libellus de Sancta Trinitate,” a work which is uncontroversial in form, although probably suggested to him during the discussions with the Adoptionists. The treatise contains a brief appendix entitled “De Trinitate ad Fridegisum quaestiones XXVIII.” The book is a compendium of Catholic doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity, St. Augustine’s treatise on the subject being kept steadily in view. It is uncertain to what extent Alcuin shared in the attitude of remonstrance assumed by the Frankish Church, at the instance of Charlemagne, towards the badly translated and ill understood decrees of the second Council of Nicaea, held in 787. The style of the “Libri Carolini” which condemn, in the name of the King, the decrees of the Council, favours the assumption that Alcuin had at least no direct part in the composition of the work.

III. ALCUIN AS A LITURGIST

Besides his justly merited fame as an educator and a theologian, Alcuin has the honour of having been the principle agent in the great work of liturgical reform accomplished by the authority of Charlemagne. At the accession of Charles the Gallican rite prevailed in France, but it was so modified by local customs and traditions as to constitute a serious obstacle to complete ecclesiastical unity. It was the purpose of the King to substitute the Roman rite in place of the Gallican, or at least to bring about such a revision of the latter as to make it substantially one with the Roman. The strong leaning of Alcuin towards the traditions of the Roman Church, combined with his conservative character and the universal authority of his name, qualified him for the accomplishment of a change which the royal authority in itself was powerless to effect. The first of Alcuin’s liturgical works appears to have been a Homiliary, or collection of sermons in Latin for the use of priests. The Homiliary which was printed under his name in the fifteenth century was by a different hand, although it is probable, its Dom Morin contends, that a recently discovered manuscript of the twelfth century contains the genuine Alcuinian sermons. Another liturgical work of Alcuin consists of a collection of the Epistles to be read on Sundays and holy-days throughout the year, and bears the name, “Comes ab Albino ex Caroli imp. praecepto emendatus.” As, previous to his time, the portions of Scripture to be read at Mass were often merely indicated on the margins of the Bibles used, the “Comes” commended itself by its convenience, and as he followed Roman usage here also, the result was another advance in the way of conformity to the Roman liturgy. The work of Alcuin which had the greatest and most lasting influence in this direction, however, was the Sacramentary, or Missal which he compiled, using the Gregorian Sacramentary as a basis, and to this adding a supplement of other liturgical sources. Prescribed as the official Mass-book for the Frankish Church, Alcuin’s Missal soon came to be commonly used throughout Europe and was largely instrumental in bringing about uniformity in respect to the liturgy of the Mass in the whole Western Church. Other liturgical productions of Alcuin were a collection of votive Masses, drawn up for the monks of Fulda, a treatise called “De psalmorum usu,” a breviary for laymen, and a brief explanation of the ceremonies of Baptism.

A complete edition of Alcuin’s works, with the exception of some of his Epistles, is to be found in Migne, comprising volumes 100–101 of the “Patrologia Latina.” The text of the Migne edition was first published by Froben, Abbot of St. Emmeran, at Ratisbon, in 1777, a previous and and less complete edition having been published by Duchesne at Paris, in 1617. A critically accurate edition of the “Epistles” of Alcuin, together with his poem, “On the Saints of the Church at York,” his “Life of St. Willibrord and the “Life of Alcuin,” composed about 829, is found in the fourth volume of the “Bibliotheca Rerum Germanicarum,” under the title “Monumenta Alcuiniana” edited by Jaffé, Wattenbach, and Duemmler (Berlin, 1873). This edition contains 293 of Alcuin’s Epistles, against the 230 in Migne.

J.A. BURNS

St. Aldegundis

Virgin and abbess (c. 639–684), variously written Adelgundis, Aldegonde, etc. She was nearly related to the Merovingian royal family. Her father and mother, afterwards honoured as St. Walbert and St. Bertilia, lived in Flanders in the province of Hainault. Aldegundis was urged to marry, but she chose a life of virginity and, leaving her home, received the veil from Amandus, Bishop of Maastricht. Then she walked dry-shod over the Sambre, and built on its banks a small nunnery at a desert placed called Malbode. This foundation afterwards, under the name Maubeuge, became a famous abbey of Benedictine nuns, though at a later date these were replaced by canonesses. St. Aldegundis’ feast is kept on 30 January. There are several early Lives, but none by contemporaries. Several of these, including the tenth-century biography by Hucbald, are printed by the Bollandists (Acta SS., Jan. . 11, 1034–35).

Herbert Thurston.

Aldersbach

A former Cistercian Abbey in the valley of the Vils in Lower Bavaria. It was founded in 1127 by St. Otto, Bishop of Bamberg, and the first community was composed of canons regular. The site chosen was near a church consecrated in 880 by Englmar, Bishop of Passau, in honour of St. Peter. In 1146 Egilbert, the successor of Otto, gave the foundation and a new church of Our Lady to the Cistercians, and after the departure of the canons, Abbot Sefried, with monks from Ebrach, took possession. Under Cistercian rule Aldersbach flourished for more than six centuries. It was famous for the rigour of its religious discipline and exerted a wide influence. From its cloisters came the first communities established at Fürstenfeld (1263), Fürstenzell (1274), and Gotteszell (1285). The monks cultivated the soil and devoted themselves to the works of the ministry in their own and in the neighbouring churches dependent upon the abbey. Nor was the pursuit of learning neglected. The first abbot, Sefried, formed the nucleus of the library to which valuable additions were made by his successors. Abbots and monks carried on their studies not only in the cloister, but also at the great universities of Paris, Vienna, Padua, Heidelberg, and Ingolstadt. Aldersbach suffered from time to time from the ravages of war. During the Thirty Years War which followed the Reformation, it was pillaged and almost entirely abandoned. The library, however, escaped destruction, and under the abbots Matthew and Gebhard Horger the old régime was restored. Abbot Theobald II repaired the injuries sustained during the wars of the Spanish and Austrian Successions. When the Abbey was suppressed, 1 April, 1803, the monks numbered forty. The buildings were sold, and the Abbey church was converted into a parish church, while the monks engaged in parish work or teaching. The library became a part of the National Library at Munich. Aldersbach was fortunate in the abbots who were chosen to rule its destinies. They maintained monastic discipline, furthered the interests of the abbey, and encouraged the pursuit of learning. Among the more prominent, besides those already mentioned, were Dietrich I (1239–53, 1258–77); Conrad (1308–36); John II, John III, and Wolfgang Marius. The last-named is perhaps the best known. He had studied at Heidelberg, and was the author of several works, While Theobald II was abbot, one of his monks, P. Balduin Wurzer, taught at Ingolstadt. Father Stephan Wiest also became known later as a theologian. He taught at Ingolstadt, was rector of the University (1787–88), and six years later returned to Aldersbach, where he died in 1797.

Verhandl. des hist. Vereins fur Niederbayern, VII, VIII, XII, XV; BRAUNMÜLLER in Kirchenlex., I, 467–469.

H.M. BROCK

Aldfrith

A Northumbrian king, son of King Oswin; d. 14 December, 705. He succeeded his brother, Ecgfrith. William of Malmesbury says he received his education in Ireland, where he passed his early life, and imbibed there a love of learning and learned men. He was well versed in the Scriptures. His taste for literature is shown by his parting with a large piece of land as payment for a copy of the “Cosmographi.” Adamnan, Abbot of Iona, on the occasion of his visit to England for the redemption of some captives, presented his book “De Locis Sanctis” to Aldfrith as a testimonial of the King’s appreciation of learning, and Aldhelm, Abbot of Malmesbury, dedicated his work on “Metres” to him. Aldfrith restored Northumbria, which had been nearly ruined by warfare in the preceding reign, to peace and prosperity. He recalled St. Wilfrid to his Bishopric of Hexham, and later on to that of York, but afterwards became hostile to him. An effort at reconciliation, made some years later at the Council of Ætswinapath by Aldfrith, failed. The dissension between Aldfrith and Wilfrid was largely due to their respective advocacy of two different schools of learning-the Roman and the Irish-and of administration, one favouring the Roman and the other the Irish party. Just before his death, however, Aldfrith enjoined on his successor the necessity of becoming reconciled with Wilfrid. Little is known of the results of Aldfrith’s rule. William of Malmesbury says Northumbria was considerably restricted through victories of the Picts, and Bede dates the deterioration of ecclesiastical administration in the kingdom from Aldfrith’s death.

STUBBS in Dict. Christ. Biog., I, 77; HARDIMAN, Irish Minstrelsy, II, 372; TANNER, Bibl, Brit. Hib. (1748), 35, 245.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

St. Aldhelm

Abbot of Malmesbury and Bishop of Sherborne, Latin poet and ecclesiastical writer (c. 639–709). Aldhelm, also written Ealdhelm, Ældhelm, Adelelmus, Althelmus, and Adelme, was a kinsman of Ine, King of Wessex, and apparently received his early education at Malmesbury, in Wiltshire, under an Irish Christian teacher named Maildubh. It is curious that Malmesbury, in early documents, is styled both Maildulfsburgh and Ealdhelmsbyrig, so that it is disputed whether the present name is commemorative of Maildubh or Ealdhelm, or, by “contamination,” possibly of both (Plummer’s “Bede,” II, 310). Aldhelm himself attributes his progress in letters to the famous Adrian, a native of Roman Africa, but formerly a monk of Monte Cassino, who came to England in the train of Archbishop Theodore and was made Abbot of St. Augustine’s, Canterbury. Seeing, however, that Theodore came to England only in 671, Aldhelm must then have been thirty or forty years of age. The Saxon scholar’s turgid style and his partiality for Greek and extravagant terms have been traced with some probability to Adrian’s influence (Hahn, “Bonifaz und Lul,” p. 14). On returning to settle in Malmesbury our Saint, probably already a monk, seems to have succeeded his former teacher Maildubh, both in the direction of the Malmesbury School, and also as Abbot of the Monastery; but the exact dates given by some of the Saint’s biographers cannot be trusted, since they depend upon charters of very doubtful authenticity. As abbot his life was most austere, and it is particularly recorded of him that he was wont to recite the entire Psalter standing up to his neck in ice-cold water. Under his rule the Abbey of Malmesbury prospered greatly, other monasteries were founded from it, and a chapel (ecclesiola), dedicated to St. Lawrence, built by Aldhelm in the village of Bradford-on-Avon, is standing to this day. (A. Freeman, “Academy,” 1886, XXX, 154.) During the pontificate of Pope Sergius (687–701), the Saint visited Rome, and is said to have brought back from the Pope a privilege of exemption for his monastery. Unfortunately, however, the document which in the twelfth century passed for the Bull of Pope Sergius is undoubtedly spurious. At the request of a synod, held in Wessex, Aldhelm wrote a letter to the Britons of Devon and Cornwall upon the Paschal question, by which many of them are said to have been brought back to unity. In the year 705 Hedda, Bishop of the West Saxons, died, and, his diocese being divided, the western portion was assigned to Aldhelm, who reluctantly became the first Bishop of Sherborne. His episcopate was short in duration. Some of the stone-work of a church he built at Sherborne still remains. He died at Doulting (Somerset), in 709. His body was conveyed to Malmesbury, a distance of fifty miles, and crosses were erected along the way at each halting place where his remains rested for the night. Many miracles were attributed to the Saint both before and after his death. His feast was on May the 25th, and in 857 King Ethelwulf erected a magnificent silver shrine at Malmesbury in his honour.

“Aldhelm was the first Englishman who cultivated classical learning with any success, and the first of whom any literary remains are preserved” (Stubbs). Both from Ireland and from the Continent men wrote to ask him questions on points of learning. His chief prose work is a treatise, “De laude virginitatis” (“In praise of virginity”), preserved to us in a large number of manuscripts, some as early as the eighth century. This treatise, in imitation of Sedulius, Aldhelm afterwards versified. The metrical version is also still extant, and Ehwald has recently shown that it forms one piece with another poem, “De octo principalibus vitiis” (On the eight deadly sins”). The prose treatise on virginity was dedicated to the Abbess and nuns of Barking, a community which seems to have included more than one of the Saint’s own relatives. Besides the tractate on the Paschal controversy already mentioned, several other letters of Aldhelm are preserved. One of these, addressed to Acircius, i.e. Ealdfrith, King of Northumbria, is a work of importance on the laws of prosody. To illustrate the rules laid down, the writer incorporates in his treatise a large collection of metrical Latin riddles. A few shorter extant poems are interesting, like all Aldhelm’s writings, for the light which they throw upon religious thought in England at the close of the seventh century. We are struck by the writer’s earnest devotion to the Mother of God, by the veneration paid to the saints, and notably to St. Peter, “the key-bearer,” by the importance attached to the holy sacrifice of the Mass, and to prayer for the dead, and by the esteem in which he held the monastic profession. Aldhelm’s vocabulary is very extravagant, and his style artificial and involved. His latinity might perhaps appear to more advantage if it were critically edited. An authoritative edition of his works is much needed. To this day, on account of the misinterpretation of two lines which really refer to Our Blessed Lady, his poem on virginity is still printed as if it were dedicated to a certain Abbess Maxima. Aldhelm also composed poetry in his native tongue, but of this no specimen survives. The best edition of Aldhelm’s works, though very unsatisfactory, is that of Dr. Giles (Oxford, 1844). It has been reprinted in Migne (P.L., LXXXIX, 83 sqq.). Some of his letters have been edited among those of St. Boniface in the “Monumenta Germaniae” (Epist. Aevi Merovingici, I).

ABBOT FARICIUS in an eleventh-century biography [Acta SS., May (VI)]; WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY, Gesta Pontificum, V; WILDMAN, Life of St. Ealdhelm (London, 1905); BROWNE, St. Aldhelm (London, 1903); LINGARD, Anglo-Saxon Church; MONTALEMBERT, The Monks of the West (tr.), V; HUNT in Dict. of Nat. Biog.; STUBBS in Dict. of Christ. Biog.; BIRON in Dict. de theol. cath.; BONHOFF, Aldhelm von Malmesbury (Dresden, 1894); SANDYS, A History of Classical Scholarship (Cambridge, 1903), 430; MANITIUS, Geschichte der christlich-lateinischen Poesie (Stuttgart, 1891), 489–496; Sitzungsberichte Akad. Wien. Phil. Hist. cl. CXII, 536–634; EBERT, Geschichte der Litteratur des M. A. (2d ed., Leipzig, 1889), I, 623–634; TRAUBE, Karolingischen Dichtungen (Berlin, 1888); Sitzungsberichte des Bayer. Akad. phil. philolog. cl. (Munich, 1900), 477; EHWALD, Aldhelm’s Gedicht de Virginitate (Gotha, 1904); bibliography in CHEVALIER’S Repertoire, etc., Bio-Bibliogr. (2d ed., Paris, 1905), 45, 46.

Herbert Thurston.

St. Aldric

Bishop of Le Mans in the time of Louis le Debonnaire, born c. 800; died at Le Mans, 7 January, 856. As a youth he lived in the court of Charlemagne, at Aix la Chapelle, as well as in that of his son and successor Louis. By both monarchs he was highly esteemed, but when only twenty-one, he withdrew to Metz and became a priest, only to be recalled to court by Louis, who took him as the guide of his conscience. Nine years after his ordination he was made Bishop of Le Mans, and, besides being conspicuous for the most exalted virtue, was distinguished by his civic spirit in constructing aqueducts, as well as for building churches, restoring monasteries, ransoming captives, etc. In the civil wars that followed the death of Louis, his fidelity to Charles the Bald resulted in his expulsion from his see, and he withdrew to Rome. Gregory IV reinstated him. With the Bishop of Paris, Erchenrad, he, as a deputy of the Council of Aix la Chapelle, visited Pepin, who was then King of Aquitaine, and persuaded him to cause all the possessions of the Church which had been seized by those of his party to be restored. We find him during his lifetime taking part in the Councils of Paris and Tours. His episcopate lasted twenty-four years.

Acta SS., I, January; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 7 January.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Ulissi Aldrovandi

Italian naturalist, b. at Bologna, 11 Sept., 1522; d. there 10 Nov., 1607. He was educated in Bologna and Padua, received the degree of doctor of medicine (1553) and was appointed professor of natural history in the University of Bologna. At his instigation, the Senate of that city established a botanical garden of which Aldrovandi was the first director (1568). He was also made Inspector of Pharmacies, a position which brought him into conflict with the apothecaries and physicians, He appealed to Pope Gregory XIII and was sustained (1576). In the interest of science, he travelled extensively, spent a fortune, and gathered rich collections in botany and zoology which became, by his legacy, the nucleus of the Bologna Museum. His herbarium is the first collection deserving the name. In his scientific work he enjoyed the patronage of Popes Gregory XIII, and Sixtus V, and of Cardinal Montalto. He was buried in the church of St. Stephen at Bologna, and his epitaph was written by Cardinal Barberini, afterwards Pope Urban VIII. The published works of Aldrovandi fill fourteen volumes in folio, four of which were printed during his lifetime. The rest were published in various editions between 1599 and 1700 at Bologna, Venice, and Frankfort. These, with Aldrovandi’s manuscripts, cover the entire field of natural history, making a vast compilation which, in spite of its prolixity, won the admiration of later naturalists like Cuvier and Buffon.

Fantuzzi, Memorie della vita d’Ulissi Aldrovandi (Bologna, 1774).

E.A. PACE

Leonard Alea

A French polemical writer of the early years of the nineteenth century, b. in Paris, date unknown; d. 1812. He came from a family of bankers. He published anonymously in 1801 his first book, “L’antidote de l’athéisme,” and the following year a new edition appeared, enlarged to two volumes, with its title changed to “La religion triomphante des attentats de l’impiété,” and bearing the name of its author. The book was written to refute Sylvien Maréchal’s “Dictionnaire des Athées” then lately published, and was so timely, fair, and to the point that it received a cordial welcome. Marechal himself acknowledged his adversary’s moderation. Cardinal Gerdil expressed his high appreciation of the work, and Portalis, to whom Alea had dedicated the second edition, was delighted with the book, and subsequently tried to get the author to enter the Council of State but without success. Alea’s only other work is “Réflexions contre le divorce,” which also appeared in 1802.

Beugnet in Dict. de theol. cath. s.v.

J.C. DAVEY

Phillipe Alegambe

A Jesuit historiographer, born in Brussels, 22 January, 1592; died in Rome, 6 September, 1652. After finishing his studies he went to Spain, in the service of the Duke of Osuna, whom he accompanied to Sicily. There he entered the Society of Jesus at Palermo, on 7 September 1613, studied at Rome, taught philosophy and theology at Gratz, Austria, and for several years traveled through the various countries of Europe, as preceptor of the Prince of Eggenberg. He last days were spent in Rome, where he became superior of the house of the Jesuits, and secretary to the General of the Society. He is chiefly known for his “Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Jesu,” published in 1642. It was a continuation and enlargement of Father Ribadeneira’s Catalogue, which had been brought up to 1608. He wrote also “Heroes et victimae caritatis Societatis Jesu” and “De Vitâ et Moribus P. Joannis Cardim Luisitani, e Societatis Jesu,” and “Acta Sanctae Justae virg. et mart., ex variis MSS.”

Niceron, XXXIX; Paquot; Bayle, J. I, 430–34; Aguilera, Hist. Prov. Siculae, II, 591–94; De Backer, Bibliotheque de la c. de J., I, 63.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Francisco Xavier Alegre

Historian, born at Vera Cruz, in Mexico, or New Spain, 12 November, 1729; died at Bologna, 16 August, 1788. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1747, and soon acquired a reputation of unusual learning in everything related to the classics. He occupied a chair at the Jesuit college at Habana and afterwards at Mérida in Yucatan; recalled to Europe in 1767, he settled at Bologna, he died there of apoplexy, He left quite a number of shorter works, mostly translations of classics. Among them are the “Alexandriadas” (1773, Italy), the “Iliad” in Latin (Rome, 1788), “Homeri Batrachiomachia” in Latin (Mexico, 1789), together with fragments of Horace and a good translation into Spanish of the first three cantos of the “Art Poétique” of Boileau. But the work for which he is especially noted is his “History of the Society of Jesus in New Spain” (ed. Bustamente, Mexico, 1841). Although composed at a time when the order was persecuted in Spanish colonies, and often with great rigor, the tone of this most valuable work, indispensable for the study of the colonial history of Mexico and of many of its Indian tribes, is dignified and free from attacks upon Spain and the Spaniards.

Béristain de Souza, Biblioteca hispano-americana sententrional I, (Mexico, 1818); Alegre, Historia de la Compañia de Jésus in Neuva España (Mexico, 1841); Opúsculos ineditos, Latinos y Castellanos, del Padre Francisco Xavier Alegre (Mexico, 1889); Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States; History of the Pacific States.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Joseph Sadoc Alemany

First Archbishop of San Francisco, California, U.S.A., b. at Vich in Spain, 3 July, 1814; d. at Valencia in Spain, 14 April, 1888. He entered at an early age the Order of St. Dominic, was ordained priest at Viterbo in Italy, 27 March, 1837; consecrated Bishop of Monterey in California (at Rome) 30 June, 1850, and was transferred 29 July, 1853, to the See of San Francisco as its first archbishop. He resigned in November, 1884, was appointed titular Archbishop of Pelusium.

California having but recently passed from Mexican to American rule and still containing a large Spanish population with Spanish customs and traditions, the appointment of Archbishop Alemany as the first bishop under the changed conditions was a providential measure. Ten years of missionary activity in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee had enabled him to master the English language, which he spoke and wrote correctly and fluently, familiarized him with the customs and spirit of the Republic; and imbued him with a love for the United States which he carried with him to the grave. His episcopal labours were to begin among a population composed of almost all nationalities. Born in Spain, educated in Rome, and long resident in America, his experience and his command of several languages put him in touch and in sympathy with all the elements of his diocese. His humility and simplicity of manner, though by nature retiring, drew to him the hearts of all classes.

Naturally his first thought was to secure a body of priests and nuns as co-labourers in his new field; for this he made partial provision before reaching San Francisco. The Franciscan Missions (whose memory and whose remains in the second century if their existence are still treasured not by California alone, but by the whole country) having been lately confiscated in the name of “secularization,” the missionaries driven away and their flocks largely dispersed, it was evident that his work was simply to create all that a new order of things called for, an order as unique as a bishop ever had to encounter. The discovery of gold in California a few years before his appointment had attracted to it a population from every quarter of the world, most of whom thought little of making it their permanent home. Many, however, brought the old Faith with them and even in the mad rush of all for gold were ready to respond generously to a personality such as that of the young bishop.

When he began his work, there were but twenty-one adobe mission-churches scattered up and down the State, and not more than a dozen priests in all California. He lived to see the State divided into three dioceses with about three hundred thousand Catholic population, many churches of modern architecture and some of respectable dimensions, a body of devoted clergy, secular and regular, charitable and educational institutions conducted by the teaching orders of both men and women, such as to meet, as far as possible under the circumstances, the wants of a constantly growing population. He was ever intent, as the first object of his work, upon the spiritual welfare of his people, but in the early years of his ministry in California much arduous labour was expended in protecting the church property from “Squatters,” and in prosecuting the claims of the “Pious Fund” against Mexico. Through the State Department of the United States Government he compelled Mexico to respect her self-made agreement with the Church in California to pay at least the interest up to the date of the decision upon the moneys derived from the enforced sale of the Mission property at the time of the “secularization” and which had been turned into the Mexican Treasury. Under his successor, in the year 1902, a final adjudication of the “Pious Fund” in favour of the Church in California was reached by an International Board of Arbitration at The Hague.

The episcopal office which he had accepted only under obedience was, in a human sense, never congenial to Archbishop Alemany; his whole temperament inclined him to be simply a missionary priest; in a large sense, he continued to be such up to the day of his resignation. His characteristic devotion to the rights of the Church, his love of a common sense freedom of the individual, and particularly his admiration of the free institutions of the American Union, were manifested by an occurrence on the occasion of a visit made to his native land after many years’ absence. Before an infidel spirit had poisoned the minds of many in power, even in Catholic countries, it had been the custom in Spain, as in other Catholic lands, for priests to wear their sacerdotal dress in the streets. This new spirit indeed had driven him from Spain when a student, desiring as he did to become a member of one of the proscribed Orders, and when he returned on the occasion in question it was a novelty to see him in the streets dressed as a Dominican Friar. When his would-be custodian warned him to put off his cassock for outdoor use he produced his passport as an American citizen, stating that in his adopted country, where Catholics were greatly in the minority, he was permitted to wear any sort of coat he preferred and that surely this privilege would not be denied him in Catholic Spain, the land of his birth. It was not denied him; at least, for that once. So wedded was he to the Order of St. Dominic that when becoming Bishop of Monterey, and ever after till his death, he wore the white cassock of the Order and in letter and spirit adhered to the Rule of St. Dominic as far as it is possible outside of community life.

The exalted office of archbishop did not grow more agreeable to him with years, and with a view of resigning and becoming again a missionary priest he besought Rome to grant him a coadjutor, cum jure successionis, long before one was given him. When, however, his prayer was heard, which was not until he had reached the scriptural age of three score years and ten, he lovingly transferred to his successor the burden which he had borne long and faithfully for his Master’s sake. Whilst he had ever the greatest consideration for the comfort of others his own life was one of austerity. No one but himself ever entered his living apartments, which were so connected with the church that he could make his visits to the Blessed Sacrament and keep his long vigils at a little latticed window looking in upon the Tabernacle. No one ever saw him manifest anger; he was ever gentle, but firm when duty called for this. So considerate was he for the feelings of others that he certainly never intentionally or unjustly wounded them.

Most thoughtful and courteous in all he did, he journeyed a thousand miles to Ogden, Utah, in November, 1883, to meet for the first time, to accompany thence and to welcome to San Francisco his coadjutor and successor, the Most Rev. P. W. Riordan. From the first meeting and until his death the closest and tenderest friendship existed between them. Having acquainted his successor fully with diocesan affairs and transferred to him as a “corporation sole” all diocesan property (according to a law which he had had passed through the California legislature for the better security of church property), the Archbishop resigned in 1884, returned to his native land, and died there.

His intense love for the missionary life and his zeal for souls did not end with his resignation, his seventy years unfitted him for active work of that nature, but he returned to Spain with a dream of founding a missionary college to supply priests for the American missions. For this purpose he left behind him in San Francisco the amount of a testimonial given him by the priests and people of the diocese as some little recognition of his long services and the example of his saintly life among them. He stipulated that, should he not use it for that purpose, it should be expended by his successor for religious and charitable purposes in San Francisco. He received generous support from the diocese, but found the proposed missionary college impracticable. So, on his retirement from thirty years of apostolic labours in California, he left as a legacy to the diocese the example of a true apostle, and died as an apostle should, possessing nothing but the merits of his “works which had gone before him.”

Reuss, Biographical Encycl. of the Cath. Hierarchy of the U. S. (Milwaukee, Wis., 1898); Dominicana (San Francisco, 1900–6).

P.W. RIORDAN

Giulio Alenio

Chinese missionary and scholar, born at Brescia, in Italy, in 1582; died at Fou-Tcheou, China, in August, 1644. He became a member of the Society of Jesus in 1600, and was distinguished for his knowledge of mathematics and theology. He was sent as a missionary to China in 1610 and while waiting at Macao for a favorable opportunity to enter the country he published his “résultat de l’observation sue l’éclipse de lune du 8 Novembre, 1612, faite a Macao” (Mémoires de l’Acad. des Sciences, VII, 706.) After his arrival in China, he preached the Gospel in the provinces of Xan-si and Fi-Kien. He published many works in Chinese on a variety of topics. Among the most important are a controversial treatise on the Catholic Faith, in which are refuted the principal errors of the Chinese; “The True Origin of All Things”; and “The Life of God, the Saviour, from the Four Gospels.” There is a complete list of Alenio’s works in Sommervogel.

Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la Compagnie de Jesus, I, 157 sq.; Pfister, S.J., Bibliogr. des Jesuites Chinois miss,; Cordier, Essai d’une bibliogr. des ouvr. publ. en Chine par les Eurpeens (Paris 1883).

JOSEPH M. WOODS

Archdiocese of Aleppo

Armenian Rite Archdiocese in Syria. The city of Aleppo is situated in the plain that stretches from the Orontes to the Euphrates in the northwestern extremity of the Syrian desert. It rises in the middle of an oasis on the eight little hills, and is watered by the Kouik. Ancient Egyptian records mention this town. According to an Arab tradition, Abraham lived in it, and distributed some milk to every comer, whence the town’s name, Haleb. Seleucus Nicator (311–280 B.C.) gave it the name of Beroea (Berrhoe) by which it was known in early Christian times. Its present Semitic name dates from the Arab conquest in 630. It belonged to the Seljukids from 1090 to 1117; to the Ortokids from 1117 to 1183 (besieged by the Crusaders 1124); to the Ayoubites from 1183 to 1260 (Mongol Invasion); and to the Egyptian Sultans. In 1317 it passed definitively to the Ottoman Turks, except for the Egyptian occupation, 1833–39. To-day it is the chief residence of a vilayet of the same name. In ancient times Aleppo was a commercial depot for the trade between India, the regions along the Tigris and Euphrates, and the Mediterranean. Although it has long lost much of its importance, it still sends to Alexandria the products of Diarbekir, Mossoul, and Baghdad. It is noted for its fertile gardens and its healthy climate. A more disagreeable peculiarity is the ulcer known as the “Aleppo button.” The plague raged there in 1822. Its ramparts and forts have fallen into decay. Among the architectural monuments are a Roman aqueduct and a beautiful mosque of the Seljukid epoch. The population is about 127,000 of whom 97,450 are Mussulmans (Arabs, Turks, etc.), 19,200 Catholics (Greeks, United or Melchites, Syrians, Armenians, Maronites, Chaldeans, and Latins), 2,800 non-Catholic Christians (mostly Gregorian Armenians), and 7,800 Jews. Four Catholic archbishops govern the Melchites, the Syrians, the Armenians, and the Maronites. The Gregorian Armenians are administered by a Vartabet appointed by the Catholicos of Sis. The Orthodox Greeks are very rare in the town, but quite numerous in the surrounding country. They constitute a metropolitan diocese, which separated from the Patriarchate of Antioch in 1757, and was restored to it by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in August, 1888. In the eighteenth century the Orthodox metropolitan, Gerassimus (d. 1783, at Athos) was a stern enemy of the union with Rome. Aleppo remains the centre of the French Catholic missions of Syria. In 1625 the Carmelites established themselves there; somewhat later they retired to Mount Carmel, where they built a monastery. (They had also in the orient other stations.) In Aleppo they were succeeded by the Lazarists from 1785 to 1869. In 1873 the Jesuits founded a mission at Aleppo. In 1626 the Capuchins organized a “Custodia” from which were directed twelve missions. Their activity was interrupted by the French Revolution and in 1808 these Capuchin missions were given to the Italian Franciscans. The latter founded a college in 1859. The Sisters of St. Joseph direct a boarding-school. There are also Protestant missionaries in Aleppo. It has 260 schools: 115 Mussulman, 116 Christian, and 29 Israelite.

S. Pétridès

Diocese of Ales and Terralba

Diocese made up of 42 communes in the province of Cagliari, Archbishopric of Oristano, Italy. The two sees were united by Julius II in 1503. Christianity was possibly introduced into Sardinia by groups of the faithful, who were condemned to work in its mines [Philos., IX, 12; Catal. Liber., s.v. “Pontianus”; cf. Harnack, Die Mission, etc. (Leipzig, 1902), 502]. Gregory the Great alludes to the episcopal see of Ales (anciently Uselli), in his letter to Januarius of Cagliari in 591 (Jaffé, 1130). After this nothing is to be found about it until 1147, when the name of Bishop Rello appears in a diploma. The local traditions of Terralba have preserved the memory of a Bishop Mariano, who erected the cathedral about 1144. The diocese contains 42 parishes, 102 priests, 59,530 inhabitants.

Cappelletti, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), XIII, 249; Gams, Series episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae (Ratisbon, 1873), 831; Vitale, Apparatus ad Annales Sardiniae (Cagliari, 1780); Matthei, Sardinia Sacra seu historia de episcopis Sardis (Rome, 1758); Martini, Storia ecclesiastica di Sardegna (Cagliari, 1839).

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Diocese of Alessandria della Paglia

Diocese in Piedmont, Italy, a suffragan of Vercelli. It was made a see in 1175 by Alexander III, by a Brief of 30 January, 1176, in which he declares that he selects a bishop without any detriment to the rights of the chapter for the future. It was suppressed in 1213, and united to Acqui, 1405; suppressed, 1803, and re-established as independent in 1817. It was vacant from 1854 to 1867. There are 116,000 Catholics; 61 parishes, 143 secular priests, and 188 churches and chapels.

Battandier, Ann. pontif. cath. (1906).

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Galeazzo Alessi

A famous Italian architect, b. 1500; d. 1572. He showed an inclination for mathematics and literature at a very early age, and afterwards studied drawing for civil and military architecture, under the direction of Giambattista Caporali, a Perugian architect and painter. At Rome he became a friend of Michael Angelo. He completed the fortress of Perugia, begun by Sangallo, built an apartment in it for the governor of the castle, and erected a number of palaces, regarded as the finest in the city. He resided in Genoa a number of years, engaged in the erection of various edifices, the laying-out of streets, and the restoration of the walls of the city. On the Carignano Hill he built the church of the Madonna. He repaired, restored, and embellished the cathedral and made designs for its tribune, choir, and cupola. His abilities were most conspicuous in his design for the harbour. He erected therein large gateway, flanked by rustic columns, and adorned the sea-front with a Doric portico, ingeniously defended by balustrades. This fortress-like work protected the city from within and without and had a spacious square for the military in the interior. He also extended the mole more than 600 paces into the sea, and left a number of designs and models which have been at various times executed by the rich nobles of that city. These and similar splendid edifices have obtained for Genoa the title of La Superba (The Proud). Alessi executed many works at Ferrara. At Bologna he erected the great gate of the Palazzo Publico. He finished the palace of the Institute according to the design of Pellegrino Tibaldi, and made plans for the facade of San Petronio. At Milan he built the church of San Vittore, the whimsical auditorium del Cambio, and the facade of San Celso, and greatly distinguished himself by the erection of the magnificent palace of Tommaso Marini, Duke of Torre Nuova. He also designed edifices in Naples and Sicily, France, Germany, and Flanders. The King of Spain sent for him to execute some buildings, which, however, are not known, and after some period of time permitted him to return to Perugia, laden with riches and honours. He was received by his fellow-citizens with the most flattering expressions of regard, was admitted into the Scuola di Commerzio; and was sent to Pope Pius V on a commission involving public interest. On his return to his own country he was requested by Cardinal Odoardo Farnese to submit a design for the facade of the Gesu at Rome, so expensive, that it was never executed. For the Duke della Corgna he built the stately palace of Castiglione on the Lake of Peerugia, and for the Cardinal, brother of the Duke, he erected another on a hill a few miles from the city. In conjunction with Giulio Danti, a Perugian architect, he was employed in the erection of the church on the Madonna degli Angeli, near Assisi, built after the design of Vignola. Finally, Alessi submitted to the Spanish Court a design for the monastery and church of the Escorial (q.v.) in Spain. It was considered the best among plans submitted in a general competition by all the architects of Europe, and he was requested to execute it, but age and indisposition prevented him. Alessi was learned, agreeable in conversation, and capable of negotiating the most important affairs.

Milizia, Lives of Celebrated Architects; Gewitt, Encyclopedia of Architecture.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Diocese of Alessio

(Lissus, Alexiensis).

Diocese in European Turkey, since 1886 suffragan of Scutari. It is one of the principal seaports of Albania, is favourably located near the mouth of the Drin, was founded by Dionysius of Syracuse, and was an important and beautiful city in the time of Diodorus Siculus. It is now known as Alise, Lesch, Eschenderari, or Mrtav. Like all the cities of Albania, it frequently changed masters in the Middle Ages until the Venetians took possession of it in 1386. It still belonged to them when Skanderbeg died, but shortly afterwards it fell into the hands of the Turks. In 1501 the inhabitants again returned to the Venetian domination, but in the year 1506 Sultan Bajazet obtained the restitution of the city, after it had been evacuated and deprived of its ramparts. To-day it is a poor straggling hamlet of about 2,000 people, on third of whom are Catholics. In it, however, the mountaineers hold a weekly bazaar where very large transactions take place. The Acrolissus or citadel is interesting for the well preserved Roman cisterns and medieval arches it still holds. The first known Bishop of Alessio is Valens, who attended the Council of Sardica in 340. It does not figure prominently in ecclesiastical history until the sixth century, when it is mentioned as a see in the correspondence of St. Gregory the Great (590–604). Since the end of the fourteenth century, when it came under Venetian rule, it has had again a series of Latin bishops.

Alessio had formerly five churches. The cathedral was dedicated to St. Nicholas and once held the mortal remains of the patriot George Castriota, the immortal Skanderbeg, who died in 1467. Local tradition relates that when the Turks took the town they opened his grave and made amulets of his bones, believing that these would confer indomitable bravery on the wearer. Transformed into a mosque, the cathedral was abandoned by the Ottomans after three dervishes had successively committed suicide from one of its towers. Two other churches dedicated to St. George and to St. Sebastian still survive as mosques. The population is mostly Catholic (about 14,000), attended by fifteen secular priests. The present bishop, elected 24 May, 1870, is Monsignor Francis Malczyinski, an alumnus of the Propaganda. He resides at Calmeti, a little distance from Alessio.

At the summit of a group of rocky hills, on the west bank of the Drin, facing the town, are the church and convent of St. Anthony of Padua under the care of the Franciscan friars, a last remnant of the thirty convents they once possessed in Albania. The site is said to have been chosen by the saint himself, and is greatly venerated, especially by the mountaineers of Scutari who make an annual pilgrimage to it on 13 June, and exhibit on that occasion a very striking piety. The Mussulmans themselves respect the church and confide their treasures to the friars whenever they have reason to fear the rapacity of their pashas.

Within the diocesan limits of Alessio is the quasi-episcopal abbey (abbatia nullius) of St. Alexander Orosci or Orochi, the mountain stronghold of the small but brave body of the Catholic Mirdites of Albania. Since 1888 it enjoys an independent jurisdiction over this faithful and warlike people which in 1894 obtained from the Porte, through the good offices of Leo XIII, a civil jurisdiction for its abbot, and thereby freed itself from the irksome protectorate of Austria. The abbot had jurisdiction over about 18,000 Catholics, with 16 churches, 13 chapels, 11 secular priests, and 2 Franciscans. The present abbot, elected in 1888, is Monsignor Primo Dochi, an alumnus of the Propaganda.

Farlati, Illyr. Sacr. (1817), VII, 384–394; Gams, Series episc. Eccl.cath. (1872), 392; Hecquard, La haute Albanie (Paris, 1859); Battandier, Ann. pont. cath. (1905), 322, sq.

ELISABETH CHRISTITCH

Alexander

(1) ALEXANDER THE GREAT

King of Macedon, 336–323 B. c. He is mentioned in 1 Mach., i, 1–10; vi, 2. He is also supposed to be spoken of in Dan., ii,39; vii, 6; viii,5–7; xi 3,4.

(2) ALEXANDER BALAS

Eleventh King of Syria, 150–145 B. C. His struggle for the throne, his promises to Jonathan, his pro-Jewish policy may be learned from I Mach., x, 1–89. He was vanquished by his father-in-law, Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt, and Syria thus passed into the hands of Demetrius II (1 Mach., xi, 1–19).

(3) ALEXANDER

A son of Simon of Cyrene mentioned by St. Mark (xv, 21) who carried the Cross after Jesus.

(4) ALEXANDER

A member of the court that tried Peter and John (Acts, iv, 6); some identify him with Alexander Lysimachus the brother of Philo and friend of Claudius before he ascended the throne.

(5) ALEXANDER

A Jew or a Jewish Christian (Acts, xix, 33,34) who attempted to defend St. Paul in his Ephesian difficulty- some identify him with the son of Simon of Cyrene.

(6) ALEXANDER

An Ephesian Christian who apostatized (1 Tim., i, 20), and who together vith Hymeneus was delivered up to Satan by the Apostles.

(7) ALEXANDER

A coppersmith of Ephesus (2 Tim., iv, 14,15), who did much evil to St. Paulsome identify him with the Alexander mentioned under the preceding number.

A. J. MAAS

Alexander (Early Bishops)

ALEXANDER OF ANTIOCH

Thirty-eighth bishop of that see (413–421), praised by Theodoret (Hist. Eccl. V, 35) “for the holiness and austerity of his life, his contempt of riches, his love of wisdom, and powerful eloquence.” He healed the last remnants of the Meletian schism at Antioch, and obtained at Constantinople the restitution of the name of St. John Chrysostom to the ecclesiastical diptychs (registers).

ALEXANDER OF APAMEA

A Syrian bishop at the Council of Ephesus (431), and one of the eight bishops deputed by the party of John of Antioch to the Emperor Theodosius.

ALEXANDER OF BASILINOPOLIS

In Bithynia, a friend of St. John Chrysostom, to whom he owed his appointment as bishop; after the fall of his patron he retired (c. 410) to his native Ptolemais in Egypt, where he experienced the hatred of Theophilus of Antioch and the private friendship of Synesius (Epp. 61,67).

ALEXANDER OF BYZANTIUM

As Constantinople was then called, bishop of that see during the original Arian troubles. He was 73 years old when appointed (313 or 317), and governed the see for 23 years. He supported his namesake of Alexandria against Arius, took part in the Council of Nicaea (325) and refused to admit the arch-heretic to communion, though threatened with deposition and exile. The sudden death of Arius was looked on by contemporary Catholics as an answer to the prayers of the good bishop, whom Theodoret (Hist. Eccl., I, 3) calls an “apostolic” man. He did not long survive this tragic event.

ALEXANDER OF HIERAPOLIS (EUPHRATENSIS)

An unbending opponent of St. Cyril in the Council of Ephesus (431), and an equally stanch advocate of Nestorius. Even when John of Antioch and most of the Oriental bishops yielded, and a general reconciliation was effected, Alexander stood out against “the abomination of Egypt “. His character is vividly portrayed in the correspondence of his friend and admirer, the historian Theodoret, as that of a grave, holy, pious man, beloved by his people, but hopelessly stubborn along the line of what seemed to him the orthodox faith. After the exhaustion of all measures to overcome his resistance, he was banished by imperial decree to the mines of Phamuthin in Egypt, where he died (Tillemont, Mem., XIV, XV).

ALEXANDER OF JERUSALEM

The friend of Origen, and his fellow student at Alexandria under Pantaenus and Clement. He became bishop of a see in Cappadocia (or Cilicia?) early in the third century, entertained for a time his master Clement, and himself suffered imprisonment for the Faith (204–212). On his release, he visited Jerusalem, and was chosen coadjutor to Narcissus, the elderly occupant of that see. This was the first case of an episcopal translation and coadjutorship. and had to be ratified by the hierarchy of Palestine assembled at Jerusalem (Valesius in Eus., Hist Eccl., VI, 11; Socrates, Hist. Eccl., VII, 36). The first Christian theological library was formed by him at Jerusalem (Eus., Hist. Eccl., V, 20). He defended Origen against his bishop, Demetrius, when the latter had taken offence at the permission accorded Origen to expound the scriptures publicly in the church of Caesarea in the presence of bishops, the latter being the only authoritative exponents of the sacred text. Alexander and Theoctistus (Bishop of Caesarea) wrote a joint letter to Demetrius, in which they pleaded the ecclesiastical usage of other places (Eus., Hist. Eccl., VI, 19). In the end Origen was ordained a priest by his two protectors (c. 230). He bears personal testimony at the beginning of his first homily on the Books of Kings, to the amiable character of Alexander. The latter died in prison at Caesarea (251) during the Decian persecution. Some fragments of his letters are preserved in the sixth book of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Pope St. Alexander I

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, writing in the latter quarter of the second century, reckons him as the fifth pope in succession from the Apostles, though he says nothing of his martyrdom. His pontificate is variously dated by critics, e. g. 106–115 (Duchesne) or 109–116 (Lightfoot). In Christian antiquity he was credited with a pontificate of about ten years (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, i,) and there is no reason to doubt that he was on the “catalogue of bishops” drawn up at Rome by Hegesippus (Eusebius, IV, xxii, 3) before the death of Pope Eleutherius (c. 189). According to a tradition extant in the Roman Church at the end of the fifth century, and recorded in the Liber Pontificalis he suffered a martyr’s death by decapitation on the Via Nomentana in Rome, 3 May. The same tradition declares him to have been a Roman by birth and to have ruled the Church in the reign of Trajan (98–117). It likewise attributes to him, but scarcely with accuracy, the insertion in the canon of the Qui Pridie, or words commemorative of the institution of the Eucharist, such being certainly primitive and original in the Mass. He is also said to have introduced the use of blessing water mixed with salt for the purification of Christian homes from evil influences (constituit aquam sparsionis cum sale benedici in habitaculis hominum). Duchesne (Lib. Pont., I, 127) calls attention to the persistence of this early Roman custom by way of a blessing in the Gelasian Sacramentary that recalls very forcibly the actual Asperges prayer at the beginning of Mass. In 1855, a semi-subteranean cemetery of the holy martyrs Sts. Alexander, Eventulus, and Theodulus was discovered near Rome, at the spot where the above mentioned tradition declares the Pope to have been martyred. According to some archaeologists, this Alexander is identical with the Pope, and this ancient and important tomb marks the actual site of the Pope’s martyrdom. Duchesne, however (op. cit., I, xci-ii) denies the identity of the martyr and the pope, while admitting that the confusion of both personages is of ancient date, probably anterior to the beginning of the sixth century when the Liber Pontificalis was first compiled [Dufourcq, Gesta Martyrum Romains (Paris, 1900), 210–211]. The difficulties raised in recent times by Richard Lipsius (Chronologie der römischen Bischofe, Kiel, 1869) and Adolph Harnack (Die Zeit des Ignatius u. die Chronologie der antiochenischen Bischofe, 1878) concerning the earliest successors of St. Peter are ably discussed and answered by F. S. (Cardinal Francesco Segna) in his “De successione priorum Romanorum Pontificum “ (Rome 1897); with moderation and learning by Bishop Lightfoot, in his “Apostolic Fathers: St. Clement ‘ (London, 1890) I, 201–345- especially by Duchesne in the introduction to his edition of the “Liber Pontificalis” (Paris, 1886) I, i-xlviii and lxviii-lxxiii. The letters ascribed to Alexander I by PseudoIsidore may be seen in P. G., V, 1057 sq., and in Hinschius, “ Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae “ (Leipzig, 1863) 94–105. His remains are said to have been transferred to Freising in Bavaria in 834 (Dummler, Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini, Berlin, 1884, II, 120). His so-called “ Acts “ are not genuine, and were compiled at a much later date (Tillemont, Mem. II, 590 sqq; Dufourcq, op. cit., 210–211).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Pope Alexander II

Reigned 1061–1073

As Anselm of Lucca, he had been recognized for a number of years as one of the leaders of the reform party, especially in the Milanese territory, where he was born at Baggio, of noble parentage. Together with Hildebrand, he had imbibed in Cluny (q.v.) the zeal for reformation. The first theatre of his activity was Milan, where he was one of the founders of the Pataria, and lent to that great agitation against simony and clerical incontinency the weight of his eloquence and noble birth. The device of silencing him, contrived by Archbishop Guido and other episcopal foes of reform in Lombardy, viz. sending him to the court of the Emperor Henry III, had the contrary effect of enabling him to spread the propaganda in Germany. In 1057 the Emperor appointed him to the bishopric of Lucca. With increased prestige, he reappeared twice in Milan as legate of the Holy See, in 1057 in the company of Hildebrand, and in 1059 with St. Peter Damiani. Under the able generalship of this saintly triumvirate the reform forces were held well in hand, in preparation for the inevitable conflict. The decree of Nicholas II (1059) by which the right of papal elections was virtually vested in the College of Cardinals, formed the issue to be fought and decided at the next vacancy of the Apostolic Throne. The death of Pope Nicholas two years later found both parties in battle array. The candidate of the Hildebrandists, endorsed by the cardinals, was the Bishop of Lucca—the other side put forward the name of Cadalus, Bishop of Parma, a protector and example of the prevailing vices of the age. The cardinals met in legal form and elected Anselm, who took the name of Alexander II. Before proceeding to his enthronization, the Sacred College notified the German Court of their action. The Germans were considered to have forfeited the privilege of confirming the election. reserved to their king with studied vagueness in the decree of Nicholas II, when they contemptuously dismissed the ambassador of the cardinals without a hearing. Foreseeing a civil war, the cardinals on 30 September completed the election by the ceremony of enthronization. Meanwhile a deputation of the Roman nobles, who were enraged at their elimination as a dominant factor in the papal elections, joined by deputies of the unreformed episcopate of Lombardy, had proceeded to the German Court with a request for the royal sanction to a new election. The Empress Agnes, as regent for her ten-year-old son, Henry IV, convoked an assembly of lay and clerical magnates at Basle; and here, without any legal right, and without the presence of a single cardinal, the Bishop of Parma was declared Pope, and took the name of Honorius II (28 October). In the contest which ensued, Pope Alexander was supported by the consciousness of the sanctity of his cause, by public opinion clamouring for reform, by the aid of the allied Normans of southern Italy, and by the benevolence of Beatrice and Matilda of Tuscany. Even in Germany things took a favourable turn for him, when Anno of Cologne seized the regency, and the repentant Empress withdrew to a convent. In a new diet, at Augsburg (Oct., 1062), it was decided that Burchard, Bishop of Halberstadt should proceed to Rome and, after investigating the election of Alexander on the spot, make a report to a later assemblage of the bishops of Germany and Italy. Burchard’s report was entirely in favour of Alexander. The latter defended his cause with eloquence and spirit in a council held at Mantua, at Pentecost, 1064 (C. Wile, Benzos Panegyricus, Marburg, 1856), and was formally recognized as legitimate Pope. His rival was excommunicated, but kept up the contest with dwindling prospects till his death in 1072. During the darkest hours of the schism Alexander and his chancellor, Cardinal Hildebrand, never for a moment relaxed their hold upon the reins of government. In striking contrast to his helplessness amidst the Roman factions is his lofty attitude towards the potentates lay and clerical, of Europe. Under banners blessed by him Roger advanced to the conquest of Sicily, and William to the conquest of England. His Regesta fill eleven pages of Jaffe (Regesta Rom. Pontif., 2d ed., 4, nos. 445, 4770). He was omnipresent, through his legates, Punishing simoniacal bishops and incontinent clerics. He did not spare even his protector, Anno of Cologne whom he twice summoned to Rome, once in 1068 to do penance, barefoot, for holding relations with the antipope, and again in 1070 to purge himself of the charge of simony. A similar discipline was administered to Sigfried of Mainz, Hermann of Bamberg, and Werner of Strasburg. In his name his legate, St. Peter Damiani, at the Diet of Frankfurt in 1089, under threat of excommunication and exclusion from the imperial throne, deterred Henry IV from the project of divorcing his queen, Bertha of Turin, though instigated thereto by several German bishops. His completest triumph was that of compelling Bishop Charles of Constance and Abbot Robert of Reichenau to return to the King the croziers and rings they had obtained through simony. One serious quarrel with Henry was left to be decided by his successor. In 1069 the Pope had rejected as a simonist the subdeacon Godfrey, whom Henry had appointed Archbishop of Milan—Henry failing to acquiesce, the Pope confirmed Atto, the choice of the reform party. Upon the king’s ordering his appointee to be consecrated, Alexander fulminated an anathema against the royal advisers. The death of the Pope, 21 April, 1073, left Hildebrand, his faithful chancellor, heir to his triumphs and difficulties. Alexander deserved well of the English Church by elevating his ancient teacher, Lanfranc of Bec (q. v.), to the See of Canterbury and appointing him Primate of England.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Alexander III

Pope from 1159–81 (Orlando Bandinelli), born of a distinguished Sienese family; died 3 August, 1181. As professor in Bologna he acquired a great reputation as a canonist, which he increased by the publication of his commentary on the “Decretum” of Gratian, popularly known as “Summa Magistri Rolandi.” Called to Rome by Eugene III in the year 1150, his advancement was rapid. He was created Cardinal Deacon, then Cardinal Priest of the title of St. Mark, and Papal Chancellor. He was the trusted adviser of Adrian IV and was regarded as the soul of the party of independence among the cardinals, which sought to escape the German yoke by alliance with the Normans of Naples. For openly asserting before Barbarossa at the Diet of Besancon (1157) that the imperial dignity was a papal beneficium (in the general sense of favour, not feudal sense of fief), he incurred the wrath of the German princes, and would have fallen on the spot under the battle-axe of his life-long foe, Otto of Wittelsbach had Frederick not intervened. For the purpose of securing a submissive pontiff at the next vacancy, the Emperor despatched into Italy two able emissaries who were to work upon the weaknesses and fears of the cardinals and the Romans, the aforesaid Otto and the Archbishop-elect of Cologne, Rainald von Dassel, whose anti-Papal attitude was largely owing to the fact that the Holy See refused to confirm his appointment. The fruits of their activity became patent after the death of Pope Adrian IV (1 September, 1159). Of the twenty-two cardinals assembled, 7 September, to elect a successor all but three voted for Orlando. The contention made later, that the imperialist cardinals numbered nine, may be explained by the surmise that in the earlier ballotings six of the faithful cardinals voted for a less prominent and obnoxious candidate. In opposition to Cardinal Orlando, who took the immortal name of Alexander III, the three imperialist members chose one of their number, Cardinal Octavian, who assumed the title of Victor IV. A mob hired by the Count of Wittelsbach broke up the conclave. Alexander retreated towards the Norman south and was consecrated and crowned, 20 September, at the little Volscian town of Nympha. Octavian’s consecration took place 4 October, at the monastery of Farfa. The Emperor now interposed to settle a disturbance entirely caused by his own agents, and summoned both claimants before a packed assembly at Pavia. He betrayed his animus by addressing Octavian as Victor IV and the true Pope as Cardinal Orlando. Pope Alexander refused to submit his clear right to this iniquitous tribunal, which, as was foreseen, declared for the usurper (11 February, 1160). Alexander promptly responded, from the ill-fated Anagni, by solemnly excommunicating the Emperor and releasing his subjects from their oaths of allegiance. The ensuing schism, far more disastrous to the Empire than to the Papacy, lasted for seventeen years and ended after the battle of Legnano (1176) with the unconditional surrender of the haughty Barbarossa in Venice, 1177. (See FREDERICK I.) The childish legend that the Pope placed his foot on the neck of the prostrate Emperor has done valiant service to Protestant tradition since the days of Luther. [See the dissertation of George Remus, Nuremberg, 1625; Lyons, 1728; and Gosselin, “The Power of the Pope during the Middle Ages “(tr. London, 1853) II, 133.] Alexander’s enforced exile (1162–65) in France contributed greatly to enhance the dignity of the papacy, never so popular as when in distress. It also brought him into direct contact with the most powerful monarch of the West, Henry II of England. The cautious manner in which he defended the rights of the Church during the quarrel between the two impetuous Normans, King Henry and St. Thomas Becket, though many a time exciting the displeasure of both contestants, and often since denounced as “shifty,” was the strategy of an able commander who, by marches and countermarches succeeds in keeping the field against overwhelming odds. It is no disparagement of the Martyr of Canterbury to say that the Pope equalled him in firmness and excelled him in the arts of diplomacy. After Becket’s murder the Pope succeeded, without actual recourse to ban or interdict, in obtaining from the penitent monarch every right for which the martyr had fought and bled.

To crown and seal the triumph of religion, Alexander convoked and presided over the Third Lateran Council (Eleventh Ecumenical), in 1179. Surrounded by over 300 bishops, the much-tried Pontiff issued many salutary decrees, notably the ordinance which vested the exclusive right of papal elections in a two-thirds vote of the cardinals. Throughout all the vicissitudes of his chequered career Alexander remained a canonist. A glance at the Decretals shows that, as an ecclesiastical legislator, he was scarcely second to Innocent III. Worn out by trials, he died at Civita Castellana. When we are told that “the Romans” pursued his remains with curses and stones, the remembrance of a similar scene at the burial of Pius IX teaches us what value to attach to such a demonstration. In the estimation of Rome, Italy, and Christendom, Alexander III’s epitaph expresses the truth, when it calls him “the Light of the Clergy, the Ornament of the Church, the Father of his City and of the World.” He was friendly to the new academical movement that led to the establishment of the great medieval universities. His own reputation as a teacher and a canonist has been greatly enhanced through the discovery by Father Denifle in the public library of Nuremberg of the “Sententiae Rolandi Bononiensis,” edited (Freiburg, 1891) by Father Ambrosius Gietl. The collection of his letters (Jaffé, Regesta RR. Pontif., Nos. 10,584–14,424) was enriched by Löwenfeld’s publication of many hitherto unknown (Epistolae Pontif. Rom. ineditae, Leipzig, 1885). Even Voltaire regards him as the man who in medieval times deserved best from the human race, for abolishing slavery, for overcoming the violence of the Emperor Barbarossa, for compelling Henry II of England to ask pardon for the murder of Thomas Becket, for restoring to men their rights, and giving splendour to many cities.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Alexander IV

Pope from 1254–61 (Rinaldo Conti), of the house of Segni, which had already given two illustrious sons to the Papacy, Innocent III and Gregory IX, date of birth uncertain; died 25 May, 1261, at Viterbo. He was created Cardinal-Deacon, in 1227, by his uncle Gregory IX, and four years later Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia. Gregory also bequeathed to him his solicitude for the Franciscan Order, which he had 80 well befriended. On the death of Innocent IV, at Naples, 7 December, 1254, the aged Cardinal was unanimously chosen to succeed him. We may well believe his protestation that he yielded very reluctantly to the importunities of the Sacred College. Matthew of Paris has depicted him as “kind and religious, assiduous in prayer and strict in abstinence, but easily led away by the whispering of flatterers, and inclined to listen to the wicked suggestions of avaricious persons.” The “flatterers” and “avaricious persons” referred to were those who induced the new Pontiff to continue Innocent’s policy of a war of extermination against the progeny of Frederick II. now reduced to the infant Conradin in Germany and the formidable Manfred in Apulia. Many an historian at the present day agrees with the shrewd chronicler, that it would have been far more statesmanlike and might have averted the disasters that were in destiny for the Church, the Empire, and Italy, had Alexander firmly espoused the cause of Conradin. Deterred by the precedent of the infant Frederick, the “viper” that the Roman Church had nourished to become its destroyer, and persuaded that iniquity was hereditary. in the whole brood of the Hohenstaufens, he continued Innocent’s dubious policy of calling in French or English Beelzebubs to cast out the German Lucifers. On 25 March, 1255, he fulminated an excommunication against Manfred and a few days afterwards concluded a treaty with the envoys of Henry III of England by which he made over the vassal kingdom of the Two Sicilies to Edmund of Lancaster, Henry’s second son. In the contest for the German crown which followed on the death of William of Holland (1256) the Pope supported the claims of Richard of Cornwall against Alfonso of Castile. The pecuniary assistance which these measures brought him was dearly bought by the embitterment of the English clergy and people against the exactions of the Roman See. Manfred’s power grew from day to day. In August, 1258, in consequence of a rumour spread by himself, that Conradin had died in Germany, the usurper was crowned king in Palermo and became the acknowledged head of the Ghibelline party in Italy. Alexander lived to see the victor of Montaperti (1260) supreme ruler of Central as well as Southern Italy. In the north of Italy he was more successful, for his crusaders finally crushed the odious tyrant Ezzelino. In Rome, which was under the rule of hostile magistrates and in alliance with Manfred, the papal authority was all but forgotten. Meanwhile the Pope was making futile efforts to unite the powers of the Christian world against the threatening invasion of the Tartars. The crusading spirit had departed. The unity of Christendom was a thing of the past. Whether the result would have been different had a great statesman occupied the Papal Chair during these seven critical years, we can only surmise. Alexander IV ruled the spiritual affairs of the Church with dignity and prudence. As Pope, he continued to show great favour to the children of St. Francis. One of his first official acts was to canonize St. Clare. In a diploma he asserted the truth of the impression of the stigmata. St. Bonaventure informs us that the Pope affirmed in a sermon that he had seen them. In the violent controversies excited at the University of Paris by William of St. Amour, Alexander IV took the friars under his protection. He died, deeply afflicted by the sense of his powerlessness to stem the evils of the age.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Alexander V

Pietro Philarghi, born c. 1339, on the island of Crete (Candia), whence his appellation, Peter of Candia; elected 26 June, 1409; died at Bologna, 3 May, 1410.

A homeless beggar-boy in a Cretan city, knowing neither parents nor relations, he became the protégé of a discerning Capuchin friar, from whom he received an elementary education and under whose guidance he became a Franciscan in a Cretan monastery. The youth gave promise of extraordinary ability, and was sent to enjoy the superior educational advantages of Italy. He studied later at Oxford and finally at Paris where he distinguished himself as professor, preacher, and writer. He Is the author of a good commentary on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard. During his stay at Paris the Great Schism (1378–1417) rent the Church, and Philarghi was ranged among the partisans of Urban VI (1375–89). Returning to Italy, he found a place in the court of Giovanni Galeazzo Visconti, Duke of Milan, where he acted as tutor to his sons and ambassador on important missions. Through the favour of the Visconti he was made successively Bishop of Piacenza, in 1386; of Vicenza, in 1387; of Navoya, in 1389; and finally Archbishop of Milan, in 1402. In 1405 Pope Innocent VII made him Cardinal, and turned his ability and his friendship with the Visconti to advantage by confirming him as papal legate to Lombardy. Henceforth his history becomes a part of that of the Schism. The Cardinal of Milan was foremost among the advocates of a council. To this end he approved of the withdrawal of the cardinals of Gregory XII from their obedience, sanctioned the agreement of the rival colleges of cardinals to join in a common effort for unity, and negotiated with Henry IV of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury to secure England’s neutrality. He thus incurred the displeasure of Gregory XII, who deprived him of the archbishopric of Milan, and even declared him to be shorn of the cardinalitial dignity. At the Council of Pisa (25 March, 1409) Cardinal Philarghi was the leading spirit. He preached the opening sermon, a scathing condemnation of the tenacity of the rival popes and presided at the deliberations of the theologians who declared these popes heretics and schismatics.

On 26 June, 1409, he was the unanimous choice of the cardinals to fill the presumably vacant Papal Chair. His stainless character, vast erudition, world-wide experience, and tried administrative ability, together with the fact that he had neither country nor relations in the riven Catholic world to favour, gave promise of glory to the Papacy and peace to the Church. Alexander V soon found all nations in sympathy with him, save Spain and Scotland and some Italian cities whose interests were bound up in the legitimacy of the stubborn Benedict XIII. He was destined, however, to rule but ten months. His pontificate was marked by unsuccessful efforts to reach Rome, then in control of King Ladislas of Naples, whom Alexander deprived of his kingdom in favour of Louis II of Anjou. Detained by Cardinal Cossa in Bologna, the stronghold of that self-seeking adviser, he died there under circumstances which led the enemies of Cossa, who succeeded Alexander V as John XXIII, to bring before the Council of Constance the now discredited charge that he had poisoned the Pisan pope. Alexander lived long enough to disappoint the hopes his election inspired. His legitimacy was soon questioned and the world was chagrined to find that instead of two popes it now had three. His ardour for reform diminished. Generous to a fault, he scattered favours with undiscriminating munificence. The mendicant orders were unduly favoured by being confirmed in privileges which parish priests and the theological faculties resented as encroaching on their rights. Whether or not Alexander was a true pope is a question which canonists and historians of the Schism still discuss. The Church has not pronounced a definite opinion nor is it at all likely that she will. The Roman “Gerarchia Cattolica,” not an authoritative work, which prior to 1906 contained a chronological list of the popes, designated Alexander V as the 211th pope, succeeding Gregory XII, resigned. (See PAPACY.) His remains are interred in the church of St. Francis at Bologna in a tomb magnificently restored in 1889 under the direction of Leo XIII.

J. B. PETERSON

Pope Alexander VI

Rodrigo Borgia, born at Xativa, near Valencia, in Spain, 1 January, 1431; died in Rome, 18 August, 1503. His parents were Jofre Lançol and Isabella Borja, sister of Cardinal Alfonso Borja, later Pope Callixtus III.

The young Rodrigo had not yet definitely chosen his profession when the elevation of his uncle to the papacy (1455) opened up new prospects to his ambition. He was adopted into the immediate family of Callixtus and was known henceforward to the Italians as Rodrigo Borgia. Like so many other princely cadets, he was obtruded upon the Church, the question of a clerical vocation being left completely out of consideration. After conferring several rich benefices on him, his uncle sent him for a short year to study law at the University of Bologna. In 1456, at the age of twenty-five, he was made Cardinal Deacon of St. Nicolo in Carcere, and held that title until 1471, when he became Cardinal-Bishop of Albano; in 1476 he was made Cardinal-Bishop of Porto and Dean of the Sacred College (Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica, II, 12). His official position in the Curia after 1457 was that of Vice-Chancellor of the Roman Church, and though many envied him this lucrative office he seems in his long administration of the Papal Chancery to have given general satisfaction. Even Guicciardini admits that “in him were combined rare prudence and vigilance mature reflection, marvelous power of persuasion, skill and capacity for the conduct of the most difficult affairs.” On the other hand, the list of archbishoprics, bishoprics, abbacies, and other dignities held by him, as enumerated by the Bishop of Modena in a letter to the Duchess of Ferrara (Pastor, History of the Popes, V, 533, English tr.) reads like the famous catalogue of Leparello; and since, notwithstanding the magnificence of his household and his passion for card-playing, he was strictly abstemious in eating and drinking, and a careful administrator, he became one of the wealthiest men of his time. In his twenty-ninth year he drew a scathing letter of reproof from Pope Pius II for misconduct in Sienna which had been so notorious as to shock the whole town and court (Raynaldus Ann. eccl. ad. an. 1460, n. 31). Even after his ordination to the priesthood, in 1468, he continued his evil ways. His contemporaries praise his handsome and imposing figure, his cheerful countenance, persuasive manner, brilliant conversation, and intimate mastery of the ways of polite society. The best portrait of him is said to be that painted by Pinturicchio in the Appartimento Borgia at the Vatican; Yriarte (Autour des Borgia, 79) praises its general air of grandeur incontestable. Towards 1470 began his relations with the Roman lady, Vanozza Catanei, the mother of his four children: Juan, Caesar, Lucrezia and Jofre, born, respectively according to Gregorovius (Lucrezia Borgia 13) in 1474, 1476, 1480, and 1482.

Borgia, by a bare two-thirds majority secured by his own vote, was proclaimed Pope on the morning of 11 Aug., 1492, and took the name of Alexander VI. [For details of the conclave see Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes,” (German ed., Freiburg, 1895), III, 275–278; also Am. Cath. Quart. Review, April, 1900.] That he obtained the papacy through simony was the general belief (Pastor, loc. cit.) and is not improbable (Raynaldus, Ann. eccl. ad an. 1492, n. 26), though it would be difficult to prove it juridically, at any rate, as the law then stood the election was valid. There is no irresistible evidence that Borgia paid anyone a ducat for his vote; Infessura’s tale of mule-loads of silver has long since been discredited. Pastor’s indictment, on closer inspection, needs some revision, for he states (III, 277) that eight of the twenty-three electors, viz. della Rovere, Piccolomini, Medici, Caraffa, Costa, Basso, Zeno, and Cibò, held out to the end against Borgia. If that were true, Borgia could not have secured a two-thirds majority. All we can affirm with certainty is that the determining factor of this election was the accession to Borgia of Cardinal Ascanio Sforza’s vote and influence, it is almost equally certain that Sforza’s course was dictated not by silver, but by the desire to be the future Pontiff’s chief adviser.

The elevation to the papacy of one who for thirty-five years had conducted the affairs of the Roman chancery with rare ability and industry met with general approbation; we find no evidence of the “alarm and horror” of which Guicciardini speaks. To the Romans especially, who had come to regard Borgia as one of themselves, and who predicted a pontificate at once splendid and energetic, the choice was most acceptable; and they manifested their joy in bonfires, torchlight processions, garlands of flowers, and the erection of triumphal arches with extravagant inscriptions. At his coronation in St. Peter’s (26 Aug.), and during his progress to St. John Lateran, he was greeted with an ovation, “greater,” says the diarist, “than any Pontiff had ever received.” He proceeded at once to justify this good opinion of the Romans by putting an end to the lawlessness which reigned in the city, the extent of which we can infer from the statement of Infessura that within a few months over two hundred and twenty assassinations had taken place. Alexander ordered investigations to be made, every culprit discovered to be hanged on the spot and his house to be razed to the ground. He divided the city into four districts, placing over each a magistrate with plenary powers for the maintenance of order; in addition, he reserved the Tuesday of each week as a day on which any man or woman could lay his or her grievances before himself personally; “and,” says the diarist, “he set about dispensing justice in an admirable manner.” This vigorous method of administering justice soon changed the face of the city, and was ascribed by the grateful populace to “the interposition of God.”

Alexander next turned his attention to the defence and embellishment of the Eternal City. He changed the Mausoleum of Adrian into a veritable fortress capable of sustaining a siege. By the fortification of Torre di Nona, he secured the city from naval attacks. He deserves to be called the founder of the Leonine City, which he transformed into the most fashionable quarter of Rome. His magnificent Via Alessandrina, now called Borgo Nuovo, remains to the present day the grand approach to St. Peter’s. Under his direction, Pinturicchio adorned the Appartimento Borgia in the Vatican, pointing the way to his immortal disciple, Raphael. In addition to the structures erected by himself, his memory is associated with the many others built by monarchs and cardinals at his instigation. During his reign Bramante designed for Ferdinand and Isabella that exquisite architectural gem, the Tempietto, on the traditional site of St. Peter’s martyrdom. If not Bramante, some other great architect, equally attracted to Rome by the report of the Pope’s liberality, built for Cardinal Riario the magnificent palace of the Cancellaria. In 1500, the ambassador of Emperor Maximilian laid the cornerstone of the handsome national church of the Germans, Santa Maria dell’ Anima. Not to be outdone, the French Cardinal Briconnet erected SS. Trinità dei Monti, and the Spaniards Santa Maria di Monserrato. To Alexander we owe the beautiful ceiling of Santa Maria Maggiore, in the decoration of which tradition says he employed the first gold brought from America by Columbus.

Although he laid no great claim to learning, he fostered literature and science. As cardinal he had written two treatises on canonical subjects and a defence of the Christian faith. He rebuilt the Roman University and made generous provision for the support of the professors. He surrounded himself with learned men and had a special predilection for jurists. His fondness for theatrical performances encouraged the development of the drama. He loved pontifical ceremonies, to which his majestic figure lent grace and dignity. He listened to good sermons with a critical ear, and admired fine music. In 1497, Alexander decreed that the “Praefectus Sacrarii Pontificii,” commonly called “Sacristan of the Pope,” but virtually parish-priest of the Vatican and keeper of the Pope’s conscience, should be permanently and exclusively a prelate chosen from the Augustinian Order, an arrangement that still endures.

Alexander earned the enmity of Spain, the obloquy of many narrow minded contemporaries, and the gratitude of posterity, by his tolerant policy towards the Jews, whom he could not be coerced into banishing or molesting. The concourse of pilgrims to Rome in the Jubilee year, 1500, was a magnificent demonstration of the depth and universality of the popular faith. The capacity of the city to house and feed so many thousands of visitors from all parts of Europe was taxed to the utmost, but Alexander spared no expense or pains to provide for the security and comfort of his guests. To maintain peace among Christians and to form a coalition of the European Powers against the Turks was the policy he had inherited from his uncle. One of the first of his public acts was to prevent a collision between Spain and Portugal over their newly-discovered territories, by drawing his line of demarcation, an act of truly peaceful import, and not of usurpation and ambition [Civiltà Cattolica (1865), I, 665–680]. He did his best to dissuade Charles VIII of France from his projected invasion of Italy; if he was unsuccessful, the blame is in no slight degree due to the unpatriotic course of that same Giuliano della Rovere who later, as Julius II, made futile efforts to expel the “barbarians” whom he himself had invited. Alexander issued a wise decree concerning the censorship of books, and sent the first missionaries to the New World.

Notwithstanding these and similar actions, which might seem to entitle him to no mean place in the annals of the papacy, Alexander continued as Pope the manner of life that had disgraced his cardinalate (Pastor, op. cit., III, 449 152). A stern Nemesis pursued him till death in the shape of a strong parental affection for his children. The report of the Ferrarese ambassador, that the new Pope had resolved to keep them at a distance from Rome, is quite credible, for all his earlier measures for their advancement pointed towards Spain. While still a cardinal, he had married one daughter, Girolama, to a Spanish nobleman. He had bought for a son, Pedro Luis, from the Spanish monarch the Duchy of Gandia, and when Pedro died soon after he procured it for Juan, his oldest surviving son by Vanozza. This ill-starred young man was married to a cousin of the King of Spain, and became grandfather to St. Francis Borgia, whose virtues went a great way towards atoning for the vices of his kin. The fond father made a great mistake when he selected his boy Caesar as the ecclesiastical representative of the Borgias. In 1480, Pope Innocent VIII made the child eligible for Orders by absolving him from the ecclesiastical irregularity that followed his birth de episcopo cardinali et conjugatâ, and conferred several Spanish benefices on him, the last being the Bishopric of Pampeluna, in the neighbourhood of which, by a strange fatality, he eventually met his death. A week after Alexander’s coronation he appointed Caesar, now eighteen years old, to the Archbishopric of Valencia; but Caesar neither went to Spain nor ever took Orders. The youngest son, Jofre, was also to be inflicted upon the Church of Spain. A further evidence that the Pope had determined to keep his children at a distance from court is that his daughter Lucrezia was betrothed to a Spanish gentleman, the marriage, however, never took place. It had already become the settled policy of the popes to have a personal representative in the Sacred College, and so Alexander chose for this confidential position Cardinal Giovanni Borgia, his sister’s son. The subsequent abandonment of his good resolutions concerning his children may safely be ascribed to the evil counsels of Ascanio Sforza, whom Borgia had rewarded with the vice-chancellorship, and who was virtually his prime minister. The main purpose of Ascanio’s residence at the papal court was to advance the interests of his brother, Lodovico il Moro, who had been regent of Milan for so many years, during the minority of their nephew Gian Galeazzo, that he now refused to surrender the reins of government, though the rightful duke had attained his majority. Gian Galeazzo was powerless to assert his rights; but his more energetic wife was granddaughter to King Ferrante of Naples, and her incessant appeals to her family for aid left Lodovico in constant dread of Neapolitan invasion. Alexander had many real grievances against Ferrante, the latest of which was the financial aid the King had given to the Pope’s vassal, Virginio Orsini, in the purchase of Cervetri and Anguillara, without Alexander’s consent. In addition to the contempt of the papal authority involved in the transaction, this accession of strength to a baronial family already too powerful could not but be highly displeasing. Alexander was, therefore, easily induced to enter a defensive alliance with Milan and Venice; the league was solemnly proclaimed, 25 April, 1493. It was cemented by the first of Lucrezia’s marriages. Her first husband was a cousin of Ascanio, Giovanni Sforza, Lord of Pesaro. The wedding was celebrated in the Vatican in the presence of the Pope, ten cardinals, and the chief nobles of Rome with their ladies, the revelries of the occasion, even when exaggerations and rumours are dismissed, remain a blot upon the character of Alexander. Ferrante talked of war, but, through the mediation of Spain, he came to terms with the Pope and, as a pledge of reconciliation, gave his granddaughter, Sancia, in marriage to Alexander’s youngest son Jofre, with the principality of Squillace as dower. Caesar Borgia was created Cardinal 20 September. Ferrante’s reconciliation with the Pope came none too soon.

A few days after peace had been concluded, an envoy of King Charles VIII arrived in Rome to demand the investiture of Naples for his master. Alexander returned a positive refusal, and when Ferrante died, January, 1494, neglecting French protests and threats, he confirmed the succession of Ferrante’s son, Alfonso II, and sent his nephew, Cardinal Giovanni Borgia, to Naples to crown him. The policy of Alexander was dictated not only by a laudable desire to maintain the peace of Italy, but also because he was aware that a strong faction of his cardinals, with the resolute della Rovere at their head, was promoting the invasion of Charles as a means towards deposing him on the twofold charge of simony and immorality. In September, 1494, the French crossed the Alps; on the last day of that year they made their entry into Rome, needing no other weapon in their march through the peninsula, as Alexander wittily remarked (Commines vii, 15), than the chalk with which they marked out the lodgings of the troops. The barons of the Pope deserted him one after the other. Colonna and Savelli were traitors from the beginning, but he felt most keenly the defection of Virginio Orsini, the commander of his army. Many a saintlier pope than Alexander VI would have made the fatal mistake of yielding to brute force and surrendering unconditionally to the conqueror of Italy; the most heroic of the popes could not have sustained the stability of the Holy See at this crucial moment with greater firmness. From the crumbling ramparts of St. Angelo, the defences of which were still incomplete, he looked calmly into the mouth of the French cannon; with equal intrepidity he faced the cabal of della Rovere’s cardinals, clamorous for his deposition. At the end of a fortnight it was Charles who capitulated. He acknowledged Alexander as true Pope, greatly to the disgust of della Rovere, and “did his filial obedience,” says Commines, “with all imaginable humility”; but he could not extort from the Pontiff an acknowledgment of his claims to Naples. Charles entered Naples, 22 February, 1495, without striking a blow. At his approach the unpopular Alfonso abdicated in favour of his son Ferrantino, the latter, failing to receive support, retired to seek the protection of Spain. Whilst Charles wasted over two months in fruitless attempts to induce the Pope by promises and threats to sanction his usurpation, a powerful league, consisting of Venice, Milan, the Empire, Spain, and the Holy See, was formed against him. Finally, on 12 May, he crowned himself, but in the following July he was cutting his way home through the ranks of the allied Italians. By the end of the year the French had re-crossed into France. No one wished for their return, except the restless della Rovere, and the adherents of Savonarola. The story of the Florentine friar will be related elsewhere, here it suffices to note that Alexander’s treatment of him was marked by extreme patience and forbearance.

The French invasion was the turning point in the political career of Alexander VI. It had taught him that if he would be safe in Rome and be really master in the States of the Church, he must curb the insolent and disloyal barons who had betrayed him in his hour of danger. Unfortunately, this laudable purpose became more and more identified in his mind with schemes for the aggrandizement of his family. There was no place in his programme for a reform of abuses. Quite the contrary; in order to obtain money for his military operations he disposed of civil and spiritual privileges and offices in a scandalous manner. He resolved to begin with the Orsini, whose treason at the most critical moment had reduced him to desperate straits. The time seemed opportune; for Virginio, the head of the house, was a prisoner in the hands of Ferrantino. As commander of his troops he selected his youthful son Juan, Duke of Gandia. The struggle dragged on for months. The minor castles of the Orsini surrendered, but Bracciano, their main fortress, resisted all the efforts of the pontifical troops. They were finally obliged to raise the siege, and on 25 January, 1497, they were completely routed at Soriano. Both sides were now disposed to peace. On Payment of 50,000 golden florins the Orsini received back all their castles except Cervetri and Anguillara, which had been the original cause of their quarrel with the Pope. In order to reduce the strong fortress of Ostia, held by French troops for Cardinal della Rovere, Alexander wisely invoked the aid of Gonsalvo de Cordova and his Spanish veterans. It surrendered to the “Great Captain” within two weeks. Unsuccessful in obtaining for his family the possessions of the Orsini, the Pope now demanded the consent of his cardinals to the erection of Benevento, Terracina, and Pontecorvo into a duchy for the Duke of Gandia. Cardinal Piccolomini was the only member who dared protest against this improper alienation of the property of the Church. A more powerful protest than that of the Cardinal of Sienna reverberated through the world a week later when, on the sixteenth of June, the body of the young Duke was fished out of the Tiber, with the throat cut and many gaping wounds. Historians have laboured in vain to discover who perpetrated the foul deed, but that it was a warning from Heaven to repent, no one felt more keenly than the Pope himself. In the first wild paroxysm of grief he spoke of resigning the tiara. Then, after three days and nights passed without food or sleep, he appeared in consistory and proclaimed his determination to set about that reform of the Church “in head and members” for which the world had so long been clamouring. A commission of cardinals and canonists began industriously to frame ordinances which foreshadowed the disciplinary decrees of Trent. But they were never promulgated. Time gradually assuaged the sorrow and extinguished the contrition of Alexander. From now on Caesar’s iron will was supreme law. That he aimed high from the start is evident from his resolve, opposed at first by the Pope, to resign his cardinalate and other ecclesiastical dignities, and to become a secular prince. The condition of Naples was alluring. The gallant Ferrantino had died childless and was succeeded by his uncle Federigo, whose coronation was one of Caesar’s last, possibly also one of his first, ecclesiastical acts. By securing the hand of Federigo’s daughter, Carlotta, Princess of Tarento, he would become one of the most powerful barons of the kingdom, with ulterior prospects of wearing the crown. Carlotta’s repugnance, however, could not be overcome. But in the course of the suit, another marriage was concluded which gave much scandal. Lucrezia’s marriage with Sforza was declared null on the ground of the latter’s impotence, and she was given as wife to Alfonso of Biseglia, an illegitimate son of Alfonso II.

Meanwhile, affairs in France took an unexpected turn which deeply modified the course of Italian history and the career of the Borgias. Charles VIII died in April, 1498, preceded to the tomb by his only son, and left the throne to his cousin, the Duke of Orleans, King Louis XII, who stood now in need of two papal favours. In his youth he had been coerced into marrying Jane of Valois, the saintly but deformed daughter of Louis XI. Moreover, in order to retain Brittany, it was essential that he should marry his deceased cousin’s widow, Queen Anne. No blame attaches to Alexander for issuing the desired decree annulling the King’s marriage or for granting him a dispensation from the impediment of affinity. The commission of investigation appointed by him established the two fundamental facts that the marriage with Jane was invalid, from lack of consent, and that it never had been consummated. It was the political use made by the Borgias of their opportunity, and the prospective alliance of France and the Holy See, which now drove several of the Powers of Europe to the verge of schism. Threats of a council and of deposition had no terrors for Alexander, whose control of the Sacred College was absolute. Della Rovere was now his agent in France. Ascanio Sforza was soon to retire permanently from Rome. Louis had inherited from his grandmother, Valentina Visconti, strong claims to the Duchy of Milan, usurped by the Sforzas, and he made no secret of his intention to enforce them. Alexander cannot be held responsible for the second “barbarian” invasion of Italy, but he was quick to take advantage of it for the consolidation of his temporal power and the aggrandizement of his family. On 1 October, 1498, Caesar, no longer a cardinal, but designated Duke of Valentinois and Peer of France set outs from Rome to bring the papal dispensation to King Louis, a cardinal’s hat to his minister D’Amboise, and to find for himself a wife of high degree. He still longed for the hand of Carlotta, who resided in France, but since that princess persisted in her refusal, he received instead the hand of a niece of King Louis, the sister of the King of Navarre, Charlotte D’Albret. On 8 October, 1499, King Louis, accompanied by Duke Caesar and Cardinal della Rovere made his triumphal entry into Milan. It was the signal to begin operations against the petty tyrants who were devastating the States of the Church. Alexander would have merited great credit for this much needed work, had he not spoiled it by substituting his own family in their place. What his ultimate intentions were we cannot fathom. However, the tyrants who were expelled never returned, whilst the Borgian dynasty came to a speedy end in the pontificate of Julius II. In the meantime Caesar had carried on his campaign so successfully that by the year 1501 he was master of all the usurped papal territory and was made Duke of Romagna by the Pope, whose affection for the brilliant young general was manifested in still other ways. During the war, however, and in the midst of the Jubilee of 1500 there occurred another domestic murder. On 15 July of that year the Duke of Biseglia, Lucretia’s husband was attacked by five masked assassins, who grievousiy wounded him. Convinced that Caesar was the instigator of the deed, he made an unsuccessful attempt, on his recovery, to kill his supposed enemy, and was instantly dispatched by Caesar’s bodyguard. The latter, having completed, in April, 1501, the conquest of the Romagna, now aspired to the conquest of Tuscany; but he was soon recalled to Rome to take part in a different enterprise. On 27 June of that year the Pope deposed his chief vassal, Federigo of Naples, on the plea of an alleged alliance with the Turks to the detriment of Christendom, and approved the secret Treaty of Granada, by the terms of which the Kingdom of Naples was partitioned between Spain and France.

Alexander’s motive in thus reversing his former policy with respect to foreign interference was patent. The Colonna, the Savelli, the Gaetani and other barons of the Patrimony had always been supported in their opposition to the popes by the favour of the Aragonese dynasty, deprived of which they felt themselves powerless. Excommunicated by the Pontiff as rebels, they offered to surrender the keys of their castles to the Sacred College, but Alexander demanded them for himself. The Orsini, who might have known that their turn would come next, were so shortsighted as to assist the Pope in the ruin of their hereditary foes. One after another, the castles were surrendered. On 27 July, Alexander left Rome to survey his conquest; at the same time he left the widowed Lucrezia in the Vatican with authority to open his correspondence and conduct the routine business of the Holy See. He also erected the confiscated Possessions of the aforesaid families into two duchies, bestowing one on Rodrigo, the infant son of Lucrezia, the other on Juan Borgia, born to him a short while after the murder of Gandia, and to whom was given the latter’s baptismal name (Pastor, op. cit., III 449). Lucrezia, now in her twenty-third year, did not long remain a widow; her father destined her to be the bride of another Alfonso, son and heir of Duke Ercole of Ferrara. Although both father and son at first spurned the notion of a matrimonial alliance between the proud house of Este and the Pope’s illegitimate daughter, they were favourably influenced by the King of France. The third marriage of Lucrezia, celebrated by proxy in the Vatican (30 December, 1501), far exceeded the first in splendour and extravagance. If her father meant her as an instrument in her new position for the advancement of his political combinations, he was mistaken. She is known henceforth, and till her death in 1519, as a model wife and princess, lauded by all for her amiability, her virtue, and her charity. Nothing could well be more different from the fiendish Lucrezia Borgia of the drama and the opera than the historical Duchess of Ferrara. Caesar, however, continued his infamous career of simony, extortion, and treachery, and by the end of 1502 had rounded out his possessions by the capture of Camerino and Sinigaglia. In October of that year the Orsini conspired with his generals to destroy him. With coolness and skill Caesar decoyed the conspirators into his power and put them to death. The Pope followed up the blow by proceeding against the Orsini with greater success than formerly. Cardinal Orsini, the soul of the conspiracy, was committed to Castle St. Angelo—twelve days later he was a corpse. Whether he died a natural death or was privately executed, is uncertain Losing no time, Caesar returned towards Rome, and so great was the terror he inspired that the frightened barons fled before him, says Villari (I, 356), “as from the face of a hydra.” By April nothing remained to the Orsini except the fortress of Bracciano and they begged for an armistice. The humiliation of the Roman aristocracy was complete; for the first time in the history of the papacy the Pope was, in the fullest sense, ruler of his States.

Alexander, still hale and vigorous in his seventy-third year, and looking forward to many more years of reign, proceeded to strengthen his position by repleting his treasury in ways that were more than dubious. The Sacred College now contained so many of his adherents and countrymen that he had nothing to fear from that quarter. He enjoyed and laughed at the scurrilous lampoons that were in circulation in which he was accused of incredible crimes, and took no steps to shield his reputation. War had broken out in Naples between France and Spain over the division of the spoils. Alexander was still in doubt which side he could most advantageously support, when his career came to an abrupt close. On 6 August, 1503, the Pope, with Caesar and others, dined with Cardinal Adriano da Corneto in a villa belonging to the Cardinal and very imprudently remained in the open air after nightfall. The entire company paid the penalty by contracting the pernicious Roman fever. On the twelfth the Pope took to his bed. On the eighteenth his life was despaired of; he made his confession, received the last sacraments, and expired towards evening. The rapid decomposition and swollen appearance of his corpse gave rise to the familiar suspicion of poison. Later the tale ran that he had drunk by mistake a poisoned cup of wine which he had prepared for his host. Nothing is more certain than that the poison which killed him was the deadly microbe of the Roman campagna [Pastor, op. cit., III, 469–472; Creighton, Hist. of the Papacy (London 1887), IV, 44]. His remains lie in the Spanish national church of Santa Maria di Monserrato.

An impartial appreciation of the career of this extraordinary person must at once distinguish between the man and the office. “An imperfect setting,” says Dr. Pastor (op. cit., III, 475), “does not affect the intrinsic worth of the jewel, nor does the golden coin lose its value when it passes through impure hands. In so far as the priest is a public officer of a holy Church, a blameless life is expected from him, both because he is by his office the model of virtue to whom the laity look up, and because his life, when virtuous, inspires in onlookers respect for the society of which he is an ornament. But the treasures of the Church, her Divine character, her holiness, Divine revelation, the grace of God, spiritual authority, it is well known, are not dependent on the moral character of the agents and officers of the Church. The foremost of her priests cannot diminish by an iota the intrinsic value of the spiritual treasures confided to him.” There have been at all times wicked men in the ecclesiastical ranks. Our Lord foretold, as one of its severest trials, the presence in His Church not only of false brethren, but of rulers who would offend, by various forms of selfishness, both the children of the household and “those who are without.” Similarly, Ho compared His beloved spouse, the Church, to a threshing floor, on which fall both chaff and grain until the time of separation. The most severe arraignments of Alexander, because in a sense official, are those of his Catholic contemporaries, Pope Julius II (Gregorovius, VII, 494) and the Augustinian cardinal and reformer, Aegidius of Viterbo, in his manuscript “Historia XX Saeculorum,” preserved at Rome in the Bibliotheca Angelica. The Oratorian Raynaldus (d. 1677), who continued the semi-official Annals of Baronius, gave to the world at Rome (ad an. 1460, no. 41) the above-mentioned paternal but severe reproof of the youthful Cardinal by Pius II, and stated elsewhere (ad an. 1495, no. 26) that it was in his time the opinion of historians that Alexander had obtained the papacy partly through money and partly through promises and the persuasion that ho would not interfere with the lives of his electors. Mansi, the scholarly Archbishop of Lucca editor and annotator of Raynaldus, says (XI, 4155) that it is easier to keep silence than to write write moderation about this Pope. The severe judgment of the late Cardinal Hergenroether, in his “Kirchengeschichte,” or Manual of Church History (4th. ed., Freiburg, 1904, II, 982–983) is too well known to need more than mention.

So little have Catholic historians defended him that in the middle of the nineteenth century Cesare Cantu could write that Alexander VI was the only Pope who had never found an apologist. However, since that time some Catholic writers, both in books and periodicals, have attempted to defend him from the most grievous accusations of his contemporaries. Two in particular may be mentioned: the Dominican Ollivier, “Le Pape Alexandre VI et les Borgia” (Paris, 1870), of whose work only one volume appeared, dealing with the Pope’s cardinalate; and Leonetti “Papa Alessandro VI secondo documenti e carteggi del tempo” (3 vols., Bologna, 1880). These and other works were occasioned, partly by a laudable desire to remove a stigma from the good repute of the Catholic Church, and partly by the gross exaggerations of Victor Hugo and others who permitted themselves all licence in dealing with a name so helpless and detested. It cannot be said, however, that these works have corresponded to their authors’ zeal. Dr. Pastor ranks them all as failures. Such is the opinion of Henri de l’Epinois in the “Revue des questions historiques” (1881), XXIX, 147, a study that even Thuasne, the hostile editor of the Diary of Burchard, calls “the indispensable guide of all students of Borgia history.” It is also the opinion of the Bollandist Matagne, in the same review for 1870 and 1872 (IX, 466–475; XI, 181–198), and of Von Reumont, the Catholic historian of medieval Rome, in Bonn. Theol. Lit. Blatt (1870), V. 686. Dr. Pastor considers that the publication of the documents in the supplement to the third volume of Thuasne’s edition of the Diary of Burchard (Paris, 1883) renders “forever impossible” any attempts to save the reputation of Alexander VI. There is all the less reason, therefore, says Cardinal Hergenroether (op. cit., II, 583), for the false charges that have been added to his account, e. g. his attempt to poison Cardinal Adriano da Corneto and his incestuous relations with Lucrezia (Pastor, op. cit., III, 375, 450–451, 475). Other accusations, says the same writer, have been dealt with, not unsuccessfully, by Roscoe in his “Life of Leo the Tenth”; by Capefigue in his “Eglise pendant les quatre derniers siècles” (I, 41–46), and by Chantrel, “Le Pape Alexandre VI” (Paris, 1864). On the other hand, while immoral writers have made only too much capital out of the salacious paragraphs scattered through Burchard and Infessura, there is no more reason now than in the days of Raynaldus and Mansi for concealing or perverting the facts of history. “I am a Catholic,” says M. de l’Epinois (loc. cit.), “and a disciple of the God who hath a horror of lies. I seek the truth, all the truth, and nothing but the truth Although our weak eyes do not see at once the uses of it, or rather see damage and peril, we must proclaim it fearlessly.” The same good principle is set forth by Leo XIII in his Letter of 8 September, 1889, to Cardinals De Luca, Pitra, and Hergenroether on the study of Church History: “The historian of the Church has the duty to dissimulate none of the trials that the Church has had to suffer from the faults of her children, and even at times from those of her own ministers.” Long ago Leo the Great (440–461) declared, in his third homily for Christmas Day, that “the dignity of Peter suffers no diminution even in an unworthy successor” (cujus dignitas etiam in indigno haerede non deficit). The very indignation that the evil life of a great ecclesiastic rouses at all times (nobly expressed by Pius II in the above-mentioned letter to Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia) is itself a tribute to the high spiritual ideal which for so long and on so broad a scale the Church has presented to the world in so many holy examples, and has therefore accustomed the latter to demand from priests. “The latter are forgiven nothing,” says De Maistre in his great work, “Du Pape,” “because everything is expected from them, wherefore the vices lightly passed over in a Louis XIV become most offensive and scandalous in an Alexander VI” (II, c. xiv).

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Alexander VII

Fabio Chigi, born at Sienna, 13 February, 1599; elected 7 April, 1655; died at Rome, 22 May, 1667. The Chigi of Sienna were among the most illustrious and powerful of Italian families. In the Rome of Renaissance times, an ancestor of Alexander VII was known as the “Magnificent.” The future Pope’s father, Flavio Chigi, nephew of Pope Paul V, though not as prosperous as his forebears, gave his son a suitable training. The latter owed much also to his mother, a woman of singular power and skill in the formation of youth. The youth of Fabio was marked by continued ill-health, consequent upon an attack of apoplexy in infancy. Unable to attend school, he was taught first by his mother, and later by able tutors, and displayed remarkable precocity and love of reading. In his twenty-seventh year, he obtained the doctorates of philosophy, law, and theology in the University of Sienna, and in December, 1626, he entered upon his ecclesiastical career at Rome. In 1627 he was appointed by Urban VIII Vice-Legate of Ferrara, and he served five years under the Cardinals Sacchetti and Pallotta, whose commendations won for him the important post of Inquisitor of Malta, together with the episcopal consecration. In 1639 he was promoted to the nunciature of Cologne; and in 1644 was made envoy extraordinary of Innocent X to the conference of Münster, in which post he energetically defended papal interests during the negotiations that led, in 1648, to the Peace of Westphalia. (See THIRTY-YEARS WAR.) Innocent X called him to Rome in 1651 to be his secretary of state, and in February, 1652, made him Cardinal. In the conclave of 1655, famous for its duration of eighty days, and for the clash of national and factional interests, Cardinal Chigi was unanimously elected Pope. The choice was considered providential. At a time when churchmen were being forced to realize the deplorable consequences, moral and financial, of nepotism, there was needed a pope who would rule without the aid of relatives. For a year the hopes of Christendom seemed to be realized. Alexander forbade his relatives to come to Rome. His own sanctity of life, severity of morals, and aversion to luxury made more resplendent his virtues and talents. But in the consistory of 24 April, 1656, influenced by those who feared the weakness of a papal court unsustained by ties of family interest, he proposed to bring his brother and nephews to assist him. With their advent came a marked change in the manner of life of the pontiff. The administration was given largely into the hands of his relatives, and nepotic abuses came to weigh as heavily as ever upon the papacy. The endeavours of the Chigi to enrich their family were too indulgently regarded by the Pope; but, ever pious and devout, he was far from having a share in the excesses of his luxury-loving nephews. His burden being in this way lightened, he passed much of his time in literary pursuits and in the society of the learned; but the friends whom he favoured were those who could be best relied on as counsellors.

The pontificate of Alexander VII was shadowed by continual difficulties with the young and illadvised Louis XIV of France, whose representatives were a constant source of annoyance to the Pope. The French prime minister, Cardinal Mazarin, had not forgiven the legate who resolutely opposed him at the conferences of Munster and Osnabrueck, or the papal secretary of state who stood in the way of his anti-Roman policy. During the conclave he had been bitterly hostile to Chigi, but was in the end compelled to accept his election as a compromise. However, he prevented Louis XIV from sending the usual embassy of obedience to Alexander VII, and, while he lived, hindered the appointment of a French ambassador to Rome, diplomatic affairs being meantime conducted by cardinal protectors, generally personal enemies of the Pope. In 1662 the equally hostile Duc de Crequi was made ambassador. By his high-handed abuse of the traditional right of asylum granted to ambassadorial precincts in Rome, he precipitated a quarrel between France and the papacy, which resulted in the Pope’s temporary loss of Avignon and his forced acceptance of the humiliating treaty of Pisa in 1664. (See LOUIS XIV.) Emboldened by these triumphs, the French Jansenists, who recognized in Alexander an old enemy, became insolently assertive, professing that the propositions condemned in 1653 were not to be found in the “Augustinus” of Cornelius Jansen. (See JANSENIUS.) Alexander VII, who as adviser of Innocent X had vigorously advocated the condemnation, confirmed it in 1665 by the Bull “Ad Sacram” declaring that it applied to the aforesaid work of Jansen and to the very meaning intended by him; he also sent to France his famous “formulary,” to be signed by all the clergy as a means of detecting and extirpating Jansenism (q. v.). His reign is memorable in the annals of moral theology for the condemnation of a number of erroneous propositions. Cardinal Hergenröther praises (Kirchengesch. III,414) his moderation in the heated dogmatic controversies of the period. During his reign occurred the conversion of Queen Christina of Sweden, who, after her abdication, came to reside in Rome, where on Christmas Day, 1655, she was confirmed by the Pope, in whom she found a generous friend and benefactor. He assisted the Venetians in combating the Turks who had gained a foothold in Crete, and obtained in return the restoration of the Jesuits, exiled from Venice since 1606. (See SARPI, VENICE.) The inimical relations between Spain and Portugal occasioned by the latter’s establishment of independence (1640) were a source of grave trials for Alexander, as for other popes before and after him. Alexander VII did much to beautify Rome. Houses were levelled to make way for straighter streets and broad piazzas, the Collegio Romano. The decorations of the church of Sta. Maria del Popolo, titular church of more than one of the Chigi cardinals, the Scala Regia, the Chair of St. Peter in the Vatican Basilica, and the great colonnade before that edifice bespeak alike the genius of Bernini and the munificence of his papal patron. He was also a patron of learning, modernized the Roman University, known as Sapienza, and enriched it with a magnificent library. He also made extensive additions to the Vatican Library. His tomb by Bernini is one of the most beautiful monuments in St. Peter’s.

J. B. PETERSON

Pope Alexander VIII

Pietro Ottoboni, born at Venice, April, 1610; elected 5 October, 1689; died at Rome, 1 February, 1691. He was the son of Marco Ottoboni, chancellor of the Republic of Venice, and a descendant of a noble family of that city. The future pope enjoyed ail that wealth and social position could contribute towards a perfect education. His early studies were made with marked brilliancy at the University of Padua (q.v.), where, in 1627, he secured the doctorate in canon and civil law. He went to Rome, during the pontificate of Urban VIII (1623–44), and was made governor of Terni, Rieti, and Spoleto. For fourteen years he served as auditor of the Rota (q.v.). At the request of the Republic this favoured son was made Cardinal by Innocent X (19 February, 1652), and was later given the Bishopric of Brescia, in Venetian territory? where he quietly spent the best years of middle life. Clement IX made him Cardinal-Datary. He was already an octogenarian when elected to the papacy, and lived but sixteen months, during which time little of importance was done. Louis XIV of France whose political situation was now critical, profited by the peaceful dispositions of the new Pope, restored to him Avignon, and renounced the longabused right of asylum for the French Embassy. (See ALEXANDER VII.) But the king’s conciliatory spirit did not dissuade the resolute Pope from declaring (4 August, 1690) that the Declaration of Gallican Liberties (q.v.), drawn up in 1682, was null and invalid. He assisted his native Venice by generous subsidies in the war against the Turks, and he purchased for the Vatican library the books and manuscripts owned by Queen Christina of Sweden. He condemned the doctrine of a number of variously erroneous propositions, among them (24 August, 1690) the doctrine of “philosophical sin” (see SIN); cf. Denzinger, “Enchiridion Symb. et Defin.” (9th ed., Freiburg, 1900), 274–278; and Vacant “Dict. de théol. cath.” (Paris, 1903), I, 748–763. Alexander was an upright man, generous, peace-loving, and indulgent. Out of compassion for the poor of well-nigh impoverished Italy, he sought to succour them by reducing the taxes. But this same generous nature led him to bestow on his relations the riches they were eager to accumulate; in their behalf, and to the discredit of his pontificate, he revived sinecure offices which had been suppressed by his predecessor.

J. B. PETERSON

St. Alexander

St. Alexander, who died in chains after cruel torments in the persecution of Decius, was first Bishop of Cappadocia, and was afterwards associated as coadjutor with the Bishop of Jerusalem, who was then 116 years old. This association came about as follows: Alexander had been imprisoned for his faith in the time of Alexander Severus and on being released came to Jerusalem, where he was compelled by the aged bishop to remain, and assist him in the government of that see. This arrangement, however, was entered into with the consent of all the bishops of Palestine. It was Alexander who permitted Origen, although only a layman, to speak in the churches. For this concession he was taken to task, but he defended himself by examples of other permissions of the same kind given even to Origen himself elsewhere, although then quite young. Butler says that they had studied together on the great Christian school of Alexandria. Alexander ordained him a priest. Especial praise is given to Alexander for the library he built at Jerusalem. Finally, in spite of his years, he, with several other bishops, was carried off a prisoner to Caesarea, and as the historians say, “the glory of his white hairs and great sanctity formed a double crown for him in captivity.” He suffered many tortures, but survived them all. When the wild beasts were brought to devour him, some licked his feet, and others their impress on the sand of the arena. Worn out by his sufferings he died in prison. This was in the year 251. His feast is kept by the Latins on 18 March, by the Greeks, 22 December.

T.J. CAMPBELL

St. Alexander (II)

St. Alexander, known as “The charcoal burner,” was Bishop of Comana, in Pontus. Whether he was the first to occupy that see is open to discussion. The Bollandists have also a long paper as to the exact location of Comana as there were several plates of that name, but decide for Pontus, near Neo-Caesarea. The curious name of the saint comes from the fact that he had, out of humility, taken up the work of burning charcoal, so as to escape worldly honours. He is called a philosopher, but it is not certain that the term is to be taken literally. His philosophy consisted rather in his preference of heavenly to earthly things. The discovery of his virtues was due to the very contempt with which he had been regarded. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus had been asked to come to Comana to help select a bishop for that place. As he rejected all the candidates, someone in derision suggested that he might accept Alexander, the charcoal-burner. Gregory took the suggestion seriously, summoned Alexander, and found that he had to do with a saint and a man of great capabilities. Alexander was made bishop of the see, administered it with remarkable wisdom and ultimately gave up his life for the Faith, being burned to death in the persecution of Decius. The vagueness of the information we have about him comes from the fact that his name is not found in any of the old Greek or Roman calendars. He would have been absolutely unknown were it not for a discourse pronounced by St. Gregory of Nyssa, on the life of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, in which the election of Alexander is incidentally descrlbed. In the modern Roman Martyrology his name occurs, and he is described as a “philosophus disertissimus.” His feast is kept on 11 August.

T.J. CAMPBELL

St. Alexander (of Alexandria)

Patriarch of Alexandria, date of birth uncertain; died 17 April, 326. He is, apart from his own greatness, prominent by the fact that his appointment to the patriarchial see excluded the heresiarch Arius from that post. Arius had begun to teach his heresies in 300 when Peter, by whom he was excommunicated, was Patriarch. He was reinstated by Achillas, the successor of Peter and then began to scheme to be made a bishop. When Achillas died Alexander was elected, and after that Arius threw off all disguise. Alexander was particularly obnoxious to him, although so tolerant at first of the errors of Arius that the clergy nearly revolted. Finally the heresy was condemned in a council held in Alexandria, and later on, as is well known, in the general Council of Nicaea, whose Acts Alexander is credited with having drawn up. An additional merit of this great man is that during his priesthood he passed through the bloody persecutions of Galerius, Maximinus, and others. It was while his predecessor Peter was in prison, waiting for martyrdom, that he and Achillas succeeded in reaching the pontiff, and interceded for the reinstatement of Arius, which Peter absolutely refused declaring that Arius was doomed to perdition. The refusal evidently had little effect, for when Achillas succeeded Peter, Arius was made a priest; and when in turn Alexander came to the see, the heretic was still tolerated. It is worth recording that the great Athanasius succeeded Alexander, the dying pontiff compelling the future doctor of the Church to accept the post. Alexander is described as “a man held in the highest honour by the people and clergy, magnificent, liberal, eloquent, just, a lover of God and man, devoted to the poor, good and sweet to all, so mortified that he never broke his fast while the sun was in the heavens.” His feast is kept on 17 April.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Bl. Alexander Briant

English Jesuit and martyr, born in Somersetshire of a yeoman family about 1556; executed at Tyburn, 1 December, 1581. He entered Hert Hall, Oxford, at an early age, where his remarkable beauty and purity of countenance won for him the appellation, “the beautiful youth.” At Oxford he became a pupil of Father Robert Persons to which fact, together with his association with Richard Holtby, is attributed his conversion. Having left the university he entered the English college at Reims, whither Holtby, preceded him, and was ordained priest 29 March, 1578. Assigned to the English mission in August of the following year he laboured with exemplary zeal in his own county of Somersetshire. During his ministrations he reconciled to the Faith the father of his former tutor, Father Robert Persons and the intimacy resulting from this fresh tie between pupil and master probably led to the former’s untimely death. A party of the persecution, seaching for Father Robert Persons, placed Blessed Alexander under arrest, 28 April, 1581, in the hope of extorting information. After fruitless attempts to this end at Counter Prison, London, he was taken to the Tower where he was subjected to excruciating tortures. To the rack, starvation, and cold was added the inhuman forcing of needles under the nails. It was during this confinement that Blessed Alexander penned his pathetic letter to the Jesuit Fathers in England requesting admission into the Society, which was granted. But his membership was short-lived; together with six other priests he was arraigned, 16 November, 1581, in Queen’s Bench, Westminster, on the charge of high treason, and condemned to death. The details of this last great suffering, which occurred on the 1 December following, like those of the previous torture are revolting. Through either malice or carelessness of the executioner he was put to needless suffering. His face is said to have been strikingly beautiful even up to his death. In his letter to the Jesuit Fathers he protests that he felt no pain during the tortures he underwent, and adds: “Whether this that I say be miraculous or no, God knowth.” He was scarely more than twenty-five years of age at the time of his martyrdom.

E.F. SAXTON

Alexander Natalis

(Or NOEL ALEXANDRE).

A French historian and theologian, of the Order of St. Dominic, b. at Rouen, 19 January, 1639; d. in Paris, 21 August, 1724. He made his early studies at the Dominican College of Rouen and, after entering the Dominican Order in that city, 9 May 1655, studied philosophy and theology in the convent of Saint Jacques, Paris, where he afterwards taught for twelve years, during which time he gained some renown as a preacher. In 1672, at the wish of his superiors, he obtained the licentiate from the Sorbonne, and in 1675, the doctorate. About this time he attracted much attention by writing against Launoy on the subject of simony. Persuaded by that generous promoter of learning, the great French minister, Jean Baptiste Colbert, to enter the society of savants of which the Abbé Colbert (later Archbishop of Rouen) was the central figure, he lectured before it on particular events of history with such success that he was urged to write a complete history after the method that he had followed in his lecture. He yielded to this wish of the French scholar and published at Paris, in 1677, the first volume, bearing the general title “Selecta historiae ecclesiasticae capita et in loca ejusdem insignia dissertations historicae, criticae, ogmaticae,” in which he treated of the first century of Christianity, and in 1686, the twenty-fourth volume in which he closed his studies of New Testament history with dissertations on the Council of Trent. In the next few years he published six octavo volumes of dissertations on the history of the Old Testament. His directness and conciseness, his critical acumen, and his manner of viewing history and dividing it into special studies (then quite original, although now common enough) won for him the approbation of the learned. The first volumes of the history brought him letters of commendation and praise from Pope Innocent XI and many cardinals, but later volumes gave offence at Rome because of the author’s Gallicanism, and Innocent XI finally forbade (13 July 1684) the faithful to read the history under pain of excommunication. In the preface to the third edition (Paris, 1699, eight folio volumes) Father Alexander submitted fully to the judgment of the Holy See, and in some scholia added to the dissertations showed that in some instances he had been criticized and judged unjustly. Father Roncaglia (of the Clerks Regular) brought out at Lucca, in 1734, a sixth edition of the work in nine folio volumes, in which he gave the text unaltered, but with the addition of paragraphs and dissertations correcting the most offensive statements. The work thus corrected was removed from the Index by Pope Benedict XIII, and many editions were thereafter given to the public. The best is that of Archbishop Mansi of Lucca, in nine folio volumes (Lucca, 1749), who added many explanatory notes. An anonymous writer in two supplementary volumes carried the history into the eighteenth century, and added various dissertations from the pens of other historians. The work thus completed appeared at Venice in 1778, in eleven folio volumes, and at Bingen, 1785–90, in twenty quarto volumes. Upon the completion of his historical dissertation Father Alexander turned his attention for some years to strictly theological studies, and in 1693 published at Paris in ten octavo volumes a commentary on the “Catechismus Romanus” entitled “Theologia dogmatica et moralis” to which he added for preachers an Index Concinnatorius, distributing the whole work into sketches of sermons for all the Sundays and feast-days of the year. The work has also two appendixes containing valuable letters from his pen on moral theology and casuistry, and many papal, synodal, and episcopal documents bearing on the disputes of the time. Later editions of the work appeared at Paris in 1703, two folio volumes, in 1743, four quarto volumes, and at Einsiedeln in 1768, ten volumes octavo. His next work of importance was a handbook for preachers: “Praecepta et regulae ad praedicatores verbi divini informandos,” which first appeared in Paris in 1701, and last at Augsburg in 1763, in octavo. This was followed (1703–10) by a commentary “Commentarius literalis et moralis” on one hundred and sixty Gospels (for Sundays and feast-days) and on the Epistles of the New Testament, which has often been re-edited in various forms. In 1704, Father Alexander fell into Jansenism by signing the Cas de Conscience, but he soon retracted. Before this he carried on a bitter controversy with Father Daniel, S.J., on the Dominican and Jesuit doctrines on Probabilism, Grace, and Predestination, as compared with the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas on these subjects, which was terminated by the King, who silenced both parties. In 1706, having been elected Provincial of the Dominican Province of France, he was obliged to interrupt his literary labours. Freed from his administrative duties in 1710, he set himself to the task of writing a commentary on the prophetical books of the Old Testament. In 1712 he was forced to lay aside his pen by a weakness of the eyes which finally resulted in total blindness. He died of old age in the convent of Saint Jacques in Paris, having enjoyed throughout his long and busy literary life a close intimacy with all the learned men of his time, especially with Cardinal Noris. While writing the important works noticed above Father Alexander published several dissertations in which he showed (1) that St. Thomas was the author of the “Summa Theologica”; (2) that St. Thomas was the author of the “Office of Corpus Christi”; (3) in the form of a dialogue between a Franciscan and a Dominican, that St. Thomas was not a disciple of Alexander of Hales, and that the Secunda Secundae of the “Summa” was not borrowed from the latter. These, with a dissertation against Father Frassen, O.S.F., on the Vulgate, have been incorporated in his “Historia Ecclesiastica” (Venice edition, 1778). Father Alexander wrote and published in French: “Recueil de plusieurs pièces pour la défense de la morale et de la grâce de J.C.” (Delft, 1698); “Apologie des Dominicains Missionaires de la Chine, ou réponse au livre intitulé,” “Défense des nouveaux Chrétiens” (Cologne, 1697); “Conformité des cérémonies Chinoises avec l’idolatrie grecque et romaine, pour servir de confirmation à l’apologie des Dominicains Missionaires de la Chine” (Cologne, 1700); “Lettres d’un Docteur de l’ordre de S. Dominique sur les cérémonies de la Chine” (Cologne, 1700).

QUETIF AND ECHARD, SS. Ord, Praed., II, 810; TOURON, Hommes illustres de l’ordre de Saint Dominique, V, 804–840; HILGERS, Der Index der verbotenen Bucher (Freiburg, 1904), 138, 432 sqq.

A.L. MCMAHON

Alexander of Abonoteichos

The most notorious imposter of the second century of the Christian era. His life is fully described by Lucian in his Pseudomantis, or “Alexander, the Oracle-Monger.” Being intellectual, of pleasing appearance and captivating address, he gained many followers, not only in his own country but from different parts of the Roman Empire. By cleverly devised oracles he prepared souls for a new birth and exhibited a huge serpent as the embodiment of his new divinity. His fame spread, and about 150 he built in his native city of Paphlagonia a temple to Esculapius, that was soon visited by many from all parts of Greece and Italy. The numerous questions asked of the new oracle were answered by “the prophet” in metrical predictions. In his most prosperous year he is said to have delivered nearly 80,000 replies, concerning bodily, mental, and social afflictions, for each of which he received a drachma and two oboli. Great officials consulted the oracle, and the Roman Rutilianus married the charlatan’s daughter. The non-fulfillment of his predictions he explained plausibly, declaring that Pontus was full of Christians and unbelievers who derided him, and that they should be stoned, or else his god would no longer favour the people. He established new mysteries, and on the day of their inauguration he had this proclamation made in the temple: “If an Atheist, a Christian, or an Epicurian be present, let him withdraw. Then only may those who accept the god do him worship joyfully.” As the objects of his aversion were being expelled, he continued to cry out: “Out with the Christians!” while the crowd added: “Out with the Epicureans!” Lewdness figured in the ceremonies, and his own private life was marked by licentiousness. He continued in this debasing career for many years before the public deserted him. He had predicted that he would die when 150 years old, translated from this sphere of action to another by a thunderbolt. He died when he was 70 of a loathsome disease, devoured by worms. The Pseudomantis is dedicated by Lucian to Celsus, possibly the author of the anti-Christian work refuted by Origen. Elsewhere decidedly hostile to the Christians as in “Peregrinus Proteus,” unquestionably Lucian is in this work favourable to them. He shows that while high and low were being led astray by the false mysticism of Alexander of Abonoteichos, the Christians held aloof from him, and with the Epicureans, with whom Lucian markedly contrasts them in the “Peregrinus,” shared the full measure of the arch-hypocrite’s hate. It is the testimony of an enemy, who here, at least, is no slanderer, but an unwilling apologist of Jesus Christ and His persecuted adherents.

DÖLLINGER. Heidenthum und Judenthum, 644 sqq.; KELLNER, Hellenismus und Christenthum, 89 sq.; H. W. FOWLER AND F. G. FOWLER, The Works of Lucian of Samosata (Oxford, 1905), tr. H. 212–238; HIMPEL in Kirchenlex., I, 493.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Alexander of Hales

Franciscan, theologian, and philosopher, one of the greatest of the scholastics, born at Hales, or Hailles, in Gloucestershire, towards the end of the twelfth century; died at Paris in 1245. He was educated at the monastic school in his native village, and probably also at Oxford. After having finished his studies in England, he went to the University of Paris, and there attained the Master’s degree, first in the faculty of arts (philosophy), and afterwards in that of theology. From a remark made by Roger Bacon it is inferred that, in 1210, Alexander was Magister regens in the faculty of arts, and this is the first date of his biography that is certain. Roger is also our authority (though not the only one) that Alexander became archdeacon; but whether the title was conferred by the Bishop of Paris or by an English bishop, is uncertain. In 1220, Alexander joined the faculty of theology, in which he soon became one of the most celebrated teachers. In 1231, he entered the order of St. Francis, continuing, however, to perform, as a monk, the duties of a licensed teacher of theology, a fact which was of the utmost importance both for the University and for the course of studies in the Franciscan Order. Alexander died at the convent of his Order in Paris.

In the chronicles and theological treatises of the fourteenth century we find Alexander styled Doctor irrefragabilis, Fons Vitae, Theologorum monarcha. His principal work is the “Summa Universae Theologiae,” begun about the year 1231 and left unfinished. The third part is defective, especially the portion treating of the virtues and other questions in moral theology. To supply this defect, the “Summa Virtutum” was composed by the Franciscan William of Melitona, though the work was, and is still sometimes, ascribed to Alexander himself. It is now agreed that not Alexander of Hales, but Alexander of Bonini is the author of the “Commentaries” on Aristotle’s “Metaphysics” and “De Anima.” The “Summa Theologiae” has been several times published (Venice, 1475, 1576; Nuremberg, 1481, 1502; Pavia, 1481; Cologne, 1622). A critical edition has recently been promised by Quaracchi editors of the works of St. Bonaventure. Alexander’s other works (Salimbene, a contemporary, speaks of his “many writings”) are still unpublished.

Alexander’s importance for the history of theology and philosophy lies in the fact, that he was the first to attempt a systematic exposition of Catholic doctrine, after the metaphysical and physical works of Aristotle had become known to the schoolmen. His is not the first “Summa.” The collections of “Sentences” which were current in the schools since the days of Abelard, were summaries of theology and were often so titled in manuscripts. So that Alexander had many Summists as predecessors, as predecessors for instance: Hugh of St. Victor, Roland, Omnebene, Peter Lombard, Stephen Langton, Robert of Melun, Peter of Poitiers, William of Auxerre, and Robert Pulleyn. His, however, is the first “Summa” in which use was made of Aristotle’s physical, metaphysical, and ethical, as well as logical treatises. Peter Lombard did not quote Aristotle once. Alexander quotes him in almost every Quaestio; he quotes also Arabian commentators, especially Avicenna, and thus prepares the way for Albert, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Duns Scotus for whom Aristotle was the philosopher. The “Summa” is divided into four parts: the first treats of God, the Trinity, etc.; the second, of creatures, sin, etc.; the third of Christ, Redemption, supernatural law; the fourth, of the sacraments. Each part is divided into Questions, each Question into Members, each Member into Articles. The method is a development of that employed by Abelard in his “Yea and Nay,” and is practically that with which readers of St. Thomas are familiar. The article opens with a recital of the objections, then follows the thesis, with proofs, scriptural, patristic, and rational, and at the end of the article, under the title “Resolutio” are given the answers to the objections.

Alexander’s theology is, in its main outlines, identical with that of St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas. Thus he starts with the question of the knowableness of God, and decides that, while the human mind can know that He is, no created mind can comprehend what He is. In enumerating the proofs of the existence of God, he lays stress on St. Augustine’s argument from the need of an absolute truth, on Saint Anselm’s ontological argument, on Hugh of St. Victor’s argument from consciousness, and on the Aristotelean argument from causality. He teaches that God is the exemplar, efficient and final cause of all things, that He is the creator and Preserver of all things, that He is pure Actuality (Actus Purus), all things else being composed of matter and form. This latter point, the coextensiveness of matter with created being, later on became a distinctive tenet of the Franciscan School. On the problem of Universals, Alexander takes up the position of a metaphysician and psychologist, and thus reaches a conclusion to which his predecessors of the twelfth century, who argued the question solely from the point of view of dialectics, could never have attained; he teaches that Universals exist ante rem, in the mind of God, and also in re, as forms or essences which the active intellect abstracts. This is the conclusion of Moderate Realism.

In psychology, more than elsewhere, Alexander shows that he is not prepared to break with the traditional Augustinian teaching which prevailed in the schools before the introduction of Aristotle’s “De Anima.” Thus he adopts the threefold division of the faculties of the soul into ratio, which has for its object the external world, intellectus which has for its object created spiritual substances, and intelligentia, which has for its object first principles and the eternal prototype of things in the mind of God. Augustinian, also, is the doctrine that our knowledge of higher truths, especially of higher spiritual truths, is dependent on special divine illumination. Despite these Augustinian principles, however, he adopts Aristotle’s doctrine of the Active and Passive Intellect, and by means of it accounts for our knowledge of the external world. Alexander’s importance in the history of Christian Ethics is due to the use which he makes of Aristotle’s ethical treatises. William of Auxerre, in his “Summa Aurea,” made use of a Latin translation of Aristotle’s “Ethics”; following his example, though working along independent lines, Alexander takes up the problems of the Highest Good, the nature of virtue, the moral aspect of actions and habits, and brings to bear on his discussions not merely the principles of the evangelical law, the ethical definitions of patristic writers, the legislation and practice of the Church, but also the definitions and principles laid down in the “Ethics.” God, he teaches, is the highest Good; man’s duty is through knowledge and love of God to attain possession of Him. He defines virtue, in the Aristotelean, not in the traditional Augustinian sense. Alexander, being the first of the great thirteenth century schoolmen in point of time, naturally exercised considerable influence on all those great leaders who made the thirteenth century the golden age of Scholasticism. Within his own order he was the model of other great Summists as to method and arrangement of matter. Gerson says that Alexander was a favourite teacher (doctor) of St. Thomas. This, however, need not mean, as it is sometimes taken to mean, that St. Thomas frequented his lecture hall. The influence was exerted chiefly, if not exclusively, through Alexander’s “Summa Universae Theologiae,” which St. Thomas followed very closely in the arrangement and method of his “Summa Theologica.”

ENDRES, Des Alex. von Hales Leben, etc. in “Philosophisches Jahrb.” (Fulda, 1888), I; FELDER, Studien im Franziskanerorden (Freiburg, 1904), 177 sqq.; DE MARTIGNE, La scolastique et les traditions franciscaines (Paris,1888); STOCKL, Gesch. der Phil. de Mittelalters, Bd. II (Mainz, 1865), 320 sqq.; TURNER. Hist. of Philosophy (Boston, 1905), 326 sqq.

WILLIAM TURNER

Alexander of Lycopolis

The writer of a short treatise, in twenty-six chapters, against the Manichæans (PG., XVIII, 409–448). He must have flourished early in the fourth century, as he says in the second chapter of this work that he derived his knowledge of Manes’ teaching apo ton gnorimon (from the man’s friend). Despite its brevity and occasional obscurity, the work is valuable as a specimen of Greek analytical genius in the service of Christian theology, “a calm but vigorous protest of the trained scientific intellect against the vague dogmatism of the Oriental theosophies.” It has been questioned whether Alexander was a Christian when he wrote this work, or ever became one afterwards. Photius says (Contra Manichæos, i, 11) that he was Bishop of Lycopolis (in the Egyptian Thebaid), but Bardenhewer opines (Patrologie, 234) that he was a pagan and a platonist.

COWELL in Dict. of Christ. Biogr., I, 86. A good separate edition is that of A. BRINKMANN (Leipzig, 1895).

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Bl. Alexander Sauli

Apostle of Corsica, b. at Milan, 1533, of an illustrious Lombard family; d. at Pavia, 11 October, 1592; declared Blessed by Benedict XIV, 23 April, 1742. After some years of study under capable masters, he entered the Congregation of the Barnabites at an early age, and became teacher of philosophy and theology at the University of Pavia, and later Superior-General of the Congregation (1565). In 1571 he was appointed by Pius V to the ancient see of Aleria, Corsica, where faith was all but extinguished, and clergy and people were in a state of deplorable ignorance. With the aid of three companions, he reclaimed the inhabitants, corrected abuses, rebuilt churches, founded colleges and seminaries, and despite the depredations of corsairs, and the death of his comrades, he placed the Church in a flourishing condition. In 1591 he was made Bishop of Pavia, where he died the following year. He left a number of works chiefly catechetical.

RAUSCH in Kirchenlex.; BIANCHI, Vita del B. Ales. Sauli (Bologna, 1878); Acta SS., 23 April.

F.M. RUDGE

Dom Jacques Alexandre

A learned Benedictine monk of the Congregation of St. Maur, b. at Orléans, France, 24 January, 1653; d. at Bonne-Nouvelle, 23 June, 1734. He made his profession in the abbey of Vendôme, 26 August, 1673, and after completing his philosophical and theological studies, was sent to the monastery of Bonne-Nouvelle, where he spent the remainder of his life. He died sub-prior of the monastery. Though somewhat delicate in health, he was a man of great industry and all his leisure was devoted to the study of mathematics and physical and mechanical science. He wrote much, though apparently without thought of publication, for most of his writings were merely transcribed into a large folio volume which was preserved in the library of Bonne-Nouvelle.

Alexandre is known chiefly by his two works, “Trait du flux et du reflux de la mer” and the “Traité général des horloges.” The former had already been written when the Academy of Bordeaux proposed the cause of the tides as the subject of a prize essay. He submitted an extract which was deemed worthy of the prize and his success led him to publish the entire work at Paris, 1726. This treatise, based as it is upon the supposed rotation of the earth about the moon, is of interest only from an historical point of view, as a contribution to the solution of a problem which has engaged the attention of the most skilful analysts since the time of Newton. The “Traité général des horloges,” Paris, 1734, as its name indicates, is a general treatise on the history and the art of constructing time-pieces. It contains a catalogue of writers on the subject with a brief account of their principal works. Besides his manuscript works on subjects in mathematics, mechanics, etc., Alexandre added a sixth part to Huyghen’s treatise “De horologio oscillatorio,” in which he describes a clock the length of whose pendulum was automatically varied to enable it to indicate apparent solar instead of mean solar time. A description of the pendulum mechanism, which never came into practical use, may be found in Berthoud’s “Essai sur l’horlogerie,” Paris, 1786, I, xvii, where some of its defects are pointed out.

Histoire Littéraire de la Congrégation de Saint Maur (Brussels, 1770).

H.M. BROCK

Alexandria

An important seaport of Egypt, on the left bank of the Nile. It was founded by Alexander the Great to replace the small borough called Racondah or Rakhotis, 331 B.C. The Ptolemies, Alexander’s successors on the throne of Egypt, soon made it the intellectual and commercial metropolis of the world. Cæsar who visited it 46 B.C. left it to Queen Cleopatra, but when Octavius went there in 30 B.C. he transformed the Egyptian kingdom into a Roman province. Alexandria continued prosperous under the Roman rule but declined a little under that of Constantinople.

When, after the treaty of October, 642, the Byzantines abandoned it to Amru, the Arab invaders hastened its ruin owing to the conqueror’s impatience to build a new town, Cairo, and to transfer to it the government of Egypt henceforth a Mussulman province. The ruin had been great under the Arabians, but it became worse under the Turkish rule when the victories of Selim had subjugated the valley of the Nile in 1517. Bonaparte on the 2d of July, 1798, did not find more than 7,000 inhabitants in the town. Since then, thanks to the efforts of Mehemet Ali and to the great political and commercial events of the nineteenth century, the city of Alexandria has become once more the first port of the Eastern Mediterranean with 235,000 inhabitants.

Christianity was brought to Alexandria by the Evangelist St. Mark. It was made illustrious by a lineage of learned doctors such as Pantænus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen; it has been governed by a series of great bishops amongst whom Athanasius and Cyril must be mentioned. Under Dioscurus, successor of Cyril, Eutychianism appeared and the native population saw in it an excellent means of freeing themselves from Byzantium. Their zeal for this heresy transformed the town into a battle-field where blood was shed more than once during the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries. At last the patriarchal church of St. Mark found itself divided into two communions; the native Copts bound to error, and the foreign Greeks faithful to orthodoxy. After the Arabian conquest, the Greek patriarchate remained vacant for many years; at the time of the Byzantine emperors and under the Ottoman sultan its holders were obliged to live habitually at Constantinople. On the other hand, the Copt patriarchate transferred itself to Cairo and saw most of its disciples become Mussulmans. Today, owing to its commercial importance, Alexandria possesses within its walls every tongue and Christian race: Copts, Greeks, Latins, Armenians, Maronites, Syrians, Chaldeans, Protestants.

(1) The Copts, a small community, are divided into Monophysites and Catholics; the chief of the first is the Patriarch of Alexandria, and resides at Cairo; the chief of the latter is also Patriarch of Alexandria since Leo XIII created this title in favour of Mgr. Macaire, 19 June, 1899.

(2) The Greeks also form two groups, the so-called Orthodox and the Melchites. The Orthodox, separated from Rome, are divided into two factions which differ in language and origin, and live in enmity: on one side, the Hellenophones, many of whom are natives of the Greek kingdom; on the other, the Arabophones, subject to the Khedive or natives of Syria; all these have a patriarch of Greek tongue and race whose official residence is in the town, near the church of St. Sabas. The Melchites, united to Rome, are natives of Egypt and Syria; they are under the Patriarch of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and all the East, but, as the prelate resides at Damascus, they are governed by a bishop who is vicar of the patriarchate.

(3) The Latins have no patriarch. A Latin patriarchate was created by the Crusaders who took Alexandria in 1202 and in 1367; but this patriarchate, established residentially from 1859 to 1866, is become again merely nominal. Now, nothing but an apostolical vicariate exists; the vicar, a member of the Friars Minor of St. Francis has specially under his direction the Europeans of foreign colonies.

(4) The Armenians are divided into Gregorians and Catholics; the latter have a Bishop of Alexandria who resides, however at Cairo; the Gregorians are subject to a simple vartabet.

(5) The Maronites, whose number is increasing every day, wish to constitute a diocese. In the meanwhile they are governed by priests appointed by the Patriarch of the Lebanon.

(6) To the 300 Syrian Catholics of Alexandria and Cairo, a chorepiscopus who resides in the latter town is given.

(7) Still less numerous, the United Chaldeans possess no special organization.

(8) The Protestants are represented at Alexandria by numerous sects; the Anglican Church has a community since the middle of the nineteenth century and a school; the Scotch Free Church has a church since 1867 and a school; the Evangelical Church of Germany, established in the town since 1857, opened a church in 1866 and a little school. But these are for foreign residents; the mission of the United Presbyterian Church of the United States has a church and two schools for the Copts (about 100 members). Moreover, most of the Protestant missions which work among the Copts of Upper Egypt have stations or lodgings at Alexandria.

We must say the same of every religious order of Catholic missionaries in Egypt. Several of these orders have scholastic establishments. The Jesuits direct the college of St. Francis Xavier. The Brothers of the Christian Schools conduct a college to which a school of arts and trades is attached. They have also free classes and different schools in various parts of the town. The education of young girls is conducted by different religious congregations, such as the Sisters of Charity, the Sisters of the Mother of God, and the Sisters of the Délivrande.

JULES PARGOIRE

Councils of Alexandria

In 231 a council of bishops and priests met at Alexandria, called by Bishop Demetrius for the purpose of declaring Origen unworthy of the office of teacher, and of excommunicating him. In 306, a council held under St. Peter of Alexandria deposed Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, for idolatry and other crimes. The schism then begun by him lasted fifty years and was the source of much sorrow for the Church of Egypt. In 321 was held the council that first condemned Arius, then parish priest of the section of Alexandria known as Baucalis. After his condemnation Arius withdrew to Palestine, where he secured the powerful support of Eusebius of Caesarea. At the Council of 326, St. Athanasius was elected to succeed the aged Alexander, and various heresies and schisms of Egypt were denounced. In 340, one hundred bishops met at Alexandria, declared in favour of Athanasius, and vigorously rejected the calumnies of the Eusebian faction at Tyre. At a council in 350, St. Athanasius was replaced in his see. In 362 was held one of the most important of these councils. It was presided over by St. Athanasius and St. Eusebius of Vercelli, and was directed against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost, the human soul of Our Lord, and His Divinity. Mild measures were agreed on for those apostate bishops who repented, but severe penance was decreed for the chief leaders of the great heresies that had been devastating the Christian Church. In 363, another council met under St. Athanasius for the purpose of submitting to the new Emperor Jovian an account of the truth faith. Somewhat similar was the purpose of the Council of 364. That of 370 approved the action of Pope Damasus in condemning Urascius and Valens (see ARIANISM), and expressed its surprise that Auxentius was yet tolerated at Milan. In 399, the council of Alexandria condemned, without naming himself, the writings of Origen. In 430, St. Cyril of Alexandria held to make known to the bishops of Egypt the letter of Pope Celestine I (422–432), in which a pontifical admonition was conveyed to the heresiarch Nestorius. In this council the bishops warned him that unless he retracted his errors, confessed the Catholic faith, and reformed his life, they would refuse to look on him as a bishop. In 633, the patriarch Cyrus held a council in favour of the Monothelites, with which closed the series of these deliberative meetings of the ancient Church of Egypt.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Church of Alexandria

The Church of Alexandria, founded according to the constant tradition of both East and West by St. Mark the Evangelist, was the centre from which Christianity spread throughout all Egypt, the nucleus of the powerful Patriarchate of Alexandria. Within its jurisdiction, during its most flourishing period, were included about 108 bishops; its territory embraced the six provinces of Upper Libya, Lower Libya (or Pentapolis), the Thebaid, Egypt, Acadia (or Heptapolis), and Augustamnica. In the beginning the successor of St. Mark was the only metropolitan, and he governed ecclesiastically the entire territory. As the Christians multiplied, and other metropolitan sees were created, he became known as the arch-metropolitan. The title of patriarch did not come into use until the fifth century. [For the controversy concerning the manner of electing the earliest successors of St. Mark see that article and BISHOP (cf. Cabrol, Dict. d’archéol. chrét., I, 1204–1210).]

Up to the time of the second ecumenical council (381) the Patriarch of Alexandria ranked next to the Bishop of Rome. By the third canon of this council, afterwards confirmed by the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon (452), the Patriarch of Constantinople, supported by imperial authority and by a variety of concurring advantages, was given the right of precedency over the Patriarch of Alexandria. But neither Rome nor Alexandria recognized the claim until many years later. During the first two centuries of our era, though Egypt enjoyed unusual quiet, little is known of the ecclesiastical history of its chief see, beyond a barren list of the names of its patriarchs, handed down to us chiefly through the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius. They were, in order: Anianus (d. 84); Abilius; Cerdon, one of the presbyters whom St. Mark ordained; Primus, also called Ephraim, advanced from the grade of layman; Justus (d. 130); Eumenes; Mark II; Celadion; Agrippinus; Julian (d. 189). With the successors of Julian we have something more than a mere list of names. Demetrius governed the Church of Alexandria for forty-two years, and it was he who deposed and excommunicated Origen, notwithstanding his great work as a catechist. Heraclas (d. 247) exercised his power as arch-metropolitan by deposing Ammonius, Bishop Thmuis, and installing a successor (Photius, P.G., CIV, 1229).

Maximus and Theonas (282–300) were followed by Peter, the first occupant of the See of St. Mark to die a martyr (311 or 312). Then came Achillas, who ordained Arius through ignorance of the man’s real character; otherwise St. Athanasius certainly would not have given that bishop the praise he does. On the death of Achillas, Alexander, who proved himself a zealous defender of the orthodox faith in the contest against Arius, was elected bishop by unanimous consent of clergy and people, and in spite of the interested opposition of Arius. Alexander, accompanied by his deacon Athanasius, took part in the Council of Nicæa (325), but died soon after (328). The Meletian faction took advantage of his death, and of the absence of Athanasius from the city, to intrude a creature of their own into the vacant see, one Theonas. He survived but three months, when Athanasius, having returned, was chosen to succeed Alexander.

Of the ante-Nicene bishops who ruled this church, Dionysius and Alexander were the most illustrious, as also were St. Athanasius and St. Cyril among those who subsequently filled the see. Athanasius, supported by Rome, where he sought protection and help, the unconquered champion of the true Faith against Arius, died in 373, a glorious confessor of the Faith, after an episcopate of forty-three years. The interval between the death of Athanasius and the accession of St. Cyril (412) was filled by Peter II, a zealous bishop, who was obliged to seek refuge in Rome from the persecuting Arians (d. 381); Timothy I (381–385) who was present at the second ecumenical council, and was honoured with the contempt of the imperial court, because he vigorously opposed, and refused to acknowledge, the decree which gave the Patriarchate of Constantinople rank over that of Alexandria; Theophilus (385–412), the immediate predecessor of Cyril. Under St. Cyril (412–444) whose noble defence of the Divinity of Christ has rendered his memory precious in the Church, the Patriarchate of Alexandria reached its most flourishing epoch. Over 100 bishops, among them ten metropolitans, acknowledged his authority; he tells us himself that the city was renowned for the number of its churches, monasteries, priests, and religious (P. G., LXX, 972). At this time, too, the patriarch possessed considerable civil power, and may be said to have reached the zenith of his reputation. The decline of his office dates from the middle of the fifth century. Under Dioscurus (444–451), the unworthy successor of St. Cyril, the Church of Alexandria became embroiled in the Monophysite heresy. Dioscurus was deposed, and later banished. The election of Proterius as Catholic patriarch was followed by an open schism. Proterius was murdered in 457, and Timothy Ælurus, a Monophysite, was intruded into the see. The schism thus began by Dioscurus and Timothy gave rise to two factions, the orthodox, or Catholic, party, which maintained the faith of the two natures in Christ, as prescribed by the Council of Chalcedon (451), and the Monophysites, who followed the heresy of Dioscurus. The former came to be known as Melchites or Royalists, i. e., adherents or favourites of the emperor, and the latter as Jacobites. The possession of the See of Alexandria alternated between these parties for a time; eventually each communion maintained a distinct and independent succession. Thus the Church of Alexandria became the scene of serious disturbances, which finally brought about its ruin.

We touch but briefly on the more important events that followed. The Catholic Patriarch, John Talaia, elected in 482, was banished by the Emperor Zeno, through the intrigues of his Jacobite rival, Peter Mongus. In his exile he sought refuge with Pope Simplicius (468–483), who exerted himself seriously for the re-establishment of John, but to no purpose. The latter never returned to his see. With his banishment the Catholic succession of Alexandrian bishops was interrupted for sixty years, and the local Church fell into the utmost confusion. The Emperor Justinian, anxious to end this state of affairs, restored the Catholic succession (538–539) in the person of the Abbot Paul. Unfortunately, the new patriarch gave some grievous offence to the Emperor, whereupon he was deposed and Zoilus succeeded him in 541. Among the successors of the latter patriarch, Eulogius, Theodore Scribo, and St. John the Almoner (d. 620) especially distinguished themselves, and restored to the Alexandrian Church something of its former reputation. In the meantime, through mutual factions, the influence of the Jacobites had gradually waned until the election of the Patriarch Benjamin (620). On the other hand, during the contest between the Jacobites and Melchites (Catholics), so completely had the spirit of sectarianism extinguished the feeling of nationality that at the time of the Saracen invasion the Jacobites did not hesitate, in their animosity towards the Melchites, the imperial or Byzantine party, to give up (638) their cities and places of strength to the invaders (see HERACLIUS, ISLAM). The favour which they thus secured with the conquerors enabled them to assume a predominant position [Dub. Rev., XXIV (1848), 439]. Hitherto the Melchites, though far less numerous than the Jacobites, had held the civil power, owing to the aid of the Emperor and his officials. By the treason of the Jacobites they lost not only this power, but with it many of their churches and monasteries. After the death of the Patriarch Peter (654) the Melchite succession was broken for nearly 80 years, a fact that contributed much to the complete Jacobite control of the patriarchate. During this interval the Metropolitan of Tyre consecrated the Catholic bishops, whose number rapidly decreased.

The Saracen domination, so gladly welcomed by the Jacobites, proved to them more of a curse than a blessing. They suffered many bitter persecutions under successive Moslem rulers. Many among the clergy and laity apostatized. Nor did the Melchites escape. Indeed they were worse off, ground as they were between the upper and nether millstones, the Jacobites and the Saracens. When their patriarchate was restored (727), under Cosmas, in the caliphate of Nischam, their situation was deplorable. Through the exertions of this patriarch they got back many of their churches. Ignorance and indolence, however, had spread among the Melchites. In the services of the Church the Greek language was soon wholly replaced by the Arabic, and when, in the beginning of the ninth century, the Venetians carried away to their own city the body of St. Mark, the ruinous patriarchate was hardly more that a name.

With the Jacobites matters were not much better. There was a succession of undistinguished patriarchs, except at intervals, when the see was vacant because of internal disputes. Persecution was frequent, and renegades were numerous. By the eleventh century Alexandria had ceased to be the sole place where the patriarch was consecrated. From this date Cairo claimed that honour alternately with Alexandria, though the enthronement took place in the latter city. A little later, during the patriarchate of Christodulus (Abd-el-Messiah), Cairo became the fixed and official residence of the Jacobite patriarch. In the beginning of the reign of Saladin (1169) a serious controversy arose between the Jacobite Patriarchs of Antioch and those of Alexandria, concerning the use of auricular confession. The Jacobite parties of the two patriarchates had for many years kept in close touch with one another. More than once their relations were strained, as happened particularly in the time of John X (Barsusan) of Antioch, and Christodulus (Abd-el-Messiah) of Alexandria. They fell out over the proper presentation of the Eucharistic oblations, in which the Lyrian Jacobites were in the habit of mingling a little oil and salt. (Neale, Patriarchate of Alex., II, 214). Christodulus insultingly rejected the practice. John of Antioch wrote in its defence. The new controversy about the use of auricular confession severed the once friendly relations of the two communions. Mark, son of Kunbar, and his successor, Cyril of Alexandria, were for abolishing the practice altogether, while Michael of Antioch as vigorously insisted upon its continuance (Renaudot, Liturg. Orient., II, 50, 448; Historia Patr. Jacobit. Alex., 550; Neale, op. cit., II, 261).

For twenty years (1215–35) the Jacobites were without a patriarch, because they could not agree among themselves. During this break in the Jacobite succession, Nicholas I, the Melchite patriarch, addressed an appeal to Pope Innocent III (1198–1216), imploring his good offices with the Templars and Hospitallers in favour of some Christian captives (Neale, op. cit., II, 279). A few years later (1221), when Damietta had fallen into the hands of the Saracens, Nicholas wrote again to the Pope, Honorius III (1216–27), for assistance in the struggles that were fast overwhelming his Church. We may note here that the revolutions which subsequently befell the Greek Empire of Constantinople had little effect on the fortunes of the Church of Alexandria. The same may be said of the Crusades; though closely connected with local Alexandrian history, they do not seem to have had much influence upon its internal ecclesiastical affairs.

There is little left to chronicle of the Jacobite and Melchite communions of the Church of Alexandria. Both suffered severely in the crushing persecution of the fourteenth century. The Jacobites, utterly demoralized, managed to continue the succession of their patriarchs, who, as we have seen, resided no longer in Alexandria, but in old Cairo. In its widest extension, the patriarchate included fifteen bishoprics, and laid claim to jurisdiction over all the Coptic Christians of Egypt, Abyssinia, Nubia, and Barbary, or the native tribes of northern Africa. During this dark period the Melchites fell more and more under the influence of the Byzantine patriarchs, and thus sank over deeper into the Greek schism. Their patriarch, a mere shadow of what he once was, resides at Stamboul, and glories in the title of ““Patriarch of Alexandria and Ecumenical Judge”“. It is an empty title, since he is supreme pastor over only five thousand souls, and where formerly more than one hundred bishops acknowledged the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Alexandria, only four now form the synod of the ““Ecumenical Judge”“. They are the Bishops of Ethiopia, Memphis, Damietta, and Rosetta.

It will not be out of place to treat briefly of the Latin patriarchate of the Church of Alexandria. Since the seventh century the patriarchate, as we have seen, was divided between the Jacobites and the Melchites, both of which bodies eventually became schismatical. Among the patriarchs a few had courted the friendship of Rome, but none seems to have entered into full communion with her. There were, however, some Christians, as there are today, who were in no sense schismatical, but remained in full communion with the Holy See. It was doubtless in their behalf that in the pontificate of Innocent III (1198–1216) a patriarch of the Latin rite was appointed for Alexandria. The time seemed favourable for such an appointment, because of the progress of the Crusades. The actual date is, however, uncertain. Sollerius (Acta SS., Jun. vii, 1887), and the ““Lexicon Biblicum”“ of Simon, quoted by him, speak of a ““S. Athanasius Claromontanus pro Latinus, A. D. 1219”“. There is no further mention of this patriarch, nor is it certain that he was the first incumbent of the Latin patriarchate. We say it is not certain, because the date of appointment, or perhaps of the consecration, of Athanasius, as given by Sollerius, is 1219, whereas the establishment of the Latin patriarchate occurred in 1215. This is clear from the Twelfth General Council (Fourth Lateran), held in that year (Labbe, xi., 153). Neale (op. cit., II, 288) gives a list of the Latin patriarchs, and heads it with the name of Giles, a Dominican friar appointed in 1310 by Clement V. From this on he follows Sollerius (Acta SS., loc. cit.), who gives us the names of the Latin patriarchs from 1219 to 1547.

After the loss of the Holy Land and the overthrow of all Latin domination in the Byzantine Empire, the Latin Patriarchate of Alexandria ceased to exist except as a mere titular dignity (Wernz, Jus Decretalium, p. 837). In 1895, Pope Leo XIII established a patriarchate of the Coptic rite with two suffragan sees, Minieh and Luksor, for the Copts in communion with the Holy See (Monit. Eccle., ix, part. 1, 225).

VANSLEB, Histoire de l’église d’Alexandrie (Paris, 1677); LE QUIEN, Oriens Chritianus (Paris, 1740), II, 329–512, III, 1141–46; RENAUDOT, Historia Patriarcharum Alexandr. Jacobitarum (Paris, 1713); SOLLERIUS, De Patriarchis Alexandrinis, in Acta ss. Jun. vii (ed. Paris, 1867); MORINI, De Patriarcharum et Primatum origine, in his Exercit. Select. (Paris, 1669); EUTYCHIUS (Melchite Patriarch of Alexandria, 933–940), Alexandrinæ Ecclesiæ Origines (ed. Pococke, Oxon., 1658); NEALE, The Patriarchate of Alexandria, (2 vols. London 1847); MACAIRE, Hist. de l’église d’Alex. depuis Saint Marc jusqu’à nos jours (Cairo, 1894). The ecclesiastical antiquities of Alexandria are treated at length by LECLERCQ in Dict. d’archéol. chrét. et de lit., I, 1098–1182; cf. ibid. (1177–82) an extensive bibliography, also in CHEVALIER, Rép. des Sources hist. (Topo-Bibl.), I, 49–52.

JOSEPH M. WOODS

Diocese of Alexandria

Suffragan of Kingston, Ontario. It comprises the counties of Glengarry and Stormont, and was created a diocese by Leo XIII, by the Decree “In hac sublimiæ,” 23 January, 1890. It has 24,000 Catholics, 19 priests, 16 sisters, 14 parishes, 19 churches, 4 convents, 2,500 children in Catholic schools.

First bishop, Alexander MacDonnell, b. Lochiel, County Glengarry, Ontario, 1 November, 1833; d. at Montreal, 30 May, 1905. He was ordained priest 20 December, 1862; appointed bishop, 18 July, 1900; consecrated in October that same year.

Le Canada ecclésiastique pour 1‘année, 1906 (Montreal); BATTANDIER,Ann. pont. cath., 1906, 189.

Alexandrian Library

The Great Library of Alexandria, so called to distinguish it from the smaller or “daughter” library in the Serapeum, was a foundation of the first Ptolemies for the purpose of aiding the maintenance of Greek civilization in the midst of the conservative Egyptians. If the removal of Demetrius Phalereus to Alexandria, in 296–295 B.C., was connected with the organization of the library, at least the plan for this institution must have been formed under Ptolemaios Soter (died c. 284 B.C.), but the completion of the work and its connection with the Museum was achievement of his successor, Ptolemaios Philadelphos. As Strabo does not mention the library in his description of the buildings upon the harbour, it is clear that it was not in that part of the city, and its connection with the Museum points to a location in the Brucheion, or northwestern quarter of the city.

Of the means by which the books were acquired many anecdotes are told. Ships entering the harbour were forced to give up any manuscripts they had on board and take copies instead. The official copy of the works of the three great tragedians belonging to Athens was retained by forfeiting the deposit of 15 talents that had been pledged for its return. The rivalry between Alexandria and Pergamon was so keen that to cripple the latter the exportation of papyrus was prohibited. Necessity led to the perfecting of the methods of preparing skins to receive writing, the improved material being known as “ charta pergamena “, from which is derived our “ parchment.” This rivalry was also the occasion of the composition of many spurious works, of devices for giving to manuscripts a false appearance of antiquity, and also of hasty and careless copying.

The number of books thus obtained is variously stated, the discrepancy being due partly to the fact that the statements refer to various periods. Demetrius Phalereus is said to have reported that the number of papyrus rolls was 200,000, but that he hoped to increase it soon to 500,000. In the time of Callimachos 490,000 rolls are mentioned; later, Aulus Gellius and Ammianus Marcellinus speak of 700,000 rolls. Orosius, on the other hand, speaks only of 400,000, while Seneca says that 40,000 rolls were burnt (probably an error for 400,000).

The first librarian was Zenodotus (234 B.C.). He was succeeded in turn by Eratosthenes (234–195 B.C.); Aristophanes of Byzantium (195–181 B.C.); and Aristarchos of Samothrace (181–171 B.C.), all famous names in the history of scholarship. The inclusion in this list of Callimachos and Apollonios Rhodios rests on slight authority and seems chronologically impossible. The work of these men consisted in classifying, cataloguing, and editing the works of Greek literature and exerted a deep and permanent influence not only upon the form of the books, their subdivisions, and arrangement, but also upon the transmission of the texts and all phases of the study of the history of literature.

After Aristarchos the importance of the library began to wane. In 47 B.C. Caesar was compelled to set fire to his fleet to prevent its falling into the hands of the Egyptians. The fire spread to the docks and the naval arsenal, and destroyed 400,000 rolls. It is most probable from the statement of Orosius that these were not in the library itself, but had been removed from it preparatory for shipment to Rome, a view confirmed by the statement of the author of the “Bellum Alexandrinum “ that Alexandria was built in such a way as to be safe from a great conflagration. Seneca and Gellius also speak only of the burning of manuscripts, though the latter represents the destruction as complete. Less carefully, Plutarch and Dio Cassius speak of the burning of the library, but had this been the case we should find mention of it in Cicero and Strabo.

The loss of books was partly repaired by Anthony ‘s gift to Cleopatra, in 41 B.C., of 200,000 volumes from the library of Pergamon. Domitian drew upon the library for transcripts. Under Aurelian, in A.D. 272, the greater part of the Brucheion was destroyed, and it is most probable that the library perished at this time. The small library in the Serapeum is supposed to have perished when the temple of Serapis was destroyed by Theophilus, but there is no definite statement to that effect. Up to the time of Gibbon, the generally accepted version of the destruction of the library was that, on the capture of the city by the Mahommedans in A.D. 642, John Philoponos, having formed a friendship with their general Amrou, asked for the gift of the library. Amrou referred the matter to the Caliph Omar and received the answer:

If these writings of the Greeks agree with the book of God, they are useless, and need not be preserved; if they disagree, they are pernicious, and ought to be destroyed.

Accordingly, they were employed in the baths as fuel, and lasted six months. This story is now generally discredited, chiefly because it rests only on the authority of Abulpharagius, a writer six centuries later, while earlier writers, especially Eutychius and Elmacin, make no mention of it. Besides, the act is contrary to Mohammedan custom; John Philoponos lived about a century before the capture of the city, and the statement of the time the rolls lasted as fuel is preposterous. Finally, there is the evidence given above for the earlier destruction of the library. SANDYS, A History of Classical Scholarship (Cambridge, 1903); RITSCHL, Opuscula Philologica, I; SUSEMIHL, Geschichte der gr. Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit (Leipzig, 1891); DZIATZKO, in PAULY-WISSOWA, Real-Encyclopædie, III, 409–414.

GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING

Alexandrine Liturgy

The tradition of the Church of Egypt traces its origin to the Evangelist St. Mark, the first Bishop of Alexandria, and ascribes to him the parent liturgy from which all the others used by Melchites, Copts, and by the daughter-Church of Abyssinia are derived. These three bodies possess the three groups of liturgies used throughout the original Patriarchate of Alexandria. There is the Greek Liturgy of St. Mark, the oldest form of the three, used for some centuries after the Monophysite schism by the orthodox Melchites; there are then three liturgies, still used by the Copts, translated into Coptic from the Greek and derived from the Greek St. Mark, and, further, a number of Abyssinian (Ethiopic) uses, of which the foundation is the “Liturgy of the Twelve Apostles,” that also descends from the original Greek Alexandrine rite By comparing these liturgies and noticing what is common to them, it is possible in some measure to reconstruct the old use of the Church of Alexandria as it existed before the Monophysite schism and the Council of Chalcedon (451). There are, moreover, other indications of that use. Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 217) makes one or two allusions to it, St. Athanasius (d. 373) has many more; the Prayer Book of Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis in the middle of the fourth century, and the descriptions of Pseudo-Dionysius (De hierarchâ eccl.), at about the same time, in Egypt, make it possible to reconstruct the outline of the Egyptian Liturgy of their time, which is then seen to coincide with the Liturgy of St. Mark.

I. THE LITURGY OF ST. ATHANASIUS, SERAPION, AND PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS

The Mass was divided into two chief parts, the Mass of the Catechumens and that of the Faithful. When the Arians persuaded a certain Ischyras to accuse St. Athanasius of having overturned his altar and broken his chalice during the Liturgy, they made the mistake of producing a catechumen as a witness. St. Athanasius could at once point out that the chalice is not brought to the altar till the Mass of the Faithful, when the catechumens have been dismissed (Contr. Arian., xxviii and xlvi). The Mass of the Catechumens consisted of Lessons from Holy Scripture, Psalms sung alternately, and Homilies. Then follow the blessing and dismissal of various kinds of people who are not allowed to be present at the Holy Eucharist, the catechumens, penitents, and energumens. In Serapion and Pseudo-Dionysius the Mass of the Faithful begins with the bringing of the oblations to the altar; they are then covered with a veil. The deacon reads out a litany for various causes (he katholike), to each petition of which the people answer “Kyrie eleison,” and the bishop sums up their prayers in a collect. Then follows the kiss of peace. St. Athanasius appears to place the offering of the gifts at this point (Protest, Lit. des IV. Jahrh., iii). The diptychs are read, followed by another collect and a prayer for the people. The bishop washes his hands and begins the Eucharistic Prayer (of which our Preface is the first part). The opening of the Eucharistic Prayer has always been very long in the Egyptian Liturgy. St. Athanasius refers to thanksgiving for the Creation, with detailed references to the different works, the Garden of Eden, the Incarnation, and so on; then comes an allusion to the Angels and their orders, who praise God and say (and the people interrupt the prayer by taking up the Angels’ words): “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts.” The bishop continues, praises God the Son who, having been made Man, on the night when He was betrayed took bread, blessed, broke, and gave it to His disciples, saying . . . The words of Institution follow, although St. Athanasius, because of the disciplina arcani, avoids quoting them. Nor does he mention the Epiklesis that certainly followed. Theophilus of Alexandria (385–412) says that: “The Bread of the Lord, in which the Body of the Saviour is shown, which we break for our salvation, and the holy Chalice which is placed upon the Table of the Church are (at first) unquickened, but are sanctified by the Invocation and descent of the Holy Ghost” (translated by St. Jerome, Ep. xcviii, n. 13). The Blessed Sacrament is shown to the people, the Host is broken (the Our Father was probably said at this point), Communion is given, the Host by the bishop. the Chalice by the deacon, and the Thanksgiving (apparently Ps. xxxiii) is said. We notice already in these first references the great length of the first part of the Eucharistic Prayer (the Preface), and the fact that the diptychs are read before the Consecration. These two notes are characteristic of all the Egyptian uses.

II. THE GREEK LITURGY OF ST. MARK

This rite as it now exists has already undergone considerable development. A Prothesis (perparation of the oblations before the beginning of the actual liturgy) has been added to it from the Byzantine Liturgy; the Creed is said as at Constantinople just before the Anaphora; the Epiklesis shows signs of the same influence; and the Great entrance is accompanied by a Cherubikon. Since the Monophysite schism this use was more and more affected by the Byzantine Liturgy, till at last it entirely gave way to it among the Melchites. However, it is possible to disengage it from later additions and to reproduce the original Greek Alexandrine Liturgy, the parent rite of all others in Egypt. After the Prothesis, the Mass of the Cathechumens begins with the greeting of the priest: “Peace to all,” to which the people answer: “And with thy spirit.” The deacon says “Pray” and they repeat Kyrie eleison three times; the priest then says a collect. The whole rite is repeated three times, so that there are nine Kyrie eleisons interspersed with greeting and collects. During the Little Entrance (processions of the priest and deacon with the books for the lessons) the choir sings the Trisagion (Holy God, Holy Strong One, Holy Mortal One, have mercy on us). The lessons begin with the usual greeting: “Peace to all.” Response: “And with thy spirit.” “The Apostle” is read, and then, after incense has been put into the thurible, follows the Gospel. The deacon tells the people to stand while they hear it. Sozomen (d. after 425) notes as a peculiar custom of Alexandria that the bishop does not stand at the Gospel (Hiss. Eccl., VII, xix). After the Gospel follows the Homily. Both Socrates and Sozomen say that in their time only the bishop preaches, and they ascribe this custom to the result of the trouble caused by Arius (Socr., V, xxii; Soz., VII, xix). Before the Catechumens are dismissed a litany (the great Ekteneia) is said by the deacon. He tells the people to pray for the living, the sick, travellers, for fine weather, and the fruits of the earth, for the “regular rise of the waters of the river” (the Nile, an important matter in Egypt), “good rain and the cornfields of the earth “ for salvation of all men, “the safety of the world and of this city,” for “our Christ-loving sovereigns.” for prisoners, “those fallen asleep,” “the sacrifice of our offerings,” for the afflicted, and for the Catechumens. To each clause the people answer: “Kyrie eleison.” The priest meanwhile is praying silently for the same objects, and when the deacon’s litany is finished, he ends his prayer aloud with the doxology. The “verse” (stichos, a verse from a psalm) is sung, and the deacon says “The Three,” that is, three prayers for the whole Church, the Patriarch, and the local Church; in each case the priest ends with a collect. The catechumens are then dismissed, and the Mass of the Faithful begins with the “Great Entrance.” The priest and deacon bring the offerings from the Prothesis to the altar while the people sing the Cherubikon. The kiss of peace follows, with the prayer belonging to it; then the Creed is said and the Offertory prayer at the altar. (In other liturgies the Offertory is said before the Great Entrance at the Prothesis.) The Anaphora begins, as always, with the greeting to the people and the dialogue: “Let us lift up our hearts.” Response: “We have them to the Lord.”—“Let us give thanks to the Lord.” Response: “It is meet and just.” And then the Eucharistic Prayer: “It is truly meet and just, right, holy, proper, and good for our souls, O Master, Lord, God, Almighty Father, to praise Thee. . . . . .” The peculiarity of all the Egyptian Liturgies is that the Supplication for various causes and people, which in all other rites follows the Sanctus and the Consecration, comes at this point, during what we should call the Preface. The Alexandrine Preface then is very long; interwoven into it are a series of prayers for the Church, the Emperor, the sick, fruits of the earth, and so on. Again the priest prays God to “draw up the waters of the river to their right measure”; he remembers various classes of Saints, especially St. Mark, says the first part of the Hail Mary, and then goes on aloud; “especially our all-holy, immaculate, and glorious Lady Mary, Mother of God and ever Virgin.’ The deacon here reads the diptychs of the death; the priest continues his supplication for the patriarch, the bishop, and all the living; the deacon calls out to the people to stand and then to look towards the east; and so at last comes the Sanctus: “the many-eyed Cherubim and the six-winged Seraphim . . . sing, cry out, praise Thee, and say: Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts.” And then aloud he goes on: “Sanctify all of us and receive our praise, who with all who sanctify Three, Lord and Master, sing and say” (and the people continue): “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord.” After the long Preface the Canon up to the words of Institution is very short. The priest, as usual, takes up the people’s words and almost at once comes to “Our Lord, God, and great King (pambasileus), Jesus Christ, who in the night in which he gave himself to a most dreadful death for our sins, taking the bread in His holy, pure, and immaculate hands, and looking up to heaven to Thee, His Father, our God and God of all things, gave thanks, blessed, broke, and gave it to His holy and blessed Disciples and Apostles, saying [aloud]: Take, eat [the deacon tells the concelebrating priests to stretch out their hands], for this is My Body, broken and given for you for the forgiveness of sins.” Response: Amen. The words of Institution of the Chalice are said in the same way. The priest lifts up his voice at the end, saying: “Drink of this all”; the deacon says: “Again stretch out your hands,” and the priest continues: “this is My Blood of the New Testament, shed for you and for many and given for the forgiveness of sins.” Response: Amen. “Do this in memory of Me, . . .” And the Anamnesis follows, referring to Our Lord’s death, resurrection, ascension, and second coming and going immediately on to the Epiklesis: “Send down upon us and upon this bread and chalice Thy Holy Ghost that He as Almighty God may bless and perfect them [aloud] and make this bread the Body.” Response: “Amen.” And this chalice the Blood of the New Testament, the Blood of our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and great King, Jesus Christ.” . . . The Epiklesis ends with a doxology to which the people answer: “As it was and is.” Then follow the Our Father, said first by the priest silently and then aloud lay the people, with the usual Embolismos, the Inclination before the Blessed Sacrament—the deacon says: “Let us bow our heads before the Lord,” and the people answer: “Before Thee O Lord”; the Elevation with the words: “Holy things to the Holy”; and the answer: “One Holy Father, one Holy Son, one Holy Ghost, in the union of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” Then come the Breaking of the Bread, during which Psalm cl (Laudate Dominum in sanctis eius) is sung, and the Communion. The form of Communion is: “The holy Body” and then “the precious Blood of Our Lord, God and Saviour.” A short thanksgiving follows, and the people are dismissed with the blessing quoted from II Cor., xiii, 13. Some more prayers are said in the Diakonikon, and the liturgy ends with the words: “Blessed be God who blesses, sanctifies, protects, and keeps us all through the share in His holy mysteries. He is blessed for ever. Amen.”

The characteristic points of this rite are the nine Kyrie eleisons at the beginning, the Offertory prayers said at the altar instead of at the Prothesis, and especially the place of the great Supplication before the Sanctus. This last circumstance causes the Consecration to occur much later in this Liturgy than in any of the others. It should be noted that the place of the Supplication is a difficulty in the Roman Mass. We say part of it (for the Church, Pope, and Bishop, the Memento Vivorum and Communicantes) before and part (Memento Defunctorum, Mobis quoque peccatoribus) after the Consecration. In the Antiochene use, and in all those derived from it, the whole Supplication comes after the Epiklesis. It has been suggested that the explanation of these differences is that originally everywhere the deacon began to read out the clauses of the Supplication as soon as the priest had begun the Eucharistic Prayer. They would then go on saying their parts together, the deacon being interrupted by the words said aloud by the priest. The point at which the Supplication ends would then depend on its length; and if eventually that point (at which the priest sums up its clauses in a collect) were taken as its place in the liturgy, it might occur before the Consecration (as at Alexandria), or after it (as at Antioch), or the Supplication might still be said partly before and partly after (as at Rome). The Roman use, then, would repress sent an intermediate stage of development (cf. A. Gastoué in Cabrol, Diet. d’arch. chrét. et de liturgie, Paris, 1904). But the parallels between the Roman and Alexandrine uses are too obvious not to suggest a common source for these Liturgies. There is the Kyrie eleison, said nine times in groups of three, as soon as the priest stands at the altar, just before the Trisagion which more or less corresponds to our Gloria in excelsis. There are, moreover, clauses and even whole prayers whose common origin with those of our Canon cannot be doubted. As an example, let the prayer said after the reading of the diptychs of the dead be compared with our Supra quae and Supplices te rogamus. In St. Mark’s liturgy it is: “Receive, O God, the Sacrifice, offerings, and Eucharist of thy servants on Thy holy, heavenly, and spiritual altar in the height of Heaven by the ministry of thy archangels . . . as Thou didst receive the gifts of Thy just Abel and the sacrifice of our father Abraham . . .” There are other parallel passages no less striking; so that, in spite of likenesses between the Roman Canon and the Syrian Anaphora, it is with this Egyptian Liturgy that ours is generally supposed to have had a common source (Duchesne, Origines, p. 54). Socrates and Sozomen notice some peculiarities of the Alexandrine Patriarchate in the fifth century. On Wednesdays and Fridays the Liturgy was not celebrated (Socr., V, xxii, who says this is a most ancient custom). In this case, too, Alexandria and Rome follow the same practice, whereas that of all the other Eastern Churches is different (Duchesne, Origines, p. 220). The first two sees also agreed in having no Mass on Saturday; in other parts of Egypt there was a Liturgy of the Presanctified, and people received Holy Communion on Saturday evening, not fasting (Socr., ib., Soz., VII, xix, mysterion metechousi).

THE GREEK LITURGY, MANUSCRIPTS.—There are no very old manuscripts of this use; the earliest is a large fragment written in the twelfth century, and kept in the University Library of Mesaina (gr. n. 177). The Vatican Library contains a thirteenth century manuscript of the whole Liturgy (gr. 1970), which has become the base of the textus receptus and is reproduced by Swainson and Brightman. There are also a manuscript of the year 1207 (Bibl. Vat. gr. 2281) and a fragment of the twelfth or thirteenth century at Mount Sinai, with an Arabic translation in the margin.

PRINTED EDITIONS.—He theia leitourgia tou hagiou apostolou kai euaggelistou Markou mathetou tou hagiou Petrou (Paris, 1583), edited by JOHN A S. ANDREA (de Saint-Andrée). This is the editio princeps. It is reprinted by FRONTO DUCAEUS (Fronton le Duc), Bibliotheca vet. patrum (Paris, 1624); RENAUDOT, Liturgiarum Orientalium collectio (ea. II, Frankfort, 1847), I, 120–148; ASSEMANI, Codez; liturgicus eccl. universalis (Rome, 1754), VII, 1 sqq.; NEALS, Tetralogia liturgica (London, 1849); DANIEL, Cod. Liturg. eccl. univ. (Leipzig, 1853), IV, 134 sqq.; SWAINSON, The Greek Liturgies (Cambridge, 1884), 2–73; BRIGHTMAN, Liturgies Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1896), I, 113–143, I, 113–143 NEALE and LITTLEDALE, The Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement, St. Chrysostom, St. Basil (London), 1875, 5–31.

TRANSLATIONS.—The Edition of John a S. Andrea contains a Latin version since reproducted by ASSEMANI RENAUDOT, etc. English versions in BRETT, A Collection of the Principal Liturgies (London, 1720), 29–41; NEALE, History of the Holy Eastern Church (London, 1850), I, 532–570; The Liturgies of S. Mark, S. James, S. Clement, S. Chrysostom, S. Basil, and of the Christians of Malabar (London, 1859). German versions in PROBST, Liturgie der drei ersten christlichen Jahrhunderte (Tübingen, 1870), 318–334; SORFF, Die griechischen Liturgien (Kempten, 1877), 84–116.

III. THE COPTIC LITURGIES

After the Monophysite schism the Copts composed a number of liturgies in their own language. Three of these became the most inportant and are still used: those of St. Cyril, St. Gregory (of Nazianzus), and St. Basil. They differ only in the Anaphoras which are joined to a common Preparation and Mass of the Catechumens. The Anaphora of St. Cyril, also called that of St. Mark, together with the part of the liturgy that is common to all, corresponds exactly to the Greek St. Mark. When it was translated into Coptic a great part of the formulas, such as the Trisagion, the deacon’s litany, said at the beginning of the Mass of the Faithful, nearly all the short greetings like eirene pasin ano hymon tas kardias ta hagia tois hagiois, and everything said by the people had already become universally known in Greek. These parts were then left in that language, and they are still written or printed in Greek, although in Coptic characters, throughout the Coptic Liturgy. A few prayers have been added to the original Greek Liturgy, such as a very definite act of faith in the Real Presence said by the priest before his Communion. There are also Greek versions of the other two Coptic Anaphoras: those of St. Basil and St. Gregory.

THE COPTIC LITURGIES. MANUSCRIPTS.—The Vatican Library contains a manuscript of the Anaphoras of St. Basil, St. Gregory, and St. Cyril of the year 1288 (Vat. Copt. XVII), as also others of the fourteenth, fifteenth, and seventeenth centuries. For the list of other manuscripts (all quite recent) see BRIGHTMAN, op. cit., LXX. PRINTED TEXTS. TUKI, Missile Coptice et Arabice (Rome, 1736 for the Uniates). The Kulaji (Euchologion) and Diakonikon are published at Cairo in Coptic and Arabic (at the El-Watan office, aura martyrum, 1603, A.D. 1887).

TRANSLATIONS.—Latin in SCIALACH, Liturgies Basilic magni, Gregorii theologi, Cyrilli alexandrini ex arabico conversoe (Augsburg, 1604), reprinted in RENAUDOT, OP. cit., I, 1 25, 25 37, 38 51, ASSEMANI, OP. cit., VII, etc. English in MALAN, Original Documents of the Coptic Church (London, 1875); BUTE, The Coptic Morning Service for the Lord’s Day (London 1882); NEALE, History of the Holy Eastern Church (London 1850) I, 381 sqq.; RODWELL, The Liturgies of S. Basil, S. Gregory, and S. Cyril, From a Coptic manuscript of the XIII century (London, 1870); BRIGHTMAN, op. cit., 144–188.

IV. THE ETHIOPIC LITURGIES

In her liturgies, as in everything else, the Church of Abyssinia depends on the Coptic Patriarchate of Alexandria. The normal and original Ethiopic use is the “Liturgy of the Twelve Apostles,” which is the Coptic St. Cyril done into their own language. The Abyssinians have also a number of other Anaphoras (ten or fifteen) ascribed to various people such as St. John the Evangelist, the 318 Fathers of Nicæa, St. John Chrysostom, etc., which they join to the first part of their Liturgy on various occasions instead of its own Canon.

THE ETHIOPIC LITURGIES. MANUSCRIPTS.—The Vatican library contains manuscripts of Anaphoras (Vat. Ethiop., XIII, XVI, XXII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXXIV, XXXIX, LXVI LXIX) the British Museum has a seventeenth-century manuscript of the Ordo Communis with various Anaphoras (Or. 545) and there are others and fragments at Paris and Berlin, all as late as the seventeenth century.

PRINTED TEXTS. SWAINSON, op cit., 349–395; although this is described as the Coptic Ordinary Canon of the Mass, it is the Ethiopic Pre-anaphoral according to the Brit. Mug. MS. 545 (see BRIGHTMAN, op. cit., lxxii).—PETRUS ETHYOPS (sic), Testamentum novam . . . Miseale cum benedictions incensi, cerce, etc. (Rome, 1548), 158–167 for the Uniates; this contains the Ordo communis and the Anaphora of the Twelve. Apostles. TRANSLATIONS. Latin in PETRUS ETHYOPS (op. cit); RENAUDOT (op cit.), 1, reprints it 472–495. The Bullarium partronatus Portogallice regum in ecclesiis Africca (Lisbon, 1879) contains versions of the Anaphorce of Our Lady Mary and Dioscor; Dillman, Chrestomathia Aethiopica (Leipzig, 1866), gives that of St. John Chrysostom, 51–56.

V. THE PRESENT USE

Of these three groups two, the Copts and Abyssinians, still keep their own liturgies. The Copts use that of St. Basil throught out the year on Sundays and weekdays, and for requiems; on certain great feasts they substitute the Anaphora of St. Gregory; that of St. Cyril is kept for Lent and Christmas eve. This order is common to the Monophysite and Uniate Copts. Very soon after the Arabs conquered Egypt (641) their language became they only one used ever by the Christians; in less than two centuries Coptic had become a completely dead language. For this reason the rubrics of the Coptic liturgical books have for a long tine been written in Arabic as well; sometimes Arabic translations of the prayers are added too. The books needed for the Liturgy are the Khulaji (euchologion), Kutmarus (kata meros), a lectionary containing the lessons from Holy Scripture, the Synaxar (synaxarion), which contains legends of saints, sometimes read instead of those from the Acts of the Apostles, and the “Book of the Ministry of the Deacons” (Brightman, lxvii). The Coptic and Abyssinian Uniates have books specially printed for them, which differ from the others only inasmuch as the names of Monophysites are omitted, that of Chalcedon is inserted, and the Filoque is added to the Creed. The Orthodox Church of Egypt has long sacrificed her own use for that of Constantinople. For a time after the Monophysite schism she still kept the Liturgy of St. Mark in Greek. But there were very few Orthodox left in the country; they revere nearly all officials of the Imperial government, and, after the Arab conquest especially, the influence of Constantinople over them, as over the whole Orthodox world, grew enormously. So eventually they followed the Ecumenical Patriarch in their rites as in everything else. The Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria even went to live at Constantinople under the shadow of Caesar and of Caesar’s Court Bishop. The change of liturgy took place at the end of the twelfth century. Theodore Balsamon says that at that tine a certain Mark, Patriarch of Alexandria, came to Constantinople and there went on celebrating the Liturgy of his own Church. The Byzantines told him that the use of the most holy Ecumenical throne was different, and that the Emperor had already commanded all Orthodox Church throughout the world to follow that of the Imperial city. So Mark apologized for not having known about this law and conformed to the Byzantine use (P.G., CXXXVIII, 954). Since then the Greek Liturgy of St. Mark has no longer been used by anyone. It remains to be seen whether, now that the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem has begun to make some small restoration of her own use (see ANTIOCHENE LITURGY), the very determined and strongly anti-Phanariote prelate who rules the Orthodox Church of Egypt (Lord Photios of Alexandria) will not revive, at any rate for one day in the year, the venerable liturgy of his own see.

DISSERTATIONS.—Besides the introductions and notes in RENAUDOT, BRIGHTMAN, SWAINSON, PROUST, PEALE, LORD BUTS (op. cit.), PROUST, Liturgie des IV. Jahrhunderts (Münster, 1893), 106–124, reconstructions from St. Athanasius, Pseudo-Dionysius, etc.; BUTLER, The Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt (Oxford, 1884), EWETTS AND BUTLER, The Churches and Monasteries of Egypt (Oxford, 1895); EWETTS, Rites of the Coptic Church (London, 1888); LUDOLF, Historic Aethiopica (Frankfort, 1681) LE BRUN, Explication de la Messe (Paris, 1788), IV, 469–519, 519–579; BENT, The Sacred City of the Ethiopians (London, 1893).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Alexian Nuns

Early in the fifteenth century religious women began to be affiliated to the Alexian Brotherhood (see below). These sisters adopted the Rule of St. Augustine and devoted themselves to the same corporal works of mercy as those of the Brothers of St. Alexius, or Cellites. Their habit is black, with a mantle of the same colour and a white cap, whence their common name of “black sisters.” The black, or Cellitine, sisters at present have their mother-house at Cologne. They are not represented in the list of religious women established in the United States and Canada.

SCHLOSSER in Kirchenlex.

Alexians

Or CELLITES.

A religious institute or congregation, which had its origin at Mechlin, in Brabant, in the fifteenth century, during the terrible ravages of a pest called the “black death.” Certain laymen united under the guidance of a man named Tobias to succour the plague-stricken, without taking any vows or adopting a rule of life. One of their most obvious actions being the burial of those who died from the plague; they were known as “Cellites” (Lat. cella, a cell and hence, a grave). Later on, they chose as their patron, Alexius, a saint who served many years in a hospital at Edessa in Syria; and thenceforth they called themselves the Alexian Brothers. They spread rapidly through Germany, Brabant, Flanders, and other countries. As they were also styled Lollhorden (Old Germ. lollon, to sing softly) from their chants for the dead, they have consequently been sometimes confounded with the Wyclifian sect of heretics, the Lollards. They did not escape calumny and persecution, as appears from the Bull “Ad Audientiam Nostram” (2 Dec., 1377) which Gregory XI sent to the German bishops, especially those of Cologne, Trier, and Mainz, forbidding annoyance of the Cellites and enjoining punishment for their persecutors. This was followed by Bulls of a similar tenor from Boniface IX (7 Jan., 1396), Eugenius IV (12 May, 1431), Nicholas V, and Pius II. In 1469, the mother-house at Aix-la-Chapelle voiced the general feeling of the Brothers in asking the Prince Bishop of Liège, Louis de Bourbon, to raise that house to a convent of the Order of St. Augustine. This request was granted, and Father Dominicus Brock and five of the Brothers took the solemn vows of religious. This step and the revised constitution of the Order were confirmed by Pius IX (12 Sept., 1870).

The Alexian Brothers have four hospitals in the United States. The first was built in Chicago, 1866; destroyed by the great fire, 9 Oct. 1871, and rebuilt the following year. The second, erected at St. Louis in 1869, covers an acre with its departments for the insane, nervous diseases, and inebriates. The third is at Oshkosh, Wis. (1880). The fourth was built at Elizabeth, N.J., on land given for that purpose by Right Rev. Bishop Wigger. Competent surgeons and physicians attend to the patients, and the Brothers are nurses and do the housework of the hospitals.

Bishop Vaughan of Salford, England (later, Cardinal), invited the Alexian Brothers to take charge of a new home and hospital in his diocese, which led to their establishing themselves in England in June, 1875. Dr. Lacy, Bishop of Middlesborough, secured them for his diocese in 1884. In 1885, the Brothers established a Province of their Order and a novitiate in the United Kingdom. The latter, first attached to St. Mary’s Convent, Newton Heath, Manchester, was later transferred to Twyford Abbey, near Ealing, which the Alexian Brothers had purchased. In England they do not have any asylums for the care of the insane, as in Germany, Belgium, and America. The English establishments are only for the aged and infirm.

STEELE, Monasteries and Religious Houses of Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1903), 10–13; cf. Brief History of the Alexian Brothers (Chicago).

JOHN J. A’BECKET

St. Alexis Falconieri

Born in Florence, 1200; died 17 February, 1310, at Mount Senario, near Florence. He was the son of Bernard Falconieri, a merchant prince of Florence, and one of the leaders of the Republic. His family belonged to the Guelph party, and opposed the Imperialists whenever they could consistently with their political principles. Alexis grew up in the practice of the most profound humility. He joined the Laudesi, a pious confraternity of the Blessed Virgin, and there met the six future companions of his life of sanctity. He was favoured with an apparition of the Mother of God, 15 August, 1233, as were these companions. The seven soon afterwards founded the Order of the Servites. With consistent loyalty and heroism Alexis at one abandoned all, and retired to La Camarzia, a house on the outskirts of the town, and the following year to Mt. Senario. With characteristic humility, he traversed, as a mendicant, in quest of alms for his brethren, the streets of the city through which he had lately moved as a prominent citizen. So deep and sincere was him humility that, though he lived to the great age of hundred and ten years, he always refused to enter the priesthood, of which he deemed himself unworthy. The duties of our Saint were confined principally to the material needs of the various communities in which he lived. In 1252 the new church at Cafaggio, on the outskirts of Florence, was completed under his care, with the financial assistance of Chiarissimo Falconieri. The miraculous image of the Annunciation, still highly venerated in Italy, had its origin here. St. Juliana Falconieri, his niece, was trained in sanctity under his personal direction. The influence exerted on his countrymen by Alexis and his companions may be gathered from the fact that in a few years ten thousand persons had enrolled themselves under the banner of the Blessed Virgin in the Servite Order. At his death he was visited by the Infant Jesus in visible form, as was attested by eye-witnesses. His body rests near the church of the Annunciation, in Florence. Clement XI declared Alexis worthy of the veneration of the faithful, 1 December, 1717, and accorded the same honour to his six companions, 3 July 1725.

AUGUSTINE MCGINNIS

St. Alexius

CONFESSOR.

According to the most recent researches he was an Eastern saint whose veneration was transplanted from the Byzantine empire to Rome, whence it spread rapidly throughout western Christendom. Together with the name and veneration of the Saint, his legend was made known to Rome and the West by means of Latin versions and recensions based on the form current in the Byzantine Orient. This process was facilitated by the fact that according to the earlier Syriac legend of the Saint, the “Man of God,” of Edessa (identical with St. Alexius) was a native of Rome. The Greek legend, which antedates the ninth century and is the basis of all later versions, makes Alexius the son of a distinguished Roman named Euphemianus. The night of his marriage he secretly left his father’s house and journeyed to Edessa in the Syrian Orient where, for seventeen years, he led the life of a pious ascetic. As the fame of his sanctity grew, he left Edessa and returned to Rome, where, for seventeen years, he dwelt as a beggar under the stairs of his father’s palace, unknown to his father or wife. After his death, assigned to the year 417, a document was found on his body, in which he revealed his identity. He was forthwith honoured as a saint and his father’s house was converted into a church placed under the patronage of Alexius. In this expanded form the legend is first found in a hymn (canon) of the Greek hymnographer Josephus (d. 883). It also occurs in a Syrian biography of Alexius, written not later than the ninth century, and which presupposes the existence of a Greek life of the Saint. The latter is in turn based on an earlier Syriac legend (referred to above), composed at Edessa between 450 and 475. Although in this latter document the name of Alexius is not mentioned, he is manifestly the same as the “Man of God” of whom this earlier Syriac legend relates that he lived in Edessa during the episcopate of Bishop Rabula (412–435) as a poor beggar, and solicited alms at the church door. These he divided among the rest of the poor, after reserving barely enough for the absolute necessities of life. He died in the hospital and was buried in the common grave of the poor. Before his death, however, he revealed to one of the church servants that he was the only son of distinguished Roman parents. After the Saint’s death, the servant told this to the Bishop. Thereupon the grave was opened, but only his pauper’s rags were now found therein. How far this account is based on historical tradition is hard to determine. Perhaps the only basis for the story is the fact that a certain pious ascetic at Edessa lived the life of a beggar and was later venerated as a saint. In addition to this earlier Syriac legend, the Greek author of the later biography of St. Alexius, which we have mentioned above as having been written before the ninth century, probably had in mind also the events related in the life of St. John Calybata, a young Roman patrician, concerning whom a similar story is told. In the West we find no trace of the name Alexius in any martyrology or other liturgical book previous to the end of the tenth century; he seems to have been completely unknown. He first appears in connection with St. Boniface as titular saint of a church on the Aventine at Rome. On the site now occupied by the church of Sant’ Alessio there was at one time a diaconia, i.e. an establishment for the care of the poor of the Roman Church. Connected with this was a church which by the eighth century had been in existence for some time and was dedicated to St. Boniface. In 972 Pope Benedict VII transferred the almost abandoned church to the exiled Greek metropolitan, Sergius of Damascus. The latter erected beside the church a monastery for Greek and Latin monks, soon made famous for the austere life of its inmates. To the name of St. Boniface was now added that of St. Alexius as titular saint of the church and monastery. It is evidently Sergius and his monks who brought to Rome the veneration of St. Alexius. The Oriental Saint, according to his legend a native of Rome, was soon very popular with the folk of that city. Among the frescoes executed towards the end of the eleventh century in the Roman basilica of St. Clement (now the lower church of San Clemente) are very interesting representations of events in the life of St. Alexius. His feast is observed on the 17th of July, in the West; in the East, on the 17th of March. The church of Sts. Alexius and Boniface on the Aventine has been renovated in modern times but several medieval monuments are still preserved there. Among them the visitor is shown the alleged stairs of the house of Euphemianus under which Alexius is said to have lived.

Acta SS., July, IV, 238 sqq.; Analecta Bollandiana, XIX, 241 sqq. (1900); DUCHESNE, Les legendes chretiennes de1”Aventin; Notes sur la topographie de Rome au moyen-age, N. VII, in Melanges d’archeol. et d’hist., X, 234 sqq. (1890); AMIAND, La legende Syriaque de S. Alexis, l’Homme de Dieu (Paris, 1899); KONRAD VON WURZBURG, Das Leben des hl. Alexius (Berlin, 1898); MASSMANN, St. Alexius Leben (Quedlinburg and Leipzig, 1843); NERINIUS, De templo et coenobio Sanctorum Bonifatii et Alexii (Rome, 1752); BUTLER, Lives, 17 July.

J.P. KIRSCH

Count Vittorio Alfieri

The greatest tragic poet of Italy; b. at Asti (Piedmont), 17 January, 1749; d. at Florence, 8 October, 1803. He was the son of Count Antonio Alfieri and Monica Maillard de Tournon. His training (1758–66) at the Regia Academia of Turin, where, owing to his father’s early death, he had been placed by his uncle, Count Benedetto Alfieri, bore no fruit. Recklessly plunging into the world at the age of sixteen, the uncontrolled master of a considerable fortune, after a short service in the Piedmontese army, he took to travelling all over Europe without any definite aim in view, urged on by an overwhelming spirit of unrest. Thus he spent his best years in disreputable intrigues, profitless roving, and the promiscuous reading of unworthy literature. French he knew well enough, but of his native tongue he had little more than a colloquial smattering. His real education was to begin soon after his twenty-ninth year, when his hitherto dormant genius suddenly kindled in him an indomitable literary ambition, which first caused him to delve into Italian, then into Latin, and, nineteen years later, into Greek with sturdy courage and unflagging perseverance. Italy lacked a tragic literature worthy of the name. Alfieri created it. Having settled at Florence in 1778, he contracted there an intimacy with Louisa von Stolberg-Gedern, Countess of Albany, the wife of Charles Edward Stuart, the Pretender. In 1792, when debauchery had brought the latter to his grave, the Countess began to share the poet’s home. The criticisms of society were ignored and the lovers lived unwedded to the end. The poet’s religious feelings, however, always appeared strong and sincere. He died after receiving the sacraments of the Church and was buried in Santa Croce, where a monument by Canova marks his grave.

Alfieri’s literary production, begun in 1778, was laborious and voluminous. His fame rests mainly on twenty-two tragedies, viz.: “Filippo,” “Polinice,”—both based on an extremely weird plot and exhibiting at times the beginner’s hand; “Antigone,” “Virginia,” “Agamennone,” showing greater poetic finish and maturer artistic skill; “Oreste,” “Rosmunda,” “Ottavia,” “Timoleone,” “Merope,”—in which the author is at his best; “Maria Stuarda,” a little below the standard previously set; “La Congiura dei Pazzi,” full of vigor and poetic impetus; “Don Garzia,” “Saul,” this being his masterpiece; “Agide,” “Sofonisba,” “Bruto Primo,” “Mirra,” rich in striking effects; “Bruto Secondo,” “Abele,” “Alceste Seconda,” and “Antonio e Cleopatra,” which closed his repertoire. Alfieri’s tragedies have been said to be cast in a form often constrained and pedantic. Even if this be true, the fault almost disappears when their forcefulness, freshness, sincerity of feeling, and inspiration are fully appreciated. Nor is the poet’s fame waning in the hearts of contemporary Italy. His unrelenting hatred of tyranny, ringing through every word and line, is now more than ever acknowledged to have been the strongest literary factor in Italy’s fight for political unity and independence. There is a complete edition of Alfieri’s works in twenty-two volumes, by Capurro (Pisa, 1805–15). It contains, besides the tragedies, the “Vita di Vittorio Alfieri, scritta da esso,” the “Misogallo,” and sundry minor writings.

The standard work on Alfieri is by CENTOFANTI (Florence, 1842). TEDESCHI, Studi sulle Tragedie di V. A. (Turin, 1876); COPPING, Alfieri and Golloni; their Lives and Adventures (London, 1857); PUDBRES, Lord Byron, the Admirer and Imitator of Alfieri, in Englische Studien, XXXIII, 40–83; SULLIVAN, The Centenary of Alfieri at Asti in Scribner’s Magazine, XXXV, 224–233; and BERTI, La volontà ed il sentimento religioso nella vita e nelle opere di V. A. in Scritti Vari (Turin, 1892), I, 13; Alfieri’s Autobiography has found two American translators in C. E. Lester (New York, 1845), and W. D. Howells (Boston, 1890).

EDOARDO SAN GIOVANNI

Pietro Alfieri

A priest and at one time a Camaldolese monk, b. at Rome, June, 1801; d. there 12 June, 1863. For many years the professor of singing at the English College in Rome, he is remembered chiefly for his scientific writings and his collections of music of the old masters. Perhaps his most valuable work is his “Raccolta di Musica Sacra” in seven large volumes, a reprint of the sixteenth-century church music, mostly by Palestrina, which was supplemented by later and smaller collections, such as “Excerpta ex celebrioribus de musicâ viris” (Rome, 1840), and “Raccolta di Motetti” (Rome, 1841). On plain chant he published “Accompagnamento coll’ organo” (Rome, 1840); “Ristabilmento del canto e della musica ecclesiastica” (Rome, 1843); “Saggio storico del canto Gregoriano” (Rome 1845); “Prodromo sulla restaurazione de’ libri di canto Gregoriano” (Rome, 1857). He also translated into Italian Catel’s “Traité d’harmonie” and contributed to the “Gazzetta musicale di Milano” and other periodicals many articles on church music of great value to the student.

GROVE, Dict. of Music and Musicians; BAKER, Biog. Dict. of Musicians.

J.A. VÖLKER

Alfonso de Zamora

A converted Spanish Rabbi, baptized 1506; died 1531. He revised the Hebrew text for Ximenes’s Polyglot Bible, translated the Chaldee paraphrase in it, and added the sixth volume. He published also a work called “Introductiones Hebraicae” (Alcala, 1526).

A.J. MAAS

Alfonso of Burgos

Born of a noble family, in the city of that name; died at Palencia, 8 December, 1489. He was conspicuous for learning before his entrance into the Dominican order, early in life. His preaching attracted the notice of Ferdinand and Isabella, who selected him as royal confessor. On the recommendation of the latter, Alfonso was appointed to the see of Cordova by Sixtus IV, 30 April, 1477. Remaining there only four years, he was transferred to the Bishopric of Cuenca, and in 1484, or according to Gams (Series Episcoporum, P. 64) in 1486, to Palencia. At the same time he held successively the office of Grand Chaplain of the Court, Counsellor of the Catholic King, and President of the Council of Castile. In the latter capacity he was instrumental in getting pecuniary grants from the crown for Columbus. During the years 1487 and 1488 he obtained eight thousand pounds at various times for the fitting out of a fleet. In the absence of the king he exercised his right as President of the Council in giving orders for a payment of three thousand pounds to the discoverer. These duties did not hinder him from repairing many dilapidated churches of his diocese. He built, out of his own revenues, the Dominican convent of St. Vincent Ferrer at Palencia, in 1486. He takes a high rank in the history of Spanish education for completing the Collegium Sancti Gregorii at Valladolid, begun by King Alfonso the Wise (1252–84). Posterity justly calls him the founder of this famous college of his order.

TOURON, Hommes illus. de l’ordre de St. Dominique, III, 693–697; MANDONNET, Les dominicains et la découverte de l’Amérique (Paris, 1893), 121 sqq.; NAVARRETTE, Coleccion de los riajes y descubrimientos que hicieron por mar los espanoles (Madrid, 1825), II, 4 sqq.; LA FUENTE, Historia de las universidades, colegios y demás estableciamentos de ense anza en Espa a (Madrid, 1885), II, 24, 25.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Michael Alford

A Jesuit missionary in England during the persecution, b. in London 1587; d. at St. Omers, 11 August 1652. His real name was Griffith, and he sometimes passed as John Flood, the aliases being used to escape detection. He entered the novitiate at Louvain, in 1607, studied philosophy in the English College at Seville and theology at Louvain, and was made a professed of the four vows (see JESUITS) in 1619. After his ordination, he was sent to Naples to minister to his fellow countrymen there, as well as to the British merchantmen and sailors who frequented that port. From thence he was sent to Rome, where he filled the office of Penitentiary from 1615 to 1620. He then became Socius to the Master of Novices, and, subsequently, rector of the Society’s College at Ghent. In 1628, he went over to England and, immediately at his arrival in Dover, was seized as a priest. When restored to liberty he went to Leicestershire, where he laboured for nearly thirty-three years. His principal hiding place was at Combe, in Hereford, where a subsequent search revealed a considerable library, most probably made use of by him in his writings. He was the author of many important works, especially of the famous “Annales Ecclesiastici et Civiles Britannorum, Saxonum, et Anglorum.” The “Brittainia Illustrata” is attributed to him. but Sommervogel denies the authenticity of “The Admirable Life of St. Winefride,” also ascribed to him. To complete his “Annales,” he received permission to pass over to the continent, but on arriving in St. Omers he was attacked by a fever and died.

English Menology; Southwell; Paquot; De Backer, Bibliotheque de la c. de J., I, 71; Foley, Records of the English Province, II, 299–308.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Alfred the Great

(Also Ælfred).

King of the West-Saxons, born Wantage, Berkshire, England 849; died 899.

Alfred was the fifth son of Ethelwulf, or Æthelwulf, King of Wessex, and Osburh, his queen, of the royal house of the Jutes of Wight. When he was four years old, according to a story which has been repeated so frequently that it is generally accepted as true, he was sent by his father to Rome, where he was anointed king by Pope Leo IV. This, however like many other legends which have crystallized about the name of Alfred, is without foundation. Two years later, in 855, Ethelwulf went on a pilgrimage to Rome, taking Alfred with him. This visit, recorded by Asser, is accepted as authentic by modern historians.

In 858 Ethelwulf died and Wessex was governed by his sons, Ethelbald, Ethelbert, and Ethelred, successively, until 871, when Alfred came to the throne. Nothing is known of his movements during the reigns of Ethelbald and Ethelbert, but Asser, speaking of him during the reign of Ethelred, gives him the title of Secundarius. In 868 he married Ealhswith, daughter of Ethelred, surnamed the Mickle, Ealdorman of the Gainas. The West-Saxons and the Mercians were then engaged in a war against the invading Danes and Alfred took an active part in the struggle. He ascended the throne during the thickest of this conflict, but before the end of the year he succeeded in effecting a peace, probably by paying a sum of money to the invaders.

Wessex enjoyed a measure of peace for a few years, but about 875 the Danes renewed their attacks. They were repulsed then, and again in 876 and 877, on each occasion making solemn pledges of peace. In 878 came the great invasion under Guthrum. For a few months the Danes met with success, but about Easter Alfred established himself at Athelney and later marched to Brixton, gathering new forces on the way. In the battle of Ethandún (probably the present Edington, in Wiltshire) he defeated the Danes. Guthrum agreed to a peace and consented to be baptized. It is in connection with this struggle that many of the legends of Alfred have sprung up and been perpetuated—the story of the burnt cakes, the account of his visit to the Danish camp in the guise of a harper, and many others.

For fifteen years Alfred’s kingdom was at peace, but in 903 the Danes who had been driven out made another onslaught. This war lasted for four years and resulted in the final establishment of Saxon supremacy. These struggles had another result, hardly less important than the freedom from Danish oppression. The successive invasions had crushed out of existence most of the individual kingdoms. Alfred made Wessex a rallying point for all the Saxons and by freeing the country of the invaders unwittingly unified England and prepared the way for the eventual supremacy of his successors.

Popular fancy has been busy with other phases of Alfred’s career than that which is concerned with his military achievements. He is generally credited with establishing trial by jury, the law of “frank-pledge,” and many other institutions which were rather the development of national customs of long standing. He is represented as the founder of Oxford, a claim which recent research has disproved. But even the elimination of the legendary from Alfred’s history does not in any way diminish his greatness, so much is there of actual, recorded achievement to his credit. His own estimate of what he did for the regeneration of England is modest beside the authentic history of his deeds.

He endeavoured, he tells us, to gather all that seemed good in the old English laws, and adds: “I durst not venture much of mine own to set down, for I knew not what should be approved by those who came after us.” Not only did he codify and promulgate laws, but he looked, too, to their enforcement, and insisted that justice should be dispensed without fear or favour. He devoted his energies to restoring what had been destroyed by the long wars with the invaders. Monasteries were rebuilt and founded, and learned men brought from other lands. He brought Archbishop Plegmund and Bishop Wetfrith from Mercia; Grimbold and John the Old-Saxon from other Teutonic lands; Asser, John Scotus Erigena and many others.

He not only encouraged men of learning, but he laboured himself and gave proof of his own learning. He translated into Anglo-Saxon: “The Consolation of Philosophy” of Boëthius; “The History of the World” of Orosius; the “Ecclesiastical History” of Bede, and the “Pastoral Rule” and the “Dialogues” of St. Gregory the Great. The “Consolation of Philosophy” he not only translated but adapted, adding much of his own. The “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,” the record of the English race from the earliest time, was inspired by him.

BOWKER, Editor, Alfred the Great (London, 1899); PLUMMER, Life of Alfred the Great (London, 1902); SCHMID, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, 2d ed. (1858). Contemporary authorities are the Life of Alfred by ASSER and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. These and the later accounts by ETHELWERD, SIMEON OF DURHAM, etc. can be conveniently studied in CONYBEARE, Alfred in the Chroniclers (1900). For Alfred’s writings see BOSWORTH, The Works of Alfred the Great (Jubilee edition, 1858, 2 vols.). Alfred’s laws are printed in LIEBERMANN’S Laws of the Anglo-Saxons (1903). Among modern accounts see PAULI, Life of Alfred the Great. tr. WRIGHT (1852); LAPPENBERG, England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, tr. from the German by THORPE (1881), II; LINGARD, History of England, I; KNIGHT, Life of King Alfred (1880). For a literary appreciation, see BROOKE, History of English Literature to the Norman Conquest (London and New York, 1878).

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE

St. Alfrida

Virgin, and recluse, c. 795. This saint, whose name is variously written Elfthritha, Ælfleda, Æfthryth, Alfritha, Etheldreda, etc., was a daughter of King Offa of Mercia. According to a late and not very trustworthy legend she was betrothed to St. Ethelbert, King of the East Angles, but when he came to the court of Offa to claim her, he was treacherously murdered by the contrivance of Cynethritha, Offa’s queen. After this Alfrida retired to the marshes of Crowland, where she was built into a cell and lived as a recluse to the end of her days. It is impossible not to suspect the existence of some confusion with Ælfleda, another daughter of Offa, whose husband was also murdered by treachery.

Acta SS., 2 August; STUBBS in Dict. Christ. Biog., II, 82, s.v. Elfthritha; ibid., 215 s.v. Ethelbert; DUNBAR, Dict. of Sainted Women, I, 44; STANTON, Menology, 221. For BROMPTON’S account see the BOLLANDISTS and the works of GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS, III, 411–420.

Herbert Thurston.

St. Alfwold

Bishop of Sherborne, in Dorsetshire; d. 1058. Alfwold, or Ælfwold, is a rather obscure English saint of whom we know little beside the few details preserved by William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont., Bk. II, § 83). Alfwold had been a monk of Winchester, and was consecrated Bishop of Sherborne in 1045, succeeding his own brother Brightwy. He gave great edification by the frugality of his way of life, which was in marked contrast to the riotous banquetings which the example of the Danish monarchs had rendered popular at that epoch. he was very devout to St. Swithun, his old patron of Winchester, and also to St. Cuthbert, to whose shrine at Durham he made a pilgrimage. He died while singing the antiphon of St. Cuthbert. He was , strictly speaking , the last Bishop of Sherborne, for after his death the see of Sherborne was united to that of Ramsbury.

Acta SS., 25 March, III; STANTON, English Menology (London, 1892), 134.

Herbert Thurston

Alger of Liége

Acute accent in original.

A learned French priest, b. at Liége, about 1055; d. at Cluny, 1132. He studied at Liége and was appointed Deacon of St. Bartholomew’s. About 1100, he was made Canon of the cathedral of St. Lambert, where he remained for twenty years. In 1121, he retired to the Monastery at Cluny, and died there. He was well known as an ecclesiastical writer. A treatise directed against the heresy of Berengarius, “De sacramento corporis et sanguinis Domini” was highly esteemed by Peter of Cluny and Erasmus. He also wrote “De misericordia et justitia,” extracts from the Fathers with brief commentaries on them; a work on Free Will, and one on the “Sacrifice of the Mass.” This is contained in the “Collectio Scriptorum Veterum” of Angelo Mai.

De sacramentis corporis et sanguine Domini (Louvain, 1847; Innsbrück, 1878); De misericordia et justitia, in MARTÈNE’S Thesaurus Anecdotorum (Paris, 1717), also in the collections of the brothers Pez, and also in MABILLON, P.L., 166; 1339.

JOHN J. BECKET

Diocese of Alghero

An Italian diocese comprising twenty-two communes in the province of Sassari, and four in that of Cagliari, Archdiocese of Sassari. The city was built by the Doria of Genoa in 1102. In 1106 John, Bishop of Alghero, assisted at the consecration of the Church of the Trinity in Sacargia. After a long period of decandence, the see was renewed and confirmed by Julius II in his Bull of 1503. Pietro Parens, a Genoese, became bishop; he was present at the Lateran Council in 1512, from the first to the seventh session. It contains 20 parishes, 71 secular priests, 54,300 inhabitants.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), XIII, 141; GAMS, Series episcoporum ecclesiæ catholicæ (Ratisbon, 1873), 832; MATTHÆI, Sardinia Sacra (Rome, 1758), 171.

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Archdiocese of Algiers

(ICOSIUM)

Archdiocese comprising the province of Algeria in French Africa. Its suffragans are the Sees of Oran and Constantine.

In 1632, several missions were established in Algeria; soon after, an apostolic-vicar was installed there, who, towards the end of the seventeenth century had under him the pro-vicar of Tunis and the prefect of Tripoli. The episcopal See of Algiers, founded in the second century at Icosium did not survive the Arabic conquest. It was re-established in 1838 as a suffragan of the Archdiocese of Aix. Mgr. Antoine Adolph Dupuch (d. 1856) was its first bishop until 1845, when he resigned and was succeeded by Mgr. Antoine Pavy (1846–66). On the death of the latter, Algiers become an archdiocese, with two newly-created sees (1867), Oran and Constantine, for suffragans. Mgr. Charles Martial Allemand Lavigerie, Bishop of Nancy, become its first archbishop (d. 1893).

The church of Algiers honours in a special manner the memory of several holy confessors of the Order of Our Lady of Mercy for the Redemption of Captives founded in 1232 by St. Peter Nolasco. Among them are St. Peter Armengaud (thirteenth century), confessor at Algiers. It cherishes also a particular veneration for the memories of Blessed Raymond Lully who died at Bougie in 1325, and the Venerable Geronimo, buried alive at Algiers in 1569.

The Diocese of Algiers contained (end of 1905), 230,843 inhabitants of European birth (exclusive of the army), 8 first-class; 101 second-class parishes and 25 vicariates, formerly with State subventions. There were also 24 auxiliary priests.

Dupuch, Fastes de l’Afrique chretienne (Bordeaux, 1849); Grussenmeyer, Vingt-cinq annees d’episcopat en France, et en Afrique: documents biographiques sur le Cardinal Lavigerie (Algiers, 1888); Chevalier, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894–99), 52.

GEORGES GOYAU

Algonquins

The Indians known by this name were probably at one time the most numerous of all the North American tribes. Migrations, inter-marriages, political alliances, wholesale absorption of captives and desertions, however, make it impossible to fix the tribal limits with any degree of exactness; yet the Algonquins may be said to have roamed over the country from what is now Kentucky to Hudson Bay, and from the Atlantic to the Mississippi and perhaps beyond. The Micmacs, Abenakis, Montagnais, Penobscots, Chippewas, Mascoutens, Nipissings, Sacs, Pottowatomies, and Illinois, the Pequods of Massachusetts, the Mohegans of New York, the Lenapes of Pennsylvania and Delaware, with many other minor tribes, may be classed among them. Linguistically and physically they have many unmistakable traits in common. John Eliot and Cotton Mather had a very poor idea of them and spoke of their condition as “infinitely barbarous.” The early French missionaries gave more flattering accounts of their intellectual power, their poetry, their oratory, their nobility of character, and even their mechanical skill. In his “Indian Tribes of the United States,” though referring to somewhat more modern Indians, Drake rather shares the latter view, at least with regard to the Algonquins of Lake Superior. The name Algonquin seemed to be a general designation, and it is not certain that they were united in a confederation at least in one as compact and as permanent as that of the Iroquois, who supplanted and crushed them. Whatever union there was had given way before the whites arrived. It is regarded as one of the mistakes of Champlain that he espoused the cause of the Algonquins, whose power was not only waning but who were actually vassals of the Iroquois, and made war against the Iroquois, their enemies; a policy which, besides, threw the Iroquois with the English and resulted in so many bloody wars. In his Preface to the “Jesuit Relations,” Thwaites is of the opinion that they have made a larger figure in our history than any other family, because through their lands came the heaviest and most aggressive movement of white population, French and English; but it is now believed that the number was never so great as was at first estimated by the Jesuit Fathers and the earliest English colonists. A careful modern estimate is that the Algonquins at no time numbered over 90,000 souls and possibly not over 50,000. But as the actual number of Algonquins now living is in excess of that, it is more than likely that the early missionaries did not exaggerate and that there may have been nearly a quarter of a million of them, as some moderns still claim. The missions among them began with the Micmac tribe of Nova Scotia and the Abenakis of Main. The work at Tadoussac was contemporaneous with the first attempt at colonization; it extended north as far as Hudson Bay, and along the St. Lawrence and Ottawa to the Great Lakes on whose shores the Algonquins were found, sometimes living with the Hurons who were kinsmen of the Iroquois. The Chippewas, whom Raymbault and Jogues visited at Sault Ste. Marie in 1641, were Algonquins as were those whom Allouez later gathered together in his famous mission of La Pointe on Lake Superior. The Algonquin language has been more cultivated than any of the other North American tongues. Its sounds are not difficult to catch, its vocabulary is copious and its expressions clear. The early missionaries called it the “Indian court language.” It was the most widely diffused and most fertile in dialects of all the Indian tongues. “It was spoken, though not exclusively,” says Bancroft, “in a territory that extended through sixty degrees of longitude and more than twenty degrees of latitude.” This facilitated to some extent the work of the missionaries. Eliot translated the Bible into Algonquin and Father Rasle (q.v.) left an Abenaki Dictionary which is the possession of Harvard University. In recent days, Bishop Baraga (q.v.) of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, has written a remarkable series of works such as the Ojibway Catechism, prayer book, hymn book, extracts from the Old and New Testament, the Gospels of the year, and a grammar and dictionary. They regarded Manabozho, or the Great Hare, as their ancestor, and the tribe that bore his totem was entitled to the greatest respect. He was the founder and teacher of the nation, the creator of the sun and moon, and the shaper of the earth. He still lives in the Arctic Ocean. The Supreme Spirit they called Monedo, or Manitou, to whom they ascribe some of the attributes of God, but who does not judge or punish evil doing. Bad actions are not considered as committed against him. There is an evil spirit who has to be propitiated, and besides him are many others who bring all temporal misfortunes. Hence the universal superstition, magic, sorcery, and the like. According to one authority the number of Indians of Algonquin stock in 1902 was estimated at about 82,000 souls, of whom 43,000 are in the United States, the remainder being in Canada with the exception of a few refugees in Mexico.

Drake, The Indian Tribes of the United States: Jesuit Relations; Charlevoix, Histoire de la Nouvelle-France.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Diocese of Alife

A diocese made up of twelve communes in the province of Caserta, Archbishopric of Benevento, Italy. The name of a Bishop of Alife appears for the first time among the signatories of the Roman Synod of 499, in the time of Pope Symmachus (Clarus episcopus Ecclesiœ Allifanœ subscripsi -) “Monumenta Germaniæ Historica,” auct. Antiquiss., XII, 400. It contains 17 parishes, 60 priests, 23,890 inhabitants.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), XIX, 89; UGHELLI, Italia Sacra (Venice, 1722), VIII, 206; GAMS, Series episcoporum Ecclesiœ catholicœ (Ratisbon, 1873), 847; D’AVINO, Cenni Storici (Naples, 1820), 8.

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Alimentation

Support or maintenance. Aliment in a broad sense means whatever is necessary to sustain human life: not merely food and drink, but lodging, clothing, care during sickness and burial. A parent is bound to supply such aliment to his child, and this whether it is of legitimate or illegitimate birth; and, if the latter, whether it is the fruit of simple unlawful cohabitation, or of an adulterous, incestuous, or sacrilegious one. This is a duty imposed by the natural law, personal and real, since it not only binds the father himself but is a claim upon his estate. The husband owes aliment to his wife, and children owe it to their father and mother, and to other relatives who are in want. The Common Law of civilized countries determines all these duties. By the religious profession the professed is incorporated into his order, and has a right to aliment from it; becoming a son, so to speak, of his monastery, he acquires the rights of the son of a family in his father’s house. He retains this right even if he is shut up in another monastery to do penance there, or if he is expelled unjustly from his order; he is entitled to it while on trial for some charge, though this may result in his expulsion; but his sentence once pronounced and accepted, he can claim nothing from his monastery.

Clerics must be assured of something that will support them, since they cannot be promoted to major orders if they have no title guaranteeing them an honourable subsistence. As a matter of fact it has always been repugnant to the Church that one who exercises the holy ministry should have to beg his bread or practise some undignified calling. Formerly, no one was ordained even to minor orders who had not some ecclesiastical charge in a church which provided him with a suitable maintenance; the church for which he was ordained was called the “Tide of Ordination,” and he himself was said to be “titled” (Intitulatus). Later, after it had become the custom not only to give the tonsure, but also minor and major orders, without a title, Alexander III, in the Third Lateran Council, condemned bishops who should ordain deacons and priests without a title, to support such priests from the episcopal table if they came to want. Innocent III extended this discipline to subdeacons, and it is since this that the “title of ordination” is exacted only for the major orders. The Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, ch. 2, “De ref.,” maintained the necessity for the “title of ordination,” and recognized three: a benefice, a patrimony, and a fixed income. Title in general is something that assures support for life to a cleric promoted to major orders. Even religious must receive some such assurance when they are ordained. Religious of solemn vows are ordained under the “Title of Poverty,” or of “Religious Profession,” and this assures them permanent support from the revenues of the monastery. Religious of simple vows are ordinarily ordained, by virtue of Apostolic indults, under the “Title of the Common Table,” which assures them due support from the goods of the congregation to which they belong. Should they, through an indult of secularization, be permitted to withdraw from their religious family, they may not do so until they have been accepted by some bishop and are provided with a title that offers them a respectable living.

Secular clerics will be secured against need when they are ordained, by the title of a benefice, patrimony, or stable income. By the title of a benefice the cleric promoted to major orders is provided with a perpetual ecclesiastical office, the revenue from which suffices for his proper support. By the title of patrimony, the ordained clerk, having personal property gives a guarantee to his bishop that, in case he should not be provided with an ecclesiastical benefice, he can support himself fitly for life out of his own fortune. By the title of pension, or stable provision, some one pledges himself to provide for the priest ordained, should he fall into indigence. These three titles do not avail in missionary countries, either because there are no ecclesiastical benefices in such regions, or that personal fortunes are rare, or that there are few willing to bind themselves to supply permanent support for a cleric. This is why the Congregation of Propaganda, in a celebrated instruction sent to countries dependent on it, permits bishops to ordain priests under “title of the mission.” By this title, the acolyte before receiving the subdeaconship, promises under oath, that, once ordained, he will not enter any religious order or congregation, without permission of Propaganda, and that he will live in the diocese under the jurisdiction of the bishop, employing himself in the service of the mission. The clerk so ordained is a charge on the diocese for which he has been ordained, which assures him a respectable support if through infirmity or incapacity he chance to fall into poverty. It should be remarked here that a priest ordained under the title of the mission has a right to his support, even when, through his own fault, he has become unworthy of filling an ecclesiastical position. The Congregation of Propaganda in a response to the Bishop of Natchez, 4 February, 1873, shows clearly that the priest cannot be deprived of his means of support, unless, after repeated warnings, he refuses to amend, and falls into contumacy. Grave offences committed by him such as may even justify his deposition from office, will not warrant the bishop in refusing him means of support. He will, of course, have no right to the pension from the benefice from which he has been deposed, but should he wish to amend, the Church, like a compassionate mother, instead of turning him into the street will supply him with his daily bread, and will endeavour to bring him to a realization of his evil courses and consequent penance.

This obligation of providing for priests ordained under “title of the mission” creates a somewhat heavy burden for dioceses. In these countries, especially the United States and Canada, the bishops have been forced to devise some way of satisfying this demand of their pastoral charge. In virtue of a special power of the Congregation of Propaganda, they can grant to the priest or missionary who resigns his parish or mission, on account of infirmity, a pension drawn from the revenues of the parish or mission, to be paid by his successor in it. For a priest to have a claim to such pension,

he must have resigned because of infirmity;

he must have been ten years in the parish or mission; and

the pension must not exceed a third of the revenues of the parish or mission.

Moreover, bishops have encouraged among the priests the foundation of “Clerical Funds,” whose purpose is to afford pecuniary assistance during their life to members who become infirm and consequently incapable of fulfilling an ecclesiastical charge. Priests in good health belonging to the diocese enter into these societies, and the members contribute something every year to the “Clerical Fund.” The society is administered by a bureau of which it is customary for the bishop to be the president, while the directors are priests chosen by members of the society. The amount disbursed to needy members depends on the contributions received and varies with different places. As fallen priests who have repented cannot be abandoned, the bishops provide for them either by founding houses of retreat in which they can do penance, or by sending them to monasteries, where, under the watchful care of holy religious they may, by reflecting on the sanctity of their state, cause the grace of ordination to revive.

PUTZER, Commentatium in fac. apostol. (5th ed. 1898), num. 211; Conc. Baltimorense III, dec. De sacerdot. infirmis et lapsis; GASPARRI, De Sacra Ordinatione (1893), I, n. 584 sqq.; FERRARIS, Biblioth. Canon, s. v. Alimenta.

JOSEPH N. GIGNAC

Alimony

(Lat., alimonia, nutriment, from alere, to nourish)

In the common legal sense of the word, alimony is the allowance which by order of the court a husband pays to his wife for her maintenance while she is living separately from him, or the allowance or provision ordered by the court to be paid by her former husband to a divorced woman. There are two kinds of alimony, the one kind, alimony pendente lite, being an allowance to the wife pending a suit between herself and her husband, and the other the allowance or provision after suit, and which is known as permanent alimony. Exclusive jurisdiction of matrimonial causes was in England formerly vested in ecclesiastical courts. These courts, notwithstanding the English common law, by which the property of a wife became on marriage the property of her husband, assigned to a wife who was compelled to live apart from her husband a portion of his income for her maintenance or alimony. Regulating their action by the canon law, these courts confined themselves to two general classes of matrimonial cases: suits for separation (divorce a mensâ et toro), and suits to have a marriage declared void from the beginning. Alimony pendente lite might be allowed in a suit belonging to either class, but permanent alimony in a suit for separation only. For, being incidental to marriage, alimony was not allowed in a decree declaring a marriage to have been void from the beginning. Non-payment by the husband subjected him to excommunication, a judgment of the ecclesiastical court which the executive department of the civil government enforced through its officer, the sheriff, to whom was issued the writ de excommunicato capiendo, reciting that “potestas regia sacrosanctæ ecclesiæ in querelis suis deesse non debet” (Registrum omnium brevium, 65). And so it is said that under the appellation of estovers, collection of alimony was enforced through writ de estoveriis habendis. In 1857, jurisdiction in matrimonial cases was taken by statute from the ecclesiastical courts, and the court of divorce and matrimonial causes, with power to grant absolute divorce, was established. In none of the states of the United States have matrimonial cases been confided to ecclesiastical courts. The courts in the several states having jurisdiction to award alimony in matrimonial cases and the circumstances under which it may be awarded are to be ascertained from the constitution, the statutes, and the decisions of the courts of each state. By the ancient Roman law there was allowed on behalf of a pupil against an unfaithful tutor or curator a proceeding in which the pupil might obtain what has been termed alimony. In this proceeding it became the prætor’s duty to fix the character and amount of the pupil’s expenses, “decernere alimenta,” “and if,” remarks Cumin (“A Manual of Civil Law “, 2d ed., London, 1865, 79), “the tutor appeared and falsely alleged that the pupil’s means would not allow alimony to be decreed, he would be removed as suspectus and delivered to the Prœfectus urbis for punishment.” The Civil Code of the State of Louisiana contains a very broad definition of alimony as a claim for support. The term has been used in English literature in the general sense of nourishment. Thus, Jeremy Taylor refers to the Sacraments being considered “spiritual alimony.” See “A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles,” by J. A. H. Murray, Oxford, New York, 1888, s. v. “Alimony.”

BLACKSTONE, Commentaries on the Laws of England, I. xv, 441, III, vii, 94 (Philadelphia, 1869); KENT, Commentaries on American Law, Part IV, xxvii, 99 (Philadelphia, 1889); Manby et al. vs. Scott, 1 LEVINZ Rep. 4 (Salkeld’s tr.); ANON., 2 SHOWER’S Rep. 282; BISHOP, New Commentaries on Marriage, Divorce and Separation (Chicago, 1891), I, § 1386 and note 1, II, §§ 855, 887, 925; BURN, The Ecclesiastical Law, (9th ed., London, 1842). 508, s. v. Marriage; PHILLIMORE, The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England (2d ed., London, 1895), 638, 642; MERRICK, Revised Civil Code of the State of Louisiana (New Orleans, 1900), art. 230; for Scotch law, WATSON-BELL, Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, (Edinburgh, 1890) s. v. Aliment.

CHARLES W. SLOANE.

Aliturgical Days

This term, though not recognized by any English dictionary has lately come into use as a convenience designation for those days on which the “liturgy,” i.e. the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist, is not allowed to be celebrated. The Term is warranted by modern Greek example (ἀλειτουργητικός, liturgia carens dies—Nilles, “Calendarium,” II, 743—though ἀλειτουργησία under the Empire commonly meant exemption from public burdens), and the conception is much more familiar among the Eastern Churches than in the West. In the Roman Rite, in fact, there is only one day in the year which is generally recognized as aliturgical. This is Good Friday, on which, as is well known, the Holy Sacrifice it not offered; since the so-called “Mass of the Presanctified” which takes its place contains no prayer of consecration, and the sacred Host which is consumed by the celebrant is one that has been consecrated on the preceding day. Strictly speaking, the Holy Saturday is also an aliturgic day in the West; for it is easy to show that the Mass which is now celebrated in the morning, after the blessing of the paschal candle and the font, belongs of right to the office of Easter Eve, and that in the early ages of the Church it was only celebrated after midnight at the close of the great Easter-vigil. In the Ambrosian Rite, still retained in the Church of Milan, all the Fridays of Lent are also theoretically aliturgical, and no Mass is celebrated on those days in the cathedral or the parish churches (see the sketch of Ambrosian practices in Magani, “L’Antica Liturgia Romana,” Milan, 1897, I). But the prohibition is evaded by many of the clergy who on these days say their Mass in convents and other privileged chapels where the Roman Rite is followed. In the Russian Orthodox Church at the present day the whole of the seven weeks preceding Easter are aliturgical, except the Saturday and Sunday of each week. Amongst these aliturgical days, however, certain differences are made, for on some of them the “service of the presanctified” (ἀκολουθία τῶν προηγιασμένων) is celebrated in the evening. These days are the Wednesday and the Friday of the first six weeks of Lent, a very few minor festivals, and the first three days of Holy Week. The feast of the Annunciation, whenever it falls, is a liturgical day but if it chances to coincide with Good Friday the feast is transferred to Easter Week.

Although we do not possess much which can be regarded as direct and clear evidence, there is every reason to believe that in early centuries of the Church aliturgical days were numerous both in East and West. In the beginning of things Mass seems to have been said only on Sundays and on the very few festivals then recognized, or perhaps on the anniversaries of the martyrs, the bishop himself officiating. To these occasions we have to add certain days of “stations” which seem to have coincided with the Wednesday and Friday fast then kept regularly throughout the Church. But there is considerable doubt whether the liturgy was always celebrated on these days of stations, and we have indications in Tertullian and other writers of a current of opinion which tended to regard the offering of the Holy Sacrifice as inconsistent with the observance of a true and serious fast. In Alexandria in the fifth century we have direct testimony of the observances on certain fast days of all the rites which belonged to the usual assembly of the faithful (synaxis), “with the exception of the celebration of the mysteries.” This probably points to some kind of Mass of the Presanctified. A letter of Pope Innocent I (401–417) to Decentius of Eugubium makes it clear that no Mass was said in Rome on Good Friday and Holy Saturday, and some writers have wished to draw the conclusion that the same was true of all Fridays and Saturdays throughout the year. In Spain Canon xxvi of the Council of Elvira (300) may be quoted as evidence that the faithful at that time fasted every Thursday evening to the Sunday morning, and that the liturgy was probably celebrated during the vigil of the Saturday night as the fast drew to its close. No doubt this practice followed the type of the Holy Saturday vigil. In the later centuries we can only be sure of certain isolated facts which argue considerable diversity of usage. Dom Germain Morin has shown that at Capua, in the sixth century, and also in Spain, Mass was celebrated during Lent only on the Wednesday and the Friday. It is probable that a similar rule, but including the Monday also, obtained in England in the days of Bede or even later (see “Revue Benedictine,” 1891, VIII, 529). At Rome we also know that down to the time of Pope Gregory II (715–731), the liturgy was not celebrated on Thursdays. In the East, Canon xlix of the Council of Laodicea (365?), laid it down “that it is not lawful to offer bread in Lent except on the Saturday and the Lord’s day,” while the Council of Constantinople (in Trullo), in 692, speaks explicity of the liturgy of the presanctified and appoints it to be celebrated on all days of Lent, except the Saturday, the Sunday, and the feast of the Annunciation.

MORIN, in Dict. d’arch. chret., I, 1218–20; NILLES, Calendarium Manuale (Innsbruck, 1897), II, 251–253; MALTZEW, Liturgikon (Berlin, 1902), 163–194; DUCHESNE, Christian Worship, tr. (London, 1903), 249; ALLATIUS, De Missa Presanctificatorum (Paris, 1646), 12; RAIBLE in Der Katholik (Mainz, Feb.—April, 1901).

HERBERT THURSTON

All Hallows College

An institution devoted to the preparation of priests for the missions in English-speaking countries. In the year 1840 a young priest, the Reverend John Hand, who lived with a Vincentian community in Dublin without being bound by their rules, began to take a deep interest in the evangelization of his countrymen in English-speaking lands; and recognizing the homesteads of Catholic Ireland as excellent seed-beds of apostolic workmen -as, in a very true sense, petits séminaires—he determined to consecrate his life to the foundation of a college destined exclusively for the education and equipment of missionaries. Such a project in the hands of one so young, unknown and penniless, seemed chimerical; but Father Hand placed his trust in Heaven and in the traditional generosity of the Irish race. His first step was to go to Rome. There he received from Gregory XVI a Rescript expressing the “fullest approbation of so holy an undertaking.” Upon his return, aided by O’Connell, he obtained from the Corporation of Dublin a lease of a stately mansion on the north side of the city, and with it twenty-six acres of land which in the pre-Reformation days had belonged to the Priory of All Hallows (All Saints). On the 1st day of November, 1842, with the advice and encouragement of the venerable Archbishop Murray, he formally opened the college and bestowed upon it its present appropriate name. For four years he continued President, directing the studies, establishing the finances, and organizing the professional staff. Then, worn out by solicitudes and labours, especially by the weary work of collecting funds from house to house in the city, and from parish to parish in the country, he died in the spring of 1846, leaving to others the legacy of an ample harvest. A lofty and Celtic ideal had attracted and stimulated Father Hand. He desired All Hallows “to be Apostolic, and to cease to exist, as soon as it ceased to be Apostolic.” He wished the professors to labour without stipend, and the students not only to be taught and boarded, but to receive every collegiate convenience, free of charge. The professors of the college throughout its history have been men of capacity and distinction, and men whose lives were according to Father Hand’s desire, modelled upon the teaching and the example of M. Olier and St. Vincent de Paul. Amongst those who gratuitously gave their services to All Hallows the following deserve special mention: Dr. Bartholomew Woodlock, Dr. Daniel Moriarty, Dr. Michael Flannery, Dr. Eugene O’Connell, Dr. George Conroy, Dr. James McDevitt, and Dr.Patrick Delany (Hobart), all of whom were elevated in course of time to episcopal rank. To these should be added Dr.Thomas Bennet, Provincial of the Carmelites; Dr. Sylvester Barry, now Vicar-General of Sandhurst; Monsignor James O’Brien, Rector of St. John’s College in the University of Sydney; Dr. John McDevitt author of the “Life of Father Hand”; Father Thomas Potter, and Mr. Henry Bedford, the last two distinguished converts and men of literary eminence. It has been the aim of the directors of All Hallows from the beginning to form missionaries of a practical type, men who would throw themselves with sympathy and zeal into the advancing civilization of the New World. In furtherance of this aim the studies, discipline, and general spirit of the college have been developed along certain definite lines. In an academic course of seven years three are devoted to physics, mental philosophy, languages, and English literature; the remaining four years to Sacred Scripture, history, liturgy, canon law, sacred eloquence, and the science of theology. Throughout the entire period there are classes in elocution and in modern and Gregorian music. Examinations, written and oral, are held twice each year, supplemented by monthly revisions. Prayer, the sacraments, conferences, retreats, and friendly advice are the means used in the formation of character. The students are encouraged to foster and strengthen the spontaneous spirit of piety, which is the heritage of most Irish children. They are also encouraged to develop health and manliness by outdoor exercises and recreations, such as football, hurling, hockey,handball, tennis, cricket, athletic competitions, and long walks. In 1892, in accordance with the wishes of the Irish Episcopate, the Vincentian Fathers undertook the direction of the college, receiving at the same time the co-operation of several of the former professors. Two of these—Dr. William Fortune, President for a quarter of a century and Dr. Timothy O’Mahoney, Dean for almost an equal period—fill respectively the senior chairs of moral and dogmatic theology. The entire teaching staff consists of fourteen professors, some of them Vincentians, some secular priests, and some laymen. From twenty to thirty students are ordained priests each year on the feast of St. John the Baptist, and sent to various parts of the English-speaking world. For instance, last summer (1905) thirteen were ordained for the Australian mission, one for New Zealand, two for South Africa, seven for different dioceses of the United States, three for Canada, and one for England. The diocesan destination of the missionaries varies each decade with the needs and advances of the Church; but, this fact apart, an easy computation shows that, during an existence of upwards of sixty years, All Hallows has sent about fifteen hundred priests to minister to the Irish “of the dispersion” in different parts of the New World. It is worthy of note that this supply of missionaries has been maintained during a period when Ireland herself possessed few educational opportunities, and while her population, under stress of famine and enforced expatriation, was dwindling from eight millions to half that number. At the present time about five hundred All-Hallows-taught priests, including two archbishops and twelve bishops, are scattered throughout Great Britain, the British Colonies, the United States, and the Argentine Republic.

See All Hallows in All Hallows Annual (Dublin, 1902); McDevitt, Life of Father Hand (Dublin, 1885).

THOMAS O’DONNELL

All Saints

A feast of the highest rank, celebrated on the first of November, having a vigil and an octave, and giving place to no other feast. It is instituted to honour all the saints, known and unknown, and, according to Urban IV, to supply any deficiencies in the faithful’s celebration of saints’ feasts during the year. In the early days the Christians were accustomed to solemnize the anniversary of a martyr’s death for Christ at the place of martyrdom. In the fourth century, neighbouring dioceses began to interchange feasts, to transfer relics, to divide them, and to join in a common feast; as is shown by the invitation of St. Basil of Caesarea (397) to the bishops of the province of Pontus. Frequently groups of martyrs suffered on the same day, which naturally led to a joint commemoration. In the persecution of Diocletian the number of martyrs became so great that a separate day could not be assigned to each. But the Church, feeling that every martyr should be venerated, appointed a common day for all. The first trace of this we find in Antioch on the Sunday after Pentecost. We also find mention of a common day in a sermon of St. Ephrem the Syrian (373), and in the 74th homily of St. John Chrysostom (407). At first only martyrs and St. John the Baptist were honoured by a special day. Other saints were added gradually, and increased in number when a regular process of canonization was established; still, as early as 411 there is in the Chaldean Calendar a “Commemoratio Confessorum” for the Friday after Easter. In the West, Boniface IV, 13 May, 609, or 610, consecrated the Pantheon in Rome to the Blessed Virgin and all the martyrs, ordering an anniversary. Gregory III (731–741) consecrated a chapel in the Basilica of St. Peter to all the saints and fixed the anniversary for 1 November. A basilica of the Apostles already existed in Rome, and its dedication was annually remembered on 1 May. Gregory IV (827–844) extended the celebration on 1 November to the entire Church. The vigil seems to have been held as early as the feast itself. The octave was added by Sixtus IV (1471–84).

BUTLER, Lives of the Saint; LINGARD, The History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church; BARING-GOULD, Lives of the Saints; BINDER, Allgemeine Realencyklopædie; BINTERIM, Denkwürdigkeiten; PROBST in Kirchenlex., KELLNER, Heortology, NILLES, Kalendarium Manuale untriusque Ecclesiæ.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN.

All Souls’ Day

The commemoration of all the faithful departed is celebrated by the Church on 2 November, or, if this be a Sunday or a feast of the first class, on 3 November. The Office of the Dead must be recited by the clergy and all the Masses are to be of Requiem, except one of the current feast, where this is of obligation. The theological basis for the feast is the doctrine that the souls which, on departing from the body, are not perfectly cleansed from venial sins, or have not fully atoned for past transgressions, are debarred from the Beatific Vision, and that the faithful on earth can help them by prayers, almsdeeds and especially by the sacrifice of the Mass. In the early days of Christianity the names of the departed brethren were entered in the diptychs. Later, in the sixth century, it was customary in Benedictine monasteries to hold a commemoration of the deceased members at Whitsuntide. In Spain there was such a day on Saturday before Sexagesima or before Pentecost, at the time of St. Isidore (d. 636). In Germany there existed (according to the testimony of Widukind, Abbot of Corvey, c. 980) a time-honoured ceremony of praying to the dead on 1 October. This was accepted and sanctified by the Church. St. Odilo of Cluny (d. 1048) ordered the commemoration of all the faithful departed to he held annually in the monasteries of his congregation. Thence it spread among the other congregations of the Benedictines and among the Carthusians. Of the dioceses, Liège was the first to adopt it under Bishop Notger (d. 1008). It is then found in the martyrology of St. Protadius of Besançon (1053–66). Bishop Otricus (1120–25) introduced it into Milan for the 15 October. In Spain, Portugal, and Latin America, priests on this day say three Masses. A similar concession for the entire world was asked of Pope Leo XIII. He would not grant the favour but ordered a special Requiem on Sunday, 30 September, 1888. In the Greek Rite this commemoration is held on the eve of Sexagesima Sunday, or on the eve of Pentecost. The Armenians celebrate the passover of the dead on the day after Easter.

BARING-GOULD, Lives of the Saints; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints (2 Nov.); LINGARD, The history and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church (reprint, London, 1899); GUMMERE, Germanic Origins (New York, 1892); BINDER, Allgemeine Realencyklopædie; BITERIM, Denkwürdkigkeiten; KELLNER, Heortologie (Freiburg, 1901), II, 180, 181; PROBST in Kirchenlex.; RINGHOLZ, Der hl. Odilo von Cluny (Bruenn, 18856); NILLES, Kalendarium Manuale utriusque Ecclesiæ (2d ed., Innsbruch, 1896).

FRANCIS MERSHMAN.

Allah

The name of God in Arabic. It is a compound word from the article, ‘al, and ilah, divinity, and signifies “the god” par excellence. This form of the divine name is in itself a sure proof that ilah was at one time an appellative, common to all the local and tribal gods. Gradually, with the addition of the article, it was restricted to one of them who took precedence of the others; finally, with the triumph of monotheism, He was recognized as the only true God. In one form or another this Hebrew root occurs in all Semitic languages as a designation of the Divinity; but whether it was originally a proper name, pointing to a primitive monotheism, with subsequent deviation into polytheism and further rehabilitation, or was from the beginning an appellative which became a proper name only when the Semites had reached monotheism is a much debated question. It is certain, however, that before the time of Mohammed, owing to their contact with Jews and Christians, the Arabs were generally monotheists. The notion of Allah in Arabic theology is substantially the same as that of God among the Jews, and also among the Christians, with the exception of the Trinity, which is positively excluded in the Koran, cxii: “Say God, is one God, the eternal God, he begetteth not, neither is he begotten and there is not any one like unto him.” His attributes denied by the heterodox Motazilites, are ninety-nine in number. Each one of them is represented by a bead in the Moslem chaplet, while on the one hundredth and larger bead, the name of Allah itself is pronounced. It is preposterous to assert with Curtiss (Ursemitische Religion, 119) that the nomadic tribes of Arabia, consider seriously the Oum-el-Gheith, “mother of the rain,” as the bride of Allah and even if the expression were used such symbolical language would not impair, in the least, the purity of monotheism held by those tribes. (Cf. Revue Biblique, Oct., 1906, 580 sqq.) Let it be noted that although Allah is an Arabic term, it is used by all Moslems, whatever be their language, as the name of God.

R. BUTIN

Diocese of Allahabad

Diocese; suffragan of the Archdiocese of Agra, India; is included between 28° and 30° north lat., and 77° and 88° long. East of Greenwich. It has an area of 150,000 square moles. East and west it is situated between the Archdioceses of Calcutta and Agra, and north and south between the Prefecture-Apostolic of Bettiah and the Himalaya Mountains and Nagpur. The mission dates its origin from 1669, when the Right Rev. Dr. Matheus de Castro, and Indian from Goa by race, and a Brahmin by caste, was entrusted by the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda with the spiritual care of the kingdom of the Great Mogul. This field of labour was, however, too vast, and the labourers too few. Hence it was that, by a decree of Propaganda, the Prefecture of Tibet and adjoining countries was erected, in 1703, and entrusted to the Capuchin Fathers of the March of Ancona (Marca d’Ancona) province. The Diocese of Allahabad is an offshoot of that prefecture, and its more or less complete history is as follows: The Vicariate-Apostolic of Patna (now Diocese of Allahabad) when founded was entrusted to the Capuchin Fathers. It was erected in 1845. The first vicar-apostolic was Dr. Anastasius Hartmann, O.M.C., who was nominated by Pope Gregory XVI. His consecration as titular Bishop of Derbe took place in the cathedral of Agra, 13 March, 1846. Dr. Hartmann remained at his post till 16 August, 1849, in which year he was appointed Administrator-Apostolic of Bombay. He took charge of the new office the same year, and held it till 1854, when he was made vicar-apostolic. He ruled over the destinies of the Bombay Mission till June, 1858. When Dr. Athanasius Zuber, O.M.C., who had suceeded Hartmann at Patna in 1849, resigned his office, the latter was nominated a second time Vicar-Apostolic of Patna, 24 January, 1860. The following year the provinces of Oudh were given by the Agra Mission to his vicariate. His death took place at Coorjee (Bankipore), 24 April, 1866. This zealous prelate, who spent ten hard years in organizing the Patna Mission, was born at Hitzkirch, a village in the canton of Lucerne in Switzerland, 24 February, 1803. He entered the Franciscan novitiate at the age of eighteen, and was ordained priest in 1826. As he had taught logic, natural philosophy, and theology for eleven years, he was deeply versed in those sciences and was quite in his element whenever any scientific subject was the tope of conversation. After Dr. Hartmann’s death, Father John Baptist of Malegnano became pro-vicar-apostolic. He was succeeded by Father Benedict of Assisi as administrator, in 1867. On 9 February 1868, Dr. Paul Josi, O.M.C., was elected Bishop of Rhodiopolis and Vicar-Apostolic of Patna. He was consecrated on 28 June of the same year, but was transferred in 1881 to the newly-erected Vicariate-Apostolic of the Punjaub. Dr. Francis Pesci, O.M.C., was chosen to take his place in the Patna Mission and consecrated on 14 August, 1881. On the establishment of the hierarchy in India by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII, 1 September, 1886, the Vicariate of Patna was constituted into the Diocese of Allahabad, of which Dr. Pesci then became the first bishop. On the 24th of February, 1887, the Papal Delegate, Monsignor Antonio Agliardi, solemnly proclaimed the establishment of the Catholic hierarchy in India, in St. Joseph’s cathedral, Allahabad, at a meeting attended by the vicars- apostolic of northern India. The same year, the newly-erected diocese parted with the districts of Darjeeling, Purneah, and the Pergunnas, in favour of the Calcutta Mission. The year 1890 was remarkable for two important events in the history of Allahabad. The first was the holding of the Diocesan Synod in the cathedral. The second was that the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda entrusted the mission to the Capuchin Province of Bologna, Italy. In 1892, the districts of Chupra, Mozafforpur, Darbhunga, Bettiah, and a part of the Bhagalpur and Munghyr districts, and the Kingdom of Nepal were made the Prefecture Apostolic of Bettiah and Nepal. On 9 July, 1896, Dr. Francis Pesci, Bishop of Allahabad, died at Lyon, France. Father Charles Gentili was chosen to be his successor, 29 March, 1897. He was consecrated on 29 June of the same year and transferred to Agra, 27 August, 1898. On the corresponding date of the following year, Father Victor Sinibaldi was nominated bishop, and consecrated, 30 November, 1899. His pastoral rule was short-lived, as he died, 5 January, 1902. On the 10th and 12th of November, 1903, the first General Congress assembled at Allahabad, at which were present two archbishops, one bishop, two administrators-apostolic, one prefect-apostolic, three superiors-regular, thirty priests, and more than 200 delegates. When Bishop Sinibaldi died, Father Petronius Gramigna ruled the diocese in the capacity of administrator, from 1902 to 10 August, 1904, when he was nominated bishop, and consecrated in St. Joseph’s cathedral, 18 October, 1904.

The Catholic population of the diocese is 8,800, out of a total of 38,174,000, mostly composed of Mussulmans and Hindus. Benares, the sacred city of the latter, and the centre of their religious activity, lies within the limits of the diocese. There are in the mission 22 Capuchin Fathers, 3 secular priests, 18 Christian Brothers, 2 Brothers of the Third Order of St. Francis, 74 nuns of the Institute of the B.V.M., 9 Loretto nuns, 7 sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis. There are six orphanages, male and female, with about 450 boys and girls. The number of educational establishments is 4, consisting of colleges, convents, high schools, boarding- and day-schools, with 1,468 pupils of both sexes.

Catholic Calendar and Directory of the Diocese of Allahbad; The Madras Catholic Directory; The Life of the Right Rev. Dr. Hartmann; Quadros Biographicos dos Padres Illustres de Goa.

MANOEL D’SA

Paul Allard

Archaeologist and historian, b. at Rouen 15 September, 1841, admitted to the bar and practised law for a short time in his native city, where he became a judge of the civil court. His literary and his historical tastes induced him to abandon his profession and devote himself to the study of the history of the Church in the first four centuries. He contributed frequently to the “Revue des Questions Historiques,” of which he became editor in 1904, and to various other publications. In 1874 he translated Northcote and Brownlow’s “Roma Sotterranea,” made many additions to it, and enriched it with valuable notes. An intimate acquaintance with Giovanni Battista De Rossi and his own studies along various lines, led him to undertake a history of the persecutions suffered by the Christians at the hand of the Roman authorities. The work was planned on very broad lines and executed with a remarkable degree of minuteness and finality. The author was well fitted for his task; his sympathies were Catholic and his reading extensive; he had a minute knowledge of Christian archaeology, especially in regard to the Roman Catacombs; he had studied the condition of the Christian slaves, and had a thorough acquaintance with epigraphy and the administrative and constitutional history of Rome. Above all he was well acquainted with the history and spirit of Roman law, and was competent to pronounce judgment on the delicate legal questions involved in the history of the relations between the Christian Church and the Roman State during the era of the persecutions. On this subject his researches have done much to elucidate difficult and debatable points, though his conclusions have not been generally accepted. The main idea of M. Allard’s “History of the Persecutions” is that the Christians were unjustly treated by the Roman authorities. He will not admit that there was any incompatibility between the spread of Christianity and the permanence of the Roman Empire, though the acceptance of Christianity by the people necessarily implied the final eradication of the old Roman cults and superstitions. The action of the Roman authorities he regards as ill-advised and brutal. Their treatment of the Christians arose from no reasons of statesmanship or adherence to tradtional policy, but was based entirely on low and unworthy motives. The causes of the persecutions he finds in the blind hatred of the Roman authorities against this “third race,” in fanaticism, popular fury, or, as in the case of Maximus and Decius, very largely in private spleen. If any fault can be found with the work of Allard, it is that he appears too ready to accept as contemporary historical sources mere legends and traditions. He followed the example of Le Blant in thinking that most legends and Acta contained some kernel of truth. He is not sufficiently radical in his criticism of the “Acta Martyrum” and of other documents, e.g. the “De Mortibus Persecutorum,” of Lactantius, all the assertions of which he seems to accept as testimony of the first order. He leans too strongly to the side of conservatism, and the scientific value of many pages of his work is spoiled by his reluctance to deal unsparingly with dubious and spurious Acta and Passiones. Many instances of this kind might be pointed out, as for example the account of the death of St. Irenaeus, the story of Symphorosa, etc. These remarks, however, do not apply to his work on Julian the Apostate, in which he shows more discrimination in the use of his hagiographical material; it is consequently the most valuable of his writings. His principal works are “Rome souterraine” (Paris, 1874); “Les esclaves Chrétiens depuis les premiers temps de L’Eglise jusqu’a la fin de la domination romaine en occident,” (Paris, 1876); “L’art païen sous les empereurs chrétiens” (Paris, 1879); “Histoire des persécutions pendant les deux premiers siècles” (2d ed., Paris, 1892); “Histoire des persecutions pendant la premiere moitié du troisième siecle” (Paris, 1881); “La persecution de Diocletien et le triomphe de l’Eglise” (2 vols., Paris, 1890); “Le Christianisme et l’empire romain” (Paris, 1896); “Etudes d’histoire et d’archeologie” (Paris, 1898); “St. Basile” (ibid., 1899); “Julien l’apostat,” 2 vols. (ibid, 1900).

PATRICK J. HEALY

Leo Allatius

(Alacci).

A learned Greek of the seventeenth century, b. on the island of Chios in 1586, and d. at Rome, 19 January, 1669. He entered the Greek college at Rome in 1600, spent three years in Lucania with his countryman, Bishop Bernard Giustiniani, and then returned to Chios where he proved of great assistance to the Latin Bishop, Marco Giustiniani. In 1616, he received the degree Doctor of Medicine from the Sapienza, was made Scriptor in the Vatican Library, and later, professor of rhetoric at the Greek College, a position which he held for only two years. Pope Gregory XV sent him to Germany, in 1622, to bring to Rome the Palatinate library of Heidelberg, which Maximilian had presented to the Pope in return for war subsidies, a task which he accomplished in the face of great difficulties. In the death of Gregory XV (1623) Allatius lost his principal patron; but with the support of influential churchmen, he continued his researches especially upon the Palatinate manuscripts. Alexander VII made him custodian of the Vatican library in 1661, where he remained till his death. With untiring energy Allatius combined a vast erudition, which he brought to bear upon literary, historical, philosophical, and theological questions. He laboured earnestly to effect the reconciliation of the Greek Church with that of Rome and to this end wrote his most important work, “De Ecclesiae Occidentalisatque Orientalis perpetua consensione” (Cologne, 1648), in which the points of agreement between the Churches are emphasized, while their differences are minimized. He also edited or translated into Latin the writings of various Greek authors, corresponded with the foremost scholars of Europe, contributed as editor to the “Corpus Byzantinorum” (Paris), and arranged for the Publication of a “Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum.” He bequeathed his manuscripts about 150 volumes) and his correspondence (over 1,000 letters) to the library of the Oratorians in Rome.

GRADIUS, Life in MAI, Bibliotheca Nova Patrum (Rome, 1853), VI; LEGRAND, Bibliographie hellenique du XVII siecle (Paris, 1893); THEINER, Die Schenkung der Heidelb. Bibl. (Munich, 1844); LAMMER, DeLeonis Allatii Codicibus (Freiburg, 1864); HERGENROTHER, in Kirchenlex.

FRANCIS W. GREY

Joseph Allegranza

A Milanese Dominican who won distinction as a historian, archaeologist, and antiquary, b. 16 October, 1715; d. 18 December, 1785. From 1748 to 1754 he made many researches in northern and central Italy and in France. When put in charge of the Royal Library at Milan, he made a catalogue of its contents, a work which was crowned, in 1775, by the Empress Maria Theresa. His works are: “Spiegazioni e riflessioni sopra alcuni sacri monumenti antichi di Milano” (Milan, 1757); “De sepulcris christianis in aedibus sacris.—Accedunt inscriptiones sepulcrales christianae saeculo septimo antiquiores in Insubria Austriaca repertae: item Inscriptiones sepulcrales ecclesiarum atque aedium PP. Ord. Praed. Mediolani” (Milan, 1773); “De Monogrammate D. N. Jesu Christi, et usitatis ejus effingendi modis” (Milan, 1773); “Opuscoli eruditi latini ed italiani” (Cremona, 1781); “Osservazioni antiquarie, critiche e fisiche, fatte nel regno di Sicilia” (Milan, 1781).

MANDONNET in dict. De theol. Cath.

WALTER DWIGHT

Antonio Allegri

Born in Correggio, a small Lombard town near Mantua, 1494; died 5 March, 1534. His name in history is that of his birthplace, but he is often called “The Master of Parma.” Following the custom of the time he latinized his name and signed himself Antonius Laetus. Details in the life of this great master are meagre. Even in 1542 Vasari found no traces of him, no sketch or portrait of him in all Lombardy. Correggio left no writings, had no teachers, no pupils, visited no great art centres, made no acquaintance with his contemporaries, and never sued the favour of the mighty. His father, it is said, was a small, well-to-do merchant, a good, pious citizen who gave his son an education and the opportunity to become the great artist he proved to be. An uncle “who painted but was no artist” (Dr. Meyer) had no influence on Correggio’s artistic life. From 1518 to 1530 he lived chiefly in Parma. In 1519 he married Girolama Francesca di Braghetis, of Correggio, who died in 1529. The next year the artist returned to his native town, where, during the next five years, he lived a simple, devout and contented life. He was buried in the Franciscan convent. He left a son, Pomponio, an obscure artist; and the Allegri family soon became extinct. Correggio’s genius unfolded itself in his native village; his few patrons were at Parma, and his only society was the lay Brotherhood of the Benedictines. He ranks with the greatest Italian masters, although some authorities incline to place him at the head of the Decadent or “Sweet” School of Italian painting. The early works of Correggio are “in the style of the Ferrarese School” (Jean Paul Richter); and later he was slightly influenced by Mantegna and Da Vinci. But his mature style is peculiar to himself and the principles of this art prevailed in painting and sculpture in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries over all Italy and France. Then there was a School of Correggio, and he had a host of imitators.

Correggio is the most skillful artist since the ancient Greeks in the art of foreshortening; and, indeed, he was master of every technical device in painting, being the first to introduce the rules of aerial perspective. Radiant light floods his pictures and is so delicately graded that it passes subtly into shade with that play of reflections among the shadows which gave transparency in every modulation. This is chiaroscuro. Even in Allegri’s earliest works it was prominent, and later he became the acknowledged master of it. His refined feeling made Correggio paint the nude as though from a vision of ideal beauty; the sensuous in life he made pure and beautiful; earthly pleasures he spiritualized, and gave expression to mental beauty, the very culmination of true Art. His angel pictures are a cry of “Sursum Corda!” The age in which he lived and worked was partly responsible for this; but his modesty, his retiring disposition, his fondness for solitude, his ideal home- life, his piety, and the fellowship of the Benedictine monks contributed far more to it. Correggio’s early works are simple and naïve; later, in some of his church frescoes, he is more conventional; but he always possessed a wondrous grasp of figures in perspective di sotto in su, and gave to them unparalleled movement and grace. He painted angels whose smile was that of happy human love and pictured men in “sublime bliss and in the extremity of great joyousness” (Richter).

Among Correggio’s greatest works are the noble frescoes in the church of St. Paolo, which rank with the best decorations done in the height of the Renaissance, though consigned to oblivion for two centuries; the frescoes in the cathedral; in the church of St. John; and in the convent of the Benedictine nuns—all of them in Parma. On seeing these frescoes Titian exclaimed: “Were I not Titian I should wish to be Correggio.” His easel pictures are in every great European gallery. Dresden possesses “The Reading Magdalen,” “The Nativity,” called “Die heilige Nicht” (the Holy Night), and three Madonnas. In the “Nativity” the light is made to radiate from the Holy Child and illuminate all the other figures and the whole of the picture, a wholly new proceeding in painting and original with Correggio. Concerning the “Reading Magdalen,” one of the most popular and most frequently copied pictures in the world, the prevailing idea among the critics is that it is not by Correggio. Morelli says: “It is most likely a Flemish work. It is painted on copper, and no Italian artist used copper before the close of the sixteenth century. Director Julius Meyer has already pronounced this picture spurious” [cf. “Italian masters in German Galleries” (London, 1833), 129–136]. The “Virgin Adoring the Infant Christ” (Uffizi) is an exquisite poem of motherhood, full of all that is tender and sweet in human sentiment. Other celebrated masterpieces are “The marriage of Saint Catherine” (Louvre); “Madonna in Glory” (Munich); “Danae” (Rome); “Madonna ‘del Latte’“ (St. Petersburg); “Ecce Homo,” “Madonna della Cesta,” and “Vierge au Panier” (National Gallery); “Madonna and Holy Infant,” called “Il Giorno” (Parma); “Noli me tangere” (Madrid); “Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane” (Apsley House, London); and the “Madonna del Coniglio,” or “the Zingarella” (Naples).

Italian Masters in German Galleries (London, 1883), 129–136. PUNGILEONI, Memorie Istoriche di Antonio Allegri detto il Correggio (Parma, 3 vols., 1817–21). This is still the standard work; one of immense research and scope. CROME AND CAVALCASELLE, A New History of Painting in Italy (London, 3 vols. 1886); Id., A History of Painting in North Italy (1871, 1879); MEYER, Correggio (Leipzig, 1871).

LEIGH HUNT

Gregorio Allegri

A member of the same family which produced the painter Correggio, born at Rome c. 1580; died 1652. He was attached to the cathedral at Fermo, as a beneficiary priest, and acted as chorister and composer. The attention of Pope Urban VIII was drawn to him through some of his motets and concerti, and he was appointed, 6 December, 1629, to fill a vacancy among the singers of the Papal Choir, a post which he held until his death. He reached the climax of his fame when he produced his nine-voiced “Miserere” for two choirs, the value of which depends almost entirely upon its execution, in particular upon certain traditional ornaments which give a peculiar, pathetic quality to many passages, but without which it appears to be a piece of almost hopeless insipidity. Allegri’s Christian life was in perfect harmony with his artistic occupation; he was, says Proske, “a model of priestly piety and humility, a father to the poor, the consoler of captives and the forsaken, a self-sacrificing help and rescuer of suffering humanity.” His published works consist chiefly of two volumes of “Concertini” (1618–19), and two of “motetti” (1621) all printed by Soldi of Rome. But many of his manuscripts are contained in the archives of Sta. Maria in Vallicella, in the library of the Roman College, and in the collection of the Papal Choir; and the library of the Abbé Santini contained various pieces by him, including “Magnificats,” “Improperia,” “Lamentazioni,” and “Motetti.”

J.A. VOLKER

Alleluia

The liturgical mystic expression is found

in the Book of Tobias, xiii, 22; then

in the Psalter; for the first time at the head of Psalm civ according to the Vulgate and Septuagint arrangement, but at the end of the previous psalm according to the Hebrew text as we have it; after that at the beginning of psalms of praise, as a kind of inviting acclamation, or at the end, as a form of glory-giving ovation, or at the beginning and end, as for the last psalm of all; then

in the New Testament, only in the relation of St. John’s vision of Divine service in Heaven as the worship-word of Creation (Apoc., xix).

In the old Greek version of the Book of Tobias, in the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew psalter, and in the original Greek of the Apocalypse it is transcribed Allelouia. In accordance with that most ancient transcription, our Latin Vulgate gives it as Alleluia in the Old Testament and in the New. Thus it was given in the earliest Christian liturgies of which we have record. Yet, in place of it, for liturgical use, by way of translation, the English Reformers put the form of words we now find in the Protestant Psalter and Book of Common Prayer. The revisors of the authorized Anglican version of the Bible have used the form Hallelujah in the Apocalypse xix, 3. To justify this form authors and editors of some recent English Protestant biblical publications have adopted a new Greek form of transcription, Hallelouia, instead of Allelouia. [See “New Testament in the Original Greek”; text revised by Westcott and Hort (Cambridge, 1881), and second edit. of “The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint,” by Sweete (1895). For change of form, compare Smith’s Dict. of the Bible (new edit., 1893) and Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible (1898–1904).] Alleluia, not Hallelujah, is the traditional Christian and proper English form of transcription. The accent placed as in our liturgical books over u marks its verbal analysis, as that clearly shows in the last line of the Hebrew Psalter: Allelu-ia. It is thus seen to be composed of the divinely acclaiming verbal form Allelu and the divine pronominal term Ia. So, preserving its radical sense and sound, and even the mystical suggestiveness of its construction, it may be literally rendered, “All hail to Him Who is!”—taking “All Hail” as equivalent to “Glory in the Highest,” and taking “Who is” in the sense in which God said to Moses: “Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel; WHO IS hath sent me to you.” As such, when was the expression introduced into the Hebrew liturgy?—Besides reasons proper to the text of the Psalter, and those drawn from a purely philological consideration of the word itself, the data of ancient Jewish and Christian tradition all point to the conclusion that it belonged, as a divinely authorized doxology, to the Hebrew liturgy from the beginning. As to when it was first formed, there seems much reason for holding that we have in it man’s most ancient formula of monotheistic faith—the true believer’s primitive Credo, primitive doxology, primitive acclamation. That in part would explain remarkable fondness for its liturgical use. As a rule she so uses it wherever joy, consequently triumph or thanksgiving, is to be emphatically expressed. As to the time of its use, in the Eastern Church it is heard at all seasons of the year; even in Masses for the dead, as it formerly was in the West. There, at present, in the Latin Roman Rite, our own, according to St. Gregory’s regulation referred to in his Office, from Easter to Septuagesima it never leaves the Liturgy, except for some passing occasion of mourning or penance, such as Mass and Office for the Dead, in Ferial Masses during Advent, on the feast of the martyred Holy Innocents (unless it fall on a Sunday), and on all vigils which are fast days, if the Mass of the vigil be said. But it is sung on the vigil of Easter (Holy Saturday) and on that of Pentecost, because on each of those vigils, in early ages, Mass was said at night, and so was regarded as belonging to the joyous solemnity of the following day. During Eastertime it is the characteristic Paschal note of varying parts of Mass and Office, constantly appearing at the beginning and end, and even in the middle, of psalms, as an instinctive exclamation of ecstatic joy. Calmet thus expressed the Catholic view of its traditional import when noting (in Psalm civ) that the very sound of the words should be held to signify “a kind of acclamation and a form of ovation which mere grammarians cannot satisfactorily explain; wherefore the translators of the Old Testament have left it untranslated and, in the same way, the Church has taken it into the formulas of her Liturgy or of the people who use it at any time or place what it may.

ALLELUIA IN GREEK LITURGIES

From the Temple, through the Coenaculum’s alleluiatic hymn of thanksgiving, the words passed into the service of the Christian Church, whose liturgical language, like that of the Septuagint and the New Testament, was at first, naturally, Greek. Of course its essential character remained unchanged, but, as an emotional utterance of devotion, it was profoundly affected by Christian memories, and by the spirit of the Christian Faith. To its original general significance was thus added a new personal sense as Paschal refrain and, with that, among holy words, a mystic meaning all its own. Even as a form of divine acclaim its force was intensified, the feeling it evoked deepened, the ideas it suggested widened and elevated, and, above all, purified under the spiritualizing influence of Christian thought. As that thought’s supreme expression of thanksgiving, joy, and triumph, “Alleluia” assumed a wider and deeper, a higher and holier, meaning than it earlier had in the liturgy of the Hebrew people. With such supreme Christian significance it appears in the earliest portion of the earliest liturgies of which we have written remains, in the so-called “primitive liturgies of the East.” These may be reduced to four, called respectively, and in the supposed order of their antiquity, those of St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement, and St. Chrysostom. The last, now more commonly known as that of Constantinople, is the normal liturgy of the Eastern Churches, used not only by the “Orthodox,” or Schismatic, but by the Catholic, or “United,” Greeks throughout the world. The Greek Liturgy of St. James is still used by the schismatic Greeks at Jerusalem on his feast day, and in its Syriac recension is the prototype of that of the Maronites who are Catholics. That of St. Mark, apparently the most ancient of all, is very often in verbal agreement with the Coptic Liturgy of St. Cyril and other similar forms, notably that of the Catholic Copts. The liturgy called that of St. Clement, though undoubtedly very ancient, seems to have never been actually used in any Church, so may be here passed over. Now, first glancing through the liturgy of St. Mark, as presumably the most ancient, we find this rubric, just before the Gospel: “Attend: the Apostle; the Prologue of Alleluia.”—”The Apostle” is the usual ancient Eastern title for the Epistle, which the “Prologue of Alleluia” would seem to be some prayer recited by the priest before Alleluia was sung by the choir or people. Then, for Alleluiatic anthem, comes the somewhat later insertion known as the Cherubic hymn, before the Consecration: “Let us who mystically represent the Cherubim, and sing the holy hymn to the quickening Trinity, now lay by all worldly cares, that we may receive the King of Glory invisibly attended by the Angelic orders: Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia!” In the next most ancient of these primitive Greek liturgies of the East, that known as the Liturgy of St. James, we find the following rubric:

PRIEST: Peace be with all.

PEOPLE: And with thy Spirit.

SINGERS: Alleluia!

Further on, immediately after the Cherubic anthem above noticed, there is the following beautiful invocation before the Consecration,

PRIEST: Let all mortal flesh keep silence and stand with fear and trembling and ponder naught of itself earthly; for the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Christ our God, cometh forward to be sacrificed and to be given for food to the faithful; and He is preceded by the Choirs of His Angels with every Dominion and Power, by the many-eyed Cherubim and the six-winged Seraphim who covering their faces sing aloud the Hymn: Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia!

Finally, in the ancient Greek Liturgy of Constantinople, we find the word used, as acclaiming expression to a kind of chorus, apparently intended to be repeated by the congregation or assistant ministers, thus:

V. The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble; the Name of the God of Jacob defend thee;

R. Save us, O Good Paraclete, who chant to thee Alleluia.

V. Send thee help from the Sanctuary; and strengthen thee out of Sion.

R. Save us, O Good Paraclete, who chant to thee Alleluia.

V. Remember all thy offerings; and accept thy burnt sacrifice.

R. Save us, O Good Paraclete, who chant to thee Alleluia.

Further on, when the choir has finished the Trisagion, we have the rubric:

DEACON: Attend!

READER: Alleluia!

The reading of the Apostle being concluded, the rubric gives:

PRIEST: Peace be to thee.

READER: Alleluia!

Then, when the catechumens have departed, after the “prayers for the faithful” before the Consecration, we have the Cherubic anthem, with its triple Alleluia for “Holy hymn to the quickening Trinity” as above in the Liturgies of St. Mark and St. James. These extracts will suffice to show that the word from the first has been as it still is used in the liturgies of the East and in our own day, a supreme form of Christian acclamation, or lyric cry, before, in the middle, and at the end, of the versicles and responses, and anthems and hymns. The only difference in regard to it between those of the East and West is that in the former it is still, as it seems at first to have been generally, used all through the year, even during Lent, and in Offices for the dead, as the Christian cry of victory over sin and death. Thus St. Jerome tells us it was sung at the obsequies of his sister Fabiola. With a kind of holy pride, in his own strong way he writes: “Sonabant psalmi et aurata temporum reboans in sublime quatiebat Alleluia.” (See Hammond’s Ancient Liturgies.)

T.J. O’MAHONY

Jean Allemand

A French priest and Orientalist, born 19 November, 1799; died 9 August, 1833. After his ordination he was made professor of Sacred Scripture in the Roman Seminary, Consultor of the Congregation of the Index, Censor of the Academy of the Catholic Religion, and editor of the “Annales des sciences religieuses.” He wrote on Purgatory against Dudley, and a warning against the hieroglyphic discoveries of Champollion (Rome, 1834).

A.J. MAAS

Edward Patrick Allen

Fifth Bishop of Mobile, Alabama, U.S.; born at Lowell, Massachusetts, 17 March, 1853. He made his college course at Mount St. Mary’s, Emmittsburg, Maryland, graduating 26 June, 1878, and then entered the seminary there for his theological studies. He was ordained priest 17 December, 1881, and remained at Mount St. Mary’s, as a member of the faculty, until early in 1882, when he was made an assistant at the cathedral in Boston, and later at Framingham, Massachusetts. In 1884 he returned to Mount St. Mary’s to assume the presidency of the college, which office he held until he was appointed Bishop of Mobile. He was consecrated at Baltimore, Maryland, 16 May, 1897. In 1889 Georgetown University conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Divinity.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Frances Allen

The first woman of New England birth to become a nun, born 13 November, 1784, at Sunderland, Vermont; died 10 September, 1819, at Montreal. Her origin, education, and environment were calculated to make her the least likely woman in the United States to take such a step. Her father was Ethan Allen the patriot, soldier of the Revolution, and pioneer of the state of Vermont, and an atheist. He married as his third wife a widow, Frances Montressor, 16 February, 1784, and Frances was born 13 November, of the same year. After Ethan Allen’s death, 12 February, 1789, Mrs. Allen, five years later, married Dr. Jabez Penniman. While not an atheist, like Allen, Dr. Penniman was sufficiently averse to religion to exclude every thought of it, as far as possible, from his stepdaughter’s mind. Notwithstanding this, her keen and inquiring intellect led to her acquiring such a knowledge of the Catholic religion that when she was twenty-one she asked leave of her parents to go to Montreal ostensibly to learn French, but in reality to become more familiar in a convent school with the belief and practices of Catholics. They consented, but first required her to be baptized by the Rev. Daniel Barber, a Protestant minister of Claremont, New Hampshire. She became a pupil of the Sisters of the Congregation of Notre Dame, at Montreal, in 1807. One day, a Sister requested her to place some flowers on the altar, recommending her also to make an act of adoration of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the tabernacle. When the young woman attempted to step into the sanctuary she found herself unable to do so. After three futile attempts, she was filled with conviction of the Real Presence, and fell upon her knees in humble adoration.

She was instructed and received baptism, her lack of proper disposition having rendered that conferred by Mr. Barber invalid. At her first Communion she felt within her an unmistakable vocation to the religious life. Her parents promptly withdrew her from the convent and sought by bestowing on the young girl every worldly pleasure and social enjoyment to obliterate the religious sentiments with which she was imbued. The pleasure and excitement of such a life did not distract her from the desire of a religious life, and as soon as the year, which she had consented to pass with her parents before taking any step in the matter, was at an end, she returned to Montreal and entered the Hôtel-Dieu, making her religious profession in 1810. The convent chapel was thronged, many American friends coming to witness the strange spectacle of Ethan Allen’s daughter becoming a Catholic nun. After eleven years of zealous life in religion, Frances Allen died at the Hôtel-Dieu, of lung trouble, 10 December, 1819.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

George Allen

Educator, born at Milton, Vermont, 17 December, 1808; died in Worcester, Massachusetts, 28 May, 1876. He was graduated at the University of Vermont in 1827, and admitted to the bar in 1831. Later, he studied theology, and was rector of an Episcopal church at St. Albans, Vermont, from 1834 to 1837. In 1837, he became professor of ancient languages in Delaware College, at Newark, Delaware, and in 1845, he held the same chair at the University of Pennsylvania, at Philadelphia, where he was afterwards professor of Greek. He became a Catholic in 1847.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

John Allen (I)

(1476–1534)

Archbishop of Dublin, canonist, and Chancellor of Ireland. He was educated at Oxford and Cambridge, graduated in the latter place, and spent some years in Italy, partly at Rome, for studies and for business of Archbishop Warham of Canterbury. He was ordained priest 25 August, 1499, and held various parochial benefices until 1522, about which time he attracted the attention of Cardinal Wolsey, whose supple and helpful commissary he was in the matter of the suppression of the minor monasteries. As such, his conduct, says Dr. Gairdner, “gave rise to considerable outcry, and complaints were made about it to the king.” He continued to receive ecclesiastical advancement, assisted Wolsey in his legatine functions, among other things “in the collusive suit shamefully instituted by the cardinal against the king in May, 1527, by which it was sought at first to have the marriage with Katharine declared invalid without her knowledge” (Gairdner). In the summer of the same year he accompanied the cardinal on his splendid mission to France, and finally (August, 1528) was rewarded with the archiepiscopal see of Dublin. At the same time he was made by the king chancellor if Ireland (Rymer, “Foedera,” London, 1728, XVI, 266, 268). He was relieved from asserting, against Armagh, the legatine authority of Wolsey by the latter’s fall (October, 1529). With the rest of the English clergy he had to pay a heavy fine (1531) for violation of the “Statutes of Provisors” and “Praemunire,” in recognizing the legatine authority of Wolsey, then, in the king’s eyes, a heinous crime, and a reason for the cardinal’s indictment. Allen wrote a treatise on the pallium, “Epistola de pallii significatione activa et passiva” on the occasion of his reception of this pontifical symbol, and another “De consuetudinibus ac statutis in tutoriis causis observandis.” He seems also to have been a man of methodical habits, for in the archives of the Anglican archdiocese of Dublin are still preserved two important registers made by his order, the “Liber Niger,” or Black Book, and the “Repertorium Viride,” or Green Repertory, both so called, after the custom of the age, from the colour of the binding. The former is a “chartularium” of the archdiocese, or collection of its most important documents, and the latter a full description of the see as it was in 1530. Archbishop Allen was murdered near Dublin, 28 July, 1534. As a former follower of Wolsey, he was hated by the followers of the great Irish house of Kildare (Fitzgerald), whose chief, the ninth earl, had been imprisoned by Wolsey in the Tower from 1526 to 1530, and again, by the King, early in 1534. Soon a false rumour spread through Ireland that the earl had been put to death, and the archbishop was killed in consequence of it by two retainers of his son, the famous “Silken Thomas” Fitzgerald. It does not appear that Lord Thomas contemplated the crime or approved of it. He afterwards sent his chaplain to Rome to obtain absolution for him from the excommunication incurred by this murder. Sir James Ware says of Allen (“Works,” ed. Harris, Dublin, 1764, ap. Webb, “comp. Of Irish Biogr.,” Dublin, 1878, 3) that “he was of a turbulent spirit, but a man of hospitality and learning, and a diligent inquirer into antiquities.” He belonged to the shifty and unprincipled class of which Thomas Cromwell (q.v.) was leader and mouthpiece, and he closed unworthily the series of the old Catholic archbishops of Dublin; his successor, George Browne, was a formal apostate and begins the list of the Protestant prelates of the Anglican Church in Ireland.

BRADY, Episcopal Succession in England, Ireland, and Scotland (Rome, 1876), I, 325 sqq.; GAIRDNER, in Dict. Of Nat. Biogr. (London, 1885); I, 305–307; WOOD, Athenae Oxonienses (ed. Bliss), I, 76; MEEHAN, in tr. DALY, Rise, Increase and Fall of the Geraldines, Earls of Desmond (Dublin, 1878), 53, 54; WARE, Annals of Ireland, ad an. 1534; COX, Hibernia Anglicana, 234; WARE, Irish Bishops (ed. Harris, Dublin, 1764), 347; BELLESHEIM, Gesch. D. kathol. Kirche in Irland (Mainz, 1890), II, 5, 6, 16, 17.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

John Allen (II)

Priest and martyr. He was executed at Tyburn in the beginning of the year 1538, because he refused to subscribe to the ecclesiastical supremacy of Henry VIII.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

William Allen

Cardinal; b. England, 1522; d. Rome, 16 Oct., 1594. He was the third son of John Allen of Rossall, Lancashire, and at the age of fifteen went to Oriel College, Oxford, where he graduated B. A. in 1550, and was elected Fellow of his College. In 1554 he proceeded M. A., and two years later was chosen Principal of St. Mary’s Hall. For a short time he also held a canonry at York, for he had already determined to embrace the ecclesiastical state. On the accession of Elizabeth, and the re-establishment of Protestantism, Allen was one of those who remained most stanch on the Catholic side, and it is chiefly due to his labours that the Catholic religion was not entirely stamped out in England. Having resigned all his preferments, he left the country in 1561, and sought a refuge in the university town of Louvain. The following year, however, we find him back in England, devoting himself, though not yet in priest’s orders, to evangelizing his native county. His success was such that it attracted notice and he had to flee for safety. For a while he made himself a missionary centre near Oxford, where he had many acquaintances, and later for a time he sought protection with the family of the Duke of Norfolk. In 1565 he was again forced to leave England, this time, as it turned out, for good. He was ordained priest at Mechlin shortly afterwards. The three years Allen spent as a missioner in England had a determining effect on his whole after life. For he found everywhere that the people were not Protestant by choice, but by force of circumstances; and the majority were only too ready, in response to his preaching and ministrations, to return to Catholicity. He was always convinced that the Protestant wave over the country, due to the action of Elizabeth, could only be temporary, and that the whole future depended on there being a supply of trained clergy and controversialists ready to come into the country whenever Catholicity should be restored. It was to supply this need that he founded the College at Douay since identified with his name. The idea first developed itself in his mind during a pilgrimage to Rome in company with Dr. Vendeville, Regius Professor of Canon Law in the University of Douay, in 1567. No doubt this was one reason why he thought of Douay as a suitable place for his new college; but it was by no means the only one. Douay was a new university, founded by Pope Paul IV, under the patronage of King Philip of Spain (in whose dominions it then was), for the special object of combating the errors of the Reformation; and, what is still more to the purpose, it was already under Oxford influences. The first chancellor, Richard Smith, was an Oxford man, as were several of the most influential members of the university at the time when Allen began. It was his ambition to perpetuate Oxford influences and traditions, and to make his new college practically a continuation of Catholic Oxford. A beginning was made in a hired house on Michaelmas Day, 1568. The means of support included, besides Allen’s private income, and other voluntary donations, a yearly pension of 200 ducats from the King of Spain, and later on one of 100 gold crowns a month from the Pope. The number of students grew rapidly. Often more were received than the income warranted, a course rendered necessary by the urgent state of Catholic affairs, which Allen met in the spirit of faith; and in the long run, means were never wanting. The names of Thomas Stapleton, Richard Bristowe, Gregory Martin, Morgan Philips, and others are still well known to English Catholics, and are themselves a sufficient record of the ability of Allen’s early companions, and of the work done at the college. Allen had the power of instilling his spirit into his followers. They lived together without written rule, but in perfect mutual harmony, working for the common cause. From the Douay press came forth a constant stream of controversial and other Catholic literature, which could not be printed in England on account of the Penal Laws. In this Allen himself took a prominent part. His writings are distinguished by extent of learning and theological acumen. One of the chief works undertaken in the early years of the college was the preparation of the well-known Douay Bible. The New Testament was published in 1582, when the college was at Rheims; but the Old Testament, though completed at the same time, was delayed by want of funds. It eventually appeared at Douay, in 1609, two years before the Anglican “Authorized Version.”

But the work for which Allen’s college is now most famous was not part of his original scheme, but an outgrowth from it. This was the sending over of missionaries to work for the conversion of England in defiance of the law, while the country still remained in the hands of the Protestants. There were practically no Catholic bishops left, and the Marian clergy were rapidly dying out. Granted that the Protestant rule was to continue indefinitely, the only method to save the Catholics from extinction was to send priests from abroad, and Allen was given “faculties” for all England to impart to them. They had to face a hard and precarious life, often persecution, the rack, or even death. When found out they could be convicted of high treason, for which the punishment was to be hanged, drawn and quartered. More than one hundred and sixty Douay priests are known to have been put to death, the great majority belonging to the secular clergy. Many more suffered in prison as Confessors for the Faith. Yet such was the spirit which Allen infused into his students that they rejoiced at the news of each successive martyrdom, and by a special privilege sang a solemn Mass of thanksgiving. And the success of the “Seminary Priests,” as they were called, was such that at the end of Elizabeth’s long reign it is said that the kingdom was still at heart more than half Catholic. In 1575 Allen made a second journey to Rome, where he helped Pope Gregory XIII to found another college to send missionaries to England. For this purpose possession was obtained of the ancient English hospice in the city, which was converted into a seminary. Returning to Douay, Allen found a storm gathering against the English and in 1578 they were expelled from the town. The collegians took refuge at the University of Rheims, where they were well received, and continued their work as before, Allen being soon afterwards elected canon of the Cathedral Chapter. In 1579 he paid his third visit to Rome, being summoned thither in order that he might use his unique personal influence to adjust the dispute between the English and Welsh students at the new college there. It was during this visit that he was appointed a member of the Pontifical Commission for the revision of the Vulgate. Up to this point the career of Allen had won the universal admiration and gratitude of English Catholics, for what he himself termed his “scholastical attempts” to convert England. Such was not, however, the case with his political labours to secure the same end, which may be said to have begun about this time, and were far less successful. The famous Bull “Regnans in excelsis” was issued by Pius V in 1570, deposing Queen Elizabeth, and releasing her subjects from their allegiance, but it did not take practical shape till seventeen years later, when preparations were made for the invasion of England by the King of Spain. Allen was then once more in Rome, whither he had been summoned by the Pope after a dangerous illness two years before. He never left the Eternal City again, but he kept in constant communication with his countrymen in England. It had been due to his influence that the Society of Jesus, to which he was greatly attached, undertook to join in the work of the English mission; and now Allen and Father Parsons became joint leaders of the “Spanish Party” among the English Catholics. The exhortation to take up arms in connection with the Spanish invasion, printed in Antwerp, was issued in Allen’s name, though believed to have been composed under the direction of Father Parsons. At the request of King Philip, Allen was created cardinal in 1587, and held himself in readiness to go to England immediately, should the invasion prove successful. In estimating the number of those who would be adherents to the scheme, however, Allen and Parsons were both at fault. The large majority of English Catholics, generously forgetting the past, sided with their own nation against the Spanish, and the defeat of the Armada (1588) was a subject of rejoicing to them no less than to their Protestant fellow countrymen. Allen survived the defeat of the Armada six years. To the end of his life he remained fully convinced that the time was not far distant when England would be Catholic again. During his last years there was an estrangement between him and the Jesuits, though his personal relations with Father Parsons remained unimpaired. In 1589 he co-operated with him in establishing a new English college at Valladolid, in Spain. The same year he was nominated by Philip II Archbishop of Mechlin; but, for some reason which has never been satisfactorily explained, the nomination, although publicly allowed to stand several years, was never confirmed. He continued to reside at the English College, Rome, until his death, 16 October, 1594. He was buried in the chapel of the Holy Trinity adjoining the college. The following is a list of his printed works: “Certain Brief Reasons concerning the Catholick Faith” (Douay, 1564); “A Defense and Declaration of the Catholike Churches Doctrine touching Purgatory, and Prayers of the Soules Departed” (Antwerp, 1565), re-edited by Father Bridgett in 1886; “A Treatise made in defense of the Lawful Power and Authoritie of the Preesthoode to remitte sinnes &c.” (1578); “De Sacramentis” (Antwerp, 1565; Douay, 1603); “An Apology for the English Seminaries” (1581); “Apologia Martyrum” (1583); “Martyrium R. P. Edmundi Campiani, S.J.” (1583); “An Answer to the Libel of English Justice” (Mons, 1584); “The Copie of a Letter written by M. Doctor Allen concerning the Yeelding up of the Citie of Daventrie, unto his Catholike Majestie, by Sir William Stanley Knight” (Antwerp, 1587), reprinted by the Chetham Society, 1851; “An Admonition to the Nobility and People of England and Ireland, concerning the present Warres made for the Execution of his Holines Sentence, by the highe and mightie Kinge Catholike of Spain, by the Cardinal of Englande” (1588); “A Declaration of the sentence and deposition of Elizabeth, the usurper and pretended Queene of England” (1588; reprinted London, 1842). Among the known ancient portraits of Cardinal Allen are the following: Painting formerly in refectory of the English College, Douay, found after the Revolution in the upper sacristy of the parish church of St. Jacques, now at Douai Abbey, Woolhampton; copy of same at St. Edmund’s College, Old Hall; painting formerly the property of Charles Brown Mostyn, Esq., now at Ushaw College, Durham; painting in archiepiscopal palace, Rheims; and a later one, representing him as an old man, at English College, Rome. Also a Belgian print, reproduced in “History of St. Edmund’s College,” and various reproductions of the above paintings.

Dodd, Ch. Hist. of Eng.; Lingard, Hist of Eng.; Knox, Hist. Introd. to Douay Diaries (1878); Idem, Introd. to Letters and Memorials of Card. Allen (1882); Pitts, De Angliæ Scriptoribus (1619); Memoir in Cath. Direct., 1807; Butler, Hist. Mem. of Eng. Cath. (1819); Gillow, Bibl. Dict. of Eng. Caths.; Dict. of Nat. Biog.; Major Martin Hume, Treason and Plot (1901).

BERNARD WARD.AUGUST ALLERSTEIN

August Allerstein

(Or Hallerstein).

Jesuit missionary in China, born in Germany, died in China, probably about 1777, and consequently after the suppression of the Society. His mathematical and astronomical acquirements recommended him to the imperial court at Pekin, where he won the esteem of the Emperor Kiang-long. who made him a mandarin, and Chief of the Department of Mathematics, a post he held for many years. He has given the world a census of China for the 25th and 26th years of the reign of Kiang-long. His list and the Chinese translation reached Europe in 1779. The work is precious for the reason that the Tatar conquerors objected to census-taking, or at least to census-publication, lest the Chinese might recognize their strength and grow restless. Another element of its value is that it confirms all the calculations of one of his predecessors, Father Amiot (q.v.) and affords a proof of the progressive increase of the Chinese population. In the 25th year he found 196,837,977 souls, and in the following year, 198,214,624. Allerstein’s census is to be found in “Déscription Générale de la Chine,” p. 283.

Michaud, Biogr. univ., s.v.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Thomas William Allies

An English writer b. 12 February, 1813; d. 17 June, 1903. He was one in whom the poetical vein was tenderly blended with the philosopher’s wisdom. His musings as a boy were uttered in poetry; conabar scribere et versus erat. From a very early age he loved books more than men, or rather he preferred to read of men rather than to deal with them. Circumstances, which fashion lives, but do not make them, played into his hands. For a long time he was an only child; at fourteen he went to Eton, and at sixteen was the first to win the Newcastle Scholarship. His lonely boyhood, his retired home at a country parsonage, and the lack of early companions tended to make him serious. He was born at Midsomer Norton, Somersetshire, England. His father, the Rev. Thomas Allies, was at that time curate of Henbury, in Worcestireshire, later Rector of Wormington, some twelve miles from Cheltenham. His mother, who died a week after his birth, was Frances Elizabeth Fripp, daughter of a Bristol merchant. The first act of father and mother after the birth was to thank God for their little son. The Rev. Thomas Allies married again, his second wife being Caroline Hillhouse, who took little “Tom” to her heart and loved him as one of her own children. He received his first lessons at the Bristol Grammar School and began there his early triumphs. Among his papers is recorded: “A Prize Essay, given by Sir John Cox Hippesley, Baronet, to Thomas William Allies, ages 12 years, and by him delivered before the Mayor and Corporation of Bristol, September 28th, 1825.” In 1827, at his own request, he went to Eton, though in after years he used to regret his early advent at that famous school. He was possibly too young to cope with his contemporaries, but at no period of his life could his mind have been young. There is a certain maturity about even his youthful poetry. At Eton he was in the house of the Rev. Edward Coleridge, who always remained his devoted friend. From Eton he passed to Oxford, taking his M.A. degree in 1832. Wadham was his college. His classical mind learnt classical speech at Eton and Oxford, for no writing of English or of any other spoken tongue can be acquired without a deep study of the ancients. Mr. Allies’s Latin prose has probably not been surpassed. He was not called upon to write Greek in the same way, but he feasted upon the Greek mind in its purest ideals. Pythagoras, he said, was the greatest of the Greek philosophers. Of modern languages he knew Italian in his youth as well as English; German, and French well, and he was thoroughly conversant with the literature of the three languages. He took Anglican orders in 1838, and began his Anglican career as Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London, Dr. Blomfield, a post exactly suited to his taste, bringing him in contact with many minds. In those days, however, it was premature to have Church principles. The outspoken expression of them on Allies’s part led him to a country preferment, and so, indirectly, to the Catholic Church. In 1840 he married the beautiful Eliza Hall Newman, daughter of an Essex squire, who offered a complete contrast to himself. She had her father’s tastes for horses and dogs, none for books. With the wife of his choice he retired to his Oxford parsonage, a capital living of L600 which Dr. Blomfield gave to him in fear of his Church principles. The real work of his life began in the quiet country. He bought the Fathers of the Church, both Greek and Latin, and began to study theology for himself, as he had not studied it on the University benches. The Fathers, especially St. Augustine, revealed to him the Catholic Church. Moreover, they revealed him to himself, and when he now set pen to paper it was to write prose. He thought to find Anglicanism in the Fathers, and his first book is the result of this delusion. It was entitled “The Church of England Cleared from the Charge of Schism,” published in 1846, a second and enlarged edition appearing in 1848. It gives the key-note of his lifelong labour and the whole question between Anglican and Catholic in a nutshell. As he perceived early in the day, the choice of the Royal Supremacy or Peter’s Primacy constitutes the kernel of the entire controversy.

In the endeavour to clear the Church of England from the charge of schism, he saw the faint glimmering of dawn leading to perfect day. In 1849 he published his “Journal in France,” which went so far as to say that for the Church of England to be reunited with Rome would be an “incalculable blessing.” Newman had left the Church of England in 1845, yet Allies plodded on without his “polar star.” The publication of the “Journal” caused a storm to burst over his head. The Bishop of Oxford, Dr. Wilberforce, called him to account sharply for the logical expression of his church principles. He has told the story of the struggle in his “Life’s Decision.” He broke with his Anglican career on the day of his conversion, for on that day, 11 September, 1850, he most certainly “chose to be an abject in God’s House rather than dwell in the tents of sinners.” He renounced his living, his occupation, his prospects, and, with a wife and three sons, faced the world without friends or resources. His sole riches lay in himself. Over and above his faith, he had his mind, which he dedicated to the cause of Catholic truth as soon as he had resolved the problem of how to live. The Hierarchy was re-established in England in 1850, and at that time, and during many subsequent years, there was no Catholic position in England. A man of letters and of mind was lost in a body which scarcely knew how to read and write. Mr. Allies took pupils at first and tried to utilize his splendid scholarship. Then, in 1853, he was nominated Secretary to the Poor School Committee, a board composed of priests and laymen, instituted in 1847 by the Bishops of England to represent the interests of Catholic Primary Education. About the same time he was appointed Lecturer on History to the Catholic University of Ireland. These two events made his career as a Catholic. He distinguished himself greatly in the cuase of education, particularly by furthering the work of Training Colleges and the system of religious inspection of primary schools. He was instrumental in setting up the Training College for Women at Liverpool, which has done magnificent work. Greater, even, was the distinction he won by the work which the scheme for a Catholic University in Ireland led him to compose. The idea fell through, but the lectures lived, and live on in “The Formation of Christendom,” of which Cardinal Vaughan said, “It is one of the noblest historical works I have ever read.” The Poor School committee and “The Formation of Christendom” ran on parallel lines in his life, each representing a period of some thirty odd years. Beginning in 1853, his connection with the Poor School Committee ended in 1890, when he retired on his full pension of £400. The opus magnum similarly ran over a lifetime, from 1861 to 1895, when the closing volume on “The Monastic Life” appeared. The friends of his mind were numerous and largely represented by the Oxford Movement, of which he was the last survivor. In 1885 Pope Leo XII created him a Knight Commander of St. Gregory, and in 1893 conferred upon him the signal favour of the gold medal for merit. He expressed his gratitude to the Pope in a letter composed in Ciceronian Latin. “Liceat ergo mihi,” he wrote, “pro summo vitae premio usque ad extremum halitum Verbum Tuum donumque gremio amplecti.” His great achievements were the books he wrote, for they were an alms to God of his whole being as well as of his substance. He outlived all his contemporaries. A biography of his inner mind from the pen of Mary H. Allies is in course of preparation. The following is a complete list of his works both before and after his conversion:—

Sermons, 1 vol. (1844); The Church of England Cleared from the Charge of Schism (1846); Journal in France (1849); The See of St. Peter, the Rock of the Church, the Source of Jurisdiction and the Centre of Unity (1850); St. Peter, His Name and His Office (1852); The Formation of Christendom, 8 vols. (1861–95); showing the philosophy of history from the foundation of the Church up to Charlemagne. Some of these volumns have sub-titles, which it has been found well to retain. Thus, The Christian Faith and Society, (vol. II); The Christian Church and the Greek Philosophy (vol.III); Church and State (vol. IV); The Throne of the Fisherman (vol. V); The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations (vol. VI); Peter’s Rock and Mohammed’s Flood (vol. VII); The Monastic Life (vol. VIII). Each volume is complete in itself. A Life’s Decision, ALLIES’S Apologia pro Vita Sua, was published in 1880, and has taken a high place in English Catholic literature. Two volumes entitled Per Crucem ad Lucem appeared in 1879. They contained, besides the Treatises on St. Peter, nine important essays on the Royal Supremacy and cognate subjects. These volumes and The Journal in France are now out of print. The two volumes on St. Peter have been re-published by the Catholic Truth Society, the smaller one at the express desire of Pope Leo XIII, to whom the book is dedicated. A Life’s Decision is in the second edition, which contains an important addition. Five volumes of the Formation have appeared in the popular edition; the three remaining volumes will follow at, it is hoped, no distant date.

MARY H. ALLIES

Joseph Franz Allioli

Born at Sulzbach, 10 August, 1793; died at Augsburg, 22 May, 1873. He studied theology at Landshut, was ordained at Ratisbon, 1816, studied Oriental languages at Vienna, Rome, and Paris (1818–20), became professor in the University at Landshut in 1824, and was transferred with the university to Munich in 1826, but owing to a weak throat he had to accept a canonry at Ratisbon. in 1835, and became Dean of the chapter at Augsburg, in 1838. His works are: “Aphorismen Über den Zusammenhang der heiligen Schrift Alten und Neuen Testaments, aus der Idee des Reichs Gottes” (Ratisbon 1819); “Häusliche Alterthümer der Hebräer nebst biblischer Geographie” (1821); “Biblische Alterthümer” (Landshut, 1825); “Handbuch der biblischen Alterthumskunde” (in cooperation with Grätz and Haneberg, Landshut, 1843–44); “Übersetzung der heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testaments, aus der Vulgata, mit Bezug auf den Grundtext, neu übersetzt und mit kurzen Anmerkungen erläutert, dritte Auflage von Allioli umgearbeitet” (6 vols., Nürnberg, 1830–35). This work received a papal approbation, 11 May, 1830.

HERGENRÖTHER in Kirchenlex.; WETZER UND WELTE, Konversations-Lexikon, 3 ed. (St. Louis, 1902); VIG., Dict. de la bible (Paris, 1895).

A.J. MAAS

William Allison

He was one of the English priests who were victims of the plots of 1679–80, and died a prisoner in York Castle about this time.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Allocution

Allocution is a solemn form of address or speech from the throne employed by the Pope on certain occasions. It is delivered only in a secret consistory at which the cardinals alone are present. The term allocutio was used by the ancient Romans for the speech made by a commander to his troops, either before a battle or during it, to animate and encourage them. The term when adopted into ecclesiastical usage retained much of its original significance. An allocution of the Pope often takes the place of a manifesto when a struggle between the Holy See and the secular powers has reached an acute stage. It then usually summarizes the points at issue and details the efforts made by the Holy See to preserve peace. It likewise indicates what the Pope has already conceded and the limit which principle obliges him to put to further concessions. A secret consistory of cardinals, as opposed to a public and ceremonious one, is a meeting of those dignitaries in presence of the Pope to discuss matters of great importance concerning the well-being of the Church. At these secret consistories the Sovereign Pontiff not only creates cardinals, bishops, and legates, but he also discusses with the cardinals grave matters of State arising out of those mixed affairs, partly religious, partly civil, in which conflict can easily arise between Church and State. In such secret consistories the cardinals have a consultative vote. When the Pope has reached a conclusion on some important matter, he makes his mind known to the cardinals by means of a direct address, or allocution. Such allocations, though delivered in secret, are usually published for the purpose of making clear the attitude of the Holy See on a given question. They treat generally of matters that affect the whole Church, or of religious troubles in a particular country where ecclesiastical rights are infringed or endangered, or where heretical or immoral doctrines are undermining the faith of the people. Most of the subjects presented to the secret consistory have already been prepared in the consistorial congregation, which is composed of a limited number of cardinals. These conclusions may be accepted or rejected by the Pope as he thinks proper. In matters of statecraft the Pontiff also takes counsel with those most conversant with the subject at issue and with his Secretary of State. His conclusions are embodied in the allocution. Among papal allocation of later times which attracted widespread attention from the importance or delicacy of the matters with which they dealt, may be mentioned those of Pius VII on the French Concordat (1802) and on the difficulties created by Napoleon for the Holy See (1808); those of Gregory XVI referring to the troubles with Prussia concerning mixed marriages, and with Russia over forcible conversions to the schismatical Greek Church; those of Pius IX concerning the attacks on the Pope’s temporal power, and of Pius X on the rupture with France occasioned by the breaking of the Concordat and the consequent separation of Church and State in that country.

DE LUCA, Prælect. Jur. Can. (Rome, 1897), II, BOUIX De Curia Romana (Paris, 1880); BINDER, Conversationlex, (Ratisbon, 1846).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Allori

(1) Angiolo di Cosimo

Called IL BRONZINO, an exceptionally able painter and poet, b. at Monticello, near Florence, in 1502; d. at Florence in 1572. He was a pupil of Raffaelino del Garbo and later of Jacopo da Pontormo, whom he assisted, and some of whose unfinished works he completed. Allori, who was the friend of Vasari, became court painter to the Medicean tyrant Cosimo I, Grand Duke of Tuscany. Among his brilliant series of portraits are those of Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio. A great admirer of Michael Angelo, his work shows that master’s grandiose influence. Among his religious, allegorical, and historical paintings the chief is the “Limbo,” or “Descent of Christ into Hell,” in the Uffizi. For Florentine public buildings Allori executed various works. Some of his most notable paintings in public galleries are “Young Sculptor,” “Boy with a Letter,” “A Lady,” and “Ferdinando de’ Medici,” in the Uffizi; “The Engineer,” at the Pitti Palace; “Cosimo I,” “Knight of St. Stephan,” “A Lady,” and “Venus, Cupid, Folly, and Time,” in the National Gallery in London, the last two painted for Francis I of France; “Christ Appearing to Mary Magdalen,” in the Louvre; the “Dead Christ,” in the Florence Academy; and “Venus and Cupid,” at Buda-Pesth. In the galleries of Vienna and Dresden appear portraits of his patron, Cosimo, accompanied by the Duchess Eleonora. Similar portraits are found at Lucca in both the Royal Palace and the Communal Gallery, and in Rome in the palace of the Borghese. The duchess is also represented at the Uffizi.

(2) Allessandro Allori

A nephew of (1), b. at Florence, 1535, d. there 1607, was an artist of much ability and was patronized by the Grand Duke Francesco.

(3) Cristofano Allori

Allessandro’s son, known as BRONZINO THE YOUNGER, b. at Florence, 1577, d. there 1621, a pupil of his father, of Santo di Tito and Cigoli, and of somewhat irregular life, was a painter of talent both in figure and landscape and one of the best colourists of the Florentine school.

VASARI, Lives of the Painters (Eng. Tr. London, 1850; New York, 1896); CHARLES BLANC, L’Ecole Florentine, in his Histoire des peinires de toutes les ecoles (40 vols., Paris, 1848–76); BALDINUCCI, Notizie de’ professori del disegno da Cimabue in qua (Florence, 1681–1728, 1767–74, 1846–47; Turin, 1768. 1817); DESOBRY AND BACHELET Dictionnaire general, (Paris, 1857, 1883); CHAMPLIN AND PERKINS, Cyclopedia of Painters and Painting (New York, 1887); BRYAN, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers (London and New York, 1903–5).

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

William Allot

A student of the University of Cambridge, retired to Louvain on the accession of Elizabeth (1558), was ordained priest there, but soon returned to England. He was highly esteemed by Mary Queen of Scots, whom he frequently visited in her prison, suffered imprisonment for his faith, and was banished. At Mary’s request he was made a canon of St. Quentin in Picardy (France). He died about 1590, and left a work entitled Thesaurus Bibliorum, omnem utriusque vitae antidotum secundum utriusque Instrumenti veritatem et historiam succincte complectens, with which is printed an Index rerum memorabilium in epistolis et evangeliis per anni circulum (Antwerp, 1577).

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Of Engl. Catholics, I, 25–26; Dict. Of Nat. Biogr., s.v.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Claude Allouez

One of the most famous of the early Jesuit missionaries and explorers of what is now the western part of the United States; born in France, 1620; died in 1689, near the St. John’s river, in the present State of Indiana. Shea calls Allouez, “the founder of Catholicity in the West.” He was a professor and subsequently a co-labourer of Marquette, and there is a book still extent containing prayers in Illinois and French, in which an ancient note states that it was prepared by Allouez for the use of Marquette. Allouez laboured among the Indians for thirty-two years. He was sixty-nine years old when he died, worn out by his heroic labours. He preached the Gospel to twenty different tribes, and is said to have baptized 10,000 neophytes with his own hand. He took charge of, and put on a firm basis the famous Kaskaskian mission, which death had compelled Marquette to relinquish. None of the missionaries of his time dared more or travelled over a wider territory than Allouez. He even reached the western end of Lake Superior. His life was one alternation of triumphs and defeats. At times he had to prevent the Indians from adoring him as a god; at others they were about to sacrifice him to their deities. It is noteworthy that much of his trouble came from the old Iroquois who had murdered Jogues, Brebeuf, and other Jesuits in the East, and who were now drifting or being driven toward the West. There is an especial distinction to be accorded to Allouez in the fact that he was the first Vicar-General of the United States, the office having been assigned to him by Monsigneur Laval, Bishop of Quebec. His jurisdiction extended over the entire western country, including the French traders as well as the native tribes.

Jesuit relations; Shea, Catholic Church in Colonial Days; American Biog; Parkman, LaSalle; De Backer, Bibliotheque de la c. de J.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Alma

A Hebrew word signifying a “young woman,” unmarried as well as married, and thus distinct from bethulah, “a virgin” (see Hebrew Lexicons). The interest that attaches to this word is due to the famous passage of Isaiah 7:14: “the Alma shall conceive,” etc. We can only mention some of the various opinions with regard to the meaning of Alma in this verse. She is said to be

the wife of Achaz;

the prophetess mentioned in Isaiah 8:3,

any young married woman, who on account of the promised victory of Judah, could at some near date call her child Immanuel (God with us),

metaphorically, the Chosen People;

the Virgin Mother of the Messiah. This last view is the one adopted by St. Matthew 1:23, and after him by Christian tradition. (See EMMANUEL; MESSIAS.)

CONDAMIN, and other Commentaries on Isaias.

R. BUTIN

Alma Redemptoris Mater

(Kindly Mother of the Redeemer).

The opening words of one of the four Antiphons sung at Compline and Lauds, in honour of the Blessed Virgin, at various seasons of the year. This particular Antiphon is assigned to that part of the year occurring between the first Vespers of the first Sunday in Advent and Compline of the 2nd of February (on which day it ceases, even if the Feast of the Purification should be transferred from that day). It consists of six hexameter verses in strict prosodial form, followed by versicle, response, and prayer, which vary for the season: until Christmas Eve (first Vespers of the Nativity), V. Angelus Domini etc., R. Et concepit etc., with the prayer Gratiam tuam etc.; thenceforward, V. Post partum etc., R. Dei Genitrix, etc., and the prayer Deus qui salutes æterna etc. The hexameter verses are credited to Hermannus Contractus, or Hermann “the Cripple” (d. 1054), an interesting biographical notice of whom may be found in Duffield, “Latin Hymn Writers,” 149–168. It has been translated into English by Father Caswall (Mother of Christ, hear thou thy people’s cry); by Cardinal Newman, in “Tracts for the Times,” No. 75 (Kindly Mother of the Redeemer), and J. Wallace (Sweet Mother of Our Saviour blest). Caswall’s translation is found in the official “Manual of Prayers” (Baltimore), 76. In the Marquess of Bute’s “Breviary; Winter Part,” 176 (Maiden! Mother of Him Who redeemed us, thou that abides”), the unrhymed hexameter version is very literal.

The Antiphon must have been very popular in England both before and after its treatment by Chaucer in his “Prioresses Tale,” which is based wholly on a legend connected with its recitation by the “Litel Clergeon”:

This litel childe his litel book lerninge,

As he sat in the scole at his prymer,

He Alma redemptoris herde singe,

As children lerned hir antiphoner;

And, as he dorste, he drough hym ner and ner,

And herkned ay the wordes and the note,

Till he the firste vers coude al by rote.

Professor Skeat, in his “Oxford Chaucer,” thought that the Alma Redemptoris here was the sequence (cf. Mone, Lateinische Hymnen, II, 200):

Alma Redemptoris mater

Quem de cælis misit Pater

but subsequently (cf. Modern Philology, April, 1906, “Chaucer’s ‘Litel Clergeon’“, for an explanation of the error and a good treatment of many questions related to the Antiphon) admitted that the Breviary Antiphon was referred to by Chaucer.

For other hymns or sequences founded on the Antiphon. see Analecta Hymnica XVII, 149 (De S. Maria Salome) and XLVI (Leipzig, 1905), 200, 201, No. 149 (Alma redemptoris Mater, omnium Salus etc.).

H.T. HENRY

Diego de Almagro

DIEGO, THE ELDER

Date and place of birth not satisfactorily established as yet, generally considered a foundling; came to Panama in 1514 with Pedro Arias de Avila (D’Avila), and soon distinguished himself in military expeditions. When Pizarro, upon the return of Andagoya (1522) from his voyage along the western coast of Columbia, conceived the plan of penetrating farther South, Almagro and Hernando de Luque came to his assistance with funds, and a partnership was formed (1524), leading to a written document executed in 1526, which document both Almagro and Pizarro certified by their marks, neither of them being able to write. Almagro followed after Pizarro on the latter’s tedious voyage of exploration in 1524, rejoining him at the end. In one of his landings Almagro lost an eye by an arrow-shot. He went with Pizarro on the voyage of 1526, during which the first tidings of Peru were obtained on the Ecuadorian coast. He arranged to leave Pizarro to push on farther South, while he returned to Panama for stores and reinforcements. In this manner he twice saved Pizarro and his followers from starvation, but incurred the reproach that, while his associate bore the brunt of dangers and hardships, he led an easy life, sailing back and forth between Panama and the South. Almagro took no part in the action at Caxamarca and the occupation of Cuzco (1532–33). It was Pizarro who until 1535 took the decisive steps both in America and Spain, and performed all the remarkable achievements that characterized the conquest of Peru. It may be that Pizarro cunningly eliminated Almagro from participation in these important transactions, but the latter submitted to it with little protest until 1534, when the landing of Alvarado on the Ecuadorian coast threatened his prospects as well as those of Pizarro. After Alvarado returned to Guatemala, Almagro pressed his claims to a share in the profits of the conquest, and a sort of settlement between him and Pizarro was arrived at in 1535, partly through the efforts of some of the clergy. In consequence of that settlement Almagro undertook his only extended campaign in South America, the ill-conducted and unprofitable journey to Chile. Returning from it in the beginning of 1537, he not only claimed Cuzco as part of his administrative domain, but seized it by force of arms and defeated a body of Spanish troops faithful to Pizarro at Abancay (17 April). And thus began the bloody troubles among the Spaniards that disturbed Peru for nearly twenty years afterwards. Hernando Pizarro (brother of Francisco) was taken prisoner by Almagro, but released. In the course of the hostilities that followed Almagro was defeated at Salinas near Cuzco, on the 26th of April, 1538, and was shortly afterwards executed, while a prisoner. Almagro is usually represented as a more noble character than Pizarro. What can be affirmed is that he was greatly his inferior in ability. More pleasant in intercourse, careless and weak in many respects, his whole career in South America was that of an auxiliary who bethought himself of his own interests when it was too late. His conduct on the expedition to Chile showed no great talent as a leader, nor any of the traits of a chivalrous nature with which he is usually credited.

DIEGO, THE YOUNGER

A natural son of the preceding and of an Indian woman from Panama. Francisco Pizarro took considerable interest in young Almagro, keeping him near his person at Lima. The chief follower of the elder Almagro, after his execution, gathered around the young man in a conspiracy to put Pizarro out of the way, which deed was consummated 26 June, 1541, at Lima, the assassins assembling for the purpose at Almagro’s house. After Pizarro’s death young Almagro was proclaimed governor of Peru by his party, but Cristoval Vaca de Castro, the royal delegate, was already in the field against him. On the 16th of September, 1542, the opposing parties met at Chupas, and after a long and bloody engagement the troops of Almagro were completely defeated, and their young leader taken prisoner. He was shortly afterwards executed at Cuzco. With him the name of Almagro became extinct in Peru.

Aside from the earliest reports on the discovery of Peru commemorated in art, ATAHUALLPA, the life of Almagro the Elder and his character are treated at length in most Spanish sources on Peru, from the sixteenth century. I merely refer to GOMARA, Historia de las Indias (1553); OVIEDO Y VALDES, Historia general y natural de las Indias (1850); CIEZA, Cronica de Peru, and Guerra de las Salinas (MSS.); GARCILASSO DE LA VEGA, Comentarios reales de los Incas, II. But I would refer more particularly to the publications of documents contained in the Coleccion de Documentos del Archivo de Indias (first and second series) and to the Coleccion de Documentos para la historica de Chile, by J.T. MEDINA.—Modern authors usually follow the lead of PRESCOTT, who has to a great extent followed ROBERTSON. The partiality for Almagro is marked in most sources. The voluminous collection, Documentos para la historia de España, contains few references to Almagro. NABARRO (not Naharra as in Prescott), Relacion sumaria de la Conquista del Peru (1555); HERRERA, Historia general de los hechos de los Castellanos en las islas y tierra firme del Mar Oceano (first ed., 1612).

For Almagro the Younger, PEDRO GUTIERREZ DE SANTA CLARA, Historia de las guerras civiles del Peru (I, II, Madrid, 1904) should be consulted.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

John Almeida

A Jesuit missionary, born in London, of Catholic parents, 1571; died at Rio de Janeiro, 24 September, 1653. His real name was Meade, but it was changed into Almeida, because of his Portuguese surroundings. He was one of the most conspicuous of the disciples of the Venerable Joseph Anchieta, the illustrious missionary of Brazil, almost equalling him in the rigor of his austerities, the character and number of his miracles, and the heroism of his missionary exploits. At the age ten he was sent, some say by his parents, to Viana in Portugal. But he himself writes that he was taken away, in the absence of his parents, by someone he did not know. He was adopted by the family of Benedict de Rocha, with whom, at the age of seventeen, he went to Brazil to engage in mercantile pursuits. He narrates that on the way out he fell overboard, but was, as he thought, almost miraculously saved. He did not continue in business, as was intended, but began a course of studies at a College of the Society of Jesus. At the age of twenty-one, he became a Jesuit. After one year of noviceship, he was sent to the city of Santo Spirito, where he met Anchieta, whom he adopted as his model. He life there and up to an extreme old age, reads like a story of the ancient Fathers of the Desert. Whatever time could be spared from his active duties was given up to contemplation, to fastings, watchings, disciplines, and other austerities. The sufferings he inflicted on his body almost cause a shudder, yet singularly enough they seem to have had no effect upon his health, although he continued them almost to the day of his death. Hair shirts, iron chains, and metal plates with sharp points almost covered his entire body. He was ordained a priest in 1602 and spent many years of wandering through the forests to reclaim the fierce cannibals who lived there. He always journeyed on foot, and no matter how rugged the way or how exhausted his strength he would not permit himself to be carried. His food was what he gathered as he journeyed from one place to the other. Some who accompanied him on his missions testified under oath that for six or seven years they never say him taste fish or flesh, or lie on a bed, but that he spent most of the night sitting or kneeling at prayer, which was not only protracted, but almost bewildering in the number of devotions he practiced. Many miracles are ascribed to him, and his prophetic utterances were frequent. Not only did he pass unharmed among the fierce animal tribes, but he so won their affection that they did all in their power to prevent him from being taken away from them for other missions. He died in the Jesuit College of Rio de Janeiro, having reached the extraordinary are of eighty-two years, despite his austerities and the privations of his missionary career. The news of his approaching end filled the city with anxiety and concern. “The saint is dying” was heard on all sides, and the scenes at his funeral, and the miracles that are recorded as wrought at that time form a chapter in the colony’s history. De Vasconcellos, Life of John Almeida; Records of the English Province S.J.; Foley, General statistics, I, 499, II, 1321, the latter, a translation from Moore’s History of the English Province S.J.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Diocese of Almeria

A suffragan see of the Archdiocese of Granada in Spain. It is said to have been founded by Indaletius, a disciple of St. James the Greater, at Urci (Vergium). After a long eclipse, its episcopal honour was restored to this little seaport by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1489, on the occasion of the conquest of Granada. In the meantime it had acquired the Arabic name of Almeria (mirror). In 1900 its population, all Catholic, was 230,000. There were 110 parish-priests, 32 vicars, 28 canons and prebendaries, 122 churches, 50 chapels, 3 Dominican convents, and 4 houses of female religious.

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (Paris, 1905), 211; Guia del Estado eccl. de España para el año de 1905; FLOREZ, España Sagrada, cont. by RISCO (Madrid, 1754–1850).

Camillo Almici

A priest of the Congregation of the Oratory, born 2 November, 1714; died 30 December, 1779. He became a member of the Congregation of the Oratory at a very early age and devoted himself to the study of theology, Greek, and Hebrew, the Holy Scriptures, chronology, sacred and profane history, antiquities, criticism, diplomacy, and liturgy,and was held in much esteem for his great and wide learning. Amongst his contemporaries he was regarded as an oracle upon many subjects, and is looked upon as one of the most celebrated theologians of his order. Of the many works he wrote, the principal are:

Riflessioni sù di un libro di G. Febronio (Lucca, 1766);

Critica contro le opere del pericoloso Voltaire (Brescia, 1770);

Dissertazione spora i Martiri della Chiesa cattolica (Brescia, 1765) 2 vols.;

Méditations sur la vie et les écrits du P. Sarpi (1765).

The last named is a critical examination of Sarpi’s unreliable history of the Council of Trent.

HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1895), III, 197; GINGUENÉ, Hist litt. de l’Italie

Ven. John Almond

English priest and martyr, born about 1577; died at Tyburn, 5 December, 1612. He passed his childhood at Allerton near Liverpool, where he was born, and at Much-Woolton. His boyhood and early manhood were spent in Ireland, until he went to the English College, Rome, at the age of twenty. He concluded his term there brilliantly by giving the “Grand Act”—a public defence of theses which cover the whole course of philosopy and theology—and was warmly congratulated by Cardinals Baronius and Tarugi, who presided. The account of his death describes him as “a reprover of sin, a good example to follow, of an ingenious and acute understanding, sharp and apprehensive in his conceits and answers, yet complete with modesty, full of courage and ready to suffer for Christ, that suffered for him.” He was arrested in the year 1608, and again in 1612. In November of this year seven priests escaped from prison, and this may have sharpened the zeal of the persecutors, Dr. King, Protestant Bishop of London, being especially irritated against Almond. He displayed to the last great acuteness in argument, and died with the Holy Name upon his lips.

CHALLONER, Memoirs of Missionary Priests; POLLEN, Acts of English Martyrs (London, 1891), 170–194; FOLEY, Records S.J., , viii.

PATRICK RYAN

John Almond

Cistercian, Confessor of the Faith; died in Hull Castle, 18 April, 1585. His name has been included in the supplementary process of the English Martyrs, and his case is of special interest as an example of the sufferings endured in the Elizabethan prisons. He came from Cheshire, and had been a monk in the time of Henry VIII; but the name of his abbey has not been identified, nor his fate determined during and after its suppression. The long-drawn sufferings, however, amid which he closed his days are set forth in a relation printed by Foley. From this we see that the courageous, patient old priest, after many sufferings in prison, was left in extreme age to pine away under a neglect that was revolting.

FOLEY, Records S.J., III, 247; MORRIS, Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers, III, 321.

J.H. POLLEN

Oliver Almond

Priest and writer, born in the diocese of Oxford. He is believed by Foley to have been the brother of the martyr, the Ven. John Almond; but Gillow has shown that this is probably a mistake. Oliver was educated at the English Colleges at Rome (1582–87) and Valladolid, and was a missionary in England. He presented the English College at Rome with a precious chalice. Some of his correspondence is preserved in the “Westminster Archives,” and he is conjectured by Gillow to have been the writer of a work entitled, “The Uncasing of Heresies, or the Anatomie of Protestancie, written and composed by O.A.” (Louvain?) 1623, 8vo.

FOLEY, Records S.J., VI., 153; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 27. Stonyhurst Mss. Collectanea, N. ii, 73.

J.H. POLLEN

Alms and Almsgiving

(Gr. eleemosyne, “pity,” “mercy”).

Any material favour done to assist the needy, and prompted by charity, is almsgiving. It is evident, then, that almsgiving implies much more than the transmission of some temporal commodity to the indigent. According to the creed of political economy, every material deed wrought by man to benefit his needy brother is almsgiving. According to the creed of Christianity, almsgiving implies a material service rendered to the poor for Christ’s sake. Materially, there is scarcely any difference between these two views; formally, they are essentially different. This is why the inspired writer says: “Blessed is he that considers the needy and the poor” (Ps. xl, 2)—not he that gives to the needy and the poor.

The obligation of almsgiving is complementary to the right of property “which is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary” (Encycl., Rerum Novarum, tr. Baltimore, 1891, 14). Ownership admitted, rich and poor must be found in society. Property enables its possessors to meet their needs. Though labour enables the poor to win their dally bread, accidents, illness, old age, labour difficulties, plagues, war, etc. frequently interrupt their labours and impoverish them. The responsibility of succouring, those thus rendered needy belongs to those who have plenty (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II-II, Q. xxxii, art. 5, ad 2am), For “it is one thing to have a right to possess money, and another to have a right to use money as one pleases.” How must one’s possessions be used? The Church replies: Man should not consider his external possessions as his own but as common to all, so as to share them without difficulty when others are in need. Whence the Apostle says: Command the rich of this world to give with ease. This is a duty not of justice (except in extreme cases), but of Christian charity—a duty not enforced by human law. But the laws and judgments of men must yield to the laws and judgments of Christ the true God, who in many ways urges on His followers the practice of almsgiving (Encyclical, Rerum Novarum, 14, 15; cf. De Lugo, De Jure et Justitiâ, Disp. xvi, sect. 154).

Scripture is rich in passages which directly or indirectly emphasize the necessity of contributing towards the welfare of the needy. The history of the Church in Apostolic times shows that the early Christians fully realized the importance of this obligation. Community of goods (Acts, iv, 32), collections in church (Acts, xi, 29 sqq.; I Cor., xvi, 1; Gal., ii, 10), the ministry of deacons and deaconesses were simply the inauguration of that world-wide system of Christian charity which has circumscribed the globe and added another testimony to the Divinity of that Church which directs her ministrations towards the alleviation of human misery in every shape and form (Lecky, History of European Morals, II, 100, 3d ea., New York, 1891).

The Fathers of the Church frequently and unequivocally inculcated the necessity of almsgiving.

To this matter St. Cyprian devoted a complete treatise (De Opere et Eleemosynâ, P.L., IV, 601 sqq.).

St. Basil recounts how St. Lawrence distributed the treasures of the Church to the poor. Questioned by a pagan governor regarding the treasures which he had promised to transmit, Lawrence pointed to the poor, saying: They are treasures in whom is Christ, in whom is faith.

Contrary to the envy of the Arians, St. Ambrose lauds the breaking and selling of sacred vessels for the redemption or captives (De Officiis Ministrorum, xxviii, xxx, P. L., XVI, 141 sqq.).

The more effectively to urge the precept of almsgiving, the Fathers teach that the wealthy are God’s stewards and dispensers, so much so that where they refuse to aid the needy they are guilty of theft (St. Basil, Homil. in illud Lucæ, No. 7, P.G., XXXI, 278; St. Gregory of Nyssa, De Pauperibus Amandis, P.G., XLVI, 466; St. Chrysostom, in Ep. I ad Cor., Homil. 10, c. 3, P.G., LXI, 86; St. Ambrose, De Nab. lib. unus, P.L., XIV, 747; St. Augustine, in Ps. cxvii, P.L., XXXVII, 1922).

Discretion in almsgiving is counseled in the Apostolic Constitutions: “Alms must not be given to the malicious, the intemperate, or the lazy; lest a premium should be set on vice” (Const. Apost., ii, 1–63; iii, 4–6).

St. Cyprian asserts that adherents of other religions must not be excluded from a share in Catholic charity (De Opere et Eleemosynâ, c. xxv, P. L., IV, 620).

After the Patristic epoch the teaching of the Church regarding almsgiving did not vary throughout the ages. St. Thomas Aquinas has admirably summarized this teaching during the medieval period (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II-II, QQ. xxx-xxxiii, De Misericordiâ; De Beneficentiâ; De Eleemosynâ). No writer of modern times has so admirably epitomized the position of the Church as Leo XIII (Encyclicals, Rerum Novarum, 15 May, 1891; Graves de Communi, 18 Jan, 1901). In so much as the obligation of almsgiving is coextensive with the obligation of charity, everyone falls under the law. The donor, however, must be entitled to dispose of what he contributes, because almsgiving usually implies that the beneficiary acquires a title to whatever his benefactor gives. Ecclesiastics are bound in a special way to observe the precept of almsgiving, because they are constituted fathers of the poor, and are besides obliged by their example to lead the laity to entertain correct views concerning the importance of this duty. As a general rule, the indigent of every class, saint or sinner, countrymen or foreigners, friend or foe, have their claims upon the charity of those competent to give alms (Proverbs, xxv, 21; Romans, xii, 20; Sylvius, Summa, II-II, Q. xxxii, art. 9; De Conninck, Disp. xxvii, Dub. 6, No. 70). The conjunction of genuine indigence in the poor and ability to minister relief in the rich, is necessary to concrete the obligation of almsgiving (St. Thomas, op. cit., II-II, QQ. xxxii, art. 5, ad 3am).

The character of the obligation

Diversity of actual conditions circumscribing the needy, specify the character of indigence. Where the necessaries of life are wanting, or where imminent peril threatens vital interests, indigence is extreme. Where the absence of aid leads to serious reverses, in goods or fortune, indigence is serious or pressing. Where the quest for the necessaries of life involves considerable trouble, indigence is common or ordinary. The obligation of almsgiving extends to this triple indigence. Scripture and the Fathers speak indiscriminately of the poor, the needy, and the indigent without restricting the obligation of almsgiving to any particular species of indigence. Nearly all theologians adopt this view.

Nevertheless, the better to determine the character of this obligation in the concrete, it is necessary to consider the character of temporalities in those who hold property. In the first place, property necessary to maintain vital interests is indispensably necessary. Property without which vital interests are not jeopardized is considered superfluous thereunto. Property required to maintain social prestige, i.e. to live in keeping with one’s position in society, to educate offspring, to engage domestics, to entertain, etc., is considered equally indispensable from a social standpoint. Property without which social prestige is not endangered is reputed superfluous thereunto. Accordingly, there is never any obligation of using the necessaries of life for almsgiving, because well-regulated charity ordinarily obliges everyone to prefer his own vital interests to those of his neighbour. The only exception occurs when the interests of society are identified with those of a needy member (Müller, Theol. Moralis, II, tr., i, sect. 30, 112).

To a neighbour in extreme indigence relief must be ministered by using such commodities as are superfluous to vital interests, even though such should be required for social advantages (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II-II, Q. xxxii, art. 6; St. Alphonsus Liguori, Theol. Moralis, III, no. 31). For charity demands that the vital interests of an indigent neighbour should supersede personal advantages of a much lower order (Suarez, De Charitate, Disput. vii, sect. 4, no. 3). The transgression of this obligation involves a mortal sin. Nevertheless no one, however wealthy, is obliged to take extraordinary measures to assist a neighbour even in direful straits, e.g. a wealthy citizen is not bound to send a dying pauper to a more salubrious clime, or to bear the expense of a difficult surgical operation for the betterment of a pauper (Suarez, loc. cit., sect. 4, no. 4). Nor is a wealthy individual obliged to imperil his social standing to aid a neighbour in extreme need (La Croix, Theol. Moralis, II, no. 201). For charity does not bind anyone to employ extraordinary means in order to safeguard his own life (St. Alphonsus, op. cit., III, no. 31).

To a neighbour in serious or pressing indigence, alms must be given by using such commodities as are superfluous in relation to present social advantages. Nay, more likely in the more acute forms of such indigence those commodities which may in some measure tend to future social advantages must be taxed to succour this indigence (Suarez, loc. cit., no. 5; De Conninck, loc. cit., no. 125; Viva, in prop. xii, damnatam ab Innoc. XI, no. 8). The transgression of this obligation likewise involves a grievous sin, because well-regulated charity obliges one to meet the serious needs of another when he can do so without serious personal disadvantage (St. Alphonsus, H. Ap. tr., iv, no. 19).

In the ordinary troubles confronting the poor alms must be given from such temporalities only as are superfluous to social requirements. This does not imply an obligation of answering every call, but rather a readiness, to give alms according to the dictates of well-regulated charity (Suarez, loc. cit., sect. 3, nos. 7, 10). Theologians are divided into two schools regarding the character of this obligation. Those holding that the obligation is serious seem to espouse a cause in harmony with the teaching of Scripture and the authority of the Fathers (St. Alphonsus, op. cit., III, no. 32; Bouquillon, Institutiones Theol. Moralis Specialis, III, no. 488). At all events, such affluent individuals as always fail to give alms or harshly repel mendicants indiscriminately are unquestionably guilty of grievous sin. Whoso is actually obliged to relieve extreme or pressing indigence must give whatever is necessary to ameliorate existing conditions. It is not an easy matter to determine what amount must be given as alms to those labouring under ordinary indigence. St. Alphonsus, whose view in this matter is shared by many modern moralists, holds that an outlay corresponding to two per cent of temporalities superfluous to social prestige suffices to satisfy the obligation, because were all concerned to adopt this method ordinary indigence could easily be remedied. At the same time it is not always practical to reduce problems depending so largely on moral appreciation to a mathematical basis (Lehmkuhl, Theologia Moralis (Specialis), II, ii, no. 609).

Furthermore, all either contributing spontaneously to public and private charities, or paying such taxes as are levied by civil legislation to support the indigent satisfy this obligation to some extent (Lehmkuhl, loc. cit., no. 606). Physicians, attorneys, artisans, are bound to render their services to the poor unless provision is made for them at public expense. The extent of services to be rendered and the character of the obligation binding thereunto depend on the kind of indigence and the inconvenience which such ministrations impose on physicians, attorneys, or artisans (Lehmkuhl, loc. cit., no. 609). Though the notion of almsgiving embodies the donation of commodities necessary to lighten human misery, moralists admit that it is sufficient to lend an object whose use alone serves to meet a neighbour’s need (St. Alphonsus, op. cit., III, no. 31; Bouquillon, op. cit., no. 493). Moreover, common sense repudiates almsgiving to those in need simply because they will not labour to escape such need (St. Ambrose, De Officiis Ministrorum, xxx, no. 144).

Qualities of spiritually fruitful almsgiving

In addition to its innate characteristics, almsgiving should be vested with qualities tending to garner fruitfulness for giver and receiver. Hence, almsgiving should be discreet, so as to reach deserving individuals or families (II Thes., iii, 10; Ecclus., xii, 4); prompt, so as to warrant opportuneness (Prov., iii, 28); secret and humble (Matt., vi, 2); cheerful (II Cor., ix, 7); abundant (Tob., iv, 9; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II-II, Q. xxxii, art. 10). The harvest of blessings to be reaped by almsgiving amply suffices to inspire noble-minded Christians “to make unto themselves friends of the Mammon of iniquity.” First of all, almsgiving renders the donor like unto God Himself (Luke, vi, 30, 36); nay more, it renders God Himself debtor to those giving alms (Matt., xxv, 40 sqq.). Moreover, almsgiving adds special efficacy to prayer (Tob., iv, 7), tends to appease divine wrath (Heb., xiii, 16); liberates from sin and its punishment (Ecclus., xxix), and thus paves the way to the gift of faith (Acts, x, 31). Daily experience proves that those lending a helping hand to stay the miseries of the poor frequently prepare the way for the moral reformation of many whose temporal misery pales before their spiritual wretchedness. Finally, almsgiving tends to guard society against turbulent passions whose fury is often checked by almsgiving.

The phases of almsgiving

The various phases of almsgiving may be reduced to two chief classes: individual or transitory, and organized or permanent.

Transitory almsgiving

Such cases of indigence as frequently fall under the eye of sympathetic observers constitute the subject-matter of transitory almsgiving. Though charity organizations have multiplied their sphere of usefulness, special cases of indigence, more readily and effectually reached by individual attention, will always abound. Moreover, experience proves that the conduct and conversation of private benefactors frequently dispose their beneficiaries to reform their ways and lives and become useful members of the Church and State. For this reason there will always be a wide field for individual almsgiving.

Organized almsgiving

At the same time, many worthy poor people are too sensitive to appeal to private persons, while many undeserving persons assume the role of professional mendicants to extort aid from those whose sympathy is easily moved, and whose purse strings are loosened to answer every call. Moreover, how much better to forestall than to relieve indigence. To render the poor self-reliant and self-supporting is the noblest achievement of well-regulated charity. Sound religious and secular education, means and opportunities for labour, more than almsgiving will facilitate the realization of this lofty object. This is why various organizations have been established to alleviate the different forms of corporal misery.

To the Church belongs the credit of taking the initiative in promoting systematized effort for the welfare of the needy. So abundantly have her labours been blessed that her success has evoked the admiration of her sworn enemies (Encyclical, Rerum Novarum, tr., 18). The history of yesterday and the experience of today prove that the Church is still the poor man’s friend.

Organized charity is furthered by the concerted action of persons in their private capacity or by the official proceeding of those whose position binds them to seek the temporal well-being of all classes in society. The various corners of the globe are studded with institutions of divers kinds, reared and maintained by the generosity of private parties. Human misery in its various stages, from the cradle to the grave, finds therein a haven of consolation and rest, while the prayers of inmates, legion in number, call the blessing of Him who is the Father of the poor, upon the heads of those whose liberality proves that the charity of the brotherhood defies limitation.

Though admirable and far-reaching in its influence, privately organized charity is incapable of effectually coping with the divers forms of misery. This is why civil governments shape their legislation to make provision for such subjects as fail in their efforts in the struggle for existence. Various institutions destined to provide for needy citizens of every class are conducted under State patronage. Directors are appointed, attendants installed, visiting and inspection required, reports submitted, and appropriations annually made to meet the exigencies of such institutions. Encouragement and opportunity are not denied those disposed to ambition, self-respect, and self-support.

Noteworthy indeed are the associated charities inaugurated by the government to promote organized charity. Throughout cities, bureaus are established, and officials deputed, to examine the actual condition of mendicants, so as to discriminate between worthy and unworthy appeals. To this end friendly visiting is encouraged. Proseletyzing is discountenanced, so much so that in many localities Catholics and non-Catholics join hands in the work of organized charity. Movements along these lines are to be found in England, Scotland, France, Italy, and Canada. Those best qualified to speak authoritatively in this matter are eloquent in their expression of the good feeling between Catholic and non-Catholic workers, and equally eloquent in summarizing the admirable results attained through this union of forces. These movements represent the culmination of noblest effort to concrete almsgiving in its fulness, so that givers themselves may share in affection, sympathy, and thought with receivers, thereby animating almsgiving with a human, nay, more, a Divine element, tending to ennoble the poor in healing their misery.

Scripture: Exodus, xxii, 25; Lev., xix, 9 sq.: Deut., xiv, 28 sq.; xv, 11; Tobias, iv, 7; Prov., xi, 26; xxv, 21; Ecclus., iv, 1 sq.; Is., lviii, 7; Ezech., xvi, 49; xviii, 7 sq.; Dan., iv, 24; Matt., xxv, 34 sq.; Luke, iii, 11; Acts, iv, 32; II Cor., viii 13 sq.; ix, 6 sq.; I Tim., vi, 17 sq.; Jas., ii, 13; I John, iii, 17.

The Fathers: CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Pædagogus, III, vi, P.G., VIII, 603–607; ID., Stromata, II, xviii, in P.G., VIII, 1015–39; CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, Catecheses, XV, 26, in P.G., XXXIII, 907; EUSEBIUS, Hist. Eccl., IX, viii, in P.G., XX, 818, 819; BASIL, Sermo de Eleemosynâ, in P.G., XXXI, 1154–67; GREGORY NAZ., De Amore Pauperum, in P.G., XXXV, 858–910; CHRYSOSTOM, De Eleemosynâ, in P.G., XXI, 291–300; TERTULLIAN, Apologeticus, xxxix, in P.L., I, 531–539; ST. AUGUSTINE, Sermo 35, 41, 42, 60, 85, 86, in P.L., XXXVIII, 251 sq.; ST. GREGORY I, Moralia, XXI, xix, in P.L., LXXVI, 206–208. The doctrine of the Fathers concerning this matter is exposed by GUIGNEBERT, Tertullian (Paris, 1901); SCARAMELLI, Directorium Aseticum, IV, 339–356 (tr., London, 1897); BALMES, Protestantism and Catholicity Compared (Baltimore, 1851), 184 sqq.; CUTHBERT, Catholic Ideals in Social Life (New York, 1904), 106 sqq.; GAUME, Catechism of Perseverance (tr., New York, 1890), II, 600 sqq.; IRELAND, The Church and Modern Society (Chicago, 1897); SCHAFF, History of the Christian Church, II, 374, 375; ULHORN, Christian Charity in the Ancient Church (new York, 1883); WARNER, American Charities (New York, 1894); LOCH, Charity Organization (London, 1893); POTTER, The Co-operative Movement in Great Britain (London, 1888); CRAFTS, Practical Christian Sociology (New York, 1896); The Charities Review (New York, March, 1892; Feb., 1895; Jan., 1896; July and Aug., 1897; Oct., 1898); Proceedings of National Conferences of Charities and Corrections; Reports of St. Vincent de Paul Conferences; BEUGNET in VIG., Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1893), I, col. 1244–53, s.v. Aumône; MANY in Dict. de théol. Cath. (Paris, 1893), fascicule IX, 2561 sqq., s. v. Aumône; OZANAM, Vie de Fred. Ozanam (Paris, 1882), iv, v; LEFEBURE, L’organization de la charité privée en France (Paris, 1900); ID., Paris charitable et prévoyant (Paris, 1900); DU CAMP, La charité privée à Paris (Paris, 1888); ST. THOMAS, Summa Theol., II-II, QQ., xxx-xxxiii; ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, Theol. Mor., III, tr. iii, dub. 3, no. 30 sq.; SUAREZ, De Charitate, Disp. vii; BILLUART, Summa St. Thomæ, tract. De charitate, Diss. v; SPORER, Theol. Mor. (Venice, 1716), I, tr. iii, vi, sect. 2; LAYMANN, Theol. Mor. (Padua, 1733), I, lib. V, tr. iii, vi; MÜLLER, Theol. Mor. (Vienna, 1899), lib. II, tr. i, 30 sq.; LEHMKUHL, Theol. Mor. (Spec.) (Freiburg, 1898), I, lib. II, ii, no. 605 sq.; BOUQUILLON, Inst. Theol. Mor. Specialis (Bruges, 1890), lib. III, no. 493 sq.; BALLERINI, Opus Theologicum Morale (Prato, 1899), II, tr. v, sect. 3, dub. 3.

JAMES DAVID O’NEILL

St. Alnoth

Hermit and martyr; died c. 700. We know very little of St. Alnoth. Neither does he appear to possess any proper day. He is mentioned in Jocelyn’s life of St. Werburg as a pious neatherd at Weedon who bore with great patience the ill-treatment of the bailiff placed over him, and who afterwards became a hermit in a very lonely spot, where he was eventually murdered by two robbers. On this ground he was honoured as a martyr; and there was some concourse of pilgrims to his tomb at Stow near Bugbrook in Northamptonshire.

Acta SS., 27 February, III; STANTON, Menology (London, 1892), 565; BARING-GOULD, Lives of Saints (London, 1894), II, 48.

Herbert Thurston

Alogi

(a privative and logos, “word”; sc. “Deniers of the Word”). St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, ii, 9) makes a brief reference to persons who denied the manifestation of the Paraclete, and refused, in consequence, to admit the Gospel of St. John, wherein it is announced. He gives the party no name. St. Hippolytus combated such an error both in his Syntagma and in a special work entitled “In Defence of the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse.” These works are lost, but a good share of their contents is believed to have been preserved by St. Epiphanius. St. Epiphanius (Haer. LI) gives a long account of the party of heretics who arose after the Cataphrygians, Quartodecimans, and others, and who received neither the Gospel of St. John nor his Apocalypse. He calls them Alogi (deniers of the Word) because, by rejecting the Gospel of St. John, they rejected the Logos which was revealed in that Gospel. Playing on the term, he observes, with a touch of sarcasm, that they are well named, “alogi,” i.e. “without reason.” These heretics would seem to answer to the description of the obscure persons mentioned by St. Irenaeus, and this is in fact the prevalent opinion about them. The Alogi, accordingly, may be described as a party which arose in Asia Minor towards the end of the second century. They doubtless embodied a radical protest against the abuse which the Montanists made of the promised Paraclete, and of the Paraclete’s outpourings in visions and prophecies. This would explain why they were led to deny the Gospel of St. John, which foretold the coming of the Holy Spirit, and why again they refused all credit to the Apocalypse, which, with its description of the Heavenly Jerusalem and of the reign of a thousand years, fed the imagination of the enthusiasts of Phrygia. The Alogi attributed these two books to Cerinthus. It is not altogether clear that they denied, in addition, the Godhead of the Son and His eternal generation. St. Epiphanius does, indeed, say that they rejected the Logos preached by St. John, but he is evidently perplexed by their stupidity in attributing to Cerinthus a Gospel which was written against him. For Cerinthus taught that Christ was mere man, whereas John, in this very book, preaches His Godhead. It may, therefore, well be that the Alogi did not reject the doctrine itself but only the Logos form under which the doctrine was presented in the Gospel. And St. Epiphanius seems to imply as much, “for,” he says, “they themselves seem to believe as we do.” Be this as it may, the interest of scholars attaches not so much to their christology as to the biblical criticism they developed. It was, doubtless, a doctrinal prepossession which impelled them to reject the Gospel of St. John and the Apocalypse. But they endeavoured to maintain their contention by arguments drawn from an examination of the books themselves. The Gospel of St. John contained, they said, what was untrue; according to them it was not in accord with the other Gospels, mixed up the synoptic order of events, and was, moreover, docetic in doctrine. They made still less account of the Apocalypse, which, they claimed, was often unintelligible, not to say puerile and false. Apropos of Apoc. ii, 18, they asserted that there was no Christian church in Thyatira at the time. This anti-Catholic movement has been closely studied, since the Johannine question was broached in the last century, for further light on the position and authority of the Fourth Gospel in the early church.

ST. IREN., Adv. Haer.,III, ii, 9; PHILASTRIUS, HAER., LX; ST. EPIPH., Haer., LI; KOERNER, De auct. Can. Apoc. Joh. ab Alogis impugnata (Leipzig, 1751); EUS., Hist. Eccl., III, 28, I. DRUMMOND, The Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (London, 1903); ROSE, Aloges, asiates et romains, in Rev. Biblique, VI, 1897; ZAHN, Geschichte des neutestamentl. Kanons, I, 220–262; CORSSEN, Monarchianische Prologe zu den vier Evangelien (Leipzig, 1896; HARNACK, History of Dogma, III, 14–20.

FRANCIS P. HAVEY

St. Aloysius Gonzaga

Born in the castle of Castiglione, 9 March, 1568; died 21 June, 1591. At eight he was placed in the court of Francesco de’ Medici in Florence, where he remained for two years, going then to Mantua. At Brescia, when he was twelve, he came under the spiritual guidance of St. Charles Borromeo, and from him received First Communion. In 1581 he went with his father to Spain, and he and his brother were made pages of James, the son of Philip II. While there he formed the resolution of becoming a Jesuit, though he first thought of joining the Discalced Carmelites. He returned to Italy in 1584 after the death of the Infanta, and after much difficulty in securing his father’s consent, renounced his heritage in favour of his brother, 2 November, 1585, a proceeding which required the approval of the emperor, as Castiglione was a fief of the empire. He presented himself to Father Claudius Acquaviva, who was then General of the Society, 25 November, 1585. Before the end of his novitiate, he passed a brilliant public act in philosophy, having made his philosophical and also his mathematical studies before his entrance. He had in fact distinguished himself, when in Spain, by a public examination not only in philosophy, but also in theology, at the University of Alcalá. He made his vows 25 November, 1587. Immediately after, he began his theological studies. Among his professors were Fathers Vasquez and Azor. In 1591 when in his fourth year of theology a famine and pestilence broke out in Italy. Though in delicate health, he devoted himself to the care of the sick, but on March 3 he fell ill and died 21 June, 1591. He was beatified by Gregory XV in 1621 and canonized by Benedict XIII in 1726. His remains are in the church of St. Ignazio in Rome in a magnificent urn of lapis lazuli wreathed with festoons of silver. The altar has for its centerpiece a large marble relief of the Saint by Le Gros.

J. F. X. O’CONOR

A and Ω

A and Ω (Alpha and Omega).—Scriptural.—The first and the last letter of the Greek alphabet, employed from the fourth century as a symbol expressing the confidence of orthodox Christians in the scriptural proofs of Our Lord’s divinity. This symbol was suggested by the Apocalypse, where Christ, as well as the Father, is “the First and the Last” (ii, 8); “the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (cf., xxii, 13; i, 8). Clement of Alexandria speaks of the Word as “the Alpha and the Omega of Whom alone the end becomes beginning, and ends again at the original beginning without any break” (Strom., IV, 25). Tertullian also alludes to Christ as the Alpha and Omega (De Monogamiâ, v), and from Prudentius (Cathemer., ix, 10) we learn that in the fourth century the interpretation of the apocalyptic letters was still the same: “Alpha et Omega cognominatus, ipse fons et clausula, Omnium quae sunt, fuerunt, quaeque post futura sunt.” It was, however, in the monuments of early Christianity that the symbolic Alpha and Omega had their greatest vogue. The earliest date at which this symbol occurs is in the year 295, in a dated inscription of Rome. In this example, however, it is to be noted that the Omega takes precedence, and that both letters form part of the inscription, thus:

VIRGO MOR(T)VA ES(T) TVS [OMEGA] ET. A NVLLINO CON(S)

( . . . died, a virgin Tuscus and Anullinus being consuls).

The question whether this symbol in its regular form, was in use before the Council of Nicaea (325) has not yet been settled definitely. If so, it was of very rare occurrence. In a fresco which dates from the middle of the fourth century in the “great cave” of the catacomb of Praetextatus, Alpha and Omega are found in connection with the monogrammatic cross. The oldest inscription in which the letters occur in their traditional form dates from 364. From this time on they were a favorite symbol of the orthodox Christians (the Arians regarded it with disfavour and they are found on the monuments in all parts of early Christendom. The apocalyptic letters were represented either (1) alone, or (2) in connection with human or other figures, or (3) with other symbols. Examples of the first class, to which belongs the inscription of 364, are rare. The second class also is not very numerously represented; probably the most interesting example of it is a panel of the fifth century door of St. Sabina’s where Alpha and Omega are carved on either side of the risen Christ. Monuments of the third class, representing Alpha and Omega in connection with another symbol, usually the monogram of Christ, are much more common than those of the two former classes. The minusculer form of Omega is, in nearly all cases, represented, though some examples of the upper-case Omega occur in the monuments of Africa and Spain. The words “Alpha and Omega” continued in use in the Mozarabic Liturgy; also in the ancient Irish Liturgy, e. g. in the famous Communion-hymn in the Antiphonary of Bangor.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Alpha and Omega (in Jewish Theology)

Alpha and Omega.—In Jewish Theology.—When God passed before the face of Moses on Sinai the great Law-giver of Israel called out: “Jehova, Jehova and and merciful God, of long-suffering, and full of goodness and truth” [(Ex., xxxiv, 6), in the Douay Version, “0 the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, patient and of much compassion, and true”]. God’s being is fullness of goodness and truth—Plenitudo veri et boni in the Latin translation. They are foremost among God’s moral attributes. They are the immediate outcome of His Divine operations. For God is an infinitely pure spirit. His being is Intellect and Will. Truth is the final object of the intellect, and goodness is that of the will. In the psalter they are praised and invoked by the poet with holy and loving fondness, e. g. Pss., xxiv, 10; xxxix, 11, 12; lvi, 4, 11; lxxxiv, 11; lxxxv, 15; cxvi, 2. Of the two perfections truth and goodness, the former ranks higher. Truth is the first of all perfections. The Hebrew word for truth is Emeth. It is composed of three letters: Aleph=Alpha, Mem=My, and Thaw=Theta. The Aleph and the Thaw are the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet as the Alpha and Omega are of the Greek. Thus the term Emeth (truth) begins with the first letter of the alphabet and ends with the last. This letter of the alphabet and ends with the last. This led the Jewish sages to find in this word a mystical meaning. The Aleph or the first letter of Emeth(truth) denotes that God is the first of all things. There was no one before Him of whom He could have received the fullness of truth. The Thaw, or last letter, in like manner signifies that God is the last of all things. There will be no one after Him to whom He could bequeath it. Thus Emeth is a sacred word expressing that in God truth dwells absolutely and in all plenitude. Emeth, as the Jewish divines truly say, is the signaculum Dei essentia (see Buxtori’s Lexicon). In Yoma 69b., and Sanh. 64a., the following is related: “The men of the great synagogue prayed to God to remove from the earth the Evil Spirit, as the cause of all trouble. Immediately a scroll fell from heaven with the word Truth written thereon, and thereupon a fiery lion came out of the sanctuary. It was the spirit of idolatry leaving the earth.” “This legend shows,” says Hanina “that the seal of God is truth.” (Jewish Encyclopedia.)

In Christian Usage

The manner of expressing God’s eternity by means of the first and last letters of the alphabet seems to have passed from from the synagogue into the Church. In place of the Aleph and Thaw, the Alpha and Omega were substituted. But the substitution of the Greek letters for those of the Hebrew tongue inevitably caused a portion of the meaning and beauty in thus designating God to be lost. The Greek letters Alpha and Omega have no relation to the word Truth. Omega is not the last letter of the word aletheia (truth), as Thaw is of the word Emeth. The sacred and mystical word Truth, expressing in Hebrew, through its letters Aleph and Thaw, God’s absolute and eternal being, had to be sacrificed. “Alpha-Omega” (and its Hebrew equivalent) signify an absolute plenitude, or perfection. It is a Jewish saying that the blessing on Israel in Lev., xxvi, 3–13, is complete because it begins with Aleph and ends with Thaw. Jehovah’s absolute perfection is expressed in Is., xli, 4; xliv, 6, by the phrase, “I am the first and the last.” Plato, “De Legibus,” IV, 715, describes God in the same manner: archen te kai teleuten kai mesa ton onton apanton echon, and quotes this phrase as a palaios logos. Cf. also Josephus, C. Apion., II, xxiii. The phrase fitly expresses the idea that God is eternal, the beginning and end of all things. The fourth Gospel, after stating that the “Word was God,” says, “and the Word dwelt among us full of grace and truth.” Grace stands for goodness. The phrase is identical with Ex., xxxii, 6, “full of goodness and truth.” We have here the two great divine attributes, Truth and Goodness, assigned to Christ in all their fullness. What Moses has said of God, the Evangelist says of Christ. In the Apocalypse the “Alpha-Omega” taking the place of its Hebrew equivalent occur in the first chapter to designate God, i, 8; but in the last two chapters to designate Christ (Ap., xxi, 6; xxii, 13). It is an argument that its author believed in the divinity of Christ. In the earlier ages of the Church the Alpha and Omega were used as the monogram of Christ. These letters became His crest. The poet Prudentius says, “Alpha et Omega cognominatus, ipse fons et clausula omnium quae sunt, fuerunt, quaeque post future sunt” (Cathemer., 9, 11). The “Alpha-Omega” symbol was written under the arms of the cross within a circle or triangle. (Fig. 1). Sometimes the Alpha is found on the right and the Omega on the left to indicate that in Christ the beginning and the end are joined into one. (Fig. 2). This crest is found on the coins of the Emperor Constans and Constantius (Martigny, 458–459). (Fig. 3). The early Christians had the two letters engraved on their signet rings [Fig. 4 (Vigouroux, Biblical Lexicon)]. Sometimes the Alpha and the Omega are written in the Nimbus, or halo, of the Lamb; for instance, in the paintings of the Catacombs of Petrus and Marcellinus, third century. We further find these two letters in frescoes and mosaics of several ancient churches; for instance, in the chapel of St. Felicitas, and in San Marco in Rome; in the world-famed mosaics of Ravenna, in Galla Placidia, St. Crisologo, St. Vitale. In the course of time Alpha and Omega ceased to be used as the monogram of Christ for church paintings and ornaments. During the last centuries the letters I.H.S. (see ABBREVIATIONS, ECCLESIASTICAL) have completely taken their place. Recently, however, on tabernacle doors and antependia the older device is again met with.

C. VAN DEN BIESEN

Christian Use of the Alphabet

The Hebrew, Greek and Latin alphabets have been variously made use of in Christian liturgy. During Holy Week the Hebrew alphabet is sung, each of its letters preceding one of the verses of the Lamentations of Jeremias at Matins; having here, however, merely a numerical value, they might be replaced by Number One, Number Two, etc. The musical setting is now usually the same in all churches, the most ancient known at present being that of the Romano-Gregorian Liturgy. Codex VII, aa 3, of the municipal library of Naples (twelfth century) has a melody which varies with the letters; those for verses xvii, xix, and xxi having a simple form, those for xvi and xx a more elaborate one; and, lastly, those for verses xviii and xxii, a form which is little more than a lengthening out of the preceding. The simple form reappears most frequently in the manuscripts, particularly in the “Breviarium secundum consuetudinem curiae romanae,” of the thirteenth century. It was probably about this time that the simple form was preferred to the variety which had hitherto existed.

ALPHABET OF THE LITTERAE FORMATAE

The litterae formatae, or letters commendatory, took their name from the seals that were attached to them; indeed, Sirmond quotes a Vatican manuscript where the word sigillatae occurs instead of formatae. In these letters, the Greek alphabet is used in place of numerical signs. In order to prevent fraud or imposture, it was said that the Fathers of the Council of Niaea had formulated a decree to the effect that the litterae must contain such a series of letters as, on addition of their numerical values, would determine the origin of the document. The initials given were those fo the Three Divine Persons, H.Y.A; of the Pope; of the writer and recipient of the document; lastly, the letter of the cycle, and the word AMHN. Unfortunately, the writers were ill-instructed; a littera formata of the Church of Metz contains an error of addition, collections of the Formulae show that mistakes were frequent, so that in a short time the means of control became to all intents and purposes literary.

THE ALPHABET IN THE DEDICATION OF A CHURCH

Both Greeks and Latins made use of letters as numerical signs, but on wholly different principles. Alphabets, among the Latins, were of two kinds: the systematic, which have arbitrary values; and the signs used by land-surveyors (agrimensores), which have fixed values. The land-surveyors formed a corporation that was entrusted by public and private authority with the measuring of properties. The tax was levied in accordance with the owner’s declaration, but the State came, in time, to recognize the loss to which it was exposed through false returns, and instituted an official survey and measurement of landed properties, to be carried out by the officials appointed for the purpose. Their measurements, however, which were renewed from time to time, inevitably gave rise to claims for revision, which were handed in to the equalizers, who forwarded them to the surveyors who acted as arbitrors. The Roman Liturgy has preserved a rite which it is interesting to compare with the practice of these surveyors. At the dedication of a church the bishop writes two alphabets on the ground, one Greek and the other Latin, with the point of his pastoral staff, along two lines of ashes laid in the form of a crux decussata (X). The two alphabets start from the east and stretch toward the west. The Leonine Sacramentary makes no mention of a ceremony which is clearly set forth in the Gregorian Sacramentary: “Thereupon the bishop shall begin from the left-hand eastern corner to write with his staff on the pavement the letters A B C, as far as the right-hand western corner; beginning again in like manner manner from the right-hand eastern corner, he writes A B C as far as the left-hand western corner of the basilica.” At the period mentioned the bishop was at liberty to write either only A B C or the whole alphabet, in Greek and Latin, or twice in Latin. The rite, however, was not in use everywhere; the sacramentary published by Pamelius, the edition of Rocca, and a manuscript consulted by Dom Ménard, make no allusion to it. Moreover, it could be altered at pleasure, since certain bishops added the Hebrew alphabet to the two others. Attempts have been made to find the origin of this custom in the rite for taking possession of a heathen temple, a rite which the faithful are said to have adopted and altered; but the texts of Varro and Servius allow of no such explanation. It must rather be sought for in the practice of the land-surveyors, who used measures of fixed langth in making their surveys, marking them, when necessary, with letters to which they gave a special value of their own. These they called casae litterarum, and included the whole Latin alphabet, the X (decussio) being the most important letter of their system. It is evident, therefore, that the liturgical rite has grown up out of a practice borrowed from the land-surveyors, though we cannot say what alterations it may have undergone in passing from that guild to the Church. In course of time, when the rite lost its meaning, a mystical signification was attached to it. After the ninth century the reason for using the two alphabets was no longer understood; an English Pontifical of the tenth century mistakes the X for the signum Christi. In this way an ancient usage grew by degrees into a ceremony supposed to be the expression of a most abstruse symbolism. Nor was it only in this rite for the dedication of church that the alphabet was cut down to a mere A B C. The same curtailment is to be seen on two vessels used for baptism, both belonging to the ancient African Church. one, which is of terra-cotta, was found at Carthage. Its symbolical decoration (cross, fishes, A B C) has a special reference to the neophytes. The other, a white marble basin, spherical in shape, was discovered not long ago, in the Basilica of Dermech, near Carthage. It has four ears, or handles (oreillons, ansae), one of which serves as a spout, while the others bear the letters, A B C. Both appear to have been employed liturgically in the fifth or sixth century.

THE GNOSTIC ALPHABET

Lastly, the alphabet held an important place in the systems of several Gnostic sects, though the use and meaning given it by them remain very difficult to determine. Certain aspects, however, of the matter have begun to grow plainer. It seems certain, for instance, that the sounds of vowels corresponded with those of the gamut. When, therefore, we meet with vowels arranged in a seemingly meaningless order, the explanation is to be found in substituting the sound for the letter. The W papyrus of Leyden has given us a clue to these melodies, which may have been sung at the celebration of Gnostic mysteries and orgies.

Wagner, Leclerq, and Lejay in Dict. d’archéol. chrét. et de lit. (Paris, 1904), I, 1258–88; Duchesne, Orig. de culte chrétien London, 1903), 409, 417; Ruelle and Poirée, Le chant gnostico-magique (Solesmes, 1901).

H. LECLERCQ

St. Alphonsus Liguori

Born at Marianella, near Naples, 27 September, 1696; died at Nocera de’ Pagani, 1 August, 1787. The eighteenth century was not an age remarkable for depth of spiritual life, yet it produced three of the greatest missionaries of the Church, St. Leonard of Port Maurice, St. Paul of the Cross, and St. Alphonsus Liguori. Alphonsus Mary Antony John Cosmas Damian Michael Gaspard de’ Liguori was born in his father’s country house at Marianella near Naples, on Tuesday, 27 September, 1696. He was baptized two days later in the church of Our Lady of the Virgins, in Naples. The family was an old and noble one, though the branch to which the Saint belonged had become somewhat impoverished. Alphonsus’s father, Don Joseph de’ Liguori was a naval officer and Captain of the Royal Galleys. The Saint’s mother was of Spanish descent, and if, as there can be little doubt, race is an element in individual character, we may see in Alphonsus’s Spanish blood some explanation of the enormous tenacity of purpose which distinguished him from his earliest years. “I know his obstinacy,” his father said of him as a young man; “when he once makes up his mind he is inflexible.” Not many details have come down to us of Alphonsus’s childhood. He was the eldest of seven children and the hope of his house. The boy was bright and quick beyond his years, and made great progress in all kinds of learning. In addition his father made him practice the harpsichord for three hours a day, and at the age of thirteen he played with the perfection of a master. Riding and fencing were his recreations, and an evening game of cards; he tells us that he was debarred from being a good shot by his bad sight. In early manhood he became very fond of the opera, but only that he might listen to the music, for when the curtain went up he took his glasses off, so as not to see the players distinctly. The Neapolitan stage at this time was in a good state, but the Saint had from his earliest years an ascetic repugnance to theatres, a repugnance which he never lost. The childish fault for which he most reproached himself in after-life was resisting his father too strongly when he was told to take part in a drawing-room play. Alphonsus was not sent to school but was educated by tutors under his father’s eye. At the age of sixteen, on 21 January, 1713, he took his degree as Doctor of Laws, although twenty was the age fixed by the statutes. He said himself that he was so small at the time as to be almost buried in his doctor’s gown and that all the spectators laughed. Soon after this the boy began his studies for the Bar, and about the age of nineteen practised his profession in the courts. In the eight years of his career as advocate, years crowded with work, he is said never to have lost a case. Even if there be some exaggeration in this, for it is not in an advocate’s power always to be on the winning side, the tradition shows that he was extraordinarily able and successful. In fact, despite his youth, he seems at the age of twenty-seven to have been one of the leaders of the Neapolitan Bar.

Alphonsus, like so many saints, had an excellent father and a saintly mother. Don Joseph de’ Liguori had his faults. He was somewhat worldly and ambitious, at any rate for his son, and was rough tempered when opposed. But he was a man of genuine faith and piety and stainless life, and he meant his son to be the same. Even when taking him into society in order to arrange a good marriage for him, he wished Alphonsus to put God first, and every year father and son would make a retreat together in some religious house. Alphonsus, assisted by divine grace, did not disappoint his father’s care. A pure and modest boyhood passed into a manhood without reproach. A companion, Balthasar Cito, who afterwards became a distinguished judge, was asked in later years if Alphonsus had ever shown signs of levity in his youth. He answered emphatically: “Never! It would be a sacrilege to say otherwise.” The Saint’s confessor declared that he preserved his baptismal innocence till death. Still there was a time of danger.

There can be little doubt but that the young Alphonsus with his high spirits and strong character was ardently attached to his profession, and on the way to be spoilt by the success and popularity which it brought. About the year 1722, when he was twenty-six years old, he began to go constantly into society, to neglect prayer and the practices of piety which had been an integral part of his life, and to take pleasure in the attention with which he was everywhere received.

“Banquets, entertainments, theatres,” he wrote later on—“these are the pleasures of the world, but pleasures which are filled with the bitterness of gall and sharp thorns. Believe me who have experienced it, and now weep over it.” In all this there was no serious sin, but there was no high sanctity either, and God, Who wished His servant to be a saint and a great saint, was now to make him take the road to Damascus. In 1723 there was a lawsuit in the courts between a Neapolitan nobleman, whose name has not come down to us, and the Grand Duke of Tuscany, in which property valued at 500,000 ducats, that to say, $500,000 or 100,000 pounds, was at stake. Alphonsus was one of the leading counsel; we do not know on which side. When the day came the future Saint made a brilliant opening speech and sat down confident of victory. But before he called a witness the opposing counsel said to him in chilling tones: “Your arguments are wasted breath. You have overlooked a document which destroys your whole case.” “What document is that?” said Alphonsus somewhat piqued. “Let us have it.” A piece of evidence was handed to him which he had read and re-read many times, but always in a sense the exact contrary of that which he now saw it to have. The poor advocate turned pale. He remained thunderstruck for a moment; then said in a broken voice: “You are right. I have been mistaken. This document gives you the case.” In vain those around him and even the judge on the bench tried to console him. He was crushed to the earth. He thought his mistake would be ascribed not to oversight but to deliberate deceit. He felt as if his career was ruined, and left the court almost beside himself, saying: “World, I know you now. Courts, you shall never see me more.” For three days he refused all food. Then the storm subsided, and he began to see that his humiliation had been sent him by God to break down his pride and wean him from the world. Confident that some special sacrifice was required of him, though he did not yet know what, he did not return to his profession, but spent his days in prayer, seeking to know God’s will. After a short interval—we do not know exactly how long—the answer came. On 28 August, 1723, the young advocate had gone to perform a favourite act of charity by visiting the sick in the Hospital for Incurables. Suddenly he found himself surrounded by a mysterious light; the house seemed to rock, and an interior voice said: “Leave the world and give thyself to Me.” This occurred twice. Alphonsus left the Hospital and went to the church of the Redemption of Captives. Here he laid his sword before the statue of Our Lady, and made a solemn resolution to enter the ecclesiastical state, and furthermore to offer himself as a novice to the Fathers of the Oratory. He knew that trials were before him. His father, already displeased at the failure of two plans for his son’s marriage, and exasperated at Alphonsus’s present neglect of his profession, was likely to offer a strenuous opposition to his leaving the world. So indeed it proved. He had to endure a real persecution for two months. In the end a compromise was arrived at. Don Joseph agreed to allow his son to become a priest, provided he would give up his proposal joining the Oratory, and would continue to live at home. To this Alphonsus by the advice of his director, Father Thomas Pagano, himself an Oratorian, agreed. Thus was he left free for his real work, the founding of a new religious congregation. On 23 October of the same year, 1723, the Saint put on the clerical dress. In September of the next year he received the tonsure and soon after joined the association of missionary secular priests called the “Neapolitan Propaganda,” membership of which did not entail residence in common. In December, 1724, he received minor orders, and the subdiaconate in September, 1725. On 6 April, 1726, he was ordained deacon, and soon after preached his first sermon. On 21 December of the same year, at the age of thirty, he was ordained priest. For six years he laboured in and around Naples, giving missions for the Propaganda and preaching to the lazzaroni of the capital. With the aid of two laymen, Peter Barbarese, a schoolmaster, and Nardone, an old soldier, both of whom he converted from an evil life, he enrolled thousands of lazzaroni in a sort of confraternity called the “Association of the Chapels,” which exists to this day. Then God called him to his life work.

In April 1729, the Apostle of China, Matthew Ripa, founded a missionary college in Naples, which became known colloquially as the “Chinese College.” A few months later Alphonsus left his father’s house and went to live with Ripa, without, however, becoming a member of his society. In his new abode he met a friend of his host’s, Father Thomas Falcoia, of the Congregation of the “Pii Operarii” (Pious Workers), and formed with him the great friendship of his life. There was a considerable difference in age between the two men, for Falcoia, born in 1663, was now sixty-six, and Alphonsus only thirty-three, but the old priest and the young had kindred souls. Many years before, in Rome, Falcoia had been shown a vision of a new religious family of men and women whose particular aim should be the perfect imitation of the virtues of Our Lord. He had even tried to form a branch of the Institute by uniting twelve priests in a common life at Tarentum, but the community soon broke up. In 1719, together with a Father Filangieri, also one of the “Pii Operarii,” he had refounded a Conservatorium of religious women at Scala on the mountains behind Amalfi. But as he drew up a rule for them, formed from that of the Visitation nuns, he does not seem to have had any clear idea of establishing the new institute of his vision. God, however, intended the new institute to begin with these nuns of Scala. In 1724, soon after Alphonsus left the world, a postulant, Julia Crostarosa, born in Naples on 31 October, 1696, and hence almost the same age as the Saint, entered the convent of Scala. She became known in religion as Sister Maria Celeste. In 1725, while still a novice, she had a series of visions in which she saw a new order (apparently of nuns only) similar to that revealed to Falcoia many years before. Even its Rule was made known to her. She was told to write it down and show it to the director of the convent, that is to Falcoia himself. While affecting to treat the novice with severity and to take no notice of her visions, the director was surprised to find that the Rule which she had written down was a realization of what had been so long in his mind. He submitted the new Rule to a number of theologians, who approved of it, and said it might be adopted in the convent of Scala, provided the community would accept it. But when the question was put to the community, opposition began. Most were in favour of accepting, but the superior objected and appealed to Filangieri, Falcoia’s colleague in establishing the convent, and now, as General of the “Pii Operarii,” his superior. Filangieri forbade any change of rule and removed Falcoia from all communication with the convent. Matters remained thus for some years. About 1729, however, Filangieri died, and on 8 October, 1730, Falcoia was consecrated Bishop of Castellamare. He was now free, subject to the approval of the Bishop of Scala, to act with regard to the convent as he thought best. It happened that Alphonsus, ill and overworked, had gone with some companions to Scala in the early summer of 1730. Unable to be idle, he had preached to the goatherds of the mountains with such success that Nicolas Guerriero, Bishop of Scala, begged him to return and give a retreat in his cathedral.

Falcoia, hearing of this, begged his friend to give a retreat to the nuns of his Conservatorium at the same time. Alphonsus agreed to both requests and set out with his two friends, John Mazzini and Vincent Mannarini, in September, 1730. The result of the retreat to the nuns was that the young priest, who before had been prejudiced by reports in Naples against the proposed new Rule, became its firm supporter, and even obtained permission from the Bishop of Scala for the change. In 1731, the convent unanimously adopted the new Rule, together with a habit of red and blue, the traditional colours of Our Lord’s own dress. One branch of the new Institute seen by Falcoia in vision was thus established. The other was not to be long delayed. No doubt Thomas Falcoia had for some time hoped that the ardent young priest, who was so devoted to him, might, under his direction, be the founder of the new Order he had at heart. a fresh vision of Sister Maria Celeste seemed to show that such was the will of God. On 3 October, 1731, the eve of the feast of St. Francis, she saw Our Lord with St. Francis on His right hand and a priest on His left. A voice said “This is he whom I have chosen to be head of My Institute, the Prefect General of a new Congregation of men who shall work for My glory.” The priest was Alphonsus. Soon after, Falcoia made known to the latter his vocation to leave Naples and establish an order of missionaries at Scala, who should work above all for the neglected goatherds of the mountains. A year of trouble and anxiety followed.

The Superior of the Propaganda and even Falcoia’s friend, Matthew Ripa, opposed the project with all their might. But Alphonsus’s director, Father Pagano; Father Fiorillo, a great Dominican preacher; Father Manulio, Provincial of the Jesuits; and Vincent Cutica, Superior of the Vincentians, supported the young priest, and, 9 November, 1732, the “Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer,” or as it was called for seventeen years, “of the Most Holy Saviour,” was begun in a little hospice belonging to the nuns of Scala. Though St. Alphonsus was founder and de facto head of the Institute, its general direction in the beginning, as well as the direction of Alphonsus’s conscience, was undertaken by the Bishop of Castellamare and it was not till the latter’s death, 20 April, 1743, that a general chapter was held and the Saint was formally elected Superior-General. In fact, in the beginning, the young priest in his humility would not be Superior even of the house, judging one of his companions, John Baptist Donato, better fitted for the post because he had already had some experience of community life in another institute.

The early years, following the founding of the new order, were not promising. Dissensions arose, the Saint’s former friend and chief companion, Vincent Mannarini, opposing him and Falcoia in everything. On 1 April, 1733, all the companions of Alphonsus except one lay brother, Vitus Curtius, abandoned him, and founded the Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament, which, confined to the Kingdom of Naples, was extinguished in 1860 by the Italian Revolution. The dissensions even spread to the nuns, and Sister Maria Celeste herself left Scala and founded a convent at Foggia, where she died in the odour of sanctity, 14 September, 1755. She was declared Venerable 11 August, 1901. Alphonsus, however, stood firm; soon other companions arrived, and though Scala itself was given up by the Fathers in 1738, by 1746 the new Congregation had four houses at Nocera de’ Pagani, Ciorani, Iliceto (now Deliceto), and Caposele, all in the Kingdom of Naples. In 1749, the Rule and Institute of men were approved by Pope Benedict XIV, and in 1750, the Rule and Institute of the nuns. Alphonsus was lawyer, founder, religious superior, bishop, theologian, and mystic, but he was above all a missionary, and no true biography of the Saint will neglect to give this due prominence. From 1726 to 1752, first as a member of the Neapolitan “Propaganda,” and then as a leader of his own Fathers, he traversed the provinces of Naples for the greater part of each year giving missions even in the smallest villages and saving many souls. a special feature of his method was the return of the missionaries, after an interval of some months, to the scene of their labours to consolidate their work by what was called the “renewal of a mission.”

After 1752 Alphonsus gave fewer missions. His infirmities were increasing, and he was occupied a good deal with his writings. His promotion to the episcopate in 1762 led to a renewal of his missionary activity, but in a slightly different form. The Saint had four houses, but during his lifetime it not only became impossible in the Kingdom of Naples to get any more, but even the barest toleration for those he had could scarcely be obtained. The cause of this was “regalism,” the omnipotence of kings even in matters spiritual, which was the system of government in Naples as in all the Bourbon States. The immediate author of what was practically a lifelong persecution of the Saint was the Marquis Tanucci, who entered Naples in 1734. Naples had been part of the dominions of Spain since 1503, but in 1708 when Alphonsus was twelve years old, it was conquered by Austria during the war of the Spanish Succession. In 1734, however, it was reconquered by Don Carlos, the young Duke of Parma, great-grandson of Louis XIV, and the independent Bourbon Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was established. With Don Carlos, or as he is generally called, Charles III, from his later title as King of Spain, came the lawyer, Bernard Tanucci, who governed Naples as Prime Minister and regent for the next forty-two years. This was to be a momentous revolution for Alphonsus. Had it happened a few years later, the new Government might have found the Redemptorist Congregation already authorized, and as Tanucci’s anti-clerical policy rather showed itself in forbidding new Orders than, with the exception of the Society of Jesus, in suppressing old ones, the Saint might have been free to develop his work in comparative peace. As it was, he was refused the royal exequatur to the Brief of Benedict XIV, and State recognition of his Institute as a religious congregation till the day of his death. There were whole years, indeed, in which the Institute seemed on the verge of summary suppression. The suffering which this brought on Alphonsus, with his sensitive and high-strung disposition, was very great, besides what was worse, the relaxation of discipline and loss of vocations which it caused in the Order itself. Alphonsus, however, was unflagging in his efforts with the Court. It may be he was even too anxious, and on one occasion when he was over-whelmed by a fresh refusal, his friend the Marquis Brancone, Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs and a man of deep piety, said to him gently: “It would seem as if you placed all your trust here below”; on which the Saint recovered his peace of mind. A final attempt to gain the royal approval, which seemed as if at last it had been successful, led to the crowning sorrow of Alphonsus’s life: the division and apparent ruin of his Congregation and the displeasure of the Holy See. This was in 1780, when Alphonsus was eighty-three years old. But, before relating the episode of the “Regolamento,” as it is called, we must speak of the period of the Saint’s episcopate which intervened.

In the year 1747, King Charles of Naples wished to make Alphonsus Archbishop of Palermo, and it was only by the most earnest entreaties that he was able to escape. In 1762, there was no escape and he was constrained by formal obedience to the Pope to accept the Bishopric of St. Agatha of the Goths, a very small Neapolitan diocese lying a few miles off the road from Naples to Capua. Here with 30,000 uninstructed people, 400 mostly indifferent and sometimes scandalous secular clergy, and seventeen more or less relaxed religious houses to look after, in a field so overgrown with weeds that they seemed the only crop, he wept and prayed and spent days and nights in unremitting labour for thirteen years. More than once he faced assassination unmoved. In a riot which took place during the terrible famine that fell upon Southern Italy in 1764, he saved the life of the syndic of St. Agatha by offering his own to the mob. He fed the poor, instructed the ignorant, reorganized his seminary, reformed his convents, created a new spirit in his clergy, banished scandalous noblemen and women of evil life with equal impartiality, brought the study of theology and especially of moral theology into honour, and all the time was begging pope after pope to let him resign his office because he was doing nothing for his diocese. To all his administrative work we must add his continual literary labours, his many hours of daily prayer, his terrible austerities, and a stress of illness which made his life a martyrdom.

Eight times during his long life, without counting his last sickness, the Saint received the sacraments of the dying, but the worst of all his illnesses was a terrible attack of rheumatic fever during his episcopate, an attack which lasted from May, 1768, to June, 1769, and left him paralyzed to the end of his days. It was this which gave St. Alphonsus the bent head which we notice in the portraits of him. So bent was it in the beginning, that the pressure of his chin produced a dangerous wound in the chest. Although the doctors succeeded in straightening the neck a little, the Saint for the rest of his life had to drink at meals through a tube. He could never have said Mass again had not an Augustinian prior shown him how to support himself on a chair so that with the assistance of an acolyte he could raise the chalice to his lips. But in spite of his infirmities both Clement XIII (1758–69) and Clement XIV (1769–74) obliged Alphonsus to remain at his post. In February, 1775, however, Pius VI was elected Pope, and the following May he permitted the Saint to resign his see.

Alphonsus returned to his little cell at Nocera in July, 1775, to prepare, as he thought, for a speedy and happy death. Twelve years, however, still separated him from his reward, years for the most part not of peace but of greater afflictions than any which had yet befallen him. By 1777, the Saint, in addition to four houses in Naples and one in Sicily, had four others at Scifelli, Frosinone, St. Angelo a Cupolo, and Beneventum, in the States of the Church. In case things became hopeless in Naples, he looked to these houses to maintain the Rule and Institute. In 1780, a crisis arose in which they did this, yet in such a way as to bring division in the Congregation and extreme suffering and disgrace upon its founder. The crisis arose in this way. From the year 1759 two former benefactors of the Congregation, Baron Sarnelli and Francis Maffei, by one of those changes not uncommon in Naples, had become its bitter enemies, and waged a vendetta against it in the law courts which lasted for twenty-four years. Sarnelli was almost openly supported by the all-powerful Tanucci, and the suppression of the Congregation at last seemed a matter of days, when on 26 October, 1776, Tanucci, who had offended Queen Maria Carolina, suddenly fell from power. Under the government of the Marquis della Sambuca, who, though a great regalist, was a personal friend of the Saint’s, there was promise of better times, and in August, 1779, Alphonsus’s hopes were raised by the publication of a royal decree allowing him to appoint superiors in his Congregation and to have a novitiate and house of studies. The Government throughout had recognized the good effect of his missions, but it wished the missionaries to be secular priests and not a religious order. The Decree of 1779, however, seemed a great step in advance. Alphonsus, having got so much, hoped to get a little more, and through his friend, Mgr. Testa, the Grand Almoner, even to have his Rule approved. He did not, as in the past, ask for an exequatur to the Brief of Benedict XIV, for relations at the time were more strained than ever between the Courts of Rome and Naples; but he hoped the king might give an independent sanction to his Rule, provided he waived all legal right to hold property in common, which he was quite prepared to do. It was all-important to the Fathers to be able to rebut the charge of being an illegal religious congregation, which was one of the chief allegations in the ever-adjourned and ever-impending action by Baron Sarnelli. Perhaps in any case the submission of their Rule to a suspicious and even hostile civil power was a mistake. At all events, it proved disastrous in the result. Alphonsus being so old and so inform—he was eighty-five, crippled, deaf, and nearly blind—his one chance of success was to be faithfully served by friends and subordinates, and he was betrayed at every turn. His friend the Grand Almoner betrayed him; his two envoys for negotiating with the Grand Almoner, Fathers Majone and Cimino, betrayed him, consultors general though they were. His very confessor and vicar general in the government of his Order, Father Andrew Villani, joined in the conspiracy. In the end the Rule was so altered as to be hardly recognizable, the very vows of religion being abolished. To this altered Rule or “Regolamento,” as it came to be called, the unsuspecting Saint was induced to put his signature. It was approved by the king and forced upon the stupefied Congregation by the whole power of the State. a fearful commotion arose. Alphonsus himself was not spared. Vague rumours of impending treachery had got about and had been made known to him, but he had refused to believe them. “You have founded the Congregation and you have destroyed it,” said one Father to him. The Saint only wept in silence and tried in vain to devise some means by which his Order might be saved. His best plan would have been to consult the Holy See, but in this he had been forestalled. The Fathers in the Papal States, with too precipitate zeal, in the very beginning denounced the change of Rule to Rome. Pius VI, already deeply displeased with the Neapolitan Government, took the fathers in his own dominions under his special protection, forbade all change of rule in their houses, and even withdrew them from obedience to the Neapolitan superiors, that is to St. Alphonsus, till an inquiry could be held. A long process followed in the Court of Rome, and on 22 September, 1780, a provisional Decree, which on 24 August, 1781, was made absolute, recognized the houses in the Papal States as alone constituting the Redemptorist Congregation. Father Francis de Paula, one of the chief appellants, was appointed their Superior General, “in place of those,” so the brief ran, “who being higher superiors of the said Congregation have with their followers adopted a new system essentially different from the old, and have deserted the Institute in which they were professed, and have thereby ceased to be members of the Congregation.” So the Saint was cut off from his own Order by the Pope who was to declare him “Venerable.” In this state of exclusion he lived for seven years more and in it he died. It was only after his death, as he had prophesied, that the Neapolitan Government at last recognized the original Rule, and that the Redemptorist Congregation was reunited under one head (1793).

Alphonsus had still one final storm to meet, and then the end. About three years before his death he went through a veritable “Night of the Soul.” Fearful temptations against every virtue crowded upon him, together with diabolical apparitions and illusions, and terrible scruples and impulses to despair which made life a hell. at last came peace, and on 1 August, 1787, as the midday Angelus was ringing, the Saint passed peacefully to his reward. He had nearly completed his ninety-first year. He was declared “Venerable,” 4 May, 1796; was beatified in 1816, and canonized in 1839. In 1871, he was declared a Doctor of the Church. “Alphonsus was of middle height,” says his first biographer, Tannoia; “his head was rather large, his hair black, and beard well-grown.” He had a;pleasant smile, and his conversation was very agreeable, yet he had great dignity of manner. He was a born leader of men. His devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and to Our Lady was extraordinary. He had a tender charity towards all who were in trouble; he would go to any length to try to save a vocation; he would expose himself to death to prevent sin. He had a love for the lower animals, and wild creatures who fled from all else would come to him as to a friend. Psychologically, Alphonsus may be classed among twice-born souls; that is to say, there was a definitely marked break or conversion, in his life, in which he turned, not from serious sin, for that he never comitted, but from comparative worldliness, to thorough self-sacrifice for God. Alphonsus’s temperament was very ardent. He was a man of strong passions, using the term in the philosophic sense, and tremendous energy, but from childhood his passions were under control. Yet, to take anger alone, though comparatively early in life he seemed dead to insult or injury which affected himself, in cases of cruelty, or of injustice to others, or of dishonour to God, he showed a prophet’s indignation even in old age. Ultimately, however, anything merely human in this had disappeared. At the worst, it was only the scaffolding by which the temple of perfection was raised. Indeed, apart from those who become saints by the altogether special grace of martyrdom, it may be doubted if many men and women of phlegmatic temperament have been canonized. The differentia of saints is not faultlessness but driving-power, a driving-power exerted in generous self-sacrifice and ardent love of God. The impulse to this passionate service of God comes from Divine grace, but the soul must correspond (which is also a grace of God), and the soul of strong will and strong passions corresponds best. The difficulty about strong wills and strong passions is that they are hard to tame, but when they are tamed they are the raw material of sanctity.

Not less remarkable than the intensity with which Alphonsus worked is the amount of work he did. His perseverance was indomitable. He both made and kept a vow not to lose a single moment of time. He was helped in this by his turn of mind which was extremely practical. Though a good dogmatic theologian—a fact which has not been sufficiently recognized—he was not a metaphysician like the great scholastics. He was a lawyer, not only during his years at the Bar, but throughout his whole life—a lawyer, who to skilled advocacy and an enormous knowledge of practical detail added a wide and luminous hold of underlying principles. It was this which made him the prince of moral theologians, and gained him, when canonization made it possible, the title of “Doctor of the Church.” This combination of practical common sense with extraordinary energy in administrative work ought to make Alphonsus, if he were better known, particularly attractive to the English-speaking nations, especially as he is so modern a saint. But we must not push resemblances too far. If in some things Alphonsus was an Anglo-Saxon, in others he was a Neapolitan of the Neapolitans, though always a saint. He often writes as a Neapolitan to Neapolitans. Were the vehement things in his letters and writings, especially in the matter of rebuke or complaint, to appraised as if uttered by an Anglo-Saxon in cold blood, we might be surprised and even shocked. Neapolitan students, in an animated but amicable discussion, seem to foreign eyes to be taking part in a violent quarrel. St. Alphonsus appeared a miracle of calm to Tannoia. Could he have been what an Anglo-Saxon would consider a miracle of calm, he would have seemed to his companions absolutely inhuman. The saints are not inhuman but real men of flesh and blood, however much some hagiographers may ignore the fact.

While the continual intensity of reiterated acts of virtue which we have called driving-power is what really creates sanctity, there is another indispensable quality. The extreme difficulty of the lifelong work of fashioning a saint consists precisely in this, that every act of virtue the saint performs goes to strengthen his character, that is, his will. On the other hand, ever since the Fall of Man, the will of man has been his greatest danger. It has a tendency at every moment to deflect, and if it does deflect from the right path, the greater the momentum the more terrible the final crash. Now the saint has a very great momentum indeed, and a spoiled saint is often a great villain.

To prevent the ship going to pieces on the rocks, it has need of a very responsive rudder, answering to the slightest pressure of Divine guidance. The rudder is humility, which, in the intellect, is a realization of our own unworthiness, and in the will, docility to right guidance. But how was Alphonsus to grow in this so necessary virtue when he was in authority nearly all his life? The answer is that God kept him humble by interior trials. From his earliest years he had an anxious fear about committing sin which passed at times into scruple.

He who ruled and directed others so wisely, had, where his own soul was concerned, to depend on obedience like a little child. To supplement this, God allowed him in the last years of his life to fall into disgrace with the pope, and to find himself deprived of all external authority, trembling at times even for his eternal salvation. St. Alphonsus does not offer as much directly to the student of mystical theology as do some contemplative saints who have led more retired lives. Unfortunately, he was not obliged by his confessor, in virtue of holy obedience, as St. Teresa was, to write down his states of prayer; so we do not know precisely what they were. The prayer he recommended to his Congregation, of which we have beautiful examples in his ascetical works, is affective; the use of short aspirations, petitions, and acts of love, rather than discursive meditation with long reflection. His own prayer was perhaps for the most part what some call “active,” others “ordinary,” contemplation. Of extraordinary passive states, such as rapture, there are not many instances recorded in his life, though there are some. At three different times in his missions, while preaching, a ray of light from a picture of Our Lady darted towards him, and he fell into an ecstasy before the people. In old age he was more than once raised in the air when speaking of God.

His intercession healed the sick; he read the secrets of hearts, and foretold the future. He fell into a clairvoyant trance at Arienzo on 21 September, 1774, and was present in spirit at the death-bed in Rome of Pope Clement XIV.

It was comparatively late in life that Alphonsus became a writer. If we except a few poems published in 1733 (the Saint was born in 1696), his first work, a tiny volume called “Visits to the Blessed Sacrament,” only appeared in 1744 or 1745, when he was nearly fifty years old. Three years later he published the first sketch of his “Moral Theology” in a single quarto volume called “Annotations to Busembaum,” a celebrated Jesuit moral theologian. He spent the next few years in recasting this work, and in 1753 appeared the first volume of the “Theologia Moralis,” the second volume, dedicated to Benedict XIV, following in 1755. Nine editions of the “Moral Theology” appeared in the Saint’s life-time, those of 1748, 1753–1755, 1757, 1760, 1763, 1767, 1773, 1779, and 1785, the “Annotations to Busembaum” counting as the first. In the second edition the work received the definite form it has since retained, though in later issues the Saint retracted a number of opinions, corrected minor ones, and worked at the statement of his theory of Equiprobabilism till at last he considered it complete. In addition, he published many editions of compendiums of his larger work, such as the “Homo Apostolicus,” made in 1759. The “Moral Theology,” after a historical introduction by the Saint’s friend, P. Zaccaria, S.J., which was omitted, however, from the eighth and ninth editions, begins with a treatise “De Conscientia,” followed by one “De Legibus.” These form the first book of the work, while the second contains the treatises on Faith, Hope, and Charity. The third book deals with the Ten Commandments, the fourth with the monastic and clerical states, and the duties of judges, advocates, doctors, merchants, and others. The fifth book has two treatises “De Actibus Humanis” and “De Peccatis”; the sixth is on the sacraments, the seventh and last on the censures of the Church.

St. Alphonsus as a moral theologian occupies the golden mean between the schools tending either to laxity or to rigour which divided the theological world of his time. When he was preparing for the priesthood in Naples, his masters were of the rigid school, for though the center of Jansenistic disturbance was in northern Europe, no shore was so remote as not to feel the ripple of its waves. When the Saint began to hear confessions, however, he soon saw the harm done by rigorism, and for the rest of his life he inclined more to the mild school of the Jesuit theologians, whom he calls “the masters of morals.” St. Alphonsus, however, did not in all things follow their teaching, especially on one point much debated in the schools; namely, whether we may in practice follow an opinion which denies a moral obligation, when the opinion which affirms a moral obligation seems to us to be altogether more probable. This is the great question of “Probabilism.” St. Alphonsus, after publishing anonymously (in 1749 and 1755) two treatises advocating the right to follow the less probable opinion, in the end decided against that lawfulness, and in case of doubt only allowed freedom from obligation where the opinions for and against the law were equal or nearly equal. He called his system Equiprobabilism. It is true that theologians even of the broadest school are agreed that, when an opinion in favour of the law is so much more probable as to amount practically to moral certainty, the less probable opinion cannot be followed, and some have supposed that St. Alphonsus meant no more than this by his terminology. According to this view he chose a different formula from the Jesuit writers, partly because he thought his own terms more exact, and, partly to save his teaching and his congregation as far as possible from the State persecution which after 1764 had already fallen so heavily on the Society of Jesus, and in 1773 was formally to suppress it. It is a matter for friendly controversy, but it seems there was a real difference, though not as great in practice as is supposed, between the Saint’s later teaching and that current in the Society. Alphonsus was a lawyer, and as a lawyer he attached much importance to the weight of evidence. In a civil action a serious preponderance of evidence gives one side the case. If civil courts could not decide against a defendant on greater probability, but had to wait, as a criminal court must wait, for moral certainty, many actions would never be decided at all. St. Alphonsus likened the conflict between law and liberty to a civil action in which the law has the onus probandi, although greater probabilities give it a verdict. Pure probabilism likens it to a criminal trial, in which the jury must find in favour of liberty (the prisoner at the bar) if any single reasonable doubt whatever remain in its favour. Furthermore, St. Alphonsus was a great theologian, and so attached much weight to intrinsic probability. He was not afraid of making up his mind. “I follow my conscience,” he wrote in 1764, “and when reason persuades me I make little account of moralists.” To follow an opinion in favour of liberty without weighing it, merely because it is held by someone else, would have seemed to Alphonsus an abdication of the judicial office with which as a confessor he was invested. Still it must in fairness be admitted that all priests are not great theologians able to estimate intrinsic probability at its true worth, and the Church herself might be held to have conceded something to pure probabilism by the unprecedented honours she paid to the Saint in her Decree of 22 July, 1831, which allows confessors to follow any of St. Alphonsus’s own opinions without weighing the reasons on which they were based.

Besides his Moral Theology, the Saint wrote a large number of dogmatic and ascetical works nearly all in the vernacular. The “Glories of Mary,” “The Selva,” “The True Spouse of Christ,” “The Great Means of Prayer,” “The Way of Salvation,” “Opera Dogmatica, or History of the Council of Trent,” and “Sermons for all the Sundays in the Year,” are the best known. He was also a poet and musician. His hymns are justly celebrated in Italy. Quite recently, a duet composed by him, between the Soul and God, was found in the British Museum bearing the date 1760 and containing a correction in his own handwriting.

Finally, St. Alphonsus was a wonderful letter-writer, and the mere salvage of his correspondence amounts to 1,451 letters, filling three large volumes. It is not necessary to notice certain non-Catholic attacks on Alphonsus as a patron of lying. St. Alphonsus was so scrupulous about truth that when, in 1776, the regalist, Mgr. Filingeri, was made Archbishop of Naples, the Saint would not write to congratulate the new primate, even at the risk of making another powerful enemy for his persecuted Congregation, because he thought he could not honestly say he “was glad to hear of the appointment.” It will be remembered that even as a young man his chief distress at his breakdown in court was the fear that his mistake might be ascribed to deceit. The question as to what does or does not constitute a lie is not an easy one, but it is a subject in itself. Alphonsus said nothing in his “Moral Theology” which is not the common teaching of Catholic theologians.

Very few remarks upon his own times occur in the Saint’s letters. The eighteenth century was one series of great wars; that of the Spanish, Polish, and Austrian Succession; the Seven Years’ War, and the War of American Independence, ending with the still more gigantic struggles in Europe, which arose out of the events of 1789. Except in ’45, in all of these, down to the first shot fired at Lexington, the English-speaking world was on one side and the Bourbon States, including Naples, on the other. But to all this secular history about the only reference in the Saint’s correspondence which has come down to us is a sentence in a letter of April, 1744, which speaks of the passage of the Spanish troops who had come to defend Naples against the Austrians. He was more concerned with the spiritual conflict which was going on at the same time. The days were indeed evil. Infidelity and impiety were gaining ground; Voltaire and Rousseau were the idols of society; and the ancien régime, by undermining religion, its one support, was tottering to its fall. Alphonsus was a devoted friend of the Society of Jesus and its long persecution by the Bourbon Courts, ending in its suppression in 1773, filled him with grief. He died on the very eve of the great Revolution which was to sweep the persecutors away, having seen in vision the woes which the French invasion of 1798 was to bring on Naples.

An interesting series of portraits might be painted of those who play a part in the Saint’s history: Charles III and his minister Tanucci; Charle’s son Ferdinand, and Ferdinand’s strange and unhappy Queen, Maria Carolina, daughter of Maria Teresa and sister of Marie Antoinette; Cardinals Spinelli, Sersale, and Orsini; Popes Benedict XIV, Clement XIII, Clement XIV, and Pius VI, to each of whom Alphonsus dedicated a volume of his works. Even the baleful shadow of Voltaire falls across the Saint’s life, for Alphonsus wrote to congratulate him on a conversion, which alas, never took place! Again, we have a friendship of thirty years with the great Venetian publishing house of Remondini, whose letters from the Saint, carefully preserved as became business men, fill a quarto volume. Other personal friends of Alphonsus were the Jesuit Fathers de Matteis, Zaccaria, and Nonnotte.

A respected opponent was the redoubtable Dominican controversialist, P. Vincenzo Patuzzi, while to make up for hard blows we have another Dominican, P. Caputo, President of Alphonsus’s seminary and a devoted helper in his work of reform. To come to saints, the great Jesuit missionary St. Francis di Geronimo took the little Alphonsus in his arms, blessed him, and prophesied that he would do great work for God; while a Franciscan, St. John Joseph of the Cross, was well known to Alphonsus in later life. Both of them were canonized on the same day as the Holy Doctor, 26 May, 1839. St. Paul of the Cross (1694–1775) and St. Alphonsus, who were altogether contemporaries, seem never to have met on earth, though the founder of the Passionists was a great friend of Alphonsus’s uncle, Mgr. Cavalieri, himself a great servant of God. Other saints and servants of God were those of Alphonsus’s own household, the lay brother, St. Gerard Majella, who died in 1755, and Januarius Sarnelli, Cfsar Sportelli, Dominic Blasucci, and Maria Celeste, all of whom have been declared “Venerable” by the Church.

Blessed Clement Hofbauer joined the Redemptorist congregation in the aged Saint’s lifetime, though Alphonsus never saw in the flesh the man whom he knew would be the second founder of his Order. Except for the chances of European war, England and Naples were then in different worlds, but Alphonsus may have seen at the side of Don Carlos when he conquered Naples in 1734, an English boy of fourteen who had already shown great gallantry under fire and was to play a romantic part in history, Prince Charles Edward Stuart. But one may easily overcrowd a narrow canvas and it is better in so slight a sketch to leave the central figure in solitary relief. If any reader of this article will go to original sources and study the Saint’s life at greater length, he will not find his labour thrown away.

Much of the material for a complete life of St. Alphonsus is still in manuscript in the Roman archives of the Redemptorist Congregation and in the archives of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. The foundation of all subsequent lives is the Della vita ed istituto del venerabile Alfonso Maria Liguori, of ANTONY TANNOIA, one of the great biographies of literature. Tannoia was born about 1724 and entered the Redemptorist Congregation in 1746. As he did not die till 1808 (his work appeared in 1799) he was a companion of the Saint for over forty years and an eyewitness of much that he relates. Even where he is not that, he may generally be trusted, as he was a Boswell in collecting facts. His life contains a number of minor inaccuracies, however, and is seriously defective in its account of the founding of his Congregation and of the troubles which fell on it in 1780. Tannoia, also, through some mental idiosyncrasy, manages to give the misleading impression that St. Alphonsus was severe. There is a somewhat unsatisfactory French translation of Tannoia’s work. Mimoires sur la vie et la congrigation de St. Alphonse de Liguori (Paris, 1842, 3 vols.). The English translation in the Oratory Series is also rather inadequate. A justly celebrated life is the Vie et Institut de Saint Alphonse-Marie de Liguori, in four volumes, by CARDINAL VILLECOURT, (Tournai, 1893). The German life, DILGSKRON, Leben des heiligen Bischofs und Kirchenlehrers, Alfonsus Maria de Liguori (New York, 1887), is scholarly and accurate. CARDINAL CAPECELATRO has also written a life of the Saint, La Vita di Sant’ Alfonso Maria de Liguori (Rome, 2 vols.). The latest life, BERTHE, Saint Alphonse de Liguori (Paris, 1900, 2 vols. . SVO), gives an extremely full and picturesque account of the Saint’s life and times. This has recently been translated into English with additions and corrections (Dublin, 2 vols., royal SVO); DUMORTIER, Les premihres Redemptoristines (Lille, 1886), and Le Phre Antoine-Marie Tannoia (Paris, 1902), contain some useful information; as does BERRUTI, Lo Spirito di S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, 3 ed. (Rome, 1896). The Saint’s own letters are of extreme value in supplementing Tannoia. A centenary edition, Lettere di S. Alfonso Maria de’Liguori (ROME, 1887, 3 vols.), was published by P. KUNTZ, C.SS.R., director of the Roman archives of his Congregation. An English translation in five volumes is included in the 22 volumes of the American centenary edition of St. Alphonsus’s ascetical works (New York). There are many editions of the Saint’s Moral Theology; the best and latest is that of P. GAUDI, C.SS.R. (Rome, 1905). The Saint’s complete dogmatic works have been translated into Latin by P. WALTER, C.SS.R., S. Alphonsi Mariae de Liguori Ecclesiae Doctoris Opera Dogmatica, (New York, 1903, 2 vols., 4to). See also HASSALL, The Balance of Power (1715–89) (London, 1901); COLLETTA, History of the Kingdom of Naples, 1734–1825, 2 vols., tr. by S. HORNER (Edinburgh, 1858); VON REUMONT, Die Carafa von Maddaloni (Berlin, 1851, 2 vols.); JOHNSTON, The Napoleonic Empire in South Italy, 2 vols. (London, 1904). Colletta’s book gives the best general picture of the time, but is marred by anti-clerical bias.

HAROLD CASTLE

St. Alphonsus Rodriguez

(Also Alonso).

Born at Segovia in Spain, 25 July, 1532; died at Majorca, 31 October, 1617. On account of the similarity of names he is often confounded with Father Rodriguez the author of “Christian Perfection,” who though eminent in his holiness was never canonized. The Saint was a Jesuit lay-brother who entered the Society at the age of forty. He was the son of a wool merchant who had been reduced to poverty when Alfonso was still young. At the age of twenty-six he married Mary Suarez, a woman of his own station, and at thirty-one found himself a widower with one surviving child, the other two having died previously. From that time he began a life of prayer and mortification, although separated from the world around him. On the death of his third child his thoughts turned to a life in some religious order. Previous associations had brought him into contact with the first Jesuits who had come to Spain, Bl. Peter Faber among others, but it was apparently impossible to carry out his purpose of entering the Society, as he was without education, having only had an incomplete year at a new college begun at Alcala by Francis Villanueva. At the age of thirty-nine he attempted to make up this deficiency by following the course at the College of Barcelona, but without success. His austerities had also undermined his health. After considerable delay he was finally admitted into the Society of Jesus as a lay-brother, 31 January, 1571. Distinct novitiates had not as yet been established in Spain, and Alfonso began his term of probation at Valencia or Gandia—this point is a subject of dispute—and after six months was sent to the recently-founded college at Majorca, where he remained in the humble position of porter for forty-six years, exercising a marvelous influence on the sanctification not only of the members of the household, but upon a great number of people who came to the porter’s lodge for advice and direction. Among the distinguished Jesuits who came under his influence was St. Peter Clavier, who lived with him for some time at Majorca, and who followed his advice in asking for the missions of South America. The bodily mortifications which he imposed on himself were extreme, the scruples and mental agitation to which he was subject were of frequent occurrence, his obedience absolute, and his absorption in spiritual things even when engaged on most distracting employments, continual. It has often been said that he was the author of the well known “Little Office of the Immaculate Conception,” and the claim is made by Alegambe, Southwell, and even by the Fathers de Backer in their Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus. Apart from the fact that the brother did not have the requisite education for such a task, Father Costurer says positively that the office he used was taken from an old copy printed out of Spain, and Father Colin asserts that it existed before the Saint’s time. It may be admitted, however, that through him it was popularized. He left a considerable number of manuscripts after him, some of which have been published as “Obras Espirituales del B. Alonso Rodriguez” (Barcelona, 1885, 3 vols., octavo, complete edition, 8 vols. in quarto). They have no pretense to style; they are sometimes only reminiscences of domestic exhortations; the texts are often repeated; the illustrations are from every-day life; the treatment of one virtue occasionally trenches on another; but they are remarkable for the correctness and soundness of their doctrine and the profound spiritual knowledge which they reveal. They were not written with a view to publication, but put down by the Saint himself, or dictated to others, in obedience to a positive command of his superiors. He was declared Venerable in 1626. In 1633 he was chosen by the Council General of Majorca as one of the special patrons of the city and island. In 1760 Clement XIII decreed that “the virtues of the Venerable Alonso were proved to be of a heroic degree”; but the expulsion of the Society from Spain in 1773, and its suppression, delayed his beatification until 1825. His canonization took place 6 September, 1887. His remains are enshrined at Majorca.

Goldie, Life of St. Alfonso Rodriguez in Quarterly Series (London, 1889); Vie admirable de Alfonse d’après les Mémoires (Paris, 1890); Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la C. de J., VI.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Prospero Alpini

Physician and botanist, born at Marostica, in the Republic of Venice, 23 November, 1553; died at Padua, 6 February, 1617. He studied medicine at Padua from 1574 to 1578, taking his degree as doctor in the latter year. After two years spent at Campo San Pietro, he was appointed physician to the Venetian Counsul in Egypt (1580), which gave him a much desired opportunity of pursuing his chosen study of botany under conditions more favourable than he could find in Italy, and of which he took the fullest possible advantage. On his return to Venice, in 1586, he became physician to Andre Doria, Prince of Melfi, and was looked upon in Genoa, where he resided, as the first physician of his age. He returned to Padua in 1593, where he filled the chair of botany for many years. He wrote a number of medical and botanical works in Latin, the most important being “De plantis Ægypti liber” (Venice, 1592). It is said that his earlier work, “De Medicinia Ægyptiorum” (Venice, 1591) contains the first mention, by a European writer, of the coffee plant.

FRANCIS W. GREY

Alsace-Lorraine

The German Imperial Territory so known, and divided for State purposes into three civil districts. Lower and Upper Alsace and Lorraine include the two bishoprics of Strasburg and Metz, which are immediately subject to the Holy See.

Christianity penetrated this region at an early period, partly owing to the presence of the Roman Legions, whose duty it was to guard the boundaries of the Empire against the attacks of the German hordes, partly through Roman merchants who traded with the Germans on the right bank of the Rhine. The first Bishop of Strasburg of whose name we are historically certain is St. Amandus (commemorated 26 October), who was present at the Councils of Sardica (343) and of Cologne (346). The Lombard, Paul the Deacon, a contemporary of Charlemagne, names St. Clement I, one of St. Peter’s immediate successors at Rome, as first Bishop of Metz. Prior to the French Revolution the northern part of Alsace belonged to the diocese of Speier, certain villages in the west to that of Metz, most of Upper Alsace to Basel, and the neighbourhood of Belfort to the Archdiocese of Besancon. The Diocese of Strasburg embraced the rest of Alsace, but extended to the right bank of the Rhine, including outside of Alsace the deaneries of Lahr or Ettenheim, Offenburg and Ottersweier. The Diocese of Metz included districts now belonging to German and French Lorraine, to the Grand Duchies of Luxembourg and Hesse, to the Bavarian Palatinate, and to Lower Alsace. After the Revolution the provisions of the Concordat assigned the whole district between the Queich and Lake Biehler, with the Departments of Bas-Rhin, Haut-Rhin and the greater part of Mont Terrible (Pruntrut) to the Diocese of Strasburg, and those of Moselle, Forets, and Ardennes to the Diocese of Metz. During the nineteenth century great changes were brought about in the boundaries of both dioceses by agreement arrived at between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. The civil districts of Upper and Lower Alsace have belonged to the Diocese of Strasburg since 1874, and that of Lorraine to Metz.

POPULATION

The census of 1 December, 1900, distributes the population as follows:

Diocese of Strasburg: 821,612 Catholics; 304,204 Protestants; 3,192 Dissidents; 25,414 Jews; 319 persons of unknown religion; 1,154,741 total

Diocese of Metz: 488,838 Catholics; 67,874 Protestants; 1,224 Dissidents; 6,850 Jews; 43 persons of unknown religion; 564,829 total

These figures, however, do not include the 34,367 soldiers in the Diocese of Strasburg; and the 44,491 in the Diocese of Metz, who are under the jurisdiction of the Army Bishop in Berlin.

CATHEDRAL CHAPTERS

There is a Cathedral chapter in each of these two dioceses, which consists in Strasburg of nine, and in Metz of eight actual irremovable canons (canonici titulares), whose appointment must be confirmed by the State. Several bishops of other dioceses, moreover, nominated by the Bishops of Metz and Strasburg alone, belong to the chapters as canonici honoris causâ, as well as certain canonici honorarii living in the dioceses, thirty-eight in Strasburg at the present time, and twenty-one in Metz. Four priests, also, not belonging to the diocese, but who have been of service to it, have been made honorary canons by the Bishop of Strasburg.

DIOCESAN ADMINISTRATION

In the administration of the respective dioceses the bishops are assisted by three vicars-general in that of Strasburg, and by two in that of Metz (who can only be appointed with the consent of the civil authorities), and by seven secretaries in the former diocese and three in the latter.

PARISHES

The parishes of Alsace-Lorraine, since the Concordat of 1901, have been divided into two classes: regular parishes, whose incumbents must receive the approval of the Government, and are irremovable, and subordinate parishes, whose incumbents are appointed by the bishop only, and may be removed by him. The regular parishes, again, fall into two classes, according to their respective importance and revenues. In the Diocese of Strasburg there are thirty-eight parishes of the first, and thirty-four of the second class. In Metz there are sixteen of the first and thirty-nine of the second class. There are 617 subordinate parishes in the Diocese of Strasburg, and 518 in the Diocese of Metz. In many parishes the priests are assisted by curates, who, almost without exception, live in the presbytery, the cost being paid to the parish priest by the parish. The curates themselves are paid either by the State as are 221 in the Diocese of Strasburg and 118 in the Diocese of Metz, or by towns and church-corporations (Kirchenfabriken), 73 in the former diocese, and 31 in the latter. Six holders of curacies in Strasburg, and three in Metz have houses of their own, and enjoy all the rights of parish priests, with the title of resident vicars. On 1 January, 1906, there were in the Diocese of Strasburg, besides the Bishop of Strasburg, the titular Bishop of Paphos (former Coadjutor of Strasburg), the present Coadjutor (titular Bishop of Erythraea), 1,245 priests, all but eleven of whom were born in the diocese; in the Diocese of Metz, besides the bishop, 869 priests, 793 of whom were born in the diocese, and 76 elsewhere.

STIPENDS

The State pays the Bishops of Strasburg and Metz $4,000 (16,000 marks) each; the Coadjutor of Strasburg $2,000 (8,000 marks); the vicars-general $900 (3,600); and the canons $700 (2,800 marks). As the Coadjutor Bishop of Strasburg, however, merely holds the office of vicar-general as subsidiary to his other functions, he receives only $500 (2,000 marks) in that capacity. The president of the Directory of the Church of the Augsburg Confession is paid $1,600 (6,400 marks) as stipend, and $400 (1,600 marks) for his expenses as representative; a clerical member $240 (960 marks); and each of the lay members $400 (1,600 marks). The Chief Rabbi in Strasburg receives $1,000 (4,000 marks) as salary, and $300 (1,200) for expenses as representative; each of the other chief rabbis $1,000 (4,000 marks). The state pays Catholic parish priests on the following scale (see classification of parishes given above):

To the age of 35: $312 for sub-parishes

From 35 to 50: $336 for sub-parishes

To the age of 50: $500 for Class I parishes; $425 for Class II parishes

From 50 to 60: $525 for Class I parishes; $450 for Class II parishes; $362 for sub-parishes

From 60 to 70: $550 for Class I parishes; $475 for Class II parishes; $400 for sub-parishes

Over 70: $575 for Class I parishes; $500 for Class II parishes; $425 for sub-parishes

Curates paid by the State receive $150 (600 marks). The State pays, besides, $4,650 (18,600 marks) for expenses of maintenance of the episcopal secretaries in Strasburg and Metz; $1,650 (6,600 marks) in each diocese for the music and choir of the cathedral; $500 (2,000 marks) for the expenses of confirmation and visitation journeys; $750 (3,000 marks) to the Coadjutor Bishop of Strasburg for living expenses; $19,750 (79,000 marks) as pensions for retirement and for maintenance of a retired coadjutor; $15,000 (60,000 marks) as extra assistance to clergymen and their relatives; $6,625 (26,500 marks) as pay for students in the clerical seminaries of Strasburg and Metz; $4,500 (18,000 marks) as pay for students in the universities as well as assistance to home mission-schools; $31,250 (125,000 marks) in aid of church and presbytery-building, the furnishing and adorning of churches, and the like material outlay for the support of Catholic worship. The Government pays $659,093 (2,636,370 marks) yearly as a regular contribution to Catholic worship, $218,742 (874,969 marks) to the Protestants, and $43,793 (175,170 marks) to the Jews. The Protestant pastors draw from the State treasury:—Up to 6 years’ service: $500

Over 6 years’ service: $500 + $50 from special church tax

Over 12 years’ service: $500 + $100 from special church tax

Over 18 years’ service: $500 + $150 from special church tax

Over 24 years’ service: $500 + $175 from special church tax

Over 30 years’ service: $500 + $200 from special church tax

The Rabbi in Muelhausen receives $600 (2,400 marks), and the other rabbis:—Up to 40 years of age: $425 in 15 places; $400 in 24 other places

From 40 to 50 years of age: $475 in 15 places; $450 in 24 other places

From 50 to 60 years of age: $525 in 15 places; $500 in 24 other places

From 60 to 70 years of age: $575 in 15 places; $550 in 24 other places

Over 70 years of age: $600 in 15 places; $575 in 24 other places

The civil district of Lower Alsace pays the Bishop of Strasburg $1,000 (4,000 marks) and each vicar-general and canon of the cathedral $300 (1,200 marks) as additional salary.

CHURCH TAXES

At the session of the Provincial Diet in 1901 the proposal was made on behalf of the Government that the increasing needs of the various denominations recognized by the State should be met by means of the assessments, or church taxes, imposed by the State. Only the Protestant church authorities, however, have so far acted on this recommendation, so that only the Protestant taxpayers are liable to these special taxes. They amounted (in 1906) to $47,218 (188,870 marks 48 pf.), and are applied to the increase of Protestant pastoral stipends and pensions, and the support of widows and orphans.

RELIGIOUS HOUSES

Prior to the French Revolution there were about 100 monasteries in Alsace, in addition to the canons regular of Strasburg Cathedral, three houses of canonesses and nine collegiate churches. The following orders laboured in the country: Augustinians, Benedictines (monks and nuns), Celestines, Cistercians (monks and nuns), Poor Clares, the Teutonic Order, Dominicans (friar and nuns), Franciscans (friars and nuns), Jesuits (until the suppression of the Society), Johannites, Capuchins, Carthusians, Premonstratensians, the Congregation of Our Lady, Sisters of St. Joseph, Sisters of the Visitation. In the Diocese of Metz there were, besides the cathedral chapter, eleven collegiate churches, three Augustinian canonries, nine Benedictine, four Cistercian, and three Premonstratensian abbeys. There are now in the Diocese of Strasburg seven orders of men and twenty-one of women; Trappists at Ölenberg, near Reiningen, since 1825; Capuchins at Koenigshofen and Sidgolsheim (1888); Redemptorists at Bischenberg and Riedisheim (1896); Fathers of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at Zabern (1900); Marist Brothers at St. Pilt (as home for the emeriti); Brothers of Christian Doctrine at Matzenheim, Zelsheim, and Ehl (1821); Brothers of Mercy at Strasburg (1900); Trappist nuns at Ergersheim; Congregation of Our Lady (of St. Peter Fourier) at Strasburg and Molsheim; Carmelite nuns at Marienthal; Congregation of Maria Reparatrix at Strasburg; Benedictine nuns of the Perpetual Adoration at Ottmarsheim; Benedictine nuns of the Blessed Sacrament at Rosheim; Dominican nuns at Colmar, Sisters of the Good Shepherd at Strasburg and Mülhausen; Sisters of the Mostt Sacred Heart of Jesus at Kienzheim; Sisters of Divine Providence at Rappoltsweiler; Sisters of Christian Doctrine at Strasburg; Sisters of Providence at St. John of Bassel; Sisters of Perpetual Adoration at Baronsweiler; Sisters of Mercy at Strasburg (mother-house), and in many hospitals; Sisters of the Most Holy Redeemer at Oberbronn (mother-house), and in many hospitals and individual foundations; Sisters of the Holy Cross at Strasburg (four houses), Colmar, Sennheim, and Still; Sisters of St. Joseph at St. Marx near Geberschweier, and at Ebersmuenster; Little Sisters at Strasburg and Colmar; Institute of St. Anthony at Strasburg; Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus at Dauendorf; Franciscan nuns at Rheinackern and Thal.

In the Diocese of Metz there are now five orders of men and twenty-one of women; Franciscans at Metz and Lubeln (1888); Redemptorists at Teterchen; Oblates of the Immaculate Conception of Mary at St. Ulrich; Fathers of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost, and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at Neuscheuern (1904); the Brothers of Christian Doctrine (of St. John Baptist de La Salle) at Metz; Sisters of Mercy (from Strasburg) in many hospitals; Benedictine nuns at Oriocourt; Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo at Metz; Sisters of St. Christiana at Metz; Sisters of Christian Doctrine at Chateau-Salins; Dominican nuns at Rettel; Franciscan nuns at Metz; Sisters of the Good Shepherd at Metz; Servants of the Sacred Heart at Scy; Sisters of the Sacred Heart at Pépinville; Sisters of the Visitation at Metz; Little Sisters at Borny; Sisters of the Holy Redeemer (from Niederbronn) in hospitals; Sisters of Hope at Metz; Sisters of Christian Mercy at Metz; Sisters of the Divine Motherhood at Metz; Sisters of the Poor Child Jesus at Plappeville; Carmelite nuns at Metz; Sisters of the Heart of Mary at Vic; Sisters of the Divine Providence at St. John of Bassel; Vincentian Sisters (of Metz) at Metz. These orders of women devote themselves chiefly to the education of girls, the care of the sick and to a contemplative life of penance.

CLERICAL SEMINARIES

The Episcopal Seminary, together with the Episcopal University of Strasburg, consisting of faculties of theology and canon law, with power to confer academic degrees, were closed at the French Revolution. When, however, Napoleon, by Article XI of the Concordat, granted each bishop permission to establish a seminary in his diocese, Bishop Laurine, who was made Bishop of Strasburg in 1802, immediately proceeded to open a seminary in his cathedral city in the following year (1803), in which young clerics were educated during the course of the nineteenth century. On the 5th of December, 1902, Cardinal Rampolla, Secretary of State, and the Prussian envoy to the Holy See, Freiherr von Rotenhahn, came to an agreement concerning the erection of a Catholic theological faculty at the Kaiser-Wilhelm University of Strasburg, which was accordingly opened in October, 1903, and in which the following subjects are taught: Preparatory instruction in philosophy and theology, dogmatics, moral theology, apologetics, church history, Old and New Testament exegesis, canon law, pastoral theology, ecclesiastical archeology. The professors are chosen by the bishop and confirmed in their appointment by the Emperor; they are obliged to make a profession of faith according to the forms and rules of the Church, in the presence of the Dean, before entering on their duties. The rules which govern the Catholic theological faculties at Bonn and at Breslau apply to the Strasburg faculty and its members, in their relations with the Church. If the ecclesiastical authorities submit evidence that a professor is unfit to continue his functions as teacher either because of lack of orthodoxy or because of conduct unbecoming a clergyman, the State immediately provides a successor, and takes measures to terminate the offender’s connection with the faculty. Alongside of this theological faculty the Episcopal Seminary continues to exist and gives the young students a parochial training and education in all branches pertaining to the exercise of the priestly office. The seminary, at the present time, is managed by a superior, a director, and three professors. The cost of maintenance for the faculty falls exclusively on the State; the seven ordinary and one extraordinary, professors who lecture before it, received in 1906, $11,875 (47,500 marks) among them, and $725 (2,900 marks) as extras. The clergy of the Diocese of Metz are trained in the seminary at Metz by professors of the Bishop’s nomination.

EPISCOPAL GYMNASIA

Bishop Raess having refused to acknowledge the State supervision of the Preparatory Seminaries at Strasburg (Lower Alsace) and Zillisheim (Upper Alsace), which, up to then, had been wholly subject to the diocesan authorities, the two institutions were respectively closed, by Ober-President Möller, on the 24th of June and the 17th of July, 1874. They have since been reopened (the one at Zillisheim on the 20th of April, 1880; the one at Strasburg on the 5th of April, 1883), and are now known as “episcopal gymnasia.” Both institutions follow the curriculum of the higher government schools under the supervision of the highest educational council of Alsace-Lorraine. The teachers are appointed by the bishop, subject to the approval of the council of education, and must have passed an examination pro facultate docendi before the State commission. Both have the right to grant the certificates required to be admitted to the one-year military service as volunteers, to such of their students as have successfully completed their “lower second” class, that is to say, a six-years’ high school course. In both seminaries the final examinations of the students of the graduating class are conducted by the class-instructors under the supervision of the State school commission. They enjoy, there- fore the same rights as the State gymnasia. The seminaries are maintained by the bishop from fees amounting to $20 (80 marks) yearly from scholars in the preparatory classes (without Latin); and $30 (120 marks) for those of the gymnasium classes, as also from alms received during Lent. The Bishop of Strasburg, in virtue of extraordinary powers, grants an individual dispensation from abstinence during Lent and on all the fast days during the year, except Good Friday, “on the express condition that all who avail themselves of it shall make a special offering on behalf of diocesan institutions.” These alms amounted to $12,863 (51,453 marks) for the year 1902–3; and $13,455 (53,818 marks) for the year 1903–4. During the school year 1904–5 thirty-nine teachers lectured at the Episcopal Gymnasium in Strasburg, and twenty-one at Zillisheim, to 565 and 271 scholars respectively. The Episcopal Gymnasium in the Diocese of Metz, at Montigny, enjoys all the rights of a State gymnasium, which are not possessed by the higher episcopal school at Bitsch or by the cathedral school of St. Arnulf at Metz.

COLLECTIONS AMONG THE FAITHFUL

Six church collections have been made obligatory by the Bishop of Strasburg: on the Sunday after the Epiphany, for the African missions; on Good Friday, for the Christians of the East; at Easter and Pentecost, for the Peter’s Pence; on the feast of the consecration of a church, for the abolition of alternate, or common, use of church edifices by Catholics and non-Catholics; on the Sunday after the feast of St. Odilia, for the blind asylum at Still. In addition to these, collections are made for the work of the Childhood of Jesus (the ransom of heathen children); for the spread of the Faith; for home missions (Society of St. Francis de Sales); and for the assistance of Catholic students. Moreover, since State pensions for retired priests are not sufficient, the priests of the Diocese of Strasburg have established a supplementary fund which amounted in 1902 to $4,096 (16,384 marks; in 1903, to $6079 (24,315 marks) to $4,667 (18,667 marks) in 1904, and to $5,271 (21,085 marks) in 1905.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

An ordinance, dated 18 April, 1871, and issued by Count von Bismarck-Bohlen, Governor-General of Alsace, obliges every child, on reaching the age of six, to attend either a public or a private school, unless equivalent provision shall be made in the family itself. School attendance continues to be obligatory until the final examination, which, for boys, takes place at the age of fourteen, for girls at thirteen. The law of 12 February placed all lower and higher education under the supervision and control of the State authorities. “In all schools,” so runs the ordinance of the Imperial Statthalter (Governor), dated 16 November, 1887 “religion, morality, respect for the State and the laws shall be inculcated by means of teaching and education.” The normal curriculum of elementary schools comprises religion, German, arithmetic, geometry, drawing, history, geography, natural history, natural science, singing, carpentry, and feminine handicrafts. The following are charged with the local supervision of each elementary school: the burgomaster, the Catholic priest, the Protestant pastor, the delegate of the Jewish religion and, in parishes of more than 2,000 souls, one or more residents appointed thereto by the President of the district. The clergy are especially charged with the supervision of the religious instruction given by the teachers in the schools; they have, besides, the right of entering the schools at all times. The greater number of public elementary schools are denominational. Most of the masters are laymen; most of the mistresses, sisters of some teaching order. These communities, whose members teach in public, State, and municipal schools, also maintain private elementary, intermediate, and higher girls’ schools.

ART MONUMENTS

Alsace-Lorraine is rich in important art monuments, the two principal being the world-famous minster of Strasburg and the cathedral of Metz. The first was begun in 1015, and finished in July, 1439, and whereas the cathedral at Cologne presents an example of one style Gothic work, the minster at Strasburg bears traces of many styles. The crypt is early Romanesque, the choir and part of the transept late Romanesque, the nave and southern portion show the highest triumph of Gothic architecture. It is 110 metres (361 feet) long, and 47 metres (154 feet) wide; the tower is 142 metres (466 feet) high. The Gothic cathedral of Metz was begun under Bishop Conrad von Scharfenberg (1212–20), but was not consecrated until 1546. In the eighteenth century an Italian porch was built at the west end, but was replaced at the beginning of the twentieth century by one corresponding to the style of the building itself. The cathedral is 122 metres (400 feet) long, 30 metres (98.4 feet) wide in the nave, and 47 metres (154 feet) at the transepts. The two towers are unfinished. The oldest church in Strasburg is the Romanesque church of St. Stephen, said to have been built in the twelfth century; the oldest in Alsace, St Peter’s collegiate church at Avolsheim, which dates to the eleventh.

INSTITUTIONS OF CHARITY

In October, 1899, a charity organization was founded at Strasburg, in connection with the Charity Society for Catholic Germany (headquarters at Freiburg im Breisgau). It has central offices at Paris and Nancy, and is connected with the Oeuvre Internationale de la protection de la jeune fille of Switzerland. This organization is the centre of all the Catholic benevolent societies and institutions of Alsace-Lorraine. Its object is to make inquiries into actual and prospective causes of destitution, and to take special steps for their amelioration, to impart information relating to the poor, and to charitable institutions and undertakings, and to disseminate the true principles of Christian charity by means of lectures and pamphlets. The sphere of these charitable societies includes: -(1) Crêches for infants, with protection and care of school children of both sexes during play hours. Of these there are two at Colmar, two at Muelhausen, one at Rappoltsweiler, five at Strasburg, and one at Thann. -(2) Orphanages and training schools for orphan, deserted, or unprotected children; 22 establishments with 3,000 children. -(3) Institutions for the reform of fallen women or of those exposed to moral dangers; one at Muelhausen and two at Strasburg. -(4) The sheltering of unprotected or orphan children, one society at Colmar, three at Strasburg. -(5) The providing of holiday colonies for delicate children, and the fitting out of poor children on special occasions, such as First Communion; 17 societies. -(6) Homes for the care of the sick and infirm; 45 with 4,421 inmates.—(7) Asylums for idiots, epileptics, and insane; 7 with 2,330 inmates. -(8) Asylums for the blind and for deaf mutes; three with more than 200 inmates. -(9) Lying-in hospitals for poor women at Colmar, Masmuenster, Muelhausen, Rappoltsweiler, Strasburg, and Thann. -(10) Out-of-door care of the sick and Poor: (a) By 32 Societies of St. Vincent de Paul with 661 members, who support 1,300 families. A branch of the St. Vincent de Paul Society is the Society of St. Francis Regis, which provides needy persons with the documents required for civil and religious marriage, and effects the legitimation of children. It exists in all the parishes of Colmar and Muelhausen and in Strasburg, where, between 1894 and 1897, it brought about 152 marriages between Catholics, 48 between Catholics and Protestants, and 12 between Protestants. (b) By 16 ladies’ societies. (c) By Sisters of the Divine Redeemer in 23 districts; Sisters of St. Joseph in 13, Sisters of the Cross in 10, Sisters of Mercy in 4, and Franciscan nuns in 1. (d) By means of soup establishments and peoples’ kitchens in 11 places. -(11) Care of destitute prisoners at Colmar and Strasburg. -(12) Employment agencies in various places. -(13) A peoples’ bureau at Strasburg, founded in connection with the Peoples’ Society for Catholic Germany, which distributed without pay in one year (1904) information in 2805 pamphlets; 113 on old age and disablement insurance, 288 on accident insurance, 62 on sick insurance, 308 on collections, 437 on other civil matters, 280 on penal matters, 63 on matters of trusteeship, 51 on taxation, 24 on military matters, 42 on matters relating to domestic service, 308 on the relations of landlord and tenant, 241 on matters relating to inheritance, 220 on the duties of directors, 61 on prices, 307 on various matters. -(14) Protection of girls. This society is connected with the International Catholic Society for the Protection of Girls; its object is to assist with advice and help unprotected, grown-up girls, house servants, factory girls, shop girls, teachers, and others, those, especially, who are away from home, and to shield them from dangers to faith and morals. Thirty-six visits were made to such girls during 1905, 561 letters received, and 765 written; 1,101 domestic servants were lodged in St. Arbogast’s Home, 86 free, for 919 days, and 57 at a reduced price for 1,012 days. -(15) Young ladies’ societies, twenty-four in number. The members have use of libraries, are advised as to savings banks and insurance companies; they receive instruction in sewing, mending, ironing, French, singing, and are directed to situations. -(16) Women’s and mothers’ societies, nine in number. These provide assistance for the poorer members in case of sickness, and defray the burial fees in cases of death. -(17) Societies with social objects in eleven places. The members receive free medical attendance and medicine, sick pay, and death pay, and Masses are said for them after death. -(18) There are Homes for workmen and workwomen, and students at Colmar, Erstein, Gebweiler, Muelhausen, Müllerhof near Urmatt, Regisheim, and three at Strasburg. -(19) Higher instruction for boys and girls in 23 schools.—(20) Women’s Union; an organization for women for religious, social, scientific, and charitable purposes. There were as many as 600 members in 1906 in the Women’s Union, the second year after its foundation. -(21) The aim of the youths’ and men’s societies, some of which were founded 200 years ago, but most of which were established within the last twenty years, is not merely to protect and strengthen the faith of their members, but to assist them in their material interests. The first is attained by means of common worship and general communion; the second, in the case of young men, by means of social intercourse, lectures, the use of libraries, athletics, music, and shooting contests, instruction in German, French, arithmetic, drawing, bookkeeping, and short hand; dramatic performances, savings and insurance funds, assistance to the sick and those doing military service, and finding situations; for older men by social intercourse, lectures, savings, loans, insurance for sickness and death funds, employment agencies, legal protection, and co-operative societies. According to the latest returns published, there were 40 such youths’ societies, in 1904, with 15,300, and 32 older men’s societies with 18,346 members. These do not include the three Catholic “Casinos” in Strasburg, or those in Hazenau, Colmar, and Schlettstadt, or the Catholic students’ societies at the University of Strasburg. These last are Franconia, Merovingia, Staufia (Catholic Students’ Union of the S.K.V.); Badenia, Rappolstein (Catholic Students’ Association of S.C.V.); Erwinia (Catholic Students’ Association of the S.C.V.); Unitas, Catholic Science Students’ Union, the Academic Society of St. Boniface, the Academic Marian Congregation and the Academic Conference of St. Vincent de Paul.

The following societies, which are gradually becoming firmly established in Alsace-Lorraine, should also be mentioned: the Society of the Supporters of the Centrum (Zentrumsverein), the Peoples’ Union for Catholic Germany, the Branch Unions for Catholic schoolmasters and mistresses. On 11 March, 1906, representatives of all the “Centre Societies” in Alsace-Lorraine met at Strasburg and agreed unanimously on the foundation of a local Centre Party. Statutes of incorporation were drawn up and the working programme for the immediate future decided on. (The Union in Strasburg has 1,650 members, the one in Muelhausen 2,000.) The Peoples’ Union, known as a legacy of Windthorst, whose object is to guard the common people against the dangerous and disturbing influence of Social Democracy, had 42,000 members, in Alsace-Lorraine, in 1906, 22,000 of whom were Alsatians, 15,000 German-speaking, and 5,000 French-speaking Lorrainers. Some 600 schoolmasters are members of the Catholic Masters’ Society, and some 490 women-teachers of the Catholic Schoolmistresses’ Society.

Das Reichsland Elsass-Lothringen, published by the State Bureau of the Ministry for Alsace-Lorraine (Strasburg 1903); CLAUSS, Woerterbuch des Elsass (Zabern, 1904); FRITSCH, METZ, and MUELLER, STRASSBURG in Kirchenlex. (Freiburg, 1899); Landeshaushaltsetat von Elsass-Lothringen (Strasburg, 1903 and 1906); Verhandlungen des Landesausschusses fuer Elsass- Lothringen, Sitzungsberichte (Strasburg, 1903); Schematismus des Bistums Strassburg, (1906); Schematismus des Bistums Metz, (1906); Gesetze, Verordnungen und Verfuegungen betreffend das niedere Unterrichtswesen in Alsass-Lothringen (Strasburg, 1889); Jahresbericht des bischoeflichen Gymnasiums an St. Stephan zu Strassburg, (1905); Jahresbericht des bischoeflichen Gymnasiums in Zillisheim (Strasburg, 1905); Die katholischen Wohlthaetigkeitsanstalten und Vereine in der Dioezese Strassburg (Freiburg, im Br. 1900).

LEO EHRHARD

Diego Francisco Altamirano

Jesuit, b. at Madrid, 26 October, 1625; d. Lima, 22 December, 1715. He wrote “Historia de la provincia Peruana de la Compañía de Jésus,” the twelfth book only of which was published, in 1891, by Manuel Vicente Ballivian, with a short biographical notice from the pen of Torres Saldamando. It was followed by another by Altamirano: “Breve noticia de las misiones de los infieles que tiena la Compañía de Jésus en esta provincia del Peru, en las provincias de los Mojos,” also with introduction by Saldamando. The Original manuscript, of the “Historia” is in the National Archives at Lima, in a Deplorable state of decomposition.

BALLIVIAN, Documentos historicos de Bolivia (La Paz, 1891).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Altamura and Acquaviva

An exempt archipresbyterate in the province of Bari, in southern Italy. Altamura was declared exempt from episcopal jurisdiction by Innocent IV in 1248, and again by Innocent VIII (1484–92). Acquaviva, a town of the Campagna, was declared similarly exempt by Pius IX and united with Altamura, 17 August 1848. Altamura has 4 parishes and a Catholic population of 19,333; Acquaviva has one parish and a Catholic population of 8,527; the clergy number 80.

BATTANDIER, Ann. Pont. (1905), 338.

Altar (in Liturgy)

Altar (in Liturgy).—In the New Law the altar is the table on which the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered. Mass may sometimes be celebrated outside a sacred place, but never without an altar, or at least an altar-stone. In ecclesiastical history we find only two exceptions: St. Lucian (312) is said to have celebrated Mass on his breast whilst in prison, and Theodore Bishop of Tyre on the hands of his deacons (Mabillon, Praef. in 3 saec., n. 79). According to Radulphus of Oxford (Prop. 25), St. Sixtus II (257–259) was the first to prescribe that Mass should be celebrated on an altar, and the rubric of the missal (XX) is merely a new promulgation of the law. It signifies, according to Amalarius (De Eccles. Officiis, I, xxiv) the Table of the Lord (mensa Domini), referring to the Last Supper, or the Cross (St. Bernard, De Coena Domini), or Christ (St. Ambrose, IV, De Sacram. xii; Abbot Rupert, V, xxx). The last meaning explains the honour paid to it by incensing it, and the five crosses engraved on it signify His five wounds.

Position.—In the ancient basilicas the priest, as he stood at the altar, faced the people. The basilicas of the Roman Empire were, as a rule, law courts or meeting places. They were generally spacious, and the interior area was separated by two, or, it might be, four rows of pillars, forming a central nave and side aisles. The end opposite the entrance had a semi-circular shape, called the apse, and in this portion, which was raised above the level of the floor, sat the judge and his assessors, while right before him stood an altar upon which sacrifice was offered before beginning any important public business.

When these public buildings were adapted for Christian assemblies, slight modifications were made. The apse was reserved for the bishop and his clergy; the faithful occupied the centre and side aisles, while between the clergy and people stood the altar. Later on the altar was placed, in churches, in the apse against, or at least near, the wall, so that the priest when celebrating faced the east, and behind him the people were placed. In primitive times there was but one altar in each church. St. Ignatius the Martyr, Cyprian, Irenaeus, and Jerome, speak of only one altar (Benedict XIV, De Sacr. Misssae, no. 1, xvii). Some think that more than one altar existed in the Cathedral of Milan in the time of St. Ambrose, because he sometimes uses the word altaria, although others are of opinion that altaria in this place means an altar. Towards the end of the sixth century we find evidence of a plurality of altars, for St. Gregory the Great sent relics for four altars to Palladius, Bishop of Saintes, France, who had placed in a church thirteen altars, four of which remained unconsecrated for want of relics. Although there was only one altar in each church, minor altars were erected in side chapels, which were distinct buildings (as is the custom in the Greek, and some Oriental Churches even at the present day) in which Mass was celebrated only once on the same day in each church (Benedict XIV, Ibidem). The fact that in the early ages of Christianity only the bishop celebrated Mass, assisted by his clergy, who received Holy Communion from the bishop’s hands, is the reason that only one altar was erected in each church, but after the introduction of private Masses the necessity of several altars in each church arose.

Material Of Altars.—Although no documents are extant to indicate the material of which altars were made in the first centuries of Christianity, it is probable that they were made of wood, like that used by Christ at the Last Supper. At Rome such a wooden table is still preserved in the Lateran Basilica, and fragments of another such table are preserved in the church of St. Pudentiana, on which St. Peter is said to have celebrated Mass. During the persecutions, when the Christians were forced to move from one place to another, and Mass was celebrated in crypts, private houses, the open air, and catacombs, except when the arcosolia were used (see below, FORM OF AN ALTAR), it is but natural to suppose that they were made of wood, probably wooden chests carried about by the bishops, on the lid of which the Eucharistic Sacrifice was celebrated. St. Optatus of Mileve (De Schismate Donatistarum) reproves the Donatists for breaking up and using for firewood the altars of the Catholic churches, and St. Augustine (Epist. clxxxv) reports that Bishop Maximianus was beaten with the wood of the altar under which he had taken refuge. We have every reason to suppose that in places in which the persecutions were not raging, altars of stone also were in use. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus in the third century built a vast basilica in Neo-Caesarea in which it is probable that more substantial altars were erected. St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of the consecration of an altar made of stone (De Christi Baptismate). Pulcheria, sister of Theodosius II, presented an altar of gold to the Basilica of Constantinople; St. Helena gave golden altars ornamented with precious stones to the church which was erected on the site where the Cross had been concealed for three hundred years; the Popes St. Sixtus III (432–440) and St. Hilary (461–468) presented several altars of silver to the churches of Rome. Since wood is subject to decay, the baser metals to corrosion, and the more precious metals were too expensive, stone became in course of time the ordinary material for an altar. Besides, stone is durable and, according to St. Paul (I Cor., x, 4), symbolizes Christ—“And the rock was Christ.” The Roman Breviary (9 November) asserts that St. Sylvester (314–335) was the first to issue a decree that the altar should be of stone. But of such a decree there is no documentary evidence, and no mention is made of it in canon law, in which so many other decrees of this Pope are inserted. Moreover, it is certain that after that date altars of wood and of metal were erected. The earliest decree of a council which prescribed that an altar which is to be consecrated should be of stone is that of the provincial council of Epeaune (Pamiers), France, in 517 (Labbe, Concil. tom. V, col. 771). The present discipline of the Church requires that for the consecration of an altar it must be of stone.

Form Of An Altar.—In the primitive times there were two kinds of altars.

The arcosolium or monumentum arcuatum, which was formed by cutting in the tufa wall of the wider spaces in the catacombs, an arch-like niche, over a grave or sarcophagus. The latter contained the remains of one or several martyrs, and rose about three feet above the floor. On it was placed horizontally a slab of marble, called the mensa, on which Mass was celebrated.

The altar detached from the wall in the cubicula, or sepulchral chapels surrounded by loculi and arcosolia, used as places of worship in the catacombs or in the churches erected above ground after the time of Constantine. This second kind of altar consisted of a square or oblong slab of stone or marble which rested on columns, one to six in number, or on a structure of masonry in which were enclosed the relics of martyrs. Sometimes two or four slabs of stone were placed vertically under the table, forming a stone chest. In private oratories the table was sometimes made of wood and rested on a wooden support. Within this support were placed the relics of martyrs, and in order to be able to expose them to view, folding doors were fixed on the front.

The Liber Pontificalis states that St. Felix I decreed that Mass should be celebrated on the tombs of martyrs. This no doubt brought about both a change of form, from that of a simple table to that of a chest or tomb, and the rule that every altar must contain the relics of martyrs. Usually the altar was raised on steps, from which the bishop sometimes preached (see ALTAR-STEPS). Originally it was made in the shape of an ordinary table, but gradually a step was introduced behind it and raised slightly above it (see ALTAR-LEDGE). When the tabernacle was introduced the number of these steps was increased. The altar is covered, at least in basilicas and also in large churches, by a canopy supported by columns, called the ciborium (see ALTAR- CANOPY), upon which were placed, or from which were suspended, vases, crowns, baskets of silver, as decorations. From the middle of the ciborium, formerly, a gold or silver dove was suspended to serve as a pyx in which the Blessed Sacrament was reserved. Veils or curtains were attached to the columns which supported the ciborium. (See ALTAR-CURTAIN) The altar was often encircled by railings of wood, or metal, called cancelli, or by low walls of marble slabs called tranennae. According to the present discipline of the Church, there are two kinds of altars, the fixed and the portable. Both these denominations have a twofold meaning, i.e. an altar may be fixed or portable either in a wider sense or in the liturgical meaning. A fixed altar, in a wider sense, is one that is attached to a wall, a floor, or a column whether it be consecrated or not; in the liturgical; sense it is a permanent structure of stone, consisting of a consecrated table and support, which must be built on a solid foundation. A portable altar in a wider sense is one that may be carried from one place to another in the liturgical sense it is a consecrated altar-stone, sufficiently large to hold the Sacred Host and the greater part of the base of the chalice. It is inserted in the table of an altar which is not a consecrated fixed altar.

The component parts of a fixed altar in the liturgical sense are the table (mensa), the support (stipes) and the sepulchrum. (See ALTAR-CAVITY.) The table must be a single slab of stone firmly joined by cement to the support, so that the table and support together make one piece. The surface of this table should be perfectly smooth and polished. Five Greek crosses are engraved on its surface, one at each of the four corners, about six inches from both edges. but directly above the support, and one in the centre. The support may be either a solid mass or it may consist of four or more columns. These must be of natural stone, firmly joined to the table. The substructure need not, however, consist of one piece, but should in every case be built on a solid foundation so as to make the structure permanent. The support may have any of the following forms:

at each corner a column of natural stone, and the spaces between the columns may be filled with any kind of stone, brick, or cement;

the space between the two columns in front may be left open, so as to place beneath the table (exposed) a reliquary containing the body (or a portion of the body) of a saint;

besides the four columns, one at each corner, a fifth column may be placed in the centre at the front. In this case the back, and if desired the sides also, may be filled with stone, brick, or cement;

if the table is small (it should in every case be larger than the stone of a portable altar), four columns are placed under it, one at each corner and, to make up the full length required, frames of stone or other material may be added to each side. these added portions are not consecrated, and hence may be constructed after the ceremony of consecration;

if the table is deficient in width, four columns are placed under it, one at each corner, and a frame of stone or other material is added to the back. This addition is not consecrated, and may be constructed after the consecration of the altar.

In the last two cases the spaces between the columns may be filled with stone brick, or cement, or they may be left open. In every case the substructure may be a solid mass, or the interior may remain hollow, but this hollow space is not to be used as a closet for storing articles of any kind, even such as belong to the altar. Neither the rubrics nor the Sacred Congregation of Rites prescribe any dimensions for an altar. It ought, however, to be large enough to allow a priest conveniently to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice upon it in such a manner that all the ceremonies can be decorously observed. Hence altars at which solemn services are celebrated require to be of greater dimensions than other altars. From the words of the Pontifical we infer that the high altar must stand free on all sides (Pontifex circuit septies tabulam altaris), but the back part of smaller altars may be built against the wall.

Altar—Candles.—For mystical reasons the Church prescribes that the candles used at Mass and at other liturgical functions be made of beeswax (luminaria cerea.—Missale Rom., De Defectibus, X, I; Cong. Sac. Rites, 4 September, 1875). The pure wax extracted by bees from flowers symbolizes the pure flesh of Christ received from His Virgin Mother, the wick signifies the soul of Christ, and the flame represents His divinity. Although the two latter properties are found in all kinds of candles, the first is proper of beeswax candles only. It is, however, not necessary that they be made of beeswax without any admixture. The paschal candle and the two candles used at Mass should be made ex cera apum saltem in maxima parte, but the other candles in majori vel notabili quantitate ex eadem cera (Cong. Sac. Rit., 14 December, 1904). As a rule they should be of white bleached wax, but at funerals, at the office of Tenebrae in Holy Week, and at the Mass of the Presanctified, on Good Friday, they should be of yellow unbleached wax (Caerem. Episc.). De Herdt (I, no. 183, Resp. 2) says that unbleached wax candles should be used during Advent and Lent except on feasts, solemnities, and especially during the exposition and procession of the Blessed Sacrament. Candles made wholly of any other material, such as tallow (Cong. Sac. Rit., 10 December, 1857) stearine (Cong. Sac. Rit., 4 September, 1875), paraffin, etc., are forbidden. The Cong. Sac. Rit. (7 September, 1850) made an exception for the missionaries of Oceania, who, on account of the impossibility of obtaining wax candles, are allowed to use sperm-whale candles. Without an Apostolic indult it is not allowable, and it constitutes a grievous offense to celebrate Mass without any light (Cong. Sac. Rit., 7 September, 1850), even for the purpose of giving Holy Viaticum, or of enabling the people to comply with their duty of assisting at Mass on Sundays and holy days (St. Lig., bk. VI, n. 394). In these, and similar cases of necessity it is the common opinion that Mass may be celebrated with tallow candles or oil lamps (ibid.). It is not permitted to begin Mass before the candles are lighted, nor are they to be extinguished until the end of Mass. If the candles go out before the Consecration, and cannot be again lighted, most authors say that Mass should be discontinued; if this happens after the Consecration, Mass should not be interrupted, although some authors say that if they can possibly be lighted again within fifteen minutes the celebrant ought to interrupt Mass for this space of time (ibid.) If only one rubrical candle can be had, Mass may be celebrated even ex devotione (ibid).

Number of Candles at Mass.—

(1) At a pontifical high Mass, celebrated by the ordinary, seven candles are lighted. The seventh candle should be somewhat higher than the others, and should be placed at the middle of the altar in line with the other six. For this reason the altar crucifix is moved forward a little. In Requiem Masses, and at other liturgical services. e.g. Vespers, the seventh candle is not used. If the bishop celebrate outside his diocese. or if he be the administrator, auxiliary, or coadjutor, the seventh candle is not lighted.

(2) At a solemn high Mass, i.e. when the celebrant is assisted by a deacon and subdeacon, six candles are lighted. This is not expressly prescribed by the rubrics, but merely deduced from the rubric describing the manner of incensing the altar (Ritus celebrandi Missam, tit. iv, n. 4), which says that the celebrant incenses both sides of the altar with three swings of the censer prout distribuuntur candelabra.

(3) At a high Mass (missa cantata), which is celebrated without the assistance of deacon and subdeacon, at least four candles are required (Cong. Sac. Rit., 12 August, 1854), although six may be lighted. At these Masses under (1), (2), (3), the two lighted candles prescribed by the Missal (Rubr. XX) to be placed one on each side of the cross, are not necessary (Cong. Sac. Rit., 5 December, 1891).

(4) At low Mass celebrated by any bishop, four candles are usually lighted, although the “Caeremoniale Episc.” (I, cap. xxix, n. 4) prescribes this number only for the more solemn feasts, and two on feasts of lower rite.

(5) At a strictly low Mass celebrated by any priest inferior to a bishop, whatever be his dignity, only two candles may be used.

(6) In a not strictly low Mass, i.e. in a parochial or community Mass on more solemn feasts or the Mass which is said instead of a solemn or high Mass on the occasion of a great solemnity (Cong. Sac. Rit., 12 September, 1857), when celebrated by a priest more than two candles, and when celebrated by a bishop more than four candles may be used.

At all functions throughout the year except on Good Friday and Holy Saturday, before the Mass bishops are allowed the use of the bugia or hand-candlestick. The use of the bugia is not permitted to priests, whatever be their dignity, unless it be granted by an Apostolic privilege either personal, or by reason of their being curial dignitaries. If, on account of darkness a priest stands in need of a light near the Missal he may use a candle, but the candlestick on which it is fastened cannot have the form of the bugia (Cong. Sac. Rit., 31 May, 1817). An oil lamp can never be used for this purpose (Cong. Sac. Rit., 20 June, 1899). At the Forty Hours Devotion at least twenty candles should burn continuously (Instructio Clementina, section 6); at other public expositions of the Blessed Sacrament at least five (Cong. Sac. Rit., 8 February, 1879); at the private exposition, at least six (Cong. Episc. et Reg., 9 December, 1602). The only blessings at which Lighted candles are prescribed are:

of the candles on the feast of the Purification

of the ashes on Ash Wednesday;

of the palms on Palm Sunday.

Double Altar.—An altar having a double front constructed in such a manner that Mass may be celebrated on both sides of it at the same time. They are frequently found in churches of religious communities in which the choir is behind the altar so that whilst one priest is celebrating the Holy Sacrifice for the community in choir, another may celebrate for the laity assembled in the church.

Portable Altar.—A portable altar consists of a solid piece of natural stone which must be sufficiently hard to resist every fracture. It must be consecrated by bishop or other person having faculties to do so. By virtue of Facultates Extraordinariae C., 6., the bishops of the United States may delegate a priest. It is inserted in, or placed on, the table of the altar, about two inches from the front edge, and in such a manner that, by its slight elevation above the table, the celebrant can trace its outlines with his hand and thus recognize its location beneath the altar-cloths. In general it should be large enough to hold the Sacred Host and the greater part of the base of the chalice (Cong. Sac. Rit., 20 March, 1846) If the altar is intended for the celebration of Masses at which Holy Communion is distributed, it should be large enough to hold the ciborium also. Five Greek crosses are engraved on it, one near each corner and one in the centre, to indicate the place on which the unctions are made at the consecration. If the cross in the centre should be wanting, the unction must not be omitted, but the omission of this unction would not invalidate the consecration (Cong. Sac. Rit., 2 May, 1892). The table and supports on which the portable altar rests may be constructed of any suitable material, wood or stone, provided they have the proper dimensions. For the portable altar the Greeks generally use the antimensium, a consecrated altar-cloth of silk or linen, after the manner of our corporals. When a church is consecrated, a piece of cloth large enough to form several antimensia is placed on the altar. It is consecrated by the bishop pouring wine and holy chrism on it and stiffening it with a mixture consisting of relics pounded up with wax or fragrant gum. It is afterwards divided into pieces about sixteen inches square, and after the Holy Eucharist has been celebrated on them for seven days these pieces are distributed as occasion requires (Neale, Holy Eastern Church, I, 187).

Privileged Altar.—An altar is said to be privileged when, in addition to the ordinary fruits of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, a plenary indulgence is also granted whenever Mass is celebrated thereon, the indulgence must be applied to the individual soul for whom Mass is offered. The privileged altar must be a fixed, or immovable, altar, but in a wider sense that is, it must be stationary or permanent, whether built on a solid foundation or attached to a wall or column, even though it be not consecrated, but have merely a consecrated stone (portable altar) inserted in its table. The privilege is annexed not to the altar-stone, but to the structure itself, by reason of the title which it bears, that is, of the mystery or saint to whom it is dedicated. Hence if the material of the altar be changed, if the altar be transferred to another place, if another altar be substituted for it in the same church, provided it retains the same title, and even if the altar is desecrated or profaned, the privilege is preserved. To gain the indulgence, the Mass must be a Mass of Requiem, whenever the rubrics permit it. If, on account of the superior rite of the feast of the day, or on account of the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, or for other reasons, a Requiem Mass cannot be celebrated, the indulgence may be gained by celebrating another Mass (S. C. Indulg., 11 April 1864). This privilege is of two kinds, local or real and personal. It is local or real when it is annexed to the altar as described above. Hence whoever the priest may be who celebrates Mass at such an altar, the indulgence is gained. It is personal when it is inherent in the priest, so that it does not depend on the altar, but on the priest who celebrates. Hence on whatever altar he may celebrate, whether it be a fixed or a portable one, and in whatever church he celebrates, the altar he uses is for the time being a privileged altar. On 2 November every altar is privileged. The bishops of the United States have the faculty (Facultates Extraordinariae C., fac. viii) of declaring privileged one altar in even church and public chapel or oratory, whether it be consecrated or not, of their dioceses, provided this privilege had not been previously granted to any other altar in such church under the same conditions.

Stripping of an Altar.—On Holy Thursday the celebrant, having removed the ciborium from the high altar, goes to the sacristy. He there lays aside the white vestments and puts on a violet stole, and, accompanied by the deacon, also vested in violet stole, and the subdeacon, returns to the high altar. Whilst the antiphon “Diviserunt sibi” and the psalm “Deus, Deus meus” are being recited, the celebrant and his assistants ascend to the predella and strip the altar of the altar-cloths, vases of flowers, antipendium, and other ornaments, so that nothing remains but the cross and the candlesticks with the candles extinguished. In the same manner all the other altars in the church are denuded. If there be many altars in the church, another priest, vested in surplice and violet stole, may strip them whilst the celebrant is stripping the high altar. The Christian altar represents Christ, and the stripping of the altar reminds us how He was stripped of his garments when He fell into the hands of the Jews and was exposed naked to their insults. It is for this reason that the psalm “Deus, Deus meus” is recited, wherein the Messias speaks of the Roman soldiers dividing His garments among them. This ceremony signifies the suspension of the Holy Sacrifice. It was formerly the custom in some churches on this day to wash the altars with a bunch of hyssop dipped in wine and water, to render them in some manner worthy of the Lamb without stain who is immolated on them, and to recall to the minds of the faithful with how great purity they should assist at the Holy Sacrifice and receive Holy Communion. St. Isidore of Seville (De Eccles. Off, I, xxviii) and St. Eligius of Noyon (Homil. VIII, De Coena Domini) say that this ceremony was intended as an homage offered to Our Lord, in return for the humility wherewith He deigned to wash the feet of His disciples.

Altar-Bell.—A small bell placed on the credence or in some other convenient place on the epistle side of the altar. According to the rubrics it is rung only at the Sanctus and at the elevation of both Species (Miss. Rom., Ritus celebr., tit. vii, n. 8, and tit. viii, n. 6) to invite the faithful to the act of adoration at the Consecration. This must be done even in private chapels (Cong. Sac. Rit., 18 July, 1885). It may also be rung at the “Domine non sum dignus,” and again before the distribution of Holy Communion to the laity, and at other times according to the custom of the place. When the Blessed Sacrament is publicly exposed, (1) it may or may not be rung at high Mass, and at a low Mass which takes the place of the high Mass, celebrated at the Altar of Exposition, according to the custom of the place. (2) It is not rung at low Masses at any altar of such church, but in such cases a low signal may be given with the bell at the sacristy door when the priest is about to begin Mass (Gardellini, Instr. Clem., nos. 16, 4, 5). (3) It is not rung at high Mass celebrated at an altar other than that on which the Blessed Sacrament is publicly exposed (Cong. Sac. Rit., 31 August, 1867). It should not be rung at low Masses whilst a public celebration is taking place, and at any Mass during the public recitation of office in choir, if said Mass be celebrated at an altar near the choir (Cong. Sac. Rit., 21 November, 1893). It is not rung from the end of the “Gloria in excelsis” on Maundy Thursday to the beginning of the “Gloria in excelsis” on Holy Saturday. During this interval the Memoriale Rituum (Tit. iv, sec. 4, n. 7) prescribes that the clapper (crotalus) be used to give the signal for the Angelus, but it is nowhere prescribed in the liturgical functions. The custom of using the clapper on these occasions appears quite proper. The Cong. Sac. Rit. (10 September, 1898) when asked if a gong may be used instead of the small bell answered, “Negative; seu non convenire.”

Altar-Bread Boxes.—These are made of wood, tin, britannia, silver, or other metal. In order that the breads may not become bent or curved, a round flat weight, covered if necessary with silk or linen, and having a knob on top, so as to be easily taken hold of, is placed on the breads. The cover must fit tightly, so that the breads become neither damp nor soiled. The box for the large hosts is of suitable dimensions. A larger box is employed for the particles used at the communion of the laity.

Altar-Breads.—Bread is one of the two elements absolutely necessary for the sacrifice of the Eucharist. It cannot be determined from the sacred text whether Christ used the ordinary table bread or some other bread specially prepared for the occasion. In the Western Church the altar-breads were probably round in form. Archaeological researches demonstrate this from pictures found in the catacombs, and Pope St. Zephyrinus (A.D. 201–219) calls the altar-bread “coronam sive oblatam sphericae figurae.” In the Eastern churches they are round or square. Formerly the laity presented the flour from which the breads were formed. In the Eastern Church the breads were made by consecrated virgins; in the Western Church, by priests and clerics (Benedict XIV, De Sacrif. Missae, I, section 36). This custom is still in vogue in the Armenian Church. . The earliest documentary evidence that the altar-breads were made in thin wafers is the answer which Cardinal Humbert, legate of St. Leo IX, made at the middle of the eleventh century to Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople. These wafers were sometimes very large, as from them small pieces were broken for the Communion of the laity, hence the word “particle” for the small host; but smaller ones were used when only the celebrant communicated.

For valid consecration the hosts must be:

made of wheaten flour,

mixed with pure natural water,

baked in an oven, or between two heated iron moulds, and

they must not be corrupted (Miss. Rom., De Defectibus, III, 1).

If the host is not made of wheaten flour, or is mixed with flour of another kind in such quantity that it cannot be called wheat bread, it may not be used (ibid.). If not natural but distilled water is used, the consecration becomes of doubtful validity (ibid., 2). If the host begins to be corrupt, it would be a grievous offence to use it, but it is considered valid matter (ibid., 3.) For licit consecration:

the bread must be, at present unleavened in the Western Church, but leavened bread in the Eastern Church, except among the Maronites, the Armenians, and in the Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria, where it is unleavened. It is probable that Christ used unleavened bread at the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, because the Jews were not allowed to have leavened bread in their houses on the days of the Azymes. Some authors are of the opinion that down to the tenth century both the Eastern and Western Churches used leavened bread; others maintain that unleavened bread was used from the beginning in the Western Church; still others hold that unleavened or leavened bread was used indifferently. St. Thomas (IV, Dist. xi, qu. 3) holds that, in the beginning, both in the East and West unleavened bread was used; that when the sect of the Ebionites arose, who wished that the Mosaic Law should be obligatory on all converts, leavened bread was used, and when this heresy ceased the Latins used again unleavened bread, but the Greeks retained the use of leavened bread. Leavened bread may be used in the Latin Church if after consecration the celebrant adverts to the fact that the host before him has some substantial defect, and no other than leavened bread can be procured at the time (Lehmkuhl, n. 121, 3). A Latin priest travelling in the East, in places in which there are no churches of his rite, may celebrate with leavened bread. A Greek priest travelling in the West may, under similar circumstances, celebrate with unleavened bread. For the purpose of giving Viaticum, if no unleavened bread be at hand, some say that leavened may he used; but St. Liguori, (bk. VI. n. 203, dub. 2) says that the more probable opinion of theologians is that it cannot be done.

The hosts must be recently made (Rit. Rom., tit. iv, cap. i, n. 7). The rubrics do not specify the term recentes in speaking of the hosts. In Rome, the bakers of altar-breads are obliged to make solemn affidavit that they will not sell breads older than fifteen days, and St. Charles, by a statute of the Fourth Synod of Milan, prescribed that hosts older than twenty days must not be used in the celebration of Mass. In practice, therefore, those older than three weeks ought not to be used.

Round in form, and not broken.

Clean and fair, of a thin layer, and of a size conformable to the regular custom in the Latin Church. In Rome the large hosts are about three and one-fifth inches in diameter; in other places they are smaller, but should be at least two and three-fourths inches in diameter. The small hosts for the Communion of the laity should be about one and two-fifths inches in diameter (Schober, S. Alphonsi Liber de Caeremoniis Missae, p. 6, footnote 9). When a large host can not be obtained Mass may be said in private with a small host. In cases of necessity, such as permitting the people to fulfil the precept of hearing Mass, or administering Viaticum, the Mass may be also said with a small host but, as liturgists say, to avoid scandal the faithful should be advised.

As a rule the image of Christ crucified should be impressed on the large host (Cong. Sac. Rit., 6 April, 1834), but the monogram of the Holy Name (Ephem. Lit., XIII, 1899, p. 686), or the Sacred Heart (ibid., p. 266) may also be adopted. The altar-breads assumed different names according as they had reference to the Eucharist as a sacrament or as a sacrifice: bread, gift (donum), table (mensa) allude to the Sacrament, which was instituted for the nourishment of our soul; oblation victim, host, allude to sacrifice. Before the tenth century the word “host” was not employed, probably because before this time the Blessed Eucharist was considered more frequently as a sacrament than as a sacrifice, hence the Fathers use such expressions as communion (synaxis), supper (coena), breaking of bread, etc., but at present the word “host” is used when referring to the Eucharist either as a sacrament or as a sacrifice. In the liturgy it is used:

for the bread before its consecration, “Suscipe sancte Pater . . . hanc immaculatam hostiam” (Offertory of the Mass);

for Christ under the appearance of the Eucharistic Species, “Unde et memores . . . hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam” (Mass, after the consecration).

Durandus says that the word host is of pagan origin, derived from the word hostio, to strike, referring to the victim offered to the gods after a victory, but it is also of biblical origin, as it represented the matter, or victim, of the sacrifice, e.g. “expiationis hostiam” (Exod., xxix. 36).

Altar-Candlesticks.—An altar-candlestick consists of five parts: the foot, the stem, the knob about the middle of the stem, the bowl to receive the drippings of wax, and the pricket, i.e. the sharp point that terminates the stem on which the candle is fixed. Instead of fixing the candle on the pricket, it is permissible to use a tube in which is put a small candle which is forced to the top of the tube by a spring placed within (Cong. Sac. Rit., 11 May, 1878). In the early days of the Church candlesticks were not placed on the altar though lights were used in the church, and especially near the altar. The chandeliers were either suspended from the ceiling or attached to the side walls, or were placed on Pedestals. When the chandeliers were fed with oil they were usually called canthari, when they held candles they went by the name of phari, although frequently these words were applied indiscriminately to either. The lights usually assumed the form of a crown, a cross, a tree, etc., but at times also of real or imaginary animals. We have no documentary evidence that candlesticks were placed on the altar during the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice before the tenth century. Leo IV (847–855) declared that only the relics of saints and the book of the Gospels might be placed on the altar (Hamel; De cura pastorum). No writer before the tenth century who treats of the altar makes mention of candlesticks on the altar, but mention is made of acolytes carrying candlesticks, which, however, were placed on the floor of the sanctuary or near the corners of the altar, as is still the custom in the Eastern Church. Probably in the twelfth century, and certainly in the thirteenth, lights were placed on the altar; for Durandus (Rationale, I, iii, 27) says “that at both corners of the altar a candlestick is placed to signify the joy of two Peoples who rejoiced at the birth of Christ,” and “the cross is placed on the altar between two candlesticks.” The custom of placing candlesticks and candles on the altar became general in the sixteenth century. Down to that time only two were ordinarily used, but on solemn feasts four or six. At present more are used, but the rubric of the missal (20) prescribes only two, one at each side of the cross, at least at a low Mass. These candlesticks and their candles must be placed on the altar, their place cannot be taken by two brackets attached to the superstructural steps of the altar, or affixed to the wall (Cong. Sac. Rit., 16 September, 1865). According to the “Caeremoniale Episcoporum” (I, xii, 11), there should be on the high altar six candlesticks and candles of various sizes, the highest of which should be near the cross. If all six be of the same size they may be placed on different elevations, so as to produce the same effect; a custom, however, has been introduced of having them at the same height and this is now permissible (Cong. Sac. Rit. 21 July, 1855). On the other altars of the church there should be at least two candlesticks, but usually four are used; on the altar of the Blessed Sacrament, if the Blessed Sacrament is not kept on the high altar, there should regularly be six. The Roman Missal (Rubr. 20) says also that a third candlestick and candle should be placed at the epistle side, and that this extra candle should be lighted at low Masses from the consecration t4 the consumption of the Precious Blood. This rubric is only directive (9 June, 1899). The third light is not placed on the altar itself, but on the credence, or on the step of the altar at the place where the altar-boy kneels. A bracket affixed to the wall may be used for this candlestick (Ephem. Lit., IX, 34, 1875). The candlesticks may be made of any kind of metal or even of wood, gilded or silvered, but on Good Friday silvered ones may not be used (Caerem. Episc., II, xxv, 2). The candlesticks destined for the ornamentation of the altar are not to be used around the bier at funerals, or around the catafalque at the commemoration of the dead (Rit. Rom., VI, i, 6), during Mass or other functions, at least on solemn feasts, they cannot be covered with a cloth or veil (Cong. Sac. Rit., 12 September, 1857; 16 September, 1865). Candelabra holding several candles cannot be used for the candlesticks prescribed by the Rubrics (Cong. Sac. Rit., 16 September, 1865).

Altar-Canopy.—The “Caeremoniale Episcoporum (I, xii, 13), treating of the ornaments of the altar, says that a canopy (baldachinum) should be suspended over the altar. It should be square in form, sufficiently large to cover the altar and the predella on which the celebrant stands, and if it can easily be done, the colour of the material, silk velvet or other cloth, with which it is covered, should vary with the colour of the ornaments of the altar. It is either suspended from the ceiling by a movable chain, so that it may be lowered or raised when necessary, or it may be attached to the wall, or to the reredos at the back of the altar. It may also be a stationary structure, and this is usually the case in large churches, and then it is made of marble, stone, metal, or wood beautifully carved and overlaid with gold or silver, in the form of a cupola erected on four pillars. In liturgy it is called the ciborium. The canopy or ciborium is, according to the decision of the Cong. Sac. Rit., to be erected over the altar of the Blessed Sacrament (23 May, 1846), and over the other altars of the church (27 April, 1697), but as contrary custom has so far prevailed that even in Rome it is usually erected only over the high altar, and the altar of the Blessed Sacrament. The purpose of this canopy is to protect the altar from dust or other matter falling upon it from the ceiling, which, being usually very high, cannot be conveniently or easily cleaned. On solemn festivals, or at special solemnities, a temporary canopy is sometimes placed over an altar in or outside the church. The framework on which such a canopy is erected is called the “altar-herse,” a word probably derived from hearse, a frame covered with cloth, and formerly set up over a corpse in funeral solemnities.

Altar-Cards.—To assist the memory of the celebrant at Mass in those prayers which he should know by heart, cards on which these prayers are printed are placed on the altar in the middle, and at each end. They were not used before the sixteenth century, and even at present are not employed at the Mass celebrated by a bishop, who reads all the prayers from the Pontifical Canon. At the time that Pius V revised the Missal, only the card at the middle of the altar was used, and it was called the “Tabella Secretarum” (tit. xx). Later, another was added containing the Gospel of St. John (recited usually at the end of Mass), and placed on the Gospel side. For the sake of symmetry, another containing the prayer “Deus qui humanae substantiae,” which is said by the celebrant when he blesses the cruet of water, and the psalm “Lavabo,” recited at the washing of the hands, was placed on the Epistle side. Only during Mass should the cards stand on the altar, the middle one resting against the crucifix or tabernacle, the side ones against the candlesticks or superstructural steps of the altar. At any other time they are either removed or placed face downwards on the altar under the altar cover. When the Blessed Sacrament is exposed outside of Mass, the cards must be removed (Cong. Sac. Rit., 20 December, 1864). If these cards are framed, the frames should, as far as possible, correspond to the architecture of the altar.

Altar Carpets.—The sanctuary and altar-steps of the high altar are ordinarily to be covered with carpets. If the sanctuary floor be marble, tile, or tessellated woodwork, at least a broad strip of carpet should be placed before the lowest step in plano. On solemn feasts particularly, rugs of fine quality are reserved for the predella and altar-steps. If the whole sanctuary and altar-steps cannot be covered, at least the predella of the high altar, and of the other altars should have a rug (Caerem. Episc., I, xii, 16). Exceptions to this rule: (1) From the time of stripping the altars on Maundy Thursday to Holy Saturday the carpets are removed. They are replaced on Holy Saturday before the Mass. (2) During solemn Requiem Masses the floor of the sanctuary and the altar-steps are to be bare although a suitable rug may be placed on the predella and, when a bishop celebrates, in front of the faldstool (Caerem. Episc., II, xi, 1). The same authority mentions that the carpet should be of green colour, but any may be used. Care should be taken that crosses, images of the saints, emblems, e.g. chalice, lamb, etc., and monograms of the Holy Names, etc., be not woven into the carpets, for it is unbecoming and unseemly that the figures of sacred things be trodden upon. These remarks apply equally to marble, tile, mosaic, etc., floors.

Altar-Cavity.—This is a small square or oblong chamber in the body of the altar, in which are placed, according to the “Pontificale Romanum” (De Eccles. Consecratione) the relics of two canonized martyrs although the Cong. Sac. Rit. (16 February, 1906) decided that if the relic of only one martyr is placed in it the consecration is valid, to these may be properly added the relics of other saints, especially of those in whose honour the church of the altar is consecrated. These relics must be actual portions of the saints’ bodies, not simply of their garments or of other objects which they may have used or touched; the relics must, moreover be authenticated. If the altar is a fixed or immovable altar, the relics are placed in a reliquary of lead, silver, or gold, which should be large enough to contain, besides the relics, three grains of incense and a small piece of parchment on which is written an attest of the consecration. This parchment is usually enclosed in a crystal vessel or small vial, to prevent its decomposition. The size of the cavity varies to suit the size of the reliquary. If it is a portable altar the relics and the grains of incense are placed immediately, i.e. without a reliquary, into the cavity. This cavity must be hewn in the natural stone of the altar. Hence, unless the altar be a single block of stone, a block of natural stone is inserted for the purpose in the support. The location of the cavity in a fixed altar is

either at the front or back of the altar, midway between its table and foot;

in the table (mensa) at its centre, near the front edge;

in the centre, on the top of the base or support if the latter be a solid mass.

If the first or the second location is selected, a slab or cover of stone, to fit exactly upon the opening, and for this reason somewhat bevelled at the corners, must be provided. The cover should have a cross engraved on the upper and nether sides. If the third location is chosen the table (mensa) itself serves as the cover. In a portable altar the cavity is usually made on the top of the stone near the front edge, although it may be made in the centre of the stone. This cavity is called, in the language of the Church, the sepulchrum.

Altar-Cloths.—The use of altar-cloths goes back to the early centuries of the Church. St. Optatus of Mileve says that in the fourth century every Christian knew that during the celebration of the Mysteries the altar is covered with a cloth (bk. VI). Later it became a law, which, according to Gavantus, was promulgated by Boniface III in the seventh century. The custom of using three altar-cloths began probably in the ninth century, but at present it is of strict obligation for the licit celebration of Mass (Rubr. Gen. Miss., tit. xx: De Defectibus, tit. x, 1). The reason of this prescription of the Church is that if the Precious Blood should by accident be spilt it might be absorbed by the altar-cloths before it reached the altar-stone. All authors hold it to be a grievous offence to celebrate without an altar-cloth, except in case of grave necessity, e.g. of according to the faithful the opportunity of assisting at Sunday Mass, or of giving Viaticum to a dying person. To celebrate without necessity on two altar-cloths, or on one folded in such manner that it covers the altar twice, would probably constitute a venial sin (St. Lig., bk. VI, n. 375) since the rubric is prescriptive. Formally the altar-cloths were made of gold and silver cloth inlaid with precious stones silk, and other material,, but at present they must be made of either linen or hemp. No other material may be used, even if it be equivalent to, or better than, linen or hemp for cleanliness, whiteness, or firmness (Cong. Sac. Rit., 15 May, 1819). The two lower cloths must cover the whole surface of the table (mensa) of the altar, in length and width (Caerem. Episc., I, xii, II) whether it be a portable or a consecrated fixed altar (Ephem. Lit., 1893, VII, 234). It is not necessary that there be two distinct pieces. One piece folded in such manner as to cover the altar twice from the epistle to the gospel end will answer (Rubr. Miss., tit. XX). The top altar-cloth must be single and extend regularly to the predella on both sides (ibid.). If the table of the altar rests on columns, or if the altar is made after the fashion of a tomb or sepulchre, and is not ornamented with an antipendium, the top cloth need only cover the table without extending over the edge at the sides (Ephem. Lit., 1893, VII, 234). The edges at the front and two ends may be ornamented with a border of linen or hempen lace in which figures of the cross, ostensorium, chalice. and host, and the like may appear (Cong. Sac. Rit ., December, 1868), and a piece of coloured material may be placed under the border to set forth these figures. This is deduced from a decree (Cong. Sac. Rit., 12 July, 1892) which allows such material to be placed under the lace of the alb’s cuff. This border must not rest on the table of the altar. Sometimes, instead of attaching this border to the upper cloth, a piece of lace is fastened to the front edge of the altar. Although this is not prescribed, yet it is not contrary to the rubrics. Great care should be taken that these cloths be scrupulously clean. There should be on hand at least a duplicate of the two lower cloths. The top piece should be changed more frequently according to the solemnity of the feast, and therefore several covers, more or less fine in texture, should be constantly kept ready for this purpose. When, during the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, candles are placed on the table of the altar, another clean white cloth should be placed over the altar-cloths to prevent their being stained or soiled (De Herdt, I, n. 179). We may note here that the corporal and the cere-cloth cannot take the place of the altar-cloths.

The three altar-cloths must be blessed by the bishop or someone who has the faculty before they can be used for the celebration of Mass. In the United States the faculty is granted by the ordinary to priests in general (Facultates, Form. I, n. 13). The formula or this blessing is found in the “Rituale Romanum,” tit viii, cap. xxi, and in the “Missale Romanum” among the “Benedictiones Diversae.” Symbolically the altar-cloths signify the members of Christ, that is, God’s faithful, by whom the Lord is encompassed (Pontificale Rom., De ordinat. subdiaconi); or the linens in which the body of Christ was wrapped, when it was laid in the sepulchre; or the purity and the devotion of the faithful: “For the fine linen are the justifications of saints” (Apoc., xix, 8). Besides the three altar-cloths there is another linen cloth, waxed on one side, which is called the chrismale (cere-cloth), and with which the table of the consecrated altar (even if part of it be made of bricks or other material, and does not form a part of the consecrated altar) should be completely covered (Caerem. Episc., De altaris consecratione). It must be of the exact size of the table of the altar, and it is placed under the linen cloths, the waxed side being turned towards the table. Its purpose is not only to prevent the altar-cloths from being stained by the oil used at the consecration, but also to keep the cloths dry. Hence it is advisable to have such a wax cloth on all altars in churches which may be, accessible to dampness. According to the rubrics, this cloth is removed once a year, that is, during the stripping of the altars on Maundy Thursday; but it may be changed as often as the altar is washed. The cere-cloth is not blessed. It cannot take the place of one of the three rubrical linen cloths. To procure cere-cloths, melt the remnants of wax candles in a small vessel. When the wax is in a boiling condition, skim off the impurities that remain from the soiled stumps of candles. Dip into this wax the linen intended for the cere-cloth, and when well saturated hang it on a clothes-line, allowing the surplus wax to drop off. When the wax cloth has hardened place it between two unwaxed sheets of linen of like dimensions. Iron thoroughly with a well heated flat iron, thus securing three wax cloths. The table on which the cloths are ironed should be covered with an old cloth or thick paper to receive the superfluous wax when melted by the iron. It should be remembered that unwashed linen when dipped in wax shrinks considerably, hence before the cloths are waxed they should be much larger than the size of the altar for which they are intended.

Altar-Crucifix.—The crucifix is the principal ornament of the altar. It is placed on the altar to recall to the mind of the celebrant, and the people, that the Victim offered on the altar is the same as was offered on the Cross. For this reason the crucifix must be placed on the altar as often as Mass is celebrated (Constit., Accepimus of Benedict XIV, 16 July, 1746). The rubric of the Roman Missal (xx) prescribes that it be placed at the middle of the altar between the candlesticks, and that it be large enough to be conveniently seen by both the celebrant and the people (Cong. Sac. Rit., 17 September, 1822). If for any reason this crucifix is removed, another may take its place in a lower position; but in such cases it must always be visible to all who assist at Mass (ibid.). We remarked above that a crucifix must be placed on the altar during Mass. To this rule there are two exceptions:

when the Crucifixion is the principal part of the altarpiece or picture behind the altar. (We advisedly say the principal part of the altarpiece or picture, for if the picture represents a saint, e.g. St. Francis Xavier holding a crucifix in his hand, or St. Thomas kneeling before the cross, even if the cross be large, such a picture is not sufficient to take the place of the altar-crucifix—see Ephem. Lit., 1893, VII, 408) and

when the Most Blessed Sacrament is exposed.

In both these cases the regular crucifix may be placed on the altar; in the latter the local custom is to be followed (Cong. Sac. Rit., 2 September, 1741), and if the crucifix is kept on the altar it is not incensed (29 November, 1738). From the, first Vespers of Passion Sunday to the unveiling of the cross on Good Friday, even if a solemn feast occur during this interval, the altar-crucifix is covered with a violet veil (Cong. Sac. Rit., 16 November, 1649), except during High Mass on the altar at which Mass is celebrated on Holy Thursday when the veil is of white material (Cong. Sac. Rit., 20 December, 1783), and on Good Friday, at the altar at which the function takes place, when the veil may be of black material. This is the custom in Rome (Martinucci, Van der Stappen, and others). From the beginning of the adoration of the Cross, on Good Friday, to the hour of None, on Holy Saturday inclusively, all, even the bishop, the canons and the celebrant, make a simple genuflection to the cross (Cong. Sac. Rit., 9 May, 1857; 12 September, 1857). At all other times during the year a simple genuflexion is made to the cross, even when the Blessed Sacrament is not kept in the tabernacle, during any function, by all except the bishop, the canons of the cathedral, and the celebrant (Cong. Sac. Rit., 30 August, 1892). The altar-crucifix need not be blessed; but it may be blessed by any priest, by the formula “pro imaginibus” (Rituale Rom., tit. viii, cap. xxv). It may be well to note that if, according to the Renaissance style of architecture, the throne is a permanent structure above the tabernacle, the altar-crucifix may never be placed under the canopy under which the Blessed Sacrament is publicly exposed, or on the corporal which is used at such exposition (Cong. Sac. Rit., 2 June, 1883). It is probable that the custom of placing a crucifix on the altar did not commence long before the sixth century. Benedict XIV (De Sacrificio Missae, P. I, 19) holds that this custom comes down from the time of the Apostles. However, the earliest documentary evidence of placing a cross on the altar is canon III of the Council of Tours, held in 567: “Ut corpus Domini in Altari, non in armario, sed sub crucis titulo componatur.” Mariano Armellini (Lezioni di Archeologia Sacra) tells us that the early Christians were not accustomed to publicly expose the cross for fear of scandalizing the weak, and subjecting it to the insults of the pagans, but in its stead used symbols, e.g. an anchor, a trident, etc. A simple cross, without the figure of Christ, was fixed on the top of the ciboria which covered the altars.

Altar-Curtain.—Formerly, in most basilicas, cathedrals, and large churches a large structure in the form of a cupola or dome resting on four columns was erected over the high altar, which was called the ciborium. Between the columns ran metal rods, holding rings to which were fastened curtains which according to the rubrics of the individual churches, were drawn around the altar at certain parts of Mass. These curtains were styled tetravela altaris and were made of linen, silk, gold cloth, and other precious stuffs. In the lives of many of the Roman pontiffs (Gregory IV, Leo IV, Nicholas I) we read that they made presents of such curtains to the churches of Rome. When the ciboria over the altar fell into disuse a curtain was suspended at the back of the altar. called a dossel, or dorsal, and two others, one at each side of it. They were hung to rods fastened in the wall or reredos, or rested on four pillars erected at each end of the altar. The pillars were surmounted by angels holding candelabra, in which candles were burnt on solemn occasions. Probably the sanctuary candelabra of to-day may trace their origin to these.

Altar-Frontal.—The frontal (antipendium, pallium altaris) is an appendage which covers the entire front of the altar, from the lower part of the table (mensa) to the predella, and from the gospel corner to that of the epistle side. Its origin may probably be traced to the curtains or veils of silk, or of other precious material, which hung over the open space under the altar, to preserve the shrines of the saints usually deposited there. Later, these curtains were converted into one piece of drapery which covered the whole front of the altar and was suspended from the table of the altar. The use of a frontal which covers only a small portion of the front of the altar is forbidden (Cong Sac. Rit., 10 September, 1898). If the altar is so placed that its back can be seen by the people, that part should likewise be covered with an antipendium (Caerem. Episc., I, iii, 11). Its material is not prescribed by the rubrics. It is sometimes made of precious metals, adorned with enamels and jewels, of wood, painted, gilt, embossed, and often set with crystals or of cloth of gold, velvet, or silk embroidered and occasionally enriched with pearls, but it is usually of the same material as that of the sacred vestments. It is evidently intended as an ornament of the altar (Rubr. Gen. Miss., tit.). Hence if the altar is made of wood or marble, and its front is beautifully painted or decorated, or if the table is supported by columns, and a reliquary is placed under it, it may be considered sufficiently ornamented, and the antipendium would not be necessary; nevertheless, even in such cases, on solemn occasions more precious and elaborate ones should be used (Caerem. Episc., I, xii,, 11). The antipendium may be ornamented with images, pictures of Christ, representations of some fact of His life or such as refer to the Eucharistic Mystery, or with emblems that refer in some manner to the Blessed Sacrament—a lamb, a pelican, the chalice and host, etc. Pictures of the saint in whose honour the altar is dedicated to God, and emblems referring to such saint, may be used. It is forbidden to ornament the black antipendium with skulls, cross-bones, etc. (Caerem. Episc., II, xi, 1). The antipendium may be fastened to little hooks or buttons, which are attached to-the lower part of the table of the altar or it may be pinned to one of the lower altar-cloths or attached to a light wooden frame which fits tightly in the space between the mensa and the predella. A guard about three inches wide (plinth), made of wood suitably painted. or of polished metal, may be placed at its lower extremity, resting on the predella, so as to prevent its being easily injured by those who move about the altar. Regularly, the colour of the antipendium should correspond with the colour of the feast or office of the day (Caerem. Episc., I, xii, 11). The Missal (Rubr. Gen., xx) says this should be the case quoad fieri potest, by which the Missal does not imply that one colour may be used ad libitum for another, but that the more precious antipendia of gold, silver, embroidered silk, etc., in colours not strictly liturgical, may be used on solemn occasions, although they do not correspond in colour with the feast or office of the day (Van der Stappen vol. III, q. 43, ii). The following are exceptions to the general rule: (1) When the Blessed Sacrament is publicly exposed the antipendium must be white, whatever the colour of the vestments may be. If, however, the Exposition takes place immediately after Mass, or Vespers, the antipendium of the colour of the Mass, or Vespers, may be retained if the celebrant does not leave the sanctuary between the Mass, or Vespers, and the Exposition; but if on these occasions he vests for the exposition outside the sanctuary, the antipendium if not white must be exchanged for a white one. (2) In solemn votive Masses the colour of the antipendium must be that of the vestments. In private votive Masses (missae lectae) its colour corresponds to that of the office of the day. In private votive Masses celebrated solemnly, i.e. with deacon and subdeacon, or in chant (missae cantatae) it is proper that its colour correspond with that of the vestments. (3) During a solemn Requiem Mass at an altar in the tabernacle of which the Blessed Sacrament is kept, the black antipendium cannot be used (Cong. Sac. Rit., 20 March, 1869), but one of a violet colour should take its place. The Ephemeides Lit., (XI, 663, 1897), states that this decree was revoked by a subsequent decree of the same Congregation, 1 December, 1882. It seems strange that the former decree is retained in the latest edition of the Decrees of the Cong. Sac. Rit. The latter decree is an answer to the question: Under these circumstances may the antipendium and the conopoeum (cover of the tabernacle) be black? The answer seems to pass over the antipendium, and merely says: “At least the canopy over the tabernacle should be of a violet colour.” The antipendium need not be blessed.

Altar-Horns.—On the Jewish altar there were four projections, one at each corner, which were called the horns of the altar. These projections are not found on the Christian altar, but the word cornu (“horn”) is still maintained to designate the sides or corners of the altar. Hence cornu epistolae and cornu evangelii mean the epistle and gospel side of the altar respectively, cornu anterius and cornu posterius evangelii or cornu dexterum anterius and dexterum posterius mean respectively the anterior or posterior corner of the altar at the gospel side.

Altar-Lamp.—In the Old Testament God commanded that a lamp filled with the purest oil of olives should always burn in the Tabernacle of the Testimony without the veil (Exod., xxvii, 20, 21). The Church prescribes that at least one lamp should continually burn before the tabernacle (Rit. Rom. iv, 6), not only as an ornament of the altar, but for the purpose of worship. It is also a mark of honour. It is to remind the faithful of the presence of Christ, and is a profession of their love and affection. Mystically it signifies Christ, for by this material light He is represented who is the “true light which enlighteneth every man” (John, i, 9). If the resources of the church permit, it is the rule of the Caerem. Episc. (1, xii. 17) that more than one light should burn before the altar of the Blessed Sacrament, but always in uneven numbers, i.e. three, five, seven, or more. The lamp is usually suspended before the tabernacle by means of a chain or rope, and it should hang sufficiently high and removed from the altar-steps to cause no inconvenience to those who are engaged in the sanctuary. It may also be suspended from, or placed in a bracket at the side of the altar, provided always it be in front of the altar within the sanctuary proper (Cong. Sac. Rit., 2 June, I883). The altar-lamp may be made of any kind of metal, and of any shape or form. According to the opinion of reputable theologians, it would be a serious neglect, involving grave sin, to leave the altar of the Blessed Sacrament without this light for any protracted length of time, such as a day or several nights (St. Lig., VI, 248). For symbolical reasons olive oil is prescribed for the lamp burning before the altar of the Blessed Sacrament, for it is a symbol of purity, peace, and godliness. Since pure olive oil, without any admixture, causes some inconvenience in the average American climate, oil containing between 60 and 65 per cent of pure olive oil is supposed to be legitimate material. Where olive oil cannot be had, it is allowed, at the discretion of the ordinary, to use other, and as far as possible vegetable, oils (Cong. Sac. Rit., 9 July, 1864). In case of necessity, that is, in very poor churches, or where it is practically impossible to procure olive or vegetable oils, the ordinary, according to the general opinion of theologians, would be justified to authorize the use of petroleum. We are of the opinion, however, that there are but few parishes that can claim this exemption on the plea of poverty. Gas (Ephem. Lit., IX, 176, 1895) and electric lights (Cong. Sac. Rit., 4 June, 1895) are not allowed in its stead. The Caerem. Episc. (ibid.) would have three lights burn continually before the high altar, and one light before the other altars, at least during Mass and Vespers. Before the Blessed Sacrament, wherever kept, a lamp should be constantly burning. Our bishops have the power of granting permission to a priest, under certain circumstances, to keep the Blessed Sacrament in his house. In such cases, by virtue of Faculty, n. 24, Form. I, the priest may keep it without a light, if otherwise it would be exposed to the danger of irreverence or sacrilege. For the same reason we believe It may be kept also in the church without a light during the night.

Altar-Lantern.—Lanterns are used in churches to protect the altar candles and lamp, if the latter for any reason, such as a draught, cannot be kept lighted. They are of perforated metal-work or set with crystals. They are used also to accompany the Blessed Sacrament when carried from one altar to another in the church, or when It is carried as Viaticum to the sick. In the former case the lanterns are attached to the top of high staves; in the latter, a ring is fastened to the top as in ordinary lanterns, and they are carried in the hand of a cleric or an assistant.

Altar-Ledge.—Originally the altar was made in the shape of an ordinary table, on which the crucifix and candlesticks were placed. By degrees, behind the altar a step was introduced, raised slightly above it, for candlesticks, flowers, reliquaries, and other ornaments. This step was called the altar-ledge. Later the tabernacle was added as a stationary appends of the altar and at its sides and behind it other steps were placed. They are sometimes called degrees or gradini. The front of these steps was sometimes beautifully painted and decorated. The gradini of Brunelleschi’s church of Santo Spirito, Florence, display beautiful miniature groups of subjects from the Passion of Christ.

Altar-Linens.—The altar-linens are the corporal, pall, purificator, and finger- towels. The Blessed Sacrament and the vase containing It must always be placed on a corporal, which must be made of linen (Miss. Rom., Ritus celebr. tit. i, n. 1) or hemp (Cong. Sac. Rit., 15 .May, 1819) without any embellishment or embroidery. Corporals made of muslin (Cong. Sac. Rit., 15 March, 1664) or cotton (ibid., 15 May, 1819) are forbidden. The edges may be ornamented with fine lace, and a cross may be worked into it near the front edge. No cross is allowed in its centre (De Herdt, I, n. 167), which would necessarily give some difficulty when collecting the fragments. The rubrics do not prescribe its size. It must be spacious enough to hold the chalice and large host used by the priest, and also the ciborium containing the smaller hosts for the Communion of the laity. It should be a square, at least fifteen by fifteen inches, or an oblong, fourteen by eighteen inches. The corporal must be blessed by a bishop, or by a priest having the faculty to do so, before it may be used the first time. It is not blessed again after it is washed; use at the Holy Sacrifice does not constitute a blessing (Cong. Sac. Rit., 31 August, 1867). The form of the blessing is the “Benedictio corporalium” found in the Rituale Romanum (tit. viii, cap. xxii) which is not changed to the plural even if many corporals are blessed at the same time (Cong. Sac. Rit., 4 September, 1880). The corporal loses its blessing when no part of it is sufficiently large to hold the chalice and host together, and it is forbidden to use a torn or ripped corporal. When the corporal becomes unfit for use it should be destroyed by fire, and its ashes thrown into the sacrarium. After the corporal has been washed, bleached, and ironed it is folded into three equal parts, both in its length and in its width, i.e. the anterior part is folded over the middle; then the posterior part is turned down over the anterior part; after this the part at the priest’s right is folded over the middle, and finally the part at the priest’s left is folded over these. The corporal is placed in the burse in such a manner that the edge of the last fold is towards the opening of the burse. It is probable that the corporal was prescribed as early as the fourth century. Originally it was longer and wider than the one in use at present. It covered the whole table of the altar, and was looked upon as a fourth altar-cloth. About the eleventh century it began to be curtailed, and by degrees was reduced to its present size. The Carthusians use the corporal in its old form (Benedict XIV, De Sacrif. Missae, I, no. 31).

Originally the pall was not distinct from the corporal, because the latter was so large as to do away with the need of a distinct pall, and the posterior part of the corporal was so arranged that it could be easily drawn over the host and chalice. When the corporal was reduced to its present size the pall became a distinct cover of the chalice, and is called by Benedict XIV Corporale quo calix tegitur (ibid., no. 34). Although prescribed by the rubrics, theologians hold that its use does not bind sub gravi. It may be a single piece of linen or hemp, or it may consist of two pieces of linen or hemp, between which a piece of cardboard is inserted for the sake of stiffening it. The upper side may be ornamented with embroidery or painting in various colours, or covered with cloth of gold, silver, or silk of any colour except black (Cong. Sac. Rit., 17 July, 1894). It may be embellished with a cross or some other emblem. The nether piece must always be of plain white linen or hemp (ibid.) and be detachable for the purpose of washing it (ibid., 24 November, 1905). Since the pall was originally a part of the corporal, the blessing “Benedictio corporalium” is used without change in number or words when blessing one or more palls alone, or one or more palls with one or more corporals (ibid., 4 September, 1880). Like the corporal, it is blessed by a bishop, or by a priest who has faculties to do so. It should be large enough to cover the paten. If the pall is wanting, a folded corporal may be used in its stead.

The Purificator is a piece of pure white linen or hemp (Cong. Sac. . Rit., 23 July, 1878) used for cleansing the chalice. Its size is not prescribed by the rubrics. It is usually twelve to eighteen inches long, and nine or ten inches wide. It is folded in three layers so that when placed on the chalice beneath the paten its width is about three inches. A small cross may be worked in it at its centre to distinguish it from the little finger-towels used at the “Lavabo,” although this is not prescribed. It is not blessed. It is also called the “Mundatory” or “Purificatory.” The Greeks use a sponge instead of the linen purificator. Before soiled corporals, palls, and purificators are given to nuns or lay persons to be laundried, bleached, mended or ironed, they must be first washed, then rinsed twice by a person in sacred orders (Cong. Sac. Rit., 12 September, 1857). When preparing soiled corporals for the altar a little starch may be used to stiffen them and give them a smooth surface. The same may be done with the palls. The purificators are always prepared without starch.

Finger-towels, used at the “Lavabo” and after administering Holy Communion, may be made of any kind of material, preferably, however, of linen or hemp, and of any size.

Altar of Our Lady.—From the beginning of Christianity special veneration was paid to the Mother of God, which in the language of theology is called hyperdulia, to distinguish the honour rendered to her from that given to the other saints. It is not strange, therefore, that after the main or principal altar, the most prominent is that dedicated in a special manner to the Mother of God; and to indicate this specific preference, this altar is usually placed in the most prominent position in the church, i.e. at the right (gospel) side of the main altar. In general it signifies any altar of which the Blessed Virgin is the titular.

Altar-Piece.—A picture of some sacred subject painted on the wall or suspended in a frame behind the altar, or a group of statuary on the altar. In the Middle Ages, instead of a picture or group, the altar-piece consisted in some churches of embossed silver or gold and enamelled work set with jewels. Sometimes the piece was set on the altar itself. If the altar stood free in the choir, and the altar-piece was to be seen from behind as well as from before, both sides were covered with painting (Norton, Church Building in the Middle Ages). The decorated screen, retable or reredos is also called an altarpiece. (See ALTAR-SCREEN)

Altar-Protector.—A cover made of cloth, baize or velvet which is placed on the table of the altar, during the time in which the sacred functions do not take place. Its purpose is to prevent the altar-cloth from being stained or soiled. It should be a little wider than the table and some what longer than the latter, so that it may hang down several inches on each side and in front. It may be of any colour (green or red would seem to be the preferred colours), and its front and side edges are usually scalloped, embroidered, or ornamented with fringes. During the divine services it is removed (Cong. Sac. Rit., 2 June, 1883), except at Vespers, when, during the incensing of the altar at the Magnificat, only the front part of the table need be uncovered, and it is then simply turned back on the table of the altar. It is called the vesperale, the stragulum or altar-cover. It need not be blessed.

Altar-Rail.—The railing which guards the sanctuary and separates the latter from the body of the church. It is also called the communion-rail as the faithful kneel at it when receiving Holy Communion.

It is made of carved wood, metal, marble, or other precious material; it should be about two feet six inches high, and on the upper part from six to nine inches wide. The “Rituale Romanum” (tit. iv, cap. ii, n. I) prescribes that a clean white cloth be extended before those who receive Holy Communion. This cloth is to be of fine linen, as it is solely intended as a sort of corporal to receive the particles which may by chance fall from the hands of the priest. It is usually fastened on the sanctuary side and when in use is drawn over the top of the rail. It should extend the full length of the rail, and be about two feet wide, so that the communicant, taking it in both hands, may hold it under his chin. Its very purpose suggests that it is not to be made of lace or netting, although there is nothing to forbid its having a border of fine lace or embroidery. Instead of this cloth a gilt paten, larger than the paten used at the altar, to which a handle may be attached, or a small gilt or silver salver, or a pall, larger than the chalice pall, may be used. These latter are usually passed from one communicant to the other, and when the last at the end of the rail at the Gospel side has received Holy Communion the altar boy carries the paten to the first communicants at the Epistle side. A consecrated paten may never be placed for this purpose in the hands of lay persons.

Altar-Screen.—The Caerem. Episc (I, xii, n. 13) says that if the High Altar is attached to the wall (or is not more than three feet from the wall) a more precious cloth, on which images of Our Lord, of the Blessed Virgin, or of saints, are represented, may be suspended above the altar, unless such images are painted on the wall. This piece of embroidered needlework, cloth of gold, or tapestry is called the altar screen. It is as wide as the altar, and sometimes even extends along the sides of the altar. Its purpose seems to be to separate the altar from the rest of the sanctuary, and to attract to the altar the eyes of those who enter the church. It is called the Dossel or dorsal, from the French dossier, and signifies a back panel covered with stuff. Formerly the stuff corresponded in colour with the other ornaments of the altar and was changed according to the festivals. Instead of the cloth a permanent or movable structure was sometimes raised above the altar at the back. If permanent it consisted of three distinct parts, the base which was as long as the table and the steps of the altar, and reached to the height of the altar table; above this came the panel which formed a decorative frame to a picture, bas-relief, or statue, and the cornice, consisting of a frieze and pediment surmounted by a cross. In the eleventh century the structure was usually made of metal, in the thirteenth century of stone, and from the fourteenth century of wood. Sometimes a folding door was attached which covered the picture during the year, and was opened on grand festivals to expose the picture. If it was a movable structure, it was made of hammered silver or other precious material, supported on the altar itself. The face of this structure which looks towards the nave of the church is called the “retable,” and the reverse is called the “counter-retable.” This decoration of the altar was not known before the twelfth century. It should always correspond to the architecture or style of the church. The best models are found in the churches of St. Sylvester in Capite, Sta. Maria del Popolo, della Pace and sopra Minerva, at Rome. When this structure is ornamented with panels and enriched with niches statues, buttresses, and other decorations, which are often painted with brilliant colours, it is called a “reredos.” Sometimes the reredos extends across the whole breadth of the church, and is carried nearly up to the ceiling. This decorative screen, retable, or reredos is also called the altarpiece.

Altar-Side.—That part of the altar which faced the congregation, in contradistinction to the side at which the priest stood when formerly the latter stood at the altar facing the people. In ceremonials we frequently find mention of the right and left side of the altar. Before 1488, the epistle side was called the right side of the altar, and the gospel side the left. In that year, Augustine Patrizi, Bishop of Pienza, published a ceremonial in which the epistle side is called the left of the altar, and the gospel side the right, the denomination being taken from the facing of the cross, the principal ornament of the altar, not of the priest or the laity. This change of expression was accepted by St. Pius V and introduced into the rubrics.

Altar-Steps.—In the beginning altars were not erected on steps. Those in the catacombs were constructed on the pavement, and in churches they were usually erected over the confession, or spot where the remains of martyrs were deposited. In the fourth century the altar was supported by one step above the floor of the sanctuary. At present the number of steps leading up to the high altar is for symbolical reasons uneven; usually three, five, or seven, including the upper platform (predella). These steps are to pass around the altar on three sides. They may be of wood, stone, or bricks, but St. Charles (Instructions on Ecclesiastical Building, xi, no. 2) would have the two or four lower steps of stone or bricks, whilst he prescribes that the predella, on which the celebrant stands, should be made of wood. The steps should be about one foot in breadth. The predella should extend along the front of the altar with a breadth of about three feet six inches, and at the sides of the altar about one foot. The height of each step ought to be about six inches. Side altars must have at least one step.

Altar-Stole.—An ornament, having the shape of the ends of a stole, which in the Middle Ages was attached to the front of the altar.

Altar-Stone.—A solid piece of natural stone, consecrated by a bishop, large enough to hold the Sacred Host and chalice. It is inserted into or placed on the surface of a structure which answers the purpose of an altar, when the whole altar is not consecrated. Sometimes the whole table (mensa) takes the place of the smaller altar-stone. It is called a portable altar.

Altar-Tomb.—A tomb, or monument, over a grave, oblong in form, which is covered with a slab or table, having the appearance of an altar. Sometimes the table is bare, and sometimes it supports one or more recumbent sculptured figures. It either stands free, so that the four sides are exposed, or one side may be attached to the wall, when a canopy or niche is often raised above it.

Altar-Vase.—Vase to hold flowers for the decoration of the altar. The Caerem. Episc. (I, xii, n. 12) says that between the candlesticks on the altar may be placed natural or artificial flowers, which are certainly appropriate ornaments of the altar. The flowers referred to are cut flowers, leaves, and ferns, rather than plants imbedded in soil in large flowerpots, although the latter may fitly be used for the decoration of the sanctuary around the altar. If artificial flowers are used they ought to be made of superior material, as the word serico (ibid.) evidently implies, and represent with some acouracy the natural variations. Flowers of paper, cheap muslin, or calico, and other inferior materials, and such as are old and soiled, should never be allowed on the altar.

Altar-Vessels.—The chalice is the cup in which the wine and water of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is contained. It should be either of gold, or of silver with the cup gilt on the inside or it may have a cup only of silver, gilt on the inside; in which case the base and stem may be of any metal, provided it be solid, clean, and becoming (Miss. Rom., Ritus celebr., tit. i, n. 1). According to the Roman Missal (De Defectibus, tit. x, n. 1) it may be also made of stannum (an alloy of tin and lead), with the cup gilt on the inside, but authors permit this only by way of exception in case of extreme poverty. Chalices made of glass, wood, copper, or brass are not permitted, and cannot be consecrated by the bishop (Cong. Sac. Rit., 16 September, 1865). The base may be round, hexagonal, or octagonal, and should be so wide that there is no fear of the chalice tilting over. Near the middle of the stem, between the base and the cup, there should be a knob, in order that the chalice, especially after the Consecration, when the priest has his thumb and index finger joined together may be easily handled. This knob may be adorned with precious stones but care should be taken that they do not protrude so far as to hinder the easy handling of the chalice. The base and cup may be embellished with pictures or emblems, even in relief, but those on the cup should he about an inch below the lip of the chalice. The cup should be narrow at the bottom, and become gradually wider as it approaches the mouth. The rounded or turned-down lip is very unserviceable. The height is not determined, but it should be at least eight inches.

Paten.—The paten is a vessel of the altar on which the altar-bread is offered in the Holy Sacrifice. It should be made of the same material as the chalice, and if it is made of anything else than gold it should be gilt on the concave side. Its edge ought to be thin and sharp, so that the particles on the corporal may be easily collected. It should not be embellished, at least on the concave side, in any manner; however, one small cross may be set near its edge to indicate the place on which it is to be kissed by the celebrant. Any sharp indentation on the upper side prevents its being easily cleaned. Those having a plain surface throughout, with the gradual slight depression towards the centre, are the most serviceable. By a decree of the Cong. Sac. Rit., 6 December, 1866, Pope Pius IX allowed chalices and patens to be used which were made of aluminium mixed with other metals in certain proportions given in the “Instructio,” provided the whole surface was silvered, and the cup gilt on the inside, but this decree is expunged from the latest edition of the Decrees. Both the chalice and the paten, before they can be used at the Sacrifice of the Mass, must be consecrated by the ordinary, or by a bishop designated by him. Only in exceptional cases can a priest, who has received special faculties for doing so from the Holy See, consecrate them. By virtue of Facultates Extraordinariae C, fac. vi, the bishops of the United States may delegate a simple priest. The mere fact of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice with an unconsecrated chalice and paten can never supply the place of this rite, specially ordained by the Church.

Loss of Consecration.—The chalice loses its consecration when it becomes unfit for the purpose for which it is destined. Hence it becomes devoid of consecration: (1) when the slightest break or slit appears in the cup near the bottom. This is not the case if the break be near the upper part, so that without fear of spilling its contents consecration can take place in it. (2) When a very noticeable break appears in any part, so that it would be unbecoming to use it. (3) When the cup is separated from the stem in such a manner that the parts could not be joined except by an artificer, unless the cup was originally joined to the stem, and the stem to the base, by means of a screwing device. If, however, to the bottom of the cup a rod is firmly attached which passes through the stem to the base, under which is a nut used to hold the different parts together, then, if this rod should break, tutius videtur to reconsecrate it. (4) When it is regilt (Cong. Sac. Rit., 14 June, 1845). A chalice does not lose its consecration by the mere wearing away of the gilding, because the whole chalice is consecrated; but it becomes unfit for the purpose of consecrating in it, for the rubric prescribes that it be gilded on the inside. After being regilt, the celebrating of Mass with the chalice cannot supply its consecration (St. Lig., bk. VI, n. 380). The custom of desecrating a chalice, or other sacred vessel, by striking it with the hand or some instrument, or in any other manner, before giving it to a workman for regilding, is positively forbidden (Cong. Sac. Rit., 23 April, 1822). By making slight repairs upon the chalice or paten the consecration is not lost. The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1874 decided that a chalice loses its consecration if it is employed by heretics for any profane use, e.g. for a drinking cup at table. The paten loses its consecration: (1) When it is broken to such an extent that it becomes unfit for the purpose for which it is intended, e.g. if the break be so large that particles could fall through it. (2) When it becomes battered to such an extent that it would be unbecoming to use it. (3) When it is regilt. A chalice which becomes unserviceable is not to be sold, but should, if possible, be used for some sacred purpose.

Ciborium.—The ciborium is an altar-vessel in which the consecrated particles for the Communion of the laity are kept. It need not necessarily be made of gold or silver, since the Roman Ritual (tit. cap. i, n. 5) merely prescribes that it be made ex solida decentique materia. It may even be made of copper provided it be gilt (Cong. Sac. Rit., 31 August, 1867). If made of any material other than gold, the inside of the cup must be gilt (Cong. Episc. et Reg., 26 July, 1588). It must not be made of ivory (ibid.) or glass (Cong. Sac. Rit., 30 January, 1880). Its base should be wide. its stem should have a knob, and it may be embellished and adorned like the chalice (vide supra). There should be a slight round elevation in the centre, at the bottom, in order to facilitate the taking out of the particles when only a few remain therein. The cover, which should fit tightly, may be of pyramidal or a ball shape, and should be surmounted by a cross. The ciborium ought to be at least seven inches high. It is not consecrated, but only blessed by the bishop or priest having the requisite faculties according to the form of the “Benedictio tabernaculi” (Rit. Rom., tit. iii, xxiii). As long as the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in it, the ciborium must be covered with a veil of precious material of white colour (Rit. Rom., tit. iv, 1, n. 5), which may be embroidered in gold and silver and have fringes about the edges. When it does not actually contain the Blessed Sacrament, this veil must be removed. Hence, after its purification at Mass, or when filled with new particles to be consecrated, it is placed on the altar, the veil cannot be put on it. Even from the Consecration to the Communion it remains covered. Just before placing it in the tabernacle after Communion the veil is placed on it. It is advisable to have two ciboria as the newly consecrated particles must never be mixed with those which were consecrated before. In places in which Holy Communion is carried solemnly to the sick, a smaller ciborium of the same style is used for this purpose. The little pyx used for carrying Holy Communion to the sick is made of the same material as that of which the ciborium is made. It must be gilt on the inside, the lower part should have a slight elevation in the centre, and it is blessed by the form “Benedictio tabernaculi” (Rit. Rom., tit. viii, xxiii). The ciborium and pyx lose their blessing in the same manner as the chalice loses its consecration.

Ostensorium.—The ostensorium (ostensory, monstrance) is a glass-framed shrine in which the Blessed Sacrament is publicly exposed. It may be of gold, silver, brass, or copper gilt (Cong. Sac. Rit., 31 August, 1867). The most appropriate form is that of the sun emitting its rays to all sides (Instructio Clement., 5). The base should be wide, and at a short distance above it there should be a knob for greater ease in handling. The ostensorium must be surmounted by a cross. (Cong. Sac. Rit., 11 September, 1847). It should not be embellished with small statues of saints, as these and the relics of saints are forbidden to be placed on the altar during solemn Benediction. At the sides of the receptacle in which the lunula is placed it is appropriate to have two statues representing adoring angels. In the middle of the Ostensorium here should be a receptacle of such a size that a large Host may be easily put into it; care must be taken that the Host does not touch the sides of this receptacle. On the front and back of this receptacle there should be a crystal, the one on the back opening like a door, when closed, the latter must fit tightly. The circumference of this receptacle must either be of gold or, if of other material, it should be gilt and so smooth and polished that any particle that may fall from the Host will be easily detected and removed. The lunula must be inserted and recovered without difficulty, hence the de need for keening it in an upright position should be construed with this end in view. The ostensorium need not necessarily be blessed, but it is better that it should be. The form “Benedictio tabernaculi” (Rit. Rom., tit. viii, xxiii) or the form “Benedictio ostensorii” (Rit. Rom., in Appendice) may be used. When carried to and from the altar it ought to be covered with a white veil.

The lunula (lunette) is made of the same material as the ostensorium. If it be made of any material other than gold, it must be gilded (Cong. Sac. Rit., 31 August, 1867). In form it may be either of two crescents or of two crystals encased in metal. If two crescents be used, the arrangement should be such that they can be separated and cleaned. Two stationary crescents, between which the Sacred Host is pressed, are, for obvious reasons, not serviceable. If two crystals are used it is necessary that they be so arranged that the Sacred Host does not in any way touch the glass (Cong. Sac. Rit., 14 January, 1898). The ostensorium, provided it contains the Blessed Sacrament, may be placed in the tabernacle, but then it should be covered with a white silk veil. (Recent authors say that since the ostensorium is intended merely ad monstrandam and not ad asservanduam SS. Eucharistiam it should not be placed in the tabernacle.) When the Blessed Sacrament is taken out of the ostensorium after Benediction it may or may not be removed from the lunula. If it is removed it should, before being placed in the tabernacle, be enclosed in a receptacle, called the repository (custodia, repositorium, capsula), which is made like the pyx, used in carrying Holy Communion to the sick, but larger, and may have a base with a very short stem. If the Blessed Sacrament be allowed to remain in the crescent-shaped lunula both It and the lunula may be placed in the same kind of receptacle, or in one specially made for this purpose, having a device at the bottom for keeping the Sacred Host in an upright position. The latter may have a base and short stem, and a door, which fits tightly, on the back part, through which the lunula is inserted. This receptacle is made throughout of silver or of other material, gilt on the inside, smooth and polished, and surmounted by a cross. No corporal is placed in it. If the lunula be made of two crystals, encased in metal, it may, when containing the Blessed Sacrament, be placed in the tabernacle without enclosing it in a custodia. If the host be placed before the Consecration in the lunula made of two crystals, the latter must be opened before the words of Consecration are pronounced. The lunula and custodia are blessed with the form “Benedictio Tabernaculi” (Rit. Rom., tit. viii, xxiii) by a bishop or by a priest having the faculty. They lose their blessing when they are regilt, or when they become unfit for the use for which they are intended. All the sacred vessels, when not actually containing the Blessed Sacrament, should be placed in an iron safe, or other secure place, in the sacristy, so as to be safeguarded against robbery or profanation of any kind. Each ought to be placed in its own case or covered with a separate veil, for protection against dust and dampness.

Altar-Wine-—Wine is one of the two elements absolutely necessary for the sacrifice of the Eucharist. For valid and licit consecration vinum de vite, i.e. the pure juice of the grape naturally and properly fermented, is to be used. Wine made out of raisins, provided that from its colour and taste it may be judged to be pure, may be used (Collect. S. C. de Prop. Fide, n. 705). It may be white or red, weak or strong, sweet or dry. Since the validity of the Holy Sacrifice, and the lawfulness of its celebration, require absolutely genuine wine, it becomes the serious obligation of the celebrant to procure only pure wines. And since wines are frequently so adulterated as to escape minute chemical analysis, it may be taken for granted that the safest way of procuring pure wine is to buy it not at second hand, but directly from a manufacturer who understands and conscientiously respects the great responsibility involved in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice. If the wine is changed into vinegar, or is become putrid or corrupted, if it was pressed from grapes that were not fully ripe, or if it is mixed with such a quality of water that it can hardly be called wine, its use is forbidden (Missale Rom., De Defectibus, tit. iv, 1). If the wine begins to turn into vinegar, or to become putrid, or is the unfermented juice is pressed from the grape, it would be a grievous offence to use it, but it is considered valid matter (ibid., 2). To conserve weak and feeble wines, and in order to keep them from souring or spoiling during transportation, a small quantity of spirits of wine (grape brandy or alcohol) may be added, provided the following conditions are observed (1) The added spirit (alcohol) must have been distilled from the grape (ex genimime vitis); (2) the quantity of alcohol added, together with that which the wine contained naturally after fermentation, must not exceed eighteen per cent of the whole; (3) the addition must be made during the process of fermentation (S. Romana et Univ. Inquis., 5 August, 1896).

Altarage.—From the low Latin altaragium, which signified the revenue reserved for the chaplain (altarist or altar-thane) in contradistinction to the income of the parish priest. At present it signifies the fees received by a priest from the laity when discharging any function for them, e.g. at marriages, baptisms, funerals. It is also termed honorarium, stipend, stole-fee.

A. J. Schulte.

Altar (in the Greek Church)

The word altar (sometimes spelled oltar) is used in the Old Slavonic and Russian languages to denote the entire space surrounding what we know as the altar, which is included behind the iconostasis, and is the equivalent of the Greek word bema. Thus it corresponds in a measure to the sanctuary of the Roman churches. Hence the altar of the Russian Orthodox or the Ruthenian Greek Catholic churches means the sanctuary, and not merely the altar known to Latin churches. The altar itself is called in Old Slavonic and Russian prestol, “the throne,” in allusion to Our Lord Who reigns there as living. The altar of the Greeks, using the Old Slavonic as their liturgical language, includes not only the altar (prestol) but also the little side altar, or prothesis, where the proskomide (or preparation of the bread and wine for the Liturgy) takes place, and also the seats for the clergy and the throne or cathedra for the bishop. In the Greek Churches these seats and the bishop’s throne are usually placed behind the altar and on a step or elevation so that the occupants may see over the altar.

The altar in the Greek Churches (he hagia trapeza) has remained practically unchanged and unadorned. The Greeks, unlike the Latins, have placed their wealth of decoration upon the iconostasis in front of the altar. In churches of the Latin Rite the altar itself has been added to by reredos and altar-pieces and the like, yet altars of the older form may still he seen in Rome, in St. Peter’s, Santa Maria Maggiore, St. John Lateran, St. Paul’s, and other churches. Beside this the Western Rite has usually placed the altar against the wall of the church; the Greek Rite keeps it apart and isolated so that the officiating clergy may pass around it. The Roman altar, while rectangular, is usually longer in one direction than the other; but the Greek altar is made square so that every measurement is equal. The top portion of a Greek altar should be of wood, one board at least. Herein it differs from the Roman Rite which requires that even a wooden altar should have a stone slab or “sepulchre” wherein are enclosed the relics of the saints. Upon the altar are the candles which are lighted during the Liturgy, the cross, or more often the crucifix, which in Orthodox churches is usually made only in low relief, and also the book of the Gospels, containing the various Gospels arranged for reading in the Liturgy for the various Sundays and feast days during the Greek ecclesiastical year. The book of the Gospels is usually laid flat on the altar until the time when the sacred elements are brought for consecration; then it is stood up on edge in front of, and almost covering the tabernacle. Besides the Gospels, the missal, or euchologion, is also upon the altar, from which the priests read and intone the unchangeable parts of the Liturgy. The tabernacle containing the Blessed Sacrament, reserved according to the Greek Rite, does not always rest upon the altar. Often these tabernacles, beautifully built, rest upon a pillar or other foundation about a foot or so behind the altar. The altar in the Greek Churches, as being the place on which the glory of the Lord rests, is vested with two coverings. The first is of white linen next to the altar itself, and the second or outer covering is made of rich brocade or embroidery and is called the endyton. Besides this there is the antimension which is usually placed on every altar and which contains the relics of some saint. A church and its altar should be consecrated by a bishop, but sometimes it is found impossible or inconvenient to accomplish this, and so a priest may perform the consecration, but he must use the antimension which has been duly consecrated by the bishop in almost the same manner as an altar is consecrated.

The Greek consecration service, after the singing of hymns and psalms, and the consecration of the holy water used in the service, begins by the bishop sprinkling the altar with holy water. He then pours into the nail holes of the altar-board a mixture of incense and wax, and the priests then nail down the top board to the solid part of the altar. The bishop then kneels and prays that the Holy Ghost may descend and sanctify the temple and altar. Then begins the ablution of the altar. While psalms are being sung the bishop lightly rubs the top board of the altar with soap in the form of a cross and pours water on it, and the priests take cloths and rub the altar dry. Then the bishop takes red wine mixed with a drop or so of rose- water and pours the mixture on the altar in the shape of a cross and rubs it into the wood. With some drops of the same wine he sprinkles the antimension destined for the new altar. Then the bishop anoints the top board and the sides of the altar with holy chrism and also anoints the antimension. In the Byzantine Catholic Churches the altar is washed three times while the psalms are being sung. Then begins the vesting of the altar. First a white linen covering is placed over the altar crosswise, and over this first cover a second one of brilliant and embroidered material is placed, called the endyton. There is then placed on the altar a fine large wrap or cloth called the heileton (eileton) which is somewhat analogous to the burse of the Latin Rite, and in it the antimension is enfolded. All these are put in place after having been blessed and sprinkled with holy water while the appropriate Psalms are being chanted. After this the church is then consecrated, or it is ready for consecration. Among the Greeks the altar is always consecrated on Holy Thursday or on a Thursday between Easter and the Feast of the Ascension.

RENAUDOT, Coll. Liturg. Orientalium (Frankfort, 1847), I, 164 and passim, II, 52–56; GOAR, Euchologion (Paris, 1647), 832.

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Altar (in Scripture)

The English word altar, if the commonly accepted etymology be adopted—alta ara—does not describe as well as its Hebrew and Greek equivalents, mizbeah (from zabhah, to sacrifice) and thysiasterion (from thyo, to immolate), the purpose of the thing it stands for.

I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

As soon as men conceived the idea of offering sacrifices to the Deity they felt the need of places specially designed for this end. These primeval specimens of altars were necessarily most simple, very likely consisting of a heap of stones or earth, suitable for the fire and the victims. Some of the megalithic monuments left by prehistoric man seem to have been erected for this purpose. Probably of this simple description were the altars which Cain and Abel used to offer up their sacrifices, though scripture does not mention in connection with their names any such monuments; such also were the altars built up by Noah after the flood (Gen., viii, 20); by Abraham in Sichem (Gen., xii, 7), Bethel (Gen, xii, 8; xiii, 4), Mambre (Gen., xiii, 18), and at the place where he had been about to sacrifice his son (Gen., xxii, 9); by Isaac and Jacob at Bersabee (Gen., xxvi, 25; xlvi, 1), and by the latter in Galaad (Gen., xxxi, 54). The same may be said of the altar erected in the desert of Sinai before the golden calf (Ex., xxxii, 5). During the period of the Judges and of the Kings, the Israelites, owing to their propensity to idolatrous worship, raised up altars to Baal and Astaroth, even to Moloch and Chamos. No temple enclosed these altars or those erected to the one true God by the patriarchs; they were raised up in the open air, and preferably on the tops of the hills, whence their name, “high places.” The Chanaanites’ high places were commonly located near large and shady trees, or in the woods, in the midst of which a consecrated precinct was marked out, affording good opportunities for the sacred debauches accompanying the Astaroth worship which were so often alluded to by the Prophets.

Altar of the Holocaust

Modern critics affirm that there existed in Israel different legitimate places of worship before the time of Josias, an assertion however, which is not to be examined here as only regulations concerning the altar come under consideration at present. The earliest ordinance on the subject is found in Ex., xx, 24–26 as follows: “You shall make an altar of earth unto me, and you shall offer upon it your holocausts and peace offerings, your sheep and oxen, in every place w here the memory of my name shall be: ill come to thee, and will bless thee. And if thou make an altar of stone unto me, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones; for if thou lift up a tool upon it, it shall be defiled. Thou shalt not go up by steps unto my altar, lest thy nakedness be discovered.” These regulations fairly correspond to the practice hitherto commonly followed, as may be concluded from the scanty indications furnished by the histories of the patriarchs. The Deuteronomic Law, while enforcing the injunction of local unity of worship, repeats, on the occasion of the altar erected on Mount Hebal, these primitive rules: “Thou shalt build . . . an altar . . . of stones . . . not fashioned nor polished” (Deut., xxvii, 5, 6; cf. Jos., viii, 30, 31). The description given in the places cited, as well as that of the altar erected near the Jordan by the Rubenites, Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasses (Jos, xxii), which was “the pattern of the altar of Yahweh,” suggests that the altars there referred to were large constructions (Jos, xxii, 10). It may well be supposed that they were built upon a mound and reached by a slope or even by steps The motive, indeed, for the rule of Ex, xx, 26, had disappeared since the priests had been provided with breeches (Ex, xxviii, 42). There are reasons to suppose that the altars erected at Silo and the other places of worship before the translation of the Ark to Jerusalem, though probably of smaller dimensions, were of the same general description. These were fixed altars, the splendour of which was to be surpassed in the memory of Israel by that of the altar erected by Solomon in front of the Temple. Before describing it and sketching its history, it is proper to gather the different references found in the Bible to the portable altar used during the wanderings of the Hebrews through the wilderness

1. Altar of Holocaust of the Tabernacle

According to the prescriptions of Ex, xxvii, 1–8, xxxviii, 1–7, this altar of holocaust, constructed of setim wood (a kind of acacia), foursquare in form, measured five cubits square and three in height, it was covered with plates of brass. At its four upper corners were four “horns,” likewise overlaid with brass, which probably served to hold the flesh of the victims heaped upon the altar In the ease of sin-offerings, the priest put some of the blood of the victim upon these horns, they were also a place of refuge, as is to be inferred from Ex, xxi, 14. A grate of brass, after the manner of a net, extended to the middle of the altar, and under it a hearth. At the four corners of the net rings had been east; and through these rings ran two bars of setim wood covered with brass to carry the altar. This indeed was not solid, but empty and hollow on the inside. Such expressions as “to come down from the altar” (Lev, ix, 22) lead us to suppose that this altar which was placed at the door of the tabernacle (Lev, iv, 18) was usually set upon a hillock and reached by a slope. Some believe also that the above-described altar, which was merely a framework, had to be filled with earth or stones, in compliance with the regulations of Ex, xx, 24, and in order to prevent it from being injured by the flames of the sacrifices. The altar served not only for the holocausts, but also for all the other sacrifices in which a part of the victim was burnt. Fire was unceasingly kept in the hearth for the sacrifices. When this altar was built up, before serving for Divine worship, it was solemnly consecrated by an unction with holy oil and by daily anointings and aspersions with the blood of the sin-offerings for seven days. For twelve days this was followed by daily sacrifices offered by the princes of each tribe, thenceforth all bloody sacrifices were offered on this altar. Some independent critics, remarking that this altar is mentioned in the sacerdotal code only (cf. Pentateuch), and arguing from the anomalies presented by the idea of the construction in wood of a fireplace upon which a strong fire continually burned, regard this former altar of holocaust, not as the pattern, but as a projection back to early times and on a smallcr scale, of the altar of Jerusalem

2. Altar of Holocaust of the Temple of Solomon

This is commonly known under the name of “brazen altar.” It was located in the Temple court, to the east of the Temple proper. In form it resembled the altar of the tabernacle, but its dimensions were much larger: twenty cubits in length, twenty cubits in breadth and ten cubits in height (II Par, iv, 1). Ez, xliii, 17 suggests that it was erected upon a base enclosing, according to certain traditions, the rock Sakkara which still can be seen in the Haram esh-Sherif. The whole structure, base and altar proper, was entirely filled up with rocks and earth. A slope, which Talmudic traditions suppose to have been broken three times by several steps, led to the top of the base which was a few feet wider than the altar proper, in order that the priest might easily go around the latter. This altar, built up by Solomon (1 Kings 8:64), was the object of a new consecration during Asa’s reign (II Par., xv, 8), which makes us think that some restoration had taken place. Achaz removed it towards the north, and in its place erected another, similar to that which he had seen in Damascus (2 Kings 16:10-15). A restoration of the former order of things very likely occurred under Ezechias, although the sacred text does not mention it explicitly. Again polluted by Ezechias’ son Manasses, it vas later on repaired and dedicated again to Yahweh by the same prince (2 Kings 21:4–5; II Par., xxxiii, 4, 5, 16). The destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian army (587) was of course fatal to both the Temple and the altar, and to both may be applied the sign of the author of the Lamentations: “The stones of the sanctuary are scattered in the tops of every street.”

3. Altar of Holocaust of the Second and Third Temples

The Exile cured the Jews’ propensity to idolatry, those who came back from Babylon with Zorobabel took it to heart to rebuild the altar as soon as possible, in order that they might start over again the public worship of Yahweh. We read the account of the reconstruction in I Esd., iii, 24. This new altar was of the same form and dimensions as the former, and was probably likewise built with unhewn stones. Some twenty years later, the new Temple, completed amidst difficulties and opposition, stood behind the altar. But the Divine service was poor, as we can infer from the scanty documents of that epoch. Those indeed were hard times for Israel. Nehemias—if, to unravel the intricate chronology of the Books of Esdras, we admit that Nehemias preceded Esdras to Jerusalem—spared no efforts to re-establish the Temple worship; but the resources of the sanctuary were scarce, and after his return to Persia, the priests fled, every man to his own country to find a living; the sacrifices, not provided for, were abandoned, and the altar alone remained, a solitary witness to the misery of the times (II Esd., xiii, 10). Better days shone again with the coming of Esdras (I Esd., viii, 35), but the Persians were costly protectors. The Jews had a sorrowful experience of this, especially when the Persian general Bagoses imposed for seven years a heavy tax upon every sacrifice (Josephus, Ant., XI, vii, 1). The reign of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) signalized itself by new profanations: “On the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred and forty-fifth year [of the Grecian era], king Antiochus set up the abominable idol of desolation upon the altar of God” (I Mach., i, 57; iv, 38). How the tyranny of this prince roused the zeal and courage of the Machabees and their followers, and how, through a long and hard struggle, they succeeded in shaking the yoke of the Seleucides cannot be narrated here. Suffice it to say that Judas Machabeus, after having routed Antiochus’ army, considered about the altar of holocausts that had been profaned, what he should do with it. And a good counsel came into their minds to pull it down: lest it should be a reproach to them, because the Gentiles had defiled it; so they threw it down. And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place . . . Then they took whole stones according to the law, and built a new altar according to the former . . . and on the five and twentieth day of the ninth month . . . in the hundred and forty-eighth year, . . . they offered sacrifice according to the law upon the new altar of holocausts which they had made” (I Mach., iv, 44–53). The anniversary of this new dedication was thenceforward celebrated by a feast, added to the liturgical calendar. The altar in question remained until the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple by the Romans. Josephus and the Talmud disagree as to the dimensions of the base. Instead of being overlaid with plates of brass, like the brazen altar of Solomon’s Temple, it was covered on the outside with a solid plastering which might be easily replaced. By the horn of the southwest corner there was an outlet for the blood of the victims, and a hollow to receive libations. Such was the altar at the time of Jesus Christ (Matt., v, 23, 24; xxiii, 18); involved in the curse that hung over the Temple since the Saviour’s last days, it was wrecked with the Temple (A.D. 70) by Titus’s army, never to be built up again.

4. Altar of Incense

In the above description not a word has been said of the incense offerings that were part of the Yahweh worship. There is indeed on the subject of these offerings and the Temple furniture connected with them, a noteworthy divergence between the hitherto common opinion and that of the modern biblical critics. The latter consider the introduction of incense into the Yahweh worship as an innovation of relatively recent date (Jer., vi, 20); they remark that, with the exception of a few passages, the origin of which it is easy to determine the biblical writers speak only of one altar, and that incense in the Law is supposed to be offered in censers, of which each priest possesses one (Lev., xvi, 12, 18- 20; x; Num., xvi, 17; iii 4-10). They argue, besides, from the adventitious character, the late date, and the priestly origin, of the so-called Mosaic texts referring to the altar of incense, as well as from the vacillating statements concerning it in the latest sources of Jewish history; and they conclude that neither in the tabernacle nor in the first Temple did there exist an altar of incense. We shall presently give the indications which the opinion heretofore considered as common makes use of in the description of this piece of tabernacle and Temple furniture. The first altar of incense constructed m the wilderness was foursquare, measuring a cubit in length as much in breadth, and two cubits in height. Made of setim wood, overlaid with the purest gold (hence the name “golden altar”), it was encircled by a crown of the same material; it had likewise a golden brim, and, like unto the altar of holocaust, four horns and four rings of gold; through the latter two bars of setim wood, overlaid with gold, served to carry the altar (Ex., xxx, 4). When it had to be moved, it was covered with a purple veil and a ram-skin. Consecrated, like the altar of holocaust, by an unction of holy oil, this altar served every morning and evening for the incense offering (Ex., xxx, 7–8) and in certain ceremonies for the sin- offerings. Every year during the great Feast of Atonement it was solemnly purified (Lev., xvi, 14-19). In the Temple of Solomon, the altar of incense was made in shape and dimensions, similar to that of the tabernacle. The material alone differed; instead of setim wood, cedar wood was used in its construction. According to a document attributed to Jeremias, and quoted in II Mach., ii, 5, the prophet, forewarned from on high of the wreck of the Temple, would have hidden this altar in a hollow cave on Mount Nebo. Possibly, too, it was taken away in the spoils gathered by the Babylonian army that ransacked Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:13–17). The fact is, the second Temple was furnished like the former, with an altar of incense, destroyed about 168 B.C. by Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), who broke it to take off the gold plating that covered it. Judas Machabeus had a new one made and dedicated at the same time as the altar of holocaust. It is by this altar that the scene described in Luke i, 8–21, took place. Josephus considered it as one of the three masterpieces contained in the Temple; it was probably carried of by the Romans, though no mention of it is made by the Jewish historian among the pieces of the Temple furniture carried off by Titus.

II. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The word altar is in the New Testament frequently applied either to the altar of holocaust or to the altar of incense. St. Paul, from the part of the sacrifice which tlae ministers of the altar received, draws an argument to prove that in like manner the ministers of the Gospel should live by the Gospel (I Cor., ix, 13–14). In another place, from the participation in the victim offered at the altar, he argues that in the same way as those who eat of the sacrifice are partakers of the altar, so also they that share in the flesh of the pagan victims are partakers of the devils to whom they are offered, hence he concludes that to partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils would be blasphemy (I Cor., x, 21). In conclusion, a few words about the altar mentioned in the Apocalypse. Its form resembled that of the altar of incense: like the latter, it was a “golden altar” set up before the throne of God (viii, 3), and adorned with four horns at the angles (ix, 13). By the fire burning upon it stood an angel holding a golden censer, “and there was given to him much incense,” a figure of the prayers of the Saints (viii, 3). 1under the altar were the “souls of them that were slain for the word of God” (Apoc., vi, 9); they had evidently taken the place of the blood of the victims, which, in the Old Law, was poured at the foot of the altar, and fulfilled the same office of praise and atonement.

KITTO, The Tabernacle and its Furniture (London, 1849); LAMY, De tabernaculo de sanctâ civitate et templo )Paris, 1720); LIGHTFOOT, Descriptio templi hierosol, in Op. comp., I, 549’ CRAMER, De arâ exteriore templi secundi (Lyons, 1697); WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin, 1883), tr. BLACK and MENZIES, Proleg. to the History of Israel (Edinburg, 1885); VIGOUROUX, La Bible et les découvertes modernes (Paris, 1889), II, III; KENNEDY in HAST., Dict. of the Bible; RENARD in VIG., Dict. de la Bible.

CHARLES L. SOUVAY

History of the Christian Altar

The Christian altar consists of an elevated surface, tabular in form, on which the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered. The earliest Scripture reference to the altar is in St. Paul (I Cor. x, 21); the Apostle contrasts the “table of the Lord” (trapeza Kyriou) on which the Eucharist is offered, with the “table of devils,” or pagan altars. Trapeza continued to be the favourite term for altar among the Greek Fathers and in Greek liturgies, either used alone or with the addition of such reverential qualifying terms as iera, mystike, The Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii, 10) refers to the Christian altar as thysiasterion, the word by which the Septuagint alludes to Noah’s altar. This term occurs in several of the Epistles of St. Ignatius (Ad Eph. v; Magnes. iv, 7; Philad. 4), as well as in the writings of a number of fourth and fifth century Fathers and historians; Eusebius employs it to describe the altar of the great church at Tyre (Hist. Eccl., X, iv, 44). Trapeza, however, was the term most frequently in use. The word bomos to designate an altar. was carefully avoided by the Christians of the first age, because of its pagan associations; it is first used by Synesius, Bishop of Cyrene, a writer of the early fifth century. The terms altare, mensa, ara, altarium, with or without a genitive addition (as mensa Domini), are employed by the Latin fathers to designate an altar. Ara, however, is more commonly applied to pagan altars, though Tertullian speaks of the Christian altar as ara Dei. But St. Cyprian makes a sharp distinction between ara and altare, pagan altars being aras diaboli, while the Christian altar is altare Dei [quasi post aras diaboli accedere ad altare Dei fas sit (Ep. lxv, ed. Hartel, II, 722; P. L., Ep. lxiv, IV, 389)]. Altare was the word most commonly used for altar, and was equivalent to the Greek trapeza.

I. MATERIAL AND FORM

The earliest Christian altars were of wood, and identical in form with the ordinary house tables. The tables represented in the Eucharistic frescoes of the catacombs enable us to obtain an idea of their appearance. The most ancient, as well as the most remarkable, of these frescoes, that of the Fractio Panis found in the Capella Greca, which dates from the first decades of the second century, shows seven persons seated on a semi-circular divan before a table of the same form. Tabular-shaped altars of wood continued in use till well on in the Middle Ages. St. Athanasius speaks of a wooden altar which was burned by the Count Heraclius (Athan. ad Mon., lvi), and St. Augustine relates that the Donatists tore apart a wooden altar under which the orthodox Bishop Maximianus had taken refuge (Ep. clxxxv, ch. vii, P. L., XXXIII, 805). The first legislation against such altars dates from the year 517, when the Council of Epaon, in Gaul, forbade the consecration of any but stone Altars (Mansi, Coll. Conc., VIII, 562). But this prohibition concerned only a small part of the Christian world, and for several centuries afterwards altars of wood were used, until the growing preference for altars of more durable material finally supplanted them. The two table altars preserved in the churches of St. John Lateran and St. Pudentiana are the only ancient altars of wood that have been preserved. According to a local tradition, St. Peter offered the Holy Sacrifice on each, but the evidence for this is not convincing The earliest stone altars were the tombs of the martyrs interred in the Roman Catacombs. The practice of celebrating Mass on the tombs of martyrs can be traced with a large degree of probability to the first quarter of the second century. The Fractio Panis fresco of the Capella Greca, which belongs to this period is located in the apse directly above a small cavity which Wilpert supposes (Fractio Panis, 18) to have contained the relics of a martyr, and it is highly probable that the stone covering this tomb served as an altar. But the celebration of the Eucharist on the tombs of martyrs in the Catacombs was, even in the first age, the exception rather than the rule. (See ARCOSOLIUM) The regular Sunday services were held in the private houses which were the churches of the period. Nevertheless. the idea of the stone altar, the use of which afterwards became universal in the West, is evidently derived from the custom of celebrating the anniversaries and other feasts in honour of those who died for the Faith. Probably, the custom itself was suggested by the message in the Apocalypse (vi, 9) “I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God.” With the age of peace, and especially under the pontificate of Pope Damasus (366–384), basilicas and chapels were erected in Rome and elsewhere in honour of the most famous martyrs, and the altars, when at all possible, were located directly above their tombs. The “Liber Pontificalis” attributes to Pope Felix I (269–274) a decree to the effect that Mass should be celebrated on the tombs of the martyrs (constituit supra memorias martyrum missas celebrare, “Lib. Pont.,” ed. Duchesne, I, 158). However this may be, it is clear from the testimony of this authority that the custom alluded to was regarded at the beginning of the sixth century as very ancient (op. cit., loc. cit., note 2). For the fourth century we have abundant testimony, literary and monumental. The altars of the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, erected by Constantine, were directly above the Apostles’ tombs. Speaking of St. Hippolytus, the poet Prudentius refers to the altar above his tomb as follows:

Talibus Hippolyei corpus mandatur opertis

Propter ubi apposita est ara dicata Deo.

Finally, the translation of the bodies of the martyrs Sts. Gervasius and Protasius by St. Ambrose to the Ambrosian basilica in Milan is an evidence that the practice of offering the Holy Sacrifice on the tombs of martyrs was long established. The great veneration in which the martyrs were held from the fourth century had considerable influence in effecting two changes of importance with regard to altars. The stone slab enclosing the martyr’s grave suggested the stone altar, and the presence of the martyr’s relics beneath the altar was responsible for the tomblike under-structure known as the confessio. The use of stone altars in the East in the fourth century is attested by St. Gregory of Nyssa (P. G., XLVI, 581) and St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in I Cor., xx); and in the West, from the sixth century, the sentiment in favour of their exclusive use is indicated by the Decree of the Council of Epaon alluded to above. Yet even in the West wooden altars existed as late as the reign of Charlemagne, as we infer from a capitulary of this emperor forbidding the celebration of Mass except on stone tables consecrated by the bishop [in mensis lapideis ab episcopis consecratis (P. L., XCVII, 124)]. From the ninth century, however, few traces of the use of wooden altars are found in the domain of Latin Christianity, but the Greek Church, up to the present time, permits the employment of wood, stone, or metal.

II. THE CONFESSIO

Martyrs were Confessors of the Faith—Christians who “confessed” Christ before men at the cost of their lives—hence the name confessio was applied to their last resting-place, when, as happened frequently from the fourth century, an altar was erected over it. Up to the serenth century in Rome, as we learn from a letter of St. Gregory the Great to the Empress Constantia, a strong sentiment against disturbing the bodies of the martyrs prevailed. This fact accounts for the erection of the early Roman basilicas, no matter what the obstacles encountered, over the tombs of martyrs; the church was brought to the martyr, not the martyr to the church. The altar in such cases was placed above the tomb with which it was brought into the closest relation possible. In St. Peter’s, for instance, where the body of the Apostle was interred at a considerable depth below the level of the floor of the basilica, a vertical shaft, similar to the luminaria in some of the catacombs, was constructed between the Altar and the sepulchre. Across this shaft, at some distance from each other, were two perforated plates, called cataractae, on which cloths (brandea) were placed for a time, and afterwards highly treasured as relics. But the remains of St. Peter, and those of St. Paul, were never disturbed. The tombs of both Aposties were enclosed by Constantine in cubical cases, each adorned with a gold cross (Lib. Pont., ed. Duchesne, I, 176). From that date to the present time, except in 1594, when Pope Clement VIII with Bellarmine and some other cardinals saw the cross of Constantine on the tomb of St. Peter, the interior of their tombs has been hidden from view. Another form of confessio was that in which the slab enclosing the martyr’s tomb was on a level with the floor of the sanctuary (presbyterium). As the sanctuary was elevated above the floor of the basilica the altar could thus be placed immediately above the tomb, while the people in the body of the church could approach the confessio and through a grating (fenestella confessionis) obtain a view of the relics. One of the best examples of this form of confessio is seen at Rome in the Church of San Giorgio in Velabro, where the ancient model is followed closely A modified form of the latter (fifth-century) state of confessio is that in the basilica of San Alessandro on the Via Nomentana, about seven miles from Rome. In this case the sanctuary floor was not elevated above the floor of the Basilica, and therefore the fenestella occupied the space between the floor and the table of the altar, thus forming a combination tomb and table altar. In the fenestella of this altar there is a square opening through which brandea could be placed on the tomb.

III. THE CIBORIUM

From the fourth century altars were, in many instances, covered by a canopy supported on four columns, which not only formed a protection against possible accidents, but in a greater degree served as an architectural feature of importance. This canopy was known as the ciborium or tegurium. The idea of it may have been suggested by memoriae such as those which from the earliest times protected the graves of St. Peter and St. Paul; when the basilicas of these Apostles were erected, and their tombs became altars, the appropriateness of protecting- structures over the tomb-altars, bearing a certain resemblance to those which already existed, would naturally suggest itself. However this may be, the dignified and beautifully ornamented ciborium as the central point of the basilica, where all religious functions were performed, was an artistic necessity. The altar of the basilica was simple in the extreme, and, consequently, in itself too small and insignificant to form a centre which would be in keeping with the remainder of the sacred edifice. The ciborium admirably met this requirement. The altars of the basilicas erected by Constantine at Rome were surmounted by ciboria, one of which, in the Lateran, was known as a fastigium and is described with some detail in the “Liber Pontificalis.” The roof was of silver and weighed 2,025 pounds; the columns were probably of marble or of porphyry, like those of St. Peter’s. On the front of the ciborium was a scene which about this time became a favourite subject with Christian artists: Christ enthroned in the midst of the Apostles. All the figures were five feet in height; the statue of Our Lord weighed 120 pounds, and those of the Apostles ninety pounds each. On the opposite side, facing the apse, Our Lord was again represented enthroned, but surrounded by four Angels with spears; a good idea of the appearance of the Angels may be had from a mosaic of the same subject in the church of Sant’ Apollinare Nuovo, at Ravenna. The interior of the Lateran Ciborium was covered with gold, and from the centre hung a chandelier (farus) “of purest gold, with fifty dolphins of purest gold weighing fifty pounds, with chains weighing twenty-five pounds.” Suspended from the arches of the ciborium, or in close proximity to the altar, were “four crowns of purest gold, with twenty dolphins, each fifteen pounds, and before the altar was a chandelier of gold, with eighty dolphins, in which pure nard was burned.” Seven other altars were erected in the basilica, probably to receive the oblations; Duchesne notes the coincidence of the number of subsidiary altars with the number of deacons in the Roman Church (Liber Pont., I, 172, and note 33, 191). This splendid canopy was carried away by Alaric in 410, but a new ciborium was erected by the Emperor Valentinian III at the request of Pope Pope Sixtus III (432–440). Only fragments of a few of the more ancient ciboria have been preserved to our time, but the ciborium of Sant’ Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna (ninth century), reproduces their principal features.

IV. CHANCEL

In his description of the Basilica of Tyre the historian Eusebius says (Hist. Eccl., X, iv) that the altar was enclosed “with wooden lattice-work, accurately wrought with artistic carving,” so that it might be rendered “inaccessible to the multitude.” The partition thus described, which separated the prebyterium and choir from the nave, was the cancellus or chancel. In a later age the name “chancel” came to be applied to the presbyterium itself. Portions of a number of ancient chancels have been found in Roman churches, and from reconstructions made with their help by archaeologists a good idea of the early chancel may be obtained. Two of these restored chancels, made from fragments found in the oratories of Equizio and in the Church of San Lorenzo, show the style of workmanship, which consisted of geometrical designs. Chancels were made of wood, stone, or metal.

V. THE ICONOSTASIS

Constantine the Great, according to the “Liber Pontificalis,” erected in St Peter’s, in front of the presbyterium, six marble columns adorned with vine-traceries. Whether these columns were originally conacted by an architrave is uncertain, but in the time of Pope Sergius III (687–701) this feature existed. They seem to have served for no special object, and therefore were probably intended to add dignity to the presbyterium. In the Church of the Resurrection at Jerusalem, also erected by Constantine, there were twelve similar columns, corresponding with the number of the Apostles. The iconostasis of the Greek Church and the rood-screen of Gothic churches are evidently traceable to this ornamental feature of the two fourth-century basilicas. The iconostasis, like the chancel in the Latin Church, separated the presbyterium from the nave. Its original form was that of an open screen, but from the eighth century, owing to the reaction against iconoclasm, it began to assume its present form of a closed screen decorated with paintings. A colonnade of six columns (seventh century) in the Cathedral of Torcello gives an idea of the colonnades in the Constantinian basilicas referred to.

VI. THE DOVE; TABERNACLE

During the first age of Christianity the faithful were allowed, when persecution was imminent, to reserve the Eucharist in their homes. (See ARCA.) This custom gradually disappeared in the West about the fourth century. The Sacred Hosts for the sick were then kept in churches where special receptacles were prepared for them. These receptacles mere either in the form of a dove which hung from the roof of the ciborium, or, where a ciborium did not exist, of a tower (the turris Eucharistica) which was placed in an armarium. In a drawing of the thirteenth-century altar of the Cathedral of Arras an arrangement is seen which is evidently a reminiscence of the suspended dove in those countries where the ciborium had disappeared: the Eucharistic tower is suspended above the altar from a staff in the form of a crosier. The more ordinary receptacle for this purpose, up to the seventeenth century, was the armarium near, or an octagon-shaped tower placed on the Gospel side of, the altar. Tabernacles of the latter kind were generally of stone or wood; those of the dove class of some precious metal. Our present form of tabernacle dates from the end of the sixteenth century.

VII. CONSECRATION

No special formula for the consecration of altars was in use in the Roman Church before the eighth century. In substance, however, what we understand by consecration was practiced in the fourth century. This original form of consecration consisted in the solemn transfer of the relics of a martyr to the altar of a newly erected church The translation of the bodies of Sts. Gervasius and Protasius, made by St. Ambrose, is the first recorded example of the kind. (See AMBROSIAN BASILICA.) But such translations of the mortal remains of martyrs were at this time, and long afterwards, of rare occurrence. Relics, however, by which we must understand objects from a martyr’s tomb (the brandea mentioned above), were regarded with only a less degree of respect than the bodies of the martyrs themselves, and served as it were to multiply the body of the saint. This reverence for objects associated with a martyr gave rise to the custom of entombing such relics beneath the altars of newly erected churches, until it ultimately became the rule not to dedicate a church without them. An early example of this practice was the dedication of the basilica Romana by St. Ambrose with pignora of St. Peter and St. Paul brought from Rome (Vita Ambros., by Paulinus, c. xxxiii). St. Gregory of Tours (Lib. II, de Mirac., I, P. L., LXXI, 828) mentions the dedication of the Church of St. Julian in his episcopal city with relics of that saint and of another. When relics of the saints could not be procured, consecrated Hosts and fragments of the Gospels were sometimes used; concerning the use of the former for this purpose the English Synod of Calchut (Celicyth, Chelsea, 816) made a regulation (can. 22). Up to the middle of the sixth century in the Roman Church the solemn celebration of Mass was the only form of dedication. If, however, it had been decided to place in the altar the relics of a martyr, this ceremony preceded the first solemn function in the new edifice. Duchesne points out (op. cit., 406) that the liturgical prayers of the Gelasian Sacramentary recited for the consecration of altars bear the unmistakable stamp of the funeral liturgy, this fact is evidently attributable to the Custom of entombing relics, regarded as representing the bodies of the saints, at the time of dedication. The translation of relics was a second solemn interment of the saint’s body, and hence the liturgical prayers composed for such occasions appropriately bore the characteristics of the burial service. The principal features of the earliest form of consecration in the Roman Church, as given in the Gelasian Sacramentary, are as follows: The bishop with his clergy, chanting the litany, first proceeded in solemn procession to the place where the relics were kept. A prayer was then chanted and the relics were borne by the bishop to the door of the church and there placed in the custody of a priest. The bishop then entered the church, accompanied by his immediate attendants, and after exorcising the water and mixing with it a few drops of chrism, he prepared the mortar for enclosing the sepulchre. With a sponge he then washed the table of the altar, and returning to the door he sprinkled the people with what remained of the holy water. After this he took the relics and re-entered the church, followed by the clergy and people chanting another litany. The sepulchre was then anointed with chrism, the relics were placed therein, and the tomb sealed. The ceremony concluded with the solemn celebration of Mass. The Gallican liturgy of consecration, unlike that of Rome, partook of the character of the liturgy for the administration of baptism and confirmation rather than that of the funeral liturgy. “Just as the Christian is dedicated by water and oil, by baptism and confirmation, so the altar first, then the church, is consecrated by ablution and unction” (Duchesne, op. cit., 407–409). In the eighth and ninth centuries attempts were made by Frankish liturgists to combine the two liturgies of Rome and Gaul, from the result then achieved has developed the actual consecration ritual of the Western Church. In the Greek Church the dedication of the altar was a ceremony distinct from that of the deposition of relics, the two functions were ordinarily performed on different days. On the first day the table of the altar was placed on its support of columns by the bishop in person. After this he proceeded to the consecration which consisted of washing the table, first with baptismal water, then with wine. The altar was next anointed with chrism and incensed. The following day the relics were placed in the sepulchre with the greatest solemnity. Duchesne calls attention to the close resemblance between the Gallican and the Byzantine liturgy for the consecration of altars (op. cit., 416).

VIII. ORIENTATION

The custom of praying with faces turned towards the East is probably as old as Christianity. The earliest allusion to it in Christian literature is in the second book of the Apostolic Constitutions (200–250, probably) which prescribes that a church should be oblong “with its head to the East.” Tertullian also speaks of churches as erected in “high and open places, and facing the light (Adv. Valent., iii). The reason for this practice, which did not originate with Christianity, was given by St. Gregory of Nyssa (De Orat. Dominic., P. G., XLIV, 1183), is that the Orient is the first home of the human race, the seat of the earthly paradise. In the Middle Ages additional reasons for orientation were given, namely, that Our Lord from the Cross looked towards the West, and from the East He shall come for the Last Judgment (Durand, Rationale, V, 2; St. Thomas, Summa Theologica II-II:84:3). The existence of the custom among pagans is referred to by Clement of Alexandria, who states that their “most ancient temples looked towards the West, that people might be taught to turn to the East when facing the images” (Stromata, vii. 17, 43). The form of orientation which in the Middle Ages was generally adopted consisted in placing the apse and altar in the Eastern end of the basilica. A system of orientation exactly the opposite of this was adopted in the basilicas of the age of Constantine. The Lateran, St. Peter’s, St. Paul’s, and San Lorenzo in Rome, as well as the Basilicas of Tyre and Antioch and the Church of the Resurrection at Jerusalem, had their apses facing the West. Thus, in these cases the bishop from his throne in the apse looked towards the East. At Rome the second Basilica of St. Paul, erected in 389, and the Basilica of San Pietro in Vincoli, erected probably in the latter half of the fourth century reversed this order and complied with the rule. The Eastern apse is the rule also in the churches of Ravenna, and generally throughout the East. Whether this form of orientation exercised any influence on the change of the celebrant from the back to the front of the altar cannot well be determined but at all events this custom gradually supplanted the older one, and it became the rule for both priest and people to look in the same direction, namely, towards the East (Mabillon, Museum Italicum, ii, 9). Strict adherence to either form of orientation was, necessarily, in many instances impossible, the direction of streets in cities naturally governed the position of churches. Some of the most ancient churches of Rome were directed towards various points of the compass.

IX. ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL ALTARS

Few ancient altars have survived the ravages of time. Probably the oldest of these is the fifth-century altar discovered at Auriol, near Marseilles. The stone table, on the front of which the monogram of Christ, with twelve doves, is engraved, rests on a single column. Similar in construction to this are three altars in the confessio of the Church of St. Caecilia in Rome, which are attributed to the ninth century. In two sixth-century mosaics of San Vitale and Sant’ Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna, two table altars of wood, resting on four feet, are represented. They are covered by a long cloth which completely hides the tables. Enlart regards it as probable that the tables enclosed in the altars of the Lateran and Santa Pudenziana are similar in appearance (Manuel d’archéol. Française, I, Archit. Relig., note 1). Altars of the tomb type, like the sarcophagi of the Constantinian epoch, offered a surface the front of which was well adapted to sculptured decoration. The earliest existing example of an altar with a carved antependium, however, in the Church of Cividale, dates from the beginning of the eighth century. Our Lord is here represented in the centre of the antependium, accompanied by angels, while the hand of the Father appears above His head. Of greater interest is the antependium, as well as the side panels, of the altar of the Ambrosian basilica in Milan. The front, over seven feet in length, is of gold, the back and sides of silver. Both front and back are paneled into three compartments, in which reliefs from the life of Christ and St. Ambrose are represented. The subjects of the central panel of the front are a Greek cross, in the centre of which Our Lord is represented; in the arms of the cross are the symbols of the four Evangelists, while the remaining spaces contain representations of the Apostles; Crosses are represented on the ends also, with angels in various attitudes. The famous reredos of St. Mark’s, Venice, known as the Pala d’oro, which dates from the tenth century, was originally an antependium. To the following (eleventh) century belongs the splendid golden antependium presented to the Cathedral of Basle by the Emperor Henry II now in the Musée de Cluny at Paris. In five column arcades the figures of Our Lord, the Archangels Gabriel, Raphael, and Michael, and St. Benedict are represented. Such costly antependia as these were of course rare; the material more commonly used was wood, with representations of Christ or saints. A painted wooden panel, arcaded in a manner very similar to the antependium of Basle, is preserved in the episcopal museum of Münster in Westphalia. It dates from the twelfth century. Down to the tenth century the ciborium was in general use as a protection and ornamental feature of altars. The ciborium of Sant’ Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna, which belongs to the early ninth century, is, as noted above, essentially the same as those of the earlier period. After the tenth century, however, except in Italy and the Orient, where ciboria were always in favour, they were rarely employed. The best example of a ciborium of the early Gothic period is in the Church of Our Lady of Halberstadt, Germany; two other Gothic ciboria are in the cathedrals of Ratisbon and Vienna. In Italy numerous medieval ciboria still exist. The early types of Christian altar, unlike those most in vogue during the Middle Ages, had no superstructure. So long, indeed, as the bishop’s throne occupied the centre of the apse, a reredos (retabulum), which would conceal the bishop from the congregation, would have been impracticable. By degrees, as we have seen, the custom was introduced, with the general adoption of the Eastern apse of the celebrant facing in the same direction as the congregation, and it became possible to introduce an ornamental panel at the back of the altar similar to the antependium. Probably the custom of exposing relics on the altar, approved by Pope Leo IV (P.L., CXV, 677), exercised some influence on the development of the reredos, and the antependium naturally suggested its form. The reredos was introduced about the beginning of the twelfth century. The oldest existing example of it is the Pala d’oro of St. Mark’s, Venice, which, after reconstruction, was detached from the front and placed at the back of the altar by the Doge Ordefalo Faliero, in 1105. The Church of Kloster-Neuburg, near Vienna, also contains a beautiful example of a twelfth-century reredos, with representations from the Old and the New Testament. The reredos of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was only moderately elevated when compared with the style which found favour in the late Gothic and Renaissance periods. The practice of exhibiting relics was, as we have seen, authorized in the ninth century, but not before the thirteenth century were reliquaries permanently kept on, or more frequently behind, the altar. In the latter case a platform was specially constructed for the purpose In some instances the reliquaries formed part of the reredos but the more common arrangement was to place them on a platform. This practice of permanently exposing relics behind the altar influenced certain other changes of importance with regard to the ciborium and the confessio. The latter feature now disappeared; there was no longer a reason for its existence, since the relics were provided with a new location; and the ciborium was modified into a baldacchino elevated above the reliquary back of the altar. An example of this arrangement, of the thirteenth century, may be seen in the chapel of the Blessed Virgin, in the church of St. Denis, Paris. At first only the altar of relics, usually placed at the end of the apse, was provided with a reredos, but in the course of the fourteenth century the main altar also was similarly provided. The comparative simplicity of the early reredos gradually yielded, in the course of the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, to the prevalent taste for richness of adornment, and reliquaries became of secondary consideration. The reredos now became a great structure, reaching in many instances to the vault of the church, containing life-sized statues of Our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and the saints, besides a number of representations in relief of sacred subjects. This structure was usually of wood, carved or painted. It was connected with the altar by means of a predella, or altar-step, similar to the predella of modern altars, for candelabra, on which the Apostles or other saints were depicted. Towards the end of the sixteenth century the influence of the Renaissance effected another change in the form of the altar. Porticoes, modelled after the triumphal arches of antiquity, with statues in high and low relief, took the place of the reredos, and more costly materials, such as rare marbles. were employed in their construction. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries especially, altars of the Renaissance style became surcharged with ornamentation, often in bad taste and of inferior materials.

LOWRIE, Monuments of the Early Church” (New York 1901); NESBITT in Dictionary of Christian Antiquitíes (London, 1875–80) s.v.; ROCK, Hierurgia (London, 1892); ENLART, Archéologie française (Paris, 1902), I; REUSENS, Archéologie chrétienne (Paris, 1890); KRAUS, Real-Encyklopǎdie der christlichen Altherthümer (Freiburg, 1882), I, 34–42; ‘‘Realencyklopǎdie für Prot. Theologie u. Kirche” (Leipsig, 1896), I, 391–404; PROBST in Kirchenlex, (Freiburg, 1882), I, 584–594; SCHMID, Der christliche Altar u. sein Schmuck (Ratisbon, 1871): MÜNZENBERGER, Zur Kenntnise u. Würdigund der mittelalterlichen Altäre Deutschlands (Frankfurt, 1885); FLEURY, La Messe (Paris); THIERS, Les principaux autels; CORBLET, Histoire de l’Eucharistie (Paris, 1885).

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Bl. Altmann

The friend of Gregory VII and Anselm, conspicuous in the contest of the Guelphs and Ghibellines, as Bishop of Passau and Papal Legate. He was born at Paderborn about the beginning of the eleventh century, presided over the school there, was chaplain at the court of Henry III, and then became Bishop of Passau. The Bollandists find that, because of these successive occupations, it is impossible to make him out a Benedictine monk. As a Bishop he was famous for his care of the poor, his vigour in the reformation of relaxed monasteries, the building of new ones, and the splendour with which he invested divine worship—Henry IV himself contributing lavishly to enrich the church of Passau, chiefly through the intervention of the Empresses Agnes and Bertha, his wife and mother—and finally for the opposition which he aroused in enforcing Gregory’s decree of celibacy of the clergy. With the help of Henry the recalcitrants succeeded in driving him from his see. He was recalled, however, shortly after the death of Hermann the intruder, at whose death-bed he is said to have appeared. Hermann begged for absolution, and asked not to be buried as a Bishop. Altmann’s second possession of his see lasted only a short time. He was again expelled, and died in exile ten years after. He was one of the four South German bishops who sided with Gregory, and defied Henry, in refusing to take part in the Diet of Worms to depose the Pope.

Acta SS., II, August; BARING-GOULD, Lives of the Saints, 8 August (London, 1872).

T.J. CAMPBELL

St. Alto

Recluse and missionary in Bavaria, c. 750. Alto has been variously described as an Anglo-Saxon and an Irishman (Scotus), but the name Alt is undoubtedly Irish. We know little of his life except the broad facts that he lived for some time as a hermit, reclaiming the wild forest-land around him, and that he afterwards founded a Benedictine monastery in this spot, now called Altomünster, in the Diocese of Freising, having previously obtained a grant of land from King Pepin. St. Boniface is said to have come to dedicate the church about the year 750. A charter still exists bearing the subscription Alto reclausus [Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (1904), I, 541], which probably dates back to Alto’s hermit days. We do not know the year of his death, but he is commemorated on 9 February. The monastery of Altomünster suffered much from the Huns and the depredations of the tyrannical nobles, but about the year 1000 it was restored again as a Benedictine monastery. Later it was tenanted by Benedictine nuns and these at the end of the fifteenth century gave place to a community of Brigittines, in whose hands it still remains despite many vicissitudes.

The only sketch of Alto’s life preserved to us is a document of the eleventh century, printed in the Acta SS., II, Feb., and in Mon. Germ. Script., XV, 843; MACLEAR in Dict. Christ. Biog.; SACHS in Kirchenlex.; BINDER, Geschichte der bayerischen Brigitten-Kl ster (Ratisbon, 1896), 249–345.

Herbert Thurston.

Diocese of Alton

Diocese of Alton includes that part of Illinois lying south of the northern limits of the counties of Adams, Brown, Cass, Menard, Sangamon, Macon, Moultrie, Douglas, and Edgar, and north of the southern limits of the counties of Madison, Bond, Fayette, Effingham, Jasper, and Crawford. It was created, 29 July, 1853, by the division of the Diocese of Chicago, then embracing the whole state of Illinois. The new see was first located at Quincy, but was transferred, 9 January, 1857, to Alton. Its German Catholic population came largely from Cincinnati and settled at Quincy, Teutopolis, and Germantown. Swiss Catholics founded Highland, and Alsatians Sainte Marie. The building of railroads brought Irish Catholics in growing numbers. Cahokia, Kaskaskia, and Prairie du Rocher, which now belong to the Diocese of Belleville, had been settled by French Catholics at an earlier period. Prominent among the lay Catholics of the early period were Peter and Sebastian Wise of Alton, Mr. Shepherd of Jerseyville, Mr. Picquet of Sainte Marie, Charles Routt and his nephew of Jacksonville. Fathers Ostrop, Hinsen and Hickey were energetic missionaries.

BISHOPS

Henry Damian Juncker (1857–68), b. 22 August, 1809, at Fenestrange, in German Lorraine; d. at Alton, 2 October, 1868, attended the Pont-a-Mousson Seminary, but emigrated to Cincinnati, where he found an opportunity of continuing his studies in view of the priesthood to which he was raised, 16 March, 1836, by Bishop Purcell. He filled several charges in Ohio previous to his consecration, at Cincinnati Cathedral, 26 April, 1854 by Archbishop Purcell. At Alton the bishop found before him 58 churches, five in course of erection; 30 stations visited by 28 priests; six young men studying for the ministry; two female academies, and a population of about 50,000. This population was made up of old French settlers, some Kentuckians, but especially of Irish immigrants driven away from their country by famine, and Germans, by political disturbances. In Illinois they were finding fertile prairie to till, and railroads to build. Thus they enhanced the prosperity of the State, hitherto only partly cultivated, and depending on the rivers and county roads for its means of communication. The non-Catholic population was not particularly hostile. Priests were very scarce, and vocations to the ministry very limited. In such an emergency the Bishop could only look up to Europe for help. In the fall of the same year he crossed the ocean and secured followers in France, Rome, Germany, and Ireland. After his return, he enlarged his cathedral, erected the present Bishop’s House, encouraged the building of churches, schools, convents, and academies. He attended the Second Plenary Council and went to Rome (1867) for the Centenary of the Holy Apostles. His subsequent missionary labours brought on a severe sickness, which proved fatal. He was buried in a vault under his cathedral. He was succeeded by one of his vicars-general, the Very Rev. Peter Joseph Baltes (1869–86), elected 24 September, 1869, and consecrated, 23 January, 1870, in the present Belleville Cathedral (built by him), by Bishop Luers, of Fort Wayne, while the Vatican Council was in session. He was born, 7 April, 1820, in Ensheim, Rhenish Bavaria. At the age of six years he emigrated with his parents to Oswego, N.Y. He attended school at Holy Cross College, Worcester, Mass.; St. Mary’s of the Lake, Chicago; and the Grand Seminary of Montreal, where he received ordination, 21 May, 1853. His missionary charge were Waterloo and Belleville. At the time of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (1866) he was made vicar-general, and theologian to Bishop Juncker. Bishop Baltes soon made himself felt by the indomitable energy with which he introduced order and uniformity in matters of liturgy and discipline. Under his administration was enacted the special law under which most of the church property is held in Southern Illinois. The burning, in the early part of 1884, of the convent built by him while in Belleville, in which twenty-seven lives were lost, proved a severe shock to his constitution. Sickness prevented him from attending the Third Plenary Council. He lingered for several months, going to his reward, 15 February, 1886. He was buried side by side with his predecessor. After a vacancy of more than two years, the Rev. James Ryan, then rector of St. Columba’s church, Ottawa, in the diocese of Peoria, was appointed, 27 February, 1888. At the same time the diocese was divided, the southern half being made into the new diocese of Belleville. Bishop Ryan was born near Thurles, Ireland, 17 June, 1848. When seven years old, he emigrated with his parents to Louisville, Ky., studied at St. Thomas’s and St. Joseph’s Colleges, Bardstown, in that State, finished his studies at Preston Park Seminary, Louisville, and was ordained, 24 December, 1871. After a few years of mission labours and teaching, he followed Bishop Spalding to Peoria, laboured on several missions and built a number of churches. He was consecrated, 1 May, 1888, at the Alton Cathedral, by Bishop Spalding. He held the first synod of the Alton Diocese, 27 February, 1889.

STATISTICS

At present (1906) the diocese numbers 119 diocesan priests, 35 religious, 428 sisters, 143 parishes, 65 parochial schools, with 9,000 pupils, 2 asylums, with 110 children, 9 hospitals, 2 preparatory seminaries, with 330 students, 23 theological students, 2 colleges, 3 academies, with 380 students. Of late years many immigrants, Italians, Poles, Slavonians, and Lithuanians have come to the diocese, working in the coal mines that are everywhere opening, and taxing the energy of several of the clergy to their utmost capacity. The population of the diocese is 751,107, of which number 75,000 are Catholics.

SHEA, Hist. Cath. Ch. in U.S., IV; Golden Jubilee of St. Boniface’s Church (Quincy); Silver Jubilee of Highland; New World, Christmas ed. (Chicago, 1900).

F.H. ZABEL

Diocese of Altoona

A suffragan see of the province of Philadelphia. The city of Altoona is situated on the eastern slope of the Allegheny mountains, almost midway between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, and at an elevation of 1,175 feet above sea-level. The name is undoubtedly of Indian origin, being formed from the Cherokee word Allatoona, which signifies high land of great worth. It is a little over fifty years old, and is mainly the creation of the Pennsylvania railroad, whose vast workshops, employing about fourteen thousand men, are located there. The population of the city of Altoona is (1906) sixty thousand, about one-fourth of which is Catholic. There are in the city four large Catholic churches with flourishing parish schools. St. John’s Church is used as the pro-cathedral.

The Diocese of Altoona was established May, 1901. It comprises the counties of Cambria, Blair, Bedford, Huntingdon, and Somerset, taken from the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and the counties of Centre, Clinton, and Fulton taken from the Diocese of Harrisburg. The area of the diocese is 6,710 square miles. Its Catholic population (1906), of which a considerable portion is made up of various foreign nationalities employed in the mining districts and the manufacturing town of Johnstown, is about 60,000. Within its narrow limits is the very cradle of the Catholic Church in middle and western Pennsylvania. At the beginning of the last century the whole territory was part of the extensive parish of the famous Russian convert, the prince-priest, Demetrius Gallitzin (q. v.). This devoted missionary founded the mission of Loretto in Cambria County, Pa., and made his home there. He expended his vast fortune in the interests of religion. He reached Loretto as early as July, 1799, and died there 6 May, 1840. A beautiful memorial church erected by Charles M. Schwab marks the lasting esteem in which this distinguished man and noted missionary is held. It was Father Gallitzin’s wish and prayer that Loretto should become a bishop’s see. As early as 1820 he wrote to Archbishop Marechal: “Several years ago I formed a plan for the good of religion, for the success of which I desire to employ all the means at my disposal when the remainder of my debts are paid. It is to form a diocese for the western part of Pennsylvania. What a consolation for me if I might, before I die, see this plan carried out, and Loretto made an episcopal see, where the bishop, by means of the lands attached to the bishopric, which are very fertile, would be independent, and where, with very little expense, could be erected college, seminary, and all that is required for an episcopal establishment.” He adds that “no bishop has ever penetrated to the distant missions of Western Pennsylvania. There are many missions which have never seen a bishop and never will, at least until a bishop is established on the mountains, and one willing to fulfil the duties of this charge, even at his own expense, without waiting for other recompense than that which comes from above.” The prince-priest’s hopes were never realized, though an effort was made when the present diocese was talked of, to have the see at Loretto rather than at Altoona.

Among the many pioneer priests who have laboured within the limits of the present diocese may be mentioned Father James Bradley, of Newry, who lived to celebrate his golden jubilee in the priesthood; Father Thomas Hayden, of Bedford; Father Lemke, who was a Prussian soldier and a convert from Lutheranism; Father John Walshe, of Hollidaysburg. Father Lemke founded the mission and village of Carroltown, where at present there is a Benedictine priory. Among the Catholic laymen of early days is a family of the Luthers who are said to be direct descendants of Martin Luther and who have given more than one member to the priesthood. The Collins family has also been prominent in advancing the interests of religion.

Next to Loretto in historical importance is Carroltown, founded in 1839, and named after Archbishop Carroll, the first American bishop. It is said that a colony of French Trappist monks sought to establish a house of their order there about the beginning of the last century. Driven from France during the revolution of 1791, a number of the monks found a temporary home in Switzerland, where they remained until the influence of the French government began to be felt in that country in 1798, when they were again forced to flee. They passed into Russia, and soon after into Prussia, and finally turned their faces towards the New World under the guidance of Father Urban Guillet. The little party landed in Baltimore, 4 September, 1803, and went to the vicinity of the future Carroltown, but failing to make a foundation there, they next proceeded to Adams County, Pa., and, leaving that place also, they went further west, finally settling down at Florissant, Mo. The first settler near Carroltown was John Weakland, one of the most powerful and daring of men, and the most famous Catholic pioneer of Western Pennsylvania. About the year 1830 he donated four acres of ground for the site of a church, and under the direction of Father Gallitzin a log church was built, and dedicated to St. Joseph. Bishop Francis Patrick Kenrick visited this church and administered confirmation there 16 October, 1832. The first bishop of Altoona, the Rt. Rev. Eugene A. Garvey, was consecrated in St. Peter’s Cathedral, Scranton, Pa., 8 September, 1901, and was installed in St. John’s Pro-Cathedral, Altoona, 24 September. There has been a steady growth of the Catholic population, especially from immigration. Almost every nationality is represented; Slavs and Italians predominate in the mining districts. There are some scattered Greek and Syrian Catholics within the limits of the diocese, who are visited occasionally by priests of their own nationality. The diocese is amply supplied with priests, and almost every parish has its school. The relations of the Catholic with the non-Catholic body are all that could be desired, the good influence of the early Catholic settlers having done much to disarm prejudice. Catholics are well represented in the social, business, and professional life of the community.

In the diocese there are seventy-four secular priests and sixteen regulars; with forty lay brothers, members of religious communities; about three hundred members of the various sisterhoods, chiefly engaged in teaching; and thirty parish schools educating seven thousand children. The Franciscan Brothers conduct a college at Loretto, with an average attendance of about one hundred students; the Sisters of Mercy have a flourishing academy at Cresson, with about the same number of young ladies. There is a children’s home at Ebensburg, in charge of the Sisters of St. Joseph, with about seventy-five inmates.

Sheedy, The Quarterly (Altoona), October, 1901,VII, 263; Idem, The Observer, Pittsburgh, 25 February, 1904; Lambing, History of the Diocese of Pittsburgh (New York, 1880).

MORGAN M. SHEEDY

Altruism

A term formed by Auguste Comte in 1851, on the Italian adjective altrui, and employed by him to denote the benevolent, as contrasted with the selfish propensities. It was introduced into English by George H. Lewes in 1853 (Comte’s Philosophy of the Sciences, 1, xxi), and popularized thereafter by expounders and advocates of Comte’s philosophy. Though used primarily, in a psychological sense, to designate emotions of a reflective kind, the immediate consequences of which are beneficial to others, its important significance is ethical. As such it defines a theory of conduct by which only actions having for their object the happiness of others possess a moral value. Anticipations of this doctrine are found in Cumberland’s “De Legibus Naturae” (1672), and in Shaftesbury’s “Inquiry concerning Virtue and Merit” (1711). Comte, however, is the founder of the Social Eudaemonism, based on Positivism, to which the name of Altruism is given. Comte’s system is both ethical and religious. Not only is the happiness to be found in living for others the supreme end of conduct, but a disinterested devotion to Humanity as a whole is the highest form of religious service. His ethical theory may be epitomized in the following propositions.

The dominion of feeling over thought is the normative principle of human conduct, for it is the affective impulses that govern the individual and the race.

Man is under the influence of two affective impulses, the personal or egoistic, and the social or altruistic.

A just balance between these two is not possible, one or other must preponderate.

The first condition of individual and social well-being is the subordination of self-love to the benevolent impulses.

The first principle of morality, therefore, is the regulative supremacy of social sympathy over the self-regarding instincts.

To bring about the reign of altruism Comte invented a religion which substituted for God an abstraction called Humanity. To this new supreme being, worship was to be paid, especially in its manifestations and representatives, woman, namely, and the benefactors of the race. The religious part of Comte’s system was never acceptable to more than a few of his adherents. It was too extravagant, and as he himself confesses, it transcended position science. Even Littre, one of the earliest, ablest, and most ardent of his followers, disavowed it. In England, it is true, it has one advocate of prominence, Frederic Harrison. Practically, however, it has ceased to attract any attention. The main defects of Comte’s ethical system are those that are common to all forms of Eudaemonism: its norm of morality is relative and contingent; it possesses no principles by which the quality of its subject-matter, social happiness, may be defined; its imperative imposes no moral obligation. Its special defects are mainly those of Positivism, which denies or ignores any reality beyond external facts, and recognized no law except the successions, coexistences, and resemblances of those phenomena. Hence it can set before us no summum bonum outside the region of sense. It confounds physical law with moral law, the fact that the affective faculty moves to action sufficing to make it also the norm of action. It, moreover, contracts the field of morality, and immorality as well, by making purely personal virtue or vice non-ethical. The English school of Altruists differs from the French in appealing to psychology for their facts, and in interpreting them by the principles of evolution. Comte based his system on a theory of cerebral physiology borrowed with modifications from Gall. Littré found the origin of morality in two primary physiological needs, nutrition, and reproduction, and in their transformation into the conflicting impulses of egoism and altruism. Both rejected the evolutionary hypothesis, and looked with disfavour on psychology. The representative exponent of English altruism is Herbert Spencer. The leading features of his system are these:

Conduct becomes ethical in the latest stages of evolution, when it assumes social aspects, when namely its tendency is to raise the aggregate happiness of the community.

The sense of duty originates in egoistic feelings of utility. But these in the process of evolution are modified by experience which associates personal happiness with social, political, and religious well-being and their sanctions. These associated experiences are recorded in the brain, and by hereditary transmission, and accumulation in successive generations they finally become certain faculties or moral intuitions, which we mistake for the voice of a superhuman authority.

The conflict between egoism and altruism is not to be removed by giving preponderance to either, since pure egoism and pure altruism are both fatal to society; but by compromise of their respective claims such that the final result will be general altruism, as distinguished from the altruism that ministers to the egoistic satisfaction of others only, whether these others be individuals, or the community impersonally conceived.

This reconciliation can only be reached when society is perfectly evolved; when namely we are so constituted that our spontaneous activities are congruous with conditions imposed by our social environments and social relations are so complete in their adjustments that altruism will not be associated with self-sacrifice, nor egoism with disregard for others.

Hence the distinction between Absolute Ethics which formulates the behaviour of the completely adapted man in completely evolved society, and Relative Ethics which enjoins only what is relatively right, or least wrong. The former services as a standard by which we estimate divergences from right; the latter by which we guide ourselves, as well as we can, in solving the problems of real conduct. By absolutely right conduct is understood, of course, that which produces pleasure unalloyed with pain; by relatively right conduct, that which has any painful concomitants or consequences.

Spencer’s system is eudaemonistic and, therefore, subject to the defects already noted. Moreover, he reduces the moral imperative to a psychological constraint not differing in kind from other natural impulses. At best, even granting his evolutionary premises, he has only presented us with the genesis of conscience. He has not revealed the nature or source of its peculiar imperative. The fact that I know how conscience was evolved from lower instincts may be a reason, but is not a motive for obeying it. Lastly, the solution of the difficulty arising from the conflict between egoism and altruism is deferred to a future ideal state in which egoism, though transfigured, will be supreme. For the present we must be content to compromise, as best we may on a relative morality. Spencer’s own judgment of his system may be accepted. “The doctrine of evolution,” he says “has not furnished guidance to the extent I had hoped . . . some such result might have been foreseen.” The Catholic teaching on love of others is summed up in the precept of Christ: Love they neighbour as thyself. The love due to oneself is the exemplar of the love due to others, though not the measure of it. Disinterested love of others, or the love of benevolence, the outward expression of which is beneficence, implies a union proximately based on likeness. All men are alike in this that they partake of the same rational nature made to the image and likeness of their Creator; have by nature the same social aptitudes, inclinations, and needs; and are destined for the same final union with God by which the likeness receive through creation is perfected. By supernatural grace the natural likeness of man to man is exalted, changing fellowship into brotherhood. All likeness of whatever grade is founded ultimately in likeness with God. Love, therefore, whether of oneself or of others is in its last analysis love of God, by partaking of Whose perfections we become lovable.

The conflict between self-love and benevolence, which is inevitable in all systems that determine the morality of an act by its relations to an agreeable psychological state, need not arise in systems that make the ethical norm of action objective; the ethically desirable and the psychologically desirable are not identified. Catholic ethics does not deny that happiness of some kind is the necessary consequence of good conduct, or that the desire to attain or confer it is lawful; but it does deny that the pursuit of it for its own sake is the ultimate aim of conduct. Apparent conflict, however, may arise between duties to self and to others, when only mediately known. But these arise from defective limitations of the range of one or other duty, or of both. They do not inhere in the duties themselves. The general rules for determining the prevailing duty given by Catholic moralists are these:

Absolutely speaking there is no obligation to love others more than self.

There is an obligation which admits of no exceptions, to love self more than others, whenever beneficence to others entails moral guilt.

In certain circumstances it may be obligatory, or at least a counsel of perfection, to love others more than self. Apart from cases in which one’s profession or state of life, or justice imposes duties, these circumstances are determined by comparing the relative needs of self and others.

These needs may be spiritual or temporal; the need of the community or of the individual; the need of one in extreme, serious or ordinary want; the need of those who are near to us by natural or social ties, and of those whose claims are only union in a common humanity. The first class in each group has precedence over the second.

Catholic ethics reconciles self-love and benevolence by subordinating both to the supreme purpose of creation and the providential ends of the Creator. It teaches that acts or self-love may have a moral quality; that sacrifice of self for the good of others may sometimes be a duty, and when not a duty, may oftentimes be an act of virtue. It distinguishes between precept and counsel. The Positivist can only give counsel, and in his effort by emphasis and appeal to sentiment to make it imperative, he destroys all ethical proportion. Because the Catholic doctrine does not confound moral obligations with the perfection of moral goodness it is often charged with laxity by those whose teaching undermines all moral obligation. COMTE, Positive Polity, I, tr. Bridges (London, 1875–79); SPENCER, Principles of Ethics (London, 1892–93); STEPHEN, Science of Ethics (London, 1882); SIDGWICK, Methods of Ethics, IV, iii, and passim (5 ed., London, 1893); MARTINEAU, Types of Ethical Theories, I (3 ed., Oxford, 1898); CAIRD, The Social Philosophy of Comte (Glasgow, 1885); AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, IIa-Iiae, QQ, 25 and 26 (Basle, 1485; Paris, 1861); RICKABY, Aquinas Ethicus, loc. cit.; COSTA-ROSETTI, Philosophia Moralis, Thesis 99; MING, Data of Modern Ethics Examined, 15 (New York, 1897); MAHER, Psychology, 5 ed. (London, 1903).

TIMOTHY BROSNAHAN

Alumnus

(From Lat. alo, “to nurse,” or “feed”).

Alumnus signifies in ecclesiastical usage, a student preparing for the sacred ministry in a seminary. Originally the word meant a child adopted with certain restricted privileges, or a foster-child. Since the Council of Trent, however, the word has become equivalent to a seminarian, and as such is often applied to the students of the ecclesiastical colleges in Rome. The Council of Trent (sess. xxiii, ch. 18, de Ref.) required bishops to establish institutions for the education of students for the priesthood. Formerly, church candidates had been educated in the houses of priests, in monasteries, or in the public universities. According to the Council, such alumni, among other qualifications, should be a least twelve years of age and able to read and write, and their disposition should be such as to give hope that they would adorn perpetually the sacred ministry. Children of the poor were to be especially favoured. Besides philosophy, theology, scripture, and canon law, they were to study rites and ceremonies, sacred eloquence and plain chant. The bishop was to see that the students heard Mass daily, confessed monthly, and communicated as often as advisable. On festival days they were to take part in the cathedral services. The bishop was also exhorted to visit these students frequently, to watch over their progress in learning and piety, and to remove hindrances to their advancement. In 1896, the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars laid down rules for the guidance of bishops in regard to alumni who attend public universities, requiring especially that they do not associate too familiarly with the other students, and that they be gathered frequently for spiritual conferences and for philosophical, theological, and historical discussions. (See SEMINARY, ECCLESIASTICAL.)

LUCIDI, De Visit. Sac. Lim., I, III (Rome, 1889); LAURENTIUS, Inst. Jur. Eccl. (Freiburg, 1903), 471; BOUIX, De Episcopo, II (Paris, 1889).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Niccolò Alunno

(Real name Niccolò di Liberatore)

Notable Umbrian painter in distemper, born c. 1430, at Foligno; died 1502. He was the son of a painter and a pupil of Bartolommeo di Tommaso. His master’s assistant was Bennozo Gozzoli, the pupil of Fra Angelico. The simple Umbrian feeling in his work was somehow modified by this Florentine influence. His earliest known example (dated 1458) is in the Franciscan Church of La Diruta, near Perugia. He painted banners for religious processions, as well as altarpieces and other pictures, died a rich man, and is supposed by Mariotti to have been the master of Perugino, Pinturicchio, and Andrea di Luigi. Some works ascribed to him are thought to be by another, and contemporary, Alunno, called Desiderato. A “Madonna Enthroned” is in the Brera Gallery in Milan, and there are altarpieces at Perugia, in the Castle at San Severino, at Gualdo, La Bastia, and Foligno. The predella of the last, which was taken to France by Napoleon, still remains in the Louvre. One of his banners is in a church in Perugia.

ADAMO ROSSI of Perugia, and S. FRENFANELLI CIBO of Rome, Memoirs, (1872).

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Fernando Alvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alva

(FERNANDO ALVAREZ DE TOLEDO)

Born 1508, of one of the most distinguished Castilian families, which boasted descent from the Byzantine emperors; died at Thomar, 12 January, 1582. From his earliest childhood the boy was trained by a severe discipline for his future career as warrior and statesman. In his sixteenth year he took part in the war against France; a year later he was in the siege of Pavia, and in 1527 fought against the Turks in Hungary. He enjoyed the esteem of the Emperor Charles V, and played a great role in the numerous wars in which Spain was involved for half a century. His chief fame rests upon his mission in 1557 to the riotous Netherlands, where the Gueux had created systematic opposition to the Spanish regent, Margaret of Parma. In the Netherlands, traditionally accustomed to free government, King Philip, though born a Dutchman, essayed to establish an absolutism such as prevailed in Spain. He rejected the mild measures proposed by moderate counsellors, and held that a swift punishment should meted out to this rebellious and heretical country. At first Philip resolved to go himself to the Netherlands, but towards the end of November, 1567, he suddenly informed Margaret of Parma that he would send the Duke of Alva to punish the guilty with unbending severity. The “iron duke” was to be the ideal instrument for the execution of this purpose.

The very announcement of Alva’s coming spread terror and consternation. Prince William of Orange and other leaders of the Gueux fled to foreign countries. But the popular Counts of Egmond and Hoorne, through blind confidence or reckless courage, resolved to face Alva. On 22 August, Alva, accompanied by a body of select Spanish troops, made his entry into Brussels. He immediately appointed a council to condemn without trial those suspected of heresy and rebellion. On 1 June, 1568, Brussels witnessed the simultaneous decapitation of twenty-two noblemen; on 6 June followed the execution of the Counts of Egmond and Hoorne. The “Council of Blood” was the popular designation of Alva’s tribunal. The Flemings fled in thousands to Holland and Zeeland, where the elements of the rebellion were concentrated under the leadership of the Prince of Orange. In the meantime Alva began a regular campaign in the northern provinces. His victorious troops, whose banner was inscribed with the legend: “Pro lege, rege, grege,” and plundered the cities of Mons, Mechlen, Zutphen, and Naarden, and left them drenched in blood. In triumph, Alva returned to Brussels. Pope Pius V bestowed on him a consecrated hat and sword, a present heretofore only given to sovereigns. In Antwerp, the governor erected a bronze statue in his own honour; it represented Alva trampling under his feet two allegorical figures, the nobility and the people. The dictator had proclaimed that the expenses of the war must be borne by the Netherlands. In consequence, the resources of the people were drained by taxation. Notwithstanding the protestations of the States-General he introduced the so-called “tax of the one hundredth, twentieth, and tenth penny.” This exaction surpassed all bounds. When on 31 July in Brussels the twentieth and tenth penny were extorted, traffic and commerce came to a standstill. The Dutch people, still for the greater part Catholic, felt themselves outraged in their rights by the “Council of Blood,” and their inborn love of freedom by the Spanish Inquisition. When they saw their commerce and industries trammelled by the odious tenth penny tax, the hatred against the Spanish régime grew so manifest and widespread, that Alva, although victorious on the field of battle, suffered an irremediable moral defeat. The surprising conquest of the little seaport of Brielle by the “Beggars of the Sea” was the inspiration that fanned anew the smouldering embers of the rebellion. Haarlem, after a long siege capitulated to Don Frederic, son of Alva, 12 July, 1573; but this victory was speedily followed by the defeat of Alkmaar, which defended itself so heroically that the popular cry became: “From Alkmaar, victory begins!”

Alva at last realized that his violent measures were fruitless. “God and mankind are against me,” he exclaimed in despair. In vain he begged the King to let him retire. His soft-hearted successor, the Duke of Medina Celi, who passed through the country in June, 1572, never really assumed the reins of government but shortly returned to Spain. The 19 October, 1573, Alva was definitively relieved of his office and succeeded by Don Luis of Requesens. He hastened from the Netherlands, followed by the curse of its people. The Catholic councillor Viglius testified: “Tristis venit, tristior abiit.” Once again in Spain he still retained the royal favour, till a love affair of Don Frederic dragged father and son into disgrace. Alva remained in exile at his castle up to 1580, when the acknowledged power of his iron hand was sought in the war against Portugal. In the short space of three weeks he completely subdued the Portuguese. Dissension broke out once more between Philip and Alva, but the Duke had made himself so powerful that Philip, though suspecting that Alva had enriched himself extraordinarily with the spoils of war, and knowing that he refused to account to his King, did not dare raise a hand against the first grandee of Spain. A short time after he died at Thomar, 12 January, 1582. Alva was, as even Motley in “The Rise of the Dutch Republic” (London, 1868, 9, 336), admits, “the most successful and experienced general of Spain, or of Europe, in his day. No man had studied military science more deeply, or practiced it more constantly.” In sixty years of military service he was never surprised, never defeated. He excelled in slow and prudent tactics, deeming that nothing was so uncertain as victory. He stands amongst the greatest generals of history. Yet his greatness was confined to the battlefield. He lacked the wisdom of governing.

His tyranny, however blameable, was exaggerated by the hatred of opposing parties. Alva boasted, it is said, that he put to death on the scaffold 18,000 Dutchmen; but his successor, Requesens, estimated his executions at 6,000 (Gachard, Etudes, II, 366). Motley paints him in the blackest colours, allowing in his favour only the excuse “that he was but the blind and fanatically loyal slave of his sovereign” (541). In reality, Alva came to the Netherlands to carry out the royal orders, and save the King’s popularity by taking upon himself the odium of the rigorous suppression of the rebellion. He erected his own statue in Antwerp, not to glorify himself, but to pose as the tyrannous suppressor of the rebellion. In order that Philip might play the role of a bold sovereign, he asked the King to order the demolition of the statue (E. Gossart, Bulletin de l’académie de Belgique, 1899, 234–244). While we deplore his tyrannous method we must give credit to the duke’s loyalty. When his personal dignity and views were touched, he dared defy even his King. He was an ardent Catholic, who fiercely served his religion when he combated heresy with fire and sword, but who, as a child of such troublous times, unwisely chose his measures. Notwithstanding his fanaticism he boldly entered the campaign against Paul IV, and when the King offered an advantageous peace to the Pope, the Duke exclaimed angrily that submission and timidity did not agree with politics and war. Alva, like his King, has been blackened savagely by prejudiced historians. As Maurenbrecher says, the caricatures of both have their origin in the passionate apology for William of Orange. As to Motley’s historical work quoted above, Guizot remarks that “M. Motley exhibits in his work both science and passion” (Melanges biograph. et litteraires, Paris, 1808). His judgment of Alva is neither objectively justified nor of definitive value.

MEURSIUR, Ferd. Albanus, seu de Rebus ejus in Belgio Gestis, libri IV (Leyden, 1614; Amsterdam, 1638); STRADA, De Bello Belgico (Rome, 1640), I-II; DE VERA Y FIFUERVA, Resultas de la vita de Ferd. Alvares de Toledo (1643), I-V; Vita Ferd. Toletani ducis Albani (Salamanca, 1669); Vie du duc d’Albe (Paris, 1698); DE RUSTANT, Historia de D. Ferd. Alvarez de Toledo, clamado el Grande, duque de Alva (Madrid, 1750), I-II; PRESCOTT, History of the Reign of Philip II (Boston, 1855), I-III; NUYENS, Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche broerten (Amsterdam, 1865), I-IV; BAUMSTARK, Philip II, Koenig von Spanien (Freiburg, 1875); VON RANKE, De Osmanen und die Spanische Monarchie im 16. und 17. Jahrh. (Collective ed., XXXV, XXXVI, Leipzig, 1877); FORNERON, Histoire de Philippe II (Paris, 1881), I-IV; DE LETTENHOVE, Les Huguenots et les Gueux (Bruges, 1883–85), I-VI; BLOK, Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche volk (Groningen, 1896), tr. by RUTH PUTNAM, III; BLOK, History of the People of the Netherlands Part III, The War with Spain (New York and London, 1900).

GISBERT BROM

Pedro d’Alva y Astorga

A Friar Minor of the Strict Observance, and a voluminous writer on theological subjects, generally in defense of the Immaculate Conception; b. at Carbajales, Spain, toward the end of the sixteenth century; d. in Belgium, 1667. He took the Franciscan habit in Peru. He lectured on theology, was Procurator-General of the Franciscans, in Rome, and Qualificator of the Holy Office. He was an indefatigable traveller. His principal opponents were the Dominicans. His polemic had such a personal tone and was so violent that he was sent to the Low-Countries. Two editions of his work, “Nodus indissolubilis de conceptu mentis et conceptu ventris” (Madrid, 1661, 1663), are on the Index of prohibited books. His writings fill forty folio volumes. The most important is his “Armentarium Seraphicum pro tuendo Immaculatae Conceptionis titulo” (Madrid, 1648). In this he collaborated with the best theologians of the Friars Minor.

TOUSSAINT in Dict. de theol. cath., I, 926; GRAMMER in Kirchenlex. s. v.

JOHN J. BECKET

Alonzo de Alvarado

A Knight of Santiago, b. at Secadura de Trasmura, near Burgos, date unknown; d. 1559. He came to America, and went to Peru with Pedro de Alvarado in 1534. He was no relative of the latter, however. While charged by some contemporaries with avarice and cruelty, it is undeniable that during the trying period of civil wars in Peru (about 1537 to 1555) Alvarado was an unflinching and determined adherent to the interests of Spain. He always sided with those whom he thought to be sincere representatives of the crown, and it was not always profitable and safe to be on that side. Thus, in 1537, he commanded the troops of Pizarro’s followers, when Almagro claimed Cuzco. Defeated and captured by the latter at Abancay, after effecting his escape under great difficulties as well as dangers, and rejoining Pizarro, whom he looked upon as the legitimate governor of Peru, he took part in all the bloody troubles that followed, always as a prominent military leader and always unsuccessful when in immediate command. Still, he was counted upon as a mainstay of the Spanish cause, and occupied a high military position. When Francisco Hernandez Giron raised the standard of rebellion in 1553, Alvarado was put in command of the forces to oppose him. At Chuquinga, in 1554, Alvarado suffered a signal defeat at the hands of the insurgents. Overcome by melancholy in consequence of that last disaster, he pined away and died five years later. His principal achievement, however, was the pacification of Chachapoyas in northeastern Peru, in the years 1535 and 1536, this being the first step taken from Peru towards the Amazonian basin. Alvarado married in Spain while on a short visit, in 1544.

Documentos inéditos de Indias, Documentos para la historia de España.—The former especially contains a number of papers embodying valuable data on the military career of Alvarado. In the Relaciones geográficas de Indias (IV) there are data of a biographical nature and relating to the occupation of Chachapoyas mostly taken from the (as yet unpublished) third part of the Crónica del Perú by PEDRO DE CIEZA.-CIEZA, Crónica del Perú, first part, in Historiodares primitivos de Indias by VEDIA (Madrid 1854), II; ZARATE, Historia del descubrimiento y conquista del Perú, also in VEDIA’s Historiadores, II; GUTIERREZ DE SANTA CLARA, Historia de las guerras civiles del Perú (Madrid, 1904–5—only three volumes published as yet); DIEGO FERNANDEZ, Historia del Perú (1571); the works of GOMARA, OVIEDO, HERRERA, etc., and modern sources.

A.D. . F. BANDILIER.

Fray Francisco de Alvarado

A native of Mexico, where he entered the Dominican order 25 July, 1574. He was vicar of Tamazulapa in 1593. Nothing more is known of him as yet, except that he wrote and published at Mexico, in 1593, a “Vocabulario en Lengua Misteca,” one of the languages of the present state of Oaxaca. In the same year Fray Antonio de los Reyes, another Dominican, also published a grammar of that language, and at the same place. It is therefore impossible to determine to which of these works is due the honour of having been the first in and on the Mistecan idiom.

DAVILA PADILLA, Historia de la Fundacion y Discorso, etc. (Madrid, 1596); LEON Y PINELO, Epitome (1628); ANTONIO, Bibliot. Hispana Noca (Madrid, 1783); BERISTAIN, Biblioteca hispano-americana (Mexico, 1816); YCAZBALCETA, Bibliografia mexicana del Siglo XVI (Mexico, 1886); LUDEWIG, Literature of American Aboriginal Languages (London, 1858).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Pedro de Alvarado

Of the companions of Cortez, and among the superior officers of his army, Pedro de Alvarado became the most famous in history. A native of Badajóz, son of the commander of Lobon, he was made a Knight of the Order of Santiago in reward for his exploits in Mexico and Central America. He accompanied Grijalva on his exploration of Yucatan and the Mexican coast in 1518, and was the chief officer of Cortez during the conquest of Mexico. As such, he was left in command of the forces at Tenochtitlan, when the conqueror had to move against Pámfilo de Narvaez in 1520. During the absence of Cortez it became clear that the Mexican Indians, to avail themselves of the weakness in numbers of the Spaniards, were preparing to fall upon them before Cortez could return. To forestall this, Alvarado, warned of the character of a ceremonial that was going on, as preliminary to an attack upon him, took the offensive, and dispersed the Indians with some bloodshed (the numbers have been considerably exaggerated), but this only caused the Mexicans to begin hostilities at once. Alvarado distinguished himself by his military ability and personal bravery during the disastrous sally of Cortez from Mexico in July, 1520 (Noche Triste) and subsequently in the campaign and capture of the Indian stronghold (1521). In 1524 he conquered Guatemala, and became Governor of the Spanish province into which the territory was transformed. He soon undertook to fit out expeditions to the South Sea (with little result), and determined upon following Pizarro in the conquests of western South America. Sailing to the coast of Ecuador in 1534, with a well-equipped flotilla, and landing on the Ecuadorian coast, he pushed on to the plateau of Quito, to find it ‘held by Belalcazar for Pizarro. Bloodshed appeared imminent between the rival parties. But the arrival of Almagro with instructions from Pizarro led to negotiations, as a result of which Alvarado returned to Guatemala, having bartered to Pizarro most of his ships, horses, and ammunition, as well as most of his men, against a comparatively modest sum of money. After his return to Guatemala, Alvarado turned his attention to northern Mexico. Constantly quarrelling with Cortez, he easily became the tool of the Viceroy Mendoza. He was in almost unceasing trouble with his neighbour Montejo about the boundaries of their respective territories. While pursuing the pacification of Guadalajara, as lieutenant of Mendoza, he was killed in an assault on the Indian camp, on the rocky height of Nochiztlan, 24 June, 1541. His wife, Doña Beatriz de la Cueva, lost her life in September of the same year, in the destruction of the city of Guatemala by the volcano called “de Agua.” Alvarado was not a gifted administrator; in fact, he was more distinguished for chivalrous bravery than for intellectual gifts. Physically very prepossessing, brave to excess, he was mentally greatly inferior to Cortez and to Nuño de Guzman, while morally their superior. What is told of the outbursts of cruelty with which he is charged cannot surprise, when the methods of warfare prevailing in his time are taken into consideration. He acted under the pressure of military necessity, and it is always well to test such charges by inquiring into their possibility and into the spirit of their authors. In estimating his conduct in South America we must remember that Alvarado was utterly helpless in presence of the superiority of Pizarro.

Alvarado is so intimately connected with the Conquest of Mexico that older works on that important event must he referred to, beginning with the reports on GRIJALVA, OVIEDO, the letters of CORTEZ, BERNAL DIAZ DEL CASTILLO, ANDRÉS DE TAPIA AGUILAR, SUÁREZ PERALTA, and others. A large number of valuable documents (perhaps more important than the “histories”) are published in the Documentos inéditos de Indias and some in the Colección de documentos para la Historia de España. Much important material has also been accumulated in the Documentos para la historia de México, JOAQUÍN GARCIA YCAZBALCETA (first series, II); GOMARA and HERRERA; Historia de México, by ANTONIO de SOLIS and others, like the Indian writers, TEZOZOMOC and IXTLILXOCHITL, DIEGO DURAN, and JUAN de TOBAR, also TORQUEMADA, Monarchía Indiana; VEYTIA, Historia antigua de México. Modern writers on the conquest of Mexico are so numerous that it is not possible to enumerate them.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Balthazar Alvarez

A Spanish mystic, who was the spiritual director of St. Teresa, b. At Cervera, in Spain, in 1533, of a noble family; d. At Belmonte, 25 July, 1580. He studied philosophy and theology in the University of Alcalá. When only eighteen years of age, he was remarkable for his extraordinary habit of prayer and piety. His inclination was first towards the Carthusians, because of their life of contemplation, but, finally, he entered the Society of Jesus, at Alcalá, in 1555, fifteen years after its foundation. The famous Father Bustamente was his master of novices and subjected him to the Alcalá trials. In the novitiate of Simancas he met St. Francis Borgia, and the strongest affection was established between them. He resumed his philosophical and theological studies at Alcalá and Avila, under the guidance of the Dominicans; for as yet the Society had no theologians of its own. The continual interruptions of his studies impeded his progress in scholastic theology, but he compensated for it by the eminence he achieved, through prayer, in mystical theology, which fitted him in a remarkable degree for the office he subsequently held as confessor, master of novices, rector, provincial, visitor, and as director of persons far advance in the ways of holiness. He was made a priest in 1558, and, although only twenty-five years of age, was entrusted with the spiritual direction of St. Teresa, then belonging to the mitigated order of Carmel, but who was on the point of founding the Discalced Carmelites. Alvarez not only guided her in matters of the spirit, but defended her from her critics, encouraged her in her work of reform, and had much to do with framing the rules of the new Order. His direction continued for seven years. The Saint declared that it had been revealed to her that Father Balthazar had reached a very high degree of perfection. He followed the usual method of prayer for sixteen years. After that he received a special gift of contemplation. In 1574 he was made rector of Salamanca and visitor of the Province of Aragon, and, in 1579, was about to be sent as provincial to Peru but that project was never carried out. He was well on in life when his method of prayer was questioned. By some it was looked upon as a delusion of the devil. Alvarez was compelled to write an account of it to the General of the Society of Jesus, Everard Mercurian, who approved of it, but discountenanced it as a general practice. At the same time, he expressed his esteem for Father Alvarez and employed him in the most responsible offices. At his death, St. Teresa had a revelation of his glory in heaven.

DEL PUENTE, Vida del P. Balthazar Alvares (tr. Bouix); NIREMBERG, Ideas de virtud, 348–97; ALCAZAR, Chrono. Hist. De la c. De J. en la prov. De Toledo, II, 623–34; De Backer, Bibliotheque de la c. De J., I, 107.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Diego Alvarez

Spanish theologian, b. At Medina de Rio-Seco, Old Castile, about 1550; d. At Trani, Kingdom of Naples, 1635. He entered the Dominican Order in his native city, and taught theology for twenty years in the Spanish cities of Burgos, Trianos, Plasencia, and Valladolid, and for ten years (1596–1606) at the Minerva, in Rome. Shortly after his arrival in Rome (7 November, 1596) he presented to Clement VIII a memorial requesting him to examine the work “Concordia liberi Arbitrii,” by Ludovicus Molina, S.J., which, upon it publication in 1588, had given rise to bitter controversy. Before the Congregation (Congregatio de Auxiliis), appointed by the Pope to settle the dispute, he defended the Thomistic doctrines of grace, predestination, etc., alone for three years, and, thereafter, conjointly with Thomas de Lemos, O.P., to whom he gave the first place, until the suspension of the Congregation (1606). He was appointed, 19 March, 1606, by Paul V, to the Archbishopric of Trani, where he passed the remainder of his life.

Besides (1) a commentary on Isaias, and (2) a manual for preachers, he published: (3) “De auxiliis divinæ gratiæ et humani arbitrii viribus et libertate, ac legitimâ ejus cum efficaciâ eorumdem auxiliorum concordiâ libri XII” (Rome, 1610; Lyons, 1620; Douai, 1635); (4) “Responsionum ad objectiones adversus concordiam liberi arbitrii cum divinâ, præscientiâ, providentiâ, et prædestinatione, atque cum efficaciâ prævenientis gratiæ, prout a S. Thomâ et Thomistis defenditur et explicatur, Libri IV” (Trani, 1622; Lyons, 1622); (5) “De origine Pelagianæ hæresis et ejus progressu et damnatione per plures summos pontifices et concilia factâ Historia ex annalibus Card. Baronii et aliis probatis auctoribus collecta” (Trani, 1629); (6) “Responsionum liber ultimus hoc titulo: Opus præclarum nunquam hâctenus editum, in quo argumentis validissimis concordia liberi arbitrii cum divinâ præscientiâ, prædestinatione, et efficaciâ gratiæ prævenientis ad mentem S. Thomæ et omnium defenditur et explicatur” (Douai, 1635); (7) “Operis de auxiliis divinæ gratiæ et humani arbitrii viribus et libertate, ac legitimâ ejus cum efficaciæ eorumdem auxiliorum concordiâ summa, in IV libros distincta” (Lyons, 1620; Cologne, 1621; Trani, 1625); (8) “De incarnatione divini verbi disputationes LXXX; in quibus explicantur et defenduntur, quæ in tertiâ parte summæ theologicæ docet S. Thomas a Q. 1 ad 24” (Lyons, 1614; Rome, 1615; Cologne, 1622); (9) “Disputationes theologicæ in primam secundæ S. Thomæ, in quibus præcipua omina quæ adversus doctrinam ejusdem et communem Thomistarum a diversis auctoribus impugnantur, juxta legitimum sensum præceptoris angelici explicantur et defenduntur” (Trani, 1617; Cologne, 1621).

ECHARD, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum (Paris, 1721), II, 481; UGHELLI, Italia Sacra (Venice, 1720), VII, 1240; HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1892), I, 263; H. SERRY, Historia Congregationum de Auxiliis (Antwerp, 1709).

A.L. MCMAHON

Manoel Alvarez

Educator, b. on the island of Madeira, 1526; d, at Evora, 30 December 1582. In 1546 he entered the Society of Jesus, taught the classical languages with great success, and was rector of the colleges of Coimbra and Evora. Among the more than three hundred Jesuits who have written text-books on different languages, he takes the foremost place. His Latin grammar was adopted as a standard work by the Ratio Studiorum, or Plan of Studies, of the Jesuits. Perhaps no other grammar has been printed in so many editions; Sommervogel, in his “Bibliothèque de la compagnie de Jésus,” devotes twenty-five columns to a list of about four hundred editions of the whole work, or parts of it, published in Europe, Asia, and America. There exist aslo numerous translations into various languages: Bohemian, Croatian, Flemish, French, German, Hungarian, Illyrian, Italian, Polish, Spanish. An edition with Chisnese translation appeared in Shanghai in 1869. A very interesting edition is one published in Japan in 1594, with partial translation into Japanese. An English edition, “An Introduction to the Latin Tongue, or First Book of Grammar,” appeared in 1686. In many editions the text of Alvarez is changed considerably, others are abridgments. The ordignal work contains many valuable suggestions for the teacher. On this account it is more than a mere grammar; it is also a work on the method of teaching Latin, and gives an insight into the system of the old Jesuit colleges. The book was the subject of several controversies. Even Jesuits, in the “Trial Ratio” of 1586, raised six objections, and desired, particularly, a better arrangement of some parts and greater clearness. After the publication of Latin grammars by De Condren, the Oratorian, and by Lancelot, of Port-Royal, both in French, the work of Alvarez was frequently censured, because it was written in Latin, and “presupposed what was to be learnt.” Still, there were advantages in the course followed by Alvarez. To be sure, to beginners everything was explained in the vernacular; but the early use of a grammar written in Latin accustomed the pupils to speaking and writing that language. Without some practice of this kind a thourough knoledge of a language can hardly be obtained, and in former centuries a facility in speaking and writing Latin, which was the universal language of the educated world, was of the greatest importance. At the present day Jesuit colleges use modern grammars, thereby accomodating themselves to new conditions and changed educational ideas.

EMMANUELIS ALVARI, De Institutione Grammatic Grammatica Tres (A good edition fo the complete work is that published in Paris, 1850); SCHWICKERATH, Jesuit Education (St. Louis 1904); Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la compagnia de Jesus (Brussels and Paris, 1890); PACHTER, Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica (Berlin, 1887); SCHMID, Geschichte der Erzichung (Stuttgart, 1892). III, part I.

ROBERT SCHWICKERATH

Alvarez de Paz

A famous mystic of the Society of Jesus, born at Toledo in 1560; died at Potosi, 17 January, 1620. He entered the Society in 1578, taught theology and philosophy at Lima, and was Provincial of Peru. He acknowledged to his confessor that, during all the distracting occupations of twenty-five years, his union with God had never been interrupted. Sometimes, during his sermons, he fell into ecstasy and had to be carried from the pulpit. The fame of his sanctity was so great in South America, that, when he arrived, in a dying condition, at Potosi, the whole city came out to receive his blessing. On the day of his death 100,000 men in the silver mines stopped work to assist at his obsequies. He is said to have had the gift of prophecy, and it is reported that after his death his body remained incorrupt. Hunter says of the three folio volumes of his works: “Summi aestimantur; rara et cara sunt.” His first treatise is “De viât spirituali ejusque perfectione” (1608); his second, “De exterminatione mali et promotione boni: (1613); his third, “De inquisitione pacis, sive de studio orationis” (1611). The work has been widely used in compendiums, extracts, and translations. In the opinion of a recognized authority on mysticism, Father Poulain, S.J., writing in Vacant, “his bent is not so much to observe patiently, as to philosophize and display much erudition. He is the first to use the expression oratio affectiva, implying a species of contemplation or meditation in which the affections dominate. He does not appear to have read St. Teresa, whose works were just published, and he may be regarded as one of the last representatives of the ancient schools of mysticism.”

Hurter, Nomenclator; Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la c. de J. I, 252; Poulain in Dict. de theol. cath.; Varones ilustres, IV.

T.J. CAMPBELL

St. Alypius

The bosom friend of St. Augustine, though younger than he, was, after studying under Augustine at Milan, conspicuous at first as a magistrate in Rome. He abandoned that honour to follow his master into the Church. It is noteworthy that there is no mention of him as a saint in the ancient catalogues. His name was placed in the Roman Martyrology by Gregory XIII, in 1584, the evidence of his sanctity being sufficiently clear from the account of his life by St. Augustine. His conversion began when Augustine was still a Manichaean, and occurred in consequence of a discussion about the folly of those who give way to sensual indulgence. A relapse occurred subsequently, when he was dragged by some friends to witness the savage games of the arena; but the final step was taken when, in company with Augustine, in obedience to the voice, Tolle, lege, he read the text of St. Paul, Non in commessationibus, etc. They were both baptized by St. Ambrose, at Milan. After living for some time with Augustine, in the monastery of Hippo, he was made Bishop of Tagaste. This was in the year 394, and took place after his return from the Holy Land, where he had seen St. Jerome. Under his guidance Tagaste reproduced the sanctity, learning, monastic exactness, and orthodoxy of Hippo. The exact date of his death is not known, but his festival is kept on 15 August.

T.J. CAMPBELL

José Antonio Alzate

Born at Ozumba, Mexico, in 1738; died in 1799. Alzate, who was a priest, was one of the most zealous students of liberal sciences in New Spain in the seventeenth century. More than thirty treatises on various subjects are due to his pen. Astronomy, physics, meteorology, antiquities, metallurgy, were among the topics on which he wrote, but he also devoted serious attention to certain branches of industry. Thus the growing of silk in Mexico was the subject of several of his papers. He wrote a dissertation on the use of ammonia in combating mephitic gases in abandoned mines, and also prepared maps of New Spain (Mexico). He was frequently opposed, even reviled, at home, but the French Academy of Sciences made him a corresponding member, and the viceroys of Mexico and the archbishops entrusted him with sundry scientific missions. In 1768 he began the publication, at Mexico, of a newspaper, the “Diario literario de México.” His description of the ruins of Xochicalco is the first notice published of these interesting ruins. He also wrote a commentary upon the work of Clavigero on aboriginal Mexico and the natural history of that country.

Anales del museo nacional de Mexico; Beristain de Souza, Biblioteca hispano-americana setentrional (Mexico, 1816); Humboldt, Vues des Cordilleres et monuments indigenes.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Johann Baptist Alzog

A Catholic church historian, born 29 June, 1808, at Ohlau in Silesia; died 1 March, 1878, at Freiburg (Breisgau). He was educated at Breslau and Bonn, ordained a priest in 1834, made doctor of theology by the University of Munich in 1835, and appointed professor at Posen in 1836. He defended with ardour the Archbishop of that city, Martin von Dunin (q.v.), during his persecution by the Prussian government, became vicar-capitular, professor and regens at Hildesheim in 1845, and in 1853 was appointed to the chair of Church History in the University of Freiburg (Breisgau); at the same time he was appointed an ecclesiastical councillor (geistlicher Rat). He was also appointed, at a later date, member of the Vatican preparatory commission for dogmatic questions. In character he was amiable and virtuous. His “Manual of Church History” went through nine editions (1840–72) before his death, and was translated into several foreign languages (Eng. tr. by Pabisch and Byrne, Cincinnati, 1874, et saep.). His “Patrology” went through four editions (1866–84), and his edition of the “Oratio Apologetica” of St. Gregory of Nazianzus reached a second edition. He was also a frequent contributor to various periodicals. He wrote in the first edition of Wetzer and Welte’s “Kirchenlexikon” (Freiburg, 1854) the article on the office of the church historian. He also wrote (1857) a Latin treatise on the relation of Greek and Latin studies to Christian theology, and the valuable work: “Die deutschen Plenarien im 15 und zu Anfang des 16 Jahrhunderts” (Freiburg, 1874).

HERGENRÖTHER, in Kirchenlex., I, 668; LAUCHERT, Allg. deutsche Biogr., XLV, 759–761; KRAUS, Gedächtnissrede (Freiburg, 1879).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Ama

(Or Amma.)

A Semitic term meaning mother, adopted by the Copts and the Greeks as a title of honour applied to religious and ladies of high rank. In Coptic inscriptions, according to Leclercq, it is given to both of these categories of personages. The Greeks seem to have used it generally in the same sense as the Latin abbatissa or abbess.

(2) Ama (amula). A vessel in which the wine offered by the people for the Holy Sacrifice was received (Ordo Rom., i, 13). Pope Adrian I (772–795) presented to the Church of St. Adrian ama una (Liber Pont. I, 510).

LECLERCQ in Dict. d’arch. chrét. et de lit., I, 1306–23; KRÜLL in Real. Encykl. der chr. Alterthümer, I, 48, 49.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Giovanni Antonio Amadeo

(Also spelled Omodeo).

An Italian architect and sculptor, born near Pavia in 1447; died 27 August, 1522, at Milan. In 1466 he was engaged as a sculptor, with his brother Protasio, at the famous Certosa, near Pavia. He was a follower of the style of Bramantino of Milan, and he represents, like him, the Lombard direction of the Renaissance. He practised cutting deeply into marble, arranging draperies in cartaceous folds, and treating surfaces flatly even when he sculptured figures in high relief. Excepting in these technical points he differed from his associates completely, and so far surpassed them that he may be ranked with the great Tuscan artists of his time, which can be said of hardly any other North-Italian sculptor.

While engaged at the Certosa, he executed the beautiful door leading from the church into the cloister, still known as “the door or Amadeo.” It is exquisitely decorated in Bramantesque style, reliefs of angels and foliage surround the door, and in the tympanum is a fine relief of the Virgin and Child. He also produced many marble reliefs for the facades of the tombs in the Certosa. After completing his work in Pavia, Amadeo went to Bergamo to design the tomb of Medea, daughter of the famous condottiere Bartholomeo Colleoni, in the Colleoni chapel. He returned to Pavia in October, 1478. On the death of Guiniforte Solari (1481), Amadeo had been temporarily appointed to succeed him as head architect of the Certosa, and was commissioned to make a fresh design for the facade, with the assistance of Benedetto Briosco, Antonio della Porta, and Stefano di Sesto. But it was not till 1490, when he was confirmed in his office, that he made the design which was accepted, and which was subsequently carried out by him and his successors. It is not known when Amadeo made the Borromeo monuments, formerly in the church of St. Pietro in Gessote, at Milan, and now in the Borromeo chapel at Isola Bella, on Lago Maggiore.

About 1490, after an absence of eight or nine years, Amadeo returned to his post at the Certosa and received the contract for the interior, and also for the duomo of Milan, and, after constructing a clay model of the facade, built it without interruption up to the first corridor. He was joint architect of the Certosa and of the cathedrals of Pavia and Milan, until he undertook to crown the latter with a cupola in Gothic form, which aroused much opposition and criticism. He then resigned his other offices and took up his residence in Milan, where, assisted by his colleague Dolcebuono, he commenced his work, in 1497, according to the accepted model, and carried it up to the octagon. As its solidity was then questioned by Cristoforo Solari and Andrea Fusina, the directors stopped the work (1503). After this defeat he left Milan, with his brother Andrea, and resided at Venice for several years, during which he produced a St. George for a chapel in the church of La Carita, also a statue of Eve. Many vexations weighed heavily upon the old artist, who died ex decrepitate, says the record, worn out not less by adverse fortune than by a life of unremitting labour. A leader among North-Italian sculptors in technic, in facility, and refinement, he would hardly have any rival even among his Tuscan contemporaries, were his style free from mannerisms, and his standard of beauty more elevated.

Perkins, Historical Handbook of Italian Sculpture, 184–193; Scott, Cathedral Builders, 373, 378, 379; Meyers, Lexicon, I, 461; Lubke, Geschichte der Architektur, I, 217; Meyer, Die Baukunst, II, 11–13.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Dioceses of Amadia and Akra

This double title designates two Catholic dioceses of the Chaldean Rite in Kurdistan, Turkey in Asia. The Diocese of Amadia existed originally under another title; it received its actual name after the foundation of the city of Amadia. In the beginning of the nineteenth century it was subdivided into three dioceses: Amadia, Zakho, and Akra. On 10 June, 1895, the Dioceses of Amadia and Akra were provisionally united; the bishop resides sometimes in one, sometimes in the other of these two small towns, or even in Araden. Amadia is the principal garrison town of the vilayet Mossoul, about fifty miles north of this city. It has 5,000 inhabitants, of whom 2,500 are Mussulmans, Kurds for the most part, 1,900 Jews, 1,600 Chaldeans. The Dominicans of Mossoul have a summer residence there. Within the limits of the diocese the great majority of the inhabitants are Kurdish Mussulmans, mingled with a certain number of Jews. The Christians, all Chaldeans, number 6,000, of whom 3,000 are Catholics and 3,000 are Nestorians. The Catholics have 14 parishes, 16 churches, 13 priests, 6 schools for boys. In Amadia the Protestant missionaries have many missions with schools. Akra is another principal garrison town of the same vilayet (province). It is beautifully situated on the flank of Chindar, with 4,700 inhabitants, of whom 4,050 are Mussulman Kurds, 300 Jews, 250 Christians, Chaldeans or Jacobites. The Chaldeans have a church and school; the Jacobites have a chapel, hollowed out of the rock. Zebhar, or Zibar, which name is sometimes joined to the episcopal title of Akra, is another garrison post. In the Diocese of Akra the greater part of the population is composed of Kurdish Mussulmans. There are also a small number of Jews, some Jacobites, some Chaldean Nestorians grouped in the 11 villages, and, finally, 1,000 Chaldean Catholics. The last have 13 parishes, 12 churches, 8 priests, 2 schools for boys. The above figures are those given by J. B. Chabot, in his “Etat religieux des diocèses formant le patriarcat chaldéen de Babylone,” in the “Revue de l’Orient Chrétien” (Paris, 1896). I, 449–450. the “Missiones Catholicæ” (Rome, 1895), 612, gives the following figures: Amadia, 2,000 Chaldeans, 15 parishes, 5 secular priests, 5 regulars, 1 school (at Araden); Akra, 2,000 Chaldean families, 8 churches, 6 priests. A. Battandier, “Annuaire pontif. cathol.” (Paris, 1904), 269, indicates 5,000 Chaldeans for both dioceses, of whom 1,000 are for Akra; 17 parishes, 22 secular priests, 4 regulars.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Amalarius of Metz

A liturgical writer, b. at Metz, in the last quarter of the eighth century; d. about 850. He was formerly considered a different personage from Amalarius of Trèves (Trier), but of late, owing to the researches of Dom Morin, the opinion seems to prevail that about 811, Amalarius of Metz became Bishop of Trèves, which diocese he relinquished after two years to act as envoy to Constantinople. Hence he is regarded as author of the works once attributed to Amalarius of Trèves. He was for some time a disciple of Alcuin. After returning to France from Constantinople, he would appear to have assisted at important synods at Aix-la-Chapelle and Paris. Later, he was sent by Louis le Débonnaire as ambassador to Gregory IV at Rome, this being probably his second visit to the Eternal City. Later, he governed the Diocese of Lyons during the exile of Agobard, and there tried to introduce his new antiphonary, but met with strong opposition from the deacon Florus. When Agobard was restored to his see, both he and Florus attacked the writings of Amalarius and succeeded in having him censured at a synod held at Kiersy in 838 for his opinion concerning the signification of the parts of the divided Host at Mass. Finally Amalarius was involved in the theological controversies on predestination raised by Gottschalk. The date of his death has not been determined with certainty, but it must have been shortly after the year 850. The works of Amalarius treat chiefly of liturgical subjects. His most important and also his long treatises are entitled “De ecclesiasticis officiis and “De ordine antiphonarii.” The former is divided into four books, in which without observing a strict, logical order he treats of the Mass, the Office, different benedictions, ordinations, vestments, etc., giving an explanation of the various formularies and ceremonies rather than a scientific exposition of the liturgy. The first book explains the liturgical seasons and feasts from Septuagesima to Pentecost and especially the ceremonies of Holy Week. The second book treats of the times for conferring Holy Orders, of the different orders in the Church and of the liturgical vestments. The third book contains a few preliminary chapters on bells, the choir, etc., a treatise on the different parts of the Mass celebrated pontifically according to the Roman Rite, and some chapters on special subjects, e.g. Advent, the Mass for the Dead, etc. The fourth book deals principally with the Divine Office, explaining its integral parts and the offices peculiar to certain liturgical seasons or feast days, but it contains a few supplementary chapters on obsequies for the dead and subjects already treated. In the “De ordine antiphonarii” he explains the arrangement of the Divine Office and the variations for the different feasts, and considers in particular the origin and meaning of the antiphons and responses; indeed in this world he would seem a commentator on his own antiphonary compiled from the antiphonaries of Rome and Metz, and a defender of his method of composition. His “Eclogae de officio missae” contains a description of the pontifical Mass according to the Roman Rite and a mystical explanation of the different parts of the Mass. Several letters of Amalarius dealing with liturgical subjects have also been preserved. Dom Morin denies the authenticity of the letter of Amalarius in response to certain questions of Charlemagne concerning baptism, as well as the “Forma institutionis canonicorum et sanctimonialium,” which is a collection of rules taken from the decrees of councils and works of the Fathers, for clerics and nuns living in community. Unfortunately his antiphonary and also his “Embolis” have not been preserved.

Amalarius seems to have had a strong liking for liturgical studies, a liking which was stimulated and fostered by his master Alcuin. His travels to the East gave him considerable information concerning the Oriental rites, but his stay in Rome appears to have imbued him with a deep love for the Roman liturgy and to have greatly influenced his liturgical work. There he made a special study of rubrics and Roman customs; he inquired diligently of Theodore, the archpriest of the basilica of St. Peter, concerning the formularies and ceremonies there in use, and even sought to obtain copies of the liturgical books to bring to France. Living just at this time when the liturgy was changing, when the fusion of the Roman and Gallican uses was taking place, he exercised a remarkable influence in introducing the present composite liturgy, which has finally supplanted the ancient Roman Rite. He sought to carry out the desire of the Emperor to introduce the Roman liturgy in order to obtain uniformity, but at the same time, like Alcuin and other liturgists of his age, he combined with the Roman whatever he deemed worth preserving in the Gallican Rite, as may be easily seen in his commentary on his own antiphonary. The chief merit of his works consists of the fact that they have preserved much accurate and valuable information on the state of the liturgy at the beginning of the ninth century, so that a comparison may easily be made between it and the present liturgy to determine what changes have occurred and to trace the development that has taken place. The most serious defect in his writings is an excessive mysticism which led him to seek far-fetched and even absurd symbolical origins and meanings for liturgical formulas and ceremonies, but the fault may be in a measure excused since it was common to all liturgical writers of that time. He may also have used more liberty in composing, changing, and transposing liturgical texts than ecclesiastical authority in later ages would permit, when the necessity of unity in the liturgy was more imperatively felt. In spite of these faults he exercised great influence on the development of the present Roman liturgy and his works are very useful for the study of the history of the Latin liturgies.

P.L. CV, 815; XCIX, 887; articles by MORIN, in the Revue Benedictine (1891–92–94); DEBROISE in Dict. d’arch. chret. (Paris, 1904), I, 1323; BATIFFOL, History of the Roman Breviary, tr. by BAYLEY (New York, 1898), 90; STREBER in Kirchenlex., I, 672; SIRMOND, Opera varia (Paris, 1696), IV; SAHRE, Der Liturgiker Amalarius (Dresden, 1893).

J.F. GOGGIN

St. Amalberga (1)

St. Amalberga, otherwise Amelia, was related in some way to Pepin of Landen. Whether she was sister or niece, the Bollandists are not sure. She was married to Witger and became the mother of three saints, Gudila, Reinelda, and Emembertus. The Norman chroniclers speak of her as twice married, which seems to be erroneous. Nor are Pharailda and Ermelende admitted by the Bollandists to have been her children. She and her husband ultimately withdrew from the world, he becoming a monk, and she a nun. There is very great confusion in the records of this saint, and of a virgin who came a century after. To add to the difficulty a third St. Amalberga, also a virgin, appears in the twelfth century. The first two are celebrated simultaneously on 10 July.

Acta SS., III, July.

T.J. CAMPBELL

St. Amalberga (2)

A virgin, very much revered in Belgium, who is said to have been sought in marriage by Charles, afterwards Charlemagne. Continually repulsed, Charles finally attempted to carry her off by force, but though he broke her arm in the struggle he was unable to move her from the altar before which she had prostrated herself. The royal lover was forced to abandon his suit, and left her in peace. Many miracles are attributed to her, among others the cure of Charles, who was stricken with illness because of the rudeness with which he had treated the saint. She died 10 July, in her thirty-first year, five years after Charles had ascended the throne.

Acta SS., III, July.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Amalec

(AMALECITES in Douay Version; or AMALEK, AMALEKITES).

A people remembered chiefly as the most hated of all the enemies of Israel, and traditionally reputed among the fiercest of Bedouin tribes.

I. ORIGIN

According to a widely accepted interpretation of Gen., xxxvi, 10–12, their descent is to be traced from Amalec, son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau, and ultimately therefore from Abraham; which account is credited by most modern scholars in so far as it indicates the Arabian origin of the Amalecites and a racial affinity with the Hebrews. The Amalec of Gen., xxxvi, 12, however, is not stated to be the ancestor of the Amalecites, though the main purpose of the context, which gives the origin of various Arabian tribes, favours that view; but against it is the earlier account of Gen., xiv, which can only be fairly interpreted to mean that the Amalecites, instead of being descended from Abraham, were already a distinct tribe in his day, when they were defeated at Cades (Kadesh) by Chodorlahomor (Chedorlamour), King of the Elamites. This evidence of their antiquity would be confirmed by the more probable interpretation of those who regard the obscure prophecy of Balaam, concerning “Amalec, the first of the nations) as indicating not their greatness, but their age, relative to the other nations mentioned in the oracle. No light on the origin of the Amalecites can be gathered from other sources; the Arabian traditions are late and add nothing trustworthy to the biblical data; and though it happens that nearly every passage of Scripture concerning their origin in subjected by competent scholars to different, and at times, even contradictory, interpretations, little doubt is entertained that the Amalecites were of Arabian stock and of greater antiquity than the Israelites. The belief in their Arabic descent is confirmed by their mode of life and place of dwelling.

II. SEAT

The Amalecites were nomadic and warlike and their name is consequently connected in the Bible with various regions. Their original home, however, as appears from I K., xxvii, 8, was in the desert to the south and southwest of Judea, which stretches to the border of Egypt and to the foot of Mt. Sinai, and is now called Et Tih; a region too arid for cultivation, but fertile enough to afford excellent pasture. This indication of I K., xxvii, 8, is confirmed by other passages. It was in this desert, at Cades, that they suffered defeat from Chodorlahomor (Gen., xiv); here, farther to the south, at Raphidim, near the foot of Mt. Sinai, they offered opposition to Moses (Ex., xvii); here Saul attacked them (I K., xv), and here the last remnant of them perished under Ezechias (I Par., iv, 43). But they were not always confined to the desert; they pushed farther north and in Moses’s time some of them, at least, are found within the borders of Palestine, and frustrated the attempt of the Israelites to enter the country from the south (Num., xiii). Twice our present Hebrew text shows them even as far north as the territory of Ephraim (Judges, v, 14; xii, 15); but in both cases there seems to be a faulty reading in the Hebrew, which allows us, therefore, to dispense with the habitual speculations, based on these texts, regarding the great expansion and varying fortunes of the Amalecites and their puzzling possession of Mount Ephraim. (See commentaries of Moore and Lagrange on Judges, and Moore’s Hebrew text of Judges in Paul Haupt’s polychrome Bible.) Nomads and possessors of the Sinaitic peninsula, the Amalecites necessarily came into contact, and almost inevitably into conflict, with the Israelites.

III. AMALEC AND ISRAEL UNDER MOSES

Their first meeting took place in the first year of the wandering, after Israel came out of Egypt, and was of such a nature that Israel then conceived a hatred of the Amalecites that outlasted their extermination under King Ezechias, many centuries later. The first encounter was at Raphidim, where the Israelites under Moses had encamped on their way to Mount Sinai; in the desert home, therefore, of the Amalecites. Moses, putting Josue in command, went up to the top of a hill, with Aaron and Hur, and it was on this occasion that the fortune of battle was decided by “the rod of God” held in the hands of Moses, Israel prevailing while his hands upheld the rod, Amalec when they dropped, the victory finally going to the Israelites (Ex., xvii). There is little in this account of Exodus to show why the Amalecites should be singled out to incur the special animosity of the Israelites, yet it concludes with the decree of Jehovah that He will destroy the memory of Amalec from under heaven, and that His hand will be against Amalec from generation to generation. Amalec, however, was the agressor (ibid., 8); though it must be borne in mind that the Israelites had invaded their country. The reason for Israel’s hatred, which is wanting in this historical account, may be supplied from the later (and hortatory) account given in Deut., xxv, where it is incidentally stated that the head of Amalec’s offending lay in his cruel and treacherous attack, by which he disregarded the laws of Bedouin hospitality, which was an affront to God as well as to man. Instead of showing ordinary humanity to the feeble stragglers of the Israelite army, “spent with hunger and labour,” they ruthlessly slew them. Now, “according to the rules of ancient hospitality, and with some sense of God, the Amalecites ought to have spared, and indeed, rather assisted, those who lagged behind, unfit for battle. That they did the contrary was inhuman and barbarous” (Dillman). Cruelty such as this was considered to render a tribe unfit for existence; so hatred of the Amalecites, even unto extermination, was enjoined upon the Israelites as a religious duty. Even apart, however, from this cruelty, rivalry between the two tribes was almost inevitable, as Amalec could not be expected to regard with complacency Israel’s invasion of his rich pasture-lands.

No further molestation from the Amalecites is related during the journey of the Israelites to Mt. Sinai, or their stay there, or their march to Cades, near the southern boundary of Palestine. It was from this side that the Israelites first attempted the entry into the Promised Land; and here they again encountered the Amalecites, at the place where the ancestors of the latter had been defeated by Chodorlahomor. Israel had got as far as the wilderness of Pharan (Paran) and from there they sent spies into Palestine to spy out the peoples there, with their lands and cities. The Amalecites were found in the south of the country and apparently at the head of a confederacy of different tribes, or nations, since they soon led a concerted attack on the Israelites; but the spies also brought back reports of giants living in the land, in comparison with whom, they said, “we were in our own sight as grasshoppers; and so we were in their sight” (sic Heb. text, Num., xiii, 34). These stories of the giants frightened the people and “the whole multitude crying wept that night,” and they began to murmur and to wish they had died in Egypt or in the wilderness, rather than be doomed by the Lord to undertake the conquest of the land of giants. Moses, Aaron, and Josue contended against their foolish rebellious spirit, but only gained their hatred; and the Lord then passed on them the punishment of the forty years’ wandering, decreeing that none of them should enter the Promised Land. This grieving the people exceedingly, they determined to go up into the land and attack the Amalecites and the Chanaanites. But Moses forbade it, prophesying evil because the Lord was not with them. They presumed, nevertheless, to go up, though Moses would not accompany them, and they met the fate foretold; the Amalecites, with their allies, attacking them with considerable slaughter and driving them as far as Horma (Num., xiv, 45). The subsequent history of the Amalecites during the time of Moses is obscure. Their destruction is foretold by Balaam in his famous oracle uttered on the top of Phogor, while he viewed the nations around. “And when he saw Amalec he took up his parable and said: ‘Amalec, the first of nations, thy latter end shall be destruction,’“ a prophecy (whatever be its date) which shows at least that Amalec once held an important place among the Semitic tribes or nations surrounding Israel (Num., xxiv). The fulfillment of this prophecy is enjoined upon the Israelites by Moses in a farewell discourse as a sacred duty. “When they shall have established peace with all other people, then shall they blot out the remembrance of Amalec from under heaven: see thou forget it not” (Deut., xxv, 19). And if this seem an inhuman command, let us remember the prevailing sentiment that the Amalecites were “inhuman and barbarous; a people with such evil customs deserves no mercy”; for it is a question of national life or death. It is plain, however, that we are far from the Sermon on the Mount.

IV. PERIOD OF THE JUDGES

Under Josue, Israel, entering Palestine from the east, did not come in contact with the Amalecites, but was kept busy with other enemies, whose territories they were endeavouring to capture. As soon, however, as the Israelites were well established in Palestine, the old enmity became active again. When Eglon, King of Moab, went up against Israel, he was joined by the Amalecites and Ammonites as allies, and together they subdued the Israelites; and the Israelites remianed in subjection for fourteen years till, through the cunning and treachery of Aod (Ehud) the Benjamite, King Eglon met his tragic death (Judges, iii). Petty warfare between the Amalecites and the Israelites was incessant during a good part of the period of the Judges. The Israelites had by this time become an agricultural people, while the Amalecites remained Bedouin, and made frequent incursions into the land of their enemy and destroyed their crops and cattle (Judges, vi). On one occasion, they accompanied the Madianites on an invasion of Palestine, forming an almost innumerable host; they were unexpectedly attacked at night by Gedeon and 300 picked men, and through panic (and perhaps distrust) turned the sword on one another and fled, with Gedeon in pursuit (Judges, vii).

V. SAUL

This defeat of the Amalecites had the effect of quieting them for many years, for they are not heard of again till the early days of Saul. Saul began his reign by vigorous military operations, waging war, with great success, against “enemies on every side”; among them, the Amalecites, who had been harassing the Israelites (I K., xiv, 48). Then came the prophet Samuel and reminded Saul of Amalec’s old offence and God’s decree of extermination. The prophet’s words made it clear (xv, 1–3) that no enemy was hated like Amalec and that his extermination was regarded as a religious duty, imposed by God. All, man, woman, child, and beast, were to be destroyed and Israel was to covet none of Amalec’s possessions for spoils. Saul proceeded to carry out this injunction, and its character as special punishment upon the Amecites is emphasized by his mercy to the Cinite (Kenites). Saul invaded the territory of the Amalecites to the south of Palestine and smote them from Hevila in the extreme east, to Sur near the border of Egypt-a campaign of unusual magnitude-and put all to the sword,-men, women, and children-except the King, Agag, whom he took alive, and the best of the animals, which he reserved for sacrifice. For this disobedience in sparing Agag and the best of the flocks and herds, Saul was rejected in the name of God by Samuel who hewed down Agag in his presence; from that day his fortune changed, and when, after Samuel’s death, Saul consulted his spirit in the cave at Endor, he was told that he was rejected because he had not executed the fierce wrath of God upon Amalec (Newman’s sermon, “Wilfulness the Sin of Saul”). It was an Amalecite who claimed, untruthfully, it seems (II K., i, with I K., xxxi), to have given King Saul his deathblow. While still a fugitive from Saul, David was bringing nearer to its climax the extermination of the doomed race. He was in the service of Achis, King of Geth, in the land of the Philistines, near therefore to Amalecite territory. With his own men, and soldiers borrowed from Achis, he raided the Amalecites and inflicted great slaughter, sparing not a soul (I K., xxvii). The Amalecites retaliated, during the absence of David and Achis, by burning Siceleg (Ziklag), a city which Achis had given to David, and carrying off all its inhabitants, including two wives of David. David pursued and overtook the enemy in the midst of feast and revel, recovered all the spoil and captives, and slew all the Amalecites except 400 young men who escaped on camels (xxx). This slaughter broke the power of the Amalecites and drove them back to their desert home; there a miserable remnant of them lingered on till the days of Ezechias, tenth successor of David, when a band of 500 Simeonites sufficed to exterminate, to the last man, Israel’s fiercest foe (I Par., iv, 42, 43). Thus on Mount Seir was fulfilled the doom passed on them by Moses and Balaam about six hundred years earlier. Their name occurs no more except in Ps. lxxxii (reputed by many to be of the Machabean period) where the use cannot be taken as an historical datum, but is rather poetical, applied to Israel’s traditional enemies. The Egyptian and Assyrian discoveries have as yet disclosed no mention of Amalec. The Bible is our only witness, and its testimony, though sifted and questioned in regard to many details, particularly in the accounts of the battles at Raphidim and Cades, and the marvellous victory of Gedeon, has been accepted in the main as a reliable account.

THOMAS in VIG., Dict. de la Bible; MACPHERSON in Hast., Dict. of the Bible; Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v. Amalec; Commentaries, DILLMAN AND DELITZSCH on Genesis; DILLMAN on Numbers.

JOHN F. FENLON

Archdiocese of Amalfi

The Archdiocese of Amalfi, directly dependent on the Holy See, has its seat at Amalfi, not far from Naples. This was a populous city between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. An independent republic from the seventh century until 1075, it rivalled Pisa and Genoa in its domestic prosperity and maritime importance. A prey to the Normans who encamped in the south of Italy, it became one of their principal posts. The Emperor Lothair, fighting in favour of Pope Innocent II against King Roger of Sicily, who sided with the Antipope Anacletus, took him prisoner in 1133, assisted by forty-six Pisan ships. The city was sacked, and Lothair claimed as part of the booty a copy of the Pandects of Justinian which was found there. But the early beginnings of Amalfi are very obscure; it is not known when it was founded, or when Christianity reached it. That it was early is a reasonable conjecture, considering the facilities for communication with the East which the South of Italy possessed. The first positive indication that Amalfi was a Christian community, however, is supplied by Gregory the Great, who, writing in January, 596, to the Subdeacon Antemius, his legate and administrator in Campania, ordered him to constrain within a monastery Primenus, Bishop of Amalfi, because he did not remain in his diocese, but roamed about (Reg., V, xiv; cf. Jaffé, RR.PP., 1403). Amalfi was founded by Primenus in A.D. 596; the regular list of bishops began in 829; it was raised to an archbishopric by John XV in 987. In 1206, after the completion of the cathedral of St. Andrew, the body of the Apostle of that name, patron of Amalfi, was brought there from Constantinople by Pietro, cardinal of Capua, an Amalfian. There are about 36,000 inhabitants, 54 parishes, and 279 secular priests. Amalfi occupied a high position in medieval architecture; its cathedral of Sant’ Andrea, of the eleventh century, the campanile, the convent of the Capuccini, founded by Cardinal Capuanor, richly represent the artistic movement prevailing in Southern Italy at the time of the Normans, with its tendency to blend the Byzantine style with the forms and sharp lines of the northern architecture.

In medieval culture Amalfi vindicated a worthy place for herself, especially by flourishing schools of law and mathematics. Flavio Gioia, who made the first mariner’s compasses known to Europe, is said to be a native of Amalfi. But Gioia was not the inventor of the compass, which was invented in the East and brought to Europe by the Arabs. In honour of Charles II, a Capetian king then ruling Naples, Gioia put a fleur-de-lis instead of an N, to indicate the north.

CAPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), XX, 601; GAMS, Series episcop. Eccles. cathol. (Ratisbon, 1873); PANSA, Istoria dell’ antica republica di Amalfi (Naples, 1724); SCHIPA, La cronaca Amalfitana.

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Amalricians

(Lat., Almarici, Amauriani).

An heretical sect founded towards the end of the twelfth century, by Amaury de Bène or de Chartres (Lat., Almaricus, Amalricus, Amauricus), a cleric and professor in the University of Paris, who died between 1204 and 1207. The Amalricians, like their founder, professed a species of pantheism, maintaining, as the fundamental principle of their system, that God and the universe are one; that God is everything and everything is God. This led them, naturally, to the denial of Transubstantiation, the confounding of good and evil-since good and sinful acts, so called, are equally of God-and to the consequent rejection of the laws of morality. They held, besides, peculiar views on the Trinity, distinguishing three periods in the Divine economy with regard to man; the reign of the Father, become incarnate in Abraham, which lasted until the coming of Christ; the reign of the Son, become incarnate in Mary, which had endured until their own time; and the reign of the Holy Ghost, which, taking its beginning from the dawn of the twelfth century, was to last until the end of time. Unlike the Father and the Son, the Holy Ghost was to become incarnate, not merely in one individual of mankind, but in every member of the human race. Moreover, as the Old Law had lost its efficacy at the coming of Christ, so, in their day, the law of thte Gospel was to be supplanted by the interior guidance of the Holy Ghost, indwelling in each human soul. In consequence of this they rejected the sacraments as obsolete and useless. Those in whom the Holy Spirit had already taken up His abode were called “the spiritualized,” and were supposed to be already enjoying the life of the Resurrection. The signs of this interior illumination were the rejection of faith and hope, as tending to keep the soul in darkness, and the acceptance, in their place, of the light of positive knowledge. It followed from this, that in knowledge and the acquisition of new truths consisted their paradise; while ignorance, which meant adherence to the old order of things, was their substitute for hell.

The Amalricians, though including within their ranks many priests and clerics, succeeded for some time in propogating their errors without being detected by the ecclesiastical authorities. At length, through the efforts of Peter, Bishop of Paris, and the Chevalier Guérin, an adviser of the king, to both of whom secret information of the affair had been given, the inner workings of the sect were laid bare, and the principals and proselytes were arrested. In the year 1210 a council of bishops and doctors of the University of Paris assembled to take measures for the punishment of the offenders. The ignorant converts, including many women, were pardoned. Of the principals, four were condemned to imprisonment for life. Ten others, priests and clerics, who had obstinately refused to retract their errors, after being publicly degraded, were delivered to the secular authority and suffered the penalty of death by fire. Five years later (1215) the writings of Aristotle, which had been distorted by the sectaries in support of their heresy, were forbidden to be read either in public or in private. Regarding the scope of this prohibition, see

Amaury himself, though dead some years, did not escape the penalty of his heresy. Besides being included in the condemnation of his disciples, in the council of 1210 special sentence of excommunication was pronounced against him, and his bones were exhumed from their resting-place and cast into unconsecrated ground. His doctrine was again condemned by Pope Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) “as insanity rather than heresy,” and Pope Honorius III condemned (1225) the work of Scotus Erigena, “De Divisione Naturæ,” from which Amaury was supposed to have derived the beginnings of his heresy.

CHOLLET, in Dict. de théol. cath., s. v.; Denifle Chartularium, I, 70, 107; BÆUMKER, Ein Traktat gegen die A. in Jahrb. f. Phil. u. spek. Theol. (1893); UEBERWEG, Gesch. d. Phil. (9th ed.), II, 222; DE WULF, Hist. de la philosophie médiévale (Louvain, 1905).

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Amalricus Augerii

A church-historian of the fourteenth century, and member of the Augustinian Order. He was a doctor of the University of Montpellier, prior of a monastery of his Order, and chaplain to Urban V, 1362. He was a man of great learning, especially in church history. His chief work is the “Actus Rom. Pontificum,” extending in alphabetical order from St. Peter to the year 1321, and edited, chronologically, in Eccard, “Script. medii ævi,” II, 1641–1824.

KELLER in Kirchenlex., s.v.

FRANCIS W. GREY

St. Amandus

One of the great apostles of Flanders; born near Nantes, in France, about the end of the sixth century. He was, apparently, of noble extraction. When a youth of twenty, he fled from his home and became a monk near Tours, resisting all the efforts of his family to withdraw him from his mode of life. Following what he regarded as divine inspiration, he betook himself to Bourges, where under the direction of St. Austregisile, the bishop of the city, he remained in solitude for fifteen years, living in a cell and subsisting on bread and water. After a pilgrimage to Rome, he was consecrated in France as a missionary bishop at the age of thirty-three. At the request of Clotaire II, he began first to evangelize the inhabitants of Ghent, who were then degraded idolaters, and afterwards extended his work throughout all Flanders, suffering persecution, and undergoing great hardship but achieving nothing, until the miracle of restoring the life of a criminal who had been hanged, changed the feelings of the people to reverence and affection and brought many converts to the faith. Monasteries at Ghent and Mt. Blandin were erected. They were the first monuments to the Faith in Belgium. Returning to France, in 630, he incurred the enmity of King Dagobert, who he had endeavoured to recall from a sinful life, and was expelled from the kingdom. Dagobert afterwards entreated him to return, asked pardon for the wrong done, and requested him to be tutor of the heir of the throne. The danger of living at court prompted the Saint to refuse the honour. His next apostolate was among of the Slavs of the Danube, but it met with no success, and we find him then in Rome, reporting to the pope what results had been achieved.

While returning to France he is said to have calmed a storm at sea. He was made Bishop of Maastricht about the year 649, but unable the repress the disorders of the place, he appealed to the Pope, Martin I, for instructions. The reply traced his plan of action with regard to fractious clerics, and also contained information about the Monothelite heresy, which was then desolating the East. Amandus was also commissioned to convoke councils in Neustria and Austrasia in order to have the decrees which had been passed at Rome read to the bishops of Gaul, who in turn commissioned him to bear the acts of their councils to the Sovereign Pontiff. He availed himself of this occasion to obtain his release from the bishopric of Maastricht, and to resume his work as a missionary. It was at this time that he entered into relations with the family of Pepin of Landen, and helped St. Gertrude and St. Itta to establish their famous monastery of Nivelles. Thirty years before he had gone into the Basque country to preach, but had met with little success. He was now requested by the inhabitants to return, and although seventy years old, he undertook the work of evangelizing them and appears to have banished idolatry from the land. Returning again to his country, he founded several monasteries, on one occasion at the risk of his life. Belgium especially boasts many of his foundations. Dagobert made great concessions to him for his various establishments. He died in his monastery of Elnon, at the age of ninety. His feast is kept 6 February.

Acta SS., Feb., II; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 6 Feb.; MACLEAR in Dict. of Christ. Biog.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Amasia

(AMASEA.)

A titular see and metropolis of Pontus in Asia Minor on the river Iris, now Amasiah. Its episcopal list dates from the third century (Gams,( I, 442). It was the birthplace of the geographer Strabo, who has left us a striking description of his native city, in a deep and extensive gorge over which rose abruptly a lofty rock, “steep on all sides and descending abruptly to the river.” It was famous in antiquity for its rock-cisterns, reached by galleries, of which some traces remain; also for the tombs of the ancient kings of Pontus hewn in the solid rock.

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christianus (1740), I, 521–532; VAN LENNEP, Travels in Asia Minor (London, 1870), I, 86–106.

Amastris

(Now AMASSERAH or SAMASTRO.)

A titular see of Paphlagonia in Asia Minor, on a peninsula jutting into the Black Sea. Its episcopal list dates from the third century (Gams,( I, 454). It is mentioned by Homer (Iliad, II, 853), was a flourishing town in the time of Trajan (98–117), and was of some importance until the seventh century of our era.

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ. (1740), I, 561–566; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 118.

Thaddeus Amat

Second Bishop of Monterey and Los Angeles, California, U.S., b. 31 December, 1810, at Barcelona, Spain; d. at Los Angeles. California, 12 May, 1878. He joined the Lazarists in early manhood and was ordained a priest at the house of that Congregation in Paris, in 1838. He came to the United States in 1838 and worked in the missions in Louisiana. He was master of novices in the houses of the Lazarists in Missouri and Philadelphia in 1841–47, and on the promotion of Bishop Alemany of Monterey to be Archbishop of San Francisco, Father Amat was named to succeed him. He was consecrated Bishop of the diocese in Rome, 12 March, 1854. There were seventeen priests in the diocese then to care for the spiritual needs of a very mixed population largely of Spanish origin. The opening of the mining era of the early fifties brought a large accession of other settlers, and Bishop Amat, visiting Europe to obtain additional aid for his diocese, brought back Lazarist priests and Sisters of Charity with him. He was given permission by the Holy See, in 1859, to call himself Bishop of Los Angeles, and changed his residence to that city. There, under his inspiration, the Lazarists opened St. Vincents College and the Franciscan Brothers took charge of the parochial schools. The Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary were also introduced. A serious spinal affection forced Bishop Amat to ask for a coadjutor and his vicar-general, the Rev. Francis Mora, was so consecrated 3 July, 1873. He had begun a new cathedral and lived to see it dedicated 9 April, 1876. When he died, at the age of sixty-seven, the progress of the diocese under his jurisdiction was indicated in the increase to 51 priests, 32 churches, 15 chapels, and 32 stations, 6 academies and substantial parochial schools, asylums, and other charitable institutions.

SHEA, Hist. of Cath. Church in U. S. (New York, 1904); REUSS. Biog. Cyclo. of the Cath. Hierarchy of the U.S. (Milwaukee, Wis., 1898).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Amathus

Name of two titular sees, one in Syria, suffragan of Apameia, with an episcopal list known from 449 to 536; the other on the southern coast of Cyprus, whose episcopal list reaches from the fourth century to 787. The latter place was one of the most ancient Phnician settlements on the island, and long maintained the customs and character of an Oriental town. It was famous for the worship of Aphrodite and Adonis, also of the Tyrian god Melkart. The great wheat-fields and rich mines of the Cypriot city were celebrated in antiquity (Ovid, Met. . X, 220).

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 118; MAS LATRIE, Trésor de chronol, (Paris, 1895), 1894.

Diocese of Amazones

(Or MANÃOS.)

A South American diocese, dependent on San Salvador of Bahia. Amazonas, the largest of the states of Brazil, lies south of British Guiana, Venezuela, and Columbia, and between Peru on the west and Pará on the east. It has an area of 732,250 square miles, and in 1900, had a population of only 207,600. Manãos, the capital, is its chief port. Amazonas was once a part of Pará but became a state in 1850.

Erected a see by Leo XIII, 27 April, 1892, it has 350,000 Catholics, 800 Protestants, 24 parishes, 19 secular priests, 13 regular priests, 41 churches or chapels, and 105 Catholic schools.

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (1906).

Peter Ambarach

(Also called BENEDICTUS and BENEDETTI, these names being the equivalents of the Arabic ambarak “blessed.”)

A Maronite Orientalist, b. at Gusta, Syria, June, 1663; d. in Rome, 25 August, 1742. He was educated by the Jesuits in the Maronite college in Rome, 1672–85, and on his return to Syria in the latter year was ordained priest. Having been sent to Rome on business concerning the Maronite Church, he was requested by Cosmo III de Medici to organize an Oriental printing establishment at Florence, and then was given the chair of Hebrew at Pisa. In 1708 he entered the Society of Jesus. Shortly after this Clement XI appointed him a member of the commission charged to bring out a corrected edition of the Septuagint. His chief work is an edition of the Syriac works of St. Ephrem with Latin translation, of which, however, he had only published two volumes when death overtook him; the third was completed by Stephen Assemani.

SOMMERVOGEL. Bib. de la c. de Jésus (Paris, 1890), I, 1295.

F. BECHTEL

Ambition

The undue craving for honour. Anciently in Rome the candidates for office were accustomed to go about (ambire) soliciting votes. This striving for popular favour was spoken of as ambitio. Honour is the manifestation of a certain reverence for a person because of the worth or assemblage of good qualities which that person is deemed to have. The excessive desire of distinction is of course a sin, not because it is wrong in itself to wish to have the respect or consideration of others, but because it is assumed that this quest is conducted without proper regard to the mandates of sound reason. This deordination in the desire of, or search for, honour may come about chiefly in three ways.

One may want this exhibition of homage for some merit which he really does not possess.

A man may permit himself to forget that the thing or things, whatever they may be, which are thought to deserve the testimony of others, are not his in fee simple, but God’s, and that the credit therefore belongs primarily to God.

A person may be so absorbed in the display of esteem for, or deference towards, himself as to fail to employ the particular degree of excellence which has evoked it for the welfare of others (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II-II, Q. cxxxi, Art. 1).

Ambition as such is not accounted a mortal sin; it may become such either because of the means it uses to compass its object, as for instance, the simoniacal endeavour to obtain an ecclesiastical dignity, or because of the harm done to another. Ambition operates as a canonical impediment in the following circumstances. Those who take their elevation to a church dignity for granted, and, before receiving the requisite formal enabling notice of it, by some overt act demean themselves as if their election were an accomplished fact, are held to be ineligible. The bestowal of the office in this case is likewise considered invalid. Those who accept an election brought about by an abuse of the secular power are also declared ineligible (Corp. Jur. Can. in VI Decret., Bk. I, tit. vi, ch. v).

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Ambo

Pl. Ambos, or Ambones.)

A word of Greek origin, supposed to signify a mountain or elevation; at least Innocent III so understood it, for in his work on the Mass (III, xxxiii), after speaking of the deacon ascending the ambo to read the Gospel, he quotes the following from Isaias (xl, 9): “Get thee up upon a high mountain, thou that bringest good tidings to Sion: lift up thy voice with strength.” And in the same connection lie also alludes to Our Blessed Lord preaching from a mountain: “He went up into a mountain—and opening his mouth he taught them” (Matt., v, 1, 2). An ambo is an elevated desk or pulpit from which in the early churches and basilicas the Gospel and Epistle were chanted or read, and all kinds of communications were made to the congregation; and sometimes the bishop preached from it, as in the case of St. John Chrysostom, who, Socrates says, was accustomed to mount the ambo to address the people, in order to be more distinctly heard (Eccl. Hist., VI, v). Originally there was only one ambo in a church, placed in the nave, and provided with two flights of steps; one from the east, the side towards the altar; and the other from the west. From the eastern steps the subdeacon, with his face to the altar, read the Epistles; and from the western steps the deacon, facing the people, read the Gospels. The inconvenience of having one ambo soon became manifest, and in consequence in many churches two ambones were erected. When there were two, they were usually placed one on each side of the choir, which was separated from the nave and aisles by a low wall. An excellent example of this arrangement can still be seen in the church of St. Clement at Rome. Very often the gospel ambo was provided with a permanent candlestick; the one attached to the ambo in St. Clements is a marble spiral column, richly decorated with mosaic, and terminated by a capital twelve feet from the floor.

Ambones are believed to have taken their origin from the raised platform from which the Jewish rabbis read the Scriptures to the people, and they were first introduced into churches during the fourth century, were in universal use by the ninth, reaching their full development and artistic beauty in the twelfth, and then gradually fell out of use, until in the fourteenth century, when they were largely superseded by pulpits. In the Ambrosian Rite (Milan) the Gospel is still read from the ambo. They were usually built of white marble, enriched with carvings, inlays of coloured marbles Cosmati and glass mosaics. The most celebrated ambo was the one erected by the Emperor Justinian in the church of Sancta Sophia at Constantinople, which is fully described by the contemporary poet, Paulus Silentiarius in his work peri ktismaton. The body of the ambo was made of various precious metals, inlaid with ivory, overlaid with plates of repoussé silver, and further enriched with gildings and bronze. The disappearance of this magnificent example of Christian art is involved in great obscurity. It was probably intact down to the time of the taking of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1203, when it was largely shorn of its beauty and wealth. In St. Mark’s, at Venice, there is a very peculiar ambo, of two stories; from the lower one was read the Epistle, and from the upper one the Gospel. This form was copied at a later date in what are known as “double-decker” pulpits. Very interesting examples may be seen in many of the Italian basilicas; in Ravenna there are a number of the sixth century; one of the seventh at Torcello; but the most beautiful are in the Roman churches of St. Clement, St. Mary in Cosmedin, St. Lawrence, and the Ara Cli.

DE FLEURY, La Messe (Paris, 1883), III; Revue de l’art chrétien (Lille, 1887, 1894); REUSENS, Larchéologie chrétienne (Louvain, 1885); Architectural Record (New York); THIERS, Dissertation sur les jubés (Paris, 1688); KRAUS, Geschichte der christlichen Kunst (Freiburg, 1894), I, 233; LECLERCQ in Dict. darchéologie chrétienne (Paris, 1904), I, 1330–47.

CARYL COLEMAN

Ambo (in the Russian and Greek Church)

Its use has now practically disappeared in the Roman Rite and the only reminder of it in modern churches is the pulpit or reading desk. Sometimes two ambos were used, from one of which the Epistle was read and from the other the Gospel. Examples of these may be seen in the church of St. Clement at Rome and the cathedral of St. Mark at Venice. In the Russian Orthodox Church the word ambo is now applied to two or three semi-circular steps leading from the middle of the soleas (or platform immediately in front of the iconostasis) to the floor of the church. These semi-circular steps are directly in front of the royal doors of the iconostasis. In cathedral churches in Russia there is also another ambo situated in the middle of the nave, upon which the bishop stands during certain parts of the pontifical service. In the Greek (Hellenic) Orthodox Church the ambo is more often in the ancient style, but has been removed from the middle to the sides of the church. The Greek Liturgy, however, plainly shows that the ambo was originally raised and that it was in the middle of the church. One of the concluding prayers of the Greek Mass is the “prayer behind the ambo” (euche opisthambonos), which is directed by the rubric to be said in front of the royal doors outside of the iconostasis. In the Greek Catholic (United) Church, both in Slavic countries and the United States, the ambo is a table standing in front of the royal doors of the iconostasis, upon which there are a crucifix and two candles. It is used as the ambo and replaces the analogion. Services such as baptisms, confirmations, and marriages are performed at the ambo. The Greek Catholic churches of Italy and Sicily do not use the ambo, having apparently followed the Roman Rite in its disuse.

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

George d’Amboise

French cardinal, archbishop, and statesman, b. at Chaumont-sur-Loire in 1460; d. at Lyons, 25 May, 1510. He was one of the prominent figures of the French Renaissance. Nominated Bishop of Montauban at the age of fourteen, he did not assume office till he was twenty-four. In 1493, he became Archbishop of Rouen. He belonged to the party of the Duke of Orléans, who, when be became Louis XII (1498) at once made d’Amboise his prime minister. He was created a cardinal by Alexander VI, the same year. As a prime minister he pursued an ambitious foreign policy, and urged Louis XII to the conquest of Milan; at home, he inaugurated a firm and wise policy of retrenchment and reform, reducing the imposts one-tenth, setting the finances in order, and introducing needed improvements into legislation and the judicial system. As a churchman, he was much less admirable. Ambitious to become pope he strove by every means in his power to compass this end at the death of Alexander VI. Louis XII lent him the prestige of France, and Cæsar Borgia intrigued at Rome with the Spanish cardinals in his interest. In the balloting he stood third with thirteen votes, Giuliano della Rovere receiving fifteen, and Cardinal Caraffa fourteen. When Cæsar Borgia retired from Rome, d’Amboise suffered from the reaction, and was content to promote the election of Pius III. On the death of Pius he renewed his efforts and, having again failed, went so far as to encourage schism between France and Julius II. His plans, however, came to naught through the failure of the French army in Italy. To conciliate the King, Julius made d’Amboise “Legate a latere” for the whole of France, a most exceptional honour. Cardinal d’Amboise held his high office in Church and State till his death, which took place at the convent of the Celestins in Lyons, 25 May, 1510. He has a splendid tomb in the Cathedral of Rouen.

LEGENDRE, Vie du cardinal d’Amboise (Rouen, 1726); MONTBARD, Le cardinal G. d’Amboise, ministre de Louis XII (Limoges, 1879); D’AMBOISE, Lettres au roi Louis XII (Brussels, 1712).

F.P. HAVEY

Our Lady of Ambronay

A sanctuary of the Blessed Virgin at Ambronay, France, regarded as one of the two candles of devotion to Our Lady in the Diocese of Belley. The original church was founded by recluses in the seventh century, and having been destroyed by the Saracens, was rebuilt (c. 803) by St. Barnard (778–842), together with the famous monastery of the same name. About the middle of the thirteenth century the church was reconstructed on a grander scale, and still remains, in spite of the ravages of 1793, one of the most imposing monuments of the diocese, remarkable for its windows, sacristy, altar, spiral staircase. The facade of one of the naves dates from the ninth century.

Acta SS., 23 Jan.; LEROY, Histoire des pelerinages de la Sainte Vierge en France (Paris, 1875), II, 185.

F.M. RUDGE

August Wilhelm Ambros

Historian of music and art critic, one of the greatest in modern times, b. at Mauth, near Prague, in Bohemia, 17 November, 1816; d. in Vienna, 28 June, 1876. Although destined for the profession of law, in which he obtained the doctor’s degree, and advanced to the point of becoming Councillor of State, he studied music seriously and under the best auspices. He was soon appointed a member of the board of governors of the Royal Conservatory at Prague, and became active as a musical critic. At this period of his career Ambros wrote several overtures for orchestra and a “Stabat Mater.” As a composer he reflected very strongly the influence of Robert Schumann. Lacking the vital spark of originality, his compositions have not survived him. He became generally known as an art critic through his book “Die Grenzen der Musik und Poesie,” written in reply to Edward Hanslick’s treatise “Vom Musikalisch-Schönen.” The latter assumed a materialistic basis for the art of music, defining musical forms as being nothing more than “sounding arabesques.” Ambros’s work defines what can be expressed by means of music, and what needs one of the other arts for its manifestation. In this remarkable book the author not only lays down the principles of Catholic philosophy in the light of which he judges the art works of the past and present, but he also displays that extensive knowledge of the architecture, the sculpture, the painting, and the literature of all schools and nations, their inter-relation and common origin which at once attracted the attention of the scientific world. With every new work of Ambros, such as “Kulturhistorische Bilder aus dem Musikleben der Gegenwart,” “Bunte Blätter” and numerous magazine articles, his reputation increased, until the Breslau publisher Leuckart (now in Leipzig) induced him to write a complete history of music. Ambros embraced with alacrity this great opportunity for, as he put it, “rendering a service to science and art.” The result was the greatest historical work on the art of music in existence. Beginning with the music of antiquity in the first volume, the second is devoted to the Middle Ages, the third to the Netherland school, and the fourth deals with Palestrina and the transitions to the moderns. This history, revealing the great artistic past of the Church, appeared at the time of the revival brought about by the publication of Proske’s “Musica Divina,” and gave tremendous impetus to the movement. Proske made the treasures of polyphonic art accessible, and Ambros told of their origin. Aside from the permanent historical value of his work, Ambros has rendered the Catholic cause untold service by vindicating the past, and by proclaiming with a powerful pen and with vast erudition sound philosophic principles in the midst of a well-nigh all-pervading pantheism. Ambros died before completing the fourth volume of his history. Otto Kade published, in 1882, a fifth volume consisting of musical illustrations collected from the historian’s literary remains, and W. Langhans has brought the history up to date, without, however, showing Ambros’s acumen or soundness. It should be mentioned that Ambros, while holding his official positions in Prague and, after 1872, in Vienna, as an officer of the Department of Justice, professor at the Conservatory, and private tutor to Prince Rudolf, was given leave of absence six months in the year, and provided with the means to enable him to visit the principal libraries of Europe in search of material for his great work.

REIMANN, Musiklexikon; KORNMUELLER, Lexikon der kirchlichen Tonkunst.

JOSEPH OTTEN

St. Ambrose

Bishop of Milan from 374 to 397; born probably 340, at Trier, Arles, or Lyons; died 4 April, 397. He was one of the most illustrious Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and fitly chosen, together with St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Athanasius, to uphold the venerable Chair of the Prince of the Apostles in the tribune of St. Peter’s at Rome.

The materials for a biography of the Saint are chiefly to be found scattered through his writings, since the “Life” written after his death by his secretary, Paulinus, at the suggestion of St. Augustine, is extremely disappointing. Ambrose was descended from an ancient Roman family, which, at an early period had embraced Christianity, and numbered among its scions both Christian martyrs and high officials of State. At the time of his birth his father, likewise named Ambrosius, was Prefect of Gallia, and as such ruled the present territories of France, Britain, and Spain, together with Tingitana in Africa. It was one of the four great prefectures of the Empire, and the highest office that could be held by a subject. Trier, Arles, and Lyons, the three principal cities of the province, contend for the honour of having given birth to the Saint. He was the youngest of three children, being preceded by a sister, Marcellina, who become a nun, and a brother Satyrus, who, upon the unexpected appointment of Ambrose to the episcopate, resigned a prefecture in order to live with him and relieve him from temporal cares. About the year 354 Ambrosius, the father, died, whereupon the family removed to Rome. The saintly and accomplished widow was greatly assisted in the religious training of her two sons by the example and admonitions of her daughter, Marcellina, who was about ten years older than Ambrose. Marcellina had already received the virginal veil from the hands of Liberius, the Roman Pontiff, and with another consecrated virgin lived in her mother’s house. From her the Saint imbibed that enthusiastic love of virginity which became his distinguishing trait. His progress in secular knowledge kept equal pace with his growth in piety. It was of extreme advantage to himself and to the Church that he acquired a thorough mastery of the Greek language and literature, the lack of which is so painfully apparent in the intellectual equipment of St. Augustine and, in the succeeding age, of the great St. Leo. In all probability the Greek Schism would not have taken place had East and West continued to converse as intimately as did St. Ambrose and St. Basil. Upon the completion of his liberal education, the Saint devoted his attention to the study and practice of the law, and soon so distinguished himself by the eloquence and ability of his pleadings at the court of the praetorian prefect, Anicius Probus, that the latter took his into his council, and later obtained for him from the Emperor Valentinian the office of consular governor of Liguria and Æmilia, with residence in Milan. “Go,” said the prefect, with unconscious prophecy, “conduct thyself not as a judge, but as bishop.” We have no means of ascertaining how long he retained the civic government of his province; we know only that his upright and gently administration gained for him the universal love and esteem of his subjects, paving the way for that sudden revolution in his life which was soon to take place. This was the more remarkable, because the province, and especially the city of Milan, was in a state of religious chaos, owing to the persistent machinations of the Arian faction.

Bishop of Milan

Ever since the heroic Bishop Dionysius, in the year 355, had been dragged in chains to his place of exile in the distant East, the ancient chair of St. Barnabas had been occupied by the intruded Cappadocian, Auxentius, an Arian filled with bitter hatred of the Catholic Faith, ignorant of the Latin language, a wily and violent persecutor of his orthodox subjects. To the great relief of the Catholics, the death of the petty tyrant in 374 ended a bondage which had lasted nearly twenty years. The bishops of the province, dreading the inevitable tumults of a popular election, begged the Emperor Valentinian to appoint a successor by imperial edict; he, however, decided that the election must take place in the usual way. It devolved upon Ambrose, therefore, to maintain order in the city at this perilous juncture. Proceeding to the basilica in which the disunited clergy and people were assembled, he began a conciliatory discourse in the interest of peace and moderation, but was interrupted by a voice (according to Paulinus, the voice of an infant) crying, “Ambrose, Bishop.” The cry was instantly repeated by the entire assembly, and Ambrose, to his surprise and dismay, was unanimously pronounced elected. Quite apart from any supernatural intervention, he was the only logical candidate, known to the Catholics as a firm believer in the Nicene Creed, unobnoxious to the Arians, as one who had kept aloof from all theological controversies. The only difficulty was that of forcing the bewildered consular to accept an office for which his previous training nowise fitted him. Strange to say, like so many other believers of that age, from a misguided reverence for the sanctity of baptism, he was still only a catechumen, and by a wise provision of the canons ineligible to the episcopate. That he was sincere in his repugnance to accepting the responsibilities of the sacred office, those only have doubted who have judged a great man by the standard of their own pettiness. Were Ambrose the worldly-minded, ambitious, and scheming individual they choose to paint him, he would have surely sought advancement in the career that lay wide open before him as a man of acknowledged ability and noble blood. It is difficult to believe that he resorted to the questionable expedients mentioned by his biographer as practised by him with a view to undermining his reputation with the populace. At any rate his efforts were unsuccessful. Valentinian, who was proud that his favourable opinion of Ambrose had been so fully ratified by the voice of clergy and people, confirmed the election and pronounced severe penalties against all who should abet him in his attempt to conceal himself. The Saint finally acquiesced, received baptism at the hands of a Catholic bishop, and eight day later, 7 December 374, the day on which East and West annually honour his memory, after the necessary preliminary degrees was consecrated bishop.

He was now in his thirty-fifth year, and was destined to edify the Church for the comparatively long space of twenty-three active years. From the very beginning he proved himself to be that which he has ever since remained in the estimation of the Christian world, the perfect model of a Christian bishop. There is some truth underlying the exaggerated eulogy of the chastened Theodosius, as reported by Theodoret (v, 18), “I know no bishop worthy of the name, except Ambrose.” In him the magnanimity of the Roman patrician was tempered by the meekness and charity of the Christian saint. His first act in the episcopate, imitated by many a saintly successor, was to divest himself of his worldly goods. His personal property he gave to the poor; he made over his landed possessions to the Church, making provision for the support of his beloved sister. The self-devotion of his brother, Satyrus, relieved him from the care of the temporalities, and enabled him to attend exclusively to his spiritual duties. In order to supply the lack of an early theological training, he devoted himself assiduously to the study of Scripture and the Fathers, with a marked preference for Origen and St. Basil, traces of whose influence are repeatedly met with in his works. With a genius truly Roman, he, like Cicero, Virgil, and other classical authors, contented himself with thoroughly digesting and casting into a Latin mould the best fruits of Greek thought. His studies were of an eminently practical nature; he learned that he might teach. In the exordium of his treatise, “De Officiis,” he complains that, owing to the suddenness of his transfer from the tribunal to the pulpit, he was compelled to learn and teach simultaneously. His piety, sound judgment, and genuine Catholic instinct preserved him from error, and his fame as an eloquent expounder of Catholic doctrine soon reached the ends of the earth. His power as an orator is attested not only by the repeated eulogies, but yet more by the conversion of the skilled rhetorician Augustine. His style is that of a man who is concerned with thoughts rather than words. We cannot imagine him wasting time in turning an elegant phrase. “He was one of those,” says St. Augustine, “who speak the truth, and speak it well, judiciously, pointedly, and with beauty and power of expression” (De doct. christ., iv,21).

His Daily Life

Through the door of his chamber, wide open the livelong day, and crossed unannounced by all, of whatever estate, who had any sort of business with him, we catch a clear glimpse of his daily life. In the promiscuous throng of his visitors, the high official who seeks his advice upon some weighty affair of state is elbowed by some anxious questioner who wishes to have his doubts removed, or some repentant sinner who comes to make a secret confession of his offenses, certain that the Saint “would reveal his sins to none but God alone” (Paulinus, Vita, xxxix). He ate but sparingly, dining only on Saturdays and Sundays and festivals of the more celebrated martyrs. His long nocturnal vigils were spent in prayer, in attending to his vast correspondence, and in penning down the thoughts that had occurred to him during the day in his oft- interrupted readings. His indefatigable industry and methodical habits explain how so busy a man found time to compose so many valuable books. Every day, he tells us, he offered up the Holy Sacrifice for his people (pro quibus ego quotidie instauro sacrificium). Every Sunday his eloquent discourses drew immense crowds to the Basilica. One favorite topic of his was the excellence of virginity, and so successful was he in persuading maidens to adopt the religious profession that many a mother refused to permit her daughters to listen to his words. The saint was forced to refute the charge that he was depopulating the empire, by quaintly appealing to the young men as to whether any of them experienced any difficulty in finding wives. He contends, and the experience of ages sustains his contention (De Virg., vii) that the population increases in direct proportion to the esteem in which virginity is held. His sermons, as was to be expected, were intensely practical, replete with pithy rules of conduct which have remained as household words among Christians. In his method of biblical interpretation all the personages of Holy Writ, from Adam down, stand out before the people as living beings, bearing each his distinct message from God for the instruction of the present generation. He did not write his sermons, but spoke them from the abundance of his heart; and from notes taken during their delivery he compiled almost all the treatises of his that are extant.

Ambrose and the Arians

It was but natural that a prelate so high-minded, so affable, so kind to the poor, so completely devoting his great gifts to the service of Christ and of humanity, should soon with the enthusiastic love of his people. Rarely, if ever, has a Christian bishop been so universally popular, in the best sense of that much abused term, as Ambrose of Milan. This popularity, conjoined with his intrepidity, was the secret of his success in routing enthroned iniquity. The heretical Empress Justina and her barbarian advisers would many a time fain have silenced him by exile or assassination, but, like Herod in the case of the Baptist, they “feared the multitude.” His heroic struggles against the aggressions of the secular power have immortalized him as the model and forerunner of future Hildebrands, Beckets, and other champions of religious liberty. The elder Valentinian died suddenly in 375, the year following the consecration of Ambrose, leaving his Arian brother Valens to scourge the East, and his oldest son, Gratian, to rule the provinces formerly presided over by Ambrosius, with no provision for the government of Italy. The army seized the reins and proclaimed emperor the son of Valentinian by his second wife, Justina, a boy four years old. Gratian good-naturally acquiesced, and assigned to his half-brother the sovereignty of Italy, Illyricum, and Africa. Justina had prudently concealed her Arian view during the lifetime of her orthodox husband, but now, abetted by a powerful and mainly Gothic faction at court, proclaimed her determination to rear her child in that heresy, and once more attempt to Arianize the West. This of necessity brought her into direct collision with the Bishop of Milan, who had quenched the last embers of Arianism in his diocese. That heresy had never been popular among the common people; it owed its artificial vitality to the intrigues of courtiers and sovereigns. As a preliminary to the impending contest, Ambrose, at the request of Gratian, who was about to lead an army to the relief of Valens, and wished to have at hand an antidote against Oriental sophistry, wrote his noble work, “De Fide ad Gratianum Augustum,” afterwards expanded, and extant in five books. The first passage at arms between Ambrose and the Empress was on the occasion of an episcopal election at Sirmium, the capital of Illyricum, and at the time the residence of Justina. Notwithstanding her efforts, Ambrose was successful in securing the election of a Catholic bishop. He followed up this victory by procuring, at the Council of Aquilein, (381), over which he presided, the deposition of the only remaining Arianizing prelates of the West, Palladius and Secundianus, both Illyrians. The battle royal between Ambrose and the Empress, in the years 385,386, has been graphically described by Cardinal Newman in his “Historical Sketches.” The question at issue was the surrender of one of the basilicas to the Arians for public worship. Throughout the long struggle Ambrose displayed in an eminent degree all the qualities of a great leader. His intrepidity in the moments of personal danger was equalled only by his admirable moderation; for, at certain critical stages of the drama one word from him would have hurled the Empress and her son from their throne. That word was never spoken. An enduring result of this great struggle with despotism was the rapid development during its course of the ecclesiastical chant, of which Ambrose laid the foundation. Unable to overcome the fortitude of the Bishop and the spirit of the people, the court finally desisted from its efforts. Ere long it was forced to call upon Ambrose to exert himself to save the imperilled throne.

Already he had been sent on an embassy to the court of the usurper, Maximus, who in the year 383 had defeated and slain Gratian, and now ruled in his place. Largely through his efforts an understanding had been reached between Maximus and Theodosius, whom Gratian had appointed to rule the East. It provided that Maximus should content himself with his present possessions and respect the territory of Valentinian II. Three years later Maximus determined to cross the Alps. The tyrant received Ambrose unfavourably and, on the plea, very honourable to the Saint, that he refused to hold communion with the bishops who had compassed the death of Priscillian (the first instance of capital punishment inflicted for heresy by a Christian prince) dismissed him summarily from his court. Shortly after, Maximus invaded Italy. Valentinian and his mother fled to Theodosius, who took up their cause, defeated the usurper, and put him to death. At this time Justina died, and Valentinian, by the advice of Theodosius, abjured Arianism and placed himself under the guidance of Ambrose, to whom he became sincerely attached. It was during the prolonged stay of Theodosius in the West that one of most remarkable episodes in the history of the Church took place; the public penance inflicted by the Bishop and submitted to by the Emperor. The long-received story, set afoot by the distant Theodoret, which extols the Saint’s firmness at the expense of his equally pronounced virtues of prudence and meekness—that Ambrose stopped the Emperor at the porch of the church and publicly upbraided and humiliated him—is shown by modern criticism to have been greatly exaggerated. The emergency called into action every episcopal virtue. When the news reached Milan that the seditious Thessalonians had killed the Emperor’s officials, Ambrose and the council of bishops, over which he happened to be presiding at the time, made an apparently successful appeal to the clemency of Theodosius. Great was their horror, when, shortly after Theodosius, yielding to the suggestions of Rufinose and other courtiers, ordered an indiscriminate massacre of the citizens, in which seven thousand perished. In order to avoid meeting the blood-stained monarch or offering up the Holy Sacrifice in his presence, and, moreover, to give him time to ponder the enormity of a deed so foreign to his character, the Saint, pleading ill-health, and sensible that he exposed himself to the charge of cowardice, retired to the country, whence he sent a noble letter “written with my own hand, that thou alone mayst read it,” exhorting the Emperor to repair his crime by an exemplary penance. With “religious humility,” says St. Augustine (DeCiv.Dei.,V,xxvi), Theodosius submitted; “and, being laid hold of by the discipline of the Church, did penance in such a way that the sight of his imperial loftiness prostrated made the people who were interceding for him weep more than the consciousness of offence had made them fear it when enraged.” “Stripping himself of every emblem of royalty,” says Ambrose in his funeral oration (c. 34), “he publicly in church bewailed his sin. That public penance, which private individuals shrink from, an Emperor was not ashamed to perform; nor was there afterwards a day on which he did not grieve for his mistake.” This plain narrative, without theatrical setting, is much more honourable both to the Bishop and his sovereign.

Last Days of Ambrose

The murder of his youthful ward, Valentinian II, which happened in Gaul, May, 393, just as Ambrose was crossing the Alps to baptize him plunged the Saint into deep affliction. His eulogy delivered at Milan is singularly tender; he courageously described him as a martyr baptized in his own blood. The usurper Eugenius was, in fact, a heathen at heart, and openly proclaimed his resolution to restore paganism. He reopened the heathen temples, and ordered the famous altar of Victory, concerning which Ambrose and the prefect Symmachus had maintained a long and determined literary contest, to be again set up in the Roman senate chamber. This triumph of paganism was of short duration. Theodosius in the spring of 391 again lead his legions into the West, and in a brief campaign defeated and slew the tyrant. Roman heathenism perished with him. The Emperor recognized the merits of the great Bishop of Milan by announcing his victory on the evening of the battle and asking him to celebrate a solemn sacrifice of thanksgiving. Theodosius did not long survive his triumph; he died at Milan a few months later (January 395) with Ambrose at his bedside and the name of Ambrose on his lips. “Even while death was dissolving his body,” says the Saint, “he was more concerned about the welfare of the churches than about his personal danger.” “I loved him, and am confident that the Lord will hearken to the prayer I send up for his pious soul” (In obitu Theodosii, c. 35). Only two years elapsed before a kindly death reunited these two magnanimous souls. No human frame could long endure the incessant activity of an Ambrose. One instance, recorded by his secretary, of his extraordinary capacity for work is significant. He died on Good Friday. The following day five bishops found difficulty in baptizing the crowd to which he had been accustomed to administer the sacrament unaided. When the news spread that he was seriously ill, Count Stilicho, “fearing that his death would involve the destruction of Italy,” despatched an embassy, composed of the chief citizens, to implore him to pray God to prolong his days. The response of the Saint made a deep impression on St. Augustine: “I have not so lived amongst you, that I need be ashamed to live; nor do I fear to die, for we have a good Lord.” For several hours before his death he lay with extended arms in imitation of his expiring Master, who also appeared to him in person. The Body of Christ was given him by the Bishop of Vercelli, and, “after swallowing It, he peacefully breathed his last.” It was the fourth of April, 397. He was interred as he had desired, in his beloved basilica, by the side of the holy martyrs, Gervasius and Protasius, the discovery of whose relics, during his great struggle with Justina, had so consoled him and his faithful adherents. In the year 835 one of his successors, Angilbert II, placed the relics of the three saints in as porphyry sarcophagus under the altar, where they were found in 1864. The works of St. Ambrose were issued first from the press of Froben at Basle, 1527, under the supervision of Erasmus. A more elaborate edition was printed in Rome in the year 1580 and following. Cardinal Montalto was the chief editor until elevation to the papacy as Sixtus V. It is in five volumes and still retains a value owing to the prefixed “Life” of the Saint, composed by Baronius. Then came the excellent Maurist edition published in two volumes at Paris, in 1686 and 1690; reprinted by Migne in four volumes. The career of St. Ambrose occupies a prominent place in all histories, ecclesiastical and secular, of the fourth century. Tillemont’s narrative, in the tenth volume of his “Memoirs,” is particularly valuable. The question of the genuineness of the so-called eighteen Ambrosian Hymns is of secondary importance. The great merit of the Saint in the field of hymnology is that of laying the foundations and showing posterity what ample scope there existed for future development.

Writings of Saint Ambrose

The special character and value of the writings of St. Ambrose are at once tangible in the title of Doctor of the Church, which from time immemorial he has shared in the West with St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and St. Gregory. He is an official witness to the teaching of the Catholic Church in his own time and in the preceding centuries. As such his writings have been constantly invoked by popes, councils and theologians; even in his own day it was felt that few could voice so clearly the true sense of the Scriptures and the teaching of the Church (St. Augustine, De doctrinâ christ.,IV,46,48,50). Ambrose is pre-eminently the ecclesiastical teacher, setting forth in a sound and edifying way, and with conscientious regularity, the deposit of faith as made known to him. He is not the philosophic scholar meditating in silence and retirement on the truths of the Christian Faith, but the strenuous administrator, bishop, and statesman, whose writings are only the mature expression of his official life and labours. Most of his writings are really homilies, spoken commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, taken down by his hearers, and afterwards reduced to their present form, though very few of these discourses have reached us exactly as they fell from the lips of the great bishop. In Ambrose the native Roman genius shines out with surpassing distinctness; he is clear, sober, practical, and aims always at persuading his hearers to act at once on the principles and arguments he has laid down, which affect nearly every phase of their religious or moral life. “He is a genuine Roman in whom the ethico-practical note is always dominant. He had neither time nor liking for philosophico-dogmatic speculations. In all his writings he follows some practical purpose. Hence he is often content to reproduce what has been already treated, to turn over for another harvest a field already worked. He often draws abundantly from the ideas of some earlier writer, Christian or pagan, but adapts these thoughts with tact and intelligence to the larger public of his time and his people. In formal perfection his writings leave something to be desired; a fact that need not surprise us when we recall the demands on the time of such a busy man. His diction abounds in unconscious reminiscences of classical writers, Greek and Roman. He is especially conversant with the writings of Virgil. His style is in every way peculiar and personal. It is never wanting in a certain dignified reserve; when it appears more carefully studied than is usual with him, its characteristics are energetic brevity and bold originality. Those of his writings that are homiletic in origin and form betray naturally the great oratorical gifts of Ambrose; in them he rises occasionally to a noble height of poetical inspiration. His hymns are a sufficient evidence of the sure mastery that he possessed over the Latin language.” (Bardenhewer, Les pères de l’église, Paris, 1898, 736 -737; cf. Pruner, Die Theologie des heil. Ambrosius, Eichstadt, 1864.) For convenience sake his extant writings may be divided into four classes: exegetical, dogmatic, ascetico-moral, and occasional. The exegetical writings, or scripture-commentaries deal with the story of Creation, the Old Testament figures of Cain and Abel, Noe, Abraham and the patriarchs, Elias, Tobias, David and the Psalms, and other subjects. Of his discourses on the New Testament only the lengthy commentary on St. Luke has reached us (Expositio in Lucam). He is not the author of the admirable commentary on the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul known as “Ambrosiaster.” Altogether these Scripture commentaries make up more than one half of the writings of Ambrose. He delights in the allegorico-mystical interpretation of Scripture, i.e. while admitting the natural or literal sense he seeks everywhere a deeper mystic meaning that he converts into practical instruction for Christian life. In this, says St. Jerome (Ep.xli) “he was disciple of Origen, but after the modifications in that master’s manner due to St. Hippolytus of Rome and St. Basil the Great.” He was also influenced in this direction by the Jewish writer Philo to such an extent that the much corrupted text of the latter can often be successfully corrected from the echoes and reminiscences met with in the works of Ambrose. It is to be noted, however, that in his use of non-Christian writers the great Doctor never abandons a strictly Christian attitude (cf. Kellner, Der heilige Ambrosius als Erklärer das Alten Testamentes, Ratisbon, 1893).

The most influential of his ascetico-moral writings is the work on the duties of Christian ecclesiastics (De officiis ministrorum). It is a manual of Christian morality, and in its order and disposition follows closely the homonymous work of Cicero. “Nevertheless,” says Dr. Bardenhewer, “the antitheses between the philosophical morality of the pagan and the morality of the Christian ecclesiastic is acute and striking. In his exhortations, particularly, Ambrose betrays an irresistible spiritual power” (cf. R. Thamin, Saint Ambroise et la morale chrétienne at quatrième siècle, Paris, 1895). He wrote several works on virginity, or rather published a number of his discourses on that virtue, the most important of which is the treatise “On Virgins” addressed to his sister Marcellina, herself a virgin consecrated to the divine service. St. Jerome says (Ep. xxii) that he was the most eloquent and exhaustive of all the exponents of virginity, and his judgment expresses yet the opinion of the church. The genuineness of the touching little work “On the Fall of a Consecrated Virgin” (De lapsu virginis consecratæ) has been called in question, but without sufficient reason. Dom Germain Morin maintains that it is a real homily of Ambrose, but like so many more of his so-called “books,” owes its actual form to some one of his auditors. His dogmatic writings deal mostly with the divinity of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost, also with the Christian sacraments. At the request of the young Emperor Gratian (375–383) he composed a defence of the true divinity of Jesus Christ against the Arians, and another on the true divinity of the Holy Ghost against the Macedonians; also a work on the Incarnation of Our Lord. His work “On Penance” was written in refutation of the rigoristic tenets of the Novatians and abounds in useful evidences of the power of the Church to forgive sins, the necessity of confession and the meritorious character of good works. A special work on Baptism (De sacramento regenerationis), often quoted by St. Augustine, has perished. We possess yet, however, his excellent treatise (De Mysteriis) on Baptism, Confirmation, and the Blessed Eucharist (P.L. XVI, 417–462), addressed to the newly baptized. Its genuineness has been called in doubt by opponents of Catholic teaching concerning the Eucharist, but without any good reason. It is highly probable that the work on the sacraments (De Sacramentis, ibid.) is identical with the preceding work; only, says Bardenhewer, “indiscreetly published by some hearer of Ambrose.” Its evidences to the sacrificial character of the Mass, and to the antiquity of the Roman Canon of the Mass are too well known to need more than a mention; some of them may easily be seen in any edition of the Roman Breviary (cf. Probst, Die Liturgie des vierten Jahrhunderts und deren Reform, Münster, 1893, 232–239). The correspondence of Ambrose includes but a few confidential or personal letters; most of his letters are official notes, memorials on public affairs, reports of councils held, and the like. Their historical value is, however, of the first order, and they exhibit him as a Roman administrator and statesman second to none in Church or State. If his personal letters are unimportant, his remaining discourses are of a very high order. His work on the death (378) of his brother Satyrus (De excessu fratris sui Satyri) contains his funeral sermon on his brother, one of the earliest of Christian panegryics and a model of the consolatory discourses that were henceforth to take the place of the cold and inept declamations of the Stoics. His funeral discourses on Valentinian II (392), and Theodosius the Great (395) are considered models of rhetorical composition; (cf. Villemain, De l’éloquence chrétienne, Paris, ed. 1891); they are also historical documents of much importance. Such, also, are his discourse against the Arian intruder, Auxentius (Contra Auxentium de basilicis tradendis) and his two discourses on the finding of the bodies of the Milanese martyrs Gervasius and Protasius.

Not a few works have been falsely attributed to St. Ambrose; most of them are found in the Benedictine Edition of his writings (reprinted in Migne) and are discussed in the manuals of patrology(e.g. Bardenhewer). Some of his genuine works appear to have been lost, e.g. the already mentioned work on baptism. St. Augustine (Ep. 31, 8) is loud in his praise of a (now lost) work of Ambrose written against those who asserted an intellectual dependency of Jesus Christ on Plato. It is not improbable that he is really the author of the Latin translation and paraphrase of Josephus (De Bello Judaico), known in the Middle Ages as Hegesippus or Egesippus, a distortion of the Greek name of the original author (Iosepos). Mommsen denies (1890) his authorship of the famous Roman law text known as the “Lex Dei, sive Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio,” an attempt to exhibit the law of Moses as the historical source whence Roman criminal jurisprudence drew its principal dispositions.

Editions of his Writings

The literary history of the editions of his writings is a long one and may be seen in the best lives of Ambrose. Erasmus edited them in four tomes at Basle (1527). A valuable Roman edition was brought out in 1580, in five volumes, the result of many years’ labour; it was begun be Sixtus V, while yet the monk Felice Peretti. Prefixed to it is the life of St. Ambrose composed by Baronius for his Ecclesiastical Annals. The excellent Benedictine edition appeared at Paris (1686–90) in two folio volumes; it was twice reprinted at Venice (1748–51, and 1781–82). The latest edition of the writings of St. Ambrose is that of P.A. Ballerini (Milan, 1878) in six folio volumes; it has not rendered superfluous the Benedictine edition of du Frische and Le Nourry. Some writings of Ambrose have appeared in the Vienna series known as the “Corpus Scriptorum Classicorum Latinorum” (Vienna, 1897–1907). There is an English version of selected works of St. Ambrose by H. de Romestin in the tenth volume of the second series of the “Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (New York, 1896). A German version of selected writings in two volumes, executed by Fr. X. Schulte, is found in the “Bibliothek der Kirchenväter” (Kempten, 1871–77).

For exhaustive bibliographies see Chevalier, Répertoire, etc., Bio-Bibliographie (2d ed., Paris, 1905), 186–89; Bardenhewer, Patrologie (2d ed. Freiburg, 1901), 387–89. Da Broglie, Les Saints, St. Ambroise (Paris, 1899); Davies in Dict. of Christ. Biogr., s.v., I, 91–99; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 7 Dec.; Förster, Ambrosius, Bischof von Mailand (Halle, 1884); Imm, Studia Ambrosiana (Leipzig, 1890); FERRARI, Introduction to Ambrosiana, a collection of learned studies published (Milan 1899) on accasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death. The introduction mentioned is by CARDINAL FERRARI, Archbishop of Milan.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

St. Ambrose of Camaldoli

An Italian theologian and writer, b. at Portico, near Florence, 16 September, 1386; d. 21 October, 1439. His name was Ambrose Traversari. He entered the Order of the Camaldoli when fourteen and became its General in 1431. He was a great theologian and writer, and knew Greek as well as he did Latin. These gifts and his familiarity with the affairs of the Church led Eugenius IV to send him to the Council of Basle, where Ambrose strongly defended the primacy of the Roman pontiff and adjured the council not to rend asunder Christ’s seamless robe. He was next sent by the Pope to the Emperor Sigismond to ask his aid for the pontiff in his efforts to end this council, which for five years had been trenching on the papal prerogatives. The Pope transferred the council from basle to Ferrara, 18 September, 1437. In this council, and later, in that of Florence, Ambrose by his efforts, and charity toward some poor Greek bishops, greatly helped to bring about a union of the two Churches, the decree for which, 6 July, 1439, he was called on to draw up. He died soon after. His works are a treatise on the Holy Eucharist, one on the Procession of the Holy Ghost, many lives of saints, a history of his generalship of the Camaldolites. He also translated from Greek into Latin a life of Chrysostom (Venice, 1533); the Spiritual Wisdom of John Moschus; the Ladder of Paradise of St. John Climacus (Venice, 1531), P.G., LXXXVIII. He also translated four books against the errors of the Greeks, by Manuel Kalekas, Patriarch of Constantinople, a Dominican monk (Ingolstadt, 1608), P.G., CLII, col. 13–661, a work known only through Ambrose’s translation. He also translated many homilies of St. John Chrysostom; the treatise of the pseudo-Denis the Areopagite on the celestial hierarchy; St. Basil’s treatise on virginity; thirty nine discourses of St. Ephrem the Syrian, and many other works of the Fathers and writers of the Greek Church. Dom Mabillon’s “Letters and Orations of S. Ambrose of Camaldoli” was published at Florence, 1759. St. Ambrose is honoured by the Church on 20 November.

HEFELE, Hist. of Councils (Edinburgh, 1871–96), XI, 313 sqq., 420, 463; MANSI, Coll. sacr. council. (Venice, 1788, 1792, 1798), XXIX, XXX, XXXI; EHRHARD in KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, 2d ed. (Munich, 1897), 111–144.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Bl. Ambrose of Sienna

Born at Sienna, 16 April, 1220, of the noble family of Sansedoni; d. at Sienna, in 1286. When about one year old, Ambrose was cured of a congenital deformity, in the Dominican church of St. Mary Magdalene. As a child and youth he was noted for his love of charity, exercised especially towards pilgrims, the sick in hospitals, and prisoners. He entered the novitiate of the Dominican convent in his native city at the age of seventeen, was sent to Paris to continue his philosophical and theological studies under Albert the Great, and had for a fellow-student there St. Thomas Aquinas. In 1248 he was sent with St. Thomas to Cologne where he taught in the Dominican schools. In 1260 he was one of the band of missionaries who evangelized Hungary. In 1266 Sienna was put under an interdict for having espoused the cause of the Emperor Frederick II, then at enmity with the Holy See. The Siennese petitioned Ambrose to plead their cause before the Sovereign Pontiff, and so successfully did he do this that he obtained for his native city full pardon and a renewal of all her privileges. The Siennese soon cast off their allegiance; a second time Ambrose obtained pardon for them. He brought about a reconciliation between Emperor Conrad of Germany and Pope Clement IV. About his time he was chosen bishop of his native city, but he declined the office. For a time, he devoted himself to preaching the Crusade; and later, at the request of Pope Gregory X, caused the studies which the late wars had practically suspended to be resumed in the Dominican convent at Rome. After the death of Pope Gregory X he retired to one of the convents of his order, whence he was summoned by Innocent V and sent as papal legate to Tuscany. He restored peace between Venice and Genoa and also between Florence and Pisa. His name was inserted in the Roman Martyrology in 1577. His biographers exhibit his life as one of perfect humility. He loved poetry, and many legends are told of victories over carnal temptations. He was renowned as an apostolic preacher. His oratory, simple rather than elegant, was most convincing and effective. His sermons, although once collected, are not now extant.

Acta SS., March, III, 180–251; CROISSANT, Synopsis vit et miraculorum B. Ambrosii Senensis (Brussels, 1623); QUÉTIF ET ECHARD, SS. Ord. Proed. (Paris, 1719); RAYNALDUS, Annales (1648), ad ann. 1286; TOURON, Histoire des hommes illustres de l’ordre de S. Dominique (Paris, 1743).

E.G. FITZGERALD

Ambrosian Basilica

This basilica was erected at Milan by its great fourth-century bishop, St. Ambrose, and was consecrated in the year 386. The basilica in its present form was constructed at four different periods, three of which fall within the ninth, the fourth in the twelfth, century. Yet, although the original church has disappeared, a fairly good idea of its appearance in the time of its founder may be obtained from references in the writings of St. Ambrose, supplemented by modern researches. The original edifice, like the great churches of Rome of the same epoch, belonged to the basilica type; it consisted of a central nave lighted from the clerestory, two side aisles, an apse, and an atrium. Investigations made in 1864 have established the fact that the nave and the aisles of the existing basilica correspond with those of the primitive church; the atrium, however, which dates from the ninth century, and two smaller apses, flanking a new central apse of greater depth than the original, were erected. The altar occupies about the same place as in the time of St. Ambrose, and the columns of the ciborium appear never to have been disturbed; they still rest on the original pavement. The Ambrosian basilica, so called even during the life of its founder, was consecrated under circumstances which recall one of the most momentous episodes in the relations of Church and State in the fourth century. On the death of the Emperor Gratian (383), the Empress Justina, in the name of her son, the young Valentinian II, succeeded to the government of the Western half of the Empire. Justina was a zealous Arian, and Milan, where she took up her residence, was militantly orthodox. As the Arians at the time had no place of worship in Milan, the Empress demanded one from Ambrose; but the Bishop without a moment’s hesitation refused to comply with her wish. For more than a year Justina and her advisors endeavoured to attain their object; but the firmness of Ambrose, who was supported by the Catholics of Milan, brought all their exertions to naught. The crisis in the unprecedented contest came during the Holy Week of 386. Ambrose received an order to depart from the city; he replied that he would not desert his flock unless forced to do so. He then proceeded to officiate as usual at the Holy Week services in the new basilica. While these functions progressed, the basilica was surrounded by troops, with the design of seizing the Bishop and the church at one stroke, but the people refused to yield. The doors were closed, and for several days St. Ambrose and the congregation endured a siege. The soldiers, however, were by no means hostile, and many of them joined in the singing of the hymns composed by the Bishop for the occasion. Under these circumstances, practically abandoned by the soldiers as well as by the people, the Empress was forced to yield, and peace was restored. For the story of the exclusion of Theodosius from taking part in the celebration of the liturgy, as well as the submission of the great Emperor, see AMBROSE, SAINT.

After the final victory of Ambrose over the Arian faction at court, the people requested him to consecrate the basilica, which at its opening had only been dedicated. The Bishop replied that he would do so, could he obtain relics of martyrs. This obstacle was removed, St. Augustine informs us (Confess., IX, vii), by the discovery in the Naborian basilica of the relics of Sts. Gervasius and Protasius, the location of whose tombs was revealed to St. Ambrose in a vision. The translation of these martyrs’ relics to the new basilica was made with the greatest solemnity, and served as the crowning triumph of the orthodox over the Arians. In the explorations of 1864 the sarcophagi which in the fourth century contained these relics, as well as the sarcophagus of St. Ambrose, were discovered in the confession of the basilica. The remains of all three saints were found in a porphyry sarcophagus to which they had been transferred, probably in the ninth century, by Archbishop Angilbert II (824–859). Like his contemporary and friend, St. Paulinus of Nola, St. Ambrose adorned the walls of his basilica with frescoes representing various scenes from the Old and New Testament. From the distich inscriptions, composed by St. Ambrose, accompanying each group, we learn what subjects were depicted. Noe, the ark, and the dove recalled a favorite subject of the catacombs, though the symbolic meaning was somewhat different. Abraham was represented contemplating the stars, less numerous than his posterity were destined to be; the same patriarch with Sara, in another scene, was acting as host to Angels. Isaac and Rebecca, two scenes from the life of Jacob, and two from that of Joseph formed part of the cycle from the Old Testament. The New Testament was represented by five scenes: the Annunciation, the conversion of Zaccheus, the Haemorrhoissa, the Transfiguration, and St. John, reclining on the breast of Our Saviour. The altar of the basilica, erected in the first half of the ninth century, is a work of rare merit. The famous brazen serpent stands on a column in the nave, on the left, and is balanced by a cross on the right. This was brought from Constantinople about the year 1001, by Archbishop Arnolf, and placed in the Ambrosian basilica under the supposition that it was the brazen serpent erected in the desert by Moses. Archaeologists regard it as very probably a pagan emblem of Esculapius.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Ambrosian Chant

The question as to what constitutes Ambrosian chant in the sense of chant composed by St. Ambrose has been for a long time, and still is, a subject for research and discussion among historians and archæologists. When the saint became Bishop of Milan, in 374, he found a liturgy in use which tradition associates with St. Barnabas. It is presumed that this liturgy, which was brought from Greece and Syria, included singing by the celebrant as well as the spoken word and liturgical action. On the other hand, it is certain that the greater part of the chants now used in connection with the Ambrosian, or Milanese, rite, which are frequently designated in the wider sense as Ambrosian chant, originated in subsequent centuries as the liturgy was developed and completed. So far no documents have been brought to light which would prove that the saint composed anything except the melodies to most of his hymns. Of a large number of hymns attributed to him, only fourteen are pronounced with certainty to be his, while four more may be assigned to him with more or less probability. Like any other great man who dominates his time, St. Ambrose had many imitators, and it so happened that hymns written by his contemporaries or those who came after him, in the form which he used, that is, the Iambic dimeter, were called “Hymni Ambrosiani.” The confusion brought about in the course of time by the indiscriminate use of this designation has necessitated endless study and research before it was decided with any degree of certainty which hymns were by St. Ambrose and which by his imitators. As regards the melodies, it has been equally difficult for archæologists to distinguish them and restore them to what was probably their original form.

Although the opinion that the early Western Church received into her liturgy, together with the psalms of the Old Testament, the melodies to which they had been sung in the Temple and the synagogues, and that melismatic chants (those in which many notes may be sung to one syllable of the text, in contradistinction to syllabic chants, in which there is only one note for each syllable) were in use from the beginning, has been defended with plausibility by men like Hermesdorf, Delitzsch, and, lately, by Houdard (Cantilène Romaine, 1905), no direct contemporary testimony that such was the case has yet been discovered. It is likely that the florid, or melismatic, style in which most of our Gregorian propria are written, and which many authorities hold to be of Hebrew origin, found its way into the Church at a much later period. The literature at the time of St. Ambrose shows that the Greek music was the only kind known to the saint and his contemporaries. St. Augustine, who wrote his unfinished work “De Musicâ” at about the time that St. Ambrose wrote his hymns, gives us an idea as to the form which the melodies must have had originally. He defines music as “the science of moving well” (scientia bene movendi) and the Iambic foot as consisting “of a short and a long, of three beats.” As in the case of St. Ambrose we have poet and composer in one person, it is but natural to suppose that his melodies took the form and rhythm of his verses. The fact that these hymns were intended to be sung by the whole congregation, over which, according to the Arians, the saint cast a magic spell by means of his music, also speaks in favour of their having been syllabic in character and simple in rhythm. For several centuries it has been held that St. Ambrose composed what are now termed antiphons and responsories. There is no satisfactory proof that such is the case. The fact that he introduced the antiphonal (alternate) mode of singing the psalms and his own hymns (each of the latter had eight stanzas), by dividing the congregation into two choirs, probably gave rise to this opinion. The responsory as practised by direction of St. Ambrose consisted in intoning the verse of a psalm by one or more chanters and the repetition of the same by the congregation.

Guido Maria Dreves, S.J., F. A. Gevaert, Hugo Riemann, and others have endeavoured to show how the melodies belonging to the authentic Ambrosian texts have been transmitted to posterity and what rhythmical and melodic changes they have suffered in the course of time in different countries. Dreves first consulted the “Psalterium, cantica et hymni aliaque divinis officiis ritu Ambrosiano psallendis communia modulationibus opportunis notata Frederici [Borromeo] Cardinalis Archiepiscopi jussu edita. Mediolani apud hæredes Pacifici Pontii et Joannem Baptistam Piccaleum impressorem archiepiscopalem, MDCXIX” and the complete Ambrosian manuscript Hymnary in the Bibliotheca Trivulziana in Milan, which two works are most likely to contain the best traditions. The melodies as they appeared in these works were then compared with manuscripts of the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries at Naples, Monza, Prague, Heiligen Kreuz, St. Florian (Austria), Nevers (France), and Coldingham (Scotland), preserved by the Cistercian monks, who from the foundation of that order had used the Ambrosian hymnary and not the Roman. This comparison made it possible to eliminate the many melismatic accretions and modifications received, evidently, at the hands of singers who were influenced by the taste of their times and found the original melodic simplicity unsatisfactory. As to the rhythm, it must be remembered that the Ambrosian, like all plain-chant melodies, lost their rhythm in the course of the Middle Ages. They were transcribed from the ancient neumatic notation into square notes of equal length, the time given to them being determined by the text syllables to which they were sung. Bearing in mind St. Augustine’s definition, and the fact that in St. Ambrose’s time accent had not overshadowed quantity in poetry, we see that Dreves is justified in his mode of restoring the melodies, at least as far as their rhythm is concerned. Inasmuch as all the hymns are written in the same metre, the melodies may be, and undoubtedly have been, used interchangeably. The following illustrations will give us an idea of the different forms of the same melody in the various codices. The melody to the hymn “Æterne rerum Conditor,” according to the above- mentioned Psalterium and the hymnary of the Bibliotheca Trivulziana, we reproduce under (a). Under (b) we will give the same tune as it is contained in a codex of St. Florian dating from the fourteenth century. Under (c) is the same melody as restored by Dreves, stripped of its added notes, and in the rhythmical form which it probably had originally.

The hymn “Splendor paternæ gloriæ” exists in more different forms than the one which we have considered above. Version (a) gives the form of the melody as it reads in the Psalterium; (b), as it is in the antiphonary of Nevers of the twelfth century; (c), the version contained in a codex of the thirteenth century in the National Library at Naples; under (d), as it is found in an antiphonary of the fourteenth century in St. Florian, Austria, and, finally, (e) gives us the restored and, probably, the original form.

We next give the five variants of the hymn “Nunc Sanctæ nobis Spiritus,” of which (a) reproduces the melody as it is in the Bibliotheca Trivulziana; (b), from the codex of Nevers; (c), the Coldingham (thirteenth century) version; (d), that of the Cistercian manuscript of Prague (thirteenth century); and (e) is the Dreves restoration.

The melody in the Ambrosian hymn “Hic est dies verus Dei” is of added interest because it is the one to which the Pentecostal hymn “Veni Creator Spiritus” has always been sung. As the Easter hymn is older by several centuries than the “Veni Creator Spiritus,” the melody was adapted to the latter; (a) is the form it has in the Psalterium and the hymnary of the Bibliotheca Trivulziana; (b) gives us the Nevers adaptation of the melody to the “Veni Creator Spiritus”; (c) is Dreves’s restoration of the original form.

DREVES, Aurelus Ambrosianus, Der Vater der Kirchengesanges; GEVAERT, La mélopée antique dans le chant de l’église latine; JULIAN, Dict. of Hymnology; RIEMANN, Handbuch der Musikgeschichte; HOUDARD, La Cantilène Romaine. La Paleographie Musicale of the Benedictines of Solemes, V and VI also offers instructive material

JOSEPH OTTEN

Ambrosian Hymnography

The names of St. Hilary of Poitiers (died 367), who is mentioned by St. Isidore of Seville as the first to compose Latin hymns, and St. Ambrose, styled by Dreves “the Father of Church-song,” are linked together as those of pioneers of Western hymnody. The first actually to compose hymns was St. Hilary, who had spent in Asia Minor some years of exile from his see, and had thus become acquainted with the Syrian and Greek hymns of the Eastern Church. His “Liber Hymnorum” has unfortunately perished. Daniel, in his “Thesaurus Hymnologicus,” mistakenly attributed seven hymns to Hilary, two of which (“Lucis largitor splendide” and “Beata nobis gaudia”) were, down to the present day, considered by hymnologists generally to have had good reason for the ascription, until Blume (Analecta Hymnica, Leipzig, 1897, XXVII, 48–52; cf. also the review of Merrill’s “Latin Hymns” in the “Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift,” 24th March, 1906) showed the error underlying the ascription of Daniel and of those who followed his mistake. The two hymns are mentioned here, since they have the metric and strophic cast peculiar to the authenticated hymns of St. Ambrose and to the wellnigh innumerable hymns which were afterwards composed on the model, and often with the inspiration, of those of the Saint. It may be truly said, then, that St. Ambrose, writing hymns in a style severely elegant, chaste, perspicuous, clothing Christian ideas in classical phraseology, and yet appealing to popular tastes, and succeeding in the appeal, had indeed found a new form and created a new school of hymnody. Like St. Hilary, St. Ambrose was also a “Hammer of the Arians,” for the combatting of whose errors it was his special distinction to have composed hymns. Answering their complaints on this head, he says: “Assuredly I do not deny it. . . . All strive to confess their faith and know how to declare in verse the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.” And St. Augustine (Confessions, IX, vii, 15) speaks of the occasion when the hymns were introduced by Ambrose to be sung “according to the fashion of the East.” St. Isidore of Seville (died 636) testifies to the spread of the custom from Milan throughout the whole of the West, and refers to the hymns as “Ambrosian” (P. L., LXXXIII, col. 743). In uncritical ages, hymns, whether metrical or merely accentual, following the material form of those of St. Ambrose, were generally ascribed to him and were called “Ambrosiani.” As now used, the term implies no attribution of authorship, but rather a poetical form or a liturgical use. On the other hand, the term will still doubtless be used without implying necessarily a negation of authorship, in the belief that some may be really the compositions of the Saint, despite the calculations of the most recent scholarship, which gives fourteen hymns certainly, three very probably, and one probably, to him.

The rule of St. Benedict employed the term; and Walafridus Strabo (P. L., CXIV, coll. 954, 955) notes that, while St. Benedict styled the hymns to be used in the canonical hours Ambrosianos, the term is to he understood as referring to hymns composed either by St. Ambrose or by others who followed his form; and, remarking further that many hymns were wrongly supposed to be his, thinks it incredible that he should have composed “some of them, which have no logical coherence and exhibit an awkwardness alien to the style of Ambrose.” Daniel gives no less than ninety-two Ambrosiani, under the heading, however, of “S. Ambrosius et Ambrosiani,” implying a distinction which for the present he cared not to specify more minutely. The Maurists limited the number they would ascribe to St. Ambrose to twelve. Biraghi and Dreves raise the figure to eighteen. Kayser gives the four universally conceded to be authentic and two of the Ambrosiani which have claims to authenticity. Chevalier is criticised minutely and elaborately by Blume for his Ambrosian indications: twenty without reservation, seven “(S. Ambrosius),” two unbracketed but with a “?,” seven with bracket and question-mark, and eight with a varied lot of brackets, question-marks, and simultaneous possible ascriptions to other hymnodists. We shall give here first of all the four hymns acknowledged universally as authentic:

(1) “Æterne rerum Conditor”;

(2) “Deus Creator omnium”;

(3) “Jam surgit hora tertia”;

(4) “Veni Redemptor gentium.”

With respect to the first three, St. Augustine quotes from them and directly credits their authorship to St. Ambrose. He appears also to refer to No. 4 (the third verse in whose fourth strophe is: Geminœ Gigas substantiœ) when he says: “This going forth of our Giant [Gigantis] is briefly and beautifully hymned by Blessed Ambrose. . . .” And Faustus, Bishop of Riez (A. D. 455), quotes from it and names the Saint as author, as does also Cassiodorus (died 575) in quoting the fourth strophe entire. Pope St; Celestine, in the council held at Rome in 430, also cites it as by St. Ambrose. Internal evidence for No. 1 is found in many verbal and phrasal correspondences between strophes 4–7 and the “Hexaëmeron” of the Saint (P. L., XIV, col. 255). Of these four hymns, only No. 1 is now found in the Roman Breviary. It is sung at Lauds on Sunday from the Octave of the Epiphany to the first Sunday in Lent, and from the Sunday nearest to the first day of October until Advent. There are sixteen translations into English, of which that by Cardinal Newman is given in the Marquess of Bute’s Breviary (I, 90). No. 2 has eight English renderings; No. 3, two; No. 4, twenty-four.

The additional eight hymns credited to the Saint by the Benedictine editors are:

(5) “Illuminans altissimus”;

(6) “Æterna Christi munera”;

(7) “Splendor paternæ gloriæ”;

(8) “Orabo mente Dominum”;

(9) “Somno refectis artubus”;

(10) “Consors paterni luminis”;

(11) “O lux beata Trinitas”;

(12) “Fit porta Christi pervia.”

The Roman Breviary parcels No. 6 out into two hymns: for Martyrs (beginning with a strophe not belonging to the hymn (Christo profusum sanguinem); and for Apostles (Æterna, Christi munera). The translations of the original text and of the two hymns formed from it amount to twenty-one in number. No. 7 is assigned in the Roman Breviary to Monday at Lauds, from the Octave of the Epiphany to the first Sunday in Lent and from the Octave of Pentecost to Advent. It has twenty-five translations in English. Nos. 9, 10, 11 are also in the Roman Breviary. (No. 11, however, being altered into “Jam sol recedit igneus.” It has thirty-three translations, in all, into English, comprising those of the original text and of the adaptation.) Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 have verbal or phrasal correspondences with acknowledged hymns by the Saint. Their translations into English are: No. 9, fifteen; No. 10, nine; No. 11, thirty-three; No. 12, two. No. 5 has three English translations; No. 6, one; No. 7, twenty-five. No. 8 remains to be considered. The Maurists give it to the Saint with some hesitation, because of its prosodial ruggedness, and because they knew it not to be a fragment (six verses) of a longer poem, and the (apparently) six-lined form of strophe puzzled them. Daniel pointed out (Thes., I, 23, 24; IV, 13) that it is a fragment of the longer hymn (in strophes of four lines), “Bis ternas horas explicans,” and credits it without hesitation to the Saint. In addition to the four authentic ones already noted, Biraghi gives Nos. 5, 6, 7, and the following:

(8) “Nunc sancte nobis spiritus”;

(9) “Rector potens, verax Deus”;

(10) “Rerum Deus, tenax vigor”;

(11) “Amore Christi nobilis”;

(12) “Agnes beatæ virginis”;

(13) “Hic est dies verus Dei”;

(14) “Victor Nabor, Felix pii”;

(15) “Grates tibi Jesu novas”;

(16) “Apostolorum passio”;

(17) “Apostolorum supparem”;

(18) “Jesu corona virginum.”

This list receives the support of Dreves (1893) and of Blume (1901). The beautiful hymns Nos. 8, 9, 10 are those for Terce, Sext, None, respectively, in the Roman Breviary, which also assigns No. 18 to the office of Virgins. The Ambrosian strophe has four verses of iambic dimeters (eight syllables), e. g.—Æterne rerum Conditor,

Noctem diemque qui regis,

Et temporum das tempora

Ut alleves fastidium.

The metre differs but slightly from the rhythm of prose, is easy to construct and to memorize, adapts itself very well to all kinds of subjects, offers sufficient metric variety in the odd feet (which may be either iambic or spondaic), while the form of the strophe lends itself well to musical settings (as the English accentual counterpart of the metric and strophic form illustrates). This poetic form has always been the favourite for liturgical hymns, as the Roman Breviary will show at a glance. But in earlier times the form was almost exclusively used, down to and beyond the eleventh century. Out of 150 hymns in the eleventh-century Benedictine hymnals, for example, not a dozen are in other metres; and the Ambrosian Breviary re-edited by St. Charles Borromeo in 1582 has its hymns in that metre almost exclusively. It should be said, however, that even in the days of St. Ambrose the classical metres were slowly giving place to accentual ones, as the work of the Saint occasionally shows; while in subsequent ages, down to the reform of the Breviary under Urban VIII, hymns were composed most largely by accented measure.

ERMONI, in Dict. d’arch. chrét., gives a good list of references. We may add to his list BLUME, Hymnologische Beiträge, II, Repertorium Repertorii (Leipzig, 1901), and especially s. v. St. Ambrose, 123–126; Amer. Ecclesiastical Review, Oct., 1896, 349–373, for text of NO. 1, with translation and extensive commentary; Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, LI (1896), 86–97, for Æterne rerum Conditor; also same, LII (1897), 241–253, for Splendor paternœ gloriœ; also same, LIV, 1898, 273–282; JULIAN, Dict. of Hymnol. for condensed accounts of hymns, with first lines of translations into English; SCHLOSSER, Die Kirche in ihren Liedern etc. (Freiburg), for transl. into German, with notes, of many Ambrosiani; KAYSER, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Erklärung der ältesten Kirchenhymnen (Paderborn, 1881), for life and labours of the Saint, with text, translation, extended commentary on the hymns Nos. 1–4 and 6, 7, in this article; DUFFIELD, Latin Hymns and Hymn Writers (New York, 1889), 47–62; BATIFFOL, Hist. du Bréviaire Romain (Paris, 1893), 165–175; WAGNER (BOUR’S transl.), Origine et développement du chant liturgique (Tournai, 1904), 53, 54; DANIEL AND MONE are still of much service for texts and notes; MARCH, Latin Hymns (New York, 1875), for texts, grammatical notes, and hymnological references.

H.T. HENRY

Ambrosian Library

The Ambrosian Library is one of the famous libraries of the world, founded between 1603 and 1609 by Cardinal Federigo Borromeo at Milan. This library is unique from the fact that it was not intended by the Cardinal to be merely a collection of books and masterpieces of art, but was meant by him to include a college of writers, a seminary of savants, and a school of fine arts. It is situated in what at that time was nearly the centre of the city of Milan, near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The plans were drawn by the architect, Fabio Mangone, and the sculptor, Dionigio Bussola. The buildings were ready in 1609, and became at once, on account of their ample dimensions and elegant decoration, an object of universal admiration. The following description, although of the present-day building, is an accurate one of the original, as no alterations have ever been permitted; even the floor of plain tiles, with four tables (one in each corner) and a central brazier, is left as the Cardinal arranged it.

A plain Ionic portico, on the cornice of which are the words BIBLIOTHECA AMBROSIANA, gives access to a single hall, on the ground floor, seventy-four feet long by twenty-nine feet broad. The walls are lined with bookcases about thirteen feet high, separated, not by columns, but by flat pilasters, and protected by wire work of an unusually large mesh, said to be original. At each corner of the hall is a staircase, leading to a gallery, two feet and six inches wide. The cases in this gallery are about eight feet and six inches high. Above them again is a frieze consisting of a series of portraits of saints in oblong frames. The roof is a barrel-vault, ornamented with plaster-work. Light is admitted through two enormous semicircular windows at each end of the room. A splendid view of the interior, together with a ground-plan, may be seen in Clark’s “The Care of Books” (p. 271). The arrangement of books was considered remarkable at that time, for a contemporary writer says of it, “the room is not blocked with desks to which the books are tied with iron chains after the fashion of the libraries which are common in monasteries, but it is surrounded with lofty shelves on which the books are sorted according to size” [Gli Instituti Scientifici etc. di Milano (Milan, 1880) p. 123, note].

The library was open not merely to members of the college, which was part of the endowment, but also to citizens of Milan and to all strangers who came to study there; the severest penalties awaited those who stole a volume, or even touched it with soiled hands, and only the Pope himself could absolve them from such crimes (Boscha, “De origine et statu bibl. Ambros.,” 19; ap. Grævius, “Thes. ant. et hist. Italiæ “, IX, Part VI; see also the Bull of Paul V, dated 7 July, 1608, approving the foundation and rehearsing the statutes, in “Magnum Bullarium Romanum,” Turin, 1867, XI, 511). The story of the gathering of the equipment of this splendid library is most interestingly set forth by the writers cited. A digest will be found in the “Catholic University Bulletin,” I, 567.

Cardinal Borromeo first applied to his friends, popes, cardinals, princes, priests, and religious, who responded generously. The Benedictines sent a great number of ancient manuscripts. The Cistercians gave a codex on Egyptian papyrus, containing the “Jewish Antiquities” of Josephus. Count Galeazzo Arconati offered the autograph works of Leonardo da Vinci, which King James I of England could not purchase for 3,000 golden crowns. The Cardinal sent agents abroad throughout Europe and the East. In 1607 his secretary, Grazio Maria Grazi, was exploring the cities of Italy; a most notable purchase being that of the Pinelli Library bought at Naples for 3,400 pieces of gold and filling seventy cases. Other agents gathered treasures in Germany, Belgium, and France, bringing back an ample store of books and manuscripts. They were again dispatched by the Cardinal to Germany and to Venice, while another agent was sent to Spain where he was fortunate in making splendid purchases. Three different agents were sent by Cardinal Borromeo to the East, one of them a converted rabbi. By means of these agents the treasures of the library were vastly increased, Chaldean books, Bibles, treatises of astronomy and mathematics, manuscripts in Turkish, Persian, Armenian, and Abyssinian being acquired; these were collected by a great expenditure of money, one of the agents having spent in the service of the Cardinal more money than any monarch had ever given for such an enterprise. This particular agent underwent many grave dangers in his quest, and finally died of the pest in Aleppo.

Though the Ambrosian Library could not rival the Vatican, nor the Laurentiana at Florence, nor the Marciana at Venice, it enjoyed a greater popularity than those ever possessed, because it was thrown open to all students without distinction, a rare and unheard of thing at that date. It was practically the first library to offer facilities for reading or notetaking. The Cardinal’s liberality earned the applause of the learned men of his day, and his example was soon followed in the Bodleian at Oxford, the Angelica at Rome, and later on in the Mazarine and the Bibliothèque Royale at Paris. In 1865 a monument was erected to Cardinal Federigo Borromeo, who died 30 Sept., 1631. The monument stands before the gates of the Ambrosian Library as a lasting evidence of the city’s gratitude to this great patron of arts and letters. It bears the following simple but heartfelt inscription: “AL CARDINAL FEDERICO BORROMEO I SUOI CONCITTADINI MDCCCLXV.” On one side of the pedestal is the phrase from Manzoni’s “I Promessi Sposi”: “He was one of those men rare in every age, who employed extraordinary intelligence, the resources of an opulent condition, the advantages of privileged stations, and an unflinching will in the search and practice of higher and better things.” On the other side are the words: “He conceived the plan of the Ambrosian Library, which he built at great expense, and organized in 1609 with an equal activity and prudence.”

OPICELLI, Monumenta bibliothecœ Ambrosianœ (Milan, 1618); BOSCHÆ, De origine et statu bibliothecœ Ambrosianœ libri V. in quibus de bibliothecœ conditore, conservatoribus et colleii Ambrosiani doctoribus, ut de illustribus pictoribus, aliisque artificibus, et denique de reditibus ejusdem bibliothecœ agitur (v. in Thesauro antiquit. et histor. Italiœ, IX, 6); MABILLON, Museum Italicum, 11–14; TIRABOSCHI, Storia della litteratura Itatiana, Tom. VIII, lib. i; CLARK, The Care of Books (Cambridge University Press, 1901).

JOSEPH H. MCMAHON.

Ambrosian Liturgy and Rite

The liturgy and Rite of the Church of Milan, which derives its name from St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (374–397).

I. HISTORY

There is no direct evidence that the Rite was in any way the composition of St. Ambrose, but his name has been associated with it since the eighth century at least, and it is not improbable that in his day it took not indeed a final form, for it has been subject to various revisions from time to time, but a form which included the principal characteristics which distinguish it from other rites. It is to be remembered that St. Ambrose succeeded the Arian Auxentius, during whose long episcopate, 355 to 374, it would seem probable that Arian modifications may have been introduced, though on that point we have no information, into a rite the period of whose original composition is unknown. If, as would necessarily happen, St. Ambrose expunged these hypothetical unorthodoxies and issued corrected service books, this alone would suffice to attach his name to it. We know from St. Augustine (Confess., IX, vii) and Paulinus the Deacon (Vita S. Ambros., § 13) that St. Ambrose introduced innovations, not indeed into the Mass, but into what would seem to be the Divine Office, at the time of his contest with the Empress Justina for the Portian Basilica (on the site of San Vittore al Corpo), which she claimed for the Arians. St. Ambrose filled the church with Catholics and kept them there night and day until the peril was past. And he arranged Psalms and hymns for them to sing, as St. Augustine says, “secundum morem orientalium partium ne populus mæroris tædio contabesceret” (after the manner of the Orientals, lest the people should languish in cheerless monotony); and of this Paulinus the Deacon says: “Hoc in tempore primum antiphonæ, hymni. et vigiliæ in ecclesiâ Mediolanensi celebrari cœperunt, Cujus celebritatis devotio usque in hodiernum diem non solum in eadem ecclesia verum per omnes pæne Occidentis provincias manet” (Now for the first time antiphons, hymns, and vigils began to be part of the observance of the Church in Milan, which devout observance lasts to our day not only in that church but in nearly every province of the West). From the time of St. Ambrose, whose hymns are well-known and whose liturgical allusions may certainly be explained as referring to a rite which possessed the characteristics of that which is called by his name, until the period of Charlemagne, there is something of a gap in the history of the Milanese Rite, though it is said (Cantù, Milano e il suo territorio, I, 116) that St. Simplician, the successor of St. Ambrose, added much to the Rite and that St. Lazarus (438–451) introduced the three days of the Litanies. The Church of Milan underwent various vicissitudes and for a period of some eighty years (570–649), during the Lombard conquests, the see was actually removed to Genoa. Mgr. Duchesne and M. Lejay suggest that it was during that time that the greatest Roman influence was felt, and they would trace to it the adoption of the Roman Canon of the Mass. In the eighth-century manuscript evidence begins. In a short treatise on the various cursus or forms of the Divine Office used in the Church, entitled “Ratio de Cursus qui fuerunt ex auctores” (sic in Cott. Manuscripts, Nero A. II, in the British Museum), written about the middle of the eighth century, probably by an Irish monk in France, is found what is perhaps the earliest attribution of the Milan use to St. Ambrose, though it quotes the authority of St. Augustine, probably alluding to the passage already mentioned: “Est et alius cursus quem refert beatus augustinus episcopus quod beatus ambrosius propter hereticorum ordinem dissimilem composuit quem in italia antea de cantabatur” (There is yet another Cursus which the blessed Bishop Augustine says that the blessed Ambrose composed because of the existence of a different use of the heretics, which previously used to be sung in Italy). The passage is quite ungrammatical but so is the whole treatise, though its meaning is not obscure. According to a not very convincing narrative of Landulphus Senior, the eleventh-century chronicler of Milan, Charlemagne attempted to abolish the Ambrosian Rite, as he or his father, Pepin the Short, had abolished the Gallican Rite in France, in favour of a Gallicanized Roman Rite. He sent to Milan and caused to be destroyed or sent beyond the mountain, quasi in exilium (as if into exile), all the Ambrosian books which could be found. Eugenius the Bishop, transmontanus episcopus (transmontane bishop), as Landulf calls him, begged him to reconsider his decision. After the manner of the time, an ordeal, which reminds one of the celebrated trials by fire and by battle in the case of Alfonso VI and the Mozarabic Rite, was determined on. Two books, Ambrosian and Roman, were laid closed upon the altar of St. Peter’s Church in Rome and left for three days, and the one which was found open was to win. They were both found open, and it was resolved that as God had shown that one was as acceptable as the other, the Ambrosian Rite should continue. But the destruction had been so far effective that no Ambrosian books could be found, save one missal which a faithful priest had hidden for six weeks in a cave in the mountains. Therefore the Manuale was written out from memory by certain priests and clerks (Landulph, Chron., 10–13). Walafridus Strabo, who died Abbot of Reichenau in 849, and must therefore have been nearly, if not quite, contemporary with this incident, says nothing about it, but (De Rebus Ecclesiasticis, xxii), speaking of various forms of the Mass, says: “Ambrosius quoque Mediolanensis episcopus tam missæ quam cæterorum dispositionem officiorum suæ ecclesiæ et aliis Liguribus ordinavit, quæ et usque hodie in Mediolanensi tenentur ecclesia” (Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, also arranged a ceremonial for the Mass and other offices for his own church and for other parts of Liguria, which is still observed in the Milanese Church).

In the eleventh century Pope Nicholas II, who in 1060 had tried to abolish the Mozarabic Rite, wished also to attack the Ambrosian, and was aided by St. Peter Damain, but he was unsuccessful, and Alexander II, his successor, himself a Milanese, reversed his policy in this respect. St. Gregory VII made another attempt, and Le Brun (Explication de la Messe, III, art. I, § 8) conjectures that Landulf’s miraculous narrative was written with a purpose about that time. Having weathered these storms, the Ambrosian Rite had peace for some three centuries and a half. In the first half of the fifteenth century Cardinal Branda da Castiglione, who died in 1448, was legate in Milan. As part of his plan for reconciling Philip Mary Visconti, Duke of Milan, and the Holy See, he endeavoured to substitute the Roman Rite for the Ambrosian. The result was a serious riot, and the Cardinal’s legateship came to an abrupt end. After that the Ambrosian Rite was safe until the Council of Trent. The Rule of that Council, that local uses which could show a prescription of two centuries might be retained, saved Milan, not without a struggle, from the toss of its Rite, and St. Charles Borromeo, though he made some alterations in a Roman direction, was most careful not to destroy its characteristics. A small attempt made against it by a Governor of Milan who had obtained a permission from the Pope to have the Roman Mass said in any church which he might happen to attend, was defeated by St. Charles, and his own revisions were intended to do little more than was inevitable in a living rite. Since his time the temper of the Milan Church has been most conservative, and the only alterations in subsequent editions seem to have been slight improvements in the wording of rubrics and in the arrangement of the books. The district in which the Ambrosian Rite is used is nominally the old archiepiscopal province of Milan before the changes of 1515 and 1819, but in actual fact it is not exclusively used even in the city of Milan itself. In parts of the Swiss Canton of Ticino it is used; in other parts the Roman Rite is so much preferred that it is said that when Cardinal Gaisruck tried to force the Ambrosian upon them the inhabitants declared that they would be either Roman or Lutheran. There are traces also of the use of the Ambrosian Rite beyond the limits of the Province of Milan. In 1132–34, two Augustinian canons of Ratisbon, Paul, said by Bäumer to be Paul of Bernried, and Gebehard, held a correspondence (printed by Mabillon in his “Musæum Italicum” from the originals in the Cathedral Library at Milan) with Anselm, Archbishop of Milan, and Martin, treasurer of St. Ambrose, with a view of obtaining copies of the books of the Ambrosian Rite, so that they might introduce it into their church. In the fourteenth century the Emperor Charles IV introduced the Rite into the Church of St. Ambrose at Prague. Traces of it, mixed with the Roman, are said by Hoeyinck (Geschichte der kirchl. Liturgie des Bisthums Augsburg) to have remained in the diocese of Augsburg down to its last breviary of 1584, and according to Catena (Cantù, Milano e il suo territorio, 118) the use of Capua in the time of St. Charles Borromeo had some resemblance to that of Milan.

II. ORIGIN

The origin of the Ambrosian Rite is still under discussion, and at least two conflicting theories are held by Leading liturgiologists. The decision is not made any the easier by the absence of any direct evidence as to the nature of the Rite before about the ninth century. There are, it is true, allusions to various services of the Milanese Church in the writings of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, and in the anonymous treatise “De Sacramentis,” which used to be attributed to the latter, but is now definitely decided not to be his; but these allusions are naturally enough insufficient for more than vague conjecture, and have been used with perhaps equal justification in support of either side of the controversy. Even if the rather improbable story of Landulf is not to be believed, the existing manuscripts, which only take us back at the earliest to the period of Charlemagne, leave the question of his influence open. This much we may confidently affirm, that though both the Missal and the Breviary have been subjected from time to time to various modifications, often, as might be expected, in a Roman direction, the changes are singularly few and unimportant, and the Ambrosian Rite of to-day is substantially the same as that represented in the early Manuscripts. Indeed, since some of these documents come from places in the Alpine valleys, such as Biasca, Lodrino, Venegono. and elsewhere, while the modern rite is that of the metropolitan cathedral and the churches of the city of Milan, some proportion of the differences may well turn out to be local rather than chronological developments. The arguments of the two principal theories are necessarily derived in a great measure from the internal evidence of the books themselves, and at present the end of the controversy is not in sight. The question resolves itself into this: Is the Ambrosian Rite archaic Roman? Or is it a much Romanized form of the Gallican Rite? And this question is mixed with that of the provenance of the Gallican Rite itself. Some liturgiologists of a past generation, notably Dr. J. M. Neale and others of the Anglican School, referred the Hispano-Gallican and Celtic family of liturgies to an original imported into Provence from Ephesus by St. Irenæus, who had received it through St. Polycarp from St. John the Divine. The name Ephesine was applied to this liturgy, and it was sometimes called the Liturgy of St. John. The idea was not modern. Colman, at the Synod of Whitby in 664, attributed the Celtic rule of Easter to St. John, and in the curious little eighth-century treatise already mentioned (in Cott. Manuscript Nero A. II) one finds: “Johannes Evangelista primum cursus gallorum decantavit. Inde postea beatus policarpus discipulus sci iohannis. Inde postea hiereneus qui fuit eps Lugdunensis Gallei. Tertius ipse ipsum cursum decantauerunt [sic] in galleis.” The author is not speaking of the Liturgy, but of the Divine Office, but that does not affect the question, and the theory, which had its obvious controversial value, was at one time very popular with Anglicans. Neale considered that the Ambrosian Rite was a Romanized form of this Hispano-Gallican, or Ephesine, Rite, He never brought much evidence for this view, being generally contented with stating it and giving a certain number of not very convincing comparisons with the Mozarabic Rite (Essays on Liturgiology, ed. 1867, 171–197). But Neale greatly exaggerated the Romanizing effected by St. Charles Borromeo, and his essay on the Ambrosian Liturgy is now somewhat out of date, though much of it is of great value as an analysis of the existing Rite. W. C. Bishop, in his article on the Ambrosian Breviary (Church Q., Oct., 1886), takes up the same line as Neale in claiming a Gallican origin for the Ambrosian Divine Office. But Duchesne in his “Origines du culte chrétien” has put forward a theory of origin which works out very clearly, though at present it is almost all founded on conjecture and a priori reasoning. He rejects entirely the Ephesine supposition, and considers that the Orientalisms which he recognizes in the Hispano-Gallican Rite are of much later origin than the period of St. Irenæus, and that it was from Milan as a centre that a rite, imported or modified from the East, perhaps by the Cappadocian Arian Bishop Auxentius (355–374), the predecessor of St. Ambrose, gradually spread to Gaul, Spain, and Britain. He lays great stress on the important position of Milan as a northern metropolis, and on the intercourse with the East by way of Aquileia and Illyria, as well as on the eastern nationality of many of the Bishops of Milan. In his analysis of the Gallican Mass, Duchesne assumes that the seventh-century Bobbia Sacramentary (Bibl. Nat., 13,246), though not actually Milanese, is to be counted as a guide to early Ambrosian usages, and makes use of it in the reconstruction of the primitive Rite before, according to his theory, it was so extensively Romanized as it appears in the earliest undeniably Ambrosian documents. He also appears to assume that the usages mentioned in the Letter of St. Innocent I to Decentius of Eugubium as differing from those of Rome were necessarily common to Milan and Gubbio. Paul Lejay has adopted this theory in his article in the “Revue d’histoire et littérature religeuses” (II, 173) and in Dom Cabrol’s “Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie” [s. v. Ambrosien (Rit)].

The other theory, of which Ceriani and Magistretti are the most distinguished exponents, maintains that the Ambrosian Rite has preserved the pre-Gelasian and pre-Gregorian form of the Roman Rite. I)r. Ceriani (Notitia Liturgiæ Ambrosianæ) supports his contention by many references to early writers and by comparisons of early forms of the Roman Ordinary with the Ambrosian. Both sides admit, of course, the self-evident fact that the Canon in the present Ambrosian Mass is a variety of the Roman Canon. Neither has explained satisfactorily how and when it got there. The borrowings from the Greek service books have been ably discussed by Cagin (Paléographie musicale, V), but there are Greek loans in the Roman books also, though, if Duchesne’s theory of origin is correct, some of them may have travelled by way of the Milanese-Gallican Rite at the time of the Charlemagne revision. There are evident Gallicanisms in the Ambrosian Rite, but so there are in the present Roman, and the main outlines of the process by which they arrived in the latter are sufficiently certain, though the dates are not. The presence of a very definite Post-Sanctus of undoubted Hispano-Gallican form in the Ambrosian Mass of Easter Eve requires more explanation than it has received, and the whole question of provenance is further complicated by a theory, into which Ceriani does not enter, of a Roman origin of all the Latin liturgies, Gallican, Celtic, Mozarabic, and Ambrosian alike. There are indications in his liturgical note to the “Book of Cerne” and in “The Genius of the Roman Rite” that Mr. Edmund Bishop, who, as far as he has spoken at all, prefers the conclusions, though not so much the arguments, of Ceriani to either the arguments or conclusions of Duchesne, may eventually have something to say which will put the subject on a more solid basis.

III. EARLY MANUSCRIPTS

The early Manuscripts of the Ambrosian Rite are generally found in the following forms:

(1) The “Sacramentary” contains the Orationes super Populum, Prophecies, Epistles, Gospels, Orationes super Sindonem, and super Oblata, the Prefaces and Post-Communions throughout the year, with the variable forms of the Communicantes and Hanc igitur, when they occur, and the solitary Post Sanctus of Easter Eve, besides the ceremonies of Holy Week, etc., and the Ordinary and Canon of the Mass. There are often also occasional offices usually found in a modern ritual, such as Baptism, the Visitation and Unction of the Sick, the Burial of the Dead, and various benedictions. It is essentially a priest’s book, like the Euchologion of the Greeks.

(2) The “Psalter” contains the Psalms and Canticles. It is sometimes included with the “Manual.”

(3) The “Manual” is nearly the complement of the “Sacramentary” and the “Psalter” as regards both the Mass and the Divine Office. It contains: For the Divine Office; the Lucernaria, Antiphons, Responsoria, Psallenda, Completoria, Capitula, Hymns, and other changeable parts, except the Lessons, which are found separately. For the Mass: the Ingressœ, Psalmellœ, Versus, Cantus, Antiphonœ ante and post Evangelium, Offertoria, Confractoria, and Transitoria. The “Manual” often also contains occasional services such as are now usually found in a Ritual.

(4) The “Antiphoner” is a Manual noted.

(5) The “Ritual” and

(6) “Pontifical” have contents similar to those of Roman books of the same name, though of course the early Manuscripts are less ample.

The following are some of the most noted Manuscripts of the rite.

(1) Sacramentaries and Missals:

(a) The “Biasca Sacramentary”; Bibl. Ambros., A. 24, bis inf., late ninth or early tenth century. Described by Delisle, “Anc. Sacr.,” LXXI, edited by Ceriani in his “Monumenta Sacra et Profana,” VIII, the Ordinary is analyzed and the Canon given in full in Ceriani’s “Notitia Lit. Ambr.”

(b) The “Lodrino Sacramentary”; Bibl. Ambr., A. 24, inf., eleventh century. Delisle, “Anc. Sacr.,” LXXII.

(c) The “Sacramentary of San Satiro,” Milan; treasury of Milan Cathedral; eleventh century. Delisle, “Anc. Sacr.,” LXXIII.

(d) Sacramentary; treasury of Milan Cathedral; eleventh century. Delisle, “Anc. Sacr.,” LXXIV.

(e) The “Sacramentary of Armio,” near the Lago Maggiore; treasury of Milan Cathedral; eleventh century. Delisle, ‘Anc. Sacr.,’ LXXV.

(f) Sacramentary belonging to the Marchese Trotti; eleventh century. Delisle, “Anc. Sacr.,” LXXVI.

(g) Sacramentary; Bibl. Ambros., CXX, sup., eleventh century. Delisle, “Anc. Sacr.,” LXXVII.

(h) The “Bergamo Sacramentary”; library of Sant’ Alessandro in Colonna, Bergamo; tenth or eleventh century. Published by the Benedictines of Solesmes, “Auctarium Solesmense” (to Migne’s Patrologia), “Series Liturgica,” I.

(i) Sacramentary; treasury of Monza Cathedral; tenth century. Delisle, “Anc. Sacr.,” LXV.

(j) “Sacramentary of San Michele di Venegono inferiore” (near Varese); treasury of Monza Cathedral; eleventh century. Delisle, “Anc. Sacr.,” LXVIII. These two of Monza Cathedral are more fully described in Frisi’s “Memorie storiche di Monza,” III,75–77, 82–84.

(k) “Missale Ambrosianum,” of Bedero (near Luino); Bibl. Ambr., D., 87 inf.; twelfth century. Noted by Magistretti in “Della nuova edizione tipica del messale Ambrosiano.”

(2) Antiphoner: “Antiphonarium Ambrosianum”; British Museum, Add. Manuscripts, 34,209; twelfth century; published by the Benedictines of Solesmes, with a complete facsimile and 200 pages of introduction by Dom Paul Cagin, in “Paléographie musicale,” V ,VI.

(3) Manuals:

(a) “Manual of Lodrino;” Bibl. Ambr., SH. IV, 44; tenth or eleventh century. Imperfect. Described by Magistretti, “Mon. Vet. Lit. Amb.,” II, 18.

(b) “Manuale Ambrosianum” belonging to the Marchese Trotti; tenth or eleventh century. Imperfect. Magistretti, “Mon. Vet. Lit. Amb.,” II, 19.

(c) “Manuale Ambrosianum”; Bibl. Ambr., CIII, sup.; tenth or eleventh century. Imperfect. Magistretti, “Mon. Vet. Lit. Amb.,” II, 20.

(d) “Manuale Ambrosianum”; from the Church of Cernusco (between Monza and Lecco); Bibl. Ambr., I, 55, sup.; eleventh century. Magistretti, “Mon. Vet. Lit. Amb.,” II, 28.

(e) “Manuale Ambrosianum”; from the Church of San Vittore al Teatro, Milan; Bibl. Ambr., A, 1, inf.; twelfth century. Magistretti, “Mon. Vet. Lit. Amb.,” II, 22.

(f) “Manuale Ambrosianum”; from the Church of Brivio (near the Lecco end of the Lake of Como); Bibl. Ambr., I, 27, sup.; twelfth century. Magistretti, “Mon. Vet. Lit. Amb.,” II, 30.

(4) Rituals:

(a) “Liber Monachorum S. Ambrosii”; Bibl. Ambr., XCVI, sup.; eleventh century. Magistretti, “Mon. Vet. Lit. Amb.,” II, 33, 79–93.

(b) “Rituale Ambrosianum,” from the Church of S. Laurentiolus in Porta Vercellina, Milan; Sacrar. Metrop., H. 62; thirteenth century. Magistretti, “Mon. Vet. Lit. Amb.,” II, 37, 143–171.

(c) Beroldus Novus; Chapter Library, Milan; thirteenth century. Magistretti, “Mon. Vet. Lit. Amb.,” 17, 94–142.

(d) “Asti Ritual”; Bibl, Mazarine, 525; tenth century. Described by Gastoué in “Rassegna Gregoriana,” 1903. This, though from the old province of Milan, is not Ambrosian, but has bearings on the subject.

(5) Ceremonial: “Calendarium et Ordines Ecclesiæ Ambrosianæ”; Beroldus; Bibl, Ambr., I, 158, inf. twelfth century. Published by Magistretti, 1894.

(6) Pontificals:

(a) “Pontificale Mediolanensis Ecclesiæ”; Chapter Library, Milan; ninth century. Printed by Magistretti, “Mon. Vet. Lit. Amb.,” I

(b) “Pontificale Mediolanensis Ecclesiæ”; Chapter Library, Milan; eleventh century. Magistretti, “Mon. Vet. Lit. Amb.,” 1, 27.

(c) “Ordo Ambrosianus ad Consecrandam Ecclesiam et Altare;” Chapter Library, Lucca; eleventh century. Printed by Mercati, “Studi e testi” (of the Vatican Library), 7.

Some editions of the printed Ambrosian service-books: Missals: (Pre-Borromean) 1475, 1482, 1486, 1488, 1494, 1499, 1505, 1515, 1522, 1548, 1560; (St. Charles Borromeo) 1594; (F. Borromeo) 1609–18; (Monti) 1640; (Litta) 1669; (Fed. Visconti) 1692; (Archinti) 1712; (Pozzobonelli) 1751, 1768; (Fil. Visconti) 1795; (Gaisruck) 1831; (Ferrari) 1902. Breviaries: (Pre-Borromean) 1475, 1487, 1490, 1492, 1507, 1513, 1522, and many others; (St. Charles Borromeo), 1582, 1588; (Pozzobonelli) 1760; (Galsruck) 1841; (Romilli) 1857; (Ferrari) 1896, 1902. Rituals: n. d. circ., 1475 (a copy in Bodlwian), 1645, 1736, 1885. Psalters: 1486, 1555. Ceremonials: 1619, 1831. Lectionary: 1660? Litanies: 1494, 1546, 1667. The editions of the Missals, 1475, 1751, and 1902; of the Breviaries, 1582 and 1902; of the Ritual, 1645; both the Psalters, both the Ceremonials, the Lectionary, and Litanies are in the British Museum.

IV. THE LITURGICAL YEAR

The Liturgical Year of the Ambrosian Rite begins, as elsewhere in the West, with the First Sunday of Advent, but that Sunday, as in the Mozarabic Rite, is a fortnight earlier than in the Roman, so that there are six Sundays in Advent, and the key-day of the beginning of Advent is not St. Andrew’s (30 November) but St. Martin’s Day (11 November), which begins the Sanctorale. The rule of this key also differs. The Roman is: “Adventus Domini celebratur semper die Dominico, qui propinquior est festo S. Andreæ Apostoli,” which gives a range from 27 November to 3 December. The Ambrosian is: “Adventus Domini inchoatur Dominica proxima post Festum S. Martini,” that is to say, from 12 November to 18 November. If, as in 1906, St. Martin’s Day falls on a Sunday, the Octave is the first Sunday of Advent; whereas in the Roman Rite if St. Andrew’s Day falls on a Sunday, that day itself is Advent Sunday. The Feriœ of Advent continue until the Feriœ de Exceptato begin. These days, which some say must have been originally de Expectato, a quite unnecessary supposition, and on which the ordinary sequence of the Psalter is interrupted and certain proper psalms and antiphons are said, occur according to the following rule: “Officium in Adventu proprium quod de Exceptato dicitur semper celebratur in hac hebd. VI Adv. nisi dies Nativitatis Domini inciderit in fer. III, vel IV; tunc de Exceptato fit in hebd. V Adv. “So that there must be two and there may be seven of these days. Christmas Eve is not exactly counted as one of them, though, if it falls on a weekday, it has the proper psalms and antiphons of that Feria de Exceptato. If it falls on a Sunday, as in 1905, that is not one of the six Sundays of Advent, the last of which is the Sunday before, but the antiphons of the sixth Sunday are used. On the sixth Sunday of Advent the Annunciation (de Incarnatione D. N. J. C.) is celebrated, for, since no fixed festivals are kept during Lent or Easter Week, it cannot be properly celebrated on 25 March, though it is found there in the Calendar and has an Office in the Breviary. On this Sunday there are two Masses, una de Adventu et altera de Incarnatione. This day may be compared with the Mozarabic feast of the Annunciation on 18 December, which is the Roman Expectatio Partus B. M. V. Christmas Day has three Masses, in Nocte Sanctâ, in Aurorâ, and in Die, as in the Roman Rite, and the festivals which follow Christmas are included in the De Tempore, though there is a slight discrepancy between the Missal and Breviary, the former putting the lesser feasts of January which come before the Epiphany in the Sanctorale, and the latter including all days up to the Octave of the Epiphany in the Temporale, except 9 January (The Forty Martyrs). The day after the Epiphany is the Christophoria, the Return from Egypt. The Sundays after the Epiphany vary, of course, in number, six being, as in the Roman Rite, the maximum. The second is the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus. Then follow Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima Sundays, on which, though Gloria in Excelsis and Hallelujah are used, the vestments are violet. There is no Ash Wednesday, and Lent begins liturgically on the first Sunday, the fast beginning on the Monday. Until the time of St. Charles Borromeo the liturgical Lent, with its use of litanies on Sundays instead of Gloria in Excelsis and the disuse of Hallelujah, began on the Monday. The title of the Sunday, both then and now, was and is Dominica in capite Quadragesimœ. The other Sundays of Lent are styled De Samaritanâ, De Abraham, De Cœco, De Lazaro, and of course, in Ramis Palmarum (or Dominica Olivarum). The names of the second to the fifth Sundays are in allusion to the subject of the Gospel of the day, not, as in the Roman Rite, to the Introit. (Cf. nomenclature of Greek Rite.) Passiontide does not begin until Holy Week. The day before Palm Sunday is Sabbatum in Traditione Symboli. This, the Blessing of the Font, the extra Masses pro Baptizatis in Ecclesiâ Hyemali on Easter Eve and every day of Easter Week, and the name of the first Sunday after Easter in albis depositis show even more of a lingering memory of the old Easter Baptisms than the similar survivals in the Roman Rite. Holy Week is Hebdomada Anthentica. Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Eve, and Easter Day are named as in the Roman Rite. The five Sundays after Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, Trinity Sunday, and Corpus Christi follow, as in the Roman Rite, but the Triduum Litaniarum (Rogations) comes on the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday after, instead of before, Ascension Day. The Sundays after Pentecost continue eo nomine until the Decollation of St. John (29 August). There may be as many as fifteen of them. Then follow either four or five Sundays post Decollationem S. Joannis Baptistœ, then three Sundays of October, the third of which is Dedicatio Ecclesiœ Majoris. The rest of the Sundays until Advent are post Dedicationem.

The Calendar of the Saints calls for little notice. There are many local saints, and several feasts which are given in the Roman Calendar in late February, March, and early April are given on other days, because of the rule against feasts in Lent. Only St. Joseph and the Annunciation come in the Lenten part of the Calendar, but the Masses of these are given on 12 December and the sixth Sunday of Advent respectively. The days are classified as follows:

(1) Solemnitates Domini

First Class: the Annunciation, Christmas Day, Epiphany, Easter Day with its Monday and Tuesday, Ascension Day, Pentecost, with its Monday and Tuesday, Corpus Domini, the Dedication of the Cathedral or of the local church, Solemnitas Domini titularis propriœ Ecclesiœ. First class, secondary: the Feast of the Sacred Heart. Second class: the Visitation, Circumcision, Purification, Transfiguration, Invention of the Cross, Trinity Sunday. Second class, secondary: the Name of Jesus, the Holy Family, the Exaltation of the Cross. The Octaves of Christmas, Epiphany, Easter Day, Pentecost and Corpus Domini also count as Solemnitates Domini.

(2) Sundays

(3) Solemnia B. M. V. et Sanctorum

First class: the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Nativity of St. John Baptist, St. Joseph, Sts. Peter and Paul, All Saints, the Ordination of St. Ambrose, and the Patron of the local church. Second class: other feasts of Our Lady, St. Michael and the Archangels, and the Guardian Angels, Decollation of St. John, Feasts of Apostles and Evangelists, St. Anne, St. Charles Borromeo, the Holy Innocents, St. Joachim, St. Laurence, St. Martin, Sts. Nazarius and Celsus, Sts. Protasius and Gervasius, St. Stephen, St. Thomas of Canterbury. Second class, secondary: the two Chairs of St. Peter, the Conversion of St. Paul.

(4) Solemnia Majora:

St. Agatha, St. Agnes, St. Anthony, St. Apollinaris, St. Benedict, St. Dominic, the Translations of Sts. Ambrose, Protasius, and Gervasius, St. Francis, St. Mary Magdalene, Sts. Nabor and Felix, St. Sebastian, St. Victor, St. Vincent.

(5) Alia Solemnia

Alia Solemnia are days noted as such in the Calendar, and the days of saints whose bodies or important relics are preserved in any particular church become Solemnia for that church.

(6) Non-Solemnia Privilegiata

(7) Non-Solemnia Simplicia

Feasts are also grouped into four classes: First class of Solemnitates Domini and Solemnia; second class of the same; greater and ordinary Solemnia; non-Solemnia, divided into privilegiata and simplicia. Solemnia have two vespers, non-Solemnia only one, the first. The privilegiata have certain propria and the simplicia only the communia. The general principle of occurrences is that common to the whole Western Church. If two festivals fall on the same day, the lesser is either transferred, merely commemorated, or omitted. But the Ambrosian Rite differs materially from the Roman in the rank given to Sunday, which is only superseded by a Solemnitas Domini, and not always then, for if the Name of Jesus or the Purification falls on Septuagesima, Sexagesima, or Quinquagesima Sunday, it is transferred, though the distribution and procession of candles takes place on the Sunday on which the Purification actually falls. If a Solemne Sanctorum or a privileged non-Solemne falls on a Sunday, a Solemnitas Domini, the Friday or Saturday of the fourth or fifth week of Advent, a Feria de Exceptato, within an Octave of a great Feast, a Feria Litaniarum, or a Feria of Lent, the whole office is of the Sunday, Solemnitas Domini, etc., and the Solemne or non-Solemne privilegiatum is transferred, in most cases to the next clear day, but in the case of Solemnia of the first or second class to the next Feria, quocumque festo etiam solemni impedita. A simple non-Solemne is never transferred, but it is omitted altogether if a Solemne of the first class falls on the same day, and in other cases of occurrences it is commemorated, though of course it supersedes an ordinary Feria. The concurrences of the first Vespers of one feast with the second of another are arranged on much the same principle, the chief peculiarity being that if a Solemne Sanctorum falls on a Monday its first Vespers is kept not on the Sunday, but on the preceding Saturday, except in Advent, when this rule applies only to Solemnia of the first and second class, and other Solemnia are only commemorated at Sunday Vespers. The liturgical colours of the Ambrosian Rite are very similar to those of the Roman, the most important differences being that (except when some greater day occurs) red is used on the Sundays and Feriœ after Pentecost and the Decollation of St. John until the Eve of the Dedication (third Sunday in October), on Corpus Christi and its Octave, and during Holy Week, except on Good Friday, as well as on the days on which it is used in the Roman Rite, and that (with similar exceptions) green is only used from the Octave of the Epiphany to the eve of Septuagesima, from Low Sunday to the Friday before Pentecost, after the Dedication to Advent, and on feasts of abbots.

V. THE DIVINE OFFICE

(1) The Distribution of the Psalter

The Ambrosian distribution of the Psalter is partly fortnightly and partly weekly. Psalms i to cviii are divided into ten decuriœ, one of which, in its numerical order, divided into three Nocturns, is recited at Matins on the Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays of each fortnight, each Nocturn being said under one antiphon. At the Matins of Sunday and Solemnitates Domini and on Feriœ in Easter and Whitsun weeks and the octave of Corpus Christi, there are no psalms, but three Old Testament canticles, Isaias xxvi, De nocte vigilatâ; the Canticle of Anna (I K. ii), Confirmatum est; and the Canticle of Jonas (ii), Clamavi ad Dominum, or of Habacuc (iii), Domine audivi. And on Saturdays the Canticle of Moses (Exod. xv), Cantemus Domino, and half of Psalm cxviii take the place of Decuriœ at the three Nocturns. At Vespers, Psalms cix to cxlvii, except cxvii, cxviii, and cxxxiii, which are used elsewhere, and cxlii, which is only used in the Office of the Dead and as Psalmus Directus at Lauds on Fridays, aro divided between the whole seven days of each week in their numerical sequence, and in the same manner as in the Roman Rite. Psalm cxviii, besides being used on Saturdays, is distributed among the four lesser Hours exactly as in the Roman Rite; Psalm 1is said at Lauds every day except Sunday, when the Benedicite, and Saturday, when Psalm cxvii, takes its place, and with the Preces (when these are used) at Prime and Terce throughout the year and at None during Lent, while at the Preces of Sext Psalm liii is said, and at those of None Psalm lxxxv, except during Lent. Psalm liii precedes Beati immaculati at Prime, and Psalms iv, xxx, 1–6, xc and cxxxiii are said daily, as in the Roman Rite, at Compline. At Lauds a single Psalm, known as Psalmus Directus, differing with the day of the week, is also said.

TABLE OF DECURIÆ

Nocturn I

Nocturn II

Nocturn III

Week/Day

Dec. 1 \ Pss i-viii

ix-xii

xiii-xvi

1st Wk., Mon.

“ 2 \ Pss xvii-xx

xxi-xxv

xxvi-xxx

“ “ Tues.

“ 3 \ Pss xxxi-xxxiii

xxxiv-xxxvi

xxxvii-xl

“ “ Wed.

“ 4 \ Pss xli-xliii

xliv-xlvi

xlvii-1

“ “ Thurs.

“ 5 \ Pss li-liv

lv-lvii

lviii-lx

“ “ Fri.

“ 6 \ Pss lxi-lxiv

lxv-lxvii

lxviii-lxx

2d Wk., Mon.

“ 7 \ Pss lxxi-lxxv

lxxvi-lxxvii

lxxviii-lxxx

“ “ Tues.

“ 8 \ Pss lxxxi-lxxxiv

lxxxv-lxxxvii

lxxxviii-xc

“ “ Wed.

“ 9 \ Pss xci-xciii

xciv-xcvi

xcvii-c

“ “ Thurs.

“ 10 \ Pss ci-ciii

civ-cv

cvi-cviii

“ “ Fri.

TABLE OF VESPER PSALMS, PSALMI DIRECTI, AND PSALMI IV VERSUS

Day

Vesper Psalms

Ps. Di. Lauds

Ps. IV, Vers. Lauds

Ps. IV, Vers. Vespers

Sunday

cix-cxiii

cxii

-

-

Monday

cxiv-cvii,cxix, cxx

liii

1st wk. v 2d wk. lxxxiii

viii

Tuesday

cxxi-cxxv

lxvi

lxxxvii

xiv

Wednesday

cxxvi-cxxx,cxxxi, cxxxii

lxix

lxvi

xxx

Thursday

cxxxiv, cxxxvi

cxiii

lxii

xxxvi

Friday

cxxxvii-cxli

cxlii

cvii

lxxvi

Saturday

cxliii-cxlvii

lxxxix

lxxxviii

xci

During Lent Psalm 90 is said as Psalmus Directus at Vespers, except on Sundays, Fridays, and Saturdays, and the “Four Verses of a Psalm” at Lauds on Saturdays are alternately from the twelfth and first parts of Psalm 98, and on the six Sundays the “Four Verses” are from 69, 62, 101, 62, 62, 58. During Lent also the Vesper “Four Verses” are different for every day, except that there are none on Friday, and those on the first four Saturdays are from Psalm 91. In Holy Week the Psalms at the Nocturns and at Vespers are all proper, and there are also proper Psalms during the period from the first Feria de Exceptato until the Circumcision; and on the Annunciation (sixth Sunday of Advent), Epiphany, Christophoria, Name of Jesus, Ascension, Corpus Christi, the Dedication and many Solemnia Sanctorum, and on many other saints’ days the Decuriœ are superseded by Psalms of the Common of Saints.

(2) Other Details of the Divine Office

Antiphonœ, similar in construction to those in the Roman Rite are: in Psalmis et canticis, used as in the Roman Rite; in Choro, said after the Lucernarium on Sundays, at the second Vespers of Solemnia, or on other saints’ days, at first Vespers, but not on Feriœ, except Saturdays in Advent; ad Crucem, said on Solemnitates Domini, on Sundays, except in Lent, and on Solemnia. Responsoria are constructed as in the Roman Rite, and are: Post hymnum, said after the hymn at Matins; Inter lectiones at Matins; cum Infantibus or cum Pueris after the hymn at the first Vespers of Solemnia; in Choro, said at Vespers on Sundays, at the second Vespers of Solemnia, and at the first of Non-Solemnia, after the hymn; in Baptisterio, at Lauds and Vespers of some Solemnitates after the first Psallenda, on Feriœ after the twelve Kyries, at Vespers after the prayer which follows Magnificat; Diaconalia or Quadragesimalia, on Wednesdays in Lent and on Good Friday; ad Cornu Altaris, at Lauds before the Psalmus Directus on Christmas Day, the Epiphany, and Easter Eve; Gradualia, said after the hymn at Lauds on Feriœ in Lent. Lucernaria are Responsoria which begin Vespers. Psallendœ are single verses, often from the Psalms, said after the twelve Kyries and the second prayer at Lauds, and after the prayers at Vespers. They are variable according to the day, and are followed by either one or two fixed Complenda or Completoria, which are also single verses. Psalmi Directi are said at Lauds and sometimes at Vespers. They are sung together by both choirs, not antiphonally. Psalmi Quatuor Versus is the name given to four verses of a psalm said at Vespers and Lauds on weekdays, after one of the Collects. Among the Hymns, besides those by St. Ambrose, or commonly attributed to him, many are included by other authors, such as Prudentius, Venantius Fortunatus, St. Gregory, St. Thomas Aquinas, and many whose authorship is unknown. A considerable number of well-known hymns (e.g. “Ave Mark Stella’“, “A Solis Ortus Cardine,” “Jesu Redemptor Omnium,” “Iste Confessor”) are not in the Ambrosian Hymnal, but there are many there which are not in the Roman, and those that are common to both generally appear as they were before the revisions of Urban VIII, though some have variants of their own. Capitula’ are short lessons of Scripture used as in the Roman Rite. At the Lesser Hours and Compline Capitula taken from the Epistles are called Epistolellœ.

(3) Construction of the Divine Office

(The constantly occurring Dominus vobiscum, etc., has been omitted in this analysis.) MATINS: Pater noster; Ave Maria; Deus in adjutorium; Gloria Patri; Hallelujah or Laus tibi. (The Ambrosians transliterate Hallelujah from Hebrew, not from Greek. They also write caelum not coelum and seculum not saeculum.) Hymn; Responsorium; canticle, Benedictus es (Dan. iii); Kyrie eleison, thrice Psalms or Canticles of the three Nocturns; Lessons, with Responsoria and Benedictions—usually three Lessons, Sundays, homilies; weekdays from the Bible; saints’ days, Bible and life of saint. On Christmas Day and Epiphany nine lessons; on Good Friday, six; on Easter Eve, none. On Sundays and festivals, except in Lent and Advent, Te Deum follows.—LAUDS: Introduction as at Matins; canticle, Benedictus, Attende cœlum or Clamavi; Kyrie, thrice; Antiphona ad Crucem, repeated five or seven times, not said on Feriœ Oratio secreta i; canticle, Cantemus Domino (Ex. xv); Kyrie, thrice; Oratio secreta ii; canticle, Benedicite, Confitemini Domino (Ps. cxvii), or Miserere (Ps.1); Kyrie, thrice; Oratio i; psalms, Laudate (Pss. cxlviii-cl, cxvi); Capitulum; Kyrie, thrice. Psalmus Directus; hymn (on weekdays in Lent, Graduale); Kyrie, twelve times. On Sundays and festivals, Psallenda and Completorium; on Feriœ, Responsorium in Baptisterio; Kyrie, thrice; Oratio ii. On Sundays and Solemnitates Domini, Psallenda ii and Completorium ii; on weekdays Psalmi iv, versus and Completorium; Kyrie, thrice; Oratio iii; commemorations, if any; concluding versicles and responses.—THE LESSER HOURS (Prime, Terce, Sext, None): Introduction as at Matins. Hymn; psalms; Epistolella; Responsorium Breve (at Prime, Quicunque vult); Capitulum; Preces (when said); at Prime, three Orationes, at other Hours, one; Kyrie, thrice; Benedicamus Domino, etc. (at Prime in choir the Martyrology, followed by Exultabunt Sancti etc., and a prayer); Fidelium animœ etc. VESPERS: Introduction as at Matins. On Sundays and Feriœ: Lucernarium; (on Sundays, Antiphona in choro); hymn; Responsorium in choro; five psalms; Kyrie, thrice; Oratio i; Magnificat; Oratio ii; on Sundays, Psallenda i, and two Completoria; on Feriœ, Responsorium in Baptisterio; Kyrie, thrice; Oratio iii; on Sundays, Psallenda ii, and two Completoria; on Feriœ, Psalmi iv versus; Kyrie, thrice; Oratio iv; commemorations, if any. On saints’ days; Lucernarium; at second vespers Antiphona in choro; hymn; Responsorium in choro or cum infantibus; psalm; Kyrie, thrice; Oratio i; Psalm; Oratio ii; Magnificat; Kyrie, thrice; Oratio iii; Psallenda and two Completoria; Kyrie, thrice; Oratio iv; commemorations. Concluding versicles and responses.—COMPLINE: Introduction, with addition of Converte nos, etc.; hymn (Te Lucis); Psalms iv, xxx, 1–7, xc, cxxxii, cxxxiii, cxvi; Epistolella; Responsorium; Nunc Dimittis; Capitulum; Kyrie, thrice; Preces (when said); Oratio i, Oratio ii; concluding versicles and responses; Antiphon of Our Lady; Confiteor. There are antiphons to all psalms, except those of Compline, and to all canticles. During Lent, except on Saturdays and Sundays, there are two lessons (from Genesis and Proverbs) after Terce; and on Wednesdays and Fridays of Lent and on Feriœ de Exceptato litanies are said then.

VI. THE MASS

The Ambrosian Mass in its present form is best shown by an analysis pointing out the differences from the Roman. As a great part of it agrees word for word with the Roman, it will only be necessary to indicate the agreements, without giving the passages in full. There are a certain number of ceremonial differences, the most noticeable of which are:

When the deacon and sub-deacon are not occupied, they take up positions at the north and south ends of the altar facing each other.

The Prophecy, Epistle, and Gospel are said, in Milan Cathedral, from the great ambon on the north side of the choir, and the procession thereto is accompanied with some state.

The offering of bread and wine by the men and women of the Scuola di S. Ambrogio.

The filing past and kissing the north corner of the altar at the Offertory.

The silent Lavabo just before the Consecration.

The absence of bell-ringing at the Elevation.

In the rubrics of the Missal there are certain survivals of ancient usage which could only have applied to the city of Milan itself, and may be compared with the “stations” affixed to certain Masses in the Roman Missal of today. The Ambrosian Rite supposes the existence of two cathedrals, the Basilica Major or Ecclesia Æstiva, and the Basilica Minor or Ecclesia Hiemalis. Lejay, following Giulini, calls the Ecclesia Major (St. Mary’s) the winter church, and St. Thecla the summer church (Cabrol, Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne, col. 1382 sqq.), but Ecclesia Hiematis and Ecclesia Major in the “Bergamo Missal,” and Ecclesia Hiemalis and Ad Sanctam Mariam, in all missals, are evidently contrasted with one another. Also the will of Berengarius I, founding St. Rafaele (quoted by Giulini, I, 416) speaks of the latter being near the summer church, which it is, if the summer church is St. Mary’s. There is also assumed to be a detached baptistery and a Chapel of the Cross, though mentions of these are found chiefly in the Breviary, and in earlier times the church of St. Laurence was the starting point of the Palm Sunday ceremonies. The greater, or summer, church, under the patronage of Our Lady, is now the Cathedral; the lesser, or winter, church, which stood at the opposite end of the Piazza del Duomo, and was destroyed in 1543, was under the patronage of St. Thecla. As late as the time of Beroldus (twelfth century) the changes from one to the other were made at Easter and at the Dedication of the Great Church (third Sunday in October), and even now the rubric continues to order two Masses on certain great days, one in each church, and on Easter Eve and through Easter week one Mass is ordered daily pro baptizatis in Ecclesia Hiemali, and another, according to the Bergamo book, in Ecclesia Majori. The modern books say, in omni ecclesiâ. There were two baptisteries, both near the greater church.

ANALYSIS OF THE AMBROSIAN MASS

The Confiteor.

V. In nomine Patris, etc. R. Amen.

V. Introibo ad Altare Dei. R. Ad Deum qui etc.

V. Confitemini Domino quoniam bonus.

R. Quoniam in sæculum misericordia ejus. Confiteor, etc., Misereatur, etc., Indulgentiam etc., as in the Roman Rite, differing only in adding the name of St. Ambrose to the Confiteor.

V. Adjutorium nostrum etc. R. Qui fecit etc.

V. Sit nomen Domini benedictum.

R. Ex hoc nunc et usque in seculum. (Secreto) Rogo to, altissime Deus Sabaoth, Pater sancte, ut pro peccatis meis possim intercedere et astantibus veniam peccatorum promereri ac pacificas singulorum hostias immolare.

Oramus te, Domine etc., as in the Roman Rite. The “Ingressa,” which answers to the Roman Introit. Except in the Mass for the Departed, when, even in the 1475 Missal, it is exactly the Roman Introit, it consists of a single passage, generally of Scripture, without Psalm, “Gloria Patri,” or repetition.

V. Dominus vobiscum etc.

Gloria in Excelsis—On the Sundays in Lent two litanies are said alternately instead. These litanies strongly resemble the Great Synapte of the Greek Rite and, like that, are said by the deacon. One has the response “Domine Miserere,” and the other “Kyrie eleison.” A very similar Litany in the Stowe Missal (f 16, b) is called “Deprecatio Sancti Martini pro populo.”

Kyrie eleison (thrice).

V. Dominus vobiscum etc.

Oratio super Populum, “vel plures Orationes.” The Collect or Collects for the day.

V. Dominus vobiscum etc.

The Prophetical Lesson, when there is one, which is generally on Sundays, “Solemnitates Domini” and “Solemnia,” preceded by a benediction; “Prophetica (or Apostolica) Lectio sit nobis salutis eruditio.” According to the letters of Paul and Gebehard of Ratisbon, “Gesta Sanctorum” sometimes took the place of the Old Testament Lesson. Passages from the Act and the Apocalypse are still used.

Psalmellus and Versus.

The Epistle, preceded by the Benediction, “Apostolica doctrina repleat nos gratiâ divinâ.”

Hallelujah. Versus. Hallelujah. On “solemnitates Domini” the first Hallelujah is doubled. In Lent, on the Litany days, the “Feriæ de Exceptato” and Vigils, the Cantus, answering to the Roman Tractus, takes the place of the Hallelujahs and Versus. On some “Solemnitates Domini” there is an “Antiphona ante Evangelium” also. There are no Sequences in the Ambrosian Rite. The Psalmellus and Versus of the Epistle and the Versus between Hallelujahs of the Gospel together make up exactly the form of a Roman Gradual, and they often agree with those of the Roman Missal.

The Gospel, preceded by “Munda cor meum,” etc., as in the Roman Rite, with the addition of “In nomine Patris, etc.” at the end of “Dominus sit in corde meo,” before, instead of after which the Gospel is given out. The Gospel is followed by “Laus tibi Christe,” and “Per evangelica dicta deleantur nostra delicta.”

V. Dominus vobiscum, etc.

Kyrie eleison (thrice).

Antiphona post Evangelium.

Deacon: “Pacem habete.” R. “Ad te Domine” (cf. the response Soi Kyrie in the Little Synapte and elsewhere in the Constantinopolitan Rite. In early Manuscripts the form here is: “Pacem habete. V. Corrigite vos ad orationem.” R. “Ad te Domine.” Lejay considers that the kiss of peace once came at this point.

V. Dominus vobiscum, etc.

Oratio super sindonem. (This prayer may have dropped out of the Roman Rite and may account for the “Oremus” with no prayer to follow at this point.)

The Offertory.

After the prayer, the Priest receives the paten with the Host and offers it, saying, “Suscipe, clementissime Pater hunc Panem sanctum ut fiat Unigeniti tui Corpus, in nomine Patris, etc.” Laying the Host on the corporal he pours into the chalice wine, saying: “De latere Christi exivit sanguis,” and water, saying: “Et aqua pariter, in nomine, &c.” Then he offers the chalice, saying: “Suscipe clementissime Pater, hunc Calicem, vinum aqua mistum ut fiat Unigeniti tui Sanguis, in nomine, etc.” At this point, in Milan Cathedral, the Chapter clergy all file past the north corner of the altar, each kissing the corner as he passes. Then follow two prayers of offering, addressed respectively to the Father and to the Trinity, agreeing in meaning with the “Suscipe Sancte Pater” and “Suscipe Sancta Trinitas” of the Roman Rite, but differing altogether in language. On Sundays and feasts of Our Lord and their vigils, there is a third prayer, nearly agreeing in wording with “Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas.” Then extending his hands over the oblation, he says: “Et suscipe Sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem pro emundatione mea; ut mundes et purges me ab universis peccatorum maculis, quatenus tibi digne ministrare merear, Deus et clementissime Domine.”

He blesses the Oblata, continuing: “Benedictio Dei Omnipotentis Pa+tris et Fi+lii et Spiritus+Saneti copiosa de cælis descendat super hanc nostram oblationem et accepta tibi sit haec oblatio, Domino sancte, Pater omnipotens, æterne Deus, misericordissime rerum Conditor.”

[In the eleventh-century Manuscript in the Chapter Library at Milan (No. 1. d in the list of Sacramentaries given above), the “Dominus vobiscum after the Creed is followed by a prayer: “Adesto Domine supplicationibus nostris et his muneribus præsentiam tuæ majestatis intersere ut quod nostro servitio geritur te potius operante firmetur per omnia, etc.,” and there are no other Offertory prayers.] At a solemn Mass the blessing of the Incense, and censing of the altar follow. The words are exactly those of the Roman Rite until the delivery of the thurible to the deacon, when instead of “Ascendat in nobis” the priest says: “Ecce odor Sanctorum Dei: tanquam odor agri pleni, quem Deus benedixit.”

Then follows the “Offertorium.” In the cathedral of Milan there is an interesting ceremony at the Offertory, probably a survival of the early practice of offerings “in kind” by the congregation. Ten old men (known as the Vecchioni) and ten old women, who are supported by the Chapter, wear a special costume and belong to what is called the “Scuola di S. Ambrogio,” bring offerings of bread and wine to the choir steps and deliver them to the clergy. There is a detailed account of this ceremony in Beroldus (Ed. Magistretti, 1894, 52). The institution is mentioned in a charter of Bishop Anspert in the ninth century. Wickham Legg (Ecclesiological Essays, 53) says that these offerings are not now used at the Mass then being said, but at some later one. He gives photographs of the old men and women and a full description of the ceremony.

The Creed, preceded by “Dominus vobiscum,” etc. It is here entitled “Symbolum Constantinopolitanum,” and differs not at all from that in the Roman Mass.

V. Dominus vobiscum, etc.

Oratio super oblata.

The Preface. The “Sursum corda” etc. is exactly as in the Roman Rite, though the plain chant is altogether different. The Preface itself has the word “quia” after “vere,” but otherwise begins as in the Roman Rite, as far as “Æterne Deus.” After that comes a marked difference, for instead of only ten variations, there are proper Prefaces for all days that have proper offices, as well as commons of all classes, and in the final clauses, which vary, as in the Roman, according to the ending of the inserted Proper, there are verbal differences.

The Sanctus, exactly as in the Roman Rite.

The Canon.

“To igitur” exactly as in the Roman Canon. In the printed Missals, even before the Borromean revision, there is a variation which comes after “hæc sancta sacrificia illibata,” in the Mass of Easter Eve. In the Bergamo Missal it follows immediately after the “Sanctus,” without the “To igitur” clause. It is: “Vere Sanctus, vere benedictus D. N. J. C. Filius tuus qui cum Dominus esset Majestatis, descendens de cælo formam servi, qui prius perierat, suscepit, et sponte pati dignatus est; ut eum quem ipse fecerat de morte liberaret. Unde et hoc paschale sacrificium tibi offerimus pro his quos ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto regenerare dignatus es dans eis remissionem omnium peccatorum, ut invenires eos in Christo Jesu Domino nostro. Pro quibus tibi, Domine supplices fundimus preces ut nomina eorum pariterque famuli tui Papæ nostri N. et Pontificis nostri N. scripta habeas in Libro Viventium. Per eundem, etc.” This is in the form of a Post Sanctus of the Mozarabic Rite, though it does not agree exactly with any particular Post Sanctus.

“Memento Domine” is the same as in the Roman.

“Communicantes” and “Hanc igitur” are variable on certain days, as in the Roman Rite, but the list of saints differs, Linus and Cletus being omitted and Hippolytus, Vincent, Apollinaris, Vitalis, Nazarius and Celsus, Protasius and Gervasius, Victor, Nabor, Felix, and Calimerius being added. In the earlier editions there were the following additional names: Maternus, Eustorgius, Dionysius, Ambrose, Simplitian, Martin, Eusebius, Hilary, Julius, and Benedict.

“Quam oblationem quam pietati tuæ offerimus tu Deus in omnibus quæsumus, etc.,” the rest as in the Roman Canon. At this point the Priest washes his hand, “nihil dicens.”

The next clauses, reciting the Institution, differ verbally.

“Qui pridie quam pro nostra omniumque salute pateretur (cf. the Maundy Thursday Mass of the Roman Rite) accipiens Panem, elevavit oculis ad cælos ad te Deum Patrem suum omnipotentem, tibi gratias agens benedixit, fregit, deditque Discipulis suis, dicens ad eos: Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: Hoc est enim Corpus meum. Simili modo, postquam cœnatum est, accipiens Calicem, elevavit oculos ad cælos, ad te Deum Patrem suum omnipotentem: item tibi gratias agens, benedixit, tradiditque Discipulis suis, dicens ad eos: Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim Calix, &c. (as in the Roman Canon). Mandans quoque et dicens ad eos: Hæc quotiescunque feceritis in meam commemorationem facietis: Mortem meam prædicabitis, Resurrectionem meam annuntiabitis, Adventum meum sperabitis donec iterum de cælis veniam ad vos.” It may be noted that this long ending, commemorating the Death, Resurrection and Second Coming, is nearly identical with that in the “Canon Dominicus Sancti Gilasi” in the Stowe Missal and has resemblances to the forms in several of the West Syrian (Jacobite) anaphoræ. “Unde et memores” differs only in reading “gloriosissimæ” instead of “gloriosæ Ascensionis”

“Supra quæ propitio” inserts “tuo” after “vultu” and reads “justi pueri tui Abel.”

“Supplices te rogamus” reads “tremendæ” instead of “divinæ Majestatis.”

“Memento etiam Domine” exactly agrees with the Roman Rite.

“Nobis quoque, minimis, et peccatoribus famulis tuis de multitudine misericordiæ tuæ,” continuing as in the Roman Rite, except for the list of saints, which adds a second Joannes, substitutes Andreas for Matthias, omits Ignatius and Alexander, and adds Euphemia, Justina, Sabina, Thecla, Pelagia, and Catharine (the Manuscripts and 1475 lists omit Catharine), varying the order a little. The ending also differs, “benedicis et nobis famulis tuis largiter præstas ad augmentum fidei et remissionem peccatorum nostrorum: Et est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti ex+ipso et per+ipsum et in+ipso omnis honor virtus laus et gloria, impe+rium, perpe+tuitas et po+testas in unitate spiritus sancti per infinita secula seculorum. Amen.” The Fraction and Commixture occur at this point, instead of after the “Pater Noster” as in the Roman Rite since St. Gregory the Great. The priest breaks the Host over the chalice, saying: Corpus tuum frangitur, Christe, Calix benedicitur”; then laying one part on the paten, he breaks a particle from the other, saying: “Sanguis tuus sit nobis semper ad vitam et ad salvandas animas, Deus noster.” Then he puts the particle into the chalice, saying: “Commixtio consecrati Corporis et Sanguinis D. N. J. C. nobis edentibus et sumentibus proficiat ad vitam et gaudium sempiternum.” Then follows the “Confractorium,” an anthem varying according to the day.

The Pater Noster, introduced by the same clause as in the Roman Rite, except on Maundy Thursday and Easter Day, when different forms are used. The Embolism differs somewhat: “Libera nos . . . et intercedente pro nobis Beata Maria Genitrice Dei ac Domini nostri Jesu Christi et Sanctis Apostolis tuis Petro et Paulo atque Andrea et Beato Ambrosio Confessore tuo atque Pontifice una cum omnibus Sanctis tuis . . . ab omni perturbatione securi. Præsta per eum, cum quo beatus vivis et regnas Deus in unitate Spiritus Sancti per omnia secula “seculorum. Amen.

The “Pax.” The priest says: “Pax et communicatio D. N. J. C. sit semper vobiscum. R. Et cum spiritu tuo.” The deacon: “Offerte vobis pacem. R. Deo gratias.” The prayer, “Domine Jesu Christe qui dixisti, etc.,” which differs from the Roman in reading “pacificare, custodire et regere digneris propitius.” Then the “Pax” is given: “V. Pax tecum. R. Et cum spiritu tuo,” as in the Roman Rite. In Masses for the Dead the “Offerte vobis pacem,” the prayer, and the giving of the “Pax” are omitted, and the “Agnus Dei,” differing from the Roman form “pro defunctis” only in adding “et locum indulgentiæ cum Sanctis tuis in gloria” at the end, is said. The “Agnus Dei” does not occur in other Masses.

The Communion. The preliminary prayers are: “Domine Sancte Pater omnipotens, æterne Deus da mihi hoc Corpus Jesu Christi Filii tui Domini mei ita sumere: ut non sit mihi ad judicium sed ad remissionem omnium peccatorum meorum. Qui tecum vivit, etc.,” and “Domine Jesu Christe Fili Dei vivi,” which only differs from the Roman in reading “obedire” for “inhærere.” Then follows “Domine non sum dignus,” as in the Roman Rite, after which comes “Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quæ retribuit mihi? Panem cælestem accipiam et nomen Domini invocabo. Corpus D. N. J. C. custodiat animam meam ad vitam æternam. Amen. Quid retribuam, etc.,” exactly as in the Roman Rite. Then, at receiving the Chalice, “Præsta, quæso, Domine, ut perceptio Corporis et Sanguinis D. N. J. C. ad vitam nos perducat æternam,” after which “Quod ore sumpsimus, Domine, pura mente Capiamus ut de Corpore et Sanguine D. N. J. C. fiat nobis remedium sempiternum.” At the Ablution: “Confirma hoc, Deus, quod operatus es in nobis et dona Ecclesiæ tuæ perpetuam tranquillitatem et pacem.”

The “Transitorium” (the Ambrosian equivalent of the Roman “Communio”) and the “Oratio Post Communionem” follow.

V. Dominus vobiscum, etc.

Kyrie eleison (thrice).

V. Benedicat et exaudiat nos Deus. R. Amen.

V. Procedamus cum pace. R. In nomine Christi.

V. Benedicamus Domino. R. Deo Gratias.

Then follow “Placeat tibi” (slightly varied), the Blessing and the Last Gospel as in the Roman Rite.

The present form from the “Pax” onward dated from the revision of St. Charles Borromeo, and appears for the first time in print in 1594. In 1475, 1560, etc., the form was as follows:

V. Pax et communicatio D. N. J. C. sit semper vobiscum.

R. Et cum spiritu tuo.

V. Offerte nobis pacem. R. Deo gratias. Pax in cælo, pax in terra, pax in omni populo pax sacerdotibus ecclesiarum Dei. Pax Christi et Ecclesiæ maneat semper vobiscum.

Then the Priest gives the “Pax” to the server, saying “Habete vinculum pacis et caritatis ut apti sitis sacrosanctis mysteriis Dei. R. Amen. Domine Sancte Pater etc.,” as at present. The second prayer, “Domine Jesu Christe, etc.,” was not used. (In the early Manuscripts the giving of the “Pax” ends with “Offerte nobis pacem, etc.”)

Quid retribuam, etc. Panem cælestem, etc.

Domine, non sum dignus, etc.

Corpus D. N. J. C. profitiat mihi sumenti et omnibus pro quibus illud obtuli ad vitam et gaudium sempiternum. Amen. (This form is found also in the Chur Missal of 1589.)

Præsta, quæeso, Domine, ut perceptio corporis et sanguinis D. N. J. C. quem pro nobis dignatus est fundere ab omni nos peccati maculâ purget et ad vitam perducat æternam. Per eundem, etc.

Quid retribuam, etc. Calicem salutaris, etc.

Domine non sum dignus, etc.

Corpus et Sanguis D. N. J. C. propitius sit mihi sumenti et omnibus pro quibus illud obtuli ad vitam et gaudiam sempiternam. Per eundem, etc.

Deo gratias. Deo Gratias.

Accepta Christi munera sumamus Dei gratia, non ad judicium sed ad salvandas animas, Deus noster. Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. Gloria Patri, etc. Sicut erat, etc. Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram. Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem.

Quod ore sumpsimus, etc., as at present.

Confirma hoc, Deus, etc., as at present.

Placeat tibi, etc.

The eleventh-century Manuscript (No. 1-d in list above), quoted in the Solesmes edition of the Bergamo book, does not contain any more at the “Pax” and “Communion” than “Pax et Communicatio, etc.” “Offerte vobis pacem.” “Oratio post communionem.” “Dominus vobiscum, etc.” “Quad ore sumpsimus, etc.”

VII. THE OCCASIONAL SERVICES

Of the services in the Ritual and Pontifical there is not much to say. The ceremonies of Baptism differ in their order from those of the Roman Rite. The Ambrosian order is: renunciation; ephphatha; sufflation; unction; exorcism and second sufflation; signing with the Cross; delivery of the salt; introduction into the church; Creed and Lord’s Prayer; declaration of faith; Baptism, for which the rubric is: Ter occiput mergit in aqua in crucis formam (and, as Legg points out, the Ambrosians boast that their baptism is always by immersion); litany; anointing with chrism; delivery of white robe and candle; dismissal. A great part of the wording is exactly the same as the Roman. The order of the Unction of the Sick shows the progress of Roman influence in modern times. The service at present used differs very little except at one point from that given by Magistretti (Mon. Vet., II, 79, 94, 147) from early Manuscripts, and from the form in the undated printed Ritual of the late fifteenth century, but the difference at that point is no less than the introduction of the Roman manner and words of anointing. The old Ambrosian Rite was to anoint the sick person on the breast, the hands, and the feet, with the words: “Ungo te oleo sanctificato, more militis unctus et preparatus ad luctam aerias possis catervas. Operare creatura olei, in nomine+Dei Patris omnipotentis+et Filii+et Spiritus Sancti, ut non lateat spiritus immundus nec in membris nec in medullis nec in ulla compagine membrorum hujus hominis [vel mulieris] sed operetur in eo virtus Christi Filii Altissimi qui cum æterno Patri. . . . Amen.” Then, “Quidquid peccasti per cogitationem cordis [per operationem manuum vel per ingressum pedum] parcat tibi Deus. Amen.” The fifteenth-century printed Ritual varies the first anointing. Instead of “Quidquid peccasti,” it reads, “Per istam unctionem et cristi sacratissimam passionem si quid peccasti, etc.,” the other two being as in the older books. The Ungo te, etc., is repeated with each. A somewhat similar form, but shorter, with the anointing of the five senses and reading Ungimus for Ungo, is given in Harl. Manuscript 2990, an early fifteenth-century North Italian fragment, and in the Venetian printed pre-Tridontine Rituals, a form very like the last (but reading Ungo) with the same anointings as in the Roman Rite, is given as the rite of the Patriarchate of Venice. This form, or something very like it, with the seven anointings is found in the Asti Ritual described by Gastoué. In the modern Ambrosian Ritual the Roman seven anointings and the form, Per istam unctionem,’ etc., are taken over bodily and the Ungo te has disappeared. The differences in the Order of Matrimony are very slight, and the other contents of the Ritual call for no special remark. In the ninth-century Pontifical published by Magistretti the consecration of a church includes the solemn entry, the writing of the ABCturium, with the cambutta (that Gaelic word, cam bata, crooked staff, which is commonly used in Gallican books), the blessing and mixture of salt, water, ashes, and wine, the sprinkling and anointing of the church and the altar, the blessing of various utensils, and at the end the deposition of the relics. The order given by Mercati from an eleventh-century Manuscript at Lucca differs from the ninth-century form in that there is a circumambulation and sprinkling, with the signing of the cross on the door, the writing of an alphabet per parietem and the making of three crosses on each wall with chrism, before the entry, and there is no deposition of relics. There are also considerable differences of wording. The ordinations in the ninth-century Manuscript are of the same mixed Roman and Gallican type, but are less developed than those of the modern Roman Pontifical.

CERIANI, Notitia Liturgiœ Ambrosianœ ante sæculum XI medium (Milan, 1895); Preface to MAGISTRETTI’S Monumenta Veteris Liturgiœ Ambrosianœ, (Milan, 1897); Pt. I; Edition of the Biasca Sacramentary in Vol. VIII of Monumenta Sacra et Profana ex Codicibus prœsertim Bibliothecœ Ambrosianœ; MAGISTRETTI, La liturgia della chiesa di Milono nel secolo IV (Milan, 1899); Monumenta Veteris Liturgia Ambrosianœ, Pt. III (Milan, 1897–1905); Della nuova Edizione tipica del Messale Ambrosiano (Milan, 1902); Beroldus, sive ecclesiœ Ambrosianœ kalendarium et ordines, sœc. XII (Milan, 1894); CAGIN, Antiphonarium Ambrosianum du musée Britannique, XIIe siècle, in Vol. V, VI, of Paléographie musicale, par les Bénédictins de Solesmes (Solesmes, 1896, 1900); MERCATI, Ordo Ambrosianus ad Consecrandum Ecclesiam et Altare, in Studi e Testi (of the Vatican Library), (Rome, 1902); Pt VII COLOMBO, Gli inni del breviario Ambrosiano (Milan, 1897); LEJAY, articles Ambrosien (Rit), LEJAY in Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne (Paris, 1904), and in Dict. de théol. chrét. (Paris, 1900); articles in Revue d’histoire et de littérature religeuses (1897), II; Rit romain et rit gallican; origin et date du rit gallican (1902), VII; Rit ambrosien; PROBST, Die abendländische Messe vom fünften bis zum achten Jahrhundert (Münster in W., 1896); DUCHESNE, Origines du culte chrétien (Paris, 1902), tr. (S. P. C. K., London, 1904); BÄUMER, Geschichte des Breviers (Freiburg, 1895); NEALE, The Ambrosian Liturgy, in Essays on Liturgiology (London, 1867); W. C. BISHOP, The Ambrosian Breviary, in Church Q., Oct., 1886: LEGG, Ecclesiological Essays (London, 1905); GIULINI, Memorie spettante alla storia di Milano (Milan 1854–57); CATENA, Chiese e riti (di Milano), in CANTÙ, Milano e il suo territorio (Milan, 1844); GRANCOLAS, Les anciennes liturgies (Paris, 1697); LE BRUN, Explication de la Messe (Paris 1715); GERBERT, edition of the St. Gallen triple sacramentary, Gelasian, Gregorian, and Ambrosian (now lost), in Monumenta Veteris Liturgiœ Allemannicœ (St. Blaise, 1777): MAZZUCHELLI, Osservazione intorno al Saggio storica critico sopra il rito ambrosiano (Milan, 1828): MARTÈNE, Ex antiquis Ecclesiœ ritibus (Bassani, 1788); MURATORI, Antiquitates Italiœ medii œvi, diss. lvii (Milan, 1738–42); Liturgia Romana vetus (Venice, 1748); MABILLON, Musœum Italicum (Paris, 1687); DELISLE, Mémoire sur d’anciens Sacrementaires, in Mémoires de l’Instit. Nat. de France, Acad. des inscript., etc., Vol. XXXII (Paris, 1886); FRISI, Memorie storiche di Monza (Milan, 1794); E. BISHOP, The Genius of the Roman Rite (London); Liturgical Note, in KUYPERS, Book of Cerne (Cambridge, 1902); On the early Texts of the Roman Canon, in Journal of Theological Studies. July, 1903; HÖYNCK, Geschichte der kirchlichen Liturgie des Bisthums Augsburg (Augsburg, 1889); NEALE AND FORBES, The Ancient Liturgies of the Gallican Church (Burntisland, 1855); GASTOUÉ, Un rituel noté de la province de Milan du Xe siècle, in Rassegna Gregoriana, 1903.

HENRY JENNER

Ambrosians

St. Ambrose cannot be counted among the founders of religious orders, although, like the great Doctors of the Church, he took a deep interest in the monastic life, and closely watched its beginnings in his diocese. He himself made provision for the wants of the monks who lived in a monastery outside the walls of the episcopal city under the guidance of one of his priests, as St. Augustine tells us in his “Confessions.” Not all these monks, however, were actually a cause of pleasure to him; Sarmatian and Barbatian, indeed, who belonged to their community, gave him great anxiety by their evil conduct and their errors. Virginity, moreover, was but little in honour among the women of Milan at the time that St. Ambrose was called to rule the Church there, but his exhortations so overcame this indifference that the Milanese virgins, now grown to be numerous and fervent, formed the favourite portion of his flock, and widows strove to equal them in piety. Many of these holy women limited themselves to the obligations imposed by a chaste life, and shared the lives of their families in all other ways; others, however, withdrew altogether from their families and from the world, to live under the guidance of a superior a life of poverty and mortification filled with the praises of God, with meditation on the Holy Scriptures and the exercise of various works of Christian charity. It was to one of such associations of virgins who took the instructions of the holy Bishop as their rule of life that St. Marcellina, the sister of St. Ambrose belonged. These teachings have been summed up in certain treatises of his which have come down to us, namely, in his three books “De virginibus,” his one book “De viduis,” and those “De virginitate,” “De institutione virginis,” “De exhortatione virginitatis,” and “De lapsu virginis consecratae” (P.L., XVI, 187–389). St. Ambrose is, in fact, the one Father who has written most concerning virginity. His writings, and the example of what was taking place at Milan, did much to foster vocations to virginity and the formation of those communities which were later to grow into monasteries of women. The whole movement, indeed, is one of the most remarkable in the Christian life of the second half of the fourth century. These holy women, while waiting to have rules for the religious life specially written for them, contented themselves with the Bible, with certain treatises of the Fathers concerning their state, and certain traditions concerning the practical ordering of their lives. Some of these rules unquestionably dated back to the holy Doctors who had presided over the formation of the earliest communities, so that it becomes easy to understand the influence which St. Ambrose exercised over the beginnings of the religious life among women.

THE ORDER OF ST. AMBROSE

The Order of St. Ambrose was the name of two religious congregations, one of men and one of women, founded in the neighbourhood of Milan during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, under the patronage and invocation of St. Ambrose.

(a) The cradle of the first was a wood near Milan where three noble Milanese, Alexander Grivelli, Antonio Petrasancta, and Albert Besuzzi, sought a retreat from the world. Other solitaires, and even priests, joined them, and Gregory XI gave them the Rule of St. Augustine, with certain special constitutions (1375). Thenceforward they had a canonical existence, and took the name of “Fratres Sancti Ambrosii ad Nemus.” Their habit consisted of a tunic, scapular, and hood, of a chestnut colour, and they elected their own prior, who was subsequently instituted by the Archbishop of Milan. The priests of the congregation devoted themselves to preaching and to the labours of the apostolic ministry; they were not, however, allowed to accept the charge of a parish. In matters of liturgy they all followed the Ambrosian Rite. Various monasteries were founded on these lines, whose sole bond of union was a community of customs, and which Eugenius IV merged into one congregation, in 1441, under the name of “Congregatio Sancti Ambrosii ad Nemus,” with the original house as its centre. The general chapter met every three years, and elected the priors, whose term of office was for the same period. The rector, or superior-general, had two visitors to assist him. Their discipline had become relaxed in the time of St. Charles Borromeo who successfully undertook their reform (1579). In 1589 Sixtus V united the monasteries of the “Brothers of the Apostles of the Poor Life,” also known as “Apostolini” or “Brothers of St. Barnabas,” to the Congregation of St. Ambrose. Their houses were situated in the Province of Genoa and in the March of Ancona; the order had been founded by Giovanni Scarpa at the end of the fifteenth century. After this union, which was confirmed by Paul V in 1606, the congregation added the name of St. Barnabas to its title, adopted new constitutions, divided its houses into four provinces, two of the houses, St. Clement’s and St. Pancras’s, being in Rome. Ascanio Tasca and Michele Mulozzani, each of whom was superior-general have left several works, as have Zaccaria Visconti, and Francesco-Maria Guazzi. Another member of the order, Paolo Fabulotti, was the author of a treatise “De potestate papae super concilium” (Venice, 1613), of which there have been several editions. Various Ambrosians, moreover, have received the title of Blessed, namely: Antonio Gonzaga of Mantua, Filippo of Fermo, and Gerardo of Monza. The order was dissolved by Innocent X in 1650.

(b) The Nuns of St. Ambrose (Ambrosian Sisters) wore a habit of the same chestnut colour as the Brothers of St. Ambrose, followed the Ambrosian Liturgy, and conformed to their constitutions without, however, being under the jurisdiction of their superiors and general chapters, Sixtus IV having at their request given the nuns this canonical standing in 1474. Their monastery built on the top of Monte Varese, near Lago Maggiore, was under the invocation of Our Lady of the Mount. Their foundress was the Blessed Catarina Morigia, or of Palanza, who first led a solitary life on this spot, and is commemorated 6 April. Several of her original companions died in the odour of sanctity, namely: the Blessed Juliana of Puriselli, Benedetta Bimia, and Lucia Alciata. Our Lady of the Mount was their one monastery. The nuns long maintained their fervour, and were held in high esteem by St. Charles Borromeo. The Annunciatae of Lombardy are also called “Nuns of St. Ambrose,” or “Sisters of St. Marcellina,” and were founded in 1408 by three young women of Pavia—Dorothea Morosini, Eleonora Contarini, and Veronica Duodi—who were under the direction of the Benedictine, Beccaria. Their houses, scattered throughout Lombardy and Venetia, were united into a congregation by St. Pius V, under the Rule of St. Augustine. The mother-house is at Pavia. It is the residence of the prioress-general, who is elected every three years by the general chapter of the congregation. Mother Joanna of Parma, who entered the Order in 1470, did more than anyone else towards giving it a definite organization. The nuns lived in cloister under the jurisdiction of the bishops. One of their number was St. Catharine Fieschi Adorno, who died, 14 September, 1510.

THE OBLATES OF ST. AMBROSE AND OF ST. CHARLES

St. Charles Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan, early realized the assistance which the various religious orders would be to him in the reform of his diocese in compliance with the injunction of the Council of Trent. The help of the Barnabites, Somaschi, and Theatines was therefore enlisted by him, and he entrusted the management of his seminary to the Jesuits, who were great favourites of his, though he found himself subsequently obliged to take it from them. These various auxiliaries, however, great as was their devotion, were not sufficiently at his disposal to supply all the needs connected with the government of a vast diocese. Accordingly the Archbishop, in order to fill this gap, decided to found a diocesan religious society whose members, all priests or destined to become priests, should take a simple vow of obedience to their bishop. Such a society, in fact already existed at Brescia, under the name of “Priests of Peace.” St. Charles endeavoured, without success, to win over the canons of his cathedral to his idea, but had more success with the “Priests of the Holy Crown,” who served the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre and lived in community. His exhortations to his clergy during the synodal meetings led certain men of good will to fall in with his views, and he was able to install them in the church of the Holy Sepulchre and the adjoining buildings, 16 August, 1578, giving them the name of “Oblates of St. Ambrose.” Their community was endowed with the revenues of certain diocesan benefices, and with a portion of the properties belonging to the Congregation of the Humiliati, which had just been dissolved by the Holy See. The rules by which the new congregation were to be governed were submitted by their author to St. Philip Neri and to St. Felix of Cantalice, the latter of whom persuaded him not to impose the vow of poverty, and, in their definite form, received the approbation of Gregory XIII. It was to be the duty of the Oblates to assist the Archbishop in the government and administration of the Diocese, to fill all such offices as he should entrust to them, to go on missions to the most abandoned places, to serve vacant parishes, to manage seminaries, colleges, and Christian schools, to give retreats, and, in a word, to devote themselves to the whole work of the ministry in compliance with the orders and wishes of the bishop. They were divided into two bodies, one remaining attached to the church of the Holy Sepulchre, the other labouring in the city and diocese. These latter formed six groups, or associations, under the direction of a responsible superior. The first, taking for their model the method followed at Rome by St. Philip and his priests of the Oratory, made their basilica a veritable centre of pious and charitable life, the effect of which was felt throughout the city.

Their work was directed by St. Charles himself, who was glad to stay among them, sharing their manner of life, and taking part in their exercises and in their tasks, nor is his memory so kept in honour anywhere as in this house. He was wont to say that of all the institutions which he had created that of the Oblates was the one he held most dear and on which he set the greatest value. The Oblates of the Holy Sepulchre, moreover, established, for their own assistance, a confraternity of lay Oblates, composed of magistrates and prominent men, who bound themselves to visit the sick and the poor, to teach the ignorant, to reconcile enemies, and to defend the Faith. The “Company of the Ladies of the Oratory,” also founded by them, aimed at fostering the practice of a serious Christian life among women of the world. They further undertook the management of the diocesan seminary, and of the colleges established by their holy founder; they preached the Gospel in the country districts, and even journeyed into the mountains in search of heretics. St. Charles was preparing to establish them in the famous sanctuary of Our Lady of Rho, the very year of his death (1584). The first Oblates belonged to the best of the Milanese clergy, among whom learning and virtue were always held in honour. The archbishops of Milan fostered the growth of the institution by all the means in their power, and it soon numbered two hundred members. Cardinal Frederic Borromeo caused their constitutions to be printed in 1613, nor did they cease to labour in the service of the diocese until their dispersion by Napoleon I in 1810. The Oblates of Our Lady of Rho, however, escaped attention, and were left unmolested. They were reorganized by Msgr. Romilli, under the name of “Oblates of St. Charles,” in 1848, and reinstated in their house of the Holy Sepulchre. The community is now, as in the past, one of learned and virtuous priests. One of their number, Ballerini, died Patriarch of Antioch, after having governed the Church of Milan; another Ramazotti, was Patriarch of Venice (1861). Several Oblates, moreover, have become known by their theological and historical writings. The following may be mentioned: Giovanni Stupano (d. 1580), author of a treatise concerning the powers of the Church’s ministers, and of the Pope in particular; Martino Bonacina (d. 1631), one of the foremost moralists of his age, whose theological works have been several times republished, and who died suddenly on his way to fill the position of Nuncio of Urban VIII at the court of the Emperor; Giussano, one of the best biographers of St. Charles; Sormano and, especially, his contemporary, Sassi (Saxius, d. 1751), who succeeded Muratori as librarian. It is to him that we owe the edition, in five volumes, of the homilies of St. Charles, a history of the archbishops of Milan, and a treatise on the journey of St. Barnabas to that city.

THE OBLATES OUTSIDE OF ITALY

The example of St. Charles was followed, in the nineteenth century, by Msgr. Pie, Bishop of Poitiers, and by Msgr. Martin, Bishop of Paderborn. The former founded a society of priests on the lines of the Milanese Oblates, and with a similar mission, to whom he gave the name of “Oblates of St. Hilary,” the patron saint of his diocese (1850). The latter called his new society the “Congregation of the Priests of Mary.” The most famous society of Oblates, however, outside of Italy, is that of the Oblates of St. Charles, in London, founded by Cardinal Wiseman. The religious orders established in his diocese did not seem to him to answer adequately to modern conditions, nor were they wholly at his disposal. The priests of the Oratory, gathered round Faber and Newman, showed him, however, what may be looked for from one of these diocesan societies when directed by a man of ability. Manning was at that time at the Cardinal’s disposal, and it was to him that the duty was entrusted of founding the new society, and of drawing up its rules. Manning took the Oblates of Milan as his pattern, and gave his priests the title of “Oblates of St. Charles.” The rules which he prescribed for them were practically those drawn up by St. Charles for his disciples adapted to English conditions, and were approved by the Holy See in 1857 and in 1877. Wiseman installed his Oblates, with their superior and founder, at the church of St. Mary of the Angels, Bayswater, on Whit Monday of the latter year. Before long they had created other missions or religious centres in the diocese of Westminster, and had their full share in the movement of conversions, which was then taking place in England. Nor did the opposition of Errington, Wiseman’s coadjutor, and of the Westminster chapter, hinder the advance of the society, though the Cardinal found himself, indeed under the necessity of withdrawing them from his seminary at St. Edmund’s, where he had placed them. The staff of this house had supplied Manning with some of his best subjects, among others with Herbert Vaughan, who was to succeed him at Westminster. Under Manning’s direction, the Oblates devoted themselves to various apostolic labours in London, and in other missions in the two dioceses of Westminster and Southwark. They have founded in London elementary schools, a higher school for boys, and the College of St. Charles, an institution for secondary education. They have had a house in Rome since 1861; in 1867 Pius IX appointed the superior, Father O’Callaghan, rector of the English College, thus giving the Oblates the means of exercising a greater influence on the clergy. The Archconfraternity of the Holy Ghost, Manning’s favourite devotion, with its centre at St. Mary of the Angels, has grown largely under their direction. Manning governed the Bayswater community from 1857 to 1868. He held that the mission of the Oblates was to revive the English secular clergy by taking part in its life and in its labours, and thus setting them an example. Their community life helps them to sanctify themselves by the practices of an approved rule; they devote themselves to ecclesiastical studies, but more especially to ascetical and mystical theology, which enables them to give pious souls an enlightened guidance; they undertake all the tasks entrusted to them by the archbishop, whose missionaries they are, and to whom they owe complete obedience.

(I) TILLEMONT, Mémoires pour servir à l’hist. ecclésiast. des six premiers siècles, X, 102–109, 229–231; BAUNARD, Histoire de Saint Ambroise (Paris, 1872), 149–192, 513–519; (II) HELYOT, Hist. des ordres relig. et milit., (Paris, 1792), IV, 56–68; HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregat. der Katholisch. Kirche (Paderborn, 1806), 488, 489, 510, 511; CESAR TETTAMENTIUS, Ecclesiae et Parthenonis Beatae Mariae de Monte supra Varesium plena historia et descriptio (Milan, 1655); (III) BARTH. ROSSI, De origine et progressu congregationis Oblatorum Sanctorum Ambrosii et Caroli (Milan, 1734); Acta Ecclesioe mediolanensis a Carolo episcopo condita (Milan, 1549), 826 seq.; Sancti Caroli Borromoei homilioe, I, 286–296: IV, 271–281; SYLVAIN, Histoire de Saint Charles Borromee (Lille, 1884), III, 79–106; HELYOT, ut supr., VIII, 29–37; HEIMBUCHER, ut supr., IIl, 336–338. (IV) BAUNARD, Histoire du Cardinal Pie (Paris, 1886), I, 432 sq.; see, also, the various biographies of Cardinals Wiseman and Manning; The Religious Houses in the United Kingdom (London, 1887); Constitutiones Congregationis Anglicanoe Oblatorum Sancti Caroli (London, 1877).

J.M. BESSE

Ambrosiaster

The name given to the author of a commentary on all the Epistles of St. Paul, with the exception of that to the Hebrews. It is usually published among the works of St. Ambrose (P.L., XVII, 45–508). Before each Epistle and its interpretation a short prologue is found which sets forth purpose and context. In the commentaries the text is given by sections; and for each portion a natural and logical explanation is furnished. All in all the commentary is an excellent work. Some modern scholars believe it the best that was written before the sixteenth century. Its teaching is entirely orthodox, with, perhaps, the sole exception of the author’s belief in the millennium. The Latin text of the Pauline Epistles differs considerably from the Vulgate. According to all appearances it was taken from the version known as the “Itala.” Reference to the Greek text is rarely found; in fact the writer seems to be ignorant of the Greek language. The author hardly ever seeks a hidden or mystic sense in the text; hence it becomes evident how widely the commentary differs in character from the exegetical works of St. Ambrose. In his interpretation of Scriptural works St. Ambrose is not much given to research into the natural and literal meaning. Generally he is in quest of a higher allegoric or mystic sense. And although he distinguishes between the literal and the higher signification, still it is the latter principally that he tries to bring out. Not so with Ambrosiaster. The natural and logical sense is the only object the writer has in view. As to the time when the commentary was written, there are many indications which point to the latter part of the fourth century. Of the heresies or sects referred to, none antedates that period. The persecution of the Emperor Julian (361–363) is spoken of as a recent occurrence. Finally Pope Damasus (366–384) is mentioned as actually presiding (hodie) over the destinies of the Church. It is quite likely that the writer lived in Rome; his reference to the primacy of St. Peter and the power wielded by Pope Damasus would suggest the idea. The identification of the writer however is not so easy. During the Middle Ages the commentary was commonly ascribed to St. Ambrose. The first doubts as to his authorship were raised by Erasmus in the sixteenth century; since that period the author has been known as Ambrosiaster (Pseudo-Ambrosius). Scholars have suggested a great variety of names. St. Augustine, in quoting a passage from the commentary, attributes it to St. Hilary; hence some writers believed the either St. Hilary of Poitiers, or St. Hilary of Pavia, or the schismatic deacon Hilary of Rome was meant. Others sought the writer in St. Remigius, in the Pelagian Bishop Julian of Aeclanum, in the African writer Tyconius, in the schismatic priest Faustinus of Rome, or in the converted Jew Isaac of Rome. Most of these views are mere conjectures, or directly opposed to the facts known about the writer. The more recent opinion is that the author of the commentar ies is also the author of the pseudo-Augustinian “Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti.” According to a suggestion made by Dom Germain Morin, O.S.B., and adopted by A. Souter, the author of these commentaries was a distinguished layman of consular rank, by the name of Decimus Hilarianus Hilarius.

SOUTER, A study of Ambrosiaster (Cambridge University Press, 1905); BARDENHEWER, Patrologie (Freiburg, 1901), 382, 387; NIRSCHL, Patrologie (Mainz, 1883), II.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Ambulatory

A cloister, gallery, or alley; a sheltered place, straight or circular, for exercise in walking; the aisle that makes the circuit of the apse of a church. The central eastern apse of a church was often encircled by a semicircular aisle, called the ambulatory. Of these ambulatories there are three species:

the ambulatory with tangential chapels;

the ambulatory without chapels;

variants of the above.

By far the most common type is that in which the chapels radiate tot he north-east, east, and south-east. An ambulatory without radiating chapels is so rare in Romanesque work that supposed examples should be regarded as doubtful. Sometimes there is a rectangular ambulatory, as in the Romsey eastern chapel. Ambulatories are constructed either on the inside or outside of a building, or in a public thoroughfare wholly or partially under cover, or entirely open to the sky, and are used only to walk in. The term is sometimes applied to a covered way round a building, such as the space between the columns and cella of a peripteral temple, or around an open space as the cloisters of a monastic church, as the Campo Santo at Pisa, or the atrium of an ancient basilica, e. g. that of St Ambrose at Milan. The term can be used as an equivalent of either cloister or atrium.

LONGFELLOW, A Cyclopedia of Works of Architecture in Italy, Greece, and the Levant (New York, 1895); GWILT, Encyclopedia of Architecture (London, 1881); BOND, Gothic Architecture in England (London, 1905).

THOMAS H. POOLE

Diocese of Amelia

The Diocese of Amelia comprises seven towns in the province of Perugia, Italy, and is under the immediate jurisdiction of the Holy See. The Christian origin of this Umbrian mountain town is wrapped in mystery. The Bishopric of Amelia appears on the pages of history relatively late. Ughelli mentions an Orthodolphus, Bishop, about the year 344. He mentions also Stephen, of whom there is no trace in history. Flavius, Bishop of Amelia, seems to have been present at a synod held at Rome, 14 November, 465, by Pope Hilary. Ughelli goes on to enumerate Tiburtius, Martinianus, and then a Sallustino present at a synod held in 502 under Pope Symmachus. Still further according to Ughelli, in the fifth century there was a Bishop of Amelia by name Sincerus. The Bollandists, however, show that the date of his episcopate is uncertain; there is question even of his very existence (June, III, 17). A Bishop of Amelia still appears in 649 at the provincial synod held by Pope Martin at the Lateran. The city of Amelia had great political importance during the eighth century, when between the opposition of the iconoclast Byzantine emperors and the conquering Lombard power in the centre of Italy the temporal power of the popes grew from day to day. There are 20 parishes, 31 secular priests, 43 regular priests, 78 churches and chapels. The population is 19,500.

UGHELLI, Italia Sacra (Venice, 1722); CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866); GAMS, Series episcoporum Ecclesiae catholicae (Ratisbon, 1873); EROLI, Scavi d’Amelia (Rome, 1881).

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Denis Amelote

Born at Saintes, 1609; died in Paris, 7 October, 1678. He was ordained in 1631, was a Doctor of the Sorbonne, and member of the French Oratory. His French translation of the New Testament (4 vols. 1666–170) was highly valued and ofter reprinted. His other Scriptural works are mostly extracts from his New Testament edition. As a strenuous opponent of the Jansenists, he wrote “Defensio Constitutionum Innocentii XI et Alexandri VII.”

HURTER, Nomenclator, II, 146; Ingold in Vig., Dict. De la bible (Paris, 1895).

A.J. MAAS

Amen

The word Amen is one of a small number of Hebrew words which have been imported unchanged into the liturgy of the Church, propter sanctiorem as St. Augustine expresses it, in virtue of an exceptionally sacred example. “So frequent was this Hebrew word in the mouth of Our Saviour,” observes the Catechism of the Council of Trent,”that it pleased the Holy Ghost to have it perpetuated in the Church of God.” In point of fact St. Matthew attributes it to Our Lord twenty-eight times, and St. John in its doubled form twenty-six times. As regards the etymology, Amen is a derivative from the Hebrew verb aman “to strengthen” or “Confirm.”

SCRIPTURAL USE

I. In the Holy Scripture it appears almost invariably as an adverb, and its primary use is to indicate that the speaker adopts for his own what has already been said by another. Thus in Jer., xxviii, 6, the prophet represents himself as answering to Hananias’s prophecy of happier days; “Amen, the Lord perform the words which thou hast prophesied.” And in the imprecations of Deut., xxvii, 14 sqq. we read, for example: “Cursed be he that honoureth not his father and mother, and all the people shall say Amen.” From this, some liturgical use of the word appears to have developed long before the coming of Jesus Christ. Thus we may compare I Paralipomenon, xvi, 36, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel from eternity; and let the people say Amen and a hymn to God,” with Ps., cv, 48, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel from everlasting: and let all the people say: so be it” (cf. also II Esdras, viii, 6), these last words in the Septuagint being represented by genoito, genoito, and in the Vulgate, which follows the Septuagint by fiat, fiat; but the Massoretic text gives “Amen, Alleluia.” Talmudic tradition tells us that Amen was not said in the Temple, but only in the synagogues (cf. Edersheim, The Temple, p. 127), but by this we probably ought to understand not that the saying Amen was forbidden in the Temple, but only that the response of the congregation, being delayed until the end for fear of interrupting the exceptional solemnity of the rite, demanded a more extensive and impressive formula than a simple Amen. The familiarity of the usage of saying Amen at the end of all prayers, even before the Christian era, is evidenced by Tobias, ix, 12.

II. A second use of Amen most common in the New Testament, but not quite unknown in the Old, has no reference to the words of any other person, but is simply a form of affirmation or confirmation of the speaker’s own thought, sometimes introducing it, sometimes following it. Its employment as an introductory formula seems to be peculiar to the speeches of Our Saviour recorded in the Gospels, and it is noteworthy that, while in the Synoptists one Amen is used, in St. John the word is invariably doubled. (Cf. the double Amen of conclusion in Num., v, 22, etc.) In the Catholic (I. e. the Reinas) translation of the Gospels, the Hebrexv word is for the most part retained, but in the Protestant “Authorized Version” it is rendered by “Verily.” When Amen is thus used by Our Lord to introduce a statement He seems especially to make a demand upon the faith of His hearers in His word or in His power; e.g. John, viii, 58, “Amen, Amen, I say unto you, before Abraham was made, I am.” In other parts of the New Testament, especially in the Epistles of St. Paul, Amen usually concludes a prayer or a doxology, e.g. Rom., xi, 36, “To Him be glory for ever. Amen.” We also find it sometimes attached to blessings, e.g. Rom., xv, 33, “Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen”; but this usage is much rarer, and in many apparent instances, e.g. all those appealed to by Abbot Cabrol, the Amen is really a later interpolation.

III. Lastly the common practice of concluding any discourse or chapter of a subject with a doxology ending in Amen seems to have led to a third distinctive use of the word in which it appears as nothing more than a formula of conclusion—finis. In the best Greek codices the book of Tobias ends in this way with Amen, and the Vulgate gives it at the end of St. Luke’s Gospel. This seems to be the best explanation of Apoc., iii, 14: “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness who is the beginning of the creation of God.” The Amen who is also the beginning would thus suggest much the same idea as “I am Alpha and Omega” of Apoc., I, 5, or “The first and the last” of Apoc., ii, 8.

LITURGICAL USE

The employment of Amen in the synagogues as the people’s answer to a prayer said aloud by a representative must no doubt have been adopted in their own worship by the Christians of the Apostolic age. This at least is the only natural sense in which to interpret the use of the word in I Cor., xiv, 16, “Else if thou shall bless with the spirit, how shall he that holdeth the place of the unlearned say Amen to thy blessing?” (pos erei to amen epi te se eucharistia) where to amen seems clearly to mean “the customary Amen.” In the beginning. however, its use seems to have been limited to the congregation, who made answer to some public prayer, and it was not spoken by him who offered the prayer (see yon der Goltz, Das Gebet in der ltesten Christenheit, p. 160). It is perhaps one of the most reliable indications of the early data of the “Didache” or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” that, although several short liturgical formul are embodied in this document, the word Amen occurs but once, and then in company with the word maranatha, apparently as an ejaculation of the assembly. As regards these liturgical formul in the “Didache,” which include the Our Father, we may, however, perhaps suppose that the Amen was not written because it was taken for granted that after the dox- ology those present would answer Amen as a matter of course. Again, in the apocryphal but early “Acta Johannis” (ed. Bonnet, c. xciv, p. 197) we find a series of short prayers spoken by the Saint to which the bystanders regularly answer Amen. But it cannot have been very long before the Amen was in many cases added by the utterer of the prayer. We have a noteworthy instance in the prayer of St. Polycarp at his martyrdom, A.D. 155, on which occasion we are expressly told in a contemporary document that the executioners waited until Polycarp completed his prayer, and “pronounced the word Amen,” before they kindled the fire by which he perished. We may fairly infer from this that before the middle of the second century it had become a familiar praclice for one who prayed alone to add Amen by way of conclusion. This usage seems to have developed even in public worship, and in the second half of the fourth century, in the earliest form of the liturgy which affords us any safe data, that of the Apostolic Constitutions, we find that in only three instances is it clearly indicated that Amen is to be said by the congregation (i.e. after the Trisagion, after the “Prayer of Intercession,” and at the reception of Communion); in the eight remaining instances in which Amen occurs, it was said, so far as we can judge, by the bishop himself who offered the prayer. From the lately-discovered Prayer Book of Bishop Serapion, which can be ascribed with certainty to the middle of the fourth century, we should infer that, with certain exceptions as regards the anaphora of the liturgy, every prayer consistently ended in Amen. In many cases no doubt the word was nothing more than a mere formula to mark the conclusion, but the real meaning was never altogether lost sight of. Thus, though St. Augustine and Pseudo-Ambrose may not be quite exact when they interpret Amen as verum est (it is true), they are not very remote from the general sense; and in the Middle Ages, on the other band, the word is often rendered with perfect accuracy. Thus, in an early “Expositio Missæ” published by Gerbert (Men. Lit. Alere, II, 276), we read: “Amen is a ratification by the people of what has been spoken, and it may be interpreted in our language as if they all said: May it so be done as the priest has prayed.”

General as was the use of the Amen as a conclusion, there were for a long time certain liturgical formulas to which it was not added. It does not for the most part occur at the end of the early creeds, and a Decree of the Congregation of Rites (n. 3014, 9 June, 1853) has decided that it should not be spoken at the end of the form for the administration of baptism, where indeed it would be meaningless. On the other hand, in the Churches of the East Amen is still commonly said after the form of baptism, sometimes by the bystanders, sometimes by the priest himself. In the prayers of exorcism it is the person exorcised who is expected to say “Amen,” and in the conferring of sacred orders, when the vestments, etc., are given to the candidate by the bishop with some prayer of benediction, it is again the candidate who responds, just as in the solemn blessing of the Mass the people answer in the person of the server. Still we cannot say that any uniform principle governs liturgical usage in this matter, for when at a High Mass the celebrant blesses the deacon before the latter goes to read the Gospel, it is the priest himself who says Amen. Similarly in the Sacrament of Penance and in the Sacrament of Extreme Unction it is the priest who adds Amen after the essential words of the sacramental form, although in the Sacrament of Confirmation this is done by the assistants. Further, it may be noticed that in past centuries certain local rites seem to have shown an extraordinary predilection for the use of the word Amen. In the Mozarabic ritual, for example, not only is it inserted after each clause of the long episcopal benediction, but it was repeated after each petition of the Pater Noster. A similar exaggeration may be found in various portions of the Coptic Liturgy.

Two special instances of the use of Amen seem to call for separate treatment. The first is the Amen formerly spoken by the people at the close of the great Prayer of Consecration in the liturgy. The second is that which was uttered by each of the faithful when he received the Body and Blood of Christ.

(1) Amen after the Consecration

With regard to what we have ventured to call the “great Prayer of Consecration” a few words of explanation are necessary. There can be no doubt that by the Christians of the earlier ages of the Church the precise moment of the conversion of the bread and wine upon the altar into the Body and Blood of Christ was not so clearly apprehended as it is now by us. They were satisfied to believe that the change was wrought in the course of a long “prayer of thanksgiving” (eucharistia), a prayer made up of several elements—preface, recitation of the words of institution, memento for living and dead, invocation of the Holy Ghost, etc.—which prayer they nevertheless conceived of as one “action” or consecration, to which, after a doxology, they responded by a solemn Amen. For a more detailed account of this aspect of the liturgy the reader must be referred to the article EPICLESIS. It must be sufficient to say here that the essential unity of the great Prayer of Consecration is very clearly brought before us in the account of St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 151) who, describing the Christian liturgy, says: “As soon as the common prayers are ended and they (the Christians) have saluted one another with a kiss, bread and wine and water are brought to the president, who receiving them gives praise to the Father of all things by the Son and Holy Spirit and makes a long thanksgiving (eucharistian epi poly) for the blessings which He has vouchsafed to bestow upon them, and when he has ended the prayers and thanksgiving, all the people that are present forthwith answer with acclamation ‘Amen’ “. (Justin, I Apol., lxv, P.G., VI, 428). The existing liturgies both of the East and the West clearly bear witness to this primitive arrangement. In the Roman Liturgy the great consecrating prayer, or “action,” of the Mass ends with the solemn doxology and Amen which immediately precede the Pater Noster. The other Amens which are found between the Preface and the Pater Noster can easily be shown to be relatively late additions. The Eastern liturgies also contain Amens similarly interpolated, and in particular the Amens which in several Oriental rites ape spoken immediately after the words of Institution, are not primitive. It may be noted that at the end of the seventeenth century the question of Amens in the Canon of the Mass acquired an adventitious importance on account of the controversy between Dom Claude de Vert and Père Lebrun regarding the secrecy of the Canon. It is now commonly admitted that in the primitive liturgies the words of the Canon were spoken aloud so as to be heard by the people. For some reason, the explanation of which is not obvious, the Amen immediately before the Pater Noster is omitted in the solemn Mass celebrated by the Pope on Easter day.

(2) Amen after Communion

The Amen which in many liturgies is spoken by the faithful at the moment of receiving Holy Communion may also be traced back to primitive usage. The Pontificale Romanum still prescribes that at the ordination of clerics and on other similar occasions the newly-ordained in receiving Communion should kiss the bishop’s hand and answer Amen when the bishop says to them: “May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ keep thy soul unto everlasting life” (Corpus Domini, etc.). It is curious that in the lately-discovered Latin life of St. Melania the Younger, of the early fifth century, we are told how the Saint in receiving Communion before death answered Amen and kissed the hand of the bishop who had brought it (see Cardinal Rampella, Santa Melania Giuniore, 1905, p. 257). But the practice of answering Amen is older than this. It appears in the Canons of Hippolytus (No. 146) and in the Egyptian Church Order (p. 101). Further, Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., VI, xliii) tells a story of the heretic Novatian (c. 250), how, at the time of Communion, instead of Amen he made the people say “I will not go back to Pope Cornelius.” Also we have evidently an echo of the same practice in the Acts of St. Perpetua, A.D. 202 (Armitage Robinson, St. Perpetua, pp. 68, 80), and probably in Tertullian’s phrase about the Christian profaning in the amphitheatre the lips with which he had spoken Amen to greet the All-Holy (De Spect., xxv). But nearly all the Fathers supply illustrations of the practice, notably St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech., v, 18, P.G., XXIII, 1125).

OTHER USES

Finally, we may note that the word Amen occurs not infrequently in early Christian inscriptions, and that it was often introduced into anathemas and gnostic spells. Moreover, as the Greek letters which form Amen according to their numerical values total 99 (alpha=1, mu=40, epsilon=8, nu=50), this number often appears in inscriptions, especially of Egyptian origin, and a sort of magical efficacy seems to have been attributed to its symbol. It should also be mentioned that the word Amen is still employed in the ritual both of Jews and Mohammedans.

By far the most satisfactory account of the use of Amen in the early Christian centuries is that given by CABROL, sub verbo in his Dict. d’antiq. Chrét., I, 1554–73. The various other Biblical and theological dictionaries treat the matter somewhat imperfectly. See, however, KRAUS, Real-encyclopädie, a.v.; VIGOUROUX in Dict. de la Bible, s.v.’ SCHMID in Kirchenlex., s.v.’ HERZOG-HAUCK, Real-encyclopädie für prot. Theol. U. Kirche under Liturgische Formeln. A useful account is that of THALHOFER, liturgik (Freiburg, 1883), I 512 sqq. See also HOGG in ‘Jewish Q. Rev., IX, 1–25, 1896, and the Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. Among the older books, WERNDORF, De Amen liturgico (Wittenberg, 1779) deserves notice, as also LEBRUN, La Messe (Paris, 1777), VIII; VERT, Explication des cérémonies (Paris, 1720); BONA, Rerum liturgicarum (Rome, 1777), III, 275; GEORGIUS, Liturg. Rom. pontif. (Rome, 1744), III v, n. 9.

HERBERT THURSTON

Amende Honorable

An obsolete form of honorary satisfaction, customary in the Church in France as late as the seventeenth century. It was performed at the bidding of the ecclesiastical judge, and within the precinct of his court, though at one time it could be enforced at the church door or in some other public place. It was ordinarily inflicted only on condemned criminals, who appeared stripped to the shirt, barefoot and bareheaded, with candle in hand, and begged pardon of God, the king, and of justice.

ANDRE-WAGNER, Dict. de droit can., 3d. ed., I, 93, 94.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Veit Amerbach

Born at Wembdinden in 1503; died at Ingolstadt, 13 Sept., 1557, humanist, convert from Lutheranism to the Catholic Church. Educated at Eichstaett and Wittenberg, he taught philosophy, law, Oriental languages, and Lutheran theology at the latter place, where he lived in daily intercourse with Luther, Melancthon, and other leaders of the new movement. It was here that he came to recognize the novelty and falsity of the Lutheran doctrines, and the truth of the Church’s teaching. After much controversial correspondence with Melancthon, he left Wittenberg in 1543, and was received, with his wife and children, into the Catholic Church. The Prince Bishop, Maurice von Hutten, made him professor of rhetoric at Eichstätt. A year later, he went to Ingolstadt, as professor of philosophy, where he remained until his death. He is counted among the great humanists of his age, and wrote a large number of learned works, such as: “Commentaria on Cicero and Horace,” the former of whom appears to be his favourite author; “Antiparadoxa,” whence many details of his life and studies are derived, and “Tres Epistolae,” concerning the ecclesiastical controversies of the period.

DOLLINGER, Die Reformation, ihre innere Entwickelung und Wirkungen (Ratisbon, 1846), I, 155–160; RAEZS, Die Convertiten Seit der Reformation (Freiburg, 1866), I, 233–235.

FRANCIS W. GREY

America

America, also called the Western Continent or the New World, consists of three main divisions: North America, Central America, and South America. The first of these extends from (about) 70° to 15° north latitude. Central America forms an isthmus running from northwest to southeast and narrowing to a strip of thirty miles in width at Panama; this isthmus extends from 15° to 8° north latitude, where it connects with the western coast of South America. South America begins in latitude 12° north, terminating in latitude 55° south. Hence North America approximately extends over 3,800 English miles from north to south, South America 4,500, and Central America constitutes a diagonal running between the two larger masses, from northwest to southeast and is approximately a thousand miles in length.

As the object of this article is to compile the data which will help the reader appreciate the Christian settlement and civilization of America, we omit here the geography, geology, and other topics usually treated in general encyclopedias, and confine ourselves to the ethnography and colonization of the Americas. The so-called aborigines of North America are, with the exception of the so-called Eskimo, generally regarded as belonging to one and the same branch of the human family, physically as well as ethnically. From the physical standpoint, they have been classified with the type called Mongolian, but since doubts have arisen as to the existence of such a type, it is safer to state that, anthropologically, the American, and especially the North American Indians, resemble some of the most easterly Asiatic tribes more closely than any other group of the human family. The South American Indian is more nearly allied to the northern than to any extra-American stock. As to the Eskimo, his skull is decidedly an Arctic type, corresponding in that respect to the Asiatic, and even European peoples living inside of the Arctic Circle. But these generalizations may have to be modified, with the rapid strides anthropology is making in the field of detailed and local investigation, and it will hereafter be advisable to consider the characteristics of every linguistic stock (and even of its subdivisions) by themselves, allowing for changes wrought in the physical condition by diversity of environment after long residence.

DISTRIBUTION OF ABORIGINAL POPULATIONS

The distribution of the American population at the time of Columbus is, of course, not known from personal observation, but it may be approximately reconstructed from information gathered after America began to be visited by Europeans. The Eskimo held most of the Arctic belt, whereas the so-called Indians swayed the rest of the continent to its southernmost extremity. The population was not nearly so numerous as had long been thought, even where it was most dense, but there are no materials even for an approximate estimate. The great northern and western plains were not settled, although there are traces of pre-Columbian permanent abodes, or at least of some settlements made during a slow shifting along the streams; tribes preying on the buffalo roamed with that quadruped over the steppes. The northwest, on the Pacific, was more densely inhabited by tribes, who subsisted by fishing (salmon), limited agriculture, and hunting. This was also the case along the Mississippi (on both banks), and in the timbered basin of the Alleghenies, along the Atlantic from St. Lawrence to Florida, whereas southern Texas was sparsely inhabited, and in parts but temporarily, as the buffalo led the Indian on its southward wanderings. The aboriginal population of California was not large and lived partly on seafood. The great northern plateau of Mexico, with the mountains along the Rio Grande, was too arid and consequently destitute of means of subsistence, to allow permanent occupation in numbers; but the New Mexico Pueblos formed a group of sedentary inhabitants clustering along the Rio Grande and settled in the mountains as far as Arizona, surrounded on all sides by roving Indians, some of whom, however, like the Navajos, had turned to land-tilling also, on a modest scale. The same conditions may be said to have obtained in Arizona. Western Mexico presented a similar aspect, modified by a different climate. While there are within the United States tribes that in the fifteenth century displayed a higher degree of culture than their surroundings (the Natchez, for instance, and in the development of ideas of government and extension of sway, the Iroquois) the culture of the Indian seems to have reached its highest degree in Central Mexico and Yucatan, Guatemala and Honduras, and, we may add, Nicaragua. It is as if the tribal wanderings from north to south, which sometimes took other directions, had been arrested by the narrowing of the continent at the Isthmus of Panama. While the abundance of natural resources invited man to remain, geographic features compelled him, and thus arose Indian communities that excelled in culture Indians in every other part of the continent. South of Panama, nature was too exuberant, and the territory too small to favour similar progress; hence the Indians, while still quite proficient in certain arts, could not compare with their northern neighbors. In South America the exuberance of tropical life north of the Argentine plains, was as unfavorable to cultural growth as barrenness would have been. Hence the Amazonian basin, Brazil, the Guyanas, and Venezuela, as well as the eastern declivity of the Andes in general, were thinly inhabited by tribes, few of which had risen above the stage of roving savages. On the western slope of the Andes, in Columbia, the population was somewhat more dense and the houses, though still of wood and canes, were larger, and more substantially reared. Sedentary tribes of a lesser degree of culture also dwelt in northern Argentine, limited in numbers, and scattered in and between savage groups. The highest development attained in South America before its discovery was along the backbone of the Andes from 15° north to near the Tropic of Capricorn, or 23° south. This was also the case on the Pacific shore to latitude 20° south, beginning at 2° south. In this zone the cultural growth of the Indian attained a level equal in many ways, superior in some, inferior in others (as for instance in plastic work in stone), to the culture of the most advanced tribes of Yucatan and Central America. The tribes of Chile were comparatively numerous and fairly advanced, mostly given to land-tillage and hunting; the Patagonians stood on a lower level, and the people of Tierra del Fuego were perhaps on the lowest round of the scale of humanity in America.

PRE-COLUMBIAN POLITICAL CONDITIONS

Not even the most advanced among the American Indians had risen to the conception of a Nation or State; their organization was merely tribal, and their conquests or raids were made, not with the view of assimilating subjected enemies, but for booty (including females, and human victims for sacrifice) or, at best, for the purpose of exacting tribute and assistance in warfare. Hence America was an irregular check-board of tribes, independent and always autonomous, even when overawed or overpowered by others. Those tribes whose sway were most extensive when America was first discovered were:

in North America, the Iroquois League in what is now the State of New York; they had organized for the purpose of plunder and devastation and were just then extending their destructive forays;

in central Mexico, the confederacy of the tribes of Mexico, Tezcuco, and Tlacopan;

in Yucatan, the Maya, although these do not seem to have agglomerated so far as to form leagues, except temporarily;

in South America the Muysca or Chibcha of central Columbia, and,

in Peru, the Inca.

It has not yet been established, however, that the Inca had confederates, or if they belonged to the class of sedentary tribes that then overran large expanses of territory, either alone or with the aid of subjugated tribes. Traces of confederacies appeared on the Peruvian coasts among the sedentary clusters that were partly wiped out by the Inca not a century previous to the advent of the Spaniards. Of the sedentary Indians that held or overawed a considerable extent of territory by their own single efforts, the various independent groups of Guatemala and Tarascans in western central Mexico were most conspicuous. In North America, the Muskogees, the Natchez, the Choctaws, and further north the Dakotas and the Pawnees displayed considerable aggressive power.

ABORIGINAL SOCIAL CONDITIONS

The system of social organization was the same in principle throughout the entire continent, differences being, as in general culture, in degree but not in kind. The clan, or gens, was the unit, and descent was sometimes in the male, sometimes in the female, line. But the clan system had not everywhere fully developed; the prairie tribes of North America, for instance, were not all composed of clans. Various causes have been assigned for this exception, but no satisfactory explanation has yet been suggested. The general characteristics of American Indian society were: communal tenure of lands, no hereditary estates, titles, or offices, and segregation or exclusion of the different clusters from each other. Definite boundaries nowhere divided one cluster from another; uninhabited zones or neutral belts intervened between the settlements of the tribes; where the population was denser, the belt was narrower, though still devoid of villages. Civil and military administrations were merged into each other, and behind and above both, though partly occult, the power of religious creed and ceremonial determined every action. The shamans or sorcerers, by means of oracular utterances or magic, were the real leaders. These so-called priests also had their organization, the principles of which were the same all over primitive America, as they are the same today. Esoteric societies, based upon empirical knowledge and its application to spiritual and material wants, constituted the divisions and classifications of the wizards. Whoever practiced the rites and artifices held indispensable for religious ends, without belonging to one or the other of these clusters of official magicians, exposed himself to dire chastisement. Such were and are the chief features of religious organization among the more advanced tribes; the lesser the degree of culture, the more imperfect the system and the less complicated in detail.

RELIGION OF THE ABORIGINES

Animism is the principle underlying the creed of the Indian everywhere, and Fetishism is its tangible manifestation. Monotheism, the idea of a personal and all-creating and ruling God, nowhere existed among the Indians. The whole world was pervaded by a spiritual essence which could at will take individual shape in special localities. The Indian feels himself surrounded everywhere by numberless spiritual agencies, in the presence of which he is helpless, and which he feels constrained incessantly to propitiate or appease. This fear underlies the system of his magic and gives the wizard a hold upon him which he cannot shake off. His every action is therefore preceded by prayer and offerings, the latter are sometimes quite complicated. Among his fetishes, there is little or no hierarchic gradation of idols. Phenomena that seem to exert a greater influence upon man than others are the object of more elaborate cult, but they are not supposed to act beyond their sphere. Thus there was and is no sun-worship as commonly believed. The sun, as well as the moon, was looked upon as a heavenly body which is the abode of powerful (but not all-powerful) spirits; in many tribes, little attention is paid to them. Historic deities also arose among them as a result of belief of mighty wizards who spirit dwelt in their fetishes. Sacrifices were made to the fetishes, and the most precious objects offered up, human victims being looked upon as the most desirable. Even the practice of scalping was based upon a belief that, by securing that part of the enemy’s body nearest to the brain, the captor came into possession of the mental faculties of the deceased, and thus added so much more to his own mental and physical power. Anthropophagy, or cannibalism, so widely distributed through the tropics, rested on the same conception.

ABORIGINAL LAWS AND LANGUAGES

The Indian had no written laws. Custom ruled; the decisions of tribal councils and oracular utterances determined the questions at issue. The council was the chief authority in temporal matters; the chiefs executed its decrees, which were first sanctioned, or modified, by the oracles of the shamans. There was no writing, no letters, but some of the more advanced tribes used pictographs by means of which they could, to a limited extent, record historic events, preserve the records of tribute, and represent the calendars, both astronomical (in a rude way) and ritual. The knotted strings, or quippus, of Peru were a more imperfect method, and their use, in a simpler form, was much more extended than generally thought. The aboriginal languages of America are divided into stocks, and again divided into dialects. The number of these stocks is becoming gradually reduced as a result of philological study. There is an affinity between some of the idioms of western North America and some of eastern Asia, but further than that resemblances do not go. It is safer to follow the example set by Brinton and subdivide the American idioms into geographical groups, each of which embraces a certain number of stocks. There is, however, an objection to this plan, in that, in some cases, one stock is scattered and dispersed over more than one geographic section. There are, for instance, indications that the Shoshones of Oregon, the Pimas, Opatats, Yaqui of Arizona and Sonora, and Mexicans (Aztecs, Tezcucans, etc.) and a part of the Indians of Nicaragua belong to one linguistic family which is thus represented both among the North Pacific and Central groups.

Leaving aside the Eskimo, whose language may be classed as specifically Arctic, the most import groups are: in British America the Athapascans, or Tinné; the Navajos or Dinné, in Arizona and New Mexico, with their relatives the Apaches or N’dé; the Algonquins, ranging from Nova Scotia in the north-east, on the Atlantic, to New York Bay in the south, and from the headwaters of the Missouri River in the west, across the basin of the Great Lakes; of these Indians the Arapahoes, Blackfeet, Cheyennes, Chippewas, Delawares, Sacs and Foxes, and Shawnees are the most generally known. Many tribes of this group (like those of New England, for instance) are practically extinct; the Iroquois in northern New York, embracing the Hurons, Eries, Cherokees, etc.; the Muskogees comprising the tribes along the southern Atlantic coast to part of Florida; the Catawbas, Natchez, and some of the Indians of Florida and Coahuila in Mexico; the Pawnees, Dakotas and Kiowas. mostly Indians from the plains and of the watershed west of the Mississippi; in the West, on the Pacific coast, the north Pacific group extends from Alaska to southern California. The Yumas are scattered from the mouth of the Colorado through portions of Arizona, and a branch of them is said to live in the Mexican state of Oaxaca. The Pueblos of New Mexico and Arizona are looked upon as a separate linguistic cluster also. Of the great Shoshone group, mention has already been made. Mexico further contains a number of clusters linguistically distinct, like the Taoascans, the Otomis, the Totonacos, Zapotecos, Mijes, Mixtecos, Mayas, Zendales, some of which have been grouped into one family. The Maya, for instance, embrace some of the more highly developed tribes of Guatemala, and the Huaxtecos of the State of Vera Cruz, far to the north of Yucatan. The farther south we go, the more indefinite become linguistic classifications, for the reason that the material at hand has not been sufficiently investigated, and also that there is, especially in regard to South America, much material still to be collected. It follows, therefore, that the idioms of the Isthmus can hardly be regarded as classified. A number are recognized as apparently related, but that relationship is but imperfectly understood. In South America, we here merely mention the Chibchas, or Muyscas, of Columbia, the extensive Arawak stock, and the Caribs, the former widely scattered, the latter limited to Venezuela, the Orinoco, and Guyana. Of the idioms of Ecuador little is known except that the Quicha language of Peru (mountains) may have supplanted a number of other languages before the Spanish conquest. South of the Quicha, the great Aymara stock occupies the central plateau, but in primitive times it extended much farther north. In Brazil, the Tupi (Guarani) and Tapuya were, on the coast, the most widely diffused languages. We may further mention the idioms of Chile, which may form one family, the tribes of the Grand Chaco (of which the Calchaquis were the most advanced) and the unclassified idioms of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego. This sketch of the distribution of American languages cannot here be carried into greater detail. American linguists are constantly progressing, and much of what now appears well-established is liable to be over thrown in the future.

ORIGINS OF THE ABORIGINAL RACES

The question of the origin of the Indians is as yet a matter of conjecture. Affinities with the Asiatic groups have been observed on the northwestern and western coast of North America, and certain similarities between the Peruvian-coast Indians and Polynesian tribes seem striking, but decisive evidence is still wanting. The numberless hypotheses on the origin of the primitive Americans that have flooded literature since the days of Columbus have no proper place here. The existence of man in America during the glacial period is still a matter of research. Neither is there any proof of the coming of Christian missionaries in pre-Columbian times. There may be indications, but these lack, so far, the support of documentary evidence. If, however, we consider Greenland as an island belonging to the North American Continent, Christianity was introduced into America in the tenth century of our era. The tale of the voyage to “Vinland,” attributed to Bishop Jon, or John, in the fourteenth century, rests on slender foundations. In regard to visits of Asiatics to the west coast of America, nothing is known, the Fu-Sang tale having been long ago shown to apply to the Japanese archipelago. Martin Behaim placed on his map of 1492 a note according to which seven Portuguese bishops in the ninth century fled from the Moors to a western island called Antilia and there founded seven towns. Other than this, there is no authority for the story. Finally, there is the story of Atlantis, told by Plato in his “Timaeus” and his “Critias,” which is equally unsupported. Though the subject of much speculation, no trace of a submerged continent, or part of the American Continent of which Antilles would be the remnant, has so far been discovered. The attempts to establish traces of the Atlantis catastrophe in the folklore of American tribes have met with indifferent success.

ORIGINS OF THE NAME GIVEN TO THE NEW WORLD

The name “America” is the outcome not so much of an accident as of an incident. For nearly a century after Columbus, the Spaniards who had first right to baptize the continent, having been its first European occupants, persisted in calling their vast American possessions the “Western Indies.” That name was justifiable in so far as the discovery occurred when they were in search of Asia. The belief that America was a part of that continent was dispelled only by Balboa’s journey across the Isthmus in 1513. Six years previous to that feat, however, the name America had been applied by some German scholars to the New World. It was not done with the object of diminishing the glory of Columbus, nor of endorsing the claims of other explorers, but simply in ignorance of the facts. Amerigo Vespucci, a Florentine pilot, first in the service of Spain, then of Portugal, and then again in Spanish employ, had made at least two voyages to the Western seas. It is not the purpose here to discuss the voyages Vespucci claimed to have made to the American coast, or have been attributed to him. For these still somewhat enigmatic tales, and the documents relating thereto, see AMERIGO VESPUCCI. It suffices to state that at least some of his letters were published as early as 1504. As in one of them his first voyage is placed in 1497–98, and he there claims to have touched the American continent, it would give him the priority over Columbus (a claim, however, Vespucci never advanced). It is easy to see how the perusal of these reports might induce scholars living remote from the Peninsula and America to attribute to him the real discovery of the New World and to suggest that it be named after him. Out of a chapel founded by St. Deodatus, in the seventh century, in what is now French Lorraine, a college had sprung up at St. Dié, Vosges, in the eleventh century. Among its professors was Martin Waldseemüller (Hylacomylus) who occupied the chair of cosmography. Struck by the alleged date of 1497 for Vespucci’s first trip to the new continent, he concluded that to the Florentine belonged the honour of the first discovery, and that the New World should hence be named after him. So when, in 1507, a printing press was established at St. Die, through the efforts, chiefly, of the secretary of the Duke of Lorraine, he published, together with Mathias Ringmann, professor of Latin, a geographical work of small compass, entitled “Cosmographiae Introductio” in which he inserted the following passage: I do not see why it may not be permitted to call this fourth part after Americus, the discoverer, a man of sagacious mind, by the name of Amerige—that is to say, the land of Americus—or America, since both Europe and Asia have a feminine form of the name, from the names of women.”

This suggestion might have had no further consequence, had not the name of America been placed on a map published by Hylacomylus in the same year, whether to designate only that part of the discovery which was credited or the whole continent as far as known, is not certain. As the “Cosmographiae Introductio” was a geographical treatise, it was gradually accepted by cosmographers outside of Spain, although Las Casas protested against the name America, as a misnomer and a slur on the name of Columbus. Foreign nations successfully adopted the name proposed by Waldseemuller. Even Spain finally yielded, substituting “America” for “Occidental Indies” and “New World” as late as the middle of the eighteenth century. As far as known, Vespucci himself took no interest in the use of the name America. He never laid any claim to being the first discoverer of the continent, except as far as the (doubtful) date of his first voyage seems to do so. He was a personal friend of Columbus as long as the latter lived, and died (1512) with the fame of having been a useful and honorable man. Neither can Waldseemuller be charged with rashly giving Vespucci’s name to America. More blame for not investigating the matter with care, and for blindly following a suggestion thrown out by Waldseemuller, attaches to subsequent students of cosmography like Mercator and Ortelius, especially to the latter, for he had at his command the original Spanish documents, having been for a time the royal cosmographer. An attempt to trace the origin of the name to some obscure Indian tribe, said to have been called Amerique, has met with no favor.

COLONIZATION OF AMERICA

The European nations which settled the continent of America after its discovery by Columbus, and exerted the greatest influence on the civilization of the New World, were principally five. They rank, in point of date, as follows: Spain, Portugal, France, England, Holland. Sweden made an attempt at colonization, but, as the Swedish colony was limited to a very small fraction of the area of eastern North America and endured not more than seventeen years, it need not be mentioned here. Russian colonization of Alaska, and Danish occupation of one of the Lesser Antilles may also be passed over as unimportant.

Spanish

Spain began to colonize the larger Antilles in 1493. The rapidity with which she explored and conquered the territories discovered was amazing. Not sixty years after the landing of Columbus, Spanish colonies dotted the continent, from northern Mexico as far south as central and southern Chile. Not only were they along the coast, but in Mexico and Central America they were scattered from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and in South America from the Pacific coast eastward to the crest of the Andes and to the La Plata River. Vast unsettled stretches of land intervened between the colonies in many sections, but these sections could be, and were, transversed from time to time so that intercourse could be kept up. The entire northeastern coast of South America was under Spanish sway, and explorations had been carried on, approximately, as far as lat. 42° north along the Pacific; the interior as far as lat 40° the southern United States had been traversed beyond the Mississippi, and Florida, Alabama, and Georgia taken possession of along the Atlantic shore. The whole Pacific coast, from lat. 42° to the southern extremity of Tierra del Fuego, was already known, settled in places, and frequently visited, and while the Oronoco River had been explored both from its mouth and from the west, expeditions from Venezuela penetrated to the Amazon and explored the whole length of its course from the side of Ecuador. These extraordinary achievements were accomplished by a nation that, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, counted, so far as we can estimate, not ten millions of people.

Such extraordinary activity, energy and, it cannot be denied, in many cases sagacity also, was the outcome of the character of the Spanish people, and of their formation. In the first place, the Spaniards are a much mixed race. Since the times of Roman domination, nearly every people of any consequence that overran Europe (Huns and Northern Germans excepted) occupied, for a while at least, parts of Spanish soil, and left traces of their presence in language, customs, and in some cases (the Visigoths) in laws and organization. Southern invaders from Africa, the Moors, had contributed still further to the mixture. Defense of the Spanish soil, and particularly, salvation of the Christian faith, the people’s dearest patrimony, against these Mohammedan conquerors, had made of the Spaniards, above all, a warrior people. But seven centuries of incessant warfare neither fashioned a very tender-hearted race nor contributed to enrich the country. Spain had once been rich in precious metals, but the Romans impoverished the land by draining the mines. Still the tradition remained, and with the tradition, the longing for a return of the golden age. Until the discovery of America, Europe looked to the far East for the wealth that was denied it by nature. When the discovery of the Antilles revealed the existence of gold, Spain neglected the East, and turned her eyes to the West. The fever for gold seized all who could emigrate, and the desire for gold and silver became a powerful incentive to seek and grasp the wealth of the New World. The thirst for gold was neither more or less intense in the sixteenth century than it is now, but it was directed to much vaster regions. Furthermore, the precious metals were found among people to whom they were of no commercial value, much less standards of wealth. To deprive the Indian of gold and silver was, to him, a much less serious matter than to deprive him of his gathered maize or any other staple food. The earliest periods of Spanish colonization were spent in attempts to establish a modus vivendi with the aborigines and, like all epochs of that kind, proved disastrous to the weaker—namely, to the Indian. Doubts as to whether the natives were human beings or not were soon disposed of by a royal decree asserting their essential human nature and certain rights flowing therefrom. They were, however, (and justly, too) declared to be minors who required a stage of tutelage, before they might be made to assume the duties and rights of the white population. Before practically reaching this conclusion, one which once for all determined the condition of the Indians in most South American Republics, and partly in the United States and Canada, much experimenting had to be done.

The primitive condition of man in the New World was a problem which European culture four centuries ago was not yet capable of solving. While in Spain the old communal rights of the original components of the realm were for a long time maintained, and a kind of provisional autonomy prevailed, which acted as a check upon growing absolutism, Spanish America was from the outset a domain of the crown. Discovery, by land and sea, and colonization, were under the exclusive control of the monarch; only with his permission explorations could be made, and settlements established. Personal initiative was thus placed ostensibly under a wholesome control, but it was also unfavorably hampered in many instances. Not so much, however, in the first century following Columbus as in the two following centuries. The royal patronage, at first indispensable, resulted in securing for Spanish interests an unjust ascendancy over those of the colonists. It was often, and not improperly, contended that the Creoles were in a worse position than the Indians, the latter, as special wards of the Government of Spain, enjoying more protection and privileges than the Spanish Americans. The latter complained particularly of the injustice of assigning all lucrative offices to native Spaniards, to the exclusion of Creoles. It insured the home Government a strong position in the colonies, but only too often its administration was entrusted to men unfit for the positions through want of practical acquaintance with country and people. It is true that the system of residencia, or final account at the expiration of the terms of office, and the visita, or investigation with, sometimes, discretionary faculties, were a check upon abuses, but by no means sufficient. A code of law for the Indies, as Spain called its American possessions for a long time, had been in contemplation since the middle of the sixteenth century, but it only became a fact at the end of the seventeenth. Much of the delay was occasioned by the enormous number of royal Decrees on which legislation had to be based. These decrees continued to be promulgated as occasion demanded, along with the Code, and they bear testimony to the solicitous attention given by the Spanish monarchs to the most minute details of their trans-oceanic possessions. It was a so-called paternal autocracy, well-intended, but most unfavorable, in the end, to the free development of the individual and of the colonies in general.

In the middle of the seventeenth century, Spain definitively closed its colonies to the outer world, the mother-country excepted, and even the intercourse with that was severely controlled. It was a suicidal measure, and thereafter the American colonies began to decline, to the great detriment of Spain itself. Still it should not be overlooked that the measure had, to a great extent, been forced upon Spain by the unrelenting attacks of other nations upon her colonies and her commerce with them, in times of peace as well as war. Instruction and education were almost completely under the control of the Catholic Church. Secular institutions of learning sprang up later, although the Jesuits had taken the initiative in that direction. Considering the means at hand, much was done to study the geography of the new continent, its natural history, and other branches of science. In the eighteenth century, scientific explorations were made on a large scale. Previous to that time, most investigations were due to individual efforts, especially by ecclesiastics. In the sixteenth century, however, Philip the Second sent to Mexico his own physician Hernandez to study specially the medicinal and alimentary plants of that country. Nutritive plants were imported from Europe and Asia, as well as domestic animals, and it is to the Spaniard that the planting and cultivation of fruit and shade trees in South America is due. But all these improvements did not satisfy the legitimate aspirations of Spanish-Americans, for they were made for the benefit of native Spaniards. Add to this a vacillating and heavy system of taxation that weighed almost exclusively on the Creoles, heavy custom-house duties, stringently exacted, and the arbitrary conduct of officials high and low, and we are not surprised that the colonies took advantage of the opportunity afforded by the weakening of Spain during the Napoleonic period to secure their independence. The exploitation of the abundant mines of precious metals, discovered everywhere in consequence of Spanish exploration, was carried out in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, according to methods that were certainly progressive, though the mines began to give out. At the same time, in the great mining centres, the Creoles became so rich that luxury and corruption rapidly spread amongst them. The great bulk of the treasure went to Europe without any profit for Spanish America. The statement that forced labour in the mines diminished the number of Indians is greatly exaggerated. Individual and local abuses are undeniable, but the system established after the sad experiences of the first colonists proved wise and salutary when properly carried out. In general, the Indian policy of the Spanish government was based upon the idea that the Indian should in time supply the labour needed in the colonies; it was a policy of solicitous preservation and slow patient education through the Catholic Church.

Portuguese

As Spain was securing its foothold in the New World, Portugal was rapidly pushing forward in its path of exploration. The outcome was rivalry between the two nations, and disputes about the rights and limits of discovery. Both crowns, Portuguese and Spanish, appealed to the Pope, who accepted the task of arbitrator. His verdict resulted in establishing a line of demarcation, the right of discovery on one side being allotted to Spain, on the other side to Portugal. The papal bulls from 1493, while issued, according to the time, in the form of grants by Divine rights, are in fact acts of arbitration. The Pope, Alexander VI, had not sought, but merely accepted by request of the parties the office of umpire, and his decisions were modified several times before both claimants declared themselves satisfied. The methods of colonization pursued by the Portuguese, were in the main similar to those of Spain, with the difference that the Portuguese inclined more to utilitarianism and to commercial pursuits. Again, the territory discovered and occupied (Brazil) was difficult uniformly of access, being mostly covered by vast forests and furrowed by gigantic watercourses, not always favorable to the penetration of the interior. Therefore the Portuguese reached the interior much less rapidly than the Spaniards, and confined their settlements mostly to the coast. The Indian population, thinly scattered and on a much lower level of culture than the sedentary natives in part of Spanish America, was of little service for the exploration of the vast and almost impenetrable land. In the beginning of the seventeenth century, Brazil became Spanish, only to be conquered by the Dutch. The domination of the latter left no permanent stamp on the country, as it was brought to a close thirty years after its beginning.

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Portuguese were the most dangerous neighbors of the Jesuit missions, in the Amazonian Basin, as well as in Paraguay. Their policy of enslaving the Indians caused the ruin of more than one mission and it was only with great effort that the little Jesuit state of Paraguay, so beneficial to the aborigines, for a time held it own. The separation of Brazil from Portugal was due more to political disturbances in the latter country than to other causes. An empire was created with a scion of the royal house of Portugal at its head. It is chiefly to the last emperor, Pedro II, that Brazil owes its interior development, and to him was due the emancipation of the slaves. The Federal Republic since created has had to deal with many difficulties.

French

The French occupied three regions of the New World: (1) Eastern Canada, (2) Louisiana and the Mississippi Valley, some of the lesser Antilles and Guiana in eastern South America. The Antilles (Haiti, Martinique, Guadaloupe, etc.), became French in the course of the incessant piratical warfare carried on against Spain in the sixteenth century. Guiana as a French possession was the fruit of European wars and treaties. Neither of the last two French colonies have exerted and marked influence on American civilization. The French occupation of a part of Haiti had more serious consequences. The uprising of the negroes on that island resulted in the establishment of a negro republic, an isolated phenomena in the annals of American history. The French occupation of Canada lasted two centuries, that of the Valley of the Mississippi a little more than one, and was of the highest importance in the exploration of the North American Continent. It is to the French that we owe the earliest acquaintance with these regions. French colonization was different from Spanish, inasmuch as it was attempted on a much smaller scale and with less dependence on the home government. Like Spanish and Portuguese colonization, however, it was essentially Catholic. The attempts to found French Huguenot settlements in Brazil, Florida, and Georgia in the sixteenth century all failed; in Brazil because of mismanagement; in the latter countries because of Spanish conquest. French colonization began on the banks near the mouth of the Saint Lawrence. The first colonizers were adventuresome mariners who afterward applied to the crown for authority as well as for aid and military assistance. But it was personal initiative that laid the foundation. Strange as it may seem, Catherine de Medicis gave more support to Catholic than to Protestant undertakings. Political reasons on her part, chiefly the desire to supplant Spain in the American possessions, dictated this anomalous policy. The French settlements remained comparatively few, and hugged the shores of the Saint Lawrence, occupying points of the Lake basin and isolated posts among the Indians and on the seaboard. The necessity of military protection, and the limited immigration led to a governmental organization of the colony controlled by the crown, but for the most part indifferently supported. The French people had little confidence in the future of a domain that promised only furs and wood, showed no traces of precious metal, and where the climate was as forbidding as its Indian inhabitants. It is likely that owing to the antipathy against the Canadian enterprise prevailing at court, Canada would have been abandoned, had not two pertinent reasons prevailed: one, the secret hope of checking the growing influence of England on the new continent and of eventually annexing the English colonies in North America; the other, the missionary labours of the Jesuits. Both went hand in hand, for while the Jesuits were true to their religious mission, they were nonetheless Frenchmen and patriotic. They soon discovered that the key to the political and military situation was in the hands of the Iroquois Indians, or Six Nations, and the European power that gained their permanent friendship would eventually secure the balance of power. To induce the Iroquois to become Christians and thereby allies of France, the Jesuits spared no sacrifice, no martyrdom, no efforts. Had the rulers of France been as sagacious as those of Spain in their appreciation of the Jesuit missions, and had they adequately supported them, the outcome might have been favorable. But, while both countries were equally autocractic, the French government was as unsystematic and careless in Canada as the Spanish was careful and methodical in administering its American possessions. The few governors, like Frontenac, capable of controlling the situation were poorly assisted by the mother-country, and inefficiency too often alternated with good administration. Even military aid was sparingly granted at the most crucial periods. It is true, however, that the moral and material decay of France, and her exhausting wars, may be urged in excuse of this neglect. The result was the establishment, in the French possessions, of a spare population, scattered over so vast a territory that communication was frequently interrupted. That population, with the exception of the inhabitants of the official centres at Quebec and Montreal, where social conditions were partly modeled on those of the motherland, was rude and uneducated by reason of its isolation, though individually hardy and energetic, and their dispersion through such vast territory prevented joint effort. The missionaries had their hands too full, in attending to the Indian missions, to serve adequately the wants of the colonists, who moreover, from the nature of their occupations, were often compelled to lead an almost migratory life. Thanks to the efforts of a trader and of a Jesuit, the connection between the Lakes and the Mississippi River was established in the latter part of the seventeenth century. After the establishment of the French settlements in Louisiana and Illinois, the English colonies were encompassed by a semi-circle of French possessions. La Salle did for the mouth of the Mississippi River and part of Texas what Champlain had done for the mouth of the Saint Lawrence. Individual enterprise began to make significant approaches to the Spanish outposts in northern Mexico. The conduct of France in its North American dominions toward other European nations was of course guided largely by European political conditions, and the Canadians more than once anticipated the outbreak of international warfare. To a certain extent the French imitated the Indian policy of Spain by utilizing the resources afforded by friendly Indian tribes, but these were always fickle and unstable. In the north, on the borders of the arctic zone, the main element of stability—agriculture—played but a secondary role.

While the occupation of the French colonists should have proved an element of strength to the French in Canada, it turned to their disadvantage in the end. The incomparably more abundant resources of southern latitudes in a moist climate formed such a contrast with the cold, northern dominion that the tendency to neglect the latter grew stronger. When Voltaire pronounced himself in favor of the Louisiana colony, a marked leaning to abandon Canada made itself manifest in France. The concentrated power of the English colonies, assisted by England’s naval supremacy, rendered voluntary abandonment unnecessary.

English

The methods of English colonization are so widely known, and its literature so extensive, that the matter may here be treated with comparative brevity. While in the Southern Atlantic States discoveries and settlements were made with the assent of the Crown, under its patronage, and mostly by enterprising members of the nobility, the northern sections, New England especially, were colonized by personal initiative. There was no desire for independence, though political, and especially religious, autonomy were the ideals of the Puritan colonists. That religious autonomy has usually been regarded as synonymous with religious liberty. But it took long years of struggle and experimenting before the latter became established in New England. The English system of colonial expression depended much more on individual enterprise than the Spanish; but there was much less regard for authority unless the latter was represented by law. English colonization was more akin to the Portuguese in its commercial tendency, and superior to the French in the faculty of combining and organizing for a given purpose. Independence of character was an heirloom of northern origin in general, respect for law a specifically English tradition. There is no doubt that the influence of New England has greatly contributed to the remarkable growth of the United States. The unparalelled rise and expansion of the United States was due chiefly to personal initiative in the beginning, that afterwards voluntarily submitted to the requirements of organization and to a political and (subsequently) religious tolerance which opened the country to all outside elements thought to be beneficial. These features, however, were not so much due to the English as to the American character that developed after the North American colonies had achieved their independence, and the Northern and Southern types of the people came into closer contact. There was a marked contrast between the position assumed by the Catholic Church towards the Indians and the attitude of Protestantism. The former, as soon as the administration of the Spanish dominions in America began to assume a character of stability, instituted concerted efforts for the education and civilization of the Indians. The introduction of the printing press in Mexico (about 1536) was brought about specially to promote Indian education. The clergy, particularly the regular orders (Franciscans, Dominicans, and others, and later on, on a still larger scale, the Jesuits) became not only teachers but then protectors of the natives. It was the aim of the Church (in harmony with the crown) to preserve the Indian and defend him from the inevitable abuses of lesser officials and of settlers. Hence in Spanish America, the Indian has held his own more than anywhere else, and has come to be a moderately useful element. Attempts to create Indian communities under the exclusive control of ecclesiastics proved very successful until the expulsion of the Jesuits, when all the beneficial results were irretrievably lost. The efforts of Protestants were mostly individual, and received little or no support from the State. From the English standpoint, the Indian was and is looked upon as an obstruction to civilization, and the expediency of his removal, forceful or otherwise, has dictated a policy sometimes completely at variance with the principles of forbearance and toleration so loudly proclaimed. But it must also be acknowledged that the Indian himself is largely at fault. His extreme conservatism in refusing to adopt a mode of life consistent with progress exasperates, and provokes aggressive measures on the part of, the whites. The cause of this conservatism lies largely in the religious ideas of the Indians, as yet imperfectly understood.

The Negro

The negro has assimilated himself much better than the American aborigine to post-Columbian conditions. Though his condition of life was for centuries deplorable, and though we absolutely condemn slavery in every form, it cannot be denied that through it he was slowly introduced to civilized life and became acquainted with ideas to which the Indian has remained a stranger. Of the negro republic, Haiti, we have already spoken.

THE ERA OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE

The emancipation of the American colonies from European control changed the political configuration of the continent, both north and south. Of the British possessions in North America as they existed in 1776 only the Dominion of Canada still belongs to the British Crown. The other colonies have become the United States of America. Spanish America has severed its connection with the mother-country and had been divided into the republic of Mexico, the central American republics of Guatemala, Honduras, San Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Leon, and Panama; the Antillian republics of Haiti, Santo Domingo, and Cuba, and the South American republics of Venezuela, Columbia, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, the Argentine, and Chile. Jamaica remains a British possession; Porto Rico is a possession of the United States. The Lesser Antilles still belong to the powers which owned them prior to 1776, namely: England, France, Holland, Denmark, and Sweden. On the continent, British Honduras and British Guiana; Holland, Dutch Guiana or Surinam; and France, French Guiana or Cayenne. Changes like these in the political aspects of a continent might be expected to have had considerable influence on the status of the Catholic Church. which is so intimately related with the history of civilization in the New World. Nevertheless, the independence of the European colonies has not greatly affected the position of the Church in America. In the United States, the Church has flourished under the republican form of government. In Spanish America, the new conditions have affected the Church more markedly, and not always beneficially, The lack of stability in political conditions of South American States has so often influenced the deportment of their governments towards the Church that sometimes persecution has resulted, as in Mexico. Attempts to give the Indian a share in the government, for which he was not prepared, have in some instances not only loosened the ties that bound him to his former protector and teacher, the Church, but have also fostered a racial desire to return to primitive uncivilized conditions. Happily, the material development of many of these countries has counteracted these tendencies, and to a considerable extent holds them in check today. The break with Spain brought the Spanish American clergy into direct relations with the Holy See, and proved greatly advantageous to religion. The regular orders, especially the Jesuits, have suffered in some South American countries. In Mexico they have been officially suppressed, but such extreme measures last only as long as their authors remain in power.

We have not sufficient data to determine the Catholic population of America. Even in the United States, the number usually given, “about 14,000,000” is a conjecture more or less accurate. Spanish-American peoples may be classified as at least officially Catholics. The same applies to the Indians, but the numbers of the aborigines are but very imperfectly ascertained. Still, we will probably not go far astray if we assume that nearly one-half the population of America are Catholics at least in name, The United States of America alone contains fourteen archbishoprics, eighty-nine bishoprics, and two vicariates-Apostolic. The remainder of America divides into 159 dioceses, 54 of which are seats of metropolitans. There are today [1907] two American cardinals: John Gibbons, archbishop of Baltimore (created in 1886), and Joaquim Arcoverde de Albuquerque Cavalcanti, Archbishop of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (created in 1905). (For the achievements of the famous Catholic missionaries and explorers of the New World, see articles under their respective names. The alleged pre-Columbian discovery is also treated in a separate article.

Only general works on American ethnography and linguistics can find place here. The literature on these subjects embodied in monographs finds place in the articles on Indian tribes, languages, and in the bibliographic articles. The great collection of special monographs initiated by the great Major Powell, under the title Reports of the Bureau of Ethnography (Washington) now embraces some twenty-five volumes, and their contents are not restricted to North American topics, This collection should be carefully consulted. The Dominican Fray Gregorio Garcia presented more fully than any of his predecessors, and in the form of an inquiry into the origin of the Indians, a general “apercu” of American ethnography, with references to linguistics. The first edition of the Origen de los Indios appeared at Madrid in 1607, and a second edition was published by Barcia in 1729, much enlarged. In the sixteenth century, a number of works on cosmography contains notices of the customs of the American aborigines, but the information is scanty and mostly and mostly procured at second-hand (except on Spanish America). The compilation of Lopez de Velasco, from 1571–1574, Geografia y descripcion universal de las Indias (Madrid, 1894) was made without critical judgment and is superficial. In the seventeenth century, the great work of Cobo, Historia Del Nuevo Mundo (1653, but printed only at the end of the past century) is highly important for the ethnology of Spanish America; the book was of de Horn De Originibus Americanis is mostly controversial. The rare work of the Rabbi Manasse ben Israel On the Aborigines of the New Continent, is devoted to establishing the descent of the Indians from the Hebrews, and James Adair’s History of the American Indians (London 1775) even improves upon his Jewish predecessor, as does Boudinot, An Inquiry into the Language of the American Indians (Trenton, 1816). While such books are dedicated to the expounding of a favorite theory, they embrace a more extensive field of scattered data, and are not limited to specific tribes or regions. Systematic investigation of American ethnography and linguistics was begun in the past century (Paris, 1724). It was soon seen that real progress could only be made by special research and a division of the whole field. So linguistics were separated from ethnography as early as the close of the eighteenth century. In 1773–82 Court de Greblin published the Essai sur kes Rapports des Mots, in nine volumes. About the same time, Abbat Hervas wrote the Idea del Universo (21 volumes, cesena, 1778–81) the 22nd volume of which (Foligno, 1792) gave a catalog of the languages known at the time, philologic dissection, polyglot vocabulary, arithmetics (numerals), etc. Vater’s Mithridates (1809–17) continued the work begun by Adelung in 1806 under the same title. In 1815 he published also Linguarium totius orbis Index Alphabeticus quarum Grammaticam Lexica etc. (Berlin, 1815) a German edition of which appeared in 1847, Literatur der Grammatiken Lexica und Wortersammlungen aller Sprachen der Erde (2d edition, Berlin, 1847). In 1826, Adrian Balbi published Atlas Ethnographique du Globe (Paris) in which the then known American languages are classified and tabulated. Not as complete as the preceding works but still of a general character are Worsley, A View of the American Indians (London, 1828); McCullah, Jr., Researches, etc.(1829); Pickering, Remarks on the Indian Languages of North America (Philadelphia, 1836). With the rapid increase in material in modern times, general works on American languages became more and more hazardous and monographic treatment of special subjects and groups are, very properly, taking their place. This is also true of American ethnography. Systematic study of this branch, including, of course, linguistics, was begun in the United states by limiting it to tribes or groups. By degrees is has been combined with practical observation. Albert Galatin, A Synopsis of the Indian Tribes in the United States East of the Rocky Mountains and in the British and Russian Possessions of North America (Cambridge, 1836) was the first to initiate this systematic study; the Archaeologia (Worcester, 1820, Cambridge, 1836) and the Transactions of the American Ethnological Society (new York, 1845 and 1848) contain the early results of the improved method of study. The works of Schoolcraft, especially The Historical and Statistical Information respecting the History, Condition, and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States (Philadelphia 1851–55) extended the field. On Mexico, the work of Orozco y Berra, Geografia de la Lenguas y carta Etnografica de Mexico (Mexico, 1864) is the most comprehensive and general work extant, and Alcide de Orbigny, L’homme americain (Paris, 1839), has treated of the Indians of the vast South-American regions and of their idioms, as far as was possible in his time. American anthropology as a whole is treated in but few works. Waite, Anthropologie der Naturvolker; Pascal, Volkerkunde (Leipzig, 1877, 4th edition; English tr. London and New York, 1876); and Ratzel, history of Mankind (English translation, London, 1896 and 1898); Anthropogeographie (Stuttgart, 1889 and 1891) show a lack of practical acquaintance with the countries and the people they describe. The most important recent general works on the American aborigines are: Morgan, Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity in the Human Family (Washington, 1871); Ancient Society (New York, 1878); and especially Brinton, The American Race (New York, 1891). The student as well as the general reader will do well, however, to check these comprehensive works by a perusal of the constantly growing monographic literature on the various groups and tribes of American Indians.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Pre-Columbian Discovery of America

Of all the alleged discoveries of America before the time of Columbus, only the bold voyages of exploration of the fearless Vikings to Greenland and the American mainland can be considered historically certain. Although there is an inherent probability for the fact of other pre-Columbian discoveries of America, all accounts of such discoveries (Phoenician, Irish, Welsh, Chinese) rest on testimony too vague or too unreliable to justify a serious defense of them. For the oldest written evidence of the discovery of Greenland and America by the Northmen, we are indebted to Adam, a canon of the Church of Bremen, who about 1067 went to Bremen where he devoted himself very earnestly to the study of Norse history. Owing to the vigorous missionary activity of Archbishop Adelbert of Bremen (1043–72), this “Rome of the North” offered “the best field for such work, being the much frequented centre of the great northern missions, which were spread over Norway and Sweden, Iceland and Greenland.” Moreover, Adam found a most trustworthy source of information in the Danish King, Sven Estrithson, who “preserved in his memory, as though engraved, the entire history of the barbarians” (the northern peoples). Of the lands discovered by the Northmen in America, Adam mentions only Greenland and Vineland. The former he describes as an island in the northern ocean, about as far from Norway as Iceland (five to seven days), and he expressly states that envoys from Greenland and Iceland had come to Bremen to ask for preachers of the Gospel. The Archbishop granted their request, even giving the Greenlanders assurances of a speedy visit in person. Adam’s information concerning Vinland was no less trustworthy than his knowledge of Greenland. According to him the land took its name from the excellent wild grapes that abounded there. Grain also flourished there without cultivation, as King Sven and his subjects expressly assured him. Adam’s testimony is of the highest importance to us, not only as being the oldest written account of Norse discoveries in America, but also because it is entirely independent of Icelandic writings, and rests entirely on Norse traditions which were at the time still recent. The second witness is Ari Thorgilsson (d. 1148), the oldest and most trustworthy of all the historians of Iceland. Like Adam, Ari is conscientious in citing the sources of his information. His authority was his uncle, Thorkel Gelisson, who in turn was indebted for the details of the discovery and settlement of Greenland to a companion of the discoverer himself. From his uncle, Ari learned the name of the discoverer, the origin of the name of the country, the date of the settlement, and other welcome details as to the degree of civilization among the people inhabiting Greenland before the advent of the Northmen. The discoverer was Eric the Red, who named the icy coasts Greenland, to induce his Icelandic countrymen to colonize the land. As to the date, Ari learned that it was the fourteenth or fifteenth winter before the formal introduction of Christianity into Iceland (1000), i. e. 985 or 986. Ari’s information with respect to the civilization of the earlier population of Greenland is of peculiar importance, giving as it does a glimpse of conditions in Vinland. Besides traces of human habitation, Eric and his companions found in Greenland the remains of leather canoes and stone implements. “From this,” concludes Ari, “it may be inferred that this was once the dwelling place of the same people who inhabited Vinland, and were called by the Greenlanders Skraelings.” Ari, in his “Book of Settlements” (Landnámabók), as well as in his “Book of Icelanders,” goes into detail concerning the discovery and colonization of Greenland, but mentions the discovery of Vinland only incidentally in connection with the genealogy of the famous Icelandic merchant Thorfinn Karlsefni, who “found Vinland the Good.” In the Kristni saga and Snorri’s Kings’ saga (c. 1150), the discovery of Vinland is attributed in almost identical words to Leif, son of Eric the Red. On his homeward journey from Norway, near Greenland, where he had been commissioned by King Olaf of Norway to preach the Catholic Faith, he found Vinland the Good. As Leif on the same voyage rescued some shipwrecked mariners from certain death, he was surnamed “the Lucky.” It is quite significant that Vinland the Good is everywhere spoken of as a country universally known and needing no further explanation.

These historical data were happily completed in the middle of the twelfth century by a geographer, probably Nicholas, Abbot of Thingeyre (d. 1159). According to him, south of Greenland lies Helluland, next is Markland, and from there it is not a great distance to Vinland the Good. Leif the Lucky first discovered Vinland and then coming upon merchants in peril of death, he rescued them by the grace of God. He introduced Christianity into Greenland, and it made such progress that a diocese was erected in Gardar. It may be remarked in passing that this took place about 1125. We also learn from the well-informed geographer that Thorfinn Karlsefni, setting out later to seek Vinland the Good, came to a country “where this land was supposed to be,” but was unable to explore and colonize Vinland as he had wished. It should be expressly noted that the geographer speaks of only two voyages to Vinland, the accidental discovery of Leif, and Thorfinn’s voyage of exploration; also that in addition to Vinland he mentions two other lands lying south of Greenland, which he calls respectively Helluland and Markland. The accounts just cited constitute the oldest historical records of the Norse discoveries in Greenland and America, and have been for the greater part overlooked by earlier scholars, even by Winsor. They were first given prominence, and justly so, by Storm and Reeves. Although containing but brief allusions to Vinland, they still bear evidence to a consistent unanimous tradition throughout the North reaching back to the eleventh century and giving proof positive that Eric the Red in 985 or 986 discovered and colonized Greenland, that his son Leif, returning from Norway to Greenland where he was to introduce Christianity, discovered Vinland the Good (1000), that Thorfin Karlsefni later attempted the colonization of Vinland, but after an unsuccessful engagement with the natives was obliged to desist, that these daring voyages brought to light two other countries lying south of Greenland, Markland and Helluland. In addition to these earliest records, three sagas come up for consideration inasmuch as they give detailed accounts of the important discoveries made by the old Vikings. If we consider the age of the MSS. through which it has come down to us (or that now represent for us the original), the most important of these sagas is the Karlsefni saga in “Hauk’s Book” (1305–35); next King Olaf’s saga in the Flatey-book (c. 1387); the third is the saga of Eric the Red in a MS. dating from the fifteenth century. A comparison of these three sagas shows that the Thorfin Karlsefni saga agrees with the saga of Eric the Red in all important points, but differs substantially from the King Olaf saga as found in the Flatey-book. According to the first two sagas Vinland was discovered by Leif, a son of Eric the Red, while on his homeward voyage from Norway to fulfil the commission of King Olaf to preach Christianity in Greenland. According to the Olaf saga the glory of having discovered America belongs to Bjarni, son of Herjulf, who was believed to have discovered Vinland, Markland, and Helluland as early as 985 or 986 on a voyage from Iceland to Greenland. As already observed, the Olaf saga is directly opposed both to the account of the twelfth-century geographer, who distinctly states that Leif discovered Vinland, and to the Kristni and Snorri sagas containing the same statement, with the additional information that it was during a voyage from Norway to Greenland whither he had been sent by King Olaf to preach Christianity. Unfortunately the Olaf saga, preserved in MS. only in the Flatey-book, was first used to narrate the discovery of America by the Northmen. This saga represents the old Northmen sailing the Atlantic with a confidence to be envied by the most experienced captains of to-day, the leaders of seven different expeditions finding, apparently without difficulty, the buðir (huts) of Leif. This uncritical narrative, to which reference is constantly made, has long helped to discredit the discovery of America by the Northmen. What a contrast is offered in the sober and direct account in the sagas of Thorfinn Karlsefni and of Eric, the former of which is preserved in twenty-eight MSS. The first attempt to find Vinland after its accidental discovery by Leif failed utterly. The second and last resulted after many difficulties in the discovery of a land which from its products might be the Vinland of Leif, but no mention is made of Leif’s buðir. The rules of historical criticism have, accordingly, given precedence to the Thorfinn and Eric sagas, but it must not be overlooked that the Olaf saga mentions in addition three lands discovered to the south-west of Greenland, of which the first was stony, the second wooded, and the third rich in the vine. They were therefore named respectively Helluland, Markland, and Vinland. Taking as a basis the more detailed and historically trustworthy account given in the sagas of Thorfinn Karlsefni and of Eric the Red, the voyages to Vinland may be thus briefly summarized. In the year 999, Leif, son of Eric the Red, set out from Greenland to Norway. His course, although too far to the south, at last brought Leif to his destination and he entered the service of Olaf Tryggvason, King of Norway. Having been converted to Catholicism while at court, the daring mariner was sent back to Greenland by Olaf in the year 1000 in order to co-operate with the priests of the expedition in propagating the Faith. On his return journey Leif was cast on the shores of a hitherto unknown land where he found the vine and wheat in a natural state, besides masur wood suitable for building purposes. The sailors took with them samples of all these products. Sailing north-east they at last reached Greenland. In the winter of 1000–1 Christianity was introduced into Greenland. At the same time measures were taken to find the newly-discovered Vinland. Thorstein, Leif’s elder brother, took charge of the undertaking, and was joined by twenty companions. They did not reach their goal, and weary and exhausted returned to Greenland after roaming over the sea for months. In 1003 Thorstein’s widow Gudrid, with her second husband, the rich Iceland merchant Thorfinn Karlsefni, undertook a new expedition to find and colonize Vinland, which seemed so promising a country. The starting place, which lay within the limits of the present Godthaab, was the manor of Gudrid, whose praises are sung in the saga. About one hundred and fifty took part in the expedition, among them two children of Eric the Red—Thorwald and the virago Freydi, who was accompanied by her husband Thorward. The voyage began propitiously. The first land encountered was remarkable for long flat stones and was consequently called Helluland, i. e. stone land. After a journey of two days, another land was sighted, unusually rich in timber, and was named accordingly Markland, i. e. Woodland. After a long voyage in a southerly direction they reached a third country, where they landed. Here, two “swift runners” whom Leif had received as a gift from Olaf, after a long search found grape-clusters and wheat growing wild. To reach the desired spot, Karlsefni steered south. As the vine land seemed well adapted for purposes of settlement, huts were forthwith erected. Thereupon the natives came to trade with the new-comers. The Vikings took special note of the fact that they used boats made of skins. Unfortunately friendly relations were soon broken off. A bellowing steer bursting from the woods struck such terror into the Skraelings that they took to their boats and hastily departed. In place of peaceful trading, the Skraelings now thronged about in great numbers and they engaged in a bloody combat, in which the Icelander Thorbrand fell. Only after heavy losses did the Skraelings retreat. Karlsefni, fearing fresh misfortunes, abandoned his first settlement and attempted to found a new colony more to the north. The colonists were free from hostile attacks, but internal dissensions broke out and the undertaking was given up entirely in the summer of 1006. On his return trip to Greenland Karlsefni again visited Markland. Of five Skraelings whom he encountered there, three escaped, a man and two women, but two children were captured, carried away, and taught to speak Icelandic. Karlsefni with his wife Gudrid, who later made a pilgrimage to Rome, and his three year old son Snorri, the first child born of European parents on the mainland of America, was successful in reaching Greenland. His companion Bjarni and his crew were driven by storms from their course, their worm-eaten vessel sank, and only half the crew escaped to Ireland, where they related the heroic act of Bjarni, who sacrificed his life for a younger comrade. The ancient Icelandic historical sources say nothing of further attempts at colonization.

The last historical notice of Vinland relates to the year 1121. “Bishop Eric set out from Greenland to find Vinland” and “Bishop Eric was searching for Vinland”; such are the meager statements found in the Iceland annals. Lyschander, in his Greenland chronicle, is the first to give a poetic expansion of this story (1609). He represents Bishop Eric as bringing “both emigrants and the Faith” to Vinland. As Torfaeus (Torfesson) in his “Historia Vinlandiae antiquae” (1705) and Rafn in various works presented similar views, it is not a matter of surprise that men finally came to speak of a bishopric in Vinland and of the fruitful work of Bishop Eric as facts established beyond doubt. In reply to such statements, emphasis must be laid on the fact that the sources say merely that Eric set out in search of Vinland, but that they are silent as to his success, not even reporting that he found Vinland again. Nevertheless, those who uphold the theory of a permanent colonization of Vinland urge numerous arguments in support of their position, many of which were long considered incontrovertible, as for instance the Norman tower near Newport, Rhode Island, This, as a matter of fact, is merely the ruin of a windmill built by Governor Arnold (c. 1670). The runic inscription on Dighton rock, so often misinterpreted, proves no more. The inscription is merely Indian picture writing such as is frequently found far to the south. In answer to arguments based on Mexican manuscripts, sculptures, and other remnants to prove the pre-Columbian existence of Christianity in America, careful critical research reveals the fact that all the evidence is unreliable. The worship of the cross practised in Mexico and Central America does not prove the Christianization of pre-Columbian America, either by St. Thomas the Apostle, or by Irish monks, or by the Northmen. This is clearly proved by the fact that the cross is found as a religious symbol among pre-Christian peoples. When opponents of this view point to the martyrdom of Bishop John of Ireland, the answer is that Bishop John (d. 1066) met his death not in Vinland the Good, but in the land of the Wends as I have elsewhere proved from original historical sources. There is a twofold error in the statement that a valuable cup of Vinland masur wood is mentioned among the tithes of the diocese of Gardar dating from 1327. First, this (ciphus de nuce ultramarina) was not part of the titles of the Greenland diocese of Gardar, but of Skara, a Swedish diocese; second, this goblet was not of masur but of cocoanut. Nor are the arguments drawn from the amount and the character of the tithes levied in the diocese of Gardar for the Crusades more convincing. They are partly based on a faulty computation which estimates the tithes at triple their real amounts, and partly on a mistaken conception of conditions in Greenland. As the sources testify and modern excavations have shown, the Northmen of Greenland, as well as their Icelandic cousins, were active cattle breeders, and raised horses, cattle, sheep, and goats, so that they might easily pay their tithes in calf-skins. And lastly, the story related by Zeno the Younger, of a fisherman having seen Latin books in the library of the King of Estotiland can no more be considered historical than the rest of Zeno’s romance. It is a fiction, like the island Estotiland itself and Plato’s Atlantis. The history of Vinland ends with the year 1121, but trustworthy accounts of Markland extend to a later date. The Iceland annals of 1347 have the following record: “There came a Greenland ship to Straumsfjord; the sail was set for Markland, but it was driven hither (Iceland) over the sea. There was a crew of eighteen men.” The object of the voyage is not mentioned, but the most probable conjecture is that the ship was bound for the forest land to obtain wood, in which Greenland was entirely deficient. But whatever the unfortunate sailors sought on the shores of Markland, it is an undoubted fact that in the middle of the fourteenth century Markland had not been forgotten by the people of Iceland, who spoke and wrote of it as a country generally known. History is silent as to later voyages to Helluland, but the rôle played by the Land of Stone is all the more important in legend and song, in which its situation changes at will. The Helluland of history lay to the south of western Greenland, but the poetic Helluland was located in north-eastern Greenland. To reconcile both views, Björn of Skardza devised his theory of two Hellulands, the greater in north-eastern Greenland and the smaller to the south-west of Greenland. Rafn arbitrarily located greater Helluland in Labrador and the lesser island in Newfoundland. His authority caused this arbitrary decision to find a wide acceptance, and in this way the site of Vinland was laid unduly far to the south.

For the approximate determination of the geographical position of Helluland, Markland, and Vinland, we find many clues in the original historical sources. “To the south of Greenland lies Helluland; then comes Markland, from which the distance is not great to Vinland the Good which some believe to be an extension of Africa. If this be true, then an arm of the sea must separate Vinland and Markland.” If we except the rash conjecture as to Vinland’s connection with Africa, this view of the old twelfth-century Icelandic geographer corresponds to the details of the historical sagas concerning the situation of these lands with respect to Greenland and one another. The sagas, however, contain other clues. A detail in the Olaf saga with regard to the position of the sun at the time of the winter solstice formerly led many to believe that the position of Vinland could be definitely determined. As a matter of fact the statement that “on the shortest day of winter the sun was up between eyktarstaðr and dagmalastaðr” is too vague to permit an exact determination of the position. Only this may be deduced with certainty, that Vinland lay south of 49° north lat., a position that might easily be identified with the situation of central Newfoundland or the corresponding section of Canada. To determine with accuracy the position of Vinland, it must be recalled that the members of Thorfinn’s great expedition were looking for the region where Leif had found the vine growing wild. With this purpose in view, they set sail along the coast of America, and discovered first a land which impressed them on account of its long flat stones. They called it Helluland. Taking into consideration the starting point of the voyage, its length and direction, one may well agree with Storm that the present Labrador is the Helluland of the saga, without, however, absolutely denying the claims of the northern peninsula of Newfoundland. Setting out from Helluland, after two runs of twelve hours each, the daring mariners came to a land remarkable for its wealth of timber, which they reached “with the help of the north wind.” The direction and length of the voyage, as well as the name Markland (Woodland), point to Newfoundland, which is distinguished by its dense forests. The third land encountered after sailing for a long time in a southerly direction did not reveal at first the desired grape clusters. But further exploration of the land lying to the south had on the second or third day the wished-for result. Vinland the Good should therefore be located in the northern part of the vine belt, or almost 45° north lat. Nova Scotia (inclusive of Cape Breton Island) seems to satisfy best the requirements of the saga. Wild grapes and Indian rice (zizania aquatica), which is probably meant by the wild wheat of the Northmen, all growing in a natural state, are repeatedly mentioned by eyewitnesses as characteristic of Nova Scotia and the region about the Bay of St. Lawrence, e. g. by Jacques Cartier (1534) and Nicholas Denys (c. 1650). Thorfinn was prevented from settling Vinland by the onslaught of the Skraelings. The sagas give a vivid picture of the first encounter with these wild dark-skinned men, remarkable for their uncomely hair, large eyes, and high cheek bones. Opinions differ widely as to the ethnographic classification of these Skraelings, some maintaining that they were Eskimo, while others unhesitatingly class them as Indians. The express mention of skin boats, coupled with the circumstance that the Markland Skraelings were most probably Eskimo, seem to support the theory that there were Eskimo in Vinland (Nova Scotia) at that period. They may have allied themselves with neighbouring Indians against the Norse invaders. A definitive determination of the position of Vinland, Markland, and Helluland depends on the discovery of Norse ruins, runic stones, or other ancient remains from the time of the Vikings. Unfortunately, in spite of the efforts of Horsford and other champions of the Northmen, such remains have not yet been found, and it is not unreasonable that those who deny a permanent Norse colonization should lay stress on the absence of Norse remains for proof that the Northmen did not succeed in establishing a permanent colony in the American mainland. The case is quite different with Greenland, where for some centuries there existed flourishing Norse colonies. Numerous ruins of churches, monasteries, and farm-buildings, together with miscellaneous remains, enable us to recognize clearly, even to-day, the position and character of the colonies of Greenland.

First as to the location of the colonies, ancient documents are unanimous in speaking of an eastern and a western colony, of which the first was by far the most important. The “east settlement,” as the name seems to suggest, was formerly sought on the east coast of Greenland. Even after the researches of Graah (1828–31) and Holm (1880–85), Nordenskiöld held fast to this view. It is true that even he during his most successful journey of investigation (1883) did not find the ruins he expected on the eastern coast of Greenland, but this in no way shook his conviction. He simply declared that the old Norse settlements had disappeared, leaving no traces. As to the ruins, so plentiful on the western coast, which he himself had visited, he held that they did not date back to the ancient Northmen, but were of later origin. This dogmatic assertion shook the foundation of the view just then gaining ground, namely, that both eastern and western settlements were situated on the west coast of Greenland. What proof was there that the many ruins of Greenland, so various in construction, owed their origin to the ancient Northmen? Was it right to ascribe the remarkably well preserved stone buildings to the Viking period, or did only the confused heaps of ruins belong to that time? The preliminary data for solving this question are furnished by Gudmundsson in his careful researches into the “Private Dwellings in Iceland during the Saga Period.” With the help of the original authorities, the Danish scholar Bruun and his learned collaborators were enabled to produce proof (1894) that the numerous ruins of Greenland in the neighbourhood of Julianehaab really dated from Norse times, and that in consequence the eastern settlement of the saga was in reality located on the western coast of Greenland. Starting from these investigations, as thorough as they were interesting, Finnur Jonsson, a Dane, with the aid of the original sources, was able conclusively to reconstruct in all essential particulars the ancient topography of Greenland and represent it by means of a map. This chart of Jonsson’s shows in the vicinity of Julianehaab the ruins of 117 churches and manors, large and small. The most remarkable are the episcopal See of Gardar and the manor of Eric the Red, renowned in the saga as the Brattahlid. The western settlement was situated within the limits of the present Godthaab, and is, as a matter of fact, much farther west. Godthaab lies in 51° 30’ west of Greenwich, while Julianehaab is approximately 46°. The less numerous ruins of the western district have not been thoroughly explored as yet but almost all their fjords have been determined, and the results obtained by archaeological research up to the present time are in full accord with the original sources, especially with the circumstantial account of Ivar Bardsson (c. 1350), who for many years administered the Church of Greenland as the representative of the Bishop of Gardar.

Archaeological investigations, taken in conjunction with ancient Norse legends, give evidence not only of the location of the settlements, but of the number of churches, monasteries, and manors, the approximate numbers of the Norse population, their pursuits and mode of life. As to the churches, which average in length from fifty to sixty-five feet, and in breadth twenty-six, and are built of large, carefully selected stones, the Gripla, an old northern chorography, fragments of which have come down to us, records twelve in the eastern settlement, and four in the western. In a list dating from the year 1300 the number of the former remains unchanged, but the number of churches in the western colony, which had been previously overrun by the Eskimo, was reduced to three, and in Ivar’s list (c. 1370) is given as one, that of Steinesness, for a time the seat of “a cathedral and an episcopal residence.” This statement of Ivar has given rise to the inference that there were two dioceses in Greenland, Gardar and Steinesness. According to the conjecture of Torfaeus, only Eric, the missionary bishop, who in 1121 set out for Vinland, had a cathedral in Steinesness. Greenland had but one bishopric, that of Gardar, and it had this [as is expressly stated in the “King’s Mirror,” one of the principal sources (c. 1250)] only because it was so far removed from other dioceses. Had it been nearer to other countries, it would have been “the third part of a diocese.” There were but two monasteries in Greenland, one of the Canons Regular of the Order of St. Augustine dedicated to Sts. Olaf and Augustine, and a convent of Benedictine nuns. The Dominican monastery fantastically described by Zeno the Younger (1558) never existed in Greenland. During the most flourishing period the number of manors in Greenland amounted to 280, 190 in the eastern and 90 in the western settlement. Assuming that each manor had an average of ten to fifteen inhabitants, we have a sum total of 2800–4200 souls, which is probably near the truth. Dwelling house, shed, and stable were single story buildings. Generally the buildings for horses, cows, sheep, and goats were not adjoining. The chief occupations of the inhabitants were cattle breeding and the chase. The Kjökkenmöddings which are often to be found to a height of over three feet in front of dwellings, prove that the ancient Northmen were fearless in the pursuit of large game. In these heaps of bones and ashes, the greater part of the remains are those of seals. There are traces of the following domestic animals: a species of small horned cattle (bos taurus), goats (capra hircus), sheep (ovis aries), small horses (equus caballus) and well-developed dogs (canis familiaris). Of the other animals native to Greenland, the bone piles show traces of the polar bear (ursus maritimus), the walrus (trichechus rosmarus), three species of seal (erignathus barbatus, phoca vitulina, and phoca foetida) and especially the hooded seal (cystophora cristata). It is not surprising then that the crusade tax levied on the inhabitants of Greenland, who had no currency, consisted of cattle hides, seal skins, and the teeth of whales. Gronlandiae decima this was termed in a letter of Pope Martin IV to the archbishop of Trondhjem (4 March, 1282): “Non percipitur nisi in bovinis et phocarum coriis ac dentibus et funibus balenarum.” In perfect accord with this is Ivar Bardsson’s emphatic mention, not only of the white bears and white falcons found everywhere in great abundance, but more particularly of the herds of cows, sheep, and goats, which were, next to the fisheries, the Greenlanders’ principal source of income.

Cattle raising and the chase caused the inhabitants to explore their icy country on all sides. To quote from the “King’s Mirror,” “the people have often attempted in various places to scale the highest rocks to obtain an extensive view, and see whether they could find a place free from ice and suitable for habitation. Such a region, however, could not be discovered, except those parts already built up which stretched a long distance along the coast. They found both mountain ridges and valleys coated with ice.” The daring Greenlanders not confining their attention to the interior showed a remarkable acquaintance with the ice-bound ocean and the peculiarities of the coast. According to the “King’s Mirror” the ice of the sea is eight to ten feet thick, and is as flat as though it were frozen in that very place. As the ice extends a journey of four or five days from land, and farther towards the east and northeast than south or southwest, anyone wishing to reach land must sail towards the west and southwest, until he has passed all places where there is a possibility of finding ice, and then set sail landward. From the smooth ice rise icebergs “like a high cliff from the sea,” not joined to the rest of the ice but separate. All well-to-do peasants in Greenland had large and small boats for fishing. Norðrseta, probably in the vicinity of the present Upernivik, was accounted especially favourable for seal fishing. Here too collected “all the driftwood that floated across from the inlets of Markland.” How far to the northwest the hardy fishers pushed their voyages we learn from a runic stone venerable for its age, which was discovered in 1824 and taken to the National Museum of Copenhagen. It was set up by three Northmen, 25 April, 1135, on the island of Kingittorsuaq (72° 55’ north lat.). In the summer of 1266 a point even farther north was reached by the polar expedition of which Haldur, a Greenland priest, gives an account to Arnold, his former colleague, then court chaplain to Magnus, King of Norway. On their northern voyage these men found traces of Skraelings only in the Króksfjarðarheiði, and the opinion thenceforth prevailed “that it must be the shortest way for them (the Skraelings) to go, no matter where they came from. Thereupon the priests sent a ship towards the north in order to have investigations made with regard to the conditions north of the most distant region which they had yet visited.” Driven by a southern gale, the ship sailed northward from Króksfjarðarheiði, “right into the bay (hafsbotnin, i. e. bay of the sea, seems to correspond with Melville Bay) and then they lost sight of the whole land, both the southern stretch of the coast and the glaciers.” On the return voyage, a three days’ sail brought them to a place where they found traces of Skraelings who had visited islands south of Snaefjall. “After that, they sailed south to Króksfjarðarheiði, a good day’s rowing, St. James’s day.” They there took an observation which even to-day can serve as an approximate indication of latitude. “It froze,” they say, “there, then at nights, but the sun shone both night and day, and it was no higher when it was in the south than that when a man laid himself crosswise in a six-oared boat, stretched out against the railing, then the shadow of the railing which was nearest to the sun fell on his face; but at midnight it was as high as it is at home in the colony, when it is in the northwest. Then they traveled home to Gardar.” These statements formerly led to the belief that Króksfjarðarheiði should be sought for about 75° north lat. on the other side of Baffin Bay. Latterly Thalbitzer has expressed the opinion that the “heiðe” was situated on the western coast of Greenland. At all events the Vikings clearly penetrated much farther north than Upernivik (73° n. lat.).

The Northmen of Greenland explored also the eastern coast of the country during the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries. On one of these voyages of exploration in 1194 they reached Svalbarðr or Svalbarði. According to Storm’s investigations this island is thought to be Jan Mayen or Spitzbergen. Almost a hundred years later (1285) two priests, sons of Helge, named Aldabrand and Thorvald, discovered, over against Iceland, a new country (the Dünen Islands). These voyagers are rightly called the precursors of Nordenskiöld, inasmuch as like him, they set out from Denmark, and reached the eastern coast of Greenland (not Newfoundland). These and similar discoveries of skilled Norse from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries made it possible long before Columbus, to draw so perfect a map of that part of America, known as Greenland, but a cartographer to whom Nordenskiöld showed such a chart declared emphatically that it must be a forgery of the nineteenth century. The first scholar who inserted the daring Norse discoveries in America in Ptolemy’s map of the world was Claudius Clavus Niger (Swart), a Dane, who left two maps and two geographical descriptions of the northern countries of Europe in which Greenland appears as a peninsula of the continent. The first chart with subjoined description is preserved in the precious Ptolemy MS. of Cardinal Filiaster of 1427, now in the city library of Nancy in France. In this MS. the learned cardinal expressly says of the eighth chart of Europe, “Ptolemy makes no mention of these lands (Norway, Sweden, and Greenland) and he seems to have had no knowledge of them. Hence a certain Claudius Cymbricus has described these northern parts, and represented them in charts.” This precious cartographic treasure has been preserved only in the Ptolemy codex of Nancy. Both chart and description have long been known and often reproduced. The second description and the second map have come down in various manuscripts, but separated from each other. The chart with its strikingly correct representation of Greenland was a riddle to cartographers from the time of its discovery, inasmuch as it contains many names of rivers and promontories which in no wise correspond with the statements found in ancient Norse sources. Only recently have the Danish scholars Björnbo and Petersen succeeded in solving this riddle. In two mathematical MSS. of the Hofbibliothek at Vienna they found the long lost description of the second chart of Claudius Clavus, from which it appears that Clavus (b. 1388) was once in Greenland, and that the fantastic names on this chart are merely the words of an old Danish folk song, of which the following is a literal translation:

There lives a man on Greenland’s stream

And Spieldebodh doth he be named;

More has he of white herrings

Than he has of pork that is fat.

From the North drives the sand anew.

As Claudius Clavus used the names of the runes to designate places in Iceland and the ordinal numerals, fursta, (the first), etc., on the map of Eastern Europe, so for Greenland he made use of the words of the stanza quoted above, i. e. Thaer (there) boer (lives) eeynh (a) manh (man) etc., to designate the succession of promontories and rivers which seemed to him most worthy of note. From Claudius Clavus the strange names were adopted by cartographers Nicolas Germanus and Henricus Martellus. While Nicolas Germanus in his first copies retained the correct location of Greenland (west of Iceland and the Scandinavian peninsula), in his later works he transferred Greenland to the Scandinavian peninsula and east of Iceland. On his small charts of the world he completed Ptolemy’s map by first giving to Greenland its correct position, but afterwards he placed it in northern Europe and located north of Greenland the insula glacialis or insula glaciei (Iceland). Both representations of Greenland were used by Martin Waldseemüller. The erroneous map of Nicholas Germanus he borrowed from the Ulm edition of Ptolemy, which is based on the Wolfegg parchment MS. of Ptolemy, and presented it in his great wall chart of the world (1507), “America’s certificate of baptism.” The correct map appeared in conjunction with the marine map of Canerio on the first large marine map ever printed, the “Carta Marina” of 1516. In consequence of the wide circulation of the world chart of 1507 (1000 copies, the only one of which now extant is that discovered by myself in Schloss Wolfegg) the faulty representation is found in countless later charts. Henricus Martellus, whose fine manuscript of Ptolemy was executed in Florence some thirty years after Nicholas Germanus, has given us the correct representation of Claudius Clavus in his charts of the northern countries. This correct map, however, first obtained a wider circulation through the often over-estimated Zeno map of 1558. In spite of its manifest inaccuracies—for example the younger Zeno represents the floating icebergs on the great northern map of Olaf Magnus (1539) as islands, to which he even assigns names—the Zeno map has been defended even in recent times as an original map of the Zeni, dating from the end of the fourteenth century. Since the successful clearing up of the mysterious Greenland names, and the discovery of Waldseemüller’s chart (Carta Marina, 1516), lost for three centuries, which likewise shows the configuration of parts of the eastern coast of North America, the last champions of Zeno must admit that the long celebrated Zeno chart is merely a compilation of the younger Zeno (1558).

While Claudius Clavus was the first to visit Norse Greenland in person and was the first to make a strikingly correct map (c. 1420), he himself was never in Helluland, Markland, and Vinland, and consequently did not introduce them into his fifteenth-century Ptolemy map of the northern countries. As a result these countries were not represented in the editions of Ptolemy’s map of the world published in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. On a Catalonian marine map (portulana) dating from the fifteenth century, however, we find a large rectangular island named Illa verde, and to the south of it a smaller island almost circular, named Brazil which have been rightly conjectured to be Greenland and Markland (the wooded land) respectively. On a sea chart discovered by me in the Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris there is likewise to the northwest an island termed “Insula veridis, de qua fit mentio in geographia,” and south of it the above-mentioned circular island. It is interesting to note that on his great map of the world (1507) Waldseemüller sets down a viridis insula northwest of Ireland. On the corresponding section of the “carta Marina” of 1516 there is no trace of the viridis insula but the round island Brazil appears. These divergences in cartographic representations arise from differences in conception of the territories discovered. The discoverers took the bodies of land they discovered for islands, a view which is also reflected on the sea charts of the fifteenth century. When the attempt was made to apportion these islands to the three then-known continents, Europe, Asia, and Africa, the fact that Svalbaror, i.e. Jan Mayen or Spitzbergen had been discovered in the twelfth century became of decisive importance, for by this discovery the theory that Greenland was in some way connected with the European mainland was apparently confirmed. This opinion was based on the fact that reindeer, arctic foxes, and other mammals which were found in Greenland, are not met with on islands, unless they were brought in. Since this was not the case in Greenland, it was inferred that these animals must have migrated there from some continent. This conclusion received support from the ice fields which covered the mare congelatum. So men arrived at the conviction that there existed a land connection between Greenland and Bjarmeland or northwestern Russia. Being uninhabited, this was called Ubygdear or the “uninhabited land.” Accordingly, Bjarmeland is described as follows in the above mentioned geographical description of the twelfth century: “Uninhabited lands extend as far north as Greenland.” A similar statement occurs in a thirteenth-century account: To the north of Norway is Finmarken whence the land extends northeast and east as far as Bjarmeland which is tributary to the Russian king. From Bjarmeland, the land stretches northward through unknown regions up to the borders of Greenland. Finally the author of the “Historia Norwegiae” (thirteenth century) sums up what is known of Greenland in the following noteworthy sentences: Some sailors wishing to return from Iceland to Norway were driven by adverse winds into the icebound regions. At last they landed between Greenland and Bjarmeland in a country which, according to their report has men of remarkable size, and in the land of the virgins who conceived by drinking water. Greenland is separated from them by rocks covered with ice; it was discovered, colonized, and converted to the Catholic faith by Icelanders; it is the western extremity of Europe and extends almost to the African islands. These words and others of similar import account for both the correct representation of Claudius Clavus who himself visited Greenland, as well as the faulty map of Nicholaus Germanus who pursued his geographical and cartographical studies in Florence about 1470. The recollection of Greenland was kept alive by charts and geographical descriptions even at the time when all communication with the Norse colonies had broken off. The eighteen sailors who were driven in 1347 from Markland to Iceland proceeded, according to Icelandic records, across Norway to Greenland. There seems to have been at that time no longer any direct communication between Iceland and Greenland. Intercourse was still kept up between Bergen and Greenland by the royal merchantman, the “Knorr,” but only at irregular intervals. In the year 1346, according to Icelandic annals, the “Knorr” was in good condition, and “laden with a rich cargo,” returned to Bergen from Greenland which from 1261 had been like Iceland under Norwegian rule. Not until 1355 did the vessel undertake its next voyage to Greenland. For this journey, extraordinary provisions were made, and a formal expedition fitted out. The purpose of the undertaking is said to have been the “preservation of Christianity” in Greenland, which could only be attained by means of a conflict with the Skraelings (Eskimo). It cannot be exactly ascertained when the “Knorr” returned, but it was probably about 1363 or 1364, as about this time Ivar Bardsson, who for many years administered the diocese of Gardar, makes his appearance in Norway.

We can gather from original sources how the Norsemen had gradually to retire before the advancing Eskimo. The first collision took place, according to the “Historia Norwegiae” (thirteenth century) in North Greenland. The passage (according to Thalbitzer) reads as follows in literal translation: Beyond the Greenlanders toward the north, the hunters came across a kind of people called the Skraelings; when they were wounded alive, their wounds became white, without any issue of blood, but the blood scarcely ceases to stream out of them when they are dead. They have no iron whatever, and use whale teeth for missle weapons, and sharp stones for knives. In the chart of Claudius Clavus (1427), accordingly we find the Careli, in the extreme north of Greenland, and the accompanying description is as follows: Tenent autem septentrionalis eius (Gronlandiae) Careli infideles, quorum regio extenditur sub polo septentrionali versus Seres orientales, quare polis [polar circle] nobis septentrionalis est eis meridionalis [in] gradibus 66. (The north of Greenland is occupied by the pagan Careli whose country extends from the North Pole to the eastern Seres; therefore the northern polar circle is to us north, to them south in the 66th degree of latitude.) It is interesting to know that in this very part of Greenland near the Umanak fjord there now exists a tradition among the Eskimo of a battle on the ice between Eskimo and Northmen. The Northmen were the attacking party, but the Eskimo were victorious. Thalbitzer gives the tradition according to the Rink (Eskimoiske Eventyr og Saga, Copenhagen, 1866): The Norsemen had pursued some little girls who had been out to fetch water. The girls came running home and shouted. “they are attacking us.” The Greenlanders fled and hid themselves between the heaps of stones, yet the Norsemen managed to get hold of some of them and maltreated them. The Greenlanders, however, by means of artifice, lured their enemies out on the slippery fjord ice, where they could not stand firmly, and thus the Skraelings succeeded in overcoming them one at a time and killed them all. In the course of the fourteenth century, the Eskimo of Greenland advanced farther southward. About 1360 the western colony fell into their hands. Ivar Bardsson, an eyewitness, related how, under commission of the royal governor, he had taken part in an expedition to drive the Eskimo from the Western settlement. But no human being either Christian or heathen was found. Cattle and sheep ran wild. Having put them on shipboard they returned home (Gardar). In 1397 the Icelandic annals report a new attack: The Skraelings assailed the Greenlanders, killing eighteen men, capturing and enslaving two boys. Undoubtedly the many shipwrecks which took place at this time hastened the catastrophe. The government ship went down north of Bergen. Moreover in 1392 “a great plague” visited the whole of Norway. In 1393 Bergen was conquered and pillaged by the Germans who took with them all ships and anchors. After this we hear of no more voyages of the “Knorr” to Greenland. The last record in the Icelandic annals of the landing of a foreign vessel in Greenland is found under the date 1406. It was not until four years later that the ship which had been driven by storms to Greenland reached Norway. To the same period belongs a marriage certificate given, 19 April, 1409, by a priest in Gardar. Soon afterwards the final catastrophe must have befallen the eastern settlements. According to the letter of Pope Nicholas V (c. 1448) to the bishops of Iceland, the Christians of Greenland were attacked by the heathens of the neighbouring coasts, and the country was laid waste with fire and sword, but all persons who were fit to become slaves were made captives. The approximate date of the invasion is obtained by the mention of “thirty years ago” (1418). The efforts of Nicholas V were unfortunately without success, as appears from the letter of Alexander VI dated in the first year of his pontificate (1492–93). The inhabitants were deprived of religious ministration; there was no longer either bishop or priest and a great part of the population returned to paganism. Those who remained true to the faith possessed as a memorial of Catholic times only the corporal on which a hundred years before the Lord’s Body had been consecrated by the last priest. Once a year this corporal was exposed for veneration. The date “a hundred years ago,” is not entirely accurate, even if we agree with Storm in taking the last priest to mean the last resident bishop. The statement that “for eighty years no [European] ship had landed on the coast of Greenland” is not positively made. Bjornbo and Petersen inform us of a journey to Greenland hitherto unknown. In the text intended to accompany his second map of Greenland Clavus expressly states: “Grolandie insule chersonesus dependet a terrâ inaccessibili a parte septentrionis vel ignotâ propter glaciem. Veniunt tamen Kareli infideles, ut vidi, in Grolandiam cum copioso exercitu quottidie, et hoc absque dubio ex alterâ parte poli septentrionalis.” (The peninsula of the island of Greenland projects from a land inaccessible from the north or unknown on account of the ice. However, the pagan Careli, as I have witnessed, invade Greenland every day with a numerous army and no doubt come from the other side of the polar circle.) Clavus, therefore, seems to have been one eyewitness of the last hostile attacks which finally resulted in the destruction of the eastern settlement, which was the last Norse colony in America. It is true that many attempts were still made to convey assistance to the hard-pressed Norse settlers, particularly by the last Catholic Archbishop of Trondhjem, Eric Walkendorf (d. 1522), but all came to nought. So the last descendents of the old Vikings were left to their own resources and were gradually absorbed by native Eskimo population.

Reeves, The Finding of Wineland the Good (London, 1890); Heywood, Documenta selecta e tabulario secreto Vaticano (Rome, 1893); Adamus Bremensis, Adami Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum ex recensione lappenbergi. ed. Waitz (Hanover, 1874); Gronlands historiske mindesmaerker (Copenhagen, 1838–45); Rafn, Antquitates Americanae (Copenhagen, 1837); Storm, Islandiske Annaler indtil 1587 (Christiana, 1888); Monumenta Historica Norwegiae (Christiana, 1888); Eiriks Saga Raudoa (Copenhagen, 1891); Aris Islendingabok, ed Jonsson (Copenhagen, 1887), ed. Golther (Halle, a. S., 1892); Werlauff, Symboliae ad Geographiam medii oevi ex monumentis Islandicis (Copenhagen, 1821); Anderson, America not Discovered by Columbus with a bibliography of the pre-Columbian discoveries of America by Watson, 4th ed. (Chicago, 1891); de Roo, History of America before Columbus (Philadelphia, 1900), a most complete account of all more or less probable discoveries of America before Columbus; Herberman, America before Columbus in U. S. Cath. Hist. Soc. Historical Records and Studies (New York, 1901), II; Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America (Boston, 1886–89); Lucas, The Annals of the Voyage of the Brothers Niccolo and Antonio Zeno (London, 1898); Fiske, The Discovery of America (Boston, 2 vols., 1902), small edition of 1 vol. (Boston 1905); Storm, Studier over Vinlands reiserne Vinlands goegraphi og ethnografi (Copenhagen, 1888); abridged English edition, Studies on the Vinland Voyages (Copenhagen, 1889); Om Zeniernes reiser in Norske geor. selskabstarbog (Christiana, 1891); Nye Efterretninger om det Gamle Gronland in Hist. Tidskrift (Christiana, 1892); Fischer, Die Entdeckungen der Normannen in Amerika (Freiburg, 1902), tr. Soulsby, the Discoveries of the Norsemen in America (London, 1903), with rich literary details concerning the works of Humboldt, de Costa, Horsford, Norden Skiold. Maurer, Storm, Harrisse, Ruge, etc.; Herberman, The Northmen in America in Historical Records and Studies (New York, 1903), III, Part I; Fischer, The Tithes of the Crusades in Greenland, 1276–82, ibid. (New York, 1904), III, Part II; Bjornobo og Petersen, Claudius Clausson Swart (Copenhagen, 1904); Thalbitzer, The Eskimo Language, with an historical introduction about the east Eskimo in Meddelelser om Gronland (Copenhagen, 1904), XXXI, Skraelingerne i Markland og Gronlnad, deres Sprog og Nationalitet in Danske Videns kab. Selsk Forhandl. (1905); Jonsson, Gronland Gamle Topografi efter Kilderne in Meddelelser (Copenhagen, 1899), XX; Nielsen, Nordmaendog Skraelinger i Vinland in norske G. S. Aarb. (1905).

Joseph Fischer.

American College in Rome

The American College in Rome, or to give the legal title, “The American College of the Roman Catholic Church of the United States, Rome, Italy,” owes its existence chiefly to Archbishop Hughes, of New York, and Archbishop Kenrick of Baltimore, who were the most conspicuous supporters of Pius IX in founding at Rome this institution which has done so much for half-a-century to preserve and propagate Roman traditions and maintain unity between the See of Peter and the Church in the United States. When a number of American bishops went to Rome in 1854 to be present at the proclamation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, they expressed to Pius IX the desire to see an American college established that should take rank with the other national colleges in that city. Bishop Michael O’Connor, of Pittsburg, an alumnus of the Propaganda seconded the efforts of the leading prelates already mentioned, and specially pressed the matter on the attention of the Pontiff. In his reply to the letter of the archbishops and bishops composing the First Provincial Council of New York, Pius IX proposed the establishment of a North American College in Rome. Archbishop Hughes, who had long fostered this idea, immediately wrote to the other archbishops of the United States and to his suffragans, extolling the Pope’s design and asking their advice as to the best method of putting it into execution, and of procuring the means necessary to support the college when established. In the Eighth Provincial Council of Baltimore held from May 6 to May 16, 1855, it was resolved to appoint a committee of three bishops to report on the subject of the American College. Bishop O’Connor, of Pittsburg, Bishop Neumann, of Philadelphia and Dr. Lynch, Administrator of Charleston, were appointed. It was subsequently agreed that the Pope should be asked to select three bishops as a committee to carry out the idea; that the Archbishop of Baltimore should act as promoter until their appointment, and that an active and experienced clergyman should be sent to Rome to make the necessary preparations. Pius IX became so interested in the project that he offered to purchase and present a suitable building for the purpose, while the American bishops would furnish it and procure the funds necessary for its maintenance. In 1857, the Pope bought for $42,000, the old Visitation Convent of the Umiltà, then occupied by soldiers of the French garrison in Rome. The free use of it in perpetuity was accorded to the American bishops. By reason of its military occupation the building was in bad condition. On 12 December, 1858 the Archbishop of New York ordered a general collection in all the churches of his diocese to procure funds for the necessary repairs and for the furnishing of the college. The people were most generous in their contributions, and the other American archbishops and bishops co-operated so liberally that in a short time the sum of nearly $50,000 was collected. Repairs were immediately begun on the building, and in the year following it was fit for occupancy. On the 8th of December, 1859, the college was formally opened with thirteen students who had for some time been waiting in the College of the Propaganda for this event. On the day of the opening of the college, Monsignor Bedini, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, consecrated the marble altar of the college chapel, and on the twelfth of the same month the feast of Our Lady of Guadaloupe, to whom one of the side altars is dedicated, he celebrated Pontifical Mass in the college church. On the feast of St. Francis de Sales, 29 January, 1860, Pius IX visited the college. To commemorate this event, a tablet bearing the following inscription was put up: “On January 29, 1860, the feast of St. Francis de Sales, Pius IX, the Supreme Pontiff, father and founder of the American College, said Mass in this building, fed the alumni with the heavenly banquet, visited the college, and deigned to give audience to all.” His Holiness was assisted on the occasion by Bishop David Bacon, of Portland, Maine, and by Monsignor Goss, of Liverpool.

The Rev. Bernard Smith, O.S.B., professor in the Propaganda College, and afterwards an abbot, was appointed temporary rector of the college, until the appointment, in March, 1860, of the Rev. William George McCloskey, who was then an assistant at the Church of the Nativity, New York City, and later Bishop of Louisville. During the administration of Father McCloskey the college flourished, the number of students increasing rapidly from thirteen to fifty of whom six came from New York, four from Newark two from Brooklyn five from Philadelphia, and the remainder from the New England States, the South and the West. The first ordination of an alumnus to the priesthood was on the 14th of June, 1862, in the Church St. John Lateran, by Cardinal Patrizzi. The finances of the college were not, however on a sound basis; the rector, therefore, in 1866, appealed for aid to the American bishops assembled in the second Plenary Council of Baltimore. The appeal was successful, for Archbishop Spalding, who as Delegate of the Holy See, convoked and presided at the Council, in his letter promulgating its decrees, commended the college to the good will of the bishops. In consequence, the Rev. George H. Doane, a clergyman of the Diocese of Newark, was appointed by the bishops to collect funds for the college. After making a tour of the country, he succeeded in collecting $150,000, which at once placed the college on an excellent financial footing.

During the Vatican Council, the American prelates in Rome decided that the property of the college should remain in the hands of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda. With regard to the burses or scholarships founded, it was agreed that when they were vacant, one-half of the proceeds should go to the college and the other half to the diocese to which the burse belonged. There are now (1906) thirty-five burses founded in the college. The Rev. Dr. McCloskey was made Bishop of Louisville, Kentucky, in 1868, and was succeeded by the Rev. Dr. Francis Silas Chatard, who remained rector until 12 May 1878, when he was consecrated Bishop of Vincennes Indiana. The Rev. Dr. Louis Hostlot, vice-rector of the college, succeeded Dr. Chatard and remained in office till his death, 1 February, 1884. Then for a time the Rev. Dr. Augustin J. Schulte governed the college, until the election of the Rev. Dennis J. O’Connell, D.D., now Rector of the Catholic University at Washington. He resigned in July, 1895, and was succeeded by the Rev. William H. O’Connell, D.D., who became Bishop of Portland, Maine, in 1901. The Right Rev. Monsignor Thomas F. Kennedy, of Philadelphia, succeeded him. Under Dr. Kennedy’s rectorship property adjoining the college was purchased, in November, 1903, at a cost of $50,000. His predecessor, Dr. William H. O’Connell, had purchased for $20,000 the Villa Santa Catarina, at Castel Gandolfo, as a summer residence for the students. At the present time (May, 1906) their number is one hundred and fifteen, the largest number the college has ever had. The college has an Alumni Association in the United States comprising two hundred and seventy-five members, out of four hundred and fifty students who have been ordained priests in the college. This association made a contribution of $25,000 to the fund for the recent acquisition of new property by the college. Besides the late Archbishop Corrigan, of New York, the following American prelates, who are still living, Studied theology in the college: Archbishops Farley, of New York, Moeller, of Cincinnati; O’Connell, of Boston; Bishops Richter, of Grand Rapids; Burke, of St. Joseph, Mo.; Horstmann, of Cleveland; McDonnell, of Brooklyn, Hoban of Scranton, Rooker, of Jaro, P.I.; Dougherty, of Nueva Segovia, P.I.; Morris, Coadjutor, of Little Rock. Archbishop Riordan, of San Francisco, and Archbishop Seton, as well as Bishops Byrne, of Nashville, Keiley. of Savannah, O’Connor, of Newark, N.J., and Northrup, of Charleston, S.C., are partially indebted to this institution for their training in theology. By his brief, Ubi primum, 25 October, 1884, Leo XIII raised the American College to the rank of a Pontifical College. The administration of the college is controlled by a board composed of the archbishops of Baltimore, Boston, New York and Philadelphia. Its internal management and discipline are entrusted to the rector, who is assisted by the vice-rector and by the spiritual director. The students attend the lectures, and are subject to the academic regulations, of the Urban College of Propaganda. The curriculum of the last-named institution comprises a two-years’ course in philosophy and a four-years’ course in theology. Supplementary lectures are given in the American College on the subjects treated in Propaganda.

The most interesting incident in the history of the American College was the attempt of the Italian government, after the taking of Rome, to seize the college property. Italian statutes of 15 August 1866, and of 7 July, 1867, confiscated to the State the property of religious corporations. A law of 1873 applied the general law to the City of Rome. The Propaganda had for ten years contended in the courts that these laws did not apply to its property but the highest Italian court on the 29th of January, 1884, decided the case in favour of the State. Cardinal McCloskey and Archbishop Corrigan, his coadjutor, wrote a joint letter on the 3d of March 1884, to the President of the United States, Chester A. Arthur, begging him to “ask the King of Italy for a stay of proceedings, if it be not possible furthermore to exempt the institution as virtually American property from the operation of the law.” Archbishop Organ, who, for a long time, was secretary of the board of bishops, having charge of the affairs of the American College, sent special letters to the Secretary of State, Mr. Frelinghuysen, who wrote on the 5th of March, 1884, to Mr. Astor, the American Minister at Rome, urging him to use his influence with the Italian government to save the college property because “although technically the American College is held by the Propaganda, it is virtually American property, and its reduction would be attended with the sacrifice of interests almost exclusively American.” The efforts of President Arthur, Secretary Frelinghuysen, and Mr. Astor, suggested and urged by the cardinal and his coadjutor, saved the college, and on the 28th of March, 1884 Mr. Astor sent a telegram from Rome, announcing that the college had been exempted from the effect of the Italian statutes of confiscation.

Compiled from documents given to the author by the late Archbishop Corrigan. See also Annual Reports of the Alumni Association.

HENRY A. BRANN

American College at Louvain

An institution for the education of priests. Its official title is “The American College of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.” It was founded in 1857, with the cordial support of the Belgian hierarchy, by two American bishops, the Rt. Rev. M.J. Spalding, then Bishop of Louisville, Ky., later Archbishop of Baltimore, and the Rt. Rev. P.P. Lefevre, Administrator of the Diocese of Detroit, Mich. Its purpose was, on the one hand, to enable American-born students to pursue thorough courses of theology in Europe, while familiarizing themselves with the languages, usages, and customs of the Old World; on the other hand, to afford young men of various European nationalities an easy means of preparation for the work of the ministry in America, thus presenting to the bishops an opportunity of adopting well-trained subjects for their several dioceses. Originally, the college was established only for the instruction of students in elementary and advanced theology. They were supposed to have studied philosophy, either in America or in one of the preparatory seminaries of Europe. The actual scope of the college is somewhat wider. In October, 1906, a faculty of philosophy was organized providing a two-years’ course for students who have successfully completed their classical studies.

Although the bishops mentioned above took the initiative in establishing the college, its field of action has by no means been confined to their two dioceses. The co-operation of all the dioceses of the United States has been requested, and several ecclesiastical provinces situated in British-American territory have taken part in the work. These include the Archdiocese of Victoria, B.C., with the suffragan see of New Westminster, and the Archdiocese of Port of Spain, Trinidad, with the suffragan see of Roseau. Among the American bishops who enjoy special rights in connection with the college are those who have donated to its fund the sum of $1,000, becoming thereby Patrons of the College. To them the constitutions approved by the Holy See in 1895 accord precedence in the matter of sending students to the college, as also in the adoption of its graduates for their dioceses. In the event of the college being closed, they would have certain claims upon its property. The patronal dioceses are at present seventeen in number: Detroit Louisville, Natchez, Oregon City, Baltimore, Nesqually, Victoria, B.C., Hartford, Buffalo, Port of Spain, New Orleans, Richmond, Newark, Leavenworth, Helena, Belleville, and Tucson. It would be difficult to set a valuation upon the property held at present by the college. It may, however, be safely stated that since its foundation $110,000 has been expended in the purchase of ground and in the erection of buildings which provide ample accommodation for 150 students. As it was found impracticable for the bishops patrons to exert permanent and effectual control of the college by their collective action, the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore resolved to appoint a committee of three bishops duly qualified to represent the American hierarchy in the management of the college. The members of the committee are at present the Right Rev. C.P. Maes (Covington), Chairman, Most Rev. P.W. Riordan (San Francisco); Right Rev. J.L. Spalding (Peoria). The rector of the college is also subject, as regards both spiritual and temporal administration, to the Congregation of Propaganda. This Congregation appoints the rector on the recommendation of the committee of bishops and after consultation with the college faculty, and gives him ample authority in the matter of ordaining student. His annual report on the condition of the college must be sent to Propaganda as wed as to the committee of bishops.

As to the courses followed by the students, that of advanced theology has been taken, from the first, by students sufficiently well trained to try for the decrees given at Louvain. Of these, Bishop Riordan and Bishop Spalding were made licentiates of theology in 1865 and 1866. Most of the students, however, take the elementary course of theology which, until 1877, was given, partly at the Catholic University and partly at the college, by professors appointed by the rector. The course having been abolished at the university in 1877, the students were allowed to follow the lectures given by the Jesuit Fathers on such subjects as were not treated in the college, namely, moral theology (in part), and Holy Scriptures In 1898 the Belgian hierarchy, at the request of the committee of American bishops, established a full course of elementary theology at the university, which is now followed by the students of the American College, and by those of various other seminaries and religious communities. Certain branches, however, such as pastoral theology, liturgy, sacred eloquence, and modern languages, are taught at the college by professors belonging to the institution.

From its foundation to the present day, the college has given four archbishops to the hierarchy of the Church: Charles John Seghere (Oregon City), d. 1886; Francis Janssens (New Orleans), d. 1897; P. W. Riordan (San Francisco); B. Orth (Victoria, B.C.); and eleven bishops, namely: A. Junger (Nesqually), d 1895, J. Lemmens (Vancouver Island), d. 1897 J. B. Brondel (Helena), d. 1903; A. J. Glorieux (Boise); C. P. Maes (Covington); J. L. Spalding (Peoria); A. Van de Vyver (Richmond); T. Meersehaert (Oklahoma), J. J. O’Connor (Newark); Wm. Stang (Fall River); Joseph J. Fox (Green Bay). It has sent 661 priests to America, 506 of whom are living and who are distributed as follows in the various provinces: Baltimore, 25; Boston, 36; Chicago, 69, Cincinnati, 122; Dubuque, 19; Milwaukee, 31; New Orleans, 65; New York, 61; Oregon City, 68; Philadelphia, 25; St. Louis, 74; St. Paul, 20; San Francisco, 4; Santa Fe, 23; Victoria, B.C., 16; Port of Spain, 4. There were 72 students entered on the rolls of the college in 1906; 62 in advanced or elementary theology, and 10 in philosophy.

The college has had four rectors since its inception, namely: the Very Rev. P. Kindekens, 1857–60; the Right Rev. Monsignor J. De Neve, 1860–91; the Right Rev. Monsignor Willemsen, who held the office from 1891 to 1898, when the present incumbent, the Very Rev. J. De Becker, assumed the charge. During the ill health of Monsignor De Neve, the Right Rev. Monsignor Dumont acted as pro-rector from 1871 to 1873, and the Rev. J. Pulsers from 1873 to 1881. Moreover, since the approval of the constitution of the college by the Holy See in 1895, and the exact definition of the duties of a vice-rector, this office has been held first, by the Very Rev Wm. Stand, D.D. (1895–99) now Bishop of Fall River, and by the Rev P. Masson, who is also professor of pastoral theology liturgy, and sacred eloquence. There are 21 professors who give, at the University and at the College the lectures attended by all, or some of the students.

Am. Eccl. Rev., March, 1897; Oraison unebre de Mgr. Jean de Neve (Louvain, 1898) L’Eglise aux etats unis (Louvain, 1901), Le College Americain et son action au point de vue economique (Mons, 1905, three pamphlets by J. De Becker) American College Bulletin (Louvain, 1803–07), Annuaire de l’Universe Catholique (1906).

J.A.M. DE BECKER

South American College

(Legal title, COLLEGIO PIO-LATINO-AMERICANO PONTIFICIO).

The Rev. Ignatius Victor Eyzaguirre, after having spent many years in Chile, his native country, in different works for the salvation of souls, went to Rome, in 1857, and proposed to the Pope the erection of a college for students, from “Latin” American countries, i.e. where the Spanish and Portuguese languages are spoken. Pius IX, who had been Apostolic Delegate in Chile, granted letters of approbation, and urged the bishops to send students and to help the foundation by procuring funds for the maintenance of the seminary. Father Eyzaguirre went back to South America, collected some money, and returned to Rome with a few students. He rented a small house for these students and some others who arrived later. They were fifteen in all. Pius IX ordered the Fathers of the Society of Jesus to direct the new college, and they opened the college on 21 November, 1858. In December, 1859, Pius IX helped to purchase a larger house, belonging to the Dominicans, near their Church of the Minerva. He also bought with his own money a villa and a vineyard for the use of the college, and made Monsignor Eyzaguirre protonotary-apostolic. Towards the beginning of 1860 he sent this prelate back to South America as ablegate of the Holy See, to urge the bishops again to co-operate on a larger scale in procuring the necessary means for the support of the college. At the same time he himself contributed a large sum of money to the new house. During the year 1864 Pius IX sent to the college a great variety of books from his own private library, ordered a new chapel to be erected at his own expense, and furnished it with magnificent vestments and on the 21 November, the sixth anniversary of its foundation, visited the college in person. For all this and many other favours he is considered the principal, if not the first, founder of the South American College. The number of students continually increasing, the superiors had to look for another dwelling. Through the assistance of His Eminence Cardinal Sacconi, protector of the college, part of the old novitiate of the Jesuits, on the Quirinal—which since the year 1848 had been used for a French military hospital—was secured, the house near the Minerva sold, and the new residence occupied on 18 April, 1867, the feast of the Patronage of St. Joseph, to whom the college had been dedicated. As the centenary of the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul occurred in this year, many South American bishops visiting Rome brought new students, and the number reached fifty-nine. After the festivities of the centenary Pius IX, almost unannounced, went to the new college, assisted at an “academy,” and allowed his name to be added to its legal title, making it “Collegio Pio-Latino Americano.” In 1870 the bishops attending the Vatican Council increased the number of students to eighty-two. In 1871, the Italian government having expelled the Jesuits from the small part of the novitiate they occupied, acceded to the request of the Brazilian Emperor and permitted the South American College to remain where it was until a suitable house should be found. The new rector the Rev. Agostino Santinelli, S.J., bought a new site in the Prati di Castello, not far from the Vatican, and near the Tiber. The foundation stone was blessed on 29 June, 1884, by the protector, Cardinal Sacconi, in presence of a large assemblage among whom was the Most Rev. Father Peter Beckx, General of the Society of Jesus, then living in the American College. The work of building began immediately, and Father Santinelli, putting into execution the plans for a grand college he had fostered for very many years, saw the splendid building finished in 1887–88. During this last year the new house received ninety students, but it can accommodate more than 120. It has a splendid chapel, an assembly hall with a capacity for 400 persons, a very spacious dining room for the students, and several small apartments for American bishops visiting Rome. It was here that the first General Council of Latin America (28 May-9 July, 1899) was held. There were present fifty-three prelates, archbishops and bishops, of whom twenty-nine took up their quarters in the college, together with their secretaries and servants. The solemn opening took place in the college chapel, and all the sessions were held there. In the same chapel on 26 March, 1905, the Cardinal Protector, Joseph C. Vives y Tuto, solemnly published the Apostolic Constitution “Sedis Apostolicae providam,” by which His Holiness granted the title of “Pontifical” to the college and committed its direction in perpetuum to the Society of Jesus. This constitution, which had been solicited by the bishops during the councils and promised by Leo XIII, has been completed and given by Pius X; it fixes the fundamental rules of the college already tested by so many years of experience, and on this account it is recognized as the Bull of foundation of the college. There were 104 alumni present at the ceremony besides many others; the Very Rev. Aloysius Caterini, S.J., Provincial of the Roman Province, accepted the charge in the name of the General of the Society, absent through sickness. The college, during its existence of nearly fifty years has seen twenty-five of its former students made archbishops or bishops in their native countries, besides many others created doctors in philosophy, theology, and canon law. The influence of all these upon the development of religion has been immense. A number of the seminaries and one ecclesiastical university in Latin America have taken their professors exclusively from the alumni of the college. Finally, in 1906, the high tribute of esteem was paid the college by the Holy See, in the choice, from amongst the students formed within its walls of the first cardinal of Latin America: Monsignor Joaquin Arcoverde de Albuquerque-Cavalcanti, Archbishop of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

P.X. VELLA

American Protective Association

Usually known as “the A.P.A.,” a secret proscriptive society in the United States, which became a disturbing factor in most of the Northern States during the period 1891–97. Its purpose was indicated clearly enough by its open activity in arranging lectures by “ex-priests,” distributing anti-Catholic literature and opposing the election of Catholics to public offices. Of the A.P.A. ritual and obligations there was frequent publication during the years 1893–94, now divulged by spies, and now admitted by ex-members. What purports to be a full exhibit of these oaths may be found in the “Congressional Record,” 31 October, 1893, in the petition of H.M. Youmans for the unseating of Representative-in-Congress William S. Linton. These oaths bound members “at all times to endeavour to place the political position of this government in the hands of Protestants to the entire exclusion of the Roman Catholics” etc. The first Council of the A.P.A. was established 13 March, 1887, at Clinton, Iowa. The founder was Henry F. Bowers, a lawyer of that town, a Marylander by birth, and then in his sixtieth year. The order seems to have spread slowly. Its first outcropping in local politics occurred in 1891 at Omaha, Neb., where it endorsed the Republican ticket and swept the town (heretofore Democratic) by a large majority. The A.P.A. seems to have moved down the Missouri river from Omaha. In Missouri, Kansas City was its first conspicuous base. After the fall election of 1892, a delegation representing the A.P.A. of Kansas City asked Governor-elect Stone to blacklist all Catholics when making appointments. “Your association,” replied Governor Stone, “is undemocratic and un-American, and I am opposed to it. I haven’t a drop of Know-Nothing blood in my veins.” The following cities are among the more important which were generally regarded as under A.P.A. political dominance during all, or a portion, of the period of 1893–96: Omaha, Kansas City, Rockford (Ill.), Toledo, Duluth, Saginaw, Louisville; and, to some extent, Detroit, St. Louis, and Denver. In New York its principal activity was at Buffalo and Rochester. Pennsylvania (where the so-called patriotic societies were numerous), Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island were also overrun, politically, by the new order. It was particularly militant in California. If we except Kentucky and Tennessee, the A.P.A. made but little impression in the South, although there were mild outcroppings in Georgia and Texas.

The most interesting aspect of the movement, the course and methods of its early growth, the conditions and provocations, if any, which gave it such a widespread and numerous following are precisely the aspects which are most hidden, and most difficult to determine. A marked loosening of party ties in 1892, and the hard times and industrial unrest of 1893 undoubtedly assisted the A.P.A. movement. Its founder, Henry F. Bowers, informs the writer that the coming of Monsignor Satolli, papal delegate, was the greatest single stimulus the movement received. Capital was also made out of parochial-school questions, then much current in the public press, the Faribault system in Minnesota, the Edwards law in Illinois, and the Bennett law in Wisconsin. From Boston a “Committee of One Hundred” flooded the press and the legislatures, from 1888 to 1892, with “anti-Romanist” documents. Writing in “The Century Magazine” for March, 1894, the Rev. Washington Gladden tells us that the A.P.A. movement began operations in each locality where it spread by “the furtive distribution of certain documents calculated to engender fear and distrust of the Catholics.” Of these documents there were, he says, two: one purporting to be instructions to Catholics, apparently bearing the signature of eight prelates of the Catholic Church, and the other, the famous “papal bull,” or encyclical, calling for the massacre of the Protestants “on or about the feast of St. Ignatius in the year of our Lord, 1893.” The A.P.A. movement began to develop a press early in 1893; and in 1894, seventy A.P.A. weeklies were in existence. Nearly all of these were publications of very limited circulation, few of them printing, except around election time, more than a thousand copies. They used “plate matter” and kept “standing” several columns of reading defamatory of the Catholic Church, such as alleged Jesuit and Cardinal oaths, “canon law,” and a list of unauthenticated “quotations” ascribed to Catholic sources. What Ignatius Donnelly said in the course of his discussion with “Prof.” Sims aptly applied to this matter: “I want to say, my friends, that I do not believe in some of the authorities quoted by the professor [Sims]; I doubt their authenticity. When he comes up here and admits that the A.P.A. organization sent out an encyclical of the Pope that was bogus and published documents which were forgeries, he casts doubt on every document he may produce. False in one thing, false in all.” Very naturally Catholic citizens vigorously opposed the A.P.A., and everywhere had the best of the battle in the open forum. Their press was unremitting in its assault upon the new movement. Public meetings and anti-A.P.A. lectures and pamphlets were among the means employed. Here and there associations were formed for purposes of defence; and in many places the council meetings of the A.P.A. were systematically watched, and lists of the members procured and circulated. Under the stress of public discussion the secret movement was at a disadvantage, and time and again A.P.A. leaders confessed the desirability of discarding their secret methods and coming out in the open, and also casting aside the intolerant features of their movement.

Professor Johnston, explaining in “The American Encyclopedia of Politics” the failure and sudden collapse of the American party after 1854, says: “The existence of a secret and oath-bound party was always an anachronism in an age and a country where free political discussion is assured.” This also was true of the A.P.A. Expressions of disapproval of the A.P.A. were evoked from prominent men in public life, such as Governor Peck of Wisconsin, Governor Altgeld of Illinois, Senators Vilas, Hoar, Vest, and Hill, Theodore Roosevelt, and Speaker Henderson. Democratic conventions, and in some instances Republican conventions, denounced the movement by resolution. The A.P.A. reached its high tide in 1894. President Traynor, in the “North American Review” (June, 1896), says that twenty members of the Fifty-fourth Congress (1895–97) were members of the order, and “one hundred were elected by it and went back on it.” Traynor also, in this connection refers to the A.P.A. as “so dominant before, and so insignificant after election.” He claimed for it (June, 1896) a membership of 2,500,000, and threatened that should the old parties refuse to endorse its essential principles, “it is absolutely certain to put up an independent presidential ticket.” On the other hand, Professor Walter Sims, at first an A.P.A. lecturer and afterwards the founder of a rival organization, speaking in Minneapolis in 1895, said: “It is a great bugaboo. . . . There is not a membership in the United States of 120,000, but they call it a million.” The truth lay somewhere between the calculating boastfulness of Traynor and the resentful disparagement of Sims. There is no reason to think that in its palmiest days the A.P.A. could count on its roster of membership over a million voters. Numerically, it never equalled the old American party of 1854–57, which once had five United States senators and twenty-three congressmen wearing its livery.

Unlike the Know-Nothing movement, the A.P.A. did not form a distinct party. Its political activity consisted in capturing Republican primaries and conventions, and promoting local candidates. Also unlike the Know-Nothing party, it invited and admitted to membership thousands of foreign-born persons. In southeastern Michigan the strongest element in the A.P.A. were Anglo-Canadians; in Milwaukee, the Germans predominated; and in Minneapolis, Scandinavians. Few men of any prominence in public life were members of the A.P.A., although it undoubtedly initiated a number of mayors and sheriffs throughout the West; with the exception of Governor William O. Bradley, of Kentucky, and Representative-in-Congress William S. Linton, of Michigan, no men of higher than local official dignity openly acknowledged fealty to the order. In 1895 the A.P.A. was overthrown in the earliest stronghold, Saginaw, Mich., and in 1896 its defeat here was further emphasized by the failure of Representative-in- Congress Linton to secure a re-election. The Bryan wave cleared Omaha and the Nebraska field of A.P.A.-ism, and in Toledo “Golden Rule” Jones deprived it of its last local citadel, in 1897. The A.P.A. national organization made a spasmodic effort to prevent the nomination of William McKinley in 1896, and when the futility of this effort was apparent the plan was to secure recognition in the Republican national platform for one or more of the principles of the order, preferably for that opposing appropriations to sectarian institutions. This also failed. President-elect McKinley’s appointment (March, 1897) of a Catholic (Judge McKenna, of California) in his first cabinet probably best illustrates the subsequent estimate that the Republican leaders had of the importance of the A.P.A., or of the necessity of being regardful of its resentments; and although this act of the new administration, as well as the appointment of Bellamy Storer to an important diplomatic mission, and of Terence V. Powderly as Commissioner of Immigration, drew forth bitter protests from the proscriptive leaders, there was not a ripple of antagonism in either house of Congress or in any of the great newspaper organs of the party. It may have been that many Republican leaders rather enjoyed the discomfiture of the A.P.A., in view of the swaggering tone its followers had assumed in its more prosperous days. For not a few prominent Republicans, like Senators Hoar and Hawley, Thomas B. Reed, Levi P. Morton, and John Sherman, had been made the targets of its bitter attack and innuendo. In fact, it seems probable that during the years 1894–96, the A.P.A. was considerably more of a vexation to the leaders of the Republican party than to the prelates of the Catholic Church. The loss of prestige due to these several notable discomfitures in national politics told on the membership of the A.P.A. Its councils failed to meet, its state organizations fell into desuetude, and, although it preserved its national organization by elections up to 1900, its history may be said to have closed for all purposes of general interest. H.F. Bowers was re-elected its national president in 1898, an office which he still holds (1906). Although the A.P.A. had a platform calling for not a few changes in the laws, and in the policies of government, it failed to establish any of its demands, or to bring into our history any new departure in statecraft. Upon two matters only did the A.P.A. leave a record, though a rather ineffective one, in Congress. It joined in the opposition prevalent for a time against further grants of federal money to the Catholic Indian schools; and it sought to prevent the acceptance by Congress of the Marquette statue, presented by the State of Wisconsin to the nation, pursuant to a law of Congress.

HOAR, Autobiography (New York, 1904), II, 278; HUBBARD in The Arena, X, 76; ROBINSON in Am. Journal of Politics, V, 504; GLADDEN in The Century Magazine, XXV, 289; SPALDING in N. Am. Review, CLIX, 278; TRAYNOR, in N. Am. Review, ibid., 67; CLXII, 658.

HUMPHREY J. DESMOND

Francis Kerril Amherst

Bishop of Northampton; b. at London, 21 March, 1819; d. 21 August 1883. He was the eldest son of William Kerril Amherst, of Parndon, County Essex, Esquire, and of Mary Louisa, daughter of Francis Fortescue Turville, of Bosworth Hall, County Leicester, Esquire. He was sent to Oscott College in 1830, and after eight years left it with no intention of entering the ecclesiastical state. He returned to Oscott, however, in 1841, and was ordained priest by Cardinal (then Bishop) Wiseman, 6 June, 1846. Shortly after, he joined the Third Order of St. Dominic, but returned to Oscott once more, in 1855, to be professor. After eleven months in this position he was appointed to the mission of Stafford, and thence, on Bishop Wareing’s resignation, to the See of Northampton. He was consecrated 4 July, 1858. He was appointed Assistant at the Pontifical Throne 8 June, 1862. He resigned his see in 1879, owing to ill health, and the following year was translated to Sozusa. He died at his residence, Fieldgate, Kenilworth, County Warwick, 21 August, 1883.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of Eng. Catholics, I, 28.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Ven. John Amias

An English Martyr; b. at Wakefield; d. at York, 16 March, 1589. He exercised the trade of a cloth-merchant in Wakefield until the death of his wife, when he divided his property among his children, and became a priest at Reims in 1581. Of his missionary life we know little; he was arrested at the house of a Mr. Murton in Lancashire, taken to York, and tried in company with two other martyrs, Dalby and Dibdale. Anthony (Dean) Champney was present at their execution, of which he has left an account in his history. Other accounts note that he went to death “as joyfully as if to a feast.” He was declared Venerable in 1886.

CHALLONER; FOLEY, Records S.J., iii, 739; POLLEN, Acts of English Martyrs (London, 1891), 331.

PATRICK RYAN

Amice

A short linen cloth, square or oblong in shape and, like the other sacerdotal vestments, needing to be blessed before use. The purpose of this vestment, which is the first to be put on by the priest in vesting for the Mass, is to cover the shoulders, and originally also the head, of the wearer. Many of the older religious orders still wear the amice after the fashion which prevailed in the Middle Ages; that is to say, the amice is first laid over the head and the ends allowed to fall upon the shoulders, then the other vestments from the alb to the chasuble are put on, and finally, on reaching the altar, the priest folds back the amice from the head, so that it hangs around the neck and over the chasuble like a small cowl. In this way, as will be readily understood, the amice forms a sort of collar, effectively protecting the precious material of the chasuble from contact with the skin. On leaving the sanctuary, the amice is again pulled up over the head, and thus both in coming and going it serves as a head-covering in lieu of the modern birretta. This method of wearing the amice has fallen into desuetude for the clergy at large, and the only surviving trace of it is the rubric directing that, in putting it on, the amice should for a moment be laid upon the head before it is adjusted round the neck. The subdeacon at his ordination receives the amice from the hands of the bishop, who says to him “Receive the amice, by which is signified the discipline of the voice” (castigatio vocis). This seems to have reference to some primitive use of the amice as a sort of muffler to protect the throat. On the other hand, the prayer which the clergy are directed to say in assuming this vestment speaks of it as galeam salutis, “the helmet of salvation against the wiles of the enemy,” thus emphasizing the use as a head covering. Strictly speaking, the amice, being a sacred vestment, ought not to be worn by clerics below the grade of subdeacon.

In tracing the history of the amice we are confronted by the same difficulty which meets us in the the expressions used by early writers. The word amictus, which is still the Latin name for this vestment, and from which our word amice is derived, seems clearly to be used in its present sense by Amalarius at the beginning of the ninth century. He tells us that this amictus is the first vestment put on, and it enfolds the neck (De Eccles. Offic., II, xvii, in P. L., CV, 1094). We may also probably feel confidence in identifying with the same vestment the anagolagium spoken of in the first Ordo Romanus, a document which belongs to the middle of the eighth century or earlier. Anagolagium seems to be merely a corruption of the word anabolium (or anaboladium), which is defined by St. Isidore of Seville as a sort of linen wrap used by women to throw over their shoulders, otherwise called a sindon. There is nothing to indicate that this last was a liturgical garment, hence we must conclude that we cannot safely trace our present amice farther back than the above-mentioned reference in the first Roman Ordo (P. L., LXVIII, 940). It is curious that this anagolagium, though it was also worn by the papal deacon and subdeacon, was put on by the Pope over, not under, the alb. To this day the Pope, when pontificating, wears a sort of second amice of striped silk called a fanon, which is put on after the alb and subsequently folded back over the upper part of the chasuble. The amice, moreover, in the Ambrosian Rite is also put on after the alb. At what date the amice came to be regarded as an indispensable part of the priest’s liturgical attire is not quite clear; for both Bishop Theodulph of Orléans (d. 821) and Walafrid Strabo (d. 849) seem to ignore it under circumstances in which we should certainly have expected it to be mentioned. On the other hand, the “Admonitio Synodalis,” a document of uncertain date, but commonly referred to the ninth century (see, however, Revue bénédictine, 1892, p. 99), distinctly enjoins that no one must say Mass without amice, alb, stole, maniple and chasuble. Early liturgical writers, such, e. g. as Rabanus Maurus, were inclined to regard the amice as derived from the ephod of the Jewish priesthood, but modern authorities are unanimous in rejecting this theory. They trace the origin of the amice to some utilitarian purpose, though there is considerable difference of opinion whether it was in the beginning a neck cloth introduced for reasons of seemliness, to hide the bare throat; or again a kerchief which protected the richer vestment from the perspiration so apt in southern climates to stream from the face and neck, or perhaps a winter muffler protecting the throat of those who, in the interests of church music, had to take care of their voices. Something may be said in favour of each of these views, but no certain conclusion seems to be possible (see Braun, Die priesterlichen Gewänder, p. 5). The variant names, humerale (i.e. “shoulder cloth,” Germ. Schultertuch), superhumerale anagologium, etc., by which it was known in early times do not help us much in tracing, its history.

As in case of the alb, so for the amice, linen woven from the fibre of flax or hemp is the only permissible material. A little cross must be sewn to, or worked upon the amice in the middle, and this the priest is directed to kiss in putting it on. Approved authorities (e. g. Thalhofer, Liturgik, I, 864) direct that the amice ought to be at least 32 inches long by 24 inches broad. A slight lace edging seems to be permitted by usage in case of amices intended for use on festal occasions, and the strings may be of white or coloured silk (Barbier de Montault, Costume Eccl., II, 231). In the Middle Ages when the amice was turned back over the chasuble, and thus exposed to view, it was commonly ornamented by an “apparel,” or strip of rich embroidery, but this practice is no longer tolerated.

BRAUN, Die priesterlichen Gewänder (Freiburg, 1897), 1–15, supplies by far the best historical account, with appropriate illustrations; ROHAULT DE FLEURY, La Messe, VII, also gives drawings of ancient amices; THURSTON in The Month (Sept., 1898), 265 sqq. See also the works mentioned above in the bibliography of ALB; GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, (tr., St. Louis, Mo.,1902), 273–277, which supplies a full account of the symbolism attributed to this and other vestments by medieval liturgists.

HERBERT THURSTON

Antonio Amico

Canon of Palermo, and ecclesiastical historian of Syracuse and Messina, (d. 1641). He wrote also on the royal house and the admirals of Sicily. Among his works is a “Brevis et exacta narratio. . . . Siciliæ regum annales ab anno 1060 usque ad præsens sæculum” (Giraud, Bibl. Sacr., I, 438).—BERNARDINO (d. 1590), a Neapolitan Franciscan, prior of his convent at Jerusalem, and author of a “Trattato delle piante ed immagini de’ sacri edifizi in Jerusalemme” (Rome, 1609; 2d ed., Florence, 1620), of value for the appearance of the Holy Places in the sixteenth century. The drawings are by Callot (VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, I, 483).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Francesco Amico

One of the greatest theologians of his time, b. at Cosenza, in Naples, 2 April, 1578. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1596. For twenty-four years he was professor of theology at Naples; Aquila, and Gratz, and, for five years, chancellor in the academy of the last named place. To his eminent science he united a profound humility. He was scholastic in his method, adapting his treatises to a four years’ course of teaching. He wrote “De Deo Uno et Trino”; “De Naturâ Angelorum”; “De Ultimo Fine”; “De Fide, Spe, et Charitate”; “De Justitiâ et Jure,” which was prohibited, 18 June, 1651 “donec corrigatur,” on account of three propositions in it, which Alexander VII and Innocent XI objected to. The corrected edition of 1649 was permitted. He wrote also on the Incarnation, and the sacraments. In a complete edition, it is said, in the preface that “his doctrine is according to St. Thomas, and is brief, clear, subtle and solid.”

HURTER, Nomenclator, I, 384; DE BACKER, Bibliothèque de la c. de J., I, 280.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Diocese of Amida

(DIARBEKIR.)

An Armenian Rite diocese located in Mesopotamia, Asiatic Turkey.- The foundation of the city of Amida has been wrongly attributed to Tigranes I, or Tigranes III (the Great), Kings of Armenia: it has been identified with either Tigranocerte or Dikranagherd. It got from the Greeks and the Romans the name of Amida, and is known in Turkish as Kara-Amid, i.e. “Amid the Black,” but goes more generally by its Arabic name Diarbekir (Land of the Virgin). The town rises on the left bank of the Tigris, about 75 miles from its source and about 900 miles from the mouth of that river. An interior citadel overlooks the double enclosure of the town with its seventy-two towers, and dates back undoubtedly to the Armenian epoch; it was repaired by Valens (A.D. 364–378) and was finished by Anastasius I (491–518). In this citadel is the old Byzantine church of St. John, now used for Mussulman worship, and known as Olou Djami, the Long Mosque. In 638, Amida was taken by the Arabs who called it Diarbekir. Later on it passed under the Persian domination. Since 1514 it belongs to the Ottoman empire and is the chief city of the vilayet of the same name. It has about 35,000 inhabitants, of whom are 20,000 are Mussulmans (Arabians, Turks, Kurds, etc.), 2,300 Catholics (Chaldeans, Armenians, Syrians, Melchites, Latins), 8,500 Gregorian Armenians, 900 Protestant Armenians, 950 Jacobite Syrians, 900 Orthodox Greeks, and 300 Jews. Diarbekir possesses an Armenian Catholic bishop, a Syrian Catholic bishop, a Syrian Jacobite bishop, a Chaldean Catholic archbishop, and a Greek Orthodox metropolitan under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch. The Latin Mission of Diarbekir, founded by Père Jean-Babtiste de Saint Aignan (1667), remained in the hands of the French Capuchins during nearly a century and a half. Its founder converted (1671) the Nestorian Bishop Joseph, with whom Innocent XI inaugurated (1681) the series of the Chaldean Catholic patriarchs. The mission suffered much during the French Revolution. In 1803, at the death of the last French Capuchin, it was entrusted to Italian religious. In 1841, Spanish missionaries took charge of it, but eventually it passed again into the hands of Italian missionaries. The Capuchin Fathers direct a school for boys. Near them the Franciscan nuns of Lons-le-Saunier have opened (since 1882) a school for girls. An American Protestant mission, working especially among the Armenians, keeps up three schools: two for boys and one for girls. Besides these foreign establishments Diarbekir possesses fifty-four others. The Turks have 4 medresses, 3 secondary and 33 elementary schools, one of which is for girls. The Gregorian Armenians have 5 elementary schools, one of which is for girls. The Catholic Armenians have an elementary school for boys, the Catholic Chaldeans 3 elementary schools, one of which is for girls. The Catholic Syrians have an elementary school for boys, and the Israelites an elementary school for girls.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Diocese of Amiens

(AMBIANUM).

Comprises the department of Somme. It was a suffragan of the archdiocese of Reims during the old regime, of Paris, 1802 to 1822, and of Reims again, since 1822. Abbé Duchesne denies any value to the legend of two Saints Firmin, honoured on the first and twenty-fifth of September, as the first and third Bishops of Amiens. The legend is of the eight century and full of incoherences. Even on the supposition that a St. Firmin, native of Pampeluna, was martyred during the persecution of Diocletian, it is certain that the first bishop known to history is St. Eulogius, who defended the divinity of Christ in the councils held during the middle of the fourth century. Among the bishops of Amiens are counted: Jessé, who played an important part in the time of Charlemagne, and was deposed under Louis the Pious; William of Mâcon, at the end of the thirteenth century, called the greatest jurist of the University of Paris; Jean de Lagrange, known as the Cardinal of Amiens (d. 1402), who figured prominently in the great Schism; the Franciscan monk, François Faure, preacher at the court of Louis XIV, who converted to Catholicism the Duke de Montausier and James II, the future King of England; Bombelles, ambassador to Venice under Louis XVI, who after the Revolution, became a priest, and was Bishop of Amiens from 1819 to 1822. The cathedral (thirteenth century) is an admirable Gothic monument, and was made the subject of careful study by Ruskin in his “Bible of Amiens.” The nave of this cathedral is considered a type of the ideal Gothic. The church of St. Acheul, near Amiens, and formerly its cathedral, was, in the nineteenth century, the home of a very important Jesuit novitiate. The beautiful churches of St. Ricquier and Corbie perpetuate the memory of the great Benedictine abbeys and homes of learning founded in these places in 570 and 662. The Diocese of Amiens, at the end of the year 1905, counted 537,848 inhabitants, 60 cures, or parishes; 609 succursales, or mission churches, and 49 vicariates, with salaries formerly paid by the State.

Gallia Christiana (Vetus, 1656), II, 110–554; MIOLAND, Actes de l’Eglise d’Amiens (Amiens, 1848); CORBLET, Hagiographie du diocèse d’Amiens (1869–76).

GEORGES GOYAU

Joseph Maria Amiot

A missionary to China, born at Toulon, 8 February, 1718; died at Pekin, 8 or 9 October, 1793. He was admitted into the Society of Jesus in 1737. Sent to China as a missionary in 1740, he soon won the esteem and confidence of the Emperor Kien Long, whose language, the Tatar, he spoke fluently. His thorough mastery of this tongue as well as the Chinese, and his extensive knowledge of physics, literature, history, mathematics, and music, enabled him to give to the European world, in a voluminous correspondence, much striking and curious information concerning the Chinese. He made a special study of their music. Most of the important works of Amiot are found in the collection: “Mémoires concernant l’histoire, les sciences, les arts, les moeurs et les usages des chinois, par les missionaires de Pekin” (Paris, Nyon ainé, 1776–89). He composed a Tatar-Manchu grammar and dictionary in French, and a chronological table of the Chinese Emperors from the sixty-first year of the Empire to 1769. There are also articles from his pen n the weights and measures of the Chinese, their military science, music, language, teaching of their books, the geography and climate of their country, as well as historical treatises on the migrations of the Tatar-Tourgouths. These and other works, and where they can be found, are noted by Sommervogel in his “Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus,” I, 294 sqq.

Sommervogel, Les hommes utiles; Vie et Testament du R.P. Amiot membre de la Compagnie de Jésus missionaire en Chine, 1718–93 (Paris, 1881); Fetis, Biogr. des musiciens; Les missions Catholiques (1895), VII 496.

JOSEPH M. WOODS

Amisus

A titular see of Pontus in Asia Minor. It was a rich commercial centre under the kings of Pontus, a royal residence and fortress of Mithridates, and included in its territory the dwelling place of the fabled Amazons.

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christianus (1740), I, 533–536; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 122.

Daniel Ammen

American naval officer and author, b. in Brown County, Ohio, 15 May, 1820; d. in Washington, D.C., 11 July, 1898. His father, a soldier of the War of 1812, migrated to Ohio from Virginia. He was appointed midshipman, 7 July, 1834, and ordered to West Point, where he studied for three months, under his brother Jacob Ammen, later a brigadier general in the United States Army. After serving at sea for several years, he was sent to the Naval School, then near Philadelphia. He was appointed lieutenant 4 November, 1849, and became rear admiral 11 December, 1877. During the Civil War, he was engaged in blockade duty with Admiral Dupont’s fleet. He was chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks from 1 May, 1869, to 1 October, 1871, and chief of the Bureau of Navigation from 1 October, 1871, until his retirement, 4 June, 1878. He devoted much time to work on harbour defences, and designed the ram Katahdin, also the “Ammen balsa,” or life-raft, used in the navy. In 1872 he was appointed member of a commission to examine and report on the feasibility of constructing a canal through Nicaragua. The commission reported in favour of the Nicaraguan route, which he strongly advocated. In 1879, he was sent as a delegate to a congress in Paris to discuss Isthmian canal questions. He also served on the board for the location of the new Naval Observatory. After his retirement he purchased a farm twelve miles from Washington, at a station named in his honour Ammendale, the seat of the Normal School of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, where through his generosity St. Joseph’s church was built. Among his works are “The Atlantic Coast” (New York, 1883); “Recollections of Grant” (1885); “The Old Navy and the New” (autobiographical) (Philad., 1891); “Country Homes and Their Improvements”; “Fallacies of the Interoceanic Transit Questions,” and various contributions to current literature.

MILTON E. SMITH

St. Ammon

Sometimes called AMUN or AMUS, born about 350; an Egyptian who, forced into marriage when twenty-two years old, persuaded his wife on the bridal night to pronounce a vow of chastity, which they kept faithfully, though living together for eighteen years; at the end of this time he became a hermit in the desert of Nitria, and she formed a congregation of religious women in her own house. Nitria, to which Ammon betook himself, is a mountain surmounted by a desolate region, seventy miles south of Alexandria, beyond Lake Mareotis (which Palladius call Maria). At the end of the fourth century there were fifty monasteries there inhabited by 5,000 monks. St. Jerome called the place “The City of God.” As to whether Ammon was the first to build a monastery there, authorities disagree, but it is certain that the fame of his sanctity drew many anchorites around him, who erected cellos not only on the mountain but in the adjacent desert. St. Anthony came to visit him and induced him to gather his scattered solitaries into monasteries. When Ammon died at about the age of 62, Anthony, though thirteen days journey distant, saw his soul entering heaven. He is honored on 4 October.

Acta SS., II October; BUTLER, 4 October.

T. J. CAMPBELL

Ammon

(Egyptian Amun or Amen, “the hidden one.” Hebrew ‘Āmôn, Greek Άμμών).

The supreme divinity of the Egyptian pantheon. He was originally only the chief god of the city of Thebes, but later his worship became predominant in Egypt and extended even to Lybia and Ethiopia. Thebes, however, always remained the centre of his worship, whence it was called Ne amun, “the city of Amun,” Hebrew Nō’-’Āmôn (Nahum 3:8, Hebrew text), and the god himself is designated by Jeremias (46:25, Hebrew text) as ‘Āmôn min Nō’ (Ammon of No, i.e. Thebes). Ammon was worshipped under several names with different attributes. As Ammon-Ra, he was the sun god, with his chief temple at Thebes; as Khem or Min, he was the god of reproduction; as Khnum, he was the creator of all things, “the maker of gods and men.” In the latter character he was represented with the head of a ram, the animal sacred to him, or simply with ram’s horns; under this form Ammon was best known to classical writers, who always attribute horns to him. The chief temple of Khnum was in the oasis of Ammon (now Siwah), where Alexander the Great worshipped him. The Greeks and Romans identified Ammon with Zeus or Jupiter (Zeus Ammon, Jupiter Ammon), whence the name Diospolis, City of Zeus, given to Thebes by the Greeks.

Wiedemann, Religion of the Ancient Egyptians (London, 1897); Vigouroux, La Bible et les découv. mod. 6th ed. (Paris, 1897), II, 513 sqq.; Pierret, Dict. d’archéologie. 35, 270, 519.

F. BECHTEL

Ammonian Sections

Divisions of the four Gospels indicated in the margin of nearly all Greek and Latin MSS. They are about 1165 in number; 355 for St Matthew, 235 for St. Mark, 343 for St. Luke, and 232 for St. John; the numbers, however, vary slightly in different MSS. Until recently it was commonly believed that these divisions were devised by Ammonius of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century (c. 220), in connection with a Harmony of the Gospels, now lost, which he composed. He divided the four Gospels, it was said, into small numbered sections, which were similar in content where the narratives are parallel, and then wrote the sections of the three last Gospels, or simply the section numbers with the name of the respective evangelist, in parallel columns opposite the corresponding sections of the Gospel of St. Matthew, which he had chosen as the basis of his Harmony. Of late, however, the view has obtained among scholars that the work of Ammonius was restricted to what Eusebius states concerning it in his letter to Carpianus, namely, that he placed the parallel passages of the last three Gospels alongside the text of St. Matthew, and the sections hitherto credited to Ammonius are now ascribed to Eusebius (A.D. 265–340). At any rate the Harmony of Ammonius suggested to Eusebius, as he himself tells us (loc. cit.), the idea of drawing up ten tables (kanones) in which the sections in question were so classified as to show at a glance where each Gospel agreed with or differed from the others. In the first nine tables he placed in parallel columns the numbers of the sections common to the four, or three, or two, evangelists; namely: (1) Matt., Mark, Luke, John; (2) Matt., Mark, Luke; (3) Matt., Luke, John; (4) Matt., Mark, John; (5) Matt., Luke; (6) Matt., Mark; (7) Matt., John; (8) Luke, Mark; (9) Luke, John. In the tenth he noted successively the sections special to each evangelist. The usefulness of these tables for the purpose of reference and comparison soon brought them into common use, and from the fifth century the Ammonian sections, with references to the Eusebian tables, were indicated in the margin of the MSS. (It need hardly be said that our chapters and verses were not then in existence; the first date from the thirteenth, the latter from the sixteenth century.) Opposite each section was written its number, and underneath this the number of the Eusebian table to be consulted in order to find the parallel texts or text; a reference to the tenth table would of course show that this section was proper to that evangelist. These marginal notes are reproduced in several editions of Tischendorf’s New Testament.

P.G., XXII, 1274–92; P.L., XXIX, 528–542; BURGON, The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark (Oxford and London, 1871), 126 sq.; 295 sq. GUILLIAN, The Ammonian Sections (Oxford, 1890), 241 sq.; LEGENDRE in VIG., Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1895), I, 493; II, 2051; HERZOG, Rea1-Encyclop., II, 404; IV, 425; GREGORY, Prolegom. Tischendorf., N. T. Græce (Leipzig, 1894), 143, 145; ZAHN, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (2 ed., Leipzig, 1900), II, 183, 194; GREGORY, Textkritik des N. T. (Leipzig, 1902), II, 861 sq.

F. BECHTEL

Ammonites

ORIGIN AND RACE

The Ammonites were a race very closely allied to the Hebrews. One use of their name itself in the Bible indicates the ancient Hebrew belief of this near relationship, for they are called Bén’ámmî or “Son of my people,” meaning that that race is regarded as descended from Israel’s nearest relative. This play of words on the name Ammon did not arise from the name itself, but presupposes the belief in the kinship of Israel and Ammon. The name Ammon itself cannot be accepted as proof of this belief, for it is obscure in origin, derived perhaps from the name of a tribal deity. A strong proof of their common origin is found in the Ammonite language. No Ammonite inscription, it is true, has come down to us, but the Ammonite names that have been preserved belong to a dialect very nearly akin to the Hebrew; moreover, the close blood relationship of Moab and Ammon being admitted by all, the language of the Moabite Stone, almost Hebrew in form, is a strong witness to the racial affinity of Israel and Ammon. This linguistic argument vindicates the belief that Israel always entertained of his kinship with the Ammonites. The belief itself has found expression in an unmistakable manner in Gen. xix, where the origin of Ammon and his brother, Moab, is ascribed to Lot, the nephew of Abraham. This revolting narrative has usually been considered to give literal fact, but of late years it has been interpreted, e.g. by Father Lagrange, O.P., as recording a gross popular irony by which the Israelites expressed their loathing of the corrupt morals of the Moabites and Ammonites. It may be doubted, however, that such an irony would be directed against Lot himself. Other scholars see in the very depravity of these peoples a proof of the reality of the Biblical story of their incestuous origin. Ethnologists, interpreting the origin from the nephew of Abraham by the canons usually found true in their science, hold it as indicating that the Israelites are considered the older and more powerful tribe, while the Ammonites and Moabites are regarded as offshoots of the parent stem. The character of Genesis, which at times seems to preserve popular traditions rather than exact ethnology, is taken as a confirmation of this position. But it is not denied, at any rate, that the Hebrew tradition of the near kinship of Israel, Ammon, and Moab is correct. All three, forming together a single group, are classified as belonging to the Aramæan branch of the Semitic race.

THEIR COUNTRY AND CIVILIZATION

The Ammonites were settled to the east of the Jordan, their territory originally comprising all from the Jordan to the wilderness, and from the River Jabbok south to the River Arnon (Jud., xi, 13–22) which later fell to the lot of Reuben and Gad. “It was accounted a land of giants; and giants formerly dwelt in it, whom the Ammonites called Zomzommims” (Deut, ii, 20), of whom was Og, King of Basan, who perished before the children of Israel in the days of Moses (iii). The Ammonites were, however, a short time before the invasion of the Hebrews under Josue, driven away by the Amorites from the rich lands near the Jordan and retreated to the mountains and valleys which form the eastern part of the district now known as El Belka. They still continued to regard their original territory as rightfully theirs, and in later times regained it and held it for a considerable period. Their land, in general, while not very fertile, was well watered and excellent for pasture. Jeremiah speaks of Ammon glorying in her valleys and trusting in her treasures (Jer., xlix). Her chief city, Rabbath, or Rabbath Ammon, to distinguish it from a city of the same name in Moab, lay in the midst of a fertile and well tilled valley. It was the royal city; in the time of David it was flourishing under a wealthy king and was well fortified, though it succumbed before the attack of Joab, his general (II K., xi-xii). Later rebuilt by Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) and called after him Philadelphia, it still retains something of its original name, being knows at present to the Arabs as Ammân. Its ruins today are among the most imposing beyond the Jordan, and are said, despite the many vicissitudes of the city, to lend light and vividness to the already vivid narrative of Joab’s assault. The Ammonites had many other cities besides Rabbath (see Jud., xi, 33, and II K., xii, 31), but their names have perished. They indicate, at least, a considerable degree of civilization and show that the Ammonites should not be placed, as is sometimes done, almost on the plane of nomads. In religion they practised the idolatries and abominations common to the Semitic races surrounding Israel; their god was called Milcom, supposed to be another form of Moloch. They seem with the Moabites to have been held in special loathing by the Hebrews. No man of either race, even when converted to the religion of Jehovah, was allowed to enter the Tabernacle; nor his children even after the tenth generation (Deut., xxiii).

AMMON AND ISRAEL

This distinction against his nearest relatives was due to the treatment accorded by them to Israel during the march to Palestine, when Israel was struggling towards nationhood. The Hebrews had no intention of taking the land of the children of Lot, either of Moab or of Ammon and were expressly warned against it; this special friendliness and recognition of consanguinity obtained no return from either, who refused provisions to the Israelites and hired Balaam, who was an Ammonite, or at least dwelt among the Ammonites, to curse the host of Israel; though, as is well known, Balaam was forced to deliver instead a blessing (Deut., xxiii, 4, 5; Num. xxii-xxiv). For this lack of brotherly spirit, the ban was put upon the Ammonites; but no attempt was made to seize their land, the Israelites turning aside when they reached the border of the Ammonites. The stretch of land along the Jordan, however, to which they laid claim, was taken from the Amorites who had dispossessed them. Half the land of Ammon, too, is said to have been assigned by Moses to the tribe of Gad (Jos. xiii, 25); but there is no record of its alienation from the Ammonites, which moreover would be in contradiction with the divine command already mentioned. It appears to have been territory from which they were already driven. Shortly after the death of Josue, when the Israelites were established beyond the Jordan, the Ammonites allied themselves with the Moabites under King Eglon in a successful attack upon Israel; but the Moabites were in turn defeated and a long peace set in (Jud. iii, 30). Later, after the judgeship of Jair, the Hebrews were simultaneously attacked by the Philistines from the southwest and the Ammonites from the east. Gad especially, whose dwelling was east of the Jordan, suffered from the incursions of the Ammonites which continued eighteen years; but the victorious enemy pushed beyond the Jordan and laid waste the country of Juda, Benjamin, and Ephraim (Jud., x). At this crisis, Israel was in terror; but a deliverer was raised up in the person of Jephte, who was chosen leader. The Ammonites demanded the cession of the territory beyond the Jordan from the Arnon to the Jabbok, of which they had been dispossessed; but Jephte refused since the Israelites had, three hundred years previously, taken the land from the Amorites and not from the Ammonites; he boldly carried the war into the invaders’ country, and completely defeated them, taking as many as twenty cities (Jud., xi, 33). By the time of Saul, the Ammonites had again grown to great power and under their King Naas (Nahash) had laid siege to Jabes Galaad. Saul had been chosen king by Samuel only one month before and his election was not yet ratified by the people; but as soon as he heard of the siege, he summoned a large army and defeated the Ammonites, inflicting heavy loss (I K., xi). This victory established him in the monarchy. Further operations by Saul against the Ammonites are mentioned without detail (xiv, 47), as likewise the kindness of Naas to David (II K., x, 2), probably before his accession. David signalized the beginning of his reign by military exploits and is said to have dedicated to the Lord the spoils of Ammon (viii, 11); however, there is no mention of a war, which seems inconsistent with the friendliness of David to Hanon, the successor of Naas (x, 2). David’s proffer of friendship to Ammon was suspected and rejected and his ambassadors maltreated. War ensued. The Ammonites were joined by the Syrians, and both were attacked and routed by Joab, David’s leading general. The next year Joab again invaded the territory of the Ammonites and, pursuing them as far as Rabbath, laid siege to the royal city. It was during this siege that the incident of David and Bethsabee happened, which resulted in David sending the faithful Urias to his death at Rabbath and incurring the deepest stain upon his character. When Joab had reduced the city to the point of surrender, he sent for David who came and reaped the glory of it, transferred the king’s massive crown to his own head, sacked the city and slaughtered its inhabitants; and did likewise to all the cities of the Ammonites (x-xii). The power of the Ammonites was now broken, Ammon apparently becoming a vassal of Israel; later, towards the end of David’s reign, another son of King Naas, either through lack of spirit or genuine humanity, heaped kindness upon David, when the distressed old king was at war with his son Absalom (xvii). Some of the Ammonites seem to have enrolled themselves in David’s service; one is mentioned among his thirtyseven most valiant warriors (xxiii, 37). No hostilities are narrated during the reign of Solomon; he chose Ammonite women as his wives, worshipped their god and built a highplace in his honour (III K., xi), which Josias destroyed (IV K., xxiii, 13). When Solomon died and his kingdom was divided, the Ammonites regained their independence and allied themselves with the Assyrians, joining with them in an attack on Gilead by which their territory was increased. Their barbarous cruelty on this occasion called forth the denunciation of Amos, who foretold the destruction of Rabbath (Amos, i, 13). During the Assyrian invasion under Theglathphalasar, when their neighbours, the Reubenites and the Gaddites, were carried into captivity, they regained some of their old territory along the Jordan (IV K., xv, 29; Jer. xlix, 1–6). In the time of Josaphath, King of Judah, when the Israelites were greatly weakened, the Ammonites put themselves at the head of a confederacy of nations for the subjugation of Israel; but suspicion awakening among the allies, they turned to destroying one another and Israel miraculously escaped (II Par., xx, 23). After nearly one hundred and fifty years, Joatham, King of Judah, ventured an attack upon the Ammonites, conquering them and subjecting them to a yearly tribute (II Par., xxvii), which, however, was enforced for only three years. But the doom of the Hebrew monarchy was approaching and the Ammonites had a part to play. With others of the surrounding nations, they were employed by Nabuchodonosor, King of Babylon, to overrun the kingdom of Judah (IV K., xxiv); and when the fall finally came, it was the king of the Ammonites who sent assassins into Judea to murder the governor who had gathered together the remnant of Judah (IV K., xxv; Jer., xl, 14). After the return the old hatred is still seen to live (II Esd., iv). In the time of Judas Maccabeus, the Ammonites are still a strong people, and the great leader had to fight many battles before he conquered them (I Mach., v). No further mention of them occurs in biblical times; Justin Martyr refers to them as a numerous people in his day, but in the course of the next century they vanish completely from the view of history.

Bible Dictionaries of HASTINGS, VIGOUROUX; Jewish Encyclopædia; DELITSCH, DILLMAN, DRIVER, GRAY, Commentaries (Numbers); LAGRANGE, Historical Method.

JOHN F. FENLON

Amorbach

Former Benedictine abbey in Lower Franconia (Bavaria), about twenty-five miles south of Aschaffenburg. It was founded in the early part of the eighth century by St. Pirmin who had been called to that region by Count Ruthard to preach the Gospel. The Saint, with his disciple Amor, first took up his abode at what is now called Amorbrunnen, but later built an abbey near by, in the Oden forest, in the valley of the Mudau, a tributary of the Main. The abbey, which was consecrated in 734, became the centre of Christianity and civilization in the Oden forest. The town of Amorbach, which in 1900 had 2,173 inhabitants, grew up about its walls and its monks not only laboured in the neighbouring districts but also penetrated into northern Germany, where they aided in the conversion of the Saxons. Several of the first bishops of Verden, the scene of the missionary activity of these monks, were former abbots of Amorbach. In the early days of its history the abbey received generous gifts from Charles Martel and his sons. Pepin united it to the Diocese of Würzburg, though in modern times it was transferred to Mainz. It suffered much in the tenth century from the invasion of the Huns, and later, in 1521, during the Peasants’ War, and in 1631, from the Swedes. In the seventeenth century the abbey buildings and the beautiful church, long famous for its organ, were rebuilt. Amorbach was suppressed in 1803 and passed into the possession of the house of Leiningen. In 1816, the town and abbey came under the jurisdiction of Bavaria.

GROPP, Ætas mille annorum monast. B. M. V. in Amorbach (Frankfort, 1736); HILDEBRAND, Amorbach u. der östl. Odenwald (Aschaffenburg, 1883); Stamminger in Kirchenlex.

H.M. BROCK

Amorios

(Also AMORIUM), a titular see of Phrygia in Asia Minor, now known as Hergen Kaleh. It was a see as early as 431.

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ, (1740), I, 853 sq.; GAMS, I, 447.

Amorrhites

A name of doubtful origin and meaning, used to designate an ancient people often mentioned in the Old Testament. It is by many supposed to be derived from a word akin to the Hebrew Amîr and to mean “mountaineers,” “highlanders”; but Amîr is “summit,” not “mountain.” The name is much older than any part of the Bible and even much older than the Hebrew people itself; the attempt, then, to fix its meaning by Hebrew usage and the local habitation of the Amorrhites in Hebrew times can only be regarded as misdirected effort. That some of the Amorrhites, thousands of years after the name came to be used, dwelt in mountains can no longer be judged as serious proof that Amorrhite means highlander; its signification still remains obscure. It is worthy of note, nevertheless, that the Amrrhites of biblical and pre-biblical times have usually been found in mountainous districts, although those best known are the Amorrhites of the Jordan Valley, whose sway, however, extended to the mountains east of the Jordan.

I. EXTENT

In application, the name has a wider and narrower extent in the Bible, varying in a manner the reason for which cannot often be discovered. (1) At times it seems conterminous with Chanaanite, and designates all the inhabitants of the Land of Chanaan before the advent of Israel. Thus the Prophet Amos calls Palestine the land of the Amorrhite, and the race which Israel cast out was the Amorrhite (ii, 9, 10); this usage prevails also in Gen., xlviii, 22, and Jos., xxiv, 15, 18. The same may be gathered from various passages where certain Chanaanitish races or tribes have at one time a specific name and at another are classed as Amorrhite; thus, the inhabitants of Gabaon are called indifferently Hevites and Amorrhites (Jos., xi, 19; II Kings, xxi, 2), and of Jerusalem, either Jebusites or Amorrhites (Jos., xv, 63, xviii, 28; Judges, i, 21, and Jos., x, 5, 6, and Ezech., xvi, 3). The Amorrhites of Gen., xiv, 13, are Hethites (Hittites) in Gen., xxiii, and the Philistines are likewise deemed Amorrhites (I Kings, vii, 14). While the name therefore seems applicable to all the non-Israelitish peoples of Chanaan, it is to be noted that it generally has a lesser extension than Chanaanite, and the Amorrhites themselves are sometimes regarded as only a branch of the Chanaanite family (Gen., x, 16). (2) Another usage distinguishes sharply between Chanaanites and Amorrhites, putting both on a level as tribes dwelling with several others in Palestine, the Amorrhites, when located, inhabiting the mountains of central and southern Palestine (Deut., i, 7, 19, 27, 44; Gen., xiv, 7, 13; xv, 21; Jos, x, 5, 12, xxiv, 8; Ex., iii, 8, etc.). There is no evidence that the Amorrhites at any stage of their history occupied the coast lands. (3) Again, the name is applied to the race dwelling on the east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan, from the Arnon to Mt. Hermon, and extending eastward to Jazer and Hesebon (Num., xxi, 13, 24, 32; Deut., iii, 8, 9), comprising the territory of Sebon, King of Hesebon, and Og, King of Basan (Bashan), which later constituted the entire possessions of the Hebrews east of the Jordan.

These variations in the biblical use of the term Amorrhite-as designating all the ancient inhabitants of Palestine, or only one part or tribe dwelling in the mountainous districts of the centre and south, or, finally, those east of the Jordan-are found often side by side, and cannot easily be accounted for; it is to be remarked, however, that the application to all the inhabitants of Palestine generally occurs when it is question of the idolatrous rites of the ancient inhabitants, or when they are viewed together as a people doomed for their iniquties to be supplanted by the Israelites, in which cases the Amorrhites may be taken as the most fitting type, though they are but part of the population and in reality confined to the districts implied by the other uses of the term. The name of the Amorrhite also lingered in Hebrew tradition as representative of gigantic stature and warlike character, and is likely to be employed when the writer is thinking of the ancient inhabitants as Israel’s foes in battle (Deut., ii, 11, 20; iii, 11, 13), while precisely the same population under peaceful conditions is called Chanaanite. It has been noted by upholders of the documentary theory that the writer of the Elohistic document seems to use both terms as coextensive. This is the usual account of the variations, and it is noteworthy for the view of the Amhorrite history which it embodies; yet it may well be that the name, instead of being first the name of a southern or trans-Jordanic tribe and extended in time to many various peoples, is on the contrary a survival of an ancient usage for all the inhabitants of Palestine and bordering countries. As early as 3800 B. C., some believe, the Babylonians called Syria and Palestine the land of the Amorrhite. Centuries later (1400 B. C.), in the Tel el-Amarna tablets, the name is applied to the inland country north and north-east of Palestine; Egyptian inscriptions use the term for the same territory, but extend it to the countries eastward as far as the Orontes. In ninth-century Assyrian inscriptions northern and southern Palestine are included under the name. The term, then, may originally or very early have been applied to all this territory; or more likely it was used first to designate the country north of Palestine and later extended south and east. If these Amorrhites of the north, however, are to be considered one in race with the Amorrhites of the Bible, no light has yet been shed upon their migrations into central and southern Palestine or beyond the Jordan. For the present, that part of their history rests in obscurity, though conjectures are plentiful.

II. RACE

The close relationship of the Amorrhite with the races or tribes usually classed as Chanaanitish is asserted in Gen., x, 15, 16, and implied in numerous passages where Amorrhite is used in place of Chanaanite, Jebusite, or a cognate name. That these tribes are Semitic in origin is doubted by many, but their language, religion, and institutions are unquestionably Semitic. The Amorrhite is represented as the fourth son of Chanaan, son of Ham. Sayce tries to connect them with a North African Hamitic race, the Libyans, mainly on the strength of the facial resemblance he discovers between them in one Egyptian sculpture of the time of Rameses III. This resemblance is not elsewhere borne out and in any case must be considered a precarious foundation for such an hypothesis. No details have come down to us which will enable us to distinguish the Amorrhites from their kinsfolk (see ), except that they seem to have been remarkable for their stature, strength, and wickedness. They dwelt in walled cities and were warlike in spirit.

III. AMORRHITES AND ISRAEL

Though a very ancient race, the Amorrhites have left but a slight mark on history in pre-biblical times. They were not the original inhabitants of Palestine, though the time and circumstances of their advent are unknown. They first appear in the Bible as inhabitants of southern Palestine, where they are defeated by Chodorlahomor and his allies (Gen., xiv, 7). The Israelites find them in the same region when they attempt, contrary to the divine command, to enter Palestine from the south and are repulsed (Num., xiii and xiv). About this period certain tribes of Amorrhites gain possession of the land east of the Jordan; so there the Israelites next come in contact with the Amorrhites and ask permission of Sehon, their king, to pass through his dominions, promising to do no damage and to pay for whatever they take on the way. The request being refused, war follows. Sehon is defeated and slain, and the Israelites take possession of his territory from the Arnon to the Jeboc. Crossing the Jeboc, they inflict the same fate upon Og, King of Basan, and his territory (Num., xxi; Deut., ii and iii). These lands, which were awarded to the tribes of Ruben and Gad and the half-tribe of Manasses, extended from the Arnon as far north as Mount Hermon (Deut., iv, 46–49). When Josue had crossed the Jordan and with divine aid had gained several signal victories, fear fell upon the neighbouring Amorrhites. The inhabitants of Gabaon (Gibeon), an Amorrhite city, yielded to Josue, which enraged their brethren. They were accordingly attacked and besieged by a confederation of Amorrhite kings (the five kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jerimoth, Lachis, and Eglon), and sent to Josue for aid. Josue, coming to their rescue, put the Amorrhites to flight, cut them off in great numbers, captured and slaughtered the five Amorrhite kings and hung their bodies upon trees till the evening (Jos., x). It was on this occasion that Josue commanded the sea and moon to stand still (for various opinions on this passage, see ). This victory secured to Israel the tenure of Palestine. The Amorrhites were not driven out of Palestine nor exterminated. Many of them intermarried with the Hebrews and contaminated them by their idolatries and vices (Judges, iii; I Esd., ix). In the time of Solomon, and even of Esdras and Nehemias, they are still distinguished from their conquerors, but are finally merged into the general population of Palestine.

SAYCE in HAST., Dict. Of the Bible, s. v. Amorrhites and Chanaan; JASTROW, ibid., V, 72, s. v. Races of the Old Testament; Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v.; SAYCE, Races of the Old Testament; LEGENDRE in VIG., Dict. de la Bible.

JOHN F. FENLON

Eusebius Amort

Philosopher and theologian, b. at Bibermuehle in Bavaria, 15 November, 1692; d. at Polling, 5 February, 1775. He was educated by the Jesuits at Munich and at an early age joined the Canons Regular in the convent of Polling, where he spent most of his life as a teacher of philosophy, theology, and canon law, a tireless student in many departments of ecclesiastical lore, and an investigator of natural phenomena. He was foremost among the German theologians of the eighteenth century as a guide and an inspirer of ecclesiastical youth, and may be considered a model of lifelong devotion to all the sciences that befit an ecclesiastic. As early as 1722 he founded, and with some interruptions carried on for several years, an influential review, “Parnassus Boicus, oder Neueröffneter Musenberg.” An academy formed by him at Polling became in time the model on which was based the Academy of Sciences of Munich. He spent the years 1733–35 at Rome, whence he returned to Bavaria enriched with precious knowledge acquired by intense study in the libraries of the Eternal City and by intercourse with many learned men. Thenceforth he counted among his correspondents such scholars as Benedict XIII and Benedict XIV, Father Concina, Cardinals Leccari, Galli, Orsi, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and others. For a period of forty years his pen was never idle, and from it unceasingly poured forth learned volumes and brochures filled with rare and choice learning.

It has been truly said that his seventy volumes, if distributed in an orderly collection, would resemble a general encyclopedia. As a philosopher, he is best known by his solid work “Philosophia Pollingana” (Augsburg, 1730) and by his “Wolfiana Judicia de philosophiâ et Leibnitianâ physicâ” (Frankfurt, 1736). As a dogmatic theologian and Christian apologist he won applause by his “Demonstratio critica religionis catholicae nova, modesta, facilis” etc. (Venice, 1744), written to promote the reunion of the Protestant sects with the Catholic Church, and by his “De origine, progressu, valore et fructu indulgentiarum accurata notitia historica, dogmatica, critica” (Augsburg, 1735). His most extensive work, “Theologia eclectica, moralis et scholastica,” published at Augsburg (1752) in four folio volumes, and later at Bologna (1753) in twenty-four octavo volumes, merited the honour of a revision by Benedict XIV. He wrote also “Theologia moralis inter rigorem et laxitatem media” (Augsburg, 1739), “Ethica Christiana” (Augsburg, 1758), and other moral treatises. St. Alphonsus Liguori admired his theological prudence, and Gury calls him a “probabilista moderatus doctrina et sapientia clarus”; others (e.g. Toussaint) accuse him of an inclination to rigorism in practice. He translated into Latin the “Dictionnaire des cas de conscience” of Pontas (Venice, 1733), but modified its Gallican tone and rigoristic views.

Of his canonical works the most important is his “Vetus Disciplina canonicorum et regularium” (Venice, 1748), “Elementa juris canonici veteris et moderni” (Ulm, 1757), both valuable for their wealth of historical material. In the latter he defends ecclesiastical jurisdiction against the attacks of contemporary jurists and statesmen. The best known of his works is entitled “De revelationibus, visionibus et apparitionibus privatis regulae tutae ex Scripturâ, Conciliis, Sanctis Patribus aliisque optimis auctoribus collectae, explicatae atque exemplis illustratae (Augsburg, 1744). It was directed against the “Mystic City of God,” the famous work of the Spanish Franciscan nun, Maria de Agreda, and brought him into conflict with several of her Franciscan defenders. This learned scholar found time to prepare for the people a number of devotional works. His prayer-books, “Kurz und Gut” and “Brevier eines guten Christen,” went through many editions. He also compiled select lives of the saints and wrote a German treatise (Venice, 1756) on the invocation of the saints, besides a smaller and a larger catechism. In the discussions waged during the first half of the eighteenth century concerning the authorship of the “De Imitatione Christi,” Amort stood forth as an ardent supporter of the claims of Thomas a Kempis, though his seven works on the subject, praised for their “rare learning and judicious temper,” failed to silence the Benedictine champions of Jean Gersen. The more important are: “Scutum Kempense” (Cologne, 1725); “Plenâ et succinctâ informatio de statu totius controversiae” (Augsburg, 1725), and “Certitudo moralis pro Th. Kempensi” (Ratisbon, 1764). On his portrait by Jungwirth was engraved “Litterarum maxime sacrarum per Bavariam restaurator eximius.” The visitor to Bibermuehle may now contemplate a marble monument in honour of a theologian in whom industry, erudition, critical skill, and piety were united in a high degree.

DE FELLER, Biogr. Univ. (Paris, 1845), III, 45; WESTERMAYR, in Kirchenlex., I, 754–757; TOUSSAINT, in Dict. de theol. cath., I, 1115–17; Hist. polit. Blaetter, LXXVI, 107; HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1895), III, 201; BAADER, Das gelehrte Bayern (Nuremberg, 1804), I, 20.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Amos

I. NAME

The third among the Minor Prophets of the Old Testament is called, in the Hebrew Text, “ ‘Amos.” The spelling of his name is different from that of the name of Isaias’s father, “‘Amōç”; whence Christian tradition has, for the most part, rightly distinguished between the two. The prophet’s name, Amos, has been variously explained, and its exact meaning is still a matter of conjecture.

II. LIFE AND TIMES

According to the heading of his book (i,1) Amos was a herdsman of Thecua, a village in the Southern Kingdom, twelve miles south of Jerusalem. Besides this humble avocation, he is also spoken of in vii, 14, as a simple dresser of sycamore-trees. Hence, as far as we know, there is no sufficient ground for the view of most Jewish interpreters that Amos was a wealthy man. Thecua was apparently a shepherd’s town, and it was while following his flock in the wilderness of Juda, that, in the reigns of Ozias and Jeroboam, God called him for a special mission: “Go, prophesy to My people Israel” (vii, 15). In the eyes of the humble shepherd this must have appeared a most difficult mission. At the time when the call came to him, he was “not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet” (vii, 14), which implies that he had not yet entered upon the prophetical office, and even that he had not attended the schools wherein young men in training for a prophet’s career bore the name of “the sons of a prophet.”

Other reasons might well cause Amos to fear to accept the divine mission. He, a Southerner, was bidden to go to the Northern Kingdom, Israel, and carry to its people and its leaders a message of judgment to which, from their historical circumstances, they were particularly ill-prepared to listen. Its ruler, Jeroboam II (c. 781–741 B.C.), had rapidly conquered Syria, Moab, and Ammon, and thereby extended his dominions from the source of the Orontes on the north to the Dead Sea on the south. The whole northern empire of Solomon thus practically restored had enjoyed a long period of peace and security marked by a wonderful revival of artistic and commercial development. Samaria, its capital, had been adorned with splendid and substantial buildings; riches had been accumulated in abundance; comfort and luxury had reached their highest standard; so that the Northern Kingdom had attained a material prosperity unprecedented since the disruption of the empire of Solomon. Outwardly, religion was also in a most flourishing condition. The sacrificial worship of the God of Israel was carried on with great pomp and general faithfulness, and the long enjoyment of national prosperity was popularly regarded as an undoubted token of the Lord’s favour towards His people. It is true that public morals had gradually been infected by the vices which continued success and plenty too often bring in their train. Social corruption and the oppression of the poor and helpless were very prevalent. But these and similar marks of public degeneracy could be readily excused on the plea that they were the necessary accompaniments of a high degree of Oriental civilization. Again, religion was debased in various ways. Many among the Israelites were satisfied with the mere offering of the sacrificial victims, regardless of the inward dispositions required for their worthy presentation to a thrice-holy God. Others availed themselves of the throngs which attended the sacred festivals to indulge in immoderate enjoyment and tumultuous revelry. Others again, carried away by the freer association with heathen peoples which resulted from conquest or from commercial intercourse, even went so far as to fuse with the Lord’s worship that of pagan deities. Owing to men’s natural tendency to be satisfied with the mechanical performance of religious duties, and owing more particularly to the great proneness of the Hebrews of old to adopt the sensual rites of foreign cults, so long as they did not give up the worship of their own God, these irregularities in matters of religion did not appear objectionable to the Israelites, all the more so because the Lord did not punish them for their conduct. Yet it was to that most prosperous people, thoroughly convinced that God was well-pleased with them, that Amos was sent to deliver a stern rebuke for all their misdeeds, and to announce in God’s name their forthcoming ruin and captivity (vii, 17).

Amos’s mission to Israel was but a temporary one. It extended apparently from two years before to a few years after an earthquake, the exact date of which is unknown (i, 1). It met with strong opposition, especially on the part of Amasias, the chief priest of the royal sanctuary in Bethel (vii, 10–13). How it came to an end is not known; for only late and untrustworthy legends tell of Amos’s martyrdom under the ill-treatment of Amasias and his son. It is more probable that, in compliance with Amasias’s threatening order (vii, 12), the prophet withdrew to Juda, where at leisure he arranged his oracles in their well-planned disposition.

III. ANALYSIS OF PROPHETICAL WRITING

The book of Amos falls naturally into three parts. The first opens with a general title to the work, giving the author’s name and the general date of his ministry (i, 1), and a text or motto in four poetical lines (i, 2), describing under a fine image the Lord’s power over Palestine. This part comprises the first two chapters, and is made up of a series of oracles against Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, Juda, and, finally, Israel. Each oracle begins with the same numerical formula: “For three crimes of Damascus [or Gaza, or Tyre, etc., as the case may be], and for four, I will not revoke the doom”; it next sets forth the chief indictment; and finally pronounces the penalty. The heathen nations are doomed not because of their ignorance of the true God, but because of their breaches of the elementary and unwritten laws of natural humanity and good faith. As regards Juda and Israel, they will share the same doom because, although they were especially cared for by the Lord who drew them out of Egypt, conquered for them the land of Chanaan, and gave them prophets and Nazarites, yet they have committed the same crimes as their pagan neighbours. Israel is rebuked more at length than Juda, and its utter destruction is vividly described.

The second part (chaps. iii-vi) consists of a series of addresses which expand the indictment and the sentence against Israel set forth in ii, 6–16. Amos’s indictment bears (1) on the social disorders prevalent among the upper classes; (2) on the heartless luxury and self-indulgence of the wealthy ladies of Samaria; (3) on the too great confidence of the Israelites at large in their mere external discharge of religious duties which can in no way secure them against the approaching doom. The sentence itself assumes the form of a dirge over the captivity which awaits the unrepenting transgressors, and the complete surrender of the country to the foreign enemy.

The third section of the book (chaps. vii-ix, 8b.), apart from the historical account of Amasias’s opposition to Amos (vii, 10–17), and from a discourse (viii, 4–14) similar in tone and import to the addresses contained in the second part of the prophecy, is wholly made up of visions of judgment against Israel. In the first two visions—the one of devouring locusts, and the other of consuming fire—the foretold destruction is stayed by divine interposition; but in the third vision, that of a plumb-line, the destruction is permitted to become complete. The fourth vision, like the foregoing, is symbolical; a basket of summer fruit points to the speedy decay of Israel; while in the fifth and last the prophet beholds the Lord standing beside the altar and threatening the Northern Kingdom with a chastisement from which there is no escape. The book concludes with God’s solemn promise of the glorious restoration of the House of David, and of the wonderful prosperity of the purified nation (ix, 8c-15).

IV. LITERARY FEATURES OF THE BOOK

It is universally admitted at the present day that these contents are set forth in a style of “high literary merit.” This literary excellence might, indeed, at first sight appear in strange contrast with Amos’s obscure birth and humble shepherd life. A closer study, however, of the prophet’s writing and of the actual circumstances of its composition does away with that apparent contrast. Before Amos’s time the Hebrew language had gradually passed through several stages of development, and had been cultivated by several able writers. Again, it is not to be supposed that the prophecies of Amos were delivered exactly as they are recorded. Throughout the book the topics are treated poetically, and many of its literary features are best accounted for by admitting that the prophet spared no time and labour to invest his oral utterances with their present elaborate form. Finally, to associate inferior culture with the simplicity and relative poverty of pastoral life would be to mistake totally the conditions of Eastern society, ancient and modern. For among the Hebrews of old, as among the Arabs of the present day, the sum of book-learning was necessarily small, and proficiency in knowledge and oratory was chiefly dependent not on a professional education, but on a shrewd observation of men and things, a memory retentive of traditional lore, and the faculty of original thought.

V. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE

Apart from a few recent critics, all scholars maintain the correctness of the traditional view which refers the book of Amos to the Judean prophet of that name. They rightly think that the judgments, sermons, and visions which make up that sacred writing centre in a great message of doom to Israel. The contents read like a solemn denunciation of the incurable wickedness of the Northern Kingdom, like a direct prediction of its impending ruin. The same scholars regard likewise the general style of the book, with its poetical form and striking simplicity, abruptness, etc., as proof that the work is a literary unit, the various parts of which should be traced back to one and the same mind, to the one and holy prophet, whose name and period of activity are given in the title to the prophecy, and whose authorship is repeatedly affirmed in the body of the book (cf. vii, 1, 2, 4, 5, 8; viii, 1, 2; ix, 1, etc.).

To confirm the traditional view of Jews and Christians in regard to authorship and date, the two following facts have also been brought forth:

first, as was to be expected from a shepherd like Amos, the author of the prophecy uses throughout imagery drawn mainly from rural life (the wagon loaded with sheaves, the young lion in its den growling over its prey, the net springing up and entrapping the bird, the remnants of the sheep recovered by the shepherd out of the lion’s mouth, cattle-driving, etc.);

in the second place, there is a close agreement between the state of the Northern Kingdom under Jeroboam II, as described by Amos, and that of the same Kingdom as it is made known to us in the fourth book of Kings and the prophecy of Osee which is commonly ascribed to the same (the eighth) century B.C.

It is true that Amos’s authorship of numerous passages, and notably of ix, 8c-15, has been and is still seriously questioned by some leading critics. But in regard to most, if not indeed to all such passages, it may be confidently affirmed that the arguments against the authorship are not strictly conclusive. Besides, even though the later origin of all these passages should be conceded, the traditional view of the authorship and date of the book as a whole would not be materially impaired.

VI. RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS OF AMOS

Two facts contribute to give to the religious doctrine of Amos a special importance. On the one hand, his prophecies are wellnigh universally regarded as authentic, and on the other, his work is probably the earliest prophetical writing which has come down to us. So that the book of Amos furnishes us with most valuable information concerning the beliefs of the eighth century B.C., and in fact, concerning those of some time before, since, in delivering the Divine message to his contemporaries, the prophet always takes for granted that they are already familiar with the truths to which he appeals. Amos teaches a most pure monotheism. Throughout his book there is not so much as a reference to other deities than the God of Israel. He often speaks of “the Lord of Hosts,” meaning thereby that God has untold forces and powers at His command; in other words, that He is omnipotent. His descriptions of the Divine attributes show that according to his mind God is the Creator and Ruler of all things in heaven and on earth; He governs the nations at large, as well as the heavenly bodies and the elements of nature; He is a personal and righteous God who punishes the crimes of all men, whether they belong to the heathen nations or to the chosen people. The prophet repeatedly inveighs against the false notions which his contemporaries had of God’s relation to Israel. He does not deny that the Lord is their God in a special manner. But he argues that His benefits to them in the past, instead of being a reason for them to indulge with security in sins hateful to God’s holiness, really increase their guilt and must make them fear a severer penalty. He does not deny that sacrifices should be offered to the Divine Majesty; but he most emphatically declares that the mere outward offering of them is not pleasing to God and cannot placate His anger. On the day of the Lord, that is on the day of retribution, Israelites who shall be found guilty of the same crimes as the heathen nations will be held to account for them severely. It is true that Amos argues in a concrete manner with his contemporaries, and that consequently he does not formulate abstract principles. Nevertheless, his book is replete with truths which can never become superfluous or obsolete.

Finally, whatever view may be taken of the authorship of the concluding portion of the book of Amos (vii, 8c.-15), the Messianic bearing of the passage will be readily admitted by all who believe in the existence of the supernatural. It may also be added that this Messianic prophecy is worded in a manner that offers no insuperable objection to the traditional view which regards Amos as its author.

For reference to Introductions to the Old Testament, see Bibliography to AGGEUS; recent Commentaries on Amos by TROCHON (1886); KNABENBAUER (1886); ORELLI (Eng. tr., 1893); FILLION (1896); DRIVER (1898); SMITH (1896); MITCHELL (2nd ed., 1900); NOWACK (2nd ed., 1903); MARTI (1903); HORTON (1904).

F.E. GIGOT

Amovibility

A term applied to the condition of certain ecclesiastics in regard to their benefices or offices. While it is true that holders of so-called perpetual or irremovable dignities can in certain specified cases be deprived of their offices, yet the term “amovibility” is generally restricted to such as are removable at the will of the bishop. Such are most of the rectors of churches in the United States and England, as also in general and everywhere those who have charge of succursal churches or are parish assistants. Under the head of removable dignitaries, canonists generally class also vicars-general, archdeacons, and rural deans. Such an office or benefice is designated manuale, as opposed to titulare or perpetuum. The interpretation of amovibility has caused considerable controversy. Many canonists have argued that because the possessor of an office holds it ad nutum, he can therefore be deprived of it without cause. Otherwise, they declare, the word amovibility would have no meaning. They note as exceptions, however, to this power of the bishop, cases in which he acts from open hatred, or injures the good name of the ecclesiastic, or damages the parish. Likewise, they say, if the person removed were not given another office, he could have recourse to a superior authority, as this would be equivalent to injuring his good name. These canonists also add that the bishop would sin if he removed an ecclesiastic without cause, as his action would be without a proper motive, and because frequent changes are necessarily detrimental to churches. Other canonists seem to maintain for removable rectors (see RECTOR; PARISH PRIEST) practically the same rights as to perpetuity, which are possessed by irremovable ecclesiastics. Perhaps, however, the difference between these opinions is little more than verbal. Amovibility must not be confounded with arbitrary removal, which the Church has always condemned. It is opposed rather to the perpetual tenure of those benefices, for removal from which the canons require a cause expressly named in law and a formal canonical process or trial. But there may be other very grave causes that justify a removal besides those named in the canons. Nor does it follow that, because a regular canonical process is not to be observed, all formalities are to be neglected in the removal of rectors who hold their office ad nutum episcopi; there are also extra-judicial forms which are practically equivalent to a canonical process.

A removable rector is, therefore, one who may be removed without cause expressed in law, but not without a just cause; one who may be removed without canonical process, but not without certain prescribed formalities, which are really judicial, though “extra-judicial” as regards the canons. Since, however, removable ecclesiastics have no strict and perpetual right to their offices, any revocation made by the superior ad nutum is valid, though it might be gravely illicit and reversible. In such cases recourse may be had to a superior authority, although an ordinary appeal in the strict sense is barred. In the United States the method of procedure is laid down principally in the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (1866) and the Roman Instructions “Quamvis” of 1878 and “Cum Magnopere” of 1884.

WERNZ, Jus. Decr., II (Rome, 1899); SMITH, Elem. of Eccl. Law, I (New York, 1895); The New Procedure (New York, 1897); CRAISSON, Man. Jur. Can., I (Paris, 1889); BOUIX, De Parocho (Paris, 1880).

WILLIAM WINDSOR FANNING.

Vicariate Apostolic of Amoy

Located in China, created in 1883, and entrusted to the care of the Dominicans. It includes the island of Formosa, with neighbouring small islands. The native population is about 4,500,000, of which 2,000,000 are in Formosa. The Catholics number 3,930 (in Formosa 1,014). There are 11 European and 8 Chinese priests, 32 churches or chapels, 3 orphanages, and 13 schools with 242 pupils.

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (Paris, 1905), 344.

André Marie Ampère

Physicist and mathematician, b. 22 January, 1775, at Lyons, France; d. at Marseilles, 10 June, 1836. His father was a prosperous and educated merchant, his mother charitable and pious, while he himself combined the traits of both. The mathematical bent of his mind showed itself very early. Before he knew his letters and numbers he is said to have performed complex arithmetical computations by means of pebbles and beans. His childhood days were spent in the village of Poleymieux-les-Mont-d’Or, near Lyons. His father began to teach him Latin, but, on discovering the boy’s thirst for mathematical knowledge, he provided him with the necessary books. It was not long before he had mastered the elements of his chosen study, so that his father was obliged to take the boy of eleven to the library at Lyons, where he asked for the works of Bernoulli and Euler. On being informed that these books were written in Latin, and that he would need a knowledge of the calculus, he resumed the study of the one and applied himself to that of the other, and at the end of a few weeks was able to take up the serious perusal of difficult treatises on applied mathematics. During the revolution his father returned to Lyons, in 1793, expecting to be safer in the city. After the siege, however, he fell a victim and was executed. This death was a great shock to the delicate, sensitive boy, who for more than a year was in a state bordering on idiocy. From this he was suddenly aroused by the reading of two works: J.J. Rousseau’s “Letters on Botany” and Horace’s “Ode to Licinius,” which led him to the immediate study of plants and of the classic poets. In 1799 he married Julie Carron, who lived only five years longer, leaving a son who afterwards became a writer of great literary merit. Ampère was obliged to teach in order to support himself and family. At first he gave private lessons in Lyons; later, in 1801, he left his wife and child to take the chair of physics at the Ecole Centrale in Bourg. There he wrote the article that attracted the attention of Lalande and Delambre: “Considérations sur la théorie mathématique du jeu.” In this he attacks and solves the problem of showing that the chances of the gambler are always against him. It is noted for its elegant and polished, though simple, application of the calculus of probabilities. The favourable appreciation of his work by men like Delambre resulted in his call to Lyons and later, in 1805, to the Ecole Polytechnique at Paris, where, in 1809, he rose to the position of Professor of Analysis, and was made Chevalier of the Legion of Honour, and where his work alternated between mathematics, physics, and metaphysics. He published a number of articles on calculus, on curves, and other purely mathematical topics, as well as on chemistry and light, and even on zoölogy. Ampère’s fame, however, rests on his remarkable work in electro-dynamics. It was on 11 September, 1820, that an academician, returning from Geneva, repeated before the Academy the epoch-marking experiments of the Danish savant Oersted. A wire through which an electric current passes was shown to deflect a magnetic needle, causing it to place itself at right angles to the direction of the current. The connexion between electricity an magnetism was indicated by these experiments, and the foundation was laid for the science of electro-magnetics. Only a week later, on the 18th of the same month, Ampère demonstrated before the Academy another remarkable fact: the mutual attraction or repulsion of two parallel wires carrying currents, according as the currents are in the same or in opposite directions. This laid the foundation of the science of electro-dynamics.

Ampère continued his experiments, published the results in 1822, and, finally, developed his “Mathematical Theory of the Phenomena of Electro-dynamics” in 1830. In 1821 he suggested an electric telegraph, using separate wires for every letter. His final work, published after his death, was the ambitious “Essai sur la philosophie des sciences, ou exposition analytique d’une classification naturelle de toutes les connaissances humaines.” His predilection for philosophic, psychological, and metaphysical speculation was very marked. His arduous task as teacher, together with the engrossing functions of a government official—he was Inspector-General of the University—prevented him from devoting himself more to the work of the experimenter. He was a member of the Institute of France, the Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh, the Acadamies of Berlin, Stockholm, Brussels, and Lisbon, and other scientific societies. In 1872 Madame Chevreux edited his “Journal and Correspondence.” In 1881 the Paris Conference of Electricians honoured his memory by naming the practical unit of electric current the ampère. His religious life is interesting. He says that at eighteen years he found three culminating points in his life, his First Communion, the reading of Thomas’s “Eulogy of Descartes,” and the taking of the Bastille. His marriage to the pious Julie Carron was secretly performed by a priest, her family refusing to recognize the competency of the “constitutional” clergyman; this fact impressed him very deeply. On the day of his wife’s death he wrote two verses from the Psalms, and the prayer, “O Lord, God of Mercy, unite me in Heaven with those whom you have permitted me to love on earth.” Serious doubts harassed him at times, and made him very unhappy. Then he would take refuge in the reading of the Bible and the Fathers of the Church. “Doubt,” he says in a letter to a friend, “is the greatest torment that a man suffers on earth.” His death took place at Marseilles, in his fifty-second year.

AMPÈRE, Journal et correspondance (Paris, 1872); SAINTE BEUVE and LITTRÉ in Revue des Deux Mondes (13 Feb.,1887); Eloge d’Ampère in Galérie des contemporains illustres, Vol. X, translation by ARAGO in the Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution (Washington, 1872); LARTHE-MENAGER, in Les Contemporains, IV (Paris); GALWEY, Ampère’s Struggle with Doubt in The Catholic World, XXXVII, 418.

WILLIAM FOX

Amphilochius of Iconium

A Christian bishop of the fourth century, son of a Cappadocian family of distinction, b. perhaps at Cæsarea, c. 339 or 340; d. probably some time between 394 and 403. His father was an eminent lawyer, and his mother Livia remarkable for gentleness and wisdom. He was probably first cousin to Gregory of Nazianzus, and was brought up in the peculiarly religious atmosphere of the Christian aristocracy of his native province. He studied for the bar, practised at Constantinople, but soon retired to lead a religious life in the vicinity of his friend and relative, the “theologian” of Nazianzus. He was soon drawn within the circle of St. Basil’s influence, and seems to have been for a while a member of the Christian “City of the Poor” that Basil had built at Cæsarea. Early in 374 he was bishop of the important see of Iconium, probably placed there by Basil, whom he continued to aid in Cappadocian ecclesiastical affairs until Basil’s death (379). Thenceforth he remained in close relations with Gregory of Nazianzus, and accompanied him to the Synod of Constantinople (381), where St. Jerome met and conversed with him (De Vir. Ill., c. 133). In the history of theology he occupies a place of prominence for his defence of the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians (q.v.). It was to him that St. Basil dedicated his work “On the Holy Spirit.” He wrote a similar work, now lost. We know, however, that he read it to St. Jerome on the occasion of their meeting at Constantinople. His attitude towards Arianism is illustrated by the well-known anecdote concerning his audience with Theodosius and his son Arcadius. When the Emperor rebuked him for ignoring the presence of his son, he reminded him that the Lord of the universe abhorreth those who are ungrateful towards His Son, their Saviour and Benefactor. H was very energetic against the Messalians (q.v.), and contributed to the extirpation of that heresy. His contemporaries rated him very high as a theologian and a scholarly writer. Not to speak of his admirers and friends already mentioned, St. Jerome says (Ep. 70) of the Cappadocian triad (Basil, Gregory, and Amphilochius) that “they cram their books with the lessons and sentences of the philosophers to such an extent that you cannot tell which you ought to admire most in them, their secular erudition or their scriptural knowledge.” In the next generation Theodoret described him in very flattering terms (Hist. Eccl., IV, x; V, xvi), and he is quoted by councils as late as 787. His only genuine extant work is, according to Bardenhewer (Patrologie, p. 249), the “Epistola Synodica,” a letter against the Macedonian heresy in the name of the bishops of Lycaonia, and probably addressed to the bishops of Lycia (Goldhorn, S. Basil., Opp. Sel. Dogm., 630–635). The spurious “Iambics to Seleucus” offer an early and important catalogue of the canonical writings; other spurious fragments, current under his name, are taken from scriptural discourses, dogmatic letters and controversial writings (P.G., XXXIX, 13–130).

FESSLER-JUNGMANN, Instit. Patrolog., I, 600–604; LIGHTFOOT in Dict. of Christ. Biogr., I, 103–107.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Amphilochius of Sida

(Or Side, located in Pamphylia.)

A bishop of the first half of the fifth century, member of the Council of Ephesus (431), where he vigorously opposed the Messalians and subscribed to the condemnation and deposition of Nestorius. He does not seem to have been equally firm at a later period. Even if he did not assist at the “Robber Council” of Ephesus (449), he showed great sympathy for Dioscorus of Alexandria at the Council of Chalcedon, and consented with reluctance to his condemnation. He subscribed to the “tomus” of Pope Leo, and the canons of Chalcedon, although later he wrote to the Emperor Leo (458) that he did not acknowledge the authority of that council. Photius quotes (Bibl. Cod., 230) Eulogius of Alexandria (579–607) in evidence of a later acceptance and subscription by Amphilochius. Only one brief letter-fragment has reached us (P.G., LXXVII, 1515–16).

LIGHTFOOT in Dict. of Christ. Biogr., I, 107.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Amphoræ

Vessels generally made of clay, and furnished with ears or handles. Amphoræ were used for various purposes, but especially for holding wine. Several monuments of the catacomb of St. Calixtus contain representations of amphor. A fragment of one of these represents a boat with sails attached to a trident, and a cargo consisting of two amphor; on the prow a dove is perched, with the usual olive branch. A fresco also, of the catacomb of Pontianus, represents a boatman on the Tiber with a cargo of amphor. Both representations evidently allude to the calling of the deceased; the dove in the former case with the branch of the olive is a symbol expressing the belief that the deceased was already in possession of everlasting peace. Fragments of amphoræ have been found in the catacombs, one of which, now in the Lateran museum, is inscribed with the words: “Vivas in Deo.” The handle of an amphora in the Kircherian Museum at Rome has the monogram of Christ. The same monogram, engraved between two palms, appears on the neck of an amphora discovered in excavations on the Via Nazionale, at Rome. Altogether about sixty of these utensils have been found inscribed with emblems peculiar to the Christians. A few of the most interesting of this category, containing the monogram, belong to the collection of amphoræ found in the cellar of the house of SS. John and Paul on the Coelian.

LECLERCQ in Dict. d’arch ol. chrét. et de lit., I, 1682–1712.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Abbey of Ampleforth

Ampleforth, located in the county of Yorkshire, England, belongs to the English Congregation of Benedictines and has a lineal continuity with the pre-Reformation abbey of Westminster through Father Sebert Buckley, last surviving monk of that community. The present abbey was founded in a house given to Father Anselm Bolton by Lady Anne Fairfax. This house was taken over by Dr. Brewer, President of the Congregation, 30 July, 1802. The community, since leaving Dieulouard in Lorraine, where its members had joined with Spanish and Cassinese Benedictines to form the monastery of St. Lawrence, had been successively at Acton Burnell, Tranmere, Scholes, Vernon Hall, and Parbold Hall, under its superior Dr. Marsh. On its migration to Ampleforth Lodge, Dr. Marsh remained at Parbold and Father Appleton was elected the first prior of the new monastery. Shortly afterwards Parbold was broken up and the boys of the school there transferred to Ampleforth. The priory was erected into an abbey, in 1890, by the Bull “Diuquidem”; and has an important and flourishing college attached to it. The Bishop of Newport, Dr. Hedley, is one of the most distinguished of its alumni, as well as its present superior, Abbot Smith. The monastery was finished in 1897. “It is,” says Almond “a tall, spacious building of four stories and a basement, joined to the old monastery by a cloister. It is of grat architectural beauty. The whole of the basement is taken up by the monastic library, consisting of some 30,00 columes, many of them of extreme rarity. The refectory, lecture halls, and the abbot’s rooms are on the first floor; above are the cells of the monks, forty-eight in all. The pulic rooms are on the scale of the larger abbeys of pre-Reformation times.” According to the English “Catholic Directory” for 1906, there are fifteen priests in the abbey; but there are a number of dependent missions served by monks of the community. The titular abbacies os Westminster and York and the Cathedral priories of Durham, Worcester, Chester, and Rochester are attached to the abbey.

ALMOND, The History of Ampleforth Abbey.

FRANCIS AVELING

Ampullæ

Among the smaller objects discovered in the catacombs are a number of fragments of vessels ordinarily used for domestic purposes. Some of these fragments are, probably, portions of the drinking Cups used in the celebration of the funeral agape, or banquet, while others again are the remains of vases which contained the unguents that the Christians, like the Jews and the pagans, often interred with the dead. A third class of vessels, ordinarily referred to as blood-ampullæ, has been the subject of considerable speculation by archæologists. Portions of these vessels have been found in the cement employed to enclose certain graves in the catacombs. Their peculiarity consists in the sediment of dark red colour they contain, from which they derive the name, blood-ampullæ, on the theory that the sediment is the remains of the blood of a martyr. This theory was for a time rather generally accepted, and the presence of a blood-vase was regarded as one of the marks of a martyr’s tomb. Martigny, however, in the second edition of his “Dict. des antiquités chrétiennes” (Paris, 1877), expressed himself as dissatisfied with the proofs put forward by its supporters. Professor Kraus, also, in a work devoted to this subject, pronounced against the unconditional acceptance of the blood theory. The reasons for this conclusion are as follows:

the so-called blood-ampullæ have been found on tombs of the latter half of the fourth century, a time when the era of persecution was long over;

the monogram of Christ, which in practically all cases indicates the age of Constantine, is frequently represented on tombs containing blood-ampullæ;

a fifth of the tombs with ampullæ of this class contained the remains of children under seven, and it is difficult to admit that so large a proportion of martyrs were mere infants;

a chemical analysis made at Greenwich of the contents of sixty ampullæ has shown that the sediment contains a quantity of oxide of iron twenty, or more, times greater than would have existed in blood.

These results of later investigation are wholly negative, and the theories advanced in place of that formerly accepted are by no means satisfactory. Kraus regards vessels of this class as having been, as a rule, receptacles for holy water; in six instances, however, he thinks it probable that they contained blood. The Bollandist Victor De Buck conjectures that the wine left after the celebration of Mass was placed in them, but this view is not borne out by the Greenwich analysis. Leclercq concludes his researches in this matter by calling attention to the fact that ampullæ have been found on Jewish tombs fastened in the same way as in the Christian cemeteries, in the catacombs of the Vigna Randanini and the Via Labicana. In relation to this subject two decisions of the Sacred Congregation of Rites are of interest. The first of them, given 10 April, 1668, states that the palm on a tomb, and the blood-vase (vas illorum sanguine tinctum) are evidences of a martyr’s grave. The second decision, dated 10 December, 1863, is formulated in substantially the same terms (Phialœ. . . . sanguine tinctœ). These decrees require no modification, even at the present time; but it is now necessary to determine by chemical analysis whether the content of a vase is really blood or not. The term ampulla was applied also to the vessels of terra-cotta, metal, or glass in which the holy oils were kept (Optat. Mil., Contra Donatist., II, 19; ampulla chrismatis). The “Sainte Ampoulle” used at the consecration of the kings of France in the Cathedral of Reims was an object of great reverence in medieval France (see REIMS), and was popularly believed to have been brought from Heaven by a dove at the baptism of Clovis (496). In the Cathedral of Monza are preserved several of the ampullæ sent to Queen Theodolinda by Pope Gregory the Great; they contained oil from the tombs of the most famous Roman martyrs. This custom of obtaining ampullæ filled with oil from the lamps at the shrines of martyrs was generally observed in the Middle Ages; those from the tomb of St. Mennas in Egypt, brought to Europe by pilgrims, are especially numerous. Ampullæ usually bore the image or symbols of the saint from whose tomb the oil was obtained.

KRAUS, Die Blutampullen der roem. Katakomben (Frankfort, 1868); LECLERCQ in Dict. d’arch. chrét. I. 1747–78.

MAURICE M. HASSETT.

Diocese of Ampurias

(or CASTELSARDO and TEMPIO)

An Italian diocese in Sardinia, suffragan of Sassari. The Right Rev. Antonio Maria Contini, born 6 Nov., 1839, was appointed Bishop of Ogliastra, 26 Sept., 1882, and transferred to this diocese, 16 Jan., 1893. Ampurias was erected in 1113; Cività, now Tempio, in 304 by St. Simplicius. Cività was united to Ampurias by Julias II in 1506. Later the see was transferred to Terranuova. Gregory XVI suppressed the cathedral there by the Bull “Quamvis aqua,” 26 Aug., 1839, and raised the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, in Tempio, to a cathedral, uniting Tempio and Ampurias, so that one bishop should govern both. The see was vacant from 1854 to 1871. Ampurias, or Castelsardo, has 11,200 Catholics, 8 parishes, 25 secular priests, 5 seminarists, 34 churches or chapels. Tempio has 26,200 Catholics, 17 parishes, 44 secular priests, 6 seminarists, 71 churches or chapels.

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (1906); GAMS, Series episc. Ecclesiœ cathol. (Ratisbon, 1873); MARTINI, Storia eccles. della Sardinia (Cagliari, 1839), IV, 349.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Amra

The name of certain ancient Irish elegies or panegyrics on native saints. The most famous of these which have reached us is known as the Amra of Coluimb Cille (Columbkille). It was printed with a translation by O’Beirne Crowe in 1871 from the imperfect text in the Leadhar na h’Uidhre; also in his edition of the “Liber Hymnorum” by Professor Atkinson, and in his “Goidelica” by Whitley Stokes, from an imperfect text in Trinity College, Dublin. These editions may, however, be considered as superseded by the Bodleian text (Rawlinson B. 502) edited, with a translation, for the first time (Rev. Celt., vols. XX-XXI) by Stokes. According to the traditional account this eulogy was composed about the year 575 by Dallan Mac Forgaill, the chief ollamh of that time, in gratitude for the services of St. Columbkille in saving the bards from expulsion at the great assembly of Druim Cetta in that year. “The Amra is not,” says Stokes, “as Professor Atkinson supposed, a fragment which indicates great antiquity.” Strachan, however, on Linguistic grounds, assigns it in its present form to about the year 800 (Rev. Celt., XVII, 14). Stokes, too, seems to favour this view (ibid., XX, 16). But linguistic grounds are a somewhat unstable foundation, and Strachan adds “perhaps something more may be learned from a prolonged study of this and other such as the Amra Senain and the Amra Conroi.” Dallan was the author of the former, “held in great repute,” says Colgan, “on account of its gracefulness,” and also of another Amra on Conall of Ineskeel in Donegal, with whom he was buried in one grave.

DOUGLAS HYDE, A Literary History of Ireland (New York, 1899), 405, 406.

ARTHUR UA CLERIGH

Amrah

Central Syria has preserved for us an unequalled series of Christian monuments. From an early period, the insecurity of a land overrun, at intervals, by armies or by brigands, has driven the inhabitants away from a soil, the very fertility of which has made it the prey of armed nomads. The scarcity of wood suggested to architects the possibility of a form of construction in which stone alone should be used, and blocks, placed with wonderful skill and science, should obviate the need of woodwork. This, indeed, explains the long endurance of buildings which have suffered little at the hands of time and not much more from earthquakes.

The Syrian houses in the region of Hauran were inhabited, from the third century to the seventh, by the upper and middle classes of the population. A house of this kind in perfect preservation is still to be seen at Amrah. It is a huge dwelling built round three sides of a courtyard. The chief room is a great hall running to the height of two stories. Each of the bedrooms on the ground floor, which were three in number, had a kind of small dais covered by a highly ornamented, semicircular canopy, and forming an alcove. A closet, adjoining the room, had cupboards all round it, taken out of the thickness of the walls, and divided by slabs of stone.

The house at Amrah had a story which was reached by an exterior staircase. The floor, which serves as ceiling to the ground floor, is made of flagstones resting on arches or on corbels fastened to the wall, and the stone doors turn on stone hinges. In this house, as in other Syrian houses, a large, central hall was the most honourable part of the dwelling, where family meetings were held, and the stranger who was allowed to enter it was as greatly favoured as the guest whom a Roman admitted to his fireside. At the present day this house has found caretakers among the natives themselves. It was found suitable for a quick and inexpensive fitting-up, and the sheikh of the village of Douma has made it his home. The women and children (the harem) live exclusively in the upper story, the sheikh’s administrative functions are carried on in the ground-floor rooms, while the great hall has been kept for its ancient uses.

VOGÜÉ, Syrie Centrale (Paris, 1865); DE BEYLIE, L’habitation byzantine (Paris, 1902).

H. LECLERCQ.

Amraphel

King of Sennaar (Shinar), or Babylonia, one of the four Mesopotamian kings-the other three being Arioch, King of Pontus (Ellasar); Chodorlahomor, King of Elam, and Thadal (Tedal), King of Nations (Goyim)-who, according to the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, jointly invaded Chanaan and defeated the five kings of the Plains, capturing Lot and his family, together with a rich booty. On their way home they were assailed and routed in a single night by Abraham and his 318 men in the vale of Sava (Siddim), near the Dead Sea. Among the rescued prisoners were Lot and his family. Abraham, furthermore, while on his way back from his victorious attack, was met by Melchisedech, the HighPriest of ElElion, at Jerusalem, who celebrated Abraham’s victory by a thanksgiving offering of bread and wine, taking from him, as his sacerdotal share, the tenth part of the booty. To Biblical scholars and theologians the personality of Amraphel is of considerable interest, owing to the fact that he has been long ago identified by the majority of Assyriologists and Biblical critics with the great Babylonian king, Hammurabi, the sixth monarch of the first Babylonian dynasty, who reigned about 2250 B. C. . This ruler’s famous Code of Laws, the oldest code of laws in the world, was discovered in 1901–2, in Susa, the ancient capital of Elam, by the French archæological expedition, and was for the first time deciphered and translated by the French Dominican scholar, Father Scheil, of Paris

The identity of Amraphel and Hammurabi is now unanimously accepted by Assyriologists and Biblical critics. Phonetically, the two names are identical. The variants of the second form are Ammirabi, Ammurapi, and Hammumrabi, etc. Hammu, or Ammu, was in all probability the name of a god, as it is found in many compound names such as Sumuhammu, Jasdihammu, and Zimrihammu. The element rabi is very common in Babylonia, and it means “great”; the full name, consequently, means “The god Ammu is great,” on the same analogy as names like Sinrabi, Samasrabi, and many others. According to Dr. Lindle, followed by Sayce and others, the name was also pronounced Ammurabi, and, so Dr. Pinches was the first to point out, the form Ammurapi is also met with by the side of Hammurabi, and like many of the Babylonian kings of that period, he was deified, being addressed as iluAmmurabi or Ammurabiilu, i.e. “Ammurabi the god,” ilu being the equivalent of the Hebrew El, which means “god.” Now Ammurabiilu or Ammurapilu is letter for letter the Amraphel, or Amrapel, of Genesis. According to another hypothesis, suggested by Dr. Husing, the 1at the end of the form “Amraphel” is superfluous, for he would join it to the next word, and read: “And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel, as Arioch king of Ellasar was over Shinar, that Chodorlahomer . . .” Another, and according to Dr. Pinches perhaps more likely, explanation is that this additional letter 1is due to a faulty reading of a variant writing of the name, with a polyphonous character having the value of pil, as well as bi, which form may, in fact, still be found. But whichever hypothesis we adopt, the identity of Amraphel and Hammurabi is phonetically beyond dispute.

The political situation presupposed in Gen., xiv, reflects, furthermore, with a remarkable degreee of probability, the condition of the times of Hammurabi’s reign. The leader of the force and the suzerain to whom the Chanaanitish princes were subject, was a king of Elam. Elam, therefore, must have been the predominant power at the time, and the Babylonian king must have been its vassal. The narrative, nevertheless, is dated in the reign of the Babylonian king, and not in that of the King of Elam, and it is to the reign of the Babylonian king that the events described in it are attached. Babylonia, however, was not a united country; there was another king, Arioch of Ellasar, who divided with the Amraphel of Sennaar the government of it, and like Amraphel, acknowledged the supremacy of Elam. Finally, the “nations” (goyim), whoever they were, were also subject to Elam, as well as the distant province of Chanaan. If we turn our glance to the political condition of Hammurabi’s times and period, we shall find that the contemporary monuments of Babylonia are in perfect accord with the situation presupposed by Gen., xiv.

OUSSANI in New York Review (Aug.-Sept., 1906), 204–243, with full bibliography.

GABRIEL OUSSANI

Amsterdam

Amsterdam, the capital, and second residential city of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, lies, in a semi-circle, on the Ij (Wye), the southwestern part of the Zuidersee, at the mouth of the Amstel, and is joined to the North Sea by the Nordseck Canal, constructed between 1865 and 1879. An estimate in 1899 gave the population as 510,853, with 120,701 Catholics and 59,060 Jews; that of 1906 gives a total of 548,000, with over 122,000 Catholics.

The origin of the city dates from the year 1204, when Gijsbrecht II, Lord of the Amstel, built a fortress on this spot. A considerable settlement soon grew up around it, which, in 1296, came into the possession of the Count of Holland. In 1301, it was raised to the rank of a city, and grew prosperous through the influx of large numbers of merchants from Brabant and Flanders. The Church life, also, of the city developed on a large scale; at the end of the fifteenth century there were more than twenty monasteries in it, only one of which, however, the Beguinage, has survived the storm of the Reformation in its original form. Of the churches and chapels, the so-called “Holy Room” is the most famous, as the scene of a great sacramental miracle, the “Miracle of Amsterdam.” It was a place resorted to by countless pilgrims, among others by the Emperor Maximilian, and the street which led to it is still known as the “Holy Way.”

The Reformation found an early entrance into Amsterdam. In 1535 occurred the bloody rising of the Anabaptists, and in 1566 the destruction of holy images. The city long remained true, however, to the Catholic cause, despite the lapse of the Netherlands into apostasy. It was only in 1578 that the Calvinists gained the upper hand, drove out the officials who were loyal to the Spanish Government, and, in 1579, joined the Utrecht Union, which stipulated in its fourteenth article that no other public exercise of religion except the reformed should be allowed. The city authorities of Amsterdam, however, were, in the interests of their trade with Catholic nations, more tolerant in the enforcement of this regulation than most of the cities of the Netherlands. Certain orders, such as the Franciscans and the Jesuits were able, in consequence of the prevailing toleration, to remain there for a long time, practically unmolested, and even, in the plague which raged in the latter half of the seventeenth century, openly to administer the consolations of religion to the Catholic faithful. Amsterdam, indeed, was at this period rising to the position of the first trading city of the world, a rise due to the fall of Antwerp in 1585, the blockade of the mouths of the Scheldt, and a series of glorious battles with England. The city became, on the contrary, less tolerant under the influence of the Jansenists. In 1660 the public exercise of the Catholic religion was forbidden, on which account the churches dating from that period have the outward appearance of private houses. The religious houses which still existed in 1708 were done away with, and their churches closed.

It was not until the end of the eighteenth century that Catholics gained any considerable measure of religions liberty, which was chiefly due to the founding by Napoleon of the Kingdom of Holland, of which Amsterdam became the capital, 1808–10. The fall of the Napoleonic dynasty and the accession of William I meant the practical cessation of this liberty, and Catholics were debarred from all the offices of State. Negotiations were, indeed, opened at Rome for the conclusion of a Concordat, and Amsterdam was to have been a bishopric, but the Calvinistic-Orangist party were able to prevent the execution of the Concordat. The situation, however, improved under William II. The new Constitution of 1848 brought the Catholics complete liberty, and equality with the Protestants, while the year 1853 witnessed the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy, by which Amsterdam became a deanery subject to the Diocese of Haarlem. Catholic progress has kept pace since then with that of the city, which has once more risen to the chief mercantile city of the Netherlands and one of the most important in Europe. The Catholics, who, in 1817, were 44,000, had risen, in 1865, to over 68,000.

Amsterdam has eighteen Catholic parishes; the most important churches being: the Romanesque Byzantine church of St. Nicholas, with its three towers; the Gothic churches of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception; the church of St. Willibrord, with its seven towers, the largest in the country; and the Jesuit Church of St. Francis Xavier, on the Krijtberg. The following orders of men have houses in Amsterdam: the Jesuits, who also conduct a classical college; the Franciscans, Dominicans, Redemptorists, Augustinians, and Brothers of Mercy; of women, among others, the Beguines, whose convent dates from the fourteenth century; the Franciscan Sisters, Sisters of Our Lady of Tilburg, Dominican Sisters, Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo, Daughters of Mary and Joseph, and others. The most noted Catholic benevolent institutions are the orphanage for boys and girls, the St. Bernard’s almshouse for old men and women; that of St. Nicholas, for girls; of St. Aloysius, for abandoned orphans, Our Lady’s Hospice” (hospital and polyclinic); a second hospital, the Catholic Juniorate for the Diocese of Haarlem, St. James’s almshouse for old people, etc. The following Catholic societies should also be mentioned: the Netherlands Catholic People’s Union, St. Joseph’s Journeymen’s Union, the Saint Vincent’s Society, the Catholic Guild (for master-workmen), the “Faith and Science” Union, which possesses a library of over 4,000 volumes; the St. Hubert’s Society, which supports a home for girls, the St. Willibrord’s Society, for the distribution of good books, etc. Amsterdam has three Catholic daily papers, and, among her famous Catholic citizens, we may name Holland’s greatest poet, Vondel; in later times, Father Roothan, General of the Society of Jesus from 1829 to 1853; the poet and historian Alberdingk Thijm, and the architect Cuypers.

WAGENAAR, Amsterdamsche geschiedenissen (Amsterdam, 1761–94); VAN DER VYVER, Geschiedkundige beschrijving der stad Amsterdam (ibid., 1844); WITKAMP, Amsterdam in schetsen (ibid., 1859–63); TER GOUV, Amstelodamia (ibid, 1880–91); Neerlandia Catholica (issued by the Bishops of the Netherlands, Utrecht, 1888; with an Appendix: Amstelodanum Sacrum, 1–54); BREDIUS and others, Amsterdam in de zeventiende eeuw (The Hague, 1897–1900); ALLARD, De Sint Franciscus Xaverius-Kerk of de Krijtberg te Amsterdam (2d ed., Amsterdam, 1904); Het Jaarbockje van Alberdingk Thijm (annual).

JOSEPH LINS

Amulet

(Gr., phylakterionLat., amuleta).

An object generally inscribed with mysterious formulæ and used by pagans as a protection against various maladies, as well as witchcraft. Pliny (XXIX, 4,19) is the earliest writer who mentions amulets (veneficiorum amuleta). The derivation of the word is doubtful, but it probably comes from the Arabic hamala, “to carry,” amulets being borne on the person. The Oriental peoples were especially addicted to superstitious practices, and with their absorption into the Roman Empire the use of amulets became equally common in the West. Following the example of Moses, who sought to turn the minds of the Jews from the superstitious emblems to which they were accustomed in Egypt, by substituting for them symbols of an elevating character, the Church, while forbidding amulets, permitted the use of emblems which would remind the bearers of some doctrine of Christianity. Thus St. Clement of Alexandria (Pæd., III, 3) recommended the use of such symbols as the fish, the dove, and the anchor on seals and rings. A devotional medal of lead, attributed to the fourth century, represents a martyr extended on a gridiron; one of the fifth or sixth century bears the monogram of Christ and a cross between the letters and; while a third represents the sacrifice of Abraham, and on the reverse a father offering his son before the confessio of a martyr. Pope St. Gregory the Great sent the Lombard queen, Theodolinda, on the occasion of the birth of her son, two phylacteria, one of which contained a fragment of the wood of the True Cross, the other a sentence of the Gospel. The custom of carrying portions of the Sacred Scriptures as phylacteries is mentioned by St. Jerome and St. John Chrysostom (St. Jerome, in Matt., iv, 24; St. John Chrys., in Matt., hom., 73). But, especially from the fourth century, when imperial favour brought large numbers into the Church, superstitious abuses in the use of devotional emblems became so common that the ecclesiastical authorities were obliged frequently to inveigh against the use of amulets. The Council of Laodicea (latter half of fourth century) prohibited ecclesiastics from making amulets and made the penalty for wearing them excommunication (canon 36). St. John Chrysostom, preaching at Antioch, denounced as a species of idolatry the wearing of amulets, which seems to have been common among his auditors. St. Augustine also denounced the numerous charlatans who dispensed charms, and a collection of canons made by St. Cæsarius of Arles (d. 542), formerly supposed to have been canons of the Fourth Council of Carthage, imposed the penalty of excommunication on those who patronized augurs (can. 89; see Hefele, Conciliengesch., II, 76). From one of the sermons (P.L., XXXIX, 2272) of St. Cæsarius it appears that the dispensing of amulets was a regular profession; each disease had its appropriate amulet. These and similar superstitious practices survived to some extent, in one form or another, through the Middle Ages, and their suppression has always been a difficulty with which the Church has had to cope. The most ancient Christian amulet known, from Beirût, is attributed to the second century. it is made of gold and has a ring by which it was attached to the neck. The inscription on it, which is of more than ordinary interest, reads: “I exorcise thee, Satan (O cross purify me) in the name of the Lord the living God, that thou mayest never leave thy abode. Pronounced in the house of her whom I have anointed.” Leclercq sees in this invocation proofs “(1) of belief in the virtue of the sign of the cross to put demons to flight, (2) of the conferring of extreme unction, (3) and of the use of exorcisms,” whereof we have here a formula. A favourite Christian amulet in the Orient during the fourth and fifth centuries bore on one side the image of Alexander the Great. St. John Chrysostom, in one of his Antioch instructions (Ad Illumin., Cat., II, 5), censures the use by Christians of amulets with the portrait of the Macedonian conqueror. Several amulets of this class, in the Cabinet of Medals at Paris, show, on one side, Alexander in the character of Hercules, and, on the other, a she-ass with her foal, a scorpion, and the name of Jesus Christ. An amulet in the Vatican Library with the picture of Alexander, bears on the reverse the monogram of Our Lord. Magic nails, also, with inscriptions were interred with the dead; one of them for Christian use has the legend “ter dico, ter incanto, in signv Deo et signv Salomonis et signv de nostrâ Art(e) mix.” The Gnostics were especially notable for their employment of amulets; the names found most frequently in their invocations are Adonai, Sabaoth, Jao, Michael, Raphael, Souriel (Uriel), and Gabriel.

LECLERCQ in Dict. darch. chrét. (Paris, 1905), I, 1783–1859; KRAUS, Realencyklopädie (Freiburg, 1882), I, 49–51; PLUMPTRE in Dict. Christ. Antiq. (London, 1875), I, 78, sqq.; Realencyklopädie für prot. Theologie u. Kirche (Leipzig, 1896), 1, 467–476.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Use and Abuse of Amulets

The origin of the word amulet does not seem to have been definitely established. (See AMULET.) The thing itself has been used as a safeguard against mishap or danger, or witchcraft, and invoked as a guarantee of success in enterprises. Among the Greeks, it was variously known under the designations phylacterion, periamma, and periapton, whilst to the Arabians and Persians it was familiar as talisman, possibly derivable from the later Greek, telesma. Amulets have had quite a general vogue among all people of all times and have been characterized by a bewildering variety as to the material, shape, and method of employment. Carved stones, bits of metal, figures of gods, strips of paper, or parchment bearing enigmatic phrases, blessings, and maledictions have done service in this way. Among the Egyptians the primacy among amulets was held by the scarab. This was commonly a gem made in the form of a beetle, and curiously engraved upon one side with many devices. Among the Greeks and Romans amulets seem to have been largely employed as a defense against certain evil powers to whom they attributed no inconsiderable part in the government and control of the world.

The Jews, so far as escape from this superstition was concerned, enjoyed an advantage not possessed by the pagan peoples of antiquity. They had the knowledge of the true God, and the Mosaic law, which gave such minute directions for the government of their religious and social life, contained severe prohibitions of magic and divination. That nevertheless, even in patriarchal time, they were not altogether free from this contamination seems fairly deducible from some passages in Genesis, xxxi, 19, xxxv, 4. Later on there is no doubt but that through their contact with the Egyptians and Babylonians, amongst whom the use of amulets was widespread, they had recourse to talismans in many ways. Whether the tephillin, that is, the small leathern pouches containing passages of the law, and later known as phylacteries, were regarded as amulets at all times, is not susceptible of determination from the references to them in the Pentateuch. In the beginning, at any rate, they do not appear to have had any such purpose; subsequently, however, they unquestionable were employed as such, as is proved by the Targum (Canticle of Canticles, viii,3) as well as Buxtorf (Synagoga Jud., ed 1737). There is no doubt that but some of the ornaments used in the apparel of Jewish women were really amulets. This seems to be the proper interpretation of the phrase little moons which occurs in Isaias, iii, 18, as well as in the earrings mentioned in verse 20 of the same chapter. This superstition dominated even more strongly the Jews of post-Biblical times, partly as a result of their freer intercourse with other people, and partly because of the extreme formalism of their religious life. The Talmud contains evidence of this.

The reliance placed upon amulets, like other forms of superstition, grew out of popular ignorance and fear. With the coming of the Christian religion therefore, it was destined to disappear. It would have been too much, however, to have expected the victory of Christianity in this matter to have been an easy and instantaneous one. Hence it is intelligible that in the newest converts from paganism there remained a disposition, if not to cling to the forms they had of necessity abjured, at all events to attribute to the Christian symbols of worship something of the power and value of the amulets with which they were so generously supplied in heathenism. From the beginning the Church was on the alert to detect the first signs of this abuse and set her face sternly against it. Thus, for instance, we find the Council of Laodicea, in the fourth century, after forbidding the clergy to be sorcerers, conjurers, etc., or to make amulets, deciding that those who wear amulets are to be excommunicated. Epiphanius (Expositio fidei Catholicæ, c. 24) witnesses pointedly to the prohibition by the Church of amulets. Objects dear to Christian piety, such as in the early days the representation of the Good Shepherd, the Lamb, palms, relics of the martyrs, and in later days, pictures of the saints, medals, Agnus Deis, etc., were venerated in a relative sense. They were, in the mind of the Church, in no wise thought to have any latent power or divinity in them, or to be calculated to assure, as of themselves, to their possessors, protection against harm or success in undertakings. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXV) is at some pains to formulate the authoritative teaching of the Church with regard to the honour paid to image of Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Saints. It does not deal professedly with the subject of amulets, but the words in which it sets forth its mind upon the worship of images describe with a peculiar appositeness the attitude of the Church towards all that array of pious objects, approved or tolerated by her, which have so improperly been stigmatized as amulets. The Holy Synod commands that especially are images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God and of the other Saints to be had and kept in churches; and that due honour and veneration be accorded to them: not because it is believed that any divinity or virtue is in them for which they are to be revered; or that anything may be asked form them; or that any confidence can be placed in the images as was done of old by the Gentiles . . . but because the honour which is exhibited to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, etc. Thus they are sharply and definitively differentiated from the amulets and talismans of popular superstition whether of antiquity or of a later periods.

HÜBNER, Amuletorum historia (Halle, 1710); EMELE, Ueber Amulete (Mainz, 1827).

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Amyclae

A titular see of Peloponnesus in Greece, in the ecclesiastical province of Hellas, a suffragan of Corinth, and in the Middle Ages a Latin see known to the French rulers of Achaia as Micles, or Nicles, afterwards united with the sees of Veligosti and Leondari (Megalopolis). It was one of the most ancient towns of Greece, and said to have been the home of Tyndarus and of Castor and Pollux (Amyclaei fratres). It is mentioned by Homer (Iliad, II, 584). It was situated quite close to Sparta in a fertile and wooded district, not far from the river Eurotas.

LE QUIEN, Oriens Christianus (1740), II, 228–229, III 1031–32; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 127–128.

Jacques Amyot

Bishop of Auxerre, Grand Almoner of France, and man of letters, b. 30 October, 1513; d. 6 February, 1593. He studied in Paris at the Collège de France, where he earned his living by performing menial services for his fellow students. Although naturally slow, his uncommon diligence enabled him to accumulate a large stock of classical and general knowledge. He took his degree of Master of Arts at the age of nineteen. A secretary of State engaged him as tutor to his children and recommended him to Marguerite d’Angoulême the only sister of Francis I. He was appointed Professor of Greek and Latin in the University of Bourges. During the ten years in which he held this position, he translated into French the Greek novel “Theagenes and Chariclea” and several of Plutarch’s “Lives.” Francis I, to whom these works were dedicated, conferred upon their author the abbey of Bellozane. After the death of Francis I Amyot accompanied the French ambassador to Venice, and later went to Rome. Cardinal de Tournon, whose favour he had won, sent him with a letter from Henry II to the Council of Trent. On his return the king named him tutor to his two younger sons. He now finished the translation of Plutarch’s “Lives,” and afterwards undertook that of Plutarch’s “Morals,” which he finished in the reign of Charles IX. The latter made him Bishop of Auxerre, Grand Almoner of France, and Curator of the University of Paris. Notwithstanding his success, Amyot did not neglect his studies; he revised all his translations with great care. His translation of Plutarch is the basis of North’s English translation, the source of Shakespeare’s three Roman plays. During his closing years, France was the prey of civil war. Happening to be at Blois when the Guises were murdered, Amyot was falsely accused of having connived at the assassination. This charge greatly afflicted the aged Bishop. It is the general opinion of scholars that, by his translation of Plutarch, Amyot contributed greatly to the refinement of the French language. His style is always simple, charming, picturesque, and pithy. Amyot’s works are: translations of Heliodorus (1547) and of Diodorus Siculus (1554), “Amours pastorales de Daphnis et Chloé” (1559), “Vies des hommes illustres de Plutarque” (1565–75), “(Euvres morales de Plutarque” (1572).

C. F. A. DE BLÉGNIÈRES, Essai sur Amyot (Paris, 1851); SAINTE BEUVE, Causeries du Lundi, IV.

JEAN LE BARS

Anabaptists

(Gr. ana, again, and baptizo, baptize; rebaptizers).

A violent and extremely radical body of ecclesiastico-civil reformers which first made its appearance in 1521 at Zwickau, in the present kingdom of Saxony, and still exists in milder forms.

I. NAME AND DOCTRINAL PRINCIPLES

The name Anabaptists, etymologically applicable, and sometimes applied to Christian denominations that practise re-baptism is, in general historical usage, restricted to those who, denying the validity of infant baptism, became prominent during the great reform movement of the sixteenth century. The designation was generally repudiated by those to whom it was applied, as the discussion did not centre around the question whether baptism can be repeated, but around the question whether the first baptism was valid. The distinctive principles upon which Anabaptists generally agreed were the following:

They aimed at restoring what they claimed to have been primitive Christianity. This restoration included the rejection of oaths and capital punishment and the abstention from the exercise of magistracy.

In a more consistent manner than the majority of Protestant reformers, they maintained the absolute supremacy and sole sufficiency of the canonical Scriptures as a norm of faith. However, private inspiration and religious sentiment played an important role among them.

Infant baptism and the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone were rejected as without scriptural warrant.

The new Kingdom of God, which they purposed to found, was to be the reconstruction, on an entirely different basis, of both ecclesiastical and civil society. Communism, including for some of them the community of women, was to be the underlying principle of the new state.

II. ORIGIN AND HISTORY

The question of the validity of baptism appears in two great phases in ecclesiastical history. The first controversy raged at an early date (third and fourth centuries) and regarded the minister of the sacrament (baptism conferred by heretics). It was at a much later date that the second discussion originated, in which the subject of infant baptism was the point controverted. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries the Petrobrusians rejected infant baptism and they and many subsequent medieval heretics (Henricians, Waldenses, Albigenses, and Bohemian Brethren) held views resembling in some respects the tenets of Anabaptists. There is, however, little if any historical connection between the Anabaptists and those earlier sects. Luther’s principles and examples exercised more influence over the new movement. Private interpretation of the Scriptures, however, and inward teaching by the Holy Ghost could be claimed by any individual, and logically led to the extreme Anabaptist views.

(a) Anabaptism in Saxony and Thuringia (1521–25)

Nicholas Storch, a weaver (d. 1525) and Thomas Münzer, a Lutheran preacher (c. 1490–1525), together with the other self-styled “Prophets of Zwickau” made, at the Reformation, the first attack on infant baptism. The doctrines of the absolute equality of all men and complete community of goods and the resulting disturbances soon brought them into conflict with the civil authorities of Zwickau. Storch, before any repressive measures were taken against him, left with two associates for Wittenberg (1521), where he continued his preaching. Carlstadt was soon gained over to the cause. The combined agitation of Carlstadt and Storch at Wittenberg, and Carlstadt’s iconoclastic proceedings forced Luther to leave the Wartburg and appear on the scene. He preached against the new apostles with such vehemence that they had to leave the city. Storch until his death at Munich travelled through Germany, spreading his doctrines, especially in Thuringia (1522–24) where he was one of the principal instigators of the Peasants’ War. Münzer rejected infant baptism in theory, but retained it in practice. He was expelled from Zwickau (1521) and went to Bohemia, where he had but little success as a propagandist. In 1525 he came as preacher to Alstedt (Electoral Saxony) and married a former nun. He was soon surrounded by a large following, introduced a German religious service and attacked Luther as well as the then existing order of things. His sojourn at Mühlhausen (Thuringia), which was interrupted by a journey through the south of Germany, was equally successful. Henry Pfeifer, an apostate monk, who became his co-labourer at Mühlhausen, had prepared the ground for the new gospel. Münzer and Pfeifer became absolute masters of the city, and crowds of peasants and burghers who, discontented with prevailing conditions, flocked around them, pillaged and devastated the surrounding country. To quell the insurrectionary movement John, the Elector of Saxony, Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, and Henry, Duke of Brunswick, united their forces and attacked the peasants, led by Münzer at Frankenhausen (1525). The insurgents were utterly defeated. After the battle Münzer was discovered at Frankenhausen in a bed in which he had hidden, and was delivered up to the executioner. He received the sacraments of the Catholic Church before his death, while his associate Pfeifer, still impenitent, underwent the death penalty (1525).

(b) The Swiss Anabaptist Movement (1523–25)

Like Luther, Zwingli, the originator of the Reformation in Switzerland, soon found more radical competitors. In 1525 some of his associates separated from him and preached rebaptism and communism. The party found two capable leaders in John Denk and Balthasar Hubmaier. Its following, recruited especially from the working classes, became considerable, not only in Switzerland, but also in southern Germany and Austria. Augsburg, Nuremberg, and, at a later date, Strasburg became the chief centres of the movement. Resistance to its spread came from two sources. The Anabaptists’ teaching added substantially to the causes of the Peasants’ War which broke out (1524) in the very territory where the Anabaptists had carried on their propaganda. As a consequence the defeat of the peasants (1525) meant, to a great extent, the dispersion of the Anabaptists. On the other hand, some town councils as that of Zürich (1526) decreed the severest penalties against their adherents. Still in spite of defeat and constant repression, the sect continued to live.

(c) The Anabaptists in Münster (1533–35)

The spread of the Anabaptists in lower Germany and the Netherlands must largely be ascribed to the activity of Melchior Hofmann, a widely travelled furrier. The arrival of some of his disciples (Melchiorites) at Münster in Westphalia (1533–34) marks the beginning of the most extraordinary period in the history of the Anabaptists and the city of Münster. In the latter, Bernard Rothmann a chaplain, and Knipperdollinck a cloth-merchant, had already succeeded in diffusing Lutheran ideas. They joined the Anabaptist movement, of which John Matthys or Matthiessen, a former baker, and John Bockelsohn or Bockold, a Dutch tailor (more generally known as John of Leyden), became two great local representatives. Knipperdollinck was elected burgomaster (February, 1534) and the city passed under the complete and unrestricted control of the partisans of rebaptism. Münster, instead of Strasburg, was to become the centre of the projected conquest of the world, the “New Jerusalem,” the founding of which was signalized by a reign of terror and indescribable orgies. Treasures of literature and art were destroyed; communism, polygamy, and community of women were introduced. Rothmann took unto himself four wives and John of Leyden, sixteen. The latter was proclaimed King of the “New Sion,” when Francis of Waldeck, Bishop and temporal lord of the city, had already begun its siege (1534). In June, 1535, the defence became more and more hopeless, and John, as a last means of escape, determined upon setting fire to the city. His plan was frustrated by the unexpected capture of the town by the besiegers (24 June, 1535). The King, his lieutenant Knipperdollinck, and his chancellor Krechting were seized, and after six months’ imprisonment and torture, executed. As a terrible warning, their bodies were suspended in iron cages from the tower of St. Lambert’s church.

III. RESULTS

The Anabaptists in England

Along with the fanatic element, there was always in the Anabaptist party a more pacific current represented especially by its Swiss adherents. The effect of the fall of Münster and of the determined repression of Anabaptists by Catholics, Lutherans, and Zwinglians alike, was the very pronounced and ultimately complete elimination of the violent features of the movement. Menno Simonis, formerly a Catholic priest, who joined the party in 1536, exercised a beneficient influence in that direction. The very name Anabaptists was superseded by others, particularly that of Mennonites. It is under the latter designation that the Anabaptists exist to-day, principally in Holland, Germany, and the United States. Another result of the capture of Münster seems to have been the appearance of the Anabaptists in England, where they come into frequent notice shortly after this time and continue to be mentioned during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Their following there was in all probability largely composed of Dutch and German refugees. The penalties of death and banishment enforced against them prevented the sect from acquiring importance. The Anabaptists’ teaching respecting infant baptism was adopted by the English and Amercian Baptists (See BAPTISTS).

Kerssenbroch, Anabaptistici furoris monasterium inclitam Westphaliae metropolim evertentis historica narratio, ed. Detmer (Münster, 1899, 1900); Cornelius, Geschichte des m nsterischen Aufruhrs (Leipzig, 1855, 1860); Janssen, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes (Freiburg and St. Louis, Mo., 1897) II, 231–238, 394–416, 557–571, III, 109–121, 326–351, tr. Hist. of the German People (St. Louis, Mo., and London, 1900, 1903), III, 256–263, IV, 87–117, 217–222, 291–310, V, 150–165, 449–485; Newman, A History of Anti-Pedobaptism from the Rise of Pedobaptism to A.D. 1609 (Philadelphia, 1897), with extensive bibliography, 395–406; Idem, A History of the Baptist Churches in the United States (New York, 1894), in Amer. Church Hist. Series, II, 1–56; Bax, Rise and Fall of the Anabaptists (London, 1903); Burrage, A History of the Anabaptists in Switzerland (Philadelphia, 1905); Tumbult, Die Wiedert ufer (Leipzig, 1899).

N.A. WEBER

Pope St. Anacletus

The second successor of St. Peter. Whether he was the same as Cletus, who is also called Anencletus as well as Anacletus, has been the subject of endless discussion. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus, use both names indifferently as of one person. Tertullian omits him altogether. To add to the confusion, the order is different. Thus Irenaeus has Linus, Anacletus, Clement; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus. On the other hand, the “Catalogus Liberianus,” the “Carmen contra Marcionem” and the “Liber Pontificalis,” all most respectable for their antiquity, make Cletus and Anacletus distinct from each other; while the “Catalogus Felicianus” even sets the latter down as a Greek, the former as a Roman. Among the moderns, Hergenroether (Hist. de l’église, I 542, note) pronounces for their identity. So also the Bollandist De Smedt (Dissert. vii, 1). Dëllinger (Christenth. u K., 315) declares that “they are, without doubt, the same person”and that “the ‘Catalogue of Liberius’ merits little confidence before 230.” Duchesne, “ Origines chretiennes “, ranges himself on that side also but Jungmann (Dissert. Hist. Eccl., I, 123) leaves the question in doubt. The chronology is, of course, in consequence of all this, very undetermined, but Duchesne, in his “Origines,” says “we are far from the day when the years, months, and days of the Pontifical Catalogue can be given with any guarantee of exactness. But is it necessary to be exact about popes of whom we know so little? We can accept the list of Irenaeus—Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus. Anicetus reigned certainly in 154. That is all we can say with assurance about primitive pontifical chronology.” That he ordained a certain number of priests is nearly all we have of positive record about him, but we know he died a martyr, perhaps about 91.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Anacletus II

The title which was taken by Cardinal Pietro Pierleone at the contested papal election of the year 1130. The date of his birth is uncertain; d. 25 January, 1138. Though the Pierleoni were conceded to be one of the wealthiest and most powerful senatorial families of Rome, and though they had staunchly supported the Popes throughout the fifty years’ war for reform and freedom, yet it was never forgotten that they were of Jewish extraction, and had risen to wealth and power by usury. The Cardinal’s grandfather, named Leo after Pope Leo IX, who baptized him, was a faithful adherent of Gregory VII; Leo’s son, Peter, from whom the family acquired the appellation of Pierleoni, became leader of the faction of the Roman nobility which was at enmity with the Frangipani. His marble coffin may still be seen in the cloisters of St. Paul’s, with its pompous inscription extolling his wealth and numerous offspring. His attempt to install his son as Prefect of Rome in 1116, though favoured by the Pope, had been resisted by the opposite party with riot and bloodshed. His second son, the future antipope, was destined for the Church. After finishing his education at Paris, he became a monk in the monastery of Cluny, but before long he was summoned to Rome by Pope Paschal II and created Cardinal-Deacon of SS. Cosmas and Damian. He accompanied Pope Gelasius on his flight to France, and was employed by successive pontiffs in important affairs, including legations to France and England. If we can believe his enemies, he disgraced his high office by gross immorality and by his greed in the accumulation of lucre. Whatever exaggeration there may be as to other charges, there can be no doubt that he was determined to buy or force his way into the Papal Chair. When Honorius lay on his deathbed Pierleone could count upon the votes of thirty cardinals, backed by the support of the mercenary populace and of every noble family in Rome, except the Corsi and the Frangipani. The pars sanior of the Sacred College numbered only sixteen, headed by the energetic Chancellor, Haymaric, and the Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia. These squadronisti, as they would have been called in later days, resolved to rescue the papacy from unworthy hands by a coup d’état. Though in a hopeless minority, they had the advantage that four of their number were cardinal bishops, to whom the legislation of Nicholas II had entrusted the leading part in the election. Moreover, of the commission of eight cardinals, to which, in apprehension of a schism, it was decided to leave the election, one of them being Pierleone, five were opposed to the ambitious aspirant. To secure liberty of action, they removed the sick Pontiff from the Lateran to St. Gregory’s, near the towers of the Frangipani. Honorius dying on the night of 13 February, they buried him hurriedly the next morning, and compelled the reluctant Cardinal of San Giorgio, Gregory Papareschi, under threat of excommunication, to accept the pontifical mantle. He took the name of Innocent II. Later in the day the party of Pierleone assembled in the Church of St. Mark and proclaimed him Pope, with the name of Anacletus II. Both claimants were consecrated on the same day, 23 February, Anacletus in St. Peter’s and Innocent in Sta. Maria Nuova. How this schism would have been healed, had the decision been left to the canonists, is hard to say. Anacletus had a strong title in law and fact. The majority of the cardinals with the Bishop of Porto, the Dean of the Sacred College, at their head, stood at his side. Almost the whole populace of Rome rallied around him. His victory seemed complete, when, shortly after, the Frangipani, abandoning what appeared to be a lost cause, went over to him. Innocent sought safety in flight. No sooner had he arrived in France than his affairs took a favourable turn. “Expelled from the City, he was welcomed by the world,” says St. Bernard, whose influence and exertions secured for him the adhesion of practically the entire Christian world. The Saint states his reasons for deciding in favour of Innocent in a letter to the Bishops of Aquitaine (Op= cxxvi). They may not be canonically cogent; but they satisfied his contemporaries. “The life and character of our Pope Innocent are above any attack, even of his rival; while the other’s are not safe even from his friends= In the second place, if you compare the elections, that of our candidate at once has the advantage over the other as being purer in motive, more regular in form, and earlier in time. The last point is out of all doubt; the other two are proved by the merit and the dignity of the electors. You will find, if I mistake not, that this election was made by the more discreet part of those to whom the election of the Supreme Pontiff belongs. There were cardinals, bishops, priests, and deacons, in sufficient number, according to the decrees of the Fathers, to make a valid election. The consecration was performed by the Bishop of Ostia, to whom that function specially belongs.” Meanwhile Anacletus maintained his popularity in Rome by the lavish expenditure of his accumulated wealth and the plundered treasures of the churches. His letters and those of the Romans to Lothair of Germany remaining unanswered, he secured a valuable confederate in Duke Roger of Apulia, whose ambition he satisfied by the gift of royalty; on Christmas Day, 1130, a cardinal-legate of Anacletus anointed at Palermo. the first King of the Two Sicilies, a momentous event in the history of Italy. In the spring of 1133, the German King conducted Innocent, whom two great synods, Reims and Piacenza, had proclaimed the legitimate Pope, to Rome; but as he came accompanied by only 2,000 horse, the antipope, safe within the walls of Castle St. Angelo, looked on undismayed. Unable to open the way to St. Peter’s, Lothair and his queen Rlchenza, on 4 June; received the imperial crown in the Lateran. Upon the Emperor’s departure Innocent was compelled to retire to Pisa, and for four years his rival remained in undisturbed possession of the Eternal City. In 1137 Lothair, having finally vanquished the insurgent Hohenstaufens, returned to Italy at the head of a formidable army; but since the main purpose of the expedition was to punish Roger, the conquest of Rome was entrusted to the missionary labours of St. Bernard. The Saint’s eloquence was more effective than the imperial weapons. When Anacletus died, the preference of the Romans for Innocent was so pronounced that the antipope, Victor IV, whom the party chose as his successor, soon came as a penitent to St. Bernard and by him was led to the feet of the Pope. Thus ended, after eight years of duration, a schism which threatened serious disaster to the Church.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Anæsthesia

(From Greek a, privative, and aisthesis, feeling).

A term in medicine, and the allied sciences, signifying a state of insensibility to external impressions, consequent upon disease, or induced artificially by the employment of certain substances known as anæsthetics, or by hypnotic suggestion. In diseases of the central nervous system, anæsthesia is a common symptom. Usually it is limited in extent, involving a definite area of the skin surface. Its limits can be traced by the distribution of certain nerves. In functional diseases of the nervous system, usually spoken of as hysterical or neurotic, there may be what is called amputation anæsthesia, that is, loss of feeling abruptly limited by a line such as would be followed in an amputation, but not according to the distribution of nerves to the part. In both functional and organic nervous diseases anæsthesia may occur in conjunction with hyperæsthesia and paræsthesia in other parts of the body. Complete anæsthesia occurs in persons suffering from catalepsy, or, occasionally, in those who are in a trance. Artificial anæsthesia by the use of drugs or the inhalation of vapours only came into general use during the last half of the nineteenth century, but there is abundant evidence to show that its practice is very ancient. Homer mentions nepenthe, “an antidote to grief and rage inducing oblivion to all ills.” Herodotus relates that the Scythians inhaled a kind of hemp to produce insensibility. Dioscorides alludes to the employment of mandragora to produce anæsthesia when patients are cut or burnt. Pliny refers to the effect of the odour of mandragora as causing sleep if it was taken “before cuttings and puncturings lest they be felt.” Lucian speaks of mandragora as used before the application of the cautery. Galen has a short allusion to its power to paralyze sense and motion. Isidorus is quoted as saying: “A wine of the bark of the root is given to those about to undergo operation that being asleep they may feel no pain.”

The first mention of anæsthesia, in comparatively modern times, is connected with the name of Ugone da Lucca, who was born a little after the middle of the twelfth century. He had discovered a soporific which, on being inhaled, put patients to sleep so that they were insensible to pain during the operations performed by him. The drug he employed is also known to have been mandragora. There are mentions of anæsthetics in the literary works of practically every century since that time. Boccaccio in the fourteenth century, in the story of Dioneus, gives an account of the effects of an anæsthetic mixture which “being drunk would throw a person asleep as long as the doctor judged it necessary.” In the fifteenth century William Bullein described a concoction of an herb which “bringeth sleep, and casteth man into a trance, until he shall be cut out of the stone.” In the 16th century Shakespeare, as will be remembered from “Romeo and Juliet,” refers four times to the anæsthetic plant under the name of mandrake, and twice under the name of mandragora. In the beginning of the seventeenth century Thomas Middleton wrote of “the pities of old surgeons who cast one asleep, then cut the diseased part.” Before this Du Bartas described the surgeon as “bringing his patient in a senseless slumber before he put in use his violent engines.” Notwithstanding this continuity of tradition, very little was generally known about the use of anæsthetics, and it seems probable that their effects were rather uncertain. About the beginning of the nineteenth century the task of finding a reliable anæsthetic was taken seriously. In 1800 Sir Humphrey Davy described the effects of nitrous oxide, or laughing gas, in allaying pain or toothache. He suggested its employment in surgery. Ether began to attract attention at the end of the eighteenth century. It was used by inhalation in England, for relief of asthma, and by Dr. Warren, of Boston, in the treatment of the later stages of consumption. In 1818, Faraday proved that the inhalation of the vapour of ether produced anæsthetic effects similar to those of nitrous oxide. This fact was also demonstrated by the American physicians, Godman, in 1822; Jackson, in 1833; and Wood and Bache, in 1834. The first practical use of anæsthesia, however, was delayed until December, 1844, when Horace Wells, a dentist, of Hartford; Conn., had a tooth extracted while under the influence of nitrous oxide, or laughing gas. He resolved to make dentistry painless by this means, but was deterred from pursuing the project by an unfortunate failure in experiments in Boston. About two years later Dr. William Morton, also a dentist of Boston, made use of the vapour of ether for anæsthesia in the extraction of teeth. Subsequently he employed it in cases requiring severe surgical operations, with complete success. In about two months the news of his discovery reached England, and before the end of 1846 operations on anæsthetized patients were performed in London. At the beginning of the year 1847, Sir James Y. Simpson, the distinguished surgeon and obstetrician of the University of Edinburgh, employed ether to allay labour-pains. In November, 1847, Simpson announced his discovery that chloroform was as effective an anæsthetic as ether, and lacked many of its inconveniences. Ives, in Connecticut, had used chloroform for difficult breathing in 1832. After Simpson’s announcement it came to be used especially in England, and on the Continent, and even in America, as the favourite anæsthetic, though ether continued to be employed here to a considerable degree. A series of investigations, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, showed that chloroform had a much greater mortality than ether, and now the latter has replaced it almost entirely for anæsthetic purposes. Other substances, such as the chloride of ethyl and bromide of ethyl, have also been employed. Recent years have seen the development of local anæsthesia to replace general anæsthesia for minor operations. It has been demonstrated that even extensive operations can be performed without causing pain, by the injection of cocaine and similar substances in the neighbourhood of the site of the operation, or into the nerves leading to the part. Spinal anæsthesia, which is a form of local anæsthesia, consists in injecting substances into the spinal cord which paralyze all the sensory nerves from the parts below the point of injection. For a time, about the end of the nineteenth century, it was very popular, but it proved to have many inconveniences and some serious results, and was not always reliable. General anæsthesia always involves some risk. Even in the most careful hands deaths occasionally occur. Usually the fatal termination comes at the very beginning of the administration of the anæsthetic, and seems to be at least partly due to shock. It is impossible to foresee such fatalities, and they occur not infrequently in the young and apparently strong and vigorous. It is important, therefore, that clergymen should take due precautions by advising the administration of the sacraments before anæsthesia, even though it may be but for a slight operation. Surgeons should warn patients of the risks, even though they are but slight, since the reassurance from the due performance of Christian duties will usually make the patient more composed, and less subject to the influence of shock.

FOY, Anæsthetics, Ancient and Modern (London, 1889); MORE-MADDEN, Notes an the probable employment of Anæsthetics in ancient times in Ireland; Dublin Journal of Medical Science (December, 1874); BIGELOW, Anæsthesia and other Addresses (Boston, 1894).

JAMES J. WALSH

Diocese of Anagni

The Diocese of Anagni

An Italian diocese in the province of Rome under the immediate jurisdiction of the Holy See. It comprises ten towns. The church in Anagni claims an Apostolic origin. Anagni as a bishopric appears in history in the fifth century. Felix its bishop was present at the Lateran Synod held in 487 (Mansi. VII, 1171), and Fortunatus was amongst those who signed the Acts of the Synod of 499 (Mommsen, M. G. H. Auct., Ant., XII, 400). in later centuries the Bishopric of Anagni attained great importance because its occupants received special consideration from the popes. Zachary of Anagni was the legate of Nicholas I at the Synod held in Constantinople in 851 to decide as to the validity of the election of Photius to the patriarchate. In 896 Stephen of Anagni became Pope. Anagni gave four popes to the Church, all related to one another: Innocent III (1198–1216); Gregory IX (1227–41); Alexander IV (1254–61); Boniface VIII (1294–1303). St. Thomas Becket in his flight was received at Anagni by the canons, and a chapel erected to him in the basement of the cathedral at the request of Henry II of England, is now used as a place of sepulture for the canons. Boniface VIII was violently attacked at Anagni by Guillaume Nogaret and Sciarra Colonna, emissaries of Philippe le Bel. Various privileges have been conferred on the diocese and the canons by different popes. The cathedral has several rich ecclesiastical relics, such as chests and vestments. There are 31,200 Catholics, 26 parishes, 59 secular priests, 52 regulars, 45 seminarists, 50 churches or chapels.

The Council of Anagni (1160)

At this council, surrounded by his cardinals and bishops, Alexander III solemnly excommunicated the Emperor Frederick (Barbarossa), the Pfalzgraf Otto, and their followers, and renewed the excommunication of the Antipope Octavian (Victor IV). The Emperor’s subjects were declared absolved from their oath of allegiance.

UGHELLI, Italia Sacra (Venice, 1722), I, 305: GAMS, Series Episcoporum Eccl. cathol. (Ratisbon, 1873), 663; CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), VI, 171: Liber Pontif. (ed. DUCHESNE), II, 403; HEFELE, Conciliengesch. V. 93.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET.

Analogy

A philosophical term used to designate, first, a property of things; secondly, a process of reasoning. We have here to consider its meaning and use:

I. In physical and natural sciences;

II. In metaphysics and scholastic philosophy;

III. In theodicy;

IV. In relation to the mysteries of faith.

I. ANALOGY IN PHYSICAL AND NATURAL SCIENCES

As a property, analogy means a certain similarity mixed with difference. This similarity may be founded entirely or chiefly upon a conception of the mind; in this sense we say that there is analogy between the light of the sun and the light of the mind, between a lion and a courageous man, between an organism and society. This kind of analogy is the source of metaphor. The similarity may be founded on the real existence of similar properties in objects of different species, genera, or classes; those organs, for instance, are analogous, which, belonging to beings of different species or genera, and differing in structure, fulfil the same physiological functions or have the same connections. As a process of reasoning, analogy consists in concluding from some analogical properties or similarity under certain aspects to other analogical properties or similarity under other aspects. It was by such a process that Franklin passed from the analogy between the effects of lightning and the effects of electricity to the identity of their cause; Cuvier, from the analogy between certain organs of fossils and these organs in actual species to the analogy of the whole organism; that we infer from the analogy between the organs and external actions of animals and our own, the existence of consciousness in them. Analogical reasoning is a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning based on the principle that “analogical properties considered as similar involve similar consequences.” It is evident that analogical reasoning, as to its value, depends on the value of the analogical property on which it rests. Based on a mere conception of the mind, it may suggest, but it does not prove; it cannot give conclusions, but only comparisons. Based on real properties, it is more or less conclusive according to the number and significance of the similar properties and according to the fewness and insignificance of the dissimilar properties. From a strictly logical point of view, analogical reasoning can furnish only probable conclusions and hypotheses. Such is the case for most of the theories in physical and natural sciences, which remain hypothetical so long as they are merely the result of analogy and have not been verified directly or indirectly.

II. ANALOGY IN METAPHYSICS AND SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY

Analogy in metaphysics and Scholastic philosophy was carefully studied by the Schoolmen, especially by the Pseudo-Dionysius, Albertus Magnus, and St. Thomas. It also may be considered either as a property or as a process of reasoning. As a metaphysical property, analogy is not a mere likeness between diverse objects, but a proportion or relation of object to object. It is, therefore, neither a merely equivocal or verbal coincidence, nor a fully univocal participation in a common concept; but it partakes of the one and the other. (Cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, Q. xiii, a. 5, 10; also, Q. vii, De potentiâ, a. 7.) We may distinguish two kinds of analogy:

Two objects can be said to be analogous on account of a relation which they have not to each other, but to a third object: e.g., there is analogy between a remedy and the appearance of a person, in virtue of which these two objects are said to be healthy. This is based upon the relation which each of them has to the person’s health, the former as a cause, the latter as a sign. This may be called indirect analogy.

Two objects again are analogous on account of a relation which they have not to a third object, but to each other. Remedy, nourishment, and external appearance are termed healthy on account of the direct relation they bear to the health of the person. Here health is the basis of the analogy, and is an example of what the Schoolmen call summum analogatum (Cf. St. Thomas, ib.)

This second sort of analogy is twofold. Two things are related by a direct proportion of degree, distance, or measure: e.g., 6 is in direct proportion to 3, of which it is the double; or the healthiness of a remedy is directly related to, and directly measured by, the health which it produces. This analogy is called analogy of proportion. Or, the two objects are related one to the other not by a direct proportion, but by means of another and intermediary relation: for instance, 6 and 4 are analogous in this sense that 6 is the double of 3 as 4 is of 2, or 6:4::3:2. The analogy between corporal and intellectual vision is of this sort, because intelligence is to the mind what the eye is to the body. This kind of analogy is based on the proportion of proportion; it is called analogy of proportionality. (Cf. St. Thomas, Q. ii, De verit., a. 11; Q. xxiii, De verit., a. 7, ad 9am).

III. ANALOGY AS A METHOD IN THEODICY

As human knowledge proceeds from the data of the senses directed and interpreted by reason, it is evident that man cannot arrive at a perfect knowledge of the nature of God which is essentially spiritual and infinite. Yet the various elements of perfection, dependence, limitation, etc., which exist in all finite beings, while they enable us to prove the existence of God, furnish us also with a certain knowledge of His nature. For dependent beings must ultimately rest on something non-dependent, relative beings on that which is non-relative, and, even if this non-dependent and non-relative Being cannot be conceived directly in itself, it is necessarily conceived to some extent through the beings which depend on it and are related to it. It is not an Unknown or Unknowable. It can be known in different ways. We remark in finite things a manifold dependence. These things are produced; they are produced according to a certain plan and in view of a certain end. We must conclude that they have a cause which possesses in itself a power of efficiency, exemplarity, and finality, with all the elements which such a power requires: intelligence, will, personality, etc. This way of reasoning is called by the Schoolmen “the way of causality” (via causalitatis). (Cf. Pseudo-Dion., De Div. Nom., c. i, sect. 6, in P. G., III, 595; also, St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, Q. iii, a. 3; Q. xiii, a. 12.) When we reason from the effects to the First, or Ultimate, Cause, we eliminate from it all the defects, imperfections, and limitations which are in its effects just because they are effects, as change, limitation, time, and space. This way of reasoning is “the way of negation or remotion” (via negationis, remotionis). (Cf. Pseudo-Dion., ibid.; also, St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, QQ. iii-xiii, a. 1; C. Gent., lib. I, c. xiv.) Finally, it is easily understood that the perfections affirmed, in these two ways, of God, as First and Perfect Cause, cannot be attributed to Him in the same sense that they have in finite beings, but only in an absolutely excellent or supereminent way (via eminentiae, excellentiae). (Cf. Pseudo-Dion., Div. Nom., c. i, sect. 41, in P.G., III, 516, 590; c. ii, sect. 3, 8, in P.G., III, 646, 689; St. Thomas, ibid.) What is the value of our knowledge of God acquired by such reasoning? According to Agnosticism this attribution of perfections to God is simply impossible, since we know them only as essentially limited and imperfect, necessarily relative to a certain species or genus, while God is the essentially Perfect, the infinitely Absolute. Therefore all that we say of God is false or at least meaningless. He is the Unknowable; He is infinitely above all our conceptions and terms. Agnosticism admits that these conceptions and names are a satisfaction and help to the imagination in thinking of the Unthinkable; but on condition that we remember that they are purely arbitrary; that they are practical symbols with no objective value. According to Agnosticism, to think or say anything of God is necessarily to fall into Anthropomorphism. St. Thomas and the Schoolmen ignore neither Agnosticism nor Anthropomorphism, but declare both of them false. God is not absolutely unknowable, and yet it is true that we cannot define Him adequately. But we can conceive and name Him in an “analogical way.” The perfections manifested by creatures are in God, not merely nominally (equivoce) but really and positively, since He is their source. Yet, they are not in Him as they are in the creature, with a mere difference of degree, nor even with a mere specific or generic difference (univoce), for there is no common concept including the finite and the Infinite. They are really in Him in a supereminent manner (eminenter) which is wholly incommensurable with their mode of being in creatures. (Cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, Q. xiii, a. 5, 6; C. Gent., lib. I, c. xxii-xxxv; in I Sent. Dist., xiii, Q. i, a. 1, ad 4am.) We can conceive and express these perfections only by an analogy; not by an analogy of proportion, for this analogy rests on a participation in a common concept, and, as already said, there is no element common to the finite and the Infinite; but by an analogy of proportionality. These perfections are really in God, and they are in Him in the same relation to His infinite essence that they are in creatures in relation to their finite nature. (Cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, Q. iv, a. 3; Q. xiii, a. 5; Q. ii, De verit., a. 11, in corp. ad 2am; ibid., xxiii, a. 7, ad 9supam.) We must affirm, therefore, that all perfections are really in God, infinitely. This infinitely we cannot define or express; we can say only that it is the absolutely perfect way, which does not admit any of the limitations which are found in creatures. Hence our conception of God, though very positive in its objective content, is, as represented in our mind and expressed in our words, more negative than positive. We know what God is not, rather than what He is. (Cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, Q. iii, the whole question; Q. xiii, a. 2, 3, 5, 12; Q. ii, De veritate, a. 1, ad 9am, ad 10am.) Such a conception is evidently neither false nor meaningless; it is clearly inadequate. In a word, our conception of God is a human conception and it cannot be other. But if we necessarily represent God in a human way, if even if it is from our human nature that we take most of the properties and perfections which we predicate of Him, we do not conceive Him as a man, not even as a perfected man, since we eliminate from those properties, as attributes of God, all limits and imperfections which in man and other creatures are a very part of their essence.

IV. ANALOGY IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE MYSTERIES OF FAITH

The Fathers of the Church always emphasized the inability of the human reason to discover or even to represent adequately the mysteries of faith, and insisted on the necessity of analogical conceptions in their representations and expressions. St. Thomas, after the Pseudo-Dionysius and Albertus Magnus, has given the theory of analogy so applied to the mysteries of faith. (Cf. St. Thomas, Summa, Theol., I, Q. i, a. 9; Q. xxii, a. 1; In Librum Boëthii De Trinitate Expositio.) The Vatican Council set forth the Catholic doctrine on the point. (Cf. Const., Dei Filius, cap. iv; cf. also Conc. Coloniense, 1860.) (1) Before Revelation, analogy is unable to discover the mysteries, since reason can know of God only what is manifested of Him and is in necessary causal relation with Him in created things. (2) In Revelation, analogy is necessary, since God cannot reveal the mysteries to men except through conceptions intelligible to the human mind, and therefore analogical. (3) After Revelation, analogy is useful to give us certain knowledge of the mysteries, either by comparison with natural things and truths, or by consideration of the mysteries in relation with one another and with the destiny of man. PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS, Opera Omnia; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, QQ. iii, iv, xiii; Contra Gent., lib. I, xxix; II, ii; Quaest. disp., De verit., QQ. ii, xxiii; De potentiâ, Q. vii; In Boet. De Trinitate, expositio; DE REGNON, Etudes de théologie positive sur la S. Trinité (Paris, 1898); GRANDERATH, Constitutiones dogmaticae S. Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani (Freiburg im Br., 1892); HONTHEIM, Institutiones Theodicae (ibid., 1893); DE LA BARRE, La vie du dogme catholique (Paris, 1898); CHOLLET in Dict. de théol. cath. s. v.; SERTILLANGES, Agnosticisme ou anthropomorphisme in Rev. de philosophie, 1 Feb., and 1 Aug., 1906; GARDAIR, L’Etre Divin in Rev. de phil., July, 1906.

G.M. SAUVAGE

Analysis

Analysis (ἀνά=“up” or “back,” and λύειν, “to loose”) means a separation; it is the taking apart of that which was united, and corresponds exactly to the Latin form “resolution” (re + solvere). Its opposite is synthesis (σύν, “together,” and τιθέναι, “to put,” hence, a “putting-together,” a “composition”). According to this etymology, analysis, in general, is the process by which anything complex is resolved into simple, or, at least, into less complex parts or elements. This complex may be:

(1) Concrete, that is, an individual substance, quality or process, in either the physical or the mental order;

(2) Abstract and ideal; incapable, therefore, of existing apart from the mind that conceives it.

(1) In the case of a concrete object, we must distinguish three degrees of analysis. Sometimes a real separation or isolation is effected. To resolve a chemical compound into its elements, or white light into the elementary colours, to dissect an organism, to take a machine to pieces, is to proceed analytically. But frequently actual isolation is impossible. Thus the factors of a movement or of a psychological process cannot be set apart and studied separately. If the process occurs at all, it must be a complex one. We may, however, reach an analytical result by means of different successive syntheses, i. e. by variations in the grouping of the elements or circumstances. In order to ascertain the individual nature of any determined element, factor, or circumstance, it is maintained in the state of permanency, while the accompanying elements, factors, or circumstances are eliminated or changed; or, on the contrary, it may be eliminated or modified, while the others remain constant. The four methods of induction belong to this form of analysis. It is also in a large measure the method of psychological experiment and of introspective analysis. Finally, it may be impossible to effect any real dissociation of a concrete thing or event, either because it cannot be reached or controlled, or because it is past. Then mental dissociation and abstraction are used. In a complex object the mind considers separately some part or feature which cannot in reality be separated. Analogy and comparison of such cases with similar instances in which dissociation has been effected are of great value, and the results already ascertained are applied to the case under examination. This occurs frequently in physical and psychological sciences; it is also the method used by the historian or the sociologist in the study of events and institutions.

(2) When the complex is an idea, analysis consists in breaking it up into simpler ideas. We are in the abstract order and must remain therein; consequently, we do not take into consideration the extension of an idea, that is, its range of applicability to concrete things, but its intension, or connotation, that is, its ideal contents. To analyze an idea is to single out in it other ideas whose ideal complexity, or whose connotation is not so great. The same must be said of analytical reasoning. The truth of a proposition or of a complex statement is analytically demonstrated by reverting from the proposition itself to higher principles, from the complex statement to a more general truth. And this applies not only to mathematics, when a given problem is solved by showing its necessary connection with a proposition already demonstrated, or with a self-evident axiom, but also to all the sciences in which from the facts, the effects, and the conditioned we infer the law, the cause, and the condition. Principle, law, cause, nature, condition, are less complex than conclusion, fact, effect, action, conditioned, since these are concrete applications and further determinations of the former. A physical law, for instance, is a simplified expression of all the facts which it governs. In one word, therefore, we may characterize analysis as a process of resolution and regression; synthesis, as a process of composition arid progression.

The confusion that has existed and still exists in the definition and use of the terms analysis and synthesis is due to the diverse natures of the complexes which have to be analyzed. Moreover, the same object may be analyzed from different points of view and, consequently, with various results. It is especially important to keep in mind the distinction between the connotation and the denotation of an idea. As the two vary in inverse ratio, it is clear that, in an idea, the subtraction of certain connotative elements implies an increase in extension. Hence connotative analysis is necessarily an extensive synthesis, and vice versâ. Thus, if my idea of a child is that of “a human being under a certain age,” by connotative analysis I may omit the last determination “under a certain age”; what remains is less complex than the idea “child,” but applies to a greater number of individuals, namely to all human beings. In order to restrict the extension to fewer individuals, the connotation must be increased, that is, further determinations must be added. In the same manner, a fact, when reduced to a law, either in the physical, the mental, or the historical order, is reduced to something which has a greater extension, since it is assumed to rule all the facts of the same nature, but the law is less complex in connotation, since it does not share the individual characters of the concrete events.

The necessity of analysis comes from the fact that knowledge begins with the perception of the concrete and the individual, and that whatever is concrete is complex. Hence the mind, unable to distinctly grasp the whole reality at once, must divide it, and study the parts separately. Moreover the innate tendency of the mind towards unification and classification leads it to neglect certain aspects, so as to reach more general truths and laws whose range of application is larger. The relative usefulness of analysis and synthesis in the various sciences depends on the nature of the problems to be solved, on the knowledge already at hand, on the mind’s attitude, and on the stage of development of the science. Induction is primarily analytic; deduction, primarily synthetic. In proportion as a natural science becomes more systematic, i. e. when more general laws are formulated, the synthetic process is more freely used. Previous analysis then enables one to “compose,” or deduce future experience. Where, on the contrary, the law has to be discovered, observation and analysis are dominant, although, even then, synthesis is indispensable for the verification of hypotheses. Some sciences, such as Euclidean geometry, proceed synthetically, from simple notions and axioms to more complex truths. Analysis has the advantage of adhering more strictly to the point under investigation; synthesis is in danger of going astray, since from the same principle many different conclusions may be drawn, and a multitude of real or possible events are governed by the same law. For this same reason, however, synthesis, in certain sciences at least, is likely to prove more fruitful than analysis. It also has the advantage of starting from that which has a natural priority, for the conditioned presupposes the condition. When the result is already known, and the relation between a principle and some one conclusion thus ascertained, synthesis is a great help in teaching others. In synthesis the strictness of logical reasoning is required. Accuracy and exactness in the observation of phenomena, attention to all their details, the power of mental abstraction and generalization are qualities indispensable in the analytic process.

The literature of analysis includes all works on logic and on the methods of the sciences. We give only some few references. DUGALD STEWART, Philosophy of the Human Mind, P. II, iv, § 3; WUNDT, Logik (2d ed., Stuttgart, 1895), II, i; DUHAMEL, Des méthodes dans les sciences de raisonnement (Paris, 1865–73); BAIN, Logic, P. II, Induction (2d ed., London, 1873); ROBERTSON, art. Analysis in Encyclopœdia Britannica, 9th ed.—On psychological analysis, see, among others, ROYCE, Outlines of Psychology, iv, §§ 40–47 (New York, 1903).

C.A. DUBRAY

Anaphora

(Gr., άναφορά ànaphorá, offering, sacrifice).

A liturgical term in the Greek Rite. It is variously used in the liturgies of the Greek Orient to signify that part of the service which corresponds substantially to the Latin Canon of the Mass. It also signifies the offering of Eucharistic bread; the large veil (see ) that covers the same, and the procession in which the offering is brought to the altar (Brightman).

1. In the Greek Rite the Anaphoras are numerous while in the Roman Rite the Canon of the Mass is from time immemorial quite invariable. The Greek Anaphora is substantially of apostolic origin, though in its present form it dates from the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century when St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom (respectively) shortened the liturgy that until then was very long and fatiguing. The term is of much importance, given its antiquity, for the demonstration of the sacrificial character of the Holy Mass (see Cabrol, 1911–13; Probst, 240, 325).

2. In the Eastern or Greek Church the Offertory is a more deliberate and impressive ceremony than in the Roman Rite. The priest accompanied by the deacon and the acolytes and censerbearers, goes to the prothesis (a small side altar where the proskomide is performed) and they solemnly bring the blessed bread and wine through the small diaconal door of the iconostasis and proceed to the centre of the church or at least directly in front of the royal doors, where, turning to the people and holding the sacred gifts in their hands they pray successively for the ecclesiastical and secular authorities. In the Greek Orthodox Church prayers are said for the emperor or king, the Holy Synod, and the various church dignitaries. In the Greek Catholic Church these prayers are said for the Pope, the Archbishop, Emperor, King, etc., using the same words. The priest and deacon then proceed solemnly to the altar bearing the Sacred Elements through the royal doors. This part of the Greek Mass is called the Great Entrance. After the paten and chalice have been placed on the altar the priest completes the Offertory with this prayer: “Receive also the prayer of us sinners and cause it to approach Thy Holy Altar, and strengthen us to present gifts and spiritual sacrifices unto Thee for our sins and the ignorances of the people, and count us worthy to find grace before Thee; that our sacrifice may be acceptable unto Thee; and that the spirit of Thy grace may rest upon us and upon these gifts presented, and upon all Thy people.”

(See CONSECRATION; MASS; PREFACE; GREEK RITE.)

Many of the Oriental Anapohoras may be read in RENAUDOT, Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio (Frankfort ed., 1847); GOAR, Euchologium, sive Rituale Græcarum (2d ed., Venice, 1730); J. A. ASSUMANI, Codex Liturgicus (Rome, 1754). Cf. also LEBRUN, Explication littérale, etc., de la Messe (Liege, 1781); NEALE, A History of the Holy Eastern Church (London, 1850), I, 461; BRIGHTMAN, Liturgies, Eastern adn Western (Oxford, 1906), passim; PROBST, Liturgie der drei ersten christl. Jahrhunderte (Tübingen, 1870); RENI, Gesch. des MessOpferbegriffs (Freising, 1901), I, 311–524; Dict. d’arch. chrét., I, 1898–1919; PARRINO, La Messa Greca, (Palermo, 1904), 35.

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Anarchy

(a privative, and arche, rule)

Anarchy means an absence of law. Sociologically it is the modern theory which proposes to do away with all existing forms of government and to organize a society which will exercise all its functions without any controlling or directive authority. It assumes as its basis that every man has a natural right to develop all his powers, satisfy all his passions, and respond to all his instincts. It insists that the individual is the best judge of his own capacity; that personal interest, well understood, tends to improve general conditions; that each one recognizes the advantage of justice in economic relations; and that mankind, in the man, is right in what it does. As a human being is a free, intelligent agent, any restraint from without is an invasion of his rights and must be set down as tyranny. Proudhon (1809–65), whose writings are diffuse, obscure, and paradoxical, is regarded as the father of the system; but Diderot is claimed by some, and also the association of the Enragés, or Hébertistes of the French Revolution. According to Proudhon, “anarchy is order” and, borrowing from J.J. Rousseau, man is naturally good, and only institutions are bad.” Also according to him, “all property is theft.” As crime is mostly committed against property, abolishing one is preventing the other. Criminals are not to be punished, but treated as lunatics, or sick men. There are to be no rulers in Church or State; no masters, no employers. Religion is to be eliminated, because it introduces God as the basis of authority, and degrades man by inculcating meekness and submission, thus making him a slave and robbing him of his natural dignity. Free love is to take the place of marriage, and family life, with its restraints, is to cease.

To the objection that men cannot live together without society, both because of the implied contradiction in such a claim, and because of the social instinct in man, the answer is: We do not destroy society, but exclude authority from it. Anarchy supposes an association of individual sovereigns acting independently of any central or coercive power. It aims at a society in which all the members are federated in free groups or corporations according to the professions, arts, trades, business, etc., which happen to suit the fancy of each, so that not only will all be co-proprietors of everything—land, mines, machines, instruments of labour, means of production, exchange, etc.—but every one will thus be able to follow his own individual bent. Moreover, as all are united in a harmony of interests, all will labour in unison to increase the general welfare, just as is done in business corporations, in which union is based on mutual advantage, and is free from all pressure from without.

As to the means to be employed to bring about this ideal condition, opinion is divided, some holding for the evolutionary, some for the revolutionary method; the former proposing to realize their Utopia by the means now at their disposal, chiefly universal suffrage; while the latter are determined to effect it at once by violent methods. In this respect the first class shades off into collective socialism, the second remaining pure anarchists. Both, however, differ from socialism on one very important point. For while agreeing with anarchists in the desirability of abolishing all existing institutions, socialism aims at what it calls “socialized society.” It postulates a central power which will assign occupations, distribute awards, and supervise and direct the collective interests. It absorbs the individual in favour of the State; anarchy does the very opposite. Generally speaking, also, socialism reprobates violent methods and seeks its end by gradual evolution from present conditions. Its public alienation from anarchical methods is evidenced in its treatment of the Russian Bakounin, who was conspicuous for his activity in the French Revolution of 1848, and who, when handed over to Russia, escaped from Siberia and fomented the Russian disorders of 1869, chiefly through his agent Netschaïeff, and was finally associated with Cluseret and Richard in the atrocities of the French Commune of 1871. In 1868 he had established the International Alliance of Social Democracy, and endeavoured to unite it with the International Association of Workingmen founded by the socialist Marx in 1864. The coalition was of short duration. A violent schism began at the Congress of the Hague, in 1872, and then the party of anarchy may be said to have begun as a distinct organization. Bakounin subsequently organized the Fédération Jurassienne. He issued a paper called the Avant Garde, but nothing much was done until the founding of La Révolte by Elisée Reclus and Kropotkin.

The principles of anarchy were again repudiated in the Socialist Congress of Paris in 1881 (from which the anarchists were expelled) and in congresses at Zurich, in 1893, and at Hamburg and London, in 1897. It was in the sixth Congress of the Marxists, held in Geneva in 1863, that the distinctive term of Anarchist was applied to an autonomous section of that Convention. But how far the theories and practice of each run into those of the other is difficult to determine. For, independently of official pronouncements by the various congresses, the lines of demarcation between the two movements are not unfrequently obscure. Thus, according to some writers, anarchists may be classified first as extreme Individualists; those, namely, who regard the intervention of the State as a “nuisance”—such is the term employed—which is to he reduced as soon as possible to a minimum. This was the position of Herbert Spencer and Auberon Herbert, who would probably have resented being placed in the category of anarchists. Spencer’s doctrine about the minimizing of government authority was borrowed from Goodwin’s “Political Justice” (1793). A second class might be described as Expectants; those who are willing to admit a central control until public opinion is sufficiently educated to dispense with it. William Morris left the Social Democrats when he found himself drifting in that direction. Finally there are the Universal Negatives, or Nihilists, who believe in the assassination of rulers and in other violent manifestations of hatred of present conditions. The first so-called scientific exposition of this nihilistic anarchism seems to have been made by the eminent French geographer Elisée Reclus and the Russian Prince Kropotkin, who built it into a definite system, though a similar claim is made for Hess, who in 1843 published two volumes on “Philosophie der That und Sozialismus.” Grün and Stern also formulated their theories about the same time. The publication of the Révolte by Reclus and Kropotkin was immediately followed by frightful acts committed by avowed anarchists, both in Europe and Amenca, not only the assassination of rulers—the murder of McKinley is an instance—but the throwing of bombs in legislative halls, the wrecking of churches, the killing of the police, as in Chicago, etc. This was the propaganda by acts which had been advocated by Bakounin; but both Reclus and Kropotkin protested that their conception of anarchy did not contemplate such excesses. Whether they spoke the truth or feared public execration must be left to each one to judge. It was only after the attempted assassination of the Emperor William, in 1878, that the German Socialists, Bebel and Liebknecht, declared against anarchy. In France, at the present time, the party that has not only suppressed the Church, but is clamouring for the suppression of the army and preaching revolt to the soldiers, ridiculing the idea of patriotism and demanding the abolition of national frontiers, are anarchists, but at the same time they seem to affiliate with the Socialist party now in control of the Government. Whether it is sympathy or a design to let anarchy do the work of destruction on which socialism is to build up its future State, is not a subject of controversy, at least among conservative Frenchmen. It is in France that anarchy at the present time is showing its hand, and exercising the greatest power, though it is not known by its distinctive name. But as a matter of fact, where socialism professes atheism it is already anarchy.

Thus far the anarchists seem to have no central organization; but they publish 14 papers in French, though not all of them are printed in France; 2 in English, one in London, and the other in New York; 3 in German; 10 in Italian; 4 in Spanish; 1 in Hebrew; 2 in Portuguese and Bohemian; 1 in Dutch. As there is no compact organization, and as their principles are often admitted by those who are not avowed anarchists, it is next to impossible to form an exact idea of their actual numbers.

The root of all this evil is the apostasy from Christianity, so marked in some countries, and the acceptance, or influence, of atheism. Once given that there is no God, it immediately becomes unjust and impossible for anyone to exact obedience and submission from anyone else. If there is no God, there can be no master. The anarchist conclusion is logical. Likewise, all the commandments of God are necessarily abrogated, and the claim that a man has a right to satisfy all his propensities and passions stands justified. There can be no family, no State, no Church, no society of any kind. The individual is to be the centre and determining power of everything, and it is their cult of the individual, originating in the egoism of the philosophy of Hegel, and perhaps culminating in Nietzsche, with his atrocious “superman,” which has been the means of accelerating the spread of anarchical doctrines. The distorted conceptions of liberty of thought, liberty of the press, liberty of speech, liberty of conscience, which are claimed as rights, and are regarded as essential in modern civilization, no matter to what extravagance they may be carried—even to the propagation of the most revolutionary and immoral doctrines—have magnified the importance and sacredness of the individual until he has become a law unto himself in ethics and religion, and is practically persuaded of his absolute independence of his Creator in his conduct of life. In much of the literature of the day there exists almost an idolatry of human power, no matter with how much crime it is associated. Again, the method of education in some countries, which absolutely debars even the mention of the name of God from the schools, and which admits no religious instruction, or only an ethical code without sanction or authority, could not fail to develop a generation of anarchists. Their fathers have some memories of religion and a sense of obligation clinging to them; the rising generation will have none. Finally, the excessive accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few by supposedly dishonest methods, and its alleged use in corrupting legislatures to perpetuate abuses, furnish material for unprincipled demagogues to arouse the worst passions of the multitude. Moreover, even if the condition of the poor is not as bad as formerly, the contrast with the luxury of the rich is sufficient to excite cupidity and anger, while the absence of religious motives makes poverty and suffering not only insupportable, but, in the eyes of the victims, unnecessary and unjust.

The theory of anarchy is against all reason. Apart from the fact that it runs counter to some of the most cherished instincts of humanity, as, for instance, family life and love of country, it is evident that society without authority could not stand for a moment. Men whose only purpose would be to satisfy all their inclinations are by the very fact on the level of the animal creation. The methods they already employ in the prosecution of their designs show how the animal instincts quickly assert themselves. The only remedy of the disorder is evidently a return to right reason and the practice of religion; and, as a protection for the future, the inculcation of Christian morality in the education of youth.

BAKOUNIN, Dieu et l’état (Paris, 1895); PROUDHON, Œuvres (Paris, 1851); HERZEN, De l’autre rive; TCHEMCHEWSKY, L’économie politique jugée par la science; ELISÉE RECLUS, Evolution et Revolution (Paris, 1891); SPENCER, The Individual vs. the State; EMILE GAUTIER, Propos anarchistes; Heures de travail; KROPOTKIN, Aux jeunes gens; Parole d’un révolté; TUCKER, Instead of a Book (New York, 1893); ELY, The Labor Movement in America (London, 1890); KERKUP, A History of Socialism (London, 1892); Revue des Deux Mondes (Nov. 15, 1893).

T. J. CAMPBELL.

St. Anastasia

This martyr enjoys the distinction, unique in the Roman liturgy, of having a special commemoration in the second Mass on Christmas day. This Mass was originally celebrated not in honour of the birth of Christ, but in commemoration of this martyr, and towards the end of the fifth century her name was also inserted in the Roman canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, she is not a Roman saint, for she suffered martyrdom at Sirmium, and was not venerated at Rome until almost the end of the fifth century. It is true that a later legend, not earlier than the sixth century, makes Anastasia a Roman, though even in this legend she did not suffer martyrdom at Rome. The same legend connects her name with that of St. Chrysogonus, likewise not a Roman martyr, but put to death in Aquileia, though he had a church in Rome dedicated to his honour. According to this “Passio,” Anastasia was the daughter of Praetextatus, a Roman vir illustris, and had Chrysogonus for a teacher. Early in the persecution of Diocletian the Emperor summoned Chrysogonus to Aquileia where he suffered martyrdom. Anastasia, having gone from Aquileia to Sirmium to visit the faithful of that place, was beheaded on the island of Palmaria, 25 December, and her body interred in the house of Apollonia, which had been converted into a basilica. The whole account is purely legendary, and rests on no historical foundations. All that is certain is that a martyr named Anastasia gave her life for the faith in Sirmium, and that her memory was kept sacred in that church. The so-called “Martyrologium Sieronymianum” (ed. De Rossi and Duchesne, Acta SS., 2 November) records her name on 25 December, not for Sirmium alone, but also for Constantinople, a circumstance based on a separate story. According to Theodorus Lector (Hist. Eccles., II, 65), during the patriarchate of Gennadius (458–471) the body of the martyr was transferred to Constantinople and interred in a church which had hitherto been known as “Anastasis” (Gr. Anastasis, Resurrection); thenceforth the church took the name of Anastasia. Similarly the cultus of St. Anastasia was introduced into Roman from Sirmium by means of an already existing church. As this church was already quite famous, it brought the feast of the saint into especial prominence. There existed in Rome from the fourth century, at the foot of the Palatine and above the Circus Maximus, a church which had been adorned by Pope Damasus (366–384) with a large mosaic. It was known as “titulus Anastasix,” and is mentioned as such in the Acts of the Roman Council of 499. There is some uncertainty as to the origin of this name; either the church owes its foundation to and was named after a Roman matron Anastasia, as in the case of several other titular churches of Rome (Duchesne), or it was originally an “Anastasis” church (dedicated to the Resurrection of Christ), such as existed already at Ravenna and Constantinople; from the word “Anastasis” came eventually the name “titulus Anastasix” (Grisar). Whatever way this happened, the church was an especially prominent one from the fourth to the sixth century, being the only titular church in the centre of ancient Rome, and surrounded by the monuments of the city’s pagan past. Within its jurisdiction was the Palatine where the imperial court was located. Since the veneration of the Sirmian martyr, Anastasia, received a new impetus in Constantinople during the second half of the fifth century, we may easily infer that the intimate contemporary relations between Old and New Rome brought about an increase in devotion to St. Anastasia at the foot of the Palatine. At all events the insertion of her name into the Roman Canon of the Mass towards the end of the fifth century, show that she then occupied a unique position among the saints publicly venerated at Rome. Thenceforth the church on the Palatine is known as “titulus sanctx Anastasix,” and the martyr of Sirmium became the titular saint of the old fourth-century basilica. Evidently because of its position as titular church of the district including the imperial dwellings on the Palatine this church long maintained an eminent rank among the churches of Rome; only two churches preceded it in honour: St. John Lateran, the mother-church of Rome, and St. Mary Major. This ancient sanctuary stands today quite isolated amid the ruins of Rome. The commemoration of St. Anastasia in the second Mass on Christmas day is the last remnant of the former prominence enjoyed by this saint and her church in the life of Christian Rome.

J.P. KIRSCH

Anastasiopolis

Name of four ancient episcopal sees located respectively in Galatia (suffragan of Ancyra), in Phrygia (suffragan of Laodicea), in Caria, and in Thraco (Gams,( 441, 446, 448).

MAS LATRIE, Trésor de chronol. (Paris, 1895), 1985: LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ. (1740) I, 485–486, 824–825, 913–914.

St. Anastasius (1)

Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 559, distinguished for his learning and austerity of life, excited the enmity of the Emperor Justinian by opposing certain imperial doctrines about the Body of Christ. He was to he deposed from his see and exiled, when Justinian died; but Justin II carried out his uncles purpose five years later, and another bishop, named Gregory, was put in his place; on the death of that prelate in 593, Anastasius was restored to his see. This was chiefly due to Pope Gregory the Great, who interceded with the Emperor Maurice and his son Theodosius, asking that Anastasius be sent to Rome, if not reinstated at Antioch. From some letters sent to him by Gregory, it is thought that he was not sufficiently vigorous in denouncing the claims of the Patriarch of Constantinople to be universal bishop. He died in 598, and another bishop of the same name is said to have succeeded him in 599, to whom the translation Gregory’s “Regula Pastoralis” is attributed, and who is recorded as having been put to death in an insurrection of the Jews. Nicephorus (Hist. Eccl., XVIII, xliv) (declares that these two are one and the same person. The same difficulty occurs with regard to certain Sermons de orthodoxâ fide, some ascribing them to the latter Anastasius; others claiming that there was but one bishop of that name.

Acta, SS., 21 April; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 21 April; MICHAUD, Biog. Univ.; Venables in Dict. Christ. Biog.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Pope St. Anastasius I

A pontiff who is remembered chiefly for his condemnation of Origenism. A Roman by birth, he became pope in 399, and died within a little less than four years. Among his friends were Augustine, and Jerome, and Paulinus, Jerome speaks of him as a man or great holiness who was rich in his poverty. It was during the time of the barbarian invasions.

Acta SS., III, September; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints. 27 September.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Pope Anastasius II

A native of Rome, elected 24 Nov., 496; d. 16 Nov., 498. His congratulatory letter to Clovis , on the occasion of the latter’s conversion is now deemed a forgery of the seventeenth century (J. Kavet, Bibl. de 1ec. des Chartres, 1885, XLVI, 258–59). He insisted in the removal from the diptychs of the name of Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople, but recognized the validity of his sacramental acts, an attitude that displeased the Romans. He also condemned Traducianisin.

P.L., CXXVIII, 439–450; Lib. Pont. (ed. DUCHESNE), I, 258; HEMMER in Dict. de Theol. Cath., I, 1163–64; THIEL, Epist.Rom. Pont. (1868), II, 82–85, 614–15.

Pope Anastasius III

The one hundred and twenty-third occupant of the Holy See, elected September, 911; d. November, 913. He was a Roman, being the son of a certain Lucian. His reign was marked with moderation, but beyond this history gives no details of his life, except that he was active in determining the ecclesiastical divisions of Germany. He succeeded Sergius III (904–911), and reigned, at most, about two years and two months.

P.L., CXXXI, 1181; JAFFÉ, Regesta Pont. Rom. I, 448: II, 706; HOEFER, Biogr. Univ., I, 477.

Pope Anastasius IV

Crowned 12 July, 1153; d. in Rome, 3 December of the following year. It was during his pontificate and owing to his exertions that the Pantheon was restored. He also granted special privileges to the Order of the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem. He is chiefly known for his attitude towards Frederick Barbarossa and recognition of Wichmann as Bishop of Magdeburg by which he terminated an ecclesiastical quarrel. His extant works consist of some letters and a treatise on the Trinity.

P.L., CLXXXVIII, 985; JAFFÉ, RR. PP., II, 89–102; 719–201, 759; WATTERICH, Pont. Rom. Vitæ (1862), II, 321, 322.

St. Anastasius (2)

St. Anastasius, once a magician, became a convert of the Holy Cross and was martyred in 628. He was a soldier in the army of Chosroes when that monarch carried the Cross from Jerusalem to Persia. The occasion prompted him to ask for information; then he left the army, became a Christian, and afterwards a monk in Jerusalem. His Persian name, Magundat, he changed to Anastasius. After seven years of the most exact monastic observance, he was moved, as he thought, by the Holy Ghost to go in quest of martyrdom and went to Cæsarea, then subject to the Persians. Reproaching his countrymen for their magic and fireworship, both of which he had once practised, he was taken prisoner, cruelly tortured to make him abjure, amid finally carried down near the Euphrates, to a place called Barsaloe, or Bethsaloe, according to the Bollandists, where his sufferings were renewed while at the same time the highest honours in the service of King Chosroes were promised him if he would renounce Christianity. Finally, with seventy others, he was strangled to death and decapitated, 22 January, 628. His body, which was thrown to the dogs, but was left untouched by them, was carried thence to Palestine, afterwards to Constantinople, and finally to Rome.

Acta SS., 3 Jan.; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 22 Jan.

T. J. CAMPBELL

St. Anastasius Sinaita

A Greek ecclesiastical writer, b. at Alexandria in the first half of the seventh century; d. after 700. He was abbot of the monastery of Mt. Sinai, and so active an opponent of the Monophysites, Monothelites, and Jews that he was known as “the new Moses “. His principal work is the “Hodegos” (Hodegos), or “Guide,” written in defence of the Catholic Faith against the attacks of the aforementioned heretics. It was a popular manual of controversy among the medieval Greeks. The (154) “Questions and Answers on Various Theological matters” attributed to him are in part spurious. He also wrote a “Devout Introduction to the Hexaemeron” in twelve books, the first eleven of which have reached us only in a Latin translation. These and other minor writings are found in Migne (P.G. LXXXIX). Le Quien attributed to him, without sufficient reason, the “Antiquorum Patrum Doctrina de Verbi Dei Incarnatione.”

BARDENHEWER, Patrologie (1902), 512, 48; KUMPFMÜLLER, De Anastasio Sinaitâ (Würzburg, 1805); KRUMBACHER, Gesch. d. byz. Lit. (2d ed.), p. 64.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Anathema

(Gr. anathema—literally, placed on high, suspended, set aside).

A term formerly indicating offerings made to the divinity which were suspended from the roof or walls of temples for the purpose of being exposed to view. Thus anathema according to its etymology signifies a thing offered to God. The word anathema is sometimes used in this sense in the Old and New Testaments: In Judith, xvi, 23, it is said that Judith, having taken all the arms of Holofernes which the people had given him and the curtain of his bed which she herself had brought, offered them to the Lord as an anathema of oblivion. In II Mach., ix, 16, Antiochus promises to adorn with precious gifts (anathemata) the temple he has pillaged; and in Luke, xxi, 5, mention is made of the temple built of precious stones and adorned with rich gifts (anathemata). As odious objects were also exposed to view, e.g. the head of a criminal or of an enemy, or his arms or spoils, the word anathema came to signify a thing hated, or execrable, devoted to public abhorrence or destruction. “To understand the word anathema,” says Vigouroux, “we should first go back to the real meaning of herem of which it is the equivalent. Herem comes from the word haram, to cut off, to separate, to curse, and indicates that which is cursed and condemned to be cut off or exterminated, whether a person or a thing, and in consequence, that which man is forbidden to make use of.” This is the sense of anathema in the following passage from Deut., vii, 26: “Neither shalt thou bring anything of the idol into thy house, lest thou become an anathema like it. Thou shalt detest it as dung, and shalt utterly abhor it as uncleanness and filth, because it is an anathema.” Nations, individuals, animals, and inanimate objects may become anathema, i.e. cursed and devoted to destruction. It was thus that the people inhabiting the Promised Land were anathematized as Moses says (Deut., vii, 1, 2): “When . . . the Lord thy God shall have delivered them to thee, thou shalt utterly destroy them.” When a people was anathematized by the Lord, they were to be entirely exterminated. Saul was rejected by God for having spared Agag, King of the Amalecites, amid the greater part of the booty (I K. xv, 9–23). Anyone who spared anything belonging to a man who had been declared anathema, became himself anathema. There is the story of Achan who had charge of the spoils of Jericho;: “The anathema is in the midst of thee, O Israel: thou canst not stand before thy enemies till he be destroyed out of thee that is defiled with this wickedness.” Achan, with his family amid herds, was stoned to death. Sometimes it is cities that are anathematized. When the anathema is rigorous all the inhabitants are to be exterminated, the city burned, and permission denied ever to rebuild it, and its riches offered to Jehovah. This was the fate of Jericho (Jos., vi, 17). If it is less strict, all the inhabitants are to be put to death, but the herds may be divided among the victors (Jos., viii, 27). The obligation of killing all inhabitants occasionally admits of exceptions in the case of young girls who remain captives in the hands of the conquerors (Num., xxxi, 18). The severity of the anathema in the Old Testament is explained by the necessity there was of preserving the Jewish people and protecting them against the idolatry professed by the neighbouring pagans.

In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful. St. Paul frequently uses this word in the latter sense. In the Epistle to the Romans (ix, 3) he says: “For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh,” i.e. “I should wish to be separated and rejected of Christ, if by that means I would procure the salvation of my brethren.” And again, using the word in the same sense, he says (Gal. i, 9): “If any one preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.” But he who is separated from God is united to the devil, which explains why St. Paul, instead of anathematizing, sometimes delivers a person over to Satan (I Tim., i, 20; I Cor., v, 5). Anathema signifies also to be overwhelmed with maledictions, as in I Cor., xvi, 22: “If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.” At an early date the Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. All the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: “If any one says . . . let him be anathema.” Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two. A Council of Tours desires that after three warnings there be recited in chorus Psalm cviii against the usurper of the goods of the Church, that he may fall into the curse of Judas, and “that he may be not only excommunicated, but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven.” This distinction was introduced into the canons of the Church, as is proved by the letter of John VIII (872–82) found in the Decree of Gratian, (c. III, q. V, c. XII): “Know that Engeltrude is not only under the ban of excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church.” This distinction is found in the earliest Decretals, in the chapter Cum non ab homine. In the same chapter, the tenth of Decretals II, tit. i, Celestine III (1191–98), speaking of the measures it is necessary to take in proceeding against a cleric guilty of theft, homocide, perjury, or other crimes, says: “If, after having been deposed from office, he is incorrigible, he should first be excommunicated; but if he perseveres in his contumacy he should be stricken with the sword of anathema; but if plunging to the depths of the abyss, he reaches the point where he despises these penalties, he should be given over to the secular arm.” At a late period, Gregory IX (1227–41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication.

Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. A formula for this ceremony was drawn up by Pope Zachary (741–52) in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii. The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope. In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: “Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N—himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.” Whereupon all the assistants respond: “Fiat, fiat, fiat.” The pontiff and the twelve priests then cast to the ground the lighted candles they have been carrying, and notice is sent in writing to the priests and neighbouring bishops of the name of the one who has been excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication, in order that they may have no communication with him. Although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, he can still, and is even bound to repent. The Pontifical gives the form for absolving him and reconciling him with the Church. The promulgation of the anathema with such solemnity is well calculated to strike terror to the criminal and bring him to a state of repentance, especially if the Church adds to it the ceremony of the Maranatha.

At the end of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, xvi, 22, St. Paul says, “If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha,” which means, “The Lord is come.” But commentators have regarded this expression as a formula of excommunication very severe among the Jews. This opinion, however, is not sustained by Vigouroux, “Dict. de la Bible” (s.v. Anathème). In the Western Church, Maranatha has become a very solemn formula as anathema, by which the criminal is excommunicated, abandoned to the judgment of God, and rejected from the bosom of the Church until the coming of the Lord. An example of such an anathema is found in these words of Pope Silverius (536–38): “If anyone henceforth deceives a bishop in such a manner, let him be anathema maranatha before God and his holy angels.” Benedict XIV (1740–58—De Synodo dioecesana X, i) cites the anathema maranatha formulated by the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Toledo against those who were guilty of the crime of high treason: “He who dares to despise our decision, let him be stricken with anathema maranatha, i.e. may he be damned at the coming of the Lord, may he have his place with Judas Iscariot, he and his companions. Amen.” There is frequent mention of this anathema maranatha in the Bulls of erection for abbeys and other establishments. Still the anathema maranatha is a censure from which the criminal may be absolved; although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, the Church, in virtue of the Power of the Keys, can receive him once more into the communion of the faithful. More than that, it is with this purpose in view that she takes such rigorous measures against him, in order that by the mortification of his body his soul may be saved on the last day. The Church, animated by the spirit of God, does not wish the death of the sinner, but rather that he be converted and live. This explains why the most severe and terrifying formulas of excommunication, containing all the rigours of the Maranatha have, as a rule, clauses like this: Unless he becomes repentant, or gives satisfaction, or is corrected.

VIGOUROUX in Dict. de la Bible, s.v. Anethème; VACANT in Dict. de théol. cath., s.v. Anathème; VON SCHERER in Kirchenlex., 2d ed., I, 794–798; BENEDICT XIV, De Synodo Dioecesanâ, x, i.

JOSEPH N. GIGNAC

Anathoth

Possibly plural of Anath, a feminine Chaldean deity, worshipped in Chanaan [Enc. Bib. s. v. Anath; Lagrange, “Juges” (Paris, 1903), 62–63].

(1) Anathoth is identified with Anata, about two and a half miles north—east of Jerusalem, and everything favours that identification; around Anata are found the names of the villages mentioned in Isaias, x, 28. From its height (2235 ft.), Anata, which seems to have been fortified in the past, commands a fine but desolate view east and south-east the north end of the Dead Sea and the Lower Jordan are visible across the hills of the wilderness. Between Jerusalem and Anata rise the heights of the Scarus (Mesarif), where Titus and his legions encamped when besieging Jerusalem. On those heights is built the village of El ‘Tsawiyeh (2390 ft.), perhaps the Laisa mentioned with Anathoth in Isaias, x, 30 (Buhl, Geographic des alten Palästina, 175). Anathoth is reckoned among the Levitical cities of Benjamin (Jos., xxi, 18; I Par., vi, 60). Abiezer, one of Davids valiant men was from that city (II K., xxiii, 27), which had also given to David one of his first followers in the person of Jehu (I Par., xii, 3). There Abiathar the priest, had lands, to which he was banished by Solomon, suspicious of the understanding between his brother Adonias and Abiathar (III K., ii, 26). One hundred and twenty eight men of Anathoth returned from Babylon, according to the list in I Esd. (Ezra), ii, 23 and II Esdr. (Neh.), vii, 27. But its chief interest lies in the fact that it was the home of Jeremias family (Jer., i, 1; xxix, 27; xxxii, 7–9). But there he also, “the . . . of the incomparable One,” experienced that “no prophet is accepted in his own country” (Jer., xi, 21–23).

(2) One of the sons of Bechor (Becher in the genealogy of Benjamin) I Par., vii, 8.

(3) One of the subscribers to the covenant [II Esd. (Neh.), x, 19].

CHEYNE, Jeremiah, his Life and Times (1888), 21–22; BUHL, Geographie des alten Palästina (1896), 175; SMITH, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land, (12th ed. New York, 1906), 253, n. 4; a 315, sqq.; BÆDEKER-BENZIGER, Palästina und Syrien, (6th ed. Leipzig, 1904), 88.

EDWARD ARBEZ

St. Anatolia

St. Anatolia, Virgin and Martyr in the time of Decius, was put to death in the city of Thyrum, or Thurium, or Thora. About the identity of the place there is considerable discussion among the critics. She was living in retirement with her sister when the persecution was raging, and was sought in marriage by a youth named Aurelius, That she was actually espoused, the Bollandists doubt. . On the point of yielding because of the solicitations of her sister Victoria, she was strengthened by the vision of an angel. Banished to Thora she was denounced as a Christian. The executioner Audax shut her up in a room with a venomous serpent, but seeing that no harm was clone to her he himself professed the faith and died a martyr. Anatolia was put to death by the sword. Her feast is kept 9 July.

Acta SS., July, II.

T.J. CAMPBELL

St. Anatolius (1

Bishop of Laodicea in Syria, one of the foremost scholars of his day in the physical sciences and in Aristotelean philosophy. There are fragments of ten books on arithmetic written by him, and also a treatise on time of the Paschal celebration. A very curious story is told by Eusebius of the way in which Anatolius broke up a rebellion in a part of Alexandria known as time Bruchium. It was held by the forces of Zenobia, and being strictly beleaguered by the Romans was in a state of starvation. The saint, who was living in the Bruchium at the time, made arrangements with the besiegers to receive all the women and children, as well as the old and infirm, continuing at the same time to let as many as wished profit by the means of escaping. It broke up the defence and the rebels surrendered. It was a patriotic action on the part of the saint, as well as one of great benevolence, in saving so many innocent victims from death. In going to Laodicea he was seized by the people and made bishop. Whether his friend Eusebius had died, or whether they both occupied the see together, is a matter of much discussion. The question is treated at length in the Bollandists. His feast, like that of his namesake the Patriarch of Constantinople, is kept on 3 July.

Acta SS., I, July; MICHAUD, Biog. Univ.; BARING-GOULD, Lives of the Saints (London, 1872).

T.J. CAMPBELL

St. Anatolius (2)

Patriarch of Constantinople in the time of Theodosius the Younger. The heretic Dioscurus had favoured his appointment as patriarch, hoping for his support, but he found in Anatolius a determined enemy, who in the Council of Chalcedon condemned him and his followers. How he died is disputed, but it would appear that the heretics put him to death. Baronius says this occurred in 458 after eight years in the patriarchate. The great annalist condemns him in a somewhat violent manner, for conniving with Dioscurus for his appointment, to the see; for demanding in contravention of the statutes of Nicæa, the supremacy of Constantinople over Antioch and Alexandria; for insincerity in opposing a new formula of doctrine; for declaring that Dioscurus was not condemned at Ephesus, on account of the faith; for removing the meritorious Ætius from time archidiaconate, and naming the unworthy Andrew; for weakness, if not connivance in dealing with the heretics. All of these serious accusations are discussed by the Bollandists, who give a verdict in favour of Anatolius. He is held by them to be a true Catholic, a saint, and a prophet. The Pope blamed him, not for error but because he permitted himself to be consecrated by a schismatic. One enthusiastic biographer narrates that his miracles amid his combats equal in number the sands of the sea. He was born at Alexandria, and before becoming patriarch distinguishment himself at Ephesus against Nestorius, and at Constantinople against Eutyches, though the profession of faith which he drew up was rejected by time papal legates. When he was in danger of death me was restored to health by St. . Daniel the Stylite, who came to Constantinople to see him. His feast is kept 3 July.

Acta SS. 3 July; SMITH in Dict. of Christ. Biog.; HERGENRÖTHER, Hist. de l’ église, II.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Anatomy

(Gr., anatome).

Literally, cutting up, or dissection; now used to signify the science of the form and structure of living beings. It is a department of biology that is divided into animal and vegetable anatomy. Animal anatomy is further divided into comparative anatomy, that is, the study of different animals for purposes of comparison, and special anatomy which studies the form and structure of a single animal. This last embraces the departments of embryology, the study of the formation of living beings, and morphology, the study of the form and structure. Further important divisions are: physiological anatomy, the study of parts in relation to their functions; surgical or topographical anatomy which considers the relations of different parts, and pathological anatomy which treats of the changes brought on by disease, in various organs or tissues.

HISTORY: GREEK AND LATIN PERIOD

Anatomical knowledge had its beginnings very early in the history of the race. Animal sacrifices led to a knowledge of animal anatomy which was readily applied to man. The art of embalming also necessitated a knowledge of the position of blood vessels and certain organic relations. Even Homer used many terms which indicate a much deeper knowledge of human structures than might be expected thus early. The first real development of anatomy as a science, however, did not come until the time of Hippocrates of Cos, about 400 B.C. The Grecian Father of Medicine knew the bones well, probably because of the ready opportunities for their study to be found in tombs, but did not know the distinction between veins and arteries, and uses the term artiria in reference to the trachea. He used the term nerve to signify a sinew or tendon. Until the time of Aristotle, about 330 B.C., no additions were made to anatomical knowledge. There seems to be no doubt that this Grecian philosopher frequently dissected animals. His description of the aorta and its branches is surprisingly correct. This is the first time in the history of anatomy that the word aorta, Greek aorti, a knapsack, was used. His knowledge of the nerves was almost as little as that of Hippocrates, but he was thoroughly familiar with the internal viscera, and he distinguishes the jejunum or empty portion of the small intestine; the cæcum, or blind gut, so called because it is a sort of cul-de-sac; the colon, and the sigmoid flexure. The word rectum is the literal translation of his description of the straight process of the bowel to the anus. A contemporary of Aristotle, Praxagoras of Cos, was the first who distinguished the arteries from the veins and spoke of the former as air vessels because after death they always contained only air.

All of this knowledge had been gained from dissections of animals. It was at Alexandria in the beginning of the third century before Christ that two Greek philosophers, Herophilus and Erasistratus, made the first dissections of the human body. None of their writings have come down to us. We know what they discovered, however, from the references to them made by Galen, Oribasius, and other medical writers. Erasistratus discovered the heart valves and called them, from their forms, sigmoid and tricuspid. He studied the convolutions of the brain and recognized the nature of nerves which he described as coming from the brain. He seems even to have appreciated the difference between nerves of motion and sensation. There is a claim that he discovered the lymph vessels in the mesentery also. Herophilus applied the name of twelve inch portion of the intestine to the part which has since been called the duodenum. He described the straight venous sinus within the skull which is still sometimes called by his name. He is also said to have given the name of calamus scriptorius to the linear furrow at the lower part of the fourth ventricle.

Nearly three hundred years passed before another great name in anatomy occurred, namely, that of Celsus, who saw the difference between the trachea and the esophagus, described the size, positions, and relations of the diaphragm as well as the relations of the various organs to one another, and added much to the knowledge of the lungs and the heart. He knew most of the minute points in osteology with almost modern thoroughness. The sutures and most of the foramina of the skull and the upper and lower jaw-bones with the teeth, he describes very perfectly. He mentions many small holes in the nasal cavities and evidently knew the ethmoid bone. He even seemed to have distinguished the semi-circular canals of the car. After Celsus, who lived during the half-century before Christ, the next important name is that of Galen, who was born about A.D. 130. Galen was not only an investigator but a collator of all the medical knowledge down to his time. His work was destined to rule anatomical science down to Vesalius and even beyond it, that is, for nearly fourteen hundred years. Galen’s osteology is almost perfect. His knowledge of muscles was more incomplete, but it was far beyond that of any of his predecessors. He did not add much to the previous knowledge with regard to blood vessels, though he made the cardinal demonstration that in living animals arteries contained not air but blood. His description of the veins and arteries, however, is rather confused and here his knowledge is most imperfect. His additions to the knowledge of the nervous system are very important. He described the falx and exposed by successive sections the ventricles and the choroid plexus. In general, his description of the gross anatomy of the brain is quite advanced.

MEDIEVAL PERIOD

With the fall of the Roman Empire and the incursions of the barbarians there came an end for at least five or six centuries to all anatomical study. The first signs of a reawakening of interest in anatomy after this long sleep showed themselves at the famous medical school at Salernum. There is no doubt that even during the tenth century Salernum had a reputation as the best place for invalids with ailments that could not be cured elsewhere. Many of the distinguished nobility and members of reigning families found their way down to this little town and its reputation soon attracted medical students. There is a tradition connecting the rise of the school at Salernum with the Benedictine monks whose great monastery of Monte Cassino was not far away. Definite details are, however, lacking. In the eleventh century the medical courses at Salernum began to be regularly organized. At the beginning of the twelfth century regulations for the first State examinations in medicine were made. Anatomy was a required subject, but was studied by means of the pig which was thought to be closely related to man in anatomical structure. Curiously enough this animal is now reassuming a place in medicine as a favourite subject for research and instruction in embryology.

About the middle of the thirteenth century Frederick II made it a rule that the students at Salernum should be present at one human dissection at least each year. About this time the other rising universities of Europe took up the serious study of anatomy and proved successful rivals to Salernum. Montpellier was one of the earliest to make a name for itself, but both Paris and Bologna were not far behind. At Paris before the end of the thirteenth century the famous Hermondaville was giving a series of demonstrations on human cadavers that attracted students from all over Europe, and William of Salicet, at Bologna, attracted quite as much attention. There appears to be no doubt that he made many human dissections, and there is a definite tradition of his having made a medico-legal autopsy on the body of a nobleman in order to determine whether death was due to poisoning. This fact of itself would seem to show that this was not an unusual procedure, since if William were not accustomed to seeing. bodies dissected frequently he would scarcely be trusted as an expert in determining the presence or absence of poison.

It is very commonly accepted that there was an interruption in the development of anatomical knowledge about the beginning of the fourteenth century because of a papal decree forbidding dissection. The statement that such a decree was promulgated is to be found in nearly every history of medicine published in English, and has been made much of in books on the supposed opposition of science and religion. There was no such decree, however, and the declaration that the development of anatomy was interfered with by the ecclesiastical authorities is founded on nothing more substantial than a misunderstanding of the purport of a decree of Pope Boniface VIII. In the year 1300 this Pope issued the Bull “De Sepulturis.” The title of the Bull runs as follows: “Persons cutting up the bodies of the dead, barbarously cooking them in order that the bones being separated from the flesh may be carried for burial into their own countries are by the very fact excommunicated.” The only possible explanation of the misunderstanding that the Bull forbade dissection is that some one read only the first part of the title and considered that as one of the methods of preparing bones for study in anatomy was by boiling them in order to be able to remove the flesh from them easily, that this decree forbade such practices thereafter.

The first authoritative history in which this interpretation of the Bull appeared was the “Histoire littéraire de la France,” a work originally issued by the Benedictines of Saint-Maur, but continued by the members of the Institute of France, and it is in one of the volumes of the continuation that the declaration with regard to the interruption of anatomical studies by dissection is made. Not only the Bull itself did not forbid dissection, but a review of the history of anatomy just after its issuance shows that it was not misinterpreted so as to hamper anatomical progress. Within the decade after the date of the Bull, Mondino began to perform at Bologna the series of public dissections of human bodies on which was founded his text-book of anatomy. This was to be the authority on this subject for the next two centuries in Europe. It is sometimes said that Mondino dissected only a few bodies, but Guy de Chauliac, himself a distinguished anatomist later in the fourteenth century, declares that Mondino dissected human bodies a number of times (multoties is his word). In 1319 there is the record of a criminal prosecution for body-snatching at Bologna, and it is clear that a number of such events had happened before the criminal courts were appealed to in the matter. At this time, according to the statutes of the university, teachers of anatomy were bound to make a dissection if the students supplied the body. De Renzi says there was a rage for dissection at this period and many bodies were yearly stolen for the purpose. In Venice where there was no medical school the authorities, in 1308, ordained that one dissection every year should be made for the benefit of physicians of the city. In Bologna a regular allowance of wine was made by the municipality to the students and others who should be present at dissections, and every student was required to see at least one dissection of a human body during his medical course. Twenty students were to be present at the dissection of male, and thirty at that of female subjects, these being rarer, and manifestly a good opportunity for personal inspection was provided.

Hæser in his “History of Medicine” says that it is an error to think that Boniface’s Bull forbade dissection since the practice was carried on without let or hindrance under ecclesiastical authorities who universally presided over the universities of that day. Hæser quotes Corradi who, in his sketch of the teaching of anatomy in Italy during the Middle Ages, also denies that the Bull of the pope mentioned hampered the progress of anatomical study or teaching in any way. Pagel in his sketch of the history of medicine at the end of the Middle Ages says that Bertucci who died in 1347, and Argelata who died towards the end of the fourteenth century, were both in a position to make public demonstrations in dissection because of the example that had been sat by Mondino. They also performed regular dissections for purposes of investigation and used human cadavers rather than the bodies of animals as had been the case before Guy de Chauliac, the father of modern surgery, attended the dissections at Bologna at the beginning of the fourteenth century and on his return to the south of France encouraged the practice there. He was the surgeon to three popes during the time the popes were at Avignon, yet in his book, written while he was a member of the papal household, he insists on the necessity for the dissection of human bodies if any definite progress in surgery is to be made, and he proposed to have the bodies of executed criminals given over to medical schools and physicians for this purpose. This fact alone would seem to decide definitely that there was no papal regulation, real or supposed, forbidding the practice of human dissection at this time. Baas in his “Outlines of the History of Medicine” shows that dissections were not unusual in Italy, and were also known at other European universities. The bodies of criminals who had been executed were used for this purpose at Prague and also at Montpellier.

Just before the beginning of the sixteenth century there are two names worth mentioning in the history of anatomy. They are those of Zerbi, who traced the olfactory nerves and recognized their function, and of Achilini, who first described the small bones of the ear, mentioned the orifices of Wharton’s ducts, and described somewhat in detail the ileocæcal valve and other hitherto not well-known portions of the intestines. Another distinguished name is that of Berenger of Carpi, who did most of his work at Bologna at the beginning of the sixteenth century. He declared that he had dissected more than one hundred human bodies. In Berenger is to be found the first hint of modern anatomy. His commentaries on Mondino’s work show how much he added to that teacher’s instruction. He was the first to mention the appendix, and also to indicate the site of the opening of the common bile duct into the intestine. He added much to the knowledge previously held with regard to the organs of generation and pointed out the important distinction between male and female, that the chest has greater capacity in the former and the pelvis in the latter. He discovered the arytenoid cartilages in the larynx and gave the first good description of the thymus gland. His dissections of the eye and of the ear made anatomical knowledge of these structures, also, much more definite.

MODERN ANATOMY

The time was evidently ripe for the coming of the great father of modern anatomy, Vesalius. He was a Fleming, educated originally at the University of Louvain, where he acquired, besides his classical studies, a taste for scientific investigation. He went to Paris to study under Dubois, better known by his Latin name of Sylvius. Though the Sylvian fissure is named after him, Dubois did not accomplish very much original work. The demonstrations were always made on dogs, but Vesalius eked out his knowledge by studying human bones from the cemeteries at Paris. From Paris Vesalius went to Padua where he became professor of anatomy when only twenty-one. After teaching at Padua for some years he was invited to give courses in anatomy at Bologna which was then a papal city. After a time Pisa also called him to a professorship and he seems to have lectured successively in each of these universities for several years. At the age of twenty-eight he had completed his book “De Fabricâ Corporis Humani” which was forever to remain a classic of anatomical knowledge. There were very few portions of the human body on which Vesalius did not throw new light. His new additions to anatomical knowledge are so numerous that they cannot even be mentioned briefly here. Besides the new information he conveyed there was a still more important feature of Vesalius’s work. His methods definitely did away with the old dependence on authority in anatomy which had for so long made men cling to Galen, and prevented progress. After the preliminary opposition on the part of the over-conservative, his discoveries proved an incentive to many younger men who proceeded to carry his methods into the investigation of every part of the body. The story often repeated that he was hampered in his researches by the Inquisition and by the ecclesiastical authorities has no foundation in fact.

Contemporary with him were Eustachius, whose memory is perpetuated in the name of the Eustachian tube which he first described in detail, Fallopius, who corrected certain minor mistakes of Vesalius with regard to the bones and the muscles, but who will be known for his discovery of the uterine appendage which bears his name, and finally Columbus, who succeeded Vesalius and corrected certain details of his description of the heart and its appendages, tracing the course of the blood from the right to the left side of the heart, so that he has often been claimed as the original discoverer of the circulation of the blood. Columbus was afterwards called to Rome to be the professor of anatomy in the Papal University. Eustachius was for some years before this physician to the Pope and also a professor in this University. Italy continued to be for centuries the most fruitful field of anatomical investigation. Fallopius was succeeded by Fabricius who is perhaps best known as the professor under whom Harvey, the English discoverer of the circulation of the blood, made his anatomical studies in Italy. Harvey’s discovery was not published until 1628, though he had known it for nearly ten years before that. In the meantime Aselli at Pavia, in 1622, had described the lacteal vessels in the mesentery.

Outside of Italy the distinguished anatomists are rare. Servetus who was burnt by Calvin, in 1553, for his errors with regard to the Trinity in his book on that subject, gave an astonishingly clear description of the lesser or pulmonic circulation. This was published nearly a century before Harvey’s work on the circulation. The most important work done outside of Italy was accomplished by Steno, or Stensen, who demonstrated the duct of the parotid gland, described the lachrymal glands, and gave clear notions as to the ovaries. Besides this he demonstrated that the heart was a muscle and not the seat of the emotions that it had hitherto been considered. He became a convert to Catholicity, and eventually a Catholic bishop. Though he was a Dane his work was done in the Netherlands, the second centre of the anatomical interest in Europe. Here during the first half of the seventeenth century Bartholin, Swammerdam, and Blæs made important discoveries. Bartholin’s name is perpetuated in the glands described by him; while the latter two called attention to the existence of valves in the veins. In the second half of the century Ruysch, in Amsterdam, first employed injections for anatomical study, while Brunner and Peyer described their glands in the small intestine. Some important work was done in England in the second half of the seventeenth century. Wharton studied the glands of the mouth; Glisson studied the liver and especially the capsule which has since borne his name, and Willis, after whom the arterial circle at the base of the brain is named, made successful investigations of the brain and nerve. The main current of advance in anatomy, however, still remained in Italy. Malpighi’s work is the greatest of the century, with the possible exception of Harvey’s discovery. Malpighi described the movements of the blood corpuscles, the structure of bone and of the teeth, the Malpighian layer in the skin, and the Malpighian bodies in the spleen and kidney. He also did work in botany, in which the Englishman, Grew, was his rival. A great contemporary in microscopic work was Leeuwenhoeck, who discovered the corpuscles in milk and in blood, and also had some idea of the cellular nature of the skin.

The eighteenth century saw the rise of another great series of Italian anatomists. Four names are especially distinguished. Those of Lancisi, who combined clinical and anatomical knowledge; Valsalva, famous for his work on the ear; Santorini, who added much to our knowledge of the face and its appendages, and Morgagni whose main work was concerned with morbid anatomy, but who also added to knowledge in normal anatomy. In France, Winslow like Steno, a Dane, and like him, also, a convert to Catholicism, wrote the first treatise of descriptive anatomy founded on observation alone, and began the series of text-books which made this century famous. Haller, the first great German anatomist, flourished about the middle of this century. His contributions to anatomy, with wonderful engravings, represent a distinct advance in the methods of studying and teaching anatomy. Two distinguished contemporaries in Germany were Meckel who discovered the diverticulum and Lieberkühn after whom the glands are named. In Great Britain, the Hunters, William and John, did excellent work in this century, and Hewson contributed not a little to comparative anatomy.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century the most important name is that of Bichat, who unfortunately was cut off at the beginning of his thirties when giving promise of being the greatest anatomical genius that ever lived. In England, the Monros at Edinburgh, and Sir Charles Bell, famous for his differentiation of the nerves of motion and sensation, did excellent work. The important advances in anatomy, however, in this century were destined to be made with the microscope. Schwann discovered that all animal tissues were made of cells and thus opened up a new outlook in anatomy. Not long after, Max Schultze demonstrated that all cellular material, plant or animal, was composed of protoplasm. Following these up, Virchow, studying morbid anatomy rather than normal tissues, still did much to advance anatomical knowledge. The teacher of Schwann and Virchow, Johann Müller, though not as illustrious as either of his great disciples, is the man to whom Germany owes the introduction of methods of investigation that were to be so fruitful for the medical sciences during the next half century. Müller and Schwann were both Catholics, and Schwann continued his work in the Catholic Universities of Louvain and Liége creating special interest in anatomical studies in these places. At Louvain the biological journal of the University, La Cellule, has proved the medium for the publication of many important anatomical advances, especially, towards the end of the century, of some of the work of Ramon-y-Cajal who added so much to the knowledge of brain anatomy. There are many other names that deserve mention in the nineteenth century. Such men as Kolliker, Retzius, Henle, Corty, Deiters, Richard Owen, Goodsir, Huxley, Billroth, and Waldeyer cannot be omitted from any adequate account of this period.

ANATOMY IN AMERICA

The first courses in human anatomy in America were offered in New York City by Drs. John Bard and Peter Middleton, about 1750, and at nearly the same time by Dr. Thomas Cadwallader in Philadelphia. In 1762 Dr. Shippen gave anatomical lectures in Philadelphia, and in 1765, with Dr. John Morgan, he organized a school of medicine as a department of what is now the University of Pennsylvania. Medical schools were founded at Columbia College, New York, in 1768; at Harvard in 1783; Dartmouth, 1797; University of Maryland, 1807; Yale, 1810; Brown, 1811; Transylvania University, Lexington, Ky., 1817. Until the last quarter of the nineteenth century very little more than the training of medical students for their work as general practitioners was accomplished in the anatomical departments of American medical schools. Certain names, as those of the elder Warren, Isaac Wistar, William Homer, deserve to be mentioned.

The important names in the development of anatomy in America are concerned more with comparative than with human anatomy. Cope and Marsh, Agassiz and Leidy, made names for themselves that were known all over the world. Harrison Allen, Thomas Dwight, and Charles Minot, with J. A. Ryder represent in their various departments discoveries of no little importance. In brain anatomy there has been some excellent work from Burt Wilder, E. A. Spitzka, Llewellys Barker, and W. C. Spiller. In general, however, the period of successful investigation into anatomical problems seems to be only just opening up. Definite arrangements for the carrying on of original research are now generally recognized as necessary appendages of university anatomical departments and much can be expected in the very near future.

DUPONY, Medicine in the Middle Ages (Cinn., 1889); PUSCHMANN, History of Medical Education (London, 1891); CORRADI, Anatomia in Italia nel medio evo (Padua, 1873); Medici Scuola anatomica di Bologna (1857); FOSTER, History of Physiology (Cambridge 1901); WALSH, The Popes in the History of Medicine, in the Messenger, October, 1903; KEEN, Sketch of the Early History of Practical Anatomy (Phila., 1874); and The Philadelphia School of Anatomy (Phila., 1875); BARDEEN, Anatomy in America (Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, 1905, Madison, Wis.). See also standard Histories of Medicine by SPRENGEL, DE RENZI, DARENBERG, BASS, HÆSER, PAGEL and PUSHMAN.

THOMAS D. MERRIGAN

Anazarbus

Anazarbus, a titular metropolitan see of Cilicia (Lesser Armenia), suffragan of Antioch, known also to the ancients as Nova Troas, to the crusaders as Naversa, and to the Arabs as Aïn-Zarba. Councils were held there in 431 and 435.

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 139; LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ. (1740), III, 631–632.

Pedro de Añazco

Born at Chachapoyas (Peru) in 1550; died at Asuncion, Paraguay, 1605. His father was Pedro de Añazco, a Spanish captain, companion of Belalcazar in the conquest of Ecuador; and through him, it is said, the first notice of the “Dorado” of Guatavitá reached the Spaniards in Ecuador. At the age of twenty-two, Añazco became a Jesuit. In 1577, he was sent to Julí, on Lake Titicaca. Thence he passed to the Chaco tribe among the Abipones and, in 1593, to Paraguay, where he died. He was an indefagitable missionary and a zealous student of Indian languages. Highly respectable authorities like Gonzalez Dávila and Lozano credit him with having composed grammars, “doctrines,” and catechisms in nine different Indian languages of South America. Dávila, teatro eclesiastico de la primitiva Iglesia de las Indias occidentales (Madrid, 1649); Lozano, Descripcion del gran Chaco (Cordova, 1733); Mendiburu, Diccionario; Torres Saldamando, Antiguos Jesuitas (Lima, 1882); Relaciones geograficas de Indias (Madrid, 1897), Appendix IV, None of Añazco’s linguistic works have been published, and it is to be feared that most, if not all, his manuscripts are lost.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Joseph Anchieta

A famous Jesuit missionary, commonly known as the Apostle of Brazil, born on the Island of Tenerife, in 1553, of noble family; died in Brazil, 1596. After studying in Coimbra, he entered the Society of Jesus, at the age of seventeen, and when a novice nearly ruined his health by his excessive austerity, causing an injury to the spine which made him almost a hunchback. He was sent to the New World, with no idea of making him a missionary, but in the hope of restoring his shattered health. He reached Brazil in 1553, and laboured there among the colonists and savage natives for about forty-four years. His first work was teaching Latin to some of the junior members of the Society and to a certain number of externs. Very likely it was the first classical school in America. He was a perfect master of Latin, Castilian, and Portuguese, and quickly acquired a knowledge of the native tongue, as well as two books of religious instruction, to assist the missionaries in the work of converting the natives. He was a poet, and wrote canticles which immediately became very popular among the natives and Portuguese. To effect a reformation of morals, he composed and directed a drama which was acted in the open air at Bahia. By means of interludes in Brazilian the Indians were able to grasp its meaning. This also was possibly the first attempt at dramatic art in the New World. Though not a priest, he accompanied the missionaries on their apostolic journeys, and on one occasion remained a willing hostage among the wild Tamuins who were waging a fierce war against the settlers; twice he was on the point of being killed and eaten. During his captivity he is said to have composed a poem of nearly five thousand verses, and, as there were no means of putting it on paper, he committed it to memory and wrote it out after he returned to the colony. It was during the last military operations to suppress the Tamuin uprising that he was recalled from the expedition, and ordained a priest by Peter Leitano, the first bishop who arrived in Brazil. Apart from his supernatural gifts, he was remarkable for his captivating eloquence and gracefulness of speech. He had a fair knowledge of medicine, which he made of in helping his Indians, and he displayed an unusual skill in the details of business when, latter in life, he was called to the office of rector and provincial.

But it is chiefly as a thaumaturgus, as a daring missionary, and as a man of extraordinary holiness, that Anchieta is remembered. It is narrated of him that the birds of the forest submitted to his caresses; the waters of the sea formed a wall about him while he was praying; the touch of his garments restored health to the sick. He possessed the gift of prophecy and frequently described events that were occurring at great distances. Though constantly suffering from bodily infirmities, he undertook the most laborious missions, and thus at times seemed to have a supernatural power to do without sleep or rest. The districts which he evangelized were always the most exhausting and dangerous. His power over men, both savage and civilized, was irresistible. His prayer was constant, and he was frequently, though unaware of it himself, surrounded by a dazzling light. He was almost absolutely without any earthly possessions, and went barefooted on his apostolic expeditions. Even before he was a priest he was entrusted with entrusted with the investigation of the houses of the Society; and when he could be spared from his missions, he was made rector of the College of St. Vincent, and, subsequently, Provincial of Brazil, relinquishing this post only when his failing strength made it impossible for him to fulfill his duties. The people clamoured for his canonization, and he was declared Venerable by the Church. The process of his beatification is now being considered.

Compendio de la vida de el apóstol de el Brazil, V.P. J. de Anchieta (Xeres de la Fr., 1677) translated by Balthazar Anchieta; Simon de Vasconcelos, Vida do vener. padre J. de Anchieta (Lisbon, 1673); Life of Anchieta in Oratorian Series (London,1849); Crétineau-Jolly, Hist. of S,J., II, 119 (Paris, 1851).

T.J. CAMPBELL

Rui A.C. Costa

Anchor

The anchor, because of the great importance in navigation, was regarded in ancient times as a symbol of safety. The Christians, therefore, in adopting the anchor as a symbol of hope in future existence, merely gave a new and higher signification to a familiar emblem. In the teachings of Christianity the virtue of hope occupies a place of great importance; Christ is the unfailing hope of all who believe in Him. St. Peter, St. Paul, and several of the early Fathers speak in this sense, but the Epistle to the Hebrews for the first time connects the idea of hope with the symbol of the anchor. The writers says that we have “Hope” set before us “as an anchor of the soul, sure and firm” (Hebrews 6:19–20). The hope here spoken of is obviously not concerned with earthly, but with heavenly things, and the anchor as a Christian symbol, consequently, relates only to the hope of salvation. It ranks among the most ancient of Christian symbols. The well-known fragment of the inscription discovered in the cemetery of St. Domitilla—which De Rossi reads (sepulc)rum (Flavi)orum—contains the anchor, and dates from the end of the first century. During the second and third centuries the anchor occurs frequently in the epitaphs of the catacombs, and particularly in the most ancient parts of the cemeteries of Sts. Priscilla, Domitilla, Calixtus, and the Coemetarium majus. About seventy examples of it have been found in the cemetery of Priscilla alone, prior to the fourth century. In the oldest of these (second century) the anchor is found associated with such expressions as pax tecum, pax tibi, in pace, thus expressing the firm hope of the authors of these inscriptions that their friends have been admitted to Heaven. The anchor is also found in association with proper names formed from the Latin or the Greek term for hope—spes, elpis. St. Ambrose evidently had this symbol in mind when he wrote (In. Ep. ad Heb., vi): “As the anchor thrown from a ship prevents this from being borne about, but holds it securely, so faith, strengthened by hope,” etc.

VARIOUS FORMS OF THE ANCHOR

Different forms of the anchor appear in the epitaphs of the catacombs, the most common being that in which one extremity terminates in a ring adjoining the cross-bar while the other ends in two curved branches or an arrowhead. There are, however, many deviations from this form. IN a number of monuments of Sts. Calixtus and Priscilla the cross-bar is wanting, and in others the curved branches are replaced by a straight transversal. These departures from regularity do not appear to have any especial significance, but the cruciform anchor marks an interesting symbolic development. The rare appearance of a cross in the Christian monuments of the first four centuries is a well-known peculiarity; not more than a score of examples belong to this period. Yet, though the cross is of infrequent occurrence in its familiar form, certain monuments appear to represent it in a manner intelligible to a Christian but not to an outsider. The anchor was the symbol best adapted for this purpose, and the one most frequently employed. One of the most remarkable of these disguised crosses, from the cemetery of St. Domitilla, consists of an anchor placed upright, the transverse bar appearing just beneath the ring. To complete the symbol, two fishes are represented with the points of the curved branches in their mouths. A real cross, standing on a sort of pedestal to the right of this, is sufficient indication that the author of the figures intended a symbolic cross in this instance. Of even greater interest in this connection is the representation of a cross-anchor with two fishes suspended from the cross-beam, also found in the cemetery of St. Priscilla. There can scarcely be any doubt that the author of this and similar representations intended to produce a symbolic picture of the crucifixion: the mystic Fish (Christ) on the suggested cross (the anchor). To the same category of symbols, probably, belongs the group of representations of the dolphin and trident. The anchor as a symbol is found only rarely in monuments from the middle of the third century, and early in the fourth century it had disappeared.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Anchorites

(‘anachoréo, I withdraw), also hermits (èremîtai, desertdwellers, Lat., eremitæ).

In Christian terminology, men who have sought to triumph over the two unavoidable enemies of human salvation, the flesh and the devil, by depriving them of the assistance of their ally, the world. The natural impulse of all earnest souls to withdraw temporarily or forever from the tumult of social life was sanctioned by the examples and teachings of Scripture. St. John Baptist in the desert and Our Lord, withdrawing ever and anon into solitude, were examples which incited a host of holy men to imitate them. Since these men despised and shunned the world, it cannot surprise us that the world answered with corresponding contempt. The world is an imperious tyrant, and thoroughly selfish; niggardly in its gratitude to those lofty souls whose lives are entirely devoted to its betterment without regard to its praise or censure. It pursues as rebels, and derides as fools, those who shake off its yoke and scatter to the winds its riches, honours, and pleasures. In its extremest isolation, the life of the Christian anchorite is no Nirvana. The soul occupied with divine thoughts freed from all distracting cares leads an existence most consonant to man’s rational nature, and consequently productive of the highest type of happiness obtainable on this earth. Moreover, no matter how deeply the hermit buries himself in the thicket or wilderness, he is always within easy reach of the call of charity. First of all, kindred spirits will seek him out. Hundreds of cells will cluster about his; his experience will be invoked for the drawing up of rules of order and for spiritual guidance; in short, his hermitage is gradually transformed into a monastery, his solitary life into the cenobitic. If he again longs for solitude, and plunges deeper into the desert, the same process will begin, as we see in the case of St. Anthony of Egypt. Furthermore, though these saintly men have thrown off the yoke of the world, they remain subject to the authority of the Church, at whose command, in critical times, they have issued forth from their retirement, like fresh reserve forces, to strengthen the dispirited ranks of her spiritual army. Thus did Anthony (286–356) come to Alexandria on the appeal of Athanasius; thus did the sons of Benedict, and Romuald, and Bruno, and Bernard, do yeomen’s work in the medieval struggle with barbarism. Indeed, it would be difficult to point out a single great champion of Christian civilization who was not trained to the spiritual combat in the wilderness.

The chief resorts of the earliest of these fugitives from human society were the vast deserts of Egypt and Syria, whose caves and tombs soon housed an incredible number of Christian ascetics. The first attempts at selfdiscipline by this untutored host were sometimes crude, and tinctured with Oriental fanaticism; but before long the authority of the Church and the wise maxims of great spiritual masters, notably Pachomius, Hilarion, and Basil, fashioned them into a well disciplined army, with distinct aims and methods. Soon the rule obtained, that those only should be authorized to live solitary lives who had previously spent a time of probation in a monastery, and had been permitted by their abbot to withdraw. Between the monks, who lived and worked in common (the socalled cenobites) and the hermits, who passed their lives in absolute solitude, there were many gradations. Some lived in separate cells and met only for prayer, some for meals, some only on Sundays. The strangest form of asceticism was that adopted by the (q. v.), men who lived for years on the tops of high columns, from which they exhorted and instructed the awestricken populace. Coming to more modern times, canonists distinguish four different species of Hermits: (1) Those who have taken the three monastic vows in some religious order approved by the Church. Such are the Hermits of St. Augustine, the Hermits of St. Jerome, etc. (2) Those who live in common with a form of life approved by the bishop. (3) Those who without vows or community life adopt a peculiar habit with the approval of the bishop, and by him are deputed to the service of a church or oratory. (4) Those who, without any ecclesiastical authority, adopt the “habitus eremiticus” and live under no rule. To obviate possible abuses on the part of this last class of hermits, the Holy See has at different times issued stringent legislation, which may be read in Benedict XIV “De Syn. Dioec.” VI, iii, 6, or in Ferraris, “Bibliotheca,” s. v. “Eremita.”

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Ancient of Days

A name given to God by the Prophet Daniel (7:9, 13, 22), in which he contrasts His eternal powers with the frail existence of the empires of the world. It is from these descriptions of the Almighty that Christian art derived its general manner of representing the first person of the Holy Trinity. Ancient of Days is expressed in Aramaic by Atiq yomin; in the Greek Septuagint by palaios hemeron; and in the Vulgate by Antiquus dierum.

A.J. MAAS

Ancilla Dei

In early Christian inscriptions the title ancilla Dei is often given to a deceased woman. From the meaning attached to this term in the Middle Ages it has sometimes been assumed, without sufficient proof, that the persons so qualified in the first age of Christianity were consecrated virgins. The inscriptions containing this formula are of two classes: one, in which it is merely stated that a given person was ancilla Dei; the other, from which it is clear that this title was sometimes given to persons who certainly were not religious. It is with the latter class that we are concerned. The former class is the more numerous, but one of the latter is quite explicit. This informs us that a certain monument was erected by a husband to his wife, whom he styles Dei ancilla—“(Laur)entius Rufine coniugi Dei anci(llae) . . .” (De Rossi, Roma Sott., III, p. 11, n. 4). In a Roman inscription of the first quarter of the sixth century a certain Guttes is referred to as ancilla Dei, and it is further stated that she was nonnes—“in presence of the nun Guttes, a handmaid of God” (sub presentiâ nonnes Guttes, ancille Dei). This reference proves that even in the sixth century, ancilla Dei is a title not peculiar to religious; the author regarded it as necessary to state explicitly that she was nonnes (Cabrol, Dict. d’arch. chrét, 1902). From the pontificate of St. Gregory the Great (590—604), however, only nuns, as a rule, were qualified by this title: “ancillas Dei quas vos graecâ linguâ monastrias dicitis” (Greg. M. Ep., vi, 23).

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Ciriaco d’Ancona

An Italian antiquary whose family name was Pizzicolli, born at Ancona about 1391; died about 1455 at Cremona. During voyages of commerce throughout the Orient he collected a great store of inscriptions, manuscripts, and other antiquities, returning in 1426 after having visited Rhodes, Beirut, Damascus, Cyrus, Mitylene, Thessalonica, and other places. He enjoyed the patronage of Eugenius IV, Cosmo de’ Medici, and the Visconti of Milan. In 1443 he visitsed Morea in Greece, where he copied inscriptions mentioned in the correspondance of Filelfo, Traversari, Leonardo Aretino, and others. He is accounted the best equipped, most learned, and accurate worker in the province of epigraphy during the period of the Renaissance. His accuracy in copying ancient inscriptions is said by De Rossi (Inscriptiones Christ. Urbis Romae, VII saec antiquiores, II, 377) to be “the chief credit and undying glory of Ciriaco “. Most of his manuscripts have been lost; those published after his death are “Itinerarium” (Florence, 1742); “Epigrammata reperta per Illyricum a Kyriaco Anconitano” (Rome, 1664), the latter very rare. Mazzuchelli mentions other works in his “Scrittori d’Italia” (s.v.).

THOMAS WALSH

Diocese of Ancona and Umana

An Italian diocese in the Archdiocese of Ancona, comprising ten towns in the province of Ancona. It is an important seaport town, favourable for commerce between the East and Italy, across the Adriatic. Ancona must have had a Christian community within its walls at a very early date. Excavations made in the village of Varano, near Ancona, have brought to light a sepulchral stone with a Christian inscription. The character of the writing of the epitaph shows that it belongs to the end of the third century, and we are justified in believing that the church at Ancona did not possess catacombs, but an open burial place. For the purpose of proving the existence of a well-organized Christian community before the time of Constantine, Harnack [Die Mission, etc., (Leipzig, 1902), 501, 502] advances arguments that seem perfectly legitimate. Eusebius says (VI, 43) that the Roman Bishop Cornelius, in the year 250, held a synod of sixty Italian bishops against Novatian. It may be assumed that the jurisdiction of Rome as a metropolitan see, about the year 250, embraced not less than two hundred bishoprics, since all the bishops of a given territory did not attend the synods. It follows that Christians were found in all the more important cities, amongst which, of course, was Ancona. The city is under the protection of two saints, Primianus and Cyriacus, evidently very ancient, but their rank and the time they flourished are uncertain. In the year 462, Mark of Ancona came to the synod held under Pope Hilary; and in 465, to the new synod convoked by the same Pope came Philippus Numanatae. The two sees were united in 1422, at the time of Pope Martin V. From an archaeological point of view, besides the place of sepulture mentioned above, the cubiculum of the veteran Flavius Eventius, with a singular inscription and a magnificent mosaic of the fourth century, is worthy of mention, as is also the sarcophagus of Flavius Gorgonius, comes privatarum largitionum (count of the emperor’s private largess), of the same century. There is also an “Evangelium Sancti Marcellini,” in uncial characters, of the seventh century, preserved in the Chapter library. The Cathedral of Ancona, dedicated to St. Cyriacus, and standing in the highest part of the city, is in a style of architecture that has felt the direct influence of Oriental art. It was finished in the eleventh century and has a cupola with a quadrangular base like St. Fosca on the Venetian lagoons and St. Anthony at Padua.

Ancona contains 37 parishes; 85 churches, chapels and oratories; 101 secular priests; 30 seminarians; 15 regular clergy; 8 lay brothers; 70 religious (women); 50 confraternities; 4 schools for boys (400 pupils), 5 schools for girls (250 pupils). Population 81,662.

UGHELLI, Italia Sacra (Venice, 1721), I, 324; CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), VI, 9; GAMS, Series episcoporum Ecclesiae catholicae (Ratisbon, 1873), 664; CIARARINI, Sommario della storia d’Ancona (Ancona, 1867); MARONIUS, De Ecclesia et episcopis anconitanis commentarius in quo Ughelliana series emendatur, continuatur, illustratur (Rome, 1759); PERUZZI, Storia d’Ancona dalla fondazione all’ anno 1832 (Pesaro, 1835); SPECIALI, Notizie istoriche de’ santi protettori della citta d’Ancona, dei cittadini che con la loro santita l’hanno illustrata, della di lei cattedrale e vescovi della citta (Venice, 1759), s.v. Ancona, in Dict. d’arch. et de lit. (Paris, 1905); VENTURI, Storia dell’ arte Italiana (Milan, 1901–02), I, 50; II, 360.

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Ancren Riwle

Or REGULA INCLUSARUM.

The name given to a thirteenthcentury code of rules for the life of anchoresses, which is sometimes called “The Nuns’ Rule.” In Middle English the word ancren was used for solitaries, or anchorites of both sexes; but in this case it refers only to ladies who had left the world and were established in a secluded place, in order to lead a life devoted to the practices of religious observance. Of the text of this “Rule” several copies are extant in the English libraries. One at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (MS. 402), is entitled “Ancren Wissé” and is thought by some to be an abridgment, or adaptation, of the Latin tract of Simon of Ghent who was Bishop of Salisbury (1297- 1315). The British Museum possesses five copies, three of which were collated for the printed edition published for the Camden Society by the Rev. James Morton in 1852. Besides publishing the old NormanEnglish version, Mr. Morton gave a modern English version or translation which was reprinted in a small volume in 1905. Mr. Morton, in his introduction, has given many reasons for rejecting the notion that the English version is a translation of Simon of Ghent’s tract, and considers that the Museum Cott. MS., Cleopatra C. vi, is probably the original English version of the “Ancren Riwle.” Moreover, in the opinion of many experts, the curious AngloSaxon language in which the code of rules is written seems to require an earlier date than the close of the thirteenth century. It is thought probable that the real author of the little book is Bishop Richard Poore, who held the see of Salisbury from 1217 to 1229, when he was translated by the Pope to Durham. It is right, however, to mention the fact that some writers consider that the time of the composition of the “Rule” must be put at a later date. Although there is nothing whatever in the work to warrant the assumption, it has usually been taken for granted that it was composed for the nuns who dwelt at Tarrent in Dorsetshire. Bishop Poore was born in that place, and a sister of his is said to have become a nun in that convent. Be that as it may, it is certain that the Bishop, for some reason, came to be regarded as a “second founder” of the convent and that in his last sickness he journeyed to Tarrent and died there in 1237.

The “Ancren Riwle” contains many interesting details of the life led by the solitary ladies for whom it was written. Although the “ancress” was alone in the strict sense, that is, she inhabited her cell or cells alone, except for the “maiden” or servant who attended to her wants, still, in this case, there were three or more of these solitary ladies living under the same roof. “I know not,” says the author of the rule, “any anchoress that with more abundance, or more honour, hath all that is necessary to her than ye three have.” We also learn that the convent, or house, of these ladies was adjoining the church, and that through windows in the cells of each they were enabled to practise their devotions and to follow the services and especially the Holy Sacrifice, as well as pay their homage to the Blessed Sacrament hanging over the altar. The daily life and work of the nuns, according to this rule, is simplicity itself. After having begun the day by a visit to the Blessed Sacrament, the sisters were instructed to fall on their knees before their crucifixes and occupy themselves with salutations to Our Saviour represented before their eyes on the Cross. They were then to salute Our Blessed Lady with “five aves,” before beginning the Hours of her Office, which were to be followed by a Litany and the Office for the Dead. The day was mostly occupied by prayer. The author admits that this and the keeping of “the ten old Commandments” constitute a hard fashion of life, but adds that “nothing is ever so hard that love doth not make it tender and soft and sweet.”

MSS.-C. C. C., CAMBRIDGE, KMS. 402; B. MUSEUM, Cott. MSS. Nero xiv; Titus D, xviii; Cleop. C, vi; Vit, E. vii, PRINTED:-Ancren Riwle, ed. and tr. MORTON (Camden Soc. 1852; De la More Press reprint, 1905).

FRANCIS AIDAN GASQUET

Ancyra

The modern ANGORA, a titular see of Galatia in Asia Minor, suffragan of Laodicea. It was said to have been founded by Midas, was a chief place of the Gallic conquerors of Asia Minor (c. 277 B.C.), and in imperial times a centre of great commercial importance. It is also famous for the official record of the Acts of Augustus, known as the “Monumentum Ancyranum,” an inscription cut in marble on the walls of an ancient temple, several times copied and edited since the sixteenth century. The ruins of Ancyra furnish to-day valuable bas-reliefs. inscriptions, and other architectural fragments. Its episcopal list is given in Gams, “Series episc. Eccl. cath.”; also that of another Ancyra in Phrygia Pacatiana.

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 133; LE QUIEN, Oriens Christ. (1740), I, 455–474; BARKLEY, A Ride through Asia Minor and Armenia (London, 1891), 103.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Councils of Ancyra

Three councils were held in the former capital of Galatia (now Angora) in Asia Minor, during the fourth century. The first, an orthodox plenary synod, was held in 314, and its twenty-five disciplinary canons constitute one of the most important documents in the early history of the administration of the Sacrament of Penance. Nine of them deal with conditions for the reconciliation of the lapsi; the others, with marriage, alienations of church property, etc. The synod of 358 was a Semi-Arian conciliabulum, presided over by Basil of Ancyra. It condemned the grosser Arian blasphemies, but set forth an equally heretical doctrine in the proposition that the Son was in all things similar to the Father, but not identical in substance. In 375, Arian bishops met at Ancyra and deposed several bishops, among them St. Gregory of Nyssa.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Andalusia

This appellative is derived from the Al-Andulus, the name given by the Arabs to the portion of Spain subject to their dominion. According to the opinion of D. Eduardo Saavedra, the name was applied after the battle of Las Naves in 1212 (when the Sierra Moreña became the dividing line between the Christian and the Moorish possessions) to the territory under the control of the Moors, the limits of which were approximately the same as that of the present Andalusia. This country is situated in the southern part of the Iberian peninsula, and is bounded on the north by the provinces of Badajoz and New Castile, on the south by the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, on the east by the provinces of Albacete and Murcia, and on the west by Portugal. Its total area is about 33,950 square miles, and the number of its inhabitants, according to the latest census (verified in 1900), 3,433,693. The principal mountain ranges that traverse this section are Sierra Moreña in the north, Sierra Nevada in the south, and Sierra Almagrera and Sierra de Gador to the east. The largest rivers are the Guadalquivir, the Guadalete, Rio Tinto, the Guadalmedina, and the Genil, a tributary of the Guadalquivir. The climate in general is temperate, the portion bordering directly on the sea being hot. The soil is very fertile in almost all the level country, especially in the flat arable land around Cordova and Seville, and in the wide open plain of Granada; it is poor in other sections, because of the scarcity of water—as in certain parts of the province of Cadiz—or because of innate properties of the soil—as in Alpujarras. The most important products are cereals, olives, beet-root, and sugar-cane in the low lands; grapes, figs, oranges, and pomegranates in the vegas (irrigated lands). The oils of Cordova and Seville, and the wines of Jerez and Malaga are famous; also the raisins of Malaga. Much attention is given in Cordova and Seville to the breeding of fine horses, and these provinces are also famous for their breed of bulls.

At the present time there are in Andalusia two archbishoprics: Seville and Granada; and five bishoprics: Cadiz, Cordova, Jaen, Malaga, Almeria, and Guadix. The military department is represented by a capitanía general, with headquarters at Seville and eight stations, one in each province. The judiciary is divided into two districts (audiencias territoriales), that of Seville and that of Granada; the political and administrative department is divided into eight provinces, each named from its capital: Seville, Cadiz, Huelva, Cordova, Jaen, Malaga, Granada and Almeria. The Andalusians speak a dialect of the Spanish language, the chief difference being the pronunciation of the letter h, giving s the sound of z, and c the sound of s (in the syllables ce, ci), and the suppression of the final s. Many strangers visit Andalusia every year, especially in the spring, attracted by the beauty of its many historic monuments—pre-eminently, the cathedral and Alcazar of Seville, the cathedral of Cordova, and the Alhambra—and also by the typically national character of the Holy Week services at Seville, and of Corpus Christi at Granada. Fairs of great local interest are held in both cities in the week following these services.

Andalusia was inhabited in early historic times by a people of Iberian origin; the Turdetani occupied what are now the provinces of Seville and Huelva; the Turduli, Jaen, Cordova, and part of Granada; the Bastuli, Malaga, and the coast of Granada; and the Bastetani, Jaen, Guadix, Baza, and Almeria. To this region called Tarshish in the Bible and Tartessos by Greek writers, the Phoenicians came, about the year 1100 B.C., settling in what is now Cadiz, and later spreading to Malaga, Adra, and Jete, all three celebrated for their deposits of salt. The Carthaginians succeeded the Phoenicians in power, and ruled over almost the whole of Andalusia until their expulsion by the Romans. Under the Roman dominion Andalusia formed a part of Farther Spain (Hispania Ulterior) during the Republic, and an independent province, called Boetica, in the time of the Empire. With the Germanic invasion came the Vandals, who established themselves here, to be followed by the Visigoths when the Vandals passed over into Africa. When Athanagild called the Byzantines to his aid, he gave them as a compensation the most southerly portion of Andalusia, but Leovigild Suintila, and Sisebut succeeded in reuniting it to the monarchy of the Visigoths. Under the rule of the Emirs, subordinates of the Caliph of Damascus, and in the time of the Caliphate of Cordova, Andalusia was the centre of the political life and literary and artistic culture of the Arab people. At the downfall of the Caliphate (1030), it was subdivided into eleven independent states, some extremely small: Cordova, Seville, Carmona, Maron, Arcos, Niebla, Huelva, Malaga, Ronda, Granada, and Almeria. The Almoravides (1086–1129) and the Almohades (1129–1272) subjugated all this territory to their dominion. Ferdinand III, the Saint, King of Castile and Leon, in the middle of the thirteenth century, reconquered Jaen, Cordova, and Seville, leaving to the Arabs only the kingdom of Granada, which comprised the greater part of the present provinces of Malaga, Granada and Almeria. Finally, after a war which lasted nine years, Ferdinand and Isabella, the Catholic, obtained possession of Granada, entering the capital city in triumph, 2 January, 1492. Andalusia has produced many illustrious men in science, art, letters and the profession of arms. It will be sufficient to mention the philosopher Francisco Suarez, the ascetic writer Fray Luis de Granada, the painter Murillo, and El Gran Capitan, Gonsalvo de Cordova.

SANCHEZ Y CASADO, Elementos de geografia comparada (Madrid, 1894); KIEPERT, Lehrbuch der alten Geographie (Berlin, 1889); GUERRA E HINOJOSA, Historia de la dominacion de los pueblos germanicos en España (Madrid, 1890); SIMONET, Descripcion del reino de Granada bajo la dominacion de los Naseritas (Madrid, 1861). For the Arab conquest see CODERA nd SAAVEDRA.

EDUARDO DE HINOJOSA

William Henry Anderdon

English Jesuit and writer, born in London, 26 December, 1816; died 28 July, 1890. After three years at King’s College, London, he matriculated at Oxford, when about nineteen, and entered Balliol. Soon after, he won a scholarship at University College, and took a degree in 1840. He received Anglican ordination, became vicar of Withyam, and in 1846 of St. Margaret’s Leicester. In 1850 he was received into the Church in Paris by Father de Ravignan. Ordained at Oscott by Bishop Ullathorne in 1853, he was appointed a lecturer at Ushaw College and afterwards a preacher and confessor at University Church in Dublin. During his stay in Ireland the Franciscan convent of Drumshambo was founded, mainly through his efforts. In 1856, he was called to London by his uncle, Cardinal Manning, whose secretary he remained until he joined the Jesuits in 1872. From 1875 to 1889 he lived in Manchester, doing excellent work as preacher, spiritual guide, and writer.

Father Anderdon began his literary apostulate by writing Catholic tales: Bonneval, the Story of the Fronde” (1857); “Owen Evans, the Catholic Crusoe” (1962); “Afternoons with the Saints” (1863), “In the Snow, Tales of Mt. St. Bernard” (1866). All these stories, save the first, went through nine or ten editions, and were translated into German and French. Other valuable works from his pen are “Fasti Apostolici” (1882), “Evening with the Saints” (1883) and “Britain’s Early Faith” (1887). His controversial writings are the very best of the kind, his method being to understand rather than to exaggerate. Among his works, the best known are “Is Ritualism Honest?,” “Controversial Papers” (1878), “Luther’s Words and the Word of God” (8th thousand, 1883), “Luther at Table,” “What sort of man was Luther?” (13th thousand, 1883). What do Catholics Really Believe?,” “Confession to a Priest” (1881).

His newspaper work displayed a fine sense of irony in treating the polemics of the day. He was ever busy writing for the “Weekly Register,” the (English) “Messenger of the Sacred Heart,” the “Xaverian,” “Merry England,” the “Month,” the “Irish Monthly,” and other serial publications. His last works were “The Old Religion of Taunton” (1890); and “Five Minutes’ Sermons,” the latter completed only in part when he heard the Master’s summons.

Letters and Notices of the English Province of the Society of Jesus (Sept. and Dec., 1890); Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la Compagnie de Jesus (Supplement, 1898).

EDWARD SPILLANE

Anthony Maria Anderledy

General of the Society of Jesus, b. in Berisal, Canton Valais, Switzerland, 3 June, 1819; d. at Fiesole, Italy, 18 January, 1892. He entered the Society at Brieg in 1839, and after the novitiate, taught the classics at the college of Freiburg, where he was admired as a finished Latin scholar. When the Jesuits were expelled from Switzerland in 1848, young Anderledy, with fifty others came to the United States. He was sent to St. Louis to complete his studies, and was ordained priest there, 29 September, 1848, by Archbishop Kenrick. Father. Anderledy was appointed pastor of the German congregation at Green Bay, where he devoted himself with great energy to his flock for two years. He was recalled to Germany in 1850, and was assigned to one of the missionary bands of the German Province. In 1853, he was chosen to be rector of the students of the Society in Cologne. He accompanied them to Paderborn and remained in charge of their studies until 1859, when he was appointed Provincial of the German Province. During Father Anderledy’s term of office, which lasted six years, he purchased the splendid medieval abbey of Maria-Laach, where he established the province-house of higher studies. In 1865, he was sent to Maria-Laach as professor of moral theology. In 1870, he was called to Rome and made Assistant-General of the Society, for the German-speaking provinces. Father Anderledy was elected Vicar-General with the right of succession to the venerable Father Beckx in 1883, by delegates of the whole Society, assembled in Rome. On the death of Father Beckx in 1887, Father Anderledy assumed all the duties of the General of the Society of Jesus. He edited and published a new edition of Reuter’s “Neo-Confessarius, which he enriched with valuable notes. In his administration of the Society of Jesus, Father Anderledy was remarkable for great firmness of character.

P. H. KELLY

Henry James Anderson

Scientist and educator, b. in New York City, 6 February, 1799; d. at Lahore, India, 19 October, 1875. He graduated at Columbia College in 1818, and afterwards studied medicine at the College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York. He did not practise long, but devoted himself to scientific and literary pursuits. When twenty-six years old he was appointed professor of mathematics and astronomy in Columbia College. He retained this chair for twenty-five years, and in 1866 became emeritus professor. In 1848 he accompanied as geologist, the United States Dead Sea exploration expedition commanded by Captain William F. Lynch, U.S.N. The following year, while abroad, he became a convert to the Catholic Faith and was ever after one of its most zealous adherents. He joined the St. Vincent de Paul Society, and when the Particular Council of New York was instituted in 1856 he was made its president. When the Supreme Council was organized in 1860, he was chosen its head. To his example, influence, and labours the Society in New York City is greatly indebted for its subsequent success. The New York Catholic Protectory was founded and built under his inspiration. Pope Pius IX received him in Rome several times and made him a Knight Commander of the order of St. Gregory the Great in recognition of his merits and zeal for religion. He was organizer and president of the Catholic Union, having for its special objects the defence of the rights of the Holy See, and the promotion of the Faith. In the Spring of 1875 he went to Lourdes and Rome as a pilgrim, and later on travelled to Australia, at his own expense, to observe the transit of Venus. On his homeward journey, by way of India, where he accomplished an ascent of one of the Himalayan peaks, he was, soon after reaching Lahore, stricken with a malignant disease which proved fatal. His body was brought to New York, and buried 19 March, 1876, in a vault under the Church of the Madonna, which he had been instrumental in building, at Fort Lee, New Jersey. His requiem was sung in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and Cardinal McCloskey, in the sermon, said: “I remember to have heard from the lips of a distinguished Oxford scholar that he had never met a man of greater learning tempered with such humility.” His principal writings were early contributions to the New York “Quarterly Review” and to mathematical journals, and in 1848 and 1849 two geological reports by him on the Dead Sea Expedition, “Geological Reconnaissance of Part of the Holy Land,” were published by the U.S. government.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Lionel Albert Anderson

An English Dominican, b. about 1620; d. 21 October, 1710. The son of a Lincolnshire gentleman, he suffered much for his faith. He became a convert, entered the order of St. Dominic at Paris in 1638, was ordained priest in 1665, and returned to London, where he was known under the assumed name of Munson. He was later accused by Titus Oates of being a conspirator against the King and Parliament, was indicted for being a priest contrary to the law of England, was tried and condemned to death at the Old Bailey, in 1679 or 1680, by the notorious Scroggs. He was pardoned by Charles II, after undergoing a year’s imprisonment in Newgate, and was exiled for life. In 1686, after a visit to the Holy Land, he returned to England with a free pardon from James II, fled with that King to the Continent in 1688, returned again to England in 1698, and died at the patriarchal age of 91.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of Engl. Catholics, I, 29; PALMER, Obituary Notices of Dominicans.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Patrick Anderson

A Scottish Jesuit, b. at Elgin in Morayshire in 1575; died in London, 24 September, 1624. he was the nephew of Dr. John Leslie, Bishop of Ross, a faithful adherent of Mary Queen of Scots, and her ambassador at the French Court. After completing his education at the university of Edinburgh, he entered the Society of Jesus at Rome, in 1597, and in due time acquired a reputation as a linguist, mathematician, philosopher, and divine. In 1609, he was appointed to the Scotch mission, where his labours were highly successful and his hairbreadth escapes from the pursuivants truly marvelous. He left Scotland for Paris to meet his superior, Father James Gordon, late in 1611. father Anderson undertook to supply the great dearth of missionaries in his native country by collecting nearly one hundred youths in Scotland, all of them most eager to serve God and the Church. In 1615 he became the first Jesuit Rector of the Scots College in Rome, founded fifteen years before by Pope Clement VIII. Returning to Scotland, he was soon after betrayed by a pretended Catholic, and committed to the Tolbooth jail, Edinburgh, where, in the daily expectation of torture and death, he displayed the heroic intrepidity of a true martyr. He was finally set at liberty on the petition, it is supposed, of the French Ambassador who requested to have him for his confessor.

Father Anderson has left us some valuable and interesting letters relating to his missionary labours in Scotland; these letters may be found in the London “Month” for December, 1876. No one was better qualified to bear witness to the state of the Church in Scotland during the reign of James the First. In 1623 he published “The Ground of the Catholicke and Roman Religion in the Word of God” a work which shows he had carefully studied the scriptural argument for the Catholic Faith. While imprisoned in Edinburgh, he also compiled the “Memoirs of the Scotch Saints,” formerly in manuscript at the Scots College in Paris.

Letters of Father Patrick Anderson, 1611–20, in Letters and Notices (Rochampton, Nov., 1867). 98–149; Oliver, Collections toward illustrating the Biography of the Scotch, English, and Irish members of the Society of Jesus (London, 1845); Forbes-Leith, Narratives of Scottish Catholics under Mary Stuart and James VI (new ed., London, 1889), pp. 317–346’ J.F.S. Gordon, The Catholic Church in Scotland (1874), 516, 517; Dictionary of National Biography, V; Catholic directory (1855).

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

James Anderton

An English Catholic, b. 1557; d. 1618. He belonged to the well-known Catholic family of Lostock Hall, Lancashire, and inherited extensive estates there from his parents, Christopher and Dorothy Anderton. In 1582 he married Margaret, daughter of Edward Tyldesley of Tyldesley and Morleys, and, following his father’s profession of the law, succeeded him in 1592 as Prohonotary of the Duchy Court at Lancaster. Both his mother and wife remained faithful to the Church, but James himself seems to have followed his father’s example, and temporized so far as to attach his name to an address (1618) for the “disarming of recusants” and to perform other official duties repugnant to a true Catholic. He died about 1618. Father John Clark, rector of Liège College, in his eulogy of Father Henry Holland, S.J., makes the erroneous statement that James Anderton, under the pseudonym “John Brereley, priest,” was the author of a valuable work entitled “The Protestant’s Apologie,” an assertion that has been accepted generally. It has been shown, however, that the works of “John Brereley, priest,” were from the pen of Father Lawrence Anderton, S.J., a nephew of James, who, however, is thought to have sheltered the press with which the work was printed.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of English Catholics.

THOMAS WALSH

Ven. Robert Anderton

English priest and martyr, b. in the Isle of Wight about 1560; d. 25 April, 1586. He matriculated in Brasenose College, Oxford, in 1578. He afterwards went abroad, was converted, and then entered the college at Reims in 1580. It was there that he and Marsden began that companionship which was not broken even in death. Having completed their course, they set sail for England, but were overwhelmed in a storm. They prayed that they might die on land rather than on sea, and their prayer was granted. Driven ashore, they were at once seized and shortly after tried and condemned. They now pleaded that they had not transgressed the statute, as they had been cast on shore perforce. This led to their being summoned to London, where they were examined upon the celebrated “bloody question,” whether they would fight against the Pope, even if the quarrel were for purely religious causes. Though they acknowledged Elizabeth as their lawful queen in all temporal matters, they would not consent to the required test. The sentence was then confirmed, and a proclamation was published, explaining their guilt. They were taken back and executed near the place where they had been cast ashore, being hanged, drawn, and quartered.

CHALLONER, Memoirs; POLLEN, Acts of English Martyrs (1891), 66–82.

PATRICK RYAN

Roger Anderton

A Catholic layman, son of Christopher Anderton of Lostock, brother of James and uncle of Lawrence Anderton. His name often appears on the Recusant Roll of Lancaster, and of his numerous family four became nuns. For a long time it was customary to attribute to him the authorship of the work written by his nephew Lawrence, under the name of “John Brereley, priest” and by other hands, although they seem to have been merely edited by him, and printed at a secret press maintained and protected by different members of the Anderton family. A list of these publications is among the Blundell of Crosby MSS. Roger Anderton is thought to have re-established this press at Birchley after the inquisition post-mortem of James Anderton of Lostock and the seizure of his books. He is said to have died in 1640.

GILLOW, Biographical Dict. Of English Catholics

THOMAS WALSH

Thomas Anderton

An English Benedictine, b. in Lancashire in 1611; d. 9 October, 1671. He as the sixth son of William Anderton, Esq., of Euxton, Lancaster, and Isabel, daughter of William Hancock of Pendle Hall, Lower Higham, Lancaster. Both his parents remained faithful to the Church in spite of persecution. Thomas made his profession in 1630, at the Benedictine monastery of St. Edmund, in Paris, and in 1636 was ordained priest, and successively became Novice-Master, Sub-Prior, and, in 1640, Prior of St. Edmund’s. In 1641 he was Definitor, and in 1657 secretary to the chapter. From 1661 to 1666 he was Prior of St. Benedict’s monastery at Saint Malo, and again Prior of St. Edmund’s in Paris, from 1668 to 1669. Sent out on the English mission, he died at Saxton Hall in Yorkshire. He left a “History of the Iconoclasts during the Reign of the Emperors Leo Isaureus, Constantin Copronimus, Leo IV, Constantin and Irene, Leo the Armenian, Michael Balbus, Theophilus, Michael III, and Theodora” (1671).

THOMAS WALSH

Heinrich Bernhard, Freiherr von Andlaw

A famous Catholic statesman of the nineteenth century, b. 20 August, 1803, at Freiburg im Breisgau; d. 3 may, 1871. His chief sphere of activity was in Baden, but he took part in the general movement of German Catholicism. He was the younger son of Baron Konrad Karl, Frhr. Von Andlaw- Birseck, who had emigrated from Switzerland and entered the Austrian service, and who, after the union of Breisgau with Baden (1806), worthily filled official and ministerial positions in the latter State. The son received a good state-school education, studied at Landshut and Freiburg, served for a short time as an officer of Dragoons, travelled in France and Italy, and was then received into the Baden service as a councillor in a department of the State. He remained there, however, only until the year 1830, when he withdrew to his estate of Hugstetten, in the neighbourhood of Freiburg and acted thenceforward, until the day of his death, as an independent in politics. In 1835 the landed nobility of Murg elected him to the Lower House of the Baden legislature, of which, except for two short intervals, he remained a member until his sixtieth year.

What especially characterized Andlaw among the many contemporary leaders of German Catholicism was the charm of his knightly bearing, his manly, honest faith, the tone of his discourse, and the rich music of his voice. He has rightly been called the German Montalembert. If, on the one hand, he lacked the Frenchman’s youthful fervour, on the other, he was a more profound statesman, who thought in true statesmanlike fashion not only in matters affecting the local administration of his own State but in those connected with the national policy of Germany. For this reason he deserves to be less completely forgotten by the present generation. There is some ground for this in the fact that Andlaw never found an opportunity, as head of a State government, to put his views into practice. He experienced an invincible aversion to Baden methods of government both before and after the Revolution of 1848, to the bureaucratic as well as to the liberal-constitutional. Twice, in 1848 and in 1856, he went so far as to move the impeachment of the leading ministers. It was under these conditions that he set out, with the Catholics of his country, “from Egypt to the land of liberty.” He renounced all attempts at direct offensive action against the Baden government, and sought to perfect the reorganization of the Catholics of Germany and to assure their participation in the politico-ecclesisastical affairs of the fatherland on the basis of common law and along the lines of modern parliamentary methods. In these two things he beheld a guarantee for the future social and political transformation of Germany. He devoted himself especially to societies and to charitable undertakings. He was four times president of the Catholic Congress at Linz in 1850, at Munich in 1861, at Trier in 1865, and at Fulda in 1870. The centre of his activity remained till the end in Baden, where, since 1847, he had been helpful in all politico-ecclesiastical matters to Archbishop von Vicari, whom he held in high honour. It was this devotion which moved the chairman of the First Catholic Congress at Mainz (1848) to hail Andlaw as “pre-eminently a man of action and conflict, at a time when few Christians dare to espouse the cause of the Church.” His writings are: “Ueber die Stiftungen im Grosshertzogtum Baden” (Freiburg 1845); “Offenes Sendschreiben an Dr. J.B. v Herscher zur Abwehr gegen dessen Angriffe auf die katholischen Vereine” (Mainz, 1850): “Der Aufruhr und Umsturz in Baden, als eine naturliche Folge der Landesgesetzgebung” (4 sections, Freiburg, 1850); “Offenes Sendschreiben uber politische und religiöse Freiheit an dem Grafen Theodor v. Scherer” (Freiburg 1861); “Offenes Sendschreiben an Herrn Dr. Joh. von Kuhn über die Frage der æfreien katholischen universitat’“ (Frankfurt, 1863); “Die badischen Wirren im Lichte der Landesverfassung und Bundesgesetze” (Freiburg, 1865); “Gedanken meiner Musse” (in two parts; a portion of the first part published in 1859; the whole work, at Freiburg, in 1860, 1865). Literary and biographical notices concerning Andlaw of a very superficial character, are to be found in Badische Biografien, I (1875), BINDER in Kirchenlex., 2d edition.

MARTIN SPAHN

Ven. William Andleby

Martyred at York 4 July, 1597. He was born at Etton in Yorkshire of a well-known gentle family. At twenty-five he went abroad to take part in the Dutch war (see ARMADA, SPANISH), and called at Douay to interview Dr. Allen, whom he attempted to confute in argument. Next day he recognized that Allen was right, was converted, and eventually became a priest. Mention is found of his having served at Mr. Tyrwhitt’s, in Lincolnshire, and also of his having succoured the Catholic prisoners in Hull blockhouse. “His zeal for souls was such as to spare no pains and to fear no dangers. For the first four years of his mission he travelled always on foot, meanly attired, and carrying with him usually in a bag his vestments and other things for saying Mass; for his labours lay chiefly among the poor, who were not shocked with such things. Afterwards, humbly yielding to the advice of his brethren, he used a horse and went somewhat better clad. Wonderful was the austerity of his life in frequent watchings, fastings, and continual prayer, his soul so absorbed in God that he often took no notice of those he met; by which means he was sometimes exposed to suspicions and dangers from the enemies of his faith, into whose hands he at last fell after twenty years’ labour in the vineyard of the Lord.” (Challoner). He was condemned for his priestly character, and suffered, as stated above, with three laymen, John Abbot, Thomas Warcop, and Edward Fulthrop.

PATRICK RYAN

Alonso Andrada

Biographer and ascetic writer, b. at Toledo, Spain, 1590; d. at Madrid, 20 June, 1672. Before entering the Society of Jesus (1612) he read philosophy in Toledo, was afterwards rector of Plascensia and minister in foreign countries. In his declining years, he wrote some thirty-four volumes on different subjects, some worthy of note for their learning, excellence of doctrine, and pleasing style, which to some extent conceal his carelessness and excessive simplicity. He is chiefly known as the continuator of Nuremburg’s “Varones Ilustres,” biographies of distinguished members of the Society of Jesus. His “Guia de la Virtud e Imitacion de Nusetra Senora” deserves special mention.

Antonio, Bibliotheca Nova; Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la cie. de J., I, 317.

NAZARIO PEREZ

Antonio de Andrada

The pioneer missionary and explorer of Thibet in the seventeenth century, b. at Oleiros, Portugal, 1580; d. at Goa, 19 March, 1634. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1596. From 1600 to 1624 he was the chief missionary in the Indies. In 1624, after almost incredible hardships he succeeded in penetrating into Thibet. Kindly received by the head sovereign of the country, Andrada returned to Agra for other workers like himself, and on his return to Thibet established a missionary center at Chaparangue. Recalled to Goa to act as superior of the Indies, he died there, poisoned for the Faith. Andrada had given in letters to his superiors and others a graphic and accurate account of his discoveries and labours. These have been published in Spanish and French and are incorporated in the works of P.J. Darde, S.J., “Historie de se qui s’est passe au royaume du Thibet” (Paris, 1629).

Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la compagnie de Jesus, I, col. 330, 331; Alegambe, Mortes ilustres, 438; Franco, Imagen du virtude em a noviciado de Lisboa, 375–418.

JOSEPH M. WOODS

Diego Andrada de Payva

A celebrated Portuguese theologian of the sixteenth century, b. at Coimbra 26 July 1528; d. 1 December, 1575, at Lisbon. After finishing his course at the University of Coimbra, he received Holy Orders, and remained as professor of theology. So great was his reputation that King Sebastian appointed him theologian at the Council of Trent, 1561. Here he merited the special thanks of the Pope by an able work in defense of the papal authority. While at the council he wrote his “Decem libri orthodoxarum explicationum” (Venice, 1564, 1594; Cologne, 1564, 1574) against the work of Chemnitz, “Theologiae Jesuitarum praecipua capita.” In this book he discusss and defines the chief points of doctrine attacked by the heretics. Chemnitz answered by his well-known “Examen Conc. Trid.,” in reply to which Andrada produced his best work, “Defensio Tridentinae fidei Cath.” (Lisbon, 1578 and 1595). He published also three volumes of sermons in Portuguese. Andrada de Payva had not only a grasp of theological questions which won for him an important position among sixteenth-century theologians, but he was also so clear and convincing in the exposition of his arguments that he proved an admirable apologist, and it was matter of regret that his untimely death prevented the completion of his great work, the “Defensio Trid. fidei.” This had progressed as far as the fifth session, inclusive of the doctrine upon the Immaculate Conception in defense of which it marshalled an imposing array of authorities.

HUNTER, Nomenclator; TOUSSAINT IN Dict. de théol. cath.

ARTHUR J. MCCAFFRAY

Bernard André

(Andreas.)

Native of Toulouse, Austin friar, poet laureate of England and chronographer of the reign of Henry VII (1485–1509). He was tutor to Prince Arthur, and probably had a share in the education of Henry VIII. He was also a tutor at Oxford, and seems to have been blind. His “Historia Henrici Septimi” was edited (1858) by Mr. James Gairdner, who says of André’s chronicle of events in the Cornish revolt of 1497 that it is valuable “only as one of the very few sources of contemporary information in a particularly obscure period.” His writings are mostly in Latin, and betray in a marked and typical way the influence of the contemporary Renaissance, both as to thought and diction.

For André’s Life of Henry VII, see J.GAIRDNER Memorials of Henry VII in Rolls Series (LONDON 1858; IDEM, in Dict. Of Nat. Biogr., I, 398, 399; GARDINER and MULLINGER, introd. To the Study of English History (4th ed., 1903), 303, 304.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Yves Marie André

Mathematician, b. 22 May, 1675, at Chateaulin, in Lower Brittany; d. at Caen, 25 February, 1764. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1693. Although distinguished in his scholastic studies, he was, on account of his Gallicanism , Cartesianism, and Jansenism, assigned to scientific studies and made royal professor of mathematics at Caen where he remained for thirty-nine years. A literary essay on “The Beautiful” won him great fame, and is considered a classic. During his lifetime the Society was suppressed, and the philosophical and religious errors which he could not express as a Jesuit were openly espoused when he was secularized. He condemned his former associates for their action against Cardinal de Noailles, and was a strong anti-Ultramontane. He was intimately associated with Malebranche , and kept up an extensive correspondence with him. While in the Society his Gallicanism and Jansenism made it impossible to appoint him to any responsible office. He obstinately refused to change his views. On the suppression of the Society he withdrew to the Canons Regular of Caen, and the Parliament of Rouen provided him with a pension. Although his best work by far is his “Essay on the Beautiful,” there is considerable ability in his “Traité de l’homme.” He wrote a poem on the “Art of Conversation,” which was translated into English in 1777. Several posthumous works were published, among which was one with the curious title, “Man as a static Machine; a Hydraulic Machine; a Pneumatic Machine; and a Chemical Machine.” Though the work was never found, it is pretty certain that he wrote a “A Life of Malebranche.” Victor Cousin had much to do with publishing the posthumous letters of Father André, to whom we owe as many as eighteen works, some of them in folio, on metaphysics, hydrography, optics, physics, civil and military architecture, along with treatises on literary subjects, sermons, catechetical instructions, etc.

MICHAUD, Biog. Univ.; QU=C9RARD; DE BACKER, Bibliothèque de la c. de J., I, 152–154.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Giovanni d’Andrea

Canonist, b. at Mugello, near Florence, about 1275; d. 1348. He was educated by his father and at the University of Bologna where he afterwards became professor of canon law, after having taught at Padua and Pisa. His period of teaching extended over forty-five years. Trithemius, Baldus, Forster, and Bellarmin pay him the highest tributes and on his death during the plague of 1348 he is said to have been interred in the church of San Domenico at Bologna. His career is summed up in the epitaph: Rabbi Doctorum, Lux, Censor, normaque morum. His works are “Glossarium in VI decretalium librum” (Venice and Lyons, 1472); “Glossarium in Clementinas; Novella, sive Commentarius in decretales epistolas Gregorii IX” (Venice, 1581); “Mercuriales, sive commentarius in regulas sexti; Liber de laudibus S. Hieronymi; Additamenta ad speculum Durandi” (1347).

SCHERER IN Kirchenlex., s.v.

THOMAS WALSH

Bl. Andrea Dotti

Born 1256, in Borgo San Sepolero, Tuscany, Italy; d. there 31 August, 1315. He was of noble parentage, being the brother of Count Dotto Dotti, made captain of the archers of the body-guard of Philip the Fair. Andrea grew up as many other noblemen of his time, but was ever distinguished for eminent piety as well as for courage in the field. In 1278 St. Philip Beniti delivered a sermon at the opening of the general chapter of his order in Borgo, and young Dotti was so struck by the eloquence and sanctity of the man that he at once asked to be admitted to the Servite Order. He was received by the General, and by reason of his piety and brilliant attainments was soon after ordained to the priesthood. His zeal manifested itself principally in preaching and penance. He filled various position of honour in the Order, converted Blessed Bartholomew, and by his charity and zeal won over to the Order a large number of hermits living at Vallucola. Many visions were vouchsafed him, and he worked a great many duly authenticated miracles. After long years of preaching, he retired into a hermitage and renewed his penances, and died there. He was buried in a church of his native town. Pius VII authorized his cult.

Anal. Ord. Serv. B.M. Virg. (Florence, 1729); I. i. 4; SOULIER, Vie de St. Phillipe Beniti (Paris, 1886; tr. London, 1886).

AUGUSTINE MCGINNIS

Andrea Pisano

Or ANDREA DA PISA (the name by which Andrea da Pontadera is known).

An Italian sculptor and architect, b. 1270; d. 1349. He was a pupil of Giovanni Pisano , and first learned the trade of a goldsmith, which was of benefit to him in his later work. He is said to have helped his master on the sculpture for St. Maria della Spina, in Pisa, and to have worked on St. Mark’s and the Doge’s palace, at Venice, before he went to Florence. Here he achieved the one work indisputably his, the first of the three bronze doors for the baptistery of the Duomo at Florence, the one on the south side. He spent years on it before it was finally set up in 1336. The date 1330 on the door refers to the wax model and not to the casting. The door has a number of quatrefoil panels, eight containing only a single figure, while the others have scenes from the life of St. John the Baptist. Pisano’s mature style was due to the influence of Giotto. After Giotto died, Pisano built two stories of niches above Giotto’s work on the Campanile, quite possibly from Giotto’s designs. From 1347 to 1349 he was chief architect of the duomo of Orvieto , which was designed and begun by Lorenzo Maitani. Andrea Pisano had two sons, Nino and Tommaso, who were also sculptors, but his most distinguished pupil was Andrea da Cione, who is known as Orcagna.

Lasinio, Le tre porte del Batistero; Reymond, La Sculpture Florentine.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Andreas of Ratisbon

(Or REGENSBURG.)

Historian of the later fourteenth and earlier fifteenth century. All that is known concerning him is gathered from the scanty particulars given in his works. He was ordained priest at Eichstätt in 1405, and joined the Canons Regular of St. Augustine at Ratisbon in 1410, where he devoted himself to historical studies. His principal works are “De statu urbis Ratisbon, antiquo et de variis Haeresibus,” the “Chronicon Generale” and the “Chronicon de Ducibus Bavariae,” to 1439, which gained him the title of the “Bavarian Livy,” and which he afterwards translated into German, and continued to 1452. He is the principal forerunner of the famous Bavarian historiographer, Aventinus.

HURTER, Nomenclator, IV, 701; LORENZ, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen (Berlin, 1886); STAMMINGER in Kirchenlex.

FRANCIS W. GREY

Felix de Andreis

First superior of the Congregation of the Mission (Lazarists) in the United States and Vicar-General of upper Louisiana, b. at Demonte, in Piedmont, Italy, 13 December, 1778; d. at St. Louis, Missouri, U.S., 15 October, 1820. After making his preparatory studies in his native place he entered the novitiate of the Congregation of the Mission, at Mondovi, 1 November, 1797, and was ordained priest at Piacenzia, 14 August, 1801. When only four years a priest, he conducted the retreats for those about to be ordained. His constitution was not robust and in 1806 he was sent to Monte Citorio, the house of the Congregation in Rome that seemed least likely to be affected by the rigorous religions persecutions of the time, which for while drove Pius VII from Rome. Here, Father De Andreis was constantly engaged from 1810 to 1815 in giving missions and retreats for the clergy or seminarians. He also gave many missions in the suburbs of the city. When the religious houses in Rome were suppressed, the Propaganda students attended his lectures on theology. It was no unusual thing for him to preach four times a day on different subjects. In view of later events, it is worthy of reflection that Father De Andreis received such a conviction that he was destined to a mission involving the need of English that he resolutely mastered that language. In 1815 Father Dubourg, Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Louisiana (which then extended along both sides of the Mississippi from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian Lakes) arrived in Rome to secure priests for that immense vineyard. As soon as he knew of Father De Andreis he applied to Father Sicardi, his superior, to let him go to Louisiana, and when the latter declared it impossible, as his place could not be filled, he exposed the situation to Pius VII, who appointed the young priest to this mission. In company with five others, Father De Andreis embarked from France, 12 June, 1816, and reached Baltimore 26 July. They remained there at St. Mary’s Seminary as guests of Father Bruté until 3 September, and then started on a tedious journey to the west, arriving at Louisville, 19 November, where at Bishop Flaget’s suggestion they remained in his seminary of St. Thomas at Bardstown until Bishop Dubourg should arrive. Father De Andreis taught theology and laboured at improving his English. Bishop Dubourg reached there with thirty priests, 29 December, 1817, and they went to St. Louis in 1818. There the Congregation had its first establishment. Father De Andreis had charge of two schools, one for religious students, another for seculars, established by Bishop Dubourg. Land for a seminary was given at “The Barrens,” a colony 80 miles south of St. Louis, in Perry County, and when the Bishop allowed his residence to be used for a novitiate, Father De Andreis became master of novices. Exhausted by the hardships of missionary word, he died after a short life of forty-two years, greatly esteemed for sanctity. The process of his canonization, begun in St. Louis in 1900, was completed in August, 1902, when the evidence was presented to the Congregation of Rites, at Rome.

ROSATI, Life of the Very Rev. Felix De Andreis, C.M. (ST. LOUIS, 1900).

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Juan Andres

A Spanish canonist, born at Xativa, or San Felipe, in Valencia. Of Moorish extraction, he became a Christian in 1587 and entered the priesthood. On the fall of Granada Ferdinand the Catholic invited him to labour in that city for the conversion of the Moors. He wrote a translation in Spanish of the Koran and a work entitled “Confusion de la secta mahometana” (Seville, 1537). It is a work frequently quoted against Mohammedanism. The English version is by Joshua Notstock (London, 1652). According to Fuster, Andres was also author of a rare work entitled “Prática de Arithmética” (Valencia, 1515; Seville, 1537).

ANTONIO, Biblioth. Hispana, II, 325; XIMENO, Escritores del regno de Valencia, I, 75.

THOMAS WALSH

St. Andrew (1)

The name “Andrew” (Gr., andreia, manhood, or valour), like other Greek names, appears to have been common among the Jews from the second or third century B.C. St. Andrew, the Apostle, son of Jonah, or John (Matt., xvi, 17; John, i, 42), was born in Bethsaida of Galilee (John, i, 44). He was brother of Simon Peter (Matt., x, 2; John, i, 40). Both were fishermen (Matt., iv, 18; Mark, i, 16), and at the beginning of Our Lord’s public life occupied the same house at Capharnaum (Mark, i, 21, 29). From the fourth Gospel we learn that Andrew was a disciple of the Baptist, whose testimony first led him and John the Evangelist to follow Jesus (John, i, 35–40). Andrew at once recognized Jesus as the Messias, and hastened to introduce Him to his brother, Peter, (John, i, 41). Thenceforth the two brothers were disciples of Christ. On a subsequent occasion, prior to the final call to the apostolate, they were called to a closer companionship, and then they left all things to follow Jesus (Luke, v, 11; Matt., iv, 19, 20; Mark, i, 17, 18). Finally Andrew was chosen to be one of the Twelve; and in the various lists of Apostles given in the New Testament (Matt., x, 2–4); Mark, iii, 16–19; Luke, vi, 14–16; Acts, i, 13) he is always numbered among the first four. The only other explicit reference to him in the Synoptists occurs in Mark, xiii, 3, where we are told he joined with Peter, James and John in putting the question that led to Our Lord’s great eschatological discourse. In addition to this scanty information, we learn from the fourth Gospel that on the occasion of the miraculous feeding of the five thousand, it was Andrew who said: “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fishes: but what are these among so many?” (John vi, 8, 9); and when, a few days before Our Lord’s death, certain Greeks asked Philips that they might see Jesus, Philip referred the matter to Andrew as to one of greater authority, and then both told Christ (John, xii, 20–22). Like the majority of the Twelve, Andrew is not named in the Acts except in the list of the Apostles, where the order of the first four is Peter, John, James, Andrew; nor have the Epistles or the Apocalypse any mention of him.

From what we know of the Apostles generally, we can, of course, supplement somewhat these few details. As one of the Twelve, Andrew was admitted to the closest familiarity with Our Lord during His public life; he was present at the Last Supper; beheld the risen Lord; witnessed the Ascension; shared in the graces and gifts of the first Pentecost, and helped, amid threats and persecution, to establish the Faith in Palestine.

When the Apostles went forth to preach to the Nations, Andrew seems to have taken an important part, but unfortunately we have no certainty as to the extent or place of his labours. Eusebius (H.E. III:1), relying, apparently, upon Origen, assigns Scythia as his mission field: Andras de [eilechen] ten Skythian; while St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. 33) mentions Epirus; St. Jerome (Ep. ad Marcell.) Achaia; and Theodoret (on Ps. cxvi) Hellas. Probably these various accounts are correct, for Nicephorus (H.E. II:39), relying upon early writers, states that Andrew preached in Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia, then in the land of the anthropophagi and the Scythian deserts, afterwards in Byzantium itself, where he appointed St. Stachys as its first bishop, and finally in Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly, and Achaia. It is generally agreed that he was crucified by order of the Roman Governor, Aegeas or Aegeates, at Patrae in Achaia, and that he was bound, not nailed, to the cross, in order to prolong his sufferings. The cross on which he suffered is commonly held to have been the decussate cross, now known as St. Andrew’s, though the evidence for this view seems to be no older than the fourteenth century. His martyrdom took place during the reign of Nero, on 30 November, A.D. 60); and both the Latin and Greek Churches keep 30 November as his feast.

St. Andrew’s relics were translated from Patrae to Constantinople, and deposited in the church of the Apostles there, about A.D. 357. When Constantinople was taken by the French, in the beginning of the thirteenth century, Cardinal Peter of Capua brought the relics to Italy and placed them in the cathedral of Amalfi, where most of them still remain. St. Andrew is honoured as their chief patron by Russia and Scotland.

J. MACRORY

St. Andrew (2)

A martyr of the Faith in Lampsacus, a city of Mysia, in the persecution of Decius. He and two companions were brought before the proconsul and interrogated about their belief. One of the three, Nichomachus, presumptuous and over-confident, unfortunately apostatized under torture. Andrew and his companion Paul, after having undergone the suffering of the rack, were thrown into prison. Meanwhile a girl of sixteen, named Dionysia, who had reproached Nichomachus for his fall, was seized and tortured, and then subjected to the approaches of three libertines, but was protected by an angel. In the morning, Andrew and Paul were taken out and stoned to death. As they lay in the arena, Dionysia, escaping from her captors and hurrying to the place of execution, asked to be slain. She was carried away by force, and suffered death by the sword. The feast of these martyrs is kept on 15 May.

Acta SS., III, May; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 15 May.

T.J. CAMPBELL

St. Andrew Avellino

Born 1521 at Castronuovo, a small town in Sicily; died 10 November, 1608. His baptismal name was Lancelotto, which out of love for the cross he changed into Andrew when he entered the Order of Theatines. From his early youth he was a great lover of chastity. After receiving his elementary training in the school of Castronuovo, he was sent to Venice to pursue a course in the humanities and in philosophy. Being a handsome youth, his chastity was often exposed to danger from female admirers, and to escape their importunities he took ecclesiastical tonsure. Hereupon he went to Naples to study canon and civil law, obtained the degree of Doctor of Laws and was ordained priest at the age of twenty-six. For some time he held the office of lawyer at the ecclesiastical court of Naples. One day, while pleading the cause of a friend, a lie escaped his lips in the heat of argument. When, soon afterwards, his eyes fell upon the passage in the Bible, “The mouth that belieth killeth the soul” (Wis. i, 11), he felt deep remorse, renounced his profession as ecclesiastical lawyer and for some time devoted himself entirely to holy meditation and other spiritual exercises. The Archbishop of Naples now commissioned him to reform a convent at Naples, which by the laxity of its discipline had become a source of great scandal. By his own example and his untiring zeal he restored the religious discipline of the convent but not without many and great difficulties. Certain wicked men who were accustomed to have clandestine meetings with the nuns became exasperated at the saint’s interference, and one night he was assaulted and severely wounded. He was brought to the monastery of the Theatines to recuperate. Here, however, he resolved to devote himself entirely to God and he entered the Order of Theatines, which had but recently been founded by St. Cajetan. On the vigil of the Assumption he was invested, being then thirty-five years of age. After completing his novitiate, he obtained permission to visit the tombs of the Apostles and the Martyrs at Rome, and, upon his return was made master of novices. After holding this office ten years he was elected superior. His holy zeal for strict religious discipline, and for the purity of the clergy, as well as his deep humility and sincere piety induced the General of his Order to entrust him with the foundation of two new Theatine houses, one at Milan, the other at Piacenza. By his efforts many more Theatine houses rose up in various diocese of Italy. As superior of some of these new foundations he was so successful in converting sinners and heretics by his prudence in the direction of souls and by his eloquent preaching, that numerous disciples thronged around him, eager to be under his spiritual guidance. One of the most noteworthy of his disciples was Lorenzo Scupoli, the author of that still popular book “The Spiritual Combat.” St. Charles Borromeo was an intimate friend of Avellino and sought his advice in the most important affairs of the Church. Through indefatigable in preaching, hearing confessions, and visiting the sick, Avellino still had time to write some ascetical works. His letters were published in 1731, at Naples, in two volumes, and his other ascetical works, three years later in five volumes. On 10 November, 1608, when beginning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, he was stricken with apoplexy, and after devoutly receiving the Holy Viaticum, died the death of a saint at the age of eighty-eight. In 1624, only sixteen years after his death, he was beatified by Urban VIII, and in 1712 was canonized by Clement XI. He is venerated as patron by Naples and Sicily and invoked especially against a sudden death. His earthly remains lie buried in the Church of St. Paul at Naples.

BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 10 Nov.; BARING-GOULD, Lives of the Saints (London, 1877); SCHMID in Kirchenlex., STADLER, Heiligen-Lexikon (Augsburg, 1858), I, 193.

MICHAEL OTT

Bl. Andrew Bobola

Andrew Bobola was canonized by Pope Pius XII with his encyclical “Invicti Athletae” promulgated on May 16, 1957.

BL. ANDREW BOBOLAF. M. RUDGE

Andrew Bobola, Blessed, Martyr, born of an old and illustrious Polish family, in the Palatinate of Sandomir, 1590; died at Janów, 16 May, 1657. Having entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus at Wilno (1611), he was ordained in 1622, and appointed preacher in the Church of St. Casimir, Wilno. After making his solemn vows, 2 June, 1630, he was made superior at Bobruisk, where he wrought wonders by his preaching and distinguished himself by his devotion during an epidemic of the plague. In 1636 he began his work in the Lithuanian missions. During this period Poland was being ravaged by Cossacks, Russians, and Tatars, and the Catholic Faith was made the object of the concerted attacks of Protestants and schismatics. The Jesuits, in particular, had much to endure. Bobola’s success in converting schismatics drew upon him the rage of those in high authority, and the adherents of the Greek Pope decided to centralize their forces in Polesia. A Catholic nobleman of this province offered the Jesuits a house at Pinsk, and here Father Bobola was stationed. The schismatics vainly endeavoured in every manner to hinder him in the exercise of his apostolic duties, extending their persecutions to attacks upon his person. On 16 May, 1657, he was seized by two Cossacks and severely beaten. Then tying him to their saddles, they dragged him to Janów where he was subjected to incredible tortures. After having been burned, half strangled, and partly flayed alive, he was released from suffering by a sabre stroke. His body was interred in the collegiate church of the Society at Pinsk, where it became the object of great veneration. It was later transferred to Polosk, where it is still held in honour, even by the schismatics. Father Bobola was declared Blessed by Pius IX in 1853, and his feast is kept by the Society of Jesus, 23 May.

BONE in Kirchenlex.; Acta SS., 16 May; DE BUCK, Essai historique sur le Bienh. André Bobola (Brussels, 1853).

F.M. RUDGE

St. Andrew Corsini

Of the illustrious Corsini family; born in Florence, in 1302; died 1373. Wild and dissolute in youth, he was startled by the words of his mother about what had happened to her before his birth, and, becoming a Carmelite monk in his native city, began a life of great mortification. He studied at Paris and Avignon, and, on his return, became the Apostle of Florence. He was regarded as a prophet and a thaumaturgus. Called to the See of Fiesoli, he fled, but was discovered by a child, and compelled to accept the honour. He redoubled his austerities as a bishop, was lavish in his care of the poor, and was sought for everywhere as a peacemaker, notably at Bologna, whither he was sent as papal legate to heal the breach between the nobility and the people. After twelve years in the episcopacy, he died at the age of seventy-one, and miracles were so multiplied at his death that Eugenius IV permitted a public cult immediately; but it was only in 1629 that Urban VIII canonized him. His feast is kept on 4 February.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Andrew of Caesarea

Bishop of that see in Cappadocia, assigned by Krumbacher to the first half of the sixth century, though he is yet variously placed by others from the fifth to the ninth century. His principal work is a commentary on the Apocalypse (P.G. CVI, 215–458, 1387–94), important as the first commentary on the book that has come down to us, also as the source from which most of its later commentators have drawn. The writer differs from most of the Byzantine commentators by reason of his extensive acquaintance with early patristic literature.

APOLLINAIRE in VIG., Dict. De la bible (Paris, 1895); KRUMBACHER, Gesch. der byzant. Lit. (2d. ed. Munich, 1897), 129–131.

A. J. MAAS

St. Andrew of Crete

(Sometimes called Andreas in English biography), theologian, homilist, hymnographer, b. at Damascus about the middle of the seventh century; d. 4 July, 740 (or 720), on which day his feast is celebrated in the Greek Church. At the age of fifteen he repaired to Jerusalem, entered a monastery, was enrolled amongst the clerics of Theodore, Bishop of Jerusalem (whence he is also commonly styled Andrew of Jerusalem), rose to some distinction, and was finally sent by Theodore in 685 to felicitate the Emperor, Constantine Pogonatus, on the holding of the Sixth General Council. His embassy fulfilled, he remained at Constantinople, received deaconship, again distinguished himself, and was finally appointed to the metropolitan see of Gortyna, in Crete. At first an opponent of the Monothelite heresy, he nevertheless attended the conciliabulum of 712, in which the decrees of the Council were abolished, but in the following year amended his course, and thenceforth occupied himself in worthy functions, preaching, composing hymns, etc. As a preacher, his twenty-two published and twenty-one unpublished discourses, replete with doctrine, history, unction, Scriptural quotation, poetic imagination, dignified and harmonious phraseology, and rhetorically divided in clear and precise fashion, justify his assignment to the front rank of ecclesiastical orators of the Byzantine epoch. A list of forty of his discourses, together with twenty-one edited sermons, is given in P.G., XCVII, 801–1304. His sermon on St. James, “brother of the Lord,” was published in 1891, thus making his published discourses twenty-two.

He is principally interesting to us, however, as a hymnographer—not so much for the great mass, the thematic variety, or the disputable excellence of his work, as for the reason that he is credited with the invention (or at least the introduction into Greek liturgical services) of the canon, a new form of hymnody of which we have no intimation before his time. While it may indeed be “the highest effort of Greek hymnody” (as the Rev. H.L. Bennett styles it), its effects, doubtless unforeseen by its inventor, were not entirely satisfactory, as it gradually supplanted the forms of hymnody previously in use in the Tropologion (Greek Prayer Book). While the new form was thus brought into use by Andrew and was zealously cultivated by the great Greek hymnographers, he himself did not attain to any very high degree of excellence in the many canons he composed, his style being rugged, diffuse, and monotonous, from the viewpoint of modern hymnologists. On the other hand, those who took his invention as their model in composition were not wanting in affectionate tributes. They styled him the “radiant star,” the “splendorous sun”; for them his style is elevated in thought, pure in form, sweet and harmonious in diction. Thus, too, while his “Greek Canon,” whose immense length of 250 strophes has passed into a proverb with the Greeks, has been criticized for its length, its subtilties, its forced comparisons, it still receives the tribute of recitation entire on the Thursday of the fifth week (with us, the fourth) of Lent, and the four parts into which it is divided are also severally assigned to the first four days of the first week.

His hymnographic labours were indeed immense, if we may credit absolutely all the attributions made to him. Nine canons are assigned to him in the “Theotocarion” of the monk Nicodemus. Of these, however, six are in regular acrostic form, a literary (or perhaps mnemonic) device wholly foreign to his authenticated compositions. The remaining three have too great regularity of rhythm to be fairly ascribed to him, as his work is not conformed wholly to the elaborate rhythmical inductions propounded by Cardinal Pitra as rules for the canon. Here it may be said, by way of parenthesis, that a canon as printed in the liturgical books is, for economical reasons, so condensed in form that its poetical units, the troparia or strophes, appear like ordinary prose paragraphs. These troparia, however, yield to analysis, and are seen to consist of clauses or phrases separated by caesuras. Some hymnologists look on them as illustrations merely of modulated prose; but Cardinal Pitra considers the clauses as truly metrical, and discovers sixteen rules of prosodical government. The prosodical quantity of syllables seems to be disregarded (a feature of the evolution of Latin hymns as well), although the number of the syllables is generally equal, while accent plays a great part in the rhythm. These troparia are built up into an ode, the first troparion being a hirmus, a strophe which becomes a type for those following in respect to melody, tone (or mode) and rhythmic structure. The odes, in turn, are built up into canons, and are usually eight in number (theoretically nine, the second being usually omitted, although the numeration remains unaltered). A hymn of two odes is called a diodion; of three, a triodion (the common form for Lenten Offices, whence the name of “Triodion” for the Lenten Office Book). The hirmus, a troparion indicating the Greek tone or mode, which then prevails throughout the canon, may be borrowed by a different canon if this be in the same tone. It should be added that the Greek tones do not correspond with the Latin in their octaves. Some of St. Andrew’s odes have more than one hirmus; thus, in the Greek Canon the second and third odes have each two; the Long Canon (180 strophes) in honour of Sts. Simeon and Anne the Prophetess, has three in the first, second, third, sixth, and eighth; two in the fifth, seventh, and ninth; and four in the fourth. Altogether, the sufficiently authentic work of St. Andrew furnishes no fewer than one hundred and eleven hirmi: a fertililty beyond that of any other hymnographer.

To return to the canon. In addition to the nine already referred to as wrongly ascribed to him, fifteen others, as yet unpublished, are perhaps too hastily assigned to him. Leaving all these aside, however, we have the following in the first tone: (a) on the resurrection of Lazarus, still sung on the Friday before Palm Sunday, at the apodeipnon (the after-supper service, corresponding to our Compline); (b) Conception of St. Anne (9 Dec.); (c) the Machabean martyrs (1 Aug.); (d) St. Ignatius of Antioch (2 Dec.). The titles affixed will serve to indicate the variety of themes. In addition to these, ten other canons and four triodia furnish illustrations of his work in the second, third, and fourth Authentic, and the second and fourth plagal tones. He is also credited with the authorship of many idiomela (short, detached troparia, somewhat similar to our antiphons), found in the offices of thirteen feasts of the Greek calendar, usually as doxasticha and aposticha at Lauds and Vespers, and in processional and vesperal stichera. (The word idiomela is variously interpreted as suggesting that each idiomelon has its own proper melody, or, understanding melos poetically, rhythm. Sometimes idiomela are combined in a series, and are then called stichera idiomela; but in this case they seem to preserve no structural similarity or affinity, and have been compared to irregular verses in English.)

P.G., XCVII, 789–1444; PETIT in Dict. d’arch. chret. et de lit., s.v.; MARIN in Dict. de theol, cath., s.v.; NEALE, Hymns of the Eastern Church, for translations of portions of the Great Canon and Idiomela.

H.T. HENRY

Andrew of Lonjumeau

Dominican missionary and papal ambassador, born in the diocese of Paris; died c. 1253. He first appears in the company of missionaries sent to the East by Blessed Jordan of Saxony in 1228. On this journey he gained great proficiency in several Oriental languages. When Baldwin II gave over the Crown of Thorns to King Louis IX, Andrew was commissioned together with the Dominican James of Paris, to bear the sacred treasure to France. But on reaching Constantinople, they were asked by the barons, who ruled in the vacancy, to carry the relic to the Venetians, to whom it had, in the meantime, been sold. Both set out about Christmas, 1238. At Venice Andrew remained behind in custody of the Crown of Thorns and James hastened to King Louis for further instructions. Were the latter willing to guarantee two hundred thousand pounds of gold, the impoverished Venetians were ready to dispose of the relic. In 1239 the two Friars had reached Troyes with the Crown. From that place King Louis carried it on his shoulders to the newly built chapel at Aix. In 1245 Andrew was sent as Papal ambassador by Innocent IV to the Oriental schismatic patriarchs, to induce them to unite with the See of Rome. Contrary to all expectations he found them orthodox as is evident from their joint letter to the Pope, as given in Raynaldus (Ann. Eccl. ad an. 1247). Andrew was probably the bearer of this letter to the Holy Father. On his journey to the Patriarchs Andrew halted to treat with the Mogul Khan Baiothnoi, and after his death with Ercoltai. Though this diplomatic mission utterly failed, as Bernard Guidonis expressly declares (Chronicon, ad an. 1248) we have the testimony of subsequent missionaries to show that many converts were made to the Faith. Andrew died some time after 1253, for that year he was active as missionary in Palestine. The Franciscan, Rubruquis, in his work on Oriental customs, declares that everything he had heard from Andrew on the subject was fully borne out by his own personal observations.

QUÉTIF AND ECHARD, SS Ord. Praed., I, 140; TOURON, Hommes illus. de l’ordre de S. Dominique I, 157–165; CHAPOTIN, Les princes français du moyen âge de l’ordre de Saint Dominique, in L’Année Dominicaine, 1901; MORAND, Histoire de la Sainte Chapelle royale du Palais, 13 sqq., MICHELL, Les missions latines en Orient, in La Correspondance Catholique, 1894–95.

THOMAS M. SCHWERTNER

Andrew of Rhodes

(Sometimes, of COLOSSUS)

Theologian, d. 1440. He was Greek by birth, and born of schismatic parents. In early youth he had no opportunities for education, but afterwards devoted himself to Latin and Greek, and to theology, especially the questions in dispute between the Latin and Greek Churches. The study of the early Fathers, both Greek and Latin, convinced him that in the disputed points, truth was on the side of the Latin Church. He therefore solemnly abjured his error, made a profession of faith, and entered the Dominican Order about the time of the Western Schism. He led thenceforth an apostolic life. He was especially earnest in his efforts to induce his fellow-Greeks to follow in his footsteps and reunite with Rome. In 1413 he was made Archbishop of Rhodes. The Dominican biographer, Echard, credits him with having taken an active part in the twentieth session of the Council of Constance (1414–18). Others maintain that there is here a confusion with Andrew of Colaczy, in Hungary. At the Council of Basle, he delivered an oration in the name of the Pope (Mansi, XXIX, 468–481). He took part in the Council of Ferrara-Florence, and was one of the six theologians appointed by the Papal Legate, Cardianal Julian, to reply to the objections of the Greeks. He proved that it was fully within the province of the Church to add the Filioque to the Creed, and that the Greek Fathers had been of the same opinion. After the close of the Council, trouble arose between the Latins and Greeks in Cyprus; the latter accused the former of refusing to hold communion with them. Andrew was sent thither by Eugene IV, and succeeded in establishing peace. He also succeeded in overcoming the local forms of the Nestorian, Eutychian, and Monothelite heresies. The heretical bishops abjured and made a profession of faith at a synod held at Nicosia; some of the prelates went afterwards to Rome to renew their profession before the Holy See. There are preserved in the Vatican manuscript copies of his treatise on the Divine essence and operation, compliled from the commentaries of St. Tomas Aquinas, and addressed to Cardinal Bessarion also a little work in the form of a dialogue in reply to a letter of Mark of Ephesus against the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Church (P.G., CL, 862).

QUETIF and ECHARD, SS. Ord. Praed, I, 801; HEFELE, Concilieng., VII, 472, 681, et al.; SCHMIDT, in Kirchenlex, I, 835; TOURON, Hommes ill. de l’ourdre de S. Dominique, s.v.; HURTER, Nomenclator (2d ed.), II, 821; see Bzovius, Ann. Eccl. ad an, 1438, x 8, and HERGENROETHER (ed.) The Mystagogia of Photius, 146 sqq.

J.L. FINNERTY

St. Andrew the Scot

Archdeacon of Fiesole, born probably at the beginning of the ninth century; died about 877. St. Andrew and his sister St. Bridget the Younger were born in Ireland of noble parents. There they seem to have studied under St. Donatus, an Irish scholar, and when the latter decided to make a long pilgrimage to the holy places of Italy, Andrew accompanied him. Donatus and Andrew arrived at Fiesole when the people were assembled to elect a new bishop. A heavenly voice indicated Donatus as most worthy of the dignity, and being consecrated to that office, he made Andrew his archdeacon. During the forty-seven years of his episcopate Andrew served him faithfully, and he was apparently encouraged by Donatus to restore the church of St. Martin a Mensola and to found a monastery there. Andrew is commended for his austerity of life and boundless charity to the poor. He died shortly after his master St. Donatus; and his sister St. Bridget is believed to have been miraculously conducted from Ireland by an angel to assist at his deathbed. After St. Andrew’s holy death, Bridget led the life of a recluse for some years in a remote spot among the Apennines. St. Andrew is commemorated on 22 August.

Herbert Thurston.

William Eusebius Andrews

Editor and author, born at Norwich, England, 6 December, 1773; died London, 7 April, 1837. His parents, who were converts to Catholicity, were of humble station and he entered the printing office of the “Norfolk, Chronicle” as an apprentice. He rose to be editor of the paper which post he held from 1799 to 1813. In 1813 he went to London to devote himself to advancing the Catholic cause by means of the press, and in July of that year he established the “Orthodox Journal and Catholic Monthly Intelligencer.” He was materially aided by Bishop Milner, but in 1820 he was obliged to suspend publication. During this period he began the publication in Glasgow of a weekly pamphlet, “The Catholic Vindicator,” but pecuniary losses compelled him to abandon it after one year. With the assistance of Bishop Milner, he established in December, 1820, a weekly newspaper, “The Catholic Advocate of Civil and Religious Liberty,” which was discontinued nine months later. In January, 1822, two periodicals were established, one, “The Catholic Miscellany,” devoted to Catholic interests, with a nominal editor, but under the control of Andrews; the other, “The People’s Advocate,” exclusively political, under his avowed editorship. The “Advocate” lived only seven weeks, and after two months the sole editorship of the other devolved on Andrews. He continued it for several months. In September, 1824, he established a weekly paper, “The Truth Teller,” which lasted for twelve months, and was afterwards continued as a pamphlet, but finally discontinued in 1829 through lack of support. “The Truth Teller” is noted for the vigour with which it assailed O’Connell.

It would seem that his zeal for starting Catholic papers makes him either directly or indirectly, responsible also for the inception, 2 April, 1825, of “The Truth Teller,” New York’s first distinctly Catholic paper. There is no direct information extant now as to the details of his connection with the New York paper, or whether the idea was to have it as a sort of local edition of the London publication. The first six issues, however, bear the imprint of “William E. Andrews & Co.” as the publishers. Then the name of the publishing firm is changed to George Pardow and William Denman, without any reason being assigned. George Pardow was an English Catholic and so was Denman, both having emigrated to New York a few years before. In the early issues of the New York “Truth Teller” there are constant references to the work of Andrews in London, showing an intimate relationship, but never, however, giving any positive statement as to a business connection. (See CATHOLIC PRESS.)

Andrews again revived the “Orthodox Journal,” which he subsequently continued as “The British Liberator,” and later as “Andrews’s Constitutional Preceptor.” From 1832 to 1834, he issued as a weekly paper, “Andrews’s Penny Orthodox Journal,” which after three months became “The London and Dublin Orthodox Journal.” It was continued after his death by his son. In 1826 Andrews had established a society known as “The Friends of Civil and Religious Liberty,” which in a little more than a year distributed nearly 500,000 tracts. This society was the parent of the “Metropolitan Tract Society” and many similar organizations. In addition to his editorial labours, Andrews wrote: “The Catholic School Book” (1814); “The Historical Narrative of the Horrid Plot and Conspiracy of Titus Oates” (1816); “The Ashton Controversy,” eighteen pamphlets (1822–23); “A Critical and Historical Review of Fox’s Book of Martyrs” (3 vols., 1824–46); an abridgement of “Plowden’s History of Ireland”; “The Catholic Vade Mecum”; “Popery Triumphant” (a satirical pamphlet); “The Two Systems”; and edited “The End of Religious Controversy,” by Dr. Milner (1818).

Orthodox Journal, April 1837; HUSENBETH, Life of Dr. Milner (Dublin, 1862); FLANAGAN, History of the Church.

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAFFE

Diocese of Andria

Comprises three towns in the Province of Bari and one in the Province of Potenza, Archdiocese of Trani, Italy. Information as to the Christian origin of Andria is impossible to find. Tradition assigns to it an Englishman, St. Richard, as bishop, chosen by Pope Gelasius I, about 492. The Bishopric dates very probably from the time of Gelasius II, elected Pope in 1118. The name, however, of Richard is genuine, as a Richard of Andria was present at the Eleventh Ecumenical Council (Third Lateran, 1179) held under Pope Alexander III. The first Bishop of Andria known to history is mentioned in the Translation of St. Nicholas Pilgrim, celebrated in Trani in 1143, but it does not give his name. In Andria, as in all the principal cities of Apulia, there are many artistic remains. Worthy of mention is the Castel del Monte near Andria. Andria has 15 parishes, 200 secular priests, 6 regulars, 41 seminarists, 53 churches or chapels. There are 101,000 inhabitants.

CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), XXI, 77; GAMS, Series episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae (Ratisbon, 1873),848; D’URSO, Storia della citta di Andria dalla sua origine sino al 1841 (Naples, 1842); VENTURI, Storia dell’ arte Nazionale (Milan, 1903); BERTAUX, Castel del Monte et les architectes francais de l’empereur Frederic II (Paris, 1897).

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Anemurium

Now ESTENMURE, a titular see of Cilicia, situated in antiquity on a high bluff knob that marks the southernmost point of Asia Minor, opposite Cyprus. The ruins of its theatres, tombs, and walls are still visible.

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 136; MAS LATRIE, Tresor de chronol. (Paris, 1895), 1985; DULAURIER, Hist. arm. des croisades, I, xix, xxiv.

Felice Anerio

An eminent Roman composer, b. c. 1560; d. c. 1630. From 1575 he was for four years a boy-soprano in the Papal Choir, studying under the celebrated master Nanini. His first appointment was as choirmaster of the English College in Rome, and his next a similar one under Cardinal Aldobrandini. In 1594 he succeeded Palestrina as composer to the Papal Choir, a post created specially for Palestrina, and which ceased with Anerio’s death. Several of his compositions, e.g. an “Adoramus Te, Christe” and a “Stabat Mater,” for three choirs, passed for a long time as Palestrina’s work. Anerio’s compositions (which are very numerous) are characterized by originality and fine artistic feeling. Many were printed during the period 1585- 1622. We may mention “First Book of Hymns, Canticles and Motets for eight voices” (Venice, 1596), dedicated to Pope Clement VIII, which was followed later by a second volume, “Three Books of Spiritual Madrigals for Five Voices,” “Two Books of Spiritual Concerts for Four Voices.” But a large proportion of them exist only in manuscript, and are preserved in various Roman libraries, especially in that of the Roman College.

KORNMÜLLER, Lex. der kirchl. Tonkunst; RIEMANN, Dict. of Music; GROVE, Dict. of Music and Musicians; NAUMANN, Geschichte der Musik.

J.A. VÖLKER

Giovanni Francesco Anerio

Born in Rome c. 1567; died. c. 1620. He spent four years as a chorister at St. Peter’s, under Palestrina. He was in turn choirmaster to Sigismund III of Poland, 1609, and at the cathedral of Verona, 1610; but he soon after went to Rome as musical instructor at the Seminario Romano, and from 1613 to 1620 was choirmaster at the church of Santa Maria de’ Monti. In 1616 he took holy orders. Anerio was among the first Italian composers to use the eighth note, or quaver, and its subdivisions. He left a large number of works, embracing all the usual forms of sacred music, the list of which may be found in Vogel’s “Weltliche Vokalmusik Italiens” and Eitner’s “Quellen-Lexikon.” A peculiarity of his was the use of fantastic titles for his collections such as “Ghirlanda di Sacre Rose” (Rome, 1619); “Selva armonica” (Rome, 1617); “Diporte musicali” (Rome, 1617). He also arranged Palestrina’s celebrated “Missa Papae Marcelli” for four voices, making it more practicable than in its original form of a six-voice mass. His style is partly based on the traditions of the sixteenth century, partly on the innovations of the seventeenth which introduced solos with a figured bass.

RIEMANN, Dict. of Music; GROVE, Dict. of Music and Musicians; NAUMANN, Geschichte der Musik.

J.A. VÖLKER

Filippo Anfossi

An Italian Dominican, b. at Taggia, in the province of Genoa; d. in Rome, 14 May, 1825. Pius VII on his return to the States of the Church appointed him Vicar-General of the Order of Preachers and later Master of the Sacred Palace, 1815–25. In this quality he carried on the negotiations with Lamennais regarding the corrections to be made in his “Essai sur l’indifférence” (Paris, 1821–23). He was among the most ardent defenders of the Roman Church against the various forms of Gallicanism represented by Scipione de Ricci, Vincento Palmieri, and Guillaume de la Luzerne. Among his published works are: “Difesa della bolla ‘Auctorem fidei’ in cui si trattano le maggiori questioni che hanno agitate in questi tempi la chiesa” (Rome, 1810 and 1816); “Motivi per cui il Padre Filippo Anfossi Domenicano a creduto di non potere adorire alle quattro proposizioni gallicane” (Rome, 1813); “L’unione politico-religiosa considerata nei suoi rapporti colla civile societá” (Rome, 1822).

HURTER, Nomenclator, III, 753.

THOMAS WALSH

Ange de Saint Joseph

French missionary friar of the Order of Discalced Carmelites, b. at Toulouse, 1636; d. at Perpignon, 1697. He wrote works on Oriental pharmaceutics. His family name was Joseph de la Brosse. In 1662 he took up the study of Arabic in the convent of San Pancrazio in Rome, under Celestino à San-Liduvina, brother of the great Orientalist Golius; in 1664 he was sent to the East as missionary, and while visiting Smyrna and Ispahan was instructed in Persion by Balthazar, a Portuguese Carmelite. He passed ten years in Persia and Arabia, acting as prior at Ispahan and, later, at Basrah. On the capture of the latter place by the Turks, he went to Constantinople and succeeded in gaining for his mission the protection of the Sultan, through the mediation of the French ambassador. He was recalled to Rome in 1679, and in 1680 was made superior of missions in Holland, England, and Ireland, where he spent many years. He was Provincial in his order at the time of his death. His writings are: “Pharmacop ia Persica, ex idiomate persico in latinum conversa” (Paris, 1681). Hyde (Biographia Britannica, cited by Langlès, Biographie universelle) asserts that the credit for this work really belongs to Père Matthieu. Another work by Père Ange de Saint Joseph, which is praised by Bernier, Pétis de la Croix, and Chardin is “Gazophylacium linguæ Persarum” (Amsterdam, 1684), a grammar with a dictionary in Latin, Italian, and French.

MARTALIS A SCO. JOANNE-BAPTISTA, Bibl. Script. Carmel. excalceatorum; NICÉRON, Mémoires, XXIX, 26.

THOMAS WALSH

Ange de Sainte Rosalie

French genealogist and friar of the house of the Petits-Pères of the Discalced Augustinians, b. at Blois, 1655; d. in Paris, 1726. His real name was François Vaffard. After making his religious profession in 1672, he filled many important offices in the houses of his order, and finally devoted himself to the study of genealogy, contributing extensively to the “Grande dictionnaire historique” of Moréri. From the materials collected by Père Anselme and Caille de Fourny he prepared the “Histoire généalogique et chronologique de la maison royale de France et des grandsofficiers de la couronne,” which was left unfinished at his death, but completed by Père Simplicien, his collaborator. The latter also prepared three additional volumes. His other works include “L’Etat de la France,” edited in 1749 by the Benedictines of Saint-Maur, with a supplementary volume on the coronation, the armorial bearings, and prerogatives of the kings of France.

GIRAUD, Bib. Sac.

THOMAS WALSH

Angel

(Latin angelus; Greek aggelos; from the Hebrew for “one going” or “one sent”; messenger). The word is used in Hebrew to denote indifferently either a divine or human messenger. The Septuagint renders it by aggelos which also has both significations. The Latin version, however, distinguishes the divine or spirit-messenger from the human, rendering the original in the one case by angelus and in the other by legatus or more generally by nuntius. In a few passages the Latin version is misleading, the word angelus being used where nuntius would have better expressed the meaning, e.g. Isaiah 18:2; 33:3, 6.

It is with the spirit-messenger alone that we are here concerned. We have to discuss

the meaning of the term in the Bible,

the offices of the angels,

the names assigned to the angels,

the distinction between good and evil spirits,

the divisions of the angelic choirs,

the question of angelic appearances, and

the development of the scriptural idea of angels.

The angels are represented throughout the Bible as a body of spiritual beings intermediate between God and men: “You have made him (man) a little less than the angels” (Psalm 8:6). They, equally with man, are created beings; “praise ye Him, all His angels: praise ye Him, all His hosts . . . for He spoke and they were made. He commanded and they were created” (Psalm 148:2, 5: Colossians 1:16, 17). That the angels were created was laid down in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). The decree “Firmiter” against the Albigenses declared both the fact that they were created and that men were created after them. This decree was repeated by the Vatican Council, “Dei Filius.” We mention it here because the words: “He that liveth for ever created all things together” (Ecclesiasticus 18:1) have been held to prove a simultaneous creation of all things; but it is generally conceded that “together” (simul) may here mean “equally,” in the sense that all things were “alike” created. They are spirits; the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says: “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister to them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation?” (Heb. i, 14).

Attendants at God’s throne

It is as messengers that they most often figure in the Bible, but, as St. Augustine, and after him St. Gregory, expresses it: angelus est nomen officii (“angel is the name of the office”) and expresses neither their essential nature nor their essential function, viz.: that of attendants upon God’s throne in that court of heaven of which Daniel has left us a vivid picture:

I behold till thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days sat: His garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like clean wool: His throne like flames of fire: the wheels of it like a burning fire. A swift stream of fire issued forth from before Him: thousands of thousands ministered to Him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before Him: the judgment sat and the books were opened. (Daniel 7:9–10; cf. also Psalm 96:7; Psalm 102:20; Isaiah 6, etc.)

This function of the angelic host is expressed by the word “assistance” (Job, i, 6: ii, 1), and our Lord refers to it as their perpetual occupation (Matt., xviii, 10). More than once we are told of seven angels whose special function it is thus to “stand before God’s throne” (Tob., xii, 15; Apoc., viii, 2–5). The same thought may be intended by “the angel of His presence” (Is., lxiii, 9) an expression which also occurs in the pseudo-epigraphical “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.”

God’s messengers to mankind

But these glimpses of life beyond the veil are only occasional. The angels of the Bible generally appear in the role of God’s messengers to mankind. They are His instruments by whom He communicates His will to men, and in Jacob’s vision they are depicted as ascending and descending the ladder which stretches from earth to heaven while the Eternal Father gazes upon the wanderer below. It was an angel who found Agar in the wilderness (Gen., xvi); angels drew Lot out of Sodom; an angel announces to Gideon that he is to save his people; an angel foretells the birth of Samson (Judges, xiii), and the angel Gabriel instructs Daniel (Dan., viii, 16), though he is not called an angel in either of these passages, but “the man Gabriel” (9:21). The same heavenly spirit announced the birth of St. John the Baptist and the Incarnation of the Redeemer, while tradition ascribes to him both the message to the shepherds (Luke, ii, 9), and the most glorious mission of all, that of strengthening the King of Angels in His Agony (Luke 22:43). The spiritual nature of the angels is manifested very clearly in the account which Zacharias gives of the revelations bestowed upon him by the ministry of an angel. The prophet depicts the angel as speaking “in him.” He seems to imply that he was conscious of an interior voice which was not that of God but of His messenger. The Massoretic text, the Septuagint, and the Vulgate all agree in thus describing the communications made by the angel to the prophet. It is a pity that the “Revised Version” should, in apparent defiance of the above-named texts, obscure this trait by persistently giving the rendering: “the angel that talked with me: instead of “within me” (cf. Zach., i, 9, 13, 14; ii, 3; iv, 5; v, 10).

Such appearances of angels generally last only so long as the delivery of their message requires, but frequently their mission is prolonged, and they are represented as the constituted guardians of the nations at some particular crisis, e.g. during the Exodus (Exod., xiv, 19; Baruch, vi, 6). Similarly it is the common view of the Fathers that by “the prince of the Kingdom of the Persians” (Dan., x, 13; x, 21) we are to understand the angel to whom was entrusted the spiritual care of that kingdom, and we may perhaps see in the “man of Macedonia” who appeared to St. Paul at Troas, the guardian angel of that country (Acts. xvi, 9). The Septuagint (Deut., xxxii, 8), has preserved for us a fragment of information on this head, though it is difficult to gauge its exact meaning: “When the Most High divided the nations, when He scattered the children of Adam, He established the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.” How large a part the ministry of angels played, not merely in Hebrew theology, but in the religious ideas of other nations as well, appears from the expression “like to an angel of God.” It is three times used of David (II K., xiv, 17, 20; xiv, 27) and once by Achis of Geth (I K., xxlx, 9). It is even applied by Esther to Assuerus (Esther, xv, 16), and St. Stephen’s face is said to have looked “like the face of an angel” as he stood before the Sanhedrin (Acts, vi, 15).

Personal guardians

Throughout the Bible we find it repeatedly implied that each individual soul has its tutelary angel. Thus Abraham, when sending his steward to seek a wife for Isaac, says: “He will send His angel before thee” (Genesis 24:7). The words of the ninetieth Psalm which the devil quoted to our Lord (Matt., iv, 6) are well known, and Judith accounts for her heroic deed by saying: “As the Lord liveth, His angel hath been my keeper” (xiii, 20). These passages and many like them (Gen., xvi, 6–32; Osee, xii, 4; III K., xix, 5; Acts, xii, 7; Ps., xxxiii, 8), though they will not of themselves demonstrate the doctrine that every individual has his appointed guardian angel, receive their complement in our Saviour’s words: “See that you despise not on of these little ones; for I say to you that their angels in Heaven always see the face of My Father Who is in Heaven” (Matt, xviii, 10), words which illustrate the remark of St. Augustine: “What lies hidden in the Old Testament, is made manifest in the New.” Indeed, the book of Tobias seems intended to teach this truth more than any other, and St. Jerome in his commentary on the above words of our Lord says: “The dignity of a soul is so great, that each has a guardian angel from its birth.” The general doctrine that the angels are our appointed guardians is considered to be a point of faith, but that each individual member of the human race has his own individual guardian angel is not of faith (de fide); the view has, however, such strong support from the Doctors of the Church that it would be rash to deny it (cf. St. Jerome, supra). Peter the Lombard (Sentences, lib. II, dist. xi) was inclined to think that one angel had charge of several individual human beings. St. Bernard’s beautiful homilies (11–14) on the ninetieth Psalm breathe the spirit of the Church without however deciding the question. The Bible represents the angels not only as our guardians, but also as actually interceding for us. “The angel Raphael (Tob., xii, 12) says: “I offered thy prayer to the Lord” (cf. Job, v, 1 (Septuagint), and 33:23 (Vulgate); Apocalypse 8:4). The Catholic cult of the angels is thus thoroughly scriptural. Perhaps the earliest explicit declaration of it is to be found in St. Ambrose’s words: “We should pray to the angels who are given to us as guardians” (De Viduis, ix); (cf. St. Aug., Contra Faustum, xx, 21). An undue cult of angels was reprobated by St. Paul (Col., ii, 18), and that such a tendency long remained in the same district is evidenced by Canon 35 of the Synod of Laodicea.

As Divine Agents Governing The World

The foregoing passages, especially those relating to the angels who have charge of various districts, enable us to understand the practically unanimous view of the Fathers that it is the angels who put into execution God’s law regarding the physical world. The Semitic belief in genii and in spirits which cause good or evil is well known, and traces of it are to be found in the Bible. Thus the pestilence which devastated Israel for David’s sin in numbering the people is attributed to an angel whom David is said to have actually seen (II K., xxiv, 15–17), and more explicitly, I Par., xxi, 14–18). Even the wind rustling in the tree-tops was regarded as an angel (II K., v, 23, 24; I Par., xiv, 14, 15). This is more explicitly stated with regard to the pool of Probatica (John, v, 1–4), though these is some doubt about the text; in that passage the disturbance of the water is said to be due to the periodic visits of an angel. The Semites clearly felt that all the orderly harmony of the universe, as well as interruptions of that harmony, were due to God as their originator, but were carried out by His ministers. This view is strongly marked in the “Book of Jubilees” where the heavenly host of good and evil angels is every interfering in the material universe. Maimonides (Directorium Perplexorum, iv and vi) is quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theol., I:1:3) as holding that the Bible frequently terms the powers of nature angels, since they manifest the omnipotence of God (cf. St. Jerome, In Mich., vi, 1, 2; P. L., iv, col. 1206).

Hierarchical organization

Though the angels who appear in the earlier works of the Old Testament are strangely impersonal and are overshadowed by the importance of the message they bring or the work they do, there are not wanting hints regarding the existence of certain ranks in the heavenly army.

After Adam’s fall Paradise is guarded against our First Parents by cherubim who are clearly God’s ministers, though nothing is said of their nature. Only once again do the cherubim figure in the Bible, viz., in Ezechiel’s marvellous vision, where they are described at great length (Ezech., i), and are actually called cherub in Ezechiel, x. The Ark was guarded by two cherubim, but we are left to conjecture what they were like. It has been suggested with great probability that we have their counterpart in the winged bulls and lions guarding the Assyrian palaces, and also in the strange winged men with hawks’ heads who are depicted on the walls of some of their buildings. The seraphim appear only in the vision of Isaias, vi, 6.

Mention has already been made of the mystic seven who stand before God, and we seem to have in them an indication of an inner cordon that surrounds the throne. The term archangel occurs only in St. Jude and I Thess., iv, 15; but St. Paul has furnished us with two other lists of names of the heavenly cohorts. He tells us (Ephes., i, 21) that Christ is raised up “above all principality, and power, and virtue, and dominion”; and, writing to the Colossians (i, 16), he says: “In Him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominations, or principalities or powers.” It is to be noted that he uses two of these names of the powers of darkness when (ii, 15) he talks of Christ as “despoiling the principalities and powers . . . triumphing over them in Himself.” And it is not a little remarkable that only two verses later he warns his readers not to be seduced into any “religion of angels.” He seems to put his seal upon a certain lawful angelology, and at the same time to warn them against indulging superstition on the subject. We have a hint of such excesses in the Book of Enoch, wherein, as already stated, the angels play a quite disproportionate part. Similarly Josephus tells us (Be. Jud., II, viii, 7) that the Essenes had to take a vow to preserve the names of the angels.

We have already seen how (Daniel 10:12–21) various districts are allotted to various angels who are termed their princes, and the same feature reappears still more markedly in the Apocalyptic “angels of the seven churches,” though it is impossible to decide what is the precise signification of the term. These seven Angels of the Churches are generally regarded as being the Bishops occupying these sees. St. Gregory Nazianzen in his address to the Bishops at Constantinople twice terms them “Angels,” in the language of the Apocalypse.

The treatise “De Coelesti Hierarchia,” which is ascribed to St. Denis the Areopagite, and which exercised so strong an influence upon the Scholastics, treats at great length of the hierarchies and orders of the angels. It is generally conceded that this work was not due to St. Denis, but must date some centuries later. Though the doctrine it contains regarding the choirs of angels has been received in the Church with extraordinary unanimity, no proposition touching the angelic hierarchies is binding on our faith. The following passages from St. Gregory the Great (Hom. 34, In Evang.) will give us a clear idea of the view of the Church’s doctors on the point:

We know on the authority of Scripture that there are nine orders of angels, viz., Angels, Archangels, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Dominations, Throne, Cherubim and Seraphim. That there are Angels and Archangels nearly every page of the Bible tell us, and the books of the Prophets talk of Cherubim and Seraphim. St. Paul, too, writing to the Ephesians enumerates four orders when he says: ‘above all Principality, and Power, and Virtue, and Domination’; and again, writing to the Colossians he says: ‘whether Thrones, or Dominations, or Principalities, or Powers.’ If we now join these two lists together we have five Orders, and adding Angels and Archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim, we find nine Orders of Angels.

St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:108), following St. Denis (De Coelesti Hierarchia, vi, vii), divides the angels into three hierarchies each of which contains three orders. Their proximity to the Supreme Being serves as the basis of this division. In the first hierarchy he places the Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones; in the second, the Dominations, Virtues, and Powers; in the third, the Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. The only Scriptural names furnished of individual angels are Raphael, Michael, and Gabriel, names which signify their respective attributes. Apocryphal Jewish books, such as the Book of Enoch, supply those of Uriel and Jeremiel, while many are found in other apocryphal sources, like those Milton names in “Paradise Lost.” (On superstitious use of such names, see above).

The number of angels

The number of the angels is frequently stated as prodigious (Daniel 7:10; Apocalypse 5:11; Psalm 67:18; Matthew 26:53). From the use of the word host (sabaoth) as a synonym for the heavenly army it is hard to resist the impression that the term “Lord of Hosts” refers to God’s Supreme command of the angelic multitude (cf. Deuteronomy 33:2; 32:43; Septuagint). The Fathers see a reference to the relative numbers of men and angels in the parable of the hundred sheep (Luke 15:1–3), though this may seem fanciful. The Scholastics, again, following the treatise “De Coelesti Hierarchia” of St. Denis, regard the preponderance of numbers as a necessary perfection of the angelic host (cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I:1:3).

The evil angels

The distinction of good and bad angels constantly appears in the Bible, but it is instructive to note that there is no sign of any dualism or conflict between two equal principles, one good and the other evil. The conflict depicted is rather that waged on earth between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the Evil One, but the latter’s inferiority is always supposed. The existence, then, of this inferior, and therefore created, spirit, has to be explained.

The gradual development of Hebrew consciousness on this point is very clearly marked in the inspired writings. The account of the fall of our First Parents (Gen., iii) is couched in such terms that it is impossible to see in it anything more than the acknowledgment of the existence of a principle of evil who was jealous of the human race. The statement (Gen., vi, 1) that the “sons of God” married the daughters of men is explained of the fall of the angels, in Enoch, vi-xi, and codices, D, E F, and A of the Septuagint read frequently, for “sons of God,” oi aggeloi tou theou. Unfortunately, codices B and C are defective in Ge., vi, but it is probably that they, too, read oi aggeloi in this passage, for they constantly so render the expression “sons of God”; cf. Job, i, 6; ii, 1; xxxviii, 7; but on the other hand, see Ps., ii, 1; lxxxviii, & (Septuagint). Philo, in commenting on the passage in his treatise “Quod Deus sit immutabilis,” i, follows the Septuagint. For Philo’s doctrine of Angels, cf. “De Vita Mosis,” iii, 2, “De Somniis,” VI: “De Incorrupta Manna,” i; “De Sacrificis,” ii; “De Lege Allegorica,” I, 12; III, 73; and for the view of Gen., vi, 1, cf. St. Justin, Apol., ii 5. It should moreover be noted that the Hebrew word nephilim rendered gigantes, in 6:4, may mean “fallen ones.” The Fathers generally refer it to the sons of Seth, the chosen stock. In I K., xix, 9, an evil spirit is said to possess Saul, though this is probably a metaphorical expression; more explicit is III B., xxii, 19–23, where a spirit is depicted as appearing in the midst of the heavenly army and offering, at the Lord’s invitation, to be a lying spirit in the mouth of Achab’s false prophets. We might, with Scholastics, explain this is malum poenae, which is actually caused by God owing to man’s fault. A truer exegesis would, however, dwell on the purely imaginative tone of the whole episode; it is not so much the mould in which the message is cast as the actual tenor of that message which is meant to occupy our attention.

The picture afforded us in Job, i and ii, is equally imaginative; but Satan, perhaps the earliest individualization of the fallen Angel, is presented as an intruder who is jealous of Job. He is clearly an inferior being to the Deity and can only touch Job with God’s permission. How theologic thought advanced as the sum of revelation grew appears from a comparison of II K, xxiv, 1, with I Paral., xxi, 1. Whereas in the former passage David’s sin was said to be due to “the wrath of the Lord” which “stirred up David,” in the latter we read that “Satan moved David to number Israel.” In Job. iv, 18, we seem to find a definite declaration of the fall: “In His angels He found wickedness.” The Septuagint of Job contains some instructive passages regarding avenging angels in whom we are perhaps to see fallen spirits, thus xxxiii, 23: “If a thousand death-dealing angels should be (against him) not one of them shall wound him”; and xxxvi, 14: “If their souls should perish in their youth (through rashness) yet their life shall be wounded by the angels”; and xxi, 15: “The riches unjustly accumulated shall be vomited up, an angel shall drag him out of his house;” cf. Prov., xvii, 11; Ps., xxxiv, 5, 6; lxxvii, 49, and especially, Ecclesiasticus, xxxix, 33, a text which, as far as can be gathered from the present state of the manuscript, was in the Hebrew original. In some of these passages, it is true, the angels may be regarded as avengers of God’s justice without therefore being evil spirits. In Zach., iii, 1–3, Satan is called the adversary who pleads before the Lord against Jesus the High Priest. Isaias, xiv, and Ezech., xxviii, are for the Fathers the loci classici regarding the fall of Satan (cf. Tertull., adv. Marc., II, x); and Our Lord Himself has given colour to this view by using the imagery of the latter passage when saying to His Apostles: “I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven” (Luke, x, 18). In New Testament times the idea of the two spiritual kingdoms is clearly established. The devil is a fallen angel who in his fall has drawn multitudes of the heavenly host in his train. Our Lord terms him “the Prince of this world” (John xiv, 30); he is the tempter of the human race and tries to involve them in his fall (Matthew, xxv, 41; II Peter, ii, 4: Ephes., vi, 12: II Cor., xi, 14; xii, 7). Christian imagery of the devil as the dragon is mainly derived from the Apocalypse (ix, 11–15; xii, 7–9), where he is termed “the angel of the bottomless pit,” “the dragon,” “the old serpent,” etc., and is represented as having actually been in combat with Archangel Michael. The similarity between scenes such as these and the early Babylonian accounts of the struggle between Merodach and the dragon Tiamat is very striking. Whether we are to trace its origin to vague reminiscences of the mighty saurians which once people the earth is a moot question, but the curious reader may consult Bousett, “The Anti-Christ Legend” (tr. by Keane, London, 1896). The translator has prefixed to it an interesting discussion on the origin of the Babylonian Dragon-Myth.

The Term “Angel” In The Septuagint

We have had occasion to mention the Septuagint version more than once, and it may not be amiss to indicate a few passages where it is our only source of information regarding the angels. The best known passage is Is., ix, 6, where the Septuagint gives the name of the Messias, as “the Angel of great Counsel.” We have already drawn attention to Job, xx, 15, where the Septuagint reads “Angel” instead of “God,” and to xxxvi, 14, where there seems to be question of evil angels. In ix 7, Septuagint (B) adds: “He is the Hebrew (v, 19) say of “Behemoth”: “He is the beginning of the ways of God, he that made him shall make his sword to approach him:, the Septuagint reads: “He is the beginning of God’s creation, made for His Angels to mock at,” and exactly the same remark is made about “Leviathan,” xli, 24. We have already seen that the Septuagint generally renders the term “sons of God” by “angels,” but in Deut., xxxii, 43, the Septuagint has an addition in which both terms appear: “Rejoice in Him all ye heavens, and adore Him all ye angels of God; rejoice ye nations with His people, and magnify Him all ye Sons of God.” Nor does the Septuagint merely give us these additional references to angels; it sometimes enables us to correct difficult passages concerning them in the Vulgate and Massoretic text. Thus the difficult Elim of MT in Job, xli, 17, which the Vulgate renders by “angels,” becomes “wild beasts” in the Septuagint version. The early ideas as to the personality of the various angelic appearances are, as we have seen, remarkably vague. At first the angels are regarded in quite an impersonal way (Gen., xvi, 7). They are God’s vice-regents and are often identified with the Author of their message (Gen., xlviii, 15–16). But while we read of “the Angels of God” meeting Jacob (Gen., xxxii, 1) we at other times read of one who is termed “the Angel of God” par excellence, e.g. Gen., xxxi, 11. It is true that, owing to the Hebrew idiom, this may mean no more than “an angel of God,” and the Septuagint renders it with or without the article at will; yet the three visitors at Mambre seem to have been of different ranks, though St. Paul (Heb., xiii, 2) regarded them all as equally angels; as the story in Ge., xiii, develops, the speaker is always “the Lord.” Thus in the account of the Angel of the Lord who visited Gideon (Judges, vi), the visitor is alternately spoken of as “the Angel of the Lord” and as “the Lord.” Similarly, in Judges, xiii, the Angel of the Lord appears, and both Manue and his wife exclaim: “We shall certainly die because we have seen God.” This want of clearness is particularly apparent in the various accounts of the Angel of Exodus. In Judges, vi, just now referred to, the Septuagint is very careful to render the Hebrew “Lord” by “the Angel of the Lord”; but in the story of the Exodus it is the Lord who goes before them in the pillar of a cloud (Exod., xiii 21), and the Septuagint makes no change (cf. also Num., xiv, 14, and Neh., ix, 7–20. Yet in Exod., xiv, 19, their guide is termed “the Angel of God.” When we turn to Exod., xxxiii, where God is angry with His people for worshipping the golden calf, it is hard not to feel that it is God Himself who has hitherto been their guide, but who now refuses to accompany them any longer. God offers an angel instead, but at Moses’s petition He says (14) “My face shall go before thee,” which the Septuagint reads by autos though the following verse shows that this rendering is clearly impossible, for Moses objects: “If Thou Thyself dost not go before us, bring us not out of this place.” But what does God mean by “my face”? Is it possible that some angel of specially high rank is intended, as in Is., lxiii, 9 (cf. Tobias, xii, 15)? May not this be what is meant by “the angel of God” (cf. Num., xx, 16)?

That a process of evolution in theological thought accompanied the gradual unfolding of God’s revelation need hardly be said, but it is especially marked in the various views entertained regarding the person of the Giver of the Law. The Massoretic text as well as the Vulgate of Exod., iii and xix-xx clearly represent the Supreme Being as appearing to Moses in the bush and on Mount Sinai; but the Septuagint version, while agreeing that it was God Himself who gave the Law, yet makes it “the angel of the Lord” who appeared in the bush. By New Testament times the Septuagint view has prevailed, and it is now not merely in the bush that the angel of the Lord, and not God Himself appears, but the angel is also the Giver of the Law (cf. Gal., iii, 19; Heb., ii, 2; Acts, vii, 30). The person of “the angel of the Lord” finds a counterpart in the personification of Wisdom in the Sapiential books and in at least one passage (Zach., iii, 1) it seems to stand for that “Son of Man” whom Daniel (vii, 13) saw brought before “the Ancient of Days.” Zacharias says: “And the Lord showed me Jesus the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan stood on His right hand to be His adversary.” Tertullian regards many of these passages as preludes to the Incarnation; as the Word of God adumbrating the sublime character in which He is one day to reveal Himself to men (cf. adv, Prax., xvi; adv. Marc., II, 27; III, 9: I, 10, 21, 22). It is possible, then, that in these confused views we can trace vague gropings after certain dogmatic truths regarding the Trinity, reminiscences perhaps of the early revelation of which the Protevangelium in Ge., iii is but a relic. The earlier Fathers, going by the letter of the text, maintained that it was actually God Himself who appeared. he who appeared was called God and acted as God. It was not unnatural then for Tertullian, as we have already seen, to regard such manifestations in the light of preludes to the Incarnation, and most of the Eastern Fathers followed the same line of thought. It was held as recently as 1851 by Vandenbroeck, “Dissertatio Theologica de Theophaniis sub Veteri Testamento” (Louvain).

But the great Latins, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and St. Gregory the Great, held the opposite view, and the Scholastics as a body followed them. St. Augustine (Sermo vii, de Scripturis, P. G. V) when treating of the burning bush (Exod., iii) says: “That the same person who spoke to Moses should be deemed both the Lord and an angel of the Lord, is very hard to understand. it is a question which forbids any rash assertions bug rather demands careful investigation . . . Some maintain that he is called both the Lord and the angel of the Lord because he was Christ, indeed the prophet (Is., ix, 6, Septuagint Version) clearly styles Christ the ‘Angel of great Counsel.’“ The saint proceeds to show that such a view is tenable though we must be careful not to fall into Arianism in stating it. He points out, however, that if we hold that it was an angel who appeared, we must explain how he came to be called “the Lord,” and he proceeds to show how this might be: “Elsewhere in the Bible when a prophet speaks it is yet said to be the Lord who speaks, not of course because the prophet is the Lord but because the Lord is in the prophet; and so in the same way when the Lord condescends to speak through the mouth of a prophet or an angel, it is the same as when he speaks by a prophet or apostle, and the angel is correctly termed an angel if we consider him himself, but equally correctly is he termed ‘the Lord’ because God dwells in him.” He concludes: “It is the name of the indweller, not of the temple.” And a little further on: “It seems to me that we shall most correctly say that our forefathers recognized the Lord in the angel,” and he adduces the authority of the New Testament writers who clearly so understood it and yet sometimes allowed the same confusion of terms (cf. Heb., ii, 2, and Acts, vii, 31–33). The saint discusses the same question even more elaborately, “In Heptateuchum,” lib. vii, 54, P. G. III, 558. As an instance of how convinced some of the Fathers were in holding the opposite view, we may note Theodoret’s words (In Exod.): “The whole passage (Exod., iii) shows that it was God who appeared to him. But (Moses) called Him an angel in order to let us know that it was not God the Father whom he saw—for whose angel could the Father be?—but the Only-begotten Son, the Angel of great Counsel” (cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., I, ii, 7; St. Irenaeus, Haer., iii, 6). But the view propounded by the Latin Fathers was destined to live in the Church, and the Scholastics reduced it to a system (cf. St. Thomas, Quaest., Disp., De Potentia, vi, 8, ad 3am); and for a very good exposition of both sides of the question, cf. “Revue biblique,” 1894, 232–247.

Angels In Babylonian Literature

The Bible has shown us that a belief in angels, or spirits intermediate between God and man, is a characteristic of the Semitic people. It is therefore interesting to trace this belief in the Semites of Babylonia. According to Sayce (The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, Gifford Lectures, 1901), the engrafting of Semitic beliefs on the earliest Sumerian religion of Babylonia is marked by the entrance of angels or sukallin in their theosophy. Thus we find an interesting parallel to “the angels of the Lord” in Nebo, “the minister of Merodach” (ibid., 355). He is also termed the “angel” or interpreter of the will or Merodach (ibid., 456), and Sayce accepts Hommel’s statement that it can be shown from the Minean inscriptions that primitive Semitic religion consisted of moon and star worship, the moon-god Athtar and an “angel” god standing at the head of the pantheon (ibid., 315). The Biblical conflict between the kingdoms of good and evil finds its parallel in the “spirits of heaven” or the Igigi—who constituted the “host” of which Ninip was the champion (and from who he received the title of “chief of the angels”) and the “spirits of the earth,” or Annuna-Ki, who dwelt in Hades (ibid. 355). The Babylonian sukalli corresponded to the spirit-messengers of the Bible; they declared their Lord’s will and executed his behests (ibid., 361). Some of them appear to have been more than messengers; they were the interpreters and vicegerents of the supreme deity, thus Nebo is “the prophet of Borsippa.” These angels are even termed “the sons” of the deity whose vicegerents they are; thus Ninip, at one time the messenger of En-lil, is transformed into his son just as Merodach becomes the son of Ea (ibid., 496). The Babylonian accounts of the Creation and the Flood do not contrast very favourably with the Biblical accounts, and the same must be said of the chaotic hierarchies of gods and angels which modern research has revealed. perhaps we are justified in seeing all forms of religion vestiges of a primitive nature-worship which has at times succeeded in debasing the purer revelation, and which, where that primitive revelation has not received successive increments as among the Hebrews, results in an abundant crop of weeds.

Thus the Bible certainly sanctions the idea of certain angels being in charge of special districts (cf. Dan., x, and above). This belief persists in a debased form in the Arab notion of Genii, or Jinns, who haunt particular spots. A reference to it is perhaps to be found in Gen., xxxii, 1,2: “Jacob also went on the journey he had begun: and the angels of God met him: And when he saw then he said: These are the camps of God, and he called the name of that place Mahanaim, that is, ‘Camps.’ “ Recent explorations in the Arab district about Petra have revealed certain precincts marked off with stones as the abiding-laces of angels, and the nomad tribes frequent them for prayer and sacrifice. These places bear a name which corresponds exactly with the “Mahanaim” of the above passage in Genesis (cf. Lagrange, Religions Semitques, 184, and Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, 445). Jacob’s vision at Bethel (Gen., xxviii, 12) may perhaps come under the same category. Suffice it to say that not everything in the Bible is revelation, and that the object of the inspired writings is not merely to tell us new truths but also to make clearer certain truths taught us by nature. The modern view, which tends to regard everything Babylonian as absolutely primitive and which seems to think that because critics affix a late date to the Biblical writings the religion therein contained must also be late, may be seen in Haag, “Theologie Biblique” (339). This writer sees in the Biblical angels only primitive deities debased into demi-gods by the triumphant progress of Monotheism.

Angels in the Zend-Avesta

Attempts have also been made to trace a connection between the angels of the Bible and the “great archangels” or “Amesha-Spentas” of the Zend-Avesta. That the Persian domination and the Babylonian captivity exerted a large influence upon the Hebrew conception of the angels is acknowledged in the Talmud of Jerusalem, Rosch Haschanna, 56, where it is said that the names of the angels were introduced from Babylon. it is, however, by no means clear that the angelic beings who figure so largely in the pages of the Avesta are to be referred to the older Persian Neo-Zoroastrianism of the Sassanides. If this be the case, as Darmesteter holds, we should rather reverse the position and attribute the Zoroastrian angels to the influence of the Bible and of Philo. Stress has been laid upon the similarity between the Biblical “seven who stand before God” and the seven Amesha-Spentas of the Zend-Avesta. But it must be noted that these latter are really six, the number seven is only obtained by counting “their father, Ahura-Mazda,” among them as their chief. Moreover, these Zoroastrian archangels are more abstract that concrete; they are not individuals charged with weighty missions as in the Bible.

Angels in the New Testament

Hitherto we have dwelt almost exclusively on the angels of the Old Testament, whose visits and messages have been by no means rare; but when we come to the New Testament their name appears on every page and the number of references to them equals those in the Old Dispensation. It is their privilege to announce the Zachary and Mary the dawn of Redemption, and to the shepherds its actual accomplishment. Our Lord in His discourses talks of them as one who actually saw them, and who, whilst “conversing amongst men,” was yet receiving the silent unseen adoration of the hosts of heaven. He describes their life in heaven (Matt., xxii, 30; Luke, xx, 36); He tell us how they form a bodyguard round Him and at a word from Him would avenge Him on His enemies (Matt., xxvi, 53); it is the privilege of one of them to assist Him in His Agony and sweat of Blood. More than once He speaks of them as auxiliaries and witnesses at the final judgment (Matt., xvi, 27), which indeed they will prepare (ibid., xiii, 39–49); and lastly, they are the joyous witnesses of His triumphant Resurrection (ibid., xxviii, 2). It is easy for skeptical minds to see in these angelic hosts the mere play of Hebrew fancy and the rank growth of superstition, but do not the records of the angels who figure in the Bible supply a most natural and harmonious progression? In the opening page of the sacred story of the Jewish nation is chose out from amongst others as the depositary of God’s promise; as the people from whose stock He would one day raise up a Redeemer. The angels appear in the course of this chosen people’s history, now as God’s messengers, now as that people’s guides; at one time they are the bestowers of God’s law, at another they actually prefigure the Redeemer Whose divine purpose they are helping to mature. They converse with His prophets, with David and Elias, with Daniel and Zacharias; they slay the hosts camped against Israel, they serve as guides to God’s servants, and the last prophet, Malachi, bears a name of peculiar significance; “the Angel of Jehovah.” He seems to sum up in his very name the previous “ministry by the hands of angels,” as though God would thus recall the old-time glories of the Exodus and Sinai. The Septuagint, indeed, seems not to know his name as that of an individual prophet and its rendering of the opening verse of his prophecy is peculiarly solemn: “The burden of the Word of the Lord of Israel by the hand of His angel; lay it up in your hearts.” All this loving ministry on the part of the angels is solely for the sake of the Saviour, on Whose face they desire to look. Hence when the fullness of time was arrived it is they who bring the glad message, and sing “Gloria in excelsis Deo.” They guide the newborn King of Angels in His hurried flight into Egypt, and minister to Him in the desert. His second coming and the dire events that must precede that, are revealed to His chosen servant in the island of Patmos, It is a question of revelation again, and consequently its ministers and messengers of old appear once more in the sacred story and the record of God’s revealing love ends fittingly almost as it had begun: “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches” (Apoc., xxii, 16). It is easy for the student to trace the influence of surrounding nations and of other religions in the Biblical account of the angels. Indeed it is needful and instructive to do so, but it would be wrong to shut our eyes to the higher line of development which we have shown and which brings out so strikingly the marvellous unity and harmony of the whole divine story of the Bible. (See also ANGELS IN EARLY CHRISTIAN ART.)

In addition to works mentioned above, see St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, QQ. 50–54 and 106–114; Suarez De Angelis, lib. i-iv.

HUGH POPE

Angela Merici

Foundress of the Ursulines, born 21 March, 1474, at Desenzano, a small town on the southwestern shore of Lake Garda in Lombardy; died 27 January, 1540, at Brescia.

She was left an orphan at the age of ten and together with her elder sister came to the home of her uncle at the neighbouring town of Salo where they led an angelic life. When her sister met with a sudden death, without being able to receive the last sacraments, young Angela was much distressed. She became a tertiary of St. Francis and greatly increased her prayers and mortifications for the repose of her sister’s soul. In her anguish and pious simplicity she prayed God to reveal to her the condition of her deceased sister. It is said that by a vision she was satisfied her sister was in the company of the saints in heaven.

When she was twenty years old, her uncle died, and she returned to her paternal home at Desenzano. Convinced that the great need of her times was a better instruction of young girls in the rudiments of the Christian religion, she converted her home into a school where at stated intervals she daily gathered all the little girls of Desenzano and taught them the elements of Christianity. It is related that one day, while in an ecstasy, she had a vision in which it was revealed to her that she was to found an association of virgins who were to devote their lives to the religious training of young girls. The school she had established at Desenzano soon bore abundant fruit, and she was invited to the neighbouring city, Brescia, to establish a similar school at that place. Angela gladly accepted the invitation.

In 1524, while making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, she became suddenly blind when she was on the island of Crete, but continued her journey to the Holy Places and was cured on her return while praying before a crucifix at the same place where she was struck with blindness a few weeks before. When, in the jubilee year 1525, she had come to Rome to gain the indulgences, Pope Clement VII, who had heard of her great holiness and her extraordinary success as a religious teacher of young girls, invited her to remain in Rome; but Angela, who shunned publicity, returned to Brescia. Finally, on the 25th of November, 1535, Angela chose twelve virgins and laid the foundation of the order of the Ursulines in a small house near the Church of St. Afra in Brescia. Having been five years superior of the newly-founded order, she died.

Her body lies buried in the Church of St. Afra at Brescia. She was beatified in 1768, by Clement XIII, and canonized in 1807, by Pius VII. Her feast is celebrated 31 May. [Note: After this article was written, her feast was moved to 27 January.]

HEIMBUCHER, Orden und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1896), 1 511 sqq., SEEB’CK, Herrlichkeit der katholischen Kirche (Innsbruck, 1900); GUÉRIN, Les petite Bollandsstes (Paris), III, 326 sqq., Bullarii Romani Continuatio, VII, pt. I; her biography has been written in French by BAUTHORS (Abbeville, 1894) at Notre Dame d’Alet (1885), PASTEL, (Paris, 1878); in German by an Ursuline (Innsbruck, 1893), by an Ursuline (Paderborn, 1892), in Italian by GIRELLI (Brescia, 1871);by SALVATORI (Rome, 1807).

MICHAEL OTT

Bl. Angela of Foligno

Umbrian penitent and mystical writer. She was born at Foligno in Umbria, in 1248, of a rich family; died 4 January, 1309. Married at an early age, she loved the world and its pleasures and, worse still, forgetful of her dignity and duties as wife and mother, fell into sin and led a disorderly life. But God, having in His mercy inspired her with a deep sorrow for her sins, led her little by little to the height of perfection and to the understanding of the deepest mysteries. Angela has herself recorded the history of her conversion in her admirable “Book of Visions and Instructions,” which contains seventy chapters, and which was written from Angela’s dictation by her Franciscan confessor, Father Arnold of Foligno. Some time after her conversion Angela had placed herself under the direction of Father Arnold and taken the habit of the Third Order of St. Francis. In the course of time the fame of her sanctity gathered around her a number of Tertiaries, men and women, who strove under her direction to advance in holiness. Later she established at Foligno a community of sisters, who to the Rule of the Third Order added the three vows of religion, without, however, binding themselves to enclosure, so that they might devote their time to works of charity. Angela at last passed away, surrounded by her spiritual children. Her remains repose in the church of St. Francis at Foligno. Numerous miracles were worked at her tomb, and Innocent XII approved the immemorial veneration paid to her. Her feast is kept in the Order on the 30th of March. Bl. Angela’s high authority as a spiritual teacher may be gathered from the fact that Bollandus, among other testimonials, quotes Maximilian Sandaeus, of the Society of Jesus, who calls her the “Mistress of Theologians,” whose whole doctrine has been drawn out of the Book of Life, Jesus Christ, Our Lord.

The life of Blessed Angela has been written by Mariano of Florence and Marx of Lisbon in their chronicles; also by Jacobilll, Vite de’ Santi e Beati dell’ Umbria, and Wadding, Annales Minorum. These writers have principally derived their information from her Book of Visions and Instructions. The editio princeps of this book, known as the Theology of the Cross (Paris, 1598) remains the chief source for her life and teaching. B. Angelæ de Fulgineo Visionum et Instructionum Liber (reprinted Cologne, 1601) was reedited by Bollandus, Acta Sanctorum, I, Jan., 186–234; by Lammertz with German tr. (Cologne, 1851); and Faloci Pulignani (Foligno, 1899); the English translation by Cruikshank (Derby, 1872) has been lately re-issued (New York, 1903). See also Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the Three Orders of St. Francis (Taunton, 1887), I, 536–554.

PASCHAL ROBINSON

Francesco degli Angeli

(Also Angelis).

Missionary to Ethiopia, born at Sorrento, Italy, 1567; died at Colela in Ethiopia, 21 October, 1628. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1583. After two years (1602–04) spent in the mission of the Indies, he went to Ethiopia, the field of his future evangelical labours. Of a gentle and cheerful disposition, the Abyssinians called him “the man who was always cheerful.” Angeli stood high in the favour of two successive Kings of Ethiopia. Although, owing chiefly to the opposition of the schismatical monks, he was unsuccessful in converting the people and bringing about the reunion of the Abyssinian Church with that of Rome, he converted a large number of the schismatics, among them the brother of the King and many lords of the court. For five years Angeli preached the Gospel among the Agazi, a half-schismatic and half-idolatrous people tributary to Ethiopia. Conversions were numerous, and he founded a church and school. He translated many religious works into the language of these people. The most important of them was the commentary of Maldonatus on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke.

CORDARA, Hist. Soc. Jes., par. VIa, lib. IV, no. 106, 164; lib IV, no. 126, 207, lib. VII, no. 165, 390; SANTAGATA, Istor. della Provincia di Napoli, III, 66, 190, 216, 477; IV, 95, 277; SOTWEL, Bibl., 212; SOMMERVOGEL, I, 386.

JOSEPH M. WOODS

Girolamo degli Angeli

An eminent pioneer missionary of Japan; born at Castro-Giovanni, Sicily, 1567; died 4 December, 1623. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1585, and in 1602 began his apostolate in Japan, remaining there after the publication of the edict expelling all missionaries from the country. An indefatigable worker, he was the first missionary to penetrate the hitherto unknown realms of Yezo, Jasu, and Cai. Angeli, after making many converts to Christianity, seeing that his neophytes were cruelly persected because of his presence among them and his preaching, gave himself up to the authorities. Condemned to death he underwent martyrdom by fire, in the public square of Yezo.

JOSEPH M. WOODS

Angelicals

A congregation of women founded at Milan about 1530 by Countess Luigia Torelli of Guastalla (d. 1559) for the protection and reclamation of girls. Under the direction of Saint Antonio Zaccaria, founder of the Barnabites, they adopted the Rule of St. Augustine, and obtained the approbation of Paul III (1534). Their garb was that of the Dominicans, and each was addressed as “Angelica,” instead of the customary “Sister” or “Mother.” Not being cloistered, they assisted the Barnabites in their missionary work until abuses arose, and one of the Angelicals set herself up as a prophetess. In 1557 they were cloistered, and in 1625 their statutes were revised by St. Charles Borromeo and confirmed by Urban VIII. During the political disturbances early in the nineteenth century their foundations were destroyed and the congregation disappeared. The Institute of the Guastallines also founded by the Countess Torelli is still in existence.

Stahl in Kirchenlex.; Rossignoli, Vita e vartu della contessa di Guastalla etc. (Milan, 1686).

F.M. RUDGE

Fra Angelico

A famous painter of the Florentine school, born near Castello di Vicchio in the province of Mugello, Tuscany, 1387; died at Rome, 1455. He was christened Guido, and his father’s name being Pietro he was known as Guido, or Guidolino, di Pietro, but his full appellation today is that of “Blessed Fra Angelico Giovanni da Fiesole.” He and his supposed younger brother, Fra Benedetto da Fiesole, or da Mugello, joined the order of Preachers in 1407, entering the Dominican convent at Fiesole. Giovanni was twenty years old at the time the brothers began their art careers as illustrators of manuscripts, and Fra Benedetto, who had considerable talent as an illuminator and miniaturist, is supposed to have assisted his more celebrated brother in his famous frescoes in the convent of San Marco in Florence. Fra Benedetto was superior at San Dominico at Fiesole for some years before his death in 1448. Fra Angelico, who during a residence at Foligno had come under the influence of Giotto whose work at Assisi was within easy reach, soon graduated from the illumination of missals and choir books into a remarkably naive and inspiring maker of religious paintings, who glorified the quaint naturalness of his types with a peculiarly pious mysticism. He was convinced that to picture Christ perfectly one must need be Christlike, and Vasari says that he prefaced his paintings by prayer. His technical equipment was somewhat slender, as was natural for an artist with his beginnings, his work being rather thin dry and hard. His spirit, however, glorified his paintings. His noble holy figures, his beautiful angels, human but in form, robed with the hues of the sunrise and sunset, and his supremely earnest saints and martyrs are permeated with the sincerest of religious feeling. His early training in miniature and illumination had its influence in his more important works, with their robes of golden embroidery, their decorative arrangements and details, and pure, brilliant colours. As for the early studies in art of Fra Angelico, nothing is known. His painting shows the influence of the Siennese school, and it is thought he may have studied under Gherardo, Starnina, or Lorenzo Monaco.

On account of the struggle for the pontifical throne between Gregory XII, Benedict XIII, and Alexander V, Fra Giovanni and his brother, being adherents of the first named, had in 1409 to leave Fiesole, taking refuge in the convent of their order established at Foligno in Umbria. The pest devastating that place in 1414, the brothers went to Cortona, where they spent four years and then returned to Fiesole. There Fra Angelico remained for sixteen years. He was then invited to Florence to decorate the new Convent of San Marco which had just been allotted to his order, and of which Cosmo de’ Medici was a munificent patron. At Cortona are found some of his best pictures. It was at Florence, however, where he spent nine years, that he painted his most important works. In 1445, Pope Eugenius IV invited Fra Angelico to Rome and gave him work to do in the Vatican, where he painted for him and for his successor, Pope Nicholas V, the frescoes of two chapels. That of the cappella del Sacramento, in the Vatican, was destroyed later by Paul III. Eugenius IV than asked him to go to Orvieto to work in the chapel of the Madonna di San Brizio in the cathedral. This work he began in 1447, but did not finish, returning to Rome in the autumn of that year. Much later the chapel was finished by Luca Signorelli. Pope Eugenius is said to have offered the painter the place of Archbishop of Florence, which through modesty and devotion to his art he declined. At Rome, besides his great paintings in the chapels of the Vatican, he executed some beautiful miniatures for choral books. He is buried in Rome in the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva.

Among the thirty works of Fra Angelico in the cloisters and chapter house of the convent of San Marco in Florence (which has been converted into a national museum) is notable the famous “Crucifixion,” with the Saviour between the two thieves surrounded by a group of twenty saints, and with bust portraits of seventeen Dominican fathers below. Here is shown to the full the mastery of the painter in depicting in the faces of the monks the emotions evoked by the contemplation of heavenly mysteries. In the Uffizi Gallery are “The Coronation of the Virgin,” “The Virgin and Child with Saints,” “Naming of John the Baptist,” “The Preaching of St. Peter,” “The Martyrdom of St. Mark,” and “The Adoration of the Magi,” while among the examples at the Florence Academy are “The Last Judgement,” “Paradise,” “The Deposition from the Cross,” “The Entombment,” scenes from the lives of St. Cosmas and St. Damian, and various subjects from the life of Christ. At Fiesole are a “Madonna and Saints” and a “Crucifixion.” The predella in London is in five compartments and shows Christ with the Banner of the Resurrection surrounded by a choir of angels and a great throng of the blessed. There is also there an “Adoration of the Magi.” At Cortona appear at the Convent of San Domenico the fresco “The Virgin and Child with four Evangelists” and the altar-piece “Virgin and Child with Saints,” and at the baptistry an “Annunciation” with scenes from the life of the Virgin and a “Life of St. Dominic.” In the Turin Gallery “Two Angels kneeling on Clouds,” and at Rome, in the Corsini Palace, “The Ascension,” “The Last Judgment,” and “Pentecost.” At the Louvre in Paris are “The Coronation of the Virgin,” “The Crucifixion,” and “The Martyrdom of St. Cosmas and St. Damian.” Berlin has, at the Museum, a “Last Judgment,” and Dublin, at the National Gallery, “The Martyrdom of St. Cosmas and St. Damian.” At Madrid is “The Annunciation,” in Munich “Scenes from the Lives of St. Cosmas and St. Damian,” and in St. Petersburg a “Madonna and Saints.” Mrs. John L. Gardner has in the art gallery of her Boston residence an “Assumption” and a “Dormition of the Virgin.” There are other works at Parma, Perugia, and Pisa. At San Marco, Florence, in addition to the works already mentioned are “Madonna della Stella,” “Coronation of the Virgin,” “Adoration of the Magi,” and “St. Peter Martyr.” The Chapel of St. Nicholas in the Vatican at Rome contains frescoes of the “Lives of St. Lawrence and St. Stephen,” “The Four Evangelists,” and “The Teachers of the Church.” In the gallery of the Vatican are “St. Nicholas of Bari,” and “Madonna and Angels.” The work at Orvieto finished by Signorelli shows Christ in “a glory of angels with sixteen saints and prophets.” Bryan, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers; Edgecombe-Haley, Fra Angelico.

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Bl. Angelo Carletti di Chivasso

Moral theologian of the order of Friars Minor; born at Chivasso in Piedmont, in 1411; and died at Coni, in Piedmont, in 1495. From his tenderest years the Blessed Angelo was remarkable for the holiness and purity of his life. He attended the University of Bologna, where he received the degree of Doctor of Civil and Cannon Law. It was probably at the age of thirty that he entered the Order of Friars Minor. His virtues and learning soon gained the confidence of his brethren in religion, and he was four times chosen to fill the office of vicar-general of that branch of the order then known as the Cismontane Observance. In 1480 the Turks under Mahout II took possession of Otranto, and threatened to overrun and lay waste the “bel paese.” Blessed Angelo was appointed Apostolic Nuncio by Pope Sixtus IV, and commissioned to preach the holy war against the invaders. The death of Mahomet and the ultimate retirement of the Turkish forces from the Italian peninsula were evidences that God favoured his mission. Again, in 1491, he was appointed Apostolic Nuncio and Commissary by Innocent VIII, conjointly with the Bishop of Mauriana, the purpose of their mission being to take active steps to prevent the spread of the heretical doctrines of the Waldenses.

But it was perhaps by this writings that Blessed Angelo rendered the greatest service to religion. His works are given by Wadding in the latter’s “Scriptores Ordinis Minorum.” By far the most noted of these is the “Summa de Casibus Conscientiae,” called after him the “Summa Angelica.” The first edition of the “Summa Angelica” appeared in the year 1476, and from that year to the year 1520 it went through thirty-one editions, twenty-five of which are preserved in the Royal Library at Munich. The “Summa” is divided into six hundred and fifty-nine articles arranged in alphabetical order and forming what would now be called a dictionary of moral theology. The most valuable and most important of these articles is the one entitled “Interrogationes in Confessione.” It serves, in a way, as an index to the whole work. Judging the character of the work of Bl. Angelo as a theologian from this, his most important contribution to moral theology, one is impressed with the gravity and fairness that characterized his opinions throughout. Besides, the “Summa,” being written “pro utilitate confessariorum et eorum qui cupiunt laudabiliter vivere,” is a most valuable guide in matters of conscience and approaches closely, in the treatment of the various articles, to casuistic theology as this science is now understood, hence the title of the work, “Summa de Casibus Conscientiae.” Benedict XIII approved the cult that had for long been paid to Bl. Angelo, especially by the people of Chivasso and Coni. The latter chose him as their special patron, while his feast is kept on 12 April throughout the order of Friars Minor.

Leo, Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the three Orders of St. Francis (tr. Taunton, 1886); Scherer s.v. in Kirchenlex. See also Wadding, Annales Minorum, 1472, n. viii, 1478, n. viii, 1479, n. xiv, 1481, n. ix, 1484, n. xliv, 1495, n. ii.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Angelo Clareno da Cingoli

One of the leaders of the so-called Spiritual Franciscans, b. at Fossombrone about 1247; d. at Santa Maria d’Aspro, 15 June, 1337. He entered the order in 1262, or thereabouts. Believing that the rule of St. Francis was not being observed and interpreted according to the mind and spirit of the Seraphic Father, he retired to a hermitage with a few companions and formed a new branch of the order known as the “Clareni.” By the Bull of Sixtus IV, “Dominus Noster Jesus Christus,” the “Clareni” were united to the main body of the order and placed under the obedience of the Minister General. The influence of the prophetical writings of Joachim of Floris, a Calabrian abbot, on Angelo and his followers, and in fact on the “Spirituals” generally of the thirteenth century, cannot be overrated. They all looked forward to the time when the religious orders, whose laxity had been occasioned in great measure by the general looseness of the times, would be restored to their former discipline under a papa angelicus and a new order of Friars. But the number of Angelo’s followers was small; and his so-called reform brought upon himself in particular, and the “Clareni” in general, the suspicious disfavour of the Friars Minor who were not prepared to follow the extreme interpretation of the rule of St. Francis which Angelo had adopted. Angelo became in consequence little better than a homeless and persecuted wanderer, travelling through Greece, Armenia, and the different provinces of Italy until, in 1311, he came to Avignon to answer the charge of heresy that had been brought against him. He was finally acquitted after a tedious and searching examination. In 1337 he retired to the little hermitage of Santa Maria d’Aspro, in the diocese of Marsico in Basilicata, where he died in the odour of sanctity on the 15th of June of the same year. Angelo Clareno is the author, at least in great part, of the “Chronica septem tribulationum Ordinis Minorum,” which records the persecutions suffered by the “Spirituals,” beginning with the innovations made during St. Francis’ sojourn in the East, and continuing under Elias, Crescentius, and Bonaventure. This work is characterized by heroic endurance; but is tinged with bias and bitterness. Another work of Angelo’s that deserves mention is the “Declaratio regulae Minorum.”

Acta SS., July, III, 566–576; EHRLE, Archiv fuer Litteratur und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters, (Berlin, 1885), I, 507–569; (1886) II, 108–64, 249–327; (1887) III, 553–623; IV, 1–190; TOCCO, L’eresia nel medio evo (Florence, 1884); WADDING, Annales Minorum, 1289, et passim; LEMMENS, Chronica B. Bernadini Aquilani, (Rome, 1902) 4–6; DOELLINGER, Beitrage sur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters (Munich, 1890), pt. II, 417; JEILER in Kirchenlex., s.v. Spiritualen.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Early Christian Representations of Angels

Angels were seldom represented in Christian art before Constantine. The oldest fresco in which an angel appears is the Annunciation scene (second century) of the cemetery of St. Priscilla. A third-century painting of the same subject was discovered by Wilpert in the cemetery of Sts. Peter and Marcellinus; in both representations the Archangel Gabriel is depicted in human form, robed in tunic and pallium. The “Good Angel” (angelus bonus) of the fourth-century syncretistic fresco representing the judgment of Vibia is also depicted in human form, dressed as a sacred personage. The winged angel, for which abundant scriptural references could be adduced, does not appear in pre-Constantinian Christian art, for the reason, probably, that such figures might too readily recall certain favourite subjects of classic art. Another fact worthy of note in this regard is that angels in this first period of Christian art are never represented unless historically necessary, as in the Annunciation scene referred to—and not always even then. In a third-century fresco of the Hebrew children in the furnace, for instance, in the cemetery of St. Priscilla, a dove takes the place of the angel, while a fourth-century representation of the same subject, in the coemeterium majus, substitutes the hand of God for the heavenly messenger.

From the reign of Constantine a new type of angel, with wings, appears in Christian art. The four angels with spears on the ciborium of the Lateran Basilica (Lib. Pont., I, 172) were probably of this order. This innovation was evidently suggested by the “Victories,” and similar figures of classic art; but the danger of idolatrous suggestion in such figures was now remote, and historic art, which gradually replaced symbolic, demanded angels with wings. Certain Gnostic sculptures seem to mark the transition from the classic Victory to the winged angel (Cabrol, Dict. d’Arch. Chret., col. 2116 sqq). The oldest existing examples of winged angels are seen in some bas-reliefs of Carthage and a representation on ivory of St. Michael, both attributed to the fourth century. The latter, part of a diptych in the British Museum, shows the Archangel Michael standing on the upper steps of an architectonically adorned doorway, with a staff in one hand and a globe surmounted by a cross in the other. The figure is admirably executed.

A second development in the artistic conception of angels is marked in the Annunciation scene (fifth century) depicted on the triumphal arch of St. Mary Major’s. Unlike the same subject in the catacombs, the Angel Gabriel is soaring through the air towards Mary, who is seated in the midst of attendant winged angels. From the fifth century angels became a favourite subject in Christian art, no longer merely as figures demanded to complete a historical scene, but very often as attendants on Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin. The mosaic of St. Mary Major’s mentioned above, as well as two mosaics of St. Apollinare Nuovo and St. Vitale (sixth century), Ravenna, are examples of angels in this character. The Archangels Michael and Gabriel dressed in the military chlamys and bearing military standards inscribed with the word Agios (holy) are represented in mosaics at St. Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna. The Hierarchia coelestis of pseudo-Dionysius exercised an important influence on the artistic conception of angels from the sixth century. Prior to that time, it is true, a distinction was made between different categories of the angelic host, but now the relations of angels to God were represented in the East after the manner of the various grades of court functionaries rendering their homage to the Emperor.

Cults of Angels

Early Christian literature, like early Christian art, contains few references to angels. This fact is easily accounted for by the circumstances of the time, for with the popular belief in a multitude of deities it was necessary to lay particular emphasis on the unity of God. An official cult in honour of the angels in the first centuries of Christianity would have made imminent the danger of their being regarded as inferior divinities. Witness the vagaries of Gnosticism. Still, there is sufficient evidence to show that the relations of angels to God were not excluded from Christian teaching. Justin Martyr (Apol., I, vi) states that the “host of good angels” was held in the greatest veneration, and his contemporary, Athenagoras, refers to the duties of angels “whom God appointed to their several posts, to occupy themselves about the elements, and the heavens, and the world” (Legatio, x). In the fourth century we find Eusebius of Caesarea distinguishing accurately between the cult rendered to angels and the worship paid to God (Demonstratio evang., III, 3), and St. Ambrose recommended prayers to them. From the fifth century, churches were frequently dedicated to the angels; Umbria was especially noted in this respect, and in the East churches erected in honour of St. Michael were numerous. In the most ancient litanies the Archangels Michael and Gabriel are invoked after the persons of the Trinity and immediately before the Blessed Virgin.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Angels of the Churches

St. John in the Apocalypse is shown seven candlesticks and in their midst, the Son of Man holding seven stars (Apoc., 1:13, 20). The candlesticks represent the seven Churches of Asia; the stars, the angels of those Churches. He is bidden to write to the respective angels of those Churches and distribute to each his meed of praise or blame. Origen (Hom., xiii in Luc., and Hom., xx in Num.) explains that these are the guardian angels of the Churches, a view upheld by Dean Alford. But St. Epiphanius (Hær., xxv) explicitly rejects this view, and, in accordance with the imagery of the passage, explains it of the bishops. The comparison of a teacher to a star is quite Scriptural (Dan., xii, 3). St. Augustine’s reason for interpreting angels of the Churches as the prelates of the church is that St. John speaks of them as falling from their first charity which is not true of the angels [Ep., xliii (al. clxii), n. 22].

HUGH POPE

Angelus

PRESENT USAGE

The Angelus is a short practice of devotion in honour of the Incarnation repeated three times each day, morning, noon, and evening, at the sound of the bell. It consists essentially in the triple repetition of the Hail Mary, to which in later times have been added three introductory versicles and a concluding versicle and prayer. The prayer is that which belongs to the antiphon of Our Lady, “Alma Redemptoris,” and its recitation is not of strict obligation in order to gain the indulgence. From the first word of the three versicles, i.e. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariæ (The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary). the devotion derives its name. The indulgence of 100 days for each recitation, with a plenary once a month. was granted by Benedict XIII, 14 September, 1724, but the conditions prescribed have been somewhat modified by Leo XIII, 3 April, 1884. Originally it was necessary that the Angelus should be said kneeling (except on Sundays and on Saturday evenings, when the rubrics prescribe a standing posture), and also that it should be said at the sound of the bell; but more recent legislation allows these conditions to be dispensed with for any sufficient reason, provided the prayer be said approximately at the proper hours, i.e. in the early morning, or about the hour of noon, or towards evening. In this case. however, the whole Angelus as commonly printed has to be recited, but those who do not know the prayers by heart or who are unable to read them, may say five Hail Marys in their place. During paschal time the antiphon of Our Lady, “Regina cæli lætare,” with versicle and prayer, is to be substituted for the Angelus. The Angelus indulgence is one of those which are not suspended during the year of Jubilee.

HISTORY

The history of the Angelus is by no means easy to trace with confidence, and it is well to distinguish in this matter between what is certain and what is in some measure conjectural. In the first place it is certain that the Angelus at midday and in the morning were of later introduction than the evening Angelus. Secondly it is certain that the midday Angelus, which is the most recent of the three, was not a mere development or imitation of the morning and evening devotion. Thirdly, there can be no doubt that the practice of saying three Hail Mary~ in the evening somewhere about sunset had become general throughout Europe in the first half of the fourteenth century and that it was recommended and indulgenced by Pope John XXII in 1318 and 1327. These facts are admitted by all writers on the subject, but when we try to push our investigations further we are confronted with certain difficulties. It seems needless to discuss all the problems involved. We may be content to state simply the nearly identical conclusions at which T. Esser, O.P., and the present writer have arrived, in two series of articles published about the same time quite independently of each other.

THE EVENING ANGELUS

Although according to Father Esser’s view we have no certain example of three Hail Marys being recited at the sound of the bell in the evening earlier than a decree of the Provincial Synod of Gran in the year 1307, still there are a good many facts which suggest that some such practice was current in the thirteenth century. Thus there is a vague and not very well confirmed tradition which ascribes to Pope Gregory IX, in 1239, an ordinance enjoining that a bell should be rung for the salutation and praises of Our Lady. Again, there is a.grant of Bishop Henry of Brixen to the church of Freins in the Tyrol, also of 1239, which concedes an indulgence for saying three Hail Marys “at the evening tolling.” This, indeed, has been suspected of interpolation, but the same objection cannot apply to a decree of Franciscan General Chapter in the time of St Bonaventure (1263 or 1269), directing preachers to encourage the people to say Hail Marys when the Complin bell rang. Moreover, these indications are strongly confirmed by certain inscriptions still to be read on some few bells of the thirteenth century. Further back than this direct testimonials do not go; but on the other hand we read in the “Regularis Concordia,” a monastic rule composed by St. Aethelwold of Winchester, c. 975, that certain prayers called the tres orationes, preceded by psalms, were to be said after Complin as well as before Matins and again at Prime, and although there is no express mention of a bell being rung after Complin, there is express mention of the bell being rung for the tres orationes at other hours. This practice, it seems, is confirmed by German examples (Mart ne, De Antiq. Eccles. Ritibus, IV, 39), and as time went on it became more and more definitely associated with three separate peals of the bell, more especially at Bec, at St. Denis, and in the customs of the Canon Regular of St. Augustine (e.g. at Barnwell Priory and elsewhere). We have not in these earlier examples any mention of the Hail Mary (q.v.), which in England first became familiar as an antiphon in the Little Office of Otlr Lady about the beginning of the eleventh century (The Month. November, 1901), but it would be the most natural thing in the world that once the Hail Mary had become an everyday prayer, this should for the laity take the place of the more elaborate tres orationes recited by the monks; just as in the case of the Rosary, one hundred and fifty Hail Marys were substituted for the one hundred and fifty psalms of the Psalter. Moreover, in the Franciscan decree of St. Bonaventure’s time, referred to above, this is precisely what we find, viz., that the laity in general were to be induced to say Hail Marys when the bell rang at Complin, during, or more probably after, the office of the friars. A special appropriateness for these greetings of Our Lady was found in the belief that at this very hour she was saluted by the angel. Again, it is noteworthy that some monastic customals in speaking of the tres orationes expressly prescribe the observance of the rubric about standing or kneeling according to the season, which rubric is insisted upon in the recitation of the Angelus to this day. From this we may conclude that the Angelus in its origin was an imitation of the monks’ night prayers and that it had probably nothing directly to do with the curfew bell, rung as a signal for the extinction of fires and lights. The curfew, however, first meets us in Normandy in 1061 and is then spoken of as a bell which summoned the people to say their prayers, after which summons they should not again go abroad. If anything, therefore, it seems more probable that the curfew was grafted upon this primitive prayer-bell rather than vice versa. If the curfew and the Angelus coincided at a later period, as apparently they did In some cases, this was. probably accidental.

THE MORNING ANGELUS

This last suggestion about the tres orationes also offers some explanation of the fact that shortly after the recital of the three Hail Marys at evening had become familiar, a custom established itself of ringing a bell in the morning and of saying the Ave thrice. The earliest mention seems to be in the chronicle of tile city of Parma, 1318, though it was the town-bell which was rung in this case. Still the bishop exhorted all who heard it to say three Our Fathers and three Hail Marys for the preservation of peace, whence it was called “the peace bell.” The same designation was also applied elsewhere to the evening bell. In spite of some difficulties it seems probable enough that this morning bell was also an imitation of the monastic triple peal for the tres orationes or morning prayers; for this, as noted above, was rung at the. morning office of Prime as well as at Complin. The morning Ave Maria soon became a familiar custom in all the countries of Europe, not excepting England, and was almost as generally observed as that of the evening, But while in England the evening Ave Maria is enjoined by Bishop John Stratford of Winchester as early as 1324. no formal direction. as to the morning ringing is found before the instruction of Archbishop Arundel in 1399.

THE MIDDAY ANGELUS

This suggests a much more complicated problem which cannot be adequately discussed here. The one clear fact which seems to result alike from the statutes of several German Synods in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, as also from books of devotion of a somewhat later date, is that the midday ringing, while often spoken of as a peace bell and formally commended by Louis XI of France in 1475 for that special object, was closely associated with the veneration of the Passion of Christ. At first it appears that this midday bell, e.g. at Prague in 1386, and at Mainz in 1423, was only rung on Fridays, but the custom by degrees extended to the other days of the week. In the English Horæ and the German Hortulus Animæ of the beginning of the sixteenth century rather lengthy prayers commemorating the Passion are provided to be said at the midday tolling of the bell in addition to the ordinary three Aves. Later on (c. 1575), in sundry books of devotion (e.g. Coster’s Thesaurus), while our modern Angelus versicles are printed, much as. we say them now, though minus the final prayer, an alternative form commemorating our Lord’s death upon the cross is suggested for the noontide ringing. These instructions, which may already be found translated in an English manuscript written in 1576 (MSS. Hurlelan 2327), suggest that the Resurrection should be honoured in the morning, the Passion at noon, and the Incarnation in the evening, since the times correspond to the hours at which these great Mysteries actually occurred. In some prayer-books of this epoch different devotions are suggested for each of the three ringings, e.g. the Regina Cœli for the morning (see Esser, 784), Passion prayers for noon and our present versicles for sundown. To some such practice we no doubt owe the substitution of Regina Cœli for the Angelus during paschal time. This substitution was recommended by Angelo Rocca and Quarti at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Our present three versicles seem first to have made their appearance in an Italian catechism printed at Venice in 1560 (Esser, 789); but the fuller form now universally adopted cannot be traced back earlier than 1612. Be it noted that somewhat earlier than this a practice grew up in Italy of saying a “De profundis” for the holy souls immediately after the evening Angelus. Another custom, also of Italian origin, is that of adding three Glorias to the Angelus in thanksgiving to the Blessed Trinity for the privileges bestowed upon our Lady. (See also HAIL MARY.)

HERBERT THURSTON

Angelus Bell

The triple Hail Mary recited in the evening, which is the origin of our modern Angelus, was closely associated with the ringing of a bell. This bell seemingly belonged to Complin, which was theoretically said at sundown, though in practice it followed closely upon the afternoon office of Vespers. There can be little doubt that in all save a few exceptional cases,. the tolling the Ave bell was distinct from the ringing of curfew (ignitegium); the former taking place at the end of Complin and perhaps coinciding with the prayers for peace, said in choir; the latter being the signal for the close of day and for the general bed-time. In many places, both in England and France, the curfew bell is still rung, and we note that not only is it rung at a relatively late hour, varying from 8 to 10, but that the actual peal lasts in most cases for a notable period of time, being prolonged for a hundred strokes or more. Where the town-bell and the bells of the principal church or monastery were distinct, the curfew was generally rung upon the town-bell. Where the church-bell served for both purposes, the Ave and the curfew were probably rung upon the same bell at different hours. There is a great lack of records containing any definite note of time regarding the ringing of the Ave bell, but there is at least one clear example in the case of Cropredy, Oxfordshire where in 1512 a bequest was made to the churchwardens on condition that they should “toll dayly the Avees bell at six of the clok in the mornyng, at xii of the clok at noone and at foure of the clok at afternoone” (North, Church Bells of Lincolnshire, 169). At the same time it seems clear that in the case of cathedral churches, etc., where the Office was said in choir, the interval between CompIin and the (anticipated) Matins of the next day was not very great; at any rate. at some seasons of the year. Under these circumstances the three interrupted peals of the Ave bell probably served as a sort of introduction to the continuous tolling of the curfew which preceded Matins. This would be sufficient to account for certain clear traces of a connection in some localities between the curfew and the recital of the three evening Ayes. For instance, the poet Villon (fifteenth century) must. clearly be thinking of the curfew, when he writes:

J’oy la cloche de la Sarbonne Qui toujours neuf heures sonne Le salut que l’ange prédit.

Again, if there were no such connection, it would be difficult to explain why some of the Reformation bishops like Hooper did their best to suppress the tolling of the curfew as a superstitious practice. Still the attempt was not successful. Long before this, in 1538, a Protestant Grand Jury. in Canterbury had presented the parson of St. Peter’s church for superstitious practices, complaining of the “tolling of the Ave bell after evening song done” (Stahlschmidt, Church Bells of Kent, 358), but this could hardly have been the curfew.

INSCRIPTIONS ON ANGELUS BELLS

Many circumstances point to the conclusion that the ringing of the Angelus in the fourteenth and even in the thirteenth century must have been very general (see The Month, Jan., 1902,69–70, and Jan., 1904, 60–63). The number of bells belonging to these two centuries which still survive is relatively small, but a considerable proportion bear inscriptions which suggest that they were originally intended to serve as Ave bells. In the first place, many bear the words Ave Maria; or, as in the case of a bell at Helfta, near Eisleben, in Germany, dated 1234, the whole sentence: Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Bells with this Ave Maria inscription are also numerous in England, though in England the Angelus bells seem in a very large number of instances to have been dedicated to St. Gabriel. These Gabriel inscriptions take various forms. For example: Dulcis instar mellis campana vocor Gabrielis (I am sweet as honey, and am called Gabriel’s bell). In which very common inscription the second word is often sisto, or cisto; the true reading is perhaps dulcissimi mellis. Or again: Ecce Gabrielis sonat hæc campana fidelis (Behold this bell of faithful Gabriel sounds); or Missi de coelis nomen habeo Gabrielis (I bear the name of Gabriel sent from heaven), or Missus vero pie Gabriel fert læta Mariæ (Gabriel the messenger bears joyous tidings to holy Mary). We can hardly be wrong in regarding these bells as Angelus bells, for in the Diocese of Lincoln alone we find nineteen of the surviving medieval bells bearing the name of Gabriel, while only six bear the name of Michael, a much more popular patron in other respects. In France, the Ave Maria seems to have been the ordinary label for Angelus bells; but in Germany-we find as the most common inscription of all, even in the case of many bells of the thirteenth century, the words O Rex Gloriæ Veni Cum Pace (O King of Glory, Come with Peace); as for instance, one of the bells of Freiburg in the Breisgau, dated 1258. To explain the popularity of this inscription we have to remember that according to medieval tradition the Annunciation took place at evening. It was then that the Prince of Peace took flesh and dwelt among us. Moreover in Germany, the Netherlands and in some parts of France the Angelus bell was regularly known as the “Peace bell,” and pro pace schlagen (to toll for peace) was a phrase popularly used for ringing the Angelus.

MANNER OF RINGING

With regard to the manner of ringing the Angelus it seems sufficient to note that the triple stroke repeated three times with a pause between seems to have been adopted from the very beginning. In the fifteenth-century constitutions of Syon monastery it is directed that the lay brother “shall toll the Ave bell nine strokes at three times, keeping the space of one Pater and Ave between each three tollings.” Again a fifteenth century bell at Erfert bears the words Cum ter reboo, pie Christiferam ter aveto (When I ring thrice, thrice devoutly greet the Mother of Christ). Still earlier, the statutes of Wells Cathedral, in 1331, direct that “three strokes should be struck at three several times upon the great bell in quick succession,” and this shortly before curfew. Slmilarly, at Lerida in Spain, in 1308, the bishop directs that “after Complin and as the shades of night are falling” the bell is to be pealed three times with intervals between (Villanueva, Viage, XVI, 323), while the faithful are directed on hearing the bell to fall on their knees and recite the Ave Maria.

HERBERT THURSTON

Angelus Silesius

Angelus Silesius (Johannes Scheffer), convert, poet, controversialist, the son of a Lutheran Polish Nobleman, b. in Breslau in 1624; d. 9 July, 1677. He took the degree of doctor of philosophy and medicine, in Padua, in 1648, became court physician to the prince of Oels, in Silesia, was received into the Catholic Church in 1653, taking at confirmation the name of Angelus, to which he added the surname Silesius (Silesian), by which name he is known in the history of literature. In 1661, he was ordained priest and retired to the monastery of the Knights of the Cross in Breslau, where he died. His fortune he gave to pious and charitable institutions. With the Jesuits Spee and Balde, he was one of the few distinguished poets that Germany produced in an age of poetical barrenness and debased taste. He published, in 1657, the two poetical works on which his fame rests. “The Soul’s Spiritual Delight” (Heilige Seelenlust) is a collection of more than two hundred religious songs, many of them of great beauty, which have found their way not only into Catholic, but even into Protestant hymn books. “The Cherubic Pilgrim” (Der Cherubinische Wandersmann) is a collection of over sixteen hundred rhymed couplets, full of deep religious thought expressed in epigrammatic form. A small number of these couplets seem to savour of quietism or pantheism. They ought to be interpreted in an orthodox sense, for Angelus Silesius was not a pantheist. His prose writings are orthodox; “The Cherubic Pilgrim” was published with the ecclesiastical Imprimatur, and, in his preface, the author himself explains his “paradoxes” in an orthodox sense, and repudiates any future pantheistic interpretation. In 1663 he began the publication of his fifty-five controversial tracts against the various Protestant sects. Of these, he afterwards selected thirty-nine which he published in two folio vols. under the title of “Eccleciologia.”

LINDEMANN, Angelus Silesius (Freiburg, 1876); Seltmann, Angelus Silesius und seine Mystik (Breslau, 1876); Rosenthal (ed.) complete works (Ratisbon, 1862).

B. GULDNER

Anger

The desire of vengeance. Its ethical rating depends upon the quality of the vengeance and the quantity of the passion. When these are in conformity with the prescriptions of balanced reason, anger is not a sin. It is rather a praiseworthy thing and justifiable with a proper zeal. It becomes sinful when it is sought to wreak vengeance upon one who has not deserved it, or to a greater extent than it has been deserved, or in conflict with the dispositions of law, or from an improper motive. The sin is then in a general sense mortal as being opposed to justice and charity. It may, however, be venial because the punishment aimed at is but a trifling one or because of lack of full deliberation. Likewise, anger is sinful when there is an undue vehemence in the passion itself, whether inwardly or outwardly. Ordinarily it is then accounted a venial sin unless the excess be so great as to go counter seriously to the love of God or of one’s neighbour.

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Diocese of Angers

(Andegavum)

Comprises the territory embraced in the department of Maine and Loire. It was a suffragan see of the Archdiocese of Tours under the old regime as well as under the Concordat. The first Bishop known in history is Defensor, who, when present in 372, at the election of the Bishop of Tours, made a determined stand against the nomination of St. Martin. The legend concerning the earlier episcopate of a certain Auxilius, is connected with the cycle of legends that centre about St. Firmim of Amiens and is contradicted by Angevin tradition anterior to the thirteenth century. Among the illustrious names of the Diocese of Angers during the first centuries of its existence are those of St. Maurilius, disciple of St. Martin, and at an earlier period hermit of Chalonnes, who made a vigorous stand against idolatry, and died in 427; Thalassius, consecrated bishop in 453, who has left a brief but valuable compendium of canon law, consisting of the decisions of the councils of the province of Tours; St. Albinus (sixth century); St. Licinius, former Count of Anjou, and bishop during the early part of the seventh century. As for the tradition that St. Renatus, who had been raised from the dead by St. Maurilius, was Bishop of Angers for some time shortly before 450, it bases its claims to credibility on a late life of St. Maurilius written in 905 by the deacon Archinald, and circulated under the name of Gregory of Tours, and it seems to have no real foundation. Among the Bishops of Angers in modern times were Cardinal de la Balue (1467) confined by Louis XI in an iron cage (1469–80) for his negotiations with Charles the Bold; the Jansenist, Henri Arnauld (1649–93); Monsignor Freppel (1870–91), who had a seat in the Chamber of Deputies, and warmly defended religious interests; Monsignor Mathieu (1893–96), now cardinal of the Curia and member of the French Academy.

The cathedral of St. Maurice, a majestic structure without side aisles, dates from the twelfth century and exhibits the characteristic type of Angevin or Plantagenet architecture. During the Middle Ages Angers was a flourishing monastic city with six great monasteries: St. Aubin founded by King Childebert I; St. Serge by Clovis II; St. Julien, St. Nicholas and Ronceray, founded by Count Foulques Nerra, and All Saints, an admirable structure of the twelfth century. In 1219 Pope Callixtus II went in person to Angers to assist at the second consecration of the church attached to the abbey of Ronceray. The Diocese of Angers includes Fontevrault, an abbey founded at the close of the eleventh century by Robert d’Arbrissel but which did not survive the Revolution. The cloister and the old abbey church containing the tombs of the four Plantagenets have great archaeological value. The ruins of St. Maur perpetuate the memory of the great Benedictine abbey of that name. In 1244, a university was founded at Angers for the teaching of canon and civil law. In 1432 faculties of theology, medicine and art were added. This university was divided into six “nations,” and survived up to the time of the Revolution. In consequence of the law of 1875 giving liberty in the matter of higher education, Angers again became the seat of a Catholic university. The Congregation of the Good Shepherd (Bon Pasteur), which has houses in all parts of the world, has its mother-house at Angers by virtue of a papal brief of 1835. Berengarius, the heresiarch condemned for his doctrines on the Holy Eucharist, was Archdeacon of Angers about 1039, and for some time found a protector in the person of Eusebius Bruno, Bishop of Angers. Bernier, who played a great role in the wars of La Vendée and in the negotiations that led to the Concordat, was cure of St. Laud in Angers. At the close of 1905 the Diocese of Angers comprised 514,658 inhabitants, 37 cures or parishes of the first-class, 377 parishes of the second-class and 129 vicariates with salaries formerly paid by the State.

Gallia christiana (Vetus, 1656), II, 110–154; TRESVAUX, Histoire de l’eglise et du diocese d’Angers (Paris, 1858).

GEORGES GOYAU

University of Angers

The University of Angers is, probably, a development of the cathedral school of that city. Early in the eleventh century this school became famous under the direction of Marbodus, afterwards Bishop of Rennes, and of Ulger, afterwards Bishop of Angers, both pupils of the renowned canonist, Fulbert de Chartres. It was enlarged in 1229 by an influx of students, many of them Englishmen, from the University of Paris, who sought in Angers a shelter from the direct control of the King of France. (See PARIS, UNIVERSITY OF.) Angers then became a centre for the study of civil law, and a studium generale, although it was officially recognized as such only in 1337, by an episcopal ordinance. It received in 1364 from King Charles V a charter granting the same privileges as those enjoyed by the University of Orleans. It was only in 1432 that a Bull of Eugene IV added the usual faculties of theology, medicine, and arts to the faculty of canon and civil law. This organization continued until the French Revolution. After the National Assembly had granted to all freedom of teaching (1 July, 1875), the French bishops decided to found five Catholic universities, and Angers, thanks to Bishop Freppel, was chosen for the western portion of France, including the Dioceses of Angers, Rennes, Laval, Le Mans, Angouleme, Tours, and Poitiers. The university then took the title of “Facultés Catholiques de l’Ouest.” It comprises the faculties of letters, of sciences, and law, and a superior school of agriculture, with a teaching staff of 45 professors and from 200 to 300 students, most of whom are laymen belonging to the faculty of law. Angers has numbered among its faculty in the past Monsignor Sauve, author of numerous theological and philosophical works, Father Billot, now a professor in the Gregorian University at Rome, Father Antoine, author of a remarkable course of social economy, while it still retains Monsignor Legendre, an authority on biblical geography, and the distinguished novelist, René Bazin. The University publishes the “Revue des Facultés Catholiques de l’Ouest” and a “Bulletin des Facultés Catholiques de l’Ouest.”

RASHDALL, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1895), II, 148; RANGEARD, Histoire de l’universite d’Angers (Angers, 1872); DE LENS, L’universite de l’Anjou (Angers, 1880), a continuation of RANGEARD; FOURNIER, Les statuts et privileges der universites francaises (Paris, 1890–92); CALVET, The Catholic Institutes of France in Catholic University Bulletin, Jan., 1907.

GEORGE M. SAUVAGE

Notre Dame des Anges

(OUR LADY OF THE ANGELS)

A miraculous shrine near Lur, France, containing a crypt (Sainte Chapelle) which tradition dates back to an early period. Archeological finds, inscriptions, and the records left by antiquaries give evidence that this was once the site of a Roman colony and a station termed in ancient itineraries, Alaunium (founded 150 B.C.). Situated as it was on a Roman road connecting cities which are believed to have been evangelized at an early period, Alaunium probably received the Faith at the same time. There is an ancient tradition to the effect that one of the immediate disciples of Christ erected an oratory here in honour of the Mother of God, and that it took the name Alaunium, later contracted into Aulun. Though several chapels were built on this site and destroyed, an ancient tablet survived all calamities. On the occasion of a cure wrought before this tablet (2 August, 1665) a choir of angels, it is said, was heard singing; on the repetition of the marvel the following year the name of the shrine was changed to Our Lady of Angels, and it was placed in charge of the Recollect Fathers of St Francis. In 1752 Bishop Lafiteau of Sisteron instituted the feast of the Relatives of Mary, making this sanctuary a centre of the devotion. In 1791 the religious were expelled, and the church despoiled. On the reopening of the churches the pilgrimages recommenced, and still continue. The most important of them takes place on 2 August.

LEROY, Histoire des pelerinages de la Sainte Vierge en France (Paris, 1873), III, 423 sqq.; Acta SS., 2 August.

F.M. RUDGE

St. Angilbert

Abbot of Saint-Riquier, died 18 February, 814. Angilbert seems to have been brought up at the court of Charlemagne, where he was the pupil and friend of the great English scholar Alcuin. He was intended for the ecclesiastical state and must have received minor orders early in life, but he accompanied the young King Pepin to Italy in 782 in the capacity of primicerius palatii, a post which implied much secular administration. In the academy of men of letters which rendered Charlemagne’s court illustrious Angilbert was known as Homer, and portions of his works, still extant, show that his skill inverse was considerable. He was several times sent as envoy to the pope, and it is charged against him that he identified himself with the somewhat heterodox views of Charlemagne in the controversy on images. In 790 he was named Abbot of Centula, later known as Saint-Riquier, in Picardy, and by the help of his powerful friends he not only restored or rebuilt the monastery in a very sumptuous fashion, but endowed it with a precious library of 200 volumes. In the year 800 he had the honour of receiving Charlemagne as his guest. It seems probable that Angilbert at this period (whether he was yet a priest is doubtful) was leading a very worldly life. The circumstances are not clear, but modern historians consider that Angilbert undoubtedly had an intrigue with Charlemagne’s unmarried daughter Bertha, and became by her the father of two children, one of whom was the well-known chronicler Nithard. This intrigue of Angilbert’s, sometimes regarded as a marriage, has been disputed by some scholars, but is now generally admitted. We should probably do well to remember that the popular canonizations of that age were very informal and involved little investigation of past conduct or virtue. It is, however, stated by Angilbert’s twelfth-century biographer that the abbot before his death did bitter penance for this “marriage,” and the historian Nithard, in the same passage in which he claims Angilbert for his father, also declares that Angilbert’s body was found incorrupt some years after his burial. Angilbert has been claimed as the author of a fragment of an epic poem on Charlemagne and Leo III, but the authorship is disputed. On the other hand, Monod believes that he is probably responsible for certain portions of the famous “Annales Laurisenses.”

Herbert Thurston.

Francesco Angiolini

A noted scholar, b. at Piscenza, Italy, 1750; d. at Polotsk, 21 February, 1788. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1765, and after the suppression of the Jesuits, retired to Polotsk. Angiolini has left after him many works that attest to his scholarship. He is author of a Polish grammar for the use of Italians; he wrote original poems in Italian, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and several comedies in Polish, and a translation from the Greek into Italian in three octavo volumes of Josephus Flavius (Florence, Paolo Fumagalli, 1840–44). Angiolini also translated into his mother tongue the Electra, Oedipus, and Antigone of Sophocles (Rome, 1782). Other works of Angiolini are an Italian translation of Thucydides, incomplete, and a Polish translation of Sophocles.

Sommervogel, Biblioth., I, 391; Cassani, Varones Ilustres. III, 268–277.

JOSEPH M. WOODS

Priory of Anglesea

The Priory of Anglesea, Cambridgeshire, England, was founded in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Nicholas for a community of Austin Canons, by Henry I. Dugdale was unable to find any charter of foundation; but a deed cited by him in an appendix, with regard to the rights of patronage at election ceded by Elizabeth de Burgh, Lady de Clare, to the canons in 1333, lends some support to the opinion of Leland and Speed that Richard de Clare was a founder, or at least a patron, of the house, as was also Edward Mortimer, Earl of March, in the reign of Henry V. Information with regard to this priory is scanty. No register is known. The ruins are meagre. “There are some remains of Anglesea Priory in the back part of a mansion-house,” says Lysons, “which has been erected on its site, apparently not more ancient than the time of Queen Elizabeth; the most remarkable of these remains consist of a kind of undercroft, thirty-six feet by twenty-two, with a groined roof supported by clustered pillars, now divided into two rooms; and a row of arches supported by brackets against a wall on the outside of the building.” The last prior was John Bonar, who had a pension of 20 pounds sterling a year granted to him at the surrender. In 26, Hen. VIII, the revenues were returned at 124 pounds 19 shillings.

DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum; LYSONS, Magna Britannia (Cambridgeshire).

FRANCIS AVELING

Anglican Orders

In the creed of the Catholic Church, Holy Order is one of the Seven Sacraments instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Its office is to transmit and perpetuate those mystic powers of the priesthood whereby the Blessed Sacrament of the altar is consecrated and offered up in sacrifice; and whereby alone the Sacraments of Confirmation, Penance, and Extreme Unction can be validly administered.

Holy Order is in three degrees: those of bishops, priests, and deacons, the bishops possessing the priesthood in its plenitude, that is, with the power not only to exercise this ministry personally, but also to transmit it and the diaconate to others. Thus the bishop is the only minister of Holy Order, and for its valid administration it is essential that he should (1) himself have received a valid episcopal consecration, and (2)should use a rite in which are reserved all the essentials of validity as instituted by Christ. To have received or failed to receive orders under these conditions is to be within or without the Apostolical succession of the Catholic ministry.

In the sixteenth century this doctrine of a priesthood endowed with mystical powers was pronounced superstitious by most of the Protestant Reformers, who, accordingly, rejected Holy Order from among the number of their sacraments. They recognized, however, that from primitive times downwards there had always been a body of clergy set apart for the pastoral duties, and this they desired to retain in their separated communions; in some cases organizing it in two degrees only, of presbyters and deacons, in others of three degrees, which, in accordance with ancient practice, they continued to designate by the names of bishops, priests, and deacons. But their doctrine in regard to these ministers was that they could possess no powers beyond those of other men, but only “authority in the congregation” to preach and teach, to govern churches, and to preside over services and ceremonies; and that the rites, of imposition of hands or otherwise, whereby candidates were inducted into the grades of their ministry, were to be regarded merely as simple and impressive external ceremonies employed for the sake of decency and order. This view of the Christian ministry is very distinctly expressed in the public formularies and private writings of the continental Reformers. In England it was certainly shared by Cranmer, Ridley, and others who with them presided over the ecclesiastical alterations in the reign of Edward VI. That the present Anglican clergy are bishops, priests, and deacons in the latter sense admits of no dispute. But are they so also in the former and Catholic sense; and are they in consequence in the true line of Apostolical succession, and endowed with all its mystical powers over the Sacrifice and sacraments? This is the question of Anglican orders.

THE CHARACTER OF CATHOLIC ORDINALS

From time immemorial a group of ordination rites have been in use in the Catholic Church and in those Oriental schisms which broke away from it in early times, but whose orders it has always recognized as valid. When these various rites are compared, they are found to differ indeed in the text, but to be entirely alike in the essential character of the “forms” appointed to accompany the imposition of hands. All, that is to say, signify in appropriate terms the order to be imparted, and supplicate Almighty God to bestow upon the candidate the divine gifts necessary for his state. In the Western Church, though there are traces of a now obsolete “form” anciently employed in parts of Gaul, the form of the Roman Church is the only one that has persisted, and it quickly passed into universal use. This is the prayer, Deus honorum omnium, which can be found in the “Pontificale Romanum.” Its earliest appearance in writing is in the so-called “Leonine Sacramentary,” referred by Duchesne to the sixth century; that it should appear there is proof positive that it must have been in existence for some time previously, at least as orally preserved, the force of which proof is greatly strengthened by the testimony to the conservatism of the Roman Church which we have from Pope Innocent I. For this Pope, writing in A.D. 416, to Decentius, Bishop of Eugubium, complains that “if the priests of the Lord desired to preserve ecclesiastical ordinances as they were handed down to us by the Blessed Apostles, no diversity, no variety would be found in the very orders and consecrations themselves,” but adds, “Who does not know and consider that what was delivered to the Roman Church by St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and is to this day kept (by it), ought to be observed by all, and that no practice should be substituted or added without being sanctioned by authority or precedent.” When we trace downwards the history of this Roman rite we find that the conservative principle enunciated by St. Innocent has been faithfully followed. Thus Morinus, a great authority, writes, “We deem it necessary for the reader to know that the modern Roman Pontifical contains all that was in the earlier Pontificals, but that the earlier Pontificals do not contain all that is in the modern Roman Pontifical. For some things have been added to the recent Pontificals, for various pious and religious reasons, which are wanting in all the ancient editions. And that more recent Pontificals are, the more these additions obtrude themselves. But this is a wonderful and impressive fact, that in all the volumes, ancient, more modern, and contemporary, there is ever one form of ordination both as regards words and as regards ceremony, and the later books omit nothing that was present in the older. Thus the modern form of ordination differs neither in word nor in ceremony from that used by the ancient Fathers.” Among the additions which Morinus has in mind as having been made during the early Middle Ages, the tradition of the instruments, that is, of the paten and chalice in the case of the priesthood, and that of the book of the Gospels in the case of the episcopate, are the most important. Indeed, these drew to themselves so much attention that for many centuries they and the words accompanying them were supposed by many to be more essential even than the imposition of hands and the prayer, Deus honorum. Still there was never any danger that the prevalence of these theological views would affect the validity of the ordinations given, for the simple reason that the principle of never omitting anything was rigidly adhered to.

THE ORIGIN OF THE ANGLICAN SUCCESSION

It was this venerable ordination rite, as preserved in the English varieties of the Roman Pontifical, which was in use in the country when Henry VIII began his assaults on the ancient religion. He did not himself venture to touch it, but in the next reign it was set aside by Cranmer and his associates who, under the rule of Somerset and Northumberland, were engaged in remodelling the whole fabric of the Church of England to suit their extreme Protestant conceptions. These men pronounced the ancient forms to be utterly superstitious and requiring to be replaced by others more in conformity with the simplicity of the Gospel. Hence the origin of the Edwardine Ordinal, which, under the sanction of the Act of 1550, was drawn up by “six prelates and six other men of the realm learned in God’s law, by the King’s Majesty to be appointed and assigned.”

This new rite underwent some further changes two years later, and was thus brought into the form in which it remained till the year 1662, when it was somewhat improved by the addition of clauses defining the nature of the orders imparted. As the Ordinal of 1550 had no lasting influence on the country, we may disregard it here, as we may also disregard, as of less consequence, the rite for the ordination of deacons.

In the Ordinal of 1552 the “essential form,” that is, the form adjoined to the imposition of hands, was, in the case of the priesthood, merely this: “Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained; and be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of His Holy Sacraments”; and these other words, whilst the Bible was being delivered, “Take thou authority to preach the Word of God and to minister the Holy Sacraments in this Congregation, where thou shalt be so appointed.” In the case of the episcopate it was, “Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by imposition of hands, for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and of soberness”; and these others, while the Bible was delivered, “Give heed unto reading, exhortation, and doctrine. Think upon these things contained in this book. . . . Be to the flock of Christ a shepherd not a wolf; feed them, devour them not; hold up the weak, heal the sick, bind together the broken, bring again the outcast, seek the lost. . . .”

The additions made in 1662 were, in the case of the priesthood (after the words, “receive the Holy Ghost”), “for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands”; and in the case of the episcopate (after the words, “Take the Holy Ghost”), “for the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands.”

By this new Ordinal seven bishops and a number of inferior clergy were made during the last two years of Edward VI. On the accession of Mary in 1553 it was discarded, and the Pontifical resumed, but on the accession of Elizabeth in 1558 its use was restored, and has continued (with the addition of the defining clauses since 1662) down to the present day. The Anglican clergy are thus the creation of this Ordinal, and, primarily, the validity of their orders is dependent on its sufficiency—that is, on its sufficiency in its earlier form, for if that be wanting, the Apostolical succession must have lapsed long before 1662, and could not be resuscitated by the additions then made. It was on this consideration of the character of the Edwardine rite that the Holy See based its definitive decree of 1896.

Still, for the complete understanding of the history of the subject it is necessary to know something of the circumstances under which Archbishop Parker was raised to the episcopate, and of the further defects which the Anglican succession has been thought to inherit from its relation to the same. This Dr. Matthew Parker was chosen by Queen Elizabeth to be her first Archbishop of Canterbury. The metropolitan see was then vacant by the death of Cardinal Pole, and all the other sees of the kingdom, with a single exception, were vacant likewise, either because of the death of their previous occupants, or because the bishops who survived were, in the eyes of the Government, deprived for refusing to conform to the new order of things. The Queen intended through Parker to raise up a new hierarchy, but a difficulty confronted her. When consecrated himself, Parker could consecrate his intended colleagues; but how was he to get consecrated himself? None of the Catholic bishops still living would consent to perform the ceremony, and in default of them she had recourse to four ecclesiastics of no very high reputation, three of whom (William Barlow, John Scory, and Miles Coverdale) had been deprived by Mary, and the fourth (John Hodgkins) was a turncoat who had been consecrated suffragan Bishop of Bedford in 1537 and had consistently changed with every change of the times. To Barlow was given the lead, and he, with the others as his assistants, consecrated Parker, 17 December, 1559, in the private chapel at Lambeth, using the Edwardine Ordinal. Three days later Parker, with the aid of Barlow, Scory, and Hodgkins, consecrated four others at Bow Church. From these ancestors the whole Anglican succession is sprung. Was, then, the consecration of Parker a valid act? This is the other ground of dispute round which, as a matter of history, the controversy has gathered.

THE PRACTICE OF THE HOLY SEE

Apart from exceptional circumstances, such as arose in 1896, the Holy See does not indulge in purely theoretical pronouncements on questions like that of Anglican Orders, but limits its intervention to cases of practical difficulty that are brought before it—as when persons or classes of persons who wish to minister at the Church’s altars have undergone ceremonies of ordination outside its fold. And even in thus intervening the Holy See is chary of doctrinal decisions, but applies a common-sense rule that can give practical security. Where it judges that the previous orders were certainly valid it permits their use, supposing the candidate to be acceptable; where it judges the previous orders to be certainly invalid it disregards them altogether, and enjoins a re-ordination according to its own rite; where it judges that the validity of the previous orders is doubtful, even though the doubt be slight, it forbids their use until a conditional ceremony of re-ordination has first been undergone. Such a class of cases requiring its intervention arose when Queen Mary set to work to draw order out of the chaos in which her two predecessors had involved the affairs of the Church. What was to be done with those who had received Edwardine orders? The question was investigated at Rome, whither the needful information and documents were sent by Pole, and, although we have no record of the discussion, it is clear from what has just been said about its known principles of action that the Holy See judged these orders to be invalid, for it sent directions to Pole to treat them as non-existent. That this was so appears

(1) from the letters of Julius III and Paul IV, and the sense in which they were taken by Pole, for these letters direct that all recipients of Edwardine Orders shall, if accepted for the Church’s ministry, be ordained afresh;

(2) from a comparison between the Edwardine and Marian registers which reveals several double entries of names of persons who received first Edwardine and afterwards Catholic ordination;

(3) from the course taken in punishing recalcitrant Edwardine ecclesiastics, in the ceremony of whose degradation no account was taken of their Edwardine orders.

And the practice thus initiated during the reign of Mary was adhered to ever afterwards, when Anglican clergymen came over to the Catholic Church and sought admission into the ranks of the priesthood. A list of twenty such re-ordinations has been gathered by Canon Estcourt from the “Douay Diaries”; and others could be gathered from the registers of the English College at Rome and other sources. Nor is the fact disputed—save perhaps as regards a few isolated cases, the documentary evidence for which is deficient. Moreover, Leo XIII, in his Bull “Apostolicae Curae,” speaks of many such cases as having been formally referred to the Holy See at different times, with the result that the practice of re-ordaining was invariably observed. Two of these cases were, in 1684 and 1704, the second of which attracted a certain amount of attention. It was that of John Clement Gordon, who had received all the Anglican orders, the episcopate included, by the Edwardine rite and from the hands of the prelates who derived their orders from the Anglican succession. The decision was that, if he would minister as a priest, he must receive the priesthood and all previous orders afresh.

THE HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY

Though such was the practice sanctioned by the Holy See for dealing with Anglican orders administratively, the Holy See did not, as it usually does not, publish the motives of its decision. The duty of vindicating its action in regard to these orders was thus left to the zeal and industry of private theological writers, whose method was to inquire into the facts as best they could and apply to them the same theological tests as the Church authorities were known to recognize. In this way there came into existence that series of controversial treatises on either side which covered the whole period from the beginning of the seventeenth century to the present day. Now that the Holy See has given not merely a final decision, but one supported by the motives on which it is based, these ancient treatises have lost a good deal of their interest. A very brief account of them may therefore suffice here, but the reader who requires more may be referred to the pages of Canon Estcourt. That the controversy did not begin till early in the reign of James I is, perhaps, explicable on the ground that the first generation or two of the Anglican clergy were too Zwinglian or Calvinistic to care about having Apostolical succession.

But in 1588–89 Bancroft, in a celebrated sermon at Paul’s Cross, took up the higher ground, which was powerfully maintained a few years after by Bilson and Hooker, the pioneers of the long line of Jacobean and Caroline divines. Then the writers on the Catholic side began to controvert this position, but in the first instance not very happily. The circumstances of Parker’s consecration had been shrouded in much secrecy and were unknown to the Catholic party, who accordingly gave credence to a piquant rumour called “The Nag’s Head story.” This was to the effect that, as no Catholic bishop could be got to consecrate Parker, he and others, when together at the Nag’s Head in Cheapside, knelt down before Scory, the deprived Bishop of Chichester, who placed a Bible on the neck of each, saying at the same time, “Receive the power of preaching the Word of God sincerely”; and that this strange ceremony was the fountain-head of the whole Anglican succession. This story was first published by Kellison in 1605, in his “Reply to Sutcliffe,” and was taken up by some other Catholic writers in the following years. To these Mason in his “Vindiciae Ecclesiae Anglicanae” replied on the Anglican side, in 1613, and was the first to call attention, at all events effectively, to the entry in Parker’s “Register” of his consecration on 17 December, 1559, in the private chapel at Lambeth.

In the following year (1614) Archbishop Abbot, to clench this statement of Mason’s, caused four Catholic priests, prisoners in the Tower, to be taken to Lambeth and there shown the “Register,” on the genuineness of which they were invited to declare. An inspection under such circumstances (for they were all the time under the jealous eyes of seven Protestant bishops) was not calculated to convince, and Champney, who wrote in 1616, suggests, what was clearly the general opinion of the Catholics at the time, that the entry in question was a forgery.

On one or two occasions previously it had apparently been seen by individual Catholics, but its existence had not become generally known till Mason’s book appeared, and then the fact that an appeal to it should not have been made by the Anglican party till so long after the reputed date of the occurrence seemed to be highly suspicious. Nor will these suspicions appear unnatural to anyone who reflects on the curious reticence shown by the Elizabethan writers when challenged to say how their Metropolitan was consecrated; such as, for instance, was shown by Jewell in his replies to Harding’s direct inquiries. Probably, however, the real motive of this reticence was in the reputation of the consecrators to whom Parker was driven to have recourse; for there can be no question, to us who know all the lines of converging evidence that tell in its favour, but that his consecration did take place on the day and in the manner described in the “Register,” and that the latter was a contemporary document. On the other hand, the Nag’s Head story is too unsupported by solid evidence and too incredible in itself to be accepted as historical—although to say this is by no means the same as saying that those who brought it forward in the first instance, or maintained it during several generations, were acting dishonestly. It is, however, an error to suppose that the early Catholic controversialists rested their case against Anglican orders exclusively on the spuriousness of the Lambeth “Register” or the truth of the Nag’s Head story. On the contrary, although they intermingled some proofs like those mentioned which have had to be abandoned, it is wonderful how sound was the position they took up from the first in their general statement of the argument. Thus Champney, the first systematic writer on the Catholic side, directs his first and chief attack against all orders conveyed by the Edwardine Ordinal, whether in the reign of Edward VI or subsequently, and contests their validity on the ground of the insufficiency of the rite itself. Moreover, though inclining, with most of the theologians of his time, to hold that other ceremonies besides imposition of hands and the words, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” were essential to validity, he gives due weight to the contrary opinion of Vasquez, and takes up exactly the same position as was afterwards taken up by Morinus in regard to the practical course to be followed. “The determinate matter,” he says, “and form of some sacraments—and, among others, of Holy Orders, . . . are not so clearly and distinctly declared in the Councils and Fathers, but that various opinions, based on weighty reasons and authorities, have been held and defended with good probability of truth . . . (But) the Church does not suffer any harm or loss (from this uncertainty) because she knows for certain that she has (in her rites) the true matter and form which Christ gave to His Apostles, although no one can define precisely in what things and words it is contained . . . provided that there is no omission of any part (of the rite) which the Church is wont to use in administering her sacraments, and in which it is universally agreed that the true matter and form is contained. But if anyone were obstinately to follow his own opinion, and exclude all other things, actions, and words in administering the said sacraments, save such as he himself judges essential, he would render those sacraments untrustworthy, and would in consequence be inflicting on the Church a most serious harm.” It is only when he comes to treat of Elizabethan orders in their relation to Archbishop Parker that Champney alleges other grounds of invalidity, and he then comprises his entire case against them under the following five heads—(1) the truth of the Nag’s Head story;

(2) the spuriousness of the Lambeth “Register”;

(3) the want of episcopal character in Barlow, Parker’s chief consecrator;

(4) the insecurity of the rite used, in view of its many omissions;

(5) the probability that it does not contain the essentials of a valid Ordinal.

These are the same arguments which the subsequent writers debated and developed, except for a somewhat different handling of the fifth, the necessity for which became apparent not long after Champney’s time. For Champney, as we have seen, though without speaking too positively, contended for the necessity of other elements in the matter and form than the mere imposition of hands and the words attached to this. In 1655, however, Morinus’s epoch-making work, “De Sacris Ordinationibus,” appeared, and proved by irresistible documentary evidence that not only, as was previously recognized, had imposition of hands been all through the sole matter of ordination, episcopal and sacerdotal, in the Oriental rites, but that even in the Western rite it had been so for about 900 years, the ceremonies of tradition of instruments and of unction not being found in any text of more ancient date, still less that of the second imposition of hands in the ordination of priests. The discovery of this liturgical fact necessarily influenced the Anglican controversy, and though the Holy See, in its rigid adherence to the practical rule indicated by Champney, still insists on the retention of the other ceremonies in all Western ordinations, the general tendency since the publication of Morinus’s work has been to reject the Anglican rite mainly on the ground of the insufficiency of the “form” attached to the imposition of hands. On these lines the controversy was continued in the latter part of the seventeenth century by Talbot and Lewgar on the Catholic side, and by Bramhall, Burner, and Prideaux on the Anglican.

At the commencement of the next century, in 1704, the case of John Clement Gordon, to which reference has already been made, was taken before the Holy See and examined. The result was to elicit from the Holy Office a formal re-affirmation of the necessity of re-ordaining convert clergymen; nor was this decision motived, as an incorrect publication of the decree by Le Quien suggested, by any acceptance of the Nag’s Head story, but, as is now known, by the nature of the Edwardine rite, a copy of which was procured and specially examined by the Sacred Congregation. A few years later the scene of the controversy shifted to France. The Abbé Renaudot wrote a “Mémoire,” published in 1720, in which he rejected Anglican orders on the grounds of the Nag’s Head story, and of the novelty and insufficiency of the Anglican rite. He was answered shortly after by the Pere Courayer, whose works in defence of Anglican orders, as coming from the Catholic side, caused a great sensation in England, where the author was held in high favour; and later, when he had to leave France on a charge of unsound doctrine, he was invited over to this country and was given a pension by George II. The principal answer to Courayer was that of the Abbé Le Quien, whose “Nullité des ordinations anglicanes” appeared (Paris) in 1730, but Father John Constable, S.J., embodied a great part of it in his “Clerophilus Alethes,” an English work published very shortly after. In the nineteenth century, with the rise of the Tractarian party, and of the more Catholic ideas of the priesthood which it caused to prevail, the question of Anglican orders was felt to be of vital importance for the High Church clergy, and the controversy became proportionately more acute. As, too, the principles of historical evidence had by then come to be better understood, and the facilities for the study of documents were vastly improved, a series of works resulted which has considerably advanced our knowledge of the subject. Of these the most valuable on rise Anglican side were Mr. A. W. Haddan’s edition of Bramhall, and his own “Apostolical Succession in the Church of England,” Dr. F. G. Lee’s “Validity of the Holy Orders of the Church of England,” and more recently Mr. Denny’s “Anglican Orders and Jurisdiction,” the last being perhaps the most complete work that has appeared in defence of these orders. On the Catholic side, Canon Estcourt’s “Question of Anglican Orders Discussed” and Mr. W. A. Hutton’s “Anglican Ministry” were the most noticeable. The former, though it errs in giving away an important argument, through misconceiving the purport of a decision of the Holy Office, still bears the palm among Catholic treatises for its scholarly investigation of many historical points; the latter is chiefly valuable for its exposition of the broader aspect under which Newman preferred to regard the subject.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ON EITHER SIDE

To some extent the proofs and disproofs cast to and fro by the disputants have necessarily been indicated above, but it will be well to summarize them here as a preliminary to an account of the Bull “Apostolicae Curae.”

1. Of the Nag’s Head story nothing more need be said, as no person of intelligence now believes in it.

2. Nor is there any doubt but that Parker really did undergo a ceremony of consecration on 17 December, 1559, at Lambeth, in which the Edwardine rite was employed, and the consecrators were Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins. Machyn’s and Parker’s diaries prove conclusively that a consecration did then and there take place. A paper in the State Paper Office (in which the order of procedure to be followed at the consecration is drawn up by a clerk, and Cecil’s and Parker’s annotations are in the margin) proves that they intended to have a consecration by bishops according to the Edwardine rite, whilst there was nothing to prevent them from carrying their intention into effect. And the Commission of 6 December, 1559, issued to Kitchen, Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins, shows that these, or some of them, were the prelates who were to perform the ceremony.

3. In regard to Barlow’s episcopal character, the Anglican case is that (1) although there is no record of his consecration in the “Archiepiscopal Register,” this only proves that the “Register” was very negligently kept; that (2) there is no record in this “Register” of the consecrations of several other bishops, Gardiner included, yet no one doubts that these were really consecrated; and that (3) it is not conceivable that Barlow could have gone on acting as bishop for over twenty years without attention having been called by some person or other to his want of consecration.

The Catholic writers, on the other hand, point out that it is not merely the absence of just a single entry in Cranmer’s “Register” which stands against him, but (1) the absence of an entire set of documents which should have borne reference to his consecration if it occurred; (2) the discovery of one document which is exceptionally worded, and so worded as apparently to provide for the avoidance of consecration; (3) the views of the non-necessity of consecration which Barlow held and expressed; (4) the difficulty of assigning a date when the ceremony could have taken place; (5) and the likelihood that, as the King and Cranmer are known to have shared his views, he might have been able to keep his secret to himself and pass as a consecrated bishop.

Still the Catholic writers do not maintain on these grounds that it is certain he was not consecrated, but only that it is not certain that he was, and hence, that orders derived from him, as are those of the Anglican clergy, must be considered doubtful, unless supplemented by a conditional ceremony.

4. For the sufficiency of the Anglican Rite, as it stood in the first century of its use, the defenders argue that, although it may have been undesirable to substitute this new rite for the ancient and venerable rite which preceded it, the change was within the competence of the Edwardine and Elizabethan authorities, since every national Church has authority to select its own rites and ceremonies, as long as it eliminates no element which, in the judgment of the Universal Church, is essential to validity. To this it is replied that no evidence is forthcoming to show that any such authority has ever been recognized in national Churches; that, on the contrary, though local churches have at times added further prayers and ceremonies to the rites handed down to them from time immemorial, they have, as Morinus has told us, never ventured to subtract anything that was in previous use, fearing lest in so doing they might touch something which was essential. To this the defenders reply that at least the Anglican rite has retained all that is to be found in the Roman Ordinal in its earliest known form, as well as in the Eastern ordinals, which the Holy See has ever recognized as valid; and that it must be held therefore to have retained all that can reasonably be claimed as necessary. But in the first place, though the course of theological opinion inclines to judge that the tradition of instruments and other added ceremonies in the modern Western rite might be laid aside without danger to validity, the Holy See, as has been said, feeling that in a matter of such supreme importance it is best to follow an absolutely safe rule, is loth to trust to speculative opinions, and has always required a conditional re-ordination whenever any one of the added ceremonies has been omitted. Moreover, it is not correct to say that the Anglican rite retains all those elements which the Eastern and early Western rites have in common. For what these have in common (cf. App. IV of the Vindication) is imposition of hands accompanied by a prayer in which the order to be imparted is defined either by its accepted name, or by words expressive of its grace and power, which is chiefly the power to consecrate and offer up in sacrifice the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. The original Anglican rite, on the contrary, contained no words whatever in the “form” accompanying the imposition of hands to define the order to be imparted. In the rite for the episcopate the consecrating bishop says, “Take the Holy Ghost”; but he does not, say for what—whether for the office of a bishop, or priest, or deacon—so much so that Dr. Lingard could suggest that it was a form as suitable for the admission of a parish clerk as for the consecration of a bishop. And so, too, with the priesthood, though in a somewhat less degree. For here the words of the “form” are, “Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of His Holy Sacraments”; whereas the power to forgive sins does not discriminate between the priest and the bishop, and besides is only a secondary and incidental, not the primary and essential, function of the priestly office. Still the defenders of the Anglican Ordinal have their further rejoinder. It is not necessary, they contend, that the nature of the order imparted should be defined by the words of the “form” taken by itself alone; it is sufficient if the meaning of this “form” is determined to a definite sense by the context, or other prayers and ceremonies which precede or follow; and they point out that in the titles of the rites—“The form of ordering Priests” and “The form of consecrating an Archbishop or Bishop”—in the presentation of the candidates, and in several of the prayers, the needful mention of the order to be imparted is declared. Moreover, they refer to a decision of the Holy Office, 9 April, 1704, in regard to some Abyssinian ordinations, as witnessing that the Holy See itself has recognized the words, “Take the Holy Ghost,” to be sufficient, when said with the imposition of hands, if the remainder of the rite is sufficiently determinate. But, in the first place, as regards this Abyssinian case, its nature has been misapprehended, as may be seen from the documents published by Father Brandi, in his “Roma e Canterbury.” In the second place, none of the rites, ancient or modern, which the Holy See has ever recognized lends any support to this theory of an indeterminate form determined by a remote context. In the third place, it is contrary to the analogy of all the other sacraments and is unreasonable in itself. It is as if, writes Cardinal Segna (Revue Anglo-Romaine, 29 February, 1896), in a wedding ceremony, “the bride and bridegroom should stand at the altar and in many an eloquent phrase declare their mutual love, but when the moment has arrived for pronouncing the decisive word “I will”;, should “shut their lips in stubborn silence.” And in the fourth place, the remote context, instead of determining the words, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” to signify the bestowal of a true priesthood, determines them to an exactly opposite sense. It is true that the traditional names of the three orders occur in places, but, as explained at the head of this article, these names at the Reformation were often used in a sense from which all notion of the priesthood and its mystical powers had been drained off. That this was the sense in which they were intended by those who framed and authorized the Edwardine rites is proved by the statements of classical Anglican writers like Hooker, who defend the retention of the old names on the plea that “as for the people, when they hear the name [priest] it draweth no more their minds to any cogitation of sacrifice than the name of a senator or of an alderman causeth them to think upon old age, or to imagine that every one so termed must needs be ancient because years were respected in the nomination of both” (Eccles. Polity, V, lxxviii, 2). There is, moreover, the broad fact that, when the old and the new rite are compared, it appears that the difference lies just in this: that the framers of the new have cut out all that in the old gave expression to the idea of a mystic sacerdotium in the Catholic sense of the term. There is also the connected fact that the introduction of the Edwardine Ordinal was the outcome of the same general movement which led to the pulling down of the altars and the substitution of communion tables, in order that, as Ridley expressed it, “the form of a table shall more move the simple people from the superstitious opinions of the Popish mass unto the right use of the Lord’s supper.”

5. According to Catholic doctrine, it is necessary for validity that the minister of a sacrament should not only employ a proper form, but should also have a proper . Thus Pole, in his instructions to the Bishop of Norwich (which Leo XIII cites in his Bull of condemnation), tells him to treat as not validly consecrated those pretending bishops in whose previous consecration ceremonies “the form and of the Church had not been observed,” thereby implying that this double defect was present in the Edwardine consecrations. On this point the defenders of Anglican orders urge that (1) to admit that the mental intentions of the minister can affect the validity of the Sacrament is to involve in uncertainty all ordinations whatever—for how are we to know what internal lapses or deflections from the due intention may not have been secretly made by those on whose acts the orders of whole generations of Christian ministers have been dependent?—and (2) even granting this doctrine of intention, no defect of due intention should be imputed to the Anglican prelates of any generation, since, according to theologians like Bellarmine, even an heretical minister’s intention is sufficient as long as it is a general intention to do what Christ does or His true Church does, whatever this may be. But, it is replied, it is impossible not to recognize that the minister’s intention is an essential element. Why, for instance, is there a valid consecration at Mass when the priest pronounces the words, “This is my Body,” but no valid consecration when he pronounces the same words in the presence of bread whilst reading from St. Matthew’s Gospel in a community refectory? Still the Church trusts to the Providence of God to watch over all such defective intentions as are not externally manifested, and assumes that the minister’s intention is correct in every serious administration of her own rites, even when he is—like Cranmer, for instance—a person of heterodox opinions. Where, however, a defective intention is manifested externally, she must deal with it, and that is what has happened in respect to the Anglican ordinations. The rite, as has been explained, was altered in Edward VI’s time to give expression to a heterodox belief concerning the nature of Holy Orders, and was likewise adopted in this sense by the Elizabethan authorities. When, then, they proceeded to administer it, the only reasonable interpretation of their action was that they conformed their intention to their rite, and hence that, from a Catholic point of view, their acts were invalid on a twofold ground: the defect of the form and the defect of the intention.

6. In modern times the Anglican clergy often appeal, as confirmatory of the above doctrinal and historical considerations, or even as having an independent value, to what may be called an experiential argument. “It is all very well,” they say, “to bring forward these external arguments to discredit our orders. But we have an internal testimony which appeals to us more powerfully, namely our intimate consciousness of the spiritual benefit we experience when we make use of the sacraments of which our orders are the source to us. If they were invalid orders, how is it conceivable that God should so bless their use to those who have recourse to them?” This is an argument which no one has stated more forcibly than Cardinal Newman in the Third Lecture of his “Anglican Difficulties,” where, too, the most searching answer to it may be found. Here it will be enough to say (1) that for those who bring it forward it proves too much, since Wesleyans and others could claim as much, and on the same grounds, for their own ordinances, which no one supposes to be dependent for their efficacy on the validity of an Apostolical succession; (2) that it confounds the efficacy of a rite ex opere operato, or as an appointed channel of sacramental grace, and its efficacy ex opere operantis, or as a stimulus to the piety of well-disposed hearts; (3) that the rule of the Catholic Church is, while by no means undervaluing the evidential power of internal experience, to interpret this and detect its true bearing by applying the test of her own divinely authenticated external teaching.

THE BULL OF LEO XIII

From the foregoing account it can readily be understood why the practice of re-ordaining convert clergymen has subsisted. Anglicans, however, have always resented this practice, and maintained that the Holy See could never have sanctioned it had the facts been properly presented. In 1894 this contention was pressed upon the notice of some French ecclesiastics by some Anglican leaders who were discussing with them the prospects of corporate reunion. The result was that the French ecclesiastics brought the matter to the notice of Leo XIII, assuring him that this impression prevailed among many well-disposed Anglicans, who felt that they were being unfairly treated. The Pope was moved by what he heard, and determined that he would have the whole question re-investigated thoroughly. Accordingly, he selected eight divines who had made a special study of the subject, and of whom four were known to be disposed to recognize Anglican orders and four to be disposed to reject them. These he summoned to Rome and formed into a consultative commission under the presidency of Cardinal Mazzella. They were given access to all documents from the archives of the Vatican and the Holy Office which would throw light upon the points at issue, and they were bidden to sift the evidence on either side with all possible fulness and care. After sessions which lasted six weeks, the Commission was dissolved, and the acta of its discussions were laid before a judicial committee of cardinals. These, after a two months’; study, in a special meeting under the presidency of the Pope, decided by a unanimous vote that Anglican orders were certainly invalid. After an interval for prayerful consideration of this vote, Leo XIII determined to adopt it and accordingly published his Bull “Apostolicae Curae” on the 18th of September, 1896. In this Bull he begins by expressing his affectionate interest in the English people and his desire for their return to unity, and by reciting the circumstances which had led to the issue of this solemn decision. He then calls attention to the action taken in the same matter by his predecessors. In the reign of Mary, when she and Cardinal Pole were engaged in reconciling the kingdom, letters of direction were sent to the latter, which, as their text shows, required him to treat those who had received orders by a form other than “the accustomed form of the Church”—a phrase which, says Pope Leo, can only refer to the Edwardine Ordinal—as needing to be ordained or consecrated afresh. At that time, then, the Holy See judged the Anglican form to be insufficient, and that it persisted in this adverse judgment is manifest from the fact that for more than three centuries it has sanctioned the practice of re-ordaining absolutely the holders of orders obtained through this form; for “since in the Church it has always been a firm and established rule that the sacrament of Order ought not to be repeated, it never could have silently acquiesced in and tolerated such a custom,” had it deemed the Anglican form to be in any way sufficient. Moreover, continues the Bull, the Holy See not only acquiesced in the practice, but on many occasions gave it renewed sanction by express judgments, to two of which, the second being that of John Clement Gordon, it calls particular attention, repudiating in connection with this latter the allegation that the rejection of Gordon’s previous orders had been motivated by any other cause than the character of the Anglican rite (a copy of which was procured and examined by the judges), or even that in judging of the rite the essential point considered was the omission in it of any tradition of the instruments. This account of the practice of his predecessors forms the first part of the “Apostolicae Curae,” and in view of it Leo XIII observes that the question could not really be considered still open. He has wished, however, “to help men of good will by showing them the greatest consideration and charity,” and he proceeds to expound the principles on which the Anglican Rite is judged by himself, as well as by his predecessors, to lack the conditions of validity. “In the examination,” he says, “of any rite for the effecting and administering of Sacraments, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, usually called the “matter” and “form.” All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the “matter” and “form,” it still pertains chiefly to the “form”; since the “matter” is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the “form.” And this appears still more clearly in the Sacrament of Orders, the matter of which, in so far as we have to consider it in this case, is the imposition of hands, which indeed by itself signifies nothing definite, and is equally used for several orders and for confirmation. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination—namely: “Receive the Holy Ghost”—certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood, or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord., Can. 1) in that sacrifice which is “no nude commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross” (ibid., Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Miss., Can. 3). . . . The same holds good of episcopal consecration. For to the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” not only were the words “for the office and work of a bishop” etc., added at a later period, but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different from that which they bear in the Catholic rite.” In this passage the Bull sanctions the principle that a sacramental rite must signify definitely what it is to effect, and that this definite signification must be in the essential “form,” or words in proximate connection with the “matter”; also that, in the case of Holy Order, what must be definitely signified is, in the ordination of priests, the Order of the Priesthood or its grace and power, and similarly in the consecration of bishops; the grace and power in each having reference to the accomplishment of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This principle accepted, it follows at once that the Anglican Ordinal, at least as it stood till 1662, lacks the essential conditions of sufficiency. But the Bull further examines how far the remainder of this Ordinal, or the circumstances under which it came into being, can be held to determine the ambiguity of the “essential form.” And here it sanctions the judgment which the Catholic writers had already formed. “The history,” it says, “of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from heterodox sects; and as to the end in view. . . . Under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the liturgical order in many ways to suit the errors of the Reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, but every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out. In this way the native character—or spirit, as it is called—of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer orders, it was impossible that in the course of time it should become sufficient, since it remained always what it was (i.e. of vitiated origin). . . . For once a new rite has been initiated, in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Orders is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (the Spirit, namely, which is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament) no longer holds good, and so the words “for the office and work of a priest or bishop,” and the like, no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.” Likewise in regard to the defect of intention, the Bull endorses the judgment adverse to Anglican ordination which Catholic writers had always urged. “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due “form” and “matter” requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament, he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of a sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to, and destructive of, the sacrament.”

These are the defects in the Anglican Succession, on the existence of which the Bull bases its decision. It will be noticed that they are of the most fundamental kind, and are independent of any defects that may be thought to arise out of the omission in the Ordinal of a tradition of the instruments, or of the doubt about Barlow’s consecration. To examine into the nature and bearing of the latter when a sufficient basis for a certain conclusion had been supplied by the former would have been a superfluous task, and for the same reason it is unlikely that even for the private inquirer these other considerations will retain in the future the interest they had in the past. At the same time the Bull has in no way pronounced them to be frivolous or unfounded, as has been suggested. It remains to give the formal definition of the Bull, which is in the following terms: “Wherefore, strictly adhering in this matter to the decrees of the Pontiffs Our Predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own motion and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and void.”

The publication of the “Apostolicae Curae” caused, as was to be expected, much excitement in England; nor did the Anglican party, for whose sake it was intended, show any disposition to accept either its arguments or its decision. It was deemed, however, to have created a crisis sufficiently serious to require that it should be met by some formal reply. Accordingly, in the early part of 1897 there appeared, in both a Latin and an English edition, an “Answer of the Archbishops of England to the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII on English Ordinations,” which was “addressed to the whole body of Bishops of the Catholic Church.” This answer, which came to be known by its Latin name of the “Responsio,” is a distinctly Low-Church document, of which the leading contention is that the Pope has misjudged the Anglican Ordinal through failure to recognize the right of national Churches to reform and revise their own formulas, and by applying to this Ordinal a false and untrustworthy rule. The true rule to which an ordinal should be conformed, it urges, is the rule of Holy Scripture, and it is in this rule that the Reformers sought their guidance. They found an enormous accretion of sacerdotalist ideas embodied in the words and ceremonies of the older Ordinal, whereas, in the New Testament, the sacerdotalist conception of the Christian ministry was altogether absent. And, on the other hand, they found that the aspects of the Christian ministry on which Our Lord and His Apostles had laid the most stress—those, namely, which concerned the pastor’s duty to go forth in His Master’s name as His steward, His watchman, His messenger, to tend the sheep, and, if need be, lay down his life for their sakes, to preach the word, to convert sinners, to remit offences in the Church, to render mutual services to one another, and much else of the same kind—were very insufficiently set forth in the Pontifical. Accordingly, in drawing up their new rite, they endeavoured as far as possible to eliminate the former element and give prominence to the latter, while in their “forms” they assigned to the priesthood the words which, according to the New Testament, Our Lord used in promoting His Apostles to this office, and to the episcopate the words of St. Paul which “were believed to refer to the consecration of St. Timothy to be Bishop of Ephesus.” Nor, in following precedents so lofty, could they reasonably be charged with having endangered the efficacy of their rite. This is in brief the defensive argument of the “Responsio.” But it also charges the Pope with having, in his zeal to condemn the orders of the Anglican Church, overlooked the contradictions in which he was involving the position of his own Church. In condemning the Anglican “forms” as wanting in definite signification, he condemned, by implication, the orders of his own Church, since the Roman Pontifical in its pre-medieval text was not a whit more definite than the Elizabethan Anglican; and in attaching the sacramental virtue to the imposition of hands and the connected words he was condemning by implication his predecessor, Eugenius IV, who attached that virtue to the tradition of instruments and the words connected therewith, not even making mention of imposition of hands among the requisites. One thing was made clear by the “Responsio,” and by the other criticisms of the “Apostolicae Curae” which poured forth from the Anglican press, namely, that the character of the Bull and its arguments had been greatly misapprehended. Hence, Cardinal Vaughan and the English Catholic Bishops, in the early part of 1898, published a “Vindication of the Bull ‘Apostolicae Curae’“, in reply to a letter addressed to them by the Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York.” In this “Vindication,” after some preliminary observations on the extrinsic reasons which the Bull had given for its decision, attention is called to the false standpoint from which the two Archbishops had judged the arguments of the Bull. In their “Responsio” they are mainly occupied with challenging the soundness of the principles on which the papal decision had been based. They urge that it rests on a false and unscriptural conception of the priesthood, and that, if for this the more scriptural conception expounded by themselves had been substituted, the decision must have been different. But this, the “Vindication” points out, is ignoratio elenchi. Of course the Pope considers that the Catholic conception of the priesthood is in conformity with Scripture; but that was not the question under consideration. The Anglican grievance was that those of their clergy who came over to us were re-ordained; and to complain of this was to contend that even on our principles their orders ought to be recognized; while no doubt the particular section of the Anglican communion which took most to heart this practice of re-ordination was in substantial agreement with us as to our conception of the priesthood. Hence the Holy See, in examining the question, necessarily assumed the validity of its own principles, and inquired only if they had been duly applied. The “Vindication,” however, to facilitate the understanding of the Pope’s reasons, sets itself to expand, explain, and vindicate by reference to the facts those points which the Bull, after the manner of legal documents, gives only in a highly condensed form. It is not necessary here to epitomize the “Vindication,” but mention may be made of its study of the opinions in regard to the Eucharistic Presence, the Mass, and the priesthood of Cranmer and his associates, as likewise of the opinions on the same subjects expressed by a series of Anglican divines during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which showed that the tradition initiated by Cranmer persisted.

THE AUTHORITY OF “APOSTOLICAE CURAE”

The question has been raised whether the pronouncement of the Bull “Apostolicae Curae” is or is not to be taken as an infallible utterance of the Holy See. But even if it were not it would not follow that it can be disregarded, and its eventual withdrawal confidently anticipated. What may be safely assumed is that it fixes the belief and practice of the Catholic Church irrevocably. This at least Leo XIII must have meant to signify when in his letter to Cardinal Richard, of 5 November, 1896, he declared that his “intention had been to pass a final judgment and settle (the question) forever” (absolute judicare et penitus dirimere), and that “Catholics were bound to receive (the judgment) with the fullest obedience as perpetuo firmam, ratam, irrevocabilem.”

Still, as a matter of speculative interest, it may be asked whether the definition is strictly infallible, and the answer may be stated shortly thus. It belongs to a class of ex cathedral utterances for which infallibility is claimed on the ground, not indeed, of the terms of the Vatican definition, but of the constant practice of the Holy See, the consentient teaching of the theologians, as well as of the clearest deductions from the principles of faith.

To understand what is meant it is necessary to bear in mind the distinction between a dogma and a dogmatic fact, the former being a doctrine of revelation, the latter a fact so intimately connected with a revealed doctrine that it would be impossible without inconsistency to assert the former and deny the latter. It may be urged that the Vatican Council merely defined that the Pope when speaking ex cathedra has “that infallibility which the divine Redeemer wished His Church to have in defining doctrine of faith and morals,” without going on to define the range of infallibility which Our Lord wished His Church to have. But it must be remembered (1) that the Vatican Council, had it not been forced to suspend its sittings by the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war, intended to supplement this first definition by others which would have gone into details in regard to the object of infallibility; (2) that to suppose that Church authority can define a doctrine to be true, but cannot decide whether it is contained in or denied by any particular writing—such as an ordination rite—is to suppose that the power of defining doctrine is largely nugatory; and (3) that since the time of Jansenius there has been a practical consensus theologorum in holding that infallibility does extend to dogmatic facts, a judgment which would undoubtedly bring this Bull within the category of infallible utterances.

Most of the leading works on Anglican Orders have been mentioned in the body of this article, but of recent date there are also the following: On the Catholic side, BARNES, The Pope and the Ordinal (1808), a convenient collection of the documents concerned; RAYNAL, Ordinal of Edward VI (1870); MOYES, articles in Tablet (February-May and September-December, 1895; and February-July, 1897); SYDNEY F. SMITH, Reasons for rejecting Anglican Orders (London, 1896); SEGNA, Breves Animadversiones in Responsionem Archiepiscoporum Anglicanorum, ad Litteras Apostolicas Leonis PP. XIII, “Apostolicae Curae” (1897); BRANDI, La Condanna delle Ordinazioni Anglicane, in La Civilta Cattolica, Ser. 16, VIII (tr. in Am. Ecc. Rev., XVI, 1897). On the Anglican side, DENNY AND LACEY, De Hierarchia Anglicana (1895), written with the object of laying the Anglican case before continental students; and the CHURCH HISTORICAL SOCIETY’S Treatise on the Bull “Apostolicae Curae” (1898).

SYDNEY F. SMITH

Anglicanism

A term used to denote the religious belief and position of members of the established Church of England, and of the communicating churches in the British possessions, the United States, and elsewhere. It includes those who have accepted the work of the English Reformation as embodied in the Church of England or in the offshoot Churches which in other countries have adhered, at least substantially, to its doctrines, its organization, and its liturgy. Apart from minor or missionary settlements, the area in which Anglicanism is to be found corresponds roughly with those portions of the globe which are, or were formally, under the British flag. The number of Catholics in the world (1910) is said to exceed 230,000,000 (estimates by M. Fournier de Flaix, see The American Statistical Association Quarterly for March 1892). The number belonging to the Greek and Eastern Churches is about 100,000,000. The number of Anglicans in all countries is something less than 25,000,000. Thus the relative proportion of those three Christian bodies which are sometimes grouped as being Episcopalian in constitution may be fairly stated by the three figures 23, 10, 2.5. The growth of Anglicanism has followed mainly upon the expansion of the Anglo-Saxon race. Its area may be said to include, besides the three nucleal countries (England, Ireland, Scotland), six others, namely: the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India. But the bulk of its membership, in fact more than two-thirds, is to be found in England. In all the other countries of its areas it is in a minority of the Christian population. In five of them-Ireland, Scotland, the United States, Canada, and India-its numbers are considerably exceeded by those of the Catholic Church. Its foreign missions are very generously supported, and have extended their activity far into the heathen countries. The following table is compiled from comparatively recent statistics. The numbers given are of members, except when it is stated to be of communicants. The ratio of communicants to members may be anything between 1 in 3 and 1 in 8.

COUNTRY

TOTAL

CHRISTIAN

POPULATION

NUMBER OF

ANGLICANS

England

32,526,075

Between 13 and 17 millions or 2,223,207 communicants

Ireland

4,458,775

581,089

Scotland

4,472,103

134,155 (Epis. Ch of Scotland—Year Book, 1906)

United States

76,303,387

823,066 communicants

Canada

5,371,051

680,346

Australia

3,774,282

1,256,673

New Zealand

772,719

315,263

South Africa

1,135,735

Under 300,000 or 48,487 communicants

India

2,923,241

453,462

The foregoing statistics concerning the Christian population of England and her dependencies are, with the exception of Australia and New Zealand, taken from the Census, 1901 (British Empire Official Year Book, which is also to be consulted for the Anglican population of Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, and India). The figures for the Christian populations of Australia, in 1901, and New Zealand are given respectively in “Whitaker’s Almanac,” 1906, which includes 6,851 aborigines, and the “New Zealand year Book,” 1904, which excludes the Maoris. The Christian population of the United States is based on the Abstract of the twelfth Census, and that of South Africa on the European population, 1904, as contained in “Whitaker’s Almanac,” 1906. For several decades there has been no return of religious denominations in the British Government Census. The Church of England is popularly estimated to include about 17,000,000. Its official “Year Book” (1906), which is also the authority for the number of communicants in the United States and South Africa, gives the number of communicants in England, as 2,223,207. This multiplied by 6 would give a membership of 13,339,242. The same authority give the number of baptisms as 615,621. This, upon the usual multiple of 22.5, would give a membership of 13,860,000. The number belonging to the Church of England would thus seem to be between thirteen and seventeen millions. For the number of Anglicans in Australia in 1901, refer again to “Whitaker’s Almanac,” 1906.

BELIEFS

To form a general idea of Anglicanism as a religious system, it will be convenient to sketch it in rough outline as it exists in the Established Church of England, bearing in mind that there are differences in detail, mainly in liturgy and church-government, to be found in other portions of the Anglican communion.

The members of the Church of England are professed Christians, and claim to be baptized members of the Church of Christ.

They accept the Scriptures as contained in the Authorized Version, as the Word of God.

They hold the Scriptures to be the sole and supreme rule of faith, in the sense that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation and that nothing can be required of anyone as an article of faith which is not contained therein, and cannot be proved thereby.

They accept the Book of Common Prayer as the practical rule of their belief and worship, and in it they use as standards of doctrine the three Creeds-the Apostles,’ the Nicene, and the Athanasian.

They believe in two sacraments of the Gospel-Baptism and the Lord’s Supper -as generally necessary to salvation.

They claim to have Apostolic succession and a validly ordained ministry, and only persons whom they believe to be thus ordained are allowed to minister in their churches.

They believe that the Church of England is a true and reformed part, or branch, or pair of provinces of the Catholic Church of Christ.

They maintain that the Church of England is free from all foreign jurisdiction.

They recognize the King as Supreme Governor of the Church and acknowledge that to him “appertains the government of all estates whether civil or ecclesiastical, in all causes.”

The clergy, before being appointed to a benefice or licensed to preach, subscribe and declare that they “assent to the Thirty-nine Articles, and to the Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordering of Bishops, priests, and deacons, and believe the doctrine of the Church of England as therein set forth to be agreeable to the Word of God.”

One of the Articles (XXV) thus subscribed approves the First and Second Book of Homilies as containing “a godly and wholesome doctrine necessary for these times,” and adjudges them to be read in churches “diligently and distinctly.”

To these general characteristics we may add by way of corrective that while the Bible is accepted much latitude is allowed as to the nature and extent of its inspiration; that the Eucharistic teaching of the Prayer Book is subject to various and opposed interpretations; that Apostolic succession is claimed by many to be beneficial, but not essential, to the nature of the Church; that the Apostles’ Creed is the only one to which assent can be required from the laity, and that Articles of Religion are held to be binding only on the licensed and beneficed clergy.

CHIEF GOVERNMENT

Inside these outlines, which are necessarily vague, the constitution of the Church of England has been largely determined by the events which attended its settlement under the Tudors. Before the breach with Rome under Henry VIII there was absolutely no doctrinal difference between the faith of Englishmen and the rest of Catholic Christendom, and “Anglicanism,” as connoting a separate or independent religious system, was unknown. The name Ecclesia Anglicana, or English Church, was of course employed, but always in the Catholic and Papal use of the term as signifying that part or region of the one Catholic Church under the jurisdiction of the Pope which was situated in England, and precisely in the same way as the Church in Scotland was called the Ecclesia Scotticana, the Church in France, the Ecclesia Gallicana, and the Church in Spain the Ecclesia Hispanica. That such national or regional appellations were a part of the style in the Roman Curia itself, and that they in no sense could have implied any indication of independence from Rome, is sufficiently well known to all who are familiar with pre-Reformation records.

Pope Honorius III, in 1218, in his Bull to King Alexander speaks of the Scottish Church (Ecclesia Scotticana) as “being immediately subject to the Apostolic See” (Papal Letters I, 60), and the abbots and priors of England in their letter to Innocent IV, in 1246, declared that the English Church (Ecclesia Anglicana) is “a special member of the Most Holy Church of Rome” [Matthew Paris (Rolls Series), IV, 531]. In 1413 Archbishop Arundel, with the assent of Convocation, affirmed against the Lollards the faith of the English Church in a number of test articles, including the Divine institution of the Papacy and the duty of all Christians to render obedience to it (Wilkins, Concilia, III, 355). In 1521, only thirteen years before the breach, John Clerk, the English Ambassador at Rome, was able to assure the Pope in full consistory that England was second to no country in Christendom, “not even to Rome itself,” in the “service of God: and of the Christian Faith, and in the obedience due to the Most Holy Roman Church” (Clerks’ oration, ed. Jerome Emser).

The first point of severance was clearly one of Erastianism. When news of the papal decision against the divorce reached England, Henry VIII gave his assent to four anti-papal statutes passed in Parliament in the spring of 1534, and in November the statute of the Royal Supremacy declared the King to be Supreme Head of the English Church (without the limiting clause of 1532), and an oath was prescribed, affirming the Pope to have no jurisdiction in the realm of England. The actual ministry of preaching and of the sacraments was left to the clergy, but all the powers of ecclesiastical jurisdiction were claimed by the sovereign.

The Act of Supremacy required that the King, as Supreme Head of the Church, “shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempt, enormities whatsoever they be which by any manner, spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may be lawfully reformed” (26 Henry VIII, i). The bishops were made to sue out their faculties from the King, and, that the meaning of this humiliation should be unmistakable, the very form of the license granted them affirmed the plain Erastian principle that the Crown was the source of their jurisdiction, “seeing that all authority of jurisdiction, and indeed jurisdiction of all kinds, both that which is called ecclesiastical and that which is secular, is originally derived from the royal power, as from the Supreme Head and foundation, and source of magistracy within our Kingdom” (Wilkins, Concilia, III, 799). The bishops and clergy in convocation were forbidden to make canons except when the King, by his “Letters of Business,” gave them permission to do so, and even then the canons so made were to have effect only when approved by the King. Another statute secured to the Crown the absolute control in the appointment of bishops. The chapters were bound under penalties of Proemunire to elect the person named by the King and no other, and the Archbishop was bound under the same shameful penalties to consecrate the person so named within twenty days after receipt of the King’s writ (Significavit) commanding him to do so. This enactment, which an Anglican bishop in recent times has aptly described as “the Magna Charta of tyranny” remains in force to the present day. Within the last few years the Law Courts have ruled that no opposition to the episcopal confirmation of a person nominated by the Crown can be allowed.

Thus the chief note of Henrician settlement is the fact that Anglicanism was founded in the acceptance of the Royal, and the rejection of the Papal Supremacy, and was placed upon a decidedly Erastian basis.

When the Act of Royal Supremacy, which had been repealed by Queen Mary, was revived by Elizabeth, it suffered a modification in the sense that the Sovereign was styled “Supreme Governor” instead of “Supreme Head.” In a subsequent “Admonition,” Elizabeth issued an interpretation of the Royal Supremacy, to the effect that she laid claim “to no power of ministry of divine offices in the Church.” At the same time she reasserted in the full the claim made by Henry VIII as to the Authority of the Crown in matters ecclesiastical, and the great religious changes made after her accession were carried out and enforced in a royal visitation commissioned by the royal authority. In 1628, Charles I, in a Royal Declaration prefixed to the Articles, stated that it belonged to the kingly office “to conserve and maintain the Church committed to our charge, in unity of religion and the bond of peace,” and decreed that differences arising as to the external policy of the Church were to be settled in Convocation, but its ordinances were to be submitted to the Crown for approval, which would be given to them if they were not contrary to the laws of the land.

Archbishop Laud, in 1640, had a series of canons drawn up in Convocation and duly published, but this attempt at spiritual independence was speedily suppressed. The indignation of Parliament was so great that he himself begged leave to withdraw them, and the House of Commons passed a resolution unanimously declaring that “the Clergy in Convocation assembled has no power to make any canons or constitutions whatsoever in matters of doctrine, discipline or otherwise to bind the Clergy and laity of the land without the common consent in Parliament” (Resolution, 16 December, 1640).

The effect of the legislation under Henry VIII, revived by Elizabeth, and confirmed in subsequent reigns, has been, as Lord Campbell pointed out in his famous Gorham judgment, in April, 1850, to locate in the Crown all that decisive jurisdiction which before the Reformation had been exercised by the Pope. Until the year 1833, the Crown exercised this supreme jurisdiction through a special body called the Court of Delegates. Its members were appointed under the great Seal, and consisted of lay judges, with whom might be associated a number of bishops or clergymen. In 1833 this Court was abolished, and its powers were transferred to the King in Council. Hence matters which come under its purview are now decided by the King upon the advice of that part of the Privy Council which is known as the Judicial Committee. The statute (2 and 3 William IV, xcii) expressly states that its decisions are final, and are not subject to any commission of review.

It must be observed that this tribunal does not profess theoretically to decide articles of faith, or to pronounce upon the abstract orthodoxy or heterodoxy of opinions. “Its duty extends only to the consideration of that which is by law established to be the doctrine of the Church of England, upon the due and legal construction of there Articles and formularies” (Gorham decision, March 1850). But upon this ground the Crown decided that the views of Mr. Gorham, whose notorious rejection of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration had shocked his bishop and scandalized the Tractarians, were “not contrary or repugnant to the declared doctrine of the Church of England as by law established.” Numerous protests and appeals were made by high Churchmen, but all attempts to reverse the decision were unavailing, and Mr. Gorham duly received institution to the benefice which his bishop had refused him. In like manner in 1849, when vehement opposition was made to the appointment of Dr. Hampden to the See of Hereford, the Prime Minister of the day insisted on the right of the Crown, and the Vicar-General of the Archbishop ruled that no exception could be suffered against one whom the Crown had duly nominated, and the Court of Queen’s Bench sustained his ruling.

Thus, whatever views or aspirations have been held theoretically by Anglican divines on the spiritual authority of the Anglican Church, the Royal Supremacy remains an effective reality, and the Crown, supported by Parliament and the Law Courts, both as to the doctrines which may be taught, and the persons who shall be put in office to teach them, has possession of the practical and substantial control. It is characteristic of the Anglican Reformation that the supreme and far reaching regulative jurisdiction which was exercised by the Holy See was, after the severance from Rome, taken over, to all intents and purposes, by the Crown, and was never effectively entrusted to the Anglican Spirituality, either to the Primate, or to the Episcopate, or even to Convocation. As a result, there is to this day the lack of a living Church Spiritual Authority which has been to the Anglican Church a constant source of weakness, humiliation, and disorder.

In 1904 a royal commission was appointed to investigate the complaints against ecclesiastical discipline, and in July 1906, it issued its report, in which it points out that at no time in the past have the laws of public worship been uniformly observed, and recommends the formation of a Court which while exercising the Royal Jurisdiction, would be bound to accept the episcopate on questions of doctrine or ritual. This, if granted, would be the first step towards the partial emancipation of the Spirituality from the thraldom of the civil power, in which it has been held for more than three centuries.

It will be observed that Anglicanism as a religious system is separable from the doctrine of Royal Supremacy, which is an outcome of its union with the State, and of the circumstances of the English Reformation. In countries outside of England the Wales Anglican Churches exist, and, it is said, all the more prosperously from being untrammelled by the State connection. But even in those countries the decisive voice in the government of the Anglican Church is not entrusted to the Episcopate alone, and in some of them the lay power in the synods has made itself felt, and has shown that it can be as really a master as any Tudor sovereign invested with royal supremacy. The supremacy of the Spirituality in the domain of doctrine, as the sole guarantee of true religious liberty, is still lacking in the Anglican system, and the problem of supplying it remains unsolved, if not insoluble.

DOCTRINAL AND LITURGICAL FORMULARIES

The doctrinal position of the Anglican Church, in like manner, can only be adequately studied in its history, which divides itself into a number of stages or periods. The first, or Henrician, period (1534–47) includes the breach with Rome, the setting up of an independent national church, and the transfer of the supreme Church authority from the Papacy to the Crown. The Edwardian (1547–53) and the Elizabethan (1558–1603) periods carried the work of separation much further. Both accepted the Henrician basis of rejection of the Papacy and erection of the Royal Supremacy, but built upon it the admission of the doctrinal and liturgical changes which make up mainly the Anglican Reformation, and brought the nation within the great Protestant movement of the sixteenth century.

Although the policy of Henry VIII, after the breach with Rome, was ostensibly conservative, and his ideal seemed to be the maintenance of a Catholic Church in England, minus the Pope, it is incontestable that in other ways his action was in fatal contradiction to his professions. By raising to power, and by maintaining in positions of unique influence, his three great agents, Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Cranmer, and Edward Seymour, all of whom were always, and as openly as they dared, in sympathy with the Reformation, Henry VIII, whether by intention or the by the indifference of his latter days, undoubtedly prepared the way and opened the gates to the Protestantism which came in under Edward and Elizabeth. In 1535 Henry sent agents to negotiate an agreement with the Reformers in Germany, and in 1537 he was led by Cromwell, in connivance with Cranmer, into further negotiations with the Protestant princes assembled at Smalkald. He wrote to Melanchthon to congratulate him on the work which he had done for religion, and invited him to England. Melanchthon was unable to come, but in 1538 three German divines, Burkhardt, Boyneburg, and Myconius, were sent to London, where they remained some months, and held conferences with the Anglican bishops and clergy. The Germans presented as a basis of agreement a number of Articles based on the Lutheran Confession of Augsburg. On the doctrinal part of these Articles, the first thirteen, both parties came to an agreement (Letter of Myconius to Cromwell, 8 September, 1538). On the second part, the “Abuses” (viz., private Masses, celibacy of the Clergy, invocation of Saints) the King would not give way, and finally dissolved the conference. Although the negotiations thus formally came to an end, the Thirteen Articles on which agreement with the Germans had been made were kept by Archbishop Cranmer, and afterwards by Archbishop Parker, and were used as test articles to which the preachers whom they licensed were required to subscribe. Eventually they became the nucleus of the Articles of Religion which were authorized under Edward VI and Elizabeth. Hence the almost verbal correspondence between these Articles and the Lutheran Confession of Augsburg, from which they were originally taken. By the death of Henry VIII (27 January, 1547) the main obstle to the reforming influence was removed. With the accession of Edward VI, who had been brought up in the reformed faith, with Seymour, also a Protestant, omnipotent in the Council, and Cranmer, now able to show his hand and work his will, the party of the Reformation became possessed of all the resources of national power, and during the five years of the reign (1547–53) remained triumphantly in the ascendant. This period witnessed the introduction of the great doctrinal and liturgical changes.

One of the cardinal principles of the Reformation which the German delegates had brought over in 1538 was that “the Mass is nothing but a Communion or synaxis” (Tunstall’s Summary, M.S. Cleop. E. V., 209). Cranmer vehemently upheld this conception of the Eucharist. One of the first Acts under Edward VI was the introduction of a new English Communion Service, which was to be inserted at the end of the Mass, and which required Communion to be given under both kinds. This was soon after followed by a Book of Common Prayer, with a Communion Service entirely taking the place of the Latin Mass. Cranmer was the chief author of this book. Whether it ever received the assent of Convocation has been questioned, but it was approved by Parliament in 1549. Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, in opposing Cranmer’s denial of the Real Presence and of the Sacrifice of the mass, argued that even certain passages in the new Prayer Book implied the acceptance of these doctrines; whereupon Cranmer and his fellow-reformers drew up a new Prayer Book, still more Protestant in tone and character. In it the order of the parts of the Communion Service was considerably altered, and the passages used by Gardiner as apparently favouring the Catholic doctrine were studiously eliminated, or so changed as to preclude in future any such interpretation, and all allusion to Altar or Sacrifice was carefully omitted (Gasquet and Bishop, Edward VI and the Book of Common Prayer, 289). In 1552, this, the second Prayer Book of Edward VI, was authorized by Parliament. A new Ordinal or Order for making bishops, priests, and deacons was compiled, from which in like manner all mention of the sacrificial office of the priesthood was rigorously excluded. It was approved by Parliament in 1552. In 1551, quite in harmony with this liturgical reform, an Order in Council issued to Bishop Ridley required the altars to be torn down, and movable tables substituted, while a statement of reasons was to be made to the people explanatory of the change, namely, “that the form of a table may more move and turn the simple from the old superstition of the Mass and to the right use of the Lord’s Supper.”

By Royal Proclamations and episcopal visitations, a multitude of Catholic practices and sacramentals, such as lights, incense, holy water, and palms, were suppressed. These reforms, proceeding tentatively but rapidly, were initiated and carried out mainly by Cranmer and his set, and the reflected his beliefs and that of this fellow-reformers. In 1553, a royal decree was issued requiring the bishops and clergy to subscribe forty-two Articles of Religion which embodied in great part what had been contained in the Thirteen Articles agreed upon with the Germans. The article on the Eucharist had been significantly changed to agree, as Hooper attests, with the teachings of the Swiss reformer, Bullinger.

In November, 1558, Queen Elizabeth succeeded Queen Mary, and immediately proceeded to restore the work of Henry VIII and Edward VI. The new settlement of religion was based, not on the First Prayer Book of 1549, but on the more Protestant one of 1552. The latter was adopted with a few slight modifications, and it remains for the most part substantially unchanged to the present day. The statement that Pius IV offered to approve the Prayer Book is devoid of all historical foundation. It has not a vestige of contemporary evidence to support it. Camden, the earliest Anglican historian who mentions it, says: “I never could find it in any writing, and I do not believe any writing of it to exist. To gossip with the mop is unworthy of any historian” (History, 59). Fuller, another Anglican historian, describes it as the mere conjecture “of those who love to feign what they cannot find.” In 1563 the Edwardian Articles were revised in Convocation under Archbishop Parker. Some were added, others altered or dropped, and the number was reduced to Thirty-eight. In 1571, the XXIXth Article, despite the opposition of Bishop Guest, was inserted, to the effect that the wicked do not eat the Body of Christ. The Articles, thus increased to Thirty-nine, were ratified by the Queen, and the bishops and clergy were required to assent and subscribe thereto. During the whole of Elizabeth’s long reign, the prevailing tone of Anglican teaching and literature was decidedly Genevan and Calvinistic (Dr. Prothero, English Hist. Rev., October, 1886). In 1662 a reaction set in against Puritanism, and the Prayer Book, which had been suppressed during the Commonwealth, was brought back and subjected to revision in Convocation and Parliament. The amendments made were numerous, but those of doctrinal significance were comparatively few, and of a kind to emphasize the Episcopal character of Anglicanism as against Presbyterianism. The most notable were the reinsertion, with altered wording, of the Black Rubric (omitted by Elizabeth) and the introduction in the form of the words, “for the office of a Bishop” and “for the office of a Priest,” in the Service of Ordination.

The historic meaning and doctrinal significance of the Anglican formularies can only be determined by the candid and competent examination of the evidence as a whole,

first, by the study of the plain meaning of the text;

secondly, by the study of the historical setting and the circumstances in which they were framed and authorized;

thirdly, by the known beliefs of their chief authors and of those by whom they were accepted;

fourthly, by comparison with the Catholic pre-Reformation formularies which they supplanted;

fifthly, by the study of their sources and the exact value of their doctrinal terminology as found in the controversies of the time;

sixthly-if the examination is not to be hopelessly narrow-by the study of general Reformation in Europe, of which the English Reformation, albeit with local and national characteristics, was both a part and a result.

Here it is only possible to state the conclusions arising from such an inquiry in briefest outline.

CONNECTION WITH THE PARENT MOVEMENT OF REFORMATION

There can be no doubt that the English Reformation is substantially a part of the great Protestant Reformation upheaval of the sixteenth century, and that its doctrine, liturgy, and chief promoters were to a very considerable extent derived from, and influenced by, the Lutheran and Calvinistic movements on the Continent. There was first of all the living or personal connection. The great English Reformers who took the leading part in the work of Reformation in England-Cranmer, Barlow, Hooper, Parker, Grindal, Scory, May, Cox, Coverdale, and many others-were men who lived and laboured amongst the Protestants of the Continent, and remained in constant and cordial touch and communication with them. (See Original Letters of the Reformation.) Reciprocally, continental reformers, like Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer, were welcomed to England and made professors of Divinity at the universities. Others, like John a Lasco, and Paul Fagius, become the friends and guests of Cranmer.

A second bond was the adoption of the same essential doctrines. The great principles and tenets set forth in the works of Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin, or Zwingli, are reproduced with or without modifications, but substantially, and often almost verbatim in the literature of the English Reformation. The chief doctrines which are essentially and specifically characteristic of the Protestant Reformation as a whole are the following nine:

rejection of the Papacy,

denial of the Church Infallibility;

Justification by Faith only;

supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture as Rule of Faith;

the triple Eucharistic tenet [viz. (a) that the Eucharist is a Communion or Sacrament, and not a Mass or Sacrifice, save in the sense of praise or commemoration; (b) the denial of Transubstantiation and worship of the Host; (c) the denial of the sacrificial office of the priesthood and the propitiatory character of the Mass];

the non-necessity of auricular Confession;

the rejection of the invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints;

the rejection of Purgatory and omission of prayers for the dead;

the rejection of the doctrine of Indulgences.

To these may be added three disciplinary characteristics which are founded on doctrine:

the giving of Communion in both kinds;

the substitution of tables for altars; and

the abolition of monastic vows and the celibacy of the clergy.

These twelve doctrines and practices of the continental Reformation have undoubtedly, though not always in the same measure, entered into the fibre of the English Reformation, and have all found expression, more or less emphatic, in the Anglican formularies. Hence, while the name “Protestant” is not found in the Prayer Book, it is used in the Coronation Service when the King promises to maintain “the Protestant religion as by law established.” It was from the beginning popularly applied to the Anglican beliefs and services. In the Act of Union the Churches of England and Ireland are styled “the Protestant Episcopal Church,” a name still retained by the Anglican Church in America.

A third bond between the Reformation on the continent and that which took place in England is to be found in the actual composition of the formularies. The Anglican Articles owe much, through the Thirteen Articles, to the Confession of Augsburg, and also to the Confession of Wurtemberg. Notable portions of the baptismal, marriage, and confirmation services are derived from the “Simplex et Pia Deliberatio” which was compiled by the Lutheran Hermann von Wied, with the aid of Bucer and Melanchthon. That a considerable part of the Anglican ordinal (without the distinctive form for each Order) is found in Bucer’s “Scripta Anglica,” has been pointed out by the late Canon Travers Smith. In this triple bond-personal, doctrinal, and liturgical-the continental and Anglican Reformations are, amid many and notable differences, substantially and inseparably interwoven as parts of one and the same great religious movement.

COLLATION OF FORMULARIES

The comparison of the Anglican Prayer Book and Ordinal with the Pre-Reformation formularies which they replaced leads to a second conclusion which in harmony with the above. On making an analysis of what has been removed, and what has been retained, and what has been altered, it becomes unmistakably apparent that the main motive which determined and guided the construction of the new liturgy was the same as that which inspired the whole Reformation movement, namely: the determination to have the Lord’s Supper regarded only as a Sacrament or Communion, and not as a Sacrifice, and to remove whatever indicated the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, or the Real, Objective Presence, in the Catholic sense, in which Christ is worshipped in the Host. The Catholic liturgical forms, missal, breviary, pontifical, were in possession and had been in actual use for centuries. In making a liturgical reform, it was by the necessity of the case impossible that the changes made should not have reference to them, standing as they did, in the relation of terminus a quo to a terminus ad quem of reformation. If the Sarum Missal, Breviary, and Pontifical are placed side by side with the Anglican Prayer Book and Ordinal, and a comparison made of the corresponding parts, the motive, drift, and intention of the framers are clearly revealed.

In the Catholic Pontifical, in the Ordination services there are twenty-four passages which express with clearness the Catholic Sacerdotium, or sacrificial character of the office and work of the priesthood. Of these not one was allowed to remain in the Anglican Ordinal. In the Ordinary of the Mass alone there are some twenty-five points in which the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist and the Real Presence of Christ as a Victim are expressed or implied. All these have been suppressed and eliminated in the Anglican Communion Service, and passages of a Reformational or non-committal character substituted. Thus, with regard to no less than forty-nine places, the new formularies bear the mark of deliberate exclusion and of anti-sacrificial and anti-sacerdotal significance. (See The Tablet, London, 12 June, 1897.)

DEVELOPMENT AND PARTIES

Although the Anglican Articles and liturgy have been practically unchanged since 1662, it was inevitable that the life and thought of a religious body like the Church of England should present the note of development, and that such development should eventually out grow, or at least strain, the historic interpretation of the formularies, and the more so because there has been no living authority to adapt or readjust them to the newer needs or aspirations. The development may be said to have been guided by three main influences. here has been the deep-seated attachment to the principles of the Reformation in which the Anglican settlement was founded, and the determination to preserve the standards of belief and worship then established. This loyalty to the Protestant character of the Anglican Church has produced the Low Church, or Evangelical, school of Anglicanism.

A second influence is that of rationalism, which, both in England and in Germany, has acted as a solvent of Protestantism, especially in the form of destructive biblical criticism, and which, often in the effort to sublimate religion, has induced an aversion to all that is dogmatic, supernatural, or miraculous. Its exponents, who are numerous, learned, and influential, are generally classed as the Broad Church, or the Latitudinarian, school of Anglican religious thought. A third influence which made itself felt upon Anglicanism, and one more vital and more penetrating and progressive than the other two, has been that of Catholicism, whether as reflected in Catholic antiquity or as beheld in the actual Catholic and Roman Church. The effect of this influence may be traced in what has been called the historic High Church party. A number of Anglican bishops and divines in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, while bitterly opposed to Rome, and loyally Protestant, stood above the prevailing low level of churchmanship, and put forward higher and philocatholic views, in the matters of Church authority, belief, and worship. Although comparatively few in number, and vehemently assailed by their fellow churchmen, they were destined to serve as a point d’appui for a subsequent development. Such writers as Bishop Andrews (d. 1626), Bishop Overall (d. 1644), Bishop Montague (d. 1641), Archbishop Laud (d. 1644), Archbishop Bramhall (d. 1663), Dr. Thorndike (d. 1672), Bishop Ken (d. 1711), Dr Waterland (d. 1740), may be regarded as representative of this section.

OXFORD MOVEMENT

In 1833 a strong current of popular opinion directed against the Anglican Church aroused in its defense the zeal of a small band of Oxford students and writers, who gradually gathered under the informal leadership of John Henry Newman. Among these were John Keble, C. Marriott, Hurrell Froude, Isaac Williams, Dr. Pusey, and W.G. Ward. Their object was to make good for the Anglican Church its claim to the note of Catholicity. Their task led them to look both behind and outside the sphere of the Reformation. By forming a catena of Anglican High Church divines of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries on one side, and a catena of certain Fathers on the other, it was hoped that a quasi-continuous chain of Catholic tradition could be made to connect the Anglican Church of their day with Catholic antiquity. Translations of the Fathers, works on liturgy, the festivals of the “Christian Year,” and above all a memorable series of “Tracts for the Times,” conveyed with telling force the newer and broader conceptions of churchmanship which entered into the spirit of the defenders.

In “Tract 90” an attempt was made, somewhat on the lines of Sancta Clara, to show that the Anglican Articles might in certain aspects be reconciled to the teaching of the Council of Trent. The result was a doctrinal and devotional crisis such as England had not witnessed since the Reformation, and the Oxford or Tractarian movement, during the twelve years from Keble’s sermon on “National Apostasy,” in 1833, to Newman’s conversion in 1845, formed a historic epoch in the annals of Anglicanism. The fact that the work of the movement was informally a study de Ecclesiâ brought both the writers and their readers more directly face to face with the claims of the Church of Rome. A large number of those who took part in the movement, and notably its great leader, became Catholics, while others, in remaining Anglicans, gave a new and pro-Catholic direction and impulse to Anglican thought and worship. It may be said that in the case of Newman, Oakley, Wilberforce, Ward, and a host of others, the research of the nature of Catholicity and the rule of faith brought them to realize the need of the living voice of a Divine magisterium (the regula proxima fidei), and failing to find it in the Anglican episcopate, they sought it where alone it could be found.

Others, like Pusey, Marriott, Keble, sought what they called the voice of the “Church” in the inanimate formularies (or regula remota) which, after all, was merely adding the Fathers, the liturgies, and conciliar definitions to the Scripture as the area over which they still used, after the manner of true Protestants, their private judgement. The same principle is always more or less at work and goes as far now as then to sift those who come from those who stay. [If we bear in mind that by “Church” was thus meant the silent self-interpreted formularies (or regula remota), and by “Bishops” the living magisterium (or regula proxima) sought in Anglicanism, we shall feel that there is a great truth contained in Pusey’s well-known saying, three years after the secession of Newman: “I am not disturbed, because I never attached any weight to bishops. It was perhaps the difference between Newman and me. He threw himself upon the bishops and they failed him. I threw myself on the English Church and the Fathers, as under God, her support” (Letter to C. Marriott, 2 January, 1848)].

ANGLICAN REVIVAL

Although the Oxford movement is regarded as having come to a close at the conversion of Dr. Newman in 1845, a large section of the Anglican public had been much too profoundly stirred by its ideals ever to return to the narrowness of the religious horizons which were bounded by the Reformation. Its influence has survived in the unceasing flow of converts to the Catholic Faith, and is shown in the Anglican Church itself by the notable change of belief, temperament, and practice which is known as the Anglican Revival. The last fifty years (1860–1910) have witnessed the development of an influential and growing school of religious thought which, amid the inconsistencies of its position, has steadily laboured to Catholicize the Church of England. It has set up the claim, hopelessly untenable in the face of historical evidence, that the Anglican Church is one and continuous with the Ancient Catholic Church of the country, and is an integral portion of the Catholic Church of today. It professes to be able to give to Anglicans all that the Catholic Church gives to her members, save communion with the Holy See. Through possessing neither the learning nor the logic of the Tractarians, it exercises a wider and more practical influence, and has won the favour of a large body of the Anglican public by importing into the Anglican services something of the beauty and power which it has borrowed from Catholic teaching and ritual. At the same time it has in many centers earned the respect and attachment of the masses by the example of zeal and self-sacrifice given by its clergy.

It was natural that this advance section of the Anglican Church should seek to ratify its position, and to escape from its fatal isolation, by desiring some scheme of corporate reunion and especially by endeavouring to obtain some recognition of the validity of its orders. With the truest charity, which consists in the candour of truth, Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical on Unity, pointed out that there can be no reunion expect on the solid basis of dogmatic unity and submission to the divinely instituted authority of the Apostolic See. In September, 1896, after a full and exhaustive inquiry, he issued a Bull declaring Anglican Orders to be “utterly null and void,” and in a subsequent Brief addressed to the Archbishop of Paris, he required all Catholics to accept this judgment as “fixed, settled, and irrevocable” (firmum, ratum et irrevocabile).

The Anglican Revival continues to reiterate its claim and to appropriate to itself, where practical, whatever in Catholic doctrine, liturgy, and practice, church vestments or church furniture, it finds helpful to its purpose. By the Lambeth judgment of 1891 it acquired a public sanction for many of its innovations. Since then it has gone further, and holds that no authority in the Church of England can override things which are authorized by “Catholic consent.” It stands thus in the illogical and unhistorical position of a system which is philocatholic in its views and aspirations, but hopelessly committed to heresy and to heretical communication, and built upon an essentially Protestant foundation. Although to Catholics its very claim is an impious usurpation of what belongs of right to the Catholic Church alone, it fulfils an informal mission of influencing English public opinion, and of familiarizing the English people with Catholic doctrines and ideals.

Like the Oxford movement, it educates more pupils than it can retain, and works upon premises which cannot but carry it in the long run farther than it is willing to go. A branch theory which is repudiated by the principal branches, or a province theory which is unknown to the rest of the provinces, and a continuity theory of which more than twelve thousand documents in the Record Office and the Vatican Library are the overwhelming refutation, cannot form a standing ground which is other than temporary and transitional. In the meantime, its work amongst the masses is often a species of catechumenate for Catholicism, and in all cases it is an active solvent and a steady undoing of the English Reformation.

WILKENS, Concilia (London, 1737); Calendar of State Papers: Henry VII (London, 1862 sqq.); Edward VI (1856 sqq.); Elizabeth (ibid., 1863 sqq.); PROTHERO, Select Statutes; CARDWELL, Documentary Annals (Oxford, 1844); CRANMER, Works; GAIRDNER, History of the Church of England in the XVIth Century; DIXON, Hist. of Church of England (London, 1878–1902); WAKEMAN, Introduct. to Hist. of Church of England (London 1897); CARDWELL, History of Conferences (London, 1849); GIBSON, The Thirty-nine Articles; BROWNE, Hist. of the Thirty-nine Articles; KEELING, Liturgiae Britannicae; GASQUET AND BISHOP, Edward VI and the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1891); DOWDEN, The Workmanship of the Prayer Book; BULLEY, Variations of the Communion and Baptismal Offices; BROOKE, Privy Council Judgements; SECKENDORFF, History of Lutheranism; JANSSEN, History of the German People, V, VI; Original Letters of the Reformation (Parker Series); Zurich Letters (Cambridge, 1842–43); BENSON, Archbishop Laud (London, 1887); CHURCH, The Oxford Movement (London and New York, 1891); NEWMAN, Apologia; LIDDON, Life of Pusey (London and New York, 1893–94), II; BENSON, Life of Archbishop Benson.

J. MOYES

Timothy Warren Anglin

Canadian journalist and member of Parliament, born in the town of Cloankilty, County Cork, Ireland, 1822; died 3 May, 1896, in Canada. He was educated in the endowed school of his native corporation. His family was financially ruined in the famine of 1846–47 and he emigrated to the city of Saint John, New Brunswick, in 1849. He was gifted as a public speaker, but made his mark as the most vigorous writer on the Catholic press in the province. He founded the Weekly Freeman and subsequently the Morning Freeman (1851). On the question of the total prohibition of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors, although a strong advocate of temperance, he separated himself from his political friends and fought the measure which he considered too drastic and unworkable. The measure was carried by the legislature of New Brunswick, but was repealed at its next session. In 1860 Mr. Anglin was returned as representative of the city and county of Saint John, a constituency from which no Catholic had ever been elected. When the scheme of confederation of the British North American provinces was mooted, he took a prominent part in the opposition, because he did not believe, as was asserted, that the proposed union of the provinces was necessary for the continuance of their connection with the empire, and because he was convinced it must cause an enormous increase in the rate of taxation in New Brunswick. Just at this time a small body of men calling themselves Fenians appeared on the border of the province and threatened an invasion. Dr. D.B. Killam, their leader, issued a proclamation inviting the anti-confederates to join with them, overthrow British tyranny, and maintain the legislative independence of the province. The anti-confederates were in no way responsible for Dr. Killam’s invasion or proclamation, which had the effect, however, of raising a no-popery cry, and of driving Mr. Anglin from public life for a few years. When Canadian confederation became an accomplished fact, Mr. Anglin was chosen Speaker of the House of Commons, a position he held from 26 May, 1874, until 31 May, 1877. No one lent more dignity to the high position of first commoner of Canada and his rulings were never questioned, so strict his impartiality.

Mr. Anglin was a Canadian statesman of eminence, but he deserves a place in history more particularly as an able, fearless and indefatigable journalist, doing battle for the cause of Catholic education. In New Brunswick the issue of the greatest importance was the anti-separate school legislation. During many years Mr. Anglin, through the columns of the Freeman and on the floor of the House of Commons, fought a valiant battle for his co-religionists. His efforts, and the exertion of those who laboured with him were so far successful that in the greater part of the province a compromise was made, which allows Catholics to have their own schools and teachers, and to give religious instruction before and after school hours. This was far from being all he would wish, but it is much better than the utterly anti-Catholic, irreligious system at first insisted upon by the promoters of the law. Mr. Anglin joined the editorial staff of The Toronto Globe in 1883, and was editor-in-chief of The Toronto Tribune, a Catholic weekly. He died at the age of seventy-four.

J.J. CURRAN

Anglo-Saxon Church

I. ANGLO-SAXON OCCUPATION OF BRITAIN

The word Anglo-Saxon is used as a collective name for those Teutonic settlers—the foundation stock of the English race—who after dispossessing the Celtic inhabitants of Britain in the middle of the fifth century, remained masters of the country until a new order of things was created in 1066 by the coming of the Normans.

Though etymologically open to some objection (cf. Stevenson’s “Asser,” 149) the term Anglo-Saxon is convenient in practice, the more so because we do not know very much concerning the provenance of the Low German tribes who about the year 449 began to invade Britain.

The Jutes, who came first and occupied Kent and the Isle of Wight, have been supposed to be identical with the inhabitants of Jutland, but it has been recently shown that this is probably an error (Stevenson, ibid., 167). They were, however, a Frisian tribe.

The Saxons of the fifth century were better known and more widely spread, occupying the present Westphalia, Hanover and Brunswick. The Angles in Tacitus’s day were settled on the right bank of the Elbe close to its mouth. They seem to have been nearly akin to their then neighbors, the Lombards, who after long wanderings eventually became the masters of Italy. It is curious to find the great historian of the Lombards, Paul the Deacon, describing their dress as resembling that “which the Anglo-Saxons are wont to wear.”

In England the Saxons, after establishing themselves in the south and east, in the localities now represented by Sussex and Essex, founded a great kingdom in the West which gradually absorbed almost the whole country south of the Thames. In fact, the King of Wessex ultimately became the lord of the entire land of Britain.

The Angles, who followed close upon the heels of the Saxons, founded the kingdoms of East Anglia (Norfolk and Suffolk), Mercia (the Midlands), Deira (Yorkshire), and Bernicia (the country farther north). The extermination of the native Inhabitants was probably not so complete as was at one time supposed, and a recent authority (Hodgkin) has declared that “Anglo-Celt rather than Anglo-Saxon is the fitting designation of our race.”

But, although the Britons were Christians, the survivors were in any case too insignificant a body to convert their conquerors. Only in the extreme west and north, where the Teutonic invaders could not penetrate, did the Celtic Church still maintain its succession of priests and bishops. No effort seems to have been made by them to preach to the Saxons, and later on, when St. Augustine and St. Lawrence tried to open up friendly relations, the British Church held severely aloof.

II. CONVERSION

Everyone knows the story of the Roman Mission which first brought to the English the knowledge of the Gospel. St. Gregory’s deep compassion for the angel-faces of some captive Angle children in the Roman slave-market led in time to the sending of the monk St. Augustine and his companions. They were well received by Ethelbert of Kent who had already married a Christian wife. Augustine landed in Thanet only in 597, but before the end of the century most of the Jutes of Kent had been converted. Acting on instructions previously received, he went to Arles to receive episcopal consecration. Frequent communications were exchanged with Rome, and St. Gregory in 601 sent Augustine the pallium, the emblem of archiepiscopal jurisdiction, directing him to consecrate other bishops and to set up his see in London. This was not then possible, and Canterbury became the mother church of England. London, however, very shortly afterwards had its church, and Mellitus was consecrated to reside there as Bishop of the East Saxons, while another church was erected at Rochester with Justus as bishop.

On Ethelbert’s death in 616 great reverses befell the cause of Christianity. Essex and part of Kent apostatized, but St. Lawrence, the new archbishop, stood his ground. A few years later a great advance was made by the marriage of the powerful King Eadwine of Northumbria to a Kentish Christian princess. Paulinus, a Roman who had been sent to help Augustine, was consecrated bishop, and, accompanying her as her chaplain, he was able to baptize Eadwine in 627, and build the church of St. Peter at York. It is true that a pagan reaction six years afterwards swept away most of the results achieved, but even then his deacon James remained at work in Yorkshire. Meanwhile Felix, a Burgundian monk acting under orders from Canterbury, had gained over East Anglia; and Birinus, who had been sent straight from Rome, began in 634 the Conversion of the people of Wessex. In the North it seemed as if the Faith was almost extinguished, owing mainly to the relentless opposition of Penda, the pagan King of Mercia, but help came from an unexpected quarter. In 634 the remnants of Northumbrian sovereignty were soon grasped by St. Oswald, who had been brought up in exile among the Irish monks settled in Iona, and had there become a Christian. When this young prince had gained a victory over his enemies and established himself more firmly, he summoned (c. 635) a Scottish (i.e. Irish) missionary from Iona. This was St. Aidan, who established a community of his followers in the island of Lindisfarne, and thence evangelized all the land of the north. St. Aidan followed the Celtic traditions in the points in which they differed from the Roman (e.g. the keeping of Easter), but there can be no question as to his sanctity or as to the wonderful effects of his preaching. From Lindisfarne came St. Cedd and St. Chad two brothers who respectively evangelized Essex and Mercia. To Lindisfarne also we are indebted, at least indirectly, for St. Cuthbert, who consolidated the empire of Christianity in the north, and for St. Wilfrid, who, besides converting the South Saxons, the tardiest of the Teutonic settlers to receive the Gospel, accomplished the great task of reconciling the Christians of Northumberland to the Roman Easter and to the other institutions which had the support of papal authority. To sum up, it has been said, not inaptly, that in the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons “the Roman planted, the Scot watered, the Briton did nothing.”

III. DEVELOPMENT UNDER ROMAN AUTHORITY

Meanwhile a great work of organization had been going on. Theodore of Tarsus, a Greek monk who had been consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury by Pope Vitalian, came to England in 669. He was warmly welcomed by all, and in 673 held a national council of the English bishops at Hertford, and another in 680 at Hatfield. In these synods much was done to promote unity, to define the limits of jurisdiction, and to restrain the wanderings and mutual interference of the clergy. What was still more important, St. Theodore, visiting the whole of England, consecrated new bishops and divided up the vast dioceses which in many cases were coextensive with the kingdoms of the heptarchy. It seems to have been a consequence of this last proceeding that a feud for a while broke out between Theodore and Wilfrid, the latter being driven from his See of Ripon and appealing to Rome. But after some tempestuous years, marked alike by great endurance and missionary zeal on Wilfrid’s part, Theodore acknowledged that he had done grave wrong to his brother bishop. They were reconciled and for the short time that remained worked together harmoniously in the cause of Roman order and discipline.

It would seem that in the interests of anti-papal controversy, a great deal too much has been made of the divergent customs of the Roman and Celtic missionaries. Both in Scotland and on the Continent, Irish Christianity was thoroughly loyal in spirit to the See of Rome. Such men as St. Cuthbert, St. Cedd, St. Chad, and St. Wilfrid co-operated heartily with the efforts to preach the Gospel made by the teachers sent from Canterbury. The Celtic customs had already received their death-blow in the choice made by the Northumbrian King Oswiu, when at the Synod of Whitby (664) he elected to stand by the Roman Key-bearer, St. Peter. In fact, after the lapse of a few years they are no more heard of.

In the eighth century the pope granted the pallium to Egbert, Bishop of York, and thus restored the see as an archbishopric according to a scheme already foreshadowed in St. Gregory’s letter to Augustine. Moreover, two very important synods were held at this period. The one, in 747, Novas summoned at the instance of Pope Zacharias, whose letter was read aloud, and devoted itself to thorough-going legislation for the internal reform of the clergy. The other, in 787, was presided over by the two papal legates, George and Theophylact, who forwarded to Pope Adrian a report of the proceedings, including among other things a formal recognition of tithes. In this synod Lichfield, through the influence of Offa, King of Mercia, who made misleading representations at Rome, was erected into an archbishopric; but, sixteen years later, when Offa and Pope Adrian were dead, Leo III reversed the decision of his predecessor. It has been suggested that the institution of Peter’s pence, which dates from this period, was the price paid by Offa for Adrian’s complaisance, but this is pure conjecture.

During the ninth century, in the course of which Wessex gradually acquired a position of supremacy, the Danish incursions destroyed many great seats of learning and centres of monastic discipline, such, for instance, as Jarrow, the home of St. Bede, and these calamities soon exercised a disastrous effect upon the lives and work of the clergy. King Alfred the Great strove hard to put things on a better footing, and, speaking generally, the devotion of secular rulers towards the papacy and the Church was never more conspicuous than at this period. To this age belongs the famous grant to the Church of a tenth of his land by Ethelwulf, father of Alfred. This had nothing directly to do with tithes, but it showed how completely the principle was recognized and how close was the union between Church and State. The final victory of Alfred over the Danes, the treaty with Guthrum their leader at Wedmore, and the consequent reception of Christianity by the invaders, did much to restore the Church to happier conditions. In the joint code of laws published by Alfred and Guthrum, apostasy was declared a crime, negligent priests were to be fined, the payment of Peter’s-Pence was commanded, and the practice of heathen rites was forbidden.

The union between secular this time, and indeed throughout the whole of the Anglo-Saxon period, was very close, and some of the great national councils seemed almost to have the character of Church synods. But the clergy, while remaining closely identified with the people, and discharging in each district the functions of local state officials, seem never to have quite regained the religious spirit which the period of Danish incursions had impaired. Hence, in the time of St. Dunstan, who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 960 to 988, a very strong movement made itself felt (encouraged especially by St. Æthelwold of Winchester, and St. Oswald of Worcester and York), which aimed at replacing the secular clergy by monks in all the more important “minsters.” There can be no doubt that at this period the law of celibacy was ill observed by priests, and the custom of marrying was so general that it seemed to have been impossible to enforce any very severe penalties against delinquents. Hence, great efforts were made by the three saints named and by King Edgar to renovate and spiritualize monasticism upon the lines of the great Benedictine rule, hoping thereby also to raise the tone of the secular clergy and to increase their influence for good. For the same end St. Dunstan sought to remedy the isolation of the English Church not only by intercourse with France and Flanders, but also, in the words of Bishop Stubbs, “by establishing a more intimate communication with the Apostolic See.” Henceforth nearly all archbishops went personally to Rome for the pallium.

These efforts resulted in a distinct advance in general culture, though England no longer led, but was content to follow the scholars of the Continent. Still, much was gained, and when, after renewed invasions, a Danish dynasty became masters of England, “the society which was unable to withstand the arms of Canute, almost immediately humanized and elevated him.” Canute was a fervent convert. He made a great pilgrimage to Rome in 1026–27. His legislation was largely ecclesiastical in character, and he insisted anew on the payment of Peter’s-Pence. These Roman influences were also reinforced under Edward the Confessor by the appointment of several foreigners to English sees and by a great revival of pilgrimages to Rome. The foreigners were probably both more devout and more capable than any native priests that were available. There is nothing to show that competent Englishmen were passed over. On the contrary, when in 1062 papal legates again visited England they were responsible for the appointment of one of the greatest native churchmen of Anglo-Saxon times, St. Wulstan, Bishop of Worcester. In himself “a faultless character” (Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.), he lived on under Norman rule, for nearly thirty years, serving to perpetuate the best traditions of the Anglo-Saxon Church in the reorganized hierarchy of the Conquest.

IV. ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATION

There can be no doubt that in the Christianizing of Britain the monk came before the secular priest, the minster (monasterium) was prior to the cathedral. St. Augustine and his companions were monks, belonging seemingly to communities founded by St. Gregory himself, though it would be a mistake to regard them as identical in discipline, or even in spirit, with the Benedictines of a later age. Still greater would be the error of using modern standards to judge of the monks of the Celtic Church, those rude but ascetic missionaries who established themselves in the lonely island of Lindisfarne, and who in their excursions under the leadership of St. Aidan gradually built up the Church of Northumbria. The early monastic institutions of the West, both Roman and Celtic, were very adaptable and seem to have been well fitted for missionary efforts; but they were nevertheless incapable of providing permanently for the spiritual needs of a Christian population, as they essentially supposed some form of common life and the gathering of numbers in one monastic center. As soon, then, as the work of conversion had made some little progress, it became the aim of the bishop or abbot and under the Celtic system the abbot was often the religious superior of the bishop to draw young men into intercourse with their community and after more or less of instruction to ordain them priests and send them to dwell among the people, wherever their ministrations were most needed, or where provision for their support was most readily offered. To a large extent the parochial system in England was brought into being by what may be called private chaplaincies (cf. Earle, Land Charters, 73). It was not, as used formerly to be maintained, the creation of Archbishop Theodore or any one organizer. The gesith, or noble landowner, in any “township” (this, of course, was a rural division) would build a church for his own private convenience, often in contiguity to his own house, and then he would either obtain from the bishop a priest to serve it or, more commonly, would present some nominee his own for ordination. No doubt the bishop himself was also active in providing churches a n d clergy for noteworthy centres of population. Indeed, Bede writing to Archbishop Egbert of York urged that there ought to be a priest in each township (in singulars vicis), and to this day the parishes coincide with the former townships (now known as “civil parishes”), or in more thinly populated districts with a group of townships. While, in this way parishes came into being out of the oratories of the lords, a strong effort seems to have been made by the bishops at an early date both to check abuses and to secure some definite provision of a permanent nature for the support of the priest. This often took the form of lands legally “booked” to the saint to whom the church was dedicated. At first the bishop seems to have been seised of these endowments, as also of the tithes and of the general contributions for ecclesiastical purposes known as “Church-shot,” but soon the parish priest himself acquired, along with fixity of tenure, the administration of these emoluments. It is quite possible that the general prevalence in England of lay patrons with the right to present to benefices (q.v.) is to be traced to the fact that the parish church in so many cases originated in the private oratory of the lord of the township. It is difficult to decide at what date the organization of the parochial system should be regarded as complete. We can only say that the Domesday commission in the reign of William the Conqueror takes it for granted that every township had its own parish priest. The dioceses which were first divided up with some degree of adequacy by Archbishop Theodore were further added to. As time went on, York, as we have noticed, became an archbishopric under Egbert, but the province of York was always far behind Canterbury in the number of its suffragans. On the other hand, the recognition almost universally accorded to Canterbury, and the oaths of fealty taken by the bishops to the archbishop probably did much towards developing the idea of the national unity. At the close of the Anglo-Saxon period there were some seventeen bishoprics, but the numerous subdivisions, suppressions, translations, and amalgamations of sees during the preceding centuries, are too complicated to be detailed here. The matter has been very fully discussed, in “English Dioceses,” by G. Hill, who gives the following list of bishoprics in 1066. I add the date of foundation; but in some cases, indicated in brackets, the see was suppressed or transferred and afterwards refounded.

Canterbury, 597;

London 604;

Rochester, 604;

York, (625), 664;

Dorchester (634), 870 with Leicester;

Lindisfarne, 635, later Durham;

Lichfield, 656;

Winchester, Hereford, 609; 662;

East Anglia (Elmham), 673;

Worcester, 680;

Sherborne, 705;

Sussex (Selsey), 708;

Ramsbury, c. 909;

Crediton, c. 909;

Wells, c. 909;

Cornwall (St. Germans), 931.

Some of these dioceses afterwards became more famous under other names. Thus Ramsbury was later on represented by Salisbury or Sarum, which, owing to the influence of St. Osmund (d. 1009), a post-Conquest bishop, acquired a sort of liturgical primacy among the other English dioceses. Similarly, the sees established at Dorchester, Elmham, and Crediton were after the Conquest transferred to the far more famous cities of Lincoln, Norwich, and Exeter. Other bishoprics at one time renowned, such as those of Hexham and Ripon, were suppressed or merged into more important dioceses. At the period of the Norman Conquest, York had only one suffragan see, that of Lindisfarne or Durham, but it obtained a sort of irregular supremacy over Worcester, owing to the abuse that for a long time the same archbishop had been accustomed to hold the sees of York and Worcester at once. Undoubtedly a large part of the chopping and changing which are noticed in the delimitation of the old Saxon dioceses must be attributed to the effects of the Danish irruptions. The same cause is no doubt mainly responsible for the decay of the older monastic system; though something should also be laid to the charge of the looseness of organization and the undue prevalence of family influence in the succession of superiors, which in many instances left to the cloister only the semblance of religious life. The “booking” of land to these pretended monasteries seems in the early period to have become recognized as a fraudulent means of evading certain burdens to which the land was subject. The prevalent system, of “double monasteries,” in which both sexes resided though of course in separate buildings, the nuns under the rule of an abbess, seems never to have been viewed with approval by Roman authority. It is not clear whether the English derived this institution from Ireland or from Gaul. The best known examples are Whitby, Coldingham, Bardney, Wenlock, Repton, Ely, Wimborne, and Barking. Some of these were purely Celtic in origin; others, for example the last, were certainly founded under Roman influences. Only in the case of Coldingham have we any direct evidence of grave scandals resulting. When, however, in the tenth century, after the submission of the Danes, the monasteries began to revive once more, English monks went to Fleury which had recently been reformed by St. Odo of Cluny, and the Fleury tradition was imported into England. (Eng. Hist. Review, IX, 691 sq.). It was the spirit of Fleury which, under the guidance of St Dunstan and St. Æthelwold, animated the great centres of English monastic life, such as Winchester, Worcester, Abingdon, Glastonbury, Eynsham, Ramsey, Peterborough, and many more. We must also remember, as an explanation of the efforts made at this time to dislodge the secular canons from the cathedrals, that these secular canons were themselves the successors, and sometimes the actual progeny, of degenerate monks. It was felt that all sacred traditions cried out for the restoration of a worthier clergy and a stricter observance. Even during times of the greatest corruption ecclesiastical authority never fully acquiesced in the marriage of the Anglo-Saxon Mass-priests, though this was undoubtedly prevalent On the other hand, it should be remembered that the word preost (as opposed to messe-preost) of itself only means cleric in minor orders, and consequently every mention of the son of a priest does not necessarily presuppose a flagrant violation of the canons. To the clergy in general, from a social point of view, great privileges were accorded which the law fully recognized. The priest, or mass-thegn, enjoyed a high wergeld (i.e. man-price, a claim for compensation proportionate to and an increased mundbyrd, or right of protection. He ranked as a thane, and the parish priest together with the reeve and the four best burghers of each township attended the hundred-moot as a matter of right. On the other hand, the clergy end their property, at least in later times, were not exempt from the public burdens common to all. Save for the option of the corsned, a form of ordeal by blessed bread, the clergy were judged in the ordinary tribunals, and frithborh, or the duty of finding a member of sureties for their keeping the peace, was incumbent upon them as upon other men.

V. ECCLESTIASTICAL OBSERVANCES

The close union of the religious and social aspects of Anglo-Saxon life is nowhere more clearly seen than in the penitential system. Codes of penalties for moral offences, which were known as Penitentials and were ascribed to such venerated names as Theodore, Bede, and Egbert, meet us from an early period. The application of these codes, at least in some imperfect way, lasted on until the Conquest, and the public penance enforced upon the offenders seems almost to have had the effect of a system of police. Closely related with this was the practice of making confession to the parish priest on Shrove Tuesday or shortly afterwards. In cases of public offenses against morality, reconciliation was commonly deferred at least until Maundy Thursday, at the end of Lent, and belonged of strict right to the bishop alone. Confession may have been relatively infrequent, and probably enough its necessity was only recognized when there was question of sins of a palpably grievous character, but it is certain that secrecy was respected in the case of hidden sins, and that absolution was given, at least in the precatory form. The earliest example of our modern declarative form of absolution in the West is probably of Anglo-Saxon origin. Of the general prevalence of confession no stronger proof can be given than the fact that the term commonly used in Anglo-Saxon to denote a parish was scriftscir (i.e. shrift shire, confession district). Like the observance of certain appointed fasts and festivals, the obligation of confession was made a subject of secular legislation by the king and his Witan. Another obligation enforced by legal enactment in the Witena gemot (council of the wise men) was the Cyricsceat (i.e. church-shot, church dues). The nature of this payment is clear, but it seems to have consisted in the in the fruits of the seed-harvest (cf. Kemble, Saxons in England, II, 559). It was apparently distinct from tithes and probably was even older than the formation of regular parishes (Baldwin Brown, Arts in Early Eng., I, 314–316). The payments of the tithe of increase was first plainly enjoined in the legatine synod held at Cealchythe (Chelsea?) in 787 and the obligation was confirmed in an ordinance of Athelstan, 927. Soul-shot (saul sceat), also a payment enforced by legal sanction, seems to have been a due paid to the parish church with a view to the donor’s burial in its churchyard. The importance attached to it shows how intimately bound up with Anglo-Saxon religious conceptions was the duty of prayer for the dead. The offering of Masses for the dead is legislated for in some of the earliest ecclesiastical documents of the English Church which have been preserved to us, e.g. in the “Penitential” of Theodore. The same desire to obtain the prayers of the living for the souls of the departed is manifested alike in the wording of the land charters and in the earliest stone monuments. The cross erected at Bewcastle in Cumberland about 671, in honour of the Northumbrian king Alchfrith, has a runic inscription asking prayers for his soul. Religious communities as early as the first half of the eighth century banded themselves together in associations pledged to recite the psalter and offer Masses for their deceased members, and this movement which spread widely in Germany and on the Continent had its origin in England. (See Ebner, Gebetsverbrüderungen, 30.) Similarly among secular persons guilds were formed, the main object of which was to secure prayers for the souls of their members after death (Kemble, Saxond, I, 511). For the same purpose, at the obsequies of the great, doles of food were commonly distributed, and slaves were manumitted. Another institution many times mentioned in the later Anglo-Saxon laws is that of Peter’s-Pence (Rom-feoh, Rom-pennig). It appears from a letter of Pope Leo III (795–816) that King Offa of Mercia promised to send 365 mancusses yearly to Rome for the maintenance of the poor and of lights, and Asser tells of some similar gift of Ethelwulf, the father of King Alfred, to St. Peter’s. Not very long after, it seems to have taken the form of a regular tax collected from the people and annually transmitted to Rome. This voluntary contribution undoubtedly bears witness to a very close union between England and the Holy See, and indeed this is made clear to us in numerous other ways. It is Bede who directs special attention to the constant pilgrimages from England to the Holy City and to the abdication of kings, like Cædwalla and Ine, who resigned the crown and went to Rome to die. The prevalence of dedications to St. Peter, the generous gifts of such men as the Abbot Ceolfrith, whose present to the Pope, the magnificent Northumbrian manuscript now known as the “Codex Amiatinus,” is preserved to this day, together with the language of several of the English synods, all point in the same direction. The fact was even commented upon by continental contemporaries, and the “Gesta Abbatum Fontanellensium” (Saint Vandrille), written c. 840, speaks of the “English who are always specially devoted to the Apostolic See “ (Hauck, Kirchengeschichte . Deutschlands, I, 457, 3d ed.). We have very good evidence of the existence in the Anglo-Saxon Church of the whole of the present Sacramental system, including Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. The Mass was the centre of all religious worship, and the Holy Sacrifice was certainly offered privately, sometimes as often as three or four times in the same day by the same priest, but always fasting. The attempt made, upon the authority of certain expressions of Abbot Ælfric (q. v.), to show that the Anglo-Saxons did not believe in the Real Presence is wholly illusory. (See Bridgett, Hist. of Holy Eucharist, I, 119 sq.). In these matters of faith and ritual England differs in no substantial respect from the rest of Western Christendom. The Latin language was used both in the liturgy and in the canonical hours. The books were the Roman service books without any important additions of native or Celtic growth. The principal foreign influence which can be discerned is a likeness to the ritual observances of southern Italy (e.g., Naples), a. peculiarity to which attention has been drawn on many occasions by Edmund Bishop and Dom Germain Morin. It is probably due to the fact that Adrian, Abbot of St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, who came to England in the train of Archbishop Theodore, had brought with him the traditions of Monte Cassino. Even the coronation service, which began by being pronouncedly Celtic, was remodelled about the time of Eadgar (973) in imitation of the usages which obtained in the coronation of the Emperor of the West (Robertson, Historical Essays, 203 sq.; Thurston, Coronation Ceremonial, 18 sq.). Hence many interesting details of liturgical custom, e.g. the churchyard procession on Palm Sunday, the dramatic dialogue beside the Sepulchre on Easter eve, the episcopal benediction after the Pater Noster of the Mass, the multiplication of prefaces, thle great O’s of Advent, the communion of the laity under both species, etc., were not peculiar to England, even though in some cases the earliest recorded examples are English examples. As regards the veneration of the saints and of their relics, no Church was farther removed than the Anglo-Saxon Church from the principles of the Reformation. The praises of our Blessed Lady are sung by Aldhelm and Alcuin in Latin, and by the poet Cynewulf (c. 775) in Anglo-Saxon, in glowing verse. An Anglican writer (Church Quarterly Rev., XIV, 286) has frankly admitted that “Mariolatry is no very modern development of Romanism—the Blessed Virgin was not only Dei Genitrix and Virgo Virginum, but in a tenth-century English litany she is addressed thus:

Sancta Regina Mundi, ora pro nobis;

Sancta Salvatrix Mundi, ora pro nobis;

Sancta Redemptrix Mundi, ora pro nobis.”

The bodies of the saints, e.g. that of St. Cuthbert, were reverently honoured from the beginning and esteemed the most precious of treasures. Besides the feasts of Christ and Our Lady, a number of saints’ were observed throughout the year, to which in a synod of 747 the festivals of St. Gregory and St. Augustine, the true apostles of England, were specially added. Later secular legislation determined the number of such feasts and prescribed abstention from servile work. All feasts of the Apostles had vigils on which men fasted. Sts. Peter and Paul’s day was celebrated with an octave. The Ordeals, a method of trial by “judgment of God,” though accompanied by prayer and conducted under the supervision of the clergy, were not exactly an ecclesiastical institution, neither were they peculiar to the Anglo-Saxon Church.

VI. MISSIONS

Of the missionary enterprise of the Anglo-Saxons a more detailed account must be sought under the names of the principal missionaries and of the countries evangelized. It will be sufficient to say here in general that the preaching of the Irish monks, of whom St. Columban was the most celebrated, in central and western Europe, was followed and eclipsed by the efforts of the Anglo-Saxons, in particular by those of the Northumbrian St. Willibrord and the West Saxon Winfrith better known as St. Boniface. St. Boniface, to whom a later age gave the name of the Apostle of Germany, was supported by many followers, e.g. Lull, Willibald, Burchard, and others. The work of evangelization in Germany was almost accomplished in the eighth century, the crowning effort being made by St. Willehad between 772 and 789, in the North, beside the banks of the Elbe and the Weser. These missionary undertakings were much assisted by the devotion of many holy Englishwomen, e.g. Sts. Walburg, Lioba, Tecla, and others, who founded communities of nuns and in this way did much to educate and Christianize the young people of their own sex. At a somewhat later date another great missionary field was provided for Anglo-Saxon zeal in the northern lands of Denmark and Scandinavia. St. Sigfrid led the way under the protection of King Olaf Tryggvesson, but the accession of King Canute to the throne of England was an important factor in this new development. Although not much is known of the history of the missions in Sweden and Norway, it has lately been shown by such scholars as Taranger and Freisen, alike from linguistic and liturgical considerations, that the impress of the Anglo-Saxon Church is everywhere recognizable in the Christian institutions of the extreme North.

VII. LITERATURE AND ART

Both literature and art among the Anglo-Saxons were intimately bound up with the service of the Church, and owed almost all their inspiration to her ministers. In the century or more which preceded the terrible Viking raid of 794 extraordinary progress was made. Aldhelm, Bede, and Alcuin represented the high-water mark of Latin scholarship in the Christian West of that day, and the native literature, so far as we can judge from the surviving poetry of Cædmon and Cynewulf (if the latter, as seems likely, is really the author of the “Christ” and the “Dream of the Rood”) was of unparalleled excellence. With this high standard the arts introduced from Rome, especially by St. Wilfrid and St. Benedict Biscop, seem to have kept pace. Nothing could be more remarkable for graceful design than the ornamentation of the stone grosses of Northumbria belonging to this period, e.g. those of Bewcastle and Ruthwell. The surviving Manuscripts of the same epoch are not less wonderful in their way. We have spoken of the copy of the Bible written at Jarrow and taken to Rome by Ceolfrid as a present for the Pope. Two other equally authentic relics are the Lindisfarne Gospels and the copy of the Gospel of St. John, now at Stonyhurst College, which was buried with St. Cuthbert and found in his tomb. But this precocious development of culture was, as already explained above, terribly blighted by the inroads of the Danes. With the era of King Alfred, however, there are many signs of recovery. His own Anglo-Saxon prose, mostly translations, is conspicuous for its grace and freedom, also the remarkable work of art known as the Alfred jewel bears witness, with rings and other objects of the same epoch, to a very high level of technical skill in goldsmith’s work. Within the century of Alfred’s death we also find that in this period of comparative peace and religious revival an admirable school of calligraphy and illumination had grown up which seems to have had its principal home at Winchester. The Benedictional of St. Æthelwold and the so-called Missal of Robert of Jumièges are famous MSS. which may be regarded as typical of the period. In literature also this was a time of great development, the inspiring motive of which was almost always religious. Considerable collections of homilies are preserved to us, many of them rhythmical in structure, which are specially connected with the names of Ælfric and Wulfstan. Besides these we have a number of manuscripts which contain translations, or at least paraphrases, of books of Scripture; Bede’s last work, as is well known, was to translate into his native tongue the Gospel of St. John, though this has not survived. Still more commonly Latin texts were transcribed, and an Anglo-Saxon gloss written over each word as an aid to the student. This was the case with the famous Lindisfarne Gospels, written and illuminated about the year 700, though the Anglo-Saxon interlinear translation was only added some 250 years afterwards. The manuscript, one of the treasures of the British Museum, is also remarkable for the beauty of its interlaced ornament. This form of decoration, though no doubt originally derived from the Irish missionaries who accompanied St. Aidan to Northumbria, soon became a distinctive feature of the art of the Anglo-Saxons. It is as conspicuous in their stone carvings (compare the early crosses mentioned above) as it is in the decoration of their manuscripts, and it long survived in a modified form. In the field of history, again, we possess in the so-called “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,” reaching in some manuscripts from the Saxon conquest down to the middle of else twelfth century, the most wonderful chronicle in the vernacular which is known to any European people while in the “Beowulf” we have a comparatively late transcription of a pagan Teutonic poem which in subject and inspiration is older than the eighth century. But it is impossible to enumerate within narrow limits even the more important elements of the rich literature of the Anglo-Saxon period. Neither can we describe the many architectural remodels, more particularly’ of churches, which survive frown before the Conquest, and which, though mainly noteworthy for their massive strength, are not lay any means lacking in a sense of beauty or destitute of pleasing ornament. The ancient Saxon tower of Earl’s Barton church near Northampton may be appealed to as an illustration of the rest.

LINGARD, History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church (London, 1845); BISHOP, English Hagiology, an extremely valuable summary, in Dublin Review, Jan., 1885; HADDAN AND STUBBS, Councils (Oxford, 1871), III; THORPE, Ancient Laws and Institutes of England) London, 1840); Id, Diplomatarium Anglicum (London, 1865); LIEBERMANN, Die Gesetzeder Angelsachsen (Leipzig, 1903), I; SCHMID, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen (1858); TURK, Legal Code of Alfred (Boston 1893); KEMBLE, Codex Diplomaticus (London, 1848); ID. The Saxons in England (London, 1876); BIRCH, Cartularium Anglo-Saxonicum (London, 1899); ROBERTSON, Historical Essays (Edinburgh. 1876); ADAMS (and others), Essays in Anglo-Saxon Law (Boston, 1876); PEARSON History of England (London, 1867), I; RAMSAY, The Foundations of England (London, 1898), I; HUNT, History of the English Church to the Conquest (London, 1899); HODGKIN, Political History of England to 1066 (London, 1906); PLUMMER AND EARLE, Two Saxon Chronicles Parallel (Oxford, 1899); PLUMMER, Medal Opera Historica (Oxford, 1896); STEVENSON, Asser’s Life of King Alfred (Oxford, 1904); BRIGHT, Chapters of Early English Church History (3d ed., Oxford, 1897), MARLE, A Handbook to the Land Charters (Oxford, 1888); CHADWICK, Studies in Anglo Saxon Institutions (Cambridge, 1905), GEE AND HARDY, Documents Illustrative of Eng. Ch. Hist. (London 1896) MAKOWER, constitution of the Church of England (London, 1895); STUBBS, Constitutional History (London 1875), I, Viii; FREEMAN, The Norman Conquest, I, II; also in general the works of LAPPENBERG, PAULI, and PALSGRAVE. The conclusions of LINGARD have been assailed from the extreme Protestant standpoint in several volumes by SOAMES.

SPECIAL SUBJECTS. Ecclesiastical organization and monasticism. BROWN, The Arts in Early England (London, 1903) HILL, English Dioceses (London, 1900); Articles by BATESON in Eng. Hist. Rev., IX, 690; X, 712; ECKENSTEIN, Women under Monasticism (Cambridge, 1896); STUBBY, Memorials of St. Dunstan (London, 1874);Id., Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum (London, 1897); HEARSE, Anglo-Saxon Bishops etc. (Cambridge, 1899); ID., Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum (Cambridge, 1897); REICHEL, Rise of the Parochial System in England in Exeter Diocesan Society Transactions, 1905.

The Heptarchy etc. GREEN, The Making of England (London, 18811;~-ID, The Conquest of England (London, 1883) BROWN, Theodore and Winlfrith (London, 1897); ID” St. Aldhelm (London, 1903). Land Tenure etc. MAITLAND, Domesday Book and Beyond (Cambridge, 1897), BALLARD, The Domesday Boroughs (Oxford, 1904). Tithes, etc. SEBBORNE, Ancient Facts and Fictions (London, 1888); PHILLIMORE, Ecclesiastical Law (London, 1895)

Peter’s-Pence. JENSEN Der Englische Peterspfennig (1903); also in Tr. R. Hist. Soc., ~XV, N. S.; FABRE, in Melanges G. B. de Rossi (1892); MOYES, in Dublin Review (1893), 255.

Devotional Practice. ROCK, Church of Our Fathers (2d ed, London, 1904); BRIDOETT, Holy Eucharist in Great Britain (London, 1881); ID., Our Lady’s Dowry (3d ea., London, 1892); BISHOP AND KUYPERS, The Book of Cerne (Cambridge, 190~); BISHOP, The Origins of Our Lady’s Primer (Early English Texts Society, 1897): ID., Feast of Our Lady’s Conception, in Downside Review, April, 1886, also reprinted; BISHOP AND MORIN, Neapolitan and English Calendars, in Revue Benedictine, Nov. and Dec., 1891, and Sept., 1895, and in MORIN. Liber Comicus (Maredsous, 1893); THURSTON, Lent and Holy Week (London, 1904); WARREN, The Leofric Missal (Oxford, 1883); WILSON, Missal of Robert of Jumièges (London, 189G), and other Publications of the Henry Bradshaw SOC.; THURSTON Confession in England before the Conquest, in The Tablet, Feb. and March, 1905; ID., The Month, Nov., 1896; Oct., 1901 June and July, 1902; May and Dec., 1904; Dec., 1905

Social Life. ROEDER, Die Familie bei den Angelsachsen Halle, 1899); LARSON, The King’s Household (Madison, 1904); LIEBERMANN, Die Englische Gilde in Archin. f. d. Studium d. neueren Sprachen (1896); Id Ordalien, in Sitzungsberichte d. Akad. d. Wissenschaft. (Berlin, 1896), II, 829; PATETTA, Le Ordalie (Turin, 1890).- Anglo-Saxon Missions.- BISHOP, Engish Hagiology, in Dublin Review, Jan, 1885; ID., St. Boniface and his Correspondence, Trans. Devonshire Ass., VI11, 497 (1876); HAHN, Bonifaz und Lul, (1883); TAUCK, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (3d ed., (1904) I: Taranger, Den Angelsaksiske Kirkes Indflydelse paa den Norske (Christiania, 1890); FREISEN, Manunle Lincopense (Halle, 1904). Litera- ture. WARREN, A Treasury of Eng. Lit., (London, 1906); Morley, H English Writers, I, II; together with various Histories of Eng. Lit., e.g. those of TEN BRINK;, T. ARNOLD, STOPFORD BROOKE, WOLCHER, etc.; and such editions of Anglo-Saxon writers as those of PROF. COOK, of Yale, e.g., Cynewulf’s Christ (New York, 1900) and Poem of the Rood (New York, 1904). The text of the various Anglo-Saxon classics must be sought in the editions of the separate authors, or in such collective works as GRETN’S Bibliothek d. Angelsachs. Poesie, and WOLKER, Bibliothek d. Angelsachs. Prose. The Rolls Series Text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ed. THORPE.) is accompanied by a translation. Two other specially useful works are SWEET, the Oldest English Texts (early English Text Society, 1885); ROGER, L’enseignement des lettres classiques d’Ausone a Alcuin (Paris, 1905)), and MACGILLIVRAY, Christianity and the Vocabulary of Old English (Halle, 1902).

Art, etc. BALDWIN BROWN, The Arts in Early England (London, 1903), EARLE, The Alfred Jewel (Oxford, 1900); NAPIER, The Franks Casket (Oxford, 1901 ); ANDERSON AND Allen, Early Christian Monuments of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1903)- WARNER, Illuminated MSS. at the British Museum (London, 1903), WESTWOOD) Miniatures and Ornaments of Anglo-Saxon and Irish MSS. (London, 1868), CALVERLEY, Early Sculptured Crosses (Kendal 1899); E. M THOMPSON, English Illuminated MSS, (London, 1895); MICHEL, Histoire de l’art (Paris, 1905, I, 118, 511,737).

HERBERT THURSTON

Anglona-Tursi

An Italian diocese comprising twenty-seven towns and three villages in the province of Potenza and nine towns and one village in the province of Cosenza, Archdiocese of Acerenza. The diocese is sometimes called Tursi because to this last-named city was transferred the See of Anglona, after the latter’s destruction, in the days of Queen Johanna of Naples. Mention of the Diocese of Anglona in history is very late; all knowledge of its origin and ecclesiastical organization is lost in the Middle Ages. Only in 1077 do we find a Bishop of Anglona, Simon, who was present at the ceremony of donation of some rifle fields made by Hugo di Chiaromonte and his wife Ginarga to the celebrated Basilian monastery of Sts. Elias and Anastasius (Ughelli, VII, 79). It has 40 parishes, 138 secular priests, and 95,000 inhabitants.

UGHELEI, Italic Sacra (Venice, 1722), VII, 68; CAPPEEEETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), XX 453; Gales, Series episcoporum Ecclecam catholicce (Ratisbon, i873), 850; Poliorama Piittoresco (28 March, 1846).

E. BUONAIUTI

Angola and Congo

Also known as SANTA CRUD DE REINO DE ANGOLA, and as SAO PAOLO DE LOANDA, diocese of Portuguese West Africa, suffragan of Lisbon. Its territory was discovered by the Portuguese in the latter part of the fifteenth century, and after 1514 was subject to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Grand Prior of the Order of Christ at Funchal in the Madeira Islands. In 1596 it was made an episcopal see by Clement VIII. The natives (Bantus, Bundas, Bushmen, etc.) number, it is said, 2,000,000 There are 1,000,000 Catholics for whom, according to Father Werner’s figures, there are 82 parishes, 8 churches, 10 chapels, and 36 priests. For these figures he quotes the diocesan reports to the Propaganda, in “Missiones Catholicae,” for 1888. The bishop resides at Loanda, a great seaport (14,000), with a railway that reaches inland some 200 miles to Ambaca, through a territory covered with rich plantations.

BATTANDIER, Annuaire poet. cath. (Paris, 1905) 213; WERNER, Orbit Herr. Cath. (Freiburg, 1890), 52; RECTUM-KEANE, The earth and Its Inhabitanis (New York, 1900, IV, 37–42; MATINS, Portugal en Africa (Oporto, 1891).

Thomas J. Shahan.

Diocese of Angora

Armenian rite diocese in Asia Minor (Asiatic Turkey).

The Europeans now call Angora, and the Turks, Enguru, the ancient capital of Galatia, in Asia Minor, which was known to the Greeks and Romans as Ancyra. Midas was its legendary founder, and it witnessed the triumphal march of Alexander the Great. Under the Seleucid king, Antiochus III (222–186 B. c.) it lost temporarily its freedom. It was the capital of the Galatian kings, Dejotarus and Amyntas. When the latter died (25 B.C.), it became a Roman city and was very flourishing under Augustus. The Byzantines permitted its capture by the Persians in A.D. 619; later it was often ravaged by the Arabs, who were in turn dispossessed by the Seldjucids of Konia. Though taken by the Crusaders, its possession was long the disputed by Islam, and it finally fell into the hands of Sultan Mourad, in 1362. Since then it has remained in the power of the Ottoman Turks, with the exception of some years after the battle of 2 July, 1402, in which Sultan Bajazet was killed by TimourLeng (Tamerlane) and his Mongols, and six months in 833, when Ibrahim Pasha, the son of the Khedive Mehemet-Ali, led the Egyptian troops as far as the Bosphorus. Though the chief town of the vilayet, or district, of the same name, the modern Angora no longer reminds us of the glory of ancient Ancyra. It can show, however, besides a, great many inscriptions, the ruins of several Roman monuments, among them the famous temple of Rome and Augustus, on whose walls is inscribed in marble the will of Augustus, with the principal events of his reign (Monumentum Ancyranum). Ancyra was at an early date a Christian city, and counts several martyrs; the best known are the Bishop St. Clement, whose memory is preserved by a medieval church, and the publican St. Theodotus. Unhappily, neither the Acts of Clement nor those of Theodotus can claim high rank as historical documents. After the persecution of Maximinus (probably in 314) Ancyra witnessed an important council whose twenty-five canons are yet extant. Marcellus, Metropolitan of Ancyra, was prominent in the Arian controversy, likewise his successor Basil (d. 373). Among the other Metropolitans of Ancyra special mention is due to Domitian, who took part in the Origenist controversies during the sixth century. The actual population of Angora comprises 18,000 Mussulmans, 16,000 Orthodox Greeks, 5,000 Catholic Armenians, 100 Protestant Armenians, 400 Jews. The Orthodox Greek community is governed by a metropolitan and has 2 churches, 1 monastery, 2 schools for boys, and 2 for girls. Catholic Armenian community is organized as a diocese, and has 4 churches, 1 convent for men, 1 for women, 3 schools for boys, and 1 for girls. The Gregorian Armenian community is governed by a bishop, and has 2 churches, 1 monastery, 1 school for boys, and 1 for girls. The Protestant Armenians have 1 church, and form a missionary station under the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, directed from Cæsarea. The little Latin colony, attracted by the railway, is visited by the Augustinians of the Assumption, missionaries at Eski-Chehir. Angora also possesses a prosperous French establishment conducted the Christian Brothers. (See ANCYRA).

J. PARGOIRE

Diocese of Angoulême

(ENGOLISMA).

Angoulême, Diocese of, comprises the Department of the Charente in France, and has always been suffragan to the Archbishopric of Bordeaux, under the old régime as well as under the Concordat. Its first bishop was Ausonius, a disciple, it is said, of St. Martial, concerning whom we have two historical authorities: St. Gregory of Tours, who held that St. Martial preached the gospel in Limoges about the year 250, and the Limousin traditions, transmitted or invented by the chronicler Adhémar de Chabannes, who maintained that St. Martial was the immediate disciple of St. Peter. According to the latter opinion St. Ausonius was a bishop of the first century; according to the former, of the third century. We incline towards the opinion of St. Gregory. (See LIMOGES.) St. Salvius, honoured as a martyr at Valenciennes, whom the “Gallia Christiana” makes a Bishop of Angoulême, was undoubtedly only a missionary bishop of the eighth century. In the list of the Bishops of Angoulême is found the name of the poet Octavien de St. Gelais (1494–1502). The religious monuments of the province of Angoumois are remarkable for their admirable Romano-Byzantine façades. The most beautiful of them is St. Peter’s Cathedral at Angoulême. The memory of a wealthy and famous Augustinian abbey, founded in 1122, is kept alive by its ruins at Couronne, near Angoulême. The Diocese of Angoulême (at the end of 1905), contained 330,305 inhabitants, 30 cures or first-class parishes, 332 succursales or second-class parishes, and 6 vicariates formerly with State subventions.

The pages of Gallia Christiana (ed. 1720, II. 975–1030) on the diocese of Angoulême are quite mediocre. See especially DUCHEBNE, Fastes épiscopaux de l’aneienne Gaule (Paris, 1900), II, 64–72, 135–137; CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894–98), 157–158.

GEORGES GOYAU

Diocese of Angra

Angra, Diocese of, the episcopal see of the Azores, suffragan of Lisbon, known as Angra do Heroismo, created in 1534 by Paul III, vacant from 1637 to 1671. It is situated on the island of Terceira and includes, besides that island, the eight others that form the group of the Azores: São Jorge, Graciosa, Fayal, Pico, Flores, Corvo, São Miguel, and Santa Maria. The entire population, nearly all Catholic, is 262,073. There are 353 priests, 108 parishes, 41 succursal, or mission, churches, and 332 churches and chapels.

BATTANDIER, Ann. Pont. Cath. (Paris, 1905), 213; WERNER, Orbis Terr. Cath. (Freiburg, 1890), 51; THOMAS AB INCARNAT., Hist. Eccl. Lusitaniæ (Coimbra, 1757–63).

Pedro Angulo

Native of Burgos in Spain, came to America in 1524 as a soldier, but joined the Dominican order in 1529, and became a companion of Las Casas in Guatemala, Central America in general, and the greater Antilles (Santo Domingo). He was made Provincial of the Dominicans for Chiapas and Bishop of Vera Paz, but died soon afterwards, in 1561. Fray Pedro Angulo was one of the principal figures of the earliest Indian Missions in Southern Mexico and Guatemala, much more important, capable, and successful than Las Casas. His devotion to his work knew no obstacles; he visited tribe after tribe, lived and taught among them. He was one of those who, perceiving the tendency of the Indian to grasp things rather with the eye than with the ear, resorted to charts on which biblical subjects were allegorically represented. These he carried with him through the wilderness to use as illustrations for his discourses to the natives. He was very proficient in two Indian languages, the Nahuatl and the Zutuhil, and wrote several tracts on religious subjects in the latter.

Documents concerning Las Cases, in the Documentos inéditos de Indias; the writings of Las Casas himself; REMESAL, Historia de la provincia de Guatemala y San Vicente de Chyapas (Madrid, 1619); BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG, Bibliothèque méxico-guatémalienne (Paris. 1871); SQUIER, Monograph of Authors who have Written on the Languages of Central America (New York, 1861).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Vicariate Apostolic of Anhalt

Vicariate Apostolic comprising the territory of the German Duchy of Anhalt, with an area of 860 square miles. It contained, 1 December, 1905, 328,029 inhabitants: 13,493 Catholics, 311,999 Protestants, 1,460 Jews, and 1,077 members of other sects. The vicar apostolic is the Bishop of Paderborn who names the pastors of the vicariate. There are four parishes: Dessau, Bernburg, Cöthen, and Zerbst; also three missions (filialkirchen) with a total of ten secular priests. The “Grey Nuns” from the mother-house in Breslau are the only religious order in Anhalt. They have two establishments for visiting nurses in Dessau and Cöthen, in charge of twenty-one sisters, and also conduct a kindergarten and a school for first communicants in Cöthen. The public schools are under the direction of the State, yet the Church, with the permission and support of the government, maintains sixteen private schools and fifteen teachers, with about nine hundred children in average attendance. Before the Reformation, the territory comprised under the present vicariate apostolic belonged to the Bishoprics of Meissen, Brandenburg, and Merseburg. The few Catholics who remained true to their faith after the fall of these dioceses, received little attention from the Roman Propaganda, to which they were subject until after 1622. In 1719 the Franciscans of the Saxon province of their order established a mission in Dessau; in 1805, Duke Friedrich Franz gave it a chapel, and in 1807 permission to hold divine services in public. A mission was founded at Zerbst in 1773, and at Cöthen in 1816. Duke Ferdinand of Cöthen and his wife became Catholics at Paris, 24 October, 1825, and established at Coethen in place of the mission, a congregation under the direction of Father Beckx, S.J. Pope Leo XII raised this to the dignity of a parish (17 May, 1826) and placed it directly under the Holy See, whose first representative was the Vicar Apostolic of Saxony, Papal Nuncio at Munich since 1827. The Jesuits remained in charge until 1848, since then the parish has been under secular priests from the Diocese of Paderborn. The mission station at Dessau was made a parish in 1830; the Papal Nuncio established parishes 2 June, 1859, in Bernburg and Zerbst, which were not recognized by the government of Anhalt until 1871, being founded without its consent. By the Papal Brief of the 17 March, 1868, the Catholics of Anhalt became subject to Bishop Martin of Paderborn. Since that time with the approval of the government of Anhalt, the Bishop of Paderborn undertakes the direction of the Catholics of Anhalt as the “Apostolic Administrator of the Catholic parishes in the district of Anhalt.” During the Prussian Kulturkampf after the death of Bishop Martin (16 July, 1879), the see of Paderborn remained vacant, the appointment of the temporary vicar apostolic was assigned to the Nuncio at Munich; Canon Drobe of Paderborn was appointed Apostolic Delegate and made Bishop of Paderborn in 1882 (d. March, 1891). His successors were Simar, (1892) and Schneider (1900).

FREISEN, Staat und katholische Kirche in den deutechen Bundesstaaten Lippe, etc., (Stuttgart, 1906), II, 1–142.

JOSEPH LLNS

Pope St. Anicetus

The Roman Pontiff who succeeded Pius towards the year 157, and reigned till about 168. According to Duchesne (Origins) the confusion of dates about this period is such that more exact verification is impossible. While Anicetus was Pope, St. Polycarp, then in extreme old age, came to confer with him (160–162) about the Paschal controversy; Polycarp and others in the East celebrating the feast on the fourteenth of the month of Nisan, no matter on what day of the week it fell; whereas in Rome it was always observed on Sunday, and the day of the Lord’s death on Friday. The matter was discussed but nothing was decided. According to Eusebius: “Polycarp could not persuade the Pope, nor the Pope, Polycarp. The controversy was not ended but the bonds of charity were not broken”; the Pope permitting the aged saint to celebrate on the day he had been accustomed to in the Church of Smyrna.

Hegesippus, the first Christian historian whose writings are of great value, because he lived so near the time of the Apostles, also came to Rome at this time. His visit is recorded by most ecclesiastical authors as noteworthy, inasmuch as it calls attention to the fact that many illustrious men repaired to Rome at that period, thus emphasizing very early the supreme dignity and authority of the Roman Pontiffs. Marcion, Marcellinus, Valentine, and Cordo were also at Rome, disturbing the Church by their Manichæism. Anicetus suffered martyrdom in 161, but the dates vary between 16, 17, and 20 April.

Acta SS., 11 April; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 17 April; MICHAUD, Biog. Univ.; JUNGMANN, Dissert. Hist. Eccl.; MOBERLY in Dict. Christ. Biogr.

T.J. CAMPBELL

College and Church of the Anima (in Rome)

S. Maria dell’ Anima, the German national church and hospice in Rome, received its name, according to tradition, from the picture of Our Lady which forms its coat of arms (the Blessed Virgin between two souls). It was founded as early as 1350, as a private hospice for German pilgrims, and was erected on its present site in 1386, by Johann Peters of Dodrecht, officer of the Papal Guard, and his wife. Pope Boniface IX granted it indulgences in 1398. In 1406, it was raised by the German colony to the rank of a national institution and united with a Brotherhood governed by Provisors and a Congregation. The foundation was confirmed by Innocent VII, who exempted it from all but papal jurisdiction, and took it under his immediate protection. In 1418, it was greatly enriched by the legacy of its second founder, Diedrich of Niem. The Popes of the fifteenth century, with the exception of Sixtus IV, showed it great favour. United, in 1431, with the German hospice of St. Andrew which had been founded in 1372, by a priest, Nicholas of Kulm, it became during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the German national and religious centre in Rome, as well as burial place; in short, it became synonymous with the German nation in Rome, and in its remarkable Community Book (unscientifically edited at Rome and Vienna in 1875) the most important names may be found.

The chief “Protectors” of this period were: Theodorich of Niem (1406); Johann of Montmart (1427); Gerhard of Elten (1431); Johann Rode (1431); Heinrich Senftleben (1450); Nicolaus Tungen (1462); Albert Cock (1468); Melchior Neckau (1479); Johann Burkhard of Strasburg (1494); Bernhard Sculteti (1503); Kaspar Wirt (1506); Wilhelm of Enckenwort (1509); Jakob Apocellus (1530); Martin Lupi (1536); Peter Vorstius (1543); Jodokus Hoetfilder (1548); Kaspar Hoyer (1551); Alexander Junius (1557); Johann Fonck (1558); Kaspar Gropper (1564); Gerhard Voss (1584); Klemens Sublindius (1586); Richard Stravius (1589). These were followed, later, by: Lambert de Vivardis (1595); Hermann Ortenberg (1602); Johann Baptist Rembold (1614); Aegidius de Vivariis (1619); Lukas Holstenius (1635); Theodorich Amayden (1636); the two Gualterii, and the two Emerix.

The present church which owes its Renaissance style to the influence of Bramante, was built by German subscriptions, between 1499 and 1526. It stands on the site of the older church, built between 1431 and 1499, and was decorated by the great artists of the period. Among its treasures is the famous Holy Family of Giulio Romano. It is the resting place of the last German Pope, Adrian VI, as well as of Cardinals Enckenwort, Gropper, Andrew of Austria, Slusius and the Hereditary Prince of Cleve (1575). Although the Emperor Maximilian I took the institution under his special imperial protection in 1518, it fell off greatly, during the period of religious strife; it remained nevertheless a stronghold of German influence and a refuge to all Germans in need. After Sixtus V, the Anima grew in political importance as well, inasmuch as during the great events that took place in Germany, and during the Thirty Years War, it came to be looked upon by the nation, the national representatives, and even by the popes, as a national work of thanksgiving and supplication to God. The violent interference of the Ambassador Martinitz in 1697 (confirmed by an edict of Leopold I in 1699), ushered in the most eventful period in the history of the Anima. In 1742 the Congregation decided in favour of Maria Theresa and against the Emperor. In 1798, the French plundered the church and took possession of it as the property of the French Republic (in behalf of Belgium), but were driven out by the Neapolitan troops. An attempt on the part of Napoleon to annex this institution was also defeated. These vicissitudes had the effect of gradually changing the house from what its original founders had intended to be and of turning it over, almost entirely, to Italians. It was only in 1853 that the noble determination of the Emperor Francis Joseph I restored it to its former purpose. He opened the institution to his Austrian subjects, and brought about its reorganization by means of an Apostolic Visitation in 1859 (Brief of 15 March).

From that time forward the Anima has gradually regained its old position, by timely adaptation to modern conditions. Its field of action is extending, step by step, to the boundaries of the German-speaking peoples. It has been the originator and support of almost every new German national undertaking in Rome. It possesses a special importance as the place where religious services are held on the occasion of political or national festivals, as parish church of the German colony, and as the centre in Rome of national charitable associations. It is also a hospice for German pilgrims, and the stopping place of German bishops and priests from Austria, Germany, and America. It acts, at the same time, as intermediary for Austrian and German dioceses in their relations with the Curia, and serves as a home for German-speaking priests.

The Anima, as a college of priests, dates back to the year 1496, and was founded by the well known Master of Papal Ceremonies, Burkhard of Strasburg. As early as the sixteenth century it consisted of fourteen chaplains. No noteworthy persons, however, are to be found among them, for the reason that they held their positions for an indefinite term, or even for life. Notwithstanding numerous attempts at reform, especially that of 1584, the moral condition of the college left much to be desired. The French Revolution destroyed it, and, in particular, eliminated the German elements. It was only after the restoration of 1859 that the college was reorganized (1863). The brief of reorganization, placed prominently in the refectory, enjoins that the members of the college “shall acquire a better and more perfect knowledge of theological matters in Rome and shall study the transaction of ecclesiastical affairs in the Holy See, so that each may carry to his diocese the methods of the Roman Curia, the spirit of discipline, and a true knowledge of the sacred sciences.” The two years’ residence in the college affords special opportunities for the study of canon law in theory at the Papal universities, and in practice under the higher church officials. It is for this reason that many students of the Anima are promoted, on their return home, to positions of trust and authority in their respective dioceses. The list of deserving men who, since its restoration, have gone forth from this training school, no fewer than 300 in all, includes eleven bishops and twenty university professors. In addition to the chaplains, whom the German and Austrian bishops appoint in regular succession, other priests are admitted on moderate terms, so that there are twenty-one priests now residing in the house. The college is governed by a rector, who controls the spiritual management under a Cardinal Protector (at present H.E. Cardinal Steinhueber), and the temporal, under Austrian protection, assisted by a procurator. The first rector was the well known writer and university professor, Alois Flir, the restorer of the institution, who died in 1859 as auditor of the Rota. He was succeeded by Michael Gassner, afterwards Dean of Brixen (1860–72), by Karl Jaenig of Prague (1875–87); Franz Doppelbauer, now Bishop of Linz (1887–89); Franz Vogl, now Bishop of Triest (1889–1902) and by Protonotary Joseph Lohninger of Linz (since 1902).

KERSCHBAUER, Geschichte des deutschen Nationalhospizes Anima in Rome (Vienna, 1868); GRAUS, S. Maria dell’ Anima, Grazer Kirchenschmuck (1881); STEFFENS, Das deutsche Nationalhospiz S. Maria dell’ Anima waehrend des Priester-Jubilaeums-Jahres Leos XIII (Linz, 1893); NAGLUND LANG, Mitteilungen aus dem Archiv des deutschen Nationalhospizes S. Maria dell’ Anima (Rome, 1899); SCHIDLIN, Geschichte der deutschen Nationalkirche in Rom S. Maria dell’ Anima (Freiburg, 1906).

J. SCHMIDLIN

Anima Christi

This well-known prayer dates its origin from the first half of the fourteenth century and was enriched with indulgences by Pope John XXII in the year 1330. All the manuscripts practically agree as to these two facts so there can be no doubt of their exactness. In regard to its authorship all we can say is that it was, perhaps, written by John XXII. Of this we are not certain, as this Pope has been falsely accredited with similar pious compositions, and a mistake could easily be made of confounding the one who gave the indulgence with the real author. The Anima Christi was and is still generally believed to have been composed by St. Ignatius Loyola, as he puts it at the beginning of his “Spiritual Exercises” and often refers to it. This is a mistake, as has been pointed out by many writers, since the prayer has been found in a number of prayer books printed during the youth of the saint and is in manuscripts which were written a hundred years before his birth (1491). James Mearns, the English hymnologist, found it in a manuscript of the British Museum which dates back to about 1370. In the library of Avignon there is preserved a prayer book of Cardinal Peter De Luxembourg, who died in 1387, which contains the Anima Christi in practically the same form as we have it to-day. It has also been found inscribed on one of the gates of the Alcazar of Seville, which brings us back to the times of Don Pedro the Cruel (1350–69) This prayer was so well known and so popular at the time of St. Ignatius, that he only mentions it in the first edition of his “Spiritual Exercises,” evidently supposing that the exercitant or reader already knew it. In the later editions, it was printed in full. It was by assuming that everything in the book was written by St. Ignatius that it came to be looked upon as his composition. All this has been told at length by Guido Dreves (Stimmen aus Maria-Laach LIV, 493) and B. Baesten (Précis Historiques, XXXII, 630).

Animals in Christian Art

In Christian art animal forms have always occupied a place of far greater importance than was ever accorded to them in the art of the pagan world. In the early days of Latin and Byzantine Christianity, as well as in the period of its full bloom in the Middle Ages, a prodigious number of representations of animals is found not only in monumental sculpture, but in illuminated manuscripts, in stained glass windows, and in tapestry as well. Three reasons may be given for this unexampled fondness for animal life. First, because it affords an easy medium of expressing or symbolizing a virtue or a vice, by means of the virtue or vice usually attributed to the animal represented. Secondly, because of the traditional use of animal forms as an element of decoration. And, thirdly, because of that return to the direct study of nature on the part of the medieval designers, which included, in one loving investigation, man, the lower animals, and the humblest plants. The paintings of the first period, as seen in the Catacombs, show us, usually, the lamb accompanying the Good Shepherd, a representation of the Christian soul during its earthly life. Birds, too, appear either as simple decorative elements transmitted from antique paintings, or used symbolically as in Noah’s dove, symbolical of the Christian soul released by death; the peacock, with its ancient meaning of immortality, and the phoenix, the symbol of apotheosis. The symbol of perhaps the widest distribution is the Ichthys [Fish], which since the second century has represented graphically the celebrated acrostic: “Jesous Christos Theou Uios Soter” [Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour], and so becomes the symbol of Christ in the Eucharist. Artistically, these various representations are somewhat crude and artless, and show the decadence of the pagan art of the time, although a certain trace of youthful grace hints of the coming revival.

After the recognition of the Church by Constantine, the Apocalypse is the source from which are derived most of the decorative themes of Christian Art. The lamb is now the most important of these, and its meaning is either the same as before or, more frequently perhaps, it is symbolic of Christ the expiatory victim. The dove is the Holy Spirit, and the four animals that St. John saw in Heaven (Apoc., iv, v) are used as personifications of the Four Evangelists. Under the influence of Byzantine art, a great variety of fantastic animals, such as dragons, birds with human heads, winged lions, etc., entwined themselves around the decorative forms until foreign wars and the iconoclast movement brought this period of vigorous art to an end. During the succeeding three centuries, we find merely unimportant artistic manifestations, and it is only in the Romanesque buildings that we find new types of animals. These are usually either purely fantastic or composite, that is, made up of elements of different species combined in one. Often, the subject grows out of foliage forms; and monsters are shown fighting and even devouring one another. In the spandrels of the entrance doorways, around the glorified Christ, the lion, the ox, the man, and the eagle are shown, holding the holy books. This is a favourite motif in the sculpture of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Sometimes the jaws of a monster figure the entrance of Hell, into which sinners are plunged.

With the beginning of the thirteenth century Gothic art affords the greatest number and the best representations of animal forms. The great cathedrals, especially those of the Isle of France, where sculpture reached its highest point of excellence, are a sort of encyclopedia of the knowledge of the time. They show, therefore, examples of all the then known animals, that is, whether by legend or experience. The “bestiaries,” popular treatises on natural history which exhibit a curious admixture of truth and error, are fully illustrated in the cathedrals in the stone carving of the capitals, the parapets, and the tops of the buttresses, and in the woodwork of the stalls. For example, one readily recalls the beautiful birds of prey, the wild boars, and the feline forms of the towers of Notre Dame in Paris; the birds covered with draperies, or the elephants at Reims; the enormous oxen of the towers of Laon placed there in memory of the patient service of those animals during the construction of the Cathedral. With the animals of the country, domestic or wild, those of remote parts of the earth, known by a few specimens, are also represented. Thus we find the lion, the elephant, apes, etc.; legendary animals also, like the unicorn, the basilisk, the dragon, and the griffin. Imaginary creatures are also frequent, and the gargoyles alone display such a variety of them as to make us wonder at the fecundity of the artists of the period. Viollet-le-Duc remarks that he does not know, in France, two gargoyles alike. These unreal figures are, nevertheless, given such a semblance of reality as to make them appear faithful copies of nature. The failure in modern times to rival these productions of medieval sculpture, while avoiding a literal copy of them, but increases our appreciation of their value. The symbolism which usually attaches to the various animals is derived for the most part from the “bestiaries.” Thus, for the lion, strength, vigilance, and courage; for the siren, voluptuousness; for the pelican, charity. The four animals which symbolize the leading characteristics of each of the Four Evangelists become more and more an accessory used to characterize the figure of the Evangelists themselves.

In the same way many saints, when not characterized by the instruments of their martyrdom, are accompanied by animals which identify them; as, St. Roche, with a dog; St. Hubert, with a stag; St. Jerome, with a lion; St. Peter, with a cock; St. Paul the Hermit, with a raven, etc. The Bible, also, gives some motives, as the ram of Isaac, the golden calf, the brazen serpent. The artistic value of such varied productions, whether painted or carved, cannot be too much praised or studied. With the fourteenth century, animals become less frequent in iconography. The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries use them again, but copied more closely from life, usually of small size, and without any intention of symbolism. One finds now rats, snakes, rabbits, snails, lizards, etc. With the Renaissance, animals were nearly banished, except as an accessory to the human figure. Modern Christian art, being mostly temporary revivals of one or another period of the art of other ages, takes the symbols and decoration of the period under revival, without adding anything new. The study of animals, therefore, though adding much of value and interest to profane art, did not produce any results in church sculpture or painting worth mentioning.

NORTHCOTE AND BROWNLOW, Roma Sotterranea (London, 1870); LÜBKE, History of Sculpture (London, 1872); BARBET DE JOUY, Les mosaiques chrétiennes (Paris, 1863); BOND, Gothic Architecture in England (London, 1906); VIOLLET-LE-DUC, Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XI au XVI siècle (Paris, 1858); DE BAUDOT, La sculpture française au moyen âge et la renaissance (Paris, 1885).

PAUL P. CRET

Animals in the Bible

The Bible makes no pretensions to science; we must not therefore expect to meet in its pages with any kind of elaborate classification, whether zoological or otherwise. The sacred books, on the other hand, were composed by, and for a people almost exclusively given to husbandry and pastoral life, hence in constant communication with nature. To such a people references to the animal world, animal customs, etc., are quite natural, and the more animals abounded in the country, the more frequent and varied these allusions may be expected to be. In point of fact, the names of a large number of animals—over a hundred and twenty species—occur in the Scriptures. A closer examination of the way in which references to animals are introduced, the frequency of allusions to certain species, and the date of the documents in which they are found, may give a fair idea of the conditions of the country at the different stages of its history. The species, for instance, called in Hebrew re’em, very probably the aurochs, or wild ox, totally disappeared about the time of the Babylonian captivity; the wild ass, the lion, and a few others long ago became extinct in Palestine; other species are now so scarce that they could hardly afford a familiar subject for illustration. The variety of animals spoken of in the Bible is remarkable; the ostrich, for instance, a denizen of the torrid regions, and the camel, of the waterless districts around Palestine, are mentioned side by side with the roebuck and deer of the woody summits of Lebanon. This variety, greater probably in Palestine than in any other country in the same latitude, should be attributed to the great extremes of elevation and temperature in this small country. Furthermore, that the Palestinian fauna is not now as rich as it used to be during the Biblical times, must not be wondered at; the land, now bare, was then well wooded, especially on the hills east of the Jordan; hence the changes. Although no regular classification is to be sought for in the Bible, it is easy to see, however, that the animal creation is there practically divided into four classes, according to the four different modes of locomotion; among the animals, some walk, others fly, many are essentially swimmers, several crawl on the ground. This classification, more empiric than logical, would not by any means satisfy a modern scientist; it must be known, however, if we wish fairly to understand the language of the Scriptures on the matters connected therewith. The first class, the behemôth, or beasts, in the Biblical parlance, includes all quadrupeds living on the earth, with the exception of the amphibia and such small animals as moles, mice, and the like. Beasts are divided into cattle, or domesticated (behemoth in the strict sense), and beasts of the field, i. e. wild animals. The fowls, which constitute the second class, include not only the birds, but also “all things that fly,” even if they “go upon four feet,” as the different kinds of locusts. Of the many “living beings that swim in the water” no particular species is mentioned; the “great whales” are set apart in that class, while the rest are divided according as they have, or have not, fins and scales (Lev., xi, 9, 10). The reptiles, or “creeping things,” form the fourth class. References to this class are relatively few; however, it should be noticed that the “creeping things” include not only the reptiles properly so called, but also all short-legged animals or insects which seem to crawl rather than to walk, such as moles, lizards, etc. From a religious viewpoint, all these animals are divided into two classes, clean and unclean, according as they can, or cannot, be eaten. We shall presently give, in alphabetical order, the list of the animals whose names occur in the Bible; whenever required for the identification, the Hebrew name will be indicated, as well as the specific term used by naturalists. This list will include even such names as griffon, lamia, siren or unicorn, which, though generally applied to fabulous beings, have nevertheless, on account of some misunderstandings or educational prejudices of the Greek and Latin translators, crept into the versions, and have been applied to real animals. (In the following list D.V. stands for Douay Version, A.V. and R.V. for Authorized and Revised Version respectively.)

ADDAX.—A kind of antelope (antilope addax) with twisted horns; it very probably corresponds to the dîshõn of the Hebrews and the pygarg of the divers translations (Deut., xiv, 5).

ADDER.—A poisonous snake of the genus Vipera. The word, unused in the D.V., stands in the A.V. for four different Hebrew names of serpents.

ANT. (Prov., vi, 6; xxx, 25).—Over twelve species of ants exist in Palestine; among them the ants of the genus Atta are particularly common, especially the atta barbara, of dark colour, and the atta structor, a brown species. These, with the pheidole megacephala, are, unlike the ants of northern countries, accustomed to lay up stores of corn for winter use. Hence the allusions of the wise man in the two above-mentioned passages of Proverbs.

ANTELOPE.—The word, first applied as a qualification to the gazelle, on account of the lustre and soft expression of its eye, has become the name of a genus of ruminant quadrupeds intermediate between the deer and the goat. Four species are mentioned in the Bible:

(1) the dîshon (D.V. pygarg; Deut., xiv, 5), commonly identified with the antilope addax;

(2) the çebhî (Deut., xii, 15, etc.; D.V. roe) or gazelle, antilope dorcas;

(3) the the’ô (Deut., xiv, 5; D.V. wild goat; Is., li, 20, D.V. wild ox), which seems to be the bubale (antilope bubalis); and

(4) the yáhmûr (Deut., xiv, 5), the name of which is given by the Arabs to the roebuck of Northern Syria and to the oryx (the white antelope, antilope oryx) of the desert.

APE.—Nowhere in the Bible is the ape supposed to be indigenous to Palestine. Apes are mentioned with gold, silver, ivory, and peacocks among the precious things imported by Solomon from Tharsis (III K., x, 22; II Par., ix, 21).

ASP.—This word, which occurs ten times in D.V., stands for four Hebrew names:

(1) Péthén [Deut., xxxii, 33; Job, xx, 14, 16; Ps., lvii (Hebr., lviii), 5; Is., xi, 8]. From several allusions both to its deadly venom (Deut., xxxii, 33), and to its use by serpent-charmers [Ps., lvii (Hebr., lviii), 5, 6], it appears that the cobra (naja aspis) is most probably signified. Safely to step upon its body, or even linger by the hole where it coils itself, is manifestly a sign of God’s particular protection [Ps., xc (Hebr., xci), 13; Is., xi, 8]. Sophar, one of Job’s friends, speaks of the wicked as sucking the venom of péthén, in punishment whereof the food he takes shall be turned within him into the gall of this poisonous reptile (Job, xx, 16, 14).

(2) Akhshûbh, mentioned only once in the Hebrew Bible, namely Ps., cxl (Vulg., cxxxix), 4, but manifestly alluded to in Ps., xiii, 3, and Rom., iii, 13, seems to have been one of the most highly poisonous kinds of viper, perhaps the toxicoa, also called echis arenicola or scytale of the Pyramids, very common in Syria and North Africa.

(3) Sháhál is also found only once to signify a snake, Ps., xci (Vulg., xc), 13; but what particular kind of snake we are unable to determine. The word Sháhál might possibly, owing to some copyist’s mistake, have crept into the place of another name now impossible to restore.

(4) çphônî (Is., lix, 5), “the hisser,” generally rendered by basilisk in ID.V. and in ancient translations, the latter sometimes calling it regulus. This snake was deemed so deadly that, according to the common saying, its hissing alone, even its look, was fatal. It was probably a small viper, perhaps a cerastes, possibly the daboia zanthina, according to Cheyne.

ASS.—The ass has always enjoyed a marked favour above all other beasts of burden in Palestine. This is evidenced by two very simple remarks. While, on the one hand, mention of this animal occurs over a hundred and thirty times in Holy Writ; on the other hand, the Hebrew vocabulary possesses, to designate the ass, according to its colour, sex, age, etc., a supply of words in striking contrast with the ordinary penury of the sacred language. Of these various names the most common is hamôr, “reddish,” the hair of the Eastern ass being generally of that colour. White asses, more rare, were also more appreciated and reserved for the use of the nobles (Judges, v, 10). The custom was introduced very early, as it seems, and still prevails, to paint the most shapely and valuable donkeys in stripes of different colours. In the East the ass is much larger and finer than in other countries, and in several places the pedigrees of the best breeds are carefully preserved. Asses have always been an important item in the resources of the Eastern peoples, and we are repeatedly told in the Bible about the herds of these animals owned by the patriarchs (Gen., xii, 16; xxx, 43; xxxvi, 24, etc.), and wealthy Israelites (I K., ix, 3; 1 Par., xxvii, 30, etc.). Hence the several regulations brought forth by Israel’s lawgiver on this subject: the neighbour’s ass should not be coveted (Exod., xx, 17); moreover, should the neighbour’s stray ass be found, it should be taken care of, and its owner assisted in tending this part of his herd (Deut., xxii, 3, 4). The ass serves in the East for many purposes. Its even gait and surefootedness, so well suited to the rough paths of the Holy Land, made it at all times the most popular of all the animals for riding in those hilly regions (Gen., xxii, 3; Luke, xix, 30). Neither was it ridden only by the common people, but also by persons of the highest rank (Judges, v, 10; x, 4; II K., xvii, 23; xix, 26, etc.). No wonder therefore that Our Lord about to come triumphantly to Jerusalem, commanded His disciples to bring Him an ass and her colt; no lesson of humility, as is sometimes asserted, but the affirmation of the peaceful character of His kingdom should be sought there. Although the Scripture speaks of “saddling” the ass, usually no saddle was used by the rider; a cloth spread upon the back of the ass and fastened by a strap was all the equipment. Upon this cloth the rider sat, a servant usually walking alongside. Should a family journey, the women and children would ride the asses, attended by the father (Exod., iv, 20). This mode of travelling has been popularized by Christian painters, who copied the eastern customs in their representations of the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt. Scores of passages in the Bible allude to asses carrying burdens; the Gospels, at least in the Greek text, speak of millstones run by asses (Matt., xviii, 6, Mark, ix, 41; Luke, xvii, 2); Josephus and the Egyptian monuments teach us that this animal was used for threshing wheat; finally, we repeatedly read in the O.T. of asses hitched to a plough (Deut, xxii, 10; Is., xxx, 24, etc.), and in reference to this custom, the Law forbade ploughing with an ox and an ass together (Deut., xxii, 10). From Is., xxi, 7, confirmed by the statements of Greek writers, we learn that part of the cavalry force in the Persian army rode donkeys; we should perhaps understand from IV K., vii, 7, that the Syrian armies followed the same practice; but no such custom seems to have ever prevailed among the Hebrews. With them the ass was essentially for peaceful use, the emblem of peace, as the horse was the symbol of war. The flesh of the ass was unclean and forbidden by the Law. In some particular circumstances, however, no law could prevail over necessity, and we read that during Joram’s reign, when Benadad besieged Samaria, the famine was so extreme in this city, that the head of an ass was sold for fourscore pieces of silver (IV K., vi, 25).

ASS’S COLT.—This is more specially the symbol of peace and meek obedience (John, xii, 15).

ASS, WILD, corresponds in the O.T. to two words, péré and arôdh. Whether these two names refer to different species, or are, the one, the genuine Hebrew name, the other, the Aramaic equivalent for the same animal, is uncertain. Both signify one of the wildest and most untamable animals. The wild ass is larger and more shapely than the domestic one, and outruns the fleetest horse. Its untamableness joined to its nimbleness made it a fit symbol for the wild and plunder-loving Ismael (Gen., xvi, 12). The wild ass, extinct in western Asia, still exists in central Asia and the deserts of Africa.

ATTACUS (Lev., xi, 22).—Instead of this Latin word, the A.V. reads bald-locust. According to the tradition enshrined in the Talmud, the common truxalis, a locust with a very long smooth head is probably signified.

AUROCHS, or wild ox (urus, bos primigenius), is undoubtedly the rimu of the Assyrian inscriptions, and consequently corresponds to the re’em or rêm of the Hebrews. The latter word is translated sometimes in our D.V. by rhinoceros (Num., xxiii, 22; xxiv, 8; Deut., xxxiii, 17; Job, xxxix, 9, 10), sometimes by unicorn (Ps., xxi, 22; xxviii, 6; xci, 11; Is., xxxiv, 7). That the re’em, far from being unicorn, was a two-horned animal, is suggested by Ps., xxi, 22, and forcibly evidenced by Deut., xxxiii, 17, where its horns represent the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasses; that, moreover, it was akin to the domestic ox is shown from such parallelisms as we find in Ps., xxviii, 6, where we read, according to the critical editions of the Hebrew text: “The voice of Yahweh makes Lebanon skip like a bullock, and Sirion like a young re’em”; or Is., xxxiv, 7: “And the re’em shall go down with them, and the bulls with the mighty”; and still more convincingly by such implicit descriptions as that of Job, xxxix, 9, 10: “Shall the rêm be willing to serve thee, or will he stay at thy crib? Canst thou bind the rêm with thy thong to plough, or will he break the clods of the valleys after thee?” These references will be very clear, the last especially, once we admit the re’em is an almost untamable wild ox, which one would try in vain to submit to the same work as its domestic kin. Hence there is very little doubt that in all the above-mentioned places the word aurochs should be substituted for rhinoceros and unicorn. The aurochs is for the sacred poets a familiar emblem of untamed strength and ferocity. It no longer exists in western Asia.

BABOON, a kind of dog-faced, long-haired monkey, dwelling among ruins (gen. Cynocephalus); it was an object of worship for the Egyptians. Some deem it to be the “hairy one” spoken of in Is., xiii, 21 and xxxiv, 14, but it is very doubtful whether it ever existed west of the Euphrates.

BADGER.—No mention of the badger (meles taxus) is found in the D.V., whereas the A.V. regularly gives it as the English equivalent for táhásh. The skin of the táhásh is repeatedly spoken of as used for the outer cover of the tabernacle and the several pieces of its furniture. The old translations, and the D.V. after them, understood the word táhásh to mean a color (violet; Ex., xxv, 5; xxvi, 14; xxxv, 7, 23; xxxvi, 19; Num., iv, 10, 25; Ezech., xvi, 10); but this is a misrepresentation; so also is the rendering of the A.V.; for though the badger is common in Palestine, yet the Hebrew name most probably indicates the dugong (halicore hemprichii or halicore tabernaculi), a very large species of the seal family living in the Red Sea, the skin of which is used to the present day for such purposes as those alluded to in the Bible.

BASILISK occurs in the D.V. as an equivalent for several Hebrew names of snakes:

(1) Péthén (Ps. xc, 13), the cobra; had the Latin and English translators been more consistent they would have rendered this Hebrew word here, as in the other places, by asp;

(2) Céphá’ and Cíphe ‘ônî (Prov., xxiii, 32; Is., xi. 8; xiv, 29; Jer., viii, ’17;

(3) ‘éphe’éh (Is., lix, 5), a kind of viper impossible to determine, or perhaps the echis arenicola;

(4) flying sãrãph (Is., xiv, 29; xxx, 6), a winged serpent (?), possibly also a reptile like the draco fimbriatus, which, having long ribs covered with a fringe-like skin, is able to glide through the air for short distances.

BAT.—The bat, fourteen species of which still exist in Palestine is reckoned among unclean “winged things” (Lev., xi, 19; Deut., xiv, 18). Its abode is generally in dark and desolate places such as ruins and caverns.

BEAR.—The bear spoken of in the Bible is the ursus syriacus, scarcely different from the brown bear of Europe. Since the destruction of the forests, it is now rarely seen south of Lebanon and Hermon, where it is common. Not unfrequently met in the Holy Land during the O.T. times, it was much dreaded on account of its ferocious and destructive instincts; to dare it was accordingly a mark of uncommon courage (I K., xvii, 34–36). Its terror-striking roars and its fierceness, especially when robbed of its cubs, are repeatedly alluded to.

BEAST, WILD.—The expression occurs twice in the D.V., but much oftener in the A.V., and R. V., where it is in several places a substitute for the awkward “beast of the field,” the Hebrew name of wild animals at large. The first time we read of “wild beasts” in the D.V., it fairly stands for the Hebrew word zîz [Ps. lxxix (Hebr., lxxx), 14], albeit the “singular wild beast” is a clumsy translation. The same Hebrew word in Ps. xlix, 11, at least for consistency’s sake, should have been rendered in the same manner; “the beauty of the field” must consequently be corrected into “wild beast.” In Is., xiii, 21, “wild beasts” is an equivalent for the Hebr. Ciyyîm, i. e. denizens of the desert. This word in different places has been translated in divers manners: demons (Is., xxxiv, 14), dragons (Ps. lxxiii, 14; Jer., 1, 39); it possibly refers to the hyena.

BEE.—Palestine, according to Scripture, is a land flowing with honey (Ex., iii, 8). Its dry climate, its rich abundance, and variety of aromatic flowers, and its limestone rocks render it particularly adapted for bees. No wonder then that honey bees, both wild and hived, abound there. All the different species known by the names of bombus, nomia, andrena, osmia, megachile, anthophora, are widely spread throughout the country. The hived honey bee of Palestine, apis fasciata, belongs to a variety slightly different from ours, characterized by yellow stripes on the abdomen. Wild bees are said to live not only in rocks [Ps. lxxx (Hebr., lxxxi), 17], but in hollow trees (I K., xiv, 25), even in dried carcasses (Judges, xiv, 8). Syrian and Egyptian hives are made of a mash of clay and straw for coolness. In O.T. times, honey was an article of export (Gen., xliii, 11; Ezech,, xxvii, 17). Bees are spoken of in Holy Writ as a term of comparison for a numerous army relentlessly harassing their enemies. Debôrah, the Hebrew name for bee, was a favourite name for women.

BEETLE, given by A.V. (Lev., xi, 22) as an equivalent for Hebrew, árbéh, does not meet the requirements of the context: “Hath the legs behind longer wherewith it hoppeth upon the earth,” any more than the bruchus of D.V., some species of locust, the locusta migratoria being very likely intended.

BEHEMOTH, is generally translated by “great beasts”; in its wider signification it includes all mammals living on earth, but in the stricter sense is applied to domesticated quadrupeds at large. However in Job, xl, 10, where it is left untranslated and considered as a proper name, it indicates a particular animal. The description of this animal has long puzzled the commentators. Many of them now admit that it represents the hippopotamus, so well known to the ancient Egyptians; it might possibly correspond as well to the rhinoceros.

BIRD.—No other classification of birds than into clean and unclean is given. The Jews, before the captivity, had no domestic fowls except pigeons . Although many birds are mentioned, there occur few allusions to their habits. Their instinct of migration, the snaring or netting them, and the caging of song birds are referred to.

BIRD, DYED.—So does the English version, Jer., xii, 9, wrongly interpret the Hebrew áyit. which means beast of prey, sometimes also bird of prey.

BIRD, SINGING.—This singing bird of Soph., ii, 14, according to the D.V., owes its origin to a mistranslation of the original, which most probably should be read: “And their voice shall sing at the window”; unless by a mistake of some scribe, the word qôl, voice, has been substituted for the name of some particular bird.

BIRD, SPECKLED, Hebrew çãbhûá (Jer., xii, 9). A much discussed translation. The interpretation of the English versions, however meaningless it may seem to some, is supported by the Targum, the Syriac, and St. Jerome. In spite of these authorities many modern scholars prefer to use the word hyena, given by the Septuagint and confirmed by Ecclesiasticus, xiii, 22 as well as by the Arabic (dábúh) and rabbinical Hebrew (çebhôá), names of the hyena.

BISON, According to several authors, the re’em of the Bible. It belongs to the same genus as the aurochs, but being indigenous to America (whence its name, bos americanus), and specifically different from the aurochs, cannot possibly have been known by the Hebrews.

BITTERN (botháurus vulgaris), a shy, solitary, wading bird related to the heron and inhabiting the recesses of swamps, where its startling, booming cry at night gives a frightening impression of desolation. In the D.V., bittern stands for Hebr. qã’ãth (Lev., xi, 18; Is., xxxiv, 11; Soph., ii, 14), although by some inconsistency the same Hebrew word is rendered Deut., xiv, 17, by cormorant, and Ps. ci (Hebr., cii), 7, by pelican. The pelican meets all the requirements of all the passages where qã’ãth is mentioned, and would perhaps be a better translation than bittern.

BLAST certainly, designates, Deut., xxviii, 42, a voracious insect; the Hebrew çelãçál, “chirping,” suggests that the cricket was possibly meant and might be substituted for blast. In Ps. lxxvii (Hebr., lxxviii), 46, blast stands for hãsîl, “the destroyer,” perhaps the locust in its caterpillar state, in which it is most destructive.

BOAR, WILD.—The only allusion to this animal is found Ps. lxxix (Hebr., lxxx), 14; however, the wild boar was undoubtedly always, as it is now, common in Palestine, having its lair in the woods, and most destructive to vineyards.

BRUCHUS.—Though it occurs once (Lev., xi, 22) as an equivalent for Hebrew, ârbéh (probably the locusta migratoria), the word bruchus is the regular interpretation for yéléq, “licker.” The Biblical bruchus may be fairly identified with the beetle, or some insect akin to it. Anyway the yéléq of Jer., li, 14, 27, should have been rendered in the same manner as everywhere else.

BUBALE, antilope bubalis, or alcephalus bubalis, which should not be confounded with the bubale, bos bubalus, is probably signified by the Hebrew, the’ô, interpreted by the Douay translators, wild goat, in Deut., xiv, 5, and wild ox, Is., li, 20. It still exists in Palestine, but was formerly much more common than now.

BUFFALO (bos bubalus).—So does the D.V. translate the Hebrew, yáhmûr, III K., iv, 23 (Hebr., I K., v, 3). Being a denizen of marshy and swampy lands, the buffalo must have been scarcely known by the Hebrews. Moreover, its coarse, unpleasant smelling flesh seems to exclude the identification with the animal referred to in the above mentioned passage, where we should probably read roebuck.

BUFFLE.—Another word for buffalo, D.V., Deut., xiv, 5. According to good authorities, the oryx, or white antelope, might be here intended, the Hebrew word yáhmûr possibly meaning, as its Arabic equivalent does, both the roebuck and the oryx.

BULL.—A symbol of fierce and relentless adversaries [Ps. xxi (Hebr., xxii), 13].

BULLOCK.—The bullock, as yet unaccustomed to the yoke, is an image of Israel’s insubordinate mind before he was subdued by the captivity (Jer., xxxi, 18).

BUZZARD (Hebr., rã’ah).—Probably the ringtail of D.V. and the glede of A,V. (Deut., xiv, 13); possibly, through a scribe’s error, might be identified with the kite, dã’ah, of Lev,, xi, 14. The buzzard, three species of which exist in Palestine, has always been common there.

CALF, One of the most popular representations of the deity among the Chanaanites. The calf is, in Biblical poetry, a figure for vexing and pitiless foes [Ps., xxi (Hebr., xxii), 13]. The fatted calf was a necessary feature, so to say, of a feast dinner.

CAMEL, a prominent domestic animal of the East without the existence of which life in the Arabian deserts would be impossible. It was perhaps the first beast of burden applied to the service of man; anyway it is mentioned as such in the Biblical records as early as the time of Abraham. It constituted a great element in the riches of the early patriarchs. There are two species of camel: the one-humped camel (camelus dromedarius), and the two-humped camel (camelus bactrianus). The camel is used for riding as well as for carrying loads; its furniture is a large frame placed on the humps, to which cradles or packs are attached. In this manner was all the merchandise of Assyria and Egypt transported. But the camel is appreciated for other reasons: it may be hitched to a wagon or to a plough, and in fact is not unfrequently yoked together with tIme ass or the ox; the female supplies abundantly her master with a good milk; camel’s hair is woven into a rough cloth wherewith tents and Cloaks are made; finally its flesh, albeit coarse and dry, may be eaten. With the Jews, however, the camel was reckoned among the unclean animals.

CAMELOPARDALUS, occurs only once in the D.V. (Deut., xiv, 5), as a translation of zémér, The word, a mere transcription of the Latin and the Greek, is a combination of the names of the camel and the leopard, and indicates the giraffe. But this translation, as well as that of the A.V. (chamois), is doubtless erroneous; neither the giraffe nor the chamois ever lived in Palestine. The wild sheep or mouflon, which still lingers in Cyprus and Arabia Petrala, is very likely intended.

CANKERWORM, the locust in its larva state, in which it is most voracious. So does A.V. render the Hebrew, gãzám; the word palmerworm, given by the D.V. seems better.

CAT.—Mention of this animal occurs only once in the Bible, namely Bar., vi, 21. The original text of Baruch being lost, we possess no indication as to what the Hebrew name of the cat may have been. Possibly there was not any; for although the cat was very familiar to the Egyptians, it seems to have been altogether unknown to the Jews, as well as to the Assyrians and Babylonians, even to the Greeks and Romans before the conquest of Egypt. These and other reasons have led some commentators to believe that the word cat, in the above cited place of Baruch, might not unlikely stand for another name now impossible to restore.

CATTLE.—Very early in the history of mankind, animals were tamed and domesticated, to be used in agriculture, for milk, for their flesh, and especially for sacrifices. Many words in Hebrew expressed the different ages and sexes of cattle, West of the Jordan the cattle were generally stall-fed; in the plains and hills south and east they roamed in a half-wild state; such were the most famous “bulls of Basan.”

CERASTES (Hebr., shephîphõn) should be substituted in D.V. for the colourless “serpent,” Gen., xlix, 17. The identification of the shephîphõn with the deadly horned cerastes (cerastes hasselquistii or vipera cerastes) is evidenced by the Arabic name of the latter (shúffon), and its customs in perfect agreement with the indications of the Bible. The cerastes, one of the most venomous of snakes, is in the habit of coiling itself in little depressions such as camels’ footmarks, and suddenly darting on any passing animal.

CHAMELEON (Hebr., kôâh).—Mentioned Lev., xi, 30, with the mole (Hebr., tínshéméth). In spite of the authority of the ancient translations, it is now generally admitted that the tínshéméth is the chameleon, very common in Palestine; whereas the kôâh is a kind of large lizard, perhaps the land monitor (psammosaurus scincus).

CHAMOIS (antilope rupicapra) is now totally unknown in western Asia, where it very probably never existed. The opinion of those who see it in the Hebrew zémér (Deut., xiv, 5) should consequently be entirely discarded (see Camelopardalus).

CHARADRION (Hebr., anãphah, Lev., xi, 19; Deut., xiv, 18) would be the plover; but it rather stands here for the heron, all the species of which (this is the sense of the expression “according to its kind”), numerous in Palestine, should be deemed unclean.

CHEROGRILLUS (Lev., xi, 5; Deut., xiv, 7), a mere transliteration of the Greek name of the porcupine, corresponds to the Hebrew shãphãn, translated, Ps. ciii (Hebr., civ), 18, by irchin, and Prov., xxx, 26, by rabbit. As St. Jerome noticed it, the shãphãn is not the porcupine, but a very peculiar animal of about the same size, dwelling among the rocks, and in holes, and called in Palestine “bear-rat,” on account of some resemblance with these two quadrupeds. We call it coney, or daman (hyrax syriacus). Its habit of lingering among the rocks is alluded to, Ps. ciii, 18; its wisdom and defencelessness, Prov., xxx, 24–26. “It cannot burrow, for it has no claws, only nails half developed; but it lies in holes in the rocks, and feeds only at dawn and dusk, always having sentries posted, at the slightest squeak from which the whole party instantly disappears. The coney is not a ruminant (cf. Lev., xi, 5), but it sits working its jaws as if re-chewing. It is found sparingly in most of the rocky districts, and is common about Sinai” (Tristram).

COBRA (naja aspis), most likely the deadly snake called péthén by the Hebrews, found in Palestine and Egypt and used by serpent-charmers.

COCHINEAL (coccus ilicis).—A hemiptera homoptera insect very common on the Syrian holm-oak, from the female of which the crimson dye (kermes) is prepared. The complete name in Hebrew is equivalent to “scarlet insect,” the “insect” being not unfrequently omitted in the translations.

COCK, HEN.—Domestic poultry are not mentioned till after the captivity. No wonder, consequently, that the three times we meet with the word cock in the D.V. it is owing to a misinterpretation of the primitive text.

(1) Job, xxxviii, 36, the word sékhwi means soul, heart: “Who hath put wisdom in the heart of man? and who gave his soul understanding?”

(2) Prov., xxx, 31, zãrzîr should be translated as “hero.”

(3) Is., xxii, 17, where the word gébhér, great, strong man, has been rendered according to some rabbinical conceptions.

In Our Lord’s time domestic poultry, introduced from India through Persia, had become common, and their well-known habits gave rise to familiar expressions, and afforded good and easy illustrations (Mark, xiii, 35; xiv, 30, etc.). Jesus Christ compared His care for Jerusalem to that of a hen for her brood.

COCKATRICE.—A fabulous serpent supposed to be produced from a cock’s egg brooded by a serpent; it was alleged that its hissing would drive away all other serpents, and that its breath, even its look, was fatal. The word is used in A.V. as the regular equivalent for Hebrew, çíphe’ônî.

COLT.—See ASS’S COLT (sup.).

CONEY.—See Cherogrillus (sup.).

CORAL, Hebrew, rãmôth, should probably be substituted, Job, xxviii, 18, for “eminent things,” and Ezech., xxvii, 16, for “silk” in the D.V. The coral dealt with at Tyre was that of the Red Sea or even of the Indian Ocean; coral seems to have been scarcely known among the Jews.

CORMORANT (Lev., xi, 17; Deut., xiv, 17), very frequently met with on the coasts, rivers, and lakes of Palestine, probably corresponds to the shãlãk of the Hebrew, although this name, which means “the plunger,” might be applied to some other plunging bird.

COW.—See CATTLE (sup.).

CRANE (grus cinerea).—The word does not occur in D.V., but seems the best translation of Hebrew, ãghûr, read in two passages: Is., xxxviii, 14, and Jer., viii, 7, where its loud voice and migratory instincts are alluded to. There is little doubt that the two above indicated places of D.V., where we read “swallow,” should be corrected.

CRICKET, a good translation for Hebr., çelãçál, “chirping,” which besides the feature suggested by the etymology, is described Deut., xxviii, 42, as a voracious insect. See BLAST (sup.).

CROCODILE.—We do not read this word in any other place than Lev., xi, 29 (D.V.), where it corresponds to the Hebrew, çãb; the animal is, nevertheless, oftener spoken of in the Holy Books under cover of several metaphors: ráhâb, “the proud” (Is., li, 9); tánnîn, “the stretcher” (Ezech., xxix, 3); líweyãthãn (leviathan) [Ps. lxxiii (Hebr., lxxiv), 14; Job, xl, 20, xli, 25]. See DRAGON (inf.). The crocodile (crocodilus vulgaris) is still found in great numbers, not only in the upper Nile, but also in Palestine. A remarkable description of the crocodile has been drawn by the author of the Book of Job. He depicts the difficulty of capturing, snaring, or taming him, his vast size, his impenetrable scales, his flashing eyes, his snorting, and his immense strength. Dreadful as he is, the crocodile was very early regarded and worshipped as a deity by the Egyptians. He is, in the Bible, the emblem of the people of Egypt and their Pharao, sometimes even of all Israel’s foes.

CUCKOO, according to some, would be the bird called in Hebrew shâhâph (Lev., xi, 16; Deut., xiv, 15), and there reckoned among the unclean birds. Two species, the cuculus canorus, and the oxylophus glandarius live in the Holy Land; however there is little probability that the cuckoo is intended in the mentioned passages, where we should perhaps see the shear-water and the various species of sea-gulls.

DABOIA ZANTHINA, See Basilisk (sup.).

DAMAN.—See Cherogrillus (sup.).

DEER.—(Hebr., áyyãl). Its name is frequently read in the Scriptures, and its habits have afforded many allusions or comparisons, which fact supposes that the deer was not rare in Palestine. Its handsome form, its swiftness, its shyness, the love of the roe for her fawns, are alluded to; it seems from Prov., v, 19 and some other indirect indications that the words áyyãl and áyyãlah (deer and hind) were terms of endearment most familiar between lovers.

DEMONS (Is., xxxiv, 14).—So does D. V, translate çíyyîm; it is certainly a mistake. The word at issue is generally believed to refer to the hyena (hyœna striata), still found everywhere in caves and tombs, So also is the word “devils” of Bar., iv, 35, We possess no longer the Hebrew text of the latter; but it possibly contained the same word; anyway, “hyena” is unquestionably a far better translation than the mere meaningless “devils.”

DIPSAS.—The D, V., following the Vulgate (Deut., viii, 15) thereby means a serpent whose bite causes a mortal thirst; but this interpretation seems to come from a misunderstanding suggested by the Septuagint; the original writer most likely intended there to mean “drought,” as the A.V. rightly puts it, and not any kind of serpent.

DOG.—The dog in the East does not enjoy the companionship and friendship of man as in the western countries. Its instinct has been cultivated only in so far as the protecting of the flocks and camps against wild animals is concerned. In the towns and villages it roams in the streets and places, of which it is the ordinary scavenger; packs of dogs in a half-wild state are met with in the cities and are not unfrequently dangerous for men. For this reason the dog has always been, and is still looked upon with loathing and aversion, as filthy and unclean. With a very few exceptions, whenever the dog is spoken of in the Bible (where it is mentioned over forty times), it is with contempt, to remark either its voracious instincts, or its fierceness, or its loathsomeness; it was regarded as the emblem of lust, and of uncleanness in general. As the Mohammedans, to the present day, term Christians “dogs,” so did the Jews of old apply that infamous name to Gentiles.

DOVE (Hebr., yônah).—Though distinguishing it from tôr, the turtle-dove, the Jews were perfectly aware of their natural affinity and speak of them together. The dove is mentioned in the Bible oftener than any other bird (over fifty times); this comes both from the great number of doves flocking in Palestine, and of the favour they enjoy among the people. The dove is first spoken of in the record of the flood (Gen., viii, 8–12); later on we see that Abraham offered up some in sacrifice, which would indicate that the dove was very early domesticated. In fact several allusions are made to dove-cotes, with their “windows” or latticed openings. But in olden times as well as now, besides the legions of pigeons that swarm around the villages, there were many more rock-doves, “doves of the valleys,” as they are occasionally termed (Ezech., vii, 16; Cant., ii, 14; Jer., xlviii, 28), that filled the echoes of the mountain gorges with the rustling of their wings. The metallic lustre of their plumage, the swiftness of their flight, their habit of sweeping around in flocks, their plaintive coo, are often alluded to by the different sacred writers. The dark eye of the dove, encircled by a line of bright red skin, is also mentioned; its gentleness and innocence made it the type of trust and love, and, most naturally, its name was one of the most familiar terms of endearment. Our Lord spoke of the dove as a symbol of simplicity; the sum of its perfections made it a fitting emblem for the Holy Spirit.

DRAGON, a word frequently found in the translations of the Bible as substitute, so it seems, for other names of animals that the translators were unable to identify. It stands indeed for several Hebrew names:

(1) thán (Job, xxx, 29; Is., xxxiv, 13; xxxv, 7; xliii, 20; Jer., ix, 11; x, 22; xiv, 6; xlix, 33; li, 37; Mich., i, 8; Mal., i, 3), unquestionably meaning a denizen of desolate places, and generally identified with the jackal;

(2) tánnîm, in a few passages with the sense of serpent [Deut., xxxii, 33; Ps., xc (Hebr., xci), 13; Dan., xiv, 22–27), in others most likely signifying the crocodile [Ps., lxxiii (Hebr., lxxiv), 13; Is., li, 9; Ezech., xxix, 3], or even a sea-monster (Ezech., xxxii, 2), such as a whale, porpoise, or dugong, as rightly translated Lam., iv, 3, and as probably intended Ps., cxlviii, 7;

(3) líweyãthãn (leviathan), meaning both the crocodile [Ps., lxxiii (Hebr., lxxiv), 14] and sea-monster [Ps. ciii (Hebr., civ), 26];

(4) çiyyim (Ps. lxxiii, 14; Jer., 1, 39), which possibly means the hyena.

Other places, such as Esth., x, 7; xi, 6; Ecclus., xxv, 23, can be neither traced back to a Hebrew original, nor identified with sufficient probability. The author of the Apocalypse repeatedly makes mention of the dragon, by which he means “the old serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world” (Apoc., xii, 9, etc.). Of the fabulous dragon fancied by the ancients, represented as a monstrous winged serpent, with a crested head and enormous claws, and regarded as very powerful and ferocious, no mention whatever is to be found in the Bible. The word dragon, consequently, should really be blotted out of our Bibles, except perhaps Is., xiv, 29 and xxx, 6, where the draco fimbriatus is possibly spoken of. See BASILISK, 4 (sup.).

DROMEDARY.—The word so rendered, Is., lx, 6, signifies rather a swift and finely bred camel.

DUGONG.—See BADGER (sup.).

EAGLE So is generally rendered the Hebrew, néshér, but there is a doubt as to whether the eagle or some kind of vulture is intended. It seems even probable that the Hebrews did not distinguish very carefully these different large birds of prey, and that all are spoken of as though they were of one kind. Anyway, four species of eagles are known to live in Palestine: aquila chrysœtos, aquila nœvia, aquila heliaca, and circœtos gallicus. Many allusions are made to the eagle in Scripture: its inhabiting the dizziest cliffs for nesting, its keen sight, its habit of congregating to feed on the slain, its swiftness, its longevity, its remarkable care in training its young, are often referred to (see in particular Job, xxxix, 27–30). When the relations of Israel with their neighbours became more frequent, the eagle became, under the pen of the Jewish prophets and poets, an emblem first of the Assyrian, then of the Babylonian, and finally of the Persian kings.

ELEPHANT.—We learn from Assyrian inscriptions that before the Hebrews settled in Syria, there existed elephants in that country, and Tiglath-Pileser I tells us about his exploits in elephant hunting. We do not read, however, of elephants in the Bible until the Machabean times. True, III Kings speaks of ivory, or “elephants’ teeth,” as the Hebrew text puts it, yet not as indigenous, but as imported from Ophir. In the post-exilian times, especially in the books of the Machabees, elephants are frequently mentioned; they were an important element in the armies of the Seleucides. These animals were imported either from India or from Africa.

ERICIUS, a Latin name of the hedgehog, preserved in the D.V. as a translation of the Hebrew word qíppôdh (Is., xiv, 23; xxxiv, 11; Soph., ii, 14, the word urchin has been used) and qîppôz (Is., xxxiv, 15). The above identification of the qíppôdh is based both on the Greek rendering and the analogy between this Hebrew word and the Talmudic (qúppádh), Syriac (qufdô), Arabic (qúnfúd) and Ethiopian (qinfz) names of the hedgehog. Several scholars, however, discard this identification, because the hedgehog, contrary to the qíppôdh, lives neither in marshes nor ruins, and has no voice. The bittern meets all the requirements of the texts where the qíppôdh is mentioned. It should be noticed nevertheless that hedgehogs are far from rare in Palestine. As to the qîppôz of Is., xxxiv, 15, read qíppôdh by some Hebrew Manuscripts, and interpreted accordingly by the Septuagint, Vulgate and the versions derived therefrom, its identity is a much discussed question. Some, arguing from the authorities just referred to, confound it with the qíppôdh, whereas others deem it to be the arrow-snake; but besides that no such animal as arrow-snake is known to naturalists, the context seems to call for a bird.

EWE.—The Hebrew language, generally poor, shows a remarkable opulence when there is question of all things connected with pastoral life. Six names at least, with their feminines, express the different stages of development of the sheep. Its domestication goes back to the night of time, so that the early traditions enshrined in the Bible speak of the first men as shepherds. Whatever may be thought of this point, it is out of question that from the dawn of historical times down to our own, flocks have constituted the staple of the riches of the land. The ewe of Palestine is generally the ovis laticaudata, the habits of which, resembling those of all other species of sheep, are too well known to be here dwelt upon. Let it suffice to notice that scores of allusions are made in the Holy Books to these habits as well as to the different details of the pastoral life.

FALCON.—See HAWK (inf.).

FALLOW-DEER (cervus dama or dama vulgaris) believed by some to be signified by Hebrew, yáhmûr. The fallow-deer is scarce in the Holy Land and found only north of Mount Thabor. If it is mentioned at all in the Bible, it is probably ranked among the deer.

FAWN (Prov., v, 19), for Hebrew, yá’alah, feminine of yã’el which should be regularly, as it is in several passages, rendered by wild goat (ibex syriacus). See GOAT, WILD (inf.).

FAUN.—An equivalent in D.V. (Jer., 1, 39), after St. Jerome, for Hebrew, íyyîm. St. Jerome explains that they were wild beings, denizens of deserts and woods, with a hooked nose, a horned forehead, and goat feet. He translated the Hebrew by fig-faun, adding to the original the adjective ficarii, possibly following in this the pagan idea which, supposing that figs incline to lust, regarded fig-groves a well fitted abode for fauns. The same Hebrew word is rendered Is., xiii, 22 by owls, and Is., xxxiv, 14, by monsters, which shows a great perplexity on the part of the translators. The true meaning being “howlers,” seems to point out the jackal, called the “howler” by the Arabs.

FLEA, spoken of I K., xxiv, 15; xxvi, 20, as the most insignificant cause of trouble that may befall a man.

FLOCK.—The flocks of Palestine include generally both sheep and goats: “The sheep eat only the fine herbage, whereas the goats browse on what the sheep refuse. They pasture and travel together in parallel columns, but seldom intermingle more closely, and at night they always classify themselves. The goats are for the most part black, the sheep white, dappled or piebald, forming a very marked contrast . . .” (Tristram). The shepherd usually leads the flock, calling tIme sheep by their names from time to time; in his footsteps follows an old he-goat, whose stately bearing affords to the natives matter for several comparisons; the Arabs, indeed to this day, call a man of stately mien a “he-goat.” The shepherd at sunset waters his flock, folds them ordinarily in some of the many caves found on every hillside, and with trained dogs guards them at night.

FLY.—Two Hebrew words are thus translated:

(1) ‘ãrõbh is the name of the Egyptian fly of the fourth plague; this name, a collective one, though translated by dog-fly in the Septuagint, seems to signify all kinds of flies. Flies are at all times an almost insufferable nuisance; the common house-fly, with the gnat, vexes men, while gad-flies of every description tsetse, œstru, hippoboscida, tabanus marocanus, etc., infest animals.

(2) Zebhûbh is likewise the collective name of the Palestinian fly, but more specifically of the gad-fly.

Though a trifle less annoying than in Egypt, flies were, however, deemed a plague severe enough in Palestine to induce the natives to have recourse to the power of a special god, Bá’ál-zebhûbh, the master of the flies, that they and their cattle be protected against that scourge.

FOWL.—This word which, in its most general sense, applies to anything that flies in the air (Gen., i, 20, 21), and which frequently occurs in the Bible with this meaning, is also sometimes used in a narrower sense, as, for instance, III K., iv, 23, where it stands for all fatted birds that may be reckoned among the delicacies of a king’s table; so likewise Gen., xv, 11 and Is., xviii, 6, where it means birds of prey in general. In this latter signification allusions are made to their habit of perching on bare or dead trees, or of flocking together in great numbers.

FOX.—Thus is usually rendered the Hebrew, shû’ãl, which signifies both fox and jackal, even the latter more often than the former. The fox, however, was well known by the ancient Hebrews, and its cunning was as proverbial among them as among us (Ezech., xiii, 4; Luke, xiii, 32).

FROG.—Though not rare in Palestine, this word is only mentioned in the O.T. in connection with the second plague of Egypt. Two species of frogs are known to live in the Holy Land: the rana esculenta, or common edible frog, and the hyla arborea, or green tree-frog. The former throngs wherever there is water. In Apoc., xvi, 13, the frog is the emblem of unclean spirits.

GAZELLE (Hebr., çebî, i. e. beauty) has been known at all times as one of the most graceful of all animals. Several species still exist in Palestine. Its different characteristics, its beauty of form, its swiftness, its timidity, the splendour and meekness of its eye, are in the present time, as well as during the age of the O.T. writers, the subjects of many comparisons. However, the name of tIme gazelle is scarcely, if at all, to be found in the Bible; in its stead we read roe, hart, or deer. Like a few other names of graceful and timid animals, the word gazelle has always been in the East a term of endearment in love. It was also a woman’s favourite name (I Par., viii, 9; IV K., xii, 1; II Par., xxiv, 1; Acts, ix, 36).

GECKO.—Probable translation of the anãqah of the Hebrews, generally rendered in our versions by shrew-mouse, for which it seems it should be substituted. The gecko, ptyodactylus gecko of the naturalists, is common in Palestine.

GIER-EAGLE.—So does A.V. render the Hebrew, rãhãm (Lev., xi, 18) or rãhãmah (Deut., xiv, 17). By the gier-eagle, the Egyptian vulture (neophron percnopterus), or Pharao’s hen, is generally believed to be signified. However, whether this bird should be really recognized in the Hebrew, rãhãm, is not easy to decide; for while, on the one hand, the resemblance of the Arabic name for the Egyptian vulture with the Hebrew word rãhãm seems fairly to support the identification, the mention of the rãhãm in a list of wading birds, on the other hand, casts a serious doubt on its correctness.

GIRAFFE.—See CAMELOPARDALUS (sup.).

GNAT.—The same insect called sciniph in Ex., viii, 16, 17 and Ps. civ (Hebr., cv), 31, and known under the familiar name of mosquito, culex pipiens, is taken in the New Testament as an example of a trifle.

GOAT.—Though the sacred writers spoke of the ewe more frequently than of the goat, yet with the latter they were very well acquainted. It was indeed, especially in the hilly regions east of the Jordan, an important item in the wealth of the Israelites. The goat of Palestine, particularly the capra membrica, affords numerous illustrations and allusions, Its remarkably long ears are referred to by Amos, iii, 12; its glossy dark hair furnishes a graphic comparison to the author of Cant., iv, 1; vi, 4; this hair was woven into a strong cloth; the skin tanned with the hair on served to make bottles for milk, wine, oil, water, etc. The kid was an almost essential part of a feast. The goat is mentioned in Dan,, viii, 5, as the symbol of the Macedonian empire. The grand Gospel scene of the separation of the just and the wicked on the last day is borrowed from the customs of the shepherds in the East.

GOAT, WILD, Job, xxxix, 1; I K., xxiv, 3, where it is an equivalent for yã’ él, translated, Ps., ciii (Hebr., Civ), 18, by hart, Prov., v, 19, by fawn, is most probably the ibex syriacus, a denizen of the rocky summits [Ps. ciii (Hebr., civ), 18]. It was regarded as a model of grace (Prov., v, 19), and its name, Jahel, Jahala, was frequently given to persons (Judges, v, 6; I, Esd., ii, 56, etc.).

GRASSHOPPER, is probably the best rendering for the Hebrew, hãgãb [Lev., xi, 22; Num,, xiii, 34 (Hebr., xiii, 33); Is., xl, 22; Eccles., xii, 5, etc.], as in the A.V., if the Hebrew word be interpreted “hopper” as Credner suggests; the D.V. uses the word locust. The grasshopper is one of the smaller species of the locust tribe.

GRIFFON.—So D.V., Lev., xi, 13 (whereas Deut., xiv, 12, we read “grype”) translates the Hebrew, pérés, the “breaker” whereby the lammergeyer or bearded vulture, gypœtus barbatus, the largest and most magnificent of the birds of prey is probably intended. The opinion that the Bible here speaks of the fabulous griffon, i. e. a monster begotten from a lion and an eagle, and characterized by the beak, neck, and wings of an eagle and the legs and rump of a lion, is based only on a misinterpretation of the word.

GRIFFON-VULTURE, a probable translation in several cases of the Hebrew, néshér, regularly rendered by eagle. This most majestic bird (gyps fulvus), the type, as it seems, of the eagle-headed figures of Assyrian sculpture, is most likely referred to in Mich., i, 16, on account of its bare neck and head.

GRYPE, Deut., xiv, 12. See GRIFFON (sup.).

HAJE.—See Asp (sup.)

HARE.—Mentioned Lev., xi, 6; Deut., xiv, 7, in the list of the unclean quadrupeds. Several species live in Palestine: lepus syriacus in the north; lepus judœœ in the south and the Jordan valley, together with lepus sinaiticus, lepus œgyptiacus and lepus isabellinus, The statement of the Bible that the hare “cheweth the cud” is a classical difficulty. It should be noticed that this is not the reason why the hare is reckoned among the unclean animals; but the cause thereof should be sought for in the fact that though it chews the cud, which certainly it appears to do, it does not divide the hoof.

HART and HIND.—Either the fallow-deer, still occasionally found in the Holy Land, or the red deer, now extinct, or the deer generally. It has afforded many illustrations to time Biblical writers and poets, especially by its fleetness (Cant., ii, 9; Is., xxxv, 6), its surefootedness [Ps. xvii (Hebr., xviii), 34; Hab., iii, 19], its affection (Prov., v, 19), and its habit of hiding its young (Job, xxxix, 1).

HAWK (Hebr., neç) is, in the Scriptures, a general denomination including, with the falcon, all the smaller birds of prey, the kestrel, merlin, sparrow-hawk, hobby, and others, most common in Palestine.

NIGHT-HAWK, A.V. for Hebrew, táhmãs, more exactly translated in D.V. by owl; some bird of the latter kind is indeed undoubtedly intended, probably the barn owl (strix flammea).

SPARROW-HAWK (falco nisus), one of the hawks of Palestine, so common that it might be regarded, in reference to the Bible, as the hawk par excellence.

HEDGEHOG.—See Ericius (sup.).

HEN, See COCK (sup.).

HERON.—Mentioned Lev., xi, 19, in the list of unclean birds, but probably in the wrong place in the D.V.; heron, indeed, should be substituted for charadrion, whereas in the same verse it stands for stork, as the A.V. correctly states it.

HIND.—See HART. (sup.).

HIPPOPOTAMUS.—See BEHEMOTH (sup.).

HOBBY (falco subbuteo). See HAWK (sup.).

HOOPOE.—See HOUP (inf.).

HORNET (Hebr., çíre’ah; vespa crabro).—One of the largest and most pugnacious wasps; when disturbed they attack cattle and horses; their sting is very severe, capable not only of driving men and cattle to madness, but even of killing them (Exod., xxiii, 28; Deut., vii, 20; Jos., xxiv, 12).

HORSE.—The horse is never mentioned in Scripture in connection with the patriarchs; the first time the Bible speaks of it, it is in reference to the Egyptian army pursuing the Hebrews, During the epoch of the conquest and of Judges, we hear of horses only with the Chanaanean troops, and later on with the Philistines, The hilly country inhabited by the Israelites was not favourable to the use of the horse; this is the reason why the Bible speaks of horses only in connection with war. David and Solomon established a cavalry and chariot force; but even this, used exclusively for wars of conquest, seems to have been looked upon as a dangerous temptation to kings, for the Deuteronomy legislation forbids them to multiply horses for themselves. The grand description of the war-horse in Job is classical; it will be noticed, however, that its praises are more for the strength than for the swiftness of the horse. The prophet Zacharias depicts (ix, 10) the Messianic age as one in which no hostilities will be heard of; then all warlike apparel being done away with, the horse will serve only for peaceful use.

HOUP (Lev., xi, 19; Deut., xiv, 18).—The analogy of the Hebrew with the Syriac and Coptic for the name of this bird makes the identification doubtless, although some, after the example of the A.V., see in the Hebrew dûkhîpháth, the lapwing. The Egyptians worshipped the houp and made it the emblem of Horus.

HYENA.—This word is not to be found in any of the English translations of the Bible; it occurs twice in the Septuagint, Jer., xii, 9, and Ecclus., xiii, 22, being in both places the rendering for the Hebrew name çãbhûá. The hyenas are very numerous in the Holy Land, where they are most active scavengers; they feed upon dead bodies, and sometimes dig the tombs open to get at the corpses therein buried. Two Hebrew names are supposed to designate the hyena: (1) çãbhûá. This word, which has been interpreted “speckled bird,” Jer., xii, 9, by modern translators following the Vulgate, has been rendered by “holy man,” Ecclus., xiii, 22. Despite the authorities that favour the above mentioned translation of Jer., xii, 9, the consistency of the Septuagint on the one hand, and on the other the parallelism in the latter passage, in addition to the analogy with the Arabic and rabbinical Hebrew names for the hyena, fairly support the identification of the çãbhûá with this animal. (2) çíyyím, rendered in divers manners in different places: wild beasts, Is., xiii, 21; demons, Is., xxxiv, 14; dragons, Ps. lxxiii (hebr., lxxiv), 14; Jer., 1, 39.

IBEX.—See GOAT, WILD (sup.).

IBIS.—The word occurs twice in the D.V. (Lev., xi, 17; Is., xxxiv, 11) as an equivalent for yánshûph; some good authorities, however, though the yánshûph is mentioned among wading birds, do not admit the above identification and think that the Egyptian eagle-owl (bubo ascalaphus), which they term great owl, is spoken of. The ibis was worshipped by the Egyptians as the emblem of Thot.

ICHNEUMON.—See WEASEL (inf.).

IRCHIN.—D.V. Ps. ciii, 18. See CHEROGRILLUS (sup.).

JACKAL.—Frequently alluded to in Holy Writ, though the name is read neither in the D.V. nor in any of the western translations, probably because the animal, however common in Africa and south-western Asia is unknown in European countries. The name regularly substituted for jackal is fox. The jackal seems to be designated in Hebrew by three different names: shû’ãl, “the digger”; íyyîm, “the howlers”; and tãn, “the stretcher,” although we are unable to state the differences marked by these three names, Numerous references may be found throughout the Bible to the jackal’s howlings and gregarious habits.

JERBOA.—This little animal, at least four species of which abide in Syria, is nowhere nominally mentioned in the Bible; it must, nevertheless, very probably be reckoned among the unclean animals indicated under the general name of mouse.

KESTREL.—A slender hawk, most likely one of the species intended by Lev., xi, 16, for it is very common in Palestine. The remark of Job, xxxix, 26, strikingly points out the tinnulus cenchris, one of the Palestinian kestrels.

KID.—See GOAT. (sup.).

KINE.—See CATTLE (sup.).

KITE.—As suggested by the analogy with the Arabic, the black kite (milvus nigrans) is probably meant by Hebr. dã’ah or dáyyah (Lev., xi, 14; Deut., xiv, 13; Is., xxxiv, 15), interpreted kite in the D.V.; it is one of the most common of the scavenger birds of prey of the country, and for this reason, is carefully protected by the villagers. Other kinds of kites, in particular the milvus regalis, are common in Palestine.

LAMB.—The Paschal Lamb was both a commemoration of the deliverance from the bondage in Egypt, and a prophetic figure of the Son of God sacrificed to free His people from their slavery to sin and death. See EWE. (sup.).

LAMIA (Is., xxxiv, 14).—Is a translation of Hebrew, lîlîth; according to the old popular legends, the lamia was a feminine bloodthirsty monster, devouring men and children. In the above cited place, some kind of owl, either the screech or the hooting owl, is very probably meant.

LAMMERGEYER (gypœtus barbatus) very likely signified by the Hebrew, pérés, translated by griffon in D.V.

LARUS.—Lev., xi; 16; Deut., xiv, 15. See CUCKOO (sup.).

HORSE-LEECH (Prov., xxx, 15).—Both the medicinal leech and the horse-leech are frequently found in the streams, pools, and wells; they often attach themselves to the inside of the lips and nostrils of drinking animals, thereby causing them much pain.

LEOPARD.—Under this name come a certain number of carnivorous animals more or less resembling the real leopard (felis leopardus), namely felis jubata, felis lynx, felis uncia, etc., all formerly numerous throughout Palestine, and even now occasionally found, especially in the woody districts. The leopard is taken by the Biblical writers as a type of cunning (Jer., v, 6; Osee, xiii, 7), of fierceness, of a conqueror’s sudden swoop (Dan., vii, 6; Hab., i, 8). Its habit of lying in wait by a well or a village is repeatedly alluded to.

LEVIATHAN.—The word Leviathan (Hebrew, líweyãthãn), which occurs six times in the Hebrew Bible, seems to have puzzled not a little all ancient translators. The D.V. has kept this name, Job, iii, 8; xl, 20; Is., xxvii, 1; it is rendered by dragon Ps. lxxiii (Hebr., lxxiv), 14, and ciii (Hebr., civ), 26; The word leviathan means:

(1) crocodile (Job, xl, 20 and Ps, lxxiii, 14);

(2) a sea-monster (Ps. ciii, 26, Is., xxvii, 1);

(3) possibly the Draco constellation (Job, iii, 8).

LION.—Now extinct in Palestine and in the surrounding countries, the lion was common there during the O.T. times; hence the great number of words in the Hebrew language to signify it; under one or another of these names it is mentioned a hundred and thirty times in the Scriptures, as the classical symbol of strength, power, courage, dignity, ferocity. Very likely as the type of power, it became the ensign of the tribe of Juda; so was it employed by Solomon in the decoration of the temple and of the king’s house. For the same reason, Apoc., v, 5, represents Jesus Christ as the lion of the tribe of Juda. The craft and ferocity of the lion, on the other hand, caused it to be taken as an emblem of Satan (I Pet., v, 8) and of the enemies of the truth (II Tim., iv, 17).

LIZARD.—Immense is the number of these reptiles in Palestine; no less than forty-four species are found there, Among those mentioned in the Bible we may cite:

(1) The Letã’ah, general name of the lizard, applied especially to the common lizard, the green lizard, the blind worm, etc.;

(2) the chõmét, or sand-lizard;

(3) the çãb, or dább of the Arabs (uromastix spinipes);

(4) the kõâh, the divers kinds of monitor (psammosaurus scincus, hydrosaurus niloticus, etc.);

(5) the ‘anãqah or gecko;

(6) the semãmîth or stellio.

LOCUST.—One of the worst scourges of the East, very often referred to in Holy Writ. As many as nine Hebrew words signify either the locust in general or some species:

(1) ‘árbéh, probably the locusta migratoria;

(2) gãzãm, possibly the locust in its larva state, the palmerworm;

(3) Gôbh, the locust in general;

(4) chagab, most likely the grasshopper;

(5) hãsîl, “the destroyer,” perhaps the locust in its caterpillar state, in which it is most destructive;

(6) hárgõl, translated in the D.V. ophiomachus;

(7) yéléq, the stinging locust;

(8) çelãçâl possibly the cricket; and

(9) sôl’ãm, rendered by attacus, or bald locust (probably the truxalis).

Unlike other insects, locusts are most voracious in every stage of their existence.

LOUSE.—According to some this species of vermin was one of the features of the third Egyptian plague. It is but too common through all eastern countries.

MILDEW.—A word occurring a certain number of times in the D.V. as an equivalent for Hebrew, hãsîl, which probably means a kind of locust.

MOLE.—Two Hebrew words are thus rendered, The first, tînshéméth (Lev., xi, 30), would, according to good authorities, rather signify the chameleon; with the second, haphárperôth (Is., ii, 20), some burrowing animal is undoubtedly intended, The mole of Syria is not the common mole of Europe, talpa europœa, but the mole-rat (spalax typhlus), a blind burrowing rodent.

MOSQUITO.—See GNAT. (sup.).

MOTH.—Is in the D.V. besides Is., xiv, 11, where it stands for rímmah, “worms,” the common rendering for two words: ãsh (Job, iv, 19), and sãs (Is., li, 8), the exact meaning of the former is uncertain, whereas by the latter the clothes moth is meant.

MOUFLON.—See CHAMOIS, CAMELOPARDALUS (sup.).

MOUSE.—This word seems to be a general one, including the various rats, dormice, jerboas, and hamsters, about twenty-five species of which exist in the country.

MULE.—In spite of the enactment of the Law (Lev., xix, 19), the Israelites early in the course of their history possessed mules; these animals, in a hilly region such as the Holy Land, were for many purposes preferable to horses and stronger than asses; they were employed both for domestic and warlike use.

OPHIOMACHUS.—See LOCUST. (sup.).

ORYX.—See ANTELOPE (sup.).

OSPREY (Hebr., óznîyyah).—The fishing eagle, which name probably signifies all the smaller eagles.

OSSIFRAGE.—See LAMMERGEYER (sup.).

OSTRICH.—Still occasionally found in the southeastern deserts of Palestine, the ostrich, if we are to judge from the many mentions made of it, was well known among the Hebrews, The beauty of its plumage, its fleetness, its reputed stupidity, its leaving its eggs on the sand and hatching them by the sun’s heat are repeatedly alluded to.

OWL.—A generic name under which many species of nocturnal birds are designated, some having a proper name in the Hebrew, some others possessing none. Among the former we may mention the little owl (athene persica), the Egyptian eagle-owl (bubo ascalephus), the great owl of some authors, called ibis in the D.V., the screech or hooting owl, probably the lîlîth of Is., xxxiv, and the lamia of St. Jerome and the D.V.; the barn owl (stryx flammea), possibly corresponding to the táhmãs of the Hebrews and rendered by night-hawk in the A.V.; and the qîppôz of Is., xxxiv, 15, as yet unidentified.

Ox.—See CATTLE (sup.).

OX, WILD, Is., hi, 20, probably antilope bubalis. See ANTELOPE (sup.).

PALMERWORM (Hebr., gãzãm) A general word for the locust, very likely in its larva state.

PARTRIDGE.—Although very common in the Holy Land, the partridge is mentioned only three times in the sacred literature: I K., xxvi, 20 alludes to chasing it on the mountains; Jer., xvii, 11, to the robbing of its eggs; Ecclus., xi, 32, to the keeping a decoy partridge. Two kinds of partridges are known to abide in the hilly resorts of Palestine; the francolin inhabits the plains, and various sand-grouse are found in the deserts.

PEACOCK.—The texts where it is spoken of (III K., x, 22; II Par., ix, 21) clearly indicate that it was not indigenous to Palestine, but imported, probably from India.

PELICAN, D.V., Ps., ci (Hebr., cii), 7, for Hebr. qã’áth, in other places is rendered by bittern, for which it might be advantageously substituted. Pelicans are usually found about marshes (Is., xxxiv, 11), and are in the habit of sitting for hours in sandy desolate places [Ps., ci (Hebr., cii), 7; Soph., ii, 14] after they have gorged.

PHŒNIX might possibly be read instead of palmtree (Hebr. hôl) in Job, xxix, 18, where the belief in its immortality seems referred to; however the sense adopted by D.V., after Vulgate and Septuagint, should not be slighted.

PIGEON.—See DOVE (sup.).

PLUNGER.—See CORMORANT (sup.).

PORCUPINE.—Believed by some, on account of a certain analogy of the Hebrew qîppõd with the Arabic name of this animal, to he spoken of in the Bible. See ERICIUS (sup.).

PORPHYRION is in Vulgate and D.V. (Lev., xi, 18), the equivalent for the Hebrew, rãhãm, translated in the Septuagint by “swan”; in the Greek version, porphyrion stands for the Hebrew, tínshéméth, interpreted “swan” by the Latin and English Bibles. The hypothesis that the Greek translators used a Hebrew text in which the two words rãhãm and tínshéméth stood contrariwise to their present order in the Massoretic text, might account for this difference. This hypothesis is all the more probable because in Deut., xiv, 17, porphyrion seems to be the Greek translation for rãhãm. Whatever this may be, whether the porphyrion, or purple water-hen (porphyrio antiquorum), or the Egyptian vulture, should be identified with the rãhãm remains uncertain. See GIER-EAGLE (sup.).

PYGARG (Deut., xiv, 5).—This word, a mere adaptation from the Greek, means “white-rumped,” a character common to many species, though the antilope addax is possibly signified by the Hebrew word dîshõn.

QUAIL.—The description given Ex., xvi, 11–13; Num., xi, 31, 32; Ps., lxxvii (Hebr., lxxviii) 27–35, and civ (Hebr., cv), 40, the references to their countless flocks, their low flying, their habit of alighting on land in the morning, together with the analogy of the Hebrew and Arabic names, make it certain that the common quail (coturnix vulgaris) is intended.

RABBIT (Prov., xxx, 26).—A mistranslation for coney or daman. See CHEROGRILLUS, (sup.).

RAM.—See EWE, FLOCK (sup.).

RAVEN.—The Bible includes under this generic name a certain number of birds having more or less resemblance with the raven, such as the magpie, the jay, etc. The raven, eight species of which are found in Palestine, is by far the most common of all the birds of that country, where it is with buzzards, vultures, dogs, jackals, and hyenas, an active scavenger. Its plumage is glossy black, and its habits are frequently alluded to in Holy Writ, for instance feeding on carcasses, wandering for its precarious meals, picking out the eyes of the newly-dropped or weakly animals, resorting to desolate places, etc. The raven, when no other food is nigh, not unfrequently picks out grains freshly sown; hence its surname of seed-picker, spermologos, which, later on became a synonym for ragamuffin. This name, applied to St. Paul by his sceptical listeners of Athens, has become, through a mistranslation, “word-sower” in our Bibles (Acts, xvii, 18).

NIGHT-RAVEN, the equivalent in Ps. ci (Hebr., cii), 7, of the Hebrew word translated Lev., xi, 17, by screech-owl, seems to mean the blue thrush (petrocynela cyanea), a well-known solitary bird of the country, which is fond of sitting alone on a roof or a rock.

RHINOCEROS, Num., xxiii, 22, stands for Hebrew, re’em, and should consequently be rendered by aurochs.

RINGTAIL.—So D.V., Deut., xiv, 13, translates rã’ah, possibly substituted by a scribe’s error for dã’ah, and very likely meaning the black kite (milvus migrans).

SATYR.—So is the Hebrew sã’îr rendered Is., xiii, 21, and xxxiv, 14, by R.V. (D.V.: “hairy one”). The same word in Lev., xvii, 7, and II Par., xi, 15, is translated “devils” in all English Bibles. Sã’îr usually signifies the he-goat. In the latter passages this sense is clearly inapplicable; it Seems hardly applicable in the former. The writers of Leviticus, and II Paralipomenon possibly intended some representation of the same description as the goat-headed figures of the Egyptian Pantheon. Concerning the sã’îr mentioned in Isaias, no satisfactory explanation has as yet been given.

SCARLET.—See COCHINEAL (sup.).

SCINIPH.—See GNAT (sup.).

SCORPION.—Very common in all hot, dry, stony places; is taken as an emblem of the wicked.

SEA-GULL.—Its different kinds are probably signified by the word translated larus. See CUCKOO (sup.).

SEAL.—See BADGER (sup.).

SEA-MONSTER, Lam., iv, 3, probably means such animals as the whale, porpoise, dugong, etc.

SERPENT.—A generic term whereby all ophidia are designated; ten names of different species of snakes are given in the Bible.

SHREW.—So does D.V. translate the Hebr. anãqah, which however means rather some kind of lizard, probably the gecko.

SIREN, Is., xiii, 22, a translation for Hebrew tán, which, indicates an animal dwelling in ruins, and may generally be rendered by jackal. No other resemblance than a verbal one should be sought between this tán and the fabulous being, famous by its allurements, called Siren by the ancient poets.

SNAIL should be read instead of wax, Ps., lvii (Hebr., lviii) 9, to translate the Hebrew, shábelûl. Unlike the snails of northern climates which hibernate, those of Palestine sleep in summer. The Psalmist alludes “to the fact that very commonly, when they have secured themselves in some chink of the rocks for their summer sleep, they are still exposed to the sun rays, which gradually evaporate and dry up the whole of the body, till the animal is shrivelled to a thread, and, as it were, melted away” (Tristram).

SPARROW.—The Hebrew word çíppôr, found over forty times, is a general name for all small passerine birds, of which there exist about a hundred and fifty species in the Holy Land.

SPIDER.—An insect living by millions in Palestine, where several hundred species have been distinguished. Its web affords a most popular illustration for frail and ephemeral undertakings (Job, viii, 14; Is., lix, 5); in three passages, however, the translators seem to have wrongly written spider for moth [Ps. xxxviii (Hebr., xxxix), 12], sigh [Ps. lxxxix (xc), 9], and pieces (Os., viii, 6).

STORK.—The Hebrew word hasîdhah, erroneously rendered “heron” by the Douay translators, Lev., xi, 19, alludes to the well-known affection of the stork for its young. Several passages have reference to this bird, its periodical migrations (Jer., viii, 7), its nesting in fir-trees, its black pinions stretching from its white body (Zach., v, 9; D.V., kite; but the stork, hasîdhah, is mentioned in the Hebrew text). Two kinds, the white and the black stork, live in Palestine during the winter.

SWALLOW.—Two words are so rendered: derôr, “the swift flyer,” which means the chimney swallow and other species akin to it [Ps. lxxxiii (Hebr., lxxxiv), 4; D.V., turtle; Prov., xxvi, 2; D.V., sparrow], whereas sûs or sîs may be translated by “swift,” this bird being probably intended in Is., xxxviii, 14, and Jer., viii, 7.

SWAN.—Mentioned only in the list of unclean birds (Lev., xi, 18; Deut., xiv, 16). The swan having always been very rare in Syria, there was little need of forbidding to eat its flesh; by the Hebrew tínshéméth, some other bird might possibly be designated.

SWINE.—The most abhorred of all animals among the Jews; hence the swineherd’s was the most degrading employment (Luke, xv, 15; cf. Matt., viii, 32). Swine are very seldom kept in Palestine.

TIGER, Job, iv, 11 (Hebr., láyísh), should be “lion.”

TURTLE.—See DOVE (sup.).

UNICORN.—See AUROCHS (sup.).

URCHIN, Soph., ii, 14. See ERICIUS (sup.).

VIPER.—See ASP (sup.).

VULTURE.—So does D.V. render the Hebrew, áyyah, Lev., xi, 14; Deut., xiv, 13; Job, xxviii, 7. As has been suggested above, the text of Job at least, seems to allude to the kite rather than to the vulture. Several kinds of vultures are nevertheless referred to in the Bible; so, for instance, the bearded vulture (gypœtus barbatus), called griffon in the D.V.; the griffon-vulture (gyps fulvus), the Egyptian vulture (neophron percnopterus), etc. In the biblical parlance vultures are oftentimes termed eagles.

WATERHEN.—See PORPHYRION (sup.).

WEASEL, Lev., xi, 29, must be regarded as a general name, probably designating, besides the weasel proper, the polecat and ichneumon, all very common in the Holy Land.

WHALE (Gen., i, 21).—Tânnîm would perhaps be better translated generally “sea-monster”; porpoises and dugongs were certainly known to the Hebrews.

WOLF.—Frequently mentioned in the Scriptures as a special foe to flocks (Ecclus., xiii, 21; Matt., vii, 15), and an emblem of treachery, ferocity, and bloodthirstiness. Wolves usually prowl at night around the sheepfolds, and, though fewer in numbers than jackals, are much more harmful. The tribe of Benjamin, owing to its warlike character, was compared to a wolf.

WORM.—In English the translation for two Hebrew words: rímmah [Exod., xvi, 24; Is., xiv, 11; (Job, vii, 5, A.V.)]; and tólá (Exod., xvi, 20, etc.); these two Hebrew words are general; the former designates particularly all living organisms generated and swarming in decaying or rotten substances; the latter includes not only worms, but also such insects as caterpillars, centipedes, etc.

CARPENTER, Scripture Natural History (London, 1828); HARRIS, Natural History of the Bible (ed. Conder, London, 1833–34); WOOD, Animals of the Bible (London, 1883); TRISTRAM, Natural History of the Bible (London, 1883); The Fauna and Flora of Palestine (London, 1889); The Animal Creation in the Bible, in Aids to the Student of the Bible (London, 1898); HART, The Animals Mentioned in the Bible (London, 1888); KNIGHT, Bible Plants and Animals (London, 1889); BOCHART, Hierozoicon (London, 1663, 1712); ROSENMÜLLER, Biblische Naturalgeschichte (Leipzig, 1820); SCHEGG AND WIRTHMÜLLER, Biblische Archäologie (Freiburg, 1887); CULTRERA, Fauna biblica (Palermo, 1880); HAGEN, Lex. bibl. (Paris, 1905), I; Dictionaries of the Bible.

CHARLES L. SOUVAY

Animism

Lat., Anima, Soul)

Animism is the doctrine or theory of the soul. In current language the term has a twofold signification: I. PHILOSOPHICAL—the doctrine that the soul is the principle of life in man and in other living things. As applied to man it embodies the essence of spiritualistic as opposed to Materialistic philosophy. II. ETHNOLOGICAL—a theory proposed in recent years to account for the origin and development of religion. As such it is known as the Soul or Ghost-theory of religion.

PHILOSOPHICAL—For the application of the theory of animism to living things in general, see LIFE. So far as it is specially concerned with man, animism aims at a true knowledge of man’s nature and dignity by establishing the existence and nature of the soul, its union with the body, its origin and duration. These problems are at the basis of our conscious existence and underlie all our studies in mental and moral life. The importance of animism to-day is shown because; (1) its validity as a theory has been questioned; (2) a school has risen which treats psychology without reference to the soul; hence the attempt at “psychology without a soul,” e. g. Sully, James, Murray, Davis, Kœlpe, Höffding.

In establishing the doctrine of animism the general line of reasoning is from effect to cause, from phenomena to their subject or agent. From the acts of mind and of will manifested in individual conscious life, we are forced to admit the existence of their source and principle, which is the human soul; from the nature of the activity is inferred the nature of the agent. Scholastic philosophy, with Aristotle and the Christian Fathers, vindicates the true dignity of man by proclaiming the soul to be a substantial and spiritual principle endowed with immortality. The soul is a substance because it has the elements of being, potency, stability, and is the subject of modifications—which elements make up the notion of substance. That the soul is a spiritual substance, i. e. immaterial and a spirit, is inferred from its acts of intelligence and of freewill, which are performed without the intrinsic cooperations of the bodily organs. By immortality is understood in general terms the future life of the soul after separation from the body. The chief errors are those which contend; (1) that the soul is not a substance. Thus (a)some writers, e. g. Kant, hold that the soul is not a real, but only a logical, subject; (b) modern Pantheism, seem especially in New England Transcendentalism (e. g. Emerson, Royce) and the Neo-Hegelian school which unifies human and divine consciousness (e. g. Prof. T. H. Green); (c) the school of Associationists (e. g. Hume, Davis, Höffding, Sully), who contend that the soul is only a bundle or group of sensations; (d) those who teach that the soul is only activity, nothing more (Wundt), or “a wave of consciousness” (Morgan); (e) the Agnostic and Positivistic school (e. g. Locke, Spencer, James, Prof. Bowne, Comte), who affirm that the soul is unknown and unknowable, although some among them postulate it as the subject of our conscious states; (f) the materialistic school which denies its existence altogether (e.g. Tyndall, Huxley)

(2) That the soul is neither spiritual, nor immortal. Modern Materialism, Positivism, and Agnosticism have tried in every way to establish this thesis. Various theories of knowledge have been proposed, and the discoveries of modern science have been cited in its behalf. Appeal has been taken to psychophysics and to such facts as the localization of function, the correlation of thought to the structure of the brain, and the results of cerebral lesion. Theories of Monism (e. g. the double-aspect theory) and of Parallelism have been advanced to account for the acts of mind and of will. Yet animism as a doctrine of the spiritual soul remains unshattered, and the spiritualistic philosophy is only more strongly entrenched. (Cf. SUBSTANCE, AGNOSTICISM POSITIVISM, MATERIALISM, SOUL, IMMORTALITY, PSYCHOLOGY).

ETHNOLOGICAL—In this sense animism is the theory proposed by some evolutionists to account for the origin of religion. Evolution assumes that the higher civilized races are the outcome and development from a ruder state. This early stage resembles that of the lowest savages existing to-day. Their religious belief is known as animism, i.e. belief in spiritual beings, and represents the minimum or rudimentary definition of religion. With this postulate as the groundwork for the philosophy of religion, the development of religious thought can be traced from existing data and therefore admits of scientific treatment. The principle of continuity, which is the basal principle in other departments of knowledge, was thus applied to religion. Comte had given a general outline of this theory in his law of the three states. According to him the conception of the primary mental condition of mankind is a state of “pure fetishism, constantly characterized by the free and direct exercise of our primitive tendency to conceive all external bodies soever, natural or artificial, as animated by a life essentially analogous to our own, with mere difference of intensity.” Proposed at a time when evolution was in the ascendency, this opinion fell at once under the dominion of the current conviction. The hope was entertained that by a wider and more complete induction religion might be considered as a purely natural phenomenon and thus at last be placed on a scientific basis.

The foundation of animism as a theory of religion is the twofold principle of evolution: (1) the anthropological assumption that the savage races give a correct idea of religion in its primitive state; (2) the philosophical assumption that the savage state was the childhood of the race and that the savage mind should be likened to a child (e.g. Lubbock, Tylor, Comte, Tiele, Reville, and Spencer). Hence the evolution of religious thought can be traced from existing data, viz, the beliefs of the lowest savages, and though deeply modified as mankind rises in culture, yet it always preserves an unbroken continuity into the midst of modern civilization. This continuum, or common element, in all religions is animism. The importance of animism in the science of religion is due to Tylor, who represents it as a primitive philosophy supplying at the same time the foundation of all religion. His work entitled “Primitive Culture,” first published in 1863, is justly called the “Gospel of Animism.” Animism comprehends the doctrine of souls and spirits, but has its starting point in the former. Dreams and visions, apparitions in sleep and at death, are supposed to have revealed to primitive man his soul as distinct from his body. This belief was then transferred to other objects. As the human body was believed to live and act by virtue of its own inhabiting spirit-soul, so the operations of the world seemed to be carried on by other spirits. To the savage mind, animals, plants, and all inanimate things have souls. From this doctrine of souls arises the belief in spirits. Spirits are of the same nature as souls, only separated from bodies—e. g. genii, fairies, demons—and acting in different ways as tutelary guardians, lingering near the tomb or roaming about (Spiritism), or incorporated in certain objects (Fetishism, Totemism). They appear to man in a more subtle material form as vapour, or as an image retaining a likeness to the bodily shape; and they are feared by him, so that he tries to control their influence by propitiation and magic (Shamanism). Thus unconsciousness, sickness, derangement, trance were explained by the departure of the soul. Among savages and Buddhist Tatars the bringing back of lost souls was a regular part of the sorcerer’s profession. The belief prevails among the American Indians that if one wakes a sleeper suddenly he will die, as his vagrant soul may not get back in time. For the savage, as the lowest of men, is supposed to be actuated by the lowest of passions. Hence the fear-theory of religion is essential to animism.

Animism therefore discovers human life in all moving things. To the savage and to primitive man there is no distinction between the animate and the inanimate. Nature is all alive. Every object is controlled by its own independent spirit. Spirits are seen in the rivers, the lakes, the fountains, the woods, the mountains, the trees, the animals, the flowers, the grass, the birds. Spiritual existences—e. g. elves, gnomes, ghosts, manes, demons, deities—inhabit almost everything, and consequently almost everything is an object of worship. The Milky Way is “the path of the souls leading to the spirit-land”; and the Northern Lights are the dances of the dead warriors and seers in the realms above. The Australians say that the sounds of the wind in the trees are the voices of the ghosts of the dead communing with one another or warning the living of what is to come. The conception of the human soul formed from dreams and visions served as a type on which primitive man framed his ideas of other souls and of spiritual beings from the lowest elf up to the highest god. Thus the gods of the higher religions have been evolved out of the spirits, whether ghosts or not, of the lower religions; and the belief in ghosts and spirits was produced by the savage’s experience of dreams and trances. Here, it is claimed, we have the germ of all religions, although Tylor confesses that it is impossible to trace the process by which the doctrine of souls gave rise to the belief in the great gods. Originally, spirits were the application of human souls to non-human beings; they were not supernatural, but only became so in the course of time. Now, as modern science shows the belief in ghosts or spirits to be a hallucination, the highest and purest religion—being only the elaboration of savage beliefs, to the savage mind reasonable enough—cannot be accepted by the modern mind for the reason that it is not supernatural nor even true. Such in brief is the outline of the theory by which Tylor attempts to explain not only the phenomenon but the whole history and development of religion.

Tylor’s theory expresses two sides of animism, viz., souls and spirits. Spencer attempts to synthesize them into one, viz., souls or ancestor-worship. He agrees with Tylor in the animistic explanation of dreams, diseases, death, madness, idiocy, i. e. as due to spiritual influences; but differs in presenting one solution only; viz., cult of souls or worship of the dead. “The rudimentary form of all religion,” he writes, “is the propitiation of dead ancestors,” or “ghost propitiation.” Hence Spencer denies that the ascription of life to the whole of nature is a primitive thought, or that men ever ascribed to animals, plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena souls of their own. Spencer’s theory is known as the “Ghost-theory of Religion” and at the present time is generally discredited even by evolutionists. With Tylor the worship of the dead is an important subdivision of animism; with Spencer it is the one and all of religion. Lippert consistently carries out the theory of Spencer and, instead of animism, uses the word Seelenkult. De la Saussaye says that Lippert pushes his view to an extreme and supports it with rich, but not over-trustworthy, material. Schultze considers fetishism and animism as equally primitive. F.B. Jevons rejects the theory that all gods of earlier races were spirits of dead men deified.

The animism of Tylor is vague and indefinite. It means the doctrine of spirits in general, and is best expressed by “Animated Nature.” Fetishism is a subordinate department of animism, viz, the doctrine of spirits embodied in, or attached to, or conveying influence through, certain animals or material objects. The animism of Tylor differs little from the naturalism of Reville or the fetishism of De Ia Rialle. It accounts for the belief in immortality and metempsychosis. It thus explains the belief in the passage of souls from men to beasts, and to sticks and stones. It includes tree-worship and plant-worship—e. g. the classic hamadrya, the tree-worship of the South African natives, the rice-feasts held by the Dyaks of Borneo to keep the rice-souls in the plants lest by their departure the crop decay. It is the solution proposed for Manes-worship, for the Lares and the Penates among the Greeks and Romans, where the dead ancestors, passing into deities, go on protecting the family as the dead chief watches over the tribe. In animism Tylor finds an explanation for funeral rites and customs—feasts of the dead, the human sacrifices of widows in India, of slaves in Borneo; sending messages to dead chiefs of Dahomey by killing captives taken in war, the slaughtering of the Pawnee’s horse and of the Arab’s camel at the graves of their masters, placing food and weapons in, or on, the tomb—customs which survive in the practice of burning paper messengers and placing stone, clay, or wooden substitutes on graves in China and Japan.

The general principles of animism are: (1) in the last analysis it is a biological theory, and attempts to explain all phenomena through analogy with biological phenomena. To the savage, and to primitive man, all moving things lived, and the fancy which created ghosts or souls to account for human life soon extended this explanation to all other external objects. (2) The greater value it attaches to unwritten sources, viz., folk-lore, customs, rites, tales, and superstitions, in comparison with literary sources. (3) That spiritual beings are modelled by man on the primary conception of his own human soul. (4) Their purpose is to explain nature on the primitive, childlike theory that it is thoroughly and throughout animated nature. (5) The conception of the human soul is the source and origin of the conceptions of spirit and deity, from the lowest demon up to Plato’s ideas and the highest God of Monotheism. (6) Yet it gives no unified concept of the world, for the spirits which possess, pervade, and crowd nature are individual and independent. (7) It is without ethical thoughts and motives. Thus Tylor holds as proved that religion and morality stand on independent grounds; that, while lower races have a code of morals, yet their religion—animism—is unmoral, and thus the popular idea that the moral government of the universe is an essential tenet of natural religion simply falls to the ground.

The followers of Tylor have pushed these principles to an extreme and applied them with more clearness and precision. The present tendency of the anthropological school is to begin with a prereligious stage, from which religious ideas slowly emerged and elaborated themselves. Hence religious life was preceded by a period characterized by an utter absence of religious conceptions. Thus Tiele holds that animism is not a religion, but a sort of primitive philosophy, which not only controls religion, but rules the whole life of man in the childhood of the world. It is a belief that every living thing—i. e. moving thing—is for primitive man animated by a thinking, feeling, willing spirit, differing from the human in degree and power only. Religion did not spring from animism, but its first manifestations are dominated by animism, that being the form of thought natural to primitive man. Pfleiderer teaches that belief in God was formed out of the prehistoric belief in spirits, that these spirits are ancestor-spirits and nature-spirits found everywhere in the primeval period of peoples side by side with one another and passing into each other in various forms of combination without the one being able to be referred to the other, that the prehistoric belief in spirits cannot yet be properly called religion—it only contained the germs of religion. Caspari teaches a pre-animistic period in the family circle and holds that the worship of elders and chieftains was the first religion. Brinton says “the present probability is that in the infancy of the race there was at least no objective expression of religious feeling,” and that “there must have been a time in the progress of organic forms from some lower to that highest mammal, man, when he did not have a religious consciousness; for it is doubtful if even the slightest traces of it can be discerned in the inferior animals.” The French school of anthropology is distinguished by its outspoken atheism and materialism. Darwin, Spencer, and Lubbock hold that primitive man had no idea of God. Linguistic analysis, as Baynes clearly proves, shows this to be false. The theory of animism has exerted great influence on the study of religions during the last twenty years. This is shown in the animistic trend of Prof. Maspero’s study of the Egyptian religion; in the contention of the late Prof. W. Robertson Smith that the religion and social institutions of the Semites are founded on Totemism; in the emphasis laid on the animism of the ancient Israelites by Dr. Stade; in the worship of the dead and of ancestors among the Vedic Indians and the Persians; in the study of soul-worship among the Greeks, by E. Rhode. That this influence was not for good is the opinion of Prof. Brinton, who says that the acceptance of animism as a sufficient explanation of early cults has led to the neglect, in English-speaking lands, of their profounder analysis and scientific study.

Tylor published the third edition of “Primitive Culture” in 1891, confident of having proved the evolution theory as to the origin of our civilization from a savage condition, the savage belief in souls and spirits as the germs of religion, and the continuity of this belief in its progressive forms of development up to Monotheism. Yet the hope was short-lived. More scientific research and severer criticism have deprived this theory of its former wide influence. (1) The assumption that the lowest savages of to-day give approximately a faithful picture of primitive times is not true. Savages have a past and a long one, even though not recorded. “Nothing in the natural history of man,” writes the Duke of Argyll, “can be more certain than that morally and intellectually and physically he can and often does sink from a higher to a lower level.” Max Müller assures us that “if there is one thing which a comparative study of religions places in the clearest light, it is the inevitable decay to which every religion is exposed. . . . Whenever we can trace back a religion to its first beginnings, we find it free from many blemishes that affected it in its later states.” Even Tylor admits that animism is everywhere found with the worship of a great God. Brinton holds that the resemblance of the savage mind to that of the child is superficial and likens the savage to the uncultivated and ignorant adult among ourselves.

(2) It is opposed by the Philological and Mythological schools. Thus Max Müller explains much in animism by superstition, a poetical conception of nature, and especially by personification. He says that inanimate objects were conceived as active powers and as such were described as agents by a necessity of language, without, however, predicating life or soul of them; for human language knows at first no agents except human agents. Hence animism was a stage of thought reached slowly, and not by sudden impulses. “What is classed as animism in ancient Aryan mythology,” he writes, “is often no more than a poetical conception of nature which enables the poet to address sun, moon, rivers and trees as if they could hear and understand his words.” The same truth finds abundant illustration in the Psalms. “Sometimes, however,” he adds, “what is called animism is a superstition which, after having recognized agents in sun, moon, rivers and trees, postulates on the strength of analogy the existence of agents or spirits dwelling in other parts of nature also, haunting our houses, bringing misfortunes upon us, though sometimes conferring blessings. These ghosts are often mixed up with the ghosts of the departed and form a large chapter in the history of ancient superstition.” The ghost, or ancestor, theory received a fatal blow from Lang’s “Making of a Religion “, where it is shown that the belief of the most primitive savages is in a High God, Supreme God, and Moral God. Lang thus confutes Tylor’s contentions: (a) that man could not have possibly started with a belief in a Supreme Being; (b) that religion and morality must have separate origins. Even in China, where ancestor-worship prevails, we find it distinct from the worship of gods, and there is no trace of an ancestor having ever become a god. Again, soul-worship and ancestor-worship are not identical, and with many tribes much attention is paid to conciliating the souls of the dead where ancestor-worship is unknown. Brinton holds the former to be older and more general. The aim is to get rid of the soul, to put it to rest, or send it on its journey to a better land, lest it trouble the survivors. Karl Mullenhöff maintains that folk-lore has no independent value and as a source of mythology is of only secondary importance.

(3) Animism is not the sole and chief source of religion. De la Saussaye says that the belief of the early Teutons consisted only to a small extent of animistic ideas concerning souls and spirits. Prof. F. B. Gummere teaches that in Teutonic mythology animism has not succeeded in annexing nature-mythology. F. B. Jevons holds that the religious idea is no part of animism pure and simple, and to make the personal agents of animism into supernatural agents or divine powers there must be added some idea which is not contained in animism, and that idea is a specifically religious idea, one which is apprehended directly or intuitively by the religious consciousness. E. Mogk, whose inclinations lean to Tylor, is yet constrained by a scientific mind to recognize nature-worship and the great gods as original; and he warns the student of Teutonic mythology that he must not allow himself to be seduced into disregarding the fact that the worship of the God of Heaven is one of the most original elements of the Teutonic belief. De la Saussaye and Pfleiderer hold that the supposition according to which every conception of an object—e. g. tree, sun, moon, clouds, thunder, earth, heaven—as a living being has an animistic character is undemonstrable and improbable. They show from Teutonic mythology that the power and beneficent influence of these objects of nature and their symbolic conception belong to another sphere of ideas and sentiments than that of animism.

(4) Prof. W. Robertson Smith and Prof. Frazer conclusively prove that the animistic religion of fear was neither universal nor primitive. According to Prof. Frazer, the primitive reason of sacrifice was communion with God. Even worship of the dead cannot be entirely explained animistically as the cult of souls. Animistic conceptions may enter into the worship of ancestors and heroes; but other ideas are so essential that they cannot be regarded merely as modifications of soul-worship. (5) It is not primitive nor specific. Prof. Brinton says, “There is no special form of religious thought which expresses itself as what has been called by Dr. Tylor Animism, i. e. the belief that inanimate objects are animated and possess souls or spirits.” This opinion, which in one guise or another is common to all religions and many philosophies, “is merely a secondary phenomenon of the religious sentiment, not a trait characteristic of primitive faiths.” De la Saussaye holds that animism is always and everywhere mixed up with religion; it is nowhere the whole of religion. Cf. ANTHROPOLOGY, MYTHOLOGY, EVOLUTION, TOTEMISM, SHAMANISM, FETISHISM, RELIGION, SPIRITISM.

LADD, Is Psychology a Science? in Amer. Jour, of Psych., 1894; JAMES, Psychology (2 vols., New York, 1905); SULLY, Outlines of Psychology (New York, 1892); HÖFFDING, Outlines of Psychology tr. LOWNDES (London, 1893); DRISCOLL, The Soul (New York, 1900); LADD, Psychology; Descriptive and Explanatory (New York, 1895); BOWEN, Hamilton’s Metaphysics (Boston, 1876); BOWNE, Metaphysics, A Study of First Principles (New York, 1882); RICKABY, On God and His Creatures (London, 1906); McCOSH Fundamental Philosophy; MAHER, Psychology (London, 1905); TYLOR, Primitive Culture, (2 ed., London, 1891); TIELE, Elements of the Science of Religion (New York, 1896), cf. also his article in Encyclopœdia Britannica; MÜLLER, Lectures on the Origin of Religion (London, 1878); PFLEIDERER Philosophy and Development of Religion (New York and Edinburgh, 1894); SPENCER, Principles of Sociology (London, 1876–97); DRISCOLL, Christian Philosophy; God (New York, 1903); DE LA SAUSSAYE, Manual of the Science of Religion, tr. COLYER-FERGUSSON (London, 1891); LUBBOCK, Origin of Civilization (New York, 1895); DUKE OF ARGYLL, Primeval Man (New York, 1869); CUOQ, Lexique de la langue Algonquine (Montreal, 1886); STEINMETZ, Ethnologische Studien (Leyden, 1894); BRINTON, Religions of Primitive Peoples (New York, 1897); BAYNES, The idea of God and the Moral Sense in the Light of Language (London, 1895); LANG, The Making of a Religion (London and New York 1898); ROBERTSON SMITH, Religion of the Semites (London, 1894); ALGER, Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life (Philadelphia, 1864); JEVONS, Introd. to Hist. of Religion (London and New York, 1896); SCHNEIDER, Die Naturvölker (2 vols., 1885–86); FRAZER, The Golden Bough (London, and New York, 1900).

J. T. Driscoll.

Giovanni Animuccia

An Italian composer, born at Florence about 1500; died 1571. He was a pupil of Claude Goudimel. He was made choir-master at the Vatican and retained this position until his death. He was the real predecessor of Palestrina not only in office, but also in his earnest endeavours to attain harmonic clearness in the midst of all the devices of counterpoint then so much in vogue. He aimed at perfecting the style of the old flemish school by harmonic fullness, by a more natural melodic progression of the voices, and a closer correspondence of the melody with the text. His friendship with St. Philip Neri resulted in his appointment as music-master to the new society founded by the Saint. He composed the first laudi for its use. These laudi were songs of praise for several voices, and were always performed after the sermon. For the sake of variety, Animuccia composed single stanzas and later on single lines in the shape of solos, concluding with a powerful and effective chorus. A first volume of them appeared in 1566, a second in 1570. These laudi proved to be the germs of the later oratorio, for from their dramatic tone and tendency the oratorio seems to have been developed. In this sense St. Philip Neri has been called the “Father of the Oratorio.” In addition, Animuccia composed many masses, motets, psalms, and madrigals of which some were published in Venice and Rome, 1548–68. But his compositions which were never printed are far more numerous, and the Manuscripts of them to-day are, for the most part, in the Sistine Chapel—ANIMUCCIA, PAOLO, brother of Giovanni, died at Rome, 1563. He was choir-master at the Lateran for two years (1550–52). He left little printed music. There is a motet of his in a collection published at Venice (1568), and madrigals of his composition are found in many of the miscellaneous collections published between 1551 and 1611.

GROVE, Dict. of Music and Musicians; RIEMANN, Dict. of Music; KORNMÜLLER, Lexikon der kirchi. Tonkunst.

J.A. VÖLKER

Anise

Anise (Matt., xxiii, 23) has been, since Wyclif, the rendering of anethon in the English Versions, But this is not accurate. The exact equivalent of the plant anethon is dill (anethum graveolens), while anise corresponds to the pimpinella anisum. The error in translation, however, is of no great importance, both plants belonging to the parsley family (umbelliferoe), and sharing many properties in common. The dill is an annual plant, “with finely striated stems, usually one foot to one foot and a half in height, pinnate leaves with setaceous linear segments, and yellow flowers” (Enc. Bib.). The Jews used it as a condiment. It is mentioned several times in Rabbinic literature, especially in connection with the question of tithes. Beside the articles specified in the Mosaic Law, the Rabbis had, in course of time, subjected to tithe many other objects, extending the prescription to all products of the earth that were esculent and could be preserved.

WUNSCHE, Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch (Göbttingen, 1878), 291–292; SCHANZ, Matthäus-Evangelium, 469–470; ZAHN, Ev. das Matthäus, (2d ed.) 645, note 75; EDERSHEIM Life and T. of J. M., II, 412; Nouveau Larousse illustré (Paris), s. v. Aneth, Anis, Peucedan; NESTLE, Anise and Rue, in Expository Times (Aug., 1904), 528; WEISS, PLUMMER, SCHANZ, on Luke, xi, 42.

EDWARD ARBEZ

Anna

Sept. Άννα; [Anna]; R.V. has Hannah which is nearer to the original Hebrew, חבה, graciousness, חבן, Ηānán [Hannan], to be gracious.

(1) Anna (I K., [Samuel] i-ii, 21), mother of Samuel, was one of the two wives of Elcana, a man of Ramah, a Zuphite of the hill-country of Ephraim. As a true woman of her nation, she felt keenly the reproach of barrenness, all the more so that her rival, Phenenna, more favoured than she, did not fail to remind her of her affliction (Samuel i, 6–7). On one of the family’s pilgrimages to Silo, Anna made a vow that, should God bless her with a son, she would consecrate him to His service as a Nazarite (I K., [Samuel] i, 9–11). Her prayer was heard, and after weaning her son she brought him to Heli in Silo (I K., [Samuel] i, 24–28). This generous fulfilment of her vow was amply rewarded (I K., [Samuel] ii, 21). Anna’s canticle (I K., [Samuel] ii, 1–10) gives rise to questions similar to those concerning the Magnificat, to which it has some striking resemblances. Though a beautiful psalm, it is found inappropriate on Anna’s lips, having no special reference to her situation, beyond the quite general remark in v. 5b. Unless v. 10b be taken as a prophecy of the rise of the monarchy or of the Messiah (cf. Vigouroux, Bible polyglotte, II, 295 note), the canticle would be, whatever its more precise date, posterior to the establishment of the monarchy.

(2) Anna, wife of Tobias, was, like her husband, of the tribe of Nephtali (Tob., i, 1–9). Together with her husband and son, also called Tobias, she was taken into captivity to Ninive by Shalmanaser (i, 2, 11). Her role is quite secondary in the narrative. Her rather passionate nature serves to bring out more strongly by contrast the deeply religious character of Tobias (cf. ii, 19–23 and the beautiful prayer which his misunderstanding with his wife brings on the lips of Tobias iii, 1–6). Her sincere and solicitous love for her son is well expressed in v, 23–28; x 1–7; xi, 5 (cf. the remark above).

(3) Anna is carefully described by Luke, ii, 36–38, as a prophetess, daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser. The biographic notes given by Luke regarding the aged prophetess, of whom legend knows that she had had Mary under her tutelage in the Temple, bring out her great sanctity. In spite of her early widowhood, she had never married again, but had devoted her life to the service of God. She answers perfectly the portrait if the model widow of I Tim.,v, 5–9. As she used to spend most of her time in the Temple, her presence at the scene narrated in Luke, ii, 25–35, is easily understood. Hence her praise to God, the subject of which was Jesus, with the burden that He was the longed-for Redeemer.

(4) Anna is also the traditional name of the mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

DRIVER, Literature of the Old Testament (10 ed.), 174; Notes on the Hebrew Text of Samuel (1890) on I Sam., ii, 1, sqq; CORNILL, Einl. in das A. T. (4th ed.), 106, 220; BENNETT AND ADENEY, Bibl. Intr. (New York, 1899); KENT, Israel’s Historical and Biographical Narratives; SMITH, Samuel in International Crit. Com. (1904) 14–17; GUNKEL, Ausgewählte Psalmen (2 ed. Göttingen, 1905) 265–272.

EDWARD ARBEZ

Anna Comnena

Byzantine historian, eldest daughter of Alexius Comnenus, Emperor of Constantinople (1081–1118). She was born in 1083, and received, as was the custom for Byzantine princesses, an excellent education in the Greek classics, history, geography, mythology, and even philosophy. She was married to Nicephorus Bryennius, son of a former pretender to the imperial office, and in 1118 joined in a conspiracy to place her husband on the throne. Failing in her ambition she retired with her mother, the Empress Irene, to a monastery that the latter had founded, and wrote there in fifteen books her famous “Alexias.” It was finished by 1148, and describes the career of her father, from 1069 to his death in 1118; it is thus a continuation of her husband’s “Historical Materials,” that comes down to 1079. The Princess is the historian of the fortunes of the Comneni family. Her own observations are often valuable by reason of her personal knowledge and the close acquaintance with public affairs that she owed to her high rank, but she also made use of diplomatic correspondence, the reports of her father’s generals and soldiers, and the imperial archives. Critics praise the fullness and choice quality of her historical information; she seems to have gone so far as to utilize in her account of Robert Guiscard a Latin contemporary chronicle, which was written probably by the Archdeacon of Bari. At the same time they point out the panegyrical and ultra-filial character of her work, it being formally devoted to the fame and honor of her father. As a true Byzantine she looks on the Crusades only from the narrow and selfish standpoint of Constantinople, and detests soundly all Latins. The chronology is defective. She loves to describe scenes of splendour, great state-actions, audiences, and feasts, whatever is concrete and picturesque. Nor is she adverse to satire, court gossip, and detraction. Profounder matters, financial, military, and constitutional, escape her purview. Withal, however, Krumbacher calls it “one of the most remarkable efforts of medieval Greek historiography,” the first notable production of the medieval Greek Renaissance set afoot by Psellos and powerfully furthered by the family of the Princess. She strains in her vocabulary for an Attic elegance, though construction and style betray too often the distance between her and the models (Thucydides and Polybius) whom she aims at imitating. She avoids, as unfit for the pen of an historian, uncouth foreign names and vulgar terms. Her studied precision in the matter of hellenizing causes her pages to take on a kind of mummy-like appearance when compared with the vigorous, living Greek of contemporary popular intercourse.

The Alexias was first edited by POSSINUS (Paris, 1651;) P.G. CXXXI, 39–1244. The best edition is that of the Corpus Script. Byz., I (Bonn, 1839); II (1878), with a Latin transl. the commentary of DUCANGE, etc; KRUMBACHER, Gesch. d. byzant. Lit. (2d ed., 1902), pp. 274–279. He speaks of WALTER SCOTT’S Count Robert of Paris as “a rather unlucky reproduction” of the Alexias.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Ecclesiastical Annals

The historical literature of the Middle Ages may be classed under three general heads: chronicles, annals, and lives of the saints.

CHRONICLES

Chronicles originated in ancient Greece, while annals are first found among the Romans. During the Middle Ages the term chronicle included every form of history, but the word in its earliest usage signified simply a chronological table. As a matter of fact, profane history, as dealt with by Pagan historians, no longer appealed to Christian writers. History, as viewed from the Christian standpoint, took into account only the Kingdom of God, and to the new generation the centre of such history was the narration of the misfortunes undergone by the Jewish nation, a subject ignored by Roman historians. Christians had need of a new general history in sympathy with their ideal. It was necessary, first of all, to synchronize the dates of Christian and profane chronology, so that an attempt might be made to combine the subject-matter of both. Thus it was that chronicles came into existence. Sextus Julius Africanus (221) attempted to synchronize the facts of profane history with those of the Bible. After him Eusebius (340), in his “Universal History,” continuing the class of work originated by Africanus, compiled a chronological table in expository form, followed by synchronistic tables reaching to 325. This chronological narrative, or chronicle, of Eusebius was the source of all universal chronicles, both Byzantine and Western. It was continued up to 378 by St. Jerome, and the revision is found at the beginning of all the universal histories of the Middle Ages. It was this chronicle that fixed forever the form to be adopted in the annalistic record of events. Chronicles were, as a rule, nothing more than collections of dates without causal connection or synthesis. The genius of one writer, St. Augustine, conceived an original way of fusing matter in a universal history, and embodied it in his treatise on “The Two Cities.” He had no disciples, however, in the Middle Ages. These early chronicles reviewed the facts of universal history, and are to be distinguished from the chronicles of the eleventh century, which are merely local narratives chiefly concerning the history of the author’s country. Moreover, the chronicles deal chiefly with the past, and this distinguishes them from annals properly so called.

ANNALS

The term annals, though often confused with chronicles, nevertheless indicates a different class. Like chronicles, they are chronological records, but taken down successively, registering from day to day the events of each year. This gives an idea of the fundamental distinction between annals and chronicles. Chronicles are ordinarily compilations requiring lengthy preparatory work, arranged after a preconceived plan, and revealing the personality of their author in the conduct of the narrative. Annals, on the other hand, are original, and are to be consulted as sources at first hand. Being written from day to day, they require no effort of composition; they reveal a succession of many hands, and leave an impression of impersonal labour. They might well be compared with our daily papers, while chronicles come nearest to our modern memoirs. The prototype of all medieval annals is the famous “Chronographus,” or Calendar, of 354, an official document of the Roman Empire, containing in embryo the annals of later periods. Besides an official calendar, and other items, this precious document has a record of other consular annals up to 354, the paschal tables for the hundred years succeeding 312, a list of the popes up to Liberius, and a universal chronicle reaching as far as 338. Besides the consular annals drawn up at Ravenna, and of great importance for the fifth century, the paschal tables are interesting, inasmuch as they throw light upon the origin of medieval annals. Consular annals, and the method of calculation according to imperial reigns, were indeed of necessity before the ancient chronological system was abandoned. But once this custom fell into disuse, the paschal tables, used to determine the date of Easter and other movable feasts, became the basis of the chronology of the day. Every church of any importance possessed a copy, and once Dionysius Exiguus had admitted the canon of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, for calculating the dates of the Christian era, and Bede had inserted these tables in his work entitled “De ratione temporum,” the influence exerted by such tables increased.

ORIGIN OF ANNALS

The use of paschal tables was very early prevalent in England, and the custom of making a chronological list of events was introduced into Gaul and Germany by Anglo-Saxon missionaries, who began their labours on the continent during the course of the seventh century. In the margin of these paschal cycles notes were made, opposite the year, of occurrences and historical events of which it was desired to keep a record. This is the origin of annals. The list of popes, as given by the “Chronographus” of 354, furnishes a concrete example of the formation of annals. This list, dating back to 230, was continually being filled out, and little by little it was embellished by an account of the chief events of the pontificate, a list of the works undertaken by the various pontiffs, their merits, details of ecclesiastical organization, and the management of their finances. This was the beginning of the famous “Pontificale Romanum,” more commonly known under the title of “Liber Pontificalis.” In imitation of this collection, there developed in many cathedrals and abbeys similar records, modelled on the plan of the “Liber Pontificalis.” We may cite as an example the “Gesta episcoporum Antissiodorensium” of Henry of Auxerre (841), also the greater number of local histories of abbeys or episcopal sees gathered in the eleventh century under such titles as “Gesta episcoporum Cameracensium,” “Gesta episcoporum Leodiensium “, etc. The annals which we found in embryo in the “Chronographus” and the “Liber Pontificalis” do not appear in a well-defined form until the Carlovingian period. At least no specimens have come down to us dating from Merovingian times, and we can easily see why on the continent annals appear only towards the end of the eighth century. Having originated in England, where the tables of Bede were amplified by marginal annotations more copious as time went on, these rudimentary annals were introduced everywhere by the Anglo-Saxon missionaries. Copies were soon made of the marginal notes, and they were passed from hand to hand, and from monastery to monastery. Where copied separately, these notes formed the general basis of all medieval annals. To these notes as a nucleus were added local data; the different versions were compared and arranged in chronological order; other annotations were made, of special local interest; lastly, they were filled out from other sources. Some of the earliest annals clearly betray their foreign source or origin. Thus the “Annales Mosellani,” taken from the great annals of the monastery of Lorsch, show at the beginning of the records for 704–707 names undoubtedly Irish, proving that the little chronicle “De temporibus” of Bede was in use until 708, when original notes of Frankish origin appear for the first time. Of great interest, also, from this point of view are the annals discovered by Pertz in a manuscript of St.-Germain-des-Prés. They begin with short annotations from Lindisfarne, for the years 643–664. Next in order come notes of Canterbury for 673–690. It appears that Alcuin took this manuscript from England to the court of Charlemagne and there, from 782 to 787, inserted yearly the names of the different places where the Emperor celebrated Easter. To this primitive basis the monks of Saint-Germain-des-Prés added local annotations based in turn on ancient annals of Saint-Denis reaching to 887. In conclusion, names from Lindisfarne are found heading the annals of Fulda and Corvei. The earliest Carlovingian annals are now grouped by historians under three principal heads:

(1) The “Annales S. Amandi,” and others derived from them;

(2) The annals which grew out of the early historical annotations of the monastery of Lorsch;

(3) The “Annales Murbacenses.”

In spite of the impersonal character of these narratives, they show traces of true Carlovingian legitimism, as well as the loyalty of their authors to the Austrasian dynasty. They are not continuous narratives, and their rudimentary form, consisting of a simple arrangement of recollections in chronological order, recalls the earliest stage of this class of literature. In Belgium especially these early annals were filled out in various monasteries, until after many alterations they formed the basis of the celebrated Chronicle of Sigebert of Gembloux (1112).

THE REICHSANNALEN

Under Charlemagne annals as a class begin to appear in a new form. These narratives are without doubt anonymous, but many of them bear a personal stamp, which gives to the whole a certain official character. There now becomes apparent in annals a tendency to form a history of the kingdom, written under the inspiration of the court. Whence we have the term “Reichsannalen” in order to distinguish the latter class from monastic annals. The historian Ranke (Zur Kritik fränkisch-deutscher Reichsannalisten. Berlin, 1854) has demonstrated this official tendency especially in connection with the “Annales Laurissenses maiores.” These annals could not have been written in the solitude of the cloister without external influence. If, on the one hand, the great internal misfortunes and dissensions of the kingdom are carefully ignored, so as not to cast discredit on the reigning princes, the writers of these annals are nevertheless very well informed and, on the other hand, show themselves to be fully in touch with whatever concerns military manœuvres and international affairs. After 796 the “Annales Laurissenses maiores” are written in an entirely different style, and in the form which characterizes them from this time until 829 there is a tendency to regard them as coming in part from the pen of Einhard. This is still, however, a controverted question. As the “Reichsannalen” date only from 741, need was felt of obtaining information on the history of the preceding period, and with this purpose in view (according to the opinion of Waitz) the “Chronicon Universale” (see “Monumenta Germaniæ Historica: Scriptores,” XIII, 1–19) was drawn up about 761. There we find extracts from the “Little Chronicle” of Bede, diversified by matter borrowed from St. Jerome, Orosius, the chronicle of Fredegarius and his successors, the Gesta Francorum, the chronicle of Isidore of Seville, the “Liber Pontificalis,” the “Annales Mosellani,” and the “Annales Laureshamenses.” From about this same period data the “Annales Laurissenses minores” (806?), the “Annales Maximiani” (710–811) and the “Annales of Flavigny” (816). The “Reichsannalen” were in greatest vogue, it is now thought, during the unity of the Carlovingian empire under Charlemagne. Though the Carlovingian monarchy was divided by the Treaty of Verdun (843), we find in the now independent Provinces direct continuations of the “Reichsannalen.” In Germany the reigns of Louis the Pious and his sons produced the “Annales Fuldenses.” There is no doubt that they were written in a monastery, and the character of their contents betrays a local origin, although they pretend to review the history of the whole kingdom. The author must certainly have been in touch with the court. The narrative is objective and of great value. For the period from 711 to 829, they draw upon the royal annals, from 714 to 741 on the “Annales Laurissenses minores” and from 741 to 823 they take their inspiration from “Annales Lithienses,” which in turn have an undoubtedly official character. A species of Reichsannalen is found in the “Annales Mettenses.” In France also we have continuations of the “Reichsannalen,” The “Annales Bertiniani” begin to exhibit 830–835 a universal character. These annals are almost the only source of the “Chronicon de gestis Normannorum in Franciâ,” and after 835 were supplemented by the pen of Prudentius of Troyes (died 861). They were continued by Hinemar of Reims to 882. Later these annals with the “Annales Vedastini” passed into the “Chronicon Vedastinum,” an attempt at a general history extending as far as 899. This class of annals was continued in the tenth century by Flodoard of Reims (died 966), who reviewed the chief events from 919 to 966. The Reichsannalen were in vogue only in those countries that had once been part of the Carlovingian empire. For Lotharingia we must mention the “Chronicle” of Regino, Abbot of Prüm (died 915), which covers the period between the birth of Christ and 906. The work is arranged according to the chronological list of the reigns of emperors, and the form resembles that of the Reichsannalen. Nevertheless, there is this difference, that Regino reviews the events of the past while the royal annals were contemporary with the events they recorded. In countries which were at some distance from the centre of the Carlovingian empire, or which had never been under the sway of Charlemagne and his successors, annals took either the form of chronicles, with pretentions to a universal character, or were merely local narratives, as those which appeared in Carlovingian provinces after the tenth and eleventh centuries.

ANNALS IN ITALY

Thus Italy is very poor in annals, a barrenness which is attributed to the lack of speculative and theological interests in the country. It is difficult to give any praise to such examples as the “Chronica Sancti Benedicti Casinensis,” written at Monte Cassino, under the Abbot John (914–934); the “Constructio Farfensis,” a history of the foundation of the abbey, written at Farfa in the middle of the ninth century; an extract from Paul the Deacon with continuation, the “Andreæ presbyteri Bergomatis chronicon,” written at Bergamo in 877; and the chronicle of Benedict of St. Andrew, at Mount Soracte in 968, which, unfortunately, is filled with legends. All these productions, conceived in the annalistic style, are extremely barbarous. The one noteworthy exception is the “Chronicon Salernitanum” of 974, which has some claims to literary merit. The matter is good despite the lack of critical ability which disfigures the work.

IN SPAIN

In Spain we find only universal annals or chronicles. Mention may be made of the “Chronicon” of Idatius, Bishop of Galicia (870), who continued the Chronicle of St. Jerome; and the Chronicle of Isidore of Seville, “De sex aetatibus mundi,” one of the earliest types of annals, dated according to the Spanish era, which began thirty-eight years before the Christian era.

IN ENGLAND

England, where annals based on the paschal cycle had their origin, furnished but few examples of this class, as compared with France and Germany. Worthy of notice are the “Annales Cantuarmenses” (618–690); the “Historia Eliensis Ecclesiæ” (700); the paschal tables and chronicle of Bede; the “Annales Nordhumbrani” (734–802); the “Annales Lindisfarnenses” (532–993); the “Annales Cambriæ” (444–1066), etc. In this country historiography proper begins only with the Norman Conquest (1066). At that time the authors of English chronicles begin to be vastly superior to others in their adherence to fact, and they evince a remarkable zeal for accuracy of information, and the employment and investigation of diplomatic documents.

IN IRELAND

ln medieval Ireland there was “a special class of persons who made it their business to record, with the utmost accuracy, all remarkable events, simply and briefly, without any ornament of language, without exaggeration, and without fictitious embellishment” (Joyce). As a rule they noted down only what occurred during their own lives; earlier happenings were regularly taken from previous compilations constructed on the same plan. The general accuracy of these records has been tested and verified in various ways, e. g. by their references to physical phenomena of known date (eclipses, comets), the concurrent testimony of foreign writers, their own consistency among themselves, and the evidence of ancient monuments. Many of the ancient Irish annals have disappeared and are known only by name; not a few, however, are still extant. To a great extent they were composed in the native Irish tongue, and they remain yet important philological monuments. Among these “Annals” written entirely or mostly in Irish are the following: The “Synchronisms of Flann,” principal of the school of Monasterboice (died 1056), known as “the Annalist” and the most learned scholar of his age in Ireland. This work exhibits in parallel columns the succession and regnal years of several pre-Christian, foreign dynasties, and a carefully constructed series of the Kings of Ireland. It contains, also, parallel lists of the same monarchs, and the provincial Kings of Ireland and the Kings of Scotland, from the time of St. Patrick to 1119. This work, composed in elaborate Irish metres, includes nearly 4,000 lines, and is really annals or history versified, a kind of class-book or manual of general history for the use of his pupils (Hyde). Imperfect copies of it are preserved at Dublin in the “Book of Lecan” and the “Book of Ballymote.” The “Annals of Tigernach” (Teerna), written in Irish with an admixture of Latin, deal chiefly with the history of Ireland. He was Abbot of Clonmacnoise and Roscommon and died in 1088; it is conjectured by M. d’Arbois de Jubainville that his annals (valuable but meagre) were based on some ancient records kept uninterruptedly at Clonmacnoise from 544, the year of its foundation. These annals were edited by Whitley Stokes in the sixteenth and seventeenth volumes of the “Revue Celtique” (Paris, 1895–96).

The “Annals of Innisfallen,” compiled in the abbey of that name on an island in the Lakes of Killarney, where its ruins are still visible, written in Irish and Latin, are generally ascribed to the year 1215, though “there is good reason to believe that they were commenced two centuries earlier” (Joyce). They were later on continued to 1318 (O’Conor, SS. Rer. Hib., 1825). The “Annals of Ulster” were written on the little island of Senait MacManus or Belle Isle in Upper Lough Erne. They deal almost exclusively with Ireland from 444 and were originally compiled by Cathal (Cabal) Maguire, who died in 1498, continued to 1541 by Rory O’Cassidy, and by an anonymous writer to 1604. They have been edited and translated in four volumes (vol. I, by W. M. Hennessy, vols. II-IV by B. MacCarthy, Rolls Series, London, 1887–1901). The “Annals of Loch Cé” (Key), from an island in Lough Key, Roscommon, are written in Irish, and treat chiefly of Ireland (1014 to 1636), though English, Scotch, and continental happenings are noticed. They were edited for the Rolls Series by W. M- Hennessy (London, 1871). The “Annals of Connaught” from 1224 to 1562 are written in Irish, and are extant in manuscript copies in Trinity College, and in the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin. The “Annals of Boyle,” a famous abbey in Roscommon, are written in Irish and Latin, and though very meagre, come down from the remotest period to 1253 (O’Conor, SS. Rer. Hib. 1829). There is a vellum copy in the British Museum. The “Chronicon Scotorum” (Chronicle of the Scots, or Irish), of uncertain origin, but written out in its present shape about 1650 by the Irish antiquary Duald MacFirbis, was edited and translated for the Rolls Series by W. M. Hennessy (London, 1866). The “Annals of Clonmacnoise” from a very early date to 1408 were written originally in Irish, but are now known only in an English translation made in 1627. They were recently edited by Rev. Denis Murphy, S. J. (Dublin, 1896). It was only after the Norman Conquest that exclusively Latin annals were written in Ireland. Probably the most ancient of them are the “Annals of Multifarnan,” from the beginning of the Christian era to 1224, edited by Aquilla Smith for the Irish Archæological Society (Dublin, 1849). The same society published also the Latin annals of John Clyn (a Kilkenny Franciscan) and Thady Dowling, from the birth of Christ to 1348, “mere entries of names and facts.” The “Annales Hiberniæ” of Christopher Pembridge, from 1162 to 1370, are said to be for that period “the chief authority on the affairs of the English settlement in Ireland” (ed. J. T. Gilbert, Rolls Series, London, 1884).

MONASTIC ANNALS

The annals of the Carlovingian period, the Reichsannalen, and their continuations are to be found all through the Middle Ages. In the eleventh century, however, there appeared a new class of annals, which it is of importance to describe, for they sprang from new social conditions. By this time the feudal system had succeeded the former unity of the Carlovingian kingdom. Each estate (fief), both lay and ecclesiastical, had become a little world apart, having full charge of its own life. The political sense and the sympathy of common interests disappeared, and churches and monasteries busied themselves chiefly with their saints, their relies, and their local interests. The consequences soon appeared in the province of historiography. There could now be no question of general or universal history. Local history prevailed, and with the exception of Germany, where the great universal concept of the Roman Empire had persisted, and where the great Chronicles suffer no default during this period, other lands give us chiefly monastic annals and local histories. The most important of these are the episcopal annals or chronicles, which review the history of the diocese or metropolis. They are generally arranged after the plan of the “Liber Pontificalis,” and relate in connection with each bishop or abbot the chief events and achievements of his administration in chronological order. Attempts had been made along the same line previous to the eleventh century; among the most remarkable annals of this earlier period we may mention the “Gesta abbatum Fontainellensium” (834–845), the “Gesta episcoporum Mettensium” of Paul the Deacon (eighth century), the “Acta Vetusta Abbatum Fuldensium” (ninth century), the “Gesta episcoporum Virdunensium” (917), the “Gesta episcoporum Antissiodorensium” (ninth century), the “Gesta episcoporum Tungrensium” of Herigerus of Lobbes (980), the “Acta episcoporum Cenomanensium” (850–856), the “Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum” (ninth century), the “Gesta episcoporum Halberstadensium”(968–994). Already there are genuine Chronicles, written by a single author after a preconceived plan, with an informing idea which dominates the narrative, giving it a personal character. The form alone still recalls earlier annals. During the eleventh century examples of this class were produced in Belgium: at Cambrai the “Gesta episcoporum Cameracensium,” written by a clerk of the cathedral; at Liège the “Gesta episcoporum Leodiensium,” by the Canon Anselm, a work directly connected with the chronicle of Herigerus of Lobbes. There are, even at this early period, great annals, real chronicles, embodying diplomas and acts of donation, with the subject-matter well synthesized. From this time on it is hard to distinguish between annals and chronicles. In addition we come across manuscripts, like the “Annales” of Lambert of Hersfeld (1077–80), which are in reality personal memoirs. By the side of these episcopal chronicles there appear an immense number of local monastic annals, which record with minute fidelity things of interest to the monastery—donations, misfortunes, floods, storms, transfers of relics, etc.—a miscellany reminding us of the various items of our daily papers. Some of these annals still recall the far-off origin of this class of literature by their titles; thus, for example, the “Chronicon Sti. Dionysii ad cycles paschales” (eleventh and twelfth centuries). Every monastery of any importance possessed these collections of notes, the total number of which is extremely large. This movement is closely connected with the monastic revival, which began in the eleventh century owing to the Reforms of Cluny. With this religious awakening are connected two movements, one internal, the other external, which contributed not a little to the development of medieval histeriography. On the one hand we have the Quarrel of Investitures and on the other the Crusades. For the Quarrel of Investitures, mention should be made above all of Lambert of Hersfeld, already named, and the celebrated chronicler Otto of Freisingen, or Bamberg (died 1158). Son of St. Leopold of Austria, and related through his mother to the line of emperors, Otto was invited by Frederick Barbarossa, personally, to write the history of his times. It was for Frederick that he composed his “Chronicon,” a universal history in eight books, filled with philosophical ideas, and imitating “De Civitate Dei” by St. Augustine. Otto reached the history of his own time (1100–46) in the seventh volume. The work was interrupted by his death, and was continued by Ragewin, Provost of Freisingen, who added four volumes (1155–60). The whole is remarkable for the manner in which events are linked together.

ANGLO-NORMAN CHRONICLES

To this period belong the great Anglo-Norman chronicles, which came into existence with the conquest of William of Normandy. The principal Anglo-Norman chronicles were written by foreigners, the Normans of France: William of Jumièges, who in his “Historia Normannorum” gives a résumé of the chronicle of Dudan of Saint-Quentin (860–1002) and continues it up to 1135; Odericus Vitalis, the most important of all, who wrote a general history of the Normans in France, England, and Sicily, under the title “Historia Ecclesiastica,” covering the period from the beginning of the Christian era to 1142. Lastly we have William of Malmesbury (died 1148), who wrote the history of England, beginning with its Saxon origins, under the title “De Gestis Anglorum” in five books (449–1126), with a Supplement, “Historin Novella” (1126–46). At this time also there appeared two great chronicles, the “Chronica” of Roger Hoveden (732–1201) and the “Chronica major” of Matthew of Paris, beginning with time creation and continuing up to 1259. During the same period the Crusades gave the impulse for a new sort of literature, very important from an ecclesiastical point of view. The chief historian of this school, the author who furnishes us the true type of this class of literature, is William of Tyre, historian of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. Although based in part on the chronicle of Albert of Aix (1121), his history becomes entirely original on reaching the Second Crusade (1147–48). The author is extraordinarily learned, having a knowledge of classic literature and an acquaintance with the works of Arab historians. He was skilled in the art of narration, showed exceptional talent in arrangement of his characters, and in logical presentation of facts. His “Belli Sacri historia” is a work remarkable for the times. In Spain the most important Chronicle for the period of the Crusades is the “Chronica Hispaniæ” of Rodriguez, Archbishop of Toledo (1243), which is original in the section on the thirteenth century. The Crusades also gave birth to two other classes of historical literature: a revival of universal chronicles, and the Chronicles and Annals written in the vernacular.

UNIVERSAL CHRONICLES

The annals and chronicles of the feudal period put into circulation an amount of disconnected information, and an attempt was now made to meet the need of a new method of synthesis, which was making itself felt. Universal and general history, which had disappeared at the advent of feudalism, gained fresh vigour during the Crusades, when the different territories and populations came once more into contact with each other and the political horizon widened out. These Latin annals and chronicles bear a close resemblance to one another and rest for the most part on common sources. Patient toil has been required to distinguish between the originals and copies. They differ only in the point of departure of the various narratives. The majority begin with the Creation of the World, some with the Christian era. The prototypes of these chronicles were universal annals written in Germany, the most celebrated of which is the “Chronicon” of Herman Contractus, monk of Reichenau (died 1054). The author begins at the birth of Christ and is remarkable for the number of sources which he has utilized and the care exercised in establishing his chronology. This “Chronicon” was begun after the year 1048 and stopped at 1054. The real father of these universal annals of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries is Marianus Scotus, an Irish monk, who lived in Cologne, and later at Mainz, where he died in 1082 or 1083. He composed a “Chronicon” covering the period from the creation to 1082. This writer was concerned chiefly with the chronology of events, in which he wished to correct his predecessors. On this point he was highly esteemed during the Middle Ages, and is praised by Sigebert of Gembloux for his accuracy. His “Chronicon” had great vogue in England, where many chroniclers of the twelfth century made use of it and wrote continuations. This period also produced the “Chronicon,” called in some manuscripts the “Chronographia,” of Sigebert of Gembloux (died 1112), a continuation of the chronicles of Eusebius and St. Jerome from 381 to the author’s own time. In this work Sigebert, a well-informed man of independent spirit, follows the chronology of his predecessor Marianus Scotus, endeavouring to bring into proper proportion the various parts of his history. A multitude of annals of earlier centuries were used in the preparation of this “Chronicon.” Quite as important as the “Chronicon” of Sigebert is the “Chronicon Uspergense” of Ekkehard of Aura (died 1129?), one of the most celebrated German historians of the Middle Ages. Coming down to Robert of Auxerre (died 1212), we find that he marks the transition between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. His chronicle, reaching from the Creation to 1211, preserves the moderation of the earlier chronicles, eliminating the tales and romances of the troubadours and trouvères, who had created a legendary literature that was gradually gaining in influence. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines (died about 1252) made a brave attempt to resist the current, by disregarding romantic fictions in his “Chronicle” (1241), but he admits without question the fables of Pseudo-Turpin. In this way these great compilations of annals of the thirteenth century lose in value what they gain in volume. At this same time John of Colonna (1298), an Italian Dominican, wrote his “Sea of Histoirie.” Vincent of Beauvais (died 1264), also a Dominican, compiled a great encyclopedia of annals, which is known under the title of “Speculum Majus.” What gives an encyclopedic character to this lengthy work is the fact that the author combines sacred, profane, and literary history into a continuous narrative. Too extensive to come into common use, this work of Vincent of Beauvais nevertheless had great vogue through the medium of the chronicle of Martinus Polonus (died 1279), who arranged a compendium.

INFLUENCE OF THE MENDICANT ORDERS

With the rise of the mendicant orders, such as the Dominicans, there arose a new literature answering the different needs of these orders. In contrast with the ancient Benedictines, who, being confined within the silence of their cloisters, found no interests outside the monastery, the Dominican monks were less concerned with feudal questions and mingled more in the life of the people. The result is that their annals, while containing more material of general historical interest, show fewer charters and documents, and care less for the local affairs of a province or an estate. However, at this period we notice the spreading intrusion of legend into this field of literature. On the other hand, beginning with Robert of Auxerre, writers indicate their sources, perhaps under the influence of the scholastic method of disputation. The Crusades also mark the point of diversion between annals and national chronicles written in the vernacular. It was for the illiterate people—that is to say, the great mass of the populace who could not understand Latin—that the first chronicles and annals in the vernacular were intended. The earliest of these chronicles were in rhyme, like the ballads of the trouvères and troubadours which they were intended to replace. They contained quotations from the Latin chronicles which were consulted, or of which a translation was attempted. In Normandy and in England the most important of these chroniclers is Robert Wane (1155), Canon of Bayeux under Henry II of England. He wrote the “Roman de Brut,” a popular version of the history of the Britons, and the “Roman de Rou,” based in part on the Chronicles of William of Jumièges and Odericus Vitalis. For France mention may be made of Villehardouin (died 1213), who in his “Conqueste de Constantinople” reviewed the history of the Second Crusade; and Joinville, known for his “Histoire de Saint Louys” completed in 1304. For the Netherlands, we must not omit Jehan Froissart and his “Chronique de France, d’Angleterre, de Flandre et pays circonvoisins,” one of the most celebrated works of the fourteenth century. Spain produced the “Cronica general de España,” which goes as far as 1252, and of which the original part begins with the thirteenth century. In Italy we find the history of Florence from the pen of John Villani, a Florentine citizen, and a rival of Froissart. England has the “Polychronicon” of Ranulph Higden (1367), translated into English by John of Treviso, with an original continuation reaching to 1387. Lastly, beginning with the fifteenth century we see for the first time official historiographers, among the first of whom was George Chastelain (died 1475). This marks the beginning of the modern epoch in which a fresh orientation brought the historiography of the Middle Ages once more into favour.

AUTHORS OF ANNALS

Medieval annals strictly speaking, that is to say collections in which facts are set down successively from day to day, are for the most part anonymous. There can be no question of discovering the authors of these collections, for often a brief examination of the original manuscript reveals a succession of many hands. Furthermore, it is very often impossible, or at least exceedingly difficult, to determine the original home of these annals. They are very often called after the name of the monastery in which the manuscript was found, e. g. “Annales Bertiniani,” “Annales Sci. Amandi,” etc. Often the only indication of the source of these Annals is the appearance of notes of local interest peculiar to the annals in question, inserted among common material known to have been taken from other sources. The repetition of notes concerning a definite locality or region may often head to the discovery of the place of origin. Undoubtedly there are exceptions, and the “Annales” of Flodoard and of Lambert of Hersfeld, to cite no others, do not come within this anonymous class. But there are real chronicles, and even memoirs, in which the style, the co-ordination of material, revealing a personality, are corroborated by indications of the author himself. This is notably true of the great majority of chronicles, and it happens more than once that great names like those of Herigerus of Lobbes, Anselm of Liège, Otto of Freisingen, Marianus Scotus, and Sigebert of Gembloux lend their authority to these literary productions. In annals and chronicles of a general character there is often to be found a section copied from earlier sources followed by original matter beginning with the very time of Composition. In these annals the part which has been copied can often be traced very far back, and may reveal, in spite of the many disfigurements, the original source of this literary production. This is the case, for example, in the annals of the manuscript of Saint-Germain-des-Prés discovered by Pertz and mentioned above. In chronicles the copied portion corresponds almost always to the period previous to the time when the author began to write and that alone, as a general rule, has any value as a contemporary document. These points apply only to annals properly so called, and to universal chronicles. We have, obviously, historical collections which are valuable in all their parts, but for annals properly so called the case is rare, and for chronicles it is true, in general, only of local chronicles. These, in fact, are often based on documents which may have perished, such as acts of donation, deeds, domestic memoirs, information of a more particular character than universal chronicles, and by far more liable to destruction.

USE OF ANNALS AND CHRONICLES

We have seen that we possess some chronicles which are of great value because they embody within the narrative documents which it is often impossible to find or which have disappeared. These chronicles, then, perform the function of a cartulary. There are annotated cartularies where the various documents are arranged in chronological order for the reign of the abbot or prince during which the events took place. This is notably the case in the “Gesta Abbatum Lithiensum” of Folcuin of Saint-Bertin, a work sometimes called “Chartularium Folcuini” (961). Episcopal chronicles also offer us frequent instances of this class. It is sufficient to mention the “Gesta episcoporum Cameracensium” of the eleventh century. The majority of these local chronicles reproduce the tradition, popular or local, of the monastery which they concern and confine themselves to recording gossip and various kinds of information. They often combine data based on monuments still in existence, without asking themselves whether the version of these sources had been tainted with legends, and they did not take the least trouble to examine the origin and value of their information. We should not be too severe in passing judgment on these works. The authors were bounded by a limited horizon, often equipped with merely a rudimentary training, without the many devices for facilitating labour furnished by science to-day, such as works of reference and indices, which constitute, so to speak, a condensed form of knowledge. Such chronicles, moreover, were often written with the same purpose as the lives of the saints. Those, having a general tendency to enhance as much as possible the glory of their hero, were nothing more than panegyrics. Monastic chronicles and annals are not free from this tendency, and often begin with an account of the life of the saint who founded the abbey, concerning themselves more with asceticism than with the historical facts and events, which would be of such value to us to-day. In conclusion, the first part of these chronicles, written for the most part since the eleventh century, almost always recounts legends, often based on oral tradition, but sometimes invented for the purpose of embellishing the early history of the monastery, and of thus increasing the devotion of the faithful. Prudent criticism should be applied to the majority of these productions; the errors with which they are tainted can best be discovered by consulting the charters and diplomas quoted. Chronology especially is often treated carelessly. As far as the annals are concerned, taken in their strictest sense, it is easily understood how such a thing could happen. As, in the beginning, they were nothing but annotations made in the margin of the “Paschal Cycle,” the copyists were often deceived as to the juxtaposition of chronological notes and historical events. This material error became later the source of a multitude of chronological mistakes, which, passing from the annals into compilations or universal chronicles, falsified history for a long period. To correct errors of this sort Marianus Scotus wrote his chronicle. Finally, these annals and chronicles, being above all compiled works, were not concerned with eliminating the contradictions that the fusion of legendary and historical facts had caused. Thus Benedict of St. Andrew, of Mount Soracte, in his “Chronicon” accepts and reproduces the legend of Charlemagne’s voyage to the Orient, an episode which had been spread abroad by legendary ballads. He inserts this narrative among the historical data taken from the “Vita Karoli” of Einhard, and does not seem to be at all chagrined at the contradiction resulting from this juxtaposition. It is true that there were in the Middle Ages choice minds, like those of Herigerus of Lobbes, Folcuin of Saint-Bertin, Otto of Freisingen, Sigebert of Gembloux, etc., whose works prove them to have been lights of criticism, but unfortunately they are the exception. All this class of literature—annals as well as chronicles—must be controlled by official documents and parallel sources of information if they are to serve as material for the history of the distant past.

GARDINER AND MULLINGER, Introduction to the Study of English History (London, 3d ed., 1894); GROSS, The Sources and Literature of English History from the Earliest Times to about 1485 (London, 1900); EBERT, Allgemeine Geschichte der Litteratur des Mittelalters im Abendlande (Leipzig, vol. I, 2d ad., 1889; vol. II, 2d ed., 1890; vol. III, 1st ed., 1887); DE SMEDT, Introductio generals ad historiam ecclesiasticam critice tractandam (Ghent, 1876); WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter bis zur Mitte des dreizehnten Jahrhundert (Berlin, vol. I, 7th ed., 1904; vol. II 6th ed., 1892); LORENZ, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter seit dem XIIIten Jahrhundert (Berlin, 2d ed., 1886–87); POTTHAST, Bibliotheca Historica Medii Ævi. Wegweiser durch die Geschichtswerke des europäischen Mittelalters bis 1500 (Berlin, 1896); BALZANI, Le chronache italiane nel medio evo (Milan, 2d ed., 1900); MOLNIER, Les sources de l’histoire de France depuis les origines jusqu’en 1789 (Paris, 1901–06); MŒELLER, Traité des études historiques, with additions by CH. MŒELLER (Paris, 1892); DUCHESNE, Etude sur le Liber Pontificalis in the Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome (Paris, 1877); MONOD, Etude critique sur les sources de l’histoire carolingienne (Paris, 1898); KURZE, Einhard (Berlin, 1899); WAITZ, Ueber die Entwickelung der deutschen Historiographie im Mittelalter in SCHMIDT’S Zeitschrift für Geschiehte, II, 97–103; WIBEL, Beiträge zur Kritik der Annales Regni Francorum und Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi (Strasburg, 1902).

L. VAN DER ESSEN

Annas

(According to Blass and Wescott-Hort, Annas; Josephus, Ananos). Name (cf. Heb. Hãnãn, Syr. Hanãn) of same derivation as Hannah (see ANNA).

Annas, son of Seth, succeeded (A. D. 6 or 7) Joazar in the high-priesthood by appointment of Quirinius who had come to Judea to attend to the incorporation of Archelaus’s territory into the Roman province of Syria (Josephus, Ant., XVIII, ii, 1). After his deposition (A. D. 15) by V. Gratus, the high-priests followed upon one another in rapid succession: Ismael, Eleazar (son of Annas; perhaps the Alexander of Acts, iv, 6, Alexander being the Græcized name of Eleazar), Simon, until we come to Joseph, called Caiaphas, who knew how to retain the favour of the Roman authorities from A. D. 18 to 36 (Josephus, Ant., XVIII, ii, 2). But his deposition did not deprive Annas of his influence which must have remained considerable, to judge by the fact that beside Eleazar, his son, and Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law (John, xviii, 13), four other sons, viz., Jonathan (perhaps the John of Acts, iv, 6, where D reads ionathas), Theophilus, Matthias, Annas (Ananos) II, obtained the dignity of high-priests (Jos., Ant., XVIII, iv, 3; v, 3; XIX, vi, 4; XX, ix, I). The New Testament references to Annas convey the same impression. His name appears with that of Joseph Caiaphas, who was the actual high-priest during the ministry of the Saviour (Matt., xxvi, 3, 57; John, xi, 49, 51) in the elaborate synchronisms wherewith St. Luke introduces the public ministry of Our Lord (Luke, iii, 2). The commanding position of the former high-priest is attested also by the prominent place awarded to him in Acts, iv, 6; here Annas is introduced as “the High-Priest,” whilst Joseph Caiaphas’s name simply follows with those of the other members of the high-priestly race. Those formulæ, which might leave on the reader the impression that the author considered Annas and Caiaphas as discharging the functions of the high-priesthood simultaneously (Luke, iii, 2), or even that Annas alone was the actual high-priest (Acts, iv, 6), have given rise to many hypotheses—more or less plausible. They are to be considered as not strictly accurate, but they are a testimony to the ascendency of Annas. But Annas is more than a mere chronological landmark in the life of the Saviour; according to our common text of John, xviii, 13–27, Annas would have played a part at a decisive point of the life of Jesus. After His arrest, the Lord is brought directly to Annas, in whose palace a kind of unofficial, preliminary interrogatory takes place, an episode entirely omitted by the Synoptists. It must be said, however, that the common text seems to be here in a disturbed condition, as Maldonatus had already remarked (I, 427–428). If the order of Syr. Sin. (XVIII, 13, 24, 14–15, 19–23, 16–18, 25–27) be adopted, the succession of the facts gains in clearness and consistency, though the Annas episode becomes altogether secondary in the narrative. The “house of Annas,” wealthy and unscrupulous, is pronounced accursed in the Talmud, together with “the corrupt leaders of the priesthood,” whose presence defiled the sanctuary (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah I, 263 f.).

Commentaries on Luke, iii, 2, especially those of SCHANZ, PLUMMER, WEISS, and HOLTZMANN; on Acts, iv, 6. KNOWLING, Expositor’s Greek Testament (New York, 1900), II, and BLASS; on John, xxviii, 12–27, CALMES, Commentaries (Paris, 1904), 419–422; ZARN, Einl. in das N. T. (Leipzig, 1900), II, 509, 510, 524; DRUMMOND, The Authorship and Character of the Fourth Gospel (London, 1903), 434–436; MOFFATT, The Historical N. T. (Edinburgh, 1901), p. xl and 693 sqq.; BRUNEAU, Harmony of the Gospels (New York, 1898), 121 sqq. of Synopse évangélique (Paris, 1901), 165 sqq.; SCHÜRER, The Jewish People in the Time of J. C. (tr.) Div. II, I, 182 sqq., 198, and 202–206.

EDWARD ARBEZ

François Annat

French Jesuit, theologian, writer, and one of the foremost opponents of Jansenism, b. 5 January, 1590, at Rodes; d. in Paris, 14 June, 1670. He entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus, 16 February, 1607, was professor of philosophy for six, and theology for seven years, in the college of his order at Toulouse, of which he was subsequently appointed rector. Later he filled the same office at Montpellier. He was assistant to the General in Rome, and Provincial of Paris. In 1654 he was sent to the court as confessor of Louis XIV, and, after the faithful and unselfish discharge of the responsible duties of his office, he felt compelled to resign, owing to the illicit attachment of the King to the Duchess de la Valliere. He became known to the learned world in 1632, by a publication of a defense of the Jesuit doctrine of Divine grace against the Oratorian Gibieuf. In 1644 he began a series of more lengthy contributions of the celebrated controversy that sought to reconcile human freedom with Divine efficacious grace. He was prominent in defending Catholic orthodoxy against the attacks of the Port Royal theologians, and merited, in consequence, the notice of the versatile Pascal, who directed the last of the “Provincial Letters” against Pere Annat. A full description of his published works may be found in Sommervogel’s “Bibliotheque de la Compagnie de Jesus.” A complete edition, in three volumes, of his writings appeared in Paris, in 1666, under the title “Opuscula Theologica.”

JAMES J. SULLIVAN

Annates

The first fruits, or first year’s revenue of an ecclesiastical benefice paid to the Papal Curia (in medieval times to bishops also). One result of the centralizing of ecclesiastical administration in the Roman Curia during the course of the thirteenth century was that ecclesiastical benefices became more and more generally “collated,” i.e. granted, directly by the Pope. This was so, not only in the case of bishoprics and monasteries, vacancies which were filled by Rome either by direct appointment or by papal confirmation, but also in the case of smaller church livings (canonicates, parishes, etc.). On such occasions the papal treasury received from the new incumbent a certain tax derived from the income of the living. Since the fifteenth century this tax has been generally known as annates, a term comprehending all money taxes paid into the Apostolic Camera (papal treasury) on the occasion of the collation of any ecclesiastical benefice by the Pope. Under this term were included four classes of payments: (1) the servitia communia, payable on the granting of bishoprics or monasteries, appointments made in a consistory; these payments were divided between the cardinals and the papal treasury; (2) the servitia minuta, due on like occasions to various subordinate officials of the Curia; (3) the real annatæ in the narrower sense of the term, which were paid on the granting of a minor ecclesiastical benefice by the Pope outside of the consistory; all these payments reverted to the Apostolic Camera; (4) the socalled quindennia, payable every fifteen years by livings permanently united with some other benefice. Originally, however, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, annatæ or annalia, signified only the third class, the taxes derived from lesser benefices. In their origin, therefore, as well as in actual character, annates are distinct from other money tributes received by the papal treasury, or Camera, from ecclesiastical persons and institutions-from the census paid by individual churches and monasteries in recognition of their direct dependence on the Chair of St. Peter, the pallium moneys contributed by an archbishop on receiving the pallium, the visitation tributes given by an individual bishop and archbishop on his regular visitatio ad limina. Still more are annates to be distinguished from the Peter’s Pence accruing to the Papal Curia chiefly from the kingdoms of Northern Europe (England, Denmark, Poland, etc.) in token of a certain protection accorded by the Roman Church, and from the feudal tribute due from such territories as stood in real feudal relationship to Rome (e.g. Naples). Among the payments made to the Roman Curia in the fifteenth century under the general term of annates, the oldest are the servitia communia and the servitia minuta. At a very early period bishops who received episcopal consecration in Rome were wont to present gifts to the various ecclesiastical authorities concerned. Out of this custom there grew up a prescriptive right to such gifts; in the first half of the thirteenth century a regular scale of payment was prescribed for all the dioceses and abbeys liable to this tax upon appointment or confirmation of their prelates. During the thirteenth century there likewise arose in many cathedrals and collegiate churches the custom of appropriating for the bishops or other ecclesiastical officials a year’s income from vacant benefices. In exceptional cases some bishops received from the Pope authority to levy this annate on all benefices in their dioceses falling vacant within a specified period. In 1306 Clement V reserved for the papal treasury a year’s revenues from all benefices throughout England and Scotland at that time vacant or falling vacant within a period of three years. John XXII, in 1316, made a similar reservation of annates for three years on all ecclesiastical livings, with a few exceptions. From this time on the popes of the fourteenth century were very frequently forced to adopt these measures to obtain relief in financial straits. Moreover, after the thirteenth century the annate was required from benefices that had been for any reason whatever collated directly by the Pope. This tribute was fixed by John XXII (1316–34) at half the annual revenue. At the Council of Constance (1414–18) and later, many complaints were made concerning these assessments; and in concordats made by the popes with separate countries the annates were regulated anew. In particular it was decided that annates on reserved benefices could be paid to the Curia only when the annual income exceeded twenty-four gold gulden. With the gradual transformation of the system of benefices, the annates, strictly so called, disappeared. Today they are levied only on the occasion of new appointments to dioceses not subject to Propaganda, and after the manner fixed by the latest concordats or by the papal documents (Bulls of Circumscription) that legally establish a diocese.

FERRARIS, Prompta Bibliotheca, s. v. Annatæ (ed. 1884, 247 sqq.); THOMASSINUS, Vetus et nova eccles. disciplina, Part. II, I, xliv; PHILIPPS, Kirchenrecht, V, 540 sqq.; BERTHIER, Histoire de l’église gallicane, XIX, 1 sqq. (4th ed. Paris, 1827); KÖNIG, Die päpstliche Kammer unter Klemens V u. Johann XXII (Vienna, 1894); KIRSCH, Die päpstlichen Annaten in Deutschland während des 14 Jahrh. (Paderborn, 1903), I; ID., Die Finanzverwaltung des Kardinalkollegiums in Kirchengeschichtl. Studien (Münster, 1895), II, 4; HALLER, Papsttum und Kirchenreform (Berlin, 1903), I; GOTTLOB, Die Servitientaxe im 13. Jahrh. ., (Stuttgart, 1903); GÖLLER, Mitteilungen und Untersuchungen über das päpstliche Register- und Kanzleiwesen im 14. Jahrh., in Quellen und Forschungen aus ital. Archiven (Rome, 1904); SAMARAN ET MOLLAY, La fiscalité pontificale en France au XIVe siecle (Paris, 1905.

J.P. KIRSCH

St. Anne

Anne (Hebrew, Hannah, grace; also spelled Ann, Anne, Anna) is the traditional name of the mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

All our information concerning the names and lives of Sts. Joachim and Anne, the parents of Mary, is derived from apocryphal literature, the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and the Protoevangelium of James. Though the earliest form of the latter, on which directly or indirectly the other two seem to be based, goes back to about A.D. 150, we can hardly accept as beyond doubt its various statements on its sole authority. In the Orient the Protoevangelium had great authority and portions of it were read on the feasts of Mary by the Greeks, Syrians, Copts, and Arabians. In the Occident, however, it was rejected by the Fathers of the Church until its contents were incorporated by Jacobus de Voragine in his “Golden Legend” in the thirteenth century. From that time on the story of St. Anne spread over the West and was amply developed, until St. Anne became one of the most popular saints also of the Latin Church.

The Protoevangelium gives the following account: In Nazareth there lived a rich and pious couple, Joachim and Hannah. They were childless. When on a feast day Joachim presented himself to offer sacrifice in the temple, he was repulsed by a certain Ruben, under the pretext that men without offspring were unworthy to be admitted. Whereupon Joachim, bowed down with grief, did not return home, but went into the mountains to make his plaint to God in solitude. Also Hannah, having learned the reason of the prolonged absence of her husband, cried to the Lord to take away from her the curse of sterility, promising to dedicate her child to the service of God. Their prayers were heard; an angel came to Hannah and said: “Hannah, the Lord has looked upon thy tears; thou shalt conceive and give birth and the fruit of thy womb shall be blessed by all the world.” The angel made the same promise to Joachim, who returned to his wife. Hannah gave birth to a daughter whom she called Miriam (Mary). Since this story is apparently a reproduction of the biblical account of the conception of Samuel, whose mother was also called Hannah, even the name of the mother of Mary seems to be doubtful.

The renowned Father John of Eck of Ingolstadt, in a sermon on St. Anne (published at Paris in 1579), pretends to know even the names of the parents St. Anne. He calls them Stollanus and Emerentia. He says that St. Anne was born after Stollanus and Emerentia had been childless for twenty years; that St. Joachim died soon after the presentation of Mary in the temple; that St. Anne then married Cleophas, by whom she became the mother of Mary Cleophae (the wife of Alphaeus and mother of the Apostles James the Lesser, Simon and Judas, and of Joseph the Just); after the death of Cleophas she is said to have married Salomas, to whom she bore Maria Salomae (the wife of Zebedaeus and mother of the Apostles John and James the Greater). The same spurious legend is found in the writings of Gerson (Opp. III, 59) and of many others. There arose in the sixteenth century an animated controversy over the marriages of St. Anne, in which Baronius and Bellarmine defended her monogamy. The Greek Menaea (25 July) call the parents of St. Anne Mathan and Maria, and relate that Salome and Elizabeth, the mother of St. John the Baptist, were daughters of two sisters of St. Anne. According to Ephiphanius it was maintained even in the fourth century by some enthusiasts that St. Anne conceived without the action of man. This error was revived in the West in the fifteenth century. (Anna concepit per osculum Joachimi.) In 1677 the Holy See condemned the error of Imperiali who taught that St. Anne in the conception and birth of Mary remained virgin (Benedict XIV, De Festis, II, 9). In the Orient the cult of St. Anne can be traced to the fourth century. Justinian I (d. 565) had a church dedicated to her. The canon of the Greek Office of St. Anne was composed by St. Theophanes (d. 817), but older parts of the Office are ascribed to Anatolius of Byzantium (d. 458). Her feast is celebrated in the East on the 25th day of July, which may be the day of the dedication of her first church at Constantinople or the anniversary of the arrival of her supposed relics in Constantinople (710). It is found in the oldest liturgical document of the Greek Church, the Calendar of Constantinople (first half of the eighth century). The Greeks keep a collective feast of St. Joachim and St. Anne on the 9th of September. In the Latin Church St. Anne was not venerated, except, perhaps, in the south of France, before the thirteenth century. Her picture, painted in the eighth century, which was found lately in the church of Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome, owes its origin to Byzantine influence. Her feast, under the influence of the “Golden Legend,” is first found (26 July) in the thirteenth century, e.g. at Douai (in 1291), where a foot of St. Anne was venerated (feast of translation, 16 September). It was introduced in England by Urban VI, 21 November, 1378, from which time it spread all over the Western Church. It was extended to the universal Latin Church in 1584.

The supposed relics of St. Anne were brought from the Holy Land to Constantinople in 710 and were still kept there in the church of St. Sophia in 1333. The tradition of the church of Apt in southern France pretends that the body of St. Anne was brought to Apt by St. Lazarus, the friend of Christ, was hidden by St. Auspicius (d. 398), and found again during the reign of Charlemagne (feast, Monday after the octave of Easter); these relics were brought to a magnificent chapel in 1664 (feast, 4 May). The head of St. Anne was kept at Mainz up to 1510, when it was stolen and brought to Düren in Rheinland. St. Anne is the patroness of Brittany. Her miraculous picture (feast, 7 March) is venerated at Notre Dame d’Auray, Diocese of Vannes. Also in Canada, where she is the principal patron of the province of Quebec, the shrine of St. Anne de Beaupré is well known. St. Anne is patroness of women in labour; she is represented holding the Blessed Virgin Mary in her lap, who again carries on her arm the child Jesus. She is also patroness of miners, Christ being compared to gold, Mary to silver.

FREDERICK G. HOLWECK

Sainte Anne d’Auray

A little village three miles from the town of Auray (6,500 inhabitants), in the Diocese of Vannes (Morbihan), in French Brittany, famous for its sanctuary and for its pilgrimages, or pardons, in honour of St. Anne, to whom the people of Brittany, in very early times, on becoming Christian, had dedicated a chapel. This first chapel was destroyed about the end of the seventh century, but the memory of it was kept alive by tradition, and the village was still called “Keranna,” i.e. “Village of Anne.” More than nine centuries later, at the beginning of the seventeenth century (1624–25), St. Anne is said to have appeared several times to a simple and pious villager, and commanded him to rebuild the ancient chapel. The apparitions became so frequent, and before so many witnesses, that Sebastien de Rosmadec, Bishop of Vannes, deemed it his duty to inquire into the matter. Yves Nicolazic, to whom St. Anne had appeared, and numerous witnesses, testified to the truth of events which had become famous throughout Brittany, and the Bishop gave permission for the building of a chapel. Anne of Austria and Louis XIII enriched the sanctuary with many gifts, among them a relic of St. Anne brought from Jerusalem in the thirteenth century, and in 1641 the Queen obtained from the Pope the erection of a confraternity, which Pius IX raised to the rank of an archconfraternity in 1872. In the meanwhile pilgrimages had begun and became more numerous year by year, nor did the Revolution put a stop to them. The chapel, indeed was plundered, the Carmelites who served it driven out, and the miraculous statue of St. Anne was burned at Vannes in 1793; yet the faithful still flocked to the chapel, which was covered with ex-votos. In 1810 the convent of the Carmelites was turned into a petit séminaire. In 1866, the Cardinal Saint Marc laid and blessed the first stone of the present magnificent basilica. Finally, in 1868, Pius IX accorded to the statue of St. Anne, before which many miracles had been wrought, the honour of being crowned. St. Anne has continued to be the favourite pilgrimage of Brittany down to the present day:

C’est notre mère à tous; mort ou vivant, dit-on,

A Sainte-Anne, une fois, doit aller tout Breton.

The basilica, which is in Renaissance style, is a work of art. The marbles of the high altar are the gift of Pius IX; many of the bas-reliefs, with the statues of Nicolazic and Keriolet, are the work of the sculptor Falguihre. The principal pilgrimages take place at Pentecost and on the 26 July.

A. FOURNET

Sainte Anne de Beaupré

Devotion to Saint Anne, in Canada, goes back to the beginning of New France, and was brought thither by the first settlers and early missionaries. The hardy pioneers soon began to till the fertile soil of the Beaupré hillside; in the region which now forms the parish of Sainte Anne de Beaupré the first houses date from the year 1650. Nor was it long before the settlers built themselves a chapel where they might meet for Divine worship. One of their number, the Sieur Etienne Lessard, offered to give the land required at the spot which the church authorities should find suitable. On 13 March, 1658, therefore, the missionary, Father Vignal, came to choose the site and to bless the foundation of the proposed chapel which, by general consent, was to be dedicated to St. Anne. The very day the Saint showed how favourably she viewed the undertaking by healing Louis Guimont, an inhabitant of Beaupré, who suffered terribly from rheumatism of the loins. Full of confidence in St. Anne, he came forward and placed three stones in the foundations of the new building, whereupon he found himself suddenly and completely cured of his ailment.

This first authentic miracle was the precursor of countless other graces and favours of all kinds. For two centuries and a half the great wonder-worker has ceaselessly and lavishly shown her kindness to all the sufferers who from all parts of North America flock every year to Beaupré to implore her help. The old church was begun in 1676, and used for worship until 1876, when it was replaced by the present one, opened in October of that year. This last was built of cut stone, by means of contributions from all the Catholics of Canada. The offerings made by pilgrims have defrayed the cost of fittings and decoration. It is two hundred feet long, and one hundred wide, including the side chapels. Leo XIII raised it to the rank of a minor basilica 5 May, 1887; on 19 May, 1889, it was solemnly consecrated by Cardinal Taschereau, Archbishop of Quebec. It has been served by the Redemptorists since 1878. On either side of the main doorway are huge pyramids of crutches, walking-sticks, bandages, and other appliances left behind by the cripples, lame, and sick, who, having prayed to St. Anne at her shrine, have gone home healed.

Relics

The canons of Carcassonne, at the request of Monseigneur de Laval, first Bishop of Quebec, sent to Beaupré a large relic of the finger-bone of Saint Anne, which was first exposed for veneration on 12 March, 1670, and has ever since been an object of great devotion. Three other relics of the saint have been added in later times to the treasures of this shrine. In 1892 Cardinal Taschedreau presented the Great Relic to the basilica, the wrist-bone of St. Anne. It measures four inches in length, and was brought from Rome by Msgr. Marquis, P.A.

Pilgrimage

The pilgrimage to Beaupré has not always had the importance which it has gained in our time. Only in the last quarter of the nineteenth century did it attain to the growth, organization, and fame which now render it comparable with the great pilgrimages to Lourdes. Until 1875 the yearly number of pilgrims did not exceed 12,000, but to judge by the heap of crutches left at the saint’s feet, there must always have been many marvellous cures wrought at Beaupré. More favourable conditions—including the strong impulse given by Cardinal Taschereau and his suffragans, the zeal of the Canadian clergy in organizing pilgrimages, improved modes of transportation, and the monthly “Annales de la Bonne Sainte Anne”—made possible the truly wonderful growth of these pilgrimages in the early twentieth century. Devotion to St. Anne is today more than ever the devotion of the Canadians.

C. LECLERC

Diocese of Annecy

(ANNECIENSIS)

Diocese comprising the Department of Haute-Savoie in France, with the exception of several parishes in the cantons of Alby and Rumilly, which belong to the Diocese of Chambery, and in addition, the canton of Ugenes (Department of Savoie). It is suffragan to the Archdiocese of Chambery. From 1535 to 1801 the bishops of Geneva, exiled by the Reformation from Geneva, lived at Annecy. St. Francis de Sales was Bishop of Annecy from 1602 to 1622. From 1801 to 1822, Annecy belonged to the Diocese of Chambery and Geneva, but was made an episcopal see 15 February, 1822, by the bull “Sollicita catholici gregis.” The memory of St. Bernard of Menthon, founder of the hospice of the Grand St. Bernard, is still honoured in the Diocese of Annecy.=20 St. Francis de Sales and St. Jane Frances de Chantal founded the Congregation of the Visitation at Annecy in 1610; at the death of its foundress the convents belonging to this order numbered 87. The relics of these saints are preserved in the Church of the Visitation at Annecy. The ancient Benedictine abbey of Talloires, near the Lac d’Annecy, lends a certain picturesqueness to the scene. The Diocese of Annecy comprised (end of 1905) 267,496 inhabitants, 29 first class parishes, 270 second class parishes, and 167 vicariates, formerly with state subventions.

MERCIER, Souvenirs hist. d’Annecy (Annecy, 1878); PETTEX, Statistique hist. du dioc. d’Annecy; Mem. de l’acad. Sales (1880), II, 119œ154; POUCET, La cathedrale d’Annecy et ses tombeaux (Annecy, 1876); DUCIS, Etude sur l’origine d’Annecy (Annecy, 1863).

GEORGES GOYAU

Joseph Annegarn

Catholic theologian and popular writer, b. 13 October, 1794, at Ostbevern in Westphalia; d. 8 July, 1843, at the Lyceum Hosianum, Braunsberg, East Prussia, where he was professor of church history. He rendered great service to Catholic literature and to the cause of the Church in Germany by his “Universal History,” written primarily for Catholic youth, and published in eight volumes in 1827–29. His purpose was frankly Catholic; the style is often brilliant, always pleasing, and well suited to youthful readers and to the general public. The selection from the mass of materials and the arrangement are judicious. Excellent features of the History are the numerous character sketches of great historical personages and the chronological tables. Succeeding editors have kept it abreast with the advance of historical research, and it remains a standard work in Catholic families in Germany, where it has taken the place of anti-Catholic popular histories. Annegarn was also the author of “Handbuch der Patrologie” (1839). (See Buchberger Kirchliches Handlexicon, s.v.).

ANNEGARN, Allgemeine Weltgeschichte (Muenster, 1899), 8 vols., 8th ed.; Compendium (1898), 3 vols., 2d ed.

B. GULDNER

Annibale d’Annibaldi

Theologian, b. of a Roman senatorial family early in the thirteenth century; d. at Rome, 1 September, 1271. He joined the Dominican Order at an early age and was sent to Paris to complete his studies. Here he formed an intimate friendship with St. Thomas Aquinas and succeeded him as regent of studies at the Convent of St. Jacques. After teaching in Paris for some years, he was called to Rome in 1246 by Innocent IV to fill the post of Master of the Sacred Palace. He served in this capacity under Alexander IV and Urban IV, the latter of whom created him Cardinal in 1262. When Clement IV, in 1265, handed over the kingdom of the Two Sicilies to Charles I of Anjou, Annibale was put at the head of the commission empowered to treat with the monarch and register his agreement to the papal stipulations. The King received the insignia of investiture at Rome from the hands of the Cardinal. On 6 January, 1266, Annibale anointed and solemnly crowned Charles I in the Lateran Church at Rome, the Pope being detained at Perugia. During the vacancy succeeding the death of Clement IV, Annibale received and treated with Philip III of France and Charles I at Viterbo (1270). During a papal mission at Orvieto, the Cardinal died, and, by his own request, was buried in the Church of San Domenico. He was held in great esteem during life for his learning and virtues. St. Thomas Aquinas dedicated his “Catena Aurea” to him. Annibale, besides several small theological treatises now lost, wrote a commentary on the “Sentences,” and “Quod libeta,” which has been ascribed to St. Thomas, and published with his works even as recently as the Paris edition of 1889, by Frette. A manuscript in the Carmelite monastery in Paris calls Annibale a Carmelite who later became a Cistercian abbot. But Echard shows that no man of that name belonged to either order in the twelfth or thirteenth century.

QUETIF AND ECHARD, SS. Ord. Proed., I, 261; TOURON, Hommes illustres de l’ordre de Saint Dominique, I, 262–269; EUBEL, Hierarchia Catholica, I, 8; CATTALANI, De Magistro Sacri Palatii Apostolici (Rome, 1751), 57–59; DUCHESNE, Histoire de tous les cardinaux francais de naissance (Paris, 1699), II, 277, 278; MASETTI, Monumenta Ordinis Proedicatorum Antiqua (Rome, 1864), I, 301; FERET, La faculte de theologie de Paris au moyen age, II, 550, 553.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Giuseppe d’Annibale

Cardinal, a theologian, b. at Borbona in the Diocese of Rieti, 22 September, 1815; d. at the same place, 18 July, 1892. He was appointed professor in the Seminary of Rieti and later vicar-general of the diocese. He was preconized Titular Bishop of Caryste by Leo XIII, 12 Aug., 1881, was created Cardinal-Priest of Sts. Boniface and Alexis, 11 Feb., 1889, and became Prefect of the Congregation of Indulgences. His treatise on moral theology is entitled “Summula theologiae moralis,” (Milan, 1881–83). Another work, a commentary on the Constitution, “Apostolicae Sedis” (Rieti, 1880), is also valuable to theologians and canonists.

HURTER, Nomenclator, III, 1448; BEUGNET, in Dict. de Theol. Cath., s.v.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Annius of Viterbo

(Giovanni Nanni).

Archeologist and historian, born at Viterbo about 1432; died 13 November, 1502. He entered the Dominican Order early in life and won fame as a preacher and writer. He was highly esteemed by Sixtus IV and Alexander VI; the latter made him Master of the Sacred Palace. He was skilled in the Oriental languages, and was so devoted a student of classical antiquity that he changed his name to one that reminded him of Rome’s Golden Age. Among his numerous writings may be mentioned: (1) “De futuris Christianorum triumphis in Turcos et Saracenos”; a commentary on the Apocalypse, dedicated to Sixtus IV, to Christian kings, princes, and governments (Genoa, 1480); “Tractatus de imperio Turcorum” (Genoa, 1480). He is best known, however, by his “Antiquitatum Variarum,” 17 vols. (Venice, 1499, et sæp). In this work he published alleged writings and fragments of several pre-Christian Greek and Latin profane authors, destined to throw an entirely new light on ancient history. He claimed to have discovered them at Mantua. This work met at once both with believers in the genuineness of his sources, and with severe critics who accused him of willful interpolation, or even fabrication. The spurious character of these “historians” of Annius, which he published both with and without commentaries, has long been admitted. It would appear that he was too credulous, and really believed the texts to be authentic. It may be recalled that Colbert left to the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris a manuscript of the thirteenth century, supposed to contain fragments of the writings of two of these writers, i.e. Berosus and Megasthenes. The more important of his unpublished works are: “Volumen libris septuaginta distinctum de antiquitatibus et gestis Etruscorum”; “De correctione typographica chronicorum”; “De dignitate officii Magistri Sacri Palatii,” and lastly, his “Chronologia Nova,” wherein he undertakes to correct the anachronisms in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea.

Stahl, in Kirchenlex., I, 866–867: Hurter, Nomenclator, IV, 954–955; Touron, Hommes ill. de l’ordre de S. Dominique, III, 655; Quetif and Echard, SS. Ord. Praed., II, 4–7.

JOS. SCHROEDER

St. Anno

(Or HANNO).

Archbishop of Cologne in 1055. When very young he entered the ecclesiastical state, under the guidance of his uncle, a canon of Bamberg. He hadformerly adopted the profession of arms. His attainments both in sacredand profane learning, as well as his unusual virtue, attracted the attention of the Emperor Henry III who called him to court. He is said to have been a man of remarkably handsome presence and of rare eloquence and ina very special way adapted for great undertakings. A lover of right andjustice, he defended them fearlessly in all circumstances. He was made Archbishop of Cologne, and his consecration was a scene of unwonted splendour, though very trying to him, as he accepted the office with the greatest repugnance. At the death of Henry, the Empress Agnes made him regent of the empire, and entrusted him with the education of the young prince, afterwards Henry IV, who had already been corrupted by the flatterers who surrounded him. The Archbishop’s strictness was soon found to be distasteful to the prince, and he was deprived of his office of regent, but the disorders which followed on account of the exactions and injustice of those who were attached to Henry became so unbearable that in 1072 Anno again resumed the reins of government.

The Church at that time was torn by the schisms of antipopes. Anno joined with Hildebrand and St. Peter Damian in the work of order and reformation. Hergenröther, however, speaks of “the discontent of the court of Germany because of the frequent sharp reprehensions addressed to the powerful Anno by Pope Nicholas II” (Hist. de L’église, III, 283). It was probably because of a plea for more power to be given to the German emperors in papal elections. The feeling was so bitter in Germany that a union was made with the bad elements of Italy, and an antipope in the person of Cadalus, the Bishop of Parma, was put forward. The rightful Pope,at the time, was Alexander II. At a great assembly held at Augsburg in 1062, Anno pronounced a discourse in favour of Alexander; the Empress Agnes had been won over by St. Peter Damian; but the influence of the Adalbert, Archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen, and others prevailed to such an extent that it was impossible to separate Germany altogether from Cadalus, who, however, died four years later. According to Hergenrother (Hist. de l’eglise, III, 377), the autocratic nepotism of prelates, so common then, was shared by Anno, and he instances the giving of the Archbishopric of Trier to his nephew Cunon, who because of it was assassinated shortly afterhis appointment. Whether or not this be true, it is certain that the cares of state did not prevent Anno from fulfilling his duty as a bishop. His prayer was continuous, his austerities extreme, his preaching incessant, his charity inexhaustible. He reformed all the monasteries of his diocese and established five new ones for the Canons Regular and Benedictines. He died 4 December, 1075, and was canonized shortly afterwards.

Hergenrother, Hist. de L’eglise; Butler, Lives of the Saints, 4 Dec.; Michaud, Biog. Univ.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The fact of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary is related in Luke, i 26–38. The Evangelist tells us that in the sixth month after the conception of St. John the Baptist by Elizabeth, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to the Virgin Mary, at Nazareth, a small town in the mountains of Galilee. Mary was of the house of David, and was espoused (i. e. married) to Joseph, of the same royal family. She had, however, not yet entered the household of her spouse, but was still in her mother’s house, working, perhaps, over her dowry. (Bardenhewer, Maria Verk., 69). And the angel having taken the figure and the form of man, came into the house and said to her: “Hail, full of grace (to whom is given grace, favoured one), the Lord is with thee.” Mary having heard the greeting words did not speak; she was troubled in spirit, since she knew not the angel, nor the cause of his coming, nor the meaning of the salutation. And the angel continued and said: “Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob forever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” The Virgin understood that there was question of the coming Redeemer. But, why should she be elected from amongst women for the splendid dignity of being the mother of the Messiah, having vowed her virginity to God? (St. Augustine). Therefore, not doubting the word of Godlike Zachary, but filled with fear and astonishment, she said: “How shall this be done, because I know not man?”

The angel to remove Mary’s anxiety and to assure her that her virginity would be spared, answered: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” In token of the truth of his word he made known to her the conception of St. John, the miraculous pregnancy of her relative now old and sterile: “And behold, thy cousin Elizabeth; she also has conceived a son in herold age, and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: because no word shall be impossible with God.” Mary may not yet have fully understood the meaning of the heavenly message and how the maternity might be reconciled with her vow of virginity, but clinging to the first words of the angel and trusting to the Omnipotence of God she said: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy word.”

Since 1889 Holzmann and many Protestant writers have tried to show that the verses Luke i, 34, 35, containing the message of conception through the Holy Ghost are interpolated. Usener derives the origin of the “myth” from the heathen hero worship; but Harnack tries to prove that it is of Judaic origin (Isaias, vii, 14, Behold a Virgin shall conceive, etc.). Bardenhewer, however, has fully established the authenticity of the text (p. 13). St. Luke may have taken his knowledge of the event from anolder account, written in Aramaic or Hebrew. The words: “Blessed art thou among women” (v. 28), are spurious and taken from verse 42, the account of the Visitation. Cardinal Cajetan wanted to understand the words: “because I know not man,” not of the future, but only of the past: up to this hour I do not know man. This manifest error, which contradicts the words of the text, has been universally rejected by all Catholic authors. The opinion that Joseph at the time of the Annunciation was an aged widower and Mary twelve or fifteen years of age, is founded only upon apocryphal documents. The local tradition of Nazareth pretends that the angel met Mary and greeted her at the fountain, and when she fled from him in fear, he followed her into the house and there continued his message. (Buhl, Geogr. v. Palaest., 1896.) The year and day of the Annunciation cannot be determined as long as new material does not throw more light on the subject. The present date of the feast (25 March) depends upon the date of the older feast of Christmas.

The Annunciation is the beginning of Jesus in His human nature. Through His mother He is a member of the human race. If the virginity of Mary before, during, and after the conception of her Divine Son was always considered part of the deposit of faith, this was done only on account of the historical facts and testimonials. The Incarnation of the Son of God did not in itself necessitate this exception from the laws of nature. Only reasons of expediency are given for it, chiefly, the end of the Incarnation. About to found a new generation of the children of God, The Redeemer does not arrive in the way of earthly generations: the power of the Holy Spirit enters the chaste womb of the Virgin, forming the humanity of Christ. Many holy fathers (Sts. Jerome, Cyril, Ephrem, Augustine) say that the consent of Mary was essential to the redemption. It was the will of God, St. Thomas says (Summa III:30), that the redemption of mankind should depend upon the consent of the Virgin Mary. This does not mean that God in His plans was bound by the will of a creature, and that man would not have been redeemed, if Mary had not consented. It only means that the consent of Mary was foreseen from all eternity, and therefore was received as essential into the design of God.

FREDERICK G. HOLWECK

Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (25 March), also called in old calendars: FESTUM INCARNATIONIS, INITIUM REDEMPTIONIS CONCEPTIO CHRISTI, ANNUNTIATIO CHRISTI, ANNUNTIATIO DOMINICA. In the Orient, where the part which Mary took in the Redemption is celebrated by a special feast, 26 December, the Annunciation is a feast of Christ; in the Latin Church, it is a feast of Mary. It probably originated shortly before or after the council of Ephesus (c. 431). At the time of the Synod of Laodicea (372) it was not known; St. Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople (d. 446), however, seems to mention it in one of his homilies. He says, that the feast of the coming of Our Lord and Saviour, when He vested Himself with the nature of man (quo hominum genus indutus), was celebrated during the entire fifth century. This homily, however, may not be genuine, or the words may be understood of the feast of Christmas.

In the Latin Church this feast is first mentioned in the Sacramentarium of Pope Gelasius (d. 496), which we possess in a manuscript of the seventh century; it is also contained in the Sacramentarium of St. Gregory (d. 604), one manuscript of which dates back to the eighth century. Since these sacramentaries contain additions posterior to the time of Gelasius and Gregory, Duchesne (Origines du culte chrétien, 118, 261) ascribes theorigin of this feast in Rome to the seventh century; Probst, however, (Sacramentarien, 264) thinks that it really belongs to the time of Pope Gelasius. The tenth Synod of Toledo (656), and Trullan Synod (692) speak ofthis feast as one universally celebrated in the Catholic Church.

All Christian antiquity (against all astronomical possibility) recognized the 25th of March as the actual day of Our Lord’s death. The opinion that the Incarnation also took place on that date is found in the pseudo-Cyprianic work “De Pascha Computus,” c. 240. It argues that the coming of Our Lord and His death must have coincided with the creation andfall of Adam. And since the world was created in spring, the Saviour was also conceived and died shortly after the equinox of spring. Similar fanciful calculations are found in the early and later Middle Ages, and to them, no doubt, the dates of the feast of the Annunciation and of Christmas owe their origin. Consequently the ancient martyrologies assign to the 25th of March the creation of Adam and the crucifixion of Our Lord; also, the fall of Lucifer, the passing of Israel through the Red Sea and the immolation of Isaac. (Thruston, Christmas and the Christian Calendar, Amer. Eccl. Rev., XIX, 568.) The original date of this feast was the 25th of March. Although in olden times most of the churches kept no feast in Lent, the Greek Church in the Trullan Synod (in 692; can. 52) made an exception in favour of the Annunciation. In Rome, it was always celebrated on the 25th of March. The Spanish Church transferred it to the 18th of December, and when some tried to introduce the Roman observance of it onthe 25th of March, the 18th of December was officially confirmed in the whole Spanish Church by the tenth Synod of Toledo (656). This law was abolished when the roman liturgy was accepted in Spain.

The church of Milan, up to our times, assigns the office of this feast to the last Sunday in Advent. On the 25th of March a Mass is sung in honour of the Annunciation. (Ordo Ambrosianus, 1906; Magistretti, Beroldus, 136.) The schismatic Armenians now celebrate this feast on the 7th of April. Since Epiphany for them is the feast of the birth of Christ, the Armenian Church formerly assigned the Annunciation to 5 January, the vigil of Epiphany. This feast was always a holy day of obligation in the Universal Church. As such it was abrogated first for France and the French dependencies, 9 April, 1802; and for the United States, by the Third Council of Baltimore, in 1884. By a decree of the S.R.C., 23 April, 1895, the rank of the feast was raised from a double of the second class to a double of the first class. If this feast falls within Holy Week or Easter Week, its office is transferred to the Monday after the octave of Easter. In some German churches it was the custom to keep its office the Saturday before Palm Sunday if the 25th of March fell in Holy Week. The Greek Church, when the 25th of March occurs on one of the three last days in Holy Week, transfers the Annunciation to Easter Monday; on all other days, even on Easter Sunday, its office is kept together with the office of the day. Although no octaves are permitted in Lent, the Dioceses of Loreto and of the Province of Venice, the Carmelites, Dominicans, Servites, and Redemptorists, celebrate this feast with an octave.

Kellner, Heortologie (Freiburg, 1901), 146; Holweck, Fasti Mariani (Herder, 1892), 45; Schrod, in Kirchenlex., VIII, 82.

FREDERICK G. HOLWECK

Orders of the Annunciation

I. ANNUNCIADES

A penitential order founded by St. Jeanne de Valois (b. 1464; d. 4 February, 1505), daughter of Louis XI of France, and wife of the Duke of Orleans, later Louis XII. After the annulment of her marriage with Louis XII she retired to Bourges, where, overcoming the opposition of her confessor Father Gilbert Nicolaï, and the counsellors of the Pope, she succeeded in her design of founding an order in honour of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She herself composed the Rule, entitled “The Ten Virtues of the Blessed Virgin,” the imitation of which she proposed as the aim of the order. It was confirmed by Alexander VI (1501), and 8 October, 1502, the first five members received the veil, the foundress herself taking solemn vows 4 June, 1503. Father Gabriel Nicolai, whose name was changed by Brief of Alexander VI to Gabriele Maria, was constituted Superior, and after revising the constitutions, presented them for confirmation to Leo X (1517), who placed the Order under the jurisdiction of the Order of St. Francis. In addition to the triple vow of poverty, chastity, and obedience, the members were bound to the recitation of the Office, the observance of cloistral rule, and the wearing of the habit. This is grey with scarlet scapular and white mantle. Foundations were made in France, but did not survive the Revolution. During its most flourishing period the Order possessed forty-five convents in France and Belgium, of which several still exist in the latter country. The foundress was canonized in 1775.

II. CELESTIAL ANNUNCIADES

A religious order for women founded by Bl. Maria Vittoria Fornari (b. 1562; d. 15 December, 1617) at Genoa. The death of her husband, Angelo Strata, left her the care of six children, and it was only after they had entered the religious life that she was free to carry out her life work, for which she had been preparing by retirement and the practice of austere virtue. Her lack of temporal means for some time caused her director, Father Bernardino Zannoni of the Society of Jesus, and the Archbishop of Genoa to withhold their consent, which, however, was finally obtained (1602), and a convent was erected at the expense of one of her companions, Vincenza Lomellini. Father Zannoni drew up the constitutions for the religious. Clement VIII approved them in 1604, placing the Order under the Rule of St. Augustine. In the same year ten members were received, each adding the name Maria Annunziata to her baptismal or religious name, and they made their solemn vows 7 September, 1605. The second foundation was made in 1612, and the third a little later in Burgundy; after which the Order spread through France, Germany, and Denmark. The constitutions were confirmed by Paul V (1613), Gregory XV, and Urban VIII (1631). The cloister is unusually rigid, and the members devote much of their time to preparing vestments and altar linen for poor churches.

III. ANNUNCIATES OF LOMBARDY

A religious order of Lombardy known as Ambrosians, Sisters of St. Ambrose, or Sisters of St. Marcellina, organized at Pavia in 1408 by young women from Venice and Pavia, under the direction of Father Beccaria, O.S.B., for the care of the sick, and at a later date placed under the Rule of St. Augustine. The constitutions, providing for a prioress-general assisted by three visitors, were approved by Nicholas V but amended by Pius V. Eventually each convent became subject to the ordinary of its own diocese. Among the many saints belonging to the order is St. Catherine Fieschi of Genoa.

IV. ARCHCONFRATERNITY OF THE ANNUNCIATION

Established in 1460 in Rome in order to provide dowries for poor girls. During the pontificate of Pius II it was connected with the Dominican Church of the Minerva in which was built later the beautiful chapel of the Annunciation. At an earlier period the Pope himself presided at the annual ceremonies held 25 March, and presented with his own hand the documents entitling the recipients to the dower. This association has received large bequests, and benefits on an average four hundred persons yearly. The money gift is now twenty-five scudi ($25.00) for those about to marry, and fifty for those entering a religious order.

V. ANNUNZIATA

A name by which the Servites are sometimes known, their chief monastery at Florence, Italy, being dedicated to the Annunciation.

Bauer in Kirchenlex.; Acta SS., 4 Feb.; Spinola, Vita della Ven, Maria Vittoria (Genoa 1649); Victor, Tableau de Paris, II, 1184; Helyot, Hist. des ordres monastiques, religieux, etc. (Paris, 1714); Touron, Hist. des hommes illustres de l’ordre de St. Dominique (Paris, 1746) III, 435.

F.M. RUDGE

Louis-Pierre Anquetil

A French historian, b. in Paris, 21 Feb., 1723; d. 6 Sept., 1806. He entered the Congregation of Sainte-Geneviève when seventeen and became a priest. He taught theology and letters there; then became director of the seminary at Reims, and wrote a history of that city, his first historical work. In 1759 he became prior of the abbey of La Roee, in Anjou, and soon after was appointed director of the college of Senlis, which belonged to his order. Here he wrote his “Histoire de la Ligue.” In 1766 he obtained a priory at Château-Renard and abandoned teaching. About the time of the Revolution he became cure of La Villette near Paris. During the Reign of Terror he was imprisoned for some time at Saint Lazare where he worked on his “Histoire Universelle.” When released after 9 Thermidor he finished it. His last work, “Histoire de France,” states in the preface that Anquetil undertook it at Napoleon’s request. It reveals the weakening of his powers by old age. Augustin Thierry (Quatrieme lettre sur l’Histoire de France) calls the work “cold and colourless” and says Anquetil compares unfavourably with the French historians Mézeray, Daniel, and Velly, although he admits that he could freely grasp the manners and spirit of a past age when he studied them in their original sources. Anquetil’s works are:

“Mémoire servant de réponse pour le sieur Delaistre, libraire à Reims, contre le sieur Anquetil” (Reims, 1758);

“Almanach de Reims” (1754);

“Esprit de la Ligue, ou Histoire politique des troubles de la Fronde pendant le XVI et le XVII siècle” (1767, 3 vols.);

“Vie du maréchal do Villars, écrite par lui-même,” followed by “Journal de la Cour de 1724 a 1734” (1787);

“Louis XIV, sa Cour et le Régent” (1789); “Précis de l’Histoire universelle” (1797), “Histoire de France depuis les Gaules jusqu’à la fin de la monarchie” (1805); “Notice sur la vie de M. Anquetil-Duperron.” This was his brother, a notable Orientalist, his junior by eight years, who died one year before him.

QUERARD, La France litteraire.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Casto Innocenzio Ansaldi

Theologian and archaeologist, b. at Piacenza, in Italy, 7 March, 1710; d. at Turin, in 1780. In 1726 he entered the Dominican Order at Parma, where he pursued his preparatory studies, and in 1733 was a student of the Minerva College at Rome, where he attached himself to Cardinal Orsi. In 1735 he taught philosophy at Santa Caterina in Naples, and the following year received the chair of metaphysics at the University. The King of Naples created a chair of theology for him in 1737, which he retained till 1745. From 1745 to 1770 he taught successively at Brescia, Ferrara, and Turin. In the latter city he taught for twenty years with great success and repute. He was averse to the scholastic method and therefore had serious trouble with the authorities of the Order, which was finally smoothed over by Cardinal Quirini and Benedict XIV. His published works fill several volumes, and have ever been prized for a combination of theological and historical erudition. Most of them are directed against the anti-Christian tendencies of his day. His most important works are: “Patriarchae Josephi, Aegypti olim proregis, religio a criminationibus Basnagii vindicata” (Naples, 1738), vol. XIII in the “Raccolta d’opuscoli di P. Calogerà” (Venice, 1741); “De traditione principiorum legis naturalis” (Brescia, 1743; Oxford, 1765); “De Romanâ tutelarium deorum in oppugnationibus urbium evocatione liber singularis” (Brescia, 1742; Venice, 1753, 1761; Oxford, 1765), “De martyribus sine sanguine” (Milan, 1744; Venice, 1756, in the “Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrarum” of Ugolini), a valuable anti-Dodwellian dissertation on the sufferings of the primitive Christians; “Herodiani infanticidii vindiciae” against those who impugned its historicity (Brescia, 1746); “De authenticis sacrarum Scripturarum lectionibus” (Verona, 1747), a very learned and solid work in favour of the accuracy of the Fathers in quoting Scripture; “De baptismate in Spiritu Sancto et igni commentarius sacer philologicocriticus” (Milan, 1752); “De Theurgiâ deque theurgicis a divo Paulo memoratis commentarius” (Milan, 1761); “Riflessioni sopra i mezzi di perfezionare la filosfia morale” (Turin, 1778), with a biography of the author; “De perfectione morali” (Turin, 1790); “Praelectiones theologicae de re sacramentaria “ (Venice, 1792). His controversy with Francesco Zanotti in defence of Maupertuis’s apology (Berlin, 1749) for Christian morality, as superior to that of the Stoics, was celebrated in the eighteenth century. He also compiled: “Della necessità e verità della religione naturale e rivelata” (Venice, 1755), a collection of evidences and admissions from the works of celebrated non-Catholics. His brother, also a Dominican, Carlo Agostino, wrote a work (Turin, 1765) on the large number of the Christians before Constantine; another brother, Pietro Tommasso, wrote an excellent dissertation on the divinity of Christ (Florence, 1754).

HURTER, Nomenclator (2d ed.), III, 64–67.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Giordano Ansaloni

(Sometimes called GIORDANO DI SAN STEFANO.)

Born at San Angelo in Sicily early in the seventeenth century; d. in Japan, 17 November 1634. Having entered the Dominican Order and completed his studies at Salamanca, he was sent in 1625, together with many others, as a missionary to the Philippine Islands. Whilst serving as chaplain in a hospital for Chinese and Japanese at Manila he had occasion to master these languages. In 1631 he offered to go to Japan and arrived at the outbreak of the persecution in 1632. Disguised as a bonze he travelled over the land administering the rites of religion. He was seized 4 August, 1634, and subjected to tortures that lasted seven days. Not the least of his sufferings was his enforced presence at the beheading of his companion, Thomas of St. Hyacinth, and sixty-nine other Christians. On 18 November he was suspended till dead from a plank with his head buried in the ground. Whilst detained in Mexico, on his way to the Philippine Islands, he wrote in Latin a series of lives of Dominican saints after a similar work by Hernando del Castillo and left at Manila an unfinished treatise on Chinese sects and idols.

QUÉTIF AND ECHARD, SS. Ord. Præd., II, 478: ALVAREZ DEL MANZANO, Compendio de la reseña biográfica de los religiosos de la Provincia de Santisimo Rosario de Filipinas (Manila, 1896), 122 sqq.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

St. Anschar

(Or ANSGARIUS.)

Called the Apostle of the North, was b. in Picardy, 8 September, 801; d. 5 February, 865. He became a Benedictine of Corbie, whence lie passed into Westphalia. With Harold, the newly baptized King of Denmark who had been expelled from his kingdom but was now returning, he and Autbert went to preach the Faith in that country where Ebbo, the Archbishop of Reims, had already laboured but without much success. Anschar founded a school at Schleswig, but the intemperate zeal of Harold provoked another storm which ended in a second expulsion, and the consequent return of the missionaries. In the company of the ambassadors of Louis le Débonnaire, he then entered Sweden, and preached the Gospel there. Although the embassy had been attacked on its way and had apparently abandoned its mission, Anschar succeeded in entering the country, and was favourably received by the king, who permitted him to preach. The chief of the royal counsellors, Herigar, was converted, and built the first church of Sweden. Anschar remained there a year and a half, and returning was made bishop of the new see of Hamburg, and appointed by Gregory IV legate of the northern nations. He revived also the abbey of Turholt in Flanders, and established a school there. In 845 Eric, the King of Jutland, appeared off Hamburg with a fleet of 600 vessels, and destroyed the city. Anschar was for some time a fugitive and was deprived also of his Flemish possessions by Charles the Bald, but on the accession of Louis the German was restored to his see. The bishopric of Bremen which had been the See of Leudric, his enemy, was at the same time united to Hamburg, but though the arrangement was made in 847 it was not confirmed by the Pope until 857, and Anschar was made the first archbishop. Meantime he made frequent excursions to Denmark, ostensibly in the quality of envoy of King Louis. He built a church at Schleswig and afterwards went as Danish ambassador to his old mission of Sweden. King Olaf regarded him with favour, but the question of permitting him to preach was submitted to the oracles, which are said to have given a favourable answer. It was probably due to the prayers of the saint. A church was built and a priest established there. In 854 we find him back in Denmark, where he succeeded in changing the enmity of King Eric into friendship. Eric had expelled the priests who had been left at Schleswig, but at the request of Anschar recalled them. The saint built another church in Jutland and introduced the use of bells, which the pagans regarded as instruments of magic, he also induced the king to mitigate the horrors of the slave-trade. He was eminent for his piety, mortification, and observance of the monastic rule, he built hospitals, ransomed captives, sent immense alms abroad, and regretted only that he had not been found worthy of martyrdom. Though he wrote several works, very little of them remains. He had added devotional phrases to the psalms, which, according to Fabricius, in his Latin Library of the Middle Ages, are an illustrious monument ,to the piety of the holy prelate. He had also compiled a life of St. Willehad, first Bishop of Bremen, and the preface which he wrote was considered a masterpiece for that age. It is published by Fabricius among the works of the historians of Hamburg. Some letters of his are also extant. He is known in Germany as St. Scharies and such is the title of his collegiate church in Bremen. Another in Hamburg under the same title was converted into an orphan asylum by the Lutherans. All of his success as a missionary he ascribed to the piety of Louis le Débonnaire and the apostolic zeal of his predecessor in the work, Ebbo, Archbishop of Reims, who, however, as a matter of fact, had failed.

Acta SS., I, Feb.; MICHAUD, Biog. Univ.; HERGENRÖTHER, Kircheng. (1904) II, 180–84; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 3 Feb.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Councils of Anse

Several medieval councils were held in this French town (near Lyons). That of 994 decreed, among other disciplinary measures, abstinence from servile labour after three oclock (None) on Saturday, i.e. the observance of the vigil of Sunday. The council of 1025 was held for the purpose of settling a conflict between the monks of Cluny and the Bishop of Mâcon, who complained that, though their monastery was situated in his diocese, the monks had obtained ordination from the Archbishop of Vienne. St. Odilon of Cluny was present and exhibited a papal privilege exempting his monastery from the episcopal jurisdiction of Mâcon. But the fathers of the council caused to be read the ancient canons ordaining that in every country the abbots and monks should be subject to their own bishop, and declared null a privilege contrary to the canons. The Archbishop of Vienne was required to apologize to the Bishop of Mâcon. In 1076 a council was held for the purpose of furthering the ecclesiastical reforms of St. Gregory VII. At the council of 1100, Hugues, Archbishop of Lyons, demanded from the assembled fathers, among whom was St. Anselm of Canterbury, a subsidy for the expenses of the journey that, with the Popes permission, he was about to make to Jerusalem. In 1112 the Catholic Faith and investitures were the subjects of conciliar decrees.

MANSI, Coil. Conc., XIX—XXI; LA MURE, Hist. diocésaine de Lyon (1671); HEFELE, Conciliengesch., IV (1873).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Ansegisus

Archbishop of Sens; d. 25 November 879, or 883. He was a Benedictine monk, Abbot of St. Michael’s, at Beauvais, and in 871 became Archbishop of Sens. After Charles the Bald was crowned Emperor by Pope John VIII, he asked the Pope to appoint Ansegisus papal legate and primate over Gaul and Germany. With a papal legate of French nationality, amicably disposed towards the Emperor, Charles the Bald thought he could more easily extend his influence as emperor over those countries. The Pope yielded to the wish of Charles but when the bishops assembled at the Synod Ponthion were asked to acknowledge the primacy of Ansegisus they protested, especially Hinemar, Archbishop of Reims, against what they considered an infringement on their rights. Though Ansegisus retained the title, it is doubtful whether he ever exercised the powers of Primate of France and Germany.

SCHMID in Kirchenlex., I, 886; HEFELE, Conciliengesch., IV, 516 sqq.; GFROERER, Geschichte der Carolinger (Freiburg, 1848), II, 130 sqq.

MICHAEL OTT

St. Ansegisus

Born about 770, of noble parentage; died 20 July, 833, or 834. At the age of eighteen he entered the Benedictine monastery of Fontanelle (also called St. Vandrille after the name of its founder) in the diocese of Rouen. St. Girowald, a relative of Ansegisus, was then Abbot of Fontanelle. From the beginning of his monastic life St. Ansegisus manifested a deep piety united with great learning, and upon the recommendation of the Abbot St. Girowald he was entrusted by the Emperor Charlemagne with the government and reform of two monasteries, St. Sixtus near Reims and St. Memius (St. Mange) in the diocese of ChallonssurMarne. Under the direction of St. Ansegisus these two monasteries soon regained their original splendour. Charlemagne, being much pleased with the success of Ansegisus, appointed him Abbot of Flay, or St. Germer, a monastery in the Diocese of Beauvais, the buildings of which were threatening to fall into ruins. At the same time Charlemagne made Ansegisus supervisor of royal works under the general direction of Abbot Einhard. Under the management of Ansegisus the structures of the monastery of Flay were completely renovated, monastic discipline was restored, and the monks were instructed in the sacred and the profane sciences. Louis le Débonnaire esteemed Ansegisus as highly as his father Charlemagne had done and, seeing how all monasteries flourished that had at one time been under the direction of Ansegisus, he put him at the head of the maonastery of Luxeuil in the year 817. This monastery was founded by St. Columban as early as 590 and, during the seventh and the first half of the eighth century, was the most renowned monastery and school of Christendom. Of late, however, its discipline had grown lax. Having restored this monastery to its former splendour, he was in 823, after the death of Abbot Einhard, transferred as abbot to the monastery of Fontanelle, where he had spent the early days of his monastic life. He immediately applied himself with vigour to restore monastic fervour by pious exhortations and, most of all, by his own edifying example. Some learned and saintly monks whom he invited from Luxeuil to Fontanelle assisted him in his great work of reform. Hand in hand with a reform of discipline came a love for learning. The library was enriched with valuable books, such as the Bible, some works of St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Gregory the Great, St. Bede, etc. The most learned of the monks were put to writing original works, while the others occupied themselves with transcribing valuable old books and manuscripts. In a short time the library of Fontanelle became one of the largest in Europe and acquired great renown for accuracy of transcribing and beauty of writing. A dormitory, a refectory, a chapterhouse, a library, and other new structures were erected at Fontanelle by St. Ansegisus. On account of his great learning and prudence he was often sent as legate to distant countries by Louis le Débonnaire. The many and costly presents which he received as legate from foreign princes he distributed among various monasteries. While Abbot of Fontanelle he wrote a “Constitutio pro monachis de victu et vestitu,” in which he determines exactly how much food, what articles of dress, etc., the monks were to receive from the different landed properties of the monastery. The work which made the name of Ansegisus renowned for all times is his collection of the laws and decrees made by the Emperor Charlemagne and his son Louis le Débonnaire. These laws and decrees being divided into articles or chapters, are generally called “Capitulars.” Ansegisus was the first to collect all those “Capitulars” into the four books entitled “Quatuor libri Capitularium Regum Francorum.” The first and the second book contained all “Capitulars” relating to church affairs, while the third and the fourth books had all the “Capitulars” relating to state affairs. It was completed in the year 827. Shortly afterwards it was approved by the Church in France, Germany, and Italy, and remained for a long time the official book on civil and canon law. Shortly before his death Ansegisus was attacked by paralysis which ended his holy and useful life on 20 July, 833 or 834. His earthly remains lie buried in the Abbey of Fontanelle, where his feast is celebrated on 20 July, the day of his death.

LECHNER, Martyrologium des Benediktiner Ordens (Augsburg, 1855); STADLER, Heiligen Lexikon (Augsburg, 1858), I, 234; Gesta abbat. Fontanell. in DACHERY, Spicileg., 1st ed., II, 279 sqq., and Mon. Germ. Hist. (Scriptores), II, 293, sqq.; MABILLON, Acta ss. ord. s. Bened. (Sæc., IV), IV (I), 630 sqq.; ZIEGELBAUER, Hist. Rei Lit. Bened., IV, 216, 259. The Capitularia were first edited by BALUZE (Paris, 1677–88); for a new and critical edition see BORETIUS, in Mon. Germ. Hist. (Leges, Sect. II), Capitularia regum Francorum (Hanover, 1883, 1890, 1897), I-II; the second volume is by BOTIUS AND KRAUSE. The PERTZ edition (op. cit., Leges, I, 256 sqq.) is found in P.L., XCVII, 489 sqq.; SCHMID in Kirchenlex.

MICHAEL OTT

St. Anselm (1)

Archbishop of Canterbury, Doctor of the Church; born at Aosta a Burgundian town on the confines of Lombardy, died 21 April, 1109. His father, Gundulf, was a Lombard who had become a citizen of Aosta, and his mother, Ermenberga, came of an old Burgundian family. Like many other saints, Anselm learnt the first lessons of piety from his mother, and at a very early age he was fired with the love of learning. In after life he still cherished the memories of childhood, and his biographer, Eadmer, has preserved some incidents which he had learnt from the saint’s own lips. The child had heard his mother speak of God, Who dwelt on high ruling all things. Living in the mountains, he thought that Heaven must be on their lofty summits. “And while he often revolved these matters in his mind, it chanced that one night he saw in a vision that he must go up to the summit of the mountain and hasten to the court of God, the great King. But before he began to ascend the mountain, he saw in the plain through which he had passed to its foot, women, who were the King’s handmaidens, reaping the corn; but they were doing this very negligently and slothfully. Then, grieving for their sloth, and rebuking them, he bethought him that he would accuse them before their Lord and King. Thereafter, having climbed the mountain he entered the royal court. There he found the King with only his cupbearer. For it seemed that, as it was now Autumn, the King had sent his household to gather the harvest. As the boy entered he was called by the Master, and drawing nigh he sat at his feet. Then with cheery kindliness he was asked who and whence he was and what he was seeking. To these questions he made answer as well as he knew. Then at the Master’s command some moist white bread was brought him by the cupbearer and he feasted thereon in his presence, wherefore when morning came and he brought to mind the things he had seen, as a simpler and innocent child he believed that he had truly been fed in heaven with the bread of the Lord, and this he publicly affirmed in the presence of others “. (Eadmer, Life of St. Anselm, I, i.) Eadmer adds that the boy was beloved by all and made rapid progress in learning. Before he was fifteen he sought admission to a monastery. But the abbot, fearing the father’s displeasure, refused him. The boy then made a strange prayer. He asked for an illness, thinking this would move the monks to yield to his wishes. The illness came but his admission to the monastery was still denied him. None the less he determined to gain his end at some future date. But ere long he was drawn away by the pleasures of youth and lost his first ardour and his love of learning. His love for his mother in some measure restrained him. But on her death it seemed that his anchor was lost, and he was at the mercy of the waves.

At this time his father treated him with great harshness; so much so that he resolved to leave his home. Taking a single companion, he set out on foot to cross Mont Cenis. At one time he was fainting with hunger and was fain to refresh his strength with snow, when the servant found that some bread was still left in the baggage, and Anselm regained strength and continued the journey. After passing nearly three years in Burgundy and France, he came into Normandy and tarried for a while at Avranches before finding his home at the Abbey of Bec, then made illustrious by Lanfranc’s learning. Anselm profited so well by the lessons of this master that he became his most familiar disciple and shared in the work of teaching. After spending some time in this labour, he began to think that his toil would have more merit if he took the monastic habit. But at first he felt some reluctance to enter the Abbey of Bec, where he would be overshadowed by Lanfranc. After a time, however, he saw that it would profit him to remain where he would be surpassed by others. His father was now dead, having ended his days in the monastic habit, and Anselm had some thought of living on his patrimony and relieving the needy. The life of a hermit also presented itself to him as a third alternative. Anxious to act with prudence he first asked the advice of Lanfranc, who referred the matter to the Archbishop of Rouen. This prelate decided in favour of the monastic life, and Anselm became a monk in the Abbey of Bec. This was in 1060. His life as a simple monk lasted for three years, for in 1063 Lanfranc was appointed Abbot of Caen, and Anselm was elected to succeed him as Prior. There is some doubt as to the date of this appointment. But Canon Poree points out that Anselm, writing at the time of his election as Archbishop (1093), says that he had then lived thirty three years in the monastic habit, three years as a monk without preferment, fifteen as prior, and fifteen as abbot (Letters of Anselm, III, vii). This is confirmed by an entry in the chronicle of the Abbey of Bec, which was compiled not later than 1136. Here it is recorded that Anselm died in 1109, in the forty-ninth year of his monastic life and the seventy sixth of his age, having been three years a simple monk; fifteen, prior; fifteen, abbot; and sixteen archbishop (Poree, Histoire de l’abbaye de Bec, III, 173). At first his promotion to the office vacated by Lanfranc gave offence to some of the other monks who considered they had a better claim than the young stranger. But Anselm overcame their opposition by gentleness, and ere long had won their affection and obedience. To the duties of prior he added those of teacher. It was likewise during this period that he composed some of his philosophical and theological works, notably, the “Monologium” and the “Proslogium.” Besides giving good counsel to the monks under his care, he found time to comfort others by his letters. Remembering his attraction for the solitude of a hermitage we can hardly wonder that he felt oppressed by this busy life and longed to lay aside his office and give himself up to the delights of contemplation. But the Archbishop of Rouen bade him retain his office and prepare for yet greater burdens.

This advice was prophetic, for in 1078, on the death of Herluin, founder and first Abbot of Bec Anselm was elected to succeed him. It was with difficulty that the monks overcame his reluctance to accept the office. His biographer, Eadmer, gives us a picture of a strange scene. The Abbot-elect fell prostrate before the brethren and with tears besought them not to lay this burden on him, while they prostrated themselves and earnestly begged him to accept the office. His election at once brought Anselm into relations with England, where the Norman abbey had several possessions. In the first year of his office, he visited Canterbury where he was welcomed by Lanfranc. “The converse of Lanfranc and Anselm,” says Professor Freeman, “sets before us a remarkable and memorable pair. The lawyer, the secular scholar, met the divine and the philosopher; the ecclesiastical statesman stood face to face with the saint. The wisdom, conscientious no doubt but still hard and worldly, which could guide churches and kingdoms in troublous times was met by the boundless love which took in all God’s creatures of whatever race or species” (History of the Norman Conquest, IV, 442). It is interesting to note that one of the matters discussed on this occasion related to a Saxon archbishop, Elphage (lfheah), who had been put to death by the Danes for refusing to pay a ransom which would impoverish his people. Lanfranc doubted his claim to the honours of a martyr since he did not die for the Faith. But Anselm solved the difficulty by saying that he who died for this lesser reason would much more be ready to die for the Faith. Moreover, Christ is truth and justice and he who dies for truth and justice dies for Christ. It was on this occasion that Anselm first met Eadmer, then a young monk of Canterbury. At the same time the saint, who in his childhood was loved by all who knew him, and who, as Prior of Bec, had won the affection of those who resisted his authority, was already gaining the hearts of Englishmen. His fame had spread far and wide, and many of the great men of the age prized his friendship and sought his counsel. Among these was William the Conqueror, who desired that Anselm might come to give him consolation on his death-bed.

When Lanfranc died, William Rufus kept the See of Canterbury vacant for four years, seized its revenues, and kept the Church in England in a state of anarchy. To many the Abbot of Bec seemed to be the man best fitted for the archbishopric. The general desire was so evident that Anselm felt a reluctance to visit England lest it should appear that he was seeking the office. At length, however, he yielded to the entreaty of Hugh, Earl of Chester and came to England in 1092. Arriving in Canterbury on the eve of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, he was hailed by the people as their future archbishop; but he hastened away and would in no wise consent to remain for the festival. At a private interview with the King, who received him kindly, he spoke freely on the evils by which the land was made desolate. Anselm’s own affairs kept him in England for some months, but when he wished to return to Bec the King objected. Meanwhile the people made no secret of their desires. With the King’s permission prayers were offered in all the churches that God would move the King to deliver the Church of Canterbury by the appointment of a pastor, and at the request of the bishops Anselm drew up the form of prayer. The King fell ill early in the new year (1093), and on his sick-bed he was moved to repentance. The prelates and barons urged on him the necessity of electing an archbishop. Yielding to the manifest desire of all he named Anselm, and all joyfully concurred in the election. Anselm, however, firmly refused the honour, whereupon another scene took place still more strange than that which occurred when he was elected abbot. He was dragged by force to the King’s bedside, and a pastoral staff was thrust into his closed hand; he was borne thence to the altar where the “Te Deum” was sung. There is no reason to suspect the sincerity of this resistance. Naturally drawn to contemplation, Anselm could have little liking for such an office even in a period of peace; still less could he desire it in those stormy days. He knew full well what awaited him. The King’s repentance passed away with his sickness and Anselm soon saw signs of trouble. His first offence was his refusal to consent to the alienation of Church lands which the King had granted to his followers. Another difficulty arose from the King’s need of money. Although his see was impoverished by the royal rapacity, the Archbishop was expected to make his majesty a free gift; and when he offered five hundred marks they were scornfully refused as insufficient. As if these trials were not enough Anselm had to bear the reproaches of some of the monks of Bec who were loath to lose him; in his letters he is at pains to show that he did not desire the office. He finally was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury 4 December, 1093. It now remained for him to go to Rome to obtain the pallium. But here was a fresh occasion of trouble. The Antipope Clement was disputing the authority of Urban II, who had been recognized by France and Normandy. It does not appear that the English King was a partisan of the Antipope, but he wished to strengthen his own position by asserting his right to decide between the rival claimants. Hence, when Anselm asked leave to go to the Pope, the King said that no one in England should acknowledge either Pope till he, the King, had decided the matter. The Archbishop insisted on going to Pope Urban, whose authority he had already acknowledged, and, as he had told the King, this was one of the conditions on which alone he would accept the archbishopric. This grave question was referred to a council of the realm held at Rockingham in March, 1095. Here Anselm boldly asserted the authority of Urban. His speech is a memorable testimony to the doctrine of papal supremacy. It is significant that not one of the bishops could call it in question (Eadmer, Historia Novorum, lib. I). Regarding Anselm’s belief on this point we may cite the frank words of Dean Hook: “Anselm was simply a papist—He believed that St. Peter was the Prince of the Apostles—that as such he was the source of all ecclesiastical authority and power; that the pope was his successor; and that consequently, to the pope was due, from the bishops and metropolitans as well as from the rest of mankind, the obedience which a spiritual suzerain has the right to expect from his vassals” [Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury (London, 18(i0–75), II, 183].

William now sent envoys to Rome to get the pallium. They found Urban in possession and recognized him. Walter, Bishop of Albano, came back with them as legate bearing the pallium. The King publicly acknowledged the authority of Urban, and at first endeavoured to get Anselm deposed by the legate. Eventually a reconciliation was occasioned by the royal difficulties in Wales and in the north. The King and the Archbishop met in peace. Anselm would not take the pallium from the King’s hand; but in a solemn service at Canterbury on 10 June, 1095 it was laid on the altar by the legate, whence Anselm took it. Fresh trouble arose in 1097. On returning from his ineffectual Welsh campaign William brought a charge against the Archbishop in regard to the contingent he had furnished and required him to meet this charge in the King’s court. Anselm declined and asked leave to go to Rome. This was refused, but after a meeting at Winchester Anselm was told to be ready to sail in ten days. On parting with the King, the Archbishop gave him his blessing, which William received with bowed head. At St. Omer’s Anselm confirmed a multitude of persons. Christmas was spent at Cluny, and the rest of the winter at Lyons. In the spring he resumed his journey and crossed Mont Cenis with two companions all travelling as simple monks. At the monasteries on their way they were frequently asked for news of Anselm. On his arrival in Rome he was treated with great honour by the Pope. His case was considered and laid before the council, but nothing could be done beyond sending a letter of remonstrance to William. During his stay in Italy Anselm enjoyed the hospitality of the Abbot of Telese, and passed the summer in a mountain village belonging to this monastery. Here he finished his work, “Cur Deus Homo,” which he had begun in England. In October, 1098, Urban held a council at Bari to deal with the difficulties raised by the Greeks in regard to the procession of the Holy Ghost. Here Anselm was called by the Pope to a place of honour and bidden to take the chief part in the discussion. His arguments were afterwards committed to writing in his treatise on this subject. His own case was also brought before this council, which would have excommunicated William but for Anselm’s intercession. Both he and his companions now desired to return to Lyons, but were bidden to await the action of another council to be held in the Lateran at Easter. Here Anselm heard the canons passed against Investitures, and the decree of excommunication against the offenders. This incident had a deep influence on his career in England.

While still staying in the neighbourhood of Lyons, Anselm heard of the tragic death of William. Soon messages from the new king and chief men of the land summoned him to England. Landing at Dover, he hastened to King Henry at Salisbury. He was kindly received, but the question of Investitures was at once raised in an acute form. Henry required the Archbishop himself to receive a fresh investiture. Anselm alleged the decrees of the recent Roman council and declared that he had no choice in the matter. The difficulty was postponed, as the King decided to send to Rome to ask for a special exemption. Meanwhile, Anselm was able to render the King two signal services. He helped to remove the obstacle in the way of his marriage with Edith, the heiress of the Saxon kings. The daughter of St. Margaret had sought shelter in a convent, where she had worn the veil, but had taken no vows. It was thought by some that this was a bar to marriage, but Anselm had the case considered in a council at Lambeth where the royal maiden’s liberty was fully established, and the Archbishop himself gave his blessing to the marriage. Moreover, when Robert landed at Portsmouth and many of the Norman nobles were wavering in their allegiance, it was Anselm who turned the tide in favour of Henry. In the meantime Pope Paschal had refused the King’s request for an exemption from the Lateran decrees, yet Henry persisted in his resolution to compel Anselm to accept investiture at his hands. The revolt of Robert de Bellesme put off the threatened rupture. To gain time the King sent another embassy to Rome. On its return, Anselm was once more required to receive investiture. The Pope’s letter was not made public, but it was reported to be of the same tenor as his previous reply. The envoys now gave out that the Pope had orally consented to the King’s request, but could not say so in writing for fear of offending other sovereigns. Friends of Anselm who had been at Rome, disputed this assertion. In this crisis it was agreed to send to Rome again; meanwhile the King would continue to invest bishops and abbots, but Anselm should not be required to consecrate them.

During this interval Anselm held a council at Westminster. Here stringent canons were passed against the evils of the age. In spite of the compromise about investiture, Anselm was required to consecrate bishops invested by the King, but he firmly refused, and it soon became evident that his firmness was taking effect. Bishops gave back the staff they had received at the royal hands, or refused to be consecrated by another in defiance of Anselm. When the Pope’s answer arrived, repudiating the story of the envoys, the King asked Anselm to go to Rome himself. Though he could not support the royal request he was willing to lay the facts before the Pope. With this understanding he once more betook himself to Rome. The request was again refused, but Henry was not excommunicated. Understanding that Henry did not wish to receive him in England, Anselm interrupted his homeward journey at Lyons. In this city he received a letter from the Pope informing him of the excommunication of the counsellors who had advised the King to insist on investitures, but not decreeing anything about the King. Anselm resumed his journey, and on the way he heard of the illness of Henry’s sister, Adela of Blois. He turned aside to visit her and on her recovery informed her that he was returning to England to excommunicate her brother. She at once exerted herself to bring about a meeting between Anselm and Henry, in July, 1105. But though a reconciliation was effected, and Anselm was urged to return to England, the claim to invest was not relinquished, and recourse had again to be made to Rome. A papal letter authorizing Anselm to absolve from censures incurred by breaking the laws against investitures healed past offences but made no provision for the future. At length, in a council held in London in 1107, the question found a solution. The King relinquished the claim to invest bishops and abbots, while the Church allowed the prelates to do homage for their temporal possessions. Lingard and other writers consider this a triumph for the King, saying that he had the substance and abandoned a mere form. But it was for no mere form that this long war had been waged. The rite used in the investiture was the symbol of a real power claimed by the English kings, and now at last abandoned. The victory rested with the Archbishop, and as Schwane says (Kirchenlexicon, s. v.) it prepared the way for the later solution of the same controversy in Germany. Anselm was allowed to end his days in peace. In the two years that remained he continued his pastoral labours and composed the last of his writings. Eadmer, the faithful chronicler of these contentions, gives a pleasing picture of his peaceful death. The dream of his childhood was come true; he was to climb the mountain and taste the bread of Heaven.

His active work as a pastor and stalwart champion of the Church makes Anselm one of the chief figures in religious history. The sweet influence of his spiritual teaching was felt far and wide, and its fruits were seen in many lands. His stand for the freedom of the Church in a crisis of medieval history had far-reaching effects long after his own time. As a writer and a thinker he may claim yet higher rank, and his influence on the course of philosophy and Catholic theology was even deeper and more enduring if he stands on the one hand with Gregory VII, and Innocent III, and Thomas Becket; on the other he may claim a place beside Athanasius, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas. His merits in the field of theology have received official recognition; he has been declared a Doctor of the Church by Clement XI, 1720, and in the office read on his feast day (21 April) it is said that his works are a pattern for all theologians. Yet it may be doubted whether his position is generally appreciated by students of divinity. In some degree his work has been hidden by the fabric reared on his foundations. His books were not adopted, like those of Peter Lombard and St. Thomas, as the usual text of commentators and lecturers in theology, nor was he constantly cited as an authority, like St. Augustine. This was natural enough, since in the next century new methods came in with the rise of the Arabic and Aristotelean philosophy; the “Books of Sentences” were in some ways more fit for regular theological reading; Anselm was yet too near to have the venerable authority of the early Fathers. For these reasons it may be said that his writings were not properly appreciated till time had brought in other changes in the schools, and men were led to study the history of theology. But though his works are not cast in the systematic form of the “ Summa “ of St. Thomas, they cover the whole field of Catholic doctrine. There are few pages of our theology that have not been illustrated by the labours of Anselm. His treatise on the procession of the Holy Spirit has helped to guide scholastic speculations on the Trinity, his “Cur Deus Homo” throws a flood of light on the theology of the Atonement, and one of his works anticipates much of the later controversies on Free Will and Predestination. In the seventeenth century, a Spanish Benedictine, Cardinal d’Aguirre made the writings of Anselm the groundwork of a course of theology, “ S. Anselmi Theologia “ (Salamanca, 1678–81). Unfortunately the work never got beyond the first three folio volumes, containing the commentaries on the “ Monologium “. In recent years Dom Anselm Öcsényi, O.S.B. has accomplished the task on a more modest scale in a little Latin volume on the theology of St. Anselm, “De Theologia S. Anselmi” (Brünn, 1884).

Besides being one of the fathers of scholastic theology, Anselm fills an important place in the history of philosophic speculation. Coming in the first phase of the controversy on Universals, he had to meet the extreme Nominalism of Roscelin; partly from this fact, partly from his native Platonism his Realism took what may be considered a somewhat extreme form. It was too soon to find the golden mean of moderate Realism, accepted by later philosophers. His position was a stage in the process and it is significant that one of his biographers, John of Salisbury, was among the first to find the true solution.

Anselm’s chief achievement in philosophy was the ontological argument for the existence of God put forth in his “Proslogium.” Starting from the notion that God is “that than which nothing greater can be thought,” he argues that what exists in reality is greater than that which is only in the mind; wherefore, since “God is that than which nothing greater can be thought,” He exists in reality. The validity of the argument was disputed at the outset by a monk named Gaunilo, who wrote a criticism on it to which Anselm replied. Eadmer tells a curious story about St. Anselm’s anxiety while he was trying to work out this argument. He could think of nothing else for days together. And when at last he saw it clearly, he was filled with joy, and made haste to commit it to writing. The waxen tablets were given in charge to one of the monks but when they were wanted they were missing. Anselm managed to recall the argument, it was written on fresh tablets and given into safer keeping. But when it was wanted it was found that the wax was broken to Pieces. Anselm with some difficulty put the fragments together and had the whole copied on parchment for greater security. The story sounds like an allegory of the fate which awaited this famous argument, which was lost and found again, pulled to pieces and restored in the course of controversy. Rejected by St. Thomas and his followers, it was revived in another form by Descartes. After being assailed by Kant, it was defended by Hegel, for whom it had a peculiar fascination—he recurs to it in many parts of his writings. In one place he says that it is generally used by later philosophers, “yet always along with the other proofs, although it alone is the true one” (German Works, XII, 547). Assailants of this argument should remember that all minds are not cast in one mould, and it is easy to understand how some can feel the force of arguments that are not felt by others. But if this proof were indeed, as some consider it, an absurd fallacy, how could it appeal to such minds as those of Anselm, Descartes, and Hegel? It may be well to add that the argument was not rejected by all the great Schoolmen. It was accepted by Alexander of Hales (Summa, Pt. I, Q. iii, memb. 1, 2), and supported by Scotus. (In I, Dist. ii, Q. ii.) In modern times it is accepted by Mohler, who quotes Hegel’s defence with approval.

It is not often that a Catholic saint wins the admiration of German philosophers and English historians. But Anselm has this singular distinction Hegel’s appreciation of his mental powers may be matched by Freeman’s warm words of praise for the great Archbishop of Canterbury. “Stranger as he was, he has won his place among the noblest worthies of our island. It was something to be the model of all ecclesiastical perfection; it was something to be the creator of the theology of Christendom—but it was something higher still to be the very embodiment of righteousness and mercy, to be handed down in the annals of humanity as the man who saved the hunted hare and stood up for the holiness of lfheah” (History of the Norman Conquest, IV, 444).

Collections of the works of St. Anselm were issued soon after the invention of printing. Ocsenyi mentions nine earlier than the sixteenth century. The first attempt at a critical edition was that of Th. Raynaud, S.J. (Lyons, 1630), which rejects many spurious works, e. g. the Commentaries on St. Paul. The best editions are those of Dom Gerberon, O.S.B. (Paris, 1675, 1721; Venice 1744, Migne, 1845). Most of the more important works have also been issued separately—thus the “ Monologium” is included in Hurter’s “ Opuscula SS. Patrum “ and published with the “ Proslogium “ by Haas (Tubingen). There are numerous separate editions of the “Cur Deus Homo” and of Anselm’s “Prayers and Meditations”; these last were done into English by Archbishop Laud (1638), and there are French and German versions of the “meditationes” and the “Monologium.” “Cur Deus Homo” has also been translated into English and German—see also the translations by Deane (Chicago, 1903). For Anselm’s views on education, see ABBEY OF BEC.

The chief sources for Anselm’s life are his own letters and the two biographical works of his friend, disciple, and secretary, Eadmer, monk of Canterbury, and Bishop-elect of St. Andrews. Eadmers’s Historia Nonorum may be called the “Life and Times of St. Anselm”; his Vita S. Anselmi gives the inner life of the saint. Also, there is a brief account of the miracles of St. Anselm which is also ascribed to Eadmer, but its authorship is doubtful. Other early writers on Anselm, such as John of Salisbury, add some new details, but their account of the Saint is largely drawn from Eadmer.

W.H. KENT

St. Anselm (2)

Abbot, Duke of Forum Julii, the modern Friuli, in the northeastern part of Italy. Wishing to serve God in a monastery, he left the world, and in 750 built a monastery at Fanano, a place given to him by Aistuiph, King of the Lombards, who had married Anselms sister Gisaltruda. Two years later he built the monastery of Nonantula, a short distance northeast of Modena he then went to Rome where Stephen III invested him with the habit of St. Benedict and appointed him Abbot of Nonantula. Being very charitable, able, Anselm founded many hospices where the poor and the feeble were sheltered and cared for by monks. Desiderius, who had succeeded Aistulph as King of the Lombards (756–774) banished Anselm from Nonantula. The seven years of his exile the latter spent at Monte Cassino, but returned to Nonantula after the capture of Desiderius by Charlemagne. Having been abbot for fifty years, Anselm died at Nonantula in 305, and the town of that name still honours him as patron.

LECHNER, Martyrologium des Benediktiner-Ordens (Augsburg, 1855); STADLER, Heiligen-Lexikon (Augsburg, 1858), I, 235; Acta SS., 1 March, 263, 891.

MICHAEL OTT

Anselm of Laon

(ANSELMUS LAUDINENSIS.)

Died 15 July, 1117, one of the famous theologians of the Middle Ages, known from his learning as Doctor Scholasticus. He was educated at the abbey of Bee, under St. Anselm of Canterbury, who made him acquainted with the new scholastic theology. From 1076 he taught for a while with much distinction at Paris, and co-operated with William of Champeaux in establishing the university there. He returned to Laon about the end of the eleventh century and set up a theological school which became so famous that Abelard, then thirty years of age, who was teaching philosophy at Paris, removed to Laon in order to study theology under him. Anselms chief work is his “Glossa interlinearis,” a commentary on the whole Vulgate (Antwerp, 1634), one of the two chief exegetical works of the Middle Ages, the other being the “Glossa ordinaria” of Walafrid Strabo. His known writings are found in Migne, P.L., CLXII, 1187–1660.

HEFELE in Kirchenlex., s. v.; LEFÈVRE (Evreux, 1904); Hist. litt. de France, X, 170.

Anselm of Liège

A Belgian chronicler of the eleventh century, b. 1008; d. about 1056. He was educated at the famous episcopal school of Liège, and became canon and dean of the cathedral, where he enjoyed the friendship of the bishop, Wazo. His chronicle, regarded as one of the best of the period, both for literary merit and for historical value, is known as the “Gesta Episcoporum Tungrensium, Trajectensium, et Leodiensium,” and is a continuation of the earlier work of Heriger, abbot of Lobbes (d. 1007) which dealt with the first twenty-seven bishops, from St. Maternus (90) to Remaclus (680). Anselms work, written at the request of his godmother, the countess Ida, Abbess of St. Cecilia at Cologne, added the lives of twenty-five more bishops, down to Wazo, of whom he gave a very full and particular account. The latest edition of the “Gesta” is to be found in the “Monumenta Germaniæ Historica: Scriptores, VII, 161–234; also ibid., XIV, 107–120 (1883). Anselms style is clear, and his zeal for church-reform is equalled by his critical intelligence.

SCHERER in Kirchenlex., I, s. v.; WATTENBACH, 5th ed. II, 145.

FRANCIS W. GREY

St. Anselm of Lucca, the Younger

Born at Mantua c. 1036; d. in the same city, 18 March, 1086. He was nephew of Anselm of Lucca, the Elder, who ascended the Papal throne as Alexander II in 1061. In the year 1071 Alexander II designated Anselm as Bishop of Lucca and sent him to Germany to take investiture from Henry IV. Anselm went to Germany, but was loath to receive the insignia of spiritual power from a temporal ruler and returned without investiture. In 1073 Gregory VII, successor of Alexander II, also appointed Anselm Bishop of Lucca, but advised him not to accept his ring and crosier from Henry IV. For some reason, Anselm accepted investiture from Henry, but soon felt such remorse that he resigned his bishopric and entered the Order of St. Benedict at Padilirone, a monastery of the Cluniac Reform, situated near Mantua. Gregory VII ordered him to return to his episcopal see at Lucca. Anselm returned reluctantly, but continued to lead time life of a monk until his death. Inspired, like Gregory VII, with a holy zeal to reform the clergy, he wished to impose stricter discipline upon the canons of his cathedral. Most of the canons refused to submit to Anselms regulations, and in 1081 he was expelled from Lucca with the help of the Emperor and his antipope, Guibert. Anselm now retired to the castle of the Countess Matilda of Tuscany, whose spiritual adviser he was. Some time later he was made Papal Legate of Lombardy with instructions to rule over all the dioceses which, during the conflict between pope and emperor, had been left without bishops. Anselm was well versed in the Scriptures and wrote some exegetical and ascetical works. In his work “Contra Guibertum et sequaces ejus” he shows the unlawfulness of lay-investiture and defends Gregory against the Antipope Guibert. He also made a collection of canons which afterwards were incorporated into the well-known “Decretum” of Gratian. Mantua, the city of his birth and death, honours him as its patron.

RANBECK, A Benedictine Calender (London, 1896); MONTALEMBERT, Les moines doceident (Paris, 1882), VI, 473 sqq.; GUERIN, Les petits Bollandistes (Paris), III, 498; LECHNER, Martyrologium des Benediktiner-Ordens (Augsburg, 1855).

MICHAEL OTT

Antoine Anselme

A celebrated French preacher, b. at l’Isle-Jourdain in the Comté d’Armagnac, 13 January, 1652; d. at Saint-Sever, 8 August, 1737. His father was a distinguished surgeon. Anselme studied at Toulouse and became a priest. As a child he was called the “Little Prophet,” because he would repeat with appropriate gestures sermons which he had heard only once. The sobriquet clung to him up to his death. After his ordination he preached in Toulouse, and the Marquis de Montespan was so delighted with his eloquence that he made him instructor to his son, the Marquis d’Antin, and brought him to Paris. Père Anselme’s eloquent sermons there soon procured him such repute as a sacred orator that parishes wishing to secure him had to do so two or three years in advance. In 1681 the French Academy chose him to deliver before it the panegyric on St. Louis. Two years later (1683) he preached at Court. Mme. de Sévigné in one of her letters (8 April, 1689) speaks in warm praise of his intelligence, eloquence, charm, and devotion. He became a member of the Academy of Inscriptions in 1710. He died at the age of eighty-five, in the Abbey of Saint-Sever which Louis XIV had given him in 1699. Father Anselme’s writings are some odes printed in the “Recueil de l’Académie des Jeux Floraux de Toulouse”; “Panegyrics of Saints and Funeral Orations at Paris in 1718” (3 vols. 8vo., with his portrait); “Sermons for Advent, Lent, and Various Occasions” (Paris, 1731, 4 vols. 8vo., and 6 vols. 12mo.); divers dissertations inserted in the “Memoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions” from 1724 to 1729.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Reyer Anslo

Dutch poet and convert, b. at Amsterdam in 1622; d. at Perugia in 1669. His parents were Mennonites. He was baptized on the 16th of November, 1646, and brought up a member of the same sect. He had already gained fame as a poet, and had been rewarded by his native city, with a laurel crown and a silver dish, for a poem in honour of the new town hall. A poem inscribed to Queen Christina of Sweden, a great patroness of letters, entitled “The Swedish Pallasö, brought him a golden chain. In 1651, he was received into the Catholic Church, together with forty-three others, as is shown by manuscript records of the Society of Jesus (Lit. annuae Soc. Jes., in the Burgundian Library at Brussels, VI, No. 21818b fo 300, ao 1651). He proceeded to Rome, where he became secretary to Cardinal Capponi, and received from Pope Innocent X a gold medal for his poetical labours. In 1655 he was presented to Queen Christina, to whom he dedicated new poems. His collected works were published in 1713, the finest being a tragedy, “The Parisian Blood-Bridal” (De parysche bloed-bruiloff), dealing with the Massacre of St. Bartholomew.

Thijm in Kisrchenlex.; ID., in the Dietsache Warande (Amsterdam); Id, Spiegel van Nederlandsche Letteren (Louvain, 1877, II, III).

FRANCIS W. GREY

Thomas Chisholm Anstey

Lawyer and politician, son of one of the first settlers in Tasmania, b. in London, England, 1816; d. at Bombay, India, 12 August, 1873. Educated at Wellington and the University College, London, he was called to the Bar in 1893. One of the earliest converts of the Oxford movement, he was shortly after appointed professor of law and jurisprudence at Prior Park College near Bath, and became an ardent champion of the rights and interests of the Catholics of England and Ireland. Joining O’Connell’s forces, he resigned his professorship and devoted himself entirely to politics. In 1847 he was elected member of Parliament for Youghal, where he was prominent in the opposition to Lord Palmerston’s foreign policy and advocated the repeal of the Irish and Scotch unions and the repeal of the currency laws. He retired from parliamentary life in 1852 and in 1854 was nominated Attorney General of Hongkong, but in the course of the radical reforms he inaugurated he came into collision with Sir John Bowring in 1858 and was suspended from office. Anstey’s representations were brought to the attention of Parliament in 1859 but he was unable to obtain public redress, whereupon he retired to India and took up the practice of law at Bombay. His success was great; he filled a temporary vacancy on the bench in 1865, but again was compelled to resign his post on account of the opposition excited by his vigorous denunciation of commercial abuses in the Bengal government. He then returned to England in 1866 and in a tract entitled “A Plea for the Unrepresented for the Restitution of the Franchise” he advocated universal suffrage as a panacea for the ills resulting from class legislation. In 1867 he published an attack upon Disraeli’s Reform Act of that year. In 1868 he returned to Bombay and resumed his practice and on his death was deeply lamented by the natives, whose causes he had always forwarded. He was accused of lack of moderation in his methods but never of lack of intelligence or honour in his purposes. Among his numerous pamphlets were: “A Guide to the Laws affecting Roman Catholics” (1842), and “The Queen’s Supremacy considered in its relation with the Roman Catholics in England” (1850). He also contributed many articles to the Dublin Magazine, just then started under the direction of Newman, O’Connell, and Henry Bagshawe.

Tablet (London, 16 August, 1873); Weekly Register, ibid.; Hansard, Parliamentary Debates (1847–52).

THOMAS WALSH

Antediluvians

(From Lat. ante=before, and diluvium=flood; people who lived before the Flood).

IN THE PENTATEUCH

From Adam to Noe the Bible enumerates ten patriarchs. A genealogical table of them is given (Gen., v). Their names, lifetime, and age at which they begot their successors are systematically stated.

The modern theory of the composition of the Pentateuch assigns the chapter in which this table occurs to the documentary source commonly called the “Priestly Code,” or by abbreviation, P. (See .) In the narrative of this code the table of the ten patriarchs is said by critics to have followed immediately after the Hexahemeron of chapter i. The account of the Creation concluded or began, as they maintain, with the phrase: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth” (Gen, ii, 4). The list of the patriarchs begins: “This is the book of the generations of Adam.” The thread of the same narrative is said to be further continued in chapter vi, 9, by means of the same phrase: “These are the generations of Noe.” The intervening chapters, critics hold, belong to an older account of the primeval time.

Critics allege that among the names of the ten patriarchs there are six that occur also in the list of the descendants of Cain. The table of Cainites is given in chapter iv, verses 17–18. The six names, supposed to be the same in both registers, are Cain or Cainan, Henoch, Irad or Jared, Maviael or Malaleel, Mathusael or Mathusala, and Lamech. The different manner in which some of the names are spelled in the parallel list is held to be insignificant. As the table of Cainites in chapter iv is assumed by critics to be from an older document than that of the Adamites in chapter v, the inference was obvious that the names of the latter table were taken from the former. For this inference critics find a support in the meaning of the names Adam, Enos, and Cain or Cainan. The names Adam and Enos mean “man”; Cain or Cainan means “the one begotten” or “the son obtained” cf. iv, 1. Thus we would have the parallel Adam-Cain, Enos-Cainan, namely, man and his scion.

THE NUMBER TEN

In fixing upon the number ten as the number of patriarchs the author may have followed some ancient and perhaps widely spread tradition. The list of the ten patriarchs with their abnormally long lifetime resembles that of the first ten Babylonian kings as recorded by Berosus, Eusebius, Chron. Arm., I, i, t. XIX, col 107–108. According to Vigouroux, “Dictionnaire de la bible,” the tradition of ten ancient ancestors is found also with other races; e.g. among the Hindus, with their ten Pitris or forefathers, comprising Brahma and the nine Bramadikas; among the ancient Germans and Scandinavians, with their belief in the ten ancestors of Odin, etc. But it is equally possible that the number ten is simply due to a systematic method of computation. Thus the pro-historic age from Adam to Abraham was to comprehend twenty generations, ten from Adam to Noe, and ten from Sem to Thare. A similar systematic arrangement we have in the genealogical table of Christ in St. Matthew containing three times fourteen generations.

The following table contains the names of the patriarchs with their respective ages according to the Hebrew text, Septuagint, and Samaritan Bible; also the names of the reign of the ten Babylonian kings. The first number is the age at which the patriarch begot his successor, the second the remainder of his years, the third the total number of his years. The list of Babylonian kings is taken from Vigouroux (Dict. de la bible):

Adam:

Hebrew: 130 + 800 = 930

Samaritan: 130 + 800 = 930

Chaldean: 230 + 700 = 930

King (Alorus): 10 sares (185 civil years; 36,000 astronomical years)

Seth:

Hebrew: 105 + 807 = 912

Samaritan: 105 + 807 = 912

Chaldean: 205 + 707 = 912

Babylonian king (Alaparus): 3 sares (55.5 civil; 10,800 astronomical)

Enos:

Hebrew: 90 + 815 = 905

Samaritan: 90 + 815 = 905

Chaldean: 190 + 715 = 905

Babylonian king (Almelon): 13 sares (240.5 civil; 46,800 astronomical)

Cainan:

Hebrew: 70 + 840 = 910

Samaritan: 70 + 840 = 910

Chaldean: 170 + 740 = 910

Babylonian king (Ammenon): 12 sares (222 civil; 43,200 astronomical)

Malaleel:

Hebrew: 65 + 830 = 895

Samaritan: 65 + 830 = 895

Chaldean: 165 + 730 = 895

Babylonian king (Amegalarus): 18 sares (333 civil; 64,800 astronomical)

Jared:

Hebrew: 162 + 800 = 962

Samaritan: 62 + 785 = 847

Chaldean: 162 + 800 = 962

Babylonian king (Daonus): 10 sares (185 civil; 36,000 astronomical)

Henoch:

Hebrew: 65 + 300 = 365

Samaritan: 65 + 300 = 365

Chaldean: 165 + 200 = 365

Babylonian king (Edoranchus): 18 sares (333 civil; 64,800 astronomical)

Mathusala:

Hebrew: 187 + 782 = 969

Samaritan: 67 + 653 = 720

Chaldean: 167 + 802 = 969

Babylonian king (Amempsinus): 10 sares (185 civil; 36,000 astronomical)

Lamech:

Hebrew: 182 + 595 = 777

Samaritan: 53 + 600 = 653

Chaldean: 188 + 565 = 753

Babylonian king (Otiartes): 8 sares (148 civil; 28,800 astronomical)

Noe:

Hebrew: 500 (before Sem’s birth) + 100 (from Sem to the Flood)

Samaritan: 500 + 100

Chaldean: 500 + 100

Babylonian king (Xisuthrus): 18 sares (333 civil years; 64,800 astronomical years)

Total:

Hebrew: 1,656 years to the flood

Samaritan: 1,307 years to the flood

Chaldean: 2,242 years to the flood

Babylonian kings: 120 sares (12,220 civil years; 432,000 astronomical years)

As the table shows, the original text and its two versions differ greatly in fixing the number of years from Adam to the Flood. In the Hebrew Bible the number is 1,656, in the Samaritan, 1,307; in the Septuagint, 2,242. On a closer examination it will be found that the difference between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint is chiefly occasioned by the systematic addition of 100 years which the Septuagint has made to the age of six patriarchs at the birth of their successors. The Samaritan on the contrary has in the case of three patriarchs deducted 100 years. No reliable clue that we know of has as yet been found for deciding which of the computations is the original. Presumption is on the side of the one in the Hebrew text being the oldest text of the three. On the other hand, the Samaritan has the advantage that the lifetime of the three patriarchs Jared, Methusala, and Lamech has been shortened, so that there is a gradual decrease in the number of years of each patriarch from Adam to Noe.

In the table of the ten Babylonian kings the length of their reign is calculated by means of sares. Berosus counts 120 sares. The sare has an astronomical value of 3,600 years and a civil value of eighteen and one-half years (Vigouroux, Dict. de la bible). According to the first estimation of the sare, the total number of years for the ten kings would be 432,000, according to the second 2,220. The efforts made to bring the sares or 432,000 years of the Babylonian kings, into harmony with the 1,656 years of the patriarchs (e.g. by equating seven Hebrew days with five Chaldean years) have yielded no satisfactory result.

LONGEVITY OF THE PATRIARCHS

Various theories have been advanced for explaining the abnormally long lifetime of the patriarchs. They may be classified into three groups:

(1) The Literal and Historical Interpretation

The genealogical table is accepted as a record of the past and as possessing the ordinary certainty of history. The ten patriarchs are held actually to have lived the long life assigned to them. The object which God intended by this extraordinary longevity is said to have been the increase of men on earth and the preservation of ancient tradition. In answer to the objection that the system of the human body does not permit of so long a lifetime, it is argued that a special providence of God had favoured the ancients with a peculiar organization and constitution of body, and had provided for them a special kind of food and climate. Thus already Josephus: “Let no one make the shortness of our lives at present an argument that neither the Patriarchs attained so long a duration of life; for those ancients were beloved of God and made by God himself; and because their food was then fitter for the prolongation of life; and besides God afforded them a longer time of life on account of their virtue, and the good use they made of it in astronomical and geometrical discoveries, etc.”

Furthermore in corroboration of the Biblical account he names as witnesses the historians Manetho the Egyptian, Berosus the Chaldean, Mochus, Hesitaeus, Hieronymus the Egyptian, and others, who all bore testimony to the longevity of primeval man. Ant., I, III, 9.

(2) The Metaphorical Interpretation

The names of the ten patriarchs signify ten dynasties or tribes. Each dynasty might have comprised a succession of several rulers. The explanation is ingenious. It may be doubted, however, whether this was the meaning of the narrator. By naming the patriarchs he seems to have meant one individual. For he states the age at which the patriarch begot the son who was to succeed him. Others argue that the Hebrew word, Shanah, in the list of the ten patriarchs signifies the duration not of a year, but of a month. But in that case Enos begot his successor when he was eight years of age, and Malaleel and Henoch begot theirs when they were five.

Others again, but without sufficient ground, say that the year is to be taken as a year of three months from Adam unto Abraham, of eight months unto Joseph, and only after him are we to allow for it the natural duration.

(3) The Mythical Interpretation

We have already pointed out that according to the theory of the documentary composition of the Pentateuch, chapter v belongs to the original history named by the critics the “Priestly Code.” If the genealogical dates recorded in that narrative are examined, a gradual and systematic shortening of man’s lifetime is distinctly noticeable. From Adam to Noe the duration of man’s life ranges from 500 to 1,000 years. From Sem to Thare it ranges from 200 to 600 (xi, 10–32). From Abraham to Moses, from 100 to 200. Abraham lived 175 years; Isaac, 180; Jacob, 147 (Gen. . xxxv, 28; xxv, 7; xlvii, 28). After that the average human life is 70 or 80 years. “And the days of our years in them are three score and ten years. But if in the strong they be fourscore years” (Ps., lxxxix, 10). Critics, moreover, hold as we have seen, that according to the original structure of the “Priestly Code” the genealogical table in chapter v immediately followed the account of the Creation in chapter i. If so, the narrative of this Code contained no mention of paradise, nor of man’s immortality, fall, and punishment. On the other hand it may have been the opinion of the author of this Code that the smooth and even course of man’s life, the result of his continued state of innocence, contributed to the possibility of his attaining a preternaturally old age. But when this primordial innocence was lost the duration of man’s life was shortened. Thus the longevity of the patriarchs would agree with the notion of the primeval oetas aurea, a fabulous period of innocence and happiness.

Delitzsch, Dillman, Commentaries on Genesis (Edinburgh, 1897). and by Hummelauer (Paris, 1895); Schanz, Das Alter des Menschengeschlechts nach der heiligen Schrift, der Profangesehichte und der Vorgeschichte, in Biblische Studien, I, No. 2 (Freiburg, 1895).

C. VAN DEN BIESEN

Pope St. Anterus

(ANTEROS.)

(Reigned 21 November, 235–3 January, 236). We know for certain only that he reigned some forty days, and that he was buried in the famous “papal crypt” of the cemetery of St. Calixtus at Rome [Northcote and Brownlow, Roma Sotterranea, (London, 1879) I, 296–300]. The “Liber Pontificalis” (ed. Duchesne I, 147; cf. xcv-vi) says that he was martyred for having caused the Acts of the martyrs to be collected by notaries and deposited in the archives of the Roman Church. This tradition seems old and respectable; nevertheless the best scholars maintain that it is not sufficiently guaranteed by its sole voucher, the “Liber Pontificalis,” on account, among other things, of the late date of that work’s compilation. (See PAPACY, NOTARIES.) The site of his sepulchre was discovered by De Rossi in 1854, with some broken remnants of the Greek epitaph engraved on the narrow oblong slab that closed his tomb, an index at once of his origin and of the prevalence of Greek in the Roman Church up to that date. For the “Epistola Anteri” attributed to him by Pseudo-Isidore see Hinschius, “Decret. Pseudo-Isidorianae” (Leipzig, 1863), 156–160 and P.G., X, 165–168. Cf. “Liber Pont.” (ed. Duchesne), I. 147.

Tillemont, Mémoires (III), 278, 694; De Rossi, Roma Sotterr., II, pl. III, 55–58; Allard, Hist. des Persecutions (Paris, 1886), II, 198–200; Acta SS. (1643), Jan. 1, 127.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Joseph Anthelmi

A French ecclesiastical historian, b. at Fréjus, 25 July, 1648; d. in the same city, 21 June, 1697. Several of his ancestors had occupied canonries in their native place, the history and traditions of which they had investigated and preserved. Joseph, feeling himself called to the priesthood, betook himself to Lyons, where he entered on the study of theology under the celebrated Jesuit Père Lachaise, afterwards confessor to Louis XIV. On being ordained, he returned to Provence, and was soon made canon of the Cathedral of Fréjus, notwithstanding his natural dislike for a position so ill according with his habits of retirement and study. His uncles, Pierre and Nicolas, had published a work on the former incumbents of the See of Fréjus; and following in their footsteps, Joseph resolved to devote himself especially to the history of the Church in his native land, beginning with his own diocese. His first work appeared in 1680, “De inito ecclesiae Forojuliensis dissertatio chronologica, critica, profano-sacra.” The learned but erring Pasquier Quesnel, once an Oratorian, was then at the height of his reputation, and was agitating France on the question of the real author of the “De vocatione gentium,” the “Responsiones pro Augustino ad Capitula Gallorum” and the “Epistola ad Demetriadem” (P.L., LI, 647,158; LV, 162). In his opinion these had been written by St. Leo the Great. Against him Anthelmi now entered the field on behalf of the authorship of St. Prosper of Aquitaine. The contest was maintained with vigour by both parties, their letters being published in the “Journal des Savants “, in 1689. Toward the close of the same year Anthelmi vindicated his position by the publication at Paris of his work “De veris operibus SS. Patrum Leonis et Prosperi.” The opposition between Anthelmi and Quesnel burst cut anew in regard to the authorship of the Athanasian Creed. Quesnel thought it the work of Vigilius, Bishop of Thapsus, in Africa, who towards the end of the fifth century was driven from his see by Huneric, King of the Vandals, and taking refuge in Constantinople wrote against the Arians, Eutychians, and Nestorians, attributing his own works to St. Augustine and St. Athanasius. Anthelmi, on the contrary, inclined to the view of Pere Pithou, who attributed it to St. Vincent of Lérins; and in 1693 he published his “Nova de symbolo Athanasiano disquisitio.” In this work Anthelmi endeavoured to prove that the Creed cannot be the production of St. Athanasius, as it was composed not earlier than the fifth century; and that its author was a Gaul. St. Vincent was known to have had the intention of filling out at length a confession of faith in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation; this, taken in conjunction with the similarity of style and expression between the Athanasian Creed and the writings of St. Vincent, is the foundation of Anthelmi’s argument. His brother, Charles, Bishop of Grasse, collected and published several other historical papers, the most notable of which was a pamphlet, =930n the Life and Death of St. Martin of Tours.” In 1694, Anthelmi was made vicar-general to the Bishop of Pamiers; but his health, already impaired by a life of severe study and unremitting labour, could not stand the additional strain put upon it by his new duties, and he returned to his native city in a vain attempt to recuperate. Here he died in the forty-ninth year of his age.

Toussaint in Dict. de theol. cath. s.v.; Hurter, nomenclator, II, 540.

Anthemius

A Byzantine official of the fourth and fifth centuries, of high rank and fine character. He was one of the most celebrated magistrates of his day, noted for his wisdom and his administrative ability. St. Chrysostom and he entertained the greatest respect for each other. Anthemius was Magister Officiorum at the time of the disturbances which followed St. Chrysostom’s deposition (Easter, 404), and the Saint’s enemies demanded troops from him with which to disperse the crowd. At first he refused, but then yielded to their importunities, declaring that they were responsible for the consequences (Pallad. 83). Anthemius was made consul in 405, and soon after Prefect of the East (Cod. Theod. Chronol., 149), a position he held until 417. St. Chrysostom wrote to him in warm terms (Ep. cxlvii). The title of Patrician is given to him in the law of 28 April, 406 (Cod. Theod; Chron. 149). He was principal adviser to Theodosius the Younger (Soc., Hist. Eccl., VII, i) and, through his daughter’s marriage to Procopius, became grandfather to the Emperor Anthemius. He took part in the reception of the relics of the Prophet Samuel at Constantinople (Chron. Alex. 714; Theod. Lect. ii, 64; Tillemont, Empereurs).

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

St. Anthony

Founder of Christian monasticism. The chief source of information on St. Anthony is a Greek Life attributed to St. Athanasius, to be found in any edition of his works. A note of the controversy concerning this Life is given at the end of this article; here it will suffice to say that now it is received with practical unanimity by scholars as a substantially historical record, and as a probably authentic work of St. Athanasius. Valuable subsidiary information is supplied by secondary sources: the “Apophthegmata,” chiefly those collected under Anthony’s name (at the head of Cotelier’s alphabetical collection, P.G. LXV, 7]); Cassian, especially Coll. II; Palladius, “Historica Lausiaca,” 3,4,21,22 (ed. Butler). All this matter may probably be accepted as substantially authentic, whereas what is related concerning St. Anthony in St. Jerome’s Life of St. Paul the Hermit” cannot be used for historical purposes.

Anthony was born at Coma, near Heracleopolis Magna in Fayum, about the middle of the third century. He was the son of well-to-do parents, and on their death, in his twentieth year, he inherited their possessions. He had a desire to imitate the life of the Apostles and the early Christians, and one day, on hearing in the church the Gospel words, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all thou hast,” he received them as spoken to himself, disposed of all his property and goods, and devoted himself exclusively to religious exercises. Long before this it had been usual for Christians to practice asceticism, abstain from marriage and exercising themselves in self-denial, fasting, prayer, and works of piety; but this they had done in the midst of their families, and without leaving house or home. Later on, in Egypt. such ascetics lived in huts, in the outskirts of the towns and villages, and this was the common practice about 270, when Anthony withdrew from the world. He began his career by practising the ascetical life in this fashion without leaving his native place. He used to visit the various ascetics, study their lives, and try to learn from each of them the virtue in which he seemed to excel. Then he took up his abode in one of the tombs, near his native village, and there it was that the Life records those strange conflicts with demons in the shape of wild beasts, who inflicted blows upon him, and sometimes left him nearly dead. After fifteen years of this life, at the age of thirty-five, Anthony determined to withdraw from the habitations of men and retire in absolute solitude. He crossed the Nile, and on a mountain near the east bank, then called Pispir, now Der el Memum, he found an old fort into which he shut himself, and lived there for twenty years without seeing the face of man, food being thrown to him over the wall. He was at times visited by pilgrims, whom he refused to see; but gradually a number of would-be disciples established themselves in caves and in huts around the mountain, Thus a colony of ascetics was formed, who begged Anthony to come forth and be their guide in the spiritual life. At length, about the year 305, he yielded to their importunities an emerged from his retreat, and, to the surprise of all, he appeared to be as when he had gone in, not emaciated, but vigorous in body and mind. For five or six years he devoted himself to the instruction and organization of the great body of monks that had grown up around him; but hen he once again withdrew into the inner desert that lay between the Nile and the Red Sea, near the shore of which he fixed his abode on a mountain where still stands the monastery that bears his name, Der Mar Antonios. Here he spent the last forty-five years of his life, in a seclusion, not so strict as Pispir, for he freely saw those who came to visit him, and he used to cross the desert to Pispir with considerable frequency. The Life says that on two occasions he went to Alexandria, once after he came forth from the fort at Pispir, to strengthen the Christian martyrs in the persecution of 311, and once at the close of his life (c. 350), to preach against the Arians. The Life says he dies at the age of a hundred and five, and St. Jerome places his death in 356–357. All the chronology is based on the hypothesis that this date and the figures in the Life are correct. At his own request his grave was kept secret by the two disciples who buried him, lest his body should become an object of reverence.

Of his writings, the most authentic formulation of his teaching is without doubt that which is contained in the various sayings and discourses put into his mouth in the Life, especially the long ascetic sermons (16–43) spoken on his coming forth from the fort at Pispir. It is an instruction on the duties of the spiritual life, in which the warfare with demons occupies the chief place. Though probably not an actual discourse spoken on any single occasion, it can hardly be a mere invention of the biographer, and doubtless reproduces St. Anthony’s actual doctrine, brought together and co-ordinated. It is likely that many of the sayings attributed to him in the “Apophthegmata” really go back to him, and the same may be said of the stories told of him in Cassian and Palladius. There is a homogeneity about these records, and a certain dignity and spiritual elevation that seem to mark them with the stamp of truth, and to justify the belief that the picture they give us of St Anthony’s personality, character, and teaching is essentially authentic. A different verdict has to be passed on the writings that go under his name, to be found in P.G., XL. The Sermons and twenty Epistles from the Arabic are by common consent pronounced wholly spurious. St Jerome (De Viris Ill., lxxxviii) knew seven epistles translated from the Coptic into Greek; the Greek appears to be lost, but a Latin version exists (ibid.), and Coptic fragments exist of three of these letters, agreeing closely with the Latin; they may be authentic, but it would be premature to decide. Better is the position of a Greek letter to Theodore, preserved in the “Epistola Ammonis ad Theophilum,” sect. 20, and said to be a translation of a Coptic original; there seems to be no sufficient ground for doubting that it really was written by Anthony (see Butler, Lausiac History of Palladius, Part I,223). The authorities are agreed that St Anthony knew no Greek and spoke only Coptic. There exists a monastic Rule that bears St Anthony’s name, preserved in Latin and Arabic forms (P.G., XL, 1065). While it cannot be received as having been actually composed by Anthony, it probably in large measure goes back to him, being for the most part made up out of the utterances attributed to him in the Life and the “Apophthegmata”; it contains, however, an element derived from the spuria and also from the “Pachomian Rules.” It was compiled at an early date, and had a great vogue in Egypt the East. At this day it is the rule followed by the Uniat Monks of Syria and Armenia, of whom the Maronites, with sixty monasteries and 1,100 monks, are the most important; it is followed also by the scanty remnants of Coptic monachism.

It will be proper to define St. Anthony’s place, and to explain his influence in the history of Christian monachism. He probably was not the first Christian hermit; it is more reasonable to believe that, however little historical St Jerome’s “Vita Pauli” may be, some kernel o fact underlies the story (Butler, op. cit., Pat I, 231,232), but Paul’s existence was wholly unknown unknown till long after Anthony has become the recognized leader of Christian hermits. Nor was St Anthony a great legislator and organizer of monks, like his younger contemporary Pachomius: for, though Pachomius’s first foundations were probably some ten or fifteen years later than Anthony’s coming forth from his retreat at Pispir, it cannot be shown that Pachomius was directly influenced by Anthony, indeed his institute ran on quite different lines. And yet it is abundantly evident that from the middle of the fourth century throughout Egypt, as elsewhere, and among the Pachomian monks themselves, St Anthony was looked upon as the founder and father of Christian monachism. This great position was no doubt due to his commanding personality and high character, qualities that stand out clearly in all the records of him that have come down. The best study of his character is Newman’s in the “Church of the Fathers” (reprinted in “Historical Sketches”). The following is his estimate: “His doctrine surely was pure and unimpeachable; and his temper is high and heavenly, without cowardice, without gloom, without formality, without self-complacency. Superstition is abject and crouching, it is full of thoughts of guilt; it distrusts God, and dreads the powers of evil. Anthony at least had nothing of this, being full of confidence, divine peace, cheerfulness, and valorousness, be he (as some men may judge) ever so much an enthusiast” (op.cit., Anthony in Conflict). Full of enthusiasm he was, but it did not make him fanatical or morose; his urbanity and gentleness, his moderation and sense stand out in many of the stories related of him. Abbot Moses in Cassian (Coll. II) says he had heard Anthony maintaining that of all virtues discretion was the most essential for attaining perfection; and the little known story of Eulogius and the Cripple, preserved in the Lausiac History (xxi), illustrates the kind of advice and direction he gave to those who sought his guidance.

The monasticism established under St Anthony’s direct influence became the norm in Northern Egypt, from Lycopolis (Asyut) to the Mediterranean. In contradistinction to the fully coenobitical system, established by Pachomius in the South, it continued to be of a semi-eremetical character, the monks living commonly in separate cells or huts, and coming together only occasionally for church services; they were left very much to their own devices, and the life they lived was not a community life according to rule, as now understood (see Butler, op. cit., Part I, 233–238). This was the form of monastic life in the deserts of Nitria and Scete, as portrayed by Palladius and Cassian. Such groups of semi-independent hermitages were later on called Lauras, and have always existed in the East alongside of the Basilian monasteries; in the West St Anthony’s monachism is in some measure represented by the Carthusians. Such was St Anthony’s life and character, and such his role in Christian history. He is justly recognized as the father not only of monasticism, strictly so called, but of the technical religious life in every shape and form. Few names have exercised on the human race an influence more deep and lasting, more widespread, or on the whole more beneficent.

It remains to say a word on the controversy carried on during the present generation concerning St Anthony and the Life. In 1877 Weingarten denied the Athanasian authorship and the historical character of the Life, which he pronounced to be a mere romance; he held that up to 340 there were no Christian monks, and that therefore the dates of the “real” Anthony had to be shifted nearly a century. Some imitators in England went still further and questioned, even denied, that St Anthony had ever existed. To anyone conversant with the literature of monastic Egypt, the notion that the fictitious hero of a novel could ever have come to occupy Anthony’s position position in monastic history can appear nothing less than a fantastic paradox. As a matter of fact these theories are abandoned on all hands; the Life is received as certainly historical in substances, and as probably by Athanasius, and the traditional account of monastic origins is reinstated in its great outlines. The episode is now chiefly of interest as a curious example of a theory that was broached and became the fashion, and then was completely abandoned, all within a single generation. (on the controversy see Butler, op.cit. Part I, 215–228, Part II, ix-xi).

E. C. BUTLER

Orders of Saint Anthony

Religious communities or orders under the patronage of St. Anthony the Hermit, father of monasticism, or professing to follow his rule.

I. DISCIPLES OF ST. ANTHONY (ANTONIANS)

Men drawn to his hermitage in the Thebaid by the fame of his holiness, and forming the first monastic communities. Having changed his abode for the sake of solitude, the saint was again surrounded by followers (according to Rufinus, 6,000), living apart or in common. These he guided solely by his word and example. The rule bearing his name was compiled from his letters and precepts. There are still in the Orient a number of monasteries claiming St. Anthony’s rule, but in reality their rules date no further back than St. Basil. The Maronite Antonians were divided into two congregations called respectively St. Isaiah and St. Eliseus, or St. Anthony. Their constitutions were approved by Clement XII, the former in 1740, the latter in 1732. The former has 19 convents and 10 hospices; the latter, which has been subdivided, 10 convents and 8 hospices under the Aleppo branch, and 31 convents and 27 hospices under the Baladite branch.

II. ANTONINES (HOSPITAL BROTHERS OF ST. ANTHONY)

A congregation founded by a certain Gaston of Dauphiné (c. 1095) and his son, in thanksgiving for miraculous relief from “St. Anthony’s fire,” a disease then epidemic. Near the Church of St. Anthony at Saint-Didier de la Mothe they built a hospital, which became the central house of the order. The members devoted themselves to the care of the sick, particularly those afflicted with the disease above mentioned, they wore a black habit with the Greek letter Tau (St. Anthony’s cross) in blue. At first laymen, they received monastic vows from Honorius III (1218), and were constituted canons regular with the Rule of St. Augustine by Boniface VIII (1297). The congregation spread through France Spain, and Italy, and gave the Church a number of distinguished scholars and prelates. Among their privileges was that of caring for the sick of the papal household. With wealth came relaxation of discipline and a reform was ordained (1616) and partially carried out. In 1777 the congregation was canonically united with the Knights of Malta but was suppressed during the French Revolution.

III. ANTONIANS

A congregation of orthodox Armenians founded during the seventeenth century at the time of the persecutions of Catholic Armenians. Abram Atar Poresigh retired to the Libanus with three companions, and founded the monastery of the Most Holy Saviour under the protection of St. Anthony, to supply members for mission work. A second foundation was made on Mount Lebanon, and a third in Rome (1753), which was approved by Clement XIII. Some members of this congregation took an unfortunately prominent part in the Armenian Schism (1870–80).

IV. CONGREGATION OF ST. ANTHONY

Founded in Flanders in 1615, and placed under the rule of St. Augustine by Paul V, and under the jurisdiction of the provincial of the Belgian Augustinians. The one monastery was called Castelletum.

CHALDEAN ANTONIANS

Of the Congregation of Saint-Homisdas, founded by Gabriel Dambo (1809) in Mesopotamia. They have 4 convents and several parishes and stations.

BESSE in Dict. de theol. cath.; JEILER in Kirchelex.; BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (Paris, 1899), 271; HERGENROETHER, Kirchengesch.

F.M. RUDGE

St. Anthony of Padua

Franciscan Thaumaturgist, born at Lisbon, 1195; died at Vercelli, 13 June, 1231. He received in baptism the name of Ferdinand.

Later writers of the fifteenth century asserted that his father was Martin Bouillon, descendant of the renowned Godfrey de Bouillon, commander of the First Crusade, and his mother, Theresa Tavejra, descendant of Froila I, fourth king of Asturia. Unfortunately, however, his genealogy is uncertain; all that we know of his parents is that they were noble, powerful, and God-fearing people, and at the time of Ferdinand’s birth were both still young, and living near the Cathedral of Lisbon.

Having been educated in the Cathedral school, Ferdinand, at the age of fifteen, joined the Canons Regular of St. Augustine, in the convent of St. Vincent, just outside the city walls (1210). Two years later to avoid being distracted by relatives and friends, who frequently came to visit him, he betook himself with permission of his superior to the Convent of Santa Croce in Cóimbra (1212), where he remained for eight years, occupying his time mainly with study and prayer. Gifted with an excellent understanding and a prodigious memory, he soon gathered from the Sacred Scriptures and the writings of the Holy Fathers a treasure of theological knowledge.

In the year 1220, having seen conveyed into the Church of Santa Croce the bodies of the first Franciscan martyrs, who had suffered death at Morocco, 16 January of the same year, he too was inflamed with the desire of martyrdom, and resolved to become a Friar Minor, that he might preach the Faith to the Saracens and suffer for Christ’s sake. Having confided his intention to some of the brethren of the convent of Olivares (near Cóimbra), who came to beg alms at the Abbey of the Canons Regular, he received from their hands the Franciscan habit in the same Convent of Santa Croce. Thus Ferdinand left the Canons Regular of St. Augustine to join the Order of Friars Minor, taking at the same time the new name of Anthony, a name which later on the Convent of Olivares also adopted.

A short time after his entry into the order, Anthony started for Morocco, but, stricken down by a severe illness, which affected him the entire winter, he was compelled to sail for Portugal the following spring, 1221. His ship, however, was overtaken by a violent storm and driven upon the coast of Sicily, where Anthony then remained for some time, till he had regained his health. Having heard meanwhile from the brethren of Messina that a general chapter was to be held at Assisi, 30 May, he journeyed thither, arriving in time to take part in it. The chapter over, Anthony remained entirely unnoticed.

“He said not a word of his studies,” writes his earliest biographer, “nor of the services he had performed; his only desire was to follow Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” Accordingly, he applied to Father Graziano, Provincial of Cóimbra, for a place where he could live in solitude and penance, and enter more fully into the spirit and discipline of Franciscan life. Father Graziano, being just at that time in need of a priest for the hermitage of Montepaolo (near Forli), sent him thither, that he might celebrate Mass for the lay-brethren.

While Anthony lived retired at Montepaolo it happened, one day, that a number of Franciscan and Dominican friars were sent together to Forli for ordination. Anthony was also present, but simply as companion of the Provincial. When the time for ordination had arrived, it was found that no one had been appointed to preach. The superior turned first to the Dominicans, and asked that one of their number should address a few words to the assembled brethren; but everyone declined, saying he was not prepared. In their emergency they then chose Anthony, whom they thought only able to read the Missal and Breviary, and commanded him to speak whatever the spirit of God might put into his mouth. Anthony, compelled by obedience, spoke at first slowly and timidly, but soon enkindled with fervour, he began to explain the most hidden sense of Holy Scripture with such profound erudition and sublime doctrine that all were struck with astonishment. With that moment began Anthony’s public career.

St. Francis, informed of his learning, directed him by the following letter to teach theology to the brethren:

To Brother Anthony, my bishop (i.e. teacher of sacred sciences), Brother Francis sends his greetings. It is my pleasure that thou teach theology to the brethren, provided, however, that as the Rule prescribes, the spirit of prayer and devotion may not be extinguished. Farewell. (1224)

Before undertaking the instruction, Anthony went for some time to Vercelli, to confer with the famous Abbot, Thomas Gallo; thence he taught successively in Bologna and Montpellier in 1224, and later at Toulouse. Nothing whatever is left of his instruction; the primitive documents, as well as the legendary ones, maintain complete silence on this point. Nevertheless, by studying his works, we can form for ourselves a sufficient idea of the character of his doctrine; a doctrine, namely, which, leaving aside all arid speculation, prefers an entirely seraphic character, corresponding to the spirit and ideal of St. Francis.

It was as an orator, however, rather than as professor, that Anthony reaped his richest harvest. He possessed in an eminent degree all the good qualities that characterize an eloquent preacher: a loud and clear voice, a winning countenance, wonderful memory, and profound learning, to which were added from on high the spirit of prophecy and an extraordinary gift of miracles. With the zeal of an apostle he undertook to reform the morality of his time by combating in an especial manner the vices of luxury, avarice, and tyranny. The fruit of his sermons was, therefore, as admirable as his eloquence itself. No less fervent was he in the extinction of heresy, notably that of the Cathares and the Patarines, which infested the centre and north of Italy, and probably also that of the Albigenses in the south of France, though we have no authorized documents to that effect. Among the many miracles St. Anthony wrought in the conversion of heretics, the three most noted recorded by his biographers are the following:

The first is that of a horse, which, kept fasting for three days, refused the oats placed before him, till he had knelt down and adored the Blessed Sacrament, which St. Anthony held in his hands. Legendary narratives of the fourteenth century say this miracle took place at Toulouse, at Wadding, at Bruges; the real place, however, was Rimini.

The second most important miracle is that of the poisoned food offered him by some Italian heretics, which he rendered innoxious by the sign of the cross.

The third miracle worthy of mention is that of the famous sermon to the fishes on the bank of the river Brenta in the neighbourhood of Padua; not at Padua, as is generally supposed.

The zeal with which St. Anthony fought against heresy, and the great and numerous conversions he made rendered him worthy of the glorious title of Malleus hereticorum (Hammer of the Heretics). Though his preaching was always seasoned with the salt of discretion, nevertheless he spoke openly to all, to the rich as to the poor, to the people as well as those in authority. In a synod at Bourges in the presence of many prelates, he reproved the Archbishop, Simon de Sully, so severely, that he induced him to sincere amendment.

After having been Guardian at Le-Puy (1224), we find Anthony in the year 1226, Custos Provincial in the province of Limousin. The most authentic miracles of that period are the following:

Preaching one night on Holy Thursday in the Church of St. Pierre du Queriox at Limoges, he remembered he had to sing a Lesson of the Divine Office. Interrupting suddenly his discourse, he appeared at the same moment among the friars in choir to sing his Lesson, after which he continued his sermon.

Another day preaching in the square des creux des Arenes at Limoges, he miraculously preserved his audience from the rain.

At St. Junien during the sermon, he predicted that by an artifice of the devil the pulpit would break down, but that all should remain safe and sound. And so it occurred; for while he was preaching, the pulpit was overthrown, but no one hurt; not even the saint himself.

In a monastery of Benedictines, where he had fallen ill, he delivered by means of his tunic one of the monks from great temptations.

Likewise, by breathing on the face of a novice (whom he had himself received into the order), he confirmed him in his vocation.

At Brive, where he had founded a convent, he preserved from the rain the maid-servant of a benefactress who was bringing some vegetables to the brethren for their meagre repast.

This is all that is historically certain of the sojourn of St. Anthony in Limousin.

Regarding the celebrated apparition of the Infant Jesus to our saint, French writers maintain it took place in the province of Limousin at the Castle of Chateauneuf-la-Forêt, between Limoges and Eymoutiers, whereas the Italian hagiographers fix the place at Camposanpiero, near Padua. The existing documents, however, do not decide the question. We have more certainty regarding the apparition of St. Francis to St. Anthony at the Provincial Chapter of Arles, whilst the latter was preaching about the mysteries of the Cross.

After the death of St. Francis, 3 October, 1226, Anthony returned to Italy. His way led him through La Provence on which occasion he wrought the following miracle: Fatigued by the journey, he and his companion entered the house of a poor woman, who placed bread and wine before them. She had forgotten, however, to shut off the tap of the wine-barrel, and to add to this misfortune, the Saint’s companion broke his glass. Anthony began to pray, and suddenly the glass was made whole, and the barrel filled anew with wine.

Shortly after his return to Italy, Anthony was elected Minister Provincial of Emilia. But in order to devote more time to preaching, he resigned this office at the General Chapter of Assisi, 30 May, 1230, and retired to the Convent of Padua, which he had himself founded. The last Lent he preached was that of 1231; the crowd of people which came from all parts to hear him, frequently numbered 30,000 and more. His last sermons were principally directed against hatred and enmity, and his efforts were crowned with wonderful success. Permanent reconciliations were effected, peace and concord re-established, liberty given to debtors and other prisoners, restitutions made, and enormous scandals repaired; in fact, the priests of Padua were no longer sufficient for the number of penitents, and many of these declared they had been warned by celestial visions, and sent to St. Anthony, to be guided by his counsel. Others after his death said that he appeared to them in their slumbers, admonishing them to go to confession.

At Padua also took place the famous miracle of the amputated foot, which Franciscan writers attribute to St. Anthony. A young man, Leonardo by name, in a fit of anger kicked his own mother. Repentant, he confessed his fault to St. Anthony who said to him: “The foot of him who kicks his mother deserves to be cut off.” Leonardo ran home and cut off his foot. Learning of this, St. Anthony took the amputated member of the unfortunate youth and miraculously rejoined it.

Through the exertions of St. Anthony, the Municipality of Padua, 15 March, 1231, passed a law in favour of debtors who could not pay their debts. A copy of this law is still preserved in the museum of Padua. From this, as well as the following occurrence, the civil and religious importance of the Saint’s influence in the thirteenth century is easily understood. In 1230, while war raged in Lombardy, St. Anthony betook himself to Verona to solicit from the ferocious Ezzelino the liberty of the Guelph prisoners. An apocryphal legend relates that the tyrant humbled himself before the Saint and granted his request. This is not the case, but what does it matter, even if he failed in his attempt; he nevertheless jeopardized his own life for the sake of those oppressed by tyranny, and thereby showed his love and sympathy for the people. Invited to preach at the funeral of a usurer, he took for his text the words of the Gospel: “Where thy treasure is, there also is thy heart.” In the course of the sermon he said: “That rich man is dead and buried in hell; but go to his treasures and there you will find his heart.” The relatives and friends of the deceased, led by curiosity, followed this injunction, and found the heart, still warm, among the coins. Thus the triumph of St. Anthony’s missionary career manifests itself not only in his holiness and his numerous miracles, but also in the popularity and subject matter of his sermons, since he had to fight against the three most obstinate vices of luxury, avarice and tyranny.

At the end of Lent, 1231, Anthony retired to Camposanpiero, in the neighbourhood of Padua, where, after a short time he was taken with a severe illness. Transferred to Vercelli, and strengthened by the apparition of Our Lord, he died at the age of thirty-six years, on 13 June, 1231. He had lived fifteen years with his parents, ten years as a Canon Regular of St. Augustine, and eleven years in the Order of Friars Minor.

Immediately after his death he appeared at Vercelli to the Abbot, Thomas Gallo, and his death was also announced to the citizens of Padua by a troop of children, crying: “The holy Father is dead; St. Anthony is dead!” Gregory IX, firmly persuaded of his sanctity by the numerous miracles he had wrought, inscribed him within a year of his death (Pentecost, 30 May, 1232), in the calendar of saints of the Cathedral of Spoleto. In the Bull of canonization he declared he had personally known the saint, and we know that the same pontiff, having heard one of his sermons at Rome, and astonished at his profound knowledge of the Holy Scriptures called him: “Ark of the Covenant.” That this title is well-founded is also shown by his several works: “Expositio in Psalmos,” written at Montpellier, 1224; the “Sermones de tempore,” and the “Sermones de Sanctis,” written at Padua, 1229–30.

The name of Anthony became celebrated throughout the world, and with it the name of Padua. The inhabitants of that city erected to his memory a magnificent temple, whither his precious relics were transferred in 1263, in presence of St. Bonaventure, Minister General at the time. When the vault in which for thirty years his sacred body had reposed was opened, the flesh was found reduced to dust but the tongue uninjured, fresh, and of a lively red colour. St. Bonaventure, beholding this wonder, took the tongue affectionately in his hands and kissed it, exclaiming: “O Blessed Tongue that always praised the Lord, and made others bless Him, now it is evident what great merit thou hast before God.”

The fame of St. Anthony’s miracles has never diminished, and even at the present day he is acknowledged as the greatest thaumaturgist of the times. He is especially invoked for the recovery of things lost, as is also expressed in the celebrated responsory of Friar Julian of Spires:

Si quaeris miracula . . .

. . . resque perditas.

Indeed his very popularity has to a certain extent obscured his personality. If we may believe the conclusions of recent critics, some of the Saint’s biographers, in order to meet the ever-increasing demand for the marvellous displayed by his devout clients, and comparatively oblivious of the historical features of his life, have devoted themselves to the task of handing down to posterity the posthumous miracles wrought by his intercession. We need not be surprised, therefore, to find accounts of his miracles that may seem to the modern mind trivial or incredible occupying so large a space in the earlier biographies of St. Anthony. It may be true that some of the miracles attributed to St. Anthony are legendary, but others come to us on such high authority that it is impossible either to eliminate them or explain them away a priori without doing violence to the facts of history.

NICOLAUS DAL-GAL

Anthony of Sienna

A Dominican theologian, so called because of his great veneration for St. Catharine of Sienna, b. near Braga in Portugal, hence sometimes known as “Lusitanus”; d. at Nantes, 2 January, 1585. He studied at Lisbon, Coimbra, and Louvain, taught philosophy for several years in the latter place, where he was made Doctor of Theology in 1571, and put in charge of the Dominican college there in 1574. He supported the Portuguese pretender Antonio de Beja, and was banished from the Spanish dominions, after which he travelled for scientific purposes in Italy, England, and France. He was one of the collaborators in the Roman edition of St. Thomas’s works (1570–71) prepared by order of St. Pius V. He published (Antwerp, 1569) an edition of the “Summa Theologica” with exact indication of all authors, sacred and profane, quoted by the Saint, and (ib., 1571) a similar edition of the “Quaestiones Disputatae” and other “opuscula” of St. Thomas. The commentary on Genesis, edited by him two years later at Antwerp as a work of St. Thomas, is not authentic. His edition of the Saint’s commentary on Machabees, prepared at Paris in 1584, was published in 1612 by Come Morelles, O.P., in the Antwerp edition of the works of St. Thomas. He also brought out (Paris, 1585) a “Chronicon” and “Bibliotheca Ordinis Praedicaturum.”

Quetif-Echard, SS. O.P., I, 271; MANDONNET in Dict. de Theol. Cath. I, 1447.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Anthony of the Mother of God

(A. DE OLIVERA).

A Spanish Carmelite, b. at Leon in Old-Castile; d. 1641. He taught Aristotle’s dialectics and natural philosophy at the University of Alcala de Henares (Complutum). With the collaboration of his colleagues, he undertook an encyclopaedia intended for students in arts and philosophy. This work, originally styled “Collegium Complutense philosophicum” (Alcala, 1624; other editions Frankfurt, 1629; Lyons, 1637, 1651, 1668), was highly esteemed by Thomists. It was at first a treatise on logic; but in the course of time, metaphysics and moral philosophy were added, and the work served as an introduction to the great “Course of Theology” of the Salmanticenses. The fist three volumes of this “Course” are also attributed to Anthony.

TOUSSAINT, in Dict. Theol. Cath., s. v.; HURTER, Nomencaltor I, 376.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Anthropomorphism

Anthropomorphism, Anthropomorphites. (anthropos, man, and morphe, form).

A term used in its widest sense to signify the tendency of man to conceive the activities of the external world as the counterpart of his own. A philosophic system which borrows its method from this tendency is termed Philosophic Anthropomorphism. The word, however, has been more generally employed to designate the play of that impulse in religious thought. In this sense, Anthropomorphism is the ascription to the Supreme Being of the form, organs, operations, and general characteristics of human nature. This tendency is strongly manifested in primitive heathen religions, in all forms of polytheism, especially in the classic paganism of Greece and Rome. The charge of Anthropomorphism was urged against the Greeks by their own philosopher, Xenophanes of Colophon. The first Christian apologists upbraided the pagans for having represented God, who is spiritual, as a mere magnified man, subject to human vices and passions. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, abounds in anthropomorphic expressions. Almost all the activities of organic life are ascribed to the Almighty. He speaks, breathes, sees, hears; He walks in the garden; He sits in the heavens, and the earth is His footstool. It must, however, be noticed that in the Bible locutions of this kind ascribe human characteristics to God only in a vague, indefinite way. He is never positively declared to have a body or a nature the same as man’s; and human defects and vices are never even figuratively attributed to Him. The metaphorical, symbolical character of this language is usually obvious. The all-seeing Eye signifies God’s omniscience; the everlasting Arms His omnipotence; His Sword the chastisement of sinners; when He is said to have repented of having made man, we have an extremely forcible expression conveying His abhorrence of sin. The justification of this language is found in the fact that truth can be conveyed to men only through the medium of human ideas and thoughts, and is to be expressed only in language suited to their comprehension. The limitations of our conceptual capacity oblige us to represent God to ourselves in ideas that have been originally drawn from our knowledge of self and the objective world. The Scriptures themselves amply warn us against the mistake of interpreting their figurative language in too literal a sense. They teach that God is spiritual, omniscient, invisible, omnipresent, ineffable. Insistence upon the literal interpretation of the metaphorical led to the error of the Anthropomorphites.

Throughout the writings of the Fathers the spirituality of the Divine Nature, as well as the inadequacy of human thought to comprehend the greatness, goodness, and infinite perfection of God, is continually emphasized. At the same time, Catholic philosophy and theology set forth the idea of God by means of concepts derived chiefly from the knowledge of our own faculties, and our mental and moral characteristics. We reach our philosophic knowledge of God by inference from the nature of various forms of existence, our own included, that we perceive in the Universe. All created excellence, however, falls infinitely short of the Divine perfections, consequently our idea of God can never truly represent Him as He is, and, because He is infinite while our minds are finite, the resemblance between our thought and its infinite object must always be faint. Clearly, however, if we would do all that is in our power to make our idea, not perfect, but as worthy as it may be, we must form it by means of our conceptions of what is highest and best in the scale of existence that we know. Hence, as mind and personality are the noblest forms of reality, we think most worthily of God when we conceive Him under the attributes of mind, will, intelligence, personality. At the same time, when the theologian or philosopher employs these and similar terms with reference to God, he understands them to be predicated not in exactly the same sense that they bear when applied to man, but in a sense controlled and qualified by the principles laid down in the doctrine of analogy.

A few decades ago thinkers and writers of the Spencerian and other kindred schools seldom touched upon the doctrine of a personal God without designating it Anthropomorphism, and thereby, in their judgment, excluding it definitively from the world of philosophic thought. Though on the wane, the fashion has not yet entirely disappeared. The charge of Anthropomorphism can be urged against our way of thinking and speaking of God by those only who, despite the protestations of theologians and philosophers, persist in assuming that terms are used univocally of God and of creatures. When arguments are offered to sustain the imputation, they usually exhibit an incorrect view regarding the essential element of personality. The gist of the proof is that the Infinite is unlimited, while personality essentially involves limitation; therefore, to speak of an Infinite Person is to fall into an absurdity. What is truly essential in the concept of personality is, first, individual existence as opposed to indefiniteness and to identity with other beings; and next, possession, or intelligent control of self. To say that God is personal is to say that He is distinct from the Universe, and that He possesses Himself and His infinite activity, undetermined by any necessity from within or from without. This conception is perfectly compatible with that of infinity. When the agnostic would forbid us to think of God as personal, and would have us speak of Him as energy, force, etc., he merely substitutes lower and more imperfect conceptions for a higher one, without escaping from what he terms Anthropomorphism, since these concepts too are derived from experience. Besides, he offers violence to human nature when, as sometimes happens, he asks us to entertain for an impersonal Being, conceived under the mechanical types of force or energy, sentiments of reverence, obedience, and trust. These sentiments come into play only in the world of persons, and cannot be exercised towards a Being to whom we deny the attributes of personality.

Anthropomorphites (Audians)

A sect of Christians that arose in the fourth century in Syria and extended into Scythia, sometimes called Audians, from their founder, Audius. Taking the text of Genesis, i, 27, literally, Audius held that God has a human form. The error was so gross, and, to use St. Jerome’s expression (Epist. vi, Ad Pammachium), so absolutely senseless, that it showed no vitality. Towards the end of the century it appeared among some bodies of African Christians. The Fathers who wrote against it dismiss it almost contemptuously. In the time of Cyril of Alexandria, there were some anthropomorphites among the Egyptian monks. He composed a short refutation of their error, which he attributed to extreme ignorance. (Adv. Anthrop. in P.G., LXXVI.) Concerning the charges of anthropomorphism preferred against Melito, Tertullian, Origen, and Lactantius, see the respective articles. The error was revived in northern Italy during the tenth century, but was effectually suppressed by the bishops, notably by the learned Ratherius, Bishop of Verona.

ST. THOMAS, C. Gent., I, x; III, xxxviii, xxxix; Summa Theol., QQ. ii, iv, xiii; WILHELM AND SCANNELL, Manual of Catholic Theology (London, 1890), I, Bk. II, Pt. 1; SHANAHAN, John Fiske’s Idea of God in Cath. Univ. Bull., III; MARTINEAU, A Study of Religion (New York, 1888), I, Bk. II, i; FLINT, Theism (New York, 1903), Lect. III; THEODORET, Hist. Eccl., IV, ix; VIGOUROUX, in Dict. de la Bible, s. v.; ST. AUGUSTINE, De divers. quaest., Ad Simplicianum, Q. vii;De civ. Dei, I, Q. ii.

JAMES J. FOX

Antichrist

(Greek Antichristos).

In composition anti has different meanings: antibasileus denotes a king who fills an interregnum; antistrategos, a propraetor; anthoupatos, a proconsul; in Homer antitheos denotes one resembling a god in power and beauty, while in other works it stands for a hostile god. Following mere analogy one might interpret antichristos as denoting one resembling Christ in appearance and power; but it is safer to define the word according to its biblical and ecclesiastical usage.

I. BIBLICAL MEANING OF THE WORD

The word Antichrist occurs only in the Johannine Epistles; but there are so-called real parallelisms to these occurrences in the Apocalypse, in the Pauline Epistles, and less explicit ones in the Gospels and the Book of Daniel.

A. In the Johannine Epistles

St. John supposes in his Epistles that the early Christians are acquainted with the teaching concerning the coming of Antichrist. “You have heard that Antichrist cometh” (1 John 2:18); “This is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh” (1 John 4:3). Though the Apostle speaks of several Antichrists, he distinguishes between the many and the one principal agent: “Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists” (1 John 2:18). Again, the writer outlines the character and work of Antichrist: “They went out from us, but they were not of us” (1 John 2;19); “Who is a liar, but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denies the Father, and the Son” (1 John 2:22); “And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God; and this is Antichrist” (1 John 4:3); “For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an Antichrist” (2 John 7). Also the time, the Apostle places the coming of Antichrist at “the last hour” (1 John 2:18); again he maintains that “he is now already in the world” (1 John 4:3).

B. In the Apocalypse

Nearly all commentators find Antichrist mentioned in the Apocalypse, but they do not agree as to the particular chapter of the Book in which the mention occurs. Some point to the “beast” of 11:7, others to the “red dragon” of Chapter 12, others again to the beast “having seven heads and ten horns” of 13, sqq., while many scholars identify Antichrist with the beast which had “two horns, like a lamb” and spoke “as a dragon” (13:11, sqq.), or with the scarlet-coloured beast “having seven heads and ten horns” (17), or, finally, with Satan “loosed out of his prison,” and seducing the nations (20:7, sqq.). A detailed discussion of the reasons for and against each of these opinions would be out of place here.

C. In the Pauline Epistles

St. John supposes that the doctrine concerning the coming of Antichrist is already known to his readers; many commentators believe that it had become known in the Church through the writings of St. Paul. St. John urged against the heretics of his time that those who denied the mystery of the Incarnation were faint images of the future great Antichrist. The latter is described more fully in II Thessalonians 2:3, sqq., 7–10. In the Church of Thessalonica disturbances had occurred on account of the belief that the second coming of Jesus Christ was imminent. This impression was owing partly to a misunderstanding of I Thessalonians 4:15, sqq., partly to the machinations of deceivers. It was with a view of remedying these disorders that St. Paul wrote his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, inserting especially 2:3–10. The Pauline doctrine is this: “the day of the Lord” will be preceded by “a revolt,” and the revelation of the “man of sin.” The latter will sit in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God; he will work signs and lying wonders by the power of Satan; he will seduce those who received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved; but the Lord Jesus shall kill him with the spirit of His mouth, and destroy him with the brightness of His coming. As to the time, “the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.” Briefly, the “day of the Lord” will be preceded by the “man of sin” known in the Johannine Epistles as Antichrist; the “man of sin” is preceded by “a revolt,” or a great apostasy; this apostasy is the outcome of the “mystery of iniquity” which already “worketh,” and which, according to St. John, shows itself here and there by faint types of Antichrist. The Apostle gives three stages in the evolution of evil: the leaven of iniquity, the great apostasy, and the man of sin. But he adds a clause calculated to determine the time of the main event more accurately; he describes something first as a thing (to datechon), then as a person (ho katechon), preventing the occurrence of the main event: “Only he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.” We can here only enumerate the principal opinions as to the meaning of this clause without discussing their value:

The impediment of the main event is “the man of sin”; the main event is the second coming of the Lord (Grimm, Simar).

The impediment is the Roman Empire; the main event impeded is the “man of sin” (most Latin Fathers and later interpreters)

The Apostle referred to persons and events of his own time; the katechon and the “man of sin” are variously identified with the Emperors Caligula, Titus, Nero, Claudius, etc. (Protestant theologians living after the seventeenth century).

The Apostle refers immediately to contemporary men and events, which are, however, types of the eschatological katechon, “man of sin,” and day of the Lord; the destruction of Jerusalem, e.g., is the type of the Lord’s second coming, etc. (Döllinger).

Before leaving the Pauline doctrine of Antichrist, we may ask ourselves, whence did the Apostle derive his teaching? Here again we meet with various answers.

St. Paul expresses merely his own view based on the Jewish tradition and the imagery of the Prophets Daniel and Ezekiel. This view has been advocated by several Protestant writers.

The Apostle expresses the impression produced on the early Church by the eschatological teaching of Jesus Christ. This opinion is expressed by Döllinger.

St. Paul derived his doctrine concerning Antichrist from the words of Christ, the prophecy of Daniel, and the contemporary events. This opinion, too, is expressed by Döllinger.

The Apostle uttered a prophecy received through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Catholic interpreters have generally adhered to this opinion.

D. In the Evangelists and Daniel

After studying the picture of Antichrist in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Thessalonians, one easily recognizes the “man of sin” in Daniel 7:8, 11, 20, 21, where the Prophet describes the “little horn.” A type of Antichrist is found in Daniel 8:8 sqq., 23, sqq., 11:21–45, in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes. Many commentators have found more or less clear allusions to Antichrist in the coming of false Christs and false prophets (Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:6, 22; Luke 21:8), in the “abomination of desolation,” and in the one that “shall come in his own name” (John 5:43).

II. ANTICHRIST IN ECCLESIASTICAL LANGUAGE

Bousset believes that there was among the Jews a fully developed legend of Antichrist, which was accepted and amplified by Christians; and that this legend diverges from and contradicts in important points the conceptions found in the Apocalypse. We do not believe that Bousset has fully proved his opinion; his view as to the Christian development of the concept of Antichrist does not exceed the merits of an ingenious theory. We need not here enter upon an investigation of Gunkel’s work, in which he traces back the idea of Antichrist to the primeval dragon of Œthe deep; this view deserves no more attention than the rest of the author’s mythological fancies.

What then is the true ecclesiastical concept of Antichrist? Suarez maintains that it is of faith that Antichrist is an individual person, a signal enemy of Christ. This excludes the contention of those who explain Antichrist either as the whole collection of those who oppose Jesus Christ, or as the Papacy. The Waldensian and Albigensian heretics, as well as Wyclif and Hus, called the Pope by the name of Antichrist; but the expression was only a metaphor in their case. It was only after the time of the Reformation that the name was applied to the Pope in its proper sense. It then passed practically into the creed of the Lutherans, and has been seriously defended by them as late as 1861 in the “Zeitschrift für lutherische Theologie.” The change from the true Church into the reign of Antichrist is said to have taken place between 19 February and 10 November, A.D. 607, when Pope Boniface III obtained from the Greek emperor Newton, the title “Head of All the Churches” for the Roman Church. An appeal was made to Apocalypse 13:8, in confirmation of this date, and it was calculated from Apocalypse 11:3, that the end of the world might be expected in A.D. 1866. Cardinal Bellarmine refuted this error both from an exegetical and historical point of view in “De Rom. Pont.,” III.

The individual person of Antichrist will not be a demon, as some of the ancient writers believed; nor will he be the person of the devil incarnated in the human nature of Antichrist. He will he a human person, perhaps of Jewish extraction, if the explanation of Genesis 49:17, together with that of Dan’s omission in the catalogue of the tribes, as found in the Apocalypse, be correct. It must be kept in mind that extra-Scriptural tradition furnishes us no revealed supplement to the Biblical data concerning Antichrist. While these latter are sufficient to make the believer recognize the “man of sin” at the time of his coming, the lack of any additional reliable revelation should put us on our guard against the daydreams of the Irvingites, the Mormons, and other recent proclaimers of new revelations.

It may not be out of place to draw the reader’s attention to two dissertations by the late Cardinal Newman on the subject of Antichrist. The one is entitled “The Patristic Idea of Antichrist”; it considers successively his time, religion, city, and persecution. It formed the eighty-third number of the “Tracts for the Times.” The other dissertation bears the title “The Protestant Idea of Antichrist.”

In order to understand the significance of the Cardinal’s essays on the question of the Antichrist, it must be kept in mind that a variety of opinions sprang up in course of time concerning the nature of this opponent of Christianity.

Koppe, Nitzsch, Storr, and Pelt contended that the Antichrist is an evil principle, not embodied either in a person or a polity; this opinion is in opposition to both St. Paul and St. John. Both Apostles describe the adversary as being distinctly concrete in form.

A second view admits that the Antichrist is a person, but it maintains that he is a person of the past; Nero, Diocletian, Julian, Caligula, Titus, Simon Magus, Simon the son of Giora, the High Priest Ananias, Vitellius, the Jews, the Pharisees, and the Jewish zealots have been variously identified with the Antichrist. But there is little traditional authority for this opinion; besides, it does not appear to satisfy fully the prophetic predictions, and, in the case of some of its adherents, it is based on the supposition that the inspired writers could not transcend the limits of their experiences.

A third opinion admitted that the Antichrist must indeed appear in a concrete form, but it identified this concrete form with the system of the Papacy. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Bucer, Beza, Calixtus, Bengel, Michaelis, and almost all the Protestant writers of the Continent are cited as upholding this view; the same may be said of the English theologians Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Hooper, Hutchinson, Tyndale, Sandys, Philpot, Jewell, Rogers, Fulke, Bradford, King James, and Andrewes. Bramhall introduced qualifications into the theory, and after this its ascendancy began to wane among English writers. Nor must it be supposed that the Papal-Antichrist theory was upheld by all Protestants in the same form; the False Prophet or second Apocalyptic Beast is identified with Antichrist and the Papacy by Aretius, Foxe, Napier Mede, Jurieu, Cunninghame, Faber, Woodhouse, and Habershon; the first Apocalyptic Beast holds this position in the opinion of Marlorat, King James, Daubuz, and Galloway; both Beasts are thus identified by Brightman, Pareus, Vitringa, Gill, Bachmair, Fraser, Croly, Fysh, and Elliott.

After this general survey of the Protestant views concerning the Antichrist, we shall be able to appreciate some of Cardinal Newman’s critical remarks on the question.

If any part of the Church be proved to be antichristian, all of the Church is so, the Protestant branch inclusive.

The Papal-Antichrist theory was gradually developed by three historical bodies: the Albigenses, the Waldenses, and the Fraticelli, between the eleventh and the sixteenth centuries: are these the expositors from whom the Church of Christ is to receive the true interpretation of the prophecies?

The defenders of the Papal-Antichrist theory have made several signal blunders in their arguments; they cite St. Bernard as identifying the Beast of the Apocalypse with the Pope, though St. Bernard speaks in the passage of the Antipope; they appeal to the Abbot Joachim as believing that Antichrist will be elevated to the Apostolic See, while the Abbot really believes that Antichrist will overthrow the Pope and usurp his See; finally, they appeal to Pope Gregory the Great as asserting that whoever claims to be Universal Bishop is Antichrist, whereas the great Doctor really speaks of the Forerunner of Antichrist who was, in the language of his day, nothing but a token of an impending great evil.

Protestants were driven to the Papal-Antichrist theory by the necessity of opposing a popular answer to the popular and cogent arguments advanced by the Church of Rome for her Divine authority.

Warburton, Newton, and Hurd, the advocates of the Papal-Antichrist theory, cannot be matched against the saints of the Church of Rome.

If the Pope be Antichrist, those who receive and follow him cannot be men like St. Charles Borromeo, or Fénelon, or St. Bernard, or St. Francis de Sales.

If the Church must suffer like Christ, and if Christ was called Beelzebub, the true Church must expect a similar reproach; thus, the Papal-Antichrist theory becomes an argument in favor of the Roman Church.

The gibe, “If the Pope is not Antichrist, he has bad luck to be so like him,” is really another argument in favour of the claims of the Pope; since Antichrist simulates Christ, and the Pope is an image of Christ, Antichrist must have some similarity to the Pope, if the latter be the true Vicar of Christ.

IRENAEUS, Adveresus Haer., IV, 26; ADSO (PSEUDO-RABANUS MAURUS), De ortu, vitâ et moribus Antichristi, P. L., CI, 1289–98); BELLARMINE, De Rom. Pont., III; NEWMAN, The Patristic Idea of Antichrist, No. 83 of Tracts for the Times, republished in Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects (London, New York, and Bombay 1897).

A.J. MAAS

Antidicomarianites

An Eastern sect which flourished about A. D. 200 to 400, and which was so designated as being the “opponents of Mary.” The Ebionites were the first who maintained that Our Lord was merely the son of Joseph and Mary. This doctrine became repugnant even to their own adherents, and it was afterwards modified so as to teach that, although Our Lord was born of Mary through the Holy Ghost, afterwards Joseph and Mary lived in wedlock and had many other children. The sect denied the formula “ever-Virgin Mary” used in the Greek and Roman Liturgies. The earliest reference to this sect appears in Tertullian, and the doctrines taught by them are expressly mentioned by Origen (Homilia in Lucam, III, 940). Certain Arians, Eudocius and Eunomius, were great supporters of the teaching. The sect attained its greatest development in Arabia towards the end of the fourth century, and the name Antidicomarianites was specifically applied to it by St. Epiphanius who wrote against them in an interesting letter giving the history of the doctrine and proofs of its falsity (St. Epiphanius, Contra Hæres., lxxviii, 1033 sqq.).

MIGNE, P. G. (Paris, 1862); ORIGEN, XIII, 1813; IDEM, St. Epiphanius, XLII, 699–739.

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Antidoron

(Gr., anti, instead of; doron, a gift; i.e. a gift instead of)

The remains of the loaves or cakes from which the various portions are cut for consecration in the Mass, according to the Greek Rite, are gathered up on a plate, or salver, in the sanctuary and kept upon the prothesis, or side-altar, during the celebration of the Mass. They are usually cut up into small fragments, and, at the conclusion of the Mass, after the celebrant has retired from the altar, the deacon (or in churches where there is no deacon, the priest) brings the salver out through the royal doors and standing in front of the iconostasis gives to each of the faithful, supposed to be fasting, a small fragment of the blessed bread which is taken and eaten by the worshipper before leaving the church. The giving of the antidoron is regularly followed in the Russian Orthodox and the Greek (Hellenic) Orthodox churches at every Mass, and it is an interesting sight to watch the worshippers crowding up in lines to obtain the blessed bread. In the Greek Catholic churches of Austria and Hungary the antidoron is given only on rare occasions during the year, chiefly on the Saturday in Easter week; while among the Greek Catholics of Italy and Sicily it is usually given only on Holy Thursday, the Feast of the Assumption, that of St. Nicolas of Myra, and at certain week-day masses in Lent; although according to some local customs it is given on other days. It may seem strange that the earliest historical reference to this custom should be found in the Western Church. It is mentioned in the 118th letter of St. Augustine to Januarius (now known as the 54th letter in the new order. See Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 200), and in the canons of a local council in Gaul in the seventh century. Originally it was a substitute, or solatium for such of the faithful as were not prepared to go to Communion or were unable to get to the Holy Sacrifice. If they could not partake of the body of Our Lord they had the consolation of partaking of the bread which had been blessed and from which the portions for consecration had been taken. In the Eastern Church mention of the antidoron began to appear about the ninth and tenth centuries. Germanius of Constantinople is the earliest Eastern author to mention it in his treatise, “The Explanation of the Liturgy,” about the ninth century. Subsequent to him many writers of the separated Eastern Church (Balsamon, Colina, Pachemeros) have written on the custom of giving the antidoron. The usage to-day in the Orthodox Greek Church, following the Nomocanon, is to employ the fragments or unused pieces of the various prosphora, except that from which the agnetz is taken, for the purpose of the antidoron. The canonical regulations of the Russian Orthodox and Greek (Hellenic) Orthodox Churches require that the antidoron should be consumed before leaving the church, and that it should not he distributed to unbelievers or to persons undergoing penance before absolution. While the rite still continues in the East it was finally given up by the Western Church, and now only survives in the Roman Rite in the pain bénit given in the French churches and cathedrals at High Mass, in certain churches of Lower Canada, and occasionally in Italy, on certain feasts. A similar custom also obtains among the Syrian Christians (Christians of St. Thomas) of the Malabar coast in India.

NEALE, History of the Holy Eastern Church (London, 1850). I, 525; CORBLET, Hist. de l’Eucharistie (Paris, 1885), I, 254–255; CLUGNET, Dictionnaire des noms liturgiques (Paris, 1895), 13; PARRINO, La Messa Greca (Palermo, 1904), 20; CHARRON, Les saintes liturgies (Paris, 1904), 70; HAPGOOD, Service Book of the Orthodox Church (New York, 1906), 600; Pravoslavnaya Encyclopedia (St. Petersburg, 1900), I, 795–796.

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Diocese of Antigonish

(Micmac, nalagitkooneech, “where the branches are torn off”)

Antigonish is the shiretown of the county of the same name in Nova Scotia. On the 23d of August, 1886, it was made the see of one of the dioceses constituting the ecclesiastical province of Halifax. The first see was Arichat. The diocese takes in the three easternmost counties of Nova Scotia proper, with the whole island of Cape Breton. Up to 1817, Nova Scotia formed a part of the Diocese of Quebec; in that year it was erected into a vicariate, and the Right Rev. Edmund Burke appointed vicar Apostolic. He was succeeded, in 1827, by the Right Rev. William Fraser. On the 21st of September, 1844, the vicariate was divided, and two dioceses were formed, the sees being Halifax and Arichat. Bishop Fraser was appointed to the latter see. An alumnus of the Scottish College at Valladolid, he was a strong man, physically and mentally fitted to play the part of pioneer missionary bishop. He died 4 October, 1851, and was succeeded, 27 February, 1852, by the Right Rev. Colin Francis MacKinnon, D.D., a graduate of Propaganda He was a man of apostolic zeal, and of singularly amiable character. Failing health led him to resign, 19 January, 1877, when his coadjutor, the Right Rev. John Cameron, D.D., also a graduate of Propaganda, and consecrated at Rome, 22 May, 1870, became administrator of the diocese. On his resigning this charge, Bishop MacKinnon was made titular Archbishop of Amida. He died two years later, 26 September, 1879.

Within the Diocese of Antigonish is the historic town of Louisbourg. As far back as 1604 French priests were in Nova Scotia, then known as Acadie, or Acadia. Between that date and the taking of Louisbourg by the English in 1758, the indefatigable missionaries of France busied themselves with the evangelization of the native Micmacs. The fact that the whole tribe still hold fast the faith preached to them, despite the efforts made from time to time to rob them of it and the paucity of priestly labourers in the fifty years that followed the fall of Louisbourg, attests the thoroughness with which the early Recollet and Jesuit Fathers did their work. Till the closing years of the eighteenth century, some hundreds of the aborigines, together with a remnant of the first French settlers, known as Acadians, and a few Irish families, made up the Catholic population of what is now the Diocese of Antigonish. In 1791, the first party of Catholic immigrants from the Scottish Highlands reached Pictou in two ships. Driven from their native braes and glens by the rapacity of the landlords, who turned their ancestral holdings into sheepwalks, they found new homes and free holdings in the wild woods of Nova Scotia. From this time forward the tide of Scottish immigration gathered strength, until it reached its highest point in 1817. In July, 1802, about 1,500 Highland Scottish Catholics were settled along the shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. For the greater part of the time they were without a priest, save for the occasional visits of the Rev. Angus Bernard MacEachern afterwards Bishop of Charlottetown, P. E. I., who braved the perils of the sea in an open boat to bring them the consolations of religion. In the same year two priests came out from Scotland, and these in time were followed by others. They shared with their people the hardships incident to pioneer life in “the forest primeval.” Among the priests who laboured during the first two decades of the nineteenth century in the territory now comprised in the Diocese of Antigonish were Abbé Lejamtel, among the Acadians; the Reverends Alexander MacDonnel, William Chisholm, and Colin Grant, in the Scottish settlements on the mainland; the Reverend James Grant, an Irish priest, in Antigonish; the Reverend Alexander MacDonnell in the Scottish settlements in Cape Breton, and Father Vincent, founder of the Trappist Monastery at Tracadie, among the Micmacs and Acadians. The last-named, known in the Gaelic-speaking communities as A Sagart Ban, or White Priest, from the flowing white robe of his Order, which he wore also on his missionary journeys, was a man of singularly holy life. The first session of the court, appointed in 1905 to inquire into his title to sainthood, was held in June, 1906.

St. Francis Xavier’s College, established at Antigonish in 1855, and endowed with university powers in 1866, is the chief seat of learning. Mt. St. Bernard, an academy for young ladies, conducted by the Sisters of Notre Dame, is affiliated to St. Francis Xavier’s. The Sisters of Notre Dame have eight other convents within the diocese; the Sisters of Charity, six; the Daughters of Jesus, lately come from France, four; the Sisters of St. Martha, one. The Trappists, at Petit Clairvaux, Tracadie, are the only religious order of men. In 1871, the Catholic population was 62,853; in 1891, it was 73,500, of whom about 42,000 were Highland Scotch, 19,000 French, 11,000 Irish, and 1,500 Micmacs. The present population is in the neighbourhood of 80,000. There are 101 priests, including 11 Trappists, 67 churches with resident pastors, and 34 missions with churches.

O’BRIEN (late Archbishop of Halifax), Memoirs of Bishop Burke (Ottawa, 1894); MACMILLAN, History of the Catholic Church in Prince Edward island (Quebec, 1905); BROWN, History of Cape Breton (London, 1869); BOURINOT, Cape Breton, and its Memorials (Montreal, 1892); MACLEOD, History of the Devotion to the Blessed Virgin in North America (Cincinnati, 1860.—This work contains an eloquent chapter on the Highland Scottish emigration); MACGILLIVRAY, The Casket (files); Xaverian, Golden Jubilee Number (Oct. 1905).

ALEXANDER MACDONALD.

Antimensium

Also ANTIMINSION (Gr. antimension, from anti, instead of, and mensa, table, altar).

Consecrated corporal of a kind used only in the Greek Rite. It is called in Russian and Slavonic antimins, and answers substantially to the portable altar of the Roman Rite. It consists of a strip of fine linen or silk, usually ten inches wide and about thirteen to fourteen inches long, ornamented with the instruments of the Passion, or with a representation of Our Lord in the Sepulchre; it also contains relics of the saints which are sewn into it, and certified by the bishop. It is required to be placed on the altar in Greek churches just as an altar-stone is required in the Latin churches, and no Mass may be said upon an altar of that rite which has no antimensium. It is unfolded at the Offertory quite like the Latin corporal. Outside of the Mass it rests on the altar folded in four parts, and enclosed in another piece of linen known as the heileton. Originally it was intended for missionaries and priests traveling in places where there was no consecrated altar, or where there was no bishop available to consecrate an altar. The bishop consecrated the antimensium almost as he would an altar, and the priest carried it with him on his journey, and spread it over any temporary altar to celebrate Mass. Originally, therefore, it stood literally for its name; it was used instead of the Holy Table for the Sacrifice of the Mass.

The word antimensium is met with for the first time about the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth centuries. The rapid adoption of the object was owing largely to the spread of Iconoclasm and other heresies. In the seventh canon of the Seventh General Council (787) it was ordered that “according to ancient custom which we should follow the Holy Sacrifice should only be offered on an altar consecrated by placing the relics of the saints or of martyrs therein” (Mansi, XIII, 428). As a result of the decree the use of the antimensium became quite general, because, owing to various heresies and schisms it was doubtful whether the altar in numberless churches had ever been consecrated by a bishop, or whether that rite had ever been canonically performed; on the other hand, all were anxious to comply with the canon. By the use of the antimensium, such as missionaries and traveling priests were using, the Holy Sacrifice could be offered on any altar, because the antimensium, at least, had been properly consecrated and contained the required relics. Although it was primarily intended for altars which had not been consecrated by a bishop, it gradually became used for all altars in the Greek Church. It was also much used for altars in military camps, on shipboard, and among the hermits and cenobites of the desert, where a church or a chapel was unknown. After the great schism which divided the Eastern Church from the Holy See the antimensium was looked on as a peculiarly Greek religious article. The United Greeks have also retained it, although, by special regulation of the Holy Se, in its absence an altar-stone may be used by them. A Greek Catholic priest may say Mass in a Greek church upon an altar-stone, yet a Latin priest may not say Mass upon an antimensium in a Latin church, although either may use the antimensium in a Greek church (Benedict XIV, Impositu nobis).

In the Council of Moscow (1675) the Russian Church decreed that antimensia should be used upon every altar, whether it had been consecrated by a bishop or not. The only apparent exception allowed in the Russian Church is that an antimensium without relics may be used upon the altar of a cathedral church. The form of consecration of the antimensia is almost the same as that followed by a bishop in consecrating an altar. Indeed, they are usually consecrated at the same time as the altar, and are considered to share in the latter s consecration; by way of exception, especially in the Russian church, they may be consecrated at another time. As already said, the customary material was originally pure linen; yet, since 1862, by a decree of the Holy Synod in Russia, they may be made either of linen or silk. They have varied slightly in size and form, but the kind now used is about the size of those made in the twelfth century. They are often beautifully embroidered, the Our Lord in the Sepulchre, sometimes with a cross and sometimes with a chalice above Him; they also have the letters IC. XC. NIKA, i.e. “Jesus Christ conquers,” or other traditional devices worked upon them. Whenever a new antimensium is placed upon an altar the old one must not be removed, but must, be kept next to the altar under the altar-cloth. Usually the date of consecration is worked upon them. By a decree of the Holy Synod of 1842, each Russian church must keep an exact register of the antimensia contained in it.

GOAR, Euchologium, sive Rituale Græcorum (Venice, ed. 1730); RENAUDOT, Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio, I, 181–331; BRIGHTMAN, Eastern Liturgies (Oxford, 1896), 569; NEALE, History of the Holy Eastern Church (London, 1850), I, 186–187; PÉTRIDÈS, in Dict. d arch. chrét., I, 2319–26; CLUGNET, Dict. grec-français des noms liturgiques (Paris, 1895).

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Antinoe

(or ANTINOPOLIS)

A titular see of the Thebaid, now Esneh or Esench, a city in Egypt, built by the Emperor Hadrian A. D. 132, in memory of his favourite, Antinous. Situated in the very centre of Egypt, the city attracted more than ordinary attention, not only by its splendour, but by its originality, being constructed, as it was, on the plan of Roman and Greek cities, without any trace of Egyptian architecture. The topography of its ruins is yearly growing less distinct, since an European industry set up in the neighbourhood draws on its antique materials as it might on some deserted marble quarry. After the fashion of Greek and Asiatic cities, the city was intersected by streets along the sides of which ran porticoes and colonnades, and several of the the streets were arched over.

Antinoe played but a small part in the history of Christianity. It became the seat of a bishopric subject to Thebes, and a good many monasteries were founded in the neighbourhood. Thanks to the Egyptian climate, the cemeteries opened in recent years have supplied the science of Christian antiquity with many noteworthy objects. Roman and Byzantine burial-places have been found in a wonderful state of preservation. The bodies, before burial, underwent a preparation very different from that in use with the ancient Egyptians, and were carefully dressed; clothes, stuffing, and a mask being used instead of mummification, which was no longer practised. The bodies, however, had the appearance of mummies. To this manner of preparing their dead we owe the preservation of various personal effects as well as of stuffs. The tomb of a young woman named Euphemiâan (?) contained an embroidery case in the folds of her dress, and shoes of red leather enriched with gold tracery. The excavations carried on by M. A. Gayet have brought to light objects which are now in the Musée Guimet at Paris, such as prayer-chaplets, baskets, phials, boxes of wood and ivory, etc. Papyri have also been found at Antinoe, one of the most interesting being the will of Aurelius Colluthus.

Several ruins of some importance are to be seen in the neighbourhood of Antinoe. One of the most noteworthy is that of Deïr Abou-Hennys, where there is an underground church, ornamented with paintings of real interest, less on account of the choice of subjects than for the skill and taste which they show in a Coptic artist of the seventh or eighth century. They represent scenes from the Gospel, with a few drawn from the apocryphal books, and are interspersed with a great number of inscriptions, most of which are mutilated or undecipherable.

LECLERCQ in Dict. d’archéol. chrét. et de lit., I, col. 2326–2359; DE BOCK Couvent de Saint Jean près d’Antinoë in Matériaux pour servir à l’archéologie de l’Egypte chrétienne (St. Petersburg, 1901); GAYET, in Annales du Musée Guimet (1902), XXX, Part 2; J. CLEDAT, in Bulletin de l’institut français d’archéol. orien. (1902), II.

H. LECLERCQ.

Antinomianism

(ἀντί, against, and νόμος, law)

The heretical doctrine that Christians are exempt from the obligations of moral law. The term first came into use at the Protestant Reformation, when it was employed by Martin Luther to designate the teachings of Johannes Agricola and his secretaries, who, pushing a mistaken and perverted interpretation of the Reformer’s doctrine of justification by faith alone to a far-reaching but logical conclusion, asserted that, as good works do not promote salvation, so neither do evil works hinder it; and, as all Christians are necessarily sanctified by their very vocation and profession, so as justified Christians, they are incapable of losing their spiritual holiness, justification, and final salvation by any act of disobedience to, or even by any direct violation of the law of God. This theory—for it was not, and is not necessarily, anything more than a purely theoretical doctrine, and many professors of Antinomianism, as a matter of fact, led, and lead, lives quite as moral as those of their opponents—was not only a more or less natural outgrowth from the distinctively Protestant principle of justification by faith, but probably also the result of an erroneous view taken with regard to the relation between the Jewish and Christian dispensations and the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Doubtless a confused understanding of the Mosaic ceremonial precepts and the fundamental moral law embodied in the Mosaic code was to no small extent operative in allowing the conception of true Christian liberty to grow beyond all reasonable bounds, and to take the form of a theoretical doctrine of unlimited licentiousness.

Although the term designating this error came into use only in the sixteenth century, the doctrine itself can be traced in the teaching of the earlier heresies. Certain of the Gnostic sect—possibly, for example, Marcion and his followers, in their antithesis of the Old and New Testament, or the Carpoeratians, in their doctrine of the indifference of good works and their contempt for all human laws—held Antinomian or quasi-Antinomian views. In any case, it is generally understood that Antinomianism was professed by more than one of the Gnostic schools. Several passages of the New Testament writings are quoted in support of the contention that even as early as Apostolic times it was found necessary to single out and combat this heresy in its theoretical or dogmatic as well as in its grosser and practical form. The indignant words of St. Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and to the Ephesians (Rom., iii, 8, 31, vi, 1; Eph, v. 6), as well as those of St. Peter, the Second Epistle (II Pet, ii, 18, 19), seem to lend direct evidence in favour of this view. Forced into a somewhat doubtful prominence by the “slanderers” against whom the Apostle found it necessary to warn the faithful, persisting spasmodically in several of the Gnostic bodies, and possibly also colouring some of the tenets of the Abigenses, Antinomianism reappeared definitely, as a variant of the Protestant doctrine of faith, early in the history of the German Reformation. At this point it is of interest to note the sharp controversy that it provoked between the leader of the reforming movement in Germany and his disciple and fellow townsman, Johannes Agricola. Scnitter, or Schneider, sometimes known as the Magister Islebius, was born at Eisleben in 1492, nine years after the birth of Luther. He studied and afterwards, taught, at Wittenberg, whence, in 1525, he went to Frankfort with the intention of teaching and establishing the Protestant religion there. But shortly afterwards, he returned to his native town, where he remained until 1536, teaching in the school of St. Andrew, and drawing considerable attention to himself as a preacher of the new religion by the courses of sermons that he delivered in the Nicolai Church. In 1536 he was recalled to Wittenberg and given a chair at the University. Then the Antinomian controversy, which had really begun some ten years previously, broke out afresh, with renewed vigour and bitterness. Agricola, who was undoubtedly anxious to defend and justify the novel doctrine of his leader upon the subject of grace and justification, and who wished to separate the new Protestant view more clearly and distinctly from the old Catholic doctrine of faith and good works, taught that only the unregenerate were under the obligation of the law, whereas regenerate Christians were entirely absolved and altogether free from any such obligation. Though it is highly probable that he made Agricola responsible for opinions which the latter never really held, Luther attacked him vigorously is six dissertations, showing that “the law gives man the consciousness of sin, and that the fear of the law is both wholesome and necessary for the preservation of morality and of divine, as well as human, institutions”; and on several occasions Agricola found himself obliged to retract or modify his Antinomian teaching. In 1540 Agricola, forced to this step by Luther, who had secured to this end the assistance of the Elector of Brandenburg, definitely recanted. But it was not long before the wearisome controversy was reopened by Poach of Erfurt (1556). This led ultimately to an authoritative and complete statement, on the part of the Lutheran, of the teaching upon the subject by the German Protestant leaders, in the fifth and sixth articles of the “Formula Concordiae.” St. Alphonsus Liguori states that after Luther’s death Agricola went to Berlin, commenced teaching his blasphemies again, and died there, at the age of seventy-four, without any sign of repentance; also, that Florinundus calls the Antinomians “Atheists who believe in neither God nor the devil.” So much for the origin and growth of the Antinomian heresy in the Lutheran body. Among the high Calvinists also the doctrine was to be found in the teaching that the elect do not sin by the commission of actions that in themselves are contrary to the precepts of the moral law, which the Anabaptists of Munster had no scruple in putting these theories into actual practice.

From Germany Antinomianism soon travelled to England, where it was publicly taught, and in some cases even acted upon, by many of the sectaries during the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell. The state of religion in England, as well as in the Colonies, immediately preceding and during this troublesome period of history was an extraordinary one, and when the independents obtained the upper hand there was no limit to the vagaries of the doctrines, imported or invented, that found so congenial a soil in which to take root and spread. Many of the religious controversies that then arose turned naturally upon the doctrines of faith, grace, and justification which occupied so prominent a place in contemporary thought, and in these controversies Antinomianism frequently figured. A large number of works, tracts, and sermons of this period are extant in which the fierce and intolerant doctrines of the sectaries are but thinly veiled under the copious quotation from the Scriptures that lend so peculiar an effect to their general style. In the earlier part of the seventeenth century, Dr. Tobias Crisp, Rector of Brinkwater (b. 1600), was accused, in the company of others, of holding and teaching similar views. His most notable work is “Christ Alone Exalted” (1643). His opinions were controverted with some ability by Dr. Daniel Williams, the founder of the Dissenters’ Library. Indeed, to such an extent were extreme Antinomian doctrines held, and even practised, as early as the reign of Charles I, that, after Cudworth’s sermon against the Antinomians (on John, ii, 3, 4) was preached before the Commons of England (1647), the Parliament was obliged to pass severe enactments against them (1648). Anyone convicted on the oaths of two witnesses of maintaining that the moral law of the Ten Commandments was no rule for Christians, or that a believer need not repent or pray for pardon of sin, was bound publicly to retract, or, if he refused, be imprisoned until he found sureties that he would no more maintain the same. Shortly before this date, the heresy made its appearance in America, where, at Boston, the Antinomian opinions of Anne Hutchinson were formally condemned by the Newton Synod (1636).

Although from the seventeenth century onward Antinomianism does not appear to be an official doctrine of any of the more important Protestant sects, at least it has undoubtedly been held from time to time either by individual members of sections, and taught, both by implication and actually, by the religious leaders of several of these bodies. Certain forms of Calvinism may seem capable of bearing an Antinomian construction. Indeed it has been said that the heresy is in reality nothing more than “Calvinism run to the seed.” Mosheim regarded the Antinomians as a rigid kind of Calvinists who, distorting the doctrines of absolute decrees, drew from it conclusions dangerous to religion and morals. Count Zinzendorf (1700–60), the founder of the Herrnhuters, or Moravians, was accused of Antinomianism by Bengal, as was William Huntingdon, who, however, took pains to disclaim the imputation.

But possibly the most noteworthy instance is that of the Plymouth Brethren, of whom some are quite frankly Antinomian in their doctrine of justification and sanctification. It is their constant assertion that the law is not the rule or standard of the life of the Christian. Here again, as in the case of Agricola, it is a theoretical and not a practical Antinomianism that in inculcated. Much of the teaching of the members of this sect recalls “the wildest, vagaries of the Antinomian heresy, which at the same time their earnest protests against such a construction being put upon their words, and the evident desire of their writers to enforce a high standard of practical holiness, forbid us to follow out some of their statements to what seems to be their logical conclusion.” Indeed, the doctrine generally is held theoretically, where held at all, and has seldom been advocated to be put in practice and acted upon. Except, as has already been noted, in the case of the Anabaptists of Munster and of some of the more fanatical sections of the Commonwealth, as well as in a small number of other isolated and sporadic cases, it is highly doubtful if it has ever been directly put forward as an excuse for licentiousness; although, as can easily be seen, it offers the gravest possible incentive to, and even justification of, both private and public immorality in its worst and most insidious form.

As the doctrine of Antinomianism, or legal irresponsibility, is an extreme type of the heretical doctrine of justification by faith alone as taught by the Reformers, it is only natural to find it condemned by the Catholic Church in company with its fundamentally Protestant tenet. The sixth session of the Ecumenical Council of Trent was occupied with this subject and published its famous decree on Justification. The fifteenth chapter of this decree is directly concerned with Antinomian heresy, and condemns it in the following terms: “In opposition also to the cunning wits of certain men who, by good works and fair speeches, deceive the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained that the received grace of justification is lost not only by the infidelity, in which even faith itself if lost, but also by any other mortal sin soever, though faith be not lost; thereby defending the doctrine of the Divine law, which excludes from the King of God not only the unbelieving, but also the faithful who are fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins; from which, with the help of Divine grace, they are able to refrain and on account of which they are separate from the grace of Christ” (Cap. xv, cf. also Cap. xii). Also, among the canons anathematizing the various erroneous doctrines advanced by the Reformers as to the meaning and nature of justification are to be found in the following:

Canon 19: “If anyone shall say that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or that the Ten Commandments in no wise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.”

Canon 20: “If anyone shall say that a man who is justified and how perfect soever is not bound to the observance of the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe; as if forsooth. the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observation of the commandments; let him be anathema.”

Canon 21: “If anyone shall say that Christ Jesus was given of God unto men as a Redeemer in whom they should trust, and not also as a legislator whom they should obey; let him be an anathema.”

Canon 27: “If anyone shall say that there is no deadly sin but that of infidelity; or that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save only by that infidelity; let him be anathema.”

The minute care with which the thirty-three canons of this sixth session of the Council were drawn up is evidence of the grave importance of the question of justification, as well as of the conflicting doctrine advanced by the Reformers themselves upon this subject. The four canons quoted above leave no doubt as to the distinctly Antinomian theory of justification that falls under the anathema of the Church. That the moral law persists in the Gospel dispensation, and that the justified Christian is still under the whole obligation of the laws of God and of the Church, is clearly asserted and defined under the solemn anathema of an Ecumenical Council. The character of Christ as a lawgiver to be obeyed is insisted upon, as well as His character as a Redeemer to be trusted; and the fact that there is grievous transgression, other than that of infidelity, is taught without the slightest ambiguity—thus far, the most authoritative possible utterance of the teaching of the Church. In connection with the Tridentine decreed and canons my be cited the controversial writings and direct teaching of Cardinal Bellarmine, the ablest upholder of orthodoxy against the various heretical tenets of the Protestant Reformation.

But so grossly and so palpably contrary to the whole spirit and teaching of the Christian revelation, so utterly discordant with the doctrines inculcated in the New Testament Scriptures, and so thoroughly opposed to the interpretation and tradition from which even the Reformers were unable to cut themselves entirely adrift, was the heresy of Antinomianism that, which we are able to find a few sectaries, as Agricola, Crisp, Richardson, Saltmarsh, and Hutchinson, defending the doctrine, the principle Reformers and their followers were instant in condemning and reprobating it. Luther himself, Rutherford, Schluffleburgh, Sedgewick, Gataker, Witsius, Bull, and Williams have written careful refutations of a doctrine that is quite as revolting in theory as it would ultimately have proved fatally dangerous in its practical consequences and inimical to the propagation of the other principles of the Reformers. In Nelson’s “Review and Analysis of Bishop Bull’s Exposition . . . of Justification” the advertisement of the Bishop of Salisbury has the following strong recommendation of works against the “Antinomian folly”:

. . . To the censure of tampering with the Strictness of the Divine law may be opposed Bishop Horsley’s recommendation of the Harmonia Apostolica as ‘a preservative from the contagion of Antinomian folly.’ As a powerful antidote to the Antinomian principles opposed by Bishop Bull, Cudworth’s incomparable sermon preached before the House of Commons in 1647. . . . cannot be too strongly recommended.

This was the general attitude of the Anglican, as well as of the Lutheran, body. And where, as was upon several occasions the case, the ascendency of religious leaders, at a time when religion played an extraordinarily strong part in the civil and political life of the individual, was not in itself sufficient to stamp out the heresy, or keep it within due bounds, the aid of the secular arm was promptly invoked, as in the case of the intervention of the Elector of Brandenburg and the enactments of the English Parliament in 1648. Indeed, at the time, and under the peculiar circumstances obtaining in New England in 1637, the synodical condemnation of Mrs. Hutchinson did not fall short of a civil judgement.

Impugned alike by the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church and by the disavowals and solemn declarations of the greater Protestant leaders and confessions or fomularies, verging, as it does, to the discredit of the teaching of Christ and of the Apostles, inimical to common morality and to the established social and political order, it is not surprising to find the Antinomian heresy a comparatively rare one in ecclesiastical history, and, as a rule, where taught at all, one that is carefully kept in the background or practically explained away. There are few who would care to assert the doctrine in so uncompromising a form as that which Robert Browning, in “Johannes Agricola in Meditation,” with undoubted accuracy, ascribed to the Lutheran originator of the heresy:—I have God’s warrant, could I blend

All hideous sins, as in a cup,

To drink the mingled venoms up;

Secure my nature would convert

The draught too blossoming gladness fast;

While sweet dews turn to the gourd’s hurt,

And bloat, and while they bloat it, blast,

As from the first its lot was cast.

For this reason it is not always an easy matter to determine with any degree of precision how far certain forms and offshoots of Calvinism, Socinianism, or even Lutheranism, may not be susceptible of Antinomian interpretations; while at the same time it must be remembered that many sects and individuals holding opinions dubiously, or even indubitably, of an Antinomian nature, would indignantly repudiate any direct charge of teaching that evil works and immoral actions are no sins in the case of justified Christians. The shades and gradations of heresy here merge insensibly the one into the other. To say that a man cannot sin because he is justified is very much the same thing as to state that no action. whether sinful in itself or not, can be imputed to the justified Christian as a sin. Nor is the doctrine that good works do not help in promoting the sanctification of an individual far removed from the teaching that evil deed do not interfere with it. There is a certain logical nexus between these three forms of the Protestant doctrine of justification that would seem, to have its natural outcome in the assertion of Antinomianism. The only doctrine that is conclusively and officially opposed to this heresy, as well as to those forms of the doctrine of justification by faith alone that are so closely connected with it both doctrinally and historically, is to be found in the Catholic dogma of Faith, Justification, and Sanctification.

Decreta Dogmatica Councilii Tridentini: Sess VI; Bellarmine, De Justificatione; Judicium de Libro Concordantia Lutheranorum; Alzog, Church History III; Liguori, The History of Heresies (tr. Mulloch); Formula Concordiae; Elwert, De Antinomia J. Agricolae Islebii; Hagenbach, A Text Book of the History of Doctrines; Bell, The Wanderings of the Human Intellect; Bull, Opera; Hall, Remaine; Sanders, Sermons; Rutherford, A Survey of the Spiritual AntichirstÊopening the secrets of Familisme and Antinomianisme in the Anti-christian Doctrine of J. Saltmarsh; Gataker, An Antidote Againt the Error Concerning Justification; Antinomianism Discovered and Unmasked; Baxter, The Scripture Gospel Defended . . . In Two Books . . . The second upon the sudden reviving of Antinomianism; Fletcher, Four Checks to Antinomianism; Cottle, An Accent of Plymouth Antinomians; Teulon, History and Teaching of the Plymouth Brethren; Nelson, A Review and Analysis of Bishop Bull’s Exposition . . . of Justification.

FRANCIS AVELING

Church of Antioch

(Antiocheia, Antiochia)

I. ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE CITY

Of the vast empire conquered by Alexander the Great many states were formed, one of which comprised Syria and other countries to the east and west of it. This realm fell to the lot of one of the conqueror’s generals, Seleucus Nicator, or Seleucus I, founder of the dynasty of the Seleucidæ. About the year 300 B. C. he founded a city on the banks of the lower Orontes, some twenty miles from the Syrian coast, and a short distance below Antigonia, the capital of his defeated rival Antigonus. The city, which was named Antioch, from Antiochus, the father of Seleucus, was meant to be the capital of the new realm. It was situated on the northern slope of Mount Silpius, on an agreeable and well-chosen site, and stretched as far as the Orontes, which there flows from east to west. It grew soon to large proportions; new quarters or suburbs were added to it, so that ultimately it consisted of four towns enclosed by as many distinct walls and by a common rampart, which with the citadel reached to the summit of Mount Silpius. When Syria was made a Roman province by Pompey (64 B. C.), Antioch continued to be the metropolis of the East. It also became the residence of the legates, or governors, of Syria. In fact, Antioch, after Rome and Alexandria, was the largest city of the empire, with a population of over half a million. Whenever the emperors came to the East they honoured it with their presence. The Seleucidæ as well as the Roman rulers vied with one another in adorning and enriching the city with statues, theatres, temples, aqueducts, public baths, gardens, fountains, and cascades; a broad avenue with four rows of columns, forming covered porticoes on each side, traversed the city from east to west, to the length of several miles. Its most attractive pleasure resort was the beautiful grove of laurels and cypresses called Daphne, some four or five miles to the west of the city. It was renowned for its park-like appearance, for its magnificent temple of Apollo, and for the pompous religious festival held in the month of August. From it Antioch was sometimes surnamed Epidaphnes. The population included a great variety of races. There were Macedonians and Greeks, native Syrians and Phœnecians, Jews and Romans, besides a contingent from further Asia; many flocked there because Seleucus had given to all the right of citizenship. Nevertheless, it remained always predominantly a Greek city. The inhabitants did not enjoy a great reputation for learning or virtue; they were excessively devoted to pleasure, and universally kown for their witticisms and sarcasm. Not a few of their peculiar traits have reached us through the sermons of St. John Chrysostom, the letters of Libanius, the “Misopogon” of Julian, and other literary sources. Their loyalty to imperial authority could not always be depended upon. In spite of these defects there was at all times in Antioch a certain number of men, especially in the Jewish colony, who were given to serious thoughts, even to thoughts of religion. After the fifth century Antioch lost much of its size and importance. It was visited by frequent earthquakes, by not less than ten from the second century B. C. to the end of the sixth century of the Christian era. Twice it was captured and sacked by the Persians, in A. D. 260 and 540. On the latter occasion it was almost completely destroyed, but was rebuilt by the Emperor Justinian I (527–565) on a much smaller scale, and called Theopolis. It is said that no small portion of his walls remained until 1825, a specimen of the military architecture of the sixth century. In 638 it was taken by the Mohammedans, was restored to the Byzantine Empire in 969, and reconquered by the Seljuks in 1084. From 1098 until 1268 it was in the hands of the Crusaders and their descendants; the Sultan Bibars of Egypt took it in 1268; and in 1517 it came with Syria under the Turkish Empire. The former populous metropolis of the East is now the small town of Antakia with about 20,000 inhabitants (see ).

II. CHRISTIANITY OF ANTIOCH

Since the city of Antioch was a great centre of government and civilization, the Christian religion spread thither almost from the beginning. Nicolas, one of the seven deacons in Jerusalem, was from Antioch (Acts, vi, 5). The seed of Christ’s teaching was carried to Antioch by some disciples from Cyprus and Cyrene, who fled from Jerusalem during the persecution that followed upon the martyrdom of St. Stephen (Acts, xi, 19, 20). They preached the teachings of Jesus, not only to the Jewish colony but also to the Greeks or Gentiles, and soon large numbers were converted. The mother-church of Jerusalem having heard of the occurrence sent Barnabas thither, who called Saul from Tarsus to Antioch (ib., 22, 25). There they laboured for a whole year with such success that the followers of Christ were acknowledged as forming a distinct community, “so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians” (ib., 26). Their charity was exhibited by the offerings sent to the famine-stricken brethren in Judea. St. Peter himself came to Antioch (Gal., ii, 11), probably about the year 44, and according to all appearances lived there for some time. The community of Antioch, being composed in part of Greeks or Gentiles, had views of its own on the character and conditions of the new religion. There was a faction among the disciples in Jerusalem which maintained that the Gentile converts to Christianity should pass first through Judaism by submitting to the observances of the Mosaic law, such as circumcision and the like. This attitude seemed to close the gates to the Gentiles, and was strongly contested by the Christians of Antioch. Their plea for Christian liberty was defended by their leaders, Paul and Barnabas, and received full recognition in the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem (Acts, xv, 22- 32). Later on St. Paul defends this principle at Antioch even in the face of Peter (Gal., ii, 11). Antioch became soon a centre of missionary propaganda. It was thence that St. Paul and his companions started on their journey for the conversion of the nations. The Church of Antioch was also fully organized almost from the beginning. It was one of the few original churches which preserved complete the catalogue of its bishops. The first of these bishops, Evodius, reaches back to the Apostolic age. At a very early date the Christian community of Antioch became the central point of all the Christian interests in the East. After the fall of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) it was the real metropolis of Christianity in those countries.

In the meantime the number of Christians grew to such an extent, that in the first part of the fourth century Antioch was looked upon as practically a Christian city. Many churches were erected there for the accommodation of the worshippers of Christ. In the fourth century there was still a basilica called “the ancient” and “apostolic.” It was probably one of the oldest architectural monuments of Christianity; an ancient tradition maintained that it was originally the house of Theophilus, the friend of St. Luke (Acts, i, 1). There were also sanctuaries dedicated to the memory of the great Apostles, Peter, Paul, and John. Saint Augustine speaks (Sermo, ccc., n. 5) of a “basilica of the holy Machabees” at Antioch, a famous shrine from the fourth to the sixth century (Card. Rampolla, in “Bessarione,” Rome, 1897–98, I-II). Among the pagan temples dedicated to Christian uses was the celebrated Temple of Fortune (Tychæion). In it the Christians of Antioch enshrined the body of their great bishop and martyr Ignatius. There was also a martyrium or memorial shrine of Babylas, a third-century martyr and bishop of Antioch, who suffered death in the reign of Decius. For the development of Christian domestic architecture in the vicinity of the great city see De Vogué, “Architecture civile et religieuse de la Syrie Centrale” (Paris, 1867–77), and the similar work of Howard Crosby Butler (New York, 1903). The very important monastic architecture of the vicinity will be described under and . The Emperor Constantine (306–337) built a church there, which he adorned so richly that it was the admiration of all contemporaries (St. John Chrys., “Hom. in Ep. ad Eph.,” X, 2; Eus., “Vita Const.,” III, 50, and “De laud. Const.,” c. 9). It was completely pillaged, but not destroyed, by Chosroes in 540. the Church of Antioch showed itself worthy of being the metropolis of Christianity in the east. In the ages of persecution it furnished a very large quota of martyrs, the bishops setting the example. It may suffice to mention St. Ignatius at the beginning of the second century; Asclepiades under Septimius Severus (193–211); and Babylas under Decius (249–251). It produced also a number of great men, who either in writing or otherwise distinguished themselves in the service of Christianity. The letters of the afore-mentioned St. Ignatius are very famous. Theophilus wrote in the latter part of the second century an elaborate defense and explanation of the Christian religion. In later ages there were such men as Flavian, who did much to reunite the Christians of Antioch divided by the Arian disputes; St. John Chrysostom, afterwards Bishop of Constantinople, and Theodoret, afterwards Bishop of Cyrus in Syria. Several heresies took their rise in Antioch. In the third century Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, professed erroneous doctrines. Arianism had its original root not in Alexandria but in the great Syrian city, Antioch; Nestorianism sprang from it through Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius of Constantinople. A peculiar feature of Antiochene life was the frequency of conflict between the Jews and the Christians; several grievous seditions and massacres are noted by the historians from the end of the fourth to the beginning of the seventh century (Leclercq, Dict. d’arch. et de liturg. chrét., I, col 2396).

III. PATRIARCHATE OF ANTIOCH

When the early organization of the Church was developed, the Church of Antioch, owing to its origin and influence, could not fail to become a centre of special higher jurisdiction. Traces of this power were seen in the very first ages. Towards the end of the second century Serapion, Bishop of Antioch gave instructions on the Apocryphal Gospel of St. Peter to the Christians of Rhossus, a town not of Syria but of Cilicia. Tradition has it that the same Serapion consecrated the third Bishop of Edessa, which was then outside of the Roman Empire. The councils held about the middle of the third century in Antioch called together bishops from Syria, Palestine, Arabia, and the provinces of Eastern Asia Minor. Dionysius of Alexandria spoke of these bishops as forming the episcopate of the Orient, among whose members Demetrian of Antioch was mentioned in the first place. At the Council of Ancyra (314) presided over by Bishop Vitalis of Antioch, about the same countries were represented through the bishops of the principal cities. In general, the Churches in the “East,” as this complexus of Roman provinces was known (cf. Oriens Christianus), gravitated towards the Church of Antioch, whose bishop from remote antiquity exercised a certain jurisdiction over them. This custom was sanctioned by the Council of Nicæa (325). The Fathers of this assembly decreed in the sixth canon that the privileges of the Church of Antioch should be maintained. According to the second canon of the Council of Constantinople (381) the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch comprised, and was restricted to the civil diocese of the Orient which included all the eastern-most provinces of the Roman Empire. In the Council of Ephesus (431) the Bishops of Cyprus were declared independent of Antioch; and in that of Chalcedon (451) the three provinces of Palestine were detached from Antioch and placed under the Bishop of Jerusalem (see ). From the foregoing it is evident that, while in the early ages the jurisdiction of Antioch extended over the Christian communities in the countries outside the Roman Empire, its proper limits were Syria, Palestine, and Eastern Asia Minor. Gradually it was so restricted that by the middle of the fifth century it was confined to the northern part of the civil diocese of the Orient and the countries outside of the Roman Empire. The title given to the Bishop of Antioch on account of this higher jurisdiction was that of “Partriarch,” which he held in common with other dignitaries of a similar rank. His jurisdiction could be exercised not only with regard to the faithful within his territory, but also over the ordinary and the metropolitan bishops of his patriarchate. It seems worthy of mention here that early in the fourth century, the Roman Church possessed at Antioch both urban and rural properties, both in the old and the “new” parts of the city, and even in the Jewish quarter. (Liber Pontif. ed. Duchesne, I, 177, 195; cf. cxlix sq.) The patriarchate of Antioch lost much of its importance after the middle of the fifth century owing to many adverse circumstances. The Bishops of Constantinople, who aspired to the first rank in the Eastern Church, acquired gradually, and long maintained, a controlling influence over the Church of Antioch. In the latter part of the fifth century the Monophisites, under Peter Fullo, endeavoured to take possession of the patriarchal see. After the death of their leader Severus (539) they elected their own patriarchs of Antioch. During the centuries that followed the conquest of Antioch by the Saracens (638), the succession of orthodox incumbents of the patriarchal see was irregular; and they had to suffer much from the new conquerors of the city, who showed a marked preference for the Monophysite patriarchs (see ). When the Greek schism was consummated in the eleventh century, the orthodox patriarchate of Antioch, owing to traditional Byzantine influence, was drawn into it, and remained schismatic despite repeated efforts of the Apostolic See for a reunion. At present the Greek patriarch resides in Damascus, the city of Antioch having long since lost all political importance. It was not only the Monophysites who dismembered thus early the patriarchate of Antioch. The Nestorians who emigrated into Persia after their condemnation at Ephesus (431) soon became so strong that at the end of the fifth century their bishop, Babæus of Seleucia, made himself independent of Antioch, and established a new patriarchate with its centre in Seleucia, afterwards in Bagdad. Those Syrians who remained united with Rome (now known as the Chaldæans) continued to acknowledge a patriarch of their own. He is called Patriarch of Babylonia and lives in Mosul. Among the other oriental communities united with Rome there are three which have all their patriarchs of Antioch, viz. the Maronites, the Melchites, and the Catholic Syrians (see ).

IV. LATIN PATRIARCHATE OF ANTIOCH

When the crusaders took possession of Antioch in 1098, they reinstated at first the Greek patriarch, then John IV. About two years afterwards the said dignitary found that he was unfitted to rule over Western Christians, and withdrew to Constantinople. Thereupon the Latin Christians elected (1100) a patriarch of their own, an ecclesiastic by the name of Bernard who had come to the Orient with the crusaders. From that time Antioch had its Latin patriarchs, until in 1268 Christian, the last incumbent, was put to death by the Sultan Bibars, during the conquest of the city. The Greeks also continued to choose their patriarchs of Antioch, but these lived generally in Constantinople. The jurisdiction of the Latin patriarchs in Antioch extended over the three feudal principalities of Antioch, Edessa, and Tripolis. Towards the end of the twelfth century the island of Cyprus was added. In practice they were far more dependent upon the popes than their predecessors, the Greek patriarchs. After the fall of Antioch (1268) the popes still appointed patriarchs, who, however, were unable to take possession of the see. Since the middle of the fourteenth century they have been only titular dignitaries. The title of Latin Patriarch of Antioch is yet conferred; but the recipient resides in Rome and is a member of the chapter of the basilica of St. Mary Major.

V. SYNODS OF ANTIOCH

Owing to the special position of Antioch many synods were held there. A belief, that some find expressed for the first time by Pope Innocent I (407–417; Mansi, Conc., III, 1055) but that others locate about 787 (Herder, K. L., I, 112), was current in the past that the Apostles held a council in Antioch (see ). We are informed by this text (Pitra, Jur. Eccl. Gr. Hist., I, 90–93) that the name of Christians was formally assigned to the followers of the Saviour by the Apostles, and that special instructions were given to the Apostolic missionaries and to their converts. These canons, according to Cardinal Hergenröther (Herder, K. L.,1. c.), are apocryphal, “a mere compilation from the data of the (canonical) Acts and from other writers.” About the year 251 a council was held, or planned to be held, at Antioch, on the subject of Novatianism to which Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, was inclined. The bishops chiefly interested in it, apart from Fabius, were Helenus of Tarsus, Firmilian of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and Theocritus of Cæsarea in Palestine, who invited also Dionysius of Alexandria. The matter had no further consequence, since Fabius died shortly afterwards and was succeeded by Demetrian, whose views on the reconciliation of the apostates were less extreme. Between the years 264 and 268 three different synods were held on account of erroneous doctrines on the nature of Jesus Christ and His relation to God, attributed to Paul, Bishop of Antioch, and a native of Samosata. Bishops from Syria, Palestine, Arabia, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Pontus, and Lycaonia took part in these deliberations. Finally, in the third synod, they deposed Paul, convicted him of heresy, and elected Domnus in his place. Under the protection of the Princess Zenobia of Palmyra, Paul was able to maintain himself for some time. He was expelled in the end (272) by a decree of the Emperor Aurelian (270–275).

Most of the synods held during the fourth century reflected the struggles that followed upon the Arian controversy. The council of 330 deposed the orthodox Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch; and for a long time the see was in possession of the Arians. In the council held in 340 Athanasius of Alexandria was deposed, and a certain Gregory, from Cappadocia, was consecrated in his stead. The intruder could take possession of his see only under a military escort. The deposition of Athanasius was ratified in the synod of the following year (341), which was held on the occasion of the dedication of the “great,” or “golden” church mentioned above as built by Constantine. The twenty-five disciplinary canons passed by this council were afterwards received by the universal Church. The four creeds adopted, though not heretical, still depart from the symbol of faith made at Nicæa. Several other synods were held in quick succession. In that of 344 the Arian bishop, Stephen of Antioch, was deposed for misconduct. In the symbol of faith adopted by this council the Semi-Arian views found expression; at the same time it was directed against the Arians, the Sabellians, but also against St. Athanasius. The synods of 358, 361, and 362 revealed and asserted the predominance of the Arians. The Bishop Eudoxius condemned both the orthodox and the Semi-Arian views. A new bishop was elected in the person of Meletius, who was thought by many to be on the side of Arianism, and the Arians proclaimed their loyalty to the party in spite of defections. At the accession of the Emperor Jovian (363) a council was held in Antioch, at which the bishops agreed to the Nicene faith, though they added at the end a Semi-Arian declaration. At last, in 368, a large number of Oriental bishops, assembled in Antioch, broke with Arianism altogether. They gave their assent to the Nicene faith as it had been expressed by Pope Damasus and a Roman synod in 369; viz., that the Father and Son, and Holy Ghost were one substance. The synod held in 388 forbade any revenge for the death of a bishop killed by the heathens; another synod held in 390 condemned the sect of the Messalians. The synods of the fifth and sixth centuries were usually concerned with the theological controversies of the time. Thus the council of 424 decreed the expulsion of Pelagius from the city. Phases of the Nestorian and Monophysite controversies were dealt with in the synods of 432, 447, 451, 471, 478, 481, 482, 508, 512, 565. A synod of the year 445 rendered a decision in the matter of Athanasius, Bishop of Perrha, accused of misconduct and brought before the patriarch of Antioch. Finally, a synod held about the year 542 was caused by the Origenistic controversies in Palestine. During the period of Latin domination two synods were held at Antioch. In 1139 Radulf, the second Latin Patriarch of Antioch, was deposed for having aspired to complete independence from Rome, and for cruel treatment inflicted on some ecclesiastics. In 1204 the Cardinal-Legate Peter decided certain claims on the principality of Antioch in favour of the Count of Tripolis, against Armenia, which was placed under interdict. Ecclesiastical life in Antioch became all but extinct from the time that the city was permanently taken by the Mohammedans.

MOMMSEN, Römische Geschichte (Berlin, 1886), V; RENAN, Les apôtres (Paris, 1894); St. Paul (Paris, 1893); ABBÉ FOUARD, Saint Peter (Eng. tr., New York, 1892); Saint Paul (Eng. tr. New;York, 1899); DöLLINGER, Christenthum und Kirche (Ratisbon, 1868); J. M. NEALE, The Patriarchate of Antioch (posthumous continuation of his Holy Eastern Church) (London, 1873); TREPPNER, Das Patriarchat von Antiochien (Freiburg, 1891); STIFTER, The Church of Antioch in Bibliotheca Sacra (1900), LVII, 645–659; S. VAILHÉ L’ancien patriarchat d’Antioche, in Echos d’Orient, 1899, 216–227; C. DIEHL, Justinien et la civilisation byzantine au VIe siècle (Paris, 1901); HARNACK, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christenthums (Leipzig, 1902); DUCHESNE, Histoire ancienne de l’église (Paris, 1906); IDEM, Christian Worship (Eng. tr. London, 1904); BINGHAM, Antiquities of the Christian Church (London, 1710), I; THOMASSEN, Discipline de l’église (Bar-le-Duc, 1864) I; BINTERIM, Denkwürdigkeiten (Mainz, 1838) III; PHILIPPS, Kirchenrecht (Ratisbon, 1857) II; HEFELE, Conciliengesch. (2d ed., Freiburg, 1886) I.-The profane antiquities of Antioch are described in the classic work of OTTFRIED MÜLLER, Antiquitates Antiochenæ (Göttingen, 1839). Cf. R. FÖRSTER, Antiochia am Orontes in Jahrb. d. kaiser. deutsch. Inst. (1897) XII, 103, sq., and DAMIANI, Antioch During the Crusades, in Archæologia (18906) XV, 234–263; also REY, Recherches hist. et géogr. sur la domination des Latins en Orient (Paris,fd 1877). The medieval ecclesiastical antiquities of the patriarchate are dealt with in two important works: ASSEMANI, Bibliotheca Orientale etc. (Rome, 1719–28), and LEQUIEN, Oriens Christianus (Paris, 1740); cf. STREIBER, dAntiochien in Kirchenlex., I, 941–962, and LECLERCQ in Dict. d’arch. et de liturg. chrét., I, coll. 2359- 2427. Extensive bibliographies are given in the latter work (coll. 2625–26) and in CHEVALIER, Rép. des sources hist. f(Topo-Bibl.), I, 168–170.

FRANCIS SCHAEFER

Antioch

I. ANTIOCH OF SYRIA

It is difficult to realize that in the modern Antakieh (28,000 inhab.), we have the once famous “Queen of the East,” which, with its population of more than half a million, its beautiful site, its trade and culture, and its important military position, was a not unworthy rival of Alexandria, the second city of the Roman empire (cf. Josephus, Bel. Jud., III, 2, 4). Founded in 300 B. C. by Seleucus I (Nicator), King of Syria, Antioch stood on the Orontes (Nahr el Asi), at the point or junction of the Lebanon and of the Taurus ranges. Its harbour, fifteen miles distant, was Seleucia (cf. Acts, xiii, 4). The name by which it was distinguished [‘Antiochía ‘e pròs (or epi) dáphne, now, Bet el ma, five miles west from Antioch] came from the ill-famed sacred grove, which, endowed with the right of asylum, and so once, by “a rare chance,” the refuge of innocence (cf. II Mach., iv, 33 sq.), had become the haunt of every foulness, whence the expression Daphnici mores. However, the vivid description of Antioch’s immorality, largely the result of the greater mingling of races and civilizations, may be exaggerated; as said in another connexion [cf. Lepin, Jesus Messie, etc. (2d ed., Paris, 1905), 54, note], les braves gens n’ont pas d’histoire, and of that class there must have been a goodly number (Josephus, Bel. Jud., VII, 33; Acts, xi, 21). The Jews had been among the original settlers, and, as such, had been granted by the founder here, as in other cities built by him, equal rights, with the Macedonians and the Greeks (Jos. Ant., XII, iii, 1; Contra Ap., II, iv). The influence of the Antiochene Jews, living, as in Alexandria, under a governor of their own, and forming a large percentage of the population, was very great (Josephus, Ant. Rom., XII, iii, 1; Bel. Jud., VII, iii, 3, VII, v, 2; Harnack, Mission u. Ausbreitung d. Christenthums, p. 5, note 2). Unknown disciples, dispersed by the persecution in which Stephen was put to death, brought Christianity to Antioch (Acts, xi, 19). Cf. Acts, vi, 5, where the author characteristically mentions the place of origin of Nicholas, one of the seven deacons. In Antioch the new Faith was preached to, and accepted by the Greeks with such success that Christianity received here its name, perhaps originally intended as a nickname by the witty Antiochenes (Acts, xi, 26). The new community, once acknowledged by the mother-church of Jerusalem (Acts, xi, 22 sq.), soon manifested its vitality and its intelligence of the faith by its spontaneous act of generosity toward the brethren of Jerusalem (Acts, xi, 27–30). The place of apprenticeship of the Apostle of the Gentiles (Acts, xi, 26), Antioch, became the headquarters of the great missionaries Paul and Barnabas, first together, later Paul alone. Starting thence on their Apostolic journeys they brought back thither the report of their work (Acts, xiii, 2 sq.; xiv, 25–27; xv, 35 sq.; xviii, 22, 23). Acts, xv (cf. Gal., ii, 1–10) clearly evidences the importance of the Antiochene Church. There arose the great dispute concerning the circumcision, and her resolute action occasioned the recognition of the “catholicity” of Christianity.

II. ANTIOCH OF PISIDIA

Like its Syrian namesake, it was founded by Seleucus Nicator situated on the Sebaste road. This road left the high-road from Ephesus to the East at Apamea, went to Iconium and then southeast through the Cilician Gates to Syria (cf. Acts, xviii, 23). The city lay south of the Sultan Dagh, on the confines of Pisidia, whence its name of “Antioch-towards- Pisidia” (Strabo, XII, 8). Definitively a Roman possession since Amytas’s death (25 B. C.), Augustus had made it (6 B. C.) a colony, with a view to checking the brigands of the Taurus mountains (II Cor., xi, 26). Beside its Roman inhabitants and older Greek and Phrygian population, Antioch had a prosperous Jewish colony whose origin probably went back to Antiochus the Great (223–178 B. C.) (cf. Josephus, Ant., XII, iii, 3 sq.), and whose influence seems to have been considerable (cf. Acts, xiii, 45, 50; xiv, 20 sq.; Harnack, “Die Mission,” etc., p. 2, note 2 and ref.). Acts, xiii, 14–52 describes at length the sojourn of St. Paul at Antioch. The episode, clearly important to the writer, has been justly compared to Luke, iv, 16–30; it is a kind of programme-scene where Paul’s Gospel is outlined. A longer stay of the missionaries is implied in Acts, xiii, 49. On his return from Derbe, St. Paul revisited Antioch (Acts, xiv, 20). Two other visits seem implied in Acts, xvi, 4, 6; xviii, 23.

BLASS, H. WENDT, HORTZMANN, KNOWLING, KNABENBAUER, RACKHAM, KNOPF, Com. on Acts; STRABO (Paris, 1880), 477–487–494, 638–639. The lives of St. Paul or works on the Apostles by CONYBEARE and HOWSON, FARRAR; RAMSAY, St. Paul the Traveller (New York, 1903), 40–69; FOUARD, LE CAMUS, CLEMEN (Giessen, 1904), II, 126; SEMERIA, Venticinque anni di storia del cristianismo nascente (Rome, 1905), 292 sqq.; BÄDEKER-BENZINGER, Palästina u Syrien (6th ed., Leipzig, 1904), 340- 346; SMITH, Hist. Geog. of the Holy Land (New York, 1906), 37, 46, 647; DUCHESNE, Histoire ancienne de l’église; SCHÜRER, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ; HARNACK, Die Mission u Ausbreitung der Christenthums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Leipzig, 1902).

EDWARD ARBEZ

Antiochene Liturgy

The family of liturgies originally used in the Patriarchate of Antioch begins with that of the Apostolic Constitutions; then follow that of St. James in Greek, the Syrian Liturgy of St. James, and the other Syrian Anaphorus. The line may be further continued to the Byzantine Rite (the older Liturgy of St. Basil and the later and shorter one of St. John Chrysostom), and through it to the Armenian use. But these no longer concern the Church of Antioch.

I. THE LITURGY OF THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS

The oldest known form that can be described as a complete liturgy is that of the Apostolic Constitutions. It is also the first member of the line of Antiochene uses. The Apostolic Constitutions consist of eight books purporting to have been written by St. Clement of Rome (died c. 104). The first six books are an interpolated edition of the Didascalia (“Teaching of the Apostles and Disciples,” written in the first half of the third century and since edited in a Syriac version by de Lagarde, 1854); the seventh book is an equally modified version of the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, probably written in the first century, and found by Philotheos Bryennios in 1883) with a collection of prayers. The eighth book contains a complete liturgy and the eighty-five “Apostolic Canons.” There is also part of a liturgy modified from the Didascalia in the second book. It has been suggested that the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions may be the same person as the author of the six spurious letters of St. Ignatius (Pseudo-Ignatius). In any case he was a Syrian Christian, probably an Apollinarist, living in or near Antioch either at the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century. And the liturgy that he describes in his eighth book is that used in his time by the Church of Antioch, with certain modifications of his own. That the writer was an Antiochene Syrian and that he describes the liturgical use of his own country is shown by various details, such as the precedence given to Antioch (VII, xlvi, VIII, x, etc.); his mention of Christmas (VIII, xxxiii), which was kept at Antioch since about 375, nowhere else in the East till about 430 (Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien, 248); the fact that Holy Week and Lent together make up seven weeks (V, xiii) as at Antioch, whereas in Palestine and Egypt, as throughout the West, Holy Week was the sixth week of Lent; that the chief source of his “Apostolic Canons” is the Synod of Antioch in encœniis (341); and especially by the fact that his liturgy is obviously built up on the same lines as all the Syrian ones. There are, however, modifications of his own in the prayers, Creed, and Gloria, where the style and the idioms are obviously those of the interpolator of the Didascalia (see the examples in Brightman, “Liturgies,” I, xxxiii-xxxiv), and are often very like those of Pseudo-Ignatius also (ib., xxxv). The rubrics are added by the compiler, apparently from his own observations.

The liturgy of the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, then, represents the use of Antioch in the fourth century. Its order is this: First comes the “Mass of the Catechumens.” After the readings (of the Law, the Prophets, the Epistles, Acts, and Gospels) the bishop greets the people with II Cor., xiii, 13 (The grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all). They answer: “And with thy spirit”; and he “speaks to the people words of comfort.” There then follows a litany for the catechumens, to each invocation of which the people answer “Kyrie eleison”; the bishop says a collect and the deacon dismisses the catechumens. Similar litanies and collects follow for the Energumens, the Illuminandi (photizómenoi, people about to be baptized) and the public penitents, and each time they are dismissed after the collect for them. The “Mass of the Faithful” begins with a longer litany for various causes, for peace, the Church, bishops (James, Clement, Evodius, and Annianus are named), priests, deacons, servers, readers, singers, virgins, widows, orphans, married people, the newly baptized, prisoners, enemies, persecutors, etc., and finally “for every Christian soul.” After the litany follows its collect, then another greeting from the bishop and the kiss of peace. Before the Offertory the deacons stand at the men’s doors and the subdeacons at those of the women “that no one may go out, nor the door be opened,” and the deacon again warns all catechumens, infidels, and heretics to retire, the mothers to look after their children, no one to stay in hypocrisy, and all to stand in fear and trembling. The deacons bring the offerings to the bishop at the altar. The priests stand around, two deacons wave fans (ripídia) over the bread and wine and the Anaphora (canon) begins. The bishop again greets the people with the words of II Cor., xiii, 13, and they answer as before: “And with thy spirit.” He says: “Lift up your mind.” R. “We have it to the Lord.” V. “Let us thank the Lord.” R. “Right and just.” He takes up their word: “It is truly right and above all just to sing to Thee, Who art truly God, existing before all creatures, from Whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named. . . .” and so the Eucharistic prayer begins. He speaks of the “only begotten Son, the Word and God, Saving Wisdom, first born of all creatures, Angel of thy great counsel,” refers at some length to the garden of Eden, Abel, Henoch, Abraham, Melchisedech, Job, and other saints of the Old Law. When he has said the words: “the numberless army of Angels . . . the Cherubim and six-winged Seraphim . . . together with thousands of thousand Archangels and myriad myriads of Angels unceasingly and without silence cry out,” “all the people together say: ‘Holy, holy, holy the Lord of Hosts, the heaven and earth are full of His glory, blessed forever, Amen.’“ The bishop then again takes up the word and continues: “Thou art truly holy and all-holy, highest and most exalted for ever. And thine only-begotten Son, our Lord and God Jesus Christ, is holy . . .”; and so he comes to the words of Institution: “in the night in which He was betrayed, taking bread in His holy and blameless hands and looking up to Thee, His God and Father, and breaking He gave to His disciples saying: This is the Mystery of the New Testament; take of it, eat. This is My body, broken for many for the remission of sins. So also having mixed the cup of wine and water, and having blessed it, He gave to them saying: Drink you all of this. This is My blood shed for many for the remission of sins. Do this in memory of Me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you announce My death until I come.”

Then follow the Anamimnesis (“Remembering therefore His suffering and death and resurrection and return to heaven and His future second coming . . .”), the Epiklesis or invocation (“sending Thy Holy Spirit, the witness of the sufferings of the Lord Jesus to this sacrifice, that He may change this bread to the body of thy Christ and this cup to the blood of thy Christ . . .”), and a sort of litany (the great Intercession) for the Church, clergy, the Emperor, and for all sorts and conditions of men, which ends with a doxology, “and all the people say: Amen.” In this litany is a curious petition (after that for the Emperor and the army) which joins the saints to living people for whom the bishop prays: “We also offer to thee for (‘upér) all thy holy and eternally well-pleasing patriarchs, prophets, just apostles, martyrs, confessors, bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, readers, singers, virgins, widows, laymen, and all those whose names thou knowest.” After the Kiss of Peace (The peace of God be with you all) the deacon calls upon the people to pray for various causes which are nearly the same as those of the bishop’s litany and the bishop gathers up their prayers in a collect. He then shows them the Holy Eucharist, saying: “Holy things for the holy” and they answer: “One is holy, one is Lord, Jesus Christ in the glory of God the Father, etc.” The bishop gives the people Holy Communion in the form of bread, saying to each: “The body of Christ,” and the communicant “answers Amen.” The deacon follows with the chalice, saying: “The blood of Christ, chalice of life.” R. “Amen.” While they receive, the xxxiii Psalm (I will bless the Lord at all times) is said. After Communion the deacons take what is left of the Blessed Sacrament to the tabernacles (pastophória). There follows a short thanksgiving, the bishop dismisses the people and the deacon ends by saying: “Go in peace.”

Throughout this liturgy the compiler supposes that it was drawn up by the Apostles and he inserts sentences telling us which Apostle composed each separate part, for instance: “And I, James, brother of John the son of Zebedee, say that the deacon shall say at once: ‘No one of the catechumens,’“ etc. The second book of the Apostolic Constitutions contains the outline of a liturgy (hardly more than the rubrics) which practically coincides with this one. All the liturgies of the Antiochene class follow the same general arrangement as that of the Apostolic Constitutions. Gradually the preparation of the oblation (Prothesis, the word also used for the credence table), before the actual liturgy begins, develops into an elaborate service. The preparation for the lessons (the little Entrance) and the carrying of the oblation from the Prothesis to the altar (the great Entrance) become solemn processions, but the outline of the liturgy: the Mass of the Catechumens and their dismissal; the litany; the Anaphora beginning with the words “Right and just” and interrupted by the Sanctus; the words of Institution; Anamimnesis, Epiklesis and Supplication for all kinds of people at that place; the Elevation with the words “Holy things to the holy”; the Communion distributed by the bishop and deacon (the deacon having the chalice); and then the final prayer and dismissal-this order is characteristic of all the Syrian and Palestinian uses, and is followed in the derived Byzantine liturgies. Two points in that of the Apostolic Constitutions should be noticed. No saints are mentioned by name and there is no Our Father. The mention of saints’ names, especially of the “All-holy Mother of God,” spread considerably among Catholics after the Council of Ephesus (431), and prayers invoking her under that title were then added to all the Catholic liturgies. The Apostolic Constitutions have preserved an older form unchanged by the development that modifies forms in actual use. The omission of the Lord’s Prayer is curious and unique. It has at any rate nothing to do with relative antiquity. In the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” (VIII, ii, 3) people are told to pray three times a day “as the Lord commanded in his Gospel: Our Father,” etc.

II. THE GREEK LITURGY OF ST. JAMES

Of the Antiochene liturgies drawn up for actual use, the oldest one and the original from which the others have been derived is the Greek Liturgy of St. James. The earliest reference to it is Canon xxxii of the Quinisextum Council (II Trullan A. D. 692), which quotes it as being really composed by St. James, the brother of Our Lord. The Council appeals to this liturgy in defending the mixed chalice against the Armenians. St. Jerome (died 420) seems to have known it. At any rate at Bethlehem he quotes as a liturgical form the words “who alone is sinless,” which occur in this Liturgy (Adv. Pel., II, xxiii). The fact that the Jacobites use the same liturgy in Syriac shows that it existed and was well established before the Monophysite schism. The oldest manuscript is one of the tenth century formerly belonging to the Greek monastery at Messina and now kept in the University library of that city. The Greek Liturgy of St. James follows in all its essential parts that of the Apostolic Constitutions. It has preparatory prayers to be said by the priest and deacon and a blessing of the incense. Then begins the Mass of the Catechumens with the little Entrance. The deacon says a litany (‘ekténeia), to each clause of which the people answer “Kyrie eleison.” Meanwhile the priest is saying a prayer to himself, of which only the last words are said aloud, after the litany is finished. The singers say the Trisagion, “Holy God, holy Strong One, holy Immortal One, have mercy on us.” The practice of the priest saying one prayer silently while the people are occupied with something different is a later development. The Lessons follow, still in the older form, that is, long portions of both Testaments, then the prayers for the catechumens and their dismissal. Among the prayers for the catechumens occurs a reference to the cross (lift up the horn of the Christians by the power of the venerable and life-giving cross) which must have been written after St. Helen found it (c. 326) and which is one of the many reasons for connecting this liturgy with Jerusalem. When the catechumens are dismissed the deacon tells the faithful to “know each other,” that is to observe whether any stranger is still present. The great Entrance which begins the Mass of the Faithful is already an imposing ceremony. The incense is blessed, the oblation is brought from the Prothesis to the altar while the people sing the Cherubikon, ending with three Alleluias. (The text is different from the Byzantine Cherubikon.) Meanwhile the priest says another prayer silently. The creed is then said; apparently at first it was a shorter form like the Apostles’ Creed. The Offertory prayers and the litany are much longer than those in the Apostolic Constitutions. There is as yet no reference to an Iconostasis (screen dividing the choir or place of the clergy). The beginning of the “Anaphora” (Preface) is shorter. The words of Institution and Anamimnesis are followed immediately by the Epiklesis; then comes the Supplication for various people. The deacon reads the “Diptychs” of the names of the people for whom they pray; then follows a list of Saints beginning with “our all-holy, immaculate and highly praised Lady Mary, Mother of God and ever-virgin.” Here are inserted two hymns to Our Lady obviously directed against the Nestorian heresy. The Lord’s Prayer follows with an introduction and Embolismos. The Host is shown to the people with the same words as in the Apostolic Constitutions, and then broken, and part of it is put into the chalice while the priest says: “The mixing of the all-holy Body and the precious Blood of Our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Before Communion Psalm xxxiii is said. The priest says a prayer before his Communion. The deacon communicates the people. There is no such form as: “The Body of Christ”; he says only: “Approach in the fear of the Lord,” and they answer “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” What is left of the Blessed Sacrament is taken by the deacon to the Prothesis; the prayers of thanksgiving are longer than those of the Apostolic Constitutions. The Liturgy of St. James as it now exists is a more developed form of the same use as that of the Apostolic Constitutions. The prayers are longer, the ceremonies have become more elaborate, incense is used continually, and the preparation is already on the way to become the complicated service of the Byzantine Prothesis. There are continual invocations of saints; but the essential outline of the Rite is the same. Besides the references to the Holy Cross, one allusion makes it clear that it was originally drawn lup for the Church of Jerusalem. The first supplication after the Epiklesis is: “We offer to thee, O Lord, for Thy holy places which Thou hast glorified by the divine appearance of Thy Christ and by the coming of Thy holy Spirit, especially for the holy and illustrious Sion, mother of all churches and for Thy holy Catholic and apostolic Church throughout the world.” This liturgy was used throughout Syria and Palestine, that is throughout the Antiochene Patriarchate (Jerusalem was not made a patriarchal see till the Council of Ephesus, 431) before the Nestorian and Monophysite schisms. It is possible to reconstruct a great part of the use of the city of Antioch while St. John Chrysostom was preaching there (370–397) from the allusions and quotations in his homilies (Probst, Liturgie des IV. Jahrh., II, i, v, 156, 198). It is then seen to be practically that of St. James: indeed whole passages are quoted word for word as they stand in St. James or in the Apostolic Constitutions.

The Catechisms of St. Cyril of Jerusalem were held in 348; the first eighteen are addressed to the Competentes (photizómenoi) during Lent, the last six to the neophytes in Easter week. In these he explains, besides Baptism and Confirmation, the holy liturgy. The allusions to the liturgy are carefully veiled in the earlier ones because of the disciplina arcani; they became much plainer when he speaks to people just baptized, although even then he avoids quoting the baptism form or the words of consecration. From these Catechisms we learn the order of the liturgy at Jerusalem in the middle of the fourth century. Except for one or two unimportant variations, it is that of St. James (Probst, op. cit., II, i, ii, 77–106). This liturgy appears to have been used in either language, Greek at Antioch, Jerusalem, and the chief cities where Greek was commonly spoken, Syriac in the country. The oldest form of it now extant is the Greek version. Is it possible to find a relationship between it and other parent-uses? There are a number of very remarkable parallel passages between the Anaphora of this liturgy and the Canon of the Roman Mass. The order of the prayers is different, but when the Greek or Syriac is translated into Latin there appear a large number of phrases and clauses that are identical with ours. It has been suggested that Rome and Syria originally used the same liturgy and that the much-disputed question of the order of our Canon may be solved by reconstructing it according to the Syrian use (Drews, Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Kanons). Mgr. Duchesne and most authors, on the other hand, are disposed to connect the Gallican Liturgy with that of Syria and the Roman Mass with the Alexandrine use (Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien, 54).

III. THE SYRIAC LITURGIES

After the Monophysite schism and the Council of Chalcedon (451) both Melchites and Jacobites continued using the same rite. But gradually the two languages became characteristic of the two sides. The Jacobites used only Syriac (their whole movement being a national revolt against the Emperor), and the Melchites, who were nearly all Greeks in the chief towns, generally used Greek. The Syriac Liturgy of St. James now extant is not the original one used before the schism, but a modified form derived from it by the Jacobites for their own use. The preparation of the oblation has become a still more elaborate rite. The kiss of peace comes at the beginning of the Anaphora and after it this Syriac liturgy follows the Greek one almost word for word, including the reference to Sion, the mother of all churches. But the list of saints is modified; the deacon commemorates the saints “who have kept undefiled the faith of Nicæa, Constantinople and Ephesus”; he names “James the brother of Our Lord” alone of the Apostles and “most chiefly Cyril who was a tower of the truth, who expounded the incarnation of the Word of God, and Mar James and Mar Ephraim, eloquent mouths and pillars of our holy Church.” Mar James is Baradaï, through whom they have their orders, and from whom their name (543). Is Ephraim the Patriarch of Antioch who reigned there from 539–545, but who was certainly not a Monophysite? The list of saints, however, varies considerably; sometimes they introduce a long list of their patrons (Renaudot, Lit. Orient. Col., II, 101–103). This liturgy still contains a famous clause. Just before the lessons the Trisagion is sung. That of the Greek rite is: “Holy God, holy Strong one, holy Immortal one, have mercy on us.” The Syriac rite adds after “holy Immortal one” the words: “who wast crucified for us.” This is the addition made by Peter the Dyer (gnapheús, fullos) Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch (458–471), which seemed to the Orthodox to conceal Monophysite heresy and which was adopted by the Jacobites as a kind of proclamation of their faith. In the Syriac use a number of Greek words have remained. The deacon says stômen kalôs in Greek and the people continually cry out “Kurillison,” just as they say “Amen” and “Alleluia” in Hebrew. Short liturgical forms constantly become fossilized in one language and count almost as inarticulate exclamations. The Greek ones in the Syriac liturgy show that the Greek language is the original. Besides the Syriac Liturgy of St. James, the Jacobites have a large number of other Anaphoras, which they join to the common Preparation and Catechumen’s Mass. The names of sixtly-four of these Anaphoras are known. They are attributed to various saints and Monophysite bishops; thus, there are the Anaphoras of St. Basil, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Peter, St. Clement, Dioscurus of Alexandrian, John Maro, James of Edessa (died 708), Severus of Antioch (died 518), and so on. There is also a shortened Anaphora of St. James of Jerusalem. Renaudot prints the texts of forty-two of these liturgies in a Latin translation. They consist of different prayers, but the order is practically always that of the Syriac St. James Liturgy, and they are really local modifications of it. A letter written by James of Edessa (c. 624) to a certain priest named Timothy describes and explains the Monophysite Liturgy of his time (Assemani, Bibl. Orient., I, 479–486). It is the Syrian St. James. The Liturgy of the Presanctified of St. James (used on the week days of Lent except Saturdays) follows the other one very closely. There is the Mass of the Catechumens with the little Entrance, the Lessons, Mass of the Faithful and great Entrance, litanies, Our Father, breaking of the Host, Communion, thanksgiving, and dismissal. Of course the whole Eucharistic prayer is left out-the oblations are already consecrated as they lie on the Prothesis before the great Entrance (Brightman, op. cit., 494–501).

IV. THE PRESENT TIME

The Jacobites in Syria and Palestine still use the Syriac Liturgy of St. James, as do also the Syrian Uniates. The Orthodox of the two Patriarchates, Antioch and Jerusalem, have forsaken their own use for many centuries. Like all the Christians in communion with Constantinople, they have adopted the Byzantine Rite. This is one result of the extreme centralization towards Constantinople that followed the Arab conquests of Egypt, Palestine, and Syria. The Melchite Patriarchs of those countries, who had already lost nearly all their flocks through the Monophysite heresy, became the merest shadows and eventually even left their sees to be ornaments of the courts at Constantinople. It was during that time, before the rise of the new national churches, that the Byzantine Patriarch developed into something very like a pope over the whole Orthodox world. And he succeeded in foisting the liturgy, calendar, and practices of his own patriarchate on the much older and more venerable sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. It is not possible to say exactly when the older uses were forsaken for that of Byzantium. Theodore Balsamon says that by the end of the twelfth century the Church of Jerusalem followed the Byzantine Rite. By that time Antioch had also doubtless followed suit. There are, however, two small exceptions. In the island of Zakynthos and in Jerusalem itself the Greek Liturgy of St. James was used on one day each year, 23 October, the feast of St. James the “brother of God.” It is still so used at Zakynthos, and in 1886 Dionysios Latas, Metropolitan of Zakynthos, published an edition of it for practical purposes. At Jerusalem even this remnant of the old use had disappeared. But in 1900 Lord Damianos, the Orthodox Patriarch, revived it for one day in the year, not 23 October but 31 December. It was first celebrated again in 1900 (on 30 December as an exception) in the church of the Theological College of the Holy Cross. Lord Epiphanios, Archbishop of the River Jordan, celebrated, assisted by a number of concelebrating priests. The edition of Latas was used, but the Archimandrite Chrysostomos Papadopoulos has been commissioned to prepare another and more correct edition (Echos d’Orient, IV, 247, 248). It should be noted finally that the Maronites use the Syrian St. James with a few very slight modifications, and that the Nestorian, Byzantine, and Armenian Liturgies are derived from that of Antioch.

TEXTS. -Leitourgíai tôn ‘agíon patéron ‘Iakóbou toû ‘apostólou kaí ‘adelphothéou, Basileíou megálou, ‘;Ioánnou toû Chrusostómou (Paris, 1560-the textus receptus), reprinted by FRONTON LE DUC, Bibliotheca veterum patrum (Paris, 1624), II, and in a Venetian edition (en tê Salakáte, 1645); BRIGHTMAN, Liturgies Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1896), I (Apost. Const., 3–27; Greek St. James, 31–68; Syriac St. James, in English, 69–110; St. Cyril of Jer., 464–470; St. John Chrys., 470–481); James of Edessa, 490–494; Presanct. Lit. of St. James, 494–501); DIONYSIOS LATAS, E theía leitourgía toû ‘agíou ‘endóksou ‘apostólou ‘Iakóbou toû ‘adelphoû théou kaì prótou ierárchou tôn ‘Ierosolúmen ‘ekdotheîsa metà diatákseos kaì semeióseon (Zakynthos, 1886); NEALE, The Liturgies of S. Mark, St. James, S. Clement, S. Chrysostom, S. Basil (London, 1875), St. Clement, i. e. Ap. Const., 85–108, Greek St. James, 39–78; Missale Syriacum iuxta ritum antiochenæ Syrorum (Rome, 1843-for the Uniats). The various liturgical books used by the Syrian Uniats are published at Beirût. Missale Chaldaicum iuxta ritum ecclesiæ nationis Maronitarum (Rome, 1716); BODERIANUS, De ritibus baptismi et sacra synaxis apud Syros christianos receptis (Antwerp, 1572, Syriac and Latin). This contains the Ordo Communis only of the Jacobites, that is their Mass of the Catechumens, the rubrics and parts of the Mass of the Faithful, not the Anaphora. The complete Jacobite texts are not published (cf. Brightman, lv-lvi).

TRANSLATIONS. -THUSAIS: liturgiæ sive missæ SS. patrum Iacobi apostoli & fratris Domini, Basilii magni, Joannis Chrysostomi (Paris, 1560), reprinted in the Bibliotheca SS. Patrum (Paris, 1577), etc.; RENAUDOT, Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio (2nd ed., Frankfort, 1847), II (Syriac St. James, 1–44, Shorter St. James, 126–132, other Anaphoras, 134–500); BRETT, A Collection of the Principal Liturgies (London, 1720); NEALE, History of the Holy Eastern Church (London, 1850) I, 531–701; NEALE AND LITTLEDALE, The Liturgies of SS. Mark, James, Clement, Chrysostom and Basil and the Church of Malabar translated (London, 1868); Antenicene Christian Library (Edinburgh, 1872), XXIV; PROBST, Liturgie der drei ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten (Tübingen, 1870), 295–318; STORFF, Die griechischen Liturgien der hl. Jakobus, Markus, Basilius, und Chrysostomus (Kempten, 1877), 30–78.

DISSERTATIONS. -Besides, the introductions and notes in RENAUDOT, PROBST, BRIGHTMAN, NEALE, STORFF (op. cit.), FUNK, Die apostolischen Konstitutionen (Rottenburg, 1891); ALLATIUS, Epistoli ad Bartholdum Nihusium de liturgiâ Iacobi in Summiktá (Cologne, 1653), 175–208, an attempt to prove that the liturgy really was written by St. James; BONA, Rerum liturgiarum libri duo (Turin, 1747), I, 129 sqq.; LIGHTFOOT, Disquisitio de St. Iacobi Liturgiâ f(op. posthuma, 1699); PALMER, Origines liturgica (4th ed., London, 1845), 15–44; TROLLOPE, The Greek Liturgy of St. James (Edinburgh, 1848); PROBST, Liturgie des IV. Jahrhunderts und derem Reform (Münster, 1893); DUCHESNE, Origines du culte chrétien (2nd ed., Paris, 1898), 55–67; DREWS, Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Kanons in der römischen Messe (Tübingen, 1902).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Antiochus of Palestine

A monk of the seventh century, said to have been born near Ancyra (Asia Minor), lived first as a solitary, then became a monk and Abbot of the famous laura or monastery of St. Saba near Jerusalem. He witnessed the Persian invasion of Palestine in 614, and the massacre of forty-four of his companions by the Bedouins. Five years after the conquest of the Holy Land by Chosroes, Ancyra was taken (619) and destroyed by the Persians, which compelled the monks of the neighbouring monastery of Attaline to leave their home, and to move from place to place. As they were, naturally, unable to carry many books with them, the Abbot Eustathius asked his friend Antiochus to compile an abridgment of Holy Scripture for their use, and also a short account of the martyrdom of the forty-four monks of St. Sabbas. In compliance with this request he wrote a work known as “Pandects of Holy Scripture” (in 130 chapters, mistaken by the Latin translator for as many homilies). It is a collection of moral sentences, drawn from Scripture and from early ecclesiastical writers. He also wrote an “Exomologesis” or prayer, in which he relates the miseries that had befallen Jerusalem since the Persian invasion, and begs the divine mercy to heal the Holy City’s many ills (P.L., LXXXIX, 1422–1856). These works seem to have been written in the period between the conquest of Palestine by Chosroes and its reconquest by the Emperor Heraclius (628). The introductory chapter of the “Pandects” tells of the martyrdom referred to; its last chapter contains a list of heretics from Simon Magus to the Monophysite followers of Severus of Antioch. The book is of special value for its extracts of works no longer existing; the writer had an interest, then uncommon, in early Christian literature.

Batiffol in dict. de la Bible s.v.; Vailhe in Dict. de theol. oath. s.v.; Peters in Kirchenlex., s.v.; Bardenhewer, Patrologie, (2d ed. Freiburg, 1901), 505; Ehrhard, in Krumbacher, Gesch. d. byzant. Litt., (2d ed. Munich, 1867), I, 114.

FRANCIS W. GREY

Antipater of Bostra

(In Arabia) in the fifth century, one of the foremost Greek prelates of the Roman Orient; flourished about 460. He was a pronounced opponent of 0rigen. Little is known of his life, save that he was held in high esteem by his contemporaries, civil and ecclesiastical. He is rated among the authoritative ecclesiastical writers by the Fathers of the Seventh General Council (787). There have reached us, in the acts of this council, only a few fragments of his lengthy refutation of the “Apology for Origen” put together (c. 309) by Pamphilus and Eusebius of Caesarea. The work of Antipater was looked on as a masterly composition, and, as late as 540 was ordered to be read in the churches of the East as an antidote to the spread of the Origenistic heresies (Cotelier, Monument. Eccl. Graec., III, 362). He also wrote a treatise against the Apollinarists, known only in brief fragments, and several homilies, two of which have reached us in their entirety. His memory is kept on 13 June.

The literary relics of Antipater are found in P.G., LXXXV, 1763–96; see also: Vailhé, in Dict. de théol. cath,., I, 1440; Acta SS., 13 June; Venables in Dict. Christ. Biog., I, 122; Bardenhewer, Patrologie (2d ed. 1901), 469.

F.M. RUDGE

Antipatris

A titular see of Palestine, whose episcopal list is known from 449 to 451 (Gams,( 452). It was built by Herod the Great in honour of his father Antipatris, and is mentioned in Acts 23:31. “Its ancient name and site,” says Smith, “are still preserved by a Muslim village of considerable size . . . about three hours north of Jaffa.”

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 147; JACQUIER, in BIF., Dict de la Bible (1891), s.v.

Antiphellos

Now ANTEPHELO, or ANDIFILO, a titular see of Lycia, on the south coast of Asia Minor, at the head of a small bay; once suffragan of Myra. Little is known of its history.

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 147; MAS LATRIE, Trésor de Chronol. (Paris, 1895), 1987.

Antiphon

(From the Greek ἀντίφωνον, sounding against, responsive sound, singing opposite, alternate chant; Latin, antiphona; French, antienne.) As at present commonly understood, an antiphon consists of one or more psalm verses or sentences from Holy Scripture which are sung or simply recited before and after each psalm and the Magnificat during Matins and Vespers. The verse which serves as the antiphon text contains the fundamental thought of the psalm to which it is sung, and indicates the point of view from which it is to be understood. In other words, it gives the key to the liturgical and mystical meaning of the psalm with regard to the feast on which it occurs. In a wider sense the name antiphon was also applied to the Introit, Offertory and Communion of the Mass in the early Church. Antiphona ad Introitum, i.e. the antiphon sung by the schola cantorum while the celebrant prepared for the Holy Sacrifice and during his solemn entry into the sanctuary, has become our present Introit. It is said to have originated with Pope Celestine I (432) who ordained that the Psalms of David be sung antiphonally before the beginning of the Mass. The verse serving as the antiphon text would be repeated on an independent melody after every verse of the psalm, which was sung to the end in that manner unless the celebrant gave the signal to the prior chorae to intone the doxology, with which the psalm ended, and after which the litany or Kyrie followed. Later, as the preliminary ceremonies which this elaborate performance was intended to accompany became shorter, the antiphon would be repeated after every second, third, or fourth verse of the psalm, before and after the Gloria Patri and after the Sicut erat. Since the Council of Trent the antiphon has been sung in the manner which is customary today, that is, before and after the psalm. Of the psalm itself, originally sung complete, only one verse and the doxology have been retained for any Introit, so that instead of the psalm being the main feature, the antiphon is now of paramount importance. The present “Graduale Romanum” contains only a few examples of the early manner of singing the Introit. One of these is the mode in which the Nunc Dimittis is sung during the ceremony of distributing the blessed candles on the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The verse, Lumen ad revelationem gentium etc., is chosen as the antiphon text and repeated after every verse until the end is reached.

The melodies to which the antiphon texts are sung, especially those preceding the Vesper psalms, are generally of a simple character. Seldom has any word two or three notes. Many of the melodies are entirely syllabic. Their melodic importance consists in their preparing the mind for the following psalm tune, to which they form a sort of prelude and of whose character they partake. It has been ascertained that there are only fory-seven typical melodies, each one of which, with slight melodic modifications, serves for several different texts. A remnant of the custom of repeating the antiphon after every psalm verse is found in the different endings of the psalm tunes. Sometimes one and sometimes another of the forty-seven typical antiphon melodies precedes any given psalm tune, according to the feast and the season. The various endings of the psalm tunes were intended to facilitate the entry on the part of the singers on the initial note of the antiphon, after having sung a verse of the psalm. The so-called antiphons of the Blessed Virgin Mary, “Alma Redemptoris Mater,” “Salve Regina,” “Ave Regina Coelorum,” and “Regina Coeli,” although originally sung in connection with psalms, from which they derive their name, have been sung as detached chants since the year 1239, when Pope Gregory IX ordered that one of them, according to the season, be sung at the end of the office. In a St. Gall MS. of the thirteenth century “Alma Redemptoris” and “Salve Regina” are part of the office for the feast of the Annuncation of the Blessed Virgin. A Paris MS. of the twelfth century assigns “Alma Redemptoris” and “Ave Regina” to the office or the feast of the Assumption. In a twelfth century antiphonary in St. Peter’s Basilica at Rome, “Regina Coeli” is assigned to the octave of Easter. The melodies to these texts are among the most beautiful in the whole Gregorian repertory. As they were intended to be sung by the congregation, they are of simple and graphic construction. They breathe a deeply religious spirit and are an efficacious means by which to reveal to the singer the mystical contents of the texts which they musically interpret. While the four antiphons in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary and those occurring in the Mass have been prolific texts for figured settings both with the masters of classic polyphony and with modern writers, those preceding the Vesper psalms are almost universally sung to the Gregorian melodies.

WAGNER, Einfuhrung in die gregorianischen Melodien (Freiburg, 1901); Id., Neumenkunde(Freiburg, 1905); GEVAERT, Les origines du chant liturgique (Ghent, 1890); DUCHESNE, Christian Worship (2d Eng. Ed., London, 1904); KIENLE Choralschule (Freiburg, 1884).

JOSEPH OTTEN

Antiphon (in the Greek Church)

(antiphonon)

Socrates, the church historian (Hist. Eccl., VI, viii), says that St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, the third in succession from St. Peter in that see, once had a vision of angels singing the praises of the Trinity in alternating hymns, and remembering his vision he gave this form of singing to the Church of Antioch. From there it spread to all other Churches. In the Greek Church the antiphon was not only retained as a form of singing, but it was made an integral part of the Mass, and also a part of the liturgical morning and evening services. It is especially known as a portion of the Greek Mass, and the divisions of this portion are known as the first, second, and third antiphons. While the choir is singing alternately the versicles of the antiphons the priest at the altar recites secretly the prayer of each antiphon. These antiphons come in the early part of the Mass, after the Great Synapte, or litany, with which the Mass opens, and they change according to the feast which is celebrated. They usually consist of three versicles and three responses, and each closes with “Glory be to the Father,” etc., with the response sung to it, as well as to “As it is now,” etc. The Greek Horologion (an Office book corresponding to the Roman Breviary) gives the different antiphons for the various feast-days during the year. The responses to the various versicles are usually the same. Where there are no special antiphons appointed for the Sunday, the Greek Orthodox churches in Russia and Greece usually sing Psalm cii for the first antiphon, Psalm cxlv for the second antiphon (which two are often called the Typica), and the Beatitudes (Matt., v, 3–12) for the third antiphon, singing the verses alternately instead of the versicles and responses. In the Greek Catholic churches of Austria, Hungary, Italy, and the United States, where there are no special antiphons for the day, they sing Psalm lxv for the first antiphon, to each verse of which the antiphonal response is: “By the prayers of the Mother of God, O Saviour, save us,” and Psalm lxvi for the second antiphon, to each verse of which the response is “O Son of God, risen from the dead, save us who sing to thee, Alleluia,” and Psalm xciv for the third antiphon with the same antiphonal responses. If it be a weekday, however, the response to the second antiphon usually is: “By the prayers of the saints, O Saviour, save us,” while the response to the third antiphon is, “O Son of God, who art wonderful in thy Saints save us who sing to Thee, Alleluia.” The prayer of the first antiphon, recited secretly by the priest, is for the mercy of God upon the whole people; that of the second antiphon for the welfare of the Church and people; while the prayer of the third antiphon, asking that the prayers of the faithful may be granted, has been incorporated bodily into the Anglican Book of Common Prayer under the name of “A Prayer of St. Chrysostom.”

Besides the antiphons of the Mass there are also the antiphons of Vespers commonly called the kathismata, or psalms sung while seated, and the antiphons of matins called the anabathmoi, or psalms of degrees, as well as certain chants used on Holy Thursday, all of which are sung antiphonally. These latter are not usually known as antiphons, but are generally called by their special names.

Horologion to mega, (Propaganda Press, Rome,1876); CHARRON, Les saintes et divines liturgies de l’église grecque catholique orientale (Beirut and Paris, 1904); CLUGNET, Dictionnaire de noms liturgiques dans l’église grecque (Paris, 1895); ROBERTSON, The Divine Liturgies (London, 1894); BJERRING, Offices of the Oriental Church (New York, 1884); Sbornik Bogomoleni, (Peremysl, Galicia, 1890), 55–59.

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Antiphon (in Greek Liturgy)

The Greek Liturgy uses antiphons, not only in the Office, but also in the Mass, at Vespers, and at all the canonical Hours. Nor is this all; antiphons have their prescribed place in almost every liturgical function. The essence of antiphonal psalmody consists in the alternation set up between the soloists and the choir in the rendering of a psalm. About the fourth century, alternate singing which up to that time had been in use only in secular gatherings, found its way into meetings for liturgical worship. This does not, however, imply that the antiphonal chanting of psalms was a novelty in the fourth century, since it was used in the Synagogue, and it is not at all likely that the Church would have waited so long before assimilating a practice highly conducive to the due order of public prayer. The real novelty consisted in the introduction of a more ornate melody into antiphonal psalmody. The soloist chanted the text of the psalm, and at stated intervals the people broke in upon them with a refrain. The Apostolic Constitutions speak of a custom, which, Eusebius tells as, was in use in his time. It had come to be no longer a matter of an interjected refrain, foreign to the text of the psalm, or linked onto each verse, but of a very short ending, sometimes a mere syllable, which the whole people chanted, drowning the voices of the soloists and finishing the word or phrase which they had left unfinished. This latter method seems to have been general in Syria, and had been used by the Jews at an earlier period. The refrain, a kind of exclamation foreign to the context, recurring at stated intervals, consisted either of one word, or of two or three, though sometimes of a whole verse or troparium. This antiphonal method was also in use among the Jews, and is easily recognizable in the case of certain psalms. It was this method which the Church took as her own. St. Athanasius, speaking of the place of the Alleluia (q.v.) in the psalms, calls it a “refrain” or a “response.” The Alleluia is, as a matter of fact, the interjectional refrain of most frequent occurrence. It is referred to by Tertullian, from whose time onward this exclamation retains its place in ecclesiastical chant. In the Syrian and Egyptian liturgies of the fourth century its role is a prominent one.

The formula used as a refrain varied in length, as has been already stated, but the general tendency was probably towards brevity. A “Canon of the Antiphons,” published by Cardinal Pitra, includes some very concise formulas, among which the Alleluia often recurs. The others are, as a rule, drawn from the first verse of their respective psalms, while similar ones are interjected between the verses of the Scripture canticles. These endings may be compared with those of the Roman litanies: “Miserere nobis,” “Exaudi nos, Domine,” “Te rogamus, audi nos.” Even when the longer refrain took the place of the exclamation, it did not exceed at the most, a phrase of some fifteen words, St. Athanasius tells us that the custom was due to a desire to allow the people a share in the liturgy, while sparing them the necessity of learning whole psalms by heart, which, indeed, the mass of them would have been unable to do. A great many texts might be quoted in the Greek world alone, all showing that the reader or singer (cantor) recited the whole psalm, but that the response of the crowd broke in upon the recitation at regular intervals. St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and Callimicus, all testify to this custom. St. Basil, in his letter to the faithful of Neo-Caesaraea, writes as follows: “Leaving to one the duty of intoning the melody, the others answer him.” The same custom prevailed at Constantinople in 536 for the singing of the Trisagion. Nor should a signal instance be passed over in silence, i.e. the hymn of St. Methodius in his “Banquet of the Ten Virgins,” composed prior to the year 311. Each alphabetical strophe sung by the bridesmaid, Thecla, is followed by a uniform refrain, rendered by the whole choir of virgins.

The antiphonal system is, therefore, found to be characterized by the interjection of a refrain, or of a simple exclamation. This system did not alter the customary method, but merely added a new and accessory element to it. The structure of the antiphon thus consists of hymn-like strophes, interspersed with verses of Scripture, whereas the response is drawn from the psalm itself. In the psalmus responsorius, moreover, all present take up the refrain, while in the case of the antiphon, the hymn-like strophes are rendered alternately by the choir. The custom of calling alternate psalmody antiphonal is probably due to this fact. The hymn-writers found in these strophes inexhaustible material for elaboration, so that, little by little, the verses of the psalms had to give place to the additional strophes. There exist examples of psalms or groups of psalms reduced in this way to three or four verses, and sometimes, even to a single verse.

PETIT in Dict. d’arch. chrét. I, 2461–88.

H. LECLERCQ

Antiphonary

(Lat. antiphonarium, antiphonarius, antiphonarius liber, antiphonale; Gr. ‘antíphonon antiphon, antiphone, anthem)

One of the present liturgical books intended for use in choro (i. e. in the liturgical choir), and originally characterized, as its name implies, by the assignment to it principally of the antiphons used in various parts of the Roman liturgy. It thus included generically the antiphons and antiphonal chants sung by cantor, congregation, and choir at Mass (antiphonarium Missarum, or graduale) and at the canonical Hours (antiphonarium officii); but now it refers only to the sung portions of the Divine Office or Breviary. Other English equivalents for antiphonary are antiphonar (still in reputable use) and antiphoner (considered obsolete by some English lexicographers, but still sometimes used in current liteature). In the “Prioresses Tale” of Chaucer it occurs in the form “antiphonere”:

He Alma Redemptoris herde synge

As children lerned hir antiphonere.

The word Antiphonary had in the earlier Middle Ages sometimes a more general, sometimes a more restricted meaning. In its present meaning it has also been variously and insufficiently defined as a “Collection of antiphons in the notation of Plain Chant,” and as a liturgical book containing the antiphons “and other chants.” In its present complete form it contains, in plain-chant notation, the music of all the sung portions of the Roman Breviary immediately placed with the texts, with the indications of the manner of singing such portions as have a common melody (such as versicles and responses, the Psalms, the Lessons, the Chapters). But the Lessons of Matins (First Nocturn) in the triduum of Holy Week, styled “Lamentations,” have a melody proper to themselves, which is not therefore merely indicated but is placed immediately with the texts of the Lessons. The most recent official edition of the Roman antiphonary is that known generally as the “Ratisbon edition,” and commended for use in all the churches of the Catholic world by Pius IX and Leo XIII. Its title is: “Antiphonarium et Psalterium juxta ordinem Breviarii Romani cum cantu sub auspicis Pii IX et Leonis XIII Pont. Max. reformato. Curâ et auctoritate S. Rituum Congregationis digestum Romæ.” (Antiphonary and Psaltery according to the order of the Roman Breviary, with the chant as reformed under the auspices of Pope Pius IX and Leo XIII. Arranged at Rome under the supervision of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.) The first of these volumes to be issued was that entitled: “Tomus II. continens Horus Diurnus Breviarii Romani (Vesperale),” and contained the antiphons, psalms, hymns, and versicles of the Canonical Hours styled Horæ Diurnæ, i. e. Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, Compline. It comprised in one volume what in some editions had been distributed in several, such as the “Antiphonarium” (in a very restricted sense), the “Psalterium,” the “Hymnarium,” the “Responsoriale.” The Office of Matins was divided into the other two volumes, one of which contained the invitatories, antiphons, hymns, etc., of Matins for the Proprium de Tempore (Proper of the Season), and the other, for the Commune Sanctorum (Common Office of the Saints) and the Proprium Sanctorum (Proper Office of the Saints). A brief study of the divisions and arrangement of the Marquess of Bute’s translation into English of the Roman Breviary will make clear from the above description the general character of a complete Roman antiphonary. It is proper to add here that this Ratisbon edition has lost its authentic and official character by virtue of the “Motu proprio” (22 November, 1903), and the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (8 January, 1904). A new edition of the liturgical books is in preparation, of which the first volume issued is the “Kyriale.” The volumes of the Ratisbon edition are widely used in Germany, Ireland, and America. They may still be used, as it probably will be some years before the complete Vatican edition (as it is called) appears. The change from the Ratisbon to the Vatican edition is, however, to be made gradually but rapidly. While the former edition was “commended” for use, the latter is “commanded” for use. Into the various reasons for the rejection by Pope Pius X of the Ratisbon edition and the necessary substitution therefor of the Vatican edition, this is not the place to enter. It is sufficient and appropriate to say that both the texts and the melodies are to be revised in order to bring them into conformity with the results of recent palæographic studies in Gregorian chant.

In order to show as clearly as possible the exact position of the antiphonary (as the word is now used) amongst the liturgical books, it is proper to recall that the Roman Missal contains all the texts used at Mass; the Roman Breviary, all the texts used in the Divine Office, or Canonical Hours. While in the Missal, however, the introits, graduals, tracts, sequences, offertories, communions, as well as the texts of the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Benedictus, and Agnus Dei are both read by the celebrant and sung by the choir, their notation is not given, only the accentus, or chants, of the celebrant and deacon have the music furnished (such as the intonations of the Gloria, the Credo, the chants of the various Prefaces, the two forms of the Pater Noster, the various forms of the Ite, or Benedicamus, the Blessing of the Font, etc.). The omitted chants (styled concentus), which are to be sung by the choir, are contained in a supplementary volume called the “Graduale” or “Liber Gradualis” (anciently the “Gradale”). In like manner, the Roman Breviary, all of which, practically, is meant for singing in choro, contains no music; and the “Antiphonarium” performs for it a service similar to that of the “Liber Gradualis” for the Missal. Just as the “Liber Gradualis” and the “Antiphonarium” are, for the sake of convenience, separated from the Missal and Breviary respectively, so, for the same reason, still further subdivisions have been made of each. Into those of the “Graduale” we need not enter. The “Antiphonarium” has been issued in a compendious form “for the large number of churches in which the Canonical Hours of the Divine Office are sung only on Sundays and Festivals.” This “Antiphonarium Romanum compendiose redactum ex editionibus typicis” etc., includes, however, the chants for the Masses of Christmas, the triduum of Holy Week, and other desired Offices, and is issued in a single volume. Another separate volume is the “Vesperal,” which contains also the Office of Compline; and of the “Vesperal” a further compendium has been issued, entitled “Epitome ex Vesperali Romano.” All the above volumes are in the Ratisbon edition. Associated somewhat in scope with the “Antiphonarium” is the “Directorium Chorii,” which has been described as furnishing the ground plan for the antiphonary, inasmuch as it gives or indicates all the music of the chants (except the responsories after the Lessons), the tones of the psalms, the brief responsories, the “Venite Exsultemus,” the “Te Deum,” Litanies, etc. The text of all the psalms, the full melody of the hymns, and the new feasts were added to the “official edition” of the “Directorium” in 1888.

The word Antiphonary does not therefore clearly describe the contents of the volume or volumes thus entitled, in which are found many chants other than the antiphon (technically so called), such as hymns, responsories, versicles, and responses, psalms, the “Te Deum,” the “Venite Adoremus,” and so forth. The expression “antiphonal chant” would, however, comprise all these different kinds of texts and chants, since they are so constructed as to be sung alternately by the two divisions of the liturgical choir; and in this sense the word Antiphonary would be sufficiently inclusive in its implication. On the other hand, the corresponding volume for the chants of the Mass, namely the “Graduale,” or “Liber Gradualis,” includes many other kinds of liturgical texts and chants in addition to the graduals, such as introits, tracts, sequences, offertories, communions, as well as the fixed texts of the “Ordinarium Missæ,” or “Kyriale.” It may be said, then, that these two books receive the names “Antiphonarium” and “Graduale” from the technical name of the most important chants included in them. Fundamentally all the chants, whether of the Mass or of the Divine Office, are sung antiphonally, and might, with etymological propriety, be comprised in the one general musical title of “Antiphonary.”

The plain-chant melodies found in the Roman antiphonary and the “Graduale” have received the general title of “Gregorian Chant,” in honour of St. Gregory the Great (590–604), to whom a widespread, very ancient, and most trustworthy tradition, supported by excellent internal and external evidence, ascribes the great work of revising and collecting into one uniform whole the various texts and chants of the liturgy. Doubtless the ancient missal contained only those texts which were appointed for the celebrant, and did not include the texts which were to be chanted by the cantor and choir; and the “Antiphonarium Missæ” supplied the omitted texts for the choir as well as the chants in which the texts were to be sung. The immense importance of St. Gregory’s antiphonary is found in the enduring stamp it impressed on the Roman liturgy. Other popes had, a medieval writer assures us, given attention to the chants; and he specifies St. Damasus, St. Leo, St. Gelasius, St. Symmachus, St. John I, and Boniface II. It is true, also, that the chants used at Milan were styled, in honour of St. Ambrose (called the “Father of Church Song”), the Ambrosian Chant. But it is not known whether any collection of the chants had been made before that of St. Gregory, concerning which his ninth-century biographer, John the Deacon, wrote: Antiphonarium centonem . . . compilavit. The authentic antiphonary mentioned by the biographer has not as yet been found. What was its character? What is meant by cento? In the century in which John the Deacon wrote his life of the Saint, a cento meant the literary feat of constructing a coherent poem out of scattered excerpts from an ancient author, in such wise, for example, as to make the verses of Virgil sing the mystery of the Epiphany. The work, then, of St. Gregory was a musical cento, a compilation (centonem . . . compilavit) of pre-existing material into a coherent and well-ordered whole. This does not necessarily imply that the musical centonization of the melodies was the special and original work of the Saint, as the practice of constructing new melodies from separate portions of older ones had already been in vogue two or three centuries earlier than his day. But is it clear that the cento was one of melodies as well as of texts? In answer it might indeed by said that in the earliest ages of the Church the chants must have been so very simple in form that they could easily be committed to memory; and that most of the subsequently developed antiphonal melodies could be reduced to a much smaller number of types, or typical melodies, and could thus also be memorized. And yet it is scarcely credible that the developed melodies of St. Gregory’s time had never possessed a musical notation, had never been committed to writing. What made his antiphonary so very useful to chanters (as John the Deacon esteemed it) was probably his careful presentation of a revised text with a revised melody, written either in the characters used by the ancient authors (as set down in Boethius) or in neumatic notation. We know that St. Augustine, sent to England by the great Pope, carried with him a copy of the precious antiphonary, and founded at Canterbury a flourishing school of singing. That this antiphonary contained music we know from the decree of the Second Council of Cloveshoo (747) directing that the celebration of the feasts of Our Lord should, in respect to baptism, Masses, and music (in cantilenæ modo) follow the method of the book “which we received from the Roman Church.” That this book was the Gregorian antiphonary is clear from the testimony of Egbert, Bishop of York (732–766), who in his “De Institutione Catholicâ” speaks of the “Antiphonarium” and “Missale” which the “blessed Gregory . . . sent to us by our teacher, blessed Augustine.”

It will be impossible to trace here the progress of the Gregorian antiphonary throughout Europe, which resulted finally in the fact that the liturgy of Western Europe, with a very few exceptions, finds itself based fundamentally on the work of St. Gregory, whose labour comprised not merely the sacramentary, and the “Antiphonarium Missæ,” but extended also to the Divine Office. Briefly, it may be said that the next highly important step in the history of the antiphonary was its introduction into some dioceses of France where the liturgy had been Gallican, with ceremonies related to those of Milan and with chants developed by newer melodies. From the year 754 may be dated the change in favour of the Roman liturgy. St. Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz, on his return from an embassy to Rome, introduced the Roman liturgy into his diocese and founded the Chant School of Metz. Subsequently, under Charlemagne, French monks went to Rome to study the Gregorian tradition there, and some Roman teachers visited France. The interesting story of Ekkehard concerning Petrus and Romanus is not now credited, but a certain Petrus, according to Notker, was sent to Rome by Charlemagne, and finally, at St. Gall, trained the monks in the Roman style. Besides Metz and St. Gall, other important schools of chant were founded at Rouen and Soissons. In the course of time new melodies were added, at first characterized by the simplicity of the older tradition, but gradually becoming more free in extended intervals. With respect to German manuscripts, the earliest are found in a style of neumatic notation different from that of St. Gall, while the St. Gall manuscripts are derived not directly from the Italian but from the Irish-Anglo-Saxon. It is probable that before the tenth and eleventh centuries (at which period the St. Gall notation began to triumph in the German churches) the Irish and English missionaries brought with them the notation of the English antiphonary.

It would take too much space to record here the multiplication of antiphonaries and their gradual deterioration, both in text and in chant, from the Roman standard. The school of Metz began the process early. Commissioned by Louis the Pious to compile a “Graduale” and antiphonary, Amalarius, a priest of Metz, found a copy of the Roman antiphonary in the monastery of Corbie, and placed in his own compilation an M when he followed the Metz antiphonary, R when he followed the Roman, and an I C (asking Indulgence and Charity) when he followed his own ideas. His changes in the “Graduale” were few; in the antiphonary, many. Part of the revision which, together with Elisagarus he made in the responsories as against the Roman method, were finally adopted in the Roman antiphonary. In the twelfth century the commission established by St. Bernard to revise the antiphonarioes of Citeaux criticized with undue severity the work of Amalarius and Elisagarus and withal produced a faulty antiphonary for the Cistercian Order. The multiplication of antiphonaries, the differences in style of notation, the variations in melody and occasionally in text, need not be further described here. In France, expecially, the multiplication of liturgies subsequently became so great, that when Dom Guéranger, in the middle of the last century, started the work of introducing the Roman liturgy into that country, sixty out of eighty dioceses had their own local breviaries. Of the recourse had to medieval manuscripts, the reproduction of various antiphonaries and graduals by Pere Lambillotte, by the “Plain Song and Medieval Music Society,” and especially by Dom Mocquereau in the “Paléographie Musicale,” founded eighteen years ago (which has already given phototypic reproductions of antiphonaries of Einsiedeln, of St. Gall, of Hartker, of Montpellier, of the twelfth-century monastic antiphonary found in the library of the Chapter of Lucca, which, now in course of publication, illustrates the Guidonian notation that everywhere replaced, save in the school of St. Gall, the ambiguous method of writing the neums in campo aperto, as well as the proposed publication in facsimile by the Benedictines of Stanbrook, of the thirteenth- century Worcester antiphonary (Antiphonale Monasticum Wigarniense) it is not necessary to speak in detail. This appeal to early tradition has resulted in the action of Pius X which has taken away its official sanction from the Ratisbon edition. The Ratisbon “Graduale,” founded on the Medicean (which gave the chants as abbreviated and changed by Anerio and Suriano), and the “Antiphonarium” (which was based on the Antiphonale of Venice, 1585, with the responsories of Matins based on the Antwerp edition of 1611), will be replaced by the chants as found in the older codices.

That the word antiphonarium is, or was, quite elastic in its application, is shown by the interesting remark of Amalarius in his “Liber de ordine Antiphonarii,” written in the first half of the ninth century. The work which in Metz was called “Antiphonarius” was divided into three in Rome: “What we call ‘Graduale’ they style ‘Cantatorius’; and this, in accordance with their ancient custom, is still bound in a single volume in some of their churches. The remainder they divide into two parts: the one containing the responsories is called ‘Responsoriale’; while the other, containing antiphons, is called ‘Antiphonarius.’ I have followed our custom, and have placed together (mixtim) the responsories and the antiphons according to the order of the seasons in which our feasts are celebrated” (P. L., CV, 1245). The word “cantatory” explains itself as a volume containing chants; it was also called “Graduale,” because the chanter stood on a step (gradus) of the ambo, or pulpit, while singing the response after the Epistle. Other aqncient names for the antiphonary seem to have been “Liber Officialis” (Office Book) and “Capitulare” (a term sometimes used for the book containing the Epistles and Gospels). The changes in the antiphonary resulting from the reform of the Breviary ordered by the Council of Trent and carried out under Pius V will be appropriately treated under Breviary. Finally,it should be noted that the term antiphonarium, printed as a title to many volumes, is made to cover a very varied selection from the complete antiphonary. Sometimes it means practically a “Vesperale” (sometimes with Terce added; sometimes with various processional chants and blessings taken from the “Processionale” and “Rituale”). These volumes meet the local usages in certain dioceses with respect to Church services, and offer a practical manual for the worshipper, excluding portions of the Divine Office not sung in choir in some places and including those portions which are sung. (See also names of Antiphonaries, as ARMAGH, , etc.)

Much space would be required for even a partially satisfactory bibliography, which should comprise some notice of the publication of fragmentary and of complete sources (antiphonaries of the Mass and of the Divine Office), the commentaries upon them, the discussions raised concerning them, and the present-day activity in phototypic reproduction. The following brief list may prove serviceable, partly because of its indications of fuller bibliographic information, partly because of the comparatively easy accessibility of the works mentioned: (1) Complete works of TOMMASI (THOMASIUS), ed. VEZZOSI (Rome, 1749), IV, V, with published texts, editorial prefaces and notes, and excellent index at end of Vol. VII; (2) ZACCARIA, Bibliotheca Ritualis (Rome, 1776), I, 29 (Ant. of Mass), 161 (Ant. of Office), with many references. (3) MIGNE, P. L., with published texts, editorial prefaces, and notes, LXXVIII, 637–850; CIV, 329–340; CV, 1243- 1316; CLXXXII, 1121–32; LXXII, 579–606. (4) HOTHAM in Dict. of Christ. Antiq. with condensed presentation of the general character of an Ant. of Mass and an Ant. of the Office. (5) FRERE, The Sarum Gradual and the Gregorian Antiphonale Missarum, an excellent dissertation extracted from the Graduale Sarisburiense published for the Plainsong and Medieval Music Society (London, 1895), 101 quarto pages, with historical index and four facsimiles. (6) The magnificent series of the Paléographie Musicale, published quarterly (in quarto) for the last eighteen years under the direction of its founder, Dom Macquereau, provided with phototypic reproductions of complete antiphonaries with elaborate prefaces partly liturgical and partly musical in character (I and VII are out of print). It contains also the Ambrosian Antiphonary (V, VI) of the British Museum (Codex Addit., 34, 209) in plain-song square notation, with most extensive commentary. In addition to the complete sources reproduced, the Paléog. Mus. contains also many illustrations of fragmentary character, as examples of the various notations and signs and letters used in the evolution of the plain-chant notation. (7) The Introduction Graduale of the Paléog. Mus., I, 13–17, contains a partial list of publications (Nous n’avons nullement la prétention d’etre complet; la liste servit interminable . . . ) from about the middle of the nineteenth century down to the year 1889, with facsimiles; and (8, 9) a brief list of works published with ancient notation illustrated, from 1708 to 1807. (8) SOULLIER, Le plain chant, histoire et théorie (Tournai, 1894), vi, ix, xvi, xviii, xix. (9) WAGNER, tr. BOUR, Origine et développement du chant liturgique jusqu’à la fin du moyen äge (Tournai, 1904), with history of the musical evolution of Mass and Office, a chapter on the Gregorian controversy, etc., and a Supplement containing a tabulated statement of Les textes de l’Antiphonarium Missæ, 313–328. (10) LECLERCQ in Dict. d’arch. chrét. (Paris, 1905), s. v. Antiphonaire and Antiphonale dit grégorien followed by extensive bibliography.

H.T. HENRY

Gregorian Antiphonary

It is no longer possible to reconstruct completely a primitive Christian antiphonary; by a careful study of the text, however, we can establish the fact of its existence at a remote date. The extant historical texts permit us to infer that there have been, from the very earliest Christian times, groups and series of groups of antiphons. The original collection of melodies, however, grew up rather as the result of changes and combinations than of additions in the strict sense. A first and very ancient distinction seems to be that drawn between “idiomelodic” antiphon, or those fitted with special melodies, and “automelodic” anthems, adapted, by means of certain variations, to a common type of melody more or less frequently recurrent in the collection.

The list of melodies was, therefore, limited; indeed, at the early period in question, oral tradition may well have sufficed to hand down a certain number of musical formulas. When, later on, the ecclesiastical chants had been co-ordinated, it was found necessary to provide them with a notation. We learn, from several texts, that from the fourth century onward the singers commonly used either a book or a page bearing the notation of the liturgical passage which they were to sing; in many churches, however, about that time they had only the words before them, without the melody. The oldest trace of this discipline is to be found in an Egyptian papyrus belonging to the collection of the Archduke Rainier. It is ten inches wide by four inches long (26 cm. × 11 cm.); the handwriting points to about the year 300. On examination, the papyrus proves to have been long in use, the fingers of the singers having made holes where they held it. There is no great difficulty in reading it; the language used is the common Greek. We give the restored text and the translation:

“He who was born in Bethlehem, who was reared at Nazareth, and who lived in Galilee. We beheld a portent out of heaven. The shepherds who kept watch wondered at sign of the star. Falling on their knees, they said: “Glory be to The Father, alleluia; Glory be to The Son and to The Holy Spirit, Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia.” “Tybi the 5th (26 Dec.). Great is Saint John the Baptist, who preached penance in the whole world, for remission of our sins.”

These antiphons were, probably, connected with the liturgy of the Mass; the longer one, for the Feast of the Epiphany, which carried with it the commemoration of the baptism of Christ by St. John the Baptist, was divided into three parts, serving the purpose, successively, of refrains to sections of psalms. The shorter one was a simple acrostic and was repeated after each verse.

The document just transcribed is now the sole contemporary manuscript of the ancient liturgy. For a somewhat less remote period we possess, fortunately, one of very different importance, namely, the antiphonary known as the Gregorian.

The attribution to Pope Gregory I (590–604) of an official codification of the collection of antiphons occurring in the Divine Office has at frequent intervals, exercised the wit of the learned. At the end of the ninth century John the Deacon (d. c. 882) ascribed to Gregory I the compilation of the books of music used by the schola cantorum established at Rome, by that pope. The statement, formal as it was, left room for discussion. Goussainville was the first to express (1685) a doubt as to the authenticity of the Gregorian antiphonary. He was followed by Ellies du Pin, by Dom Denys de Sainte Marthe, and by Casimir Oudin, who added nothing noteworthy to the arguments of Goussainville. In 1729, J. Georges d’Eckhart suggested Pope Gregory II (715–731) as the author of a work which tradition had for centuries ascribed to Gregory I; his arguments were more or less trivial. In 1749, Dominic Georgi took up the defence of the traditional opinion; among other arguments he brought forward a text whose full bearing on the point at issue he hardly seems to have grasped. This was a text of Egbert of York which Georgi transferred to the end of his book, in the form of a note, so that it was neither seen nor made use of. When, three years later, Vezzozi again took up the question, he also overlooked this particular text, and voluntarily deprived himself of an important argument in favour of the authorship of Gregory I. In 1772 Gallicioli followed in the footsteps of Vezzozi, but renewed the latter’s concessions to the adversaries of Gregory I, nor did he make any secret of his surprise at the silence of Gregory of Tours, Isidore of Seville, and Bede, concerning that pope’s liturgical and musical labours. Being only partically convinced, he refrained from any conclusion, and left the matter undecided.

It was reopened by Gerbert in 1774, and by Zaccarin in 1781, the latter of whom at last lit upon the text of Egbert. Between 1781 and 1890 no one seems to have discussed, critically, the ascription of the antiphonary to any particular pope. Indeed, the question was supposed to have been settled by the discovery of the antiphonary itself, which was said to be none other than the St. Gall MS. 359 of the ninth or tenth century, containing an antiphonary between pages 24 and 158. This illusion passed through various phases from 1837 to 1848, when Danjou, in his turn, discovered the Gregorian antiphonary in a Montpellier manuscript of the tenth or eleventh century. In 1851 the Jesuit Lambillotte published a facsimile of the St. Gall manuscript, but the Gregorian question made no real progress.

The discussion concerning the antiphonary was suddenly revived, in 1890, by a public lecture delivered before the Belgian Academy on 27 October, 1899, by Monsieur F. A. Gevaert. The argument of the famous savant has been thus summarized by Dom Morin: “The productive period of church musical art extends from the pontificate of St. Celestine (422–432) to about the year 700, and is divided into two epochs. That of simple chant, the latest development of Græco-Roman music, includes the last years of the Western Empire, and the whole duration of the Gothic kingdom (425–563). The second, that of ornate chant, coincides with the preponderance at Rome of Byzantine policy and art. We meet with only one name, throughout the latter epoch, with which the creation of the Roman antiphonary seems to be connected; it is to Sergius I (687–701) that the honour belongs not only of having put the last touch to the Roman liturgical collections, but also of having recast all the ancient chants in accordance with a uniform melodic style, in harmony with the tendencies and tastes of the Byzantine influence. Finally, it was most probably the Syrian, Gregory III (731–741), the last but one of the Greek popes, who co-ordinated and united all the chants of the Mass in a collection similar to that which his predecessor, Agatho, had caused to be compiled for the anthems of the Day-Hours. As to the first Gregory, no evidence prior to that of John the Deacon alludes to the part ascribed to him. But there is evidence for the popes of Greek origin who lived at the end of the eighth century, notably for Agatho and Leo II. Indeed, in respect of the chant of the Church, it is very probable that the great pope took no immediate interest in this part of divine worship; much less do the antiphonary and the sacramentary which bear his name agree in any way with the ecclesiastical calendar of St. Gregory’s time; if they are at all rightly called Gregorian, it must be in reference either to Gregory II (715–731) or, more probably, to his successor, Gregory III, who died in 741.”

This theory called forth many refutations. Dom G. Morin set himself to prove that the traditional ascription was well founded. To this end he drew up, in chronological order, a kind of catena of the historical texts on which the tradition rested. In addition to the statement of John the Deacon, he brought forward that of Walafrid Strabo (d. 840), whose meaning is perfectly clear. These texts, however, are of a late date. The previously mentioned text of Egbert, Bishop of York (732–766), is nearly a hundred years earlier. In his dialogue entitled “De institutione ecclesiasticâ,” and in a sermon for the second fast of the fourth month, Egbert formally ascribes the composition of both the antiphonary and the sacramentary to Saint Gregory, the author of the conversion of England: “noster didascalus beatus Gregorius.” At a somewhat earlier period, Aldhelm of Sherburne (d. 709) also bore witness to St. Gregory’s authorship of the sacramentary, but said nothing concerning the antiphonary. In another essay Dom Morin reviewed critically all the texts relating to the antiphonary known as Gregorian. Though mostly of a late date, they owe to their mutual agreement an appreciable historical value. There are, however, other and more ancient texts, which, it would seem, ought to close the controversy. Dome Morin’s catena seems to end with Egbert, between whom and St. Gregory I there was an interval of at least one hundred and ten years. This, whatever an optimistic writer might be led to say, was no inconsiderable space of time; for an historian more concerned with truth than with fancy it was impossible to regard it as of no importance. Monsieur Gevaert laid stress (1895) on the silence of those writers who might be expected to supply the most direct evidence. The silence, as it proved, was less complete than had been supposed. In the very year (732) that Egbert was raised to the See of York another prelate, Acca of Hexham, was forced to resign the office which he had held since 709. Bede appears to have been one of Egbert’s friends from that time onward, which enables him to inform us (H. E., V, 20) that Acca had learned the ecclesiastical chant from a certain Maban, who had acquired it, himself, while living in Kent, from the successors of the disciples of the Blessed Pope Gregory. Acca had, in fact, spent twelve years in Maban’s school. If we take 732 as the last of these twelve years, it follows that the first lessons given by Maban go back to the year 720, at which date Maban had had time to be trained by the successors of the disciples of Pope Gregory. Gregory II became pope in 715; a space of five years is, evidently, not easy to reconcile with the plain meaning of what Bede says. It is true that, at a stretch, it might be understood thus: Maban was taught in Kent, between 715 and 720, by pupils trained on the spot by Roman singers sent by Gregory II. But, apart from the fact that no such mission has been ascribed to Gregory II, the words of Bede are too plain to permit this evasion of the difficulty. Bede in fact tells us that the chant taught by Maban (about 720) was simply a reform of the same chant which had undergone certain changes by long use. It is evidently impossible, then, to explain how, between 715 and 720, Maban could instruct Acca in a chant which had been long in use, and which had so fallen away from its purity as to need reforrm, when, if its promoter were Gregory II, it dated, at the earliest, from five years previous. It seems, therefore, as though these words of Bede were equivalent to an early Anglo-Saxon ascription of the ecclesiastical chant to Pope Gregory I.

Speaking of Putta, Bishop of Rochester (669–676), the same historian says (H. E., IV, 2): “He was above all things skilful in the art of singing in church according to the Roman fashion, which he had learned from the disciples of the Blessed Pope Gregory.” There can be no doubt in this case, nor can anyone but Gregory I be meant. Thus the gap between St. Gregory and Egbert (604–732) becomes greatly lessened, almost, indeed, by a half, and Bede’s silence can no longer be appealed to in connexion with the work of St. Gregory. Evidence for his authorship of the ecclesiastical chant is met with at a period so near Gregory’s own time that the thesis is critically tenable. Does it follow that St. Gregory was, as John the Deacon says, the compiler of the antiphonary? There are, at least, good reasons for thinking so. One last argument may be cited on his behalf. The series of antiphons in the antiphonary, intended to be sung at the Communion during Lent, are for the most part taken from the Book of Psalms. Their order reveals the idea that governed the choice of them. With certain exceptions, to be referred to presently, the antiphons follow one another in the numerical order of the Psalms from which they are drawn. The series thus obtained begins on Ash Wednesday and ends on the Friday in Passion Week, forming a regular succession of Psalms from I to XXVI, except for the interruptions caused (1) by intercalations and (2) by lacunæ

These intercalations affect (1) the five Sundays, (2) the six Thursdays, (3) the Saturday following Ash Wednesday. The exclusion of the Sundays is explained by the adoption of a ferial, or week-day, sequence; that of the Thursdays by the simple observation that the Thursdays were not included in the liturgical system for Lent at the period when Psalms i to xxvi were divided between the other days of the week. We learn from the “Liber Pontificalis” that it was Gregory II who introduced the Thursday of each week into the liturgical system of Lenten Masses. Now it proves to be these very Thursdays which interrupt the order that the remaining days of the week would otherwise show. No more precise and decisive accumulation of proof could possibly be wished for. We thus grasp the chronological element at the moment of its interpolation into the very heart of the antiphonary. Gregory II-therefore still less Gregory III-is not the original author of the compilation whereon he has left his mark by misunderstanding the principle which governed its original formation. The musical compilation known as the antiphonary is therefore not due to Gregory II, nor is it from him that it has become known as the Gregorian antiphonary. Its existence prior to his time is proved by the intercalation of the Thursdays which interrupt the continuity of an harmonious arrangement, to which Gregory II paid no attention, though possibly he may rather have wished to respect it as a work thenceforward irreformable, as a traditional deposit which he refused to disturb and re-order. It is not easy to say, or even to convey an idea of, what this primitive edition of the antiphonary may have contained; but there can be no doubt that it contained in their actual order the Lenten communion-antiphons, and is certainly anterior to Gregory III and to Gregory II. This fact alone proves the existence of an antiphonal collection, known as the Gregorian antiphonary, prior to the time of Pope Gregory II.

GEVÆRT, Le Chant liturgique de l’église latine, in the Bien Public (23, 24 December, 1889); DOM MORIN, Le rôle de Saint Grégoire le Grand dans la formation de répertoire musical de l’église latine, in the Revue bénédictine (1890, p. 62 sqq.; 193–294; 289–323; 337–369). Some of these essays have been collected under the title of Les véritablees origines du chant grégorien (Maredsous, 1895, octavo; 2d ed., 1904); GRISAR, Hist. Gregor der Grosse den Kirchengesang reformirt, in Zeitschrift für kathol. Theol. (1890); GEVÆRT, La mélopée antique dans le chant de l’église latine (Ghent, 1895, octavo); LECLERCQ, in the Dict. d’arch. chrét. s. v. antiphonaire (I, col. 2440–62).

H. LECLERCQ

Antipodes

Speculations concerning the rotundity of the earth and the possible existence of human beings “with their feet turned towards ours” were of interest to the Fathers of the Early Church only in so far as they seemed to encroach upon the fundamental Christian dogma of the unity of the human race, and the consequent universality of original sin and redemption. This is clearly seen from the following passage of St. Augustine (De Civitate Dei, xvi, 9):

“As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets on us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, there is no reason for believing it. Those who affirm it do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men. For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man.”

This opinion of St. Augustine was commonly held until the progress of science, whilst confirming his main contention that the human race is one, dissipated the scruples arising from a defective knowledge of geography. A singular exception occurs to us in the middle of the eighth century. From a letter of Pope St. Zachary (1 May, 748), addressed to St. Boniface, we learn that the great Apostle of Germany had invoked the papal censure upon a certain missionary among the Bavarians named Vergilius, generally supposed to be identical with the renowned Ferghil, an Irishman, and later Archbishop of Salzburg. Among other alleged misdeeds and errors was numbered that of holding “that beneath the earth there was another world and other men, another sun and moon.” In reply, the Pope directs St. Boniface to convoke a council and, “if it be made clear” that Vergilius adheres to this “perverse teaching, contrary to the Lord and to his own soul,” to “expel him from the Church, deprived of his priestly dignity.” This is the only information that we possess regarding an incident which is made to figure largely in the imaginary warfare between theology and science. That Vergilius was ever really tried, condemned, or forced to retract, is an assumption without any foundation in history. On the contrary, if he was in fact the future Archbishop of Salzburg, it is more natural to conclude that he succeeded in convincing his censors that by “other men” he did not understand a race of human beings not descended from Adam and redeemed by the Lord; for it is patent that this was the feature of his teaching which appeared to the Pope to be “perverse” and “contrary to the Lord.”

Instead of narrow censure, the Church and her theologians deserve our highest esteem for having, throughout the ages, firmly upheld the important doctrine of the universal brotherhood of the human race. At the same time we recognize that the case of the Irish monk who suffered the penalty of being several centuries in advance of his age remains on the page of history, like the parallel case of Galileo, as a solemn admonition against a hasty resort to ecclesiastical censures.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Antipope

A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected. At various times in the history of the Church illegal pretenders to the Papal Chair have arisen, and frequently exercised pontifical functions in defiance of the true occupant. According to Hergenröther, the last antipope was Felix V (1439–49). The same authority enumerates twenty-nine in the following order:-

Hippolytus (?), III century.

Novatian, 251.

Felix II, 355–365.

Ursicinus, 366–367.

Eulalius, 418–419.

Laurentius, 498–501.

Constantine II, 767.

Philip, VIII century.

Anastasius, 855.

Leo VIII, 956–963.

Boniface VII, 974.

John XVI, X century.

Gregory, 1012.

Sylvester III, 1044.

Benedict X, 1058.

Honorius II, 1061–72.

Guibert or Clement III, 1080–1100.

Theodoric, 1100.

Aleric, 1102.

Maginulf, 1105.

Burdin (Gregory VIII), 1118.

Anacletus II, 1130–38.

Victor IV, 1159–64.

Pascal III, 1164–68.

Calixtus III, 1168–77.

Innocent III, 1178–80.

Nicholas V, 1328–30.

Robert of Geneva (Clement VII),

20 September, 1378 to

16 September, 1394.

Amadeus of Savoy (Felix V),

November, 1439 to

April, 1449.

Archdiocese of Antivari

The Archdiocese of (Antibarium), so called from its position opposite to Bari in Italy; the Catholic archiepiscopal see of Montenegro. By the treaty of Berlin (1879) this ancient seaport of Albania was adjudged to the little inland principality of the Black Mountain and shortly after (1886) the Catholic Archdiocese was declared immediately subject to the Holy See, and relieved of its suffragans Alessio, Pulati, Belgrade, and Sappa, henceforth attached to Scutari. The See of Antivari claims to date from the fifth century; it was certainly an episcopal see in the ninth and was refounded in the course of the twelfth century. In the early Middle Ages Antivari remained subject to the Greek emperors; later it became one of the numerous little Dalmatian republics that chose their own laws and rulers, and finally fell under the sway of the Serb kings. Towards the beginning of the thirteenth century it sought union with Venice, but fifty years later became subject to Lewis of Hungary, who lost it in turn, to the Balza princes of Teuta, and with these it returned eventually to Venice (1450). For almost a century Antivari enjoyed the blessings of peace under Venetian dominion, and her commerce flourished to the highest degree, but in 1538, while Sultan Selim II was striving against the Venetians in Dalmatia, the pasha of Scutari besieged Antivari. After fierce combats he was forced to retire, but in 1571 through the treachery of its governor, Donato, the town fell into the hands of the Turks. The conditions of capitulation were honourable, but the Turks ceasing to respect them, one half of the citizens went into voluntary exile in order to preserve their faith, while the other half embraced Islam. John VIII, Archbishop of Antivari, who had vainly tried to make Donato offer resistance to the Turks, was taken prisoner and handed over to Ali-Pasha, commander of the fleet. Ali exhibited him everywhere dressed in his pontifical vestments and put him to death after the battle of Lepanto (7 Oct., 1571). In 1649 Foscolo, governor of Dalmatia for the Venetian Republic, was persuaded by the Archbishop of Antivari and a deputation of Christians to come to their aid. His movements were betrayed to the pasha of Scutari, who surprised his troops before they could re-embark, and massacred a great number. Once more, in 1717, the Venetian governor of Dalmatia tried to deliver Antivari, but the attempt was again fruitless. At last, in 1878, Prince Nicola of Montenegro victoriously entered the ancient town and incorporated it with Montenegro.

The city has a population of about 8,000, many of whom are Moslems. It is built on a lofty precipitous site and offers now few traces of its ancient grandeur; the streets are narrow, of a Turkish aspect, and the houses miserable. Nevertheless thirty monasteries, it is said, were once found within its walls. The old castle is a ruin, but the Cathedral of St. George, formerly transformed into a mosque, is well preserved. A few miles outside Antivari, near Cape Volinizza, is the Virgin’s Rock, theme of many a national poet, whence in the time of Sultan Selim (1524–73) a young girl threw herself into the sea rather than fall into the hands of the Turks.

The population of Montenegro (1906) is about 300,000, with some 6,789 Catholics. There are 27 churches and chapels, 12 secular priests, and 9 religious. Until the close of the Russo-Turkish War (1878) the Catholics of Montenegro were subject to the Vicar-Apostolic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A concordat between the Holy See and the Prince of Montenegro (18 Aug., 1886) now regulates the status of the Catholics in the principality. By its terms the exercise of the Catholic religion is declared free; the archbishop is chosen without interference of the state, but must be an acceptable choice (persona grata); the see is declared immediately subject to the Pope, and the archbishop is to receive the title of “Illustrissimo Monsignore” and to enjoy a yearly pension of 5,000 francs. The government also pledges itself to keep yearly at its expense one student in the Propaganda College at Rome, whence have come for a long time the secular priests of this territory. Moreover, at the request of the Prince of Montenegro, the right to the Old-Slavonic Liturgy was confirmed by the Holy See (originally conceded by Innocent IV, in 1248, and renewed by Benedict XIV and Pius VI). It is in reality the Roman Liturgy translated into Old-Slavonic, and in this shape is in use among eighty or a hundred thousand Catholic Slavs of Trieste, Goerz, Spalato, Sebenico, and other Dalmatian centres. Until lately it was printed in the Cyrillic alphabet, but since 1890, at the request of the archbishop, the Holy See has permitted the use of the Glagolitic alphabet, to avoid similarity of usage with their schismatic neighbours. (See CYRIL AND METHODIUS.) A copy of the new missal, printed at the Propaganda press in Rome (Ordo et Canon Missae Slavice, 1887) was presented by Leo XIII in 1893 to the Prince of Montenegro. By a decree of the Congregation of the Consistory (7 March, 1902) Antivari is declared the primatial see of Dalmatia, an honour which it enjoyed as early as the twelfth century. The present bishop is Monsignor Simon Milinovic, a Franciscan elected 8 Oct., 1886.

FARLATI, Illyur. Sacr. (1817), VII, 190; NEHER, in Kirchenlex., XI, 22; RECLUS-KEANE, The Earth and its Inhabitants (Europe), I, 179–182; BATTANDIER, Ann. Pont. Cath. (1903), 346.

ELISABETH CHRISTITCH

Vicariate Apostolic of Antofogaste

Vicariate Apostolic in Chile, dependent on the Sacred Congregation of Ecclesiastical Affairs. By the treaty of 24 November, 1884, between Chile and Bolivia, the part of the province of Antofogaste which belonged to Bolivia was ceded to Chile. The population in 1895 was 44,085, of which the city of Antofogaste contained 16,253. The area of the vicariate in square miles is 46,597. There are six parishes under the jurisdiction of the vicar-apostolic: Nuestra Senyora del Carmen de Tocopilla, Santa María Magdalena de Cobija, San Jose de Antofogaste, San Felipe de Neri de Caracoles, San Juan Bautista de Calama, and San Pedro de Atcama. The ecclesiastical vicariate of Antofogaste and that of Tarapacá depend directly on the Holy See, but appeals from their vicars should come to the Archbishopric of Santiago.

La Provincia Ecclesiastica Chilena (Freiburg, 1895).

Paul Gabriel Antoine

A French theologian, born at Lunéville, 10 January, 1678; died at Pont-à-Mousson, 22 January, 1743. At the age of fifteen he applied for admission into the Society of Jesus, and was received 9 October, 1693. On the completion of his studies, he taught “humanities” for several years, first a Pont-à-Mousson, and then at Colmar. Returning to the former city, he occupied the chair of philosophy, and later that of theology with considerable success, the first edition of his “Dogmatic Theology” appearing in 1723, and three years later is “Moral Theology” in three volumes. He was afterwards rector of the College of Pont-à-Mousson, where he died in his sixty-fifth year. His “Theologia universa, speculativa et dogmatica,” embracing the whole field of scholastic inquiry met with an enthusiastic reception, and at once stamped the author as one of the first theologians of the age. It went through nine editions during his lifetime, and ten after his death. It is remarkable for its clearness and solidity. Still more flattering was the reception accorded his “Theologia moralis universa,” first published in Nancy in 1726, in duodecima. It has since gone through sixty editions in different countries. The Roman edition of 1747, published by Philip Carbognano, O.M., contained several additions to the original, among them chapters on Condemned Propositions, Reserved Cases, decrees of Benedict XIV, etc. Antoine’s “Moral Theology” was so highly esteemed by Benedict XIV that he prescribed its use by the students of the College of Propaganda, and it was likewise received by many of the bishops throughout France and Italy. Yet despite the fact that it is remarkable for three qualities seldom found united, viz, brevity, clearness, and completeness, it is no long a text-book at the present day. For, in the opinion of the learned Gury, Antoine inclines too much toward the side of severity, a judgment fully confirmed by St. Alphonsus Ligouri (Homo Ap., xvi, 108). Besides his theological works, Antoine published also several ascetical and devotional treatises.

Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la c. de J., s. v.; Hurter, Nomenclator, II, 1289.

GEORGE F. JOHNSON

Anton Ulrich

DUKE OF BRUNSWICK—LÜNEBURG—WOLFENBÜTTEL

A convert to the Catholic faith, b. 4 October, 1633; d. 27 March, 1714. In 1685, with his brother August Rudolph, he became co-regent of the duchy, and on the latter’s death (1704) succeeded to the throne. He was a very gifted and well educated man, the most scholarly prince of his time, and, in the history of German literature, ranks as pioneer in the department of historical romance. He was also an accomplished dramatist and hymnwriter. His bent, however, was toward the study of the Fathers, and the points of variance between Catholics and Lutherans. He often conversed on such subjects with theologians of both sides, among them the Hildesheim canon, Rudolph May, and Amadeus Hamilton, a Theatine. He entered the Church secretly 10 January, 1710, but soon, in deference to the advice of Clement XI, made public his conversion in the presence of the Archbishop of Mainz. While he safeguarded officially the actual ecclesiastical and political conditions in his duchy, he devoted himself earnestly to the interests of Catholicism. Among other works, he published, in Latin and German, a learned apology for his conversion entitled “Fifty Motives for preferring the Catholic religion to all others.” It was soon suppressed, and is therefore a very rare book; an Italian translation of it was sent to Clement XI. The Duke built Catholic churches in Brunswick and Wolfenbuettel, and obtained papal approval for their administration by the Bishops of Hildesheim. In a document signed 3 February, 1714, by his sons August and Ludwig, he provided that in the future the exercise of the Catholic religion should be free in his State. Two of his daughters, Henrietta and Augusta Dorothea, followed his example, and returned to the mother church.

STREBER in Kirchenlex.; I, 976, 78; RAESS, Convertitenbilder, IX, 137.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Giacomo Antonelli

Cardinal; Secretary of State to Pius IX, b. at Sonnino, in the Papal States, 2 April 1806; d. in Rome, 6 November, 1876. Of well-to-do parents later ennobled by Gregory XVI, he made his preliminary studies at the Roman Seminary and took up the law course at the Sapienza, obtaining the degree of Doctor of both Laws in his twenty-first year. On entering the diplomatic service of the Holy See he was appointed by Gregory XVI successively secular prelate (1830), referendary of the superior law court, assessor of the criminal tribunal, delegate to Orvieto, Viterbo, and Macerata, canon of St. Peter’s (made deacon, 1840). In 1841 he was made Minister of the Interior and in 1845 Treasurer of the Apostolic Camera. Pius IX on his accession to the pontifical throne (1846) made him cardinal with the diaconal title of St. Agatha alla Suburra (1847), and later the title of St. Maria in Viâ latâ. The Pope created him in turn Minister of Finance in the first ministerial council; president of the newly-organized Council of State; member of the ecclesiastical commission for civil reform (February, 1848), and premier of his first constitutional ministry (10 March, 1848), in which there was a preponderance of the lay element. Resigning this office (3 May, 1848) to Count Mamiani, who organized a new liberal ministry, Antonelli became Prefect of Sacred Palaces, and after the death of Rossi arranged the flight of the Pope to Gaeta, where he was made Secretary of State and conducted the negotiations for the restoration of papal rule. Returning to Rome with the Pope (12 April, 1850), he retained the reins of power which he held until his death, twenty-seven years later. His life during this period is inextricably bound up with the history of the reign of Pius IX. Until 1870 he was practically the temporal ruler of Rome, being charged by Pius IX with the care of public interests, that the Pontiff might devote himself more exclusively to his spiritual duties. It is impossible as yet to form a just estimate of the works of Antonelli, or to reconcile the extravagant praise of his admirers with the vituperations of his enemies. It must be said that he defended vigorously the rights of the Holy See, won the respect of princes and statesmen for his diplomatic ability, and showed himself fearless, braving alike public opinion and private jealousy. In extenuation of the charge that his aim was to a large extent personal aggrandizement, it must be recalled that he was a statesman rather than a prelate, and that he was not a priest, although most assiduous in the discharge of his religious duties.

DE WAAL in Kirchenlex.

F.M. RUDGE

Leonardo Antonelli

Cardinal, b. at Sinigaglia, 6 November 1730; d. 23 January, 1811, nephew of Cardinal Nicolo Maria Antonelli. During the early part of his long diplomatic career he held among other offices those of canon of the Vatican Basilica, Prefect of archives in the Castle of San Angelo, Secretary of the Sacred College and Assessor of the Holy Office. He was created Cardinal-Priest of St. Sabina by Pius VI in the consistory of 24 April, 1775, and later Dean of the Sacred College and Bishop of Ostia and Velletri. At the time of the French Revolution, with a view to preventing the suspension of church services, he lent his support to the vote for the civil constitution of the French clergy decreed by the National Assembly of France (12 July, 1790). In addition to the responsible posts already mentioned, he filled those of grand penitentiary, prefect of the Signature of Justice and of the Congregation of the Index, and pro-secretary of Briefs. He assisted in the preparation of the Concordat, and was present at the election of Pius VII (1800), whom he later accompanied to Paris (1804). He was banished from Rome by the French (1808) to Spoleto and later to Sinigaglia, where he died, leaving to the Congregation of Propaganda bequests for the support of twelve Armenian students in the College of Urbano. Though Antonelli has been criticized for arrogating to the papacy too arbitrary a civil power, a perusal of his letter to the bishops of Ireland reveals a more tolerant spirit than is generally attributed to him. Possessed of a rich library, he was the friend and protector of letters, and had as librarian the learned Cancellieri. He also acquired some fame as an archaeologist.

CANCELLIERI, Cenotaphium Leonardi Antonelli Cardinalis (Pesaro, 1825).

F.M. RUDGE

Nicolò Maria Antonelli

Cardinal, learned canonist, ecclesiastical historian, and Orientalist, b. at Sinigaglia, 8 July, 1698; d. 24 September, 1767. He wrote De Titulis Quos S. Evaristus Presbyteris Romanis Distribuit (Rome, 1725), in defence of the parochial character of the primitive Roman churches. He also edited (and defended) the commentary of St. Athanasius on the Psalms (ib., 1746), sermons of St. James of Nisibis (Armenian and Latin, ib., 1756), and under the name of Emman. de Azovedo, S.J., Vetus Missale Romanum Monasticum Lateranense (ib., 1752).

HURTER, Nomenclator, III, 100 sq.; Storia Lett. d’Italia, IX, 272–92.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Giovanni Antoniano

Patrologist, b. at Nimeguen, in Holland, early in the sixteenth century; d. same place, in 1588. From his very entrance into the Dominican Order, in his city, his patience, industry, and inclination for patristic studies, singled him out as a capable editor of the writings of the Fathers of the Church, then urgently called for by the learned. As Prior of Nimeguen in 1566, and again in 1587, he distinguished himself for his learned and erudite sermons against the fundamental principles of Protestantism. He was associated in his literary labours with Henry Gravius, whose pupil he was, and whom he succeeded as editor of the works of the Fathers. Antoniano published (Cologne, 1537), with the critical apparatus of his day, the work of St. Gregory of Nyssa on the creation of man and the “Hexameron” of St. Basil the Great, both in the Latin translation of Dionysius Exiguus. He also published (Cologne, 1560) the writings of St. Paulinus of Nola, and (Antwerp, 1568) the letters of St. Jerome.

QUETIF AND ECHARD, SS. Orrd. Praed., II, 283; MEIJER, Dommikaner Klooster en Statie te Nejemegem (1892), 84 sqq.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Silvio Antoniano

Cardinal, writer on education, b. 31 December 1540 in Rome; d. there 16 August 1603. He was educated at the University of Ferrara, which conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Laws (1556) and appointed him professor of classical literature. In 1563 Pius IV called him to the chair of belles-lettres in the Sapienza University, a position in which he enjoyed the friendship of distinguished churchmen especially of St. Charles Borromeo. He resigned his chair, however, in 1566, took up the study of theology under the direction of St. Philip Neri and was ordained priest 12 June, 1568. During the latter part of the sixteenth century Humanism made rapid progress in Italy under the leadership of men like Sadolet, Piccolomini, and Valiero. Sharing their enthusiasm Antoniano devoted himself to the study of educational problems and at the instance of St. Charles Borromeo, wrote his principal work on the Christian education of children. (Tre libri dell’ educazione cristiana de’ figliuoli, Verona, 1583.) Clement VIII appointed Antoniano Secretary of Papal Briefs (1593), and created him cardinal, 3 March, 1599. His work passed through several editions in Italian and was translated into French by Guignard (Troyes, 1856; Paris, 1873), and into German by Kunz (Freiburg, 1888). Its principal features are insight into the mind of the child, sympathy with its dangers and needs, and solicitude for its moral training. Valuable suggestions are also given on physical culture, on the education of all classes of the people and on the preparation of teachers for their work. The other writings of Antoniano, many of which have not been published, deal with literary, historical, and liturgical subjects. Their author was one of the compilers of the Roman Catechism and a member of the commission charged by Clement VIII with the revision of the Breviary.

CASTIGLIONE, Silvii Antoniano vita (Rome, 1610); MAZZUCHELLI, Gli scrittori d’Italia (Brescia, 1753); Biographical sketches prefixed to French and German translations of his works.

E.A. PACE

Charles Antoniewicz

(Botoz.)

A Polish Jesuit and missionary, born in Lwów (Lemberg), 6 November 1807; died 14 November, 1852. He was the son of Joseph Antoniewicz, a nobleman and lawyer. His pious mother Josephine (Nikorowicz) attended to his early training on their estate at Skwarzawa, whither they moved in 1818. After the death of his father (1823), Charles entered the university a Lwów, to study law, devoting, however, much time to philology; hence besides Polish, he spoke fluently German, French, Italian, and English. Here he also gathered material for the history of the Armenians in Poland (his ancestors were Armenians) and wrote Polish and German poetry. Having finished his course in law with the highest distinction (1827), he made a tour through Austria and Rumania. During the Polish insurrection of 1830–31, he served for some time under General Dwernicki. In 1833 he marries his cousin Sophia Nikorowicz, and settled in Skwarzawa. His happy marital life ended with the death of his five children, followed shortly by that of his wife. This devout woman took the religious vows on her death-bed, beseeching her husband to enter some order. His mother also died as a religious in the Benedictine Order. This, as well as the advice of his spiritual director, Father Frederic Rinn, S.J., induced him to seek admission into the novitiate of the Jesuits at Stara Wies in September, 1839, where he took the solemn vows on 12 September, 1841. His philosophical studies were made at Tarnopol, where he was a colleague of the great theologian, Cardinal Franzelin. His theological studies he finished at Nowy Sacz. He was ordained priest on 10 October, 1844, by Bishop Gutkowski. While yet a student, he attracted universal attention by his unusual oratorical gifts. Upon the request of Count D’Este, Governor of Galicia, the Provincial (Father Pierling) appointed him missionary for the Sandec district, where crime and lawlessness (massacre of the nobility, 1846) reigned supreme. During seven months, Antoniewicz gave over twenty missions, preached over 200 sermons. Great was the success of his apostolic zeal and unremitting toils. His impaired health, however, compelled him to seek a mountainous climate in spring, 1847. Having recovered, he was assigned to St. Nicholas in Lwów, as preacher, and as confessor for students. When on 7 May, 1848, the Society of Jesus was dissolved in Austria, Antoniewicz went to Silesia (Graefenberg), returning incognito, however, to Lwów, in 1850. Being discovered, he left the country, stopping at Cracow, just after the memorable conflagration of 18 July, 1850, to console the grief-stricken inhabitants. On this occasion, he delivered the famous sermon “On the ruins of Cracow” (Na zgliszczach Krakowa). At the insistence of Cardinal Diepenbrock he gave missions in Silesia; there he also founded a house in Nissa, and was appointed its first superior. At the urgent entreaty of Archbishop Przyluski, he extended his missionary activity to Posen (1852). His boundless devotion and self-sacrifice during the terrible outbreak of cholera will always be remembered; for the hero, having himself contracted the disease, died a victim of brotherly love, 14 November, 1852. In the church at Obra, where he rests, his friends erected to his memory a monument, surmounted by his bust. A terse Latin sketch describes his brief but zealous career. In youth he composed many charming poems; later he gave preference to religious themes. He had genuine poetic talent, vivid imagination, a facile pen, and a captivating style. especially beautiful are his “Wianek krzyzowy” (Garland of the Cross), “Wianek majowy” (Wreath of May), “Jan Kanty, Sw. Jacek” (St. Hyacinth), etc. He is the author of many devotion works, and ranks high as an ascetic. These works, though simple in language, breathe genuine piety, singular gravity, and tender emotion; e. g. “Czytania swiateczne dla ludu” (Festive Readings for the Faithful), “Sw. Izydor Oracz” (St. Isidore), “Groby swietych polskich” (The Tombs of Polish Saints), “Listy w duchu Bozym do przyjaciol” (Spiritual Letters to Friends), and many others. He is, however, best known as an orator. But his ability cannot be judged by his printed sermons; his eloquence was an inspired heart-to-heart appeal. He is a master when he speaks in the eternal mercy, the Victim of the Cross, or the Blessed Virgin Mary. His sermons were collected and arranged by his fellow Jesuit, John Badeni, and published in four volumes (Cracow, 1893, 2d ed.), under the title “Kazania Ks. Karols Antoniewicza.” “Zbiór poezti” (a collection of poems) was likewise published in 1898–99 by Father J. Badeni. In the impossibility of enumerating here all his writings it may be said that he composed over seventy-six different works; six before he became a Jesuit, and seventy as a Jesuit, twenty-seven of which were published after his death.

Ks. S. Baracz, Zywoty slawnych Ormoan w Polsce (Lemberg, 1856); Speil, P. Karl Antoniewicz, Missonar der Gesellschaft Jesu, ein Lebensbild (Breslau, 1875); Bandeni, Ks. Karol Antoniewicz (Cracow, 1896): Pelczar, Zarys dziejow kaznodziejstwa (Cracow, 1896), II, 320–322; Kuliczkowski, Zarya dziejow literatury pol. (Lemberg, 1891), 404, 404; Ks. Karol Antoniewicz, S.J., krotkie wspomniennie zycia i prae w polwiekowa rocznice jego zgonu (Cracow, 1902), and many minor sources.

BOLESLAUS E. GORAL

St. Antoninus

Archbishop of Florence, b. at Florence, 1 March, 1389; d. 2 May, 1459; known also by his baptismal name Antoninus (Anthony), which is found in his autographs, in some manuscripts, in printed editions of his works, and in the Bull of canonization, but which has been finally rejected for the diminutive form given him by his affectionate fellow-citizens. His parents, Niccolò and Thomasina Pierozzi, were in high standing, Niccolò beinga notary of the Florentine Republic. At the age of fifteen (1404) Antoninus applied to Bl. John Dominic, the great Italian religious reformer of theperiod, then at the Convent of Santa Maria Novella in Florence, for admission to the Dominican Order. It was not until a year later that he was accepted, and he was the first to receive the habit for the Convent of Fiesole about to be constructed by Bl. John Dominic. With Fra Angelico and Fra Bartolommeo, the one to become famous as a painter, the other as a miniaturist, he was sent to Cortona to make his novitiate under Bl. Lawrence of Ripafratta. Upon the completion of his year in the novitiate, he returned to Fiesole, where he remained until 1409, when with his brethren, all faithful adherents of Pope Gregory XII, he was constrained by the Florentines, who had refused obedience, to take shelter in the Convent of Foligno. A few years later he began his career as a zealous promoter of the reforms inaugurated by Bl. John Dominic. In 1414 he was vicar of the convent of Foligno, thenin turn sub-prior and prior of the convent of Cortona, and later prior of the convents of Rome (Minerva), Naples (Saint Peter Martyr), Gaeta, Sienna,and Fiesole (several times). From 1433 to 1446 he was vicar of the Tuscan Congregation formed by Bl. John Dominic of convents embracing a more rigorous discipline. During this period he established (1436) the famous convent of St. Mark in Florence, where he formed a remarkable community from thebrethren of the convent of Fiesole. It was at this time also that he built with the munificent aid of Cosimo de’ Medici, the adjoining church, at the consecration of which Pope Eugene IV assisted (Epiphany, 1441). As a theologian he took part in the Council of Florence (1439) and gave hospitality in St. Mark’s to the Dominican theologians called to the council by Eugene IV.

Despite all the efforts of St. Antoninus to escape ecclesiastical dignities, he was forced by Eugene IV, who had personal knowledge of his saintly character and administrative ability, to accept the Archbishopric of Florence. He was consecrated in the convent of Fiesole, 13 march, 1446, and immediately took possession of the see over which he ruled until his death. As he had laboured in the past for the upbuilding of the religious life throughout his Order, so he henceforth laboured for it in his diocese, devoting himself to the visitation of parishes and religious communities, the remedy ofabuses, the strengthening of discipline, the preaching of the Gospel, the amelioration of the condition of the poor, and the writing of books for clergy and laity. These labours were interrupted several times that he might act as ambassador for the Florentine Republic. Ill health prevented him from taking part in an embassy to the emperor in 1451, but in 1455 and again in 1458 he was at the head of embassies sent by the government to the Supreme Pontiff. He was called by Eugene IV to assist him in his dying hours. He was frequently consulted by Nicholas V on questions of Church and State, and was charged by Pius II to undertake, with several cardinals, the reform of the Roman Court. When his death occurred, 2 May, 1459, Pius II gave instructions for the funeral, and presided at it eight days later. He was canonized by Adrian VI, 31 May, 1523.

The literary productions of St. Antoninus, while giving evidence of the eminently practical turn of his mind, show that he was a profound student of history and theology. His principal work is the “Summa Theologica Moralis, partibus IV distincta,” written shortly before his death, which marked a new and very considerable development in moral theology. It also contains a fund of matter for the student of the history of the fifteenth century. Sowell developed are its juridical elements that it has been published underthe title of Juris Pontificii et Caesarei Summa.” An attempt was lately made by Crohns (Die Summa theologica des Antonin von Florenz und die Schätzung des Weibes im Hexenhammer, Helsingfors, 1903) to trace the fundamentals principles of misogony, so manifest in the “Witchammer” of the German Inquisitors, to this work of Antoninus. But Paulus (Die Verachtung der Frau beim hl. Antonin, in Historisch-Politische Blätter, 1904, pp. 812–830) has shown more clearly than several others, especially the Italian writers, that this hypothesis is untenable, because based on a reading of only a part of the “Summa” of Antoninus. Within fifty years after the first appearance of the work (Venice, 1477), fifteen editions were printed at Venice, Spires, Nuremberg, Strasburg, Lyons, and Basle. Other editions appeared in the following century. In 1740 it was published at Verona in 4 folio volumes edited by P. Ballerini; and in 1841, at Florence by Mamachi and Remedelli, O.P.

Of considerable importance are the manuals for confessors and penitents containing abridgments, reproductions, and translations from the “Summa” and frequently published in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries under the name of St. Antoninus. An unsuccessful attempt has been made to show that he was not the author of the Italian editions. At the most is should be granted that he committed to others the task of editing one or two. The various editions and titles of the manuals have caused confusion, and made it appear that there were more than four distinct works. A careful distinction and classification is given by Mandonnet in the “Dictionnaire de théologie catholique.” Of value as throwing light upon the home life of his time are his treatises on Christian life written for women of the Medici family and first published in the last century under the titles:—(1) “Opera a ben vivere . . . Con altri ammaestramenti,” ed. Father Palermo, one vol. (Florence, 1858) (2) “Regola di vita cristiana,” one vol. (Florence, 1866). His letters (Lettere) were collected and edited, some for the first time by Tommaso Corsetto, O.P., and published in one volume, at Florence, 1859.

Under the title, “Chronicon partibus tribus distincta ab initio mundi ad MCCCLX” (published also under the titles “Chronicorum opus” and “Historiarum opus”), he wrote a general history of the world with the purpose of presenting to his readers a view of the workings of divine providence. While he did not give way to his imagination or colour facts, he often fell into the error, so common among the chroniclers of his period, of accepting much that should historical criticism has since rejected as untrue or doubtful. But this can be said only of those parts in which he treated of early history. When writing of the events and politics of his own age he exercised a judgment that has been of the greatest value to later historians. The history was published at Venice, 1474–79, in four volumes of his “Opera Omnia” (Venice, 1480; Nuremberg, 1484; Basle, 1491; Lyons, 1517, 1527, 1585, 1586,1587). A work on preaching (De arte et vero modo praedicandi) ran through four editions at the close of the fifteenth century. The volume of sermons (Opus quadragesimalium et de sanctis sermonum, sive flos florum) is the work of another, although published under the name of St. Antoninus.

Unedited chronicles of the convents of St. Mark, Florence and St. Dominic, Fiesole: Quétif and Echard, SS. Ord. Praed.; Touron, Histoire des hommes illustres de l’ordre de S. Dominique; Maccarani, Vita di S. Antonino (Florence, 1708); Bartoli, Istoria dell’ arcivescovo S. Antonino e de suoi più illustri discepoli (Florence, 1782); Moro, Di S. Antonino in relazione alla riforma cattolica nel sec. XV (Florence, 1899); Schaube, Die Quellen der Weltchronik des heiligen Antoninus (Hirschberg, 1880).

A.L. MCMAHON

Antoninus Pius

(TITUS ÆLIUS HADRIANUS ANTONINUS PIUS).

Roman Emperor (138–161), born 18 September, A.D. 86 at Lanuvium, a short distance from Rome; died at Lorium, 7 March, 161.

Most of his youth was spent at Lorium, which was only twelve miles from Rome. Later on he built a villa there, to which he would frequently retreat from the cares of the empire, and in which he died, in his seventy-fifth year. His early career was that usually followed by the sons of senatorial families. He entered public life while quite young and after exercising the office of prætor, became consul in 120, at the age of thirty-four. Shortly after the expiration of his consulate he was selected by Hadrian as one of the four men of consular rank whom he placed over the four judicial districts into which Italy was then divided. The duration of this office and its character cannot be decided with accuracy. Antoninus was afterwards proconsul in Asia, where his remarkable administrative qualities attracted the attention of the Emperor, who admitted him to the “Consilium Principis” on his return to Rome. After the death of Lucius Ælius Commodus Verus, Hadrian adopted Antoninus as his successor, on condition that he, in turn, would adopt as his sons and successors, M. Annius Verus (Marcus Aurelius) and Ælius Lucius Verus. On his adoption (25 February, 138) Antoninus changed his name to Titus Ælius Hadrianus Antoninus. He shared the imperial power with Hadrian until the death of the latter, 10 July, 138, when he became sole ruler.

Historians generally speaking are unanimous in their praise of the character of Antoninus and of the success and blessings of his reign (for a rather unfavourable estimate, see Schiller, Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, II, 138). His conception of the duties of his office was high and noble, and his exercise of the almost unlimited power placed in his hands marked him as a man thoroughly devoted to the interests of humanity. In his private life and in the management of his court he followed true Stoic simplicity, entirely removed from excess or extravagance. His reign was unquestionably the most peaceful and the most prosperous in the history of Rome. No wars were undertaken, except those necessary to guard the frontiers of the Empire against invasion or to suppress insurrections. The conflicts with the Berbers in Africa and some of the German and Tauro-Scythinan tribes on the Danube were merely punitive expeditions to prevent further encroachments on Roman soil. The short-lived insurrection in Egypt and that of the Jews in Armenia and Palestine were quickly suppressed. For years the Pax Romana prevailed over the entire Empire, and brought blessings and happiness to probably 150,000,000 people, whose interests and whose safety were safeguarded by an army of 350,000 soldiers. The only extension of the Roman territory in the reign of Antoninus was in Britain, where a new wall was built at the foot of the Caledonian mountains between the Forth and the Clyde, considerably farther north than the wall of Hadrian.

The internal peace and prosperity were no less remarkable than the absence of war. Trade and commerce flourished; new routes were opened, and new roads built throughout the Empire, so that all parts of it were in close touch with the capital. The remarkable municipal life of the period, when new and flourishing cities covered the Roman world, is revealed by the numerous inscriptions that record the generosity of wealthy patrons or the activity of free burghers. Despite the traditional hostility of Rome to the formation of clubs and societies, guilds and organizations of all conceivable kinds, mainly for philanthropic purposes, came into existence everywhere. By means of these associations the poorer classes were in a sense insured against poverty and had the certainty that they would receive decent burial. The activity of the Emperor was not confined to merely official acts; private movements for the succour of the poor and of orphans received his unstinted support. The scope of the alimentary institutions of former reigns was broadened, and the establishment of charitable foundations such as that of the “Puellæ Faustinianæ” is a sure indication of a general softening of manners and a truer sense of humanity. The period was also one of considerable literary and scientific activity, though the general artistic movement of the time was decidedly of the “Rococo” type. The most lasting influence of the life and reign of Antoninus was that which he exercised in the sphere of law. Five great Stoic jurisconsults, Vinidius Verus, Salvius Valens, Volusius Mæcianus, Ulpius Marcellus, and Diavolenus, were the constant advisers of the Emperor, and, under his protection, they infused a spirit of leniency and mildness into Roman legislation which effectually safeguarded the weak and the unprotected, slaves, wards, and orphans, against aggressions of the powerful. The entire system of law was not remodelled in the reign of Antoninus, but an impulse was given in this direction which produced the later golden period of Roman jurisprudence under Septimus Severus, Caracalla, and Alexander Severus.

In religion Antoninus was deeply devoted to the traditional worship of the Empire. He had none of the scepticism of Hadrian, none of the blind fanaticism of his successor. Perhaps as a consequence superstition and the worship of new deities multiplied under his administration. In his dealings with the Christians Antoninus went no further than to maintain the procedure outlined by Trajan, though the unswerving devotion of the Emperor to the national gods could not fail to bring the conduct of the Christians into unfavourable contrast. Very few indications of the Emperor’s attitude towards his Christian subjects are to be found in contemporary documents. The most valuable is that of the Christian Bishop Melito of Sardes (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., IV, xxvi, 10). In his “Apology” to Marcus Aurelius he speaks of “letters” addressed by Antoninus Pius to the Larissæans, the Thessalonians, the Athenians, and to all the Greeks, forbidding all tumultuous outbreaks against the Christians. The edict found in Eusebius (op. cit., IV, 13) is now looked on by most critics as a forgery of the latter half of the second century. In the past, Tillemont, and in the present, Wieseler stand for its genuineness. “It speaks in admiring terms of the innocence of the Christians, declares unproved the charges against them, bids men admire the steadfastness and faith with which they met the earthquake and other calamities that drove others to despair, ascribes the persecutions to the jealousy which men felt against those who were truer worshippers of God than themselves.” This temper of mind was entirely in conformity with the spirit of the existing legislation as laid down by Trajan and interpreted by Hadrian: that extra-judicial action on the part of the people against the Christians should not be tolerated by the authorities. The death of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, which took place in 155 or 156, shows how a Roman proconsul, though he knew his duty, still permitted himself to be swayed by popular clamour. In the case of the proconsul Prudens (Tertull., Ad. Scap., ix) we see how ineffectual popular outcries were in the face of strong administration, and how efficiently the interests of the Christians were safeguarded, except in the case of actual evidence in an open court. There can be no doubt, however, that persecution did take place in the reign of Antoninus, and that many Christians did suffer death. The pages of the contemporary apologists, though lacking in detail, are ample proof that capital punishment was frequently inflicted. The passive attitude of Antoninus had no small influence on the internal development of Christianity. Heresy was then rampant on all sides; consequently, in order to strengthen the bonds of discipline and morality, and to enforce unity of doctrine, concerted action was called for. The tolerant attitude of the Emperor made possible a broad and vigorous activity on the part of the Christian bishops, one evidence of which is the institution of synods or councils of the Christian leaders, then first held on an extensive scale, and described at some length by Eusebius in his Church History. In this way, it may be said, the Emperor contributed to the development of Christian unity.

The known details of the life of Antoninus Pius are found in the Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ (ed PETER), and in AURELIUS VICTOR, Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, and the sources usually found in all histories of the period, e.g. GIBBON, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (an overdrawn, but eloquent picture of the contemporary civil prosperity of Rome); ALLARD, Histoire des Persécutions (Paris, 1890); NEUMANN, (unfinished) Account of the Relations between the Imperial State and Christianity (Leipzig, 1890); RENAN, Marc-Aurèle (Paris, 1890); LACOUR-GAYET, Antonin le Pieux et son temps (Paris, 1886); SMITH, Dict. Of Greek and Roman Biogr. (London, 1890), I, 210–212; RAMSEY, The Church and the Roman Empire before A.D. 170 (New York, 1893); DILL, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius (New York, 1905).

PATRICK J. HEALY

St. Antonio Maria Zaccaria

Founder of the Clerks Regular of St. Paul, commonly known as the Barnabites; b. in Cremona, Italy, 1502; d. 5 July, 1539. While he was still an infant his father died, leaving the care of the child’s education to his mother, who taught him compassion for the poor and suffering by making him her almoner. After completing the studies given in the schools at Cremona he was sent to Padua for his philosophy, and in 1520, when he had finished this course, began the study of medicine in the university at that place. At the age of twenty-two he received his degree of Doctor of Medicine and returned to Cremona to practise his profession. Three years later he began to study theology and received holy orders in 1528. He now devoted himself with renewed energy to works of charity and mercy, visiting and consoling the sick in hospitals and poor-prisons. The ministry of preaching and the administration of the sacraments produced such great fruit that St. Antonio was encouraged to seek a larger field for his labours and to carry out a great project which he hard formed for the good of souls. He went to the populous city of Milan, of which he was a burgess, and entered the Confraternity of Eternal Wisdom. Among the members of this religious body he allied himself with two priests, Fathers Ferrari and Morigia, and told them of his idea of founding a congregation of secular clergy. Northern Italy at this period was in a deplorable condition. Frequent wars had devastated the country. The advent of the Lutheran soldiery and their contempt for everything Catholic had spread the contagion of bad example, while famine and plague followed in the track of the soldiers. These scourges combined to produce a state of misery that appealed most powerfully to Antonio and his associates. “The Congregation of the Regular Clerks of St. Paul,” St. Antonio’s work, which began with five members, was canonically sanctioned by Pope Clement VII in 1533. Their rule bound them to “regenerate and revive the love of the Divine worship, and a truly Christian way of life by frequent preaching and the faithful administration of the sacraments.”

The first superior of the new congregation was St. Antonio, who soon hecame known in Milan as an apostle. Besides giving conferences in churches to ecclesiastics and lay people, he went into the streets of the city with crucifix in hand, and produced great fruit in souls by preaching on the Passion and Death of Christ and the need of penance for sin. In 1536 he resigned the superiorship to Father Morigia and later went to Vicenza at the request of Cardinal Ridolfi. There he succeeded in reforming morals and in bringing two religious communities of women to a stricter observance of their rule. In the latter labour he was greatly aided by a congregation of nuns “The Angelicals of St. Paul,” which he had founded in Milan. He introduced, also, the devotion of the “Forty Hours’ Prayers,” in Vicenza. The last two years of his life were spent in Milan. He sought there a more suitable church for his Congregation and accepted the offer of the church of S. Barnabas, but died before the affaire was arranged. From this church of St. Barnabas, the Congregation received the name by which its members are commonly known, i.e. Barnabites. Worn out by his voluntary penences, as well as by his untiring labours of charity, he was attacked by fever during one of his mission. Knowing that this illness was his last, he had himself brought to his native city, Cremona. There, in his mother’s house, he received the last sacraments and peacefully expired at the early age of thirty-seven. His body was found incorrupt 27 years after his death. He was declared Blessed by Pope Pius IX in 1849. (See BARNABITES.) On 15 May, 1897, he was solemnly canonized in St. Peter’s, Rome, by Pope Leo XIII. His writings are: “Detti notabili, raccolti da varii autori” (Venice, 1583); “Constitutiones ordinis clericorum regularium” (not published); “Sermones super praeceptis Decalogi” (not published).

DUBOIS, Le bienh. Ant. Maria Zaccaria, fondateur des Barnabites et des Angeliques de St. Paul (Tournay, 1896); St. A.M. Zaccaria, fondateur des Barnabites (Paris and Leipzig, 1897); Brevi vite dei Santi (Rome, 1897); Vita illustrata di S. Antonio M. Zaccaria fondatore dei Barnabite e delle Angeliche di S. Paolo (Cremona, 1897); JEPPA, Lebensbeschreibung des Hl. Anton Maria Zaccaria, Stifters der Barnabaiten Germ. tr (Fulda, 1900); HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Congregationem der katolischen Kirche (Paderborn, 1897).

PATRICK H. KELLY

Maria Antonio of Vicenza

A Reformed Minorite, b. at Vicenza, 1 March, 1834; d. at Rovigno, 22 June, 1884. After his ordination (1856) he devoted himself to the study of scholastic authors, especially of St. Bonaventure whose “Breviloquium” he published in a new edition (Venice, 1874; Freiburg, 1881). He also edited the “Lexicon Bonaventurianum,” (Venice, 1880), in which the terminology of the scholastics is explained. His contributions to hagiography include nineteen studies of the lives of the saints of the Franciscan Order.

E.A. PACE

Antonius

A supposed Latin Christian poet of the third century, under whose name there is printed in Migne (P.L., V, 261–282) an apologetic poem “Antonii carmen adversus gentes.” Gallandi attributed it to an otherwise unknown Antonius, an imaginary contemporary of Commodian. But Muratori, says Dr. Bardenhewer, has shown that the poem belongs to St. Paulinus of Mola (351- 431). There are two critical editions, by Oehler (Leipzig, 1847), and by Bursian (Munich, 1880), both of whom attribute it to Paulinus of Nola.

BARDENHEWER, Patrologie (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1901), 394.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Franz Joseph Antony

Born 1790, at Muenster, Westphalia; d. there, 1837. He received Holy Orders, and in 1819 became choirmaster at the cathedral, succeeding his father as organist, in 1832. In addition to some songs he published four choral masses, and his erudite work “Archäologisch-liturgisches Gesangbuch des Gregorianischen Kirchengesanges” (1829), and “Geschichtliche Darstellung der Entstehung und Vervollkommnung der Orgel,” 1832.

KORNMÜLLER, Lex. der kirchl. Tonkunst; BAKER, Biogr. Dict. of Musicians; RIEMANN, Dict. of Music.

J.A. VÖLKER

Antwerp

(ANVERS, ANTVERPEN, Spanish AMBERES)

A city of Belgium, in the archdiocese of Mechlin, situated on the Scheldt (Escaut), about sixty miles from the sea, at the confluence of the little river Schyn, once navigable. Its foundation was probably due to some wandering Teutonic tribe; the people were certainly Christian from about the middle of the seventh century (Diercxsen, Antuerpia Christo nascens ab an. 641, etc., Antwerp, 1747–1773), as is seen by the famous saints that met with in its history as the Irish virgin Dympna, Eligius, Amandus and Willibrord. It was pillaged by the Northmen in 835, but soon arose from its ruins. In the tenth and eleventh centuries it appears as the capital of the Margraves of Antwerp, and from that time to the French Revolution recognized, through all political vicissitudes, no other source of authority in its various political masters. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the Dukes of Brabant favoured its development by many privileges, political and commercial. In the course of the fourteenth century the Counts of Flanders were its lords paramount and in the fifteenth it recognized the overlordship of the great house of Burgundy, through which relationship it eventually rose to its highest prosperity, when with the rest of the Burgundian inheritance it passed under the control of Emperor Charles V (1517–56). After his death there broke out a long series of sanguinary conflicts, partly religious and partly politico-commercial, resulting in the overthrow of Spanish and the substitution of Austrian domination (1599) whereby the southern or Catholic provinces of the Low Countries were enabled to preserve their faith, though at a great price from a commercial standpoint. The latter quarter of the eighteenth century was marked by much unrest, owing to the anti-Catholic or Febronian policy of Emperor Joseph II (1765–90). During the French Revolution Antwerp was incorporated (1794) with France, and was made by Napoleon (1804–13) the chief naval fortress of his new empire. After his overthrow it was incorporated (1815) with the new kingdom of Holland, but cast in its fortunes with Belgium during the revolution of 1830, and has risen since then to the position of a foremost centre of European commerce and industry.

POPULATION AND COMMERCE

The population of Antwerp rose in the sixteenth century (1560) to the phenomenal figure of 200,000. It was then the London of the continent, and owed its prosperity to various causes, among which may be mentioned the decay of earlier commercial centres like Bruges and Venice, consequent on the discoveries of Columbus and Vasco da Gama, and the natural deepening of the western entrance of the Scheldt. From the Middle Ages it had inherited a growing trade in fish, salt, and oats, in English wool, and in exchanges of all kinds with the various states of Europe. But now commercial products came no longer by way of the Adriatic and over Venice to the wharves of Antwerp, but directly by sea; this was especially true of the merchandise of the New World. Merchants of every nation flooded to Antwerp; among them the agents of the Hanseatic League and of the merchant adventurers of England, it became the chief banking centre of Europe. The rich Fuggers of Augsburg had a house in Antwerp whence they loaned large sums to kings and cities. In those days, it is said, that a thousand vessels were at times anchored off the city, and one hundred came and went daily. Its fairs were no less famous than those of Nuremberg and Novgorod, and had been much frequented even in medieval times, for purposes of barter. But this prosperity declined in the terrible politico-religious warfare of the last three decades of the sixteenth century, and was finally extinguished as a result of the Thirty Years War (1618–48). The Treaty of Westphalia, signed in the latter year, contained a clause in the interest of Holland, providing for the closing of free navigation on the Scheldt. Thereby was closed also the regular source of Antwerp’s commercial and industrial greatness. It was not until the French Revolution, or rather until 1863, that an unimpeded traffic was provided for on the broad, smooth-flowing river that rivals the Thames and the Hudson as a creator of national wealth.

ECCLESIASTICAL DEVELOPMENT

In the Middle Ages Antwerp was comprised within the see of Cambrai. But in 1559, at the instance of Philip II, a new arrangement of the episcopal sees of the Low countries was made by Paul IV, whereby three archiepiscopal and fourteen episcopal sees were created, and all external jurisdiction, however ancient, abolished. Antwerp became one of the six suffragans of Mechlin, and remained such until the end of the eighteenth century. This step did not meet with the goodwill of the merchants of the city, who feared the introduction of the Inquisition and the costliness of an episcopal establishment, and urged the transfer of the new see to Louvain, where it would be less offensive to the non-Catholic elements of their city. The new heretical doctrines were already deeply rooted in the city and vicinity, and their representatives were of course the chief agents of the opposition, though certain Catholic monastic interests were very active, being now called on by the Pope to provide for the support of the new see. Finally, the famous theologian Sonnius (from Son in Brabant) was transferred from Bois-le-Duc to Antwerp in 1569 as first bishop of the new see, and governed it until his death in 1576. Ten years of religious and political conflict elapsed before another bishop could be appointed in the person of Livinus Torrentius (Van der Beke), a Louvain theologian, graceful humanist, and diplomat. He died in 1595. The scholarly Miraeus (Le Mire) was Bishop of Antwerp from 1604 to 1611, and was succeeded in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by a series of fifteen bishops, the last of whom was Cornelius Nelis, librarian of Louvain University and Bishop of Antwerp from 1785 to his death in 1798. Pius VII suppressed the see 29 Nov., 1801, by the Bull “Qui Christi Domini vices.” Its former Belgian territory now belongs to the Archdiocese of Mechlin, the Dutch portion to the Diocese of Breda (Foppens, Historia Episcopatus Antuerpiensis, Brussels, 1717; Ram, Synopsis actorum eccl., Antwerp, Brussels, 1856). The abbeys and convents of Antwerp were long very famous centres of its religious life. In the twelfth century the Canons Regular of St. Norbert (Premonstratensians) founded the abbey of St. Michael, that became later one of the principal abbeys of the Low Countries, sheltered many royal guests, and eventually excited no little cupidity and persecution by reason of its great wealth. The Cathedral of Antwerp was originally a small Premonstratensian shrine known familiarly as “Our Lady of the Stump.” Many other religious orders found a shelter in Antwerp, Dominicans, Franciscans (1446), Carmelites (1494), Carthusians (1632), likewise female branches of the same. The Cistercians had two great abbeys, St. Sauveur, founded in 1451 by the devout merchant Peter Pot, and St. Bernard, about six miles from Antwerp, founded in 1233 (Papebroch, “Annales Antuerpienses,” to the year 1600, ed. Mertens and Buchmann, Antwerp, 1846–48).

RELIGIOUS CONFLICTS

The medieval religious life of Antwerp seems to have been troubled by only one notable heresy, that of Tanchelin in the twelfth century. But the principles and doctrines of Luther and Calvin soon found sympathizers among the German, English, and other foreign merchants and also among the citizens. First the Anabaptists and then the Calvinist field-preachers attacked with a fierce persistency the existing religious order. To the religious differences were added patriotic feelings and the hatred of Spanish domination. Popular passions, nursed from many sources, exploded in August, 1566, when the splendid cathedral that had been 176 years in process of building was sacked by a Calvinist mob, the seventy altars destroyed, and all the works of art it contained defaced or stolen. Similar scenes occurred in all the other churches and convents of Antwerp. The next year Spain replied by the sending of the Duke of Alva, one of the great military captains of the age, who inaugurated a reign of terror that bore with equal severity on Protestant and Catholic, since it interfered with the trade of the city and vicinity by stopping the supply of English wool for the looms of Flanders, and by intensifying the religious and patriotic embitterment whose seeds had first been sown by the Anabaptists and the Calvinists. Henceforth the history of Antwerp (ecclesiastical and civil) is intimately bound up with the story of the Gueux (Beggars) resistance to the policy of Philip II (1556–98). The sack of Antwerp by the mutinous Spanish troops (4 Nov., 1576), that French troops attempted to repeat (17 Jan., 1583), and the famous siege of the city by Spain’s great captain Alessandro Farnese, Duke of Parma and Piacenza, are among the darkest pages of the great city’s pitiful story in the last decades of the sixteenth century. At a cruel price set rather by politics than by religion, the Catholic faith had been preserved in Antwerp, and Protestant domination excluded in favour of Catholic rule. From 1599 to 1621 the Catholic Netherlands were governed by Albert, Archduke of Austria, and his spouse Isabella, daughter of Philip II. After the death of “the Archdukes,” Spanish rule was once more made permanent in this “cockpit of Europe” until 1714 when, as one result of the War of the Spanish Succession, the government of the Catholic Netherlands again fell to Austria.

INTELLECTUAL LIFE

Amid religious and political conflict the Catholic intellectual life of Antwerp never flagged. The city is famous in the annals of printing. In 1492 Thierry Maertens printed at Antwerp, as a fly-sheet, a Latin translation of the letter of Columbus in which he announced his discovery of the New World, and in this way probably first made known the great event to the men of Northern Europe. But it is to Christopher Plantin (d. 1589), and his son-in-law and successor Moretus, that the city chiefly owes its fame as a centre of book-making and distribution. This “giant among printers” organized the trade on a basis hitherto unattempted, began and executed extraordinary enterprises, and founded a house that lasted during the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries in which period it enjoyed a monopoly of the sale of missals and breviaries throughout the vast Spanish domains. It was the Plantin press that issued the first volume of the “Acta Sanctorum” (1643), an enterprise begun at Antwerp by the Jesuit Heribert Rosweyde (d. 1629), organized there by his confrere John Bolland (see BOLLANDISTS) and conducted there until 1778, when it fell a victim of the ridiculous “reforms” of Joseph II. Plantin’s own masterpiece is the great Antwerp Polyglot Bible in six folio volumes, the “Biblia Regia” issued at Antwerp from 1569 to 1573, and really at Plantin’s own expense. Besides the scholarly bishops of Antwerp already mentioned, the city boasts of other notable Catholic scholars, the great critic and savant Justus Lipsius, and other helpers of Plantin, e.g. Kiliaen, the Flemish lexicographer, and Ortelius and Mercator, the geographers (Max Rooses, Christophe Plantin, imprimeur anversois, Antwerp, 1900). In modern times it is celebrated as the home of Hendrik Conscience, the immortal Flemish novelist, and of Augustin De Backer, the erudite biographer of the Society of Jesus.

THE PAINTERS OF ANTWERP

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Catholic faith, municipal prosperity, and a certain large-mindedness combined to make Antwerp a centre of artistic life second to none in Europe. It was often called “the Florence of the North,” and was well-known in medieval times for its “Guild of St. Luke” founded in 1382, and active until the end of the last century. Prominent among the illustrious artists of Antwerp are the great portrait painter Quentin Matsys or Metsys (1466–1530) and Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640), the latter at once a prince of painters, courtier, diplomat, and Antwerp’s most distinguished citizen. He was also a very devout Catholic and heard Mass daily before beginning his work. Other famous artists were Van Dyck, Jordaens, Teniers, the Jesuit Seghers and sculptors like Luc Faydherbe and the Quellins. In modern times the genius of the old Antwerp painters has revived in masters like Wappers, Leys, and others. Religious realism, rich and vivid colouring, vigour of execution, minuteness of detail, abundance of ornate light, characterize the works of the Antwerp School of painters. Their city has long since become a museum of religious art unique on the northern side of the Alps and highly expressive of the earnest spiritual Catholicism of the once warlike burghers, now a new race of merchant-princes. The armies of Jacobin France soon became masters of Antwerp (1794) and for the next five years every kind of excess was committed there against the Catholic religion. Priests were exiled, even murdered; the churches and convents were closed and pillaged; the Catholic hierarchy abused and insulted in every conceivable manner; statues, paintings, art-works of all kinds belonging to the churches were sold at public auction and only the overthrow of the Directory in November 1799 by Napoleon Bonaparte prevented the demolition and sale of the incomparable cathedral as mere stone, timber, and iron.

ENGLISH CATHOLIC INTEREST

The interest of Catholic England in Antwerp is not a slight one, apart from the close commercial relations that existed from the beginning of the twelfth century to the end of the sixteenth. Persecuted English Catholics often took refuge in that city; thus English Brigittine nuns of the royal abbey of Syon House, nearly all of them of noble birth were welcomed there in the time of Henry VIII. A convent of English Carmelite nuns was founded there in 1619, and flourished until the French Revolution. When the sisters returned to Lanherne in Cornwall where their convent still exists. Mention is made in the city annals of Gilbert Curle, his wife Barbara Mowbray and his sister Elizabeth Curle, devoted adherents of Mary Stuart, the latter, her attendant at the block (Lingard, Hist. of England, VI, vi, 463). Their house at Antwerp was a shelter for persecuted Catholics from England. Dying, Gilbert Curle bequeathed sixty thousand florins to the Scotch College at Douay. Another English Catholic resident at Antwerp was the famous Richard Verstegen, a prominent religious publicist, author of the famous “Theatrum crudelitatis haereticorum” (Antwerp, 1586) with engravings designed by himself, a vivid polemical account of the sufferings of contemporary Catholics for their faith, also of several other works written in Flemish.

OBJECTS OF RELIGIOUS INTEREST

The Cathedral (St. Mary’s) begun in 1354 is said to have been 176 years in process of erection. It is cruciform in shape, with triple aisles and an ambulatory. Its dimensions in feet are: length 384, breadth of nave 171, breadth of transept 212, height 130. The vaults are supported by a forest of columns (125). The great northern tower is nearly 400 feet high and was compared by Napoleon Bonaparte to Mechlin lace hung aloft in mid-air. Its organ, built in 1891, contains ninety registers and is said to be the largest in Belgium. Among the famous art-treasures of the cathedral are the “Descent from the Cross” and the “Assumption” by Rubens. It was much damaged by the Calvinists in 1566 and by the French (1794–98). Other important churches are: St. Charles Borromeo, built 1614–21, and once decorated with thirty-six large ceiling-frescoes by Rubens; St. Jacques (1491–1656), once the favourite burial-place of the wealthy and distinguished families of Antwerp and filled with their monuments and chapels, including the Rubens chapel; St. Paul, built by the Dominicans (1531–71), since the battle of Lepanto (1571) the seat of a famous confraternity of the Rosary. There are also churches dedicated to St. Andrew, St. Augustine, St. George, Sts. Michael and Peter, and St. Joseph. The Plantin-Moretus Museum exhibits the workshop and residence of that great family of ecclesiastical printers (purchased in 1876 by the municipality) quite as they were in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In the various rooms may be seen copies of old missals and breviaries, correspondence of learned men (St. Charles Borromeo, Baronius), portraits of famous editors (Arias Montanus, Justus Lipsius) employed by Plantin and Moretus, drawings by Rubens, engravings by famous masters, artistic bindings, and specimens of all the most perfect work done for this establishment of learned printers during their flourishing period. Altogether it is a “unique picture of the dwelling and contiguous business premises of a Flemish patrician at the end of the sixteenth century.”

The Catholic population of Antwerp and arrondissements is 344,817 (census, 1900). The city contains 34 Catholic churches and chapels, 2 Protestant churches, and 2 synagogues. There are 7 religious orders of men and 30 of women. The chief educational institutions are the Academy of Fine Arts, Academy of Trades, Normal School, Royal Athenaeum, College of St. John Berchmans, Institute of St. Norbert, College of Notre Dame and Trades Institute of St. Ignatius, both under the Jesuits. There are in addition boarding schools and day schools under the following religious orders: Ursulines, Sisters of Our Lady, Sisters of the Terninck Foundation, Sisters of the Sacred Heart, Ladies of Christian Instruction, the Apostolines, Annunciates, Sisters of Mary and Sisters of the Heart of Mary. Among the charitable institutions are a Beguinage; a house of the Little Sisters of the Poor, with about 400 inmates; the mother-house of the Sisters of the Heart of Jesus, for the protection and reclamation of women. There are orphanages for boys and girls, two sailors’ homes, an asylum for the insane, a number of hospitals, e.g. St. Elizabeth’s with a capacity of 400 and Stuivenberg 500. In Antwerp also is situated the mother-house of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.

Besides the works quoted in the text see GENARD, Anvers a travers les ages; the histories of Belgium by NAMACHE, PIRENNE, MERTENS and TORFS; MOKE, Les Splendeurs de l’art en Belgique; ROBINSON, Antwerp: An Historical Sketch (London, 1904).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Fray Domingo de la Anunciación

Dominican missionary, b. at Fuenteovejuna, 1510; d. in Mexico, 1591. In the world his name was Juan de Ecija; his father was Hernando de Ecija. At the age of thirteen he asked to be admitted into the Order of St. Francis, but was refused. His father having died, he emigrated to New Spain (Mexico) with his elder brother, Hernando de Paz, who became secretary of the first royal audiencia.

Prosperity spoiled Hernando, but the younger brother, Juan, kept aloof from the temptations of wealth and ambition, and entered the Order of Dominicans in 1531, or 1532. He assumed the name of Domingo de Ia Anunciación, under which he thereafter was known. He was one of the most zealous instructors of the Mexican Indians in the sixteenth century. During the epidemic of 1545 he attended to the natives unceasingly, regardless of himself, and administered the sacraments, from Mexico as far south as Oaxaca, wandering on foot from village to village. In 1559, Fray Domingo, with three other priests and a lay brother, all of the Order of St. Dominic, accompanied Don Tristan de Arellano y Luna on his disastrous expedition to Florida. Shipwrecked, deprived of almost every resource, he suffered the worst. All attempts to penetrate inland failed, and the survivors had to go back as best they could. After his return to Mexico he continued as teacher among the Indians, but was twice prior of the convent of Santo Domingo at the capital, once prior of the convent of Puebla, four times master of novices, and definidor in various provincial councils. In 1585 he became blind and died six years later, universally regretted for his virtues and untiring devotion to the cause of religion and education, chiefly of the Indians. His elder brother, Hernando, finally induced by him to abandon the life of dissipation he had been leading, also became a Dominican, and rose to a high position in the order. Fray Domingo de la Anunciación has left, as far as is known, only one literary monument, which is very rare. It bears the title: “Doctrina Xpiana Breve y Compendiosa &ca &ca” (Mexico, 1565), and is a dialogue between master and pupil on the Christian doctrine, in Spanish and Mexican.

The biography of Fray Domingo is based almost exclusively upon the work of Fray AGUSTÍN DAVILA PADILLA: Historia de la Fundación y discorso de la provincia de Santiago de México de la orden de Predicadores (first edition, Madrid, 1596; second, Brussels 1625; third, with a different title, valladolid, 1634). The book is exceedingly rare. That the Doctrina Xpiana was said to be printed in 1545, instead of 1565, is an error due to Padilla. That error was repeated by NICOLAS ANTONIO, Biblioteca Hispana Nova (1670); by LEON Y PINELO, Epítome de la Biblioteca Oriental y Occidental (Madrid, 1738), II; and BÉRISTAIN DE SOUZA, Biblioteca hispano-americana setentrional (Mexico, 1816), to be finally corrected by GARCIA YCAZBALCETA, Bibliografía mexicana del Siglo XVI (Mexico, 1886), in which book the frontispiece of the Doctrina is given, with numerous data on the life of the author. On the Florida mission see Documentos inéditos de Indias; BUCKINHAM-SMITH, Colección de Documentos para la Historia de la Florida; CÁRDENAS Y ZCANO (pseudonym for Bárcia), Ensayo cronológico para la Historia de la Florida; GERÓNIMO DE MENDIETA, Historia Eclesiástica indiana (published by Ycazbalceta); WOOOBURY-LOWERY, Spanish Settlements in the United States, I.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Fray Juan de la Anunciación

Born at Granada in Spain, probably 1514; died 1594. He went to Mexico, where he joined the Augustinians in 1554. He was several times prior of the convents of his order at Mexico and Pueblo, and twice definidor. He died at the age of eighty. He was also rector of the college of San Pablo. Fray Juan belongs to the class of religious so numerous and so little known, or at least considered, who in the sixteenth century devoted themselves with special attention to the literary and religious education of the Indians. He published in Mexico three books, which are of at least linguistic value to-day, and were originally useful for the instruction of the aborigines of Nahuatl stock. The earliest, that of the year 1575, is a “Doctrina Christiana” in Mexican (Nahuatl) and Spanish. In the same year he published “Sermones para publicar, despedir la Bulla de la Sancta Crusada,” in Mexican and Spanish. He was then sub-prior of the convent of St. Augustine in Mexico. Finally, in 1577, there appeared his “Sermonario en Lengua Mexicana . . . con un Catecismo en lengua Mexicana y Espanyola, con el Calendario.” Very few copies of these works are known to exist.

DE GRIJALVA, Cronica de la Orden de San Augustin, en las provincias de la Nueva Espanya (Mexico, 1624); LEON Y PINELO, Epitome de la Biblioteca oriental y occidental (edition of 1738; first edition, 1628); NICOLAS ANTONIO, Biblioteca Hispana Nova (1670 and 1783); BERISTAIN DE SOUZA, Biblioteca hispano-americana setentrional (Mexico, 1816); YCAZ-BALCETA, Bibliografia mexicana del Siglo XVI (Mexico, 1886).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Diocese of Aosta

An Italian diocese, suffragan of Turin, and comprising 73 towns in the province of Turin. Although St. Ursus is sometimes said to have been the first bishop, this is greatly controverted. The first known, certainly, as such was St. Eustasius, whose name coupled with Aosta is signed to a letter sent to Leo I by the second Synod of Milan (451). [F. Savio, S.J., Gli Antichi Vescovi d’Italia (Piemonte), Turin, 1899, 69–108.] From the ninth century the list of bishops is fairly complete. Suppressed in 1802 it was re-established in 1817. Aosta has 82,000 Catholics, 87 parishes, 188 secular priests, 24 regulars, 55 seminarists, 566 churches, chapels, or oratories. In the cathedral treasury is a diptych of Anicius Probus, Roman consul in 406, which shows the Emperor Honorius conquering the hordes of Alaric. It was discovered in 1833. St. Anselm (1033–1109), Archbishop of Canterbury, was a native of Aosta. St. Bernard de Menthon (1008), Archdeacon of Aosta, founded the hospice on the Alps named after him, as a relief to pilgrims in the passage of the Alps.

BATTANDIER, Ann. Cath. Pont., 1906.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Apaches

A tribe of North American Indians belonging linguistically to the Athapascan stock whose original habitat is believed to have been Northwestern Canada. The family spread southwards to California and thence diffused itself over Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Onate, in 1598, is the first writer to mention Apaches by this name. The Apaches, from their first appearance in history, have been noted for their ferocity and restlessness. Opposed to fixed abodes, they have ever been a terror to the more peaceably inclined red men.

The history of Catholic missionary effort among the Apaches is a sad one. We find Franciscans at work among them as early as 1629, when Father Benavides founded Santa Clara de Capo on the border of the Apache country in New Mexico. Yet, though an Apache chief, Sanaba, had been converted to the faith, we hear of the tribe itself only as a despoiler of the Christian Pueblo Indians. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Jesuit missionaries of Upper California also came in contact with the Apaches. The latter frequently harassed the reservations near the Arizona frontier with a ferocity which gained for them the appellation of the Iroquois of the West. As a means of protecting their converts, the Jesuits attempted to convert the savage Apaches, and the celebrated Father Kino (Kuehn), cosmographer and missioner, undertook the task. He made such a favourable impression on them that they invited him to dwell among them, but his death shortly after frustrated the design, and we hear no more of Jesuit missions to the tribe. In 1733, Father Aponte y Lis, a Franciscan labouring on the Texan mission, devoted his best efforts to winning over the Apaches. He persuaded the Spanish Viceroy to lend material assistance, and finally, in 1757, San Saba and San Luis de Amarillas were established; but the nomadic Apaches refused to settle on reservations despite the efforts of Fathers Terreros, Santiesteban, Molina, and other Franciscans. Moreover, the neighbouring Indians resented the attempt to domesticate the Apaches near their homes, and murdered several of the fathers. Another mission, San Lorenzo on the Rio José, founded in 1761, was maintained for a few years by Fathers Ximenes and Baños. Out of some 3,000 Apaches they induced about 400 to settle at the mission, and baptized 80 persons in danger of death. Hopes of lasting results were now entertained, as the Apaches allowed their children to be instructed and their sick to be visited, but the Comanches destroyed the settlement in 1769. We read of no more organized work among the Apaches. Soon after the United States Government had acquired the southwestern territories, it came into collision with the restless Apaches, and a relentless state of war with the tribe has existed practically down to the present day. In 1870 the Apaches of Arizona were visited by the Rev. A. Jouvenceau, a secular priest, but he found no Christians among them. A few Jicarilla Apaches, living dispersed among the New Mexican settlements, have been baptized, but as a tribe the Apaches have never been Christianized. Catholic missionaries and Indian agents agree in describing them at the present day as the most savage, degraded, and immoral of all our North American Indians. Their number is estimated at 5,200, of whom 300 have been removed to Oklahoma.

SHEA, Cath. Church in Colonial Days (New York, 1886); IDEM., Hist. of Cath. Missions among the Indians (New York, 1855); CLINCH, California and its Missions (San Francisco, 1904).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Apameia

A titular metropolitan see of Syria, in the valley of the Orontes, whose episcopal list dates from the first century (Gams,( 446, 451). It was still a flourishing place in the time of the Crusades, and was known to the Arabs as Fâmieh. Vast ruins of a very ornamental charcter abound in the vicinity. For another Apameia (in Phrygia) known as Apameia Cibotos (the Ark) see “Bulletin Critique” (Paris, 1890), XI, 296–297. There was still another see of the same name in Bithynia, whose episcopal list is known since the fourth century (Gams,( 443).

LEGENDRE in VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible (1891), s.v.; DE VOGUEE, La Syrie centrale; Architecture civile et religieuse, (Paris, 1866–67); BUTLER, Architecture etc., in Northern Central Syria (New York), 1903), passim.

Antonio Aparisi y Guijarro

Parliamentary orator, jurisconsult, Catholic controversialist, and Spanish litterateur, b. in Valencia, 28 Mar., 1815; d. in Madrid, 5 Nov., 1872. He was extremely gifted; of extensive knowledge, brilliant imagination, graceful and beautiful power of expression, and exquisite literary taste. As a man, he was modest, kind-hearted, and most charitable, a fervent Catholic and an ardent patriot. In 1839 he was admitted to the bar, and defended many criminal cases, winning them in almost every instance. He published poems and articles in the monthly periodical, “El Licco Valenciano” (1841- 42), in “La Restauración,” a Catholic review of Valencia (1843- 44), and was editor of the newspaper, “El pensamiento de Valencia” (1857–58). He contributed to “La Esperanza,” “La Estrella,” and particularly to “La Regeneracion” (Nov., 1862, to Nov., 1872), Catholic newspapers of Madrid, being editor of the last-named at different times, and collaborator in the publication of the review “La Concordia” (1863–64).

He was sent as representative from Valencia to the Cortes (1858–65), where, as leader of the royalists in the House of Representatives, he delivered many eloquent discourses against the disentailment laws, in defence of Catholic union, in reprobation of despoiling the Pope of his temporal power, and on other vital questions touching the Church and Spain. In Paris, in 1869, he attempted to unite the royal families of Isabel II and Charles of Bourbon, and for dynastic reasons also went to Paris and London in 1869–70, and took part in the Carlist conference in Switzerland in April, 1870. He took the initiative in the formation in Paris of a Central Congress of the Carlist party. In 1860 he wrote the treatise “El Papa y Napoleón,” and later four others: “Los tres Orleans” (1869), “El Rey de España” (1869), “La cuestión dinástica (1869), and “Restauración” (1872), leaving unpublished “El libro del pueblo.” In February or March of 1870 he had an audience with Pius IX, who bestowed on him many marks of special favour. In 1871 he was elected senator from Guipuzcoa. He was also made a member of the Royal Spanish Academy, but did not live to take his seat. The works of Aparisi were published in Madrid during the years 1873 to 1877, in five volumes, containing his biography as well as poems, discourses, political and academic, articles and treatises, and many forensic writings and speeches.

NOCEDAL, Don Antonio Aparisi y Guijarro; discurso necrologico; GALINDO Y DE VERA, Apuntes biograficos de Aparisi, Enciclopedia hispano-americana, (Barcelona, 1887), II.

CECILIO GOMEZ RODELES

Apelles

Founder of a Gnostic sect; died at an advanced age late in the second century. What little is known of his life is gleaned chiefly from fragments of the writings of his antagonist Rhodon, preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., V, xii), and from Tertullian’s “Prescription against Heretics” (xxx). At Rome he separated from Marcion, whose most famous pupil he was, and went to Alexandria, where he met the visionary Philumene, whose utterances he regarded as inspired. Besides collecting her oracles in a book entitled “Manifestations,” he wrote an extensive work, Eullogismoi, an attack on Mosaic theology. The moral character of Apelles is differently estimated according as one is influenced either by Rhodon’s uncoloured picture of the aged heresiarch, or by the stories of scandals in his early life to which Tertullian, not without exaggeration, refers.

HARNACK, De Apellis gnosi monarchicâ (Leipzig, 1874); IDEM in Texte und Untersuch. (Leipzig, 1890), VI, iii, 109–120, and ibid. (new series, Leipzig, 1900), V, iii, 93–100; BARDENHEWER, Gesch. der altkirch. Lit. (Freiburg, 1902), I, 343, 344; TILLEMONT, Mémoires (Venice, 1732), II, 282–285, 610, 611. BAREILLE, in Dict. de théol. cath., I, 1455–57. HORT in Dict. of Christ. Biog. (London, 1877), I, 127, 128.

JOHN B. PETERSON

St. Aphian

St. Aphian (or Apian), an illustrious martyr, under the Emperor Maximian, c. 306. He was only eighteen when he entered the temple at Cæsarea, where the prefect Urbanus was offering sacrifice. Seizing the outstretched hand that was presenting the incense, he reproached the magistrate with the idolatrous act. The guards fell upon him furiously and, after cruelly torturing him, flung him into a dungeon. The next day he was brought before the Prefect, torn with iron claws, beaten with clubs, and burned over a slow fire, and then sent back to confinement. After three days he was again taken from prison and thrown into the sea with stones tied to his feet. Eusebius, an eyewitness, declares that an earthquake simultaneously shook the city, and that the sea flung up his corpse on the shore. He belonged to Lycia, but had withdrawn to Cappadocia because his parents, who were both distinguished and rich, resisted his efforts to convert them to Christianity. St. Pamphilus was at Cæsarea at the time, expounding Holy Scripture, and the young Aphian was one of his disciples. He lived at the house of Eusebius, but gave no intimation of his purpose to make the public protest which ended in his martyrdom. The Greeks refer to him as the brother of St. Ædisius. In the old martyrologies his feast was on the fifth, but the Bollandists pronounce for the second of April as the correct date.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Aphraates

(Gr., Aphraates; Syr., Aphrahat or Pharhad).

The long list of Syriac writers whose works have come down to us is headed by Aphraates (fourth century), surnamed the “Persian Sage.” The few biographical data which we possess of this illustrious author are gleaned from his own writings. From these we learn that he was born of pagan parents during the last half of the third century, very probably on the frontier region of the Persian empire. After his conversion to Christianity he embraced the religious life, and was later elevated to the episcopate, on which occasion he assumed the Christian name of Jacob. The adoption of this name subsequently led to a confusion of identity, and for centuries the works of Aphraates were ascribed to the famous Jacob, Bishop of Nisibis (d. A.D. 338). It was not until the tenth century that the “Persian Sage” was finally identified with Aphraates, the name under which he is known to modern scholars. According to a manuscript of the British Museum dated A.D. 1364 (Orient, 1017) Aphraates was “Bishop of the monastery of Mar Mattai,” on the eastern shore of the Tigris, near the modern Mosul in Mesopotamia. The ruins of this monastery, now called “Sheikh Matta,” are still to be seen. It was here that he seems to have spent most of his life. Regarding the date of his death, nothing is known. Barhebræus (Chron. Eccles., Part II, § 10) informs us that Pharhad, or Aphraates, flourished in the time of Papas I, the Catholicus who died in A.D. 334. This is in accord with the data found in our author’s writings which place the period of his literary activity between A.D. 337 and 345.

The writings of Aphraates consist of twenty-three “Demonstrations,” or homilies on moral and controversial topics. The first twenty-two are alphabetical, each beginning with one of the Syriac letters in alphabetic order, and may be divided into two groups according to the time of their composition. The first ten, which were written in A.D. 337, treat of (i) “Faith,” (ii) “Charity,” (iii) “Fasting,” (iv) “Prayer,” (v) “Wars,” (vi) “Monks,” (vii) “Penitents,” (viii) “Resurrection,” (ix) “Humility,” and (x) “Pastors.” The second group, composed in A.D. 344, are entitled, (xi) “Circumcision,” (xii) “The Passover,” (xiii) “The Sabbath,” (xiv) “Hortatory,” (xv) “Divers Meats,” (xvi) “The Call of the Gentiles,” (xvii) “Jesus the Messias,” (xviii) “Virginity,” (xix) “The Dispersion of Israel,” (xx) “Almsgiving,” (xxi) “Persecution,” (xxii) “Death and the Latter Times.” To this collection is subjoined a twenty-third “Demonstration,” composed in A.D. 345 and entitled “Concerning the Grape,” in reference to Isaias, lxv, 8. These homilies, which are also called “Epistles” because they are in the form of answers to the queries of a friend, constitute the earliest extant document of the Syrian Church, and besides their linguistic importance are of the highest value for the Catholic apologist. They abound with precious information on the most important questions of dogmatic and moral theology, liturgy, ecclesiastical, and even profane history, and are pregnant with important conclusions in favour of the conformity of the doctrines of the Catholic Church with those of the early Christian Church in the fourth century. Some of these doctrines are, for example, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin and her Divine Maternity, the foundation of the Church on St. Peter, and the existence of all the sacraments except matrimony, which is not mentioned. In regard to the Holy Eucharist, Aphraates affirms that it is the real Body and Blood of Christ. In the seventh “Demonstration” he treats of penance and penitents, and represents the priest as a physician who is charged with the healing of a man’s wounds. The sinner must make known to the physician his infirmities in order to be healed, i.e. he must confess his sins to the priest, who is bound to secrecy. Because of the numerous quotations from Holy Writ used by Aphraates, his writings are also very valuable for the history of the canon of Sacred Scripture and of exegesis in the early Mesopotamian Church.

The editio princeps of the Syriac text of the twenty-three “Demonstrations” was issued by W. Wright, “The Homilies of Aphraates” (London, 1869). Since then another edition of the series of twenty-two has been published by the Benedictine scholar Dom Parisot [Graffin, Patrologia Syriaca (Paris, 1894), I], including a Latin version, and preceded by a learned and copious introduction. A German translation of the whole work was published by Bert [Gebhardt and Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1888), III]. An English translation of eight “Demonstrations,” including an historical introduction, was published by Dr. John Gwynn [Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (New York, 1898), XIII].

SASSE, Prolegomena in Aphraatis sepientis Persæ sermonies homileticos (Leipzig, 1879); FORGET, De vitâ et scriptis Aphraatis (Louvain, 1882); WRIGHT, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894), 31–33; DUVAL, La littérature syriaque (Paris, 1900), 224–229; Labourt, Le christianisme dans l’empire Perse (Paris, 1904), 32–42 et passim; BURKITT, Early Christianity outside the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 1899), Lectures ii, iii; PARISOT in VIG., Dict. de la Biblé (Paris, 1892); IDEM in Dict. de théol. cath. (Paris, 1903); NESTLE IN HERZOG, Realencyklopädie (3d ed.).

F.X.E. ALBERT

Apiarius of Sicca

A priest of the diocese of Sicca, in proconsular Africa. Interest attaches to him only because of his appeal to Rome from his bishop’s sentence of excommunication, and the consequent protracted parleying between Rome and Carthage about the privileges of the African Church in regulating its own discipline. In the resentment which the peculiar circumstances of the case provoked in many African bishops opponents of the Papacy read the denial by the Church of St. Augustine of the doctrine of Papal supremacy; and thus the case of Apiarius has come to be the classical example in anti-Roman controversial works, illustrating the fifth-centruy repudiation of Papal claims to disciplinary control.

Apiarius, deposed by Urbanus, Bishop of Sicca, for grave misconduct, appealed to Pope Zosimus, who, in view of iregularities in the bishop’s procedure, ordered that the priest should be reinstated, and his bishop disciplined. Chagrined, perhaps, at the unworthy priest’s success, a general synod of Carthage, in May, 418, forbade appeal “beyond the seas” of clerics inferior to bishops. Recognizing in what was virtually a restatement of previous African legislation an expression of displeasure on the part of the African bishops, Pope Zosimus sent a delegation to defend his right to receive certain appeals, citing decrees believed by him to have been enacted at the Council of Nicaea, but which in fact were canons of the council of Sardica. The African bishops who met the legates, while not recognizing these decrees as Nicene, accepted them pending verification. In May, 419, was held the sixteenth Council of Carthage, and there again the representations of Zosimus were accepted, awaiting the result of a comparison of the Nicene canons as they existed in Africa, in which the decrees cited by the Pope had not been found, with those of the churches of Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople. By the end of the year 419 Pope Boniface, who had succeeded Zosimus in December, 418, was informed that the eastern codices did not contain the alleged decrees; but, as the now repentant Apiarius had meantime been assigned to a new field of labour, interest in the affair subsided. The letter to Pope Boniface, while evidencing irritation at the arrogance of the legate Faustinus, contains nothing incompatible with belief in the Pope’s supremacy.

Some four years later Apiarius relapsed into scandalous courses, was once more excommunicated, and again appealed to Rome. Pope Celestine, who had succeeded Boniface in September, 423, reinstated him and deputed the unwelcome Faustinus to sustain this decision before the African Bishops. The legate’s exasperating efforts in behalf of the unworthy priest were miserably thwarted by Apiarius’s admission of his guilt. Incensed in these provoking circumstances, by the heightened arrogance of Faustinus and the misinformed Pope’s haste in sustaining Apiarius, a number of African bishops addressed to Celestine the famous letter, “Optaremus,” in which they bitterly resent the insults of the tactless legate, and request that in future the popes will exercise due discretion in hearing appeals from Africa and exact from the African Church in such matters no more than was provided for by the Council of Nicaea. This letter, with all his boldness, cannot be construed into a denial of the Pope’s jurisdiction by the Church of Africa. It simply voices the desire of the African bishops to continue the enjoyment of those privileges of partial home-rule which went by default to their Church during the stormy period when the theory of universal papal dominion could not be always reduced to practice, because of the trials which the growing church had to endure. But before the time of Apiarius, as the Sardican canons referred to attest, Western Europe had come to accept Rome as a court of last appeal in disciplinary causes. Africa, too, was now ready, and its readiness is shown by the case of Apiarius as well as by the records of like appeals to Rome to which St. Augustine himself bears witness.

JOHN B. PETERSON

Apocalypse

Apocalypse, from the verb άποκαλύπτω (apokalypto), to reveal, is the name given to the last book in the Bible. Protestants call it the Book of Revelation, the title which it bears in the King James Version. Although a Christian work, the Apocalypse belongs to a class of literature dealing with eschatological subjects and much in vogue among the Jews of the first century before, and after, Christ.

AUTHENTICITY

The author of the Apocalypse calls himself John. “John to the seven churches which are in Asia” (Ap., i, 4). And again, “I, John, your brother and your partner in tribulation, . . . was in the island, which called Patmos, for the word of God” (i, 9). The Seer does not further specify his personality. But from tradition we know that the Seer the Apocalypse was John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, the Beloved Disciple of Jesus. At the end of the second century the Apocalypse was acknowledged by the historical representatives of the principal churches as the genuine work of John the Apostle. In Asia, Melito, Bishop of Sardis, one of the Seven Churches of the Apocalypse, acknowledged the “Revelation of John” and wrote a commentary on it (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV, 26). In Gaul, Irenaeus firmly believes in its Divine and Apostolic authority (Adversus Haer., V, 30). In Africa, Tertullian frequently quotes Revelation without apparent misgivings as to its authenticity (C. Marcion, III, 14, 25). In Italy, Bishop Hippolytus assigns it to the Apostle St. John, and the Muratorian Fragment (a document about the beginning of the third century) enumerates it along with the other canonical writings, adding, it is true, apocryphal Apocalypse of St. Peter, but with the clause, quam quidam ex nostris in ecclesia legi nolunt. The Vetus Itala, moreover, the standard Latin version in Italy and Africa during the third century, contained the Apocalypse. In Egypt, Clement and Origen believed without hesitation in its Joannine authorship. They were both scholars and men of critical judgment. Their opinion is all the more valuable as they had no sympathy with the millennial teaching of the book. They contented themselves with an allegorical interpretation of certain passages but never ventured to impugn its authority. Approaching more closely the apostolic age we have the testimony of St. Justin Martyr, about the middle of the second century. From Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., IV, xviii, 8), as well as from his dialogue with the Jew, Tryphon (c. 81), held in Ephesus, the residence of the apostle, we know that he admitted the authenticity of the Apocalypse. Another witness of about the same time is Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, a place not far from Ephesus. If he himself had not been a hearer of St. John, he certainly was personally acquainted with several of his disciples (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, 39). His evidence however is but indirect. Andreas, Bishop of Caesarea, in the prologue to his commentary on the Apocalypse, informs us that Papias admitted its inspired character. From the Apocalypse undoubtedly Papias derived his ideas of the millennium, on which account Eusebius decries his authority, declaring him to have been a man of limited understanding. The apostolic writings which are extant furnish no evidence for the authenticity of the book.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST ITS AUTHENTICITY

The Alogi, about A.D. 200, a sect so called because of their rejection of the logos-doctrine, denied the authenticity of the Apocalypse, assigning it to Cerinthus (Epiphanius, LI, ff, 33; cf. Iren., Adv. Haer., III, 11, 9). Caius, a presbyter in Rome, of about the same time, holds a similar opinion. Eusebius quotes his words taken from his Disputation: “But Cerinthus by means of revelations which he pretended were written by a great Apostle falsely pretended to wonderful things, asserting that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom” (Hist. Eccl., III, 28). The most formidable antagonist of the authority of the Apocalypse is Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, disciple of Origen. He is not opposed to the supposition that Cerinthus is the writer of the Apocalypse. “For,” he says, “this is the doctrine of Cerinthus, that there will be an earthly reign of Christ, and as he was a lover of the body he dreamed that he would revel in the gratification of the sensual appetite.” He himself did not adopt the view that Cerinthus was the writer. He regarded the Apocalypse as the work of an inspired man but not of an Apostle (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, 25). During the fourth and fifth centuries the tendency to exclude the Apocalypse from the list of sacred books continued to increase in the Syro-Palestinian churches. Eusebius expresses no definite opinion. He contents himself with the statement: “The Apocalypse is by some accepted among the canonical books but by others rejected” (Hist. Eccl., III, 25). St. Cyril of Jerusalem does not name it among the canonical books (Catech. IV, 33–36); nor does it occur on the list of the Synod of Laodicea, or on that of Gregory of Nazianzus. Perhaps the most telling argument against the apostolic authorship of the book is its omission from the Peshito, the Syrian Vulgate. But although the authorities giving evidence against the authenticity of the Apocalypse deserve full consideration they cannot annul or impair the older and unanimous testimony of the churches. The opinion of its opponents, moreover, was not free from bias. From the manner in which Dionysius argued the question, it is evident that he thought the book dangerous as occasioning crude and sensual notions concerning the resurrection. In the West the Church persevered in its tradition of apostolic authorship. St. Jerome alone seemed to have been influenced by the doubts of the East.

THE APOCALYPSE COMPARED WITH THE FOURTH GOSPEL

The relation between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel has been discussed by authors, both ancient and modern. Some affirm and others deny their mutual resemblance. The learned Alexandrine Bishop, Dionysius, drew up in his time a list of differences to which modern authors have had little to add. He begins by observing that whereas the Gospel is anonymous, the writer of the Apocalypse prefixes his name, John. He next points out how the characteristic terminology of the Fourth Gospel, so essential to the Joannine doctrine, is absent in the Apocalypse. The terms, “life,” “light,” “grace,” “truth,” do not occur in the latter. Nor did the crudeness of diction on the part of the Apocalypse escape him. The Greek of the Gospel he pronounces correct as to grammar, and he even gives its author credit for a certain elegance of style. But the language of the Apocalypse appeared to him barbarous and disfigured by solecisms. He, therefore inclines to ascribe the works to different authors (Hist. Eccl., VII, 25). The upholders of a common authorship reply that these differences may be accounted for by bearing in mind the peculiar nature and aim of each work. The Apocalypse contains visions and revelations. In conformity with other books of the same kind, e.g. the Book of Daniel, the Seer prefixed his name to his work. The Gospel on the other hand is written in the form of an historical record. In the Bible, works of that kind do not bear the signature of their authors. So also as regards the absence of Joannine terminology in the Apocalypse. The object of the Gospel is to prove that Jesus is the life and the light of the world, the fullness of truth and grace. But in the Apocalypse Jesus is the conqueror of Satan and his kingdom. The defects of grammar in the Apocalypse are conceded. Some of them are quite obvious. Let the reader but notice the habit of the author to add an apposition in the nominative to a word in an oblique case; e.g. iii, 12; xiv, 12; xx, 2. It further contains some Hebrew idioms: e.g. έρχόμενος (erchomenos) equivalent to the הבא, “the one that is to come,” instead of έσόμενος (esomenos), i, 8. But it should be borne in mind that when the Apostle first came to Ephesus he was, probably wholly ignorant of the Greek tongue. The comparative purity and smoothness of diction in the Gospel may be adequately accounted for by the plausible conjecture that its literary composition was not the work of St. John but of one of his pupils. The defenders of the identity of authorship further appeal to the striking fact that in both works Jesus is called the Lamb and the Word. The idea of the lamb making atonement for sin by its blood is taken from Isaias, liii. Throughout the Apocalypse the portraiture of Jesus is that of the lamb. Through the shedding of its blood it has opened the book with seven seals and has triumphed over Satan. In the Gospel Jesus is pointed out by the Baptist as the “Lamb of God . . . him who taketh away the sin of the world” (John, i, 29). Some of the circumstances of His death resemble the rite observed in the eating of the paschal lamb, the symbol of redemption. His crucifixion takes place on the selfsame day on which the Passover was eaten (John xviii, 28). Whilst hanging on the cross, His executioners did not break the bones in His body, that the prophecy might be fulfilled: “no bone in it shall be broken” (John, xix, 36). The name Logos, “Word,” is quite peculiar to the Apocalypse, Gospel and first Epistle of St. John. The first sentence of the Gospel is, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The first epistle of St. John begins, “That which was from the beginning which we have heard . . . of the word of life.” So also in the Apocalypse, “And his name is called the Word of God” (xix, 13).

TIME AND PLACE

The Seer himself testifies that the visions he is about to narrate were seen by him whilst in Patmos. “I John . . . was in the island which is called Patmos, for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus” (i. 9). Patmos is one of the group of small islands close to the coast of Asia Minor, about twelve geographical miles from Ephesus. Tradition, as Eusebius tells us, has handed down that John was banished to Patmos in the reign of Domitian for the sake of his testimony of God’s word (Hist. Eccl., III, 18). He obviously refers to the passage “for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus” (i, 9). It is true that the more probable meaning of this phrase is, “in order to hear the word of God,” etc., and not “banished because of the word of God,” etc., (cf. i. 2). But it was quite natural that the Seer should have regarded his banishment to Patmos as prearranged by Divine Providence that in the solitude of the island he might hear God’s word. The tradition recorded by Eusebius finds confirmation in the words of the Seer describing himself as “a brother and partaker in tribulation” (i, 9). Irenaeus places the Seer’s exile in Patmos at the end of Domitian’s reign. “Paene sub nostro saeculo ad finem Domitiani imperii” (Adv. Haer., V. 4). The Emperor Domitian reigned A.D. 81–96. In all matters of Joannine tradition Irenaeus deserves exceptional credit. His lifetime bordered upon the Apostolic age and his master, St. Polycarp, had been among the disciples of St. John. Eusebius, chronicling the statement of Irenaeus without any misgivings, adds as the year of the Seer’s exile the fourteenth of Domitian’s reign. St. Jerome also, without reserve or hesitation, follows the same tradition. “Quarto decimo anno, secundam post Neronem persecutionem movente Domitiano, in Patmos insulam relegatus, scripsit Apocalypsim” (Ex libro de Script. Eccl). Against the united testimony of these three witnesses of tradition the statement of Epiphanius placing the Seer’s banishment in the reign of Claudius, A.D. 41–54, appears exceedingly improbable (Haer., li, 12, 33).

CONTENTS

(1) THE SEVEN CHURCHES. Chap. i, 1–3. Title and description of the book. The revelation made by Jesus the Messias to John.—(i, 4–9). Salutation prefatory to the seven Epistles, wishing the churches the grace and the peace of God and Jesus.—(i, 9–20). The vision of Jesus as the Son of man. The portrait is taken from Dan., x, and Henoch, xlvi. Cf. the phrases, “one like the son of man” (Ap., i, 13; Dan., x, 16, and vii, 13); “girded with gold” (Ap., i, 13; Dan., x, 5); “Eyes like flames of fire” (Ap., i, 14; Dan., x, 6); “a voice like that of a multitude” (Ap., i, 15; Dan., x, 6); “I fell down like one senseless” (Ap., i, 17; Dan., x, 9); “and he touched me” (Ap., i, 17; Dan., x, 18); “hair white like wool” (Ap., i, 14; Dan., vii, 9; Hen. xlvi, 1).—Chap ii, 1-iii, 22. The Epistles, to the seven Churches. The Churches are Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. The Epistles are short exhortations to the Christians to remain steadfast in their faith, to beware of false apostles and to abstain from fornication and from meat offered to idols.

(2) THE BOOK WITH THE SEVEN SEALS. Chaps. iv and v. The vision of God enthroned upon the Cherubim. The throne is surrounded by twenty-four elders. In the right hand of God is a scroll sealed with seven seals. In the midst of the Cherubim and the elders the Seer beholds a lamb, “agnus tamquam occisus,” having on its throat the scar of the gash by which it was slain. The Seer weeps because no one either in heaven or on earth can break the seals. He is comforted on hearing that the lamb was worthy to do so because of the redemption it had wrought by its blood. The portrait of the throne is taken from Ezechiel, i. Compare in both accounts the description of the four beasts. They resemble a lion, an ox, a man, and an eagle. Their bodies are full of eyes (cf. Ap., iv, 8; and Ez., x, 12). The twenty-four elders were probably suggested by the twenty-four courses of priests ministering in the Temple. The lamb slain for the sins of mankind is from Isaias, liii.

Chaps. vi and vii. The seven seals and the numbering of the Saints. At the opening of four seals, four horses appear. Their colour is white, black, red, and sallow, or green (χλωρός (chloros) = ברד, piebald). They signify conquest, slaughter, dearth and death. The vision is taken from Zach., vi, 1–8. At the opening of the fifth seal the Seer beholds the martyrs that were slain and hears their prayers for the final triumph. At the opening of the sixth seal the predestined to glory are numbered and marked. The Seer beholds them divided into two classes. First, 144,000 Jews, 12,000 of every tribe. Then a numberless multitude chosen from all nations and tongues. Chaps. viii and ix. After the interval of about half an hour, the seventh seal is broken; seven angels issue forth, each one holding a trumpet. The sounding of the first four trumpets causes a partial destruction of the elements of nature. One-third of the earth is burned, as also one-third of the trees and all the grass. One-third of the sea becomes blood (cf. Ex., vii, 17). One-third of the rivers is turned into water of wormwood. One-third of the sun, moon, and stars is obscured, causing one-third of the day to be dark (cf. Ex., x, 21). At the sounding of the fifth trumpet locusts ascend from the abyss. Their work is to torment men for five months, They are specially charged not to touch the grass. Their shape is that of horses (Joel 2:4); their teeth like those of lions (Joel 1:6); their hair like the hair of women. They have the tails of scorpions where with to chastise man. The command over them is held by the Angel of the Abyss, named Abaddon, the destroyer. At the sound of the sixth trumpet the four angels chained at the Euphrates are let loose. They lead forth an army of horsemen. By the fire which the horses spit out and by their tails which are like serpents, one-third of mankind is killed. After the sixth trumpet there are two digressions. (1) The angel standing on the land and the sea. He swears that at the sound of the seventh trumpet the mystery will be completed. He hands to the Seer a little book. When eaten by him it is found sweet to taste, but bitter when once devoured. Taken from Ezech., ii. 8; iii, 3. (2) The contamination of the court of the Temple by the heathens. It lasts three and a half years. Taken from Dan., vii, 25; ix, 27; xii, 7–11. During that time two witnesses are sent to preach in Jerusalem. They are the two olive-trees foretold by Zach., iv, 3,11. At the end of their mission they are slain by the beast. They are raised to life after three and a half days (= years). The seventh trumpet is now sounded, the nations are judged and the kingdom of Christ is established.

(3) THE DIVINE DRAMA. First Act. Chaps. xii, xiii, xiv. The lamb, the woman, and her seed; and opposed to them, the dragon, the beast from the sea, and the beast from the land. The main idea is taken from Gen., iii, 15. “I will put enmities between thee (the serpent) and the woman, and thy seed and her seed.” The woman is arrayed in heavenly splendour; a crown of twelve stars on her head, and the sun and the moon under her feet (cf. Gen. xxxvii, 9, 10). She is in travail. Her first-born is destined to rule all the nation (Ps., ii, 8, 9). She herself, and her other seed, are persecuted for three and a half years by the great dragon who tries to kill them. The great dragon is Satan (Gen., iii, 1). He is cast out of heaven. With his tail he drags after him one-third of the stars. Taken from Dan., viii, 10. The fallen stars are the fallen angels. The beast from the sea is in great part taken from Daniel’s description of the four beasts. It arises from the sea (Dan., vii, 3); has seven heads marked all over with blasphemies. It had also ten horns, like the fourth beast of Daniel (vii, 7); it resembled a leopard, the third beast of Daniel (vii, 6), it had feet like a bear, the second beast of Daniel (vii, 5); and teeth like a lion, the first beast of Daniel (vii, 4). The great dragon gives full power unto the beast, whereupon all the world worship it (viz. those whose names are not contained in the book of the lamb). The followers of the beast have its mark on their head and hand. The beast from the land has two horns like a ram. Its power lies in its art of deceiving by means of tokens and miracles. Throughout the remainder of the book it is called the false prophet. Its office is to assist the beast from the sea, and to induce men to adore its image. The first act of the drama concludes with a promise of victory over the beast by the lamb of God.

Second Act. Chaps. xv, xvi. The seven vials. They are the seven plagues preceding the destruction of the great city, Babylon. They were for the greater part suggested by the Egyptian plagues. The first vial is poured out on the earth. Men and beasts are smitten with ulcers (Ex., ix. 9, 10). The second and third vial upon the seas and rivers. They become blood (Ex., vii, 17–21). The fourth vial upon the sun. It burns men to death. The fifth vial upon the throne of the beast. It causes great darkness (Ex., x, 11–29). The sixth vial upon the Euphrates. Its waters are dried up and form a passage for the kings of the East (Ex., xiv). The seventh upon the air. Storm and earthquake destroy Babylon.

Third Act. Chaps. xvii, xviii. The great harlot. She is seated upon the scarlet beast with the seven heads and ten horns. She is robed in scarlet and decked with gold. On her head is written: Mystery, Babylon the great. The kings of the earth commit fornication with her. But the day of her visitation has come. She is made a desolate place, the habitation of unclean animals (Is., xiii, 21, 22). Her fall is lamented by the rulers and merchants of the earth.

Fourth Act. Chaps. xix, xx. The victory over the beast and the great dragon. A knight appears mounted on a white horse. His name is “The word of God.” He defeats the beast and the false prophet. They are cast alive in the pool of fire. Their defeat is followed by the first resurrection and the reign of Christ for a thousand years. The martyrs rise to life and partake with Christ in glory and happiness. During these thousand years the great dragon is held in chains. At their completion he is once more set at large to torment the earth. He deceives the nations Gog and Magog. These two names are taken from Ezech., chaps. xxviii, xxxix, where however Gog is the king of Magog. At last he also is cast for all eternity in the pool of fire. Hereupon the general judgement and the resurrection take place.

Fifth Act. Chaps. xxi, xxii. The new Jerusalem (cf. Ez., xl-xlviii). God dwells in the midst of His saints who enjoy complete happiness. The new Jerusalem is the spouse of the lamb. The names of the Twelve Tribes and the Twelve Apostles are written on its gates. God and the lamb are the sanctuary in this new city.

Epilogue. Verses 18–21. The prophecy of the book is soon to be fulfilled. The Seer warns the reader not to add anything to it or take away from it under pain of forfeiting his share in the heavenly city.

PURPOSE OF THE BOOK

From this cursory perusal of the book, it is evident that the Seer was influenced by the prophecies of Daniel more than by any other book. Daniel was written with the object of comforting the Jews under the cruel persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Seer in the Apocalypse had a similar purpose. The Christians were fiercely persecuted in the reign of Domitian. The danger of apostasy was great. False prophets went about, trying to seduce the people to conform to the heathen practices and to take part in the Caesar-worship. The Seer urges his Christians to remain true to their faith and to bear their troubles with fortitude. He encourages them with the promise of an ample and speedy reward. He assures them that Christ s triumphant coming is at hand. Both in the beginning and at the end of his book the Seer is most emphatic in telling his people that the hour of victory is nigh. He begins, saying: “Blessed is he that . . . keepeth those things which are written in it; for the time is at hand” (i, 3). He closes his visions with the pathetic words: “He that giveth testimony of these things saith, Surely I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” With the coming of Christ the woes of the Christians will be avenged. Their oppressors will be given up to the judgment and the everlasting torments. The martyrs that have fallen will be raised to life, that they may share the pleasures of Christ’s kingdom, the millennium. Yet this is but a prelude to the everlasting beatitude which follows after the general resurrection. It is an article of faith that Christ will return at the end of time to judge the living and the dead. But the time of His second advent is unknown. “But of that day and hour no one knoweth, no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone” (Matt., xxiv, 36). It would appear, and is so held by many that the Christians of the Apostolic age expected that Christ would return during their own lifetime or generation. This seems to be the more obvious meaning of several passages both in the Epistles and Gospels (cf. John, xxi, 21–23; Thess., iv, 13–18). The Christians of Asia Minor and the Seer with them, appear to have shared this fallacious expectation. Their mistaken hope, however, did not affect the soundness of their belief in the essential part of the dogma. Their views of a millennial period of corporal happiness were equally erroneous. The Church has wholly cast aside the doctrine of a millennium previous to the resurrection. St. Augustine has perhaps more than any one else helped to free the Church from all crude fancies as regards its pleasures. He explained the millennium allegorically and applied it to the Church of Christ on earth. With the foundation of the Church the millennium began. The first resurrection is the spiritual resurrection of the soul from sin (De Civ. Dei, Lib. XX). Thus the number 1,000 is to be taken indefinitely.

STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK AND ITS LITERARY COMPOSITION

The subject-matter of the Apocalypse required a threefold division. The first part comprises the seven exhortatory letters. The leading idea in the second part is the wisdom of Christ. It is symbolized by the book with seven seals. In it are written the eternal decrees of God touching the end of the world, and the final victory of good over evil. No one except Jesus, the lamb slain for the sins of the world, is worthy to break the seals and read its contents. The third part describes the power of Christ over Satan and his kingdom. The lamb defeats the dragon and the beast. This idea is developed in a drama of five acts. In five successive scenes we see before us the struggle, the fall of Babylon the harlot, the victory, and final beatitude. The third part is not only the most important, but also the most successful from a literary point of view. The drama of the lamb contains several beautiful thoughts of lasting value. The lamb, symbolizing gentleness and purity, conquers the beast, the personification of lust and cruelty. The harlot signifies idolatry. The fornication which the rulers and the nations of the earth commit with her signifies the worship they pay to the images of Caesar and the tokens of his power. The second part is inferior in literary beauty. It contains much that is taken from the Old Testament, and it is full of extravagant imagery. The Seer shows a fanciful taste for all that is weird and grotesque. He delights in portraying locusts with hair like that of women and horses with tails like serpents. There are occasional passages revealing a sense of literary beauty. God removes the curtain of the firmament as a scribe rolls up his scrolls. The stars fall from the heavens like figs from the fig-tree shaken by the storm (vi, 12–14). On the whole, however the Seer shows more love for Oriental splendour than the appreciation of true beauty.

INTERPRETATION

It would be alike wearisome and useless to enumerate even the more prominent applications made of the Apocalypse. Racial hatred and religious rancour have at all times found in its vision much suitable and gratifying matter. Such persons as Mahomet, the Pope, Napoleon, etc., have in turn been identified with the beast and the harlot. To the “reformers” particularly the Apocalypse was an inexhaustible quarry where to dig for invectives that they might hurl then against the Roman hierarchy. The seven hills of Rome, the scarlet robes of the cardinals, and the unfortunate abuses of the papal court made the application easy and tempting. Owing to the patient and strenuous research of scholars, the interpretation of the Apocalypse has been transferred to a field free from the odium theologicum. But then the meaning of the Seer is determined by the rules of common exegesis. Apart from the resurrection, the millennium, and the plagues preceding the final consummation, they see in his visions references to the leading events of his time. Their method of interpretation may be called historic as compared with the theological and political application of former ages. The key to the mysteries of the book they find in chap. xvii, 8–14. For thus says the Seer: “Let here the mind that hath understanding give heed.”

The beast from the sea that had received plenitude of power from the dragon, or Satan, is the Roman Empire, or rather, Caesar, its supreme representative. The token of the beast with which its servants are marked is the image of the emperor on the coins of the realm. This seems to be the obvious meaning of the passage, that all business transactions, all buying and selling were impossible to them that had not the mark of the beast (Ap., xiii. 17). Against this interpretation it is objected that the Jews at the time of Christ had no scruple in handling money on which the image of Caesar was stamped (Matt., xxii 15–22). But it should be borne in mind that the horror of the Jews for the imperial images was principally due to the policy of Caligula. He confiscated several of their synagogues, changing them into heathen temples by placing his statue in them. He even sought to erect an image of himself in the Temple of Jerusalem (Jos., Ant., XVIII, viii, 2). The seven heads of the beast are seven emperors. Five of them the Seer says are fallen. They are Augustus Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. The year of Nero’s death is A.D. 68. The Seer goes on to say “One is,” namely Vespasian, A.D. 70–79. He is the sixth emperor. The seventh, we are told by the Seer, “is not yet come. But when he comes his reign will be short.” Titus is meant, who reigned but two years (79–81). The eighth emperor is Domitian (81–96). Of him the Seer has something very peculiar to say. He is identified with the beast. He is described as the one that “was and is not and shall come up out of the bottomless pit” (xvii, 8). In verse 11 it is added: “And the beast which was and is not: the same also is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into destruction.” All this sounds like oracular language. But the clue to its solution is furnished by a popular belief largely spread at the time. The death of Nero had been witnessed by few. Chiefly in the East a notion had taken hold of the mind of the people that Nero was still alive. Gentiles, Jews, and Christians were under the illusion that he was hiding himself, and as was commonly thought, he had gone over to the Parthians, the most troublesome foes of the empire. From there they expected him to return at the head of a mighty army to avenge himself on his enemies. The existence of this fanciful belief is a well-attested historic fact. Tacitus speaks of it: “Achaia atque Asia falso exterrit velut Nero adventaret, vario super ejus exitu rumore eoque pluribus vivere eum fingentibus credentibusque” (Hist., II, 8). So also Dio Chrysostomus: και νύν (kai nyn) (about A.D. 100) έτι πάντες έπιθυμούσι ζήν οι όέ πλείστοι και οίονται (eti pantes epithymousi zen oi de pleistoi kai oiontai) (Orat., 21, 10; cf. Suet., “Vit. Caes.” s.v. Nero, 57, and the Sibylline Oracles, V, 28–33). Thus the contemporaries of the Seer believed Nero to be alive and expected his return. The Seer either shared their belief or utilized it for his own purpose. Nero had made a name for himself by his cruelty and licentiousness. The Christians in particular had reason to dread him. Under him the first persecution took place. The second occurred under Domitian. But unlike the previous one, it was not confined to Italy, but spread throughout the provinces. Many Christians were put to death, many were banished (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, 17–19). In this way the Seer was led to regard Domitian as a second Nero, “Nero redivivus.” Hence he described him as “the one that was, that is not, and that is to return.” Hence also he counts him as the eighth and at the same time makes him one of the preceding seven, viz. the fifth, Nero. The identification of the two emperors suggested itself all the more readily since even pagan authors called Domitian a second Nero (calvus Nero, Juvenal. IV, 38). The popular belief concerning Nero’s death and return seems to be referred to also in the passage (xiii, 3): “And I saw one of its heads as it were slain to death: and its death’s wound was healed.” The ten horns are commonly explained as the vassal rulers under the supremacy of Rome. They are described as kings (βασιλείς, basileis), here to be taken in a wider sense, that they are not real kings, but received power to rule with the beast. Their power, moreover, is but for “one hour,” signifying its short duration and instability (xvii, 17). The Seer has marked the beast with the number 666. His purpose was that by this number people may know it. “He that has understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.” A human number, i.e. intelligible by the common rules of investigation. We have here an instance of Jewish gematria. Its object is to conceal a name by substituting for it a cipher of equal numerical value to the letters composing it. For a long time interpreters tried to decipher the number 666 by means of the Greek alphabet, e.g. Irenæus, “Adv. Haer.,” V, 33. Their efforts have yielded no satisfactory result. Better success has been obtained by using the Hebrew alphabet. Many scholars have come to the conclusion that Nero is meant. For when the name “Nero Caesar” is spelled with Hebrew letters (נרון קסר), it yields the cipher 666.

The second beast, that from the land, the pseudo-prophet, whose office was to assist the beast from the sea, probably signifies the work of seduction carried on by apostate Christians. They endeavoured to make their fellow Christians adopt the heathen practices and submit themselves to the cultus of the Caesar. They are not unlikely the Nicolaitans of the seven Epistles. For they are there compared to Balaam and Jezabel seducing the Israelites to idolatry and fornication. The woman in travail is a personification of the synagogue or the church. Her first-born is Christ, her other seed is the community of the faithful.—In this interpretation, of which we have given a summary, there are two difficulties: (I) In the enumeration of he emperors three are passed over, viz. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. But this omission may be explained by the shortness of their reigns. Each one of the three reigned but a few months.—(II) Tradition assigns the Apocalypse to the reign of Domitian. But according to the computation given above, the Seer himself assigns his work to the reign of Vespasian. For if this computation be correct, Vespasian is the emperor whom he designates as “the one that is.” To this objection, however, it may be answered that it was the custom of apocalyptic writers, e.g., of Daniel, Enoch, and the Sibylline books, to cast their visions into the form of prophecies and give them the appearance of being the work of an earlier date. No literary fraud was thereby intended. It was merely a peculiar style of writing adopted as suiting their subject. The Seer of the Apocalypse follows this practice. Though actually banished to Patmos in the reign of Domitian, after the destruction of Jerusalem, he wrote as if he had been there and seen his visions in the reign of Vespasian when the temple perhaps yet existed. Cf. II, 1, 2.

We cannot conclude without mentioning the theory advanced by the German scholar Vischer. He holds the Apocalypse to have been originally a purely Jewish composition, and to have been changed into a Christian work by the insertion of those sections that deal with Christian subjects. From a doctrinal point of view, we think, it cannot be objected to. There are other instances where inspired writers have availed themselves of non-canonical literature. Intrinsically considered it is not improbable. The Apocalypse abounds in passages which bear no specific Christian character but, on the contrary, show a decidedly Jewish complexion. Yet on the whole the theory is but a conjecture. (See also APOCRYPHA)

SIMCOX, The Revelation of St. John (Cambridge, 1893); CALMES, Commentaire (Paris, 1906); SEMERIA, Il Primo Sangue Cristiano (Rome, 1901); HOLTZMANN, Hand Commentar (Leipzig, 1893); MOMMSEN, Provinces of the Roman Empire (London, 1886); SALMON, Introduction to the New Testament (London, 1897); CORLUY in Vig., Dict. de la Bible.

C. VAN DEN BIESEN

Apocatastasis

(Gr., άποκατάσταις (apokatastasis); Lat. restitutio in pristinum statum, restoration to the original condition), a name given in the history of theology to the doctrine which teaches that a time will come when all free creatures shall share in the grace of salvation; in a special way, the devils and lost souls.

This doctrine was explicitly taught by St. Gregory of Nyssa, and in more than one passage. It first occurs in his “De animâ et resurrectione” (P.G., XLVI, cols. 100, 101), where, in speaking of the punishment by fire assigned to souls after death, he compares it to the process whereby gold is refined in a furnace, through being separated from the dross with which it is alloyed. The punishment by fire is not, therefore, an end in itself, but is ameliorative; the very reason of its infliction is to separate the good from the evil in the soul. The process, moreover, is a painful one; the sharpness and duration of the pain are in proportion to the evil of which each soul is guilty; the flame lasts so long as there is any evil left to destroy. A time, then, will come, when all evil shall cease to be since it has no existence of its own apart from the free will, in which it inheres; when every free will shall be turned to God, shall be in God, and evil shall no more have wherein to exist. Thus, St. Gregory of Nyssa continues, shall the word of St. Paul be fulfilled: Deus erit omnia in omnibus (I Cor., xv, 28), which means that evil shall, ultimately, have an end, since, if God be all in all, there is no longer any place for evil (cols. 104, 105; cf. col. 152). St. Gregory recurs to the same thought of the final annihilation of evil, in his “Oratio catechetica,” ch. xxvi; the same comparison of fire which purges gold of its impurities is to be found there; so also shall the power of God purge nature of that which is preternatural, namely, of evil. Such purification will be painful, as is a surgical operation, but the restoration will ultimately be complete. And, when this restoration shall have been accomplished (ή είς τό άρχαίον άποκατάσταις τών νύν έν κακία κειμένων—he eis to archaion apokatastasis ton nyn en kakia keimenon), all creation shall give thanks to God, both the souls which have had no need of purification, and those that shall have needed it. Not only man, however, shall be set free from evil, but the devil, also, by whom evil entered into the world (τόν τε άνθρωκον τής κακίας έλευθερών, καί αύτόν τόν τής κακίας εύρετήν ίώμενος—ton te anthropon tes kakias eleutheron kai auton ton tes kakias eyreten iomenos. P.G., XLV, col. 69.). The same teaching is to be found in the “De mortuis” (ibid., col. 536). Bardenhewer justly observes (“Patrologie,” Freiburg, 1901, p. 266) that St. Gregory says elsewhere no less concerning the eternity of the fire, and of the punishment of the lost, but that the Saint himself understood this eternity as a period of very long duration, yet one which has a limit. Compare with this “Contra Usurarios” (XLVI, col. 436), where the suffering of the lost is spoken of as eternal, αίωνία (aionia), and “Orat. Catechet.,” XXVI (XLV, col. 69), where evil is annihilated after a long period of time, μακραίς περόδοις (makrais periodois). These verbal contradictions explain why the defenders of orthodoxy should have thought that St. Gregory of Nyssa’s writings had been tampered with by heretics. St. Germanus of Constantinople, writing in the eighth century, went so far as to say that those who held that the devils and lost souls would one day be set free had dared “to instil into the pure and most healthful spring of his [Gregory’s] writings the black and dangerous poison of the error of Origen, and to cunningly attribute this foolish heresy to a man famous alike for his virtue and his learning” (quoted by Photius, Bibl. Cod., 223; P.G. CIII, col. 1105). Tillemont, “Mémoires pour l’histoire ecclésiastique” (Paris, 1703), IX, p. 602, inclines to the opinion that St. Germanus had good grounds for what he said. We must, however, admit, with Bardenhewer (loc. cit.) that the explanation given by St. Germanus of Constantinople cannot hold. This was, also, the opinion of Petavius, “Theolog. dogmat.” (Antwerp, 1700), III, “De Angelis,” 109–111.

The doctrine of the άποκατάσταις (apokatastasis) is not, indeed, peculiar to St. Gregory of Nyssa, but is taken from Origen, who seems at times reluctant to decide concerning the question of the eternity of punishment. Tixeront has well said that in his “De principiis” (I, vi, 3) Origen does not venture to assert that all the evil angels shall sooner or later return to God (P.G., XI, col. 168, 169); while in his “Comment. in Rom.,” VIII, 9 (P.G., XIV, col. 1185), he states that Lucifer, unlike the Jews, will not be converted, even at the end of time. Elsewhere, on the other hand, and as a rule, Origen teaches the άποκατάσταις (apokatastasis), the final restoration of all intelligent creatures to friendship with God. Tixeront writes thus concerning the matter: “Not all shall enjoy the same happiness, for in the Father’s house there are many mansions, but all shall attain to it. If Scripture sometimes seems to speak of the punishment of the wicked as eternal, this is in order to terrify sinners, to lead them back into the right way, and it is always possible, with attention, to discover the true meaning of these texts. It must, however, always be accepted as a principle that God does not chasten except to amend, and that the sole end of His greatest anger is the amelioration of the guilty. As the doctor uses fire and steel in certain deep-seated diseases, so God does but use the fire of hell to heal the impenitent sinner. All souls, all intelligent beings that have gone astray, shall, therefore, be restored sooner or later to God’s friendship. The evolution will be long, incalculably long in some cases, but a time will come when God shall be all in all. Death, the last enemy, shall be destroyed, the body shall be made spiritual, the world of matter shall be transformed, and there shall be, in the universe, only peace and unity” [Tixeront, Histoire des dogmes, (Paris, 1905), I, 304, 305]. The palmary text of Origen should be referred to “De principiis,” III, 6, 6; (P.G. XI, col. 338- 340). For Origen’s teaching and the passages wherein it is expressed consult Huet, “Origeniana,” II, qu. 11, n. 16 (republished in P.G., XVII, col. 1023–26); and Petavius, “Theol. dogmat., De Angelis,” 107–109; also Harnack [“Dogmengeschichte” (Freiburg, 1894), I, 645, 646], who connects the teaching of Origen on this point with that of Clement of Alexandria. Tixeront also writes very aptly concerning this matter: “Clement allows that sinful souls shall be sanctified after death by a spiritual fire, and that the wicked shall, likewise, be punished by fire. Will their chastisement be eternal? It would not seem so. In the Stromata, VII, 2 (P.G., IX, col. 416), the punishment of which Clement speaks, and which succeeds the final judgment, constrains the wicked to repent. In chapter xvi (col. 541) the author lays down the principle that God does not punish, but corrects; that is to say that all chastisement on His part is remedial. If Origen be supposed to have started from this principle in order to arrive at the άποκατάσταις (apokatastasis)—and Gregory of Nyssa as well—it is extremely probable that Clement of Alexandria understood it in the same sense” (Histoire des dogmes, I, 277). Origen, however, does not seem to have regarded the doctrine of the apokatastasis as one meant to be preached to all, it being enough for the generality of the faithful to know that sinners will be punished. (Contra Celsum, VI, 26 in P.G., XI, col. 1332.)

The doctrine, then, was first taught by Origen, and by Clement of Alexandria, and was an influence in their Christianity due to Platonism, as Petavius has plainly shown (Theol. dogmat. De Angelis, 106), following St. Augustine “De civitate Dei,” XXI, 13. Compare Janet, “La philosophie de Platon” (Paris, 1869), I, 603. It is evident, moreover, that the doctrine involves a purely natural scheme of divine justice and of redemption. (Plato, Republic, X, 614b.)

It was through Origen that the Platonist doctrine of the άποκατάσταις (apokatastasis) passed to St. Gregory of Nyssa, and simultaneously to St. Jerome, at least during the time that St. Jerome was an Origenist. It is certain, however, that St. Jerome understands it only of the baptized: “In restitutione omnium, quando corpus totius ecclesiæ nunc dispersum atque laceratum, verus medicus Christus Jesus sanaturus advenerit, unusquisque secundum mensuram fidei et cognitionis Filii Dei . . . suum recipiet locum et incipiet id esse quod fuerat” (Comment. in Eph., iv, 16; P.G., XXVI, col. 503). Everywhere else St. Jerome teaches that the punishment of the devils and of the impious, that is of those who have not come to the Faith, shall be eternal. (See Petavius, Theol. dogmat. De Angelis, 111, 112.) The “Ambrosiaster” on the other hand seems to have extended the benefits of redemption to the devils, (In Eph., iii, 10; P.L., XVII, col. 382), yet the interpretation of the “Ambrosiaster” on this point is not devoid of difficulty. [See Petavius, p. 111; also, Turmel, Histoire de la théologie positive, depuis l’origine, etc. (Paris, 1904) 187.]

From the moment, however, that anti-Origenism prevailed, the doctrine of the άποκατάσταις (apokatastasis) was definitely abandoned. St. Augustine protests more strongly than any other writer against an error so contrary to the doctrine of the necessity of grace. See, especially, his “De gestis Pelagii,” I: “In Origene dignissime detestatur Ecclesia, quod et iam illi quos Dominus dicit æterno supplicio puniendos, et ipse diabolus et angeli eius, post tempus licet prolixum purgati liberabuntur a poenis, et sanctis cum Deo regnantibus societate beatitudinis adhærebunt.” Augustine here alludes to the sentence pronounced against Pelagius by the Council of Diospolis, in 415 (P.L., XLIV, col. 325). He moreover recurs to the subject in many passages of his writings, and in Book XXI “De Civitate Dei” sets himself earnestly to prove the eternity of punishment as against the Platonist and Origenist error concerning its intrinsically purgatorial character. We note, further, that the doctrine of the άποκατάσταις (apokatastasis) was held in the East not only by St. Gregory of Nyssa, but also by St. Gregory of Nazianzus as well; “De seipso,” 566 (P.G., XXXVII, col. 1010), but the latter, though he asks the question, finally decides neither for nor against it, but rather leaves the answer to God. Köstlin, in the “Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie” (Leipzig, 1896), I, 617, art. “Apokatastasis,” names Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia as having also held the doctrine of άποκατάσταις (apokatastasis), but cites no passage in support of his statement. In any case, the doctrine was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543; Harduin, Coll. Conc., III, 284:—Εί τις τήν τερατώδη άποκατάστασιν πρεσβεύώ άνάθεμα éστω (Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto). [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9. (P.G., LXXXVI, Col. 989).] The doctrine was thenceforth looked on as heterodox by the Church.

It was destined, nevertheless, to be revived in the works of ecclesiastical writers, and it would be interesting to verify Köstlin’s and Bardenhewer’s statement that it is to be traced in Bar Sudaili, Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor, Scotus Erigena, and Amalric of Bena. It reappears at the Reformation in the writings of Denk (d. 1527), and Harnack has not hesitated to assert that nearly all the Reformers were apocatastasists at heart, and that it accounts for their aversion to the traditional teaching concerning the sacraments (Dogmengeschichte, III, 661). The doctrine of άποκατάσταις (apokatastasis) viewed as a belief in a universal salvation is found among the Anabaptists, the Moravian Brethren, the Christadelphians, among rationalistic Protestants, and finally among the professed Universalists. It has been held, also, by such philosophic Protestants as Schleiermacher, and by a few theologians, Farrar, for instance, in England, Eckstein and Pfister in Germany, Matter in France. Consult Köstlin, art. cit., and Grétillut, “Exposé de théologie systématique” (Paris, 1890), IV, 603.

PIERRE BATIFFOL

Apocrisiarius

(Gr. ἀπόκρισις, an answer; cf. Lat. responsalis, from responsum). This term indicates in general the ecclesiastical envoys of Christian antiquity, whether permanent or sent temporarily on missions to high ecclesiastical authorities or royal courts. In the East the patriarchs had their apocrisiarii at the imperial court, and the metropolitans theirs at the courts of the patriarchs. The popes also frequently deputed clerics of the Roman Church as envoys, either for the adjustment of important questions affecting the Church of Rome, or to settle points of discipline in local dioceses, or to safeguard the interests of the Church in religious controversies. In the letters of St. Gregory the Great (590–604) very frequent mention is made of such envoys (responsales). In view of the great importance attaching to the relations between the popes and the imperial court of Constantinople, especially after the fall of the Western Empire (476), and during the great dogmatic controversies in the Greek Church, these papal representatives at Constantinople took on gradually the character of permanent legates and were accounted the most important and responsible among the papal envoys. The first of these apocrisiarii seems to have been Julianus, Bishop of Cos, accredited by St. Leo the Great to the court of Emperor Marcian (450–457) for a considerable period of time during the Monophysite heresies. From then until 743, when all relations between Rome and Constantinople were severed during the iconoclastic troubles, there were always, apart from a few brief intervals, apocrisiarii in Constantinople. On account of the importance of the office, only capable and trustworthy members of the Roman Clergy were selected for such missions. Thus Gregory I, while Deacon of the Roman Church, served in Byzantium for several years as apocrisiarius. At the court of the exarch at Ravenna the Pope also had a permanent apocrisiarius. In turn, at least during the reign of Gregory I, the archbishop of that city had a special responsalis at the papal court. From the reign of Charlemagne (d. 814) we find apocrisiarii at the court of the Frankish kings, but they are only royal archchaplains decorated with the title of the ancient papal envoys.

THOMASSINUS, Vetus et nova eccl. disciplina circa beneficia (ed. London, 1706, I, 569 sqq.) Pt. I, Bk. II, cvii-cxi; BINGHAM, Origines sive antiquitates ecclesiasticæ (ed. Halle, 1725) II, 77 sqq.; III, xiii, art. 6; LUXARDO, Das päpstliche Vordekretalen-Gesandtschaftsrecht (Innsbruck, 1878).

J.P. KIRSCH

Apocrypha

The scope of this article takes in those compositions which profess to have been written either by Biblical personages or men in intimate relations with them. Such known works as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache (Teaching) of the Twelve Apostles, and the Apostolic Canons and Constitutions, though formerly apocryphal, really belong to patristic literature, and are considered independently. It has been deemed better to classify the Biblical apocrypha according to their origin, instead of following the misleading division of the apocrypha of the Old and New Testaments. Broadly speaking, the apocrypha of Jewish origin are coextensive with what are styled of the Old Testament, and those of Christian origin with the apocrypha of the New Testament. The subject will be treated as follows: (I) Apocrypha of Jewish origin; (II) Apocrypha of Jewish origin with Christian accretions; (III) Apocrypha of Christian origin, comprising (1) Apocryphal Gospels, (2) Pilate literature and other apocrypha concerning Christ, (3) Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, (4) Apocryphal doctrinal works, (5) Apocryphal Epistles, (6) Apocryphal Apocalypses; (IV) The Apocrypha and the Church.

NAME AND NOTION

Etymologically, the derivation of Apocrypha is very simple, being from the Greek άπόκρυφος (apokryphos), hidden, and corresponding to the neuter plural of the adjective. The use of the singular, “Apocryphon,” is both legitimate and convenient, when referring to a single work. When we would attempt to seize the literary sense attaching to the word, the task is not so easy. It has been employed in various ways by early patristic writers, who have sometimes entirely lost sight of the etymology. Thus it has the connotation “uncanonical” with some of them. St. Jerome evidently applied the term to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of Holy Writ, and the Protestant Reformers, following Jerome’s catalogue of Old Testament Scriptures—one which was at once erroneous and singular among the Fathers of the Church—applied the title Apocrypha to the excess of the Catholic canon of the Old Testament over that of the Jews. Naturally, Catholics refuse to admit such a denomination, and we employ “deuterocanonical” to designate this literature, which non-Catholics conventionally and improperly know as the “Apocrypha.” (See CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.)

The original and proper sense of the term apocryphal as applied to the pretended sacred books was early obscured. But a clue to it may be recognized in the so-called Fourth Book of Esdras, which relates that Esdras (Ezra) by divine inspiration composed ninety-four books. Of these, twenty-four were restorations of the sacred literature of the Israelites which had perished in the Captivity; they were to be published openly, but the remaining were to be guarded in secret for the exclusive use of the wise (cf. Dan., ix, 4, 9, where the prophet is bidden to shut up and seal an inspired book until an appointed time). Accordingly it may be accepted as highly probable that in its original meaning an apocryphal writing had no unfavorable import, but simply denoted a composition which claimed a sacred origin, and was supposed to have been hidden for generations, either absolutely, awaiting the due time of its revelation, or relatively, inasmuch as knowledge of it was confined to a limited esoteric circle. However, the name Apocrypha soon came to have an unfavourable signification which it still retains, comporting both want of genuineness and canonicity. These are the negative aspects of the modern application of the name; on its positive side it is properly employed only of a well defined class of literature, putting forth scriptural or quasi-scriptural pretensions, and which originated in part among the Hebrews during the two centuries preceding Christ and for a space after, and in part among Christians, both orthodox and heterodox, in the early centuries of our era.

I. APOCRYPHA OF JEWISH ORIGIN

Ancient literature, especially in the Orient, used methods much more free and elastic than those permitted by our modern and Occidental culture. Pseudographic composition was in vogue among the Jews in the two centuries before Christ and for some time later. The attribution of a great name of the distant past to a book by its real author, who thus effaced his own personality, was, in some cases at least, a mere literary fiction which deceived no one except the ignorant. This holds good for the so-called “Wisdom of Solomon,” written in Greek and belonging to the Church’s sacred canon. In other cases, where the assumed name did not stand as a symbol of a type of a certain kind of literature, the intention was not without a degree of at least objective literary dishonesty.

The most important and valuable of the extant Jewish apocrypha are those which have a large apocalyptic element; that is, which profess to contain visions and revelations of the unseen world and the Messianic future. Jewish apocalyptic literature is a theme which deserves and has increasingly received the attention of all interested in the development of the religious thought of Israel, that body of concepts and tendencies in which are fixed the roots of the great doctrinal principles of Christianity itself, just as its Divine Founder took His temporal generation from the stock of orthodox Judaism. The Jewish apocalypses furnish the completing links in the progress of Jewish theology and fill what would otherwise be a gap, though a small one, between the advanced stage marked by the deuterocanonical books and its full maturity in the time of Our Lord; a maturity so relatively perfect that Jesus could suppose as existing in the popular consciousness, without teaching de novo, the doctrines of future retribution, the resurrection of the body, and the existence, nature, and office of angels. Jewish apocalyptic writing is an attempt to supply the place of prophecy, which had been dead for centuries, and it has its roots in the sacred oracles of Israel. Hebrew prophecy on its human side had its springs, its occasions, and immediate objects in the present; the prophets were inspired men who found matter for comfort as well as rebuke and warning in the actual conditions of Israel’s theocratic life. But when ages had elapsed, and the glowing Messianic promises of the prophets had not been realized; when the Jewish people had chafed, not through two or three, but many generations, under the bitter yoke of foreign masters or the constantly repeated pressure of heathen states, reflecting and fervent spirits, finding no hope in the actual order of things, looked away from earth and fixed their vision on another and ideal world where God’s justice would reign unthwarted, to the everlasting glory of Israel both as a nation and in its faithful individuals, and unto the utter destruction and endless torment of the Gentile oppressors and the unrighteous. Apocalyptic literature was both a message of comfort and an effort to solve the problems of the sufferings of the just and the apparent hopelessness of a fulfilment of the prophecies of Israel’s sovereignty on earth. But the inevitable consequence of the apocalyptic distrust of everything present was its assumption of the guise of the remote and classic past; in other words, its pseudonymous character. Naturally basing itself upon the Pentateuch and the Prophets, it clothed itself fictitiously with the authority of a patriarch or prophet who was made to reveal the transcendent future. But in their effort to adjust this future to the history that lay within their ken the apocalyptic writers unfolded also a philosophy of the origin and progress of mundane things. A wider view of world-politics and a comprehensive cosmological speculation are among the distinctive traits of Jewish apocalyptic. The Book of Daniel is the one book of the Old Testament to which the non-inspired apocalypses bear the closest affinity, and it evidently furnished ideas to several of the latter. An apocalyptic element existing in the prophets, in Zacharias (i-vi), in Tobias (Tobias, xiii), can be traced back to the visions of Ezechiel which form the prototype of apocalyptic; all this had its influence upon the new literature. Messianism of course plays an important part in apocalyptic eschatology and the idea of the Messias in certain books received a very high development. But even when it is transcendent and mystic it is intensely, almost fanatically, national, and surrounded by fanciful and often extravagant accessories. It lacks the universal outlook of some of the prophets, especially the Deutero-Isaias, and is far from having a uniform and consistent physiognomy. Sometimes the Messianic realm is placed upon the transfigured earth, centering in a new Jerusalem; in other works it is lifted into the Heavens; in some books the Messias is wanting or is apparently merely human, while the Parables of Henoch with their pre-existent Messias mark the highest point of development of the Messianic concept to be found in the whole range of Hebrew literature.

DRUMMOND, The Jewish Messiah (1877); PORTER, The Message of the Apocalyptic Writers (New York, 1905); CHARLES, Apocalyptic Literature, in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible; BALDENSPERGER, Die messianisch-apokalyptischen Hoffnungen des Judenthums (Strasburg, 1903); VOLZ, Jüdische Eschatologie (Würtemburg, 1903).

(1) JEWISH APOCALYPSES.

(A) THE BOOK OF HENOCH (ETHIOPIC).

The antediluvian patriarch Henoch according to Genesis “walked with God and was seen no more, because God took him.” This walking with God was naturally understood to refer to special revelations made to the patriarch, and this, together with the mystery surrounding his departure from the world, made Henoch’s name an apt one for the purposes of apocalyptic writers. In consequence there arose a literature attributed to him. It influenced not only later Jewish apocrypha, but has left its imprint on the New Testament and the works of the early Fathers. The canonical Epistle of St. Jude, in verses 14, 15, explicitly quotes from the Book of Henoch; the citation is found in the Ethiopic version in verses 9 and 4 of the first chapter. There are probable traces of the Henoch literature in other portions of the New Testament.

Passing to the patristic writers, the Book of Henoch enjoyed a high esteem among them, mainly owing to the quotation in Jude. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas twice cites Henoch as Scripture. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and even St. Augustine suppose the work to be a genuine one of the patriarch. But in the fourth century the Henoch writings lost credit and ceased to be quoted. After an allusion by an author of the beginning of the ninth century, they disappear from view. So great was the oblivion into which they fell that only scanty fragments of Greek and Latin versions were preserved in the West. The complete text was thought to have perished when it was discovered in two Ethiopic MSS. in Abyssinia, by the traveler Bruce in 1773. Since, several more copies in the same language have been brought to light. Recently a large Greek fragment comprising chapters i-xxxii was unearthed at Akhmîn in Egypt.

Scholars agree that the Book of Henoch was originally composed either in Hebrew or Aramaic, and that the Ethiopic version was derived from a Greek one. A comparison of the Ethiopic text with the Akhmîn Greek fragment proves that the former is in general a trustworthy translation. The work is a compilation, and its component parts were written in Palestine by Jews of the orthodox Hasidic or Pharisaic schools. Its composite character appears clearly from the palpable differences in eschatology, in the views of the origin of sin and of the character and importance of the Messias found in portions otherwise marked off from each other by diversities of subject. Critics agree that the oldest portions are those included in chapters i-xxxvi and (broadly speaking) lxxi-civ.

It will be seen that the work is a voluminous one. But the most recent research, led by the Rev. R.H. Charles, an English specialist, breaks up this part into at least two distinct constituents. Charles’s analysis and dating are: i-xxxvi, the oldest part, composed before 170 B.C.; xxxvii-lxx, lxxxiii-xc, written between 166–161 B.C.; chapters xci-civ between the years 134–95 B.C.; the Book of Parables between 94–64 B.C.; the Book of Celestial Physics, lxxii-lxxviii, lxxxii, lxxix, date undetermined. Criticism recognizes, scattered here and there, interpolations from a lost apocalypse, the Book of Noe. Expert opinion is not united on the date of the composite older portion, i.e. i-xxxvi, lxxi-civ. The preponderant authority represented by Charles and Schürer assigns it to the latter part of the second century before Christ, but Baldensperger would bring it down to a half century before our Era.

In the following outline of contents, Charles’s analysis, which is supported by cogent reasons, has been adopted. The various elements are taken up in their chronological sequence.—Book I, chapters i-xxxvi. Its body contains an account of the fall of the angelic “Watchers,” their punishment, and the patriarch’s intervention in their history. It is based upon Gen., vi, 2: “The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all they chose.” The narrative is intended to explain the origin of sin and evil in the world and in this connection lays very little stress on the disobedience of our First Parents. This portion is remarkable for the entire absence of a Messias.

—Book II, lxxxiii, contains two visions. In the first, lxxxiii-lxxxiv, is portrayed the dreadful visitation of the flood, about to fall upon the earth. Henoch supplicates God not to annihilate the human race. The remaining section, under the symbolism of cattle, beasts, and birds, sketches the entire history of Israel down to the Messianic reign.

—Book III, xci-civ, cviii. It professes to give a prophetic vision of the events of the world-weeks, centering about Israel. This part is distinguished by insistence upon a sharp conflict between the righteous of the nation and their wicked opponents both within and without Israel. They triumph and slay their oppressors in a Messianic kingdom without a personal Messias. At its close occurs the final judgment, which inaugurates a blessed immortality in heaven for the righteous. For this purpose all the departed just will rise from a mysterious abode, though apparently not in the body (ciii, 3, 4). The wicked will go into the Sheol of darkness and fire and dwell there forever. This is one of the earliest mentions of Sheol as a hell of torment, preceding portions of the book having described the place of retribution for the wicked as Tartarus and Geennom.

—Book IV, xxxvii-lxx, consists of three “Parables.” The first describes the secrets of heaven, giving prominence to the angelic hosts and their princes. The second parable (xliv-lvii) deals with the Messias, and is the most striking of this remarkable book. The influence of Daniel is easily traceable here, but the figure of the Messias is sketched much more fully, and the idea developed to a degree unparalleled in pre-Christian literature. The Elect One, or Son of Man, existed before the sun and stars were created, and is to execute justice upon all sinners who oppress the good. For this end there will be a resurrection of all Israel and a judgment in which the Son of Man will render to everyone according to his deeds. Iniquity will be banished from the earth and the reign of the Messias will be everlasting. The third parable (lviii-lxx) describes again the happiness reserved for the just, the great Judgment and the secrets of nature. Here and there throughout the Book of Parables the author gives piecemeal his theory of the origin of sin. Going a step further back than the fault of the Watchers of the first book, he attributes their fall to certain mysterious Satans.

Book V, lxxii-lxxviii, lxxxix, lxxix (transposed) may be called the Book of Celestial Physics, or Astronomy. It presents a bewildering mass of revelations concerning the movements of the heavenly bodies, given to Henoch by the angel Uriel. The final chapters of the entire work, cv-cvii, are drawn from the lost Book of Noe.

(B) ASSUMPTION OF MOSES

Origen, “De Principiis,” III, ii, 1, names the Assumption of Moses—Άνάληψις Μωυσέως (Analepsis Mouseos)—as the book cited by the Epistle of Jude, 9, where there is an allusion to a dispute between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses. Aside from a few other brief references in patristic literature, nothing more was known of this apocryphon until the Latin MS. containing a long portion of it was discovered by Ceriani in the Ambrosian Library, at Milan, and published by him in 1861. Its identity with the ancient work is established by a quotation from the latter in the Acts of the Nicene Council. The book purports to be a series of predictions delivered in written form to the safe-keeping of Josue (Joshua) by Moses when the latter, in view of his approaching death, appointed Josue as his successor. The ostensible purpose of these deliverances is to confirm the Mosaic laws and the admonitions in Deuteronomy. The entire history of Israel is outlined. In a vehement and glowing style the book delineates under its prophetic guise the impiety of Israel’s Hasmonean rulers and Sadducean priests. The historical allusions come down to the reign of an insolent monarch who is plainly Herod the Great, and a powerful ruler who shall come from the West and subjugate the people—a reference to the punitive expedition of Quintilius Varus, 4 B.C. But the Messias will intervene and execute Divine wrath upon the enemies of the nation, and a cataclysm of nature, which is depicted with truly apocalyptic sublimity, will forerun the beginning of the new era. Strangely there is no mention of a resurrection or a judgment of individuals. The book then returns to the doings of Moses and Josue. The manuscript breaks off abruptly at chapter xii, and the portion cited by Jude must have belonged to the lost conclusion. This apocalypse has with solid reasons been assigned to the early years after Herod’s death, between 4 B.C. and A.D. 10. It is evident that neither of Herod’s sons, Philip and Antipas, had yet reigned thirty-four years, since the writer, hazarding a prediction that proved false, says that the sons should enjoy shorter reigns than their father. Thus the latest possible date of composition is fixed at A.D. 30. The author was a Jew, and in all likelihood a Palestinian one. He belonged neither to the Pharisees of the type of Christ’s epoch, nor to the Sadducees, since he excoriates both alike. He must have been either a Zealot, that is an ultra-Nationalist and Messianist, or a fervid Essene. He wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Latin text is translated from a Greek version.

(C) BOOK OF THE SECRETS OF HENOCH (SLAVONIC HENOCH)

In 1892 attention was called to Slavonic MMS. which on examination proved to contain another Henoch book differing entirely from the Ethiopic compilation. “The Book of the Secrets of Henoch” contains passages which satisfy allusions of Origen to which there is nothing corresponding in the Ethiopic Henoch. The same may be said about citations in the “Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Internal evidence shows that the new Henoch was composed by an Alexandrian Jew about the beginning of our Era, and in Greek. The work is sharply marked off from the older book by the absence of a Messias and the want of reference to a resurrection of the dead. It mingles many bizarre details concerning the celestial realm, the angels, and stars, with advanced ideas on man’s destiny, moral excellence, and the punishment of sin. The patriarch is taken up through the seven heavens to the very throne of the Eternal. Some of the details throw interesting light on various obscure allusions in the Holy Writ, such as the superimposed heavens, the presence of evil powers “in heavenly places,” Ezechiel’s strange creatures full of eyes.

(D) FOURTH BOOK OF ESDRAS

The personage serving as the screen of the real author of this book is Esdras (Ezra), the priest-scribe and leader among the Israelites who returned from Babylonia, to Jerusalem. The fact that two canonical books are associated with his name, together with a genuine literary power, a profoundly religious spirit pervading Fourth Esdras, and some Messianic points of contact with the Gospels combined to win for it an acceptance among Christians unequalled by any other apocryphon. Both Greek and Latin Fathers cite it as prophetical, while some, as Ambrose, were ardent admirers of it. Jerome alone is positively unfavourable. Notwithstanding this widespread reverence for it in early times, it is a remarkable fact that the book never got a foothold in the canon or liturgy of the Church. Nevertheless, all through the Middle Ages it maintained an intermediate position between canonical and merely human compositions, and even after the Council of Trent, together with Third Esdras, was placed in the appendix to the official edition of the Vulgate. Besides the original Greek text, which has not survived, the book has appeared in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions. The first and last two chapters of the Latin translation do not exist in the Oriental ones and have been added by a Christian hand. And yet there need be no hesitation in relegating the Fourth Book of Esdras to the ranks of the apocrypha. Not to insist on the allusion to the Book of Daniel in xii, 11, the date given in the first version (iii, 1) is erroneous, and the whole tenor and character of the work places it in the age of apocalyptic literature. The dominant critical dating assigns it to a Jew writing in the reign of Domitian, A.D. 81–96. Certainly it was composed some time before A.D. 218, since it is expressly quoted by Clement of Alexandria. The original text, iii-xiv, is of one piece and the work of a single author. The motive of the book is the problem lying heavily upon Jewish patriots after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. The outlook was most dark and the national life seemed utterly extinguished. In consequence, a sad and anxious spirit pervades the work, and the writer, using the guise of Esdras lamenting over the ruin of the first city and temple, insistently seeks to penetrate the reasons of God’s apparent abandonment of His people and the non-fulfilment of His promises. The author would learn the future of his nation. His interest is centered in the latter; the universalism of the book is attenuated. The apocalypse is composed of seven visions. The Messianism of Fourth Esdras suffers from the discouragement of the era and is influenced by the changed conditions produced by the advent of Christianity. Its Messias is mortal, and his reign merely one of happiness upon earth. Likewise the eschatology labours with two conflicting elements: the redemption of all Israel and the small number of the elect. All mankind sinned with Adam. The Fourth Book of Esdras is sometimes called by non-Catholics Second Esdras, as they apply the Hebrew form, Ezra, to the canonical books.

(E) APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH

For a long time a Latin fragment, chapters lxxviii-lxxxvii, of this pseudograph had been known. In 1866 a complete Syriac text was discovered by Monsignor Ceriani, whose researches in the Ambrosian Library of Milan have so enriched the field of ancient literature. The Syriac is a translation from the Greek; the original was written in Hebrew. There is a close relation between this apocalypse and that of Fourth Esdras, but critics are divided over the question, which has influenced the other. The probabilities favour the hypothesis that the Baruch apocryphon is an imitation of that of Esdras and therefore later. The approximate dates assigned to it range between A.D. 50 and 117. The “Apocalypse of Baruch” is a somewhat artificial production, without the originality and force of Fourth Esdras. It deals in part with the same problems, viz., the sufferings of the theocratic people, and their ultimate triumph over their oppressors. When certain passages are freed from evident Christian interpolations, its Messianism in general is earthly, but in the latter part of the book the Messias’s realm tends unmistakably towards a more spiritual conception. As in Fourth Esdras, sin is traced to the disobedience of Adam. Greater importance is attached to the law than in the related composition, and the points of contact with the New Testament are more striking. The author was a Pharisee, but one who, while adopting a distinctly Jewish view, was probably acquainted with the Christian Scriptures and freely laid them under contribution. Some recent students of the “Apocalypse of Baruch” have seen in it a composite work, but the majority of critics hold with better reason to its unity. The book is lengthy. It speaks in the person of Baruch, the secretary of Jeremias. It opens with a palpable error of chronology. Baruch announces the doom of the city and temple of Jerusalem of the Babylonian epoch. However, not the Chaldeans, but angels, will bring about the destruction. Another and pre-existent Holy City is reserved by God, since the world cannot exist without a Jerusalem. The artificiality and tediousness of the apocalypse are redeemed by a singular breadth of view and elevation of doctrine, with the limitation noted.

(F) THE APOCALYPSE OF ABRAHAM

The Apocalypse of Abraham has recently been translated from Slavonic into German. It relates the circumstances of Abraham’s conversions and the visions thereupon accorded him. His guide in the a celestial realms is Jael, an angel distinct from God, but possessing divine powers in certain regards. The work has affinities with Fourth Esdras and the “Apocalypse of Baruch.” The origin of evil is explained by man’s free will. The Elect, or Messias, will gather the dispersed tribes, but God alone will punish the enemies of Israel. Particularism and the transcendence of the last cosmic stage are the notes of this apocalypse. Its data, however, are so vague that it is impossible to fix the time of its composition.

(G) THE APOCALYPSE OF DANIEL

The Apocalypse of Daniel is the work of a Persian Jew of the twelfth century, and is unique in foretelling two Messiases: one, the son of Joseph (Christ), whose career ends in his failure and death; the other the son of David, who will liberate Israel and reign on earth gloriously.

Besides the works noted above at the end of the general section on Jewish Apocrypha: SCHÜRER, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ, (Edinburgh, 1886, tr. from the German), III div. II. Special for Book of Henoch: CHARLES The Book of Enoch (Oxford, 1893; tr. and commentary); SCHODDE, The Book of Enoch (1882). Special for Assumption of Moses: CHARLES, The Assumption of Moses (London, 1897; Latin and English text with critical prolegomena). BURKITT, in HAST., Dict. of the Bible; LAGRANGE, Notes sur le messsianisme au temps de Jésus, in the Revue biblique, Oct., 1905.—Special for Book of the Secrets of Enoch: CHARLES AND MORFIL, Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford, 1896; tr. and introduction); LOISY, art. in Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, I, 29 sqq. (1896).—Special for Fourth Esdras: The complete Latin text is best edited in JAMES AND BENSLY, Texts and Studies (Cambridge, 1895), I, 2d ed.; Latin Bibles want the missing fragment in vii. For English translations: Revised Apocrypha of the English Bible (Oxford); CHURTON, Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures (London, 1884). For stuides: THACKERAY, in HAST., Dict. of the Bible; LAGRANGE, art. noted for Assumption of Moses, supra. PIFFARD, Le IV livre d’Esdras (Tournay, 1904; a commentary).—Special for the Apocalypse of Baruch; CHARLES, The Apocalypse of Baruch (London, 1896; text, tr., and critical notes). Same art. in HAST., Dict. of the Bible; LAGRANGE, article noted for Assumption of Moses, supra.—Special for Apocalypse of Abraham: BONWETSCH, German text in Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche (Leipzig, 1897), I, 1; LAGRANGE, art. in Revue Biblique, Oct., 1905.—Special for Apocalypse of Daniel: DARMESTETER, study in Mélanges Renier (Paris, 1887).

(2) LEGENDARY APOCRYPHA OF JEWISH ORIGIN

(A) BOOK OF JUBILEES OR LITTLE GENESIS

Epiphanius, Jerome, and others quote a work under the title “The Jubilees” or “The Little Genesis.” St. Jerome testifies that the original was in Hebrew. It is cited by Byzantine authors down to the twelfth century. After that we hear no more of it until it was found in an Ethiopic MS. in the last century. A considerable Latin fragment has also been recovered. The Book of the Jubilees is the narrative of Genesis amplified and embellished by a Jew of the Pharisee period. It professes to be a revelation given to Moses by the “Angel of the Face.” There is a very systematic chronology according to the years, weeks of years, and jubilees. A patriarchal origin is ascribed to the great Jewish feasts. The angelology is highly developed, but the writer disbelieved in the resurrection of the body. The observance of the Law is insisted on. It is hard to fix either the date or the religious circle in which the work arose. Jerusalem and the Temple still stood, and the Book of Henoch is quoted. As for the lowest date, the book is employed by the Jewish portion of the “Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Estimates vary between 135 B.C. and A.D. 60. Among the lost Jewish apocrypha, the one worthy of special notice here is:

(B) THE BOOK OF JANNES AND MAMBRES

II Timothy, iii, 8, applies these names to the Egyptian magicians who reproduced some of the wonders wrought by Moses. The names are not found in the Old Testament. Origen remarks that St. Paul does not quote “from public writings but from a sacred book which is called Jannes and Mambres.” The names were known to Pliny, and figure in the Talmudic traditions. Recently R. James in the “Journal of Theological Studies,” 1901, II, 572–577, claims to have found a fragment of this lost apocryphon in Latin and Old English versions.

(C) THIRD BOOK OF ESDRAS

This is also styled by non-Catholics the First Book of Esdras, since they give to the first canonical Esdrine writing the Hebrew form Ezra. Third Esdras is one of the three uncanonical books appended to the official edition of the Vulgate. It exists in two of the oldest codices of the Septuagint, viz., Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, where it precedes the canonical Esdras. The same is true of MMS. of the Old Latin and other versions. Third Esdras enjoyed exceptional favour in the early ages of the Church, being quoted as Scripture with implicit faith by the leading Greek and Latin Fathers (See Cornely, Introductio Generalis, I, 201). St. Jerome, however, the great minimizer of sacred literature, rejected it as apocryphal, and thenceforward its standing was impaired. The book in fact is made up for the most part of materials taken from the inspired books of Paralipomenon, Esdras, and Nehemias, put together, however, in great chronological confusion. We must suppose that it was subsequent to the above Scriptures, since it was evidently composed in Greek and by an Alexandrian Jew. The only original part of the work is chapters iii-v, 6. This recounts a contest between three young Hebrews of the bodyguard of King Darius, each striving to formulate the wisest saying. The victory is awarded to Zorobabel (Zerubbabel), who defends Truth as the strongest force, and the audience shouts: “Great is Truth and powerful above all things!” (Magna est veritas et proevalebit.) The date of composition is not ascertainable except within very wide limits. These are on one side c. 300 B.C., the latest time assigned to Paralipomenon-Esdras-Nehemias, and on the other, c. A.D. 100, the era of Josephus, who employed Third Esdras. There is greater likelihood that the composition took place before our Era.

(D) THIRD BOOK OF MACHABEES

Third Book of Machabees is the title given to a short narrative which is found in the Alexandrine codex of the Septuagint version and various private MSS. It gives an account of an attempted desecration of the Temple at Jerusalem by the Egyptian king, Ptolemy IV (Philopator) after his victory over Antiochus the Great at Raphia, 217 B.C., and the miraculous frustration of his endeavour to wreak vengeance upon the Egyptian Jews through a massacre with elephants. This apocryphon abounds in absurdities and psychological impossibilities, and is a very weak piece of fiction written in Greek by an Alexandrian Jew, and probably designed to encourage its countrymen in the midst of persecutions. It rests on no ascertainable historical fact, but apparently is an extravagant and varying version of the occurrence related by Josephus, “Against Apion,” 1I, 5. The date cannot be determined. Since the book shows acquaintance with the Greek additions to Daniel, it cannot be earlier than the first century B.C., and could scarcely have found such favour among Christians if composed later than the first century after Christ. The Syrian Church was the first to give it a friendly reception, presumably on the strength of its mention in the Apostolic Constitutions. Later, Third Machabees was admitted into the canon of the Greek Church, but seems never to have been known to the Latins.

SCHÜRER, History of the Jewish People (Edinburgh, 1886) div. II, vol. II.—Special for Book of Jubilees: CHARLES, The Book of Jubilees or Little Genesis (London, 1892: text, trans. and criticism); SCHODDE, The Book of Jubilees (Oberlin, O., 1888); HEADLAM, art. in HAST., Dict. of the Bible.—Special for Book of Jannes and Mambres: MARSHALL, articles in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible.—Special for Third Edras: Old Testament in Greek, II (Cambridge, 1896, 2d ed., Greek text) (London, 1884, tr.); THACKERAY, First Book of Esdras; HAST., Dict. of the Bible.—Special for Third Machabees: Old Testamnt in Greek (2d ed., Cambridge, 1899; Gr. text); CHURTON, The Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures (London, 1884; tr.); FAIRWEATHER in HAST., Dict. of the Bible.

(3) APOCRYPHAL PSALMS AND PRAYERS

(A) PSALMS OF SOLOMON

This is a collection of eighteen psalms composed in Hebrew, and, as is commonly agreed, by a Pharisee of Palestine, about the time of Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem, 63 B.C. The collection makes no pretensions to authorship by Solomon, and therefore is not, strictly speaking, apocryphal. The name of the wise king became associated with it later and doubtless was the means of preserving it. The spirit of these psalms is one of great moral earnestness and righteousness, but it is the righteousness of the Pharisees, consisting in the observance of the legal traditions and ceremonial law. The Hasmonean dynasty and the Sadducees are denounced. A Messianic deliverer is looked for, but he is to be merely human. He will reign by holiness and justice, and not by the sword. Free will and the resurrection are taught. The Psalms of Solomon are of value in illustrating the religious views and attitudes of the Pharisees in the age of Our Lord. The MSS. of the Septuagint contain at the end of the canonical Psalter a short psalm (cli), which, however, is “outside the number,” i.e. of the Psalms. Its title reads: “This psalm was written by David himself in addition to the number, when he had fought with Goliath.” It is based on various passages in the Old Testament, and there is no evidence that it was ever written in Hebrew.

(B) PRAYER OF MANASSES (MANASSEH)

A beautiful Penitential prayer put in the mouth of Manasses, King of Juda, who carried idolatrous abominations so far. The composition is based on II Paralipomenon, xxxiii, 11–13, which states that Manasses was carried captive to Babylon and there repented; while the same source (18) refers to his prayer as recorded in certain chronicles which are lost. Learned opinion differs as to whether the prayer which has come down to us was written in Hebrew or Greek. Several ancient manuscripts of the Septuagint contain it as an appendix to the Psalter. It is also incorporated in the ancient so-called Apostolic Constitutions. In editions of the Vulgate antedating the Council of Trent it was placed after the books of Paralipomenon. The Clementine Vulgate relegated it to the appendix, where it is still to be found in reprints of the standard text. The prayer breathes a Christian spirit, and it is not entirely certain that it is really of Jewish origin.

Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge, 2d edl, 1895–99); SCHÜRER, History of the Jewish People (Edinburgh, 1886) div. II, vol. III.—Special for Psalms of Solomon: RYLE AND JAMES, Psalms of the Pharisees (Cambridge, 1891) introduction and English text; JAMES in HAST. Dict. of the Bible; MOFFAT, The Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, in Expository Times (1902), X, 201–206.—Special for one hundres and fifty-first Psalm and Prayer of Manasses: CHURTON, Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures, tr. (London, 1884); PORTER, art. Prayer of Manassees in HAST., Dict. of the Bible.

(4) JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

(A) FOURTH BOOK OF MACHABEES

This is a short philosophical treatise on the supremacy of pious reason, that is reason regulated by divine law, which for the author is the Mosaic Law. In setting up reason as the master of human passion, the author was distinctly influenced by Stoic philosophy. From it also he derived his four cardinal virtues: prudence, righteousness (or justice), fortitude, temperance; Φρόνησις (phronesis), δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosyne), άνδρεία (andreia), σωφροσύνη (sophrosyne), and it was through Fourth Machabees that this category was appropriated by early Christian ascetical writers. The second part of the book exhibits the sufferings of Eleazar and the seven Machabean brothers as examples of the dominion of pious reason. The aim of the Hellenistic Jewish author was to inculcate devotion to the Law. He is unknown. The work was erroneously ascribed to Josephus by Eusebius and others. It appears to have been produced before the fall of Jerusalem, but its date is a matter of conjecture.

FOR THE TEXT: Old Testament in Greek, (Cambridge, 1894, 1899) III; FOR AN ENGLISH VERSION: CHURTON, Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures (London, 1884); FOR INTRODUCTION: SCHÜRER, History of the Jewish People (Edinburgh, 1886) div. II, vol. III; FAIRWEATHER in HAST., Dict. of the Bible.

II. APOCRYPHA OF JEWISH ORIGIN WITH CHRISTIAN ACCRETIONS

(A) SIBYLLINE ORACLES

See the separate article under this title.

(B) TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS.

This is an extensive pseudograph, consisting of (1)narrations in which each of the twelve sons of Jacob relates his life, embellished by Midrashic expansions of the Biblical data; (2) exhortations by each patriarch to the practice of virtues, or the shunning of vices illustrated in his life; (3) apocalyptic portions concerning the future of the twelve tribes, and the Messianic times. The body of the work is undoubtedly Judaic, but there are many interpolations of an unmistakably Christian origin, presenting in their ensemble a fairly full Christology, but one suspected of Docetism. Recent students of the Testaments assign with much probability the Jewish groundwork to the Hasmonean period, within the limits 135–63 B.C. Portions which extol the tribes of Levi and Juda are interpreted as an apology for the Hasmonean pontiff-kings. The remaining ten tribes are supposed to be yet in existence, and are urged to be faithful to the representatives of the priestly and royal power. In this defence of the Machabean dynasty, and by a writer with Pharisaic tendencies, probably a priest, the Testaments are unique in Jewish literature. True, there are passages in which the sacerdotal caste and the ruling tribes are unsparingly denounced, but these are evidently later insertions. The eschatology is rather advanced. The Messias is to spring from the tribe of Levi (elsewhere, however, from Juda); he is to be the eternal High-Priest—a unique feature of the book—as well as the civil ruler of the nation. During his reign sin will gradually cease. The gates of paradise are to be opened and the Israelites and converted Gentiles will dwell there and eat of the tree of life. The Messianic kingdom is therefore to be an eternal one on earth, therein agreeing with the Ethiopic Henoch. The Testaments exist complete in Greek, Armenian, Latin, and Slavonic versions. Aramaic and Syriac fragments are preserved.

(C) THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAS

The Ascension of Isaias consists of two parts: (1) The Martyrdom of Isaias, in which it is told that the prophet was sawn in two by the order of the wicked King Manasses. (2) The Ascension proper. This purports to be the description by Isaias of a vision in which he was rapt up through the seven heavens to the presence of the Trinity, and beheld the descent of the Son, “the Beloved,” on His mission of redemption. He changes his form in passing through the inferior celestial circles. The prophet then sees the glorified Beloved reascending. The Martyrdom is a Jewish work, saving some rather large interpolations. The rest is by Christian hands or perhaps a single writer, who united his apocalypse with the Martyrdom. There are tokens that the Christian element is a product of Gnosticism, and that our work is the same with that much in favour among several heretical sects under the name of the “Anabaticon,” or “Ascension of Isaias.” The Jewish portion is thought to have appeared in the first century of our era; the remainder, in the middle of the second. Justin, Tertullian, and Origen seem to have been acquainted with the Martyrdom; Sts. Jerome and Epiphanius are the earliest witnesses for the Ascension proper. The apocryphon exists in Greek, Ethiopic, and Slavonic MSS.

(D) MINOR JEWISH-CHRISTIAN APOCRYPHA

Space will permit only an enumeration of unimportant specimens of apocryphal literature, extant in whole or part, and consisting (1) of Jewish originals recast or freely interpolated by Christians, viz., the “Apocalypses of Elias” (Elijah), “Sophonias” (Zephaniah), the “Paralipomenon of Baruch”; and (2) Christian compositions whose material was supplied by Jewish sources; the so-called “Apocalypse of Moses,” the “Apocalypse of Esdras,” the “Testament of Abraham,” the “Testament of the Three Patriarchs,” the “Prayer of Joseph,” the “Prayer of Aseneth,” the “Marriage of Aseneth,” (the wife of Joseph). Probably with this second class are to be included the “Testaments of Job” and “Zacharias,” the “Adam Books,” the “Book of Creation,” the “Story of Aphikia” (the wife of Jesus Sirach). These works as a rule appeared in the East, and in many cases show Gnostic tendencies. Further information about some of them will be found at the end of articles on the above personages.

SCHÜRER, History of the Jewish People (Edinburgh, 1886), div. II, vol. III.—Special for Testaments of the Twelve Patriarch: SINKER, introduction and tr. in vol. VIII of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York, 1906; reprint of Edinburgh ed.); CHARLES, art. in Hibbert Journal (1905), III; also in HAST., Dict. of the Bible; SCHNAPP, Die Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen untersucht (Halle, 1884).—Special for Ascension of Isaias: DILLMAN, Ascensio Isaiae aethiopice et latine (Leipzig, 1877); ROBINSON in HAST., Dict. of the Bible.

III. APOCRYPHA OF CHRISTIAN ORIGIN

The term Christian here is used in a comprehensive sense and embraces works produced both by Catholics and heretics; the latter are chiefly members of the various branches or schools of Gnosticism, which flourished in the second and third centuries. The Christian apocryphal writings in general imitate the books of the New Testament and therefore, with a few exceptions, fall under the description of Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses.

(1) APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS

The term apocryphal in connection with special Gospels must be understood as bearing no more unfavourable an import than “uncanonical.” This applies to the Gospel of the Hebrews and in a less degree to that of the Egyptians, which in the main seem to have been either embodiments of primitive tradition, or a mere recasting of canonical Gospels with a few variations and amplifications. It is true, all the extant specimens of the apocryphal Gospels take the inspired evangelical documents as their starting-point. But the genuine Gospels are silent about long stretches of the life of Our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and St. Joseph. Frequently they give but a tantalizing glimpse of some episode on which we would fain be more fully informed. This reserve of the Evangelists did not satisfy the pardonable curiosity of many Christians eager for details, and the severe and dignified simplicity of their narrative left unappeased imaginations seeking the sensational and the marvellous. When, therefore, enterprising spirits responded to this natural craving by pretended Gospels full of romantic fables and fantastic and striking details, their fabrications were eagerly read and largely accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity. Both Catholics and Gnostics were concerned in writing these fictions. The former had no other motive than that of a pious fraud, being sometimes moved by a real though misguided zeal, as witness the author of the Pseudo-Matthew: Amor Christi est cui satisfecimus. But the heretical apocryphists, while gratifying curiosity, composed spurious Gospels in order to trace backward their beliefs and peculiarities to Christ Himself. The Church and the Fathers were hostile even towards the narratives of orthodox authorship. It was not until the Middle Ages, when their true origin was forgotten even by most of the learned, that these apocryphal stories began to enter largely into sacred legends, such as the “Aurea Sacra,” into miracle plays, Christian art, and poetry. A comparison of the least extravagant of these productions with the real Gospels reveals the chasm separating them. Though worthless historically, the apocryphal Gospels help us to better understand the religious conditions of the second and third centuries, and they are also of no little value as early witnesses of the canonicity of the writings of the four Evangelists. The quasi-evangelistic compositions concerning Christ which make no pretensions to be Gospels will be treated elsewhere. They are all of orthodox origin. (See AGRAPHA.)

(A) APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS OF CATHOLIC ORIGIN

The Protoevangelium Jacobi, or Infancy Gospel of James purports to have been written by “James the brother of the Lord,” i.e. the Apostle James the Less. It is based on the canonical Gospels which it expands with legendary and imaginative elements, which are sometimes puerile or fantastic. The birth, education, and marriage of the Blessed Virgin are described in the first eleven chapters and these are the source of various traditions current among the faithful. They are of value in indicating the veneration paid to Mary at a very early age. For instance it is the “Protoevangelium” which first tells that Mary was the miraculous offspring of Joachim and Anna, previously childless; that when three years old the child was taken to the Temple and dedicated to its service, in fulfilment of her parents’ vow. When Mary was twelve Joseph is chosen by the high-priest as her spouse in obedience to a miraculous sign—a dove coming out of his rod and resting on his head. The nativity is embellished in an unrestrained manner. Critics find that the “Protoevangelium” is a composite into which two or three documents enter. It was known to Origen under the name of the “Book of James.” There are signs in St. Justin’s works that he was acquainted with it, or at least with a parallel tradition. The work, therefore, has been ascribed to the second century. Portions of it show a familiarity with Jewish customs, and critics have surmised that the groundwork was composed by a Jewish-Christian. The “Protoevangelium” exists in ancient Greek and Syriac recensions. There are also Armenian and Latin translations.

Gospel of St. Matthew—This is a Latin composition of the fourth or fifth century. It pretends to have been written by St. Matthew and translated by St. Jerome. Pseudo-Matthew is in large part parallel to the “Protoevangelium Jacobi,” being based on the latter or its sources. It differs in some particulars always in the direction of the more marvellous. Some of its data have replaced in popular belief parallel ones of the older pseudograph. Such is the age of fourteen in which Mary was betrothed to Joseph. A narrative of the flight into Egypt is adorned with poetic wonders. The dragons, lions, and other wild beasts of the desert adore the infant Jesus. At His word the palm-trees bow their heads that the Holy Family may pluck their fruit. The idols of Egypt are shattered when the Divine Child enters the land. The “Gospel of the Nativity of Mary” is a recast of the Pseudo-Matthew, but reaches only to the birth of Jesus. It is extant in a Latin MS. of the tenth century.

Arabic Gospel of the Infancy—The Arabic is a translation of a lost Syriac original. The work is a compilation and refers expressly to the “Book of Joseph Caiphas, the High-Priest,” the “Gospel of the Infancy,” and the “Perfect Gospel.” Some of its stories are derived from the Thomas Gospel, and others from a recension of the apocryphal Matthew. However there are miracles, said to have occurred in Egypt, not found related in any other Gospel, spurious or genuine, among them the healings of leprosy through the water in which Jesus had been washed, and the cures effected through the garments He had worn. These have become familiar in pious legend. So also has the episode of the robbers Titus and Dumachus, into whose hands the Holy Family fell. Titus bribes Dumachus not to molest them; the Infant foretells that thirty years thence the thieves will be crucified with Him, Titus on His right and Dumachus on His left and that the former will accompany Him into paradise. The apocryphon abounds in allusions to characters in the real Gospels. Lipsius opines that the work as we have it is a Catholic retouching of a Gnostic compilation. It is impossible to ascertain its date, but it was probably composed before the Mohammedan era. It is very popular with the Syrian Nestorians. An originally Arabic “History of Joseph the Carpenter” is published in Tischendorf’s collection of apocrypha. It describes St. Joseph’s death, related by Our Lord to His disciples. It is a tasteless and bombastic effort, and seems to date from about the fourth century.

Gospel of Gamaliel—Dr. A. Baumstark in the Revue Biblique (April, 1906, 253 sqq.), has given this name to a collection of Coptic fragments of a homogeneous character, which were supposed by another Coptic scholar, Reveillout, to form a portion of the “Gospel of the Twelve Apostles” (q.v. inf.). These fragments have been referred to a single Gospel also by Lacau, in “Fragments d’apocryphes coptes de la bibliothèque nationale” (Cairo, 1904). The narrative is in close dependence on St. John’s Gospel. The author did not pose seriously as an evangelist, since he explicitly quotes from the fourth canonical Gospel. He places the relation in the mouth of Gamaliel of Acts, v, 34. Baumstark assigns it to the fifth century. The writer was evidently influenced by the “Acta Pilati.”

The Transitus Mariæ or Evangelium Joannis—The Transitus Mariæ or Evangelium Joannis, which is written in the name of St. John the Apostle, and describes the death of Mary, enjoyed a wide popularity, as is attested by the various recensions in different languages which exist. The Greek has the superscription: “The Account of St. John the Theologian of the Falling Asleep of the Holy Mother of God.” One of the Latin versions is prefaced by a spurious letter of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, explaining that the object of the work was to counteract a heretical composition of the same title and subject. There is a basis of truth in this statement as our apocryphon betrays tokens of being a Gnostic writing worked over in an orthodox interest. A “Transitus Mariæ” is numbered among the apocrypha by the official list of the “Decretum of Gelasius” of the fifth or sixth century. It is problematic, however, whether this is to be identified with our recast Transitus or not. Critics assign the latter to the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century. The relation of the Transitus to the tradition of Mary’s Assumption has not yet been adequately examined. However, there is warrant for saying that while the tradition existed substantially in portions of the Church at an early period, and thus prepared the way for the acceptance of mythical amplifications, still its later form and details were considerably influenced by the Transitus and kindred writings. Certainly the homilies of St. John Damascene, “In Dormitionem Mariæ,” reveal evidence of this influence, e.g. the second homily, xii, xiii, xiv. Going further back, the “Encomium” of Modestus, Bishop of Jerusalem, in the seventh century (P.G., LXXXVI, 3311), and the Pseudo-Dionysius of the fifth (De divinis nominibus, iii), probably suppose an acquaintance with apocryphal narratives of the Death and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. These narratives have a common groundwork, though varying considerably in minor circumstances. The Apostles are preternaturally transported from different quarters of the globe to the Virgin’s deathbed, those who had died being resuscitated for the purpose. The “Departure” takes place at Jerusalem, though the Greek version places Mary first at Bethlehem. A Jew who ventures to touch the sacred body instantly loses both hands, which are restored through the mediation of the Apostles. Christ accompanied by a train of angels comes down to receive His mother’s soul. The Apostles bear the body to Gethsemani and deposit it in a tomb, whence it is taken up alive to Heaven. (See ASSUMPTION; MARY.)

WALKER, Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations (Edinburgh, 1873; tr.); The Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII, edited by ROBERTS AND DONALDSON, tr.; BRADENHEWER, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur (Freiburg, 1902), I; HARNACK, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur (Leipsic); 1893, I, 1897, II, 1, 1904, 2; ZAHN, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon (Leipzig, 1890), II; HENNEKE UND MEYER, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (Tübingen, 1904; German texts with scholarly prologomena); TASKER, Apocryphal Gospels; HAST., Dict. of the Bible, extra volume (1904); LIPSIUS, art. Apocryphal Gospels in Dict. of Christ. Biog.

(B) JUDAISTIC AND HERETICAL GOSPELS

Gospel according to the Hebrews—Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and St. Epiphanius speak of a “Gospel according to the Hebrews” which was the sole one in use among the Palestinian Judeo-Christians, otherwise known as the Nazarenes. Jerome translated it from the Aramaic into Greek. It was evidently very ancient, and several of the above mentioned writers associate it with St. Matthew’s Gospel, which it seems to have replaced in the Jewish-Christian community at an early date. The relation between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and our canonical Matthew Gospel is a matter of controversy. The surviving fragments prove that there were close literal resemblances. Harnack asserts that the Hebrew Gospel was entirely independent, the tradition it contained being parallel to that of Matthew. Zahn, while excluding any dependence on our Greek canonical Matthew, maintains one on the primitive Matthew, according to which its general contents were derived from the latter. This Gospel seems to have been read as canonical in some non-Palestinian churches; the Fathers who are acquainted with it refer to it with a certain amount of respect. Twenty-four fragments have been preserved by ecclesiastical writers. These indicate that it had a number of sections in common with the Synoptics, but also various narratives and sayings of Jesus, not found in the canonical Gospels. The surviving specimens lack the simplicity and dignity of the inspired writings; some even savour of the grotesque. We are warranted in saying that while this extra-canonical material probably has as its starting-point primitive tradition, it has been disfigured in the interests of a Judaizing Church. (See AGRAPHA.)

Gospel According to the Egyptians—It is by this title that Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius describe an uncanonical work, which evidently was circulated in Egypt. All agree that it was employed by heretical sects—for the most part Gnostics. The scanty citations which have been preserved in the Fathers indicate a tendency towards the Encratite condemnation of marriage, and a pantheistic Gnosticism. The Gospel according to the Egyptians did not replace the canonical records in the Alexandrian Church, as Harnack would have us believe, but it seems to have enjoyed a certain popularity in the country districts among the Coptic natives. It could scarcely have been composed later than the middle of the second century and it is not at all impossible that it retouched some primitive material not represented in the canonical Gospels.

Gospel of St. Peter—The existence of an apocryphal composition bearing this name in Christian antiquity had long been known by references to it in certain early patristic writers who intimate that it originated or was current among Christians of Docetic views. Much additional light has been thrown on this document by the discovery of a long fragment of it at Akhmîn in Upper Egypt, in the winter of 1886–87, by the French Archæological Mission. It is in Greek and written on a parchment codex at a date somewhere between the sixth and ninth century. The fragment narrates part of the Passion, the Burial, and Resurrection. It betrays a dependence, in some instances literal, on the four inspired Gospels, and is therefore a valuable additional testimony to their early acceptance. While the apocryphon has many points of contact with the genuine Gospels, it diverges curiously from them in details, and bears evidence of having treated them with much freedom. No marked heretical notes are found in the recovered fragment, but there are passages which are easily susceptible of a heterodox meaning. One of the few extra-canonical passages which may contain an authentic tradition is that which describes Christ as placed in mockery upon a throne by His tormentors. Pseudo-Peter is intermediate in character between the genuine Evangels and the purely legendary apocrypha. Its composition must be assigned to the first quarter or the middle of the second century of the Christian era. C. Schmidt thinks he has found traces of what is perhaps a second Gospel of Peter in some ancient papyri (Schmidt, Sitzungsberichte der königlichen preuss. Akademie zu Berlin, 1895; cf. Bardenhewer, Geschichte, I, 397, 399).

Gospel of St. Philip—Only one or two quotations remain of the Gospel of St. Philip mentioned by Epiphanius and Leontius of Byzantium; but these are enough to prove its Gnostic colouring.

Gospel of St. Thomas—There are two Greek and two Latin redactions of it, differing much from one another. A Syriac translation is also found. A Gospel of Thomas was known to many Fathers. The earliest to mention it is St. Hippolytus (155–235), who informs us that it was in use among the Naasenes, a sect of Syrian Gnostics, and cites a sentence which does not appear in our extant text. Origen relegates it to the heretical writings. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says it was employed by the Manichæans; Eusebius rejects it as heretical and spurious. It is clear that the original Pseudo-Thomas was of heterodox origin, and that it dates from the second century; the citations of Hippolytus establish that it was palpably Gnostic in tenor. But in the extant Thomas Gospel there is no formal or manifest Gnosticism. The prototype was evidently expurgated by a Catholic hand, who, however, did not succeed in eradicating all traces of its original taint. The apocryphon in all its present forms extravagantly magnifies the Divine aspect of the boy Jesus. In bold contrast to the Infancy narrative of St. Luke, where the Divinity is almost effaced, the author makes the Child a miracle-worker and intellectual prodigy, and in harmony with Docetism, leaves scarcely more than the appearance of humanity in Him. This pseudo-Gospel is unique among the apocrypha, inasmuch as it describes a part of the hidden life of Our Lord between the ages of five and twelve. But there is much that is fantastic and offensive in the pictures of the exploits of the boy Jesus. His youthful miracles are worked at times out of mere childish fancy, as when He formed clay pigeons, and at a clap of His hands they flew away as living birds; sometimes, from beneficence; but again from a kind of harsh retribution.

Gospel of St. Bartholomew—The so-called Decretum of Gelasius classes the Gospel of St. Bartholomew among the apocrypha. The earliest allusion to it is in St. Jerome’s works. Recently scholars have brought to light fragments of it in old Coptic manuscripts. One of these Orientalists, Baumstark, would place its composition in the first part of the fourth century.

Gospel of Matthias—A Gospel of Matthias is mentioned by Origen and Eusebius among the heretical literature along with the Peter and Thomas Gospels. Hippolytus states that the Basilidean Gnostics appealed to a “secret discourse” communicated to them by the Apostle Matthias who had received instruction privately from the Lord. Clement of Alexandria, who was credulous concerning apocryphal literature, quotes with respect several times the “Tradition of Matthias.”

Gospel of the Twelve Apostles—A Gospel of the Twelve Apostles was known to Origen (third century). Other patristic notices give rise to some uncertainty whether the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles of antiquity was really distinct from that of the Hebrews. The greater probabilities oppose their identity. Recently the claim has been made by M. Reveillout, a Coptic scholar, that the lost Gospel has been in a considerable measure recovered in several Coptic fragments, all of which, he asserts, belong to the same document. But this position has been successfully combated by Dr. Baumstark in the in the “Revue Biblique” (April, 1906, 245 sqq.), who will allow at most a probability that certain brief sections appertain to a Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, written originally in Greek and current among Gnostic Ebionites as early as the second century. There exists a late and entirely orthodox Syriac “Gospel of the Twelve Apostles,” published by J. Rendel Harris (Cambridge, 1900).

It is enough to note the existence of other pseudo-Gospels, of which very little is known beside the names. There was a Gospel of St. Andrew, probably identical with the Gnostic “Acts of Andrew” (q.v., inf.); a Gospel of Barnabas, a Gospel of Thaddeus, a Gospel of Eve, and even one of Judas Iscariot, the last in use among the Gnostic sect of Cainites, and which glorified the traitor.

BARDENHEWER, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur (Freiburg, 1902), I; HARNACK, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur (Leipzig) I, 1893; UUm 1m 1897, II, 2, 1904; ZAHN, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon (Leipzig, 1890), II; TASKER, Apocryphal Gospels; HAST., Dict. of the Bible, estra volume; LIPSIUS, Apocryphal Gospels, Dict. of Christ. Biog.—Special for the Gospel according to the Hebrews: All the fragments are reproduced in NICHOLSON, The Gospel according to the Hebrews (London, 1897); ROSE, Etudes sur les Evangiles (Paris, 1902), refutes HARNACK’S view of the priority of the acceptance of the Egyptian Gospel to that of the canonical ones.—Special for the Gospel of St. Peter: RUTHERFORD, Ante-Nicene Fathers (introduction and tr. ), IX; ROBINSON, The Gospel according to Peter and Revelation of Peter (London, 1892); ZAHN, Das Evangelium des Petrus (1893); SEMERIA, art. in Revue Biblique (1894), III, 522 sqq.—Special for Gospel of St. Thomas: WALKER, Apocryphal Gospels, etc. (Edinburgh, 1873, tr.); Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York, 1906), VIII; CONRADY, art. in Theologische Studien und Kritiken (1903), LXXVI, 2.—Special for Gospel of St. Bartholomew: LACAU, Fragments d’Apocryphes Coptes (Cairo, 1904; text); BAUMSTARK, Revue Biblique, April, 1906, 249–253–263.—Special for Gospel of the Twelve Apostles: REVEILLOUT, French tr. of supposed fragments, in Revue Biblique, (1904), 330, 336 sqq.; Les Apocryphes coptes, in Patrologia Orientalis (Paris, 1905) II, 43 sqq., 156.

(2) PILATE LITERATURE AND OTHER APOCRYPHA CONCERNING CHRIST

While Christianity was struggling against the forces of Roman paganism, there was a natural tendency to dwell upon the part which a representative of the Roman Empire played in the supreme events of Our Lord’s life, and to shape the testimony of Pontius Pilate, the procurator of Judea, even at the cost of exaggeration and amplification, into a weapon of apologetic defence, making that official bear witness to the miracles, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Christ. Hence arose a considerable apocryphal Pilate literature, of which the Gospel of Gamaliel really forms a part, and like this latter apocryphon, it is characterized by exaggerating Pilate’s weak defence of Jesus into strong sympathy and practical belief in His divinity.

Report of Pilate to the Emperor.—In the apocryphal Acts of Peter and Paul there is embodied a letter purporting to have been sent by Pontius Pilate to the Emperor Claudius. This briefly relates the fatuous crime of the Jews in persecuting the Holy One promised to them by their God; enumerates His miracles and states that the Jews accused Jesus of being a magician. Pilate at the time believing this, delivered Him to them. After the Resurrection the soldiers whom the governor had placed at the tomb were bribed by the leaders to be silent, but nevertheless divulged the fact. The missive concludes with a warning against the mendacity of the Jews. This composition is clearly apocryphal though unexpectedly brief and restrained. It is natural, to attempt to trace a resemblance between this pseudograph and certain references of ecclesiastical writers to Acta or Gesta of Pilate. Tertullian (Apologia, xxi) after giving a sketch of the miracles and Passion of Christ, subjoins: “All these things Pilate . . . announced to Tiberius Cæsar.” A comparison between this pericope and the Pseudo-Pilate report reveals a literary dependence between them, though the critics differ as to the priority of these documents. In chapters xxxv, xxxviii, xlviii, of Justin’s Apologia, that Father appeals confidently as a proof of the miracles and Passion of Jesus to “Acts” or records of Pontius Pilate existing in the imperial archives. While it is possible that St. Justin may have heard of such a report, and even probable that the procurator transmitted some account of the events at Jerusalem to Rome, it is on the other hand admissible that Justin’s assertion was based on nothing more than hypothesis. This is the opinion of the majority of the experts. During the persecutions under Maximin in the fourth century spurious anti-Christian Acts of Pilate were composed in Syria, as we learn from Eusebius. It is probable that the pseudographic letter was forged as an offset to these.

Acta Pilati—For Acta Pilati or “Gospel of Nicodemus,” wee the separate article.

The Minor Pilate Apocrypha—The minor Pilate apocrypha, the Anaphora Pilati, or “Relation of Pilate,” is frequently found appended to the texts of the Acta. It presupposes the latter work, and could not have been composed before the middle of the fifth century. It is found in MSS. combined with the Paradoseis or “Giving up of Pilate,” which represents the oldest form of the legend dealing with Pilate’s subsequent life. A still later fabrication is found in the Latin Epistola Pilati ad Tiberium. There exists a puerile correspondence consisting of a pretended Letter of Herod to Pilate and Letter of Pilate to Herod. They are found in Greek and Syriac in a MS. of the sixth or seventh century. These pseudographs may be as old as the fifth century.

The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea—The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea furnishing imaginary details of the two thieves crucified with Christ, and the begging of the body from Pilate, seems to have enjoyed popularity in the Middle Ages in the Byzantine East, judging from the number of Greek MSS. which remain. The oldest of those published belongs to the twelfth century. The relation is appended to some Latin texts of the Acta Pilati, under the title “Historia Josephi.” It may be read in English in Walker’s and the Ante-Nicene Fathers’ collection of the apocrypha.

The oldest form of the Pseudo-Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar, King of Edessa, is found in Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, I, xiii), who vouches that he himself translated it from the Syriac documents in the archives of Edessa, the metropolis of Eastern Syria. The two letters are accompanied by an introduction which probably is an excerpt from the same source. According to this, Abgar V, Toparch or King of Edessa, suffering from an incurable disease, and having heard the fame of Christ’s miracles sends a courier to Jerusalem, bearing a letter to Jesus, in which he declared Him to be a god, or the son of a god, and invites Him to Edessa, justifying the request partly by his desire to be cured, partly by his wish to offer to Jesus an asylum against the malignant Jews. Our Lord replied as follows:

“Blessed are you because you have believed in Me without seeing Me. For it is written that those who have seen Me, will not believe Me; and that those who have not seen Me will believe and love Me. But as to your prayer that I come to you, it is necessary that I fulfil here all that for which I have been sent, and that after I have fulfilled it, that I be taken up to Him who has sent Me. But after my taking up I shall send you one of My disciples, who will heal your pains, and keep life for you and yours.”

Accordingly, after the Ascension, “Judas Thomas” an Apostle, despatches to Edessa Thaddeus, one of the seventy Disciples, who cures the King of his disease, and preaches Christ to the assembled people. This, adds Eusebius, happened in the year 340, i.e. of the Seleucid era; corresponding to A.D. 28–29. The pleasing story is repeated with variations in later sources. The “Teaching of Addai,” a Syrian apocryphon (q.v. infra), reproduces the correspondence with additions.

The authenticity of the alleged letter of Christ has always been strongly suspected when not absolutely denied. As early as the sixth century the Gelasian Decretum brands this correspondence as spurious. Its legendary environment and the fact that the Church at large did not hand down the pretended epistle from Our Lord as a sacred document is conclusive against it. As for the letter of Abgar, its genuineness was formerly favoured by many skilled in this literature, but since the discovery of the “Teaching of Addai,” published in 1876, the presumption against the authentic character of Abgar’s epistle, owing to the close resemblance of a portion to passages in the Gospels, has become an established certainty. Lipsius, a high authority, is of the opinion that the Abgar correspondence goes back to the reign of the first Christian ruler of Edessa, Abgar IX (179–216), and that it was elicited by a desire to force a link uniting that epoch with the time of Christ. (SEE ABGAR.)

See the hisotries of BRADENHEWER, HARNACK, PREUSCHEN, and ZAHN, referred to in the bibliographies above. For the Report of Pilate to the Emperor, HARNACK, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur (Leipzig, 1897, II, I, 604 sqq., inserts the Greek and Latin text. The ancient texts of these apocrypha are edited in TISCHENDORF’S Evangelia Apocrypha (Leipzig, 1853, 1876): Translations of the Anaphora, the Report of Pilate, of The Giving Up, of the Epistola ad Tiberium, The Letter of Pontius Pilate, are supplied in WALKER and Ante-Nicene Fathers, editions of the apocrypha previusly cited. The Herod-Pilate Correspondence in English: Apocryphal Books of the New Testament, anon. (Philadelphia, 1890, 1901),—Special for the Abgar correspondence: Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York, 1906; English), VIII; LIPSIUS, Die Edessenische Abgarsage kritisch untersucht (Brunswick, 1883); WRIGHT, Abgar, in ““Dict. of Chris. Biog; VIGOUROUX, Abgar, in Dict. de la Bible.—LETTER OF LENTULUS. A brief letter professing to be from Lentulus, or Publius Lentulus, as in some MSS., “President of the People of Jerusalem,” addressed to “the Roman Senate and People,” describes Our Lord’s personal appearance. It is evidently spurious, both the office and name of the president of Jerusalem being grossly unhistorical. No ancient writer alludes to this production, which is found only in Latin MSS. It has been conjectured that it may have been composed in order to authenticate a pretended portrait of Jesus, during the Middle Ages. An English version is given in COWPER’S Apocryphal Gospels and Other Doeuments Relating to Christ (New York, 6th ed., 1897).

(3) APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

The motive which first prompted the fabrication of spurious Acts of the Apostles was, in general, to give Apostolic support to heretical systems, especially those of the many sects which are comprised under the term Gnosticism. The darkness in which the New Testament leaves the missionary careers, and the ends of the greater number of the Apostles, and the meagre details handed down by ecclesiastical tradition, left an inviting field for the exercise of inventive imaginations, and offered an apt means for the insidious propagation of heresy. The Jewish-Christian Church, which early developed un-Catholic tendencies in the form of Ebionitism, seems first to have produced apocryphal histories of the Apostles, though of these we have very few remains outside the material in the voluminous Pseudo-Clement. The Gnostic Acts of Peter, Andrew, John, Thomas, and perhaps Matthew, date from the early portion of the third century or perhaps a little earlier. They abound in extravagant and highly coloured marvels, and were interspersed by long pretended discourses of the Apostles which served as vehicles for the Gnostic predications. Though the pastors of the Church and the learned repudiated these as patently heretical writings, they appealed to the fancy and satisfied the curiosity of the common people. Not only were they utilized by Manichæans in the East and Priscillianists in the West, but they found favour with many unenlightened Catholics. Since it was impossible to suppress their circulation entirely, they were rendered comparatively harmless by orthodox editing which expunged the palpable errors, especially in the discourses, leaving the miracle element to stand in its riotous exuberance. Hence most of the Gnostic Acts have come down to us with more or less of a Catholic purification, which, however, was in many cases so superficial as to leave unmistakable traces of their heterodox origin. The originally Gnostic apocryphal Acts were gathered into collections which bore the name of the periodoi (Circuits) or praxeis (Acts) of the Apostles, and to which was attached the name of a Leucius Charinus, who may have formed the compilation. The Gnostic Acts were of various authorship. Another collection was formed in the Frankish Church in the sixth century, probably by a monk. In this the Catholic Acts have been preserved; it is by no means uniform in its various manuscript representatives. By a misunderstanding, the authorship of the whole, under the title “Historia Certaminis Apostolorum,” was ascribed to an Abdias, said to have been the first Bishop of Babylon and a disciple of the Apostles. The nucleus of this collection was formed by the Latin Passiones, or Martyrdoms, of those Apostles who had been neglected by the Gnostic Acts, viz., the two Jameses, Philip (Matthew?), Bartholomew, Simon, and Jude. The literature grew by accretions from heretical sources and eventually took in all the Apostles, including St. Paul. The motive of these non-heretical apocrypha was primarily to gratify the pious curiosity of the faithful regarding the Apostolic founders of the Church; sometimes local interests instigated their composition. After the model of the Gnostic Acts, which were of Oriental derivation, they abound in prodigies, and like those again, they take as their starting-point the traditional dispersion of the Twelve from Jerusalem. Regarding the historical value of these apocryphal narratives, it requires the most careful criticism to extricate from the mass of fable and legend any grains of historical truth. Even respecting the fields of the Apostolic missions, they are self-contradictory or confused. In general their details are scientifically worthless, unless confirmed by independent authorities, which rarely happens. Much of their apocryphal matter was taken up by the offices of the Apostles in the Latin breviaries and lectionaries, composed in the seventh and eighth centuries at an extremely uncritical period.

LIPSIUS in Dict. of Christ. Biog; SALMON, art. Leucius in the same work; Historical Introduction to the New Testament (4th ed., 1889); DUCHESNE, Les anciens recueils de légendes apostoliques; Compte-Rendu of the Catholic Scientific Congress of Brussels (Bruessels, 1895).

(A) GNOSTIC ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

—Acts of St. Peter. There exist a Greek and a Latin Martyrdom of Peter, the latter attributed to Pope Linus, which from patristic citations are recognized as the conclusion of an ancient Greek narrative entitled “Acts, or Circuits of St. Peter.” Another MS., bearing the name “Actus Petri cum Simone,” contains a superior translation with several passages from the original narrative preceding the Martyrdom. The work betrays certain tokens of Gnosticism, although it has been purged of its grossest features by a Catholic reviser. It describes the triumph of St. Peter over Simon Magus at Rome, and the Apostle’s subsequent crucifixion. These Acts as we have them are of high antiquity, though it is impossible to always discern whether patristic writers are quoting from them or an earlier tradition. Undoubtedly Commodian (c. 250) employed our extant Acts of Peter.

—Acts of St. John. The heretical character imputed to these by certain Fathers is fully confirmed by extant fragments, which show a gross Docetism, and an unbridled phantasy. Doubtless the author intermingled valuable Ephesian traditions with his fables. There are reasons of weight to regard the work as having been composed, together with the Acts of St. Peter, and probably those of St. Andrew, by a single person, in the latter half of the second century, under the name of a disciple of St. John, called Leucius. Clement of Alexandria was acquainted with the pseudograph. The Johannine Acts of the Pseudo-Prochorus (compare the canonical Acts, vi, 5) are a Catholic working-over of Gnostic material.

—Acts of St. Andrew. Pseudographic Acts of St. Andrew are noted by several early ecclesiastical writers, as in circulation among Gnostic and Manichæan sects. The original form has perished except in a few patristic quotations. But we possess three individual Acts under different names, which prove to be orthodox recensions of an original comprehensive Gnostic whole. These are: (1) “The Acts of Andrew and Matthias” (or Matthew as given by some authorities); “Acts of Peter and Andrew” (the original language of the above is Greek); (3) “The Martyrdom of the Apostle Andrew” has come down in both Greek and Latin recensions. The Latin text is the original one, and cannot be earlier than the fifth century. It purports to be a relation of the heroic death of St. Andrew by eyewitnesses who are “presbyters and deacons of the Church of Achaia.” It has enjoyed credit among historians in the past, but no reliance can be placed on its data. (See APOSTOLIC CHURCHES; ANDREW, ST., APOSTLE.)

—The Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew are in literary dependence on the Acts of St. Andrew (q.v., supra), and hence the reading “Matthew” may be an error for “Matthias,” since evidently the companion of Peter and Andrew is intended. The work exists in Greek and a later Latin. There is also a Coptic-Ethiopic martyrdom legend of St. Matthew. (See MATTHEW, ST., APOSTLE; APOSTOLIC CHURCHES).

—Acts of St. Thomas. No Apostolic apocryphon has reached us in a completeness equal to that of the Thomas Acts. They are found in Greek, Syriac, and Ethiopic recensions. Their Gnostic traits pierce through the Catholic re-touching; in fact, the contents show a conscious purpose to exalt the dualistic doctrine of abstention from conjugal intercourse. Scholars are much inclined to attribute the original to a Syrian origin and an author who was an adherent of Bardesanes. The signs point strongly to the third century as the era. The translation of the remains of St. Thomas to Edessa in 232 may have furnished the inspiration for the composition. The Acts relate the prodigies performed by the Apostle in India, and end with his martyrdom there. They are interspersed with some remarkable hymns; some of real literary beauty but with strong Gnostic colouring. Recent researches have revealed elements of truth in the historical setting of the narrative. The Acts of St. Thomas are mentioned by Epiphanius and Augustine as in use in different heretical circles. St. Ephrem of Syria refers to apocryphal Thomas Acts as in circulation among the Bardesanites (see ST. THOMAS, APOSTLE).

—Acts of St. Bartholomew. We possess a Greek Martrydom, dating in its present form from the fifth or sixth century; also a Latin “Passio Bartholomæi.” Both are tainted with Nestorianism, and seem to have come from a single Bartholomew legend. The Greek text recounts the marvels by which the Apostle overthrew idolatry and converted a king and his subjects in “India.” The whole is a legendary tissue. (See BARTHOLOMEW, ST., APOSTLE).

Conslut the works of BARDENHEWER, HARNACK, and PREUSCHEN, also ZAHN, given in previous bibliographies. For the original texts: LIPSIUS AND BONNET, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha (Leipzig, 1891), Pars I; JAMES, Apocrypha Anecdota (Cambridge, 1897), belonging to the Cambridge Texts and Studies series; WRIGHT, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (London, 1871), contains an edition and translation of Syriac MSS.; Eng. translations are given in WALKER, Apocryphal Gospels, etc. (Edinburgh, 1873); Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York, 1906), VIII; the magisterial work on the Apocryphal Acts and Legends is: LIPSIUS, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden (Brunswick, 1883, 1887, 1890), exhaustive and critical in the liberal Protestant spirit. The same author has contributed an article to the Dict. of Christ. Biog. For the points of contact of the Apocryphal Acts with profane history: GUTSCHMID, Die Königsnamen in den apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, in the Reinisches Museum für Philologie (1864), XIX, 161–183, 380–401.—Special for Acts of St. Peter: CHASE, art. Peter (Simon) in HAST., Dict. of the Bible.—Special for Acts of St John: ZAHN, Die Wanderungen des Apostels Johannes in the Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift (1899), X.—Special for Acts of St. Thomas: The Ethiopic text was edited by MALAN, Conflicts of the Apostles (London, 1871), and rendered iunto the vernacular by BRIDGE (London, 1899); LEVY, in Analecta Bollandiana (1899), XVIII, 275 sqq.; MEDLYCOTT, India and the Apostle Thomas: An Inquiry with a Critical Analysis of the Acta Thomas (London, 1905).

(B) CATHOLIC APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

—Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul. These are to be distinguished from the Gnostic Acts of Peter and the orthodox Acts of Paul. The MSS. which represent the legend fall into two groups: (a) consisting of all but one of the Greek texts, containing an account of the journey of St. Paul to Rome, and the martyrdom of the two Apostles; (b) composed of one Greek manuscript and a great number of Latin ones, presenting the history of the passio only. Lipsius regards the journey section as a ninth-century addition; Bardenhewer will have it to belong to the original document. This section begins with Paul’s departure from the island of Mileto, and is evidently based on the canonical narrative in Acts. The Jews have been aroused by the news of Paul’s intended visit, and induce Nero to forbid it. Nevertheless the Apostle secretly enters Italy; his companion is mistaken for himself at Puteoli and beheaded. In retribution that city is swallowed up by the sea. Peter receives Paul at Rome with Joy. The preaching of the Apostles converts multitudes and even the Empress. Simon Magus traduces the Christian teachers, and there is a test of strength in miracles between that magician and the Apostles, which takes place in the presence of Nero, Simon essays a flight to heaven but falls in the Via Sacra and is dashed to pieces. Nevertheless, Nero is bent on the destruction of Peter and Paul. The latter is beheaded on the Ostian Way, and Peter is crucified at his request head downward. Before his death he relates to the people the “Quo Vadis?” story. Three men from the East carry off the Apostles’ bodies but are overtaken. St. Peter is buried at “The place called the Vatican,” and Paul on the Ostian Way. These Acts are the chief source for details of the martyrdom of the two great Apostles. They are also noteworthy as emphasizing the close concord between the Apostolic founders of the Roman Church. The date (A.D. 55) of composition is involved in obscurity. Lipsius finds traces of our Acts as early as Hippolytus (c. 235), but it is not clear that the Fathers adduced employed any written source for their references to the victory over Simon Magus and the work of the Apostles at Rome. Lipsius assigns the kernel of the Martyrdom to the second century; Bardenhewer refers the whole to the first half of the third. The Acts of Peter and Paul undoubtedly embody some genuine traditions. (See ST. PETER; ST. PAUL; SIMON MAGUS).

—Acts of St. Paul. Origen and Eusebius expressly name the πράξεις Παύλου (praxeis Paulou); Tertullian speaks of writings falsely attributed to Paul: “Quod si Pauli perperam inscripta legunt.” He is cautioning his readers against the tale of Thecla preaching and baptizing herself. Hitherto it was supposed that he referred to the “Acts of Paul and Thecla.” The “Acta Pauli,” presumed to be a distinct composition, were deemed to have perished; but recently (1899) a Coptic papyrus MS., torn to shreds, was found in Egypt, and proves to contain approximately complete the identical Acts of Paul alluded to by a few ecclesiastical writers. This find has established the fact that the long-known Acts of Paul and Thecla and the apocryphal correspondence of St. Paul with the Corinthian Church, as well as the Martyrdom of St. Paul, are really only excerpts from the original Pauline Acts. The newly-discovered document contains material hitherto unknown as well as the above-noted sections, long extant. It begins with a pretended flight of St. Paul from Antioch of Pisidia, and ends with his martyrdom at Rome. The narrative rests on data in the canonical books of the New Testament, but it abounds in marvels and personages unhinted at there, and it disfigures traits of some of those actually mentioned in the Sacred Writings. The Acts of Paul, therefore, adds nothing trustworthy to our knowledge of the Apostle of the Gentiles. Fortunately the above-cited passage of Tertullian (De Baptismo, xvii) informs us of its authorship and aim. The African writer observes that the pseudo-history was the work of a priest of Asia Minor, who on the discovery of the fraud, was deposed from an ecclesiastical charge, and confessed that he forged the book out of love for St. Paul. Experts ascribe its composition to the second century. It was already known when Tertullian wrote, and during the first centuries enjoyed a considerable popularity, both East and West. In fact Eusebius classes it among the antilegomena, or works having locally quasi-canonical authority.

—Acts of Paul and Thecla. The early detachment of these as well as the Martyrdom from the Acts of St. Paul may be accounted for by ecclesiastical use as festal lections. Despite Tertullian’s remark regarding this pseudograph, it enjoyed an immense and persistent popularity through the patristic period and the Middle Ages. This favour is to be explained mainly by the romantic and spirited flavour of the narrative. Exceptional among the apocryphists, the author kept a curb upon his fertile imagination, and his production is distinguished by its simplicity, clearness, and vigour. It deals with the adventures of Thecla, a young woman of Iconium, who upon being converted by St. Paul’s preaching, left her bridegroom and lived a life of virginity and missionary activity, becoming a companion of St. Paul, and preaching the Gospel. She is persecuted, but miraculously escapes from the fire and the savage beasts of the arena. The relief into which abstention from the marriage-bed is brought in these Acts makes it difficult to escape from the conclusion that they have been coloured by Encratite ideas. Nevertheless the thesis of Lipsius, supported by Corssen, that a Gnostic Grundschrift underlies our present document, is not accepted by Harnack, Zahn, Bardenhewer, and others. The apocryphon follows the New Testament data of St. Paul’s missions very loosely and is full of unhistorical characters and events. For instance, the writer introduces a journey of the Apostles, to which there is nothing analogous in the Sacred Books. However, there are grains of historical material in the Thecla story. A Christian virgin of that name may well have been converted by St. Paul at Iconium, and suffered persecution. Gutschmid has discovered that a certain Queen Tryphena was an historical personage (Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, X, 1864). (See THECLA.)

—Acts of St. Philip. The extant Greek fragments supply us with all but five (10–14) of the fifteen Acts composing the work. Of these 1–7 are a farrago of various legends, each, it would seem, with an independent history; 8–14 is a unit, which forms a parasitic growth on the ancient but somewhat confused traditions of the missionary activity of an Apostle Philip in Hierapolis of Phrygia. Zahn’s view, that this document is the work of an ill-informed Catholic monk of the fourth century, is a satisfactory hypothesis. The largest fragment was first published by Batiffol in “Analecta Bollandiana,” IX (Paris, 1890). A Coptic “Acts of Philip” is also to be noted. (See PHILIP, ST., APOSTLE.)

There are Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Armenian histories of the missions and death of St. James the Greater, the son of Zebedee. Lipsius assigns the Latin to about the third century. Coptic and Armenian Acts and Martyrdom of St. James the Less depend mostly on the Hegesippus tradition, preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., IV, xxii).

—Acts of St. Matthew. The Apostolic Acts of the Pseudo-Abdias contain a Latin “Passio Sancti Matthæi,” which preserves an Abyssinian legend of St. Matthew, later than the Coptic Martyrdom noticed in connection with the Gnostic Acts of that saint. The correct historical setting indicates that the recension was the work of an Abyssinian of the sixth century, who wished to date the establishment of the Abyssinian Church (fourth century) back to the Apostolic times. However, the kernel of the narrative is drawn from older sources. The Abdias Passio places St. Matthew’s martyrdom in Abyssinia. (See MATTHEW, ST., APOSTLE.)

—Teaching of Addai (Thaddeus). In 1876 an ancient Syriac document, entitled “The Teaching of Addai, the Apostle,” was published for the first time. It proved to closely parallel the Abgar material derived by Eusebius from the Edessa archives, and indeed purports to have been entrusted to those archives by its author, who gives his name as Labubna, the son of Senaak. It is full of legendary but interesting material describing the relations between Jesus and King Abgar of Edessa. Thaddeus,or Addai, one of the seventy disciples, is sent, after the Resurrection, in compliance with Christ’s promise, to Abgar, heals the ruler and Christianizes Edessa with the most prompt and brilliant success. Notable is the story of the painting of Jesus made at the instance of Abgar’s envoy to the former. Since the narrative of a Gaulish pilgrim who visited Edessa about 390 contains no allusion to such a picture, we may reasonably conclude that the Teaching of Addai is of later origin. Critics accept the period between 399–430. The Thaddeus legend has many ramifications and has undergone a number of variations. There is a Greek “Acts of Thaddeus,” which identifies Addai with Thaddeus or Lebbæus, one of the Twelve. (See ABGAR; EDESSA).

—Acts of Simon and Jude. A Latin Passio, which Lipsius attributes to the fourth or fifth century, narrates the miracles, conversions, and martyrdoms of these Apostles. It is found in the Abdias collection. The scene is Persia and Babylonia. It has been recognized that the historical setting of these Acts agrees remarkably with what is known of the conditions in the Parthian empire in the first century after Christ.

—The Acts of St. Barnabas. The Acts of St. Barnabas appear to have been composed toward the end of the fifth century by a Cypriot. They are ascribed to St. Mark the Evangelist, and are historically worthless. They are extant in the original Greek and in a Latin version. The narrative is based upon the mutual relations and activities of Barnabas, Mark, and Paul, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.

—Gesta Matthiæ. This is the latest of the pseudo-Acts, having been composed by a monk of Trèves, in the twelfth century, as a prelude to an account of the translation of the sacred relic, and the body of St. Matthias to that city, and their subsequent rediscoveries. It pretends to have derived the history of the Apostle’s career from a Hebrew manuscript. (See MATTHIAS, ST., APOSTLE.)

See the literature common to the Gnostic Acts above.—Special for Acts of Peter and Paul: CHASE, art. Peter (Simon) in HAST., Dict. of the Bible.”—Special for Acts of St. Paul: SCHMIDT, Acta Pauli (Leipzig, 1904), exhaustive researches, Coptic text, and Germ. trans.; DEIBER, in Revue Biblique, 1904, 443 sqq., summarizes contents; NAU, Revue de l’Orient chrétien (1898), III, published a Syriac Martyrdom of St. Paul.—Special for Acts of Paul and Thecla: GWINN, Thecla, in Dict. of Christ. Biog.; REY, Etudes sur les Acta Pauli et Thecla (Paris, 1890); RAMSEY, The Church in the Roman Empire before 170 A.D. (London, 1893), 375 sqq.: HOLZHEY, Die Thekla-Akten. Ihre Verbreitung und Beurteilung in der Kirche (Munich, 1905).—Special for the Teaching of Addai: PHILLIPS, The Doctrine of Addai, the Apostle (London, 1876), Syriac and English texts with notes; TIXXERONT, Les origines de l’Église d’Edesse et la légende d’Abgar (Paris, 1888).—Special for Acts of Simon and Jude: The text of the Passio is in FABRICIUS, Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti (Hamburg, 1703, 1719).—Special for Acts of Barnabas: BRAUNSBERGER, Der Apostel Barnabas (Mainz, 1876).

(C) QUASI-APOSTOLIC ACTS

It must suffice to mention “Acts of St. Mark,” of Alexandrian origin, and written in the fourth or fifth century; “Acts of St. Luke,” Coptic, not earlier than end of fourth; “Acts of St. Timothy,” composed by an Ephesian after 425; “Acts of St. Titus,” of Cretan origin, between 400–700; “Acts of Kanthippe and Polyxena,” connected with the legends about St. Paul and St. Andrew.

See LIPSIUS, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten (Brunswick, 1884), II, 2; JAMES, Apocrypha Anecdota (Cambridge, 1893).

(4) APOCRYPHAL DOCTRINAL WORKS

—Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu. It was known that a Syriac work of this name existed, and an extract was published in 1856. In 1899 Monsignor Rahmani, Patriarch of the United Syrians, published from a late MS. the Syriac text, a Latin introduction and translation. The work is in two books. It begins with an apocalypse of the approaching day of Antichrist alleged to have been uttered by Our Lord after His Resurrection. Between this and the body of the work there is a very loose connection, as the main portion represents Christ as enacting, even to small details, laws for the governance and ritual of the Church. The writer places on Our Lord’s lips descriptions of liturgical observances prevalent in his own and earlier periods. There are evident points of contact between the Testament and the ancient ecclesiastico-liturgical Canones Hippolyti, Apostolic Constitutions, and Apostolic Canons. Monsignor Rahmani assigns the Testament to the second century, and places the above works in the relation of dependence on it. But critics unanimously refuse to accord a high antiquity to the Testament, dating it in the fourth or fifth century, and inverting the dependence mentioned. On the ground that there is no indication of an acquaintance with the book outside the Orient, and that Arabic and Coptic recensions of it are known, Dr. A. Baumstark regards the work as a compilation originating in Monophysite circles, and current in the national Churches of that sect in Syria and Egypt. The apocalyptic opening has been found in a Latin MS. of the eighth century, and published by M. R. James, “Apocrypha Anecdota” (Cambridge, 1893).

—The Preaching of Peter or Kerygma Petri. Clement of Alexandria repeatedly quotes from a κήρυγμα Πέτρου (kerygma Petrou), concerning whose credibility he obviously has no doubt. On the other hand, Eusebius classes it as apocryphal. A certain “Doctrine of Peter,” mentioned by a later writer, was probably identical with the “Preaching.” From the scanty remains of this work we can form but a very imperfect idea of it. It spoke in St. Peter’s name and represented him above all as a teacher of the Gentiles. The doctrinal parts occur in a framework of an account of the missionary journeys. The pseudograph was probably suggested by the text, II Peter, i, 5. A work which was so well accredited in the days of Clement of Alexandria (c. 140–215), and which was known to the “Gnostic Heracleon” (c. 160–170), must have come from almost Apostolic antiquity. Scholars favour the first quarter of the second century. The fragments which remain betray no signs of heterodox origin. There is a Syriac “Preaching of Simon Peter in the City of Rome.”

—Two Ways or Judicium Petri. This is a moralizing treatise ascribed to St. Peter, and prefixed to the Didache. It is of Jewish-Christian origin, and probably was based on the so-called “Epistle of Barnabas.”

—Preaching of Paul. The only witness to this work is the treatise “De Rebaptismo” in the pseudo-Cyprian writings. According to this it represented Christ as confessing personal sins, and forced by His mother to receive baptism.

For the Testamentum: RAHMANI, Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi (Mainz, 1899); FUNK, articles in Der Katholik (1900), I, 1–14; Theologisch Quartalschrift (1900), LXXXII, 161–174; BATIFFOL, in Revue Biblique (1900), 253–260; HARNACK, Vorläufige Bemerkungen zu dem jüngst Syrisch und Lateinisch, publizierten “Testamentum D.N. Jesu Christi” (Berlin, 1899); BAUMSTARK, in Römische Quartalschrift (1900), 1–48; RICKABY, Ritual in the Reign of Maximin, in Am. Cath. Quar. Review (1900), XXV. For the history of the discussion: EHRHARD, Die altchristliche Literatur (Freibur, 1900). For the Preaching of Peter: The fragments are collected in HILGENFELD, Novum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum (Leipzig, 1884), fasc. IV,; DOBSCHÜTZ, Das Kerygma Petri kritisch untersucht, being XI, 1, of HARNACK AND GEBHARDT’S Texte und Untersuchungen. For minor studies consult the histories of BARDENHEWER, HARNACK, and ZAHN.

(5) APOCRYPHAL EPISTLES

—Pseudo-Epistles of the Blessed Virgin. These are all composed in Latin and at late dates. (1) The Epistle of the Blessed Virgin to St. Ignatius Martyr fills but nine lines in the Fabricius edition of the apocrypha. It exhorts to faith and courage. There is a reply from Ignatius. (2) The Epistle to the Messanienses, i.e. the inhabitants of Messina, Sicily, is equally brief; it conveys an exhortation to faith, and a blessing. (3) The Epistle to the Florentines was expounded in a sermon of Savonarola, 25 October, 1495. We have no other testimony of it. It is four lines in length.

—Pseudo-Epistles of St. Paul. The Pseudo-Clementine homilies contain as a preface two letters, the first of which purports to be from Peter to James the Less, beseeching him to keep his (Peter’s) preaching secret. (See CLEMENTINE PSEUDO-WRITINGS.)

—Pseudo-Epistles of St. Paul; Correspondence with the Corinthians The ancient Syrian (Edessene) Church revered as canonical a Third Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, which is accompanied by a letter from the pastors of that Church, to which it is an answer. But about the beginning of the fifth century the Syrian Church fell under the influence of the Greek, and in consequence the spurious letter gradually lost its canonical status. It was taken up by the neighbouring Armenians and for centuries has formed a part of the Armenian New Testament. Latin and Greek writers are completely silent about this pseudograph, although Greek and Latin copies have been found. It was obviously suggested by the lost genuine Pauline letter referred to in I Cor. v, 9; vii, 1. It was composed by a Catholic presbyter about 160–170, and is a disguised attack on some of the leading errors of Gnosticism. This correspondence long had an independent circulation, but recently it has been proved that the document was incorporated into the Acts of St. Paul (q.v.).

—Pseudo-epistle to the Laodiceans. In the genuine Epistle to the Colossians, Paul, after instructing them to send their Epistle to Laodicea, adds: “read that which is from the Laodiceans.” This most probably regards a circular letter, the canonical “Ephesians”; but it has been held to be a lost letter to the Laodicean Christians. The apocryphal epistle is a transparent attempt to supply this supposed lost sacred document. It consists of twenty short lines and is mainly made of matter taken from Philippians and other Epistles, and pieced together without sequence or logical aim. Our apocryphon exists only in Latin and translations from the Latin, though it gives signs of a Greek original. It can hardly be the pseudo-Laodicean letter said by the Muratorian Fragment to have been invented by the heresiarch Marcion. Despite its insipid and suspicious character, this compilation was frequently copied in the Middle Ages, and enjoyed a certain degree of respect, although St. Jerome had written of it: ab omnibus exploditur. (See LAODICEA.) The Muratorian Fragmentist mentions together with a spurious epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, one to the Alexandrians, which was forged under the auspices of Marcion. We have no other certain knowledge of this apocryphon.

—Pseudo-Correspondence of St. Paul and Seneca. This consists of eight pretended letters from the Stoic philosopher Seneca, and six replies from St. Paul. They are identical with a correspondence alluded to by Jerome (de Viris Illustr., xii), who without passing judgment on their value, notes that they are read by many. These letters, therefore, could not have been composed after the second half of the fourth century. They are based on the early traditions of Seneca’s leanings towards Christianity and the contemporary residence at Rome of Paul and the philosopher. We will merely note the existence of a spurious Letter of St. John, the Apostle, to a dropsical man, healing his disease, in the Acts of St. John by the pseudo-Prochorus; one of St. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, to Quadratus, in Armenian (Vetter, Litterarische Rundschau, 1896).

Besides the oft-mentioned works of BARDENHEWER, etc.: VETTER, Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief (Vienna, 1894); HARNACK, Untersuchungen über den apokryphen Briefwechsel der Korinther mit dem Apostel Paulus (Berlin, 1905); ID., Die apokryphen Briefe des Paulus an die Laodicener und Korinther, Germ. trans. (Berlin, 1905); LIGHTFOOT, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon (2d ed., London, 1876), contains Latin text of Laodiceans. For the Seneca Letters: KRAUS, Seneka, in Theologische Quartalschrift (1867), XLI; Apocryphal New Testament, anon. (Philadelphia, 1890, 1901); LIGHTFOOT, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (3d ed., London, 1873).

(6) CHRISTIAN APOCRYPHAL APOCALYPSES

—Apocalypse of the Testamentum D.N. Jesu Christi. (See the section on the Testamentum above.)

—The Apocalypse of Mary The Apocalypse of Mary is of medieval origin, and is probably merely the outcome of an extravagant devotion. It describes the Blessed Mother’s descent to Limbo, and exists in Greek manuscripts. It has been printed in the Tischendorf collection (Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti).

—Apocalypses of St. Peter. The Muratorian Fragment, written at Rome in the latter part of the second century, names the apocalypses of John and Peter side by side as the only ones received in the Church, remarking that some do not acknowledge the latter. There is abundant evidence that the Petrine apocalypse was believed authentic in many quarters of the early Church, and enjoyed in a certain measure canonical authority. Clement of Alexandria always credulous with regard to apocrypha even honoured it with a commentary; Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., VI, xiv, 1), places it almost on an equality with the antilegomena or better class of disputed writings; Jerome rejects it flatly. Notwithstanding this, as late as the middle of the fifth century it was publicly read in some churches of Palestine. The few citations of patristic writers were unable to convey an idea of its contents, but fortunately a considerable fragment of this ancient document was discovered at Akhmîn, Egypt, together with the pseudo-Petrine Gospel in the language of the original, viz., Greek. A quotation of Clement of Alexandria from the recovered parts enables us to identify the manuscript with certainty as a portion of the apocalypse of antiquity. The passage relates to a vision granted by Christ to the Twelve on a mountain, exhibiting the glory of two departing brethren, the splendour of heaven, and a gruesome picture of hell. The language has a Jewish-Christian savour. The apocryphon is attributed by critics to the first quarter of the second century and is therefore one of the earliest specimens of non-canonical literature. There exist under the names Apocalypse of St. Peter, Apocalypse of St. Peter through Clement, Liber Clementis, various Arabic and Ethiopic recensions of an apocalypse which has nothing in common with the ancient Greek one.

—The Apocalypse of St. Paul. A prefatory notice pretends that this work was found in a marble case under the house of Paul at Tarsus, in the reign of King Theodosius (A.D. 379–395), and upon intelligence conveyed by an angel. This indicates the date of the apocalypse’s fabrication. It purports to reveal the secrets seen by the Apostle in his transport to the third heaven, alluded to in II Cor., xii, 2, and was composed in Greek. From this Pauline apocalypse must be distinguished a Gnostic work entitled the “Ascension of Paul,” referred to by St. Epiphanius, but of which no remains have survived. There is a spurious “Apocalypse of John,” of comparatively late origin. Regarding the so-called Apocalypse of St. Bartholomew see Gospel of St. Bartholomew.

See the histories of BARDENHEWER, HARNACK, ZAHN, cited in the first bibliographies. English translations of the pseudo-Apocalypses of Peter and John are found in Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York, 1906), VIII.—Special for the Apocalypse of Peter: GEBHARDT, Das Evangelium und die Apokalypse des Petrus (Leipzig, 1893), texts of the HARNACK AND GEBHARDT’S Texte und Untersuchungen; DIETERICH, Nikyia, Beiträge zue Erklärung der neuentdeckten Petrusapokalypse (Leipzig); SIMMS, art. in Expositor, Dec., 1898, 460–471.—Special for Apocalypse of Paul: TISCHENDORF, Apocalypses Apocrypha(Leipzig, 1866), Greek and part of English; JAMES, Apocrypha Anecdota (Cambridge, 1893), Latin and English. English translations of the Apocalypses of St. Paul and St. John are found in WALKER, Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and REvelations (Edinburgh, 1873); Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York, 1906), VIII.

IV. THE APOCRYPHA AND THE CHURCH

At a very early period orthodox writers and, presumably, ecclesiastical authorities found it necessary to distinguish between the genuine inspired books and a multitude of spurious rivals—a fact which is a very important element in the formation of the Christian canon. Thus as early as about A.D. 170, the author of the descriptive Latin catalogue known as the “Muratorian Fragment” mentioned certain works as fictitious or contested. At the same time St. Irenæus called attention to the great mass of heretical pseudographic writings (inenarrabilis multitudo apocryphorum et perperam scripturarum, Adv., Hær., I, xx). Undoubtedly it was the large use heretical circles, especially the Gnostic sects, made of this insinuating literature which first called forth the animadversions of the official guardians of doctrinal purity. Even in the East, already the home of pseudographic literature, Origen (d. 254) exhibits caution regarding the books outside the canon (Comment. in Matth., serm. 28). St. Athanasius in 387 found it necessary to warn his flock by a pastoral epistle against Jewish and heretical apocrypha (P. G., XXVI, 1438). Another Greek Father, Epiphanius (312–403) in “Hæreses,” 26, could complain that copies of Gnostic apocrypha were current in thousands. Yet it must be confessed that the early Fathers, and the Church, during the first three centuries, were more indulgent towards Jewish pseudographs circulating under venerable Old Testament names. The Book of Henoch and the Assumption of Moses had been cited by the canonical Epistle of Jude. Many Fathers admitted the inspiration of Fourth Esdras. Not to mention the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of St. Paul (at least in the Thecla portion) and the Apocalypse of St. Peter were highly revered at this and later periods. Yet, withal, no apocryphal work found official recognition in the Western Church. In 447 Pope Leo the Great wrote pointedly against the pseudo-apostolic writings, “which contained the germ of so many errors . . . they should not only be forbidden but completely suppressed and burned” (Epist. xv, 15). The so-called Decretum de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris” is attributed to Pope Gelasius (495), but in reality is a compilation dating from the beginning of the sixth century, and containing collections made earlier than Gelasius. It is an official document, the first of the kind we possess, and contained a list of 39 works besides those ascribed to Leucius, “disciple of the devil,” all of which it condemns as apocryphal. From this catalogue it is evident that in the Latin Church by this time, apocrypha in general, including those of Catholic origin, had fallen under the ecclesiastical ban, always, however, with a preoccupation against the danger of heterodoxy. The Synod of Braga, in Spain, held in the year 563, anathematizes any one “who reads, approves, or defends the injurious fictions set in circulation by heretics.” Although in the Middle Ages these condemnations were forgotten and many of the pseudographic writings enjoyed a high degree of favour among both clerics and the laity, still we find superior minds, such as Alcuin, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, pointing out their want of authority. An echo of the ancient condemnations occurs in the work De Festis B.M.V. of Benedict XIV, declaring certain popular apocrypha to be impure sources of tradition. (See CANON OF SACRED SCRIPTURE.)

TAPPEHORN, Aüsserbiblische Nachrichten (Paderborn, 1885).

GEORGE J. REID

Apodosis

(Gr. apodosis, a giving back)

A usage of the Greek Church corresponding somewhat to the octave of a feast in the Latin Church. For several days after a great feast the celebrant turns back to certain prayers of the feast and repeats them in commemoration of it. The last day of such repetition of the prayers of the previous feast is called the apodosis. This time may be longer or shorter than the Latin octave of one week, because great feasts in the Greek Church are commemorated for a longer time than minor ones.

PETRIDES, in Dict. d’arch. chret., I, 2589; CHARRON, Saintes et divines liturgies (Paris, 1904).

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Apollinarianism

A Christological theory, according to which Christ had a human body and a human sensitive soul, but no human rational mind, the Divine Logos taking the place of this last. The author of this theory, Apollinaris Απολινάριος (Apolinarios) the Younger, Bishop of Laodicea, flourished in the latter half of the fourth century and was at first highly esteemed by men like St. Athanasius, St. Basil, and St. Jerome for his classical culture, his Biblical learning, his defence of Christianity and his loyalty to the Nicene faith. He assisted his father, Apollinaris the Elder, in reconstructing the scriptures on classical models in order to compensate the Christians for the loss of Greek literature of which the edict of Julian had deprived them. St. Jerome credits him with innumerable volumes on the Scriptures; two apologies of Christianity, one against Porphyry, and the other against Julian; a refutation of Eunomius, a radical Arian, etc.; but all these works are lost. With regard to Apollinaris’s writings which bear on the present theory, we are more fortunate. A contemporary anonymous book: Adversus fraudes Apollinaristarum, informs us that the Apollinarists, in order to win credence for their error, circulated a number of tracts under the approved names of such men as Gregory Thaumaturgus (He kata meros pistis, Exposition of Faith), Athanasius (Peri sarkoseos, On the Incarnation), Pope Julius (Peri tes en Christo enotetos, On Unity in Christ), etc. Following that clue, Lequien (1740), Caspari (1879) and Dräseke (1892), have shown that in all probability these are Apollinaris’s writings. Moreover, the Fathers of the Church who wrote in defence of orthodoxy, e.g., Athanasius, in two books against Apollinaris; Gregory Nazianzen, in several letters; Gregory of Nyssa in his Antirretikos; Theodoret, in his Haereticae Fabulae and Dialogues, etc., incidentally give us ample information on the real system of the Laodicean.

The precise time at which Apollinaris came forward with his heresy is uncertain. There are clearly two periods in the Apollinarist controversy. Up to 376, either because of his covert attitude or of the respect in which he was held, Apollinaris’s name was never mentioned by his opponents, i.e. by individuals like Athanasius and Pope Damasus, or by councils like the Alexandrian (362), and the Roman (376). From this latter date it is open war. Two more Roman councils, 377 and 381, and a number of Fathers, plainly denounce and condemn as heretical the views of Apollinaris. He failed to submit even to the more solemn condemnation of the council of Constantinople, 381, whose first canon entered Apollinarianism on the list of heresies, and he died in his error, about 392. His following, at one time considerable in Constantinople, Syria, and Phoenicia, hardly survived him. Some few disciples, like Vitalis, Valentinus, Polemon, and Timothy, tried to perpetuate the error of the master and probably are responsible for the forgeries noticed above. The sect itself soon became extinct. Towards 416, many returned to the mother-Church, while the rest drifted away into Monophysitism.

THEORY

Apollinaris based his theory on two principles or suppositions, one ontological or objective, and one psychological or subjective. Ontologically, it appeared to him that the union of complete God with complete man could not be more than a juxtaposition or collocation. Two perfect beings with all their attributes, he argued, cannot be one. They are at most an incongruous compound, not unlike the monsters of mythology. Inasmuch as the Nicene faith forbade him to belittle the Logos, as Arius had done, he forthwith proceeded to maim the humanity of Christ, and divest it of its noblest attribute, and this, he claimed, for the sake of true Unity and veritable Incarnation. Psychologically, Apollinaris, considering the rational soul or spirit as essentially liable to sin and capable, at its best, of only precarious efforts, saw no way of saving Christ’s impeccability and the infinite value of Redemption, except by the elimination of the human spirit from Jesus’ humanity, and the substitution of the Divine Logos in its stead. For the constructive part of his theory, Apollinaris appealed to the well-known Platonic division of human nature: body (sarx, soma), soul (psyche halogos), spirit (nous, pneuma, psyche logike). Christ, he said, assumed the human body and the human soul or principle of animal life, but not the human spirit. The Logos Himself is, or takes the place of, the human spirit, thus becoming the rational and spiritual centre, the seat of self-consciousness and self-determination. By this simple device the Laodicean thought that Christ was safe, His substantial unity secure, His moral immutability guaranteed, and the infinite value of Redemption made self-evident. And in confirmation of it all, he quoted from St. John i, 14 “and the Word was made flesh”; St. Paul, Phil., ii, 7, Being made in the likeness of men and in habit found as a man, and I Cor., xv, 47 The second man, from heaven, heavenly.

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

It is to be found in the seventh anathema of Pope Damasus in the Council of Rome, 381. “We pronounce anathema against them who say that the Word of God is in the human flesh in lieu and place of the human rational and intellective soul. For, the Word of God is the Son Himself. Neither did He come in the flesh to replace, but rather to assume and preserve from sin and save the rational and intellective soul of man.” In answer to Apollinaris’s basic principles, the Fathers simply denied the second as Manichaean. As to the first, it should be remembered that the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon had not yet formulated the doctrine of Hypostatical Union. It will then appear why the Fathers contented themselves with offering arguments in rebuttal, e.g.: (1) Scripture holds that the Logos assumed all that is human—therefore the pneuma also—sin alone excepted; that Jesus experienced joy and sadness, both being properties of the rational soul. (2) Christ without a rational soul is not a man; such an incongruous compound, as that imagined by Apollinaris, can neither be called God-man nor stand as the model of Christian life. (3) What Christ has not assumed He has not healed; thus the noblest portion of man is excluded from Redemption. They also pointed out the correct meaning of the Scriptural passages alleged by Apollinaris, remarking that the word sarx in St. John, as in other parts of Holy Writ, was used by synecdoche for the whole human nature, and that the true meaning of St. Paul (Philippians and I Corinthians) was determined by the clear teaching of the Pastoral Epistles. Some of them, however, incautiously insisted upon the limitations of Jesus’ knowledge as proof positive that His mind was truly human. But when the heresiarch would have taken them farther afield into the very mystery of the Unity of Christ, they feared not to acknowledge their ignorance and gently derided Apollinaris s mathematical spirit and implicit reliance upon mere speculation and human reasoning. The Apollinarist controversy, which nowadays appears somewhat childish, had its importance in the history of Christian dogma; it transferred the discussion from the Trinity into the Christological field; moreover, it opened that long line of Christological debates which resulted in the Chalcedonian symbol.

BATIFFOL, Littérature grecque (Paris, 1896); VOISIN, Revue d’histoire eccl. (Louvain, 1901); DRÄSEKE, Appollinaris von Laodicea (Leipzig, 1892); HERGENRÖTHER-KIRSCH, Kirchengeschichte (Freiburg, 1892), I; RAINY, The Ancient Catholic Church (New York, 1902); HAUCK-HERZOG, Realencycl. f. Prot. Theol. u. Kirche (3d ed.) I, 671–76. DENZINGER, Enchiridion (Würzburg, 1895); PETAVIUS, Dogmata Theologica (Paris, 1867); TURMEL, Histoire de la theologie positive (Paris, 1904).

J.F. SOLLIER

St. Apollinaris (1)

One of the first great martyrs of the church. He was made Bishop of Ravenna by St. Peter himself. The miracles he wrought there soon attracted official attention, for they and his preaching won many converts to the Faith, while at the same time bringing upon him the fury of the idolaters, who beat him cruelly and drove him from the city. He was found half dead on the seashore, and kept in concealment by the Christians, but was captured again and compelled to walk on burning coals and a second time expelled. But he remained in the vicinity, and continued his work of evangelization. We find him then journeying in the province of Aemilia. A third time he returned to Ravenna. Again he was captured, hacked with knives, had scalding water poured over his wounds, was beaten in the mouth with stones because he persisted in preaching, and then, loaded with chains, was flung into a horrible dungeon to starve to death; but after four days he was put on board ship and sent to Greece. There the same course of preachings, and miracles, and sufferings continued; and when his very presence caused the oracles to be silent, he was, after a cruel beating, sent back to Italy. All this continued for three years, and a fourth time he returned to Ravenna. By this time Vespasian was Emperor, and he, in answer to the complaints of the pagans, issued a decree of banishment against the Christians. Apollinaris was kept concealed for some time, but as he was passing out of the gates of the city, was set upon and savagely beaten, probably at Classis, a suburb, but he lived for seven days, foretelling meantime that the persecutions would increase, but that the Church would ultimately triumph. It is not certain what was his native place, though it was probably Antioch. Nor is it sure that he was one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, as has been suggested. The precise date of his consecration cannot be ascertained, but he was Bishop of Ravenna for twenty-six years.

Acta SS., 5 July.

T.J. CAMPBELL

St. Apollinaris (2)

The most illustrious of the Bishops of Valence, b. at Vienne, 453; d. 520. He lived in the time of the irruption of the barbarians, and unhappily Valence, which was the central see of the recently founded Kingdom of Burgundy, had been scandalized by the dissolute Bishop Maximus, and the see in consequence had been vacant for fifty years. Apollinaris was of a family of nobles and saints. He was little over twenty when he was ordained priest. In 486, when he was thirtythree years old, he was made Bishop of the long vacant See of Valence, and under his zealous care it soon recovered its ancient glory. Abuses were corrected and morals reformed. The Bishop was so beloved that the news of his first illness filled the city with consternation. His return to health was miraculous. He was present at the conference at Lyons, between the Arians and Catholics, which was held in presence of King Gondebaud. He distinguished himself there by his eloquence and learning.

A memorable contest in defence of marriage brought Apollinaris again into special prominence. Stephen, the treasurer of the kingdom, was living in incest. The four bishops of the province commanded him to separate from his companion, but he appealed to the King, who sustained his official and exiled the four bishops to Sardinia. As they refused to yield, the King relented, and after some time permitted them to return to their sees, with the exception of Apollinaris, who had rendered himself particularly obnoxious, and was kept a close prisoner for a year. At last the King, stricken with a grievous malady, repented, and the Queen in person came to beg Apollinaris to go to the court to restore the monarch to health. On his refusal, the Queen asked for his cloak to place on the sufferer. The request was granted, the King was cured, and came to beg absolution for his sin. Apollinaris was sixtyfour years old when he returned from Sardinia to Valence, and his people received him with every demonstration of joy. He died after an episcopate of thirtyfour years, at the age of sixtyseven, his life ending, as it had begun, in the constant exercise of the most exalted holiness.

Acta SS., October, III.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Apollinaris (the Elder)

A Christian grammarian of the fourth century, first at Berytus in Phoenicia, then at Laodicea in Syria. He became a priest, and was among the stanchest upholders of the Council of Nicæa (325) and of St. Athanasius. When Julian the Apostate forbade Christian professors to lecture or comment on the poets or philosophers of Greece (362), Apollinaris and his son bearing the same name, both highly cultivated and resourceful, zealously strove to replace the literary masterpieces of antiquity by new works which should offset the threatened loss to Christians of the advantages of polite instruction and help to win respect for the Christian religion among the heathens. According to Socrates (Hist. Eccl., II, xlvi; III, xvi), the elder Apollinaris translated the Pentateuch into Greek hexameters, converted the first two books of Kings into an epic poem of twentyfour cantos, wrote tragedies modelled on Euripides, comedies after the manner of Menander, and odes imitated from Pindar. Sozomen (Hist. Eccl., V, xviii; VI, xxv) says nothing of the poetical works of the elder Apollinaris, but lays stress on those of his son. This improvised Greek literature, however, uninspired by genius, did not survive. As soon as Valentinian I (364–375) had revoked the edict of Julian the schools returned to the great classic writers, and only the memory of the courageous efforts of Apollinaris to nullify the malice of Julian survived.

KRUMBACHER, Gesch. d. byzant. Litt., 2d ed.; GODET in Dict. de théol. cath., I, 1505.

JOHN J. Á BECKET

St. Apollinaris Claudius

A Christian apologist, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia in the second century. He became famous for his polemical treatises against the heretics of his day, whose errors he showed to be entirely borrowed from the pagans. He wrote two books against the Jews, five against the pagans, and two on “Truth.” In 177 he published an eloquent “Apologia” for the Christians, addressed to Marcus Aurelius, and appealing to the Emperor’s own experience with the “Thundering Legion,” whose prayers won him the victory over the Quadi. The exact date of his death is not known, but it was probably while Marcus Aurelius was still Emperor. None of his writings is extant. His feast is kept 8 January.

BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 8 January; MICHAUD, Biog. univ.; VERSCHAFFEL, in Dict. de théol. cath.; SALMON in Dict. of Christ. Biogr.

T.J. CAMPBELL

St. Apollonia

A holy virgin who suffered martyrdom in Alexandria during a local uprising against the Christians previous to the persecution of Decius (end of 248, or beginning of 249). During the festivities commemorative of the first millenary of the Roman Empire, the agitation of the heathen populace rose to a great height, and when one of their poets prophesied a calamity, they committed bloody outrages on the Christians whom the authorities made no effort to protect. The great Dionysius, then Bishop of Alexandria (247–265), relates the sufferings of his people in a letter addressed to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, long extracts from which Eusebius has preserved for us (Hist. Eccl., I, vi, 41). After describing how a Christian man and woman, named respectively Metras and Quinta, were seized by the seditious mob and put to death with the most cruel tortures, and how the houses of several other Christians were completely pillaged, Dionysius continues: “At that time Apollonia the παρθένος πρεσβῦτις (virgo presbytera, by which he very probably means not a virgin advanced in years, but a deaconess) was held in high esteem. These men seized her also and by repeated blows broke all her teeth. They then erected outside the city gates a pile of fagots and threatened to burn her alive if she refused to repeat after them impious words (either a blasphemy against Christ, or an invocation of the heathen gods). Given, at her own request, a little freedom, she sprang quickly into the fire and was burned to death.” Apollonia belongs, therefore, to that class of early Christian martyrs who did not await the death they were threatened with, but either to preserve their chastity, or because confronted with the alternative of renouncing their faith or suffering death, voluntarily embraced the latter in the form prepared for them. In the honour paid to her martyrs the Church made no distinction between these women and others. St. Augustine touches on this question in the first book of the “City of God,” apropos of suicide (De. Civ. Dei, I, 26); “But, they say, during the time of persecution certain holy women plunged into the water with the intention of being swept away by the waves and drowned, and thus preserve their threatened chastity. Although they quitted life in this wise, nevertheless they receive high honour as martyrs in the Catholic Church and their feasts are observed with great ceremony. This is a matter on which I dare not pass judgment lightly. For I know not but that the Church was divinely authorized through trustworthy revelations to honour thus the memory of these Christians. It may be that such is the case. May it not be, too, that these acted in such a manner, not through human caprice but on the command of God, not erroneously but through obedience, as we must believe in the case of Samson? When, however, God gives a command and makes it clearly known, who would account obedience thereto a crime or condemn such pious devotion and ready service?” The narrative of Dionysius does not suggest the slightest reproach as to this act of St. Apollonia; in his eyes she was as much a martyr as the others, and as such she was revered in the Alexandrian Church. In time, her feast was also popular in the West. A later legend assigned a similar martyrdom to Apollonia, a Christian virgin of Rome in the reign of Julian the Apostate. There was, however, but one martyr of this name, i.e. the Saint of Alexandria. The Roman Church celebrates her memory on 9 February, and she is popularly invoked against the toothache because of the torments she had to endure. She is represented in art with pincers in which a tooth is held. There was a church dedicated to her at Rome but it no longer exists. The little square, however, in which it stood is still called “Piazza Sant’ Apollonia.”

Acta SS., Feb., II, 278 sqq.; Katholik (1872), I, 226 sqq.; Bibliotheca hagiographica latina, ed. BOLLAND. (Brussels, 1898), 103 sqq.; NEUMANN, Der römische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche (Leipzig, 1890) I, 252 sqq.; BUTLER, Lives, 9 Feb.

J.P. KIRSCH

Apollonius of Ephesus

Anti-Montanist Greek ecclesiastical writer, between 180 and 210, probably from Asia Minor, for he is thoroughly acquainted with the Christian history of Ephesus and the doings of the Phrygian Montanists. If we may accept what the unknown author of “Praedestinatus” says (I, 26, 27, 28; P.L., LIII, 596), he was a Bishop of Ephesus, but the silence of other Christian writers renders this testimony doubtful. He undertook the defence of the Church against Montanus, and followed in the footsteps of Zoticus of Comanus, Julian of Apamaea, Sotas of Anchialus, and Apollinaris of Hierapolis. His work is cited by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., V, 18), and is praised by St. Jerome (De vir. ill., c. xl), but has been lost, and not even its title is known. It seems certain that it showed the falsity of the Montanist prophecies, recounted the unedifying lives of Montanus and his prophetesses, also gave currency to the report of their suicide by hanging, and threw light on some of the adepts of the sect, including the apostate Themison, and the pseudo-martyr Alexander. The former, having evaded martyrdom by means of money, posed as an innovator, addresing a letter to his partisans after the manner of the Apostles, and finally blasphemed Christ and the Church; the latter, a notorious thief, publicly condemned at Ephesus, had himself adored as a god. We know from Eusebius that Apollonius spoke in his work of Zoticus, who had tried to exorcise Maximilla, but had been prevented by Themison, and of the martyr-Bishop Thraseas, another adversary of Montanism. He very probably gave the signal in it for the movement of opposition to Montanism which the reunion of the first synods developed. At all events, he recalls the tradition according to which Our Lord had advised the Apostles not to go far from Jerusalem during the twelve years immediately following His Ascension, a tradition known to Clement of Alexandria from the apocryphal “Praedicatio Petri.” He moreover recounts the restoration to life of a dead man at Ephesus by the Apostle St. John, whose Apocalypse he knew and quotes. He takes rank among the opponents of Montanism with the “Anonymous” of Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., V, 16, 17), with Miltiades and with Apollinaris. Eusebius (loc. cit.) says his work constituted “an abundant and excellent refutation of Montanism.” St. Jerome qualified it as “a lengthy and remarkable volume.” It did not therefore pass unnoticed, and must have roused some feeling among the Montanists since Tertullian felt it necessary to reply to it. After his six books peri ekstaseos, in which he apologized for the ecstasies into which the Montanist prophetesses fell before prophesying, Tertullian composed a seventh especially to refute Apollonius; he wrote it also in Greek for the use of the Asiatic Montanists.

BAREILLE in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1507; Venables in Dict. Christ. Biog., I, 135; BARDENHEWER, Gesch. d. altkirchl. Litt. (Freiburg, 1902), I, 525. For the fragments of Apollonius see ROUTH, Reliquiae Sacrae (2d ed.), I, 463–85.

FRANCIS W. GREY

Apologetics

A theological science which has for its purpose the explanation and defence of the Christian religion. Apologetics means, broadly speaking, a form of apology. The term is derived from the Latin adjective, apologeticus, which, in turn has its origin in the Greek adjective, άπολογητικός (apologetikos), the substantive being άπολογία (apologia), “apology,” “defence.” As an equivalent of the plural form, the variant, “Apologetic,” is now and then found in recent writings, suggested probably by the corresponding French and German words, which are always in the singular. But the plural form, “Apologetics,” is far more common and will doubtless prevail, being in harmony with other words similarly formed, as ethics, statistics, homiletics. In defining apologetics as a form of apology, we understand the latter word in its primary sense, as a verbal defence against a verbal attack, a disproving of a false accusation, or a justification of an action or line of conduct wrongly made the object of censure. Such, for example, is the Apology of Socrates, such the Apologia of John Henry Newman. This is the only sense attaching to the term as used by the ancient Greeks and Romans, or by the French and Germans of the present day. Quite different is the meaning now conveyed by our English word, “apology,” namely, an explanation of an action acknowledged to be open to blame. The same idea is expressed almost exclusively by the verb, “apologize,” and generally by the adjective, “apologetic.” For this reason, the adoption of the word, “Apologetics,” in the sense of a scientific vindication of the Christian religion is not altogether a happy one. Some scholars prefer such terms as “Christian Evidences,” the “Defence of the Christian Religion.” “Apologetics” and “Apology” are not altogether interchangeable terms. The latter is the generic term, the former the specific. Any kind of accusation, whether personal, social, political, or religious, may call forth a corresponding apology. It is only apologies of the Christian religion that fall within the scope of apologetics. Nor is it all such. There is scarcely a dogma, scarcely a ritual or disciplinary institution of the Church that has not been subjected to hostile criticism, and hence, as occasion required, been vindicated by proper apologetics. But besides these forms of apology, there are the answers that have been called forth by attacks of various kinds upon the credentials of the Christian religion, apologies written to vindicate now this, now that ground of the Christian, Catholic faith, that has been called in question or held up to disbelief and ridicule.

Now it is out of such apologies for the foundations of Christian belief that the science of apologetics has taken form. Apologetics is the Christian Apology par excellence, combining in one well-rounded system the arguments and considerations of permanent value that have found expression in the various single apologies. The latter, being answers to specific attacks, were necessarily conditioned by the occasions that called them forth. They were personal, controversial, partial vindications of the Christian position. In them the refutation of specific charges was the prominent element. Apologetics, on the other hand, is the comprehensive, scientific vindication of the grounds of Christian, Catholic belief, in which the calm, impersonal presentation of underlying principles is of paramount importance, the refutation of objections being added by way of corollary. It addresses itself not to the hostile opponent for the purpose of refutation, but rather to the inquiring mind by way of information. Its aim is to give a scientific presentation of the claims which Christ’s revealed religion has on the assent of every rational mind; it seeks to lead the inquirer after truth to recognize, first, the reasonableness and trustworthiness of the Christian revelation as realized in the Catholic Church, and secondly, the corresponding obligation of accepting it. While not compelling faith—for the certitude it offers is not absolute, but moral—it shows that the credentials of the Christian religion amply suffice to vindicate the act of faith as a rational act, and to discredit the estrangement of the sceptic and unbeliever as unwarranted and culpable. Its last word is the answer to the question: Why should I be a Catholic? Apologetics thus leads up to Catholic faith, to the acceptance of the Catholic Church as the divinely authorized organ for preserving and rendering efficacious the saving truths revealed by Christ. This is the great fundamental dogma on which all other dogmas rest. Hence apologetics also goes by the name of “fundamental theology.” Apologetics is generally viewed as one branch of dogmatic science, the other and chief branch being dogmatic theology proper. It is well to note, however, that in point of view and method also they are quite distinct. Dogmatic theology, like moral theology, addresses itself primarily to those who are already Catholic. It presupposes faith. Apologetics, on the other hand, in theory at least, simply leads up to faith. The former begins where the latter ends. Apologetics is pre-eminently a positive, historical discipline, whereas dogmatic theology is rather philosophic and deductive, using as its premises data of divine and ecclesiastical authority—the contents of revelation and their interpretation by the Church. It is only in exploring and in treating dogmatically the elements of natural religion, the sources of its authoritative data, that dogmatic theology comes in touch with apologetics.

As has been pointed out, the object of apologetics is to give a scientific answer to the question, Why should I be Catholic? Now this question involves two others which are also fundamental. The one is: Why should I be a Christian rather than an adherent of the Jewish religion, or the Mohammedan, or the Zoroastrian, or of some other religious system setting up a rival claim to be revealed? The other, still more fundamental, question is: Why should I profess any religion at all? Thus the science of apologetics easily falls into three great divisions: First, the study of religion in general and the grounds of theistic belief; second, the study of revealed religion and the grounds of Christian belief; third, the study of the true Church of Christ and the grounds of Catholic belief.

In the first of these divisions, the apologist inquirers into the nature of religion, its universality, and man’s natural capacity to acquire religious ideas. In connection with this the modern study of the religious philosophy of uncultured peoples has to be taken into consideration, and the various theories concerning the origin of religion present themselves for critical discussion. This leads to the examination of the grounds of theistic belief, including the important questions of (1) the existence of a divine Personality, the Creator and Conserver of the world, exercising a special providence over man; (2) man’s freedom of will and his corresponding religious and moral responsibility in virtue of his dependence on God; (3) the immortality of the human soul, and the future life with its attendant rewards and punishments. Coupled with these questions is the refutation of monism, determinism, and other anti-theistic theories. Religious philosophy and apologetics here march hand in hand.

The second division, on revealed religion, is even more comprehensive. After treating the notion, possibility, and moral necessity of a divine revelation, and its discernibility through various internal and external criteria, the apologist proceeds to establish the fact of revelation. Three distinct, progressive stages of revelation are set forth: Primitive Revelation, Mosaic Revelation, and Christian Revelation. The chief sources on which he has to rely in establishing this triple fact of revelation are the Sacred Scriptures. But if he is logical, he must prescind from their inspiration and treat them provisionally as human historical documents. Here he must depend on the critical study of the Old and New Testaments by impartial scriptural scholars, and build on the accredited results of their researches touching the authenticity and trustworthiness of the sacred books purporting to be historical. It is only by anticipation that an argument for the fact of primitive revelation can be based on the ground that it is taught in the inspired book of Genesis, and that it is implied in the supernatural state of our first parents. In the absence of anything like contemporary documents, the apologist has to lay chief stress on the high antecedent probability of primitive revelation, and show how a revelation of limited, but sufficient scope for primitive man is compatible with a very crude stage of material and æsthetic culture, and hence is not discredited by the sound results of prehistoric arch ology. Closely connected with this question is the scientific study of the origin and antiquity of man, and the unity of the human species; and, as still larger subjects bearing on the historic value of the sacred Book of Origins, the compatibility with Scripture of the modern sciences of biology, astronomy, and geology. In like manner the apologist has to content himself with showing the fact of Mosaic revelation to be highly probable. The difficulty, in the present condition of Old Testament criticism, of recognizing more than a small portion of the Pentateuch as documentary evidence contemporary with Moses, makes it incumbent on the apologist to proceed with caution lest, in attempting to prove too much, he may bring into discredit what is decidedly tenable apart from dogmatic considerations. However, there is sufficient evidence allowed by all but the most radical critics to establish the fact that Moses was the providential instrument for delivering the Hebrew people from Egyptian bondage, and for teaching them a system of religious legislation that in lofty monotheism and ethical worth is far superior to the beliefs and customs of the surrounding nations, thus affording a strong presumption in favour of its claim to be revealed. This presumption gains strength and clearness in the light of Messianic prophecy, which shines with ever increasing volume and brightness through the history of the Jewish religion till it illumines the personality of our Divine Lord. In the study of Mosaic revelation, biblical archæology is of no small service to the apologist.

When the apologist comes to the subject of Christian revelation, he finds himself on much firmer ground. Starting with the generally recognized results of New Testament criticism, he is enabled to show that the synoptic Gospels, on the one hand, and the undisputed Epistles of St. Paul, on the other, offer two independent, yet mutually corroborative, masses of evidence concerning the person and work of Jesus. As this evidence embodies the unimpeachable testimony of thoroughly reliable eye-witnesses and their associates, it presents a portraiture of Jesus that is truly historical. After showing from the records that Jesus taught, now implicitly, now explicitly, that he was the long expected Messiah, the Son of God sent by His Heavenly Father to enlighten and save mankind, and to found the new kingdom of justice, Apologetics proceeds to set forth the grounds for believing in these claims: (1) the surpassing beauty of His moral character, stamping Him as the unique, perfect man; (2) the lofty excellence of His moral and religious teaching, which has no parallel elsewhere, and which answers the highest aspirations of the human soul; (3) His miracles wrought during His public mission; (4) the transcendent miracle of His resurrection, which He foretold as well; (5) the wonderful regeneration of society through His undying personal influence. Then, by way of supplementary proof, the apologist institutes an impartial comparison of Christianity with the various rival religious systems of the world—Brahminism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Taoism, Mohammedanism—and shows how in the person of its founder, in its moral and religious ideal and influence, the Christian religion is immeasurably superior to all others, and alone has a claim to our assent as the absolute, divinely-revealed religion. Here, too, in the survey of Buddhism, the specious objection, not uncommon today, that Buddhist ideas and legends have contributed to the formation of the Gospels, calls for a summary refutation.

Beyond the fact of Christian revelation the Protestant apologist does not proceed. But the Catholic rightly insists that the scope of apologetics should not end here. Both the New Testament records and those of the sub-Apostolic age bear witness that Christianity was meant to be something more than a religious philosophy of life, more than a mere system of individual belief and practice, and that it cannot be separated historically from a concrete form of social organization. Hence Catholic apologetics adds, as a necessary sequel to the established fact of Christian revelation, the demonstration of the true Church of Christ and its identity with the Roman Catholic Church. From the records of the Apostles and their immediate successors is set forth the institution of the Church as a true, unequal society, endowed with the supreme authority of its Founder, and commissioned in His name to teach and sanctify mankind; possessing the essential features of visibility, indefectibility, and infallibility; characterized by the distinctive marks of unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. These notes of the true Church of Christ are then applied as criteria to the various rival Christian denominations of the present day, with the result that they are found fully exemplified in the Roman Catholic Church alone. With the supplementary exposition of the primacy and infallibility of the Pope, and of the rule of faith, the work of apologetics is brought to its fitting close. It is true that some apologists see fit to treat also of inspiration and the analysis of the act of faith. But, strictly speaking, these are not apologetic subjects. While they may logically be included in the prolegomena of dogmatic theology, they rather belong, the one to the province of Scripture-study, the other to the tract of moral theology dealing with the theological virtues.

The history of apologetic literature involves the survey of the varied attacks that have been made against the grounds of Christian, Catholic belief. It may be marked off into four great divisions. The FIRST division is the period from the beginning of Christianity to the downfall of the Roman Empire (A.D. 476). It is chiefly characterized by the twofold struggle of Christianity with Judaism and with paganism. The SECOND division is coextensive with the Middle Ages, from A.D. 476 to the Reformation. In this period we find Christianity in conflict with the Mohammedan religion and philosophy. The THIRD division takes in the period from the beginning of the Reformation to the rise of rationalism in England in the middle of the seventeenth century. It is the period of struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism. The FOURTH division embraces the period of rationalism, from the middle of the seventeenth century down to the present day. Here we find Christianity in conflict with Deism, Pantheism, Materialism, Agnosticism, and Naturalism.

FIRST PERIOD

(A) Apologies in Answer to the Opposition of Judaism—It lay in the nature of things that Christianity should meet with strong Jewish opposition. In dispensing with circumcision and other works of the law, Christianity had incurred the imputation of running counter to God’s immutable will. Again, Christ’s humble and obscure life, ending in the ignominious death on the cross, was the very opposite of what the Jews expected of their Messiah. Their judgment seemed to be confirmed by the fact that Christianity attracted but an insignificant portion of the Jewish people, and spread with greatest vigour among the despised Gentiles. To justify the claims of Christianity before the Jews, the early apologists had to give an answer to these difficulties. Of these apologies the most important is the “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” composed by Justin Martyr about 155–160. He vindicates the new religion against the objections of the learned Jew, arguing with great cogency that it is the perfection of the Old Law, and showing by an imposing array of Old Testament passages that the Hebrew prophets point to Jesus as the Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. He insists also that it is in Christianity that the destiny of the Hebrew religion to become the religion of the world is to find its realization, and hence it is the followers of Christ, and not the unbelieving Jews, that are the true children of Israel. By his elaborate argument from Messianic prophecy, Justin won the grateful recognition of later apologists. Similar apologies were composed by Tertullian, “Against the Jews” (Adversus Jud os, about 200), and by St. Cyprian, “Three Books of Evidences against the Jews” (about 250).

(B) Apologies in Answer to Pagan Opposition—Of far more serious moment to the early Christian Church was the bitter opposition it met from paganism. The polytheistic religion of the Roman Empire, venerated for its antiquity, was intertwined with every fibre of the body politic. Its providential influence was a matter of firm belief. It was associated with the highest culture, and had the sanction of the greatest poets and sages of Greece and Rome. Its splendid temples and stately ritual gave it a grace and dignity that captivated the popular imagination. On the other hand, Christian monotheism was an innovation. It made no imposing display of liturgy. Its disciples were, for the most part, persons of humble birth and station. Its sacred literature had little attraction for the fastidious reader accustomed to the elegant diction of the classic authors. And so the popular mind viewed it with misgivings, or despised it as an ignorant superstition. But opposition did not end here. The uncompromising attitude of the new religion towards pagan rites was decried as the greatest impiety. The Christians were branded as atheists, and as they held aloof from the public functions also, which were invariably associated with these false rites, they were accused of being enemies of the State. The Christian custom of worshipping in secret assembly seemed to add force to this charge, for secret societies were forbidden by Roman law. Nor were calumnies wanting. The popular imagination easily distorted the vaguely-known Agape and Eucharistic Sacrifice into abominable rites marked by feasting on infant flesh and by indiscriminate lust. The outcome was that the people and authorities took alarm at the rapidly spreading Church and sought to repress it by force. To vindicate the Christian cause against these attacks of paganism, many apologies were written. Some, notably the “Apology” of Justin Martyr (150), the “Plea for the Christians,” by Athenagoras (177), and the “Apologetic” of Tertullian (197), were addressed to emperors for the express purpose of securing for the Christians immunity from persecution. Others were composed to convince the pagans of the folly of polytheism and of the saving truth of Christianity. Such were: Tatian, “Discourse to the Greeks” (160), Theophilus, “Three Books to Autolychus” (180), the “Epistle to Diognetus” (about 190), the “Octavius” of Minucius Felix (192), Origen, “True Discourse against Celsus” (248), Lactantius, (312), and St. Augustine, “City of God” (414–426). In these apologies the argument from Old Testament prophecy has a more prominent place than that from miracles. But the one on which most stress is laid is that of the transcendent excellence of Christianity. Though not clearly marked out, a twofold line of thought runs through this argument: Christianity is light, whereas paganism is darkness; Christianity is power, whereas paganism is weakness. Enlarging on these ideas, the apologists contrast the logical coherence of the religious tenets of Christianity, and its lofty ethical teaching, with the follies and inconsistencies of polytheism, the low ethical principles of its philosophers, and the indecencies of its mythology and of some of its rites. They likewise show that the Christian religion alone has the power to transform man from a slave of sin into a spiritual freeman. They compare what they once were as pagans with what they now are as Christians. They draw a telling contrast between the loose morality of pagan society and the exemplary lives of Christians, whose devotion to their religious principles is stronger than death itself.

SECOND PERIOD. CHRISTIANITY IN CONFLICT WITH MOHAMMEDAN RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY

The one dangerous rival with which Christianity had to contend in the Middle Ages was the Mohammedan religion. Within a century of its birth, it had torn from Christendom some of its fairest lands, and extended like a huge crescent from Spain over Northern Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Persia, and Syria, to the eastern part of Asia Minor. The danger which this fanatic religion offered to Christian faith, in countries where the two religions came in contact, was not to be treated lightly. And so we find a series of apologies written to uphold the truth of Christianity in the face of Moslem errors. Perhaps the earliest was the “Discussion between a Saracen and a Christian” composed by St. John Damascene (about 750). In this apology he vindicates the dogma of the Incarnation against the rigid and fatalistic conception of God taught by Mohammed. He also demonstrates the superiority of the religion of Christ, pointing out the grave defects in Mohammed’s life and teaching, and showing the Koran to be in its best parts but a feeble imitation of the Sacred Scriptures. Other apologies of a similar kind were composed by Peter the Venerable in the twelfth, and by Raymond of Martini in the thirteenth century. Hardly less dangerous to the Christian faith was the rationalistic philosophy of Islamism. The Arabian conquerors had learned from the Syrians the arts and sciences of the Greek world. They became especially proficient in medicine, mathematics, and philosophy, for the study of which they erected in every part of their domain schools and libraries. In the twelfth century Moorish Spain had nineteen colleges, and their renown attracted hundreds of Christian scholars from every part of Europe. Herein lay a grave menace to Christian orthodoxy, for the philosophy of Aristotle as taught in these schools had become thoroughly tinctured with Arabian pantheism and rationalism. The peculiar tenet of the celebrated Moorish philosopher Averroes was much in vogue, namely: that philosophy and religion are two independent spheres of thought, so that what is true in the one may be false in the other. Again, it was commonly taught that faith is for the masses who cannot think for themselves, but philosophy is a higher form of knowledge which noble minds should seek to acquire. Among the fundamental dogmas denied by the Arabian philosophers were creation, providence, and immortality. To vindicate Christianity against Mohammedan rationalism, St. Thomas composed (1261–64) his philosophical “Summa contra Gentiles,” in four books. In this great apology the respective claims of reason and faith are carefully distinguished and harmonized, and a systematic demonstration of the grounds of faith is built up with arguments of reason and authority such as appealed directly to the minds of that day. In treating of God, providence, creation and the future life, St. Thomas refutes the chief errors of the Arabian, Jewish, and Greek philosophers, and shows that the genuine teaching of Aristotle confirms the great truths of religion. Three apologies composed in much the same spirit, but belonging to a later age, may be mentioned here. The one is the fine work of Louis Vivés, “De Veritate Fidei Christianæ Libri V” (about 1530). After treating the principles of natural theology, the Incarnation, and Redemption, he gives two dialogues, one between a Christian and a Jew, the other between a Christian and a Mohammaden, in which he shows the superiority of the Christian religion. Similar to this is the apology of the celebrated Dutch theologian Grotius, “De Veritate Religionis Christianæ” (1627). It is in six books. An able treatise on natural theology is followed by a demonstration of the truth of Christianity based on the life and miracles of Jesus, the holiness of His teaching, and the wonderful propagation of His religion. In proving the authenticity and trustworthiness of the Sacred Scriptures, Grotius appeals largely to internal evidence. The latter part of the work is devoted to a refutation of paganism, Judaism, and Mohammedanism. An apology on somewhat similar lines is that of the Huguenot, Philip deMornay, “De la vérité de la religion chrétienne” (1579). It is the first apology of note that was written in a modern tongue.

THIRD PERIOD. CATHOLICISM IN CONFLICT WITH PROTESTANTISM

The outbreak of Protestantism in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and its rejection of many of the fundamental features of Catholicism, called forth a mass of controversial apologetic literature. It was not, of course, the first time that the principles of Catholic belief had been questioned with reference to Christian orthodoxy. In the early ages of the Church heretical sects, assuming the right to profess allegiance and fidelity to the spirit of Christ, had given occasion to St. Irenæus “On Heresies,” Tertullian “On Prescription against Heretics,” St. Vincent of Lér ins, in his “Commonitory,” to insist on unity with the Catholic Church, and, for the purpose of confuting the heretical errors of private interpretation, to appeal to an authoritative rule of faith. In like manner, the rise of heretical sects in the three centuries preceding the Reformation led to an accentuation of the fundamental principles of Catholicism, notably in Moneta’s “Summa contra Catharos et Waldenses” (about 1225), and Torquemada’s “Summa de Ecclesiâ” (1450). So to a far greater extent, in the outpouring from many sources of Protestant ideas, it became the duty of the hour to defend the true nature of the Church of Christ, to vindicate its authority, its divinely authorized hierarchy under the primacy of the Pope, its visibility, unity, perpetuity, and infallibility, along with other doctrines and practices branded as superstitious.

In the first heat of this gigantic controversy the writings on both sides were sharply polemic, abounding in personal recriminations. But towards the close of the century there developed a tendency to treat the controverted questions more in the manner of a calm, systematic apology. Two works belonging to this time are especially noteworthy. One is the “Disputations de controversiis Christianæ Fidei” (1581–92), by Robert Bellarmin, a monumental work of vast erudition, rich in apologetic material. The other is the “Principiorum Fidei Doctrinalium Demonstratio” (1579), by Robert Stapleton, whom Döllinger pronounced to be the prince of controversialists. Though not so erudite, it is more profound than the work of Bellarmin. Another excellent work of this period is that of Martin Becan, “De Ecclesiâ Christi” (1633).

FOURTH PERIOD. CHRISTIANITY IN CONFLICT WITH RATIONALISM

(A) From the Middle of the Seventeenth to the Nineteenth Century. Rationalism—the setting up of the human reason as the source and measure of all knowable truth—is, of course, not confined to any one period of human history. It has existed from the earliest days of philosophy. But in Christian society it did not become a notable factor till the middle of the seventeenth century, when it asserted itself chiefly in the form of Deism. It was associated, and even to a large extent identified with the rapidly growing movement towards greater intellectual freedom which, stimulated by fruitful scientific inquiry, found itself seriously hampered by the narrow views of inspiration and of historic Bible-interpretation which then prevailed. The Bible had been set up as an infallible source of knowledge not only in matters of religion, but of history, chronology, and physical science. The result was a reaction against the very essentials of Christianity. Deism became the intellectual fashion of the day, leading in many cases to downright atheism. Starting with the principle that no religious doctrine is of value that cannot be proved by experience or by philosophical reflection, the Deists admitted the existence of a God external to the world, but denied every form of divine intervention, and accordingly rejected revelation, inspiration, miracles, and prophecy. Together with unbelievers of a still more pronounced type, they assailed the historic value of the Bible, decrying its miraculous narratives as fraud and superstition. The movement started in England, and in the eighteenth century spread to France and Germany. Its baneful influence was deep and far-reaching, for it found zealous exponents in some of the leading philosophers and men of letters—Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau, d’Alembert, Diderot, Lessing, Herder, and others. But able apologists were not lacking to champion the Christian cause. England produced several that won lasting honour for their scholarly defence of fundamental Christian truths—Lardner, author of the “Credibility of the Gospel History,” in twelve volumes (1741–55); Butler, likewise famous for his “Analogy of Religion Natural and Revealed to the Constitution of Nature” (1736); Campbell, who in his “Dissertation on Miracles” (1766) gave a masterly answer to Hume’s arguments against miracles; and Paley, whose “Evidences of Christianity” (1794) and “Natural Theology” (1802) are among the classics of English theological literature. On the continent, the work of defence was carried on by such men as Bishop Huet, who published his “Démonstration Evangélique” in 1679; Leibnitz, whose “Théodicée” (1684), with its valuable introduction on the conformity of faith with reason, had a great influence for good; the Benedictine Abbot Gerbert, who gave a comprehensive Christian apology in his “Demonstratio Veræ Religionis Ver que Ecclesiæ Contra Quasvis Falsas” (1760); and the Abbé Bergier, whose “Traité historique et dogmatique de la vraie religion,” in twelve volumes (1780), showed ability and erudition.

(B) The Nineteenth Century. In the last century the conflict of Christianity with rationalism was in part lightened and in part complicated by the marvelous development of scientific and historic inquiry. Lost languages, like the Egyptian and the Babylonian, were recovered, and thereby rich and valuable records of the past—many of them unearthed by laborious and costly excavation—were made to tell their story. Much of this bore on the relations of the ancient Hebrew people with the surrounding nations and, while in some instances creating new difficulties, for the most part helped to corroborate the truth of the Bible history. Out of these researches have grown a number of valuable and interesting apologetic studies on Old Testament history: Schrader, “Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament” (London, 1872); Hengstenberg’s “Egypt and the Books of Moses” (London, 1845); Harper, “The Bible and Modern Discoveries” (London, 1891); McCurdy, “History, Prophecy, and the Monuments” (London-New York, 1894–1900); Pinches, “The Old Testament in the Light of the Historic Records of Assyria and Babylonia” (London-New York, 1902); Abbé Gainet, “La bible sans la bible, ou l’histoire de l’ancien testament par les seuls témoignages profanes” (Bar-le-Duc, 1871); Vigouroux, “La bible et les découvertes modernes” (Paris, 1889). On the other hand, Biblical chronology, as then understood, and the literal historic interpretation of the Book of Genesis were thrown into confusion by the advancing sciences—astronomy, with its grand nebular hypothesis; biology, with its even more fruitful theory of evolution; geology, and prehistoric arch ology. Rationalists eagerly laid hold of these scientific data, and sought to turn them to the discredit of the Bible and likewise of the Christian religion. But able apologies were forthcoming to essay a conciliation of science and religion. Among them were: Dr. (afterwards Cardinal) Wiseman, “Twelve Lectures on the Connection between Science and Revealed Religion” (London, 1847), which, though antiquated in parts, is still valuable reading; Reusch, “Nature and the Bible” (London, 1876). Others more modern and up to date are: Duilhé de Saint-Projet, “Apologie scientifique de la foi chrétienne” (Paris, 1885); Abbé Guibert, “In the beginning” (New York, 1904), one of the best Catholic treatises on the subject; and more recent still, A. de Lapparent, “Science et apolog tique” (Paris, 1905). A more delicate form of scientific inquiry for Christian belief was the application of the principles of historic criticism to the books of Holy Scripture. Not a few Christian scholars looked with grave misgivings on the progress made in this legitimate department of human research, the results of which called for a reconstruction of many traditional views of Scripture. Rationalists found here a congenital field of study, which seemed to promise the undermining of Scripture-authority. Hence it was but natural that the encroachments of Biblical criticism on conservative theology should be disputed inch by inch. On the whole, the outcome of the long and spirited contest has been to the advantage of Christianity. It is true that the Pentateuch, so long attributed to Moses, is now held by the vast majority of non-Catholic, and by an increasing number of Catholic, scholars to be a compilation of four independent sources put together in final shape soon after the Captivity. But the antiquity of much of the contents of these sources has been firmly established, as well as the strong presumption that the kernel of the Pentateuchal legislation is of Mosaic institution. This has been shown by Kirkpatrick in his “Divine Library of the Old Testament” (London-New York, 1901), by Driver in his “Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament” (New York, 1897), and by Abbé Lagrange, in his “Méthode historique de l’Ancien Testament” (Paris, 1903; tr. London, 1905). In the New Testament the results of Biblical criticism are still more assuring. The attempt of the Tübingen school to throw the Gospels far into the second century, and to see in most of the Epistles of St. Paul the work of a much later hand, has been absolutely discredited. The synoptic Gospels are now generally recognized, even by advanced critics, to belong to the years 65–85, resting on still earlier written and oral sources, and the Gospel of St. John is brought with certainty down to at least A.D. 110, that is, within a very few years of the death of St. John. The three Epistles of St. John are recognized as genuine, the pastoral letters being now the chief object of dispute. Closely connected with the theory of the Tübingen School, was the attempt of the rationalist Strauss to explain away the miraculous element in the Gospels as the mythical fancies of an age much later than that of Jesus. Strauss’s views, embodied in his “Life of Jesus” (1835), were ably refuted, together with the false assertions and inductionsof the Tübingen School by such Catholic scholars as Kuhn, Hug, Sepp, Döllinger, and by the Protestant critics, Ewald, Meyer, Wieseler, Tholuck, Luthardt, and others. The outcome of Strauss’s “Life of Jesus,” and of Renan’s vain attempt to improve on it by giving it a legendary form (Vie de Jésus, 1863), has been a number of scholarly biographies of our blessed Lord: by Fouard, “Christ the Son of God” (New York, 1891); Didon, “Jesus Christ” (New York, 1891); Edersheim, “Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah” (New York, 1896), and others.

Another field of study which grew up chiefly in the last century, and has had an influence in shaping the science of apologetics, is the study of religions. The study of the great religious systems of the pagan world, and their comparison with Christianity, furnished material for a number of specious arguments against the independent and supernatural origin of the Christian religion. So, too, the study of the origin of religion in the light of the religious philosophy of uncultured peoples has been exploited against Christian (theistic belief) on the unwarranted ground that Christianity is but a refinement, through a long process of evolution, of a crude primitive religion originating in ghost-worship. Among those who have distinguished themselves in this branch of apologetics are Döllinger, whose “Heidenthum und Judenthum” (1857), tr. “Gentile and Jew in the Court of the Temple” (London, 1865–67), is a mine of information on the comparative merits of revealed religion and the paganism of the Roman world; Abbé de Broglie, author of the suggestive volume, “Problèmes et conclusions de l’histoire des religions” (Paris, 1886); Hardwick, Christ and other Masters” (London, 1875). Another factor in the growth of apologetics during the last century was the rise of numerous systems of philosophy that, in the teaching of such men as Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, Comte, and Spencer, were openly or covertly in opposition to Christian belief. To counteract these systems, Pope Leo XIII revived throughout the Catholic world the teaching of Thomistic philosophy. The many works written to vindicate Christian Theism against Pantheism, Materialism, Positivism, and Evolutionary Monism have been of great service to apologetics. Not all these philosophic apologies, indeed, are scholastic. They represent several modern schools of thought. France has furnished a number of able apologetic thinkers who lay chief stress on the subjective element in man, who point to the needs and aspirations of the soul, and to the corresponding fitness of Christianity, and of Christianity alone, to satisfy them. This line of thought has been worked out in various ways by the lately deceased Ollé-Laprune, author of “La certitude morale” (Paris, 1880), and “Le prix de la vie” (Paris, 1892); by Fonsegrive, “Le catholicisme et la vie de l’esprit” (Paris, 1899); and, in “L’action” (Paris, 1893), by Blondel, the founder of the so-called “Immanence School” the principles of which are embodied in the spiritual writings of Father Tyrrell, “Lex Orandi” (London, 1903), “Lex Credendi” (London, 1906). The continued opposition between Catholicism and Protestantism in the last century resulted in the production of a number of noteworthy apologetic writings: Möhler, “Symbolism,” published in Germany in 1832, which has gone through many editions in English; Balmes, “Protestantism and Catholicity Compared in their Effects on the Civilization of Europe,” a Spanish work published in English in 1840 (Baltimore); the works of the three illustrious English cardinals, Wiseman, Newman, and Manning, most of whose writings have a bearing on apologetics.

It is out of all these varied and extensive studies that apologetics has taken form. The vastness of the field makes it extremely difficult for any one writer to do it full justice. In fact a complete, comprehensive apology of uniform excellence still remains to be written.

In addition to the works already mentioned, the more general treatises on apologetics are as follows:

CATHOLIC WORKS. SCHANZ, A Christian Apology (New York, 1891) 3 vols. An improved edition of the original, Apologie des Christentums, was published in Freiburg (1895) and an augmented edition was in preparation in 1906. PICARD, Christianity or Agnosticism?, tr. from the French by MACLEOD (London, 1899); DEVIVIER, Christian Apologetics, edited and augmented by SASIA (San Jos, 1903) 2 vols.; ed. in one vol. by the Most Rev. S. G. Messmer, D.D. (New York, 1903); FRAYSSINOUS, A Defence of Christianity, tr. from the French by JONES (London, 1836); HETTINGER, Natural Religion (New York, 1890); Revealed Religion (New York, 1895), both being adaptations by H. S. BOWDEN of HETTINGER’S German Apologie des Christentums (Freiburg, 1895–98) 5 vols.; HETTINGER, Fundamental-Theologie (Freiburg, 1888); GUTBERLET, Lehrbuch der Apologetik (Münster, 1895) 3 vols.; SCHELL, Apologie des Christentums (Paderborn, 1902–5) 2 vols.; WEISS, Apologie des Christentums vom Standpunkte der Sitte und Kultur (Freiburg, 1888–9), 5 vols., French tr. Apologie du christianisme au point de vue des m urs et de la civilisation (Paris, 1894); Bougaud, Le christianisme et les temps présents (Paris, 1891) 5 vols.; LABEYRIE, La science de la foi (La Chapelle-Montligeon, 1903); EGGER, Encheiridion Theologi Dogmatic Generalis (Brixen, 1893); OTTIGER, Theologia Fundamentalis (Freiburg, 1897); TANQUERY, Synopsis Theologi Fundamentalis (New York, 1896). Periodicals valuable for apologetic study are: The American Catholic Quarterly; American Ecclesiastical Review; New York Review; Catholic World; Dublin Review; Irish Ecclesiastical Record; Irish Theological Quarterly; Month; Tablet; Revue Apolog tique (Brussels); Revue pratique apolog tique (Paris); Revue des questions scientifiques; Mus on; La science catholique; Annales de philosophie chrétienne; Etudes religieuses; Revue Thomiste, Revue du clerg fran ais; Revue d’histoire et de litt rature religieuse; Revue biblique; Theologische Quartalschrift (Tübingen); Stimmen aus Maria-Laach.

PROTESTANT WORKS. BRUCE, Apologetics (New York, 1892); FISHER, The Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief (New York, 1902); FAIRBAIRN, The Philosophy of the Christian Religion (New York, 1902); MAIR, Studies in theChristian Evidences (Edinburgh, 1894); LUTHARDT, The Fundamental Truths of Christianity (Edinburgh, 1882); SCHULTZ, Outlines of Christian Apologetics (New York, 1905); ROW, Christian Evidences Viewed in Relation to Modern Thought (London, 1888); IDEM, A Manual of Christian Evidences (New York, 1896); ILLINGWORTH, Reason and Revelation (New York, 1903). Many excellent apologetic treatises are to be found in the long series of Bampton Lectures, also in the Gifford, Hulsean, Baird, and Croal Lectures.

CHARLES F. AIKEN

Apolysis

(Gr., apolysis, dismissal)

The dismissal blessing said by the Greek priest at the end of the Mass, Matins, or Vespers. It corresponds fairly well to the Latin Ite, Missa est, and is in use in the Greek Church since the days of St. Athanasius. At the end of the Mass the priest turns to the people and says, if it be Sunday, “He that rose again from the dead, Christ our true God, at the intercession of His immaculate and all-blameless holy Mother, by the power of the precious and life-giving cross, by the protection of the bodiless powers (i.e. angels) of Heaven, at the supplications of the glorious prophet John the Forerunner and Baptist, the holy, glorious, and all-famous Apostles, the holy, glorious, and victorious martyrs (and then he mentions the other saints), have mercy on us and save us; for He is good and loveth man.” If the Mass be on a Week day the apolysis omits the opening words of the blessing, “He that rose again from the dead,” as those particular words are used to commemorate Sunday as being the day of the Resurrection; There is also a shorter form in use after different parts of the Divine Office, e. g. Prime, Sext, None, etc.

PÉTRIDÈS in Dict. d’arch. chrét., I. 2601; CLUGNET, Dict. des noms liturgiques, 18.

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Apolytikion

A dismissal prayer or hymn said or sung at the end of the Greek Mass and at other times during Matins and Vespers; It was originally sung at the end of Vespers, and is very much like the Roman collect or post-communion, inasmuch as it changes for each feast-day of the year and commemorates the subject of the feast. The apolytikion of Christmas reads as follows: “Thy Nativity, O Christ, hath arisen on the world as the light of knowledge; for at it those who worshipped stars were taught by a star to adore Thee, O Sun of Righteousness, and to know Thee, O Orient from on high; Glory to Thee, O Lord.” The one for the feast of the Annunciation is: “To-day is the crowning of our salvation and the manifestation of the Mystery which is from eternity; the Son of God becometh the Son of the Virgin, and Gabriel announceth the glad tidings of grace: wherefore let us cry out with him to the Mother of God; Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee!”

PÉTRIDÈS in Dict. d’arch. chrét., I, 2602; PITRA, Hymnographie de l’église grecque, 42; ROBERTSON, Divine Liturgies (London, 1894), 432–451.

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Apophthegmata Patrum

(apo, from; phtheggomai, to cry out; pater, father)

Sayings of the Fathers of the Desert. Various collections exist of aphorisms and anecdotes illustrative of the spiritual life, of ascetic and monastic principle, and of Christian ethics, attributed to the more prominent hermits and monks who peopled the Egyptian deserts in the fourth century. Three or four such collections in Latin were edited by Rosweyde (Vitæ Patrum, Bks. III, V, VI, VII; P. L., XXIII), one in Greek by Cotelier (Ecclesiœ Græcæ Monumenta, I; P. G., XV), and a Syriac collection lately included in the editions of Anan Isho’s “Paradise” by Bedjan (Paris, 1897), and Budge (London, 1904), the latter supplying an English translation. In all these collections the great mass of material is the same, although differently disposed, and it is now agreed that our actual apophthegma literature is Greek, though no doubt much of it is ultimately of Coptic origin. The stages in the growth of the extant collections of “apophthegmata” may be traced with some certainty. In the course of the fourth century this or that saying of the more famous ascetics was repeated by their disciples, and thus circulated. There is no reason to doubt that these sayings and anecdotes were in large measure authentic, but no doubt many were attributed to wrong persons, and many more were apocryphal inventions. These single sayings tended to coalesce into groups, sometimes as the apophthegmata of one Father, sometimes as those dealing with the same subject. Out of these groups were formed the great collections which we have. They are arranged on an alphabetical principle, or according to the subject-matter. Of such collections, that contained in the fifth and sixth books of Rosweyde’s “Vitæ Patrum” is known to have existed before the end of the fifth century.

As to the character of the apophthegmata we find that, while they contain a certain grotesque element, the general teaching maintains a high level. They cover the whole field of the spiritual and religious life, and are a veritable storehouse of ascetic lore: Many of them have a primitive freshness and quaintness, and a directness that comes from a deep knowledge of the human heart. They almost always possess a simple beauty that makes them interesting and wholesome reading, and at times they rise to great mystic heights. Along with Cassian, the apophthegmata reveal to us the well-springs of Christian spirituality and religious life.

Where the chief collections of Apophthegmata are to be found has already been indicated. They have been translated from the Syriac into English by BUDGE in their entirety (see above), and in a well-chosen selection by HANNAY, Wisdom of the Desert (London, 1904). The only critical investigation into this literature as a whole is by BUTLER, Lausiac History of Palladius (Cambridge, 1898), Part I, 208–214, 283–285.

E. CUTHBERT BUTLER

Ferrante Aporti

An educator and theologian, born at San Martino dell’Argine, province of Mantua, Italy, 20 Nov., 1791; died 14 Nov., 1858, at Turin. After his ordination to the priesthood and a three-years’ course in Vienna, he was appointed professor of church history in the seminary of Cremona and superintendent of schools in the same city. He took a special interest in the education of poor children and opened for their benefit an infant school at Cremona (1827). The success of this undertaking led to the establishment of similar schools in various cities of Italy. Aporti visited each, encouraged the teachers and published for their guidance: “Il manuale per le scuole infantili” (Cremona, 1833), and “Sillabario per l’infanzia” (Cremona, 1837). He also gave, in the University of Turin, a course of instruction on educational methods which attracted a large number of teachers. He received from the French Government the title of Chevalier of the Legion of Honour (1846) and from Victor Emmanuel the rank of Senator (1848). He was called in 1855 to the rectorship of the University of Turin, a position which he held until shortly before his death.

BUISSON, Dict. de pédagogie (Paris, 1887), s. v.; Nuova Enciclopedia italiana, s. v.

E.A. PACE

Apostasy

(apo, from, and stasis, station, standing, or position).

The word itself in its etymological sense, signifies the desertion of a post, the giving up of a state of life; he who voluntarily embraces a definite state of life cannot leave it, therefore, without becoming an apostate. Most authors, however, distinguish with Benedict XIV (De Synodo di£cesanâ, XIII, xi, 9), between three kinds of apostasy: apostasy a Fide or perfidi£, when a Christian gives up his faith; apostasy ab ordine, when a cleric abandons the ecclesiastical state; apostasy a religione, or monachatus, when a religious leaves the religious life. The Gloss on title 9 of the fifth book of the Decretals of Gregory IX mentions two other kinds of apostasy: apostasy inobedientiæ, disobedience to a command given by lawful authority, and iteratio baptismatis, the repetition of baptism, “quoniam reiterantes baptismum videntur apostatare dum recedunt a priori baptismate.” As all sin involves disobedience, the apostasy inobedientiæ does not constitute a specific offense. In the case of iteratio baptismatis, the offence falls rather under the head of heresy and irregularity than of apostasy; if the latter name has sometimes been given to it, it is due to the fact that the Decretals of Gregory IX combine into one title, under the rubric “De apostatis et reiterantibus baptisma” (V, title 9) the two distinct titles of the Justinian Code: “Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur” and” De apostatis “ (I, titles 6, 7), in Corpus juris civilis ed. Krueger, (Berlin, 1888); II 60–61. See München “Das kanonische Gerichtsverfahren und Strafrecht” (Cologne, 1874), II, 362, 363. Apostasy, in its strictest sense, means apostasy a Fide (St. Thomas, Summa theologica, II-II, Q. xii a. 1).

APOSTASY A FIDE, OR PERFIDIÆ

Perfidiæ is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc. The heretic differs from the apostate in that he only denies one or more of the doctrines of revealed religion, whereas the apostate denies the religion itself, a sin which has always been looked upon as one of the most grievous. The “Shepherd” of Hermas, a work written in Rome in the middle of the second century, states positively that there is no forgiveness for those who have wilfully denied the Lord. [Similit. ix. 26, 5; Funk, Opera Patrum apostolicorum (Tübingen, 1887), I, 547]. Apostasy belonged, therefore, to the class of sins for which the Church imposed perpetual penance and excommunication without hope of pardon, leaving the forgiveness of the sin to God alone. After the Decian persecution (249, 250), however, the great numbers of Lapsi and Libellatici, and the claims of the Martyres or Confessores, who assumed the right of remitting the sin of apostasy by giving the Lapsi a letter of communion, led to a relaxation of the rigour of ecclesiastical discipline. St. Cyprian and the Council of the African Church which met at Carthage in 251 admitted the principle of the Church’s right to remit the sin of apostasy, even before the hour of death. Pope Cornelius and the council which he held at Rome confirmed the decisions of the Synod of Carthage, and the discipline of forgiveness was gradually introduced into all the Churches. [Epistolæ S. Cypriani, 55 et 68; Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum (Vienna, 1871), III, ii, ed. Hartel, 624, 666; Eusebius, Church History, VI, xliii, 1, 2]. Nevertheless, the Council of Elvira, held in Spain about the year 300, still refused forgiveness to apostates. [Harduin, Acta Conciliorum (Paris, 1715), I, 250; Funk, Kirchen-geschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen (Paderborn, 1897), I, 155–181; Batiffol, Etudes d’histoire et de théologie positive (Paris, 1902) 1st series, 111–144]. When the Roman Empire became Christian, apostates were punished by deprivation of all civil rights. They could not give evidence in a court of law, and could neither bequeath nor inherit property. To induce anyone to apostatize was an offence punishable with death [Theodosian Code, XVI, title 7, De apostatis; title 8, De Judæis; “Corpus juris romani ante-Justinianæi” (Bonn, 1840), 1521—1607; Code of Justinian I, title 7, De apostatis1. c. 60, 61]. In the Middle Ages, both civil and canon law classed apostates with heretics; so much so that title 9 of the fifth book of the Decretals of Gregory IX, which treats of apostasy, contains only a secondary provision concerning apostasy a Fide [iv, Friedberg, Corpus juris canonici (Leipzig, 1879–81), II, 790–792]. Boniface VIII however, by a provision which was amended in the sixth book of the Decretals [V, title 2, De h£reticis, 13 (Friedberg, II, 1075)], merely classes apostates with heretics in respect of the penalties which they incur. This decretal, which only mentions apostate Jews by name, was applied indifferently to all. The Inquisition could therefore proceed against them. The Spanish Inquisition was directed, at the end of the fifteenth century, chiefly against apostates, the Maranos, or new Christians, Jews converted by force rather than by conviction; while in 1609 it dealt severely with the Moriscos, or professedly-converted Moors of Spain.

Today the temporal penalties formerly inflicted on apostates and heretics cannot be enforced, and have fallen into abeyance. The spiritual penalties are the same as those which apply to heretics. In order, however, to incur these penalties, it is necessary, in accordance with the general principles of canon law, that the apostasy should be shown in some way. Apostates, with all who receive, protect, or befriend them, incur excommunication, reserved speciali modo to the Sovereign Pontiff (Constitution Apostolicæ Sedis, n=B0. 1). They incur, moreover, the note of “infamy,” at least when their apostasy is notorious, and are “irregular”; an infamy and an irregularity which extend to the son and the grandson of an apostate father, and to the son of an apostate mother, should the parents die without being reconciled to the Church [Decree of Gratian, Distinction L, xxxii; V, tit. 2, ii, xv of the sixth book of the Decretals (Friedberg, I, 191, II, 1069 and 1075)]. Most authors, however, are of opinion that the irregularity affects only the children of parents who have joined some particular sect, or who have been personally condemned by ecclesiastical authority [Gasparri, De sacrâ ordinatione (Paris, 1893), II, 288 and 294; Lehmkuhl, Theologia moralis (Freiburg im Br., 1898), II, 725; Wernz, Jus decretalium (Rome, 1899), II, 200; Hollweck, Die kirchlichen Strafgesetze (Mainz, 1899), 162]. Apostates are debarred from ecclesiastical burial (Decretals of Gregory IX, Bk. V, title 7, viii, Friedberg, II, 779). Any writings of theirs, in which they uphold heresy and schism, or labour to undermine the foundations of faith, are on the Index, and those who read them incur the excommunication reserved, speciali modo to the Sovereign Pontiff [Constitution of Leo XIII, Officiorum et munerum, 25 January, 1897, i, v; Vermeersch, De prohibitione et censurâ librorum (Rome, 1901), 3d ed., 57, 112]. Apostasy constitutes an impediment to marriage, and the apostasy of husband or wife is a sufficient reason for separation a thoro et cohabitatione, which, according to many authorities, the ecclesiastical tribunal may make perpetual [Decretals of Gregory IX, IV, title 19, vi; (Friedberg, II, p. 722) ]. Others, however, maintain that this separation cannot be perpetual unless the innocent party embraces the religious state [Decretals of Gregory IX, ibidem, vii (Friedberg, II 722). See Gasparri, “Tractatus canonicus de matrimonio” (Paris, 1891), II, 283; De Becker, “De matrimonio” (Louvain, 1903), 2d ed., 424]. In the case of clerics, apostasy involves the loss of all dignities, offices, and benefices, and even of all clerical privileges (Decretals of Gregory IX. V, title 7, ix, xiii. See Hollweck, 163, 164).

APOSTASY AB ORDINE

This, according to the present discipline of the Church, is the abandonment of the clerical dress and state by clerics who have received major orders. Such, at least, is the definition given of it by most authorities. The ancient discipline of the Church, though it did not forbid the marriage of clerics, did not allow them to abandon the ecclesiastical state of their own will, even if they had only received minor orders. The Council of Chalcedon threatens with excommunication all deserting clerics without distinction (Hardouin, II, 603). This discipline, often infringed indeed, endured throughout a great part of the Middle Ages. Pope Leo IX decreed, at the Council of Reims (1049): “Ne quis monachus vel clericus a suo gradu apostataret,” all monks and clerks are forbidden to abandon their state (Hardouin, VI, 1007). The Decretals of Gregory IX, published in 1234, preserve traces of the older discipline under the title De apostatis, which forbids all clerks, without distinction, to abandon their state [V, title 9, i, iii (Friedberg, II, 790–791) ]. Innocent III had however, at an earlier date, given permission to clerks in minor orders to quit the ecclesiastical state of their own will (Decretals of Gregory IX, III, title 3, vii; see also x, Friedberg, II, 458–460). The Council of Trent did not restore the ancient discipline of the Church, but deemed it sufficient to command the bishops to exercise great prudence in bestowing the tonsure, and only laid the obligations involved in the clerical state on clerks who have received major orders and on those who enjoy an ecclesiastical benefice (Session XXIII, De Reformatione, iv, vi). Whence it follows that all other clerks can quit their state, but, by the very fact of doing so, lose all the privileges of the clergy. Even the clerk in minor orders who enjoys an ecclesiastical benefice, should he wish to be laicized, loses his benefice by the very fact of his laicization, a loss which is to be regarded not as the penalty, but as the consequence, of his having abandoned the ecclesiastical state. These considerations suffice, it would seem, to refute the opinion maintained by some writers [Hinschius, System des Katholischen Kirchenrechts (Berlin, 1895), V, 905], who think that a clerk in minor orders can, even at the present day, be an apostate ab ordine. This opinion is rejected, among others, by Scherer, [Handbuch des Kirchenrechtes (Gratz, 1886), I, 313; Wernz, II, 338, note 24; Hollweck, 299].

Today, after three ineffectual notices, the apostate clerk loses, ipso facto, the privileges of clergy [Decretals of Gregory IX, V, title 9, i; title 39, xxiii, xxv (Friedberg, II, 790 and 897)]. By the very fact of apostasy he incurs infamy, which, however is only an infamy of fact, not one of law imposed by canonical legislation. Infamy involves irregularity, and is an offense punishable by the loss of ecclesiastical benefices. Finally, should the apostate persist in his apostasy, the bishop may excommunicate him [Constit. of Benedict XIII, Apostolicæ ecclesiæ regimine, 2 May, 1725, in Bullarum amplissima collectio (Rome, 1736), XI, ii, 400].

APOSTASY A RELIGIONE, OR MONACHATUS

Monachatus is the culpable departure of a religious from his monastery with the intention of not returning to it and of withdrawing himself from the obligations of the religious life. A monk, therefore, who leaves his monastery with the intention of returning is not an apostate, but a runaway, and so is the one who leaves it intending to enter another religious order. The monks and hermits of the early Church made no vow always continuing to live the ascetic life upon which they had entered. The rule of St. Pachomius, the father of the c£nobitical life, allowed the religious to leave his monastery [Ladenze, Histoire du cénobitisme pakhomien (Louvain, 1898), 285]. But from the fourth century onwards the religious state became perpetual, and in 385 Pope Siricius, in his letter to Himerius, expresses indignation against religious men or women who were unfaithful to their propositum sanctitatis (Hardouin, I, 848, 849). The Council of Chalcedon decreed that the religious who desired to return to the world should be excommunicated, and the Second Council of Arles called him an apostate (Hardouin, II, 602, 603, 775). Throughout the Middle Ages numerous councils and papal decretals insisted on this perpetuity of the religious life, of which Peter Damian was one of the great champions (Migne, P.L., CXLV, 674–678). Paul IV, at the time of the Council of Trent, instituted very strict legislation against apostates by his Bull Postquam., dated 20 July, 1558. These provisions were, however, recalled, two years later, by Pius IV, in the Constitution, Sedis apostolicæ, of 3 April, 1560 (Bullarum amplissima collectio [Rome, 1745], IV, i, 343, and IV, ii, 10).

As the law stands today, the canonical penalties are inflected only upon apostates in the strict sense, that is, those professed with solemn vows, with whom Jesuit scholastics are classed by privilege. Religious belonging to congregations with only simple vows, therefore, and those with simple vows in orders which also take solemn vows, do not incur these penalties. 1. Apostasy is a grave sin, the absolution of which the superior may reserve to himself [Decree “Sanctissimus” of Clement VIII, 26 May, 1593, “Bullarum ampl. Collectio” (Rome, 1756), V, v, 254]. 2. The religious is suspended from the exercise of all orders which he may have received during the period of his apostasy, nor is this penalty removed by his return to his monastery [Decretals of Gregory IX, V, title 9, vi (Friedberg, II, 792)]. 3. He is bound by all the obligations laid on him by his vows and the constitutions of his order, but if he has laid aside the religious habit, and if a judicial sentence has pronounced his deposition, he loses all the privileges of his order, in particular that of exemption from the jurisdiction of the ordinary and the right of being supported at the expense of his community (Council of Trent, Session XXV, de regularibus, xix). 4. The fact of laving aside the religious habit involves the penalty of excommunication [III tit. 24, ii, of the sixth book of Decretals (Friedberg II, 1065)]. 5. In several religious orders apostates incur the penalty of excommunication, even when they have not laid aside the religious habit, in virtue of special privileges granted to the order. 6. The apostate is bound to return to his monastery as soon as possible, and the Council of Trent enjoins bishops to punish religious who shall have left their monasteries without the permission of their superiors, as deserters (Session XXV, de regularibus, iv). Moreover, the bishop is bound to take possession of the person of the apostate monk and to send him back to his superior [Decree of the Congregation of the Council, 21 September, 1624, in “Bullarum amplissima collectio” (Rome, 1756), V, v, 248]. In the case of an apostate nun who leaves a convent enjoying pontifical cloister, she incurs the excommunication reserved simpliciter to the Sovereign Pontiff [Constitution Apostolicæ Sedis, n=B0, 6. See Vermeersch, “De religiosis institutis et personis” (Rome, 1902), I, 200; Hollweck, 299; Scherer, II, 838. See also HERESY, IRREGULARITY, CLERIC, RELIGIOUS ORDERS].

In addition to the works already referred to, the older canonists may be consulted, especially SCHMALZGRÜBER and REIFFENSTUEL, who in their commentaries follow the order of the Decretals, at Book V, title 9. As modern canonists no longer treat of apostasy under a special heading, they must be consulted where they refer to ordinations and irregularities, the duties of the clerical state, the obligations of religious offenses and penalties, and, chiefly, when they write concerning heresy. See also FERRARIS, Bibliotheca Canonica (Rome, 1889), s.v. Apostasia, BEUGNET, in Dict. de théol. cath (Paris, 1901), AMTHOR, De Apostasia Liber Singularis (Coburg, 1833), FEJÉR, Jus Ecclesiæ Catholicæ adversus Apostatas (Pesth, 1847); SCHMIDT, Der Austritt aus der Kirche (Leipzig, 1893); SCOTUS PLACENTINUS, De Obligatione Regularis extra regularem domum commorantis, de Apostatis et Fugitivis (Cologne, 1647); THOMASIUS, De Desertione Ordinis Ecclesiastici (Halle, 1707), SCHMID, Apostasia vom Ordenstande (Studien und Mittheilungen aus dem Benediktiner und dem Cistercienser Orden (1886, VII, 29–42).

A. VAN HOVE

Apostle (in Liturgy)

The name given by the Greek Church to the Epistle of the Divine Liturgy, which is invariably of Apostolic origin and never taken, as sometimes happens in the Roman Rite, from the Old Testament. It is also the name of the book used in the Greek Church containing the Epistles for each Sunday and feast day of the whole year, and from which the anagnostes (reader) reads the proper Epistle for the day in the celebration of the Liturgy. As now printed and used in the Orthodox Greek Church in Constantinople and Athens, and in the Greek Catholic Church (as printed by the Congregation of the Propaganda at Rome), it contains not only the proper Epistles, but also the proper antiphons and prokeimena for the different days of the Greek ecclesiastical year. (See EPISTLE.)

NEALE, Hist. of the Holy Eastern Church (London, 1850), I, 370; CLUGNET Dict. des noms liturgiques (Paris, 1895) 19.

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Apostle Spoons

A set of thirteen spoons, usually silver, the handles of which are adorned with representations of Our Lord (the Master spoon) and the twelve Apostles. Anciently they were given by sponsors as baptismal gifts to their godchildren, the wealthy giving complete sets, others a smaller number, and a poor person a single spoon. The Apostles are distinguished one from the other by their respective emblems: St. Peter with a key, sometimes a fish; St. Andrew with a saltire cross; St. James Major with a pilgrim’s staff and gourd; St. John with a chalice; St. Philip with a long staff surmounted with a cross; St. James Minor with a fuller’s bat; St. Thomas with a spear; St. Bartholomew with a butcher’s knife; St. Matthew with a wallet, sometimes an axe; St. Matthias with a halbert; St. Thaddeus, or Jude, with a carpenter’s square; St. Simon with a saw. In some sets St. Paul takes the place of St. Matthias; his emblem is a sword. It is doubtful if these spoons were much in use before 1500; the oldest one known is of the year 1593, and they first appeared as a bequest in the will of one Amy Brent who bequeathed in 1516 “XIII sylver spones of J’ hu and the XII Apostells.” They are alluded to by the dramatists, Shakespeare, Ben Johnson, Middleton, Beaumont, and Fletcher. In Henry VIII, Act 5, Scene 3, the King asks Cranmer to be sponsor for the infant Elizabeth; he demurs because he is a poor man, upon which Henry banters him in these words: “Come, come, my lord, you’d spare your spoons.” While these apostle spoons were used on the Continent, especially in Germany and Holland, they were never as much in vogue there as in England.

CRIPPS, Old English Plate (London, 1891); BUCK, Old Plate (New York, 1903, 2d ed.); POLLEN, Gold and Silversmith’s Work (London, 1878).

CARYL COLEMAN

Apostles

Under this title it may be sufficient to supply brief and essential information, I, on the name “Apostle”; II, on its various meanings; III, on the origin of the Apostolate; IV, on the office of the Apostles and the conditions required in them; V, on the authority and the prerogatives of the Apostles; VI, on the relation of the Apostolate to the office of bishop; VII, on the origin of the feasts of the Apostles. The reader will find at the end of this article various titles of other articles which contain supplementary information on subjects connected with the Apostles.

I. THE NAME

The word “Apostle,” from the Greek άποσтέλλω (apostello) “to send forth,” “to dispatch,” has etymologically a very general sense. Άπόστολος (Apostolos) (Apostle) means one who is sent forth, dispatched—in other words, who is entrusted with a mission, rather, a foreign mission. It has, however, a stronger sense than the word messenger, and means as much as a delegate. In the classical writers the word is not frequent. In the Greek version of the Old Testament it occurs once, in III Kings, xiv, 6 (cf. ibid., xii, 24). In the New Testament, on the contrary. it occurs, according to Bruder’s Concordance, about eighty times, and denotes often not all the disciples of the Lord, but some of them specially called. It is obvious that our Lord, who spoke an Aramaic dialect, gave to some of his disciples an Aramaic title, the Greek equivalent of which was “Apostle.” It seems to us that there is no reasonable doubt about the Aramaic word being seliah, by which also the later Jews, and probably already the Jews before Christ, denoted “those who were despatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any foreign mission, especially such as were charged with collecting the tribute paid to the temple service” (Lightfoot, “Galatians,” London, 1896, p. 93). The word apostle would be an exact rendering of the root of the word seliah,= άποσтέλλω (apostello).

II. VARIOUS MEANINGS

It is at once evident that in a Christian sense, everyone who had received a mission from God, or Christ, to man could be called “Apostle.” In fact, however, it was reserved to those of the disciples who received this title from Christ. At the same time, like other honourable titles, it was occasionally applied to those who in some way realized the fundamental idea of the name. The word also has various meanings. (a) The name Apostle denotes principally one of the twelve disciples who, on a solemn occasion, were called by Christ to a special mission. In the Gospels, however, those disciples are often designated by the expressions of οί μαθηταί—mathetai—(the disciples) or οί δώδεκα—dodeka—(the Twelve) and, after the treason and death of Judas, even of οί ένδεκα—hendeka (the Eleven). In the Synoptics the name Apostle occurs but seldom with this meaning; only once in Matthew and Mark. But in other books of the New Testament, chiefly in the Epistles of St. Paul and in the Acts, this use of the word is current. Saul of Tarsus, being miraculously converted, and called to preach the Gospel to the heathens, claimed with much insistency this title and its rights. (b) In the Epistle to the Hebrews (iii, 1) the name is applied even to Christ, in the original meaning of a delegate sent from God to preach revealed truth to the world. (c) The word Apostle has also in the New Testament a larger meaning, and denotes some inferior disciples who, under the direction of the Apostles, preached the Gospel, or contributed to its diffusion; thus Barnabas (Acts, xiv, 4, 14), probably Andronicus and Junias (Rom., xvi, 7), Epaphroditus (Phil., ii, 25), two unknown Christians who were delegated for the collection in Corinth (II Cor., vii, 23). We know not why the honourable name of Apostle is not given to such illustrious missionaries as Timothy, Titus, and others who would equally merit it.—There are some passages in which the extension of the word Apostle is doubtful, as Luke, xi, 49; John, xiii, 16; II Cor., 13; I Thes., ii, 7; Ephes., iii, 5; Jude, 17, and perhaps the well-known expression “Apostles and Prophets.” Even in an ironical meaning the word occurs (II Cor., xi, 5; xii, 11) to denote pseudo-apostles. There is but little to add on the use of the word in the old Christian literature. The first and third meanings are the only ones which occur frequently, and even in the oldest literature the larger meaning is seldom found.

III. ORIGIN OF THE APOSTOLATE

The Gospels point out how, from the beginning of his ministry, Jesus called to him some Jews, and by a very diligent instruction and formation made them his disciples. After some time, in the Galilean ministry, he selected twelve whom, as Mark (?) and Luke (vi, 13) say, “he also named Apostles.” The origin of the Apostolate lies therefore in a special vocation, a formal appointment of the Lord to a determined office, with connected authority and duties. The appointment of the twelve Apostles is given by the three Synoptic Gospels (Mark, iii, 13–19; Matthew, x, 1–4; Luke, vi, 12–16) nearly in the same words, so that the three narratives are literally dependent. Only on the immediately connected events is there some difference between them. It seems almost needless to outline and disprove rationalistic views on this topic. The holders of these views, at least some of them, contend that our Lord never appointed twelve Apostles, never thought of establishing disciples to help him in his ministry, and eventually to carry on his work. These opinions are only deductions from the rationalistic principles on the credibility of the Gospels, Christ’s doctrine on the Kingdom of Heaven, and the eschatology of the Gospels. Here it may be sufficient to observe (a) that the very clear testimony of the three synoptic Gospels constitutes a strong historical argument, representing, as it does, a very old and widely spread tradition that cannot be erroneous; (b) that the universally acknowledged authority of the Apostles, even in the most heated controversies, and from the first years after Christ’s death (for instance in the Jewish controversies), as we read in the oldest Epistles of St. Paul and in the Acts, cannot be explained, or even be understood, unless we recognize some appointment of the Twelve by Jesus.

IV. OFFICE AND CONDITIONS OF THE APOSTOLATE

Two of the synoptic Gospels add to their account of the appointment of the Twelve brief statements on their office: Mark, iii, 14,15, “He appointed twelve to be with him and to send them to herald, and to have power to heal the illnesses and to cast out demons”; Matthew, x, 1, “He gave them power over unclean spirits so as to expel them, and to heal every disease and every illness.” Luke where he relates the appointment of the Twelve, adds nothing on their office. Afterwards (Mark, vi, 7–13; Matthew, x, 5–15; Luke, ix, 1–5). Jesus sends the Twelve to preach the kingdom and to heal, and gives them very definite instructions. From all this it results that the Apostles are to be with Jesus and to aid Him by proclaiming the kingdom and by healing. However, this was not the whole extent of their office, and it is not difficult to understand that Jesus did not indicate to His Apostles the whole extent of their mission, while as yet they had such imperfect ideas of His own person and mission, and of the Messianic kingdom. The nature of the Apostolic mission is made still clearer by the sayings of Christ after His Resurrection. Here such passages as Matthew, xxviii, 19, 20; Luke, xxiv, 46–49; Acts, i, 8, 21–22 are fundamental. In the first of these texts we read, “Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all I have commanded you.” The texts of Luke point to the same office of preaching and testifying (cf. Mark, xvi, 16). The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles written by the Apostles exhibit them in the constant exercise of this office. Everywhere the Apostle governs the disciples, preaches the doctrines of Jesus as an authentic witness, and administers the sacred rites. In order to fill such an office, it seems necessary to have been instructed by Jesus, to have seen the risen Lord. And these are, clearly, the conditions required by the Apostles in the candidate for the place of Judas Iscariot. “Of the men, therefore, who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto the day He was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of His Resurrection” (Acts, i, 21, 22). This narrative, which seems to come from an Aramaic Palestinian source like many other details given in the earlier chapter of Acts, was ancient and cannot be set aside. It is further strengthened by an objection made to St.Paul: because he was called in an extraordinary way to the Apostolate, he was obliged often to vindicate his Apostolic authority and proclaim that he had seen the Lord (I Cor., ix, 1). Instruction and appointment by Jesus were, therefore, the regular conditions for the Apostolate. By way of exception. an extraordinary vocation, as in the case of Paul, or a choice by the Apostolic College, as in the case of Matthias, could suffice. Such an extraordinarily called or elected Apostle could preach Christ’s doctrine and the Resurrection of the Lord as an authoritative witness.

V. AUTHORITY AND PREROGATIVES OF THE APOSTLES

The authority of the Apostles proceeds from the office imposed upon them by Our Lord and is based on the very explicit sayings of Christ Himself. He will be with them all days to the end of ages (Matthew, xxviii, 20), give a sanction to their preaching (Mark, xvi, 16), send them the “promise of the Father,” “virtue from above” (Luke, xxiv, 49). The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of the New Testament show us the exercise of this authority. The Apostle makes laws (Acts, xv, 29; I Cor., vii, 12 sq.), teaches (Acts, ii, 37 f.), claims for his teaching that it should be received as the word of God (I Thes., ii, 13), punishes (Acts, v, 1–11; I Cor., v, 1–5), administers the sacred rites (Acts, vi, 1 sq.; xvi, 33; xx, 11), provides successors (II Tim., i, 6; Acts, xiv, 22). In the modern theological terms the Apostle, besides the power of order, has a general power of jurisdiction and magisterium (teaching). The former embraces the power of making laws, judging on religious matters, and enforcing obligations by means of suitable penalties. The latter includes the power of setting forth with authority Christ’s doctrine. It is necessary to add here that an Apostle could receive new revealed truths in order to propose them to the Church. This, however, is something wholly personal to the Apostles. (See REVELATION; INSPIRATION.)

Catholic theologians rightly speak in their treatises of some personal prerogatives of the Apostles; a brief account of them may not be superfluous. (a) A first prerogative, not clearly inferred from the texts of the New Testament nor demonstrated by solid reasons, is their confirmation in grace. Most modern theologians admit that the Apostles received so abundant an infusion of grace that they could avoid every mortal fault and every fully deliberate venial sin.—(b) Another personal prerogative is the universality of their jurisdiction. The words of the Gospel on Apostolic office are very general; for the most part, the Apostles preached and travelled as if they were not bound by territorial limits, as we read in the Acts and the Epistles. This did not hinder the Apostles from taking practical measures to properly organize the preaching of the Gospel in the various countries they visited.—(c) Among these prerogatives is reckoned personal infallibility, of course in matters of faith and morals, and only when they taught and imposed some doctrine as obligatory. In other matters they could err, as Peter, in the question of practical intercourse with the converted heathens; they might also accept certain current opinions, as Paul seems to have done with regard to the time of the Parousia, or Second Coming of the Lord. (See JESUS CHRIST.) It is not easy to find a stringent scripturistic demonstration for this prerogative, but reasonable arguments suggest it, e. g. the impossibility for all his hearers to verify and try the doctrine preached to them by an Apostle. (d) It is a more disputed question whether an Apostle writing on religious matters would have, merely by his Apostolic office, the prerogatives of an inspired author. This was asserted by the Catholic theologian, Dr. Paul Schanz of Tübingen (Apologie des Christenthums, II) and by some others, e. g. Joüon in “Etudes religieuses” (1904). Catholic theologians almost unanimously deny it, e. g. Father Pesch (De Inspiratione Sacrae Scripturae, 1906, pp. 611–634). (See INSPIRATION; NEW TESTAMENT.)

VI. APOSTOLATE AND EPISCOPATE

Since the authority with which the Lord endowed the Apostles was given them for the entire Church, it is natural that this authority should endure after their death, in other words, pass to successors established by the Apostles. In the oldest Christian documents concerning the primitive Churches we find ministers established, some of them, at least, by the usual rite of the imposition of hands. They bear various names: priests (πρεσβύτεροι (presbyteroi), Acts, xi, 30; xiv, 22; xv, 2, 4, 6, 22, 23; xvi, 4; xx, 17; xxi, 18; I Tim., v, 17, 19; Titus, i, 5); bishops (έπίσκοποι (episkopoi), Acts, xx, 28; Phil., i, 1; I Tim., iii, 2; Titus, i, 7); presidents (προίστάμενοι (proistamenoi), I Thes., v, 12; Rom., xii, etc.); heads (ήγούμενοι (hegoumenoi), Hebrews, xiii, 7, 17, 24, etc.); shepherds (ποιμένες (poimenes), Eph., iv, 11); teachers (διδάσκαλοι (didaskaloi), Acts, xiii, 1; I Cor., xii, 28 sq. etc.); prophets (προφήται (prophetai), Acts, xiii, 1; xv, 32; I Cor., xii, 28, 29, etc.), and some others. Besides them, there are Apostolic delegates, such as Timothy and Titus. The most frequent terms are priests and bishops; they were destined to become the technical names for the “authorities” of the Christian community. All other names are less important; the deacons are out of the question, being of an inferior order. It seems clear that amid so great a variety of terms for ecclesiastical authorities in Apostolic times several must have expressed only transitory functions. From the beginning of the second century in Asia Minor, and somewhat later elsewhere, we find only three titles: bishops, priests, and deacons; the last changed with inferior duties. The authority of the bishop is different from the authority of priests, as is evident on every page of the letters of the martyr Ignatius of Antioch. The bishop—and there is but one in each town—governs his church, appoints priests who have a subordinate rank to him, and are, as it were, his counsellors, presides over the Eucharistic assemblies, teaches his people, etc. He has, therefore, a general power of governing and teaching, quite the same as the modern Catholic bishop; this power is substantially identical with the general authority of the Apostles, without, however, the personal prerogatives ascribed to the latter. St. Ignatius of Antioch declares that this ministry holds legitimately its authority from God through Christ (Letter to the Philadelphians, i). Clement of Rome, in his Letter; to the Church of Corinth (about 96), defends with energy the legitimacy of the ministry of bishops and, priests, and proclaims that the Apostles established successors to govern the churches (xlii-xliv). We may conclude with confidence that, about the end of the second century, the ministers of the churches were everywhere regarded as legitimate successors of the Apostles; this common persuasion is of primary importance.

Another and more difficult question arises as to the Acts and in the Epistles, the various above mentioned names, chiefly the πρεσβύτεροι (presbyteroi) and the έπίσκοποι (episkopoi) (priests and bishops). (a) Some authors (and this is the traditional view) contend that the έπίσκοποι (episkopoi) of Apostolic times have the same dignity as the bishops of later times, and that the πρεσβύτεροι (presbyteroi) of the apostolic writings are the same as the priests of the second century. This opinion, however, must give way before the evident identity of bishop and priest in Acts, xx, 17 and 28, Titus, i, 5–7, Clement of Rome to the Church of Corinth, xliv. (b) Another view recognizing this synonymous character estimates that these officers whom we shall call bishops—priests had never the supreme direction of the churches in Apostolic times; this power, it is maintained, was exercised by the Apostles, the Prophets who travelled from one church to another, and by certain Apostolic delegates like Timothy. These alone were the real predecessors of the bishops of the second century; the bishop priests were the same as our modern priests, and had not the plenitude of the priesthood. This opinion is fully discussed and proposed with much learning by A. Michiels (L’origine de l’épiscopat, Louvain, 1900). (c) Mgr. Batiffol (Rev. bibl., 1895, and Etudes d’hist. et de théol. positive, I, Paris, 1903) expresses the following opinion: In the primitive churches there were (1) some preparatory functions, as the dignity of Apostles and Prophets; (2) some πρεσβύτεροι (presbyteroi) had no liturgical function, but only an honourable title; (3) the έπίσκοποι (episkopoi), several in each community, had a liturgical function with the office to preach; (4) when the Apostles disappeared, the bishopric was divided: one of the bishops became sovereign bishop, while the others were subordinated to him: these were the later priests. This secondary priesthood is a diminished participation of the one and sole primitive priesthood; there is, therefore, no strict difference of order between the bishop and the priest.—Whatever may be the solution of this difficut question (see BISHOP, PRIEST), it remains certain that in the second century the general Apostolic authority belonged, by a succession universally acknowledged as legitimate, to the bishops of the Christian churches. (See APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.) The bishops have, therefore, a general power of order, jurisdiction, and magisterium, but not the personal prerogatives of the Apostles.

VII. THE FEASTS OF THE APOSTLES

The memorable words of Hebrews, xiii, 7: “Remember your presidents who preached to you the word of God,” have always echoed in the Christian heart. The primitive churches had a profound veneration for their deceased Apostles (Clement of Rome, Ep. ad Corinth. v); its first expression was doubtless the devotional reading of the Apostolic writings, the following of their orders and counsels, and the imitation of their virtues. It may, however, be reasonably supposed that some devotion began at the tombs of the Apostles as early as the time of their death or martyrdom; the ancient documents are silent on this matter. Feasts of the Apostles do not appear as early as we might expect. Though the anniversaries of some martyrs were celebrated even in the second century, as for instance the anniversary of the martyrdom of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (d. 154–156), the Apostles had at this time no such commemoration; the day of their death was unknown. It is only from the fourth century that we meet with feasts of the Apostles. In the Eastern Church the feast of Saint James the Less and Saint John was celebrated on the 27th of December, and on the next day the feast of Saints Peter and Paul (according to St. Gregory of Nyssa and a Syriac menology). These commemorations were arbitrarily fixed. In the Western Church the feast of Saint John alone remained on the same day as in the Eastern Church. The commemoration of the martyrdom of Saint Peter and Saint Paul was celebrated 29 June; originally, however, it was the commemoration of the translation their relics (Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 277). From the sixth century the feast of Saint Andrew was celebrated on the 30th day of November. We know but little of the feasts of the other Apostles and of the secondary feasts of the great Apostles. In the Eastern Churches all these feasts were observed at the beginning of the ninth century. For additional details see Duchesne, “Christian Worship” (London, 1903), pp. 277–283, and B. Zimmerman in Cabrol and Leclercq’s Dict. d’archéol. et de lit. chrét. I, 2631–35. (See also APOSTOLICITY, APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, APOCRYPHA.)

In the absence of comprehensive and trustworthy special works on this subject the reader may consult, apart from the works quoted above, general historical treatises on the New Testament and the Apostolic Age, e.g. the English translations of the works of FOUARD. The theological manuals De Ecclesiâ usually supply much information on these questions.—Among modern New Testament commentaries may be mentioned those of Bishop LIGHTFOOT (Anglican) on Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Philippians and the Galations (London, 1896). The commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles ought always to be consulted.—Among the encyclopedia articles on these and the cognate topics, see in Kirchenlex. (2d ed., Freiburg, 1882) PÖLEL, Apostel, and SCHEEBEN, Apostolai und Episkopat; LE CAMUS in VIG., Dict. de la Bible (PARIS); SCHMIDT in HAUCK’S Real-encyclopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche (3d ed., Leipzig); GWATKIN in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible (Edinburgh, 1904), s.v. Apostle; especially the article of BAINVEL in Dict. de théol. cath. (Paris, 1901), I, 1647–60; BATIFFOL, L’Apostolat in Revue Biblique (1906), 520–32; HARNACK, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christenthums (Leipzig, 1902).

HONORÉ COPPIETERS

Apostles’ Creed

A formula containing in brief statements, or “articles,” the fundamental tenets of Christian belief, and having for its authors, according to tradition, the Twelve Apostles.

I. ORIGIN OF THE CREED

Throughout the Middle Ages it was generally believed that the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, while still under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, composed our present Creed between them, each of the Apostles contributing one of the twelve articles. This legend dates back to the sixth century (see Pseudo-Augustine in Migne, P.L., XXXIX, 2189, and Pirminius, ibid., LXXXIX, 1034), and it is foreshadowed still earlier in a sermon attributed to St. Ambrose (Migne, P.L., XVII, 671; Kattenbusch, I, 81), which takes notice that the Creed was “pieced together by twelve separate workmen.” About the same date (c. 400) Rufinus (Migne, P.L., XXI, 337) gives a detailed account of the composition of the Creed, which account he professes to have received from earlier ages (tradunt majores nostri). Although he does not explicitly assign each article to the authorship of a separate Apostle, he states that it was the joint work of all, and implies that the deliberation took place on the day of Pentecost. Moreover, he declares that “they for many just reasons decided that this rule of faith should be called the Symbol,” which Greek word he explains to mean both indicium, i.e. a token or password by which Christians might recognize each other, and collatio, that is to say an offering made up of separate contributions. A few years before this (c. 390), the letter addressed to Pope Siricius by the Council of Milan (Migne, P.L., XVI, 1213) supplies the earliest known instance of the combination Symbolum Apostolorum (“Creed of the Apostles”) in these striking words: “If you credit not the teachings of the priests . . . let credit at least be given to the Symbol of the Apostles which the Roman Church always preserves and maintains inviolate.” The word Symbolum in this sense, standing alone, meets us first about the middle of the third century in the correspondence of St. Cyprian and St. Firmilia, the latter in particular speaking of the Creed as the “Symbol of the Trinity,” and recognizing it as an integral part of the rite of baptism (Migne, P.L., III, 1165, 1143). It should be added, moreover, that Kattenbusch (II, p. 80, note) believes that the same use of the words can be traced as far back as Tertullian. Still, in the first two centuries after Christ, though we often find mention of the Creed under other designations (e.g. regula fidei, doctrina, traditio), the name symbolum does not occur. Rufinus was therefore wrong when he declared that the Apostles themselves had “for many just reasons” selected this very term. This fact, joined with the intrinsic improbability of the story, and the surprising silence of the New Testament and of the Ante-Nicene fathers, leaves us no choice but to regard the circumstantial narrative of Rufinus as unhistorical.

Among recent critics, some have assigned to the Creed an origin much later than the Apostolic Age. Harnack, e.g., asserts that in its present form it represents only the baptismal confession of the Church of Southern Gaul, dating at earliest from the second half of the fifth century (Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss, 1892, p. 3). Strictly construed, the terms of this statement are accurate enough; though it seems probable that it was not in Gaul, but in Rome, that the Creed really assumed its final shape (see Burn in the “Journal of Theol. Studies,” July, 1902). But the stress laid by Harnack on the lateness of our received text (T) is, to say the least, somewhat misleading. It is certain, as Harnack allows, that another and older form of the Creed (R) had come into existence, in Rome itself, before the middle of the second century. Moreover, as we shall see, the differences between R and T are not very important and it is also probable that R, if not itself drawn up by the Apostles, is at least based upon an outline which dates back to the Apostolic age. Thus, taking the document as a whole, we may say confidently, in the words of a modern Protestant authority, that “in and with our Creed we confess that which since the days of the Apostles has been the faith of united Christendom” (Zahn, Apostles’ Creed, tr., p, 222). The question of the apostolicity of the Creed ought not to be dismissed without due attention being paid to the following five considerations:

(1) There are very suggestive traces in the New Testament of the recognition of a certain “form of doctrine” (τύπος διδαχής -typos didaches -, Rom., vi, 17) which moulded, as it were, the faith of new converts to Christ’s law, and which involved not only the word of faith believed in the heart, but “with the mouth confession made unto salvation” (Rom., x, 8–10). In close connection with this we must recall the profession of faith in Jesus Christ exacted of the eunuch (Acts, viii, 37) as a preliminary to baptism (Augustine, “De Fide et Operibus,” cap. ix; Migne, P.L., LVII, 205) and the formula of baptism itself in the name of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity (Matt., xxviii, 19; and cf. the Didache vii, 2, and ix, 5). Moreover, as soon as we begin to obtain any sort of detailed description of the ceremonial of baptism we find that, as a preliminary to the actual immersion, a profession of faith was exacted of the convert, which exhibits from the earliest times a clearly divided and separate confession of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, corresponding to the Divine Persons invoked in the formula of baptism. As we do not find in any earlier document the full form of the profession of faith, we cannot be sure that it is identical with our Creed, but, on the other hand, it is certain that nothing has yet been discovered which is inconsistent with such a supposition. See, for example, the “Canons of Hippolytus” (c. 220) or the “Didascalia” (c. 250) in Hahn’s “Bibliothek der Symbole” (8, 14, 35); together with the slighter allusions in Justin Martyr and Cyprian.

(2) Whatever difficulties may be raised regarding the existence of the Disciplina Arcani in early times (Kattenbusch, II, 97 sqq.), there can be no question that in Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary, Augustine, Leo, the Gelasian Sacramentary, and many other sources of the fourth and fifth centuries the idea is greatly insisted upon; that according to ancient tradition the Creed was to be learned by heart, and never to be consigned to writing. This undoubtedly provides a plausible explanation of the fact that in the case of no primitive creed is the text preserved to us complete or in a continuous form. What we know of these formulae in their earliest state is derived from what we can piece together from the quotations, more or less scattered, which are found in such writers, for example, as Irenaeus and Tertullian.

(3) Though no uniform type of Creed can be surely recognized among the earlier Eastern writers before the Council of Nicaea, an argument which has been considered by many to disprove the existence of any Apostolic formula, it is a striking fact that the Eastern Churches in the fourth century are found in possession of a Creed which reproduces with variations the old Roman type. This fact is full admitted by such Protestant authorities as Harnack (in Hauck’s Realencyclopädie, I, 747) and Kattenbusch (I, 380 sq.; II, 194 sqq., and 737 sq.). It is obvious that these data would harmonize very well with the theory that a primitive Creed had been delivered to the Christian community of Rome, either by Sts. Peter and Paul themselves or by their immediate successors, and in the course of time had spread throughout the world.

(4) Furthermore note that towards the end of the second century we can extract from the writings of St. Irenaeus in southern Gaul and of Tertullian in far-off Africa two almost complete Creeds agreeing closely both with the old Roman Creed (R), as we know it from Rufinus, and with one another. It will be useful to translate from Burn (Introduction to the Creeds, pp. 50, 51) his tabular presentation of the evidence in the case of Tertullian. (Cf. MacDonald in “Ecclesiastical Review,” February, 1903):

THE OLD ROMAN CREED AS QUOTED BY TERTULLIAN (c. 200)

De Virg. Vel., 1 (P.L., II, 889).

Adv. Prax. ii (P.L., II, 156).

De Praecept., xiii and xxxvi (P.L., II, 26, 49).

(1) Believing in one God Almighty, maker of the world,

(1) We believe one only God,

(1) I believe in one God, maker of the world,

(2) and His Son, Jesus Christ,

(2) and the son of God Jesus Christ,

(2) the Word, called His Son, Jesus Christ,

(3) born of the Virgin Mary,

(3) born of the Virgin,

(3) by the Spirit and power of God the Father made flesh in Mary’s womb, and born of her

(4) crucified under Pontius Pilate,

(4) Him suffered died, and buried,

(4) fastened to a cross.

(5) on the third day brought to life from the dead,

(5) brought back to life,

(5) He rose the third day,

(6) received in heaven,

(6) taken again into heaven,

(6) was caught up into heaven,

(7) sitting now at the right hand of the Father,

(7) sits at the right hand of the Father,

(7) set at the right hand of the Father,

(8) will come to judge the living and the dead

(8) will come to judge the living and the dead

(8) will come with glory to take the good into life eternal, and condemn the wicked to perpetual fire,

(9) who has sent from the Father the Holy Ghost.

(9) sent the vicarious power of His Holy Spirit,

(10) to govern believers (In this passage articles 9 and 10 precede 8)

(12) through resurrection of the flesh.

(12) restoration of the flesh.

Such a table serves admirably to show how incomplete is the evidence provided by mere quotations of the Creed, and how cautiously it must be dealt with. Had we possessed only the “De Virginibus Velandis,” we might have said that the article concerning the Holy Ghost did not form part of Tertullian’s Creed. Had the “De Virginibus Velandis” been destroyed, we should have declared that Tertullian knew nothing of the clause “suffered under Pontius Pilate.” And so forth.

(5) It must not be forgotten that while no explicit statement of the composition of a formula of faith by the Apostles is forthcoming before the close of the fourth century, earlier Fathers such as Tertullian and St. Irenæus insist in a very emphatic way that the “rule of faith” is part of the apostolic tradition. Tertullian in particular in his “De Praescriptione,” after showing that by this rule (regula doctrinoe) he understands something practically identical with our Creed, insists that the rule was instituted by Christ and delivered to us (tradita) as from Christ by the Apostles (Migne. P.L., II, 26, 27, 33, 50). As a conclusion from this evidence the present writer, agreeing on the whole with such authorities as Semeria and Batiffol that we cannot safely affirm the Apostolic composition of the Creed, considers at the same time that to deny the possibility of such origin is to go further than our data at present warrant. A more pronouncedly conservative view is urged by MacDonald in the “Ecclesiastical Review,” January to July, 1903.

II. THE OLD ROMAN CREED

The Catechism of the Council of Trent apparently assumes the Apostolic origin of our existing Creed, but such a pronouncement has no dogmatic force and leaves opinion free. Modern apologists, in defending the claim to apostolicity, extend it only to the old Roman form (R), and are somewhat hampered by the objection that if R had been really held to be the inspired utterance of the Apostles, it would not have been modified at pleasure by various local churches (Rufinus, for example, testifies to such expansion in the case of the Church of Aquileia), and in particular would never have been entirely supplanted by T, our existing form. The difference between the two will best be seen by printing them side by side.

R.

T.

(1) I believe in God the Father Almighty;

(1) I believe in God the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and earth

(2) And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord;

(2) And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord;

(3) Who was born of (de) the Holy Ghost and of (ex) the Virgin Mary;

(3) Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,

(4) Crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried;

(4) Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried;

(5) The third day He rose again from the dead,

(5) He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;

(6) He ascended into Heaven,

(6) He ascended into Heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;

(7) Sitteth at the right hand of the Father,

(7) From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

(8) Whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

(8) I believe’ in the Holy Ghost,

(9) And in the Holy Ghost,

(9) The Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints

(10) The Holy Church,

(10) The forgiveness of sins,

(11) The forgiveness of sins;

(11) The resurrection of the body, and

(12) The resurrection of the body.

(12) life everlasting.

Neglecting minor points of difference, which indeed for their adequate discussion would require a study of the Latin text, we may note that R does not contain the clauses “Creator of heaven and earth,” “descended into hell,” “the communion of saints,” “life everlasting,” nor the words “conceived,” “suffered,” “died,” and “Catholic.” Many of these additions, but not quite all, were probably known to St. Jerome in Palestine (c. 380.—See Morin in Revue Benedictine, January, 1904) and about the same date to the Dalmatian, Niceta (Burn, Niceta of Remesiana, 1905). Further additions appear in the creeds of southern Gaul at the beginning of the next century, but T probably assumed its final shape in Rome itself some time before A.D. 700 (Burn, Introduction, 239; and Journal of Theol. Studies, July, 1902). We know nothing certain as to the reasons which led to the adoption of T in preference to R.

III. ARTICLES OF THE CREED

Although T really contains more than twelve articles, it has always been customary to maintain the twelvefold division which originated with, and more strictly applies to, R. A few of the more debated items call for some brief comment. The first article of R presents a difficulty. From the language of Tertullian it is contended that R originally omitted the word Father and added the word one; thus, “I believe in one God Almighty.” Hence Zahn infers an underlying Greek original still partly surviving in the Nicene Creed, and holds that the first article of the Creed suffered modification to counteract the teachings of the Monarchian heresy. It must suffice to say here that although the original language of R may possibly be Greek, Zahn’s premises regarding the wording of the first article are not accepted by such authorities as Kattenbusch and Harnack.

Another textual difficulty turns upon the inclusion of the word only in the second article; but a more serious question is raised by Harnack’s refusal to recognize, either in the first or second article of R, any acknowledgment of a pre-existent or eternal relation of Sonship and Fatherhood of the Divine Persons. The Trinitarian theology of later ages, he declares, has read into the text a meaning which it did not possess for its framers. And he says, again, with regard to the ninth article, that the writer of the Creed did not conceive the Holy Ghost as a Person, but as a power and gift. “No proof can be shown that about the middle of the second century the Holy Ghost was believed in as a Person.” It is impossible to do more here than direct the reader to such Catholic answers as those of Baumer and Blume; and among Anglicans to the very convenient volume of Swete. To quote but one illustration of early patristic teaching, St. Ignatius at the end of the first century repeatedly refers to a Sonship which lies beyond the limits of time: “Jesus Christ . . . came forth from one Father,” “was with the Father before the world was” (Magn., 6 and 7). While, with regard to the Holy Ghost, St. Clement of Rome at a still earlier date writes: “As God lives, and the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, the faith and hope of the elect” (cap. lviii). This and other like passages clearly indicate the consciousness of a distinction between God and the Spirit of God analogous to that recognized to exist between God and the Logos. A similar appeal to early writers must be made in connection with the third article, that affirming the Virgin Birth. Harnack admits that the words “conceived of the Holy Ghost” (T), really add nothing to the “born of the Holy Ghost” (R). He admits consequently that “at the beginning of the second century the belief in the miraculous conception had become an established part of Church tradition.” But he denies that the doctrine formed part of the earliest Gospel preaching, and he thinks it consequently impossible that the article could have been formulated in the first century. We can only answer here that the burden of proof rests with him, and that the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers, as quoted by Swete and others, points to a very different conclusion.

Rufinus (c. 400) explicitly states that the words descended into hell were not in the Roman Creed, but existed in that of Aquileia. They are also in some Greek Creeds and in that of St. Jerome, lately recovered by Morin. It was no doubt a remembrance of I Peter, iii, 19, as interpreted by Irenaeus and others, which caused their insertion. The clause, “communion of saints,” which appears first in Niceta and St. Jerome, should unquestionably be regarded as a mere expansion of the article “holy Church.” Saints, as used here, originally meant no more than the living members of the Church (see the article by Morin in Revue d’histoire et de litterature ecclesiastique. May, 1904, and the monograph of J. P. Kirsch, Die Lehre von der Gemeinschaft der Heiligen, 1900). For the rest we can only note that the word “Catholic,” which appears first in Niceta, is dealt with separately; and that “forgiveness of sins” is probably to be understood primarily of baptism and should be compared with the “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” of the Nicene Creed.

IV. USE AND AUTHORITY OF THE CREED

As already indicated, we must turn to the ritual of Baptism for the most primitive and important use of the Apostles’ Creed. It is highly probable that the Creed was originally nothing else than a profession of faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost of the baptismal formula. The fully developed ceremonial which we find in the seventh Roman Ordo, and the Gelasian Sacramentary, and which probably represented the practice of the fifth century, assigns a special day of “scrutiny,” for the imparting of the Creed (traditio symboli), and another, immediately before the actual administration of the Sacrament, for the redditio symboli, when the neophyte gave proof of his proficiency by reciting the Creed aloud. An imposing address accompanied the traditio and in an important article, Dom de Puniet (Revue d’Histoire Ecclesiastique, October, 1904) has recently shown that this address is almost certainly the composition of St. Leo the Great. Further, three questions (interrogationes) were put to the candidate in the very act of baptism, which questions are themselves only a summary of the oldest form of the Creed. Both the recitation of the Creed and the questions are still retained in the Ordo baptizandi of our actual Roman ritual; while the Creed in an interrogative form appears also in the Baptismal Service of the Anglican “Book of Common Prayer.” Outside of the administration of baptism the Apostles’ Creed is recited daily in the Church, not only at the beginning of Matins and Prime and the end of Compline, but also ferially in the course of Prime and Compline. Many medieval synods enjoin that it must be learnt by all the faithful, and there is a great deal of evidence to show that, even in such countries as England and France, it was formerly learnt in Latin. As a result of this intimate association with the liturgy and teaching of the Church, the Apostles’ Creed has always been held to have the authority of an ex cathedra utterance. It is commonly taught that all points of doctrine contained in it are part of the Catholic Faith, and cannot be called in question under pain of heresy (St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, II-II:1:9). Hence Catholics have generally been content to accept the Creed in the form, and in the sense, in which it has been authoritatively expounded by the living voice of the Church. For the Protestants who accept it only in so far as it represents the evangelical teaching of the Apostolic Age, it became a matter of supreme importance to investigate its original form and meaning. This explains the preponderating amount of research devoted to this subject by Protestant scholars as compared with the contributions of their Catholic rivals.

The materials for any profound study fo the history of the Creeds must be sought n the great works of CASPARI, Ungedruckte Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols (Christiania, 1866); HAEN, Bibliothek der Symbole (3d ed., 1897); KATTENBUSCH, Das Apostolische Symbol (2 vols., Leipzig, 1894–1900); and SWAINSON, The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds (1875). Of works written by Catholics in English we may mention two papers by Dr. J. R. GASQUET, which appeared originally in the Dublin Review, Oct., 1888, and April, 1899, and which have since been reprinted in his Studies, 1904, and secondly the already quoted articles of DR. ALEXANDER MACDONALD in the (American) Ecclesiastical Review, 1903. In French we have the excellent little summary of V. ERMONI, Le Symbole des Apôtres (2d ed., 1903), and the articles by MGR. BATIFFOL and L’ABBÉ VACANT in the Dict. de Théologie, s. v. Apôtres, Symbole des. There was also an interesting controversy in the Revue des question historiques (1899 to 1901), between ABBÉ VACANDARD and DOM CHAMARD, which in turn was criticised by G. VOISIN in the Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique (April, 1902). Several works have been produced by German Catholics, notably DOM S. BÄUMER’S Das Apost. Glaubensbekenntnis (Freiburg, 1893) and a small volume with the same title and date by Father CL. BLUME, S.J. A good but early book is that by KRAWUTZKY (Breslau, 1872), while a later and more elaborate study, still unfinished, was begun by DÖRHOLT, Das Taufsymbolum (Paderborn, 1898). In Italian we may refer to G. SEMERIA’S Dogma, 315–37; Gerarchia e Culto (1902). The important studies of DOM G. MORIN have been referred to above. We may refer particularly, on the conservative side, to BURN, Introduction to the Creeds (London, 1897); SWETE, Apostles’ Creed (3d ed., 1899); and the articles by DR. SANDAY in the Journal of Theological Studies (Oct., 1899 and Oct., 1901). Among those of more radical tendency it will suffice to note HARNACK’S pamphlet, translated by Mrs. Humphrey Ward, in the Nineteenth Century, July 1893, and the bold hypothesis elaborated by Professor MCGIFFERT in his volume, The Apostles’ Creed, 1902.

HERBERT THURSTON.

Twelve Apostles of Erin

By this designation are meant twelve holy Irishmen of the sixth century who went to study at the School of Clonard in Meath. About the year 520 St. Finian founded his famous school at Cluain-Eraird (Eraird’s Meadow), now Clonard, and thither flocked saints and learned men from all parts of Ireland. In his Irish life it is said that the average number of scholars under instruction at Clonard was 3,000, and a stanza of the hymn for Lauds in the office of St. Finian runs as follows:

Trium virorum millium,

Sorte fit doctor humilis;

Verbi his fudit fluvium

Ut fons emanans rivulis.

The Twelve Apostles of Erin, who came to study at the feet of St. Finian, at Clonard, on the banks of the Boyne and Kinnegad Rivers, are said to have been St. Ciaran of Saighir (Seir-Kieran) and St. Ciaran of Clonmacnois; St. Brendan of Birr and St. Brendan of Clonfert; St. Columba of Tir-da-glasí (Terryglass) and St. Columba of Iona; St. Mobhí of Glasnevin; St. Ruadhan of Lorrha; St. Senan of Iniscathay (Scattery Island); St. Ninnidh the Saintly of Loch Erne; St. Lasserian mac Nadfraech, and St. Canice of Aghaboe. Though there were many other holy men educated at Clonard who could claim to be veritable apostles, the above twelve are regarded by old Irish writers as “The Twelve Apostles of Erin.” They are not unworthy of the title, for all were indeed apostles, whose studies were founded on the Sacred Scriptures as expounded by St. Finian. In the hymn from St. Finian’s office we read:

Regressus in Clonardiam

Ad cathedram lecturae,

Apponit diligentiam

Ad studium scripturae.

The great founder of Clonard died 12 December 549, according to the “Annals of Ulster,” but the Four Masters give the year as 548, whilst Colgan makes the date 563. His patronal feast is observed on 12 December.

W. H. Grattan-Flood.

Apostleship of Prayer

A pious association otherwise known as a league of prayer in union with the Heart of Jesus. It was founded at Vals, France, in 1844 by Francis X. Gautrelet. It owes its popularity largely to the Reverend Henry Ramière, S.J., who in 1861, adapted its organization for parishes and various Catholic institutions, and made it known by his book “The Apostleship of Prayer,” which has been translated into many languages. In 1879 the association received its first statutes, approved by Pius IX, and in 1896 these were revised and approved by Leo XIII. These statutes set forth the nature, the constitution, and the organization of the Apostleship, as follows: Its object is to promote the practice of prayer for the mutual intentions of the members in union with the intercession of Christ in heaven. There are three practices which constitute three degrees of membership. The first consists of a daily offering of one’s prayers, good works, and sufferings, the second, of daily recitation of a decade of beads for the special intentions of the Holy Father recommended to the members every month, and the third, of the reception of Holy Communion with the motive of reparation, monthly or weekly, on days assigned. The members are also urged to observe the practice of the Holy Hour, spent in meditation on the Passion. The moderator general of the association is the General of the Society of Jesus, who usually deputes his power to an assistant. At present the Reverend A. Drive, S.J., editor of the “Messenger of the Sacred Heart,” is the deputy. He controls the organization by the aid of the editors of the “Messenger of the Sacred Heart,” in different parts of the world. At present they number thirty. In each country diocesan directors are appointed who attend to the aggregation of new centres of the League and promote its interests in their respective territories. A centre may be a parish, a pious society, a religious community, a college, academy, school, or any religious or charitable institution. The priest, usually the pastor or chaplain, in charge of a centre is known as the Local Director. In order to organize a centre, he appoints promoters, usually one for every ten or fifteen members, who with him hold special meetings, canvass for new members, and circulate the mystery leaflets containing the monthly practices for the members. To erect a centre it is necessary to obtain a diploma of aggregation which the deputy moderator issues through the editors of the “Messengers of the Sacred Heart” in their respective countries. To be a member it is sufficient to have one’s name inscribed in the register of some local centre. There are now over 62,500 local centres in various parts of the world, about 6,685 of which are in the United States, 1,800 in Canada. 1,600 in England, 2,000 in Ireland, 200 in Scotland, and 400 in Australia. The Association numbers over 25,000,000 members, about 4,000,000 of whom are in the United States. In schools and academies it is usually conducted in a form suitable for the pupils, known as the pope’s militia. The members are entitled to many indulgences.

BERINGER. Les Inulgences, II. 197 (Paris, 1905); Handbook of the Apostleship of Prayer (New York); Acta Sancte Sedis circa piam foederationem Apostolatus Orationis (Toulouse, 1888).

JOHN J. WYNNE

Apostolic Camera

Apostolic Camera. The former central board of finance in the papal administrative system, which at one time was of great importance in the government of the States of the Church, and in the administration of justice. The Camera Apostolica consists today of the cardinal-camerlengo, the vice-camerlengo, the auditor, the general treasurer (an office unoccupied since 1870) and seven cameral clerics. Since the States of the Church have ceased to exist, and the income of the papal treasury is chiefly derived from Peter’s-pence and other alms contributed by the faithful, the Camera has no longer any practical importance as a board of finance, for the revenue known as Peter’s-pence is managed by a special commission. The officials who now constitute the camera hold in reality quasi-honorary offices. The Cardinal-Camerlengo enters upon his chief duties on the occasion of a vacancy in the Holy See, during which time he is invested with a portion of the papal authority. The Vice-Camerlengo, one of the highest prelates of the Roman Curia, was until 1870 governor of Rome, and was charged with the maintenance of peace and order in the city; during a vacancy in the Papal See he is even yet first in authority after the cardinals, and entrusted with the surveillance of the conclave, to which no one is admitted without his permission. The Auditor-General of the Camera, also one of the highest prelates, was formerly the chief judge in all cases concerning the financial administration of the Curia. Before 1870 he presided over the supreme court, to which the Pope referred the most important questions for decision. The Treasurer-General formerly had supreme financial control of the whole income derived from the temporal possessions of the Church, as well as the rest of the tribute accruing to the papal treasury. The College of Clerics of the Apostolic Camera consists now of seven members, though formerly the number was variable. The members of the body, who even to-day are chosen from among the highest prelates, had formerly not only the management of the property and income of the Holy See, and were consulted collectively on all important questions concerning their administration, but also officiated as a court in all disputes affecting the papal exchequer. When Pius IX, after the installation of the various ministries, divided among them the administrative duties, he assigned to each cleric of the Camera the presidency of a section of the department of finance. Four of them, moreover, were members of the commission appointed to examine the accounts of the Camera. They are entitled to special places whenever the Pope appears in public on solemn occasions, in the papal processions, and in public consistories. At the death of the Pontiff they take possession of the Apostolic palaces, attend to the taking of the inventories, and manage the internal or domestic administration during the vacancy. In the conclave they have charge of all that pertains to the table of the cardinals. Apart from this, the clerics of the Camera are now usually professors and canons, with regular ecclesiastical appointments.

Although the Apostolic Camera and the prelates forming it have lost the greater part of their original authority, this body was formerly one of the most important in the Curia. The character and method of their administration have undergone much modification in the past, being affected naturally by general economical development, and by the vicissitudes of the States of the Church and the central curial administration. Since the middle of the twelfth century we find a papal chamberlain (camerarius domini papœ) as a regular member of the Curia, entrusted with the financial management of the papal court. At that early period the income of the papal treasury came chiefly from many kinds of census, dues, and tributes paid in from the territory subject to the Pope, and from churches and monasteries immediately dependent on him. Cencius Camerarius (later Pope Honorius III, 1216–27) made in 1192 a new inventory of all these sources of papal revenue, known as the “Liber Censuum.” The previous list dated back to Gelasius I (492–496) and Gregory I (590–604), and was based on lists of the incomes accruing from the patrimonies, or landed property of the Roman Church. In the thirteenth century the Apostolic Camera entered on a new phase of development. The collection of the crusade taxes, regularly assessed after the time of Innocent III (1198–1216), imposed new duties on the papal treasury, to which were committed both the collection and distribution of these assessments. Moreover, during the course of this century the system of payment in kind was transformed into the monetary system, a process considerably influenced by the administration of the papal finances. The servitia communia of bishops and abbots (see Annates) were regulated at fixed sums. The various taxes are listed in their order in P. K. Eubel, “Hierarchia Catholica” (Münster, 1898–1901); the income regularly yielded by them to the Curia is by no means small. To these we must add the annates, taken in the narrower sense, especially the great universal reservations made since the time of Clement V and John XXII, the extraordinary subsidies, moreover, levied since the end of the thirteenth century, the census, and other assessments. The duties of the Apostolic Camera were thus constantly enlarged. For the collection of all these moneys it employed henceforth a great number of agents known as collectores. With time the importance of this central department of finance became more marked. The highest administrative officers were always the chamberlain (camerarius) and the treasurer (thesaurarius)—the former is regularly a bishop, the latter often of the same rank. Next in order came the clerics of the Camera (clerici camerœ), originally three or four, afterwards as many as ten. Next to these was the judge (auditor) of the Camera. The two first-named formed with the clerics of the Camera its highest administrative council; they controlled and looked closely to both revenues and expenses. In their service were a number of inferior officials, notaries, scribes, and messengers. The more absolute system of ruling the Church which developed after the beginning of the sixteenth century, as well as the gradual transformation in the financial administration, modified in many ways the duties of the Apostolic Camera. The Camerarius (camerlengo, chamberlain) became one of the highest officers in the government of the Papal States, and remained so until the beginning of the nineteenth century, when new methods of administration called for other officials. Finally, in 1870, on account of the loss of the temporal power, the Apostolic Camera ceased almost entirely to exercise any practical influence on the papal administration. The Apostolic Camera must be distinguished from the treasury or camera of the College of Cardinals, presided over by the cardinal-camerlengo (Camerarius Sacri Collegii Cardinalium). It had charge of the common revenues of the College of Cardinals, and appears among the curial institutions after the close of the thirteenth century. It has long ceased to exist.

BANGEN, Die römische Kurie, ihre gegenwärtige Zusammensetzung und ihr Geschäftsgang (Münster, 1854), 345 sqq.; PHILIPPS, Kirchenrecht (Ratisbon, 1864), VI, 503 sqq.; HINSCHIUS, System des kath. Kirchenrechts, Part 1, 309 sqq.; KÖNIG, Die päpstliche Kammer unter Klemens V und Johann XXII (Vienna, 1894); GOTTLOB, Aus der Camera apostolica des 15. Jahrh. (Innsbruck, 1889); SAMARAN AND MOLLAT, La fiscalité pontificale en France au XIVe siècle (Paris, 1905); FABRE, Etude sur le Liber censuum de l’église romaine (Paris, 1892); Le liber censuum de l’église romaine (Paris, 1889), fasc. I-V; GÖLLER, Der liber taxarum der päpstlichen Kammer (Rome, 1905) taken from Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven, VIII; KIRSCH, Die Finanzverwaltung des Kardinalkollegiums im 13. und 14. Jahrh. (Münster, 1895); BAUMGARTEN, Untersuchungen und Urkunden über die Camera Collegii Cardinalium für die Zeit von 1215–1437 (Leipzig, 1898); Die katholische Kirche unserer Zeit und ihre Diener, I: Rom, das Oberhaupt, die Einrichtung und die Verwaltung der Gesammtkirche (2d ed., Munich, 1905).

J.P. KIRSCH

Apostolic Churches

The epithet Apostolic (apostolikos) occurs as far back as the beginning of the second century; first, as far as known, in the superscription of Ignatius’s Epistle to the Trallians (about 110), where the holy bishop greets the Trallian Church (en apostoliko charakteri): “in Apostolic character,” viz., after the manner of the Apostles. The word Apostolic becomes frequent enough from the end of this century on, in such expressions as an “Apostolic man,” an “Apostolic writing,” “Apostolic Churches.”

All the individual orthodox churches could, in a sense, be called Apostolic Churches, because they were in some more or less mediate connection with the Apostles. Indeed, that is the meaning in which Tertullian sometimes uses the expression Apostolic Churches (De Praescriptionibus c. xx; Adversus Marceonem, IV, v). Usually, however, especially among the Western writers, from the second to the fourth century, the term is meant to signify the ancient particular Churches which were founded, or at least governed, by an Apostle, and which, on that account, enjoyed a special dignity and acquired a great apologetic importance. To designate these Churches, Irenaeus has often recourse to a paraphrase (Adv. Haer., III, iv, 1), or he calls them the “oldest Churches.” In the writings of Tertullian we find the expressions “mother-Churches” (ecclesiae matrices, originales), frequently “Apostolic Churches” (De Praescriptionibus, c. xxi).

At the time of the Christological controversies in the fourth and fifth centuries some of these Apostolic Churches rejected the orthodox faith. Thus it happened that the title “Apostolic Churches” was no longer used in apologetic treatises, to denote the particular Churches founded by the Apostles. For instance, Vincent of Lérins, in the first half of the fifth century, makes no special mention in his “Commonitorium” of Apostolic Churches. But, towards the same epoch, the expression “the Apostolic Church” came into use in the singular, as an appellation for the whole Church, and that frequently in connection with the older diction “Catholic Church”; while the most famous of the particular Apostolic Churches, the Roman Church, took as a convenient designation the title “Apostolic See” (Vincent of Lerins’s Commonitorium, c. ix). This last title was also given, though not quite so often, to the Antiochian and to the Alexandrian Church.

I. CHIEF APOSTOLIC CHURCHES

It is not possible, in a summary, to give an account of the missionary labours of the Apostles and of the foundation of Christian Churches by them. we have, if not complete, at least sufficient, information about the preaching and the works of St. Peter in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome; of St. James the Elder in Jerusalem; of St. John in Jerusalem and Ephesus; of St. Paul at Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Troas, Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, and Rome. In these towns—and not all entitled thereto are included in the nomenclature—there were Christian communities founded by the Apostles that could be called Apostolic Churches. However, when the writers of the second and the third century speak of Apostolic Churches, they refer ordinarily to some only of these churches. Thus, e.g., Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, iii, 2) mentions the Roman Church, “the greatest, most ancient and known to all, founded and established by two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul,” the Church at Ephesus, and the Smyrnaean Church, where he was Polycarp’s disciple. Tertullian enumerates others (De Praescriptionibus, c. xxvi): “You who are rightly solicitous for your salvation, travel to the Apostolic churches. . . . If Achaia is not distant, you have Corinth. If you are near Macedonia, you have Philippi, you have Thessalonica. If you can go to Asia, you have Ephesus. If you are in the neighbourhood of Italy, you have Rome.” Then follows a splendid panegyric of the Roman Church, the first among the Apostolic Churches (see also c. xxii).

II. THE APOLOGETIC ARGUMENT OF IRENAEUS AND TERTULLIAN

The oldest Christian literature shows with great evidence that the first controversies among Christians were always decided by texts of the Old Testament, sayings of Our Lord, and the authority of the Apostles. This last ground was very important in the case of new questions on which there existed no explicit teaching of Christ. Therefore, it is easy to understand that the Apostolic Churches could not be lost sight of in such controversies, and it may be of interest to point out the apologetic argument of Irenaeus and Tertullian, which is founded on the preservation of the Apostolic doctrine in the various Apostolic Churches.

Irenaeus, having exposed, in the first two books of his great work, “Against the Heresies,” the doctrines of the various Gnostic sects, and having shown their intrinsic absurdity, proceeds in the third book to refute them by means of theological arguments, especially Scriptural ones. But before dealing with biblical proofs, he attempts the other method of convincing heretics, namely, that which consists in appealing to the Catholic tradition preserved in the churches through the succession of bishops. The gist of his reasoning is: The churches being too numerous, it may be sufficient to examine into the doctrine of one, viz., of the Roman Church, or, at least, of some of the oldest churches (III, ii, iii). He says: “Even if there is a controversy about a little question, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches in which the Apostles dwelt, and take from them the safe and trustworthy doctrine?” (III, iv, 1)

Tertullian, with his characteristic energy, takes up the same argument in his famous work “On Prescription Against Heretics.” His general process of reasoning runs thus: Christ chose twelve Apostles to whom he communicated His doctrine. The Apostles preached this doctrine to the churches they founded, and thence the same doctrine came to the more recent churches. Neither did the Apostles corrupt Christ’s doctrine, nor have the Apostolic Churches corrupted the preaching of the Apostles. Heresy is always posterior, and, therefore, erroneous. “We have to show,” he says (c. xxi), “whether our doctrine . . . is derived from Apostolic teaching, and whether, therefore, other doctrines have their origin in a lie. We are in communion with the Apostolic Churches, because we have the same doctrine; that is the testimony of the truth (Communicamus cum Ecclesiis apostolicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa; hoc est testimonium veritatis). In Tertullian’s writings against Marcion (IV, v) we find an application of this apologetic argument. Having developed the historical argument founded on the preservation, as a matter of fact, of the Apostolic doctrine in the chief Apostolic Churches, we must add that, besides it, such writers as Irenaeus and others used often also a dogmatic argument founded on the necessary preservation of Christian truth in the whole Church and in the Roman Church in particular. The two arguments are to be carefully distinguished.

III. ANCIENT STATEMENTS CONCERNING RELICS OF THE APOSTLES IN APOSTOLIC CHURCHES

The tomb of the Apostle, founder of the Church, was religiously venerated in some of the Apostolic Churches, as, e.g., the tombs of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome, of St. John at Ephesus. A statement of Tertullian’s has given rise to some curious questions concerning relics of Apostles preserved in the Apostolic Churches. “Travel” he writes in “De Praescriptionibus” (c. xxxvi)

to the Apostolic Churches in which the seats of the Apostles still occupy their places [apud quas ipsoe adhuc cathedroe apostolorum suis locis proesident], in which their authentic Epistles are still read, sounding their voices and representing their face [apud quas ipsae authenticae litterae eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque.]

The words “authentic epistles” might denote merely the epistles in the original text—the Greek (cf. Tertull. De Monogomia, c. xi); but here it is not the case, because in Tertullian’s time the Greek text of the canonical books was still read nearly everywhere, and not in the Apostolic Churches only. We must take the epistoloe authenticae to mean the autographs of some Epistles of the Apostles. Indeed in later times we hear of recovered autographs of Apostolic writings in the controversies about the Apostolic origin of some Churches or about claims for metropolitan dignity. So the autograph of the Gospel of St. Matthew was said to have been found in Cyprus. (See E. Nestle, Einführung in das griechische Neue Testament, Gottingen, 1899, 29, 30)

If the authenticoe epistoloe are the Apostolic autographs, the apostolic seats (ipsoe adhuc cathedroe apostolorum) mean the seats in which the Apostles preached, and the expression is not metaphorical. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., VII, 19) relates that in his time the seat of St. James was as yet extant in Jerusalem. On old pictures of Apostles cf. Eusebius, ibid., VII, 18. Whether or not even the oldest of these statements are true remains still a mooted question. We regard it as useless to record what may be found on these topics in the vast amount of matter that makes up the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles and other legendary documents.

HONORÉ COPPIETERS

Apostolic Church-Ordinance

A third-century pseudo-Apostolic collection of moral and hierarchical rules and instructions, compiled in the main from ancient Christian sources, first published in Ethiopic by Ludolf (with Latin translation) in the “Commentarius” to his “Historia Ethiopica” (Frankfort. 1691). It served as a law-code for the Egyptian, Ethiopian, and Arabian churches, and rivalled in authority and esteem the Didache, under which name it sometimes went. Though of undoubted Greek origin, these canons are preserved largely in Coptic, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Syriac versions. The Apostolic Church-Ordinance was first published in Greek by Prof. Bickell of Marburg (1843) from a twelfth-century Greek manuscript discovered by him at Vienna (Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, Giessen, 1843, I, 107–132). He also gave the code the name “Apostolische Kirchenordnung” by which it is generally known, though in English it is usually called as above, sometimes Apostolic Church-Order, Apostolic Church-Directory, etc. The document, after a short introduction (i-iii) inspired by the “Letter of Barnabas,” is divided into two parts, the first of which (iv-xiv) is an evident adaptation of the first six chapters of the Didache, the moral precepts of which are attributed severally to the Apostles, each of whom, introduced by the formula “John says,” “Peter says,” etc., is represented as framing one or more of the ordinances. The second part (xv-xxx) treats in similar manner of the qualifications for ordination or for the duties of different officers in the Church. The work was compiled in Egypt, or possibly in Syria, in the third, or, at the latest, in the early part of the fourth, century. Funk assigns its compilation to the first half of the third century; Harnack to about the year 300. Who the compiler was cannot be conjectured, nor can it be determined what part he had in framing canons 15 to 30. Duchesne considers them largely the compiler’s own work; Funk thinks he drew upon at least two sources now unknown; while Harnack undertakes to identify by name the now lost documents upon which the compiler almost entirely depended. The Sahidic (Coptic) text was published by Lagarde in “Ægyptiaca” (Leipzig, 1883), and the Bohairic (Coptic) by Tattam (The Apostolical Constitutions, or Canons of the Apostles, London, 1848). The complete Syriac text, with English translation, was published by Dr. Arendzen in “Journal of Theol. Studies” (October, 1901).

HARNACK. Texte und Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1886), II, 5 sq.; PITRA, Juris ecclesiast. Grœcorum Hist. et Monum. (Rome, 1864). I, 75–88; FUNK, Doctrina Duodecim Apostolorum (Tübingen, 1887), 44 sq., 50 sq.; SCHAFF, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (New York, 1885), 127–132, 237–257, where the dependence of the Apostolic Church Ordinance (Canons 4–14) on the Didache is graphically set forth; BARDENHEWER, Gesch. der altkirch. Lit. (Freiburg, 1903), II, 262–269; Patrologie (ib., 1901), 141; DUCHESNE, Bulletin Critique (October, 1886), 361–370.

JOHN B. PETERSON.

Apostolic Constitutions

A fourth-century pseudo-Apostolic collection, in eight books, of independent, though closely related, treatises on Christian discipline, worship, and doctrine, intended to serve as a manual of guidance for the clergy, and to some extent for the laity.

Its tone is rather hortatory than preceptive, for, though it was evidently meant to be a code of catechetical instruction and of moral and liturgical law, its injunctions often take the form of little treatises and exhortations, amply supported by scriptural texts and examples. Its elements are loosely combined without great regard for order or unity. It purports to be the work of the Apostles, whose instructions, whether given by them as individuals or as a body, are supposed to be gathered and handed down by the pretended compiler, St. Clement of Rome, the authority of whose name gave fictitious weight to more than one such piece of early Christian literature. The Church seems never to have regarded this work as of undoubted Apostolic authority. The Trullan Council in 692 rejected the work on account of the interpolations of heretics. Only that portion of it to which has been given the name “Apostolic Canons” was received; but even the fifty of these canons which had then been accepted by the Western Church were not regarded as of certain Apostolic origin. Where known, however, the Apostolic Constitutions were held generally in high esteem and served as the basis for much ecclesiastical legislation. They are to-day of the highest value as an historical document, revealing the moral and religious conditions and the liturgical observances of the third and fourth centuries.

Their text was not known in the Western Church throughout the Middle Ages. In 1546 a Latin version of a text found in Crete was published by Capellus, and in 1563 appeared the complete Greek text of Bovius and that of the Jesuit Father Torres (Turrianus) who, despite the glaring archaisms and incongruities of the collection, contended that it was a genuine work of the Apostles. Four manuscripts of it are now extant, the oldest an early twelfth-century text in St. Petersburg, an allied fourteenth-century text in Vienna, and two kindred sixteenth-century texts, one in Vienna, the other in Paris. In its present form the text represents the gradual growth and evolution of usages of the first three centuries of Christian Church life. The compiler gathered from pre-existing moral, disciplinary, and liturgical codes the elements suited to his purpose, and by adaptation and interpolation framed a system of constitutions which, while suited to contemporary needs, could yet pretend, in an uncritical age, to Apostolic origin. Thanks to recent textual studies in early Christian literature, most of the sources of which the compiler made use are now clearly recognizable. The first six books are based on the “Didascalia of the Apostles,” a lost treatise of the third century, of Greek origin, which is known through Syriac versions. The compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions made use of the greater part of this older treatise, but he adapted it to the needs of his day by some modifications and extensive interpolation. Liturgical evolution made necessary a considerable amplification of the formulæ of worship; changes in disciplinary practice called for a softening of some of the older laws; scriptural references and examples, intended to enforce the lessons inculcated by the Apostolic Constitutions, are more frequently used than in the parent Didascalia. The seventh book, which consists of two distinct parts, the first a moral instruction (i-xxxii) and the second liturgical (xxxiii-xlix), depends for the first portion on the early second-century Didache or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” which has been amplified by the compiler in much the same manner as the Didascalia was amplified in the framing of the first six books. The rediscovery of the Didache in 1873 revealed with what fidelity the compiler embodied it, almost word for word, in his expansion of its precepts, save for such omissions and changes as were made necessary by the lapse of time. The fact that the Didache was itself a source of the Didascalia will explain the repetition in the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions of matters treated in the preceding books. The source of the second portion of the seventh book is still undetermined. In the eighth book are recognized many distinct elements whose very number and diversity render it difficult to determine with certainty the source upon which the compiler drew. The eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions may be divided into three parts thus: the introductory chapters (i-ii) have for their foundation a treatise entitled “Teaching of the Holy Apostles concerning Gifts,” possibly a lost work of Hippolytus. The transitional third chapter is the work of the compiler. The last chapter (xlvii) contains the “Apostolic Canons.” It is the second part (iv-xlvi) which presents difficulties the varied solution of which divides scholars as to its sources. Recent studies in early Christian literature have made evident the kinship of several documents dealing with disciplinary and liturgical matters, closely allied with this eighth book. Their interdependence is not so clearly understood. The more important of these documents are: The “Canons of [pseudo?] Hippolytus”; the “Egyptian Church Ordinance”; and the recently discovered Syriac text of “The Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” According to Dr. Hans Achelis, the “Canons of Hippolytus,” which he considers to be a third-century document of Roman origin, is the parent of the “Egyptian Church Ordinance,” and the contemporary practice of the Church would be the source from which the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions drew. Dr. F. X. Funk, on the other hand, argues strongly for the priority of the eighth book of the latter, whence, through a parallel text, are derived the other three documents which he considers as fifth-century works, a conclusion not without its difficulties of acceptance, particularly with regard to the place of the “Canons of Hippolytus” in the chronology. If the priority of the Apostolic Constitutions be admitted, it is not easy to identify the sources on which the compiler depended. For the liturgical element (v-xv), which is an evident interpolation, the compiler may have been inspired by the practice of some particular church. The Antiochene “Diaconica” was not without some influence on him, and it may be that he had at hand other, now lost, ceremonial codes. It is not improbable that his Liturgy is even of his own creation and was never used in just the form in which he gives it. (See ANTIOCHENE LITURGY).

A study of the sources of this work suggests the many needs which the compiler endeavoured to meet in gathering together and amplifying these many treatises on doctrine, discipline, and worship extant in his day. The extent and variety of his work may be sugggested by a summary of the contents. The first book deals with the duties of the Christian laity, particularly in view of the dangers resulting from association with those not of the Faith. Vanity in dress, promiscuous bathing, curiosity as to the lives and the books of the wicked are among the things condemned. The second book is concerned principally with the clergy. The qualifications, the prerogatives and duties of bishops, priests, and deacons are set forth in detail, and their dependence and support provided for. This book treats at length of the regulation of penitential practice, of the caution to be observed in regard to accused and accusers, of the disputes of the faithful and the means of adjusting differences. This portion of the Apostolic Constitutions is of special interest, as portraying the penitential discipline and the hierarchical system of the third and fourth centuries. Here are also a number of ceremonial details regarding the Christian assembly for worship which, with the liturgy of the eighth book, are of the greatest importance and interest. The third book treats of widows and of their office in the Church. A consideration of what they should not do leads to a treatise on the duties of deacons and on baptism. The fourth book deals with charitable works, the providing for the poor and orphans, and the spirit in which to receive and dispense the offerings made to the Church. The fifth book treats of those suffering persecution for the sake of Christ and of the duties of Christians towards them. This leads to a consideration of martyrdom and of idolatry. Liturgical details as to feasts and fasts follow. The sixth book deals with the history and doctrines of the early schisms and heresies; and of “The Law,” a treatise against Judaistic and heathen superstition and uncleannesses. The seventh book in its first part is chiefly moral, condemning vices and praising Christian virtues and Christian teachers. The second part is composed of liturgical directions and formulæ. The eighth book is largely liturgical. Chapters iii-xxvii treat of the conferring of all orders, and in connection with the consecration of a bishop is given in chapters v-xv the so-called Clementine Liturgy, the most ancient extant complete order of the rites of Holy Mass. Chapters xxviii-xlvi contain a collection of miscellaneous canons, moral and liturgical, attributed to the various Apostles, while chapter xlvii consists of the eighty-five “Apostolic Canons.”

The strikingly characteristic style of the many interpolations in the Apostolic Constitutions makes it evident that the compilation, including the “Apostolic Canons,” is the work of one individual. Who this Pseudo-Clement was cannot be conjectured; but it is now generally admitted that he is one with the interpolator of the Ignatian Epistles. As early as the middle of the seventeenth century, Archbishop Ussher, recognizing the similarity of the theological thought, the peculiar use of Scripture, and the strongly marked literary characteristics in the Apostolic Constitutions and in both the interpolations of the seven epistles of Ignatius and the six spurious epistles attributed to the Bishop of Antioch, suggested the identification of the Pseudo-Clement with the Pseudo-Ignatius, a view which has won general acceptance, yet not without some hesitancy which may not be dispelled until the problem of the sources of the eighth book is solved. Efforts tending to a further identification of the author of this extensive and truly remarkable literature of interpolations have not been successful. That he was a cleric may be taken for granted, and a cleric not favourably disposed to ascetical practices. That he was not rigidly orthodox-for he uses the language of Subordinationalism-is also evident; yet he was not an extreme Arian. But whether he was an Apollinarian, as Dr. Funk would infer from his insistence in denying the human soul of Our Lord, or a Semi-Arian, or even a well-meaning Nicæan whose language reflects the unsettled views held by not a few of his misguided contemporaries, cannot be determined. For, whatever his theological views were, he does not seem to be a partisan or the champion of any sect; nor has he any disciplinary hobby which he would foist on his brethren in the name of Apostolic authority. Syria would appear to be the place of origin of this work, and the interest of the compiler in men and things of Antioch would point to that city as the centre of his activities. His interest in the Ignatian Epistles, his citation of the Syro-Macedonian calendar, his use of the so-called Council of Antioch as one of the chief sources of the “Apostolic Canons,” and his construction of a liturgy on Antiochene lines confirm the theory of Syrian origin. Its date is likewise difficult to determine with accuracy. The earliest terminus a quo would be the Council of Antioch in 341. But the reference to Christmas in the catalogue of feasts (V, 13; VIII, 33) seems to postulate a date later than 376, when St. Epiphanius, who knew the Didascalia, in the enumeration of feasts found in his work against heresies makes no mention of the December feast, which in fact was not celebrated in Syria until about 378. If the compiler was of Arian tendencies he could not have written much later than the death of Valens (378). The absence of reference to either the Nestorian or the Monophysite heresies precludes the possibility of a date later than the early fifth century. The most probable opinion dates the compilation about the year 380, without excluding the possibility of a date two decades earlier or later. (See CANON LAW; ANTIOCHENE LITURGY; CLEMENT OF ROME; CANONS, APOSTOLIC.)

Von Funk, Die apostolischen Constitutionen (Rottenburg, 1891); Id. Das Testament des Herrn und die verwandten Schriften (Mainz, 1901); Id., in Theolog. Quartalschrift (1893), 594–666, in Historisches Jahrbuch (1895), 1–36, 473–509, in Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique (Louvain, Oct., 1901; Achelis, Die Canones Hippolyti in Texte und Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1891), VI, iv, 240 sqq.; Lagarde, Constitutiones Apostolicæ (Leipzig, 1862); Pitra, Juris ecclesiastici Græcorum Historia et Monumenta (Rome, 1864), i, 46 sqq.; 111 sqq.; The Cotelier-Clericus ed. (Amsterdam, 1724) is reprinted in P. G., I, 509–1156. An English translation is given in Ante-Nicene Library (Edinburgh, 1870), XVII, (American ed. New York, 1899), VII, 385–508. O’Leary, The Apostolic Constitutions and Cognate Documents (London, 1906); Brightman, Liturgies, Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1896), I, xvii-xlvii; Riedel, Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alexandrien (Leipzig, 1900); Bardenhewer, Patrologie 2d ed., Freiburg, 1901), 307–14.-Kohler, in The Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v. Didaskalia and Didache.-See also the bibliography appended to articles on the cognate documents above referred to, as nearly all the literature concerning them enters ianto the problems of their relationship with the Apostolic Constitutions.

John B. Peterson.

Apostolic Fathers

Christian writers of the first and second centuries who are known, or are considered, to have had personal relations with some of the Apostles, or to have been so influenced by them that their writings may be held as echoes of genuine Apostolic teaching. Though restricted by some to those who were actually disciples of the Apostles, the term applies by extension to certain writers who were previously believed to have been such, and virtually embraces all the remains of primitive Christian literature antedating the great apologies of the second century, and forming the link of tradition that binds these latter writings to those of the New Testament.

The name was apparently unknown in Christian literature before the end of the seventeenth century. The term Apostolic, however, was commonly used to qualify Churches, persons, writings, etc. from the early second century, when St. Ignatius, in the exordium of his Epistle to the Trallians, saluted their Church “after the Apostolic manner.” In 1672 Jean Baptiste Cotelier (Cotelerius) published his “SS. Patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt opera,” which title was abbreviated to “Bibliotheca Patrum Apostolicorum” by L. J. Ittig in his edition (Leipzig, 1699) of the same writings. Since then the term has been universally used.

The list of Fathers included under this title has varied, literary criticism having removed some who were formerly considered as second-century writers, while the publication (Constantinople, 1883) of the Didache has added one to the list. Chief in importance are the three first-century Bishops: St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna, of whose intimate personal relations with the Apostles there is no doubt. Clement, Bishop of Rome and third successor of St. Peter in the Papacy, “had seen the blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] and had been conversant with them” (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III, iii, 3). Ignatius was the second successor of St. Peter in the See of Antioch (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, 36) and during his life in that centre of Christian activity may have met with others of the Apostolic band. An accepted tradition, substantiated by the similarity of Ignatius’s thought with the ideas of the Johannine writings, declares him a disciple of St. John. Polycarp was “instructed by Apostles” (Irenaeus, op. cit., III, iii, 4) and had been a disciple of St. John (Eusebius, op. cit., III, 36; V, 20) whose contemporary he was for nearly twenty years.

Besides these, whose rank as Apostolic Fathers in the strictest sense is undisputed, there are two first-century writers whose place with them is generally conceded: the author of the Didache and the author of the “Epistle of Barnabas.” The former affirms that his teaching is that of the Apostles, and his work, perhaps the earliest extant piece of uninspired Christian literature, gives colour to his claim; the latter, even if he be not the Apostle and companion of St. Paul, is held by many to have written during the last decade of the first century, and may have come under direct Apostolic influence, though his Epistle does not clearly suggest it.

By extension of the term to comprise the extant extra-canonical literature of the sub-Apostolic age, it is made to include the “Shepherd” of Hermas, the New Testament prophet, who was believed to be the one referred to by St. Paul (Rom. xvi, 14), but whom a safer tradition makes a brother of Pope Pius I (c. 140–150); the meagre fragments of the “Expositions of the Discourses of the Lord,” by Papias, who may have been a disciple of St. John (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., V, 331–334), though more probably he received his teaching at second hand from a “presbyter” of that name (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, 39); the “Letter to Diognetus,” the unknown author of which affirms his discipleship with the Apostles, but his claim must be taken in the broad sense of conformity in spirit and teaching. In addition to these there were formerly included apocryphal writings of some of the above Fathers, the “Constitutions” and “Canons of the Apostles” and the works accredited to Dionysius the Areopagite, who, though himself a disciple of the Apostles, was not the author of the works bearing his name. Though generally rejected, the homily of Pseudo-Clement (Epistola secunda Clementis) is by some considered as being as worthy of a place among the Apostolic Fathers, as is its contemporary, the “Shepherd” of Hermas.

The period of time covered by these writings extends from the last two decades of the first century for the Didache (80–100), Clement (c. 97), and probably Pseudo-Barnabas (96–98), through the first half of the second century, the approximate chronology being Ignatius, 110–117; Polycarp, 110–120; Hermas, in its present form, c.150; Papias, c.150. Geographically, Rome is represented by Clement and Hermas; Polycarp wrote from Smyrna, whence also Ignatius sent four of the seven epistles which he wrote on his way from Antioch through Asia Minor; Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia; the Didache was written in Egypt or Syria; the letter of Barnabas in Alexandria.

The writings of the Apostolic Fathers are generally epistolary in form, after the fashion of the canonical Epistles, and were written, for the greater part, not for the purpose of instructing Christians at large, but for the guidance of individuals or local churches in some passing need. Happily, the writers so amplified their theme that they combine to give a precious picture of the Christian community in the age which follows the death of St. John. Thus Clement, in paternal solicitude for the Churches committed to his care, endeavours to heal a dissension at Corinth and insists on the principles of unity and submission to authority, as best conducive to peace; Ignatius, fervent in his gratitude to the Churches which solaced him on his way to martyrdom, sends back letters of recognition, filled with admonitions against the prevailing heresy and highly spiritual exhortations to keep unity of faith in submission to the bishops; Polycarp, in forwarding Ignatian letters to Philippi, sends, as requested, a simple letter of advice and encouragement. The letter of Pseudo-Barnabas and that to Diognetus, the one polemical, the other apologetic in tone, while retaining the same form, seem to have in view a wider circle of readers. The other three are in the form of treatises: the Didache, a manual of moral and liturgical instruction; the “Shepherd,” a book of edification, apocalyptic in form, is an allegorical representation of the Church, the faults of her children and their need of penance; the “Expositions” of Papias, an exegetical commentary on the Gospels.

Written under such circumstances, the works of the Apostolic Fathers are not characterized by systematic expositions of doctrine or brilliancy of style. “Diognetus” alone evidences literary skill and refinement. Ignatius stands out in relief by his striking personality and depth of view. Each writes for his present purpose, with a view primarily to the actual needs of his auditors, but, in the exuberance of primitive charity and enthusiasm, his heart pours out its message of fidelity to the glorious Apostolic heritage, of encouragement in present difficulties, of solicitude for the future with its threatening dangers. The dominant tone is that of fervent devotion to the brethren in the Faith, revealing the depth and breadth of the zeal which was imparted to the writers by the Apostles. The letters of the three bishops, together with the Didache, voice sincerest praise of the Apostles, whose memory the writers hold in deep filial devotion; but their recognition of the unapproachable superiority of their masters is equally well borne out by the absence in their letters of that distinctly inspired tone that marks the Apostles’ writings. More abrupt, however, is the transition between the unpretentious style of the Apostolic Fathers and the scientific form of the treatises of the Fathers of the subsequent periods. The fervent piety, the afterglow of the day of Apostolic spirituality, was not to be found again in such fullness and simplicity. Letters breathing such sympathy and solicitude were held in high esteem by the early Christians and by some were given an authority little inferior to that of the Scriptures. The Epistle of Clement was read in the Sunday assemblies at Corinth during the second century and later (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, xvi; IV, xxiii); the letter of Barnabas was similarly honoured at Alexandria; Hermas was popular throughout Christendom, but particularly in the West. Clement of Alexandria quoted the Didache as “Scripture.” Some of the Apostolic Fathers are found in the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament at the end of the canonical writings: Clement was first made known through the “Codex Alexandrinus”; similarly, Hermas and Pseudo-Barnabas are appended to the canonical books in the “Codex Sinaiticus.” Standing between the New Testament era and the literary efflorescence of the late second century, these writers represent the original elements of Christian tradition. They make no pretension to treat of Christian doctrine and practice in a complete and scholarly manner and cannot, therefore, be expected to answer all the problems concerning Christian origins. Their silence on any point does not imply their ignorance of it, much less its denial; nor do their assertions tell all that might be known. The dogmatic value of their teaching is, however, of the highest order, considering the high antiquity of the documents and the competence of the authors to transmit the purest Apostolic doctrine. This fact did not receive its due appreciation even during the period of medieval theological activity. The increased enthusiasm for positive theology which marked the seventeenth century centred attention on the Apostolic Fathers; since then they have been the eagerly-questioned witnesses to the beliefs and practice of the Church during the first half of the second century. Their teaching is based on the Scriptures, i.e. the Old Testament, and on the words of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. The authority of the latter was decisive. Though the New Testament canon was not yet, to judge from these writings, definitively fixed, it is significant that with the exception of the Third Epistle of St. John and possibly that of St. Paul to Philemon, every book of the New Testament is quoted or alluded to more or less clearly by one or another of the Apostolic Fathers, while the citations from the “apocrypha.” are extremely rare. Of equal authority with the written word is that of oral tradition (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, xxxix; I Clem., vii), to which must be traced certain citations of the “Sayings” of Our Lord and the Apostles not found in the Scriptures.

Meagre as they necessarily are in their testimony, the Apostolic Fathers bear witness to the faith of Christians in the chief mysteries of the Divine Unity and Trinity. The Trinitarian formula occurs frequently. If the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is but once obscurely alluded to in Hermas, it must be remembered that the Church was as yet undisturbed by anti-Trinitarian heresies. The dominant error of the period was Docetism, and its refutation furnishes these writers with an occasion to deal at greater length with the Person of Jesus Christ. He is the Redeemer of whom men stood in need. Ignatius unhesitatingly calls Him God (Trall., vii; Eph., i, and passim). The soteriology of the Epistles to the Hebrews forms the basis of their teaching. Jesus Christ is our high-priest (I Clem., xxxvi-lxiv) in whose suffering and death is our redemption (Ignat., Eph., i, Magnes., ix; Barnab., v). Diog., ix); whose blood is our ransom (I Clem., xii-xxi). The fruits of Redemption, while not scientifically treated, are in a general way the destruction of death or of sin, the gift to man of immortal life, and the knowledge of God (Barnab., iv-v, vii, xiv; Did., xvl; I Clem., xxiv-xxv; Hermas, Simil., v, 6). Justification is received by faith and by works as well; and so clearly is the efficacy of good works insisted upon that it is futile to represent the Apostolic Fathers as failing to comprehend the pertinent teaching of St. Paul. The points of view of both St. Paul and St. James are cited and considered complementary (I Clem., xxxi, xxxiii, xxxv; Ignat. to Polyc., vi). Good works are insisted on by Hermas (Vis., iii, 1 Simil., v, 3), and Barnabas proclaims (c. xix) their necessity for salvation. The Church, the “Catholic” Church, as Ignatius for the first time calls it (Smyrn., viii), takes the place of the chosen people; is the mystical body of Christ, the faithful being the members thereof, united by oneness of faith and hope, and by a charity which prompts to mutual assistance. This unity is secured by the hierarchical organization of the ministry and the due submission of inferiors to authority. On this point the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers seems to stand for a marked development in advance of the practice of the Apostolic period. But it is to be noted that the familiar tone in which episcopal authority is treated precludes the possibility of its being a novelty. The Didache may yet deal with “prophets,” “Apostles,” and itinerant missionaries (x-xi, xiii-xiv), but this is not a stage in development. It is anomalous, outside the current of development. Clement and Ignatius present the hierarchy, organized and complete, with its orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, ministers of the Eucharistic liturgy and administrators of temporalities. Clement’s Epistle is the philosophy of “Apostolicity,” and its corollary, episcopal succession. Ignatius gives in abundance practical illustrations of what Clement sets forth in principle. For Ignatius the bishop is the centre of unity (Eph., iv), the authority whom all must obey as they would God, in whose place the bishop rules (Ignat. to Polyc., vi; Magnes., vi, xiii; Smyrn., viii, xi; Trail., xii); for unity with and submission to the bishop is the only security of faith. Supreme in the Church is he who holds the seat of St. Peter at Rome. The intervention of Clement in the affairs of Corinth and the language of Ignatius in speaking of the Church of Rome in the exordium of his Epistle to the Romans must be understood in the light of Christ’s charge to St. Peter. One rounds out the other. The deepest reverence for the memory of St. Peter is visible in the writings of Clement and Ignatius. They couple his name with that of St. Paul, and this effectually disproves the antagonism between these two Apostles which the Tübingen theory postulated in tracing the pretended development of a united church from the discordant Petrine and Pauline factions. Among the sacraments alluded to is Baptism, to which Ignatius refers (Polyc., ii; Smyrn., viii), and of which Hermas speaks as the necessary way of entrance to the Church and to salvation (Vis., iii, 3, 5; Simil., ix, 16), the way from death to life (Simil., viii, 6), while the Didache deals with it liturgically (vii). The Eucharist is mentioned in the Didache (xiv) and by Ignatius, who uses the term to signify the “flesh of Our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Smyrn., vii; Eph., xx; Philad., iv). Penance is the theme of Hermas, and is urged as a necessary and a possible recourse for him who sins once after baptism (Vis., iii, 7; Simil., viii, 6, 8, 9, I1). The Didache refers to a confession of sins (iv, xiv) as does Barnabas (xix). An exposition of the dogmatic teaching of individual Fathers will be found under their respective names.

The Apostolic Fathers, as a group, are found in no one manuscript. The literary history of each will be found in connection with the individual studies. The first edition was that of Cotelerius, above referred to (Paris, 1672). It contained Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. A reprint (Antwerp, 1698–1700; Amsterdam, 1724), by Jean Leclerc (Clericus), contained much additional matter. The latest editions are those of the Anglican Bishop, J.B. Lightfoot, “The Apostolic Fathers” (5 vols., London, 1889–1890); abbreviated edition, Lightfoot-Harmer, London, I vol., 1893; Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn, “Patrum Apostolicorum Opera” (Leipzig, 1901); and F. X. von Funk, “Patres Apostolici” (2d ed., Tübingen, 1901), in all of which abundant reference will be found to the literature of the two preceding centuries. The last named work first appeared (Tübingen, vol. I, 1878, 1887; vol. II, ,1881) as a fifth edition of Hefele’s “Opera Patr. Apostolicorum” (Tübingen, 1839; 4th ed., 1855) enriched with notes (critical, exegetical, historical), prolegomena, indexes, and a Latin version. The second edition meets all just demands of a critical presentation of these ancient and important writings, and in its introduction and notes offers the best Catholic treatise on the subject.

P.G. (Paris, 1857), I, II, V; Eng. tr. in Ante-Nicene Library (Edinburgh, 1866), I, and American ed. (New York, 1903), I, 1–158; Freppel, Les Peres Apostoliques et leur époque (Paris, 1885); Batiffol, La litt. eccl. grecque (Paris, 1901); Holland, The Apostolic Fathers (London, 1897); Wake, The Genuine Epistles of the Apostolic Fathers (London, 1893); Fleming, Early Christian Witnesses (London, 1878); Crutwell, A Literary History of Early Christianity (London, 1893), I, 21–127; Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford, 1905); Lightfoot in Dict. of Chr. Biog., s. v.; for the doctrine, see Tixeront, Histoire des dogmes (Paris, 1905), I, 115–163; Bareille in Dict. de theol. cath. (Paris, 1903), I, 1634–46; Bardenhewer, Geschichte d. altkirchl. Litt., I.

John B. Peterson.

Apostolic Letters

Litterae apostolicae).

1. The letters of the Apostles to Christian communities or those in authority, i.e. the Pauline Epistles, including the Epistle to the Hebrews, together with the seven Catholic epistles of the other Apostles.

2. Documents issued by the Pope or in his name, e.g. bulls and briefs.

F.M. RUDGE

Apostolic Majesty

A title given to the Kings of Hungary, and used, since the time of Maria Theresa, by the King himself, as also in the letters addressed to him by officials or private individuals. The origin of this title dates from St. Stephen, who is supposed to have received it from Pope Sylvester II in recognition of the activity displayed by him in promoting the introduction of Christianity into Hungary. Hartvik, the biographer of St. Stephen, tells us that the pope hailed the king as a veritable “Apostle” of Christ, with reference to his holy labours in spreading the Catholic Faith through Hungary. The bull, however, of Sylvester II, dated 27 March of the year 1000, whereby the pope grants St. Stephen the crown and title of King, and which returns to him the kingdom he had offered to the Holy See and confers on him the right to have the cross carried before him, with an administrative authority over bishoprics and churches, affords no basis for the granting of this particular title. Moreover, the bull, as is clearly proved by the latest researches, is a forgery of later date than 1574. Pope Leo X having conferred the title of Defensor Fidei on Henry VIII of England, in the year 1521, the nobles of Hungary, with Stephen Werbǒczi, the learned jurist and later Palatine of Hungary, at their head, opened negotiations with the Holy See to have the title of “Apostolic Majesty,” said to have been granted by Pope Sylvester II to Stephen, conferred on King Louis II. But these negotiations led to no result. In 1627, Ferdinand III endeavoured to obtain the title for himself, but desisted from the attempt when he found the Primate of Hungary, Peter Pázmány, as well as the Holy See itself, unwilling to accede to his request. When, however, measures were taken, in the reign of Leopold I (1657–1705) to make the royal authority supreme in the domain of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and administration, the title “Apostolic Majesty” came into use. Maria Theresa makes use of the title “Apostolic Queen” for the first time in the letters patent granted to the imperial plenipotentiary sent to the College of Cardinals after the death of Benedict XIV. In the instructions imparted to this ambassador the hope is expressed that the Holy See will not withhold this title in the future from the ruler of Hungary. Pope Clement XIII, on learning of this wish of Maria Theresa, granted this title motu proprio to the queen and her successors, by virtue of the Brief “Carissima in Christo filia,” of 19 August, 1758. The title was thereupon associated with Hungary by an edict of Maria Theresa, which prescribed that the title “Apostolic King of Hungary” should be used for the future in all acts, records, and writings. Since then the King of Hungary has borne this title, which, however, only accrues to him after his coronation, and does not belong to him before that ceremony, nor does it extend to the Queen, or to the heir to the throne, the so-called rex junior, who is crowned in the life-time of the reigning monarch. The rights exercised by the king in respect of the Catholic Church in Hungary are not connected with the title “Apostolic Majesty,” but are exercised in virtue of the supreme royal right of patronage. (See HUNGARY.)

PALMA, Tractatus de titulis et acutis, quibus Maria Theresia ut regina Hungario utitur (Vienna, 1774); KARÁCSONYI, The Records concerning St. Stephen and the Bull of Pope Sylvester (Hungarian—Budapest, 1891); FRAKNÓI, The Patronal Right of the Kings of Hungary from St. Stephen to Maria Theresia (Budapest, 1895); FERDINÁNDY, The Royal Dignity and Authority in Hungary (Budapest, 1896).

A. ALDÁSY

Apostolic See

(sedes apostolica, cathedra apostolica). This is a metaphorical term, used, as happens in all languages, to express the abstract notion of authority by the concrete name of the place in which it is exercised. Such phrases have the double advantage of supplying a convenient sense-image for an idea purely intellectual and of exactly defining the nature of the authority by the addition of a single adjective. An Apostolic see is any see founded by an Apostle and having the authority of its founder; the Apostolic See is the seat of authority in the Roman Church, continuing the Apostolic functions of Peter, the chief of the Apostles. Heresy and barbarian violence swept away all the particular Churches which could lay claim to an Apostolic see, until Rome alone remained; to Rome, therefore, the term applies as a proper name. But before heresy, schism, and barbarian invasions had done their work, as early as the fourth century, the Roman See was already the Apostolic See par excellence, not only in the West but also in the East. Antioch, Alexandria, and, in a lesser degree, Jerusalem were called Apostolic sees by reason of their first occupants, Peter, Mark, and James, from whom they derived their patriarchal honour and jurisdiction; but Rome is the Apostolic See, because its occupant perpetuates the Apostolate of Blessed Peter extending over the whole Church. Hence also the title Apostolicus, formerly applied to bishops and metropolitans, was gradually restricted to the Pope of Rome, the Domnus Apostolicus, who still figures in the Litany of the Saints at the head of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The authoritative acts of the popes, inasmuch as they are the exercise of their Apostolical power, are styled acts of the Holy or Apostolic See. The See is thus personified as the representative of the Prince of the Apostles, as in Pope Leo II’s confirmation of the Sixth General Council (Constantinople, 680–681): “Idcirco et Nos et per nostrum officium haec veneranda Sedes Apostolica his quae definita sunt, consentit, et beati Petri Apostoli auctoritate confirmat.” (Therefore We also and through our office this venerable Apostolic See give assent to the things that have been defined, and confirm them by the authority of the Blessed Apostle Peter.) It is a fact worthy of notice that, in later times, all those who wished to minimize the papal authority, Protestants, Gallicans, etc., used the term Curia (Roman Court) in preference to “Apostolic See,” seeking thus to evade the dogmatic significance of the latter term. The cathedra Petri, the chair of St. Peter, is but another expression for the sedes apostolica, cathedra denoting the chair of the teacher. Hence the limitation of papal infallibility to definitions ex cathedrâ amounts to this: papal definitions can claim inerrancy or infallibility only when pronounced by the pope as the holder of the privileges granted by Christ to Peter, the Rock upon which He built His Church. The same formula conveys the meaning that the pope’s infallibility is not personal, but derived from, and coextensive with, his office of visible Head of the Universal Church, in virute of which he sits in the Chair of Peter as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians. (See INFALLIBILITY.) From ancient times a distinction has been made between the Apostolic See and its actual occupant: between sedes and sedens. The object of the distinction is not to discriminate between the two nor to subordinate one to the other, but rather to set forth their intimate connection. The See is the symbol of the highest papal authority; it is, by its nature, permanent, whereas its occupant holds that authority but for a time and inasmuch as he sits in the Chair of Peter. It further implies that take supreme authority is a supernatural gift, the same in all successive holders, independent of their personal worth, and inseparable from their ex-officio definitions and decisions. The Vatican definition of the pope’s infallibility when speaking ex cathedrâ does not permit of the sense attached to the distinction of sedes and sedens by the Gallicans, who claimed that even in the official use of the authority vested in the See, with explicit declaration of its exercise, the sedens was separate from the sedes.

KENRICK, The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated (Baltimore, 1855); LINDSAY, De Eccelsiâ et Cathedrâ, tr. (London, 1877); ALLIES, The Throne of the Fisherman (London, 1887); MURPHY, The Chair of Peter, 3d ed. (London, 1888); ALLNATT, Cathedra Petri (London, 1883); SCHEEBEN in Kirchenlex., I, 1145; WILHELM AND SCANNELL, A Manual of Catholic Theology (London, 1898).

J. WILHELM

Apostolic Succession

Apostolicity as a note of the true Church being dealt with elsewhere, the object of the present article is to show: (1) That Apostolic succession is found in the Catholic Church. (2) That none of the separate Churches have any valid claim to it. (3) That the Anglican Church, in particular, has broken away from Apostolic unity.

ROMAN CLAIM.—The principle underlying the Roman claim is contained in the idea of succession. “To succeed” is to be the successor of, especially to be the heir of, or to occupy an official position just after, as Victoria succeeded William IV. Now the Roman Pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position, and perform the functions of St. Peter; they are, therefore, his successors. We must prove (a) that St. Peter came to Rome, and ended there his pontificate; (b) that the Bishops of Rome who came after him held his official position in the Church. As soon as the problem of St. Peter’s coming to Rome passed from theologians writing pro domo suâ into the hands of unprejudiced historians, i.e. within the last half century, it received a solution which no scholar now dares to contradict; the researches of German professors like A. Harnack and Weizsaecker, of the Anglican Bishop Lightfoot, and those of archaeologists like De Rossi and Lanciani, of Duchesne and Barnes, have all come to the same conclusion: St. Peter did reside and die in Rome. Beginning with the middle of the second century, there exists a universal consensus as to Peter’s martyrdom in Rome; Dionysius of Corinth speaks for Greece, Irenaeus for Gaul, Clement and Origen for Alexandria, Tertullian for Africa. In the third century the popes claim authority from the fact that they are St. Peter’s successors, and no one objects to this claim, no one raises a counter-claim. No city boasts the tomb of the Apostle but Rome. There he died, there he left his inheritance; the fact is never questioned in the controversies between East and West. This argument, however, has a weak point: it leaves about one hundred years for the formation of historical legends, of which Peter’s presence in Rome may be one just as much as his conflict with Simon Magus. We have then to go farther back into antiquity. About 150 the Roman presbyter Caius offers to show to the heretic Procius the trophies of the Apostles: “If you will got the Vatican, and to the Via Ostiensis, you will find the monuments of those who have founded this Church.” Can Caius and the Romans for whom he speaks have been in error on a point so vital to their Church? Next we come to Papias (c. 138–150). From him we only get a faint indication that he places Peter’s preaching in Rome, for he states that Mark wrote down what Peter preached, and he makes him write in Rome. Weizsaecker himself holds that this inference from Papias has some weight in the cumulative argument we are constructing. Earlier than Papias is Ignatius Martyr (before 117), who, on his way to martyrdom, writes to the Romans: “I do not command you as did Peter and Paul; they were Apostles, I am a disciple,” words which according to Lightfoot have no sense if Ignatius did not believe Peter and Paul to have been preaching in Rome. Earlier still is Clement of Rome writing to the Corinthians, probably in 96, certainly before the end of the first century. He cites Peter’s and Paul’s martyrdom as an example of the sad fruits of fanaticism and envy. They have suffered “amongst us” he says, and Weizsaecker rightly sees here another proof for our thesis. The Gospel of St. John, written about the same time as the letter Clement to the Corinthians, also contains a clear allusion to the martyrdom by crucifixion of St. Peter, without, however, locating it (John, xxi, 18, 19). The very oldest evidence comes from St. Peter himself, if he be the author of the First Epistle of Peter, of if not, from a writer nearly of his own time: “The Church that is in Babylon saluteth you, and so doth my son Mark” (I Peter, v, 13). That Babylon stands for Rome, as usual amongst pious Jews, and not for the real Babylon, then without Christians, is admitted by common consent (cf. F.J.A. Hort, “Judaistic Christianity,” London, 1895, 155). This chain of documentary evidence, having its first link in Scripture itself, and broken nowhere, puts the sojourn of St. Peter in Rome among the best-ascertained facts in history. It is further strengthened by a similar chain of monumental evidence, which Lanciani, the prince of Roman topographers, sums up as follows: “For the archaeologist the presence and execution of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome are facts established beyond a shadow of doubt, by purely monumental evidence!” (Pagan and Christian Rome, 123).

ST. PETER’S SUCCESSORS IN OFFICE.—St. Peter’s successors carried on his office, the importance of which grew with the growth of the Church. In 97 serious dissensions troubled the Church of Corinth. The Roman Bishop, Clement, unbidden, wrote an authoritative letter to restore peace. St. John was still living at Ephesus, yet neither he nor his interfered with Corinth. Before 117 St. Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church as the one which “presides over charity . . . which has never deceived any one, which has taught others.” St. Irenaeus (180–200) states the theory and practice of doctrinal unity as follows: “With this Church [of Rome] because of its more powerful principality, every Church must agree, that is the faithful everywhere, in this [i. e. in communion with the Roman Church] the tradition of the Apostles has ever been preserved by those on every side” (Adv. Haereses, III). The heretic Marcion, the Montanists from Phrygia, Praxeas from Asia, come to Rome to gain the countenance of its bishops; St. Victor, Bishop of Rome, threatens to excommunicate the Asian Churches; St. Stephen refuses to receive St. Cyprian’s deputation, and separates himself from various Churches of the East; Fortunatus and Felix, deposed by Cyprian, have recourse to Rome; Basilides, deposed in Spain, betakes himself to Rome; the presbyters of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, complain of his doctrine to Dionysius, Bishop of Rome; the latter expostulates with him, and he explains. The fact is indisputable: the Bishops of Rome took over Peter’s Chair and Peter’s office of continuing the work of Christ [Duchesne, “The Roman Church before Constantine,” Catholic Univ. Bulletin (October, 1904) X, 429–450]. To be in continuity with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary, for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors. Antioch, once the see and centre of St. Peter’s labours, fell into the hands of Monophysite patriarchs under the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius at the end of the fifth century. The Church of Alexandria in Egypt was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, the mandatory of St. Peter. It flourished exceedingly until the Arian and Monophysite heresies took root among its people and gradually led to its extinction. The shortest-lived Apostolic Church is that of Jerusalem. In 130 the Holy City was destroyed by Hadrian, and a new town, Ælia Capitolina, erected on its site. The new Church of Ælia Capitolina was subjected to Caesarea; the very name of Jerusalem fell out of use till after the Council of Nice (325). The Greek Schism now claims its allegiance. Whatever of Apostolicity remains in these Churches founded by the Apostles is owing to the fact that Rome picked up the broken succession and linked anew to the See of Peter. The Greek Church, embracing all the Eastern Churches involved in the schism of Photius and Michael Caerularius, and the Russian Church can lay no claim to Apostolic succession either direct or indirect, i.e. through Rome, because they are, by their own fact and will, separated from the Roman Communion. During the four hundred and sixty-four between the accession of Constantine (323) and the Seventh General Council (787), the whole or part of the Eastern episcopate lived in schism for no less than two hundred and three years: namely from the Council of Sardica (343) to St. John Chrysostom (389), 55 years; owing to Chrysostom’s condemnation (404–415), 11 years; owing to Acadius and the edict (484–519), 35 years; total, 203 years (Duchesne). They do, however, claim doctrinal connection with the Apostles, sufficient to their mind to stamp them with the mark of Apostolicity.

THE ANGLICAN CONTINUITY CLAIM.—The continuity claim is brought forward by all sects, a fact showing how essential a note of the true Church Apostolicity is. The Anglican High-Church party asserts its continuity with the pre-Reformation Church in England, and through it with the Catholic Church of Christ. “At the Reformation we but washed our face” is a favourite Anglican saying; we have to show that in reality they washed off their head, and have been a truncated Church ever since. Etymologically, “to continue” means “to hold together.” Continuity, therefore, denotes a successive existence without constitutional change, an advance in time of a thing in itself steady. Steady, not stationary, for the nature of a thing may be to grow, to develop on constitutional lines, thus constantly changing yet always the selfsame. This applies to all organisms starting from a germ, to all organizations starting from a few constitutional principles; it also applies to religious belief, which as Newman says, changes in order to remain the same. On the other hand, we speak of a “breach of continuity” whenever a constitutional change takes place. A Church enjoys continuity when it develops along the lines of its original constitution; it changes when it alters its constitution either social or doctrinal. But what is the constitution of the Church of Christ? The answer is as varied as the sects calling themselves Christian. Being persuaded that continuity with Christ is essential to their legitimate status, they have devised theories of the essentials of Christianity, and of a Christian Church, exactly suiting their own denomination. Most of the repudiatae Apostolic succession as a mark of the true Church; they glory in their separation. Our present controversy is not with such, but with the Anglicans who do pretend to continuity. We have points of contact only with the High-Churchmen, whose leanings toward antiquity and Catholicism place them midway between the Catholic and the Protestant pure and simple.

ENGLAND AND ROME.—Of all the Churches now separated from Rome, none has a more distinctly Roman origin than the Church of England. It has often been claimed that St. Paul, or some other Apostle, evangelized the Britons. It is certain, however, that whenever Welsh annals mention the introduction of Christianity into the island, invariably they conduct the reader to Rome. In the “Liber Pontificalis” (ed. Duchesne, I, 136) we read that “Pope Eleutherius received a letter from Lucius, King of Britain, that he might be made a Christian by his orders.” The incident is told again and again by the Venerable Bede; it is found in the Book of Llandaff, as well as in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; it is accepted by French, Swiss, German chroniclers, together with the home authorities Fabius, Henry of Huntingdon, William of Malmesbury, and Giraldus Cambrensis. The Saxon invasion swept the British Church out of existence wherever it penetrated, and drove the British Christians to the western borders of the island, or across the sea into Armorica, now French Brittany. No attempt at converting their conquerors was ever made by the conquered. Rome once more stepped in. The missionaries sent by Gregory the Great converted and baptized King Ethelbert of Kent, with thousands of his subjects. In 597 Augustine was made Primate over all England, and his successors, down to the Reformation, have ever received from Rome the pallium, the symbol of super-episcopal authority. The Anglo-Saxon hierarchy was thoroughly Roman in its origin, in its faith and practice, in its obedience and affection; witness every page in Bede’s “Ecclesiastical History.” A like Roman spirit animated the nation. Among the saints recognized by the Church are twenty-three kings and sixty queens, princes, or princesses of the different Anglo-Saxon dynasties, reckoned from the seventh to the eleventh century. Ten of the Saxon kings made the journey to the tomb of St. Peter, and his successor, in Rome. Anglo-Saxon pilgrims formed quite a colony in proximity to the Vatican, where the local topography (Borgo, Sassia, Vicus Saxonum) still recalls their memory. There was an English school in Rome, founded by King Ine of Wessex and Pope Gregory II (715–731), and supported by the Romescot, or Peter’s-pence, paid yearly by every Wessex family. The Romescot was made obligatory by Edward the Confessor, on every monastery and household in possession of land or cattle to the yearly value of thirty pence.

The Norman Conquest (1066) wrought no change in the religion of England. St. Anselm of Canterbury (1093–1109) testified to the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff in his writings (in Matthew 16) and by his acts. When pressed to surrender his right of appeal to Rome, he answered the king in court: “You wish me to swear never, on any account, to appeal in England to Blessed Peter or his Vicar; this, I say, ought not to be commanded by you, who are a Christian, for to swear this is to abjure Blessed Peter; he who abjures Blessed Peter undoubtedly abjures Christ, who made him Prince over his Church.” St. Thomas Becket shed his blood in defence of the liberties of the Church against the encroachments of the Norman king (1170). Grosseteste, in the thirteenth century, writes more forcibly on the Pope’s authority over the whole Church than any other ancient English bishop, although he resisted an ill-advised appointment to a canonry made by the Pope. In the fourteen century Duns Scotus teaches at Oxford “that they are excommunicated as heretics who teach or hold anything different from what the Roman Church holds or teaches.” In 1411 the English bishops at the Synod of London condemn Wycliffe’s proposition “that it is not of necessity to salvation to hold that the Roman Church is supreme among the Churches.” In 1535 Blessed John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, is put to death for upholding against Henry VIII the Pope’s supremacy over the English Church. The most striking piece of evidence is the working of the oath taken by archbishops before entering into office: “I, Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, from this hour forward, will be faithful and obedient to St. Peter, to the Holy Apostolic Roman Church, to my Lord Pope Celestine, and his successors canonically succeeding . . . I will, saving my order, give aid to defend and to maintain against every man the primacy of the Roman Church and the royalty of St. Peter. I will visit the threshold of the Apostles every three years, either in person or by my deputy, unless I be absolved by apostolic dispensation . . . So help me God and these holy Gospels.” (Wilkins, Concilia Angliae, II, 199). Chief Justice Bracton (1260) lays down the civil law of this country thus: “It is to be noted concerning the jurisdiction of superior and inferior courts, that in the first place as the Lord Pope has ordinary jurisdiction over all in spirituals, so the king has, in the realm, in temporals.” The line of demarcation between things spiritual and temporal is in many cases blurred and uncertain; the two powers often overlap, and conflicts are unavoidable. During five hundred years such conflicts were frequent. Their very recurrence, however, proves that England acknowledged the papal supremacy, for it requires two to make a quarrel. The complaint of one side was always that the other encroached upon its rights. Henry VIII himself, in 1533, still pleaded in the Roman Courts for a divorce. Had he succeeded, the supremacy of the Pope would not have found a more strenuous defender. It was only after his failure that he questioned the authority of the tribunal to which he had himself appealed. In 1534 he was, by Act of Parliament, made the Supreme Head of the English Church. The bishops, instead of swearing allegiance to the Pope, now swore allegiance to the King, without any saving clause. Blessed John Fisher was the only bishop who refused to take the new oath; his martyrdom is the first witness to the breach of continuity between the old English and the new Anglican Church. Heresy stepped in to widen the breach.

The Thirty-nine Articles teach the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone, deny purgatory, reduce the seven sacraments to two, insist on the fallibility of the Church, establish the king’s supremacy, and deny the pope’s jurisdiction in England. Mass was abolished, and the Real Presence; the form of ordination was so altered to suit the new views on the priesthood that it became ineffective, and the succession of priests failed as well as the succession of bishops. (See ANGLICAN ORDERS.) Is it possible to imagine that the framers of such vital alternations thought of “continuing” the existing Church? When the hierarchical framework is destroyed, when the doctrinal foundation is removed, when every stone of the edifice is freely rearranged to suit individual tastes, then there is no continuity, but collapse. The old façade of Battle Abbey still stands, also parts of the outer wall, and one faces a stately, newish, comfortable mansion; green lawns and shrubs hide old foundations of church and cloisters; the monks’ scriptorium and storerooms still stand to sadden the visitor’s mood. Of the abbey of 1538, the abbey of 1906 only keeps the mask, the diminished sculptures and the stones—a fitting image of the old Church and the new.

PRESENT STAGE.—Dr. James Gairdner, whose “History of the English Church in the 16th Century” lays bare the essentially Protestant spirit of the English Reformation, in a letter on “Continuity” (reproduced in the Tablet, 20 January, 1906), shifts the controversy from historical to doctrinal ground. “If the country,” he says, “still contained a community of Christians—that is to say, of real believers in the great gospel of salvation, men who still accepted the old creeds, and had no doubt Christ died to save them—then the Church of England remained the same as before. The old system was preserved, in fact all that was really essential to it, and as regards doctrine nothing was taken away except some doubtful scholastic propositions.” (See APOSTOLICITY; PETER, SAINT; ANTIOCH; ALEXANDRIA; GREEK CHURCH; ANGLICANISM; ANGLICAN ORDERS.)

SEMERIA, Dogma, gerarchia e culto nello chiesa primitiva (Rome, 1902, 2d ed., 1906; tr. London, 1906); GRISAR, Geschichte Roms und der Päpste im Mittelalter (Freiburg, 1901); DUCHESNE, Eglises séparées (2d ed., Paris, 1905); LINGARD, Hist. and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church (1st ed., London, 1845; reprint, ibid. 1899); ANDERDON, Britain’s Early Faith (London, 1888); MACKINLAY, The Alcester Lectures: Continuity or Collapse (12th ed., London, 1906); MOYES, Aspects of Anglicanism; and answer to Gairdner, Letter on Continuity (London, 1906).

J. WILHELM

Apostolic Union of Secular Priests

An association of secular priests who observe a simple rule embodying the common duties of their state, afford mutual assistance in the functions of the ministry, and keep themselves in the spirit of their holy vocation by spiritual conferences. Its object is the sanctification of the secular clergy in their missionary lives among the people. Its spirit is a personal love for Jesus Christ. It was established in the seventeenth century by the Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser, and was revived and reorganized in France about forty years ago (from 1913) by Canon Lebeurier, who in 1913 remained its president-general. One of the first acts of Pius X, 20 December, 1903, was to take the the Union under his special protection, whilst increasing its indulgences and spiritual favours. The Brief of the Holy Father (Acta S. Sed., XXXVI, 594) recites the establishment of the Union in 1862, and its spread to a great number of dioceses throughout the Christian world, in France, Belgium, Austria, Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, United States, Canada, South American, Australia, and parts of Asia. The Holy Father proclaims the fact that he was a member of it, and had experienced its utility and excellence, and admits the advantages derived from it, eleven after his elevation to the episcopate. The brief goes on to summarize its organization. Proposing as it does to all its associates a uniform rule of life, monthly reunions and spiritual conferences, and the submission of a bulletin regularly to the superior, it strengthens union among the clergy and unites by a bond of spiritual fraternity priests who are scattered far apart. The dangers of solitude are removed, and there is a concentrated effort on the part of all to attain the common end. Each priest under these conditions devotes himself to the well-being and perfection of all, and, though prevented by the cares of his ministry from enjoying the advantages of living in community, he does not feel that he is deprived of the benefits of the religious family; nor are the counsels and assistance of his brothers wanting. The brief then recites the approval of the institute by Leo XIII in Apostolic letters of 31 May, 1880, and again in 1887, when he gave it as a cardinal-protector the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, Monsignor Lucido Parrocchi. Then follows a recital of the indulgences and special privileges granted to the priests who are members. These may be found in Beringer, ed. 1905, II, 450.

The means by which the ends proposed are attained are as follows:

The rule is the bond of this society, and its vital principle; insisting on the fact that the priest ought to study, love, and imitate Jesus Christ, it maps out the life of the priests of the Apostolic Union, indicating to them the spiritual exercises and the ecclesiastical study for each day, each week, each month, each year, and counsels with regard to the holy ministry.

The monthly bulletin, which is a kind of examination on the principal exercises in the rule of life. It is so arranged that the member can indicate every day his performance of the duty imposed. There is a code of signs employed for this purpose. The bulletin is sent monthly to the diocesan superior, who returns it with his comments. This monthly bulletin, marked carefully each day and examined by the superior, assures regularity, maintains fervour, guards against failures and diminishes faults; it establishes the spirit of order, self-denial, obedience and humility and secures the benefits of spiritual direction.

Reunions are more or less frequent according to circumstances. Where the associates are numerous, they are divided into groups, each of which has its reunion at a central point. It is quite a common practice for the members to make a monthly retreat in common. They also assemble, wherever circumstances permit, once a year to make a retreat of at least five days.

The works of zeal supported by the associates are the recruiting of the clergy and the nurture of ecclesiastical vocations.

The common life. The Apostolic Union favours the practice of the clergy of the same parish living in common wherever this can be advantageously done. The associates recite daily a prayer to which is attached a special indulgence.

Organization. The different diocesan organizations canonically erected are united under a president-general, who has over him a cardinal-protector. The common bond is simply the adoption of the general rule of the Union. Each diocesan association chooses its superior, and the associates are bound to the superior by the practice of the monthly bulletin.

There is an organ, “Etudes Ecclesiastiques,” which is a monthly review dedicated to the interests of parochial clergy.

BÉRINGER, Rescr. authent. s. Congreg. indulg., etc. (1905); Etudes ecclésiastiques; The Apostolic Union of Secular Priests adapted to the United States (New York).

JOSEPH H. MCMAHON

Apostolicae Curae

An English translation of Apostolicae Curae is available here.

A Bull of Leo XIII issued 15 September, 1896, and containing the latest papal decision with regard to the validity of Anglican orders. Decisions had already been given that such orders are invalid. The invariable practice also of the Catholic Church supposed their invalidity, since, whenever clergymen who had received orders in the Anglican Church became converts, and desired to become priests in the Catholic Church, they have been unconditionally ordained. In recent years, however, several members of the clergy and laity of the Anglican Church set forth the plea that the practice of the Catholic Church in insisting on unconditionally ordaining clerical converts from Anglicanism arose from want of due inquiry into the validity of Anglican orders, and from mistaken assumptions which, in the light of certain historical investigations, could not justly be maintained. Those, especially, who were interested in the movement that looked towards Corporate Reunion thought that, as a condition to such reunion, Anglican orders should be accepted as valid by the Catholic Church. A few Catholic writers, also, thinking that there was at least room for doubt, joined with them in seeking a fresh inquiry into the question and an authoritative judgment from the Pope. The Pope therefore permitted the question to be re-examined. He commissioned a number of men, whose opinions on the matter were known to be divergent, to state, each, the ground of his judgment, in writing. He then summoned them to Rome, directed them to interchange writings, and, placing at their disposal all the documents available, directed them to further investigate and discuss it. Thus prepared, he ordered them to meet in special sessions under the presidency of a cardinal appointed by him. Twelve such sessions were held, in which “all were invited to free discussion.” He then directed that the acts of those sessions, together with all the documents, should be submitted to a council of cardinals, “so that when all had studied the whole subject and discussed it in Our presence each might give his opinion.” The final result was the Bull “Apostolicae Curae,” in which Anglican orders were declared to be invalid. As the Bull itself explains at length, its decision rests on extrinsic and on intrinsic grounds.

1. The extrinsic grounds are to be found in the fact of the implicit approval of the Holy See given to the constant practice of unconditionally ordaining convert clergymen from the Anglican Church who desired to become priests, and in the explicit declarations of the Holy See as to the invalidity of Anglican orders on every occasion when its decision was evoked. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, to attempt to confer orders a second time on the same person would be a sacrilege; hence, the Church, by knowingly allowing the practice of ordaining convert clergymen, supposed that their orders were invalid. The Bull points out that orders received in the Church of England, according to the change introduced into the Ritual under Edward VI, were disowned as invalid by the Catholic Church, not through a custom grown up gradually, but from the date of that change in the Ritual. Thus, when a movement was made towards a reconciliation of the Anglican Church to the Holy See in the reign of Queen Mary (1553–58), Pope Julius III sent Cardinal Pole as Legate to England, with faculties to meet the case. Those faculties were “certainly not intended to deal with an abstract state of things, but with a specific and concrete issue.” They were directed towards providing for holy orders in England “as the recognized condition of the circumstances and the times demanded.” The faculties given to Cardinal Pole (8 March, 1554) distinguished two classes of men: “the first, those who had really received sacred orders, either before the secession of Henry VIII, or, if after it and by ministers infected by error and schism, still according to the accustomed Catholic Rite; the second, those who were initiated according to the Edwardine Ordinal, who on that account could be promoted, since they had received an ordination that was null.” The mind of Julius III appears also from the letter (29 January, 1555) by which Cardinal Pole sub-delegated his faculties to the Bishop of Norwich. To the same effect is a Bull issued by Paul IV, 20 June, 1555, and a Brief dated 30 October, 1555. The “Apostolicae Curae” cites also, amongst other cases, that of John Clement Gordon who had received Orders according to the Edwardine Ritual. Clement XI issued a Decree on 17 April, 1704, that he should be ordained unconditionally, and he grounds his decision on the “defect of form and intention.”

2. The intrinsic reason for which Anglican Orders are pronounced invalid by the Bull, is the “defect of form and intention.” It sets forth that “the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify.” The rite used in administering a sacrament must be directed to the meaning of that sacrament; else there would be no reason why the rite used in one sacrament may not effect another. What effects a sacrament is the intention of administering that sacrament, and the rite used according to that intention. The Bull takes note of the fact that in 1662 the form introduced in the Edwardine Ordinal of 1552 had added to it the words: “for the office and work of a priest,” etc. But it observes that this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal; and, moreover, as the hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.

The same holds good of episcopal consecration. The episcopate undoubtedly by the institution of Christ most truly belongs to the Sacrament of Orders and constitutes the priesthood in the highest degree. So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Orders and the true priesthood of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the priesthood is in nowise conferred truly and validly in the episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the episcopate can in nowise be truly and validly conferred by it; and this the more so because among the first duties of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and Sacrifice.

The Pope goes on to state how the Anglican Ordinal had been adapted to the errors of the Reformers, so that thus vitiated it could not be used to confer valid orders, nor could it later be purged of this original defect, chiefly because the words used in it had a meaning entirely different from what would be required to confer the Sacrament. The force of this argument, which is clear to Anglicans themselves, may be applied also to the prayer “Almighty God, Giver of all good things” at the beginning of the rite. Not only is the proper form for the sacrament lacking in the Anglican Ordinal; the intention is also lacking. Although the Church does not judge what is in the mind of the minister, she must pass judgment on what appears in the external rite. Now to confer a sacrament one must have the intention of doing what the Church intends. If a rite be so changed that it is no longer acknowledged by the Church as valid, it is clear that it cannot be administered with the proper intention. He concludes by explaining how carefully and how prudently this matter has been examined by the Apostolic See, how those who examined it with him were agreed that the question had already been settled, but that it might be reconsidered and decided in the light of the latest controversies over the question. He then declares that ordinations conducted with the Anglican rite are null and void, and implores those who are not of the Church and who seek orders to return to the one sheepfold of Christ, where they will find the true aids for salvation. He also invites those who are the ministers of religion in their various congregations to be reconciled to the Church, assuring them of his sympathy in their spiritual struggles, and of the joy of all the faithful when so earnest and so disinterested men as they are embrace the faith. The Bull concludes with the usual declaration of the authority of this Apostolic letter. (See ANGLICAN ORDERS).

For the text of the Bull, see Acta Sanctae Sedis (Rome, 1896), XXX, 193–203; Answer of the Archbishops of England to the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII on English Ordinations (London, 1897); A Vindication of the Bull “Apostolicae Curae,” by the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Province of Westminster, In Reply to the Letter of the Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York (London, 1898); SEMPLE, Anglican Ordinations (New York, 1906).

M. O’RIORDAN

Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi

A Bull of Pius IX (1846–78) which regulates anew the system of censures and reservations in the Catholic church. It was issued 12 October, 1869, and is practically the present penal code of the Catholic Church. Although its Founder is divine, the Church is composed of members who are human, with human passions and weaknesses. Hence the need of laws for their direction, and of legal penalties for their correction. In the course of centuries these penal statutes accumulated to an enormous extent, some confirming, some modifying, some abrogating others which had been already made. They were simplified by the Council of Trent (1545–63). But afterwards new laws had to be enacted, some had to be altered, and some abrogated as before. Thus these penal statutes became again numerous and complicated, and a cause of confusion to canonists, of perplexity to moralists, and often a source of hesitation to the faithful. Pius IX, therefore, simplified them again for the three hundred years of accumulation, by the Bull “Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi.” In quoting the more solemn papal decrees, the practice is to entitle them from their initial words. (See BULLS AND BRIEFS.) The words of this title are the first words of the document. The best general description that can be given of this legislation is an extract from itself. The following translation of the introductory passages of the bull is not quite literal, but it is faithful to the sense of the document:

“It is according to the spirit of the Apostolic See to so regulate whatever has been decreed by the ancient canons fo the salutory discipline of the faithful, as to make provision by its supreme authority for their needs according to altered times and circumstances. We have for a long time considered the Ecclesiastical Censures, which, per modum latae sententiae ipsoque facto incurrendae, for the security and discipline of the Church, and for the restraint and correction of license in the wicked, were wisely decreed and promulgated, have from age to age gradually and greatly multiplied, so that some, owing to altered times and customs, have even ceased to serve the end or answer the occasion for which they were imposed; while doubts, anxieties and scruples, have for that reason not infrequently troubled the consciences of those who have the cure of souls and of the faithful generally. In Our desire to meet those difficulties, We ordered a thorough revision of those censures to be made and laced before Us, in order that, on mature consideration, We might determine those of them which ought to be retained and observed, and those which it would be well to altere or abrogate. Such revision having been made, having taken counsel with Our Venerable Brothers the Cardinals General Inquisitors in matters of faith for the Universal Church, and after a long and careful consideration, We, of Our own accord, with full knowledge, materue deliberation, and in the fullness of Our Apostolic power, decree by this permanent Constitution that of all Censures, either of Excommunication, Supervision, or Interdict, of any kind soever, which per modum latae sententiae ipsoque facto incurrendae have been hitherto imposed, those only which We insert in this Constitution and in that manner in which We insert, them are to be in force in the future; and We also declare that these have their force, not merely from the authority of the ancient canons coinciding with this Our Constitution, but also derive their force altogether from this Our Constitution, just as if they had been for the first time published in it.”

According to those introductory passages, the Bull “Apostolicae Sedis” left all canonical penalties and impediments (deposition, degradation, deprivation of benefice, irregularity, etc.) as they were before, except those with which it expressly deals. And it deals expressly with those penalties only, the direct purpose of which is the reformation rather than the punishment of the person on whom they are inflicted, namely, censures (excommunication, suspension, and interdict). Moreover, it deals only with a certain class of censures. For clearness it is well to observe that a censure may be so attached to the violation of a law that the law-breaker incurs the censure in the very act of breaking the law, and a censure, as decreed binds at once the conscience of the law-breaker without the process of a trial, or the formality of a judicial sentence. In other words, the law has already pronounced sentence the moment the person who breaks the law has completed the facto of consciously breaking it; for which reason, censures thus decreed are said to be decreed per modum latae sententiae ipsoque facto incurrendae, i.e. censures of sentence pronounced and incurred by the act of breaking the law. But, on the other hand, a censure may be so attached to the breaking of a law that the law-breaker does not incur the censure until, after a legal process, it is formally imposed by a judicial sentence, for which reason censures thus decreed are called ferendae sententiae, i.e. censures of sentence to be pronounced. Censures of this latter kind were left out by this Bull, and remain just as they were before, together with those penalties above referred to, the direct purpose of which is punishment. The Bull “Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi” deals, therefore, exclusively with censures latae sententiae. Now, how has it altered or abrogated them? It abrogated all except those expressly inserted in it. Those which are inserted in it, whether old ones revived or retained, or new ones enacted, bind throughout the Catholic Church, all customs of any kind to the contrary notwithstanding, because this Bull became the source of the binding power of all and each of them, even of such as might have gone into disuse anywhere or everywhere. The censures retained are inserted in the Bull in two ways: First it makes of list of a certain number of them; Second, it inserts in a general way all those which the Council of Trent either newly enacted, or s adopted from older canons as to m make them its own; not those, therefore, which the Council of Trent merely confirmed, or simply adopted from older canons. We have so far determined those censures which are in force throughout the Bull “Apostolicae Sedis,” and which may be taken as the common law of the Church in that sphere of its legislation. But one who has incurred a censure can be freed from it only through absolution by competent jurisdiction. Although a censure is merely a medicinal penalty, the chief purpose of which is the reformation of the person who has incurred it, het it does not cease of itself merely by one’s reformation. It has to be taken away by the power that inflicts it. It remains, therefore, to consider briefly those of the the Bull “Apostolicae Sedis” with respect toe the power by which one may be absolved from any of them. They are classified in that respect by Pius IX in the Bull itself. Any priest who has jurisdiction to absolve from sin can also absolve from censures, unless a censure by reserved, as a sin might be reserved; and some of the censures named in the Bull “Apostolicae Sedis” are not reserved. It may be well to observe here that the absolution from sin and absolution from censure are acts of jurisdiction in different tribunals; the former belongs to jurisdiction in foro interna, i.e. in the Sacrament of Penance; the latter belongs to jurisdiction inforo externo, i.e. without and outside the Sacrament of Penance. Some censures of the “Apostolicae Sedis” are reserved to bishops; so that bishops, within their own jurisdiction, or one specially delegated by tm, can absolve from censures so reserved. Some are reserved to the Pope, so that not even a bishop can absolve from these without a delegation from the Pope. Finally, the Bull “Apostolicae Sedis” gives a list of twelve censures which are reserved in a special manner (speciali modo) to the Pope; so that to absolve from any of these, even a bishop requires a special delegation, in which these are specifically named. These twelve censures, except the one numbered X, were taken from the Bull “In Coena Domini” (so called because from 1364 to 1770 it was annually published at Rome, and since 1567 elsewhere on Holy Thursday ceased to be, except as an historical document. Of these eleven canonical offences, five refer to attacks on the foundation of the Church; that is, on its faith and constitution. Three refer to attacks on the power of the Church and on the free exercise of that power. The other three refer to attacks on the spiritual or temporal treasures of the Church. A few censures have been enacted since the Bull “Apostolicae Sedis” was published. These are usually mentioned and interpreted in the published commentaries on that Bull. The commentary by Avanzini and Pennacchi (Rome, 1883), the learned editors of the “Acta Sanctae Sedis,” is the most complete. That issued (Prato, 1894) by the late Cardinal D’Annibale, however, if of all others to be recommended for conciseness and accuracy combined.

(See CENSURE, EXCOMMUNICATION, INTERDICT, SUSPENSION.)

The text is found in Acta Pii IX (Rome, 1871), I, V, 55–72; and frequently in manuals of Moral Theology and Canon Law.

M. O’RIORDAN

Apostolicæ Servitutis

A Bull issued by Benedict XIV, 23 February, 1741, against secular pursuits on the part of the clergy. In spite of many prohibitive laws of the Church some ecclesiastics had drifted into the habit of occupying themselves with worldly business and pursuits. The object of this papal prohibition was to check that abuse among the clergy. It recalls, therefore, and confirms the statutes made by former Popes against such abuses, and also extends them to such ecclesiastics as might, in order to evade the penalties attached, engage in worldly pursuits under the name of lay persons. It prohibits ecclesiastics from continuing business affairs begun by lay persons unless in case of necessity, and then with the permission only of the Sacred Congregation of the Council within Italy, and with the permission of the Diocesan Ordinary outside of Italy.

Bullarium Bened. XIV (Prato, 1844), I, 36–38; ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dict. de droit Canonique, 3d ed. (Paris, 1901), s. v. Négoce; LAURENTIUS, Instit. Juris Eccl. (Freiburg, 1903), 93; SÄGMÜLLER, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1900), 199; VON SCHERER, Handbuch d. Kirchenrechts (1886), I, 377; DOLHAGARY, Le commerce des clercs in Rev. des sciences eccl. (Nov., 1898; July, 1899).

M. O’RIORDAN

Apostolici

The name of four different heretical bodies.

I. Heretics of the third century

The sect of the Encratites, which sprang up in the second century in Syria and Asia Minor, with principles borrowed from Tatian or Marcion, practised an excessive asceticism which exaggerated Christian morality and distorted the teaching of the Church. By the third century they had split into groups of Apostolici, Apotactici, and Hydroparastates or Aquarians, names taken from their customs or tenets. The Apostolici so styled themselves because they claimed to lead the life of the Apostles and to be derived from them. Hence they proscribed marriage and property-holding as evil things, admitting into their body no married men or property owners. They lapsed into Novatianism, and finally became Manichæans. Their names and leaders are not known.

II. Heretics of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries

The sect of the Apostolics, or false Apostles, was started in 1260, at Parma, Italy, by an ignorant man of low extraction named Gerard Segarelli (also written Segalelli, Sagarelli, Cicarelli), who strove to reproduce the life of the Apostles. He adopted a white cloak and grey robe, let his beard and hair grow, and wore the sandals and cord of the Franciscans. He sold his house, gave away the price he received, and traversed the streets preaching penance and Apostolic poverty. He had followers to such an extent that in 1287 the Council of Würzburg forbade them to continue their mode of life and prohibited the faithful from aiding them. Segarelli remained at Parma, was in prison for awhile, and then in the bishop’s palace, where he was regarded as an object of amusement. The sect increased, and Honorius IV (11 March, 1286) and Nicholas IV (1290) condemned it. Segarelli was again imprisoned in 1294, escaped, was retaken, abjured his errors, but relapsed, and the secular authorities burned him at Parma, 18 July, 1300. Dulcin, a bold, mediocre, and unscrupulous man, assumed control of the false Apostles, issued manifestos, and finally collecting his partisans withdrew with them to the mountains of Vercelli and Novara, until 1306, when Clement V organized a crusade against him. He was captured, his body broken and delivered to the flames, and his disciples crushed. Some of the sect appeared, however, in Spain, 1315; John XXII took measures against them in 1318, and they are mentioned by the Council of Narbonne, 1374. Their characteristic from the start was a declaration of a return to the life, and especially the poverty, of the Apostles. Honorius IV and Nicholas IV charged them with violating a decree of the Second Œcumenical Council of Lyons in founding a new mendicant order and with heretical teaching. Dulcin’s tenets were: the imitation of Apostolic life; poverty was to be absolute, obedience, interior; and one engaged himself, though by no vow, to live by alms. Dulcin also taught that the course of humanity is marked by four periods:

that of the Old Testament;

that of Jesus Christ and the Apostles;

that beginning with Popes Sylvester and Constantine, in which the Church declined through ambition and love of riches;

the era of Segarelli and Dulcin, to the end of the world.

He uttered several false prophecies and professed liberty of thought. Free morals have been imputed to this sect by the Franciscan Salimbene (Chronica, 117) and Bernard Gui (Practica inquisitionis hereticæ pravitatis, 339), but the papal bulls are silent on this head.

III. The New Apostolici of the Twelfth Century

The new apostolici of the twelfth century, chiefly in the vicinity of Cologne, and at Périgueux, in France, permitted no marriage, forbade the use of flesh meat, because it and similar products were the result of sexual intercourse; they explained that sinners (i. e. all who did not belong to their sect, in which alone was to be found the true Church) could neither receive nor administer the sacraments. In consequence they set aside the Catholic priesthood and gave each member of the sect the power to consecrate at his daily mealtime and so to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. They rejected infant baptism, veneration of the saints, prayers for the dead, purgatory, and disdained the use of oaths, because all this was not found in the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. Their external conduct was blameless, but notwithstanding their reputation for chastity, their community life with women was a clear proof of their deceptive and dangerous character. Meanwhile the people had come to know their character and the public aversion and disgust constantly increased, particularly in the vicinity of Cologne, where two members after being given three days for consideration were burned alive. St. Bernard in his sermon calls on civil authority to take regular procedure against them.

IV. Apostolici

A branch of the Anabaptists, which practised poverty, interpreted Scripture literally, and declared the washing of feet necessary, from which they were called also Pedonites.

VERNET in Dict. théol. cath., s. v.; LIMBACH, Hist. Inquisit. (Amsterdam, 1672), 338–339, 360–363; EPIPHANIUS, Hœr., LXI, in P. G., XLI, 1040 sqq.; AUGUSTINE, Hœr., XL, in P. L., XLII, 32; BRAUN in Kirchenlex., I, s. v.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET.

Apostolici Ministerii

A Bull issued 23 May, 1724, by Innocent XIII, for the revival of ecclesiastical discipline in Spain. The Primate and King Philip of Spain had reported to the Pope that the disciplinary laws of the Council of Trent were gradually falling into disuse. The Pope submitted the matter to the Sacred Congregation of the Council, and with its advice issued the above-mentioned Bull. It lays down rules for the secular and for the regular clergy of Spain, of which the following are the leading points:

(a) Tonsure is in no case to be conferred unless to meet the demands of religion, and in each case the cleric must be assigned to some church.

(b) Seminarists, lest their studies be interfered with, are to attend the Cathedral on festival days only.

(c) All candidates for holy orders must undergo an examination and show adequate knowledge.

(d) The benefice or the title for which one is ordained must be sufficient for his decent support, and benefices of uncertain revenue are to be suppressed.

(e) Those who have the cure of souls must regularly instruct the faithful under their care, and in any cases where through past laxity of discipline they are not fit to do it themselves, must at their own expense have it done by others who are capable.

(f) Parishes which are so extensive that the parishioners cannot regularly attend Mass are to be divided, according to the discretion of the bishop, irrespective of the will of the parish priest; or at least, a second church must be built for their convenience within the parish.

(g) In view of evils which have arisen, the number of persons who receive the habit in religious orders must never be greater than the revenues of the community are capable of supporting.

(h) It shall belong to the exclusive competence of the bishops to provide ordinary and extraordinary confessors for nuns.

(i) Bishops are to see that the ritual and rubrics are carefully observed. They must also correct such abuses as have crept in with regard to the clergy, secular or regular, celebrating Mass in private oratories, in the cells of monasteries, or on portable altars; they must not themselves celebrate Mass in any private chapel except in the chapel of the episcopal residence.

Rules are furthermore laid down in the Bull, according to which they are to conduct both criminal and civil causes.

Bullarium Magnum (ed. Luxemburg), 1740, part VII, XIII, 60–65; Collección de los Concordatos (Madrid, 1848), 60–65; HERGENRÖTHER, Archiv. f. kath. Kirchenrecht (1863–65), X-XIII, passim.

M. O’RIORDAN

Apostolici Regiminis

A Bull issued 19 December, 1513, by Leo X, in defence of the Catholic doctrine concerning the immortality of the soul. Its object was to condemn a two-fold doctrine then infecting many minds: That the soul of man is of its nature mortal, and that it is one and the same soul which animates all men. Others, prescinding from the teaching of revelation, held that doctrine to be true according to natural reason and philosophy. Leo X condemned the doctrine in itself and from every point of view. He refers to the definition of the Council of Vienne (1311) published by Clement V (1305–14) which taught that the soul is “really, of itself, and essentially, the form of the body” [Hefele-Knöpfler, “Conciliengeschichte,” VI, 536–542; Denzinger-Stahl, “Enchiridion Symb. et Definit.,” 9th ed. (Freiburg, 1899) 136–137], and then declares that it is of its own nature immortal, and that each body has a soul of its own. This doctrine is clear from those words of the Gospel, “But he cannot kill the soul,” and “he who hates his soul in this world preserves it for eternal life.” Moreover, if the condemned doctrine were true, the Incarnation would have been useless, and we should not need the Resurrection; and those who are the most holy would be the most wretched of all. The Bull enjoins on all professors of philosophy in universities to expound for their pupils the true doctrine and refute the false one. To prevent such errors in future, the Bull makes it obligatory on all ecclesiastics, secular and regular, in holy orders, who devote their time to the study of philosophy and poetry for five years after the study of grammar and dialectic, to study also theology or canon law.

Bullarium Romanum (Turin ed.) V, 601, RAYNALDUS, Ann. eccl. ad an. 1513, No. 91; DENZINGER-STAHL, Enchiridion Symb. et definit. (Freiburg, 1899) 173–174; HERGENRÖTHER, Leonis XIII Regesta (Freiburg, 1884) I, 369, No. 5838; BURCKHARDT, The Renaissance in Italy (London, 1890) 541–550.

M. O’RIORDAN

Apostolicity

Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. It is of great importance because it is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Catholicity. Either the word “Christian” or “Apostolic,” might be used to express the identity between the Church of today and the primitive Church. The term “Apostolic” is preferred because it indicates a correlation between Christ and the Apostles, showing the relation of the Church both to Christ, the founder, and to the Apostles, upon whom He founded it. “Apostle” is one sent, sent by authority of Jesus Christ to continue His Mission upon earth, especially a member of the original band of teachers known as the Twelve Apostles. Therefore the Church is called Apostolic, because it was founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. Apostolicity of doctrine and mission is necessary. Apostolicity of doctrine requires that the deposit of faith committed to the Apostles shall remain unchanged. Since the Church is infallible in its teaching (see INFALLIBILITY), it follows that if the Church of Christ still exists it must be teaching His doctrine. Hence Apostolicity of mission is a guarantee of Apostolicity of doctrine. St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres, IV, xxvi, n. 2) says: “Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the certain mark of truth according to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession,” etc. In explaining the concept of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission, or Apostolic succession.

Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those legitimately appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry. Any break in this succession destroys Apostolicity, because the break means the beginning of a new series which is not Apostolic. “How shall they breach unless they be sent?” (Rom., x, 15). An authoritative mission to teach is absolutely necessary, a man-given mission is not authoritative. Hence any concept of Apostolicity that excludes authoritative union with the Apostolic mission robs the ministry of its Divine character. Apostolicity, or Apostolic succession, then, means that the mission conferred by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles must pass from then to their legitimate successors, in an unbroken line, until the end of the world. This notion of Apostolicity is evolved from the words of Christ Himself, the practice of the Apostles, and the teaching of the Fathers and theologians of the Church.

The intention of Christ is apparent from the passages of Holy Writ, which tell of the conferring of the mission upon the Apostles. “As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you: (John, xx, 21). The mission of the Apostles, like the mission of Christ, is a Divine mission; they are the Apostles, or ambassadors, of the Eternal Father. “All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth. Going, therefore, teach ye all nations; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world: (Matt., xxviii, 18). This Divine mission is always to continue the same, hence it must be transmitted with its Divine character until the end of time, i.e. there must be an unbroken lawful succession which is called Apostolicity. The Apostles understood their mission in this sense. St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans (x, 8–19), insists upon the necessity of Divinely established mission. “How shall they preach unless they be sent?” (x, 15). In his letters to his disciples Timothy and Titus, St. Paul speaks of the obligation of preserving Apostolic doctrine, and of ordaining other disciples to continue the work entrusted to the Apostles. “Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard from me in faith and in the love which is in Christ Jesus” (II Tim., i, 13). “And the things which thou hast heard from me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also” (II Tim., ii, 2). “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee” (Titus, i, 5). Just as the Apostles transmitted their mission by lawfully appointing others to the work of the ministry, so their successors were to ordain priests to perpetuate the same mission given by Jesus Christ, i.e. an Apostolic mission must always be maintained in the Church.

The writings of the Fathers constantly refers to the Apostolic character of the doctrine and mission of the Church. See St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius, (Epist. ad Smyrn., n. 8), St. Clement of Alex., St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius (History of Arianism), Tertullian (Lib. de Praescipt, n. 32, etc). We quote a few examples which are typical of the testimony of the Fathers. St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres, IV, xxvi, n. 2): “Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church, who have succession from the Apostles,” etc.—quoted above. St. Clement (Ep. I, ad. Cor., 42–44): “Christ was sent by God, and the Apostles by Christ. . . . They appointed the above-named and then gave them command that when they came to die other approved men should succeed to their ministry.” St. Cyprian (Ep. 76, Ad Magnum): “Novatianus is not in the Church, nor can he be considered a bishop, because in contempt of Apostolic tradition he was ordained by himself without succeeding anyone.” Hence authoritative transmission of power, i.e. Apostolicity, is essential. In all theological works the same explanation of Apostolicity is found, based on the Scriptural and patristic testimony just cited. Billuart (III, 306) concludes his remarks on Apostolicity in the words of St. Jerome: “We must abide in that Church, which was founded by the Apostles, and endures to this day.: Mazella (De Relig. et Eccl., 359), after speaking of Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles, insists upon the necessity of jurisdiction or authoritative transmission, thus excluding the hypothesis that a new mission could ever be originated by anyone in the place of the mission bestowed by Christ and transmitted in the manner described. Billot (De Eccl. Christi, I, 243–275) emphasizes the idea that the Church, which is Apostolic, must be presided over by bishops, who derive their ministry and their governing power from the Apostles. Apostolicity, then, is that Apostolic succession by which the Church of today is one with the Church of the Apostles in origin, doctrine, and mission.

The history of the Catholic Church from St. Peter, the first Pontiff, to the present Head of the Church, is an evident proof of its Apostolicity, for no break can be shown in the line of succession. Cardinal Newman (Diff. of Anglicans, 369) says: “Say there is no church at all if you will, and at least I shall understand you; but do not meddle with a fact attested by mankind.” Again (393): “No other form of Christianity but this present Catholic Communion has a pretence to resemble, even in the faintest shadow, the Christianity of antiquity, viewed as a living religion on the stage of the world;” and again, (395): “The immutability and uninterrupted action of the laws in question throughout the course of Church history is a plain note of identity between the Catholic Church of the first ages and that which now goes by that name.” If any break in the Apostolic succession had ever occurred, it could be easily shown, for no fact of such importance could happen in the history of the world without attracting universal notice. Regarding questions and contests in the election of certain popes, there is no real difficulty. In the few cases in which controversies arose, the matter was always settled by a competent tribunal in the Church, the lawful Pope was proclaimed, and he, as the successor of St. Peter, received the Apostolic mission and jurisdiction in the Church. (Tanquery, III, 446). Again, the heretics of the early ages and the sects of later times have attempted to justify their teaching and practices by appealing to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, or to their early communion with the Catholic Church. Their appeal shows that the Catholic Church is regarded as Apostolic even by those who have separated from her communion.

Apostolicity is not found in any other Church. This is a necessary consequence of the unity of the Church. (See CHURCH, UNITY OF THE) If there is but one true Church, and if the Catholic Church, as has just been shown, is Apostolic, the necessary inference is that no other Church is Apostolic. (See above quotations from Newman, “Diff. of Anglicans,” 369, 393.) All sects that reject the Episcopate, by the very factmake Apostolic succession impossible, since they destroy the channel through which the Apostolic mission is transmitted. Historically, the beginnings of all these Churches can be traced to a period long after the time of Christ and the Apostles. Regarding the Greek Church, it is sufficient to note that it lost Apostlic succession by withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the lawful successors of St. Peter in the See of Rome. The same is to be said of the Anglican claims to continuity (MacLaughlin, “Divine Plan of the Church,” 213; and, Newman, “Diff. of Angl.,” Lecture 12.) for the very fact of separation destroys their jurisdiction. They have based their claims on the validity of orders in the Anglican Church. Anglican orders, however, have been declared invalid. But even if they were valid, the Anglican Church would not be Apostolic, for jurisdiction is essential to the Apostolicity of mission. A study of the organization of the Anglican Church shows it to be entirely different from the Church established by Jesus Christ.

WILHELM AND SCANNEL, Manual of Cath. Theol., 3d ed. (London and N.Y., 1906), I, ii; II, v; NEWMAN, Diff. of Anglicans and Apologia; MACLAUGHLIN, The Divine Plan of the Church (London, 1901); SMARIUS, Points of Controversy (New York, 1865), Lecture IV; HUNTER, Ountlines of Dogmatic Theology, I, 365–370; BILLOT, De Eccl. Christi, I, 243; MAZZELLA, De Religione et Eccl., 556; TANQUERY, Theolog. Fund., III, 442; HURTER, Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium I, 315; WILMERS, De Christi Eccl., 576; PESCH, Praelectiones Dogmat., I, 239–242; MOORE, Travels of an Irish Gentleman in Search of a Religion (London, 1833); MILNER, The End of Religious Controversy (London, 1818, and many later editions).

THOMAS C. O’REILLY

Apostolicum Pascendi Munus

A Bull issued by Clement XIII, 12 January, 1765, in defense of the Society of Jesus against the attacks made upon it. It relates that both privately and publicly the Society was the object of much calumny. On the other hand, the Society was the subject of praise on the part of bishops for the useful work its members were doing in their dioceses. To confirm this approval and to counteract the calumnies which had been spreading throughout different countries, the Pope confirms the Society as it was originally constituted, approves its end, it method of work, and whatever sodalities its members have under their charge.

Bullarium Romanum (continuatio), III, 38 sqq.; Ravignan, Clement XIII et Clement XIV (Paris, 1854); The Jesuits, their foundation and History (London, 1879), II, 21012; De Villecourt, Vie de Saint Ligouri, II, 179, 180.

M. O’RIORDAN

Apotactics

(From Gr., apotassomai, to renounce).

The adherents of a heresy which sprang up in the third century and spread through the western and southern parts of Asia Minor. What little we know of this obscure sect we owe to the writings of St. Epiphanius. He tells us that they called themselves Apotactics (i.e. renunciators) because they scrupulously renounced all private property; they also affected the name of Apostolics, because they pretended to follow the manner of life of the Apostles. The saint regards them as a branch of the Tatians, akin to the Encratites and the Cathari. “Their sacraments and mysteries are different from ours; they pride themselves upon extreme poverty, bring divisions into Holy Church by their foolish superstitions, and depart from the divine mercy by refusing to admit to reconciliation those who have once fallen, and like those from whom they have sprung, condemn marriage. In place of the Holy Scriptures, which they reject, they base their heresy on the apocryphal Acts of Andrew and Thomas. They are altogether alien from the rule of the Church.” At the time when St. Epiphanius wrote, in the fourth century, they had become an insignificant sect, for in refuting them he says: “They are found in small groups in Phrygia, Cilicia, and Pamphylia, whereas the Church of God, according to Christ’s promise, has spread to the ends of the earth, and if marriage is an unholy thing, then they are doomed to speedy extinction, or else they must be born out of wedlock. If they are born out of wedlock, then they themselves are impure. And if they are not impure, although born in wedlock, then marriage is not impure. . . . The Church praises renouncement, but does not condemn marriage; she preaches poverty, but does not intolerantly inveigh against those who possess property inherited from their parents with which they support themselves and assist the poor; many in the church abstain from certain kinds of food, but do not look with contempt upon those who do not so abstain.” St. Basil mentions these heretics in his Epistles. He gives them the name of Apotaktitai (Apotactites) and says that they declared God’s creatures defiled (inquinatam). They are also briefly mentioned by St. Augustine and by St. John Damascene. They were condemned in the Code of Theodosius the Great as a branch of the Manicheans.

St. EPIPHANIUS, Hær., in P. G., XLI, 1040 sqq.

B. GULDNER

Apotheosis

(Gr. apotheosis, from, and theos, deify).

Deification, the exaltation of men to the rank of gods. Closely connected with the universal worship of the dead in the history of all primitive peoples was the consecration as deities of heroes or rulers, as a reward for bravery or other great services. “In the same manner every city worshipped the one who founded it” (Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City, III, v). Because of the theocratic form of their government, and the religious character which sovereign power assumed in their eyes, the peoples of the great nations of the Orient—Persia, Chaldea, Egypt—paid divine honours to living rulers. Hero-worship had familiarized the minds of the Greeks with the idea that a man by illustrious deeds can become a god, and contact with the Orient made them ready to accept the grosser form of apotheosis by which divine honours were offered to the living (Boissier, La religion romaine I, 112). Philip of Macedon was honoured as a god at Amphipolis, and his son, Alexander the Great, not only claimed descent from the gods of Egypt, but decreed that he should be worshipped in the cities of Greece (Beurlier, De divinis honoribus quos acceperunt Alexander et successores ejus, p. 17). After his death, and probably largely as the result of the teaching of Euhemerus, that all the gods were deified men, the custom of apotheosis became very prevalent among the Greeks (Döllinger, Heidenthum und Judenthum, 314 sqq.). In Rome the way for the deification of the emperors was prepared by many historic causes, such as the cult of the manes or the souls of departed friends and ancestors, the worship of the legendary kings of Latium, the Di Indigetes, the myth that Romulus had been transported to heaven, and the deification of Roman soldiers and statesmen by some of the Greek cities. The formal enrollment of the emperors among the gods began with Caesar, to whom the Senate decreed divine honours before his death. Through politic motives Augustus, though tolerating the building of temples and the organization of priestly orders in his honour throughout the provinces and even in Italy, refused to permit himself to be worshipped in Rome itself. Though many of the early emperors refused to receive divine honours, and the senate, to whom the right of deification belonged, refused to confirm others, the great majority of the Roman rulers and many members of the imperial family, among whom were some women, were enrolled among the gods. While the cultured classes regarded the deification of members of the imperial family and court favorites with boldly expressed scorn, emperor-worship, which was in reality political rather than personal, was a powerful element of unity in the empire, as it afforded the pagans a common religion in which it was a patriotic duty to participate. The Christians constantly refused to pay divine honours to the emperor, and their refusal to strew incense was the signal for the death of many martyrs. The custom of decreeing divine honours to the emperors remained in existence until the time of Gratian, who was the first to refuse the insignia of the Summus Pontifex and the first whom the senate failed to place among the gods.

PHELLER, Römische Mythologie, 770–796: BOISSlER, La religion romaine, I, 109–186; MARQUARDT-MOMMSEN Römische-Staatsverwaltung, II, 731–740; VI, 443–455; BEURLIER Essai sur le culte rendu aux empereurs romains (Paris, 1890).

PATRICK J. HEALY

Apparitor

The official name given to an officer in ecclesiastical courts designated to serve the summons, to arrest a person accused, and, in ecclesiastico-civil procedure, to take possession, physically or formally, of the property in dispute, in order to secure the execution of the judge’s sentence, in countries where the ecclesiastical forum, in its substantial integrity, is recognized. He thus acts as constable and sheriff. His guarantee of his delivery of the summons is evidence of the knowledge of the summoned of his obligation to appear, either to stand trial, to give testimony, or to do whatever else may be legally enjoined by the judge; his statement becomes the basis of a charge of contumacy against anyone refusing to obey summons.

R.L. BURTSELL

Appeal as from an abuse

(Appel comme d’abus)

Appeal was originally a recourse to the civil forum against the usurpation by the ecclesiastical forum of the rights of civil jurisdiction; and likewise a recourse to the ecclesiastical forum against the usurpation by the civil forum of the rights of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Thus defined, the “appeal as from an abuse” was in itself legitimate, because its object was to safeguard equally the rights both of the State and of the Church. An abuse would be an act on either hand, without due authority, beyond the limits of their respective ordinary and natural jurisdictions. The canons (can. “Dilecto,” in bk. VI of Decretals, “De sent. excom.,” in ch. vi) did not exclude a recourse to the civil authority when the acts of an ecclesiastical judge invaded the domain of the civil authority, especially as reciprocity gave the ecclesiastical authority the right to repel with the same weapons any usurpation by the lay judge to the damage of the rights of the Church. Thus also a recourse to the supreme civil ruler was not deemed amiss when an ecclesiastical court undertook a cause belonging to the competency of a higher ecclesiastical court, and the ruler was asked (can. “Placuit” in Decree of Gratian, Pt. II, Q. I, ch. xi) merely to forward it to the proper tribunal without, however, claiming to delegate to it any jurisdiction. Perhaps the first formal manifestation of this appeal in the legitimate sense occurred in the fourteenth century. The ecclesiastical judges had acquired a reputation for greater learning and equity, and by the good will of the State, not merely ecclesiastical, but many civil cases of the laity were adjudicated by them. in 1329 complaint was brought to King Philip de Valois by the advocate general, Peter de Cugnières, that the civil tribunals were fast lapsing into contempt, and were being abandoned. The purport of the complaint was to restrict the competency of the ecclesiastical tribunals to their own legitimate fields. Bickerings between the two forums were henceforth frequent. Even the Catholic states, after the beginning of the sixteenth century, advanced far in the way of frequent ruptures with the Church. When the Protestant states in the new revolution had acquired control and supervision over the newly reformed bodies even in their spiritual relations, the Catholic states, particularly France, strove to limit the jurisdiction of the Church as far as they could without casting aside the profession of the Catholic Faith. The Pragmatic Sanction was a serious aggression by France upon the acknowledged rights of the Church and of the Holy See. It is in France that we find the most flagrant series of encroachments upon Church jurisdiction, through pretence of appeals as from an abuse, gradually tending to the elimination of the ecclesiastical forum. During the seventeenth century the French clergy presented frequent memorials against the encroachments made by their kings and parliaments through constant recourse to these “appeals as from an abuse,” which resulted in submitting to civil tribunals questions of definitions of faith, the proper administration of the sacraments, and the like. This brought confusion into the regulation of spiritual matters by encouraging ecclesiastics to rebel against their lawful ecclesiastical superiors. The lay tribunals undertook to adjudicate as to whether the ministers of the sacraments had a right to refuse them to those deemed unworthy, or the right to Christian burial of Catholics dying impenitent or under Church censures; whether interdicts or suspensions were valid; whether monastic professions should be annulled; whether the bishop’s permission was necessary for preaching; whether a specified marriage was contrary or not to the Gospel; and also to decide the justice of canonical privations of benefices. Many other subjects intimately connected with the teaching of the Church were brought before lay tribunals, and unappealable decisions rendered in open contradiction to the canons, as can easily be surmised both from the absence of theological knowledge, and from the visible animus shown in decisions that undertook to subject the spiritual power of the Church to the dictates of transient politics. A Catholic government should respect the ecclesiastical canons. This evil interference was mostly owing to courtier-canonists who flattered the secular rulers by dwelling upon the right of protection over the Church willingly conceded in early days to the Christian Roman Emperors. It is true that the latter were occasionally called guardians of the canons, and that they often embodied these canons with the civil legislation of the Empire (see CONSTANTINOPLE, JUSTINIAN, NOMOCANON). This did not mean, however, that the Emperors were the source of the binding power of the canons, which was recognized as inherent in the pope and bishops as successors to the power of the Apostles to bind and loose, but that the duty of a Catholic empire was to aid in the enforcement of the ecclesiastical laws by the civil authority. The Church was recognized as autonomous in all things of the divine law and in matters of ecclesiastical discipline. We find the œcumenical councils appealing to the emperors to put into force their decrees about the Faith, though no one should infer from this that the emperors were recognized as judges of the faith. So, likewise, when Justinian inserts ecclesiastical disciplinary decrees in the civil code he explains (Novella, xlii): “we have thus decreed, following the canons of the holy Fathers.” When rulers like Charlemagne seemed to take upon themselves undue authority, insisting upon certain canons, the bishops claimed their sole right to govern the Church. Even in mixed assemblies of bishops and nobles and princes, the bishops insisted that the civil power should not encroach upon the rights of the Church, e. g. in the Council of Narbonne (788). Zaccaria (Dissertaz. 28) did not hesitate to recognize, however, that in his day (the eighteenth century), as well as in former ages, the Catholic rulers of Catholic States, in their quality of protectors of the Church, might receive a recourse from ecclesiastics in ecclesiastical matters, in order that justice might be done them by their ordinary ecclesiastical judges, not as deputies of the civil rulers, but as ordinary judges in their own forum. In her concordats with Catholic states the Church, in view of the changed circumstances of society, has granted to several that the civil cases of clerics, and such as concern the property and temporal rights of churches, as well as benefices and other ecclesiastical foundations, may be brought before the civil courts. Nevertheless, all ecclesiastical causes and those which concern the Faith, the sacraments, morals, sacred functions, and the rights connected with the sacred ministry, belong to the ecclesiastical forum, both in regard of persons and of matter (cf. Concordat with Ecuador in 1881). In the United States, as decreed by the Council of Baltimore (1837), the church law is that if any ecclesiastical person or member of a religious body, male or female, should cite an ecclesiastic or a religious before a civil court on a question of a purely ecclesiastical nature, he should know that he falls under the censures decreed by canon law. The Congregation of Propaganda in its comment explained that, in mixed cases, where the persons may be ecclesiastical, but the things about which there is question may be temporal or of one’s household, this rule cannot be enforced, especially in countries in which the civil government is not in the hands of Catholics, and where, unless recourse is had to the civil courts, there is not the means or the power of enforcing an ecclesiastical decision for the protection or recovery of one’s own. A special proviso was made by Propaganda for the United States (17 August, 1886), that if a priest should bring a cleric before a civil tribunal on an ecclesiastical or other question without permission from the bishop he could be forced to withdraw the case by the infliction of penalties and censures, yet the bishop must not refuse the permission if the parties have ineffectually attempted a settlement before him. If the bishop is to be cited, the permission of the Holy See is required. By a special declaration of Propaganda (6 September, 1886), a cleric’s transfer of a claim to a layman for the purpose of evading the censures is checked by the requirement of the consent of the bishop to such transfer, if made for the purpose of the suit. Justice Redfield (in vol. XV, Am. Law Reg., p. 277, quoted with approval in vol. XCVIII of Penn. Rep., p. 213) says in reference to the United States generally: “The decision of ecclesiastical courts or officers having, by the rules or laws of the bodies to which they belong, jurisdiction of such questions, or the right to decide them, will be held conclusive in all courts of the civil administration, and no question involved in such decisions will be revised or reviewed in the civil courts, except those pertaining to the jurisdiction of such courts or officers to determine such questions according to the laws or the usage of the bodies they represent.” Justice Strong, of the Supreme Court of the United States, in his lecture on the “Relations of Civil Law to Church Policy” (p. 41), speaks of the Church as “an interior organization within a religious society,” and adds (p. 42), “I think it may be safely asserted as a general principle that whenever questions of discipline, of faith, of Church rule, of membership, or of office, have been decided by the Church, in its own modes of decision, civil law tribunals accept these decisions as final and apply them as made.”

ZACCARIA, Dissertazioni di storia ecclesiastica (Rome, 1841); AFFRE, Traité des appels comme d’abus (Paris, 1844); NUSSI, Conventiones inter S. Sedem et Civilem Potestatem (Mainz, 1870); D’AVINO, Enciclopedia deli’ ecclesiastico (Turin, 1878); ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dict. de droit canon. (3d ed., Paris, 1901), s. v.; DESMOND, Church and Law (Chicago, 1898).

R.L. BURTSELL

Appeals

The purpose of this article is to give a comprehensive view of the positive legislation of the Church on appeals belonging to the ecclesiastical forum; but it does not treat of the nature of the ecclesiastical forum itself nor of the rights of the Church and its supreme head, the pope, to receive appeals in ecclesiastical matters. For these and other similar questions see POPE, PRIMACY, COUNCILS, GALLICANISM, ECCLESIASTICAL FORUM.

I. DEFINITION, KINDS, AND EFFECTS

An appeal is “a legal application to a higher authority for redress against an injury sustained through the act of a lower authority.” The Lower authority is called judex a quo (judge appellee); the higher authority, judex ad quem (appellate judge or court). Appeals are judicial and extrajudicial. A judicial appeal is one made against such acts as are performed by the lower authority, acting in the official capacity of judge at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Hence a judicial appeal is not only one taken from a final sentence, but such is also an appeal taken from an interlocutory sentence, viz, from a sentence given by the judge before pronouncing the final judgment. An extrajudicial appeal is one made against acts performed by the inferior authority when not acting as judge, such as for instance a bishop’s order to build a school, the election of a candidate to an office, and the like. Every appeal, when admissible, has an effect called devolutive (appellatio in devolutivo), consisting in this, that through the law there devolves on the appellate judge the right to take cognizance of, and also to decide, the case in question. Appeals have often also a suspensive effect, which consists in suspending the legal force of a judgment or an order so that the judge appellee is prevented from taking any further action in the case unless his action tends to favour the appellant in the exercise of his right of appeal.

II. APPEALS IN CHURCH HISTORY

The right of appeal is founded on the law of nature, which requires that a subject, bound as he is to abide by the action of a superior liable to err, should be supplied with some means of defence in case the latter, through ignorance or malice, should violate the laws of justice.

Accordingly, the sacred canons as early as the first œcumenical council allow clerics who believe themselves to have been wronged by their bishops to have recourse to higher authorities (Council of Nice, 325, can. 5). In the same century and in the following centuries the same right is insisted upon in other councils, both local and universal. In the East mention of it is made in the councils of Antioch (341, c. 6, 11), and Chalcedon (451, can. 9). In the West it is met with in the councils of Carthage (390, can. 8; 397, can. 10; and 398, can. 66), Mileve (can. 22), Vannes (465, can. 9), Viseu (442), Orleans (538, can. 20). According to these canons the court of appeal was that of the neighbouring bishops of the provincial synod; and there is mention of the metropolitan with the other bishops in documents of the eighth and ninth centuries (VIII (Œcumenical Council, 868, c. 26; Council of Frankfort, 794). But as the provincial councils came to be held less frequently, the right of receiving appeals from any bishop of a province remained with the metropolitan alone; a practice which was repeatedly sanctioned in the Decretals (c. 11, X, De off. ord., I, 31; c. 66, X, de appell., II, 28), and has never since been abandoned. Though the right of appeal was never denied, it had to be kept within the proper bounds in order that what was allowed as a means of just defence should not be used for evading or putting obstacles to the administration of justice.

In this, canonical legislation followed several of the rules laid down in the Roman civil law (Corpus Juris Civilis), e. g. those prescribing the limits of the time available for entering an appeal (Nov. 23, C. 1; c. 32, X, De elect., I, 6), or finishing the case appealed (1, 5, Dc temporibus . . . appellationum, c. VII, 63). The same is true of laws excluding certain appeals which are rightly presumed to be made for no other reason than in order to retard the execution of a sentence justly pronounced (1, un. C. Ne liceat in unâ eâdemque causâ, VII, 70; c. 65, X, De appell., II, 28).

In several points, however, the sacred canons were less rigorous, either by leaving more to the discretion of the judge appellee in cases of laws intended for his benefit or interpreting more liberally laws imposing strictures on the appellant in the exercise of his right (c. 2, De appell. Clem., II, 12; 1, 24, c. De appell., VII, 62; 1, un D. De libellis dimissoriis, XLIX, 6). Moreover, if abuses crept in, they were checked by the sacred canons, as appears from the enactments of popes and councils of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, embodied in the authentic collections of the “Corpus Juris Canonici,” in the title “De appellationibus.” Thus we see, in 1181, the Third Lateran Council (c. 26, X, De appell., II, 28) forbidding subjects to appeal from ecclesiastical discipline, and at the same time preventing bishops and other prelates from taking undue measures against their subjects when the latter were about to use their right of appeal. Again, in 1215, we see the Fourth Lateran Council (c. 13, De off. ord., I, 31) insisting that appeal should not interfere with bishops while taking legal action for correcting or reforming morals.

These and other similar wise regulations were enforced again by the Council of Trent (Sess. 22, c. 7, De reform; c. 3, De appell., in 6). Especially did this council provide that the regular administration of a diocese should not suffer from appeals. Thus, besides forbidding (Sess. 22, c. 1, De ref.) that appeals should suspend the execution of orders given for the reformation of morals and correction of abuses, it mentioned explicitly several acts of pastoral administration which were not to be hampered by appeals (c. 5, Sess. 7, De ref.; c. 7, Sess. 21, De ref.; c. 18, Sess. 24, De ref.), and it ordained that appeals should not interfere with decrees made by a bishop while visiting his diocese (c. 10, Sess. 24, De ref.).

Moreover, in order to protect the authority of local ordinaries, it prescribed that if cases of appeals of a criminal nature had to be turned over to judges outside the Roman Curia by pontifical authority, they should be delegated to the metropolitan or to the nearest bishop (c. 2, Sess. 13, De ref.). Finally, this council provides that appeals should not cause unnecessary delays in the course of a trial, where it forbade (as the Roman law had done) appeals from interlocutory sentences, admitting only a few necessary exceptions (c. I, Sess. 13, De ref.; c. 20, Sess. 24, De ref.). The decrees of the Council of Trent and other pontifical laws, framed for the purpose of reconciling freedom of appeal with the prompt exercise of episcopal jurisdiction in matters admitting of no delay, were too important to be allowed to go into desuetude, and were embodied by Benedict XIV in his constitution “Ad militantis,” 30 March, 1742.

After this brief reference to the main sources of the laws concerning ecclesiastical appeals—the “Corpus Juris Canonici,” the” Corpus Juris Civilis,” the Council of Trent, the Const. “Ad militantis,” it only remains to mention the Instruction of 11 June, 1880, sent to the Italian hierarchy by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, containing rules for a summary procedure (also in the matter of appeals) to be used by bishops in trying criminal cases. This same introduction with a few changes was sent a few years later by the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda to the hierarchy of the United States of North America. In the following paragraphs we shall refer to these two documents by calling them respectively Instr. Sacra, and Instr. Cum magnopere.

III. PRESENT LEGISLATION

1. Persons possessing the right of appeal

The right of appeal is granted to all, except such as are excluded by the law. The law excludes:

(1) Those who have renounced their right, either expressly, or tacitly, for instance by not appealing within the prescribed time.

(2) Those who have been condemned in their absence, when such absence was due to contumacy.

(3) Whoever has disregarded the rights granted by the law to his adversary, while the appeal of the latter was pending.

(4) Those against whom three sentences (all in the very same case) have been passed.

(5) Those who besides having confessed their crime in court have been also fully convicted by legal proofs.

(6) The party who of his own accord chose to have his case settled by means of the proof called juramentum litis decisorium (decisive oath).

(7) Excommunicated persons are forbidden to appeal from extrajudicial acts; though, unless they are vitandi (see EXCOMMUNICATION), their appeal can be admitted if in court nobody objects; and moreover, all, even the vitandi, are admitted when their contention is that their excommunication was invalid, and in a few more cases in which equity or the common good requires that they should be heard.

2. Cases in which appeals are admitted

Appeals are admitted in all cases not excepted by the law. The law admits no appeal:

(1) When the crime is evidently notorious.

(2) Against an interlocutory sentence or order, except in the following cases:

(a) when the interlocutory judgment is equivalent to a final sentence, because it is such that a final sentence cannot be expected, for instance when the judge admits a peremptory exception;

(b) when such interlocutory decision or order takes place during a trial which admits no appeal from its final sentence, as happens in the case of one against whom two sentences have already been passed;

(c) when, in general, the injury is such that it cannot be remedied by the final sentence or by an appeal from the final sentence, as is the case when the penalty inflicted is such that no further action can annul its effects. To distinguish the interlocutory sentences under (a) from those under (b) and (c), the former will be called quasi-final sentences, and the latter purely interlocutory sentences.

(3) From an invalid sentence (see below, 7-A).

(4) From sentences pronounced ex informatâ conscientiâ.

(5) In cases settled by transaction (compromise), or decided by arbitrators to whom the parties had of their own accord referred the settlement of their disputes.

(6) Whenever the appeal is evidently a frivolous one, being altogether groundless.

3. When appeals have a suspensive effect

In cases not excepted in the preceding paragraphs the general rule is that judicial appeals, besides having the devolutive effect common to all appeals, have also a suspensive effect. Some authors hold the same principle with regard to extrajudicial appeals, and base their assertion on c. 10, De appell., in sexto (II, 15) and on c. 51, 52, X, De appell. (II, 28). Others deny that an extrajudicial appeal, as such, has a suspensive effect, because it is not an appeal properly so called, but they hold that it has this effect as a provocatio ad causam (a legal application for a cause or suit). Hence extrajudicial appeal has this suspensive effect only while the cause or suit is pending, that is, from the time when the appellate judge admits the appeal and begins to examine the case (Ut lite pendente nihil innovetur, Decretals of Gregory IX, Book II, tit. 16). But neither judicial nor extrajudicial appeals have a suspensive effect in cases expressly excepted by the law. Accordingly:—(1) An appeal has no suspensive effect when it is taken from;

(a) any act which inflicts a censure;

(b) properly so called (viz., a censure having the character of a medicinal punishment);

(c) depriving a cleric of benefits of a spiritual character;

(d) if the appeal is entered after the censure has already been incurred.

Hence this prohibition does not extend:

(a) to a declaration of a censure;

(b) nor to a censure inflicted as a vindicative punishment;

(c) nor to a censure depriving a cleric of benefits of a temporal character, such as a suspension from his right to a salary;

(d) nor, finally, to the case when the censure either has only been threatened, or it has been inflicted conditionally, and the condition under which it would be incurred has not yet been verified.

(2). An appeal has also only a devolutive effect when the judge appellee has acted in virtue of powers granted to him with the clause appellatione remotâ, provided the case is not one of those expressly mentioned by the law as admitting an appeal. In these cases the appeal may have also a suspensive effect.

(3). Appeals have no suspensive effect in the cases laid down in the Const. “Ad militantis” of Benedict XIV.

With regard to this document the following points are worthy of notice:

(a) This constitution does not contain new laws, but only confirms already existing enactments and restores them to their former vigour, if obsolete (§ 48).

(b) In the cases which it enumerates it forbids in general that appeals should have a suspensive effect, but it does not do away with the devolutive effect, unless a case, even according to the preceding legislation, would admit of no appeal at all (§ 38).

(c) Not even the suspensive effect is forbidden, where, in matters referred to in this constitution, the preceding legislation allowed it.

Thus it has been authoritatively declared that if a bishop, whether in performing his diocesan visitation or in taking measures for correcting morals at any other time, proceeds against a cleric judicially, the appeals from such judicial acts have a suspensive effect [Decrees of Clement VIII, 16 October, 1600, n. viii; Sacred Congreg. of the Council, reported by Pallottini (Collectio Decretorum S. C. C. vol. LI, Appellatie, § I, nn. 98 sq.)]. Besides these universal laws, there may be particular enactments forbidding, with the sanction of the Holy See, suspensive appeals (Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 286).

4. The Appellate Judge

(1) The appellate judge must belong to a higher court than that of the judge appellee. Hence no appeal is possible from the pope or an œcumenical council. From the Roman Congregations appeals properly so called are not admitted. Again, one cannot appeal to a bishop from his vicar-general acting as ordinary, because when acting as such the vicar-general is an official not judicially distinct from the bishop; nor can one appeal to a metropolitan, either from bishops exempt from metropolitan jurisdiction or from bishops acting in virtue of powers conferred upon them only as delegates of the Apostolic See.

(2) Moreover, an appeal has to be taken to the judge who is immediately superior to the judge appellee, except when this immediate superior is unable, physically or morally, to receive the appeal, and also when the appellant wishes to appeal to the pope’s representative (a legate, or a nuncio, or a delegate apostolic having the power of a legate) or directly to the Holy See (that is, to the Sacred Congreg. of the Propaganda, from missionary countries; to the Sacred Congreg. of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs from South America and countries subject to this Congregation; and, from any other country, to the Congregation competent in the matter in question). However, the Holy See does not always admit appeals in cases not yet tried on first appeal before the metropolitan.

According to this rule:

(a) From a bishop and, during the vacancy of a see, from the vicar-capitular or administrator the appeal has to be made to the metropolitan.

(b) From the sentence passed by a metropolitan in second instance the appeal has to be made either to the Holy See or to its representative as above. The same holds good for an appeal taken from the sentence pronounced by a metropolitan in first instance, unless, by privilege, appeal is allowed to the nearest metropolitan (Third Plen. Council of Baltimore, n. 316). In the case of a metropolitan subject to a patriarch possessing patriarchal rights, the court of appeal from the metropolitan will be the court of the patriarch.

(c) From a legate or a papal representative having the power of a legate, no appeal lies except to the Holy See.

(d) In the case of a sentence passed by a judge acting in virtue of delegated jurisdiction, the appeal has to be made to the judge by whom the jurisdiction was delegated.

5. The Appeal itself

A. Time

For entering an appeal the peremptory term of ten days is allowed, after which term the appeal is not admitted. In judicial cases the ten days are counted from the time when the sentence was pronounced, if the party was there present, or from the moment when the party knew of it, if the sentence was passed in his absence. The Instr. Sacra and Cum magnopere count the ten days from the moment when an official written notification of the sentence was given to the party. In extrajudicial cases the ten days begin from the time when the appellant becomes aware of the wrong done to him.

B. Manner

(1) The appeal must be made in writing except when a judicial appeal is entered in court immediately after the sentence has been pronounced, in which case it may be made by word of mouth.

(2) When the appeal is in writing, it is necessary to state who the appellant is, from what sentence or order he appeals, and against whom the appeal is directed. Moreover, it is customary to insert the names of the judge appellee and of the appellate judge. When the appeal is made by word of mouth it is sufficient to express clearly the act of appealing to a higher court by saying, “I appeal,” or using similar words.

(3) The reason of the complaint ought to be stated in appeals from a purely interlocutory sentence or from extrajudicial acts; but it is not necessary to express it in judicial appeals from final or quasi-final sentences; the reason is that in the former case the judge appellee may himself at once modify or set aside his former decision or order, whereas in the latter case he is not allowed to change his sentence.

(4) The appeal ought to be interposed in the presence of the judge appellee, unless the appellant is prevented by fear or some other obstacle from having access to him, in which case the appeal ought to be interposed in presence of the appellate judge; and should this also be difficult, the appellant should go before some trustworthy persons, or before a notary and two witnesses, and have a document drawn up with a statement that the appellant has declared his will in their presence on account of difficulties that prevented him from going before either of the two judges. In either case the judge appellee should be notified of the appeal.

(5) The judge appellee must on the appellant’s request furnish him with letters called Apostoli, in which he notifies the appellate judge that the appeal has been duly entered, and with a copy of all the acts of the case, to be forwarded by the appellant to the appellate court. The appellant should ask for these letters within thirty days (unless the term was shortened by the judge appellee) from the time he became aware of the sentence or grievance, and if he fails to do this the law presumes that he has renounced his right to appeal. The appellant having received these letters must give them to the appellate judge within the time established by the judge appellee. This term also is peremptory, so that if the appellant fails to give them he forfeits his right as before. According to the Instr. Sacra, art. 39, and Cum magn., art. 38, as soon as the appeal has been entered, the judge appellee has to forward the entire original acts of the case to the appellate court.

In these instructions no mention is made of the Apostoli, or letters containing the certificate of appeal. Hence the appellant is not required to ask for them, and consequently there can be no question of the peremptory term of thirty days available for demanding them, nor of the next peremptory term for presenting them. On the other hand, in keeping with the same instructions, the appellate judge, having received the acts and taken cognizance of the appeal, has to notify the appellant that within twenty days (according to the Instr. Sacra, art. 40). or thirty days (according to the Instr. Cum magn., art. 39) he must appoint his counsel, to be approved by the same appellate judge; and this term is peremptory, so that if the appellant does not make the said appointment in time the appellate judge will formally pronounce the right of appeal to be forfeited.

C. Judgment on the admissibility of the appeal

The appellate judge, on receiving the said documents, must, before trying the case, examine whether the appeal is legitimate; hence he should make sure:

(a) that the case is not one of those in which appeal is not permitted;

(b) that the appellant is not one of those persons excluded by the law;

(c) that he has appealed within the prescribed time;

(d) that there are sufficient grounds for the appeal

D. Inhibitions

Once the appellate judge has ascertained that the appellant has legitimately appealed, and that the appeal is not one of those that have only a devolutive effect, he has the right to send to the judge appellee letters called inhibitory, forbidding him to take further action in the case.

E. Attentates

Finally, it is the duty of the appellate judge to reverse what are called attentates (attentata), if there are any; by which term is meant whatever (in the case of an appeal having a suspensive effect) the judge appellee may have done prejudicial to the appeal during the time when his jurisdiction was suspended.

F. Withdrawal of the appeal

Prior to the time when the appellate court begins to try the case, the appellant is allowed by the law to withdraw his appeal, even if the appellee does not consent. Once, however, the appellate court has begun to try the case, the appellant is no longer free to renounce his appeal unless the appellee agrees to it.

G. Judgment of the case on appeal

The appellant having done what is required on his part for introducing his appeal, the appellate judge allows him a fixed time for presenting whatever he wishes to allege in his own favour, and at the same time notifies the appellee of the admission of the appeal and of the term granted to the appellant. In this trial the law does not allow new actions, that is, claims which are different from the main point at issue in the first instance and which would rather constitute a new controversy not yet tried by the judge appellee. In an appeal from a final or quasi-final sentence the judge is allowed to admit new evidence, whether to prove what was already alleged but not sufficiently proved, or to prove a new allegation, provided this has a close bearing on the main point at issue in the first trial and is not equivalent to a new action; the same right should be granted to the appellee in his reply. In an appeal from a purely interlocutory sentence new evidence is not allowed, and the court in forming its decision must confine itself to the evidence deduced from the acts of the first trial. The formalities to be observed in the trial of the case on appeal do not differ from those of the first instance. The case ought to be tried and finished within one year from the time when the appeal was interposed, or within two years where there is sufficient cause for delay. If the appellant through his own fault does not prosecute his appeal during this time he will be considered as having abandoned his appeal. This time fixed by law cannot be shortened by the appellate court except for some reason of common good, nor can it be extended except with the consent of both parties. The sentence by which the second instance is ended must contain a declaration as to the justice or injustice of the previous judgment, by which declaration that judgment is confirmed or reversed.

6. Appeals to the Roman Congregations

In appeals to the Roman Congregations, substantially the same rules are observed. Within the peremptory term of ten days the appellant must interpose his appeal before the judge appellee, who will immediately send the acts of the process to the Congregation. Before the case is discussed in the Congregation, a judge-referee (ordinarily one of the cardinals) is appointed, whose duty is to report the case to the Congregation for decision. He fixes the day when the Congregation will consider and decide the case. Before this day comes, the judge-referee and the cardinals receive a summary of the acts of the whole case together with the written defences prepared by the lawyers or procurators of the parties. These lawyers and procurators are also allowed to explain by word of mouth their written information. At the appointed day the case is proposed to the Congregation, and decided by it, after the cardinals have heard the report of the judge-referee. The decision has the force of a judicial sentence. Against it there is no true appeal; but the Congregation grants another means of redress called beneficium novœ audientiœ (the benefit of a new hearing). Should, however, the Congregation add to its decision the words et amplius (a clause meaning that the case should not be presented again), it is more difficult to obtain a new hearing, which is granted only for new and very strong reasons. Finally, when the time within which the petition for a new hearing must be presented has elapsed without the petition having been made, or when a new hearing is not granted, the Congregation, on request made by the parties, will forward to them a rescript containing an official communication of the sentence. Cases are sometimes tried in the Roman Curia in a simpler form (œconomica). This is done for the sake of the parties, whose expenses are thus reduced, since in this kind of process they are not required to have lawyers, but whatever can be alleged in support of their rights is brought to the notice of the cardinals in a report officially drawn up, and to this report, in more important cases, is added the opinion of two consultors of the Congregation.

7. Means of redress available where appeals are not admitted

A. Querela nullitatis (Complaint of nullity). Against a sentence which is invalid the legal remedy is not appeal, which is made only against an unjust sentence, but the complaint of nullity. This complaint of nullity differs from the appeal in the following points:

(a) It can be proposed within thirty years, nay, indefinitely, if the sentence be such that its enforcement happens to be an occasion to sin (such as would be the sentence treating as valid a marriage contracted with an impediment which cannot be removed by the consent of the parties).

(b) One is allowed to make this complaint to the same judge who passed the sentence, unless this judge has been delegated for a particular case.

(c) It has no suspensive effect, unless the nullity is evident.

B. Restitutio in integrum (Restoration to the original condition). When one has failed to lodge an appeal within the time prescribed, and this has happened because it was impossible for him to act, the law grants what is called restitutio in integrum. This restitutio is, in general, that remedy by means of which one who has suffered damage, because prevented from acting, is reinstated by a judge in the condition in which he was before the damage took place. (See Commentators on the Decretals, Book I, title 41.)

C. Recursus (Recourse). In all cases when appeals are forbidden, one can make use of the remedy called recursus, which, strictly speaking, is an act by which one petitions the Holy See to grant him redress in a case in which the law does not recognize the right of appeal. This recourse differs from an appeal in the following points:

(a) it is an extraordinary remedy;

(b) it can be granted only by the Holy See;

(c) it has no suspensive effect.

BAART, Legal Formulary (New York), nn. 442 sq.; DROSTE-MESSMER, Canonical Procedure in Disciplinary and Criminal Cases of Clerics (New York), nn. 105 sq.; SMITH AND CHEETHAM (non-Catholic), A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (Hartford, 1877), s. v. Appeal; SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1893), I, nn. 442 sq.; II, nn. 1207 sq.; SMITH, The New Procedure (New York, 1888), nn. 427 sq.; ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dictionnaire de droit canonique (Paris, 1901), s. v. Appeal; BOUIX, De Iudiciis Ecclesiasticis (Paris, 1866), II. 246; DE ANGELIS, Prœlectiones Juris Canonici (Rome, 1877–91), Book II, tit. 28; FERRARIS, Bibliotheca Canonica (Rome, 1885–99), s. v. Appellatio; GIGNAC, Compendium Iuris Canonici (Quebec, 1903), II, nn. 1013, Sq.; LEGA, De Iudiciis Ecclesiasticis (Rome, 1896–1901), 1, nn. 614 sq.; OJETTI, Synopsis Rerum Moralium et Juris Pontificii (Prato, 1904), I, 107; PIERANTONELLI, Praxis Fori Ecclesiastici (Rome, 1883), 156; REIFFENSTUEL, Jus Canonicum Universum (Paris, 1864–70), Book II, tit. 28.

HECTOR PAPI

Appetite

(ad, to + petere, to seek)

A tendency, an inclination, or direction. As it is used by modern writers, the word appetite has a psychological meaning. It denotes “an organic need represented in consciousness by certain sensations . . . The appetites generally recognized are those of hunger, thirst, and sex; yet the need of air, the need of exercise, and the need of sleep come under the definition.” The term appetence or appetency applies not only to organic needs, but also in a general manner to “conations which find satisfaction in some positive state or result”; to “conative tendencies of all sorts “. (Baldwin, Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, s. v. Appetite, Appetence.) For the schoolmen, appetitus had a far more general signification, which we shall briefly explain. (References are to St. Thomas’s works.) Appetite includes all forms of internal inclination (Summa Theol., I-II, Q. viii, a. 1; Quæst. disputatæ, De veritate, Q. xxii, a. 1). It is found in all beings, even in those that are unconscious. The inclination to what is good and suitable, and consequently the aversion to what is evil—for the avoidance of evil is a good—are included in it. It may be directed towards an object that is absent or towards one that is actually present. Finally, in conscious beings, it is not restricted to organic needs or lower tendencies, but extends to the highest and noblest aspirations. Two main kinds of appetite are recognized by the scholastics; one unconscious, or naturalis; the other conscious, or elicitus, subdivided into sensitive and rational. From their very nature, all beings have certain tendencies, affinities, and forms of activity. The term natural appetite includes all these. It means the inclination of a thing to that which is in accord with its nature, without any knowledge of the reason why such a thing is appetible. This tendency originates immediately in the nature of each being, and remotely in God, the author of that nature (Quæst. disp., De veritate, Q. xxv, art. 1). The appetitus elicitus follows knowledge. Knowledge is the possession by the mind of an object in its ideal form, whereas appetite is the tendency towards the thing thus known, but considered in its objective reality (Quæst. disp., De veritate, Q. xxii, a. 10). But as knowledge is of two specifically different kinds, so also is the appetite (Summa Theol., I, Q. lxxx, a. 2). The appetitus sensitivus, also called animalis, follows sense-cognition. It is an essentially organic faculty; its functions are not functions of the soul alone, but of the body also. It tends primarily “to a concrete object which is useful or pleasurable,” not to “the reason itself of its appetibility.” The appetitus rationalis, or will, is a faculty of the spiritual soul, following intellectual knowledge, tending to the good as such and not primarily to concrete objects. It tends to these in so far as they are known to participate in the abstract and perfect goodness conceived by the intellect (Quæst. disp., De veritate, Q. xxv, a. 1). In the natural and the sensitive appetites there is no freedom. One is necessitated by the laws of nature itself, the other by the sense-apprehension of a concrete thing as pleasant and useful. The will, on the contrary, is not necessitated by any concrete good, because no concrete good fully realizes the concept of perfect goodness which alone can necessarily draw the will. In this is to be found the fundamental reason of the freedom of the will (cf. Quæst. disp., De veritate, Q. xxv, a. 1). The sensitive appetite is divided into appetitus concupiscibilis and appetitus irascibilis, according as its object is apprehended simply as good, useful, or pleasurable, or as being obtainable only with difficulty and by the overcoming of obstacles (Summa Theol., I, Q. lxxxi, a. 5; Q. lxxxii, a. 5; I-II, Q. xxiii, a. 1; Quæst. disp., De veritate, Q. xxv, a. 2). All the manifestations of the sensitive appetite are called passions. In the scholastic terminology this word has not the limited signification in which it is commonly used to-day. There are six passions for the concupiscible appetite: love and hatred, desire and aversion, joy and sadness; and five for the irascible appetite: hope and despair, courage, fear, and anger (Summa Theol., I-II, Q. xxiii, a. 4).

In man are found the natural, the sensitive, and the rational appetites. Certain of man’s natural tendencies have in view his own personal interest. e.g. conservation of life, health, physical and mental welfare and perfection. Some of them regard the interest of other men, and some relate to God. Such inclinations, however, although springing immediately from human nature, become conscious and deliberate in many of their determinations (Summa Theol., I, Q. lx, a. 3, 4, 5). The tendency of the various faculties to perform their appropriate functions is also a natural appetite, but not a distinct faculty (Summa Theol., I, Q. lxxx, art. 1, ad 3; Q. lxxviii, art. 1, ad 3am). The sensitive appetite in man is under the control of the will and can be strengthened or checked by the will’s determination. This control, however, is not absolute, for the sensitive appetite depends on organic conditions, which are not regulated by reason. Frequently, also, owing to its suddenness or intensity, the outburst of passion cannot be repressed (Summa Theol., I, Q. lxxxi, a. 3; I-II, Q. xvii, a. 7; Quæst. disp., De veritate, Q. xxv, a. 4). On the other hand, the sensitive appetite exerts a strong influence on the will, both because the passions modify organic conditions and thus influence all cognitive faculties, and because their intensity may prevent the mind from applying itself to the higher operations of intellect and will (Summa Theol., I-II, Q. ix, a. 2; Q. x, a. 3; Q. lxxvii, a. 1). The theory of appetite has various applications in theology. lt affects the solution of such problems as man’s desire for God, the consequences of original sin, and the perfection of Christ’s humanity. It is of importance also in questions concerning the natural moral law, responsibility, virtue, and vice, the influence of passion as a determinant of human action. Among the medieval theologians, St. Thomas held that intelligent creatures desire naturally to behold the essence of God. The knowledge which they have of Him through His effects serves only to quicken their desire for immediate vision. Scotus, while admitting this desire as a natural tendency in man, claimed that it could not be realized without the assistance of grace. The discussion of the problem was continued by the commentators of St. Thomas, and it has been revived by modern theologians. Cf. Sestili, “De naturali intelligentis animæ appetitu intuendi divinam essentiam” (Rome, 1896).

MAHER, Psychology (4th ed., London, 1900); MERCIER, Psychologie (6th ed., Louvain, 1903); GARDAIR, Les passions et la volonté (Paris, 1892); cf. also GARDEIL in Dict. de théol. cath., s. v. Appétit.

C.A. DUBRAY

Approbation

Approbation is an act by which a bishop or other legitimate superior grants to an ecclesiastic the actual exercise of his ministry. The plenitude of ecclesiastical power given by Christ to His Apostles resides solely in the bishops. From the bishop, as the centre of the Christian community, depend the government and care of souls, namely, the dispensing of doctrine and of the sacraments. The helpers with whose aid the bishop exercises his pastoral ministry are the parish priests, their vicars and co-workers. These possess the power by virtue of the episcopal delegation, transmitted by means of many acts differing one from the other. The permanent capability and the appointment to the service of the Church in general are transmitted by means of Holy orders. The actual appointment to the exercise of ministry in a determined sphere springs from the conferring of an ecclesiastical office which, in accord with the spirit of the Church, is recognized as a permanent charge, and hence should not be given except after a special proof of fitness by him who is invested therewith. Even when a priest, by Holy orders and appointment to a charge, is made capable of the pastoral ministry and is assigned to it, the exercise of the transmitted power still depends upon the will and faithfulness of the mandatory; and at the same time other extensive variable circumstances, v. g. the actual situation of the Church or the spirit of the times, may determine now an extension, now a restriction, and at times suspension or revocation of the delegated power. From this it follows that, besides orders and the appointment to a charge, a special act of delegation is necessary for the actual exercise of the pastoral ministry. Hence the word approbation is appropriate to keep the co-workers of the bishop alert, to remind them of their dependence, to give the bishop greater facility to exercise his right of watchfulness, and to keep each one within the proper limits of his jurisdiction. The absolute necessity of approbation, especially for administering the Sacrament of Penance, was expressly decreed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, XV, De ref.), so that, except in the case of imminent death, the absolution by a priest not approved would be invalid. This approbation for the Sacrament of Penance is the judicial declaration of the legitimate superior that a certain priest is fit to hear, and has the faculties to hear, the confession of his subjects. The Council of Trent, quoted above, decrees: “Although priests receive in their ordination the power of absolving from sins, nevertheless the Holy Synod ordains that no one, even though he be a regular, is able to hear the confessions of seculars, not even of priests, and that he is not to be reputed fit thereunto, unless he either holds a parochial benefice or is, by the bishops, after an examination if they shall think it necessary, or in some other way, judged fit and has obtained their approbation, which shall be granted gratuitously—any privileges and custom whatsoever, though immemorial, to the contrary notwithstanding.” This is the basis of the actual discipline everywhere. Suarez (De Pœn., disp. xxviii, sect. 3, tract. xxi) says that before the Council of Trent a parish priest by law could validly and lawfully give jurisdiction to any priest who had the proper qualifications of the natural and divine law to hear confessions, without approbation or jurisdiction from the bishop. The Council of Trent withdrew this by its requirement of the approbation of the bishop. A parish priest has from his “parochial benefice” the implied approbation of the bishop and ordinary power to hear the confessions of his own parishioners, even outside his parish or diocese.

By bishop is meant also his vicar-general, or the vicar-capitular or administrator during the vacancy of a see, also any regular prelate having ordinary jurisdiction over a certain territory. This approbation may be given orally or in writing, and may be given indirectly, as when, for instance, priests receive power to choose in their own diocese an approved priest of another diocese for their confessor. The bishop may wrongfully but validly refuse his approbation, without which no priest may hear confessions. Approbation ceases at the time fixed, by revocation of the bishop, if attached to a benefice; by the loss of the benefice; also by censure, if inflicted publicly; if the censure is inflicted privately, the exercise of jurisdiction is unlawful but valid. The pope may grant this jurisdiction to those who have the essential requirements in any part of the world, and to whomsoever he thinks fit. A bishop may grant it likewise in his own diocese, and superiors of regulars to their subjects. By custom an approved priest absolves validly in any part of the diocese in which he is approved. An approved confessor may hear the confessions of those coming from another diocese who come in good faith, and not fraudulently to escape the reservations of their own diocese. An approved confessor may absolve from the cases “reserved” in another diocese, but not from those reserved in his own diocese. A confessor’s jurisdiction may be restricted to various classes of persons, e. g. to children, or to men, without the right to hear women. A special approbation is required to hear nuns or women of religious communities, and this extends with modifications to all communities of recognized sisterhoods. A confessor approved for one convent is not presumed to be approved for all. A confessor having temporary jurisdiction for “reserved cases” may continue to exercise it in any case begun before the lapse of the appointed time. The priest travelling on the high seas, if he be approved by his own ordinary, may validly hear the confessions of any of his companions during the whole journey, even if from time to time the vessel put into a port or ports outside the jurisdiction of said ordinary (S. C. Inq., 4 April, 1900).

Approbation given in a general way does not cease at the death of the giver. Approbation may be made revocable, and restricted to a place, time, and persons, according to the judgment of a bishop. By the decree quoted of the Council of Trent, regulars must obtain the approbation of the bishops to hear the confessions of seculars, even of priests. This special clause was inserted to put an end to controversies that had arisen from privileges granted to the regulars. In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council had decreed that all the faithful of either sex who had reached the use of reason should confess to their own (parish) priest at least once a year. If any should wish to confess to another priest, permission should be obtained from their own priest; otherwise, the absolution should be void. Shortly after this council the popes granted many privileges to the members of the Franciscan and Dominican Orders of friars lately established, and exhorted the bishops to allow them to preach in public squares or churches and to hear confessions in their dioceses. Dissensions between the friars and the secular clergy brought from Boniface VIII, in 1299, an edict requiring a request to the bishop that certain selected friars should receive permission to hear confessions. If the bishops refused, he by his plenary power authorized the friars to hear confessions to the same extent as the parish priests. Benedict XI, in 1304, increased this privilege, but Clement V, in 1311, restricted the privileges to those granted by Boniface VIII. At times the dissensions and disputes in the various countries of Europe between the bishops and secular priests and the friars became very heated. An interesting account of the extent of these controversies in England and Ireland occurs in the “Catholic University Bulletin” (April, 1905, 195 sqq.), which gives the details of the arraignment of the mendicant friars by the celebrated Fitz-Ralph, Archbishop of Armagh, in 1357, before Innocent VI at Avignon. The Council of Trent undertook to remedy these troubles by restricting the privileges of the regulars, mainly in those things connected with the care of souls and the administration of the sacraments, which it sought to replace directly under the control of the bishops. The privileges of the mendicant friars had been extended to other orders; in particular, to the Society of Jesus.

During the period of Queen Elizabeth’s persecution of Catholics an archpriest was appointed by Rome with episcopal authority to govern the secular priests who remained in England. By decree of Urban VIII, 6 May, 1631, regulars, especially Jesuits, were exempted from his jurisdiction; they derived through their own superiors authority from the Pope to hear confessions and to administer the other sacraments. Yet for elsewhere Urban VIII insisted upon the legislation of the Council of Trent, as is shown by his Bull of 12 Sept., 1628: “We recall, annul from all colleges, chapters, religious societies, even the Society of Jesus, all indults to hear confessions without examination by the ordinary.” In England the claim was made that the archpriest was not the ordinary in a canonical sense. This continued even after the Holy See, in 1623, had appointed as vicar Apostolic a bishop who should have the authority of an ordinary. Finally, in 1688, four vicars Apostolic were appointed. By decree of Innocent XII (Constit. 80, 6 October, 1696) “all regulars, even Jesuits and Benedictines, were to be subject to the vicar in whose district they were, for approbation with regard to hearing confessions, for the cure of souls and for all parochial offices.” Some doubts arose how far vicars Apostolic should be entitled to the rights given to bishops by the Council of Trent. Benedict XIV, by his Bull “Apostolicum Ministerium” drawn up for the Church in England (30 May, 1753), sought to put an end to these controversies by declaring that “the religious in accord with the regulations of the Council of Trent must submit themselves to the examination and receive the permission of the ordinary to hear confessions of the laity—all missionaries both secular and religious in the administration of the Sacraments and parochial duty to be subject to the jurisdiction, visitation, and correction of their respective vicars Apostolic.”

Not a few theologians of note still claim that confessors belonging to the regular orders have jurisdiction from the pope over the faithful generally in the tribunal of penance, the approbation of the bishop having been obtained. These seem to hold that the approbation is mainly the declaration of the bishop that a priest is fit to hear confessions. However, it is well to note the definition and explanation of approbation given by Benedict XIV in this Bull: “Approbation embraces two acts of which the first is of the intellect and the second of the will. lt belongs to the intellect to determine that the examined priest is, because of the proper and necessary knowledge, fitted for the office of hearing confessions. It, however, belongs only to the will to give the free and full faculty to hear confessions and to pass judgment upon him who is submitted to the approver. The first is done by the examiner on whose fidelity and honesty he relies who gives the faculty to hear confessions within the district assigned to him. The second immediately proceeds from the superior himself to whom it belongs to grant the faculty” (§ 8). Regulars certainly derive their jurisdiction over those of their own communities and permanent households through their own superiors, independently of the bishop. This privilege granted by the Holy See is probably founded on the principle that the superiors of regulars, having an office or charge with the care of souls annexed, should have ordinary jurisdiction over their subjects. (See RELIGIOUS ORDERS.)

Benedicti XIV Bullar. (Prato, 1857); also his De Synodo diœcesanâ, IX, xvi, 7–9; D’AVINO, Enciclopedia dell’ Ecclesiastico (Turin, 1878); FLEURY, Hist. Eccles., V, Bks. XXIX-XXXI; SANTI, Prœlect. jur. can. in Decret. Greg., IX, lib. III, tit. xxxvii; SCAVINI, Theol. Mor. III, tract. x, disp. i; CRAISSON, Man. jur. can., II, Bk. I, Sect. 2, p. 2; FLANAGAN, Hist. Church in England (London, 1857), I, xxi; DODD, Hist. Church in England (London, 1839); LAURENTIUS, Inst. jur. eccl. (Freiburg, 1903), 412–415; TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), 44–46.

R. L. BURTSELL.

Appropriation

In general, consists in the attribution to a person or thing of a character or quality which determines in a special way this person or thing. In theology, appropriation is used in speaking of the different Persons of the Trinity. It consists in attributing certain names, qualities, or operations to one of the Persons, not, however, to the exclusion of the others, but in preference to the others. The qualities and names thus appropriated belong essentially to all the Persons; yet, according to our understanding of the data of revelation and our theological concepts, we consider some of these characteristics or names as belonging to one Person rather than to another, or as determining more clearly this particular Person. Thus we consider the Father as particularly characterized by omnipotence, the Son by wisdom, and the Holy Ghost by love, though we know that the three have essentially and by nature an equal omnipotence, wisdom, and love (cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, I, Q. xxxix, a. 7; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, Rome, 1881, Th. xiii, 216). Appropriation is not merely arbitrary; it is based on our knowledge of the Trinity, which knowledge has its sources and rules in Revelation (Scripture and tradition) and in the analogies which our reason discovers between created things and persons and the Persons of the Trinity as those persons are represented in Revelation. Of necessity, we understand the data of Revelation only under human concepts, that is, in an analogical way (see ANALOGY. It is, therefore, by their analogy with creatures and created relations that we conceive the different Persons of the Trinity and their relations. Each Person of the Trinity is presented to us with a proper characteristic which is the constitutive element of the personality. Remarking, as we do naturally, that among creatures certain attributes, qualities, or operations are the properties of the person possessing such a characteristic, we conceive the Trinity after this remote suggestion, though in an analogical and supereminent way, and we appropriate to each Person of the Trinity the names, qualities, or operations which, in creatures, are the consequences or properties of this characteristic. Appropriation, therefore, has its source in revelation, and it has its foundation and rule in the very characteristic which constitutes each distinct personality in the Trinity and the relations existing between the essential properties of the Divine Nature and this constitutive characteristic of each person-these relations in God being known by analogy with the relations existing between these same properties and this same characteristic in creatures (St. Thomas, loc. cit.; Franzelin, loc. cit.). Among the names used in speaking of the Persons of the Trinity, the name God is often appropriated to the Father, the name Lord to the Son, the name Spirit, in the sense of immaterial substance, to the Third Person. Among the Divine attributes, eternity is appropriated to the Father, as source and first principle of all things; beauty to the Son, Who, proceeding by way of intelligence, is the perfect image of the Father; fruition to the Holy Ghost, Who proceeds through love. Again, unity is appropriated to the Father, truth to the Son, and goodness to the Holy Ghost. Among the Divine attributes of action and operation, omnipotence is appropriated to the Father, with all the operations which it implies, especially creation; wisdom and its works, especially the order of the universe, to the Son; and to the Holy Ghost, charity and its works, especially sanctification (cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 2, 3, etc., 17, 47). Again, efficient causality with the production of all things is appropriated to the Father; exemplary causality with the organization of all things, to the Son; final causality with the conservation and perfecting of all things, to the Holy Ghost [cf. St. Thom., “Summa Theol.,” I, Q, xxxiv, a. 8; H. Dubois, “De Exemplarismo Divino,” XII, §4 (Rome, 1897)]. Appropriation as a theological method or theory is of comparatively recent origin. But from the beginning of Christianity, it was used as a spontaneous expression of the Catholic conception of the Trinity. It has its source, as already said, in Scripture and in tradition. In Scripture it is used notably by St. Paul (cf. Ephes., i, 3; iv, 4–6; Rom., xv, 9; II Cor., i, 3; xi, 31; cf. also, I Pet., i, 3). In tradition it is expressed especially in the formulas of faith, or Symbols (cf. Denzinger, “Enchiridion,” n. 2–13, 17, 47); in liturgy, and especially in doxologies (cf. Dom Cabrol, “Le livre de la prière antique,” xix, Poitiers, 1900); in inscriptions and pictures (Franzelin, op. cit.; H. Marucchi, “Eléments d’archéologie chrétienne,” Rome, 1900). As early as the third century with Origen, later with St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and others, the Greek Fathers speak of the klésein, or divine appellations, though it cannot be said yet that they furnish a theory of appropriation (De Régnon: Etudes de théologie positive sur la S. Trinité, études xvii, xxv, Paris, 1898). This theory is established by the Latin Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, especially by St. Hilary, “De Trinitate,” II, n. 1; P. L., t. X, col. 50; St. Augustine, “De Trinitate,” VI, x, P.L., t. XLII, col. 931; St. Leo the Great, “Sermo de Pentecoste,” LXXVI, iii, P.L., t. LIV, col. 405. In the Middle Ages, the theory was accepted, completed, and systematically taught by the Schoolmen (cf. St. Bonaventure: In I Sent. dist., xxxiv, q. iii; Opera, Quaracchi, 1883, t. 1b, 592; St. Thom., Sum. Theol., 1a pars., Q. xxxix, a. 8). Abelard, who considered the appropriated qualities as belonging exclusively to the Person made the subject of appropriation, was condemned in the Council of Sens (1141) and by Innocent II.

DENZINGER, Enchiridion, n. 310–323; ST. HILARY, De Trinitate, II, n. 1; P.L., t. X, col. 50; ST. AUGUSTINE, De Trinitate, VI, x; P.L., t. XLII, col. 931; RICHARD OF ST. VICTOR, De tribus appropriatis personis, in P.L., CXCVI, col. 7, 992; ST. THOMAS, Sum. Theol., I, Q. xxxiv, a., 8; ST. BONAVENTURE, In I Sent., dist. XXXIV, Q. iii, Opera, Quaracchi, 1883, t. 1b; PETAVIUS, De Trinitate, Lib. VIII, iii, n. 1 (Venice, 1757); FRANZELIN, De Deo Trino (Rome, 1881), th. Xiii; PAQUET, Disputationes theologicæ seu commentaria in Sum. theol. D. Thomæ: De Deo uno et trino (Quebec, 1895), disp. x., 1, a. 2; DE DEGNON, Etudes de théologie positive sur la S. Trinité (Paris, 1898); POHLE, in Kirchenlex., s. v. “Trinität”; CHOLLET, in VACANT, Dict. théol. cathol., s. v. Appropriation aux Personnel, etc.

GEORGE M. SAUVAGE

Apse

(Lat., apsis or absis, Ionic Gr., apsis, an arch).

The semicircular or polygonal termination to the choir or aisles of a church. A similar termination is sometimes given to transepts and nave. The term in ecclesiastical architecture generally denotes that part of the church where the clergy are seated or the altar placed. It was so called from being usually domed or vaulted, and was so used by the Greeks and Romans. The term is sometimes applied to a canopy over an altar; a dome; the arched roof of a room; the bishop’s seat in old churches; a reliquary; a recess, semicircular in plan, covered over with a vault in the shape of a semi-dome or any other description of roof. The apse is always solid below though generally broken by windows above. The chevet is an apse, always enclosed by an open screen of columns on the ground floor, and opening into an aisle, which again opens into three or more apsidal chapels. Sometimes the apse is a simple semicircle; out of this, in some large churches, a smaller semicircle springs, as Becket’s crown at Canterbury, and as in the churches at Sens, Langres, and many others in Europe. Sometimes the choir finishes with three apses-one to the central aisle and one to each side aisle, as at Autun. Sometimes the plan is a semicircle, each bay of which has a projecting semicircular apse, forming a sort of cluster of apses, as at Beauvais, Troyes, Tours, etc. The choir of late date at Le Mans is encircled by no less than thirteen apses, the centre one being twice the depth of the others, and forming the Lady Chapel. Large circular and polygonal apses generally have radiating chapels within, as at Westminster Abbey. The term apse was first used in reference to a Roman basilica, of which it was a characteristic feature. There was an apse in the temple of Mars Ultor. It is now completely decayed, but in the time of Sabacco and Palladio there seem to have been sufficient remains to justify an attempt at restoration. It is nearly square in plan (112 feet by 120). The cella here is a much more important part than is usual in Greek temples, and terminates in an apse, which afterwards became characteristic of all places of worship. In Trajan’s basilica at one end was a great semicircular apse, the back part of which was raised, being approached by a semicircular range of steps. In the centre of this platform was the raised seat of the quæster or other magistrate who presided. On each side, upon the steps, were places for the assessors or others engaged in the business being transacted. In front of the apse was placed an altar, where sacrifice was performed before commencing any important public business.

In the basilica, when used as a place of Christian worship, dating from the fourth century, the whole congregation of the faithful could meet and participate in the ceremonies and devotions. The bishop took the place occupied of old by the prætor or quæster; the presbyters, the places of the assessors. Very little change was needed to erect a Christian altar on the spot in front of the apse, where the heathen had poured out their libations at the commencement and conclusion of all important business. The basilica of the heathen became the ecclesia, or place of assembly, of the early Christian community. In the church of Ibrihm, in Nubia, there is the peculiarity of an internal apse, which became general in Eastern, but less frequent in Western, churches, though sufficiently so to make its introduction at this early period worthy of notice. Another example to make this early form intelligible is that of the church of St. Reparatus, near Orléansville in Algeria, the ancient Castellum Tingitanum. According to an inscription still existing, it was erected in 252; but the second apse seems to have been added about the year 403, to contain the grave of the saint. As it now stands, it is a double-apsed basilica, 80 feet long by 52 broad, divided into five aisles and exhibiting on a miniature scale all the peculiarities of plan which we once fancied were not adopted until some centuries later. In this instance both apses are internal, so that the side aisles are longer than the central one, apparently no portion of them having been cut off for calcidica or vestries, as was very often done in that age. At Parenzo in Istria there is a basilica built in the year 542, with three aisles and an apse at the end of each. The church at Torcello, near Venice, presents one of the most extensive and best preserved examples of the fittings of the apse, and gives a better idea of the mode in which the apses of churches were originally arranged than anything to be found in any other church, either of the same age or earlier. The apse in the chapel of St. Quinide, probably of the ninth or tenth century, is the most singular as well as the most ancient part of the church, and is formed in a manner of which no other example seems to be known. Externally, it is two sides of a square; internally, a semicircle; at each angle of the exterior and on each face is a pilaster fairly imitated from the Corinthian order, and supporting an entablature that might very well mislead a Northern antiquary to mistake it for a pagan temple. The plan of the church at Planes deserves to be quoted, if not for its merit, at least for its singularity; it is a triangle with an apse attached to each side, and supporting a circular part terminating in a plain roof. As a constructive puzzle it is curious, but it is doubtful how far any utility was subserved by such a freak. The church of Ste-Croix at Mont Majour near Arles is a triapsidal church, supposed to be the only one of its kind. Built as a sepulchral chapel, it is a singularly gloomy but appropriate erection. In the Byzantine style the apse was retained, as in St. Sophia at Constantinople, in the old Byzantine churches at Ravenna, and in several churches on the Rhine.

The apse is almost universally adopted in Germany, and is very common in France and Italy. In different parts of England there are many churches with semicircular apses at the east end, chiefly in the Norman style, and some in which this form has evidently been altered at a subsequent period. In several cases the crypts beneath have retained the form when the superstructure has been altered. The apse is virtually a continental feature and contrasts with the square termination of English Gothic work. The traditional semicircular apse, greatly enlarged and, in the perfected style, changed to a polygonal plan, is the most characteristic eastern termination of the larger French churches. The low Romanesque apse, covered with the primitive semi-dome and enclosed with its simple wall, presented no constructive difficulties and produced no imposing effect. But the soaring French chevet, with its many-celled vault, its arcaded stories, its circling aisles, and its radial chapels, taxed inventive powers to the utmost and entranced the eye of the beholder. The apse of St. Germain-des-Prés (second quarter of the twelfth century) may reasonably be regarded as the first great Gothic apse ever constructed. Norwich cathedral is perhaps the finest example of the round apse in England. The cathedral of Durham, of which the nave and choir were finished much as they are now seen about the beginning of the twelfth century, had originally an apse; but on account of a defect in the masonry this was taken down and the present magnificent chapel of the Nine Altars substituted in the thirteenth century. The apsidal form is occasionally met with in England, as at Lichfield and Westminster. There is an apse in each arm of the transept in the churches at Melbourne, Gloucester, Ramsay, Chichester, Chester, Norwich, Lindisfarne, Christ Church in Hants, Tewkesbury, Castle Acre, Evesham. If the transept was long, there would sometimes be two apses on each arm, as at Cluny, Canterbury, St. Augustine’s, and St. Albans.

FERGUSSON, A History of Architecture in all Countries (London 1893), GWILT, Encyclopedia of Architecture (London 1881); FLETCHER, A History of Architecture (London, New York, 1896), WEALE, Dict. of Terms in Rudimentary Series (London, 1859–93); MOORE, Development and Character of Gothic Architecture (London, New York, 1899); LONGFELLOW (ed.). A Cyclopedia of Works of Architecture in Italy, Greece and the Levant (New York, 1895).

THOMAS H. POOLE

Apse Chapel

A chapel radiating tangentially from one of the bays or divisions of the apse, and reached generally by a semicircular passageway, or ambulatory, exteriorly to the walls or piers of the apse. In plan, the normal type of the tangential chapel is semicircular; some, however, are pentagonal, and some composed of a small circle, serving as choir, and part of a large circle, as nave; some are oblong with eastern apses. In England, sometimes an ambulatory connects the north and south aisles of the choir and from the ambulatory projects an eastern chapel or chapels. The eastern chevet of Westminster Abbey. surrounded by five apsidal chapels, is the only complete example of this feature in England. The common source of the ambulatory and radiating chapels seems to have been the church of St. Martin of Tours, where originally there was a choir of two bays, and an apse of five bays, surrounded by a single ambulatory and five radiating chapels. Altars, which had before cumbered the nave, could now be placed in the new radiating chapels of the ambulatory, which afforded the necessary access to them. Each apsidal chapel could be treated as a sanctuary, to be entered only by the officiating, priest and his attendants, and the ambulatory served as the necessary nave for the worshippers. The usual number of these radiating chapels is three. Apse chapels are often found in the cathedrals of the Benedictine foundations, and occasionally in those of the Cluniac reform. St. Martin of Tours, St. Savin, and Cluny have five choir chapels; Amiens, Beauvais Cologne, and Le Mans have seven apsidal chapels. No ambulatory with tangential chapels is older than about A. D. 900. The peri-apsidal plan of Westminster Abbey, commenced in 1050 by Edward the Confessor, anticipated Cluny by thirty-nine years, a plan which was reproduced at Gloucester in 1089 and at Norwich in 1096. Radiating chapels are almost entirely a continental plan and most frequently found in French and Gothic structures. In England the apse chapel is very rare, owing to the generally square termination of the nave. Traces of an early apsidal treatment are found in Canterbury Cathedral. In continental churches the central apse chapel was often the Lady-chapel. In England the Lady-chapel was generally placed at the side.

MOORE, Gothic architecture (London 1890); BLOXAM Principles of Gothic Ecclesiastical Architecture (11th ed., London. 1882); BOND, Gothic Architecture in England, (London, 1906).

THOMAS H. POOLE

Apsidiole

(Also written ABSIDIALE), a small or secondary apse, one of the apses on either side of the main apse in a triapsidal church, or one of the apse-chapels when they project on the exterior of the church, particularly if the projection resembles an apse in shape. Bond (Gothic Architecture in England, 163) says that the Norman plan of eastern limb which the Norman builders brought over to England at the Conquest, contained a central apse flanked by apsidioles.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Council of Apt

Held 14 May, 1365, in the cathedral of that city by the archbishops and bishops of the provinces of Arles, Embrun, and Aix, in the south of France. Twenty-eight decrees were published and eleven days of indulgence were granted to those who would visit with pious sentiments the church of the Blessed Virgin in the Diocese of Apt, on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, and venerate there certain relics of the same.

MANSI, Coll. Conc., XXVI, 445; MARTÈNE, Thes. nov. anecd. (1717), IV, 331–342; BOZE, Hist. de l’église d’Apt (Apt. 1820)

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Aquarians

(Gr., Hydroparastatai; Lat., Aquarii).

A name given to several sects in the early Church. The Ebionites, as St. Epiphanies tells us, had a idolatrous veneration for water (aqua), which they regarded as the source of life. The Manichaean sects rejected the use of wine as something evil. The name, however, seems to have been given chiefly to the followers of Tatian, of whom Theodoret speaks as follows: “Tatian, after the death of his master, Justin the Martyr, set himself up as the author of a heresy. Among the things he rejected were marriage, and the use of animal food and wine. Tatian is the father of the Aquarians, and of the Encratites. They are called Hydroparastatae, because they offer water instead of wine [in the Eucharist]; and Encratites because they neither drink wine nor eat animal food. From these they abstain because they abhor them as something evil. . . .” They are mentioned by St. Irenaeus and by Clement of Alexandria. St. Augustine in his “Catalogue of Heresies” says: “The Aquarians are so called because in the cup of the Sacrament they offer water, not that which the whole Church offers.” St. John Chrysostom, arguing against the Aquarians, declared that Our Lord drank wine after His Resurrection in order to prove that at the institution of the Eucharist also He had used wine. At the time of St. Cyprian the practice existed in some parts of Africa of using water instead of wine in the celebration of the Eucharist. He strongly condemned it in one of his letters, ascribing it, however, to ignorance and simplicity rather than to a heretical spirit.

EPIPHANIUS, Adv. Hoer. in P.G., XLI, 432; THEODORET, Hoer. Fab., ibid., LXXXIII, 359; IRENAEUS, Contra Hoer., ibid., VII, 1123; CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Strom., ibid., VIII, 313; CHRYSOSTOM, In Matt., hom., lxxxii, ibid., LVIII, 740; CYPRIAN, Epist., lxiii, in P.L., IV, 384 sqq.; AUGUSTINE, Hoer., ibid., XLII, 42.

B. GULDNER

Archdiocese of Aquila

An Italian archdiocese in the Abruzzi, directly dependent on the Holy See. The See of Forconium preceded it, in 680. The Diocese of Aquila was erected by Alexander IV, 20 February, 1257. Pius VII joined to it the suppressed See of Cittàducale in 1818, and Pius IX raised it to an archiepiscopal see, 23 January, 1876. It has 107,800 Catholics; 135 parishes; 217 secular priests; 29 regulars; 130 seminarists; 264 churches or chapels. Aquila is on a high mountain, with broad, straight streets, and fine churches. The cathedral is dedicated to Sts. Maximus and George, martyrs. The body of St. Bernardine of Sienna, who died in Aquila, is preserved in a church erected there in his honor. St. Celestine V was also buried there in 1296 in the monastery of Collemaggio, where he was made Pontiff. Aquila has suffered from three earthquakes, and in that of 2 February, 1703, over two thousand persons perished, eight hundred of whom were in the church of St. Dominic, where Communion was being given. The priest was found in the ruins, still holding in his hand the ciborium containing two hundred particles, perfectly whole.

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath., 1906.

JOHN J.A. BECKET

Aquila and Priscilla

(Or Prisca.)

Jewish tentmakers, who left Rome (Aquila was a native of Pontus) in the Jewish persecution under Claudius, 49 or 50, and settled in Corinth, where they entertained St. Paul, as being of their trade, on his first visit to the town (Acts, 18:1f.). The time of their conversion to the Faith is not known. They accompanied St. Paul to Ephesus (Acts, 18:18–19), instructed the Alexandrian Apollo, entertained the Apostle Paul at Ephesus for three years, during his third missionary journey, kept a Christian church in their house (I Cor., 16:19), left Ephesus for Rome, probably after the riot stirred up by the silversmith Demetrius (Acts, 19:24–40), kept in Rome also a church in their house (Rom., 16:3–5), but soon left that city, probably on account of the persecution of Nero, and settled again at Ephesus (II Tim., 4:19). The Roman Martyrology commemorates them on 8 July. It is not known why Scripture several times names Priscilla before Aquila; the different opinions are given by Cornely, (Rom., 772). A number of modern difficulties based on the frequent change of residence of Aquila and Priscilla are treated by Cornely, (Rom., 16:3–5).

HAGEN, Lexicon Biblicum (Paris, 1905); LE CAMUS in VIG., Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1895); KLOSS and KAULEN in Kirchenlex. (Freiburg, 1882).

A. J. MAAS

Aquileia

A former city of the Roman Empire, situated at the head of the Adriatic, on what is now the Austrian sea-coast, in the country of Goerz, at the confluence of the Anse an the Torre. It was for many centuries the seat of a famous Western patriarchate, and as such plays and important part in ecclesiastical history, particularly in that of the Holy See and Northern Italy.

The site is now known as Aglar, a village of 1500 inhabitants. The city arose (180 B.C.) on the narrow strip between the mountains and the lagoons, during the Illyrian wars, as a means of checking the advance of that warlike people. Its commerce grew rapidly, and when Marcus Aurelius made it (168) the principal fortress of the empire against the barbarians of the North and East, it rose to the acme of its greatness and soon had a population of 100,000. It was pillaged in 238 by the Emperor Maximinus, and it was so utterly destroyed in 452 by Attila, that it was afterwards hard to recognize its original site. The Roman inhabitants, together with those of smaller towns in the neighbourhood, fled to the lagoons, and so laid the foundations of the city of Venice. Aquileia arose again, but much diminished, and was once more destroyed (590) by the Lombards; after which it came under the Dukes of Friuli, was again a city of the Empire under Charlemagne, and in the eleventh century became a feudal possesion of its patriarch, whose temporal authority, however, was constantly disputed and assailed by the territorial nobility.

Ecclesiastical History

Ancient tradition asserts that the see was founded by St. Mark, sent thither by St. Peter, previous to his mission to Alexandria. St. Hermagoras is said to have been its first bishop and to have died a martyr’s death (c. 70). At the end of the third century (285) another martyr, St. Helarus (or Hilarius) was bishop of Aquileia. In the course of the fourth century the city was the chief ecclesiastical centre for the region about the head of the Adriatic, afterwards known as Venetia and Istria. In 381, St. Valerian appears as metropolitan of the churches in this territory; his synod of that year, held against the Arians, was attended by 32 (or 24) bishops. In time part of Western Illyria, and to the north, Noricum and Rhaetia, came under the jurisdiction of Aquileia. Roman cities like Verona, Trent, Pola, Belluno, Feltre, Vicenza, Treviso, Padua, were among its suffragans in the fifth and sixth centuries. As metropolitans of such an extensive territory, and representatives of Roman civilization among the Ostrogoths and Lombards, the bishops of Aquileia sought and obtained from their barbarian masters the honorific title of patriarch, personal, however, as yet to each titular of the see. This title aided to promote and at the same time to justify the strong tendency towards independence that was quite manifest in its relations with Rome, a trait which it shared with its less fortunate rival, Ravenna, that never obtained the patriarchial dignity. It was only after a long conflict that the popes recognized the title thus assumed by the metropolitans of Aquileia. Owing to the acquiescence of Pope Vigilius in the condemnation of the “Three Chapters,” in the Fifth General Council at Constantinople (553) the bishops of Northern Italy (Liguria and Aemilia) and among among them those of the Venetia and Istria, broke off communion with Rome, under the leadership of Macedonius of Aquileia (535–556). In the next decade the Lombards overran all Northern Italy, and the patriarch of Aquileia was obliged to fly, with the treasures of his church, to the little island of Grado, near Trieste, a last remnant of the imperial possessions in Northern Italy. This political change did not affect the relations of the patriarchate with the Apostolic See; its bishops, whether in Lombard or imperial territory, stubbornly refused all invitations to a reconciliation. Various efforts of the popes at Rome and the exarchs at Ravenna, both peaceful and otherwise, met with persistent refusal to renew the bonds of unity until the election of Candidian (606 or 607) as Metropolitan of Aquileia (in Grado). Weary of fifty years’ schism, those of his suffragans whose sees lay within the empire joined him in submission to the Apostolic See; his suffragans among the Lombards persisted in their schism. They went further, and established in Aquileia itself a patriarchate of their own, so that henceforth there were two little patriarchates in Northern Italy, Aquileia in Grado and Old-Aquileia. Gradually the schism lost its vigour, and by 700 it was entirely spent; in the synod held that year at Old-Aquileia it was formally closed. It was probably during the seventh century that the popes recognized in the metropolitans of Grado the title of Patriarch of Aquileia, in order to offset its assumption by the metropolitans of Old-Aquileia. In succeeding centuries in continued in use by both, but had no longer any practical significance. The Patriarchs of Old-Aquileia lived henceforth, first at Cormons, and from the eighth to the thirteenth century at Friuli (Forum Julii). In the later part of the eighth century the creation of a new metropolitan see at Salzburg added to the humiliation of Old-Aquileia, which claimed as its own the territory of Carinthia, but was obliged to acquiesce in the arbitration of Charlemagne, by which Ursus of Aquileia (d. 811) was obliged to relinquish to Arno of Salzburg the Carinthian territory north of the Drave. German feudal influence was henceforth more and more tangible in the ecclesiastical affairs of Old-Aquileia. In 1011 one of its patriarchs, John IV, surrounded by thirty bishops, consecrated the new Cathedral of Bamberg. Its influential patriarch, Poppo, or Wolfgang (1019–42) consecrated his own cathedral at Aquileia, 13 July 1031, in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary. in 1047, the Patriarch Eberhard, a German, assisted at the Roman synod of that year, in which it was declared that Aquileia was inferior in honour only to Rome, Ravenna, and Milan. Nevertheless, Aquileia lost gradually to other metropolitans several of its suffragans, and when the Patriarchate of Grado was at last transferred (1451) from that insignificant place to proud and powerful Venice, the prestige of Old-Aquileia could not but suffer notably. In the meantime, during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the Patriarchs of Aquileia had greatly favoured as a residence Udine, an imperial donation, in Venetian territory. In 1348 Aquileia was destroyed by an earthquake, and its patriarchs were henceforth, to all intents and purposes, Metropolitans of Udine. Since the transfer of the patriarchical residence to Udine the Venetians had never lived in peace with the patriarchate, of whose imperial favour and tendencies they were jealous. When the patriarch Louis of Teck (1412–39) compromised himself in a war between Hungary and Venice, the latter seized on all the lands donated to the patriarchate by the German Empire. The loss of his ancient temporal estate was acquiesced in a little later (1445) by the succeeding patriarch, in return for an annual salary of 5,000 ducats allowed him from the Venetian treasury. Henceforth only Venetians were allowed to hold the Patriarchate of Aquileia. Under the famous Domenigo Grimani (Cardinal since 1497) Austrian Friuli was added to the territory of the patriarchate whose jurisdiction thus extended over some Austrian dioceses.

Extinction of the Patriarchate

The 109th and last Patriarch of Aquileia was Daniel Dolfin (Delfino), coadjutor since 1714 of his predecessor, Dionigio Dolfin, his successor since 1734, and Cardinal since 1747. The Venetian claim to the nomination of the Patriarch of Aquileia had been met by a counter-claim on the part of Austria since the end of the fifteenth century when, as mentioned above, Austrian dioceses came to be included within the jurisdiction of the patriarchate. Finally, Benedict XIV was chosen as arbiter. He awarded (1748–49) to the Patriarchate of Udine the Venetian territory in Friuli, and for the Austrian possessions he created a vicarate Apostolic with residence at Goerz independent of the Patriarch of Aquileia, and immediately dependent on the Holy See, in whose name all jurisdiction was exercised. This decision was not satisfactory to Venice, and in 1751 the Pope divided the patriarchate into two archdioceses; one at Udine, with Venetian Friuli for its territory, the other at Goerz, with jurisdiction over Austrian Friuli. Of the ancient patriarchate, once so proud and influential, there remained but the parish church of Acquileia. It was made immediately subject to the Apostolic See and to its rector was granted the right of using episcopal insignia seven times in the year.

Neher in Kirchenlex. I, 1184–89; De Rubeis, Monum. Eccl. Aquil. (Strasburg, 1740); Ughelli Italia Sacra, I sqq.; X, 207; Cappelletti, Chiese d’Italia, VIII, 1 sqq.; Menzano, Annali del Friuli (1858–68); Paschini, Sulle Origini della Chiesa di Aquileia (1904); Glaschroeder, in Buchberger’s Kirchl. Handl. (Munich, 1904), I, 300–301; Hefele, Conciliengesch. II, 914–23. For the episcopal succession, see Gams, Series episcoporum (Ratisbon, 1873–86), and Eubel, Hierarchia Cath. Medii Aevi (Muenster, 1898).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Councils of Aquileia

A council held in 381, presided over by St. Valerian of Aquileia, and attended by thirty-two bishops, among them St. Philastrius of Brescia and St. Justus of Lyons, deposed from their offices certain stubborn partisans of Arius. This council also requested the Emperors Theodosius and Gratian to convene at Alexandria a council of all Catholic bishops in order to put an end to the Meletian Schism at Antioch, since 362 the source of the greatest scandal in the Christian Orient. The council of 553 inaugurated the schism that for nearly a century separated many churches of Northern Italy from the Holy See; in it the Bishops of Venetia, Istria, and Liguria refused to accept the decrees of the Fifth General Council (553) on the plea that by the condemnation of the Three Chapters it had undone the work of the Council of Chalcedon (451). The Council of 1184 was held against incendiaries and those guilty of sacrilege. In 1409 a council was held by Gregory XII against the pretensions of the rival popes, Benedict XIII (Peter de Luna) and Alexander V (Peter of Candia). He declared them schismatical, but promised to renounce the papacy if they would do the same. In 1596 Francesco Barbaro, Patriarch of Aquileia, held a council at which he renewed in nineteen decrees the legislation of the Council of Trent.

MANSI, Coll. Conc., III, 599; IX, 659; XII, 115–118; and passim; CHEVALlER, Topo-bibliog. (Paris, 1894–99), 189.

Diocese of Aquino, Sora, and Pontecorvo

An Italian diocese immediately subject to the Holy See. It comprises 29 towns in the province of Caserta and 7 in that of Aquila. Aquino became a bishopric in 465; Sora, in 275, with a regular list of bishops from 1221; Pontecorvo, on 28 June, 1725, and was immediately united to the diocese of Aquino. Sora was added to these in 1818 by Pius VII. Aquino has a population of 50,150; 21 parishes, 77 secular priests, 55 regulars, 55 seminarists, 91 churches and chapels. Sora has 95,200 inhabitants; 44 parishes, 182 secular priests, 37 regulars, 189 seminarists, 220 churches or chapels. Pontecorvo has 12,000 inhabitants; 8 parishes, 30 secular priests, 6 regulars, 25 churches or chapels. The seat of the bishop is at Rocca Secca. St. Constans is the patron of the cathedral. He was Bishop of Aquino in 566. Galeazzo (Bishop, 1543) was one of the four judges of the Council of Trent, and Filippo Filonardo (bishop, 1608) became a cardinal. The poet Juvenal (about A.D. 60–140), the Roman Emperor Pescennius Niger (A.D. 190), and the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas (A.D. 1225), were born at Aquino.

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath., 1906.

Arabia

Arabia is the cradle of Islam and, in all probability, the primitive home of the Semitic race. It is a peninsula of an irregularly triangular form, or rather, an irregular parallelogram, bounded on the north by Syria and the Syrian desert; on the south by the Indian Ocean, on the east by the Persian Gulf and Babylonia, and on the west by the Red Sea. The length of its western coast line along the Red Sea, is about 1,800 miles, while its breadth, from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf, is about 600 miles. Hence its size is about one million square miles and, accordingly, it is about four times as large as the State of Texas, or over one-fourth of the size of the United States, and as large as France, England, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Austria-Hungary, Switzerland, Italy, Servia, Rumania, and Bulgaria all combined.

The general aspect of Arabia is that of a central table-land surrounded by a desert belt, sandy to the west, south, and east and stony to the north. Its outlying circle is girt by a line of mountains low and sterile, although, towards Yemen and Oman, on the lower south-west and lower south-east, these mountains attain a considerable height, breadth, and fertility. The surface of the midmost table-land is sandy, and thus about one-fifth of Arabia is cultivated, or rather two-thirds cultivable, and one- third irreclaimable desert. According to Doughty, the geological aspect of Arabia is simple, consisting of a foundation stock of plutonic rock whereon lie sandstone and, above that, limestone. Arabia has no rivers, and its mountain streams and fresh-water springs, which in certain sections are quite numerous, are utterly inadequate, considering the immense geographical area the peninsula covers. Wadys, or valleys, are very numerous and generally dry for nine or ten months in the year. Rains are infrequent, and consequently the vegetation, except in certain portions of Yemen, is extremely sparse.

The most commonly accepted division of Arabia into Deserta (desert), Felix (happy), and Petraea (stony), due to Greek and Roman writers, is altogether arbitrary. Arabic geographers know nothing of this division, for they divide it generally into five provinces: The first is Yemen, embracing the whole south of the peninsula and including Hadramaut, Mahra, Oman, Shehr, and Nejran. The second is Hijaz, on the west coast and including Mecca and Medina, the two famous centres of Islam. The third is Tehama, along the same coast between Yemen and Hijaz. The fourth is Nejd, which includes most of the central table-land, and the fifth is Yamama, extending all the wide way between Yemen and Nejd. This division is also inadequate, for it omits the greater part of North and East Arabia. A third and modern division of Arabia, according to politico-geographical principles, is into seven provinces: Hijaz, Yemen, Hadramaut, Oman, Hasa, Irak, and Nejd. At present, with the exception of the Sinaitic peninsula and about 200 miles of the coast south of the Gulf of Akaba which is under Anglo-Egyptian rule, Hijaz, Yemen, Hasa and Irak are Turkish provinces, the other three being ruled by independent Arab rulers, called Sultans, Ameers, or Imams, who to-day as of old are constantly fighting among themselves for control. Aden, the island of Perim, in the Strait of Bab-el-Mendeb, and Socotra are under English authority.

The fauna and flora of Arabia have not been as yet carefully investigated and studied. The most commonly known flora-products are the date-palm, of about forty varieties, coffee, aromatic and medicinal plants, gums, balsams, etc. The fauna is still more imperfectly known. Among the wild animals are the lion and panther (both at present scarce), the wolf, wild boar, jackal, gazelle, fox, monkey, wild cow, or white antelope, ibex, horned viper, cobra, hawk, and ostrich. The chief domestic animals are the ass, mule, sheep, goat, dog, and above all the horse and the camel.

The actual population of Arabia is a matter of conjecture, no regular or official census having ever been undertaken. According to the most modern and acceptable authorities, the population cannot be less than eight, or more than twelve, millions, all of whom are Mohammedans. The personal appearance of the Arab is rather attractive. He is as a rule, undersized in stature, dark in complexion, especially in the South, with hair black, copious, and coarse; the eyes are dark and oval, the nose aquiline, and the features regular and well-formed. The ordinary life of the Arabs is simple and monotonous, usually out-of-doors and roving. They are usually peaceful, generous, hospitable, and chivalrous, but jealous and revengeful. In later times, however, they have greatly deteriorated.

MODERN EXPLORATIONS OF ARABIA

Up to a century and a half ago our information concerning Arabia was based mainly on Greek and Latin writers, such as Herodotus, Strabo, Pliny, Ptolemy, and others. This was meagre and unsatisfactory. The references to Arabia found in the Old Testament were even more so. Hence our best sources of information are Arabic writers and geographers, such as Hamadani’s “Arabian Peninsula,” Bekri and Yaqut’s geographical and historical dictionaries, and similar works. These, although extremely valuable, contain fabulous and legendary traditions, partly based on native popular legends and partly on Jewish and rabbinical fancies. The cuneiform inscriptions of Assyria have also thrown great and unexpected light on the early history of Arabia. But above all, mention must be made of the researches and discoveries of scholars like Halévy, Mueller, Glaser, Hommel, Winckler, and others. The first European scientific explorer of Arabia was C. Niebuhr, who, in 1761–64, by the order of the Danish government, undertook an expedition into the Arabian peninsula. He was followed, in 1799, by Reinaud, the English agent of the East India Company. The Russian scholar U.J. Seetzen undertook a similar expedition in 1808–11, and for the first time copied several South-Arabian inscriptions in the district of Himyar. In 1814–16, J.L. Burckhardt, a Swiss, and probably the most distinguished of Arabian explorers, made a journey to Hijaz and completed the pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. Burckhardt’s information is copious, interesting, and accurate. Captain W.R. Wellsted made (in 1834–35) a journey into Oman and Hadramaut; and Ch. J. Cruttenden completed, in 1838, a similar journey from Mokha to Sana, copying several South-Arabian inscriptions, which Rödiger and Gesenius attempted to decipher.

Then came the German, Adolf von Wrede, who, in 1843, visited Wady Doan and other parts of Hadramaut, discovering and copying an important inscription of five long lines. In 1843 Thomas Joseph Arnaud made a very bold and successful journey from Sana to Marib, the capital of the ancient kingdom of the Sabeans, and collected about fifty-six inscriptions. In 1845–48, G. Wallin travelled through Hayil, Medina, and Taima, proceeding from west to east. In 1853 Richard Burton, the famous translator of the “Arabian Nights,” undertook a pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina, and, in 1877 and 1878, twice visited the land of Midian, in North Arabia. In 1861 a Jew from Jerusalem, Jacob Saphir, visited Yemen, where he found several Jewish settlements, and other parts of Arabia; while in 1862–63, the English ex-Jesuit, W. Gifford Palgrave, made his memorable tour from the Dead Sea to Qatif and Oman, visiting the great north-western territory between the Sinaitic peninsula, the Euphrates, Hayil, Medina, Nejd, and practically the whole of central Arabia, till then unknown to scholars and travellers. Colonel Pelly visited central Arabia in 1865, and in 1869 Joseph Halévy, the great French Orientalist and the pioneer of Sabean philology, in the guise of a poor Jew from Jerusalem, explored Yemen and south Arabia, copying about 700, mostly very short, inscriptions. He advanced as far as the South-Arabian Jof, the territory of the ancient Mineans. In 1870–71, H. von Maltzan made a few short trips from Aden along the coast, and in 1876–78 Charles Doughty made his famous tour to Mada in Salih, Havil, Taima, Khaibar, Boraida, Onaiza, and Tayif, where he discovered several Nabataean, Lihyanian, or Tamudic, Minean and so-called proto-Arabic inscriptions. In 1877–80 the Italian Renzo Manzoni made three excursions to Sana, the Turkish capital of Yemen. In 1878–79, Lady Anne Blunt, Lord Byron’s granddaughter, together with her husband, Sir Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, made a tour from Damascus through the North-Arabian Jof, the Nefud desert, and Hayil. In the years 1882–84 the Austrian explorer, Edward Glaser, made his first and very fruitful expedition to southern Arabia, where he discovered and copied numerous old Arabian inscriptions, and in 1883–84 Charles Huber together with Julius Euting, the Semitic epigraphist of Strasburg, undertook a joint expedition to northern Arabia, discovering the famous Aramaic inscriptions of Taima (sixth century B.C.). In 1885, Ed. Glaser made his second journey to southern Arabia collecting several Minean inscriptions; and in 1887–88 made his third expedition, which proved to be the most successful expedition yet undertaken, as far as epigraphical results are concerned.

The inscriptions discovered and copied were over 400, the most valuable among them being the so-called “Dam-inscription,” of 100 lines (fifth and sixth centuries of the Christian Era), and the “Sirwah inscription,” of about 1,000 words (c. 550 B.C.). His fourth expedition took place in 1892–94, and was fruitful and rich in Arabic epigraphy. Leo Hirsch, of Berlin, visited, in 1893, Hadramaut, and so did Theodore Bent and his wife in 1893–94. In 1896–97, the distinguished Arabic scholar, Count Carlo Landberg, visited the coast of South Arabia, making special studies of the modern Arabic dialects of those regions, besides other geographical and epigraphical researches. In 1898–99 the expedition of the Vienna Academy to Shabwa was organized and conducted by Count Landberg and D. H. Mueller which, however, owing to several difficulties and disagreements, did not accomplish the desired results. Other expeditions have since engaged in the active work of exploration. The results of all these expeditions have been threefold: geographical, epigraphical, and historical. These results have opened the way not only to fresh views and studies concerning the various ancient South-Arabian dialects, such as Minean, Sabean, or Himyarite, Hadramautic, and Katabanian, but have also shed unexpected light on the history of the old South-Arabian kingdoms and dynasties. These same discoveries have also thrown considerable light on Old Testament history on early Hebrew religion and worship, and on Hebrew and comparative Semitic philology.

ARABIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Old Testament references to Arabia are scanty. The term Arab itself, as the name of a particular country and nation, is found only in later Old Testament writings, i.e. not earlier than Jeremias (sixth century B.C.). In older writings the term Arab is used only as an appellative, meaning “desert,” or “people of the desert,” or “nomad” in general. The name for Arabia in the earliest Old Testament writings is either Ismael, or Madian (A.V., Ishmael, or Midian) as in the twenty-fifth chapter of Genesis, which is a significant indication of the relative antiquity of that remarkable chapter. The meaning of the term Arab can be either that of “Nomad,” or “the Land of the Setting Sun,” i.e. the West, it being situated to the west of Babylonia, which was considered to be the Biblical record of Gen., xi, as the traditional starting point of the earliest Semitic migrations. By the ancient Hebrews, however, the land of Arabia was called “the Country of the East,” and the Arabs were termed “Children of the East,” as the Arabian peninsula lay to the east of Palestine.

According to the genealogical table of the tenth chapter of Genesis, Cham’s (A.V., Ham) first-born was Chush. Chush (A.V., Cush) had five sons whose names are identical with several regions in Arabia. Thus the name of Sebha—probably the same as Sheba, or Saba—situated on the west coast of the Red Sea, occurs only three times in the Old Testament. The second is Hevila in northern Arabia, or as Glaser prefers in the district of Yemen and al-Kasim. The third is Regma (A.V., Raamah) in south-western Arabia, mentioned in the Sabean inscriptions. The fourth is Sabatacha, in southern Arabia, and as far east as Oman. The fifth is Sabatha (A.V., Sabtah), or better Sabata, the ancient capital of Hadramaut, in South Arabia. Regma’s two sons, Saba and Dadan (A.V., Sheba and Dedan), or Daidan, are also two Arabian geographical names, the first being the famous Saba (A.V., Sheba) of the Book of Kings, whose Queen visited Solomon, while the second is near Edom or, as Glaser suggests, north of Medina. In v. 28 of the same Genesiac chapter, Saba is said to be a son of Jectan (A.V., Joktan), and so, also, Elmodad, Asarmoth, Hevila, Ophir (A.V., Almodad, Hazarmaveth, Havilah, etc., which are equally Arabian geographical names), while in chapter xxv, 3, both Saba and Dadan are represented as grandsons of Abraham.

The episode of Sarai’s handmaid, Agar (A.V., Hagar), and her son, Ismael (A.V., Ishmael), is well known. According to this, Ismael is the real ancestor of the majority of Arabian tribes, such as: Nabajoth, Cedar, Abdeel, Mabsam, Masma, Duma, Massa, Hadar, Thema, Jethur, and Cedma (A.V., Nebaijoth, Kedar, Abdeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadar, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah, respectively). Equally well known are the stories of the Madianite, or Ismaelite, merchants who bought Joseph from his brethren, that of the forty years’ wandering of the Hebrew tribes over the desert of Arabia, of the Queen of Saba, etc. In later Old Testament times we read of Nehemias (A.V., Nehemiah), who suffered much from the enmity of an Arab sheikh, Gossem (A.V., Geshem), or better Gashmu or Gushamu [Nehemiah (in Douay Version, II Esdras), ii, 19; vi, 6], and he also enumerates the Arabs in the list of his opponents (iv, 7). In II Paralipomenon (A.V., Chronicles) we are told (xvii, 11) that the Arabians brought tribute to King Josaphat (A.V., Jehoshaphat). The same chronicler tells us, also, how God punished the wicked Joram by means of the Philistines and the Arabians, who were beside the Ethiopians (II Paral., xxi, 16), and how he helped the pious Ozias (A.V., Uzziah) in the war against the “Arabians that dwelt in Gurbaal” (xxvi, 7). The Arabians mentioned here are in all probability the Nabataeans of northern Arabia; as our author wrote in the second or third century B.C.

THE NORTH-ARABIAN MUSRI AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

The cuneiform inscriptions of Assyria have thrown considerable light on various geographical localities in North Arabia, having important bearing on the history of the ancient Hebrews and on the critical study of the Old Testament. The importance of these new facts and researches has of late assumed very bewildering proportions, the credit for which unmistakably belongs to Winckler, Hommel, and Cheyne. It is needless to say that however ingenious these hypotheses may appear to be they are not as yet entitled to be received without caution and hesitation. Were we to believe, in fact, the elaborate theories of these eminent scholars, a great part of the historical events of the Old Testament should be transferred from Egypt and Chanaan into Arabia; for, according to the latest speculations of these scholars, many of the passages in the Old Testament which, until recently, were supposed to refer to Egypt (in Hebrew, Misraim) and to Ethiopia (in Hebrew, Kush) do not really apply to them but to two regions of similar names in North Arabia, called in the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions Musri, or Musrim, and Chush, respectively. They hold that partly by means of editorial manipulation and partly by reason of corruption in the text, and in consequence of the faded memory of long-forgotten events and countries, these two archaic North-Arabian geographical names became transformed into names of similar sound, but better known, belonging to a different geographical area namely, the Egyptian Misraim and the African Chush, or Ethiopia.

According to this theory, Agar, Sarai’s handmaid (Gen. XVI, 1) was not Misrite or Egyptian, but Musrite, i.e. from Musri, in northern Arabia. Abraham (Gen., xii, 10) did not go down into Misraim, or Egypt, where he is said to have received from the Pharaoh a gift of men-servants and handmaids, but into Misrim, or Musri, in northern Arabia. Joseph, when bought by the Ismaelites, or Madianites, i.e. Arabs, was not brought into Egypt (Misraim), but to Musri, or Misrim, in north Arabia, which was the home of the Madianites. In I Kings (A.V., I Sam.), xxx, 13, we should not read “I am a young man of Egypt [Misraim], slave of an Amalecite,” but of Musri in north Arabia. In III Kings (A.V. I K.) iii, 1; xi, 1, Solomon is said to have married the daughter of an Egyptian king, which is extremely improbable; for Misrim in north Arabia, and not the Egyptian Misraim, is the country whose king’s daughter Solomon married. In I Kings (A.V., I Sam.) iv, 30, the wisdom of Solomon is compared to the “wisdom of all the children of the east country [i.e. the Arabians] and all the wisdom of Egypt.” But the last-mentioned country, they say, is not [Egypt but, as the parallelism requires, Madian, or Musri, whose proverbial wisdom is frequently alluded to in the Old Testament. In III Kings, x, 28 sq., horses are said to have been brought from Egypt but horses were very scarce in Egypt, while very numerOus and famous in Arabia. The same emendation can be made in at least a dozen more Old Testament passages. The most revolutionary result, however, would follow if we applied the same theory to the famous sojourn of the Hebrews in Egypt; for it is self-evident that if the Israelites sojourned not in the Egyptian Misraim, but in the north Arabian Musri, and from thence fled into Chanaan, which was nearby, the result to ancient Hebrew history and religion would be of the most revolutionary character. Similar emendation has been applied with more or less success to the many passages where Chush, or Ethiopia, occurs, such as Gen, ii, 13; x, 6; Num., xii, 1; Judges, iii, 10; II Kings (A.V. II Sam.), xviii, 21; Isa. xx, 3; xlv, 14; Hab., iii, 7; Ps., lxxxvi, 4; II Par. (A.V., Chron.), xiv, 9; xxi, 16, etc.

Another important geographical name frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, and in all instances referred, till recently, to Assyria, is Assur (abbreviated into Sur). A country of similar name has also been discovered in Arabia. In this last view Winckler and Cheyne are warmly supported by Hommel, by whom it was first suggested. Cheyne, furthermore, has pushed these identifications to such extremities as to transplant the whole historical and religious life of Israel to the Nejeb, the country of Jerameel in northern Arabia. According to him the prophets Elias, Eliseus, Amos, Osee (A.V., Hosea), Ezechiel (A.V., Ezekiel), Joel, and Abdias (A.V., Obadiah) are all North Arabians; and all the rest of the prophets either came from that country or have it constantly in view. Isaias (A.V., Isaiah), xl-lv, was, according to him, composed in northern Arabia; Ezechiel also suffered imprisonment and prophesied there; and hundreds of personal and geographical proper names in the Old Testament are, according to him, intentional or accidental corruptions of Jerameel, Arabia, and Nejeb. However great our appreciation of Winckler’s and Cheyne’s ingenuity and learning may be, and allowing that their theories are not entirely lacking in plausibility, yet they have received, so far, little support and encouragement from the majority of Biblical scholars and critics. It is true that the new theories, in some of their applications, give highly satisfactory results, but in their extreme form they are, to say the least, premature and ultra-radical.

EARLY HISTORY OF ARABIA TILL THE RISE OF ISLAM

To the historian, the earliest history of Arabia is a blank page, little or nothing being historically known and ascertained as to the origin migrations, history, and political vicissitudes of the Arabian nation. Mohammedan traditions concerning the early history of the peninsula are mostly legendary and highly coloured, although partly based on Biblical data and rabbinical traditions. Hardly less unsatisfactory are the many references found in Greek and Latin writers. The mention of Arab tribes, under the various forms of Arabi, Arubu, Aribi, and possibly Urbi, frequently occurs in the Assyrian inscriptions as early as the ninth century B.C., and their country is spoken of as seldom or never traversed by any conqueror, and as inhabited by wild and independent tribes. We read, e.g., that in 854 B.C. Salmanasar II (A.V., Shalmanezer) met in battle a confederation in which was Gindibu the Arab with one hundred camels. A few years later Theglathphalasar III (A.V., Tiglathpileser) undertook an expedition into Arabia; and in the latter half of the eighth century B.C. we find Assyrian influence extending over the north-west and east of the peninsula. One century later a number of Arabian tribes of inner Arabia were defeated by Asarhaddon (A.V., Esarhaddon) at Bazu. Assurbanipal also repeatedly speaks of his various successful expeditions into and conquests in the lands of Musri, Magan, Meluhha, and Chush in Arabia. In the Behistun inscription of the Persian king Darius, Arabia (Arabaya) is mentioned as a subject land. The numerous South-Arabian inscriptions thus far discovered and deciphered by Halévy, Winckler, D. H. Mueller, Hommel, Ed. Glaser, and others do not throw much light on the early history of Arabia. But the epigraphic evidences and the many ruins still extant in various parts of that peninsula unmistakably show that a highly developed civilization must have existed among the ancient Arabs at a very early age.

The two most important kingdoms of ancient Arabia are that of the Mineans (the m’dbzm of the Old Testament) and that of the Sabeans, whence the Queen of Saba came to pay her homage of respect and admiration to King Solomon. A third kingdom was that of Kataban, a fourth, Hadramaut, as well as those of Lihyan, Raidan, Habashah, and others. The Minean Kingdom seems to have flourished in southern Arabia as early as 1200 B.C., and from the various Minean inscriptions found in northern Arabia they seem to have extended their power even to the north of the peninsula. Their principal cities were Main, Karnan, and Yatil. The Sabean, or Himyaritic, Kingdom (the Homeritae of the classics) flourished either contemporarily (D. H. Mueller) or after (Glaser, Hommel) the Minean. Their capital city was Marib (the Mariaba of the Arabian classics) famous for its dam, the breaking of which is often mentioned by later Arabic poets and traditions as the immediate cause of the fall of the Sabean power. The Sabeans, after two centuries of repeated and persistent attacks, finally succeeded in overthrowing the rival Minean Kingdom. Their power, however lasted till about 300 A.D., when they were defeated and conquered by the Abyssinians.

The Katabanian state, with its capital, Taima, was ruined some time in the second century after Christ, probably by the Sabeans. Towards the beginning of our Era the three most prominent and powerful Arab states were the Sabean, the Himyarite, and that of Hadramaut. In the fourth century the Himyarites, aided by the Sassanian kings of Persia, appear to have had a controlling power in southern Arabia, while the Abyssinians were absolute rulers of Yemen. These, however, although pressed by Himyar and temporarily confined to the Tehamah district (A.D. 378), succeeded, in 525, with the help of the Byzantine Emperor, in overthrowing the Himyarite power, killing the king and becoming the absolute rulers of South Arabia. In 568 the Abyssinians were finally driven out of Arabia, and the power restored to the Yemenites; this vassal kingdom of the Persian Empire lasted until the year 634, when it was absorbed, together with all the other Arabian States, by the Mohammedan conquest.

Such was the political condition of southern Arabia previous to the time of Mohammed. Of central Arabia little or nothing is known. In northern and north-western Arabia there flourished the Nabataean Kingdom, the people of which, though Arabian by race, nevertheless spoke Aramaic. The Nabataeans must have come from other parts of Arabia to the North some time about the fifth century B.C., for at the beginning of the Machabean period we find them already well established in that region. Shortly before the Christian Era, Antigonus and Ptolemy had in vain attempted to gain a footing in Arabia; and Pompey himself, victorious elsewhere, was checked on its frontiers. During the reign of Augustus, Aelius Gallus, the Roman Prefect of Egypt, with an army composed of 10,000 Roman infantry, 500 Jews, and 100 Nabataeans, undertook an expedition against the province of Yemen. He took by assault the city of Nejran, on the frontier of Yemen, and advanced as far as Marib, the capital of Yemen, but, owing to the resistance of the Arabs and the disorganization of his army, which was unaccustomed to the heat of the tropical climate of Arabia, he was forced to retreat to Egypt without accomplishing any permanent and effective conquest. Later attempts to conquer the country were made by Roman governors and generals under Trajan and Severus, but these were mostly restricted to the neighbourhood of the Syrian frontiers, such as Nabatea, Bosra, Petra, Palmyra, and the Sinaitic peninsula.

Another North-Arabian kingdom was that of Hira, situated in the north-easterly frontier of Arabia adjoining Irak, or Babylonia. Its kings governed the western shore of the lower Euphrates, from the neighbourhood of Babylon down to the confines of Nejd, and along the coast of the Persian Gulf. It was founded in the second century of the Christian Era and lasted about 424 years, i.e. till it was absorbed by the Mohammedan conquest. The kings of Hira were more or less vassal to their powerful neighbours, the Sassanian kings of Persia, paying them allegiance and tribute. Another Arabian state was that of Ghassan whose kings ruled over considerable part of northwestern Arabia, lower Syria, and Hijaz. It was founded in the first century of the Christian Era and lasted till the time of Mohammed. The Kingdom of Ghassan was frequently harassed by Roman and Byzantine encroachments, and by unequal alliances. In both these kingdoms (i.e. Hirah and Ghassan) Christianity made rapid progress, and numerous Christian communities, with bishops, churches, and monasteries, flourished there. (For CHRISTIANITY IN ARABIA, see below.)

Another Arabian kingdom was that of Kindah, originally from Irak, or north-eastern Arabia, and Mesopotamia. This rather short-lived and weak kingdom began about the fifth century of the Christian Era and ended with Mohammed, i.e. about one century and a half later. Its power and authority extended for a time over the whole northern section of Nejd and as far south as Oman. Besides these independent kingdoms, various Arab tribes, such as that of Koreish, to which Mohammed belonged, Rabeeah, Qays, Hawazin, Tamim, and others, were constantly endeavouring to assume independent power and authority. But their efforts and hopes were finally and permanently shattered by the Mohammedan conquest, which put an end to all tribal factions and preponderances by uniting them all into one religious and political kingdom, the Kingdom of Islam.

CHRISTIANITY IN ARABIA

The origin and progress of Christianity in Arabia is, owing to the lack of sufficiently authenticated historical documents, involved in impenetrable obscurity, and only detached episodes in one part or another of the peninsula can be grouped together and studied. References to various Christian missionary enterprises in the north and south of the country, found in early ecclesiastical historians and Fathers, such as Eusebius, Rufinus, Socrates, Nicephorus, Metaphrastes, Theodoret, Origen, and Jerome, are valuable, but to be used with caution, inasmuch as a lamentable confusion, common to all writers of that time between Arabia proper and India, or Abyssinia, seems to have crept into their writings.

Furthermore, no proper discrimination is made by any of them among the various traditions at their disposal. More abundant and trustworthy information may be gathered from Nestorian and Jacobite writers, as each of these sects has had its own sphere of influence in the peninsula, and particularly in the northern kingdoms of Hira and Ghassan. Arabic historians (all of post-Islamic times) are very interesting in their allusions to the same, but are at variance with one another. Indigenous ecclesiastical literature and monuments, except perhaps one inscription of the fifth century after Christ found by Glaser, and the ruins of a supposed church, afterwards turned into a heathen temple, are utterly wanting. Christianity in Arabia had three in centres in the north-west, north-east, and south-west of the peninsula. The first embraces the Kingdom of Ghassan (under Roman rule), the second that of Hira (under Persian power), and the third the kingdoms of Himyar, Yemen, and Najran (under Abyssinian rule). As to central and south-east Arabia, such as Nejd and Oman, it is doubtful whether Christianity made any advance there.

North-Arabian Christianity

According to the majority of the Fathers and historians of the Church, the origin of Christianity in northern Arabia is to be traced back to the Apostle Paul, who in his Epistle to the Galatians, speaking of the period of time immediately following his conversion, says: “Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned to Damascus” (Gal. i, 17). What particular region of Arabia was visited by the Apostle, the length of his stay, the motive of his journey, the route followed, and the things he accomplished there are not specified. His journey may have lasted as long as one year, and the place visited may have been either the country of the Nabataeans or the Sinaitic peninsula, or better, as Harnack remarks, “not to the desert, but rather to a district south of Damascus where he could not expect to come across any Jews” (Expansion of Christianity, 1905, II, 301). Jerome, however, suggests that he may have gone to a tribe where his mission was unsuccessful as regards visible results. Zwemer’s suggestion [Arabia, the Cradle of Islam (1900), 302–303] that the Koranic allusion to a certain Nebi Salih, or the Prophet Salih, who is said to have come to the Arabs preaching the truth and was not listened to, and who, consequently, in leaving them said: “O my people, I did preach unto you the message of my Lord, and I gave you good advice, but ye love not sincere advisers” (Surah vii), refers to Paul of Tarsus—this theory need hardly be considered.

In the light of the legend of Abgar of Edessa, however, and considering the feet that the regions lying to the north-west and north-east of Arabia, under Roman and Persian rule respectively, were in constant contact with the northern Arabs, among whom Christianity had already made fast and steady progress, we may reasonably assume that Christian missionary activity cannot have neglected the attractive mission field of northern Arabia. In the Acts of the Apostles (ii, 11) we even read of the presence of Arabians on the day of Pentecost, and Arabs were quite numerous in the Parthian Empire and around Edessa. The cruel persecutions, furthermore, which raged in the Roman and Persian Empires against the followers of Christ must have forced many of these to seek refuge on the safer soil of northern Arabia.

Christianity in Ghassan and North-West Arabia

The Kingdom of Ghassan, in north-western Arabia, adjacent to Syria, comprised a very extensive tract of territory and a great number of Arab tribes whose first migrations there must have taken place as early as the time of Alexander the Great. Towards the third and fourth centuries of the Christian Era these tribes already formed a confederation powerful enough to cause trouble to the Roman Empire, which formed with them alliances and friendships in order to counterbalance the influence of the Mesopotamian Arabs of Hira, who were under Persian rule. The kings of Ghassan trace their descent from the tribe of Azd, in Yemen. Gafahah, their first king, dispossessed the original dynasty, and is said to have been confirmed in his conquest by the Roman governor of Syria. Their capital city was Balka till the time of the second Harith, when it was supplanted by Petra and Sideir. Although living a nomadic life and practically independent, with “no dwelling but the tent, no intrenchment but the sword, no law but the traditionary song of their bards,” these Arabs were under the nominal, but quite effective, control of the Romans as early as the time of Pompey. Such Syrian Arabs always looked upon the Romans as their best and most powerful defenders and protectors against the Sassanian dynasty of Persia, by which they were constantly oppressed and molested.

The Nabataean Kingdom, which comprised the Sinaitic peninsula, the sea-coast to the Gulf of Akaba, to Al-Haura, and as far as Damascus and Hijaz, and which was annexed to the Roman Empire in A.D. 105, comprised also many Arab tribes which were for a long time governed by their own sheikhs and princes, their stronghold being the country around Bosra and Damascus. These sheikhs were acknowledged as such by the Roman emperors who gave them the title of phylarch. The ever increasing number and importance of these tribes and of those living in the Ghassanide territory were such that in 531, by the consent and authority of the Emperor Justinian, a real Arab-Roman kingdom was formed under the rule of the kings of Ghassan, whose power and authority extended over all the Arabs of Syria, Palestine, Phoenicia and north-western Arabia. Another Syro-Arabian Kingdom, in which Arab tribes were very numerous, is that of Palmyra, which retained for a long time its independence and resisted all encroachments. Under Odenathus the Palmyrene kingdom flourished, and it reached the zenith of its power under his wife and successor, the celebrated Zenobia. After her defeat by Aurelian (272), Palmyra and its dependencies became a province of the Roman Empire.

Christianity must have been introduced among the Syrian Arabs at a very early period; if not among the tribes living in the interior of the Syro-Arabian desert, certainly among those whose proximity brought them into continuous social and commercial contact with Syria. Rufinus (Hist. Ecclesiastica, II, 6) tells us of a certain Arabian Queen, Mavia, or Maowvia (better, Mu’awiyah), who, after having repeatedly fought against the Romans, accepted peace on condition that a certain monk, called Moses, should be appointed bishop over her tribe. This took place during the reign of Valens (about 374), who was greatly inclined to Arianism. Moses lived a hermit life in the desert of Egypt, and accordingly he was brought to Alexandria in order to be ordained bishop, as the Bedouin queen required. The Bishop of Alexandria was then a certain Lucius, accused of Arianism. Moses refused to be ordained by a heretical bishop, and was so obdurate in his refusal that it was necessary for the emperor to bring from exile a Catholic bishop and send him to the queen.

Caussin de Perceval (Histoire des Arabes avant l’Islamisme, etc., II, 215) affirms that towards the beginning of the fourth century, and during the reign of Djabala I, Christianity was again preached, and accepted by another Arab tribe. Sozomenus, in fact, relates that before the time of Valens an Arab prince, whom he calls Zacome, or Zocum, having obtained a son through the prayers of a Syrian hermit, embraced Christianity, and all his tribe with him. Le Quien (Oriens Christianus, II, 851) calls this prince Zaracome and places him under the reign of Constantine or of one of his sons. No prince of such name, however, occurs in any Arabic historian although Caussin de Perceval suggests his identification with a certain Arcan, of the tribe of Giafnah, who was in all probability a prominent chief of Ghassan.

Another source of Christian propaganda among the northern Arabs was undoubtedly the many holy hermits and monks scattered in the Syro-Arabian desert, for whom the Arab tribes had great respect, and to whose solitary abodes they made numerous pilgrimages. Jerome and Theodoret explicitly affirm that the life and miracles of St. Hilarion and of St. Simeon the Stylite made a deep impression on the Bedouin Arabs. Many tribes accepted Christianity at the hands of the latter Saint, while many others became so favourably disposed towards it that they were baptized by the priests and bishops of Syria. Cyrillus of Scythopolis (sixth century), in his life of Saint Euthymius, the monk of Pharan, tells the story of the conversion of an entire Arab tribe which, towards 420, had migrated from along the Euphrates into Palestine. Their chief was a certain Aspebaetos. He had a son afflicted with paralysis, who at the prayers of the saint completely recovered. Aspebaetos himself was afterwards ordained bishop over his own tribe by the Patriarch of Jerusalem (see below). These detached facts clearly indicate that during the fourth fifth, and sixth centuries of the Christian Era, Christianity must have been embraced by many Arabs, and especially by the tribe of Ghassan, which is celebrated by Arab historians and poets as being from very early times devotedly attached to Christianity. It was of this tribe that the proverb became current: “They were lords in the days of ignorance [i.e. before Mohammed] and stars of Islam.” (Zwemer, Arabia, the Cradle of Islam, 304.)

The numerous inscriptions collected in northern Syria by Waddington, de Vogue, Clermont Ganneau, and others also clearly indicate the presence of Christian elements in the Syro-Arabian population of that region and especially around Bosra. In the days of Origen there were numerous bishoprics in the towns lying south of the Hauran, and these bishops were once grouped together in a single synod (Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, II, 301). As early as the third century this part of Syro-Arabia was already well known as the “mother of heresies.” Towards the year 244 Origen converted to the orthodox faith Beryllus, Bishop of Bosra, who was a confessed anti-Trinitarian (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, 20); and two years earlier (242) a provincial synod of Arabia was held in connection with the proceedings against Origen, which decided in his favour. This great teacher in the Church was also personally known at that time to the Arabian bishops; for about the year 215 he had travelled as far as Arabia at the request of the Roman governor, before whom he laid his views (Eusebius, op. cit., VI, 19, and Harnack, op. cit., 301). In 250 the same teacher went to Arabia for the second time to combat certain heretics who taught that the soul died with the body, but that it would rise up again with it on the Judgment Day (Eusebius, op. cit., VI, 39).

The “Onomasticon” of Eusebius and the Acts of the Council of Nicaea (325) also indicate the presence of Christians, during the days of Eusebius, in Arabia, along the Dead Sea, and around Qariathaim, near Madaba (Harnack, op. cit., 302–303). At the Council of Nicaea there were present six bishops of the province of Arabia: the Bishops of Bosra, Philadelphia, Jabrudi, Sodom, Betharma, and Dionysias (Wright, Early Christianity in Arabia, 73, and Harnack, op. cit., 303). One tradition makes an Arabian bishop of Zanaatha (Sanaa?) attend Nicaea. The sheikh-bishop Aspebaetos was present at the Council of Ephesus (431), and one of his successors, Valens by name, became, in 518, a suffragan bishop of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem (Duchesne, Les églises séparées, 343). A certain Eustathius, called “Bishop of the Sarrasins,” assisted at the Council of Chalcedon. In 458 he was still Bishop of Damascus. At the second Council of Ephesus (449) there was present another bishop of the “allied Arabs,” named Auxilaos. Another Arabian bishopric was that of the island of Jotabe, near the Gulf of Akabah; and a Bishop of Jotabe, by the name of Anastasius was present at the Council of Jerusalem (536). At the First and Second Councils of Constantinople, we read of the presence of the Metropolitan of Bosra, whose authority is said to have extended over twenty churches or bishoprics (Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, III, Part II, 598 sqq.). Many of these Arabian bishops were undoubtedly infected with Arianism, and later on with Monophysitism, the latter sect having been greatly favoured and even protected by the Ghassanide princes.

The above sketch clearly shows that Christian Arab tribes were scattered through all Syria, Phoenicia, and northern Arabia, having their own bishops and churches. But it is doubtful whether this North-Arabian Christianity formed any national Church, as many of their bishops were dependent on the Greek Metropolitans of Tyrus, Jerusalem, Damascus, and on the Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch.

Christianity in Hira and North-East Arabia

According to Arabic writers and historians, the first Arab migration into Hira took place about A.D. 192 by the tribe of Tenukh and under the leadership of its chief, Malik ibn Fahm. This tribe was shortly afterwards followed by other tribes, such as those of Iyad, Azd, Qudâ’ah, and others, most of whom settled around Anbar, and who afterwards built for themselves the city of Hira, not far from the modern Kufa on the Euphrates, in southern Babylonia. We know, however, that as early as the time of Alexander, and towards the first century of the Christian Era, northern and southern Mesopotamia were thickly inhabited by Arab tribes, who, about the third century, formed more than one-third of its population. These tribes were, of course, governed by their own chiefs and princes, subject, however, to Persia.

Tradition relates that under one of these princes of Hira, Imru’ul Qais I, who reigned from 288 to 338. Christianity was first introduced into Hira and among the Mesopotamian Arabs. This, however, is not correct, for, from the Syriac Acts of the Apostles Addai and Mari, and other Syriac documents, we know that Christianity was introduced into Mesopotamia and Babylonia, if not at the end of the first, certainly towards the middle of the second century. The Acts of the Persian martyrs and the history of the Christian Church of Persia and Madain (i.e. Seleucia and Ctesiphon) unmistakably show that Christianity, although fiercely persecuted and opposed by the Sassanian kings of Persia, made rapid progress in these and the neighbouring regions, and, consequently, the Arabs of Hira cannot have entirely missed the beneficial effects of the new religion. We know also that during the reign of Hormuz I (271–273) several hundred Christian captives were brought from Syria and other Roman provinces into Irak and Babylonia. According to Tabari (ed. Nöldeke, 24), the Christians of Hira were called Ibâd, or “Worshippers,” i.e. “worshipers of God,” in opposition to “pagans” (Labourt, Le Christianisme dans l’empire perse sous la dynastie sassanide, 1904, 206).

The condition of the Christian Church in Persia and Mesopotamia in the early centuries is well known to us from the numerous Acts of martyrs and other Syriac documents still extant, but that of the Christian Arabs of Hira is very obscure. We know, however, that towards the end of the fourth, and the beginning of the fifth, century Christianity attained there considerable success and popularity. Nu’mân I, King of Hira, who reigned from 390 to 418, is said to have been, if not a follower of Christ, certainly a great protector of his Christian subjects. During his reign the Kingdom of Hira rose to great power and celebrity, for his domain extended over all the Arabs of Mesopotamia, over Babylonia, along the Euphrates down to the Persian Gulf, and as far south as the islands of Bahrein. He caused great and magnificent buildings to be erected, among which were the two famous castles of Khawarnig and Sidir, celebrated in Arabic poetry for their unsurpassed splendour and beauty. The city of Hira was then, as afterwards, called after his own name, i.e. “the Hira of Nu’mân,” or “the city of Nu’mân,” and his deeds and exploits are justly celebrated by Arab writers, historians, and poets. Before and during the reign of this prince, the Persian monarchs, from Shapor to Kobad, had relentlessly persecuted the Christians, and their hatred for the new religion was naturally imparted to their vassal kings and allies, principal among whom was Nu’mân.

In 410 St. Simeon the Stylite, who was in all probability of Arab descent, retired to the Syro-Arabian desert. There the fame of his sanctity and miracles attracted a great many pilgrims from all Syria, Mesopotamia, and northern Arabia, many of whom were Nu’mân’s subjects. The pious example and eloquent exhortations of the Syrian hermit induced many of these heathen Arabs to embrace Christianity, and Nu’mân began to fear lest his Christian subjects might be led by their religion to desert to the service of the Romans. Accordingly, he forbade all pilgrimages to the Syrian saint and all intercourse with the Christian Romans, under penalty of instant death. On the night of the issue of the edict, St. Simeon is said to have appeared to him in a dream, threatening him with death if he did not revoke the edict and allow his Christian subjects absolute religious freedom. Terrified and humbled, Nu’mân revoked the order and became himself a sincere admirer of Christianity, which his fear of the Persian ling did not permit him to embrace. When the change of sentiment that had taken place in their prince was publicly known, the Arabs of his kingdom are said to have flocked in crowds to receive the Christian faith. This memorable event seems to all appearances, to be historical; for it is related by Cosmas the Presbyter, who assures us that he heard it personally from a certain Roman general, Antiochus by name, to whom it was narrated by Nu’mân himself (Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, I, 247; and Wright, op. cit., 77). Hamza, Abul-Faraj of Isfahan (the author of Kitab-al-Aghâni), Abulfeda, Nuwairi, Tabari, and Ibn Khaldun (quoted by Caussin de Perceval, Histoire des Arabes, etc., III, 234) relate that Nu’mân abdicated the throne and retired to a religious and ascetic life, although he is nowhere expressly said to have become a Christian. (See also J.E. Assemani, Acta Martyrum Orientalium, II, and Bibl. Orient., I, 276–278.)

The greatest obstacle to the spread and success of Christianity in Hira was the immoderate hatred of the Sassanian monarchs towards the Christians of their empire and the fierce persecutions to which these were subjected. Encouraged and incited by these suzerains, the princes of Hira persecuted more than once their Christian subjects, destroyed their churches, and sentenced to death their bishops, priests, and consecrated virgins. One of these Princes, Mundhir ibn Imru’ul-Qais, to whom Dhu Nuwas was sent the news of the massacre of the Christians of Najran, in southern Arabia, sacrificed at the altar of the goddess Ouzza, the Arabian Venus, four hundred venerated Christian virgins (Tabari, ed. Noeldeke, 171). His wife, however, was a fervent Christian of the royal family of Ghassan, Hind by name. She founded at Hira a famous monastery after her own name, in which many Nestorian patriarchs and bishops resided and were buried. Yaqut, in his “Geographical Dictionary” (ed. Wuestenfeld) reproduces the dedicatory inscription which was placed at the entrance of the church. It runs as follows: “This church was built by Hind, the daughter of Harith ibn Amr ibn Hujr, the queen daughter of Kings, the mother of King Amr ibn Mundhir, the servant of Christ, the mother of His servant and the daughter of His servants [i.e. her son and her ancestors, the Christian kings of Ghassan], under the reign of the King of Kings, Khosroee Anoushirwan, in the times of Bishop Mar Ephrem. May God, to whose honour she built this church, forgive her sins, and have mercy on her and on her son. May He accept him and admit him into His abode of peace and truth. That He may be with her and with her son in the centuries to come.” (See Duchesne, Les églises séparées, 350–351.)

The inscription was written during the reign of her Christian son, Amr ibn Mundhir, who reigned after his idolatrous father, from 554 to 569. After him reigned his brother Nu’mân ibn Qabus. This prince is said to have been led to embrace Christianity by his admiration of the constancy and punctuality of a Christian Syrian whom he had designed to put to death. “In a fit of drunkenness he had wantonly killed two of his friends, and when sober, in repentance for his cruelty and in remembrance of their friendship, he erected tombs over their graves, and vowed to moisten them once every year with the blood of an enemy. One of the first victims intended for the fulfilment of his vow was this Christian of Syria, who entreated the Mundhir to allow him a short space of time to return home for the purpose of acquitting himself of some duty with which he had been entrusted; the boon was granted on his solemn promise to return at an appointed time. The time came and the Christian Syrian was punctual to his word, and thus saved his life.” (Wright, op. cit. 143, from Pococke, “Specimen Historiae Arabum,” 75). After his conversion to Christianity, Qabus melted down a statue of Venus of solid gold, which had been worshipped by his tribe, and distributed its gold produce among the poor (Evagrius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xxii). Following his example, many Arabs became Christians and were baptized.

Qabus was succeeded by his brother, Mundhir ibn Mundhir, during whose reign paganism held sway once more among his subjects, and Christianity was kept in check. After him reigned Nu’mân ibn Mundhir (580–595), who, towards the year 594, was converted to Christianity. His granddaughter, Hind, who was a Christian and of exceptional beauty, was married to the Arab poet ‘Adi ibn Zayd. He saw her for the first time during a Palm Sunday procession in the church of Hira, and became infatuated with her. Nu’mân was one of the last kings of his dynasty that reigned at Hira. One of his sons, Mundhir ibn Nu’mân, lived in the time of Mohammed, whom he opposed at the head of a Christian Arab army of Bahrein; but he fell in battle, in 633, while fighting the invading Moslem army.

The Christians of Hira professed both the Nestorian and the Monophysite heresies; both sects having had their own bishops, churches, and monasteries within the same city. Bishops of Hira (in Syriac, Hirtha de Tayyaye, or “Hira of the Arabs”) are mentioned as present at the various councils held in 410, 430, 485, 499, and 588. Towards the year 730 the Diocese of Hira was subdivided into three dioceses with three distinct bishops bearing the respective titles of Bishop of Akula, Bishop of Kufa and Bishop of the Arabs, or of the tribe of Ta’lab. From 686–724, Georgius, the famous Bishop of the Arabs, was still entitled Bishop of the Tanukhites, of the Tayyaites, and of the Akulites, i.e. of the tribe of Tanoukh, of Tay, and of the district of Akula [Assemani, Bibl. Orient., II, 459, 419; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, II, 1567, 1585, and 1597; Guidi, Zeitschrift fuer deutsche morgenlaendische Gesellschaft, XLIII, 410; Ryssel, Georgs des Araberbischofs Gedichte und Briefe, 44; Duchesne, op. cit., 349–352; Chabot, Synodicon Orientale (1902), 275; Labourt, Le Christianisme dans l’empire Perse sous la dynastie Sassanide (1904), 206–207, 158, and passim].

South-Arabian Christianity: Himyar, Yemen and Najran

According to Eusebius, Rufinus, Nicephorus, Theodoret, etc., followed by Baronius, Assemani, Tillemont, Le Quien, Pagi, and others, the Apostle Bartholomew, while on his way to India (i.e. Ethiopia), preached the Gospel in Arabia Felix, or Yemen, which was then, especially after the expedition of Aelius Gallus, a commercial country well known to the Romans, and in constant mercantile and political communication with Abyssinia. Eusebius informs us that in the second century Pantaenus, master of the school of Alexandria, instructed the Indians (Ethiopians) in Christianity, and Jerome adds further that this missionary was sent to them by Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, in consequence of a request made by them for a Christian teacher. As the names India and Indians were applied by the Greek and Latin writers indiscriminately to Parthia, Persia, Media, Ethiopia, Libya, and Arabia, it may be reasonably inferred that the tradition in question is at the least vague and indefinite, although it is universally admitted that the India in question is Ethiopia, whence the Apostle may have easily crossed to Yemen; inasmuch as the Ethiopians and the Himyarites, or Yemenites, are both linguistically and ethnographically the same race.

According to Nicephorus, the field of Pantaenus’s mission was among the Jews of Yemen, whom we know to have settled in various centres of southern Arabia after the ruin of the second Temple in order to escape the Roman persecution. Jerome adds, furthermore, that Pantaenus found among them the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew which they had received from their first Apostle, St. Bartholomew. Rufinus, Theodoret, and Eusebius assert that during the reign of Constantine the Great (312–337) a Tyrian philosopher named Meropius determined to visit the Himyarites in Arabia Felix. He was accompanied by two of his kinsmen (according to some, his two sons) and other disciples. On their return they were captured as enemies and were either slain or made captives, for at that time the Himyarites were in a state of warfare. Two members of the party, however, named Ædesius and Frumentius, respectively, were taken before the King of Himyar, who became favourably disposed towards them, appointing the first his cup-bearer, the other custodian of his treasures. At the death of the king, the two Christian Tyrians determined to return to their country, but were prevented by the queen regent, who requested them to remain and be the guardians of her infant son till he reached the proper age. They obeyed, and Frumentius, taking advantage of his power and position, caused a search to be made for the few Christians who, he had heard, were scattered in the Himyarite Kingdom. He treated them kindly and built for them churches and places of worship.

As soon as the young king ascended the throne, the two disciples returned to Tyre, where Aedesius was ordained priest. Frumentius went to Alexandria to inform the newly-elected bishop, Athanasius, of the condition of Christianity in Himyar, and begged him to send them a bishop and priests. Whereupon Frumentius himself was consecrated bishop and sent, together with several priests, to the Himyarites where, with the aid and favour of the king, he increased the number of Christians and brought much prosperity to the Church. As Duchesne remarks [“Les églises séparées” (1905), 311], the elevation of Frumentius must have taken place during the reign of Constantius, and either shortly before 340, or shortly after 346; for during the interval Athanasius was absent from Alexandria, and, as the stay of the two Tyrians at the court of Himyar cannot have lasted less than fifteen years, it follows that Meropius’s journey must have taken place between the years 320 and 325. The legend of Meropius and Frumentius, however, seems to refer to the evangelization of Ethiopia rather than to that of Himyar, or, if to that of Himyar, its conversion must have been only of an indirect and transitory character. To the mission of Frumentius may also refer the testimony of two Arabic writers quoted by Ouseley (Travels, I, 369–371; also Wright, Christianity in Arabia, 33), according to which the Arabs of Najran in Yemen, were first converted by a Syrian Christian captured by some Arab robbers and taken to their country.

Another Christian mission to Himyar took place during the reign of Constantius (337–361), who towards the year 356, chose Bishop Theophilus, the famous deacon of Nicomedia and a zealous Arian, to conduct an embassy to the court of Himyar. The eloquence of Theophilus so impressed the king that he became favourably disposed towards the Christians of his realm and built three churches for them, one at Dhafar (or Safar), another at Aden or at Sanaa, and the third at Hormuz, near the Persian Gulf. As the aim of the embassy was to ask the King of Himyar to grant freedom of worship to the Roman citizens in the Kingdom of Himyar, it follows that Christianity must have attained there a certain importance. According to Philostorgius, the king himself became a Christian, but this is improbable. At any rate, whether Theophilus succeeded in converting more Himyarites to the Christian faith or whether, as Assemani seems to believe, he simply perverted the already existing Christian population to the Arian heresy cannot be determined. From the fact that the latest royal Himyarite inscription, couched in pagan terms, bears the date of 281, that local Jewish inscriptions date from 378, 448, 458, and 467, and that the first Christian inscription, discovered by Glaser and considered by Hommel—the latest Sabean inscription (it opens with the words: “In the power of the All-Merciful, and His Messiah and the Holy Ghost”), dates only as late as 542–543 [Glaser, Skizze der Geschichte Arabiens (1889), 12 sqq.], it does not follow that Christianity at the time of Theophilus had not attained any official position in Himyar, although it is undeniable that the two prevailing creeds were then Paganism and Judaism. Arab historians, such as Ibn Khallikan, Yaqut, Abulfeda, Ibn-al-Athir and especially the early biographers of Mohammed, unanimously affirm that towards the fourth and fifth centuries of the Christian Era Christianity flourished in Hira, Himyar, and Najran, and among many tribes of the North and South, Quda’ah, Bahrah, Tanukh, Taghlib, Tay. We are far, however, from accepting all these ecclesiastical testimonies concerning the origin and development of Christianity in South Arabia as critically ascertained and conclusive. Fictitious elements and legendary traditions are undoubtedly ingredients of the original narratives, yet it cannot be doubted that a certain amount of truth is contained in them.

Positive traces of ecclesiastical organization in southern Arabia first appear in the time of the Emperor Anastasius (491–518). John Diacrinomenos (P.G., LXXXVI, 212) relates that during this emperor’s reign the Himyarites, who had become followers of Judaism since the time of the Queen of Sheba, or Saba, were converted to Christianity, and received a bishop, Silvanus by name, who was that writer’s own uncle, and at whose instance he wrote his ecclesiastical history. It is not improbable that the testimony of Ibn Ishaq, the earliest and most authoritative biographer of Mohammed (d. 770), according to which the first apostle of Christianity in Yemen was a poor Syrian mason named Phemion, who with a companion named Salih was captured by an Arab caravan and sold to a prominent Najranite, refers to this Silvanus. One of his first converts was a certain Abdallah ibn Thamir, who became a great miracle-worker and thus succeeded in converting the town of Najran to the religion of Christ (Tabari, ed. Noeldeke, 178). According to Halévy (Archives des missions, VII, 40), even at the present time there is still a mosque in Najran dedicated to this Abdallah ibn Thamir. Ibn Khaldun, on the other hand, asserts that as early as the latter half of the third Century, a certain Abd-Kelal, son of Dhu-1 Awad, who was King of Himyar and Yemen from 273 to 297, became a Christian through the teaching of a Syrian monk, but, on being discovered by his people, was killed (Caussin de Perceval, Histoire des Arabes avant l’Islamisme, III, 234). Assemani, followed by Caussin de Perceval, thinks that Christianity first entered Najran in the time of Dhu Nuwas (sixth century). This king, he says, was so alarmed by its advance that he ordered a general massacre of the Christians if they refused to embrace Judaism, to which he and his whole dynasty belonged. He identifies Harith, or Arethas, the Christian prince and martyr of Najran, with the above-mentioned Abdallah ibn Thamir, whose tribe’s name was, according to him, Harith or Arethas. This, however, is improbable, for at the time of Dhu Nuwas’s accession to the throne, Christianity was already flourishing at Najran, with its own bishop, priests, and churches.

What was the exact condition of Christianity in southern Arabia during the fifth and sixth centuries, we do not know; but from the episode of the martyrs of Najran it clearly appears that its spread was constant and steady. The principal and most powerful obstacle to the permanent success of Christianity in Yemen was undoubtedly the numerous communities of Jews scattered in that section of the peninsula, who had acquired so great a religious, political, and monetary influence that they threatened for a while to become the dominant power. They had their own poets and orators, synagogues, schools, princes and even kings. Their power was constantly used to keep in check the progress of Christianity, and they were the direct cause of the almost entire annihilation of the Christians of Najran. “Like other religious communities which preach toleration when oppressed, they [the Arab Jews] became persecutors when they had acquired sovereignty.”—Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam (London, 1905), 36. This persecution, which occurred in 523, and in which the Jews piled faggots and lit fires, and the Christians were burned, happened as follows.

About the beginning of the sixth century, the Kingdom of Himyar and Yemen was subject to Abyssinian rule. Kalib, King of Abyssinia, known by the Greek historians under the name of Elesbaan, or Hellesthaios, had succeeded, after a desperate struggle, in subjugating Himyar to the throne of Ethiopia. Though not a Christian, he was favourably inclined towards Christianity, as he was on friendly terms with the Romans. He is said to have vowed to become a Christian in the event of his conquering Himyar, a vow he in all probability fulfilled. Rabiah ibn Mudhar, the defeated Himyarite king, who, like all his predecessors of the same dynasty, was a Jew, was compelled to seek shelter in Hira, and was succeeded by a certain Yusuf Dhu Nuwas, likewise a Jew, but a vassal to the Negus of Abyssinia. About the year 523 (not 560, as the majority of Arab historians believe), and as soon as the victorious Abyssinian army had retraced its steps, Dhu Nuwas revolted against Elesbaan and, instigated by the Jews, resolved to wreak his vengeance on the Christians. All who refused to renounce their faith and embrace Judaism were put to death without respect to age or sex. The town of Najran, to the north of Yemen, and the bulwark of South-Arabian Christianity, suffered the most. Dhu Nuwas marched against the latter city and, finding it impregnable, treacherously promised the inhabitants full amnesty in the case of their surrender.

On entering the city, Dhu Nuwas ordered a general massacre of all the Christians. “Large pits were dug in the neighbourhood and filled with burning fuel, and all those who refused to abjure their faith and embrace Judaism, amounting to many thousands, including the priests and monks of the surrounding regions, with the consecrated virgins and the matrons who had retired to lead a monastic life, were committed to the flames. The chief men of the town, with their prince, Arethas [called by some Arabian writers Abdallah ibn Athamir], a man distinguished for his wisdom and piety, were put in chains. Dhu Nuwas next sought their bishop, Paul, and when informed that he had been some time dead, he ordered his bones to be disinterred and burnt and their ashes scattered to the wind. Arethas and his companions were conducted to the side of a small brook in the neighbourhood, where they were beheaded. Their wives, who had shown the same constancy, were afterwards dragged to a similar fate. One named Ruma, the wife of the chief, was brought with her two virgin daughters before Dhu Nuwas; their surpassing beauty is said to have moved his compassion, but their constancy and devotion provoked in a still greater degree his vengeance; the daughters were put to death before the face of their mother, and Ruma, after having been compelled to taste their blood, shared their fate. When he had thus perpetrated the tragedy of Najran, Dhu Nuwas returned with his army to Sanaa.”—Wright, op. cit., 54–55.

From here Dhu Nuwas hastened to inform his friends and allies, Kabad, King of Persia, and Al-Mundhir, Prince of Hira, of the event, urging them to imitate his example and exterminate their Christian subjects. Dhu Nuwas’s messengers arrived 20 January, 524, at Hufhuf (El-Hassa), near the Persian Gulf, where Al-Mundhir was then entertaining an embassy sent to him by the Emperor Justin and composed of Sergius, Bishop of Rosapha, the priest Abramos, and many other ecclesiastics and laymen, among whom was the Monophysite Simeon, Bishop of Beth-Arsam, in Persia. Al-Mundhir received and communicated the news of the massacre to the members of the embassy, who were horrified. According to Ibn Ishaq, the number of the massacred Christians was 20,000, while the letter of the Bishop of Beth-Arsam said there were 427 priests, deacons, monks, and consecrated virgins, and more than 4,000 laymen. This Monophysite Bishop of Persia, immediately after his return to Hira, wrote a circumstantial account of the sufferings of the Christians of Najran and sent it to Simeon, Abbot of Gabula, near Chalcis. In it he asks to have the news communicated to the Patriarch of Alexandria, to the King of Abyssinia, to the Bishops of Antioch, Tarsus, Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Edessa, and urges his Roman brethren to pray for the afflicted Najranites and to take up their cause. A certain Dhu Thaleban, who escaped the massacre, fled to the court of Constantinople and implored the emperor to advocate the cause of his persecuted countrymen. In the meanwhile the news of the massacre had spread all over the Roman and Persian Empires; for in that same year John the Psalmist, Abbot of the Monastery of Beth Aphtonios, wrote in Greek an elegy on the Najranite martyrs and their chief, Harith. Bishop Sergius of Rosapha, the head of the embassy, wrote also a very detailed account of the same events in Greek. Even in the Koran (Surah lxxxv) the event is mentioned, and is universally alluded to by all subsequent Arab, Nestorian, Jacobite, and Occidental historians and writers.

The news of the massacre weighed heavily on Elesbaan, King of Abyssinia, who is said to have now become a very fervent Christian. He determined to take revenge on Dhu Nuwas, to avenge the massacre of the Christian Najranites, and to punish the Yemenite Jews. Accordingly, at the head of seventy thousand men and a powerful flotilla, he descended upon Himyar, invaded Yemen, and with relentless fury massacred thousands of Jews. Dhu Nuwas, after a brave fight, was defeated and slain, and his whole army routed. The whole fertile land was once more a scene of bloodshed and devastation. The churches built before the days of Dhu Nuwas were again rebuilt on the sites of their ruins, and new bishops and priests were appointed in the place of the martyrs. An Abyssinian general, Esimephaeus, was appointed King of Himyar, and during his reign a certain Dhu Giadan, of the family of Dhu Nuwas, attempted to raise the standard of revolt, but was defeated. A few years later the Himyarites, under the leadership of Abramos, or Abraha, a Christian Abyssinian, revolted against Esimephaeus, and in order to put down the revolution the King of Abyssinia sent an army under the command of one of his relatives, Arethas, or Aryat. The latter was slain, however, by his own soldiers who joined the party of Abramos. A second Abyssinian army took the field, but was cut to pieces and destroyed. Abramos became King of Himyar, and from Procopius we know that he, after the death of Elesbaan, made peace with the Emperor of Abyssinia and acknowledged his sovereignty.

During the reign of Abramos Christianity in South Arabia enjoyed great peace and prosperity. “Paying tribute only to the Abyssinian crown, and at peace with all the Arab tribes, Abraha was loved for his justice and moderation by all his subjects and idolized by the Christians for his burning zeal in their religion.” Large numbers of Jews were baptized who were said to have been converted to Christianity by a public dispute between them and St. Gregentius, the Arabian Bishop of Dhafar. In this dispute the Jews were represented by Herban, one of their most learned rabbis, and Christ is said to have appeared in Heaven. Many idolaters sought admission to the Church; new schemes of benevolence were inaugurated, and the foundations were being laid for a magnificent cathedral at Sanaa, where is said to have existed a picture of the Madonna, afterwards moved by the Quraishites and placed in the Caaba, at Mecca (Margoliouth, op. cit., 42).

In short, South-Arabian Christianity, during the reign of Abramos i.e. in the first half of the sixth century, “seemed on the eve of its Golden Age” (Zwemer, Arabia, the Cradle of Islam, 308). The king is also said to have framed, with the assistance of Bishop Gregentius, his great friend, admirer and counsellor, a code of laws for the people of Himyar, still extant in Greek, and divided in twenty-three sections. The authenticity of this code, however, is doubted by many, as it is more ascetic and monastic in character than social. The whole career, in fact, of St. Gregentius and his relations with Elesbaan, Abramos, and Herban are interwoven with legend (Duchesne, op. cit., 334–336). In 550, Abramos’s glorious reign came to a disastrous end. According to Arab historians, the event took place in 570, the year of Mohammed’s birth; but, as Noeldeke has shown, this is simply an ingenious arrangement in order to connect the rise of Islam with the overthrow of the Christian rule in Yemen; for the latter event must have taken place at least twenty years earlier (Tabar, I, 203). Abramos’s defeat is reported by all Mohammedan historians with great joy and satisfaction, and is known among them as the “Day of the Elephant.” Mohammed himself devoted to it an entire surah of his Koran. This defeat forms the last chapter in the history of South-Arabian Christianity and the preface to the advent of Mohammed and Islam. It was brought about as follows.

Towards the first half of the sixth century the temple of Caaba, in Mecca, had become, as of old, the Eleusis of Arabia. It was sought and annually visited by thousands of Arabs from all parts of the peninsula, and enriched with presents and donations of every kind and description. Its custodians were of the tribe of Quraish, to which Mohammed belonged, and which had then become the most powerful and illustrious one of Hijaz. Abramos, the Christian King of Himyar, beheld with grief the multitudes of pilgrims who went to pay their superstitious devotions to the heathen deities of the Caaba, and, in order to divert the attention and worship of the heathen Arabs to another object, he resolved to build a magnificent church at Sanaa. The edifice was completed, and far surpassed the Caaba in the splendour of its decorations. To attain his object, Abramos issued a proclamation ordering the pilgrims to relinquish their former route for the shorter and more convenient journey to the Christian church of Sanaa. The object was attained, and the Quraish found themselves reduced to a precarious financial and politico-religious condition. To avenge themselves and to depreciate in the eyes of the Arab tribes the Christian church of Sanaa they hired a certain man of the Kenanah tribe to enter the church and defile it by strewing it with dung, which was enough to make the Arabs look at the place with horror and disgust. The desecration was successfully effected, and its criminal agent fled, spreading everywhere in his flight the news of the profanation of the Christian church. The act was a signal of war and vengeance, and Abramos determined to destroy the tribes of Kenanah and Quraish, and to demolish the Caaba. Accordingly at the head of a powerful army, accompanied by numerous elephants, he invaded Hijaz, defeated the hostile tribes in his way, and approached Mecca.

The chief of the tribe of Quraish and the guardian of the Caaba was then the venerable Abdul-Muttalib ibn Hashim, the grandfather of Mohammed. This chief, at the news of the approach of the Himyarite army, sought peace with Abramos, offering hum as a ransom for the Caaba a third part of the wealth of Hijaz; but Abramos was inflexible. Despairing of victory and overwhelmed with terror, the inhabitants of Mecca, led by Abdul-Muttalib, took refuge in the neighbouring mountains that overhung the narrow pass through which the enemy must advance. Approaching the city by way of the narrow valley, Abramos and his army, not knowing that the heights were occupied by the Quraishites, fell beneath the numberless masses of rock and other missiles incessantly poured upon them and their elephants by the assailants. Abramos was defeated and compelled to retreat. His army was almost annihilated, and the king himself returned a fugitive to Sanaa, where he died soon after, as much of vexation as of his wounds.

Mohammedan writers attribute the defeat of Abramos and the victory of Quraish to supernatural intervention, not unlike that which defeated the army of Sennacherib under the walls of Jerusalem. Be this as it may, by the defeat of the Himyarite army Quraish became supreme in command and authority. In the meanwhile, Yaksoum and Masrouq, sons of Abramos, had succeeded him in turn, but their power had so much declined that they had to seek alliance with the Sassanian kings of Persia, which caused a general revolt in southern and central Arabia. In 568, two years before Mohammed’s birth, a Persian military expedition invaded Yemen and Oman and brought the Christian Abyssinian dynasty and that of Abramos to an end. A tributary prince was appointed over Himyar by the Sassanian kings, in the person of Saif dhu Yezen, a descendant of the old royal race of Himyar. This prince, during the rein of Masrouq, and at the instigation of some noble and rich Himyarites who had assisted him with money and all the means available, repaired to Constantinople and appealed to Mauricius, the Byzantine emperor, for assistance in delivering Himyar from the Abyssinian yoke. Mauricius refused to help him, on the ground that the unity of Christian faith between the Abyssinians and the Byzantines prevented him from taking any such action. Saif, disappointed and hopeless, went to Nu’mân ibn al Mundhir, Prince of Hira. This prince presented Saif to Khosroes Noushirwan, King of Persia, to whom he explained the object of his mission. Khosroes at first was unwilling to undertake so dangerous an enterprise, but afterwards, won over by the promises of Saif and the advice of his ministers, sent an army of 4,000 Persian soldiers, drawn from prisons, under the command of Wahriz and accompanied by Saif himself.

The army advanced to Hadramaut, where it was joined by Saif’s own adherents, 2,000 strong, and attacked Masrouq, who was defeated and slain in battle. Saif was installed king over Himyar but subject to Khosroes Noushirwan. His first act was to expel from Himyar most of the Abyssinian residents, among whom were many Christians. Subsequently, Saif was murdered by some Abyssinian members of his own court; and after his death no more native Himyarite princes were placed on the throne. He was succeeded first by Wahriz, leader of the Persian army, then by Zin, Binegan, Chore, Chosrau, and Badhan, the last of whom was the governor of Himyar at the time of Mohammed’s conquest of Arabia. With the overthrow of the Abyssinian Dynasty in the south, the increase of factional rivalries between the Byzantine and the Persian Empires in the north, and the advent of Islam, Christianity in Arabia came to an end. It must not be imagined, however, that this violent end came without heroic resistance. The famous church, built by Abramos at Sanaa, was still in a flourishing condition at the time of Mohammed, who speaks of his own visit to it, and of listening to the sermons of its famous and eloquent bishop, Quss ibn Sa’ida. The Christians of Najran successfully resisted, during the life of the Prophet, all attempts at Islamic proselytism, although, under ‘Omar, Mohammed’s second successor (634–644), they were finally compelled to embrace Islam; many refused to do so and were expelled. These migrated to Kufa and Hira, on the Euphrates, where, towards the end of the eighth century, the Nestorian patriarch, Timotheus I (778–820), appointed over them a bishop with both native and Nestorian clergy schools and churches.

Christianity, in the time of Mohammed, under one form or another, must have had also some followers in Hijaz, the stronghold of Islam, and especially around Mecca. Slaves were not infrequently Christian captives brought in by the trading Arabs in their journeys to Syria and Mesopotamia. An Arab poet, quoted by Wellhausen (Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, IV, 200), says: “Whence has Al-A’sha his Christian ideas? From the wine-traders of Hira of whom he bought his wine; they brought them to him.” These Christian influences are clearly visible in the Koran. Among the early friends and followers of the Prophet were Zaid, his adopted son, who was of Christian parentage, and many others, who, like the three famous hanif (which is translated by many as “hermits,” “monks,” etc.), abandoned Christianity for Islam. One of these, Warqa, is credited by Moslem writers with a knowledge of the Christian Scriptures, and even with having translated some portions of them into Arabic. Father L. Sheikho, S.J., of the Catholic University of Beirut, Syria, has made a good collection of extracts from ante-Islamic and immediately post-Islamic Arabic poets, in which Christian ideas, beliefs, and practices are alluded to. (See “Al-Mashriq” in “The Orient” of 1905, also published separately.)

At Medina, the Prophet is said to have received repeated embassies from Christian tribes. His treatment of the Christian Arabs was distinctly more liberal and courteous than that accorded by him to the Jews. He looked on the latter as a dangerous political menace, while he regarded the former not only as subjects, but also as friends and allies. In one of his supposed letters to the Bishop Ka’b of the tribe of Harith, to the Bishop of Najran, and to their priests and monks, we read: “There shall be guaranteed to you the protection of God and His Apostles for the possession of your churches and your worship and your monasteries, and no bishop or priest, or monk, shall be molested . . . so long as you remain true and fulfil your obligations.” To Bishop Yuhanna ibn Ruba and to the chiefs of the people of Ayla he wrote: “Peace to you. I commend you to God besides Whom there is no God. I would not war against you without first writing to you. Either accept Islam or pay poll-tax. And hearken to God and His Apostle and to these envoys. . . . If you turn my envoys back and are not friendly to them then I will accept no reparation from you, but I will war against you and will take the children captive and will slay the aged. . . . If you will hearken to my envoys, then shall you be under God’s protection and Mohammed’s and that of his allies.”—W. A. Shedd, Islam and the Oriental Churches (1904), 103. To the heathen Arabs he held out no compromise; they had either to embrace Islam or die; but to the Christians of his country he always showed himself generous and tolerant, although the Mohammedan tradition tells us that on his deathbed he changed his policy towards them and is said to have commanded that none but Moslems should dwell in the land. In one of his controversies with the Christian tribe of Taghlib, Mohammed agreed that the adults should remain Christian but the children should not be baptized (Wellhausen, op. cit.). The feelings between the Christian and the Mohammedan Arabs were so friendly at the time of the Prophet that many of the latter sought refuge with the former on more than one occasion. Under ‘Omar however, Mohammed s second successor, the policy of Islam towards the Christians completely changed, as can be seen from the so-called “Constitution of ‘Omar,” which, though generally regarded as spurious, cannot be entirely disregarded.

‘Omar’s policy practically put an end to Christianity in Arabia, and certainly dealt a death-blow to the Christian religion in the newly conquered West-Asiatic provinces. This extinction and dissolution was violent, but gradual in the peninsula, where many Christians, moved by the wonderful success of the Moslem arms, abandoned their religion and accepted Islam. Some preferred to pay the poll-tax and retain their faith. Others, like the Najranites, in spite of the promise of Mohammed that they should be undisturbed, were forced to leave Arabia and settled partly in Syria and partly near Kufa in lower Mesopotamia (Muir, History of the Caliphate, 150; and Arnold, Preaching of Islam, 44 sqq.). The tribe of Taghlib was true to its faith, and Bar-Hebraeus tells us of two of its chieftains who later suffered martyrdom (Chronicon Syriacum, 112, 115). We continue to hear for a long time of Jacobite and Nestorian bishops of the Arabs, one even being Bishop of Sanaa, Yemen, and Bahrein, and of the border regions [Bar-Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, I, 303; III, 123, 193; and Thomas of Marga, Book of Governors (ed. Budge, 1893), II, 448 sqq.].

Under the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs, Christianity enjoyed, with few exceptions, great freedom and respect throughout all the Mohammedan Empire, as can be seen from the facts and data collected by Assemani and Bar-Hebraeus, according to which many Nestorian and Jacobite patriarchs from the seventh to the eleventh centuries received diplomas, or firmans, of some sort from Mohammed himself, from Umar, Ali, Merwan, Al-Mansur, Harounal-Raschid, Abu Ja’far, and others. (Shedd, op. cit., 239–241; Assemani, De Catholicis Nestorianis, 41–433 sqq.; Bar-Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum I, 309, 317, 319, 325; II, 465, 625; III, 307, 317, 229, 433, etc.; and Thomas of Marga, op. cit., II, 123, note.)

In conclusion, a few words may be said of the various sects and creeds to which the Christian Arabs of the north and of the south belonged, as well as of their practical observance of the Christian religion and duties. We have already seen how that part of Arabia adjacent to the Syrian borders was, from the third century on, regarded as the “mother of heresies.” The religious and political freedom of the Arab tribes opened the door to all creeds, errors, and heresies. Before the rise and spread of Nestorianism and Monophysitism, the Arian heresy was the prevailing creed of the Christian Arabs. In the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries Arianism was supplanted by Nestorianism and Monophysitism, which had then become the official creeds of the two most representative Churches of Syria, Egypt, Abyssinia, Mesopotamia, and Persia. Like the Arabian Jews, the Christian Arabs did not, as a rule, particularly in the times immediately before and after Mohammed, attach much importance to the practical observance of their religion. The Arabs of pre-Islamic times were notorious for their indifference to their theoretical and practical religious beliefs and observances. Every religion and practice was welcomed so long as it was compatible with Arab freedom of conscience and sensuality; and, as Wellhausen truly remarks, although Christian thought and sentiment could have been infused among the Arabs only through the channel of poetry, it is in this that Christian spirituality performs rather a silent part (op. cit., 203).

Arabian Christianity was a seed sown on stony ground, whose product had no power of resistance when the heat came; it perished without leaving a trace when Islam appeared. It seems strange that these Christian Arabs, who had bishops, and priests, and churches, and even heresies, of their own apparently took no steps towards translating into their language any of the Old and New Testament books; or, if any such translation existed, it has left no trace. The same strange fact is also true in the case of the numerous Jews of Yemen (Margoliouth, op. cit., 35, and Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, II, 300). Of these Emmanuel Deutsch remarks that, “Acquainted with the Halachah and Haggada, they seemed, under the peculiar story-loving influence of their countrymen, to have cultivated the latter with all its gorgeous hues and colours” [Remains of Emmanuel Deutsch, Islam (New York), 92]. As to the Christians, at least the bishops, the priests, and the monks must have had some religious books; but as we know nothing of their existence, we are forced to suppose that these books were written in a language which they learned abroad, probably in Syria.

NIEBUHR, Travels Through Arabia (tr., Edinburgh, 1792); CAUSSIN DE PERCEVAL, Essai sur l’histoire des Arabes avant l’Islamisme, etc. (Paris, 1847); SEDILLOT, Histoire generale des Arabes (Paris, 1877); SPRENGER, Die alte Geographie Arabiens als Grundlage der Entwicklungsgeschichte des Semitismus (Berne, 1875); PALGRAVE, Travels in Eastern Arabia (London, 1893); HAMADANI, Geography of the Arabian Peninsula (ed. Mueller, 1891); WELLHAUSEN, Reste arabischen Heidenthums (Berlin, 1897); BEKRI AND YAQUT, Geographical Dictionaries (ed., Wuestenfield, 1866–70); HOMMEL, Sudarabische Chrestomathie (Munich, 1893); and Explorations in Arabia, in HILPRECHT, Explorations in Bible-Lands during the Nineteenth Century (Philadelphia, 1903), 693œ752; GLASER, Die Abessinier in Arabien und Africa (Munich, 1895); and Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens (Berlin, 1890); WINCKLER, Altorientalische Forschungen (1st and 2d series, 1893–98); HOGARTH, Unveiling of Arabia (London, 1904); BRUENOW, Die Provincia Arabia (2 vols. fol., 1905); MARGOLIOUTH in HAST., Dict. of the Bible, s.v.; HELEVY in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, s.v.

Besides the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers quoted in the body of the article, the reader is referred to the following modern authorities: WRIGHT, Early Christianity in Arabia (London, 1855); WELLHAUSEN, Juden und Christen in Arabien, III; Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, III, 197 sqq.; NOELDEKE, Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sassaniden aus der arabischen Chronik des Tabari (Leyden, 1879); CAUSSIN, DE PERCEVAL, Histoire des Arabes avant Mohammet (Paris, 1847), I, 108, 112, 114, 124–128; II, 47–56, 58, 136, 142, 144, 200–202, 213–215; III, 275; DUCHESNE, Le eglises separees (2d ed., Paris, 1905) 300–352; ZWEMER, Arabia: The Cradle of Islam (New York 1900), 300–313; SHEDD, Islam and the Oriental Churches (Philadelpha, 1904); HARNACK, The Expansion of Christaanity in the First Three Centuries (tr. London, 1905), 300–304; MARGOLIOUTH, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam (London, 1905), 33 sqq. Among Syriac writers see: BAR- HEBRAEUS, Chronicum Ecclesiasticum, ed. ABBELOOS and LAMY (Louvain, 1874), II; MARIS, Amri et Slibae Liber Turris, ed. GISM0NDI, (Rome, 1896, 1899); ASSEMANI, Bilbliotheca Orientalis, III, pt. 2, 591–610, and passim; LE QUIEN, Oriens Christianus, II; CHABOT, Synodicon Orientale (Paris, 1902), passim; LABOURT, Le Christianisme dans l’empire perse sous la dynastie sassanide (Paris, 1904). See also BARONIUS, PAGI, and TILLEMONT. On the massacre of the Christians of Najran, see the letter of SIMEON, Bishop of Beth-Arsam, the best edition of which is given by GUIDI in the Memorie dell’ accademia dei Lincei (Rome, 1880–81, in Syriac and in Italian). The Greek hymn of JOHN THE PSALMIST is translated into Syriac by PAUL, Bishop of Edessa (d. 526), and edited by SCHROETER in the Zeitschrift fuer deutsche morgenlaendische Gesellschaft, XXXI, together with the letter of JAMES OF SARUG. See also BOISSONADE, Anecdota Graeca, V, 1, Martyrium Arethae, and Acta SS., X, 721. The supposed theological dispute between Gregentius and Herban is found in BOISSONADE, Anecdota Graeca, V, 63; and P.G., LXXVI, 568.

GABRIEL OUSSANI

Vicariate Apostolic of Arabia

Arabia formerly belonged to the mission of Galla (Africa), but was made a separate prefecture Apostolic by Pius IX, 21 Jan., 1875. It was reunited to the mission of Galla, then made a vicariate Apostolic, by Leo XIII, 25 April, 1888, under Monseigneur Lasserre. The Capuchin Fathers under Monseigneur Lasserre had long been in charge of the Aden mission, together with that of Somaliland. The first vicar Apostolic brought to Aden a community of French Franciscan sisters, to whose care the British authorities entrusted 100 Galla children rescued from Arab slave ships. With these liberated captives it was hoped to found a Catholic colony at some distance inland, but circumstances had, as late as 1906, frustrated this and other attempts to carry the Faith into the interior of Arabia. This vicariate Apostolic has 12,000,000 inhabitants, of whom about 15,000 are Catholics; 11 missions, 4 churches or chapels, 6 stations. (For origins of Arabian Christianity, see CHRISTIANITY IN ARABIA, under ARABIA.)

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath., 1906; PIOLET, Miss. cath.

Councils of Arabia

In 246 and 247 two councils were held at Bostra in Arabia against Beryllus, Bishop of the see, and others who maintained with him that the soul perished and arose again with the body. Origen was present at these synods, and convinced these heretics of their errors (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xix; Baronius, Ann. Eccl. ad an., 249, sect. 6–8).

HARNACK, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums (1902); WRIGHT, Early Christianity in Arabia, (London, 1855); MANSI, Coll. Conc., I, 787.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Arabian School of Philosophy

Until the eighth century the Arabians, although they expressed their religious feelings in a somewhat mystic poetry, failed to give expression to their thoughts about the world around them, except in so far as those thoughts may be said to be expressed in the Koran. It was only when they came in contact with other civilizations, notably with that of Persia, that their speculative and scientific activities were stimulated into action. A circumstance which favoured the study of letters and philosophy was the accession to the throne about A.D. 750 of the Abassides, an enlightened line of Caliphs who encouraged learning, and patronized the representatives, chiefly Syrian and Persian, of foreign culture. The introduction of foreign ideas resulted first in a twofold movement among the followers of Mohammed. There was on the one hand a movement in the direction of heterodoxy, a kind of rationalistic questioning of the authority of the Koran, which led to the rejection of the current anthropomorphism and fatalism. The representatives of this movement were called “Motazilites” or “Dissidents.” They were the first heretics of Islam. Opposed to this movement was the orthodox current, tending to emphasize more and more the authority of the Koran, while, at the same time, it attempted to do this by the aid of Greek philosophy and science. The representatives of this movement were called the “Motacallimin,” or “professors of the word.” They were rationalists, it is true, in so far as they fell back on Greek philosophy for their metaphysical and physical explanations of phenomena; still, it was their aim to keep within the limits of orthodox belief. In this they bore a close resemblance to the first Schoolmen of of Christian Europe. In reaction against both the “Motazilites” aud “Motacallimin” arose the “Sufis,” or “Mystics,” who flourished chiefly in the Persian portion of the Arabian Empire. They represented the most extreme phase of protest against all philosophical inquiry; they condemned the use of Greek philosophy even within the limits of orthodoxy, and taught that whatever truth there is can be attained by reverent reading of the Koran and meditation on the words of the sacred text. They placed contemplation above observation and inquiry, and set more value on ecstatic meditation than on the study of Plato and Aristotle. From the conflict of these divergent forces there arose, about the ninth century, the tendency of thought represented by the philosophers of Islam. These philosophers had more in common with the Dissidents and the Theologians than with the Mystics; they made ample use of Greek philosophy, and in their free inquiry into the secrets of nature, in which they soon outstripped the Greeks themselves, they paid little attention to the authority of the Koran. For this reason they fell into disrepute with the rulers both in North Africa and Spain, as well as in the East, and instances of persecution, exile, and death inflicted by the Caliphs on the philosophers of Islam were of frequent occurrence from the ninth century to the thirteenth.

Taking its origin from the neo-Platonic schools of Syria and Persia, the philosophy of the Arabians was at first Platonic in spirit and tendency. The Arabians translated the “Timaeus,” the “Republic,” and the “Laws,” and when, attracted by the medical treatises of Galen, they were led to the study of Aristotle, they translated not only the genuine writings of the Stagirite, but also the so-called “Theologia Aristotelis” which was merely a compilation from the “Enneads” of Plotinus, and the famous “Liber de Causis” which was a compilation from the “Elements of Theology” of Proclus. Thus, from the beginning, they imparted to Aristotelean teaching a neo-Platonic meaning, and even those among them who came to be recognized as the most faithful exponents of Aristoteleanism were not entirely free from the influence of the neo-Platonists. Plotinus’s view of reality, as a kind of pyramid with God at the apex and material things at the base, and Proclus’s view of hypostatized universals as constituting a hierarchy of “Causes,” mediating between God and matter, came to be the recognized views in the philosophical schools of Eastern and Western Islam.

Among the most famous of the Arabian philosophers of the East were Alkendi or Alkindi (d. about the year 870), Alfarabi (d. about 950), Avicenna, or Ibn Sina (980–1037), the astronomer Alhazen (eleventh century), and Algazel, or Gazali (1059–1111). In the West, that is in Northern Africa and in Moorish Spain, the most celebrated philosophers were Avempace, or Ibn Badsha (d. 1138), Abubacer, or Abn Bekr, also called Ibn Tofail (1100–85), and Averroes, or Ibn Roshd (1126–98). Of these Avempace, Avicenna, and Averroes were best known to the Scholastics. Avicebrol, whom the Schoolmen regarded as an Arabian, was in reality a Jewish philosopher and poetic writer named Salomon ben Gabirol. The philosophy of the Arabians is not distinguished by its originality; in point of fact, it is merely an interpretation of Greek philosophy and, even as an interpretation, adds little to the interpretations already given by Plotinus, Proclus, Simplicius, and the Syrian neo-Platonists. It is Arabian only in the sense that it was written in Arabic—the greatest of its representatives, Avicenna and Averroes, were not natives of the Arabian peninsula at all. In one respect only did the Arabians develop Greek philosophy, namely, in its relation to medicine, and it was in this regard that they exerted the most far-reaching influence in Europe.

Like the neo-Platonists from whom they borrowed their interpretation of Aristotle, the Arabians were pantheists or semi-pantheists. Aristotle taught that matter is the eternal substratum of movement; in eternity, taught the Arabian commentators, there is no distinction between the actual and the possible, between the substratum, or subject, of movement and the Mover. Therefore, whenever the Arabians had the courage of their convictions they taught more or less openly that God, the First Mover, is really the subject of movement, that He and the Universe are substantially identical. The various teachers, however, compromise more or less successfully between philosophical pantheism and the monotheism of the Koran. With regard to the government of the universe, the Arabians taught that Divine Providence is concerned only with the universal, not with the particular. The world, says Averroes, is a city which is governed from the centre by a ruler whose immediate authority extends only to his own palace, but who, through his subordinates, rules each and every district of the city subject to his sway. This doctrine implied the mediation of numberless beings from the Highest Intelligence down to the lowest material creature. From God, Who is indeed the Author, though He cannot be called the Creator, of the Universe, there emanates in the first place, the First Intelligence (akin to the Logos of Philo), then the Second Intelligence, and so on, down to the lowest of all the cosmic intelligences, the intelligence which animates and directs the sphere of the moon. Each of these intelligences is incorporated in, or inhabits a heavenly sphere—hence the close dependence of medieval astrology on the Arabians, and on their immediate disciples in astronomy, as, for instance, Roger Bacon. The lowest intelligence, to which reference has just been made (the intelligence which rules the sphere of the moon), plays an important part in the psychology of the Arabians. In treating of intellectual knowledge Aristotle taught that in the acquisition of ideas a twofold mental principle is involved, the one active and the other passive. The text of Aristotle being obscure at this point (De Anima, Book III), the commentators were at a loss to know what the Stagirite meant by the “active intellect.” The Arabians here, as elsewhere, took up the tradition of the neo-Platonists. The latter had taught that the “active intellect” is something physically distinct from the individual soul; an intelligence, namely, that is, somehow, common to all men. The Arabians adopted this monopsychism and made it part of their psychology. There is, they taught, but one active intellect and that is common to all men. It resides in the sphere of the moon, but, being brought, in some way, into contact with the individual soul (which thereby “participates” in it), it generates there the universal, abstract, immaterial, idea. It was principally against this doctrine of the unity and separation of the active intellect that the Scholastics directed their attacks on the Arabians. The Scholastics objected to the doctrine on two accounts. They denied that it was a tenable doctrine in psychology, and they denied that it was a faithful interpretation of Aristotle. This is the main contention of Albert the Great and St. Thomas, both of whom wrote special treatises on the unity of the intellect, and on one point at least the most unsympathetic critic of Scholasticism agrees with them, namely, when they argue that monopsychism is not in keeping with the general tone and spirit of Aristotelean philosophy.

Another aspect of monopsychism to which the Scholastics did not fail to call attention was its bearing on the question of immortality. The passive intellect, the Arabians taught, is material, and perishes with the body. The active intellect, although it is immaterial and, therefore, imperishable, is not part of the individual soul. There is nothing, therefore, in man that has the power of resisting death; and to say that man is immortal because the impersonal, universal, intellect is immortal has no more meaning than if one were to say that man is immortal because the laws of nature are immortal. This conclusion is frankly admitted by Averroes, who teaches that according to philosophy the human soul is mortal, although according to theology it is immortal. This admission of the principle of two-fold truth (namely, that what is false in philosophy may be true in theology, and vice versa) shows more clearly than anything else the inherent irreconcilability of Arabian philosophy and Scholasticism. The Scholastic movement from beginning to end, whatever may be its deviations and aberrations on other points, held steadfastly to the principle that, since God is the Author of all truth, the truth of reason and the truth of revelation (that is, philosophy and theology) cannot come to any real conflict. The beginning of the decline of Scholasticism dates from the introduction (from Arabian sources) into the Schools of the principle of twofold truth. In the acquisition of knowledge, the Arabians taught, there is a contact (copulatio, continuatio) of the impersonal active intellect with the individual passive intellect. The contact, indeed, is only momentary. The passive intellect, however, has a longing for the active intellect, desires it, as matter desires form. Hence the tendency on the part of the individual soul towards a more permanent union with the great Impersonal Intellect, a union that is to be attained by the practice of asceticism and the exercise of the contemplative powers of the mind. In this union man becomes a saint and a seer, a being divine rather than human; in this state of ecstasy all that is base and petty becomes transformed into the sublime and noble, until at last man can exclaim, “I am God.” Here again one sees how closely the Arabian reproduces the neo-Platonic doctrine of purification and ecstasy. It is only fair, however, to add that some of the more faithful Aristoteleans among the Arabians, such as Averroes, were content to put scientific knowledge in the place of ecstatic contemplation, and thus succeeded in avoiding the contradictions implied in the mysticism of the Sufis.

The Arabian philosophy, as is well known, exercised a profound influence on the Scholastic philosophy of the twelfth and succeeding centuries. It is not so well-known that, even when Scholasticism was at its height, when Albert and Thomas were attracting attention by their brilliant exposition of Aristotelean philosophy, there was in the very heart of the Scholastic stronghold, the University of Paris, a group of philosophers who openly professed adherence to the doctrine of Averroes. And this counter current of Averroism is traceable in the progress of Scholastic philosophy down to the time of the Renaissance. Still, one must not overrate the debt which Scholasticism owes to “Arabism” as it was called. The Arabians contributed in a very large degree to making Aristotle known in Christian Europe; however, in doing this, they were but transmitting what they themselves had received from Christian sources; and, moreover, the Aristotle who finally gained recognition in Christian Europe was not the Arabian Aristotle, but the Greek Aristotle, who came to Western Europe by way of Constantinople. The Arabians, in the second place, contributed to medieval medicine, geography, astronomy, arithmetic, and chemistry, but failed to exert any direct influence in philosophy. They provoked discussion, their doctrines were the occasion of disputation and controversy, and thus, indirectly, they contributed to developing the philosophy of the Schools; but, beyond this they cannot be said to have contributed towards shaping the course of Scholastic thought. Indeed the whole spirit of Arabian philosophy—its tendency towards materialistic pantheism, its doctrine of the unity of the intellect, its hesitation on the problem of individual immortality, and, above all, its doctrine of the twofold truth—must have revealed at every point of possible contact the utter impossibility of a reconciliation between Arabian and Scholastic Aristoteleanism. It is true the Schoolmen, or some of them at least, drew largely from Avicebrol’s “Fons Vitae”; but, though they did not suspect it, their teacher in that case was a Jew, not an Arabian. Indeed whatever influence came from the Mosque passed through the Synagogue before it reached the Church. When Arabian works were translated into Latin the translation was often made from the Hebrew translation of the Arabic text, and the Jew was often the only means of interchanqe of ideas between Moorish and Christian Spain. Whatever Scholasticism owes to the Arabians, it owes in equal, if not in greater measure, to the Jews.

MUNK, Mélanges de philosophie juive et arabe, . . . (Paris, 1859); DIETERICI, Die Philosophie der Araber (Berlin, Leipzig, 1858); Archiv f. Gesch. Der Phil., especially for 1889 and 1904; UEBERWEG- HEINZE, Gesch. der Phil., II, (9th ed., Berlin, 1905), 234 sqq.; TURNER, Hist. of Phil. (Boston, 1903), 311 sqq.

WILLIAM TURNER

Arabici

A small sect of the third century, whose founder is unknown, and which is commonly named from Arabia, where it flourished, but sometimes also Thanatopsychitae, from the nature of the error. The soul was believed to perish with the body, though both soul and body would be revived again at the day of judgment. The Arabici were misled not, apparently, by any philosophical speculation about the nature of the soul, but by their biblical exegesis of I Tim., vi, 16, “Who only hath immortality.” This passage, they held, ascribes undying life to God alone, and therefore precludes its unbroken possession by man. They failed to distinguish immortality as it is an essential God from the imparted immortality which man has from Him. The error was short-lived, and the Arabici, after about forty years of estrangement, were reconciled to the Church, through the persuasive mediation of Origen, at a council held in 250.

NICEPH., Hist. Eccl., V, 25; EUSEBIUS, Hist. Eccl., VI, 37; ST. AUGUSTINE, De Hoer., lxxxiii; PRAEDEST., Hoer., lxxxiii; BUDDEUS, De Arabicorum Hoeresi (Jena, 1713).

F.P. HAVEY

Arabissus

A titular see of Armenia, suffragan of Melitene; its episcopal list is known from 381 to 692 (Gams,( p. 441).

LE QUIEN, Oriens Christ., (1740), I, 449–450.

Arad

A titular see of Palestine, said to be identical with the eminence of Tell’ Arad on the way from Petra to Hebron (cf. Numbers 21:1; Judges 1:16). Its episcopal list is given in Le Quien.

LE QUIEN, Oriens Christ. (1740), IIl, 777–780; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, s.v.

Monastic School of Aran

The three islands of Aran stretch across the mouth of Galway Bay, forming a kind of natural breakwater against the Atlantic Ocean. The largest of the three, called Aran Mor, is about nine miles in length, and little more than one in average breadth. The bluish-grey limestone of which it is entirely composed is as hard as marble and takes a fine polish. In many places it is quite bare; in others the sandy soil affords a precarious sustenance for more than three thousand people who dwell upon the island, and largely supplement the produce of their arid fields by the harvest of the stormy seas around their island home, to which they cling in good or bad times with a passionate love. During three hundred years from about 500 to 800, Aran Mor and its sister islands were a famous centre of sanctity and learning, which attracted holy men from all parts of Ireland to study the science of the saints in this remote school of the West. Before the arrival of St. Enda, Aran Mor and the neighbouring islands had long been occupied by a remnant of the ancient Firbolg race, who, driven from the mainland, built themselves rude fortresses in the strongest points of the islands, the barbaric ruins of which still excite wonder. Their descendants were still pagans at the close of the fifth century, when St. Enda first dared to land upon their shores, seeking, like so many of the saints of his time, “a desert in the ocean.” The inhabitants of the islands at this time were the remnants of a great pre-historic people, whose works, even in their ruins, will outlive the monuments of later and more civilized peoples. Side by side with these magnificent remains of pagan architecture are now to be seen the remains of the churches and cells of Enda and his followers, making the Isles of Aran the most holy, as they are the most interesting spots, within the wide bounds of Britain’s insular empire.

Tradition tells us that Enda came first across the North Sound from Garomna Island on the coast of Connemara, and landed in the little bay at Aran Mor under the village of Killeany, to which he had given his name, and near which he founded his first monastery. The fame of his austere sanctity soon spread throughout Erin, and attracted religious men from all parts of the country. Amongst the first who came to visit Enda’s island sanctuary was the celebrated St. Brendan—the Navigator, as he is called—who was then revolving in his mind his great project of discovering the promised land beyond the western main. He came to consult Enda, and seek his blessing for the prosperous execution of his daring purpose. Thither, too, came Finnian of Clonard, himself the “Tutor of the Saints of Erin,” to drink in heavenly wisdom from the lips of blessed Enda, for Enda seems to have been the senior of all these saints of the second order, and he was loved and reverenced by them all as a father. Clonard was a great college, but Aran of Enda was the greatest sanctuary and nursery of holiness throughout all the “land of Erin.” Here, also, we find Columcille, who had not yet quite schooled his fiery spirit to the patient endurance of injustice or insult. He came in his currach, with the scholar’s belt and book-satchel, to learn divine wisdom in this remote school of the sea. He took his turn at grinding the corn, and herding the sheep, and fishing in the bay; he studied the Latin version of the Scriptures, and learned from Enda’s lips the virtues of a true monk as practiced by the saints and Fathers of the desert, and he saw it exemplified in the daily life and godly conversation of the blessed Enda himself, and of the holy companions who shared his studies and his labours. Reluctantly did Columcille leave the sacred isle; and we know, from a poem which he has left, how dearly he loved Aran Mor, and how bitterly he sorrowed when the “Son of God” called him away from that beloved island to preach beyond the seas. He calls it “Aran, the Sun of all the West,” another pilgrims’ Rome, under whose pure earth he would as soon be buried as nigh to the graves of Saints Peter and Paul. With Columcille at Aran was also the gentle Ciaran, the “carpenter’s son,” and the best beloved of all the disciples of Enda. And when Ciaran, too, was called away by God to found his own great monastery by the banks of the Shannon, we are told that Enda and his monks came with him down to the beach, whilst their eyes were dim with tears and sorrow filled their hearts. And the young and gentle Ciaran, having got his abbot’s blessing, entered his currach and sailed away for the mainland. There is indeed hardly a single one of the saints of the second order—called the Twelve Apostles of Erin—who did not spend some time in Aran. It was for them the novitiate of their religious life. St. Jarlath of Tuam nearly as old as Enda himself; St. Carthach the Elder of Lismore; the two Sts. Jervis of Glendalough, two brothers; St. MacCreiche of Corcomore; St. Lonan Kerr, St. Nechan, St. Guigneus, St. Papeus, St. Libeus, brother of St. Enda -all these were there.

Enda divided Aran Mor into two parts, one half to be assigned to his own monastery of Killeany; the other, or western half, to such of his disciples as chose “to erect permanent religious houses on the island.” This, however, seems to have been a later arrangement. At first it is said that he had 150 disciples under his own care, but when the establishment greatly increased in numbers, he divided the whole island into ten parts, each having its own religious house and its own superior, while he himself retained a general superintendence over them all. The existing remains prove conclusively that there must have been several distinct monasteries on the island, for we find separate groups of ruins at Killeany, at Kilronan, at Kilmurvey, and further west at the “Seven Churches.” The islanders still retain many vivid and interesting traditions of the saints and their churches. Fortunately, too, we have in the surviving stones and inscriptions other aids to confirm these traditions, and identify the founders and patrons of the existing ruins. The life of Enda and his monks was very frugal and austere. The day was divided into fixed periods for prayer, labour, and sacred study. Each community had its own church and its village of stone cells, in which they slept either on the bare ground or on a bundle of straw covered with a rug, but always in the clothes worn by day. They assembled for their daily devotions in the church or oratory of the saint under whose immediate care they were placed; silently they took in a common refectory their frugal meals, which were cooked in a common kitchen, for they had no fires in their cloghauns or stone cells, however cold the weather or wild the seas. They invariably carried out the monastic rule of procuring their own food and clothing by the labours of their hands. Some fished around the islands; others cultivated patches of oats or barley in sheltered spots between the rocks. Others ground it or kneaded the meal into bread, and baked it for the use of the brethren. So, in like manner, they spun and wove their own garments from the undyed wool of their own sheep. They could grow no fruit in these storm-swept islands; they drank neither wine nor mead, and they had no flesh meat, except perhaps a little for the sick. Sometimes, on the high festivals, or when guests of distinction came on pilgrimage to the island, one of their tiny sheep was killed and the brethren were allowed to share—if they chose—in the good things provided for the visitors. Enda himself never tasted flesh meat, and we have reason to believe that many of the monks followed their abbot’s example in this as in other respects. Aran was not a school of secular, but of sacred learning. The study of the Scriptures was the great business of its schools and scholars. They set small store indeed on points of minute criticism, their first object being to make themselves familiar with the language of the sacred volume, to meditate on its meaning, and apply it in the guidance of their daily lives.

COLGAN, Acta Sanctorum, Vita St. Endei; BEDE, Historia Eccles., III; HEALY, Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars (2d ed.), 162; O’FLAHERTY, Iar Connaugt, 162; FOUR MASTERS, Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland; SKENE, Celtic Scotland, II.

JOHN HEALY

Council of Aranda

Held at Aranda in the province of Burgos in Spain, in 1473, by Alfonso Carillo, Archbishop of Toledo, to overcome the ignorance and evil lives of ecclesiastics. Among the twenty-nine canons of the council is one which says that orders shall not be conferred on those who are ignorant of Latin. Several canons deal with clerical concubinage, simony, clandestine marriages, etc.

HARDUIN, Coll. Conc. (Paris, 1700–16), IX, 1501.

Philip Aranda

Jesuit theologian, born at Moneva, Aragon, 3 February 1642; died at Saragossa, 3 June, 1695. He is described by Father Michel de St. Joseph, in his “Biographica Critica,” as “a most acute theologian, eloquent in speech, and a most practical and expert athlete in the scholastic arena.” He entered the Society of Jesus in 1658. He taught theology and philosophy at Saragossa. He published a treatise in 1693, “De Deo sciente, praedestinante et auxiliante,” which examines ably the entire subject of scientia media, and solidly and subtlety expounds and illustrates the questions of predestination and grace. He explains the mind of St. Augustine, and “without difficulty,” it was said, gave the meaning of his difficult expressions, maintaining that they had no reference whatever to predestination”; a word which he contends was never, even equivalently, used by the Great Doctor. He adds an appendix on why the procession of the Second Person is called generation. He wrote on the Incarnation and Redemption; on the natural and supernatural operation of man; on human acts; on good and evil; and the supernatural. He wrote also a “Life of the Servant of God, Isabel Pobar.” He was connected with the Inquisition of Aragon and was synodal examiner of the Archdiocese of Saragossa. He was fiercely attacked in a satirical work by Martin Serra, a Dominican, who declaimed against “the indifferent, headless, inefficacious writings of certain theologians, especially the olla podrida of Father Philip Aranda,” an assault which almost evoked an interdict against the church of the friar.

Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la c. de J., I, 505–510; VIII, 1683–89.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Arason Jón

The last Catholic bishop of Iceland before the introduction of Protestantism, b. 1484; d. 7 November, 1550. He was consecrated Bishop of Hólar by his archbishop in the Metropolitan See of Nidaros (Trondhjem), in Norway, 1524. He was a typical Icelander and a man of extraordinary talents, though poorly versed in Latin, and openly neglectful of the law of celibacy. He was thoroughly devoted to the cause of the Church, but was more of a war-chief than a bishop. Christian III, King of Denmark, having ordered a change of religion in Iceland, in 1538, he encountered there the opposition of Ögmundur Pálsson, Bishop of Skálholt, as well as that of Arason. Ögmundur Pálsson, who was old and blind, was made prisoner by Kristoffer Huitfeldt, a royal leader, and taken to Denmark, where he died in 1542. His successors were Lutheran bishops. The leadership of the Catholics consequently devolved on the Bishop of Hólar, Arason Jón. He maintained the defensive until 1548, when the episcopal see of Skálholt was made vacant by the death of the apostate Gissur Einarsson. Then he assumed the offensive, in order to rule the Diocese of Skálholt in a Catholic spirit, and to have a Catholic appointed bishop there. Marteinn Einarsson had returned from Denmark, confirmed as bishop by the king, to oppose him; but Arason Jón took him prisoner. Although suspended and declared an outlaw by the king, Arason Jón felt himself encouraged by a letter from Pope Paul III to continue his efforts to extirpate heresy. His energy and his zeal knew no bounds. In an attempt to capture his greatest adversary, Dadi Gudmundsson, he was himself taken prisoner and handed over to the king’s bailiff, Christian Skriver. The Lutheran bishop, Marteinn Einarsson, was at once set free, and without awaiting any formal judgment the decapitation of Arason and two of his sons, Are and Björn, who had been stanch allies of their father, was agreed upon.

Some fishermen avenged the death of their bishop by killing Christian Skriver and his adherents in the following year. The body of Arason was then transferred, in triumph, from Skálholt to Hólar. The people, as a sign of their veneration for him, elected his son Jón as his successor. But the election lacked confirmation. Protestantism, now that Catholicism had no leader, met with no open opposition. The people, however, continued to cherish the faith of their fathers for a long time and looked on Arason as a national hero and a martyr. Five Lutheran bishops of Skail, and three of Hólar, were descendants of his, and in later times, among the converts at a Catholic mission given in Iceland was a woman descended from the hero bishop.

Biskupa Sogur (Kjoebenhavn, 1858); Islandske Annaler indtil 1578 (Kristiania, 1888); Diplomatorium Islandicum (Kjbhvn, 1857–97); Den Katholske Kirke i Danmark; Skandinavisk Kirketidendes (Kjbhvn, 1859); C.A. MUNCH, Det Norske Folks Historie (Krnia, 1859–63); KEYSER, Den norske Kirkes Historie under Katholicismen (Krnia, 1856); NISSEN, De Nordisk Kirkers Historie (Krnia, 1884).

E.A. WANG

Arator

A Christian poet of the sixth century, probably of Ligurian origin. He studied at Milan under the patronage of the Bishop Laurentius and of Ennodius, then went to Ravenna by the advice of Parthenius, nephew of Ennodius. He took up the career of a lawyer. Treated with distinction by Theodoric on account of his oration in behalf of the Dalmatians, and protected by Cassiodorus, he entered the service of the Gothic court, but resigned at the time of the struggle with Byzantium (about 536). Pope Vigilius made him Subdeacon of the Roman Church. It was then that he wrote in hexameters two books “De Actibus Apostolorum.” He follows the story of the Acts; the first book, dedicated to St. Peter, concludes with Chapter XII; the second, dedicated to St. Paul, with the martyrdom of the two Apostles. Many important events are omitted, others only alluded to. Arator himself declared that his aim was to give the mystical and moral meaning of the book. Accordingly, he often gives strange interpretations of numbers and names. He endeavours to praise St. Peter at the expense of St. Paul and the other Apostles. His style and versification are fairly correct, and he cleverly evades the entanglements of symbolism. Some of his well-turned verses prove that, with another subject, Arator could have become a vigorous writer. The poem was very successful. Vigilius had the author read it in public at the church of St. Peter ad Vincula. The reading lasted four days, as the poet had to repeat many passages by request of his audience. His works remained popular during the Middle Ages, when they became classics. We have also two addresses in distichs written by Arator to the Abbot Florianus and to Vigilius, as well as a letter to Parthenius. The two latter contain biographical details. The date of the poet’s death is unknown.

Editions: ARNTZEN (Zütphen, 1769); also in P.L., LXVIII, 63–246; HUEBNER (Neisse, 1850).—EBERT, Allegmeine Geschichte de Literatur des Mittelalters im Abendland (Leipzig, 1889), I, 514 sqq.

PAUL LEJAY

Prefecture Apostolic of Araucania

Located in Chile, established by Leo XIII in 1901, and confided to the Capuchins, It has twenty-eight missionaries.

BATTANDIER, Ann. Pont. Cath. (Paris, 1906), 343

Araucanians

(Also Araucans, Moluches, Mapuches).

The origin of the word is not yet fully ascertained. A numerous tribe of warlike Indians in southern Chile, ranging originally (in the early part of the sixteenth century) from 36° S. lat. to about 42° S. lat., and from the Andes in the East (70° W. Long) to near the coast. Today they are limited to something like the North American “reservations” in the same region. In 1898, they were said to number 73,000, which figure is probably exaggerated. But they are one of the most numerous Indian tribes surviving, as such, in America. When first met by the Spaniards in the middle of the sixteenth century, the Araucanians formed a league of clans, or aillaragues, some forty in number, scattered over four geographical ranges called by them Butalmapu. Their mode of government was, and is even now, very rudimentary. The so-called ulmenes, or chiefs, exercise little authority. In cases of immanent danger, a war chief, or toqui, was chosen by a general council, at which the aillaragues would be as fully represented as possible. The toqui exercises his discretionary authority as long as a war lasts, or as long as he is successful, or the medicine-men support him. The latter, who are neither more nor less than sorcerers, or shamans, are numerous among the Araucans and wield great power through their oracular utterances. When the Spaniards first came in contact with the Araucanians, in 1650, the latter were a sedentary tribe, dwelling in wooden buildings, and, like all Indians, constantly in conflict with their neighbors. The land was tilled on a modest scale, chiefly by women. There are no evidences that the Araucanians were exceptionally aggressive, although towards their northern neighbors, the Purumaucans, they entertained a special enmity. However, with the successive establishment of three Spanish towns by Valdivia, the conqueror of Chile, their apprehensions were aroused, and hostility ensued. The first encounters resulted unfavorably for the Araucanians, to whom the weapons and tactics of the Spaniards were a surprise. But they soon began to learn. Valdivia invaded the range of Arauco, and was completely defeated on 2 December, 1553, his force of 500 men annihilated, and himself killed. The tactics then made use of by the Indians under the leadership of the toqui Caupolican and a young Indian named Lautaro, showed military qualities hitherto unobserved among American aborigines. War with the Araucanians thereafter went on for nearly two centuries with varying success, and no impression was made upon the Indians, who displayed unusual grasp, perspicacity, and aptitude for everything related to warfare. They soon made use of the horse and organized a cavalry capable of opposing the Spaniards in an open field. They also made use of artillery in a limited war. In the beginning their weapons had been exceedingly primitive. Spears or lances with points of hard wood, flint, wooden clubs, and clubheads of stone constituted the arms with which they first successfully encountered the Spanish soldiers. While the Araucanians made rapid progress in everything connected with the art of war, and in this way became formidable enemies to peaceable cultures and the development of the Christian missions, they adopted the arts of peace very slowly and imperfectly. Maintaining the system of rudimentary social organization to which they were accustomed, and refractory to improvements that would have bettered their general condition, they continued a menace to everything around them without perceiving that they were being gradually enveloped by a culture intellectually superior, with which it was impossible for them to cope. Several treaties of peace, or rather, truces, were successfully made and observed for a number of years, but it was only after 1792 that conditions were settled, the Araucanians continuing to occupy most of the territory held by them originally, and the Spanish colonies on its outskirts enjoying comparative quiet. At present these Indians maintain their autonomy. They preserve their original social organization, polygamy, and religious customs. Still, being survivals of primitive conditions, they have either to disappear or assimilate civilization. Smallpox decimated them in 1561, and other deleterious influences, like alcoholism, thin their ranks slowly but surely.

The religious ideas of the Araucanians are the pantheism and fetishism common to all Indians. Dread of natural phenomena, and especially of volcanic activity, so common in Chile, is the basis of their creed. To soothe such powers, which appear to surround man and threaten him on all sides, an army of shamans is required, and these control the inner and outer life of every member of the tribe. In the midst of the almost incessant wars carried on by them for almost two centuries, the efforts of the missionaries were of little avail. The Jesuits came to Chile in 1593, and twelve years later, Vega, one of their number, had already written a grammar, and a dictionary of the Araucanian language, which is lost. In 1606, Valdivia followed with similar works and a method of confession [Dahlmann, Sprachkunde und Missionen (Freiburg, 1901), 78, 79]. The foundation of Jesuit colleges at Valdivia, Arauco, and elsewhere, about 1594, furnished a base of operations for the efforts made to penetrate the Araucanian country. Nevertheless, in 1845, only twelve missions existed on the frontiers of what now might be called the Araucanian reservation. A tribe so saturated as this with fetishism and shamanism, apparently justified by a long series of military successes, inaccessible to progress in any other line but the art of war, will only become approachable in proportion as mental and moral degradation, resulting from isolation, causes it to weaken. Despite the almost insurmountable obstacles which the Araucanians opposed to Christianizing efforts, the Jesuit missionaries have for three centuries labored with untiring zeal to convert them.

The earliest documents relating to Chile and the Araucanians are embodied in the Coleccion de documentos para la historia de Chile, by Jose Toribio Medina, published at Santiago. There are also very early documents (mostly republished in this collection) in the well-known Coleccion de documentos de Indios, etc. More widely spread is the fame of several poetical works (though of less poetic than historical value), the most conspicuous of which is the Araucana, by Alonso de Ercilla. The first part of this poem appeared in Madrid, 1569; the two parts, 1578, and an addition by Osorio, 1597. Pedro de Ona published an inferior poem, the Arauco domado, in 1596, and the Puren indomito by Fernando Alvarez de Toledo was concluded in 1599. Finally, Lopez de Vega also wrote an Arauco domado, of mediocre value. After that came the linguistic works by the Jesuit Luys de Valdivia; Arte y grammatica de la lengua que corre en todo el reyno de Chile (Lima, 1606), and the works of Alonso de Ovalle, Relacion verdadera de la Paces que capitulo con el arauncano rebelde de marques de Basides, etc. (Madrid, 1646). The best known work from colonial times is that of the Abbate Molina: Saggio sulla storia civile de Chile (1782) which has been translated into many European languages. The great collection entitled Coleccion de historiadores primitivos de Chile (Santiago), ed. J. T. Medina, contains most (if not all) of the earlier writers on Chile and the Araucanians. For instance: (II) Gongora Marmolejo, Historia de Chile deste su descubrimiento hasta el anno de 1575; (III) Pineda y Bascunan (from about 1650), Cautiverio Felix y razon de las guerras dilatadas de Chile, IV. Besides one of the works of Olivares, also Tribaldos de Toledo, vista General de las continuadas Guerras (V). cf. Santiago de Tesillo, Guerra de Chile y causas de su duracion (1621–59), VI: Marino de Lovera Cronica de Reyno de Chile, IV; Olivarez, Historia militar, civil y sagrada de Chile (18th century) VI; Historia de la Compania de Jesus in Chile (1736) XIV and XV; Gomez Vidaurre, a contemporary of Molina, Historia geografica, natural y civil de Chile (XVI); Gonzales de Najera; Desengano y Reparo de la Guerra de Chile (VIII-IX); Cavallo y Goyeneche, discripcion historica, geografica, del reyno de Chile—from 1796 (XXII-XXIII); Perez Garcia, Historia de Chile. Among modern authors, Medina, Los Aborijenes de Chile (Santiago, 1892); Guevara, Historia de la Civilizacion de Araucania (Santiago, 1898); Barros Arana, Historia general de Chile (15 vols., Santiago, 1884); Ignacio Domeyko; Araucania y sus habitantes (Santiago, 1845); Jose Felix de Augusta, Grammatica araucana (Valdivia, 1903); Tableau civil et moral des araucans (XVI, Annales des voyages, tr. from the Viagero universal; Smith, The Araucanians (New York, 1855); Lenz, Araukanische Marchen (Valparaiso, 1892).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Antonio de Araujo

Brazilian missionary, born at St. Michael’s in the Azores; died 1632. He entered the Society of Jesus in Babia, and was for nine years Superior of the Missions of Brazil. He wrote a catechism in the native language of Brazil. Southweil says of it: “This catechism, begun by others in Brazilian, he augmented considerably. It was published at Lisbon under his name, and is regarded as without a superior in the catechetical art. It was afterwards translated into the native American tongue.”

Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la c. de J., I, 507.

T. J. Campbell

Francisco de Araujo

Spanish theologian, b. at Verin, Galicia, 1580; d. Madrid, 19 March, 1664. In 1601, he entered the Dominican Order at Salamanca. He taught theology (1616–17) in the convent of St. Paul at Burgos, and in the latter year was made assistant to Peter of Herrera, the principal professor of theology at Salamanca. Six years later he succeeded to the chair, and held it until 1648, when he was appointed Bishop of Sevogia. In 1656 he resigned his see, and retired to the convent of his order at Madrid. His writings are: Commentary on the “Metaphysics” of Aristotle (2 vols., Salamanca, 1617; 2d ed., ibid., 1631); “Opuscula tripartita, h.e. in tres controversias triplicis theologiae divisa” etc. (Douay, 1633); a commentary in seven volumes on the “Summa” of St. Thomas (Salamanca and Madrid, 1635–47); “Variae et selectae decisiones morales ad stat. eccles. et civil. pertinentes” (Lyons, 1664; 2d ed., Cologne, 1745). In the second volume of his commentary on the “Prima Secundae” there is a treatise on Predestination and Grace, the doctrine of which is Molinistic. Martinez de Prado has proved that this was not written by Araujo, who, in a later work, shows clearly his adherence to the Thomistic teaching on those questions.

QUETIF-ECHARD, Script. Ord. Praed., I, 609; MARTINEZ DE PRADO, Metaphysica, I, 518; NICH. ANTONIO, Bibliotheca Hisp. Nova; MEYER, Hist. controversiarum de anxiliis gratiae, I, ii, c. xxiii, and II, ii, c. xvii; SERRY, Hist. congregationum de auxiliis, IV, 27; V, iii, ii; HURTER, Nomenclator, II, 5–7; DUMMERMUTH, S. Thomas et doctrina praemotionis physicae (Paris 1886), 582–588; STANONIK in Kirchenlex. (2d ed., 1882), I, 1228–1229.

W.D. NOON

Arawaks

(Also Aruacans).

The first American aborigines met by Columbus—not to be confounded with the Aroacas or Arhouaques, linguistically allied to the Chibohas of Columbia—an Indian stock widely distributed over South America. Tribes speaking dialects of the Arawak language are met with in and between Indians of other linguistic stocks, from the sources of the Paraguay to the northwestern shores of Lake Maracaybo (Goajiros), from the eastern slopes of the Andes in Peru and Bolivia to the Atlantic coast in Guyana. The Arawaks were met by Columbus in 1492, on the Bahamas, and later on in Haiti, Cuba, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico. In the fifteenth century and possibly for several centuries previous, Indians of Arawak stock occupied the Greater Antilles. It is not impossible that up to a certain time before Columbus they may have held all the West Indian Islands. Then an intrusive Indian element, that of the Caribs, gradually encroached on the southern Antilles from the mainland of Venezuela and drove the Arawaks northward. The latter showed a decided fear of their aggressors, a feeling increased by the cannibalism of the Caribs.

Generally speaking, the Arawaks are in a condition between savagery and agriculture, and the status varies according to the environment. The Arawaks on the Bahamas were practically defenseless against the Caribs. The aborigines of Cuba and Haiti, enjoying superior material advantages, stood on a somewhat higher plane. The inhabitants of Jamaica and Puerto Rico, immediate neighbors of the Caribs, were almost as fierce as the latter, and probably as anthropophagous. Wedged in (after the discovery of Columbus) between the Caribs on the South and the Europeans, the former relentless destroyers, the latter startling innovators, the northern Arawaks were doomed. In the course of half a century they succumbed to the unwonted labor imposed them, epidemics doing their share towards extermination. Abuse has been heaped upon Spain for this inevitable result of first contact between races whose civilization was different and whose ideas were so incompatible. Colonization in its beginning on American soil had to go through a series of experiments, and the Indians naturally were the victims. Then the experimenters (as is always the case in newly discovered lands) did not at first belong to the most desirable class. Columbus himself (a brilliant navigator but a poor administrator) did much to contribute to the outcome by measures well-intended but impractical, on account of absolute lack of acquaintance with the nature of American aborigines.

The Church took a deep interest in the fate of the Antillean Arawaks. The Hieronymites, and later, the Dominicans defended their cause, and propagated Christianity among them. They also carefully studied their customs and religious beliefs. Frey Roman Pane, a Hieronymite, has left us a very remarkable report on the lore and ceremonials of the Indians of Haiti (published in Italian in 1571, in Spanish in 1749, and in French in 1864); shorter descriptions, from anonymous, but surely ecclesiastical, sources, are contained in the “Documentos in editos de Indias.” The report of Frey Roman Pane antedates 1508, and it is the first purely ethnographic treatise on American Indians.

While lamenting the disappearance of the Indians of the Antilles, writers of the Columbian period have, for controversial effect, greatly exaggerated the numbers of these peoples; hence the number of victims charged to Spanish rule. It is not possible that Indians constantly warring with each other, and warred upon by an outside enemy like the Caribs, not given to agriculture except in as far as women worked the crops, without domestic animals, in an enervating climate, would have been nearly as numerous as, for instance, Las Casas asserts. The extermination of the Antillean Arawaks under Spanish rule has not yet been impartially written. It is no worse a page in history than many filled with English atrocities, or those which tell how the North American aborigines have been disposed of in order to make room for the white man. The Spanish did not, and could not, yet know of the nature and the possibilities of the Indian. They could not understand that a race physically well-endowed, but the men of which had no conception of work, could not be suddenly changed into hardy tillers of the soil and miners. And yet the Indian had to be made to labor, as the white population was entirely too small for developing the resources of the new-found lands. The European attributed the inaptitude of the Indian for physical labor to obstinency, and only too often vented his impatience in acts of cruelty. The Crown made the utmost efforts to mitigate, and to protect the aborigine, but ere the period of experiments was over, the latter had almost vanished.

As already stated, the Arawaks, presumably, held the lesser Antilles also, until, previous to the Columbian era, the Caribs expelled them, thus separating the northern branch from the main stock on the southern continent. Of the latter it has been surmised that their original homes were on the eastern slope of the Andes, where the Campas (Chunchos or Antis) represent the Arawak element, together with the Shipibos, Piros, Conibos and other tribes of the extensive Pano group. A Spanish officer, Perdro de Candia, first discovered them in 1538. The earliest attempts at Christianization are due to the Jesuits. They made, previous to 1602, six distinct efforts to convert the Chunchos, from the side of Huanuco in Peru, and from northern Bolivia, but all these attempts were failures. There are also traces that a Jesuit had penetrated those regions in 1581, more as an explorer than as a missionary. Not withstanding the ill-success accompanying the first efforts, the Jesuits persevered, and founded missions among the Moxos, one of the most southerly branches of the Arawaks, and also among the Baures. Those missions were, of course, abandoned after 1767. During the past century the Franciscans have taken up the field of which the Jesuits were deprived, especially the missions among the Pano, or Shipibo tribes of the Beni region of Bolivia. The late Father Raphael Sanz was one of the first to devote himself to the difficult and dangerous task, and he was ably followed by Father Nicholas Armentia, who is now Bishop of La Paz. The latter has also done very good work in the field of linguistics. Missions among the Goajiros in Columbia, however, had but little success. Of late, the tribe has become more approachable. The Arawaks of the upper Amazonian region were probably met by Alanso Mercadillo, in 1537, and may have been seen by Orellana in 1538–39. The Arawak tribes occupying almost exclusively the southern bank of the Amazon, they were reached by the missionaries later than the tribes of the north bank. Missionaries accompanied Juan Salinas de Loyola (a relative of St. Ignatius) in 1564. But the results of these expeditions were not permanent.

In the heart of the Andean region the Friars of the Order of Our Lady of Mercy (Mercedarios) were the first to establish permanent missions. Fray Francisco Ponce de Leon, “Commander of the convent of the city of Jaen de Bracacamoros,” and Diego Vaca de Vega, Governor of Jaen, organized in 1619 an expedition down the Marañon to the Maynas. In 1619 they founded the mission of San Francisco Borja, which still exists as a settlement. The first baptisms of Indians took place 22 March, 1620. The year following, Father Ponce made an expedition lower down the Amazon, beyond the mouth of the Rio Huallaga where he came in contact with the Arawak tribes, to whom he preached, and some of whom he baptized. The Franciscans entered from the direction of Juaja or Tarma, toward Chanchamayo, in 1631, and 1635. The first foundation was at Quimiri, where a chapel was built. Two years later the founders, Father Gerónimo Ximénez, and Cristóval Larios, died at the hands of the Campas on the Péréné River. Work was not interrupted, however, and three years later (1640) there were established about the salt-hill of Vitoc seven chapels, each with a settlement of Indian converts. But in 1742 the appear of Juan Santos Atahualpa occasioned an almost general uprising of the aborigines. Until then the missions had progressed remarkably. Some of the most savage tribes, like the Canibos, became at least partially reduced to obedience, and led a more sedate, orderly life. In 1725 the College of Ocopa was founded. All these gains (except the College of Ocopa and the regions around Tarma and Cajamarquilla) were lost until, after 1751, Franciscan missions again began to enter the lost territory, and even added more conquests among the fiercest Arawaks (Cashibos) on the Ucayali. Conversions in these regions have cost many martyrs, not less than sixty-four ecclesiastics having perished at the hands of Indians of Arawak stock in the years between 1637 and 1766. Missionary work among the Arawaks of Guyana and on the banks of the Orinoco began, in a systematic manner, in the second half of the seventeenth century, and was carried on, from the Spanish side, among the Maypures of the Orinoco, from the French side along the coast and the Essequibo River. Wars between France, England, and Holland, the indifferent, systemless ways of French colonization, but chiefly the constant incursion of the Caribs, interrupted or at least greatly obstructed the progress of missions.

Ethnologically the Arawaks vary in condition. Those of Guyana seem to be partly sedentary. They call themselves Loknono. They are well built. Descent among them is in the female line, and they are polygamous. They are land-tillers and hunters. Their houses are sheds, open on the sides, and their weapons are bows, arrows, and wooden clubs. Their religious ideas are, locally varied, those of all Indians, animism or fetishism, with an army of shamans, or medicine-men, to uphold it. Of the Campas and the tribes comprised within the Pano group, about the same may be stated, with the difference that several of the tribes composing it are fierce cannibals, (Cashibos and Canibos). It must be observed, however, that cannibalism is, under certain conditions, practiced by all the forest tribes of South America, as well as by the Aymara of Bolivia. It is mostly a ceremonial practice, and, at the bottom, closely related to the custom of scalping.

The “Letters of Columbus” contain the earliest information about the American Indians, and those described in his first letter, 22 February, 1493, were Arawaks. The report of Frey Roman Pane is found in the works of Fernando Colon, the Spanish original of which has not yet been found, but an Italian version of it was published in 1751. There are several editions. Quotations above are from Historia del Signor D. Hernando Columbo. Nelle quale s’ ha particulare & vera relazione della vita, e de fatti del’ Ammiraglio D. Christoforo Columbo Suo Padre (Venice, 1678), the translation is by Alfonso Ulloa. A first Spanish retranslation was published by Gonzalez Barcia in Historiadores primitiva de Indios (Madrid, 1749); a French version by Abbe Brasseur de Bourbourg appears appended to the Relation des choses de Yucatan (Paris, 1864), and there is a second print in Spanish of recent date. La Casa, Historia de las Indias (two editions, one in the Documentos para la Historia del Espana); Brevissima Relacion de la Destruycion de las Indias (Seville, 1552), numerous editions and translations into various languages; Girolamo Benzoni; Historia del Mundo Nouvo (Venice, 1585); German translation, 1579; French, 1587; English, Hackluyt Society, History of the New World (London, 1857). Other sources: Oviedo y Valdez, Historia general y natural de las Indias (first print. Madrid, 1535, comprising only the first nineteen books; complete edition, Madrid, 1851); Gomara, Historia general de los hechos de los Castellanos &ca. (Madrid, 1601–15); other editions, and more accessible ones: Madrid, 1728–30, and Antwerp, 1728. On missions, references are (mentioning only the most prominent sources): the Relaciones geograficos de Indias (II and IV, Madrid, 1885 and 1897), which contain elaborate discussions of the expeditions of Salinas Loyola, and of Vaca de Vega, and documents relative to the ecclesiastics connected with them: cardova Salinas Coronica de la Religiosisima Provincia de los Doce Apostolos de Piru (Lima, 1651); Arriga, Extirpacion de la Idolatria del Piru (Lima, 1651); Calancha, Coronica moralizda de la oredn de San Augustin en el Piru (Lima, 1638; second part, 1653); Documentos ineditos de Indias. passim; C. Quandt, Nachricht von Surinam und Seinen Einwohnen (Gorlitz, 1807). An important vocabulary of the Shipibo dialect (Pano of the Beni) by Bishop Armentia has been published in the Buletin de la Sociedad de Geografica de la Paz. It is the most complete thusfar known. Literature on the Arawaks being so very abundant, many works cannot be mentioned here.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Ignacio de Arbieto

Jesuit, born at Madrid, February, 1585; died at lima, Peru, 7 August 1670. He joined the Society of Jesus in 1603, and was ordained a priest at Lima, in 1612. He was appointed to the chair of philosophy at Quito in Ecuador, went thence to Arequipa, and finally to Lima, where he died. He taught (with interruptions) for twenty-five years in Peru, and spent his last years in writing the “Historia del Perú y de las fundaciones que he hecho en él la Compañía de Jesús.” The manuscript is at the National Archives of Lima, and in a hopeless state of decay.

Leon y Pinelo, Epitome de la biblioteca oriental y accidental (Madrid, 1737–38, 2d ed.); Torres-Saldamaondo, Antinqous Jesuitas del Peru (Lima, 1882); Mendiburu, Diccionario historico-biografico (Lima, 1874), I.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Arbitration

Arbitration in a general sense, is a method of arranging differences between two parties by referring them to the judgment of a disinterested outsider whose decision the parties to a dispute agree in advance to accept as in some way binding. The whole process of arbitration involves the reference of issues to an outside party, investigation, decision, acceptance or enforcement of it. The condition which invites arbitration is one wherein a number of persons of equal, or nearly equal power, disagree obstinately concerning a right, privilege, or duty, and refuse to come to terms themselves. The underlying assumptions are that the sense of fairness is dulled in the opponents by advocacy of self-interest, and by obstinacy, and that the judgment of a capable disinterested third party will more nearly approximate justice and equity. The motive which prompts appeal to arbitration is found finally in society’s desire to eliminate force as a sanction of right, and to introduce effectively the principles of the ethical order into the settlement of disputes among its members. Courts, rules of law and procedure have as purpose the protection of order and justice by compelling men to settle vital differences in a peaceful manner. In the main, society must always trust to the common sense, honour, and conscience of men to arrange peacefully the differences which arise in everyday life. When, however, differences of actual or possible grave social consequences arise, wherein high principles or great interests are involved, and the parties of themselves fail to agree, society attempts to secure order by creating institutions to decide the situation according to predetermined rules of law. The movement to introduce arbitration in the settlement of disputes between labourers and employers is an effort in society to lift such conflicts from the plane of brute force to the level of the ethical order; to provide a rational method of settling such disputes as fail to be resolved by other peaceful means.

THE ISSUES.—The issues which have arisen between labourers and employers concern the division of profits in industry or the rate of wages, and the formal recognition of labour unions, which professedly claim a right to have a voice with the employer in determining questions of hours, methods of work, conditions of work, manner of payment of wages, etc. Disputes generally concern the arrangement of terms to govern future relations or the interpretation of the terms of an already-existing labour contract.

THE PARTIES.—As a rule, the labour union and not the individual is a party to the industrial conflict. The individual workman is in no condition of equality with his employer. Only a large body of labourers in an industry or a factory is strong enough to raise an issue effectively against an employer. An active and advanced minority of the labouring class have created labour unions which undertake the care of the interests of the members, and aim to deal on equal footing with the employer. Where the men in a shop or factory are not unionized, they may organize temporarily to enforce a demand or resist a policy, but, generally speaking, it is the union which is involved when there is conflict between employers and labourers. Until recently each employer, in his individual capacity, dealt with his working men or with the union. In late years, however, organizations of employers have been built up extensively and they now tend to replace the individual employer in dealing with organized labour.

THE PLACE OF ARBITRATION.—As industrial evolution has been much more rapid than the adjustment of social institutions, serious conflicts of interest, of views, of principles, have arisen in the industrial world, to arrange which, with final authority, we have in fact neither accepted methods nor adequate institutions. The way has thus been left open to permit the Settlement of these disputes to fall to the level of force, that is, of the economic power of the parties to resist. The Strike and the lockout, with their accompanying secondary phases, are the last resort to which industrial conflicts are, by a sort of necessity, referred. The penalties suffered by society are found in social disorder, estrangement, widely felt disturbance of business, and enormous financial losses. In the face of this discreditable condition, public opinion and the enlightened self-interest of labourers and employers have begun the work of creating and testing peaceful methods by which differences may be anticipated and prevented, or if not prevented, settled in a secure, just, and peaceful manner. In pressing forward towards the creation of these institutions of industrial peace, society is held back to an extent by traditional principles, settled views, established interests and constitutional problems. This has tended to turn the current of effort towards non-legal rather than legal methods of industrial peace. Arbitration, conciliation, mediation, trade agreements, shop committees, joint conferences, are some of the institutions that have resulted. The function of arbitration is best understood when the institution is seen in relation to the whole industrial situation out of which it springs. 1.- To a great extent relations between unorganized labourers and employers are peaceful. If labourers ask only what employers offer, or employers give all that labourers ask, there is no prospect of difficulty while such conditions endure. Whether one explain the peaceful relations referred to by apathy, weakness, or hopelessness of unorganized labour, or by the benevolence or tyranny of the employer, or by their antagonism to the labour union, one should not overlook the fact that in a very large section of the industrial field relations are peaceful. 2.- Relations between employers and labour unions are to a considerable extent peaceful and at times even cordial, though without any formal effort at definite anticipation of trouble. Whatever the explanation, whether the generosity of the employer or the conservatism of the union, the relations between them are largely peaceful, a fact which is unfortunately often overlooked by many who speak of the industrial situation. 3.- In another increasing class the relations of employers and labour unions are cordial, or at least peaceful, through formal, mutual understandings, and oral or written contracts. In these cases the accredited representatives of employers and of labour unions meet in a friendly way, discuss all questions bearing on the contract of labour, reach conclusions, and embody them in some form of definite understanding to cover a given period. In such cases provision is usually made for the peaceful settlement of unforeseen minor disputes. The classes referred to show that industrial peace does actually exist to a considerable extent already. However, it still remains possible that disagreement, estrangement, war, appear in any of the classes referred to. Hence no statistical enumeration of the numbers of employers and labourers who live and labour peacefully covers the whole situation. We lack still a final authoritative institution which will be prepared to settle in a peaceful manner the conflicts that may arise. The possibility of strike or lockout in the classes enumerated being recognized, we may proceed to consider employers and unions actually at war. Assuming that the employer takes action adverse to the union’s will, or vice versa, threats may be made, compromise may be refused, war may be declared, causing a strike, or lockout, with its train of varied evils. The contest is then thrown to the level of brute force, each party depending on his own economic power to resist, an on the expectation of the harm that may come to his opponent. In advance of the actual suspension of work and declaration of strike, or at any time during a strike, the parties may endeavour either to prevent an outbreak, or to terminate it, by efforts at compromise among themselves. If they fail to do so, representatives of the public, of civil, of religious, of political organizations, may intervene to induce them to come to an agreement among themselves for the sake of the public. If all such efforts fail of result, one peaceful recourse is left, namely, to ask the parties, who of themselves will not agree, to place the issue in the hands of a disinterested tribunal and abide by the decision. When this is done, the process is called Arbitration. When employers and, labour unions arrange the terms of the labour contract formally and for a definite period, the process is called Trade Agreement, or collective bargaining, defined by the Industrial Commission as “the process by which the general terms of the labour contract itself, whether the contract be written or oral, are determined by negotiation directly between employers or employers’ associations and organized workmen.”

When differences of any kind arise, whether of great or of minor importance, if the parties themselves arrange an amicable settlement, the process is called Conciliation, defined by the Industrial Commission as “the settlement by the parties directly, of minor disputes, as to the interpretation of the terms of the labour contract, whether that contract be an express one or only a general understanding,” while it is further stated that in England quite commonly the term conciliation is applied to “the discussion and settlement of questions between the parties themselves, or between their representatives who are themselves actually interested.” Trade agreements, as a rule, provide for the reference of unforeseen minor disputes to a board of conciliation composed of representatives of both sides. The intervention of outside parties who seek to induce the opponents to arrive at a peaceful settlement of their differences, is called Mediation, defined by the Industrial Commission as “the intervention, usually uninvited, of some outside person or body, with a view to bringing the parties to the dispute together in conciliatory conferences.” When there is no prospect of peace through the action of the parties to the dispute, and they agree to refer it to a third party or body for judgment, the process is called Arbitration, defined by the Industrial Commission as “the authoritative decision of the issue as to which the parties have failed to agree, by some person or persons other than the parties.” Arbitration involves, therefore, reference of issues to a third party, investigation, decision, action on the decision by the antagonists. It is greatly to be regretted that usage has not succeeded in establishing clear definitions. One may, however, avoid confusion if one will distinguish the following situations: (1) Informal peaceful relations between unions and employers; (2) Formal peaceful relations provided for in trade agreements in advance of any estrangement or difference; (3) After differences have arisen, all efforts made by the parties themselves to establish peace, whether before or after a strike has been declared; (4) Reference to outside parties of the issues and authoritative decision by them; (5) Intervention of disinterested outsiders, who aim to induce the contestants to arrange for peace, either among themselves or through reference to outside parties. To these situations respectively, excluding the first, the terms trade agreements, conciliation, arbitration, mediation, may be applied.

LIMITS OF ARBITRATION.—It would be a mistake to assume that arbitration is a panacea. It is not necessarily effective beyond the term for which a decision is made. While the elements of conflict remain in society the possibility of dispute remains also. Hence, at best, arbitration is a makeshift, one of the highest importance no doubt, but it does not eradicate the evils to which it is applied. There are certain issues between employers and labourers which will not be submitted to arbitration; fundamental rights claimed by each party and held to be beyond the realm of dispute. Thus, for instance, the labour union will not submit to arbitration the question of the right of the labourer to join a union or the right of the union to represent its members. On the other hand, the employer would not submit to arbitration his right to manage his own business. The Industrial Commission remarks: “Whether it is as wise ordinarily to submit general questions to arbitration as questions of interpretation is perhaps doubtful. It is certainly the case that minor questions are more often arbitrated than those of great importance involving general conditions of future labour.”

KINDS OF ARBITRATION.—Arbitration is voluntary when it is freely invited, or accepted by the parties to the controversy, without reference to law, when only good faith is involved in the acceptance of the decision. It is compulsory when the civil law compels the parties to the industrial conflict to submit to the decision of a board of arbitration. The law may require a legal board of arbitration to investigate a controversy, render a decision, and make public a report. The decision in this case has no binding power and no sanction other than that of public opinion. The law may provide a board which the parties may invoke if they wish, whose decision is binding when both parties join in request for action. Arbitration is governmental when civil authority provides encouragement, opportunity, boards, of which employers and labourers may avail themselves in case of dispute. In all such cases the law may or may not confer upon a board power to administer oaths, to subpœna witnesses and compel the production of papers and books. In nearly all forms of arbitration the rule is to represent the conflicting interests by equal numbers of representatives who agree on an umpire and thus complete the organization.

COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.—Sentiment throughout the powerful industrial nations seems to be unanimous against compulsory arbitration, which involves legal enforcement of decision. Labour unions, employers, and representatives of the public generally, in the United States, and in Europe as well, agree in opposing it. The sentiment against it is particularly strong in the United States, as is shown by the amount of testimony collected by the Industrial Commission. Compulsory investigation and decision with publication of facts and of decision is frequently favoured where great interests are involved, as in interstate commerce, and not a few are found who favour enforcement of decision where both parties invoke arbitration. New Zealand alone has attempted full compulsory arbitration. The reasons alleged against compulsory arbitration are numerous. It appears to invade the property rights of the employer, or the personal liberty of the labourer, since the former might be compelled by law to pay wages against his will, and the latter might be forced to labour in spite of himself. It is difficult to make the action of compulsory arbitration reciprocal, since the employer is more easily held than the labour union, unless the latter be incorporated and be made financially responsible, a condition from which the unions usually recoil. As arbitrators would not be governed by a rule of law, it is feared that sympathy with the weaker party might sway them, and that they would be inclined to “split the difference,” thereby ensuring some gain to labour, a prospect which, it is said, might encourage strikes and prompt unreasonable demands. It is claimed that decisions unfavourable to labourers would tend to strengthen an already-growing suspicion of government and of courts. Furthermore, the employer sees in compulsory arbitration divided jurisdiction in his business, interference of outsiders who lack technical knowledge, probable overturning of discipline, and a weakening of his position, points that were made with some feeling against Cardinal Manning in his mediation in the great Dock Strike. Fear is expressed that employers would be driven to organize for self-protection, that they would be inclined to raise prices, or adulterate products, in order to offset losses sustained by adverse decisions of arbitration courts. There are in addition constitutional difficulties which in most modern nations might make the operation of compulsory arbitration difficult, even if the public were to accept it. It is urged in favour of compulsory arbitration that the prospect of it would inevitably create a more conciliatory attitude of mind in employers and labourers, that common fear of undesirable results would develop the practice of trade agreement and conciliation, that society would thereby gain finally legal guarantee of industrial peace, and would be spared the enormous losses, confusion, and violence that result from strikes. The modified forms of compulsory arbitration—enforcement of decision when both parties agree to submit to arbitration and compulsory arbitration where vital public interests are immediately concerned, as in interstate commerce—avoid many of the objections and appear to promise good results.

VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION.—That opposition to compulsory arbitration is directed against the compulsory feature, and not against arbitration as such, is seen from the practical sympathy, and even enthusiasm, with which voluntary arbitration is received. In the United States, which may be taken as typical, we find organized labour speaking strongly in favour of voluntary arbitration. It deplores strikes, provides careful scrutiny and a thorough test of feeling before permitting strikes, and generally provides for appeal to conciliation or arbitration. Mr. Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labour, said before the Congress of Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration in Chicago, in 1894: “As one who has been intimately and closely connected with the labour movement for more than thirty years from boyhood, I say to you that I have yet to receive a copy of a Constitution of any general organization, or local organization, of labour which had not the provision that, before any strike shall be undertaken, conciliation or arbitration shall be tried; and, with nearly twelve thousand local trade unions in the United States, I think that this goes far to show that the organizations of labour are desirous of encouraging amicable arrangements of such schedules and conditions of labour as shall tend to peace.” This is fully corroborated by the Industrial Commission, which said in its report, six years later, that “the rule of local and national trade unions, almost without exception, provides for conciliatory negotiations with employers before a strike may be entered upon.” In nearly all trade agreements a provision is made for conciliation or arbitration whenever minor disputes of any kind arise. As to employers, one should recall that all employers who stand in friendly relations with union labour, either informally, or formally, in trade agreements, are presumptively favourable to arbitration. The employer who refuses to recognize or to deal with the labour union is inclined not to favour arbitration, since it involves recognition of the union. He may be willing to meet a committee of his men and hear complaints, and even grant demands, but his method is not that of arbitration. The following, from the Principles of the National Association of Manufacturers, adopted in 1904, is typical. The Association “favours an equitable adjustment of the differences between employers and employees by any amicable method that will preserve the rights of both parties,” though at the same time the Association declares that it will permit no interference by organizations. The Republican National Platform of 1896, as well as the Democratic, declared in favour of arbitration in interstate-commerce controversies. Nothing on the subject appeared in either platform in 1900. The Republican platform of 1904 contained only an endorsement of President Roosevelt’s mediation in the Coal Strike of 1902, while the Democratic platform declared directly for arbitration without qualification. A remarkable expression of public opinion in the United States is seen in the creation of the National Civic Federation which has held a number of national conferences in the interest of industrial peace. Representatives of employers, of labouring men, of political life, of churches, of academic circles, have met in these conventions and their endorsements of attempts to establish industrial peace, through trade agreements, conciliation, and voluntary arbitration, have been unanimous and enthusiastic. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States has a standing Committee on Labour and Capital whose duty it is “to hold themselves in readiness to act as arbitrators should their services be desired between the men and their employers with the view to bringing about mutual conciliation and harmony in the spirit of the Prince of Peace.” The action of Cardinal Manning in the Dock Strike in London, in 1889, together with his great efforts to establish boards of conciliation in the London District; the presence and activity of Archbishop Ireland in the National Civil Federation; that of Archbishop Ryan in the Philadelphia strike, in 1896; the work of Bishop Quigley in the strike of 1899, in Buffalo; of Bishop Burke in the Albany strike, in 1902; that of Bishop Hoban, of Scranton, in the street-car strike of 1903, and in 1906; the activity of Bishop Spalding in the anthracite-strike commission in 1902–3; the strong public approbation given by His Eminence Cardinal Gibbons, and as well many instances of successful activity by clergymen, all serve to show that Catholic leaders recognize the value of conciliation and arbitration in promoting industrial peace. In France, Belgium, Germany, and Italy we find the Catholic attitude equally strong. In these countries the endorsement of the organization of labour is most emphatic, as is also the demand by representative Catholics for recognition of organizations of labour, for boards of conciliation and arbitration, all of which is in harmony with the spirit and teaching of Leo XIII, who, in his encyclical on the condition of the working men, expresses strong approval of conciliatory methods in arranging disputes between labour and capital.

GOVERNMENTAL ARBITRATION.—The Government of the United States enacted laws, in 1888 and 1896, by which provision is made for mediation, conciliation, or arbitration, in interstate-commerce disputes. If both parties join in requesting action, the decision of the board is enforceable in equity for one year. The law authorizes an investigation, decision, and publication of decision, whether or not such action is invited. The only effect produced by the law was the creation of the strike commission to investigate the Pullman Strike in 1894. In 1905 twenty-five States of the Union had made legal provision for arbitration, the earliest law being that of Maryland, of 1878. There are four forms of boards: (1) Local arbitration without permanently constituted boards, found in four States; (2) Permanent district or county boards, established by private parties, found in four States; (3) Arbitration or Conciliation through the State Commissioner of Labour, found in five States; (4) State boards for the settlement of industrial disputes, found in seventeen States. In some States several types of institution may be found. The laws in the first group of States are practically dead letters. The same may be said of the second group, with the exception of Pennsylvania, where some effect has been produced. Intervention by State Commissioners of Labour has had but moderate success. In only eight of the seventeen States which have State boards of arbitration have real results been accomplished. These States are New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri. The records, for instance, of New York and Massachusetts are representative:

N.Y. 1886—1900

Mass. 1886—1904

Disputes

409

943

Initiation of Board

351

465

Initiation of Employer

16

69

Initiation of Union

34

154

Initiation of both

8

255

Preliminary Action only

135

185

Effect—failure

155

298

Effect—success

119

460

Settled by Conciliation

97

229

Settled by Arbitration

21

224

Settled Otherwise

1

7

Strikes in same period

6189

2628

In England the present law dates from 1896. It provides for the registration of private boards of conciliation or arbitration by the Board of Trade, and it permits the Board of Trade in times of dispute to investigate and mediate, on the request of either party to appoint a board of conciliation, or on the request of both parties to create a board of arbitration. In the period of 1896–1903, requests for intervention were made by employers in twenty cases, by labourers in fifty-four cases, by both jointly in seventy-one cases, a total of 145. In seventeen cases failure resulted, while in the same period there were 4,952 strikes. In France the present law dates from 1892. Either or both parties to a dispute may apply to a local justice of the peace who acts as conciliator. In case of a strike, if application is not made, the justice of the peace is required to offer his services. If efforts of conciliation fail, arbitration is attempted. The entire proceeding is voluntary, the only pressure exerted is from the prospect of publishing the facts and decisions. In the period of 1893–1903, requests for intervention under the law were made by employers in forty-two cases, by labourers in 782 cases, by both jointly in thirty-three cases; initiative was taken by the justice of the peace in 556 cases. Full procedure was had in only 784 cases, in 342 of which failure resulted. During that same period there were 5,874 strikes. The present law of Belgium dates from 1887. Boards are organized in different industries, either at the decree of the king or on the request of the commune, the employers, or the labourers. The members of the board are elected legally, and the board is required to meet at least once a year. The majority of the boards already created are due to royal initiative. In the period of four years under the action of the law, but sixteen strikes out of a total of 610 were settled by the labour councils. In Germany the boards are called Industrial Courts, the law authorizing their action dating from 1890. An amendment was added in 1901, making the formation of industrial courts compulsory in all cities of 20,000 inhabitants. The courts are composed of representatives of employers and labourers in equal numbers, while the president is appointed by local authorities. Conciliation is attempted in case of disputes; that failing, the court must investigate, render a decision, and publish it. In 1903 there were 400 courts in existence. Of 174 applications for intervention made in that year, 135 came from one side only; in fifty-four cases settlement was reached by conciliation. Of decisions rendered in that time, six were rejected. During that year out of a total of 1,501 strikes, fifty-five were brought to peaceful termination. In Austria, by the law of 1883, the factory-inspectors are authorized to intervene in threatened or actual disputes, for the sake of industrial peace, while a law of 1896 provides indirectly for conciliation and arbitration in mining. Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, and Italy have legislated also in the interests of industrial peace, by creating boards, and facilitating prevention or settlement of industrial disputes. New Zealand alone has gone to the extent of inaugurating compulsory arbitration. The present law is from 1900, with amendments up to 1904, the original law, however, dating from 1894. There are seven industrial districts in which the law provides for the creation of boards of conciliation, while there is one supreme court of arbitration over all. The latter is composed of three members, one of whom is a judge of the supreme court, the other two being appointed by the governor from nominations made by registered trade unions and registered employers’ associations. The local boards of conciliation act in all cases submitted to them, and endeavour to effect peaceful settlements. If they succeed, an industrial agreement is made which becomes compulsory. If the parties fail to agree, the board itself renders a decision, which may be accepted or appealed from—to the General Board of Arbitration—within one month. If no such action be taken by the parties to the dispute, the decision becomes compulsory. If the case comes to the Supreme Court of Arbitration, its decision is final. It appears that awards by this court of arbitration affect all employers engaging in the industry affected after the decision has been rendered, and it applies to all labourers who may work for an employer affected by the decision. The court may extend an award to a whole competitive field. The law concerning arbitration applies to all employers potentially, but only to such labour organizations as are registered. Registration is voluntary. Hence compulsory arbitration in New Zealand depends absolutely on the favourable attitude of organized labour towards it. In 1904 there were 266 registered unions with a membership of 27,640. In seven years, under the action of the law, fifty-four cases of dispute were settled by boards of conciliation, and 143 by the higher court. (Sec also CONCILIATION, TRADE UNIONS, TRADE AGREEMENTS, STRIKES, LABOUR LEGISLATION.)

HATCH, Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor, No. 60 (latest complete presentation of laws and facts); Report of the Industrial Commission, 1898–1901, IV, VII ,XII, XVII; GILMAN, Methods of Industrial Peace (1904); BLISS, Encyclopedia of Social Reform; REPORTS of National Civic Federation, and those of Governmental Boards of Arbitration, in Europe and America, contain valuable material.

WILLIAM J. KERBY

St. Arbogast

(Gaelic Arascach).

St. Arbogast has been claimed as a native of Scotland, but this is owing to a misunderstanding of the name “Scotia,” which until late in the Middle Ages really meant Ireland. He flourished about the middle of the seventh century. Leaving Ireland, as so many other missionaries had done, he settled as a hermit in a German forest, and then proceeded to Alsace, where his real name, Arascach, was changed to Arbogast. This change of name was owing to the difficulty experienced by foreigners in pronouncing Irish Christian names; thus it is that Moengal, Maelmaedhog, Cellach, Gillaisu, Gilla in Coimded, Tuathal, and Arascach were respectively transformed into Marcellus, Malachy, Gall, Gelasius, Germanus, Tutilo, and Arbogast. St. Arbogast found a warm friend in King Dagobert II of Austrasia, who had been educated at Slane, in Meath, in Ireland, and was restored to his kingdom on the demise of King Childeric II. Monstrelet authenticates the story of King Dagobert in Ireland; and the royal exile naturally fled to Slane in order to be under the ægis of the Ard-Righ (High-King) of Ireland, at Tara. On Dagobert’s accession to the throne of Austrasia, Arbogast was appointed Bishop of Strasburg, and was famed for sanctity and miracles. It is related that the Irish saint raised to life Dagobert’s son, who had been killed by a fall from his horse. St. Arbogast died in 678, and, at his own special request, was buried on the side of a mountain, where only malefactors were interred. The site of his burial was subsequently deemed suitable for a church. He is commemorated 21 July.

Grattan Flood, Irish Saints; Boschius in Acta SS. (1727), July, V, 168–177; Burgener, Helvetia Sancta (1860), I, 56–58; Hist. litt. de la France (1735), III, 621–622; Postina, in Römische Quartalschrift (1898), XII, 299–305; Analecta Bolland., XVIII, 195; Bibl. hagiogr. Lat. (1898), 106, 1317; O’Hanlon, Lives of Irish Saints, VII (21 July); Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, 6th ed.; Grandidier, Hist de l’église de Strasbourg (1770), I, 199.

W. H. Grattan-Flood.

Abbey of Arbroath

This monastery was founded on the east coast of Scotland (1178) by William the Lion, for Benedictines, and was colonized by monks from Kelso. The foundation was in honour of St. Thomas of Canterbury, martyred eight years previously, with whom William had been on terms of personal friendship. At his death in 1214 William was buried in the eastern portion, then just finished, of the noble church, which was completed in 1233. It had a choir of three bays and a nave of nine, with side aisles, two transepts, a central and two western towers. The monastery was richly endowed by William and his successors, and by various Scottish barons, and was one of the most opulent in the kingdom. The monks constructed a harbour, and fixed a bell on the Inchcape Rock as a warning to mariners. The last Abbot of Arbroath was David Beaton, Archbishop of St. Andrews. After the Reformation the revenues were bestowed on the Hamiltons, the abbey being erected into a temporal lordship. Services were held up to 1590 in the lady-chapel, “stripped of its altars and images.” The existing ruins of the church are considerable and imposing, but of the conventual buildings only a few fragments remain.

HAY, History of Arbroath (Arbroath, 1876); MACKENZIE-WALCOTT, Scoti-Monasticon (London, 1874); Liber S. Thomoe de Aberbrothok, ed. COSMO INNES; MlLLER, Arbroath and its Abbey (Edinburgh, 1860); GORDON, Monasticon (Glasgow, 1868); SINCLAIR, Statistical Account of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1791).

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Missal of Arbuthnott

A manuscript Scottish missal or mass-book, written in 1491 by James Sibbald, priest of Arbuthnott, in Scotland, for use in that church. After the Reformation, it, together with two other MSS. written by the same hand, became the property of the family of Arbuthnott, in whose possession it remained until 1897, when it was purchased by Mr. Archibald Coats of Paisley, who presented it to the museum of that town. The MS. is written on vellum, in large Gothic characters, with numerous miniatures, illuminated capitals and borders. It consists of 244 leaves, and is complete. It contains also a full-length painting of St. Ternan, the apostle of the Picts, and patron saint of the church of Arbuthnott. It is of unique historical and liturgical interest, as being the only missal of the Scottish Use now extant. It commences with a leaf of “Prayers before Mass,” then follows a “Form of Excommunication” in Scottish and Latin, succeeded by three leaves of rubrics and the calendar. The Mass itself is mainly that of Sarum with some variations, and of the typical editions of the Sarum missal, that of 1498 agrees most closely with it. The Sarum Rite, as emended by St. Osmund of Salisbury in the eleventh century, after having been adopted in most of the English dioceses, penetrated into Scotland early in the twelfth century, and continued in use there up to the Reformation. The differences between the Arbuthnott and the Sarum missals lie chiefly in the Sanctorale, Masses for certain saints being found in the one which are not in the other. The Arbuthnott missal contains also a number of Sequences, not to be found in either the Sarum, York, or Hereford missals, nor yet in the MS. troparium in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.

FORBES (ed.), Liber Ecclesioe Beati Terrenani de Arbuthnott (Burntisland, 1864); Kalendars of Scottish Saints (Edinburgh, 1872); INNES, Civil and Ecclesiastical History of Scotland (Aberdeen, 1853); SPALDING, Of the Salisbury Liturgy used in Scotland in Miscellany (Edinburgh), II.

E. E. GREEN

Arca

A box in which the Eucharist was kept by the primitive Christians in their homes. St. Cyprian (De lapsis, 26) tells of a woman “who with unworthy hands” attempted “to open her box in which was the Holy (Body) of the Lord,” but was unable to do so because of fire which issued therefrom the moment she touched it. (Cum quaedam arcam suam in quo Domini sanctum fuit manibus immundis temptasset aperire, etc.) A representation of the Eucharistic Arca is believed by Wilpert to exist in a fresco of the catacomb of Sts. Peter and Marcellinus. The scene depicts Christ seated, reading from an open roll; on His right are three amphorae, and on the left a square box filled with loaves, symbols of the Eucharist. It also signified a receptacle for the offerings of Christians for the Church or the poor (Tertullian, Apol. 39; Liber Pontif., I, 154).

KRAUS, Realencyclop., I, 73; HENRY in Dict. d’arch. chret., I, 2709.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Our Lady of Arcachon

A miraculous image venerated at Arcachon, France, and to all appearances the work of the thirteenth century. Carved from a block of alabaster about twenty inches in height, it represents Our Lady clad in Oriental drapery, holding the Divine Infant on her right arm. Blessed Thomas Illyricus of Osimo (b. about the middle of the fifteenth century) a Franciscan who had retired to the forest solitude of Arcachon, is said to have found this statue on the seashore, much battered by the waves. He immediately constructed a wooden chapel, replaced, a century later, by a spacious stone sanctuary, but this, in turn, was so menaced by the drifting sands of the dunes as to necessitate the erection of a new church (1723) on a neighbouring hill overlooking the Bay of Arcachon. The statue survived both revolutions and was granted the honour of a coronation by a brief of Pius IX, 15 July, 1870. Devotion to Our Lady of Arcachon has spread far and wide, and there are continual pilgrimages to her shrine. Up to 1842 the church was surrounded only by a few fishermen’s huts, but with the erection of villas and the discovery of the salubrious climate people began to flock thither, and it is now the centre of a flourishing city.

LEROY, Histoire des pelerinages de la Sainte Vierge en France (Paris, 1873–75), II 397 sqq.; DELPEUCH, Notre-Dame d’Arcachon; DEJEAN, Arcachon et ses environs.

F.M. RUDGE

Jacob Arcadelt

(Also ARCHADELT, ARKADELT, HARCADELT)

A distinguished musician, b. in Holland at the close of the fifteenth, or at the beginning of the sixteenth century; d. probably at Paris, between 1570 and 1575. He grew up under the influence of Josquin and the Belgian. School. He began his career as a singer at the court of Florence. In 1539 he went to Rome and became singing-master of the boys’ choir at St. Peter’s, and the following year entered the Papal choir as a singer. Here he remained till 1549. In 1555, his services having been engaged by Cardinal Charles of Lorraine, Duke of Guise, he followed him to Paris, where he probably remained until his death. He is mentioned, at this period, as regius musicus (Court Musician).

Of his numerous compositions a large proportion have been published. Foremost among these are his six books of madrigals for five voices (Venice, 1538–56), each book containing at least forty compositions. They are his finest and most characteristic works, and, toghether with three volumes of masses for from three to seven voices (Paris, 1557), are perhaps his chief claim to lasting renown. An excellent copy of the first four books of the madrigals, with other selected compositions of Arcadelt, is contained in the library of the Brithis Museum. At Paris and Lyons many of his French songs were published, including “L’excellence des chansons musicales” (Lyons, 1572) and “Chansons françaises à plusieurs parties” (Lyons, 1586).

He was one of those distinguished musicians of the Netherlands who by their efforts to advance their art in Italy, both as teachers and composer, helped to lay the foundations of the great Italian school.

BAKER, Biog. Dict. of Musicians; HOEFER, Biog. Univ. GROVE, Dict. of Music and Musicians; RIEMANN, Dict. of Music; NAUMANN, Geschichte der Musik.

J.A. VÖLKER

Arcadiopolis

A titular see of Asia Minor. Its episcopal list (431–879) is given in Gams (p. 444); there is also in Gams (p. 427) the episcopal list of another see of the same name (431–879).

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ. (1740), I, 1711–12.

Arcae

Also ARCA, now TEL-ARKA.

A titular see on the coast of Phoenicia, between Tripolis and Antaradus, suffragan of Tyre. Its episcopal list is given in Gams (p. 434) from 364 to 451. It was a Latin see during the Crusades, and now gives a title to a Greek and a Maronite bishop. In antiquity it was famous for the worship of Aphrodite and for a temple of the Roman Emperor, Alexander Severus, who was born there in a temple during a visit of his parents. It stood long sieges by the Arab conquerors of Syria, in the seventh century, and in the eleventh (1099) by the Crusaders into whose hands it eventually fell. Later it was destroyed by the Mamelukes after they had expelled the Christian population. There was another Arcae in Cappadocia, suffragan of Melitene. Its episcopal list (431–680) is given in Gams (p. 441).

LE QUIEN, Oriens Christ. (1740), II, 825, 826; III, 956; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 189; BURKHARDT, Syria, 162.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Arcanum

An Encyclical Letter on Christian marriage, issued 10 February, 1880, by Leo XIII. Its scope is to show that, since family life is the germ of society, and marriage is the basis of family life, the healthy condition of civil no less than of religious society depends on the inviolability of the marriage contract. The argument of the Encyclical runs as follows: The mission of Christ was to restore man in the supernatural order. That should benefit man also in the natural order; first, the individual; and then, as a consequence, human society. Having laid down this principle, the Encyclical deals with Christian marriage which sanctifies the family, i.e. the unit of society. The marriage contract, Divinely instituted, had from the beginning two properties: unity and indissolubility. Through human weakness and wilfulness it was corrupted in the course of time; polygamy destroyed its unity, and divorce its indissolubility. Christ restored the original idea of human marriage, and to sanctify more thoroughly this institution He raised the marriage contract to the dignity of a sacrament. Mutual rights and duties were secured to husband and wife; mutual rights and duties between parents and children were also asserted: to the former, authority to govern and the duty of training; to the latter, the right to parental care and the duty of reverence. Christ instituted His Church to continue His mission to men. The Church, true to her commission, has always asserted the unity and indissolubility of marriage, the relative rights and duties of husband, wife, and children; she has also maintained that, the natural contract in marriage having been raised to the dignity of a sacrament, these two are henceforth one and the same thing so that there cannot be a marriage contract amongst Christians which is not a sacrament. Hence, while admitting the right of civil authority to regulate the civil concerns and consequences of marriage, the Church has always claimed exclusive authority over the marriage contract and its essentials, since it is a sacrament. The Encyclical shows by the light of history that for centuries the Church exercised, and the civil power admitted, that authority. But human weakness and wilfulness began to throw off the bridle of Christian discipline in family life; civil rulers began to disown the authority of the Church over the marriage tie; and rationalism sought to sustain them by establishing the principle that the marriage contract is not a sacrament at all, or at least that the natural contract and the sacrament are separable and distinct things. Hence arose the idea of the dissolubility of marriage and divorce, superseding the unity and indissolubility of the marriage bond. The Encyclical points to the consequences of that departure in the breaking up of family life, and its evil effects on society at large. It points out as a consequence, that the Church, in asserting its authority over the marriage contract, has shown itself not the enemy but the best friend of the civil power and the guardian of civil society. In conclusion, the Encyclical commissions all bishops to oppose civil marriage, and it warns the faithful against the dangers of mixed marriages.

Acta Sanctae Sedis (Rome, 1880), XII, 385–405, tr.; WYNNE, Great Encyclicals of Leo XIII (New York, 1903), 58–82; and EYRE, The Pope and the People (London, 1895), 176–206. An excellent commentary is that of Msgr. JAMES CORCORAN, in Amer. Cath. Quar. Review (Philadelphia, 1880), V, 302–32.

M. O’RIORDAN

Arch

A structure composed of separate pieces, such as stone or bricks, having the shape of truncated wedges, arranged on a curved line so as to retain their position by mutual pressure. This method of construction is called arcuated, in contradistinction to the trabeated style used in Greek architecture, where the voids between column and column, or between column and wall, were spanned by lintels.

The separate stones which compose the curve of an arch are called voussoirs, or arch-stones. The lowest voussoirs are called springers. The springers usually have one or both joints horizontal. The upper surface of the springer, against which the first voussoir of the real arch (that is, in which both joints radiate) starts, is said to be skewbacked; the uppermost or central voussoir is called the keystone. The under, or concave, side of the voussoir is called the intrados or soffit, and the upper, or convex, side, the extrados of the arch. The supports which afford resting and resisting points to the arch are called piers and abutments. The upper part of the pier or abutment where the arch rests—technically, where it springs from—is the impost. The span of an arch is, in circular arches, the length of its chord, and generally, the width between the points of its opposite imposts whence it springs. The rise of an arch is the height of the highest point of its intrados above the line of the impost; this point is sometimes called the underside of the crown, the highest point of the extrados being the crown. If an arch be enclosed, or is imagined as being enclosed, in a square, then the spaces between the arch and the square are its spandrels.

FORMS OF ARCH

In Rome and Western Europe, the oldest and normal type of arch is the semicircular. In this the centre is in the middle of the diameter. Where the centre is at a point above the diameter, it is called a stilted arch. When the arch is formed of a curve that is less than a semicircle (a segment of a circle), with its centre below the diameter, it is called a segmental arch. Or if the curve is greater than a semicircle and has its centre above the diameter, it is called the horseshoe arch. All these arches are struck from one centre. The second class is struck from two centres. This arch is the pointed. There are three chief varieties. The first is the equilateral. In this the two centres coincide with the ends of the diameter. The second, more acutely pointed, is the lancet. In this the centres are on the line of the diameter, but outside it. The third is the obtuse, or drop, arch. In this the centres are still on the line of the diameter, but inside. The third class consists of arches struck from three centres. This is the three-Centred or “basket-handle” arch. The fourth class consists of arches struck from four centres. The first variety is the four-centred, or Tudor, arch. The curves can be struck in different ways, and the long curves sometimes replaced by straight lines with a short curve at the juncture. Another variety of arch struck from three or four centres is the ogee arch. In this, one or two of the centres are below, but the other two are above the arch. So the two upper curves of the arch are concave, the two lower convex.

Foiled arches have three or more lobes or leaves. The simplest are the round-headed trefoil; the pointed trefoil; the square-headed trefoil: which goes by the name of the shouldered arch. A trefoliated arch is a trefoiled arch enclosed in a pointed arch. A trefoiled arch is not enclosed in any other arch. Besides the trefoiled, there is the cinquefoil arch, with five lobes or foils, and the multifoile arch with several.

FLAT ARCH

In a flat arch the voussoirs are wedge-shaped, but the extrados and intrados are composed of straight lines. Sometimes, to strengthen a flat or slightly curved arch, the voussoirs are notched or joggled.

COMPOUND ARCHES

If the arch needs to be unusually strong, it is better to construct two independent arches, one on the top of the other. Or it may be constructed in three separate rings. Each of these sub-arches, or rings, of which the whole compound arch is composed, is called an order. It is a safer form of arch than the simple arch. This system of concentric arches was employed by the Romans early in the sixth century B. C., in the Cloaca Maxima at Rome; three occur where it enters the Tiber. In some compound orders the faces are in the same plane. But as a rule the orders are successively recessed, i. e. the innermost sub-arch, or order, is narrow, the next above it broader, the next is broader still, and so on.

SEMICIRCULAR ARCH

This arch is specially characteristic of Romanesque architecture. Gothic semi-circular arches sometimes occur in the architecture of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

STILTED ARCH

By stilting, a narrow semicircular arch can be made to rise to the same level as a broad arch, so that the crowns may be on the same level.

SEGMENTAL ARCH

This arch occurs occasionally in Norman work.

HORSESHOE ARCH

They are not uncommon in Norman ribbed vaults. They occur in the aisled basilica of Diana, near the Euphrates, which has the inscription A. D. 540. In Eastern work the horseshoe arch is frequently not round-headed, but acutely pointed. This facilitates construction, as the upper or more difficult portion of the arch or dome can then be constructed by corbelling and without centering, as in many Indian domes.

POINTED ARCH

Of the antiquity of the pointed arch in the East there can be no question; in many districts it is as much the normal form as is the semicircular in the Romanesque of Europe. But it does not follow that the latter borrowed it. It has probably been invented again and again, as necessity arose. In countries where there was no timber, or no tools to work it, the natives had to build shelters in stone. Frequently the only way known of roofing these was to pile flat stones on one another, i. e. with horizontal bed, not with radiating joints, each course projecting a little further inward as the wall went up. Plainly, these walls would topple in if a semicircular roof had been attempted, but they could be got to stand if the roof was built in the form of a pointed arch—at any rate, if the arch was very acutely pointed.

Although the Romanesque architects had solved the greatest problem of the Middle Ages, viz. how to vault throughout with stone a clerestoried church, Basilican in plan, without the aid of the pointed arch, yet the employment of the pointed arch greatly facilitated building construction. Next to the use of diagonal ribs and flying buttresses it was the greatest improvement introduced into medieval architecture (Francis Bond). The pointed arch is stronger than any other kind of arch; it has a more vertical and a less lateral thrust than a semicircular one. It was of the greatest use in vaulting.

FOUR-CENTRED ARCHES

These arches are parts of four different circles. The position of the centres varies greatly, and with them the beauty of the arch. Perhaps the most usual position is for the upper and lower centres of each side of the arch to be in the same vertical line. The four-centred arch has been considered peculiar to England; but it was common enough in Flanders at the same time it was in England.

OGEE ARCH

As the upper curves of this arch are reversed, it cannot bear a heavy load, and it does not occur in pier arches. In France, the ogee arch does not seem to have come into general use till late in the fourteenth century. In late English Decorated and French Flamboyant the ogee arch is used to the greatest advantage. Its origin is unquestionably Oriental. It is used in India on a vast scale in those domes which are constructed by corbelling. In England it was not used constructionally, but only decoratively. The ogee arch, like the pointed arch, may vary greatly in form, according to the character of the arch whose curve is reversed to give the upper part of the ogee, and according to the length assigned to the upper curve.

FOILED ARCH

Like the ogee, it is of decorative, not of structural, value. The round-headed, trefoiled arch is less common than the pointed. The cinquefoil is usually later than the trefoil arch.

ELLIPTICAL ARCHES

It may be doubted whether any true elliptical arches ever occur otherwise than accidentally. The origin of the arch is not known. It was largely used by the Assyrians, and by the Egyptians as well, at a very early date;. but for some unknown reason they did not introduce it into their greatest works. The practical introduction and use of the arch was due to the Romans. The pointed arch came into use about the twelfth century, and was destined to give birth to a new style of architecture. The pointed arch, whatever its origin, made its appearance almost at the same time in all the civilized countries of Europe. As this was immediately after the first Crusade, it has been conjectured that the Crusaders came to know it in the Holy Land, and introduced it into their respective countries on their return from the East. It was in use among the Saracenic and Mohammedan nations, and was extensively employed in Asia. But exactly with what nation in the East the pointed arch originated, and in what manner, are problems equally difficult to solve.

THOMAS H. POOLE.

Commission of Sacred Archæology

An official pontifical board founded in the middle of the nineteenth century for the purpose of promoting and directing excavations in the Roman Catacombs and on other sites of Christian antiquarian interest, and of safeguarding the objects found during such excavations. At that period Giovanni Battista De Rossi, a pupil of the archæologist Father Marchi, had already begun the investigation of subterranean Rome, and achieved results which, if confirmed, promised a rich reward. In a vineyard on the Appian Way he discovered (1849) a fragment of a marble slab bearing part of an inscription, “NELIVS. MARTYR,” which he recognized as belonging to the sepulchre of Pope Cornelius, martyred in 253, whose remains were laid to rest in the Catacomb of St. Callixtus on the Appian Way. Concluding that the vineyard in which the marble fragment was found overlay this Catacomb, he urged Pius IX to purchase the vineyard in order that excavations might be made there. The Pope, after listening to the representations of the young enthusiast, said: “These are but the dreams of an archæologist”; and he added that he had works of more importance on which to spend his money. Nevertheless, he ordered the purchase to be made, and he allotted an annual revenue of 18,000 francs to be applied for excavations and future discoveries. The Commission of Sacred Archæology was then appointed to superintend the application of this fund to labours in the Catacombs and elsewhere. The first meeting of this Commission was held at Rome at 1851, at the residence of Cardinal Patrizi, who presided over it by virtue of his office, and selected its members, first amongst them being the Sacristan of His Holiness, Mgr. Castellani, whose office up till then included that of the preservation of sacred relics. Mgr. Vincenzo Tizzani, a distinguished scholar, Professor of History in the Roman University; Marino Marini, Canon of St. Peter’s; Father Marchi, S.J., and G. B. De Rossi, were the first members. At present it is presided over by the Vicar of His Holiness, Cardinal Respighi, and among its members are such well known archæologists as Mgr. Giuseppe Wilpert, Father Germano, C. P., Father Bonavenia, S. J., Orazio Marucchi, Giuseppe Gatti, Baron Rodolfo Kanzler, Mgr. Stornaiolo, and P. Franchi de’ Cavalieri. The work achieved under its direction is very extensive. It includes the formation of the Museum of Catacomb Inscriptions and Christian Antiquities in the Lateran Palace; the enormous excavations and repairs in the Catacombs; the discovery and opening up of several subterranean chapels of third-century popes, of St. Cecilia, of the Acilii-Glabriones, and the Cappella Greca; the opening up of many Catacombs now accessible to visitors; the publication of the three great volumes of De Rossi’s “Roma Sotteranea” and his “Bulletin of Christian Archæology,” still issued as “Nuovo Bollettino,” by his disciples and successors, of the great volume (Italian and German) on “The Paintings of the Catacombs,” by Mgr. Wilpert, and many other works of a kindred nature. Under its auspices the Collegium Cultorum Martyrum, or “Association for Venerating the Martyrs in the Catacombs,” and the “Conferences of Christian Archæology,” held now in the Palace of the Cancelleria, have been created, and are flourishing. It also furnished pecuniary assistance for the excavations made beneath the ancient Roman Churches of San Clemente and Sts. John and Paul, which brought to light very interesting underground churches long lost to sight and memory. Much of the great interest felt to-day in Christian Archæology is to be attributed to the outcome of the labours of this Commission.

MARUCCHI, Giovanni Battista De Rossi, Cenni Biografici (Rome, 1903); DE WAAL, in Die Katholische Kirche unserer Zeit und ihre Diener in Wort und Bild (Berlin, 1899); BAUMGARTEN, G. B. De Rossi, fondatore della scienza di archœologia sacra (Italian tr. Bonavenia, Rome, 1892); La gerarchia cattolica (Rome, 1906); BATTANDIER, in Annuaire pontifical (Rome, 1899), 494.

P.L. CONNELLAN

Archange de Lyon

A preacher of the Capuchin order whose name was Michael Desgranges, b. at Lyons, 2 March, 1736; d. at Lyons, 13 October, 1822. He joined the Capuchins 4 March, 1751, and held the post of lector in theology about the end of the eighteenth century. In 1789, having preached against the States General he was obliged to leave France. He returned in disguise to Lyons about 1796 and became curé of the parish of the Carthusians and on the re-establishment of his order at Chambéry he resumed his monastic habit there in 1818. He devoted himself to preaching missions and stations in Savoy and France until, in 1821, he was able to re-open the former convent of his order at Crest in Valence. He died at Lyons 13 October, 1822. He is regarded as the restorer of the Capuchin order in France. His works comprise: “Discours adressé aux juifs et utile aux chrétiens pour les confirmer dans leur foi” (Lyons, 1788); “Aperçu nouveau d’un plan d’éducation catholique” (Lyons, 1814); “Réflexions intéressantes sur le ‘Génie du christianisme’“ (Turin, 1815); “Précis abrégé des vérités, qui distinguent le culte catholique de toutes les sectes chrétiennes et avouées par l’église de France,” (Lyons, 1817); “Explication de la lettre encyclique du pape Benoît XIV sur les usures” (Lyons, 1822); “Dissertations philosophiques historiques et théologiques sur la religion catholique” (Lyons, 1836). De Manne, “Nouveau dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes,” attributes to him an “Essai sur le jeu considéré sous le rapport de la morale et du droit naturel” (Paris, 1835).

D’ALENÇON in Dict. de théol. cath.

THOMAS WALSH

Archbishop

(Archiepiskopos, archiepiscopus).

I. IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

An archbishop or metropolitan, in the present sense of the term, is a bishop who governs a diocese strictly his own, while he presides at the same time over the bishops of a well-defined district composed of simple dioceses but not of provinces. Hence none of these subordinate bishops rule over others. These bishops are called the suffragans or comprovincials. The archbishop’s own diocese is the archdiocese. The several dioceses of the district form the archiepiscopal, or metropolitan, province.

Historical Origin

Some writers wrongly point to Sts. Timothy and Titus, the disciples of St. Paul, as to the first archbishops in the Church. Probably they were metropolitans in the wider sense of the term, one for Asia Minor, the other for the island of Crete. But it remains impossible to assign the exact date when archbishops, as we now use the term, were first appointed. It is true that metropolitans are mentioned as a well-known institution in the Church by the Council of Nicæa (325) in its fourth, fifth and sixth canons, and by the Council of Antioch (341) whose seventh canon is a classical passage in this matter. It reads: “The bishops of every province must be aware that the bishop presiding in the metropolis has charge of the whole province; because all who have business come together from all quarters to the metropolis. For this reason it is decided that he should, according to the ancient and recognized canon of our fathers, do nothing beyond what concerns their respective dioceses and the districts belonging thereto,” etc. But it cannot be denied that even at, this period the term “metropolitan” was used indiscriminately for all higher ranks above the simple episcopate. It was thus applied also to patriarchs and primates. The same must be said of the term “archbishop” which does not occur in the present meaning before the sixth century, although the office of archbishop or metropolitan in the stricter sense, indicating a hierarchical rank above the ordinary bishops but below the primate and patriarch, was already substantially the same in the fifth century as it is today. A peculiar condition obtained in Africa, where the archiepiscopal office was not attached to a certain see, the metropolis, but where it always devolved upon the senior bishop of the province, whatever see he might occupy. He was called “the first or chief bishop,” or also “the bishop of the first or chief see.”

Jurisdiction

The jurisdiction of the archbishop is twofold, episcopal and archiepiscopal. The first extends to his own diocese exclusively and comprises the rights and powers of the fullest government of the diocese, clergy and laity, spiritual and temporal, except as restricted by Church law. Unless such restriction be clearly stated in law, the presumption is in favour of the episcopal authority. The contrary holds in regard to the archiepiscopal authority. It extends to the province and the suffragan bishops only in as far as it is explicitly stated in the law. Where the law is silent, the presumption is against the archbishop. Be it remembered, however, that rightfully established and approved custom obtains the force of law. Archiepiscopal jurisdiction, being permanently attached to the office as such, is ordinary jurisdiction, not merely delegated or vicarious. It reaches immediately the suffragan bishops, and mediately the faithful of their dioceses. However, it has not always been the same either in regard to time or place. While the metropolitan office was everywhere the same in character, the extent and measure of its right and power would be greatly modified by local conditions, particular laws and customs, and sometimes by papal privileges. Although many of these rights are mentioned in different places of the Corpus Juris Canonici, yet there never was a uniform law to define them all in detail. In former times the archbishop’s jurisdiction was far more ample than it is at present. The metropolitan could confirm, consecrate, and transfer the bishops of his province, accept from them the oath of allegiance and fidelity, summon them singly or collectively to his metropolis (even outside of a council) at his pleasure, cite the suffragans into his court in civil and criminal trials, give them leave of absence from their dioceses and letters commendatory in their travels, allow them to dispose of church property, regulate the Church calendar of the province by fixing and announcing the date of Easter, administer the suffragan dioceses in case of vacancy, and, finally, receive appeals lodged with him from any part of his province. But this extensive power of archbishops was later on greatly restricted, specially in the Latin Church, by several of the popes, and lastly by the Council of Trent. The charge made by the Jansenists that the popes curtailed the rights of archbishops in order to increase and strengthen their own claim of universal primacy, is best refuted by the fact that the metropolitan authority in it struggles against encroaching primates and patriarchs or rival metropolitans, found no stronger support than that given by the Holy See. On the other hand, Rome had also to defend the native or acquired rights and privileges of suffragan bishops against usurping claims of their metropolitans. That the Holy See did not exceed its powers is further proved by the fact the Council of Trent restricted rights of metropolitans even more than the popes had done. In the Catholic Churches of Asia and Africa the former metropolitan office is today merged in the patriarchal office. The archbishops under those patriarchs have no province nor archiepiscopal jurisdiction, but only hold the rank or archiepiscopal dignity. But in Austria, Hungary, Roumania, Servia, and Herzegovina the Catholics of the different Oriental rites, Ruthenians, Greeks, and Armenians, still have archbishops in the proper sense, who retain a large portion of their former jurisdiction, more than those of the Latin Rite. Since the Council of Trent the rights of an archbishop in the Latin Church may be described as follows:

(1) In regard to his suffragan bishops the metropolitan may compel them to assemble in provincial council every three years, and to attend faithfully to their episcopal duties, in particular those of residing regularly within their own diocese, of holding diocesan synods, and of maintaining diocesan seminaries (where clerical candidates cannot otherwise receive an ecclesiastical training). In the provincial council the archbishop is invested with all the rights of the presiding officer, but his voice counts no more than any of his suffragans. Modern practice has it also that when the archbishop’s warning is not heeded by the delinquent suffragan, he will not himself use compulsory measures, e.g. censures, but report the case to Rome. Only civil, not criminal, cases of suffragans come within the competency of the archbishop.

(2) Generally speaking, the metropolitan has no direct jurisdiction over the subjects of his suffragans. But he acquires such jurisdiction in three ways, namely: by appeal, by devolution, and by the canonical visitation. Today archbishops cannot visit a suffragan diocese, unless the matter has been discussed and approved by the provincial council. Matters of episcopal jurisdiction will devolve upon the archbishop in certain cases mentioned in the law, when the suffragan bishop neglects to do his duty, e.g. to fill in due time vacant benefices or parishes, or to absolve from excommunication when the necessary conditions have been complied with. This proceeds on the general principle that superiors ought to remedy the neglect of their inferiors lest too great harm be done to the Church and her faithful children. When a diocese becomes vacant the cathedral chapter is bound to elect a vicar-capitular who will act as administrator of the vacant diocese. If such election is not made in eight days the archbishop of the province will appoint the vicar-capitular. In the United States the archbishop appoints an administrator of the vacant diocese until Rome shall further provide. If the archdiocese becomes vacant, the senior suffragan appoints the administrator. An appeal or recourse, judicial or extrajudicial, lies directly, at least in the regular course of ecclesiastical procedure, from the bishop to his archbishop, as to the next higher instance. Whenever some disputed matter is thus brought, according to the law, from a suffragan diocese before the metropolitan for adjudication, he acquires direct jurisdiction over the case. Appeals and recourses by the archbishop’s own subjects against his judicial sentences, or other ordinances given in the first instance, lie directly, when allowed by law, to the Holy See, at least in the absence of a proper primate or patriarch. But, to expedite and facilitate matters, other ways are usually granted by Rome, e.g. to appeal from the archbishop to his senior suffragan, as in England; or to the nearest other metropolitan, as in the United States and in Germany; or to a second and special metropolitic court in the same province called Metropoliticum as in France. Since the establishment of the Apostolic Delegation in the United States, cases from the suffragan sees (except matrimonial cases) are usually brought directly before the delegate and no longer before the archbishop.

(3) Archbishops also have the right and duty of compelling, if necessary, the superiors of religious orders, even those who are otherwise exempt, in charge of parishes or congregations, to have the Gospel preached in such parishes according to the provisions of the Council of Trent. It may be observed, however that, although such are by law the rights of an archbishop, their exercise is now seldom called for, so that his more prominent position is rather one of honour and dignity than of actual jurisdiction. Still, with all this, it remains necessary to distinguish the incumbent of a metropolitan see from the bearer of a mere honorary title of archbishop (who never receives the pallium and is never called metropolitan), often granted by the Holy See to prelates without an actual see and sometimes to ordinary bishops. By the Mohammedan conquest nearly all of the early metropolitan sees in Asia and Africa became extinct. In more recent time some of these were restored by the popes, being made residential sees. But the titles of the others are conferred as a mere honorary distinction, mostly upon prelates of the Roman courts and coadjutor bishops of metropolitans. Besides the powers of jurisdiction, archbishops also enjoy certain rights of honour within their province. The foremost among these is the right of wearing the pallium. Before receiving the pallium from Rome the archbishop cannot exercise any metropolitic functions nor officiate in pontifical vestments within the province, unless by a special privilege from the Holy See. Other honorary rights are: to have the processional cross carried immediately before him, to wear the mozetta or short cape, to bless the people, to precede his suffragans, and to occupy the bishop’s throne, all this anywhere in the province. In the archiepiscopal coat of arms the episcopal hat is flanked by ten tassels on each side. His address is “Your (His) Grace,” “Most Reverend.”

Manner of Appointment

The vacancy of an archiepiscopal see is filled in the same manner as that of an ordinary bishopric, whether it be by an election properly so called, or by a presentation or nomination, or by direct papal appointment. If the new archbishop be a priest, he will receive episcopal consecration; if already a bishop, he will be solemnly installed in the new office. But it is neither the consecration nor the installation which makes the archbishop. It is his appointment to an archdiocese.

Statistics

There are at present (1906) in the Catholic Church 164 archbishops with provinces, and 37 with only their diocese but no province, and, lastly, 89 purely titular archbishops. In the United States there are now 14 provinces, in British America 9, in Cuba 1, in the Philippine Islands 1. For a full description of the present metropolitan organization in the Catholic Church, East and West, see the article HIERARCHY.

II. IN THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH

Archbishops are as a rule only titular, without any suffragans, but with their own diocese, the same as most of the Catholic metropolitans in the East. But in the autocephalous, or independent, national churches of Austria, Hungary, Servia, Roumania, Bosnia, and Herzegovina the so-called archbishops or metropolitans exercise, in union with the autocephalous synod, the highest ecclesiastical authority over the Church of such country. Their office, therefore, resembles that of a patriarch.

III. THE ANGLICAN EPISCOPAL CHURCH

The Anglican Church has two archbishops in England, one of Canterbury, the other of York, both of whom are invested with primatial dignity; and two archbishops in Ireland, one of Armagh, the other of Dublin. Their authority is similar to that of Catholic archbishops. In Scotland the Episcopalians have no archbishop; but one of the bishops is chosen by the rest to act as “Primus” without metropolitan jurisdiction (see BISHOP, DIOCESE, METROPOLITAN, HIERARCHY, PRIMATE).

S.G. MESSMER

Archconfraternity

A confraternity empowered to aggregate or affiliate other confraternities of the same nature, and to impart to them its indulgences and privileges. The preliminary requisite, the conditions governing aggregation, the ordinary method of conducting the process, and a list of the principal archconfraternities comprehend the information necessary to a proper understanding of the general subject.

A preliminary requisite to gain the indulgences is the canonical erection of the confraternity to be aggregated. Canonical erection is the approval of the proper ecclesiastical authority which gives the organization a legal existence. Archconfraternities do not erect confraternities; they merely aggregate them. It ordinarily belongs to the bishop of the diocese to erect confraternities. In the case, however, of many confraternities and archconfraternities the power of erection is vested in the heads of certain religious orders. Sometimes, especially in missionary countries or under abnormal conditions, the privileges of these heads of orders are imparted to bishops. Such extraordinary powers have been considerably restricted within recent years. The vicar-general may not erect confraternities unless he has been expressly delegated for the purpose by his bishop. For the aggregation itself the following are the principal regulations to be observed under penalty of forfeiting the indulgences. Aggregation, or affiliation, as it is also called, may be made by those only who have received from the Holy See express powers for that purpose. They must make use of a prescribed formula. In the same church only one confraternity of the same name and purpose may be aggregated. The consent of the bishop must be given in writing. But in the case of religious orders aggregating their own confraternities in their own churches, the consent of the bishop given for the erection of the house or church of the order is sufficient. The bishop must approve, but may modify the practices and regulations of the confraternity to be aggregated, except those to which the indulgences have been expressly attached. Only those indulgences are imparted by aggregation which have been conceded with that provision. Such indulgences must be enumerated in detail, as is usually done in the prescribed formula of aggregation; no tax may be imposed for aggregation, not even for diplomas, except the expenses requisite for paper and postage. For modifications of these regulations, the laws of the various archconfraternities should be consulted.

Only the general process of conducting the aggregation is given. If it pertains to the bishop to erect the confraternity, then the pastor of a church or the superior of a religious house petitions him for canonical erection, giving the kind of confraternity desired, its title, its patron saint, the church and locality where it is to be erected, its directors, and any deviations from the ordinary rules of the confraternity in question, and asking the consent of the bishop for aggregation to the archconfraternity. If the erection pertains to the head of a religious order, then the bishop’s consent to the aggregation is required. In all cases the information just detailed must be sent to the bishop and to the head of the order to insure the validity of the process. Formulæ embodying such essential information may be obtained usually from the authorities in charge of a confraternity. Some of the more widely known the archconfraternities are those of the Holy Name, the Blessed Sacrament, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Precious Blood, the Holy Face, the Holy Rosary, Our Lady of Perpetual Help, Sodality of the Blessed Heart of Mary for the Conversion of Sinners, the Cord of St. Francis, Christian Doctrine, Bona Mors, Christian Mothers.

BÉRINGER, Les Indulgences (Paris, 1905), II, gives the legislation on this subject, with a list of the archconfraternities, their nature and requirements, and formulæ for canonical erection and for aggregation. MOCCHEGIANI, Collectio Indulgentiarum (Quaracchi, 1897); TACHY, Traité des Confréries (Haute-Marne, 1898).

F.P. DONNELLY

Archdeacon

(Lat. archidiaconos; Gr. ἀρχιδιάκονος).

The incumbent of an ecclesiastical office dating back to antiquity and up to the fifteenth century of great importance in diocesan administration, particularly in the West. The term does not appear before the fourth century, and is then first met with in the history of the Donatist schism, written about 370 by Optatus of Mileve (I, xvi, ed. Corp. Script. Eccl. Lat., XXVI, 18). However, as he here bestows the title on Caecilian, a deacon of Carthage early in the fourth century, it would appear that since that period there was an occasional use of the name. Towards the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century, the term begins to appear more frequently both among Latin and Greek authors. We also occasionally find other names used to indicate the office, e.g. ὁ τοῦ χοροῦ τῶν διακόνων ἡγούμενος (Theodoret, Hist. Eccl., I, xxvi, in P.G., LXXXII, 981). The term soon acquired fixity, all the more rapidly as the archdiaconal office became more prominent and its duties were more sharply defined.

The beginnings of the archdiaconate are found in the first three centuries of the Christian era. The immediate predecessor of the archdeacon is the diaconus episcopi of primitive Christian times, the deacon whom the bishop selected from the diaconal college (see ) for his personal service. He was made an assistant in the work of ecclesiastical administration, was charged with the care of the poor, and was supervisor of the other deacons in their administration of church property. He thus became the special procurator, or oeconomus of the Christian community, and was also entrusted with the surveillance of the subordinate clergy. In this early period the duties of the diaconus episcopi were not juridically defined, but were performed under the direction of the bishop and for the time specified by him. Beginning with the fourth century this specialized activity of the diaconus episcopi takes on gradually the character of a juridical ecclesiastical office. In the round of ecclesiastical administration certain duties appear attached by the law to the office of the archdeacon. Thus, in the period from the fourth to the eighth century the archdeacon is the official supervisor of the subordinate clergy, has disciplinary authority over them in all cases of wrong doing, and exercises a certain surveillance over their discharge of the duties assigned them. It was also within the archdeacon’s province to examine candidates for the priesthood; he had also the right of making visitation among the rural clergy. It was even his duty, in exceptional cases of episcopal neglect, to safeguard the interests of the Church; to his hands were entrusted the preservation of the Faith in its primitive purity, the custody of ecclesiastical discipline, and the prevention of damage to the property of the Church. The archdeacon was, moreover, the bishop’s chief confidant, his assistant, and when it was necessary, his representative in the exercise of the manifold duties of the episcopal office. This was especially the case in the administration of ecclesiastical property, the care of the sick, the visitation of prisoners, and the training of the clergy.

In the East there was no further development of the archdiaconate, but in the West a new stage was inaugurated with the eighth century. By virtue of his office the archdeacon became, next to the bishop, the regular organ of supervision and discipline in the diocese. In this respect he was assigned a proper and independent jurisdiction (jurisdictio propria) and even as late as the twelfth century there was a constant effort to increase the scope of this authority. The great amount of business to be transacted necessitated in large dioceses the appointment of several archdeacons. The first bishop to introduce this innovation was Heddo of Strasburg, who in 774 divided his diocese into seven archdiaconates (archidiaconatus rurales). His example was quickly followed throughout Western Christendom, except in Italy where the majority of the dioceses were so small as to need no such division of authority. Henceforth the archdiaconus magnus of the cathedral (usually the provost or praepositus of the chapter), whose duties chiefly concerned the city clergy, is offset by the archidiaconi rurales placed over the deans (archipresbyteri rurales). These archdeacons were generally priests, either canons of the cathedral or provosts of the principal (collegiate) churches in small towns. The authority of the archdeacons culminated in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. At that time they exercised within the province of their archdiaconates a quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. They made visitations, during which they were empowered to levy certain assessments on the clergy; they conducted courts of first instance, and had the right to punish clerics guilty of lapses; they could also hold synodal courts. But the archdeacon was not only as judge; he was also prominent in ecclesiastical administration. He saw that the archpriests performed their duties, gave canonical investiture to the holders of prebends, and authorized incorporation of the same; he supervised the administration of church revenues, and kept in repair the places of worship. He could also draw up the legal documents called for in the exercise of the duties of his office and the performance of the juridical acts that it entailed. It came about frequently that the archdeacons were not appointed by the bishop but were chosen by the cathedral chapter; sometimes they received their office from the king. After the twelfth century, on account of the vast extent of their duties, they were aided by various officials and vicars appointed by themselves. This great authority proved in time very burdensome to the clergy and brought with it too great a limitation of the episcopal authority. In the thirteenth century numerous synods began to restrict the jurisdiction of the archdeacons. They were forbidden to employ their own special officiales and were prohibited from exercising their authority when the bishop was present in their territory. They were also deprived of the right of freely visiting the parishes of their archdiaconate, of deciding important points of matrimonial causes, and of passing sentence on clerics guilty of grave crimes. Moreover, by the creation of the diocesan office of vicar-general, there was opened a court of higher resort than that of the archdeacon, and to it reverted the greater part of the business once transacted in the court of the archdeacon. When finally the Council of Trent (1553) provided that all matrimonial and criminal causes should be henceforth brought before the bishop (Sess. XIV, xx, De reform.); that the archdeacon should no longer have the power to excommunicate (Sess. XXV, iii, De ref.); that proceedings against ecclesiastics unfaithful to their vows of celibacy should no longer be carried on before the archdeacon (Sess. XXV, xiv, De ref.) and that archdeacons should make visitations only when authorized by the bishop, and then render to him an account of them (Sess. XXIV, iii, De ref.), the archdiaconate was completely bereft of its independent character. From this time the archidiaconatus rurales gradually disappeared from the places where they still existed. The archdiaconate of the cathedral, where the office was still retained, soon became practically an empty title; the chief duties of the incumbent were to assist the bishop in his pontifical duties and to vouch for the moral worthiness of candidates for ordination. Among Protestants, the Anglicans preserved, along with the primitive ecclesiastical organization, the office of archdeacon with its own special jurisdiction. In German Protestant parishes, with less congruity, the title of archdeacon was conferred on the first Unterpfarrer, or assistant pastor.

Kress, Erlaueterung des Archidiaconatwesens (Helmstaedt, 1725); Neller, De Archidiaconis (Trier, 1771); Pertch, Von der Ursprung der Archidiakonen, Officiale und Vikare (Hildesheim, 1743); Spitz, De archidiaconatibus in Germania ac ecclesia Coloniensi (Bonne, 1749); Kranold, Das apostolische Alter der Archidiakonalwuerde (Wittenburg 1768); Grea, Essai historique sur les archidiacres in Biblioth. de l’Ecole des chartres (1851), III, 39 sqq., 215 sqq.; Thomassinus, Vetus et nova eccles. disciplina (London, 1706) I, 174 sqq.; Schroeder, Die Entwickelung des Archidiakonats bis zum 11, Jahrh. (Munich, 1890); Glasschroeder, Das Archidiakonat in der Diozese Speyer, in Archivalische Zeitshrift, N.F., X, 114 sqq.; Leder, Die Diakonen der Bischoefe und Presbyter, in Stutz, Kirchenrechtl. Abhandlungen (Stuttgart, 1905), nos. 23 ,24.

J.P. KIRSCH

Richard Archdeacon

An Irish Jesuit, whose name is sometimes given as Archdekin or Arsdekin, b. at Kilkenny, 30 March, 1620; d. 31 August, 1693. He entered the Society of Jesus, at Mechlin, 20 September, 1642, and taught humanities, philosophy, theology, and Holy Scripture at Antwerp and Louvain. He wrote a treatise in English and Irish on miracles, a “Life of St. Patrick” with a short notice on Ireland and the so-called prophecy of St. Malachy, an Irish saint, and the principal controversies about the faith. This he called “Theologia Quadripartita”; it was meant for use chiefly in Ireland. The book sold very rapidly, more than a thousand copies having been disposed of in a few months. He subsequently published it as a “Theologia Tripartita,” and in the preface informs his readers that he had more time at his disposal for writing than he had for the preceding book. The “Tripartita” passed through thirteen editions. The twelfth edition contains the “Life of Oliver Plunkett and Peter Talbot.” The work is remarkable for its order, conciseness, and lucidity. In spite of its numerous editions, beginning with the year 1671, it was put on the Index in 1700, donec corrigatur. Although at least the Antwerp edition of 1718 was corrected, especially as regards the peccatum philosophicum, and the Cologne edition of 1730 was “revised and corrected,” yet in the Index of 1900 he is still referred to as an author previously condemned. He left in manuscript a “Theologia Apostolica.” Hurter speaks of him as auctor gravis et probabilista. Webb in his “Compendium of Irish Biography” (Dublin, 1878) declares of the treatise on miracles that “it is said to have been the first book printed in English and Irish conjointly.”

HURTER, Nomenclator, II, 399; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliothèque de la c. de J. I, 515, WARE-HARRIS, Writers and Antiquities of Ireland (Dublin, 1764).

T.J. CAMPBELL

Archdiocese

(Archidioikesis, archidioecesis).

This term does not designate an ecclesiastical province, but only that diocese of the province which is the archbishop’s own, and over which he holds immediate and exclusive jurisdiction.

FERRARIS, Bibliotheca Canonica, etc; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium, II. tit. 34; SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, I; PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht, VI; SILBERNAGL Verfassung und Beshtand sämtlichber Kirchen des Orients (1904); Concilii Plenarii Balt. II Acta et Decreta, tit. III; SANTI, Prælectiones Juris Canonici, t. I; Gerarchia Cattolica (Roma, 1906).

Archelais

A titular see of Palestine, twelve miles west of the Jordan. Its episcopal list is given in Gams (p. 453). Another town of the same name, in Cappadocia, was founded by Archelaus, the last of the Cappadocian kings.

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ. (1740), III, 675–676; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 193

James Archer

An English missionary priest, born in London, 17 November, 1751; died 22 August, 1832. While employed at a public house called “The Ship,” in Turn Stile, Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields, where Catholics secretly assembled for Divine service, he attracted the favourable notice of Dr. Challoner and was sent, in 1769, to study at Douai College. He returned in 1780, after his ordination, to carry on the mission in the public house where he had formerly been employed. He was for many years Vicar-General of the London District and received the papal degree of Doctor of Divinity at the same time with Drs. Lingard, Gradwell, and Fletcher. His published works are: “Sermons on Various Moral and Religious Subjects” (London, 1787, 1788, 1816); “Second Series” (London, 1801, 1822); “‘Third Series” (London, 1827); “Sermons” (London, 1789, 1794, 1817); “Sermons on Matrimonial Duties, etc.” (London, 1804); “Letter to J. Milner, Vicar-Apostolic of the Midland District (Being a Reply to a letter in which he accuses the author of immorality)” (London, 1810); “Sermon on Universal Benevolence—Some Reflections on Religious Persecution and the alleged proceedings at Nismes” (2d ed., London, 1816). His portrait was engraved by Turner after a painting by James Ramsay in 1826.

GILLOW, Bibliog. Dict. English Catholics.

THOMAS WALSH

Court of Arches

The Court of Arches, so called from the fact that it was anciently held in the Church of St. Mary le Bow (Sancta Maria de Arcubus), in Cheapside, was the chief and most ancient court and consistory of the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Originally the judge of this court, the official Principal of the Arches, took cognizance of causes throughout the ecclesiastical province, and by his patent was invested with the right of hearing appeals from the Dean of the Arches. This latter exercised jurisdiction over a “peculiar,” consisting of thirteen parishes including St. Mary le Bow, within the diocese, but exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London. Eventually the office of Dean and that of Principal of the Arches became merged; and by the Public Worship Regulation Act of 1874 a judge of the provincial courts of Canterbury and York was provided, and “all proceedings hereafter taken before the judge in matters arising within the province of Canterbury shall be deemed to be taken in the Arches Court of Canterbury.” [From the Court of Arches an appeal originally lay to the Pope. After the Reformation it was transferred to the King in Chancery (25 Hen. VIII, c. 19); and later (2 & 3 Will. IV, c. 92; 3 & 4 Will. IV, c. 41) to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.] Suits are conducted by means of citation, production of libel (accusation), answer to libel, arguments of advocates, and the judge’s decree. This court exercises appellate jurisdiction from each of the diocesan courts within the province of Canterbury. It may also take original cognizance of causes by letters of Request from such courts. It latterly sat in the hall belonging to the College of Civilians (Doctors’ Commons) until the ecclesiastical courts were thrown open to the bar and to solicitors generally, and all probate and divorce business taken away (1857), since when it sits at Lambeth or Westminster.

PHILLIMORE, Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England; RENTON, Encyclopedia of the Laws of England; Report of Ecclesiastical Courts Commissioners, 1883.

FRANCIS AVELING

Archiereus

(Russian, arkhierei).

A Greek word for bishop, when considered as the culmination of the priesthood. It is very much used in the liturgical books of the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches for those services which correspond to the pontifical services of the Roman Rite. This word must not be confounded with protoiereus (archpriest), the highest ecclesiastical rank to which a married priest may attain in the Greek Church.

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Archimandrite

(Gr. archo, I command, and mandra, a sheepfold).

In the Greek Rite the superior of a monastery or of several monasteries. The term seems to have originated during the fourth century in the far East (Mesopotamia, Persia), and to have spread thence to Egypt and Asia Minor. In the fifth and succeeding centuries it occurs frequently in the writings of the Greek Fathers, also in the acts of councils, and was even adopted quite extensively in the West where it did not disappear from occasional usage until the ninth century. Originally the archimandrite seems to have been only the superior or abbot of his own monastery; gradually, however, he came to exercise authority over a number of monasteries and by the eleventh the archimandrites of such monastic centres as Mount Athos, and Mount Olympus in Bithynia, were the equivalent of our Western abbots-general. At present there are in the Greek Church two kinds of archimandrites, the original monastic officers exercising jurisdiction in their respective monasteries, and honorary archimandrites and well-educated priests attached to chanceries of the great partiarchates (e.g. Constantinople), or at the head of certain branches of temporal administration; in a word, not unlike the Roman prelates or the principal officers of a Western diocese. It is from the ranks of these quasi-monastic priests that the bishops are often selected, when not taken directly from the monasteries. The archimandrite is appointed by ecclesiastical authority (patriarch, metropolitan, bishop), also in Russia, by the Holy Synod, and in some monasteries by election. He has the right to wear a pectoral cross, the epigonation in the celebration of Mass, and to sign the cross before his name after the manner of bishops. The monastic archimandrites have also the right to the pastoral staff, and to a pectoral mantle having four squares of embroidered cloth called “the tables of the law.” Their rights and privileges differ somewhat by law or custom in different parts of the Greek Church. The usual distinction, common to all, is a black veil tied about the peculiar head-gear of the Greek ecclesiastic and falling on the back. Archimandrites enjoy the right of precedency among other priests; among themselves this right is regulated by the dignity of their origin; thus an archimandrite of Constantinople outranks those of inferior episcopal appointments. There is a formal rite for the appointments and creation of these officers, performed with more solemnity in the installment of monastic archimandrites. The office is found not only in all Greek Churches subject to Constantinople, but also in the Russian, Bulgarian, and other so-called autocephalous Churches, that once owed allegiance to that patriarchal see; it exits also among the Catholic (Melchite) Greeks. It is not known among Armenians, Chaldeans, Syrians, Maronites, Copts, or Abyssinians. An important survival of its in the West is seen in Sicily, where after the time of Roger II (1130–54), the archimandrite of the great Basilian Abbey of San Salvatore in Messina enjoyed extensive, even quasi-episcopal, jurisdiction, eventually, however, becoming a secular or commendatory abbot (Ferraris, Bibl. prompta, s.v.) This Basilian monastery was suppressed by the Italian government.

PARGOIRE in Dict d’arch. chrét., I, 2739–61; SILBERNAGI, Verfassung und gegenwärtiger Bestand sämtlicher Kirchen des Orients (Ratisbon, 1904), 46,138, and passim; Pravoslavnaya Encyclopedia, (St. Petersburg, 1900) I, 43; VANNUTELLI, Le Colonie Italo-Greche (Rome, 1890) 114; BJERRING, Offices of the Oriental Church (New York, 1884) 123–125; MARIN, Les Moines de Constantinople (Paris, 1897), 85–90.

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Filippo Archinto

An Italian theologian and diplomatist, born 1500 at Milan of the distinguished family of that name; died 1558. At the age of twenty he obtained the doctorate in law, at the University of Padua, and revealed such talents for diplomacy that Paul III named him successively Governor of the City of Rome, Vice-Chamberlain Apostolic, Bishop of the Holy Sepulchre, and of Saluzzo. He also sent him to preside in his name at the Council of Trent, then transferred to Bologna. St. Ignatius Loyola found in him a powerful protector, in the early years of the Society of Jesus, and only his death prevented his installation in the archiepiscopal chair of Milan to which Paul IV had nominated him. His theological works are “De fide et sacramentis” (Cracow, 1545; Ingolstadt 1546; Turin, 1549); “Oratio de nova christiani orbis pace habita” (Rome, 1544).

PALLAVICINI, Histoire du concile de Trente (edit. MIGNE) III, 1122.

THOMAS WALSH

Ecclesiastical Archives

Ecclesiastical archives may be described as a collection of documents, records, muniments, and memorials, pertaining to the origin, foundation, growth, history, rights, privileges, and constitutions of a diocese, parish, monastery, or religious community under the jurisdiction of the Church; the term is also applied to the place or depository where such records and documents are kept.

The word archive is derived from the Latin archium, archivum, post-classical terms. Cicero uses tabularium, and Pliny tablinum. Pomponius Mela (A.D.37–54) seems among the first to adopt archium in the sense of archives (De orbis situ, lib. III). Archivum appears twice in Tertullian (A.D. 150–230). Archium (archivum) is a transliteration of the Greek Archeion, used among the Greeks to express the senate-house, the council-house; the college of magistrates convened therein; the place reserved for state papers; the documents themselves; and, finally, applied to many sanctuaries, which became the depositories of documents important enough to hand down to posterity. Not only Greece, but also the ancient civilizations of Israel, Phoenicia, Egypt, and Rome appreciated the value of preserving important records and usually reserved for the archives a part of the temple, the sacredness of the holy place guaranteeing, as far as possible, immunity from violation. Christian Rome, impressed with the reverence and importance attached by Jew and Gentile to such depositories, and recognizing the need of proper and safe custody of the sacred vessels and the Holy Scriptures, sought out for this purpose, in the beginning, the home of some worthy Christian family, and later, during the persecutions, some secret chamber in the catacombs. In these primitive archives the early Church placed the Acts of the martyrs. St. Clement (A.D. 93), the fourth of the Roman Pontiffs, appointed for Rome seven notaries to record for future ages the sayings and sufferings of the saints who went to martyrdom. Pope Anterus (235–236) displayed such zeal for the keeping of these records of the martyrs as to win for himself a martyr’s crown after but one month in the Chair of Peter; and tradition tells of the existence, even in his day, of archives in the Lateran Basilica.

In the development of the polity of the Church, as the first councils determined the relation of clergy to bishop, and of bishop to bishop, it became necessary to assign to a special official, in a place separate from the depository for the sacred vessels, the duty of registering ordinations, the issuing of dimissory letters, the recording of synodal and conciliar decrees, and the safe keeping of documents pertaining to the administration and temporalities of the church. This official keeper of the archives, who became the registrar of the medieval cathedral, was called in Rome tabularius, and in Constantinople chartophylax. The Council of Nicæa (325), judging from its sixteenth canon, felt the need of such a church official. The Council of Mileve (402), in Africa, prescribed matricula, or archives, for records of ordination, to prevent disputes about seniority among the bishops. The famous canonist, Van Espen, commenting on the ninth canon of the Second Council of Nicæa (787) writes that in the palace of the patriarch of Constantinople were kept the archives, called the chartophylacium, in which the episcopal laws and documents containing the privileges and rights of the church were laid up. Frequently, important State papers and valuable manuscripts of profane literature were preserved in the archives of the church; the Code of Justinian was therein deposited by order of the Emperor. The monasteries were quick to follow the example of the episcopal cities in the keeping of archives. Monastic archives owe much to the introduction of the scriptorium (manuscript room) with its armaria (book-chests) into Monte Cassino by St. Benedict (529) and into the monastery of Viviers by its famous abbot, Cassiodorus (531). The preservation of the fragments of Greek and Roman classics now extant is largely due to the monasteries, which for twelve centuries from the fall of the Western Empire were the custodians, not only of sacred codices but also of manuscripts of the ancient Greek philosophers and the Latin rhetoricians. A medieval monastery was often rich in archives, containing rare manuscripts, beautiful chirographs, paintings, precious metal-ware, and documents pertaining to the rights of a people, the privileges of kings, and treaties between nations. The universities of the thirteenth century, as Bologna and Paris, products of the episcopal schools, maintained valuable archives.

In 1587, Pope Sixtus V conceived the idea of erecting in Rome a general ecclesiastical depository to serve for archives for all Italy; the plan, however, was not found practicable, and the Pontiff then decreed that each diocese and religious community should establish and maintain its own local archives. The most detailed legislation with regard to the erection, the arrangement, and the safe custody of archives is embodied in the Constitution “Maxima Vigilantia” of Benedict XIII (1727), the norm for the present discipline in this matter. As a result of mandatory decrees of provincial and synodal councils, archives are now found in every well organized centre. Besides the Vatican archives and those of the various Roman Congregations, there are:

the archiepiscopal, or metropolitan, archives, wherein are preserved the acts of provincial councils; documents concerning suffragan sees; records of consecrations of bishops; minutes of ecclesiastical trials, of appeals, and of matrimonial processes before the metropolitan curia, or court;

the episcopal, or diocesan archives, containing acts of synods, documents from the Holy See, the minutes of the episcopal curia, records of ordinations and matrimonial dispensations, deeds of diocesan property, and reports of the spiritual and financial condition of every parish in the diocese;

the parochial archives, maintained in each parish for safely and securely keeping all documents pertaining to the origin and history of the parish, mandates and pastorals of the bishop, registers for an accurate record of baptisms, confirmations, marriages and deaths, and of the spiritual condition of souls visited in the parish; also the books pertaining to the administration of the finances of the parish, with detailed inventory of all church property. The civil law usually considers parish registers as authentic public records.

DUCANGE, Glossarium Mediæ et Infirmæ Latinitais; FORCELLINI, Lexicon Totius Latinitatis; POMPONIUS MELA, De orbis situ (Leipzig, 1807), III; TERTULLIAN in P. L.; POTTER, Antiquities of Greece (Edinburgh, 1813); BINGHAM, Christian Antiquities (London, 1840); PERCIVAL, The Seven ‘cumenical Councils, Vol. XIV of 2d series The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (New York, 1900); DIGBY, Mores Catholici (New York, 1894); PUTNAM, Books and Their Makers (New York, 1896), 47 sqq.; MAITLAND, The Dark Ages (London, 1890); PELLICCIA, Polity of the Christian Church, tr. by BELLETT (London, 1883); BARONIUS, Annals; FERRARIS, Bibliotheca prompta, (1852); LUCIDI, De Visitatione (Rome, 1883); VAN ESPEN, Jus eccles. (Louvain, 1753); RAYMUNDI, Instruction pastoralis (Freiburg, 1902); Encyclopédie du dixneuvième siècle (Paris, 1846); Encyclopédie catholique (Paris, 1840); MÜHLBAUER, Thesaurus resol. S.C. Concilii (Munich, 1872).

P.J. HAYES

Archontics

(From archon, prince, ruler).

A Gnostic sect which existed in Palestine and Armenia about the middle of the fourth century. St. Epiphanius seems to be the earliest Christian writer who speaks of this strange sect. He relates that a young priest in Palestine named Peter had been convicted of Gnostic errors, deposed from the office of the priesthood and expelled by Bishop Aetius. He fled into that part of Arabia, where there was a centre of Ebionitism. In his old age, apparently but not really converted, he returned to Palestine, where he lived the life of an anchorite in a cave near Jerusalem and attracted followers by the austerity of his life and the practice of extreme poverty. Shortly before the death of the Emperor Constantius (337–361), Eutactus, coming from Egypt, visited the anchorite Peter and was imbued by him with the doctrines of the sect and carried them into Greater and Lesser Armenia. St. Epiphanius excommunicated Peter and the sect seems to have died out soon after.

Following the description of St. Epiphanius in giving a summary of the doctrines of the sect, we find there are seven heavens, each of which is ruled by an archon (prince) surrounded by angels begotten by him, who are the jailers of the souls. In the eighth heaven dwells the supreme Mother of light. The king or tyrant of the seventh heaven is Sabaoth, the god of the Jews, who is the father of the Devil. The devil, dwelling upon earth, rebelled against his father, and opposed him in all things, and by Eve begot Cain and Abel. Cain slew Abel in a quarrel about their sister, whom both loved. The souls, which are of heavenly origin are the food of the princes who cannot live without them. When the soul has reached the stage of Knowledge (gnosis), and has escaped the baptism of the Church and the power of Sabaoth, who is the author of the law, it flies to each of the heavens, makes humble prayer to its prince, and finally reaches the supreme Mother and Father of all things, from whom it has dropped upon the earth. Theodoret adds that it is the practice of some of these heretics to pour oil and water on the heads of the dead, thereby rendering them invisible to the princes and withdrawing them from their power. “Some of them,” continues St. Epiphanius, “pretend to fast after the manner of the monks, deceiving the simple, and boast of having renounced all property. They deny the resurrection of the body, admitting only that of the soul; they condemn baptism and reject the participation of the Holy Mysteries as something introduced by the tyrant Sabaoth, and teach other fables full of impiety.” They are addicted, says St. John Damascene, “to a most shameful kind of lust.” Their apocryphal books were the greater and lesser “Symphonia,” the “Anabatikon [assumption] of Isaias,” a book called Allogeneis, and other pseudo-prophetical writings. They rejected the Old Testament, but used sentences torn from their context both in the Old and the New Testament to prop up their heresy. St. Epiphanius refutes their extravagant doctrines at some length, showing the absurdity and dishonesty of their abuse of Scripture texts. He writes, not with the calm detachment of the historian, but with the zeal of the pastor who is dealing with contemporary error.

ST. EPIPHANIUS. Adv. hær., P.G., XLI., 677, 699; THEODORETUS, Hær. Fab. Comp., P. G. LXXXIII, 361; ST. JOHN DAMASCENE, De Hæresibus, P.G., XCIV, 701.

B. GULDNER

Archpriest

Just as among the deacons of the bishop’s church one stood out as the special assistant and representative of the bishop, and, as archdeacon, acquired a jurisdiction of his own, so do we find since the fourth century in numerous dioceses an archpriest, or head of the college of presbyters, who aided and represented the bishop in the discharge of his liturgical and religious duties. As a rule, and especially in Rome, whence the custom spread, the oldest of the presbyters was invested with this rank; in the Greek Church, on the other hand, his appointment often lay in the hands of the bishop. By the seventeenth canon of the Fourth Synod of Carthage, the archpriest was also associated with the bishop as his representative in the care of the poor. After the complete Christianization of the Roman and Germanic peoples, we meet in the West with another kind of archpriest. The spiritual needs of the population scattered through the rural districts multiplied so rapidly that it became impossible for the clergy of the episcopal city to attend to all. Consequently, we soon find the larger rural centres equipped with their own churches, a permanent clergy, and their own sources of support. The inhabitants of the neighbouring hamlets, and of the widely scattered manors were, from the beginning, subject to these larger, or mother-churches (ecclesia rusticana, dioecesana, parochia), in so far as it was there that they heard Mass and received the sacraments. The entire parish was known as christianitas or plebs.

The archpriest was the first in rank among priests attached to such mother-churches. He was at the head of the local clergy, had charge of Divine worship, and supervised the duties of the ecclesiastical ministry. He was, however, subject to the archdeacon; several such large rural communities, or parishes, constituted an archidiaconate. The private chapels, which gradually multiplied on the estates of the great landowners and to which priests were attached, with the bishop’s permission, were not exempt from the jurisdiction of the archpriest. All parishioners were obliged to be present at the principal Mass on Sunday in the mother-church (ecclesia baptismalis, titulus major). All baptisms took place there and burial services were held nowhere else. In the lesser churches of the territory (tituli minores) there were permitted only the daily Mass, the usual devotions, and instruction in the elements of Christian faith. The archpriest of the mother-church was the head of all the clergy in his parish, and was responsible for the proper execution of their ecclesiastical duties and for their manner of life. Gradually, it came about, especially in the Carlovingian period, that many tituli minores became independent parish churches, where all religious ceremonies, including Sunday Mass and baptism, were performed; the number of parishes was thus notably increased. It came about also that when a diocese was very extensive, the entire diocese was subdivided into a number of districts (called archipresbyterates, decanates, or christianitates), over each of which a priest was placed as dean or archpriest. The use of the term archipresbyterate for these diocesan districts proves that the former extensive parishes made a basis for this division, though the boundary lines of the new districts did not necessarily correspond with the limits of the original parishes. In many cases entirely new ecclesiastical districts were created, and sometimes several former archipresbyterates were united. Sometimes, also, attention was paid to the civil subdivisions of the territory in question. The entire clergy of such a district constituted the rural chapter, at the head of which was the archpriest or rural dean. It was his duty, as representative to the bishop, to supervise the entire religious and ecclesiastical life of the entire territory. He enforced the regulations of the bishop and the decrees of the diocesan synods, and watched over their observance; presented to the bishop for ordination all candidates for ecclesiastical office; adjusted minor differences among the clergy, and made known to the archdeacon any grosser misdeeds of the clergy or laity in order that the suitable penance might be imposed upon the offender. It was customary in the Carlovingian period that on the first of every month the archpriest and clergy of his deanery should meet in common in order to discuss matters of importance. At a later date such meetings were called only once or twice a year. The rural chapter acquired in time the right of presentation to the deanery; it also elected a camerarius for the administration of certain common funds, and a diffinator, or assistant to the dean. The union of such archipresbyterates formed an archidiaconate, whose deans were subject to the archdeacon.

In the course of time, the office of dean or archpriest underwent many changes. This development was not the same in every country, and to this fact are traceable many local differences. The Council of Trent was content with the establishment of regulations concerning the visitations of parishes by the deans (Sess. XXIV, cap. 3, De reform.). St. Charles Borromeo abolished the office of dean in his diocese and established in its place that of rural vicar, or vicar forane (vicarii foranei), an office at all times revocable. In France, and in those neighbouring territories affected by the ecclesiastical reorganization that followed the French Revolution, each of the new dioceses was divided into deaneries whose limits was calculated to correspond with the civil subdivisions. In each district the parish priest of the principal church was usually the dean. According to actual ecclesiastical law the division of a diocese into deaneries pertains to the bishop; he may, if he chooses, combine several such districts and make of them a single larger one. The selection of the deans pertains entirely to the bishop, though in some countries the rural chapters still retain the right of election. Deans possess no proper jurisdiction; they are merely delegates of the bishop for the performance of stated ecclesiastical duties. Their principal duty is to facilitate relations between the clergy of their deanery and the ordinary (the bishop), to exercise a certain supervision over the clergy, to visit the parishes, and look into the administration of parochial duties by the parish priests. They are also wont to receive from the bishop permanent faculties for the performance of certain ecclesiastical benedictions. The duty of assisting the bishop at Pontifical Mass, once incumbent on the archpriest of the cathedral, has devolved partly on the dean of the cathedral chapter, and partly on the auxiliary-bishop, should there be one.

THOMASSINUS, Vetus et nova Ecclesiæ disciplina (London, 1706), pt. I, bk. II, iii-vi, 1, 221 sqq.; SCHMIDT, Thesaurus juris ecclesiastici germanici (Heidelburg, 1777), III, 290 sqq. 314 sqq.; STUTZ, Geschichte des kirchlichen Benefizialwesens von Anfang bis Alexander III (Berlin, 1895); IMBART DE LA TOUR, Les paroisses rurales dans l’ancienne France du IVe au XIe siècle (Paris, 1900); SÄGMÜLLER, Die Entwicklung des Archipresbyterats und Dekanats bis zum Ende des Karolingerreiches (Tübingen, 1898); IDEM, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1904), 372 sqq.

J.P. KIRSCH

Arcosolium

This word is derived from arcus “arch” and solium, a term sometimes used by Latin writers in the sense of “sarcophagus”; solium porphyretici marmoris (Suet., Ner., 50). The term arcosolium was applied by the primitive Christians to one form of the tombs that exist in the Roman catacombs. Thus, an inscription published by Marchi (Mon. delle arti prim., 85), which may still be seen in the courtyard of the Palazzo Borghese, states that “Aur. Celsus and Aur. Hilaritas have had made for themselves and their friends this arcosolium, with its little wall, in peace.” The arcosolium tombs of the catacombs were formed by first excavating in the tufa walls a space similar to an ordinary loculus surmounted by an arch. After this space was cleared an oblong cavity was opened from above downwards into that part of the rock facing the arch; a marble slab placed horizontally over the opening thus made completed the tomb, which in this way became a species of sarcophagus hewn out of the living rock. The horizontal slab closing the tomb was about the height of an ordinary table from the ground. In some instances, as in the “papal crypt” and the crypt of St. Januarius, the front wall of the arcosolium tomb was constructed of masonry. A species of tomb similar in all respects but one to the arcosolium is the so-called sepulchrum a mensâ, or table-tomb; in this a rectangular niche takes the place of the arch. The baldacchino tombs of Sicily and Malta belong also to this class; they consist of a combination of several arcosolia. A more ancient form of the arcosolium than that described consisted of an arched niche, excavated to the level of the floor, in which sarcophagi of marble or terra-cotta containing the remains of the deceased were placed. Arcosolium tombs were much in vogue during the third century in Rome. Many of the later martyrs were interred in them, and there are reasons to suppose that in such instances the horizontal slabs closing the tombs a served as altars on certain occasions. The arcosolia of the Roman cemeteries were usually decorated with symbolic frescoes, the vault of the arch and the lunette being prepared with stucco for this purpose. One of the most interesting examples of an arcosolium adorned in this manner may be seen in the catacomb of Sts. Peter and Marcellinus; in the lunette the miracle of Cana is represented as a symbol of the Eucharist, while on the arch a baptismal scene and a symbol of baptism—always associated with Eucharistic symbols—are depicted on either side of a veiled orans. A second excellent example of a decorated arcosolium, in the Cæmeterium Majus, represents on the arch our Saviour between two praying figures, and in the lunette Mary as an orans (unique in the catacombs), with the child Jesus. (See CATACOMBS.)

KRAUS, Real-Encyklop., I, 89, 90; LECLERCQ in Dict. d’arch. chrét., I.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Arculf

A Frankish Bishop of the latter part of the seventh century. According to some, e.g. Alexis de Gourgues (Le saint Suaire, Périgueux, 1868), he was Bishop of Perigueux; but it is generally believed that he was attached to some monastery. St. Bede relates (Hist. Eccles. Angl., V, 15) that Arculf, on his return from a pilgrimage to the Holy Land about the year 670 or 690, was cast by a tempest on the shore of Scotland. He was hospitably received by Adamnan, the abbot of the island monastery of Iona, to whom he gave a detailed narrative of his travels in the Holy Land, with specifications and designs of the sanctuaries so precise that Adamnan, with aid from some extraneous sources, was able to produce a descriptive work in three books, dealing with Jerusalem, Bethlehem, the principal towns of Palestine, and Constantinople. Adamnan presented a copy of this work to Aldfrith (q.v.), King of Northumbria in 698. It aims at giving a faithful account of what Arculf actually saw during his journey. As the latter “joined the zeal of an antiquarian to the devotion of a pilgrim during his nine months’ stay in the Holy City, the work contains many curious details that might otherwise have never been chronicled.” Bede makes some excerpts from it (op.cit., V, c. xv-xvii), and bases upon it his treatise “De locis sanctis.” It was first edited by Father Gretser, S.J. (Ingolstadt, 1619). Mabillon gives an improved text in “Acta SS. Ord S. Bened.,” IV, 502–522, (reprinted in P.L., LXXXlII, 779) and by Delpit, “Essai sur les anciens pelerinages a Jerusalem” (Paris, 1870).

TOBLER, Arculfi relatio de locis sanctis in Itinera terrae sanctae (Geneva 1877); LEVESQUE, art. Arculfe in VIG., Dict. de la Bible. There is an English translation (truncated) in WRIGHT, Early Travels in Palestine (London, 1848), 1–13.

THOMAS WALSH

Diocese of Ardagh

(High Field).

Ardagh, an Irish diocese in the ecclesiastical province of Armagh, takes its name from a town in the parish and barony of same name in county Longford, province of Leinster. Here, according to Colgan, St. Patrick baptized Maine, Lord of South Teffia, in Longford, built a church in a place called Ardachadh, which to this day is a see, and consecrated Mel, the son of his sister Darerca, the bishop leaving with him Melchu (Mel’s brother) as co-bishop. Archbishop Healy accepts this statement, though Lanigan and O’Hanlon reject the co-episcopate of the brothers. The church of Ardagh was founded in 454 and is justly held to have been one of the most ancient in Ireland. St. Mel, or Moel, was not only the bishop of this church, but also abbot of the adjoining monastery, and is yet patron of the diocese. Outside the town are the ruins of a small primitive church the remains of which are of cyclopean character. The see originally comprised the country of the Eastern Conmaice. It consisted of the territory of the O’Ferals and the O’Quinns in the county Longford, called Annally, and the territory of Muintir Eolais, i.e. of MacRannal (O’Reynolds) in Leitrim. From the death of St. Mel to the coming of the English under Henry II (1169) the extant records of episcopal succession (for which see Gams, Series episcoporum Ratisbon, 1873–1876) are uncertain, meagre, and broken. St. Erard, who ruled over this diocese in 754, having journeyed to Rome with some companions, died at Ratisbon, of which see he is said to have been bishop. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries several members of the O’Feral clan occupied the chair of St. Mel. The Diocese of Clonmacnoise was united to that of Ardagh in 1729, during the episcopate of Bishop Flynn, and so continues. The modern Diocese of Ardagh includes nearly all of Longford, the greater part of Leitrim, and portions of King’s County, Westmeath, Roscommon, and Sligo. There is a cathedral chapter of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise, and there are forty-one parishes in the united dioceses. The seat of the bishop is at Longford, where a fine cathedral and a diocesan seminary have been erected.

J.J. RYAN

Ardbraccan

(Hill of Braccan, or Brecan)

Site of an ancient abbey, now a parish and village in the county Meath, Ireland, three miles west from Navan. Ardbraccan Abbey was founded and governed by St. Brecan. He was grandson of Carthan Finn, first Christian prince of Thomond and son of Eochaidh Balldearg, also prince of Thomond, whom St. Patrick baptized. Brecan had the gift of prophecy. He died, Petrie says, early in the sixth century (but Ware states not till after 650) and was interred in Templebrecan, a church he founded in the Great Isle of Arran. Petrie copied the inscription on his tombstone discovered early in the nineteenth century. The “Martyrology of Donegal” calls him Bishop of Ardbraccan; but the founder of that see was St. Ultan, who succeeded him as abbot. Ultan’s charity towards children was remarkable. He wrote lives of Sts. Brigid and Patrick, and died 657. Tirechan, who succeeded him, compiled the “Acts of St. Patrick” received from the lips of Ultan. Between the ninth and the twelfth century Ardbraccan was often pillaged and burned by Danes and natives. The succession of abbot-bishops continued till the English invasion, when abbey and town declined. After the Synod of Kells (1152) Ardbraccan and other small sees of the kingdom of Meath were united under the title of Meath, and the episcopal residence was fixed there at an early date.

Annals of the Four Masters, ed. by O’DONOVAN (Dublin, 1856); ARCHDALL, Monasticon Hibernicum (Dublin, 1786); WARE-HARRIS, Works concerning Ireland (Dublin, 1739); LEWIS, Topogr. Dict. of Ireland (Dublin, 1847); LANIGAN, Eccl. Hist. of Ireland (Dublin, 1822); COGAN, Diocese of Meath (Dublin, 1862).

J.J. RYAN

Priory of Ardchattan

An Argyllshire house, one of the three in Scotland belonging to the Order of Vallis Caulium, or Val des Choux (the Valley of Cabbages), founded by Duncan Mackoul about A.D. 1230 and dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. John Baptist, as were all the houses of this Order. It took its name from Chattan, one of the companions of St. Columba, the prefix ard signifying “promontory.” The local tradition is that there was a chapel on this spot in the earliest ages of Scottish Christianity, centuries before the monks of Vallis Caulium erected their priory and church. The monastery was built on a sheltered spot on the shore of Loch Etive, almost overshadowed by the stupendous mass of Ben Cruachan. Some time before the dissolution of religious houses it was incorporated into the Cistercian Order, and at the Reformation the temporalities were bestowed upon one of the Campbell family, whose descendants (the Campbell-Prestons of Ardchattan) still own the place. Parts of the church, and also of the domestic buildings of the priory, still remain and are actually utilized at this day—the only example of this in Scotland—as the mansion-house of the present proprietor.

BATTEN, Beauly Priory, with notices of the Priories of Pluscarden and Ardchattan (Grampian Club, 1877); Origines Parochiales Scotiae (Edinburgh, 1854); Ordinale Conventus Vallis Caulium (London, 1900); SPOTTISWOOD, Hist. of the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1850); Ardchattan Charters.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Edward Arden

An English Catholic, executed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, b. 1542 (?); d. 1583. He was the head of a family which had been prominent in Warwickshire for six centuries, having succeeded to the estates on the death of his grandfather, Thomas Arden, in 1563. In 1575 he was high sheriff of the county. His father, William Arden, was a second cousin of Mary Arden of Wilmcote, the mother of Shakespeare. In 1583, Arden was indicted in Warwick for plotting against the life of the Queen, as were also his wife, his son-in-law, John Somerville, and Father Hugh Hall, a chaplain whom he maintained in the disguise of a gardener at his home, Park Hall. Somerville, who was said to be weak-minded, was incensed over the wrongs of Mary, Queen of Scots, and openly uttered threats against Elizabeth. He was arrested and when put on the rack implicated the others in a conspiracy to assassinate the Queen. They were arrested and Arden was taken to London, where he was arraigned in the Guildhall, 16 December, 1583. He was convicted, chiefly on the evidence of Hall, and was executed at Smithfield, 30 December, 1583. Somerville, who was also condemned to die on the same day, was found strangled in his cell the day before Mrs. Arden and Hall were released. It is generally conceded that Arden was the innocent victim of a plot. He died protesting his innocence and declaring that his only crime was the profession of the Catholic religion. Dugdale, quoting from Camden’s “Annals of Queen Elizabeth,” attributes Arden’s prosecution to the malice of Leicester, whose displeasure he had incurred by open criticism of the Earl’s relations with the Countess of Essex before their marriage. He had further irritated Leicester by disdaining to wear his livery and by denouncing him as an upstart. It is supposed that Hall was suborned to involve Arden in the alleged plot.

HARRISON, in Dict. Nat. Biog., II, 74; GILLOW, Dict. Eng., Cath., I, 57.

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE

Notre Dame des Ardilliers

(Lat. argilla, Fr. argile, colloquial ardille, clay).

A statue, fountain, and Church of Our Lady at Saumur, France. In ancient times the fountain was often the scene of pagan sacrifices. A monastery founded by Charlemagne at Saumur was destroyed by the Normans and the one surviving monk retired to a cave near the spring of Ardilliers, a statue of Our Lady his sole remaining treasure. A small statue discovered near the spring in 1454 is believed to be identical with the one just mentioned. The miracles wrought in connection with this image caused the erection of a small arch for it above the spring, whose waters were found to have healing virtues. A chapel was built and dedicated (1553) attaining magnificent proportions as successive additions were made, notably by Cardinal Richelieu. The Oratorians were placed in charge (1614). Devotion to Notre Dame des Ardilliers was widespread, and many miracles were wrought. Her clients number such illustrious personages as Louis XIII, Anne of Austria, Marie de’ Medici, Henrietta of England, Cardinal Richelieu, and many others. Mme. de Montespan led a life of penance in a modest dwelling near the church. The founders of the Sulpician Company went there for inspiration, and the Ven. Grignonde Montfort to beg divine blessings on the institutes of the Fathers of the Holy Ghost and the Daughters of Wisdom he was about to found. Cities placed themselves under the protection of Notre Dame des Ardilliers, promising annual deputations of pilgrims. During the Revolution the church was despoiled of its treasures, but was not destroyed, and the image was left unharmed. In 1849 the ravages of time necessitated the renovation of the chapel, which had been built by Richelieu, and pilgrimages became more frequent than ever.

LEROY, Histoire des pelerinages de la Sainte Vierge (Paris, 1873–75), I, 513 sqq.; Acta SS., 1 May.

F.M. RUDGE

Prince Charles d’Aremberg

Definitor-general and Commissary of the Capuchins; died at Brussels 5 June, 1669. He is the author of “Flores Seraphici,” biographies of eminent Capuchins from 1525 to 1612 (Cologne and Antwerp, 2 vols., 1640) and “Clypeus Seraphicus” (Cologne, 1643), a defence of the “Annales Capucinorum” of Boverius.

BUCHBERGER, Kirchl. Handles., I, 321.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Areopagus

Areopagus (Greek Areios pagos), the name of (I) the Hill of Mars, situated to the west of and close by the Acropolis at Athens; (2) the court held upon the hill. An ancient legend accounts for the name of the hill by narrating that thereon the Amazons had offered sacrifice to Ares. Another legend declares that upon this mount Ares had been tried for the murder of Halirrhotius by a court of twelve gods. The latter legend was evidently suggested by the fact that from the earliest antiquity the Hill of Mars was the seat of a council, which had for one of its duties the trial of certain criminal cases. But the primary purpose of the council of the Areopagus was to direct religious worship and therefore, incidentally, to pass judgment upon theological innovations. It may be that the council formally and judicially exercised this function when St. Paul was brought before it; but it is more probable that the event narrated in Acts, xvii, 19 sqq. was not a legal trial of the Apostle or an authoritative judgment of his doctrine. Rather, it would seem from the informal character of his introduction to the assembly and his abrupt quitting of it in the midst of disorder (ibid., xvii, 32, 33) that he was conducted before the Areopagites upon the sacred hill merely that their curiosity might be satisfied by seeing him and hearing him, undisturbed by the rout in the Agora below. Some have thought, however, that St. Paul, on the occasion in question, was subjected to a formal trial on the ground that the Hill of Mars was too sacred a place to be invaded, and the council too august a tribunal to be disturbed except for actual judicial proceedings. At any rate it seems certain that in the time of St. Paul, the council of the Areopagus was clothed with judicial powers as considerable as it had ever enjoyed, and that among its rights was that of passing final judgment in matters pertaining to the religion of the Athenians. Before such a tribunal St. Paul was doubtless eager to speak, and the immediate result of his address (ibid., xvii, 22–31) was the conversion of at least one of the members of the venerable council.

JAMES M. GILLIS

Areopolis

(Rabbath-Moab).

A titular see of Palestine. Its episcopal list (449–536) is given in Gams (p. 454). There was another town of the same name in Lydia, Asia Minor.

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ. (1740), III, 536; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 197.

Diocese of Arequipa

Suffragan of the Archdiocese of Lima, Peru, was erected by Gregory XIII, 15 April, 1577, at the request of Philip II, who had asked for three Peruvian dioceses under royal patronage. The population in 1901 was 35,000. It has a cathedral dedicated to the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, a Jesuit college, a hospital, and several convents. Arequipa is the second city in Peru. It is near the volcanic peak of the Andes called Misti, and in 1868 suffered earthquake shocks which destroyed most of the buildings and killed 6000 people. Arequipa was founded by Pizarro.

BATTANDIER, Ann. Pont. Cath., 1906.

Arethas of Caesarea

Born at Patrae, Greece, about 860; was, like all the eminent men of that time, a disciple of Photius. He became Archbishop of Caesarea early in the tenth century, and is reckoned one of the most scholarly theologians of the Greek Church. He is the compiler of the oldest extant Greek commentary (scholia) on the Apocalypse, for which he made considerable use of the similar work of his predecessor, Andrew of Caesarea. It was first printed in 1535 as an appendix to the works of Oecumenius and is found in P.G., CVI, 493. Dr. Ehrhard inclines to the opinion that he wrote other Scriptural commentaries. To his interest in the earliest Christian literature, caught perhaps from the above-named Andrew, we owe the Arethas Codex (Paris, Gr. 451), through which the text of the Greek Christian Apologists has, in great measure, reached us (Bardenhewer, Patrologie, 40). He is also known as a commentator of Plato and Lucian; the famous manuscript of Plato (Codex Clarkianus), taken from Patmos to London, was copied by order of Arethas. Other important Greek manuscripts, e.g. of Euclides, the rhetor Aristides, and perhaps of Dio Chrysostom, are owing to him. Not a few of his minor writings, contained in a Moscow manuscript, are said still to await an editor (see P.G., loc. cit., 787). Krumbacher emphasizes his fondness for ancient classical Greek literature and the original sources of Christian theology, in spite of the feet that he lived in a “dark” century, and was far away from any of the few remaining centres of erudition. The latest known date of his life is 932.

KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der byzantin. Litteratur, 2d ed. (Munich, 1897), 524; EHRHARD, ib., 131; GEBHARD AND HARNACK, in Texte und Untersuchungen, I, 1–2 (Leipzig, 1882), 36–46; MAAS, in Melanges Graux (Paris, 1884), 749–766; WATTENBACH, Anleitung zur griech. Palaeographie, 3d ed. (1895), 61; VON OTTO, Das Zeitalter des Erzbischofs Arethas, in Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theologie (1878), XXI, 539.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Arethusa

A titular see of Syria near Apameia. Its episcopal list (325–680) is given in Gams (p. 436). It was also a Latin see for a brief period during the Crusades (1099–1100). In the time of Constantius (337–361) its Bishop, Marcus, destroyed a heathen temple which under Julian he was ordered to rebuild. To avoid this he fled from the city, but eventually returned to save the Christian people from paying the penalty in his stead, and underwent very cruel treatment at the hands of the pagan mob (Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., x, 10). He is said to have been the author of the Creed of Sirmium (351) and is counted by Tillemont as an Arian in belief and in factious spirit.

LE QUIEN, Oriens Christ. (1740), II, 915–916; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 197; STOKES in Dict. of Christ. Biog., III, 825; TILLEMONT, Memoires, etc., VII, 367–376.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Faustino Arévalo

A learned Jesuit hymnographer and patrologist, born 23 July, 1747. at Companario in Estremadura (Spain); died at Madrid, 7 January, 1824. He entered the Society in 1761, but was deported to Italy on the occasion of the deportation of the Jesuits from Spain (1767). There he won the esteem and confidence of Cardinal Lorenzana, who proved a Maecenas for the young Spanish Jesuit, bore the expenses of his learned works, and made him his executor. Arévalo was much esteemed at Rome and held various offices of trust, among them that of “pontifical hymnographer”; he was made theologian of the Penitenzieria (see Curia Romana) in 1809, in succession to the learned Muzzarelli. In 1815 he returned to Spain, recalled by King Ferdinand, entered the restored Society, and became provincial of Castille (1820). His principal works are “Hymnodia Hispanica” (Rome, 1786), a restoration of ancient Spanish hymns to their original metrical, musical, and grammatical perfection. (This work was much esteemed by Cardinal Mai and Dom Guéranger. Among the dissertations that accompany the main work is a curious one on the breviary of Cardinal Quignonez.) “Prudentii Carmina” (Rome, 1788–89, 2 Vol., 4to); “Dracontii Carmina” (Rome, 1791), the poems of a fifth-century Christian of Roman Africa; “Juvenci Historiae Evangelicae Libri IV” (Rome, 1794); “Caelii Sedulii Opera Omnia” (Rome, 1813); “S. Isidori Hispanlensis Opera Omnia” (Rome, 1813); “Missale Gothicum” (Rome, 1804). Arévalo stands in the front rank of Spanish patristic scholars. He shed great luster on the Church of Spain by his vast learning, fine literary taste, and patriotic devotion to the early Christian writers of his fatherland.

Sommervogel, Bibl. des ecr de la cie. de Jesus, I, 530–534; Boero, Menologio, I, 154–155; Ami de la Religion, XXXIV, 28.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Rodríguez Sanchez de Arévalo

A learned Spanish bishop. b. 1404, in the diocese of Segovia; d. 4 October, 1470. After studying law at Salamanca for ten years and there graduating as Doctor, he became secretary to John II and Henry IV, Kings of Castile. They employed him as envoy on various missions, notably to the Holy See apropos of the Council of Basle, whose parliamentary theories he opposed. After the elevation of Calixtus III, he remained at Rome, became Bishop of Oviedo in Spain, and later commander of the papal fortress, the Castle of St. Angelo, under Paul II, who transferred him successively to the Spanish sees of Zamora, Calahorra, and Palencia. His writings, mostly unedited, are in the Vatican and at Padua, and deal with ecclesiastical and political matters. The following have been printed: “Speculum Vitae Humanae” (Rome, 1468), a popular work, frequently reprinted in the next two centuries; it treats of the lights and shadows of the various estates of life; “Historia Hispanica,” from the earliest times to 1469 (Rome, 1470), reprinted in the first volume of A. Schott’s “Hispania Illustrata”; “De Monarchia Orbis et de origine et differentiâ principatus imperialis et regalis” (Rome, 1521), in which he asserts for the Pope the sole right to punish kings. His bold reproofs of certain ecclesiastical dignitaries caused Matthaeus Flaccus to put him down as a forerunner of Luther, but quite unjustly, as Niccolo Antonio has shown in his “Bibliotheca Hispanica Vetus” (II, 397, 608, 614).

STANONICK in Kirchenlex., I, 1272; PASTOR, Gesch. d. Paepste, I, 392, and II, 333, 342.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Diocese of Arezzo

A diocese of Tuscany, in Italy, which is directly dependent on the Holy See. It has 40 towns in the province of Arezzo, 10 in that of Sienna, and one in that of Perugia. It has 250,000 Catholics, 330 parishes, 563 secular priests, 149 regulars, 145 seminarists, 436 churches or chapels. The list of bishops is sufficiently regular from A.D. 250. Arezzo is of great antiquity and was one of the first cities of Italy to receive the Gospel, as tradition avers, from St. Romulus, afterwards Bishop of Fiesole, a disciple of St. Paul. It became a bishopric about 304, under St. Satyrus. St. Donatus, his successor, is patron of the cathedral of St. Peter the Apostle. The first eight bishops were saints. Clement XII, while his nephew, Cardinal Guadagni, was Bishop of Arezzo, conceded to it in perpetuo archiepiscopal insignia, the pallium and double cross. The cathedral is an imposing Gothic structure of the thirteenth century. A more venerable structure is Santa Maria, of the ninth century, called “la vecchia pieve” (the old parish). Gregory X, who died in Arezzo, 10 January, 1276, is buried in the cathedral. The conclave which elected his successor, Innocent V, was held here. St. Donatus, the patron of Arezzo, is also buried in the cathedral.

Arezzo boasts many illustrious citizens. Among them are Vasari, the biographer of the Italian painters; Guittone, one of the oldest of Italian writers; Guido Aretino, author of the “Micrology” who is credited with inventing the stave and other musical improvements; Petrarca; Pietro Aretino, the licentious poet; Leonard Aretino, secretary of the historian of the republic of Florence, and Concini, whom Marie de’ Medici made a marshal of France. Michelangelo was born in a castle near Arezzo.

Arezzo has three celebrated sanctuaries: Alvernia, where St. Francis of Assisi received the stigmata; Camaldoli, where St. Romual founded the order of that name, and Accona, where Blessed Bernardo Tolommei founded the Olivetan Congregation.

BATTANDIER, Ann. catho. pont., 1906; VAST, in La Grande Encycl., s.v.

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Pierre de Voyer d’Argenson

Called the vicomte d’Argenson, chevalier, vicomte de Mouzé, seigneur de Chastres, was the fifth Governor-General of Canada (1657–61), b. 1626; d. 1710. He belonged to an ancient family of Touraine which has produced many distinguished statesmen; among others Marc Rene, Marquis d’Argenson, Louis XIV’s famous lieutenant of police. Pierre de Voyer was the fifth child of Rene, count d’Argenson, who filled many important missions, and died while ambassador at Venice, in 1651. At first destined for the Church he received tonsure in 1636, but adopted the career of arms. He rendered important services at the sieges of Portolongone, la Bassée, and Ypres, at the battle of Lens, and at the siege of Bordeaux, where he received many wounds. Gentleman in ordinary of the king’s bed-chamber, he was appointed to the office of bailiff of the lands and duchy of Touraine in 1643, in place of the famous conspirator Cinq-Mars. Appointed councillor of State, then governor of Canada in 1657, to succeed Lauzon, he arrived in Quebec, 11 July, 1658. He received a stately welcome from the Jesuits. Canada was then a prey to Iroquois invasions. D’Argenson had only a hundred soldiers, yet he inspired the colonists, and gave them the example of a bravery often rash. It thus happened that the brave Dollard and his companions were slain while seeking to avert the blows which threatened the little city, and that the grand seneschal, Jean de Lauzon, perished obscurely in an ambuscade. D’Argenson sought to draw around him the children of the Iroquois, in order to have them instructed and to keep them as so many hostages. The Jesuit Lemoine was sent to negotiate with the barbarians. D’Argenson, who had endeared himself to the colonists by promptly according to them justice, in an impartial manner and without expense, advised the king to free the colony from the plague of bureaucracy and to let the habitants govern themselves. Monseigneur de Laval, appointed Vicar-Apostolic of Canada, arrived there in 1659, during his administration. Accustomed to command, d’Argenson wished to have the law of precedence observed in all ceremonies, and that the noblemen in his suite should rank above ecclesiastical dignitaries. This gave rise to the frequent conflicts between Church and State during the French régime. D’Argenson made the mistake of wishing to perpetuate in democratic America the exactions of Old World etiquette. Possibly, too, he was overindulgent to the wishes of traffickers in the sale of brandy to the aborigines, a practice which resulted in grave disorders. At last, suffering from his old wounds, no longer able to head bands for warfare, dissatisfied that France left him without support, tired of struggling with the bishop, for he was a devout churchman, he asked for his recall, and returned to France in September, 1661. The rest of his career is little known. He left important letters and documents concerning the various duties he had had to fulfil, but they were burned with the collection known as the “D’Argenson Papers” in the fire at the Bibliothèque du Louvre in 1871. D’Argenson died at an advanced age, about 1710, and at his own request, was buried at Mouzé, a village near Loches, in Touraine, of which he was seigneur.

PARKMAN, Old Regime in Canada, 115–130; ANSELME, Histoire genealogique, VI, 602; FAILLON, Hist. col. franc. au Canada, I, 457–471, 496; ROCHEMONTEIX, Jesuites de la Nouvelle France, II, 302–325; PARIS, Les manuscrits de la Bibliotheque du Louvre brules en 1871, 41–46.

J. EDMOND ROY

Argentine Republic

(Argentina).

A South American confederation of fourteen provinces, or States, united by a federal Constitution framed on the same lines as the Constitution of the United States of America. The provinces are: Buenos Aires, Santa Fé, Entre Ríos, Corrientes, Córdoba, San Luis, Santiago del Estero, Mendoza, San Juan, La Rioja, Catamarca, Tucumán, Salta, and Jujuy. Each one has its own constitution, and its own autonomic government. The federal constitution was promulgated 25 September, 1860. The official name of the union, under the federal constitution, is “The Argentine Nation.” In addition to the fourteen commonwealths constituting the union, there are fourteen “national territories,” depending upon the federal executive, the government of which is entrusted to governors appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. These territories are called Misiones, Formosa, Chaco, Los Andes, La Pampa, Neuquén, Río Negro, Chubut, Santa Cruz, and Tierra del Fuego. There is also, and this completes the similarity between the Argentine and the American union, a “federal district,” namely the city of Buenos Aires, which is also the capital of the state of the same name.

Geographical Situation, Area, Population

The Argentine Republic is situated in the southeastern part of South America and is bounded on the north by Bolivia, Paraguay, and Brazil; on the east by Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, the River Plata, and the Atlantic Ocean; on the south by Chile and the Atlantic Ocean; and on the west by Chile, from which it is separated by the Cordillera de los Andes. Nearly all its area, roughly estimated by 3,000,000 square kilometers (about 1,175,000 square miles) is included between 21°30’ South latitude and 54°52’ South latitude. With the exception of a small strip of land on the north, which is in the tropics, the entire country is within the temperate zone. From east to west the country lies between 52° and 74° West longitude.

According to the last official census, which was taken 10 May, 1895, the total population of the Republic was 3,945,911, distributed as follows: Argentines, 2,950,384; foreigners, 1,004,527. The male population was given as 2,088,919; the female as 1,865,992. Of the foreign population, 492,636 were Italians, 198,685 Spaniards; 94,098 French; 91,167 Spanish Americans (Bolivians, Chileans, Uruguayans and Paraguayans); 24,725 Brazilians; 21,788 British; 17,142 Germans; 12,803 Austrians; and 1,381 citizens of the United states of America. Foreign immigration to the Argentine republic between 1807 and 1903 was as follows:

1857–1860 20,000

1861–1870 159,570

1871–1880 260,613

1881–1890 846,586

1891–1900 648,326

1901–1903 233,346

TOTAL 1857–1903 2,158,423

Italians 1,331,536

Spaniards 414,973

French 170,293

English 35,435

Austrians 37,953

Germans 30,699

Swiss 25,775

Belgians 19,521

Others 92,238

TOTAL all nationalities 2,158,423

The immigration in 1903 was:

Italians 43,358

Spaniards 21,917

French 2,491

English 560

Germans 1,000

Swiss 272

Belgians 174

Others 5,077

Total 2,158,423

History

The territory of the Argentine republic was originally inhabited by Indians tribes of fierce disposition who were “reduced” to civilization through the Catholic religion. The missions founded in these regions were called “Reducciones” (reductions) by the Spaniards to convey the idea that these establishments were intended to tame the wild spirit of the savages and “reduce” them to a spirit of relative civilization. The first Spanish establishment in the region of the Río de la Plata, or Plate River, was the fort called La Sancti Spiritus, erected by Sebastian Cabot, a Venetian in the service of Spain, and son of John Cabot the celebrated navigator who cruised along the eastern coast of North America. This fort was erected in 1526 at the confluence of the Paraná and Carcaraña Rivers, and was garrisoned with 170 men. Four years later it was destroyed by Timbú Indians who killed the men, carried away the women and children, and burned all the buildings. Together with the report of his trip to these regions Cabot forwarded to Spain some silver jewels which the Guarani Indians had presented to him; whence comes the name Río de la Plata (River of Silver) given to the stream through the mistaken idea that silver mines abounded on its banks. In 1535 Don Pedro de Mendoza, a Spanish general in the service of Charles V, came with a powerful expedition consisting of 14 ships and 2,000 soldiers, and on 6 January laid the foundations of a city which he called Santa Maria de Buenos Aires. Some time afterward this settlement was attacked and partially destroyed by the Indians. The work of rebuilding it was begun 15 June, 1850, by Don Juan de Garay. The city of La Asunción, now the capital of Paraguay, was founded by Juan de Ayikas, a lieutenant of Mendoza, 15 August, 1536. Under the rule of Hernando Arias de Saavedra, generally called Hernandarias, who was born on Argentine soil and had been elected governor by the settlers, the Jesuits were called the civilize the Indians. The first Fathers landed at Salta in 1586, and established a college at Córdoba, from which they sent missionaries to all parts of the Argentine territory. Fathers Montoya and Cataldino went to Paraguay and settled, in 1610, La Asunción. Seven years after the landing of the Jesuit Fathers, over 100,000 Indians had been congregated in four different towns and were engaged in agricultural pursuits and useful arts and trades. They built houses, hospitals, and asylums; learned to read and write, and became acquainted with painting, sculpture, and music. Even at this early date they had established a printing office with type made by themselves. In the course of time, this work of civilization was greatly extended. The “Geografía Argentina” of Señores Urien and Colombo says that in or about 1631 there was not less than thirty centers of population under the rule of the Jesuits. Each town had a curate who was at the same time the governor, the judge, and the spiritual advisor of the inhabitants. But the expulsion of the Jesuits from the Spanish dominions by the Government of Charles III put an end to this prosperous condition. The expulsion took place in Buenos Aires, 3 July, 1767. Governor Don Francisco de Paula Bucarelli was the official entrusted with the execution of the disastrous measure. On 1 August, 1776, the Government of Spain decided to establish what it called the vice-royalty of the River Plate, under Don Pedro de Zeballos, the first viceroy. The last viceroy was Don Baltasar Hidalgo de Cisneros (1809). The revolutionary movemnet which ended in the independence of the country, began in the Argentine territory, as everywhere else in South America, in 1808, at the time of the imprisonment of King Ferdinand by Napoleon. The formal declaration of independence was made 9 July, 1816. In 1853, after the country had passed through the ordeals of several civil wars, a war with Brazil, and the Rosas dictatorship, the federal Constitution which is now in force (amended in 1860) was framed and promulgated. Since then the Argentina has developed and prospered rapidly.

Sources of Wealth

The most important factors in the wealth and prosperity of the Argentine Republic may be grouped under three heads: agriculture and agricultural industries, cattle-raising and its cognate operations, and commerce. The chief agricultural pursuits are the cultivation of wheat, maize, linseed, alfalfa, sugar cane, tobacco, and grapes. The whole area of cultivation in 1904 was estimated conservatively at 7,500,000 hectares, or 18,750,000 acres (Urien and Columbo, “Geografica Argentina,” Buenos Aires, 1905). According to the official information of 1901, the area of cultivation of the different projects was as follows:

Wheat—8,449,372

Maize—3,638,365

Alfalfa—3,125,000

Linseed—1,530,000

Tobacco—131,740

Sugar cane—115,000

Grapes—110,825

The agricultural industries are chiefly the manufacture of flour, sugar, cigars, wines, spirits, and ales. The exportation of flour in 1901 represented a total of 71,742 tons, estimated at $2,711,208 in gold. Cattle-raising and its cognate industries constitute the most lucrative business of the Argentine Republic. Nature has endowed Argentina with advantages for agricultural and pastoral farming hardly to be found in any other country of the world.

Shipping and Navigation

In 1902, the registered shipping consisted of 101 steamers of 37,700 tons and 151 sailing vessels of 38,071 tons; total, 252 of 76,841 tons. In 1904 the number of ocean-going vessels which entered the port of Buenos Aires was 2,072, with an aggregate tonnage of 3,896,197 tons, as against 1,842 of 3,461,208 tons in 1903.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ARGENTINA

Public Status of the Church

Under the second article of the federal Constitution, “the Federal Government supports the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.” According to the last complete, official national census, referred to above, of every thousand inhabitants of the country there were 991 Catholics, 2 Jews, and 7 Protestants and dissenters of whatever kind. The total population (3,954,911) is distributed as follows: native Catholic population, 2,944,397, of whom 1,449,793 are male and 1,494,604 female; foreign Catholic population, 976,739, divided into 617,470 males and 259,269 females. The total Catholic population is 3,921,136. The non-Catholic population included 26,750 Protestants, 6,085 Jews, and 940 other non-Catholics. The federal congress appropriates every year a certain amount of money to assist the Church in meeting its expenses. For the fiscal year of 1905 these appropriations amounted to $857,420 in the national currency. Out of this sum, $617,420 were set aside for the salaries of Church functionaries and eccelesiatics of all kinds, and for defraying the necessary expenses of Divine worship. The balance ($240,000) represented “subsidies” to certain churches in the provinces.

Hierarchy

The Argentine hierarchy consists of the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, and the Bishops of Córdoba, La Plata, Paraná, San Juan de Cuyo, Santa Fé, Salta, and Tucumán. The right to appoint a bishop belongs, of course, to the Holy See; but the federal Senate has the right, when a vacancy occurs, to send three names to the President of the Union for transmission to Rome, where the choice is to be made, if made at all, out of the three nominees. Each cathedral is provided, according to Spanish usage, with a chapter, i.e., a number of canons and ecclesiastical officials appointed by the Government upon nomination of the respective bishops. There is an ecclesiatical seminary in each diocese under the control of the bishop, for the support of which an appropriation is made yearly. The Holy See is represented at Buenos Aires by an apostolic internuncio, who ranks as the dean of the diplomatic corps. The Argentine Nation has in Rome a charge d’affaires. Until lately the representative of the Argentine Republic at the Pontifical Court was entrusted to the Argentine representative in Paris. The Catholic spirit which animated the framers of the Constitution is forcibly illustrated by the provisions of article 76, which requires as a condition of eligibility for the position of President, or Vice-President, of the Union “to belong to the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion” and by those contained in clauses 15 and 20, article 67, which respectively empower the federal congress “to promote the conversion of the Indians to the Catholic religion,” and “to admit into the territory of the Republic other religious orders additional to those now in existence.” Article 20 of the same instrument grants foreigners the right of freedom of worship. The right of approval and ratification of concordats with the Holy See, of nomination for the ecclesiatical positions of high rank, and of allowing or refusing promulgation to the Argentine territory of decrees of councils, or bulls, briefs, and rescripts of the Supreme Pontiff are respectively relegated by clause 19, article 67, and by Clauses 8 and 9 of article 86.

Ecclesiastico-Civil Legislation

Though this country is Catholic, civil marriage, lay primary instruction, and purely municipal cemeteries are among its institutions. The civil marriage law which was passed, 2 Nov., 1888, and went into effect, 1 Dec., 1889, gives validity only to marriages “solemnized before the public officer in charge of the Civil register, in his office, in public, and before two witnesses” (art. 37). The ceremony may take place at the residence of either the groom or the bride, but four witnesses shall then be required. The registrar is forbidden (art. 39) to prevent the contracting parties from seeking to have “their union blessed” immediately afterwards by a minister of their religion. Article 64 of the law declares that the only divorced recognized and authorized in the Argentine Nation is the separation a mensa et toro, without dissolution of the bond of marriage.

Churches of Buenos Aires

The cathedral of Buenos Aires is a magnificent edifice, erected on the site of the first church of the settlement built by Don Juan de Garay in 1580. This church and all the others thereafter built, depended upon the ecclesiastical authorities of Paraguay until 1620, when Pope Paul V, at the request of King Philip III of Spain, erected the Diocese of La Plata River. The parochial church of Buenos Aires, then an humble structure of mud walls and thatched roof, was turned into a cathedral, and put in charge of Fray Pedro Carranza, the first Argentine bishop. Such repairs and improvement as were possible at that time were made in the building, and it was solemnly dedicated, 26 June, 1622. The construction of the present cathedral began in 1791. It was built on the same plan as most of the Spanish cathedrals, and attracts the attention of visitors on account of the beauty of its interior, and the fine tomb of General San Martin erected in a chapel at the right side of the building. The church and convent of La Merced are almost contemporary with the foundation of Buenos Aires. There is no record showing the exact date of their construction, but there is evidence that they were in existence in 1580, when Juan de Garay founded in their immediate neighborhood, as he said, the hospital which he called St. Martin. Until 1821, the convent was the home of the Fathers of Mercy. The church is now one of the most sumptuous of the city and the center of a parish. The church of St. Ignatius, another noted ornament of the city of Buenos Aires, dates from 1722. It construction, begun in that year, was entrusted to the Jesuit Fathers Andrés Blanqui and N. Primoli, who brought experts architects from Europe for that purpose. Many rich citizens, among whom Don Antonia Costa was distinguished by his liberality, contributed large sums for this work. The church was the home of the Jesuits in Buenos Aires, until their expulsion from the Spanish dominions in 1767. The church and the convent of St. Francis are still the home of the most ancient religious order in the country; there is evidence that the Franciscan Fathers had come to that part of South America prior to 1580. The church and the convent of St. Dominic, still occupied by the Dominican Fathers, are also worthy of mention. The construction of the present church of St. Francis was begun in 1731. The cornerstone of the church of St. Dominic was laid in 1751. The convent of St. Francis contains a rich and well-arranged library of more than 7,000 volumes, free to all on application to the Father Superior. One of the remarkable churches of Buenos Aires is the church of the Savior (El Salvador) built in 1872 by the Jesuit Fathers, burned 28 Feb., 1875, by a group of “liberals,” and rebuilt in 1884. Attached to the church is the Jesuit college. The so-called “Chapel of Mount Carmel” (Capilla del Carmen), favored by the higher classes for the celebration of marriages, and the chapel of the Passionist Fathers are counted among the attractions of the city.

Education, Collegiate, and University

It is well known that the Jesuits were the pioneers of progress and public instruction in all the vast region which extends on both sides of the River Plate, where they founded schools and novitiates, and propagated learning as well as Christian faith. Their College of St. Francis Xavier, established at Córdoba in 1611, and completed in 1613, soon became the Colegio Máximo of the Jesuit province of La Plata, which embraced what is today the Argentine Nation and Chile. This institution, where grammar, Latin, philosophy, and theology were taught, and whose first rector was a Jesuit, Father Alvir, became a little later, the University of Córdoba, still in existence, and in the order of time, the second university established in South America; the first was that of San Marcos at Lima (1551). Public schools in the Argentine Republic as in the United States are absolutely secular. But the law of public instruction provides that, “after official hours, religious instruction (Catholic or otherwise) may be given to the children who voluntarily remain in the schools for the purpose of receiving it. This religious instruction in the public schools shall be given only by authorized ministers of the different persuasions, before or after school hours.

Sanctuary of Luján and Christ of the Andes

In the city of Luján, about two hours and a half by rail from the federal capital, is the celebrated shrine of Our Lady of Lujan, since 1630 a center of intense religious fervor. It is to be made part of the monumental basilica of Lujan, still in the process of construction. When finished this will be one of the most imposing buildings of its kind in Spanish America. How closely woven the Catholic faith is with the life and ideas of the Argentine people may be seen by the monument known as El Cristo de los Andes (The Christ of the Andes), erected on the summit of that range, chiefly by the efforts of an Argentine lady and Monsignor Benevente, Bishop of San Juan de Cuyo. It is a colossal statue of Our Lord, with a cross in his left hand, and the right raised as if blessing the world. The statue is made from old bronze cannon left by the Spaniards, and is the work of a native sculptor, Mateo Alonso. It stands at 14,000 feet above sea-level, on the line which divides the Argentine republic from Chile, and commemorates the arbitration by both nations of the boundary questions that more than once endangered their mutual peace.

Non-Catholic Populations

The small non-Catholic portion of the population has five Protestant houses of worship, as follows: One Anglican Episcopal, one Lutheran, one Methodist Episcopal, one Scotch, and one in which the worship varies according to the time of day in which it is offered. The first Protestant church was built in 1829.

JOSE IGNACIO RODRIGUEZ

Charles du Plessis d’Argentré

Argentré, Charles du Plessis d,’ b. May 16, 1673; d. October 17, 1740. He entered the seminary of St. Sulpice at Paris, and studied theology at the Sorbonne; he was ordained priest in 1699, and was made Doctor of Theology in 1700. He held successively the offices of Abbé de Sainte Croix de Guingamp, Dean of Laval, Vicar-General of the Bishop of Tréguier (1707), and Royal Almoner. He was made Bishop of Tulle in 1723 and distinguished himself for beneficence, interest in ecclesiastical studies, and personal exercise of the ministry. Among his writings are “Analyse de la foi divine” (Paris, 1697); “Elementa Theologica” (Paris, 1702), in which he rejects Papal Infallibility but defends that of the Church in the matter of the condemned Jansenist propositions; “Lexicon Philosophicum” (Hague, 1706), a treatise on the difference between the natural and the supernatural order (Paris, 1707), “Explication des sacrements de l’eglise” (Tulle, 1734), and other theological, scriptural, and philosophical works. He edited the theological works of Martin Grandin (Paris, 1710–12) and added several theological dissertations of his own, among them one on Pope Honorius. He is best known by his “Collectio Judiciorum de novis erroribus qui ab initio saec. XII [to 1735] in Ecclesia proscripti stint atque notati; Censoria etiam judicia academiarum,” 3 vols. (Paris, 1724–36). This valuable collection contains many documents relative to theological controversies since the twelfth century, pontifical “acta,” decisions of Roman Congregations, and decisions of famous universities (Oxford, Paris, Douai, Louvain, principally those of Paris). The latest document quoted is dated 1723. There is a complete bibliography of his French and Latin works in the “Memoires de Trévoux” (1734), I, 223–225.

Oblet in Dict. du théol. Cath., I, 1777.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Argos

A titular see of Peloponnesian Greece, from the fifth to the twelfth century, about twenty miles southwest of Corinth. It was considered the oldest city of Greece and was once the head of the Doric League, and in its time one of the largest and most populous of the Greek cities. Argos was famous in Greek antiquity for the worship of Hera (Juno), and her great temple, the Heræum (fully excavated in 1831), was considered one of the most magnificent monuments of Greek architecture. In the fifth century, B.C., the city was also famous for its temple of Apollo, the chief Doric sanctuary, and as the seat of celebrated schools of sculpture and music, especially the flute. Its medieval history is told by Carl Hopf (Chroniques gréco-romanes, Paris, 1873, XXIX-XXX, 236–242), and by Gregorovius (Gesch. der Stadt. Athen., Stuttgart, 1889, I, 364, and II passim). In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries it was the seat of a diocese, being then held successively by the French Dukes of Athens and the Byzantines; in 1463 it passed under Ottoman rule.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Luis Antonio Argüello

Governor of California, born at San Francisco, 1784; died there in 1830. His family was one of the most influential and distinguished in the early history of California. His father, Don José Dar=EDo Argüello, was acting Governor of California in 1814–15, and Governor of Lower California from 1815 to 1822. In August, 1806, Don Luis succeeded his father as Comandante of California with the rank of lieutenant. he was captain from 1818, and Governor from November, 1822, to 1825. Don Luis was the only Governor during the Mexican Empire, and the first native of California to hold that office. He was also acting governor under the provisional government which preceded the Mexican Republic. In 1821 he conducted what is popularly known as “Argüello’s expedition to the Columbia,” the most extensive exploration of the North Country ever made by the Spaniards in California. he was hardly less popular than his illustrious father, and though, involved at times in controversies, he has left a reputation for honesty, ability, and kindness of heart.

EDWARD SPILLANE

Diocese of Argyll and the Isles

The Diocese of Argyll, founded about 1200, was separated from the Diocese of Dunkeld; it included the western part of Dunkeld, beyond the Drumalban mountain range, together with the Isle of Lismore, in which the cathedral was erected. The first bishop was Harold, chaplain of the Bishop of Dunkeld, chosen on account of his acquaintance with the Gaelic tongue. The Diocese of the Isles included the islands off the west coast of Scotland, formerly subject to Norway, and annexed to the Scottish Crown in 1206 under James I. The Archbishop of Drontheim continued to exercise jurisdiction over these islands, but in the middle of the fourteenth century the Hebrides were ecclesiastically separated from the Isle of Man, which was subjected to the province of Canterbury (and later to York). A century and a half afterwards Alexander VI, at the request of King James IV, united the See of the Isles and the abbacy of Iona, which were henceforth held by the same person, the cathedral of the newly-constituted diocese being established at Iona. There were thirty pre-Reformation Bishops of the Isles, the last being Roderick Maclean, who died in 1553. The last of the sixteen Bishops of Argyll was William Cunningham, who died in 1552; for his successor, James Hamilton, seems never to have received consecration. Both sees thereafter remained vacant for over three hundred years, until 4 March, 1878, Leo XIII re-erected the Scottish hierarchy, the united diocese of Argyll and the Isles being included among the revived bishoprics. The present diocese comprises the counties of Argyll and Inverness, south of a line drawn from the northern extremity of Loch Luing to the junction of the counties of Inverness, Aberdeen, and Banff; also the islands of Arran and Bute, and the Hebrides. The actual Bishop (1906), the second since the restoration of the hierarchy, is the Right Rev. George Smith, who was consecrated in his pro-cathedral at Oban, in 1893. The population has tended to diminish rather than to increase in recent times, owing to the drain caused by emigration, and also to the depopulation of many districts of the West Highlands, due to the turning of large tracts of land by the proprietors into deer forests. There are but two towns of any size or importance in the diocese, Oban and Rothesay; and the only access to many of the outlying missions is by sea. By a singular contrast, the wealthiest Catholic landowner in the kingdom, the Marquis of Bute, has his principal place of residence (a palatial mansion on which his father is said to have expended upwards of a million sterling), in what is probably the poorest diocese in the British Isles.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

John Argyropulos

Humanist, and translator of Aristotle, born at Constantinople, 1416; died at Rome about 1486. It is certain that he was a teacher at Padua in 1434, although it is not clear why he returned to Constantinople in 1441. After the conquest of his native city by the Turks (1453) he joined the band of scholars who took refuge in Italy. In 1456 he was summoned to Florence by Cosimo de’ Medici for the purpose of teaching (Aristotelian) philosophy and instructing the youthful Pietro and Lorenzo. In 1471 a plague broke out in Florence: this was the occasion of his leaving Florence for Rome, where he was kindly received by Pope Sixtus IV. There he continued his career as teacher, having among his pupils many cardinals and bishops and some distinguished foreigners, such as Reuchlin. He died at Rome; the year of his death is uncertain, but 1486 is the most probable date. He was one of those who contributed most to the revival of Greek learning in Italy. After Manuel Chrysoloras, he and George of Trebizond and George Gemistius had the largest share in making known to Western Europe the treasures of ancient Greek literature. Like all other humanists, he was somewhat intemperate in his zeal for his chosen subject. In his desire to extol the excellence of Greek literature, he expressed his contempt for the literature of ancient Rome; he was especially severe in his criticism of Cicero. His most serviceable works are his translations of many of Aristotle’s works (published by Aldo Manucci, 1518–20) and his Commentaries on the “Ethics” and the “Politics” (published 1541). He also wrote several theological treatises, including one on the “Procession of the Holy Ghost” (P. G., CLVIII, 991 sqq.). Many of his works are still in manuscript.

WILLIAM TURNER

St. Arialdo

Martyred at Milan in 1065, for his attempt to reform the simoniacal and immoral clergy of that city. He was of noble extraction, born at Cutiacum, near Milan, and after his studies, at Laon and Paris, was made a canon in the cathedral city. For inveighing against abuses he was excommunicated by the bishop Guido, but was immediately reinstated by Pope Stephen, who bade him continue the work of reformation. He succeeded in having the bishop excommunicated because of his repeated lapses, but a riot ensued, resulting in serious injury to Arialdo. Previously an attempt had been made on his life with a poisoned sword. Later, when on his way to Rome, he was set upon by the emissaries of Guido and slain. Ten months after, his body was found in Lago Maggiore in a perfect state of preservation, and emitting a sweet odour. It was carried with great pomp to Milan, and exposed in the church of St. Ambrose from Ascension to Pentecost. It was subsequently interred in the church of St. Celsus, and in the following year, 1067, Alexander II declared him a martyr.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Arianism

A heresy which arose in the fourth century, and denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

DOCTRINE

First among the doctrinal disputes which troubled Christians after Constantine had recognized the Church in A.D. 313, and the parent of many more during some three centuries, Arianism occupies a large place in ecclesiastical history. It is not a modern form of unbelief, and therefore will appear strange in modern eyes. But we shall better grasp its meaning if we term it an Eastern attempt to rationalize the creed by stripping it of mystery so far as the relation of Christ to God was concerned. In the New Testament and in Church teaching Jesus of Nazareth appears as the Son of God. This name He took to Himself (Matthew 11:27; John 10:36), while the Fourth Gospel declares Him to be the Word (Logos), Who in the beginning was with God and was God, by Whom all things were made. A similar doctrine is laid down by St. Paul, in his undoubtedly genuine Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians. It is reiterated in the Letters of Ignatius, and accounts for Pliny’s observation that Christians in their assemblies chanted a hymn to Christ as God. But the question how the Son was related to the Father (Himself acknowledged on all hands to be the one Supreme Deity), gave rise, between the years A.D. 60 and 200, to a number of Theosophic systems, called generally Gnosticism, and having for their authors Basilides, Valentinus, Tatian, and other Greek speculators. Though all of these visited Rome, they had no following in the West, which remained free from controversies of an abstract nature, and was faithful to the creed of its baptism. Intellectual centres were chiefly Alexandria and Antioch, Egyptian or Syrian, and speculation was carried on in Greek. The Roman Church held steadfastly by tradition. Under these circumstances, when Gnostic schools had passed away with their “conjugations” of Divine powers, and “emanations” from the Supreme unknowable God (the “Deep” and the “Silence”) all speculation was thrown into the form of an inquiry touching the “likeness” of the Son to His Father and “sameness” of His Essence. Catholics had always maintained that Christ was truly the Son, and truly God. They worshipped Him with divine honours; they would never consent to separate Him, in idea or reality, from the Father, Whose Word, Reason, Mind, He was, and in Whose Heart He abode from eternity. But the technical terms of doctrine were not fully defined; and even in Greek words like essence (ousia), substance (hypostasis), nature (physis), person (hyposopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from the pre-Christian sects of philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The adaptation of a vocabulary employed by Plato and Aristotle to Christian truth was a matter of time; it could not be done in a day; and when accomplished for the Greek it had to be undertaken for the Latin, which did not lend itself readily to necessary yet subtle distinctions. That disputes should spring up even among the orthodox who all held one faith, was inevitable. And of these wranglings the rationalist would take advantage in order to substitute for the ancient creed his own inventions. The drift of all he advanced was this: to deny that in any true sense God could have a Son; as Mohammed tersely said afterwards, “God neither begets, nor is He begotten” (Koran, 112). We have learned to call that denial Unitarianism. It was the ultimate scope of Arian opposition to what Christians had always believed. But the Arian, though he did not come straight down from the Gnostic, pursued a line of argument and taught a view which the speculations of the Gnostic had made familiar. He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be.

Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech. These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son “is no part of the Ingenerate.” Hence the Arian sectaries who reasoned logically were styled Anomoeans: they said that the Son was “unlike” the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing.

But a view so unlike tradition found little favour; it required softening or palliation, even at the cost of logic; and the school which supplanted Arianism form an early date affirmed the likeness, either without adjunct, or in all things, or in substance, of the Son to the Father, while denying His co-equal dignity and co-eternal existence. These men of the Via Media were named Semi-Arians. They approached, in strict argument, to the heretical extreme; but many of them held the orthodox faith, however inconsistently; their difficulties turned upon language or local prejudice, and no small number submitted at length to Catholic teaching. The Semi-Arians attempted for years to invent a compromise between irreconcilable views, and their shifting creeds, tumultuous councils, and worldly devices tell us how mixed and motley a crowd was collected under their banner. The point to be kept in remembrance is that, while they affirmed the Word of God to be everlasting, they imagined Him as having become the Son to create the worlds and redeem mankind. Among the ante-Nicene writers, a certain ambiguity of expression may be detected, outside the school of Alexandria, touching this last head of doctrine. While Catholic teachers held the Monarchia, viz. that there was only one God; and the Trinity, that this Absolute One existed in three distinct subsistences; and the Circuminession, that Father, Word, and Spirit could not be separated, in fact or in thought, from one another; yet an opening was left for discussion as regarded the term “Son,” and the period of His “generation” (gennesis). Five ante-Nicene Fathers are especially quoted: Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, and Novatian, whose language appears to involve a peculiar notion of Sonship, as though It did not come into being or were not perfect until the dawn of creation. To these may be added Tertullian and Methodius. Cardinal Newman held that their view, which is found clearly in Tertullian, of the Son existing after the Word, is connected as an antecedent with Arianism. Petavius construed the same expressions in a reprehensible sense; but the Anglican Bishop Bull defended them as orthodox, not without difficulty. Even if metaphorical, such language might give shelter to unfair disputants; but we are not answerable for the slips of teachers who failed to perceive all the consequences of doctrinal truths really held by them. From these doubtful theorizings Rome and Alexandria kept aloof. Origen himself, whose unadvised speculations were charged with the guilt of Arianism, and who employed terms like “the second God,” concerning the Logos, which were never adopted by the Church—this very Origen taught the eternal Sonship of the Word, and was not a Semi-Arian. To him the Logos, the Son, and Jesus of Nazareth were one ever-subsisting Divine Person, begotten of the Father, and, in this way, “subordinate” to the source of His being. He comes forth from God as the creative Word, and so is a ministering Agent, or, from a different point of view, is the First-born of creation. Dionysius of Alexandria (260) was even denounced at Rome for calling the Son a work or creature of God; but he explained himself to the pope on orthodox principles, and confessed the Homoousian Creed.

HISTORY

Paul of Samosata, who was contemporary with Dionysius, and Bishop of Antioch, may be judged the true ancestor of those heresies which relegated Christ beyond the Divine sphere, whatever epithets of deity they allowed Him. The man Jesus, said Paul, was distinct from the Logos, and, in Milton’s later language, by merit was made the Son of God. The Supreme is one in Person as in Essence. Three councils held at Antioch (264–268, or 269) condemned and excommunicated the Samosatene. But these Fathers would not accept the Homoousian formula, dreading lest it be taken to signify one material or abstract substance, according to the usage of the heathen philosophies. Associated with Paul, and for years cut off from the Catholic communion, we find the well-known Lucian, who edited the Septuagint and became at last a martyr. From this learned man the school of Antioch drew its inspiration. Eusebius the historian, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Arius himself, all came under Lucian’s influence. Not, therefore, to Egypt and its mystical teaching, but to Syria, where Aristotle flourished with his logic and its tendency to Rationalism, should we look for the home of an aberration which had it finally triumphed, would have anticipated Islam, reducing the Eternal Son to the rank of a prophet, and thus undoing the Christian revelation.

Arius, a Libyan by descent, brought up at Antioch and a school-fellow of Eusebius, afterwards Bishop of Nicomedia, took part (306) in the obscure Meletian schism, was made presbyter of the church called “Baucalis,” at Alexandria, and opposed the Sabellians, themselves committed to a view of the Trinity which denied all real distinctions in the Supreme. Epiphanius describes the heresiarch as tall, grave, and winning; no aspersion on his moral character has been sustained; but there is some possibility of personal differences having led to his quarrel with the patriarch Alexander whom, in public synod, he accused of teaching that the Son was identical with the Father (319). The actual circumstances of this dispute are obscure; but Alexander condemned Arius in a great assembly, and the latter found a refuge with Eusebius, the Church historian, at Caesarea. Political or party motives embittered the strife. Many bishops of Asia Minor and Syria took up the defence of their “fellow-Lucianist,” as Arius did not hesitate to call himself. Synods in Palestine and Bithynia were opposed to synods in Egypt. During several years the argument raged; but when, by his defeat of Licinius (324), Constantine became master of the Roman world, he determined on restoring ecclesiastical order in the East, as already in the West he had undertaken to put down the Donatists at the Council of Arles. Arius, in a letter to the Nicomedian prelate, had boldly rejected the Catholic faith. But Constantine, tutored by this worldly-minded man, sent from Nicomedia to Alexander a famous letter, in which he treated the controversy as an idle dispute about words and enlarged on the blessings of peace. The emperor, we should call to mind, was only a catechumen, imperfectly acquainted with Greek, much more incompetent in theology, and yet ambitious to exercise over the Catholic Church a dominion resembling that which, as Pontifex Maximus, he wielded over the pagan worship. From this Byzantine conception (labelled in modern terms Erastianism) we must derive the calamities which during many hundreds of years set their mark on the development of Christian dogma. Alexander could not give way in a matter so vitally important. Arius and his supporters would not yield. A council was, therefore, assembled in Nicaea, in Bithynia, which has ever been counted the first ecumenical, and which held its sittings from the middle of June, 325. (See FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA). It is commonly said that Hosius of Cordova presided. The Pope, St. Silvester, was represented by his legates, and 318 Fathers attended, almost all from the East. Unfortunately, the acts of the Council are not preserved. The emperor, who was present, paid religious deference to a gathering which displayed the authority of Christian teaching in a manner so remarkable. From the first it was evident that Arius could not reckon upon a large number of patrons among the bishops. Alexander was accompanied by his youthful deacon, the ever-memorable Athanasius who engaged in discussion with the heresiarch himself, and from that moment became the leader of the Catholics during well-nigh fifty years. The Fathers appealed to tradition against the innovators, and were passionately orthodox; while a letter was received from Eusebius of Nicomedia, declaring openly that he would never allow Christ to be of one substance with God. This avowal suggested a means of discriminating between true believers and all those who, under that pretext, did not hold the Faith handed down. A creed was drawn up on behalf of the Arian party by Eusebius of Caesarea in which every term of honour and dignity, except the oneness of substance, was attributed to Our Lord. Clearly, then, no other test save the Homoousion would prove a match for the subtle ambiguities of language that, then as always, were eagerly adopted by dissidents from the mind of the Church. A formula had been discovered which would serve as a test, though not simply to be found in Scripture, yet summing up the doctrine of St. John, St. Paul, and Christ Himself, “I and the Father are one.” Heresy, as St. Ambrose remarks, had furnished from its own scabbard a weapon to cut off its head. The “consubstantial” was accepted, only thirteen bishops dissenting, and these were speedily reduced to seven. Hosius drew out the conciliar statements, to which anathemas were subjoined against those who should affirm that the Son once did not exist, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made out of nothing, or that He was of a different substance or essence from the Father, or was created or changeable. Every bishop made this declaration except six, of whom four at length gave way. Eusebius of Nicomedia withdrew his opposition to the Nicene term, but would not sign the condemnation of Arius. By the emperor, who considered heresy as rebellion, the alternative proposed was subscription or banishment; and, on political grounds, the Bishop of Nicomedia was exiled not long after the council, involving Arius in his ruin. The heresiarch and his followers underwent their sentence in Illyria. But these incidents, which might seem to close the chapter, proved a beginning of strife, and led on to the most complicated proceedings of which we read in the fourth century. While the plain Arian creed was defended by few, those political prelates who sided with Eusebius carried on a double warfare against the term “consubstantial,” and its champion, Athanasius. This greatest of the Eastern Fathers had succeeded Alexander in the Egyptian patriarchate (326). He was not more than thirty years of age; but his published writings, antecedent to the Council, display, in thought and precision, a mastery of the issues involved which no Catholic teacher could surpass. His unblemished life, considerate temper, and loyalty to his friends made him by no means easy to attack. But the wiles of Eusebius, who in 328 recovered Constantine’s favour, were seconded by Asiatic intrigues, and a period of Arian reaction set in. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed on a charge of Sabellianism (331), and the Emperor sent his command that Athanasius should receive Arius back into communion. The saint firmly declined. In 325 the heresiarch was absolved by two councils, at Tyre and Jerusalem, the former of which deposed Athanasius on false and shameful grounds of personal misconduct. He was banished to Trier, and his sojourn of eighteen months in those parts cemented Alexandria more closely to Rome and the Catholic West. Meanwhile, Constantia, the Emperor’s sister, had recommended Arius, whom she thought an injured man, to Constantine’s leniency. Her dying words affected him, and he recalled the Lybian, extracted from him a solemn adhesion to the Nicene faith, and ordered Alexander, Bishop of the Imperial City, to give him Communion in his own church (336). Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, which Catholics could not help regarding as a judgment of heaven, due to the bishop’s prayers. His death, however, did not stay the plague. Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated.

Constantius, who nominally governed the East, was himself the puppet of his empress and the palace-ministers. He obeyed the Eusebian faction; his spiritual director, Valens, Bishop of Mursa, did what in him lay to infect Italy and the West with Arian dogmas. The term “like in substance,” Homoiousion, which had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula, became a watchword. But as many as fourteen councils, held between 341 and 360, in which every shade of heretical subterfuge found expression, bore decisive witness to the need and efficacy of the Catholic touchstone which they all rejected. About 340, an Alexandrian gathering had defended its archbishop in an epistle to Pope Julius. On the death of Constantine, and by the influence of that emperor’s son and namesake, he had been restored to his people. But the young prince passed away, and in 341 the celebrated Antiochene Council of the Dedication a second time degraded Athanasius, who now took refuge in Rome. There he spent three years. Gibbon quotes and adopts “a judicious observation” of Wetstein which deserves to be kept always in mind. From the fourth century onwards, remarks the German scholar, when the Eastern Churches were almost equally divided in eloquence and ability between contending sections, that party which sought to overcome made its appearance in the Vatican, cultivated the Papal majesty, conquered and established the orthodox creed by the help of the Latin bishops. Therefore it was that Athanasius repaired to Rome. A stranger, Gregory, usurped his place. The Roman Council proclaimed his innocence. In 343, Constans, who ruled over the West from Illyria to Britain, summoned the bishops to meet at Sardica in Pannonia. Ninety-four Latin, seventy Greek or Eastern, prelates began the debates; but they could not come to terms, and the Asiatics withdrew, holding a separate and hostile session at Philippopolis in Thrace. It has been justly said that the Council of Sardica reveals the first symptoms of discord which, later on, produced the unhappy schism of East and West. But to the Latins this meeting, which allowed of appeals to Pope Julius, or the Roman Church, seemed an epilogue which completed the Nicene legislation, and to this effect it was quoted by Innocent I in his correspondence with the bishops of Africa.

Having won over Constans, who warmly took up his cause, the invincible Athanasius received from his Oriental and Semi-Arian sovereign three letters commanding, and at length entreating his return to Alexandria (349). The factious bishops, Ursacius and Valens, retracted their charges against him in the hands of Pope Julius; and as he travelled home, by way of Thrace, Asia Minor, and Syria, the crowd of court-prelates did him abject homage. These men veered with every wind. Some, like Eusebius of Caesarea, held a Platonizing doctrine which they would not give up, though they declined the Arian blasphemies. But many were time-servers, indifferent to dogma. And a new party had arisen, the strict and pious Homoiousians, not friends of Athanasius, nor willing to subscribe to the Nicene terms, yet slowly drawing nearer to the true creed and finally accepting it. In the councils which now follow these good men play their part. However, when Constans died (350), and his Semi-Arian brother was left supreme, the persecution of Athanasius redoubled in violence. By a series of intrigues the Western bishops were persuaded to cast him off at Arles, Milan, Ariminum. It was concerning this last council (359) that St. Jerome wrote, “the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian.” For the Latin bishops were driven by threats and chicanery to sign concessions which at no time represented their genuine views. Councils were so frequent that their dates are still matter of controversy. Personal issues disguised the dogmatic importance of a struggle which had gone on for thirty years. The Pope of the day, Liberius, brave at first, undoubtedly orthodox, but torn from his see and banished to the dreary solitude of Thrace, signed a creed, in tone Semi-Arian (compiled chiefly from one of Sirmium), renounced Athanasius, but made a stand against the so-called “Homoean” formulae of Ariminum. This new party was led by Acacius of Caesarea, an aspiring churchman who maintained that he, and not St. Cyril of Jerusalem, was metropolitan over Palestine. The Homoeans, a sort of Protestants, would have no terms employed which were not found in Scripture, and thus evaded signing the “Consubstantial.” A more extreme set, the “Anomoeans,” followed Aetius, were directed by Eunomius, held meetings at Antioch and Sirmium, declared the Son to be “unlike” the Father, and made themselves powerful in the last years of Constantius within the palace. George of Cappadocia persecuted the Alexandrian Catholics. Athanasius retired into the desert among the solitaries. Hosius had been compelled by torture to subscribe a fashionable creed. When the vacillating Emperor died (361), Julian, known as the Apostate, suffered all alike to return home who had been exiled on account of religion. A momentous gathering, over which Athanasius presided, in 362, at Alexandria, united the orthodox Semi-Arians with himself and the West. Four years afterwards fifty-nine Macedonian, i.e., hitherto anti-Nicene, prelates gave in their submission to Pope Liberius. But the Emperor Valens, a fierce heretic, still laid the Church waste.

However, the long battle was now turning decidedly in favour of Catholic tradition. Western bishops, like Hilary of Poitiers and Eusebius of Vercellae banished to Asia for holding the Nicene faith, were acting in unison with St. Basil, the two St. Gregories [of Nyssa and Nazianzus—Ed.], and the reconciled Semi-Arians. As an intellectual movement the heresy had spent its force. Theodosius, a Spaniard and a Catholic, governed the whole Empire. Athanasius died in 373; but his cause triumphed at Constantinople, long an Arian city, first by the preaching of St. Gregory Nazianzen, then in the Second General Council (381), at the opening of which Meletius of Antioch presided. This saintly man had been estranged from the Nicene champions during a long schism; but he made peace with Athanasius, and now, in company of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, represented a moderate influence which won the day. No deputies appeared from the West. Meletius died almost immediately. St. Gregory Nazianzen, who took his place, very soon resigned. A creed embodying the Nicene was drawn up by St. Gregory of Nyssa, but it is not the one that is chanted at Mass, the latter being due, it is said, to St. Epiphanius and the Church of Jerusalem. The Council became ecumenical by acceptance of the Pope and the ever-orthodox Westerns. From this moment Arianism in all its forms lost its place within the Empire. Its developments among the barbarians were political rather than doctrinal. Ulphilas (311–388), who translated the Scriptures into Maeso-Gothic, taught the Goths across the Danube an Homoean theology; Arian kingdoms arose in Spain, Africa, Italy. The Gepidae, Heruli, Vandals, Alans, and Lombards received a system which they were as little capable of understanding as they were of defending, and the Catholic bishops, the monks, the sword of Clovis, the action of the Papacy, made an end of it before the eighth century. In the form which it took under Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Eunomius, it has never been revived. Individuals, among them are Milton and Sir Isasc Newton, were perhaps tainted with it. But the Socinian tendency out of which Unitarian doctrines have grown owes nothing to the school of Antioch or the councils which opposed Nicaea. Neither has any Arian leader stood forth in history with a character of heroic proportions. In the whole story there is but one single hero—the undaunted Athanasius—whose mind was equal to the problems, as his great spirit to the vicissitudes, a question on which the future of Christianity depended.

WILLIAM BARRY

Diocese of Ariano

Diocese in the Archdiocese of Beneventum, comprising seven towns in the province of Avellino, four in that of Beneventum, and one in the province of Foggia. Ariano, a very ancient town of the Hirpini, is built on the hills, fifteen miles from Beneventum. Its name is of pagan origin: Ora Jani. There are no documents that fix the time of its conversion to Christianity. Beneventum, at the beginning of the fourth century, had a bishop, and the Gospel may have reached Ariano from that city. The Bishop of Beneventum was one of the nineteen prelates who were present at the Synod of Rome, held in the year 313. (See Routt, Reliquiae Sacrae, III, 312, and Harnack, Die Mission, etc., 501.) Ariano was an episcopal city from the tenth century and perhaps before that time. We find it first mentioned in the Bull of Pope John XIII (965–972) to establish the Archdiocese of Beneventum; it is named as a suffragan see. The first bishop known to have occupied this see was Menardus, a native not of Padua, Ughelli believed, but of Poitiers, which Vitale has shown. In 1070, he erected in his cathedral a marble baptistery on the walls of which verses were inscribed. In the following year Menardus was at the consecration of the church of Monte Cassino by Alexander III. Tradition has a whole series of bishops prior to him as is proved by a declaration of 1080 made in favour of the monastery of St. Sofia in Beneventum. This diocese contains 25 parishes; 90 churches, chapels, and oratories; 125 secular priests; 30 seminarians; 3 regular priests; 2 lay-brothers, 32 religious (women); 22 confraternities; 3 girls’ schools (95 pupils). Population 50,400.

UGHELLI, Italia Sacra (Venice, 1722), VIII, 212; CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), XIX, 117; GAMS, Series episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae (Ratisbon, 1873), 8, 52; VITALE, Storia della regia citta di Ariano e sua diocesi (Rome, 1794).

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Francis Arias

Writer of ascetical treatises, born at Seville in Spain, 1533, died in that place, 15 May, 1605. He was received into the Society of Jesus at the age of twenty-six. He was professor of scholastic theology at Cordova, of moral theology at Trigueros, rector of the college in the latter place and also at Cadiz. His works are “Spiritual Profit,” “Treatise on the Rosary,” “Imitation of Our Lady,” “Imitation of Christ,” “Mental Prayer,” “The Use of the Sacraments,” “The Promises of God,” “The Turpitude and Grievousness of Sin.” Most of them have been translated into various languages. His life corresponded with his teachings. He was held in the highest esteem by the great master of the spiritual life, John of Avila, and St. Francis of Sales, in the “Introduction to a Devout Life,” recommends the perusal of his works. He was commonly regarded as a saint, and was remarkable for his gift of prayer and his spirit of penance. Much of his time was devoted to the care of negroes, Moors, and the inmates of hospitals and prisons. From his earliest youth his predilection for spiritual thing manifested itself, his career as a student in Alcala was brilliant, and while a secular priest he laboured as an apostle in his native city of Seville. At his death it was difficult to protect his body from the piety of the people, who proclaimed him a saint and endeavoured to secure parts of his apparel as relics.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Pedro Arias de Avila

(Also known as Pedrarias Davila).

A Spanish knight from Segovia, b. about the middle of the fifteenth century; d. at Leon, 1530. He married an intimate friend of Queen Isabella (whence probably his preferment) and saw some service in Europe. At the age of nearly seventy years he was made commander (1514) of the largest Spanish expedition hitherto sent to America, and reached Santa Marta in Colombia with nineteen vessels and 1,500 men. Thence he went to Darien, where the discoverer of the South Sea, Balboa, governed. Pedrarias superseded him, gave him his daughter in wedlock, and afterwards had him judicially murdered. (See BALBOA.) In 1519 he founded the city of Panama. He was a party to the original agreement with Pizarro and Almagro which brought about the discovery of Peru, but withdrew (1526) for a small compensation, having lost confidence in the outcome. In the same year he was superseded as Governor of Panama and retired to Leon in Nicaragua, where he died, over eighty years old. He left an unenviable record, as a man of unreliable character, cruel, and unscrupulous. Through his foundation of Panama, however, he laid the basis for the discovery of South America’s west coast and the subsequent conquest of Peru.

Enciso, Suma de Geographia (1519, 1539, 1549); Oviedo, Historia general y natural de Indias (Madrid, 1850); Gomara, Historia general de las Indias (Medina del Campo, 1553); Peter Martyr ab Anglereia, Enchisidion de insulis nuper reportis simulatque incolarum moribus (Basle, 1521); Documentos ineditos de Indias; Herrera, Historia general (Madrid, 2d ed., 1726–9).—Every book on Spanish America contains of course, at least a passing notice of Arias de Avila.—Among later publications see Andagoya, Relacion de los Sucesos de Pedrarias Davila en las Provincias de Tierra Firme; Navarrete, Coleccion de los viajes y descubrimientos (Madrid, 1825), III. The report of Andagoya has been translated into English by Markham and published by the Haklyut Society (London, 1865) under the title Narrative of Proceedings of Pedrarias Davila. A fair appreciation of the character of Arias de Avila is to be found in the first volume of Prescott, History of the Conquest of Peru.

AD. F. BANDELIER

Benedictus Arias Montanus

Orientalist, exegete, and editor of the “Antwerp Polyglot,” born at Frejenal de la Sierra in Estremadura, Spain, 1527; died at Seville, 1598. Passing through the schools of Seville, he studied theology and the Oriental languages at Alcala, later gaining proficiency in the various European languages by means of extended travel. He became a clerical member of the Military Order of St. James, and accompanied the Bishop of Segovia to the Council of Trent (1562) where he won great distinction. On his return he retired to a hermitage at Aracena whence he was summoned by Philip II (1568) to supervise a new polyglot edition of the Bible, with the collaboration of many learned men. The work was issued from the Plantin press (1572, 8 volumes) under the title “Biblia sacra hebraice chaldaice, graece et latine, Philippi II regis catholici pietate et studio ad sacrosanctae Ecclesiae usum,” several volumes being devoted to a scholarly apparatus biblicus. Arias was responsible for a large part of the actual matter, besides the general superintendence, and in obedience to the command of the king took the work to Rome for the approbation of Gregory XIII. Leon de Castro professor of Oriental languages at Salamanca, to whose translation of the Vulgate Arias had opposed the original Hebrew text, denounced Arias to the Roman, and later to the Spanish Inquisition for having altered the Biblical text, making too liberal use of the rabbinical writings, in disregard of the decree of the Council of Trent concerning the authenticity of the Vulgate, and confirming the Jews in their beliefs by his Chaldaic paraphrases. After several journeys to Rome Arias was freed of the charges (1580) and returned to his hermitage, refusing the episcopal honours offered him by the King. He accepted, however, the post of a royal chaplain, but was only induced to leave his retirement for the purpose of a superintending the Escorial library and of teaching Oriental languages. He led the life of an ascerlc, dividing his time between prayer and study. In addition to the works written in connection with polyglot, the most celebrated of which is “Antiquitatum judaicarum libri IX” (Leyden, 1593), Arias left many commentaries on various books of the Bible; also: “Humanae salutis monumenta” (Antwerp, 1571); a Latin translation of the “Itinerary” of Benjamin of Tudela, and other works on widely varying subjects. He was also celebrated as a poet, his verses being chiefly of a religious nature.

F.M. RUDGE

Ariassus

A titular see of Pamphylia in Asia Minor, whose episcopal list (381–458) is given in Gams (p. 450).

Lequien, Oriens Christ. (1740), I, 162; Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 211.

Aribo

Archbishop of Mainz; date of birth unknown; d. 6 April, 1032; son of Arbo, Count Palatine in Laubenthal, and Adela, and one of the most important churchmen of his time. Choosing an ecclesiastical career, he became successively deacon in the church of Salzburg, and chaplain to his kinsman, the Emperor, Henry II, who appointed him to the Archbishopric of Mainz. His consecration took place 1 October, 1021, with great pomp. The following year he revived the famous Gandersheim controversy which concerned the rival claims of the bishops of Hildesheim and the archbishops of Mainz to jurisdiction over the convent of Gandersheim, situated on the boundary between the two dioceses, but from time immemorial subject to Hildesheim. Having advanced his claims without success in the synods of Frankfurt (1027) and Poehlde (1029), Aribo finally renounced them in Merseburg (1030), admitting his error, and promising future silence. Aribo figured prominently in the politics of the time. On the death of Henry II, which brought the male line of the Saxon emperors to an end, the spiritual and temporal princes of the empire assembled to elect a new sovereign, and it was Aribo’s candidate who was chosen, under the title of Conrad II, and was anointed by him in Mainz. The powerful discourse preached on this occasion shows the deep spirituality of Aribo’s nature. Under Conrad he filled the office of chancellor for Germany and Italy. There are records of two journeys to Rome, the first to the Lateran Council (1027) and the second just before his death. He finished the convent of Goess in Styria begun by his father and devoted earnest efforts to the rebuilding and decoration of the cathedral which had been destroyed by fire in 1009. It was Aribo who obtained for the archbishops of Mainz the right of coinage. His internal administration of the diocese was most energetic and capable. His zeal for the reform of ecclesiastical discipline is evidenced by the Council of Seligenstadt which he convened in the first year of his episcopate (August, 1022). Later he practically reorganized the archdiocese. His interest in education prompted him to summon Ekkehard IV of St. Gall to take charge of the schools of Mainz. His own intellectual powers were of no mean order as is manifested by his taste for poetry and his own treatise on “The Fifteen Gradual Psalms,” whence he is termed in his epitaph suavis psalmigraphus. Aribo’s contemporaries unite in praise of his character—his disinterestedness and capability. Despite the brusqueness of his nature and the severity of his discipline, he enjoyed the confidence and respect of his suffragans. His moral character has been proved unimpeachable.

WILL in Kirchenlex., s.v.; HAUCK, Kg. Deutschl., III, 531; MUELLER, Erzbischof Aribo von Mainz (Goettingen, 1880).

F.M. RUDGE

Arindela

A titular see of Palestine, whose episcopal list (431–536) is given in Gams (page 454).

Ludovico Ariosto

Called “The Italian Homer.” He was the son of Nicolo Ariosto, Governor of Reggio, and Daria Malaguzzi, born at Reggio in Emilia, 8 September, 1474; died at Ferrara, 6 June, 1533. Ludovico was the eldest of ten children, and on the death of his father, in 1500, became head of the family. When nine years of age he composed and acted in the fable “Tisbe.” He gave five years to the study of law, and when twenty years old devoted himself to Greek and Latin authors. From 1503, or thereabouts, he was attached to the court of Cardinal Ippolito d’Este, but in 1518 he fell into disfavour with his patron. The Cardinal’s brother, Duke Alfonso, then employed Ariosto in various diplomatic missions, in which he conducted himself with tact and skill. From 1522 to 1525 he governed the district of Garfagnana and freed it from the robber-bands which had infested it. In 1530, perhaps, he married a Florentine widow, Alessandra Benucci. Ariosto wrote sonnetti and canzoni in the style of Petrarch, and five comedies of which the earliest,” La Cassaria,” was represented for the first time in 1509, and the latest, “La Scolastica” was completed by his brother Gabriel on the death of the poet. Of more importance are his seven Satires in terza rima, and extending from 1517 to 1531, giving much information on his own life and laying bare the vices of the time. The principal foundation of Ariosto’s glory is the “Orlando Furioso.” Begun about 1505, it was published in Ferrara, 21 April 1516. Ariosto continued to correct it and in 1532 published the second, enlarged and definitive, edition. The poem was dedicated to Cardinal Ippolito. At first reading it appears to a disconnected patchwork of fragmentary adventures following upon each other in bewildering variety; but on close analysis it becomes apparent that episodes are spun around three principal incidents: Paris besieged by the Moors, the rage of Orlando, and as the central subject, the love and marriage of Ruggiero and Bradamante, by which the origin of the house of Este is accounted for. The subject of the poem is expressed in the opening lines:

Le donne, i cavalier, l’arme, gli amori,

Le cortesie, l’audaci imprese io canto.

It is the glorification of chivalry in all its elements, and continues and completes the “Orlando In namorato” of Boiardo, which had appeared in 1495, but, though the “Innamorato” is its foundation it far surpasses its forerunner in perfection of style and form, variety of incident, the gay and brilliant mingling of the romantic and medieval with the classical, the artistic interweaving of the two great cycles of Charlemagne and Arthur. It has been called “most beautiful, and varied, and wonderful poem of romances that the literature of the world can boast of.” (G. Picciola).

JOSEPH DUNN

Aristeas

A name given in Josephus (Ant. XII, ii passim) to the author of a letter ascribing the Greek translation of the Old Testament to six interpreters sent into Egypt from Jerusalem at the request of the librarian of Alexandria. (See SEPTUAGINT VERSION.)

Aristides

A Christian apologist living at Athens in the second century. According to Eusebius, the Emperor Hadrian, during his stay in Greece (123–127), caused himself to be initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries. A persecution of the local Christians followed, due probably, to an outburst of pagan zeal, aroused by the Emperor’s act. Two apologies for Christianity were composed on the occasion, that of Quadratus and that of Aristides which the author presented to Hadrian, at Athens, in 126 (Eus., H.E., IV, iii, 3, and Chron. II, 166). St. Jerome, in his work De vir. ill., xx, calls him philosophus eloquentissimus, and, in his letter to Magnus (no. LXX), says of the “Apologeticum” that it was contextum philosophorum sententiis, and was later imitated by St. Justin Martyr. He says, further (De vir ill., loc. cit.), that the “Apology” was extant in his time, and highly thought of. Eusebius (loc. cit.), in the fourth century, states that it had a wide circulation among Christians. It is referred to, in the ninth century, by Ado, Archbishop of Vienne, and Usuard, monk of St. Germain. It was then lost sight of for a thousand years, until in 1878, the Mechitarite monks of San Lazzaro, at Venice, published a Latin translation of an Armenian fragment of the “Apology” and an Armenian homily, under the title: “S. Aristidis philosophi Atheniensis sermones duo.” In 1889, Professor J. R. Harris of Cambridge discovered a Syriac version of the whole “Apology” in the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, and translated it into English (Texts and Studies, Cambridge, 1891, I, i). Professor J. A. Robinson found that the “Apology” is contained in the “Life of Barlaam and Josaphat,” ascribed to St. John Damascene. Attempts have also been made to restore the actual words of Aristides.

As to the date and occasion of the “Apology” there are opinion of opinion. While some critics hold, with Eusebius, that it was presented to Hadrian, others maintain that it was written during the reign of Antoninus Pius (138–161). The aim of the “Apology” is to show that Christians only have the true conception of God. Having affirmed that God is “the selfsame being who first established and now controls the universe,” Aristides points out the errors of the Chaldeans, Greeks, Egyptians, and Jews concerning the Deity, gives a brief summary of Christian belief, and emphasizes the righteousness of Christian life in contrast with the corrupt practices of paganism. The tone throughout is elevated and calm, and the reasonableness of Christianity is shown rather by an appeal to facts than by subtle argumentation. It is interesting to note that during the Middle Ages the “Life of Barlaam and Josaphat” had been translated into some twenty languages, English included, so that what was in reality the story of Buddha became the vehicle of Christian truth in many nations.

EDWARD A. PACE

Aristotle

The greatest of heathen Philosophers, born at Stagira, a Grecian colony in the Thracian peninsula Chalcidice, 384 B.C.; died at Chalcis, in Euboea, 322 B.C.

His father, Nicomachus, was court physician to King Amyntas of Macedonia. This position, we have reason to believe, was held under various predecessors of Amyntas by Aristotle’s ancestors, so that the profession of medicine was in a sense hereditary in the family. Whatever early training Aristotle received was probably influenced by this circumstance; when, therefore at the age of eighteen he went to Athens his mind was already determined in the direction which it afterwards took, the investigation of natural phenomena.

From his eighteenth to his thirty-seventh year he remained at Athens as pupil of Plato and was, we are told, distinguished among those who gathered for instruction in the Grove of Academus, adjoining Plato’s house. The relations between the renowned teacher and his illustrious pupil have formed the subject of various legends, many of which represent Aristotle in an unfavourable light. No doubt there were divergencies of opinion between the master, who took his stand on sublime, idealistic principles, and the scholar, who, even at that time, showed a preference for the investigation of the facts and laws of the physical world. It is probable that Plato did, indeed, declare that Aristotle needed the curb rather than the spur; but we have no reason to believe that there was an open breach of friendship. In fact, Aristotle’s conduct after the death of Plato, his continued association with Xenocrates and other Platonists, and his allusions in his writings to Plato’s doctrines, prove that while there were differences of opinion between teacher and pupil, there was no lack of cordial appreciation, or of that mutual forbearance which one would expect from men of lofty character. Besides this, the legends, so far as they reflect unfavourably on Aristotle, are traceable to the Epicureans who were known to antiquity as calumnators by profession; and if such legends were given wide circulation by patristic writers, such as Justin Martyr and Gregory Nazianzen, the reason is to be sought not in any well-grounded historical tradition, but in the exaggerated esteem in which Aristotle was held by the heretics of the early Christian period.

After the death of Plato (347 B.C.), Aristotle went, in company with Xenocrates, to the court of Hermias ruler of Atarneus in Asia Minor, whose niece and adopted daughter, Pythias, he married. In 344 Hermias having been murdered in a rebellion of his subjects, Aristotle went with his family to Mytilene and thence, one or two years later, he was summoned to his native Stagira by King Philip of Macedon, to become the tutor of Alexander, who was then in his thirteenth year. Whether or not we believe Plutarch when he tells us that Aristotle not only imparted to the future world-conqueror a knowledge of ethics and politics, but also initiated him into the most profound secrets of philosophy, we have positive proof, on the one hand, that the royal pupil profited by contact with the philosopher, and, on the other hand, that the teacher made prudent and beneficial use of his influence over the mind of the young prince. It was due to this influence that Alexander placed at the disposal of his teacher ample means for the acquisition of books and the pursuit of his scientific investigation, and history is not wrong in tracing to the intercourse with Aristotle those singular gifts of mind and heart which almost up to the very last distinguished Alexander among the few who have known how to make moderate and intelligent use of victory. About the year 335 Alexander departed for his Asiatic campaign; thereupon Aristotle, who, since his pupil’s accession to the throne of Macedonia had occupied the position of a more or less informal adviser, returned to Athens and there opened a school of philosophy. He may, as Gellius says, have conducted a school of rhetoric during his former residence in the city; but now, following the example of Plato, he gave regular instruction in philosophy choosing for that purpose a gymnasium dedicated to Apollo Lyceios, from which his school has come to be known as the Lyceum. It was also called the Peripatetic School because it was the master’s custom to discuss problems of philosophy with his pupils while walking up and down (peripateo) the shaded walks (peripatoi) around the gymnasium.

During the thirteen years (335–322) which he spent as teacher at the Lyceum, Aristotle composed the greater number of his writings. Imitating the example of his master, he placed in the hands of his pupils “Dialogues” in which his doctrines were expounded in somewhat popular language. Besides he composed the several treatises (of which mention will be made below) on physics, metaphysics, and so forth, in which the exposition is more didactic and the language more technical than in the “Dialogues.” These writings show to what good use he put the means placed at his disposal by Alexander. They show in particular how he succeeded in bringing together the works of his predecessors in Greek philosophy, and how he spared neither pains nor expense in pursuing, either personally or through others, his investigations in the realm of natural Phenomena. When we read the works treating of zoology we are quite prepared to believe Pliny’s statement that Alexander placed under Aristotle’s orders all the hunters, fishermen, and fowlers of the royal kingdom and all the overseers of the royal forests, lakes, ponds and cattle-ranges, and when we observe how fully Aristotle is informed concerning the doctrines of those who preceded him, we are prepared to accept Strabo’s assertion that he was the first who accumulated a great library. During the last years of Aristotle’s life the relations between him and his former royal pupil became very much strained, owing to the disgrace and punishment of Callisthenes whom he had recommended to the King. Nevertheless, he continued to be regarded at Athens as a friend of Alexander and a representative of the Macedonian dominion. Consequently, when Alexander’s death became known at Athens, and the outbreak occurred which led to the Lamian war, Aristotle was obliged to share in the general unpopularity of the Macedonians. The charge of impiety, which had been brought against Anaxagoras and Socrates, was now, with even less reason, brought against him. He left the city, saying (according to many ancient authorities) that he would not give the Athenians a chance to sin a third time against Philosophy. He took up his residence at his country house, at Chalcis, in Euboea, and there he died the following year, 322 B.C. His death was due to a disease from which he had long suffered. The story that his death was due to hemlock poisoning, as well as the legend, according to which he threw himself into the sea “because he could not explain the tides” are absolutely without historical foundation.

Very little is known about Aristotle’s personal appearance except from sources manifestly hostile. There is no reason, however, to doubt the faithfulness of the statues and busts coming down to us, possibly from the first years of the Peripatetic School, which represent him as sharp and keen of countenance, and somewhat below the average height. His character, as revealed by his writings, his will (which is undoubtedly genuine), fragments of his letters and the allusions of his unprejudiced contemporaries, was that of a high-minded, kind-hearted man, devoted to his family and his friends, kind to his slaves, fair to his enemies and rivals, grateful towards his benefactors—in a word, an embodiment of those moral ideals which he outlined in his ethical treatises, and which we recognize to be far above the concept of moral excellence current in his day and among his people. When Platonism ceased to dominate the world of Christian speculation, and the works of the Stagirite began to be studied without fear and prejudice, the personality of Aristotle appeared to the Christian writers of the thirteenth century, as it had to the unprejudiced pagan writers of his own day, calm, majestic, untroubled by passion, and undimmed by any great moral defects, “the master of those who know.”

PHILOSOPHY

Aristotle defines philosophy in terms of essence, saying that philosophy is “the science of the universal essence of that which is actual.” Plato had defined it as the “science of the idea,” meaning by idea what we should call the unconditional basis of phenomena. Both pupil and master regard philosophy as concerned with the universal; the former however, finds the universal in particular things, and calls it the essence of things, while the latter finds that the universal exists apart from particular things, and is related to them as their prototype or exemplar. For Aristotle, therefore, philosophic method implies the ascent from the study of particular phenomena to the knowledge of essences, while for Plato philosophic method means the descent from a knowledge of universal ideas to a contemplation of particular imitations of those ideas. In a certain sense, Aristotle’s method is both inductive and deductive, while Plato’s is essentially deductive. In other words, for Plato’s tendency to idealize the world of reality in the light of intuition of a higher world, Aristotle substituted the scientific tendency to examine first the phenomena of the real world around us and thence to reason to a knowledge of the essences and laws which no intuition can reveal, but which science can prove to exist. In fact, Aristotle’s notion of philosophy corresponds, generally speaking, to what was later understood to be science, as distinct from philosophy. In the larger sense of the word, he makes philosophy coextensive with science, or reasoning: “All science (dianoia) is either practical, poetical or theoretical.” By practical science he understands ethics and politics; by poetical, he means the study of poetry and the other fine arts; while by theoretical philosophy he means physics, mathematics, and metaphysics. The last, philosophy in the stricter sense, he defines as “the knowledge of immaterial being,” and calls it “first philosophy,” “the theologic science” or of “being in the highest degree of abstraction.” If logic, or, as Aristotle calls it, Analytic, be regarded as a study preliminary to philosophy, we have as divisions of Aristotelean phllosophy (1) Logic; (2) Theoretical Philosophy, including Metaphysics, Physics, Mathematics, (3) Practical Philosophy; and (4) Poetical Philosophy.

1. Logic

Aristotle’s logical treatises, constituting what was later called the “Organon,” contain the first systematic treatment of the laws of thought in relation to the acquisition of knowledge. They form, in fact, the first attempt to reduce logic to a science, and consequently entitle their writer to be considered the founder of logic. They are six in number and deal respectively with:

Classification of Notions,

Judgments and Propositions,

the Syllogism,

Demonstration,

the Problematic Syllogism, and

Fallacies.

They thus cover practically the entire field of logical doctrine. In the first treatise, the “Categories,” Aristotle gives a classification of all concepts, or notions, according to the classes into which the things represented by the concepts or notions, naturally fall. These classes are substance, quantity, relation, action, passion (not to be understood as meaning merely a mental or psychic condition), place, time, situation, and habit (in the sense of dress). They are carefully to be distinguished from the Predicables, namely, genus, species (definition), difference, property, and accident. The latter are, indeed, classes into which ideas fall, but only in so far as one idea is predicated of another. That is to say, while the Categories are primarily a classification of modes of being, and secondarily of notions which express modes of being, the Predicables are primarily a classification of modes of predication, and secondarily of notions or ideas, according to the different relation in which one idea, as predicate stands to another as subject. In the treatise styled “Analytica Priora,” Aristotle treats the rules of syllogistic reasoning, and lays down the principle of induction. In the “Analytica Posteriora” he takes up the study of demonstration and of indemonstrable first principles. Besides, he treats of knowledge in general, its origin, process, and development up to the stage of scientific knowledge. From certain well-known passages in this treatise, and from his other writings, we are enabled to sketch his theory of knowledge. As was remarked above, Aristotle approaches the problems of philosophy in a scientific frame of mind. He makes experience to be the true source of all our knowledge, intellectual, as well as sensible. “There is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses” is a fundamental principle with him, as it was later on with the Schoolmen. All knowledge begins with sense-experience, which of course has for its object the concrete, particular, changeable phenomenon. But though intellectual knowledge begins with sense-experience, it does not end there, for it has for its object the abstract, universal, immutable essence. This theory of cognition is, so far, summed up in the principles: Intellectual knowledge is essentially dependent on sense-knowledge, and intellectual knowledge is, nevertheless, superior to sense-knowledge. How, then, does the mind pass from the lower knowledge to the higher? How can the knowledge of the sense-perceived (aistheton) lead to a knowledge of the intelligible (noeton)? Aristotle’s answer is, that the mind discovers the intelligible in the sense-perceived. The mind does not, as Plato imagined, bring out of a previous existence the recollection of certain ideas, of which it is reminded at sight of the phenomenon. It brings to bear on the phenomenon a power peculiar to the mind, by virtue of which it renders intelligible essences which are imperceptible to the senses, because hidden under the non-essential qualities. The fact is, the individual substance (first substance) of our sense experience—this book, this table, this house—has certain individuating qualities (its particular size, shape, colour, etc.) which distinguish it from others of its species and which alone are perceived by the senses. But in the same substance, there is underlying the individuating qualities, its general nature (whereby it is a book, a table, a house); this is the second substance, the Essence, the Universal, the Intelligible. Now, the mind is endowed with the power of abstraction, generalization, or induction (Aristotle is not very clear as to the precise nature of this power) by which it removes, so to speak, the veil of particularizing qualities and thus brings out, or leaves revealed, the actually intelligible, or universal, element in things, which is the object of intellectual knowledge. In this theory intellectual knowledge is developed from sense-knowledge in so far as that Process may be called a development in which what was only Potentially intelligible is rendered actually intelligible by the operation of the active intellect. The Universal was in re before the human mind began to work, but it was there in a manner only potentially because, by reason of the individuating qualities which enveloped it, it was only potentially intelligible. Aristotle’s theory of universals, therefore, is that

The Universal does not exist apart from the particular, as Plato taught, but in particular things;

The Universal as such, in its full-blown intelligibility, is the work of the mind, and exists in the mind alone though it has a foundation in the potentially universal essence which exists independently of the mind and outside the mind.

2. Theoretical Philosophy A. Metaphysics

Metaphysics, or, more properly, First Philosophy, is the Science of Being as Being. That is to say, although all sciences are concerned with being, the other sciences are concerned only with part of reality, while this science contemplates all reality; the other sciences seek proximate and particular causes while this science seeks the ultimate and universal causes; the other sciences study being in its lower determinations (quantity, motion, etc.), while this science studies Being as such, that is, in its highest determinations (substance, cause, goodness, etc.). The mathematician claims that a certain object comes within the scope of his science if it is circular or square, or in any other way endowed with quantity. Similarly, the physicist claims for his science whatever is endowed with motion. For the metaphysician it is sufficient that the object in question is a being. Like the human soul or God, the object may be devoid of quantity, and of all physical motion; yet so long as it is a being, it comes within the scope of metaphysics. The principal question, then, in First Philosophy is: What are the ultimate principles of Being, or of reality as Being? Here Aristotle passes in review the opinions of all his predecessors in Greek Philosophy from Thales to Plato, showing that each successive answer to the question just quoted was somehow defective. He devotes special attention to the Platonic theory, according to which ideas are the ultimate principles of Being. That theory, he contends was introduced to explain how things are, and how things are known; in both respects, it is inadequate. To postulate the existence of ideas apart from things is merely to complicate the problem; for, unless the ideas have some definite contact with things, they cannot explain how things came to be, or how they came to be known by us. Plato does not maintain in a definite, scientific way a contact between ideas and phenomena—he merely takes refuge in expressions, such as participation, imitation, which, if they are anything more than empty metaphors, imply a contradiction. In a word, Aristotle believes that Plato, by constituting ideas in a world separate from the world of phenomena, precluded the possibility of solving by means of ideas the problem of the ultimate nature of reality. What, then, are, according to Aristotle, the principles of Being? In the metaphysical order, the highest determinations of Being are Actuality (entelecheia) and Potentiality (dynamis). The former is perfection, realization, fullness of Being; the latter imperfection, incompleteness, perfectibility. The former is the determining, the latter the determinable principle. Actuality and potentiality are above all the Categories; they are found in all beings, with the exception of the Supreme Cause, in Whom there is no imperfection, and, therefore, no potentiality. He is all actuality, Actus Purus. All other beings are composed of actuality and potentiality, a dualism which is a general metaphysical formula for the dualism of matter and form, body and soul, substance and accident, the soul and its faculties, passive and active intellect. In the physical order, potentiality and actuality become Matter and Form. To these are to be added the Agent (Efficient Cause) and the End (Final Cause); but as the efficiency and finality are to be reduced, in ultimate analysis, to Form, we have in the physical order two ultimate principles of Being, namely, Matter and Form. The four generic causes—Material, Formal, Efficient, and Final—are seen in the case, for instance, of a statue:

The Material Cause, that out of which the statue is made, is the marble or bronze.

The Formal Cause, that according to which the statue is made, is the idea existing in the first place as exemplar in the mind of the sculptor, and in the second place as intrinsic, determining cause, embodied in the matter.

The Efficient Cause, or Agent, is the sculptor.

The Final Cause is that for the sake of which (as, for instance, the price paid the sculptor, the desire to please a patron, etc.) the statue is made.

All these are true causes in so far as the effect depends on them either for its existence or for the mode of its existence. Pre-Aristotelean philosophy either failed to discriminate between the different kinds of causes, confounding the material with the efficient principle, or insisted on formal causes alone as the true principles of Being, or, recognizing that there is a principle of finality, hesitated to apply that principle to the details of the cosmic Process. Aristotelean philosophy, by discriminating between the different generic causes and retaining at the same time, all the different kinds of causes which played a part in previous systems, marks a true development in metaphysical speculation, and shows itself a true synthesis of Ionian, Eleatic, Socratic, Pythagorean, and Platonic philosophy. A point which should be emphasized in the exposition of this portion of Aristotle’s philosophy is the doctrine that all action consists in bringing into actuality what was somehow potentially contained in the material on which the agent works. This is true not only in the world of living things, in which, for example, the oak is potentially contained in the acorn, but also in the inanimate world in which heat, for instance, is potentially contained in water, and needs but the agency of fire to be brought out into actuality. Ex nihilo nihil fit. This is the principle of development in Aristotle’s philosophy which is so much commented on in relation to the modern notion of evolution. Mere potentiality without any actuality or realization—what is called materia prima—nowhere exists by itself, though it enters into the composition of all things except the Supreme Cause. It is at one pole of reality, He is at the other. Both are real. Materia prima possesses what may be called the most attenuated reality, since it is pure indeterminateness, God possesses the highest and most complete reality, since He is in the highest grade of determinateness. To prove that there is a Supreme Cause is one of the tasks of metaphysics the Theologic Science. And this Aristotle undertakes to do in several portions of his work on First Philosophy. In the “Physics” he adopts and improves on Socrates’s teleological argument, the major premise of which is, “Whatever exists for a useful purpose must be the work of an intelligence.” In the same treatise, he argues that, although motion is eternal, there cannot be an infinite series of movers and of things moved, that, therefore, there must be one, the first in the series, which is unmoved, to proton kinoun akineton—primum movens immobile. In the “Metaphysics” he takes the stand that the actual is of its nature antecedent to the potential, that consequently, before all matter, and all composition of matter and form, of potentiality and actuality, there must have existed a Being Who is pure actuality, and Whose life is self-contemplative thought (noesis noeseos). The Supreme Being imparted movement to the universe by moving the First Heaven, the movement, however, emanated from the First Cause as desirable; in other words, the First Heaven, attracted by the desirability of the Supreme Being “as the soul is attracted by beauty,” was set in motion, and imparted its motion to the lower spheres and thus, ultimately, to our terrestrial world. According to this theory God never leaves the eternal repose in which His blessedness consists. Will and intellect are incompatible with the eternal unchangeableness of His being. Since matter, motion, and time are eternal, the world is eternal. Yet, it is caused. The manner in which the world originated is not defined in Aristotle’s philosophy. It seems hazardous to say that he taught the doctrine of Creation. This much, however, may safely be said: He lays down principles which, if carried to their logical conclusion, would lead to the doctrine that the world was made out of nothing. B. Physics

Physics has for its object the study of “being intrinsically endowed with motion,” in other words, the study of nature. For nature differs from art in this: that nature is essentially self-determinant from within, while art remains exterior to the products of art. In its self-determination, that is to say in its processes, nature follows an intelligent and intelligible form. “Nature is always striving for the best.” Movement is a mode of being, namely, the condition of a potential being actualizing itself. There are three kinds of movement: quantitative (increase and decrease), qualitative (alteration) and spatial (locomotion). Space is neither matter nor form, but the “first and unmoved limit of the containing, as against the contained.” Time is the measure of the succession of motion. In his treatment of the notions of motion, space, and time, Aristotle refutes the Eleatic doctrine that real motion, real space, and real succession imply contradictions. Following Empedocles Aristotle, also, teaches that all terrestrial bodies are composed of four elements or radical principles, namely: fire, air, earth, and water. These elements determine not only the natural warmth or moisture of bodies, but also their natural motion, upward or downward, according to the preponderance of air or earth. Celestial bodies are not constituted by the four elements but by ether, the natural motion of which is circular. The Earth is the centre of the cosmic system; it is a spherical, stationary body, and around it revolve the spheres in which are fixed the planets. The First Heaven, which plays so important a part in Aristotle’s general cosmogonic system, is the heaven of the fixed stars. It surrounds all the other spheres and, being endowed with intelligence, it turned toward the Deity, drawn, as it were, by His Desirability, and it thus imparted to all the other heavenly bodies the circular motion which is natural to them. These doctrines, as well as the general concept of nature as dominated by design or purpose, came to be taken for granted in every philosophy of nature down to the time of Newton and Galileo, and the birth of modern physical science.

Psychology in Aristotle’s philosophy is treated as a branch of physical science. It has for its object the study of the soul, that is to say, of the principle of life. Life is the power of self-movement, or of movement from within. Plants and animals, since they are endowed with the power of adaptation, have souls, and the human soul is peculiar only in this, that to the vegetative and sensitive faculties, which characterize plant-life and animal life respectively it adds the rational faculty—the power of acquiring universal and intellectual knowledge. It must therefore be borne in mind that when Aristotle speaks of the soul he does not mean merely the principle of thought; he means the principle of life. The soul he defines as the form, actualization, or realization of the body, “the first entelechy of the organized body possessing the power of life.” It is not a substance distinct from the body, as Plato taught but a co-substantial Principle with the body, both being united to form the composite substance, man. The faculties or powers of the soul are five-fold: nutritive, sensitive, appetitive, locomotive, and rational. Sensation is defined as the faculty “by which we receive the forms of sensible things without the matter, as the wax receives the figure of the seal without the metal of which the seal is composed.” It is “a movement of the soul,” the “form without the matter” being the stimulus which calls forth that movement. The typos, as that form is called, while it is analogous to the “effluxes” about which the Atomists spoke, is not like the efflux, a diminished object, but a mode of motion, mediating between the object and the faculty. Aristotle distinguishes between the five external senses and the internal senses, of which the most important are the Central sense and the Imagination. Intellect (nous) differs from the senses in that it is concerned with the abstract and universal, while they are concerned with the concrete and particular. The natural endowment of intellect is not actual knowledge, but merely the power of acquiring knowledge. The mind “is in the beginning without ideas, it is like a smooth tablet on which nothing is written.” All our knowledge, therefore, is acquired by a process of elaboration or development of sense-knowledge. In this process the intellect exhibits a two-fold phase an active and a passive. Hence it is customary to speak of the Active and Passive Intellect, though it is by no means clear what Aristotle meant by these concepts. The corruption of the text in some of the most critical passages of the work “On the Soul”—the mixture of Stoic pantheism, in the explanation of the earlier commentators, not to speak of the later addition of extraneous elements on the part of the Arabian, Scholastic, and modern transcendentalist expounders of the text—have rendered it impossible to say precisely what meaning to attach to the terms Active and Passive Intellect. It is enough to remark here that:

according to the Scholastics Aristotle understood both Active and Passive Intellect to be parts, or phases, of the individual mind;

according to the Arabians and some earlier commentators, the first of these, perhaps, being Aristocles, he understood the Active Intellect to be a divine something, or at least something transcending the individual mind;

according to some interpreters the Passive Intellect is not properly an intellectual faculty at all, but merely the aggregate of sensations out of which ideas are made, as the statue is made out of the marble.

From the fact that the soul in its intellectual operations attains a knowledge of the abstract and universal, and thus transcends matter and material conditions, Aristotle argues that it is immaterial and immortal. The will, or faculty of choice, is free, as is proved by the recognized voluntariness of virtue, and the existence of reward and punishment. C. Mathematics

Mathematics was recognized by Aristotle as a division of philosophy, co-ordinate with physics and metaphysics, and is defined as the science of immovable being. That is to say, it treats of quantitative being, and does not, like physics, confine its attention to being endowed with motion.

3. Practical Philosophy

This includes ethics and politics. The starting-point of ethical inquiry is the question: In what does happiness consist? Aristotle answers that man’s happiness is determined by the end or purpose of his existence, or in other words, that his happiness consists in the “good proper to his rational nature.” For man’s prerogative is reason. His happiness, therefore, must consist in living conformably to reason, that is, in living a life of virtue. Virtue is the perfection of reason, and is naturally twofold, according as we consider reason in relation to the lower powers (moral virtue) or in relation to itself (intellectual, or theoretical, virtue). Moral virtue is defined “a certain habit of the faculty of choice, consisting in a mean suitable to our nature and fixed by reason, in the manner in which prudent men would fix it.” It is of the nature of moral virtues, therefore, to avoid all excess as well as defect; bashfulness, for example, is as much opposed to the virtue of modesty as shamelessness is. The intellectual virtues (understanding, science, wisdom, art, and practical wisdom) are perfections of reason itself, without relation to the lower faculties. It is a peculiarity of Aristotle’s ethical system that he places the intellectual virtues above the moral, the theoretical above the practical, the contemplative above the active, the dianoetical above the ethical. An important constituent of happiness, according to Aristotle, is friendship, the bond between the individual and the social aggregation, between man and the State. Man is essentially, or by nature, a “social animal,” that is to say, he cannot attain complete happiness except in social and political dependence on his fellow man. This is the starting point of political science. That the State is not absolute, as Plato taught, that there is no ideal State, but that our knowledge of political organization is to be acquired by studying and comparing different constitutions of States, that the best form of government is that which best suits the character of the people—these are some of the most characteristic of Aristotle’s political doctrines.

4. Poetical Philosophy

Under this head came Aristotle’s theory of art and his analysis of the beautiful. When Aristotle defines the purpose of art to be “the imitation of nature” he does not mean that the plastic arts and poetry should merely copy natural productions; his meaning is that as nature embodies the idea so also does art, but in a higher and more perfect form. Hence his famous saying that poetry is “more philosophical and elevated than history.” Hence his equally famous doctrine that the aim of art is the calming, purifying (katharsis) and ennobling of the affections. For this reason, he prefers music to the plastic arts because it possesses a higher ethical value.

Aristotle’s conception of beauty is vague and undefined. At one time he enumerates order, symmetry, and limitation, at another time merely order and grandeur, as constituents of the beautiful. These latter qualities he finds especially in moral beauty. It is impossible here to give an estimate of Aristotle’s philosophy as a whole or to trace its influence on subsequent philosophical systems. Suffice it to say that, taken as a system of knowledge, it is scientific rather than metaphysical; its starting-point is observation rather than intuition; and its aim, to find the ultimate cause of things rather than to determine the value (ethical or aesthetic) of things. Its influence extended, and still extends, beyond the realms of science and philosophy. Our thoughts, even on subjects far removed from science and philosophy, fall naturally into the Categories and formulas of Aristoteleanism, and often find expression in terms which Aristotle invented, so that “the half-understood words of Aristotle have become laws of thought to other ages.”

THE ARISTOTELEAN SCHOOL

The identity of the Aristotelean School was preserved from the time of Aristotle’s death down to the third century of the Christian era by the succession of Scholarchs, or official heads of the school. The first of these—Theophrastus—as well as his immediate successor Strato, devoted special attention to developing Aristotle’s physical doctrines. Under their guidance also, the school interested itself in the history of philosophical and scientific problems. In the first century B.C. Andronicus of Rhodes edited Aristotle’s works, and thereafter the school produced the most famous of its commentators, Aristocles of Messene and Alexander of Aphrodisias (about A.D. 200). In the third century the work of commentating was continued by the Neo-Platonic and Eclectic philosophers, the most famous of whom was Porphyry. In the fifth and sixth centuries the chief commentators were John Philoponus and Simplicius, the latter of whom was teaching at Athens when, in the year 529, the Athenian School was closed by order of the Emperor Justinian. After the close of the Athenian School the exiled philosophers found temporary refuge in Persia. There, as well as in Armenia and Syria, the works of Aristotle were translated and explained. Uranius, David the Armenian, the Christians of the Schools of Nisibis and Edessa, and finally Honain ben Isaac, of the School of Bagdad, were especially active as translators and commentators. It was from the last-named school that, about the middle of the ninth century, the Arabians, who under the reign of the Abassides, experienced a literary revival similar to that of Western Europe under Charlemagne, and obtained their knowledge of Aristotle’s writings. Meantime there had been preserved at Byzantium a more or less intermittent tradition of Aristotelean learning, which, having been represented in successive centuries by Michael Psellus, Photius, Arethas, Nicetas, Johannes Italus, and Anna Comnena, obtained its highest development in the twelfth century, through the influence of Michael Ephesius. In that century the two currents the one coming down through Persia, Syria, Arabia, and Moorish Spain, and the other from Athens through Constantinople, met in the Christian schools of Western Europe, especially in the University of Paris. The Christian writers of the patristic age were, with few exceptions, Platonists, who regarded Aristotle with suspicion, and generally underrated him as a philosopher. The exceptions to be found were John of Damascus, who in his “Source of Science” epitomizes Aristotle’s “Categories” and “Metaphysics,” and Porphyry’s” Introduction”; Nemesius, Bishop of Emesa, who in his “Nature of Man” follows in the footsteps of John of Damascus; and Boethius, who translated several of Aristotle’s logical treatises into Latin. These translations and Porphyry’s “Introduction” were the only Aristotelean works known to the first of the Schoolmen, that is to say, to the Christian philosophers of Western Europe from the ninth to the twelfth century. In the twelfth century the Arabian tradition and the Byzantine tradition met in Paris, the metaphysical, physical, and ethical works of Aristotle were translated partly from the Arabian and partly from the Greek text, and, after a brief period of suspicion and hesitancy on the part of the Church, Aristotle’s philosophy was adopted as the basis of a rational exposition of Christian dogma. The suspicion and hesitation were due to the fact that, in the Arabian text and its commentaries, the teaching of Aristotle had become perverted in the direction of materialism and pantheism. After more than two centuries of almost universally unquestioned triumph, Aristotle once more was made the subject of dispute in the Christian schools of the Renaissance Period, the reason being that the Humanists, like the Arabians, emphasized those elements in Aristotle’s teaching that were irreconcilable with Christian doctrine. With the advent of Descartes, and the shifting of the centre of philosophical inquiry from the external world to the internal, from nature to mind, Aristoteleanism, as an actual system, began to be more and more identified with traditional scholasticism, and was not studied apart from scholasticism except for its historic interest.

WRITINGS

It is customary to distinguish, on the authority of Gellius, two classes of Aristotelean writings: the exoteric, which were intended for the general Public, and the acroatic, which were intended merely for the limited circle of those who were well versed in the phraseology and modes of thought of the School. To the former class belonged the “Dialogues,” of which the best known were the “Eudemus,” three books on “Philosophy,” four books “On Justice,” also the treatises (not in dialogue form) “On the Good,” and “On Ideas,” all of which are unfortunately lost. Under this head mention should be made also of the “Poems,” “ Letters,” “Orations,” “Apology,” etc., which were at one time ascribed to Aristotle, though there can be little doubt of their spuriousness. To the class of acroatic writings belong all the extant works and also the lost treatises, anatomai (containing anatomical charts) peri phytonand the politeiai (a collection of the different political constitutions of the Greek States; a portion, giving the Constitution of Athens was discovered in an Egyptian papyrus and published in 1891). The extant works may be arranged in the following classes, with the Latin titles by which they are generally cited:

Logical Treatises

These were known to the Byzantine writers as the “Organon,” including (1) “Categoriae”; (2) “De Interpretatione”; (3) “Analytica Priora”; (4) “Analytica Posteriora”; (5) “Topica”; (6) “De Sophisticis Elenchis.”

Metaphysical Treatises

The work commonly cited as “Metaphysica” or “Metaphysics” was (or, at least, a portion of it was) entitled by Aristotle “First Philosophy” (prote philosophia). The title meta ta physika was first given it by Andronicus of Rhodes in whose collection, or edition, of Aristotle’s works it was placed after the physical treatises.

Physical Treatises

(1) “Physica,” or “Physica Auscultatio,” commonly called Physics; (2) “De Cœlo”; (3) “Meteorologica.”

Biological and Zoological Treatises

(1) “Historiae Animalium”; (2) “De Generatione et Corruptione”; (3) “De Generatione Animalium”; (4) “De Partibus Animalium.”

Psychological and Anthropological Treatises

(1) “De Anima”; (2) “De Sensu et Sensibili”; (3) “De Memoria et Reminiscentia,” (4) “De Vita et Morte”; (5) “De Longitudine et Brevitate vitae.”

Ethical and Political Treatises

(1) “Ethica Nicomachea”; (2) “Politica.” The “Eudemian Ethics” and the “Magna moralia” are not of directly Aristotelean authorship.

Poetical and Rhetorical Treatises

(1) “De Poeticâ”; (2) “De Rhetoricâ”; both of these are genuine only in parts.

Of the extant works, some were written in their present form and were intended for finished scientific expositions. Others, though written by Aristotle, were intended merely for lecture notes, to be filled out in oral teaching. Others, finally, are nothing but the notes jotted down by his pupils, and were never retouched by the master. This consideration, it is obvious, leads the student of Aristotle to attach very different values to different parts of the text; no one, for example, would think of attaching to a citation from the First Book of the “Metaphysics” the same value as to a quotation from the Second Book. According to a well-known story, first told by Strabo and repeated by Plutarch and Suidas, Aristotle’s library, including the manuscripts of his own works, was willed by him to Theophrastus, his successor as head of the Peripatetic School. By Theophrastus it was bequeathed to his heir, Neleus of Scepsis. After Neleus’s death the manuscripts were hidden in a cellar or pit in order to avoid confiscation at the hands of royal book collectors, and there they remained for almost two centuries, until in Sulla’s time they were discovered and brought to Rome. At Rome they were copied by a grammarian named Tyrannion and edited (about 70 B.C.) by Andronicus of Rhodes. The substance of this story may be regarded as true; the inference, however, that during all that time there was no copy of Aristotle’s writings available, is not warranted by the facts. It is not implied in Strabo’s narrative, nor is it in itself probable. One or two books may have been lost to the School until Andronicus’s edition appeared; but the same cannot be true of the whole Corpus Aristotelicum. Andronicus’s edition remained in use in the Peripatetic School during the first few centuries of our era. For the various translations of the text into Syriac, Arabic, Latin, etc., see preceding.

WILLIAM TURNER

Arius

An heresiarch, born about A.D. 250; died 336. He is said to have been a Libyan by descent. His father’s name is given as Ammonius. In 306, Arius, who had learnt his religious views from Lucian, the presbyter of Antioch, and afterwards the martyr, took sides with Meletius, an Egyptian schismatic, against Peter, Bishop of Alexandria. But a reconciliation followed, and Peter ordained Arius deacon. Further disputes led the Bishop to excommunicate his restless churchman, who, however, gained the friendship of Achillas, Peter’s successor, was made presbyter by him in 313, and had the charge of a well-known district in Alexandria called Baucalis. This entitled Arius to expound the Scriptures officially, and he exercised much influence when, in 318, his quarrel with Bishop Alexander broke out over the fundamental truth of Our Lord’s divine Sonship and substance. (See ARIANISM.) While many Syrian prelates followed the innovator, he was condemned at Alexandria in 321 by his diocesan in a synod of nearly one hundred Egyptian and Libyan bishops. Deprived and excommunicated, the heresiarch fled to Palestine. He addressed a thoroughly unsound statement of principles to Eusebius of Nicomedia, who yet became his lifelong champion and who had won the esteem of Constantine by his worldly accomplishments. In his house the proscribed man, always a ready writer, composed in verse and prose a defence of his position which he termed “Thalia.” A few fragments of it survive. He is also said to have published songs for sailors, millers, and travellers, in which his creed was illustrated. Tall above the common, thin, ascetical, and severe, he has been depicted in lively colours by Epiphanius (Heresies, 69, 3); but his moral character was never impeached except doubtfully of ambition by Theodoret. He must have been of great age when, after fruitless negotiations and a visti to Egypt, he appeared in 325 at Nicæa, where the confession of faith which he presented was torn in pieces. With his writings and followers he underwent the anathemas subscribed by more than 300 bishops. He was banished into Illyricum. Two prelates shared his fate, Tehonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais. His books were burnt. The Arians, joined by their old Meletian friends, created troubles in Alexandria. Eusebius persuaded Constantine to recall the exile by indulgent letters in 328; and the emperor not only permitted his return to Alexandria in 331, but ordered Athanasius to reconcile him with the Church. On the saint’s refusal more disturbance ensued. The packed and partisan Synod of Tyre deposed Athanasius on a series of futile charges in 335. Catholics were now persecuted; Arius had an interview with Constantine and submitted a creed which the emperor judged to be orthodox. By imperial rescript Arius required Alexander of Constantinople to give him Communion; but the stroke of Providence defeated an attempt which Catholics looked upon as sacrilege. The heresiarch died suddenly, and was buried by his own people. He had winning manners, an evasive style, and a disputatious temper. But in the controversy which is called after his name, Arius counted only at the beginning. He did not represent the tradition of Alexandria but the topical subtleties of Antioch. Hence, his disappearance from the scene neither stayed the combatants nor ended the quarrel which he had rashly provoked. A party-theologian, he exhibited no features of genius; and he was the product, not the founder, of a school.

SOZOMEN, H.E., 1, 68, 69; THEODORET, H.E., 1; SOCRATES, H.E., 1; PHILOSTORG., 1; ATHAN., De Synodis; EUSEB., De Vita Constantini; RUFIN., H.E., 1; TRAVASA, Vita di Ario (Venice, 1746); GIBBON, XXI; NEWMAN, Arians, 2, 3; Tracts, Causes of Arianism. See also ARIANISM.

WILLIAM BARRY

Arizona

Said to have been, probably in the original form of the word, Arizonac, and in this form a Pima (Indian) word of which the meaning is unknown. With perhaps less probability there has been assigned to the word a Spanish origin. The motto of Arizona is Ditat Deus. It is one of the continental territories of the United States of America, bounded on the north by the State of Utah, on the south by the Republic of Mexico, on the east by the Territory of New Mexico, and on the west by the States of California and Nevada, between latitude 31° and 37° N, and longitude 109° and 115° W.

HISTORY

The region embraced in the Territory was ceded to the United States by Mexico, a portion in 1848, by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the remainder in 1854, by the Gadsden treaty. Until 1863, this region was part of the Territory of New Mexico, and at the time of its acquisition by the United States, Indians were almost the only inhabitants of this country, reputed to be rich in precious metals. Among those who flocked to the new domain were fugitives from justice, persons expelled by the Vigilance Committee of San Francisco, and Mexicans of a degraded class. The history of the early years following the cession is a sad record of violence and general lawlessness among the white inhabitants, and of deplorable Indian troubles. “Murder and other crimes are committed with impunity,” is the statement of President Buchanan to Congress in 1858, when repeating his recommendation of 1857 that a territorial government be established, a statement and recommendation which he reiterated in 1859. Examining the causes of the Indian troubles, the traveller, Raphael Pumpelly, contrasts the selfish aims of the frontiersmen with the missionary zeal of the Jesuits who had formerly laboured in Spanish America, and their success in elevating the condition of the Indians, a success whose limit “was always determined by the cupidity of the home government, and of the mining population.” Quite contrary to the fact, a report prevailed about the time of the cession, that the Jesuits themselves had worked mines in the region during the former years. Although evil conditions continued, the Territory of Arizona was not established by law until 1863. In 1864 the new Territory was invaded by the forces of the Southern Confederacy which v. ere defeated by volunteer troops of California. Internal disorders did not cease on the organization of a territorial government. In 1870 the Territory was much harried by Indians, and in 1871 its Governor declared that “all the Arizonians felt discouraged.” Even in 1882, President Arthur conveyed to Congress the report of the Governor of Arizona that violence and anarchy prevailed. This condition was at that time largely attributed to “Cow-boys,” and Indian disturbances were prevalent for some years thereafter.

POPULATION, CLIMATE, RESOURCES, ETC.

The Territory’s seat of government, temporarily established in 1864 at Prescott, was, in 1867, fixed at Tucson, and, in 1877, transferred to Prescott again. Phoenix is the present capital. The twelfth United States census, besides 24,644 Indians, reports a population, in 1900, of 122,931. By the census of 1860 the population of Arizona, then a county of New Mexico, appears to have been only 6,482. Of the population In 1900, there were 98,698 natives and 24,233 foreigners. Of negro descent there were 1,848. Including in the list those who could only read, with those who could neither read nor write, 25.4 per cent of the males of voting age were illiterate. Of males 15 years of age and over, 49.5 per cent were single, 43.6 per cent married, and 0.7 per cent divorced. Of females 15 years of age and over, 21 per cent were single, 64.8 per cent married and 1 per cent divorced.

According to the report of the chief of the Weather Bureau, the highest temperature observed at any weather station in Arizona during the year 1903 was 120°, the lowest 18° Two stations report each of these extremes. The smallest rain-fall reported for the same year from any station is 0.80 of an inch, the greatest 25.05 inches. In October, 1903, a trace of snow is reported at one station; there is no report of snow in November at any station, and for the following six months, to May, 1904, inclusive, the greatest fall reported is 41.4 inches, two stations reporting only a alight fall of snow. Agriculture is greatly dependent upon irrigation. Limited by supply of water for irrigation, the area of farming land is probably 2,000,000 acres out of 72,000,000. About 40,000,000 acres, or more than one-half the area of the Territory, are available for grazing lands of superior quality. Mines of gold, of silver, of copper, and of coal are to be found in the Territory. Of manufacturing establishments there were 169 in the year 1905, with a capital of $14,395,654. The value of products was $28,083,192. The value of the products of smelting and refining copper comprise 81.1 per cent of the total of all industries, and these, with cars and general shop construction and repairs by steam railroad companies, flour and grist-mill products, lumber and timber products, are the four leading industries. There are 1,509 miles of railroads. (See Council Memorial No. 1, Appendix B, in The Revised Statutes of Arizona Territory, 1901, p. 1511.) The assessed valuation of taxable property for the year 1900 is stated to have been $33,782,465.99.

TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT

In the same manner as for other Territories of the United States, the governor of Arizona is appointed by the President. A legislative assembly elected by counties meets every two years. There is no female suffrage except at elections of school trustees. A Bill of Rights provides that the civil and political rights of no person are to be enlarged or abridged on account of his opinions or belief concerning religious matters. It is also provided by law that no person shall be incompetent to testify as a witness on account of religion opinions or for want of religion belief. An elaborate system of public-school education is established by law. There are a university and two normal schools and more than 15,000 children are educated at the public schools. (See above cited Memorial.) Among the “powers and duties” of boards of trustees of school districts, a statute mentions the excluding “from school and school libraries of all books, publications or papers of a sectarian, partisan or denominational character.” No books, tracts or papers of a sectarian character are to be used in or introduced into any public school, nor “any sectarian doctrine taught therein.” No school funds are to be received by “any school whatever under the control of any religious denomination.” A teacher is subject to revocation of certificate or diploma “who shall use any sectarian or denominational books or teach any sectarian doctrine, or conduct any religious exercises in his school.”

CHURCH IN ARIZONA

In 1850, New Mexico, having been ceded to the United States, was made a vicariate Apostolic and entrusted to the Right Rev. John B. Lamy, formerly a priest of the Diocese of Cincinnati. On his arrival, as he stated to the Propaganda in 1865 when referring to conditions happily passed away, he found in the vast vicariate twenty priests, neglectful and extortionate, churches in ruins, and no schools. In 1853 New Mexico was erected into the Diocese of Santa Fe, and Dr. Lamy became its first bishop. The territory added to the national domain by the Gadsden treaty, in 1854, was placed under his jurisdiction, and he, in 1859, sent Very Rev. J. P. Macheboeuf to Tucson. Until a crude chapel could be erected Mass was said there in a private house. In 1863, two Jesuits undertook the mission, and one of these priests “revived Catholicity,” to quote the words of Dr. John Gilmary Shea, “at the splendid old church of San Xavier del Bac” (the corner-stone of which seems to have been laid in 1783), “long a solitary monument in a wilderness, the neighbouring inhabitants having been driven off by hostile Indians.” During the Civil War ecclesiastical affairs continued peaceful, and in 1865 the bishop reported to the Propaganda an estimated Catholic population of five thousand in Arizona, and a great improvement in ecclesiastical matters. In 1868, Rev. J. B. Salpointe vas appointed Vicar Apostolic of Arizona, and consecrated Bishop of Doryla, 20 June, 1869. The vicariate Apostolic was erected into the Diocese of Tucson in 1897, the Rev. P. Bourgade, afterwards Archbishop of Santa Fe, becoming its first bishop. The diocese comprises the whole Territory, 112,920 square miles, with a portion, amounting to 18,292 square miles, of New Mexico. In the diocese there are 25 secular priests, 11 regular priests, 21 churches with resident priests, 31 missions with churches, and 95 stations, 6 parochial and 4 Indian schools, the total of young people educated in Catholic institutions being 2000. The Catholic population is about 40,000. A law of the Territory, passed in 1903, permits “any person being the archbishop, bishop, president, trustee in trust, president of stake, overseer, presiding elder, rabbi, or clergyman of any church or religious society” to become a corporation sole “with continual perpetual succession.” (For ARIZONA MISSIONS, see NEW MEXICO.)

BANCROFT, History of Arizona and New Mexico (San Francisco, 1889), 492–497, 503–509, 512–516, 520–526, 530–534, 572, 595–597, 601, 603, 605, 606 and c. xxiii; PUMPELLY, Across America and Asia (New York, 1870), III, 29, 30, 34 sqq.; ANDREWS, The United States in Our Own Time (New York, 1903), 2, 171, 172; RICHARDSON, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the President (1898), V, 456, 514, 515, 568; VIII, 101; HOUGH, American Constitutions (Albany 1872), II, 532, 533; The Revised Statutes of Arizona Territory, 1901 (Columbia, Missouri, 1901), Paragraphs 13, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 2130–2271, 2176, 2282, 2538; Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the Twenty-second Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona, 1903, no. 41; Twelfth Census of the United States, Taken in the Year 1900 (Washington, 1901); Bulletin 30, Census of Manufactures, 1905 (Washington, 1908); U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Report of the Chief of the Weather Bureau, 1903- 1904, Parts IV, V (Washington, 1905); SHEA, A History of the Catholic Church from the Fifth Provincial Council of Baltimore, 1843, to the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, 1866 (New York, 1892), 293, 306, 600–666; The Catholic Directory, 1906 (Milwaukee, Wis.).

CHARLES W. SLOANE

Ark

Ark is a generic term which, in the Bible, is applied to two different objects: the one, the refuge in which, according to the Biblical narration, Noe was saved from destruction in the Deluge; the other, a piece of the tabernacle and temple furniture.

NOE’S ARK.

—The Hebrew name to designate Noe’s Ark, the one which occurs again in the history of Moses’ childhood, suggests the idea of a box of large proportions, though the author of Wisdom terms it a vessel (Wisd., xiv, 6). The same conclusion is reached from the dimensions attributed to it by the Bible narrative: three hundred cubits in length, fifty in breadth, and thirty in height. The form, very likely foursquare, was certainly not very convenient for navigation, but, as has been proven by the experiments of Peter Jansen and M. Vogt, it made the Ark a very suitable device for shipping heavy cargoes and floating upon the waves without rolling or pitching. The Ark was constructed of gofer wood, or cypress, smeared without and within with pitch, or bitumen, to render it watertight. The interior contained a certain number of rooms distributed among three stories. The text mentions only one window, and this measuring a cubit in height, but there existed possibly some others to give to the inmates of the Ark air and light. A door had also been set in the side of the Ark; God shut it from the outside when Noe and his family had gone in. Apart from Noe’s family, the Ark was intended to receive and keep animals that were to fill the earth again (Gen., vi, 19, 20; vii, 2, 3) and all the food which was necessary for them. After the Flood, the Ark rested upon the mountains of Armenia (Gen., viii, 4—according to Vulgate and Douay, the mountains of Ararat, according to Authorized Version). Tradition is divided as to the exact place where the Ark rested. Josephus (Ant., I, iii, 6), Berosus (Eus., Praep. Ev., IX, ii, P.G., XXI, 697), Onkelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, St. Ephrem, locate it in Kurdistan. Berosus relates that a part of Xisuthrus’s ship still remained there, and that pilgrims used to scrape off the bitumen from the wreck and make charms of it against witchcraft. Jewish and Armenian tradition admitted Mount Ararat as the resting place of the Ark. In the first century B.C. the Armenians affirmed that remnants of it could yet be seen. The first Christians of Apamea, in Phrygia, erected in this place a convent called the Monastery of the Ark, where a feast was yearly celebrated to commemorate Noe’s coming out of the Ark after the Flood.—Suffice it to remark that the text of Genesis (viii, 4) mentioning Mount Ararat is somewhat lacking in clearness, and that nothing is said in the Scripture concerning what became of the Ark after the Flood. Many difficulties have been raised, especially in our epoch, against the pages of Holy Writ in which the history of the Flood and of the Ark is narrated. This is not the place to dwell upon these difficulties, however considerable some may appear. They all converge towards the question whether these pages should be considered as strictly historical throughout, or only in their outward form. The opinion that these chapters are mere legendary tales, Eastern folklore, is held by some non-Catholic scholars; according to others, with whom several Catholics side, they preserve, under the embroidery of poetical parlance, the memory of a fact handed down by a very old tradition. This view, were it supported by good arguments, could be readily accepted by a Catholic; it has, over the agelong opinion that every detail of the narration should be literally interpreted and trusted in by the historian, the advantage of suppressing as meaningless some difficulties once deemed unanswerable.

ARK OF THE COVENANT.

—The Hebrew word ‘aron, by which the Ark of the Covenant is expressed, does not call to the mind, as that used for Noe’s Ark, a large construction, but rather a chest. This word is generally determined in the sacred text; so we read of the Ark of the Testimony (Ex., xxv, 16, 22; xxvi, 33, etc.), the Ark of the Testament (Ex., xxx, 26), the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (Num., x, 33; Deut., x, 8, etc.), the Ark of the Covenant (Jos., iii, 6, etc.), the Ark of God (I Kings, iii, 3, etc.), the Ark of the Lord (I Kings, iv, 6, etc.). Of these, the expression Ark of the Covenant has become most familiar in English.

(1) Description and use.—The Ark of the Covenant was a kind of chest, measuring two cubits and a half in length, a cubit and a half in breadth, and a cubit and a half in height. Made of setim wood (an incorruptible acacia), it was overlaid within and without with the purest gold, and a golden crown or rim ran around it. At the four corners, very likely towards the upper part, four golden rings had been cast; through them passed two bars of setim wood overlaid with gold, to carry the Ark. These two bars were to remain always in the rings, even when the Ark had been placed in the temple of Solomon. The cover of the Ark, termed the “propitiatory” (the corresponding Hebrew word means both “cover” and “that which makes propitious”), was likewise of the purest gold. Upon it had been placed two cherubim of beaten gold, looking towards each other, and spreading their wings so that both sides of the propitiatory were covered. What exactly these cherubim were, is impossible to determine; however, from the analogy with Egyptian religious art, it may well be supposed that they were images, kneeling or standing, of winged persons. It is worth noticing that this is the only exception to the law forbidding the Israelites to make carved images, an exception so much the more harmless to the faith of the Israelites in a spiritual God because the Ark was regularly to be kept behind the veil of the sanctuary. The form of the Ark of the Covenant was probably inspired by some article of the furniture of the Egyptian temples. But it should not be represented as one of those sacred bari, or barks, in which the gods of Egypt were solemnly carried in procession; it had, very likely, been framed after the pattern of the naos of gold, silver, or precious wood, containing the images of the gods and the sacred emblems. According to some modern historians of Israel, the Ark, in every way analogous to the bari used upon the banks of the Nile, contained the sacred objects worshipped by the Hebrews, perhaps some sacred stone, meteoric or otherwise. Such a statement proceeds from the opinion that the Israelites during their early national life were given not only to idolatry, but to its grossest form, fetishism; that first they adored Yahweh in inanimate things, then they worshipped him in the bull, as in Dan and Bethel, and that only about the seventh century did they rise to the conception of an invisible and spiritual God. But this description of Israel’s religious history does not tally with the most certain conclusions derived from the texts. The idolatry of the Hebrews is not proven any more than their polytheism; hence the Ark, far from being viewed as in the opinion above referred to, should rather be regarded as a token of the choice that Yahweh had made of Israel for his people, and a visible sign of his invisible presence in the midst of his beloved nation. The Ark was first destined to contain the testimony, that is to say the tables of the Law (Ex., xl, 18; Deut., x, 5). Later, Moses was commanded to put into the tabernacle, near the Ark, a golden vessel holding a gomor of manna (Ex., xvi, 34), and the rod of Aaron which had blossomed (Num., xvii, 10). According to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (ix, 4), and the Jewish traditions, they had been put into the Ark itself. Some commentators, with Calmet, hold that the book of the Law written by Moses had likewise been enclosed in the Ark; but the text says only that the book in question was placed “in the side of the Ark” (Deut., xxxi, 26); moreover, what should be understood by this book, whether it was the whole Pentateuch, or Deuteronomy, or part of it, is not clear, though the context seems to favor the latter interpretations. However this may be, we learn from III Kings, viii, 9, that when the Ark was placed in Solomon’s temple, it contained only the tables of the Law. The holiest part of the Ark seems to have been the oracle, that is to say the place whence Yahweh made his prescriptions to Israel. “Thence,” the Lord had said to Moses, “will I give orders, and will speak to thee over the propitiatory, and from the midst of the two cherubims, which shall be upon the Ark of the testimony, all things which I will command the children of Israel by thee” (Ex., xxv, 22). And indeed we read in Num., vii, 89, that when Moses “entered into the tabernacle of the covenant, to consult the oracle, he heard the voice of one speaking to him from the propitiatory, that was over the ark between the two cherubims.” Yahweh used to speak to his servant in a cloud over the oracle (Lev., xvi, 2). This was, very likely, also the way in which he communicated with Josue after the death of the first leader of Israel (cf. Jos., vii, 6–11). The oracle was, so to say, the very heart of the sanctuary, the dwelling-place of God; hence we read in scores of passages of the Old Testament that Yahweh “sitteth on [or rather, by] the cherubim.” In the last years of Israel’s history, the Jewish rabbis, from a motive of reverence to God’s holiness, avoided pronouncing any of the names expressing the Divinity in the Hebrew language, such as El, Elohim, etc., and still less Yahweh, the ineffable name, i.e. a name unutterable to any human tongue; instead of these, they used metaphors or expressions having reference to the Divine attributes. Among the latter, the word shekinah became very popular; it meant the Divine Presence (from shakhan, to dwell), hence the Divine Glory, and had been suggested by the belief in God’s presence in a cloud over the propitiatory. Not only did the Ark signify God’s presence in the midst of his people, but it also betokened the Divine help and assistance, especially during the warlike undertakings of Israel; no greater evil accordingly could befall the nation than the capture of the Ark by the enemies, as, we shall see, happened towards the close of the period of the Judges and perhaps also at the taking of Jerusalem by the Babylonian army, in 587 B.C.

(2) History.—According to the sacred narrative recorded in Exodus, xxv, 10–22, God Himself had given the description of the Ark of the Covenant, as well as that of the tabernacle and all its appurtenances. God’s command was fulfilled to the letter by Beseleel, one of the skillful men appointed “to devise and to work in gold, and silver, and brass, and in engraving stones and in carpenters’ work” (Ex., xxxvii, 1–9). Before the end of the first year after the Exodus, the whole work was completed, so that the first month of the second year, the first day of the month, everything belonging to the Divine service could be set up in order. Moses then “put the testimony in the ark, thrusting bars underneath, and the oracle above”; he “brought the ark into the tabernacle” and “drew the veil before it to fulfill the commandment of the Lord” (Ex., xl, 18, 19). On that day God showed His pleasure by filling the tabernacle of the testimony with His Glory, and covering it with the cloud that henceforward would be to His people a guiding sign in their journeys. All the Levites were not entitled to the guardianship of the sanctuary and of the Ark; but this office was entrusted to the kindred of Caath (Num., iii, 31). Whenever, during the desert life, the camp was to set forward, Aaron and his sons went into the tabernacle of the covenant and the Holy of Holies, took down the veil that hung before the door, wrapped up the Ark of the Testimony in it, covered it—again with dugong skins, then with a violet cloth, and put in the bars (Num., iv, 5, 6). When the people pitched their tents to sojourn for some time in a place, everything was set again in its customary order. During the journeys the Ark went before the people; and when it was lifted up they said: “Arise, O Lord, and let Thy enemies be scattered, and let them that hate Thee flee from before Thy face!” And when it was set down, they said: “Return, O Lord, to the multitude of the host of Israel!” (Num., x, 33–36). Thus did the Ark preside over all the journeys and stations of Israel during all their wandering life in the wilderness.

As has been said above, the sacred chest was the visible sign of God’s presence and protection. This appeared in the most striking manner in different circumstances. When the spies who had been sent to view the Promised Land returned and gave their report, murmurs arose in the camp, which neither threatenings nor even the death of the authors of the sedition could quell. Against the will of God, many of the Israelites went up to the mountain to meet the Amalecites and Chanaanites; “but the ark of the testament of the Lord and Moses departed not from the camp.” And the enemies came down, smote, and slew the presumptuous Hebrews whom God did not help. The next two manifestations of Yahweh’s power through the Ark occurred under Josue’s leadership. When the people were about to cross the Jordan, “the priests that carried the ark of the covenant went on before them; and as soon as they came into the Jordan, and their feet were dipped in part of the water, the waters that came down from above stood in one place, and swelling up like a mountain, were seen afar off . . . but those that were beneath ran down into the sea of the wilderness, until they wholly failed. And the people marched over against Jericho: and the priests that carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, stood girded upon the dry ground, in the midst of the Jordan, and all the people passed over through the channel that was dried up” (Jos., iii, 14–17). A few days later, Israel was besieging Jericho. At God’s command, the Ark was carried in procession around the city for seven days, until the walls crumbled at the sound of the trumpets and the shouts of the people, thus giving the assailing army a free opening into the place (Jos., vi, 6–21). Later again, after. the taking and burning of Hai, we see the Ark occupy a most prominent place in the solemn assize of the nation held between Mount Garizim and Mount Hebal (Jos., viii, 33).

The Israelites having settled in the Promised Land, it became necessary to choose a place where to erect the tabernacle and keep the Ark of the Covenant. Silo, in the territory of Ephraim, about the center of the conquered country, was selected (Jos., xviii, 1). There, indeed, during the obscure period which preceded the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel, do we find the “house of the Lord” (Judges, xviii, 31; xx, 18), with its High-Priest, to whose care the Ark had been entrusted. Did the precious palladium of Israel remain permanently at Silo, or was it carried about, whenever the emergency required, as, for instance, during warlike expeditions?—This point can hardly be ascertained. Be it as it may, the narration which closes the Book of Judges supposes the presence of the Ark at Bethel. True, some commentators, following St. Jerome, translate here the word Bethel as though it were a common noun (house of God); but their opinion seems hardly reconcilable with the other passages where the same name is found, for these passages undoubtedly refer to the city of Bethel. This is no place to discuss at length the diverse explanations brought forward to meet the difficulty; suffice it to say that it does not entitle the reader to conclude, as many have done, that there probably existed several Arks throughout Israel. The remark above made, that the Ark was possibly carried hither and thither according as the circumstances required, is substantiated by what we read in the narration of the events that brought about the death of Hell. The Philistines had waged war against Israel, whose army, at the first encounter, turned their backs to the enemy, were utterly defeated, and suffered very heavy losses. Thereupon the ancients of the people suggested that the Ark of the Covenant be fetched unto them, to save them from the hands of their enemies. So the Ark was brought from Silo, and such acclamations welcomed it into the camp of the Israelites, as to fill with fear the hearts of the Philistines. Trusting that Yahweh’s presence in the midst of their army betokened a certain victory, the Hebrew army engaged the battle afresh, to meet an overthrow still more disastrous than the former; and, what made the catastrophe more complete, the Ark of God fell into the hands of the Philistines (I Kings, iv).

Then, according to the Biblical narrative, began for the sacred chest a series of eventful peregrinations through the cities of southern Palestine, until it was solemnly carried to Jerusalem. And never was it returned to its former place in Silo. In the opinion of the Philistines, the taking of the Ark meant a victory of their gods over the God of Israel. They accordingly brought it to Azotus and set it as a trophy in the temple of Dagon. But the next morning they found Dagon fallen upon his face before the Ark; they raised him up and set him in his place again. The following morning Dagon again was lying on the ground, badly mutilated. At the same time a cruel disease (perhaps the bubonic plague) smote the Azotites, while a terrible invasion of mice afflicted the whole surrounding country. These scourges were soon attributed to the presence of the Ark within the walls of the city, and regarded as a direct judgment from Yahweh. Hence was it decided by the assembly of the rulers of the Philistines that the Ark should be removed from Azotus and brought to some other place. Carried successively to Gath and to Accaron, the Ark brought with it the same scourges which had occasioned its removal from Azotus. Finally, after seven months, on the suggestion of their priests and their diviners, the Philistines resolved to give up their dreadful trophy.

The Biblical narrative acquires here a special interest for us, by the insight we get therefrom into the religious spirit among these ancient peoples. Having made a new cart, they took two kine that had sucking calves, yoked them to the cart, and shut ap their calves at home. And they laid the Ark of od upon the cart, together with a little box containing golden mice and the images of their boils. Then the kine, left to themselves, took their course straight in the direction of the territory of Israel. As soon as the Bethsarnites recognized the Ark upon the cart that was coming towards them, they went rejoicing to meet it. When the cart arrived in the field of a certain Josue, it stood still there. And as there was a great stone in that place, they split up the wood of the cart and offered the kine a holocaust to Yahweh. With this sacrifice ended the exile of the Ark in the land of the Philistines. The people of Bethsames, however, did not long enjoy its presence among them. Some of them inconsiderately cast a glance upon the Ark, whereupon they were severely punished by God; seventy men (the text usually received says seventy men and fifty thousand of the common people; but this is hardly credible, for Bethsames was only a small country place) were thus smitten, as a punishment for their boldness. Frightened by this mark of the Divine wrath, the Bethsamites sent messengers to the inhabitants of Cariathiarim, to tell them how the Philistines had brought back the Ark, and invite them to convey it to their own town. So the men of Cariathiarim came and brought up the Ark and carried it into the house of Abinadab, whose son Eleazar they consecrated to its service (I Kings, vii, 1).

The actual Hebrew text, as well as the Vulgate and all translations dependent upon it, intimates that the Ark was with the army of Saul in the famous expedition against the Philistines, narrated in I Kings, xiv. This is a mistake probably due to some late scribe who, for theological reasons, substituted the “ark of God” for the “ephod.” The Greek translation here gives the correct reading; nowhere else, indeed, in the history of Israel, do we hear of the Ark of the Covenant as an instrument of divination. It may consequently be safely affirmed that the Ark remained in Cariathiarim up to the time of David. It was natural that after this prince had taken Jerusalem and made it the capital of his kingdom, he should desire to make it also a religious center. For this end, he thought of bringing thither the Ark of the Covenant. In point of fact the Ark was undoubtedly in great veneration among the people; it was looked upon as the palladium with which heretofore Israel’s life, both religious and political, had been associated. Hence, nothing could have more suitably brought about the realization of David’s purpose than such a transfer. We read in the Bible two accounts of this solemn event: the first is found in the Second Book of Kings (vi); in the other, of a much later date, the chronicler has cast together most of the former account with some elements reflecting ideas and institutions of his own time (I Par., xiii). According to the narrative of II Kings, vi, which we shall follow, David went with great pomp to Baal-Juda, or Cariathiarim, to carry from there the Ark of God. It was laid upon a new cart, and taken out of the house of Abinadab. Oza and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, guided the cart, the latter walking before it, the former at its side, while the King and the people that were with him, dancing, singing, and playing instruments, escorted the sacred chest. This day, however, like that of the coming of the Ark to Bethsames, was to be saddened by death. At a certain point of the procession, the oxen slipped; Oza forthwith stretched out his hand to hold the Ark, but was struck dead on the spot. David, frightened by this accident, stopped the procession, and now unwilling to remove the Ark to Jerusalem, he had it carried into the house of a Gethite, named Obededom, which was probably in the neighborhood of the city. The presence of the Ark was a source of blessings for the house to which it had been brought. This news encouraged David to complete the work he had begun. Three months after the first transfer, accordingly, he came again with great solemnity and removed the Ark from the house of Obededom to the city, where it was set in its place in the midst of the tabernacle which David had pitched for it. Once more was the Ark brought out of Jerusalem, when David betook himself to flight before Absalom’s rebellion. Whilst the King stood in the Cedron valley, the people were passing before him towards the way that leads to the wilderness. Among them came also Sadoc and Abiathar, bearing the Ark. Whom when David saw, he commanded to carry back the Ark into the city: “If I shall find grace in the sight of the Lord,” said he, “he will bring me again, and will shew me both it and his tabernacle.” In compliance with this order, Sadoc and Abiathar carried back the Ark of the Lord into Jerusalem (II Kings, xv, 24–29).

The tabernacle which David had pitched to receive the Ark was not, however, to be its last dwelling place. The King indeed had thought of a temple more worthy of the glory of Yahweh. Although the building of this edifice was to be the work of his successor, David himself took to heart to gather and prepare the materials for its erection. From the very beginning of Solomon’s reign, this prince showed the greatest reverence to the Ark, especially when, after the mysterious dream in which God answered his request for wisdom by promising him wisdom, riches, and honor, he offered up burnt-offerings and peace-offerings before the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh (III Kings, iii, 15). When the temple and all its appurtenances were completed, Solomon, before the dedication, assembled the elders of Israel, that they might solemnly convey the Ark from the place where David had set it up to the Holy of Holies. Thence it was, most likely, now and then taken out, either to accompany military expeditions, or to enhance the splendor of religious celebrations, perhaps also to comply with the ungodly commands of wicked kings. However this may be, the chronicler tells us that Josias commanded the Levites to return it to its place in the temple, and forbade them to take it thence in the future (II Par., xxxv, 3). But the memory of its sacredness was soon to pass away. In one of his prophecies referring to the Messianic times, Jeremias announced that it would be utterly forgotten: “They shall say no more: The ark of the covenant of Yahweh: neither shall it come upon the heart, neither shall they remember it, neither shall it be visited, neither shall that be done any more” (Jer., iii, 16).

As to what became of the Ark at the fall of Jerusalem, in 587 B.C., there exist several traditions, one of which has found admittance in the sacred books. In a letter of the Jews of Jerusalem to them that were in Egypt, the following details are given as copied from a writing of Jeremias: “The prophet, being warned by God, commanded that the tabernacle and the ark should accompany him, till he came forth to the mountain where Moses went up and saw the inheritance of God. And when Jeremias came thither he found a hollow cave and he carried in thither the tabernacle and the ark and the altar of incense, and so stopped the door. Then some of them that followed him, came up to mark the place; but they could not find it. And when Jeremias perceived it, he blamed them saying: the place shall be unknown, till God gather together the congregation of the people and receive them to mercy. And then the Lord will shew these things, and the majesty of the Lord shall appear, and there shall be a cloud as it was also shewed to Moses, and he shewed it when Solomon prayed that the place might be; sanctified to the great God” (II Mach., ii, 4–8). According to many commentators, the letter from which the above-cited lines are supposed to have been copied cannot be regarded as possessing Divine authority; for, as a rule, a citation remains in the Bible what it was outside of the inspired writing; the impossibility of dating the original document makes it very difficult to pass a judgment on its historical reliability. At any rate the tradition which it embodies, going back at least as far as two centuries before the Christian era, cannot be discarded on mere a priori arguments. Side by side with this tradition, we find another mentioned in the Apocalypse of Esdras; according to this latter, the Ark of the Covenant was taken by the victorious army that ransacked Jerusalem after having taken it (IV Esd., x, 22). This is certainly most possible, so much the more that we learn from IV Kings, xxv, that the Babylonian troops carried away from the temple whatever brass, silver, and gold they could lay their hands upon. At any rate, either of these traditions is certainly more reliable than that adopted by the redactors of the Talmud, who tell us that the Ark was hidden by King Josias in a most secret place prepared by Solomon in case the temple might be taken and set on fire. It was a common belief among the rabbis of old that it would be found at the coming of the Messias. Be this as it may, this much is unquestionable; namely that the Ark is never mentioned among the appurtenances of the second temple. Had it been preserved there, it would most likely have been now and then alluded to, at least on occasion of such ceremonies as the consecration of the new temple, or the reestablishment of the worship, both after the exile and during the Machabean times. True, the chronicler, who lived in the post-exilian epoch, says of the Ark (II Par., v, 9) that “it has been there unto this day.” But it is commonly admitted on good grounds that the writer mentioned made use of, and wove together in his work, without as much as changing one single word of them, narratives belonging to former times. If, as serious commentators admit, the above-recorded passage be one of these “implicit citations,” it might be inferred thence that the chronicler probably did not intend to assert the existence of the Ark in the second temple.

Catholic tradition, led by the Fathers of the Church, has considered the Ark of the Covenant as one of the purest and richest symbols of the realities of the New Law. It signifies, in the first place, the Incarnate Word of God. “Christ himself,” says St. Thomas Aquinas, “was signified by the Ark. For in the same manner as the Ark was made of setim wood, so also was the body of Christ composed of the most pure human substance. The Ark was entirely overlaid with gold, because Christ was filled with wisdom and charity, which gold symbolizes. In the Ark there was a golden vase: this represents Jesus’ most holy soul containing the fullness of sanctity and the godhead, figured by the manna. There was also Aaron’s rod, to indicate the sacerdotal power of Jesus Christ priest forever. Finally the stone tables of the Law were likewise contained in the Ark, to mean that Jesus Christ is the author of the Law.” To these points touched by the Angel of the Schools, it might be added that the Ascension of Christ to heaven after His victory over death and sin is figured by the coming up of the Ark to Sion. St. Bonaventure has also seen in the Ark a mystical representation of the Holy Eucharist. In like manner the Ark might be very well regarded as a mystical figure of the Blessed Virgin, called by the Church the “Ark of the Covenant”—Foederis Arca.

CHAS. L. SOUVAY

Arkansas

One of the United States of America, bounded on the north by the State of Missouri, on the south by the States of Louisiana and Texas, on the east by the States of Mississippi and Tennessee, and on the west by the State of Texas and by Indian Territory, between latitude 33° and 37° N. and longitude 89° and 95° W., has an area of 53,335 square miles. The boundaries are set forth with considerable particularity in the state constitution, with which may be compared the Act of Congress, 15 June, 1836, admitting Arkansas as a state. The motto of the State is Regnant populi. The name was that of a tribe of Indians, formerly inhabitants of the region, a tribe also known as Quapaws or Osarks, and called also Alkansas by Illinois Indians and other Algonquins (Charlevoix). A resolution passed in 1881 by the General Assembly of the State refers to confusion which had arisen “in the pronunciation of the name of our State” and resolves “that it should be pronounced in three syllables with the final ‘s’ silent, the ‘a’ in each syllable with the Italian sound, and the accent on the first and last syllables.”

The region now included in Arkansas was a portion of the Louisiana purchase from France and ceded by the treaty of 1803. A census of the “province de la Louisiane,” made in 1788, states the population of Arkansas to be 119. An Act of Congress, 26 March 1804, provided that so much of the ceded territory as was north of 33° of north latitude should be named the district of Louisiana and governed by the governor of the Indiana Territory. By Act of 3 March 1805, the name was changed to “Territory of Louisiana” and a territorial government established. This name was changed to “Missouri” by Act of 4 June, 1812, and a temporary government established. By Act of 2 March, 1819, all of the territory south of a line beginning on the Mississippi River at 36° north latitude, running thence west to the river St. Francois, thence up the same to 36° 30 min. north latitude and thence west to the western territorial boundary line, was established as a new Territory to be known as “the Arkansaw Territory.”

Climate

Concerning weather conditions, the report of the chief of the Weather Bureau states the highest temperature observed at any weather station in Arkansas during the year 1903 to have been 105°, observed at two stations, the lowest -12 deg. also observed at two stations. The smallest rainfall recorded for the year is 34.48 inches, the greatest 65 inches. So early as November, 1903, there were snowfalls at three of the stations, in December at all the stations except one, in January, 1904, at all the stations except three, in February, at all except four, no snow is reported in March, and in April a trace is reported at two stations. The greatest fall of the season was 11.5 inches, the least, 0.5 of an inch. The reports of temperature are from sixty-one stations, of rainfall from sixty-six stations, and of snowfall from thirteen stations.

History

The Territory was visited during 1819 by the distinguished botanist, Thomas Nuttall. Of the district watered by the “Arkansa” river which in a generally southeasterly course flows through Arkansas, he states that it is scarcely less fertile than Kentucky and favourable “to productions more valuable and saleable,” while “the want of good roads is scarcely felt in a level country meandered by rivers.” And he remarks upon the “lucrative employment” to be found “in a country which produces cotton.” Some of the settlers were of French Canadian origin, among them descendants probably of ten settlers who came with the Chevalier de Tonti, when, in 1685, he proceeded up the river to the village of the Arkansas. In the settlement on the banks of the “Arkansa” river “a few miles below the bayou which communicates with White river,” Nuttall found “the sum of general industry . . . insufficient” and “the love of amusements . . . as in most of the French colonies . . . carried to extravagance.” Indeed this traveller comments unfavourably upon “the generality of those who, till lately, inhabited the banks of the Arkansa.” And “at the Cadron” he found that “every reasonable and rational amusement appeared . . . to be swallowed up in dram-drinking, jockeying and gambling,” while at “the Pecannerie now the most considerable settlement in the territory except Arkansas,” and settled by about sixty families, the more industrious and honest suffered from the dishonest practices of their indolent neighbours, “renegadoes from justice, who had fled from honest society.” In contrast to a portion of this indictment against early territorial conditions may be mentioned the prohibitory liquor laws of the modern State, and their rigorous enforcement (Digest of the Statutes, Sect. 5093–5148; The United States in Our Own Time, 765). Arkansas became a State by Act of Congress, 15 June, 1836. The State long continued to be sparsely settled. Colonel R. B. Marcy, who seems to have visited some portions of Arkansas so late as 1854, refers in “Army Life” to the “sparsely scattered forest habitations” on the borders of Arkansas and Texas “far removed from towns and villages and seldom visited by travellers,” where, he tells us, “the ideas, habits and language of the population . . . are eminently peculiar and very different from those of any other people I have ever before met with in my travels.” These borderers seem to have been generally illiterate. And Colonel Marcy describes also the interior settlements of Arkansas and those of Texas and southwestern Missouri as regions where “the traveller rarely sees a church or school-house” (Army Life, 386). While yet “rude and thinly settled” (Schouler, Hist. of U.S. of Am., VI, 92), Arkansas by ordinance of its Convention on 6 May, 1861, joined its fortunes with those of the other States of the attempted Southern Confederacy. As in Missouri so in Northern Arkansas, guerilla warfare followed during more than a year. Afterwards warfare in Arkansas became of a more important character. In 1863 Arkansas Post was captured by the Federal forces; there was a small engagement at Arkadelphia, and engagements at Fayetteville and sixteen miles from Fort Smith. The Federal garrison of Helena and that of Pine Bluffs were unsuccessfully attacked by the Confederate forces during this year. At the battle of Chickamauga, the First Arkansas regiment lost forty-five per cent of its men. “And these losses” it is said “included very few prisoners.” (Campfire and Battlefield, 484.) In June, 1868, the State was restored to the Union and to representation in Congress, with an agreement to perpetuate universal suffrage. During the reconstruction period, Arkansas was not exempt from sad experiences similar to those of other Southern States. A contested election in 1872 for Governor caused much confusion until 1875.

Constitution and Government

By the constitution of the State the city of Little Rock is made the State capital. Legislative power is vested in a General Assembly to meet every two years. There is no female suffrage. The Act of Congress of 1805 which has been already mentioned provides that no law of the Territory of Louisiana shall be valid “which shall lay any person under restraint or disability on account of his religious opinions, profession or worship.” And the State constitution now in force forbids any religious test as qualification to vote or hold office, and requires that no one shall be incompetent as a witness on account of religious belief, adding “but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations.” “All men,” declares the constitution, “have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can, of right, be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority can, in any case or manner whatsoever, control or interfere with the right of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment, denomination, or mode of worship above any other.” The constitution directs the enactment of suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship. It also ordains the maintenance by the State of a “general, suitable and efficient system of free schools.”

Education

In pursuance of this direction the laws of the State make elaborate provisions for free schools and a “University of Arkansas.” (Digest of the Statutes, sect. 7484–7739.) No teacher is to be licensed in the public schools “who does not believe in the existence of a Supreme Being.” And no teacher in these schools “shall permit sectarian books to be used as reading or text books in the school under his care.” The twelfth United States Census reports a school attendance in 1900 of 230,180 persons, of whom 115,613 were females. Including in the list those who could only read with those who could neither read nor write, 20 per cent of the males of voting age were illiterate.

Population

The population of the state in 1900 was 1,311,564 according to the census. Only 14,289 persons were foreign born. Of negro descent there were 366,856. Of males fifteen years of age and over, 37.6 per cent were single, 56.1 per cent married, and 0.3 per cent divorced, 0.4 per cent being reported unknown. Of females fifteen years of age and over, 26 per cent were single, 60.8 per cent married and 0.6 per cent divorced, 0.1 being reported unknown.

Business Statistics

The total assessed valuation of property for 1899 was $189,998,150; the State indebtedness on 1 October, 1900, $1,432,915.95. Arkansas is chiefly an agricultural State. Little Rock with a population of 42,036 was the only city of which the population was estimated in 1903 to exceed 25,000. Three other cities, namely, Fort Smith City, Hot Springs City, and Pine Bluffs City, were the only other cities of which the population exceeded 8,000. Being south of 37° of latitude the State ia within “the cotton belt,” and cotton has become its principal crop, as Nuttall seems to have foreseen in 1819. In 1899 the value of the cotton crop was $28,053,813, or 49.4 per cent of the value of all the crops of the State. Of the corn crop the value was $17,572,170. Of potatoes a production is reported of 1,783,969 bushels and of tobacco, 831,700 pounds. Notwithstanding the chief importance of agriculture, the twelfth census reports a steady growth during the period from 1850 to 1900 in manufacturing and mechanical industries. The six leading mechanical industries in 1905 were: (1) cars and general shop construction and repairs by steam railroad companies; (2) flour and grist mill products, (3) lumber and timber products; (4) lumber planing mill products, including sashes, doors, and blinds; (5) oil, cotton seed, and cake; (6) printing and publishing. Of manufacturing establishments there were 1,907, of which 1,344 were devoted to the six leading industries. The amount of capital employed in manufactures was $46,306,116, the value of products $53,864,394. Of all manufacturing establishments 88.3 per cent were, in 1905, in the rural districts. There is a small production of coal, estimated in 1905 to amount to 2,000,000 short tons, one-half of which is classed as semi-anthracite. The railroad mileage in 1904 is reported to be 4,126.44 miles.

Catholic Life

Concerning the history of the Catholic Church in the State, from 1793 until 1801 Arkansas with all of the territory included in the Louisiana purchase formed a portion of the Diocese of Louisiana and Florida. On the cession to the United States Bishop Carroll of Baltimore was in 1805 appointed administrator Apostolic. “When the decree of the Propaganda confiding Louisiana to his care reached Bishop Carroll,” writes Dr. Shea (Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll), “it was a matter of great and pious satisfaction to him to know that there was one priest in Louisiana whose virtue and ability were known to him. . . .” In upper Louisiana there was scarcely any priest other than a priest whom the historian mentions. Great disorder and relaxation of discipline seems to have existed in various regions of the vast diocese. In 1812 in answer to urgent appeals from Archbishop Carroll, the Rev. Wm. DuBourg, “a brilliant, able and energetic man,” remarks Dr. Shea, was appointed administrator Apostolic. In 1815 he was consecrated bishop. In 1824 Right Rev. Joseph Rosati became coadjutor with residence at St. Louis, and to his special care the Territory of Arkansas was confided. In that year missionaries found at Little Rock Catholics who had never seen a priest, and on the Arkansas River there were found sixteen Catholic families “who reported that Mass had twice been offered there.” “Arkansas Post was the only place after leaving New Madrid where there were enough Catholics to maintain a priest” (Shea, Hist. Cath. Ch. in the U.S.). The missionaries were perhaps not surprised to find great religious ignorance among the Arkansas Catholics, and that for most of those whom the missionaries met, the celebration of Mass was “a wonderful ceremony” (Shea, op.cit.).

In 1826 the diocese was formally divided, and Bishop Rosati made Bishop of the new Diocese of St. Louis, comprising the portion of the divided diocese north of Louisiana. So late as 1830 the bishop wrote “In Arkansas Territory where there are more than two thousand scattered Catholics, there is not a single priest.” But in 1832 one priest had entered the Territory and to his aid a newly ordained priest was sent in that year. Bishop Rosati died in 1843. The State of Arkansas with Indian Territory was erected into the new Diocese of Little Rock, and the Rev. Andrew Byrne of the Diocese of New York was named as its bishop, and was consecrated in 1844. Despite all past efforts Bishop Byrne found that the Catholic population of the whole diocese did not exceed “seven hundred souls . . .” scattered in every county in the state. There was only one priest. There were two churches loaded with debt. Dr. Shea states that “the prevailing ignorance and vice were deplorable and almost insurmountable.” We recall what Colonel Marcy wrote concerning the inhabitants of the interior of the State, “these people have but little appreciation of the sanctity and holiness of the principles inculcated by our Christian religion” (Army Life, 387). In the beginning of 1861 the diocese had nine priests and eleven churches. On 10 June, 1862, during the Civil War, Bishop Byrne died and during the war no successor was appointed. In 1866 the Rev. Edward Fitzgerald of Columbus, Ohio, was named as bishop. “He made the sacrifice,” says Dr. Shea, “and was consecrated, 3 February, 1867, to find but five priests in the diocese and three houses of Sisters of Mercy.”

Catholic Religious Statistics

In 1891, the Indian Territory became a vicariate Apostolic, and in 1905 was erected into the Diocese of Oklahoma, and in 1906, the diocese, presided over by the Right Rev. Bishop Fitzgerald, comprised only the State of Arkansas. In the diocese there are 26 secular priests and 34 priests of religious orders, 41 churches with resident priest, 32 missions with churches, and 67 stations, 1 college for boys with 60 students, 8 academies with 1,006 students, 29 parishes and missions with schools having 1,642 pupils, 2 industrial schools with 360 pupils and 1 orphan asylum with 20 orphans, the total of young people under Catholic care being 3,109. The Catholic population is about 17,000. A law of the state provides that “lands and tenements” not exceeding forty acres “with the improvements and appurtenances” may be held in perpetual succession for the use of any religious society for “a meeting house, burying ground, camp-ground, or residence for their preacher.”

United States Statutes at Large (Boston, 1848), Il; (Boston, 1861), III, 493; (Boston, 1848), V, 50; KIRBY, A Digest of the Statutes of Arkansas, including State Constitution (Austin, Texas, 1904) Art. I, Art. II, sect. 24, 25, 26, Art. III, sect. 1, Art. V, sect. 1, 2, 5, Art. XIV, sect. 1, of Statutes, sect. 6851, 7572, 7654; NUTTALL, A Journal of Travels into the Arkansas Territory (Philadelphia, 1821); DE CHARLEVOIX, History and General Description of New France, tr. SHEA (New York, 1900), III, 31; GAYARRE, History of Louisiana (New Orleans, 1903), Appendix; SCHOUELER, History of the United States of America (New York), V; WILSON, A History of the American People (New York, 1902), V, 46; JOHNSON AND OTHERS, Campfire and Battle Field (New York, 1894); ANDREWS, The United States in Our Own Time; MARCY, Thirty Years of Army Life on the Border (New York, 1866); Twelfth Census of the United States (1900), I, II, VI, VIII; Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of the Census, Bulletin No. 20 (Washington, 1905); No. 35 (Washington, 1906); No. 45 (Washington, 1906); SHEA, Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll (New York, 1888); IDEM, Hist. of the Cath. Ch. in the U.S. (New York, 1892); Interstate Commerce Commission Seventeenth Annual Report (Washington, 1905); VAN OSS, American Railroads as Investments, 548; Biennial Report Arkansas State Treasurer, 1890- 1900 (Little Rock); Catholic Directory (1906).

CHARLES W. SLOANE

Fray José Arlegui

A Spaniard from Biscay, first attached to the Franciscan province of Cantabria, then transferred to Zacatecas in Mexico. He wrote a number of works and treatises on theological subjects, some of value to the student of Indian ethnology. His most important work was the “Cronica de Zacatecas,” which was published in 1737. He gives an account of the missions in his province, and embodies many valuable facts about the aborigines. The book is the main source both of our knowledge of the Indians of Zacatecas, otherwise hardly touched by published documents, and of the first attempts to bring them to Christianity.

Cronica de la Provincia de Zacatecas, 1737. Very rare. Beristain de Souza, Biblioteca Hispano-Americana setentrional (Mexico, 1816), I; Casual mention also in the Documentos para la Historia de Mexico, first and second series (out of print).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Synods of Arles

The first Council of Arles was held in 314, for the purpose of putting an end to the Donatist controversy. It confirmed the findings of the Council of Rome (313), i.e. it recognized the validity of the election of Caecilian of Carthage, and confirmed the excommunication of Donatus of Casae Nigrae. Its twenty-two canons dealing with various abuses that had crept into ecclesiastical life since the persecution of Diocletian (284–305) are among the most important documents of early ecclesiastical legislation. A council held in 353, and attended, among others, by two papal legates, was decidedly Arian in attitude. The legates were tempted into rejecting communion with Athanasius and refused to condemn Arius, an act which filled Pope Liberius with grief. In the synod of 443 (452), attended also by bishops of neighbouring provinces, fifty-six canons were formulated, mostly repetitions of earlier disciplinary decrees. Neophytes were excluded from major orders; married men aspiring to the priesthood were required to promise a life of continency, and it was forbidden to consecrate a bishop without the assistance of three other bishops and the consent of the metropolitan. A council of 451 held after the close of the Council of Chalcedon in that year, sent its adhesion to the “Epistola dogmatica” of Leo I, written by Flavian of Constantinople. (See EUTYCHES.) A council was held on New Year’s Day, 435, to settle the differences that had arisen between the Abbot of Lérins and the Bishop of Fréjus. Apropos of the conflict between the archiepiscopal See of Vienne and Arles a council was held in the latter city in 463, which called forth a famous letter from St. Leo I (Leonis I, Opp., ed. Ballerini, I, 998; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, II, 590). Between 475 and 480 another council was called, attended by thirty bishops, in which the pre-destinationist teachings of the priest Lucidus were condemned. In 524 a council was held under the presidency of St. Caesarius of Arles; its canons deal chiefly with the conferring of orders. Little is known of the councils of 554 and 682. An important council was held in 813, at the instigation of Charlemagne, for the correction of abuses and the reestablishment of ecclesiastical discipline. Its decrees insist on a sufficient ecclesiastical education of bishops and priests, on the duty of both to preach frequently to the people and to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, on the obligation of parents to instruct their children, etc. In 1034 a council was held at Arles for the re-establishment of peace, the restoration of Christian Faith, the awakening in the popular heart of a sense of divine goodness and of salutary fear by the consideration of past evils. In 1236 a council held under the presidency of Jean Baussan, Archbishop of Arles, issued twenty-four canons, mostly against the prevalent Albigensian heresy, and for the observance of the decrees of the Lateran Council of 1215 and that of Toulouse in 1229. Close inspection of their dioceses is urged on the bishops, as a remedy against the spread of heresy; testaments are declared invalid unless made in the presence of the parish priest. This measure, met with in other councils, was meant to prevent testamentary dispositions in favour of known heretics. In 1251, Jean, Archbishop of Arles, held a council near Avignon (Concilium Insculanum), among whose thirteen canons is one providing that the sponsor at baptism is bound to give only the white robe in which the infant is baptized. In 1260 a council held by Florentin, Archbishop of Arles, decreed that confirmation must be received fasting, and that on Sundays and feast days the religious should not open their churches to the faithful, nor preach at the hour of the parish Mass. The laity should be instructed by their parish priests. The religious should also frequent the parochial service, for the sake of good example. This council also condemned the doctrines spread abroad under the name of Joachim of Flora. In 1275, earlier observances, twenty-two in number, were promulgated anew at a Council of Arles.

MANSI, Coll. Conc., II, 463, and passim; HEFELE, Conciliengesch., I, 201, 652; II, 298 and passim; on the British bishops at the First Council of Arles see The Month (1885), LV, 380 and on its date VON FUNK, Theol. Quartalschr. (1890), LXXII, 296–304; also DUCHESNE, Mel. d’arch. et d’hist. de l’eg. franc. de Rome (1890), X, 640–644; TRICHAUD, Hist. de l’eglise d’Arles (Nimes, Paris, 1857); CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894–99), I, 212, 213.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Spanish Armada

The Spanish Armada, also called the Invincible Armada (infra), and more correctly La Armada Grande, was a fleet (I) intended to invade England and to put an end to the long series of English aggressions against the colonies and possessions of the Spanish Crown; (II) it was however all but destroyed by a week’s fighting and a disastrous cruise; (III) this led to the gradual decadence of the maritime power of Spain; (IV) Catholics on the whole supported the Armada, but with some notable exceptions.

I. ENGLISH PROVOCATION

At the commencement of Elizabeth’s reign (1558) Philip had been her best friend. His intercession helped to save her life after Wycliffe’s rebellion (1554). He facilitated her accession, supported her against the claims of Mary Stuart, and intervened powerfully in her favor to prevent French aid from being sent to Scotland. When England had emerged triumphant at the treaty of Edinburgh (1560), Elizabeth sent him a special mission of thanks, with the Catholic Lord Montague at its head, to whom she gave a dispensation from the laws of England in order that he might practice Catholicism during the embassy.

The victory of Protestantism now being complete, greater coolness was shown. As time went on the Spanish ambassador was treated with disrespect, his house beset, visitors to his chapel imprisoned; Spanish ships were robbed with impunity in the Channel. In 1562, Hawkins forced his way by violence into the forbidden markets of the West Indies, his trade being chiefly in slaves, whom he had captured in West Africa. In 1564 and 1567 the same violent measures were repeated, but the last ended in disaster for him. Meanwhile the Protestant party in the Netherlands began to rebel in 1566, and was subsidized by England.

In 1568, a Spanish ship having put into Plymouth with pay for the whole of the Spanish army in Flanders, the money was seized by the English government. Here ensued reprisals on both sides, trade was paralyzed, and war was on the point of breaking out, both on the occasion of the Northern rising (1569) and at the time of the Ridolfi conspiracy in 1571. The imprudent Spanish ambassador, Don Gerau Despes, was then expelled from England, Philip having previously dismissed from Spain the Spanish ambassador, Dr. Mann, an apostate priest, whose selection was naturally considered an insult. Whilst the Spanish fleet was fighting the cause of Christianity against the Turks at Lepanto (1572), Drake thrice sacked the almost defenseless colonies on the Spanish Main, from which he returned with enormous booty (1570, 1571, 1572–73).

Slightly better relations between the two countries ensued toward the close of this decade, when Elizabeth feared that, with the decay of Spanish power in the Netherlands, France might conquer the country for herself. So in 1578 a Spanish ambassador was received in London, though at the same time Drake was allowed to sail on his great buccaneering voyage around the world. On his return public opinion began to condemn aloud the “master-robber of the New World,” but Elizabeth exerted herself warmly in his favor, gave him the honor of knighthood, and three years later, immediately before sending her army to fight the Spaniards in the Netherlands, she dispatched him once more to spoil the West Indies. It was then that Drake “convinced Spain that in self-defense she must crush England” (J.R. Seeley, Growth of British Policy).

Mr. Froude and the older panegyrists of Queen Elizabeth frequently justify the English piracies as acts of retaliation against the cruelties of the Inquisition, and maintain that Philip had given cause for war by encouraging plots against Elizabeth’s throne and life. The prime motive of the Armada, they say, was to overthrow Protestantism. But these statements cannot be substantiated and are misleading (see Laughton, p. xxii; Pollen, The Month, February, March, April, 1902). It is true that the ineffective attempts of Spain to shut out the rest of Europe from traffic with her colonies were unwise, perhaps unjust, and acted as an incentive to secret and unwarranted traffic. But it must also be remembered that trade monopolies flourished in England to such an extent that her pirates may have taken to that profession because honorable trading was so much impeded (Dascent, Acts of Privy Council, VII, p. xviii). On the other hand, one must unreservedly blame the cruelties of Alva and of the Spanish Inquisitors, which much embittered the struggle when it had once begun.

II. THE CONFLICT

Since July, 1580, Philip had begun to regard the English freebooters in a new light. He had then made good by the force of arms his claim to the crown of Portugal, by which he became lord over the rich and widely-stretching Portuguese colonies. If he did not soon bestir himself to defend them, they would be lost as well as robbed. He was, moreover, now the master of a considerable fleet. The danger from the Turk had been greatly diminished. The religious wars had sapped the powers of France. James of Scotland had broken the trammels with which Elizabeth had bound him during his boyhood, and he showed some desire to help his mother, Queen Mary, and she might persuade the English Catholics to support the army that should be sent to liberate her. But Philip arrived at his conclusion so very slowly and silently that it is hard to say when he passed from speculative approbation of war to the actual determination to fight.

In April,and May, and June, 1587, Drake cruised off the coast of Spain, and, contrary to Elizabeth’s wish, attacked the Spanish shipping, burnt the half-finished and unmanned ships at Cadiz, and did enormous damage to the Spanish navy. Philip, at last convinced that fight he must, began to exert himself to the utmost. But his inefficiency as an organizer was never more evident. Slow, inactive, and not only ignorant of the secret of sea power, but unwilling to admit that there was any need for special advice and direction, he wasted months on making plans of campaign while the building and vitualling of the fleet was neglected.

The Spaniards of that day were reputed the best soldiers in the world, but in naval maneuvers and in the use of heavy artillery they were far behind their rivals. The worst blunder of all was committed after the death of the Marquess of Santa Cruz, Don Alvaro de Bazan the elder, a veteran sailor, the only naval commander of repute that Spain possessed. Philip after long consideration appointed the Duke of Medina Sidonia to succeed him. In vain did the Duke express his lack of ability and his inexperience in naval matters. The king insisted, and the great nobleman loyally left his splendid castle to attempt the impossible, and to make in good faith the most disastrous errors of leadership.

A striking comment on the inefficiency of the vast preparations is afforded by the letters of the papal nuncio at Philip’s court. He reports at the end of February, 1588, that he had been talking with the other envoys from Germany, France, and Venice, and that none of them could make out for certain that the fleet was intended to attack England after all, for which they all thought it far too weak. Next month he was reassured by one of Philip’s own councillors—they felt sure all would go well, if they once got a footing in England (Vatican Archives, Germania, CX sq., 58, 60).

The Armada left Lisbon on the 20th of May, 1588. It consisted of about 130 ships, and 30,493 men; but at least half of the ships were transports, and two-thirds of the men were soldiers. It was bound for Flanders, where it was to join the Prince of Parma, who had built a number of pontoons and transports to carry over his army. But the fleet found it necessary to put back in the harbor of Corunna almost immediately, in order to refit. The admiral was already suggesting that the expedition should be given up, but Philip continued to insist, and it sailed on the 12th of July, according to the old style then observed in England. This time the voyage prospered, and a week later the Armada had reassembled at the Lizard and proceeded next day, Saturday, 20 July, eastward towards Flanders.

Beacon lights gave notice of their arrival to the English, who hurriedly put out from Plymouth and managed to slip past the Spaniards in the night, thus gaining the weather gauge, an advantage they never afterwards lost. The fighting ships of the Armada were now arranged in a crescent, the transports keeping between the horns, and in this formation, they slowly advanced up the channel, the English cannonading the rearmost, and causing the loss of three of the chief vessels. Still on Saturday afternoon, 27 July, the Spaniards were anchored in Calais roads, in sore need of refitting indeed, but with numbers still almost intact.

According to the best modern authorities, these numbers, which had been at first slightly in favor of Spain, now that the English had received reinforcements and the Spaniards had met with losses, were in favor of the English. There were about sixty warships in either fleet, but in number and weight of guns, the advantage was with the English, and in gunnery and naval tactics there was no comparison at all.

Howard did not allow his enemy any time to refit. The next night some fireships were drifted into the Armada as the tide flowed. The Spaniards, ready for this danger, slipped their cables, but nonetheless suffered some losses from collisions. On the Monday following, the great battle took place off Gravelines, in which the Spaniards were entirely outclassed and defeated. It says much for their heroism that only one ship was reported captured; but three sank, four or five ran ashore, and the Duke of Medina Sidonia took the resolution of leading the much damaged remnant around the north of Scotland and Ireland, and so back to Spain. But for that very difficult voyage they had neither a chart nor a pilot in the whole fleet. More and more ships were now lost in every storm, and at every point of danger. Eventually on the 13th of September, the duke returned to Santander, having lost about half his fleet and about three-quarters of his men.

III. THE SEQUEL

Great as were the effects of the failure of the Armada, they are nevertheless often exaggerated. The defeat no doubt set bounds on the expansion of Spain, and secured the power of her rival. Yet it is a mistake to suppose that this change was immediate, obvious, or uniform. The wars of religion in France, promoted by Elizabeth, ended in weakening that country to such an extent that Spain seemed within two years of the Armada to be nearer to universal domination than ever before, and this consummation was averted by the reconciliation of Henry IV to Catholicism, which, by reuniting France, restored the balance of power in Europe, as was acknowledged by Spain at the peace of Vervius in 1598.

Even the change of sea power was not immediate or obvious. In reality England had always been the superior at sea, as the history of Drake and his colleagues clearly shows. Her weakness lay in the smallness of her standing navy, and her want of adequate ammunition. Spain took so long to attempt a readjustment of sea-power, that England had ample time to organize and arm a superior fleet. But Spain, though she failed at sea, remained the chief power on land, and, having recognized her naval inferiority, strengthened her land defenses with such success that the depredation of England in her colonies after her defeat were incomparably less than those which had occurred before. Her decline ensued because the causes of the defeat were not remedied. Slave labor, with its attendant corruptions, in the colonies, want of organization, and free government at home, joined with grasping at power abroad—these, and not any single defeat, however great, were the causes of the decline of the great world-power of the sixteenth century.

IV. CATHOLIC CO-OPERATION

Among the many side-issues which meet the student of the history of the Armada, that of the cooperation or favor of the Pope, and of the Catholic party among the English, is naturally important for Catholics. There can be no doubt, then, that though the Spanish predominance was not at all desired for its own sake by the Catholics of England, France, and Germany, or of Rome, yet the widespread suffering and irritation caused by the religious wars Elizabeth fomented, and the indignation caused by her religious persecution, and the execution of Mary Stuart, caused Catholics everywhere to sympathize with Spain, and to regard the Armada as a crusade against the most dangerous enemy of the Faith.

Pope Sixtus V agreed to renew the excommunication of the queen, and to grant a large subsidy to the Armada, but, knowing the slowness of Spain, would give nothing till the expedition should actually land in England. In this way he was saved his million crowns, and spared the reproach of having taken futile proceedings against the heretic queen. This excommunication had of course been richly deserved, and there is extant a proclamation to justify it, which was to have been published in England if the invasion had been successful. It was signed by Cardinal Allen, and is entitled “An Admonition to the Nobility and Laity of England.” It was intended to comprise all that could be said against the queen, and the indictment is therefore fuller and more forcible than any other put forward by the religious exiles, who were generally very reticent in their complaints. Allen also carefully consigned his publication to the fire, and we only know of it through one of Elizabeth’s ubiquitous spies, who had previously stolen a copy.

There is no doubt that all the exiles for religion at that time shared Allen’s sentiments, but not so the Catholics in England. They had always been the most conservative of English parties. The resentment they felt at being persecuted led them to blame the queen’s ministers, but not to question her right to rule. To them the great power of Elizabeth was evident, the forces and intentions of Spain were unknown quantities. They might, should, and did resist until complete justification was set before them, and this was in fact never attempted. Much, for instance, as we know of the Catholic clergy then laboring in England, we cannot find that any of them used religion to advance the cause of the Armada. Protestant and Catholic contemporaries alike agree that the English Catholics were energetic in their preparations against it.

This being so, it was inevitable that the leaders of the Catholics abroad should lose influence, through having sided with Spain. On the other hand, as the pope and all among whom they lived had been of the same mind, it was evidently unjust to blame their want of political insight too harshly. It point of fact the change did not come until near the end of Elizabeth’s reign, when, during the appeals against the archpriest, the old leaders, especially the Jesuit Father Robert Persons, were freely blamed for the Spanish alliance. The terms of the blame were exaggerated, but the reason for complaint cannot be denied.

The literature that has been gathered round the Armada is voluminous, and of course has been largely influenced by the national and religious prejudices of the contending nations. A trifle may suffice to indicate how the wind has been blowing. Almost all writers hitherto have written of the “Invincible” Armada, thinking that they were using an epithet applied to their fleet by the Spaniards themselves, and one that confessedly betrayed Spanish pride. Now it appears that it was only one of the insults that contemporary English pamphleteers, and is not found in any contemporary Spanish writer (Laughton, p. xix). On the English side, the most representative of the old school are J. L. Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, and J. A. Froude, History of England, XII, and English Seamen of the Sixteenth century. The last writer is notoriously inaccurate, but the worst fault of both is their reliance on colored, and even grossly prejudiced evidence. The older Spanish view is given by F. Strada, De Bello Belico, and L. Carrera de Cordoba, Felipe Segudo, 1619. But all these writers have been superseded by the publication of English and Spanish state papers, especially by J. K. Laughton and J. S. Corbett, in the publications of the Navy Record Society (London, 1892–93), I, II, and the Spanish collections of Captain C. Fernandez Duro, La Armada Invencible (Madrid, 1884), and Armada Espanola, II, III (Madrid, 1896); and Martin Hume, Spanish Calendars. Still the chief desideratum at present is a more ample collection of Spanish papers illustrating the whole naval war from the beginning. D. de Alcedo y Herrera, Piraterias y aggressiones de los Ingleses en la America espanola (Madrid, 1882) conatins little about the period under review. The most scholarly account of the fighting yet published is that of a American student, W. F. Tilton, Die Katastrophe der spanischen Armada (Freiburg, 1894). J. S. Corbett, Drake and the Tudor Navy, endeavors to reconcile the old English traditions with modern discoveries, and not always scientifically. For Papal and Catholic views see J. A. v. Hubner, Sixte Quint (Paris, 1870, best edition); T.F. Knox, Letters of Cardinal Allen (London 1882).

J.H. POLLEN

Archdiocese of Armagh

Archdiocese founded by St. Patrick about 445, as the primatial and metropolitan see of Ireland. The Archdiocese of Armagh at present comprises almost the whole of the counties Armagh and Louth, a great part of Tyrone, and portions of Derry and of Meath. It is divided into fifty-five parishes, two of which, Armagh and Dundalk, are mensal parishes attached to the see. The Diocesan Chapter, re-established in 1856, consisted in 1906 of thirteen members, including a dean, archdeacon, precentor, chancellor, treasurer, theologian, and canons. Diocesan clergy, 139; regulars, 39; churches and chapels, 156; primary schools, 227; Catholic population (1901), 147,358. The suffragan sees are Meath, Ardagh, Clogher, Derry, Down and Connor, Dromore, Kilmore, Raphoe.

St. Patrick, having received some grants of land from the chieftain Daire, on the hill called Ard-Macha (the Height of Macha), built a stone church on the summit and a monastery and some other religious edifices round about, and fixed on this place for his metropolitan see. He also founded a school in the same place, which soon became famous and attracted thousands of scholars. In the course of time other religious bodies settled in Armagh, such as the Culdees, who built a monastery there in the eighth century. The city of Armagh was thus until modern times a purely ecclesiastical establishment. About 448, St. Patrick, aided by Secundinus and Auxilius, two of his disciples, held a synod at Armagh, of which some of the canons are still extant. One of these expressly mentions that all difficult cases of conscience should be referred to the judgment of the Archbishop of Armagh, and that if too difficult to be disposed of by him with his counsellors they should be passed on to the Apostolic See of Rome. In Irish times, the primacy of Armagh was never questioned, and for many centuries the primates were accustomed to make circuits and visitations through various parts of the country for the collection of their dues. This was called the “Cattlecess,” or the “Law of St. Patrick.” Beginning in 734, during the incumbency of Primate Congus, it continued till long after the English invasion, but ceased as soon as English prelates succeeded to the see. Two kings gave it their royal sanction: Felim, King of Munster, in 822, and the famous Brian Boru, in 1006. The record of the latter’s sanction is preserved in the Book of Armagh, in the handwriting of Brian Boru’s chaplain. To add solemnity to their collecting tours, the primates were in the habit of carrying with them the shrine of St. Patrick, and as a rule their success was certain. These collections seem to have been made at irregular intervals and were probably for the purpose of keeping up the famous school of Armagh, said at one time to contain 7,000 students, as well as for the restoration, often needed, of the church and other ecclesiastical buildings when destroyed by fire or plundered in war. The Irish annals record no fewer than seventeen burnings of the city, either partial or total. It was plundered on numerous occasions by the Danes and the clergy driven out of it. It was also sacked by De Courcy, Fitz-Aldelm and Philip of Worcester during the conquest of Ulster by the Anglo-Normans.

The seizure of the primacy of Armagh by laymen in the eleventh century has received great prominence owing to St. Bernard’s denunciation of it in his life of St. Malachy, but the abuse was not without a parallel on the continent of Europe. The chiefs of the tribe in whose territory Armagh stood usurped the position and temporal emoluments of the primacy and discharged by deputy the ecclesiastical functions. The abuse continued for eight generations until Cellach, known as St. Celsus (1105–29), who was intruded as a layman, had himself consecrated bishop, and ruled the see with great wisdom. In 1111 he held a great synod at Fiadh-Mic-Aengus at which were present fifty bishops, 300 priests, and 3,000 other ecclesiastics, and also Murrough O’Brian, King of southern Ireland, and his nobles. During his incumbency the priory of Sts. Peter and Paul at Armagh was re-founded by Imar, the learned preceptor of St. Malachy. This was the first establishment in Ireland into which the Canons Regular of St. Augustine had been introduced. Roderic O’Connor, monarch of Ireland, afterwards granted it an annual pension for a public school. After a short interval, Celsus was succeeded by St. Malachy O’Morgair (1134–37), who later suffered many tribulations in trying to effect a reformation in the diocese. He resigned the see after three years and retired to the Bishopric of Down. In 1139 he went to Rome and solicited the Pope for two palliums, one for the See of Armagh and the other probably for the new Metropolitan See of Cashel. The following year he introduced the Cistercian Order into Ireland, by the advice of St. Bernard. He died at Clairvaux, while making a second journey to Rome. St. Malachy is honoured as the patron saint of the diocese. Gelasius succeeded him and during a long incumbency of thirty-seven years held many important synods which effected great reforms. At the Synod of Kells, held in 1152 and presided over by Cardinal Paparo, the Pope’s legate, Gelasius received the pallium and at the same time three others were handed over to the new metropolitan sees of Dublin, Cashel, and Tuam. The successor of Gelasius in the see, Cornelius Mac Concaille, who died at Chambery the following year, on a journey to Rome, has been venerated ever since in that locality as a saint. He was succeeded by Gilbert O’Caran (1175–80), during whose incumbency the see suffered greatly from the depredations of the Anglo-Norman invaders. William Fitz-Aldelm pillaged Armagh and carried away St. Patrick’s crosier, called the “Staff of Jesus.” O’Caran’s successor was Thomas O’Conor (1181–1201). In the year after his succession to the see, Pope Lucius III, at the instance of John Comyn, the first English prelate in the See of Dublin, tried to abolish the old Irish custom according to which the primates claimed the right of making solemn circuits and visitations in the province of Leinster as well as those of Tuam and Munster. The papal bull issued was to the effect that no archbishop or bishop should hold any assembly or ecclesiastical court in the Diocese of Dublin, or treat of the ecclesiastical causes and affairs of the said diocese, without the consent of the Archbishop of Dublin, if the latter were actually in his see, unless specially authorized by the Papal See or the Apostolic legate. This Bull laid the groundwork of a bitter and protracted controversy between the Archbishops of Armagh and of Dublin, concerning the primatial right of the former to have his cross carried before him and to try ecclesiastical cases in the diocese of the latter. This contest, however, must not be confounded with that regarding the primacy, which did not arise till the seventeenth century.

ENGLISH PERIOD (1215–1539)

As the first Anglo-Norman adventurers who came to Ireland showed very little scruple in despoiling the churches and monasteries, Armagh suffered considerably from their depredations and the clergy were almost reduced to beggary. When the English kings got a footing in the country, they began to interfere in the election of bishops and a contest arose between King John and the Pope regarding Eugene Mac Gillaweer, elected to the primatial see in 1203. This prelate was present at the General Council of the Lateran in 1215 and died at Rome the following year. The English kings also began to claim possession of the temporalities of the sees during vacancies and to insist on the newly-elected bishops suing them humbly for their restitution. Primate Reginald (1247–56), a Dominican, obtained a papal Brief uniting the county of Louth to the See of Armagh. Primate Patrick O’Scanlan (1261–70), also a Dominican, rebuilt to a large extent the cathedral of Armagh and founded a house for Franciscans in that city. Primate Nicholas Mac Maelisu (1272–1302) signalized himself by convening an important assembly of the bishops and clergy of Ireland at Tuam in 1291, at which they bound themselves by solemn oaths to resist the encroachments of the secular power. Primate Richard Fitz-Ralph (1346–60) contended publicly both in Ireland and England with the Mendicant Friars on the question of their vows and privileges. A contest regarding the primacy of Armagh was carried on intermittently during these centuries by the Archbishops of Dublin and Cashel, especially the former as the city of Dublin was the civic metropolis of the kingdom. During the English period, the primates rarely visited the city of Armagh, preferring to reside at the arch-episcopal manors of Dromiskin and Termonfechan, in the county of Louth which was within the Pale. During the reign of Henry VIII, Primate Cromer, being suspected of heresy by the Holy See, was deposed in favour of Robert Wauchope (1539–51), a distinguished theologian, who assisted at the Council of Trent. In the meantime, George Dowdall, a zealous supporter of Henry, had been intruded into the See of Armagh by that monarch, but on the introduction of Protestantism into Ireland in the reign of Edward VI, he left the kingdom in disgust. Thereupon the king in 1552, appointed Hugh Goodacre to the see. He was the first Protestant prelate who assumed the title of Primate and enjoyed the temporalities of the diocese. In the beginning of the reign of Queen Mary, Dowdall (1553–58) was appointed by the Pope to the see on account of the great zeal he had shown against Protestantism, though at the same time, he had acted in a schismatical way.

PERIOD OF PERSECUTION

After the short incumbency of Donagh O’Tighe (1560–62), the see was filled by Richard Creagh (1564–85), a native of Limerick . He was arrested by order of Queen Elizabeth and imprisoned by her in the Tower of London, where he was tortured and maltreated and left to languish in captivity for eighteen years till his death. Edward Mac Gauran, who succeeded him (1587–94), was very active in soliciting aid from the pope and the king of Spain for the Irish who were then engaged in a struggle for liberty of conscience with the English Queen. After an interval of eight years, he was succeeded by Peter Lombard (1601–25), one of the most learned men of his time. He remained in exile, in Rome, during the whole twenty-four years of his incumbency and thus never once visited his diocese. Hugh Mac Cawell, a Franciscan, was consecrated abroad for the see in 1626, but died before he could reach it. Hugh O’Reilly, the next primate (1628–53), was very active in the political movements of his day. In 1642, he summoned the Ulster bishops and clergy to a synod at Kells in which the war then carried on by the Irish was declared lawful and pious. He took a prominent part in the Confederation of Kilkenny and was appointed a member of the Supreme Council of twenty-four persons who carried on the government of the country in the name of King Charles I. After the defeat and death of most of the Catholic Irish chieftains he was elected generalissimo of the Catholic forces and prolonged the heroic though hopeless conflict. Edmund O’Reilly (1657–69) succeeded to the see, but owing to the difficulties of the time was only able to spend two years in the diocese out of the twelve of his incumbency. He was exiled on four different occasions. During the whole time he spent in the diocese, he was hiding in woods and caves and never had any bed but a cloak thrown over straw. He suffered a great deal from the machinations of the notorious Father Walsh, the author of the “Loyal Remonstrance” (1661, 1672) to King Charles II, and died in exile in France.

The next primate was the Venerable Oliver Plunket (1669–81), the cause of whose beatification is at present being promoted. Shortly after his accession to the see, he was obliged to defend the primatial rights of Armagh against the claims put forward for Dublin by its archbishop, Dr. Peter Talbot. At a meeting of the Catholic clergy in Dublin in 1670, each of these prelates refused to subscribe subsequent to the other. Dr. Plunket thereupon wrote a work on the ancient rights and prerogatives of his see, published in 1672, under the title “Jus Primatiale; or the ancient Pre-eminence of the See of Armagh above all the other Archbishops in the Kingdom of Ireland, asserted by O. A. T. H. P.” This was replied to two years later by Dr. Talbot in a dissertation styled “Primatus Dublinensis; or the chief reasons on which the Church of Dublin relies in the possession and prosecution of her right to the Primacy of Ireland.” A violent persecution stilled the controversy for some time and subsequent primates asserted their authority from time to time in Dublin. In 1719 two Briefs of Clement XI were in favour of the claims of Armagh. Still the matter was not allowed to rest and Dr. Hugh Mac Mahon felt compelled to write a work treating the subject exhaustively in answer to an anonymous pamphlet published by Father John Hennessy, a Jesuit of Clonmel. Dr. Mac Mahon’s work, written under great difficulties, appeared in 1728 under the title of “Jus Primatiale Armacanum; or the Primatial Right of Armagh over all the other Archbishops and Bishops and the entire clergy of Ireland, asserted by H. A. M. T. H. P.” This learned work contains the last word on the subject and is conclusive. In practice, however, the primatial right has fallen into desuetude in Ireland as in every other part of the Church. In 1679, Venerable Oliver Plunket was arrested on a ridiculous charge of conspiring to bring 20,000 Frenchmen into the country and of having levied moneys on his clergy for the purpose of maintaining 70,000 men for an armed rebellion. After being confined in Dublin Castle for many months, he was presented for trial on these and other charges in Dundalk; but the jury, though all Protestants, refused to find a true bill against him. The venue, however, of his trial was changed by his enemies to London, where he was tried by an English jury before he was able to gather his witnesses and bring them across, though he made the request to the judge. The principal witnesses against him were some disreputable priests and friars of Armagh whom he had censured and suspended for their bad conduct. He was dragged on a sledge to Tyburn on 1 July, 1681, where he was hanged, drawn, and quartered in presence of an immense multitude. His head, still in a good state of preservation, is in the possession of the Dominican nuns of Drogheda.

PENAL TIMES

During this trying period, the primates had to live in the greatest obscurity in order to disarm the malice of the enemies of the Catholic clergy. Dominic Maguire (1683–1707), a Dominican, succeeded to the see after the death of the Venerable Oliver Plunket. This primate, having to go into exile after the surrender of Limerick in 1691, spent the sixteen years that intervened between that time and his death in a very destitute condition. In the meantime the See of Armagh was administered by a vicar, Patrick Donnelly, a priest of the diocese, who in 1697 was appointed Bishop of Dromore, though retaining the administration of Armagh for several years afterwards. His name occurs in the government register of the “popish clergy” of Armagh, made in 1704, as the pretended popish priest of that part of the parish of Newry that lies in the county of Armagh. The sureties for his good conduct were Terence Murphy of Lurgan and Patrick Guinnisse of the same town. Altogether the names of nineteen parish priests appear on the register for the county of Armagh. From the returns made in 1731 by the Protestant archbishops and bishops regarding the growth of popery in Ireland, we find that in the Diocese of Armagh there were 26 Mass-houses, 77 officiating priests, 5 friaries, 22 friars, 1 nunnery with 9 nuns, 7 private chapels and 40 popish schools. Owing to the severity of the laws there was no primate resident in Ireland for twenty-three years after the flight of Primate Maguire, in 1691. Hugh Mac Mahon (1714–37), Bishop of Clogher, was at last appointed to the bereft see. Living during the worst of the penal times, the primate was obliged constantly to wander from place to place, saying Mass and administering Confirmation in the open air. Nevertheless, in spite of these difficulties he has left his name to posterity by the learned work “Jus Primatiale Armacanum,” written by command of the pope in defence of the primatial rights of Armagh. He was succeeded by his nephew, Bernard Mac Mahon (1737–47), then Bishop of Clogher, who is described as a prelate remarkable for zeal, charity, prudence, and sound doctrine. He also suffered considerably from the persecution, and spent most of his time in hiding. Bernard was succeeded in the primacy by his brother, Ross Mac Mahon (1747–48), also Bishop of Clogher. Michael O’Reilly (1749–58), Bishop of Derry, was the next primate. He published two catechisms, one in Irish and the other in English, the latter of which has been in use in parts of the north of Ireland till our own time. On one occasion this primate and eighteen of his priests were arrested near Dundalk. He lived in a small thatched cottage at Termonfechan, and at times had to lie concealed in a narrow loft under the thatch. Anthony Blake (1758–86) was his successor. The persecution having subsided to a great extent, he was not harried like his predecessors, but nevertheless could not be induced to live permanently in his diocese, a circumstance which was the occasion of much discontent among his clergy and led to a temporary suspension from his duties. Richard O’Reilly (1787–1818) was his successor in the primacy. Having an independent fortune, he was the first Catholic prelate since the Revolution who was able to live in a manner becoming his dignified station. By his gentleness and affability he succeeded in quieting the dissensions which had distracted the diocese during the time of his predecessor and was thenceforward known as the “Angel of Peace.” In 1793, he laid the foundation-stone of St. Peter’s Church in Drogheda, which was to serve as his pro-cathedral, one of the first Catholic churches to be built within the walls of a town in Ireland since the Protestant Reformation. The Protestant Corporation of Drogheda, wearing their robes and carrying the mace and sword, appeared on the scene and forbade the ceremony to proceed, but their protest was disregarded.

MODERN TIMES

Patrick Curtis (1819–32), who had been rector of the Irish College of Salamanca, was appointed to the see in more hopeful times and lived to witness the emancipation of the Catholics of Ireland. He was one of the first to join the Catholic Association, and being on friendly terms with the Duke of Wellington, whom he had met in Spain during the Peninsular War, was able to advance considerably the cause of Catholic Emancipation. Thomas Kelly succeeded (1832–35). He drew up the statutes which are still in use in the diocese and lived and died with the reputation of a saint. William Crolly succeeded (1835–49). He was the first Catholic primate to reside in Armagh and perform episcopal functions there since the persecution began, and signalized himself by beginning the noble cathedral which it has taken more than sixty years to bring to completion. The foundation-stone was laid 17 March, 1840, and before the primate’s death the walls had been raised to a considerable height. Paul Cullen succeeded in 1849, but was translated to the See of Dublin in 1852. In 1850 he presided over the National Synod of Thurles, the first of the kind held in Ireland since the convention of the bishops and clergy in Kilkenny, in 1642. Joseph Dixon (1852–66), the next primate, held a synod in Drogheda in 1854, at which all the northern bishops assisted. In 1856, the Diocesan Chapter, consisting of thirteen members, was formed. Archbishop Dixon resumed the building of the cathedral, but did not live to see it finished. Michael Kieran (1866–69) succeeded, residing in Dundalk during his tenure of the primatial see. His successor, Daniel Mac Gettigan (1870–87), spent three years of earnest labour in the completion of the cathedral, and was able to open it for divine worship in 1873. The present illustrious occupant of the see, Cardinal Michael Logue, succeeded to the primacy in 1887. He is the first Primate of Armagh to become a member of the Sacred College. He has devoted himself for several years to the task of beautifying and completing in every sense the noble edifice erected by his predecessors. In the building of the sacristy, library, synod-hall, muniment-room, the purchase in fee-simple of the site, and the interior decorations and altars, he has spent more than £50,000 on what is now known as the National Cathedral. This great temple was consecrated on 24 July, 1904. Cardinal Vincenzo Vannutelli, representing Pope Pius X, was present at the consecration.

RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE ARCHDIOCESE

There is a Franciscan and an Augustinian friary in Drogheda, and the Dominicans have one founded by Primate Netterville in 1224. They also have one in Dundalk, established originally at Carlingford in the early part of the fourteenth century. Of the modern congregations, the Vincentians were introduced into Armagh by Primate Dixon in 1861, to take charge of the ecclesiastical seminary. The Marist Fathers, also at Primate Dixon’s request, came to Dundalk the same year to conduct a college. The Redemptorists were brought there by Primate Mac Gettigan in 1876. Primate Cullen brought the Irish Christian Brothers to Armagh in 1851, Primate Dixon brought them to Drogheda in 1857, and Primate Kieran to Dundalk in 1869. The French Congregation of Christian Brothers (de la Salle) have schools in Dundalk, Keady, and Ardee. The Presentation Brothers have schools at Dungannon. The Dominican Nuns, invited to Drogheda in 1722 by Primate Hugh Mac Mahon, conduct a boarding-school and a day-school. The Presentation Nuns, who settled in Drogheda in 1813, and in Portadown in 1882, have large poor schools in both towns. The Sisters of Mercy, also devoted to the education of the poor, came to Dundalk in 1847, to Ardee in 1859, and to Dungannon in 1894. They also have convents at Bessbrook and Cookstown. The Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul came to Drogheda in 1855, where they conduct an industrial school for little boys and an orphanage for girls. The Ladies of the Sacred Heart were brought to Armagh by Primate Cullen in 1850. There is a missionary school for girls attached to their convent. There is a convent of Poor Clares at Keady, one of St. Louis at Middletown, and one of the Sisters of the Immaculate Conception at Magherafelt, all recent foundations. The Academy of St. Patrick, Dungannon, is conducted by the diocesan clergy. The Catholic Diocesan Orphan Society is under the direction of the Primate.

PROTESTANT ARCHBISHOPS

Hugh Goodacre, the first Protestant prelate who presided over the diocese, was appointed by Edward VI, in 1552. He was consecrated according to the Protestant ordinal and survived his consecration only three months. Adam Loftus (1563–67), from whom the Irish Protestant hierarchy claim to derive their orders, was consecrated by Hugh Curwin, Archbishop of Dublin, according to the form annexed to the second Book of Common Prayer of the time of Edward VI. The most learned of the Protestant primates was James Ussher (1625–56), whose most important works were “Veterum Epistolarum Hibernicarum Sylloge,” published in 1632, and “Brittanicarum Ecclesiarum Antiquitates,” which appeared in 1639. He left his valuable library, comprising several thousand printed books and manuscripts, to Trinity College, Dublin, and his complete works were published by that institution in twenty-four volumes at the cost of 3,000. In spite of his learning, this prelate’s character was marked by a most intolerant spirit of bigotry against the Irish Catholics. His judgment against toleration of Papists, i.e. “to consent that they may freely exercise their religion and profess their faith and doctrine is a grievous sin,” was a signal for the renewal of persecution and led to the Rising of the Irish Catholics in 1641. John Bramhall (1660–63), another learned Protestant divine, succeeded Ussher. His works on polemic and other subjects have been published in four folio volumes. Narcissus March (1702–13), another learned prelate, built the noble library of St. Sepulchre’s in Dublin, which bears his name, filled it with a valuable collection of theological and Oriental works and liberally endowed it for the support of a librarian and deputy. Hugh Boulter (1724–42), John Hoadly (1742–46), and George Stone (1746–64) are principally famous as politicians and upholders of the “English Interest” in Ireland. The first two supported and promoted the penal laws against the Catholics, but Stone was opposed to persecution. Richard Robinson, first Baron Rokeby (1765–94), raised Armagh by his munificence from extreme decay to a state of opulence and embellished it with various useful public institutions. He built an episcopal palace, a public library, an infirmary, and an observatory. Lord John George Beresford (1822–62) was also distinguished by his munificence. He restored Armagh Cathedral at a cost of 34,000 and is said to have spent 280,000 in acts of public benevolence. On his successor, Marcus Gervais Beresford (1862–65), fell a large portion of the task of providing for the future organization and sustentation of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Ireland, which was disestablished from 1 January 1871. After the flight of the Earls O’Neill and O’Donnell, large portions of their forfeited estates were made over to the Protestant see, which, together with the land previously belonging to the see in Catholic times, made up a total of 100,563 acres, producing in modern times a gross revenue for the Protestant primate of 17,670. By the Church Temporalities’ Act of 1833, this was considerably reduced, and the net income of the see before the disestablishment was 12,087. Since that event the primate receives an annual salary from the Church Representative Body of 2,500, with the palace free of rent. The glebe lands belonging to the eighty-eight benefices in the diocese comprised 19,290 acres. Since disestablishment, about 9,000 are contributed annually by the voluntary system for sustentation funds and about 5,000 for various other Church purposes. Before disestablishment, the Irish Episcopalians formed twenty-two per cent of the population of the diocese, Presbyterians seventeen per cent, and Catholics sixty-one per cent, a proportion which has remained almost the same ever since. The non-Catholic population in 1901 was 100,451.

STUART, History of Armagh, ed. AMBROSE COLEMAN (Dublin, 1900); The Annals of the Four Masters (Dublin, 1851–56), VII, Index s. v. Armagh; HENNESSY AND McCARTHY, Annals of Ulster, 431–1541 (Dublin, 1887–91); VEN. OLIVER PLUNKET, Jus Primatiale Armacanum (1672); LANIGAN, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (Dublin, 1829), I-IV, passim; O’HANLON, Life of St. Malachy O’Morgair (Dublin, 1859); BRENNAN, Eccl. History of Ireland (Dublin, 1864), passim; HEALY, Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1890), 91–105; GAMS, Series episcoporum, etc. (1873), 206–208, and his continuator, EUBEL, passim; Maziere Brady, Episcopal Succession in England, Ireland, and Scotland (Rome, 1876); Dublin University Magazine (1839–40), V, 319; XVI, 86; COOTE, A Survey of the County of Armagh (Dublin, 1804);LEWIS, Topographical Dictionary of Ireland (London, 1837), I, 66–75; JOYCE, A Social History of Ireland (London, 1903), II, 613, s. v. Armagh; WARE-HARRIS, Antiquities of Ireland (Dublin, 1739–45); ARCHDALL-MORAN, Monasticon Hibernicum (Dublin, 1873); MORAN, Memoirs of Most Rev. Dr. Oliver Plunket (Dublin, 1861); Spicilegium Ossoriense, 1517–1800 (Dublin, 1874–85). For the Protestant archbishops see COTTON, Fasti Ecclesiae Hibernicae (Dublin, 1851–78); COX, Hibernia Anglicana (London, 1689); MALONE, Church History of Ireland from the Invasion to the Restoration (Dublin, 1863); RENEHAN, Collections on Church History (Dublin, 1861); COMERFORD, The History of Ireland from the Earliest Account of Time to the Invasion of the English under Henry II (Dublin, 1754); COLEMAN, Ir. Eccl. Rec., VII, 193; FITZPATRICK, Ir. Eccl. Rec., XVI, 26, 122; MORAN, Ir. Eccl. Rec., XII, 385.

AMBROSE COLEMAN

Book of Armagh

Technically known as LIBER AR(D)MACHANUS.

A celebrated Irish-Latin manuscript preserved in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin. It is a vellum, in small quarto, and in a fine state of preservation, with the exception of the commencement, where a few pages are missing. In its present condition it consists of 221 leaves (442 pages) with the writing in double or, less often, in triple columns. The Irish band is used throughout, but some of the initial letters are in Greek character, and some of the letters are lightly coloured black, red, green, and yellow. The penmanship is, on the whole, very beautiful, distinct, and uniform. The only drawings in the manuscripts are four, representing the symbols of the Evangelists. Because of the value that the Irish placed on the Book of Armagh, it was often richly bound, and encased in shrines of artistic workmanship. The Book of Armagh was also known as the “Canon of Patrick,” and it was once thought that it was the Patron’s own book and in part, the work of Patrick himself. It was left for Bishop Charles Graves, however, to discover from the erasures in the manuscript itself, and from references in the Annals to names which he had pieced together from the Book of Armagh, that the name of the scribe of, perhaps, the entire work was Ferdomnach of Armagh, who died in 845 or 846, and that he wrote the first part of the Book in the year 807 or 808.

The Book of Armagh is, in the main, a transcript of documents of a much older period than the Book which has preserved them, and these documents are of inestimable value for the early history and civilization of Ireland. Above all, this collection is valuable because it contains the earliest writings that have come down to us relating to St. Patrick. The author of one of the Lives of Patrick, which the Book of Armagh contains, was one Muirchu Maccu Machteni, who wrote at the request of Aed, Bishop of Sletty. The author of the other Life was Tirechan, who wrote, we are told, for Bishop Ultan of Ardbraccan. Both these authors wrote at about the middle of the seventh century, and had as their authorities even older memoirs. The Book contains other miscellaneous documents relating to St. Patrick, and gives considerable information on the rights and prerogatives of the See of Armagh. Among the miscellaneous contents may be mentioned the “Liber Angueli” (so spelled in the Irish fashion to show that the g was not palatalized), “the Book of the Angel,” wherein an angel is represented as entrusting to St. Patrick the primatial rights of Armagh; the Eusebian Canons, St. Jerome’s letter to Damasus, Epistles of St. Paul, with prefaces, chiefly by Pelagius, Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; the Apocalypse, the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke, and the “Life of St. Martin of Tours,” by Sulpicius Severus. At bottom of folio 16 verso, there is an entry which the scribe says was made “in conspectu Briani imperatoris Scotorum,” that is, in the presence of Brian Borumha, probably in the year 1002.

St. Bernard, writing in the twelfth century, in his “Life of Malachi,” speaks of a certain book which, he says, was one of the marks of the primatial rights of the See of Armagh. This was probably the “Liber Ardmachanus.” In such high estimation was this Book held that a custodian was appointed for it and in virtue of his office he had, as his remuneration no less than eight townlands. It was probably one of his functions to carry the Book on occasions of state and ceremony. The name of the keeper (in Irish, Maor, “steward”) became in the course of time the family name of the keeper, since the office was hereditary, and they became known is mac (pl. meic) maor, or, anglicized, Moyre or Moyer. The precious Book thus changed hands frequently, and there is mention in the records that it was once pawned as security for a claim of five pounds. In the latter part of the seventeenth century it passed from the hands of the MacMoyres into the possession of the Brownlow family of Lurgan, with whom it remained until 1853, when it was purchased for three hundred pounds by the Irish antiquarian, Dr. Reeves, and by him transferred, on the same terms, to the Anglican primate Beresford, who presented it to the Library of Trinity College. There is evidence to show that the Book was often used when giving testimony, and that oaths were sworn, and covenants ratified on it. This may account for some of the pages having the appearance of having been rubbed or touched frequently. The Irish of the Book of Armagh is of the greatest importance for the history of the Irish language. It is not only one of the very oldest monuments of the Old-lrish, since it is antedated only by the fragmentary glosses in the Irish manuscripts preserved on the Continent, but it is the earliest extant specimen of a continuous narrative in Irish prose. It represents the language of the end of the seventh, or of the beginning of the eighth, century. The phonetic peculiarities of the Irish of that period, as evidenced in the Book of Armagh, are described briefly by Whitley Stokes and John Strachan in the preface to the second volume of their “Thesaurus Paleohibernicus,” XIII, sqq. This same volume contains all the Irish found in the Book of Armagh.

On the date of the manuscript, see CHARLES GRAVES, in The Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, III, 316 sq., 356 sqq. described by GEORGE PETRIE in his Inquiry into the Origin and Uses of the Round Towers of Ireland in the Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, XX 330 sqq. All the documents in the Book relating to St. Patrick are in WHITLEY WHITLEY S’TOKES’S The Tripartite Life of St. Patrick, pt. 11, 1887, and were reprinted by E. HOGAN, from the Analecia Bollandiana, I and 11, under the caption Excerpta hibernica ex Libro Armachano, in his Outlines of the Grammar of Old-Irish (Dublin, 1900). See also STUART, Historical Memoirs of the City of Armagh, ed. COLEMAN (Dublin, 1900); BETHAM, Irish Antiquarian Researches, 11,—1827; HEALY, Ancient Schools of Ireland (Ist ed., Dublin), 103–105. A critical, definitive edition of the whole Codex, reproducing the text “diplomatically “, was projected by the late Dr. Reeves. It is now announced for immediate publication by Professor Gwynn of Dublin.

JOSEPH DUNN

School of Armagh

The School of Armagh seems to have been the oldest, and down to the time of the Anglo-Norman invasion continued to be one of the most celebrated, of the ancient schools of Ireland. It dates, so far as we can judge, from the very foundation of the See of Armagh, for it has always been regarded as one of the primary duties of a bishop to make due provision for the education of his clergy, and as far as possible under his own immediate supervision. St. Patrick was certainly not the man to neglect this important duty. When the foreign clergy of various grades who had accompanied the apostle to Ireland had been all assigned to the care of the first churches which he had founded in Meath and Connaught, it became necessary to train native youth for the service of the Church. For this purpose Patrick established a kind of peripatetic school. That is to say, when he found a likely subject for the ministry, especially amongst the youthful bards or brehons, he took him into his own missionary train, wrote a catechism of Christian doctrine for him, and then handed him over to one of his clerics to be instructed in the Ordo of the Mass and the administration of the sacraments. It was the very best thing that could be done at the time, but it was, of course, only a temporary expedient. Armagh was founded most probably in 457, that is, in the twenty-fifth year after the founding of Trim, as we are expressly told in the “Notes to Tirechan.” We may fairly assume that one of the very first things Patrick did was to establish a school in connection with his own cathedral, for the training of the clergy, and no doubt he himself exercised a general supervision over the direction of the infant seminary. But he was now too old to teach in person, and so his coadjutor in Armagh would naturally be chief director of the Cathedral School. His first coadjutor, his nephew Sechnall, died about this time, or earlier, and Benignus, Irish secretary and psalm-singer to the saint, was chosen to succeed Sechnall in the office of coadjutor; so, we may fairly assume, he became the first rector of the School of Armagh.

Benignus was admirably qualified for the office. There is some reason to think that his family belonged to the bardic order, and we know that he had been trained by Patrick in sacred learning from his early youth and was, moreover, well versed in the language and learning of his native land. Hence, we find that he was appointed secretary to the great Commission of Nine, which a few years before had been constituted for the purification of the Brehon Laws. He was also chief singer in the church services, and to him the original compilation of the “Book of Rights” has been always attributed. No doubt the School of Armagh would be primarily a great theological seminary, not only for Patrick’s royal city or see, but also for students from all parts of Ireland; for the chief seat of ecclesiastical authority should also be the fountain of sound doctrine for all the land. But under such a rector as Benignus we may be sure that due attention would be paid to the cultivation of the ancient language of Erin, and also of her bardic history and romantic tales, which were all familiar to him from his youth. Still, sacred science would be the chief study of Armagh, and, above all, the constant and profound study of the Scripture would be the primary purpose of its scholars. Their theological studies were all based on Scripture, and although theology had not yet assumed the scientific form which was given to it by the great scholastic doctors, and which has ever since been retained and brought to higher perfection in the Church, they were careful to expound the positive theology of the Latin Fathers, whose writings were well known in Armagh, as we know to some extent, from the “Book of Armagh” itself.

One of the most famous books at a somewhat later period in all the schools of Ireland and especially at Armagh, was the “Morals” of St. Gregory the Great. It is a large treatise in thirty-five books, and, although nominally merely a commentary on the Book of Job, it is in reality one of the most beautiful works on moral theology in its widest sense that has ever been penned. Every verse of Job is made the text for a homily, not a homily of a formal character, but a series of moral reflections conveyed in sweet and touching language, in which argument and exhortation are very happily blended. On Sacred Scripture St. Jerome seems to have been the best authority; and we know, both from the fragments of Aileran the Wise, published by Migne, and from the Irish manuscripts of St. Columban’s great monastery at Bobbio, that our Irish scholars were familiar with nearly all his work. In dogmatic theology we do not think that, during the first two centuries of their history, the Celtic scholars were familiar with the writings of St. Augustine on “Grace.” They seem to have derived their dogma from St. Hilary and other writers of the French Church rather than from the great Father of the African Church.

One of the earliest and most distinguished teachers of the School of Armagh, after the time of St. Patrick and St. Benignus, was Gildas the Wise. His great work, the “Destruction of Britain,” which is still extant, shows that he was a man both of large culture and of great holiness, wonderfully familiar with the text and application of Sacred Scripture, and in every way qualified to rule the Schools of Armagh. We know little or nothing of the writings of the subsequent teachers in the School of Armagh, though we have a record of the names of several, with eulogies of their wisdom and scholarship. The number of English students attracted to the Schools of Armagh by the fame of their professors was so great that in later times the city was divided into three wards, or “thirds,” as they were called: the Trian Mor, the Trian Masain, and the Trian Saxon—the last being the English quarter, in which the crowds of students from Saxon-land took up their abode, and where, as we know on the express testimony of a contemporary writer, the Venerable Bede, they were received with true Irish hospitality, and were all, rich and poor, supplied gratuitously with food, books, and education. Anyone glancing at the “Annals of the Four Masters” will find frequent references made, from the sixth to the twelfth century, to the deaths of the “learned scribes,” the “professors of divinity,” the “wise doctors,” and the “moderators,” or rectors, of the School of Armagh. In 720, 727, and 749 we find recorded the deaths of three of these learned scribes within a very short period. Their duty was to devote themselves to the transcription of manuscript books in the Teachscreaptra, or “House of Writings,” corresponding to the modern library. The “Book of Armagh,” transcribed there A.D. 807, shows how patiently and lovingly they laboured at the wearisome work, “as if,” says Miss Stokes, “they had concentrated all their brains in the point of the pen.” And yet, during these very centuries, the schools, the churches, and the town itself suffered terribly from the lawless men of those days, especially the Danes. Armagh was burned no less than sixteen times between the years 670 and 1179, and it was plundered nine times, mostly by Danes, during the ninth and tenth centuries. How it survived during these centuries of fire and blood is truly marvellous. In 1020, for instance, we are told by the Four Masters that “Ard-Macha was burned with all the fort, without the saving of any house in it except the House of Writings only, and many houses were burned in the Trians, and the Great Church was burned, and the belfry with its bells, and the other stone churches were also burned, and the old preaching-chair, and the chariot of the abbots, and their books in the houses of the students, with much gold, silver, and other precious things.” Yet the city and schools of St. Patrick rose again phoenix-like from their ashes. In 1100, Imar O’Hagan, the master of the great St. Malachy, was made abbot, just two years before the death of Malachy’s father, the Blessed Mugron O’More, who had been “chief lector of divinity of this School, and of all the west of Europe.”

Twelve years later we have a record of the death of O’Drugan, chief professor of Ard-Macha, “paragon of wisdom of the Irish, and head of the council of the west of Europe in piety and in devotion.” Just at this time, in 1137, the great Gelasius, who well deserved his name, the Giolla Iosa, or “Servant of Jesus,” succeeded St. Malachy in the See of Armagh, and in spite of the disturbed state of the times raised the school to the zenith of its splendour. In 1162 he presided over a synod of twenty-six bishops held at Clane, in the County Kildare, in which it was enacted that no person should be allowed to teach divinity in any school in Ireland who had not, as we should now say, “graduated” in the School of Armagh. To make Armagh worthy of this pre-eminence we find that in 1169, the very year in which the Norman adventurers first landed in Ireland, King Rory O’Conor “presented ten cows every year from himself, and from every kin that should succeed him forever, to the professor of Ard-Macha, in honour of St. Patrick, to instruct the youth of Ireland and Alba in learning.” The professor at the time was in every way worthy of this special endowment, for he was Florence O’Gorman, “head moderator of this School and of all the Schools in Ireland, a man well skilled in divinity, and deeply learned in all the sciences.” He had travelled twenty-one years in France and England and at his death, in 1174, had ruled the Schools of Armagh for twenty years. It was well for the venerable sage that he died in peace. Had he lived four years more he would have seen the sun of Armagh’s glory set in darkness and blood, when De Courcy, and De Burgo, and De Lacy, year after year, swooped down on the ancient city, plundered its shrines, and slaughtered or drove far away its students, its priests, and its professors. Once again Armagh was made desolate by ruthless bands, and that desolation was more complete and more enduring than the first. Let us hope, however, that the proud cathedral lately built on Macha’s Height gives promise of a glorious future yet in store for the ancient city of St. Patrick, and for its famous Schools.

STUART, History of Armagh, ed. COLEMAN (Dublin, 1900); HEALY, Life and Writings of St. Patrick (Dublin, 1905); ID., Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1890); BURY, The Life of St. Patrick (London, 1905); JOYCE, A Social History of Ireland (London, 1903); ARCHDALL, Monasticon Hibernicum, ed. MORAN (Dublin, 1873).

JOHN HEALY

Georges d’Armagnac

French cardinal and diplomatist, b. c. 1501; d. 2 June, 1585. He belonged to the illustrious family of Foix d’Armagnac. In his youth he was the protégé of Cardinal d’Amboise. The Duke of Alençon introduced him to Francis I, and in 1529 he was appointed Bishop of Rodez, was ambassador to Venice 1536–38, took part in the war between Francis I and Charles V, and distinguished himself by contributing to the emperor’s retreat from the south of France (1538). In 1539 the king sent him as ambassador to Rome, where the cardinal’s hat was bestowed upon him in (1544). In 1552 he was appointed lieutenant-general of the king at Toulouse, together with Paul de Carrets, Bishop of Cahors. Eight years later he was raised to the Archbishopric of Toulouse, which he left in 1565, Pius IV having appointed him legate at Avignon, together with Cardinal de Bourbon. In this position Cardinal d’Armagnac vigorously defended the interests of the Church against the Huguenots and brought about a good understanding between the people of Avignon and those of Orange and Languedoc. The pope showed his approval of d’Armagnac’s administration by promoting him to the Archbishopric of Avignon (1576). His great intelligence and deep knowledge of men and things, his austere virtues, and the protection which he granted to the arts and sciences place him in the first rank of the faithful servants of the Church in the sixteenth century.

Rey, Le cardinal d’Armagnac co-legat a Avignon (1566–83), d’apres sa correspondance; Annales du midi (1898), 129–154, 273–306; Tamizey de Larroque, Lettres inedites du cardinal d’Armagnac, in Rev. hist., 1876, II; Farges in La grande encyc., III, 986.

JEAN LE BARS

Mariano Armellino

Benedictine historian, b. in Rome (according to others, at Ancona) in 1657; d. at Foligno in 1737. At the age of twenty he entered the monastery of St. Paul in Rome, whence he was sent to Monte Cassino to complete his studies. From 1687 to 1695 he taught philosophy at various monasteries of the Cassinese Congregation. From 1697 to 1722 he devoted himself to preaching and became famous throughout Italy for his Lenten sermons. In 1722 Pope Innocent XIII appointed him abbot of the monastery at Sienna; in 1729 he was transferred as abbot to the Monastery of St. Peter at Assisi, and in 1734, to the Monastery at St. Felician, near Foligno. He wrote the “Bibliotheca Benedictino-Cassinensis,” a carefully compiled list and sketch of all the authors of the Cassinese Congregation, and a few other historical and hagiographical works concerning the Ccassinese Congregation of Benedictines.

Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1893), I, 1212; Adelung, Supplement zu Jaechers Gelehrten-Lexicon (Leipzig, 1784), I, 1091; Studien und Mittheilungen aus dem Benediktiner-Orden, VIII, 243; Ziegelbauer, Historia rei literariae Ordinis Sancti Benedicti, III, 37.

MICHAEL OTT

Armenia

A mountainous region of Western Asia occupying a somewhat indefinite area to the southeast of the Black Sea. Although the name “Armenia” occurs twice in the Vulgate, the regular biblical designation of the country is “Ararat,” a name which is doubtless identical with the “Urartu” of the cuneiform inscriptions. Not being delimited by permanent natural boundaries, the territory covered by Armenia has varied at different epochs of the world’s history, and even as early as the time of the ancient Romans there was recognized a Lesser as well as a Greater Armenia, the former embracing a portion of Asia Minor. Politically Armenia has been partitioned between Turkey, Iran, and (formerly) the Soviet Union, the largest share being possessed by Turkey. The country comprises a total area of about 120,000 square miles and consists in the main of an elevated plateau traversed by several mountain ranges which run parallel to the Caucasian mountains on the north. A few of the principal peaks, the most noted of which is Ararat, the “holy mount,” rise above the line of perpetual snow. Among the important rivers that take their rise in Armenia are the Euphrates, the Tigris, and the Araxes. There are many lakes, chief among which are Lake Sevanga and Lake Van. The latter is seventy miles in length and about twenty-eight in breadth, and is probably the “Upper Sea of the Nairi” mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions. The climate is severe, including the extremes of heat and cold. There are practically but two seasons, summer and winter, the latter lasting from October to May, and the transition from one to the other is abrupt. The peculiarities of the climate, among which may be noted a considerable degree of humidity, are due in part to the proximity of the Black Sea, partly to the high elevation of the region, most of the inhabited localities being from 5,000 to 8,000 feet above the sea level. Scarcely any trees are to be found on the Armenian mountains, but those planted in the inhabited localities thrive well. Grapes are successfully cultivated in the valleys and around Lake Van. Wheat, barley, hemp, cotton, and tobacco are also raised. Pre-eminent among the domestic animals are the horse and buffalo. The mountainous tracts yield excellent pasturage, and in consequence, the rearing of live stock is more extensively carried on than agriculture. On account of the various subjugations of the country, the inhabitants of Armenia belong to different races. The native Armenians and Kurds form each about a quarter of the entire population; the Turkish and Turcoman elements constitute the major part of the remaining half. Greeks, Jews, and Gypsies are scattered throughout the country. The Armenians themselves, most of whom live outside of Armenia, are a commercial people par excellence.

I. ANCIENT POLITICAL CONSTITUTION

The name Armenia appears for the first time in the cuneiform inscriptions of Darius Hystaspis. Much obscurity obtains as to the derivation of the word. Some would refer it back to the Vannic word Armani-lis, a stela, while others would connect it with Arman, a district lying to the south of Lake Van. Armenia is the name given to a mountainous strip of land situated in the southwestern portion of Asia. One one side it touches the Black Sea, on the other the Caspian, while on the north and on the south it is enclosed respectively by the Caucasus and the Taurus Mountains. Within its confines is the celebrated Lake Van. In shape it much resembles a quadrangle. As far as is known, the earliest inhabitants of Armenia were a white race, whose capital, Dhuspa, stood on the site of the present city of Van. An Aryan race replaced it and it is from this latter stock that the modern Armenians have sprung. They style their ancestors the Haïk and make allusion to their country as Haísdan. They claim that the father of their race, Haïk was the son of Thogorma, whom in Genesis we find to the third son of Gomer. This belief has given rise to many beautiful legends. Be this as it may, it was about the end of the seventh or the beginning of the sixth century B.C. that this new race took possession of the country. In number and social condition it was superior to its predecessor, but this new people also was subject to the Medes and the Persians. With the victory of Alexander the Great over the Persians in 328 B.C. Armenia fell into Greek hands. The Seleucidae of Syria, under whose control the land soon passed, allowed it the choice of its rulers. When in 190 B.C. the Romans over threw Antiochus the Great, Artaxias and Zariadris, who were then ruling the land, declared themselves kings, the former in Armenia proper, the latter in Sophene. Thus began the national dynasty of the Arsacides, which became famous under Tigranes the First. Later the Romans and the Parthians made a plaything of the country, which soon chose as its ruler Tiridates, the brother of the Parthian king. When the Arsacides lost the Persian throne to the Sassanides (A.D. 226) Armenia declared itself against the new house and there ensued a bloody combat between the two countries, which lasted for several centuries.

II. CONVERSION TO CHRISTIANITY

The nature and characteristics of the paganism which preceded Christianity in Armenia are practically unknown to us. Attempts have been made to identify its gods with those of Greece, but all we know are the names and the sanctuaries of its pagan deities.

Obscurity likewise shrouds the beginnings of Christianity in the country. Native historians of a rather late period would have us believe that several of the Apostles preached in Armenia, and that some of them, as St. Bartholomew and St. Thaddeus, died there. A popular legend ascribes to the latter the evangelization of the land. Although the very ancient writers of the country, such as Korioun, Agathangelus, etc., do not even mention the name of Thaddeus, yet the legend, which apparently came at a late period from a Greek source, has so prevailed that even today head of the Armenian Church claims to be occupying the “throne of St. Thaddeus.” Although legendary, this tradition witnesses that Christianity at a rather early date passed from Syria over into Armenia.

The letter of Meruzan to Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 248–265) confirms us in the belief that Christianity had already penetrated into Armenia before the time of St. Gregory the Illuminator. However, it is around St. Gregory that the story of Christianity’s growth in Armenia centres; for in him Armenia had its apostle. Born of the royal stock of the Arsacides, and brought in early infancy to Cæsarea of Cappadocia because of a Persian persecution of the Armenians, he was there instructed in the Christian Faith. About 261 he returned to Armenia and after much persecution brought the king and a large number of the people over to Christianity. Consecrated Metropolitan of Armenia (according to Cardinal Hergenroether) in 302, by Leontius, Archbishop of Cæsarea, he took up his residence at Achtichat. Under his influence the Faith began to spread throughout the land. Priests from the Greek Empire aided him in the work of conversion. When Christianity had gained a good headway in the country, the metropolitan turned his attention to the organization of the Church. The national language replaced the Syriac in the liturgy. To win over the converted pagan priests more fully, he chose from their sons, after educating them, the occupants of a dozen episcopal sees created by himself. Thus the high dignities were given to the sacerdotal families, which retained them for some time. The office of catholicos or patriarch was for a considerable period confined to the family of St. Gregory. A beautiful legend, lacking, however, a historic basis, tells of a trip by him to Rome. His missionaries went as far north as Georgia and Albania.

In 311 Maximinus began war on the struggling Church of Armenia, but met with many repulses. About this time St. Gregory passed away, having spent the last years of his life in solitude. After his death we find the progress of the infant Church stayed by internal dissensions. At the time apostates were numerous and, in their eagerness to subjugate the country, the Persians lent every encouragement to perversion. Meanwhile, successors filled the office of metropolitan once held by St. Gregory. His youngest son, Aristaces, took the post of his father and was present at the Council of Nicaea. In 363 and 872 the Armenian episcopate took an active part in the affairs of the Christian world. St. Basil of Cessarea visited a great part of Armenia and corrected many abuses. Led on by his example, the Catholicos Nerses in the Synod of Achtichat (c. 365), the first authentic Armenian synod, laid the foundations of the first hospitals and other charitable institutions for the country. He gave an impetus to monastic life and promulgated numerous laws on marriage and the observance of fasts. These reforms, showing a Greek influence, arrayed against the catholicos the king and the nobles, and thus we meet the first recorded instance of that spirit of national independence and intolerance of foreign influence which is so important a factor in the history of the Armenian Church. An anti-catholicos was appointed by the king, and soon Nerses died a violent death. Then a fierce anti-religious reaction set in. State endowments were in part withdrawn, numbers of the clergy fell away, and charitable institutions were allowed to crumble to ruins. Pagan practices came into use everywhere and the Christianity of but a few years before seemed to have died out. The vacant see of the catholicos was filled by the king, and the coveted position went to Iousik, of the family of the Aghbianos, rival to that of St. Gregory. St. Basil clamoured for the rights of his Cæsarean see, but, though supported by the older clergy of Armenia, his claims were not allowed, and the consecration of the Armenian catholicos was thus lost forever to the Church of Cæsarea.

The religious autonomy of the Armenian Church was begun thus. Shortly after this event occurred the death of Manuel the Mamikonian, which was the signal for Rome and Persia to divide Armenia between them. Of the country, which both had lost and reconquered, and were now parceling out (387) four-fifths went to Persia. As a consequence, persecution was immediately raised against the Christian Church, and the Christians were forced to take to the mountains. The man of the hour for the Christian cause was the catholicos, Isaac the Great, the son of Nerses. About him rallied all parties. Even during his exile the people remained attached to him. Beneath his care the Armenian Church flourished in spite of difficulties, ecclesiastical discipline was enforced, and the intellectual standard of the people raised. His death in 439 was a great loss to the cause of Christianity in Armenia. The Persian masters continued to leave no stone unturned to stifle Christianity and to replace it by Parseeism. The Armenians, however, remained constant in the face of persecution. Another foe attacked them, and that was heresy. Gnosticism in the second century and Paulicianism in the sixth and seventh centuries had adherents among the Armenians, but the chief heresies to be mentioned in this connection are Nestorianism and Monophysitism. The works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus, which were filled with Nestorian ideas, were translated into Armenian, and through them endeavours were made to disseminate the teachings of Nestorius. Rabulas of Edessa and Acacius warned the bishops against these writings. A synod was held and two priests were dispatched to Constantinople to ask of Proclus what was the right position in the matter. In reply came the famous “Document for the Armenians” which was held in high honour by the Armenian ecclesiastical authorities, and which exerted a powerful influence on their theology. Henceforth the Armenians were bitter opponents of Nestorianism. But where Nestorianism failed, Monophysitism succeeded. The Council of Chalcedon, which condemned that error, was held while the Armenians were fighting against the Persians’ endeavour to crush out Christianity. As soon as they heard of the council and of the action it had taken, opposition arose against it, and the charge of the Monophysites that Chalcedon had but renewed the Nestorian error was readily believed. Monophysitism was accepted, and the decrees of Chalcedon rejected. The attitude of the Armenians in this entire matter was dictated not so much by a love of orthodoxy as by the desire of promoting the welfare of their country; for, by receiving Monophysitism, they hoped that Greek favour would be gained and Persian domination more easily thrown off. Writings were published in Armenia against Chalcedon and appeals were urged for a return to Apostolic doctrine. The Catholicos Papken in the Synod of Vagharchapat (491) solemnly condemned in the presence of the Armenian, Iberian, and Albanian bishops the Council of Chalcedon. Within half a century, this condemnation was reaffirmed by the two Councils of Tvin, the second of which was held in 552, and fixed 11 July 552, as the beginning of the Armenian era. The Greeks, having returned to orthodoxy, tried several times to lead back the Armenians also from Monophysitism. In 571 the Catholicos John went with part of his clergy to Constantinople, where he died, after making an act of fidelity to orthodoxy. This incident had no effect on Armenia. When in 591 the Greek emperor Maurice, having taken most of Armenia from the Persians, invited the Catholicus Moses I, to convoke at Constantinople the bishops and nobles of Armenia, his request met with a refusal, Then the emperor had the Armenian bishops in the Roman territory assemble and recognize the Council of Chalcedon. He chose for the office of patriarch a bishop named John, with residence at Avan. Thus in 593 the Armenian Church found itself divided into two sections. Soon after the Iberians fell away, with their Catholicos Kiouron at their head, rejecting Monophysitism and the authority of the Armenian patriarch. For a time the Albanians also declared themselves independent, but soon came back. When Heraclius had conquered the country and thus deprived the Persians of their control for the second time (629), he obtained from the Catholicos Ezr the condemnation of Nestorius and all heretics, without any mention being made of Chalcedon. The union with the Greeks thus effected lasted during the lifetime of Heraclius. But in the Synod of Tvin (645) Chalcedon was again condemned. Meanwhile, the Arabs had attacked the country, which fell, an easy victim, before them, and so Armenia, which once had its own rulers and was at other times under Persian and Byzantine control, passed into the power of the Caliphs.

III. LITERATURE, EARLY, MEDIEVAL AND MODERN

Of the literature of pagan Armenia only few fragments have come down to us. The foundation of what we know as Armenian literature must therefore be sought in Christian times. Very rich in itself, Christian Armenian literature dates from the invention of the national alphabet by Mesrob. In these first years of the fifth century were composed some of the apocryphal works which, like the Discourses attributed to St. Gregory and the History of Armenia said to have come from Agathangelus, are asserted to be the works of these and other well-known men. Connected with early Armenian literature are the names of such illustrious persons as Isaac the Great and Mesrob, by whom an impetus was given to the literature of the country. They translated the Bible from a Syriac version and revised their translation by means of the Septuagint of the Hexapla, and the Greek text of the New Testament. There followed various other translations which for the most part are of great importance, since the originals of many have been lost. Of these we may mention the “Homilies” of St. John Chrysostom, two works of Philo on “Providence,” together with some of his Biblical commentaries, the “Chronicle” of Eusebius, and the works of St. Ephrem. This early period of Armenian literature also produced original compositios. Eznik of Kolb wrote a “Refutation of the Sects,” and Koroun the “History of the Life of St. Mesrob and of the Beginnings of Armenian Literature.” These men, both of whom were disciples of Mesrob, bring to an end what may be called the golden age of Armenian literature.

The medieval period opens with comparative sterility. The first name of importance is met with in the eighth century, that of John Otznetzi, surnamed the “Philosopher.” A “Discourse against the Paulicians,” a “Synodal Discourse,” and a collection of the canons of the councils and the Fathers anterior to his day, are the principal works of his now extant. About the same time appeared the translations of the works of several of the Fathers. particularly of Sts. Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria, from the pen of Stephen, Bishop of Siounik. It was two centuries later that the celebrated “History of Armenia” by the Catholicos John VI came forth, covering the period from the origin of the nation to the year A.D. 925. A contemporary of his, Annnine of Mok, an abbot and the most celebrated theologian of the time, composed a treatise against the Thondrakians, a sect imbued with Municheism. The name of Chosrov, Bishop of Andzevatsentz, is honoured because of his interesting commentaries on the Breviary and Mass-Prayers. Gregory of Narek, his son, is the Armenian Pindar from whose pen came elegies, odes, panegyrics, and homilies. Stephen Asoghtk, whose “Universal History” reaches down to A.D. 1004, and Gregory Magistros, whose long poem on the Old and New Testaments displays much application, are the last writers worthy of mention in this period.

The modern period of Armenian literature can well be dated from the renaissance of letters among the Armenians in the twelfth century. The Catholicos Nerses surnamed the Gracious, is the most brilliant author in the beginning of this period. Besides his poetic works, such as the “Elegy on the Taking of Edessa,” there are prose works including a “Pastoral Letter,” a “Synodal Discourse,” and his “Letters.” This age gave us also a commentary on St. Luke and one on the Catholic Epistles. Of note, too, is the Synodal Discourse of Nerses of Lampron, Archbishop of Tarsus, delivered at the$ Council of Hromcla in 1179, which is anti-Monophysite in tone. The thirteenth century gave birth to Vartan the Great, whose talents were those of a poet, an exegete, and a theologian, and whose “Universal History” is extensive in the field it covers. Gregory of Datev in the next century composed his “Question Book,” which is a fiery polemic against the. Catholics. The sixteenth century saw Armenia in the hands of Persia, and a check was for the time put on literature. However, in scattering the Armenians to all parts of Europe; the Persian invasion had its good effects. They established printing shops in Venice and Rome, and in the following century (the seventeenth) in Lemberg, Milan, Paris, and elsewhere. Old works were republished and new ones given forth. The Mechitarists of Venice have been the leaders in this movement; but their publications, although numerous, have been often uncritical. Their brothers, the Mechitarists of Vienna, have been likewise active in this work and it is to their society that Balgy and Catergian belong, two well-known writers on Armenian topics. Russia, Constantinople and Etchmiadzin are the other centres of Armenian literary efforts and the last-named place is especially worthy of note, imbued as it is today with German scientific methods and taste. Looking back over the field of Armenian literature, we note a trait the national character displayed in the bent Armenians have had for singing the glories of their land in history and chronicles. Translations have ever been an important part of Armenian literature. Again, the standpoint is religious, and even history seems to have been written rather for its doctrines than for the facts themselves. A last feature is that the golden age came early and with the passing of centuries the Armenian writers grew fewer and fewer.

IV. THE CRUSADES

Although the native dynasty of the Bagratides to which the Arabs gave the royal crown of Armemia, was founded under favourable circumstances, yet the feudal system by gradually weakening the country, brought about its ruin. Thus internally enfeebled, Armeniaproved an easy victim for the Seldjukid Turks under Alp-Arian in the latter half of the eleventh century. To escape death or servitude at the hands of those who had assassinated his relative, Kakig II, King of Ani, an Armenian named Roupen with some of his countrymen went into the gorges of the Taurus Mountains and then into Tarsus of Cilicia. Here the Byzantine governor of the place gave them shelter. Soon after the members of the first Crusade appeared in Asia Minor. Hostile as they were to the Turks, and unfriendly to the Greeks, these Armenian refuges joined forces with the crusaders. Valiantly they fought with the Christians of Europe, and for their reward, when Antioch had been taken (1097), Constantine, the son of Roupen, received from the crusaders the title of baron. Within a century, the heirs of Roupen were further rewarded by the grant of a kingdom known as Cilicia or Lesser Armenia, to be held as a vassal government of the Holy See and of Germany. This kept them in touch with the cruaders. No doubt the Armenians aided in some of the other crusades. This kingdom lasted till 1375, when the Mamelukes of Egypt destroyed it.

V. TO THE END OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

The establishment of the Kingdom of Lesser Armenia created more frequent relations between the Armenians and the Holy See. On the occasion of the crowning of King Leo II, the union of the union of the Armenian Church with Rome was proclaimed under Catholicos Gregory VI. Only southern Armenia was affected by this. In 1251 however there took place at Sis at the order of Pope Innocent IV a council of Armenians to witness to their belief in the procession of the Holy Ghost. In strange contrast we find James I refusing to send representatives to the Council of Lyons. Yet, when Pope Boniface VIII began his pontificate, Catholicos Gregory VII sent to him an expression of filial attachment. A little latter (1307) a council was held by the Armenians in which the old error of Monophysitism was repudiated, and two natures acknowledged in Christ. The bonds of union which united Rome and Armenia during this period gave way more or less after the fall of Lesser Annarea in 1375. Harassed from without by the Turks, and weakened by the internal strifes that divided it into so many independent patriarchates, Armenia had after that date but spasmodic relations with Rome. Which of the patriarchs during this period remained united to the West is hard to determine. Yet, even in the darkest days, there were always some Armenians who remained attached to Rome. The Dominican missionaries in founding houses in Armenian territory were instrumental in the training of native missionaries called the “United Brothers,” whose sole aim was to procure union with Rome. Their founder, John of Kerni, went too far in his zeal, so that Pope Benedict XII was forced to have the Armenians assemble in council in 1342 and repudiate the errors ascribed to these monks. These cries of unorthodoxy did much to estrange Armenia from the West. The Fathers of the Council of Basle (1433) asked the catholicos to attend, but the invitation was not accepted. However, in the Council of Florence (1439) Armenia was represented and here a last attempt was made to bring about reunion. It was at the behest of Eugenius IV that Catholicos Constantine V had dispatched his delegates. The decree “Exsultate Deo,” which was to affect the union, was published in 1439, containing among other things the Nicene Creed, the definitions of Chalcedon, and the Letter of Pope Leo I. Meanwhile Constantine died. A few years later a rent occurred in the Armenian Church which gave a setback to the plan of union. Armenia was divided into two large jurisdictions, that of Sis in Cilicia and that of Etchmiadsin in Greater Armenia, each with its own catholicos. The latter of the two patriarchates was looked upon as devoted to the cause of union with Rome. Its Catholicos, Stephanos V, paid a visit to the Eternal City, and in 1680 Aghob IV, just before his death, made a profession of Catholic faith, an example followed by many of his successors. Some of the patriarchs of Sis were friendly to Rome, such as Gregory IX, while others were hostile.

VI. CATHOLIC MISSIONS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

The action of Count Ferriol, minister of Louis XIV at Stamboul (1689–1709), in carrying off to Paris the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, who evinced strong anti-Catholic tendencies served to bring persecution upon the Armenian Catholics in the Turkish Empire, which lasted till 1830. The declaration of religious liberty at that time caused the Catholic missions in Armenia to become more energetic than ever before. In 1838, Eugène Boré, still a layman, rounded at Tibriz and Ispahan two schools for Armenians, which the French Lazarists have since, conducted. Within twenty years this order had three other missions. The barefooted Carmelites with Bagdad as their centre are labouring for the Armenians in that city and Bassorah. Since 1856 the French Dominicans have been active in the provinces of Mossoul, Bitlis, and Van. The Capuchins are also represented in this field and are working with Diarbekir as their headquarters. Lesser Armenia is a field cultivated chiefly by Jesuit missionaries, and, unlike the rest, their efforts are confined to the Armenians. The Oblate Sisters of the Assumption and the Sisters of St. Joseph from Lyons are effectively aiding them in their work, in which some 31 Fathers and Brothers are engaged.

When we come to statistics, we find that most Armenians belong to the Gregorian or non-Catholic Church of Constantinople. There is a small Catholic and Protestant minority. Of the Catholic Armenians, the greater part are under the patriarch, whose full title is “the Patriarch of Cilicia of the Armenians,” and whose residence is at Constantinople. Under his jurisdiction are 3 other Armenian archbishops, 12 bishops, 1 being at Alexandria in Egypt, 9 patriarchal vicars, one of whom resides at Jerusalem. In Rome there is a titular bishop for the Armenians, whose chief function is that of ordaining. The Armenian patriarch is assisted in the work of tending to the flock by a vicar who is a titular archbishop, by an ecclesiastical council composed of 12 priests, by a civil council and by two other councils, one of which is for the national hospital. Directly under his charge are 3 large churches, that of St. Gregory the Illuminator at Leghorn, those of St. Blaise and St. Nicholas in Rome, the 2 seminaries of Zmar and Rome, and finally the 16 churches and the 16 schools of Constantinople. In the Armenian Archbishopric of Lemberg there are about 5,000 faithful, the greater part being in Galicia, the rest in Bukowina. The religious orders among the Armenians are of but comparatively recent origin and are not very prosperous. The Mechatarists of Venice, the most flourishing, have but 60 priests and some lay-brothers. Among the women the Armenian Sisters of the Immaculate Conception have flourishing schools at Constantinople and Angora.

JAMES F. DRISCOLL

Armenierstadt

(Hungarian, Szamos-Ujvar, Lat., Armenopolis).

A city in the Transylvanian county of Szolnok-Doboka, situated on the upper Szamos, an eastern tributary of the Theiss, and the seat of a Uniat Greek diocese (Armenopolis) that embraces the northern part of Transylvania; the see is suffragen to the Archbishop of Fogaras and Alba Julia, who resides at Blasendorf. The city was founded about 1700 by Armenians who emigrated at the beginning of the fourteenth century from Armenia and settled first on the banks of the Krim and Moldau. In the second half of the seventeenth century they moved to Transylvania, and after a two years’ struggle on the part of the Armenian-Catholic Bishop Auxentius Veerzer eskul, they were converted from Eutychianism to Catholicism. By the Bull “Ad Apostolicam Sedem” (26 November, 1853), the city became a diocese. The first bishop was Johann Alexi (1854–65); he was succeeded by Johann Vancsa (1855–68), Pavel (1872–79), and Johann Szabo, appointed in 1879 (b. 16 August, 1836). The diocese of Armenierstadt contains about 683,300 inhabitants; 432,900 Catholics of the Greek-Roumanian Rite, 41,100 of the Latin Rite, and 1,600 of the Armenian Rite. It has one cathedral, six canonicates, four titular abbeys, one formal provostship, forty-five deaneries, 490 mother churches, 391 dependent churches (Filialkirchen), one monastery with four monks (Basilian Order, in Bikszad), 475 pastors, 25 chaplains, one regular priest, eleven other ecclesiastics, and 64 clerics. The bishop directs a diocesan academy with seven professors, one teacher’s training college, with four professors, one Armenian-Catholic Ober-Gymnasium, and about 600 public schools, with 38,900 pupils. The cathedral and the episcopal residence, architecturally speaking, are insignificant, a far more imposing building being the principal Armenian-Catholic church, built in 1792.

JOSEPH LINS

Fray Nicolás Armentia

Bishop of La Paz (capital of Bolivia, South America), appointed 22 October, 1901; b. at Bemedo, diocese of Vittoria, Spain, 5 December, 1845. He was a Minorite and came to America as a missionary under the guidance of Father Rafael Sans, and followed the footsteps of that pioneer in the forests and on the river courses of the Beni region. He had, previous to his coming to South America, spent several years in France, and brought to the mission field, besides devotion to apostolic duties, a solid fund of knowledge in physics, astronomy, and natural science. The savage and cannibal tribes lurking in the fastnesses of the Beni region were not numerous, but often hostile, and had for years been cruelly decimated by epidemic disease (smallpox). To reach them he cut his way through almost impenetrable woods from one abandoned hamlet to another, exposed to the most appalling hardships from hunger, climate, and disease. He taught and preached wherever and whenever he fell in with Indians, establishing and re-establishing missions; in this way he gathered materials for the geography, natural history, and anthropology of these practically unknown regions. It cost him much labour to have these afterwards published, and his valuable books are, unfortunately, extremely rare at present. His principal publications are: “Diario del Viage al Madre de Dios, hecho por el P. Fray Nicolás Armentia, en el año de mil ochocientos ochenta y cuatro y mil ochocientos ochenta y cinco, en calidad de comisionado para explorar el Madrede Dios” etc.; usually bound with “Navegación del Madre de Dios” (La Paz, 1887); and “Descripción de la Provincia de los Mojos, en el Reino del Perú” (La Paz, 1888)—the latter is a Spanish translation of the book of the Jesuit Franz Xavier Eder, “Descriptio Provinciae Moxitarum” (Buda, 1791). “Vocabulario del Idioma Shipibo del Ucayali” appeared in “Boletín de la Sociedad geográfica de La Paz,” I, N0.1. This is thus far the most complete vocabulary of the Pano stock (see Arawaks), and embraces more than 3,800 words. “Los Indios Mosetenes y su lengua” was published at Buenos Aires, 1903.

Aside from personal recollections of the writer, gathered during years of intercourse with this prelate, there is a short biographical sketch, by Lafone y Quevedo, in Tacana, Arte, vocabulario etc. (La Plata, 1902), with portrait. The works cited in the text contain many scattered notices of the eventful career of the eminent missionary.

A.D. F. BANDELIER

Diocese of Armidale

A diocese situated in New South Wales (Australia), with its cathedral at Armidale, 335 miles north of Sydney. It is one of the six suffragan sees of the province of Sydney. Its boundary on the north is the Queensland border, on the east, the Diocese of Lismore, on the west the Diocese of Wilcannia, ten miles beyond Walgett, and on the south, the Dioceses of Maitland and Bathurst. Area of Armidale Diocese, about 85,000 square miles. Armidale was not proclaimed a municipality till 1863. Ten years before that date (in 1853) the Rev. Timothy McCarthy was appointed its first resident priest. It was then a sparsely populated agricultural and pastoral district, where Catholics were few and far apart. Father McCarthy made Armidale his head-quarters, and (says Cardinal Moran) “His missionary district embraced all the territory as far as the Queensland border, and extended to the Pacific Ocean. His periodical excursions lasted for three months. From the Tweed to the Richmond, thence to the Clarence and on to Walcha, then across the Liverpool Plains to the Gwydir, and back by way of Glen Innes and Tenterfield to Armidale. Such was the route which he traversed in the discharge of his ordinary duties.” He was afterwards transferred to the Carcoar district at a time when it was “in a ferment from the violence and lawlessness of the bushrangers. He rendered a great service alike to the State and to those unhappy outlaws, many of whom he succeeded in withdrawing from their life of sin and crime.” He died in Ireland in 1879. Till 1864 all New South Wales was under the spiritual charge of the Bishop of Sydney. In that and the following years were created the present Dioceses of Goulburn (1864), Bathurst (1865), and Maitland (1867). Armidale (says Cardinal Moran) “was also marked out for an episcopal see,” but it was not till 1869 that its first Bishop, the Right Rev. Timothy O’Mahony, was appointed. Till 1887 the diocese had a vast and unwieldy area, and at the time that the new Bishop entered into possession it had no railroad running through it, “and even the ordinary roads were few.” The first cathedral was a little wooden church 25 feet by 18, replaced by a brick and stone structure, opened in 1872, and measuring 102 feet by 32. Bishop O’Mahony’s stay in Armidale was embittered by grave accusations that were fomented by a false clerical friend and given to the press and public by open enemies. He resigned his see in 1878 and was appointed auxiliary bishop to the Archbishop of Toronto, where he died in 1892. He was succeeded by the Right Rev. Elzear Torreggiani (1879–1904), an Italian Capuchin who had been on the mission in England and Wales. In Australia, as in Great Britain and Italy, Dr. Torreggiani always wore the habit of his order. His first visitation of his straggling and difficult diocese occupied three years. The coast district was, in 1887, erected into the Diocese of Grafton (now known as the Diocese of Lismore). A portion of the Maitland diocese was at the same time added to that of Armidale. Dr. Torreggiani died, 28 January, 1904. He was succeeded by the Right Rev. Patrick Joseph O’Connor, who had been his coadjutor from 3 May, 1903.

Statistics (towards the close of 1905)

Parochial districts, 15; churches, 52; secular priests, 22; regulars, 2; nuns, 144; secular teachers, 4; boarding schools for girls, 4; primary schools, 19; children in Catholic schools, 2,510; Catholic population, 25,540.

LEVEY, Hutchinson’s Australasian Encyclopedia (London, 1892); MORAN, History of Catholic Church in Australasia (Sydney, undated); Australasian Catholic Directory (Sydney, 1906).

HENRY W. CLEARY

Arminianism

The popular designation of the doctrines held by a party formed in the early days of the seventeenth century among the Calvinists of the Netherlands. The tendency of the human reason to revolt against Calvin’s decretum horrible of predestination absolute and salvation and damnation meted out without regard to merit or demerit had aroused opposition in thinking minds from the first promulgation of the dogma; but whilst the fanatical wars of religion engrossed the attention of the masses, thinking minds were few and uninfluential. Calvin’s reckless tenets had banished charity and mercy from the breasts of his followers and had everywhere aroused a fierce spirit of strife and bloodshed. It throve on paradoxes. This unnatural spirit could not survive a period of calm deliberation; a leader was sure to rise from the Calvinistic ranks who should point out the baneful corollaries of the Genevan creed, and be listened to. Such a leader was Jacobus Arminius (Jakob Hermanzoon), professor at the University of Leyden. He was born at Oudewater, South Holland, in 1560. While still an infant he lost his father, a cutler by trade, but through the generosity of strangers he was enabled to perfect his education at various universities at home and in foreign parts. In his twenty-second year the brilliant youth, whose talents were universally acknowledged, was sent to Geneva at the expense of the merchants’ guild of Amsterdam, in order to imbibe genuine Calvinism at the feet of Beza. In 1586 he made a prolonged trip to Italy, which served to widen his mental horizon. Rumours beginning to spread that he had fallen under the influence of the Jesuits, Suarez and Bellarmin, he was recalled to Amsterdam, was pronounced orthodox, and appointed preacher of the reformed congregation. This office he filled with ever increasing renown for fifteen years. He had all the qualifications of a great pulpit orator—a sonorous voice, a magnificent presence, and a thorough knowledge of Scripture, which he expounded in a clear and pleasing manner, dwelling with predilection on its ethical features and avoiding the polemical asperities characteristic of his age and sect. Yet his later years were fated to be embittered by polemical strife. The revolt against predestination absolute was taking shape. A professor at Leyden had already pronounced Calvin’s God “a tyrant and an executioner.” The learned layman Koornhert, in spite of ecclesiastical censures, continued to inveigh successfully against the dominant religion of Holland; and he had converted two ministers of Delft who had been chosen to argue him into submission, from the supralapsarian the infralapsarian position (see CALVINISM). The task of confounding the “heretic” was now entrusted to the disciple of Beza. Arminius addressed himself to the work; but he soon began to feel that Calvinism was repugnant to all the instincts of his soul. More and more clearly, as time went on, his writings and sermons taught the doctrines since associated with his name and after his death embodied by his disciples in the famous five propositions of the “Remonstrants.” For the sake of reference we give the substance of the “Remonstrantie” as condensed by Professor Blok in his “History of the People of the Netherlands” (III, ch. xiv).

“They (the Remonstrants) declared themselves opposed to the following doctrines: (1) Predestination in its defined form; as if God by an eternal and irrevocable decision had destined men, some to eternal bliss, others to eternal damnation, without any other law than His own pleasure. On the contrary, they thought that God by the same resolution wished to make all believers in Christ who persisted in their belief to the end blessed in Christ, and for His sake would only condemn the unconverted and unbelieving. (2) The doctrine of election according to which the chosen were counted as necessarily and unavoidably blessed and the outcasts necessarily and unavoidably lost. They urged the milder doctrine that Christ had died for all men, and that believers were only chosen in so far as they enjoyed he forgiveness of sins. (3) The doctrine that Christ died for the elect alone to make them blessed and no one else, ordained as mediator; on the contrary, they urged the possibility of salvation for others not elect. (4) The doctrine that the grace of God affects the elect only, while the reprobates cannot participate in this through their conversion, but only through their own strength. On the other hand, they, the ‘Remonstrants,’ a name they received later from this, their ‘Remonstrance,’ hold that man ‘has no saving belief in himself, nor out of the force of his free-will,’ if he lives in sin, but that it is necessary that ‘he be born again from God in Christ by means of His Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding and affection, or will and all strength,’ since without grace man cannot resist sin, although he cannot be counted as irresistible to grace. (5) The doctrine that he who had once attained true saving grace can never lose it and be wholly debased. They held, on the contrary, that whoever had received Christ’s quickening spirit had thereby a strong weapon against Satan, sin, the world, and his own flesh, although they would not decide at the time without further investigation—later they adopted this too—whether he could not lose this power ‘forsaking the beginning of his being, Christ.’“

The ultra-Calvinists responded by drafting a “Contra-Remonstrantie” in the following seven articles: (1) God had, after Adam’s fall, reserved a certain number of human beings from destruction, and, in His eternal and unchangeable counsel, destined them to salvation through Christ, leaving the others alone in accordance with His righteous judgement. (2) The elect are not only the good Christians who are adult, but also the “children of the covenant as long as they do not prove the contrary by their action.” (3) In this election God does not consider belief or conversion, but acts simply according to His pleasure. (4) God sent His Son, Christ, for the salvation of the elect, and of them alone. (5) The Holy Ghost in the Scriptures and in preaching speaks to them alone, to instruct and to convert them. (6) The elect can never lose the true belief, but they obtain power of resistance through the Holy Ghost active in them. (7) This would not lead them to follow the dictates of the flesh carelessly, but, on the contrary, they would go God’s way, considering that thereby alone could they be saved.

The defection of the popular and gifted divine was a severe blow to the rigid Calvinists and started a quarrel which eventually threatened the existence of the United Netherlands. His reputation was greatly enhanced by his heroic fidelity to pastoral duty during the plague of 1602, and the following year, through the influence of admirers like Grotius, he was, notwithstanding fierce opposition, appointed professor of theology at the University of Leyden. His life as professor was an unintermittent quarrel with his stern Calvinistic colleague, Francis Gomarus, which divided the university and the country into two hostile camps. Arminius did not live to see the ultimate results of the controversy, as he died of consumption in his forty-ninth Year, October, 1609. Although the principles of Arminius were solemnly condemned in the great Calvinist Synod held at Dordrecht, or Dort, in 1618–19, and the “Remonstrant heresy” was rigorously suppressed during the lifetime of Maurice of Orange, nevertheless the Leyden professor had given to ultra-Calvinism a blow from which it never recovered. The controversy was soon transplanted to England where it roused the same dissensions as in Holland. In the following century it divided the early Methodists into two parties, the followers of John Wesley adhering to the Arminian view, those of George Whitefield professing the strict Calvinistic tenets.

Brant, Historia Vitae Arminii (Amsterdam, 1724); revised and enlarged by Mosheim (Brunswick, 1725); Nichols, Life of Arminius (London, 1843); Arminii opera theologica (incomplete-Frankfurt, 1635) tr. Nichols (London, 1825–28, Buffalo, 1853); Blok, History of the People of the Netherlands; Cambridge Modern History, III, xix; Rogge in Realencyclop die für protestantische Theologie und Kirche; Grube in Kirchenlex.; Brandt, Historia reformationis Belgicae (La Haye, 1726); Graf, Beitrag zur Gesch. der Syn. von Dortrecht (Basle, 1825).

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Arnauld

(ARNAUT, or ARNAULT.)

A celebrated family, the history of which is intimately connected with that of Jansenism and of PortRoyal. Though originally of Auvergne, the family fixed its seat, about the middle of the sixteenth century, in Paris, where several members distinguished themselves at the Bar. Antoine Arnauld (1560–1619) was a famous lawyer in the Assembly of Paris, and a Counsellor of State under Henry IV. His fame rested on a speech (1594) in favour of the University of Paris and against the Jesuits, and on several political pamphlets. The best known of his writings is entitled “Le franc et véritable discours du Roi sur le rétablissement qui lui est démandé des Jésuites” (1602). By his marriage with Catherine Marion he had twenty children, ten of whom survived him. Six of these were girls, all religious of PortRoyal, two of whom are especially famous, Angélique and Mère Agnès. Three of the four sons achieved eminence: Arnauld d’Andilly, Henri, and Antoine. Following the order of their fame, we shall speak successively of Antoine, Angélique, d’Andilly, and Henri.

I. ANTOINE ARNAULD

Surnamed the Great, b. in Paris, 1612; d. at Brussels, 8 August, 1694, was the twentieth and last child of the Arnauld family. Bereaved of his father at the age of seven, his youth was spent entirely under the influence of his mother and his sister Angélique, and through them of the Abbé of SaintCyran. At their solicitation he gave up the study of law for which he believed he had a decided vocation, and devoted himself to theology. He read many of the writings of St. Augustine, but it was through the eyes of SaintCyran. In 1635, six years before the publication of Jansen’s book, the “Augustinus,” he successfully maintained theses on grace, for the bachelor’s degree. Even so early he made the distinction between the two states of innocence and corrupt nature; and also spoke of the efficacy of grace in itself. This was a sort of prelude to the book of the Bishop of Ypres. The young bachelor then wished to enter the Sorbonne, but Richelieu, who knew of his connection with SaintCyran, then a prisoner at Vincennes (1638), opposed him, and he was obliged to wait until after the death of the cardinal in 1643. Meanwhile he had been ordained priest (1641), at the age of twentynine, and the same year had sustained with brilliant success his theses for the doctorate, in which he showed the influence of Descartes and SaintCyran. Soon afterwards he assailed the Jesuits, the champions of orthodoxy. Father Sirmond was the first object of his attacks (1641), which later turned against the whole Society in the tract “Théologie morale des Jésuites,” a precursor of the Lettres provinciales” (1643). Shortly afterwards appeared the celebrated treatise “De la fréquente Communion.” Arnauld’s adversary was again a Jesuit, Father de Sesmaisons, who had written a learned refutation of SaintCyran’s work opposing frequent Communion. Arnauld’s book, written at the suggestion of SaintCyran, who even reviewed the manuscript, stirred up a whirlwind. Misled by the ostentatious display of patristic learning, and the affected zeal of the author for ancient discipline and the primitive purity of Christianity, serious readers allowed themselves to be ensnared. The public, moreover, was flattered by the semblance of being appealed to as a tribunal on the most controverted questions of theology, all of which Arnauld had taken into consideration when he wrote the book in French. The treatise found warm partisans in all classes of society, even among the clergy themselves. But adversaries were also aroused. Arnauld was attacked, refuted, denounced to the Holy See. He escaped censure, but of the thirtyone propositions condemned in 1690 by Alexander VII three were extracts taken almost word for word from Arnauld’s book summarizing his doctrine. The consequences of this work were most pernicious. According to the testimony of St. Vincent de Paul there was a noticeable decrease in the frequentation of the Sacraments. By exacting a too rigid preparation and a purity of conscience and perfection of life unattainable by many Christians, Arnauld set up a barrier to Holy Communion that kept many away. He forgot that the reception of the Eucharist is not the reward of virtues, but the remedy for infirmities, and under the pretext of holiness he prevented the faithful from approaching the source of all holiness. Meanwhile the “Augustinus,” condemned by Urban VIII (1641), was a cause of controversy. Hubert, a doctor of the faculty of Paris, denounced it from the pulpit of NotreDame, and was answered by Arnauld in two “Apologies de M. Jansenius,” in which he sustained the doctrines of the Bishop of Ypres. A little later Doctor Cornet, by selecting from the “Augustinus” five propositions, which summarized its errors, and endeavouring to have them censured, aroused bitter discussion. Arnauld thereupon published his “Considérations sur l’entreprise,” which made it appear that it was the doctrine of St. Augustine himself that was being condemned. This work was followed by another defence of Jansenist ideas: “Apologie pour les Saints Pères de l’Eglise, défenseurs de la grâce de JésusChrist contre les erreurs qui leur sont imposées.” In the meantime the champions of Catholic orthodoxy had prepared at SaintLazare, under the eyes of St. Vincent de Paul, an address to Innocent X, asking for the condemnation of the five propositions. In the Bull “Cum Occasione” the first four were condemned as heretical, and the fifth as false and rash (1653). The Jansenists subscribed to the condemnation of these propositions, understood according to Calvin’s interpretation, but denied that this was the interpretation of the “Augustinus.” According to them the Church, while infallible in passing judgment on a doctrine, ceased to be infallible when there was a question of attributing a doctrine to a given person or book. This was the famous distinction between fact and law, later so dear to both parties. About this time Picoté, a priest of SaintSulpice, required of a penitent, the Duc de Liancourt, under penalty of refusing him absolution, that he submit to the Bull of Innocent X and withdraw from all intimate connection with the Jansenists. Thereupon Arnauld, their leader, gave vent to his indignation in two “letters to a duke and peer” (1655). He maintained that the Duke was obliged to condemn the five propositions, but that he could refuse to believe that they were found in the “Augustinus.” On the latter point, he said, there was no duty towards the pope save a respectful silence. These letters drew down upon his head the wrath of the Theological Faculty, which censured the two following propositions taken from the letters: (1) That the five condemned propositions are not in the Augustinus; (2) that grace has ever been lacking to a just man, on any occasion when he committed sin. One hundred and thirty doctors signed this censure, and Arnauld was excluded forever from the Faculty. Then Pascal came to his friend’s assistance and wrote, under the pseudonym of Montalte, his “Provincial Letters.” The first four took up Arnauld’s quarrel and Jansenism; eleven were devoted to attacks on the moral code of the Jesuits; and the last three reviewed the questions of Jansenism, and particularly the distinction between law and fact. But the Assembly of the Clergy, in 1656, asserted the Church’s right of passing infallible judgment on dogmatic facts as well as faith, and the same year Alexander VII published the Bull “Ad Sanctam,” affirming with all his authority that the five propositions were drawn from the “Augustinus” and were condemned in the sense of their author. As soon as this Bull was received by the Assembly of the Clergy (1657) it was published in all dioceses, and a formulary of submission prepared for signature. The Jansenists, under the leadership of Arnauld, refused to subscribe. On the intervention of Louis XIV they signed the formulary with many mental reservations, but, claiming that it lacked authority, they attacked it in many writings, either composed or inspired by Arnauld. Alexander VII at the request of the king and clergy published a new Bull (1664), enjoining subscription under canonical and civil penalties. Four bishops, among them Henri Arnauld, of Angers, who dared to resist, were condemned by the pope, and a court was appointed by the king to pass judgment on their action. Alexander VII died in the interval. Thereupon the four dissenters sent to the French Clergy a circular prepared by Arnauld, denying to the pope, in the name of Gallican liberty, the right of judging the bishops of the kingdom. On further consideration, however, they conformed exteriorly to the formulary. Clement IX, desirous of putting an end to these dissensions, granted them what is known as the “Clementine Peace,” extending it to all the leaders of the sect in consideration of submission. This submission, however, as the future proved, was merely external. Arnauld was presented to the Nuncio, to Louis XIV, and the whole court, and was everywhere accorded the reception merited by his talents and learning. At this time he composed in connection with Nicole, and at the suggestion of Bossuet, the most learned of his controversial works, entitled “La Perpétuité de la foi de l’Eglise catholique sur l’Eucharistie.” This work, praised by Clement IX and Innocent XI, who congratulated the author upon it, caused a sensation, and struck a heavy blow at Protestantism. It was soon followed by another “Renversement de la morale de JésusChrist par les calvinistes.” Meanwhile Arnauld, who was still a Jansenist at heart, was diffusing his ideas, noiselessly, however, in order to preserve peace. People flocked to PortRoyal, and Arnauld was the centre of assemblies which were viewed with suspicion. Error was making considerable progress, to the alarm of both religious and royal authorities. The storm was about to burst, but Arnauld escaped it by retiring to the Netherlands (1679), where he was obliged to remain until his death (1694). During these fifteen years his activity never abated. He was constantly plying his pen, and always in a belligerent spirit. He attacked the Protestants; he attacked the Jesuits; he even attacked Malebranche. His “Apologie du clergé de France et des catholiques d’Angleterre contre le ministre Jurieu” (1681) aroused the wrath of that champion of Protestantism, who answered in a monograph entitled “L’Esprit de M. Arnauld.” The aged leader of the Jansenists refrained from refuting a writing into which his personality had been dragged, and which was nothing but a mass of coarse insults. He was none the less zealous, however, in his attacks upon Protestant ministers in an immense number of treatises. He even attacked William of Orange. In Arnauld’s eyes Jesuits were always to be treated as personal enemies. Every writing that issued from the hand of a Jesuit furnished him an occasion to denounce the Society to the public, and to publish a refutation if he chanced to find in it any ideas contrary to his own. Two volumes appeared in 1669 and 1683 respectively, entitled “Morale pratique des Jésuites, représentée en plusieurs histoires arivées dans toutes les parties du monde.” Their author, de Pontchâteau, was a solitary of PortRoyal, who was exceedingly hostile to missionary Jesuits. Father Le Tellier replied in his “La Défense des nouveaux chrétiens et des missionnaires de la Chine, du Japon et des Indes” (1687). Arnauld thereupon constituted himself the champion of de Pontchâteau’s works and published between 1690 and 1693 five additional books. He was working on the sixth, “La Calomnie,” at the time of his death. This work is biased and full of prejudice. He retails without reserve or moderation, and with evident malice, all the differences and quarrels which had arisen among men of good faith, or between religious communities engaged in the same work, without having the limits of their respective jurisdiction clearly defined. According to Arnauld the Jesuits were always in the wrong, and he relates with calm credulity everything that the ill will of their enemies had attributed to them, without concerning himself as to the truth of these statements. Malebranche, the Oratorian, differed with him on the subject of grace, and expressed his views in his “Traité de la Nature et de la Grâce.” Arnauld attempted to stop its publication, and, failing, he opened a campaign against Malebranche (1683). Without attempting to refute the treatise, he took up the opinion that “we see all in God,” laid down by the philosopher in a preceeding work, “Recherche de la vérité,” and attacked it in “Des vraies et des fausses idées.” Malabranche objected to this shifting of the question, claiming that to bring before the public a purely metaphysical problem to be refuted and confounded with the weapons of ridicule was unworthy of a great mind. Arnauld now showed no moderation whatever, even going to the point of attributing to Malebranche opinions which he had never held. His “Philosophical and Theological Relations” on the “Traité de la Nature et de la Grâce” (1685) scored a triumph for the Jansenist party, but it lessened in nowise the prestige of Malebranche. The latter had the advantage of moderation, notwithstanding more than one bitter line directed against his antagonist, and he confessed himself “weary of furnishing the world a spectacle, and having the ‘Journal des Savants’ filled with their respective platitudes.” Nevertheless the quarrel ended only with the death of Arnauld. Jansenism had not been forgotten, and Arnauld was to the last its zealous, untiring champion. It is impossible to enumerate all his writings in its defence. The majority were anonymous, so that they might reach France more easily. His “New Defense of the Mons New Testament”-a version which had emanated from PortRoyal-is the most violent of all his works. We may also mention the “Phantôme du Jansénisme” (1686), from which the author hoped great results for his sect. He proposed in this work “to justify the socalled Jansenists by showing Jansenism to be nothing but a phantom, as there is no one in the Church who holds any of the five condemned prpositions, and it is not forbidden to discuss whether or not these propositions have been taught by Jansenius.” On this last point Arnauld was always immovable, constantly inventing new subterfuges to prevent himself from seeing the truth. SainteBeauve was not wrong in writing (Port Royal, bk. III, viii) that “the persistence in knowing better than the popes what they think and define is the favourite thesis of the Jansenists, beginning with Arnauld.” In 1700 the Assembly of the Clergy of France condemned this proposition: “Jansenism is a phantom,” as false, scandalous, rash, injurious to the French Clergy, to the Sovereign Pontiff, to the Universal Church”; as “schismatical and favouring the condemned errors.” Arnauld died at Brussels, at the age of eightytwo. Nicole, who had accompanied him into exile, had, by revising his writings, kept him for a time within the bounds of moderation, but when Nicole was replaced by Father Quesnel of the Oratory, Arnauld allowed himself all the extremes of language, and his passion for polemics was given full scope. He died in the arms of Quesnel, who administered Extreme Unction and the Viaticum, although he had no power to do so. He was interred privately, and his heart taken to PortRoyal. Boileau, Racine, and Santeuil composed for him epitaphs which have become famous. Arnauld’s works are classed under five heads: on belleslettres and philosophy; on grace; controversial works against Protestants; those against the Jesuits; on Holy Scripture. The mass of his writings is enormous, and seldom read today. There is no pretence at style. He was a learned man and a subtle logician, but he entirely ignored the art of persuading and pleasing, and his erroneous teachings mar his best pages. His “Grammaire générale,” and “Logique” are the works most easily read.

II. JACQUELINEMARIEANGÉLIQUE ARNAULD

Sister of the preceeding, b. 1591, d. 6 August, 1661, was the third of the twenty children of Antoine Arnauld. While still a child she showed great keenness of intellect and wonderful endowments in mind, will, and character. To please her grandfather Marion, the advocate, she consented to become a religious, but only on condition that she be made abbess. At the age of eight (1599) she took the habit of a Benedictine novice at the monastery of SaintAntoine in Paris. She was soon transferred (1600) to the Abbey of Maubuisson, ruled by Angélique d’Estrées, sister of the beautiful Gabrielle d’Estrées, mistress of Henry IV. The child was brought up in liberty, luxury, and ignorance, and was left entirely to her own impetuous and fantastic impulses. At Confirmation she took the name Angélique, in compliment to the abbess, and gave up that of Jacqueline, which she had hitherto borne. A reprehensible fraud of the Arnaulds obtained from Rome abbatial bulls for Angélique, then eleven years of age. She was named coadjutrix to the Abbess of PortRoyal (1602) and continued to live, as she had lived before, without serious irregularities, but also without religious fervour. Her days were taken up with walks, profane reading, and visits outside the monastery, all of which could not prevent a deadly ennui which nothing could dispel. “Instead of praying,” she tells us, “I set myself to read novels and Roman history.” She felt drawn by no call. Too proud to retrace her steps, at the age of seventeen she confirmed the promise made at eight and, “bursting with spite,” signed a formula her father placed before her, which was to forge on her forever the heavy chain of a vocation imposed on her. A sermon preached by a visiting Franciscan (1608) was the occasion of her conversion. She resolved to change her mode of life at once, and to effect a reform in her monastery. She began with herself, and determined, despite every obstacle, to follow the rules of her order in all their rigour. She had infinite trouble in encompassing the reform of PortRoyal, but she succeeded, and such was the steadfastness of the young abbess that she closed the doors of the monastery to her own father and brothers despite their indignant protests. This was the “day of the grating” which remained famous in the annals of Jansenism. After the reform of PortRoyal, Mère Angélique undertook to recall to a regular life the abbey of Maubuisson, six leagues from Paris, where scandals were frequent. Angélique d’Estrées, the abbess, led such a life that her sister Gabrielle reproached her as being “the disgrace of our house.” It is impossible to tell in a few lines what patience, courage, and gentle, persistent firmness were necessary to bring about this reform. Mère Angélique was guided and sustained at this time by St. Francis de Sales. She even thought of abandoning the crosier to enter the Visitation Order, which the saint had just founded. She was one of those characters, however, who yield before those they consider superiors, but stand firm and immovable in the face of others. The saint understanding her, gently diverted her from this project. The years that followed (1620–30) were the best years for PortRoyal, years of regularity, prayer, and true happiness. There were many novices; the reputation of the abbey went far and wide. In 1625, thinking;that the valley of PortRoyal was unhealthy for her religious, Mè Angélique established them all in Paris, in the Faubourg SaintJacques. It was at this time that the abbess made the acquaintance of Zamet, Bishop of Langres, who had reformed the Benedictine Abbey of Tard, near Dijon, and was thinking of founding an order in honour of the Blessed Sacrament. He considered the fusion of the two monasteries an opportunity sent by Providence. He broached it to the abbess, who agreed to the project, and together they began the erection of a new monastery near the Louvre. The bishop’s sumptuous taste, however, contrasted with the abbess’s spirit of austere poverty. Mère Angélique, being selfwilled to the point of falling ill when opposed, wished to have it built according to her ideas and to impose her will on those around her. She was replaced as abbess, although it was her sister Agnès who was elected Abbess of Tard. Even when second in rank Angélique gave as much trouble, when the “affair of the Secret Chaplet” caused a diversion. The “Secret Chaplet” was a term used to designate a mystical treatise of twenty pages composed by Mère Agnès, sister of Angélique, in which the Sacrament of Love was represented as terrible, formidable, and inaccessible. This little book was disturbing, on account of the false spiritual tendencies it revealed, and it was condemned by the Sorbonne (18 June, 1633). For the first time, PortRoyal was looked on with suspicion, as having clouded the integrity of its doctrine. Nevertheless an anonymous champion had issued a brochure in apology of the “Chaplet,” which caused a tremendous scandal. The author was soon known to be Jean du Vergier de Hauranne, Abbé of SaintCyran. Mère Angélique had known the Abbé for ten years, in the character of a family friend, but she felt no sympathy whatever with his teachings. From 1633, however, she took sides with him, introduced him into her community, and made him the confessor of her religious and the oracle of the house. The Bishop of Langres tried in vain to displace him, but Angélique entrenched herself deeper in obstinacy. This marks the separation between Tard and PortRoyal; from this time, also, the history of Mère Angélique is merged with that of Jansenism. SaintCyran became master of PortRoyal. He took away the sacraments, blinded souls, and subjugated wills. To dispute his ideas was regarded as a crime deserving of punishment. About the monastery were grouped twelve men of the world, most of them of the family of Arnauld, who led a life of penance and were called the “Solitaries of PortRoyal.” Further, Mère Angélique had gathered under her crosier her five sisters and many of her nieces. It may be said with truth that the PortRoyal of the seventeenth century was her creation. With SaintCyran, it became a centre of alarming error. Richelieu understood this, and caused the arrest (15 May, 1638) of the dangerous Abbé, and his confinement in the prison at Vincennes. Mère Angélique became more than ever attached to her director, in whom she saw one persecuted for justice’ sake. At his death (1643) she found herself without a guide, but her perversion was complete. She retired into an atmosphere of complete and obdurate impassibility, with no thought but to bring about the triumph of the principles held by him whom she had honoured as a doctor and venerated almost as a martyr. During the following years, also, and at the time of the Bull issued by Innocent X, she encouraged by word and by letters the upholders of Jansenism. She compared herself to St. Paula persecuted by the Pelagians. Far from confining herself within the limits of her monastery, she threw herself bodily into the struggle. She propagated her favourite ideas; she continually wrote letters encouraging some and condemning others, among the latter including even St. Vincent de Paul. Stronger than all the rest in the loftiness of her intelligence and the firmness of her character, Mère Angélique was a leader of the party, and a leader who would die sooner than surrender. As a matter of fact, she did expire (6 August, 1661) filled with solicitude for her religious caused by the signing of the Formulary, and her own fear of a “terrible eternity.” She left various writings and a collection of letters to be found in the “Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de PortRoyal” (Utrecht, 1742–44). Her sister Agnès survived her ten years. We owe to her a work entitled “Image de la religieuse parfaite et imparfaite” (1665). She resisted and suffered much at the time of the Formulary. It was of Mère Agnès and her religious that De Péréfixe, Archbishop of Paris, said: “These sisters are as pure as angels, but as proud as devils.”

III. ROBERT ARNAULD D’ANDILLY

Born 1589, died 27 September, 1674, was the eldest of Antoine Arnauld’s twenty children. On the death of his father in 1619, he became, according to custom, head of his family. With him obstinacy and pride were hereditary faults; to these were added excessive vehemence and abruptness of temper. It is related that on the “day of the grating” he flew into a passion with his sister Angélique, even to the point of threatening her and calling her a “monster of ingratitude and a parricide,” because she refused to allow her father to enter the cloister of the monastery. At an early period (1621) he became a friend of SaintCyran, and participated in all his errors. It was not his fault that the Abbess of PortRoyal did not give her confidence sooner to the famous Abbé. Like the rest of the family, he hated the Jesuits as personal enemies, because they were the champions of orthodoxy. He affected to combine with a regular attendance at court a very ardent piety. He was in great honour at court and his son Pomponne became Minister of State. He was looked on with favour by the Queen Regent, Anne of Austria, and had powerful friends. The Jansenist party took advantage of this to obtain the release of SaintCyran from the prison of Vincennes, where he had been confined by Richelieu. D’Andilly tried to gain over the Duchess d’Aiguillon, niece of the Cardinal. She went to Rueil to see her uncle, but the minister cut short her prayers by showing her the real state of affairs. It was D’Andilly who persuaded Anne de Rohan, Princesse de Guéménée, one of his worldly friends, to enter PortRoyal, for to her he played the rôle of lay director. On becoming a widower, he left the court and retired to PortRoyal des Champs, having been preceded by one of his sons, Arnauld de Luzancy (1646). He found three nephews already there: Antoine Le Maître, Le Maître de Sacy, and de Séricourt. For thirty years he lived in this retreat, occupied with literary and manual labour. He chose to cultivate trees, and sent to the queen monstrous fruits which Mazarin laughingly called “blessed fruits.” During the same period he translated the Jewish historian Josephus, the works of St. Theresa, and the lives of the Desert Fathers. He also applied himself to poetry, and according to SainteBeuve his spiritual canticles are unsurpassed even by the works of Godeau, or even of Corneille, certainly of the Corneille of the “Imitation.” D’Andilly’s letters and other prose works (he published a collection of three hundred letters in 1645) are considered in the same class as those of Voltaire and even of Balzac. With regard to the Formulary, he used his influence to avert, or at least mitigate, the persecutions of the religious of PortRoyal. When, in 1659, the order came for the dispersal of the Petites Ecoles, i.e. the twenty or thirty children whom the solitaries were rearing in the pure doctrines of their sect, and the loneliness of the solitaries themselves, Arnauld d’Andilly wrote innumerable letters to Anne of Austria and Mazarin, letters of submission, of commendation, of thanks. He gave his word that the orders would be obeyed; he temporized, and obtained respites, and although he was a factious spirit, he caused, on the whole, but little apprehension, and was allowed to write, to plot, and even to dogmatize at his ease. All these things, dangerous in themselves, in his hands took on a sort of worldly grace, as being light and destitute of malice. Moreover, who would have dared to disturb him whom the queen had asked “if he always loved her.” He died at the age of eightyfive, preserving to the end his bodily and mental vigour. He reared three sons and four daughters. We have from his pen, in addition to the works mentioned, translations of the “Confessions of St. Augustine,” the “Scala paradisi” of St. John Climacus, the “De contemptu mundi” of St. Eucherius, and the memoirs of his life. The last work reveals in the author a family vanity which amounts to boastfulness.

IV. HENRI ARNAULD

Brother of the preceding, b. in Paris, 1597; d. 1692. He was first destined for the Bar, but was taken to Rome by Cardinal Bentivoglio, and during this absence, which lasted five years, the court granted him (1624) the Abbey of SaintNicholas. In 1637 the Chapter of Toul offered him the bishopric of that city, and the king, at the recommendation of Father Joseph, confirmed the choice. He was obliged to wait three years for his Bulls, which were delayed by the difficulties between the court and the Holy See. At the time of the quarrel between Innocent X and the Barberini, Henri Arnauld was sent to Rome as chargé d’affaires of France. He aquitted himself of this mission with much adroitness. The pope could not deny him the return of the cardinals, who were reinstated in their possessions and dignities. He returned from this mission with the reputation of being one of the most politic prelates in the kingdom. Being offered the Bishopric of Périgeux (1650), he refused, but accepted that of Angers in which was situated his Abbey of SaintNicholas. During his episcopate of fortytwo years, he showed less Christian prudence than extraordinary ability in the service of the Jansenists and of his family. Having once entered on this path, he concentrated all his energies to keep from yielding, and thus to save his own honour and that of his brother Antoine. This involved him in many difficulties, caused many dissensions in his diocese, and resulted in the cloud which still clings to his name. His entrance into the quarrel aroused by Jansenism was most exciting. When Louis XIV ordered the bishops to sign the Formulary drawn up by the Assembly of the Clergy in 1661, the Bishop of Angers wrote a letter to the king sustaining the famous distinction of Nicole between “fact” and “law.” The king having shown marked displeasure, the bishop wrote to the pope a letter of the same import, but Alexander VII made no reply. The obstinate prelate then wrote to Péréfixe, Archbishop of Paris, to forestall the tempest which the obligation of signing the Formulary would arouse at PortRoyal. At the same time he encouraged the religious to resist or take refuge in subtleties which took all sincerity from their submission. Arnauld was one of the four prelates who in 1665 loftily refused to sign the Formulary of Alexander VII, and issued a mandate against it. He was about to be cited before an ecclesiastical tribunal when the pope died. Clement IX, successor to Alexander VII, judged it preferable in the interests of religion to silence the whole affair. He accorded the Clementine Peace to this party, and they insolently took advantage of it. The bishop preserved his Jansenistic sentiments to the very end, and did all in his power to promote the spread of this error in his diocese. He pursued with disfavour, and sometimes with vehemence, the partisans of orthodoxy. One should read the “Mémoires” of Joseph Grandet, third superior of the Seminary of Angers, to know to what a degree Jansenism had imbued the bishop, who otherwise was not deficient in good qualities. It cannot be denied that he was energetic, austere, devoted to his duty, and filled with zeal. In 1652, when the queen mother was approaching to inflict punishment on the city of Angers, which was in revolt, the bishop appeased her with a word. On giving her Holy Communion, he said: “Receive, Madame, your God, Who pardoned His enemies when dying on the Cross.” There is still quoted a saying of his illustrating his love of work. One day, on being requested to take a day each week for relaxation, he replied: “I shall willingly do so, if you give me a day on which I am not bishop.” But despite this excellent sentiment he remains one of the most enigmatical figures of the seventeenthcentury episcopate. He died in 1692, at the ripe old age of ninetyfive. The negotiations carried on by him at the Court of Rome and various Italian courts have been published in five volumes (Paris, 1745).

Oeuvres complètes de messire Antoine Arnauld, docteur de la maison et société de Sorbonne (Paris-Lausanne, 1775–83); Correspondance de Pasquier Quesnel (Paris, 1900); Mémoires de messire Robert Arnauld d’Andilly, écrites par leu-même (Hamburg, 1734); Mémoires du P. Rapin, S. J. (Paris, 1865); Histoire du Jansénisme par le P. Rapin (Paris, 1861); FONTAINE, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de PortRoyal (Utrecht, 1736); Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de PortRoyal et à la vie de la Réverénde MarieAngélique de SainteMagdeleine Arnauld, réformatrice de ce monastère (Utrecht, 1747); Lettres de la Mère Angélique Arnauld (Utrecht, 1762–64); DU FOSSÉ Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de PortRoyal (Utrecht, 1739; RIVET, Nécrologe de l’abbaye de PortRoyal des champs, ordre de Citeaux (Amsterdam, 1723); COLONIA, Bibliothèque janséniste, ou Catalogue alphabétique des principaux livres jansénistes ou suspects de jansénisme qui ont paru depuis la naissance de cette hérésie (Brussels, 1762); SAINTE-BEUVE, PortRoyal (Paris); MONTLAUR, Angélique Arnauld (Paris, 1902); VARIN, La vérité sur les Arnauld (Paris, 1847); LETOURNEAU, Mémoires de Joseph Grandet, and Histoire du Séminaire d’Angers (Paris, 1893).

A. FOURNET

Thomas Augustine Arne

English composer, b. 12 March 1710, at London; d. 5 March, 1778. Although of Catholic parentage, he was educated at Eton, and was apprenticed in a solicitor’s office for three years. In 1740 he married Cecilia Young, oldest daughter of Charles Young, organist of All Hallows, Barking, a pupil of Geminiani and one of the best singers of her day. Arne wrote the music for Thomson and Mallet’s masque of “Alfred,” to celebrate the anniversary of the accession of the House of Hanover. It is in this work the well known “Rule Britannia” occurs. In 1742 Arne went to Ireland, and during his sojourn there produced his oratorio “Able” and his operas “Britannia” and “Comus” with great success. On his return, he was engaged again as composer at Drury Lane, and in 1745, in the same capacity at Vauxhall, Ranelagh, and Marylebone Gardens. The University of Oxford conferred the degree of Doctor of Music on Arne, 6 July, 1759. Three years after this, he wrote “Artaxerxes,” an opera in the Italian manner, with recitative but no spoken dialogue, taking the text of Metastasio’s “Artaserese.” In 1764, Doctor Arne produced his second oratorio, “Judith.” His latter productions were the music for Mason’s tragedies of “Elfrida” and “Caractacus,” additions to Purcell’s music for “King Arthur,” and some music for Garrick’s ode for the Shakespeare Jubilee in 1769. Arne was buried in the Church of St. Paul, in Covent Garden. He was the first to introduce female voices into the choruses of oratorios.

Grove, Dict. of Music and Musicians; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. of English Catholics, I, 59, 62.

JOHN J. A’ BECKET

Arni Thorlaksson

An Icelandic bishop, b. in Iceland, 1237; d. at Bergen, 1297. While a deacon, he visited Norway, in 1262, and became a friend of Bishop Magnus. Ordained a priest, he was soon appointed administrator of the Diocese of Holar, and was conspicuous for his zeal regarding the law of celibacy. He was assistant of the Bishop of Skalholt, in 1267, and succeeded him in that office, being consecrated in 1269 at Nidaros (Trondheim) in Norway. On his return to Iceland, he set about organizing the ecclesiastical administration. Since the regulation of the hierarchy in Norway, in 1152, the Iceland bishops had become suffragans of the metropolitan of Nidaros. In 1264 Iceland became still more dependant politically on the king of Norway. Up to that time Iceland had been a republic, governed by the Althing, which was composed of forty-eight chiefs, ninety-six councillors, and an announcer of laws, who was president. At the time Christianity was introduced many of these chiefs built churches on their lands and assumed at the same time ecclsiastical administration of them. The Church became identified with the State. The Althing, the legislative assembly in which the bishops had seats, made laws in matters of the church and controlled church affairs. Arni Thorlaksson, confronted with this state of things, protected the church interests, and especially had to fight for the investiture of priests and the temporal administration of the churches and their effects. With this in view, he visited Norwav in 1273, and obtained some concessions from the king. On his return to Iceland, he proposed To the Althing (1275) a Kristenret, i.e. Christian law, with which his name is particularly associated. Some time after this the jus patrontatus (the right of patronage) revived, and the bishop made an appeal to the arbitration of the king and of the archbishop. Having arrived in Norway, in 1297, for this purpose, he succeeded in obtaining the compromise that where laymen owned more than half of a church they should retain its temporal management, but in every other case the bishops should have it. He died the same year at Bergen. Although he had not obtained all the rights of the Church, he at least secured its organization and uniformity, and, as far as civil law was concerned, such observance of the laws as dependency on the kings of Norway permitted. History regards him as the most, influential and important man of his time in Iceland.

“Lovforsamlung for Island,” 1096–1874 (Kjbhvn, 1853–89); MAURER, “Udsigt over den nordgermaniske Retskildes Historie; Historiske Forening (Krina, 1878); see also literature on ARASON JON.

E.A. WANG

Arnobius

A Christian apologist, flourished during the reign of Diocletian (284–305). St. Jerome says, in his Chronicle, that before his conversion Arnobius was a distinguished rhetorician at Sicca in Proconsular Africa, and owed the gift of Christian faith to a dream. To overcome the doubts of the local bishop as to the earnestness of his Christian belief he wrote (about 305) an apologetic work in seven books that St. Jerome calls (De Vir. Ill., lxxix) “Adversus Gentes” but is entitled “Adversus Nationes” in the only (ninth-century) manuscript that has reached us. Arnobius is a vigorous apologist for the Christian Faith, defends and expounds its noble monotheism (deus princeps, deus summus), the Divinity of Christ and of the Christian religion, proved by its rapid diffusion, its incredible influence over uncivilized peoples, and its agreement with the views of the best philosophers. Apropos of the Christian tendencies of Plato, he has left us a very remarkable treatise on the nature of the soul (II, 14–62). Heathen idolatry he refutes as filled with contradictions and openly immoral. His work, especially Books III-IV, abounds with curious information gathered from reliable sources (e.g. Cornelius Labeo) concerning the forms of idolatrous worship, temples, idols, and the Graeco-Roman mythology of his time, for which reason it is much esteemed by Latin philologists and antiquarians. Arnobius is more earnest in his defence of Christianity than correct in his tenets. Thus, he holds the heathen gods to be real beings, but subordinate to the supreme Christian God; the human soul is not the work of God, but of an intermediate being, and is not immortal by nature, but capable of putting on immortality as a grace.

F. SABAEUS (Rome, 1543) is the editio princeps. It is found in P.L., V. The best edition is that of A. REIFFERSCHEID, Corpus script. eccl. Lat., IV (Vienna, 1875). See BARDENHEWER, Gesch. d. altchr. Litt. (Freiburg, 1903), II, 464–72, and his Patrologie (ibid., 1901), 175–77; MOULE in Dict. of Christ. Biogr., 167–69; EBERT, Allg. Gesch. d. lat. Litt. des Mittelalters (2d ed., Leipzig, 1889), I, 64–72.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Arnold

Name of several medieval personages.

Arnold Amalricus

Cistercian monk, Abbot of Cîteaux (1201), inquisitor and legate (1204), Archbishop of Narbonne (1212); d. 29 September, 1225. For a bibliography of his alleged order to slay indiscriminately both Catholics and Albigenses at the siege of Béziers (1209) see Chevalier, “Repertoire” (bio-Bibl., I, 319). The accusation has been amply refuted by Ph. Tamizey de Larroque, “Revue des quest. hist.” (Paris, 1866), I, 179–186.

Arnold of Badeto

Prior of the Dominican convent of Limoux, general inquisitor at Toulouse (1531), d. 1536; author of a “Breviarium de mirabilibus mundi” (Avignon, 1499), “Destructorium haeresum” (Paris, 1532), etc.

Arnold of Bonneval

Benedictine abbot in the diocese of Chartres (1144–56), correspondent and biographer of St. Bernard, and author of other works of a spiritual and edifying character (P.L., CLXXXIX, 1507–1760).

Arnold of Cologne

The second master-architect of the cathedral of Cologne, successor of Meister Gerhard (1295–1301). To him and his son John are owing the upper part of the apse and the completion of the choir. The change from three to five naves is said to have been made by his advice. His strength lay in the thoroughness and precision with which he carried out the details of the great architectonic plan of the cathedral.

Arnold of Corbie

Abbot of the Benedictine Monastery of St. Matthias near Trier (c. 1063), author of a treatise on the manner of calculating the Easter festival, made a Latin metrical version of the Book of Proverbs, and a “Cyclus Paschalis.”

Arnold of Halberstadt

(996–1023). One of the principal feudal bishops of Germany, and leader of the imperial forces against Boleslaw of Poland.

Arnold of Harff

Born about 1400, in the Ducht of Julich, author of a pilgrim’s journey (1496–99) to the holy places and the Orient (ed. Groote, 1860).

Arnold of Lübeck (Thirteenth Century)

(Died 1211–14). A Benedictine abbot, author of an important “Chronica Slavorum” (1172–1209) and advocate of the papal cause in the Hohenstaufen conflict (Michael, Gesch. d. deutsch. Volkes im Mittlalter, III, 374).

Arnold of Lübeck (Fifteenth Century)

Bishop of that see (1449–66), a learned canonist, zealous prelate, and peacemaker, especially (1465) between Poland and the Teutonic Order.

Arnold of Montaneri

A Franciscan, condemned for his extreme ideas concerning the poverty of Christ and the Apostles, flourished about the middle of the fourteenth century (Wadding, Ann. Minor., VIII, 245).

Arnold of Quedlinburg

German chronicler of the thirteenth century, d. after 1265 (Potthast, Bibl. Hist. Med. Aevi, 2d ed., I, 120).

Arnold of Selehofen

Archbishop of Mainz (1153–60), slain by the rival municipal faction of the Meingote (Kirchenlexicon, I, 1424).

Arnold of Tongres

(Luydius, a Lude). Canon regular, b. at Tongres; d. 1540, at Leyden; dean (1494) of the faculty of arts at Cologne, professor of theology, canon of the cathedral of Cologne, author of a commentary on Juvenal, and of a work “Contra Sacerdotes Concubinarios.” He displeased the humanists by his attitude in the Reuehlin conflict, and was made the butt of Hutten’s satire (Janssen, Gesch. d. deutschen Volkes., etc., I, 111, 18th ed.; II, 47, 18th ed.).

Arnold of Villanueva

See Villanueva.

Arnold of Vohburg

(1084), author of a life of St. Emmeram. [“Patrologia Latina,” CXLI; Wattenbach, “Deutsche Geschichtsquellen” (6th ed.), I, 64 sq.].

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Arnold of Brescia

(ARNALDUS, ARNOLDUS, ERNALDUS)

Born at Brescia towards the end of the eleventh century, date of death uncertain. If there is any truth in the statement made by Otto of Freisingen that Arnold completed his studies under the direction of Abelard, he must have gone to Paris about 1115. This would explain the affection towards the French master which he showed later in life, and we could easily understand how it came about that Abelard called him to his side after the Lateran Council of 1139, as St. Bernard intimates he did. In the judgment of some critics, however, there is not sufficient evidence for this first sojourn of Arnold in France, vouched for by Otto of Freisingen alone. Aspiring to a perfect life, Arnold at a tender age entered a convent of canons regular in his native city where he was ordained a priest and appointed prior or provost of his community. He was fitted for this high office by the austerity of his life, his detachment from earthly things, his love of religious discipline, the clearness of his intellect, and an originality and charm of expression that he brought to the service of a lofty ideal. Brescia yielded to his powerful influence, and in the course of some years Arnold was placed at the head of the reform movement then stirring the city. Precisely at this time Brescia, like most other Lombard cities, was entering upon the exercise of its municipal liberties. The government was in the hands of two consuls elected annually, but over against their authority that of the bishop, as principal landed proprietor, still remained. Hence arose between the rival forces inevitable conflicts in which were involved, together with political passions, the interests of religion. The sight of these conditions grieved Arnold and prompted him to apply a remedy. By constant dwelling on the evils which afflicted both city and Church, he came to the conclusion that their chief causes were the wealth of the clergy and the temporal power of the bishop. Was it not best, therefore, to take drastic measures at once to strip the monasteries and bishoprics of their wealth, and transfer it to laymen? Was not this the surest and quickest method of satisfying the civil authorities and of bringing back the clergy, by poverty, to the practice of evangelical perfection? To reduce this to a working theory, Arnold ventured to formulate the following propositions: “Clerics who own property, bishops who hold regalia [tenures by royal grant], and monks who have possessions cannot possibly be saved. All these things belong to the [temporal] prince, who cannot dispose of them except in favour of laymen.”

The welcome given such teachings by the higher clergy may readily be inferred. Brescia passed through an alarming crisis, the various phases of which, owing to the brevity and obscurity of the documents at our disposal, can be but vaguely traced. From the testimony of various authors, however, Otto of Freisingen, St. Bernard, and John of Salisbury (supposed author of the “Historia Pontificalis”), the following facts are ascertained: a journey made by Bishop Manfred to Rome about 1138; an insurrection during his absence; the attempt of Arnold to prevent him on his return from taking possession of his see or temporal power; the appeal of the rebellious provost and his condemnation by Innocent II, at the Lateran Council, in 1139. Silence and exile were the penalties imposed on Arnold, and he was forbidden to return to Brescia without the express permission of the sovereign pontiff. The following year (1140) we find Arnold at Sens at the side of Abelard, who was about to make his last struggle against the champions of orthodoxy. St. Bernard awaited steadfastly both combatants, whose attack was turned to utter rout. In the words of the Abbot of Clairvaux, the “squire” was involved in the downfall of the “knight.” The sentence passed upon Abelard by the council was confirmed by Innocent II. Arnold fared no better, for both were condemned to perpetual confinement in separate monasteries (Bull of 16 July, 1140). This decree, however, was never put into execution. While Abelard took refuge with Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, Arnold feigned retirement to Mont Sainte-Genevieve at Paris, where, however, he opened public courses of moral theology. He had but few disciples, and these, according to John of Salisbury, were so needy that they had to beg their daily bread. For that matter, however, this state of affairs accorded very well with the teachings of the new professor, who sharply censured the luxury of bishops and the worldly possessions of monks, and stigmatized wealth as the real virus that was infecting the Church. Arnold’s attacks did not stop here. He was constantly haunted by the memory of his condemnation, and pursued unscrupulously with his taunts the detractors of Abelard. Thus he described the Abbot of Clairvaux as a man “puffed up with vainglory, and jealous of all those who have won fame in letters or religion, if they are not of his school.” Thus boldly challenged, Bernard took up the gauntlet and denounced Arnold to Louis VII as “the incorrigible schismatic, the sower of discord, the disturber of the peace, the destroyer of unity,” and brought it about that the “Most Christian King drove from the kingdom of France” him whom Italy had already exiled.

Arnold, compelled to flee, took refuge in Switzerland and fixed his abode at Zurich in the Diocese of Constance. The Abbot of Clairvaux continued active in pursuit, and some time afterwards (1143) we find the exile in Bohemia begging protection from a papal legate named Guy. This prelate—who must not be confounded with his namesake, disciple of Abelard, and later pope—received him with kindness and, touched by his misfortunes, treated him with great friendliness. This attitude vexed St. Bernard, who addressed to the legate a discourse on prudence, which, however, remained unheeded by Guy. There is every reason to believe that Arnold had given his host pledges of sincere submission, for this fact alone would explain his return to Italy, thenceforth open to him. This, too, explains the solemn abjuration which he made at Viterbo, before Pope Eugenius III, in 1145. The pontiff, on reconciling him with the Church, had imposed a form of penance then customary: fasts, vigils, and pilgrimages to the principal shrines of Rome. Unfortunately, in the air which Arnold was about to breathe there were floating the germs of revolt. Rome was endeavouring to re-establish her Senate to the detriment of the temporal power of the popes. A movement so thoroughly in keeping with the earlier thoughts and the secret desires of the repentant innovator could not but secure his sympathy and even his outspoken support. It was soon discovered that he was vilifying the clergy and disseminating from the Capital his plans for ecclesiastical reform. The Curia became the chief object of his attacks; he depicted the cardinals as vile hypocrites and misers playing among Christians the role of Jews and Pharisees. He did not even spare the pope. Eugenius III, whose gentle moderation this terrible reformer had but recently acknowledged, was suddenly transformed into the executioner of the Church, more concerned “with pampering his own body, and filling his own purse than with imitating the zeal of the Apostles whose place he filled.” In particular, Arnold reproached the pope for relying on physical force, and for “defending with homicide” his rights when contested. Eugenius III was forced to leave the Eternal City, and for some time (1146–49) Roman democracy triumphed under Arnold of Brescia. Though excommunicated by the pope (15 July, 1148), Arnold did not despair of his position. By degrees, however, his revolutionary programme took on another character. The abolition of the temporal power of the papacy was now only the first of his demands; the second contemplated the subordination of the spiritual to the civil power. Wetzel, one of his disciples presumed to offer to King Conrad III the keys of the Castle of Sant’ Angelo, so that the German emperors might have the future disposal of the tiara and the government of Rome. Arnold’s policy, at first republican, thus ended in downright imperialism. Frederick Barbarossa, however, Conrad’s successor, refused to support the schemes of the Roman agitators. With much cleverness and tact, Eugenius III won over the emperor to the cause of the papacy. Arnold was thus rendered helpless. The senatorial elections of November, 1152, had turned against him, and marked the beginning of his fall.

Little is known of Arnold during the brief reign of Anastasius IV (July, 1153—December, 1154), but the election of Adrian IV was fatal to his cause. He had fallen into the hands of Odo, Cardinal-Deacon of St. Nicholas in carcere Tulliano, but was freed by the Viscounts of Campagnatico, and found for some years a safe refuge in their territory. They “looked on him as a prophet” inspired by God. However, as in an agreement between Adrian and Frederick Barbarossa, the pope obtained the emperor’s promise that he would seize the person of Arnold and remove him, willing or unwilling, from the custody of the Viscounts of Campagnatico. Frederick did not hesitate to make and keep this promise, and accordingly Arnold was handed over to the Curia. It is quite difficult to give an exact account of the trial of Arnold. According to the story recorded by Gerhoh de Reichersperg, he was secretly removed from the ecclesiastical prison and put to death by the servants of the prefect of Rome, who had suffered great injuries from the revolution fomented by Arnold. It is very probable, however, that the Curia had a larger share in his condemnation. One analyst goes so far as to say that the pope personally ordered him to be hanged. Another writer affirms, with more semblance of truth, that Adrian confined himself to demanding Arnold’s degradation, so that he might be delivered over to the secular power. According to the author of a poem recently discovered (and he seems to be well informed), Arnold when brought in sight of the gallows faced his death courageously. When urged to recant his teachings, he answered that he had nothing to withdraw, and was ready to suffer death for them. He asked only for a brief respite to pray and beg Christ’s pardon for his sins. After a short mental prayer he gave himself up to the executioner, and offered his head to the noose. After hanging from the gallows for a short time, his body was burned, and the ashes thrown into the Tiber, “for fear,” says one chronicler, “lest the people might collect them and honour them as the ashes of a martyr.”

“Forger of heresies,” “sower of schisms,” “enemy of the Catholic Faith,” “schismatic,” “heretic,” such are the terms used by Otto of Freisingen, by the author of the “Historia Pontificalis,” by the Abbot of Clairvaux, by Eugenius III, and Adrian IV to stigmatize Arnold. Given the vagueness of these characterizations, it is not easy to specify the dogmatic errors into which the innovator fell. Otto of Freisingen echoes a rumour according to which Arnold held offensive views on baptism and the Eucharist. His contemporaries (notably St. Bernard, who pursued so bitterly the “squire” of Abelard) lay nothing of the kind to his charge. The abbot of Clairvaux in one of his letters accuses Arnold of being “an enemy of the Cross of Christ.” But must we conclude from this that Arnold was a follower of Pierre de Bruys, who condemned the adoration of the Cross? It is much more probable that the words of St. Bernard are to be taken broadly or in a metaphorical sense. In reality it was in practical matters that Arnold showed himself inimical to the teachings accepted at his time. He began by condemning the abuses occasioned by the wealth of the churchmen, an act which in itself placed him in the class of true reformers; St. Bernard and Gerhoh de Reichersperg said the same thing. But Arnold did not stop at this; he went so far as to deny the very principle of proprietary right as claimed by the Church, and thereby assailed the temporal power of the papacy. “All earthly possessions belong to the prince, the pope should relinquish the government of Rome; bishops, priests, and monks can own nothing without incurring the penalty of eternal damnation.” On all these various points the innovator, to say the least, was plainly guilty of temerity. And since he clashed with a hierarchy that was not prepared to sanction his views, he ended by questioning its authority. According to him, the Church had become corrupt in the persons of covetous and simoniacal priests, bishops, and cardinals, and was no longer the true Church. “The pope,” he says, “is no longer the real Apostolicus, and, as he does not exemplify in his life the teachings of the Apostles, there is no obligation of reverence and obedience towards him.” The unworthy clergy lose the right of administering the sacraments, and the faithful need no longer confess” to them. It is sufficient that they confess to one another. If it be true, as stated by the anonymous author of the poem above quoted, that Arnold had fallen into these errors, the schismatical and heretical character of his teachings remains no longer doubtful. His disciples, i.e. those whom the thirteenth-century documents call the Arnoldists, or Arnaldists, taught other errors no less serious, for which, however, Arnold cannot justly be held responsible.

For the original authorities concerning ARNOLD, see Historia Pontificalis (the author of which is probably JOHN OF SALISBURY) in Mon. Germ. Hist. (fol., Hannover, 1868), XX, 537, 538; OTTO OF FREISINGEN, Gesta Friderici imperatoris, II, 20–23, in Mon. Germ. Hist., XX, 366, 367, 403, 404; GUNTHER, Ligurinus, verses 262–348, in P.L., CCXII, 369–371; Gesta per imperatorem Fridericum Barbam Rubeam in partibus Lombardie et Italie, fragment of an anonymous poem, published by E. MONACI in Archivio della societa romana di storia patria (Rome, 1878), I, 466–474; Annales Augustani Minores, in Mon. Germ. Hist., X, 8; BOSO, Vita Hadriani IV, in DUCHESNE, Liber pontificalis (Paris, 1889), II, 390; Letters of Eugenius III, in BARONIUS, Annales ecclesiastici (ad. ann. 1148, No. 38); GERHOH OF REICHERSPERG, De Investigatione Antichristi, I, xlii; ed. SCHEIBELBERGER (1875), I, 87–89; ST. BERNARD, Epist., clxxxix, cxcii, cxcv, cxcvi, in P.L. CLXXXII, 354–357, 358, 359, 361–362, 363, 364; Letter of WETZEL, the disciple of ARNOLD, and an anonymous letter [possibly ARNOLD’s] in MARTENE AND DURAND, Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum . . . amplissima collecito (Paris, 1724), II, 399, 400, 554–557; ANON., Commentaire des causes heretiques, inserted in HUGUCCIO’S Summa Decreti, 1211–15, xxix of Cause 23, quest. 4. cf. TANON, Histoire des tribunaux de l’Inquisition (Paris, 1893), 456, note 2; BUONACORSO OF MILAN (end of twelfth century), Vita hoereticorum, in P.L., CCIV, 791–792; SCAELCHIN, Arnold von Brescia (Zurich, 1872); BENVICENNI, Arnaldo da Brescia, condennato a morte per ordine di papa Adriano IV (Florence, 1873); GIESEBRECHT, Arnold von Brescia (Munich, 1873, Italian translation by ODORICI, Brescia, 1877); DE CASTRO, Arnaldo da Brescia e la rivoluzione romana del XII secolo (Leghorn, 1875); G. GAGGIA, Arnaldo da Brescia (Brescia, 1882); E. VACANDARD, Arnauld de Brescia, in the Revue des quest. histor. (Paris, 1884) XXXV, 52–114; cf. Vie de Saint Bernard (Paris, 1895), II, 235–245, 257, 258, 467–469); F. TOCCO, L’eresia nel medio evo (Florence, 1884), 231–256; and Quel che non c’e nella Divina Commedia, o Dante e l’eresia (Bologna, 1899); HAUSRATH, Arnold von Brescia (Leipzig, 1891); MICHELE DI POLO, Due novatori del XII secolo (Florence, 1894), 79 sqq.; E. COMBA, I nostri protestanti: Avanti la Riforma (Florence, 1895), I, 173 sq.; FECHTRUP, Arnold von Brescia in Kirchenlex., I, 1419–20; DEUTSCH, Arnold von Brescia in Realencyclopaedie fuer protest. Theologie und Kirche (3d ed., Leipzig, 1897), II, 117–122; VERNET, Arnaud de Brescia in Dict. de theol. cath. (Paris, 1903), I, 1972–75. For other less important references see: CHEVALIER, Repertoire des sources hist. du moyen age (2d ed., 320, 321).

E. VACANDARD

Alberto Arnoldi

(Or di Arnoldo).

Italian sculptor and architect, b. at Florence, fourteenth century. In 1364, he made for the church of Santa Maria del Bigallo, in Florence, the colossal group of the Blessed Virgin and Child with two angels (attributed by an error of Vasari to Andrea Pisano). Arnoldi worked at this group from 1359 to 1364. As architect, he directed the works of the cathedral of Florence about 1358.

Cicognara, Storia della scultura; Peumorks, Italienische Forschungen; Biographie generale (Paris, 1806).

THOMAS H. POOLE

Bartholomäus Arnoldi

Usually called Usingen, after his birthplace, an Augustinian friar, teacher of Luther, and with him inmate of the Augustinian monastery at Erfurt; b. in 1463; d. at Würzburg, 9 September, 1532. He received his master’s degree in 1491 and was promoted to the doctorate of divinity in 1514 (Jürgens, Luther, I, 430, Leipzig, 1846). For thirty years he filled the chairs of philosophy and theology at the Erfurt University, and with Jodocus Truttfetter was its most illustrious teacher (Kampschulte, Die Universitaet Erfurt, I, 46, Trier, 1858). He stood in high repute for holiness of life (DeWette, I, 19; Walch, XXI, 532), rare intellectual endowments, and unswerving loyalty to the Church (Krause, Helius Eobanus Hessius, I, 339, 352, Gotha, 1879). He enjoyed the favour of the younger humanists (Eoban, De laud. et praecon. incl. Gymnas. lit. ap. Erphordiam, A. a. b. Erph., 1507), was lauded as a dialectician and logician, and was Luther’s teacher in both these branches (Kolde, Die deutsche Augustiner Congr., 245, Gotha, 1879). Luther had an affectionate regard for him (DeWette, I, 38, 256; Walch, XXI, 552) and after the Heidelberg Disputation (May, 1518) travelled in his company from Würzburg to Erfurt, during which he made ineffectual efforts to wean him from his ecclesiastical allegiance (ib., I, 112). In 1521, during the uprising of the mob against the priesthood and the pillaging of their property, he boldly denounced the rioters from the pulpit (Paulus, Der Augustiner Moench Joh. Hoffmeister, 125, Freiburg, 1891). In 1522 he delivered a series of sermons in the cathedral in defence of the Church, arraigning the inactivity of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, and predicted the revolution which finally culminated in the Peasants’ War. His anti-Reformation attitude and utterances embittered Luther, who now violently assailed his old teacher (DeWette, II, 204, 213, 224, 225). His removal to Würzburg, in 1526, did not interrupt his activity against the innovators. In 1530 he accompanied the Bishop of Würzburg to the Diet of Augsburg. Returning, he died at Würzburg.

PAULUS, Der Augustiner Bartholomaeus Arnoldi von Usingen (Freiburg, 1893); HOHN, Chronologia provinciae Rheno-Suevicae Ordinis FF. Eremitarum S.P. Augustini, 166 et sq.; FLOSS in Kirchenlex., I, 1429, 1431–34; JUERGENS, Luther, I, 433 sq.; KAMPSCHULTE, Die Universitaet Erfurt, I, 46; LAEMMER, Vortridentinische katholische Theologie, 35; ERHARD, Gesch. des Wiederaufbluehens wissenschaftl. Bildung, I, 400 sq.; OSSINGER, Biblioth. Augustin. hist. crit. et chron. (Ingolstadt, 1776).

HENRY G. GANSS

Arnolfo di Cambio

Sometimes called di Lapo, the principal master of Italian Gothic, b. at Florence, about 1232; d. in the same city, in the seventy-first year of his age probably in 1300, during the brief period of Dante’s power. Who Arnolfo was seems to be scarcely known, though few architects have left greater works or more evidence of power. According to Baldinucci, Cicognara, and Gaye, the father of Arnolfo was called Cambio, and came from Colle, in the Val d’Elsa. Arnolfo’s first appearance in history seems to have been among the band of workmen engaged upon the pulpit in the Duomo of Sienna, as pupil or journeyman of Nicolo Pisano. With him there was a certain Lapo, sometimes called his father (Vasari), sometimes his instructor, but who very likely was only his fellow- workman and associate. The same band of workmen, under the same master, Nicolo, worked also in Pisa, Perugia, Cortona, Orvieto, and Rome. Arnolfo was thirty years old when his father died. He had already attained high repute, having learned from his father whatever the latter could teach, and also having studied the art of design under Cimabue for the purpose of employing it in sculpture. He was already considered the best architect in Tuscany when the Florentines confided to him the construction of the outer circle of their city walls; they also erected after his plans the Loggia of Or San Michele, their corn-market, covering it with a simple roof, and building the piers of brick. The year when the cliff of the Magnoli, undermined by water, crumbled away on the side of San Giorgio, above Santa Lucia, on the Via de’ Bardi, the Florentines issued a decree that no building should be thence-forth erected on this perilous site. In this regulation they followed Arnolfo’s counsel. His judgement has been proved correct by the ruin of many magnificent houses and other buildings in later times.

In 1285, Arnolfo built the Loggia and Piazza of the Priori. He also rebuilt the principal chapel of the Badia (abbey) at Florence, with an additional chapel on each side, and restored the church and choir which had been constructed on a much smaller scale by Count Ugo, the founder of that abbey. The old church was demolished later, in 1625, and was rebuilt in the form of a Greek cross. For Cardinal Giovanni degli Orsini, the pope’s legate in Tuscany, Arnolfo erected the campanile of the same church, a work highly appreciated in those times; but the stonework of this tower was not completed until the year 1330. In the year 1294, the church of Santa Croce, belonging to the Friars Minor, was begun after the designs of Anolfo, in which he gave so large an extent to the nave and side aisles that the excessive width rendered it impossible to bring the arches within the roof; he therefore judiciously raised arches from pier to pier, and on these he constructed the roofs, from which he conducted the water by stone gutters built on the arches, giving them such a degree of inclination that the roofs were secured against injury from damp. The novelty and the ingenuity of his contrivance were no greater than its utility. At a later period, Arnolfo drew the plans for the first cloister to the old convent of this church. Soon afterwards he superintended the removal of the various arches and tombs (ancient monuments mentioned by Boccaccio) in stone and marble, that surrounded parts of the external walls of the church of San Giovanni, and covered the walls of the church with block marble from Prato. About the same time the Florentines wished to erect certain buildings in the upper Val d’ Arno, above the fortress of San Giovanni and Castel Franco, for the greater convenience of the inhabitants and the more commodious supply of their markets; they entrusted the design of these works also to Arnolfo (1295), and he so completely satisfied them that he was elected a citizen of Florence. When these undertakings were completed, the Florentines resolved to construct a cathedral in their city, of such extent and magnificence that human power or industry should be able to produce nothing superior or more beautiful. Arnolfo prepared and executed the model for the cathedral, afterwards known as Santa Marie del Fiore, directing that the external walls should be encrusted with polished marbles, rich cornices, pilasters, columns, carved foliage, figures, and other ornaments. The cathedral, as Arnolfo planned it, may be seen in Simone Memmi’s great painting in the Spanish chapel in Santa Maria Novella. In his general plan he incorporated the earlier (cathedral) church known as Santa Reparata, besides other small churches and houses which stood around it. To please the Signoria he also built into the new edifice the tower of the Vacca, or “Cow,” in which hung the great bell of Florence, that with good-natured pleasantry was so styled by the Florentines. To accommodate this tower at the centre of the building was a troublesome business (Vasari) but it was so skillfully accomplished by “filling up the tower with good material” such as flint and lime, and laying a foundation of immense stones, that it proved equal to the support of that enormous construction, the cupola, which Brunelleschi erected upon it, and which Arnolfo had probably not even thought of placing thereon. The cathedral was finally completed in May, 1886. Within a few years the cathedral, the Palazzo Publico, and the two great churches of Santa Croce and Santa Maria Novella, sprang up almost simultaneously. The Duomo was founded, according to some, in 1294, the same year in which Santa Croce was begun; according to others, in 1298. Between these two dates, in 1296, Arnolfo undertook the erection of the Palace of the Signoria, the seat of the Florentine commonwealth and the centre of all popular life. His genius requires no other evidence than these famous edifices. The stern strength of the Palazzo and the noble lines of the cathedral show how well he knew how to vary and adapt his art to the different requirements of municipal and religious functions, and to the necessities of the age. Arnolfo died after he had built the Palazzo and just as the round apse of the cathedral was approaching completion. His portrait by Giotto may be seen in Santa Croce, beside the principal chapel; he is one of the two men who are speaking together in the foreground, where monks are represented lamenting the death of Saint Francis.

Baldinucci, Del migliore Firenze Illustrata, IV, 96; Gaye, Carteggio degli artisti, I, 445, 446; Cicognara, Storia della scultura; Scott, Cathedral Builders, 224,291, 313, 325; Fletcher, A History of Architecture, 417.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Peter Joseph Arnoudt

(Also: Aernoudt, Arnold).

Jesuit writer on spiritual subjects, born at Moere Belgium, 17 May, 1811; died at Cincinnati, 29 July, 1865. He entered the Society of Jesus at Florissant, Missouri, in 1831. After the usual course of Jesuit training, he was appointed to teach in the colleges in the Missouri province of the Society. While engaged in teaching he proved himself to be a finished Greek scholar. During a dangerous illness, after his ordination as priest, Father Arnoudt bound himself by vow to labor with zeal to promote devotion to the Scared Heart of Jesus. Upon his recovery he wrote his great work, “De Imitatione Sacri Cordis Jesu.” The manuscript of this work he sent to Rome in 1846, but through some mishap it was mislaid for ten years. After this period, having been approved by Father General Roothaan. the work was published “typis et sumptibus fratrum Caroli et Nicoli Benzinger” at Eisiedeln, 1863. It was translated into English by father Fastre and published at Cincinnati in 1865. Translations were made into French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Flemish, and Hungarian. The French translation, published at Besancon, passed through eighteen editions between the years 1864 to 1887. Sommervogel gives the titles of two English, two Flemish, and four French versions of Father Arnouldt’s work. Father de Smet, the missionary, is authority for the statement that Father Arnoudt left at his death the following manuscripts—a Greek epic poem of about 1,200 verses, a collection of Greek odes, and Greek grammar, and these ascetical works: “The Glories of Jesus,” “The Delight of the Sacred Heart of Jesus,” and a collection of spiritual retreats entitled “The Abode of the Sacred Heart.”

Vanderspeeten, Notice biographique sur le P. Pierre Arnoudt, de la c. de J. (Tournay, 1873); de Smet in Precis historiques (1866). Also in the London ed. of The Imitation of the Sacred Heart (1867) and the Tournay ed. (1872) are published notices of the author by Russell and Van den Hofstadt respectively. Father Arnouldt’s relatives in Belgium have preserved forty-six of his autograph letters.

P.H. KELLEY

Veit Arnpeck

Bavarian historian, b. at Landshut in 1440; d. at the same place about the year 1505. He was educated at Amberg and at Vienna, was parish priest of St. Martin’s Church in his native city, and chaplain to Bishop Sixtus. He is counted among the fathers of Bavarian history, and is praised by Aventin as one of his most important predecessors. He wrote a “Chronicon Austriacum,” down to 1488 (Pez, Script. rer. Austr., I, 1165); “Liber de gestis episcoporum Frisingensium” (Deutinger, Beitr. z. Gesch. d. Erzbisth. Munch.-Fries., III); and the “Chronicon Baioariorum” (Pez, Thesaurus, III, ii, 19 sq.). This is far superior to his former writings, but is itself equally surpassed by the unpretentious narrative of the German version, which the compiler himself undertook, and carried ten years further.

Stamminger in Kirchenlex., s.v.; Wegele, Gesch. d. deutschen Historiographie (Munich, 1885), 156–160.

FRANCIS W. GREY

Arnulf of Bavaria

Son of Luitpold of the Agilulfing family and of Kunigunde, and Duke of Bavaria from 907 to 937. His reign fell in a troubled time. The Magyars had begun their predatory incursions into Germany, in which they destroyed everything, wherever they penetrated. When, in the year 907, they again advanced against Bavaria in larger numbers than ever, the Margrave Luitpold summoned the entire fighting force of his people for the defence of the country. The Bavarians, however, were completely defeated, 5 July, 907, in a battle in which Luitpold himself, nearly all the Bavarian nobles, and a number of bishops, were killed. The land then became an easy prey to the barbarians and was ruthlessly devastated. Ludwig, King of the East Franks, withdrew to the western division of the empire. Under these almost hopeless conditions Arnulf, the son of Luitpold, began his reign. He did not lose courage, however, and succeeded, 11 August, 909, in defeating the Magyars on the Rott as they were returning from Swabia. The defeat did not prevent the Magyars from undertaking new plundering expeditions in the years directly following. But the terrible foe was defeated in a battle on the Inn not far from Passau, in the year 913, by a combined army of the Bavarians under Arnulf and of the Swabians under Erchanger and Berchtold, who were the brothers of Arnulf’s mother Kunigunde. On account of a quarrel which broke out between King Conrad and the Swabian dukes, Arnulf took up arms against the king in favor of his uncles. The marriage of Conrad with Kunigunde, the mother of Arnulf and sister of the Swabian dukes, did not allay the enmity. Arnulf was obliged to flee the country, but after a Swabian victory over the followers of the king he returned to Bavaria and established himself at Salzburg and Regensburg (Ratisbon). Conrad advanced in 916 against his stepson once more and defeated him, but was not able to drive him entirely out of the country. In order to put an end to this disorder, the German bishops held a synod in 916 at Hohenaltheim near Nördlingen. The synod threatened Arnulf with excommunication in case he did not present himself by 7 October before a synod at Regensburg. Arnulf, however, continued his struggle against Conrad. He was eventually induced to submit by Conrad’s successor, Henry I, but only after he was accorded the right of independent government in Bavaria, the right of coinage, and the right of appointment to the bishoprics. The agreement was made in 921, before Regensburg. After receiving these concessions, Arnulf acknowledged the German king as his over-lord. Otherwise, he was an independent ruler in his own land and called himself in his official documents “Duke of the Bavarians by the grace of God.” During his struggle for the independence of Bavaria, Arnulf had confiscated many monastic estates and properties, and had granted these lands as fiefs to his nobles and soldiers. Many churches, already grievously affected by the predatory incursions of the Magyars, were in this way completely impoverished and, it appears, in some cases destroyed. Only one abbot, Egilolf of Niederaltaich, attended the Synod of Regensburg in 932. The great monasteries of Benediktbeuern, Isen, Moosburg, Niedeeraltaich, Schaftlarn, Schliersee, Tegernsee, and Wessobrunn, had lost almost all they possessed through Arnulf’s confiscations, which were at times countenanced by some of the German bishops. Drakolf, Bishop of Freising, encouraged by the example of the duke, appropriated some possessions of the churches of Schaftlarn, Moosburg, and Isen. On account of his confiscations Arnulf was nicknamed der Schlimme (the Bad). Conditions were, however, decidedly better after the duke’s submission to King Henry. The Bavarian bishops met in synod at Regensburg, 14 January, 932, and in the summer of the same year they held a synod in connection with other territorial nobles at Dingolfing. An agreement was reached that the lands wrested from the monasteries and other religious houses should be returned to them. Arnulf himself showed zeal in rebuilding the churches that had been destroyed. Although the decisions of the synod were never fully carried out, the way was prepared for better conditions and more orderly rule. Arnulf died 14 July, 937, and was buried in the church of St. Emmeram in Regensburg.

Candler, De Arnulfo male malo cognominato (Munich, 1735); Giesebrecht, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit (5th ed., Leipzig, 1881), I, 172 sqq.; Riezler, Geschichte Bayerns (Gotha, 1878), I, 319sqq.; Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (Leipzig, 1896), III, 16 sqq., 277 sqq.; Fastlinger, Die wirtschaftliche Bedeutung der bayrischen Kloster in der Zeit der Agilulfinger (Freiburg, 1903), 162.

J.P. KIRSCH

Arnulf of Lisieux

(Lexoviensis or Luxoviensis).

In France; d. 31 August, 1184. He was educated by his brother, the Bishop of Seez (Sagi), studied canon law at Rome, and wrote in defence of Pope Innocent II a violent letter against Gerard, Bishop of Angouleme (Muratori, SS. RR. Ital., III, 423–432), a partisan of the Antipope Anacletus II (Petrus Leonis). In 1141 he was raised to the See of Lisieux, accompanied Louis VII on his crusade (1147), was faithful to Alexander III during the schism, and encouraged his brother bishops to defend the cause of ecclesiastical liberty against Henry II of England. He was a partisan of the king in the conflict between Henry and St. Thomas Becket, and after the murder of the latter undertook the royal defence before the pope. In 1181 or perhaps a little earlier, he lost the good will of the king, and for a while that of Pope Lucius. He then resigned his see because of age and feebleness and retired to the Abbey of St. Victor at Paris, where he died. His writings include a collection of letters, made by himself, and some poetry, and are in P.L., CC.

Potthast, Bibl. Hist. Med. Aevi, 2d ed., I, 121; Molinier, Sources de l’hist. de France (1902), II, n. 1908.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

St. Arnulf of Metz

Statesman, bishop under the Merovingians, born c. 580; died c. 640. His parents belonged to a distinguished Frankish family, and lived in Austrasia, the eastern section of the kingdom founded by Clovis. In the school in which he was placed during his boyhood he excelled through his talent and his good behaviour. According to the custom of the age, he was sent in due time to the court of Theodebert II, King of Austrasia (595–612), to be initiated in the various branches of the government. Under the guidance of Gundulf, the Mayor of the Palace, he soon became so proficient that he was placed on the regular list of royal officers, and among the first of the kings ministers. He distinguished himself both as a military commander and in the civil administration; at one time he had under his care six distinct provinces. In due course Arnulf was married to a Frankish woman of noble lineage, by whom he had two sons, Anseghisel and Clodulf. While Arnulf was enjoying worldly emoluments and honours he did not forget higher and spiritual things. His thoughts dwelled often on monasteries, and with his friend Romaricus, likewise an officer of the court, he planned to make a pilgrimage to the Abbey of Lérins, evidently for the purpose of devoting his life to God. But in the meantime the Episcopal See of Metz became vacant. Arnulf was universally designated as a worthy candidate for the office, and he was consecrated bishop of that see about 611. In his new position he set the example of a virtuous life to his subjects, and attended to matters of ecclesiastical government. In 625 he took part in a council held by the Frankish bishops at Reims. With all this Arnulf retained his station at the court of the king, and took a prominent part in the national life of his people. In 613, after the death of Theodebert, he, with Pepin of Landen and other nobles, called to Austrasia Clothaire II, King of Neustria. When, in 625, the realm of Austrasia was entrusted to the kings son Dagobert, Arnulf became not only the tutor, but also the chief minister, of the young king. At the time of the estrangement between the two kings, and 625, Arnulf with other bishops and nobles tried to effect a reconciliation. But Arnulf dreaded the responsibilities of the episcopal office and grew weary of court life. About the year 626 he obtained the appointment of a successor to the Episcopal See of Metz; he himself and his friend Romaricus withdrew to a solitary place in the mountains of the Vosges. There he lived in communion with God until his death. His remains, interred by Romaricus, were transferred about a year afterwards, by Bishop Goeric, to the basilica of the Holy Apostles in Metz.

Of the two sons of Arnulf, Clodulf became his third successor in the See of Metz. Anseghisel remained in the service of the State; from his union with Begga, a daughter of Pepin of Landen, was born Pepin of Heristal, the founder of the Carlovingian dynasty. In this manner Arnulf was the ancestor of the mighty rulers of that house. The life or Arnulf exhibits to a certain extent the episcopal office and career in the Merovingian State. The bishops were much considered at court; their advice was listened to; they took part in the dispensation of justice by the courts; they had a voice in the appointment of royal officers; they were often used as the king’s ambassadors, and held high administrative positions. For the people under their care, they were the protectors of their rights, their spokesmen before the king and the link uniting royalty with its subjects. The opportunities for good were thus unlimited; and Arnulf used them to good advantage.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Diocese of Arras

(Atrebatum).

Diocese comprising the Department of Pas-de-Calais in France. On the occasion of the Concordat, the three Dioceses of Arras, Saint-Omer, and Boulogne were united to make the one Diocese of Arras. It was a suffragan of Paris from 1802 to 1841, in which year Cambrai again became an archdiocese and Arras returned to it as suffragan. At the beginning of the sixth century St. Remi (Remigius), Archbishop of Reims, placed in the See of Arras St. Vedastus (St. Vaast) (d. c. 540), who had been the teacher of Clovis after the victory of Tolbiac. His successors, Dominicus and Vedulphus, are both venerated as saints. After the death of the latter, the See of Arras was transferred to Cambrai, and it was not until 1093 that Arras again became a diocese. Among the bishops of Arras are Cardinal Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle, Councillor of the emperor, Charles V, Bishop of Arras from 1545 to 1562, later Archbishop of Malines and Viceroy of Naples; François Richardot, a celebrated preacher, Bishop of Arras from 1562 to 1575; Monseigneur Parisis (d. 1866), who figured prominently in the political assemblies of 1848. The old cathedral of Arras, constructed between 1030 and 1396, and dedicated to St. Vaast, was one of the most beautiful Gothic structures in northern France. It was destroyed during the Revolution. Two famous relics were long greatly venerated at Arras: the “sacred manna,” said to have fallen from heaven in 371 during a severe famine, and the “holy candle,” a wax taper said to have been given to Bishop Lambert in 1105 by the Blessed Virgin, to stop an epidemic. Not far from Arras, the city of Saint-Omer, a diocese till the Revolution, perpetuates the memory of St. Audomare, or Omer, Bishop of Thérouanne, the apostle of the Morini in the sixth century. Its cathedral, a Gothic monument of the fourteenth century, was built over the saint’s tomb. The ruins of St. Vaast at Arras, and of St. Bertin at Saint-Omer, keep alive the memory of two celebrated abbeys of the same name; the Abbey of St. Bertin (founded in the seventh century) gave twenty-two saints to the Church. The Diocese of Arras at the end of 1905 contained 955,391 inhabitants, 52 parishes, 690 churches of the second class, and 53 vicariates formerly with state subventions.

Gallia Christiana (ed. Nova, 1725), III, 318–371, 470–471; Instrumenta 77–100; Terninck, Essai historique et monographique sur l’ancienne cathedrale d’Arras (ibid., 1853); Chevalier, Topo-bibl. (Paris 1894–99), 223–226.

GEORGES GOYAU

Councils of Arras

In 1025 a council was held at Arras against certain (Manichaean) heretics who rejected the sacraments of the Church. The Catholic Faith in the Blessed Eucharist was proclaimed with special insistence. In 1097, two councils, presided over by Lambert of Arras, dealt with questions concerning monasteries and persons consecrated to God.

Mansi, Coll. Conc., XIX, 423; XX, 492; Actes de la province de Reims (1843); Chevalier, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894–99), 224.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Pablo José Arriaga

Born at Vergara, in Biscay, 1564, entered the Society of Jesus in 1579, and in 1585 went to Peru, where he was ordained. In 1588 he was appointed rector of the College of San Martin at Lima, which post he filled thrice in the course of twenty-four years. He visited Europe in 1601, sent to Rome by his superiors. Returning in 1604, he became Rector of the College of Arequipa, (1612–15). It was during the period from 1604 to 1622 that Father Arriaga became identified with the task of uprooting the survivals of primitive idolatry in Peru, and accompanied one of the earliest official visitors, Father Fernando de Avendano. He also directed the construction of a college for sons of Indian caciques, and of a house of correction for Indian shamans. In 1620 he completed his “Extirpacion de l’Idolatría en el Perú” (Lima, 1621). The year following he was again sent to Europe on a confidential mission. Embarking at Porto Bello, the fleet to which his vessel belonged was struck by a fierce tempest. The ship on which he had embarked was, with four others, beached and wrecked. After untiring efforts to comfort his fellow passengers, Father Arriaga expired at the helm of the vessel, grasping the crucifix, which he had been holding up before his companions in misfortune. He deserves special attention as one of the most active promoters and organizers of the search for idolatrous survivals in Peru and of the Christian education of the Indians.

Anello Oliva, Historia del Peru y verones insignes de la Compania de Jesus; Calancha, Coronica moralizada, I; Mendiburu, Diccionario historico-biografico del Peru; Relaciones geograficas; verones Ilustres; Torres Saldamando, los Antiguos Jesuitas del Peru.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Juan Arricivita

A native of Mexico in the eighteenth century. Little more is known of his life than that he was Prefect and Commissary of the College of Propaganda Fide, at Querétaro, in New Spain (Mexico), a zealous and efficient missionary, and a highly esteemed member of the Franciscan Order. He deserves special mention as having been the author of the second volume of the “Chronicles of Querétaro” (for first part see Espinosa, Isidro Felis), a book that is of inestimable value for the history of missions and colonization of northwestern Mexico, Arizona, and California.

Beristain de Souza, Biblioteca hispano-americana setentrional (Mexico, 1816), I; Cronica Serafica y Apostilica del colegio de Propaganda Fide de la Santa Cruz de Queretaro, N.E., Segunda parte (Mexico, 1792).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Nicola Arrighetti

Mathematician, b. at Florence and died there in 1639. He was distinguished as a litterateur, but chiefly as a mathematician and a philosopher. He was one of the most prominent disciples of Galileo, and occupied an illustrious place in the Florentine Academy and in that of Della Crusca. He was one of those who formed the Platonic Academy which was re-established by the Grand Duke Ferdinand and the Prince, afterwards Cardinal of Tuscany. Arrighetti pronounced the opening discourse. He undertook to translate the Diologues of Plato into Tuscan and was so engaged when he died. He left a great number of manuscripts, in prose and verse, among which are some Cicalate or serio-comic compositions in vogue at the time, on such subjects as the tortoise, the cucumber, pickles, etc.

Michaud, Biograph. univ.; Guerin, Dictionnaire des dictionaires.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Nicolò Arrighetti

A professor of natural philosophy at Spoleto, Prato, and Sienna, b. at Florence, 17 March, 1709; d. 31 January, 1767. He entered the Society of Jesus, 31 October, 1724. He has left treatises on the theory of light, heat, and electricity, and also on the causes of the movement of mercury in the barometer. We have also from him a discourse known as “Il Baron di Van-Esden; ovvero la Republica degli Increduli da P. Michel Angelo Marini dell’Ordine de’Minimi, dall’Idioma Franzese tradotta.

Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la c. de J., I, 581; Mazzuchelli; Carrara; Beorchia, Notes bibliog.

T. J. CAMPBELL

Arsacidæ

It was under the Dynasty of the Arsacids, who ruled the Persian empire from the year 256 B.C. to A.D. 224, that Christianity found its way into the countries watered by the Euphrates and the Tigris. Nestorian traditions give no very accurate information concerning the relations which existed between the Arsacide kings and the Persian Christians. These, according to Mari ibn Sulayman, were excellent, and the churches enjoyed profound peace until the accession of the Sassanid, Sapor I. Yet the same annalist, in the paragraph which he devotes to Abraham, one of the early Persian patriarchs, speaks of a persecution supposed to have taken place in the latter’s lifetime (Mari, 5, cf. Amr ibn Matai, 3; Barhebræus, Chronicum ecclesiasticum, 21). He even knows, and other chroniclers repeat the statement, that the persecution in question was brought to an end by a miracle. The son of the King of Persia, who was epiliptic or possessed by a devil, was healed by Abraham. The prince, in order to show his gratitude, gave orders that the Christians should be allowed the free exercise of their religion. Unfortunately, however, neither Mari, nor any of those who copied his account, gives us the name of the king or of the miraculously cured son. In any case, the story as it stands is of no value whatever. Today, it stands demonstrated that the history of the beginnings of Christianity in Persia, prior to the fourth century, as recorded by the Syrian chroniclers of the Middle Ages, is purely legendary. They had access to no single serious document relating to the Arsacide Dynasty, the memory of which had been almost wholly blotted out of Persian tradition by the Sassanids. There were, moreover, very few Christians in Assyria or in Chaldea, previous to the third century, and even these were not easily discriminated from the Jews. The great Christianizing mission, which began at Edessa and which the Syrians associate with the name of the apostle Maré, had certainly not spread so far before the fall of the Arsacids. We must, therefore, perforce remain in ignorance of the nature, and even as to the existence, of the relations between the Parthian princes and the Persian Christians. If, however, one cares to form conjectures on the subject, he should recall that these monarchs, foreigners in Persia properly so called through their origin, were very indifferent fireworshippers. The religious bigotry which later moved the Sassanids to persecute the Christians, cannot, with any probability, be attributed to the Arsacids. We know, in fact, that they always showed themselves tolerant, and even favourable, towards the Jews (Graetz, Histoire des Juifs, Bloch’s French tr., 162–177), and there is every reason to believe that they acted in the same manner towards the Christians, if they ever came in contact with them at all.

Liber Turris; Recensions of Mari ibn Sulayman, Amr ibn Matai, and Saliba ibn Yohannan in MARIS, AMRI et SLIBÆ, De Patriarchis Nestorianorum commentaria, ed. by GISMONDI (Rome, 1896–99, Arabic text with Latin translation); BARHEBRÆUS, Chronicum Ecclesiasticum, part II, ed. by ABBELOOSLAMY (Louvain, 1874); cf. WESTFALL, Untersuchungen über die Quellen und die Glaubwürdigkeit der Patriarchenchroniken (Kirchhain, 1901); LABOURT, Le Christianisme dans l’empire Perse (Paris, 1904).

J. LABOURT

Arsenius Autorianos

Patriarch of Constantinople, in the thirteenth century; died 1273. He entered a monastery in Nicæa, changing his secular name George for Gennadius and finally for Arsenius, and became the hegoumenos (abbot) of the monastery without taking orders. On his return from an embassy to Pope Innocent IV from John III Vatatzes in 1254, he withdrew to a monastery on Lake Apollonias in Bithynia. Hither the envoys of Theodore II Lascaris, who had succeeded Vatatzes in 1255, came to offer him the patriarchal throne, made vacant in 1254 by the death of Manuel. His patriarchate was peacefu1 till the rise of Michael Palaeologus. Theodore II died in 1258, entrusting his son John’s minority to George Mouzalon, whom Michael murdered and supplanted. Vainly remonstrating, Arsenius withdrew to the monastery of Paschasius without resigning his authority. Failing to make him either act or resign, the emperor and the court bishops replaced him by Nicephorus of Ephesus, who died after six months. The recovery of Constantinople by the Greeks in July, 1261, rendered the choice of a patriarch imperative. His partisans renominated Arsenius, whom the emperor accepted, provided he recognized the validity of the orders conferred by Nicephorus. Arsenius agreed but refused to officiate with the new bishops. On his return he crowned Michael for the second time in St. Sophia, reserving intact, as he imagined, the rights of John. To make sure, however, that John should never succeed him, Michael destroyed his ward’s eyes, 25 Dec., 1261. Shocked at this atrocity, the patriarch excommunicated him and demanded his absolute abandonment of the imperial throne. Michael refused, and after two years’ contention deposed Arsenius (May, 1264) and exiled him to the convent of St. Nicholas on the island of Proconnesus, where he died. The adherents of Arsenius, including the emperor’s own kinsmen, withdrew from the communion of the new patriarch, Germanus, formerly Bishop of Adrianople. The next patriarch undertook, in 1267, to absolve the emperor from the sentence of excommunication imposed by Arsenius. This gave rise to the Arsenian schism, which lasted until April, 1315, when it finally yielded to the diplomacy of the Patriarch Niphon.

PETIT in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique (Paris, 1902) s. v. Arsène Autorianus; NATALIS; ALEXANDER, Hist. Eccl. (Venice, 1771), XVI, viii, art. 3; 4.

MARK J. MCNEAL

St. Arsenius

Anchorite; born 354, at Rome; died 450, at Troe, in Egypt. Theodosius the Great having requested the Emperor Gratian and Pope Damasus to find him in the West a tutor for his son Arcadius, they made choice of Arsenius, a man well read in Greek literature, member of a noble Roman family, and said to have been a deacon of the Roman Church. He reached Constantinople in 383, and continued as tutor in the imperial family for eleven years, during the last three of which he also had charge of his pupil’s brother Honorius. Coming one day to see his children at their studies, Theodosius found them sitting while Arsenius talked to them standing. This he would not tolerate, and caused the teacher to sit and the pupils to stand. On his arrival at court Arsenius had been given a splendid establishment, and probably because the Emperor so desired, he lived in great pomp, but all the time felt a growing inclination to renounce the world. After praying long to be enlightened as to what he should do, he heard a voice saying “Arsenius, flee the company of men, and thou shalt be saved.” Thereupon he embarked secretly for Alexandria, and hastening to the desert of Scetis, asked to be admitted among the solitaries who dwelt there. St. John the Dwarf, to whose cell he was conducted, though previously warned of the quality of his visitor, took no notice of him and left him standing by himself while he invited the rest to sit down at table. When the repast was half finished he threw down some bread before him, bidding him with an air of indifference eat if he would. Arsenius meekly picked up the bread and ate, sitting on the ground. Satisfied with this proof of humility, St. John kept him under his direction. The new solitary was from the first most exemplary yet unwittingly retained certain of his old habits, such as sitting cross-legged or laying one foot over the other. Noticing this, the abbot requested some one to imitate Arsenius’s posture at the next gathering of the brethren, and upon his doing so, forthwith rebuked him publicly. Arsenius took the hint and corrected himself. During the fifty-five years of his solitary life he was always the most meanly clad of all, thus punishing himself for his former seeming vanity in the world. In like manner, to atone for having used perfumes at court, he never changed the water in which he moistened the palm leaves of which he made mats, but only poured in fresh water upon it as it wasted, thus letting it become stenchy in the extreme. Even while engaged in manual labour he never relaxed in his application to prayer. At all times copious tears of devotion fell from his eyes. But what distinguished him most was his disinclination to all that might interrupt his union with God. When, after long search, his place of retreat was discovered, he not only refused to return to court and act as adviser to his former pupil the Emperor Arcadius, but he would not even be his almoner to the poor and the monasteries of the neighbourhood. He invariably denied himself to visitors, no matter what their rank and condition and left to his disciples the care of entertaining them. His contemporaries so admired him as to surname him “the Great.”

See Acta SS. (19 July) for his life by ST. THEODORE THE STUDITE (d. 826) and another in META.PHRASTES (apud SURILM. De probatis Sanctorum vitis IV, 250), the Lives of the Fathers of the Desert in ROSWEYDE and D’ANDILLY, or P. L., LXXIV; MARIN Vies des pères des déserts d orient, BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 19 July.

A.J.B. VUIBERT

Arsinoe

A titular see of Egypt, now Medinet el Fayum, capital of the district of that name, and situated on the west bank of the Nile between the river and Lake Moeris, now on the Bahr-Youssuf, about fifty-two miles south-west of Cairo. Its episcopal list (c. 250–649) is given in Gams (p. 461). It is the most famous of several homonymous cities in Egypt, greatly favoured and renamed by Ptolemy II (284–247 V.C.) in honour of his sister and wife Arsinoe. Samaritan Jews were soon found there, and ere long it rivalled Alexandria for the vineyards and gardens that abounded on its soil, the most fertile in Egypt. It did a brisk trade in cereals and vegetables, and was renowned for its figs and roses. For its piety towards the crocodile it was known as Crocodilipolis, a haunt of crocodiles. It became eventually a flourishing centre of Christian life, but in 642 was betrayed by the Monophysite Copts to Amru, the Arab lieutenant of Mohammed. As the modern Fayum (Coptic ph-iom, Fiûm, i. e. Lake Moeris) it is celebrated for the discovery (1877–78) of a great many papyri manuscripts, some of which are important for the earliest Christian history of Egypt; they are described in the Hellenic section of the reports of the “Egypt Exploration Fund.” It has several Coptic churches and Moslem mosques, and some manufactures, especially of woolen stuffs. Its trade in rose-water and nitre is considerable. The population is about 26,000.

Another Arsinoe was located on the Heeroopolite gulf of the Red Sea, and as one of the principal harbours of ancient Egypt carried on an extensive trade with India in silks, spices, ivory, etc. It is mentioned in Exodus, xiv, 2,9, and Numbers, xxxiii, 7 and is said to be identical with Argueroud near Suez. Arsinoe on the west coast of Cyprus was an episcopal see from the fifth to the twelfth century (Gams,( p. 439, and Lequien, II, 1065–68). Several other cities of the name are mentioned in Smith.

Lequien, Oriens Christ. (1740), II, 581–584; Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 225.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Artemon

(Or Artemas).

Mentioned as the leader of an Antitrinitarian sect at Rome, in the third century, about whose life little is known for certain. He is spoken of by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., V 28) as the forerunner of Paul of Samosata, an opinion confirmed by the Acts of a council held at Antioch in 264, which connect the two names as united in mutual communion and support. Eusebius (loc. cit.) and Theordoret (Haer. Fab., II, 4; V, II) describe his teaching as a denial of Our Lord’s Divinity and an assertion that He was a mere man, the falsification of Scripture, and an appeal to tradition in support of his errors. Both authors mention refutations: Eusebius and untitled work, Theodoret one known as “The Little Labyrinth,” which has been attributed to a Roman priest Caius, and more recently, to Hippolytus, the supposed author of the Philosophoumena.

Schwane, in Kirchenlex., I, 1451; Bardenhewer, Gesch. d. altkirchl. Litt. (Freiburg, 1902), II, 514.

FRANCIS W. GREY

James Arthur

(Didacus Arturus).

A Dominican friar, and a theologian of note, b. at Limerick, Ireland, early in the seventeenth century; d. (probably) 1670. He became a member of the Dominican Order in the convent of St. Stephen at Salamanca, Spain, and taught theology in different convents of his order, especially at Salamanca, with great credit to himself and profit to his numerous students. In 1640 he was called to the University of Coimbra as first professor of theology, and held this chair until 1642, when, on the occasion of the separation of Portugal from Spain, he was expelled for refusing to take the oath to defend the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. He returned to the convent of St. Dominic in Lisbon, where he resided for many years and devoted himself to the preparation of a commentary on the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas. The projected work was to have comprised ten volumes, but the death of the learned writer prevented its completion. Only the first volume was ever printed (1655); the second was completed and never published. The Dominican historiographers Quetif and Echard give February, 1644, as the date of his death, but the consensus of opinion is in favour of 1670. He was buried in the convent of St. Dominic, Lisbon, Portugal, where he died.

Ware, Writers and Antiquities of Ireland (ed. Harris, 1764), II, 160; Antonio, Biblioth. Hisp. Nova, II, 368; Quetif and Echard,Script. Ord. Praed., II, 536; Webb, Compend. of Irish Biog. (Dublin, 1878), 4; Dict. of Nat. Biof., II, 135.

A.C. O’NEIL

Thomas Arthur

A celebrated Catholic physician of the seventeenth century, born at Limerick, 1593, died c. 1666. Very little is known of his career, the few facts on record being chiefly related by himself in a genealogical account in Latin elegiacs, preserved in the British Museum (Additional MSS. 31,885), and in a manuscript diary of considerable interest, also in Latin, which gives particulars of his numerous cases. This diary shows him to have been held in the highest esteem as a physician. Arthur sometimes called himself Thomas Arthur FitzWilliam, his father’s name being William. He was educated at Bordeaux and subsequently studied medicine in Paris. He returned to Ireland in 1619, and in May of that year started to practise his profession in Limerick. He succeeded so well that on the invitation of various influential people he settled in Dublin, in 1624. When the English physicians failed to relieve Archbishop Ussher of a serious complaint from which he suffered Arthur was summoned to Drogheda to take charge of the case. With the “pseudo-primas Ardmachanus,” as he calls him, he stayed for some time subsequent to 22 March, 1625 and accompanied him to Lambay Island for the cure. He was most successful, and his reputation as a skilful physician was enormously enhanced by this case. He received a fee of fifty-one pounds, then justly considered a munificent reward. He himself says that the cure made him famous among the English, whom he heartily disliked “for the sake of the Catholic religion.” In his diary he mentions another case for which he was paid ten pounds by the Marquis of Ormonde. In his diary he occasionally alludes to the affairs of Ireland but only in the briefest possible way. His Catholic feelings are everywhere shown. Among his patients was Charles Fleetwood, Commander-in-Chief of the English forces in Ireland, at whose request he wrote a treatise on the disease from which that soldier was suffering. The only writer who seems to have made use of Arthur’s manuscript is Maurice Lenihan in his “History of Limerick,” where one or two epigrams are quoted.

D. J. O’Donoghue

Articles of Faith

(Greek, arthron; Latin, articulus, joint).

Certain revealed supernatural truths such as those contained in the symbol of the Apostles. The terms were not used by the Fathers or by ecclesiastical writers in the early Middle Ages. St. Bernard and Richard of St. Victor employed them, the latter applying them to truths having God for their object and so explicitly stated as to compel assent. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the article of faith is any revealed supernatural truth which is distinct in itself from other such truths but which unites with them to form the organic whole of Christian teaching. Thus the articles of the Creed announce truths which are in themselves distinct from one another but parts of a complete summary of the truths which have been revealed to help us to gain our last end. They are for Christian theology what fundamental principles are for a science. Not every revealed truth is an article of faith, nor are theologians agreed on what constitutes any truth an article of faith. Some would limit these articles to the contents of the Apostles’ Creed. Others say that every truth defined by the Church, or in any other manner explicitly proposed for our belief, is an article of faith. De Lugo describes them as the principal or primary truths which are the basis of other revealed truths or principles. In the Catechism of the Council of Trent (p. 1, c. 1, q. 4), the truths of the Apostles’ Creed are called “articles” by a sort of simile frequently used by our forefathers; for as the members of the body are divided by joints (articuli) so also in the profession of faith whatever is to be believed by us distinctly and separately from anything else we properly and appositely call an article.”

JOHN J. WYNNE

Organic Articles

A name given to a law regulating public worship, comprising 77 articles relative to Catholicism, and 44 relative to Protestantism, presented by order of Napoleon to the Tribunate and the legislative body at the same time that he made these two bodies vote on the Concordat itself. Together with the Concordat, the Organic Articles were published as a law, under the same title and the same preamble, 8 April, 1802, and the various governments in France which have since followed one another, down to 1905, have always professed to regard the Organic Articles as inseparable from the Concordat. Pope Pius VII however, as early as 24 May, 1802, declared formally, in a consistorial allocution, that these articles had been promulgated without his knowledge, and that he could not accept them without modification.

The Organic Articles which refer to Catholicism fall under four titles.

Title I deals with “the government of the Catholic Church in its general relations to the rights and constitution of the State.” In virtue of these articles, the authorization of the Government is necessary for the publication and execution of a papal document in France; for the exercise of ecclesiastical functions by any representative of the pope, for the holding of a National Council or a Diocesan Synod. Moreover, the Council of State, thanks to the formality of the appel comme d’abus, may declare that there is abus in any given acts of the ecclesiastical authority, and thus thrust itself into the affairs of the Church.

Title II deals with the ministers of public worship whose powers it defines: the rules and regulations of seminaries must be submitted to the State, the “ Declaration of 1682 “ must be taught in the seminaries, the number of those to be ordained must be fixed yearly by the Government; the curés of important parishes cannot be appointed by the bishop without the consent of the State.

Under Title III, devoted to public worship, the legislature forbids public processions in towns where there are adherents of different creeds. It fixes the dress of the priests, who must be dressed “ in the French fashion and in black,” it prescribes that there shall be only one catechism for all the churches of France.

Article IV has reference to the boundaries of dioceses and parishes, and to the salary of ministers of religion.

It was not long, however, before many of these articles became a dead letter. M. Emile Ollivier, in his speech from the tribune. 11 July, 1868, said: “It would be difficult to cite even one or two that are still kept, even these are not enforced every day but are only dragged from their nothingness and obscurity on great occasions, when there is need of seeming to do something while doing nothing.” Even the Third Republic never claimed the right to prevent the bringing of papal documents into France, to fix the dress of the priests, to insist on the teaching of the Declaration of 1682; and the judgments Tanquam ab abusu pronounced by the Council of State against the bishops, have always been mildly platonic.

The Organic Articles as such were the outcome, philosophically speaking, of a certain Gallican and Josephist spirit, whereby the State sought to rule the Church. Historically speaking, the French Legislature in drawing up these articles, which limited the scope of the Concordat, had set an unfortunate example, followed twenty years later by the various German governments, which having in their turn treated with the Holy See, hastened to counteract their own agreements by means of certain territorial enactments.

The law of 1905, which separated Church and State in France, abrogated the Organic Articles at the same time that it abrogated the Concordat. (See CONCORDAT.)

GEORGES GOYAU

Artoklasia

(Greek artos = bread, klao = to break; the breaking of bread).

A peculiar service in the Greek Church performed as the concluding part of Vespers. Five loaves of ordinary bread, a measure of wine, and a measure of oil are set upon the analogion before the iconostasis in front of the altar. These are first incensed, and then the priest taking one of the loaves into his hands blesses them as follows:

O Lord Jesus Christ our God, Who didst bless the five loaves in the desert and satisfy therewith five thousand men, do Thyself bless these loaves also the wheat, the wine and the oil, multiply them in this holy abode unto all the world; and sanctify the faithful servants of Thine who may partake of them. For Thou art He who blesseth and halloweth and nourisheth all good things, O Christ our God and to Thee we send up glory with Thine unoriginate Father and Thine all-holy and good and life-giving Spirit, now and forever, world without end.

Afterwards Psalm 33 is said, ending with the chanting of the eleventh verse: “The rich have become poor and have suffered hunger, but they that seek the Lord shall not be deprived of any good things “, and then the people are blessed. This office was introduced in monasteries where the monks kept an all-night vigil and the food was necessary for them, but gradually it became a Church office for the whole Eastern Rite. Originally there was a breaking of the bread and a distribution of the bread and wine, but that has been discontinued, although the Greek rubric still says, “Note that the blessed bread is a preventive of all manner of evils if it is received with faith.” The ceremony of artoklasia is now seldom used in the Byzantine Catholic Church, since, in imitation of the Roman Rite, the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament according to a Greek form has taken its place.

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Bachelor of Arts

A degree marking the completion of the traditional curriculum of the college. In the medieval universities, the Mastership, or Doctorate, was the great academic prize. The Bachelorship does not appear to have existed at first, either at Bologna or Paris. It probably originated from the practice of employing the more advanced students to assist in teaching those who were younger, such teaching being regarded as a preparation for the Mastership. Before being allowed to begin to teach, the student had to maintain a thesis or disputation in public. The technical term for this was “Determination.” To “determine” meant, for the student, to resolve questions in a public disputation in order to prove his fitness to enter upon the second stage of his career for the Mastership. “Determination” was thus an imitation of “Inception,” which admitted to the Mastership, and like the latter is soon developed into a mere academic ceremony, examinations being held beforehand to ascertain the fitness of the candidate. Of these there were two, a preliminary one, known as “Responsions,” and a second one, more severe, known as Examen Baccalariandorum. In addition to the disputation, the ceremony of Determination consisted in the student’s putting on the special cap worn by those who had “determined,” and taking his seat in their midst. In the celebrated Bull of Gregory IX, “Parens Scientarium,” issued in 1231, we find the term Bachellarii applied to those who were pursuing their studies for the Mastership, while helping to teach. The term was very likely taken over from the Guilds, in which the French word Bachelier was applied, at the time, to a young man who was an apprentice. The academic condition which the word was employed to designate involved the idea of an apprenticeship in teaching. The later academic term Baccalaurius (spelled Baccalarius at first) was probably a corrupt latinized form of the same word.

The length of the course in Arts in the medieval universities varied considerably according to time and place. The statutes framed for the University of Paris, in 1215, by Robert de Courçon, the papal legate, fixed the minimum length of the course at six years, twenty years of age being required for its completion and the reception of the license. Later statutes fixed the minimum age for determination at fourteen years. At Paris the time between matriculation and determination was usually from one to two years. The tendency at Paris, and on the Continent, was towards early determination. The extreme effect of this tendency is seen in the fact that the Baccalaureate eventually disappeared altogether from Continental universities. At Oxford and Cambridge, on the other hand, the tendency was towards late determination. At Paris the age for entrance was about thirteen, and for determination about fifteen. At Oxford the boy entered at about the age of fourteen, and passed four years before being allowed to determine. The English Bachelor was thus several years older than the French or German Bachelor. The custom of late determination at Oxford and Cambridge which was largely due to the development of the English grammar-school system, furnishes an historical explanation of the fact that the American college graduate to-day is several years older then the French Bachelor, or the German student on finishing the Gymnasium, American colleges having adopted the English system in this respect. The studies leading to the Baccalaureate varied naturally with the length of time required. Those prescribed at Oxford in 1267 were as follows:

The Old Logic: Porphyry, “Isagoge,” the “Categoriae” and “De Interpretatione” of Aristotle, and the “Sex Principia” of Gilbert de la Porree, twice; the Logical Works of Boethius (except “Topics,” book IV), once.

The New Logic: Aristotle, “Priora Analytica,” “Topica,” “De Sophisticis Elenchis,” twice; “Posteriora Analytica,” once.

Grammar: Priscian, “De Constructionibus,” twice; Donatus, “Barbarismus,” once. Or, in place of Grammar, Natural Philosophy: Aristotle, “Physica,” “De=20 Anima,” “De Generatione et Corruptione.”

To have “responded” “De Sophismatibus” for a year, or to have heard the “Posteriora Analytica” twice instead of once. [Anstey, “Munimenta Academica,” 35, 36. Rashdall, “Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages,” II, Pt. II, 455.]

It is interesting to note that alternative or elective studies were allowed at Oxford, to some extent, at this early date.

The influence of the humanistic movement of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries upon the A.B. curriculum was shown in the partial replacement of the Aristotelean course by the Latin and Greek classics, although the theological controversies and civil wars springing from the Reformation went far towards neutralizing the effect of humanism upon the universities. The Jesuits, however, carried forward the movement, and were long noted as the leaders in classical education throughout Europe.

The development of the system of “colleges” at Oxford and Cambridge, contributed greatly to preserve the effectiveness and popularity of the traditional Arts course in England. The immense addition to the stock of human knowledge in modern times, together with the multiplication of distinct branches of science suitable for educational purposes have profoundly affected the Baccalaureate curriculum. On effect is seen in the development of the principle of election of studies. In Germany, side by side with the Gymnasium, there are now the Realgymnasium and the Realschule. In France, the Lycée offers a modern, as well as a classical curriculum in Arts. Oxford and Cambridge have instituted other curricula parallel with the ancient A.B. course; while in America electivism ranges, through many gradations, from the system of two or more parallel, though fixed curricula to the extremely elastic system of Harvard, where the student makes up his own curriculum, by selecting the particular studies he wills. Another effect of the growth of knowledge is shown in the substitution of text-book teaching for the lecture system prevalent during the Middle Ages. Still another effect, perhaps, is disclosing itself in the movement lately inaugurated in America for the shortening of the Baccalaureate curriculum. It is no longer possible, during the years in college or in the university, to cover the whole range of acquired knowledge in the liberal arts, as the endeavour was to do in the Middle Ages. After leaving college, moreover, and finishing his professional course in the university or technical school, the student is apt to find that there are still years of hard apprenticeship awaiting him before he can attain to such a mastership in his profession as will enable him to gain a respectable livelihood. Some of the largest American colleges now permit the Baccalaureate to be taken in three years. (See also ARTS, THE FACULTY OF; ARTS, MASTER OF; and UNIVERSITIES)

Of primary importance for the history of the development of the Faculty of Arts, and the degrees of Bachelor and Master of Arts, are: DENIFLE, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis (Paris, 1889–97), and Entstehung der Universitaten des Mittelalters bis zum 1400 (Berlin, 1885); ZARNCKE, Die deutschen Universitaten im Mittelalter (Leipsig, 1857); PAULSEN, Geschichte des gelehrien Unterrichts auf den deutschen Schulen and Universitaten (Leipsig, 1885); Die deutschen Universitaten, compiled for the Educational Exhibit in Chicago, 1893; ANSTEY, Munimenta Academica (Oxford, 1888); RASHIDALL, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1895); LYTE, History of the Univ. of Oxford (London, 1886); MULLINGER, History of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1873–84); Education in the United Stated (compiled for the Paris Exposition, 1886), I; Annual Reports of the Comm. Of Education (Washington); The Educational Review. For the work of the Jesuits, SCHWICKERATH, Jesuit Education (St. Louis, 1903), and HUGHES, Lyola and the Ed. System of the Jesuits (New York, 1892) are the best in English. BROTHER AZARIAS, Educational Essays and NEWMAN, Historical Sketches have their value; as also has LAURIE, Rise and Constitution of Universities (London, 1886).

J.A. BURNS

Faculty of Arts

One of the four traditional divisions of the teaching body of the university. It is impossible to fix the date of the origin of autonomous faculties in the early medieval universities, because, as Denifle has observed, the division did not take place all at once, or as the result of deliberate action, but came about gradually, as the result of a spontaneous inner development. As a matter of fact, the formation of faculties sprang from the same academic impulse that gave rise to the universities themselves. The mother universities of Europe were those of Paris and Bologna. The germ of the University of Paris was the voluntary association of the teaching Masters, after the fashion of the universally prevalent guild-formation. At Bologna, it was the association of the students that gave rise to the corporate university. In both places it was but natural, and, as it seems to us now inevitable, that the teachers in a common field of knowledge should gradually come to act together along the lines of their identical interests. Such unions appear to have been formed soon after these two universities came into existence, if indeed they did not exist before. Schools of arts, theology, law, and medicine had been established throughout Europe previous to the organization of the universities, and the separate existence of such schools foreshadowed the division of the university teaching-body into faculties. Although there is evidence of the existence of a general association of the Masters at Paris, about the year 1175, the first direct proof of the existence of faculties in the same university goes back only to the year 1213. The four faculties then recognized were theology, arts, canon law, and civil law. The term faculty was used at first to designate a specific field of knowledge; but in 1255 we find the Masters at Paris using the term in the modern meaning of a union of the teachers in a certain department of knowledge. The new turn given to the meaning of the word was not without significance. The centre of power, the “facultas,” had shifted from the objective to the subjective side of knowledge. Henceforth the teacher was to be the dominant influence.

The term Arts, in medieval academic usage, comprehended all studies in the sphere of the higher and non-professional intellectual activity. The traditional “liberal arts” derived from the Romano-Hellenic schools, were seven in number. They were made up of the trivium, embracing grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, and the quadrivium, or music, arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. The trivium may be said to have corresponded to the Arts studies proper in the modern college course, and the quadrivium to the science studies. While the medieval universities held to the traditional number of the liberal arts, they did so only in a theoretical way. New subjects were at times introduced into the curriculum, and classified as belonging to one or other of the seven arts. The instruction given under the several arts was, quantitatively as well as qualitatively, very unequal. The trivium generally formed the body of the Arts curriculum, especially up to the B.A. degree. After that, more or less of the quadrivium was given, together with advanced courses covering the ground of the trivium. Grammar was a wide term. Theoretically, it included the study of the whole Latin language and literature. Rhetoric was the art of expression, both in writing and speaking. It corresponded to what we should now call, in a broad sense, oratory. Dialectic was the study of philosophy, including logic, metaphysics, and ethics. In philosophy, Aristotle was the great authority, the Magister, as he came to be reverentially called. Certain of his treatises had long been known throughout Europe, and these, together with the logical works of Boethius, were called, in school parlance, the “Old Logic,” in contradistinction to those Aristotelian treatises which became known in Northern Europe only in the twelfth century, and hence were designated as the “New Logic.” The old cloistral and cathedral schools had kept alive the study of the Latin classics, and handed it on to the universities; but the passion for dialectic swept aside the study of grammar and rhetoric. The Latin authors were but little read, or not at all; the Greek classics were unknown. It was not until the rise of Humanism in the fifteenth century that the study of the ancient literatures of Rome and Greece was, generally speaking, made a regular and important part of the university course in Arts.

The following list includes the books that were to be “read,” or lectured on, by the Masters of the Faculty of Arts, at Paris in 1254. It covers the period of six or seven years from entrance, or matriculation, up to the Master’s degree, and, were the “disputations” added, it might be regarded as typical of the Arts course in the medieval universities generally. A specific date was set for finishing the “reading” of each book.

Old Logic: Porphyry, “Isagoge” (Introduction to the Categoriae); Aristotle, “Categoriae” and “Perihermenia”; Boethius, “Divisiones” and “Topica,” except Bk. IV.

New Logic: Aristotle, “Topica,” “Elenchi,” “Analytica Priora,” and “Analytica Posteriora.”

Ethics: Aristotle, “Ethica,” (ad Nichomachum), four books.

Metaphysics: Aristotle, “Metaphysica.”

Astronomy: Aristotle, “De Coelo,” “Meteora,” first Bk.

Psychology and Natural Philosophy: Aristotle, “Physica,” “De Animalibus,” “De Anima,” “Da Generatione,” “De Causis (attributed at the time to Aristotle), “De Sensu et Sensato,” “De Somno et Vigilia,” “De Plantis,” “De Memoria et Reminiscentia,” “De Morte et Vita,” Costa Ben Luca, “De Differentia Spiritus et Animae.”

Grammar and Rhetoric: Priscian Major (16 books of his “Institutiones Grammaticae”), Priscian Minor (last two books of the same); Gilbert de la Porree, “Sex Principia”; Barbarismus (third book of Donatus, “Ars Major”); Priscian, “De Accentu,” (Cf. Chartularium Univ. Paris, Part I, n. 246.)

Masters of Arts, like masters, or doctors, of other faculties, were divided into regents and non-regents. Regents were Masters actually engaged in teaching. All who received the degree of Master in the Arts course at Paris, had to take an oath to act as regents, i.e. to teach, for a period of two years, unless dispensed. The purpose of this statute was, partly at least, to provide a sufficiency of teachers for the Arts course, which usually included the great mass of the students of the University, and which was the necessary gateway to the higher studies of theology, law, and medicine. As the Master’s degree, at Paris, could be taken at twenty years of age, the consequence of the regency rule was to make the Faculty of Arts a body of young men, many of them being at the same time students of one of the higher faculties or preparing to become such. Teaching included lectures, disputations, and repetitions. It was long before there were salaries, the Masters being dependent on what they were able to collect as tuition-fees from their pupils. The oath requiring newly created Masters to teach for a period at the university was abolished at Paris only in 1452. At Oxford the custom was continued for a half-century later, and some vestiges of it remained until comparatively recent times. The Privatdozent of the modern German university represents a development of the medieval regency rule.

At Oxford and Cambridge, which have the most faithfully adhered to the medieval archetype, the Faculty of Arts still occupies a position of predominant importance. At Oxford, especially, the Arts studies still furnish the materials for the most characteristic type of mental training given by the University. The B.A. course is followed by the great majority of the students, and philosophy, much of it Aristotelian, is still the backbone of the body of knowledge for all candidates for the Baccalaureate. The Master of Arts at Oxford on taking his degree becomes a member of the Faculty by right, and a member of the governing body of the University as well. The governing body consists of two houses, the Congregation and the Convocation, the former including all resident Masters of Arts, and the latter those who are non-resident. Outside of England, the relative position of the Faculty of Arts in the university has been considerably altered since medieval times. The promising development of the Arts studies under Humanism was checked in Northern Europe by the absorbing theological controversies and civil wars which grew out of the preaching of the new doctrines by Luther and the other reformers. The effect was most evident in Germany, where, until the close of the seventeenth century, the course in Arts, or Philosophy, as it had come to be called, was relegated to a position of decided inferiority. Theology was in the foreground, and it became the fashion to look upon the study of the classics with contempt. With the eighteenth century, however, a new era began. Under the lead of the new universities, Halle and Goettingen, philosophical studies gradually regained a place of importance in the universities, and during the nineteenth century completely recovered their ancient prestige. Taking Germany as a whole, the Faculty of Philosophy includes to-day about one-fourth of all the teachers in the universities. In modern times the development of knowledge, especially of the sciences, has, in some universities, led to a fundamental change in the constitution of the Faculty of Arts. Owing to the multiplication of courses, the teachers in the Faculty of Arts in many cases outnumber those in all the other Faculties together. The difficulties arising out of this condition come not only from the fact that the Faculty of Arts in such cases is a larger body than it formerly was, but also from the fact that its members have fewer interests in common. In the days when Aristotle was the text-book for both philosophy and science, it was natural enough that teachers of the two branches should work side by side; their cooperation was based on both principle and method. But to-day there is often little in common between them, except what results from the traditional association of their respective subjects under the same faculty. In France, the problem has been met by splitting the Faculty of Arts into two separate faculties, those of Letters and of Science. At most of the German universities the Faculty of Philosophy has remained intact, but the old humanistic group of studies and the mathematical-science group receive recognition respectively as distinct departments. In a few institutions, the problem has been solved, as in France, by dividing the Faculty of Philosophy into two separate faculties, or even into three. In American universities and colleges the Faculty of Arts occupies much the same position as at Oxford, although there is considerable diversity in the names by which it is officially known. It usually has under its jurisdiction the great majority of professors and students, and all courses of study outside of the purely professional and technical departments. In some cases the Faculty has been split up into several distinct faculties; but in general there has been a strong desire to adhere to the medieval tradition that all cultural studies, whether undergraduate or post-graduate, whether in the arts or in the sciences, should be grouped together, the danger of inefficiency being guarded against usually by dividing the Faculty into a number of departments, each of which controls, to a greater or less extent, the work of its instructors and students.

For bibliography, see ARTS, BACHELOR OF.

J.A. BURNS

Master of Arts

An academic degree higher than that of Bachelor. The conferring of the degree of Master of Arts, as a title invested with certain specific academic privileges, is closely connected in origin with the early history of the University of Paris, which was the mother-university in arts as Bologna was in law. Originally, the degree meant simply the right to teach, the Licentia docendi, and this right could be granted, in Paris, only by the Chancellor of the Cathedral of Notre Dame, or the Chancellor of St. Geneviève. According to the Third Council of Lateran, held in 1179, this Licentia docendi had to be granted gratuitously, and to all duly qualified applicants. It was the Chancellor’s right to determine the question of the applicant’s fitness. But in time, as the number of candidates for the degree increased, and the university developed, the ceremony of presentation before the Chancellor became more and more of a formality, and the responsibility for the fitness of the candidate devolved upon his teacher, and his teacher’s associates. Although, however, the Chancellor’s licence unquestionably conferred the right to teach, it did not make the recipient a full Master. For this it was required, in addition, that the faculty in which the Licentia docendi was given, should formally recognize the recipient as a Master, and admit him to a place among themselves. This ceremony, by which the Licentiate became a full Master, was known as Inceptio. As the term implies, the ceremony involved a beginning of actual teaching, the Licentiate delivering a lecture before the faculty. The term “Commencement,” as applied to graduation exercises, is but the English equivalent of the medieval Inceptio, and was first used at Cambridge. The ceremony of formally investing the young teacher with the title and insignia of a Master consisted in the bestowal of the biretta, or Master’s cap, the open book, and the kiss of fellowship, after which he took his seat in the magisterial chair. Half a year or so elapsed between the granting of the Licence and the Inception. No examination was required before Inception, the candidate’s fitness having been tested before the conferring of the Licence. Those who received the Licentia docendi from the Chancellor were admitted to Inception as a matter of course. The candidate for the Licence in Arts had to pass two examinations, a preliminary one, conducted by the Chancellor, and another conducted by the faculty itself. In going to receive the Licence, the candidates were arranged in the order of their academic standing, a custom which developed into the modern system of graduation honours. The ceremony was conducted with great pomp. Part of the proceedings consisted in the “Collations,” or the giving of lectures by some of the candidates. The Chartularium of the University of Paris gives the formula used by the Chancellor in conferring the Licence as follows: “Et ego auctoritate apostolorum Petri et Pauli in hac parte mihi commissˆ do vobis licentiam legendi, regendi, disputandi et determinandi ceterosque actus scholasticos seu magistrales exercendi in facultate artium Parisiis et ubique terrarum, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.” (Chartularium, II, App. 679.)

In medieval times, the title of Master was practically synonymous with that of Doctor, the former being more in favour at Paris and the universities modelled after it, and the latter at Bologna and its derivative universities. At Oxford and Cambridge a distinction came to be drawn between the Faculties of Law, Medicine, and Theology and the Faculty of Arts in this respect, the title of Doctor being used for the former, and that of Master for the latter. In Germany, “Doctor” is exclusively used, but the German university diploma still frequently evidences the original equivalence of the two titles, the recipient being styled Magister Artium et Doctor Philosophiæ. In France the original practical equivalence of the Licentiate and the Mastership, or the Doctorate, developed into a distinction amounting to separate degrees. Under the present university system in France, the Bachelor may attain to the Licence in Arts one year after receiving the Baccalaureate, although generally two years at least are found necessary. After the Licentiate, a considerable period elapses before the Doctorate can be obtained. No set time is required for the Doctorate, but the high standard of qualification prevents candidates from applying for it for several, and sometimes for many, years after the Licentiate is received.

At Oxford, the degree of Master of Arts has retained much the same academic significance it had during the Middle Ages. The degree admits the recipient ipso facto to the Faculty of Arts and to the ancient privilege of “Regency,” or the right to teach, though only in the colleges, the university professors being specially appointed. In American universities, which followed here the example of Oxford and Cambridge, the Mastership was, until 1860, the only degree given in Arts after the Baccalaureate and it was usually conferred several years after the Baccalaureate, residence at the institution meanwhile not being requisite. In that year, however, the growing influence of German academic ideals was evidenced in the introduction, by Yale, of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Since then one university after another has introduced this degree, until at present, the offering of a course of study and research leading to the Doctorate in Philosophy, has come to be looked upon as a test of the fitness of an institution to be classed as a graduate school or university. Generally speaking, a minimum of three years’ time is required for the degree after the Baccalaureate, and a thesis embodying original research on some important subject is, as in Germany, regarded as the most important test of qualification. The development of the Doctorate course in American universities has had important effects on the degree of A.M. It now holds a middle place between the Baccalaureate and the Doctorate, and in order to obtain it in the universities, a minimum residence of one year is required. The bringing together in this way of the historic degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy, although effected somewhat at the expense of the Mastership, is an interesting phenomenon pointing to the two great university types after which the American university has been moulded, the relative positions of the two degrees indicating, at the same time, the predominance at present of the German over the English type.

J.A. BURNS

Seven Liberal Arts

The expression artes liberales, chiefly used during the Middle Ages, does not mean arts as we understand the word at this present day, but those branches of knowledge which were taught in the schools of that time. They are called liberal (Lat. liber, free), because they serve the purpose of training the free man, in contrast with the artes illiberales, which are pursued for economic purposes; their aim is to prepare the student not for gaining a livelihood, but for the pursuit of science in the strict sense of the term, i.e. the combination of philosophy and theology known as scholasticism. They are seven in number and may be arranged in two groups, the first embracing grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, in other words, the sciences of language, of oratory, and of logic, better known as the artes sermocinales, or language studies; the second group comprises arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music, i.e. the mathematico-physical disciplines, known as the artes reales, or physicae. The first group is considered to be the elementary group, whence these branches are also called artes triviales, or trivium, i.e. a well-beaten ground like the junction of three roads, or a cross-roads open to all. Contrasted with them we find the mathematical disciplines as artes quadriviales, or quadrivium, or a road with four branches. The seven liberal arts are thus the members of a system of studies which embraces language branches as the lower, the mathematical branches as the intermediate, and science properly so called as the uppermost and terminal grade. Though this system did not receive the distinct development connoted by its name until the Middle Ages, still it extends in the history of pedagogy both backwards and forwards; for while, on the one hand, we meet with it among the classical nations, the Greeks and Romans, and even discover analogous forms as forerunners in the educational system of the ancient Orientals, its influence, on the other hand, has lasted far beyond the Middle Ages, up to the present time.

It is desirable, for several reasons, to treat the system of the seven liberal arts from this point of view, and this we propose to do in the present article. The subject possesses a special interest for the historian, because an evolution, extending through more than two thousand years and still in active operation, here challenges our attention as surpassing both in its duration and its local ramifications all other phases of pedagogy. But it is equally instructive for the philosopher because thinkers like Pythagoras, Plato, and St. Augustine collaborated in the framing of the system, and because in general much thought and, we may say, much pedagogical wisdom have been embodied in it. Hence, also, it is of importance to the practical teacher, because among the comments of so many schoolmen on this subject may be found many suggestions which are of the greatest utility.

The Oriental system of study, which exhibits an instructive analogy with the one here treated, is that of the ancient Hindus still in vogue among the Brahmins. In this, the highest object is the study of the Veda, i. e. the science or doctrine of divine things, the summary of their speculative and religious writings for the understanding of which ten auxiliary sciences were pressed into service, four of which,, viz. phonology, grammar, exegesis, and logic, are of a linguistico-logical nature, and can thus be compared with the Trivium; while two, viz. astronomy and metrics, belong to the domain of mathematics, and therefore to the Quadrivium. The remainder, viz. law, ceremonial lore, legendary lore, and dogma, belong to theology. Among the Greeks the place of the Veda is taken by philosophy, i.e. the study of wisdom, the science of ultimate causes which in one point of view is identical with theology. “Natural Theology,” i.e. the doctrine of the nature of the Godhead and of Divine things, was considered as the domain of the philosopher, just as “political theology” was that of the priest, and “mystical theology” of the poet. [See O. Willmann, Geschichte des Idealismus (Brunswick, 1894), I, sect. 10.] Pythagoras (who flourished between 540 B.C. and 510 B.C.) first called himself a philosopher, but was also esteemed as the greatest Greek theologian. The curriculum which he arranged for his pupils led up to the hieros logos, i.e. the sacred teaching, the preparation for which the students received as mathematikoi, i.e. learners, or persons occupied with the mathemata, the “science of learning”—that, in fact, now known as mathematics. The preparation for this was that which the disciples underwent as akousmatikoi, “hearers,” after which preparation they were introduced to what was then current among the Greeks as mousike paideia, “musical education,” consisting of reading, writing, lessons from the poets, exercises in memorizing, and the technique of music. The intermediate position of mathematics is attested by the ancient expression of the Pythagoreans metaichmon, i.e. “spear-distance”; properly, the space between the combatants; in this case, between the elementary and the strictly scientific education. Pythagoras is moreover renowned for having converted geometrical, i.e. mathematical, investigation into a form of education for freemen. (Proclus, Commentary on Euclid, I, p. 19, ten peri ten geometrian philosophian eis schema paideias eleutherou metestesen.) “He discovered a mean or intermediate stage between the mathematics of the temple and the mathematics of practical life, such as that used by surveyors and business people; he preserves the high aims of the former, at the same time making it the palaestra of intellect; he presses a religious discipline into the service of secular life without, however, robbing it of its sacred character, just as he previously transformed physical theology into natural philosophy without alienating it from its hallowed origin” (Geschichte des Idealismus, I, 19 at the end). An extension of the elementary studies was brought about by the active, though somewhat unsettled, mental life which developed after the Persian wars in the fifth century B.C. From the plain study of reading and writing they advanced to the art of speaking and its theory (rhetoric), with which was combined dialectic, properly the art of alternate discourse, or the discussion of the pro and con. This change was brought about by the sophists, particularly by Gorgias of Leontium. They also attached much importance to manysidedness in their theoretical and practical knowledge. Of Hippias of Elis it is related that he boasted of having made his mantle, his tunic, and his foot-gear (Cicero, De Oratore, iii, 32, 127). In this way, current language gradually began to designate the whole body of educational knowledge as encyclical, i.e. as universal, or all-embracing (egkyklia paideumata, or methemata; egkyklios paideia). The expression indicated originally the current knowledge common to all, but later assumed the above-mentioned meaning, which has also passed into our word encyclopedia.

Socrates having already strongly emphasized the moral aims of education, Plato (429–347 B.C.) protested against its degeneration from an effort to acquire culture into a heaping-up of multifarious information (polypragmosyne). In the “Republic” he proposes a course of education which appears to be the Pythagorean course perfected. It begins with musico-gymnastic culture, by means of which he aims to impress upon the senses the fundamental forms of the beautiful and the good, i.e. rhythm and form (aisthesis). The intermediate course embraces the mathematical branches, viz. arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music, which are calculated to put into action the powers of reflection (dianoia), and to enable the student to progress by degrees from sensuous to intellectual perception, as he successively masters the theory of numbers, of forms, of the kinetic laws of bodies, and of the laws of (musical) sounds. This leads to the highest grade of the educational system, its pinnacle (thrigkos) so to speak, i.e. philosophy, which Plato calls dialectic, thereby elevating the word from its current meaning to signify the science of the Eternal as ground and prototype of the world of sense. This progress to dialectic (dialektike poreia) is the work of our highest cognitive faculty, the intuitive intellect (nous). In this manner Plato secures a psychological, or noetic, basis for the sequence of his studies, namely: sense-perception, reflection, and intellectual insight. During the Alexandrine period, which begins with the closing years of the fourth century before Christ, the encyclical studies assume scholastic forms. Grammar, as the science of language (technical grammar) and explanation of the classics (exegetical grammar), takes the lead; rhetoric becomes an elementary course in speaking and writing. By dialectic they understood, in accordance with the teaching of Aristotle, directions enabling the student to present acceptable and valid views on a given subject; thus dialectic became elementary practical logic. The mathematical studies retained their Platonic order; by means of astronomical poems, the science of the stars, and by means of works on geography, the science of the globe became parts of popular education (Strabo, Geographica, I, 1, 21–23). Philosophy remained the culmination of the encyclical studies, which bore to it the relation of maids to a mistress, or of a temporary shelter to the fixed home (Diog. Laert., II, 79; cf. the author’s Didaktik als Bildungslehre, I, 9).

Among the Romans grammar and rhetoric were the first to obtain a firm foothold; culture was by them identified with eloquence, as the art of speaking and the mastery of the spoken word based upon a manifold knowledge of things. In his “Institutiones Oratoriae” Quintilian, the first professor eloquentiae at Rome in Vespasian’s time, begins his instruction with grammar, or, to speak precisely, with Latin and Greek Grammar, proceeds to mathematics and music, and concludes with rhetoric, which comprises not only elocution and a knowledge of literature, but also logical—in other words dialectical—instruction. However, the encyclical system as the system of the liberal arts, or Artes Bonae, i.e. the learning of the vir bonus, or patriot, was also represented in special handbooks. The “Libri IX Disciplinarum” of the learned M. Terentius Varro of Reate, an earlier contemporary of Cicero, treats of the seven liberal arts adding to them medicine and architectonics. How the latter science came to be connected with the general studies is shown in the book “De Architecturâ,” by M. Vitruvius Pollio, a writer of the time of Augustus, in which excellent remarks are made on the organic connection existing between all studies. “The inexperienced,” he says, “may wonder at the fact that so many various things can be retained in the memory; but as soon as they observe that all branches of learning have a real connection with, and a reciprocal action upon, each other, the matter will seem very simple; for universal science (egkyklios, disciplina) is composed of the special sciences as a body is composed of members, and those who from their earliest youth have been instructed in the different branches of knowledge (variis eruditionibus) recognize in all the same fundamental features (notas) and the mutual relations of all branches, and therefore grasp everything more easily” (Vitr., De Architecturâ, I, 1, 12). In these views the Platonic conception is still operative, and the Romans always retained the conviction that in philosophy alone was to be found the perfection of education. Cicero enumerates the following as the elements of a liberal education: geometry, literature, poetry, natural science, ethics, and politics. (Artes quibus liberales doctrinae atque ingenuae continentur; geometria, litterarum cognito et poetarum, atque illa quae de naturis rerum, quae de hominum moribus, quae de rebus publicis dicuntur.)

Christianity taught men to regard education and culture as a work for eternity, to which all temporary objects are secondary. It softened, therefore, the antithesis between the liberal and illiberal arts; the education of youth attains its purpose when it acts so “that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work” (II Tim., iii, 17). In consequence, labour, which among the classic nations had been regarded as unworthy of the freeman, who should live only for leisure, was now ennobled; but learning, the offspring of leisure, lost nothing of its dignity. The Christians retained the expression, mathemata eleuthera, studia liberalia, as well as the gradation of these studies, but now Christian truth was the crown of the system in the form of religious instruction for the people, and of theology for the learned. The appreciation of the several branches of knowledge was largely influenced by the view expressed by St. Augustine in his little book, “De Doctrinâ Christianâ.” As a former teacher of rhetoric and as master of eloquence he was thoroughly familiar with the Artes and had written upon some of them. Grammar retains the first place in the order of studies, but the study of words should not interfere with the search for the truth which they contain. The choicest gift of bright minds is the love of truth, not of the words expressing it. “For what avails a golden key if it cannot give access to the object which we wish to reach, and why find fault with a wooden key if it serves our purpose?” (De Doctr. Christ., IV, 11, 26). In estimating the importance of linguistic studies as a means of interpreting Scripture, stress should be laid upon exegetical, rather than technical grammar. Dialectic must also prove its worth in the interpretation of Scripture; “it traverses the entire text like a tissue of nerves” (Per totum textum scripturarum colligata est nervorum vice, ibid., II, 40, 56). Rhetoric contains the rules of fuller discussion (praecepta uberioris disputationis); it is to be used rather to set forth what we have understood than to aid us in understanding (ibid., II, 18). St. Augustine compared a masterpiece of rhetoric with the wisdom and beauty of the cosmos, and of history—“Ita quâdam non verborum, sed rerum, eloquentiâ contrariorum oppositione seculi pulchritudo componitur” (De Civit. Dei, XI, 18). Mathematics was not invented by man, but its truths were discovered; they make known to us the mysteries concealed in the numbers found in Scripture, and lead the mind upwards from the mutable to the immutable; and interpreted in the spirit of Divine Love, they become for the mind a source of that wisdom which has ordered all things by measure, weight, and number (De Doctr. Christ., II, 39, also Wisdom, xi, 21). The truths elaborated by the philosophers of old, like precious ore drawn from the depths of an all-ruling Providence, should be applied by the Christian in the spirit of the Gospel, just as the Israelites used the sacred vessels of the Egyptians for the service of the true God (De Doctr. Christ., II, 41).

The series of text-books on this subject in vogue during the Middle Ages begins with the work of an African, Marcianus Capella, written at Carthage about A.D. 420. It bears the title “Satyricon Libri IX” from satura, sc. lanx, “a full dish.” In the first two books, “Nuptiae Philologiae et Mercurii,” carrying out the allegory that Phoebus presents the Seven Liberal Arts as maids to the bride Philology, mythological and other topics are treated. In the seven books that follow, each of the Liberal Arts presents the sum of her teaching. A simpler presentation of the same subject is found in the little book, intended for clerics, entitled, “De artibus ac disciplinis liberalium artium,” which was written by Magnus Aurelius Cassiodrus in the reign of Theodoric. Here it may be noted that Ars means “text-book,” as does the Greek word techen; disciplina is the translation of the Greek mathesis or mathemata, and stood in a narrower sense for the mathematical sciences. Cassiodorus derives the word liberalis not from liber, “free,” but from liber, “book,” thus indicating the change of these studies to book learning, as well as the disappearance of the view that other occupations are servile and unbecoming a free man. Again we meet with the Artes at the beginning of an encyclopedic work entitled “Origines, sive Etymologiae,” in twenty books, compiled by St. Isidore, Bishop of Seville, about 600. The first book of this work treats of grammar; the second, of rhetoric and dialectic, both comprised under the name of logic; the third, of the four mathematical branches. In books IV-VIII follow medicine, jurisprudence, theology; but books IX and X give us linguistic material, etymologies, etc., and the remaining books present a miscellany of useful information. Albinus (or Alcuin, q. v.), the well-known statesman and counsellor of Charles the Great, dealt with the Artes in separate treatises, of which only the treatises intended as guides to the Trivium have come down to us. In the introduction, he finds in Prov. ix, 1 ((Wisdom hath built herself a house, she hath hewn her out seven pillars) an allusion to the seven liberal arts which he thinks are meant by the seven pillars. The book is written in dialogue form, the scholar asking questions, and the master answering them. One of Alcuin’s pupils, Rabanus Maurus, who died in 850 as the Archbishop of Mainz, in his book entitled “De institutione clericorum,” gave short instructions concerning the Artes, and published under the title, “De Universo,” what might be called an encyclopedia. The extraordinary activity displayed by the Irish monks as teachers in Germany led to the designation of the Artes as Methodus Hybernica. To impress the sequence of the arts on the memory of the student, mnemonic verses were employed such as the hexameter;

Lingua, tropus, ratio, numerus, tonus, angulus, astra.

Gram loquiter, Dia vera docet, Rhe verba colorat

Mu canit, Ar numerat, Geo ponderat, Ast colit astra.

By the number seven the system was made popular; the Seven Arts recalled the Seven Petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost, the Seven Sacraments, the Seven Virtues, etc. The Seven Words on the Cross, the Seven Pillars of Wisdom, the Seven Heavens might also suggest particular branches of learning. The seven liberal arts found counterparts in the seven mechanical arts; the latter included weaving, blacksmithing, war, navigation, agriculture, hunting, medicine, and the ars theatrica. To these were added dancing, wrestling, and driving. Even the accomplishments to be mastered by candidates for knighthood were fixed at seven: riding, tilting, fencing, wrestling, running, leaping, and spear-throwing. Pictorial illustrations of the Artes are often found, usually female figures with suitable attributes; thus Grammar appears with book and rod, Rhetoric with tablet and stilus, Dialectic with a dog’s head in her hand, probably in contrast to the wolf of heresy—cf. the play on words Domini canes, Dominicani—Arithmetic with a knotted rope, Geometry with a pair of compasses and a rule, Astronomy with bushel and stars, and Music with cithern and organistrum. Portraits of the chief representatives of the different sciences were added. Thus in the large group by Taddeo Gaddi in the Dominican convent of Santa Maria Novella in Florence, painted in 1322, the central figure of which is St. Thomas Aquinas, Grammar appears with either Donatus (who lived about A.D. 250) or Priscian (about A.D. 530), the two most prominent teachers of grammar, in the act of instructing a boy; Rhetoric accompanied by Cicero; Dialectic by Zeno of Elea, whom the ancients considered as founder of the art; Arithmetic by Abraham, as the representative of the philosophy of numbers, and versed in the knowledge of the stars; Geometry by Euclid (about 300 B.C.), whose “Elements” was the text-book par excellence; Astronomy by Ptolemy, whose “Almagest” was considered to be the canon of star-lore; Music by Tubal Cain using the hammer, probably in allusion to the harmoniously tuned hammers which are said to have suggested to Pythagoras his theory of intervals. As counterparts of the liberal arts are found seven higher sciences: civil law, canon law, and the five branches of theology entitled speculative, scriptural, scholastic, contemplative, and apologetic. (Cf. Geschichte des Idealismus, II, Par. 74, where the position of St. Thomas Aquinas towards the sciences is discussed.) An instructive picture of the seven liberal arts in the twelfth century may be found in the work entitled “Didascalicum,” or “Eruditio Didascalici,” written by the Augustinian canon, Hugo of St. Victor, who died at Paris, in 1141. He was descended from the family of the Counts Blankenburg in the Harz Mountains and received his education at the Augustinian convent of Hammersleben in the Diocese of Halberstadt, where he devoted himself to the liberal arts from 1109 to 1114. In his “Didascalicum,” VI, 3, he writes “I make bold to say that I never have despised anything belonging to erudition, but have learned much which to others seemed to be trifling and foolish. I remember how, as a schoolboy, I endeavoured to ascertain the names of all objects which I saw, or which came under my hands, and how I formulated my own thoughts concerning them [perpendens libere], namely: that one cannot know the nature of things before having learned their names. How often have I set myself as a voluntary daily task the study of problems [sophismata] which I had jotted down for the sake of brevity, by means of a catchword or two [dictionibus] on the page, in order to commit to memory the solution and the number of nearly all the opinions, questions, and objections which I had learned. I invented legal cases and analyses with pertinent objections [dispositiones ad invicem controversiis], and in doing so carefully distinguished between the methods of the rhetorician, the orator, and the sophist. I represented numbers by pebbles, and covered the floor with black lines, and proved clearly by the diagram before me the differences between acute-angled, right-angled, and obtuse-angled triangles; in like manner I ascertained whether a square has the same area as a rectangle two of whose sides are multiplied, by stepping off the length in both cases [utrobique procurrente podismo]. I have often watched through the winter night, gazing at the stars [horoscopus—not astrological forecasting, which was forbidden, but pure star-study]. Often have I strung the magada [Gr. magadis, an instrument of 20 strings, giving ten tones] measuring the strings according to numerical values, and stretching them over the wood in order to catch with my ear the difference between the tones, and at the same time to gladden my heart with the sweet melody. This was all done in a boyish way, but it was far from useless, for this knowledge was not burdensome to me. I do not recall these things in order to boast of my attainments, which are of little or no value, but to show you that the most orderly worker is the most skillful one [illum incedere aptissime qui incedit ordinate], unlike many who, wishing to take a great jump, fall into an abyss; for as with the virtues, so in the sciences there are fixed steps. But, you will say, I find in histories much useless and forbidden matter; why should I busy myself therewith? Very true, there are in the Scriptures many things which, considered in themselves, are apparently not worth acquiring, but which, if you compare them with others connected with them, and if you weigh them, bearing in mind this connection [in toto suo trutinare caeperis], will prove to be necessary and useful. Some things are worth knowing on their own account; but others, although apparently offering no return for our trouble, should not be neglected, because without them the former cannot be thoroughly mastered [enucleate sciri non possunt]. Learn everything; you will afterwards discover that nothing is superfluous; limited knowledge affords no enjoyment [coarctata scientia jucunda non est].”

The connection of the Artes with philosophy and wisdom was faithfully kept in mind during the Middle Ages. Hugo says of it: “Among all the departments of knowledge the ancients assigned seven to be studied by beginners, because they found in them a higher value than in the others, so that whoever has thoroughly mastered them can afterwards master the rest rather by research and practice than by the teacher’s oral instruction. They are, as it were, the best tools, the fittest entrance through which the way to philosophic truth is opened to our intellect. Hence the names trivium and quadrivium, because here the robust mind progresses as if upon roads or paths to the secrets of wisdom. It is for this reason that there were among the ancients, who followed this path, so many wise men. Our schoolmen [scholastici] are disinclined, or do not know while studying, how to adhere to the appropriate method, whence it is that there are many who labour earnestly [studentes], but few wise men” (Didascalicum, III, 3).

St. Bonaventure (1221–74) in his treatise “De Reductione artium ad theologiam” proposes a profound explanation of the origin of the Artes, including philosophy; basing it upon the method of Holy Writ as the method of all teaching. Holy Scripture speaks to us in three ways: by speech (sermo), by instruction (doctrina), and by directions for living (vita). It is the source of truth in speech, of truth in things, and of truth in morals, and therefore equally of rational, natural, and moral philosophy. Rational philosophy, having for object the spoken truth, treats it from the triple point of view of expression, of communication, and of impulsion to action; in other words it aims to express, to teach, to persuade (exprimere, docere, movere). These activities are represented by sermo congruus, versus, ornatus, and the arts of grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric. Natural philosophy seeks the truth in things themselves as rationes ideales, and accordingly it is divided into physics, mathematics, and metaphysics. Moral philosophy determines the veritas vitæ for the life of the individual as monastica (monos alone), for the domestic life as oeconomica, and for society as politica.

To general erudition and encyclopedic learning medieval education has less close relations than that of Alexandria, principally because the Trivium had a formal character, i.e. it aimed at training the mind rather than imparting knowledge. The reading of classic authors was considered as an appendix to the Trivium. Hugo, who, as we have seen, does not undervalue it, includes in his reading poems, fables, histories, and certain other elements of instruction (poemata, fabulae, historiae, didascaliae quaedam). The science of language, to use the expression of Augustine, is still designated as the key to all positive knowledge; for this reason its position at the head of the Arts (Artes) is maintained. So John of Salisbury (b. between 1110 and 1120; d. 1180, Bishop of Chartres) says: “If grammar is the key of all literature, and the mother and mistress of language, who will be bold enough to turn her away from the threshold of philosophy? Only he who thinks that what is written and spoken is unnecessary for the student of philosophy” (Metalogicus, I, 21). Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173) makes grammar the servant of history, for he writes, “All arts serve the Divine Wisdom, and each lower art, if rightly ordered, leads to a higher one. Thus the relation existing between the word and the thing required that grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric should minister to history” (Rich., ap. Vincentium Bell., Spec. Doctrinale, XVII, 31). The Quadrivium had, naturally, certain relations to to the sciences and to life; this was recognized by treating geography as a part of geometry, and the study of the calendar as part of astronomy. We meet with the development of the Artes into encyclopedic knowledge as early as Isadore of Seville and Rabanus Maurus, especially in the latter’s work, “De Universo.” It was completed in the thirteenth century, to which belong the works of Vincent of Beauvais (d. 1264), instructor of the children of St. Louis (IX). In his “Speculum Naturale” he treats of God and nature; in the “Speculum Doctrinale,” starting from the Trivium, he deals with the sciences; in the “Speculum Morale” he discusses the moral world. To these a continuator added a “Speculum Historiale” which was simply a universal history.

For the academic development of the Artes it was of importance that the universities accepted them as a part of their curricula. Among their ordines, or faculties, the ordo artistarum, afterwards called the faculty of philosophy, was fundamental: Universitas fundatur in artibus. It furnished the preparation not only for the Ordo Theologorum, but also for the Ordo Legistarum, or law faculty, and the Ordo Physicorum, or medical faculty. Of the methods of teaching and the continued study of the arts at the universities in the fifteenth century, the text-book of the contemporary Carthusian, Gregory Reisch, Confessor of the Emperor Maximilian I, gives us a clear picture. He treats in twelve books: (I) of the Rudiments of Grammar; (II) of the Principles of Logic; (III) of the Parts of an Oration; (IV) of Memory, of Letter-writing, and of Arithmetic; (V) of the Principles of Music; (VI) of the Elements of Geometry; (VII) of the Principles of Astronomy; (VIII) of the Principles of Natural Things; (IX) of the Origin of Natural Things; (X) of the Soul; (XI) of the Powers; (XII) of the Principles of Moral Philosophy.- The illustrated edition printed in 1512 at Strasburg has for appendix: the elements of Greek literature, Hebrew, figured music and architecture, and some technical instruction (Graecarum Litterarum Institutiones, Hebraicarum Litterarum Rudimenta, Musicae Figuratae Institutiones, Architecturae Rudimenta).

At the universities the Artes, at least in a formal way, held their place up to modern times. At Oxford, Queen Mary (1553–58) erected for them colleges whose inscriptions are significant, thus: “Grammatica, Litteras disce”; “Rhetorica persuadet mores”; “Dialectica , Imposturas fuge”; “Arithmetica, Omnia numeris constant”; “Musica, Ne tibi dissideas”; “Geometria, Cura, quae domi sunt”; “Astronomia, Altiora ne quaesieris.” The title “Master of the Liberal Arts” is still granted at some of the universities in connection with the Doctorate of Philosophy; in England that of “Doctor of Music” is still in regular use. In practical teaching, however, the system of the Artes has declined since the sixteenth century. The Renaissance saw in the technique of style (eloquentia) and in its mainstay, erudition, the ultimate object of collegiate education, thus following the Roman rather than the Greek system. Grammar and rhetoric came to be the chief elements of the preparatory studies, while the sciences of the Quadrivium were embodied in the miscellaneous learning (eruditio) associated with rhetoric. In Catholic higher schools philosophy remained as the intermediate stage between philological studies and professional studies; while according to the Protestant scheme philosophy was taken over (to the university) as a Faculty subject. The Jesuit schools present the following gradation of studies: grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, and, since philosophy begins with logic, this system retains also the ancient dialectic.

In the erudite studies spoken of above, must be sought the germ of the encyclopedic learning which grew unceasingly during the seventeenth century. Amos Comenius (d. 1671), the best known representative of this tendency, who sought in his “Orbis Pictus” to make this diminutive encyclopedia (encyclopædiola) the basis of the earliest grammatical instruction, speaks contemptuously of “those liberal arts so much talked of, the knowledge of which the common people believe a master of philosophy to acquire thoroughly,” and proudly declares, “Our men rise to greater height.” (Magna Didactica, xxx, 2.) His school classes are the following: grammar, physics, mathematics, ethics, dialectic, and rhetoric. In the eighteenth century undergraduate studies take on more and more the encyclopedic character, and in the nineteenth century the class system is replaced by the department system, in which the various subjects are treated simultaneously with little or no reference to their gradation; in this way the principle of the Artes is finally surrendered. Where, moreover, as in the Gymnasia of Germany, philosophy has been dropped from the course of studies, miscellaneous erudition becomes in principle an end unto itself. Nevertheless, present educational systems preserve traces of the older systematic arrangement (language, mathematics, philosophy). In the early years of his Gymnasium course the youth must devote his time and energy to the study of languages, in the middle years, principally to mathematics, and in his last years, when he is called upon to express his own thoughts, he begins to deal with logic and dialectic, even if it be only in the form of composition. He is therefore touching upon philosophy. This gradation which works its own way, so to speak, out of the present chaotic condition of learned studies, should be made systematic; the fundamental idea of the Artes Liberales would thus be revived.

The Platonic idea, therefore, that we should advance gradually from sense-perception by way of intellectual argumentation to intellectual intuition, is by no means antiquated. Mathematical instruction, admittedly a preparation for the study of logic, could only gain if it were conducted in this spirit, if it were made logically clearer, if its technical content were reduced, and if it were followed by logic. The express correlation of mathematics to astronomy, and to musical theory, would bring about a wholesome concentration of the mathematico-physical sciences, now threatened with a plethora of erudition. The insistence of older writers upon the organic character of the content of instruction deserves earnest consideration. For the purpose of concentration a mere packing together of uncorrelated subjects will not suffice; their original connection and dependence must be brought into clear consciousness. Hugo’s admonition also, to distinguish between hearing (or learning, properly so called) on the one hand, and practice and invention on the other, for which there is good opportunity in grammar and mathematics, deserves attention. Equally important is his demand that the details of the subject taught be weighed—trutinare, from trutina, the goldsmith’s balance. This gold balance has been used far too sparingly, and, in consequence, education has suffered. A short-sighted realism threatens even the various branches of language instruction. Efforts are made to restrict grammar to the vernacular, and to banish rhetoric and logic except so far as they are applied in composition. It is, therefore, not useless to remember the “keys.” In every department of instruction method must have in view the series: induction, based on sensuous perception; deduction, guided also by perception, and abstract deduction—a series which is identical with that of Plato. All understanding implies these three grades; we first understand the meaning of what is said, we next understand inferences drawn from sense perception, and lastly we understand dialectic conclusions. Invention has also three grades: we find words, we find the solution of problems, we find thoughts. Grammar, mathematics, and logic likewise form a systematic series. The grammatical system is empirical, the mathematical rational and constructive, and the logical rational and speculative (cf. O. Willmann, Didaktik, II, 67). Humanists, over-fond of change, unjustly condemned the system of the seven liberal arts as barbarous. It is no more barbarous than the Gothic style, a name intended to be a reproach. The Gothic, built up on the conception of the old basilica, ancient in origin, yet Christian in character, was misjudged by the Renaissance on account of some excrescences, and obscured by the additions engrafted upon it by modern lack of taste (op. cit., p. 230). That the achievements of our forefathers should be understood, recognized, and adapted to our own needs, is surely to be desired.

OTTO WILLMANN

Artvin

Artvin, a Russian city in the trans-Caucasian province of Kutais, is situated near Turkish Armenia on the left bank of the Tehoruk, which flows into the Black Sea. In 1894 it contained 5,900 inhabitants, mostly Armenian and Turkish. In Artvin and vicinity there are nine Armenian-Catholic churches, four schools for boys and three schools for girls. The Gregorian Armenians have five churches and two schools. The Armenian-Catholic Diocese of Artvin (Artuinensis Armenorum) was established in 1850 by Pius IX for the United Armenians in southern Russia, and was the first suffragan to the Metropolitan of Constantinople, afterwards directly subject to the Armenian-Catholic Patriarch of Cilicia, whose see is Constantinople. The first Bishop was Timotheus Astorgi (1850–58), who was succeeded by Antonius Halagi (1859) and Joannes Baptista Zaccharian (1878). In 1878, Russia annexed the entire territory of this diocese and united it with Tiraspol. Up to the present time, Russia has prevented the appointment of a bishop and is now trying to cause an apostasy among the Armenians. The diocese of Artvin numbers about 12,000 Catholics of the Armenian Rite; 25 mission priests (of whom 23 are natives); 30 churches and chapels; 22 primary schools with almost 900 pupils. The girls are instructed partly by the Sisters of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Catholics of the Latin Rite in the diocese of Artvin are subject to the regular jurisdiction of the Bishop of Tiraspol.

JOSEPH LINS

Thomas Arundel

Sixtieth Archbishop of Canterbury, second son of Robert, Earl of Arundel and Warren, b. 1353; d. 19 February, 1414. In 1374, while only in his twenty-second year, he was promoted from the archdeaconry of Taunton to the See of Ely. Made chancellor, 24 October, 1386, he was translated from Ely to York in 1388, and thence, by papal provision, to Canterbury, 25 September, 1396, when he resigned the chancellorship. In the second year after his translation he incurred the displeasure of King Richard II, was attainted of high treason, and banished, together with his brother, Richard Earl of Arundel, and the Duke of Gloucester. He retired, first to France, then to the papal court, where he was well received by Boniface IX, who conferred upon him the Archbishopric of St. Andrews. On the accession of Henry IV, Roger Walden, his successor in the primatial see, was declared a usurper, and Arundel restored, 21 October, 1399, Walden being translated to London. He is conspicuous as having taken a strong stand against the Lollards whose new doctrine he, in company with the bishops of the province, petitioned Rome to condemn, and on account of his sturdy assertion of Transubstantiation and the prerogatives and divine institution of the Papacy.

Godwin, De Praesulibus Angliae; Hook, Archbishops of Canterbury; Le Neve, Ecclesiastical Dignitaries; Lyndwood, Provinciale; Wilkins, Concilia.

F. AVELING

Thomas Arundell

Thomas, first Lord Arundell of Wardour

Born 1560; died at Oxford, 7 November, 1639. He was the son of Sir Matthew Arundell of Wardour Castle, Wiltshire. The Arundells were a very old Norman family settled in Cornwall and dating back to about the middle of the thirteenth century. Thomas, first Lord Arundell of Wardour, was grandson of a Sir John Arundell, of the Arundells of Lanherne, “the Great Arundells,” a Catholic branch of the family. Sir John had become a Catholic (Dodd, Church History) through Father Cornelius, a native of the neighbouring town of Bodmin. Owing to his defence of Cornelius, Sir John Arundell was imprisoned for nine years in Ely Palace, Holborn. (Challoner, Memoirs of Missionary Priests, 1803.) Thomas, first Lord Aundell of Wardour, called “the Valiant,” was strongly adverse to the Reformers and refused to attend Protestant services. Elizabeth committed him to prison in 1580. When he was freed, he travelled, and entered the Austrian service under Archduke Matthias, brother of Emperor Rudolph II. He distinguished himself fighting against the Ottomans in Hungary, and at the siege of Gran, or Strigonium, 7 September, 1595, he was the first through the breach and, scaling the tower, plucked the Crescent thence and planted in its place the Imperial Standard. The Emperor created him and his posterity Counts of the Holy Roman Empire, 14 December, 1595. On his return to England the peers decided that no privilege or precedence should be shown to his title. James I, recognizing Arundell’s deserts and loyalty, rewarded him by creating him a peer with the style and title of Baron Arundell of Wardour, 1605. Charles I at the beginning of his reign forbade the new peer to bear arms, because he was a Catholic, though Thomas had contributed liberally to avert the danger of the Spanish Armada. Lord Arundell of Wardour died at the age of seventy-nine. His portrait, by Van Dyck, 1635, is at Wardour.

Thomas, second Lord Arundell of Wardour

Succeeded his father in 1639. In the trouble between Charles I and the parliament, the House of Commons ordered Arundell’s arrest, November, 1641, but he evaded capture, and when the royal standard was unfurled at Nottingham, 22 August, 1642, he raised a company of horse and fought for His Majesty’s cause. He was wounded in battle, and died at Oxford, 1643. His wife, the heroic Lady Blanche Arundell, was the sixth daughter of Edward, Earl of Worcester, an admirable Catholic, and a discreet and loyal subject. She is known by her spirited defence of Wardour Castle, Wiltshire, during the absence of her husband. With only twenty-five men at her command, she withstood thirteen hundred rebels, under Sir Edward Hungerford and Colonel Strode, for eight days. When obliged to capitulate she did so on honourable terms, signed 8 May, 1643. She left the castle destitute, and was provided with lodging at Salisbury by Lord Hertford. She died at Winchester, 28 October, 1649, and was buried with her husband at Tisbury.

Henry, third Lord Arundell of Wardour

B. 1606; d. 1694, was the sole male issue of Thomas, second Lord, and Lady Blanche Arundell. When he succeeded to the title, in 1643, his wife and sons were prisoners, and Wardour Castle was in the hands of the Parliamentary forces under General Ludlow. To dislodge them, he sacrificed his castle by springing a mine under it. He was subsequently wounded in several battles, his estates were sequestrated, and he was forced to leave the country. When the monarchy was restored he recovered his property by an expenditure of £35,000. In 1669 he was employed by Clifford in arranging the famous preliminaries of the secret treaty of Dover between Louis XIV and Charles II. But the king whom he had served so well almost suffererd him to become a victim of the infamous Titus Oates, on whose perjured statement Lord Arundell of Wardour was thrown into the Tower at the instance of the House of Commons, in October, 1678, with four other Catholic peers. During his confinement he wrote some poems, which were published under the title of “Five Little Meditations in Verse” (London, 1679). After five years of imprisonment, during which time one of the peers, Stafford, had been beheaded, and another had died in the Tower, Arundell and his two remaining companions were released, and their indictments annulled, on the ground of perjury. James II made Arundell Keeper of the Privy Seal, 1687. In 1688 he presented an address in behalf of the Roman Catholics, but he opposed the admission of Father Petre into the privy council. At the Revolution of 1688 he retired from public life. He was praised for his piety and for his kindness to poor Catholics.

Dict. Nat. Biog.; GILLOW, Dict. of Eng. Catholics, I, 67, 68, 71, 72; I, 402; LINGARD, History of England.

FRANCIS W. GREY

St. Asaph

(Or Asa).

First Bishop of the Welsh See of that name (second half of the sixth century). No Welsh life of him is extant, but local tradition points out the site of his ash tree, his church, his well, and his valley, Onen Asa, Fynnon Asa, Llanasa, Pantasa. All these sites are in Tengenel, near Holiwell indicating probably that the saint once had hermitage in that neighbourhood. The want of a Welsh life, however, is in part compensated for by Jocelyn of Furness’s life of St. Kentigern, or Mungo, the founder of the Diocese of Glasgow. This saint during his exile (c. 545) betook himself to Wales and there founded the Celtic Monastery of Llanelwy (the church on the Elwy), as the Welsh still call the town of St. Asaph. Of the building and government of few Celtic monasteries do we know so much as about Llanelwy. The church was built “of smoothed wood, after the fashion of the Britons, seeing that they could not yet build of stone.” The 965 disciples, of whom Asa was one, were divided into three groups: 300 of the unlettered farmed the outlying lands, 300 worked in the offices around the monastery, and 365 (the number corresponds to the days of the year) attended to the divine services. Of these the oldest assisted Kentigern in the government of the diocese, and the rest were subdivided into three choirs. “As soon as one choir had terminated its service in church, immediately another entering commenced it: and that again being concluded another entered to celebrate.” The founder, after the manner of other Celtie saints, used frequently to pray standing in the icy cold river, and once, having suffered very severely under this hardship, he sent the boy Asa, who was then attending him, to bring a fagot to burn and warm him. Asaph brought him live coals in his apron, and the miracle revealed to Kentigern the sanctity of his disciple. So when the old man was recalled to Strathclyde, after the battle of Ardderyd, in 573 (the only definite date we have in the life), Asaph was consecrated bishop to succeed him, and became the first Welsh bishop of the see. The feast of his deposition is kept on 1 May, but we possess no further details of his life, nor do we know the year of his death.

J.H. POLLEN

Ascalon

A titular see of Palestine whose episcopal list (351–930 or 40) is given in Gams (p. 453). It was one of the five chief cities of the Philistines (Josue, xiii, 3). Its location, on the sea-coast between Gaza and Jamnia made it a stronghold, and as such it was held by the Arabs after their conquest of it in the seventh century. The city was taken by the crusaders, but was destroyed, in 1270, by Sultan Bihars, and its port blocked up to prevent the place ever again falling into Christian hands. Its extensive ruins still remain, and present a scene of mournful desolution.

Ascelin

Ambassador of Innocent IV (1243–54) to the Tartars. He entered the Dominican Order, probably at Paris, in 1221 or 1222. He was distinguished for learning and a great zeal for the spread of the Christian Faith. For these reasons he was selected in 1245, together with three other Dominicans, by Humbert de Romanis, whom as Provincial of France the pope had ordered to select fit men for the embassy to attempt the conversion of the Sultan Melik Saleh, then encamped in Persia. On the Authority of Vincent of Beauvais (Speculum Historiale, XXI, 40) who got his information from one of the embassy, Simon of St. Quentin, they met the first great army of the Sultan, 24 May, 1247. But their mission was unsuccessful, since they did not bring presents to win the mercenary courtiers. Besides, Ascelin refused to genuflect three times in recognition of the khan’s’s dignity. In consequence of this the friars were condemned to death. The kahn threatened to flay the leader of the embassy, Ascelin, and send his skin to the pope. The death sentence was remitted in July, 1247, after several months of miserable imprisonment. At the same time the Sultan relented sufficiently to allow the friars to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments. This agreement was probably made in the hope of winning Louis IX, of whose military powers Ascelin often spoke, to participate in a concerted onset of the kahn on the Mohammedan troops then blocking the march of the Tartar army. The embassy returned to Rome about Easter, 1248, bearing a respectful letter from the sultan to the pope. No proof can be adduced to show that Ascelin met a martyr’s death in 1255 on another mission to the Sultan, as Fontana and Bzovius assert. Bergeron (Recueil dés voyages faits en Asie du XIIe au XIVo siècle) gives a description of the embassies of Ascelin and his companions.

Touron, Hommes illustres de l’order de Saint Dominique, I 145–156; Quetif and Echard, SS. Ord. Proed., I, 122; L’Annee Dominicaine, VI, 575 sqq.; Lavisse, Histoire generale (Paris, 1894), II, 970.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Ascendente Domino

A Bull issued by Gregory XIII, 24 May, 1584, in favor of the Society of Jesus, to confirm the constitution of the Society, and the privileges already granted to it by Paul III, Julius III, Paul IV, and Pius V. It recalls and confirms the means which St. Ignatius had prescribed in order that the Society might attain the end for which he had founded it. Candidates have first to make two years’ novitiate; they then take three simple vows. Thus they cease to be novices, and belong to the body of the Society. These simple vows are perpetuated on the part of those who make them, but on the part of the Society they bind only so long as the General thinks fit to retain as members of the Society those who have taken them. The unformed Temporal Coadjutors, after some years, if the General thinks them fit, are admitted to the grade of Formed Temporal Coadjutors. But before they become either Professed or Formed Spiritual Coadjutors, the Scholastics, having completed their studies, must go through a third year’s probation. If Professed, they take a fourth vow of obedience to assume any mission the Pope may enjoin on them. Any, even those with simple vows made at the end of the second year’s novitiate, who leave the Society under any pretext (unless to become Carthusians), without express permission, shall be regarded as apostates, and incur excommunication. The simple vows which they make after their novitiate constitute them religious in the true and proper sense of the word, with the consequent privileges. Thus they enjoy the exemption of regulars; and their simple vows, as solemn vows with other religious, are a diriment impediment to matrimony, that is, a marriage contract attempted by a Jesuit with simple vows, even though he not be a priest, would be null and void.

Institutem Societatis Jesu (Florence, 1903); Bullarium et compendium Privilegiorum (Florence, 1886–91); Oswald, Commentarium in Const. Soc. Jes. (ed. 3, Roermond, 1902); Suarez, De Religione, Op. Omn. (Paris, 1877), XVI, tract. viii, lib. III, c. ix; tract. ix, lib. I, c. i; tract x, lib. I, c. vi; lib vi, c.ii.

M. O’RIORDAN

Ascension

The elevation of Christ into heaven by His own power in presence of His disciples the fortieth day after His Resurrection. It is narrated in Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51, and in the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.

Although the place of the Ascension is not distinctly stated, it would appear from the Acts that it was Mount Olivet. Since after the Ascension the disciples are described as returning to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, within a Sabbath day’s journey. Tradition has consecrated this site as the Mount of Ascension and Christian piety has memorialized the event by erecting over the site a basilica. St. Helena built the first memorial, which was destroyed by the Persians in 614, rebuilt in the eighth century, to be destroyed again, but rebuilt a second time by the crusaders. This the Moslems also destroyed, leaving only the octagonal structure which encloses the stone said to bear the imprint of the feet of Christ, that is now used as an oratory.

Not only is the fact of the Ascension related in the passages of Scripture cited above, but it is also elsewhere predicted and spoken of as an established fact. Thus, in John 6:63, Christ asks the Jews: “If then you shall see the son of Man ascend up where He was before?” and 20:17, He says to Mary Magdalen: “Do not touch Me, for I am not yet ascended to My Father, but go to My brethren, and say to them: I ascend to My Father and to your Father, to My God and to your God.” Again, in Ephesians 4:8–10, and in Timothy 3:16, the Ascension of Christ is spoken of as an accepted fact.

The language used by the Evangelists to describe the Ascension must be interpreted according to usage. To say that He was taken up or that He ascended, does not necessarily imply that they locate heaven directly above the earth; no more than the words “sitteth on the right hand of God” mean that this is His actual posture. In disappearing from their view “He was raised up and a cloud received Him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9), and entering into glory He dwells with the Father in the honour and power denoted by the scripture phrase.

JOHN J. WYNNE

Feast of the Ascension

The fortieth day after Easter Sunday, commemorating the Ascension of Christ into heaven, according to Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51, and Acts 1:2.

In the Eastern Church this feast was known as analepsis, the taking up, and also as the episozomene, the salvation, denoting that by ascending into His glory Christ completed the work of our redemption. The terms used in the West, ascensio and, occasionally, ascensa, signify that Christ was raised up by His own powers. Tradition designates Mount Olivet near Bethany as the place where Christ left the earth. The feast falls on Thursday. It is one of the Ecumenical feasts ranking with the feasts of the Passion, of Easter and of Pentecost among the most solemn in the calendar, has a vigil and, since the fifteenth century, an octave which is set apart for a novena of preparation for Pentecost, in accordance with the directions of Leo XIII.

History. The observance of this feast is of great antiquity. Although no documentary evidence of it exists prior to the beginning of the fifth century, St. Augustine says that it is of Apostolic origin, and he speaks of it in a way that shows it was the universal observance of the Church long before his time. Frequent mention of it is made in the writings of St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and in the Constitution of the Apostles. The Pilgrimage of Sylvia (Peregrinatio Etheriae) speaks of the vigil of this feast and of the feast itself, as they were kept in the church built over the grotto in Bethlehem in which Christ was born (Duchesne, Christian Worship, 491–515). It may be that prior to the fifth century the fact narrated in the Gospels was commemorated in conjunction with the feast of Easter or Pentecost. Some believe that the much-disputed forty-third decree of the Council of Elvira (c. 300) condemning the practice of observing a feast on the fortieth day after Easter and neglecting to keep Pentecost on the fiftieth day, implies that the proper usage of the time was to commemorate the Ascension along with Pentecost. Representations of the mystery are found in diptychs and frescoes dating as early as the fifth century.

Customs. Certain customs were connected with the liturgy of this feast, such as the blessing of beans and grapes after the Commemoration of the Dead in the Canon of the Mass, the blessing of first fruits, afterwards done on Rogation Days, the blessing of a candle, the wearing of mitres by deacon and subdeacon, the extinction of the paschal candle, and triumphal processions with torches and banners outside the churches to commemorate the entry of Christ into heaven. Rock records the English custom of carrying at the head of the procession the banner bearing the device of the lion and at the foot the banner of the dragon, to symbolize the triumph of Christ in His ascension over the evil one. In some churches the scene of the Ascension was vividly reproduced by elevating the figure of Christ above the altar through an opening in the roof of the church. In others, whilst the figure of Christ was made to ascend, that of the devil was made to descend.

In the liturgies generally the day is meant to celebrate the completion of the work of our salvation, the pledge of our glorification with Christ, and His entry into heaven with our human nature glorified.

DUCHESNE, Christian Worship (London, 1904); NILLES Kalendarium Utriusque Ecclesiae (Innsbruck, 1897), II. 362–374; CABROL, in Dict. d’arch. chrét. et liturg. BUTLER, Feasts and Fasts; GUÉRANGER, III, s. v.

JOHN J. WYNNE

Asceticism

The word asceticism comes from the Greek askesis which means practice, bodily exercise, and more especially, atheletic training. The early Christians adopted it to signify the practice of the spiritual things, or spiritual exercises performed for the purpose of acquiring the habits of virtue. At present it is not infrequently employed in an opprobrious sense, to designate the religious practices of oriental fanatics as well as those of the Christian saint, both of whom are by some placed same category. It is not uncommonly confounded with austerity, even by Catholics, but incorrectly. For although the flesh is continuously lusting against the spirit, and repression and self-denial are necessary to control the animal passions, it would be an error to measure a man’s virtue by the extent and character of his bodily penances. External penances even in the saints, are regarded with suspicion. St. Jerome, whose proneness to austerity makes him an especially valuable authority on this point, thus writes to Celantia:

Be on your guard when you begin to mortify your body by abstinence and fasting, lest you imagine yourself to be perfect and a saint; for perfection does not consist in this virtue. It is only a help; a disposition; a means though a fitting one, for the attainment of true perfection.

Thus asceticism according to the definition of St. Jerome, is an effort to attain true perfection, penance being only an auxiliary virtue thereto. It should be noted also that the expression “fasting and abstinence” is commonly used in Scripture and by ascetic writers as a generic term for all sorts of penance. Neither should asceticism be identified with mysticism. For although genuine mysticism can not exist without asceticism, the reverse is not true. One can be an ascetic without being a mystic. Asceticism is ethical; mysticism, largely intellectual. Asceticism has to do with the moral virtues; mysticism is a state of unusual prayer or contemplation. They are distinct from each other, though mutually co-operative. Moreover although asceticism is generally associated with the objectionable features of religion, and is regarded by some as one of them, it may be and is practised by those who affect to be swayed by no religious motives whatever.

Natural Asceticism

If for personal satisfaction, or self interest, or any other merely human reason, a man aims at the acquisition of the natural virtues, for instance, temperance, patience, chastity, meekness, etc., he is, by the very fact, exercising himself in a certain degree of asceticism. For he has entered upon a struggle with his animal nature; and if he is to achieve any measure of success, his efforts must be continuous and protracted. Nor can he exclude the practice of penance. Indeed he will frequently inflict upon himself both bodily and mental pain. He will not even remain within the bounds of strict necessity. He will punish himself severely, either to atone for failures, or to harden his powers of endurance, or to strengthen himself against furure failures. He will be commonly described as an ascetic, as in fact he is. For he is endeavouring to subject the material part of his nature to the spiritual, or in other words, he is striving for natural perfection. The defect of this kind of asceticism is that, besides being prone to error in the acts it performs and the means it adopts, its motive is imperfect, or bad. It may be prompted by selfish reasons of utility, pleasure, aetheticism, ostentation, or pride. It is not to be relied upon for serious efforts and may easily give way under the strain of weariness or temptation. Finally, it fails to recognize that perfection consists in the acquisition of something more than natural virtue.

Christian Asceticism

It is prompted by the desire to do the will of God, any personal element of self-satisfaction which enters the motive vitiating it more or less. Its object is the subordination of the lower appetites to the dictates of right reason and the law of God, with the continued and necessary cultivation of the virtues which the Creator intended man to possess. Absolutely speaking, the will of God in this matter is discoverable by human reason, but it is explicitly laid down for us in the Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, which furnishes a complete code of ethical conduct. Some of these commandments are positive; others, negative. The negative precepts, “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not commit adultery,” etc., imply the repression of the lower appetites, and consequently call for penance and mortification; but they intend also, and effect, the cultivation of the virtues which are opposed to the things forbidden. They develop meekness, gentleness, self-control, patience, continence, chastity, justice, honesty, brotherly love, which are positive in their character, magnanimity, liberality, etc.; while the first three which are positive in their character, “thou shall adore thy God,” etc., bring into vigorous and constant exercise the virtues of faith, hope, charity, religion, reverence and prayer. Finally the fourth insists on obedience, respect for authority, observance of law, filial piety, and the like. Such were the virtues practised by the mass of the people of God under the Old Law, and this may be considered as the first step in true asceticism. For apart from the many instances of exalted holiness among the ancient Hebrews, the lives of the faithful followers of the Law, that is the main body of the ordinary people must have been such as the Law enjoined and although their moral elevation might not be designated as asceticism in the present restricted and distorted meaning of the term, yet it probably appeared to the pagan world of those times very much as exalted virtue does to the world to-day. Even the works of penance to which they were subjected in the many fasts and abstinences, as well as the requirements of their ceremonial observances were much more severe than those imposed up the Christians who succeeded them.

In the New Dispensation the binding force of the Commandments continued, but the practice of virtue took on another aspect, in as much as the dominant motive presented to man for the service of God was not fear, but love, though fear was no means eliminated. God was to be the Lord indeed, but He was at the same time the Father and men were His children. Again, because of this sonship the love of one’s neighbour ascended to higher plane. The “neighbour” of the Jew was one of the chosen people, and even of him rigorous justice was to be exacted; it was an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. In the Christian dispensation the neighbour is not only one of the true faith, but the schismatic, the outcast, and the pagan. Love is extended even to one’s enemies, and we are bidden to pray for, and to do good to them who revile and persecute us. This supernatural love for even the vilest and most repellent representatives of humanity constitutes one of the distinctive marks of Christian asceticism. Moreover, the more extended and luminous revelation of Divine things, coupled with the greater abundance of spiritual assistance conferred chiefly through the instrumentality of the sacraments, make practice of virtue easier and more attractive at the same time more elevated, generous, intense and enduring, while the universality of Christianity lifts the practice of asceticism out of the narrow limitations of being the exclusive privilege of a single race into a common possession of all nations of the earth. The Acts of the Apostles show the transformation immediately effected among devout Jews who formed the first communities of Christians. That new and elevated form of virtue has remained in the Church ever since.

Wherever the Church has been allowed to exert her influence we find virtue of the highest order among her people. Even among those whom the world regards as simple and ignorant there are most amazing perceptions of spiritual truths, intense love of God and of all that relates to Him, sometimes remarkable habits of prayer, purity of life both in individuals and in families, heroic patience in submitting to poverty, bodily suffering, and persecution, magnanimity in forgiving injury, tender solicitute for the poor and afflicted, though they themselves may be almost in the same condition; and what most characteristic of all, a complete absence of envy of the rich and powerful and a generally undisturbed contentment and happiness in their own lot; while similar results are achieved among the wealthy and great, though not to the same extent. In a word, there is developed an attitude of soul so much at variance with the principles and methods generally obtaining in the pagan world that, from the beginning, and indeed throughout, under the Old Law, it was commonly described and denounced as folly. It might be classified as very lofty asceticism if its practice were not so common, and if the conditions of poverty and suffering in which these virtues are most frequently practised were not the result of physical or social necessity. But even if these conditions are not voluntary, the patient and uncomplaining acceptance of them constitutes a very noble kind of spirituality which easily develops into one of a higher kind and may be designated its third New Law we have not merely the reaffirmation of the precepts of the Old, but also the teachings and example of Christ Who, besides requiring obedience to the Commandments, continually appeals to His followers for proofs of personal affection and a closer imitation of His life than is possible by the mere fulfilment of the Law. The motives and the manner of this imitation are laid down in the Gospel, which as the basis taken by ascetical writers for their instructions. This imitation of Christ generally proceeds along three main lines, viz.: mortification of the senses, unworldliness, and detachment from family ties.

It is here especially that asceticism comes in for censure on the part of its opponents. Mortification, unworldliness, and detachment are particularly obnoxious to them. But in answer to their objection it will be sufficient to note that condemnations of such practices or aspirations must fall on Holy Scripture also, for it gives a distinct warrant for all three. Thus we have, as regards mortification, the words of St. Paul, who says: “I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps when I have preached to others I myself should be castaway” (I Cor., ix, 27); while Our Lord Himself says: “He that taketh not up his cross, and followeth Me, is not worthy of Me” (Matt., x, 38). Commending unworldliness, we have: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John, xviii, 36); approving detachment, there is the text, not to cite others: “if any man come to Me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple” (Luke, xiv, 26). It is scarcely necessary to note however, that the word “hate” is not to be taken in its strict sense, but only as indicating a greater love for God than for all things together. Such is the general scheme of this higher order of asceticism.

The character of this asceticism is determined by its motive. In the first place a man may serve God in such a way that he is willing to make any sacrifice rather than commit a grievous sin. This disposition of soul, which is the lowest in the spiritual life, is necessary for salvation. Again, he may be willing to make such sacrifices rather than offend God by venial sin. Lastly he may, when this no question of sin at all, be eager to do whatever will make his life harmonize with that of Christ. It is this last motive which the highest kind of asceticism adopts. These three stages are called by St. Ignatius “the three degrees of humility,” for the reason that they are the three steps in the elimination of self, and consequently three great advances towards union with God, who enters the soul in proportion as self is expelled. It is the spiritual state of St. Paul speaks when he says: “And I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me” (Gal., ii, 20). Other ascetic writers describe them as states or conditions of the beginners the proficient and the perfect. They are not, however, to be considered chronologically distinct; as if the perfect man had nothing to do with the methods of the beginner, or vice versa. “The building of the spiritual edifice,” says Scaramelli, “is simultaneous in all its parts. The roof is stretched while the foundations are being laid. “Hence the perfect man, even with his sublime motive of imitation, has always need of the fear of damnation, in order that, as St. Ignatius expresses it, if ever the love of God grows cold, the fear of Hell may rekindle it again. On the other hand, the beginner who has broken with mortal sin has already started in his growth to perfect charity. These states are also described as the purgative, illuminative, and unitive ways. It is evident that the practice of unworldliness, of detachment from family and other ties, must be or the greatest number not the actual performance of those things, but only the serious disposition or readiness to make such sacrifices, in case God should require them, which, as a matter of fact in their case, He does not. They are merely affective, and not effective, but none the less they constitute a very sublime kind of spirituality. Sublime as it is, there are many examples of it in the Church, nor is it the exclusive possession of those who have abandoned the world or are about to do so, but it is the possession also of many whom necessity compels to live in the world, married as well as single, of those who are in the enjoyment of honour and wealth and of responsibility as well as of those who are in opposite conditions. They cannot effectively realize their desires or aspirations but their affections take that direction. Thus there are multitudes of men and women who though living in the world are not of it, who have no liking or taste for worldly display, though often compelled by their position, social or otherwise, to assume it, who avoid worldly advancement or honour not out of pusillanimity, but out of unconcern, or contempt, or knowledge of its danger; who, with opportunities for pleasure, practise penance, sometimes of the most rigorous character who would willingly, if it were possible, give up their lives to works of charity or devotion, who love the poor and dispense alms to the extent of, and even beyond, their means, who have strong attraction for prayer, and who withdraw from the world when it is possible for the meditation of divine things; who frequent the sacraments assiduously; who are the soul of every undertaking for the good of their fellow -men and the glory of God; and whose dominant preoccupation in the advancement of the interest of God and the Church. Bishops and priests especially enter into this category. Even the poor and humble, who, having nothing to give, yet would give if they had any possessions, may be classed among such servants of Christ.

That this asceticism is not only attainable but attained by laymen serves to bring out the truth which is sometimes lost sight of, viz., that the practice of perfection is not restricted to the religious state. In fact, though one may live in the state of perfection, that is, be a member of a religious order, he may be surpassed in perfection by a layman in the world. But to reduce these sublime dispositions to actual practice, to make them not only affective but effective to realize what Christ meant when, after having told the multitude on the Mount of the blessedness of poverty of spirit, He said to the Apostles, “Blessed are you who are poor,” and to reproduce also the other virtues of Christ and the Apostles, the Church has established a life of actual poverty, chastity, and obedience. For that purpose, it has founded religious orders, thus enabling those who are desirous and able to practise this higher order of asceticism, to do so with greater facility and in greater security.

Monastic or Religious Asceticism

The establishment of religious orders was not the result of any sudden or mandatory legislation by the Church. On the contrary, the germs of religious life were implanted in it by Christ Himself from the very beginning. For in the Gospel we have repeated invitations to follow the evangelical counsels. Hence in the first days of the Church, we find that particular kind of asceticism widely practised which later developed into the form adopted by the Religious Orders. In the “History of the Roman Breviary” by Batiffol (tr. Bayley), 15, we read: “In proportion as the Church in extending itself had grown colder, there had taken place within its bosom a drawing together of those souls which were possessed of the greatest zeal and fervour. These consisted of men and women, alike, living in the world without severing themselves from the ties and obligations of ordinary life, yet binding themselves by private vow or public profession to live in chastity all their life, to fast all the week, to spend their days in prayer. They were called in Syria Monazonites and Parthenae, ascetics and virgins. They formed, as it were, a third order, a confraternity. In the first half of the fourth century, we find these associations of ascetics and virgins established in all the great Churches of the East, at Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Edessa.” Men like Athanasius, Clement of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, and others wrote and legislated for them. They had a special place in the church services and it is noteworthy also that at Antioch “the ascetics there formed the main body of the Nicene or orthodox party.” But “dating from the reign of Theodosius and the time when Catholicism became the social religion of the world, comes the movement when a deep cleavage in religious society manifested itself. These ascetics and virgins, who, till now, have mingled with the common body of the faithful, abandon the world and go forth into the wilderness. The Church of the multitude is no longer a sufficiently holy city for these pure ones; they go forth to build in the desert the Jerusalem which they crave.” (Cf. Duchesne, Christian Worship.)

The time when these foundations began is said by Batiffol to be “when Catholicism became the social religion.” Previous to that, with their pagan surroundings, such establishments would have been out of the question. The instinct for monastic institutions was there, but its realization was delayed. Those who enter a religious order take the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, which are considered here only in as much as they differentiate a particular kind of asceticism from other forms. They are called substantial vows because they are the basis of a permanent and fixed condition or state of life, and affect, modify, determine, and direct the whole attitude of one who is bound by them in his relations to the world and to God. They constitute a mode of existence which has no other purpose than that some of these penitents may have the attainment of the highest spiritual perfection. Being perpetual, they ensure permanence in practice of virtue and prevent it from being intermittent and sporadic; being an absolute, free, (irrevocable), and complete surrender of the most precious possessions of man, their fulfilment creates a spirituality, or a species of asceticism, of the most heroic character. Indeed it is inconceivable what more one can offer to God, or how these virtues of poverty, chastity, and obedience can be exercised in a higher degree. That the observance of these vows is a reproduction of the manner of life of Christ and the Apostles, and has, as a consequence, given countless saints to the Church, is a sufficient answer to the accusation that the obligations they impose are degrading, inhuman, and cruel, a reproach often urged against them.

While concurring in the practice of the same fundamental virtues, the religious bodies are differentiate from one another by the particular object which prompted their separate formation, namely, some need of the Church, some new movement which had to be combated, some spiritual or corporal aid that had to be brought to mankind, etc. From this there resulted that besides the observance of the three main virtues of poverty, chastity, and obedience some special virtue is cultivated by each. Thus the beginning of Christianity, when labour was considered a badge of slavery, the great, the learned, the noble, as well as the humble, the ignorant, and the poor, filled the deserts of Egypt and suppoted themselves by manual labour, their withdrawal from the world being also a protest against the corruption of paganism. After the destruction of the Roman Empire the Benedictines taught the barbarians agriculture, the arts, letters, architecture, etc., while inculcating the virtues of Christianity; the poverty of the Fransciscans was a condemation of the luxury and extravagance of the age in which they originated; the need of protecting the faithful from heresy gave rise to the Order of Preachers; rebellion against authority and defection from the Pope called for special emphasis on obedience and loyalty to Holy See by the Society of Jesus, the defence the Holy Land created the Military Orders; redemption of captives, the care of the sick and poor, education, missionary work, etc. all called into existence an immense variety of congregations, whose energies were directed along one special line of good works, with the consequent development to an unusual degree of the virtues which were needed to attain that special end. Meantime, the rules, covering every detail and every moment of their daily lives, called for the practice of all the other virtues.

In some of the orders the rules make no mention of corporal penance at all, leaving that to individual devotion; in others great austerity is prescribed but excess is provided against both by the fact the rules have been subjected to pontifical approval and because superiors can grant exceptions. That such penitential practices produce morbid and gloomy characters is absurd to those who know the lightheartedness that prevails in strict religious communities; that they are injurious to health and abbreviate life cannot be seriously maintained in view the remarkable longevity noted among the members of very austere orders. It is true the lives of the saints we meet with some very extraordinary and apparently extravagant mortifications; but in the first place, what is extraordinary, extravagant, and severe in one generation may not be so in another which is ruder and more inured to hardship. Again, they are not proposed for imitation, nor that the biographer was not exaggerating, or describing as continual what was only occasional; and on the other hand it is not forbidden to suppose that some of the penitents may have been prompted by the Spirit of God to make themselves atoning victims for the sins of others. Besides it must not be forgotten that these practices went hand to hand with the cultivation of the sublimest virtues, that they were for the most part performed in secret, and in no case for ostentation and display. But even if there was abuse, the Church is not responsible for the aberrations of individuals, nor does her teaching become wrong if misunderstood or misappplied, as might have been done inadvertently or unconsciously, even by the holiest of her children, in the exaggerated use of corporal penance. The virtue of prudence is a part of asceticism. The reformation or abolition of certain orders because of corruption only emphasizes the truth that monastic asceticsm means an organized effort to attain perfection. If that purpose is kept in view, the order continues to exist; if it ceases to be ascetic in its life, it is abolished.

A common accusation against religious asceticism is that it is synonymous with idleness. Such a charge ignores all past and contemporary history. It was the ascetic monks who virtually created our present civilizations by teaching the barbarian tribes the value and dignity of manual labour; by training them in the mechanical arts, in agriculture, in architecture, etc.; by reclaiming swamps and forests, and forming industrial centres from which great cities developed, not to speak of the institutions of learning which they everywhere established. Omitting the especially prominent instances now before the world, namely the vast amount of industry and toil implied in the establishment, organization, management, and support of tens of thousands of asylums, hospitals, refuges, and schools in civilized lands by men and women who are wearing themselves out in labouring for the good of humanity, there are hundreds of thousands of men and women bound by vows and practising religious asceticism who, without any compensation to themselves except the supernatural one of sacrificing themselves for others, are at the present moment labouring among savage tribes all over the world, teaching them to build houses, till their fields, work at trades, care for their families while at the same time imparting to them human learning in the drudgery of schools, and leading them in the way of salvation. Idleness and asceticism are absolutely incompatible with each other, and the monastic institution where idleness prevails has already lost its asceticism and, if not swept away by some special upheaval, will be abolished by ecclesiastical legislation. The precept which St. Paul laid down for ordinary Christians has always been a fundamental principle of genuine asceticism: “If any man will not work, neither let him eat” (II Thess, iii, 10). But, as a matter of fact, the Church has seldom had to resort to such a drastic measure as destruction. She has easily reformed the religious orders which, while giving her many of her most learned men and illustrious saints, have been ever a source of pride because of the stupendous work they have achieved, not only for the honour of God and the advancement of the Church, but in uplifting; humanity leading it in the ways of virtue and holiness, and establishing institutions of benevolence and charity for every species of human suffering and sorrow.

In apparent contradiction with the assertion that the highest expression of asceticism is to be found in monastic life is the fact that monasticism not only exists in the pagan religions of India, but is associated with great moral depravity. Attempts have been made to show that these Hindu institutions are merely travesties of Christian monasteries, probably those of the old Nestorians, or the result of primitive Christian traditions. But neither of these suppositions can be accepted. For, although, doubtless, Indian monasticism in the course of ages borrowed some of its practices from Nestorianism, the fact is that it existed before the Coming of Christ. The explanation of it is that it is nothing else than the outcome of the natural religious instinct of man to withdraw from the vvorld for meditation, prayer, and spiritual improvement instances of which might be cited among the ancient Greeks and Hebrews, and among ourselves in the Brook Farm and other American experiments. But they were merely imitations or the promptings of a natural instinct, it only goes to show, in the first place, that monastic seclusion is not unnatural to man; and secondly, that some Divinely constituted authority is new to guide this natural propensity and to prevent it from falling into those extravagances to which religious enthusiasm is prone. In other words, there must be an acknowledged and absolute spiritual power to legislate for it along the lines of truth and virtue, to censure and condemn and punish what is wrong in individuals and associations; a power able to determine infallibly what is morally right and wrong. The Catholic church alone claims that power. It has always recognized the ascetic instinct in man, has approved associations for the cultivation of religious perfection, has laid down minute rules for their guidance, has always exercised the strictest surveillance over them, and has never hesitated to abolish them when they were intended. Moreover, as genuine asceticism does not rest satisfied with natural, but aims at supernatural, perfection, and as the supernatural in the New Dispensation is in the guardianship of the Catholic Church, under its guidance alone is asceticism secure.

Jewish Asceticism

Besides the ordinary observers of the Old Law, we have the great Hebrew saints and prophets whose deeds are recorded in the Holy Bible. They were ascetics who practised the loftiest virtue, who were adorned with remarkable spiritual gifts, and consecrated themselves to the service of God and their fellow-men. As to the Schools of the Prophets, whatever they may have been, it is admitted that one of the objects intended was the practice of virtue, and in that respect they may be regarded as schools of asceticism. The Nazarites were men who consecrated themselves by a perpetual or temporary vow to abstain all the days of their Nazariteship, that is, during their separation from the rest of the people, from the use of wine and all other intoxicating drink, from vinegar formed from wine or strong drink, from any liquor of grapes, from grapes dried or fresh, and indeed from the use of anything produced from the vine. Other observances which were of obligation, such as letting the hair grow, avoiding defilement, etc., were ceremonial rather than ascetic. The Nazarites were exclusively men, and there is said to be no instance in the Old Testamant of a female Nazarite. They were a class of persons “holy to the Lord” in a special sense, and made their vow of abstinence an example of self-denial and moderation and a protest against the indulgent habits of the Chanaanites which were invading the people of Israel. Samson and Samuel were consecrated by their mothers to this kind of life. It is not certain that they lived apart in distinct communities; like the Sons of the Prophets, though there is an instance of three hundred of them being found together at the same time.

The Rechabites

The Rechabites, whom, however, Josephus does not mention, appear to have been a normal tribe, distinguished chiefly by their abstinence from wine, though it is not certain that other intoxicants were forbidden, or that such abstinence was prompted by motives of penance. It may have been merely to prevent the culture of the vine in order to keep them in their normadic state, the better to escape corruption from their Chanaanitish neighbours. There were also Essenes who lived a communal life, possessed no individual property, affected an extreme simplicity in diet and dress, and lived apart from great cities to preserve themselves from contamination. Some of them abjured marriage. They devoted themselves to the sick, and for that purpose made a special study of the curative qualities of herbs and boasted of possessing medical recipes handed down from Solomon. Hence their name, Essenes, or Healers. Finally come the Pharisees, who were the Puritans of the Old law, but whose virtues and austerities we know to have been often only pretence, although there were, doubtless, among them some who were in earnest in the practice of virtue. St. Paul describes himself as a Pharisee of the Pharisees. Outside of Judea, there were said to be a certain number of Jews, men and women, living on the shores of Lake Mareotis, near Alexandria, who mingled their own religious observances with those of the Egyptians, and who lived a life of voluntary poverty, chastity, labour, solitude, and prayer. They were called Therapeutae, which, like Essenes, means Healers. Rappoport, in his “History of Egypt” (XI. 29), says that a certain class of the Egyptian priesthood led a similar kind of life. We know of the Therapeutae only from Philo. How true his descriptions are not be determined.

Heretical Asceticism

In the second century of the Church appear the Encratites, or The Austere. They were a section of the heretical Gnostics, chiefly Syrians, who, because of their erroneous views about matter, withdrew from all contact with the world, and denounced marriage as impure. About the same period came the Montanists, who forbade second marriage, enjoined rigorous fasts, insisted on the perpetual exclusion from the Church of those who had ever committed grievous sin, stigmatized flight in time of persecution as reprehensible, protested that virgins should be always veiled, reprobated paintings, statuary, military service, theatres, and all worldly sciences. In the third century the Manichaens held marriage to be unlawful and refrained from wine, meat, milk, and eggs; all of which did not deter them from the grossest immorality. The Flagellants were a sect that began about 1260. They journeyed from place to place in Italy, Austria, Bohemia, Bavaria, and Poland, scourging themselves to blood, ostensibly to excite the populace to contrition for their sins, but they were soon prohibited by the ecclesiastical authorities. They appeared again in the fourteenth century, in Hungary, Germany, and England. Pope Clement VI issued a Bull against them in 1349, and the Inquisition pursued them with such vigour that they disappeared altogether. They were bitter enemies of the Church. The Cathari of the twelfth century were, as their name implies, Puritans. Though teaching the doctrines of the Manichaeans, they affected to live a purer life than the rest of the Church. Chief among them were the Waldenses, or “Poor Men of Lyons,” who accepted evangelical poverty and then defied the Pope, who suppressed them. Although Protestantism has been incessant in its denunciations of asceticism, it is amazing to note how many extreme instances of it the history of Protestantism furnishes. The Puritans of England and New England, with their despotic and cruel laws, which imposed all sorts of restrictions not only upon themselves, but upon others, are examples of misguided ascetics. The early Methodists, with their denunciations of all amusements, dancing, theatres, card-playing, Sunday enjoyments, etc., were ascetics. The numberless Socialistic colonies and settlements which have sprung up in all countries are illustrations of the same spirit.

Pagan Asceticism

Among the Greeks, we have the school, or quasi-community of Pythagoras, whose object was to extirpate the passions, but it was philosophic rather than religious in its character and may be places in the category of Natural Asceticism.

Brahminical Asceticism

It is frequently contended that an asceticism exists among the Brahmins of India which in some respects is equal, if not superior, to that of Christianity. It inculcates the virtues of truthfulness, honesty, self-control, obedience, temperance, alms-giving, care of the sick, meekness, forgiveness of injuries, returning good for evil, etc. It forbids suicide, abortion, perjury, slander, drunkenness, gluttony, usury, hypocrisy, slothfulness, and cruelty to animals. Ten vows bind the Brahmin to the practice of some ot these virtues. Its practice of penance is extraordinary. Besides what is left to personal initiative, the Laws of Manu decree that: the Brahmin should roll himself on the ground or stand during the day tip-toe or alternately stand and sit. In summer let him expose himself to the heat of five fires, during the rainy season, let him live under the open sky; and in winter be dressed in wet clothes, thus great increasing the rigour of his austerities.” Protracted fasts of the most fantastic character are also enjoined. In all this, there is no asceticism. These suicidal penances, apart from their wickedness and absurdity, are based on a misconception of the purpose of mortification. They are not supposed to atone for sin or to acquire merit, but are prompt by the idea that the greater the austerity the greater the holiness, and that besides hastening absorption in the divinity they will help the penitent to obtain such a mastery over his body as to make it invisible at will, to float in the air, or pass with lighting speed from place to place. Being believers in metempsychosis, they regard these sufferings as a means of avoiding the punishment of new births under the form of other creatures.

Their pantheism destroys the very essential idea of virtue, for there can be no virtue, as there can be no vice, where one is a part of the deity. Again, the belief that there is no reality outside of Brahma prevents the use or abuse of creatures from having any influence on the righteous or unrighteous condition of the soul. Finally, as the end of existence is absorption into Brahma, with its attendant loss of personality and its adoption of an unconscious existence for all future time, it holds out no inducement to the practice of virtue. The whole system is based on pride. The Brahmin is superior to all mankind, and contact with another caste than his own, especially the poor and humble, is pollution. It makes marriage obligatory, but compels the wife to adore the husband no matter how cruel he is, permitting him to reject her at will; it encourages poly- gamy, approves of the harem, and authorizes the burning of widows in the suttees which the Bntish Goverment has not yet succeeded in preventing. It abhors manual labour and compels the practice of mendicancy and idleness, and it has done nothing for the physical betterment of the human race, as the condition of India for many centuries clearly shows. Its spiritual results are no better. Its liturgy is made up of the most disgusting, childish, and cruel superstitions, and its contradictory combinations of pantheism, materialism, and idealism have developed a system of cruel divinities worse than those of pagan antiquity. It is consequently not real asceticism.

Buddhist Asceticism

The ascetical practices of the Buddhists are monastic in their character, the devotees living in communities, whereas the Brahmins are mostly solitaries, though admitting pupils. The moral codes of both sects resemble each other in some respects. For the Buddhists, there are five great duties: not to kill any living creature, not to steal, not to act unchastely, not to lie, not to drink intoxicating liquor. The eight-fold path of virtues is: right beliefs, right aspiration, right speech, right conduct, right means of livelihood, right endeavour, right memory, right meditation. The cultivation of meekness, both internal and external, is expressedly inculcated. In the monasteries, confession of faults, but only of external ones, is practised, and great importance is attached to meditation. Their penances are comparatively moderate. Nevertheless, in spite of its glorification of virtue, this manner of life can not be regarded as asceticism. While holding its indifferent to the pantheism and other errors of Brahmanism, it ignores God entirely, and is atheistic or agnostic, admitting no dependence on the Divinity and acknowledging no obligation of worship, obedience, love, gratitude, belief; consequently, eliminating all virtue. Its avoidance of sin is purely utilitarian viz., to escape its consequences. Its ultimate end is extinction in Nirvana, thus having no inducement to virtue, while it accords the lower state of Swarga, with its sensual delights, to those who were helpful to the Buddhas. Like its predecessor, its idea of ultimate extinction is an extension of the Brahminist absorption and leads logically to suicide. It holds marriage in abhorrence, and suppresses all legitimate desires forbidding all recreation, music, movie, scientific pursuits, etc. Industrial occupations are regarded with contempt, and the ideal state is beggary and idleness. Although insisting upon celibacy as the proper state of man, it tolerates polygamy and divorce. It speaks most complacently of Buddha’s many hundred wives, before his conversion; lauds the extensive seraglio of Bimbissasa, its most distinguished royal convert, without hinting at its being any derogation from the standard of conduct of a Buddhist layman, while “the official head of Southern Buddhism at the present day, the King of Siam, exercises without scruple the privilege of maintaining a harem” (Aiken). It did not abolish the caste system except in the monasteries. Finally, “in the spread of this religion to other lands it adopted the idolatrous and obscene worship of Nepal; gave its sanction to the degrading shamanistic worship of Thibet, and is overlaid with the superstitions peculiar to China, Mongolia and Thibet.” It is an abuse of terms to describe the practices of such a creed as asceticism.

In conclusion, it may be said the difference between false and true asceticism is this: false asceticism starts out with a wrong idea of the nature of man, of the world, of God; it proposes to follow human reason, but soon falls into folly and become fanatical, and sometimes insane in its methods and projects. With an exaggerated idea of the rights and powers of the individual, it rebels against all spiritual control and, usurping a greater authority than the Church has ever claimed, leads its dupes into the widest extravagances. Its history is one of disturbance, disorder and anarchy, and is barren of results in the acquisition of truth or the uplifting of the individual and it works of benevolence or intellectual progress; and in some instances it has been the instrument of the most deplorable moral degradation. True asceticism, on the contrary, is guided by right reason, assisted by the light of revelation; it comprehends clearly the true nature of man, his destiny, and his obligations. Knowing that he has not been created in a merely natural condition, but elevated to a supernatural state, it seeks to illumine his mind and strengthen his will by supernatural grace. Aware that he has to control his lower passions and withstand the assaults of the evil spirit and seductions of the world, it not only permits, but enjoins, the practice of penance, while by the virtue of prudence which it inculcates, it prevents excess. Instead of withdrawing him from his fellow men and inducing moroseness and pride, it bestows on him joy and humility, inspires him with the greatest love for humanity, and cultivate that spirit of self-sacrifice which has, by its works of benevolence and charity, conferred countless benefits on the humance race. In a word, asceticism is nothing else than an enlightened method adopted in the observance of the law of God through all the various degrees of service, from the obedience of the ordinary believer to the absorbing devotion of the greatest saint, guiding each in accordance with the measure of grace imparted by the Spirit of Light and Truth.

T.J CAMPBELL

Joseph, Ritter von Aschbach

German historian, b. at Hochst, in Hesse-Nassau, 29 April, 1801; d. at Vienna, 25 April, 1882. In 1819, he began the study of theology and philosophy at the University of Heidelberg, but soon turned his attention to that of history, at the instigation of the well-known historian Schlosser. On the completion of this course, in 1823, he was appointed instructor at the Select School of Frankfort-on-the-Main. In 1842 he obtained a reputation as Professor of History at the University of Bonn whence he removed to Vienna in 1853, to fill the same position. Within two years he became a member of the Vienna Academy of Sciences, was ennobled in 1870, and retired from the exercise of his position in 1872, ten years prior to his death. While in Frankfort he wrote: “Geschichte der Westgoten” (Frankfort, 1827); “Geschichte der Omajjaden in Spanien” (Frankfort, 1829, 1830; 2d ed., Vienna, 1860); “Geschichte Spaniens und Portugals zur Zeit der Almaroviden und Almohaden” (2 Vols., Frankfort, 1833, 1837); “Geschichte der Heruler und Gepiden” (first in Schlosser’s “Archiv für Geschichte und Literatur” and then separately, Frankfort, 1835); “Geschichte Kaiser Sigmunds” (4 Vols., Hamburg, 1838–45). In Bonn he published, first, the “Urkundliche Geschichte der Grafen von Wertheim” (2 Vols., Frankfort, 1843) and then edited the “Allgemeine Kirchenlexikon” (4 vols., Frankfort and Mainz, 1846–51) most of the historical articles being from his own pen.In Vienna he devoted himself chiefly to the history of the Roman Emporers, and published the interesting, though not always tenable, results of his investigations in the “Sitzungsberichten und Denkschriften” of the Vienna Academy of Sciences. His “Geschichte der Wiener Universität” was written to mark the celebration of the fifth centenary of the University of Vienna. The first volume (Vienna, 1865) dealt with the period from 1365 to 1465; the second (Vienna, 1877), with the Viennese humanists of the time of the Emperor Maximilian I; the third, which appeared after his death (Vienna, 1888), brings the history down to 1565. His two latest works attracted no little attention: “Die früheren Wanderjahre des Conrad Celtes, und die Anfänge der von ihm errichteten gelehrten Sodalitäten” (Vienna, 1869); and, more especially, “Roswitha und Conrad Celtes” (Vienna, 1867, 2d ed., 1868). In this work, he endeavoured to prove that the poem addressed to the Emperor Otto the Great, hitherto attributed to the nun Roswitha of Gandersheim, really originated in the sixteenth century and was composed by the humanist Conrad Celtes. The contention was, however, immediately and effectually confuted.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Diocese of Ascoli-Piceno

Diocese comprising sixteen towns in the Province of Ascoli-Piceno, two in that of Aquila, and two in that of Teramo, Italy. It is under the immediate jurisdiction of the Holy See. “Ascoli-Piceno is on of the cities of Italy,” says Harnack (Die Mission, etc., Leipzig, 502), “which, because of its importance, we may believe has had a Christian community and a bishopric from the middle of the third century, when at the Synod held by Pope Cornelius in Rome sixty bishops were present” (Eus., VI, xliii). The traces of this bishopric, however, do not appear until the fourth century: St. Emidius, martyred under Diocletian; Claudius, present at the Synod of Rimini (Arian Controversy, 359), and, in the fifth century, Lusentius, present at the Synod of Milan which sent the famous letter to Pope Leo I (440–461), were Bishops of Ascoli. Worthy of note in Ascoli, from an artistic standpoint, is the baptistery dating from the twelfth century. One of its bishops, Giulio de’Medici, afterwards became Pope Clement CII (1523–34). The political importance of his pontificate, during the struggle between Charles V and Francis I is well known. Ascoli-Piceno contain 167 parishes; 305 churches, chapels, and oratories; 206 secular priests; 150 seminarians; 15 regular priests, 6 lay brothers; 126 religious (women); 118 confraternities, and a population of 120,210.

Ughelli, Italia Sacra (Venice, 1722), I, 436; Cappelletti, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), VI, 663; Gams, Series episcoporum Ecclesiae catholicae (Ratisbon, 1873), 667; Colucci, Antichita ascoliane illustrate con varie dissertazioni (Fermo, 1792); Appiani, Vita de S. Emidio, prima vescova e protettore di Ascoli e martire con un ragguaglio della stessa citta occasionato da s. Valentino martire, suo diacono, primo scrittore delle gesta del santo (ascoli, 1832); Lazzari, Ascoli in prospettiva colle sue piu singolari pitture sculture ed architetture (Ascoli, 1724).

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Diocese of Ascoli, Satriano, and Cirignola

Ascoli, Satriano, and Cirignola, an Italian diocese, suffragan to the Archdiocese of Beneventum, comprising six towns and two villages, in the Province of Foggia. In 969, Ausculum Appulum appears as an episcopal city amongst the suffragan sees of Beneventum, but the first bishop of whom we have any knowledge is Maurus, present at the consecration of the Church of St. Angelo at Volturno (1059). Cirignola on account of its relative importance, must have been formerly a diocese, but history is silent in the matter. When Pius VII reorganized the ecclesiastical provinces of the Neapolitan Kingdom, on the occasion of the Concordat (16 February, 1818) with Ferdinand I, King of the two Sicilies, he restored Cirignola to its ancient episcopal dignity and united it æque principaliter to the Diocese of Ascoli. At the end of the year 1905 this diocese contained 11 parishes; 62 churches, chapels and oratories; 98 secular priests; 60 seminarians; 8 regular clergy; 4 lay brothers; 46 religious (women); 18 confraternaties; 3 girls’ schools with an attendance of 140. Population, 70,115.

URGHELLI, Italia Sacra (Venice, 1722), VIII, 224; CAPPELETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), XIX, 140; GAMS, Series episcoporum Ecclesiæ catholicæ (Ratisbon, 1873), 855; KIRIATTO, Memorie istoriche di Cerignola (Naples, 1785).

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Aseity

Aseity (Latin a, from; se, itself: ens a se) is the property by which a being exists of and from itself. It will be easily understood that this property belongs, and can belong only, to God. When we look for the efficient, exemplary, and final cause of all things, of their existence, nature, and organization, we come ultimately to a Being Who does not depend for His existence, realization, or end on any cause other than Himself; Who has within Himself His own reason of existence, Who is for Himself His own exemplary and final cause. It is to this very property of absolute independence, or self-existence by nature that we give the name of aseity. This notion of aseity includes, therefore, according to our conception, a negative and a positive aspect; absolute independence and self-existence, which complement each other and form one single objective property. As is easily seen, the Catholic concept of aseity which represents God as absolutely independent and self-existent by nature, and, consequently, all-perfect without any possibility of change from all eternity, is altogether opposed to the pantheistic concept of absolute or pure being, which absolute or pure being evolves, determines, and realizes itself through all time. (See PANTHEISM.) This quality of independence and self-existence has always been affirmed of God under various names by the Fathers and Catholic theologians, though the word aseity itself began to be used in theology only in the Middle Ages. The only point disputed among the theologians is, whether this property constitutes the very essence of God. (See DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.)

GEORGE M. SAUVAGE

Aseneth

The daughter of Putiphare (Poti-phera), priest of On. The Pharaoh of Egypt gave her to wife to the Hebrew Patriarch Joseph; and she bore him two sons, Manasses and Ephraim (Gen., xli, 45–50; xlvi, 20). In the ancient polity of the Egyptians the priests were second in honour only to the Pharaoh; hence the Pharaoh of Joseph’s time gave him to wife one of the first princesses of the land. All Egyptologists agree that into the composition of the name Aseneth there enters the name of the goddess Neith, a tutelary deity of Sais. Neith was considered as an emanation of Ammon, and was associated with him as the female principle in the creation of the universe. Her hieroglyph is a shuttle. The Greeks identified her with Athene. Some interpret Asenath, “dwelling of Neith,” others interpret the name “servant of Neith,” or “sacred to Neith.” The name Aseneth has not been found among the monuments of Egypt; but similar ones have been found as As-Ptah, As-Menti, As-Hathor, etc. In the apocryphal literature there are many curious legends of Aseneth.

A.E. BREEN

Aser

Though the form Aser uniformly appears in the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Douay versions, an inspection of the original text clearly shows that the correct form of the name is Asher.

I. Aser was the eighth son of Jacob, born to him in Paddan-Aram. He was the second son of Zelpha, the handmaid of Lia, Jacob’s wife. His name is derived from the root Asher, to make or declare happy. His mother bestowed this name on him; for she declared that through her childbearing “women will call me blessed” (Gen., xxx, 13). In the Bible there are recorded of Aser four sons and one daughter called Sara (Gen., xlvi, 17). The descendants of Aser are enumerated (I Par., vii, 30–40).

II. One of the twelve tribes of Israel, being descended from Aser, the son of Israel. Its tribal territory is described in Josue, xix, 24–31. It stretched along the Mediterranean Sea from Mt. Carmel northward to the river Leontes, the modern Nahr el-Quasimiyeh. Its eastern boundary was an irregular line, dividing it from Zabulon and Nephtali. Its farthest eastward boundary was the city Ahalab, most probably the modern El-Djich. The land of Aser held twenty-two cities, with their villages; but the Aserites did not drive out the inhabitants of these cities but dwelt among them. Their land was fertile, as was foretold by Jacob: the bread of Aser was fat; he yielded royal dainties (Gen., xlix, 20); he dipped his foot in oil (Deut., xxxiii, 24). The numerous valleys of the land are well watered by the wadys El-Houbeichiyeh, El-Ezziyeh, Ez-Zerka, Ker Kera, El-Kourn; and the rivers Nahr Mefschoukh, Nahr Semiriyeh, Nahr Namin, and Nahr el-Moukhatta, the ancient Cison. Aser’s littoral was irregular. Its northern portion has a mean width of less than two miles. At Ras en-Naqurah, the ancient Scala Tyriorum, the mountain plunges its wall of rock out to the water-line. Southward from this point the littoral broadens until, at Ez-zib and on southward to Saint Jean d’Acre, it is sometimes more than ten miles in width. This great plain and the valleys extending inland produced for Aser an abundance of wheat, barley, and other cereals. Even in the present decadent state of the land, the region is rich in cereals. The slopes of the hills, now covered with thick brushwood, were, in the days of Israel’s prosperity, covered with olive-trees, fig-trees, and vines. The fertility of the land gave rise to the saying, that in Aser oil flowed as a river. The valleys, the slopes of the hills, and the high places are covered with Chanaanean, Jewish, Byzantine, and later ruins, showing a sort of stratified succession of the civilizations that have flourished in the land. In the history of Israel the tribe of Aser plays an unimportant part. When the first census of Israel was made at Sinai, Aser numbered 41,500 men that were able to go forth to war (Num., i, 40–41). Their chief was Phegiel, the son of Ochran. In Num., xxvi, 47, this number had grown to 53,400. When the warriors of the tribes of Israel came to David in Hebron to make him King over Israel, there came out of Aser 40,000 soldiers [I Par. (Chron.), xii, 36]. Aser’s offering for the first altar dedicated by Moses in the desert is recorded in Num., vii, 72–77. In the tribe of Aser there were four Levitical cities: Masal, Abdon, Helcath, and Rohob, with their suburbs. When Zabulon and Nephtali exposed their lives unto death in war against Jabin, King of Chanaan, “Aser dwelt on the seashore, and abode in the havens”; hence it is chided in the Song of Debbora (Judges, v, 17). It redeemed itself somewhat from this reproach by marching with Gideon against Madian. When Ezechias invited the men of the northern kingdom of Israel to come to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem to keep the Passover, some of the tribe of Aser came (II Par., xxx, 11).—Anna the prophetess was of Aser (Luke, ii, 36).

III. Aser, a frontier village of the cis-Jordanic territory of the tribe of Manasses; most probably the modern Teiasir.

IV. Aser, an erroneous rendering in the Vulgate (Ex., vi, 24), of the name Assir, the son of Core. In the Vulgate text of I Par., vi, 22, the same person is called Asir.

A.E. BREEN

Asgaard

Asgaard (from As, plural Aeser, or in English, “Ases”—Norwegian for the gods—and gaard, “yard,” i.e. enclosure, garden; the Garden of the Gods).

It was the great place where the Ases and their wives, Asesses (Norse, Asynjer), dwelt apart, and from which they ruled. A bridge called Bilrast led to it. In the middle of Asgaard was a great castle in which was Odavold, where the gods (Ases) held their reunions. In it were two magnificent halls: Gladsheim, with the throne Hildskjolf, for Odin, and seats for the Ases; and Vingolf, with a throne for Frigg and seats for the Asesses. From this heavenly country the Ases govern the course of the world and of men. Odin reigns there as father and head, who penetrates all, animates all; gives men intelligence and enthusiasm, and breathes into them the desire for combat and war. At his side was his wife Frigg, the all-nourishing earth, who had Fensal as her abode. The other principal dwelling-places of the Ases in Asgaard were Thrudvang, or Thrudheim, where dwelt Thor, the son of Odin and of Frigg, and who was the thunder, the strength, the sanctification of the world, the friend of men, the defender against the evil powers, the protector of agriculture and of family life; Breidablik, where dwelt Balder with his wife Nanna; Noatum, the abode of Njörd; Thrynheim, that of Skad; Alfheim, that of Frey; Himinbjörg, whence Heimdal protected the Ases; Ydal, where Ull was; Gletner, where Forsete lived, the most just of the Ases; Folkvang, with the hall Sessrymner, where Freya lived, the Asess of Love, and Sökkvabekk, the dwelling of Saga. Moreover, there was Lidskjalv, from which Odin saw the whole universe, and where there was Valaskjalv, all covered with silver, and the yet more splendid and sumptuous hall, Valhal. Above Asgaard stretch the more elevated heavens, whose splendour culminates in Gimle, an unapproachable and golden hall, more luminous that the heaven. The site of Asgaard was placed near the Don, which was regarded as the boundary line between Asia and Europe. Hence Snorre derives the name As from Asia, and imagined that the Ases were inhabitants of Asia.

SNORRE STURSASON, Edda (ed. Arna Magneansk, 1848–87; Kongesagaer (Kristiana, 1899); PETERSEN, Nordisk Mythololgi (1863); BOESEN, Nord. Gudelære (1888); MUNCH, Norröne Gude-og Heltesagn (1880); BUZZE, Studier over nord. Gude-og Heltesagns Oprindelse (1881–89); KEYSER, Den Norske Kirkes Historie under Katholicismen (1856); ANDERSON, Norse Mythology (Chicago, 1875); Story Telling to Children from Norse Mythology (Carnegie Library, Pittsburg, 1903), contains annotated list of books in English on Norse Mythology; Icelandic Sagas, I-II (London, 1887).

E.A. WANG

Ash Wednesday

The Wednesday after Quinquagesima Sunday, which is the first day of the Lenten fast.

The name dies cinerum (day of ashes) which it bears in the Roman Missal is found in the earliest existing copies of the Gregorian Sacramentary and probably dates from at least the eighth century. On this day all the faithful according to ancient custom are exhorted to approach the altar before the beginning of Mass, and there the priest, dipping his thumb into ashes previously blessed, marks the forehead—or in case of clerics upon the place of the tonsure—of each the sign of the cross, saying the words: “Remember man that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return.” The ashes used in this ceremony are made by burning the remains of the palms blessed on the Palm Sunday of the previous year. In the blessing of the ashes four prayers are used, all of them ancient. The ashes are sprinkled with holy water and fumigated with incense. The celebrant himself, be he bishop or cardinal, receives, either standing or seated, the ashes from some other priest, usually the highest in dignity of those present. In earlier ages a penitential procession often followed the rite of the distribution of the ashes, but this is not now prescribed.

There can be no doubt that the custom of distributing the ashes to all the faithful arose from a devotional imitation of the practice observed in the case of public penitents. But this devotional usage, the reception of a sacramental which is full of the symbolism of penance (cf. the cor contritum quasi cinis of the “Dies Irae”) is of earlier date than was formerly supposed. It is mentioned as of general observance for both clerics and faithful in the Synod of Beneventum, 1091 (Mansi, XX, 739), but nearly a hundred years earlier than this the Anglo-Saxon homilist Ælfric assumes that it applies to all classes of men. “We read,” he says,

in the books both in the Old Law and in the New that the men who repented of their sins bestrewed themselves with ashes and clothed their bodies with sackcloth. Now let us do this little at the beginning of our Lent that we strew ashes upon our heads to signify that we ought to repent of our sins during the Lenten fast.

And then he enforces this recommendation by the terrible example of a man who refused to go to church for the ashes on Ash Wednesday and who a few days after was accidentally killed in a boar hunt (Ælfric, Lives of Saints, ed. Skeat, I, 262–266). It is possible that the notion of penance which was suggested by the rite of Ash Wednesday was was reinforced by the figurative exclusion from the sacred mysteries symbolized by the hanging of the Lenten veil before the sanctuary. But on this and the practice of beginning the fast on Ash Wednesday see .

HERBERT THURSTON

George Ashby

Monk of the Cistercian Monastery of Jervaulx in Yorkshire, executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace, in the year 1537. His name is found in several English martyrologies, but there is the utmost uncertainty as to the right form of his name, and as to the place and mode of his death. After the “Pilgrims” had been persuaded to disperse, Henry VIII turned with fury upon the monasteries in whose favour the rising had taken place, and ordered his soldiers “to take the abbots and monks forth with violence and to have them hanged without delay in their monks apparel . . . for a terrible example to others.” Whether Ashby suffered then, or whether he was executed in June, when his abbot, Adam Sedbergh, was put to death, is uncertain. Stow seems to allude to him when he says that one Astbebe of Jervaulx died with the Abbot of Sawley, at Lancaster, 10 March, 1537. It is also possible that the name may be taken from Astleby, one of the “Pilgrims” who is said to have visited Jervaulx. The fact that one or more monks of the abbey were executed for not embracing Henry’s schismatical measures is not disputed.

CUDDEN, Modern British Martyrology (1838), 71; GILLOW, Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 73; Grey Friars’ Chronicle in the Monumenta Franciscana (Rolls Series), ii, 208.

J.H. POLLEN

Thomas Ashby

Suffered at Tyburn, 29 March, 1544. His name was originally contained in the process of the English Martyrs, as the fact of his execution for denying the King’s Supremacy was mentioned by the chroniclers of the time and from them was recorded by Sander, though not by other Catholic writers. The “Promoter Fidei” rejected this as insufficient, and a somewhat ambiguous statement has since been found in the Grey Friars’ Chronicle; to wit, that Ashby was “sometime a priest and forsook it.” Possibly, therefore, while rejecting the Royal Supremacy, he did not accept the Pope’s.

STOWEs Chronicle, 586; HOLINSHEDs Chronicle (1586), II, 961; Grey Friars’ Chronicle in the Monumenta Franciscana (Rolls Series, II, 206. SANDER, De Schismate Anglicano, 291.

J.H. POLLEN

Ashes

It is not easy to arrive at the fundamental conception of the liturgical use of ashes. No doubt our Christian ritual has been borrowed from the practice of the Jews, a practice retained in certain details of synagogue ceremonial to this day, but the Jewish custom itself needs explanation. A number of passages in the Old Testament connect ashes (efer) with mourning, and we are told that the mourner sat or rolled himself in, sprinkled his head or mingled his food with, “ashes,” but it is not clear whether in these passages we ought not rather to translate efer as dust. The same phrases are used with the word afar which certainly means dust. It may be that the dust was originally taken from the grave, in token that the living felt himself one with the dead, or it may be that humiliation and the neglect of personal cleanliness constituted the dominant idea; for a similar manifestation of grief was undoubtedly familiar among Aryan peoples, e.g. in Homer (Iliad, XVIII, 23). It seems less probable that the cleansing properties of ashes (though this also has been proposed) are taken as significant of moral purification. The chief foundation for this last suggestion is the Rite of the Red Heifer (Num., xix, 17) in which the ashes of the victim when mixed with water had the ceremonial efficacy of purifying the unclean (cf. Heb., ix, 13).

Be this as it may, Christianity at an early date undoubtedly adopted the use of ashes as symbolical of penance. Thus Tertian prescribes that the penitent must “live without joy in the roughness of sackcloth and the squalor of ashes” (De Pœnitentiâ, x); and many similar passages might be quoted from St. Cyprian and other early Fathers. Eusebius in his account of the apostasy and reconciliation of Natalis describes him as coming to Pope Zephyrinus clothed in sackcloth and sprinkled over with ashes (spodon katapasamenon, Hist. Eccles., V, 28). This was the normal penitential garb, and n the expulsion of those sentenced to do public penance, as given in early pontificals, the sprinkling of their heads with ashes always plays a prominent part. Indeed the rite is retained in the Pontificale Romanum to this day. With this garb of penance we must undoubtedly connect the custom, so frequent n the early Middle Ages, of laying a dying man on the ground upon sackcloth sprinkled with ashes when about to breathe his last. Early rituals direct the priest to cast holy water upon him, saying, “Remember that thou are dust and unto dust the shall return.” After which he asked: “Art thou content with sackcloth and ashes in testimony of thy penance before the Lord, in the day of judgment?” And the dying man answered: “I am content.: Ashes are also liturgically used n the rite of the dedication of a church, first upon which all the alphabet is written in Greek and Latin letters, and secondly to mix with oil and wine in the water which is specially blessed for the consecration of the altars. This use of ashes is probably older than the eighth century.

Kaulen, in Kirchenlex., s. v. Asche; Cabrol, Livre de la priere antique (Paris, 1900), 347–348; Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v. Ashes; Lesêtre in Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Cendres.

HERBERT THURSTON

Ven. Ralph Ashley

Martyr and Jesuit lay-brother; first heard of, it seems, as cook at Douay College, which he left 28 April, 1590, for the English College at Valladolid. Here he entered the Society of Jesus, but after a time returned to England because of ill-health. He fell in with Father Tesimond (Greenway), who eulogizes very highly the courage he had displayed among the Dutch heretics, by whom he had been captured during his journey. He landed in England 9 March, 1598, and was sent to serve Father Edward Oldcorne. Eight years later the two were arrested at Hindlip, near Worcester, and were committed to the Tower, together with Father Garnet, and Nicholas Owen, another laybrother, servant to Garnet. The two servants were terribly tortured, Owen dying of his torments, while the reticent answers and trembling signatures of Ashley’s extant confessions bear eloquent testimony to his constancy. He was ultimately remanded with Oldcorne to Worcester, where they were tried, condemned and executed together, 7 April, 1606, giving an admirable example of heroically faithful service.

PATRICK RYAN

John Ashton

An early Jesuit missionary in Maryland; born in Ireland, 1742; died in Maryland, 1814, or 1815. He was one of the first priests to visit the Catholics of Baltimore. This was between the years 1776 and 1784, at which latter date a resident priest, Father Charles Sewall, was appointed. The Jesuits at that time lived at Whitemarsh, about midway between Washington and Baltimore. The temporary church used by Father Ashton in Baltimore was an unfinished building, begun by an Irishman named Fotterall. It stood near the present site of Battle Monument, now the centre of civic and commercial activity. It was the first brick building in Baltimore. Finding it abandoned, some Acadian refugees occupied the upper portion which was still habitable. Father Ashton said Mass in the lower room, although the hogs which had taken possession of it had first to be driven out. The priest brought his vestments with him, a rude altar was erected. The faithful never numbered more than forty, and consisted chiefly of Acadians and a few Irish. This is the first Baltimore congregation of the Society of Jesus in 1759. He was first employed in the missions of Yorkshire, England. He must have been a man of business capacity, as at the assembly of the clergymen of Maryland and Pennsylvania, which convened at Whitemarsh, in 1784, he was unanimously elected procurator-general, whose duty it was to preside over the management of the various estates of the clergy. Subsequently in 1788, he was appointed to superintend the building of Georgetown College.

T. J. CAMPBELL

Ven. Roger Ashton

Martyr, third son of Richard Ashton of Croston, in Lancashire. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn, 23 June, 1592. His indictment is not preserved. Challoner says it was for procuring a dispensation from Rome to marry his second cousin. Later evidence, while confirming this, shows that it was not the only cause. In 1585 he had gone to serve in the Low Countries under the Earl of Leicester against the Spaniards. Sir William Stanley having been placed on guard over the town of Deventer, which had revolted from the Spaniards, he, with the assistance of Ashton, gave the town back to Spain and went offer to their side (29 January, 1587). Cardinal Allen published a “Defence” of this act in the form of a letter addressed to one “R.A.,” whose letter to the Cardinal prefixed and under these initials it seems natural to recognize our martyr. Stanley next entrusted to Ashton the difficult task of bringing over his wife from Ireland, but she was already under arrest, and he is said to have been sent Ashton to Rome. At the close of the year 1587 he returned to England and was apprended in Kent with the marriage dispensation already mentioned. In January, 1588, he was in the Tower, where he lay ill towards the close of the year, when he was transferred to easier confine ment in the Mashalsea. From this he managed to escape and fled to his brothers in Lancashire. He was seized later, at Shields near Newcastle, while trying to escape over the seas. Transferred thence to Durham and York, he was tried and sentenced at Canterbury, and died “very resolute,” making profession of his faith and “. . . . pitied of the people,” though the infamous Topcliffe tried to stir up ill-feeling against him by enlarging on his services to Spain.

PATRICK RYAN

Asia

In the present article it is intended to give a rapid survey of the geography, ethnography, political and religious history of Asia, and especially of the rise, progress, and actual condition of Asiatic Christianity and Catholicism. For further information concerning the religious conditions of the various Asiatic countries, the reader is referred to the special articles on the subject in this Encyclopedia.

Asia is the largest of the continents, having a geographic area of about 17,000,000 square miles, or about one-third of the whole of the dry land. It is also the oldest known portion of the globe, the earliest known seat of civilization, and, in all probability, the cradle of the human race, although scholars differ as to whether the primitive home of mankind should be located in South-western Asia, and more particularly in the Tigris-Euphrates valley, as the Biblical tradition of Genesis seems to indicate, or rather in Central Asia, and more particularly in the Indo-Iranian plateau. On the north, Asia is bounded by the Arctic Ocean; on the east, by the Pacific Ocean; on the south by the Indian Ocean, and on the West by Europe, the Black Sea, the Greek Archipelago, the Mediterranean, and the Red Sea. It is united with Africa by the desert Isthmus of Suez, and with Europe by the Caucasus Mountains and the long Ural range.

The physical features of Asia, owing to its immense geographical area, are of great diversity. There we meet the most extensive lowlands, the most extensive table-lands, and at the same time with the highest chains of mountains, and the most elevated summits in the world. About two-thirds of its area is table-lands, and the other third mountainous regions, some of which are covered with perpetual snow. The lowland sections may be divided into six distinct regions, namely: (1) The Siberian lowland, which is by far the largest, and for the most part gloomy and barren; (2) the Bucharistan lowland, situated between the Caspian Sea and Lake Aral, a wide sterile waste; (3) the Syro-Arabian lowland, partly sterile and partly extremely productive and fertile; (4) the Hindustan lowland, of about 500,000 square miles, comprising the great valley of the Ganges, and very fertile; (5) the Indo-Chinese lowlands, including the regions of Cambodia and Siam; and (6) the Chinese lowland, extending from Peking as far as the Tropic of Cancer, with about 220,000 square miles, and extremely fertile. Asia is poor in lakes but very rich in rivers, the most famous of which are the Tigris and the Euphrates, the Indu with its many tributaries, the Brahmaputra, the Ganges, the Irrawaddy, the Sal-win, the Me-nam, the Me-kong, the Hong-kiang, the Yang-tze-kiang, , the Hwang-ho, or Yellow River, the Amur, and the many river-systems of Siberia. On account of its vast extent and diversity of climate, the mineral, vegetable, and animal products of Asia are naturally varied, rich, and almost unlimited.

Geographically, Asia may be divided into four great regions: (1) Northern Asia, or Asiatic Russia, which includes Siberia, Caucasia, and the Aral-Caspian Basin, i. e., Russian Turkostan, the Turkoman country, Kiva, Bokhara, and the region of the upper Oxus; (2) Eastern Asia, comprising China, Mongolia, Korea, and Japan; (3) Southern Asia, comprising India, Indo-China, and Siam; (4) South-western Asia, comprising the famous historic lands of Persia, Media, Babylonia, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, and Arabia.

Politically, Asia is divided as follows: (1) Russian Empire, including Siberia and as far west as the borders of Turkey, Persia, and Turkistan, and as far south as the Chinese Empire; (2) Chinese Empire, including Mongolia, Manchuria, and Tibet; (3) Japanese Empire; (4) India proper, or British Empire; (5) Siam; (6) Indo-China under French dominion; (7) Afghanistan; (8) Persia; and (9) Asiatic Turkey, which comprises all Irak and Mesopotamia, Kurdistan, Armenia, Asia Minor, Syria and Arabia. The entire population of Asia (according to the statistics of 1900) is estimated at about 800,000,000, or more than half the entire population of the earth, and divided as follows: Asiatic Russia, 24,947,500; China, 330,829,900; Korea, 9,670,000; Japan, 46,494,000; Indo-China, 15,590,000; Siam, 6,320,000; India, 302,831,700; Afghanistan, 4,550,000; Persia, 9,000,000; Asiatic Turkey, including Arabia, 19,126,500.

Ethnographically, the population of Asia may be reduced to three great groups, or races, viz: (1) the Mongolian, or Turania, to which belong all the inhabitants of the whole Northern Asia, and as far south as the plains bordering the Caspian Sea, including China, Tibet, the Indo-Malayan peninsula, Japan, Korea, and the Archipelago, making by far the largest part of the population of Asia. The Mongolian race is characterized by its yellow skin, black eyes and hair, flat nose, oblique eyes , short stature with little hair on the body and face. (2) The Aryan, or Indo-Iranian group, to which the great majority of European peoples belong. It extends over the whole of Southern and part of Western Asia, embracing the Hindus, the Iranians, the Medo-Persians, the Armenians, the Caucasians, and the inhabitants of Asia Minor. (3) The Semitic, which extends over the whole of South-western Asia, and comprises the Arabs, the Assyro-Babylonians or Mesopotamians, the Syrians, the Jews, and the entire Mohammedan population of Asiatic Turkey.

The numerous languages spoken in Asia may be roughly classified as follows: (1) The Turanian branch, to which belong the Mongolian, the Manchu, the Chinese, the Japanese, the old Turkish, and Tatar. (2) The Aryan or Indo-Iranian, to which belong most of the hundred and twenty languages and dialects of India, especially the old Sanskrit, the Iranian, or old Persian, which is the language of the Avesta, and of the old Archemænian inscriptions, the Armenian, the Georgian, and a considerable part of modern Persian. (3) The Semitic group, to which belong the ancient languages of the Assyrians and Babylonians, the various, but mostly extinct, old Chanaanitish dialects, the Hebrew, the Phoenician, the numerous eastern and western Aramaic dialects, known as Syriac, and represented nowadays by the modern Chaldean and neo-Syrian dialects used by the Nestorians of Kurdistan, Persia, and Mesopotamia, and finally Arabic, which in various forms and dialects is spoken throughout Arabia and by the great majority of the Mohammedan populations of Hindustan, Persia, Mesopotamia, and Syria, as well as by most of the Christians of the two last-mentioned countries.

HISTORY OF ASIA

At what period man first made his appearance in Asia we do not know, although there have been various and conflicting theories as to when that even took place. The general opinion now entertained by scholars is that somewhere from the fifth and seventh millennium B. C., Asia was chiefly peopled by two great races, viz., the Semitic and the Mongolian or Turanian. The former occupied the south-west portion of Asia, that is to say, the lands lying on the south-east corner of the Mediterranean and contiguous to the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, including Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Arabia, and the extensive regions watered by the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris, afterwards composing the two mighty empires of Babylonia and Assyria; the latter occupied the regions of Northern and Eastern Asia, stretching inward from the coast of the Pacific Ocean, and including Japan, China, and the districts to the west and south contiguous to China. At about the same period some of the Turanian tribes of Northern and Central Asia pressed their way to the west, invaded Persia, and pushed as far south-west as the Persian Gulf and Babylonia, where they soon overcame the native Semites, subjugating them to their rule and power, and forcing upon them their own Turanian religion and civilization. The existence and supremacy of this Turanian element in the southern part of the Tigris-Euphrates valley is historically attested by the old Babylonian inscriptions, by their system of writing, language, civilization, and governing dynasties. Scholars have given the name Turanians, or Akkadians, or better Sumerians, to this foreign invading element, and they are all agreed that their power and authority remained uncontested for about a thousand years, i. e., till about the beginning of the third millennium B. C., when the native Semitic Babylonians, aided perhaps by numerous Semitic immigrants from Arabia and Chanaan into Babylonia, overthrew the Sumerian power, uniting North and South Babylonia into several Semitic confederations, and, later on, into one united Semitic Babylon.

At the same time various Semitic nationalities began to develop in Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Chanaan. Toward the second half of the first millennium B. C., Assyrian power made its first appearance, and successfully contested with Babylonia the supremacy over Western Asia. Toward 1200 B. C. the Israelitish tribe invaded and settled in Chanaan. In 605 B. C., Ninive, the capital of the Assyrian Empire, fell by the hands of Nabupalassar, of Babylonia, and Cyaxares, of Media; and with its fall the powerful Assyrian Empire came to an end. Less than a century later Babylon itself was captured by Cyrus (538 B. C.) and the whole of Western Asia passed under the Medo-Persian power of Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius, till the time of the triumph of the Macedonian army under Alexander the Great (330 B. C.). After the Selucidæ, Western Asia passed into the power of the Parthian, Arsacid, and Sassanian dynasties of Persia, and remained so until the advent and the seeping triumph of the Mohammedan armies in the seventh century of the Christian era. While the Sassanian kings held their power and authority over the whole region east of the Euphrates, the Romans had absolute power over Syria, parts of northern Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor. Arabia, on the other hand, had successfully resisted permanent foreign encroachments, and the numerous tribes of that peninsula continued to be governed by their own sheikhs, princes, and kings. The Southern Arabia kingdoms, those of Yemen, Himyar, Saba, and Ma’an, were in continuous struggle against one another and especially against the Abyssinians of Ethiopia. Towards the middle of the seventh century of the Christian era, the Mohammedan armies, having united the numerous Arab tribes into one Mohammedan Arabia, crossed into Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Persia. In less than fifty years the whole of Western Asia was completely reduced by the Moslem armies, and remained so until about the middle of the thirteenth or the opening of the fourteenth century, when Tatar and Mongolian armies of the terrible Ghengis Khan, Temur Lang, and their successors swept over all Western Asia, overthrowing the Abbasic dynasty in Irak, and that of the Seljuks in Asia Minor. Soon after, Western Asia passed into the power of the Ottoman Turks who have succeeded in maintaining their authority intact over the same regions till our own day.

The Mongolian tribes of Northern Asia seem to have grown as early as the second millennium B. C. into various kingdoms and nationalities, such as the Chinese, the Japanese, the Tatars, with their distinct kingdoms and dynasties. The history and the development of these north and east Asiatic kingdoms are, comparatively speaking, of little importance for the international history of civilized Asia, inasmuch as their power and influence did not materially or permanently affect the development and the destinies of the near East. Even the Tatar and Turcoman hordes, who for the last six centuries have held under their sway the destinies of Western Asia, soon adopted the Mohammedan religion and civilization.

Unlike their European brethren, the Aryan tribes of Southern Asia and Iran did not play a very important part in the pages of history. With the exception of the conquest of Babylonia by the Iranian conqueror Cyrus and the supremacy of Sassanian dynasties over the east half of Western Asia the Indo-Iranian tribes of South and west-Central Asia developed no particularly remarkable kingdoms or power. The earliest event of Hindu historical chronology does not date farther back than 1400 B. C., and possibly later. It is the war of Mahabharat, the story of which is contained in a poem written about 500 B. C., that forms a part of the epic literature of ancient India. The accounts of antecedent periods are manifestly mythical, and merely indicate the probability of the gradual process of conquering Brahmanic races from west to east. From that time down to the beginning of the nineteenth century, India was governed by various native and Mogul dynasties; and toward the beginning of the last century it passed into the power of England.

RELIGIONS OF ASIA

The principal religions of Asia are: Brahmanism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Zorastrianism, Mohammedanism, Judaism and Christianity.

Brahmanism is the oldest known and prevailing religious system of India, counting 210,000,000 Hindu adherents.

Buddhism (from Buddha, the “wise,” the “enlightened”), owes its origin to Gautama, otherwise called Sakya Muni (i. e. the Sakya sage), who flourished toward the middle of the sixth century B. C. It is by far the widest-spread religion in Asia, counting more than 400,000,000 adherents, 300,000,000 of whom are in China, where it is the chief of the three recognized religions. Its other followers are found in Siberia, Korea, Japan, and India (Ceylon and Burma).

Reformed Buddhism is a recent development in China and Japan, and it plainly shows the influence of Christianity.

Confucianism is one of the three chief religions of China, the other two being Buddhism and Taoism. Confucianism is a system of philosophy rather than religion. It is the official religion of the State, and the basis of the social and political life of the Chinese nation.

Taoism is the third recognized religion of China. It takes its name from that of its founder, Lauo-tsze, or Lâo-tse, which lived in the sixth century before the Christian Era. Taoism as a religious system has degenerated from its high original mysticism into a system of superstitious observances, and so forms the accepted religion of the lowest and most ignorant class of Chinese, counting about 100,000,000 adherents. It also has many followers in Cochin-China and Japan.

Zoroastrianism is the religion of the ancient Iranians and Persians. Its founder was Zoroaster, the great prophet of Iran, who flourished toward the sixth century B. C. Once a very powerful religion, Zoroastrianism has almost vanished before Islamism, counting nowadays only a few thousand followers in Persia and India.

Mohammedism in Asia

Mohammedanism, or Islamism, is one of the three great Semitic religions, the other two being Judaism and Christianity. No accurate statistics have as yet been taken of the Mohammedan population of the world. The latest approved estimate, however, places the number at a little over two hundred millions. Of these, sixty million are in Africa, and most of the rest in Asia as follows: 18,000,000 in Asiatic Turkey; 30,000,000 in China; 60,000,000 in India and Burmah; 31,000,000 in the Malay Archipelago; and the rest in Persia, Afghanistan, Caucasia, and Russian Turkistan. In the Mindanao kingdom and in the Sulu group of the Philippine Islands there are about 360,000 and 250,000 Mohammedans, respectively. The relations of Mohammedanism to Oriental Churches and Christianity are discussed in the article , and in the articles on the various Oriental Churches. (See also .)

Judaism in Asia

Toward the twelfth century before the Christian Era, we find the Hebrews permanently settled in Palestine. The earliest known Hebrew migrations from Palestine occurred during the reign of Sargon, King of Assyria (722–705 B. C.), who having in 722 captured Sumeria, the capital of the northern Israelitish kingdom, transported 27,000 Samaritan Hebrews to Syria and the frontiers of Media. A century and a half later, Nabuchodonosor, King of Babylon (605–562 B. C.) carried off from Jerusalem into Babylonia some twenty thousand Jews. Soon after his capture of Babylon, Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to Palestine. The poorest class returned, but the most prosperous families remained in the land of their exile, where they soon rose to great social and financial prosperity. Towards 350 B. C. Artaxerxes Ochus deported to Hyrcania a group of Jews that had revolted. Upon the triumph of the Macedonian army, and under the successors of Alexander the Great, great numbers of Jews migrated into Egypt. After the overthrow of the last Jewish kingdom, and following the fall of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the temple at the hands of the Romans, Judaism at large passed beyond the limits of its ancient centres, and began to spread over Egypt, North Africa, and Western Asia. During the first five centuries of the Christian era, we find numerous Jewish colonies scattered all over Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Assyria, Babylonia, Media, and as far as South Arabia. In the last-mentioned country they obtained political supremacy for a while, under the Himyarire King Dh=A3-Nuw=A0s. In Southern Babylonia, especially during the Sassanian dynasty of Persia, they acquired great ascendancy, with very flourishing religious and educational centres, such as the famous academies of Sura, Nehardea, Pumbadita, and Mahuza, whence sprang the Babylonian Talmud.

With the advent of Islam, however, and the rapid conquest of the Mohammedan armies, Judaism suffered greatly in Arabia, and in all the newly conquered provinces. Its followers were almost always harshly and severely dealt with by the Moslems, although under the reign of several Abbasid caliphs they were kindly treated. The Byzantine emperors, on the one hand, were anything but friendly to them; and its noteworthy that, although in the first three centuries of Christianity the Jews were the first to become Christian proselytes, nevertheless the two religions developed afterwards the most lamentable antagonism which lasted for a great many centuries. Notwithstanding the many persecutions to which they had to submit, the Jews have persevered their racial and religious unity in various countries in Asia, where they are divided as follows: 65,000 in Asia Minor; 90,000 in Syria and Palestine; 70,000 in Mesopotamia and Irak; 60,000 in Arabia; 58,000 in the Caucasus; 35,000 in Siberia; 8,000 in Ferghana; 9,000 in Bokhara; 2,000 in Khiva; 3,000 in Aden; 15,000 in British India; 2,000 in Afghanistan; 25,000 in Persia; 1,000 in China, and 500 in various other countries, making a total of about 450,000, or less than half a million.

Christianity in Asia

Asia is the cradle and the primitive home of Christianity; for it was in its extreme south-western borders, i. e., in Palestine, the home of the Chosen People, that the Founder of Christianity chose to appear, to live, and to preach the New Dispensation. Soon after Jesus’ death, his Apostles and Disciples actively began the evangelization of the world, and tradition tells us that the Apostles went to different localities; some to Palestine, others to Asia Minor, some to Greece and Rome, others to Mesopotamia, Armenia, Babylonia, Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia, and even as far as India. Palestine and Syria, however, were naturally the first recipients of the new religion, and here, the Jewish communities furnished the first nucleus of Christian proselytes. From Syria, Christian propaganda spread into Phoenicia and Asia Minor, and through the effective preaching of St. Paul, it penetrated into the principal cities of the Mediterranean coast and Asia Minor, crossing the borders of Asia and reaching into the very heart of the Roman Empire. From the Acts of the Apostles it can be conclusively shown that as early as the second half of the first century of the Christian Era, Christian communities existed in the following Asiatic cities: Jerusalem (Acts, passim), Damascus (Acts ix), Samaria and the Samaritan villages (Acts, viii), Lydda (ix), Joppe (ib.), Cæsarea in Palestine (Acts, x), Antioch in Syria (xi), Tyre (xxi), Sidon (xxvii), Tarsus (ix, xi, xv), Salamina in Cyprus (xiii), Perge in Pamphilia (xiii, xiv), Iconium (xiii, xiv), Lystra (xiv), Derbe (xiv), several unnamed localities in Galacia (Gal. 1, I Peter, i), in Cappadocia (I Peter, i), Ephesus (Acts, and Paul’s Epp.), Laodicea (Paul’s Epp.), Hierapolis in Phygia (Paul’s Epp.), Smyrna (Apoc.), Sardis (ib.), Philadelphia in Lydia (ib.), Thyatira in Lydia (ib.), and very probably also in Ashdod in Philistia, Seleucia, Attalia in Pamphilia, Amphipolis, Apolonia, Assus, Malta, and other islands of the Mediterranean. From Syria and Asia Minor the activity of the early Christian missionaries spread north, south, east, and west through Edessa, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Assyria, Babylonian, Media, Persia, Arabia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Africa, Greece, Italy, , and the West. As regards Asia, we have historical evidence that towards the middle of the second century, Christian communities were established also in Edessa, various cities of Mesopotamia, along the Tigris and the Euphrates, Melitene, Magnesia, Tralles in Caria, Philomelium in Pisidia, Parium in Mysia, Nicomedia, Otris, Hierapolis, Pepuza, Tymion, Ardaban, Apamea, Cumane, and Eumanea in Phrygia, Ancyra in Galatia, Sinope, Amastris in Pontus, Debeltum in Thrace, Larissa in Thessalia, Myra in Lycia, etc. (See Harnack, Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, II, 240, sqq.). From the signatures of the various Asiatic bishops who assisted at the Council of Nicea (325) we have conclusive evidence that towards the year 300, and in fact considerably earlier, there existed in the following Asiatic provinces and cities not only Christian communities, but also well organized churches, diocese, and ecclesiastical centres: Jerusalem, Cæsarea, Samaria-Sebaste, Lydda-Diospolis, Joppe, Saron, Emmaus-Nicopolis, Sichem-Neapolis, Scythopolis, Jamnia, Azotus, Ascalon, Gaza, Gadara, Capitolias, Bethlehem, Anea, Anim and Jattir, Bethabara, Sycar-Asker, Batanea, Pheno, and many other episcopal sees in Asia Minor, Cyprus, Syria, Palestine, Arabia, Edessa, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, etc. In the last three mentioned regions, in fact, we have positive traces of fully organized dioceses and churches as early as the first half of the third century, with many illustrious saints and martyrs.

In the fourth, fifth, and sixth, and the beginning of the seventh century, until the rise of Islam, Christianity became the dominant and generally accepted religion of Western Asia, with the exception of Arabia. The Christian Church, however, was subject politically to two mighty rival powers, the Roman and the Persian. To the first of these, the whole of Palestine, Syria, North-west Arabia, west-Euphratean Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor were subject; while to the latter belonged east-Euphratean Mesopotamia, North-east Arabia, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Media. The endless rivalries and wars of these two powers proved indeed fatal to the progress of Christianity and to the permanent unity of the two great Christian Churches, the Roman and the Persian. These obstacles notwithstanding, the Christian Church of Persia, from its very beginning down to the middle of the fifth century, was dependent on the Patriarch of Antioch and consequently in communion with Rome, although it had its own metropolitan, the great Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in Babylonia. But the Nestorian and Monophysite heresies of the fifth centuries broke this union asunder. Nestorianism, unable to gain any permanent footing in Syria, Asia Minor, and the West, found a strong ally and defender in the Sassanian kings of Persia and in the Mesopotamia Church, which, towards the end of the fifth century, had already completely estranged itself from Antioch and Rome, and had become an independent national church, having as its ecclesiastical head the great Catholicos of the East, i. e., of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. In the meanwhile, Monophysitism began to rage in Syria, Armenia, Arabia, and Mesopotamia alike, forming thus another independent heretical Church. Soon after, the Nestorian and Monophysite churches of Western Asia prospered and developed to such an extent as to complete in greatness and influence with most Christian churches, the Roman excepted.

With the advent is Islam, however, and the rapid conquest of the Mohammedan armies (seventh century), Christianity in Arabia, Mesopotamia, Persia, Armenia, Syria, and Asia Minor suffered most severely. Soon after the death of Mohammed, all these provinces fell, one after the other, into the hands of the Moslems, who threatened, for a while, the entire extinction of Christianity in Western Asia. Thanks however, to the tolerant attitude of the majority of the Umayyad, and the Abbasid caliphs of Damascus and Bagdad respectively, Christianity in the Mohammedan empire rose gradually to a new and unprecedented life and vigour, and in the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries the Nestorian and Monophysite churches, but especially the first, reached their highest degree of prosperity. Nestorian and Jacobite theologians, philosophers, and men of letters soon became the teachers of the conquering Arabs, and the pioneers of Islamo-Arabic science, civilization, and learning. Nestorian physicians became the attending physicians of the court, and the Nestorian patriarch and his numerous bishops were regarded in Asia as second to none in power and authority. From Western Asia, Nestorianism spread into India, Ceylon, Socotra, and the Malabar Coast, China, Mongolia and Tatary, where it soon became extremely influential and possessed numerous churches and well-organized bishoprics. So that as early as the ninth and tenth centuries, the jurisdiction of the Nestorian Catholicos of Seleucia extended over Central, Southern, west-Central and South-western Asia, as far as Syria, Arabia, Cyprus, and Egypt, and had more than two hundred subordinate bishops and metropolitans. In the meanwhile, the Monophysite church held sway in Syria, Egypt, north Mesopotamia, and Armenia, where it developed strength, if not equal, certainly not very inferior, to that of the Nestorian.

In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Tatar invasions and devastations in Central and Western Asia put an end to Arabic domination, dealing, at the same time, a deadly blow to both the Nestorian and the Jacobite Churches, and causing havoc and consternation among Asiatic Christians in general. Hundreds and thousands of these Christians were massacred, their churches and monasteries ruined, and a great number of the wavering compelled to renounce their faith and embrace Mohammedanism. The weakened condition of both the Nestorian and Jacobite Churches paved the way to their return to the Catholic Faith, and many of their patriarchs and bishops, thanks to the incessant and salutary work of early Catholic missionaries, asked to be once more united with Rome as of old. The stream of conversions became more pronounced and rapid during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and has continued so till our own day. Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite, and Jesuit missions were established all over Asia with the result that a large number of Nestorians and Monophysites have long since renounced their heretical creeds and embraced Catholicism. The same gratifying movement took place in the schismatic Greek Church of Syria and Asia Minor, as well as in the Monophysite Church of Armenia.

Actual Condition of the Christian Church

The history of Catholicism in Asia is intimately connected with the rise and progress of the Asiatic missions. The merit of first having disclosed to the West, and to Rome in particular, the mysterious and impenetrable East as well as the conditions of Oriental Christianity undoubtedly belongs to the Crusades. Profiting by this information, and ever solicitous of the welfare of the Church of Christ, the popes were the first to seize the opportunity for a propaganda in the Far, as well as in the near East. Towards the end of the fourteenth century, Innocent IV, Gregory X, and Honorius II, sent the Franciscan missionaries, Lorenzo of Portugal, Giovanni Piano de Carpine, Wilhelm Ruysbrock (de Rubuquis), Giovanni of Cremona, and others, as their representative delegates to the great Mogul, Kublai Khan, on behalf of the Oriental Christians. In 1306, the Franciscan, Giovanni di Montecorvino, was sent by Benedict IX on a similar mission to China, where he was subsequently appointed bishop with seven auxiliary bishops by Clement V, and where he died in 1330. In 1318, the Dominican Francesco di Peruga was appointed Bishop of Sultania, in Tatary, by Pope John XXII, and in 1321–28, another Dominican missionary, Giodano Catalini, accompanied by three Franciscan friars, made two successful journeys to India, to the coast of Malabar, the Ceylon, and to China. In 1323 the Franciscan, Odorico di Pordenone, visited Ceylon, Java, Borneo, Kahn-Balikh, Tibet, and Persia, returning in 1331, after having baptized more than 20,000 pagans. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the Franciscan friars who were appointed by the popes as the official guardians of the sanctuaries of Jerusalem, and of the Holy Land, began to extend their missionary activity to North Syria, North-west Mesopotamia, and Egypt, while the Carmelites advanced into Mesopotamia, Babylonia and Persia. In 1501, the Franciscan, Enrico of Coimbra, accompanied the Portuguese, Alvarez Cabral, into Calicut, Cochin, Goa, and Cranganore; and in 1521 Catholic missionaries first penetrated into the Philippine Islands. During the years 1541–45, St. Francis Xavier evangelized India, the coasts of Malabar and Travancore, and Ceylon; in 1545, Malacca; in 1546 the Moluccas; from 1549–51, Japan, and in 1551, on his way to China, he died, after an apostolic career not less wonderful and unique than successful and rich in results.

With the mission of St. Francis Xavier in India, and the founding of the Society of Jesus, there began a new era for Catholic missionary enterprise, an era of indomitable zeal and exceptional success. Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans and Carmelites were now eagerly vying with one another for the Christianization of Asia. Naturally enough, the numerous Nestorian, Jacobite, Armenian, and Greek schismatic communities and churches scattered through the Turkish dominion in Syria, Asia Minor, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and through Persia attracted their attention; and thanks to their noble missionary effort and their zeal, great numbers of schismatic Orientals with their bishops, priests, and monks joined the Catholic Church. Catholic missions and schools, seminaries and churches, hospitals, and other charitable institutions were established among all these schismatic Oriental Churches in Asiatic Turkey and Persia, as well as among the heathen in China, India, Korea, Siam, Cochin-China, and Japan. Soon after, Catholic dioceses of the Latin Rite, Apostolic Prefectures and Apostolic delegations were created and permanently established, with the gratifying result that now, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Catholic Church is seen firmly established in every Asiatic region, side by side with Brahminism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Mohammedanism, Judaism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, the schismatic Greek Church, and Protestantism.

The Oriental Churches of Western Asia (Turkey and Persia), however, are for us of particular interest, as they represent old and venerable national Churches, having their own hierarchy, rites, liturgical languages and usages, and ecclesiastical discipline, which had, as early as the fifth century, separated themselves from the church of Rome. They represent what we usually call the oriental churches, and are divided as follows: (1) The Nestorian church, extended over Babylonia and Chaldea, Mesopotamia and Assyria, Kurdistan, Persia, and the coast of Malabar in India. (2) The Jacobite Church (Monophysite) which extends over Syria, North-west Mesopotamia, Assyria, and Malabar. (3) The Armenian Church (Monophysite) which extends over the whole of Assyria, Persia, Asia Minor, and part of Syria. (4) The Maronite church, which is a branch of the Syrian Church, and extends over Mount Lebanon and Syria. (5) The Greek Church, scattered over Syria, Phoenicia, and Asia Minor. Another church, generally referred to as an Oriental church, is the Coptic, or Abyssinian, which, being restricted to African soil, must be here omitted. It must be noted, however, that each of the above-mentioned Oriental Churches, the Maronite excepted, which is entirely Catholic, is divided into two independent branches, or Churches; the one Catholic and in communion with Rome; the other schismatic and separated from Rome; each, however, having its own patriarch, bishops, priests, and local churches. They may be classified as follows:

I. Nestorian Church

Schismatic Nestorians, or simply Nestorians.

Catholic Nestorians, commonly called Chaldeans.

II. Jacobite Church (Monophysite)

Schismatic Jacobites, or simply Jacobites

Catholic Jacobites, commonly called Catholic Syrians, or simply Syrians.

III. Armenian Church (Monophysite)

Schismatic Armenians

Catholic Armenians

IV. Maronite Church (All Catholic)

V. Greek Church

Schismatic Greeks, or Orthodox Greek

Catholic Greeks, commonly called Græco-Melchite Church, or simply Melchite

The Catholic branch of each of these Oriental Churches, although united with Rome, preserves, in common with its sister schismatic branch, its own primitive, original rite, liturgy, and its own ecclesiastical discipline and privileges, the maintenance of which has been scrupulously prescribed and insisted upon by the Roman pontiffs, under penalty of suspension and excommunication; no clerical or lay member being allowed to change his rite without a special dispensation of the Holy See.

CATHOLICISM IN ASIA

Asiatic Turkey. The entire Christian population of Asiatic Turkey is 3,649,882, of which 692,431 are Catholics, 97,370 Protestants, and the remaining schismatics. They may be classified as follows: Asia Minor: 6,423 Catholic Armenians; 193,416 Schismatic Armenians; 994,922 Schismatic Greeks; 2,079 Jacobites; 5,838 Latins, and 3,400 Protestants. Armenia and Kurdistan: 51,306 Catholic Armenians; 712,842 Schismatic Armenians; 8,600 Chaldeans; 92,000 Nestorians; 572 Jacobites; 353,762 Schismatic Greeks; 2 Latins, and 61,256 Protestants. Mesopotamia: 36,320 Chaldeans; 13,990 Syrians; 27,754 Jacobites; 11,670 Catholic Armenians; 61,590 Schismatic Armenians; 1,993 Latins; 340 Greek Melchites; 9,325 Schismatic Greeks, and 11,194 Protestants. There are also 308,740 Maronites; 141,219 Melchites; 304,230 Schismatic Greeks; 19,459 Catholic Armenians; 23,834 Schismatic Armenians; 1,865 Chaldeans; 25,632 Syrians; 47,805 Jacobites; 39,034 Latins; and 21,520 Protestants in Palestine, Phoenicia, and Syria as far north and west as the Euphrates, or a total of 308,740 Maronites; 141,559 Melchites; 1,662,239 Schismatic Greeks; 88,858 Catholic Armenians; 991,682 Schismatic Armenians; 46,785 Chaldeans; 92,000 Nestorians; 39,622 Syrians; 78,210 Jacobites; 46,867 Latins, and 97,370 Protestants. The population of Arabia is entirely Mohammedan, except in the sea port of Aden, where there is an Apostolic vicariate with about 1,500 Christians.

Persia. There are in Persia 20,000 Chaldeans; 50,500 Nestorians; 5,035 Catholic Armenians; 81,654 Schismatic Armenians; 200 Latins; and about 2,670 Protestants. In Afghanistan there is not a single Christian church or any organized Christian community.

India. The number of Catholics in India, including Ceylon, is about 2,069,791, with 4,938 churches and chapels; 105 seminaries and colleges; 2,312 schools; 37 hospitals; 2,190 European missionaries; 1 patriarch (in Goa); 7 archbishops; 26 bishops; 3 Apostolic vicars and 3 Apostolic prefects. The number of the Jacobites is about 120,000, the Chaldeans (independent of the Chaldean Patriarch of Babylonia, although formerly dependent on him) about 100,000. The number of Protestants in India is about 700,000 (1889).

China. The Catholic population of China is about 820,000, governed by 39 Apostolic vicars, and 2 Apostolic prefects, with 955 European missionaries, having 4,067 churches and chapels, 90 colleges and seminaries, 4,067 schools and orphan asylums, and 62 hospitals. The number of Protestants, in 1900, is given by Warneck as 200,000.

Korea. There are in Korea 45,000 Catholics, with 1 bishop and 42 priests; Protestants (Methodists and Baptists) 7,000.

Japan. In Japan the Catholics number 60,500, with 1 archbishop (Tokio), 3 bishops (Nagasaki, Osaka, and Hakodate), and about 130 missionary priests. The number of Protestants is about 50,000 and that of the Orthodox Greek Russians, about 5,000 with 1 bishop.

Indo-China. (French Colony) 820,000 Catholics, with 410 missionary priests; 3,304 churches and chapels; 24 seminaries and colleges; 2,349 schools and orphan asylums, and 38 hospitals.

Philippine Islands. (American Colony). The entire population of the Philippines Islands is estimated at about seven millions, of which about 600,000 are wild tribes and pagans, about six millions Catholics, and the rest Mohammedans and pagans. The Catholic Church is governed by an Apostolic delegate, 1 archbishop, and 4 bishops with numerous secular and regular priests.

Asiatic Russia. The Christian population of Asiatic Russia is estimated at about fourteen millions, 75,000 of whom are Catholics, and the rest schismatic Greeks (Græco-Russian Church).

All of the above statistics are only approximately correct, as the various censuses so far as published are often doubtful, contradictory, and misleading. According to P. Pisani (Vacant, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, I, coll. 2096–2097), the entire population, according to their various religions and creeds, may be approximately classified as follows:

I.-Buddhists, 400,000,000; Brahmins, 200,000,000; Mohammedans, 100,000,000; other heathen religions, 80,000,000; Christians, 20,000,000; total 800,000,000.

II.-Protestants: In Western Asia, 85,000; India, 817,000; China and Korea, 210,000; Japan, 50,000; total, 1,162,000.

III.-Catholics: Asiatic Russia, 70,000 to 75,000; Asiatic Turkey and Persia, 700,000; India, 2,140,000; China, Korea, Japan, and Indo-China, 1,710,000; Philippine Islands, 6,000,000; total, 10,625,000.

GABRIEL OUSSANI

Asia Minor

The peninsular mass that the Asiatic continent projects westward of an imaginary line running from the Gulf of Alexandretta (Issus) on the Mediterranean to the vicinity of Trebizond (Trapezus) on the Black Sea. It is washed by three great seas, the Euxine (Black Sea) on the north, the Mediterranean on the south, and the Ægean on the west. It is located between 36°-42° north latitude and 26°-40° east longitude. The extreme length is about 720 miles and the extreme breadth about 420, though the average is 650 and 300 miles respectivelly. At its extreme western limit it almost touches the European mainland, from which it is separated for several miles by the narrow straits of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles (Hellespont) and by the small Sea of Marmora (Propontis) through which connecting waters the Mediterranean and the Black Sea are brought into mutual contact.

I. NAME

In remote antiquity it had no common designation, being known variously after the races or kingdoms that it included. The term “Asia” was soon popularized by the Romans for whom it meant only the populous and cultivated western sea-board, organized by them into a province, together with neighbouring territory (Mysia, Lydia, Caria, Phrygia) more or less civilized after the Græco-Roman ideas. The first writer to use the term Asia Minor is the Christian Orosius (Hist., I, 2, 10), about the year 400. The early Byzantine writers often refer to it as e mikrà ‘Asía, “Little Asia.” In Byzantine administration it came soon to be known under the somewhat elastic name of Anatolé or “rising sun,” i.e. “the East.” It was, politically speaking, “the Anatolic theme,” one of the twenty-nine provinces of the Byzantine empire from the seventh century to the eleventh century, when it became a Turkish land. Since then it has become officially known as Anatolia (Anadoli, Natolia, Nadolia), and as such constitutes an important part of Asiatic Turkey, is in fact the chief political and religious mainstay of the present Moslem constitution as far as it is based on Constantinople. Asia Minor is also known as “the Levant,” a Western (Italian and French) equivalent for Anatolia. This term, however, applies chiefly to the commercail and industrial centres of the southern and western coasts, though in ecclesiastical language and history it often includes both Egypt and the Holy Land. It was only gradually, and in response to divers influences and agencies, that under the name of Asia Minor were included the remote semi-Oriental territories of Cappadocia and Pontus, Cilicia and Lesser Armenia. Outside of Roman law and administration, their only element of earnest unity was in the Christian religion, and it is not at all insignificant that the first expression of a sense of close and solid relationship should come from a Christian philosopher historian, and precisely at the moment when the new religion had finally borne down in town and country all forms of opposition and apathy, and filled with a new spirit the exhausted races and now lifeless culture of past ages.

II. GEOGRAPHY

It is an elevated plateau, ranging in its surfaces from two to five thousand feet above the sea level, from which rise great mountain chains that run east and west with a certain regularity, while minor groups of mountains and isolated peaks of savage grandeur are widely scattered over the immense table-land. In extent Asia Minor covers about 270,000 square miles and is about the size of France, while in its main physical features it has often been compared with Spain. The mountains of the northern coast, or Pontic range, rise abruptly from the sea for a long distance, are broken by no good harbours, and fall gradually away towards the Bosphorus. Those of the southern or Taurus range run in an irregular line not far from the Mediterranean and form a natural barrier between the central highlands and the southern sea, broken only by the coastal plains of Pamphylia and Cilicia. Inland, the Anti-Taurus range and isolated peaks lift their huge walls from seven to ten thousand feet and render difficult the intercommunication of the inhabitants. Some of these peaks, like Mt. Argæus in Cappadocia (13,100) are of volcanic origin, and smaller cones with well-preserved craters are numerous. There are but few passes, usually at a great height, the most notable of them being the famous Gates of Cilicia (Pylæ Ciliciæ) at the easternmost extremity, a narrow gorge (3,300) between two lofty mountains, the only entrance from the plains of Syria, and therefore at all times the road followed by the Eastern conquerors of Asia Minor. At the extreme west the mountains descend gradually to the sea which they pierce with numberless headlands and projections that give rise to the system of bays and inlets in which Asia Minor has at all times found its chief resources and its most attractive charm.

Asia Minor is a rich field for the geologist. The immense central mass of Mt. Argæus in Cappadocia is largely cretaceous limestone, and elsewhere, south and west, calcareous rocks abound. The rivers carry off enormous quantities of this material which, as it hardens to travertine, forces them to shift their beds, petrifies vegetation, and sterilizes the surroundings. Igneous rocks are frequent, and there is still abundance of the Proconnesian and Phrygian marbles that once tempted the sculptors and builders of Pergamus and Rhodes. The mineral wealth is very great, but much neglected. The rivers are numerous and fall mostly into the Black Sea or the Mediterranean. But they are all sinuous and narrow, and as a rule very shallow. Moreover, falling from great interior heights, they become regularly torrential floods that carry away vast masses of alluvial matter, which they deposit in the sea, thereby filling up good harbours, converting into lakes ports once open, and pushing their deltas so far seaward that they become a menace to navigation. The lack of navigable rivers reaching well into the interior has always been a source of political and economic weakness for Asia Minor, and is perhaps the chief reason why in antiquity it never took on the character of a great united state. In later times this was much more deplorable, owing to the ruin of the once excellent system of Roman roads, the suspicions and unprogressive attitude of the Turkish authorities, and the decay of all the land-improvements made by the original native races, the Greeks of the coast and coastal valleys, the Romans of the imperial period, and the Byzantine population. The interior plateau has an average altitude of 3,500 feet, and stretches north-east by south-west a distance of 250 miles in length by 160 in breadth. Much of it is a treeless and barren waste covered with salt lakes or brackish pools, and with a stunted growth of saline brush, wormwood, sage, and fern. Yet it supports many nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes of Turcomans and Yuruks, who wander at will over these lonely wastes and undulating downs in search of pasturage and water for their vast flocks of sheep and goats, though in the hot summer months they seek the higher levels for purer air and the welfare of their flocks.

There are twenty-six lakes on this great plateau, some of which compare favourably with the great lakes of Switzerland, both for size and beauty. Hot medicinal springs are very numerous and form one of the distinctive features of the land. In general the climate is colder than that of the European peninsula within the same degrees of latitude, and is subject to greater extremes of temperature. One cause of the great extremes of cold and heat is the general lack of moisture; that of the clouds is intercepted by the tall mountains, north and south, while the discharge of all the rivers is only about one-third of the united volume of the rivers of France. The northern coast, between Constantinople and Sinope, is exposed to the cold blasts of unimpeded polar winds and to sultry summer heats; on the other hand, to the north-east the lofty peaks of the Caucasus intercept the cold winds from the steppes of Russia and permit the growth of magnificent forests and of wild fruit-trees in abundance. The western coast has a temperature somewhat lower than that of Greece, owing to the atmospheric currents developed by the countless headlands and inlets of the Ionian coast. The southern coast, sheltered from the north winds by the Taurus range, enjoys a warm and genial climate comparable to that of southern France, though its summer is very dry. On the central plateau the climate is affected by the elevation and aspect of the land, but chiefly by the scanty rainfall; in some places the blue sky remains for six or seven months unflecked by a single cloud. As a rule, the summer is exceedingly hot and the winter equally cold. Even on the coast malaria is endemic, owing to the stagnant pools, swamps, and marshy tracts formed by the shifting of river beds, inundations, and the formation of deltas. Moreover, the deforestation of the interior permits the contaminated air of the low-lying pestilential plains to be wafted freely over the central plateau. In respect to climate Asia Minor has greatly deteriorated since Roman antiquity, owing chiefly to the low-grade civilization of its Turkish population and its inefficiency of the civil administration.

The flora of Asia Minor is very varied, apart from the scanty vegetation of the inland plateau. The oak is found there in fifty-two varieties, half of which occur nowhere else. On the northern slopes of the central plateau grow the walnut, box, beech, ash, and other trees; the great forest of Ajakh-Dagh (Sea of Trees) is 120 miles long by 40 broad, and its trees exhibit generally a much larger growth than those of other lands under the same latitude. There are also great forests on all the northern slopes of the Black Sea ranges. On the southern slope of the Taurus, to an altitude of 6,000 feet, noble cedar groves grow and tower above the pines, firs, and junipers, while below them, gradually dropping to the sea, are broad belts of palm groves and aloes and other sub-tropical growths. In the eastern Pontic region and elsewhere the apple, pear, plum, and cherry grow wild; indeed, Asia Minor is said to be the native home of these fruit-trees, usually looked on as of Western origin. Oriental plane and cypress, quasi-sacred symbols of domestic comfort and of human sorrow, are found everywhere. In the sheltered southern valleys the vine, fig, orange, lemon, and citron grow amid the rich aromatic shrubbery, and lend to the landscape the aspect of Sicily or the more favoured districts of southern France.

Several animal species, once indigenous to Asia Minor, have disappeared with the destruction of the inland forests. It is thought that like our domestic varieties of fruit trees, the sheep and the goat are also a gift of Asia Minor. The Angora goat, famous for its silky hair of which the mohair or so-called “cashmere” shawls are woven, is a Turkish importation of the eleventh or twelfth century (Tchihatcheff) and seems to have been unknown to the ancients. It is limited to the district of that name in Galatia, and the flocks, 400,000 to 500,000 head, are very difficult to acclimatize elsewhere than on these high plateaux; at any other place the quality of the fleece quickly deteriorates. The horses for which Asia Minor, particularly Cappadocia, was once famous have either disappeared or given way to another race, graceful, active,and hardy, but inferior to the present stock of Syria or Arabia; there are no longer any large cattle of fine breed. The one-humped camel is the chief means of transportation, especially on the uplands and in the remote eastern districts. Here he associates peaceably with the horse, and can bear with ease and security a pack of 250 pounds over the passes and rocky terraces. The introduction of the camel probably dates from the twelfth century and symbolizes the thorough substitution of Oriental life for the civilization of the West. A small debased breed of asses abounds, quite inferior to the fine donkeys of Syria or Egypt. Mules are also numerous, as pack-animals and means of transportation; according to an Homeric tradition the peninsula is the original home of the mule. [For a fuller account of the geography of Asia Minor see the classic work of Vivien de Saint Martin, quoted below, and Reclus-Keane, The Earth and its Inhabitants (New York, 1895), Asia Minor (Anatolia), IV, 241–343.]

III. HISTORY

From time immemorial Asia Minor has been the highway of nations crossing from east to west, and occasionally reversing their course. At the dawn of history, dimly seen Chalybes are working the iron ores of the Caucasus on the Black Sea, and close by are Iberians, Colchians and other tribes. At the other extremity Thracian tribes are flowing backward to their original haunts in Phrygia and Bithynia, while Semitic peoples begin the historical life of Cappadocia. From 1500 to 1000 B. C. the Hittites overran the land as far as the Halys and even as far as Smyrna and Ephesus; sculptures and rock-sanctuaries (Boghaz-Keuï in Cappadocia) still attest their presence. Before them Turanian peoples may have been long settled on the land. Inscribed and sculptured rock-surfaces and tombs in Lydia still puzzle the archæologist, historian, and philologist. From all such data it is impracticable to reconstruct, except in the broadest outline, “the periods of formation through which Asia Minor must have passed before it stands out in the full light of history with its division into numerous more or less independent states, its mixed population, its complicated combination of religions and cultures as different ast he races which originated them” (Ragozin). The fable of the Amazon state in the Thermodon valley seems to have originated in the female priesthood of the Hittite nature-goddess, Mâ, that the Greeks of the western coast eventually changed into Artemis (Diana of Ephesus). The modern discoveries of Schliemann and Dörpfeld at Hissarlik, on the site of ancient Troy, go far to confirm the reality of the main incidents in Homer and the traditional date (1200–1100 B. C.) of the siege and capture of the city of Priam. But it was not the Argives of Agamemnon who were destined to conquer Asia Minor for the ideas of Hellas. About the year 1100 B. C., numerous Greeks, fleeing before the Dorian invasion from the uplands of Epirus and Thessaly, began to move southward. Driven by these rude warlike invaders, they soon took to the open sea, and so eventually settled in the islands of the Archipelago and along the southern coast of Asia Minor wherever the river-mouths or the plains offered tempting sites for trade and enterprise. They found before them the kingdoms of Lydia and Caria with whose history Herodotus (I, 7–14) begins his account of the wars of the Greeks and Persians; for Asia, he says, with all the barbarian tribes that inhabit it, is regarded by the Persians as their own (ibid., I, 4). Thenceforth, from the ninth to the sixth century B. C., it is a long procession of Greeks (Ionians, Æolians, Dorians) who descend regularly on the shores of Asia Minor as traders, colonists, adventurers; above all, men of Ionian race. They build their city and sanctuary of Miletus near the shrine of the Lydian sun-god; they adopt other local deities, intermarry with the natives and establish soon an over-sea Greece whose development is the first great chapter in the history of the Western mind. (Sayce, The Ancient Empires of the East, London, 1884; Grote, History of Greece.) The earliest known coins (square-punched, electron) are of Lydian origin, belong to the seventh century B. C., and are perhaps a result of the mercantile intercourse of Greeks and natives. The oracle of Delphi now attracted the Lydian kings, “the first of the barbarians,” says Herodotus, “to send presents to that Greek temple,” and so along the lines of a common religion there sprang up an ever closer intercourse of both races.

About the middle of the sixth century B. C., a certain hegemony over most of the peninsula was established by Crœsus, King of Lydia, but this petted child of antique fortune was soon overthrown (548–546 B. C.) by the Persian Cyrus, after which for two centuries the entire land was an outlying province of Persia. In those days the exactions of the “Great King” fitted in with the ambition and patriotism of the Greeks of the mainland to bring about sympathetic wars in defence of the Asiatic Greeks and then in defence of the Hellenic fatherland (500–449 B. C.). These immortal efforts of the Greeks arrested forever the repeated overflow of Oriental arrogance and oppression, and made ready the way for the career of Alexander the Great who was destined to revenge on the Orient all the wrongs, supposed or real, of the Greeks of Asia Minor, and to open the career of European grandeur and progress. An uneasy and disturbed period followed, during which the Seleucid successors of Alexander pretended to dominate from Antioch the rich and easy prey of Asia Minor that had fallen to Alexander after the battles of the Granicus and of Issus (334–333 B. C.), fought respectively at either end of the peninsula. In this time arose the new kingdoms of Pontus, Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pergamus, and Cilicia partly Greek and partly native, also the interesting Celtic kingdom of Galatia founded (280 B. C.) by warlike adventurers from Gaul, and so organized by them that for the next six or seven centuries it bore the stamp of many peculiar Celtic institutions of their distant fatherland. Greek art, that had already flourished admirably in the Ionian islands and mainland centres of the south and south-west, now took on a fresh development forever connected with the little mountainous kingdom of Pergamus and its Greek rulers known as the Attalids, from Attalus, a favourite name of its kings. Then came the wars with republican Rome (190–63 B. C.), ending in the latter year with the defeat and death of the great Mithradates VI, “the Oriental defender of Greek liberties,” whereby Pontus and Bithynia, i.e. the shores of the Black Sea, were for a long time freed from the peril of Oriental domination. In general the first three centuries of Roman imperial administration were a period of peace and progress for Asia Minor. From the fourth to the seventh century the last long conflict of Eastern Rome with Persia went on, the vicissitudes of which were of no little importance to the great province across which the imperial armies and the warriors of Persia moved to and fro. The annihilation of Persian ambition by Emperor Heraclius (A. D. 610–641) only shifted the source of danger; henceforth the Arab and his successor, the Turk, take up the continuous challenge of the Orient, and finally make it good. Predatory Arab invasions from 672 to 717 were repelled with vigour from Constantinople, after which for over three centuries the land remained subject to the hereditary Byzantine rule, though during this period almost endless conflict with the Arab dynasties made the Christian buffer-state of Armenia a scene of unutterable woe, and even Asia Minor was constantly menaced by the children of the Prophet. In the end the bravery and military skill of the Macedonian emperors (867–1057) availed not against the continuous pressure of fresh hordes from the far East, and the middle of the eleventh century saw two fatal events, almost contemporaneous and intimately connected, the final separation of the Greek and Latin churches (1040), and the conquest of Asia Minor by Malek Shah and his Seljuk Turks (1058–71). After the death of Malek (1092) his children disputed and divided the splendid inheritance left by him. But Asia Minor, henceforth Rûm (i.e. Rome, the Turkish name of all Byzantine territory), did not pass from their control; they set up their thrones at Nicæa, Nicomedia, and eventually (1097) at Iconium (Koniah). The crusaders of the twelfth century usually took the great highway over Asia Minor, either entirely into Syria, or partly, to embark at ports on the southern coast. Here and there they set up a temporary rule, but could not sustain it against the inexhaustible multitude of the Turkish hordes and the treachery of the Greek emperors. For more than a century the Seljuks ruled Asia Minor, until the appearance of the Mongol hordes (1235). The over-lordship of the latter lasted for some sixty years, until about 1294, when the rule of the Ottoman Turk was inaugurated by the victories of Othman I, and the successful reigns of his three sons, Urkhan, Murad I, and Bajazet I. A ray of hope shone for the Christian Byzantines during the thirteenth century when the Empire of Nicæa (1204–1330) held Bithynia, Lydia, a part of Phrygia and the islands of the Archipelago, i. e. the western region of Asia Minor, and again in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries when the Empire of Trebizond (1204–1461) on the Black Sea nourished feebly the hopes of Greek Christians for a return of independence under the cross. But Nicæa fell and became an outpost of Ottoman conquest, and Trebizond scarcely survived the fall of Constantinople (1453). Both weak states had arisen as a protest against the Latin conquest of Constantinople (1204), and though they made the coast line Christian for three centuries, they were unable to loosen the grip of the Turkish hordes of “the Black Sheep” and others on the table-land of the interior. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the Genoese and Venetians established a commercial supremacy along the coasts of Asia Minor and in many of the islands. They left permanent memorials in military architecture (since then the Turks call ruins indiscriminately “Djenovessi kalessi” or Genoese castles), and especially in the commercial and maritime law, in business relations and methods, and in the class known henceforth as “Levantines.” But the mutual jealousies and rivalries of the Italian commercial republics, and their predominating secular aims, prevented any serious attempt to oust the Seljuk Turk from the high table-lands and eastern border. Ottoman rule and life spread rapidly, threatened only for a brief while by a new Mongol invasion under Tamerlane (1386–1402), and by the disastrous battle of Angora in the latter year (Creasy, History of the Ottoman Empire, new ed., London, 1882). In the end, however, Turkish fortune and courage prevailed, and permanent dominion over the peninsula was secured to the Osmanli by the capture of Constantinople in 1453, since which time save for a partial occupation by the Egyptian Mohammed Ali (1831–39) the Turk has held in peace this richest jewel of Mediterranean empire. As a rule, the inland Turk has cared only for fresh pasturage for his flocks. Ever moving from place to place with his countless sheep and goats, he has despised agriculture and the life of towns. Heedless of the future he has ruined all cultivation of the land, allowed its once perfect development to decay completely, and driven the Christian peasant of the Byzantine age to the mountains or the sea, when he has not induced him to adopt, with the normal life, the law of the Koran. It is the low-grade civilization of the steppes of Turkestan made permanent on the former site of supreme Hellenic refinement of life and of Christian sublimity of teaching and virtue. And it is universally admitted that only a recolonization from Europe can restore its original felicitous conditions. (Vivien de Saint Martin, “Déscription historique et géographique de l’Asie Mineure,” Paris, 1852; Heyd, “Geschichte des Levantenhandels,” Stuttgart, 1879, tr. into French by Reynaud, Paris, 1880–86).

The Roman Province.-Under the Roman rule, republican and early imperial, the numerous political entities that had sprung up in Asia Minor after the death of Alexander the Great disappeared rapidly and made way for a unity and efficiency of administration, a peace and prosperity, hitherto unknown. The little Greek kingdoms of Pergamus and Bithynia were left to Rome by the wills of their last kings; Cilicia, freed by Pompey from the pirates that infested its waters, was only too grateful for imperial protection; Pontus alone was won from Mithradates VI in a memorable war during which the Celts of Galatia sided with victorious Rome and reaped the reward of their good fortune in governmental favour. With their kings Deiotadrus and Amyntas, the line of Celtic rulers of Asia Minor closed; after the death of Amyntas (25 B. C.) Galatia became a Roman province. The last king of Cappadocia died in the reign of Tiberius, and the land was forthwith annexed. In this way a practical uniformity of government was introduced over the entire peninsula. Without doing violence to local customs or traditions, the imperial government assured to the provincials an administration at once responsible and equitable, of swift and thorough justice, of continuous peace, easy communication, protection to life and property and the fruits of honest industry. The wool-grower and the weaver of Ancyra, the gold-embroiderer of Attalia, and the sculptor of Diana statuettes in Ephesus were henceforth assured of permanent prosperity, and with them all the other callings and occupations of the most highly civilized part of the Mediterranean world. Manufactures and industries increased, and before the end of the second century Asia Minor had touched the scene of temporal felicity. Taxation, as everywhere in the empire, was close and minute, but not intolerable. Occasionally the taxes were remitted and in periods of public calamity (earthquakes, inundations) the public treasury came to aid the unhappy provincials. The revenues of the peninsula, deeply impaired by republican misgovernment, the Mithradatic wars, and the campaigns against the pirates, increased with rapidity; the fertile islands of the archipelago together with Crete and Cyprus, centuries ago hellenized in polity, tongue and civilized institutions, were bee-hives of industry. Rhodes, e.g., was the great workshop of Greek sculptors who continued, though in a decadent way, the glorious traditions of the Ionian and Pergamene ages. Every available piece of ground on the coast was intensely cultivated, as the pitiful wreckage of agricultural engineering yet shows, while in the interior the plains of Galatia were covered with goats and sheep, and those of Cappadocia with the finest breed of horses known to the ancients. That all the industrial virtues were highly cultivated is shown by a list of occupations drawn from Christian inscriptions of the fifth century (Cumont). They exhibit among other callings oil-dealers, scribes, greengrocers, potters, coppersmiths, skinners, mariners, money-changers, and goldsmiths. In the imperial period few new cities were added to the five hundred busy urban hives of the western coast, but Greek civilization went hand in hand with Roman law through the interior and was welcomed, e.g. in the mountains of uncouth Cappadocia and of rugged warlike Issauria where the Attalids and Seleucids had never been able to acclimatize it. For the better administration of justice the land was divided into a certain number of judicial districts (conventus juridici) and assizes were regularly held in the chief towns of the same.

A certain unity of religion was reached in the worship of Rome and Augustus, i.e. of the dead and later of the living emperors, to whom temples were built in the metropolitan cities (Augusteum, Cæsareum), and in the celebration of whose festivals the Asiatic provincial proclaimed his gratitude, exercised his new Roman patriotism, and felt himself drawn nearer, if not to his fellow-Asiatics, at least to the marvellous darling of fortune enthroned upon the distant Tiber. The man of Asia Minor had long been subject to Persia without revolt, and then to the children of the brilliant marshals of Alexander; submission was natural to him, and this time it brought in its train all that was needed to make life perfect in so favoured a land, i.e. peace and prosperity. As high-priest of the provincial department of the imperial religion of Rome and Augustus his influence over all religious matters was great. The office seems at times to have been closely identified with that of the president of the emperor’s festival, and was the formal source of much of the persecution directed against the Christians of the province, especially during the annual festival, when the deputies of the provincial cities met at the metropolis and manifested their patriotism, among other ways, by denouncing the followers of Jesus for refusing to adore the divinity (numen, genius) of the emperor. An ideal picture of the office, affected, however, by Christian institutions and experience, is given by Julian the Apostate in his famous letter to the Galatarch (Ep., xlix; cf. Eus., Hist. Eccl., VIII, xiv, 9). With the honour of president of the annual festival of the emperor went other distinctions, a special title (Asiarch, Bithyniarch, Galatarch), in addition to various marks of honour. Only the rich could pretend to merit it, for the office carried with it the right and the duty to defray the expense of such festivals. But there were many to claim it, for provincial pride was strong in Asia Minor, and the rivalry of the metropolitan cities was very keen. The new worship of Rome and Augustus was not unlike a religion established by law, though it never interfered with the other forms of Greek or Oriental worship, or the numerous miraculous asylums, or even such individual careers as those of Apollonius of Tyana or Alexander of Abonoteichos. To the cities was left their ancient liberty of internal administration, the repartition of imperial assessments, and the preservation of local order. Only the wealthy could vote for the magistrates, and the time was yet far off when their descendants would try in vain to rid themselves of an hereditary dignity that in the end carried with it the heaviest of financial burdens. Occasionally the imperial government looked into the municipal book-keeping and even controlled the municipal decrees; more frequently it exercised a certain surveillance over the nomination of the chief of police (eirenarch). The public safety was assured in the early imperial times by a small army of 5,000 auxiliary troops in Galatia, and by the Black Sea fleet of forty ships stationed at Trebizond. In the time of Vespasian two legions were quartered in Cappadocia and along the upper waters of the Euphrates. A few soldiers scattererd here and there through the provinces served the Roman magistrates as messengers, sheriffs, bailiffs, and the like. Asia Minor, in which both the senate and the emperor exercised, in theory at least, a co-ordinate jurisdiction until the end of the third century, was too contented and loyal to call for other troops than were necessary for protection from the foreign enemy, or to repress brigandage. The latter was, unhappily, never quite suppressed in a land well fitted for the flight and concealment of the lawless. Up to the time of Justinian certain parts of Isauria and Cilicia were the home of bold freebooters, despite the ever tightening military cordons, the increase of civilization, and the growing influence of Christian principles. There were often in municipal life lack of integrity, corruption, and waste, coupled with intrigues, rivalries, and factions, but this is no more than might be expected amid such unexampled prosperity, in a land where no large political life existed, and where climate and the narrow municipal horizon conspired to diminish energy and magnify local and temporary interests. “The calm sea” says Mommsen, “easily becomes a swamp, and the lack of the great pulsation of general interest is clearly discernible also in Asia Minor.”

A complete description of the cities of Asia Minor in the best days of the empire, their splendour and magnificence, partly inherited and partly to the credit of Rome, sounds to modern ears like exaggeration. Their ruins, however, are convincingly eloquent. Marble and granite, exquisitely and solidly worked, were the building materials of the countless temples, baths, assembly-rooms, gymnasia, deep-pillared porticoes and colonnades that graced even the smallest of its cities, and were very often the gifts of private individuals, who exhibited thus in their little “fatherland” (as the Christian Bishop Abercius calls his native city Hierapolis), a power of self-sacrifice and affection for the public weal for which no larger stage was open. Countless art-works in marble and bronze often replicas of incomparable Greek originals carried away in the republican period, decorated the public buildings and the open squares; even these copies seem at last to have been confiscated by Constantine for his new city by the Golden Horn. Aqueducts and reservoirs, embankments and levees, saved and controlled the useful waters that are now the ruin of the land. Terraces built with skill and art multiplied the productive power of the fertile soil. From the city gates there radiated numerous long lines of sculptured tombs, whose broken inscriptions now throw light on the rich and varied life of the antique world. In the fine arts the correct sense of the Greeks was the guide, but in commercial and industrial life the Roman seems to have been dominant. Latin mercantile words are often transliterated into Greek, and there are numerous other evidences of close commercial intercourse with Italy. Famous Greek teachers and physicians frequented the Italian cities (Tac., Ann., XII, 61, 67) somewhat as the Byzantine humanists frequented those of Northern Italy. The great municipal families and those well established on the vast estates of the central table-land seem to have clung to the ancestral soil with more fidelity than was shown elsewhere in the Orient. Education of the purely literary type was universal, and to some extent provided for by the cities and even by the imperial government. We read of principals and inspectors of schools, of teachers of writing and music, of masters of boxing, archery, and spear-throwing, of special privileges for teachers of rhetoric and grammar; in a word the ideal education of the Greek mainland as crystallized in the classic writers and in the still vigorous school of Athens, was in a large measure reproduced in Asia Minor. Homer and the Greek classics were the school books. The chief result of it all was a race of remarkable public orators known as sophists or rhetoricians, wandering academic lecturers on the glories of the past or on commonplaces of philosophy, poetry, and history. Often bilingual, they were admired by the provincials, whose favour they held by flattery and sympathy, and by careful attention to the mise en scene-voice, gesture, dress, attitude. Some of them, like Dio Chrysostom, exhibit genuine native patriotism, but in all of them there echoes a hollow declamatory note, the best evidence of the hopeless character of Greek paganism, of which they were now the chief theologians and philosophers. Their literary influence was deep and lasting, and though they were inimical to the Christian religion, this influence may yet be traced in not a few of the Greek Christian writers of their own and later times. Apart from this class the pagan society of Asia Minor seems to have contributed but a few great names to the annals of science and literature. Two of them come from Bithynia, the above-mentioned rhetorician Dio Chrysostom, moralist and philosopher, and Arrian of Nicomedia, historian of Alexander the Great and popularizer of Epictetus. Pergamus boasts the name of the learned physician Galen, like his earlier fellow-Asiatic, Xenophon of Cos, a man of scientific attainments in his own department, and also of general philosophic culture, but a stern enemy of the Christian religion. Nevertheless, just as Roman Asia Minor boasts of no first-class cities like Alexandria or Antioch, but only of a great many second and third class centres of population, so in literature the great names are wanting, while general literary culture and refinement, both of speech and taste, are widespread, and, in the near western section, universal. The cosmopolitan character of imperial administration, the diffusion of education, the facility of travel, and the free use of the two great civilized tongues, made the man of Asia Minor, in a certain sense, a citizen of the world and fitted him peculiarly to play an important part from the fourth century on in the spread of Christianity and the adaptation of its ideas to Græco-Roman society. Indeed, without some knowledge of the civilization that moulded their youth, the Basils and the Gregorys [of Nyssa and Nazianzus—Ed.] lose half their interest for us. (Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire, New York, 1887, II, 345–97; Ramsay, The Historical Geography of the Roman Empire, London, 1890.)

Spread of Christianity in Asia Minor

As everywhere in the Roman empire, so in Asia Minor it was the numerous Jewries in which the Christian religion found its first aderents. In the last three pre-Christian centuries the Seleucid kings of Syria had transplanted from Palestine to Asia Minor thousands of Jewish families whose descendants were soon scattered along all the coasts and throughout a great part of the interior. On Pentecost day at Jerusalem (Acts, ii, 5, 9, 10) there were present among the disciples “Jews, dovout men out of every nation under heaven,” also representatives of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. On his several missionary journeys, St. Paul visited many parts of Asia Minor and established there the first Christian churches; in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Acts there is a vivid and circumstantial description of all the chief phases of his Apostolic activity. His conversion of the Galatians, in particular, has a perennial interest for Western Christians, since at least a large portion of that province was composed of descendants of those Celts of Gaul who had settled there in the third century B. C. and in St. Paul’s time, and for centuries afterwards, still retained their Celtic speech and many Celtic institutions (Lightfoot, Commentary on Galatians, London, 1896, 1–15; Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire before A. D. 170, New York, 1893, 97–111; Idem, St. Paul, the Traveller and Roman Citizen, New York, 1898, 130–151). Asia Minor was the principal scene of the labours of St. John; he wrote his Apocalypse on the desolate island of Patmos, and his Gospel probably at Ephesus. He established firmly in the latter city a famous centre of Christian life, and an ancient tradition, as old as the Council of Ephesus (431), says that the Blessed Virgin spent her last years in the vicinity of Ephesus, and passed thence to her reward. From Ephesus St. John travelled much throughout Asia Minor and has always been credited with the first establishment of many of its episcopal sees; the story of the re-conversion of the young robber, touchingly told in the “Quis Dives” of Clement of Alexandria exhibits the popular concept of St. John in the mind of the average Christian of Asia Minor about the year 200. In the “Acts of Thecla” it is now recognized that we have a fragment of a life of St. Paul in Asia Minor, written about the middle of the second century, though without ecclesiastical approval, which throws no little light on several phases of the great Apostle’s career but slightly touched on in the Acts and the Pauline Epistles. St. Peter, too, preached the Christian Faith in Asia Minor. His First Epistle, written from Rome (v, 13), is addressed “to the strangers dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” i.e. in northern, western, and central Asia Minor. That the new religion spread rapidly is proved by the famous passage in the letter of Pliny (Ep. x, 97), Roman governor of Bithynia, addressed to the Emperor Trajan about 112, in which he says that the whole province is overrun with the contagion of Christianity, the temples are abandoned and the meat of the victims unsaleable, persons of every age, rank, and condition are joining the new religion. At this period also the Church History of Eusebius shows us the admirable figure of St. Ignatius of Antioch, of whose seven letters five are addressed to Christian churches of Asia Minor (Philadelphia, Ephesus, Smyrna, Tralles, Magnesia) and reveal an advanced stage of Christian growth. It was at this time that St. Polycarp of Smyrna and St. Irenæus of Lyons were born in Asia Minor, both prominent Christian figures of the second century, the latter being the foremost ecclesiastical writer of his period.

It is in Asia Minor that synods, or frequent assemblies of Christian bishops, first meet us as a working ecclesiastical institution; even in remote and uncouth Cappadocia they were not infrequent in the third century. It was therefore fitting that when the first general council of the Catholic Church was held (525) it should be called together at Nicæa (Isnik) in western Asia Minor, amid a population long stanchly Christian. Of the (traditional) 318 bishops who attended that council about one hundred were from Asia Minor; the semi-barbarous Isauria sent fourteen city bishops and four rural bishops (chorepiscopi), while remote Cilicia sent nine city bishops and one rural bishop. Indeed, the episcopal system of Asia Minor seems to have been almost completed by this time. (Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Asia Minor, in Histor. Geogr. of Asia Minor, London, 1890, 104–426.) In any case, there were in that territory in the fifth century some 450 Catholic episcopal sees. The institution of rural bishops (chorepiscopi) appears first in Asia Minor (Council of Ancyra, 314) and seems to be the origin of the later parochial system. It is in Asia Minor that arose, or were fought out, nearly all the great ecclesiastical conflicts of the early Christian period. The Church History of Eusebius, first published before 325, exhibits the Christian bishops of Asia Minor during the second and third centuries in conflict with semi-Oriental philosophic heresies like Gnosticism, that developed under the leadership of keen critical rationalists like Marcion of Sinope on the Black Sea, while the germs of the great christological heresies, e.g. Sabellianism, were first nourished on the same soil. Here, too, met the famous councils that overthrew these heresies (Nicæa in 325, Ephesus in 431, and Chalcedon in 451). Internal reform of the Christian Church was first undertaken from Asia Minor, where Montanus, a native of Phrygia, began the rigorist movement known as Montanism, and denounced the growing laxity of Christian life and the moral apathy of the religious chiefs of the society. He claimed for himself and certain female disciples the survival of the early Christian prophetic gifts, or personal religious inspiration, which seems to have been more frequent and to have survived longer in Asia Minor than elsewhere (Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung, 287, 402). The immediate cause of the last great persecution, that of Diocletian (284–305), seems to have been the rapid growth of Christianity in all Asia Minor, particularly in the imperial capital, then located at Nicomedia (Ismid). Maximus Daza,a the sympathetic colleague in Egypt of the persecuting Galerius (305–311), admitted (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., IX, ix) that nearly all the Orient had become Christian, and in this he was merely the echo of the dying words of the contemporary Christian scholar and martyr, Lucian of Antioch, who asserted (Rufin., Hist. Eccl., IX, vi) that in his time the greater part of the Roman world had become Christian, even entire cities. Such a Christian city of Phrygia, Eusebius tells us (Hist. Eccl., VIII, xi, 1), was given to the flames by the pagans in the persecution of Diocletian; the inhabitants perished to a man with the name of Christ upon their lips. Apropos of this, Harnack recalls (op. cit., p. 466) the fact that eighty years earlier Thyatira in the same province was an entirely Christian city, though intensely Montanist in religious temper. The city of Apaneia in the same province seems to have become quite Christian before 250. The work of Cumont (Inscriptions Chrétiennes de l’Asie Mineure, Rome, 1895) exhibits undeniable epigraphic evidence that Phrygia was widely Christianized long before the conversion of Constantine (312). The words of Renan (Origines du Christianisme, III, 363, 364) are therefore eminently true: “Thenceforward (from A. D. 112) for three hundred years Phrygia was essentially a Christian land. There began the public profession of Christianity; there are found, from the third century, on monuments exposed to the public gaze, the terms Chrestianos or Christianos; there the formulas of epitaphs convey veiled references to Christian dogmas; there, from the days of Septimus Severus, great cities adopt biblical symbols for their coins, or rather adapt their old traditions to biblical narrations. A great number of the Christians of Ephesus and Rome came from Phrygia. The names most frequently met with on the monuments of Phrygia are the antique Christian names (Trophimus, Tychicus, Tryphenus, Papias, etc.), the names special to the apostolic times, and of which the martylrologies are full.” The Acts of the Christian Bishop, Pionius of Smyrna, a martyr of the time of Decius (249–251), portray that city as largely Christian, and (with exception of the Jews) entirely devoted to its rhetorician-bishop. In the fourth century Gregory of Nyssa relates, apropos of Gregory of Cæsarea (c. 213–275), that during the thirty-five or forty years of his episcopal activity he had Christianized nearly all Pontus. It is an unfair exaggeration (Harnack, 475–476) to attribute his success to toleration of heathen customs, amusements, etc. So good a Christian theologian as Gregory of Nyssa could relate this condescension of the Wonder-worker without perceiving any real sacrifice of Christian principles in faith or morals; some concessions there must always be when it is question of conversions in bulk. His “Epistola Canonica” (P. G., X, 1019–48), one of the earliest and most venerable documents of diocesan legislation, presupposes many well-established Christian communities, whose captive ecclesiastics and citizens (c. 260) spread the first germs of Christianity among the piratical Goths of the Black Sea. Asia Minor was certainly the first part of the Roman world to accept as a whole the principles and the spirit of the Christian religion, and it was not unnatural that the warmth of its conviction should eventually fire the neighbouring Armenia and make it, early in the fourth century, the first of the ancient states formally to accept the religion of Christ (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., IX, viii, 2). The causes of the rapid conversion of Asia Minor are not, in general, dissimilar to those which elsewhere favoured the spread of Christianity. It may be accepted, with Harnack, that the ground was already prepared for the new religion, inasmuch as Jewish monotheism was acclimatized, had won many disciples, and discredited polytheism, while on the other hand Christianity was confronted by no State religion deeply and immemorially entrenched in the hearts of a united and homogeneous people (the imperial worship being a late innvoation and offering only a factitious unity). But much of this is true of other parts of the Roman empire, and it remains certain that the local opposition to the Christian religion was nowhere stronger than in the cities of Asia Minor where Antoninus Pius (138–161) had to check the illegal violence of the multitude (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., IV, xxxiii); even if we do not accept as genuine his rescript “Ad commune Asiæ” (ibid., IV, xix), it is of ancient origin and exhibits an enduring Christian sense of intolerable injustice, already foreshadowed in I Peter, iv, 3–5, 13–19. The literary opposition to Christianity was particularly strong, as already said, among the rhetoricians and grammarians, i.e. among the public teachers and the philosophers, not to speak of the pagan imperial priesthood, nowhere so well organized and favoured as in every province of Asia Minor. Lactantius tells us that the last known anti-Christian pamphleteers were both from Bithynia in Asia Minor (Inst. V, 2), Hierocles, the governor of the province, and another whose name he withholds. The principal theologians of Asia Minor (Irenæus, Gregory the Wonder-worker, Methodius of Olympus, Basil of Neocæsarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa) do not differ notably in their concepts of the Christian religion from those of Syria or Egypt or the West. It seems therefore quite incorrect to describe with Harnack the original conversion of Asia Minor as a gradual and rather peaceful transformation of the native heathenism and no real extirpation (keine Ausrottung, sondern eine Umformung, op. cit., 463). If this were so, it must always remain a great mystery how the Christianity of Asia Minor could present, on the eve of its political triumph, so remarkable a front of unity in sound doctrine and elevated morals when its alleged original pagan sources were so numerous and conflicting, so gross and impure.

Of the ecclesiastical administration of Asia Minor, after the triumph of the Christian religion, but little need be said. Like the rest of the Roman empire the land was divided into two administrative territories, known as “dioceses” (Gr. dioikéseis, districts to be supervised). They were Pontus and Asia, respectively an eastern and a western territory. In the first were twelve civil provinces, to which corresponded the ecclesiastical provinces of Cappadocia, Lesser Armenia, Pontus, Polemonium, Helenopontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Honorias, and Paphlagonia. The diocese of Asia included the provinces of Asia (proper), Hellespont, Phrygia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, and the Cyclades or islands of the Ægean. By the end of the fourth century these eighteen provinces were subject to the patriarch of Constantinople, while on the south-eastern coast, Isauria and Cilicia, with the island of Cyprus, were subject to the patriarchate of Antioch, Cyprus in a restless and discontented way. All were more easily reached from the mouth of the Orontes; yet other reasons, historical, national, and temperamental, co-operated with the ambition of the clergy of Constantinople to draw this line of demarcation between the two great ecclesiastical spheres of influence in the central Orient, whereby Armenia was drawn within the radius of Syro-Antiochene influence, to the great detriment, later on, of Catholic unity. (Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l’église, Paris, 1906, I, 433 sqq.) The ambition of the clergy of Constantinople, their jealousy of old Rome, and imperial favour, had won this pre-eminence for the royal city. It had never evangelized Asia Minor; that was done from Antioch, and in the third century the two ecclesiastical exarchates of Asia Minor, Cæsarea in Cappadocia and Ephesus in Asia proper, were subject to the patriarch of the great Syrian city. In the latter half of the third century, long before the founding of Constantinople (330), the bishops of Asia Minor were wont to attend the synods of Antioch and in turn that patriarch occasionally presided over the synods held in Asia Minor. It was from Antioch that the churches of Asia Minor got their liturgy; from them it radiated to Constantinople itself and eventually throughout the greater part of the Greek Church (Duchesne, Origins of Christian Worship, London, 1903, 71). Once established, however, the jurisdiction of Constantinople over most of the churches of Asia Minor remained unchallenged, especially after the Arab conquest of Syria (636) when the ancient influence of Antioch on eastern Asia Minor disappeared. Nevertheless, the ecclsiastical organization of Asia Minor was too solidly rooted in popular life to disappear except very slowly. If we had complete lists of the subscriptions to the Greek councils of the eighth and ninthx centuries, we should know more about the survival of the episcopal system and its various modifications under Byzantine rule. As it is, not a little light is thrown on the medieval hierarchy of Asia Minor by a certain number of catalogues or lists of the patriarchates with their metropolitan and autocephalous archbishops, also of the suffragans of the metropolitans, whicn are extant under the Latin name of “Notitiæ Episcopatuum” (ed. Parthey, Berlin, 1866). These catalogues were originally known as Taktiká, some of them dating back to the seventh or eighth century (Pakaià Taktiká), while others underwent frequent correction, more or less scientific and thorough, even as late as the thirteenth century (Krumbacher, Gesch. der byzant. Litteratur, 2d ed., Munich, 1897, 415, 416; Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, 89, 427). Together with the geographies of Ptolemy and Strabo (the latter a native of Asia Minor and praised by Ramsay for his accurate and lucid work), the famous “Tabula Peutingeriana” (a fourth-century map of the imperial road-system radiating from Constantinople), and the “Synecdemos”of Hierocles, a sixth-century account of the sixty-four Byzantine provinces and their more than 900 cities, these episcopal lists enable us to follow the continuity of Christian public life in Asia Minor throughout the troubled cneturies of political and economic decay that finally ended in the blank horror of Islamitic shepherdism. Krumbacher notes in these lists the strict adherence to ancient system and the recurrence of original diocesan names, long after they had ceased to correspond with the reality of things, somewhat as the Roman Church yet continues to use the titles of extinct sees located in countries now subject to non-Christian political control. The same author treats (op. cit., passim) in detail of the Byzantine writers of Asia Minor during the medieval period.

IV. PRESENT CIVIL CONDITIONS

In the absence of a reliable census the population of Asia Minor is variously given. Larousse (1898) puts it at 9,235,000, of whom 7,179,000 are Moslems and 1,548,000 Christians. This does not include the small Greek Christian principality of Samos (45,000) nor the island of Cyprus (210,000) nor that of Crete (360,000), all three being frequently counted as parts of Asia Minor. Neher (Kirchenlex., VII, 775) puts the total population at 10,750,000. It is mostly composed of Ottoman Turks who still reproduce the primitive type, especially in the interior, where nomadic tribes, like the Turcomans and Yuruks, exhibit the characteristics of the original Ottoman conquerors. In general the term “Turk” is applied to all sedentary Mohammedans in Asia Minor, whatever be their origin; it is also applied to the officials, descendants of Georgian or Circassian captive women, to the numerous immigrants from Bosnia and Bulgaria (Slavs in blood, but Moslems in faith), and to the Albanian soldiers settled in Asia Minor. Similarly, the term applies to Moslem descendants of Arab and negro slaves. Some of the nomadic tribes (Yuruks) are Mohammedan only in name, though of ancient Turkish descent. They are generally known as Turcomans and live with their flocks in their own tent-encampments, primitive clans with no cohesion; they spend their lives in transit from the plains to the mountains, and vice versa, in search of pasturage, water, and pure air. With them may be classed the Chingani or gypsies, wandering tinkers, and horse dealers. There are also other small remnants of the original Turkish immigration that still affect the ways of their fierce ancestry, the Afshars and the Zeibeks, from whose ranks the government draws its most fanatical soldiers. The Mohammedan Kurds of Asia Minor, both sedentary and nomad, differ so much in features and social habits from the Turks that they are not classed with the latter; they resemble much their brethren of the Armenian highlands, are evidently of Medic origin, and speak dialects of Persian with some Syriac and Armenian words. Around the seaboard, in the numerous islands of the archipelago and in the large inland cities of Cappadocia and Pontus, the Greeks are numerous; on the southern coast and in the islands they are in the vast majority and, except politically, are the dominant race as of old, being the commercial and industrial element. Not a few of the sedentary Turks are of Greek origin, descendants of voluntary or compulsory apostates; on the other hand, not a few Greeks isolated in the interior yet speak Turkish, a stigma of hated subjection that Greek patriotism aims at effacing. There are many Armenians in Asia Minor, sometimes gathered in distinct settlements, and again scattered through the Turkish villages; the taxes are usually farmed out to them, for which reason they are bitterly hated by the Turkish peasant who complains of their rapacity. They retain usually their native tongue. On the Persian frontier of Asia Minor, in some secluded valleys, are found yet a few Nestorians, descendants of those Syrian Christians who fled in remote times to these fastnesses either to avoid the oppression of their Moslem masters in Mesopotamia or before the encroachments of nomad tribes.

V. GOVERNMENT

Asia Minor proper is divided into fifteen “vilayets” or administrative territories, two separate sanjaks (districts), and one principality (Samos). At the head of each is a “vali” or provincial governor, in whose council a seat is given to the spiritual head of each of the non-Moslem communities. Each vilayet is divided into sanjaks or districts, and these are again subdivided into communal groups and communes, presided over respectively by officers known as mutessarifs, kaimakams, mudirs, and mukhtars. The code is the common law of Islam, known as Nizam, and there is an appeal to the High Court at Constantinople from the civil, criminal, and commercial courts in each province. It is to be noted that in the conquered Roman provinces the Arabs first, and then the Turks, retained much of the Roman (Byzantine) Law, especially as regarded their Christian subjects, and in so far as it did not conflict with the Koran (Amos, History of the Civil Law of Rome, London, 1883). The chief cities of Asia Minor are Smyrna (300,000), Trebizond, Iskanderûn (Issus, Scanderoon), Adana, Angora (Ancyra), Sivas (Sebasteia), Sinope, Samsûn (Amisus), Komiah (Iconium), Kaisariyeh (Cæsarea in Cappadocia). Adalia is the largest seaport on the southern coast; Broussa (Prusa), magnificently situated at the foot of Mt. Olympus in Bithynia, is the seat of silk industries, and holds the tombs of the early Ottoman sultans. Kaisariyeh at the foot of Mt. Argeus, with its memories of St. Basil the Great, is one of the world’s oldest trade-centres, recognized as such from the dawn of history under its Semitic name Mazaca; it is even now the most important commercial town in eastern Asia Minor. Sivas in the valley of the Kizil-Irmak (Halys) is a wheat centre. Trebizond on the Black Sea justifies even yet the foresight of its early Greek founders. Erzerûm in Lesser Armenia is an important mountain fortress.

VI. COMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION

There are no roads in the sense of our modern civilization; pack animals, including horses, have always been used by the Turks, both sedentary and nomad, for transportation, both of persons and goods. Recently carts have come somewhat into use. There are relays of horses at intervals on the main lines of communication and in the larger towns. A trans-Syrian railroad from Constantinople to Bagdad on the Persian Gulf has long been projected. It has reached Koniah and on its way passes Ismid (Nicomedia) and Eskeshir (Dorylæum). In all there are about 220 miles of railway in the vast peninsula. One of the principal Moslem schools is at Amasia in Galatia. The Greek communities in Asia Minor cherish no public duty more than that of education, and make many sacrifices in order to provide for their children, in primary and secondary schools, a high grade of the education they admire. It is in reality a genuine Hellenism based on the study of the ancient classic writers, the history of their ancestors both peninsular and continental, antipathy to Islam, a strong sense of mutual relationship, and a civil hope that they will again be called to the direction of public life throughout the peninsula. There is, however, a manifold opposition to this modern Greek ideal. If it were possible to bring about the re-union of the long separated Churches the ideal could be notably furthered.

VII. RESOURCES

Asia Minor is yet largely an agricultural and pastoral land. On the high plateaux immense flocks of sheep and goats are raised, whose wool is used for domestic purposes, for export, or for the manufacture of Turkish rugs and carpets. The silk manufactures of Broussa, in the sixteenth century a staple of Asia Minor, have greatly decreased. Viticulture, once the pride of Asia Minor, has almost perished. The use of wine is forbidden by the Koran; hence the grape is cultivated by the Turks only for the making of confections, and by the Greeks chiefly for personal use. The wines of Chios and Lesbos and Smyrna, famous in antiquity, are no longer made; their place is taken by dried raisins that form a principal article of export. Boxwood, salt-fish, barley, millet, wheat, oil, opium, rags, wool, and cotton, hides, galls, wax, tobacco, soap, liquorice paste, figure on the table of exports, but not at all in the proportions becoming the natural advantages of the land. It has already been stated that a few mines and marble quarries are worked, but in a feeble and intermittent way. The popular genius is foreign to all progress, the government is based on corruption and oppression, and the national religion is eminently suspicious and repressive. The inland Turk has the reputation of honesty, kindliness, hospitality, but he has no bent for the active and energetic Western life, loves dearly his “kief” or somnolent vegetative repose, and is hopelessly in the grasp of two rapacious enemies, the usurer and the tax-gatherer. The Greek and the Armenian are the dominant commercial factors, and are in several ways equipped to wrest from the Turk everything but political control of the country.

VIII. THE ISLANDS

Leaving aside the great islands of Crete and Cyprus, no longer under immediate Turkish control, it may be noted that those of the Archipelago form a special administrative district. Their number is legion; some of them are very fertile, others are mere peaks and ridges of rock. They export fruit, some wine, raisins, olive oil, and mastic, and their sponge fisheries are very valuable. Among the islands famous in antiquity are Tenedos near the mouth of the Dardanelles, Lemnos between the Dardanelles and Mt. Athos, Lesbos, the native place of Alcæus and Sappho, between the Dardanelles and Smyrna. The island of Icaria recalls the legend of Icarus, and Patmos the sojourn of St. John and the composition of his Apocalypse. Cos awakens memories of the great healer Hippocrates, and the island of Rhodes has a history second to none of the small insular states of the world. Its strong fleets made it respected in Greek antiquity, and its maritime code was taken over by the Roman Law. Its bronze Colossus, astride the mouth of its harbour, was one of the seven wonders of the world. For nearly four hundred years it was the home of the Knights of St. John and its famous siege and capture by Suleiman I (1522) filled all Western Christendom with equal sorrow and admiration. Since 1832 the island of Samos is a quasi-independent principality, and forms a special sanjak by itself. In the full flood of ancient Ionian luxury, art, and science, Samos was foremost of the Hellenic colonies along the coast of Asia Minor. There Pythagoras was born, and Antony and Cleopatra once resided at Samos. In ancient times it was a favourite resort for those wearied of the agitated life of Rome.

IX. VICARIATE APOSTOLIC OF ASIA MINOR

In 1818 the Vicariate Apostolic of Asia Minor, founded in the seventeenth century, was confided by Pius VI to the Archbishop of Smyrna as Administrator Apostolic. Since then the Archbishop of Smyrna exercises jurisdiction over the Latin Catholics of the greater part of Asia Minor, a few places excepted. Smyrna itself is the chief centre of Catholicism in the peninsula. It was founded as a Latin see by Clement VI in 1346, became extinct in the seventeenth century, was restored and elevated (1818) to the archiepiscopal dignity by Pius VII. For about a century and a half, from 1618 to the latter part of the eighteenth century, the Jesuits exercised with success the pastoral ministry at Smyrna, for many centuries the chief resort of the once numerous Latin Christians (chiefly Italian and French) known as “Levantines.” They were the traders, merchants, travellers, agents of all kinds in business at the various centres of commerce in the islands and along the coast of Asia Minor, which are known as “Scale” to the Italians and “Echelles” to the French. Here the famous “lingua franca,” or jargon of a few hundred uninflected Provençal, Spanish, and French words, with some Greek and Turkish, was the principal medium of commercial communication. When the Jesuits first entered Smyrna they found there some 30,000 well disposed Christians and 7,000 to 8,000 Armenians. Lazarists and Capuchins were also active at Smyrna during this period. The Latin Catholics of Smyrna and vicinity are variously estimated from 15,400 to 18,000. There are in the city proper 8 churches and 8 chapels. The parishes are 3 in number and the clergy 61 (19 secular priests and 42 religious, Franciscans, Capuchins, Dominicans, Lazarists, Mechitarists). There are 15 schools (8 for boys, 7 for girls), with 3 boarding-schools or academies for girls, conducted respectively by the “Dames de Sion,” the Sisters of Charity, and the Sisters of the Immaculate Conception. The orphan asylums number 4, with about 290 orphans. There is also a hospital. Since 1839 the Sisters of Charity (87) and since 1840 the Christian Brothers have been active at Smyrna in works of charity and education; the latter had in their college (1901) 155 pupils. The Lazarists conduct a college known as the College of Propaganda, founded in 1841; it has about 100 pupils. The present Archbishop of Smyrna and Administrator Apostolic of Asia Minor is Monsignor Rafaele Francesco Marengo, a Dominican, from 1871 to 1904 parish priest of Galata (Constantinople), and since 1904 Ordinary of Smyrna. He has one suffragan, the Bishop of Candia, or Crete. Outside of Smyrna, there are very few Latin Catholics in Asia Minor. The “Missiones Catholicæ” for 1901 gives the names of 16 scattered missions. Since 1886 the Assumptionist Fathers of Constantinople and the Oblate Sisters of the same congregation have devoted themselves to missionary work along the line of the railway from Broussa to Koniah (Iconium). They have opened 8 schools for boys and 7 for girls, in which they care for about 1,200 children. Their services are mostly in demand for the Latin Catholics engaged business or in the construction of the railway. Moslem fanaticism and Greek jealousy are sources of opposition. In 1900 there were engaged in charitable and educational work on these temporary missions 100 Assumptionist Sisters. The few Catholic (Uniat) Greeks on the mainland have no special organization of their own but are subject to the Latin Archbishop of Smyrna as Administrator of the Vicariate Apostolic of Asia Minor. Formerly all Catholics in the Archipelago (Latin and Greek) were under the jurisdiction of Smyrna, but since 14 December, 1907, there has been a prefecture Apostolic for the island of Rhodes, including eleven other islands. In this prefecture the Catholics number about 360 in a population of 36,000, and are attended by 2 Franciscan missionaries. They have 6 churches and chapels, a college, with 60 pupils directed by the Christian Brothers, and an academy for girls (130) directed by Franciscan Tertiaries. The Catholic (Uniat) Armenians scattered through the peninsula have their own ecclesiastical organization dependent on Constantinople, where the Porte now recognizes the Catholic Armenian Patriarch of Cilicia, since 1867 officially resident in the Turkish capital. He is the successor of the Armenian archbishop-primate created at Constantinople in 1830 by the Holy See for the benefit of the Uniat Armenians, but ignored by the Porte until 1867, when Pius IX secured the recognition of the settlement just mentioned. There are episcopal sees for the Catholic Armenians of Asia Minor at Adana (3,000), Angora (7,000), Broussa (3,000), Kaisariyeh or Cæsarea (1,500), Melitene (4,000), Erzerûm (10,000), Trebizond (5,000), and Sivas (3,000). In all these places the Catholic Armenians are far outnumbered by their schismatic countrymen. The Mechitarist Fathers (Armenian monks) have stations at Broussa, Angora, and Smyrna, also at Aidin, the ancient Tralles in the valley of the Mæander, where there are about 3,000 Armenian Catholics in a population of 40,000 or 50,000. The Armenian Catholic patriarch at Constantinople has a jurisdiction over his people (16,000 in Constantinople), both civil and ecclesiastical, analogous to that of the Greek Orthodox patriarch and his own schismatic fellow-patriarch. The Catholic Armenian clergy of Constantinople numbered (1901) 85; of these 26 were Mechitarists (10 from Vienna, 16 from Venice), and 9 were Antonian monks. There were 5 schools for boys and 3 for girls, with 300 pupils, 2 colleges and 1 lyceum, 1 hospital, 1 asylum for the insane and 1 asylum for invalids. Their churches and chapels number 16, and the parishes 13. The present patriarch is Monsignor Sabbaghian (Peter Paul XII). Since 1869 the law of celibacy, that until then had not been observed by all the Armenian Catholic clergy, has been made obligatory. The “Missiones Catholicæ” for 1901 indicates the following Latin missionaries in Armenian centres of Asia Minor: Jesuits, Capuchins, Lazarists, and Trappists (in all about thirty) at Adana, Erzerûm, Sivas, Trebizond, and Kaiseriyeh.

X. GREEK-ORTHODOX CHURCH AND NON-UNIAT ARMENIANS

The great majority of the Christians of Asia Minor belong to the so-called Greek-Orthodox or schismatic patriarchate of Constantinople. In ecclesiastical and ecclesiastico-civil matters they are subject to the patriarch according to the arrangement made on the fall of Constantinople (1453), variously modified since then, and known as the “Capitulations” (Baron d’Avril, La protection des Chrétiens dans le Levant, Paris, 1901). The power of the patriarch, both ecclesiastical and civil, regulated by and divided with the National Assembly and the Great Synod at Constantinople, is extensive. Of the twelve metropolitans who now compose his council three are from western Asia Minor (Cyzicus, Nicomedia, and Chalcedon) and are habitually resident in the capital, while the other nine are elective at fixed periods. These three, together with the metropolitan of Heraclea in Thrace, hold the patriarchal seal that is divided into four parts. The Greek-Orthodox population, scattered through the islands of the Archipelago and along the whole coast-line of Asia Minor, is said to number about one million; in recent times it tends to increase and is now commercially dominant in the greater part of Asia Minor. There are several Greek (Basilian) monasteries in the peninsula, six on the coast of the Black Sea, near Samsun and near Trebizond. There is also one (Lembos) near Smyrna. In the islands the number is larger; there are 3 on Chios, 87 on Samos, 2 on Patmos, and several in the Princes Islands near Constantinople. Cyprus has 4 and Crete 50 (Silbernagl, 58, 59; Vering, “Lehrbuch des kathol. orient. und prot. Kirchenrechts,” Freiburg, 1893, 3d ed., 623–630; Petit, “Règlements généraux des églises orthodoxes en Turquie,” in Revue de l’orient chrétien, Paris, 1898; Neale, “The Holy Eastern Church,” I, London, 1850; Pitzipios, “L’Eglise orientale,” Rome, 1855). Non-uniat, or schismatic, Armenians have settled in large numbers in various parts of Asia Minor, sometimes in the cities and sometimes in their own villages, in some places among the Turkish populations. Since 1307 they have had a bishop resident at Constantinople, and since 1461 there has been in that capital a patriarch of the nation on the same political level as the Greek patriarch, recognized as the civil head of his people and their agent in all matters affecting their religion and in many civil matters. Until 1830 this schismatic patriarch was recognized by the Porte as the civil representative also of the Catholic Armenians. As stated above, it was only in 1867 that the latter obtained recognition of their own patriarch in the person of Monsignor, afterwards Cardinal, Anton Hassoun. There are about 40,000 Armenians resident in Constantinople, and in Asia Minor, as already stated, their number is quite large; of the 120 lay members who make up the National Assembly representative of the Armenians at Constantinople, one-third must be chosen from Asia Minor. They have the following metropolitan sees in the peninsula (most of them provided with suffragans); Kaisariyeh, Nicomedia, Broussa, Smyrna, Amasia, Sivas, Erzerûm, and Trebizond. The bishops of the schismatic Armenians usually reside in monasteries of their own nationality, which are thus centres both of national and ecclesiastical life. (Silbernagl-Schnitzer, Verfassung und gegenwärtiger Bestand sämtlicher Kirchen des Orients, 2d ed., Munich, 1904, 229–231.) See PERSECUTIONS, EARLY CHRISTIAN . For details of Moslem education, see TURKEY. For efforts of Protestant missionaries, and their influence on education, see CONSTANTINOPLE; TURKEY. For details of Greek-Orthodox ecclesiastical life and organization, see CONSTANTINOPLE, PATRIARCHATE OF; and GREEK CHURCH.

For the general history and description of Asia Minor the reader may consult, besides the classical work of DE SAINT MARTIN, the treatises of TCHIHATCHEFF, L’Asie Mineure, etc. (Paris, 1853–60), and CUINET, La Turquie d’Asie (Paris, 1892–94). Modern works of travels in Asia Minor: LEAKE (1824); AINSWORTH (1842); HAMILTON, Researches on Asia Minor (London, 1842); VAN LENNEP (1870); BARKLEY (1891); RAMSEY, Impressions of Turkey (London, 1897). The remnants of Byzantine life in Asia Minor may be studied in HAMMER’S classical Geschichte der Osmanen (Pesth, 1834); KRAUSE, Die Byzantiner des Mittelalters (Halle, 1869); BIKÉLAS, La Grèce Byzantine (Paris, 1893); BURY, The Later Roman Empire (London, 1889). For external conditions of primitive Christian life on the western coast of Asia Minor read RAMSEY, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia Minor (New York, 1905). For the medieval period of the Asia Minor Churches see LEQUIEN, Oriens Christianus (Paris, 1740), and for the hierarchical lists GAMS, Series episc. Eccl. cath. (1873–86); EUBEL, Hierarchia Catholica Medii Ævi (1898–1902). For modern Catholic statistics see missiones Catholicæ (Propaganda, Rome, 1901); PIOLET, Les missions catholiques françaises au XIXe siecle (Paris, 1900); Missions d’Asie, I, 99–115, 132–149. For Protestant missions in Asia Minor see DWIGHT, TUPPER, AND BLISS, Encyclopedia of Missions (New York, 1904), s. v. Turkey. For the ecclesiastical conditions of the Greek Orthodox Christians, see, besides the above-mentioned works, RATTINGER, Das ökumenische Patriarchat in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (1874); SILBERNAGL-SCHNITZER (op. cit.); MILAS, Das Kirchenrecht der morgenländischen Kirche (Zara, 1897); also the older works of HEINECCIUS, Abbild der älteren und neueren griech. Kirche (Leipzig, 1711f); EICHMANN, Die Reformen des osmannischen Reiches (Berlin, 1855), and PISCHON on the constitution of the Greek Orthodox Church, in Theol. Studien und Kritiken (Leipzig, 1864).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Asiongaber

More properly Ezion-geber, a city of Idumea, situated on the northern extremity of the Ælanitic Gulf, now called the Gulf of Akabah. it is mentioned six times in the Holy Scriptures: Numbers, xxxiii, 35; Deut., ii, 8; III K. (Vulgate), ix, 26; xxii, 49; II Par. (Chron.), viii, 17; xx, 36. The general site of Asiongaber is indicated in III K., ix, 26 (I K.); but its ruins have disappeared, so that its precise site is a matter of conjecture. The Children of Israel encamped in Asiongaber in their journey through the wilderness (Num., xxxiii, 35). The ships of Solomon and Hiram started from this port on their voyage to Ophir. It was the main port for Israel’s commerce with the countries bordering on the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Josaphat, King of Juda, joined himself with Ochozias, the wicked King of Israel, to make ships in Asiongaber; but God disapproved the unholy alliance, and the ships were broken in the port (II Par., xx,37).

A. E. BREEN

Robert Aske

Asmodeus

The name of the demon mentioned in the Book of Tobias (iii, 8). The name is most probably derived from the Hebrew root meaning “to destroy”: so that the being would correspond to the demon called Abaddon, the Destroyer in the Apocalypse, ix, 11. The Book of Tobias relates that the virgin Sara, the kinswoman of Tobias, had been given successively to seven husbands; but they had all been slain on the night of the nuptials, before the consummation of the marriage. From this fact, a superstition had arisen that the demon loved the maiden and slew her husbands through jealousy. In the Greek text of Tobias, it is stated that the younger Tobias himself was moved by this superstition. The inspired text in no way approves the superstition. God allowed the demon to slay these men because they entered marriage with unholy motives. The pious youth, Tobias, acting under the instructions of Raphael, takes Sara to wife, and Raphael expels the demon. The exemplary chastity and temperance of Tobias and Sara save them from the demon, and offer an example for mankind. In fact, the permission given by God to the demon in this history seems to have as a motive to chasten man’s lust and sanctify marriage. The Rationalists have vainly endeavoured to set down this history as a Persian myth. For a full refutation of their theories, see Gutberlet, “Das Buch Tobias.”

A. E. BREEN

Aspendus

A titular see of Pamphylia in Asia Minor, situated along the Eurymedon, on a lofty hill that commands a view of the distant sea. Its episcopal list (325–787) is given in Gams (p. 450).

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ. (1740), I, 99; SMITH, Dict. of Christ. Geogr., I, 241.

Asperges

(Latin, aspergere, to wash, sprinkle).

The rite of sprinkling the congregation with holy water before the principal Mass on Sunday, so called from the words intoned at the beginning of the ceremony, taken from Psalm 1, throughout the year except at Easter-tide, when Vidi aquam, from Psalm 117, is intoned. It precedes every other ceremony that may take place before the Mass, such as the blessing of palms or of candles. It is performed by the celebrant priest wearing vestments of the liturgical colour of the day. It is omitted when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, though many rubricists think that the sprinkling of the altar only, not of the congregation, should then be omitted. After intoning the antiphon the priest recites the psalm Miserere or Confitemini, according to the season, sprinkling first the front and platform of the altar, then himself, next the ministers and choir, and lastly the congregation, usually walking through the main part of the church, though he need not go beyond the gate of the sanctuary or choir. The ceremony has been in use at least from the tenth century, growing out of the custom of early antiquity of blessing water for the faithful on Sundays. Its object is to prepare the congregation for the celebration of the Mass by moving them to sentiments of penance and reverence suggested by the words of the fiftieth psalm, or by impressing on them that they are about to assist at the sacrifice of our redemption as suggested in the psalm used at Easter time.

WAPELHORST, Comp Sacr. Liturgiæ (New York, 1904), n. 91.

JOHN J. WYNNE

Martin Aspilcueta

(Also AZPILCOETA.)

Generally known as Navarrus, or Doctor Navarrus, a famous Spanish canonist and moral theologian; b. in the Kingdom of Navarre, 13 December, 1491; d. at Rome, 1 June, 1586. He was a relative of St. Francis Xavier, studied at Alcalá and in France, and became professor of canon law at Toulouse and Cahors. Later, he returned to Spain and occupied the same chair for fourteen years at Salamanca, and for seven years at Coimbra in Portugal. At the age of eighty he went to Rome to defend his friend Bartolomeo Carranza, Archbishop of Toledo, accused before the Tribunal of the Inquisition. Though he failed to exculpate the Archbishop, Aspilcueta was highly honoured at Rome by several popes, and was looked on as an oracle of learning and prudence. His humility, disinterestedness, and charity were proverbial. He reached the patriarchal age of 95, and is buried at Rome in the national Church of San Antonio de’ Portoghesi. Among other lives of Aspilcueta there is one by his nephew, prefixed to the Roman edition of his works. His “Manuale sive Enchiridion Confessariorum et Pnitentium” (Rome, 1568) originally written in Spanish, was long a classical text in the schools and in ecclesiastical practice. In his work on the revenues of benefices, first published in Spanish (Salamanca, 1566), translated into Latin (1568), and dedicated to Philip II and St. Pius V, he maintained that beneficed clergymen were free to expend the fruits of their benefices only for their own necessary support and that of the poor. He wrote numerous other works, e.g. on the Breviary, the regulars, ecclesiastical property, the jubilee year, etc. A complete edition of his works was printed at Rome in 1590 (3 vols. fol.); also at Lyons, 1590; Venice, 1602; and Cologne, 1615 (2 vols. fol.). A compendium of his writings was made by J. Dastellanus (Venice, 1598).

GIRAUD, Bibli. Sacr., II 334–336 (gives list of his writings); HURTER, Nomenclator, (1892), I, 124–127.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

The Ass (in Caricature of Christian Beliefs and Practices)

The calumny of onolatry, or ass-worship, attributed by Tacitus and other writers to the Jews, was afterwards, by the hatred of the latter, transferred to the Christians (Tac., I, v, 3, 4; Tert., Apol., xvi; “Ad nationes,” I, 14). A short time before he wrote the latter of these treatises (about 197) Tertullian relates that an apostate Jew one day appeared in the streets of Carthage carrying a figure robed in a toga, with the ears and hoofs of an ass, and that this monstrosity was labelled: Deus Christianorum Onocoetes (the God of the Christians begotten of an ass). “And the crowd believed this infamous Jew,” adds Tertullian (Ad nationes, I, 14). Minucius Felix (Octavius, ix) also alludes to this defamatory accusation against the Christians. The caricature of the Crucifixion, discovered on a wall in the Palace of the Cæsars on the Palatine in 1857, which represents a Christian boy worshipping a crucified figure with an ass’s head, is a pictured form of this calumny. A Greek inscription, “Alexamenos worshipping his God,” is scratched on the caricature. This person is generally held to have been a Christian page of the palace, in the time of the first Antonines, whose companions took this means of insulting his religion. Wünsch, however, conjectures that the caricature may have been intended to represent the god of a Gnostic sect which identified Christ with the Egyptian ass-headed god Typhon-Seth (Bréhier, Les origines du crucifix, 15 sqq.). But the reasons advanced in favour of this hypothesis are not convincing. The representations on a terra-cotta fragment discovered in 1881, at Naples, which dates probably from the first century, appear to belong to the same category as the caricature of the Palatine. A figure with the head of an ass and wearing the toga is seated in a chair with a roll in his hand, instructing a number of baboon-headed pupils. On an ancient gem the onocephalous teacher of two human pupils is dressed in the pallium, the form of cloak peculiar to sacred personages in early Christian art; and a Syrian terra-cotta fragment represents Our Lord, book in hand, with the ears of an ass. The ass as a symbol of heresy, or of Satan, is represented in a fresco of the catacomb of Prætextatus: Christ, the Good Shepherd, is protecting His flock from impurity and heresy symbolized as a pig and an ass. This representation dates from the beginning of the third century (Wilpert, Pitture delle Catacombe, Pl. 51, 1).

LECLERCQ in Dict. darch. chrét., I, 2042 sqq. (Paris, 1903).

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Prefecture Apostolic of Assam

A Prefecture Apostolic in the ecclesiastical province of Calcutta, India, established in 1889. It is served by the “Society of the Divine Saviour,” whose mother-house is at Rome. The priests have a residence at Shillong. Assam includes the civil province of Assam, with Bhuthan and Manipur. The native population is 7,000,000. The Catholics number 1,800, and are attended by 6 secular and 10 regular priests. There are chapels in Shillong, Gowhati, Bondashill, Railing, Laitkinsew, Silchar, Cheerapoonjee, Lamin, and elsewhere, in all 25 chapels and 19 stations. There are 15 elementary schools; 300 pupils, boys and girls; 2 orphanages under the direction of the Sisters of the Society of the Divine Saviour; 4 charitable dispensaries, 1 asylum for aged women, and one small hospital at Shillong. The non-Catholic sects number 17, and count 18,000 adherents.

The Madras Catholic Directory (Madras, 1906); BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (1906) 343.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Assemani

(Arabic, Sam’an, i.e. Simeon)

The name of an illustrious Maronite family of Mount Lebanon, Syria, four members of which, all ecclesiastics, distinguished themselves during the eighteenth century in the East and in Europe. For their zeal, learning, and unbounded attachment to the Roman See, they were held in great esteem by the Popes, who conferred upon them many well-merited ecclesiastical dignities and offices. Oriental, but especially Syriac, studies owe more to them than to any others; for it was through their researches, collection of manuscripts, and voluminous publications that Syriac studies, and in general the history, hagiography, liturgy, and literature of the Oriental Churches were first introduced into Europe. Therefore they can be justly regarded, if not as the creators, certainly as the most illustrious pioneers, of modern Oriental studies. In this work they were preceded by other Maronite scholars, known to Orientalists under their latinized names of Echellensis, Sciadrensis, Sionita, and Benedictus. To these and to the Assemanis we owe the fact that the characters, vowels, and pronunciation of Syriac, first introduced by them in Europe, were after the so-called Western Syriac, or Jacobite system, and not as would have been more original and correct, of the Eastern Syriac, or Nestorian. This anomaly, however, is easily explained by the fact that, as the Western Syriac system is the one used by the Maronite Church, to which these scholars belonged, it was but natural that they should adopt this in preference to the other. The four Assemanis are the following:

Joseph Simeon

Born in the Mountains of Lebanon, Syria, 1687; died at Rome, January, 1768. In 1703, he entered the Maronite College, Rome, to study for the priesthood. Soon after his ordination he was given a post in the Vatican Library, and in 1715–17 sent by Clement XI to the East for the purpose of collecting Oriental manuscripts; he accomplished his task successfully, visiting Cairo, Damascus, Aleppo, Mount Lebanon, and especially the Nitrian desert. He brought these manuscripts to Rome, and they were placed by order of the Pope in the Vatican Library, where they formed the nucleus of its subsequently famous collection of Oriental manuscripts. In 1735–38 he was sent again to the East, and returned with a still more valuable collection. On his return, he was made titular Archbishop of Tyre and Librarian of the Vatican Library, where he devoted the rest of his life to carrying out a most extensive plan for editing and publishing the most valuable Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Persian, Hebrew, and Greek MSS., treasures of the Vatican. His published works are very numerous, besides others (about one hundred in number) which he left in manuscript form. The majority of these, however, were destroyed by a fire, which, in 1768, broke out in his Vatican apartment, adjacent to the Library. His published works are the following:—(1) “Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana in qua manuscriptos codices Syriacos, Arabicos, Persicos, Turcicos, Hebraicos, Samaritanos, Armenicos, Aethiopicos, Graecos, Aegyptiacos, Ibericos et Malabaricos . . . Bibliothecae Vaticante addictos recensuit, digessit Josephus Simonius Assemanus” (Rome, 4 vols. fol., 1719–28). This gigantic work, of which only the first four volumes appeared, was to comprise twelve volumes, of which the unpublished ones were as follows: Vol. V, “De Syriacis sacrarum Scripturarum versionibus”; Vol. VI, “De libris ecclesiasticis Syrorum”; Vol. VII, “De Conciliorum collectionibus Syriacis”; Vol. VIII, “ De collectionibus Arabicis”; Vol. IX, “De Scriptoribus Graecis in Syriacum et Arabicum conversis”; Vol. X, “De Scriptoribus Arabicis Christianis”; Vols. XI and XII, “De Scriptoribus Arabicis Mahometanis.” Considerable preparation for these unpublished volumes was made by the author, a portion of which was destroyed by fire. The four published volumes are divided as follows: Vol. I, “De Scriptoribus Syris orthodoxis”; Vol. II, “De Scriptoribus Syris monophysitis”; Vol. III, “Catalogus Ebedjesus Sobensis” (of Nestorian writers); Vol. IV, “De Syris Nestorianis.”—(2) “Ephraemi Syri opera omnia quae extant graece, syriace et latine,” six volumes, folio. The first three volumes were edited by our author, the fourth and the fifth by the Maronite Jesuit Mubarak, or Benedictus, and the sixth by Stephanus Evodius Assemani (see below).—(3) “Italicae historiae scriptores ex bibliothecae Vaticanae aliarumque insignium bibliothecarum manuscriptis codicibus collegit,” etc., four volumes, folio (Rome 1751–53).—(4) “Kalendaria ecclesiae universae,” etc., to consist of twelve volumes, of which only the first six appeared (Rome, 1755), treating of “Slavica Ecclesia sive Graeco-Moscha”; the other six, which were to treat of the Syrian, Armenian, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Greek, and Roman saints, were partly prepared, but destroyed by fire.—(5) “De sacris imaginibus et reliquiis,” destined to comprise five volumes. Parts of the manuscript were saved and extracts from it given by Bottarius (Rome, 1776).—(6) “Bibliotheca juris Orientalis canonici et civilis,” five volumes, quarto (Rome, 1762–66).—(7) “Abraham Echellensis; Chronicon Orientale,” printed in “Scriptores Historiae Byzantinae,” vol. XVII.—(8) “Rudimenta linguae Arabicae” (Rome, 1732).—(9) Several dissertations, in Italian, on Oriental Churches, published by Cardinal Angelo Mai in his “Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio” (Rome, 1831). From two Maronite writers, viz., G. Cardahi (Liber Thesauri de arte poetica Syrorum, pp. 171–183) and Msgr. Joseph Dibs, Archbishop of Beirut, Syria (“Spiritus Confutationis,” etc., in Latin and Arabic) we learn that J.S. Assemani had in preparation four more gigantic works. The first on “Syria vetus et nova,” in nine volumes; the second a “Historia Orientalis,” in nine volumes; the third, “Concilia ecclesiae Orientalis,” in six volumes; and the fourth “Euchologia seu Liturgia ecclesiae orientalis,” etc., in seven volumes. From his “Bibliotheca juris Orientalis,” etc. we learn that our author was: “Utriusque Signaturae Apostolicae Referendarius, Bibliothecae Vaticanae Praefectus, Basilicae Sancti Petri de Urbe Canonicus; Sanctae Romanae et Universalis Inquisitionis Consultor”; also “Sacrae Poenitentiariae Apostolicae Sigillator,” etc. All our author’s works, but especially his “Bibliotheca Orientalis,” which has been till recently, and which to a great extent is still, our main guide on the subject, needs thorough revision in the light of the many newly discovered and edited Syriac manuscripts.

Josephus Aloysius

Brother of the preceding, b. in Tripoli, Syria, 1710; d. at Rome, 1782. He made his theological and Oriental studies in Rome and under the care of his illustrious brother. He was appointed by the Pope, first, as professor of Syriac at the Sapienza in Rome, and afterwards professor of liturgy, by Benedict XIV, who made him also member of the academy for historic research, just founded. His principal works are:—(1) “Codex liturgicus ecclesiae universae in XV libros distributus” (Rome, 1749–66).—This valuable work has become so rare that a bookseller of Paris recently issued a photographic impression of it.—(2) “De Sacris ritibus Dissertatio” (Rome, 1757).—(3) “Commentarius theologico-canonicus criticus de ecclesiis, earum reverentia et asylo atque concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii” (Rome, 1766);—(4) “Dissertatio de unione et communione ecclesiastica” (Rome, 1770);—(5) “Dissertatio de canonibus poenitentialibus” (Rome, 1770);—(6) “De Catholicis seu Patriarchis Chaldaeorum et Nestorianorum commentarius historico-chronologicus,” etc. (Rome, 1775);—(7) “De Synodo Diocesana Dissertatio” (Rome, 1776);—(8) A Latin version of Ebedjesus’s “Collectio Canonum,” published by Cardinal Mai in his “Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio” (pt. I, pp. vii, viii and 1–168; pt. II, pp. 1–268, etc.).

Stephanus Evodius

Or AWWAD, titular Archbishop of Apamaea in Syria, b. in Syria, 1707; d. in Rome, 1782; nephew of the two preceding brothers, and prefect of the Vatican Library after the death of J.S. Assemani. His lifework was to assist his two uncles at the Vatican Library. He became a member of the Royal Society of London. His principal works are:—(1) the sixth volume of “Ephraemi Syri opera omnia” (see above);—(2) “Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae et Palatinae codicum manuscriptorum orientalium catalogus” (Florence, 1742);—(3) “Acta Sanctorum Martyrum Orientalium et Occidentalium” (Rome, 1748). The first part gives the history of the martyrs who suffered during the reign of the Sassanian Kings of Persia: Sapor, Veranes, and others;—(4) “Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codicum manuscriptorum catalogus,” to be completed in four volumes in collaboration with his uncle, J.A. Assemani: Vol. I, Oriental manuscripts; Vol. II, Greek; Vol. III, Latin; and Vol. IV, Italian. The first three volumes appeared in 1756–69, but the fourth, of which only the first eighty pages were printed, was destroyed by fire in 1768;—(5) “Catalogo della biblioteca Chigiana” (Rome, 1764).

Simeon

Grand-nephew of the first and second Assemanis, b. 1752, in Tripoli, Syria; d. at Padua, Italy, 1821. He made his theological studies in Rome, and at the age of twenty-six visited Syria and Egypt. In 1778 he returned to Rome, and then went to Genoa, with the intention of going to America, but he was prevented. In 1785 he was appointed professor of Oriental languages at the seminary of Padua, and in 1807 was transferred to the University of the same city, to fill the same chair. He had many admirers and friends, such as Cardinal Borgia, the founder of the Museo Borgiano at the College of the Propaganda, in Rome, the French Orientalist Silvestre de Sacy and others. His works are:—(1) “Saggio storico sull’ origine, culto, letteratura, e costumi degli Arabi avanti Maometto” (Padua, 1787);—(2) “Museo Cufico Naniano, illustrato,” in two parts (Padua, 1787–88);—(3) “Catalogo dei codici manoscritti orientali della biblioteca Naniana,” in two parts (Padua, 1787–92);—(4) “Globus coelestis arabico-cuficus Veliterni musei Borgiani . . . illustratus, praemissa de Arabum astronomia dissertatione” (Padua, 1790);—(5) “Se gli Arabi ebbero alcuna influenza sull’ origine della poesia moderna in Europa?” (1807);—(6) “Sopra le monete Arabe effigiate” (Padua, 1809). Our author is also well known for his masterly detection of the literary imposture of Vella, which claimed to be a history of the Saracens in Syria.

MAI, Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, etc., III, pt. II, 166; Biographie universelle ancienne et moderne (nouvelle edition—Paris, 1843), II, 337–339; CARDAHI, Liber thesauri de arte poetica Syrorum (Rome, 1874), 171–183; DIBS, Liber confutationis contra sacerdotem Ioseph David (Beirut, 1870); HERZOG-SCHAFF, Religious Encyc., I, 156–157, but especially art. by NESTLE in latest ed. of Realencyklopaedie fuer protestantische Theologie und Kirche (Leipzig, 1897), II, 144–147, s.v.; PARISOT in Dict. de theol. cath., s.v.; PETIT in Dict. d’arch. chret. et de lit. s.v.

GABRIEL OUSSANI

Assemblies of the French Clergy

Quinquennial representative meetings of the Clergy of France for the purpose of apportioning the financial burdens laid upon the Church by the kings of France, and incidentally for other ecclesiastical purposes-the Assemblies of the French Clergy (Assembl’es du Clerg’ de France) had a financial origin, to which, for that matter, may be traced the inception and establishment of all deliberative assemblies. Long before their establishment, however, the State had undertaken to impose on the Church her share of the public expenses. The kings of France, powerful, needy, and at times unscrupulous men, could not behold side by side with the State, or within the State, a wealthy body of men, gradually extending their possessions throughout the kingdom, without being tempted to draw upon their coffers and, if need were, to pillage them. During the Middle Ages the Crusades were the occasions of frequent levies upon ecclesiastical possessions. The Dime Saladine (Saladin Tithe) was inaugurated when Philip August (1180–1223) united his forces with those of Richard of England to deliver Jerusalem from Saladin. At a later period the contributions of the clergy were increased, and during the reign of St. Louis (1235–70) we find record of thirteen subsidies within twenty-eight years. It has been estimated that the latter monarch received altogether from the clergy the equivalent of 400,000,000 francs, in the present currency ($80,000,000). The modern era brought no decrease in the taxes imposed on the Church. Francis I, for example (1515–48), made incessant calls on the ecclesiastical treasury. The religious wars stirred up by Protestantism furnished the French kings with pretexts for fresh demands upon the Church. In 1560, the clergy held a convention at Poissy to consider matters of Church-reform, and occasion made famous by the controversy (Colloque de Poissy) between the Catholic bishops and the Protestant ministers, in which the chief orators were the Cardinal of Lorraine and Thedore Beza. At this assembly the Clergy bound themselves by a contract made in the name of the whole clerical body to pay the king 1,600,000 livres ($300,000) annually for a period of six years; certain estates and taxes that had been pledged to the Hotel de ville of Paris for a (yearly) rente, or revenue, of 6300,000 livres ($120,000). In other words, the clergy bound themselves to redeem for the king in ten years a capital of 7,560,000 livres ($1,512,000). The French monarchs, instead of settling their debts, made fresh loans based on this rente, or revenue, paid by the Church, as if it were to be something permanent. After lengthy discussions, the clergy assembled at Melun (1579–80) consented to renew the contract for ten years, a measure destined to be repeated every decade until the French Revolution. The “assemblies of the Clergy” were now an established institution. In this way the Church of France obtained the right of freely meeting and of free speech just when the meetings of the States-General (Etats-G’n’raux) were to be discontinued, and the voice of the nation was to be hushed for a period of 200 years.

At a very early date, these assemblies adopted the form of organization which they were to preserve until the French Revolution. The election of deputies forming the body was arranged according to ecclesiastical provinces. It was decided in 1619 that each province should send four deputies (two bishops and two priests) to the assemblies de contrat held every ten years, and two to the assembl’es des comptes which met once during the interval of ten years. Under this arrangement an assembly was convened every five years. There were two steps in the election of deputies. First, at the diocesan assembly were convened all holders of benefices, a plurality of whose votes elected two delegates. These then proceeded to the metropolitan see, and under the presidency of the metro politan elected the provincial deputies. First at the diocesan assembly were convened all holders of benefices, a plurality of whose votes elected two delegates. These then proceeded to the metropolitan see, and under the presidency of the metropolitan elected the provincial deputies. Theoretically, parish priests (cur’s) might be chosen, but as a matter of fact, by reason of their social station, inferior to that of abb’s and canons, they seldom had seats in the assemblies. The rank of subdeacon suffices for election; the Abb’ Legendre relates in his memoirs as a contemporary incident that one of these young legislators, after an escapade, was soundly flogged by his perceptor who had accompanied him to Paris. The assemblies at all times reserved to themselves the right of deciding upon the validity of procurators and the authority of deputies. They wished also to reserve the right of electing their own president, whom they always chose from among the bishops. However, to conciliate rivalries, several were usually nominated for the presidency, only one of whom exercised that function. Under a strong government, withal, and despite the resolution to maintain their right of election, the Assemblies were unlikely to choose a person not in favour at court. We know that during the reign of Louis XIV Harlay de Champvallon, Archbishop of Paris, was several times president. Finally, Saint-Simon tells us the royal displeasure deprived him of his influence with the Clergy, and even shortened his life. The offices of secretary and “promotor,” being looked on by the bishops as somewhat inferior, were assigned to deputies of the second rank, i.e. to priests. Like all other parliaments, the Assemblies of the French Clergy divided their work among commissions. The “Commission of Temporal Affairs” was very important and had an unusually large amount of business to transact. Financial questions, which had given rise to these assemblies, continued to claim their attention until the time of the Revolution. Beginning with the seventeenth century, the payment of the rentes of the H”tel de Ville was an item of slight importance as compared with the sums which the Clergy were compelled to vote the king under the name of dons gratuits, or free gifts. It had been established during the Middle Ages that the Church should contribute not only to the expenses of the Crusades, but also towards the defence of the kingdom, a tradition continued to modern times. The religious wars of the sixteenth century, later the siege of La Rochelle (1628) under Richelieu, and to a still greater extent the political wars waged by Henry IV, Louis XIII, Louis XIV, Louis XV, and Louis XVI occasioned the levying of enormous subsidies on the Clergy. The following example may serve as an illustration: the Clergy who had voted sixteen million livres ( $3,200,000) in 1779, gave thirty millions more ($6,000,000) in 1780 for the expenses of the French Government in the war of the American Revolution, to which they added in 1782 sixteen millions and in 1786 eighteen millions. The Church was then to the State what, under similar circumtances, the Bank of France is to-day. The French kings more than once expressed their gratitude to this body for the services it had rendered both monarchy and fatherland in the prompt and generous payment of large subsidies at critical moments when, as now, money was the sinews of war. It has been calculated from official documents that during three-quarters of a century (1715–89) the Clergy paid in, either for the rentes of the Hotel de Ville or as “free gifts” over 380 million livres ($76,000,000 ). We may well ask ourselves if, with all their prerogatives, they did not contribute toward the public expenses as much as the rest of the nation. In 1789, when accepting, with all the cahiers or propositions emanating from the Clergy, the law imposing on the Chruch of France an equal share of the public expense, the Archbishop of Paris, Monseigneur de Juign,’ was able to say that the Church already contributed as much as the other orders (nobility, bourgeoisie, and people); its burdens would not be increased by the new law that imposed unpon all an equal share in contributing to the expenses of the State.

The Assemblies of the Clergy conducted their temporal administration in a dignified and imposing manner, and with much perfection of detail. They appointed for ten years a receiver-general (Receveur-g’n’ral) in reality a minister of finance. The office carried with it a generous salary, and for election to it a two-thirds majority was required. He was bound to furnish security at his residence in Paris and render a detailed account of his management to the assembled Clergy. In each diocese there was a board of elected delegates presided over by the bishop, whose duty it was to apportion the assessments among the beneficed ecclesiastics. This Bureau dioc’sain de d’cimes (Diocesan Board of Tithes) was authorized to settle ordinary disputes. Over it were superior boards located at Paris, Lyons, Rouen, Tours, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Aix, and Bourges, courts of appeal, whose decisions were final in all disputes concerning the contributions of the dioceses within their jurisdiction.

In this way the Clergy had an administration of their own independent of the State, a very important privilege under the old regime. It may be added that they knew how to merit such a favor. In the whole nation their credit stood highest; the archives have preserved for us many thousands of rental contracts made in the utmost confidence by private individuals with the Church. Certain details of the ecclesiastical financial system are even yet worthy of study. It has been said that M. de VillŠle introduced into France the conversion of annuities and the consequent reduction of interest; as a matter of fact this was practised by the Clergy from the end of the seventeenth century when they were forced to negotiate loans in order to furnish the sums demanded by Louis XIV. Necker, a competent judge, commended the Clergy for the care they took in liquidating these debts. He also praised the clerical system of the distribution of taxes, according to which the beneficed ecclesiastics throughout the kingdom were divided into eight d’partements, or classes, in order to facilitate the apportionment of taxes in ascending ratio, according to the resources of each. This shows that even under the old regime the Clergy had placed on a practical working basis, in their own system of revenues the imp”t progressif or system of graduated assessment of income. It may be said that the system of administering the ecclesiastical temporalities as developed by the Assemblies of the Clergy of France was remarkably successful. Possibly, they succeeded only too well in maintaining the financial immunities granted the Church. These they gave up on the verge of the Revolution, when they accepted the principle that the public burden should be equally divided among all classes of the nation, a step they had delayed too long. Public opinion had already condemned in an irresistible manner all privileges whatsoever.

The Assemblies of the Clergy did not confine their attention to temporal matters. Doctrinal questions and spiritual matters held an important place among the subjects discussed in them. Indeed, the Colloquy of Poissy, the original germ of the Assemblies, was expressly convened for the discussion of protestantism, and in opposition to schism and heresy. Practically every Assembly, from the first in 1560 to the last in 1788, dealt with the problem of Protestantism; it may be added that their attitude was scarcely favorable to liberty of conscience. In its turn, Jansenism received much attention from these Assemblies, which always supported with great loyalty the papal bulls that condemned this heresy. Indeed, some of the severest measures against Jansenism came from this quarter. The eighteenth century, with its philosophers and encyclopaedists, brought the Assemblies of the Clergy anxieties of a new and alarming character. They did their best to withstand the progress of infidelity, stirred up and encouraged Christian apologists, and urged the king to protect the Church and defend the faith of the French people. They were less successful in this task than in their previous undertakings. The philosophical and political movement which the Clergy had found themselves powerless to block, was to involve even them in the catastrophe that demolished the old regime.

Among the doctrinal questions brought before the Assemblies of the Clergy particular note should be taken of the Four Articles voted on by the famous Assembly of 1682. We know that this Assembly was convened to consider the R’gale, a term denoting the right assumed by the French king during the vacancy of a see to appropriate its revenues and make appointments to benefices. For centuries, even back in the Middle Ages, such seizure of ecclesiastical rights on the part of the State had given rise to innumerable abuses and depredations. The kings of France had often affirmed that the right of R’gale belonged to them in virtue of the supremacy of the Crown over all sees, even those previously exempt from the assertion of this right. Under Louis XIV, these claims were vigorously enforced. Two prelates, Pavillon, Bishop of Alet, and Caulet, Bishop of Pamiers, made a lively resistance to the royal pretensions. The pope sustained them with all his authority. Thereupon the king convoked the famous Assembly of 1682, presided over by Harley de Champvallon, and Le Tellier, Archbishops respectively of Paris and of Reims. Bossuet, though firm in his allegiance to the Holy See, was convinced of the danger menacing the Church, and on the 9th of November, 1681, preached in the church on the Grands Augustins at Paris his celebrated sermon “On the Unity of the Church.” This immortal masterpiece of eloquence was so fortunate as to secure the approbation of both pope and king. Contrary to its custom, the Assembly ordered the discourse to be printed. Thereupon, the question of the R’gale was quickly decided according to the royal wish. A far graver question, however, was laid before the Assembly when Louis XIV asked them to pronounce upon the authority of the pope. Bossuet, who felt the peril lurking in such discussions, tries to temporize and requested that, before proceeding further, Christian tradition on this point be carefully studied. This move proving unsuccessful, the Bishop of Meaux stood out against the (Gallican) propositions presented in the name of the commission by Choiseul-Praslin, Bishop of Tournai. Thereupon the propositions were turned over to Bossuet himself; he succeeded in eliminating from them the irritating question of appeals to a future council, a proposition several times condemned by the Holy See. It was then that the Assembly voted (19 march, 1682) the famous “Four Articles” that may be briefly summarized as follows:

The pope has no right, direct or indirect, over the temporal power of kings.

The pope is inferior to the General Council, and the decrees of the Council of Constance in its fourth and fifth sessions are still binding,

The exercise of pontifical authority should be regulated by the ecclesiastical canons.

Dogmatic decisions of the pope are not irrevocable until they have been confirmed by the judgment of the whole Church.

Bossuet who was drawn into the discussions in spite of himself, and who in all questions inclined towards the least arbitrary solution, wrote his Defensio Declarationis in justification of the decisions of the Assembly. It was not published, however, until after his death. The king ordered the “Four Articles” to be promulgated from all the pulpits of France. Innocent XI (1676–89), notwithstanding his dissatisfaction, hesitated to pass censure on the publication of the “four Articles,” He contented himself with expressing his disapproval of the decision made by the Assembly on the question of the R’gale, and refused the papal Bulls to those members of the Assembly who had been selected by the king for vacant sees. To lend unity to the action of the Assemblies, and to preserve their influence during the long intervals between these meetings, two ecclesiastics were elected who were thenceforth, as it were, the executive power of the Church of France. They were known as Agents-General (Agents-g’n’raux) and were very important personages under the old regime. Although chosen from among the Clergy of the second order, i.e. from among the priests, they were always men of good birth, distinguished bearing, and quite familiar with the ways of the world and the court. They had charge of the accounts of all receivers, protected jealously all rights of the Church, drew attention to whatever was prejudicial to her prerogatives of discipline, and in the parliament represented the ecclesiastical authority and interest in all cases to which the Church was a party. They enjoyed the privilege of committimus, and were specially authorized to enter the king’s council and speak before it on ecclesiastical matters. On the occasion of each Assembly these agents rendered an account of their administration in reports, several folio volumes of which have been published since the beginning of the eighteenth century under the title of: Rapports d’agence. The usual reward for their services was the episcopate. Their duties prepared them admirably to understand public affairs. Monseigneur de Cic,’ Monseigneur de La Luzerne, the Abb’ de Montesquiou, and Talleyrand, all of whom played important r”les in the Constituant Assembly, had been in their time Agents General of the Clergy.

The reader may now judge of the importance attaching to the Assemblies of the Clergy under the old regime. The mere fact that they could meet the king, converse with him on questions of finance, religion, administration, even of politics, and, when necessary, lay complaints before him, was in those days a very great privilege. At a time when the public were without a voice, the Nobility forbidden to assemble (enjoying, indeed, special favours, but without rights; forming no distinct corps, and with no official organ of their interests) the clergy were represented, had a voice in affairs, could defend themselves, attack their opponents, offer remonstrances. It was a unique position, and added still more to the prestige already enjoyed by the first order of the nation. It was a unique position, and added still more to the prestige already enjoyed by the first order of the nation. It was truly extraordinary that they should have so jealously preserved the right of voting on their taxation, a right which for three centuries the people had allowed to lapse. It was an evidence of great power when the Clergy could force an absolute monarchy to discuss with them grave questions of finance, could vote freely on their own contributions and set forth their demands, could seize the occasion of their “free gifts.” To draw to all manner of religious interests the royal attention and good will- in a word, could practice the policy of do ut des (I give that you may give), efficacious even under a Louis XIV. It is worthy of note that in the suspension of the meetings of the States-General, of councils national or provincial, these Assemblies enabled the Clergy to exercice a correctional surveillance over all the interests of the Church. As for the temporalities, the Assemblies ensured to the Clergy an autonomous financial administration by which they might better defend themselves against the menace of the taille, or land tax, escape the often odious interference of the royal treasury, redeem the new assessments known as the capitation (poll-tax) of the tenth, the fiftieth, and twentieth-all which favours could be obtained only in consideration of contributions of prompt authoritative decisions. We have, indeed, already remarked that these Assemblies succeeded all too well in retaining the ecclesiastical exemptions until 1789, just before the States-General were again convoked, when, yielding to the pressure of public opinion, and in their own interest, the Clergy were induced to relinquish them. In the eyes of posterity the doctrinal r”le of the Assemblies of the Clergy was more striking than their administration of the ecclesiastical temporalities. If they were unable to weather the storm that laid low all institutions of the old regime, it was due in great part to the fact that their share in the interests and life of the people was inconsiderable. By defending ecclesiastical privilege with so much heat and constancy these Assemblies appeared to be occupied almost solely with clerical interests. Moreover, the method of their recruitment, almost exclusively from the higher Clergy, begot a temper of indifference towards their fate on the part of the cur’s, or parish priests, who were soon called to exercise a decisive influence on the course of the States-General. Had the Assemblies been less attached to the prerogatives of absolute power, even at a time when ideas of liberty were gaining a hold on public opinion in France, they might have become what they were qualified for by their organization and their operation-a standing invitation to a parliamentary form of government and a preparation for the same. The tardy stand taken by the Assembly of 1788, with its hold plea to the King for the rights of the people and for the convocation of the States-General, came a trifle too late; the effect produced was lost sight of in the general ferment. The vote by which the national parliament was assured of equal taxation for all deprived these Assemblies of their raison d’ˆtre; it was precisely for the regulation of special contributions from the Clergy that they were established and had been kept up. Henceforth, like the parlements and other bodies apparently detached from, or loosely connected with, the life of the nation, they were fated to be merged in its new and larger unity. Despite the manner of their ending, shared by so many other institutions of the old regime, the Assemblies had been one of the ornaments-it might be said, one of the glories- of the Church of France. During centuries of political servitude they offered the example of a free parliament in regular operation; their financial administration was successful and was conducted with much dignity; in time of war they rendered the State notable services, and some of their meetings will be always remembered for the important religious and political discussions they provoked. For these reasons the Assemblies fill a brillant page in the annals of the French Clergy, and will merit at all times the attention of the historian.

Manuscripts and Archives nationales, S’rie G8, in the BibliothŠque Nationale Paris. The records of the National Archives contain the authentic proceedings (ProcŠs-verbaux) of the Assemblies. Collection des procŠs-verbaux du clerg’ de France, depuis 1560, jusqu’ . . . pr’sent (1767–78, 9 vols.) The later Assemblies had each a ProcŠs-verbal printed in one folio volume. Recueil des actes et m’moires du clerg’ de France (1771) I and VIII: Louis Serbat, Les Assembl’es du clerg’ de France (Paris, 1906) 1561–1615); Maury, in Revue des deux Mondes (1878); Bourlon in Revue du Clerg’ (1905–06); Sicard, L’ancien clerg’ de France (Paris, 1893–1903).

J. SICARD

John Asser

(Or Asserius Menevensis).

A learned monk of St David’s, Menevia, b. in Pembrokeshire; d. probably, 910.He was educated in the monastery of St. David’s by his kinsmen, Archbishop Asserius. His repute for learning led Kink Alfred to invite him to his court (about 885). Asser required six months for consideration. Illness at Winchester led to his remaining there for a year and a half. Finally, on his recovery, as Alfred still urged his request, Asser agreed to spend half of each year with him. His first visit lasted eight months, and Alfred gave him many presents on parting, including the monasteries of Amesbury and Banwell. Later, Asser received a grant of Exeter, and was made Bishop of Sherborne, before 900. Asser wrote a life of Alfred (Annales rer.gest. Alfredi Magni) in 893. The work in question consists of a chronicle of English history from 849 to 887, and a personal and original narrative of Alfred’s career down to the latter date. The Welsh birth of the author is indicated by his use of Celtic names, and the English are constantly styled Saxons. The authentic work of Asser is found only in the edition of Francis Wise (1722), printed from a tenth-century Cottonian MS. (Otho A, XII) which was burned in 1731. The burning of the cakes, references to St. Neot, and to Alfred’s founding the University of Oxford are not in Asser’s work, nor does Florence of Worcester allude to them, although he drew freely on that work, without, however, and mention of Asser’s name. Archbishop Parker’s edition of Asser’s “Annales” presents the “Life” with many interpolations. A new edition is announced by W.H. Stevenson. There are three English translations (Giles, 1848); J. Stevenson, 1854; E. Conybeare, 1900; See Gross, “Sources,” etc., 180). The authenticity of Asser’s book has been called into question. Pauli discusses the subject very thoroughly in the introduction to his “King Alfred” (Berlin, 1851). See T.D. Hardy, in the introduction to Petrie (London, 1848).

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Feast of Asses

The celebration of the “Festum Asinorum” in medieval and ecclesiastical circles was a pastime in which all, from the dignitaries in the upper stalls of the sanctuary to the humblest among the esclaffardi, participated. The feast dates for the eleventh century, though the source which suggested it is much older. This source was the pseudo-Augustinian “Sermo contra judaeos, paganos, et Arianos de Symbolo” (P.L., XLII, 1117), written probably in the sixth century, but ascribed throughout the Middle Ages to St. Augustine (E.K. Chambers, The Medieval Stage, II, 53). For the reprint of an eleventh-century manuscript which gives the sermon in dramatized form, see Edélestand du Méril, Les Origines latines du theatre moderne, 179–187; and for a complete history of this manuscript, and the théâtre that grew out of it, Les prophètes du Christ, by Marius Sepet (Paris, 1878). The original sermon is itself a highly dramatic piece. The preacher impersonates the Hebrew prophets whose Messianic utterances he works into an argument establishing the Divinity of Christ. Having confuted the Jews out of the mouths of their own teachers, the orator addresses himself to the unbelieving Gentiles-”Ecce, convertimur ad gentes.” The testimony of Virgil, Nabuchodonosor, and the Erythræan Sibyl is eloquently set forth and interpreted in favour of the general thesis. As early as the eleventh century this sermon had taken the form of a metrical dramatic dialogue, the stage-arrangement adhering closely to the original. Additions and adaptations were gradually introduced. A Rouen manuscript of the thirteenth century outlined in Ducange (Glossarium, s. v. Festum) exhibits twenty-eight prophets as taking part in the play. After Terce, the rubric directs, “let the procession move to the church, in the centre of which let there be a furnace and an idol for the brethren to refuse to worship.” The procession filed into the choir. On the one side were seated Moses, Amos, Isaias, Aaron, Balaam and his Ass, Zachary and Elizabeth, John the Baptist and Simeon. The three Gentile prophets sat opposite. The proceedings were conducted under the auspices of St. Augustine, whom the presiding dignitary called on each of the prophets, who successively testified to the birth of the Messiah. When the Sibyl had recited her acrostic lines on the Signs of Judgment (Du Méril, 186), all the prophets sang in unison a hymn of praise to the long-sought Saviour. Mass immediately followed. In all this the part that pleased the congregation was the rôle of Balaam and the Ass; hence the popular designation of the “Processus Prophetarum” as “the Feast of the Ass.” The part of Balaam was soon dissociated from its surroundings and expanded into an independent drama. The Rouen rubrics direct that two messengers be sent by King Balaak to bring forth the prophet. Balaam advances riding on a gorgeously caparisoned ass (a wooden, or hobby, ass, for the rubric immediately bids somebody to hide beneath the trappings-not an enviable position when the further direction to the rider was carried out-”and let him goad the ass with his spurs”). From the Chester pageant it is clear that the prophet rode on a wooden animal, since the rubric supposes that the speaker for the beast is “in asinâ” (Thos. Wright, The Chester Plays, I, v). Then follows the scene in which the ass meets the angered angel and protests at length against the cruelty of the rider. Once detached from the parent stem, the “Festum Asinorum” branched in various directions. In the Beauvais thirteenth-century document, quoted by the editors of Ducange, the “Feast of Asses” is already an independent Trope with the date and purpose of its celebration changed. At Beauvais the Ass may have continued his minor role of enlivening the long procession of Prophets. On the fourteenth of January, however, he discharged an important function in that city’s festivities. On the feast of the Flight into Egypt the most beautiful girl in the city, with a pretty child in her arms, was placed on a richly draped ass, and conducted with religious gravity to St. Stephen’s Church. The Ass (possibly a wooden figure) was stationed at the right of the altar, and the Mass was begun. After the Introit a Latin Prose was sung. The first stanza and its French refrain may serve as a specimen of the nine that follow:

Orientis partibus

Adventavit Asinus

Pulcher et fortissimus

Sarcinis aptissimus.

Hez, Sire Asnes, car chantez,

Belle bouche rechignez,

Vous aurez du foin assez

Et de l’avoine a plantez.

-”From the Eastern lands the Ass is come, beautiful and very brave, well fitted to bear burdens. Up! Sir Ass, and sing. Open your pretty mouth. Hay will be yours in plenty, and oats in abundance.” Mass was continued, and at its end, apparently without awakening the least consciousness of its impropriety, the following direction was observed:

In fine Missæ sacerdos, versus ad populum, vice ‘Ita, Missæ Est,’ ter hinhannabit: populus vero, vice ‘Deo Gratias,’ ter respondebit, ‘Hinham, hinham, hinham.’ At the end of Mass, the priest, having turned to the people, in lieu of saying the ‘Ite, Missa est,’ will bray thrice; the people instead of replying ‘Deo Gratias’ say, ‘Hinham, hinham, hinham.’

This is the sole instance of a service of this nature in connection with the Feast of Ass. The Festum Asinorum gradually lost its identity, and became incorporated in the ceremonies of the Deposuit or united in the general merry-making on the Feast of Fools. The “Processus Prophetarum,” whence it drew its origin, survives in the Corpus Christi and Whitsun Cycles, that stand at the head of the modern English drama.

T.J. CROWLEY

Assessor of the Holy Office

An official of the Congregation of the Inquisition. The Holy Office is better known as the Congregation of the Universal Inquisition. Its functions at present are to watch over matters connected with faith and to examine into the suspected tenets of persons or books. The Assessor holds the office next in dignity after the Cardinals of the Congregation. He is a secular prelate or an honorary chamberlain of the Pope. It is his duty to make the relation or report of the Holy Office in a given case. When the consultors of the Congregation alone assemble, the Assessor presides over them and afterwards lays their votes before the Cardinal Inquisitors. When the Congregation has reached a decision, the Assessor communicates the result to the Pope on the same evening, in case the latter has not presided over the assembly.The Assessor must be present at all four meetings of this Congregation. On Saturday he examines into the matters laid before the Holy Office and decides, together with four other officials, whether a vote of the consultors be necessary in the case, or whether the Cardinals of the Congregation should pass upon the matter at once. On Monday, he calls the consultors into council. He is present on Wednesday at the secret meeting of the Cardinals and on Thursday at the solemn session which sometimes takes place under the presidency of the Pope. The Assessor has also charge of the Secretariate and sees that current business is expedited. The office of assessor is so important that it is included among the cardinalitial appointments; that is, the only promotion considered proper for an assessor is to raise him to the rank of cardinal.

Baart, The Roman Court (New York, 1895); Humphrey, Urbs et Orbis (London, 1899), 409, 410; Wernz, Jus Decret. II (Rome, 1899).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Assessors

Assessors, in ecclesiastical law, are learned persons who function is to counsel a judge with whom they are associated in the trial of causes. They are called assessors because they sit beside (Lat. assidere) the judge. Assessors are required to examine documents, consult precedents, and in general explore the laws for points bearing on the cause at issue. A judge who is either overburdened with business or conscious of his inexperience in law cases may voluntarily associate assessors with himself, or they may be assigned to him by superior authority. Assessors are expected to be men beyond suspicion of partiality, whose learning is conceded. In case of an appeal against the judge’s actions or rulings, they are to be unexceptionable witnesses. As assessors are advisors of the judge, and not judges themselves, they are not endowed with any jurisdiction. Neither do they bear a public character, but are present at trials in a private capacity. They may, however, take part in the examination of the accused or of witnesses. Owing to their non-judicial character, laymen may be employed as Assessors in spiritual and ecclesiastical matters, though by the canons of the Church they would be incompetent as judges, even if a cleric were joined with them in a judicial capacity. As an Assessor is commonly looked upon as restraining in some manner the dignity, if not the jurisdiction, of the judge, the Sacred Congregations have declared that a cathedral chapter cannot impose an assessor on the Vicar-Capitular sede vacante.

Wernz, Jus Decr., II (Rome, 1899); De Angelis, Proel. Jur. Can., tom. ult. (Paris, 1884); Reiffenstuel, Jus Can., II, VI (Paris, 1865).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

St. Assicus

Bishop and Patron of Elphin, in Ireland, one of St. Patrick’s converts, and his worker in iron.

In the “Tripartite Life of St Patrick” (ed. Whitley Stokes) we read:

Bishop St Assic was Patrick’s coppersmith, and made altars and square bookcases. Besides, he made our saint’s patens in honour of Bishop Patrick, and of them I have seen three square patens, that is, a paten in the Church of Patrick in Armagh, and another in the Church of Elphin, and a third in the great-church of Donough-patrick (at Carns near Tulsk).

St. Assicus was a most expert metal worker, and was also renowned as a bellfounder. Of his last days the following graphic description is given by Archbishop Healy:

Assicus himself in shame because of a lie told either by him, or, as others say, of him, fled into Donegal, and for seven years abode in the island of Rathlin O’Birne. Then his monks sought him out, and after much labour found him in the mountain glens, and tried to bring him home to his own monastery at Elphin. But he fell sick by the way and died with them in the wilderness. So they buried the venerable old man in the churchyard of Rath Cunga, now Racoon, in the Barony of Tirhugh, County Donegal. The old churchyard is there still, though now disused, on the summit of a round hillock close to the left of the road from Ballyshannon to Donegal, about a mile to the south of the village of Ballintra. We sought in vain for any trace of an inscribed stone in the old churchyard. He fled from men during life, and, like Moses, his grave is hidden from them in death.

His feast is celebrated 27 April, as is recorded in the “Martyrology of Tallaght” under that date.

W. H. Grattan-Flood.

Assideans

Assideans (Hebr., chasidim, saints; Gr., Asidaioi), men endowed with grace (Ps., xxxix, 5; cxlviii, 14).

They were the maintainers of the Mosaic Law against the invasion of Greek customs. When the Machabees struggled against Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the Assideans naturally joined their cause (I Mach., ii, 42, 43). However, not all the adherents of the Machabees were Assideans; according to I Mach., vii, 13, the Scribes and the Assideans sought to make peace with the Syrians, while the other followers of the Machabees suspected deceit. That this suspicion was well founded may he inferred from the fact that Alcimus, who had been made High Priest by Demetrius I (I Mach., vii, 9), slew sixty Assideans in one day (I Mach., vii, 16). According to II Mach., xiv, 3, the same Alcimus “wilfully defiled himself,” and later on he testified before Demetrius: “They among the Jews that are called Assideans, of whom Judas Machabeus is captain, nourish wars, and raise seditions, and will not suffer the realm to be in peace” (II Mach., xiv, 6). There is an opinion which maintains that the Assideans were identical with the later Pharisees.

A.J. MAAS

Physiological Assimilation

In this sense the word may be defined as that vital function by which an organism changes nutrient material into living protoplasm.

Most modern scientists admit that the notion of assimilation is not exhausted by the eventual chemical changes that may take place. Their definition of assimilation, moreover, is most frequently the true expression of reality. To give but one instance, the physiologist Rosenthal defines assimilation as the “peculiar property common to all cells of bringing forth from different materials substances specifically similar to those which pre-exist in those cells.” But, in further explaining the concept of assimilation, they frequently mistake its true nature and deny again what they conceded before. In other words, they often refuse to acknowledge that food, in being changed into living substance, participates in properties which in themselves are of a nature totally different from the forces of inorganic matter.

Our reason for disapproving this view rests on the fact that, while the action of inorganic matter is essentially of a transient nature, and passes from subject to subject, the same inanimate matter acquires by the process of assimilation the faculty “of acting on itself, of developing and perfecting itself by its own motion, or of acting immanently.” That is, the action proceeds from an internal principle and “does not pass into a foreign subject, but perfects the agent.” The activities implies in the nutrition of an animal really proceed from it. It spontaneously moves about and selects among a thousand solid particles a definite kind and quantity of food in strict proportion to its own needs, and appropriates it in a suitable manner. Then, in anticipation of a definite end to be realized, it elaborates from the food the chemical constituents to be used for the renewal and increase of its protoplasm, rejecting the rest in a suitable manner. Thus the entire action proceeds from the animal and finally serves, or tends to serve, no other purpose than to maintain the integrity of its protoplasm and to give it the total perfection of the species. On the other hand, it is evident that such immanent actions belong to a sphere totally different from the transient actions of which alone inorganic matter is capable. If inorganic matter is to act, it must be acted upon, and the reaction is mathematically equal to the action. It is, therefore, merely passive. But organisms act, even if no action is exerted upon them from without; and if an action results from stimulation, the reaction is not equal to the action, nor is, in fact, the stimulation the adequate cause of the action. In this activity, however, we need not assume a production and accumulation of new material energy. The activity of the vital principle in the processes of assimilation simply consists in directing the constant transformation of existing material energy towards definite ends and according to a definite plan of organization. In other words, the algebraic sum of all the energy in the universe is not altered by the living principle. Nor are the elements changed in their nature and mutual action. They require the faculty of an immanent action merely inasmuch as they are and remain parts of living cells. Thus, through assimilation they become subject to a higher principle which in constant agreement with their own physical and chemical laws directs them towards the uniform perfection of the entire organism.

Rosenthal, Allgemeine Physiologie (1901), 392; Pesch, Institutiones psycholog icoe, Pars I, lib. I, 144; Maher, Psychology (1895), 510.

H. MUCKERMANN

Psychological Assimilation

As applied to a mental process, assimilation derives all its force and meaning from the analogy which many educationists have found to exist between the way in which food is incorporated into the living tissue and the manner in which truth is acquired by the growing mind. That education means the assimilation of truth is almost a commonplace in modern pedagogy. Few, however, have felt the full force of the comparison or realized how completely the psychological in this as in other instances follows on the lines of the physiological. Just as the living cell cannot delegate the task of assimilation, so the mind cannot by any contrivance of educational methods evade the task of performing the assimilative process for itself. All that the teacher can do is to prepare the material and to stimulate the mind of the pupil; the pupil himself must perform the final act of acquiring knowledge, namely the act of incorporating into his mind the truth presented to him. In the second place, the mind cannot take over into its own substance a complex truth as such. The truth must first be broken up into less complex component parts, which are assimilable by the mind in its present condition of development.

There is little profit, for example, in placing before the pupil a finished essay, unless the pupil is taught to analyze the finished literary product into its constituent elements, and to reconstruct those elements into a living whole. This, of course, implies much more than the task of summarizing each paragraph and labelling it more or less happily. When the term assimilation is used with reference to mental development, it is well to remember that, while it originally referred to the building up of anatomical elements, these elements, once constructed, have an immediate psychological bearing. Each particle of matter that is lifted into the living tissue acquires thereby a functional unity, that is, it is brought into functional relation with every other particle of the organism. Similarly, a truth once incorporated into the mind sheds its light on the entire mental content, and is in turn illuminated by every previously assimilated truth. Acting on these principles, the up-to-date educationist insists: first, that each new truth should be not only an addition to the stock of knowledge of the pupil, but also a functional acquisition, something that stimulates the pupil’s mind to increased activity; secondly, that in every educational endeavor the centre of orientation should be shifted from the logical centre of the body of truth to be imparted to the present needs and capacities of the growing mind.

Foster, Medical Dictionary; Richet, Dictionnaire physiologique; Gautier, Chimie physiologique.

THOMAS EDWARD SHIELDS

Diocese of Assisi

Diocese located in the civil province of Umbria, Italy. The town of Assisi (Assisium), which takes its name from Mount Asi, on which it is situated, lies amost in the centre of the province of Umbria, about halfway between the cities of Perugia and Foligno, and forty-one miles north of Rome. The beginnings of Assisian history are involved in much obscurity; but in early imperial times it had become a flourishing municipality of no mean importance, and lays claim, with some show of truth, to being the birthplace of the Latin poet Sextus Aurelius Propertius. The Gospel was first preached to the Assisians about the middle of the third century by St. Cyspolitus, Bishop of Bettona (ancient Vettona), who suffered martyrdom under the Emperor Maximilian. About 235 St. Rufinus was appointed Bishop of Assisi by Pope St. Fabian; suffered martyrdom about 236; and was succeeded by St. Victorinus. Both St. Victorinus and his immediate successor, St. Sabinus, died martyrs, the latter being most cruelly beaten to death. Of the bishops who occupied the See of Assisi during the fifth and sixth centuries, one, Aventius, is worthy of mention. It was this heroic prelate who interceded (545) with Totila in behalf of the Assisians, and saved the city from the ravages of the Ostrogothic army on its way to Rome. In succeeding centuries mention is made of several Bishops of Assisi who were present at general councils of the Church. Thus, in 659, Aquilinus was summoned by Pope Martin I to be present at the Lateran Council, convened for the purpose of formulating decrees against the Monothelites. In the seventh and eighth centuries Assisi fell under the power of the Lombard dukes, and in 773 was razed to the ground by Charlemagne for its determined resistance to him. He restored it, however, and at the same time all traces of Arian belief and Lombard sympathies disappeared. About the same time the great castle, or Rocca d’Assisi, was built, which stronghold made the town thenceforth a great power in the political life of central Italy. Bishop Hugo, whose episcopate lasted from 1036 to 1050, transferred the episcopal chair to the cathedral of San Rufino, which he himself raised over the little oratory beheath which the Saint’s bones had rested for eight centuries. From St. Rufinus to the present incumbent of the See of Assisi, the Right Reverend Monsignor Ambrose Luddi, O. P., the bishops of that see have numbered some ninety-two; but of these some are little known, and the existence of others is more or less problematical. Assisi is chiefly famous as the birthplace of St. Francis. All the places sanctified by his presence have been preserved in their original state or transformed into sanctuaries. Foremost among these is the basilica of Our Lady of Angels, erected on the model of St. Peter’s at Rome through the beneficence of Pope St. Pius V, which shelters the famous little chapel of the Porziuncula (Portiuncula), the cradle of the Franciscan Order, where St. Francis received the great Perdono d’Assisi, more commonly known as the Portiuncula Indulgence. Within this basilica also stands the tiny cell in which St. Francis died, and which contains among other things the well-known statue by Luca della Robbia made after the Saint’s death mask. St. Francis’s remains now repose in the patriarchal basilica of San Francesco, erected through the exertions of Brother Elias, the first stone of which was laid by Gregory IX, 25 July, 1228. Consecrated by Innocent IV, this church is composed of three sanctuaries, one over the other, and is one of the earliest specimens of Gothic architecture in Italy. “There is nothing like it,” says Taine. “Before seeing it one has no idea of the art and genius of the Middle Ages.” It is difficult to overestimate the stimulus given to Italian art by the building of this great double basilica, in the decoration of which the foremost painters of the day were engaged, including Cimabue and Giotto, whose famous mystical frescoes, illustrative of the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, adorn the lower church. The recent revival of widespread interest in all that concerns St. Francis has made Assisi the goal of a new race of literary and artistic pilgrims. The splendours and associations of the basilicas of San Francesco and Santa Maria degli Angeli tend to overshadow the other churches of Assisi. The cathedral of San Rufino, mentioned above, which dates from 1140, is noted for its beautiful façade and possesses a font (the only one in Assisi) in which not only St. Francis and St. Clare, but the Emperor Frederick II was baptized. The Chiesa Nuova, a Greek cross, surmounted by five cupolas and standing on the site of St. Francis’s parental house, was built at the expense of Phillip III of Spain, in 1615. Santa Chiara, a splendid Gothic church of the thirteenth century, due to the genius of Filippo di Campello, contains the remains of St. Clare, the co-foundress with St. Francis of Assisi of the Poor Ladies, or Poor Clares, as they are now called, and daughter of Count Favorino Scifi, an Assisian noble. The convent of St. Damian’s in which the holy abbess lived, stands without the city and is little changed since her day. Aside from the churches and convents, perhaps the most interesting monuments in Assisi are the remains of the temple of Minerva, a striking reminder of the Roman period, and the renowned castle known as the Rocca Magiore, dating, as it seems from Charlemagne’s time, and affording a magnificent panorama of Assisi and its vicinity. The population of the town now numbers 3,750.

Present status

The Diocese of Assisi now comprises four municipalities in the civil province of Perugia (Umbria), besides twenty-six small hamlets and villages, each, with the exception of Porziano, having its church and resident priest. There are 3 educational institutions for boys, with 206 pupils; and one episcopal seminary, with 28 seminarists. There are 64 secular priests, and 125 priests of religious orders; while the faithful of the diocese number 28,500. There are 8 monasteries of men and 18 convents of nuns. The churches chapels, and oratories in the diocese number 190, with 35 parishes in all. The Diocese of Assisi is immediately subject to the Holy See, a privilege which it has enjoyed from remote antiquity.

Cristofani, Delle storie d’Assisi (Assisi, 1866); Gordon, The story of Assisi (London, 1903); De Costanza, Disamina degli scrittori e dei monumenti riguardanti S. Rufino, vescovo e martire di Assisi (Assisi, 1797); Ughelli, Italia Sacra (Venice, 1722), I; Cappelletti, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1866), V; Cruickshank, The Umbrian Towns (London, 1901); Hutton, The cities of Umbria (London, 1905); Schnürer, Franz von Assisi (Munich, 1905); Thode, Franz von Assisi und die Anfänge der Kunst der Renaissance in Italien (Berlin, 1904).

STEPHEN DONOVAN

Assistant at the Pontifical Throne

(ASSISTENS THRONO PONTIFICIO.)

Bishops-assistant at the pontifical throne are those prelates who belong to the Papal Chapel (Capella Pontifica), and hold toward the Pope much the same relation as cathedral canons do to their bishop. At solemn functions these Assistants, adorned with cope and mitre, surround the throne of the Pope, while other bishops are not privileged to be in his immediate vicinity. To this College of Assistants belong ex officio and those archbishops and bishops to whom the Pope has granted the privilege by brief. The Throne Assistants rank immediately after the Cardinals. They are privileged to celebrate Mass in private oratories and to dispose of a certain sum from their episcopal benefices in favour of clerics or their own relations, or to lay it aside for their own obsequies. These Throne-Assistants are always created Counts of the Apostolic Palace, and they belong to the Pontifical Family.

BANGEN, Die Römische Curie (Münster, 1854); HUMPHREY, Urbs et Orbis (London, 1899), 167.

William H. W. Fanning

Assize of Clarendon

Assize of Clarendon, The.—A name improperly applied to the Council held at Clarendon, January 25, 1164, where Henry II required St. Thomas Becket and the English bishops to subscribe sixteen “Constitutions,” alleging them to be customs of the realm. One gave into the King’s hands the custody of vacant sees and abbeys and made election to them dependent on his license and assent. The second and seventh provided that the King’s justices should, in every suit to which an ecclesiastic was a party, determine whether the cause was spiritual or secular; if the former, that a royal officer should be present in the bishop’s court where it was tried; and that on conviction the defendant, in a criminal action, should be handed over to the secular arm for punishment. By the third no King’s officer was to be excommunicated, or his lands interdicted, without application to the Crown. The fourth required royal leave before any Church dignitary might pass beyond sea, i.e. to Rome. The fifth allowed no appeals to the Pope except the King suffered them. All causes, however spiritual, were to be terminated in England. Of these enactments, the first violated Henry I’s Charter, King Stephen’s confirmation of the Church’s liberties, and Henry II’s own previous statutes. That one which relates to “criminous clerks” has been variously interpreted, but its meaning is not doubtful. Henry II was aiming at a systematic encroachment on the popular and religious jurisdiction. In Saxon times the Archdeacon sat in the same court with lay judges. William the Conqueror forbade this custom and established separate “Courts Christian,” which, however, neither derived their authority from the civil power nor went by its rules. They dealt with all cases involving clerics, i.e. persons who had received the tonsure. They could not pronounce a sentence of blood. Their penalties were “for the salvation of souls,” and the most severe for an ecclesiastic was to be degraded from his order. Abuses followed this milder jurisdiction. Henry II, it appears, was intent on setting up in his kingdom a procedure which the old imperial law exhibited, and which Gratian’s “Decretum” quotes (C. II, q. I; c. 18, c. 31). “Curia traderet puniendos,” said an edict of the Emperor Arcadius received into the Theodosian Code, touching unworthy clerics. To similar effect Innocent III: after degradation, certain clerks were to be given up for punishment to the secular power (Regesta Innoc. III, i, 574; II, 268; ed. Baluze). But such a practice had never been the English custom. St. Thomas argued that deprivation was penalty sufficient, however grave the offense; and that no man ought to be punished twice, as he would be if the civil magistrate took in hand the guilty party after he was condemned. Henry did not affect to be God’s Vicar in spirituals. Yet his constitutions infringed the liberties which English clerks (clerics) had enjoyed, as well as sometimes abused. By cutting off appeals to Rome he was anticipating the Tudor legislation. The Church courts were superior to the royal in matters of learning, procedure, and justice. Their popularity was not undeserved. Excommunication of great officers in an age of violence was often the sole weapon against tyranny. St. Thomas, in resisting the constitutions, had precedent on his side. But Henry never can have meant to abolish the privilegium fori, even where a clerk had broken the criminal law. Such a clerk was to plead (respondere) before lay judges; to be tried, condemned, degraded in the spiritual court; and then to be chastised by royal authority. Hence Alexander III’s hesitation to support the Archbishop becomes intelligible. The Pope did, it is true, in 1166, confirm his action; and in 1176, when St. Thomas had been canonized, a partial agreement took place at Northampton between the King and the Holy See, represented by Cardinal Pietroleone. Clerks who broke the Forest Laws, or held feudal tenures, were made subject to the lay courts. The Constitutions of Clarendon were not directly repealed. But in Magna Charta the first article guarantees, without specifying them in detail, the liberties of the Church, “almost in the form,” says J. A. Froude, “in which Becket himself would have defined them.” It may be added that the real Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, laid down instructions for judges on circuit and instituted trial by jury, but was altogether distinct from the assembly at which St. Thomas underwent his great temptation. (See Immunities, Clerical; Thomas Becket, St.)

Wilkins, Leges Saxonorum, 321; Lingard, Hist. Eng., II; Stubbs, Hist. Appendix to Ecclesiast. Courts Commission; Freeman, Norman Conquest; Froude, Life and Times of Thomas à Becket, in Short Studies, II; Maitland, Roman Canon Law in Ch. of England (London).

WILLIAM BARRY

Assizes of Jerusalem

The signification of the word assizes in this connection is derived from the French verb asseoir, whose past participle is assis. Asseoir means “to seat,” “to place one on a seat.” Hence the idea of putting something into its place, determining it to something. Thus assise came to mean an enactment, a statute. Assize is the English form of the word, and used in the plural, assizes, it denotes a court.

The “Assizes of Jerusalem” (les assises de Jerusalem) are the code of laws enacted by the Crusaders for the government of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. They are a collection of legal regulations for the courts of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and Cyprus. Thus we have the “Assizes of Antioch,” the “Assizes of Rumania,” legal regulations for the Latin principality of Antioch and for the Latin Empire of Constantinople. It is erroneous to ascribe the “Assizes of Jerusalem” to Godfrey de Bouillon on the presumption that as he was King of Jerusalem he enacted its laws. The “Assizes of Jerusalem” were compiled in the thirteenth century, not in the eleventh; not in Jerusalem, but after its fall; not by any ruler, but by several jurists. Not even the names of these are all known, though two of them were the well-known John of Ibelin, who composed, before 1266, the “Livre des Assises de la Cour des Barons,” and Philippe de Navarre, who, about the middle of the thirteenth century, compiled the “Livre de forme de plait en la Haute Cour.”

There are nine treatises in the “Assizes of Jerusalem,” and they concern themselves with two kinds of law: Feudal Law, to which the Upper Court of Barons was amenable; and Common Law which was applied to the court of Burgesses. The latter is the older of the two and was drawn up before the fall of the Jerusalem. It deals with questions of civil law, such as contracts, marriage, and property, and touches on some which fall within the province of special courts, such as the “Ecclesiastical Court” for canonical points, the “Cour de la Fonde” for commerce, and the “Cour de la Mer” for admiralty cases. It deals rather with what the law enjoins in these several fields than with determining penalties for transgressions. The celebrated “Livre de la Haute Cour” of Ibelin was adopted, after revision (1359), as the official code of the Court of Cyprus, which kingdom succeeded to the title and regulations of Jerusalem. We possess only the official text of this, which is not much older than the works of French lawyers of Rouen and Orlèans. But the superiority of the “Assizes of Jerusalem” is that it reflects the genuine character of feudal law, whereas the works of the French feudalists betray something of the royal influence which affected those sections after the revival of the Roman law. No other work dwells so insistently on the rights of the vassal towards his lord, no other throws such a light on the resolution of the disputed point by an appeal to arms, its challenge, its champions, its value as evidence. In brief, the “Assizes of Jerusalem” give us a faithful and vivid picture of the part played by the law in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.

CH. MOELLER

Ignaz Assmayer

An Austrian musician, born at Salzburg, 11 February, 1790; died in Vienna, 31 August, 1862. He studied under Brunmayr and Michael Haydn, and later, when he went to Vienna, he received further instruction from Eybler. In 1808 he was organist at St. Peter’s in his native town, and here he wrote his oratorio “Die Sündfluth” (The Deluge) and his cantata “Worte der Weihe.” Some time after his removal to Vienna, in 1815, he became choirmaster at the Schotten kirche, and in 1825 was appointed imperial organist. After having served eight years as vice-choirmaster, he received in 1846 the appointment of second choir-master to the Court, as successor to Weigl. His principal oratorios, “Das Gelübde,” “Saul und David,” and “Sauls Tod,” were repeatedly performed by the Tonkünstler-Societät, of which he was conductor for fifteen years. He also wrote fifteen masses, two requiems, a Te Deum, and various smaller church pieces. Of these two oratorios, one mass, the requiems, and Te Deum, and furthermore sixty secular compositions, comprising symphonies, overtures, pastorales, etc., were published. As to his style Grove calls it correct and fluent, but wanting in both invention and force.

J.A. VÖLKER

Right of Voluntary Association

I. LEGAL RIGHT

A voluntary association means any group of individuals freely united for the pursuit of a common end. It differs, therefore, from a necessary association in as much as its members are not under legal compulsion to become associated. The principal instances of a necessary association are a conscript military body and civil society, or the State, the concept of voluntary association covers organizations as diverse as a manufacturing corporation and a religious sodality. The legal right of voluntary association—the attitude of civil authority toward bodies of this nature—has varied in different ages and still varies in different countries. Under the rule of Solon the Athenians seem to have been free to institute such societies as they pleased, so long as their action did not conflict with the public law. The multitude of societies and public gatherings for the celebration of religious festivals and the carrying on of games, or other forms of public recreation and pleasure, which flourished for so many centuries throughout ancient Greece, indicates that a considerable measure of freedonn of association was quite general in that country.

The Roman authorities were less liberal. No private association could be formed without a special decree of the senate or of the emperor. And yet voluntary societies or corporations were numerous from the earliest days of the Republic. There existed collegia for the proper performance of religious rites, collegia to provide public amusements, collegia of a political nature, collegia in charge of cemeteries, and collegia made up of workers in the various trades and occupations. In Judea the Pharisees and Sadducees—though these were schools, or sects, rather than organized associations—and the Essenes were not seriously interfered with by the Roman governors. With the union of Church and State in 325 there came naturally an era of freedom and prosperity for associations of a religious nature, especially for the religious orders. During the period of political chaos that followed the fall of the Empire, liberty of association was as extensive as could be expected among populations whose civil rulers were not sufficiently powerful either to repress or to protect the formation of voluntary unions. Indeed, the “minor, obscure isolated, and incoherent societies,” to use the words of Guizot, that erected themselves on the ruins of the old political organization and became in time the feudal system, were essentially private associations.

As the needs, culture, and outlook of men extended, there sprang into being a great number and variety of associations, religious, charitable, educational, and industrial. Instances are the great religious orders, the societies for the relief of poverty and sickness, the universities, and the guilds which arose and flourished between the tenth and the fourteenth centuries. All of these associations were instituted either under the active direction of the Church, or with her warm encouragement and as a rule without any serious opposition on the part of the civil power. Some of them, in fact, performed important political functions; others secured a measure of social peace that the civil authorities were unable to enforce while as a whole they constituted a considerable check to the exercise of arbitrary power by sovereigns. Thus, the merchant and craft guilds governed trade and industry with a series of regulations that had all the force and authority of legal statutes; the associations instituted to enforce the “Truce of God,” helped greatly to lessen petty warfare between different lords and different sections of the same country; while “the monarch was . . . hemmed in on all sides . . . by universities, corporations, brotherhoods, monastic orders; by franchises and privileges of all kinds, which in greater or less degree existed all over Europe.”

With the rise and extension of political absolutism in most of the countries of Europe in the seventeenth century, freedom of association became everywhere greatly restricted. It was frequently subjected to unreasonable conditions in the last century and it is still withheld by some governments. From 1820 to 1824 labour unions were absolutely prohibited in Great Britain. Up to the year 1901 non-industrial associations consisting of more than twenty persons could not be formed in France without authorization by a public official whose power in the matter was almost arbitrary. At present, authorization is required in the case of associations composed of Frenchmen and foreigners: associations whose supreme head resides outside of France; and associatons whose members live in common. Owing partly to the terms of the law and partly to the course pursued by the officials charged with its enforcement, almost all the religious congregations have been driven out of France. In Prussia and in most of the other German states political associations are subject to close inspection, and can be dissolved by the public authorities in case they go outside of certain well-defined limits. Most other societies pursuing reasonable ends can obtain existence and recognition by the becoming registered according to a general law of the empire. The law of Austria empowers magistrates to forbid the formation of any association that either in aim or personnel seems contrary to law, and to dissolve any society that is no longer conducted in accordance with the legal conditions to which it is subject. In Russia participation in any association not expressly authorized by the Government is a penal offence. Speaking generally, it may be said that with the exception of France, Russia, and Turkey, European governments exhibit today a liberal attitude toward associations pursuing reasonable ends.

In the United States associations whose purpose is pecuniary gain, and all other societies that desire a corporate existence and civil personality, must, of course, comply with the appropriate laws of incorporation. Unincorporated societies may be instituted without legal authorization, and may pursue any aim whatever, so long as their members do not engage in actions that constitute conspiracy or some other violation of public order. Even in these contingencies the members will not be liable to legal prosecution for the mere set of forming the associations. Under the present fairly liberal attitude of governments, and owing to the great increase in the number and complexity of human interests, the number and variety of associations in the Western world have grown with great rapidity. We may enumerate at least nine distinct types, namely: religious, charitable, intellectual, moral, political, mutual-benevolent, labour, industrial, and purely social. The largest increase has taken place in the three classes devoted to social intercourse and enjoyment, such as clubs and “secret” societies; to industry and commerce, such as manufacturing and mercantile corporations, and to the interests of the wage earner, such as trade unions. Probably the great majority of the male adults in the cities of the United States have some kind of membership in one or other of these three forms of association.

II. THE MORAL RIGHT

Like all other moral rights, that of voluntary association is determined by the ends that it promotes, the human needs that it supplies. The dictum of Aristotle that man is a “political” animal, expresses more than the fact that man naturally and necessarily becomes a participant in that form of association known as the State. It means that man cannot effectively pursue happiness nor attain to a reasonable degree of self-perfection unless he unites his energies with those of his fellows. This is particularly true of modern life, and for two reasons. First, because the needs of men have greatly increased, and second, because the division of labour has made the individual more and more dependent upon other individuals and groups of individuals. The primitive, isolated family that knows only a few wants, and is able in rude fashion to supply all these, may enjoy a certain measure of contentment, if not of culture, without the aid of any other association than that inherent in its own constitution. For the family of today such conditions are unsatisfying and insufficient. Its members are constrained to pursue many lines of activity and to satisfy many wants that demand organized and associated effort.

Since the individual is dependent upon so many other individuals for many of those material goods that are indispensable to him, he must frequently combine with those of his neighbours who are similarly placed if he would successfully resist the tendency of modern forces to overlook and override the mere individual. A large proportion of the members of every industrial community cannot make adequate provision for the needs that follow in the train of misfortune and old age unless they utilize such agencies as the mutual benefit society, the insurance company, or the savings bank. Workingmen find it impossible to obtain just wages or reasonable conditions of employment without the trade union. On the other hand, goods could not be produced or distributed in sufficient quantities except through the medium of associations. Manufacturing, trade, transportation, and finance necessarily far more and more under the control of partnerships and stock companies.

Turning now from the consideration of these material needs, we find that association plays a no less important part in the religious, moral, intellectual, political and purely social departments of life. Men cannot give God due worship except in a public, social way. This implies at least the universal Church and the parish, and ordinarily it supposes devotional and other associations, such as sodalities, altar societies, church-fund societies, etc. Select souls who wish to embrace the life of perfection described by the evangelical counsels must become organized in such a way that they can lead a common life. In every community there are persons who wish to do effective work on behalf of good morals, charity, and social reform of various kinds. Hence we have purity leagues, associated charities, temperance societies, ethical culture societies, social settlements. Since large numbers of parents prefer private and religious schools for the education of their children, the need arises for associations whose purpose is educational. Literary and scientific associations are necessary to promote original research, deeper study, and wider culture. Good government, especially in a republic, is impossible without political associations which strive vigilantly and constantly for the removal of abuses and the enactment of just laws.

In the purely social order men desire to enroll themselves in clubs, “secret” societies, amusement associations, etc., all of which may be made to promote human contentment and human happiness. Many of the forms of association just enumerated are absolutely necessary to right human life; none of them is entirely useless. Finally, voluntary associations are capable of discharging many of the tasks that otherwise would devolve upon the State. This was an important feature of their activity in the Middle Ages, and it is very desirable today when the functions of government are constantly increasing. Chief among the organizations capable of limiting State activity are those concerned with and the improvement of working classes. In so far as these can perform their several tasks on resonable terms and without injury to the State or to any class of its citizens, the public welfare is better served by them than it would be if they were supplanted by the Government. Individual liberty and individual opportunity have a larger scope, individual initiative is more readily called into play and the danger of Government despotism is greatly lessened.

The right of voluntary association is, therefore, a natural right. It is an endowment of man’s nature, not a privilege conferred by civil society. It arises out of his deepest needs, is an indispensable means to reasonable life and normal self-development. And it extends even to those associations that are not in themselves necessary for these ends—that is, so long as the associations do not contravene good morals or the public weal. For the State has no right to prohibit any individual action, be it ever so unnecessary which is, from the public point of view, harmless. Although it is not essential to his personal development that the citizens should become a member of an association that can do him neither good nor harm, it is essential to his happiness and his self-respect that he should not be prevented from doing so by the State. The moment that the State begins to practise coercion of this kind it violates individual rights. The general right of voluntary association is well stated by Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical, “Rerum Novarum”:

To enter into private societies is a natural right of man, and the State must protect natural rights, not destroy them. If it forbids its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own existence; for both they and it exist in virtue of the same principle, namely, the natural propensity of man to live in society.

Nor is the State justified in prohibiting voluntary associations on the ground that they may become inimical to public welfare. An institution should not be utterly condemned because it is liable to abuse; otherwise an end must be made of all institutions that are erected and conducted by human beings. The State has ample power to protect itself against all the abuses to which liberty of association is liable. It can forbid societies that aim at objects contrary to good morals or the public welfare, lay down such reasonable restrictions as are required to define the proper spheres of the various associations, punish those societies that go beyond their legitimate fields, and, in extreme cases, dissolve any particular organization that proves itself to be incorrigible. Through these measures the State can provide itself with all the security that is worth having; any further interference with individual liberty should be a greater social evil than the one that is sought to be remedied. The formality of legal authorization, or registration is not in itself unreasonable, but it ought not to be accompanied by unreasonable conditions. The procedure ought to be such that any society formed in accordance with the appropriate law of association could demand authorization, or registration, as a civil right, instead of being compelled to seek it as a privilege at the hands of an official clothed with the power to grant or refuse it at his own discretion. The difference between these two methods is the difference between the reign of law and the reign of official caprice, between constitutional liberty and bureaucratic despotism. Precisely this sort of arbitrary power is at present exercised by French officials over religious congregations. The result is that Frenchmen and French women who wish to live in associations of this nature are denied the right to do so. Speaking generally of religious congregations, we may justly say in the words of Pope Leo XIII, that they have “the sanction of the law of nature,” that is, the same natural right to exist on reasonable conditions as any other morally lawful association, and, “on the religious side they rightly claim to be responsible to the Church alone.” When the State refuses them the right to exist it violates not merely the natural moral law but the supernatural Divine law. For these associations are an integral part of the life of the Church, and as such, lie within her proper sphere. Within this sphere she is independent of the State, as independent as one sovereign civil power is of another. Abuses that may grow out of religious associations can be met by the State in the ways outlined above. Treasonable acts can be punished; excessive accumulation of property can be prevented; in fact, every action, circumstance, tendency that constitutes a real danger to the public welfare can be successfully dealt with by other methods than that of denying these associations the right of existence.

JOHN A. RYAN.

Association of Ideas

(1) a principle in psychology to account for the succession of mental states,

(2) the basis of a philosophy known as Associationism.

The fact of the association of ideas was noted by some of the earliest philosophers; Aristotle (De mem. et rem., 2) indicates the three laws of association which have been the basis of nearly all later enumerations. St. Thomas, in his commentary on Aristotle, accepts and illustrates them at some length. Hamilton (Notes on Reid) gives considerable credit to the Spanish Humanist, Vives (1492–1540), for his treatment of the subject. Association of ideas is not, therefore, a discovery of English psychology, as has often been asserted.

It is true, however, that the principle of association of ideas received in English psychology an interpretation never given to it before. The name is derived from Locke who placed it at the head of one of the chapters of his “Essay,” but used it only to explain peculiarities of character. Applied to mental states in general, the name is too restricted, since ideas, in the English sense, are only cognitive processes. The association theory held by Hobbes, Berkeley, Hume, and Hamilton, but it received its widest interpretation at the hands of the Associationists, Hartley, Priestley, James Mill, John Sruart Mill, Bain, and Spencer. They regarded it as a principle capable of explaining all mental phenomena. For them it is in the subjective world what the principle of gravitation is in the physical World. Association of ideas, though variously explained, is accepted by all modern psychologists. Sully, Maudsley, James, Hoffding, Munsterberg, Ebbinghaus, Ziehen, Taine, Ribot, Luys, and many others accept it more or less in the spirit of the Associationists.

The traditional laws of association, based on Aristotle, are:

Similarity

Contrast

Contiguity in time or space.

In the course of time, efforts were rnade to reduce them to more fundamental laws. Contrast has been resolved into similarity and contiguity. Contrasts, to recall each other, suppose generic similarity, as white recalls black. Yet this alone will not suffice, since this gives us no reason for the fact that white recalls black in preferenee to green or blue; hence experience, based on the fact that nature works in contrasts, is called into aid. Spencer, Hoffding, and others try to reduce all the laws of association to that of similarity, while Wundt and his school believe that all can be reduced to experience and hence to contiguity. Bain, who has analyzed the laws of association most thoroughly, holds both similarity and contiguity to be elementary principles. To these he adds certain laws of compound association. Oriental states easily recall one another when they have several points of contact. And in fact, considering the complexity of mental life, it would seem probable that simple associatlons, by similarity or contiguity alone, never occur. Besides these primary laws of association, various secondary laws are enumerated, such as the laws of frequency, vividness, recentness, emotional congruity, etc. These determine the firmness of the association, and consequently the preference given to one state over another, in the recall. Association of ideas is a fact of everyday experience which furnishes an important basis for the science of psychology, yet it must be remembered that the laws of association offer no ultimate explanation of the facts observed. In accounting for the facts of association we must, in the first place, reject as insufficient the purely physical theory proposed by Ribot, Richet, Maudsley, Carpenter, and others, who seek an explanation exclusively in the association of brain processes. Psychology thus becomes a chapter of physiology and machanics. Aside from the fact that this theory can give no satisfactory explanation of association by similarity which implies a distinctly mental factor, it neglects evident facts of consciousness. Consciousness tells us that in reminiscence we can voluntarily direct the sequence of our mental states, and it is in this that voluntary recall differs from the succession of images and feelings in dream and delirium. Besides, one brain-process may excite another, but this is not yet a state of consciousness. Equally unsatisfactory is the theory of the ultra-spiritualists, who would have us believe that association ot ideas has nothing to do with the bodily organism, but is wholly mental. Thus Hamilton says that all physiological theories are too contemptible for serious criticism. Reid and Bowne reject all traces of perception left in the brain substance. Lotze admits a concomitant oscillation of the brain elements, but considers them quite secondary and as exercising no influence on memory and recall. Like the purely physical theory, this also fails to explain the facts of consciousness and experience. The localization of activities in the various brain-centres, the facts of mental disease in consequence of injury lo the brain, the dependence of memory on the healthy condition of the central organ, etc. have in this theory no rational meaning. We must, then, seek an explanation in a theory that does justice to both the mental and the physical side of the phenomena. A mere psychophysical parallelism, proposed by some, will not, however, suffice, as it offers no explanation, but is a mere restatement of the problem. The Scholastic doctrine, that the subject of sensory activity is neither the body alone nor the soul alone, but the unitary being compounded of body and soul, alone, but the best solution. As sense perception is not purely physiological nor purely mental, but proceeds from a faculty of the soul intrinsically united to an organ, so the association of these perception proceeds from a principle which is at the same time mental and physical. No doubt purely spiritual ideas also associate; but, as St. Thomas teaches, the most spiritual idea is not devoid of its physiological basis, and even in making use of the spiritual ideas which it has already acquired, the intellect has need of images stored in the brain. It requires these organic processes in the production of its abstract ideas. In its basis, the association of ideas is physiological, but it is more than this, as it does not folow the necessary laws of matter. The higher faculties of the mind can command and direct the process. The Scholastic theory does justice to the fact of the dependence of mental activities upon the organism, and yet leaves room for the freedom of the will attested by consciousness and experience.

English Associationism, while claiming to be neither idealistic nor materialistic, and disvowing metaphysics, has erected the principle of association of ideas into a metaphysical principle to explain all mental activity. James Mill enunciated the principle of indissoluble associations: Sensations or ideas occuring together frequently, and never apart, suggest one another with irresistable force, so that we combine them necessarily. This principle is employed to explain necessary judgments and metaphysical concepts. Bain applied the principles of association to logic and ethics. Spencer interpreted them in an evolutionistic sense. Certain beliefs and rnoral principles are such that the associations of the individual are not sufficient to explain them; they are the associations of successive generations handed down by heredity. The whole process is governed by necessary laws. Mental states associate passively, and mental life is but a process of “mental chemistry.” Later Associationists, like Sully, have come to recognize that the mind exerts activity in attention, discrimination, judgment, reasoning. With this admission there should logically come also the admission of a soul-substance that attends, discriminates, judges, and reasons; but as they have not come to this conclusion, the soul is for them a “train of thoughts,” a “stream of consciousness,” or some other series veiled in metaphorical language. Association of ideas can never explain necessary judgments, conclusions drawn from premises, moral ideas and laws; these have their causes deeper in the nature of things.

EDMUND J. WIRTH.

Association of Priestly Perseverance

Association of Priestly Perseverance, a sacerdotal association founded in 1868 at Vienna, and at first confined to that archdiocese. In 1879, chiefly through the influence of its periodical organ, “La Correspondance,” it spread into other dioceses and countries, and in 1903 counted 14,919 living members, belonging to 150 dioceses in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and other countries. This organization is very similar to that of the Apostolic Union of Secular Priests (q. v.).

JOSEPH H. MCMAHON

Pious Associations

Under this term are comprehended all those organizations, approved and indulgenced by Church authority, which have been instituted especially in recent times, for the advancement of various works of piety and charity. Other terms used with the same meaning are: pious union, pious work, league, society, etc. Pious associations are distinguished, on the one hand, from ordinary, societies composed of Catholics by having an explicitly religious purpose, by enjoying indulgences and other spiritual benefits, and by possessing ecclesiastical approbation. They are distinguished, on the other hand, from confraternities and sodalities. The latter distinction is not determined by the name and is not always apparent. In general, pious associations have simpter rules than confraternities; they do not require canonical erection, and though they have the approbation of authority, they are not subject to as strict legislation as confraternities; they have no fixed term of probation for new members, no elaborate ritual, no special costumes; they are not obliged to meet for common religious practices, and, as a rule they make the help of others more prominent than the improvement of self. Of all these differences, only that of canonical erection seems essential. Some authorities, however, declare that the practices in common constitute the trait which distinguishes a confraternity from a pious association.

Some well-known pious associations are: Society of St. Vincent de Paul; Society of the Propagation of Faith; Apostleship of Prayer; known as the League of the Sacred Heart of Jesus; Holy Childhood League; Priests’ Eucharistic League; Cacilienverein, an association especially developed in Germany for the advancements of religious music.

F. P. DONNELLY

Assuerus

The name of two different persons in the Bible:

I. In I Esdr., iv, 6, and Esth., i, 17, it corresponds to the Hebrew ‘Achashwerosh, and the Sept. Assoueros (in Esth. Artazerxes), and denotes Xerxes I, the King of Persia. It was to him that the Samaritans addressed their complaints against the inhabitants of Jerusalem soon after 485 B.C., i.e. in the beginning of his reign. Intent upon his pleasures and a war with Egypt, the king seems to have disregarded these charges. The report of Herodotus (VII, viii) that Xerxes convoked a council of his nobles, in the third year of his reign to deliberate about the war against Greece agrees with Esth, i, 3, telling of the great feast given by the king to his nobles in the third year of his reign. In the seventh year of his reign, after the return of Xerxes from his war against Greece, Esther was declared queen. In the twelfth year of the king’s reign Esther saved the Jews from the national ruin contemplated by Aman.

II. Another Assuerus occurs in the Greek text of Tob., xiv, 15 (Asyeros), in conjunction with Nabuchodonosor; the taking of Ninive is ascribed to these two. In point of fact, Assyria was conquered by Cyaxares I, the king of Media, and Nabopolassar, the King of Babylonia, and father of Nabuchodonosor. Hence the Assuerus of Tob., xiv, 15, is Cyaxares I; his name is coupled with Nabuchodonosor because the latter must have led the troops of his father in the war against Assyria. The same Cyaxares I is probably the Assuerus (Achashwerosh) mentioned in Dan., ix, 1, as the father of Darius the Mede. Most probably Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II, the son of Astyages, the King of Media. The inspired writer of Dan., ix, 1 represents him as a son of Cyaxares I, or Assuerus, instead of Astyages, on account of the glorious name of the former. This could be done without difficulty, since, in genealogies, the name of the grandson was often introduced instead of that of the son.

A.J. MAAS

Little Sisters of the Assumption

A congregation whose work is the nursing of the sick poor in their own homes. This labour they perform gratuitously and without distinction of creed. The congregation was founded in Paris in 1865, by the Rev. Etienne Pernet, A.A. (b. 23 July, 1824, d. 3 April, 1899), and Marie Antoinette Tage, known in religion as Mother Marie de Jésus (b. 7 Nov., 1824; d. I8 Sept.,1883). Both had long been engaged in charitable work, Father Pernet while a professor in the College of the Assumption at Nimes, and MIIe. Tage as a member of the Association of Our Lady of Good Council in Paris. They met in Paris and Father Pernet placed her in charge of the work of nursing the sick poor which he had inaugurated. Out of this movement the sisterhood grew, Mother Marie de Jesus being the first superior. The nursing of the sick poor is not the only or even the chief purpose of the Little Sisters. They endeavour to bring about conversions, to regularize illicit unions, to have children baptized, sent to school, and prepared for first Communion and Confirmation. They form societies among their clients and enlist the aid of laymen and laywomen of education and means to further the work of regeneration. The congregation has established houses in Italy, Spain, Belgium, England, Ireland, and the United States of America. The papal Brief approving the congregation was issued in 1897. The sisters take simple vows and are governed by a mother-general, who resides in Paris.

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE

Sisters of the Assumption

A congregation of French nuns devoted to the teaching of young girls. It was founded in 1839 by Eugénie Milleret de Brou, in religion Mère Marie-Eugénie de Jesus (b. 1817; d. 1898), under the direction of the Abbe Combalot, a well-known orator of the time, who had been inspired to establish the institute during a pilgrimage to the shrine of Sainte-Anne d’Auray in 1825. The foundress, who had previously made a short novitiate with the Sisters of the Visitation at Cote Saint-Andre, was admirably adapted for the undertaking, and had the co-operation of three companions, each especially fitted to undertake the direction of some one of the activities of the order. Much of the initial success was due to the stanch friendship of Monseigneur Affre, Archbishop of Paris. The motto of the congregation is “Thy Kingdom Come,” and the aim to combine with a thorough secular education a moral and religious training which will bear fruit in generations to come. The habit of the sisters is violet with a white cross on the breast and a violet cincture. The veil is white. On certain occasions a mantle of white with a violet cross on the shoulder is worn in the chapel. Since its foundation the congregation has spread beyond France to England, Italy, Spain and Nicaragua. Several communities devote themselves to the work of Perpetual Adoration and the instruction of poor children. The mother-house is situated at Auteuil, a suburb of Paris, in a former chateau, rich in historical associations. The daughters of many distinguished European families have studied at Auteuil, as well as many English and Americans, who receive a special training in the French language.

F.M. RUDGE

Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 15 August; also called in old liturgical books Pausatio, Nativitas (for heaven), Mors, Depositio, Dormitio S. Mariae.

This feast has a double object: (1) the happy departure of Mary from this life; (2) the assumption of her body into heaven. It is the principal feast of the Blessed Virgin.

THE FACT OF THE ASSUMPTION

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.

THE FEAST OF THE ASSUMPTION

Regarding the origin of the feast we are also uncertain. It is more probably the anniversary of the dedication of some church than the actual anniversary of Our Lady’s death. That it originated at the time of the Council of Ephesus, or that St. Damasus introduced it in Rome is only a hypothesis.

According to the life of St. Theodosius (d. 529) it was celebrated in Palestine before the year 500, probably in August (Baeumer, Brevier, 185). In Egypt and Arabia, however, it was kept in January, and since the monks of Gaul adopted many usages from the Egyptian monks (Baeumer, Brevier, 163), we find this feast in Gaul in the sixth century, in January [mediante mense undecimo (Greg. Turon., De gloria mart., I, ix)]. The Gallican Liturgy has it on the 18th of January, under the title: Depositio, Assumptio, or Festivitas S. Mariae (cf. the notes of Mabillon on the Gallican Liturgy, P. L., LXXII, 180). This custom was kept up in the Gallican Church to the time of the introduction of the Roman rite. In the Greek Church, it seems, some kept this feast in January, with the monks of Egypt; others in August, with those of Palestine; wherefore the Emperor Maurice (d. 602), if the account of the “Liber Pontificalis” (II, 508) be correct, set the feast for the Greek Empire on 15 August.

In Rome (Batiffol, Brev. Rom., 134) the oldest and only feast of Our Lady was 1 January, the octave of Christ’s birth. It was celebrated first at Santa Maria Maggiore, later at Santa Maria ad Martyres. The other feasts are of Byzantine origin. Duchesne thinks (Origines du culte chr., 262) that before the seventh century no other feast was kept at Rome, and that consequently the feast of the Assumption, found in the sacramentaries of Gelasius and Gregory, is a spurious addition made in the eighth or seventh century. Probst, however (Sacramentarien, 264 sqq.), brings forth good arguments to prove that the Mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary, found on the 15th of August in the Gelasianum, is genuine, since it does not mention the corporeal assumption of Mary; that, consequently, the feast was celebrated in the church of Santa Maria Maggiore at Rome at least in the sixth century. He proves, furthermore, that the Mass of the Gregorian Sacramentary, such as we have it, is of Gallican origin (since the belief in the bodily assumption of Mary, under the influence of the apocryphal writings, is older in Gaul than in Rome), and that it supplanted the old Gelasian Mass. At the time of Sergius I (700) this feast was one of the principal festivities in Rome; the procession started from the church of St. Hadrian. It was always a double of the first class and a Holy Day of obligation.

The octave was added in 847 by Leo IV; in Germany this octave was not observed in several dioceses up to the time of the Reformation. The Church of Milan has not accepted it up to this day (Ordo Ambros., 1906). The octave is privileged in the dioceses of the provinces of Sienna, Fermo, Michoacan, etc.

The Greek Church continues this feast to 23 August, inclusive, and in some monasteries of Mount Athos it is protracted to 29 August (Menaea Graeca, Venice, 1880), or was, at least, formerly. In the dioceses of Bavaria a thirtieth day (a species of month’s mind) of the Assumption was celebrated during the Middle Ages, 13 Sept., with the Office of the Assumption (double); to-day, only the Diocese of Augsburg has retained this old custom.

Some of the Bavarian dioceses and those of Brandenburg, Mainz, Frankfort, etc., on 23 Sept. kept the feast of the “Second Assumption,” or the “Fortieth Day of the Assumption” (double) believing, according to the revelations of St. Elizabeth of Schönau (d. 1165) and of St. Bertrand, O.C. (d. 1170), that the B.V. Mary was taken up to heaven on the fortieth day after her death (Grotefend, Calendaria 2, 136). The Brigittines kept the feast of the “Glorification of Mary” (double) 30 Aug., since St. Brigitta of Sweden says (Revel., VI,1) that Mary was taken into heaven fifteen days after her departure (Colvenerius, Cal. Mar., 30 Aug.). In Central America a special feast of the Coronation of Mary in heaven (double major) is celebrated 18 Aug. The city of Gerace in Calabria keeps three successive days with the rite of a double first class, commemorating: 15th of August, the death of Mary; 16th of August, her Coronation.

At Piazza, in Sicily, there is a commemoration of the Assumption of Mary (double second class) the 20th of February, the anniversary of the earthquake of 1743. A similar feast (double major with octave) is kept at Martano, Diocese of Otranto, in Apulia, 19th of November.

[Note: By promulgating the Bull Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared infallibly that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was a dogma of the Catholic Faith. Likewise, the Second Vatican Council taught in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium that “the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things (n. 59).”]

FREDERICK G. HOLWECK

Assur (1)

(Or Assuræ.)

A titular see of Proconsular Africa, now Henchir-Zenfour. Its episcopal list (251–484) is given in Gams (p. 464). Ruins of its temples and theatres and other public buildings are still visible

Assur (2)

(Sept., Assour.)

(1) The name used in the Old Testament to designate the Assyrian land and nation. (See ASSYRIA.)

(2) The name of one of the sons of Sem, mentioned in Gen., x , 22. In verse 11 of the same chapter, the Douay version has: “Out of that land came forth Assur.” Here the name in the original refers not to a person, but to the country, as above, and the reading: “ . . . he (Nimrod) went forth into the Assyria (Assur)” is preferable. Another Assur, or Ashur, “father of Thecua,” is mentioned in I Paral., ii, 24, and iv, 5.

(3) The national god of the Assyrians (in the cuneiform inscriptions Assuhr, Ashur). The religion of the Assyrians, like their language and their arts, was in all essential particulars derived from the Babylonians. But together with the preponderance of the Assyrian power over the southern provinces came a corresponding exaltation of the local tutelary deity. Asshur, who was originally the eponymic god of the capital of Assyria (also called Asshur), thus became a national god, and was place at the head of the Assyrian pantheon. In his name, and to promote his interests, the Assyrian monarchs claim to undertake their various military expeditions. He is styled King among the gods; the god who created himself. Differently from the other deities, Asshur is not represented as having a consort or posterity. His Symbolic representation is ordinarily a winged disc, sometimes accompanied by the figure of a human bust. (See ASSYRIA.)

GABRIEL OUSSANI

Assyria

In treating of Assyria it is extremely difficult not to speak at the same time of its sister, or rather mother country, Babylonia, as the peoples of these two countries, the Semitic Babylonians and Assyrians, are both ethnographically and linguistically the same race, with identical religion, language, literature, and civilization. Hence Assyro-Babylonian religion, mythology, and religious literature especially in their relation to the Old Testament will be treated in the article BABYLONIA, while the history of the modern explorations and discoveries in these two countries will be given in the present article.

GEOGRAPHY

Geographically, Assyria occupies the northern and middle part of Mesopotamia, situated between the rivers Euphrates and Tigris; while the southern half, extending as far south as the Persian Gulf, constitutes the countries of Babylonia and Chaldea. Assyria originally occupied but a scant geographical area, comprising the small triangular shaped land lying between the Tigris and Zab Rivers, but in later times, owing to its wonderful conquests its boundaries extended as far north as Armenia to Media on the east; to northern Syria, and to the country of the Hittites, on the west and to Babylonia and Elam on the south and southeast, occupying almost the entire Mesopotamian valley.

By the Hebrews it was known under the name of Aram-Naharaim, i.e. “Aram [or Syria] of the two rivers” to distinguish it from Syria proper, although it is doubtful whether the Hebrew name should be read as dual, or rather as a plural, i.e. Aram-Naharîm (Aram of the many rivers or “Of the great river”—Euphrates. In later Old Testament times, it was known under the name of Asshur. By the Greeks and Romans it was called Mesopotamia, and Assyria; by the Aramaeans, Beth-naharim, “the country of the rivers”; by the Egyptians Nahrina; by the Arabs, Athûr, or Al-Gezirah, “the island,” or Bain-al-nahrain, “the country between the two rivers”—Mesopotamia. Whether the name Assyria is derived from that of the god Asshur, or vice versa, or whether Asshur was originally the name of a particular city and afterwards applied to the whole country cannot be determined.

The area of Assyria is about fifty thousand square miles. In physical character it is mountainous and well watered, especially in the northern part. Limestone and, in some places, volcanic rock form the basis of its fertile soil. Its southern part is more level, alluvial, and fertile. Its principal rivers are the Tigris and the Euphrates, which have their source in the Armenian mountains and run almost parallel as far south as Babylonia and Chaldea, flowing into the Persian Gulf. There are other minor rivers and tributaries, such as the Khabur; the Balikh, the Upper and Lower Zab, the Khoser the Turnat, the Radanu, and the Subnat. Assyria owes to these rivers, and especially to the Tigris and Euphrates, somewhat as Egypt owes to Nile, its existence, life, and prosperity.

The principal cities of Assyria are:

Asshur whose site is now marked by the mound of Kalah-Shergat, on the right bank of the Tigris.

Calah, the eastern bank of the Tigris and at its junction with the Upper Zab, a city built (c.1280 B.C.) by Shalmaneser I, who made it the capital of Assyria in place of Asshur. Its site is nowadays marked by the ruins of Nimroud.

Nineveh (in the Douay Version, Ninive), represented by the villages and ruins of the modern Kujunjik and Nebi-Yunus, on the eastern bank of the Tigris, opposite Mosul. Nineveh was undoubtedly one of the most ancient cities of Assyria, and in the time of Sennacherib (7th cent. B.C.) it became the capital of the empire, and the centre of the worship of Ishtar, the Assyro-Babylonian Venus, who was called Ishtar of Nineveh, to distinguish her from Ishtar of Arbela. In the Old Testament the city of Nineveh is well known in connection with the prophets, and especially as the theatre of Jonah’s mission.

Dur-Sharrukin, or Dur-Sargon (i.e. Sargonsburg) built by Sargon II (8th cent. B.C.), the founder of the famous Sargonid dynasty. It was made first the royal residence of Sargon, and afterwards became the rival of Nineveh. Its site is represented by the modern Khorsabad.

Arhailu, or Arbela, famous in Greek and Persian annals for the decisive victory won by Alexander the Great over the formidable army of Darius, King of Persia and Babylon (331 B.C.).

Nasibina, or Nisibis, famous in the annals of Nestorian Christianity.

Harran, well known for the worship of Sin, the moon-god.

Ingur-Bel, corresponding to the modern Tell-Balawât.

Tarbis, corresponding to the modern Sherif-Khan. The sites and ruins of all these cities have been explored.

SOURCES OF ASSYRO-BABYLONIAN HISTORY

These may be grouped as: (1) the Old Testament; (2) the Greek, Latin, and Oriental writers, and (3) the monumental records and remains of the Assyrians and Babylonians themselves.

In the first division belong the Fourth (in Authorized Version, Second) Book of Kings, Paralipomenon (Chronicles), the writings of the prophets Isaias, Nahum, Jeremias, Jonas, Ezechiel, and Daniel, as well as the Iaconic but extremely valuable fragments of information contained in Genesis, x, xi, and xiv. To the second group of sources belong the Chaldeo-Babylonian priest and historian Berosus, who lived in the days of Alexander the great (356–323 B.C.) and continued to live at least as late as Antiochus I, Soter (280–261 B.C.). He wrote in Greek a great work on Babylonian history, under the title of “Babyloniaca,” or “Chaldaica.” This valuable work, which was based on contemporary Babylonian monuments and inscriptions has unfortunately perished, and only a few excerpts from it have been preserved in later Greek and Latin writers. Then we have the writings of Polyhistor, Ctesias, Herodotus, Abydenus, Apollodorus, Alexander of Miletus, Josephus, Georgius Syncellus, Diodorus Siculus, Eusebius, and others. With the exception of Berosus, the information derived from all the above-mentioned historians is mostly legendary and unreliable, and even their quotations from Berosus are to be used with caution. This is especially true in the case of Ctesias, who lived at the Persian court in Babylonia. To the third category belong the numerous contemporary monuments and inscriptions discovered during the last fifty years in Babylonia, Assyria, Elam, and Egypt, which form an excellent and a most authoritative collection of historical documents.

For the chronology of Assyria we have some very valuable means information. These are

The “Eponym List” which covers the entire period from the reign of Ramman-nirari II (911–890 B.C.) down to that of Asshurbanipal (669–625 B.C.). The eponyms, or limmu, were like the eponymous archons at Athens and the consuls at Rome. They were officers, or governors, whose term of office lasted but one year, to which year they gave their name; so that if any event was to be recorded, or a contract drawn in the year e.g., 763 B.C., the number of the year would not be mentioned, but instead we are told that such and such an event took place in the year of Pur-Shagli, who was the limmu, or governor, in that year.

Another source is found in the chronological notices scattered throughout the historical inscriptions, such as Sennacherib’s inscription engraved on the rock at Bavian, in which he tells us that one of his predecessors, Tiglath-pileser (Douay Version, Theglathphalasar) reigned about 418 years before him, i.e. about 1107 B.C.; or that of Tiglath-pileser himself, who tells us that he rebuilt the temple of Anu and Ramman, which sixty years previously had been pulled down by King Asshurdan because it had fallen into decay in the course of the 64I years since its foundation by King Shamshi-Ramman. This notice, therefore, proves that Asshur-dan must have reigned about the years 1170 or 1180 B.C. So also Sennacherib tells us that a seal of King Tukulti-Ninib 1had been brought from Assyria to Babylon, where after 600 years he found it on his conquest of that city. As Sennacherib conquered Babylon twice, once in 702 and again in 689 B.C., it follows that Tukulti-Ninib I must have reigned over Assyria in any case before 1289 B.C., and possibly a few years before 1302 B.C.

Another chronological source is to be found in the genealogies of the kings, which they give of themselves and of their ancestors and predecessors.

Further valuable help may be obtained from the so-called “Synchronous History” of Babylonia and Assyria, which consists of a brief summary of the relations between the two countries from the earliest times in regard to their respective boundary lines. The usefulness of this document consists mainly in the fact that it gives the list of many Babylonian and Assyrian kings who ruled over their respective countries contemporaneously.

ASSYRO-BABYLONIAN EXPLORATION

As late as 1849, Sir Henry Layard, the foremost pioneer of Assyro-Babylonian explorations, in the preface to his classical work entitled “Nineveh and Its Remains” remarked how, previously, with the exception of a few cylinders and gems preserved elsewhere, a case, hardly three feet square, in the British Museum, enclosed all that remained not only of the great city, Nineveh, but of Babylon itself. At that time few indeed would have had the presumption even to imagine that within fifty years the exploration of Assyria and Babylonia would have given us the most primitive literature of the ancient world. What fifty years ago belonged to the world of dreams is at the present time a striking reality; for we now in possession of the priceless libraries of the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians, of their historical annals, civil and military records, State archives, diplomatic correspondences, textbooks and school exercises, grammers and dictionaries, hymns, bank accounts and business transactions, laws and contracts; and extensive collection of geographical, astronomical, mythological, magical, and astrological texts and inscriptions. These precious monuments are actually scattered in all the public and private museums and art collections of Europe, America, and Turkey. The total number of tablets, cylinders, and cuneiform inscriptions so far discovered is approximately estimated at more than three hundred thousand, which, if published, would easily cover 400 octavo volumes of 400 pages each. Unfortunately, only about one-fifth of all the inscriptions discovered have been published so far; but even this contains more than eight times as much literature as is contained in the Old Testament. The British Museum alone has published 440 folio, and over 700 quarto, pages, about one-half as much more has appeared in various archaeological publications. The British Museum has more than 40, 000 cuneiform tablets, the Louvre more than 10, 000, the Imperial Museum of Berlin more than 7, 000, that of the University of Pennsylvania more than 20, 000, and that of Constantinople many thousands more, awaiting the patient toil of our Assyriologists. The period of time covered by these documents is more surprising than their number. They occur from prehistoric times, or about 5000 B.C., down to the first century before the Christian Era. But this is not all, for, according to the unanimous opinion of all Assyriologists, by far the largest part of the Assyro-Babylonian literature and inscriptions are still buried under the fertile soil of these wonderful regions, which have ever been the land of surprises, awaiting further explorers and decipherers.

As has already been remarked, the meagre and often unreliable information concerning Assyria and Babylonia which has come down to us through the Persian, Greek, Latin, and Arabic writers—historians and geographers—has contributed little or nothing to the advancement of our knowledge of these wonderful countries. The early European travellers in the region of the Tigris and Euphrates valley such as Benjamin of Tudela (1160), John Eldred (1583), Anthony Shirley (1599), Pietro della Valle (1614–26), John Cartwright (1610), Gasparo Balbi (1590), John Otter (1734), Niebuhr (1765), Beauchamp, Olivier, Hagers, and others at the end of the eighteenth century, have left us a rather vague and superficial account of their personal visits and impressions. Later travellers, however, such as Claudius James Rich (1811, 1821–22), J.S. Buckingham (1816), Sir Robert Ker Porter (1817–20), Captain Robert Mignan (1826–28), G. Baillie-Fraser (1834–35), the Euphrates Expedition under Colonel Chesney (1835–47), James Felix Jones, Lynch, Selby, Collingwood, Bewsher, and others of the first half of the nineteenth century made a far more searching and scientific study of the Mesopotamian region. But the real founders and pioneers of Assyro-Babylonian explorations are Emile Rotta (1842–45), Sir Henry Austen Layard (1840–52), Victor Place (1851–55), H. Rassam (1850, 1878–82), Loftus (1850), Jules Oppert, Fresnel and Thomas (1851–52), Taylor (1851), Sir Henry Rawlinson, G. Smith, and others who have not only opened, but paved, the way for future researches and explorations. The first methodical and scientific explorations in Babylonia, however, were inaugurated and most successfully carried out by the intrepid French consul at Bassora and Bagdad, M. de Sarzec, who, from about 1877 with 1899, discovered at Tello some of the earliest and most precious remains and inscriptions of the pre-Semitic and Semitic dynasties of Southern Babylonia. Contemporaneously with de Sarzec there came other explorers, such as Rassam, already mentioned above, who was to continue George Smith’s excavations; the American Wolf expedition, under the direction of Dr. Ward, of New York (1884–85); and above all, the various expeditions to Nippur, under Peters, Hayes, and Hilprecht, respectively, sent by the University of Pennsylvania (1888–1900). The Turkish Government itself has not altogether stood aloof from this praiseworthy emulation, sending an expedition to Abu Habba, or Sippar, under the direction of the well-known Dominican scholar, Father F. Scheil of Paris, in 1894 and the following years. Several German, French, and American expeditions have later been busily engaged in excavating important mounds and ruins in Babyloma. One of these is the German expedition under Moritz and Koldewey, with the assistance of Dr. Meissner, Delitzsch, and others, at Shurgul, El-Hibba, Al-Kasr, Tell-ibrahim, etc. The expedition of the University of Chicago, under the direction of Dr. Banks, at Bismaya, in South Babylonia, came unfortunately to an early termination.

THE LANGUAGE AND CUNEIFORM WRITING

All these wonderful archaeological researches and discoveries would have been useless and destitute of interest, had not the language of Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions been deciphered and studied. These inscriptions were all written in a language, and by means of characters, which seemed for a while to defy all human skill and ingenuity. The very existence of such a language had been forgotten, and its writing seemed so capricious and bewildering that the earlier European travellers mistook the characters for fantastic and bizarre ornamental decorations; their dagger- or arrow-headed shape (from which their name of cuneiform) presenting a difficult puzzle. However, the discovery, and tentative decipherment, of the old Persian inscriptions (especially those of Persepolis and of the Behistun rock, not far from Hamadan, in Persia), by Grotefend, Heeren, the Abbe Saint Martin, Rask, Bournouf, Lassen, Westergaard, de Saulcy, and Rawlinson, all taking place at about the end of the first half of the nineteenth century, opened the way for the decipherment of the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions. The principal credit unquestionably belongs to Rawlinson, Norris, J. Oppert, Fox Talbot, and especially to Dr. Hinks of Dublin. The acute and original researches of these scholars were successfully carried out by other Semitic scholars and linguists no less competent, such as E. Schrader and Fred. Delitzsch, in Germany; Ménant, Halévy, and Lenormant, in France; Sayce and G. Smith, in England.

The Assyro-Babylonian language belongs to the so-called Semitic family of languages, and in respect to grammar and lexicography offers no more difficulty to the interpreter than either Hebrew or Aramaic, or Arabic. It is more closely allied to Hebrew and Aramaic than to Arabic and the other dialects of the South-Semitic group. The principal difficulty of Assyrian Consists in its extremely complicated system of writing. For, unlike all other Semitic dialects, Assyrian is written not alphabetically, but either syllabically or ideographically, which means that Assyrian characters represent not consonants, but syllables, open or closed, simple or compound, and ideas or words, such as ka, bar, ilu, zikara, etc. These same characters may also have both a syllabic and an ideographic value, nearly always more than one syllabic value and as many as five or six; so that a sign like the following (=|) may be read syllabically as ud, ut, u, tu, tam, bir, par, pir, lah, lih, hish, and his; ideographically as umu, “day”; pisu “white”; Shamash, the Sungod; etc. The shape of these signs is that of a wedge, hence the name cuneiform (from the Latin cuneus, “a wedge”). The wedges, arranged singly or in groups, either are called “ideograms” and stand for complete ideas, or then stand for syllables. In course of time the same ideographic signs came to have also the phonetic value of syllables, without losing however, their primitive ideographic value, as can be seen from the example quoted above. This naturally caused a great difficulty and embarrassment even to the Assyro-Babylonians themselves and is still the principal obstacle to the correct and final reading of many cuneiform words and inscriptions. To remedy this great inconvenience, the Assyro-Babylonians themselves placed other characters (called determinatives) before many of these signs in order to determine their use and value in certain particular cases and sentences. Before all names of gods, for example, either a sign meaning “devine being” was prefixed, or a syllabic character (phonetic complement), which indicated the proper phonetic value with which the word in question should end, was added after it. In spite of these and other devices, many signs and collocations of signs have so many possible syllabic values as to render exactness in the reading very difficult. There are about five hundred of these different signs used to represent words or syllables. Their origin is still a subject of discussion among scholars. The prevailing theory is that they were originally picture-signs, representing the ideas to be conveyed; but at present only about sixty of these 500 signs can be with certainty traced back to their original picture-meanings.

According to the majority of Assyriologists, the cuneiform system of writing originated with the Sumerians, the primitive non-Semitic inhabitants of Babylonia, from whom it was borrowed by the Semitic Babylonians and Assyrians, and applied to their own language. In the same way the Greeks adopted the Semetic Phoenician alphabet, and the Germans adopted the Latin. The Semitic language of Babylonia and Assyria was, therefore, written in Sumerian characters, just as Hebrew can be written in English letters, or Turkish in Armenian, or Arabic in Syriac (Karshuni). This same cuneiform system of writing was afterwards adopted by the Medians, Persians, Mitannians, Cappadocians, ancient Armenians, and others. Hence five or six dlfferent styles of cuneiforrn writings may be distinguished. The “Persian” style, which is a direct, but simplified, derivative of the Babylonian, was introduced in the times of the Achaemenians. “Instead of a combination of as many as ten and fifteen wedges to make one sign, we have in the Persian style never more than five, and frequently only three; and instead of writing words by syllables, sounds alone were employed, and the syllabary of several hundred signs reduced to forty-two, while the ideographic style was fractionally abolished.” The second style of cuneiform generally known as “Median,” or “Susian,” is, again, a slight modification of the “Persian.”

Besides these two, there is a third language (spoken in the northwestern district of Mesopotamia between the Euphrates and the Orontes), known as ‘Mitanni,’ the exact status of which has not been clearly ascertained, but which has been adapted to cuneiform characters. A fourth variety, found on tablets from Cappadocia, represents again modification of the ordinary writing met with in Babylonia. In the inscriptions of Mitanni, the writing is a mixture of ideographs and syllables, just as in Mesopotamia, while the so-called ‘Cappadocian’ tablets are written in a corrupt Babylonian, corresponding in degree to the ‘ corrupt ‘ forms that the signs take on. In Mesopotamia itself quite a number of signs exist, some due to local influences, others the result of changes that took place in the course of time. In the oldest period known, that is, from 4000 to 3000 B.C., the writing is linear rather than wedge-shaped. The linear writing is the modification that the original pictures underwent in being adapted for engraving on stone; the wedges are the modification natural to the use of clay, though when once the wedges became the standard method, the greater frequency with which clay, as against stone came to be used led to an imitation of the wedges by those who cut out the characters on stone. In consequence, there developed two varieties of wedge-writing: the one that may be termed lapidary, used for the stone inscriptions, the official historical records, and such legal documents as were prepared with especial care; the other cursive, occurring only on legal and commercial clay tablets, and becoming more frequent as we approach the latest period of Babylonian writing, which extends to within a few decades of our era. In Assyria, finally, a special variety of cuneiform developed that is easily distinguished from the Babylonian by its greater neatness and the more vertical position of its wedges.

(Jastrow, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898, p. 20).

The material on which the Assyro-Babylonians wrote their inscriptions was sometimes stone or metal, but usually clay of a fine quality most abundant in Babylonia, whence the use spread all over Western Asia.

The clay was very carefully prepared, sometimes ground to an exceeding fineness, moistened, and moulded into various forms, ordinarily into a tablet whose average size is about six by two and one-half inches in superficial area by one inch in thickness, its sides curving slightly outwards. On the surface thus prepared, and while still soft, the characters were impressed with a stylus, the writing often standing in columns, and carried over upon the back and sides of the tablet. The clay was quite frequently moulded also into cones and barrel-shaped cylinders, having from six to ten sides on which writing could be inscribed. These tablets were then dried in the sun, or baked in a furnace—a process which rendered the writing practically indestructible, unless the tablet itself was shattered.

(G.S. Goodspeed, History of the Babylonians and Assyrians, p. 28).

Unlike all other Semitic systems of writing (except the Ethiopic, which is an adaptation of the Greek), that of the Assyro-Babylonians generally runs from left to right in horizontal lines, although in some very early inscriptions the lines run vertically from top to bottom like the Chinese. These two facts evidence the non-Semitic origin of the cuneiform system of writing.

VALUE OF ASSYRIOLOGY FOR STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

The part played by these Assyro-Babylonian discoveries in the exegesis and interpretation of the Old Testament has been important in direct proportion to the immense and hitherto unsuspected influence exercised by the Assyro-Babylonian religion, civilization, and literature upon the origin and gradual development of the literature and the religious and social institutions of the ancient Hebrews. This Babylonian influence, indeed, can be equally traced in its different forms and manifestations through all western Asia, many centuries before that conquest of Palestine by the twelve Israelitish tribes which put an end to the Canaanitish dominion and supremacy. The triumph of Assyriology, consequently, must be regarded as a triumph for Biblical exegesis and criticism, not in the sense that it has strikingly confirmed the strict veracity of the Biblical narratives, or that it has demonstrated the fallacies of the “higher criticism,” as Sayce, Hommel, and others have contended, but in the sense that it has opened a new and certain path whereby we can study the writings of the Old Testament with their correct historical background, and trace them through their successive evolutions and transformations. Assyriology, in fact, has given us such excellent and unexpected results as to completely revolutionize our former exegetical methods and conclusions. The study, it is true, has been often abused by ultra-radical and enthusiastic Assyriologists and critics. These have sought to build up groundless theories and illogical conclusions, they have forced the texts to say what they do not say, and to support conclusions which they do not support; but such an abuse, which is due to a perfectly natural enthusiasm and scientific ardour, can never vitiate the permanent value of sober Assyriological researches, which have demonstrably provided sources of the first importance for the study of the Old Testament. These few abuses can be discerned and in due time corrected by a more temperate and judicious criticism. If the value of Assyriology in its bearing upon the Old Testament has been too often exaggerated, the exaggeration is at least partly excusable, considering the comparatively recent date of these researches and their startling results in the way of discovery. On the other hand, that school of critics and theologians which disregards the genuine merits and the great value of Assyriological researches for the interpretation of the 01d Testament is open to the double charge of unfairness and ignorance.

HISTORY OF ASSYRIA TO THE FALL OF NINEVEH (C. 2000–606 B.C.)

The origin of the Assyrian nation is involved in great obscurity. According to the author of the tenth chapter of Genesis, the Assyrians are the descendants of Assur (Asshur) one of the sons of Sem (Shem—Gen., x, 22). According to Gen., x, 11, “Out of that land [Sennaar] came forth Assur, and built Ninive, and the streets of the city, and Chale. Resen also between Ninive and Chale,” where the Authorized Version reads: “builded Nineveh, and the city of Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah.” Till quite recently the most commonly accepted interpretation of this passage was that Assur left Babylonia, where Nemrod (Nimrod) the terrible was reigning, and settled in Assyria, where he built the cities of Nineveh, Rehoboth, Chale (Calah), and Resen. Nowdays, however, this interpretation, which is mainly based on the Vulgate version, is abandoned in favour of the more probable one, according to which Nemrod himself, the beginning of whose kingdom was Babylon (Babel), Arach (Erech), Achad (Accad), and Chalanne (Calneh), in Southern Babylonia (Gen., x, 10), went up to Assyria (Assur in this case being a geographical name, i.e., Assyria, and not ethnographical or personal), and there he built the four above-mentioned cities and founded the Assyrian colony. Whichever of these two interpretations be held as correct, one thing is certain: that the Assyrians are not only Semites, but in all probability an offshoot of the Semitic Babylonians, or a Babylonian colony; although, on account of their apparently purer Semitic blood, they have been looked upon by some scholars as an independent Semitic offshoot, which at the time of the great Semitic migration from Arabia (c. 3000–2500 B.C.), migrated and settled in Assyria. Assyrian rulers known to us bore the title of Ishshaku (probably “priest-prince,” or “governor”) and were certainly subject to some outside power, presumably that of Babylonia. Some of the earliest of these Ishshaki known to us are Ishmi-Dagan and his son Shamshi-Adad I (or Shamshi-Ramman). The exact date of these two princes is uncertain, although we may with reasonable certainty place them about 1840–1800 B.C. Other Ishshaki are Igur-Kapkapu, Shamshi-Adad II, Khallu, and Irishum. The two cities of Nineveh and Assur were certainly in existence at the time of Hammurabi (c. 2250 B.C.) for in one of his letters he makes mention of them. It is significant, however, that in the long inscription (300 lines) of Agumkakrime, one of the Kassic rulers of Babylonia (c. 1650 B.C.), in which he enumerates the various countries over which his rule extended, no mention is made of Assyria. Hence, it is probable that the beginning of an independent Assyrian kingdom may be placed towards the seventeenth century B.C. According to an inscription of King Esarhaddon (681–668 B.C.), the first Assyrian Ishshaku to assume the title of King was a certain Bel-bani, an inscription of whom, written in archaic Babylonian, was found by Father Scheil. His date, however, cannot be determined.

Towards the fifteenth century B.C. we find Egytian supremacy extended over Syria and the Mesopotamian valley: and in one of the royal inscriptions of Thothmes III of Egypt (1480–1427 B.C.), we find Assyria among his tributary nations. From the Tel-el-Amarna letters also we know that diplomatic negotiations and correspondences were frequent among the rulers of Assyria, Babylonia, Syria, Mitanni, and the Egyptian Pharaohs, especially Amenhotep IV. Towards this same period we find also the Kings of Assyria standing on an equal footing with those of Babylonia, and successfully contesting with the latter for the boundary-lines of their Kingdom. About 1450 B.C. Asshr-bel-nisheshu was King of Assyria. He settled the boundary-lines of his kingdom with his contemporary Karaindash, King of Babylonia. The same treaty was concluded again between his successor, Puzur-Asshur, and Burnaburiash I, King of Babylon. Puzur-Asshur was succeeded by Asshur-nadin-Ahhe, who is mentioned by his successor, Asshur-uballit, in one of his letters to Amenhotep IV, King of Egypt, as his father and predecessor.

During most of the long reign of Asshur-uballit, the relations between Assyria and Babylonia continued friendly, but towards the end of that reign the first open conflict between the two sister-countries broke out. The cause of the conflict was as follows: Asshur-uballit, in sign of friendship, had given his daughter, Muballitat-sherua, for wife to the King of Babylonia. The son born of this royal union, Kadashman-Charbe by name, succeeded his father on the throne, but was soon slain by a certaln Nazi-bugash (or Suzigash), the head of the discontented Kassite party, who ascended the throne in his stead. To avenge the death of his grandson the aged and valiant monarch, Asshur-uballit, invaded Babylonia, slew Nazi-bugash, and set the son of Kadashman-Charbe, who was still very young on the throne of Babylonia, as Kurigalzu II. However, towards the later part of his reign (c. 1380 B.C.), Kerizalu II became hostile to Assyria; in consequence of which, Belnirari, Assyhur-uballit’s successor on the throne of Assyria, made war against him and defeated him at the city of Sugagu, annexing the northern part of Babylonia to Assyria. Belnirari was succeeded by his son, Pudi-ilu (c. 1360 B.C.), who undertook several successful military expeditions to the east and southeast of Assyria and built various temples, and of whom we possess few, but important, inscriptions. His successor was Ramman-nirari, who not only strengthened the newly-conquered territories of his two predecessors, but also made war and defeated Nazi-Maruttash, King of Babylonia, the successor of Kurigalzu II, adding a considerable Babylonian territory to the newly arisen, but powerful, Assyrian Empire.

Towards the end of the fourteenth century B.C. (about 1330–1320 B.C.,) Ramman-nirari was succeeded by his son Shalmaneser I. During, or about the time of this ruler, the once powerful Egyptian supremacy over Syria and Mesopotamia, thanks to the brilliant military raids and resistance of the Hittites, a powerful horde of tribes in Northern Syria and Asia Minor, was successfully withstood and confined to the Nile Valley. With the Egyptian pressure thus removed from Mesopotamia, and the accession of Shalmaneser I, an ambitious and energetic monarch, to the throne of Assyria, the Assyrian empire began to extend its power westwards. Following the course of the Tigris, Shalmaneser I marched northwards and subjugated many northern tribes; then, turning westwards, invaded part of northeastern Syria and conquered the Arami, or Aramaeans, of Western Mesopotamia. From there he marched against the land of Musri, in Northern Arabia, adding a considerable territory to his empire. For strategic reasons he transferred the seat of his kingdom from the city of Asshur to that of Kalkhi (the Chale, or Calah, of Genesis) forty miles to the north, on the eastern bank of the Tigris, and eighteen miles south of Nineveh. Shalmaneser I was succeeded by his son Tukulti-Ninib (c. 1290 B.C.) whose records and inscriptions have been collected and edited by L.W. King of the British Museum. He was a valiant warrior and conqueror, for he not only preserved the integrity of the empire but also extended it towards the north and northwest. He invaded and conquered Babylonia, where he established the seat of his government for fully seven years, during which he became obnoxious to the Babylonians, who plotted and rebelled against him, proclaiming a certain Ramman shur-usur king in his stead. The Assyrians themselves also became dissatisfied on account of his long absence from Assyria, and he was slain by his own nobles, who proclaimed his son, Asshur-nasir-pal, king in his stead. After the death of this prince, two kings, Asshur-narrara and Nabudayan by name, reigned over Assyria, of whom, however, we know nothing. Towards 1210–1200 B.C. we find Bel-Kudur-usur and his successor, Ninib-pal-Eshara, reigning over Assyria. These, however, were attacked and defeated by the Babylonians who thus regained possession of a considerable part of their former territory. The next Assyrian monarch was Asshur-dan, Ninib-pal-Eshara’s son. He avenged his father’s defeat by invading Babylonia and capturing the cities of Zaban, lrria, and Akarsallu. In 1150 B.C., Asshur-dan was succeeded by his son, Mutakkil-Nusku; in 1140 B.C., by the latter’s son Asshur-resb-ishi, who subjugated the peoples of Ahlami, Lullumi, Kuti (or Guti) and other countries, and administered a crushing defeat to his rival and contemporary, Nabuchodonosor (Nebuchadnezzar) I, King of Babylonia.

About 1120–1110 B.C. Asshur-resh-ishi was succeeded by his son, Tiglath-pileser I, one of the greatest Assyrian monarchs, under whose reign of only ten years duration Assyria rose to the apex of its military success and glory. He has left us a very detailed and circumstantial account of his military achievements, written on four octagonal cylinders which he placed at the four corners of the temple built by him to the god Ramman. According to these, he undertook, in the first five years of his reign, several successful military expeditions against Mushku, against the Shubari, against the Hittites, and into the mountains, of Zagros, against the people of Nairi and twenty-three kings, who were chased by him as far north as Lake Van in Armenia; against the people of Musri in Northern Arabia, and against the Aramaens, or Syrians. “In all,” he tells us, forty-two countries and their kings, from beyond the Lower Zab, from the border of the distant mountains as far as the farther side of the Euphrates, up to the land of Hatti [Hittites] and as far as the upper sea of the setting sun [i.e. Lake Van], from the beginning of my sovereignty until my fifth year, has my hand conquered. I carried away their possessions, burned their cities with fire, demanded from their hostages tribute and contributions, and laid on them the heavy yoke of my rule.” He crossed the Euprates several times, and even reached the Mediterranean, upon the waters of which he embarked. He also invaded Babylonia, inflicting a heavy blow on the Babylonian king, Marduk-nadin-ahhe and his army, and capturing several important cities, such as Dur-Kurigalzu, Sippar, Babylon, and Opis. He pushed his triumphal march even as far as EIam. Tiglath-pileser I was also a daring hunter, for in one of his campaigns, he tells us, he killed no fewer than one hundred and twenty lions on foot, and eight hundred with spears while in his chariot, caught elephants alive, and killed ten in his chariot. He kept at the city of Asshur a park of animals suitable for the chase. At Nineveh he had a botanical garden, in which he planted specimens of foreign trees gathered during his campaigns. He built also many temples, palaces, and canals. It may be of interest to add that his reign coincides with that of Heli (Eli), one of the ten judges who ruled over Israel prior to the establishment of the monarchy. At the time of Tiglath-pileser’s death, Assyria was enjoying a period of tranquillity, which did not last, however, very long; for we find his two sons and successors, Asshur-bel-Kala and Shamshi-Ramman, seeking offensive and defensive alliances with the Kings of Babylonia.

From about 1070 to 950 B.C., a gap of more than one hundred years presents itself in the history of Assyria. But from 950 B.C. down to the fall of Nineveh and the overthrow of the Assyrian Empire (606 B.C.) the history of Assyria is very completely represented in documents. Towards 950 B.C., Tiglath-pileser II was king over Assyria. In 930 B.C. he was succeeded by his son, Assuhr-dan II, and about 910 B.C. by the latter’s son, Ramman-nirari II, who, in 890, was succeeded by his son, Tukulti-Ninib II. Kings of Babylonia.

The last two monarchs appear to have undertaken several successful expeditions against Babylonia and the regions north of Assyria. Tukulti-Ninib’s successor was his son Asshur-nasir-pal (885–860 B.C.), with whose accession to the throne began a long career of victory that placed Assyria at the head of the great powers of that age. He was a great conqueror, soldier, organizer, hunter, and builder, but fierce and cruel. In his eleven military campaigns he invaded, subdued, and conquered, after a series of devastations and raids, all the regions north, south, east, and west of Assyria, from the mountains of Armenia down to Babylon, and from the mountains of Kurdistan and Lake Urmi (Urum-yah) to the Mediterranean. He crossed the Euphrates and the Orontes, penetrated into the Lebanon region, attacked Karkemish, the capital of the Hittites, invaded Syria, and compelled the cities of the Mediterranean coast (such as Tyre, Sidon, Bylos, and Armad) to pay tribute. But the chief interest in the history of Asshur-nasir-pal lies in the fact that it was in his reign that Assyria first came into touch with Israel. In his expedition against Karkemish and Syria, which took place in 878 B.C., he undoubtedly exacted tribute from Amri (Omri), King of Israel; although the latter’s name is not explicitly mentioned in this sense, either in Asshur-nasir-pal’s inscriptions, or in the Old Testament. The fact, however, seems certain, for in the Assyrian incriptions from about this time down to the time of Sargon—nearly 150 years—land of Israel is frequently mentioned as the “land of Omri,” and Jehu, a later King of Israel, but not of the dynasty of Amri, is also called the “son of Omri.” This seems to show that the land of Israel was known to the Assyrians as the land of that king who happened to be reigning when they were first brought into political relations with it, and we know that this king was Amri, for in 878, the year of Asshur-nasir-pal’s expedition to Syria, he had been king over Israel for some nine years.

Asshur-nasir-pal was succeeded by his son, Shalmaneser II, who in the sixth year of his reign (854 B.C.) made an expedition to the West with the object of subduing Damascus. In this memorable campaign he came into direct touch with Israel and their king Achab (Ahab), who happened to be one of the allies of Benhadad, King of Damascus. In describing this expedition the Assyrian monarch goes on to say that he approached Karkar, a town to the southwest of Karkemish, and the royal residence of Irhulini.

I desolated and destroyed, I burnt it: 1200 chariots, 1200 horsemen, 20,000 men of Biridri of Damascus; 700 chariots, 700 horsemen, 10, 000 men of Irhulini of Hamath; 2,000 chariots, 10,000 men of Ahab of Israel . . . these twelve kings he [i.e. Irhulini] took to his assistance. To offer battle they marched against me. With the noble might which Asshur, the Lord, granted, with the powerful weapons which Nergal, who walks before me, gave, I fought with them, from Karkar into Gilzan I smote them. Of their soldiers I slew 14,000.

The Old Testament is silent on the presence of Achab in the battle of Karkar, which took place in the same year in which Achab died fighting in the battle of Ramoth Galaad (III Kings, xxii).

Eleven years after this event Jehu was proclaimed king over Israel, and one of his first acts was to pay tribute to Shalmaneser II. This incident is commemorated in the latter’s well-known “black obelisk,” in the British Museum, in which Jehu himself, “the son of Omri,” is sculptured as paying tribute to the king. In another inscription the same king records the same fact, saying: At that time I received the tribute of the Tyrians, Sidonians, and Jehu the son of Omri.” This act of homage took place in 842 B.C., in the eighteenth year of Shalmaneser’s reign.

After Shalmneser II came his son Shamshi-Ramman II (824 B.C.), who, in order to quell the rebellion caused by his elder son, Asshur-danin-pal, undertook four campaigns. He also fought and defeated the Babylonian King, Marduk-balatsuiqbi, and his powerful army. Shamshi-Ramman II was succeeded by his son, Ramman-nirari III (812 B.C.). This king undertook several expeditions against Media, Armenia, the land of Nairi, and the region around Lake Urmi, and subjugated all the coastlands of the West, including Tyre, Sidon, Edom, Philistia, and the “land of Omri,” i.e. Israel. The chief object of this expedition was again to subdue Damascus which he did by compelling Mari,’ its king, to pay a heavy tribute in silver, gold, copper, and iron, besides quantities of cloth and furniture. Joachaz (Jehoahaz) was then king over Israel, and he welcomed with open arms Ramman-nirari’s advance, in as much as this monarch’s conquest of Damascus relieved Israel from the heavy yoke of the Syrians. Ramman-nirari III also claimed sovereignty over Babylonia. His name is often given as that of Adad-nirari, and he reigned from 812 to 783 B.C. In one of his inscriptions, which are unfortunately scarce and laconic, he mentions the name of his wife, Sammuramat, which is the only Assyrian or Babylonian name discovered so far having any phonetic resemblance to that of the famous legendary queen, Semiramis. The personal identity of the two queens, however, is not admissible. Ramman-ni-rari III was succeeded by Shalmaneser III (783–773 B.C.), and the latter by Asshurdan III (773–755 B.C.). Of these three kings we know little, as no adequate inscriptions of their reigns have come down to us.

In the year 745 B.C. Tiglath-pileser III (in the Douay Version, Theglathphalasar) seized the throne of Assyria, at Nineveh. He is said to have begun life as gardener, to have distinguished himself as a soldier, and to have been elevated to the throne by the army. He was a most capable monarch, enterprising, energetic, wise, and daring. His military ability saved the Assyrian Empire from the utter ruin and decay which had begun to threaten its existence, and for this he is fitly spoken of as the founder of the Second Assyrian Empire. Tiglath-pileser’s methods differed from those of his predecessors, who had been mere raiders and plunderers. He organized the empire and divided it into provinces, each of which had to pay a fixed tribute to the exchequer. He was thus able to extend Assyrian supremacy over almost all of Western Asia, from Armenia to Egypt, and from Persia to the Mediterranean. During his reign Assyria came into close contact with the Hebrews as is shown by his own inscriptions, as well as by the Old Testament records, where he is mentioned under the name of Phul (Pul). In the Assyrian inscriptions his name occurs only as that of Tiglath-pileser, but in the “List of Babylonian Kings” he is also called Pul, which settles his identity with the Phul, or Pul. of the Bible. He reigned for eighteen years (745–727 B.C.). In his annals he mentions the payment of tribute by several kings, among whom is “Menahem of Samaria,” a fact confirmed by IV Kings, xv, 19. 20. During his reign, Achaz was king of Juda. This prince, having been hard pressed and harassed by Rasin (Rezin) of Damascus, and Phacee (Pekah) of Israel, entreated protection from (Tiglath-pileser) Theglath-phalasar, who, nothing loath, marched westward and attacked Rasin, whom he overthrew and shut up in Damascus. Two years later, the city surrendered. Rasin was slain, and the inhabitants were carried away captives (IV Kings, xvi, 7, 8, 9).

Meanwhile Israel also was overrun by the Assyrian monarch, the country reduced to the condition of a desert, and the trans-Jordanic tribes carried into captivity. At the same time the Philistines, the Edomites, the Arabians, and many other tribes were subdued; and after the fall of Damascus, Tiglath-pileser held a durbar which was attended by many princes, amongst whom was Achaz himself. His next expedition to Palestine was in 734, the objective this time being Gaza, an important town on the sea-coast. Achaz hastened to make, or, rather, to renew his submission to the Assyrian monarch; as we find his name mentioned again with several other tributary kings on one of Tiglath-pileser’s inscriptions. In 733 the Assyrian monarch carried off the population from large portions of the Kingdom of Israel, sparing, however the capital, Samaria. Tiglath-pileser was the first Assyrian king to come into contact with the Kingdom of Juda, and also the first Assyrian monarch to begin on a large scale the system of transplanting peoples from one country to another, with the object of breaking down their national spirit, unity, and independence. According to many scholars, it was during Tiglath-pilesar’s reign that Jonas (Jonah) preached in Nineveh, although others prefer to locate the date of this Hebrew prophet a century later, i.e. in the reign of Asshurbanipal (see below).

Tiglath-pileser III was succeeded by his son (?), Shalmaneser IV, who reigned but five years (727–722 B.C.). No historical inscriptions relating to this king have as yet been found. Nevertheless, the “Babylonian Chronicle” (which gives a list of the principal events occurring in Babylonia and Assyria between 744 and 688 B.C.) has the following statement: on the 25th of Thebet [December-January] Shalmaneser [in D.V. Salmanasar] ascended the throne of Assyria, and the city of Shamara’in [Samaria was destroyed. In the fifth year of his reign he died in the month of Thebet.” The Assyrian “Eponym Canon” (see above) also informs us that the first two years of Shalmaneser’s reign passed without an expedition, but in the remaining three his armies were engaged. In what direction the armies of Shalmaneser (Salmanasar) were engaged, the “Canon” does not say, but the “Babylonian Chronicle” (quoted above) and the Old Testament (IV Kings, xviii) explicitly point to Palestine, and particularly to Samaria, the capital of the Israelitish Kingdom. In the second or third year of Shalmaneser’s reign, Osee (Hoshea) King of Israel, together with the King of Tyre, rebelled against Assyria; and in order to crush the rebellion the Assyrian monarch marched against both kings and laid siege to their capitals. The Biblical account (Douay Version IV Kings, xvii, 3 sqq.) of this expedition is as follows:

Against him came up Salmanasar king of the Assyrians, and Osee became his servant, and paid him tribute. And when the king of the Assyrians found that Osee endeavouring to rebel had sent messengers to Sua the king of Egypt, that he might not pay tribute to the king of the Assyrians, as he had done every year, he besieged him, bound him and cast him into prison. And he went through all the land: and going up to Samaria, he besieged it three years. And in the ninth year of Osee, the king of the Assyrians took Samaria, and carried Israel away to Assyria; and he placed them in Hala and Habor by the river of Gozan, in the cities of the Medes.

See also the parallel account in IV Kings, xviii, 9–11, which is one and the same as that here given. The two Biblical accounts, however, leave undecided the question, whether Shalmaneser himself or his successor conquered Samaria; while, from the Assyrian inscriptions it appears that Shalmaneser died, or was murdered, before he could personally carry his victory to an end. He was succeeded by Sargon II. Sargon, a man of commanding ability, was, notwithstanding his claim to royal ancestry, in all probability a usurper. He is one of the greatest figures in Assyrian history, and the founder of the famous Sargonid dynasty, which held sway in Assyria for more than a century, i.e. until the fall of Nineveh and the overthrow of the Assyrian Empire. He himself reigned for seventeen years (722–705 B.C.) and proved a most successful warrior and organizer. In every battle he was victor, and in every difficulty a man of resource. He was also a great builder and patron of the arts. His greatest work was the building of Dur-Sharrukin, or the Castle of Sargon, the modern Khorsabad, which was thoroughly explored in 1844–55 by Botta, Flandin, and Place. It was a large city, situated about ten miles from Nineveh, and capable of accommodating 80, 000 in habitants. His palace there was a wonder of architecture, panelled in alabaster, adorned with sculpture, and inscribed with the records of his exploits. In the same year in which he ascended the throne, Samaria fell (722 B.C.), and the Kingdom of Israel was brought to an end. “In the beginning of my reign,” he tells us in his annals, “and in the first year of my reign . . . Samaria I besieged and conquered . . . 27, 290 inhabitants I carried off . . . I restored it again and made it as before. People from all lands, my prisoners, I settled there. My officials I set over them as governors. Tribute and tax I laid on them, as on the Assyrians.” Sargon’s second campaign was against the Elamites, whom he subdued. From Elam he marched westward, laid Hamath in ruins, and afterwards utterly defeated the combined forces of the Philistines and the Egyptians, at Raphia. He made Hanum, King of Gaza, prisoner, and carried several thousand captives, with very rich booty, into Assyria. Two years later, he attacked Karkemish, the capital of the Hittites, and conquered it, capturing its king, officers, and treasures, and deporting them into Assyria. He then for fully six years harassed, and finally subdued, all the northern and northwestern tribes of Kurdistan of Armenia (Urartu, or Ararat), and of Cilicia: the Mannai, the Mushki, the Kummukhi, the Milidi, the Kammani, the Gamgumi, the Samali, and many others who lived in those wild and inaccessible regions. Soon after this he subdued several Arabian tribes and, afterwards, the Medians, with their forty-two chiefs, or princes.

During the first eleven years of Sargon’s reign, the Kingdom of Juda remained peacefully subject to Assyria, paying the stipulated annual tribute. In 711 B.C., however, Ezechias (Hezekiah), King of Juda, partly influenced by Merodach-baladan, of Babylonia, and partly by promises of help from Egypt, rebelled against the Assyrian monarch, and in this revolt he was heartly joined by the Phoenicians, the Philistines, the Moabites, and tbe Ammonites. Sargon was ever quick to act; he collected a powerful army, marched against the rebels, and dealt them a crushing blow. The fact is recorded in Isaias, xx, 1, where the name of Sargon is expressly mentioned as that of the invader and conqueror. With Palestine and the West pacified and subdued Sargon, ever energetic and prompt, turned his attention to Babylonia, where Merodach-baladan ruling. The Babylonian army was easily routed and Merodach-balaclan himself abandoned Babylon and fled in terror to Beth-Yakin, his ancestral stronghold. Sargon entered Babylonia in triumph, and in the following year he pursued the fleeing king, stormed the city of Beth-Yakin, deported its people, and compelled all the Babylonias and Elamites, to pay him tribute, homage and obedience. In 705, in the flower of his age and at the zenith of his glory, Sargon was assassinated. He was succeeded by his son, Sennacherib (705 to 681 B.C.), whose name is so well known to Bible students. He was an exceptionally cruel, arrogant, revengeful, and despotic ruler, but, at the same time, a monarch of wonderful power and ability. His first military expedition was directed against Merodach-baladan, of Babylonia, who, at the news of Sargon’s death, had returned to Babylonia, assuming the title of kings and murdering Merodach-zakir-shumi, the viceroy appointed by Sargon. Merodach-baladan was, however, easily routed by Sennacherib; fleeing again to Elam and hiding himself in the marshes, but always ready to take advantage of Sennacherib’s absence to return to Babylon. In 701, Sennacherib marched eastward over the Zagros mountains and towards the Caspian Sea. There he attacked, defeated, and subdued the Medians and all the neighbouring tribes. In the same year he marched on the Mediterranean coast and received the submission of the Phoenicians, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and the Edomites. He conquered Sidon, but was unable to lay hands on Tyre, on account of its impregnable position. Thence he hurried down the coast road, captured Askalon and its king, Sidqa; turning to the north he struck Ekron and Lachish, and dispersed the Ethiopian-Egyptian forces, which had assembled to oppose his march. Ezechias (Hezekiah), King of Juda, who together with the above-mentioned kings had rebelled against Sennacherib, was thus completely isolated, and Sennacherib, finding his way clear, marched against Juda, dealing a terrific blow at the little kingdom. Here is Sennacherib’s own amount of the event:

But as for Hezekiah of Judah, who had not subsmitted to my yoke, forty-six of his strong walled cities and the smaller cities round about them without number, by the battering of rams, and the attack of war-engines [?], by making breaches, by cutting through, the use of axes, I besieged and captured. Two hundred thousand one hundred and fifty people, small and great, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, and sheep without number I brought forth from their midst and reckoned as spoil. Himself [ Hezekiah] I shut up like a caged bird in Jerusalem, his royal city. I threw up fortifications against him, and whosoever came out of the gates of his city I punished. His cities, which I had plundered, I cut off from his land and gave to Mitinti, King of Ashdod, to Padi, King of Ekron, and to Cil-Bel, King of Gaza, and [thus] made his territory smaller. To the former taxes, paid yearly, tribute, a present for my lordship, I added and imposed on him. Hezekiah himself was overwhelmed by the fear of the brilliancy of my lordship, and the Arabians and faithful soldiers whom he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, deserted him. Thirty talents of gold, eight hundred tatents of silver, precious stones, guhli daggassi, large lapis lazuli, couches of ivory, thrones of elephant skin and ivory, ivory, ushu and urkarinu woods of every kind, a heavy treasure, and his daughters, his palace women, male and female singers, to Nineveh, my lordship’s city, I caused to be brought after me, and he sent his ambassador to give tribute and to pay homage.

The same event is also recorded in IV Kings, xviii and xix, and in Isaias, xxxvi and xxxvii, but in somewhat different manner. According to the Biblical account, Sennacherib, not satisfied with the payment of tribute, demanded from Ezechias the unconditional surrender of Jerusalem, which the Judean king refused. Terrified and bewildered, Ezachias called the prophet Isaias and laid the matter before him, asking him for advice and counsel. The prophet strongly advised the vacillating king to oppose the outrageous demands of the Assyrian, promising him Yahweh’s help and protection. Accordingly, Ezechias refused to surrender, and Sennacherib, enraged and revengeful, resolved to storm and destroy the city. Ezechias the unconditional surrender of Jerusalem, which the Judean king refused. Terrified and bewildered, Ezechias called the prophet Isaias and laid the matter before him, asking him for advice and counsel. The prophet strongly advised the vacillating king to oppose the outrageous demands of the Assyrian, promising him Yahweh’s help and protection. Accordingly, Ezechias refused to surrender, and Sennacherib, enraged and revengeful, resolved to storm and destroy the city. But in that same night the whole Assyrian army, gathered under the walls of Jerusalem, was stricken by the angel of the Lord, who slew one hundred and eighty-five thousand Assyrian soldiers. At the sight of this terrible calamity, Sennacherib in terror and confusion, departed and returned to Assyria. The Assyrian and the Biblical accounts are prima facie conflicting, but many more or less plausible solutions have suggested. In the first place we must not expect to find in Sennacherib’s own annals mention of, or allusion to, any reverse he may have suffered; such allusions would be clearly incompatible with the monarch’s pride, as well as with the purpose of annals incribed only to glorify his exploits and victories. In the second place, it is not improbable that Sennacherib undertook two different campaigns against Juda: in the first, to which his annals refer, he contented himself with exacting and receiving submission and tribute from Ezechias (Hezekiah); but in a later expedition, which he does not mention, he insisted on the surrender of Jerusalem, and in this latter expedition he met with the awful disaster. It is to this expedition that the Biblical account refers. Hence there is no real contradiction between the two narratives, as they speak of two different events. Furthermore, the disaster which overtook the Assyrian army may have been, after all, quite a natural one. It may have been a sudden attack of the plague, a disease to which Oriental armies, from their utter neglect of sanitation, are extremely subject, and before which they quickly succumb. Josephus explicitly affirms that it was a flagellum prodigiosum (Antiq. Jud., X, i, n. 5); while according to an Egyptian tradition preserved to us by Herodotus (Lib. II, cxli), Sennacherib’s army was attacked and destroyed by a kind of poisonous wild mice, which suddenly broke into the Assyrian camp, completely demoralizing the army. At any rate Sennacherib’s campaign came to an abrupt end, and he was f’orced to retreat to Nineveh. It is noteworthy, however, that for the rest of his life Sennacherib undertook no more military expeditions to the West, or to Palestine. This fact, interpreted in the light of the Assyrian monuments, would be the light of the complete submission of Syria and Palestine: while in the light of the Biblical narrative it would signify that Sennacherib, after his disastrous defeat, dared not attack Palestine again.

While laying siege to Jerusalem, Sennacherib received the disquieting news of Merodach-baladan’s sudden appearance in Babylonia. A portion of the Assyrian army was detached and hurriedly sent to Babylonia against the restless and indomiable foe of Assyria. In a fierce battle Merodach-baladan was for the third time defeated and compelled to flee to Elam, where, worn and broken down by old age and misfortunes, he ended his troubled life, and Asshur-nadin-shum, the eldest son of Sennacherib, was appointed king over Babylonia. After his return from the West and after the final defeat of .Merodach-baladan, Sennacherib began lengthy and active preparations for an effective expeditions against Babylonia, which was ever rebellious and restless.

The expedition was as unique in its methods as it audacious in its conception.

With a powerful army and navy, he moved southward and in a terrific battle near Khalulu, utterly routed the rebellious Chaldeans, Babylonians, and Elamites, and executed their two chiefs, Nergal-usezib and Musezib-Merodach. Elam was ravaged, “the smoke of burning towns obscuring the heavens.” He next attacked Babylon, which was stormed, sacked burnt, flooded, and so mercilesslv punished that it was reduced to a mass of ruins, and almost obliterated. On his return to Assyria, Sennacherib appears to have spent the last years of his reign in building his magnificent palace at Nineveh, and in embellishing the city with temples, palaces, gardens, arsenals, and fortifications. After a long, stormy, and glorious reign, he died by the hand of one of his own sons (681 B.C.). The Bible tells us that “as he [Sennacherib] was worshipping in the temple of Nesroch his god, Adramelech and Sarasar his sons slew him with the sword, and they fled into the land of the Armenians, and Asarhaddon [Esarhaddon] his son reigned in his stead” (IV Kings, xix, 37). The “Babylonian Chronicle,” however, has “on 20 Thebet [December-January] Sennacherib, King of Assyria, was slain by his son in a rebellion . . . years reigned Sennacherib in Assyria. From 20 Thebet to 2 Adar [March-April] was the rebellion in Assyria maintained (in to Adar his son, Esarhaddon, ascended the throne of Assyria.” If the murderer of Sennacherib was, as the “Babylonian Chronicle” tells us, one of his own sons, no son of Sennacherib by the name of Adrammelech or Sharezer has as yet been found in the Assyrian monuments; and while the Biblical narrative seems to indicate that the murder took place in Nineveh, on the other hand an inscription of Asshur-banipal, Sennacherib’s grandson, clearly affirms that the tragedy took place in Babylon, in the temple of Marduk (of which Nesroch, or Nisroch, is probably a corruption). Sennacherib was succeeded by his younger son, Esarhaddon, who reigned from 681 to 668 B.C. At the time of his father’s death, Esarhaddon was in Armenia with the Assyrian army, but on hearing the sad news he promptly set out for Nineveh, first to avenge his father’s death by punishing the perpetrators of the crime, and then to ascend the throne. On his way home he met the assassins and their army near Cappadocia, and in a decisive battle routed them with tremendous loss, thus becoming the sole and undisputed lord of Assyria. Esarhaddon’s first campaign was against Babylonia, where a fresh revolt, caused by the son of the late Merodach-baladan, had broken out. The pretender was easily defeated and compelled to flee to Elam. Esarhaddon, unlike his father, determined to build up Babylon and to restore its ruined temples, 2 palaces, and walls he gave back to the people their property, which had been taken away from them as spoils of war during Sennacherib’s destructive campaign, and succeeded in restoring peace and harmony among the people. He determined, furthermore, to make Babylon his residence for part of the year, thus restoring its ardent splendour and religious supremacy. Esarhaddon’s second campaign was directed against the West, i.e. Syria, where a fresh rebellion, having for its centre the great maritime city of Sidon, had broken out. He captured the city and completely destroyed it, ordering a new city, with the name of Kar-Esarhaddon, to be built on its ruins. The king of Sidon was caught and beheaded, and the surrounding country devastated. Twenty-two Syrian princes, among them Manasses, King of Juda, surrendered and submitted to Esarhaddon. Scarcely, however, had he retired when these same princes, including Manasses, revolted. But the great Esarhaddon utterly crushed the rebellion, taking numerous cities, captives, and treasures, and ordering Manasses to be carried to Babylon, where the king was then residing. A few years later Esarhaddon had mercy on Manasses and allowed him to return to his own kingdom. In a third campaign, Esarhaddon blockaded the impregnable Tyre, and set out to conquer Egypt, which he successfully accomplished by defeating its king, Tirhakah. In order to effectively establish Assyrian supremacy over Egypt, he divided the country into twenty provinces, and over each of these he appointed a governor; sometimes a native, sometimes an Assyrian.

He exacted heavy annual tribute from every one of these twenty provinces, and returned in triumph to Assyria. “As for Tarqu [Tirhakah], King of Egypt and Cush, who was under the curse of their great divinity, from Ishupri as far as Memphis, his royal city—a march of fifteen days—every day without exception. I killed his warriors in great number, and as for him, five times with the point of the spear I struck him with a deadly stroke. Memphis, his royal city, in half a day, by cutting through and scaling, I besieged, I conquered, I tore down, I destroyed, I burned with fire, and the wife of his palace, his palace women, Ushanahuru, his own son, and the rest of his sons, his daughters, his property and possessions, his horses, his oxen, his sheep without number, I carried away as spoiI to Assyria. I tore up the root of Cush frorn Egypt, a single one—even to the suppliant—I did not leave behind. Over all Egypt I appointed kings, prefects, governors, grain-inspectors, mayors, and secretaries. I instituted regular offerings to Asshur and the great gods, my lords, for all time. I placed on them the tribute and taxes of my lordship, regularly and without fail.” Esarhaddon also invaded Arabia, penetrating to its very centre, through hundreds of miles of sandy lands which no other Assyrian monarch had penetrated before. Another important campaign was that directed against Cimmerians, near the Caucasus, and against rnany other tribes, in Armenia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Asia Minor, and Media. The monarch’s last expedition was a second campaign against Egypt. Before leaving Assyria, however, i.e. in the month of Iyyar (April-May), 668 B.C., as if forecasting future events, he constituted his son Asshurbanipal co-regent and successor to the throne, leaving to his other son, Shamash-shum-ukin, Babylonia. But, while on his way to Egypt, he fell sick, and on the 10th of Marsheshwan (October), in the year 668, he died.

Esarhaddon was a truly remarkable ruler. Unlike his father, he was religious, generous, forgiving, less harsh and cruel, and very diplomatic. He ruled the various conquered countries with wisdom and toletation, while he established a rigorous system of administration. A great temple-builder and lover of art he has left us many records and inscriptions. At Nineveh he rebuilt the temple of Ashur, and in Babylonia, the temples at Ukuk, Sippar, Dur-Ilu, Borsippa, and others, in all about thirty. In Nineveh he erected for himself a magnificent palace and arsenal, and at Kalkhi (Calah; Douay, Chale) another of smaller dimensions, which was still unfinished at the time of his death. Asshurbanipal, Esarhaddon’s successor, was undoubtedly the greatest of all Assyrian monarchs. For generalship, military conquests, diplomacy, love of splendor and luxury, and passion for the arts and letters, he has neither superior nor equal in the annals of that empire. To him we owe the greatest part of our knowledge of Assyrian-Babylonian history, art, and civilization. Endowed with a rare taste for letters, he caused all the most important historical, religious, mythological, legal, astronomical, mathematical, grammatical, and lexicographical texts and inscriptions known to his day to be copied and placed in a magnificent library which he built in his own palace. “Tens of thousands of clay tablets systematically arranged on shelves for easy consultation contained, besides official dispatches and other archives the choicest religious, historical, and scientific literature of the Babylonian-Assyrian world. Under the inspiration of the king’s literary zeal, scribes copied and translated the ancient sacred classics of primitive Babylonia for this library, so that, from its remains, can be reconstructed, not merely the details of the government and adminitration of the Assyria of his time, but the life and thought of the far distant Babylonian world.” (G.H. Goodspeed, Hist. of the Babylonians and Assyrians, pp. 315, 316.) Of this library, which must have contained over forty thousand clay tablets, a part was discovered by G. Smith and H. Rassam, part has been destroyed, and part yet remains to be explored. Here G. Smith first discovered the famous Babylonian accounts of the Creation and of Deluge in which we find so many striking similarities with the parallel Biblical accounts. Asshur-banipal was also a great temple-builder—in Nineveh, Arbela, Tarbish, Babylon, Borsippa, Sippar, Nippur, and Uruk. He fortified Nineveh, repaired, enlarged, and embellished Sennacherib’s palace, and built next to it another palace of remarkable beauty. This he adorned with numerous magnificent statues, sculptures, bas-reliefs, inscriptions, and treasures. Assyrian art, especially sculpture and architecture, reached during his reign its golden age and its classical perfection, while Assyrian power and supremacy touched the extreme zenith of its height; for with Asshurbanipal’s death Assyrian power and glory sank into the deepest gloom, and perished presumably, to rise no more.

Asshurbanipal’s military campaigns were very numerous. He ascended the throne in 668 B.C. and his first move was against Egypt, which he subdued, penetrating as far as Memphis and Thebes. On his way back, he exacted tribute from the Syrian and Phoenician kings, among whom was Manasses of Juda, who is expressly mentioned in one of the king’s inscriptions. He forced Tyre to surrender, and subdued the Kings of Arvad, of Tabal, and of Cilicia. In 655, he marched against Babylonia and drove away from it a newly organized, but powerful coalition of Elamites, Chaldeans, and Arameans. He afterwards marched into the very heart of Elam, as far as Susa, and in a decisive battle he shattered the Elamite forces. In 625, Shamash-shum-ukin, Asshurbanipal’s brother, who had been appointed by his father King of Babylonia, and who had till then worked in complete harmony with his brother, rebelled against Asshurbanipal. To this he was openly and secretly incited by many Babylonian, Elamite, and Arabian chiefs. Asshurbanipal, however, was quick to act. He marched against BabyIonia, shut off all the rebels in their own fortresses, and forced them to a complete surrender. His brother set fire to his own palace and threw himself into the flames. The cities and fortresses were captured, the rebels slain, and Elam completely devastated. Temples, palaces, royal tombs, and shrines were destroyed. Treasures and booty were taken and carried away to Assyria, and several thousands of people, as well as all the princes of the royal family, were executed, so that, a few years later Elam disappeared for ever front history. In another campaign, Asshurbanipal advanced against Arabia and subdued the Kedarenes, the Nabataeans, and a dozen other Arabian tribes, as far as Damascus. His attention was next attracted to Armenia, Cappadocia, Media, and the northwestern and northeastern regions. In all these he established his supremacy, so that from 640 till 626, the year of Asshurbanipal’s death, Assyria was at peace. However, most scholars incline to believe that during the last years of the monarch’s reign the Assyrian Empire began to decay.

Asshurbanipal is probably mentioned once in the Old Testament (I Esdras, iv, 10) under the name of Asenaphar, or, better, Ashenappar (Ashenappal) in connection with his deportation of many troublesome populations into Samaria. He is probably alluded to by the Second Isaias and Nahum, in connection with his campaigns against Egypt and Arabia. According to G. Brunengo, S.J. (Nabuchodnossor di Giuditta, Rome, 1886) and other scholars, Assuhrbanipal is the Nabuchodonosor (Nebuchadnezzar) of the Book of Judith; others identify him with the Sardanapalus of greek historians. In view, however, of the conflicting characters of the legendary Sardanapalus and the Asshurbanipal of the cuneiform inscriptions, this last identification seems impossible. Besides, Asshurbanipal was not the last king of Assyria, as Sardanapalus is supposed to have been.

Asshurbanipal was succeeded by his two sons, Asshur-etil-elani and Sin-shar-ishkun. Of their respective reigns and their exploits we know nothing, except that in their days Assyria began rapidly to lose its prestige and power. All the foreign provinces—Egypt, Phoenicia, Chanaan, Syria, Arabia, Armenia, Media, Babylonia, and Elam—broke away from Assyria, when the degenerate and feeble successors of the valiant Asshurbanipal proved unable to cope with the situation. They had probably abandoned themselves to effeminate luxury and debaucheries, caring little or nothing for military glory. In the meanwhile Nabopolassar, King of Babylon, and Cyaxares, King of Media, formed a family and political alliance, the latter giving his daughter in marriage to the formers’s son, Nabuchodonossor (Nebuchadnezzar). At the head of a powerful army, these two kings together marched against Nineveh and laid siege to it for fully two years, after which the city surrendered and was completely destroyed and demolished (606 B.C.), and Assyria became a province of Babylonia and Media.

RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION

The religion and civilization of Assyria were almost identical with those of Babylonia, the former having been derived from the latter and developed along the same lines. For, although the Assyrians made notable contributions to architecture, art, science, and literature, these were with them essentially a Babylonian importation. Assyrian temples and palaces were modelled upon those of Babylonia, although in the building material stone was far more liberally employed. In sculptural decorations and in statuary more richness and originality were displayed by the Assyrians than by the Babylonians. It seems to have been a hobby of Assyrian rnonarchs to build colossal palaces, adorned with gigantic statues and an infinite variety of bas-reliefs and inscriptions showing their warlike exploits. Asshurbanipal’s library shows that Assyrian religious literature was not only an imitation of that of Babylonia, but absolutely identical therewith. An examination of the religions of the two countries proves that the Assyrians adopted Babylonian doctrines, cults, and rites, with such slight modifications as were called for by the conditions prevailing in the northern country. The chief difference in the Assyrian pantheon, compared with that of Babylonia, is that, while in Semitic times the principal god of the latter was Marduk, that of the former was Asshur. The principal deities of both countries are: the three chief deities, Anu, the god of the heavenly expanse; Bel, the earth god and creator of mankind; Ea, the god of humanity par excellence, and of the water. Next comes Ishtar, the mother of mankind and the consort of Bel; Sin, firstborn son of Bel, the father of wisdom personified in the moon; Shamash, the sun-god; Ninib, the hero of the heavenly and earthly spirits; Nergal, chief of the netherworld and of the subterranean demons, and god of pestilence and fevers; Marduk, originally a solar deity, conqueror of storrns, and afterwards creator of mankind and the supreme god of Semitic Babylonia; Adad, or Ramman, the god of storms, thunders, and lighting; Nebo, the god of wisdorn, to whom the art of writing and sciences are ascribed; Girru-Nusku, or, simply, Nusku, the god of fire, as driving away demons and evil spirits; Asshur, the consort of Belit, and the supreme god of Assyria. Besides these there were other minor deities.

GABRIEL OUSSANI

Asterisk

(From the Greek aster, a star).

This is a utensil for the Liturgy according to the Greek Rite, which is not used in Roman Rite at all. It consists of two curved bands, or slips, made of silver or gold which cross each other at right angles and thus form a double arch. It is used to place over the amnos or particles of blessed bread, when spread out upon the paten during the proskomide and earlier part of the Greek Liturgy, so as to prevent the veil from coming in contact with or disturbing these blessed but unconsecrated particles of bread in carrying the paten from the prothesis to the altar, or while it is standing at either place. It is laid aside after the Creed and is not ordinarily used again during the Liturgy. The asterisk is usually surmounted by a cross, and often has a tiny star suspended from the central junction, and in the Greek Orthodox is somewhat larger in size than in the Greek Catholic Church. When the priest in the proskomide service is those of blessed bread Iying upon the paten, he takes up the asterisk and incensing it says, “And the came forth and stood over where the child was.” Then he puts it over the particles of bread upon the paten, and proceeds to cover it with the various veils and at conclusion of the proskomide, begins the celebration of the Liturgy.

ANDREW J. SHIPMAN

Asterius

Name of several prominent persons in early Christian history.

(1) Asterius of Petra, a bishop of Arabia, ill-treated by the Arian faction at the Council of Sardica (343) for withdrawing from them his support, and exiled to Upper Libya in Egypt, whence he was recalled in 362 by the edict of Julian that restored all the banished bishops. He took part in the Council of Alexandria (362), called, among other reasons, for the purpose of healing the Meletian schism that was rendering the Church of Antioch. He was one bearers of the letter addressed by the council to the stubborn Lucifer of Cagliari and the other bishops then at Antioch. These peaceful measures were, however, rendered useless by Lucifer’s precipitancy in consecrating Paulinus as successor to Meletius of Antioch, whereby the schism gained a new lease of life.

(2) Asterius of Amasea in Pontus (c. 400). The only fact in his life that is known is related by himself, viz. his education by a Scythian or Goth who had been sent in his youth to a schoolmaster of Antioch and thus acquired an excellent education and great fame among both Greeks and Romans. The extant writings of Asterius are twenty-one homilies, scriptural and panegyrical in content. The two on penance and “on the beginning of the fasts’ were formerly is ascribed to St. Gregory of Nyssa (Bardenhewer, Patrologie, 1901, 267). A life of his predecessor, St. Basil, is ascribed to Asterius (Acta SS. 26 April). His works (P.G. XL) are described by Tillemont (Mem., X, 409). He was a student of Demosthenes and an orator of repute. Lightfoot says (Dict. of Christ. Biogr., I, 178) that his best sermons display “no inconsiderable skill in rhetoric great power of expression, and great earnestness of moral conviction; some passages are even strikingly eloquent. “ The homilies of Asterius, like those of Zeno of Verona, offer no little valuable material to the Christian archaeologist. [De Buck in Acta SS. 30 Oct. (Paris, 1883), XIII, 330–334.]

(3) Asterius of Cappadocia, a Greek sophist, a friend of Arius, and also his fellow student in the school of Lucian of Antioch. St. Athanasius quotes more than once from a pro-Arian work of this writer. He wrote commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, the Gospels, the Psalms, and “many other works’ (Jerome, De Vir. Ill., c. xciv) , all of which have perished ( Zahn, Marcellus von Ancyra, Gotha, 1867, 68 sqq.)

(4) Asterius, a Roman senator mentioned by Eusebius (His. Eccl., VII, 16) as a Christian distinguished for faith and charity. Rufinus says that he suffered martyrdom at Caesarea in Palestine in 262 (Baronius, An. Eccl. ad an. 262, sects. 81, 82).

(5) Asterius Urbanus, a Montanist writer of the latter part of the second century, referred to in Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. V, 16, 17); his work was probably a compilation of the pseudo-prophetic utterances of Montanus and his female companions Priscilla and Maximilla.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Diocese of Asti

One of the divisions of the province of Alexandria, and suffragan of Turin. Asti is a very old town. It became Christian at an early period of the Christian Era. The first know bishop was Pastor in 451. After him, were Majoranus in 465, Benenatus in 680, and St. Evasius in 730. From 800 begins the regular list of bishops, though the seat was vacant from 1857 to 1867. There has been some controversy as to the beginning of the Diocese of Asti and the episcopate of St. Evasius, once placed by some at much earlier dates. Asti has 182,600 Catholics, 107 parishes, 300 secular priests, 12 regulars, 92 seminarists, 525 churches or chapels.

Aston

The name of several English Catholics of prominence.

Sir Arthur, member of an ancient and knightly family, an able military officer in the army of Charles I, governor of Oxford for the king, and made governor of Drogheda (Ireland) in 1649. He was killed September 10, 1640, at the siege of that town by the forces of Oliver Cromwell; his brains were dashed out with his wooden leg during the massacre that followed the capture (D. Murphy, Cromwell in Ireland, Dublin, 1897, p. 99).

Herbert, an English poet, born at Chelsea, 1614, third son of Walter, first Lord Aston of Forfar, whom he accompanied to Madrid on his second embassy in 1635, author of “Tixall Poetry, Collected by the Hon. Herbert Aston, 1658” (ed. with notes and illustrations by Arthur Clifford, Esq., Edinburgh, 1813, 4to).

Walter, father of the preceding and son of Sir Edward Aston, of Tixall in Staffordshire, educated under the direction of Sir Edward Coke, sent as one of the two ambassadors to Spain (1619) to negotiate a marriage treaty between Charles (I), Prince of Wales, and the Infanta, daughter of Philip 111. He became a convert to the Catholic Faith on this occasion, and on his return to England was made Lord of Forfar (Scotland). He had a decided taste for literature, and was the patron of Drayton, who dedicated to him (1598) his “Black Prince,” and in his “Polyolbion” praises the Aston’s “ancient seat” of Tixall.

William, born April 22, 1735, educated at St.-Omer, entered the Society of Jesus in 1761, and taught for several years in the Society’s colleges of St.-Omer, Watten, and Bruges, until the suppression in 1773; died at Liège, March 15, 1800, as canon of the cathedral. Among his writings are “Letters Ultramontaines” and “Le Cosmopolite.”

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of Engl. Catholics, 1, 76–82; FOLEY, Records of Engl. Province, S.J.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Diocese of Astorga

(ASTURIGA AUGUSTA.)

Suffragan of Valladolid in Spain, dates it is said, from the third century. It was the principal church of the Asturias in 344, after a long eclipse was again an Episcopal see in 747, and exhibits since 841 a regular succession of bishops. It was at different times a suffragan of Braga and of Santiago. It includes the whole province of Leon and counts 300,115 Catholics, 990 parishes, and as many parish churches, 431 chapels and 1,183 priests.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Astrology

The supposed science which determines the influence of the stars, especially of the five older planets, on the fate of man (astrologia judiciaria; mundane, or judicial astrology) or on the changes of the weather (astrologia naturalis; natural astrology) according to certain fixed rules dependent upon the controlling position of stars (constallations aspects ) at the time under consideration. Judicial astrology—more important branch of this occult art—depended for its predictions upon the position of the planets in the “twelve houses “ at the moment of the birth of a human being. The calculations necessary to settle these positions were casting the horoscope or the diagram of the heavens (thema coeli) at the nativity. Starting with the point that was rising just at the moment of birth, the celestical equator was divided into twelve equal parts, six above, and six below the horizon, and circles were drawn through these points and the intersecting points of the horizon and the meridian. Thus the heavens were divided into twelve houses. The first house (horoscopus) begins with the point of the ecliptic that is just rising (ascendens). The twelve houses are divided into cardinal houses, also called anguli, succeeding houses (succedentes, anaphora) and declining or cadent houses (cadentes, cataphora). The houses symbolize respectively: life, personal property, consanguinity, riches, children and jewels, health, marriage and course of life, manner of death and inheritance, intellect and disposition (also long journeys), position in life and dignities, friends and success, enemies and misfortune. In the horoscope all these symbolic meanings are considered in their relation to the newly born. A Latin hexameter thus sums up the meaning of the twelve houses:

Vita, lucrum, fratres, genitor, nati, valetudo,

Uxor, mors, sapiens, regnans benefactaque, daemon.

The position of the planets and the sun and moon in the twelve houses at the moment of birth is decisive. The planets vary as to meaning. They are divided into day-stars (Saturn, Jupiter, and also the sun) and night-stars (the moon, Mars, and Venus); Mercury belongs both to day and night. The sun, Jupiter, and Mars are masculine; the moon and Venus are feminine, Mercury belongs both to day and night. The sun, Jupiter, and Mars are masculine; the moon and Venus are feminine, Mercury belonging again to both classes. Jupiter (fortuna major) and Venus (fortuna minor) are good planets; Saturn (infortuna major) and Mars (infortuna minor) are malignant planets. The sun, moon, and Mercury have a mixed character. Each of the planets known to antiquity, including sun and moon, ruled a day of the week; hence the names still used to designate the various days. Judicial astrology also took into consideration the position of the sun in the zodiac at the moment of birth; the signs of the zodiac also had a special astrological significance in respect to the weal and woe of the newborn, particularly his health. In medical astrology every sign of the zodiac ruled some special part of the body, as for example: Aries, the Ram, the head: its diseases; Libra, the Balance, the intestines. Judicial astrology postulates the acceptance of the earth as the centre of the solar system. Natural astrology predicts the weather from the positions of the planets, especially the moon. Many of its theories are not to be rejected a priori, since the question of the moon’s meteorological influence still awaits a solution which must depend upon the progress of human knowledge as to ether waves and cognate matters.

HISTORY

The history of astrology is an important part of the history of the development of civilization, it goes back to the early days of the human race. The unchangeable, harmonious course of the heavenly bodies, the profound impression made on the souI of man by the power of such heavenly phenomena as eclipses, the feeling of dependence on the sun, the giver of daylight—all these probably suggested in the early ages of the the human race, the question whether the fate of man was not dependent on these majestic manifestations of Divine power. Astrology was, therefore the foster-sister of astronomy, the science of the investigation of the heavens. From the start astrology was employed for the needs and benefit of daily life; the astrologers were astronomers only incidentally and in so far as astronomy assisted astrology in the functions which the latter had to perform in connection with religious worship. According to the belief of the early civilized races of the East, the stars were the source and at the same time the heralds of everything that happened, and the right to study the “godlike science” of astrology was a privilege of the priesthood. This was the case in Mesopotamia and Egypt, the oldest centres of civilization known to us in the East. The most ancient dwellers on the Euphrates the Akkado-Sumerians were believers in judicial astrology which was closely Interwoven with their worship of the stars. The same is true of their successors, the Babylonians and Assyrians, who were the chief exponents of astrology in antiquity. The Babylonians and Assyrians developed astrology, especially judicial, to the status of a science, and thus advanced in pure astronomical knowledge by a circuitous course through the labyrinth of astrological predictions. The Assyro-Babylonian priests (Chaldeans) were the professional astrologers of classic antiquity. In its origin Chaldaic astrology also goes back to the worship of stars; this is proved by the religious symbolism of the most ancient cuneiform texts of the zodiac. The oldest astrological document extant is the work called “Namar-Beli” (Illumination of Bel) composed for King Sargon I (end of the third millennium B.C.) and contained in the cuneiform library of King Asurbanipal (668–626 B.C.). It includes astronomical observations and calculations of solar and lunar eclipses combined with astrological predictions, to which the interpretation of dreams already belonged. Even in the time of Chaldean, which should be called Assyrian, astrology, the five planets, together with the sun and moon, were divided according to their character and their position in the zodiac as well as according to their position in the twelve houses. As star of the sun, Saturn was the great planet and ruler of the heavens. The weather, as far back as this time, was predicted from the colour of the planets and from their rising and setting. Classical antiquity looked upon Berosus, priest of the temple of Bel at Babylon, as the oldest writer on astrology; and according to Vitruvius Berosus founded a school of astrology at Cos. Seneca says that a Greek translation, made by Berosus, of the “Namar-Beli “ from the library the Asurbanipal was known to classical antiquity. The Egyptians and Hindus were as zealous astrologers as the nations on the Euphrates and Tigris. The dependence of the early Egyptian star (sun) worship (the basis of the worship of Osiris) upon early Chaldaic influences belongs to the still unsettled question of the origin of early Egyptian civilization. But undoubtly the priest of the Pharaohs were the docile pupils in astrology of the old Chaldean priests. The mysterious Taauth (Thoth), the Hermes Trismegistus of antiquity, was regarded the earliest teacher of astrology in Egypt. He is reputed to have laid the foundation of astrology in the “Hermetic Books”; the division of the zodiac into the twelve signs is also due to him. In classic antiquity many works on astrology or on occult sciences in general were ascribed to this mythical founder of Egyptian astrology. The astrological rule of reckoning named after him, “Trutina Hermetis” made it possible to calculate the position of the stars at the time of conception from tbe diagram of the heavens at the time of birth. The Egyptians developed astrology to a condition from which it varies but little today. The hours of the day and night received special planets as their rulers, and high and low stood under the determinative influence of the stars which proclaimed through the priestly caste the coming fate of the land and its inhabitants. It is significant that in ancient Egypt astronomy, as well as astrology, was brought to an undoubtedly high state of cultivation. The astoundingly daring theories of the world found in the Egyptian texts, which permit us to infer that their authors were even acquainted with the helio-centric conception of the universe, are based entirely on astrologico-theosophic views. The astrology of the ancient inhabitants of India was similar, though hardly so comptetely developed; they also regarded the planets as the rulers of the different hours. Their division of the zodiac into twenty-eight houses of the moon is worthy of notice; this conception like all the rest of the fundamental beliefs of Hindu astrology, is to be found in the Rig-Veda. In India both astrology and the worship of the gods go back to the worship of the stars. Even today, the Hindus, especially the Brahmins, are considered the best authorities on astrology and the most skilful casters of horoscopes.

India influenced and aided the development of astrology in ancient China, both India and Mesopotamia that of the Medes and Persians. The Assyro-Babylonian and Egyptian priests were the teachers of the Greek astrologers. Both of these priestly castes were called Chaldeans, and this name remained the designation of all astrologers and astronomers in classic antiquity and in the period following. It speaks well for the sound sense of the early Grecian philosophers that they seperated the genuine astronomic hypotheses and facts from the confused mass of erroneous astrological teaching which the Egyptian priests had confided to them. At the same time it was through the old Hellenic philosophers that the astrological secrets of the Oriental priestly castes reached the profane world. The earliest mention of the art of astrological prediction in early classical literature is found in the “Prometheus Vinctus” of Æschylus (line 486 sqq.) a comparatively late date. The often quoted lines of the Odyssey (Bk. XVIII, 136 sqq.) have nothing to do with astrology. Astrology was probably cultivated as an occult science by the Pythagorean school which maintained the exclusiveness of a caste. The teaching of Pythagoras on the “harmony of the spheres” points to certain astrological hypotheses of the Egyptian priests. It is a striking fact that Greek astrology began to flourish when the glory of the early classical civilization had begun to wane. It was in the age of Euripides, who refers to astrological predictions in a little comedy, that the belief in astrology began to grow popular in Greece. After the overthrow of the Assyro-Babylonian Empire, the priests of those regions found refuge in Greece and spread their astrological teachings by word of mouth and writing. In this way astrology lost the characler of occult science. Astronomy and astrology remained closely united, and both sciences were represented by the so-called Chaldeans, Mathematici, and Genethliacs. Astrology proper, from the time of Posidonius, was called apotelesmatika (rendered into English, “apotelesmatics” in order to indicate more clearly the influence of the stars upon man’s final destiny; apo, “from,” and telos, “end”). Astrology soon permeated the entire philosophical conception of the nature among the Greeks, and rapidly attained a commanding position in religious worship. Plato was obliged to take astrology into consideration as a “philosophical doctrine,” and his greatest disciple, Aristotle, was the first to separate the science of astrology from that of meteorology, which was reserved for the phenomena of the atmosphere. The Stoics who encouraged all forms of divination were active promoters of astrology. The more plainly the influence of Oriental teaching manifested itself in Greek civilization, and the more confused the political conditions and religious ideas of the Greek States became, the greater was the influence of astrologers in public, and the more mischievous their activity in private life. Every professional astronomer was at the same time an astrologer. Eudoxus of Cnidles, the author of the theory of concentric spheres, was perhaps the first to write in Greek on purely astrological topics, being led to select this subject by his studies in Egypt. Most of the Greek astronorners known to us followed in his footsteps, as, for instance, Geminus of Rhodes whose most important work treating of astronomy and astrology Eisagoge eis ta Phainomena (Introduction to Phenomena) was commented on even by Hipparchus. About 270 B.C. the poet Aratus of Soli in his didactic poem, “Phænomena,” explained the system of Eudoxus, and in a poem called “Diosemeia,” which was appended to the former, he interprets the rules of judicial and natural astrology that refer to the various changes of the stars. The poem of Aratus was greatly admired by both the Greeks and the Romans; Cicero translated it into Latin, and Hygius, Ovid’s friend, wrote a commendary on it. In this age astrology was as highly developed as in its second period of prosperity, at the Renaissance. Medical astrology had also at this date secured a definite position. Hippocrates of Cos in his work “De Aere, Aqua et Locis,” which shows the influence of the Pythagoreans, discusses at length the value of astrology and its prognostications for the whole domain of medicine. In the Alexandrine school of medicine, astrological prognosis, diagnosis, and hygiene soon covered with their rank growths the inherited scientific teachings that had been tested by practice. In this way “astrological” cures grew in favour. These forms of the art of healing are not without interest both for the history of suggestion and for that of human error. The diseases of the more important bodily organs were diagnosed according to the influence of the sign of the zodiac at the time, and a medicine applied which either acted by suggestion, or was wholly inoperative. In the division of the zodiac according to its medical effect on the different parts of the body the first sign taken was the Ram (Aries), which ruled the head, and the last of the series was the Fishes (Pisces) which controlled the health or ailments of the feet. As the appetite of the Greeks for the mysterious wisdom of astrology grew keener, the Egyptian and Chaldean astrologers continually drew out still more mystical but, at the same time, more dubious treasures from their inexhaustible store-house. The newly founded city of Alexandria, where the later Hellenic culture flourished was a centre for all astrologers and practitioners of the occult arts. From time to time books appeared here, professing to have had their origin in the early days of Egytian civilization, which contained the secret knowledge pertaining to astrological and mystical subjects. These writings seems to meet the aspirations of ordinary men for the ideal, but all they offered was a chaotic mass of theories concerning astrology and divination, and the less they were understood they more they were applauded. In the Renaissance these pseudo-scientific works of antiquity were eagerly studied. It suffices here to mention the books of Nechopso-Petosiris which were believed by the neo-Platonists to be most the ancient Egyptian authority on astrology but which, probably were written in Alexandria about 150 B.C. About this same time, in all probability, Manetho, an Egyptian priest and traveller mentioned by Ptolemy, wrote on astrology. In order to meet the exigencies which arose, each degree of the heavens in late Egyptian astrology was assigned to some special human activity and some one disease. Besides this, the “heavenly spheres,” which play so important a part in the history of astronomy, were increased to 54, and even a higher number, and from astrological calculations made from the complicated movements of these spheres the fate both of men and nations was predicted. Thus arose in late classic times the sphoera barbarica (foreign sphere) which in the Middle Ages also had a controlling influence over astrology.

It was to be expected that the sober-minded, practical Romans would soon be dissatisfied with the mystical and enigmatical doctrines of Alexandrian astrology. Cato uttered warnings against the mischievous activity of the Chaldeans who had entered Italy along with Greek culture. In the year 139 B.C. the Praetor Cneius Cornelius Hispallus drove all astrologers out of Italy; but they returned, for even the Roman people could not begin an important undertaking without the aid and auspices. It is only necessary to recall the greatest man of ancient Rome, Julius Caesar. Cicero, who in his younger days had busied with astrology, protested vigorously, but without success, against it in his work “De Divinatione.” The Emperor Augustus, on the other hand, believed in astrology and protected it. The first Roman work on astrology was dedicated to him; it was the “Astronomica” written about 45 B.C. by Marcus Manilius, who was probably a Chaldean by birth. In five books this poem gives an outline of the astrology of the zodiac and constellations. The fifth book is devoted to the sphoera barbarica. It is a curious fact that the poem does not take up the astrology of the planets. In spite of repeated attempts to suppress it, as in the reigns of Claudius and Vespasian, astrology maintained itself in the Roman Empire as one of the leading forms of culture. The lower the Romans sank in religion and morals the more astrology became entwined with all action and belief. Under Tiberius and Nero the two astrologers named Thrasyllus who were father and son held high political positions. The most distinguished astronomer of antiquity, Claudius Ptolemaeus, was also a zealous astrologer. His “Opus Quadripartitum, seu de apotelesmatibus et judiciis astrorum, libri IV” is one of the chief treatises on astrology of earlier times and is a detailed account of astrological teachings. This work occupied in astology as important a position as that which the same author’s Megale Euntaxis (also called “Almagest”), held in the science of astronorny before the appearance of the Copernican theory. It is a striking fact that Ptolemy sought, in the second book of the “Opus Quadripartitum” to bring the psychical and bodily differences of the various nations into relation with the phyical conditions of their native lands, and to make these conditions, in their turn, depend on the positions of the stars. The Roman astrologers wrote their manuals in imitation of Ptolemy, but with the addition of mystic phantasies and predictions. After the death for Marcus Aurelius, the Chaldeans were always important personages at the imperial court. As late as the time of Constantine the Great the imperial notary Julius Firmius Maternus, who later became a Christian, wrote on “Mathematics, or the power and the influence of the stars” eight books which were the chief authority in astrology until the Renaissance. With the overthrow of the old Roman Empire and the victory of Christianity, astrology lost its importance in the centres of Christian civilization in the West. The last known astrologer of the old world was Johannes Laurentius (sometimes called Lydus) of Philadelphia in Lydia, who lived A.D. 490–565.

ASTROLOGY UNDER CHRISTIANITY

From the start the Christian Church strongly opposed the false teachings of astrology. The Fathers energeticaly demanded the expulsion of the Chaldeans who did so much harm to the State and the citizens by employing a fantastic mysticism to play upon the ineradicable impulses of the common people, keeping their heathen conceptions alive and fostering a soul-perplexing cult which, with its fatalistic tendencies created difficulties in the discernment of right and wrong and weakened the moral foundations of all human conduct. There was no room in the early Christian Church for followers of this pseudo-science. The noted mathematician Aguila Ponticus was expelled from the Christian communion about the year 120, on account of his astrological heresies. The early Christians of Rome, therefore, regarded the astrological as their bitterest and, unfortunately, their too powerful enemies; and the astrologers probably did their part in stirring up the cruel persecutions of the Christians. As Christianity spread, the astrologers lost their influence and reputation, and gradually sank to the position of mere quacks. The conversion of Constantine the Great put an end to the importance of this so-called science, which for five hundred years had ruled the public life of Rome. In 321 Constantine issued an edict threatening all Chaldeans, Magi, and their followers with death. Astrology now disappeared for centuries from the Christian parts of Western Europe. Only the Arabic schools of learning, especially those in Spain after the Moors had conquered the Iberian peninsula, accepted this dubious inheritance from the wisdom of classic times, and among Arabs it became incentive to pure Astronomical research. Arabian and Jewish scholars were the representatives of astrology in the Middle Ages, while both Church and State in Christian countries rejected and persecuted this false doctrine and its heathen tendencies. Unfortunately, at the same time the development of astronony was checked, excepting so far as it was needed to establish certain necessary astronomic principles and to calculate the date of Easter. Yet early Christian legend dstinguished between astronomy and astrology by ascribing the introduction of the former to the good angels and to Abraham, while the latter was ascribed to Cham. In particular, St. Augustine (“De civitate Dei,” VIII, xix, and in other places) fought against astrology and sought to prevent its amalgamation with pure natutal science. Once more the East prepared a second period of prosperity for astrology. The Jews, very soon after they were driven into Western Europe, busied themselves with astrological questions, being stimulated thereto by Talmud. Jewish scholars had, moreover, a knowlege of the most important works of classic times on astrology and they became the teachers of the Arabs. These latter, after the rapid spread of Mohammedanism in Western Asia and North Africa, and their defeat in Western Europe by Charles Martel, began to develop a civilization of their own. The mystical books which appeared in Jewish literature after the time of the Talmud, that is, the books called the “Sefer Zohar” and the “Sefer Yezirah” (Book of Creation), are full of rules of divination dealing especially with astrological meanings and calculations. The high reputation of the Talmud and Cabbala among the Jews in the Middle Ages explains their fondness for astrological speculations; but at a very early date, it should be noted, they distinguished between astronomy, “the science of reading the stars,” and astrology, “the science of divination.”

Caliph Al-Mansur, the builder of Bagdad, was, like his son, the famous Harun-al-Rashid, a promoter of learning. He was the first caliph to call Jewish scholars around him in order to develop the study of the mathematical sciences, especially astronomy, in his empire. In the year 777 the learned Jew Jacob ben Tarik founded at Bagdad a school for the study of astronomy and astrology which soon had a high reputation; among those trained here was Alchindi (Alkendi), a noted astronomer. It was one of Alchindi’s pupils, Abumassar (Abu Mashar), from Bath in Chorassan, born about the year 805, whom the Middle Ages regarded as of greatest of Arabian astrologers. Astrology being regarded by the caliphs as the practical application of astronomy, all the more important Arabic and Jewish astronomers who were attached to that court, or who taught in the Moorish schools were also astrologers. Among the noteworthy Jewish astrologers may be mentioned Sahl ben Bishr al-Israel (about 820); Rabban al-Taban, the well-known cabbalist and Talmudic scholar; Shabbethai Donalo (913–970), who wrote a commentary on the astrology of the “Sefer Yezirah” which Western Europe later regarded as a standard work; and, lastly, the Jewish lyric poet and mathematician Abraham ibn Ezrah. Among the noted Arabic astronomers were Massah Allah Albategnius, Alpetragius, and others. The Arabo-Judaic astrology of the Middle Ages pursued the path indicated by Ptolemy, and his teachings were apparently the immovable foundation of all astronomical and astrological activity. At the same time the “Opus Quadripartitum” of the great Alexandrian was corrupted with Talmudic subtleties and overlaid with mystical and allegorical meanings, which were taken chiefly from the Jewish post -Talmudic belief conceming demons. This deterioration of astrology is not surprising if we bear in rnind the strong tendency of all Semitic races to fatalism and their blind belief in an inevitable destiny, a belief which entails spiritual demoralization. The result was that every conceivable pursuit of mankind every disease and indeed every nation had a special “heavenly regent,” a constellation of definitely assigned position from the course of which the most daring prophecies were deduced.

Up to the time of the Crusades, Christian countries in general were spared any trouble from a degenerate astrology. Only natural astrology, the correctness of which the peasant thought he had recognized by experience secured a firm footing in spite of the prohibition of Church and State. But the gradually increasing influence of Arabic learning upon the civilization of the West, which reached its highest point at the time of the Crusades was unavoidably followed by the spread of the false theories of astrology. This was a natural result of the amalgamation of the teachings of pure astronomy with astrology at the Mohammedan seats of learning. The spread of astrology was also furthered by the Jewish scholars living in Christian lands, for they considered astrology as a necessary part of their cabalistic and Talmudic studies. The celebrated didactic poem “Imago Mundi,” written by Gauthier of Metz in 1245, has a whole chapter on astrology. Pierre d’Ailly, the noted French theologian and astronomer, wrote several treatises on the subject. The public importance of astrology grew as the internal disorders of the Church increased and the papal and imperial power declined. Towards the close of the Middle Ages nearly every petty prince, as well as every ruler of importance, had his court astrologer upon whose ambiguous utterances the weal and the woe of the whole country often depended. Such a person was Angelo Catto, the astrologer of Louis XI of France. The revival of classical learning brought with it a second period of prosperity for astrology. Among the civilized peoples of the Renaissance period, so profoundly stirred by the all-prevailing religious, social and political ferment, the astrological teaching which had come to light with other treasures of ancient Hellenic learning found many ardent disciples. The romantic trend of the age and its highly cultivated sensuality were conditions which contributed to place this art in a position far higher than any it had attained in its former period of prosperity. The forerunners of Humanism busied themselves with astrology, and but few of them perceived the dangerous psychical effect of its teachings upon the masses. Towards the end of the the thirteenth century the Florentines employed Guido Bonatti as their official astrologer, and , although Florence then stood alone in this respect, it was scarcely a hundred years later when astrology had entered in earnest upon its triumphant course, and a Cecco d’Ascoli was already its devoted adherent. In Petrarch’s day the questionable activity of the astrologers at the Italian courts had made such progress that this clear-sighted Humanist (De remed. utr. fortm. I , iii, sqq; Epist. rer. famil., III; 8, etc.) again and again attacked astrology and its representatives with the keenest weapons of his wit, though without success, and even without any following except the weak objections of Villani and the still more ineffectual polemics of Salutato in his didactic poem “De fato et fortunâ.” Emperors and popes became votaries of astrology—the Emperors Charles IV and V, and Popes Sixtus IV, Julius II, Leo X, and Paul III. When these rulers lived astrology was, so to say, the regulator of official life; it is a fact characteristic of the age, that at the papal and imperial courts ambassadors were not received in audience until the court astrologer had been consulted. Regiomontanus, the distinguished Bavarian mathematician, practised astrology, which from that time on assumed the character of the bread-winning profession, and as such was not beneath the dignity of so lofty an intellect as Kepler. Thus had astrology once more become the foster-mother of all astronomers. In the judgment of the men of the Renaissance—and this was the age of a Nicholas Copernicus—the most profound astronomical researches and theories were only profitable in so far as they aided in the development of astrology. Among the zealous patrons of the art were the Medici. Catharine de’ Medici made astrology popular in France. She erected an astrological observatory for herself near Paris, and her court astrologer was the celebrated “magician” Michel de Notredame (Nostradamus) who in 1555 published his principal work on astrology—a work still regarded as authoritative among the followers of his art. Another well-known man was Lucas Gauricus, the court astrologer of’ Popes Leo X and Clement VII, who published a large number of astrological treatises. ln Germany Johann Stöffler, professor of mathematics at Tübingen, Matthias Landenberg, and, above all, Philip Melanchthon were zealous and distinguished defenders of astrology. In Pico della Mirandola (Adversus Astrologos libri XII) and Paolo Toscanelli astrology encountered its first successful antagonists; later in the Renaissance Johann Fischart and the Franciscan Nas were among its opponents (Cf. Philognesius, Practicarum, Ingolstadt, 1571).

Gabotto’s charming essay, “L’astrologia nel quattrocento” in “Rivisto di filosofia scientica,” VIII, 378, sq., gives much information concerning astrology in the fifteenth century. A. Graf’s “La fatalita nelle credenze del medio evo” (in “Nuovo Antologia,” 3rd series, XXVIII, 201,sqq.) is also of value for astrology at the turning point of the Middle Ages. Some of the late Roman astrologers, among whom was probably Firmicus Maternus, thought to reform astrology by idealizing it and raising its moral tone. The same purpose animated Paolo Toscanelli, called Maistro Pagollo, a physician greatly respected for the piety of his life, who belonged to the learned and artistic circle which gathered around Brother Ambrosius Camaldulensis in the Monastery of the Angels. There were special professors of astrology, besides those for astronomy, at the Universities of Pavia, Bologna, and even at the Sapienza during the pontificate of Leo X, while at times these astrologers outranked the astronomers. The three intellectual centres of astrology in the most brilliant period of the Renaissance were Bologna, Milan, and Mantua. The work of J.A. Campanus, published at Rome in 1495, and often commented on, namely, “Oratio initio studii Perugiae habita” throws a clear light on the lack of comprehension shown by the Church Fathers in their attitude towards pagan fatalism. Among other things it is here said: “Quanquam Augustinus, sanctissimus ille vir quidem ac doctissimus, sed fortassis ad fidem religionemgue propensior, negat quicquam vel mali astrorum necessitate contingere.”

In the Renaissance, religion, also, was subordinated to the dictation of astrology. The hypothesis of an astrological epoch of the world for each religion was widely believed by Italian astrologers of the time, who obtained the theory from Arabo-Judaic sources. Thus it was said that the conjunction of Jupiter with Saturn permitted the rise of the Hebrew faith; that of Jupiter with Mars, the appearance of the Chaldaic religion; of Jupiter with the sun, the Egyptian religion; of Jupiter with Venus, Mohammedanism; and of Jupiter with Mercury, Christianity. At some future day the religion of Antichrist was to appear upon the conjunction of Jupiter with the moon. Extraordinary examples of the glorification of astrology in Italy during the Renaissance are the frescoes painted by Miretto in the Sala della Ragione at Pavia, and the frescoes in Borso’s summer palace at Florence. Petrarch, as well, notwithstanding his public antagonism to astrology, was not, until his prime, entirely free from its taint. In this connection his relations with the famous astrologer, Mayno de Mayneri, are significant (Cf. Rajna, Giorn. stor., X, 101, sq.).

Even the victorious progress of the Copernican system could not at once destroy confidence in astrology. The greatest astronomers were still obliged to devote their time to making astrological predictions at princely courts for the sake of gain; Tycho Brahe made such calculations for the Emperor Rudolph II, and Kepler himself, the most distinguished astronomer of the age, was the imperial court astrologer. Kepler was also obliged to cast horoscopes for Wallenstein, who later came completely under the influence of the alchemist and astrologer Giambattista Zenno of Genoa, the Seni of Schiller’s “Wallenstein.” The influence of the Copernican theory, the war of enlightened minds against pseudo-prophetic wisdom and the increasing perception of the moral and psychical damage wrought by astrological humbug at last brought about a decline in the fortunes of astrology, and that precisely in Wallenstein’s time. At the same period astrological tracts were stil being written by the most celebrated of English astrologers, William Lilly of Diseworth, Leicestershire, who received a pension of 100 pounds from Cromwell’s council of state, and who, in spite of some awkward incidents, had no little political influence with Charles II. Among his works was a frequently republished “Christian Astrology.” Shakespeare (in King Lear) and Milton were acquainted with and advocated astrological theories, and Robert Fludd was a representative of the art at the royal court. Francis Bacon, it is true, sought to win adherents for a purified and reformed astrology in order to destroy the existing form of the art. It was Jonathan Swift who in his clever satire, “Prediction for the Year 1708 by Isaac Bickerstaff, Esq,” which deserves to be read even at the present day, gave the deathblow to the belief of English society in astrology. The last astrologer of importance on the Continent was Jean-Baptiste Marin, who issued “Astrologia Gallica” (1661). The greatly misunderstood Swiss naturalist Theophrastus Paracelsus was an opponent of astrology, and not its advocate, as was formerly inferred from writings erroneously attributed to him. The rapid growth of experimental investigation in the natural sciences in those countries which had been almost ruined, socially and politically; by the Thirty Years War completely banished the astrological parasites from society. Once more astrology fell to the level of a vulgar superstition, cutting a sorry figure among the classes that still had faith in the occult arts. The peasant held fast to his belief in natural astrologist and to this belief the progress of the art of printing and the spread of popular education contributed largely. For not only were there disseminated among the rural poor “farmer’s almanacs,” which contained information substantiated by the peasant’s own experience, but the printing-presses also supplied the peasant with a great mass of cheap and easily understood books containing much fantastic astrological nonsense.

The remarkable physical discoveries of recent decades, in combination with the growing desire for an elevated philosophico-religious conception of the world and the intensified sensitiveness of the modern cultured man—all these together have caused astrology to emerge from its hiding place among paltry superstitions. The growth of occultistic ideas, which should, perhaps, not be entirely rejected, is reintroducing astrology into society. This is especially true of judicial astrology, which, however, by its constant encouragement of fatalistic views unsettles the belief in a Divine Providence. At present Judicial astrology is not justified by any scientific facts. To put forward the theory of ether waves as an argument for astrological assertions is not in accord with the methods of sober science. Judicial astrology, therefore, can claim a place only in the history of human error, while, however, as an historical fact, it reflects much light upon the shadowy labyrinth of the human soul.

ASTROLOGY AMONG THE ANCIENT JEWS

The Bible is free from any base admixture of astrological delusions. There is no reason for dragging the passage Josue x, 12, into historito-astrological discussions; the facts there related—the standing still of the sun in the valley of Gabaon and of the moon in the valley of Ajalon—are of purely astronomical interest. Only a few indicatiors in the Old Testament suggest that, notwithstanding the Divine prohibitinn (Ex., xxii, 18, Deut, xviii, 10, etc.), the Jews, especially after they were exposed to the influence of Egyptian and BabyIonian errors, may have practised astrology in secret, along with other superstitions. The Prophets warned the people against the pernicious ascendancy of soothsayers and diviners of dreams (Jer., xxix, 8; Zach., X. 1–2), among whom astrologers were included. Thus in the Book of Wisdom (xiii, 1-2) it is said: “All men are vain . . . who . . . have either . . . the swift air, or the circle of stars, or the great water, or the sun and the moon, to be the gods that rule the world.” The Book of Job, a writing of importance in the history of astronomy and star nomenclature, is also free from astrological fatalism. But to this fatalism the Jews had a natural predisposition, when Hellenism gained footing in the Holy Land it was accompanied by the spread of astrology, largely among the learned, the “philosophers,” at whom even in an ealier age the passage in Wisdom had probably been aimed. Again, Isaias (xlvii, 13–14) derides the Babylonian astrologers ( Let now the astrologers, stand and save thee, they that gazed at the stars . . . Behold they are as stubble fire hath burnt them”), and Jeremias exclaims (x, 2): “Be not afraid of the signs of heaven, which the heathen fear.”

After the Exile, however, astrology spread so rapidly, above all among the educated classes of Israel, that as early as the Hellenistic era a Jewish astrological literature existed, which showed a strong Persico-Chaldean influence. The prophets had been opponents of astrology and of a relapse into fatalism. If, when they were phophesying of the great events to come, the contemplation of nature, and especially of the stars, filled them with sympathetic enthusiasm, by reason of their poetic inspiration and power of divination, this had nothing to do with astrology. On the other hand it does not appear impossible that in Daniel’s time exiled Jews practised astrology. Judging from Daniel, v, 7, 11, it is possible that the prophet himself held a high rank among the astrologers of the Babylonian court. After the Exile an attempt was made to separate astrology from sorcery and forbidden magical arts, by denying a direct Biblical prohibition of astrology and by pretending to find encouragement for such speculations in Genesis, i, 14. It is a characteristic fact that in ancient Israel astrology received no direct encouragement, but that its spread was associated with the relapse of many Jews into the old Semitic star-worship which was aided by Persico-Chaldean influence. For this Jeremias is a witness (vii, 18; xix, 13; xliv, 17–19, 25). Co-incident with the spread of old astrology in old Israel and the decline of the nation was the diffusion of demonology. The Jewish prayers to the planets, in the form in which they are preserved with others in Codex Paris, 2419 (folio 277r), came into existence at the time when Hellenism first flourished in the East, namely, the third and second centuries B.C. In these prayers special angels and demons are assigned to the different planets; the greatest and most powerful planet Saturn having only one angel, Ktetoel, and one demon, Beelzebub. These planetary demons regulated the destiny of men.

The most notable witness for astrological superstitions in the era of the decadence of Israel is the apocryphal “Book of the Secrets of Henoch,” which, notwithstanding its perplexing phantasies, is a rich treasure-house of information concerning cosmological and purely astronomical problems in the Hellenic East. The author of “Henoch” is said by a Samaritan writer to be the discoverer of astronomy, and the book contains valuable explanations in regard to astronomy and astrology at the time of the Machabean dynasty. The evidences for astrologic demonology in ancient Israel, when the nation was affected by Hellenism and Babylonian decadence, are found in the latter part of the “Book of the Secrets of Henoch”—the “Book of the Course of the Lights of Heaven”—as also previously in the fourth section which treats of Henoch’s wanderings “through the secret the places of the world.” This latter is perhaps the archetype of Dante’s “Divine Comedy.” According to the “Book of Henoch” the human race derived its knowledge of astrology and “lunar sorceries,” together with all other forms of magic, from the seven or eight spirits from whom come the chief sins of mankind (Henoch, i, 8). It is, moreover, worthy of note that the “Book of Henoch” must be regarded as a witness to Jewish national prophecy. It does not betray the ascendancy of Hellenism in any such degree as do the verses of the “Sibylline Oracles,” which were recorded in the old Ionic dialect during the reign of Ptolemy Physcon (145–112 B.C.) by Jewish scholars in Egypt, and probably at a later date in the Holy Land itself.

The astrological demonology of the Jews was continually fed from Egyptian and Babylonian sources, and formed in its turn the basis for the astrology of certain neo-Platonic sects. Together with the Parsee astrology, it was the Gnostics and Priscillianists. The influence of Hellenistic Judaism is also plainly visible in the philosophic system of the Harranites, or Sabeans. It is only necessary to mention here the high honour paid by the Sabeans to the seven planetary gods who regulate the fate of man. According to the belief of the every planet is inhabited by a spirit as star-soul, and the deciphering of the figures of the conjunction and opposition of the planets made the prediction of future destiny possible. Other elements of late Judaic astrology were adopted by the earliest known Christian writer on astrology, the Byzantine court-astrologer, Hephaestion of Thebes. The didactic astrological poem of Johanes Kamteros (about the middle of the twelfth century), which was dedicated to the Byzantine Emperor Manual I, appears to have heen drawn from Judaeo-Gnostic sources. It is a striking fact that as “demonized astrology” gained ground in ancient Israel—and this was a branch of astrology in great favour among the Jewish scholars of the age of the Ptolemies, and much practised by them—the worship of the stars ventured once more to show itself openly. It was not until the appearance of Christianity that the preposterous, and, in part, pathologically degenerate, teachings of the Judaic astrology were swept away.

The lower the Jewish nation sank in the scale of religion and civilization the greater was the power gained by the erratic doctrines of astrology and the accompanying belief in demonology. The earthly labours of the Saviour purified this noxious atmosphere. The New Testament is the opponent of astrology, which, by encouraging an apathetic fatalisrn, prevents the development of and elevating and strengthening trust in a Divine Providence. The “Star of the Wise Men” (Matt., ii, 2, 7, 9, sq.) cannot be identified by astronomy; perhaps, according to Ideler (Handbuch der mathemat. und techn. Chron.), the conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn is meant. But this hypothesis, which would be of decisive importance in settling the year of the birth of Christ, still lacks convincing proof. It finds a curious support in Abrabanel’s comment that, according to Jewish astrologers, a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn was a sign of the Messias. It must, however, remain questionable whether and to what extent a prediction of Jewish astrologers, or Kere schamajim, is to be considered as realized in the “Star of the Wise Men” (Matt., ii, 2, etc). The first heralds of Christianity, the Twelve Apostles, at once began a bold war against the rank growths of superstition. They also battled with the propensity of the people for astrology and in its stead planted in the hearts of men a belief in the power and goodness of God. Supported by the teachings of the Scriptures, the Church Fathers became powerful opponents of astrology and attacked with determination the bewildering and demoralizing ascendancy of its devotees. The assertion therefore justified that the Book remained free from the taint of astrological delusion. The passion for astrology evinced by decadent Judaism, and preserved in the Bible, is only one more proof of the propensity of Semitic nations for fatalistic superstitions and of the purifying victorious power of the ethics of Christianity.

Campbell Thompson’s monumental work, “The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon” (London, 1902), may be consulted for the valuable facts which throw light upon the dependence of the astrology of the ancient Jews on the that of Babylon. “A special branch of astrology which was zealously cultivated in Babylon was medical astrology, or the astrological prognosis of disease.” Medical astrology is important in regard to the question of astrology in the Bible. It was greatly favoured by the spread of empirical treatment of disease among the astrologers. The Bible itself gives very little information concerning this form of the science, but subordinate Jewish sources, above all the Talmud, allow conclusions to be drawn as to its importance. Medical astrology, derived from Arabo-Judaic sources, flourished again at the time of the Renaissance. Its professional representatives were then called “Iatromathematicians,” after the mathernatical mode of arriving at conclusions in their “art of healing.” [Cf. Karl Sudhoff, Jatromathematiker, vornehml. des XV. und XVI. Jahrhund., in Abhand. zur Geseh. der Medizin (Breslau, 1902), pt. II; Wilh. Ebstein, Die Medizin im Alten Testament (Stuttgart, 1901); Gideon Precher, Das Tranzendentae, Magie im Talmud ((Vienna, 1850); Trasen, Sitten der alten Hebräer (Breslau, 1853).]

The Babylonians, chiefly in relation to medical astrology, distinguished between a spherical method of calculation (from the point of view of the observer to the stars, i.e. subjectively), and a cosmical method (from the relative position of the stars, i.e. objectively). The former was used in the prognosis deduced from the observation of the twelve houses of the heavens; the latter in that drawn from the twelve signs of the Zodiac.

MAX JACOBI.

Astronomy

(From Gr. astron, star; nemein, to distribute).

A science of prehistoric antiquity, originating in the elementary needs of mankind. It is divided into two main branches, distinguished as astrometry and astrophysics; the former concerned with determining the places of the investigation of the heavenly bodies, the latter, with the investigation of their chemical and physical nature. But the division is of a quite recent date. The possibilities of antique science stopped short at fixing the apparent positions of the objects on the sphere. Nor was any attempt made to rationalize the observed facts until Greeks laboriously built up a speculative system, which was finally displaced by vast fabric of gravitational theory. Descriptive astronomy, meanwhile took its rise from the invention of the telescope, and the facilities thus afforded for the close scrutiny of the denizens of the sky; while practical astronomy gained continually in refinement with the improvement of optical and mechanical arts. At the present time, astrophysics may be said to have absorbed descriptive astronomy, and astrometry necessarily includes practical research. But mathematical astronomy, grounded on the law of gravitation keeps its place apart, though depending for the perfecting of its theories and the widening of its scope upon advances along the old, and explorations in new, directions.

PREHISTORIC ASTRONOMY

Formal systems of astronomical knowledge were early established by the Chinese, Indians, Egyptians, and BabyIonians. The Chinese were acquainted, probably in the third millenium B.C., with the cycle of nineteen years (rediscovered in 632 B.C. by Meton at Athens) by which, since it comprised just 235 lunations, the solar and lunar years were harmonized; they recorded cometary apparitions, observed eclipses, and employed effective measuring apparatus. European methods were introduced at Pekin by Jesuit missionaries in the seventeenth century. Indian astronomy contained few original elements. It assigned particular prominence to the lunar zodiac, called the nakshatras, or mansions of the moon, variously reckoned at twenty-seven or twenty-eight; and these, which were probably a loan from Chaldea, served mainly for superstitious purposes. In Egypt, on the other hand, considerable technical skill was attained and a constellational system of obscure derivation, came in use. The Babylonians alone, among the nations of the fore-time, succeeded in laying the foundations of a progressive science. Through the medium of the Greeks, they transmitted to the West their entire scheme of uranography, our familiar constellations having been substantially designed on the plain of Shinar about 2800 B.C. Here, too, at a remote epoch, the “Saros” became known. This is a cycle of eighteen years and ten or eleven days, which affords the means of predicting the recurrence of eclipses. The changing situations of the planets among the stars were, moreover, diligently recorded, and accurate acquaintance was secured with the movements of the sun and moon. The interpretation in 1889, by Fathers Epping and Strassmaier, of a collection of inscribed tablets preserved in the British Museum vividly illuminated the methods of official Babylonian astronomy in the second century B.C. They were perfectly effectual for the purpose chiefly in view, which was the preparation of yearly ephemerides announcing expected celestial events, and tracing in advance the paths of the heavenly bodies. Further analysis in 1899 by Father Kugler, S.J., of the tabulated data employed in computing the moon’s place, disclosed the striking fact that the four lunar periods—the synodic, sidereal, anomalistic, and draconitic months—were substantially adopted by Hipparchus from his Chaldean predecessors.

GREEK ASTRONOMY

Astronomy, however, no sooner became a distinctively Greek science than it underwent a memorable transformation. Attempts began to be made to render the appearances of the sky intelligible. They were, indeed, greatly hampered by the assumption that movement in space must be conducted uniformly in circles, round an immobile earth; yet the problem was ostensibly solved by Appollonius of Perga (250–220 B.C.), and his solution, applied by Hipparchus to explain the movements of the sun and moon, was extended by Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) to the planets. This was the celebrated theory of eccentrics and epicycles, which, by the ingenuity of its elaboration, held its own among civilized men during fourteen centuries. Hipparchus, the greatest of ancient astronomers, observed at Rhodes (146–126 B.C.), but is considered as belonging to the Alexandrian school. He invented trignometry, and constructed a catalogue of 1080 stars, incited, according to Pliny’s statement, by a temporary stellar outburst in Scorpio (134 B.C.). Comparing, as work progressed, his own results with those obtained 150 years earlier by Timocharis and Aristyllus, he detected the slow retrogression among the stars of the point of intersection of the celestial equator with the ecliptic, which constitutes the phenomenon of the precession of the equinoxes. The circuit is completed in 25,800 years; hence the tropical year, by which the seasons are regulated, is shorter than the sidereal year by just twenty-one minutes, the equinox shifting backward to meet the sun by the annual amount of 50.25 inches. Greek astronomy was embodied in Ptolerny’s “Almagest” (the name is of mixed Greek and Arabic derivation), composed at Alexandria about the middle of the second century A. D. It was based upon the geocentric principle. The starry spere, with its contents, was supposed to resolve, once in twenty-four hours, about the fixed terrestrial globe, while the sun and moon, and the five planets, besides sharing the common movement, described variously conditioned orbits round the same centre. The body of doctrine it inculcated made part of the universal stock of knowledge until the sixteenth century. The formidable task of demonstrating its falsity, and of replacing it with a system corresponding to the true relations of the world, was undertaken by the active and exemplary ecclesiastic, Nicholas Copernicus, Canon of Frauenburg (1473–1543). The treatise in which it was accomplished, entitled “De Revolutione Orbium Coelestium,” saw the light only when its author lay dying; but a dedication to Pope Paul III bespoke the protection of the Holy See for the new and philosophically subversive views which it propounded. Denounced as impious by Luther and Melanchton, they were, in fact, favourably received at Rome until theological discredit was brought upon them by the wild speculations of Giorano Bruno (1548–1600), and the imprudent utterances of Galileo Galilei (1564–1642).

DESCRIPTIVE ASTRONOMY

Descriptive astronomy may be said to have originated with the invention of the telescope by Hans Lippershey in 1608. Its application to the scrutiny of the heavenly bodies, by Galileo and others, led at once to a crowd of striking discoveries. Jupiter’s satellites, the phases of Venus, the mountains of the moon, the spots on the sun, Saturn’s unique appendages, all descried with a little instrument resembling a uniocular opera-glass, formed, each in its way, a significant and surprising revelation; and the perception of the stellar composition of the Milky Way represented the first step in sidereal exploration. Johann Kepler (1571–1630) invented in 1611, and Father Scheiner of Ingolstadt (1575–1650) first employed, the modern refracting telescope; and the farther course of discovery corresponded closely to the development of its powers. Christian Huygens (1629–95) resolved, in 1656, the ansae of Saturn into a ring, divided into two by Giovanni Domenico Cassini (1625–1712) in 1675. Titan, the Iargest of Saturn’s moons, was detected by Huygens in 1655, and four additional members of the family by 1684. The Andremeda nebula was brought to notice by Simon Marius in 1612, the Orion nebula by J.B. Cysatus, a Swiss Jesuit, in 1618; and some few variable and multiple stars were recognized.

THEORETICAL ASTRONOMY

The theoretical, however, far outweighed the practical achievements of the seventeenth century. Kepler published the first two of the “Three Laws” in 1609, the third in 1619. The import of these great generalizations is:

that the planets describe ellipses of which the sun occupies one focus;

that the straight line joining each planet with the sun (its radius vector) sweeps out equal areas in equal times;

that the squares of the planetary periods are severally proportional to the cubes of their mean distances from the sun.

The geometrical plan of movement in the solar system was thus laid down with marvellous intuition. But it was reserved for Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1727) to expound its significance by showing that the same uniformly acting force regulates celestial revolulions, and compels heavy bodies to fall towards the earth’s surface. The law of gravity, published in 1687 in “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathamatica” is to the following effect: every particle of matter attracts every other with a force directly proportional to their masses, and inversely proportional to the squares of their distances apart. Its validlty was tested by comparing the amount of the moon’s orbital deflection in a second with the orbital deflection in a second with the rate at which an apple (say) drops in an orchard. Allowance being made for the distance of the moon, the two velocities proved to tally perfectly, and the identity of terrestrial gravity with the force controlling the revolutions of the heavenly established. But this was only a beginning. The colossal work remained to be accomplished of calclulaIting the consequences of the law, in the minute details of its working, and of comparing them with the heavens. It was carried foreward first by Newton himself, and in the ensuing century, by Euler, Clairaut, d’ Alembert, Lagrange, and Laplace. Urbain Leverrier (1811- 77) inherited from these men of genius a task never likely to be completed; and the intricacies of lunar theory have been shown, by the researches of John Cough Adams (1819–92), of Hansen and Delaunay, of Professors Hlll and Newcomb, and many more, to be fraught with issues of unexpected and varied interest.

DISCOVERIES IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM

The extraordinary improvement of reflecting telescopes by Sir William Herschel (1738–1822) opened a fresh epoch of discovery. His recognition of the planet Uranus (13 March 1781) as a non-stellar object of old to the solar system; two Uranian moons, Oberon and Titania, were detected by him 11 January 1787, and the innermost Saturnian pair, Enceladus and Mimas, 28 August and 17 September of the same year. Saturn was, in 1906, known to possess ten satellites. Hyperion was descried by W.C. Bond at the observatory of Harvard College 16 September, 1848, and Professor W.H. Pickering, of the same establishment, discovered by laborious photographic researches, Phoebe in 1898, and Themis in 1905. In point of fact, an indefinite number of satellites are agglomerated in the rings of Saturn. Their constitution by separately revolving, small bodies, theoretically demonstrated by J. Clerk Maxwell in 1857, was spectroscopically confirmed by the late Professor Keeler in 1895. The system includes a dusky inner member, detected by Bond, 15 November, 1850. The discovery of the planet Neptune, 23 Sepember, 1846, was a mathematical, not an observational feat. Leverrier and Adams independently divined the existence of a massive body, revolving outside Uranus, and exercising over its movements disturbances the analysis of which led to its capture. Its solitary moon was noted by William Lassell of Liverpool in October, 1846; and he added, in 1851, two inner satellites to the remarkable system Uranus. With the great Washington refractor, 26 inches in aperture, Professor Asaph Hall discerned, 16 and 17 August,1877, Deimos and Phobos, the swiftly circling moonlets Mars; the Lick 36-ich enabled Professor Barnard to perceive, 9 September, 1892, the evasive inner satellite of Jupiter; and two exterior attendants on the same planet were photographically detected by Professor Perrine in 1904–05. The distances of the planets are visibly regulated by a method. They increase by an ordered progression, announced by Titius of Wittenberg in 1772, and since designated as “Bode’s Law.” But their succession was quickly seen to be interrupted by a huge gap between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter; and the conjecture was hazarded that here a new planet might be found to revolve. It was verified by the discovery of an army of asteiods. Ceres, their leader, was captured at Palermo, 1 January, 1801, by Giuseppe Piazzi, a Theatine monk (1746–1826); Pallas, in 1802 by Olbers (1758–1840), and Juno and Vesta in 1804 and 1807, by Harding and Olbers respectively. The original quartette of minor planets began in 1845 to be reinforced with companions, the known number of which now approximates to 600, and may be indefinitely increased. Their discovery has been immensely facilitated by Professor Max Wolf’s introduction, in 1891, of the photographic method of discriminating them from stars through the effects of their motion on sensitive plates.

The solar system, as at present known, consists of four interior planets, Mercury, Venus, the Earth, and Mars; four exterior; and relatively colossal planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, the diffuse crowd of pygmy globes called asteroids, or minor planets, and an outlying array of comets with their attentant meteor-systems. All the planets rotate on their axes, though in very different periods. That of Mercury was determined by Signor Schiaparelli of Milan in 1889 to be 88 days, the identical time of his revolution round the sun, and Venus was, in the following year, shown by him to be, in all likelihood, similarly conditioned, the common period of rotation and circulation being, in her case, 225 days. This irnplies that both planets keep the same hemisphere always turned towards the sun, as the moon does towards the earth; nor can we doubt that the friction of tidal waves was, on the three bodies, the agency by which the observed synchronisrn was brought about. All the planets travel round the sun from west to east or counter clock-wise and most of the satellites move in the same direction round their primaries. But there are exceptions. Phoebe, Saturn’s remotest moon, circulates oppositely to the other members of the system; the four moon of Uranus are retrograde, their plane of movement being inclined at more than a right angle to the ecliptic; and the satellite of Neptune travels quite definitely backward. These anomalies are of profound import to the theories of planetary origin. The “canals” of Mars were recognized by Schiaparelli in August 1877, he caught sight of some of them duplicted two years later. Their photographic registration at the Lowell observatory in 1905 proves them to be no optical illusion, but their nature remains enigmatical.

COMETS AND METEORS

The predicted return of Halley’s comet in 1759 afforded the first proof that bodies of the kind are permanently attached to the sun. They accompany its march through space, traversing, in either direction indifferently, highly eccentric orbits inclined ecliptic. They are accordingly subject to violent, even subversive disturbances from planets. Jupiter, in particular, sways the movements of a group of over thirty “captured” comets, which had their periods curtailed, and their primitive velocities reduced by his influence. Schiaparelli announced in 1866 that the August shooting-stars, or Perseids, pursue the same orbit with a bright comet visible in 1862; and equally striking accordances of movement between three other comets and the Leonid, Lyraid, and Andromede meteor-swarms were soon afterwards established by Leverrior and Weiss. The obvious inference is that meteors are the disintegration-products of their cometary fellow-travellers. A theory of comets’ tails, based upon the varying efficacy of electrical repulsion upon chemically different kinds of matter, was announced by Theodor Brédikhine of Moscow in 1882, and gave a satisfactory account of the appearances it was invented to explain. Latterly, however, the authority of Arrhenius of Stockholm has lent vogue to a “light-pressure” hypothesis, according to which, cometary appendages are formed of particles driven from the sun by the mechanical stress of his radiations. But the singular and rapid changes photograpically disclosed as taking place in the tails of comets, remain unassociated with any known cause.

SIDEREAL ASTRONOMY

Sir William Herschel’s discovery, in 1802, of binary stars, imperfectly anticipated by Father Christian Mayer in 1778, was one of far-reaching scope. It virtually proved the realm of gravity to include sidereal regions; and the relations it intimated have since proved to be much more widely prevalent than could have been imagined beforehand. Mutually circling stars exist in such profusion as probably to amount to one in three or four of those unaccompanied. They are of limitless variety, some of the systems by them being exceedingly close and rapid, while others describe, in millennial periods, vastly extended orbits. Many, too, comprise three or more members; and the multiple stars thus constituted merge, by progressive increments of complexity, into actual clusters, globular and irregular. The latter class exemplified by the Pleiades and Hyades, by the Beehive cluster in Cancer, just visible to the naked eye, and by the double cluster in Perseus which makes a splendid show with an opera-glass. Globular clusters are compressed “balls” of minute stars, of which more than one hundred have been catalogued. The scale on which these marvellous systems are constructed remains conjectual, since their distances from the earth are entirely unknown. Variable stars are met with in the utmost diversity. Some are temporary apparitions which spring up from invisibility often to an astonishing pitch of spendor, then sink back more slowly to quasi-extinction. Nova Persei, which blazed 22 February, 1901, and was photographically studied by Father Sidgreaves at Stonyhurst, is the most noteworthy recent instance of the phenomenon. Stars, the vicissitudes of which are comprised in cycles of seven to twenty months, or more, are called “long-period variables.” About 400 had been recorded down to 1906. They not uncommonly attain, at maximum, to 1,000 times their minimum brightness. Mira, the “wonderful” star in the Whale, discovered by David Fabricius in 1596, is the examplar of the class. The fluctuations of “short-period variables” take place in a few days or hours, and with far more punctuality. A certain proportion of them are “eclipsing stars” (about 35 have so far been recognized as such), which owe their regularly recurring failures of light to the interposition of large satellites. Algol in Perseus, the variations of which were perceived by Montanari in 1669, is the best-known specimen. Hundreds of rapid variables have been recently detected among the components of glabular clusters; but their course of change is of a totally different nature from that of eclipsing stars. Edmund Halley (1656–1742), the second Astronomer Royal, announced in 1718 that the stars, far from being fixed, move onward, each on its own account, across the sky. He arrived at this conclusion by comparing modern with antique observations; and stellar “proper motions” now constitute a wide and expansive field of research. A preliminary attempt to regularize them was made by Herschel’s determination, in 1783, of the sun’s line of travel. His success depended upon the fact that the apparent displacements of the stars include a common element, transferred by perpective from the solar advance. Their individual, or “peculiar” movements, however, show no certain trace of method. A good many stars, too, have been ascertained to travel at rates probably uncontrollable by the gravitational power of the entire sidereral system. Arcturus, with its portentous velocity of 250 miles a second, is one of these “runaway” stars. The sun’s pace of about 12 miles a second, seems, by comparison, extremely sedate; and it is probably only half the average stellar speed. The apex of the sun’s way, or the towards which its movement at present tends, is located by the best recent investigations near the bright star Vega.

DISTANCES OF THE SUN AND STARS

The distances of the heavenly bodies can only be determined (speaking generally) by measuring their parallaxes, in other words, their apparent changes of position when seen from different points of view. That of the sun is simply the angle subtended at his distance by the earth’s semi-diameter. Efforts were made with indifferent success to fix its value by the transits of Venus in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The asteroids have proved more efficient auxiliaries and through the mediation of Iris, Sappho, and Victoria, in 1889–89, Sir David Gill assigned to the great unit of space a length of 92,800,000 miles, which the photographic measures of Eros, in 1900–01, bid fair to ratify. The stars, however, are so vastly remote that the only chance of detecting their perspective displacements is by observing them at intervals of six months, from opposite extremities of a base-line nearly 186,000 miles in extent. Thus, the annual parallax of a star means the angle under which the semi-diameter of the earth’s orbit would be seen if viewed frorn its situation. This angle is in all cases, extremely minute, and in most cases, altogether evanescent; so that, from only about eighty stars (as at present known), the terrestrial orbit would appear to have sensible dimensions. Our nearest stellar neighbour is the splendid southern binary, Alpha Centauri; yet its distance is such that light needs four and one-third years to perform the journey thence. Thomas Henderson (1798–1844) announced his detection of its parallax in 1839, just after Bessel of Konigsberg (1784–1846) had obtained a similar, but smaller result for an insignificant double star designated 61 Cygni.

CELESTIAL PHOTOGRAPHY

The second half of the nineteenth century was signalized by a revolutionary change in the methods and purposes of astronomy. Experiments in lunar photography, begun in 1840 by J.W. Draper of New York, were continued in the fifties by W.C. Bond, Warren de la Rue, and Lewis M. Rutherfund. The first daguerreoype of the sun was secured at Paris in 1845, and traces of the solar corona appeared on a sensitized plate exposed at Konigsberg during the total eclipse of 28 July, 1851. But the epoch of effective solar photography opened with the Spanish eclipse of 18 July, 1860, when the pictures successively obtained by Father Angelo Secchi, S.J., and Waren de la Rue demonstrated the solar status of the crimson protuberances by rendering manifest the advance of the moon in front of them. At subsequent eclipses, the leading task of the camera has been the portrayal of the corona; and its importance was enhanced when A.C. Ranyard pointed out, in 1879, the correspondence of changes in its form with alterations of sunspots was published in 1851 by Schwabe of Dessau; and among the numerous associated phenomena of change, none are better ascertained than those affecting the shape of the silvery aureola seen to encompass the sun when the moon cuts off the glare of direct sunlight. At spot maxima the aureola spreads its beamy radiance round the disc. But at times of minimum, it consists mainly of two great wings, extended in the sun’s equatorial plane. A multitude of photographs, taken during the eclipses of 1898, 1900, 1901 and 1905, attest with certainty the punctual recurrence of these unexplained vicissitudes. The fundamental condition for the progress of sidereal photography is the use of long exposures; since most of the objects to be delineated emit light so feebly that its chemical effects must accumulate before they become sensible. But long exposures were impracticable until Sir William Huggins, in 1876, adopted the dry-plate process; and this date, accordingly, marks the beginning of the wide-spreading serviceableness of the camera to astronomy. In nebular investigations above all, it far outranges the telescope. Halley described in 1716 six nebulae, which he held to be composed of a lucid medium collected from space. The Abbé Lacaille (1713–62) brought back with him from the Cape, in 1754, a list of forty-two such objects; and Charles Messier (1730–1817) enumerated in 1781, 103 nebulae and clusters. But this harvest was scanty indeed compared with the lavish yield of Herschel’s explorations. Between 1786 and 1802 he communicated to the Royal Society catalogues of 2500 nebulae; he distinguished their special forms, classified them in order of brightness, and elaborated a theory of stellar development from nebulae, illustrated by selected instances of progressive condensation. The next considerable step towards a closer acquaintance with nebulae was made by Lord Rosse in 1845, when the prodigious light-grasp of his six-foot reflector afforded him the discovery of the great “Whirlpool” structure in Canes Venatici. It proved to be typical of the entire class of spiral nebulae, the large prevalence of which has been one of the revelations of photography. The superiority in nebula-portraiture of the chemical to the eye-and-hand method was strikingly manifested in a photograph of the Orion nebula taken b Dr. A. A. Common, 30 January, 1883. Its efficacy for discovery became evident through the disclosure, on plates exposed by Paul and Prosper Henry, and by Isaac Roberts in 1885- 86, of complex nebulous formations in the Pleides, almost wholly invisible optically. Professor Keeler (1857–1900) estimated at 120,000 the number of nebulae which the Crossley reflector of the Lick observatory would capable of recording in both hemispheres with an hour’s exposure, while telescopically constructed catalogues include less than 10,000. But it is through the combination of photography with spectroscopy, constituting the spectrographic mode of research, that astrophysics has achieved its most signal triumphs.

ASTROPHYSICS

The fundamental principle of spectrum analysis, enunciated by Gustav Kirchhoff (1824–87), depends upon the equivalence of emission and absorption. This means that, if white light be transmitted through glowing vapours, they arrest just those minute sections of it with which they themselves shine. And if the source of the white light be hotter than the arresting vapour, there results a prismatic spectrum, interrupted by dark lines, distinctive of the chemical nature of the susbtance originating them. Now this is exactly the case of the sun and stars. The white radiance emanating from their photopheres is found, when dispersed into a spectrum, to be crossed by numerous dusky rays indicating absorption by gaseous strata, to the composition of which Kirchhoff’s principle supplies the clue. Kirchhoff himself identified in 1861, as prominent solar constituents, sodium, iron magnesium, calcium, and chromium; by A.J. Angström (1814–74); helium by Sir Norman Lockyer in 1868; and about forty elementary substances are now known with approximate certainty to be common to the earth and sun. The chemistry of the stars is strictly analogous to that of the sun, although their spectra exhibit diversities symptomatic of a considerable variety in physical state. Father Angelo Secchi, S.J. (1818–78), based on these diversities in 1863–67 a classification of the stars into four orders, still regarded as fundamental and supplied by Dr. Vogel in 1874 with an evolutionary interpretation, according to which differences of spectral type are associated with various stages of progress from a tenuous and inchote towards a compact condition. Since 1879, when Sir William Huggins secured impressions of an extended range of ultra-violet white star light, stellar spectra have been mostly studied photographically, the results being, not only precise and permanent, but also more complete than those obtainable by visual means. The same eminent investigator discovered, in 1864, the bright-line spectra of certain classes of nebulae, by which they were known to be of gaseous composition, and recognized, as of carbonaceous origin, the typical coloured bands of the cometary spectrum, noted four years previously, though without specific identification, by G.B. Donati (1827–73) at Florence.

Doppler’s principle, by which light alters in refrangibility through the end-on motion of its source, was first made effective for astronomical reseach by 1868. The criterion of velocilty, whether of recession or approach, is afforded by the shifting of spectral lines from their standard places; and the method was raised to a high grade of accuracy through Dr. Vogel’s adaptation, in 1888, of photography to its requirements. It has since proved extraordinarily fruitful. Its employment enabled Dr. Vogel to demonstrate the reality of AIgol’s eclipses, by showing that the star revolved round an obscure companion in the identical period of light-change; and the first discoveries of non-eclipsing spectroscopic binaries were made at Harvard College in 1889. These interesting systems cannot be sharply distinguished from telescopic double stars, which are, indeed, believed to have developed from them under the influence of tidal friction; their periods vary from a few hours to several months; and their components are often of such unequal luminosity that only one leaves any legible impression on the sensitive plate. Their known number amounted, in 1905, to 140; and it may be indefinitely augmented. It probably includes all short-period variables, even those that escape eclipses; though the connection between their duplicity and luminous variations remains unexplained. The photography in daylight of solar prominences was attempted by Professor Young of Princeton in 1870, and the subject was prosecuted by Dr. Braun, S. J., in 1872. No genuine success was, however, achieved until 1891, when Professor Hale of Chicago and M. Deslandres at Paris independently built up pictures of those objects out of the calcium-ray in their dispersed light, sifted through a double slit onto moving photographic plates. Professor Hale’s invention of the “spectroheliograph” enables him, moreover, to delineate the sun’s disc in any selected of its light, with the result of disclosing vast masses of calcium and hydrogen flocculi, piled up at various heights above the solar surface.

SIDEREAL CONSTRUCTION

The investigation of the structure of the sideral heavens was the leading object of William Herschel’s career. The magnitude of the task, however, which he attempted singlehanded grows more apparent with every fresh attempt to grapple with it; and it now engages the combined efforts of many astronomers, using methods refined and comprehensive to a degree unimagined by Herschel. An immense stock of materials for the purpose will be provided by the international photographic survey, at present advancing towards completion at eighteen observatories in both hemispheres. About thirty million stars will, it is estimated, appear on the chart-plates; and those precisely catalogued are unlikely to fall short of four millions. The labour of discussing these multitudinous data must be severe, but will be animated by the hope of laying bare some hidden spring of the sidereal mechanism. The prospect is indeed remote that the whole of its intricacies will ever be penetrated by science. We only perceive that the stars form a collection of prodigious, but limited, extent, showing strongly concentrative tendencies towards the plane of the Milky Way. Nor can the nebulae be supposed to form a separate scheme. The closeness of their relations, physical and geometrical, with stars excludes that supposition. Stars and nebulae belong to the same system, if such the sidereal world may properly be called in the absence of any sufficient evidence of its being in a state of dynamical equilibrium. We cannot be sure that it has yet reached the definitive term appointed for it by its instability and evanescence help us to realize that the heavens are, in very truth, the changing vesture of Him whose “years cannot fail.”

AGNES M. CLERKE

Paul-Thérèse-David d’Astros

Astros, Paul-Thérèse-David d,’ a French cardinal, b. at Tourves (Var) in 1772; d. September 29, 1851. He was a nephew of Portalis, a minister of Napoleon, and as such was engaged in the formulation of the Concordat of 1801. On its conclusion he was made vicar general of Archbishop (later, Cardinal) Belloy, of Paris, and after the latter’s death (1808) administered the diocese until the nomination of Cardinal Maury. He received, and was accused of promulgating, the bull of Pius VII (June 10, 1809), excommunicating Napoleon. For this act he was imprisoned at Vincennes until 1814, After the Restoration he became Bishop of Bayonne, and in 1830 Archbishop of Toulouse. At the request of Louis Napoleon, Pius IX created him cardinal, in 1850. He wrote “La vérité catholique demontrée; ou, Lettre aux Protestants d’Orthez” (2 v. 8°, Toulouse, 1833). He was one of the earliest opponents of Lamennais, against whom he wrote “Censure de divers écrits de La Mennais et de ses disciples par plusieurs évêques de France, et Lettres des mêmes évêques au souverain pontife, Grégoire XVI,” etc. (Toulouse, 1835).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN.

Jean Astruc

Born at Sauves, 19 March, 1684; died at Paris, 5 May, 1766. He was the son of a converted Protestant minister. After he had taught medicine at Montpellier, he became a member of the Medical Faculty at Paris. His medical writings, however numerous, are now forgotten, but a work published by him anonymously has secured for him a permanent reputation. This book was entitled: “Conjectures sure les memories originauz dont il paroit que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le livre de la Génèse. Avec des remarques qui appuient ou qui éclairscissent ses conjectures” (Brussels). Astruc himself did not inted to deny the Mosaic authorship of Genesis; but his work created an era in Biblical inquiry, occasioning the modern critical theories.

A. J. MAAS

Atahuallpa

Properly ATAU-HUALLPA (etymology usually given as from huallpa, the name of some indigenous bird).

Son of the Inca war chief Huayna Capac and an Indian woman from Quito hence (descent being in the female line) not an Inca, but an Indian of Ecuador. The protracted wars, during which the Incas overpowered the Ecuadorian tribes, having brought about the permanent lodgment of Inca war parties in Ecuador, led to interformation of a new tribe and the descendants of Inca men with women and children from Quito. Collisions ensued between this tribe and the descendants of Inca women, and the strife, Atau-huallpa figured as the leader of the former, whilst the latter recognized Huascar, duly elected war chief at Cuzco. Atau-huallpa acted with great cruelty, nearly exterminating such Ecuadorian tribes as resisted. He finally prevailed, and sent his warriors southward along the backbone of the mountains, against Cuzco. When Pizarro landed at Tumbez (northern Peruvian coast) in 1532, the Quito people had already overthrown the Inca tribe at Cuzco, taken the settlement, and committed the most horrible cruelties, chiefly against the keepers of ancient traditions whom they attempted to exterminate, so as to wipe out the remembrance of the past of Cuzco and begin a new era. Atau-huallpa himself remained with a numerous war party at Caxamarca. There he awaited the whites, whom he despised. The Spaniards found Caxamarca deserted, and the warriors of Atau-hauallpa camping three miles from the place. Pizarro recognized that a trap had been set for him, and prepared for the worst.

On the evening of the 16th of November, 1532, Atau-hauallpa entered the squared of Caxamarca with a great retinue of men carrying their weapons concealed. They packed the court densely. Pizarro had placed on the roof of the building his artillery (two pedereros) that could not be pointed except horizontally. When the Indians thronged into the square, a Dominican friar, Fray Vicente Valverde, was sent by Pizarro to inform Atau-huallpa, through an interpreter, of the motives of the Spaniards’ appearance in the country. This embassy was received with scorn, and the friar, seeing the Indians ready to begin hostilities, warned Pizarro. His action has been unjustly criticized; Valverde did what was his imperative duty under the circumstances. Then, not waiting for the Indians to attack the Spaniards to the offensive. The sound of cannon and musketry, and the sight of the horses frightened the Indians so that they fled in dismay, leaving Atau-huallpa a prisoner in the hands of Pizarro, who treated him with proper regard. The stories of a terrible slaughter of the Indians are inordinate exaggerations. While a prisoner, Atau-huallpa caused the greater portion of the gold and silver at Cuzco to be turned over to the Spaniards and having them massacred. When this was discovered Pizarro had him executed, on the 9th of August, 1633. The execution was no unjustifiable. Atau-huallpa, at the time of his death, was about thirty years of age.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Juan Santos Atahualpa

An Indian from Cuzco who, being in the service of a Jesuit, went to Spain with his master. Upon his return, having committed a murder at Guamanga (Ayachucho in Peru), he fled to the forests on the eastern slopes of the Andes. There, in 1742, he persuaded the Indians that he was a descendant of the Inca Head Chiefs and assumed the title of “Atahualpa Apu-Inca.” He claimed to have been sent by God to drive the Spaniards from western South America. As he was able to read and writ Latin, as well as Spanish, he readily made the forest tribes believe him to be a powerful wizard and induced them to follow him, abandoning the towns which the Franciscans had established successfully at Ocopa and further east. To his influence was due the ruin of the prosperous missions throughout the Pampa del Sacramento in eastern Peru. Under his direction the forest tribes became very aggressive, and the missions were partly destroyed. Efforts against him proved a failure, owing partly to the natural obstacles presented by the impenetrable forests, partly to the inefficiency of the officers to whom the suppression of his revolt was entrusted. The uprising caused by his appeal to Indian superstition, was the severest blow dealt to the Christianization of the forest Indians in Peru, and took decades to sacrifice and toil to recover the territory lost. To this day, according to reliable testimony, the Indians included under the generic name of Chunchos (properly Campas) claim to the preserve the corpse of santos Atahualpa, hidden from the whites, in the wooden, or willow, casket, as their most precious fetish.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Atavism

(Lat., atavus, a great-grandfather’s grandfather, an ancestor).

Duchesne introduced the word to designate those cases in which species revert spontaneously to what are presumably long-lost characters. Atavism and reversion are used by most authors in the same sense.

I. The term atavism is employed to express the reappearance of characters, physical or psychical, in the individual, or in the race, which are supposed to have been possessed at one time by remote ancestors. Very often these suddenly reappearing characters are of the monstrous type, e.g. the three-toed horse. The appearance of such a monster is looked upon as a harking back to Tertiary times, when the ancestor of the modern horse possessed three toes. The threetoed condition of the monstrous horse is spoken of as atavistic. The employment of the term in connection with teratology is often abused; for many cases of so-called atavistic monstrosities have little to do with lost characters, e.g. the possession by man of supernumerary fingers and toes.

II. Atavism is also used to express the tendency to revert to one of the parent varieties or species in the case of a hybrid; this is the atavism of breeders. Crossed breeds of sheep, for example, show a constant tendency to reversion to either one of the original breeds from which the cross was formed. De Vries distinguishes this kind of atavism as vicinism (Lat. vicinus, neighbour), and says that it “indicates the sporting of a variety under the influence of others in the vicinity.”

III. Atavism is employed by a certain school of evolutionistic psychologists to express traits in the individual, especially the child, that are assumed to be, as it were, reminiscences of past conditions of the human race or its progenitors. A child by its untruthfulness simply gives expression to a state that long since was normal to mankind. Also in the child’s fondness for splashing about in water is exhibited a recrudescence of a habit that was quite natural to its aquatic ancestors; this latter is called water-atavism. Many such atavisms are distinguished, but it hardly needs to be said that they are in many instances highly fantastic. Atavism is commonly supposed to be a proof of the evolutlon of plants and animals, including man. Characters that were normal to some remote ancestor after having latent for thousands of generations suddenly reappear, thus give a clue to those sources to which the present living forms are to be traced back. That a character may lie dormant for several generations and then reappear, admits of no doubt; even ordinary observation tell us that a grandchild may resemble its grandparent more than either of its immediate parents. But the sudden appearance of a tailed man, for instance, cannot be said to prove the descent of man from tailed forms. Granting that man has descended from such ancestors, the phenomenon is more intelligible than it would be were no such connection admitted. But the proving force of atavism is not direct, because teratological phenomena are so difficult to interpret, and admit of several explanations. Darwin, pointing to the large canine teeth possessed by some men as a case of atavism, remarks: “He who rejects with scorn the belief that the shape of his canines, and their occasional great development in other men, are due to our early forefathers having been provided with these formidable weapons, will probably reveal, by sneering, the line of his own descent.”

Atavism is appealed to by modern criminologists to explain certain moral abberations, that are looked upon as having been at one time normal to the race. Accepting the doctrine that man has by low progress, come up to his present civilized state from brute conditions, all that is brutish in the conduct of criminals (also of the insane), is explained by atavism. According to this theory degeneracy is a case of atavism. The explanation offered for the sudden reappearnace of remote ancestral characters is so intimately connected with the whole system of heredity that it is impossible to do more than indicate that most writers on heredity seek this explanation in the transmission from generation to generation of unmodified heredity-bearing parts, gemmules (Darwin); pangenes (De Vries); determinants (Weisman). (See Heredity|HEREDITY.)

JOS. C. HERRICK

Vicariate Apostolic of Athabasca

(Northwest Territories).

Suffragan of Saint Boniface; erected 8 April, 1862, by Pius IX. Bounded on the north by Vicariate of Mackenzie; on the east and southeast by the Vicariate of Saskatchewan; on the south by 55 N. lat.; on the west by the Rocky Mountains. The first vicar Apostolic was Bishop Henri Faraud, O.M.I., b. At Gigondas, France, 17 March, 1847; elected 8 May, 1862; d. At Saint Boniface, 26 Sept., 1890; ordained priest at Saint Boniface, 8 march, 1847; elected 8 may, 1862; consecrated at Tours, France, 30 Nov., 1964, titular Bishop of Anamur. He was succeeded by Bishop Emile Grouard, O.M.I., titular Bishop if Ibora; b. At Brulon, Mans, 2 Feb., 1840; ordained priest at Boucherville, 3 May, 1862, elected Bishop of Ibora, 18 Oct., 1890; consecrated at Saint Boniface, 1 Aug., 1891, and appointed vicar Apostolic. The Oblates of Mary Immaculate serve all the missions of Athabasca. There are 11 stations, 23 priest, 28 Soeurs de la Providence, 6 Soeurs Grises. Catholics, about 5,000. (see Saint Boniface.)

JOHN J. A’BECKET

Athanasian Creed

One of the symbols of the Faith approved by the Church and given a place in her liturgy, is a short, clear exposition of the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, with a passing reference to several other dogmas. Unlike most of the other creeds, or symbols, it deals almost exclusively with these two fundamental truths, which it states and restates in terse and varied forms so as to bring out unmistakably the trinity of the Persons of God, and the twofold nature in the one Divine Person of Jesus Christ. At various points the author calls attention to the penalty incurred by those who refuse to accept any of the articles therein set down. The following is the Marquess of Bute’s English translation of the text of the Creed:—

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

For the past two hundred years the authorship of this summary of Catholic Faith and the time of its appearance have furnished an interesting problem to ecclesiastical antiquarians. Until the seventeenth century, the “Quicunque vult,” as it is sometimes called, from its opening words, was thought to be the composition of the great Archbishop of Alexandria whose name it bears. In the year 1644, Gerard Voss, in his “De Tribus Symbolis,” gave weighty probability to the opinion that St. Athanasius was not its author. His reasons may be reduced to the two following: firstly, no early writer of authority speaks of it as the work of this doctor; and secondly, its language and structure point to a Western, rather than to an Alexandrian, origin. Most modern scholars agree in admitting the strength of these reasons, and hence this view is the one generally received today. Whether the Creed can be ascribed to St. Athanasius or not, and most probably it cannot, it undoubtedly owes it existence to Athanasian influences, for the expressions and doctrinal colouring exhibit too marked a correspondence, in subject-matter and in phraseology, with the literature of the latter half of the fourth century and especially with the writings of the saint, to be merely accidental. These internal evidences seem to justify the conclusion that it grew out of several provincial synods, chiefly that of Alexandria, held about the year 361, and presided over by St. Athanasius. It should be said, however, that these arguments have failed to shake the conviction of some Catholic authors, who refuse to give it an earlier origin than the fifth century.

An elaborate attempt was made in England, in 1871, by E.C. Ffoulkes to assign the Creed to the ninth century. From a passing remark in a letter written by Alcuin he constructed the following remarkable piece of fiction. The Emperor Charlemagne, he says, wished to consolidate the Western Empire by a religious, as well as a political, separation from the East. To this end he suppressed the Nicene Creed, dear to the Oriental Church, and substituted a formulary composed by Paulinus of Aquileia, with whose approval and that of Alcuin, a distinguished scholar of the time, he ensured its ready acceptance by the people, by affixing to it the name of St. Athanasius. This gratuitous attack upon the reputation of men whom every worthy historian regards as incapable of such a fraud, added to the undoubted proofs of the Creed’s having been in use long before the ninth century, leaves this theory without any foundation.

Who, then, is the author? The results of recent inquiry make it highly probable that the Creed first saw the light in the fourth century, during the life of the great Eastern patriarch, or shortly after his death. It has been attributed by different writers variously to St. Hilary, to St. Vincent of Lérins, to Eusebius of Vercelli, to Vigilius, and to others. It is not easy to avoid the force of the objections to all of these views, however, as they were men of world-wide reputation, and hence any document, especially one of such importance as a profession of faith, coming from them would have met with almost immediate recognition. Now, no allusions to the authorship of the Creed, and few even to its existence, are to be found in the literature of the Church for over two hundred years after their time. We have referred to a like silence in proof of non-Athanasian authorship. It seems to be similarly available in the case of any of the great names mentioned above. In the opinion of Father Sidney Smith, S.J., which the evidence just indicated renders plausible, the author of this Creed must have been some obscure bishop or theologian whose composed it, in the first instance, for purely local use in some provincial diocese. Not coming from an author of wide reputation, it would have attracted little attention. As it became better known, it would have been more widely adopted, and the compactness and lucidity of its statements would have contributed to make it highly prized wherever it was known. Then would follow speculation as to its author, and what wonder, if, from the subject-matter of the Creed, which occupied the great Athanasius so much, his name was first affixed to it and, unchallenged, remained.

The “damnatory,” or “minatory clauses,” are the pronouncements contained in the symbol, of the penalties which follow the rejection of what is there proposed for our belief. It opens with one of them: “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.” The same is expressed in the verses beginning: “Furthermore, it is necessary” etc., and “For the right Faith is” etc., and finally in the concluding verse: “This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” Just as the Creed states in a very plain and precise way what the Catholic Faith is concerning the important doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, so it asserts with equal plainness and precision what will happen to those who do not faithfully and steadfastly believe in these revealed truths. They are but the credal equivalent of Our Lord’s words: “He that believeth not shall be condemned,” and apply, as is evident, only to the culpable and wilful rejection of Christ’s words and teachings. The absolute necessity of accepting the revealed word of God, under the stern penalties here threatened, is so intolerable to a powerful class in the Anglican church, that frequent attempts have been made to eliminate the Creed from the public services of that Church. The Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury has already affirmed that these clauses, in their prima facie meaning, go beyond what is warranted by Holy Scripture. In view of the words of Our Lord quoted above, there should be nothing startling in the statement of our duty to believe what we know is the testimony and teaching of Christ, nor in the serious sin we commit in wilfully refusing to accept it, nor, finally, in the punishments that will be inflicted on those who culpably persist in their sin. It is just this last that the damnatory clauses proclaim. From a dogmatic standpoint, the merely historical question of the authorship of the Creed, or of the time it made its appearance, is of secondary consideration. The fact alone that it is approved by the Church as expressing its mind on the fundament truths with which it deals, is all we need to know.

JONES, The Creed of St. Athanasius; JEWEL, Defence of the Apology (London, 1567); in Works (Cambridge, 1848), III, 254; VOSSIUS, Dissertationes de Tribus symbolis (Paris, 1693); QUESNEL, De Symbolo Athanasiano (1675); MONTFAUCON, Diatribe in symbolum Quicunque in P. G. XXVIII, 1567, MURATORI, Expositio Fidei Catholicae Fortunati with Disquisitio in Anecdota (Milan, 1698), II; WATERLAND, A Critical History of the Athanasian Creed (Cambridge, 1724; Oxford, 1870); HARVEY, The History and Theology of the Three Creeds (London, 1854), II; FFOULKES, The Athanasian Creed (London, 1871); LUMBY, The History of the Creeds (Cambridge, 1887); SWAINSON, The Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed (London, 1875); OMMANNEY, The Athanasian Creed (London, 1875); IDEM, A Critical Dissertation on the Athanasian Creed (Oxford, 1897); BURN, The Athanasian Creed, etc., in ROBINSON, Texts and Studies (Cambridge, 1896); SMITH, The Athanasian Creed in The Month (1904), CIV, 366; SCHAFF, History of the Christian Church (New York, 1903), III; IDEM, The Creeds of Christendom (New York, 1884), I, 34; TIXERONT, in Dict. de theol. cath.; LOOFS, in HAUCK, Realencyklopädie für prot. Theol., s. v. See also the recent discussion by Anglican writers: WELLDON, CROUCH, ELIOT, LUCKOCK, in the Nineteenth Century (1904–06).

JAMES J. SULLIVAN

St. Athanasius

Bishop of Alexandria; Confessor and Doctor of the Church; born c. 296; died 2 May, 373. Athanasius was the greatest champion of Catholic belief on the subject of the Incarnation that the Church has ever known and in his lifetime earned the characteristic title of “Father of Orthodoxy,” by which he has been distinguished every since. While the chronology of his career still remains for the most part a hopelessly involved problem, the fullest material for an account of the main achievements of his life will be found in his collected writings and in the contemporary records of his time. He was born, it would seem, in Alexandria, most probably between the years 296 and 298. An earlier date, 293, is sometimes assigned as the more certain year of his birth; and it is supported apparently by the authority of the “Coptic Fragment” (published by Dr. O. von Lemm among the Mémoires de l’académie impériale des sciences de S. Péterbourg, 1888) and corroborated by the undoubted maturity of judgement revealed in the two treatises “Contra Gentes” and “De Incarnatione,” which were admittedly written about the year 318 before Arianism as a movement had begun to make itself felt. It must be remembered, however, that in two distinct passages of his writings (Hist. Ar., lxiv, and De Syn., xviii) Athanasius shrinks from speaking as a witness at first hand of the persecution which had broken out under Maximian in 303; for in referring to the events of this period he makes no direct appeal to his own personal recollections, but falls back, rather, on tradition. Such reserve would scarcely be intelligible, if, on the hypothesis of the earlier date, the Saint had been then a boy fully ten years old. Besides, there must have been some semblance of a foundation in fact for the charge brought against him by his accusers in after-life (Index to the Festal Letters) that at the times of his consecration to the episcopate in 328 he had not yet attained the canonical age of thirty years. These considerations, therefore, even if they are found to be not entirely convincing, would seem to make it likely that he was born not earlier than 296 nor later than 298.

It is impossible to speak more than conjecturally of his family. Of the claim that it was both prominent and well-to-do, we can only observe that the tradition to the effect is not contradicted by such scanty details as can be gleaned from the saint’s writings. Those writings undoubtedly betray evidences of the sort of education that was given, for the most part, only to children and youths of a better class. It began with grammar, went on to rhetoric, and received its final touches under some one of the more fashionable lecturers in the philosophic schools. It is possible, of course, that he owed his remarkable training in letters to his saintly predecessor’s favour, if not to his personal care. But Athanasius was one of those rare personalities that derive incomparably more from their own native gifts of intellect and character than from the fortuitousness of descent or environment. His career almost personifies a crisis in the history of Christianity; and he may be said rather to have shaped the events in which he took part than to have been shaped by them. Yet it would be misleading to urge that he was in no notable sense a debtor to the time and place of his birth. The Alexandria of his boyhood was an epitome, intellectually, morally, and politically, of that ethnically many-coloured Graeco-Roman world, over which the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries was beginning at last, with undismayed consciousness, after nearly three hundred years of unwearying propagandism, to realize its supremacy. It was, moreover, the most important centre of trade in the whole empire; and its primacy as an emporium of ideas was more commanding than that of Rome or Constantinople, Antioch or Marseilles. Already, in obedience to an instinct of which one can scarcely determine the full significance without studying the subsequent development of Catholicism, its famous “Catechetical School,” while sacrificing no jot or tittle or that passion for orthodoxy which it had imbibed from Pantaenus, Clement, and Origen, had begun to take on an almost secular character in the comprehensiveness of its interests, and had counted pagans of influence among its serious auditors (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xix).

To have been born and brought up in such an atmosphere of philosophizing Christianity was, in spite of the dangers it involved, the timeliest and most liberal of educations; and there is, as we have intimated, abundant evidence in the saint’s writings to testify to the ready response which all the better influences of the place must have found in the heart and mind of the growing boy. Athanasius seems to have been brought early in life under the immediate supervision of the ecclesiastical authorities of his native city. Whether his long intimacy with Bishop Alexander began in childhood, we have no means of judging; but a story which pretends to describe the circumstances of his first introduction to that prelate has been preserved for us by Rufinus (Hist. Eccl., I, xiv). The bishop, so the tale runs, had invited a number of brother prelates to meet him at breakfast after a great religious function on the anniversary of the martyrdom of St. Peter, a recent predecessor in the See of Alexandria. While Alexander was waiting for his guests to arrive, he stood by a window, watching a group of boys at play on the seashore below the house. He had not observed them long before he discovered that they were imitating, evidently with no thought of irreverence, the elaborate ritual of Christian baptism. (Cf. Bunsen’s “Christianity and Mankind,” London, 1854, VI, 465; Denzinger, “Ritus Orientalium” in verb.; Butler’s “Ancient Coptic Churches,” II, 268 et sqq.; “Bapteme chez les Coptes,” “Dict. Theol. Cath.,” Col. 244, 245). He therefore sent for the children and had them brought into his presence. In the investigation that followed it was discovered that one of the boys, who was no other than the future Primate of Alexandria, had acted the part of the bishop, and in that character had actually baptized several of his companions in the course of their play. Alexander, who seems to have been unaccountably puzzled over the answers he received to his inquiries, determined to recognize the make-believe baptisms as genuine; and decided that Athanasius and his playfellows should go into training in order to fit themselves for a clerical career. The Bollandists deal gravely with this story; and writers as difficult to satisfy as Archdeacon Farrar and the late Dean Stanley are ready to accept it as bearing on its face “every indication of truth” (Farrar, “Lives of the Fathers,” I, 337; Stanley, “East. Ch.” 264). But whether in its present form, or in the modified version to be found in Socrates (I, xv), who omits all reference to the baptism and says that the game was “an imitation of the priesthood and the order of consecrated persons,” the tale raises a number of chronological difficulties and suggests even graver questions.

Perhaps a not impossible explanation of its origin may be found in the theory that it was one of the many floating myths set in movement by popular imagination to account for the marked bias towards an ecclesiastical career which seems to have characterized the early boyhood of the future champion of the Faith. Sozomen speaks of his “fitness for the priesthood,” and calls attention to the significant circumstance that he was “from his tenderest years practically self-taught.” “Not long after this,” adds the same authority, the Bishop Alexander “invited Athanasius to be his commensal and secretary. He had been well educated, and was versed in grammar and rhetoric, and had already, while still a young man, and before reaching the episcopate, given proof to those who dwelt with him of his wisdom and acumen” (Soz., II, xvii). That “wisdom and acumen” manifested themselves in a various environment. While still a levite under Alexander’s care, he seems to have been brought for a while into close relations with some of the solitaries of the Egyptian desert, and in particular with the great St. Anthony, whose life he is said to have written. The evidence both of the intimacy and for the authorship of the life in question has been challenged, chiefly by non-Catholic writers, on the ground that the famous “Vita” shows signs of interpolation. Whatever we may think of the arguments on the subject, it is impossible to deny that the monastic idea appealed powerfully to the young cleric’s temperament, and that he himself in after years was not only at home when duty or accident threw him among the solitaries, but was so monastically self-disciplined in his habits as to be spoken of as an “ascetic” (Apol. c. Arian., vi). In fourth-century usage the word would have a definiteness of connotation not easily determinable today. (See ASCETICISM).

It is not surprising that one who was called to fill so large a place in the history of his time should have impressed the very form and feature of his personality, so to say, upon the imagination of his contemporaries. St. Gregory Nazianzen is not the only writer who has described him for us (Orat. xxi, 8). A contemptuous phrase of the Emperor Julian’s (Epist., li) serves unintentionally to corroborate the picture drawn by kindlier observers. He was slightly below the middle height, spare in build, but well-knit, and intensely energetic. He had a finely shaped head, set off with a thin growth of auburn hair, a small but sensitively mobile mouth, an aquiline nose, and eyes of intense but kindly brilliancy. He had a ready wit, was quick in intuition, easy and affable in manner, pleasant in conversation, keen, and, perhaps, somewhat too unsparing in debate. (Besides the references already cited, see the detailed description given in the January Menaion quotes in the Bollandist life. Julian the Apostate, in the letter alluded to above sneers at the diminutiveness of his person—mede aner, all anthropiokos euteles, he writes.) In addition to these qualities, he was conspicuous for two others to which even his enemies bore unwilling testimony. He was endowed with a sense of humour that could be as mordant—we had almost said as sardonic—as it seems to have been spontaneous and unfailing; and his courage was of the sort that never falters, even in the most disheartening hour of defeat. There is one other note in this highly gifted and many-sided personality to which everything else in his nature literally ministered, and which must be kept steadily in view, if we would possess the key to his character and writing and understand the extraordinary significance of his career in the history of the Christian Church. He was by instinct neither a liberal nor a conservative in theology. Indeed the terms have a singular inappropriateness as applied to a temperament like his. From first to last he cared greatly for one thing and one thing only; the integrity of his Catholic creed. The religion it engendered in him was obviously—considering the traits by which we have tried to depict him—of a passionate and consuming sort. It began and ended in devotion to the Divinity of Jesus Christ. He was scarcely out of his teens, and certainly not in more than deacon’s orders, when he published two treatises, in which his mind seemed to strike the keynote of all its riper after-utterances on the subject of the Catholic Faith. The “Contra Gentes” and the “Oratio de Incarnatione”—to give them the Latin appellations by which they are more commonly cited—were written some time between the years 318 and 323. St. Jerome (De Viris Illust.) refers to them under a common title, as “Adversum Gentes Duo Libri,” thus leaving his readers to gather the impression which an analysis of the contents of both books certainly seems to justify, that the two treatises are in reality one.

As a plea for the Christian position, addressed chiefly to both Gentiles and Jews, the young deacon’s apology, while undoubtedly reminiscential in methods and ideas of Origen and the earlier Alexandrians, is, nevertheless, strongly individual and almost pietistic in tone. Though it deals with the Incarnation, it is silent on most of those ulterior problems in defence of which Athanasius was soon to be summoned by the force of events and the fervour of his own faith to devote the best energies of his life. The work contains no explicit discussion of the nature of the Word’s Sonship, for instance; no attempt to draw out the character of Our Lord’s relation to the Father; nothing, in short, of those Christological questions upon which he was to speak with such splendid and courageous clearness in time of shifting formularies and undetermined views. Yet those ideas must have been in the air (Soz., I, xv) for, some time between the years 318 and 320, Arius, a native of Libya (Epiph., Haer., lxix) and priest of the Alexandrian Church, who had already fallen under censure for his part in the Meletian troubles which broke out during the episcopate of St. Peter, and whose teachings had succeeded in making dangerous headway, even among “the consecrated virgins” of St. Mark’s see (Epiph. Haer., lxix; Soc., Hist. Eccl., I, vi), accused Bishop Alexander of Sabellianism. Arius, who seems to have presumed on the charitable tolerance of the primate, was at length deposed (Apol. c. Ar., vi) in a synod consisting of more than one hundred bishops of Egypt and Libya (Depositio Ar., 3). The condemned heresiarch withdrew first to Palestine and afterwards to Bithynia, where, under the protection of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his other “Collucianists,” he was able to increase his already remarkable influence, while his friends were endeavouring to prepare a way for his forcible reinstatement as priest of the Alexandrian Church. Athanasius, though only in deacon’s order, must have taken no subordinate part in these events. He was the trusted secretary and advisor of Alexander, and his name appears in the list of those who signed the encyclical letter subsequently issued by the primate and his colleagues to offset the growing prestige of the new teaching, and the momentum it was beginning to acquire from the ostentatious patronage extended to the deposed Arius by the Eusebian faction. Indeed, it is to this party and to the leverage it was able to exercise at the emperor’s court that the subsequent importance of Arianism as a political, rather than a religious, movement seems primarily to be due.

The heresy, of course, had its supposedly philosophic basis, which has been ascribed by authors, ancient and modern, to the most opposite sources. St. Epiphanius characterizes it as a king of revived Aristoteleanism (Haer., lxvii and lxxvi); and the same view is practically held by Socrates (Hist. Eccl., II, xxxv), Theodoret (Haer. Fab., IV, iii), and St. Basil (Adv. Eunom., I, ix). On the other hand, a theologian as broadly read as Petavius (De Trin., I, viii, 2) has no hesitation in deriving it from Platonism; Newman in turn (Arians of the Fourth Cent., 4 ed., 109) sees in it the influence of Jewish prejudices rationalized by the aid of Aristotelean ideas; while Robertson (Sel. Writ. and Let. of Ath. Proleg., 27) observes that the “common theology,” which was invariably opposed to it, “borrowed its philosophical principles and method from the Platonists.” These apparently conflicting statements could, no doubt, be easily adjusted; but the truth is that the prestige of Arianism never lay in its ideas. From whatever school it may have been logically derived, the sect, as a sect, was cradled and nurtured in intrigue. Save in some few instances, which can be accounted for on quite other grounds, its prophets relied more upon curial influence than upon piety, or Scriptural knowledge, or dialectics. That must be borne constantly in mind, if we would not move distractedly through the bewildering maze of events that make up the life of Athanasius for the next half-century to come. It is his peculiar merit that he not only saw the drift of things from the very beginning, but was confident of the issue down to the last (Apol. c. Ar., c.). His insight and courage proved almost as efficient a bulwark to the Christian Church in the world as did his singularly lucid grasp of traditional Catholic belief. His opportunity came in the year 325, when the Emperor Constantine, in the hope of putting an end to the scandalous debates that were disturbing the peace of the Church, met the prelates of the entire Catholic world in council at Nicaea.

The great council convoked at this juncture was something more than a pivotal event in the history of Christianity. Its sudden, and, in one sense, almost unpremeditated adoption of a quasi-philosophic and non-Scriptural term—homoousion—to express the character of orthodox belief in the Person of the historic Christ, by defining Him to be identical in substance, or co-essential, with the Father, together with its confident appeal to the emperor to lend the sanction of his authority to the decrees and pronouncements by which it hoped to safeguard this more explicit profession of the ancient Faith, had consequences of the gravest import, not only to the world of ideas, but to the world of politics as well. By the official promulgation to the term homoöusion, theological speculation received a fresh but subtle impetus which made itself felt long after Athanasius and his supporters had passed away; while the appeal to the secular arm inaugurated a policy which endured practically without change of scope down to the publication of the Vatican decrees in our own time. In one sense, and that a very deep and vital one, both the definition and the policy were inevitable. It was inevitable in the order of religious ideas that any break in logical continuity should be met by inquiry and protest. It was just as inevitable that the protest, to be effective, should receive some countenance from a power which up to that moment had affected to regulate all the graver circumstances of life (cf. Harnack, Hist. Dog., III, 146, note; Buchanan’s tr.). As Newman has remarked: “The Church could not meet together in one, without entering into a sort of negotiation with the power that be; who jealousy it is the duty of Christians, both as individuals and as a body, if possible, to dispel” (Arians of the Fourth Cent., 4 ed., 241). Athanasius, though not yet in priest’s orders, accompanied Alexander to the council in the character of secretary and theological adviser. He was not, of course, the originator of the famous homoösion. The term had been proposed in a non-obvious and illegitimate sense by Paul of Samosata to the Father at Antioch, and had been rejected by them as savouring of materialistic conceptions of the Godhead (cf. Athan., “De Syn.,” xliii; Newman, “Arians of the Fourth Cent.,” 4 ed., 184–196; Petav. “De Trin.,” IV, v, sect. 3; Robertson, “Sel. Writ. and Let. Athan. Proleg.,” 30 sqq.).

It may even be questioned whether, if left to his own logical instincts, Athanasius would have suggested an orthodox revival of the term at all (“De Decretis,” 19; “Orat. c. Ar.,” ii, 32; “Ad Monachos,” 2). His writings, composed during the forty-six critical years of his episcopate, show a very sparing use of the word; and though, as Newman (Arians of the Fourth Cent., 4 ed., 236) reminds us, “the authentic account of the proceedings” that took place is not extant, there is nevertheless abundant evidence in support of the common view that it had been unexpectedly forced upon the notice of the bishops, Arian and orthodox, in the great synod by Constantine’s proposal to account the creed submitted by Eusebius of Caesarea, with the addition of the homoösion, as a safeguard against possible vagueness. The suggestion had in all probability come from Hosius (cf. “Epist. Eusebii.,” in the appendix to the “De Decretis,” sect. 4; Soc., “Hist. Eccl.,” I, viii; III, vii; Theod. “Hist. Eccl.,” I, Athan.; “Arians of the Fourth Cent.,” 6, n. 42; outos ten en Nikaia pistin exetheto, says the saint, quoting his opponents); but Athanasius, in common with the leaders of the orthodox party, loyally accepted the term as expressive of the traditional sense in which the Church had always held Jesus Christ to be the Son of God. The conspicuous abilities displayed in the Nicaean debates and the character for courage and sincerity he won on all sides made the youthful cleric henceforth a marked man (St. Greg. Naz., Orat., 21). His life could not be lived in a corner. Five months after the close of the council the Primate of Alexandria died; and Athanasius, quite as much in recognition of his talent, it would appear, as in deference to the deathbed wishes of the deceased prelate, was chosen to succeed him. His election, in spite of his extreme youth and the opposition of a remnant of the Arian and Meletian factions in the Alexandrian Church, was welcomed by all classes among the laity (“Apol. c. Arian,” vi; Soz., “Hist. Eccl.,” II, xvii, xxi, xxii).

The opening years of the saint’s rule were occupied with the wonted episcopal routine of a fourth-century Egyptian bishop. Episcopal visitations, synods, pastoral correspondence, preaching and the yearly round of church functions consumed the bulk of his time. The only noteworthy events of which antiquity furnishes at least probable data are connected with the successful efforts which he made to provide a hierarchy for the newly planted church in Ethiopia (Abyssinia) in the person of St. Frumentius (Rufinus I, ix; Soc. I, xix; Soz., II, xxiv), and the friendship which appears to have begun about this time between himself and the monks of St. Pachomius. But the seeds of disaster which the saint’s piety had unflinchingly planted at Nicaea were beginning to bear a disquieting crop at last. Already events were happening at Constantinople which were soon to make him the most important figure of his time. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had fallen into disgrace and been banished by the Emperor Constantine for his part in the earlier Arian controversies, had been recalled from exile. After an adroit campaign of intrigue, carried on chiefly through the instrumentality of the ladies of the imperial household, this smooth-mannered prelate so far prevailed over Constantine as to induce him to order the recall of Arius likewise from exile. He himself sent a characteristic letter to the youthful Primate of Alexandria, in which he bespoke his favour for the condemned heresiarch, who was described as a man whose opinions had been misrepresented. These events must have happened some time about the close of the year 330. Finally the emperor himself was persuaded to write to Athanasius, urging that all those who were ready to submit to the definitions of Nicaea should be re-admitted to ecclesiastical communion. This Athanasius stoutly refused to do, alleging that there could be no fellowship between the Church and the one who denied the Divinity of Christ.

The Bishop of Nicomedia thereupon brought various ecclesiastical and political charges against Athanasius, which, though unmistakably refuted at their first hearing, were afterwards refurbished and made to do service at nearly every stage of his subsequent trials. Four of these were very definite, to wit: that he had not reached the canonical age at the time of his consecration; that he had imposed a linen tax upon the provinces; that his officers had, with his connivance and authority, profaned the Sacred Mysteries in the case of an alleged priest names Ischyras; and lastly that he had put one Arenius to death and afterwards dismembered the body for purposes of magic. The nature of the charges and the method of supporting them were vividly characteristic of the age. The curious student will find them set forth in picturesque detail in the second part of the Saint’s “Apologia,” or “Defense against the Arians,” written long after the events themselves, about the year 350, when the retractation of Ursacius and Valens made their publication triumphantly opportune. The whole unhappy story at this distance of time reads in parts more like a specimen of late Greek romance than the account of an inquisition gravely conducted by a synod of Christian prelates with the idea of getting at the truth of a series of odious accusations brought against one of their number. Summoned by the emperor’s order after protracted delays extended over a period of thirty months (Soz., II, xxv), Athanasius finally consented to meet the charges brought against him by appearing before a synod of prelates at Tyre in the year 335. Fifty of his suffragans went with him to vindicate his good name; but the complexion of the ruling party in the synod made it evident that justice to the accused was the last thing that was thought of. It can hardly be wondered at, that Athanasius should have refused to be tried by such a court. He, therefore, suddenly withdrew from Tyre, escaping in a boat with some faithful friends who accompanied him to Byzantium, where he had made up his mind to present himself to the emperor.

The circumstances in which the saint and the great catechumen met were dramatic enough. Constantine was returning from a hunt, when Athanasius unexpectedly stepped into the middle of the road and demanded a hearing. The astonished emperor could hardly believe his eyes, and it needed the assurance of one of the attendants to convince him that the petitioner was not an impostor, but none other than the great Bishop of Alexandria himself. “Give me,” said the prelate, “a just tribunal, or allow me to meet my accusers face to face in your presence.” His request was granted. An order was peremptorily sent to the bishops, who had tried Athanasius and, of course, condemned him in his absence, to repair at once to the imperial city. The command reached them while they were on their way to the great feast of the dedication of Constantine’s new church at Jerusalem. It naturally caused some consternation; but the more influential members of the Eusebian faction never lacked either courage or resourcefulness. The saint was taken at his word; and the old charges were renewed in the hearing of the emperor himself. Athanasius was condemned to go into exile at Treves, where he was received with the utmost kindness by the saintly Bishop Maximinus and the emperor’s eldest son, Constantine. He began his journey probably in the month of February, 336, and arrived on the banks of the Moselle in the late autumn of the same year. His exile lasted nearly two years and a half. Public opinion in his own diocese remained loyal to him during all that time. It was not the least eloquent testimony to the essential worth of his character that he could inspire such faith. Constantine’s treatment of Athanasius at this crisis in his fortunes has always been difficult to understand. Affecting, on the one hand, a show of indignation, as if he really believed in the political charge brought against the saint, he, on the other hand, refused to appoint a successor to the Alexandrian See, a thing which he might in consistency have been obliged to do had he taken seriously the condemnation proceedings carried through by the Eusebians at Tyre.

Meanwhile events of the greatest importance had taken place. Arius had died amid startlingly dramatic circumstances at Constantinople in 336; and the death of Constantine himself had followed, on the 22nd of May the year after. Some three weeks later the younger Constantine invited the exiled primate to return to his see; and by the end of November of the same year Athanasius was once more established in his episcopal city. His return was the occasion of great rejoicing. The people, as he himself tells us, ran in crowds to see his face; the churches were given over to a kind of jubilee; thanksgivings were offered up everywhere; and clergy and laity accounted the day the happiest in their lives. But already trouble was brewing in a quarter from which the saint might reasonably have expected it. The Eusebian faction, who from this time forth loom large as the disturbers of his peace, managed to win over to their side the weak-minded Emperor Constantius to whom the East had been assigned in the division of the empire that followed on the death of Constantine. The old charges were refurbished with a graver ecclesiastical accusation added by way of rider. Athanasius had ignored the decision of a duly authorized synod. He had returned to his see without the summons of ecclesiastical authority (Apol. c. Ar., loc. cit.). In the year 340, after the failure of the Eusebian malcontents to secure the appointment of an Arian candidate of dubious reputation names Pistus, the notorious Gregory of Cappadocia was forcibly intruded into the Alexandrian See, and Athanasius was obliged to go into hiding. Within a very few weeks he set out for Rome to lay his case before the Church at large. He had made his appeal to Pope Julius, who took up his cause with a whole-heartedness that never wavered down to the day of that holy pontiff’s death. The pope summoned a synod of bishops to meet in Rome. After a careful and detailed examination of the entire case, the primate’s innocence was proclaimed to the Christian world.

Meanwhile the Eusebian party had met at Antioch and passed a series of decrees framed for the sole purpose of preventing the saint’s return to his see. Three years were passed at Rome, during which time the idea of the cenobitical life, as Athanasius had seen it practised in the deserts of Egypt, was preached to the clerics of the West (St. Jerome, Epistle cxxvii, 5). Two years after the Roman synod had published its decision, Athanasius was summoned to Milan by the Emperor Constans, who laid before him the plan which Constantius had formed for a great reunion of both the Eastern and Western Churches. Now began a time of extraordinary activity for the Saint. Early in the year 343 we find the undaunted exile in Gaul, whither he had gone to consult the saintly Hosius, the great champion of orthodoxy in the West. The two together set out for the Council of Sardica which had been summoned in deference to the Roman pontiff’s wishes. At this great gathering of prelates the case of Athanasius was taken up once more; and once more was his innocence reaffirmed. Two conciliar letters were prepared, one to the clergy and faithful of Alexandria, and the other to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, in which the will of the Council was made known. Meanwhile the Eusebian party had gone to Philippopolis, where they issued an anathema against Athanasius and his supporters. The persecution against the orthodox party broke out with renewed vigour, and Constantius was induced to prepare drastic measures against Athanasius and the priests who were devoted to him. Orders were given that if the Saint attempted to re-enter his see, he should be put to death. Athanasius, accordingly, withdrew from Sardica to Naissus in Mysia, where he celebrated the Easter festival of the year 344. After that he set out for Aquileia in obedience to a friendly summons from Constans, to whom Italy had fallen in the division of the empire that followed on the death of Constantine. Meanwhile an unexpected event had taken place which made the return of Athanasius to his see less difficult than it had seemed for many months. Gregory of Cappadocia had died (probably of violence) in June, 345. The embassy which had been sent by the bishops of Sardica to the Emperor Constantius, and which had at first met with the most insulting treatment, now received a favourable hearing. Constantius was induced to reconsider his decision, owing to a threatening letter from his brother Constans and the uncertain condition of affairs of the Persian border, and he accordingly made up his mind to yield. But three separate letters were needed to overcome the natural hesitation of Athanasius. He passed rapidly from Aquileia to Treves, from Treves to Rome, and from Rome by the northern route to Adrianople and Antioch, where he met Constantius. He was accorded a gracious interview by the vacillating Emperor, and sent back to his see in triumph, where he began his memorable ten years’ reign, which lasted down to the third exile, that of 356. These were full years in the life of the Bishop; but the intrigues of the Eusebian, or Court, party were soon renewed. Pope Julius had died in the month of April, 352, and Liberius had succeeded him as Sovereign Pontiff. For two years Liberius had been favourable to the cause of Athanasius; but driven at last into exile, he was induced to sign an ambiguous formula, from which the great Nicene test, the homoöusion, had been studiously omitted. In 355 a council was held at Milan, where in spite of the vigorous opposition of a handful of loyal prelates among the Western bishops, a fourth condemnation of Athanasius was announced to the world. With his friends scattered, the saintly Hosius in exile, the Pope Liberius denounced as acquiescing in Arian formularies, Athanasius could hardly hope to escape. On the night of 8 February, 356, while engaged in services in the Church of St. Thomas, a band of armed men burst in to secure his arrest (Apol. de Fuga, 24). It was the beginning of his third exile.

Through the influence of the Eusebian faction at Constantinople, an Arian bishop, George of Cappadocia, was now appointed to rule the see of Alexandria. Athanasius, after remaining some days in the neighbourhood of the city, finally withdrew into the deserts of upper Egypt, where he remained for a period of six years, living the life of the monks and devoting himself in his enforced leisure to the composition of that group of writings of which we have the rest in the “Apology to Constantius,” the “Apology for his Flight,” the “Letter to the Monks,” and the “History of the Arians.” Legend has naturally been busy with this period of the Saint’s career; and we may find in the “Life of Pachomius” a collection of tales brimful of incidents, and enlivened by the recital of “deathless ‘scapes in the breach.” But by the close of the year 360 a change was apparent in the complexion of the anti-Nicene party. The Arians no longer presented an unbroken front to their orthodox opponents. The Emperor Constantius, who had been the cause of so much trouble, died 4 November, 361, and was succeeded by Julian. The proclamation of the new prince’s accession was the signal for a pagan outbreak against the still dominant Arian faction in Alexandria. George, the usurping Bishop, was flung into prison and murdered amid circumstances of great cruelty, 24 December (Hist. Aceph., VI). An obscure presbyter of the name of Pistus was immediately chosen by the Arians to succeed him, when fresh news arrived that filled the orthodox party with hope. An edict had been put forth by Julian (Hist. Aceph., VIII) permitting the exiled bishops of the “Galileans” to return to their “towns and provinces.” Athanasius received a summons from his own flock, and he accordingly re-entered his episcopal capital 22 February, 362. With characteristic energy he set to work to re-establish the somewhat shattered fortunes of the orthodox party and to purge the theological atmosphere of uncertainty. To clear up the misunderstandings that had arisen in the course of the previous years, an attempt was made to determine still further the significance of the Nicene formularies. In the meanwhile, Julian, who seems to have become suddenly jealous of the influence that Athanasius was exercising at Alexandria, addressed an order to Ecdicius, the Prefect of Egypt, peremptorily commanding the expulsion of the restored primate, on the ground that he had never been included in the imperial act of clemency. The edict was communicated to the bishop by Pythicodorus Trico, who, though described in the “Chronicon Athanasianum” (xxxv) as a “philosopher,” seems to have behaved with brutal insolence. On 23 October the people gathered about the proscribed bishop to protest against the emperor’s decree; but the saint urged them to submit, consoling them with the promise that his absence would be of short duration. The prophecy was curiously fulfilled. Julian terminated his brief career 26 June, 363; and Athanasius returned in secret to Alexandria, where he soon received a document from the new emperor, Jovian, reinstating him once more in his episcopal functions. His first act was to convene a council which reaffirmed the terms of the Nicene Creed. Early in September he set out for Antioch, bearing a synodal letter, in which the pronouncements of this council had been embodied. At Antioch he had an interview with the new emperor, who received him graciously and even asked him to prepare an exposition of the orthodox faith. But in the following February Jovian died; and in October, 364, Athanasius was once more an exile.

With the turn of circumstances that handed over to Valens the control of the East this article has nothing to do; but the accession of the emperor gave a fresh lease of life to the Arian party. He issued a decree banishing the bishops who has been deposed by Constantius, but who had been permitted by Jovian to return to their sees. The news created the greatest consternation in the city of Alexandria itself, and the prefect, in order to prevent a serious outbreak, gave public assurance that the very special case of Athanasius would be laid before the emperor. But the saint seems to have divined what was preparing in secret against him. He quietly withdrew from Alexandria, 5 October, and took up his abode in a country house outside the city. It was during this period that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in his father’s tomb (Soz., “Hist. Eccl.,” VI, xii; Doc., “Hist. Eccl.,” IV, xii). Valens, who seems to have sincerely dreaded the possible consequences of a popular outbreak, gave order within a very few weeks for the return of Athanasius to his see. And now began that last period of comparative repose which unexpectedly terminated his strenuous and extraordinary career. He spent his remaining days, characteristically enough, in re-emphasizing the view of the Incarnation which had been defined at Nicaea and which has been substantially the faith of the Christian Church from its earliest pronouncement in Scripture down to its last utterance through the lips of Pius X in our own times. “Let what was confessed by the Fathers of Nicaea prevail,” he wrote to a philosopher-friend and correspondent in the closing years of his life (Epist. lxxi, ad Max.). That that confession did at last prevail in the various Trinitarian formularies that followed upon that of Nicaea was due, humanly speaking, more to his laborious witness than to that of any other champion in the long teachers’ roll of Catholicism. By one of those inexplicable ironies that meet us everywhere in human history, this man, who had endured exile so often, and risked life itself in defence of what he believed to be the first and most essential truth of the Catholic creed, died not by violence or in hiding, but peacefully in his own bed, surrounded by his clergy and mourned by the faithful of the see he had served so well. His feast in the Roman Calendar is kept on the anniversary of his death.

[Note on his depiction in art: No accepted emblem has been assigned to him in the history of western art; and his career, in spite of its picturesque diversity and extraordinary wealth of detail, seems to have furnished little, if any, material for distinctive illustration. Mrs. Jameson tells us that according to the Greek formula, “he ought to be represented old, bald-headed, and with a long white beard” (Sacred and Legendary Art, I, 339).]

All the essential materials for the Saint’s biography are to be found in his writings, especially in those written after the year 350, when the Apologia contra Arianos was composed. Supplementary information will be found in ST. EPIPHANIUS, Hoer., loc. cit.; in ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, Orat., xxi; also RUFINUS, SOCRATES, SOZMEN, and THEODORET. The Historia Acephala, or Maffeian Fragment (discovered by Maffei in 1738, and inserted by GALLANDI in Bibliotheca Patrum, 1769), and the Chronicon Athanasianum, or Index to the Festal Letters, give us data for the chronological problem. All the foregoing sources are included in MIGNE, P. G. and P. L. The great PAPEBROCH’S Life is in the Acta SS., May, I. The most important authorities in English are: NEWMAN, Arians of the Fourth Century, and Saint Athanasius; BRIGHT, Dictionary of Christian Biography; ROBERTSON, Life, in the Prolegomena to the Select Writings and Letters of Saint Athanasius (re-edited in Library of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, New York, 1903); GWATKIN, Studies of Arianism (2d ed., Cambridge, 1900); MOHLER, Athanasius der Grosse; HERGENROTHER and HEFELE.

CORNELIUS CLIFFORD

Atheism

(α privative, and θεός, God, i.e. without God).

Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day. Thus while Socrates was accused of atheism (Plato, Apol., 26,c.) and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero (Nat. Deor., I, 23), Democritus and Epicurus were styled in the same sense impious (without respect for the gods) on account of their trend of their new atomistic philosophy. In this sense too, the early Christians were known to the pagans as atheists, because they denied the heathen gods; while, from time to time, various religious and philosophical systems have, for similar reasons, been deemed atheistic.

Though atheism, historically considered, has meant no more in the past critical or sceptical denial of the theology of those who have employed the term as one of reproach, and has consequently no one strict philosophical meaning; though there is no one consistent system in the exposition of which it has a definite place; yet, if we consider it in its broad meaning as merely the opposite of theism, we will be able to frame such divisions as will make possible a grouping of definite systems under this head. And in so doing so we shall at once be adopting both the historical and the philosophical view. For the common basis of all systems of theism as well as the cardinal tenet of all popular religion at the present day is indubitably a belief in the existence of a personal God, and to deny this tenet is to invite the popular reproach of atheism. The need of some such definition as this was felt by Mr. Gladstone when he wrote (Contemporary Review, June 1876):

By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole unseen, or to the existence of God.

Moreover, the breadth of comprehension in such a use of the term admits of divisions and cross-divisions being framed under it; and at the same time limits the number of systems of thought to which, with any propriety, it might otherwise be extended. Also, if the term is thus taken, in strict contradistinction to theism, and a plan of its possible modes of acceptance made, these systems of thought will naturally appear in clearer proportion and relationship. Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning.

The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic denial existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause. This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism; though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained. Certainly Bacon and Dr. Arnold voice the common judgment of thinking men when they express a doubt as to the existence of an atheist belonging to such a school. Still, there are certain advanced phases of materialistic philosophy that, perhaps, should rightly be included under this head. Materialism, which professes to find in matter its own cause and explanation, may go farther, and positively exclude the existence of any spiritual cause. That such a dogmatic assertion is both unreasonable and illogical needs no demonstration, for it is an inference not warranted by the facts nor justified by the laws of thought. But the fact that certain individuals have left the sphere of exact scientific observation for speculation, and have thus dogmatized negatively, calls for their inclusion in this specific type. Materialism is the one dogmatic explanation of the universe which could in any sense justify an atheistic position. But even materialism, however its advocates might dogmatize, could do no more than provide an inadequate theoretic basis for a negative form of atheism. Pantheism, which must not be confused with materialism, in some of its forms can be placed also in this division, as categorically denying the existence of a spiritual First Cause above or outside the world.

A second form in which atheism may be held and taught, as indeed it has been, is based either upon the lack of physical data for theism or upon the limited nature of the intelligence of man. This second form may be described as a negative theoretic atheism; and may be further viewed as cosmological or psychological, according as it is motivated, on the one hand, by a consideration of the paucity of actual data available for the arguments proving the existence of a super-sensible and spiritual God, or, what amounts to the same thing, the attributing of all cosmic change and development to the self-contained potentialities of an eternal matter; or, on the other hand, by an empiric or theoretic estimate of the powers of reason working upon the data furnished by sense-perception. From whichever cause this negative form of atheism proceeds, it issues in agnosticism or materialism; although the agnostic is, perhaps, better classed under this head than the materialist. For the former, professing a state of nescience, more properly belongs to a category under which those are placed who neglect, rather than explain, nature without a God. Moreover, the agnostic may be a theist, if he admits the existence of a being behind and beyond nature, even while he asserts that such a being is both unprovable and unknowable. The materialist belongs to this type so long as he merely neglects, and does not exclude from his system, the existence of God. So, too, does the positivist, regarding theological and metaphysical speculation as mere passing stages of thought through which the human mind has been journeying towards positive, or related empirical, knowledge. Indeed, any system of thought or school of philosophy that simply omits the existence of God from the sum total of natural knowledge, whether the individual as a matter of fact believes in Him or not, can be classed in this division of atheism, in which, strictly speaking, no positive assertion or denial is made as to the ultimate fact of His being.

There are two systems of practical or moral atheism which call for attention. They are based upon the theoretic systems just expounded. One system of positive moral atheism, in which human actions would neither be right nor wrong, good nor evil, with reference to God, would naturally follow from the profession of positive theoretic atheism; and it is significant of those to whom such a form of theoretic atheism is sometimes attributed, that for the sanctions of moral actions they introduce such abstract ideas as those of duty, the social instinct, or humanity. There seems to be no particular reason why they should have recourse to such sanctions, since the morality of an action can hardly be derived from its performance as a duty, which in turn can be called and known as a “duty” only because it refers to an action that is morally good. Indeed an analysis of the idea of duty leads to a refutation of the principle in whose support it is invoked, and points to the necessity of a theistic interpretation of nature for its own justification.

The second system of negative practical or moral atheism may be referred to the second type of theoretic atheism. It is like the first in not relating human actions to an extra-mundane, spiritual, and personal lawgiver; but that, not because such a lawgiver does not exist, but because the human intelligence is incapable of so relating them. It must not be forgotten, however, that either negative theoretic atheism or negative practical atheism is, as a system, strictly speaking compatible with belief in a God; and much confusion is often caused by the inaccurate use of the terms, belief, knowledge, opinion, etc.

Lastly, a third type is generally, though perhaps wrongly, included in moral atheism. “Practical atheism is not a kind of thought or opinion, but a mode of life” (R. Flint, Anti-theistic Theories, Lect. I). This is more correctly called, as it is described, godlessness in conduct, quite irrespective of any theory of philosophy, or morals, or of religious faith. It will be noticed that, although we have included agnosticism, materialism, and pantheism, among the types of atheism, strictly speaking this latter does not necessarily include any one of the former. A man may be an agnostic simply, or an agnostic who is also an atheist. He may be a scientific materialist and no more, or he may combine atheism with his materialism. It does not necessarily follow, because the natural cognoscibility of a personal First Cause is denied, that His existence is called in question: nor, when matter is called upon to explain itself, that God is critically denied. On the other hand, pantheism, while destroying the extra-mundane character of God, does not necessarily deny the existence of a supreme entity, but rather affirms such as the sum of all existence and the cause of all phenomena whether of thought or of matter. Consequently, while it would be unjust to class agnostics, materialists, or pantheists as necessarily also atheists, it cannot be denied that atheism is clearly perceived to be implied in certain phases of all these systems. There are so many shades and gradations of thought by which one form of a philosophy merges into another, so much that is opinionative and personal woven into the various individual expositions of systems, that, to be impartially fair, each individual must be classed by himself as atheist or theist. Indeed, more upon his own assertion or direct teaching than by reason of any supposed implication in the system he advocated must this classification be made. And if it is correct to consider the subject from this point of view, it is surprising to find to what an exceedingly small number the supposed atheistic ranks dwindle. In company with Socrates, nearly all the reputed Greek atheists strenuously repudiated the charge of teaching that there were no gods. Even Bion, who, according to Diogenes Laertius (Life of Aristippus, XIII, Bohn’s tr.), adopted the scandalous moral teaching of the atheist Theodorus, turned again to the gods whom he had insulted, and when he came to die demonstrated in practice what he had denied in theory. As Laertius says in his “Life of Bion,” he “who never once said, ‘I have sinned but spare me—

Then did this atheist shrink and give his neck

To an old woman to hang charms upon;

And bound his arms with magic amulets;

With laurel branches blocked his doors and windows,

Ready to do and venture anything

Rather than die.”

Epicurus, the founder of that school of physics which limited all causes to purely natural ones and consequently implied, if he did not actually assert, atheism, is spoken of as a man whose “piety towards the gods and (whose) affection for his country was quite unspeakable” (ib., Life of Epicurus, V). And though Lucretius Carus speaks of the downfall of popular religion which he wished to bring about (De Rerum natura, I, 79–80), yet, in his own letter to Henaeceus (Laert., Life of Epicurus, XXVII), he states plainly a true theistic position: “For there are gods: for our knowledge of them is indistinct. But they are not of the character which people in general attribute to them.” Indeed, this one citation perfectly illustrates the fundamental historic meaning of the term, atheism. The naturalistic pantheism of the Italian Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) comes near to, if it is not actually a profession of, atheism; while Tomaso Campanella (1568–1639), on the contrary, in his nature-philosophy finds in atheism the one impossibility of thought, Spinoza (1632–77), while defending the doctrine that God certainly exists, so identifies Him with finite existence that it is difficult to see how he can be defended against the charge of atheism even of the first type. In the eighteenth century, and especially in France, the doctrines of materialism were spread broadcast by the Encyclopaedists. La Mettrie, Holbach, Fuerbach, and Fleurens are usually classed among the foremost materialistic atheists of the period. Voltaire, on the contrary, while undoubtedly helping on the cause of practical atheism, distinctly held its theoretic contrary. He, as well as Rousseau, was a deist. Comte, it will be remembered, refused to be called an atheist. In the last century Thomas Huxley, Charles Darwin, and Herbert Spencer, with others of the evolutionistic school of philosophy, were, quite erroneously, charged with positive atheism. It is a charge which can in no way be substantiated; and the invention andonism of Ernst Hackel, goes far towards forming an atheistic system of philosophy. But even the last named admits that there may be a God, though so limited and so foreign to the deity of theists that his admission can hardly remove the system from the first category of theoretic atheism.

Among the unscientific and unphilosophical there have from time to time been found dogmatic atheists of the first type. Here again, however, many of those popularly styled atheists are more correctly described by some other title. There is a somewhat rare tract, “Atheism Refuted in a Discourse to prove the Existence of God by T.P.”—British Museum Catalogue, “Tom Paine,” who was at one time popularly called an atheist. And perhaps, of the few who have upheld an indubitable form of positive theoretic atheism, none has been taken seriously enough to have exerted any influence upon the trend of philosophic or scientific thought. Robert Ingersoll might be instanced, but though popular speakers and writers of this type may create a certain amount of unlearned disturbance, they are not treated seriously by thinking men, and it is extremely doubtful whether they deserve a place in any historical or philosophical exposition of atheism.

REIMMAN, Historia atheismi et atheorum . . . (Hildesheim, 1725); TOUSSAINT in Dict. de theologie, s.v. ( a good bibliography); JANET AND SEAILLES, History of the Problems of Philosophy (tr.,London, 1902), II; HETTINGER, Natural Religion (tr., New York, 1890); FLINT, Anti-theistic Theories (New York, 1894); LILLY, The Great Enigma (New York, 1892); DAURELLE, L Atheisme devant la raison humaine (Paris, 1883); WARD, Naturalism and Agnosticism (New York, 1899); LADD, Philosophy of Religion (New York, 1905); II; BOEDDER, Natural Theologh (New York, 1891); BLACKIE, Natural History of Atheism (New York, 1878); The Catholic World, XXVII, 471: BARRY, The End of Atheism in the Catholic World, LX, 333; SHEA, Steps to Atheism in The Am, Cath. Quart. Rev., 1879, 305; POHLE, Lehrbuch d. Dogmatik (Paderborn, 1907) I; BAUR in Kirchliches Handlexikon (Munich, 1907), s.v. See also bibliography under AGNOSTICISM, MATERIALISM, PANTHEISM, and THEISM. For the refutation of ATHEISM see the article GOD.)

FRANCIS AVELING

Abbey of Athelney

The Abbey of Athelney, established in the County of Somerset, England, was founded by King Alfred, A.D. 888, as a religious house for monks of the Order of St. Benedict. Originally Athelney was a small island in the midst of dangerous morasses in what is now the parish of East Ling. It possessed scarcely more than two acres of firm land; was covered with alders and infested by wild animals, and was inaccessible except by boat (William of Malmesbury). Here Alfred found a refuge from the Danes; here he built the abbey dedicated to our Blessed Savior, St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Egelwine. He peopled it with foreign monks, drawn chiefly from France, with John of Saxony (known as Scotus) as their abbot. The original church was a small structure.consisting of four piers supporting the main fabric and surrounded by four circular chancels. Little is known of the history of the abbey from the eleventh century up to the time of its dissolution except that the monks of Glastonbury attempted to annex it or have it placed under the Glastonbury jurisdiction. It was not a rich community. An indulgence of thirty days was given in 1321 for those who should assist in the rebuilding of the church, and the monks humbly petitioned Edward I to remit “corrod” for which they were unable to find the means of payment. The last abbot was Robert Hamlyn. With eight monks of his community, he surrendered February, 8, 1540, receiving a pension of £50 per annum and retaining his prebend of Long Sutton. The revenues (26 Hen. VII) were £209. 0s. 3/4 d.

DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum; ASSER, De Rebus Gestis Alfridi; HEARNE, Script. Hist. Angl. XXVIII (1731), 587–90.

FRANCIS AVELING

Athenagoras

A Christian apologist of the second half of the second century of whom no more is known than that he was an Athenian philosopher and a convert to Christianity. Of his writings there have been preserved but two genuine pieces—his “Apology” or “Embassy for the Christians” and a “Treatise on the Resurrection.” The only allusions to him in early Christian literature are the accredited quotations from his “Apology” in a fragment of Methodius of Olympus (d. 312) and the untrustworthy biographical details in the fragments of the “Christian History” of Philip of Side (c. 425). It may be that his treatises, circulating anonymously, were for a time considered as the work of another apologist. His writings bear witness to his erudition and culture, his power as a philosopher and rhetorician, his keen appreciation of the intellectual temper of his age, and his tact and delicacy in dealing with the powerful opponents of his religion. The “Apology,” the date of which is fixed by internal evidence as late in 176 or 177, was not, as the title “Embassy” (presbeia) has suggested, an oral defence of Christianity but a carefully written plea for justice to the Christians made by a philosopher, on philosophical grounds, to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus, conquerors, “but above all, philosophers.” He first complains of the illogical and unjust discrimination against the Christians and of the calumnies they suffer (i-iii), and then meets the charge of atheism (iv). He establishes the principle of monotheism, citing pagan poets and philosophers in support of the very doctrines for which Christians are condemned (v-vi), and demonstrates the superiority of the Christian belief in God to that of pagans (vii-viii). This first strongly reasoned demonstration of the unity of God in Christian literature is supplemented by an able exposition of the Trinity (x). Assuming then the defensive, the apologist justifies the Christian abstention from worship of the national deities (xii-xiv) on grounds of its absurdity and indecency, quoting at length the pagan poets and philosophers in support of his contention (xv-xxx). Finally, he meets the charges of immorality by exposing the Christian ideal of purity, even in thought, and the inviolable sanctity of the marriage bond. The charge of cannibalism is refuted by showing the high regard for human life which leads the Christian to detest the crime of abortion (xxxi-xxxvi). The treatise on the “Resurrection of the Body,” the first complete exposition of the doctrine in Christian literature, was written later than the “Apology,” to which it may be considered as an appendix. Athenagoras brings to the defence of the doctrine the best that contemporary philosophy could adduce. After meeting the objections common to his time (i), he demonstrates the possibility of a resurrection in view either of the power of the Creator (ii-iii), or of the nature of our bodies (iv-viii). To exercise such powers is neither unworthy of God nor unjust to other creatures (ix-xi). He shows that the nature and end of man demand a perpetuation of the life of body and soul.

March and Own, Douglass’ Series of Christian, Greek and Latin Writers (New York, 1876), IV; Harnack History of Dogma, tr. Buchanan (Boston, 1903), II, 188–190. An English translation is found in Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York, 1903), II, 129–162; in vol. X (ibid.) pp. 36–38, is an extensive bibliography (to 1890). The best editions are those of Otto, corpus Apologetarum (Jena, 1857), Vii, and the Benedictine Maranus in P.G. (Paris, 1857), VI, 889–1024. See also Schwartz in Gebhardt and Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1891), IV, 2; Harnack, Geschichte d. altchristlichen Literaute (Leipzig, 1893–1897), I, 256–258; II, 317–319; Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literature (Freiburg, 1902), I, 267–277; Idem, Patrologie (ibid., 1901) 57–58.

JOHN B. PETERSON.

Athenry

A small inland town in the county Galway, Ireland, anciently called Athnere, from Ath-na-Riagh, the king’s ford, or the abode of the king. It was the first town established by the Anglo-Norman invaders or Connaught, and at a remote period became a place of importance. A Dominican monastery was completed there in 1216 on a site granted by Meyler de Bermingham. In time it became extensive and wealthy and was used as the chief burial place of the Earls of Ulster and the principal families of the adjoining territory. Indulgences for the benefit of the monastery were granted by the pope in 1400. The church was burned in 1423, and in 1427 two subordinate houses were established. In 1445 Pope Eugenius IV renewed the decree of Pope Martin V to encourage the repairing of the church, at which time there were thirty inmates in the monastery. A Franciscan friary was also founded there in 1464 by Thomas, Earl of Kildare, and chapels erected by his wife and the Earls of Desmond and O’Tully. The place was sacked in 1577 during the Elizabethan wars, but repaired in 1585. The northern Irish burned the town in 1596 but the abbey escaped. The Dominican establishment was revived in 1644 as a university, the town, however, never regained its ancient prestige. The Cromwellian period ruined the ecclesiastical buildings, of which the tower and east window remained in good condition to tell of the ancient extent and beauty of the foundation. The Board of Works in 1893 made extensive repairs to the ruins to preserve them.

LEWIS, Topographical Dictionary of Ireland (Dublin, 1839).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Christian Athens

Christianity was first preached in Athens by St. Paul. He came to Athens from Berœa of Macedonia, coming probably by water and landing in the Peiræevs, the harbour of Athens. This was about the year 53. Having arrived at Athens, he at once sent for Silas and Timotheos who had remained behind in Berœa. While awaiting the coming of these he tarried in Athens, viewing the idolatrous city, and frequenting the synagogue; for there were already Jews in Athens. He also frequented the agora, and there met and conversed with the men of Athens, telling them of the new truths which he was promulgating. Finally, at the Areopagos, he spoke to them the sermon which is preserved in the seventeenth chapter of the Acts. The Athenians did not enthusiastically accept this first preaching of Christianity. The Acts mention, however, that a few believed in Paul’s teaching. Amongst these were Dionysios, a member of the Areopagite court, and Damaris, or Thamar possibly, who may have been a Jewess. A tradition asserts that St. Paul wrote from Athens his two letters to the Christians of Thessalonika. Even if this be so, his stay in Athens was not a protracted one. He departed by sea, and went to Korinth by way of Kenchreæ, its eastern harbour. It seems that a Christian community was rapidly formed, although for a considerable time it did not possess a numerous membership. The commoner tradition names the Areopagite as the first head and bishop of the Christian Athenians. Another tradition, however, gives this honour to Hierotheos the Thesmothete. The successors of the first bishop were not all Athenians by lineage. They are catalogued as Narkissos, Publius, and Quadratus. Narkissos is stated to have come from Palestine, and Publius from Malta. In some lists Narkissos is omitted. Quadratus is revered for having contributed to early Christian literature by writing an apology, which he addressed to the Emperor Hadrian. This was on the occasion of Hadrian’s visit to Athens. Another Athenian who defended Christianity in writing at a somewhat later time was Aristeides. His apology was directed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Athenagoras also wrote an apology. In the second century there must have been a considerable community of Christians in Athens, for Hygeinos, Bishop of Rome, is said to have written a letter to the community in the year 139. It is probable that the early Church of Athens did not have many martyrs, although Dionysios himself graces the martyrs’ list. Under Decius, we find recorded in the catalogue of martyrs the names of Herakleios, Benedimos, Pavlinos, and Leonides with his followers, the holy woman Charissa, and her companions. One reason why the martyrs were few is that the Christians were also few. Besides, the spirit of the Athenian pagans and philosophers was not one of blood; and it is probable that the persecutions in Athens were rather of the social and scholastic kind. This would account for the writings of the apologists who thus would defend themselves by weapons similar to those which their opponents used. The philosophers of the Athenian schools did not indeed admire Christianity, as they understood it; nevertheless there is some ground for believing that amongst the teachers who occupied the official and historic chairs of philosophy at Athens there later was at least one who was a Christian, Prohæresios, the sophist. Be this as it may, it is certain that the teaching of the philosophers was not rudely anti-Christian. Otherwise the presence of Christians amongst the students could not be understood. Sixtus II, or Xystos, who suffered martyrdom in Rome about A. D. 258, also may have studied in Athens and is called “the son of an Athenian philosopher.” But the most noted men who frequented the schools here were Basil from Kæsareia, and Gregory from Nazianzos, about the middle of the fourth century. These schools of philosophy kept paganism alive for four centuries, but by the fifth century the ancient religion of Elevsis and Athens had practically succumbed. In the Council of Nikæa there was present a bishop from Athens. In 529 the schools of philosophy were closed. From that date Christianity had no rival in Athens.

Down to the time of Constantine, and later, there were no large Christian temples in Athens. Like the Jews, whose synagogues in pagan towns were small and unpretentious, the first Christians did not erect sumptuous temples. With their worship they did not associate splendour of temple and sanctuary as indispensable. In the time of Basil and Gregory, there were surely numerous church edifices in Athens, but they were not spacious temples. They are called hieroi oikoi, and probably were not much larger than the ordinary dwelling-houses of the inhabitants. The first magnificent churches in Athens were, therefore, the Greek temples which, after the disappearance of paganism, were transferred to the use of the Christian rites. It must have been about Justinian’s time when the most of the ancient temples were converted into churches. Churches or ruins of churches have been frequently found on the sites where pagan shrines or temples originally stood. This is in part due to the fact that the sites were first sanctified for Christian tradition by these pagan temples or sanctuaries being made into churches. It is also to some extent true that sometimes the saint whose aid was to be invoked at the Christian shrine bore some outward analogy to the deity previously hallowed in that place. Thus in Athens the shrine of the healer Asklepios, situated between the two theatres on the south side of the Akropolis, when it became a church, was made sacred to the two saints whom the Christian Athenians invoked as miraculous healers, Kosmas and Damian. Amongst the temples converted into churches were the Parthenon and the Erechtheion on the Akropolis, and the yet well-preserved Hephæsteion (or “temple of Theseus,” as it is incorrectly called) near the ancient agora. The Hephæsteion was, in later times, sacred to St. George. Pittakis, a noted epigraphist of Athens in the early half of the last century, published an inscription which purports to state that in the year 630 the Parthenon was consecrated under the title of “the church of Divine Wisdom” (tes Hagias Sophias). But Pittakis was very careless or credulous at times in the copying of inscriptions. So we do not know with certainty what was the original title of this church. Possibly, from its first conversion the Parthenon had been dedicated to the Panagia. At least we learn from Michael Akominatos that in the twelfth century it was sacred to the Mother of God. On the columns of this church, and on its marble walls, especially around the doors, are numerous graffiti inscriptions which record various events, many of them important for sacred and profane history, such as the names and deaths of bishops, and public calamities. In these graffiti inscriptions, this church is called “the great church,” “the church of Athens,” and the cathedral church, or katholike ekklesia. All these appellations show that it was the metropolitan church of the city. In Greek usage, the name katholikon or katholike ekklesia, was a title applied to churches which were the sees of bishops or archbishops.

That the Parthenon was a church as far back as the sixth century is proven by the cemetery which lay along its south side. This region was filled with Christian graves, in some of which were found coins of a date as early as the reign of Justinian. In order to fit the Parthenon for a church, changes had to be made in it; an apse was built at the east end, and a great entrance door was placed in the west end. The interior walls were covered with fresco paintings of saints. After the conversion of these Greek temples into churches, perhaps two or three centuries elapsed before the Athenians found it necessary to lavishly add to the number of large church edifices by erecting many new ones. Then they followed the styles of ecclcsiastical architecture which had been developed elsewhere, and had become prevalent throughout so much of the empire. From about the end of the eighth century they erected new churches more frequently. Perhaps the Empress Eirene, who was an Athenian, gave some impulse to this tendency. As years went on, Athens and the surrounding villages of Attika, and the fields were filled with churches, many of them veritable gems of Byzantine comeliness. The churches which were built in Athens and vicinity during the Middle Ages numbered hundreds. Likewise many monasteries were founded, both in Athens itself and in the country of Attika, especially on the slopes of the surrounding mountains of Hymettos, and Pentelikos, and Parnes. A complete list of the Bishops of Athens could not be made. But as time goes on, and seals and manuscripts and inscriptions are deciphered, the list of names will grow. Pistos, Bishop of Athens, was present at the Council of Nikæa in 325. Bishop Modestus was at the Council of Ephesos in 431. John, Bishop of Athens, was amongst the Fathers who signed the Acts of the Sixth Œcumenical Council. He was present as “Leggate of the Apostolic See of ancient Rome.” From the graffiti on the Parthenon a number of other names and dates are already known. In these graffiti we read names of bishops prior to the exaltation of Athens to the rank of an archbishopric, then the names of archbishops, and finally those of metropolitans. The time of the elevation of this see to an archbishopric cannot yet be fixed. Gregory II, who was pastor of the Athenians during the first patriarchate of Photios, bore the title of archbishop. But it is not known whether or not he was the first who had that title. This was about 857–867. Shortly afterwards the archbishops received the higher title of metropolitan. Niketas who took part in the Eighth Œcumenical Council under Basil the Makedonian, which closed 28 February, 870, and who signed the acts of that council as “Niketas by the grace of God, Metropolitan of Athens,” on his seals, or leaden bulls, simply places the inscription “Niketas, Bishop of Athens.” Amongst the signatures to the acts of this council, that of Niketas stands twenty-second in order. But in a full assembly of metropolitans he would not rank so high. According to the list made by Emperor Leon the Wise (886–911), a list intended to show the relative rank of each ecclesiastical dignitary under the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Metropolitan of Athens is relegated to the twenty-eighth place. Just what sees were under the Archbishop of Athens prior to Photios is not easy to discover. After the changes brought about by Photios and his successors, the sees that were suffragan to Athens varied in number from time to time. But in general it may be stated that all of Attika belonged directly to the Archbishop of Athens, after the abolishing of the See of Marathon, about the middle of the ninth century. And under Athens were, besides other bishoprics, the Sees of Evripos, Oreos, Karystos, and Porthmos in Evbœa; Avlon; Diavleia in Phokis, and Koroneia in Bœotia; Andros, Skyros, Syros, and Seriphos of the islands; and, later, Keos and Ægina.

From Photios down to the Franks the Metropolitans of Athens were all of the Greek rite, naturally. Likewise their sympathies were rather with Constantinople than with older Rome. Their metropolitan church continued to be the ancient Parthenon. It seems that the residence of the bishops was on the Akropolis, in the great Portals, or Propylæa, and that in these Propylæa they had a private episcopal chapel. In these days education was not held in very general esteem in Athens. No special erudition characterized the clergy. Even the inscriptions which decorated the seals and bulls of bishops and abbots were often most childishly misspelled. From the time of Photios to the Franks the most noted ecclesiastic was probably the last bishop, Michael Akominatos. He, however, was Athenian neither by birth nor by education. He came to Athens expecting great things in the city of ancient wisdom, but was disappointed. Still it is wrong to say that Athens of the Middle Ages produced no scholars and noted personages. Athenaïs, who became queen to Theodosios in 421, and Eirene, who became empress in 780, were Athenians. From the sixth to the thirteenth century Athens was out and out a provincial town, exercising no influence on the world at large, and almost unheard of in the politics of the day. Nevertheless, the Emperor Konstas on his way to Sicily in 662 spent the winter in Athens; and after his victories over the Bulgarians in 1018, Basil II visited this city to celebrate his triumphs. When, under Constantine, the Empire was divided into governmental dioceses, the close relations which then were created between the Church and the State caused the ecclesiastical divisions to be often identical with the civil. By this system all of Achaia, wherein was Athens, was included within the Diocese of Eastern Illyria, of which Thessalonika was the capital. All of this Diocese of Eastern Illyria was under the direct jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. And so it remained until the reign of Leo the Isavrian. This emperor, incensed at Pope Gregory III, because of his strong opposition to Leo’s iconoclastic passion, retorted against the pope by transferring these countries of the Illyrian diocese from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to that of the See of Constantinople. This occurred in the year 732. In this great struggle between the iconoclasts and the adherents to the use of the icons, the Athenians placed themselves on the side of iconolatry. While accepting without any recorded protest their transference to the jurisdiction of the Eastern patriarch, they retained the images in their churches and continued to venerate them. All the inhabitants of Greece north of the Korinthiac Gulf, who then were called Helladikoi, or Helladians, were opposed to the iconoclasts. And their opposition was so determined that they fitted out an expedition and manned a fleet, intending to attack Constantinople, depose Leo, and place their leader, Kosmas, on the throne. In this expedition, in which the Athenians doubtlessly had an important part, assistance was given by the inhabitants of the Kyklad islands, who probably furnished most of the ships. The attempt, however, was futile. The fleet was easily destroyed by the imperial ships in April, 727. The mutual bitterness which was evinced in Constantinople by the contending parties of Photians and Anti-Photians was reflected here in Athens. Gregory II was archbishop when Ignatios was restored to his throne as Patriarch of Constantinople. Ignatios deposed him as being an adherent of Photios. His successor, Kosmas, was also later deposed. Then Niketas, a Byzantine, came to Athens as archbishop with the title of metropolitan. This Niketas was a supporter of Ignatios. His successor, Anastasios, was a follower of Photios. Sabbas, who succeeded Anastasios, was likewise a Photian and was one of those who signed the acts of the synod which closed in May, 880, by which Photios was again recognized as patriarch. A bull of his still exists, whereon he designates himself as “Metropolitan of Athens.”

Throughout the East there was a peculiar type of Panagia-icon, copies of which might be seen in monasteries and churches in many places. This was the Panagia Gorgoepekoos. This Panagia Gorgoepekoos seems to have been originally an Athenian icon, and was probably identical with an icon which was called the Panagia Athenœotissa. The Athenœotissa was the Madonna of the church in the Parthenon. This icon is mentioned by Michael Akominatos.

After the conquest of the Byzantine Empire by the Europeans of the Fourth Crusade, in the partitionment which followed, Athens and the rest of Greece were given to Boniface, King of Thessalonika. Boniface gave Athens to one of his followers, Otho de ha Roche. At their coming to Athens the Franks found it small and insignificant. They chose Thebes to be the seat of civil power rather than Athens. Thebes was a more important trade centre than was Athens. Athens, however, was considered important enough to be continued as an archbishopric. It thus was ranked in equal dignity with the other larger cities of Greece, such as Thebes, within de la Roche’s dominion, and Patræ and Korinth in the Morea. The conquest of Greece was accomplished in 1204 and 1205. The first Latin archbishop introduced the Latin ritual into the cathedral, the Parthenon, in the year 1206. This was Archbishop Berard. Thus after a lapse of centuries from the time of Leo the Isavrian, Greece and Athens were again placed under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. During the Frankish rule the archbishops of Athens were without exception of the Latin Rite, and were of Western lineage. Likewise the canons of the cathedral, in the Parthenon, were of Latin Rite, and were Franks. Their number was fixed by Cardinal Benedict, papal legate in Thessalonika, by order of Pope Innocent III. But the ritual of the common priests was not disturbed. The people continued to enjoy their own rites, celebrated by Greek priests in the Greek language. These Greek priests had, however, at least outwardly, to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Latin archbishop. Amongst the sees which were suffragan to the Archbishop of Athens were those of Chalkis, Thermopylæ (or Bodonitsa) Davleia. Avlon, Zorkon, Karystos, Koroneia, Andros, Skyros, Kea, and Megara The last bishop of the Greek Rite was the learned Michael Akominatos, who, when the Franks came, retired to the Island of Keos, after first visiting the cardinal legate of the pope in Thessalonika to impetrate certain favours for those formerly under his charge who wished to adhere to the Greek form of worship. In Keos he lived as a monk in the monastery of St. John the Baptist. To support the Latin archbishop, and the canons, and the cathedral church, a number of possessions were given to him. Amongst these was the monastic property of Kæsariane, and the island of Belbina, which Pope Innocent III gave to the Archbishop of Athens in 1208. The Frankish cavaliers lived in splendour in Thebes and Athens. The dignitaries of the Church lived in ease. Along with the coming of the Franks and the Latin Church there came also Latin monks. The Cistercians established themselves near Athens in 1208 in the beautiful monastery of Daphne, which previously was in the possession of Greek Basilian Fathers. The Franciscans were the most active religious order in Greece during this period. There were also Dominican convents.

In the year 1311 another great change came over Athens. The Franks were defeated by the Catalans in the swamps of the Kephisos in Bœotia. Athens, with Thebes, became their possession. Under their sway, which lasted more than seventy-five years, the higher dignitaries of the Church continued naturally to be Latins. In these days there were fourteen suffragan sees under the Archbishopric of Athens, and at the cathedral there were eleven or twelve canons. In 1387 another change overtook Athens. The Catalonian possessions came under the ownership of the Acciajoli, Florentines who had risen to eminence as bankers. The Acciajoli retained possession of Athens until driven out by Omær Pasha, who in June of 1456 entered the city and, in 1458, took possession of the Akropolis for his Sultan, Mohammed II. The only notable change in ecclesiastical matters under the Acciajoli was that they permitted two archbishops to reside in Athens, a Greek dignitary for the Catholics of the Greek Rite, and a Latin for the Franks. In this way the defection of the Greeks of Athens from Roman jurisdiction was again a fact. The Latin archbishop lived in the Castro, that is, on the Akropolis, and the Greek prelate had his residence in the lower city. Franco Acciajoli was the last Duke of Athens. The last Latin archbishop was Nicholas Protimus. He died in 1483. After his death Rome continued to appoint titular Latin archbishops to the See of Athens. Under Turkish domination the Church and all its property again became Greek. All the suffragan sees were again filled by Greek bishops, and the monasteries were again occupied by Greek monks. The Parthenon, however, was appropriated by the conquerors, who converted it into a mosque. The Greek bishops continued to live in the lower town, and during the latter half of the Turkish supremacy they usually resided near the church of the Panagia Gorgoepekoos, which they used as a private chapel. They lived elsewhere at times, however, for Father Babin mentions Archbishop Anthimos as living near the church of St. Dionysios, which was at the foot of the Areopagos Hill. In Turkish times, as previously, the sees under Athens were not always the same in number. Nor were they all identical with those that had been under the Latin archbishops. Some of them were Koroneia, Salona, Bodonitsa, Davleia, Evripos, Oreos, Karystos, Porthmos, Andros, Syra, and Skyros.

Amongst the religious orders that lived in Athens under Turkish rule were the Franciscans. They were there as early as 1658. But they had already been in Greece under the Franks. The Franciscans are to he mentioned with the Dominicans as being the first Western Europeans who sent students to Athens and other places in the East for the purpose of studying the language and literature of the Greeks. Another fact to the credit of the Franciscans of Athens is that, although not primarily interested in antiquities, they fruitfully contributed to the awakening of our interest in such studies. There appeared in Paris in the second half of the seventeenth century, a book by Guillet or “de la Guilletière,” which is entirely based on information received from the Franciscans of Athens. Franciscans sketched the first plan of modern Athens. Considering how suspicious the Turks were of any kind of description of their possessions and castles, it was quite a feat for the Franciscans to have made so good a plan as they did. It was published by Guillet in his book, “Athènes, anciennes et nouvelles,” 1675. In those days the Capuchins had a comfortable monastery in Athens, which they built on ground bought from the Turks in 1658, behind the choragic monument of Lysikrates. The monument itself served them as their little library. in this monastery many a traveller found hospitality. It was destroyed by fire in 1821, and the site is now owned by the French Government. The Jesuits were also active in Athens. They came in 1645. It must be noted that it was Father Babin, a Jesuit, who wrote the first careful account of the modern condition of the ruins of ancient Athens. This he did in a letter to the Abbé Pécoil, canon of Lyons. This letter was written 8 October, 1672. It was published with a commentary by Spon in 1674 under the title of “Relation de l’état présent de la ville d’Athènes.” The Jesuits finally withdrew from Athens, leaving the entire field to the Franciscans. The Franciscans remained until the beginning of the war of the revolution. In the time of Babin and Spon there were about two hundred churches in Athens, all of the Greek Rite, except the chapels in the monasteries of the western monks. With the war of the insurrection, in 1821, ends the history of the older Church of Athens. A new Latin archbishopric has again its residence in Athens. (See ATHENS, MODERN DIOCESE OF.) Since 1833 the Church of the Greek Rife has undergone serious changes of jurisdiction, for it no longer recognizes the leadership of the Patriarch of Constantinople, but is a national autocephalous church.

GREGOROVIUS, Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter (Stuttgart, 1889), Greek tr. by LAMPROS, with additional notes and an appendix (Athens, 1904–06); HOPF, Geschichte Griechenlands vom Beginn des Mittelalters bis auf unsere Zeit (Leipzig, 1870); GEORGIADES, Historia ton Athenon (Athens); NEROUTSOS, Christianikai Athenai (Athens, 1889 sqq.); LEQUIEN, Oriens Christianus; MOMMSEN Athenœ Christianœ (Leipzig, 1868); ANTONIO RUBIO Y LLUCH, La Expedición y la Dominación de los Catalanos en Oriente (Barcelona, 1883); GULDEN-CRONE, L’Achaië féodale (Paris, 1886); KAMPOUROGLOS, Historia ton Athenon (Athens, 1889–93); PHILADELPHEVS, Historia ton Athenon epi Tourkokratias (Athens, 1904).

DANIEL QUINN.

Modern Diocese of Athens

The Greeks have long regarded their religion as a national affair. This notion is so deep-rooted that they cannot understand how a citizen can well be a true Greek if he gives his allegiance to any religion which is not that of the Greek Church. At the present time the majority of Catholics who live within the Diocese of Athens are therefore foreigners, or of foreign descent. Of the foreigners who are Catholics, the greater part are of Italian nationality. Most of those who are of foreign descent have come into Athens and other portions of this diocese from the islands of the Aegean and Ionian seas. The Catholics of these islands are largely descendants of the Western conquers who held possession of the islands for two or three centuries, or even longer, beginning with the Fourth Crusade. As a rule, they are of Venetian and Genoese descent. In these islands some of the native Greeks, on account of the higher social and political standing of the foreign element, accepted the Catholic Faith and obedience. From these converted Greeks some Catholics in the Diocese of Athens are now descended. On three or four of the islands, outside of the Diocese of Athens, there are many such Catholics who are pure Greeks, being descended from converts to Catholicism in the time of the foreign feudal governments. These Catholics from the islands are the nucleus of the future prosperity of Catholicism in Greece, for gradually they are identifying themselves with the good of the country and its worthier ideals. Although they are still conscious of their foreign extraction, or former foreign sympathies, they now feel that their residence of centuries in Greek territory has made them Greeks. The real foreign element is made up of those Catholics who have migrated into Greece since it has become a free country. These are chiefly Italians and Maltese. Most of them are laborers who came to find employment on the railroads and other public works, or to live as fishermen or boatmen in the larger seaport towns. The exact number of Catholics cannot easily be estimated. Possibly in the entire Diocese of Athens there are about 10,000, of whom about one fourth attend church regularly. From amongst the members of the Greek Church no converts are made to Catholicity. At least, they are extremely rare. It is against the positive and explicit law of the State for any other church to make proselytes from the established Greek or Orthodox Church. In the first National Assembly, which was held at Epidavros in 1822, it was declared that the Orthodox Church is the State Church. This declaration was repeated in the Assembly at Troezen in 1827. Such has been the strict law ever since. But, except that propagandism is severely prohibited, the Catholic Church is perfectly free, it is fairly treated, and highly respected.

Otho of Bavaria, the first king of regenerated Greece, was a Catholic. In his reign the Catholics were few. But arrangements were made that the Catholics could have a place of worship wherever they existed in sufficient numbers. After Athens became the seat of government, in 1834, an abandoned Turkish mosque was given to the Catholics as a place of worship. It is still used as a church, and is attended chiefly by Maltese and Italians who live in and around the Old Market, near the Tower of the Winds. Mass is said there on Sundays and Holy Days by a priest from the cathedral. After the lapse of some years, in 1876, an archbishopric was established in Athens. Those who have occupied this see are Archbishops Marangos, Zaffino, De Angelis, and Delendas. De Angelis was an Italian; Zaffino a native of Corfu; all the other archbishops were born in the Aegean Islands. Within the Diocese of Athens there are now eight churches. Of these two are in Athens, and there is one In each of the towns of Peiraevs (the harbor of Athens); Patrae, the chief town of the Peloponnesos; Volos, the seaport of Thessaly; Lavrion (Ergasteria), in the silver mines of Attica; Herakleion, a Bavarian settlement in Attica; and Navplion in the Argolid. Most of the Catholics, however, are concentrated at Athens, Peiraevs, and in Athens, one is the ancient mosque which Otho donated to the Catholics, and the other is the cathedral of St. Dionysios. It is a stone structure in basilica style, with a portico in front supported by marble columns. The interior is divided into three naves separated from each other by rows of columns of Tenian marble. The apse has been frescoed. This cathedral was built with money sent from abroad, especially from Rome. Besides the regular parishes there are missions here and there. Some years ago there were missions at Kalamata, Pyrgos, and Kalamaki. The only considerable one at present is at Lamis. Within the Diocese of Athens there are at present eleven priests engaged in parochial work: four at the cathedral in Athens, two at Patrae, and one at each of the churches of Peiraevs, Lavrion, Volos, Herskleion, and Navplion. All of them are secular priests.

French sisters conduct schools for girls in Athens and at the Peiraevs, and Italian sisters have schools for girls at Patrae. They have boarders as well as day scholars. In the town of the Peiraevs there is a good school for boys conducted by French Salesian Fathers. Boarders and day scholars are accommodated, and both classical and commercial courses are given. But the most important school of the diocese is the Leonteion at Athens, founded by Pope Leo XIII, to supply ordinary and theological education for all Greek-speaking Catholics. It embraces a preparatory department, an intermediate or “hellenic” school a gymnasium or college, and an ecclesiastical seminary. The average number of pupils and students for the past five years is about 175. The faculty consists of both priests and laymen. In its character as seminary, the Leonteion receives students from other dioceses as well as from that of Athens. Previous to the establishment of the Leonteion, candidates for the priesthood were educated chiefly in the Propaganda, at Rome, and in a diocesan seminary which existed in the Aegean town of Syra. The seminary at Syra has been closed, and it is now intended that all clerical training be given in the Leonteion and the Propaganda.

The only publication of note for the Catholics of this diocese is the “Harmonia,” a periodical devoted to catholic interests. The “Harmonia”is supported chiefly by a subsidy from Rome. One does not expect to find a large number of noted scholars in so small a Catholic community. But all the clergy are men of wide education. Every one of them, with other accomplishments, speaks two or three other languages as well as the vernacular Greek of the country. Amongst the laymen special mention should be made of the brothers Kyparissos Stephanos and Klon Stephanos. Kyparissos, a mathematician whose fame extended far beyond the confines of Greece, was made a professor in the National University. His brother Klon, an anthropologist of repute, engaged in special historical, archeological, and anthropological researches, became director of the Anthropological Museum of Athens. There are in Greece no Uniat Greek Catholics. All are of the Latin Rite. This is because most of these Catholics are from the West, either by descent or by birth, and they have kept their own Western rite. It might be better for Catholicism in Greece if the Catholics were to adopt the native rite, and to have their liturgy in the liturgical language of the country. But many of the Catholics of Athens would never willingly accept such a change, which they would regard rather from a national than from a religious point of view, and would consider a denial of their Italian, or other Western, origin.

DANIEL QUINN.

Joseph Athias

Born in Spain, probably in Cordova, at the beginning of the seventeenth century; died at Amsterdam, May 12, 1700. In 1661 and 1667 he issued two editions of the Hebrew Bible. Though carefully printed, they contain a number of mistakes in the vowel points and the accents. But as they were based on the earlier editions compared with the best manuscripts, they were the foundation of all the subsequent editions. The copious marginal notes added by Jean de Leusden, professor at Utrecht, are of little value. The 1667 edition was bitterly attacked by the Protestant savant, Samuel Desmarets; Athias answered the charges in a work whose title begins: “Caecus de coloribus.” He published, also, some other works of importance, such as the “Tikkun Sepher Torah,” or the “Order of the Book of the Law,” and a Judeo-German translation of the Bible. The latter involved Athias in a competition with Uri Phoebus, a question that has been discussed but cannot be fully cleared up at this late date.

HEURTEBIZE in VIG., Dict. de la Bible (Paris. 1895); The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York and London, 1903), II.

A.J. MAAS

Mount Athos

Athos is a small tongue of land that projects into the Aegean Sea, being the eastern-most of the three strips in which the great mountainous peninsula of Chalcidice ends. It is almost cut off from the mainland, to which it is bound only by a narrow isthmus dotted with lakes and swamps interspersed with alluvial plains. It has been well called “a Greece in miniature,” because of the varied contour of its coasts, deep bays and inlets, bold cliffs and promontories, steep wooded slopes, and valleys winding inland. Several cities existed here in pre-Christian antiquity, and a sanctuary of Zeus (Jupiter) is said to have stood on the mountain. The isthmus was famous for the canal (3,950 feet in length) which Xerxes had dug across it, in order to avoid the perilous turning of the limestone peak immemorially known as Mount Athos, in which the small peninsula ends, and which rises to a height of some 6,000 feet. From the summit of this peak on a clear day are visible the coasts of Macedonia and Thrace, even the entire Aegean from Mount Olympus in Thessaly to Mount Ida in Asia Minor. It is the mountain that the architect Dinocrates offered to turn into a statue of Alexander the Great with a city in one hand and in the other a perennially flowing spring. Medieval Greek tradition designated it as the “high mountain” from which Satan tempted Our Lord. Its chief modern interest lies in the fact that at least from the beginning of the Middle Ages it has been the home of a little monastic republic that still retains almost the same autonomy granted a thousand years ago by the Christian emperors of Constantinople. In 1905 the many fortified monasteries and hermitages of Athos contained 7,553 monks (including their numerous male dependents), members of the Orthodox Greek Church: Greeks, 3,207; Russians, 3,615; Bulgarians, 340; Rumanians, 288; Georgians, 53; Servians, 18; other nationalities 32. The principal monasteries bear the following names: Laura, Iviron, Vatopedi, Chilandarion, St. Dionysius, Coutloumousi, Pantocrator, Xiropotamos, Zographu, Docheiarion, Caracalla, Philotheos, Simopetra, St. Paul, Stauroniceta, Xenophon, Gregorios, Esphigmenon, St. Panteleimon, St. Anna (Rossicon), and Karyses.

HISTORY

The origins of monastic life on Mount Athos are obscure. It is probable that individual hermits sought its lonely recesses during the fourth and fifth centuries, and were numerous in the ninth century at the time of the first certain attempts at monastic organization. The nearest episcopal see was that of Hierissus, and in conformity with ancient law and usage its bishop claimed jurisdiction over the monks of the little peninsula. In 885 Emperor Basil the Macedonian emancipated them from the jurisdiction of the monastery of St. Colobos near Hierissus, and allotted to them Mount Athos as their property. Soon after, the oldest of the principal monasteries, Xiropotamos, was built and adopted the rule of St. Basil. Saracen pirates disturbed the monks in the ninth and tenth centuries, but imperial generosity always came to the aid of this domestic “holy land” of the Greeks. About 960 a far-reaching reform was introduced by the Anatolian monk Athanasius of Trebizond, later known as Athonites. With several companions from Asia Minor he founded by the seashore the monastery since known as Laura, where he raised the monastic life to a high degree of perfection. Eventually the new settlement was accepted as a model. With the help of the imperial authority of John Tzimisces (969–976) all opposition was set aside and the cenobitic or community life imposed on the hermits scattered in the valleys and forests. Athanasius was made abbot general or superior (Protos) of the fifty-eight monastic communities then on the mountain. From this period date the monasteries known as Iviron (Iberians), Vatopedi, and Esphigmenon. At this time, also, there arose a cause of internal conflict that has never been removed. Hitherto only one nationality, the Greek, was represented among the monks. Henceforth, Slavic faith and generosity, and later on Slavic interests, had to be considered. The newly converted Slavs sought and obtained admission into the recently opened monasteries; before long their princes in the Balkan Peninsula began to found independent houses for Slavic monks. In this way arose during the reign of Alexius I (1081–1118) the strictly Slavic monasteries of Chilandarion and Zographu. The Byzantine emperors never ceased to manifest their interest in the little monastic republic and even profited politically by the universal esteem that the religious brotherhood enjoyed throughout the Christian world.

With the aid of the Patriarch of Constantinople, in 1046, Constantine Monomachos regulated the domestic government of the monastery the administration of their temporal possessions, and their commercial activity. By the imperial document (typicon) which he issued, women are forbidden the peninsula, a prohibition so strictly observed since that time that even the Turkish aga, or official, who resides at Karyaes (Cariez) may not take his harem with him. About the year 1100 the monasteries of Mount Athos were 180 in number, and sheltered 700 monks, with their dependents. At this time there came into general use the term Hagion Oros (Holy Mountain, hagion oros, Monte Santo). Alexius I granted the monasteries immunity from taxation, freed them from all subjection to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and placed them under his immediate protection. They still depended, however, on the neighboring Bishop of Hierissus for the ordination of their priests and deacons. Alexius also chose to be buried on the Holy Mountain among the brethren (1118). A century later, after the capture of Constantinople (1204), the Latin Crusaders abused the monks, who thereupon appealed to Innocent III; he took them under his protection and in his letters (xiii, 40; xvi, 168) paid a tribute to their monastic virtues. However, with the restoration of Greek political supremacy the monks returned (1313) to their old allegiance to Constantinople.

In the fourteenth century a pseudo-spiritualism akin to that of the ancient Euchites or Messalians, culminating in the famous Hesychast controversies (see HESYCHASM; PALAMAS), greatly disturbed the mutual harmony of Greek monasteries, especially those of Mount Athos, one of whose monks, Callistus, had become Patriarch of Constantinople (1350–54) and in that office exhibited great severity towards the opponents of Hesychasm. Racial and national discord between the Greeks and the Servians added fuel to the flames, and for a while the monks were again subjected to the immediate supervision of the Bishop of Hierissus. In the meantime the Palaeologi emperors at Constantinople and the Slav princes and nobles of the Balkan Peninsula continued to enrich the monasteries of Mount Athos, which received the greater part of their landed wealth during this period. Occasionally a Byzantine emperor took refuge among the monks in the hope of forgetting the cares and responsibilities of his office. Amid the political disasters of the Greeks, during the fourteenth century, Mount Athos appears as a kind of Holy Land, a retreat for many men eminent in Church and State, and a place where the spirit of Greek patriotism was cherished when threatened elsewhere faith ruin (Krumbacher, 1058–59). This period was also marked by the attempts of the monastery of Karyaes to secure a pre-eminence over the others, the final exclusion of the Bishop of Hierissus from the peninsula, fresh attacks from freebooters of all kinds, and the foundation of several new monasteries: Simopetra, Castamonitu, St. Paul and St. Dionysius. The Fall of Constantinople (1453) brought no modification of the conditions on the Holy Mountain. The monks, who had stubbornly opposed all attempts at reunion with the Apostolic See, submitted at once to the domination of the Osmanli, and, with rare exceptions, have never been interfered with by the Turkish authorities. The hospodars of Wallachia remained as ever their friends and benefactors. Though the monks sympathized with the Greeks in the War of Independence (1822–30), their estates on the Greek mainland were secularized by Capo d’Istria and a similar fate has overtaken their properties in the Danubian principal cities. They still hold numerous farms and properties in certain islands of the Archipelago and on the mainland (Kaulen in Kirchenlex., I, 1557–59; Bayet in Grande Encycl., s. v. Athos).

CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT

This monastic republic is governed by an assembly of 20 members one representative from each of the 20 principal monasteries; from among these is elected annually, and in due rotation, a committee of 4 presidents. The great seal of the united monasteries is in four pieces and is divided among the members of this committee. One of the members is chosen as chairman, or Protos. Meetings of the assembly are held weekly (Saturday), at Karyaes, and the assembly acts as a supreme parliament and tribunal, with appeal, however, to the patriarch at Constantinople.

The Turkish Government is represented by an agent at Karyaes, the diminutive capital of the peninsula and the landing-place for visitors. A detachment of Christian soldiers is usually stationed there, and no one may land without permission of the monastic authorities. The monks have also an agent at Saloniki and another at Constantinople. Almost the only source of contention among them is the rivalry between the Greeks, inheritors of old traditions and customs, and the Russians of the great monastery of Rossicon (St. Anna), representative of the wealth, power, and interests of their church and country, and generously supported from St. Petersburg. In its present form the constitution of the monasteries dates from 1783.

MONASTIC LIFE

Each of the twenty great monasteries (twenty-one, including Karyaes) possesses its own large church and numerous chapels within and without its enclosure, which is strongly fortified, recalling the feudal burgs of the Middle Ages. The high walls and strong towers are reminders of the troubled times of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries when corsairs abounded and self-defense was imperative. All of the great monasteries are on the Holy Mountain proper, and are most picturesquely situated from sea to summit, amid dense masses of oak, pine, and chestnut, or on inaccessible crags. To each of these monasteries is attached a certain number of minor monasteries (sketai, asceteria), small monastic settlements (kathismata), and hermitages (kellia, cellae). Every monastic habitation must be affiliated to one or the other of the great monasteries and is subject to its direction or supervision. All monasteries are dedicated to the Mother of God, the larger ones under some specially significant title. The ancient Greek Rule of St. Basil is still followed by all.

In the observance of the Rule, however, the greater monasteries are divided into two classes, some following strictly the cenobitic life, while others permit a larger personal freedom. The latter are called “idiorhythmic”; in them the monks have a right of personal ownership and a certain share in the government of the monastery (Council of Elders); they take their meals apart, and are subject to less severe regulations. In the former, known as “cenobitic” (koinobion, coenobium, common life), there is a greater monastic rigor. The superior, or hegoumenos, has absolute authority, and all property is held in common. The chief occupation of the monks is that of solemn public prayer, by night and by day, i.e. recitation of the Divine Office, corresponding to the solemn choir-service of the Latin Church. (See GREEK RITE, BREVIARY, PSALMODY.) This leaves little time for agricultural, industrial, or intellectual labor. Some fish, or practice minor industries in aid of the common support, or administer the monastic estates located elsewhere; others go abroad occasionally to collect a part of the yearly tribute (about two dollars and a half) that each monk must pay to the Turkish Government. A portion of this is collected from the monks themselves; the rest is secured by the revenue of their farms or other possessions, and by contributions from affiliated monasteries in the Balkan Peninsula, Georgia, and Russia. The generosity of the Greek faithful is also a source of revenue, for Mount Athos is one of the most sacred pilgrimage sites of the entire Greek Church, and the feasts of the principal monasteries are always celebrated with great pomp. It may be added that the monks practice faithfully the monastic virtue of hospitality. The usual name for the individual monk here, as elsewhere in the Greek Orient, is Kalogeros (good old man). In their dress the monks do not differ from other communities of Greek Basilians.

ARCHITECTURE AND THE ARTS

Most of the buildings of Mount Athos are comparatively modern. Yet, because of the well-known conservative character of the monks, these edifices represent with much fidelity the Byzantine architecture, civil and religious, of the tenth to the fourteenth century. The churches are very richly adorned with columns and pavements of marble, frescoed walls and cupolas, decorated screens, etc.; there are not many mosaics. Some of the smaller oratories are said to be the oldest extant specimens of private architecture in the West, apart from the houses of Pompeii. The ecclesiastical art of the Greek Orient is richly represented here, with all its religious respect, though also with all its immobile conservatism and its stern refusal to interpret individual feeling in any other forms than those made sacred by a long line of almost nameless monastic painters like Panselinos and confided by his disciples to the famous “Painters’ Book of Mount Athos” (see Didron, Manuel d’iconographie chrétienne, Paris, 1858). Though there is not in the 935 churches of the peninsula any art-work older than the sixteenth century (Bayet) their frescoes, small paintings on boards, gilt and jeweled metal work, represent with almost unswerving accuracy the principles, spirit, and details of medieval Byzantine art as applied to religious uses.

LIBRARIES

Each monastery possesses its own library, and the combined treasures make up a unique collection of ancient manuscripts (Montfaucon, Palaeographia Graeca, Paris, 1748, 441 sqq.). By far the richest in this respect is the Russian monastery of Saint Anna (Rossicon). Some of the more valuable classical Greek manuscripts have been purchased or otherwise secured by travelers (Neumann, “Serapeum,” X, 252; Duchesne, “Mémoire sur une mission au Mont Athos,” Paris, 1876; Lambros, “Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos,” Cambridge, 1895, 1900). It was in this way that the text of Ptolemy first reached the West. Similarly, the oldest manuscript of the second-century Christian text known as “The Shepherd of Hermas” came from Mount Athos. The manuscripts now in possession of the monks have chiefly an ecclesiastical value; their number is said to be about 8,000. There are also in the library and archives of each monastery a great many documents (donations, privileges, charters) in Greek, Georgian, and Old-Slavonic, beginning with the ninth century, some of which are important for the historian of Byzantine law and of the medieval Greek Church (Miklosich and Müller, Zachariä von Linenthal, Uspenskij). The monks of Mount Athos are somewhat indifferent towards these treasures; nothing has been done to make them accessible, except the unsuccessful attempt of Archbishop Bulgaris of Corfu to found at Mount Athos, towards the close of the eighteenth century, a school of the classical languages. The monasteries conduct a few elementary schools for the teaching of reading and writing; nowhere, perhaps, is the intellectual stagnation of the Greek Schism more noticeable. The monks are chiefly devoted to the splendor of their religious services; the solitaries still cherish Hesychast ideas and an apocalyptic mysticism, and the whole monastic republic represents just such an intellectual decay as must follow on a total exclusion of all outside intercourse and a complete neglect of all intellectual effort (Kaulen).

ATHELSTAN RILEY, Athos, the Mountain of the Monks (London, 1887); CURZON, Monasteries of the Levant (6th ed., London, 1881), LANGLOIS, Le Mont Athos et ses monastères (Paris, 1867); DE VOGÜÉ, Syrie, Palestine et Mont Athos (Paris, 1878), NEYRAC, L’Athos (Paris, 1880); KAULEN in Kirchenlex., I, 1555–63; MEYER in Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. (1890), XI, 395–435; KRUMBACHER, Gesch. der byzant Litt. (2nd ed., Munich, 1867), 511–515, 1058–59, SCEMIDTKE, Das Klosterland des Athos (1903); among older works, FALLMERAYER, Fragments aus dem Orient (2d ed., Stuttgart, 1877). For the art-treasures of Mount Athos see BROCKHAUS, Die Kunst in den Athos-Klötern (Leipzig, 1891); and for photographs of the principal sites, besides the above quoted works, Vom Fels zum Meer (1892), 19–20.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Juan de Atienza

Born at Tordehumos, near Valladolid, in Spain, in the year 1546, eldest son of the royal Councillor of Castile, Bartolome de Atienza, a very distinguished Jurisconsult under Charles V. He studied law in the celebrated University of Salamanca, but in 1564 forsook the legal career in order to become a Jesuit. While in Spain, he already occupied distinguished positions. He was Prefect of the College of Avila, Procurator of the Province of his order, founder of the College of Villa Garcia, its rector and master of novices, and rector of the College of Valladolid. While thus honourably placed in his mother country, he became informed of a call for fifty Jesuits, to be sent to Peru in the interests of religion and of the Indians. Father Atienza at once asked perrnissiom to become one of their number. He reached Lima in 1581 and found there his appointment as rector of the College of San Pablo. In that capacity he was surrogate to the Provincial, Father Baltasar de Piñas, and founded, under the direction of the Company of Jesus, the College of San Martin, the first school of secular learning established at Lima. The foundation of that school was confirmed by Pope Sixtus V, in 1585, and Father Atienza became its first rector. In 1580 he was made Provincial of the Jesuits in Peru. He at once began to foster and extend the missions in Ecuador, the Gran Chaco, Tucuman and Paraguay. Out of these efforts the province of Paraguay was born in 1607. During that period a printing press was established by the Jesuits at the Indian village of Juli. Jointly with Father Jose de Acosta he directed the publication of catechisms and textbooks of Christian doctrine for the use of the Indians. These religious “primers” were printed between the years 1583 and 1590, at Lima. They are in Spanish, Quichua, and Aymará.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

James Atkinson

Catholic confessor, tortured to death in Bridewell prison in 1595. His pathetic and romantic story tells us nothing of his early life, but he is found in the Bridewell prison, one of the worst in London, and delivered over to Topcliffe, the notorious priest-hunter, who was trying to wring out from him, by torture, evidence on which he might accuse his master, Mr. Robert Barnes, who then held Mapledurham House, of having entertained priests, and in particular the future martyr, Venerable John Jones, O.S.F. Yielding to torment, Atkinson accused his master of having done so, but shortly after repented, and was lost in despair, knowing on the one hand that Topcliffe would torture him again, perhaps unto death, and on the other fearing that no priest could possibly come to confess and absolve him before his conflict. Unknown to him, however, a Jesuit Father happened to be in the same prison. This was Father William Baldwin (or Bawden), a man who afterwards filled important positions in his order. He had been arrested on suspicion while on shipboard, and had assumed the part of an Italian merchant unacquainted with the English language, and with such success that he was on the point of being exchanged for an English officer who had been captured by the Spaniards on board the Dainty. Atkinson’s despair put Father Baldwin into a quandary. It was evident that he was at best a weakling, perhaps a traitor in disguise. To speak to such a one in English, and much more to own to him that he was a priest, would be to endanger his life. So he tried to comfort him, at first through a fellow-prisoner who knew Latin, and finally offered to bring him a priest. The poor sufferer’s joy was so great that the missionary ventured to creep to his bedside that night and tell him that he was a priest. Then Atkinson held back, either out of suspicion or because, as he said, he was not prepared. Father Baldwin’s fears were reawakened, but next night the penitent made his confession with evident contrition, was soon again tortured, and died under or shortly after the torment. Atkinson’s cause has been proposed for Beatification, but evidence for his final perseverance, though very necessary, is naturally hard to find.

CHALLONER, Missionary Priests (1864), II, 189; DODD Church History (TIERNEY ed.), III, ap. 204; FOLEY, Records S. J., III, 503; RECORD OFFICE, Treasurer of the Chamber’s accounts for 1594, roll 196b.

J.H. POLLEN

Nicholas Atkinson

Priest and martyr, probably to be identified with Venerable Thomas Atkinson. Dodd, who mentions Nicholas’s death as having taken place at York in 1610, does not mention Thomas at all; yet all the facts which he relates of the one are certainly true of the other, while there is no corroboration for Dodd’s date of Nicholas’s martyrdom. It seems probable, however, there was an old Marian priest named Nicholas, or “Ninny,” Atkinson (Gillow, 85).

J.H. POLLEN

Paul Atkinson of St. Francis

One of the notable confessors of the English Church during the age which succeeded the persecution of blood. Having been condemned to perpetual imprisonment for his priesthood, about the year 1699, he died in confinement after having borne its pain more than thirty years. He was of a Yorkshire family and was called Mathew in baptism. He joined the English Franciscan convent at Douai in 1673, and had served with distinction on the English mission for twelve years, when he was betrayed by a maidservant for the 100 pound reward. One governor of his prison, Hurst Castle on the Solent, allowed him to walk outside the prison wall; but complaint was made of this and the leave was revoked.

J.H. POLLEN

Sarah Atkinson

Philanthropist and biographer, born at Athlone, Ireland, 13 October, 1823; died Dublin 8 July 1893. She was the eldest daughter of John and Anne Gaynor, who lived on the western bank of the Shannon, in that part of Athlone which is in the County Roscommon. At the age of fifteen, she removed with her family to Dublin, where her education was completed. At twenty-five, she married Dr. George Atkinson, part proprietor of the “Freeman’s Journal.” The loss of her only child in his fourth year so deeply affected Mrs. Atkinson that she resolved to spend the rest of her life in charitable and other good works. With her friend, Mrs. Ellen Woodlock, she interested herself in the female paupers of the South Dublin Union, and opened a home to which many were transferred and were made useful members of Society. Her house in Drumcondra soon became the rendezvous for the charitably disposed. It was even more a literary salon. Here she prepared her life of Mary Aikenhead which Mr. W.E.H. Lecky has warmly commended, and here she wrote her many valuable essays. For many years she translated into English the French “Annals of the Propagation of the Faith.” Much of her time was devoted to visiting the hospitals and poor people at their homes, and to other beneficent purposes. To her is largely due the success of the Childrens’ Hospital, Temple Street, Dublin. The management of the Sodality of the Children of Mary attached to the Church of St. Francis Xavier, was one of her particular pleasures. To the Hospice for the Dying, at Harold’s Cross, she was a constant benefactress. Even her writings were made to serve the great objects of her life. In Duffy’s “Hibernian Magazine,” 1860–64, “The Month,” 1864–65, “The Nation” 1869–70, the “Freeman’s Journal,” 1871, and in the “Irish Monthly” after its inception are to be found many important essays by her, chiefly biographical and historical. Some of her earliest and longest essays appeared in the “Irish Quarterly Review,” the best of them are included in her volume of “Essays” (Dublin, 1895). Her “Life of Mary Aikenhead,” modestly published with her initial only, appeared in 1879, and is one of the best Catholic biographies in English. Her “Essays” include complete and learned dissertations on such divergent subjects as “St. Fursey’s Life and Visions,” “The Geraldines,” “The Dittamondo,” “Devorgilla,” “Eugene O’Curry,” “Irish Wool and Woolens,” “St. Bridget,” and excellent biographies of the Sculptors John Henry Foley and John Hogan, the best accounts yet written of those great artists. Indeed most of these essays are the best studies we have on the various subjects. Her “Citizen Saint” (St. Catherine of Siena) occupies a hundred pages, and is a most able summary.

D.J. O’DONOGHUE

Ven. Thomas Atkinson

Martyred at York, 11 March, 1616. He was born in the East Riding of Yorkshire, was ordained priest at Reims, and returned to his native country in 1588. We are told that he was unwearied in visiting his flock especially the poor, and became so well known that he could not safely travel by day. He always went afoot until, having broken his leg, he had to ride a horse. At the age of seventy he was betrayed, and carried to York with his host, Mr. Vavasour of Willitoft, and some members of the family. A pair of beads, and the form of an indulgence were found upon him, and he was condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. He suffered “with wonderful patience, courage, and constancy, and signs of great comfort.”

PATRICK RYAN

Atom

(Gr. a privative, and temno, cut; indivisible). Primarily, the smallest particle of matter which can exist; the ultimate and smallest division of matter, in physics, sometimes the smallest particle to which a substance can theoretically be reduced; in chemistry, the smallest particle of matter that can exist in combination with other atoms building up or constituting molecules. Two opposite doctrines of the constitution of matter were held by the ancient philosophers. One was that matter was infinitely divisible without losing its distinctive and individual properties. This is the doctrine of continuity or homoeomery. Anaxagoras is given as the founder of this view of the constitution of things. According to it any substance, such as wood or water, can by no process of subdivision, however far it might be carried, be made to be anything but a mass of wood or water. Infinite subdivision would not reach its limit of divisibility. Democritus and others held that there were ultimate particles of matter which were indivisible, and these were called atoms. This is the doctrine of atomacity, upheld by Epicurus, and enlarged on by Lucretius in his “De Rerum Natura.” The early atomists held that the atoms were not in contact, but that voids existed between them, claiming that otherwise motion would be impossible. Among the moderns, Descartes and Spinoza adhered to continuity. Leibniz upheld atomicity, and Boscovich went to the last extreme of the theory, and defined atoms as centres of force denying them the attribute of impenetrability.

MOLECULE AND ATOM

Modern science holds that matter is not infinitely divisible, that there is an ultimate particle of every substance. If this particle is broken up that particular form of matter will be destroyed. This particle is the molecule. It is composed of another division of matter called the atom. Generally, probably always, a molecule consists of several atoms. The atoms unite to form molecules and cannot exist except as constituents of molecules. If a molecule of any substance were broken up, the substance would cease to exist and its constituent atoms would go to form or to enter into some other molecule or molecules. There is a tendency to consider the molecule of modern science as identical with the atom of the old philosophers but the modern atomic theory has given the molecule a different status from that of the old-time atom. Atom, as used in natural science, has a specific meaning based upon the theory of chemistry. This meaning is modified by recent work in the field of radioactivity, but the following will serve as a definition. It is the smallest partlcle of an element which can exist in a compound. An atom cannot exist alone as such. Atoms combine with each other to form molecules. The molecule is the smallest particle of matter which can exist without losing its distinctive properties. It corresponds pretty closely to the old Epicurean atom. The modern atom is an entirely new conception. Chemistry teaches that the thousands of forms of matter upon the earth, almost infinite in variety, can be resolved into eighty substances, unalterable by chemical processes and possessing definite spectra. These, substances are called elements. The metals, iron, gold, silver and others, sulphur, and carbon are familiar example of elements. A mass of an element is made up of a collection of molecules. Each molecule of an element as a rule is composed of two atoms. Elements combine to form compound substances of various numbers of atoms in the molecule. Water is an example of a compound substance, or chemical compound. Its molecule contains three atoms, two atoms of hydrogen, and one atom of oxygen. If a quantity of these two elements were mixed, the result would be a mechanical mixture of the molecules of the two. But if heat, or some other adequate cause were made to act, chemical action would follow and the molecules, splitting up, would combine atom with atom. Part of a molecule of oxygen—one atom—would combine with part of two atoms of hydrogen—two atoms. The result would be the production of a quantity of molecules of water. Each water molecule contains one atom of oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen. The splitting-up of the elemental molecules into atoms is synchronous with their combining into molecules, so that an atom never exists alone. The molecules of the elements, oxygen and hydrogen, have disappeared, and in their places are molecules of water. There are about eighty kinds of atoms known, one kind for each element, and out of these the material world is made.

INVARIABILITY OF COMPOSITION

The invariability of composition by weight of chemical compounds is a fundamental law of chemistry. Thus water under all circumstances consists of 88.88% of oxygen and 11.11% of hydrogen. This establishes a relation between the weights of the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen in the water molecule, which is 1:8. Oxygen and hydrogen are gaseous under ordinary conditions. If water is decomposed, and the vases collected and measured, there will always be two volumes of hydrogen to one of oxygen. This illustrates another fundamental law—the invariability of composition by gaseous volume of chemical compounds. From the composition by volume of water its molecule is taken as composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, on the assumption that in a given volume of any gas there is the same number of molecules. As there are two atoms in the molecules of both of these elements, the above may be put in a more popular way thus: the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen occupy the same space. The ratio spoken of above of 1:8, is therefore the ratio of two atoms of hydrogen to one of oxygen. It follows that the ratio of one atom of hydrogen to one atom of oxygen is 1:16. The numbers 1 and 16 thus determined, are the atomic weights of hydrogen and oxygen respectively. Strictly speaking they are not weights at all only numbers expressing the relation of weight. Atomic weights are determined for all the elements, based on several considerations, such as those outlined for the atoms of oxygen and hydrogen. Thus the term atom indicates not only the constituents of molecules but has a quantitative meaning, the proportional part of the element which enters into compounds. The sum of the weights of the atoms in a molecule is the molecular weight of the substance. Thus the molecular weight of water is the sum of the weights of two hydrogen atoms, which is two, and of one oxygen atom, which is sixteen, a total of eighteen. If we divide the molecular weight of a compound into atomic weight of the atoms of any element in its molecule, it will give the proportion of the element in the compound. Taking water again, if we divide the molecular weight, 18, into the weight of the atoms of hydrogen in its molecule, 2, we obtain the fraction 2/18, which express the proportion of hydrogen in water. The same process gives the proportion of oxygen in water as 16/18.

Every element has its own atomic weight, and the invariability of the chemical composition by weight is explained by the invariability of the atomic weights of the elements. Tables of the atomic weights of the elements are given in all chemical text-books. The relations of the atomic weights to each other are several. The atom of lowest weight is the hydrogen atom. It is usually taken as one, which is very nearly its exact value if oxygen is taken as sixteen. On this basis one quarter of the other elements will have atomic weights that are whole numbers. This indicates a remarkable simplicity of relationship of weights, which is carried out by the close approach of the rest of the elements to the same condition, as regards their atomic weights. The range of the atomic weights is a narrow one. That of hydrogen is 1.008—that of uranium 238.5. The latter is the heaviest of all. Between these all the other atomic weights lie. Many of the elements resemble each other in their chemical relations. It might appear that those nearest to each other in atomic weight should be of similar properties. This is not the case. If the elements are written down in the order of their atomic weights, beginning with the lightest and ending with the heaviest, it will be found that the position of an element in the series will indicate pretty clearly its properties. The elements will be found to be so arranged in the list that any element will be related as regards its chemical properties to the element eight places removed from it. This relationship may be thus expressed: the properties of an element are a periodic function of its atomic weight.

MENDELÉEFF’S TABLE

This relation is called Mendeléeff’s Law, from one of two chemists who independently developed it. The elements may, as before said, be written down in the order of their atomic weights, but in eight vertical columns. Along the top line the eight elements of lightest atomic weights are written in the order of their weights, followed on the second line by the next eight, also in the order of their atomic weights. This arrangement, obviously, when carried out brings the elements eight atomic weights apart, into vertical columns. It will be found that all the elements in any vertical column are of similar chemical properties. When Mendeléeff made out his table it was supposed that several elements were as yet undiscovered. The table also brought out clearly certain numerical relations of the atomic weights. These together with other factors caused him to leave blank spaces in his table, which none of the known elements could fill. For these places hypothetical elements were assumed, whose general properties and atomic weights were stated by him. One by one these elements have been discovered, so that Mendeléeff’s Law predicted the existence of elements later to be discovered. These discoveries of predicted elements constitute one of the greatest triumphs of chemical science. Up to within a very recent period the atom was treated as the smallest division of matter, although the possibility of the transmutation of the elements in some way, or in some degree, has long been considered a possibility. It was conjectured that all the elements might be composed of some one substance, for which a name, protyle, meaning first material, was coined. This seemed to conflict with the accepted definition of the atom, as protyle indicated something anterior to or preceding it. The idea rested in abeyance, as there was little ground for building up a theory to include it. Recent discoveries have resuscitated this never quite abandoned theory; protyle seems to have been discovered, and the atom has ceased to hold its place as the ultimate division of matter.

CORPUSCULES

The most recent theory holds that the atom is composite, and is built up of still minuter particles, called corpuscules. As far as the ordinary processes of chemistry are concerned the atom remains as it was. But investigations in the field of radioactivity, largely physical and partly chemical, go to prove that the atom, built up of corpuscules as said above, depends for its atomic weight upon the number of corpuscules in it, and these corpuscules are all identical in nature. In these corpuscules we have the one first material, or protyle. It follows that the only difference between atoms of different elements is in the number corpuscules they contain. Any process which would change the number of corpuscules in the atoms of an element would change the element into another one, thus carrying out the transmutation of elements. So far one transmutation is accepted as effected experiments in radioactivity go to prove that some elements, notably radium project particles of in conceivable minuteness into space. These particles have sometimes one-half the velocity of light. They are called corpuscules. The corpuscule is sometimes defined as a particle of negative electricity, which, in the existing state of electrical knowledge, is a very imperfect definition. They are all negatively electrified, and therefore repel each other. The condition of equilibrium of groups of such particles, if held near to each other by another external force has been investigated by Prof. J.J. Thomson, and his investigations establish a basis for a theory on the constitution of atoms. Thus, assume an atom to consist of a number of corpuscules, not touching each other, negatively electrified so that they repel one another, and held within the limits of the atom by what may be termed a shell of attractive force. Professor Thomson shown that such particles, under the conditions outlined above, arrange themselves into groups of various arrangement, the latter depending on their number. If the number of particles in a group be progressively increased, a periodic recurrence of the groupings will occur. Assume a group of five particles. These will form a group of definite shape. If more particles are added to the group, the first additions will cause the five group to disappear, other groups taking the place, until the number reaches fifteen, when the original grouping of five will reappear, surrounded by the other ten particles. On adding more particles, the five and ten group disappear, to be succeeded by others, until the number of thirty is reached. At this point the original five group and the ten group reappear, with a new group of fifteen. The same recurrence of groupings takes place with forty-seven and sixty seven particles. This gives the outlines of an explanation of the periodic law. If any number of particles be taken they will show groupings, characteristic of the number, and subject to periodical reappearance of groupings is exactly comparable to the phenomena of the periodic law. It is the reappearance of the similar properties at periodic intervals. The corpucular theory also accounts for the variation of the elements in atomic weight. Corpuscules are supposed to be all like, so that the weight of an atom would depend on how many corpuscules were require to form it. Thus an atom of oxygen would contain sixteen times as many corpuscules as would an atom of hydrogen, weighing only one-sixteenth as much. The weight of an atom of hydrogen has been approximately calculated as expressed by the decimal, 34 preceded by thirteen ciphers, of a gram. This means that thirty-four thousand millions of millions of atoms of hydrogen would weigh in the aggregate one gram. These calculations are based on determination of the electric charge of corpuscules. Corpuscles are calculated as being one-thousandth of the mass of an atom of hydrogen. Professor Oliver Lodge gives the following comparison: if a church of ordinary size represent an atom, a thousand grains of sand dashing about its interior with enormous velocity would represent its constituent corpuscules. When atoms unite to form molecules, they are said to saturate each other. Elements vary in the saturating power of their atoms. The saturating power is called atomicity or valency. Some elements have a valency of one, and are termed monads. A monad can saturate a monad. Others are termed dyads, have a valency of two, two monads being required to saturate one dyad, while one dyad can saturate another dyad. Valencies run on through triads, tetrads, pentads, hexads, heptads, and octads, designating valencies of three, four, five, six, seven, and eight respectively.

T. O’CONOR SLOANE

Atomism

Atomism [a privative and temnein to cut, i. e. indivisible] is the system of those who hold that all bodies are composed of minute, indivisible particles of matter called atoms. We must distinguish between

atomism as a philosophy and

atomism as a theory of science.

Atomism as a philosophy originated with Leucippus. Democritus (b. 460 B.C.), his disciple, generally considered the father of atomism, as practically nothing is known of Leucippus. The theory of Democritus may be summed up in the following propositions:

All bodies are composed of atoms and spaces between the atoms.

Atoms are eternal, indivisible, infinite in number, and homogeneous in nature; all differences in bodies are due to a difference in the size, shape or location of the atoms.

There is no purpose or design in nature, and in this sense all is ruled by chance.

All activity is reduced to local motion.

The formation of the universe is due to the fact that the larger atoms fall faster, and by striking against the smaller ones combine with them; thus the whole universe is the result of the fortuitous concourse of atoms. Countless worlds are formed simultaneously and successively. Epicurus (342–270 B. C.) adopted the theory of Democritus, but corrected the blunder, pointed out by Aristotle, that larger atoms fall faster than smaller ones in vacuo. He substituted a power in the atoms to decline a little from the line of fall. Atomism is defended by Lucretius Carus (95–51 B.C. ) in his poem, “De Rerum Naturâ.” With the exception of a few alchemists in the Middle Ages, we find no representatives of atomism until Gassendi (1592–1655) renewed the atomism of Epicurus. Gassendi tried to harmonize atomism with Christian teaching by postulating atoms finite in number and created by God. With the application of atomism to the sciences, philosophic atomism also revived, and became for a time the most popular philosophy. Present-day philosophic atomic regards matter as homogeneous and explains all physical and chemical properties of bodies by a difference in mass of matter and local motion. The atom itself is inert and devoid of all activity. The molecule, taken over from the sciences, is but an edifice of unchangeable atoms. Philosophic atomism stands entirely on the basis of materialism, and, though it invokes the necessary laws of matter, its exclusion of final causes makes it in the last analysis a philosophy of chance. The atomic theory was first applied to chemistry by Dalton (1808), but with him it meant little more than an expression of proportions in chemical composition. The theory supplied a simple explanation of the facts observed before him: that elements combine in definite and multiple proportions. The discovery in the same year by Gay-Lussac of the law that gases under the same pressure and temperature have equal volumes was at the same time a confirmation and an aid in determining atomic weights. Avogadro’s law (1811) that gases under the same conditions of pressure and temperature have an equal number of molecules, and the law of Petit and Dulong that the product of the specific heat and atomic weight of an element gives a constant number were further confirmations and aids. The atomic theory was soon applied to physics, and is today the basis of most of the sciences. Its main outlines are: Matter is not continuous but atomically constituted. An atom is the smallest particle of matter that can enter a chemical reaction. Atoms of like nature constitute elements, those of unlike nature constitute compounds. The elements known today are about 76 in number and differ from one another in weight and physical and chemical properties. Atoms combine to form molecules, which are the smallest quantities of matter that can exist in a free state, whether of an element or a compound. Some believe that the atom retains its individuality in the molecule, whilst others consider the molecule homogeneous throughout. The theoretic formulas of structure of Frankland suppose them to remain. The spaces between the atoms are filled with an imponderable matter called ether. Upon the nature of ether the greatest differences of opinion exist. The adoption by scientists of Maxwell’s theory of light seems to render the ether-hypothesis with its many contradictions superfluous. At all events it is quite independent of the atomic theory.

The results obtained by the Hungarian Lenard, the English physicist J.J. Thomson, and many others, by means of electric discharges in ratified gases, the discovery of Hertzian waves a better understanding of electrolysis and the discovery of radium by Madame Curie have made necessary a modification of the atomic theory of matter. The atom, hitherto considered solid and indivisible, is now believed to break up into ions or electrons. This new theory, however, must not be considered as opposed to the atomic theory; it comes rather as an extension of it. In chemistry, the principal field of the atomic theory, the atom will still remain as the chemically indivisible unit. The hypothesis of subatoms is, moreover, not entirely new; it was proposed by Spencer as early as 1872 (“Contemporary Rev.,” June, 1872) and defended by Crookes in 1886.

The physico-chemical theory of atomism, though is not a demonstrated truth, offers a satisfactory explanation of a great number of phenomena, and will, no doubt, remain essentially the same, no matter how it may be modified in its details. In chemistry, it does not stop arbitrarily in the division of matter, but stops at chemical division. If another science demands further division, or if philosophy must postulate a division of the atom into essential principles, that is not the concern of chemistry. Science has no interest in defending the indivisible atom of Democritus.

Scholastic philosophy finds nothing in the scientific theory of atomism which it cannot harmonize with its principles, though it must reject the mechanical explanation, often proposed in the name of science, which looks upon the atom as an absolutely inert mass, devoid of all activities and properties. Schlolastic philosophers find in the different physical and chemical properties of the elements an indication of specificlly different natures. Chemical changes are for them substantial changes, and chemical formulas indicate the mode in which the elements react on one another in the production of the compound. They are not a representation of the molecular edifice built up of unchangeable atoms. Some would accept even this latter view and admit that there are no substantial changes in inanimate nature (Gutberlet). This view can also be harmonized more easily with the facts of stereo-chemistry. As regards the phenomena observed in radlo-activity, a generalization, either in the materialistic sense, that all matter is homogeneous, or in the scholastic sense, that all elements can be changed into one another, is in the present state of science premature.

EDMUND J. WIRTH.

Day of Atonement

(Hebrew Yom Hakkippurim. Vulgate, Dies Expiationum, and Dies Propitiationis—Leviticus 23:27–28)

The rites to be observed on the Day of Atonement are fully set forth in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus (cf. Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 23:27–31, 25:9; Numbers 29:7–11). It was a most solemn fast, on which no food could be taken throughout the whole the day, and servile works were forbidden. It was kept on nineteenth day of Tischri, which falls in September/October. The sacrifices included a calf, a ram, and seven lambs (Numbers 29:8–11). But the distinctive ceremony of the day was the offering of the two goats.

He (Aaron) shall make the two buck-goats to stand before Lord, in the door of the tabernacle of the testimony: and casting lots upon them both, one to be offered to the Lord and the other to be the emissary-goat: That whose lot fell to be offered to the Lord, he shall offer for sin: But that whose lot was to be the emissary goat he shall present alive before the Lord, that he may pour out prayers upon him, and let him go into the wilderness . . . After he hath cleansed the sanctuary, and the tabernacle, and the altar, let him offer the living goat: And putting both hands upon his head, let him confess all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their offences and sins, and praying that they may light on his head, he shall turn him out by a man ready for it, into the desert. And when the goat hath carried all their iniquities into an uninhabited land, and shall be let go into the desert, Aaron shall return into the tabernacle of the testimony. (Leviticus 16:7–10, 20–23).

The general meaning of the ceremony is sufficiently shown in the text. But the details present some difficulty. The Vulgate caper emissarius, “emissary goat,” represents the obscure Hebrew word Azazel, which occurs nowhere else in the Bible. Various attempts have been made to interpret its meaning. Some have taken it for the name of a place where the man who took the goat away used to throw it over a precipice, since its return was thought to forbode evil. Others, with better reason, take it for the name of an evil spirit; and in fact a spirit of this name is mentioned in the Apocryphal , and later in Jewish literature. On this interpretation-which, though by no means new, finds favour with modern critics-the idea of the ceremony would seem to be that the sins were sent back to the evil spirit to whose influence they owed their origin. It has been noted that somewhat similar rites of expiation have prevailed among heathen nations. And modern critics, who refer the above passages to the Priestly Code, and to a post-Exilic date, are disposed to regard the sending of the goat to Azazel as an adaptation of a pre-existing ceremonial. The significant ceremony observed on this solemn Day of Atonement does but give a greater prominence to that need of satisfaction and expiation which was present in all the ordinary sin-offerings. All these sacrifices for sin, as we learn from the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, were figures of the great Sacrifice to come. In like manner these Jewish rites of atonement speak to us of the Cross of Christ, and of the propitiatory Sacrifice which is daily renewed in a bloodless manner on the Eucharistic Altar. For this reason it may be of interest to note, with Provost Maltzew, that the Jewish prayers used on the Day of Atonement foreshadow the common commemoration of the saints and the faithful departed in our liturgies (Die Liturgien der orthodox-katholischen Kirche des Morgenlandes, 252).

W.H. KENT

Doctrine of the Atonement

The word atonement, which is almost the only theological term of English origin, has a curious history. The verb “atone,” from the adverbial phrase “at one” (M.E. at oon), at first meant to reconcile, or make “at one”; from this it came to denote the action by which such reconciliation was effected, e. g. satisfaction for all offense or an injury. Hence, in Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one. “For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (II Cor., v, 19). The Catholic doctrine on this subject is set forth in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent, chapter ii. Having shown the insufficiency of Nature, and of Mosaic Law the Council continues:

Whence it came to pass, that the Heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (II Cor., 1, 3), when that blessed fullness of the time was come (Gal., iv, 4) sent unto men Jesus Christ, His own Son who had been, both before the Law and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Rom., iii, 25), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John ii, 2).

More than twelve centuries before this, the same dogma was proclaimed in the words of the Nicene Creed, “who for us men and for our salvation, came down, took flesh, was made man; and suffered. “And all that is thus taught in the decrees of the councils may be read in the pages of the New Testament. For instance, in the words of Our Lord, “even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a redemption for many” (Matt., xx, 28); or of St. Paul, “Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven.” (Coloss., i, 19, 20). The great doctrine thus laid down in the beginning was further unfolded and brought out into clearer light by the work of the Fathers and theologians. And it may be noted that in this instance the development is chiefly due to Catholic speculation on the mystery, and not, as in the case of other doctrines, to controversy with heretics. At first we have the central fact made known in the Apostolic preaching, that mankind was fallen and was raised up and redeemed from sin by the blood of Christ. But it remained for the pious speculation of Fathers and theologians to enter into the meaning of this great truth, to inquire into the state of fallen man, and to ask how Christ accomplished His work of Redemption. By whatever names or figures it may be described, that work is the reversal of the Fall, the blotting out of sin, the deliverance from bondage, the reconciliation of mankind with God. And it is brought to pass by the Incarnation, by the life, the sufferings, and the death of the Divine Redeemer. All this may be summed up in the word Atonement. This, is so to say, the starting point. And herein all are indeed at one. But, when it was attempted to give a more precise account of the nature of the Redemption and the manner of its accomplishment, theological speculation took different courses, some of which were suggested by the various names and figures under which this ineffable mystery is adumbrated in Holy Scripture. Without pretending to give a full history of the discussions, we may briefly indicate some of the main lines on which the doctrine was developed, and touch on the more important theories put forward in explanation of the Atonement.

(a) In any view, the Atonement is founded on the Divine Incarnation. By this great mystery, the Eternal Word took to Himself the nature of man and, being both God and man, became the Mediator between God and men. From this, we have one of the first and most profound forms of theological speculation on the Atonement, the theory which is sometimes described as Mystical Redemption. Instead of seeking a solution in legal figures, some of the great Greek Fathers were content to dwell on the fundamental fact of the Divine Incarnation. By the union of the Eternal Word with the nature of man all mankind was lifted up and, so to say, deified. “He was made man,” says St. Athanasius, “that we might be made gods” (De Incarnatione Verbi, 54). “His flesh was saved, and made free the first of all, being made the body of the Word, then we, being concorporeal therewith, are saved by the same (Orat., II, Contra Arianos, lxi). And again, “For the presence of the Saviour in the flesh was the price of death and the saving of the whole creation (Ep. ad Adelphium, vi). In like manner St. Gregory of Nazianzus proves the integrity of the Sacred Humanity by the argument, “That which was not assumed is not healed; but that which is united to God is saved” (to gar aproslepton, atherapeuton ho de henotai to theu, touto kai sozetai). This speculation of the Greek Fathers undoubtedly contains a profound truth which is sometimes forgotten by later authors who are more intent on framing juridical theories of ransom and satisfaction. But it is obvious that this account of the matter is imperfect, and leaves much to be explained. It must be remembered, moreover, that the Fathers themselves do not put this forward as a full explanation. For while many of their utterances might seem to imply that the Redemption was actually accomplished by the union of a Divine Person with the human nature, it is clear from other passages that they do not lose sight of the atoning sacrifice. The Incarnation is, indeed, the source and the foundation of the Atonement, and these profound thinkers have, so to say, grasped the cause and its effects as one vast whole. Hence they look on to the result before staying to consider the means by which it was accomplished.

(b) But something more on this matter had already been taught in the preaching of the Apostles and in the pages of the New Testament. The restoration of fallen man was the work of the Incarnate Word. “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (II Cor., v. 19). But the peace of that reconciliation was accomplished by the death of the Divine Redeemer, “making peace through the blood of His cross” (Coloss., i, 20). This redemption by death is another mystery, and some of the Fathers in the first ages are led to speculate on its meaning, and to construct a theory in explanation. Here the words and figures used in Holy Scripture help to guide the current of theological thought. Sin is represented as a state of bondage or servitude, and fallen man is delivered by being redeemed, or bought with a price. “For you are bought with a great price” (I Cor., vi, 20). “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; because thou wast slain, and hast redeemed to God, in thy blood” (Apoc, v, 9). Looked at in this light, the Atonement appears as the deliverance from captivity by the payment of a ransom. This view is already developed in the second century. “The mighty Word and true Man reasonably redeeming us by His blood, gave Himself a ransom for those who had been brought into bondage. And since the Apostasy unjustly ruled over us, and, whereas we belonged by nature to God Almighty, alienated us against nature and made us his own disciples, the Word of God, being mighty in all things, and failing not in His justice, dealt justly even with the Apostasy itself, buying back from it the things which were His own” (Irenaeus Aversus Haereses V, i). And St. Augustine says in well-known words: “Men were held captive under the devil and served the demons, but they were redeemed from captivity. For they could sell themselves. The Redeemer came, and gave the price; He poured forth his blood and bought the whole world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price. How much is it worth? What but the whole world? What but all nations?” (Enarratio in Psalm xcv, n. 5).

It cannot be questioned that this theory also contains a true principle. For it is founded on the express words of Scripture, and is supported by many of the greatest of the early Fathers and later theologians. But unfortunately, at first, and for a long period of theological history, this truth was somewhat obscured by a strange confusion, which would seem to have arisen from the natural tendency to take a figure too literally, and to apply it in details which were not contemplated by those who first made use of it. It must not be forgotten that the account of our deliverance from sin is set forth in figures. Conquest, captivity, and ransom are familiar facts of human history. Man, having yielded to the temptations of Satan, was like to one overcome in battle. Sin, again, is fitly likened to a state of slavery. And when man was set free by the shedding of Christ’s precious Blood, this deliverance would naturally recall (even if it had not been so described in Scripture) the redemption of a captive by the payment of a ransom.

But however useful and illuminating in their proper place, figures of this kind are perilous in the hands of those who press them too far, and forget that they are figures. This is what happened here. When a captive is ransomed the price is naturally paid to the conqueror by whom he is held in bondage. Hence, if this figure were taken and interpreted literally in all its details, it would seem that the price of man’s ransom must be paid to Satan. The notion is certainly startling, if not revolting. Even if brave reasons pointed in this direction, we might well shrink from drawing the concluslon. And this is in fact so far from being the case that it seems hard to find any rational explanation of such a payment, or any right on which it could be founded. Yet, strange to say, the bold flight of theological speculation was not checked by these misgivings. In the above-cited passage of St. Irenaeus, we read that the Word of God “dealt justly even with the Apostasy itself [i.e. Satan], buying back from it the things which were His own.” This curious notion, apparently first mooted by St. Irenaeus, was taken up by Origen in the next century, and for about a thousand years it played a conspicuous part in the history of theology. In the hands of some of the later Fathers and medieval writers, it takes various forms, and some of its more repulsive features are softened or modified. But the strange notion of some right, or claim, on the part of Satan is still present. A protest was raised by St. Gregory of Nazianzus in the fourth century, as might be expected from that most accurate of the patristic theologians. But it was not till St. Anselm and Abelard had met it with unanswerable arguments that its power was finally broken. It makes a belated appearance in the pages of Peter Lombard.

(c) But it is not only in connection with the theory of ransom that we meet with this notion of “rights” on the part of Satan. Some of the Fathers set the matter in a different aspect. Fallen man, it was said, was justly under the dominion of the devil, in punishment for sin. But when Satan brought suffering and death on the sinless Saviour, he abused his power and exceeded his right, so that he was now justly deprived of his dominion over the captives. This explanation is found especially in the sermons of St. Leo and the “Morals” of St. Gregory the Great. Closely allied to this explanation is the singular “mouse-trap” metaphor of St. Augustine. In this daring figure of speech, the Cross is regarded as the trap in which the bait is set and the enemy is caught. “The Redeemer came and the deceiver was overcome. What did our Redeemer do to our Captor? In payment for us He set the trap, His Cross, with His blood for bait. He [Satan] could indeed shed that blood; but he deserved not to drink it. By shedding the blood of One who was not his debtor, he was forced to release his debtors” (Serm. cxxx, part 2).

(d) These ideas retained their force well into the Middle Ages. But the appearance of St. Anselm’s “Cur Deus Homo?” made a new epoch in the theology of the Atonement. It may be said, indeed, that this book marks an epoch in theological literature and doctrinal development. There are not many works, even among those of the greatest teachers, that can compare in this respect with the treatise of St. Anselm. And, with few exceptions, the books that have done as much to influence and guide the growth of theology are the outcome of some great struggle with heresy; while others, again, only summarize the theological learning of the age. But this little book is at once purely pacific and eminently original. Nor could any dogmatic treatise well be more simple and unpretending than this luminous dialogue between the great archbishop and his disciple Boso. There is no parade of learning, and but little in the way of appeal to authorities. The disciple asks and the master answers; and both alike face the great problem before them fearlessly, but at the same time with all due reverence and modesty. Anselm says at the outset that he will not so much show his disciple the truth he needs, as seek it along with him; and that when he says anything that is not confirmed by higher authority, it must be taken as tentative, and provisional. He adds that, though he may in some measure meet the question, one who is wiser could do it better; and that, whatever man may know or say on this subject, there will always remain deeper reasons that are beyond him. In the same spirit he concludes the whole treatise by submitting it to reasonable correction at the hands of others.

It may be safely said that this is precisely what has come to pass. For the theory put forward by Anselm has been modified by the work of later theologians, and confirmed by the testimony of truth. In contrast to some of the other views already noticed, this theory is remarkably clear and symmetrical. And it is certainly more agreeable to reason than the “mouse-trap” metaphor, or the notion of purchase money paid to Satan. Anselm’s answer to the question is simply the need of satisfaction of sin. No sin, as he views the matter, can be forgiven without satisfactlon. A debt to Divine justice has been incurred; and that debt must needs be paid. But man could not make this satisfaction for himself; the debt is something far greater than he can pay; and, moreover, all the service that he can offer to God is already due on other titles. The suggestion that some innocent man, or angel, might possibly pay the debt incurred by sinners is rejected, on the ground that in any case this would put the sinner under obligation to his deliverer, and he would thus become the servant of a mere creature. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made, and men could be set free from sin, was by the coming of a Redeemer who is both God and man. His death makes full satisfaction to the Divine Justice, for it is something greater than all the sins of all rnankind. Many side questions are incidentally treated in the dialogue between Anselm and Boso. But this is the substance of the answer given to the great question, “Cur Deus Homo?.” Some modern writers have suggested that this notion of deliverance by means of satisfaction may have a German origin. For in old Teutonic laws, a criminal might pay the wergild instead of undergoing punishment. But this custom was not peculiar or to the Germans, as we may see from the Celtic eirig, and, as Riviere has pointed out, there is no need to have recourse to this explanation. For the notion of satisfaction for sin was already present in the whole system of ecclesiastical penance, though it had been left for Anselm to use it in illustration of the doctrine of the Atonernent. It may be added that the same idea underlies the old Jewish “sin-offerings” as well as the similar rites that are found in many ancient religions. It is specially prominent in the rites and prayers used on the Day of Atonement. And this, it may be added, is now the ordinary acceptance of the word; to “atone” is to give satisfactlon, or make amends, for an offense or an injury.

(e) Whatever may be the reason, it is clear that this doctrine was attracting special attention in the age of St. Anselm. His own work bears witness that it was undertaken at the urgent request of others who wished to have some new light on this mystery. To some extent, the solution offered by Anselm seems to have satisfied these desires, though, in the course of further discussion, an important part of his theory, the absolute necessity of Redemption and of satisfaction for sin, was discarded by later theologians, and found few defenders. But meanwhile, within a few years of the appearance of the “Cur Deus Homo?” another theory on the subject had been advanced by Abelard. In common with St. Anselm, Abelard utterly rejected the old and then still prevailing, notion that the devil had some sort of right over fallen man, who could only be justly delivered by means of a ransom paid to his captor. Against this he very rightly urges, with Anselm, that Satan was clearly guilty of injustice in the matter and could have no right to anything but punishment. But, on the other hand, Abelard was unable to accept Anselm’s view that an equivalent satisfaction for sin was necessary, and that this debt could only be paid by the death of the Divine Redeerner. He insists that God could have pardoned us without requiring satisfaction. And, in his view, the reason for the Incarnation and the death of Christ was the pure love of God. By no other means could men be so effectually turned from sin and moved to love God. Abelard’s teaching on this point, as on others, was vehemently attacked by St. Bernard. But it should be borne in mind that some of the arguments urged in condemnation of Abelard would affect the position of St. Anselm also, not to speak of later Catholic theology.

In St. Bernard’s eyes it seemed that Abelard, in denying the rights of Satan, denied the “Sacrament of Redemption” and regarded the teaching and example of Christ as the sole benefit of the Incarnation. “But,” as Mr. Oxenham observes,

he had not said so, and he distinctly asserts in his “Apology” that “the Son of God was incarnate to deliver us from the bondage of sin and yoke of the Devil and to open to us by His death the gate of eternal life.” And St. Bernard himself, in this very Epistle, distinctly denies any absolute necessity for the method of redemption chosen, and suggests a reason for it not so very unlike Abelard’s. “Perhaps that method is the best, whereby in a land of forgetfulness and sloth we might be more powerfully as vividly reminded of our fall, through the so great and so manifold sufferings of Him who repaired it.” Elsewhere when not speaking controversially, he says still more plainly: “Could not the Creator have restored His work without that difficulty? He could, but He preferred to do it at his own cost, lest any further occasion should be given for that worst and most odious vice of ingratitude in man” (Bern., Serm. xi, in Cant.). What is this but to say, with Abelard that “He chose the Incarnation as the most effectual method for eliciting His creature’s love?” (The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement, 85, 86).

(f) Although the high authority of St. Bernard was thus against them, the views of St. Anselm and Abelard, the two men who in different ways were the fathers of Scholasticism, shaped the course of later medieval theology. The strange notion of the rights of Satan, against which they had both protested, now disappears from the pages of our theologians. For the rest, the view which ultimately prevailed may be regarded as a combination of the opinions of Anselm and Abelard. In spite of the objections urged by the latter writer, Anselm’s doctrine of Satisfaction was adopted as the basis. But St. Thomas and the other medieval masters agree with Abelard in rejecting the notion that this full Satisfaction for sin was absolutely necessary. At the most, they are willing to admit a hypothetical or conditional necessity for the Redemption by the death of Christ. The restoration of fallen man was a work of God’s free mercy and benevolence. And, even on the hypothesis that the loss was to be repaired, this might have been brought about in many and various ways. The sin might have been remitted freely, without any satisfaction at all, or some lesser satisfaction, however imperfect in itself, might have been accepted as sufficient. But on the hypothesis that God had chosen to restore mankind, and at the same time, to require full satisfaction as a condition of pardon and deliverance, nothing less than the Atonement made by one who was God as well as man could suffice as satisfaction for the offense against the Divine Majesty. And in this case Anselm’s argument will hold good. Mankind cannot be restored unless God becomes man to save them.

In reference to many points of detail the Schoolmen, here as elsewhere, adopted divergent views. One of the chief questions at issue was the intrinsic adequacy of the satisfaction offered by Christ. On this point the majority, with St. Thomas at their head, maintained that, by reason of the infinite dignity of the Divine Person, the least action or suffering of Christ had an infinite value, so that in itself it would suffice as an adequate satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Scotus and his school, on the other hand, disputed this intrinsic infinitude, and ascribed the all-sufficiency of the satisfaction to the Divine acceptation. As this acceptation was grounded on the infinite dignity of the Divine Person, the difference was not so great as might appear at first sight. But, on this point at any rate the simpler teaching of St. Thomas is more generally accepted by later theologians. Apart from this question, the divergent views of the two schools on the primary motive of the Incarnation naturally have some effect on the Thomist and Scotist theology of the Atonement. On looking back at the various theories noticed so far, it will be seen that they are not, for the most part, mutually exclusive, but may be combined and harmonized. It may be said, indeed, that they all help to bring out different aspects of that great doctrine which cannot find adequate expression in any human theory. And in point of fact it will generally be found that the chief Fathers and Schoolmen, though they may at times lay more stress on some favourite theory of their own, do not lose sight of the other explanations.

Thus the Greek Fathers, who delight in speculating on the Mystical Redemption by the Incarnation, do not omit to speak also of our salvation by the shedding of blood. Origen, who lays most stress on the deliverance by payment of a ransom, does not forget to dwell on the need of a sacrifice for sin. St. Anselm again, in his “Meditations,” supplements the teaching set forth in his “Cur Deus Homo?” Abelard, who might seem to make the Atonement consist in nothing more than the constraining example of Divine Love has spoken also of our salvation by the Sacrifice of the Cross, in passages to which his critics do not attach sufficient importance. And, as we have seen his great opponent, St. Bernard, teaches all that is really true and valuable in the theory which he condemned. Most, if not all, of these theories had perils of their own, if they were isolated and exaggerated. But in the Catholic Church there was ever a safeguard against these dangers of distortion. As Mr. Oxenham says very finely,

The perpetual priesthood of Christ in heaven, which occupies a prominent place in nearly all the writings we have examined, is even more emphatically insisted upon by Origen. And this deserves to be remembered, because it is a part of the doctrine which has been almost or altogether dropped out of many Protestant expositions of the Atonement, whereas those most inclining among Catholics to a merely juridical view of the subject have never been able to forget the present and living reality of a sacrifice constantly kept before their eyes, as it were, in the worship which reflects on earth the unfailing liturgy of heaven. (p. 38)

The reality of these dangers and the importance of this safeguard may be seen in the history of this doctrine since the age of Reformation. As we have seen, its earlier development owed comparatively little to the stress of controversy with the heretics. And the revolution of the sixteenth century was no exception to the rule. For the atonement was not one of the subjects directly disputed between the Reformers and their Catholic opponents. But from its close connection with the cardinal question of Justification, this doctrine assumed a very special prominence and importance in Protestant theology and practical preaching. Mark Pattison tells us in his “Memoirs” that he came to Oxford with his “home Puritan religion almost narrowed to two points, fear of God’s wrath and faith in the doctrine of the Atonement.” And his case was possibly no exception among Protestant religionists. In their general conception on the atonement the Reformers and their followers happily preserved the Catholic doctrine, at least in its main lines. And in their explanation of the merit of Christ’s sufferings and death we may see the influence of St. Thomas and the other great Schoolmen. But, as might be expected from the isolation of the doctrine and the loss of other portions of Catholic teaching, the truth thus preserved was sometimes insensibly obscured or distorted. It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies.

The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God’s merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.

The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.

This view of the Atonement naturally provoked a reaction. Thus the Socinians were led to reject the notion of vicarious suffering and satisfaction as inconsistent with God’s justice and mercy. And in their eyes the work of Christ consisted simply in His teaching by word and example. Similar objections to the juridical conception of the Atonement led to like results in the later system of Swedenborg. More recently Albrecht Ritschl, who has paid special attention to this subject, has formulated a new theory on somewhat similar lines. His conception of the Atonement is moral and spiritual, rather than juridical and his system is distinguished by the fact that he lays stress on the relation of Christ to the whole Christian community. We cannot stay to examine these new systems in detail. But it may be observed that the truth which they contain is already found in the Catholic theology of the Atonement. That great doctrine has been faintly set forth in figures taken from man’s laws and customs. It is represented as the payment of a price, or a ransom, or as the offering of satisfaction for a debt. But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate. As both Abelard and Bernard remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart. It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, “making peace through the blood of His Cross.”

W.H. KENT

Atrib

A titular see of Lower Egypt (Athribites) whose episcopal list (325–479) is given in Gams (p. 461).

Atrium

I. An open place or court before a church. It consisted of a large quadrangle with colonnaded walks on its four sides forming a portico or cloister. It was situated between the porch or vestibule and the body of the church. In the center of the atrium was a fountain or well, where the worshippers washed their hands before entering the church. A remnant of this custom still survives in the use of the holy-water font, or basin, usually placed near the inner entrances of churches in the atrium those that were not suffered to advance farther, and more particularly the first class of penitents, stood to solicit the prayers of the faithful as they went into the church. It was also used as a burying-ground, at first only for distinguished persons, but afterwards for all believers. The covered portion next the church was called the narthex and was the place for penitents. The basilicas at Ravenna seem usually to have had a closed narthex, while those of Rome were open to the West. A mosaic in S. Apollinare Nuovo Ravenna shows an open narthex closed by curtains. The atrium existed in some of the largest of the early Christian churches such as old St. Peter’s at Rome in the fourth century, and Sancta Sophia at Constantinople, in the sixth. In the residences (palatia, domus) of the Rornan aristocracy, where the Roman Christians first worshipped, there was a threefold division, first, on entering, a court called the atrium; then, farther in, another colonnaded court called the peristyle, and then the tablinum, where the altar was problably placed, and services conducted. (See BASILICA.) So large a fore-court to a church required an area of land costly and difficult to obtain in a large city. For this reason the old Roman atrium survived only occasionally in Eastern and Western churches. Typical examples may be seen in the churches of St. Clement, at Rome, and St. Ambrose, at Mllan; also in the seventh century churches of Novara and Parenzo.

II. In secular architecture the atrium was the principal entrance-hall and apartment in a Roman house, and formed the reception-room. It was lighted by an opening in the roof, called the compluvium, the roof sloping so as to throw the rain-water into a cistern in the floor called the impluvium. In large houses it was surrounded by a colonnade.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Attainder

A bill of attainder may be defined to be an Act of Parliament for putting a man to death or for otherwise punishing him without trial in the usual form. Thus by a legislative act a man is put in the same position as if he had been convicted after a regular trial. It is an act whereby the judicature of the entire parliament is exercised, and may be contrasted with the procedure by impeachment in which the accusation, presented by the Commons acting as a grand jury of the whole realm, is tried by the Lords, exercising at once the functions of a high court of justice and of a jury. In a strictly technical sense it may be said that a Bill of Attainder is a legislative act inflicting the punishment of death without a trial, and that a Bill of Pains and Penalties is such an act inflicting a milder punishment. In the popular sense, however, the term “Bill of Attainder” embraces both classes of acts, and in that sense it is evidently used in the Constitution of the United States, as the Supreme Court has declared in Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 138, that “a bill of attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property or both.” Such a bill deals with the merits of a particular case and inflicts penalties, more or less severe, ex post facto, without trial in the usual form. While bills of attainder were used in England as early as 1321 in the procedure employed by Parliament in the banishment of the two Despensers (1 St. tr. pp. 23, 38), it was not until the period of passion engendered by the civil war that the summary power of Parliament to punish criminals by statute was for the first time perverted and abused. Then it was that this process was first freely used, not only against the living, but sometimes against the dead, the main object in the latter case being, of course, the confiscation of the estate of the attainted person. In the flush of victory which followed the battle of Towton, Edward IV obtained the passage of a sweeping bill of attainder through which the crown was enriched by forfeiture of the estates of fourteen lords and more than a hundred knights and esquires. In the seventeenth year of that reign was passed the Act of Attainder of the Duke of Clarence in which, after an oratorical preface setting out at length the offence imputed to him, it is enacted “that the said George Duke of Clarence be convicted, and atteynted of high treason.” Then follows the appointment of the Duke of Buckingham as lord high steward for that occasion to do execution. It is a remarkable fact that during a period of one hundred and sixty-two years (1459–1621) there is no record of a parliamentary impeachment either in the rolls of Parliament or in the Lords’ journal. After the impeachment of Lord Stanley in 1459, for not sending his troops to the battle of Bloreheath, there was not another impeachment until that of Sir Giles Mompesson and Sir Francis Mitchell in 1621. During the interval, covering a little more than the reigns of the house of Tudor, enemies of the State were disposed of either by bills of attainder, by trials in the Star Chamber, or by trials for treason in the courts of common law. In the reign of Henry VIII Bills of attainder were often used instead of impeachments, as in the cases of Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell, Queen Katherine Howard, the Duke of Norfolk, and the Earl of Surrey. During that reign religious persecution was carried on rather through the legal machinery devised for the punishment of high treason as defined by the Act of Supremacy than by bills of attainder. By the Act of Supremacy, the King was declared Head of the Church with “the title and style thereof”; by the penal act which followed as a corollary thereto, it was declared that any attempt to deprive him “of the dignity, title, or name” of his royal estate should constitute high treason; under the special act providing the amended oath, it was possible to call upon anyone to declare his belief in the validity of the new title, and a failure to do so was sufficient evidence of guilt. By that legal machinery were dashed to pieces the Charterhouse monks of London, who are admitted on every hand to have been the noblest and purest of all churchmen. Even =46roude admits that they were “gallant men, whose high forms, in the sunset of the old faith, stand transfigured on the horizon, tinged with the light of its dying glory.” The legal proceedings through which the Bishop of Rochester and Sir Thomas More were brought to the block were but a repetition of what had been gone through with in the case of the Carthusians. After the Tudor time the most remarkable bills of attainder are those that were directed against Lord Strafford, Lord Danby, the Duke of Monmouth, and Sir John Fenwick. As instances of bills of pains and penalties, reference may be made to those against Bishop Atterbury and Queen Caroline, usually referred to as the last instances of such legislation. When Queen Caroline returned to England, in July, 1830, all the ministers, except Canning, were induced to consent to the introduction in the House of Lords of a bill of pains and penalties, providing for the dissolution of her marriage with the King, upon the ground of adultery, and for her degradation. When the charges contained in the preamble came on to be heard, Brougham and Denman, by their bold and brilliant defence of the Queen, so aroused popular sympathy in her favour, by holding her up as a deserted and persecuted woman, that the ministry deemed it wise to drop the bill after the majority in its favour in the Lords had dwindled to nine. Reference is made to this case as an illustration of the nature of the procedure upon such bills. “The proceedings of parliament in passing bills of attainder, and of pains and penalties, do not vary from those adopted in regard to other bills. They may be introduced in either house, but ordinarily commence in the House of Lords: they pass through the same stages; and when agreed to by both houses they receive the royal assent in the usual form. But the parties who are subjected to these proceedings are admitted to defend themselves by counsel and witnesses, before both houses; and the solemnity of the proceedings would cause measures to be taken to enforce the attendance of members upon their service in parliament” (May, Parl. Practice, 744). It thus appears that, in the modern form, procedure by attainder admits the right of proof and argument. Entirely apart from the judicature of Parliament, attainder is defined by the common law of England to be the stain or corruption of blood which follows as an immediate and inseparable consequence of a death sentence. Such attainder took place after judgment of death, or upon such circumstances as were equivalent to such a judgment or outlawry on a capital crime, pronounced for absconding from justice. Conviction without judgment was not followed by attainder. The consequences of attainder were: first, forfeiture; second, corruption of the blood. The extent of the forfeiture depended on the nature of the crime for which the criminal was convicted; and by corruption of blood, “both upwards and downwards,” the attainted person could neither inherit nor transmit lands. After it was clear beyond dispute that the criminal was no longer fit to live, he was called attaint, stained, or blackened, and before 6 and 7 Vict., c. 85 p. 1, could not be called as a witness in any court. The doctrine of attainder has, however, ceased to be of much practical importance since 33 and 34 Vict., c. 23, wherein it was provided that henceforth no confession, verdict, inquest, conviction, or judgment of or for any treason or felony, or felo-de-se shall cause any attainder or corruption of blood or any forfeiture or escheat.

HANNIS TAYLOR.

St. Attala

Born in the sixth century in Burgundy; died 627. He first became a monk at Lerins, but, displeased with the loose discipline prevailing there, he entered the monastery of Luxeuil which had just been founded by St. Columban. When Columban was expelled from Luxeuil by King Theodoric II, Attala was to succeed him as abbot, but preferred to follow him into exile. They settled on the banks of the river Trebbia, a little northeast of Genoa, where they founded the celebrated Abbey of Bobbio. After the death of St. Columban in 615, Attala succeeded him as Abbot of Bobbio. He and his monks suffered many hardships at the hands of the Arian King Ariowald. As abbot, Attala insisted on strict discipline and when a large number of his monks rebelled, declaring his discipline too rigorous, he permitted them to leave the monastery. When, however, some of these perished miserably, the others considering their death a punishment from God, returned to the monastery. Attala was buried in Bobbio where his feast is celebrated on 10 March.

MICHAEL OTT

Attalia

(Also ATTALEIA.)

A titular metropolitan see of Pamphylia in Asia Minor. Its episcopal list (431–879) is given in Gams (450). It is probably identical with the present Adalia, the chief port and largest place on the southern coast of Asia Minor. Remains of sculptured marbles are abundant in the vicinity. It is mentioned in Acts 14:24–25, as the seaport whence Paul and Barnabas set sail for Antioch, at the close of their missionary journey through Pisidia and Pamphylia. Another city of the same name existed in Lydia, Asia Minor; its episcopal list (431–879) is given in Gams (447).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Michael Attaliates

Byzantine stateman and historian, probably a native of Attalia in Pamphylia, whence he seems to have come to Constantinople between 1130 and 1140. He acquired in the royal city both wealth and position and was rapidly advanced, under successive emperors, to the highest offices, among others to that of judge of the supreme court of the empire. He compiled (1072) for the Emperor Michael Parapinakes a compendium of Byzantine law which supplements in a useful stay the “Libri Basilici.” In addition to this he also drew up an “Ordinance for the Poor House and Monastery” which he founded at Constantinople in 1077. This work is of value for the history of Byzantine life and manners in the eleventh century. It contains a catalogue of the library of his monastery. About 1079 or 1080 he published an account of Byzantine history from 1034 to 1079, a vivid and reliable presentation of the palace revolutions and female domination that characterize this period of transition from the great Macedonian dynasty to the Comneni. Attaliates writes as an eyewitness and contemporary. Though his style is not free from the usual affectations of Byzantine historians, it is more flowing and compact than that of his predecessors Krumbacher praises his accurate judgment and sense of equity; in both respects he is superior to his continuator, the panegyrist and courtier Psellos. The law-manual of Attaliates was first edited by M. Freher (Juris Greco-Romani Tomi Duo, Frankfort, 1596, 11, 1–79); the “Ordinance,” or Diataxis, is found in Miklosich and Müller, “Acta et Diplomata Graeca Medii Ævi” (1887), V, 293–327; the “History” was edited by I. Bekker, in the “Corpus Script. Byz.” (Bonn, 1853).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Atticus

Patriarch of Constantinople (406–425), born at Sebaste in Armenia; died 425. He was educated in the vicinity of his native town by Macedonian monks, whose mode of life and errors he embraced. When still young he went to Constantinople, abjured his heretical tenets, and was raised to the priesthood. He and another ambitious priest, Arsacius, were the chief accusers of St. Chrysostom in the notorious Council of the Oak, which deposed (405) the holy patriarch. On the death (406) of the intruder Arsacius, he succeeded him in the See of Constantinople, and at first strove hard, with the help of the civil power, to detach the faithful from the communion of their lawful pastor. But finding that, even after the death of St. Chrysostom, they continued to avoid his own spiritual ministrations, he re-inserted the name of his holy predecessor in the diptychs of the churches. This change of attitude and his charity to the poor gradually made him less unpopular, and he at length managed to have himself recognized as patriarch by Innocent I. Intent upon enlarging the prerogatives of his see, he obtained from Theodosius the Younger two rescripts which placed Bithynia and Illyria under his jurisdiction. Rome resisted these encroachrments, and the rescripts, thanks to the intervention of Honorius, were recalled. Atticus in some measure atoned for his ambition and the irregularity of his promotion by his zeal in the cause of orthodoxy. He drove the Messalians from Pamphylia and his opposition to the Pelagians caused him to be praised by Celestine I as “a true successor of St. Chrysostom.”

A.J.B. VUIBERT

Councils of Attigny

In 765, St. Chrodegang of Metz and thirty-seven other bishops mutually promised in an assembly held at the royal residence of Attigny near Vouziers (Ardennes) that after the death of each the survivors would cause the psalter to be said one hundred times and would have one hundred Masses celebrated for the repose of the soul of the departed. Each one would also say thirty Masses for the same intention. In 785, Charlemagne held a council at Attigny. Widukind and Aboin, two conquered Saxon kings, presented themselves for instruction and were baptized. In 822, Pope Paschal I was present at a Council of Attigny, convened for the reconciliation of the emperor Louis the Pious with his three younger brothers, Hugo, Drogo, and Theodoric, whom he had caused to be violently tortured and whom he had untended to put to death. In the council he confessed publically his wrong-doing; also the violence practiced by him on his nephew, Bernard, King of Italy, and his brother, the Abbot, Adelard Wala, and proposed to perform public penance in imitation of the emperor Theodosius I. He also exhibited an earnest desire to correct abuses arising from the negligence of the bishops and the nobles and confirmed the rule (Aquensis Regula) that the Council of Aachen had drawn up (816) for canons and monks. In 870, thirty bishops and six archbishops met at Attigny, to pass Judgment on Karlmann, the king’s son, made an ecclesiastic at an early age, and accused by his father of conspiring against his life and throne. He was deprived of his abbeys and imprisoned at Senlis. In the council of 875, Hincmar, Bishop of Laon, appealed to the pope from his uncle, Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Attila

King and general of the Huns; died 453. Succeeding in 433 to the kingship of Scythian hordes disorganized and enfeebled by internal discords, Attila soon made of his subjects a compact and formidable people, the terror of Europe and Asia. An unsuccessful campaign in Persia was followed in 441 by an invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire, the success of which emboldened Attila to invade the West. He passed unhindered through Austria and Germany, across the Rhine into Gaul, plundering and devastating all in his path with a ferocity unparalleled in the records of barbarian invasions and compelling those he overcame to augment his mighty army. In 451 he was met on the Plains of Chalons by the allied Romans under Actius and the Visigoths under Theodoric and Thorismond, who overcame the Huns and averted the peril that menaced Western civilization. Turning then to Italy, Attila, in the spring of 452, laid waste Aquileia and many Lombard cities, and was approaching Rome, whither Valentinian III had fled before him, when he was met near Mantua by an embassy—the most influential member of which was Pope Leo I—which dissuaded Attila from sacking the city.

Attila died shortly after. Catholic interest in Attila centers chiefly in his relations with those bishops of France and Italy who restrained the Hunnish leader in his devastating fury. The moral power of these bishops, more particularly of the pope during the dissolution of the empire, is evidenced as well by the confidence in which the faithful looked to them for succour against the terrible invader as by the influence they sometimes exerted in staying that invader’s destroying hand. St. Agnan of Orléans sustained the courage of his people and hastened the reinforcements that saved his apparently doomed city; at Troyes, St. Lupus prevailed upon Attila to spare the province of Champagne, and gave himself as a hostage while the Hunnish army remained in Gaul; when Rome seemed destined to meet the fate of the Lombard cities which Attila had pillaged, it was Pope Leo the Great who, by his eloquence and commanding personality, overawed the conqueror and saved the city. The terror which for centuries after clung to the name of Attila, “the Scourge of God,” as he came to be called, and the gratitude of the people to their deliverers combined in time to encumber medieval hagiography with legends of saints reputed to have overcome Attila by their imposing presence, or stayed his progress by their prayers. But these fictions serve to emphasize the import of the facts which inspired them. They enable us to appreciate how widespread must have been that sentiment expressed in the recently discovered appeal of Eusebius of Dorylaeum to Pope Leo I: “Curavit desuper et ab exordio consuevit thronus apostolicus iniqua perferentes defensare . . . et humi Jacentes erigere, secundum possibilitatem quam habetis [see Harnack, History of Dogma (Boston, 1903), II, 168]. National pride, too, came in time to invest the person of Attila with a halo of fiction. Most European countries have their legends of the Hunnish leader, who is diversely depicted, according as the vanity of nations would represent Attila as a friend who had contributed to their greatness or as a foe to whose superhuman strength it had been no discredit to succumb. Of these legends the best known is the story of Etzel (Attila) in the “Niebelungen-lied.”

JOHN B. PETERSON

Jean Denis Attiret

Painter, born at Dole, France, 31 July, 1702; died at Pekin, 8 December, 1768. He made serious artistic studies in Rome and after returning to his native country achieved considerable reputation as a portrait painter. He entered the Jesuit novitiate as a lay brother and has left some specimens of his work in the Cathedral of Avignon and the Sodality chapel which he painted while a novice. The Jesuits had many of their men in China employed as painters. Attiret joined them in 1737 and was easily the superior of all. He was honoured with the title of Painter to the Emperor, who visited his studio daily and finally made him a mandarin in spite of the brother’s unwillingness to accept the honour. As all the work was done not for art but for the sake of pleasing the emperor, every suggestion he made was carefully attended to. Oil was not agreeable, so aquarelles and distemper were resorted to. The Emperor did not like shading, for he thought of it was a blot, so that disappeared. It all ended in Attiret becoming altogether Chinese in his tastes and his methods, so that he no longer painted like a European. He made portraits of all the distinguished court-personages, but most of his work was done on glass or silk and represented trees, and fruits, and fishes and animals, etc. When, however, the emperor had beaten back the Tatars, he ordered the battles to be painted. Four Jesuit brothers, among whom was Attiret, made sixteen tableaux, which were engraved in France in 1774. When the collection arrived from France, however, Attiret was dead. The emperor manifested great concern at his loss, bore the expenses of the obsequies, and sent a special representative to show his sorrow at the tomb. Attiret is credited with at least 200 portraits.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Atto

A faithful follower of Gregory VII in his conflict with the simoniac clergy, born probably at Milan made Cardinal of San Mareo, assisted (1079) at the retractation of Berengarius in the Roman synod of that year, and signed the decrees of the synod of 1081. He may have been Bishop of Præneste. Cardinal Mai published under his name (SS. Vet nova coll., VI, 2, 60 sqq), from a Vatican manuscript, a “Breviarium Canonum,” or miscellaneous collection of moral and canonical decrees genuine and forged, from Pope Clement I to Gregory the Great. It deals particularly with clerical rights and duties, eccleslastical acts, the administration of the sacraments, censures, jurisdiction, etc. Other cardinals of the name are mentioned in the anonymous (eighteenth-century) “Diatriba de Attonibus” published by Cardinal Mai (op. cit.; cf. P.L., CXXXIV, 902).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Atto of Pistoia

Born at Badajoz in Spain, 1070; died 22 May, 1155. He became Abbot of Vallombrosa, (Tuscany) in 1105, and in 1135 was made Bishop of Pistoia. He wrote lives of St. John Gualhert and St. Bernard of Vallombrosa, bishop of Parrna. In 1145 he transferred to Pistoia certain relics of St. James of Compostella. His correspondence on that occasion is found in Ughelli, “Italia sacra,” VII, 296.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Atto of Vercelli

A learned theologian and canonist of the tenth century, son of the Viscount Aldegarius and Bishop of Vercelli (924–961). In 933 he became Grand Chancellor of Lothaire II, King of France, and obtained from the royal gratitude donations and privileges for his see of Vercelli (Ughelli, ltalia Sacra IV, 769). Several of his writings were first published by the Benedictine D’Achery (1655–77) in his “Spicilegium” VIII, 1–137; 2d ed., 1723, I, 401–442, e.g. “Epistolae, Libellus de pressuris ecclesiasticis,” and “Canones rursus statutaque Vercellensis ecclesiae.” A complete edition was executed by Baronzo del Signore, in two folio volumes (Vercelli, 1768, P.L. CXXXIV, 27–834), inclusive of his lengthy commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul. In 1832 Cardinal Mai published eighteen sermons of Atto, and his curious “Polypticum,” or “Perpendiculum,” an abridgment of moral philosophy, “written in a mysterious and enigmatic way.” In his history of early medieval literature Ebert transfers to some Spaniard the authorship of this work, but Hauck defends the traditional view (Realencyk. f. prot. Theol., II, 214). His “Canones” are in great part a compilation of either ecclesiastical legislation, including the false Decretals. They contain, also, certain provisions of his own and are of value for the study of contemporary ecclesiastical life and manners in Northern Italy. He is sometimes known as Atto II; an earlier homonymous bishop of Vercelli flourished about middle of eighth century.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

St. Attracta

(Or ST. ARAGHT).

A contemporary of St. Patrick from whom she received the veil. She is known as the foundress of several churches in the Counties of Galway and Sligo, Ireland. Colgan’s account of her life is based on that written by Augustine Magraidin in the last years of fourteenth century, and abounds in improbable statements. However, the fact of St. Attracta receiving the veil from St. Patrick is corroborated by Tirechán, in the “Book of Armagh,” as is evident from the following passage in the “Documenta de S. Patricio” (ed. Edmund Hogan, S.J.): “Et ecclesiam posuit in cella Adrachtae, filiae Talain, et ipsa accepit pallium de manu Patricii.” A native of the County Sligo, she resolved to devote herself to God, but being opposed by her parents, fled to South Connacht and made her first foundation at Drumconnell, near Boyle, County Roscommon, whence she removed to Greagraighe or Coolavin, County Sligo. At Killaraght, St. Attracta established a hospice for travellers, which existed as late as 1539. Her name was so great that numerous places were named after her, e.g. Killaraght (Cill Attracta), Toberaraght, Cloghan Araght, etc., and a large village which grew up around her oratory at Killaraght in Coolavin. Colgan gives an account of the Cross of St. Attracta which was famed during the Middle Ages, and of which the O’Mochain family were hereditary keepers. A striking confirmation of the existence of this relic in the early years of the fifteenth century is afforded by an entry in the “Calendar of Papal Letters” (VI, 451) from which we learn that in 1413 the cross and cup of St. Attracta (Crux ac Cuach Aracht) were then venerated in the church of Killaraght, in the Diocese of Achonry. By an Indult of 28 July, 1864, Pius IX authorized the Office and Mass of St. Attracta, which had lapsed into desuetude, to be again celebrated in the Irish Church. The feast of St. Attracta, on 11 August, is given special honour in the Diocese of Achonry, of which she is the patroness. The prayers and proper lessons for her Office were drawn up by Cardinal Moran.

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

Divine Attributes

In order to form a more systematic idea of God, and as far as possible, to unfold the implications of the truth, God is All-Perfect, this infinite Perfection is viewed, successively, under various aspects, each of which is treated as a separate perfection and characteristic inherent to the Divine Substance, or Essence. A certain group of these, of paramount import, is called the Divine Attributes.

I. KNOWLEDGE OF GOD MEDIATE AND SYNTHETIC

Our natural knowledge of God is acquired by discursive reasoning upon the data of sense by introspection, “For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; His eternal power also, and Divinity” (St. Paul, Romans, i, 20). Created things, by the properties and activities of their natures, manifest, as in a glass, darkly, the powers and perfections of the creator. But these refracted images of Him in finite things cannot furnish grounds for any adequate idea of the Infinite Being. Hence, in constructing a synthetic idea of God, before one can apply to the Divinity any concept or term expressing a perfection found in created being, it must be subjected to rigorous correction. The profound disparity between the Divine perfection and the intimations of it presented in the world-copy may be broadly laid down under two heads:

Number: The perfections of creatures are innumerable, the Divine Perfection is one.

Diversity: Created perfections differ endlessly in kind and degree; the Divine perfection is uniform, simple. It is not a totality of various perfections; absolutely simple, the Divine perfection answers to every idea of actual or conceivable perfection, without being determined to the particular mode of any. Hence, when any attribute expressing modes characteristic of the world of being that falls within the range of our experience is applied to God its signification ceases to be identical with that which it has in every other case. Yet it retains a real meaning in virtue of the ratio which exists between the finite being and its Infinite analogue. In philosophical phrase, the use of terms is called analogical predication, in contra-distinction to univocal, in which a word is predicated of two or more subjects in precisely the same sense. (See ANALOGY.)

II. SOURCE OF OUR NATURAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD

To correct, as far as possible, the inadequate character of the concepts through which we must formulate our idea of God, the first step is to distinguish created perfection into two kinds, viz., mixed perfections and pure perfections. A pure perfection is one whose exact concept does not include any note formally expressive of defect or limitation; the content of the idea is entirely positive. The idea of a mixed perfection, on the contrary, formally or directly connotes, along with what is positive in the perfection, some privation or deficiency. Examples of the former are power, truthfulness, will; as an instance of the latter, materiality may be offered. For, though the reality that belongs to matter is, of course, a participatlon of existence and activity, yet the concept of it connotes the imperfections of that particular kind of existence which is composite and subject to disintegration. Again, personality is a pure perfection; for, as Catholic philosophy teaches, though the finite character of human personality comes into play in the awakening of self-consciousness, yet limitatlon is not an essential constituent of personality. All terms that stand for pure perfections are predicated analogically of God, and are designated attributes in the wide sense of the word. When terms which signify mixed perfections are predicated of God, the analogy becomes so faint that the locution is a mere metaphor.

III. INDUCTIVE DEVELOPMENT OF ATTRIBUTES

The elaboration of the idea of God is carried out along three converging lines.

(1) THE POSITIVE WAY OF CAUSALITY

In virtue of the principle that whatever excellence is contained in an effect is represented in the efficiency of the cause, reason affirms that every positive perfection of created being has its transcendental analogue in the first cause. Hence, from the existence of an intelligent being, man, in the cosmos, we rightly infer that God is intelligent, that is to say, His infinite perfection is superabundantly adequate to all the operations of intellect.

(2) THE NEGATIVE WAY

If we fix our attention precisely on the Infinity of God, then, focusing the negation not upon the positive content of any created perfection but upon the fact that, because it is finite it is determined in kind and limited in degree, we may affirm that it is not found in God. We may say, e.g., that He is not intelligent. The meaning of the statement is not that God lacks intelligence but that in Him there is no intelligence exactly as we know it. Again, since there is no imperfection in God, every concept of defect, privation, and limitation must be negated of God. Many negative names, it is true, are applied to God; as when, for instance, He is said to be immutable, uncaused, infinite. It should, however, be carefully observed that some attributes, which, from the etymological point of view are negative, convey, nevertheless, a positive meaning. Failure to perceive this obvious truth has been responsible for much empty dogmatism on the impossibility of forming any concept of the Infinite. The basic note in the idea of the Infinite is existence, actuality, perfection; the negative note is subordinate. Furthermore, since the force of the latter note is to deny any and all limitations to the actuality represented by the former, its real import is positive, like the cancellation of a minus sign in an algebraic formula; or, it discharges the function of an exponent and raises actuality to the nth power.

(3) WAY OF EMINENCE

The concept of a perfection derived from created things and freed of all defects, is, in its application to God, expanded without limit. God not only possesses every excellence discoverable in creation, but He also possesses it infinitely. To emphasize the transcendence of the Divine perfection, in some cases an abstract noun is substituted for the corresponding adjective; as, God is Intelligence; or, again, some word of intensive, or exclusive, force is joined to the attribute; as, God alone is good, God is goodness itself, God is all-powerful, or supremely powerful.

IV. DEDUCTIVE DEVELOPMENT

Having established the existence of God from metaphysical, physical, and moral arguments, the theologian selects some one of the attributes which these proofs authorize him to predicate of the Divinity and, by unfolding its implications, reaches a number of other attributes. For instance, if God is Pure Actuality, that is, free from all static potency, it follows that, since change implies a transition from an antecedent potential condition to a subsequent condition in which the potentiality is realized, God is immutable. Here we reach the point where the term Attribute is employed in its strict sense.

V. ESSENCE AND ATTRIBUTES

Transcendentally one, absolutely free from composition, the Divine Being is not, and may not be conceived as, a fundamental substrate in which qualities or any other modal indeterminations inhere. The reality to the various attributes are ascribed is one and indivisible.

“Quae justitia,” says St. Augustine, “ipsa bonitas; quae bonitas, ipsa beatitudo.”

In this respect, the relation of the attributes to the Divine nature might be illustrated by the various reflections of one and the same object from a concave, a convex, and a plane mirror. Nevertheless, to systematize the idea of God, and to draw out the rich content of the knowledge resulting from the proofs of God’s existence, some primary attribute may he chosen is representing one aspect of the Divine perfection from which the others may be rigorously deduced. Then arises a logical scheme in which the derivative attributes, or perfections stand towards one another in a relation somewhat similar to that of the essence and the various properties and qualities in a material substance. In this arrangement the primary perfection is termed the metaphysical essence, the others are called attributes. The essence, too, may be regarded as that characteristic which, above all others, distinguishes the Deity from everything else. Upon the question, which attribute is to be considered primary, opinions differ. Many eminent theologians favour the conception of pure actuality (Actus Purus), from which simplicity and infinity are directly deduced. Most modern authors fix on aseity (Aseitas; a = “from” se = “himself”), or self-existence; for the reason that, while all other existences are derived from, and depend on, God, He possesses in Himself, absolutely and independently, the entire reason of His uncaused infinite Being. In this, the most profound and cornprehensive distinction between the Divinity and everything else, all other distinctions are implicitly expressed. Whether, and in what way, the distinctions between the attributes and the metaphysical essence, and among the attributes themselves have an ontological basis in the Divine nature itself was subject which divided Nominalists and Realists, Thomists and Scotists, in the age of Scholasticism (cf. Vacant, Dict. de théol. cathol., I, 2230–34).

VI. DIVISION OF ATTRIBUTES

Taking as the basis of classification the ways by which the attributes are developed, they are divided into positive and negative. Among the negative attributes are simplicity, infinity, immutability. The chief positive attributes are unity, truth, goodness, beauty, omnipotence omnipresence, intellect and will, personality. Some authors divide them into incommunicable and communicable. The former class comprises those which belong to God alone (e.g., all-wise, self-existent, omnipotent) to the latter belong those which are predicable, analogically, of God and creatures as good, just, intelligent. Again, the divine nature considered either as static or as the source activity; hence another division into quiescent and active. Finally, some perfections involve a relation to things distinct from God, while others do not; and from this standpoint theologians divide the attributes into absolute and relative. The various classifications adopted by modern Protestant theologians are due partly to the results of philosophical speculation and partly to new conceptions of the nature of religion. Schleiermacher, e.g., derives the attributes of God from our threefold consciousness of absolute dependence, of sin, and of grace. Others, with Lipsius, distinguish the metaphysical attributes from the psychological and the ethical. A simpler division groups omnipotence, omnipresence, eternity, omniscience, and unity as the metaphysical predicates, justice and goodness as the moral attributes. The fundamental attribute is, according to Ritschl, love; according to Professor Royce, omniscience. The main difficulty with these writers centres about the idea of God as a personaI being.

VII. REVELATION

The supernatural knowledge of God given in revelation is apprehended through the medium of conceptions that belong to natural knowledge. Therefore the same principles of attribution that govern the one hold good also for the other.

VIII. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

In the fourth century Aetius and Eunomius maintained that, because the Divine nature is simple, excluding all composition or multiplicity, the various terms and names applied to God are to be considered synonymous. Otherwise they would erroneously imply composition in God. This opinion was combated by St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Basil, and St. Gregory of Nyssa (In Eunom., P. G., XLV). The principle of attribution received more precise statement at the hands of St. Augustine, in his investigation of the conditions of intellectual knowledge (De Genesi ad Litteram, IV, 32). In the ninth century, John Scotus Erigena, who was largely influenced by Neo-Platonism, transmitted through the works of the Pseudo-Dionysius, contributed to bring into clearer relief the analogical character of predication (De Divinâ Naturâ, Lib. I). The Nominalists revived the views of Eunomius, and the opposition of the Realists was carried to the other extreme by Gilbert de la Porrée, who maintained a real, ontological distinction between the Divine Essence and the attributes. His opinion was condemned by the Council of Reims (1148). St. Thomas definitively expressed the doctrine which, after some controversies between Scotists and Thomists upon minor points and subtleties, and with some divergence of opinion upon unimportant details, is now the common teaching of Catholic theologians and philosophers. It may be summarized as follows: The idea of God is derived from our knowledge of finite beings. When a term is predicated of the finite and of the Infinite, it is used, not in a univocal, but in analogical sense. The Divine Perfection, one and invisible, is, in its infinity, the transcendental analogue of all actual and possible finite perfections. By means of an accumulation of analogous predicates methodically co-ordinated, we endeavour to form an approximate conception of the Deity who, because He is Infinite, cannot be comprehended by finite intelligence. Modern philosophy presents a remarkable gradation, from Pantheism, which finds God in everything, to Agnosticism, which declares that He is beyond the reach of knowledge. Spinoza conceives God as “a substance consisting of infinite attributes each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence.” The two attributes manifested to us are thought and extension. At the other extreme we find Agnostics of the school of Herbert Spencer (see AGNOSTICISM) and some followers of Hegel, who hold that the nature of God, or, to use their favourite term, “the Absolute” is utterly unknowable, and its existence not determined to any mode; therefore, to predicate of it various attributes, expressive of determinations, is idle and misleading. Between the finite and the Infinite there is no common ground of predication, hence; words which signify finite perfections can have no real meaning when predicated of God; they become mere empty symbols. All theological attempts to elaborate an idea of God are vain, and result in complete absurdity when they conceive God after man’s image and likeness (see ANTHROPOMORPHISM), and circumscribe the Infinite in terms borrowed from human psychology. Criticism of this kind indicates that its authors have never taken the trouble to understand the nature of analogical predication, or to consider fairly the rigorous logical process of refining to which terms are subjected before being predicated of God. It often happens too, that writers, after indulging liberally in eloquent denunciation of theological anthropomorphism proceed, on the next page, to apply to the Infinite, presumably in a strictly univocal sense, terms such as “energy,” “force,” and “law,” which are no less anthropomorphic, in an ultimate analysis, than “will” and “intelligence.” The position of the Catholic Church declared in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), is again clearly stated in the following pronouncement of the Vatican Council:

The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church believes and professes that there is one living and true God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will and in all perfection Who, being One, singular, absolutely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, is to be regarded as distinct really and in essence from the world most blessed in and from Himself, and unspeakably elevated above all things that exist, or can be conceived, except Himself.

JAMES J. FOX.

Attrition

Attrition or Imperfect Contrition (Lat. attero, “to wear away by rubbing”; p. part. attritus).

The Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, Chap. iv) has defined contrition as “sorrow of soul, and a hatred of sin committed, with a firm purpose of not sinning in the future.” This hatred of sin may arise from various motives, may be prompted by various causes. The detestation of sin arise from the love of God, Who has been grievously offended, then contrition is termed perfect; if it arise from any other motive, such its loss of heaven, fear of hell, or the heinousness of guilt, then it is termed imperfect contrition, or attrition. That there exists such a disposition of soul as attrition, and that it is a goodly things an impulse of the Spirit of God, is the clear teaching of the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, iv).

And as to that imperfect contrition which is called attrition, because it is commonly conceived either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of punishment, the council declares that if with the hope of pardon, it excludes the wish to sin, it not only does not make man a hypocrite and a greater sinner, but that it is even a gift of God, and an impulse of the Holy Spirit, who does not indeed as yet dwell in the penitent, but who only moves him whereby the penitent, being assisted, prepares a way for himself unto justice, and although this attrition cannot of itself, without the Sacrament of Penance, conduct the sinner to justification yet does it dispose him to receive the grace of God in the Sacrament of Penance. For smitten profitably with fear, the Ninivites at the preaching of Jonas did fearful penance and obtained mercy from Lord.

Wherefore attrition, the council in Canon v, Sess. XIV, declares: “If any man assert that attrition . . . is not a true and a profitable sorrow; that it does not prepare the soul for grace, but that it makes a man a hypocrite, yea, even a greater sinner, let him be anathema.” The doctrine of the council is in accord with the teaching of the Old and the New Testament. The Old Testament writers praise without hesitation that fear of God which is really “the beginning of wisdom” (Ps. cx). One of the commonest forms of expression found in the Hebrew scriptures is the “exhortation to the fear of the Lord” (Ecclus., i, 13; ii, 19 sqq.). We are told that “without fear there is no justification” (ibid, i, 28; ii, 1; ii, 19). In this fear there is confidence of strength” and it is “fountain of life” (Prov, xiv, 26, 27); and the Psalmist prays (Ps. cxviii, 120): “Pierce thou my flesh with thy fear: for I am afraid of thy judgments.”

NEW TESTAMENT

Even when the law of fear had given way to the law of love, Christ does not hesitate to inculcate that we must “fear him who can destroy both soul and body into hell” (Matt., x, 28). Certainly, too, the vivid account of the destruction of Jerusalem, typical of the final destruction of the world, was intended by Jesus to strike terror into the hearts of those who heard, and those who read; nor can one doubt that the last great Judgment as portrayed by Matthew, xxv, 31 sqq., must have been described by Christ for the purpose of deterring men from sin by reason of God’s awful judgments. The Apostle appears not less insistent when he exhorts us to work out “our salvation in fear and trembling” lest the anger of God come upon us (Phil., ii, 12). The Fathers of the earliest days of Christianity have spoken of fear of God’s punishments as a goodly virtue that makes for salvation. Clement of Alexandria (Strom., VII) speaks of righteousness which comes of love and rightousness arising from fear, and he speaks at length on the utility of fear, and answers all objections brought forward against his position. The most striking sentence is the one wherein he says: “cautious fear is therefore shown to be reasonable, from which arises repentence of previous sins,” etc. St. Basil (fourth interrogatory on the Rule) speaks of the fear of God and of His judgments, and he asserts that for those who are beginning a life of piety “exhortation based on the fear is of greatest utility,” he quotes the wise man asserting, “The fear of the Lord is the begining of wisdom,” (P.G. XXXI). St. John Chrysostom may be quoted in the same sense (P.G., XLIX, 154). St. Ambrose, in the fifteenth sermon on the Psalm cxviii speaks at large on godly fear which begets charity, begets love: Hunc timorem sequitur charitas (P.L., xv, 1424), and his disciple, St. Augustine, treats fully the godliness of fear as a motive to repentance. In the 161st of his sermons (P.L., XXXVIII, 882 sqq), he speaks of refraining from sin for fear of God’ s judgments, and he asks: “Dare I say such fear is wrong”? He replies that he dare not, for the Lord Christ urging men to refrain from wrongdoing suggested the motive of fear. “Fear not those who kill the body,” etc. (Matt. x). True, what follows in St. Augustine has been subject to much dispute, but the general doctrine of the godliness of fear is here propounded, and the difficulty, if aught there be, touches the other question hereinafter treated anent “Initial Love.”

The word itself, attrition, is of medieval origin. Father Palmieri (De Paenit., 345) asserts, on the authority of Aloysius Mingarelli, that the word is thrice found in the works of Alanus of Lille, who died at an advanced age in the year 1203; but its use in the school is contemporaneous with William of Paris, Alexander of Hales, and Blessed Albert. Even with these men its meaning was not so precise as in after years, though they all agreed that of itself it did not suffice to justify the sinner in God’s sight. (See the Scholastic traditions in article ABSOLUTION, and Palmieri, loc. cit.). This fear is godly, since it excludes not only the will to sin, but also the affection for sin. There would perhaps have been little difficulty on this point if the distinction were kept in mind between that fear which is termed servilis, which touches will and heart, and that fear known as serviliter servilis, which though it makes man refrain from performing the sinful act, leaves the will to sin and the affection thereto.

ATTRITION IN THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE

The Church not only regards the godliness of fear as a motive to repentance, but expressly defines that attrition, though it justifies not without the Sacrament of Penance, nevertheless disposes the sinner to receive grace in the sacrament itself (Sess. XIV, iv). This particular phase of the doctrine of contrition in penance is first taught with clearness by the Schoolmen of the twelfth century, and particularly by St. Thomas, who gathered into a united whole the jarring opinions of his predecessors (See the Scholastic in article ABSOLUTION). Though some still preferred to follow the Lombards who insisted on perfect contrition, after St. Thomas there was little division in the schools up to the time of the Council of Trent. At the council there was some oppositions to a clear definition, some of the fathers insisting on the necessity of perfect contrition, and it was perhaps for this reason that the decree was couched as above, leaving it still possible to doubt whether attrition was a proximate, or only a remote, disposition for justfication in the sacrament. Today the common teaching is that the council simply intended to define the sufficiency of attrition (Vacant, Dict. de théol., col. 2246–47). And this would seem reasonable, because it is the clear teaching of the Church that perfect contrition justifies the sinner even without the Sacrament of Penance. If perfect contrition, then, were always necessary, why did Christ institute a particular sacrament, since justification would always be imparted independently of the sacramental ceremony? If attrition is sufficient for justification in the Sacrament of Penance, then there seems no reason to deny its sufficiency when there is question of remitting sin through baptism, for the reason given above will apply equally in this place. The question has also been asked apropos of attrition when one receives a sacrament of the living in mortal sin, of which sin he is not conscious, will attrition with the sacrament suffice unto justification? The answer is generally given in the affirmative. See St. Thomas, Summa Theologiæ III:2:7 ad 2am; Billot, De Poenit., p. 152.

CONDITIONS

That attrition may make for justification, it must be interior, supernatural, universal, and sovereign (See Conditions in article CONTRITION.) Interior, for the Council of Trent requires that it should exclude the will to sin. Supernatural, for Innocent XI condemned the proposition, “Probabile est sufficere attritionem naturalem modo honestam.” Universal, for the motives of attrition (fear of hell, loss of heaven, etc ) are of such a nature as to embrace all sins. Sovereign, for here again the ordinary motives of attrition (fear of hell, etc. ) make one hate sin above all other evil. It has been questioned whether this would be true if the motive were fear of temporal punishments (Genicot, T. 11, n. 274; Billot, De Poenit., 159 sq.). The Reformers denied the honesty and godliness of attrition, and held that it simply made man a hypocrite. (Bull of Leo X, Exurge Domine, prop. VI; Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, can. iv.) They were followed by Baius, Jansen and his disciples, who taught that fear without charity was bad, since it proceeded not from the love of God, but love of self (see prop. 7, 14, 15 condemned by Alexander VIII, 7 December, 1690; also 44, 61, 62, condemned by Clement X, “Unigenitus,” 8 September, 1717. Also Bull of Pius VI “Auctorem Fidei,” prop. 25).

Catholic writers in the seventeenth century questioned, whether attrition must of necessity be accompanied at least by the begining of the love of God and that granted, whether such love was a disinterested love of God for His own sake, or whether it might not be that love called concupiscentiae, or love of God because He is our great good. Some held that in every real act of attrition there must be the beginning of love; others denied categorically this position, exacting only that sorrow which excludes affection for sin, and hope of pardon; others insisted that there must be at least a beginning of that love which has been termed above concupiscentiae; while stilt others exact only that love which begets hope. On these opinions see Vacant, Dict. de theol. s. v. Attrition, cols. 2252, 2253, 2254, etc. On the controversy, particularly in Belgium see Dollinger and Reusch (Dict., col. 2219). The controversy waxed so warm that Alexander VII issued a decree, 6 May, 1667, in which he declares his distress at the almost scandelously bitter disputes waged by certain scholastic theologians as to whether the act of attrition which is conceived at the fear of hell, but excludes the will of sinning and counts on obtaining the mercy of recovering grace through the Sacrament of Penance, requires in addition some act of love of God, and then

enjoins on all of whatever rank, under pain of incurring the severest ecclesiastical penalties, not to presume in future when discussing the aforesaid act of attrition to brand with any mark of theological censure, or wrong, or contempt, either one or the other of the two opinions; that denying the necessity of some sort of love of God [negantem necessitatem aliqualis dilectionis Dei] in this attrition conceived through the fear of hell, when today (1667) seems one more generally held by scholastic theologians, or that affirming the necessity of the said love, until something shall have been defined in this matter by the Holy See.

The authoritative statement of Alexander VII leaves the question still open as Benedict XIV teaches in “De Synodo” Is, Bk. VII, xiii, n. 9. Still it is clear that Alexander considered as more probable the opinion stating attrition as sufficient for justificatlon in the Sacrament of Penance even if it included not the beginning of love. The censure latae sententiae was omitted in the “Apostolicae Sedis.” On the formula, “Ex attrito fit contritus” cf. Vacant, Dict. de theol., col. 2266 sqq.

EDWARD J. HANNA

Attuda

A titular see of Phrygia in Asia Minor whose episcopal list (431–879) is given in Gams (446).

Jean-Michel-d’Astorg Aubarède

Canon regular,and Vicar Capitular of Pamiers, born 1639; died 4 August, 1692. He was educated at Toulouse (France), entered the Seminary of Pamiers, and later joined the regular, who formed the cathedral chapter of that diocese. After the death of the bishop, Francois Caulet, Aubarede was chosen vicar capitular. As administrator of the diocese, he took up and carried on vigorously the resistance of Caulet to the royal demands in the matter of the Regalia. He refused to recognize royal nominations to local ecclesiastical benefices, and excommunicated the canons appointed by the king, when they attempted to exercise their office. He was arrested by royal order, and imprisoned for six years at Caen, where he died. His courageous resistance is remarkable at a time when ecclesiastical servility in France had reached its acme. B. Jungmann remarks (in Herder, K.L., I, 1567) that the well-known Jansenistic rigorism of Caulet and his clergy was partly responsible for their stubborn defiance of Louis XIV; they rightly feared that the nominees of the king would not belong to their faction.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Jean-Antoine d’Aubermont

Theologian of Bois-le-Duc; died 22 November, 1686. He joined the Dominicans in 1633, taught philosophy and theology in several convents of his order, was made doctor of theology at Louvain in 1652, and president of the local Dominican college in 1653. His theological writings are mostly in defence of papal infallibility (1682) and against the Gallican teachings of the Declaration of 1682. Shortly before his death he defended against Papebroch St. Thomas of Aquin’s authorship of the Mass for Corpus Christi.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Joseph Aubery

Jesuit missionary in Canada, born at Gisors in Normandy, 10 May, 1673; died at St. Francois, Canada, 2 July, 1755. At the age of seventeen ho entered the Society of Jesus, and for four years studied in Paris. He arrived in Canada in 1694 and completed his studies at Quebec where he was also instructor for five years, and where he was ordained in 1700. Assigned to the Abenaki mission, he re-established in 1701 the mission at Medoctec on the St. John River, which appears to have been abandoned by the Franciscans about a year earlier. In 1708 he was given charge of the Abenaki reduction at St. Francois, and exercised the apostolate in that single mission for nearly half a century Aubery is said to have been an able linguist, but unfortunately his numerous manuscripts, with the mission registers, were destroyed by fire in 1759. He also wrote several memorials in opposition to the claims of the English in Acadia, and sent them to the French Government, urging that the boundary between the French and English possessions should be determined by mutual agreement. To these memorials he added a map, giving the boundaries as defined by the treaty of Utrecht. He plan, however, was not accepted. These valuable documents are still preserved in the Paris archives. Chateaubriand reproduces the life-story of Father Aubery in the character of the missionary in his “Atala.”

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

François Hédelin, Abbé d’Aubignac

Grammarian, poet, preacher, archeologist, philologist. Born at Paris, 4 August, 1604; died at Nemours, 27 July, 1676. He took his name from an abbey that was granted him. After completing his classical and theological studies, he was appointed by Cardinal Richelieu instructor to the latter’s nephew, the young Duc de Fronsac, to whose gratitude he owed a pension of 4,000 livres. This appointment, as well as his own inclination, led him to devote his time to literary studies especially to the classics. He was drawn into the controversy between the ancients under the leadership of Boileau, and the moderns under Perrault, his philological views being used by the latter for the support of their cause. The drama had a special attraction for d’Aubignac who wrote not only a tragedy, “Zénobie,” but a work entitled “Pratique du Théâtre.”

The abbé interests modern scholars chiefly because of his attitude on what is known as the “Homeric Question.” He was one of the first to doubt the existence of Homer; he even propounded the theory that the Iliad is made up of a number of independent ballads gathered and put together by a compiler not very much later than the supposed date of Homer, whom he took to be Lycurgus. This first compilation, however, was not final, as the poem continued to be handed down by the recitation of by the recitation of rhapsodists who again divided the work into separate songs, Pisistratus making the final redaction. These views were based partly on statements in the Greek historians, partly on reasons drawn from the poem itself. D’Aubignac dwelt on the impossibility of transmitting so long a poem without the aid of writing which he, as did Wolf, believed to be unknown to Homer. He drew arguments from the construction of the epic, its lack of unity and its multiplicity of themes, the quarrel of Achilles being treated of in only a few books. The name Iliad he considered a misnomer, since Troy is not the subject of the story. The Iliad, he contended, has no suitable ending; the reader’s curiosity remains unsatisfied. It contains many cantos that might be omitted, not only without detriment but with positive advantage to the action of the story. Besides these general considerations, he adduced numerous details which constitute flaws in the poem as we possess it but which would be entirely justified in separate ballads. In short, there are few objections made to the Iliad by modern scholars on aesthetical and rhetorical grounds which are not touched upon by the French humanist. The arguments against a single author, drawn from the character of the language, the intermixture of the dialects and the like, d’Aubignac could not present, because linguistic studies in his day had not advanced sufficiently to enable him to appreciate the “Homeric Question” from this point of view. Though the abbé had on many occasions set forth in writing his opinions on Homer, it was only shortly before his death that he wrote an extended work on the theme, entitled “Conjectures academiques, ou dissertation sur l’Iliade.” He died before he was able to make the final revision, and it was not published until 1715, forty years after his death. The work was known to Wolf, and though the French scholar anticipated many of his own views he does him scant justice. A German critic declare that d’Aubignac’s arguments are substantially as strong as Wolf’s, in some respects stronger, and that if Wolf’s “Prolegomena” produced greater and more lasting results, this is due less to the character of his arguments than to the greater skill with which they are set forth.

FINSLER, Die Conjectures academiques des Abbe d’ Aubignac in Neue Jahrbucher fur das klassische Altertum und fur Padagogik (Leipzig, 1905) XV.

CHARLES G. HERBERMANN.

Pierre d’Aubusson

Grand Master of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, born 1423; died 1503. He made his first campaigns against the Turks, and fought next under the French Dauphin in a war against the Swiss (1444). It was on his return from this last expedition that he obtained from Charles VII permission to join the Hospitallers. The year 1460 found him Castellan of Rhodes, and he soon after became captain-general of the city, which had been the seat of the order since 1309, and was now the chief obstacle to Ottoman supremacy in the Mediterranean. Mahomet II therefore resolved to subdue it. D’Aubusson, who bad been raised (1476) to the Grand Mastership, foresaw the sultan’s design, and lost no time in making what preparations he could for the defense. A letter to the houses of his order brought him whatever men and money they could spare. Additional sums came from Sixtus IV and Louis XI, together with some of the bravest soldiers of Italy and France. Yet with all his exertions he was able to muster no more than 450 knights and 2,000 auxiliaries. The Turkish armament, which appeared before Rhodes 23 May, 1480, was overwhelmingly superior in numbers, and was furnished with the best artillery then obtainable. But the example of d’Aubusson’s good right arm, and his omnipresence, made heroes of all the defenders. After three months of almost incessant fighting, which cost him 25,000 of his best warriors, the Turkish commander was forced to raise the siege. For this brilliant achievement d’Aubusson received a cardinal’s hat, and was revered by all Christendom as “the Shield of the Church.” In his subsequent efforts to form a league that would drive the Turks from Constantinople, he failed.

BOUHOURS, Histoire de Pierre d’Aubusson (Paris, 1676; 3d ed., Hague, 1739; tr., London, 1679); MARULLI, Lives of the Grand-Masters . . . of St. John . . . (Naples, 1636); FLANDRIN, History of the Knights of Rhodes (Paris, 1876).

A.J.B. VUIBERT

Archdiocese of Auch

(Augusta Auscorum).

Archdiocese; comprises the Department of Gers in France. Before the Revolution it had ton suffragan sees: Acqs (Dax) and Aire, afterwards united as the Diocese of Aire; Lectoure, later reunited with the Archdiocese of Auch; Couserans, afterwards united with the Diocese of Pamiers; Oloron, Lescar, and Bayonne, united later as the diocese of Bayonne; Bazas, afterwards united with the Archdiocese of Bordeaux; Comminges, united later with the Archdiocese of Toulouse; and Tarbes. Up to 1789 the Archbishops of Auch bore the title of Aquitaine, though for centuries there had been no Aquitaine. The Archdiocese of Auch, re-established in 1882, was made up of the former archdiocese of the same name and the former Dioceses of Lectoure, Condom, and Lombez. Condom was previously a suffragan of Bordeaux, and Lombez of Toulouse; thenceforth the suffragans of Auch were Aire, Tarbes, and Bayonne. A local tradition that dates back to the beginning of the twelfth century tells us that Taurinus, fifth Bishop of Eauze (Elusa), abandoned his episcopal city, which was destroyed by the Vandals, and transferred his see to Auch. Eauze, in fact, probably remained a metropolitan see till about the middle of the ninth century, at which time,owing to the invasions of the Northmen, it was reunited, to the Diocese of Auch, which had existed since the fifth century at and then became an archdiocese. The first Bishop of Auch known to history is the poet, St. Orientius (first half of the fifth century), in honor of whom a famous abbey was founded in the seventh century. Cardinal Melchior de Polignac, author of the “Anti-Lucrèce,” was Archbishop of Auch from 1725 to 1741. The cathedral of Sainte Marie, a Gothic structure with a Byzantine facade, is, in spite of this incongruity, very imposing; its fifteenth-century windows are said to be the most beautiful in France. The ancient episcopal sees of Condom and Lombez had a monastic origin. Bossuet was non-resident Bishop of Condom for two years (1668–71). At the end of the year 1905 the Archdiocese of Auch contained 238,448 inhabitants; 29 parishes, 478 succursal or mission churches, and 61 vicariates.

COUNCILS OF AUCH

In 1068 a council of Auch decreed that, with a few exceptions, all churches should pay to the Cathedral of Auch one quarter of their tithes. At a council held in 1077 (near Cliovem-populania) William, Archbishop of Auch, was deposed by Gerald, legate of Gregory VII. In 1276 a council was held at Auch in defense of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and immunities. In 1851 a provincial council of Auch drew up a number of decrees concerning faith and doctrine, the hierarchy, public worship, and ecclesiastical studies.

ARCHDIOCESE: Gallia Christiana (ed. Nova, 1715), I, 065–1010, 1325–30, and Documents, 159–172 and 202; DUCHESNE, Fastes episcopaux de I’ancienne Gaule, II, 89–102, MONTLEZUN, Vie des saints eveques de la metropole d’Auch (Auch, 1857); CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894-.99), 251–252.

COUNCILS: MANSI, Coll. Conc., XIX, 1063, XXV, 107, 217–281; CAZAURAN, Conciles et Synodes du diocese d’Aurh, in Revue de Gascogne (1878), XIX, 70–84; 112–126; CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894–99) 251.

GEORGES GOYAU

Diocese of Auckland

Diocese comprising the Provincial District of Auckland (New Zealand), with its islets, and the Kermadec Group. Area, 21,665 square miles. On Trinity Sunday, 1835, the Vicariate Apostolic of the Western Pacific was erected by Pope Gregory XVI. The Abbé Jean Baptiste François Pompallier was chosen as its first vicar. The territory under his jurisdiction comprised all New Zealand, the present Vicariates Apostolic of Fiji, Central Oceanica, British New Guinea, Dutch New Guinea, New Pomerania, (part of) Gilbert Islands, New Caledonia, Navigators’ Islands, New Hebrides, and the Prefectures Apostolic of North Solomon Islands and Northern New Guinea. The new vicar was consecrated in Rome, 30 June, and sailed from Havre, 24 December, 1836, accompanied by the Marist Fathers Servant and Bataillon (Lyons), Chanel and Bret (Belley), and three lay-brothers. Father Bret died on the voyage. Father Bataillon (afterwards Vicar Apostolic of Central Oceanica) was left at Wallis Island, and Father Chanel (Blessed Peter Chanel, Protomartyr of Australasia) at Futuna. Dr. Pompallier and Father Servant reached Hokianga (Auckland Province) 10 January, 1838, and were provided for by an Irish Catholic, Thomas Poynton. At that time there were probably fewer than 100 white Catholics in all New Zealand. Other Marist Fathers arrived in 1839 and subsequent years. The missions to the aborigines (Maoris) became very successful, despite grave calumnies propagated by Wesleyan trader-missionaries. By April, 1846, about 5,000 had been baptized, “and there were about five or six times as many catechumens.” In 1845 Dr. Pompallier changed his headquarters to Auckland. In 1848 Auckland and Wellington were erected into sees. The Marist Fathers were withdrawn to the Wellington diocese in 1850. The Rev. James McDonald then became the principal missionary to the Auckland Maoris, The Maori missions in New Zealand were paralyzed by the series of native wars between 1843 and 1869. They were taken up in the Auckland diocese by the Mill Hill Fathers, in 1886. The Sisters of Mercy were introduced in 1850. In 1868 Dr. Pompallier went to France, resigned, and died in 1870. He was succeeded by Dr. Thomas William Croke (1870–74), afterwards Archbishop of Cashel. After five years, Father Walter Bisschop Steins, S. J., was appointed to Auckland (1879–81). He was succeeded by Dr. John Edmund Luck, O. S. B. (1882–96). The Right Rev. George Michael Lenihan, consecrated 15 November, 1896, succeeded him.

STATISTICS

At the census of 1901, the white population of the Auckland Provincial District was 175,938 (of whom 27,246 were Catholics); Maoris, 21,291. The population of the Kermadecs was eight, all non-Catholics. The official estimate of the total white population of the Auckland Provincial District, 31 December, 1906, was 211,233; Catholic population of Auckland Provincial District (which is coterminous with the Diocese of Auckland if the Kermadec Islands be included), 32,272; population of the Kermadec Islands, five, all non-Catholics. According to “New Zealand Statistics, 1904,” p. 503, there were in the Auckland Provincial District, at the close of 1904, 37 Catholic schools, with 96 teachers and 2,393 pupils. The following were the ecclesiastical statistics for April, 1906: secular clergy, 26; Mill Hill Fathers, for native population, 9; for whites and natives, 7; Catholic Maoris, about 5,000; parochial districts, 29; churches, 79; Religious Brothers, Marists, 12; Sisters of Mercy, 97; Sisters of St. Joseph, 36; Sisters of the Mission, 30; Little Sisters of the Poor, 8; colleges and high schools, 13; parochial schools, 25; orphanages, 2; home for the aged poor, 1; hospital, 1; children in Catholic schools, 2,600.

POMPALLIER, Early History at the Catholic Church in Oceania (E. T., Auckland, 1888); CARDINAL MORAN, History of the Catholic Church in Australasia (Sydney, no date); MARSHALL, Christian Missions (New York, 1896): New Zealand Census, vol. 1901 (Wellington, 1902); New Zealand Statistics (Wellington, 1905–06).

HENRY W. CLEARY.

Auctorem Fidei

A Bull issued by Pius VI, 28 August, 1794, in condemnation of the Gallican and Jansenist acts and tendencies of the Synod of Pistoia (1786). To understand its bearing, it is well to observe that Leopold II, Grand duke of Tuscany (1765–90), pursued the ecclesiastical policy of his brother, Joseph II of Austria; i. e. he practically arrogated to himself supreme authority over all ecclesiastical matters within his dominions. In 1785 he sent fifty-seven articles to each bishop in the grand duchy, with orders to consider them in a diocesan synod, as a preliminary to a national synod, in which they were finally to be discussed. Scipio de’ Ricci, Bishop of Pistoia, held his diocesan synod, and approved not only the fifty-seven articles drawn up by order of Leopold, but added a number of others of similar import. Among them were the following: All ecclesiastical authority comes directly from the members of the Church at large, whose commissioned ministers the pastors are. The pope is only ministerially head of the Church. Bishops do not depend on the pope for any jurisdiction in the government of their diocese. In diocesan synods parish priests have the same right of voting and deciding as the bishop. Reserved cases should be abolished. Excommunication has only an external effect. It is superstition to have more devotion towards one sacred image than towards another. Civil rulers have the right of making impediments diriment of matrimony and of dispensing from them. Bishops are not bound to make an oath of obedience to the pope before their consecration. All religious orders should live under the same rule and wear the same habit. Each church should have only one altar; the liturgy should be in the vernacular, and only one Mass should be celebrated on Sundays. Leopold caused a national synod to be held at Florence in 1787, but he did not find the other bishops as pliant as Scipio de’ Ricci. Nevertheless he continued assuming all ecclesiastical authority, prohibited all appeals to the pope, and even appointed bishops, to whom the pope of course refused canonical institution. Finally, the Bull “Auctorem Fidei” was published, in which eighty-five articles taken from the Synod of Pistoia were catalogued and condemned. After the publication of the Bull, Scipio de’ Ricci submitted. In 1805 he took occasion of the presence of Pius VII in Florence, on his way to Rome from his exile in France, to ask in person for pardon amid reconciliation. He died repentant, 1810, in the Dominican convent of San Marco at Florence.

DENZINGER-STAHL, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definit. (9th ed., Freiburg, 1899), 310–38; POTTER, Vie et Mémoires de Scipion de’ Ricci (Paris, 1826, favourable to Ricci); SCADERTO, Stato e Chiesa sotto Leopoldo I (Florence, 1855); REUMONT, Geschichte von Toscana, II, 157 sqq.; GELLI, Memorie di Scipione de’ Ricci (Florence, 1865); PICOT, Mémoires pour servir à l’hist eccl. du XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1855), V, 251–62, 272–81; VI, 407–15.

M. O’RIORDAN

Pontifical Audiences

Pontifical Audiences are the receptions given by the pope to cardinals, sovereigns, princes, ambassadors, and other persons, ecclesiastical or lay, having business with or interest in the Holy See. Such audiences form an important part of the pope’s daily duties. Bishops of every rite in communion with the Holy See, and from every nation, come to Rome, not only to venerate the tombs of the Apostles, but also to consult the supreme pastor of the Church. The master of the chamber (Maestro di Camera), whose office corresponds to that of grand chamberlain in royal courts, is the personage to whom all requests for an audience with the pope are made, even those which the ambassadors and other members of the Diplomatic Corps present through the cardinal secretary of state. He is one of the four Palatine Prelates who are in frequent relations with the pope, and his office is regarded as leading to the cardinalate. The pope receives every day the cardinal prefect of one or other of the sacred congregations. At these audiences decrees are signed or counsel given by the pope, and hence, by their very nature, they are of no slight importance to the practical work of the Church. Prelates connected with other institutions either in Rome or abroad, generals and procurators of religious orders, are also received at regular intervals and on stated days. The days and hours of regular audiences are specified on a printed form which is distributed to all cardinals and persons whose duty and privilege it is to have such audience. This printed form is changed every six months, as the hours of audience vary according to the season. Audiences to sovereigns or princes travelling under their own names and titles are invested with special ceremonies. When the pope was a temporal ruler the master of the chamber, notified beforehand by the secretary of state of the proximate arrival in Rome of a sovereign, went, accompanied by the secretary of ceremonial, several miles beyond the city gates to meet him. Returning to Rome, he notified the pope of the event, and visited the sovereign to acquaint him with the day and hour of the pontifical audience. Sovereigns of the highest rank, being considered as equal to the pope, sit near him during audience, under the same baldachin or canopy. The attendance of guards and chamberlains and court officials is always doubled when such audiences are given. In the ordinary audiences given to priests and lay persons the general practice is that they present a letter of recommendation from the bishop of their diocese, which is presented to the rector of the national college in Rome of the country from which they come. The rector procures from the master of the chamber the necessary card of admission. Amongst the instructions printed on this card are those regulating the dress to be worn on such occasion: for priests the cassock with a large black mantle (ferraiolone), such as Roman secular priests wear; for lay men, evening dress with white cravat; for ladies, a black dress with black lace veil on the head. On these occasions it is forbidden to present to the pope for his signature written requests for indulgences, faculties, privileges, or the like. Since the election of Pope Pius X there has been some concession in the matter of dress for the laity in public audience; apparently, in order that every “man of good—will,” non—Catholic as well as Catholic, who desires to see the pope may have his wish fulfilled. This has increased the number of persons received in audience, but it has lessened occasions for the pope’s utterances on various aspects of the tendencies of the time, which distinguished the audiences of Leo XIII and of the latter years of Pius IX, and which were statements that awakened profound interest.

HUMPHREY, Urbs et Orbis, or the Pope as Bishop and Pontiff (London, 1899); L’Eglise catholique à la fin du XIXe siècle (Paris, 1900).

P. L. CONNELLAN.

Giovanni Battista Audiffredi

Audifreddi, Giovanni Battista, b. at Saorgio, near Nice, in 1734; d. at Rome, July, 1794. He entered the Dominican Order, and soon attracted attention by his taste for books and his talent for the exact sciences. After being occupied in various houses as professor and bibliographer, he was at length transferred to the Dominican house of studies (S. Maria sopra Minerva), and was placed in charge (1765) of the great Bibliotheca Casanatensis, founded in 1700 by Cardinal Girolamo Casanata. Audiffredi published a bibliographical work in four folio, volumes entitled “Catalogus bibliotheca Casanatensis librorum typis impressorum, 1761–1788.” The work remains unfinished, not proceeding beyond the letter L, and contains a list of his own publications. Similar works were the “Catalogus historico-criticus Romanarum editionum saeculi XV” (Rome, 1785, quarto), and the more extensively planned “Catalogus historico-criticus editionum Italicarum saeculi XV” (ibid., 1794,), which was to give an account of books printed in twenty-six Italian cities. Audiffredi did not live to complete the work. The first part, extending to the letter G, contains a short biography of the author introduced by the publisher. Audiffredi’s position enabled him to become an expert antiquarian, and he found time to cultivate his mathematical talent and to devote himself to astronomy. He built a small observatory, and at intervals busied himself with observation. The eighteenth century was much occupied with the problem of solar parallax. In 1761 and 1769 transits of Venus were observed, and Audiffredi contributed to the work in his publication, “Phaenomena coelestia observata-investigatio parallaxis solis. Exercitatio Dadei Ruffi” (anagram for Audiffredi). The predicted reappearance in the middle of the century of Halley’s comet intensified scientific interest in cometic orbits. The epoch was favored with a number of brilliant objects of this kind, and that of 1769 distinguished itself by its great nucleus and by the tail which stretched over more than half the sky. Audiffredi took observations of the positions of the comet and published his results under the title, “Dimostrazione della stazione della cometa, 1769” (1770). A general taste and capacity for the natural sciences distinguished this learned Dominican, but, like that of many savants, Audiffredi’s life was one of retirement and obscurity.

H. DE LAAK

J. M. Vincent Audin

Born at Lyons in 1793; died in Paris, 21 February, 1851. He first studied theology in the seminary of Argentiere, and afterwards pursued the study of law. He passed his law examination but never practiced his profession, having decided to enter on a literary career. His first publications were. “La lanterne magique” (1811); “Blanc, bleu et rouge” (1814); “Tableau historique des événements qui se sont accomplis depuis le retour de Bonaparte jusqu’au rétablissement de Louis XVII” (1815). He contributed to the “Journal de Lyon” founded by Ballanche. He soon left his native city and settled in Paris where he opened a bookstore and at the same time was active with his pen. He first published articles of a political cast, and historical tales in the style of the time, such as “Michel Morin et la Ligue”; “Florence ou la Religieuse”; Le Régicide,” and others. He then took up historical writing, his first work of this kind being “Le Conordat entre Léon X et François I” (1821), which is for the most part a translation of that document. This was followed by his “Histoire de la St. Barthélemy” (2 vols., 1826). These two works were fairly well received although some ecclesiastical critics accused him of being to favorable to the Protestants. Audin publicly defended himself against this imputation, and asserted his firm belief in the doctrines of the Catholic Church. He now began his most important work, the history of the Protestant Reformation, which he published from 1839 to 1842 in four books, as follows: (1) “Histoire de la vie, des ouvrages et de la doctrine de Luther” (2 vols., Paris, 1839; 2d ed., 3 vols., 1850); (2) “Histoire de la vie, des ouvrages et de la doctrine de Calvin” (2 vols., 1841; 2d ed., 1851); (3) “Histoire de Léon X et de son siecle” (2 vols., 1844; 2d ed., 1851); (4) “Histoire de Henri VIII et du schisme d’Angleterre” (2 vols., 1847; 2d ed., 1862). The author claims to have based his statements upon researches which he made in the archives of various European cities, especially in the archives of the Vatican. The work shows that this assertion cannot be accepted in its entirety. The volumes are written in a romantic manner, and contain many particulars which sober criticism has long proved to go false. Döllinger says of the work on Luther: “Audin’s work is written with an extraordinary, and at times almost naive ignorance of Luther’s writings and contemporary literature, and of the general condition of Germany at that period” (Kirchenlex., s.v. Luther).

La Grande Encyclopedie, IV, 611.

J.P. KIRSCH

Guglielmo Audisio

Born at Bra, Piedmont, Italy, 1801; died in Rome, 27 September, 1882. He was professor of sacred eloquence in the episcopal seminary of Bra, appointed presiding officer of the Academy of Superga (Turin) by King Charles Albert, but was expelled from this office because he was opposed to the irreligious politics of the Piedmontese Government. He then went to Rome, where Pius IX appointed him professor of natural and popular rights in the Roman University, and Canon of the Vatican Basilica.

Audisio was a pious and charitable priest, and spent large sums in benevolent works. He was an excellent teacher of sacred eloquence, and his manual on the subject was translated into many languages and frequently quoted approvingly. He also devoted himself to historical studies, especially in illustration of the papacy, bringing to them absolutely good intentions, assiduous industry, and much just and acute observation, such as was not then common in the circle which surrounded him. Nevertheless these historical labours had no great intrinsic value, especially at a time when so large a number of documents were being published. For this reason they are no longer sought after by students.

Audisio had no deep insight into theology and law, and often displayed deplorable lapses on these subjects in his writings and his lectures. At the time of the Vatican Council he was accused of Gallicanism, to the great grief of his patron Pius IX, and his work on political and religious society in the nineteenth century was condemned by the Church. Audisio, however, was profoundly Catholic in feeling, and,not only did he fully submit to the condemnation of his book, but he warmly protested against the accusation of heterodoxy and disobedience. He was a fervent upholder of papal and Catholic rights against the political liberalism of Piedmont. He was one of the founders of the Catholic intransigent paper, the “Armonia” of Turin. It was for this reason that he fell a victim to the anti-clerical influence which had deprived him of his post at Superga.

But in Rome Audisio united himself with that clique of liberal Italian ecclesiastics (such as Monsignor Liverani) who advocated reforms and concessions not always just and often premature, and who professed doctrines of little weight, sometimes false, often inexact. In this environment Audisio compromised himself, but his figure remains that of an extremely religious and charitable priest and of an eager student devoted to the Holy See and to the Church. Some pages of his works on the popes still merit consultation.

The works of Audisio are: “Lezioni di Eloquenza Sacra” (several editions); “Juris Naturae et Gentium Publici Fundamenta” (Rome 1852); “Idea storica della diplomazia ecclesiastica (Rome, 1864); “Storia religiosa e civile dei papi” (5 vols., Rome, 1860); “Sistema politica e religiosa di Federico II e di Pietro della Vigna” (1866); “Della società politica e religiosa rispetto al secolo XIX” (Florence, 1876, condemned by decree of the Holy Office, April 1877; “Vita di Pio IX.”

Nuova Encyclopedia Italiana (Suppl., I, 1889); Voce delta Verita (Rome, 29 September, 1882).

U. BENIGNI

Auditor

The designation of certain officials of the Roman Curia, whose duty it is to hear (Lat. audire) and examine the causes submitted to the pope. They cannot, however, give a decision unless they receive delegated jurisdiction. They are, therefore, not judges in the strict sense of the term. These officials have been part of the Roman Curia since the Middle Ages. Amongst the principal dignitaries bearing this title are: (1) Auditor Papae. This official was at first the adviser of the pope in consistorial and theological matters, but he afterwards received also judicial power in civil and criminal cases. Since 1831, however, his duties are restricted to certain ecclesiastical affairs, such as assisting at the examinations of episcopal candidates for Italy and the transaction of matters relating to favours, etc. (2) Auditor Camerae or Auditor General. This official originally had very extended powers, such as judging appeals against the decisions of bishops, and proceeding against bishops themselves in important cases and even punishing them without a special commission from the pope. He could also take cognizance of cases of criminal, and mixed jurisdiction in the states of the Church. Nearly all these and similar powers have now been withdrawn, and the tribunal of the Camera Apotolica is at present limited almost entirely to expediting commissions in certain well-defined cases. (3) Auditors of the Rota were originally chaplains of the pope. By degrees they were constituted into a tribunal, and are said to have derived their name from the round table (Lat. rota) at which they sat. Important cases laid before the Holy See by sovereigns and nations were referred to the Rota for judgment, and its decisions became precedents for all other tribunals. It also served as a supreme court for civil cases in the States of the Church. At present, however, the Auditors of the Rota are restricted practically to giving deliberative opinions in processes of beatification or canonization and deciding questions of precedence between ecclesiastical dignitaries. They are generally also attached as Consultors to various Roman Congregations.

BAART, The Roman Court (New York, 1895); FERRARIS, Prompta Bibl. Can. (Rome, 1885), I; HUMPHREY, Urbs et Orbis (London, 1889).

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING

Audran

The family name of four generations of distinguished French artists, natives of Paris and Lyons, which included eight prominent engravers and two painters. They flourished in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and some of their productions rank among the finest examples of the art of the burin.

CHARLES, born in Paris, 1594; died 1674, was the elder of two brothers, some say cousins (the other being Claude the First), who attained reputation as engravers. Charles, who reached by far the greater eminence, after receiving some instruction in drawing, went as a young man to Rome to study further the engraver’s art, and while there produced some plates which attracted attention. He engraved in pure line, and took the work of Cornelius Bloemart, with whom he studied, as his model. On his return from Italy the engraver lived for some years in Lyons before settling in Paris. Among his two hundred or more plates are several original portraits, including one of Henry II, Prince of Condé, and reproductions of works by Titian, the Caracci, Domenichino, Palma the Younger, Albano and Lesueur.

CLAUDE the First, born in Paris, 1597; died at Lyons 1677, studied with Charles, but in his portrait and allegorical plates, which were not many, adopted a somewhat different manner. He became professor of engraving in the Academy of Lyons, and left, to perpetuate is branch of the family and its artistic reputation, three sons: Germain, Claude the Second, and Gérard, the last of whom became the most famous artist among the Audrans.

GERMAIN, the eldest son of Claude the First, born at Lyons, 1631; died 1710, was a pupil of his uncle Charles and worked both in Paris and Lyons. Among his plates are portraits of Richelieu and Charles Emmanuel of Savoy (the latter after F. de la Monce), landscapes after Poussin, and fancies and ornamental designs, after Lebrun among others. His four sons were Claude the Third, Benoit the Elder, Jean, and Louis.

CLAUDE the SECOND, Son of Claude the First, born at Lyons, 1639; died in Paris, 1684, was the first painter in the family. After receiving instruction in drawing from his uncle Charles, he went to study painting in Rome. On his return to Paris he entered the studio of the celebrated historical painter Charles Lebrun, on whose style he formed his own. Audran was Lebrun’s assistant in the painting, among others of his works, of the “Battle of Arbela” and the “Passage of the Granicus.” He painted in fresco with much skill, under the direction of his master, the grand gallery of the Tuileries, the great staircase at Versailles, and the chapel near by, at Sceaux, of the château of that enlightened patron of art, Prime Minister Colbert.

GÉRARD, third son of Claude the First, born at Lyons, 1640; died in Paris, 1703, went to Paris, after being taught engraving by his father and his uncle, to receive instruction from the painter Lebrun, who gave him some of his paintings to reproduce. He worked in Paris four years, and in 1665 went to Rome, where he remained three years and, it is said became a pupil of Carlo Maratta. He etched as well as engraved, and produced in Rome some plates-notably, a portrait of Pope Clement IX which brought him much admiration. At the suggestion of Colbert, Louis XIV sent for the artist and made him engraver to, and pensioner of the king, with apartments at the factory of the Gobelins. This recognition of his great ability spurred Audran to even greater endeavors, in which he was further encouraged by his former patron Lebrun, more of whose paintings he reproduced notably the “Battles of Alexander.” In November 1681, he was made a member of the Royal Academy of Painting. The first productions of Gérard Audran were stiff and dry, and his subsequent original and vigorously brilliant style is credited to the counsels of Maratta, Ciro Ferri, and, notably, of his lifelong friend Lebrun. A second visit to Rome was made where was signed the plate after “The Four Cardinal Virtues,” by Domenichino, which is in the church of San Carlo ai Catinari. Among the original works of this famous engraver are the portrait of the Rospigliosi Pope, already alluded to, those of Samuele Sorbiere, Andrea Argoli of Padua, the Capuchin Benoit Langlois, the Bishop of Angers Henri Arnauld and the sculptor Francois du Quesnoy, called Fiamingo, “Wisdom and Abundance above two Genii,” and the vignette, “St. Paul preaching at Athens.” Particularly esteemed among the plates of Gérard Audran are two after cartoons of Raphael “The death of Ananias” and “Paul and Barnabas at Lystra” “The Martyrdom of St. Agnes,” after Domenichino, and “Coriolanus” after Poussin. Among the other painters whose works he reproduced are Titian, Rubens, Giulio Romano, Annibale Caracci, Pietro da Cortona, Guercino, Guido Reni, Palma the Younger, Lanfranco, Mignard, Coypel, Lesueur, Bourguignon, Lafage, and Girardon. He was at times assisted by his nephews, Benoit the Elder and Jean. In 1683 Gérard published a work called “The Proportions of the Human Body measured by the most Beautiful Figures of Antiquity which has been translated into English.

CLAUDE the THIRD, son of Germain, and the second painter of the family, born at Lyons, 1658; died in Paris, 1734, was notable as being the master of the famous Watteau. He studied with his father as well as under his uncles, Germain and Claude the Second. Chosen cabinet painter to the king, he was also for nearly thirty years keeper of the palace of the Luxembourg, where he died. He executed considerable work in oil and fresco in various royal residences.

BENOIT the ELDER, third son of Germain, born at Lyons, 1661; died 1721, in the vicinity of Sens, was first taught the family art by his father and then by his uncle Gérard. He made an excellent reputation by his reproduction of portraits and historical works. Among his best productions are “The Seven Sacraments,” after Poussin, and “The Bronze Serpent,” after Lebrun. He became a Member of the Academy and engraver to the king.

JEAN, fourth son of Germain, born at Lyons, 1667; died 1756, became, next to his celebrated uncle Gérard, the best engraver of the family. He studied first under his father and then with his uncle. He had already distinguished himself at the early age of twenty. He was rewarded for his subsequent successes by being made (in 1907) engraver to the king, with regular pension and the Gobelin apartments. This was followed next year by membership in the Academy. Jean Audran worked until he was eighty. His masterpiece is considered to be “The Rape of the Sabines.” after Poussin. Among his plates are portraits after Gobert, those of Louis XV, Vandyke, Coypel, Largilliere, Rigaud, Trevisani, and Vivien, and compositions after, among others, Raphael, Rubens, the Caracci, Guido Reni, Domenichino, Pietro da Cortona, Albano, Maratta, Philippe de Champagne, Marot, Poussin, and Nattier. His son was Benoit the Younger.

LOUIS, the youngest son of Germain, born at Lyons. 1670 died in Paris, c. 1712, studied with his father and his uncle Gérard. He assisted his brothers, and did few original plates. A work of his to be noted is “The Seven Acts of Mercy,” after Bourdon.

BENOIT the Younger, born in Paris, 1698; died in the same place 1772, was the last of the remarkable family to have any historical importance artistically. He was a pupil of his father and did plates after, among others, Veronese, Poussin, Watteau, Lancret, and Natoire.

PROSPER GABRIEL, a grandson of Jean, born in Paris, 1744; died, 1819; he studied with his uncle, Benoit the Younger, and etched some heads. He gave up art for the law and became professor of Hebrew in the Collège de France.

DUPLESSIS, Les Audran; BRYAN, Dictionary Of Painters and Engravers.

AUGUST VAN CLEEF

Leopold Auenbrugger

(Or von Auenbrugg).

An Austrian physician, born 19 November, 1722; died 17 May, 1807. He was the inventor of percussion in physical diagnosis and is considered one of the small group of men to whose original genius modern medicine owes its present position. He was a native of Graz in Styria, an Austrian province. His father, a hotel-keeper, gave his son every opportunity for an excellent preliminary education in his native town and then sent him to Vienna to complete his studies at the university. Auenbrugger was graduated as a physician at the age of twenty-two and then entered the Spanish military Hospital of Vienna where he spent ten years this observations and experimental studies enabled him to discover that by tapping on the chest with the finger much important information with regard to diseased conditions within the chest might be obtained.

Ordinarily, the lungs wheel percussed, give a sound like a drum over which a heavy cloth has been placed. When the lung is consolidated, as in pneumonia then the sound produced by the tapping of the finger is the same as when the fleshy part of the thigh is taped. Auenbrugger found that the area over the heart gave a modified, dull sound, and that in this way the limits of heart-dullness could be determined. This gave the first definite information with regard to pathological changes in the heart. During his ten years of patient study, Auenbrugger confirmed these observations by comparison with post-mortem specimens, and besides made a number of experimental researches on dead bodies. He injected fluid into the pleural cavity, and showed that it was perfectly possible by percussion to tell exactly the limits of the fluid present, and thus to decide when and where efforts should be made for its removal.

His later studies this ten-year were devoted to tuberculosis. He pointed out how to detect cavities of the lungs, and how their location and size might be determined by percussion. He also recognized that informatiom with regard to the contents of cavities in the lungs, and conditions of lung tissue might be obtained by placing the hand on the chest and noting the vibration, or fremitus, produced by the voice and the breath. These observations were published in a little book now considered one of the most important classics of medicine. It was called “Inventum Novum,” the full English title running, “A New Discovery that Enables the Physician from the Percussion of the Human Thorax to Detect the Diseases Hidden Within the Chest.”

Like most medical discoveries Auenbrugger’s method of diagnosis at first met with neglect. Before his death, however, it had aroused the attention of Laennec, who, following up the ideas suggested by it, discovered auscultation. Since then, Auenbrugger has been considered one of the great founders of modern medicine. He lived to a happy old age, especially noted for hls cordial relations the younger members of his profession and for his kindness to the poor and to these suffering from tuberculosis. He is sometimes said to have died in the typhus epidemic of 1798, but the burial register of the parish church in Vienna, of which he had been for half a century a faithful member, shows that he did not die until 1807.

JAMES J. WALSH

Jobst Bernhard von Aufsees

Canon of Bamberg and Würzburg, born 28 March, 1671, on the family estate of Mengersdorf; died 2 April, 1738. He was baptized Lutheran, but educated (1683–90) as a Catholic through the efforts of his uncle Carl Sigmund, canon of Bamberg and Würzburg. He was soon advanced to the same dignity in both churches, was provost of Bamberg in 1723;. and held other offices of distinction in both cities. After 1709 he devoted the revenues of his benefices to the establishment of a house of studies at Bamberg: in 1728, he bestowed upon it the sum of 400,000 gulden (about $200,000). This Aufsees Seminary, or Institute was destined for the reception of poor boys from the Dioceses of Bamberg and Würzburg. They were to be supported there during the entire time of their studies at the public academies. He originally intended to place the Jesuits in charge, but by his last will (17 Februaly, 1738) turned it over to the care of the cathedral chapters of Bamberg and Würzburg. It was opened in 1741, and continued its beneficent career until the begining of the nineteenth century, when the secularization of the property of the ecclesiastical principalities took place. The edifice was then turned over to the hospital for incurables, and the revenues applied in part to scholarships (Stipendien). King Ludwig reopened it as a house of studies (Königliches Studienseminar) under governmental supervision. The director and the prefects are priests, but the Government appoints holders of the 42 free places and the 20 places for youths who pay, also the officers of the institute, and administers its revenues.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Edmond Auger

Born 1530, near Troyes; died at Como, Italy, 31 January, 1591, one of the great figures in the stormy times in France, when the Calvinists were striving to get possession of the throne. He entered the Society of Jesus while St. Ignatius was still living, and was regarded as one of the most eloquent men of his time. Mathew calls him the “Chrysostom of France.” Wherever he went, throngs flocked to hear him, and the heretics themselves were always eager to be present, capivated as they were by the charm of his wisdom and the delicacy of his courtesy in their regard. His entrance into France as a priest was in the city of Valence, where the bishop had just apostatized, and the Calvinists were then in possession. The efforts of Auger to address the people were followed by his being seized and sentenced to be burned to death. While standing on the pyre, he harangued the multitude, and so won their good will they asked for his deliverence. Viret, especially, the chief orator of the Calvinists, wanted to have a public discussion with him to convert him. Auger was consequently sent to prison for the night, but the Catholics rescued him before the conference took place. We find him afterwards in Lyons, during a pestilence, devoting himself to the plague-stricken. When the pest had ceased, in consequence of a vow he made, the authorities, in gratitude, established a college of the Society to which Auger asked much to their astonishment, that the children of the Calvinists might be admitted. His whole life was one of constant activity, preaching and administering the responsible offices of Provincial, Rector etc., that were entrusted to him. He was present at two battles and was remarkable for his influence over the soldiers. He was finally made confessor of king Henry III, the first Jesuit to have that troublesome charge put upon him. The difficulty of his position was increased by the fact that the League was just then being formed by the Catholic succession. Its principles and methods were sought to trench on the. royal prerogative; but Sistus V was in favour of it. Several Jesuits, notably the Provincial, Mathieu, who was deposed by Acquaviva, were its stanch upholders. Auger’s position was intolerable. Loyal to the king, he was detested by the leaguers who at Lyons the city that he had saved threatened to throw him into the Rhone. They compromised by expelling him from the city. The general commanded him to relinquish the post of confessor, but the King secured the pope’s order for him to stay. Finally Auger prevailed on the monarch to release him, he withdrew to Como in Italy, where he died. Shortly afterwards Henry was assassinated. Like Canisius in Germany, Auger published a Catechism for France. It appeared at first in Latin, and later he published it in Greek. He wrote a work on the Blessed Eucharist, instructions for soldiers, translations, some literary compositions, and also drew up the statutes for congregations, especially one in which the king was interested, called the Congregation of Penitents. There is a letter by him called “Spiritual Sugar,” though he did not give it that title. He had written an address to the people of Toulouse to console them in the distress brought on by the calamities of the authorities of the civil war. It so took the popular fancy that authorities of the city published it under this curious caption.

T. J. CAMPBELL

Augilæ

(Or Augila).

A titular see of Cyrenaica in Northern Africa. It was situated in an oasis in the Libyan desert which is still one of the chief stations (Audjelah, Aoudjila) on the caraven route from Cairo to Fezzan. Its forests of date-palms were famous in the time of Herodotus (IV, 172); they still crown the three small hills that rise out unbroken desert of red sand which in the near vicinity is strongly impregnated with salts of soda. The Moslem population is now about 10,000 and is governed by an official of the Bay of Tripoli who draws from the oasis an annual revenue $12,000.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Diocese of Augsburg

Diocese in the Kingdom of Bavaria, Germany, suffragan of the Archdiocese of Munich-Freising, embracing the entire government district of Swabia and Neuburg, the western part of the government district of Upper Bavaria, and a small part of the government district of Central Franconia.

I. HISTORY

(1) EARLY PERIOD

The present city of Augsburg appears in Strabo as Damasia, a stronghold of the Licatii; in 14 B.C. it became a Roman colony known as Augusta Vindelicorum, received the rights of a city from Hadrian and soon became of great importance as an arsenal and the point of junction of several important trade routes. The beginnings of Christianity within the limits of the present diocese are shrouded in obscurity its teachings were probably brought thither by soldiers or merchants. According to the acts of the martyrdom of St. Afra, who with her handmaids suffered at the stake for Christ, there existed in Augsburg, early in the fourth century, a Christian community under Bishop Narcissus; St. Dionysius, uncle of St. Afra, is mentioned as his Successor.

(2) MEDIEVAL PERIOD

Nothing authentic is known about the history of the Augsburg Church during the centuries immediately succeeding, but it survived the collapse of Roman power in Germany and the turbulence of the great migrations. It is true that two catalogues of the Bishops of Augsburg, dating from the eleventh and twelfth centuries, mention several bishops of this primitive period, but the first whose record has received indubitable historical corroboration is St. Wikterp (or Wicbpert) who was bishop about 739 or 768. He took part in several synods convened by St. Boniface in Germany; in company with St. Magnus, he founded the monastery of Füssen; and with St. Boniface he dedicated the monastery at Benediktbeuren. Under either St. Wikterp or his successor, Tazzo (or Tozzo), about whom little is known, many monasteries were established, e.g. Wessobrunn, Ellwangen, Polling, Ottobeuren. At this time, also, the see, hitherto suffragan to the Patriarchate of Aquileia, was placed among the suffragan sees of the newly founded Archdiocese of Mainz (746). St. Sintpert (c. 810), hitherto Abbot of the monastery of Murbach, and a relative of Charlemagne, renovated many churches and monasteries laid waste in the wars of the Franks and Bavarians, and during the incursions of the Avari; he built the first cathedral of Augsburg in honour of the Most Blessed Virgin; and obtained from the Emperor Charlemagne an exact definition of his diocesan limits. His jurisdiction extended at that time from the Iller eastward over the Lech, north of the Danube to the Alb, and south to the spurs of the Alps. Moreover, various estates and villages in the valley of the Danube, and in the Tyrol, belonged to the diocese. Among the bishops of the following period a certain number are especially prominent, either on account of the offices they filled in the Empire, or for their personal qualifications; thus Witgar (887–87), Chancellor and Archchaplain of Louis the German; Adalbero (887–910), of the line of the Counts of Dillingen, confidant and friend of Emperor Arnulf, who entrusted Adalbero with the education of his son, the German King Louis the Child, distinguished for generosity to the monasteries. The See of Augsburg reached the period of its greatest splendor under St. Ulrich (923–973); he raised the standard of training and discipline among the clergy by the reformation of existing schools and the establishment of new ones, and by canonical visitations and synods; he provided for the poor, and rebuilt decayed churches and monasteries. During the incursion of the Hungarians and the siege of Augsburg (955), he sustained the courage of the citizens, compelled the Hungarians to withdraw, and contributed much to the decisive victory on the Lechfeld (955). He built churches in honor of St. Afra and St. John, founded the monastery of St. Stephen for Benedictine nuns, and undertook three pilgrimages to Rome. The diocese suffered much during the episcopate of his successor, Henry I (973–982), for he sided with the foes of Emperor Otto II, and remained for several months in prison. After his liberation he renounced his former views and bequeathed to his church his possessions at Geisenhausen. The diocese attained great splendor under Bishop Bruno (1006–20), brother of Emperor Henry II; he restored a number of ruined monasteries, founded the church and college of St. Maurice, placed Benedictine monks in the collegiate church of St. Afra, and added to the episcopal possessions by the gift of his own inheritance of Straubing. Under Bishop Henry II (1047–63), the guardian of Henry IV, the diocese secured the right of coinage was enriched by many donations; under Embrico (or Emmerich, 1063–77) the cathedral was dedicated (1065) and the canonicate and church of St. Peter and St. Felicitas were built. During the last years of his episcopate the quarrel of Emperor Henry IV with the papacy in which Embrico took the imperial side and only temporarily yielded to the papal legate. The struggle continued under his successors; four anti-bishops were set up in opposition to Siegfried II (1077–96). Hermann, Count von Vohburg (1096 or 1097–1132) supported with treachery and cunning his claim to the see he had purchased, violently persecuted the Abbot of St. Afra, and expelled him from the city. Only after the conclusion of the Concordat of Worms (1122) did Hermann obtain the confirmation of the pope and relief from excommunication. The political disturbances resulting from the dissensions between the popes and the German emperors reacted on the Church of Augsburg. There were short periods of rest, during which ecclesiastical life received a forward impulse, as, for instance, under Bishop Walther II Count Palatine von Dillingen (1133–52), under whom the possessions of the diocese were again consolidated and increased by his own inheritance; under Udalskalk (1184–1202), who with great ceremony placed the recently discovered bones of St. Ulrich in the new church of Sts. Ulrich and Afra. These days of peace alternated with periods of conflict into which the Bishops of Augsburg were drawn, often against their will, in their capacity as Princes of the Empire, and the life of the Church accordingly suffered decline. Under Siboto von Lechfeld (1227–47) monasteries of the newly founded mendicant orders were first established in Augsburg. A celebrated member of the Franciscans was David of Augsburg, and of the Dominicans, Albertus Magnus of Lauingen. Additional causes of conflict were the troubles that arose between the Bishops of Augsburg and the city authorities. During the struggles between the popes and the emperors, Augsburg like other large cities throughout the greater part of Germany, attained enormous wealth, owing to the industrial and commercial activity of the citizens. From time to time efforts were made to restrict as much as possible the ancient civil rights of the bishops and their stewards, and even to abrogate them entirely. From a state of discontent the citizens passed to open violence under the Bishop Hartmann von Dillingen (1248–86), and wrung from the bishops many municipal liberties and advantages. A characteristic instance is the confirmation by Emperor Rudolph of Habsburg at the Reichstag held in Augsburg (1276) of the Stadtbuch, or municipal register, containing the ancient customs, episcopal and municipal rights, etc., specified in detail; on the same occasion Augsburg was recognized as a Free City of the Empire. Hartmann bequeathed to the Church of Augsburg his paternal inheritance, including the town and castle of Dillingen. Peace reigned under the succeeding bishops, of whom Frederick I (1309–31) acquired for his see the castle and stronghold of Füssen; Ulrich II, von Schoneck (1331–37), and his brother Henry III (1337–48) remained faithful to Emperor Louis the Bavarian, Markward I, von Randeck (1348–65), again redeemed the mortgaged property of the diocese, and by the favor of Emperor Charles IV was made Patriarch of Aquileia (1365). New dissensions between the Bishop and the city arose under Burkhard von Ellerbach (1373–1404), whose accession was marked by grave discord growing out of the overthrow of the Patrizier, or aristocratic government, and the rise in municipal power of the crafts or guilds. Irritated by Burkhard’s support of the nobility in their struggle with the Swabian cities, the inhabitants of Augsburg plundered the dwellings of the canons, drove some of the clergy from the city (1381), destroyed, after a short interval of respite (1388), the episcopal strong-hold, the deanery, and the mint, and became almost completely independent of the bishop. Burkhard proceeded with great energy against the heresy of the Wyclifites who had gained a foothold in Augsburg and condemned to the stake five persons refused to abjure. After the death of Eberhard II (1404–13), a quarrel arose in 1413 because the city of Augsburg declined to recognize the lawful Bishop, Anselm von Nenningen (1413–23), and set up in opposition Friedrich von Grafeneek who had been presented by Emperor Sigismund. This trouble was settled by Pope Martin V, Who compelled both bishops to resign, and on his own authority replaced them by Peter von Schauenberg, Canon of Bamberg and Würzburg (1423–69).

Peter was endowed by the Pope with extraordinary faculties, made cardinal and legate a latere for all Germany. He worked with zeal and energy for the reformation of his diocese, held synods and made episcopal visitations in order to raise the decadent moral and intellectual life of the clergy; he restored the discipline and renewed the fallen splendor of many monasteries, canonies and collegiate churches. He completed the rebuilding of the cathedral in Gothic style, consecrated it in 1431 and in 1457 laid the cornerstone of the new church of Sts. Ulrich and Afra. Succeeding prelates carried on the reformation of the diocese with no less solicitude and zeal. Among them were Johann II, Count of Werdenberg (1469–86), tutor to the emperor’s son, afterwards Emperor Maximilian I, who convened a synod in Dillingen, and encouraged the recently invented art of printing; Friedrich von Zollern (1486–1505) pupil of the great preacher Geiler von Kaysersberg, and founder of a college in Dillingen, who held a synod in the same city, promoted the printing of liturgical books, and greatly enriched the possessions of the diocese; Henry IV, von Lichtenau (1505–17), a great friend and benefactor of monasteries and of the poor, and patron of the arts and sciences. During the episcopate of these bishops Augsburg acquired through the industry of its citizens, a world-wide commerce. Some members of its families, e.g. the Fuggers and the Welsers, were the greatest merchants of their time; they lent large sums of money to the emperors and princes of Germany, conducted the financial enterprises of the papacy, and even extended their operations to the newly discovered continent of America. Among the citizens of Augsburg famous at that time in literature and art were the humanist Conrad Peutinger; the brothers Bernard and Conrad Adelmann von Adelmannsfelden; Matthias Lang, secretary to Emperor Frederick III, and later Cardinal and Archbishop of Salzburg; the distinguished painters Holbein the elder, Burgkmair and others. With wealth, however, came a spirit of worldliness and cupidity. Pride and a super-refinement of culture furnished the rank soil in which the impending religious revolution was to find abundant nourishment.

(3) REFORMATION PERIOD

The Reformation brought disaster on the Diocese of Augsburg. It included 1,050 parishes with more than 500,000 inhabitants. Besides the cathedral chapter it could boast eight collegiate foundations, forty-six monasteries for men, and thirty-eight convents for women. Luther, who was summoned to vindicate himself in the presence of the papal legate before the Reichstag at Augsburg (1518), found enthusiastic adherents in this diocese among both the secular and regular clergy, but especially among the Carmelites, in whose convent of St. Anne he dwelt; he also found favor among the city councillors, burghers, and tradesmen. Bishop Christopher von Stadion (1517–43) did all in his power to arrest the spread of the now teachings; he called learned men to the pulpit of the cathedral, among others Urbanus Rhegius, who, however, soon went over to Luther; he convened a synod at Dillingen, at which it was forbidden to read Luther’s writings; he promulgated throughout his diocese the Bull of Leo X (1520) against Luther; he forbade the Carmelites, who were spreading the new doctrine, to preach; he warned the magistrates of Augsburg, Memmingen, and other places not to tolerate the reformers, and he adopted other similar measures. Despite all this, the followers of Luther obtained the upper hand in the city council, and by 1524, various Catholic ecclesiastical usages, notably the observance of fast days, had been abolished in Augsburg. The apostate priests, many of whom, after Luther’s example, had taken wives, were supported by the city council, and the Catholics were denied the right of preaching. The Anabaptists also gained a strong following and added fuel to the fire of the Peasants’ War, in which many monasteries, institutions, and castles were destroyed. At the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, at which the so-called Augsburg Confession was delivered to Emperor V in the chapel of the episcopal palace, the emperor issued an edict according to which all innovations were to be abolished, and Catholics reinstated in their rights and property. The city council, however, set itself up in opposition, recalled (1531) the Protestant preachers who had been expatriated, suppressed Catholic services in all churches except the cathedral (1534), and in 1537 joined the League of Smalkald. At the beginning of this year a decree of the council was made, forbidding everywhere the celebration of Mass, preaching, and all ecclesiastical ceremonies, and giving to the Catholic clergy the alternative of enrolling themselves anew as citizens or leaving the city. An overwhelming majority of both secular and regular clergy chose banishment; the bishop withdrew with the cathedral chapter to Dillingen, whence he addressed to the pope and the emperor an appeal for the redress of his grievances. In the city of Augsburg the Catholic churches were seized by Lutheran and Zwinglian preachers; at the command of the council pictures were removed, and at the instigation of Bucer and others a disgraceful storm of popular iconoclasm followed, resulting in the destruction of many splendid monuments of art and antiquity. The greatest intolerance was exercised towards the Catholics who had remained in the city; their schools were dissolved; parents were compelled to send their children to Lutheran institutions; it was even forbidden to hear Mass outside the city under severe penalties.

Under Otto Truchsess von Waldburg (1543–73) the first signs of improvement were noted in the attitude towards Catholics. At the outbreak of hostilities (1546) between the emperor and the League of Smalkald, Augsburg, as a member of the league, took up arms against Charles V, and Bishop Otto invested and plundered Füssen, and confiscated nearly all the remaining possessions of the diocese. After the victory at Muhlberg (1547), however, the imperial troops marched against Augsburg, and the city was forced to beg for mercy, surrender twelve pieces of artillery, pay a fine, restore the greater number of churches to the Catholics and reimburse the diocese and the clergy for property confiscated. In 1547 the Bishop, Otto von Truchsess, who had meanwhile been created a cardinal returned to the city with the cathedral chapter, followed shortly after by the emperor. At the Diet held at Augsburg in 1548 the so-called “Augsburg Interim” was arranged. After a temporary occupation of the city and suppression of Catholic services by the Elector, Prince Maurice of Saxony (1551), the “Religious Peace of Augsburg” was concluded at the Diet of 1555; it was followed by a long period of peace. The disturbances of the Reformation were more disastrous in their results throughout the diocese and adjoining lands than within the immediate precincts of Augsburg. Thus, after many perturbations and temporary restorations of the Catholic religion, the Protestants finally gained the upper hand in Würtemberg, Oettingen, Neuburg, the free cities of Nördlingen, Memmingen, Kaufbeuren, Dinkelsbuhl, Donauwörth, Ulm, in the ecclesiastical territory of Feuchtwangen and elsewhere. Altogether during these years of religious warfare the Diocese of Augsburg lost to the Reformation about 250 parishes, 24 monasteries, and over 500 benefices. Although the religious upheaval brought with it a great loss of worldly possessions, it was not without beneficial effect on religious life of the diocese. Bishop Christopher von Stadion while trying to protect Catholicism from the inroads of the Reformation, had sought to strengthen and revive ecclesiastical disciple, which had sadly declined, among both the secular and regular clergy. The work was carried on even more energetically by Bishop Otto Truchsess, who achieved a fruitful counter-reformation. By frequent visitations he sought to become familiar with existing evils, and by means of diocesan synods and a vigorous enforcement of measures against ignorant and dissolute clerics, secular and regular, he endeavored to remedy these conditions. He advanced the cause of education by founding schools; he summoned the Jesuits to his diocese, among others Blessed Peter Canisius, who from 1549, in the capacity, of cathedral preacher, confessor, and catechist, exercised a remarkable fruitful and efficacious ministry. In 1549 Bishop Otto founded a seminary in Dillingen for the training of priests, obtained from the pope (1554) a decree raising it to the rank of a university, and in 1564 gave the direction of the new university to the Jesuits, for whom he had built a college in Dillingen. It is due to his untiring labours and those of Canisius that much larger portions of the diocese were not lost to the Church. Under the immediate successors of Otto the revival instituted by him progressed rapidly, and many excellent decrees were formulated. Under Marquard II von Berg (1575–91) a pontifical boarding school (alumnatus) was founded in Dillingen, colleges were established by the Jesuits in Landsberg, and through the bounty of the Fugger family, in Augsburg (1580). Heinrich von Knoringen, made bishop at the early age of twenty-eight, took especial interest in the university and the Seminary of Dillingen, both of which he enriched with many endowments; he convened several synods, converted Duke Wolfgang of Neuburg to Catholicism, and during his long episcopate (1598–1646) reconciled many Protestant cities and parishes to the Catholic Church, being aided in a particular manner by the Jesuits, for whom he founded establishments in Neuburg, Memmingen, and Kaufbeuren. By means of the Edict of Restitution of Emperor Ferdinand II (1629), vigorously and even too forcefully executed by the bishop, the Thirty Years’ War first accomplished an almost complete restoration of the former possessions of the Diocese of Augsburg. The occupation of Augsburg by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (1632) restored temporarily the balance of power to the Protestants. Until the relief of the city by the imperial troops (1635) the Catholics were hard pressed and were forced to give up all they had gained by the Edict of Restitution. Finally the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) established equality between Catholics and Protestants, and was followed by a long period of internal peace. On account of the losses entailed on the diocese by the treaty, a solemn protest was laid before the imperial chancery by Bishop Sigmund Franz, Archduke of Austria (1646–65). This bishop on account of his youth, ruled the diocese through administrators, and later resigned his office. His successor, Johann Christopher von Freiberg (1665–90), was particularly desirous of liquidating the heavy burden of debt borne by the chapter, but was nevertheless generous towards churches and monasteries. His successor, Alexander Sigmund (1690–1737), son of the Palatine Elector, guarded the purity of doctrine in liturgical, books and prayerbooks. Johann Friedrich von Stauffenberg (1737–40) founded the Seminary of Meersbury and introduced missions among the people. Joseph, Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt (1740–68) exhumed with great ceremony the bones of St. Ulrich and instituted an investigation into the life of Crescentia Hoss of Kaufbeuren, who died in the odour of sanctity. Klemens Wenzeslaus, Prince of Saxony and Poland (1768–1812), made a great number of excellent disciplinary regulations, and took measures for their execution; after the suppression of the Society of Jesus he afforded its members protection and employment in his diocese; he made a vigorous resistance to the rapidly spreading Rationalism and infidelity, and was honored by a visit from Pope Pius VI (1782).

(4) FRENCH REVOLUTION AND SECULARIZATION

During this episcopate began the world-wide upheaval inaugurated by the French Revolution. It was destined to put an end to the temporal power of the Church in Germany, and to bring about the fall of Augsburg from the dignity of a principality of the Empire. In 1802, by act of the Delegation of the Imperial Diet (Reichsdeputationsrezess), the territory of the Diocese of Augsburg was given to the Elector of Bavaria, who took possession 1 December, 1802. The cathedral chapter, together with forty canonicates, forty-one benefices, nine colleges, twenty-five abbeys, thirty-four monasteries of the mendicant orders, and two convents were the victims of this act of secularization. Unfortunately, owing to the inconsiderate conduct of the commissioners appointed by the Bavarian minister, Montgelas, innumerable artistic treasures, valuable books, and documents were destroyed. For five years after the death of the last bishop of princely rank (1812) the episcopal see remained vacant; the parts of the diocese lying outside of Bavaria were separated from it and annexed to other dioceses. It was not until 1817 that the Concordat between the Holy See and the Bavarian government reconstructed the Diocese of Augsburg, and made it subject to the Metropolitan of Munich-Freising. In 1821 the territory subject to the ecclesiastical authority of Augsburg was increased by the addition of sections of the suppressed See of Constance, and the present limits were then defined.

(5) THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

As the new bishop, Franz Karl von Hohenlohe-Schillingsfurst, died (1819) before assuming office, and Joseph Maria von Fraunberg was soon called to the archiepiscopal See of Bamberg, there devolved upon their successors the important task of rearranging the external conditions and reanimating religious life, which had suffered sorely. Ignatius Albert von Riegg (1824–36) was successful in his endeavors to further the interests of souls, to raise the standard of popular education through the medium of numerous ordinances and frequent visitations. He assigned the administration and direction of studies in the Lyceum to the monks of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Stephen in Augsburg, founded by King Ludwig (1834). Petrus von Richarz (1837–55) displayed energy and persistent zeal in promoting the interests of his diocese and the Catholic Church in general, and encouraged the giving of missions to the people, the establishment of many religious institutions for the care of the sick and for educational purposes, and carefully superintended the training of the clergy. The same spirit characterized the labours of the succeeding bishops: Michael von Deinlein (1856–58), who after a short episcopate was raised to the Archbishopric of Bamberg; Pankratius von Dinkel (1858–94), under whom both seminaries and the deaf and dumb asylum were established in Dillingen, and many monastic institutions were founded; Petrus von Hotzl (1895–1902) whose episcopate was marked by the attention paid to social and intellectual pursuits, and the number of missions given among the people as well as by the solemn celebration of the beatification of the pious nun Crescentia Hoss. He was succeeded by Maximilian von Lingg, born at Nesselwang, 8 March, 1842; ordained priest, 22 July, 1865; appointed bishop, 18 March, 1902, consecrated, 20 July, 1002.

II. RELIGIOUS STATISTICS

According to the census of 1 December, 1900, the Diocese of Augsburg contained 777,958 Catholics and about 100,000 of other beliefs; at present there are about 818,074 Catholics. Socially, the population is chiefly of the middle class; recently, however, on account of the greater growth of the industrial arts in the city of Augsburg in Lechhausen, Memmingen, and other places, the working classes are increasing in numbers. Leaving out of consideration the larger cities, in which the various denominations are well represented, it may be said that the southern part of the diocese, Algau and the adjoining parts of Altbayern (Bavaria proper), are almost entirely Catholic, while in the northern part a mixture of creeds predominates. That small portion of Mittelfranken (Fran-conia) which belongs to the, diocese, is overwhelmingly Protestant. The relations between the various religious denominations are in general friendly and peaceable. For the work of sacred ministry the diocese is divided into 40 deaneries (1 city deanery at Augsburg, and 39 rural deaneries), with 862 parishes, 31 parochial curacies, 16 curacies, 226 benefices, 6 preaching-offices (Prädikaturen), 227 chaplaincies. In general each parish is complete and independent; but in the mountainous southern section there are many parishes, to which are attached from fifty to a hundred dependent churches (Filiakirchen). The cathedral chapter consists of the provost of the cathedral, a dean of the cathedral, 8 canons and 6 vicars. In 1907 the clergy of the diocese numbered 1,439: 815 parish priests and parochial curates, 49 parochial vicars, 11 curates, 73 beneficed clergymen, 53 vicars of benefices, 180 chaplains and assistant priests, 49 prebendaries and clerical professors (not including the professors of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Stephen in Augsburg); 74 priests temporarily stationed in the diocese, 95 regulars, 40 priests engaged in other dioceses or on missions. Of the religious orders of men there are the following establishments: Benedictines, 3 (Augsburg, Andechs, Ottobeuren), with 33 priests, 6 clerics, 56 lay brothers; Mission Society of St. Benedict, I (St. Ottilien), with 36 priests (12 at present outside the diocese), 31 clerics, 117 lay brothers; Franciscans, 3, with 7 priests and 22 lay brothers; Capuchins, 5, with 28 priests, IS clerics, and 37 lay brothers; Brothers of Mercy, 6, with 4 priests and 54 lay brothers. Altogether there are 18 establishments conducted by the male orders, with 108 priests, 55 clerics, and 286 lay brothers. Far more numerous are the female orders and religious congregations; they number 226 establishments and branches, with 2,815 members. They are: Sisters of Mercy of St. Vincent de Paul, 59 houses, with 302 sisters; Franciscans, with their mother-houses at Augsburg, Dillingen, Kaufbeuren, and Mindelheim, 71 establishments, with 735 sisters; Arme Franziskanerinnen with mother-house at Mallersdorf, 34 establishments, with 171 sisters; Englische Fräulein (English Ladies), 11 convents with 311 ladies, 160 lay sisters, and 43 novices; Dominican nuns, 11 convents with 271 choir sisters, 17 lay sisters, and 36 novices; Poor School Sisters, 21 foundations with 166 sisters, Elisabetherinnen (Sisters of St. Elizabeth), 4 foundations with 41 sisters and 5 novices; Sisters of the Most Holy Redeemer with their mother-house at Oberbronn in Alsace, 61 foundations with 24 sisters; Cistercian nuns, 1 convent with 29 choir nuns, 15 lay sisters, and 2 novices; Mission Sisters of St. Benedict, 1 convent with 65 sisters and 9 novices; Sisters of St. Joseph of Ursberg, 7 foundations with 231 sisters and 92 novices.

III. EDUCATION

As the primary schools in Bavaria are the property of the local civic corporation and under State control, there are no parochial schools in the strict sense of the word, According to the Bavarian Constitution of 1818 nothing move is assured to the Church than the direction of religious instruction and the surveillance of religious life in the school. She exercises this right in 1,074 primary schools of the Diocese of Augsburg, by means of 6 ecclesiastical county (Bezirk) school-inspectors and 50 ecclesiastical district school-inspectors. However, in many of the girls’ schools (Mädchenschulen) the direction of studies is confined entirely to religious societies under State inspection. Thus the Poor School Sisters have charge of the studies in 19 schools, the Franciscans in 35, the Dominican nuns in 11, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Ursberg in 3; the English Ladies are excellent teachers for the higher education of women, and conduct 11 institutes for girls. For the training of priests there are the Lyceum and the Diocesan Seminary for ecclesiastics at Dillingen; the Diocesan Seminary for boys at Dillingen; St. Stephen’s Catholic House of Studies at Augsburg, under the direction of the Benedictines, which includes a Lyceum, a classical Gymnasium a royal seminary of studies and a institute for higher education; there are besides about forty students of the diocese of Augsburg who dwell in the Georgianum at Munich and attend the courses of the,University. The state, or communal, institutions of higher studies for boys number 28 in the Diocese of Augsburg; 5 gymnasia, 1 Realgymnasium, 1 seminary of studies, 5 Progymnasia 2 Latin schools, 7 Realschulen, 3 agricultural winter schools, 1 Realschule with Latin, 1 normal school, and 2 preparatory schools. We must also mention the Cassianeum in Donauworth, a Catholic institute of pedagogy, which includes a training-school, a publishing house for books and periodicals, a printing press and other appurtenances. In all of these institutions Catholic instruction is given to Catholic students by Catholic clergymen.

IV. CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS

The charitable institutions of the diocese are for the most part the property of the civic parishes or the unions (Vereine), or local associations; they are administered, however, mostly by religious communities to whom is also confided the care of the sick, or children, and of the aged. There are 37 hospitals, 424 infirmaries, 12 protectories, 2 asylums for children, 8 orphanages, 3 institutions for the deaf and dumb, 12 houses for the poor and orphans, 3 poorhouses, 1 hospital for Priests 1 home for invalids, 3 institutions for servants under the patronage of the Blessed Virgin (Marienanstalten), 1 House of St. Anne (Annastift) for the factory girls in Augsburg, 1 House of St. Elizabeth for incurables, 5 institutions for various other purposes (e.g. the Kneippianum in Worishofen). One Catholic institution of Augsburg deserves special mention: the Fuggerei, founded in 1519 by three brothers (Ulrich, Georg, and Jakob) of the Fuggers. It consists of an extensive block of 53 houses with 106 apartments; in accordance with the conditions of the foundation these must be let at a very small rent to indigent cut people. It is a noble and durable memorial of the spirit of Christian charity that abounded in the Catholic Middle Ages. In recent times other works of Christian charity have been inaugurated. The good priest and superintendent of studies (Regens), Father Wagner of Dillingen, established many institutions for the deaf, dumb, and blind; Father Ringeisen, parish priest of Ursberg, established there the Sisters of St. Joseph for the exercise of every form of charity. For aged and infirm priests there exists a fund with 1,277 subscribers and a reserve of 1,550,000 marks ($387,500). There is also an association for the support of infirm priests, with 792 members and a fund of 26,000 marks ($6,500). Prominent among the numerous social-political and religious associations of the diocese are 16 Catholic apprentices unions, (Lehrlingsvereine), the local union in Augsburg maintaining its own home for apprentices; 49 Catholic journeymen’s unions (Gesellenvereine), 4 Unions of St Joseph; 52 Catholic workingmen’s unions; 19 Catholic students’ clubs; 3 Catholic clubs for working women, with 504 members; 7 Catholic “Patronages” for working people; the Ulrich-union for the support of seminaries; the Men’s Catholic Association, the Christian Peasants’ League; the Cecilian Club; St. Mary’s Protectory for girls; the Young Women’s Association, and the Association of Christian Mothers. Annual pilgrimages give visible evidence of the vigorous religious life of the diocese. Such pilgrimages are those of the Holy Cross (11 May) and to the tomb of St. Ulrich at Augsburg (4 July). There are also processions to the holy mountain of Andechs during the rogation days, and to the monastery of Lechfeld since the year of the cholera (1854). Other pilgrimages are those to the relies of St. Rasso at Grafrath, to the church of the Holy Sepulcher (Unsers Herrn Ruh) near Friedberg, and to Maria Siebeneich.

V. ECCLESIASTICAL ART AND MONUMENTS

Among the ecclesiastical monuments of the Diocese of Augsburg the cathedral holds first place. It was begun in the Roman style in 994, dedicated 1010, and remodeled, 1331–1431, into a Gothic church with five naves; it was then that the lofty east choir with its circle of chapels was added. The towers were increased in height in 1488–89 and 1564. Among the innumerable art treasures of the cathedral may be mentioned the vestments of St. Ulrich; the tour altars with paintings by the elder Holbein illustrating the life of the Blessed Virgin; the celebrated bronze doors of the left lateral nave, adorned with remark able reliefs, and dating from the first half of the eleventh century; the ancient stained windows, some of which back to the eleventh and twelfth centuries; the interesting tombs and slabs of the fourteenth and succeeding centuries, both in the cathedral itself and in the adjoining cloister, and many other objects of value and interest. The church of Sts. Ulrich and Afra, built 1467–1594, in the Gothic style, contains the tomb of St. Ulrich, the stone sarcophagus of St. Afra, the Fugger chapel with the memorial to Hans Fugger, and three magnificent altars in rococo style. The late Gothic church of the Holy Cross was renovated, early in the eighteenth century, in florid Roman rococo style, and is a favorite place of pilgrimage. Among the chief ecclesiastical edifices outside the city of Augsburg are the Romanesque basilicas of Altenstadt, Ursberg, Thierhaupten; the Gothic churches of Kaisheim, Dinkelsbuhl, Donauworth, Landsberg; the ancient abbey-churches of Andechs (very rich in relies and costly reliquaries), Benediktbeuren, Diessen, Füssen, Kempten, Ottobeuren, and Wessobrunn, all restored and ornamented in sumptuous barocco or rococo style.

JOSEPH LINS

Synods of Augsburg

From the time of St. Boniface (d. 754), especially during periods of earnest revival of religious and ecclesiastical life, synods were frequently convened by the bishops of Germany, and sometimes by those of individual ecclesiastical provinces. As the German bishops were, on the one hand, princes of the empire, and the emperor was, on the other, the superior protector of the Roman Church, these synods came to have no little importance in the general ecclesiastical and political development of Western Christendom. Two general imperial synods were held in Augsburg. The first, convened in August, 952, through the efforts of Emperor Otto the Great, provided for the reform of abuses in civil and ecclesiastical life. Frederick, Archbishop of Mainz, presided, and three archbishops and twenty bishops of Germany and northern Italy took part. Eleven canons were promulgated concerning ecclesiastical life and other matters of church discipline. A similar synod, convened by Anno, Archbishop of Cologne (27 October, 1062), was occupied with the internal conditions of the empire and the attitude of the Church of Germany towards the schism of Cadalus, antipope during the reign of Alexander II. The diocesan synods of Augsburg correspond as a rule with the synodal system as carried out in other parts of Germany. We find in this diocese, as elsewhere in Germany, the synodi per villas, convened under the influence of the Carlovingian capitularies. They were visitation-synods, held by the bishop assisted by the archdeacon and the local lord or baron (Gaugraf). Their purpose was inquisitorial and judicial. After the time of St. Ulrich (923–973), and in close relation to the system of provincial councils, diocesan synods were held at stated times, chiefly in connection with matters of ecclesiastical administration (legalizing of important grants and privileges, etc.) and the settlement of disputes. After the thirteenth century these diocesan synods assumed more of a legislative character; decrees were issued regulating the lives of both ecclesiastics and laymen, and church discipline was secured by the publication of diocesan statutes. The earliest extant are of Bishop Friedrich (1309–31). These diocesan synods fell into decay during the course of the fourteenth century.

In consequence of decrees of the Council of Basle the synods of the Diocese of Augsburg rose again to importance, so that after the middle of the fifteenth century they were once more frequently held, as for example: by the able Bishop Peter von Schauenburg (1424–69) and his successor, Johann von Werdenburg, also by Friedrich von Zollern (1486) and Heinrich von Liechtenau (1506). The two Bishops Christopher von Stadion (1517–43) and Otto Truchsess von Waldburg (1543–73) made use of diocesan synods (1517, 1520, 1543 in Dillingen, and 1536 in Augsburg) for the purpose of checking the progress of the Reformation through the improvement of ecclesiastical life. At a later period there were but few ecclesiastical assemblies of this kind; as early as 1567, the synod of that year, convened for the purpose of carrying out the reforms instituted by the Council of Trent, shows signs of the decline of the synod as a diocesan institution. The Bishops of Augsburg were, moreover, not only the ecclesiastical superiors of their diocese, but after the tenth century possessed the Regalia, the right of holding and administering royal fiefs with concomitant jurisdiction. The right of coinage was obtained by St. Ulrich. At a later period disputes were frequent between the bishops and the civic authorities, which culminated in an agreement (1389) by which the city was made practically independent of the episcopal authority. (See AUGSBURG.)

HARTZHEIM, Concilia Germaniae (Cologne, 1749); HEFELE, Conciliengesch. (2d ed. Freiburg, 1873); STEINER, Synodi dioec. Augustanae (1766); STEICHELE, Das Bistum Augsburg historisch und statistisch beschrieben (Augsburg, 1864); SCHMID in Kirchenlex., I, 1651–55.

J.P. KIRSCH

Augusta

A titular see of Cilicia in Asia Minor, whose episcopal list (363–434) is given in Gams (435). Several cities bore the same name in Roman antiquity, some of which are yet flourishing, e.g. Augusta Auscorum (Auch in Southern France); Augusta Batavorum (Leyden in Holland); Augusta Asturica (Astorga in Spain); Augusta Praetoria (Aosta in Augusta Rauracorum (Augst in Switzerland); Auinorum (Turin in Italy); Augusta Trevirorum (Trier in Germany); Augusta Trinobantum (London); Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg in Germany).

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ. (1740), II, 879–880; SMITH, Dict. Of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 338.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Augustin von Alfeld

(Alveldt, or Alveldianus)

One of the earliest and most aggressive opponents of Luther, born in the village of Alfeld, near Hildesheim, from which he took his surname; died probably in 1532, Nothing is known of his parentage, youth, and early ciscan of the Regular Observance, belonging to the Saxon Province of the Holy Cross. The Absence of his name on the matriculation rosters of the philosophical and theological universities of Erfurt, Rostock, Leipzig, and Wittenberg, usually frequented by the members of the above-named province, leaves the presumption that he made his studies in one of the monastic schools. At the solicitation of Adolf of Anhalt, Bishop of Merseburg, in 1520 being already Lector of Holy Writ at Leipzig, he entered the theological arena to controvert the Lutheran heresy (Mencken, Scriptores rer. Ger., II, 56). On 20 January, 1521 he presided at the public theological disputation held at Weimar, between Lange, Mechler, and the Franciscans, on the merit of monastic vows and life (Kapp, Kleinere Nachlese nützlicher Urkunden zur Erläuterung der Reformationsgeschichte, II, 514, Leipzig, 1727), the result of which has not be handed down, though it called forth a satirical poem at the time (ib., 520). In 1523 he became Guardian of the monastery at Halle, in which position he is still found in 1528. In 1529 he was elected Provincial of the Saxon Province of the Holy Cross.

Alfeld was a man of fine linguistic attainments, a fluent Latinist, familiar with the ancient classics, conversant with Greek and Hebrew, and well acquainted with the humanistic writings of his day. His theology was that of medieval scholasticism, in which he proved “that the old theological training did not leave the antagonists of Luther helpless and unprepared in combating the novel, and to the theologically disciplined mind contradictory, assertions” (Otto, Johannes Cochlaeus, 132, Breslau, 1874. As Lector of Holy Writ, he devoted much attention and thought to the Bible, so that he can state that “from my childhood I have devoted my time and life to it” (super apostolicâ Sede, etc., iiia). In the textual studies of the Greek and Hebrew versions, the translation of Erasmus, the exegetical writings of Faber Stapulensis (Lefèvre d’Etaples) and the Complutensians, he shows a keen, analytical mind and sound judgment. His memory and reputation, however, rest on his polemical activity and writings. The latter are marred at times by a tone of bitterness and sarcasm that detract from their intrinsic worth and gave his opponents, notably Lonicer, Luther’s amanuensis (Biblia nova Alveldensis Wittenbergae Anno MDXX) opportunity to censure the catalogue epithets flung at Luther (Cyprian, Nützliche Urkunden zur Erläuterung der Reformationsgeschichte, II, 158). If it be remembered that Luther calls him bos Lipsicus (De Wette, Briife, Sendschreiben, etc., I, 446); asinus (op. cit., 451, 453, 533); Lipsiensis asinus (op. cit., 471, 475, 542), merely to single out a few controversial amenities, his literary style may be measurable condoned.

Lemmens, Pater Augustin von Alfeld (Freiburg, 1899); Floss in Kirchenlex., I, 1682. The former a comprehensive resume of Alfeld’s writings.

HENRY A. GANSS.

Rule of Saint Augustine

The title, Rule of Saint Augustine, has been applied to each of the following documents:

Letter 211 addressed to a community of women;

Sermons 355 and 356 entitled “De vitâ et moribus clericorum suorum”;

a portion of the Rule drawn up for clerks or Consortia monachorum;

a Rule known as Regula secunda; and

another Rule called: “De vitâ eremiticâ ad sororem liber.”

The last is a treatise on eremitical life by Blessed Ælred, Abbot of Rievaulx, England, who died in 1166 and as the two preceding rules are of unknown authorship, it follows that none but Letter 211 and Sermons 355 and 356 were written by St. Augustine. Letter 211 is addressed to nuns in a monastery that had been governed by the sister of St. Augustine, and in which his cousin and niece lived. His object in writing it was merely to quiet troubles, incident to the nomination of a new superior, and meanwhile he took occasion to expatiate upon some of the virtues and practices essential to the religious life. He dwells upon charity, poverty, obedience, detachment from the world, the apportionment of labour, the mutual duties of superiors and inferiors, fraternal charity, prayer in common, fasting and abstinence proportionate to the strength of the individual, care of the sick, silence, reading during meals, etc. In his two sermons “De vitâ et moribus clericorum suorum” Augustine seeks to dispel the suspicions harboured by the faithful of Hippo against the clergy leading a monastic life with him in his episcopal residence. The perusal of these sermons discloses the fact that the bishop and his priests observed strict poverty and conformed to the example of the Apostles and early Christians by using their money in common. This was called the Apostolic Rule. St. Augustine, however, dilated upon the religious life and its obligations on other occasions. Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, was greatly disturbed by the conduct of monks who indulged in idleness under pretext of contemplation, and at his request St. Augustine published a treatise entitled “De opere monarchorum” wherein he proves by the authority of the Bible the example of the Apostles, and even the exigencies of life, that the monk is obliged to devote himself to serious labour. In several of his letters and sermons is found a useful complement to his teaching on the monastic life and duties it imposes. These are easy of access to Benedictine edition, where the accompanying table may be consulted under the words: monachi, monachae, monasterism, monastica vita, sanctimoniales. The letter written by St. Augustine to the nuns at Hippo (423), for the purpose of restoring harmony in their community, deals with the reform of certain phases of monasticism as it is understood by him. This document, to be sure, contains no such clear, minute prescriptions as are found in the Benedictine Rule, because no complete rule was ever written prior to the time of St. Benedict; nevertheless, the Bishop of Hippo is a law-giver and his letter if to be read weekly, that the nuns may guard against or repent any infringement of it. He considers poverty the foundation of the religious life, but attaches no less importance to fraternal charity, which consists in living in peace and concord. The superior, in particular, is recommended to practise this virtue although not, of course, to the extreme of omitting to chastise the guilty. However, St. Augustine leaves her free to determine the nature and duration of the punishment imposed, in some cases it being her privilege even to expel nuns that have become incorrigible.

The superior shares the duties of her office with certain members of her community, one of whom has charge of the sick, another of the cellar, another of the wardrobe, while still another is the guardian of the books which she is authorized to distribute among the sisters. The nuns make their habits which consist of a dress, a cincture and a veil. Prayer, in common, occupies an important place in their life, being said in the chapel at stated hours and according to the prescribed forms, and comprising hymns, psalms and readings. Certain prayers are simply recited while others, especially indicated, are chanted, but as St. Augustine enters into no minute details, it is to be supposed that each monastery conformed to the liturgy of the diocese in which it is situated. Those sisters desiring to lead a more contemplative life are allowed to follow special devotions in private. The section of the rule that applies to eating, although severe in some respects, is by no means observance and the Bishop of Hippo tempers it most discreetly. Fasting and abstinence are recommended only in proportion to the physical strength of the individual, and when the saint speaks of obligatory fasting he specifies such as are unable to wait the evening or ninth hour meal may eat at noon. The nuns partake of very frugal fare and, in all probability, abstain from meat. However, the sick and infirm are objects of the most tender care and solicitude, and certain concessions are made in favour of those who, before entering religion, leds life of luxury. During meals some instructive matter to be read aloud to the nuns. Although the Rule of St. Augustine contains but few precepts, it dwells at great length upon religious virtues and the ascetic life, this being characteristic of all primitive rules. In his sermons 355 and 356 the saint discourses on the monastic observance of the vow of poverty. Before making their profession the nuns divest themselves of all their goods, their monasteries being resposible for supplying their wants, and whatever they may earn or receive is turned over to a commom fund, the monasteries having right of possession.

In his treatise, “De opere monarchorum,” he inculcates the necessity of labour, without, however, sujecting it to any rule, the gaining of one’s livelihood rendering it indispensable. Monks of couse, devoted to the ecclesiastical ministry observe, ipso facto, the precept of labour, from which observance the infirm are legitimately dispensed. These, then, are the most important monastic prescriptions found in the rule of and writings of St. Augustine.

MONASTIC LIFE OF ST. AUGUSTINE

Augustine was a monk; this fact stands out unmistakably in the reading of his life and works. Although a priest and bishop, he knew how to combine the practices of the religious life with the duties of his office, and his episcopal house in Hippo was for himself and some of his clergy, a veritable monastery. Several of his friends and disciples elevated to the episcopacy imitated his example, among them Alypius at Tagaste, Possidius at Calama, Profuturus and Fortunatus at Cirta Evodius at Uzalis, and Boniface at Carthage. There were still other monks who were priests and who exercised the ministry outside of the episcopal cities. All monks did not live in these episcopal monasteries; the majority were laymen whose communities, although under the authority of the bishops, were entirety distinct from those of the clergy. There were religious who lived in complete isolation, belonging to no community and having no legitimate superiors; indeed, some wandered aimlessly about, at the risk of giving disedification by their vagabondage. The fanatics known as Circumcelliones were recruited from the ranks of these wandering monks, St. Augustine often censured their way of living.

The religious life of the Bishop of Hippo was, for a long time, a matter of dispute between the Canons Regular and the Hermits of St. Augustine, each of these two families claiming him exclusiely as its own. It was not so much the establishing of an historical fact as the settling of a claim of precedence that caused the trouble, and as both sides could not in the right, the quarrel would have continued indefinitely had not the Pope Sixtus IV put an end by his Bull “Summum Silentium” (1484). The silence was imposed, however, was not perpetual, and the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were resumed between the Canons and the Hermits but all to no avail. Pierre de Saint-Trond, Prior of the Canons Regular of St. Martin of Louvain, tells the story of these quarrels in the Preface to his “Examen Testamenti S. Augustini” (Louvain. 1564). Gabriel Pennot, Nicolas Desnos and Le Large uphold the thesis of the Canons; Gandolfo, Lupus, Giles of the Presentation, and Noris sustain that of the Hermits. The Bollandists withhold their opinion. St. Augustine followed the monastic or religious life as it was known to his contemporaries and neither he nor they even thought of establishing among those who had embraced it any distinction whatever as to congregations or orders. This idea was conceived in a subsequent epoch, hence St. Augustine cannot be said to have belonged to any particular order. He made laws for the monks and nuns of Roman Africa, it is true, and he helped to increase their numbers, while they, in turn, revered him as their father, but they cannot be classed as members of any special monastic family.

ST. AUGUSTINE’S INFLUENCE ON MONACHISM

When we consider Augustine’s great prestige, it is easy to understand why his writings should have so influenced the development of Western monachism. His Letter 211 was read and re-read by St. Benedict, who borrowed several important texts from it for insertion in his own rule. St. Benedict’s chapter on the labour of monks is manifestly inspired by the treatise “De opere monachorum,” that has done so much towards furnishing an accurate statement of the doctrine commonly accepted in religious orders. The teaching concerning religious poverty is clearly formulated in the sermons “De vitâ et moribus clericoreun suorum” and the authorship of these two works is sufficient to earn for the Bishop of Hippo the title of Patriarch of monks and religious. The influence of Augustine, however, was nowhere stronger than in southern Gaul in the fifth and sixth centuries. Lerins and the monks of that school were familiar with Augustine’s monastic writings, which, together with those of Cassianus, were the mine from which the principal elements of their rules were drawn. St. Caesarius, Archbishop of Arles, the great organizer of religious life in that section chose a some of the most interesting articles of his rule for monks from St. Augustine, and in his rule for nuns quoted at length from Letter 211. Sts. Augustine and Caesarius were animated by the same spirit which passed from the Archbishop of Arles to St. Aurelian, one of his successors, and, like him, a monastic Iawgiver. Augustine’s influence also extended to women’s monasteries in Gaul, where the Rule of Caesarius was adopted either wholly or in part, as, for example, at Sainte-Croix of Poitiers, Juxamontier of Besançon, and Chamalières near Clermont.

But it was not always enough merely to adopt the teachings of Augustine and to quote him; the author of the regula Tarnatensis (an unknown monastery in the Rhone valley) introduced into his work the entire text of the letter addressed to the nuns, having previously adapted it to a community of men by making slight modifications. This adaptation was surely made in other monasteries in the sixth or seventh centuries, and in his “Codex regularum” St. Benedict of Aniane published a text similarly modified.

For want of exact information we cannot say in which monasteries this was done, and whether they were numerous. Letter 211, which has thus become the Rule of St. Augustine, certainly constituted a part of the collections known under the general name of “Rules of the Fathers” and used by the founders of monasteries as a basis for the practices of the religious life. It does not seem to have been adopted by the regular communities of canons or of clerks which began to be organized in the eighth and ninth centuries. The rule given them by St. Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz (742–766), is almost entirely drawn from that of St. Benedict, and no more decided traces of Augustinian influence are to be found in it than in the decisions of the Council of Aachen (817), which may be considered the real constitutions of the canons Regular. For this influence we must await the foundation of the clerical or canonical communities established in the eleventh century for the effective counteracting of simony and clerical concubinage.

The Council of Lateran (1059) and another council held at Rome four years later approved for the members of the clergy the strict community life of the Apostolic Age, such as the Bishop of Hippo had caused to be practised in his episcopal house and had taught in his two sermons heretofore cited. The first communities of canons adopted these sermons as their basis of organization. This reform movement spread rapidly throughout Latin Europe and brought about the foundation of the regular chapters so numerous and prosperous during the Middle Ages. Monasteries of women or of canonesses were formed on the same plan, but not according to the rules laid down in the sermons “De vitâ et moribus clericorum.” The letter to virgins was adopted almost immediately and became the rule of the canons and canonesses; hence it was the religious code of the Premonstratensians, of the houses of Canons Regular, and of canonesses either gathered into congregations or isolated, of the Friars Preachers, of the Trinitarians and of the Order of Mercy, both for the redemption of captives, of hospitaller communities, both men and women, dedicated to the care of the sick in the hospitals of the Middle Ages, and of some military orders.

J.M. BESSE

St. Augustine of Canterbury

First Archbishop of Canterbury, Apostle of the English; date of birth unknown; d. 26 May, 604. Symbols: cope, pallium, and mitre as Bishop of Canterbury, and pastoral staff and gospels as missionary. Nothing is known of his youth except that he was probably a Roman of the better class, and that early in life he become a monk in the famous monastery of St. Andrew erected by St. Gregory out of his own patrimony on the Cælian Hill. It was thus amid the religious intimacies of the Benedictine Rule and in the bracing atmosphere of a recent foundation that the character of the future missionary was formed. Chance is said to have furnished the opportunity for the enterprise which was destined to link his name for all time with that of his friend and patron, St. Gregory, as the “true beginner” of one of the most important Churches in Christendom and the medium by which the authority of the Roman See was established over men of the English-speaking race. It is unnecessary to dwell here upon Bede’s well-known version of Gregory’s casual encounter with English slaves in the Roman market place (H.E., II, i), which is treated under GREGORY THE GREAT.

Some five years after his elevation to the Roman See (590) Gregory began to look about him for ways and means to carry out the dream of his earlier days. He naturally turned to the community he had ruled more than a decade of years before in the monastery on the Cælian Hill. Out of these he selected a company of about forty and designated Augustine, at that time Prior of St. Andrew’s, to be their representative and spokesman. The appointment, as will appear later on, seems to have been of a somewhat indeterminate character; but from this time forward until his death in 604 it is to Augustine as “strengthened by the confirmation of the blessed Father Gregory (roboratus confirmatione beati patris Gregorii, Bede, H. E., I, xxv) that English, as distinguished from British, Christianity owes its primary inspiration.

The event which afforded Pope Gregory the opportunity he had so long desired of carrying out his great missionary plan in favour of the English happened in the year 595 or 596. A rumour had reached Rome that the pagan inhabitants of Britain were ready to embrace the Faith in great numbers, if only preachers could be found to instruct them. The first plan which seems to have occurred to the pontiff was to take measures for the purchase of English captive boys of seventeen years of age and upwards. These he would have brought up in the Catholic Faith with idea of ordaining them and sending them back in due time as apostles to their own people. He according wrote to Candidus, a presbyter entrusted with the administration of a small estate belonging to the patrimony of the Roman Church in Gaul, asking him to secure revenues and set them aside for this purpose. (Greg., Epp., VI, vii in Migne, P.L., LXXVII.) It is possible, not only to determine approximately the dates of these events, but also to indicate the particular quarter of Britain from which the rumour had come. Aethelberht became King of Kent in 559 or 560, and in less than twenty years he succeeded in establishing an overlordship that extended from the boulders of the country of the West Saxons eastward to the sea and as far north as the Humber and the Trent. The Saxons of Middlesex and of Essex, together with the men of East Anglia and of Mercia, were thus brought to acknowledge him at Bretwalda, and he acquired a political importance which began to be felt by the Frankish princes on the other side of the Channel. Charibert of Paris gave him his daughter Bertha in marriage, stipulating, as part of the nuptial agreement, that she should be allowed the free exercise of her religion. The condition was accepted (Bede, H. E., I, xxv) and Luidhard, a Frankish bishop, accompanied the princess to her new home in Canterbury, where the ruined church of St. Martin, situated a short distance beyond the walls, and dating from Roman-British times, was set apart for her use (Bede, H. E.,I, xxvi). The date of this marriage, so important in its results to the future fortunes of Western Christianity, is of course largely a matter of conjecture; but from the evidence furnished by one or two scattered remarks in St. Gregory’s letters (Epp., VI) and from the circumstances which attended the emergence of the kingdom of the Jutes to a position of prominence in the Britain of this period, we may safely assume that it had taken place fully twenty years before the plan of sending Augustine and his companions suggested itself to the pope.

The pope was obliged to complain of the lack of episcopal zeal among Aethelberht Christian neighbours. Whether we are to understand the phrase ex vicinis (Greg., Epp.,VI) as referring to Gaulish prelates or to the Celtic bishops of northern and western Britain, the fact remains that neither Bertha’s piety, nor Luidhard’s preaching, nor Aethelberht’s toleration, nor the supposedly robust faith of British or Gaulish neighbouring peoples was found adequate to so obvious an opportunity until a Roman pontiff, distracted with the cares of a world supposed to be hastening to its eclipse, first exhorted forty Benedictines of Italian blood to the enterprise. The itinerary seem to have been speedily, if vaguely, prepared; the little company set out upon their long journey in the month of June, 596. They were armed with letters to the bishops and Christian princes of the countries through which they were likely to pass, and they were further instructed to provide themselves with Frankish interpreters before setting foot in Britain itself. Discouragement, however, appears early to have overtaken them on their way. Tales of the uncouth islanders to whom they were going chilled their enthusiasm, and some of their number actually proposed that they should draw back. Augustine so far compromised with the waverers that he agreed to return in person to Pope Gregory and lay before him plainly the difficulties which they might be compelled to encounter. The band of missionaries waited for him in the neighbourhood of Aix-en-Provence. Pope Gregory, however, raised the drooping spirits of Augustine and sent him back without delay to his faint-hearted brethren, armed with more precise, and as it appeared, more convincing authority.

Augustine was named abbot of the missionaries (Bede, H. E.,I, xxiii) and was furnished with fresh letters in which the pope made kindly acknowledgment of the aid thus far offered by Protasius, Bishop of Aix-en-Provence, by Stephen, Abbot of Lérins, and by a wealthy lay official of patrician rank called Arigius [Greg., Epp., VI (indic. xiv) num. 52 sqq.;sc. 3,4,5 of the Benedictine series]. Augustine must have reached Aix on his return journey some time in August; for Gregory’s message of encouragement to the party bears the date of July the twenty-third, 596. Whatever may have been the real source of the passing discouragement no more delays are recorded. The missionaries pushed on through Gaul, passing up through the valley of the Rhone to Arles on their way to Vienne and Autun, and thence northward, by one of several alternatives routes which it is impossible now to fix with accuracy, until they come to Paris. Here, in all probability, they passed the winter months; and here, too, as is not unlikely, considering the relations that existed between the family of the reigning house and that of Kent, they secured the services of the local presbyters suggested as interpreters in the pope’s letters to Theodoric and Theodebert and to Brunichilda, Queen of the Franks.

In the spring of the following year they were ready to embark. The name of the port at which they took ship has not been recorded. Boulogne was at that time a place of some mercantile importance; and it is not improbable that they directed their steps thither to find a suitable vessel in which they could complete the last and not least hazardous portion of their journey. All that we know for certain is that they landed somewhere on the Isle of Thanet (Bede, H. E.,I, xxv) and that they waited there in obedience to King Aethelberht orders until arrangements could be made for a formal interview. The king replied to their messengers that he would come in person from Canterbury, which was less than a dozen miles away. It is not easy to decide at this date between the four rival spots, each of which has claimed the distinction of being the place upon which St. Augustine and his companions first set foot. The Boarded Groin, Stonar, Ebbsfleet, and Richborough—last named, if the present course of the Stour has not altered in thirteen hundred years, then forming part of the mainland—each has its defenders. The curious in such matters may consult the special literature on the subject cited at the close of this article. The promised interview between the king and the missionaries took place within a few days. It was held in the open air, sub divo, says Bede (Bede, H.E.,I, xxv), on a level spot, probably under a spreading oak in deference to the king’s dread of Augustine’s possible incantations. His fear, however, was dispelled by the native grace of manner and the kindly personality of his chief guest who addressed him through an interpreter. The message told “how the compassionate Jesus had redeemed a world of sin by His own agony and opened the Kingdom of Heaven to all who would believe” (Aelfric, ap. Haddan and Stubbs, III, ii). The king’s answer, while gracious in its friendliness, was curiously prophetic of the religious after-temper of his race. “Your words and promised are very fair” he is said to have replied, “but as they are new to us and of uncertain import, I cannot assent to them and give up what I have long held in common with the whole English nation. But since you have come as strangers from so great a distance, and, as I take it, are anxious to have us also share in what you conceive to be both excellent and true, we will not interfere with you, but receive you, rather, in kindly hospitality and take care to provide what may be necessary for your support. Moreover, we make no objection to your winning as many converts as you can to your creed.” (Bede, H.E., I, xxv.)

The king more than made good his words. He invited the missionaries to take up their abode in the royal capital of Canterbury, then a barbarous and half-ruined metropolis, built by the Kentish folk upon the site of the old Roman military town of Durovernum. In spite of the squalid character of the city, the monks must have made an impressive picture as they drew near the abode “over against the Kings’ Street facing the north,” a detail preserved in William Thorne’s (c. 1397) “Chronicle of the Abbots of St. Augustine’s Canterbury,” p.1759, assigned them for a dwelling. The striking circumstances of their approach seem to have lingered long in popular remembrance; for Bede, writing fully a century and a third after the event, is at pains to describe how they came in characteristic Roman fashion (more suo) bearing “the holy cross together with a picture of the Sovereign King, Our Lord Jesus Christ and chanting in unison this litany,” as they advanced: “We beseech thee, O Lord, in the fulness of thy pity that Thine anger and Thy holy wrath be turned away from this city and from Thy holy house, because we have sinned: Alleluia!” It was an anthem out of one of the many “Rogation” litanies then beginning to be familiar in the churches of Gaul and possibly not unknown also at Rome. (Martène, “De antiquis Ecclesiae ritibus,” 1764, III, 189; Bede, “H.E.,” II, xx; Joanes Diac., “De Vita Gregorii,” II, 17 in Migne, P.L., LXXXV; Duchesne’s ed., “Liber Pontificalis,” II, 12.) The building set apart for their use must have been fairly large to afford shelter to a community numbering fully forty. It stood in the Stable Gate, not far from the ruins of an old heathen temple; and the tradition in Thorn’s day was that the parish church of St. Alphage approximately marked the site (Chr. Aug. Abb., 1759). Here Augustine and his companions seemed to have established without delay the ordinary routine of the Benedictine rule as practiced at the close of the sixth century; and to it they seem to have added in a quiet way the apostolic ministry of preaching. The church dedicated to St. Martin in the eastern part of the city which had been set apart for the convenience of Bishop Luidhard and Queen Bertha’s followers many years before was also thrown open to them until the king should permit a more highly organized attempt at evangelization.

The evident sincerity of the missionaries, their single-mindedness, their courage under trial, and, above all, the disinterested character of Augustine himself and the unworldly note of his doctrine made a profound impression on the mind of the king. He asked to be instructed and his baptism was appointed to take place at Pentecost. Whether the queen and her Frankish bishop had any real hand in the process of this comparatively sudden conversion, it is impossible to say. St. Gregory’s letter written to Bertha herself, when the news of the king’s baptism had reached Rome, would lead us to infer, that, while little or nothing had been done before Augustine’s arrival, afterwards there was an endeavor on the part of the queen to make up for past remissness. The pope writes: “Et quoniam, Deo volente, aptum nunc tempus est, agate, ut divina gratia co-operante, cum augmento possitis quod neglectum est reparare.” [Greg. Epp., XI (indic., iv), 29.] The remissness does seem to have been atoned for, when we take into account the Christian activity associated with the names of this royal pair during the next few months. Aethelberht’s conversion naturally gave a great impetus to the enterprise of Augustine and his companions. Augustine himself determined to act at once upon the provisional instruction he had received from Pope Gregory. He crossed over to Gaul and sought episcopal consecration at the hands of Virgilius, the Metropolitan of Arles. Returning almost immediately to Kent, he made preparations for that more active and open form of propaganda for which Aethelberht’s baptism had prepared a way. It is characteristic of the spirit which actuated Augustine and his companions that no attempt was made to secure converts on a large scale by the employment of force. Bede tells us that it was part of the king’s uniform policy “to compel no man to embrace Christianity” (H. E., I, xxvi) and we know from more than one of his extant letters what the pope though of a method so strangely at variance with the teaching of the Gospels. On Christmas Day, 597, more than ten thousand persons were baptized by the first “Archbishop of the English.” The great ceremony probably took place in the waters of the Swale, not far from the mouth of the Medway. News of these extraordinary events was at once dispatched to the pope, who wrote in turn to express his joy to his friend Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, to Augustine himself, and to the king and queen. (Epp., VIII, xxx; XI, xxviii; ibid., lxvi; Bede, H. E., I, xxxi, xxxii.) Augustine’s message to Gregory was carried by Lawrence the Presbyter, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, and Peter one of the original colony of missionary monks. They were instructed to ask for more Gospel labourers, and, if we may trust Bede’s account in this particular and the curious group of letters embodied in his narrative, they bore with them a list of dubia, or questions, bearing upon several points of discipline and ritual with regard to which Augustine awaited the pope’s answer.

The genuineness of the document or libellus, as Bede calls it (H.E., II, i), in which the pope is alleged to have answered the doubts of the new archbishop has not been seriously called in question; though scholars have felt the force of the objection which St. Boniface, writing in the second quarter of the eighth century, urges, vis, that no trace of it could be found in the official collection of St. Gregory’s correspondence preserved in the registry of the Roman Church.(Haddan and Stubbs, III, 336; Dudden, “Gregory the Great,” II, 130, note; Mason, “Mission of St. Augustine,” preface, pp. viii and ix; Duchesne, “Origines,” 3d ed., p. 99, note.) It contains nine responsa, the most important of which are those that touch upon the local differences of ritual, the question of jurisdiction, and the perpetually recurring problem of marriage relationships. “Why,” Augustine had asked “since the faith is one, should there be different usages in different churches; one way of saying Mass in the Roman Church, for instance, and another in the Church of Gaul?” The pope’s reply is, that while “Augustine is not to forget the Church in which he has been brought up,” he is at liberty to adopt from the usage of other Churches whatever is most likely to prove pleasing to Almighty God. “For institutions,” he adds, “are not to be loved for the sake of places; but places, rather, for the sake of institutions.” With regard to the delicate question of jurisdiction Augustine is informed that he is to exercise no authority over the churches of Gaul; but that “all the bishops of Britain are entrusted to him, to the end that the unlearned may be instructed, the wavering strengthened by persuasion and the perverse corrected with authority.” [Greg., Epp., XI (indic., iv), 64; Bede, H. E., I, xxvii.] Augustine seized the first convenient opportunity to carry out the graver provisions of this last enactment. He had already received the pallium on the return of Peter and Lawrence from Rome in 601. The original band of missionaries had also been reinforced by fresh recruits, among whom “the first and most distinguished” as Bede notes, “were Mellitus, Justus, Paulinus, and Ruffinianus.” Of these Ruffinianus was afterwards chosen abbot of the monastery established by Augustine in honour of St. Peter outside the eastern walls of the Kentish capital. Mellitus became the first English Bishop of London; Justus was appointed to the new see of Rochester, and Paulinus became the Metropolitan of York.

Aethelberht, as Bretwalda, allowed his wider territory to be mapped out into dioceses, and exerted himself in Augustine’s behalf to bring about a meeting with the Celtic bishops of Southern Britain. The conference took place in Malmesbury, on the borders of Wessex, not far from the Severn, at a spot long described in popular legend as Austin’s Oak. (Bede, H.E., II, ii.) Nothing came of this attempt to introduce ecclesiastical uniformity. Augustine seems to have been willing enough to yield certain points; but on three important issues he would not compromise. He insisted on an unconditional surrender on the Easter controversy; on the mode of administering the Sacrament of Baptism; and on the duty of taking active measures in concert with him for the evangelization of the Saxon conquerors. The Celtic bishops refused to yield, and the meeting was broken up. A second conference was afterwards planned at which only seven of the British bishops convened. They were accompanied this time by a group of their “most learned men” headed by Dinoth, the abbot of the celebrated monastery of Bangor-is-coed. The result was, if anything, more discouraging than before. Accusations of unworthy motives were freely bandied on both sides. Augustine’s Roman regard for form, together with his punctiliousness for personal precedence as Pope Gregory’s representative, gave umbrage to the Celts. They denounced the Archbishop for his pride, and retired behind their mountains. As they were on the point of withdrawing, they heard the only angry threat that is recorded of the saint: “If ye will not have peace with the brethren, ye shall have war from your enemies; and if ye will not preach the way of life to the English, ye shall suffer the punishment of death at their hands.” Popular imagination, some ten years afterwards, saw a terrible fulfilment of the prophecy in the butchery of the Bangor monks at the hands of Aethelfrid the Destroyer in the great battle won by him at Chester in 613.

These efforts toward Catholic unity with the Celtic bishops and the constitution of a well-defined hierarchy for the Saxon Church are the last recorded acts of the saint’s life. His death fell in the same year says a very early tradition (which can be traced back to Archbishop Theodore’s time) as that of his beloved father and patron, Pope Gregory. Thorn, however, who attempts always to give the Canterbury version of these legends, asserts—somewhat inaccurately, it would appear, if his coincidences be rigorously tested—that it took place in 605. He was buried, in true Roman fashion, outside the walls of the Kentish capital in a grave dug by the side of the great Roman road which then ran from Deal to Canterbury over St. Martin’s Hill and near the unfinished abbey church which he had begun in honour of Sts. Peter and Paul and which was afterwards to be dedicated to his memory. When the monastery was completed, his relics were translated to a tomb prepared for them in the north porch. A modern hospital is said to occupy the site of his last resting place. [Stanley, “Memorials of Canterbury” (1906), 38.] His feast day in the Roman Calendar is kept on 28 May; but in the proper of the English office it occurs two days earlier, the true anniversary of his death.

Bede, Hist. Eccl. I and II; Paulus Diaconus, Johannes Diaconus, and St. Gall MSS., Lives of St. Gregory in P.L., LXXV; Epistlae Gregorii, ibid.; Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum, ibid., LXXI; Goscelin, Life of St. Gregory in Acta SS., May, VI, 370 sqq.; Wm. Thorne, Chron. Abbat. S. Aug. in Twysden’s Decem Scriptores (London, 1652), pp 1758–2202; Haddan and Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland (Oxford, 1869–1873, 3 vols.); Mason (ed.), The Mission of St. Augustine according to the Original Documents (Cambridge, 1897); Dudden, Gregory the Great, His Place in the History of Thought (London, New York, Bombay, 1905); St Gallen MS., ed, Gasquet (1904);Stanley, Memorials of Canterbury (London, 1855, 1906); Bassenge, Die Sendung Augustins zur Bekehrung d. Angelsachsen (Leipzig, 1890); Brou, St. Augustin de Canterbury et ses Compagnons (Paris, 1897); Lévèque, St Augustin de Canterbury, in Rev. des Quest. Hist. (1899), xxi, 353–423; Martielli, Recits des fetes celebrees a l’occ. du 13e centenaire de l’arrivee de St. Aug. en Angleterre (Paris, 1899)

CORNELIUS CLIFFORD

Life of St. Augustine of Hippo

See also WORKS OF SAINT AUGUSTINE and TEACHING OF SAINT AUGUSTINE.)

The great St. Augustine’s life is unfolded to us in documents of unrivaled richness, and of no great character of ancient times have we information comparable to that contained in the “Confessions,” which relate the touching story of his soul, the “Retractations,” which give the history of his mind, and the “Life of Augustine,” written by his friend Possidius, telling of the saint’s apostolate.

We will confine ourselves to sketching the three periods of this great life: (1) the young wanderer’s gradual return to the Faith; (2) the doctrinal development of the Christian philosopher to the time of his episcopate; and (3) the full development of his activities upon the Episcopal throne of Hippo.

I. FROM HIS BIRTH TO HIS CONVERSION (354–386)

Augustine was born at Tagaste on 13 November, 354. Tagaste, now Souk-Ahras, about 60 miles from Bona (ancient Hippo-Regius), was at that time a small free city of proconsular Numidia which had recently been converted from Donatism. Although eminently respectable, his family was not rich, and his father, Patricius, one of the curiales of the city, was still a pagan. However, the admirable virtues that made Monica the ideal of Christian mothers at length brought her husband the grace of baptism and of a holy death, about the year 371.

Augustine received a Christian education. His mother had him signed with the cross and enrolled among the catechumens. Once, when very ill, he asked for baptism, but, all danger being soon passed, he deferred receiving the sacrament, thus yielding to a deplorable custom of the times. His association with “men of prayer” left three great ideas deeply engraven upon his soul: a Divine Providence, the future life with terrible sanctions, and, above all, Christ the Saviour. “From my tenderest infancy, I had in a manner sucked with my mother’s milk that name of my Saviour, Thy Son; I kept it in the recesses of my heart; and all that presented itself to me without that Divine Name, though it might be elegant, well written, and even replete with truth, did not altogether carry me away” (Confessions, I, iv).

But a great intellectual and moral crisis stifled for a time all these Christian sentiments. The heart was the first point of attack. Patricius, proud of his son’s success in the schools of Tagaste and Madaura determined to send him to Carthage to prepare for a forensic career. But, unfortunately, it required several months to collect the necessary means, and Augustine had to spend his sixteenth year at Tagaste in an idleness which was fatal to his virtue; he gave himself up to pleasure with all the vehemence of an ardent nature. At first he prayed, but without the sincere desire of being heard, and when he reached Carthage, towards the end of the year 370, every circumstance tended to draw him from his true course: the many seductions of the great city that was still half pagan, the licentiousness of other students, the theatres, the intoxication of his literary success, and a proud desire always to be first, even in evil. Before long he was obliged to confess to Monica that he had formed a sinful liaison with the person who bore him a son (372), “the son of his sin”—an entanglement from which he only delivered himself at Milan after fifteen years of its thralldom. Two extremes are to be avoided in the appreciation of this crisis. Some, like Mommsen, misled perhaps by the tone of grief in the “Confessions,” have exaggerated it: in the “Realencyklopädie” (3d ed., II, 268) Loofs reproves Mommsen on this score, and yet he himself is to lenient towards Augustine, when he claims that in those days, the Church permitted concubinage. The “Confessions” alone prove that Loofs did not understand the 17th canon of Toledo. However, it may be said that, even in his fall, Augustine maintained a certain dignity and felt a compunction which does him honour, and that, from the age of nineteen, he had a genuine desire to break the chain. In fact, in 373, an entirely new inclination manifested itself in his life, brought about by the reading Cicero’s “Hortensius” whence he imbibed a love of the wisdom which Cicero so eloquently praises. Thenceforward Augustine looked upon rhetoric merely as a profession; his heart was in philosophy.

Unfortunately, his faith, as well as his morals, was to pass though a terrible crisis. In this same year, 373, Augustine and his friend Honoratus fell into the snares of the Manichæans. It seems strange that so great a mind should have been victimized by Oriental vapourings, synthesized by the Persian Mani (215–276) into coarse, material dualism, and introduced into Africa scarcely fifty years previously. Augustine himself tells us that he was enticed by the promises of a free philosophy unbridled by faith; by the boasts of the Manichæans, who claimed to have discovered contradictions in Holy Writ; and, above all, by the hope of finding in their doctrine a scientific explanation of nature and its most mysterious phenomena. Augustine’s inquiring mind was enthusiastic for the natural sciences, and the Manichæans declared that nature withheld no secrets from Faustus, their doctor. Moreover, being tortured by the problem of the origin of evil, Augustine, in default of solving it, acknowledged a conflict of two principles. And then, again, there was a very powerful charm in the moral irresponsibility resulting from a doctrine which denied liberty and attributed the commission of crime to a foreign principle.

Once won over to this sect, Augustine devoted himself to it with all the ardour of his character; he read all its books, adopted and defended all its opinions. His furious proselytism drew into error his friend Alypius and Romanianus, his Mæcenas of Tagaste, the friend of his father who was defraying the expenses of Augustine’s studies. It was during this Manichæan period that Augustine’s literary faculties reached their full development, and he was still a student at Carthage when he embraced error. His studies ended, he should in due course have entered the forum litigiosum, but he preferred the career of letters, and Possidius tells us that he returned to Tagaste to “teach grammar.” The young professor captivated his pupils, one of whom, Alypius, hardly younger than his master, loath to leave, him after following him into error, was afterwards baptized with him at Milan, eventually becoming Bishop of Tagaste, his native city. But Monica deeply deplored Augustine’s heresy and would not have received him into her home or at her table but for the advice of a saintly bishop, who declared that “the son of so many tears could not perish.” Soon afterwards Augustine went to Carthage, where he continued to teach rhetoric. His talents shone to even better advantage on this wider stage, and by an indefatigable pursuit of the liberal arts his intellect attained its full maturity. Having taken part in a poetic tournament, he carried off the prize, and the Proconsul Vindicianus publicly conferred upon him the corona agonistica. It was at this moment of literary intoxication, when he had just completed his first work on æsthetics, now lost that he began to repudiate Manichæism. Even when Augustine was in his first fervour, the teachings of Mani had been far from quieting his restlessness, and although he has been accused of becoming a priest of the sect, he was never initiated or numbered among the “elect,” but remained an “auditor” the lowest degree in the hierarchy. He himself gives the reason for his disenchantment. First of all there was the fearful depravity of Manichæan philosophy—“They destroy everything and build up nothing”; then, the dreadful immorality in contrast with their affectation of virtue; the feebleness of their arguments in controversy with the Catholics, to whose Scriptural arguments their only reply was: “The Scriptures have been falsified.” But, worse than all, he did not find science among them—science in the modern sense of the word—that knowledge of nature and its laws which they had promised him. When he questioned them concerning the movements of the stars, none of them could answer him. “Wait for Faustus,” they said, “he will explain everything to you.” Faustus of Mileve, the celebrated Manichæan bishop, at last came to Carthage; Augustine visited and questioned him, and discovered in his responses the vulgar rhetorician, the utter stranger to all scientific culture. The spell was broken, and, although Augustine did not immediately abandon the sect, his mind rejected Manichæan doctrines. The illusion had lasted nine years.

But the religious crisis of this great soul was only to be resolved in Italy, under the influence of Ambrose. In 383 Augustine, at the age of twenty-nine, yielded to the irresistible attraction which Italy had for him, but his mother suspected his departure and was so reluctant to be separated from him that he resorted to a subterfuge and embarked under cover of the night. He had only just arrived in Rome when he was taken seriously ill; upon recovering he opened a school of rhetoric, but, disgusted by the tricks of his pupils, who shamelessly defrauded him of their tuition fees, he applied for a vacant professorship at Milan, obtained it, and was accepted by the prefect, Symmachus. Having visited Bishop Ambrose, the fascination of that saint’s kindness induced him to become a regular attendant at his preachings. However, before embracing the Faith, Augustine underwent a three years’ struggle during which his mind passed through several distinct phases. At first he turned towards the philosophy of the Academics, with its pessimistic scepticism; then neo-Platonic philosophy inspired him with genuine enthusiasm. At Milan he had scarcely read certain works of Plato and, more especially, of Plotinus, before the hope of finding the truth dawned upon him. Once more he began to dream that he and his friends might lead a life dedicated to the search for it, a life purged of all vulgar aspirations after honours, wealth, or pleasure, and with celibacy for its rule (Confessions, VI). But it was only a dream; his passions still enslaved him. Monica, who had joined her son at Milan, prevailed upon him to become betrothed, but his affianced bride was too young, and although Augustine dismissed the mother of Adeodatus, her place was soon filled by another. Thus did he pass through one last period of struggle and anguish. Finally, through the reading of the Holy Scriptures light penetrated his mind. Soon he possessed the certainty that Jesus Christ is the only way to truth and salvation. After that resistance came only from the heart. An interview with Simplicianus, the future successor of St. Ambrose, who told Augustine the story of the conversion of the celebrated neo-Platonic rhetorician, Victorinus (Confessions, VIII, i, ii), prepared the way for the grand stroke of grace which, at the age of thirty-three, smote him to the ground in the garden at Milan (September, 386). A few days later Augustine, being ill, took advantage of the autumn holidays and, resigning his professorship, went with Monica, Adeodatus, and his friends to Cassisiacum, the country estate of Verecundus, there to devote himself to the pursuit of true philosophy which, for him, was now inseparable from Christianity.

II. FROM HIS CONVERSION TO HIS EPISCOPATE (386–395)

Augustine gradually became acquainted with Christian doctrine, and in his mind the fusion of Platonic philosophy with revealed dogmas was taking place. The law that governed this change of thought has of late years been frequently misconstrued; it is sufficiently important to be precisely defined. The solitude of Cassisiacum realized a long-cherished dream. In his books “Against the Academics,” Augustine has described the ideal serenity of this existence, enlivened only by the passion for truth. He completed the education of his young friends, now by literary readings in common, now by philosophical conferences to which he sometimes invited Monica, and the accounts of which, compiled by a secretary, have supplied the foundation of the “Dialogues.” Licentius, in his “Letters,” would later on recall these delightful philosophical mornings and evenings, at which Augustine was wont to evolve the most elevating discussions from the most commonplace incidents. The favourite topics at their conferences were truth, certainty (Against the Academics), true happiness in philosophy (On a Happy Life), the Providential order of the world and the problem of evil (On Order) and finally God and the soul (Soliloquies, On the Immortality of the Soul).

Here arises the curious question propounded modern critics: Was Augustine a Christian when wrote these “Dialogues” at Cassisiacum? Until now no one had doubted it; historians, relying upon the “Confessions,” had all believed that Augustine’s retirement to the villa had for its twofold object the improvement of his health and his preparation for baptism. But certain critics nowadays claim to have discovered a radical opposition between the philosophical “Dialogues” composed in this retirement and the state of soul described in the “Confessions.” According to Harnack, in writing the “Confessions” Augustine must have projected upon the recluse of 386 the sentiments of the bishop of 400. Others go farther and maintain that the recluse of the Milanese villa could not have been at heart a Christian, but a Platonist; and that the scene in the garden was a conversion not to Christianity, but to philosophy, the genuinely Christian phase beginning only in 390. But this interpretation of the “Dialogues” cannot withstand the test of facts and texts. It is admitted that Augustine received baptism at Easter, 387; and who could suppose that it was for him a meaningless ceremony? So too, how can it be admitted that the scene in the garden, the example of the recluses, the reading of St. Paul, the conversion of Victorinus, Augustine’s ecstasies in reading the Psalms with Monica were all invented after the fact? Again, as it was in 388 that Augustine wrote his beautiful apology “On the Holiness of the Catholic Church,” how is it conceivable that he was not yet a Christian at that date? To settle the argument, however, it is only necessary to read the “Dialogues” themselves. They are certainly a purely philosophical work—a work of youth, too, not without some pretension, as Augustine ingenuously acknowledges (Confessions, IX, iv); nevertheless, they contain the entire history of his Christian formation. As early as 386, the first work written at Cassisiacum reveals to us the great underlying motive of his researches. The object of his philosophy is to give authority the support of reason, and “for him the great authority, that which dominates all others and from which he never wished to deviate, is the authority of Christ”; and if he loves the Platonists it is because he counts on finding among them interpretations always in harmony with his faith (Against the Academics, III, c. x). To be sure such confidence was excessive, but it remains evident that in these “Dialogues” it is a Christian, and not a Platonist, that speaks. He reveals to us the intimate details of his conversion, the argument that convinced him (the life and conquests of the Apostles), his progress in the Faith at the school of St. Paul (ibid., II, ii), his delightful conferences with his friends on the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the wonderful transformations worked in his soul by faith, even to that victory of his over the intellectual pride which his Platonic studies had aroused in him (On The Happy Life, I, ii), and at last the gradual calming of his passions and the great resolution to choose wisdom for his only spouse (Soliloquies, I, x).

It is now easy to appreciate at its true value the influence of neo-Platonism upon the mind of the great African Doctor. It would be impossible for anyone who has read the works of St. Augustine to deny the existence of this influence. However, it would be a great exaggeration of this influence to pretend that it at any time sacrificed the Gospel to Plato. The same learned critic thus wisely concludes his study: “So long, therefore, as his philosophy agrees with his religious doctrines, St. Augustine is frankly neo-Platonist; as soon as a contradiction arises, he never hesitates to subordinate his philosophy to religion, reason to faith. He was, first of all, a Christian; the philosophical questions that occupied his mind constantly found themselves more and more relegated to the background” (op. cit., 155). But the method was a dangerous one; in thus seeking harmony between the two doctrines he thought too easily to find Christianity in Plato, or Platonism in the Gospel. More than once, in his “Retractations” and elsewhere, he acknowledges that he has not always shunned this danger. Thus he had imagined that in Platonism he discovered the entire doctrine of the Word and the whole prologue of St. John. He likewise disavowed a good number of neo-Platonic theories which had at first misled him—the cosmological thesis of the universal soul, which makes the world one immense animal—the Platonic doubts upon that grave question: Is there a single soul for all or a distinct soul for each? But on the other hand, he had always reproached the Platonists, as Schaff very properly remarks (Saint Augustine, New York, 1886, p. 51), with being ignorant of, or rejecting, the fundamental points of Christianity: “first, the great mystery, the Word made flesh; and then love, resting on the basis of humility.” They also ignore grace, he says, giving sublime precepts of morality without any help towards realizing them.

It was this Divine grace that Augustine sought in Christian baptism. Towards the beginning of Lent, 387, he went to Milan and, with Adeodatus and Alypius, took his place among the competentes, being baptized by Ambrose on Easter Day, or at least during Eastertide. The tradition maintaining that the Te Deum was sung on that occasion by the bishop and the neophyte alternately is groundless. Nevertheless this legend is certainly expressive of the joy of the Church upon receiving as her son him who was to be her most illustrious doctor. It was at this time that Augustine, Alypius, and Evodius resolved to retire into solitude in Africa. Augustine undoubtedly remained at Milan until towards autumn, continuing his works: “On the Immortality of the Soul” and “On Music.” In the autumn of 387, he was about to embark at Ostia, when Monica was summoned from this life. In all literature there are no pages of more exquisite sentiment than the story of her saintly death and Augustine’s grief (Confessions, IX). Augustine remained several months in Rome, chiefly engaged in refuting Manichæism. He sailed for Africa after the death of the tyrant Maximus (August 388) and after a short sojourn in Carthage, returned to his native Tagaste. Immediately upon arriving there, he wished to carry out his idea of a perfect life, and began by selling all his goods and giving the proceeds to the poor. Then he and his friends withdrew to his estate, which had already been alienated, there to lead a common life in poverty, prayer, and the study of sacred letters. Book of the “LXXXIII Questions” is the fruit of conferences held in this retirement, in which he also wrote “De Genesi contra Manichæos,” “De Magistro,” and, “De Vera Religione.”

Augustine did not think of entering the priesthood, and, through fear of the episcopacy, he even fled from cities in which an election was necessary. One day, having been summoned to Hippo by a friend whose soul’s salvation was at stake, he was praying in a church when the people suddenly gathered about him, cheered him, and begged Valerius, the bishop, to raise him to the priesthood. In spite of his tears Augustine was obliged to yield to their entreaties, and was ordained in 391. The new priest looked upon his ordination as an additional reason for resuming religious life at Tagaste, and so fully did Valerius approve that he put some church property at Augustine’s disposal, thus enabling him to establish a monastery the second that he had founded. His priestly ministry of five years was admirably fruitful; Valerius had bidden him preach, in spite of the deplorable custom which in Africa reserved that ministry to bishops. Augustine combated heresy, especially Manichæism, and his success was prodigious. Fortunatus, one of their great doctors, whom Augustine had challenged in public conference, was so humiliated by his defeat that he fled from Hippo. Augustine also abolished the abuse of holding banquets in the chapels of the martyrs. He took part, 8 October, 393, in the Plenary Council of Africa, presided over by Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, and, at the request of the bishops, was obliged to deliver a discourse which, in its completed form, afterwards became the treatise “De Fide et symbolo.”

III. AS BISHOP OF HIPPO (396–430)

Enfeebled by old age, Valerius, Bishop of Hippo, obtained the authorization of Aurelius, Primate of Africa, to associate Augustine with himself as coadjutor. Augustine had to resign himself to consecration at the hands of Megalius, Primate of Numidia. He was then forty two, and was to occupy the See of Hippo for thirty-four years. The new bishop understood well how to combine the exercise of his pastoral duties with the austerities of the religious life, and although he left his convent, his episcopal residence became a monastery where he lived a community life with his clergy, who bound themselves to observe religious poverty. Was it an order of regular clerics or of monks that he thus founded? This is a question often asked, but we feel that Augustine gave but little thought to such distinctions. Be that as it may, the episcopal house of Hippo became a veritable nursery which supplied the founders of the monasteries that were soon spread all over Africa and the bishops who occupied the neighbouring sees. Possidius (Vita S. August., xxii) enumerates ten of the saint’s friends and disciples who were promoted to the episcopacy. Thus it was that Augustine earned the title of patriarch of the religious, and renovator of the clerical, life in Africa.

But he was above all the defender of truth and the shepherd of souls. His doctrinal activities, the influence of which was destined to last as long as the Church itself, were manifold: he preached frequently, sometimes for five days consecutively, his sermons breathing a spirit of charity that won all hearts; he wrote letters which scattered broadcast through the then known world his solutions of the problems of that day; he impressed his spirit upon divers African councils at which he assisted, for instance, those of Carthage in 398, 401, 407, 419 and of Mileve in 416 and 418; and lastly struggled indefatigably against all errors. To relate these struggles were endless; we shall, therefore, select only the chief controversies and indicate in each the doctrinal attitude of the great Bishop of Hippo.

A. THE MANICHÆAN CONTROVERSY AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

After Augustine became bishop the zeal which, from the time of his baptism, he had manifested in bringing his former co-religionists into the true Church, took on a more paternal form without losing its pristine ardour—“let those rage against us who know not at what a bitter cost truth is attained. . . . As for me, I should show you the same forbearance that my brethren had for me when I blind, was wandering in your doctrines” (Contra Epistolam Fundamenti, iii). Among the most memorable events that occurred during this controversy was the great victory won in 404 over Felix, one of the “elect” of the Manichæans and the great doctor of the sect. He was propagating his errors in Hippo, and Augustine invited him to a public conference the issue of which would necessarily cause a great stir; Felix declared himself vanquished, embraced the Faith, and, together with Augustine, subscribed the acts of the conference. In his writings Augustine successively refuted Mani (397), the famous Faustus (400), Secundinus (405), and (about 415) the fatalistic Priscillianists whom Paulus Orosius had denounced to him. These writings contain the saint’s clear, unquestionable views on the eternal problem of evil, views based on an optimism proclaiming, like the Platonists, that every work of God is good and that the only source of moral evil is the liberty of creatures (De Civitate Dei, XIX, c. xiii, n. 2). Augustine takes up the defence of free will, even in man as he is, with such ardour that his works against the Manichæan are an inexhaustible storehouse of arguments in this still living controversy.

In vain have the Jansenists maintained that Augustine was unconsciously a Pelagian and that he afterwards acknowledged the loss of liberty through the sin of Adam. Modern critics, doubtless unfamiliar with Augustine’s complicated system and his peculiar terminology, have gone much farther. In the “Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses” (1899, p. 447), M. Margival exhibits St. Augustine as the victim of metaphysical pessimism unconsciously imbibed from Manichæan doctrines. “Never,” says he, “will the Oriental idea of the necessity and the eternity of evil have a more zealous defender than this bishop.” Nothing is more opposed to the facts. Augustine acknowledges that he had not yet understood how the first good inclination of the will is a gift of God (Retractions, I, xxiii, n, 3); but it should be remembered that he never retracted his leading theories on liberty, never modified his opinion upon what constitutes its essential condition, that is to say, the full power of choosing or of deciding. Who will dare to say that in revising his own writings on so important a point he lacked either clearness of perception or sincerity?

B. THE DONATIST CONTROVERSY AND THE THEORY OF THE CHURCH

The Donatist schism was the last episode in the Montanist and Novatian controversies which had agitated the Church from the second century. While the East was discussing under varying aspects the Divine and Christological problem of the Word, the West, doubtless because of its more practical genius, took up the moral question of sin in all its forms. The general problem was the holiness of the Church; could the sinner be pardoned, and remain in her bosom? In Africa the question especially concerned the holiness of the hierarchy. The bishops of Numidia, who, in 312, had refused to accept as valid the consecration of Cæcilian, Bishop of Carthage, by a traditor, had inaugurated the schism and at the same time proposed these grave questions: Do the hierarchical powers depend upon the moral worthiness of the priest? How can the holiness of the Church be compatible with the unworthiness of its ministers?

At the time of Augustine’s arrival in Hippo, the schism had attained immense proportions, having become identified with political tendencies—perhaps with a national movement against Roman domination. In any event, it is easy to discover in it an undercurrent of anti-social revenge which the emperors had to combat by strict laws. The strange sect known as “Soldiers of Christ,” and called by Catholics Circumcelliones (brigands, vagrants), resembled the revolutionary sects of the Middle Ages in point of fanatic destructiveness—a fact that must not be lost sight of, if the severe legislation of the emperors is to be properly appreciated.

The history of Augustine’s struggles with the Donatists is also that of his change of opinion on the employment of rigorous measures against the heretics; and the Church in Africa, of whose councils he had been the very soul, followed him in the change. This change of views is solemnly attested by the Bishop of Hippo himself, especially in his Letters, xciii (in the year 408). In the beginning, it was by conferences and a friendly controversy that he sought to re-establish unity. He inspired various conciliatory measures of the African councils, and sent ambassadors to the Donatists to invite them to re-enter the Church, or at least to urge them to send deputies to a conference (403). The Donatists met these advances at first with silence, then with insults, and lastly with such violence that Possidius Bishop of Calamet, Augustine’s friend, escaped death only by flight, the Bishop of Bagaïa was left covered with horrible wounds, and the life of the Bishop of Hippo himself was several times attempted (Letter lxxxviii, to Januarius, the Donatist bishop). This madness of the Circumcelliones required harsh repression, and Augustine, witnessing the many conversions that resulted therefrom, thenceforth approved rigid laws. However, this important restriction must be pointed out: that St. Augustine never wished heresy to be punishable by death—Vos rogamus ne occidatis (Letter c, to the Proconsul Donatus). But the bishops still favoured a conference with the schismatics, and in 410 an edict issued by Honorius put an end to the refusal of the Donatists. A solemn conference took place at Carthage, in June, 411, in presence of 286 Catholic, and 279 Donatist bishops. The Donatist spokesmen were Petilian of Constantine, Primian of Carthage, and Emeritus of Cæsarea; the Catholic orators, Aurelius and Augustine. On the historic question then at issue, the Bishop of Hippo proved the innocence of Cæcilian and his consecrator Felix, and in the dogmatic debate he established the Catholic thesis that the Church, as long as it is upon earth, can, without losing its holiness, tolerate sinners within its pale for the sake of converting them. In the name of the emperor the Proconsul Marcellinus sanctioned the victory of the Catholics on all points. Little by little Donatism died out, to disappear with the coming of the Vandals.

So amply and magnificently did Augustine develop his theory on the Church that, according to Specht “he deserves to be named the Doctor of the Church as well as the Doctor of Grace”; and Möhler (Dogmatik, 351) is not afraid to write: “For depth of feeling and power of conception nothing written on the Church since St. Paul’s time, is comparable to the works of St. Augustine.” He has corrected, perfected, and even excelled the beautiful pages of St. Cyprian on the Divine institution of the Church, its authority, its essential marks, and its mission in the economy of grace and the administration of the sacraments. The Protestant critics, Dorner, Bindemann, Böhringer and especially Reuter, loudly proclaim, and sometimes even exaggerate, this rôle of the Doctor of Hippo; and while Harnack does not quite agree with them in every respect he does not hesitate to say (History of Dogma, II, c. iii): “It is one of the points upon which Augustine specially affirms and strengthens the Catholic idea. . . . He was the first [!] to transform the authority of the Church into a religious power, and to confer upon practical religion the gift of a doctrine of the Church.” He was not the first, for Dorner acknowledges (Augustinus, 88) that Optatus of Mileve had expressed the basis of the same doctrines. Augustine, however, deepened, systematized, and completed the views of St. Cyprian and Optatus. But it is impossible here to go into detail. (See Specht, Die Lehre von der Kirche nach dem hl. Augustinus, Paderborn, 1892.)

C. THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY AND THE DOCTOR OF GRACE

The close of the struggle against the Donatists almost coincided with the beginnings of a very grave theological dispute which not only was to demand Augustine’s unremitting attention up to the time of his death, but was to become an eternal problem for individuals and for the Church. Farther on we shall enlarge upon Augustine’s system; here we need only indicate the phases of the controversy. Africa, where Pelagius and his disciple Celestius had sought refuge after the taking of Rome by Alaric, was the principal centre of the first Pelagian disturbances; as early as 412 a council held at Carthage condemned Pelagians for their attacks upon the doctrine of original sin. Among other books directed against them by Augustine was his famous “De naturâ et gratiâ.” Thanks to his activity the condemnation of these innovators, who had succeeded in deceiving a synod convened at Diospolis in Palestine, was reiterated by councils held later at Carthage and Mileve and confirmed by Pope Innocent I (417). A second period of Pelagian intrigues developed at Rome, but Pope Zosimus, whom the stratagems of Celestius had for a moment deluded, being enlightened by Augustine, pronounced the solemn condemnation of these heretics in 418. Thenceforth the combat was conducted in writing against Julian of Eclanum, who assumed the leadership of the party and violently attacked Augustine. Towards 426 there entered the lists a school which afterwards acquired the name of Semipelagian, the first members being monks of Hadrumetum in Africa, who were followed by others from Marseilles, led by Cassian, the celebrated abbot of Saint-Victor. Unable to admit the absolute gratuitousness of predestination, they sought a middle course between Augustine and Pelagius, and maintained that grace must be given to those who merit it and denied to others; hence goodwill has the precedence, it desires, it asks, and God rewards. Informed of their views by Prosper of Aquitaine, the holy Doctor once more expounded, in “De Prædestinatione Sanctorum,” how even these first desires for salvation are due to the grace of God, which therefore absolutely controls our predestination.

D. STRUGGLES AGAINST ARIANISM AND CLOSING YEARS

In 426 the holy Bishop of Hippo, at the age of seventy-two, wishing to spare his episcopal city the turmoil of an election after his death, caused both clergy and people to acclaim the choice of the deacon Heraclius as his auxiliary and successor, and transferred to him the administration of externals. Augustine might then have enjoyed some rest had Africa not been agitated by the undeserved disgrace and the revolt of Count Boniface (427). The Goths, sent by the Empress Placidia to oppose Boniface, and the Vandals, whom the latter summoned to his assistance, were all Arians. Maximinus, an Arian bishop, entered Hippo with the imperial troops. The holy Doctor defended the Faith at a public conference (428) and in various writings. Being deeply grieved at the devastation of Africa, he laboured to effect a reconciliation between Count Boniface and the empress. Peace was indeed re stablished, but not with Genseric, the Vandal king. Boniface, vanquished, sought refuge in Hippo, whither many bishops had already fled for protection and this well fortified city was to suffer the horrors of an eighteen months’ siege. Endeavouring to control his anguish, Augustine continued to refute Julian of Eclanum; but early in the siege he was stricken with what he realized to be a fatal illness, and, after three months of admirable patience and fervent prayer, departed from this land of exile on 28 August, 430, in the seventy-sixth year of his age.

EUGÈNE PORTALIÉ

Works of St. Augustine of Hippo

St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) was one of the most prolific geniuses that humanity has ever known, and is admired not only for the number of his works, but also for the variety of subjects, which traverse the whole realm of thought. The form in which he casts his work exercises a very powerful attraction on the reader. Bardenhewer praises his extraordinary suppleness of expression and his marvellous gift of describing interior things, of painting the various states of the soul and the facts of the spiritual world. His latinity bears the stamp of his age. In general, his style is noble and chaste; but, says the same author, “in his sermons and other popular writings he purposely drops to the language of the people.” A detailed analysis is impossible here. We shall merely indicate his principal writings and the date (often approximate) of their composition.

AUTOBIOGRAPHY AND CORRESPONDENCE

The are the history of his heart; the Retractations, of his mind; while the show his activity in the Church.

The Confessions (c. a.d. 400) are, in the Biblical sense of the word confiteri, not an avowal or an account, but the praise of a soul that admires the action of God within itself. Of all the works of the holy Doctor none has been more universally read and admired, none has caused more salutary tears to flow. Neither in respect of penetrating analysis of the most complex impressions of the soul, nor communicative feeling, nor elevation of sentiment, nor depth of philosophic views, is there any book like it in all literature.

The Retractations (towards the end of his life, 426–428) are a revision of the works of the saint in chronological order, explaining the occasion and dominant idea of each. They are a guide of inestimable price for seizing the progress of Augustine’s thought.

The letters, amounting in the Benedictine collection to 270 (53 of them from Augustine’s correspondents), are a treasure of the greatest value, for the knowledge of his life, influence and even his doctrine.

PHILOSOPHY

These writings, for the most part composed in the villa of Cassisiacum, from his conversion to his baptism (388–387), continue the autobiography of the saint by initiating us into the researches and Platonic hesitations of his mind. There is less freedom in them than in the Confessions. They are literary essays, writings whose simplicity is the acme of art and elegance. Nowhere is the style of Augustine so chastened, nowhere is his language so pure. Their dialogue form shows that they were inspired by Plato and Cicero. The chief ones are:

Contra Academicos (the most important of all);

De Beatâ Vitâ;

De Ordine;

the two books of , which must be distinguished from the “Soliloquies” and “Meditations” which are certainly not authentic;

De Immortalitate animæ;

De Magistro (a dialogue between Augustine and his son Adeodatus); and

six curious books (the sixth especially) on Music.

GENERAL APOLOGY

In De civitate Dei (begun in 413, but Books 20–22 were written in 426) Augustine answers the pagans, who attributed the fall of Rome (410) to the abolition of pagan worship. Considering this problem of Divine Providence with regard to the Roman Empire, he widens the horizon still more and in a burst of genius he creates the philosophy of history, embracing as he does with a glance the destinies of the world grouped around the Christian religion, the only one which goes back to the beginning and leads humanity to its final term. The City of God is considered as the most important work of the great bishop. The other works chiefly interest theologians; but it, like the Confessions, belongs to general literature and appeals to every soul. The Confessions are theology which has been lived in the soul, and the history of God’s action on individuals, while The City of God is theology framed in the history of humanity, and explaining the action of God in the world.

Other apologetic writings, like the “De Verâ Religione” (a little masterpiece composed at Tagaste, 389–391), “De Utilitate Credendi” (391), “Liber de fide rerum quæ non videntur” (400), and the “Letter 120 to Consentius,” constitute Augustine the great theorist of the Faith, and of its relations to reason. “He is the first of the Fathers,” says Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, III, 97) “who felt the need of forcing his faith to reason.” And indeed he, who so repeatedly affirms that faith precedes the intelligent apprehension of the truths of revelation—he it is who marks out with greater clearness of definition and more precisely than anyone else the function of the reason in preceding and verifying the witness’s claim to credence, and in accompanying the mind’s act of adhesion. (Letter to Consentius, n. 3, 8, etc.) What would not have been the stupefaction of Augustine if anyone had told him that faith must close its eyes to the proofs of the divine testimony, under the penalty of its becoming science! Or if one had spoken to him of faith in authority giving its assent, without examining any motive which might prove the value of the testimony! It surely cannot be possible for the human mind to accept testimony without known motives for such acceptance, or, again, for any testimony, even when learnedly sifted out, to give the science—the inward view—of the object.

CONTROVERSIES WITH HERETICS

Against the Manichæans:

“De Moribus Ecclesiæ Catholicæ et de Moribus Manichæorum” (at Rome, 368);

“De Duabus Animabus” (before 392);

“Acts of the Dispute with Fortunatus the Manichæan” (392);

“Acts of the Conference with Felix” (404);

“De Libero Arbitrio”—very important on the origin of evil;

various writings Contra Adimantum”;

against the Epistle of Mani (the foundation);

against Faustus (about 400);

against Secundinus (405), etc.

Against the Donatists:

“Psalmus contra partem Donati” (about 395), a purely rhythmic song for popular use (the oldest example of its kind);

“Contra epistolam Parmeniani” (400);

“De Baptismo contra Donatistas” (about 400), one of the most important pieces in this controversy;

“Contra litteras Parmeniani,”

“Contra Cresconium,”

a good number of letters, also, relating to this debate.

Against the Pelagians, in chronological order, we have:

412, “De peccatorum meritis et remissione” (On merit and forgiveness);

same year, “De spiritu et litterâ” (On the spirit and the letter);

415, “De Perfectione justitiæ hominis”—important for understanding Pelagian impeccability;

417, “De Gestis Pelagii”—a history of the Council of Diospolis, whose acts it reproduces;

418, “De Gratiâ Christi et de peccato originali”;

419, “De nuptiis et concupiscentiâ” and other writings (420–428);

“Against Julian of Eclanum”—the last of this series, interrupted by the death of the saint.

Against the Semipelagians:

“De correptione et gratiâ” (427);

“De prædestinatione Sanctorum” (428);

“De Done Perseverantiæ” (429).

Against Arianism:

“Contra sermonem Arianorum” (418) and

“Collattio cum Maximino Arianorum episcopo” (the celebrated conference of Hippo in 428).

SCRIPTURAL EXEGESIS

Augustine in the “De Doctrinâ Christianâ” (begun in 397 and ended in 426) gives us a genuine treatise of exegesis, historically the first (for St. Jerome wrote rather as a controversialist). Several times he attempted a commentary on Genesis. The great work De Genesi ad litteram was composed from 401 to 415. The “Enarrationes in Psalmos” are a masterpiece of popular eloquence, with a swing and a warmth to them which are inimitable. On the New Testament: the “De Sermone Dei in Monte” (during his priestly ministry) is especially noteworthy; “De Consensu Evangelistarum” (Harmony of the Gospels—400); Homilies on St. John (416), generally classed among the chief works of Augustine; the Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians” (324), etc. The most remarkable of his Biblical works illustrate either a theory of exegesis (one generally approved) which delights in finding mystical or allegorical interpretations, or the style of preaching which is founded on that view. His strictly exegetical work is far from equalling in scientific value that of St. Jerome. His knowledge of the Biblical languages was insufficient: he read Greek with difficulty; as for Hebrew, all that we can gather from the studies of Schanz and Rottmanner is that he was familiar with Punic, a language allied to Hebrew. Moreover, the two grand qualities of his genius—ardent feeling and prodigious subtlety—carried him sway into interpretations that were violent or more ingenious than solid.

But the hermeneutics of Augustine merit great praise, especially for their insistence upon the stern law of extreme prudence in determining the meaning of Scripture: We must be on our guard against giving interpretations which are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers (De Genesi ad litteram, I, 19, 21, especially n. 39). An admirable application of this well-ordered liberty appears in his thesis on the simultaneous creation of the universe, and the gradual development of the world under the action of the natural forces which were placed in it. Certainly the instantaneous act of the Creator did not produce an organized universe as we see it now. But, in the beginning, God created all the elements of the world in a confused and nebulous mass (the word is Augustine’s Nebulosa species apparet; “De Genesi ad litt.,” I, n. 27), and in this mass were the mysterious germs (rationes seminales) of the future beings which were to develop themselves, when favourable circumstances should permit. Is Augustine, therefore, an Evolutionist?

If we mean that he had a deeper and wider mental grasp than other thinkers had of the forces of nature and the plasticity of beings, it is an incontestable fact; and from this point of view Father Zahm (Bible, Science, and Faith, pp. 58–66, French tr.) properly felicitates him on having been the precursor of modern thought. But if we mean that he admitted in matter a power of differentiation and of gradual transformation, passing from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, the most formal texts force us to recognize that Augustine proclaimed the fixity of species, and did not admit that “from one identical primitive principle or from one germ, different realities can issue.” This judgment of the Abbé Martin in his very searching study on this subject (S. Augustin, p. 314) must correct the conclusion of Father Zahm. “The elements of this corporeal world have also their well defined force, and their proper quality, from which depends what each one of them can or cannot do, and what reality ought or ought not to issue from each one of them. Hence it is that from a grain of wheat a bean cannot issue, nor wheat from a bean, nor a, man from a beast, nor a beast from a man” (De Genesi ad litt., IX, n. 32).

DOGMATIC AND MORAL EXPOSITION

The fifteen books De trinitate, on which he worked for fifteen years, from 400 to 416, are the most elaborate and profound work of St. Augustine. The last books on the analogies which the mystery of the Trinity have with our soul are much discussed. The saintly author himself declares that they are only analogous and are far-fetched and very obscure.

The Enchiridion, or handbook, on Faith, Hope, and Love, composed, in 421, at the request of a pious Roman, Laurentius, is an admirable synthesis of Augustine’s theology, reduced to the three theological virtues. Father Faure has given us a learned commentary of it, and Harnack a detailed analysis (Hist. of dogmas, III, 205, 221).

Several volumes of miscellaneous questions, among which “Ad Simplicianum” (397) has been especially noted.

Numberless writings of his have a practical aim: two on “Lying” (374 and 420), five on “Continence,” “Marriage,” and “Holy Widowhood,” one on “Patience,” another on “Prayer for the Dead” (421).

PASTORALS AND PREACHING

The theory of preaching and religious instruction of the people is given in the “De Catechizandis Rudibus” (400) and in the fourth book “De Doctrinâ. Christianâ.” The oratorical work alone is of vast extent. Besides the Scriptural homilies, the Benedictines have collected 363 sermons which are certainly authentic; the brevity of these suggests that they are stenographic, often revised by Augustine himself. If the Doctor in him predominates over the orator, if he possesses less of colour, of opulence, of actuality, and of Oriental charm than St. John Chrysostom, we find, on the other hand, a more nervous logic, bolder comparisons, greater elevation and greater profundity of thought, and sometimes, in his bursts of emotion and his daring lapses into dialogue-form, he attains the irresistible power of the Greek orator.

EDITIONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE’S WORKS

The best edition of his complete works is that of the Benedictines, eleven tomes in eight folio volumes (Paris, 1679–1700). It has been often reprinted, e.g. by Gaume (Paris, 1836–39), in eleven octavo volumes, and by Migne, PL 32–47. The last volume of the Migne reprint contains a number of important earlier studies on St. Augustine—Vivés, Noris, Merlin, particularly the literary history of the editions of Augustine from Schönemann’s “Bibl. hist. lit. patrum Lat.” (Leipzig, 1794).

EUGÈNE PORTALIÉ

Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo

St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) is “a philosophical and theological genius of the first order, dominating, like a pyramid, antiquity and the succeeding ages. Compared with the great philosophers of past centuries and modern times, he is the equal of them all; among theologians he is undeniably the first, and such has been his influence that none of the Fathers, Scholastics, or Reformers has surpassed it.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church) Elsewhere, we have discussed his life and his writings; here, we shall treat of his teaching and influence in three sections:

I. His Function as a Doctor of the Church

II. His System of Grace

III. Augustinism in History

I. HIS FUNCTION AS A DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH

When the critics endeavour to determine Augustine’s place in the history of the Church and of civilization, there can be no question of exterior or political influence, such as was exercised by St. Leo, St. Gregory, or St. Bernard. As Reuter justly observes, Augustine was bishop of a third-rate city and had scarcely any direct control over politics, and Harnack adds that perhaps he had not the qualifications of a statesman. If Augustine occupies a place apart in the history of humanity, it is as a thinker, his influence being felt even outside the realm of theology, and playing a most potent part in the orientation of Western thought. It is now universally conceded that, in the intellectual field, this influence is unrivalled even by that of Thomas Aquinas, and Augustine’s teaching marks a distinct epoch in the history of Christian thought. The better to emphasize this important fact we shall try to determine: (1) the rank and degree of influence that must be ascribed to Augustine; (2) the nature, or the elements, of his doctrinal influence; (3) the general qualities of his doctrine; and (4) the character of his genius.

(1) The greatest of the Doctors

It is first of all a remarkable fact that the great critics, Protestant as well as Catholic, are almost unanimous in placing St. Augustine in the foremost rank of Doctors and proclaiming him to be the greatest of the Fathers. Such, indeed, was also the opinion of his contemporaries, judging from their expressions of enthusiasm gathered by the Bollandists. The popes attributed such exceptional authority to the Doctor of Hippo that, even of late years, it has given rise to lively theological controversies. Peter the Venerable accurately summarized the general sentiment of the Middle Ages when he ranked Augustine immediately after the Apostles; and in modern times Bossuet, whose genius was most like that of Augustine, assigns him the first place among the Doctors, nor does he simply call him the incomparable Augustine,” but “the Eagle of Doctors,” “the Doctor of Doctors.” If the Jansenistic abuse of his works and perhaps the exaggerations of certain Catholics, as well as the attack of Richard Simon, seem to have alarmed some minds, the general opinion has not varied. In the nineteenth century Stöckl expressed the thought of all when he said, “Augustine has justly been called the greatest Doctor of the Catholic world.”

And the admiration of Protestant critics is not less enthusiastic. More than this, it would seem as if they had in these latter days been quite specially fascinated by the great figure of Augustine, so deeply and so assiduously have they studied him (Bindemann, Schaff, Dorner, Reuter, A. Harnack, Eucken, Scheel, and so on) and all of them agree more or less with Harnack when he says: “Where, in the history of the West, is there to be found a man who, in point of influence, can be compared with him?” Luther and Calvin were content to treat Augustine with a little less irreverence than they did the other Fathers, but their descendants do him full justice, although recognizing him as the Father of Roman Catholicism. According to Bindemann, “Augustine is a star of extraordinary brilliancy in the firmament of the Church. Since the apostles he has been unsurpassed.” In his “History of the Church” Dr. Kurtz calls Augustine “the greatest, the most powerful of all the Fathers, him from whom proceeds all the doctrinal and ecclesiastical development of the West, and to whom each recurring crisis, each new orientation of thought brings it back.” Schaff himself (Saint Augustine, Melanchthon and Neander, p. 98) is of the same opinion: “While most of the great men in the history of the Church are claimed either by the Catholic or by the Protestant confession, and their influence is therefore confined to one or the other, he enjoys from both a respect equally profound and enduring.” Rudolf Eucken is bolder still, when he says: “On the ground of Christianity proper a single philosopher has appeared and that is Augustine.” The English Miter, W. Cunningham, is no less appreciative of the extent and perpetuity of this extraordinary influence: “The whole life of the medieval Church was framed on lines which he has suggested: its religious orders claimed him as their patron; its mystics found a sympathetic tone in his teaching; its polity was to some extent the actualization of his picture of the Christian Church; it was in its various parts a carrying out of ideas which he cherished and diffused. Nor does his influence end with the decline of medievalism: we shall see presently how closely his language was akin to that of Descartes, who gave the first impulse to and defined the special character of modern philosophy.” And after having established that the doctrine of St. Augustine was at the bottom of all the struggles between Jansenists and Catholics in the Church of France, between Arminians and Calvinists on the side of the Reformers, he adds: “And once more in our own land when a reaction arose against rationalism and Erastinianism it was to the African Doctor that men turned with enthusiasm: Dr. Pusey’s edition of the Confessions was among the first-fruits of the Oxford Movement.”

But Adolf Harnack is the one who has oftenest emphasized the unique rôle of the Doctor of Hippo. He has studied Augustine’s place in the history of the world as reformer of Christian piety and his influence as Doctor of the Church. In his study of the “Confessions” he comes back to it: “No man since Paul is comparable to him”—with the exception of Luther, he adds.—“Even today we live by Augustine, by his thought and his spirit; it is said that we are the sons of the Renaissance and the Reformation, but both one and the other depend upon him.”

(2) Nature and different aspects of his doctrinal influence

This influence is so varied and so complex that it is difficult to consider under all its different aspects. First of all, in his writings the great bishop collects and condenses the intellectual treasures of the old world and transmits them to the new. Harnack goes so far as to say: “It would seem that the miserable existence of the Roman empire in the West was prolonged until then, only to permit Augustine’s influence to be exercised on universal history.” It was in order to fulfil this enormous task that Providence brought him into contact with the three worlds whose thought he was to transmit: with the Roman and Latin world in the midst of which he lived, with the Oriental world partially revealed to him through the study of Manichæism, and with the Greek world shown to him by the Platonists. In philosophy he was initiated into the whole content and all the subtilties of the various schools, without, however, giving his allegiance to any one of them. In theology it was he who acquainted the Latin Church with the great dogmatic work accomplished in the East during the fourth century and at the beginning of the fifth; he popularized the results of it by giving them the more exact and precise form of the Latin genius.

To synthesis of the past, Augustine adds the incomparable wealth of his own thought, and he may be said to have been the most powerful instrument of Providence in development and advance of dogma. Here the danger has been not in denying, but in exaggerating, this advance. Augustine’s dogmatic mission (in a lower sphere and apart from inspiration) recalls that of Paul in the preaching of the Gospel. It has also been subject to the same attacks and occasioned the same vagaries of criticism. Just as it was sought to make of Paulinism the real source of Christianity as we know it—a system that had smothered the primitive germ of the Gospel of Jesus—so it was imagined that, under the name of Augustinianism, Augustine had installed in the Church some sort of syncretism of the ideas of Paul and of neo-Platonism which was a deviation from ancient Christianity, fortunate according to some, but according to others utterly deplorable. These fantasies do not survive the reading of the texts, and Harnack himself shows in Augustine the heir to the tradition that preceded him. Still, on the other hand, his share of invention and originality in the development of dogma must not be ignored, although here and there, on special questions, human weaknesses crop out. He realized, better than any of the Fathers, the progress so well expressed by Vincent of Lérins, his contemporary, in a page that some have turned against him.

In general, all Christian dogmatics are indebted to him for new theories that better justify and explain revelation, new views, and greater clearness and precision. The many struggles with which he was identified, together with the speculative turn of his mind, brought almost every question within the scope of his research. Even his way of stating problems so left his impress upon them that there Is no problem, one might almost say, in considering which the theologian does not feel the study of Augustine’s thought to be an imperative obligation. Certain dogmas in particular he so amply developed, so skilfully unsheathing the fruitful germ of the truths from their envelope of tradition, that many of these dogmas (wrongly, in our opinion) have been set down as “Augustinism.” Augustine was not their inventor, he was only the first to put them in a strong light. They are chiefly the dogmas of the Fall the Atonement, Grace, and Predestination. Schaff (op. cit. 97) has very properly said: “His appearance in the history of dogma forms a distinct epoch, especially as regards anthropological and soteriological doctrines, which he advanced considerably further, and brought to a greater clearness and precision, than they had ever had before in the consciousness of the Church.” But he is not only the Doctor of Grace, he is also the Doctor of the Church: his twenty years’ conflict with Donatism led to a complete exposition of the dogmas of the Church, the great work and mystical Body of Christ, and true Kingdom of God, of its part in salvation and of the intimate efficacy of its sacraments. It is on this point, as the very centre of Augustinian theology, that Reuter has concentrated those “Augustinische Studien” which, according to Harnack, are the most learned of recent studies on St. Augustine. Manichæan controversies also led him to state clearly the great questions of the Divine Being and of the nature of evil, and he might also be called the Doctor of Good, or of good principles of all things. Lastly, the very idiosyncrasy of his genius and the practical, supernatural, and Divine imprint left upon all his intellectual speculations have made him the Doctor of Charity.

Another step forward due to the works of Augustine is in the language of theology, for, if he did not create it, he at least contributed towards its definite settlement. It is indebted to him for a great number of epigrammatic formulæ, as significant as they are terse, afterwards singled out and adopted by Scholasticism. Besides, as Latin was more concise and less fluid in its forms than Greek, it was wonderfully well suited to the work. Augustine made it the dogmatic language par excellence, and Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and others followed his lead. At times he has even been credited with the pseudo-Athanasian creed which is undoubtedly of later date, but those critics were not mistaken who traced its inspiration to the formulæ in “De Trinitate.” Whoever its author may have been, he was certainly familiar with Augustine and drew upon his works. It is unquestionably this gift of concise expression, as well as his charity, that has so often caused the celebrated saying to be attributed to him: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.”

Augustine stands forth, too, as the great inspirer of religious thought in subsequent ages. A whole volume would not be sufficient to contain the full account of his influence on posterity; here we shall merely call attention to its principal manifestations. It is, in the first place, a fact of paramount importance that, with St. Augustine, the centre of dogmatic and theological development changed from East to West. Hence, from this view-point again, he makes an epoch in the history of dogma. The critics maintain that up to his time the most powerful influence was exerted by the Greek Church, the East having been the classic land of theology, the great workshop for the elaboration of dogma. From the time of Augustine, the predominating influence seems to emanate from the West, and the practical, realistic spirit of the Latin race supplants the speculative and idealistic spirit of Greece and the East. Another fact, no less salient, is that it was the Doctor of Hippo who, in the bosom of the Church, inspired the two seemingly antagonistic movements, Scholasticism and Mysticism. From Gregory the Great to the Fathers of Trent, Augustine’s theological authority, indisputably the highest, dominates all thinkers and is appealed to alike by the Scholastics Anselm, Peter Lombard, and Thomas Aquinas, and by Bernard, Hugh of St. Victor, and Tauler, exponents of Mysticism, all of whom were nourished upon his writings and penetrated with his spirit. There is not one of even the most modern tendencies of thought but derives from him whatever it may have of truth or of profound religious sentiment. Learned critics, such as Harnack, have called Augustine “the first modern man,” and in truth, he so moulded the Latin world that it is really he who has shaped the education of modern minds. But, without going so far, we may quote the German philosopher, Eucken: “It is perhaps not paradoxical to say that if our age wishes to take up and treat in an independent way the problem of religion, it is not so much to Schleiermacher or Kant, or even Luther or St. Thomas, that it must refer, as to Augustine. . . . And outside of religion, there are points upon which Augustine is more modern than Hegel or Schopenhauer.”

(3) The dominating qualities of his doctrine

The better to understand St. Augustine’s influence, we must point out in his doctrine certain general characteristics which must not be lost sight of, if, in reading his works, one would avoid troublesome misapprehensions.

First, the full development of the great Doctor’s mind was progressive. It was by stages, often aided by the circumstances and necessities of controversy, that he arrived at the exact knowledge of each truth and a clean-cut perception of its place in the synthesis of revelation. He also requires that his readers should know how to “advance with him.” It is necessary to study St. Augustine’s works in historical order and, as we shall see, this applies particularly to the doctrine of grace.

Augustinian doctrine is, again, essentially theological, and has God for its centre. To be sure Augustine is a great philosopher, and Fénelon said of him: “If an enlightened man were to gather from the books of St. Augustine the sublime truths which this great man has scattered at random therein, such a compendium [ extrait], made with discrimination, would be far superior to Descartes’ Meditations.” And indeed just such a collection was made by the Oratorian ontologist, André Martin. There is then a philosophy of St. Augustine, but in him philosophy is so Intimately coupled with theology as to be inseparable from it. Protestant historians have remarked this characteristic of his writings. “The world,” says Eucken, “interests him less than” the action of God in the world and especially in ourselves. God and the soul are the only subjects the knowledge Of which ought to fire us with enthusiasm. All knowledge becomes moral, religious knowledge, or rather a moral, religious conviction, an act of faith on the part of man, who gives himself up unreservedly.” And with still greater energy Böhringer has said: “The axis on which the heart, life and theology of Augustine move is God.” Oriental discussions on the Word had forced Athanasius and the Greek Fathers to set faith in the Word and in Christ, the Saviour, at the very summit of theology; Augustine, too, in his theology, places the Incarnation at the centre of the Divine plan, but he looks upon it as the great historic manifestation of God to humanity—the idea of God dominates all: of God considered in His essence (On the Trinity), in His government (The City of God) or as the last end of all Christian life (Enchiridion and On the Christian Combat).

Lastly, Augustine’s doctrine bears an eminently Catholic stamp and is radically opposed to Protestantism. It is important to establish this fact, principally because of the change in the attitude of Protestant critics towards St. Augustine. Indeed, nothing is more deserving of attention than this development so highly creditable to the impartiality of modern writers. The thesis of the Protestants of olden times is well known. Attempts to monopolize Augustine and to make him an ante-Reformation reformer, were certainly not wanting. Of course Luther had to admit that he did not find in Augustine justification by faith alone, that generating principle of all Protestantism; and Schaff tells us that he consoled himself with exclaiming (op. sit., p. 100): “Augustine has often erred, he is not to be trusted. Although good and holy, he was yet lacking in true faith as well as the other Fathers.” But in general, the Reformation did not so easily fall into line, and for a long time it was customary to oppose the great name of Augustine to Catholicism. Article 20 of the Confession of Augsburg dares to ascribe to him justification without works, and Melanchthon invokes his authority in his “Apologia Confessionis.” In the last thirty or forty years all has been changed, and the best Protestant critics now vie with one another in proclaiming the essentially Catholic character of Augustinian doctrine. In fact they go to extremes when they claim him to be the founder of Catholicism. It is thus that H. Reuter concludes his very important studies on the Doctor of Hippo: “I consider Augustine the founder of Roman Catholicism in the West. . . . This is no new discovery, as Kattenbusch seems to believe, but a truth long since recognized by Neander, Julius Köstlin, Dorner, Schmidt, . . . etc. .” Then, as to whether Evangelicalism is to be found in Augustine, he says: “Formerly this point was reasoned out very differently from what it is nowadays. The phrases so much in use from 1830 to 1870: Augustine is the Father of evangelical Protestantism and Pelagius is the Father of Catholicism, are now rarely met with. They have since been acknowledged to be untenable, although they contain a particula veri.” Philip Schaff reaches the same conclusion; and Dorner says, “It is erroneous to ascribe to Augustine the ideas that inspired the Reformation.” No one, however, has put this idea in a stronger light than Harnack. Quite recently, in his 14th lesson on “The Essence of Christianity,” he characterized the Roman Church by three elements, the third of which is Augustinism, the thought and the piety of St. Augustine. “In fact Augustine has exerted over the whole inner life of the Church, religious life and religious thought, an absolutely decisive influence.” And again he says, “In the fifth century, at the hour when the Church inherited the Roman Empire, she had within her a man of extraordinarily deep and powerful genius: from him she took her ideas, and to this present hour she has been unable to break away from them.” In his “History of Dogma” (English tr., V, 234, 235) the same critic dwells at length upon the features of what he calls the “popular Catholicism” to which Augustine belongs. These features are (a) the Church as a hierarchical institution with doctrinal authority; (b) eternal life by merits, and disregard of the Protestant thesis of “salvation by faith”—that is, salvation by that firm confidence in God which the certainty of pardon produces (c) the forgiveness of sins—in the Church and the Church; (d) the distinction between commands and counsel—between grievous sine and venial sins—the scale of wicked men and good men—the various degrees of happiness in heaven according to one’s deserts; (e) Augustine is accused of “outdoing the superstitious ideas” of this popular Catholicism—the infinite value of Christ’s satisfaction, salvation considered as enjoyment of God in heaven—the mysterious efficacy of the sacraments (ex opere operato)—Mary’s virginity even in childbirth—the idea of her purity and her conception, unique in their kind.” Harnack does not assert that Augustine taught the Immaculate Conception, but Schaff (op. cit., p. 98) says unhesitatingly: “He is responsible also for many grievous errors of the Roman Church . . . he anticipated the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, and his ominous word, Roma locuta est, causa finite est, might almost be quoted in favour of the Vatican decree of papal infallibility.”

Nevertheless, it were a mistake to suppose that modern Protestants relinquish all claim upon Augustine; they will have it that, despite his essential Catholicism, it was he who inspired Luther and Calvin. The new thesis, therefore, is that each of the two Churches may claim him in turn. Burke’s expression quoted by Schaff (ibid., p. 102) is characteristic: “In Augustine ancient and modern ideas are melted and to his authority the papal Church has as much right to appeal as the Churches of the Reformation.” No one notes this contradiction more clearly than Loofs. After stating that Augustine has accentuated the characteristic elements of Western (Catholic) Christianity, that in succeeding ages he became its Father, and that “the Ecclesiasticism of Roman Catholicism, Scholasticism, Mysticism, and even the claims of the papacy to temporal rule, are founded upon a tendency initiated by him,” Loofs also affirms that he is the teacher of all the reformers and their bond of union, and concludes with this strange paradox: “The history of Catholicism is the history of the progressive elimination of Augustinism.” The singular aptitude of these critics for supposing the existence of flagrant contradictions in a genius like Augustine is not so astonishing when we remember that, with Reuter, they justify this theory by the reflection: “In whom are to be found more frequent contradictions than in Luther?” But their theories are based upon a false interpretation of Augustine’s opinion, which is frequently misconstrued by those who are not sufficiently familiar with his language and terminology.

(4) The character of his genius

We have now to ascertain what is the dominating quality which accounts for his fascinating influence upon posterity. One after another the critics have considered the various aspects of this great genius. Some have been particularly impressed by the depth and originality of his conceptions, and for these Augustine is the great sower of the ideas by which future minds are to live. Others, like Jungmann and Stöckl, have praised in him the marvellous harmony of all the mind’s higher qualities, or, again, the universality and the compass of his doctrine. “In the great African Doctor,” says the Rev. J. A. Zahm (Bible, Science and Faith, Fr. tr., 56), “we seem to have found united and combined the powerful and penetrating logic of Plato, the deep scientific conceptions of Aristotle, the knowledge and intellectual suppleness of Origen, the grace and eloquence of Basil and Chrysostom. Whether we consider him as philosopher, as theologian, or as exegetist . . . he still appears admirable the unquestioned Master of all the centuries.” Philip Schaff (op. cit., p. 97) admires above all “such a rare union of the speculative talent of the Greek and of the practical spirit of the Latin Church as he alone possessed.” In all these opinions there is a great measure of truth; nevertheless we believe that the dominating characteristic of Augustine’s genius and the true secret of his influence are to be found in his heart—a heart that penetrates the most exalted speculations of a profound mind and animates them with the most ardent feeling. It is at bottom only the traditional and general estimate of the saint that we express; for he has always been represented with a heart for his emblem, just as Thomas Aquinas with a sun. Mgr. Bougaud thus interpreted this symbol: “Never did man unite in one and the same soul such stern rigour of logic with such tenderness of heart.” This is also the opinion of Harnack, Böhringer, Nourisson, Storz, and others. Great intellectuality admirably fused with an enlightened mysticism is Augustine’s distinguishing characteristic. Truth is not for him only an object of contemplation; it is a good that must be possessed, that must be loved and lived by. What constitutes Augustine’s genius is his marvellous gift of embracing truth with all the fibres of his soul; not with the heart alone, for the heart does not think; not with the mind alone, for the mind grasps only the abstract or, as it were, lifeless truth. Augustine seeks the living truth, and even when he is combating certain Platonic ideas he is of the family of Plato, not of Aristotle. He belongs indisputably to all ages because he is in touch with all souls, but he is preeminently modern because his doctrine is not the cold light of the School; he is living and penetrated with personal sentiment. Religion is not a simple theory, Christianity is not a series of dogmas; It Is also a life, as they say nowadays, or, more accurately, a source of life. However, let us not be deceived. Augustine is not a sentimentalist, a pure mystic, and heart alone does not account for his power. If in him the hard, cold intellectuality of the metaphysician gives place to an impassioned vision of truth, that truth is the basis of it all. He never knew the vaporous mysticism of our day, that allows itself to be lulled by a vague, aimless sentimentalism. His emotion is deep, true, engrossing, precisely because it is born of a strong, secure, accurate dogmatism that wishes to know what it loves and why it loves. Christianity is life, but life in the eternal, unchangeable truth. And if none of the Fathers has put so much of his heart into his writings, neither has any turned upon truth the searchlight of a stronger, clearer intellect.

Augustine’s passion is characterized not by violence, but by a communicative tenderness; and his exquisite delicacy experiences first one and then another of the most intimate emotions and tests them; hence the irresistible effect of the “Confessions.” Feuerlein, a Protestant thinker, has brought out in relief (exaggeratedly, to be sure, and leaving the marvellous powers of his intellect in the shade) Augustine’s exquisite sensibility—what he calls the “feminine elements” of his genius. He says: “It was not merely a chance or accidental part that his mother, Monica, played in his intellectual development, and therein lies what essentially distinguishes him from Luther, of whom it was said: “Everything about him bespeaks the man”‘. And Schlösser, whom Feuerlein quotes, is not afraid to say that Augustine’s works contain more genuine poetry than all the writings of the Greek Fathers. At least it cannot be denied that no thinker ever caused so many and such salutary tears to flow. This characteristic of Augustine’s genius explains his doctrinal work. Christian dogmas are considered in relation to the soul and the great duties of Christian life, rather than to themselves and in a speculative fashion. This alone explains his division of theology in the “Enchiridion,” which at first sight seems so strange. He assembles all Christian doctrine in the three theological virtues, considering in the mysteries the different activities of the soul that must live by them. Thus, in the Incarnation, he assigns the greatest part to the moral side, to the triumph of humility. For this reason, also, Augustine’s work bears an imprint, until then unknown, of living personality peeping out everywhere. He inaugurates that literature in which the author’s individuality reveals itself in the most abstract matters, the “Confessions” being an inimitable example of it. It is in this connection that Harnack admires the African Doctor’s gift of psychological observation and a captivating facility for portraying his penetrating observations. This talent, he says, is the secret of Augustine’s originality and greatness. Again, it is this same characteristic that distinguishes him from the other Doctors and gives him his own special temperament. The practical side of a question appealed to the Roman mind of Ambrose, too, but he never rises to the same heights, nor moves the heart as deeply as does his disciple of Milan. Jerome is a, more learned exegetist, better equipped in respect of Scriptural erudition; he is even purer in his style; but, despite his impetuous ardour, he is less animated, less striking, than his correspondent of Hippo. Athanasius, too, is subtile in the metaphysical analysis of dogma, but he does not appeal to the heart and take hold of the soul like the African Doctor. Origen played the part of initiator in the Eastern Church, just as Augustine did in the Western, but his influence, unfortunate in more ways than one, was exercised rather in the sphere of speculative intelligence, while that of Augustine, owing to the qualities of his heart, extended far beyond the realm of theology. Bossuet, who of all geniuses most closely resembles Augustine by his elevation and his universality, is his superior in the skilfulness and artistic finish of his works, but he has not the alluring tenderness of soul; and if Augustine fulminates less, he attracts more powerfully, subjugating the mind with gentleness.

Thus may Augustine’s universal influence in all succeeding ages be explained: it is due to combined gifts of heart and mind. Speculative genius alone does not sway the multitude; the Christian world, apart from professional theologians, does not read Thomas Aquinas. On the other hand, without the clear, definite idea of dogma, mysticism founders as soon as reason awakes and discovers the emptiness of metaphors: this is always the fate of vague pietism, whether it recognize Christ or not, whether It be extolled by Schleiermacher, Sabatier, or their disciples. But to Augustine’s genius, at once enlightened and ardent, the whole soul is accessible, and the whole Church, both teachers and taught, is permeated by his sentiments and ideas. A. Harnack, more than any other critic, admires and describes Augustine’s influence over all the life of Christian people. If Thomas Aquinas is the Doctor of the Schools, Augustine is, according to Harnack, the inspirer and restorer of Christian piety. If Thomas inspires the canons of Trent, Augustine, besides having formed Thomas himself, inspires the inner life of the Church and is the soul of all the great reforms effected within its pale. In his “Essence of Christianity” (14th lesson, 1900, p. 161) Harnack shows how Catholics and Protestants live upon the piety of Augustine. “His living has been incessantly relived in the course of the fifteen hundred years that have followed. Even to our days interior and living piety among Catholics, as well as the mode of its expression, has been essentially Augustinian: the soul is permeated by his sentiment, it feels as he felt and rethinks his thoughts. It is the same with many Protestants also, and they are by no means among the worst. And even those to whom dogma is but a relic of the past proclaim that Augustine’s influence will live forever.”

This genuine emotion is also the veil that hides certain faults from the reader or else makes him oblivious of them. Says Eucken: “Never could Augustine have exercised all the influence he has exercised if it had not been that, in spite of the rhetorical artifice of his utterance, absolute sincerity reigned in the inmost recesses of his soul.” His frequent repetitions are excused because they are the expression of his deep feeling. Schaff says: “His books, with all the faults and repetitions of isolated parts, are a spontaneous outflow from the marvellous treasures of his highly-gifted mind and his truly pious heart.” (St. Augustine, p. 96.) But we must also acknowledge that his passion is the source of exaggerations and at times of errors that are fraught with real danger for the inattentive or badly disposed reader. Out of sheer love for Augustine certain theologians have endeavoured to justify all he wrote, to admire all, and to proclaim him infallible, but nothing could be more detrimental to his glory than such excess of praise. The reaction already referred to arises partly from this. We must recognize that the passion for truth sometimes fixes its attention too much upon one side of a complex question; his too absolute formulæ, lacking qualification, false in appearance now in one sense now in another. “The oratorical temperament that was his in such a high degree,” says Becker, very truly (Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 15 April, 1902, p. 379), “the kind of exaltation that befitted his rich imagination and his loving soul, are not the most reliable in philosophical speculations.” Such is the origin of the contradictions alleged against him and of the errors ascribed to him by the predestinarians of all ages. Here we see the rôle of the more frigid minds of Scholasticism. Thomas Aquinas was a necessary corrective to Augustine. He is less great, less original, and, above all, less animated; but the calm didactics of his intellectualism enable him to castigate Augustine’s exaggerations with rigorous criticism, to impart exactitude and precision to his terms—in one word, to prepare a dictionary with which the African Doctor may be read without danger.

II. HIS SYSTEM OF GRACE

It is unquestionably in the great Doctor’s solution of the eternal problem of freedom and grace—of the part taken by God and by man, in the affair of salvation—that his thought stands forth as most personal, most powerful, and most disputed. Most personal, for he was the first of all to synthesize the great theories of the Fall, grace, and free will; and moreover it is he who, to reconcile them all, has furnished us with a profound explanation which is in very truth his, and of which we can find no trace in his predecessors. Hence, the term Augustinism is often exclusively used to designate his system of grace. Most powerful, for, as all admit, it was he above all others who won the triumph of liberty against the Manichæans, and of grace against the Pelagians. His doctrine has, in the main, been solemnly accepted by the Church, and we know that the canons of the Council of Orange are borrowed from his works. Most disputed, also. like St. Paul, whose teachings he develops, he has often been quoted, often not understood. Friends and enemies have exploited his teaching in the most diverse senses. It has not been grasped, not only by the opponents of liberty, and hence by the Reformers of the sixteenth century, but even today, by Protestant critics the most opposed to the cruel predestinationism of Calvin and Luther who father that doctrine on St. Augustine. A technical study would be out of place here; it will be sufficient to enunciate the most salient thoughts, to enable the reader to find his bearings.

(1) It is regarded as incontestable today that the system of Augustine was complete in his mind from the year 397—that is, from the beginning of his episcopate, when he wrote his answers to the “quæstiones Diversæ” of Simplician. It is to this book that Augustine, in his last years, refers the Semipelagians for the explanation of his real thought. This important fact, to which for a long time no attention was paid, has been recognized by Neander and established by Gangaut, and also by recent critics, such as Loofs, Reuter, Turmel, Jules Martin (see also Cunningham, St. Austin, 1886, pp. 80 and 175). It will not, therefore, be possible to deny the authority of these texts on the pretext that Augustine in his old age adopted a system more antagonistic to liberty.

(2) The system of Pelagius can today be better understood than heretofore. Pelagius doubtless denied original sin, and the immortality and integrity of Adam; in a word, the whole supernatural order. But the parent idea of his system, which was of stoic origin, was nothing else than the complete “emancipation” of human liberty with regard to God, and its limitless power for good and for evil. It depended on man to attain by himself, without the grace of God, a stoic impeccability and even insensibility, or the absolute control of his passions. It was scarcely suspected, even up to our time, what frightful rigorism resulted from this exaggeration of the powers of liberty. Since perfection was possible, it was of obligation. There was no longer any distinction between precepts and counsels. Whatever was good was a duty. There was no longer any distinction between mortal and venial sin. Every useless word merited hell, and even excluded from the Church the children of God. All this has been established by hitherto unedited documents which Caspari has published (Briefe, Abhandlungen, und Predigten, Christiania, 1890).

(3) The system of St. Augustine in opposition to this rests on three fundamental principles:

+ God is absolute Master, by His grace, of all the determinations of the will;

+ man remains free, even under the action of grace;

+ the reconciliation of these two truths rests on the manner of the Divine government.

Absolute sovereignty of God over the will

This principle, in opposition to the emancipation of Pelagius, has not always been understood in its entire significance. We think that numberless texts of the holy Doctor signify that not only does every meritorious act require supernatural grace, but also that every act of virtue, even of infidels, should be ascribed to a Gift of God, not indeed to a supernatural grace (as Baius and the Jansenists pretend), but to a specially efficacious providence which has prepared this good movement of the will (Retractations, I, ix, n. 6). It is not, as theologians very wisely remark, that the will cannot accomplish that act of natural virtue, but it is a fact that without this providential benefit it would not. Many misunderstandings have arisen because this principle has not been comprehended, and in particular the great medieval theology, which adopted it and made it the basis of its system of liberty, has not been justly appreciated. But many have been afraid of these affirmations which are so sweeping, because they have not grasped the nature of God’s gift, which leaves freedom intact. The fact has been too much lost sight of that Augustine distinguishes very explicitly two orders of grace: the grace of natural virtues (the simple gift of Providence, which prepares efficacious motives for the will); and grace for salutary and supernatural acts, given with the first preludes of faith. The latter is the grace of the sons, gratia fliorum; the former is the grace of all men, a grace which even strangers and infidels (filii concubinarum, as St. Augustine says) can receive (De Patientiâ, xxvii, n. 28).

Man remains free, even under the action of grace

The second principle, the affirmation of liberty even under the action of efficacious grace, has always been safeguarded, and there is not one of his anti-Pelagian works even of the latest, which does not positively proclaim a complete power of choice in man; “not but what it does not depend on the free choice of the will to embrace the faith or reject it, but in the elect this will is prepared by God” (De Prædest. SS., n. 10). The great Doctor did not reproach the Pelagians with requiring a power to choose between good and evil; in fact he proclaims with them that without that power there is no responsibility, no merit, no demerit; but he reproaches them with exaggerating this power. Julian of Eclanum, denying the sway of concupiscence, conceives free will as a balance in perfect equilibrium. Augustine protests: this absolute equilibrium existed in Adam; it was destroyed after original sin; the will has to struggle and react against an inclination to evil, but it remains mistress of its choice (Opus imperfectum contra Julianum, III, cxvii). Thus, when he says that we have lost freedom in consequence of the sin of Adam, he is careful to explain that this lost freedom is not the liberty of choosing between good and evil, because without it we could not help sinning, but the perfect liberty which was calm and without struggle, and which was enjoyed by Adam in virtue of his original integrity.

The reconciliation of these two truths

But is there not between these two principles an irremediable antinomy? On the one hand, there is affirmed an absolute and unreserved power in God of directing the choice of our will, of converting every hardened sinner, or of letting every created will harden itself; and on the other hand, it is affirmed that the rejection or acceptance of grace or of temptation depends on our free will. Is not this a contradiction? Very many modern critics, among whom are Loofs and Harnack, have considered these two affirmations as irreconcilable. But it is because, according to them, Augustinian grace is an irresistible impulse given by God, just as in the absence of it every temptation inevitably overcomes the will. But in reality all antinomy disappears if we have the key of the system; and this key is found in the third principle: the Augustinian explanation of the Divine government of wills, a theory so original, so profound, and yet absolutely unknown to the most perspicacious critics, Harnack, Loofs, and the rest.

Here are the main lines of this theory: The will never decides without a motive, without the attraction of some good which it perceives in the object. Now, although the will may be free in presence of every motive, still, as a matter of fact it takes different resolutions according to the different motives presented to it. In that is the whole secret of the influence exercised, for instance, by eloquence (the orator can do no more than present motives), by meditation, or by good reading. What a power over the will would not a man possess who could, at his own pleasure, at any moment, and in the most striking manner, present this or the other motive of action?—But such is God’s privilege. St. Augustine has remarked that man is not the master of his first thoughts; he can exert an influence on the course of his reflections, but he himself cannot determine the objects, the images, and, consequently, the motives which present themselves to his mind. Now, as chance is only a word, it is God who determines at His pleasure these first perceptions of men, either by the prepared providential action of exterior causes, or interiorly by a Divine illumination given to the soul.—let us take one last step with Augustine: Not only does God send at His pleasure those attractive motives which inspire the will with its determinations, but, before choosing between these illuminations of the natural and the supernatural order, God knows the response which the soul, with all freedom, will make to each of them. Thus, in the Divine knowledge, there is for each created will an indefinite series of motives which de facto (but very freely) win the consent to what is good. God, therefore, can, at His pleasure, obtain the salvation of Judas, if He wishes, or let Peter go down to perdition. No freedom, as a matter of fact, will resist what He has planned, although it always keeps the power of going to perdition. Consequently, it is God alone, in His perfect independence, who determines, by the choice of such a motive or such an inspiration (of which he knows the future influence), whether the will is going to decide for good or for evil. Hence, the man who has acted well must thank God for having sent him an inspiration which was foreseen to be efficacious, while that favour has been denied to another. A fortiori, every one of the elect owes it to the Divine goodness alone that he has received a series of graces which God saw to be infallibly, though freely, bound up with final perseverance.

Assuredly we may reject this theory, for the Church, which always maintains the two principles of the absolute dependence of the will and of freedom, has not yet adopted as its own this reconciliation of the two extremes. We may ask where and how God knows the effect of these graces. Augustine has always affirmed the fact; he has never inquired about the mode; and it is here that Molinism has added to and developed his thoughts, in attempting to answer this question. But can the thinker, who created and until his dying day maintained this system which is so logically concatenated, be accused of fatalism and Manichæism?

It remains to be shown that our interpretation exactly reproduces the thought of the great Doctor. The texts are too numerous and too long to be reproduced here. But there is one work of Augustine, dating from the year 397, in which he clearly explains his thought—a work which he not only did not disavow later on, but to which in particular he referred, at the end of his career, those of his readers who were troubled by his constant affirmation of grace. For example, to the monks of Adrumetum who thought that liberty was irreconcilable with this affirmation, he addressed a copy of this book “De Diversis quæstionibus ad Simplicianum,” feeling sure that their doubts would be dissipated. There, in fact, he formulates his thoughts with great clearness. Simplician had asked how he should understand the Epistle to the Romans 9, on the predestination of Jacob and Esau. Augustine first lays down the fundamental principle of St. Paul, that every good will comes from grace, so that no man can take glory to himself for his merits, and this grace is so sure of its results that human liberty will never in reality resist it, although it has the power to do so. Then he affirms that this efficacious grace is not necessary for us to be able to act well, but because, in fact, without it we would not wish to act well. From that arises the great difficulty: How does the power of resisting grace fit in with the certainty of the result? And it is here that Augustine replies: There are many ways of inviting faith. Souls being differently disposed, God knows what invitation will be accepted, what other will not be accepted. Only those are the elect for whom God chooses the invitation which is foreseen to be efficacious, but God could convert them all: “Cujus autem miseretur, sic cum vocat, quomodo scit ei congruere ut vocantem non respuat” (op. cit., I, q. ii, n. 2, 12, 13).

Is there in this a vestige of an irresistible grace or of that impulse against which it is impossible to fight, forcing some to good, and others to sin and hell? It cannot be too often repeated that this is not an idea flung off in passing, but a fundamental explanation which if not understood leaves us in the impossibility of grasping anything of his doctrine; but if it is seized Augustine entertains no feelings of uneasiness on the score of freedom. In fact he supposes freedom everywhere, and reverts incessantly to that knowledge on God’s part which precedes predestination, directs it, and assures its infallible result. In the “De Done perseverantiæ” (xvii, n. 42), written at the end of his life, he explains the whole of predestination by the choice of the vocation which is foreseen as efficacious. Thus is explained the chief part attributed to that external providence which prepares, by ill health, by warnings, etc., the good thoughts which it knows will bring about good resolutions. Finally, this explanation alone harmonizes with the moral action which he attributes to victorious grace. Nowhere does Augustine represent it as an irresistible impulse impressed by the stronger on the weaker. It is always an appeal, an invitation which attracts and seeks to persuade. He describes this attraction, which is without violence, under the graceful image of dainties offered to a child, green leaves offered to a sheep (In Joannem, tract. xxvi, n. 5). And always the infallibility of the result is assured by the Divine knowledge which directs the choice of the invitation.

(4) The Augustinian predestination presents no new difficulty if one has understood the function of this Divine knowledge in the choice of graces. The problem is reduced to this: Does God in his creative decree and, before any act of human liberty, determine by an immutable choice the elect and the reprobate?—Must the elect during eternity thank God only for having rewarded their merits, or must they also thank Him for having, prior to any merit on their part, chosen them to the meriting of this reward? One system, that of the Semipelagians, decides in favour of man: God predestines to salvation all alike, and gives to all an equal measure of grace; human liberty alone decides whether one is lost or saved; from which we must logically conclude (and they really insinuated it) that the number of the elect is not fixed or certain. The opposite system, that of the Predestinationists (the Semipelagians falsely ascribed this view to the Doctor of Hippo), affirms not only a privileged choice of the elect by God, but at the same time (a) the predestination of the reprobate to hell and (b) the absolute powerlessness of one or the other to escape from the irresistible impulse which drags them either to good or to evil. This is the system of Calvin.

Between these two extreme opinions Augustine formulated (not invented) the Catholic dogma, which affirms these two truths at the same time:

+ the eternal choice of the elect by God is very real, very gratuitous, and constitutes the grace of graces;

+ but this decree does not destroy the Divine will to save all men, which, moreover, is not realized except by the human liberty that leaves to the elect full power to fall and to the non-elect full power to rise.

Here is how the theory of St. Augustine, already explained, forces us to conceive of the Divine decree: Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circumstance, and that in millions and millions of possible combinations. Thus He sees that if Peter had received such another grace, he would not have been converted; and if on the contrary such another Divine appeal had been heard in the heart of Judas, he would have done penance and been saved. Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when, among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, He decides to realize the actual world with all the circumstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it. Now in the Divine decree, according to Augustine, and according to the Catholic Faith on this point, which has been formulated by him, the two elements pointed out above appear:

+ The certain and gratuitous choice of the elect—God decreeing, indeed, to create the world and to give it such a series of graces with such a concatenation of circumstances as should bring about freely, but infallibly, such and such results (for example, the despair of Judas and the repentance of Peter), decides, at the same time, the name, the place, the number of the citizens of the future heavenly Jerusalem. The choice is immutable; the list closed. It is evident, indeed, that only those of whom God knows beforehand that they will wish to co-operate with the grace decreed by Him will be saved. It is a gratuitous choice, the gift of gifts, in virtue of which even our merits are a gratuitous benefit, a gift which precedes all our merits. No one, in fact, is able to merit this election. God could, among other possible worlds, have chosen one in which other series of graces would have brought about other results. He saw combinations in which Peter would have been impenitent and Judas converted. It is therefore prior to any merit of Peter, or any fault of Judas, that God decided to give them the graces which saved Peter and not Judas. God does not wish to give paradise gratuitously to any one; but He gives very gratuitously to Peter the graces with which He knows Peter will be saved.—Mysterious choice! Not that it interferes with liberty, but because to this question: Why did not God, seeing that another grace would have saved Judas, give it to him? Faith can only answer, with Augustine: O Mystery! O Altitudo! (De Spiritu et litterâ, xxxiv, n. 60).

+ But this decree includes also the second element of the Catholic dogma: the very sincere will of God to give to all men the power of saving themselves and the power of damning themselves. According to Augustine, God, in his creative decree, has expressly excluded every order of things in which grace would deprive man of his liberty, every situation in which man would not have the power to resist sin, and thus Augustine brushes aside that predestinationism which has been attributed to him. Listen to him speaking to the Manichæans: “All can be saved if they wish”; and in his “Retractations” (I, x), far from correcting this assertion, he confirms it emphatically: “It is true, entirely true, that all men can, if they wish.” But he always goes back to the providential preparation. In his sermons he says to all: “It depends on you to be elect” (In Ps. cxx, n. 11, etc.); “Who are the elect? You, if you wish it” (In Ps. Lxxiii, n. 5). But, you will say, according to Augustine, the lists of the elect and reprobate are closed. Now if the non-elect can gain heaven, if all the elect can be lost, why should not some pass from one list to the other? You forget the celebrated explanation of Augustine: When God made His plan, He knew infallibly, before His choice, what would be the response of the wills of men to His graces. If, then, the lists are definitive, if no one will pass from one series to the other, it is not because anyone cannot (on the contrary, all can), it is because God knew with infallible knowledge that no one would wish to. Thus I cannot effect that God should destine me to another series of graces than that which He has fixed, but, with this grace, if I do not save myself it will not be because I am not able, but because I do not wish to.

Such are the two essential elements of Augustinian and Catholic predestination. This is the dogma common to all the schools, and formulated by all theologians: predestination in its entirety is absolutely gratuitous (ante merita). We have to insist on this, because many have seen in this immutable and gratuitous choice only a hard thesis peculiar to St. Augustine, whereas it is pure dogma (barring the mode of conciliation, which the Church still leaves free). With that established, the long debates of theologians on special predestination to glory ante or post merita are far from having the importance that some attach to them. (For a fuller treatment of this subtile problem see the “Dict. de théol. cath., I, coll. 2402 sqq.) I do not think St. Augustine entered that debate; in his time, only dogma was in question. But it does not seem historically permissible to maintain, as many writers have, that Augustine first taught the milder system (post merita), up to the year 416 (In Joan. evang., tract. xii, n. 12) and that afterwards, towards 418, he shifted his ground and went to the extreme of harsh assertion, amounting even to predestinationism. We repeat, the facts absolutely refute this view. The ancient texts, even of 397, are as affirmative and as categorical as those of his last years, as critics like Loofs and Reuter have shown. If, therefore, it is shown that at that time he inclined to the milder opinion, there is no reason to think that he did not persevere in that sentiment.

(5) The part which Augustine had in the doctrine of Original Sin has been brought to light and determined only recently.

In the first place, It is no longer possible to maintain seriously, as was formerly the fashion (even among certain Catholics, like Richard Simon), that Augustine invented in the Church the hitherto unknown doctrine of original sin, or at least was the first to introduce the idea of punishment and sin. Dorner himself (Augustinus, p. 146) disposed of this assertion, which lacks verisimilitude. In this doctrine of the primal fall Augustine distinguished, with greater insistency and clearness than his predecessors, the punishment and the sin—the chastisement which strips the children of Adam of all the original privileges—and the fault, which consists in this, that the crime of Adam, the cause of the fall is, without having been committed personally by his children, nevertheless in a certain measure imputed to them, in virtue of the moral union established by God between the head of the human family and his descendants.

To pretend that in this matter Augustine was an innovator, and that before him the Fathers affirmed the punishment of the sin of Adam in his sons, but did not speak of the fault, is a historical error now proved to demonstration. We may discuss the thought of this or that pre Augustinian Father, but, taking them as a whole, there is no room for doubt. The Protestant R. Seeberg (Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, I, p. 256), after the example of many others, proclaims it by referring to Tertullian, Commodian, St. Cyprian, and St. Ambrose. The expressions, fault, sin, stain (culpa, peccatum, macula) are repeated in a way to dispel all doubt. The truth is that original sin, while being sin, is of a nature essentially different from other faults, and does not exact a personal act of the will of the children of Adam in order to be responsible for the fault of their father, which is morally imputed to them. Consequently, the Fathers—the Greeks especially—have insisted on its penal and afflictive character, which is most in evidence, while Augustine was led by the polemics of the Pelagians (and only by them) to lay emphasis on the moral aspect of the fault of the human race in its first father.

With regard to Adam’s state before the fall Augustine not only affirmed, against Pelagius, the gifts of immortality, impassibility, integrity, freedom from error, and, above all, the sanctifying grace of Divine adoption, but he emphasized its absolutely gratuitous and supernatural character. Doubtless, considering the matter historically and de facto, it was only the sin of Adam that inflicted death on us—Augustine repeats it again and again—because God had safeguarded us against the law of our nature. But de jure neither immortality nor the other graces were our due, and Augustine recognized this in affirming that God could have made the condition in which we were actually born the primitive condition of our first parents. That assertion alone is the very reverse of Jansenism. It is, moreover, formally confirmed in the “Retractations” (I, ix, n. 6).

(6) Does this mean that we must praise everything in St. Augustine’s explanation of grace? Certainly not. And we shall note the improvements made by the Church, through her doctors, in the original Augustinism. Some exaggerations have been abandoned, as, for instance, the condemnation to hell of children dying without baptism. Obscure and ambiguous formulæ have been eliminated. We must say frankly that Augustine’s literary method of emphasizing his thought by exaggerated expressions, issuing in troublesome paradoxes, has often obscured his doctrine, aroused opposition in many minds, or led them into error. Also, it is above all important, in order to comprehend his doctrine, to compile an Augustinian dictionary, not a priori, but after an objective study of his texts. The work would be long and laborious, but how many prejudices it would dispel!

The Protestant historian Ph. Schaff (St. Augustine, p. 102) writes: “The great genius of the African Church, from whom the Middle Ages and the Reformation have received an impulse alike powerful, though in different directions, has not yet fulfilled the work marked out for him in the counsels of Divine Wisdom. He serves as a bond of union between the two antagonistic sections of Western Christendom, and encourages the hope that a time may come when the injustice and bitterness of strife will be forgiven and forgotten, and the discords of the past be drowned forever in the sweet harmonies of perfect knowledge and perfect love.” May this dream be realized!

III. AUGUSTINISM IN HISTORY

The influence of the Doctor of Hippo has been so exceptional in the Church, that, after having indicated its general characteristics (see above), it is proper to indicate the principal phases of the historical development of his doctrine. The word Augustinism designates at times the entire group of philosophical doctrines of Augustine, at others, it is restricted to his system of grace. Hence, (1) philosophical Augustinism; (2) theological Augustinism on grace; (3) laws which governed the mitigation of Augustinism.

(1) Philosophical Augustinism

In the history of philosophical Augustinism we may distinguish three very distinct phases. First, the period of its almost exclusive triumph in the West, up to the thirteenth century. During the long ages which were darkened by the invasion of the barbarians, but which were nevertheless burdened with the responsibility of safeguarding the sciences of the future, we may say that Augustine was the Great Master of the West. He was absolutely without a rival, or if there was one, it was one of his disciples, Gregory the Great, who, after being formed in his school, popularized his theories. The rôle of Origen, who engrafted neo-Platonism on the Christian schools of the East, was that of Augustine in the West, with the difference, however, that the Bishop of Hippo was better able to detach the truths of Platonism from the dreams of Oriental imagination. Hence, a current of Platonic ideas was started which will never cease to act upon Western thought. This influence shows itself in various ways. It is found in the compilers of this period, who are so numerous and so well deserving of recognition—such as Isidore, Bede, Alcuin—who drew abundantly from the works of Augustine, just as did the preachers of the sixth century, and notably St. Cæsarius. In the controversies, especially in the great disputes of the ninth and twelfth centuries on the validity of Simoniacal ordinations, the text of Augustine plays the principal part. Carl Mirbt has published on this point a very interesting study: “Die Stellung Augustins in der Publizistik des gregorianischen Kirchenstreits” (Leipzig, 1888). In the pre-Thomistic period of Scholasticism, then in process of formation, namely, from Anselm to Albert the Great, Augustine is the great inspirer of all the masters, such as Anselm, Abelard, Hugo of St. Victor, who is called by his contemporaries, another Augustine, or even the soul of Augustine. And it is proper to remark, with Cunningham (Saint Austin, p. 178), that from the time of Anselm the cult of Augustinian ideas exercised an enormous influence on English thought in the Middle Ages. As regards Peter Lombard, his Sentences are little else than an effort to synthesize the Augustinian theories.

While they do not form a system as rigidly bound together as Thomism, yet Father Mandonnet (in his learned study of Siger de Brabant) and M. de Wulf (on Gilles de Lessines) have been able to group these theories together. And here let us present a summary sketch of those theses regarded in the thirteenth century as Augustinian, and over which the battle was fought. First, the fusion of theology and philosophy; the preference given to Plato over Aristotle—the latter representing rationalism, which was mistrusted, whilst the idealism of Plate exerted a strong attraction—wisdom regarded rather as the philosophy of the Good than the philosophy of the True. As a consequence, the disciples of Augustine always have a pronounced tinge of mysticism, while the disciples of St. Thomas may be recognized by their very accentuated intellectualism. In psychology the illuminating and immediate action of God is the origin of our intellectual knowledge (at times it is pure ontologism); and the faculties of the soul are made substantially identical with the soul itself. They are its functions, and not distinct entities (a thesis which was to keep its own partisans in the Scholasticism of the future and to be adopted by Descartes); the soul is a substance even without the body, so that after death, it is truly a person. In cosmology, besides the celebrated thesis of rationes seminales, which some have recently attempted to interpret in favour of evolutionism, Augustinism admitted the multiplicity of substantial forms in compound beings, especially in man. But especially in the impossibility of creation ab æterno, or the essentially temporal character of every creature which is subject to change, we have one of the ideas of Augustine which his disciples defended with greater constancy and, it would appear, with greater success.

A second period of very active struggles came in the thirteenth century, and this has only lately been recognized. Renan (Averroes, p. 259) and others believed that the war against Thomism, which was just then beginning, was caused by the infatuation of the Franciscans for Averroism; but if the Franciscan Order showed itself on the whole opposed to St. Thomas, it was simply from a certain horror at philosophical innovations and at the neglect of Augustinism. The doctrinal revolution brought about by Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas in favour of Aristotle startled the old School of Augustinism among the Dominicans as well as among the Franciscans, but especially among the latter, who were the disciples of the eminent Augustinian doctor, St. Bonaventure. This will explain the condemnations, hitherto little understood, of many propositions of St. Thomas Aquinas three years after his death, on the 7th of March, 1277, by the Bishop of Paris, and on the 18th of March, 1277, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Kilwardby, a Dominican. The Augustinian school represented tradition; Thomism, progress. The censure of 1277 was the last victory of a too rigid Augustinism. The happy fusion of the two methods in the two orders of Franciscans and Dominicans little by little brought about an agreement on certain points without excluding differences on others which were yet obscure (as, for instance, the unity or the multiplicity of forms), at the same time that it made for progress in all the schools. We know that the canonization of St. Thomas caused the withdrawal of the condemnations of Paris (14 February, 1325). Moreover, the wisdom or the moderation of the new school contributed powerfully to its triumph. Albert the Great and St. Thomas, far from being adversaries of St. Augustine, as they were reported to be, placed themselves in his school, and while modifying certain theories, took over into their system the doctrine of the African bishop. How many articles in the “Summa” of St. Thomas have no other object than to incorporate in theology this or the other theory which was cherished by St. Augustine (to take only one example, that of exemplar ideas in God). Hence, there was no longer any school strictly Augustinian, because every school was such. They all eliminated certain special points and retained the same veneration for the master.

From the third period of the fifteenth century to our days we see less of the special progress of philosophical Augustinism than certain tendencies of an exaggerated revival of Platonism. In the fifteenth century Bessarion (1472) and Marsilio Ficino (1499) used Augustine’s name for the purpose of enthroning Plate in the Church and excluding Aristotle. In the seventeenth century it is impossible to deny certain resemblances between Cartesianism and the philosophy of St. Augustine. Malebranche was wrong in ascribing his own ontologism to the great Doctor, as were also many of his successors in the nineteenth century.

(2) Theological Augustinism

The history of Augustine’s system of grace seems to blend almost indistinguishably with the progressive developments of this dogma. Here it must suffice, first, to enumerate the principal phases; secondly, to trace the general laws of development which mitigated Augustinism in the Church.

After the death of Augustine, a whole century of fierce contests (430–529) ended in the triumph of fierce contests (430–529) ended in the triumph of moderate Augustinism. In vain had Pope St. Celestine (431) sanctioned the teachings of the Doctor of Hippo. The Semipelagians of the south of France could not understand the predilection of God for the elect, and in order to attack the works of St. Augustine they made use of the occasionally exaggerated formulæ of St. Fulgentius, or of the real errors of certain isolated predestinationists, as, for example, Lucidus, who was condemned in the Council of Arles (475). Happily, Prosper of Aquitaine, by his moderation, and also the unknown author of “De Vocatione omnium gentium,” by his consoling thesis on the appeal addressed to all, opened the way to an agreement. And finally, St. Cæsarius of Arles obtained from Pope Felix IV a series of Capitula which were solemnly promulgated at Orange, and gave their consecration to the triumph of Augustinism (529). In the ninth century, a new victory was gained over the predestinationism of Gottschalk in the assemblies of Savonnières and Toucy (859–860). The doctrine of the Divine will to save all men and the universality of redemption was thus consecrated by the public teaching of the Church. In the Middle Ages these two truths are developed by the great Doctors of the Church. Faithful to the principles of Augustinism, they place in especial relief his theory on Divine Providence, which prepares at its pleasure the determinations of the will by exterior events and interior inspirations.

In the fourteenth century a strong current of predestinationism is evident. Today it is admitted that the origin of this tendency goes back to Thomas Bradwardin, a celebrated professor of Oxford, who died Archbishop of Canterbury (1349), and whom the best critics, along with Loofs and Harnack, recognize to have been the inspirer of Wyclif himself. His book “De causâ Dei contra Pelagium” gave rise in Paris to disputes on Augustinian “predetermination,” a word which, it had been thought, was invented by Banes in the sixteenth century. In spite of the opposition of theologians, the idea of absolute determinism in the name of St. Augustine was adopted by Wyclif (1324–87), who formulated his universal fatalism, the necessity of good for the elect and of evil for the rest. He fancied that he found in the Augustinian doctrine the strange conception which became for him a central doctrine that overthrew all morality and all ecclesiastical, and even civil, government. According as one is predestined or not, everything changes its nature. The same sins are mortal in the non-elect which are venial in the predestined. The same acts of virtue are meritorious predestined, even if he be actually a wicked man which are of no value in the non-elect. The sacraments administered by one who is not predestined are always invalid; more than that, no jurisdiction exists in a prelate, even a pope, if he be not predestined. In the same way, there is no power, even civil or political, in a prince who is not one of the elect, and no right of property in the sinner or the non elect. Such is the basis on which Wyclif established the communism which aroused the socialist mobs in England. It is incontestable that he was fond of quoting Augustine as his authority; and his disciples, as we are assured by Thomas Netter Waldensis (Doctrinale, I, xxxiv, § 5), were continually boasting of the profound knowledge of their great Doctor, whom they called with emphasis “John of Augustine,” Shirley, in his introduction to “Zizaniorum Fasciculi,” has even pretended that the theories of Wyclif on God, on the Incarnation, and even on property, were the purest Augustinian inspiration, but even a superficial comparison, if this were the place to make it, would show how baseless such an assertion is. In the sixteenth century the heritage of Wyclif and Hus, his disciple, was always accepted in the name of Augustinism by the leaders of the Reformation. Divine predestination from all eternity separating the elect, who were to be snatched out of the mass of perdition, from the reprobate who were destined to hell, as well as the irresistible impulse of God drawing some to salvation and others to sin—such was the fundamental doctrine of the Reformation. Calvinism even adopted a system which was “logically more consistent, but practically more revolting,” as Schaff puts it (St. Augustine, p. 104), by which the decree of reprobation of the non-elect would be independent of the fall of Adam and of original sin (Supralapsarianism). It was certain that these harsh doctrines would bring their reaction, and in spite of the severities of the Synod of Dordrecht, which it would be interesting to compare with the Council of Trent in the matter of moderation, Arminianism triumphed over the Calvinistic thesis.

We must note here that even Protestant critics, with a loyalty which does them honour, have in these latter times vindicated Augustine from the false interpretations of Calvin. Dorner, in his “Gesch. der prot. Théologie,” had already shown the instinctive repugnance of Anglican theologians to the horrible theories of Calvin. W. Cunningham (Saint Austin, p. 82 sqq.) has very frankly called attention to the complete doctrinal opposition on fundamental points which exists between the Doctor of Hippo and the French Reformers. In the first place, as regards the state of human nature, which is, according to Calvin, totally depraved, for Catholics it is very difficult to grasp the Protestant conception of original sin which, for Calvin and Luther, is not, as for us, the moral degradation and the stain imprinted on the soul of every son of Adam by the fault of the father which is imputable to each member of the family. It is not the deprivation of grace and of all other super-natural gifts; it is not even concupiscence, understood in the ordinary sense of the word, as the struggle of base and selfish instincts against the virtuous tendencies of the soul; it is a profound and complete subversion of human nature’ it is the physical alteration of the very substance of our soul. Our faculties, understanding, and will, if not entirely destroyed, are at least mutilated, powerless, and chained to evil. For the Reformers, original sin is not a sin, it is the sin, and the permanent sin, living in us and causing a continual stream of new sins to spring from our nature, which is radically corrupt and evil. For, as our being is evil, every act of ours is equally evil. Thus, the Protestant theologians do not ordinarily speak of the sins of mankind, but only of the sin, which makes us what we are and defiles everything. Hence arose the paradox of Luther: that even in an act of perfect charity a man sins mortally, because he acts with a vitiated nature. Hence that other paradox: that this sin can never be effaced, but remains entire, even after justification, although it will not be any longer imputed; to efface it, it would be necessary to modify physically this human being which is sin. Calvin, without going so far as Luther, has nevertheless insisted on this total corruption. “Let it stand, therefore, as an indubitable truth which no engines can shake,” says he (Institution II, v, § 19), “that the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God that he cannot conceive, desire, or design anything but what is weak, distorted, foul, impure or iniquitous, that his heart is so thoroughly environed by sin that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with the fetters of wickedness.” “Now,” says Cunningham, “this doctrine, whatever there may be to be said for it, is not the doctrine of Saint Austin. He held that sin is the defect of a good nature which retains elements of goodness, even in its most diseased and corrupted state, and he gives no countenance, whatever to this modern opinion of total depravity.” It is the same with Calvin’s affirmation of the irresistible action of God on the will. Cunningham shows that these doctrines are irreconcilable with liberty and responsibility, whereas, on the contrary, “St. Austin is careful to attempt to harmonize the belief in God’s omnipotence with human responsibility” (St. Austin, p. 86). The Council of Trent was therefore faithful to the true spirit of the African Doctor, and maintained pure Augustinism in the bosom of the Church, by Its definitions against the two opposite excesses. Against Pelagianism it reaffirmed original sin and the absolute necessity of grace (Sess. VI, can. 2); against Protestant predestinationism it proclaimed the freedom of man, with his double power of resisting grace (posse dissentire si velit—Sess. VI, can. 4) and of doing good or evil, even before embracing the Faith (can. 6 and 7).

In the seventeenth century Jansenism adopted, while modifying it, the Protestant conception of original sin and the state of fallen man. No more than Luther did the Jansenists admit the two orders, natural and supernatural. All the gifts which Adam had received immortality, knowledge, integrity, sanctifying grace—are absolutely required by the nature of man. Original sin is, therefore, again regarded as a profound alteration of human nature. From which the Jansenists conclude that the key to St. Augustine’s system is to be found in the essential difference of the Divine government and of grace, before and after the Fall of Adam. Before the Fall Adam enjoyed complete liberty, and grace gave him the power of resisting or obeying; after the Fall there was no longer in men liberty properly so called; there was only spontaneity (libertas a coactione, and not libertas a necessitate). Grace, or delectation in the good, is essentially efficacious, and necessarily victorious once it is superior in degree to the opposite concupiscence. The struggle, which was prolonged for two centuries, led to a more profound study of the Doctor of Hippo and prepared the way for the definite triumph of Augustinism, but of an Augustinism mitigated in accordance with laws which we must now indicate.

(3) Laws which governed the mitigation of Augustinism

In spite of what Protestant critics may have said, the Church has always been faithful to the fundamental principles defended by Augustine against the Pelagians and Semipelagians, on original sin, the necessity and gratuity of grace, the absolute dependence on God for salvation. Nevertheless, great progress was made along the line of gradual mitigation. For it cannot be denied that the doctrine formulated at Trent, and taught by all our theologians, produces an impression of greater suavity and greater clarity than this or that passage in the works of St. Augustine. The causes of this softening down, and the successive phases of this progress were as follows:

+ First, theologians began to distinguish more clearly between the natural order and the supernatural, and hence the Fall of Adam no longer appeared as a corruption of human nature in its constituent parts; it is the loss of the whole order of supernatural elevation. St. Thomas (Summa, I:85:1) formulates the great law of the preservation, in guilty Adam’s children, of all the faculties in their essential integrity: “Sin (even original) neither takes away nor diminishes the natural endowments.” Thus the most rigorist Thomists, Alvarez, Lemos, Contenson, agree with the great Doctor that the sin of Adam has not enfeebled (intrinsece) the natural moral forces of humanity.

+ Secondly, such consoling and fundamental truths as God’s desire to save all men, and the redeeming death of Christ which was really offered and accepted for all peoples and all individuals—these truths, which Augustine never denied, but which he left too much in the background and as it were hidden under the terrible formulas of the doctrine of predestination, have been placed in the full light, have been developed, and applied to infidel nations, and have at last entered into the ordinary teaching of theology. Thus our Doctors, without detracting in the least from the sovereignty and justice of God, have risen to the highest idea of His goodness: that God so sincerely desires the salvation of all as to give absolutely to all, immediately or mediately, the means necessary for salvation, and always with the desire that man should consent to employ those means. No one falls into hell except by his own fault. Even infidels will be accountable for their infidelity. St. Thomas expresses the thought of all when he says: “It is the common teaching that if a man born among the barbarous and infidel nations really does what lies in his power, God will reveal to him what is necessary for salvation, either by interior inspirations or by sending him a preacher of the Faith” (In Lib. II Sententiarum, dist. 23, Q. viii,a.4,ad 4am). We must not dissemble the fact that this law changes the whole aspect of Divine Providence, and that St. Augustine had left it too much in the shade, insisting only upon the other aspect of the problem: namely, that God, while making a sufficing appeal to all, is nevertheless not bound to choose always that appeal which shall in fact be efficacious and shall be accepted, provided that the refusal of consent be due to the obstinacy of the sinner’s will and not to its lack of power. Thus the Doctors most eagerly approved the axiom, Facienti quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam—God does not refuse grace to one who does what he can.

+ Thirdly, from principles taught by Augustine consequences have been drawn which are clearly derived from them, but which he had not pointed out. Thus it is incontestably a principle of St. Augustine that no one sins in an act which he cannot avoid—“Quis enim peccat in eo quod caveri non potest?” This passage from “De libero arbitrio” (III, xviii, n. 50) is anterior to the year 395; but far from retracting it he approves and explains it, in 415, in the “De naturâ et gratiâ,” lxvii, n. 80. From that pregnant principle theologians have concluded, first, that grace sufficient to conquer temptations never fails anyone, even an infidel; then, against the Jansenists, they have added that, to deserve its name of sufficient grace, it ought to give a real power which is complete even relatively to the actual difficulties. No doubt theologians have groped about, hesitated, even denied; but today there are very few who would dare not to recognize in St. Augustine the affirmation of the possibility of not sinning.

+ Fourthly, certain secondary assertions, which encumbered, but did not make part of the dogma, have been lopped off from the doctrine of Augustine. Thus the Church, which, with Augustine, has always denied entrance into Heaven to unbaptized children, has not adopted the severity of the great Doctor in condemning such children to bodily pains, however slight. And little by little the milder teaching of St. Thomas was to prevail in theology and was even to be vindicated against unjust censure when Pius VI condemned the pseudo-synod of Pistoja. At last Augustine’s obscure formulæ were abandoned or corrected, so as to avoid regrettable confusions. Thus the expressions which seemed to identify original sin with concupiscence have given way to clearer formulæ without departing from the real meaning which Augustine sought to express.

Discussion, however, is not yet ended within the Church. On most of those points which concern especially the manner of the Divine action Thomists and Molinists disagree, the former holding out for an irresistible predetermination, the latter maintaining, with Augustine, a grace whose infallible efficacy is revealed by the Divine knowledge. But both of these views affirm the grace of God and the liberty of man. The lively controversies aroused by the “Concordia” of Molina (1588) and the long conferences de auxiliis held at Rome, before Popes Clement VIII and Paul V, are well known. There is no doubt that a majority of the theologian-consultors thought they discovered an opposition between Molina and St. Augustine. But their verdict was not approved, and (what is of great importance in the history of Augustinism) it is certain that they asked for the condemnation of doctrines which are today universally taught in all the schools. Thus, in the project of censure reproduced by Serry (“Historia Congregationis de Auxiliis,” append., p. 166) the first proposition is this: “In statu naturæ lapsæ potest homo, cum solo concursu generali Dei, efficere opus bonum morale, quod in ordine ad finem hominis naturalem sit veræ virtutis opus, referendo illud in Deum, sicut referri potest ac deberet in statu naturali” (In the state of fallen nature man can with only the general concursus of God do a good moral work which may be a work of true virtue with regard to the natural end of man by referring it to God, as it can and ought to be referred in the natural state). Thus they sought to condemn the doctrine held by all the Scholastics (with the exception of Gregory of Rimini), and sanctioned since then by the condemnation of Proposition lvii of Baius. For a long time it was said that the pope had prepared a Bull to condemn Molina; but today we learn from an autograph document of Paul V that liberty was left to the two schools until a new Apostolic decision was given (Schneeman “Controversiarum de Div. grat.,” 1881, p. 289). Soon after, a third interpretation of Augustinism was offered in the Church, that of Noris, Belleli, and other partisans of moral predetermination. This system has been called Augustinianism. To this school belong a number of theologians who, with Thomassin, essayed to explain the infallible action of grace without admitting either the scientia media of the Molinists or the physical predetermination of the Thomists. A detailed study of this interpretation of St. Augustine may be found in Vacant’s “Dictionnaire de théologie catholique,” I, cols. 2485–2501; here I can only mention one very important document, the last in which the Holy See has expressed its mind on the various theories of theologians for reconciling grace and liberty. This is the Brief of Benedict XIV (13 July, 1748) which declares that the three schools—Thomist, Augustinian (Noris), and Molinist—have full right to defend their theories. The Brief concludes with these words: “This Apostolic See favours the liberty of the schools; none of the systems proposed to reconcile the liberty of man with the omnipotence of God has been thus far condemned (op. cit., c01. 2555).

In conclusion we must indicate briefly the official authority which the Church attributes to St. Augustine in the questions of grace. Numerous and solemn are the eulogies of St. Augustine’s doctrine pronounced by the popes. For instance, St. Gelasius I (1 November, 493), St. Hormisdas (13 August, 520), Boniface II and the Fathers of Orange (529), John II (534), and many others. But the most important document, that which ought to serve to interpret all the others, because it precedes and inspires them, is the celebrated letter of St. Celestine I (431), in which the pope guarantees not only the orthodoxy of Augustine against his detractors, but also the great merit of his doctrine: “So great was his knowledge that my predecessors have always placed him in the rank of the masters,” etc. This letter is accompanied by a series of ten dogmatic capitula the origin of which is uncertain, but which have always been regarded, at least since Pope Hormisdas, as expressing the faith of the Church. Now these extracts from African councils and pontifical decisions end with this restriction: “As to the questions which are more profound and difficult, and which have given rise to these controversies, we do not think it necessary to impose the solution of them.”—In presence of these documents emanating from so high a source, ought we to say that the Church has adopted all the teaching of St. Augustine on grace so that it is never permissible to depart from that teaching? Three answers have been given:

+ For some, the authority of St. Augustine is absolute and irrefragable. The Jansenists went so far as to formulate, with Havermans, this proposition, condemned by Alexander VIII (7 December, 1690): “Ubi quis invenerit doctrinam in Augustino clare fundatam, illam absolute potest tenere et docere, non respiciendo ad ullam pontificis bullam” (Where one has found a doctrine clearly based on St. Augustine, he can hold and teach it absolutely without referring to any pontifical Bull). This is inadmissible. None of the pontifical approbations has a meaning so absolute, and the capitula make an express reservation for the profound and difficult questions. The popes themselves have permitted a departure from the thought of St. Augustine in the matter of the lot of children dying without baptism (Bull “Auctorem Fidei,” 28 August, 1794).

+ Others again have concluded that the eulogies in question are merely vague formulæ leaving full liberty to withdraw from St. Augustine and to blame him on every point. Thus Launoy, Richard Simon, and others have maintained that Augustine had been in error on the very gist of the problem, and had really taught predestinationism. But that would imply that for fifteen centuries the Church took as its guide an adversary of its faith.

+ We must conclude, with the greater number of theologians, that Augustine has a real normative authority, hedged about, however, with reserves and wise limitations. In the capital questions which constitute the faith of the Church in those matters the Doctor of Hippo is truly the authoritative witness of tradition; for example, on the existence of original sin, the necessity of grace, at least for every salutary act; the gratuitousness of the gift of God which precedes all merit of man because it is the cause of it; the predilection for the elect and, on the other hand, the liberty of man and his responsibility for his transgressions. But the secondary problems, concerning the mode rather than the fact, are left by the Church to the prudent study of theologians. Thus all schools unite in a great respect for the assertions of St. Augustine.

At present this attitude of fidelity and respect is all the more remarkable as Protestants, who were formerly so bitter in defending the predestination of Calvin, are today almost unanimous in rejecting what they themselves call “the boldest defiance ever given to reason and conscience” (Grétillat, “Dogmatique,” III, p. 329). Schleiermacher, it is true, maintains it, but he adds to it the Origenist theory of universal salvation by the final restoration of all creatures, and he is followed in this by Farrar Lobstein, Pfister, and others. The Calvinist dogma is today, especially in England, altogether abandoned, and often replaced by pure Pelagianism (Beyschlag). But among Protestant critics the best are drawing near to the Catholic interpretation of St. Augustine, as, for example, Grétillat, in Switzerland, and Stevens, Bruce, and Mozley (On the Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination), in England. Sanday (Romans, p. 50) also declares the mystery to be unfathomable for man yet solved by God: “And so our solution of the problem of Free-will, and of the problems of history and of individual salvation, must finally lie in the full acceptance and realization of what is implied by the infinity and the omniscience of God.” These concluding words recall the true system of Augustine and permit us to hope that at least on this question there may be a union of the two Churches in a wise Augustinism.

EUGÈNE PORTALIÉ

Augustinians of the Assumption

(Also called the Assumptionists.)

This congregation had its origin in the College of the Assumption, established in Nîmes France, in 1843, by the Rev. Emmanuel d’Alzon vicar-general of that diocese, some account of whose life and work is given at the end of this article. Although it was organized in 1847, the members did not take their first vows until 1850; they took their public vows at Christmas of the next year. A second house was established in Paris, and they continued their work there, encouraged by the Holy See. The congregation was formally approved by a Brief of 26 November, 1864. The chief objects of the congregation are to combat the spirit of irreligion in Europe and the spread of schism in the East. To this end the Assumptionists have devoted themselves to the work of Catholic higher and secondary education, to the spread of truth by means of the Press, to the conduct of pilgrimages, and to missionary work in the East. In addition to their college at Nîmes they established Apostolic schools where poor students were educated for the priesthood without expense to themselves. They established “La Bonne Presse” which issued periodicals, pamphlets, and books in great numbers the chief publication, “La Croix” appearing simultaneously in several different cities. Their activities provoked the resentment of the French Government, and in 1900 the congregation was suppressed within French territory, this action being based on the charge that they were accumulating a fund to be used in a royalist movement to overthrow the Republic. Many of the Assumptionists left France after this, but some remained as secular priests under the authority of various bishops.

At the time of their suppression the Assumptionists maintained twenty Apostolic schools which in twenty-five years gave more than 500 priests to the secular clergy. These schools have all been closed, but the congregation has taken up the work in other quarters. Similar schools have been established in Italy, Belgium, England, and the United States. “La Bonne Presse” was purchased at the time of the suppression by Paul Feron-Vrau, a wealthy manufacturer of Lisle, and all its publications have been continued without any change of policy. Much of the good accomplished by the Assumptionists was effected through this medium. They entered into competition with the irreligious press in family circules, in workshops, and places where workmen congregate, with excellent results. Until recently no popular Catholic paper has reached a degree of circulation equal to that of “La Croix” or of “Le Pèlerin.” These two papers are issued at the rate of three million per week, Saturdays this is increased to four million copies. To this must be added the circulation of 600,000 copies of “The Lives of the Saint,” 70,000 of the “Les contemporains” besides the many copies of the “Revue scientifique”; “Cosmos”; “Questions actuelles”; “Les Echos de l’Orient”; the “Petit Bleu,” and many others. In Chile, where these Fathers have been for thirteen years, they publish in Spanish “Echoes from the Sanctuary of Lourdes.” In their journalistic work they were aided by the Oblate Sisters of the Assumption, an order established by them to assist in their Oriental missions, but whose activities are not contained to that field. Until the suppression they directed the women’s section in the publishing rooms of the “Christian Press” as well as the hospitals, orphan asylums, and schools.

Among other works carried on by the Assmptionists in France prior to their suppression was that of the “Association of Our Lady of Salvation,” a society devoted to prayer, almsgiving, and setting a good example for the reformation of the working class. This society was established in eighty dioceses, and it succeeded in drawing the higher classes of society more closely to the workingmen. It encouraged everywhere social prayer, and social and national expiation, and discouraged human respect, social apostasy, and isolation in piety. It raised funds to convey workmen, pilgrims, paupers, and sick poor to Lourdes to the number of a thousand each year; it was zealous in the cause of workmen’s clubs, and of Catholic Schools, and was active in the movement in favour of the keeping of Sunday as a day of rest. Another field of missionary labour was found among the Newfoundland fishermen. Every year 12,000 or 15,000 fishermen leave the coasts of France, Belgium, and Ireland, to go to the Banks of Newfoundland for codfish. The Prostestants have long maintained a flotilla of hospital ships, with which they go to the aid of these unfortunate men and, while ministering to their material needs, draw their souls to heresy. The Assumptionists found here a field for their activity and zeal. They have organized the most prominent catholic sailors into a committee and have been encouraged to equip two catholic hospital ships, which now succour the unfortunate fishermen. The vessels have already been wrecked twice, but have been replaced, and the Assumptionists have continued their labours.

The Assumptionists have been active missionaries in the Orient, where at the present time 300 of the congregation, Fathers and Brothers, and nearly 400 Sisters are engaged. Their labours take them from the Balkans to the Dead Sea. They have established there twenty-two permanent residences thirty regular missionary stations, and fifteen institutions entrusted to the Oblates of the Assumption. In the schools in Turkey in Europe and Turkey in Asia the Assumptionists have 2,500 scholars. Here the Oblates have opened a hospital an orphanage, and nine gratuitous dispensaries, where they care for about 30,000 sick every year. Of the twenty-two public churches of the congregation in the East twelve are parishes, and in four of them the Offices are held in the rites of the Orient (Greek, or Slav). These rites the Assumptionists have embraced to render the teaching of the Gospel more fruitful. The Orientals, whether from love of their legitimate traditions, or from ignorance, make of the exterior form of the rites a question of supreme importance. Called in 1862 to work for the conversion of the Bulgarians to Catholic unity, the Assumptionists have founded in the Turkish quarter of Adrianople, and in Karagatch the European quarter, a residence with a Slav church and a Latin church a hospital, three schools and a Bulgarian seminary of the Greek and Slav Rites, in which forty young men receive their maintenance and are prepared for the office of the sacred ministry. A similar work is being done at Philippopoli, the cradle of the Oriental missions of the Assumptionists. There is also a primary school, attended by 200 scholars, and an educational institute, many of the former pupils of which occupy important official positions in Eastern Rumelia. The Assumptionists have also churches and schools of different rites at Yamboli and Varna.

At the instance of Cardinal Vincenzo Vannutelli when he was Apostolic delegate, the Assumptionists went to Constantinople and established themselves in the Turkish quarter at Koum-Kapou. The animosity of the Turks and the jealousy of the Greeks and Armenians caused the new missionaries to be very badly received. To escape persecution they worked on their building at night, doing their masonry, carpentry and painting themselves. By this stratagem they constructed their church of Anastasia, the first church consecrated to Catholic worship in this quarter since 1453. This church, to favour the conversion of the schismatics, was consecrated to the Greek Rite and dedicated by the Apostolic delegate himself. The congregation possess other Greek churches at Kadikoi (Chalcedon) on the Asiatic bank of the Bosporus, and at Gallipoii. In order to prepare a native clergy, the Assumptionists have opened at Stamboul (Constantinople) a petit séminaire, where sixty young men are instructed in the Greek Rite. At Kadikoi in the great Leonine seminary, they follow with the ordinary theological course special lessons in preparation for the pastoral ministry. They are also given instructions in liturgy, history, canon law and in the Greek, Turkish, and Slav languages. At the day of its opening this seminary had thirty scholars and eight professors. At Stamboul, as at kadikoi, there are flourishing schools for boys and girls, with more than 700 scholars in attendance. They do not suffice for receiving all the scholars who present themselves. To the labours of teaching are united those of the apostleship, in behalf of the natives as well as foreigners. At Stamboul and at Kadikoi the priests preach and hear confessions in Italian, French, German, Greek, and Turkish. In the various houses established throughout the empire at least ten living languages are spoken. Greeks, Latins, and Orientals unite for the conferences of St. Vincent de Paul, and the Sisters visit and ensure for the sick to the number of 10,000 annually.

Their knowledge of the Oriental languages has been of great service to the Assumptionist Fathers in their journalistic labours. Twelve of the Fathers who are the most skilled in these studies write in thie Oriental Review. They have their special bulletin, “Les Echos de l’Orient,” which circulates among Greeks and Orientals. Because of the Oriental love of splendour in external worship the feasts of the Blessed Sacrament are celebrated with great pomp. With the consent of the authorities, and under the protection of a corps of soldiers the processions of the Blessed Sacrament are conducted through all the streets around Santa Sophia. The Catholic funerals solemnized with reverential pomp produce also a great effect upon the impressionable natives. In 1890 the Congregation of the Propaganda confided to the Assumptionists the territory in Asia Minor extending from Broussa to Angora. It practically embraces the ancient Bithynia. Already six residences have been established there; in the city of Broussa of 100,000, they have established a large and two churches, one of which is the Latin parish. The towns of Eski-Chehir Ismid, Sultan Eschoir, Koniah (Iconium), Fanaraki have each a residence for the priests with a public church; the Oblate Sisters are also established in these places. At Jerusalem the Assumptionists have erected the Hostelry of Our Lady of France for the reception of pilgrims annexed to which is a scholasticate of forty religious. They have established there also the Society of the Croises of Purgatory and they have a church in which to receive the Latin pilgrims. The Eucharitic Congress at Jerusalem in 1893 was held in the Hostelry of our Lady of France.

Emmanuel-Joseph-Marie-Maurice d’Alzon, founder and first Superior General of the Augustinians of the Assumption was born 30 August, 1810, and died at Nîmes, 21 November, 1880. He was a member of a noble family, and, being an only son, encountered strong opposition when he decided to enter the clerical state. He studied at the seminary of Montpellier and later at Rome, where he was ordained priest 26 December 1834. On his return to France the next year he was appointed Vicar-General of the Diocese of Nîmes, which position he held for forty-five years, serving under four bishops. Among his earliest notable works was the establishment at Nîmes in 1843 of the children of the aristocracy. This college later became the cradle of his congregation. He was associated with Guéranger, Louis Veuillot, and other champions of the Catholic cause. With the “Revue de l’enseignement chrétien,” which he founded and directed, he restored the Christian spirit in classical studies. To combat Protestatism in Southern France he established the Association of St. Francis de Sales. He also suggested the idea of the ecclesiastical caravan, formed by the priests at Nîmes, who by request of Mgr. Plantier came to Rome to visit the sovereign pontiff. This was the beginning of the great French pilgrimages called the national pilgrimages, the directors of which were for many years the religious of the order founded by Père d’Alzon. By his “alumnats,” or Apostolic schools, he supplied the education of the poor children called to the priesthood, who, owing to lack of means, could not be admitted to the seminaries. The Fathers of the Assumption opened fifteen of these houses which in twenty-five years gave more than 500 priests to the secular clergy. To sustain this work of charity, Père d’Alzon founded the Association of Our Lady of Vocations, enriched with numerous indulgences, by Pius IX and Leo XIII. The brotherhood, by a degree of the Holy See was been canonically established in the chapel of the College of Nîmes, and has received the approbation of many bishops. Père d’Alzon was much esteemed by the Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX. The later in 1863 sent him to Constantinople to found in the East the missions of the Congregation of the Assumption. More than once he was proposed for the episcopate, but he always declined the honour, preferring to devote himself to the work of his congregation.

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE

Antonius Augustinus

Historian of canon law and Archbishop of Tarragona in Spain, born at Saragossa 26 February, 1517, of a distinguished family; died at Tarragona, 31 May, 1586. After finishing his studies at Alcalá and Salamanca, he went to Bologna (1536), to Padua (1537), and to Florence (1538) in which latter place he examined the famous “Codex Florentinus” of the Pandects and made the acquaintance of such learned men of the new historical school as Andrea Alciati, to whom he owed a confirmation of his pronounced bent towards a positive and critical treatment of the ancient materials of canonical jurisprudence. In 1541 he took his degree of Doctor of Civil and Canon Law and in 1544, at the request of the Emperor Charles V, he was made Auditor of the Rota by Paul III. In 1555 he was sent by Paul IV to England, with a message of congratulation for Queen Mary and as Counsellor to Cardinal Pole. In 1056 he was made Bishop of Alife, in the Kingdom of Naples, and in 1561 was transferred to Lerida in his native Spain. He assisted during three years at the Council of Trent and urged ardently the reformation of the clergy. “It is our fault,” he said in the council, “that so great an agitation has arisen in France and Germany. We must begin with the reformation of the clergy. It is your business, O Fathers, to save by your decrees the common weal of the Church that is now threatened.” In 1576 he was promoted by Gregory XIII to the archiepiscopal see of Tarragona.

Augustinus is one of the foremost figures of the Catholic Counter-Reformation that set in with so much vigour and success in the latter half of the sixteenth century. His chosen field was the fontes, or original sources of ecclesiastical law both papal and conciliar. The basis of the medieval canon law was the “‘Decretum” of Gratian, a usetul codificatlon of the middle of the twelfth century, the ecclesiastical law-book of the schools and the universities, of great academic authority, but never formally approved by the popes as church legislation. Its materials, never hitherto critically illustrated as to their prominence and form, and often badly corrupted as to their text, stood in need of judicious sifting and elucidation. It was to this task that the young Augustinus addressed himself from 1538 to 1543. In the latter year he published at Venice the first critical study on Gratian, “Emendationum et Opinionum libri IV” the result of four years’ labour at the text of the old medieval Benedictine of Bologna. This text remained his life-long study; towards the close of his career, after important services rendered during ten years to the “Correctores Romani” in their edition of Gratian (Rome, 1582), he finished his own magisterial examination of the work; it was not, however, published until after his death, “ De Emendatione Gratiani dialogi (30) libri II” (Tarragona, 1587).

Other important publications of the sources of civil and ecclesiastical law occupied his pen. Thus he published in 1567 an edition of the Byzantine imperial constitutions in 1576 his “IV antiquae Collectiones Decretalium,” in 1582 a treatise on the “Pœnitentiale Romanum” discovered by him. From 1557 he sought earnestly for the necessary patronage, papal or regal, to enable him to publish the hitherto unedited Greek text of the ancient ecclesiastical councils, and for that purpose examined many archives in Italy and Germany, the fruits of his labours were reaped at a later date by others. Among the more valuable of his posthumous publications, and appealing strongly to modern historical tastes, is a critical examination of several early medieval collections of canon law that served as original materied for the “Decretum” of Gratian. This work, that Maassen and von Scherer speak of with respect, is entitled “De quibusdam veteribus Canonum Ecclesiasticorum Collectionibus Judicium et censura,” and was published at Rome (1611) with the second and third parts of his “Juris Pontificii Veteris Epitome” (to Innocent III, 1198–1216), the first part of which appeared at Tarragona in 1587. It contains biographical and text-critical notes on a number of collectors of ecclesiastical laws, from the sixth to the fact that the books were themselves in many century. In this work he treats progressively of the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, and while he did not dispose of sufficient material to demonstrate thoroughly their spurious character or to attempt to fix the time and place of their compilation, it is clear that he did not believe them earlier than the time of Pope Damasus (366–384) or even of the seventh century “Collectio Hispana.” His notes on the correlated “Capitula Hadriani” (Angilramni) were published at Cologne in 1618. His powerful genius was truly universal. Classical philology, epigraphy, numismatics, above all the history of civil and ecclesiastical law found in him an investigator whose boldness and insight where extraordinary for that period of incipient historico-critical research. Death surprised him at the patriotic task of an edition of the works of the Spanish writer, St. Isidore of Seville. The works of Augustinus were printed in eight volumes at Lucca (1775–74); his life by Siscarius is in the second volume 1–121.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Augustinus-Verein

An association organized in 1878 to promote the interests of the Catholic press, particularly the daily press, of Germany. The society proposes to attain its end

by giving its moral support to the establishment of Catholic papers;

by furnishing trustworthy information and authentic news to the daily papers;

by training Catholic journalists, and giving assistance to the members of the profession in need of it;

by representing the interests of the profession;

by securing positions and giving informatiom and assistance in all matters connected with journalism, free of charge and finally

by endeavouring to bring about the harmonious co-operation of Catholic publishers, as well as uniformity in treating the questions of the day.

The lack of organization on the part of the Catholic Press first became obvious at an early stage of the Kulturkampf; several unsuccessful attempts were made to supply the deficiency, among others the formation of a society of publishers. The first feasible steps were taken at the Catholic Convention at Würzburg; at subsequent gatherings plans were matured, and at Düsseldorf, 15 May, 1878, a programme was drawn up which is substantially followed out in the present Augustinus-Verein, Düsseldorf became the centre of the Verein, which, now that it has spread throughout Germany, is divided into ten groups, corresponding to geographical divisions, each, to a large extent autonomous. A general assembly is held annually. The Verein has its own organ, the “Augustinusblatt,” published at Krefeld. It also conducts a literary bureau, a beneficial society, a parliamentary correspondence association of the Centre Party, in Berlin, and an employment agency. In 1904 the society had a regular membership of 850, in addition to the associate membership.

F.M. RUDGE

Augustopolis

A titular see of Palestine, suffragan of Petra. Its episcopal list (431–536) is given in Gams (p. 454). There were two other sees of the same name, one in Cilicia, a suffragan of Tarsus, the other in Phrygia (Asia Minor), suffragan of Synnada. Its episcopal list (Gams,( p. 446) extends from 359 to 869.

Augustus

The name by which Caius Julius Caesar Octavianus, the first Roman emperor, in whose reign Jesus Christ was born, is usually known; born at Rome, 62 B.C.; died A.D. 14. It is the title which he received from the Senate 27 B.C., in gratitude for the restoration of some privileges of which that body had been deprived. The name was afterwards assumed by all his successors. Augustus belonged to the gens Octavia and was the son of Caius Octavius, a praetor. He was the grand-nephew of (Caius) Julius Caesar, and was named in the latter’s will as his principal heir. After the murder of Julius Caesar, the young Octavianus proceeded to Rome to gain possession of his inheritance. Though originally in league with the republican party, he eventually allied himself with Mark Antony. Through his own popularity, and in opposition to the will of the senate he succeeded (43 B.C.) in obtaining the consulate. In the same year he entered into a pat with Antony and Lepidus by which it was agreed that for five years they would control the affairs of Rome. This (second) Triumvirate (tresviri reipublicae constituendae) so apportioned the Roman dominions that Lepidus received Spain; Antony, Gaul; and Augustus, Africa, Sicily, and Sardinia. The first concerted move of the Triumvirate was to proceed against the murderers of Caesar and the party of the Senate under the leadership of Brutus and Cassius. A crushing defeat was inflicted on the latter at the battle of Philippi (42 B.C.), after which the fate of Rome rested practically in the hands of two men. Lepidus, always treated with neglect, sought to obtain Sicily for himself, but Augustus soon won over his troops, and, on his submission, sent him to Rome where he spent the rest of his life as pontifex maximus.

A new division of the territory of the Republic between Antony and Augustus resulted, by which the former took the East and the latter the West. When Antony put away his wife Octavia, the sister of Augustus, through infatuation for Cleopatra, civil war again ensued, whose real cause is doubtless to be sought in the conflicting interests of both, and the long-standing antagonism between the East and the West. The followers of Antony were routed in the naval battle of Actium (31 B.C.), and Augustus was left, to all intents and purposes, the master of the Roman world. He succeeded in bringing peace to the long-distracted Republic, and by his moderation in dealing with the senate, his munificence to the army, and his generosity to the people, he strengthened his position and became in fact, if not in name, the first Emperor of Rome. His policy of preserving intact the republican forms of administration and of avoiding all semblance of absolute power or monarchy did not diminish his power or weaken his control. Whatever may be said in regard to the general character of his administration and his policy of centralization, it cannot be denied that he succeeded effectually in strengthening and consolidating the loosely organized Roman state into a close and well-knit whole. He was a patron of art, letters, and science, and devoted large sums of money to the establishment and enlargement of Rome. It was his well-known boast that he “found it of brick and left it of marble.” Under his management, industry and commerce increased. Security and rapidity of intercourse were obtained by means of many new highways. He undertook to remove by legislation the disorder and confusion in life and morals brought about, in great measure, by the civil wars. His court life was simple and unostentatious. Severe laws were made for the purpose of encouraging marriages and increasing the birth-rate. The immorality of the games and the theatres was curbed, and new laws introduced to regulate the status of freedmen and slaves. The changes wrought by Augustus in the administration of Rome, and his policy in the Orient are of especial significance to the historian of Christianity. The most important event of his reign was the birth of Our Lord (Luke 2:1) in Palestine. The details of Christ’s life on earth, from His birth to His death, were very closely interwoven with the purposes and methods pursued by Augustus. The Emperor died in the seventy-sixth year of his age (A.D. 14). After the battle of Actium, he received into his favour Herod the Great, confirmed him in his title of King of the Jews, and granted him the territory between Galilee and the Trachonitis, thereby winning the gratitude and devotion of Herod and his house. After the death of Herod (750 A.U.C.), Augustus divided his kingdom between his sons. One of them, Archelaus, was eventually banished, and his territory, together with Idumaea and Samaria, were added to the province of Syria (759 A.U.C.). On this occasion, Augustus caused a census of the province to be taken by the legate, Sulpicius Quirinius, the circumstances of which are of great importance for the right calculation of the birth of Christ. See ROMAN EMPIRE; LUKE, GOSPEL OF.

SOURCES

The chief sources for the life of Augustus are the Latin writers, SUETONIUS, TACITUS, VELLEIUS PATERCULUS, and CICERO (in his Epistles and Philippics); the Greek writers, NICHOLAS OF DAMASCUS, DIO CASSIUS, and PLUTARCH. See also his official autobiography, the famous Monumentum Ancyranum. For the origin and character of the legends that, at an early date, made Augustus one of the “prophets of Christ” see GRAF, Roma nella memoria e nelle immaginazioni del Medio Evo (Turin, 1882), I, ix, 308, 331.

PATRICK J. HEALY

Aumbry

Variously written AMBRY, or AUMBRYE, is a derivative through the French of the classical armarium, or medieval Latin almarium. Its original meaning was a cupboard and it has never lost this more general sense, but even in classical Latin it had of it acquired in addition the special signification of a cupboard of holding books. This limited meaning was widely prevalent in the Middle Ages. Thus in the ten-century rule of Cluny the library is called armarium, and the official who had charge of it armarius, while by an arrangement which was long and widely observed both in Benedictine and in other monastic houses, this armarius, or librarian, was usually identical with the precentor. In Ælfric’s Anglo-Saxon glossary, compiled at the beginning the Anglo-Saxon word bochord (book-hoard, i.e. library), is interpreted bibliotheca vel armarium vel archirum. Similarly it was a common proverb in religious houses, which meets us as early as 1170, that claustrum sine armario est quasi castrum sine armamentario (a monastery without a library is like a fortress without an arsenal). Besides this, owing to the number of cupboards and presses needed for storing vestments, church plate, etc., the word armaruim was also not unfrequently used for the sacristy, though this may also be due to the fact the books were themselves in many cases kept in the sacristy. In German the word Almerei, a derivative of armarium, has the meaning of sacristy.

HERBERT THURSTON

St. Aunarius

(Or Aunacharius).

Bishop of Auxerre in France, born 573, died 603. Being of noble birth, he was brought up in the royal court, but evinced a desire to enter the clerical state, was ordained priest by St. Syagrius of Autum, and eventually was made Bishop of Auxerre. His administration is noted for certain important disciplinary measures that throw light on the religious and moral life of the Merovingian times. He caused solemn litanies to be said daily in the chief centres of population, by rotation, and on the first day of each month in the larger towns and monasteries. He enforced a regular daily attendance at the Divine Office on the part both of regular and secular clergy. He held (681 or 585) an important synod of four bishops, seven abbots, thirty-five priests, and four deacons for the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline and the suppression of popular pagan superstitions, and caused the lives of his predecessors Amator and Germanus to be written. He was buried at Auxerre, where he has always been held in veneration. His remains were later enclosed in a golden chest, but were partially dispersed by the Huguenots in 1567. A portion, however, was placed in the hollow pillar of a crypt, and saved. His feast is celebrated 25 September.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN.

Aurea

Golden).

A title given to certain works and documents:

Bulla, the charter of emperor Charles IV, establishing (10 January, 1356), in union with the estates of the empire, the law of future imperial elections.

Catena, a collection of Scriptural commentaries made by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Legenda, a collection of lives of saints (legendae) by Jacopo da Voragine, Archbishop of Genoa in the thirteenth century.

Summa Hostiensis, also Summa Archiepiscopi, a famous exposition of the principal parts of the Decretals of Gregory IX, by Henricus de Segusio, Cardinal of Ostia (d. 1271).

Tabula, an index to the “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas prepared by Pietro da Bergamo.

Aurelian

(Lucius Dominius Aurelianus).

Roman Emperor, 270–275, born of humble parents, near Sirmium in Pannonia, 9 September, 214; died 275. At the age of twenty he entered the military service, in which, because of exceptional ability and remarkable bodily strength his advancement was rapid. On the death of Claudius he was proclaimed Emperor by the army at Sirmium, and became sole master of the Roman dominions on the suicide of his rival Quintillus, the candidate of the Senate. When Aurelian assumed the reins government the Roman world was divided three sections: the Gallo-Roman Empire, established by Postumus, comprising Gaul and Britain; the Kingdom of Palmyra, which held sway over the entire Orient, including Egypt and the greater part of Asia Minor, and the Roman Empire, restricted to Italy, Africa, the Danubian Provinces of Africa, convoked and presided at the Greece, and Bithynia. On the upper Danube, Rhaetia and Northern Italy were overrun by the Juthungi, while the Vandals were preparing to invade Pannonia. The internal affairs of Rome mere equally deplorable. The anarchy of the legions and the frequent revolutions in preceding reigns had shattered the imperial authority; the treasury was empty and the monetary system ruined. With no support but that afforded by the army of the Danube, Aurelian undertook to restore the material and moral unity of the Empire; and to introduce whatever reforms were necessary to give it stability. Enormous as this project was, in the face of so many obstacles, he succeeded in accomplishing it in less than five years. When he died, the frontiers were all restored and strongly defended, the unity of the Empire was established, the administration was reorganized, the finances of the Empire placed on a sound footing, and the monetary system thoughly revised. His scheme for the complete unification of the Empire led him to attempt to establish the worship of the sun as the supreme god of Rome. During the early rears of his reign Aurelian exhibited remarkable justice and tolerance towards the Christians. In 272, when he had gained possession of Antioch, after defeating Zenobia in several battles, he was appealed to by the Christians to decide whether the “Church building” in Antioch belonged to the orthodox bishop Domnus, or to the party represented by the favourite of Zenobia, Paul of Samosata, who had been deposed for heresy by a synod held three or four years before. His decision, based probably on the Edict of Gallienus, was that the property belonged to those who were in union with the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome (Eus., Hist. Eccl. VII, xxvii-xxx). As this act was based on political motives, it cannot be construed into one of friendliness for the Christians. As soon as he was at liberty to carry out his schemes for internal reform Aurelian revived the polity of his predecessor Valerian, threatened to rescind the Edict of Gallienus, and commenced a systematic persecution of the followers of Christ. The exact date of the inauguration of this policy is not known. It is summer of 275 and despatched to the governors of the provinces, but Aurelian was slain before he could put it into execution. Tradition refers to his reign a large number of Acta Martyrum, none of which is considered to be authentic (Dom Butler, “Journal of Theological Studies,” 1906, VII, 306). His biographer Vopiscus, says (c. xx) that he once reproached the Roman Senate for neglecting to consult the Sibylline Books in an hour of imminent peril. “It would seem,” he said, “as if you were holding your meetings in a church of the Christians instead of in a temple of all the gods”; from which statement it has been rightly inferred that “the decline of the old faith was caused by the progress of the new, and that the buildings then used for the worship of the Christians were becoming more and more conspicuous.”

PATRICK J. HEALY

Aureliopolis

A titular see of Lydia in Asia Minor, whose episcopal list (325–787) is given in Gams (p. 447).

Aurelius

Archbishop of Carthage from 388 to 423. From the title of St. Cyprian, Carthage was one of the foremost sees in Christendom. Its bishop though not formally bearing the title of Primate, confirmed the episcopal nominations in all the plenary councils, which were held almost yearly and signed the synodal letters in the name of all the participants. Such a post Aurelius occupied with destination at a time when Africa held the intellectual leadership in the Church. His episcopate coincided with the last great effort made by the Donatists to uphold a losing cause, and with the first apperance of Pelagianism. Both these crises Aurelius met with equal decision and wisdom. A man of conciliating disposition, and a great lover of peace, his tendency to an indulgent treatment of repentant Donatists was conspicuous in the synodal acts of his own church, and in the plenary councils over which he presided he consistently upheld the same moderate policy. But when the Donatists resorted to rebellion and wholesale murder, he joined his colleagues in appealing to the secular power. He was the first to unmask and denounce Pelagianism. In 412 he excommunicated, and drove from Carthage Caelestinus, the disciple of Pelagius. In 416 he condemned them both, in a synod of sixty-eight bishops of the Proconsulate, and induced Innocent I to brand their two principal errors by defining the necessity of grace and of infant baptism. When Pope Zosimus allowed himself to be deceived by Pelagius’s lying professions, he held (417) a plenary council of his Africa brethren, and in their names warned the Pontiff who in turn (418) condemned the heresiarchs. Aurelius is mentioned in the African martyrology on 20 July.

A.J.B. VUIBERT

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

Roman Emperor, A.D. 161–180, born at Rome, 26 April, 121; died 17 March, 180.

HIS EARLY LIFE (121–161)

His father died while Marcus was yet a boy, and he was adopted by his grandfather, Annius Verus. In the first pages of his “Meditations” (I, i-xvii) he has left us an account, unique in antiquity, of his education by near relatives and by tutors of distinction; diligence, gratitude and hardiness seem to have been its chief characteristics. From his earliest years he enjoyed the friendship and patronage of the Emperor Hadrian, who bestowed on him the honour of the equestrian order when he was only six years old, made him a member of the Salian priesthood at eight, and compelled Antoninus Pius immediately after his own adoption to adopt as sons and heirs both the young Marcus and Ceionius Commodus, known later as the Emperor Lucius Verus. In honour of his adopted father he changed his name from M. Julius Aurelius Verus to M. Aurelius Antoninus. By the will of Hadrian he espoused Faustina, the daughter of Antoninus Pius. He was raised to the consularship in 140, and in 147 received the “tribunician power.”

HIS REIGN (161–180)

His co-reign with Lucius Verus (161–169). In all the later years of the life of Antoninus Pius, Marcus was his constant companion and adviser. On the death of the former (7 March, 161) Marcus was immediately acknowledged as emperor by the Senate. Acting entirely on his own initiative he at once promoted his adopted brother Lucius Verus to the position of colleague, with equal rights as emperor.

With the accession of Marcus, the great Pax Romana that made the era of the Antonines the happiest in the annals of Rome, and perhaps of mankind, came to an end, and with his reign the glory of the old Rome vanished. Younger peoples, untainted by the vices of civilization, and knowing nothing of the inanition which comes from overefinement and over-indulgence, were preparing to struggle for the lead in the direction of human destiny. Marcus was scarcely seated on the throne when the Picts commenced to threaten in Britain the recently erected Wall of Antoninus. The Chatti and Chauci attempted to cross the Rhine and the upper reaches of the Danube. These attacks were easily repelled.

Not so with the outbreak in the Orient, which commenced in 161 and did not cease until 166. The destruction of an entire legion (XXII Deiotariana) at Elegeia aroused the emperors to the gravity of the situation. Lucius Verus took the command of the troops in 162 and, through the valor and skill of his lieutenants in a war known officially as the Bellum Armeniacum el Parthicum, waged over the wide area of Syria, Cappadocia, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Media, was able to celebrate a glorious trumph in 166. For a people so long accustomed to peace as the Romans were, this war was wellnigh fatal. It taxed all their resources, and the withdrawal of the legions from the Danubian frontier gave an opportunity to the Teutonic tribes to penetrate into the rich and tempting territory. People with strange-sounding names—the Marcomanni, Varistae, Hermanduri, Quadis, Suevi, Jazyges, Vandals—collected along the Danube, crossed the frontiers, and became the advance-guard of the great migration known as the “Wandering of the Nations,” which four centuries later culminated in the overthrow of the Western Empire. The war against these invaders commenced in 167, and in a short time had assumed such threatening proportions as to demand the presence of both emperors at the front.

After the death of Lucius Verus (169–180). Lucius Verus died in 169, and Marcus was left to carry on the war alone. His difficulties were immeasurably increased by the devastation wrought by the plague carried westward by the returning legions of Verus, by famine and earthquakes, and by inundations which destroyed the vast granaries of Rome and their contents. In the panic and terror caused by these events the people resorted to the extremes of superstition to win back the favour of the deities through whose anger it was believed these visitations were inflicted. Strange rites of expiation and sacrifice were resorted to, victims were stain by thousands, and the assistance of the gods of the Orient sought for as well as that of the gods of Rome.

The Thundering Legion incident (174). During the war with the Quadi in 174 there took place the famous incident of the Thundering Legion (Legio Fulminatrix, Fulminea, Fulminata) which has been a cause of frequent controversy between Christian and non-Christian writers. The Roman army was surrounded by enemies with no chance of escape, when a storm burst. The rain poured down in refreshing showers on the Romans, while the enemy were scattered with lighting and hail. The parched and famishing Romans received the saving drops first on their faces and parched throats, and afterwards in their helmets and shields, to refresh their horses. Marcus obtained a glorious victory as a result of this extraordinary event, and his enemies were hopelessly overthrown.

That such an event did really happen is attested both by pagan and Christian writers. The former attribute the occurrence either to magic (Dion Cassius, LXXI, 8–10) or to the prayers of the emperor (Capitolinus, “Vita Marci,” XXIV; Themistius, “Orat. XV ad Theod”; Claudian, “De Sext. Cons. Hon.,” V, 340 sqq.; “Sibyl. Orac.,” ed. Alezandre, XII, 196 sqq. Cf. Bellori, “La Colonne Antonine,” and Eckhel, “Doctrina Nummorum,” III, 64). The Christian writers attributed the fact to the prayers of the Christians who were in the army (Claudius Apollinaris in Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.,” V, 5; Tertullian, “Apol.,” v; ad Seap. c. iv), and soon there grew up a legend to the effect that in consequence of this miracle the emperor put a stop to the persecution of the Christians (cf. Euseb. and Tert. opp cit.). It must be conceded that the testimony of Claudius Apollinaris (see Smith and Wace, “Dict. of Christ. Biogr.,” I, 132–133) is the most valuable of all that we possess, as he wrote within a few years of the event, and that all credit must be given to the prayers of the Christians, though it does not necessarily follow that we should accept the elaborate detail of the story as given by Tertullian and later writers [Allard, op. cit. infra, pp. 377, 378; Renan, “Marc-Aurèle” (6th ed., Pari 1891), XVII, pp. 273–278; P. de Smedt, “Principes de la critique hist.” (1883) p. 133].

His death (180). The last years of the reign of Marcus were saddened by the appearance of a usurper, Avidius Cassius, in the Orient, and by the consciousness that the empire was to fall into unworthy hands when his son Commodus should come to the throne. Marcus died at Vindobona or Sirmium in Pannonia. The chief authorities for his life are Julius Capitolinus, “Vita Marci Antonini Philosophi” (SS. Hist. Aug. IV); Dion Cassius, “Epitome of Xiphilinos”; Herodian; Fronto, “Epistolae” and Aulus Gellius “Noctes Atticae.”

ASSESSMENT

General assessment. Marcus Aurelius was one of the best men of heathen antiquity. Apropos of the Antonines the judicious Montesquieu says that, if we set aside for a moment the contemplation of the Christian verities, we can not read the life of this emperor without a softening feeling of emotion. Niebuhr calls him the noblest character of his time, and M. Martha, the historian of the Roman moralists, says that in Marcus Aurelius “the philosophy of Heathendom grows less proud, draws nearer to a Christianity which it ignored or which it despised, and is ready to fling itself into the arms of the Unknown God.” On the other hand, the warm eulogies which many writers have heaped on Marcus Aurelius as a ruler and as a man seem excessive and overdrawn. It is true that the most marked trait in his character was his devotion to philosophy and letters, but it was a curse to mankind that “he was a Stoic first and then a ruler.” His dilettanteism rendered him utterly unfitted for the practical affairs of a large empire in a time of stress. He was more concerned with realizing in his own life (to say the truth, a stainless one) the Stoic ideal of perfection, than he was with the pressing duties of his office.

Philosophy became a disease in his mind and cut him off from the truths of practical life. He was steeped in the grossest superstition; he surrounded himself with charlatans and magicians, and took with seriousness even the knavery of Alexander of Abonoteichos. The highest offices in the empire were sometimes conferred on his philosophic teachers, whose lectures he attended even after he became emperor. In the midst of the Parthian war he found time to keep a kind of private diary, his famous “Meditations,” or twelve short books of detached thoughts and sentences in which he gave over to posterity the results of a rigorous self-examination. With the exception of a few letters discovered among the works of Fronto (M. Corn. Frontonis Reliquiae, Berlin, 1816) this history of his inner life is the only work which we have from his pen. The style is utterly without merit and distinction, apparently a matter of pride for he tells us he had learned to abstain from rhetoric, and poetry, and fine writing. Though a Stoic deeply rooted in the principles developed by Seneca and Epictetus, Aurelius cannot be said to have any consistent system of philosophy. It might be said, perhaps, in justice to this “seeker after righteousness,” that his faults were the faults of his philosophy rooted in the principle that human nature naturally inclined towards evil and heeded to be constantly kept in check. Only once does he refer to Christianity (Medit., XI, iii), a spiritual regenerative force that was visibiy increasing its activity, and then only to brand the Christians with the reproach of obstinacy (parataxis), the highest social crime in the eyes of Roman authority. He seems also (ibid.) to look on Christian martyrdom as devoid of the serenity and calm that should accompany the death of the wise man. For the possible relations of the emperor with Christian bishops see ABERCIUS OF HIEROPOLIS, and .

His dealings with the Christians. In his dealings with the Christians Marcus Aurelius went a step farther than any of his predecessors. Throughout the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius, the procedure followed by Roman authorities in their treatment of the Christians has that outlined in Trajan’s rescript to Pliny, by which it was ordered that the Christians should not be sought out; if brought before the courts, legal proof of their guilt should be forthcoming. [For the much-disputed rescript “Ad conventum Asiae” (Eus., Hist. Eccl., IV, xiii), see ]. It is clear that during the reign of Aurelius the comparative leniency of the legislation of Trajan gave way to a more severe temper. In Southern Gaul, at least, an imperial rescript inaugurated an entirely new and much more violent era of persecution (Eus., Hist. Eccl., V, i, 45). In Asia Minor and in Syria the blood of Christians flowed in torrents (Allard, op. cit. infra. pp. 375, 376, 388, 389). In general the recrudescence of persecution seems to have come immediately through the local action of the provincial governors impelled by the insane outcries of terrified and demoralized city mobs. If any general imperial edict was issued, it has not survived. It seems more probable that the “new decrees” mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. IV, xx-i, 5) were local ordinances of municipal authorities or provincial governors; as to the emperor, he maintained against the Christians the existing legislation, though it has been argued that the imperial edict (Digests XLVIII, xxix, 30) against those who terrify by superstition “the fickle minds of men” was directed against the Christian society. Duchesne says (Hist. Ancienne de l’Eglise, Paris, 1906 p. 210) that for such obscure sects the emperor would not condescend to interfere with the laws of the empire. It is clear, however, from the scattered references in contemporary writings (Celsus “In Origen. Contra Celsum,” VIll, 169; Melito, in Eus., “Hist. Eccl.,” IV, xxvi; Athenagoras, “Legatio pro Christianis,” i) that throughout the empire an active pursuit of the Christians was now undertaken. In order to encourage their numerous enemies, the ban was raised from the delatores, or “denouncers,” and they were promised rewards for all cases of successful conviction. The impulse given by this legislation to an unrelenting pursuit of the followers of Christ rendered their condition so precarious that many changes in ecclesiastical organization and discipline date, at least in embryo, from this reign.

Another significant fact, pointing to the growing numbers and influence of the Christians, and the increasing distrust on the part of the imperial authorities and the cultured classes, is that an active literary propaganda, emanating from the imperial surrounding, was commenced at this period. The Cynic philosopher Crescens took part in a public disputation with St. Justin in Rome. Fronto, the precepter and bosom friend of Marcus Aurelius, denounced the followers of the new religion in a formal discourse (Min. Felix, “Octavius,” cc. ix, xxxi) and the satirist Lucian of Samosata turned the shafts of his wit against them, as a party of ignorant fanatics. No better proof the tone of the period and of the widespread knowledge of Christian beliefs and practices which prevailed among the pagans is needed than the contemporary “True Word” of Celsus (see ), a work in which were collected all the calumnies of pagan malice and all the arguments, set forth with the skill of the trained rhetorician, which the philosophy and experience of the pagan world could muster against the new creed. The earnestness and frequency with which the Christians replied to these assaults by the apologetic works (see , , ) addressed directly to the emperors themselves, or to the people at large, show how keenly alive they were to the dangers arising from these literary or academic foes.

From such and so many causes it is not surprising that Christian blood flowed freely in all parts of the empire. The excited populace saw in the misery and bloodshed of the period a proof that the gods were angered by the toleration accorded to the Christians, consequently, they threw on the latter all blame for the incredible public calamities. Whether it was famine or pestilence, drought or floods, the cry was the same (Tertullian, “Apologeticum,” V, xli): Christianos ad leonem (Throw the Christians to the lion). The pages of the Apologists show how frequently the Christians were condemned and what penalties they had to endure, and these vague and general references are confirmed by some contemporary “Acta” of unquestionable authority, in which the harrowing scenes are described in all their gruesome details. Among them are the “Acta” of Justin and his companions who suffered at Rome (c. 165), of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonica, who were put to death in Asia Minor, of the Scillitan Martyrs in Numidia, and the touching Letters of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne (Eus., Hist. Eccl., V, i-iv) in which is contained the description of the tortures inflicted (177) on Blandina and her companions at Lyons. Incidentally, this document throws much light on the character and extent of the persecution of the Christians in Southern Gaul, and on the share of the emperor therein.

PATRICK J. HEALY

Petrus Aureoli

(Aureolus, D’auriol, Oriol).

A Franciscan philosopher and theologian, called on account of his eloquence Doctor facundus, born 1280 at Toulouse (or Verberie-sur-Oise); d. 10 January, I322 (Denifle; other dates assigned are 1330 and 1345). He entered the Orator of Friars Minor studied at Toulouse, taught theology there and at Paris and became (1319) provincial of his order (Province of Aquitaine). John XXII appointed him Archbishop of Aix (1321). He defended the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in a public disputation at Toulouse (1314), in his “De Conceptione Mariae Virginis” and “Repercussorium” (reply to opponents of the doctrine), in his “Sermons” and in commentary on St. Bernard’s teaching. His other principal works are the commentary on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard (Rome, 1596–1605), “Quodlibeta,” and “Breviarium Bibliorum,” an introduction to the Scriptures with literal commentary, which appeared in numerous editions at Venice, Paris, and Louvain. A new edition by Seeboeck was published at Quaracchi in 1896. In philosophy Aureoti was a Conceptualist and a forerunner of Occam. He criticized the doctrine of St. Thomas and defended, though not in all points, the views of Scotus. His writings on the Immaculate Conception were published by Petrus de Alva in the “Monumenta Seraphica Imm. Concept.”

E.A. PACE

Auriesville

The site of the Mohawk village, Montgomery County, New York, U.S.A., in which Father Issac Jogues, and his companions, Goupil and Lalande, were put to death for the Faith by the Indians. It is on the south bank of the Mohawk, about forty miles west of Albany. Auries was the name of the last Mohawk who lived there, and from this the present designation was formed. It was known among the Indians as Ossernenon, also Gandawaga and Caughnawaga, the latter being given to the settlement on the St. Lawrence opposite Lachine which was established for the Iroquois converts who wanted to withdraw from the corruption of their pagan kinsmen. To the village on the Mohawk Jogues and Goupil were brought in 1642 as prisoners, and, in 1646, Jogues again, with Lalande. In 1644 Bressani was tortured there, and later on Poncet. In 1655–56–57 Le Moyne came as ambassador to make peace; and the year after the punitive expedition of the Marquis de Tracy a permanent mission was established (1667). There Father Boniface, James de Lambervllle, Fremin, Bruyas, Pierron, and others laboured until 1684, when the mission was destroyed. The famous Indian girl, Tegakwitha, was born there. From it she escaped to Canada. While the missionaries were m control of Ossernenon and the adjacent Indian towns, the Mohawk converts were remarkable for their exact Christian life, and in many instances for their exalted piety.

The exact location of this village, which is so intimately associated with the establishment of Christianity in New York, was for a time a subject of considerable dispute. The researches of John Gilmary Shea, whose knowledge of the history of the early mission was so profound, at first favoured the view that the old village was on the other side of the Mohawk at what is now Tribes Hill. More thorough investigations, however, aided by the conclusions of Gen. J. S. Clarke of Auburn, whose knowledge of Indian sites both in New York and Huronia is indisputable, have shown finally that the present Auriesville is the exact place in which Father Jogues and his companions suffered death. The basic evidence is the fact that, up to the time of their destruction by de Tracy, the villages were certainly on the south side of the Mohawk and west of the Schoharie—as is clear from contemporary maps, and from Jogues’s, Bressani’s, and Poncet’s letters. Joliet, one of the most accurate cartographers of the time, puts the village of Ossernenon at the Schoharie and Mohawk. To further particularize it, Jogues said the village was on the top of the hill, a quarter of a league from the river. The ravine in which Goupil’s body was found is also specified by Jogues, and he speaks of a watercourse and a rivulet uniting there—a feature still remaining. The distances from Andagaron and Tionontoguen given by Father Jogues also fix the exact locality.

Satisfied that the precise spot had been determined, ten acres of land on the hill were purchased in 1884 by the Rev. Joseph Loyzance, S.J., who was at that time parish priest of St. Joseph’s, Troy , N.Y., who had all his life an ardent student of the lives of early missionaries. Father Loyzance erected a small shrine on the hill under the title of Our Lady of Martyrs, and he was the first to lead a number of pilgrims to the place, on the 15th of August of that year, which was the anniversary of the first arrival of Father Jogues as an Iroquois captive. Four thousand people went from Albany and Troy on that day. Other parishes subsequently adopted the practice of visiting Auriesville during the summer. Frequently there are as many as four or five thousand people present. The ground has been since extended beyond the original limits, of keeping the surroundings free from undesirable buildings. Many of the pilgrims come fasting and receive Holy Communion at the shrine. The entire day is passed in religious exercises, but anything which could in the least savour of any public cult of the martyrs is sedulously guarded against, as such anticipation of the Church’s official action would seriously interfere with the cause of their canonization, which is now under consideration at Quebec. The present buildings on the site are only of a temporary nature. If the Church pronounces on the reality of martyrdom of the three missionaries, more suitable edifices will be erected.

T. J. CAMPBELL

Giovanni Aurispa

A famous ltalian humanist and collector of Greek manuscripts, born about 1369 at Noto, in Sicily; died at Ferrara in 1459. It is not known where he first studied. In 1418 he went to Constantinople to learn Greek and to collect codices. So industrious was he that he was accused to the Greek emperor of despoiling the city of books. He returned to Venice in 1423 with 238 volumes of classical authors, purchased at Constantinople. Among his treasures were the celebrated “Codex Laurentianus” (seven plays of Sophocles, six of Æschylus, Apollonius’s “Argonautica”) of the tenth century, the Iliad, Demosthenes, Plato, Xenophon, etc. The next year Aurispa went to Bologna, where he became professor of Greek at the university. As a teacher he was not very successful. Thence he was invited to Florence, where he also held the chair of Greek. Later he went to Ferrara. In 1441 he was appointed secretary to Pope Eugene IV. Six years later Pope Nicholas V reappointed him to the same post. Besides being a tireless collector of manuscripts, Aurispa was a poet of some merit. His published works include letters, epigrams, and an elegy.

EDMUND BURKE

Aurora Lucis Rutilat

This is one of the Ambrosian hymns, but its author is unknown. It has been revised and separated into three hymns for the Roman Breviary. The first sixteen lines form the hymn for Lauds from Low Sunday to the Ascension, and begin in the revised form, Aurora Caelum Purpurat. There are many English versions in use among Protestants. Dr. J.M. Neale’s translation begins “Dawn purples all the east with light.” The hymn “Tristes Erant Apostoli” (lines 17–32 of the original text) is in the Office, Common of Apostles and Evangelists for paschal time at the first and second Vespers and Matins. This hymn has also been translated into English. The Gregorian melody is in the third mode and may be found in the “Vesperale Romanum.” Lines 33 to the end of the ancient hymn form “Paschale Mundo Gaudium,” the hymn at Lauds in the Common of Apostles in paschal time. Among the English versions, besides Dr. Neale’s are those of J.A. Johnston in his “English Hymnal (1852), “with sparkling rays morn decks the sky”;. E. Caswall, “Lyra Catholica” (1849), “The dawn was purpling o’er the sky”; J. D. Chambers, “Lauda Syon” (1857), “Light’s very morn its beams displays.”

JOSEPH OTTEN

Ausculta Fili

A letter addressed 5 December 1301, by Pope Boniface VIII to Philip the Fair, King of France. Philip was at enmity with the Pope. Under the pretext of his royal rights, he conferred benefices, and appointed bishops to sees, regardless of papal authority. He drove from their sees those bishops who, in opposition to his will remained faithful to the Pope. This letter is couched in firm but paternal terms. It points out the evils the king has brought to his kingdom, to Church and State; invites him to do penance and mend his ways. It was unheeded by the king, and was followed by the famous Bull “Unam Sanctam.”

M. O’RIORDAN

Decimus Magnus Ausonius

A professor and poet born about A. D. 310; died, probably, about A.D. 394. The son of a physician of Bordeaux, he studied first in that city, then at Toulouse, with his uncle AEmilius Magnus Arborius. The latter having gone to teach in Constantinople, Ausonius returned to Bordeaux, where he became professor of grammar, and later of rhetoric. Between 364 and 368, Valentinian invited him to Trier to teach his son Gratian. In 368 and 369 Ausonius accompanied the emperor on the expedition against Alemani, and received a young Swabian, Bissula, as the share of his booty. The emperors overwhelmed him with honours, and made him first Prefect of the Gauls, then Prefect of the West conjointly with his son Hesperius (between August, 378, and July, 379). In 379 he became consul. After the assassination of Gratian, his benefactor (383), Ausonius moved to Bordeaux where he lived among many admiring friends, and wrote a great deal of poetry. He lived through almost the whole of the fourth century. The writings of Ausonius are generally short, and they form a miscellaneous collection which is divided into two groups:

I. OCCASIONAL WORKS

(1) “Epigrams”: short poems on different subjects often translated from the Greek Anthology.

(2) “Parentalia”: thirty eulogies on deceased relatives, with some occasional expressions of personal sentiment (about 379).

(3) “Commemoratio professorum Burdigalensium”: a collection like the preceding, giving an idea of a university in the fourth century (after 389).

(4) “Mosella”: a description of the River Moselle and the country through which it flows, written awhile traveling from Bingen to Trier (c 371). This poem has a certain local and archaeological interest.

(5) Charming poems relating to Bissula (after 368).

(6) Many brief poems, which Ausonius called eclogues or “Epyllia”; paschal-time prayers (368); “Epicedion”: dirge on his father’s death (d. 378); advice to his grandson (about 380); “Cupido crucifixus”: description of a painting in a dining-room at Trier, which represented Cupid as tormented in hell by the women who pursued him on earth, etc.

(7) “Gratiarum actio dicta domino Gratiano Augusto,” in which Ausonius expresses in prose his thanks for having been made consul. This was read at Trier in 379, and is made up of flowers of rhetoric and conventional flatteries.

(8) “Ephemeris”: the account of daily duties, from morning to night; a fragment (379). In this work is found a morning prayer composed of Biblical expressions in which the doctrine of the Trinity is set forth in detailed formulae directed against heresies of the times.

(9) “Letters”: twenty-five epistles, mostly in verse. The most interesting are addressed to St. Paulinus of Nola (393) and in them Ausonius bewails a conversion that deprives the State and literature of the benefit of such a brilliant mind and tries to lead the saint back to worldly life at Rome. This correspondence lays before us two ideals of life, it expresses in clear colours the views which at that time were in conflict with each other, and divided society.

(10) “Praefatiunculae”: prefaces and envois to poems.

II. SCHOOL EXERCISES AND FRAGMENTS

These are chiefly mnemonic verse: “Caesares,” on the Roman emperors; consular annals; “Ordo nobilium urbium,” eulogies on cities, beginning with Rome and ending with Bordeaux (after 388); “Eclogae,” a collection of mnemonic verses, treating of trees, the months, the calendar, weights, etc.; “Periochae” (Contents), prose headings for the Iliad and the Odyssey. It is doubtful whether Ausonius wrote these, but they were at least the work of a member of the circle to which he belonged, short poems on the labours of Hercules; on the Muses; on ethical subjects (translations of Greek originals, inspired by Pythagorean philosophy). Other writings are lectures by a professor; Epitaphs, eulogies on dead heroes of the Trojan War, modelled after the Greek, and epitaphs on Niobe Diogenes, etc., translated from the Greek; Epyllia, various pieces, among others an enigma on the number three, a diversion of a courtier to go to war (368); “Cento nuptials” (an ingenious concept of the same origin, the result of a wager made with Valentinian), extracts from Virgil, the conclusion of which (consummatio matrimonii) is not very refined (368); “Taecnopaegnion,” collection of verses in which each ends in a monosyllable; the authenticity of the Consul Ausonius’s prayer, written in ropalic verse (verse composed successively of words of one, two, three, four, five syllables and so on) is doubtful, “Ludus septem sapientum”; this product of the seven sages is a kind of scholastic drama, in which, after a prologue, each sage recites a proverb; at the end, they invite the audience to applaud. It is a document interesting for the history of pedagogy and also for the medieval drama.

To appraise Ausonius justly it must be borne in mind that he represents the professor of the fourth century. Some of his works, therefore, written for the school and in the spirit of the school, frequently translations from the Greek, are unimportant. A versifier to whom any subject could appeal (the more difficult and the less poetical it was, the better), Ausonius knew by heart the works of his predecessors, but by his taste and metrical peculiarities showed himself a disciple rather of the poets of the new school (neoterici, poetic innovators of the time of the Severi) than of the classic poets. In this work, Austin assuming the disguise of an work the letters to Paulinus of Nola are an exception to the whole, which is almost void of ideas. Ausonius’s attitude in regard to Christianity should be explained in the same way. The paganism of his works is the paganism of the schools, and, if one would base on that the doubt that he was a Christian, inversely, his literary manner of treating mythology should make it questionable whether he was a pagan. But the paschal prayer, and still more, the prayer of the “Ephemeris” could not have been by a pagan. An orthodox Christian in his prayers, he was a pagan in the classroom. Hence his works, which are class-room productions, may very naturally seem pagan. It is said that after the edict of Julian (362) Ausonius had to give up teaching; but there is nothing to prove this, nor is there any proof to the contrary, as Julian died the following year. It is supposed that, like some of his contemporaries, Ausonius remained a catechumen for a long time. It is possible that he was not baptized until the time when we lose all trace of him, in the last silent and obscure days of his old age.

PAUL LEJAY

John Austin

An English lawyer and writer, born 1613 at Walpole, in Norfolk; died London, 1669. He was a student of St. John’s College, Cambridge, and of Lincoln’s Inn, and about 1640 embraced the Catholic Faith. He was highly esteemed in his profession and was looked on as a master of English style. His time was entirely devoted to books and literary pursuits. He enjoyed the friendship of such scholars as the antiquary Blount, Christopher Davenport (Franciscus a Santa Clara), John Sergeant, and others. Among his writings are: “The Christian Moderator; or Persecution for Religion condemned by the Light of Nature, by the Law of God, the Evidence of our Principles, but not by the Practice of our Commissioners for Sequestrations—In Four Parts” ( London, 1652, 4to.) . It was published under the pseudonym of William Birchley, and in it he frequently disclaims the pope’s deposing power. “In his work, Autin assuming the disguise of an independent, shows that Catholics did not really holds the odious doctrines vulgerly attributed to them, and makes an energetic appeal to the independents to extend to the adherents of the persecuted church such rights and privileges as were granted to other religious bodies” (Dict. of Nat. Biogr., II, 264). “The Catholique’s Plea; or an Explanation of the Roman Catholik Belief, concerning their Church, Manner of Worship, Justification, Civil Government, Together with a Catalogue of all the Poenal Statutes against popish Recusants, all which is humbly submitted to serious consideration, By a Catholick Gentleman” (London, 1659, 18mo.) also under the pseudonym of William Birchley; “Reflections upon the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance; or the Christian Moderator, The Fourth Part, By a Catholick Gentleman, an obedient son of the Church and loyal subject of his Majesty” (London, 1661); “A Punctual Answer to Doctor John Tillotson’s book called ‘The Rule of Faith’“ (unfinished), “Devotions, First Part: In the Ancient Way of Offices, With Psalms, Hymns, and Prayers for every Day in the Week, and every Holiday in the Year.” It is not known when and where the first edition appeared; the second, a duodecimo, is dated 1672. An edition printed at Edinburgh, 1789, contains a life of the author, presumably by Dodd. This work was adapted to the uses of the Anglican Church in Hick’s “Harmony of the Gospels,” etc., (London, 1701), and has been often reprinted as a stock book under the Hick’s Devotions. “Devotions, Second Part, The Four Gospels in one, broken into Lessons, with Responsories, To be used with the Offices, Printed Anno Domini 1675” (2 vols., Paris, 12mo), a posthumous work, divided into short chapters with a verse and prayer at the end of each. The prayers, says Gillow, “gave rise to offense under the impression that they favoured Blackloe’s doctrine concerning the middle state of souls, and on account of this the work was not republished.” A third part of the “Devotions” was never printed; it contained, according to the author’s own statement “Prayers for all occasions framed by an intimate friend according to his (Austin’s) directions, and overlooked by himself.” He also wrote several anonymous pamphlets against the divines who sat in the Westminster Assembly.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Australia

(Also known as NEW HOLLAND till about 1817).

Australia is geographically the world’s great island-continent. Politically, the mainland, with the adjoining island of Tasmania, forms the Commonwealth of Australia. This is under the British Crown and consists of the following six States, which were federated on 1 Jan., 1901, and are here named in the order in which they became separate colonies of the British Empire: New South Wales (1788); Tasmania (1803); Western Australia (1826); South Australia (1836); Victoria (1851); and Queensland (1859). The Commonwealth covers an area of 2,980,632 square miles. It is, territorially, about one-fourth smaller than Europe, one-sixth larger than the United States (excluding Alaska), over one and a half the size of the Indian Empire, more than fourteen times larger than Germany or France, and about twenty-five times larger than the British Isles. At the census of 1901 the population of the six States was as follows: New South Wales, 1,339,943; Western Australia, 182,553; Victoria, 1,201,341; Queensland, 503,266; South Australia, 362,604; Tasmania, 172,475. This gave the Commonwealth in 1901 a total population of 3,782,182. The official estimate of the total population for December, 1905, was 4,002,893.

I. THE CONVICT SYSTEM

The north and west coasts of Australia figure in the maps of Spanish and Portuguese navigators as far back as about the year 1530. But it was the War of American Independence that led to the settling of the white man on the shores of the great lone continent. At that time, and until the nineteenth century was well advanced, the maxim of Paley and of others of his school, that crime is most effectually prevented by a dread of capital punishment, held almost complete control of the legislative mind in Great Britain. “By 1809,” says a legal authority in the “National History of England” (IV, 309), “more than six hundred different offences had been made capital-a state of law unexampled in the worst periods of Roman or Oriental despotism.” Transportation was the ordinary commutation of, or substitute for, the slip-knot of the hangman. From 1718 to 1776 British convicts had been sent in considerable numbers annually under contractors, into servitude on the American mainland. The traffic was stopped by the War of Independence. At the close of the struggle the British prisons and, later on, the prison-hulks overflowed. The colony of New South Wales (till 1826 synonymous with the whole Australian mainland) was established as a convict settlement by an Order in Council dated 6 December, 1785. On 13 May, 1787, “the first fleet,” provisioned for two years, left England, with 1,030 souls on board, of whom 696 were convicts. They reached Botany Bay on 20 January, 1788. They abandoned it after a few days because of its shallow waters, and laid the foundatios of Sydney on the shores of the noble and spacious harbour to which they gave the name of Port Jackson. The men who founded Sydney and the Commonwealth of Australia “may have been convicts,” says Davitt, “but they wer not necessarily ‘criminals,’ such as we are familiar with to-day. Some account must be taken of what constituted a crime in those transportation days, and of the hideously unjust sentences which were inflicted for comparatively trivial offences” (Life and Progress in Australasia, 193–194).

Within the next decade, the ranks of the original convict population were swelled by a goodly percentage of the 1,300 unoffending Catholic peasants from the North and West of Ireland who were seized and deported by “Satanides” Carhampton and the Ulster magistrates during the Orange reign of terror in 1795–96, “without sentence,” as Lecky says, “without trial, without even the colour of legality” (Ireland in the Eighteenth Century, III, 419; England in the Eighteenth Century, VIII, 250). After the insurrection of 1798, “a stream of Irish political prisoners was poured into the penal settlement of Botany Bay, and they played some part in the early history of the Australian colonies, and especially of Australian Catholicism” (Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century, VIII, 250). In his “Catholic Mission in Australia” (1836), Dr. Ullathorne says of those early Irish political convicts: “Ignorance or violation of religious principle, the knowledge or habits of a criminal life, were scarcely to any extent recognizable features in this unhappy class of Irish political prisoners. On the contrary, the deepest and purest sentiments of piety, a thorough comprehension of religious responsibility, and an almost impregnable simplicity of manner, were their distinctive virtues on their first consignment to the guardianship of the law. In many illustrious cases, a long and dangerous residence in the most depraved penal settlements was unable to extinguish these noble characteristics.” During the first three decades of the nineteenth century the convict population was notably increased by the addition of many who had taken part in the agitations in connexion with tithes, the Charter and Reform movements, the Combination Laws, and the Corn Laws. During the first fifty years and more of the Australian penal settlements, convictions and sentences of deportation were matters of fearful facility. For no provision was made for the defence of prisoners unable to procure it for themselves; the right of defence throughout the entire trial was not recognized till 1837; jurors were allowed to act as witnesses; and, belonging as they generally did, to “the classes,” they were too prone to convict, and judges to transport, especially during periods of popular ferment, on weak or worthless evidence, or on the mere presumption of guilt (See National History of England, IV, 310).

Convictism endured in New South Wales from its first foundation in 1788 till 1840. Tasmania remained a penal colony till 1853. Transportation to Norfolk Island ceased in 1855. Moreton Bay (in the present State of Queensland) became a convict station in 1824 and remained one till 1839. Western Australia began as a penal settlement in 1826. It continued as such for only a very brief space. Owing to the dearth of free labour, convicts (among whom was the gifted John Boyle O’Reilly, a political prisoner) were reintroduced from 1849 till 1868, when the last shadow of “the system” was lifted from Australia. Two noted Catholic ecclesiastics (Dr. Ullathorne and Dr. Wilson, first Bishop of Hobart) took a prominent and honoured part in the long, slow movement which led to the abolition of the convict system in New South Wales, Tasmania, and Norfolk Island. Almost from the dawn of the colonization of New South Wales and Tasmania, voluntary settlers went thither, at first as stragglers, but in a steady stream when the advantages of the country became known, when irresponsible military rule ceased (in 1842) and when free selection and assisted immigration were planks in the policy of the young Australian colonies. The first free settlers came to Queensland (known till its separation in 1859 as the Moreton Bay District of New South Wales) in 1824, just in advance of the convicts; to Victoria (known till its separation in 1851 as the Port Phillip District of New South Wales) in 1835, and to South Australia in 1836. The gold discoveries of the fifties brought a great inrush of population, chiefly to Victoria and New South Wales. Events have moved rapidly since then. The widened influences of religion, the influx of new blood, the development of resources, prosperity, education, and the play of free institutions have combined to rid the southern lands of the traces of a penal system which, within living memory, threatened so much permanent evil to the moral, social, and political progress of Australia. The dead past has buried its dead.

The reformation of the criminal formed no part of the convict system in Australia. “The body,” says Bonwick, “rather than the soul, absorbed the attention of the governors” (First Twenty Years of Australia, 218). “Vengeance and cruelty,” says Erskine May, “were its only principles; charity and reformation formed no part of its scheme” (Constitutional History of England, III, 401). For the convict, it was a beast-of-burden life, embittered by the lash, the iron belt, the punishment-cell, the prison-hulk, the chain-gang, and the “hell.” “The ‘whipping-houses’ of the Mississippi,” says Dilke, had their parallel in New South Wales; a look or word would cause the hurrying of a servant to the post or the forge, as a preliminary to a month in a chain-gang on the roads” (Greater Britain, 8th ed., 373). For idleness, for disobedience, for drunkenness, for every trivial fault, the punishment was “the lash!-the lash!-the lash!” (Dr. Ullathorne, in Cardinal Moran’s History of the Catholic Church in Australasia, 156). And the “cat” was made an instrument of torture (Dilke, Greater Britain, 8th ed., 374). Matters were even worse in the convict “hells” of New Norfolk (established in 1788), and of Port Arthur and Macquarie Harbour in Tasmania. In 1835 Dr. Ullathorne went to New Norfolk to prepare thirty-nine supposed conspirators for an abrupt passage into eternity. Twenty-six of the condemned men were reprieved. They wept bitterly on receiving the news, “while those doomed to die, without exception, dropped on their knees and with dry eyes thanked God they were to be delivered from so horrid a place.” They “manifested extraordinary fervour and repentance,” received their sentence on their knees “as the will of God,” and on the morning of their execution “they fell down in the dust and, in the warmth of their gratitude, kissed the very feet that had brought them peace” (Ullathorne in Moran, op. cit., 1614).

For a long period Australian officials and ex-officials were to all intents and purposes a great “ring” of spirit-dealers. Rum became the medium of commerce, just as tobacco, and maize, and leaden bullets were in the early days of New England (History of New South Wales from the Records, II, 271–273). The cost of building the first Protestant church in Australia (at Sydney) was, as the pastor’s balance sheet shows, in part paid in rum (op. cit., II, 66). “Rum-selling and rum-distilling debauched the convicts and their guards” (José, History of Australia, 21), and the moral depravity that grew up under the system is described by Dr. Ullathorne as “too frightful even for the imagination of other lands” (Moran, op. cit., pp. 8–11, and “Historical Records of New South Wales,” II and III passim). The Irish Catholic convicts-”most of whom,” says Ullathorne (in Moran, op. cit., 152–153), “were transported for the infringement of penal laws and for agrarian offence and minor delinquencies”-had generally (according to the same eyewitness) a lively dread of the depravity of the prison hells of the system. Irish Catholic female convicts were also saved to a notable extent by their robust faith from the profligacy which, almost as a matter of course, overtook their less fortunate sisters from other countries (McCarthy, History of Our Own Times, ed. 1887, I, 467; Ullathorne, in Moran, 157–158). Long before, similar testimony was given by John Thomas Bigge, after he had spent three years (1819–22) in Australia as Special Commissioner from the British Government to investigate the working of the transportation system. In his final report (dated 6 May, 1822) he said: “The convicts embarked in Ireland generally arrive in New South Wales in a very healthy state, and are found to be more obedient and more sensible of kind treatment during the passage than any other class. Their separation from their native country is observed to make a stronger impression upon their minds, both on their departure and during the voyage.”

II. PERIOD OF PERSECUTION

The influences of religion were not allowed to remedy to any great extent the hard animalism and inhumanity of the convict system. Anglicanism was de facto, although not de jure, the established religion of the Australian penal colonies. But the Anglican chaplain, frequently a farmer, run-holder, and magistrate, was more conspicuously a civil than a religious functionary. Methodism (then a branch of the Anglican Establishment) made a feeble beginning in Australia in 1813; Presbyterianism in 1823; other Protestant denominations at later dates (Bonwick, First Twenty Years of Australia, 240). In 1836, when Dr. Ullathorne wrote his pamphlet, “The Catholic Mission in Australia,” Catholic and other dissidents were still compelled to attend the more or less perfunctory services of the Anglican Church (in Moran, op. cit., 153). The penalties for refusal, provided at various times in General Orders, consisted in reduced rations, imprisonment, confinement in prison-hulks, the stocks, and the urgent pressure of the public flagellator’s “can-o’-nine-tails”-twenty-five lashes for the first offence, fifty for the second, and for the third, the road-gangs, or transportation to the “living death” of the convict hells. (See the official and other evidence in Moran, op. cit., 11–19.) As late as 5 March, 1843, a convict named Bernard Trainer was sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment in Brighton jail for refusing to attend the Protestant service (Therry MSS., in Moran, 19). This abuse of power continued in Tasmania till 1844 (Hogan, The Irish in Australia, 3d ed., 257–258). Both in New South Wales and Tasmania, the children of Catholic convicts and all orphans under the care of the State were brought up in the profession of the dominant creed. In 1792 there were some three hundred Catholic convicts and fifty Catholic freemen (mancipists) in New South Wales. Nine years later, in 1801, there were 5,515 inhabitants in the penal settlement (Bonwick, First Twenty Years of Australia, 175–176). About one-third of these were Catholics; but no regular statistics of religious belief were kept at the time (Kenny, The Catholic Church in Australasia to the Year 1840, 20). Among the “little flock” there were three priests who had been unjustly transported on a charge of complicity in the Irish insurrection of 1798-Fathers James Harold, James Dixon, and Peter O”Neill. The last-mentioned priest had been barbarously scourged on a suborned charge of having abetted murder-a crime of which he was afterwards proved to be wholly innocent. Father Harold was the uncle of the Rev. Dr. William Vincent Harold, O.P., famous in the Hogan Schism in Philadelphia, and en route to Ireland in 1810, from Australia, he visited Philadelphia (Moran, op. cit., 33).

These priests were strictly forbidden the exercise of their sacred ministry. After repeated representations, Father Dixon was at length, by order of the Home Government, conditionally emancipated, and permitted to celebrate Mass once a month, under galling restrictions (see Historical Records of New South Wales, V, 110). He offered the Holy Sacrifice for the first time in New South Wales, 15 May, 1803. There was no altar-stone; the chalice, the work of a convict, was of tin; the vestments were made of parti-coloured old damask curtains sacrificed for the occasion, and the whole surroundings of this memorable event in the history of the Church in Australia bespoke the poverty of Bethlehem and the desolation of Calvary. After little more than a year, Father Dixon’s precious privilege was withdrawn, and the last state of the Catholic convicts became worse than the first. Father O’Neill had in the meantime (1803) been restored to Ireland, with his character completely vindicated. In 1808 Father Dixon, broken down in health, was permitted to return to his native diocese. Two years later he was followed to Ireland by Father Harold, and till 1817 a deep spiritual desolation brooded over the infant Church in Australia. In the last-mentioned year there were some 6,000 Catholics in and about Sydney alone. The representations of the returned priestly exiles resulted at length in the appointment of Father Jeremiah Flynn, an Irish Cistercian, as Prefect Apostolic of New Holland. Obstacles were thrown in his way by the Colonial Office. He placed the matter in the hands of the Rt. Rev. Dr. Poynter, and, relying on the known influence of his English friend, set sail in good faith for his distant field. On his arrival in Sydney, Governor Macquarie bluntly informed him that no “Popish missionary” would be allowed to intrude within the settlement, and that every person in the penal colony must be a Protestant.

Father Flynn ministered secretly to his flock whenever he could evade the watchful eyes of hostile officials. A few months after his arrival he was suddenly arrested without warrant or accusation, placed under lock and key in prison, and, without trial, shipped back to London as a prisoner by the first vessel homeward bound. Before his arrest he used secretly to celebrate the Sacred Mysteries in the house of a pious Catholic named Davis. There the Sacred Species were reserved for the sick and dying, in a cedar press, or tabernacle. Father Flynn vainly besought permission to return to the house. And there, for two years after his departure, the taper or lamp was ever kept alight, and, with pathetic devotion, the children of sorrow gathered in adoration around the Bread of Life. The “Holy House of Australia,” with its small adjoining grounds and the sum of £1,000 was devoted to religion by Davis, and on its site now stands a fine church dedicated to God under the invocation of the national apostle of Ireland. Governor Macquarie’s harsh and illegal treatment of Father Flynn created a stir in the British House of Commons. It opened up the whole scandalous story of the persecution of the Catholic convicts and settlers in Australia, created a healthy reaction, and led to the appointment of two Irish chaplains, Father Philip Connelly (who went to Hobart) and Father John Joseph Therry (who remained in Sydney), each with a slender yearly salary of £100. That was in May, 1821. With that day, to use the words of Archbishop Carr of Melbourne “what may be termed the period of the Church suffering ends, and that of the Church militant begins.”

III. PERIOD OF PARTIAL TOLERATION

The new era inaugurated by Fathers Connelly and Therry was, however, one of only partial toleration of the Catholic Faith. It extended from their arrival in Australia, and was marked by long and successful struggles against religious ascendancy, the partial cessation of convictism, and the beginnings fo the present hierarchical organization. In 1821 New South Wales and Tasmania (the only places then colonized) contained a white population of 35,610 souls. Some 30 per cent of these were Catholics. At a census taken in 1828 there were in eastern Australia 36,598 whites, of whom 11,236 were Catholics. Serious restrictions were still placed upon the marriage of Catholic convicts. The chaplains were strictly forbidden to receive converts from any Protestant denomination, or to interfere with the old-standing abuse of bringing up all the children in State-aided institutions in the creed of the Church of England (Hogan, The Irish in Australia, 3d ed., 236–237). And through and over it all ran the constant effort to set up the Protestant Reformed Religion as the Established Church of the new south lands. A great stride in the direction of such an establishment was made when, on 17 July, 1825, Royal Letters set apart for the ruling creed one-seventh of the whole territory of New South Wales, without prejudice to previous grants bestowed upon it. It was in great measure to Father Therry’s energy and ardour that this crowning act of ascendancy owed its partial defeat. The Royal Grant was revoked in 1834, but in the meantime, 435,000 acres of the public domain had been alienated for the benefit of the Anglican Church. Father Therry’s frequent collisions with abuses created a deadlock with the Sydney officials. This, in turn, led to the appointment of Dr. Ullathorne, a distinguished English Benedictine, as Vicar-General of the Bishop of Mauritius, who exercised jurisdiction over Australia till 1834.

Dr. Ullathorne arrived in his new field of labour in 1833. In that year the white population of New South Wales (i. e., of the whole island continent except Western Australia) had risen to 60,794. Of these, some 36,000 were free. The Catholic body, numbering 17,179 and scattered over a vast area, was ministered to by four priests. There were on the Australian mainland four Catholic schools, and four churches under construction (one of them Old St. Mary’s, Sydney). Tasmania (as we still call it by anticipation) had only one Catholic priest, no school, and its one church (at Hobart) was described by Dr. Ullathorne as “a mere temporary shed.” Sir Richard Bourke, a broad-minded Irish Protestant, was at that time Governor of New South Wales. Through his exertions was passed the Church Act of 1836, which broke up the quasi-monopoly of State appropriations for the clergy and the denominational schools that had hitherto been enjoyed by the Church of England (Therry, New South Wales and Victoria, ed. 1883, 17; Flanagan, History of New South Wales, I, 512, 513). Despite its admitted shortcomings, this was, in the circumstances of the time and country, a notable measure. It ended forever the dream of a Protestant ascendancy on the Australian mainland, and is justly regarded as the first Charter of the country’s religious liberties. A Church Act on similar lines was passed in Tasmania in 1837. During the governorship of Sir Richard Bourke Catholics (Roger, afterwards Sir Roger, Therry, and John Hubert Plunkett) were also, for the first time in the history of Australia, appointed to positions of any importance under the Crown. Under this administration the annual influx of free immigrants (some 3,000) equalled for the first time that of the convicts (Sutherland, History of Australia, 12th ed., 51, 52).

Australia was gradually rolling out of the sullen gloom of a penal settlement, and emerging into the condition of a freeman’s country. The Catholic population increased rapidly. Their numbers and their distance from the immediate centre of their spiritual jurisdiction led, in 1834, to the formation of Australia, Tasmania, and the adjacent islands (including New Zealand) into a vicariate Apostolic. The Right Rev. John Bede Polding, an English Benedictine, was appointed its first bishop. In 1841 his vast diocese contained some 40,000 Catholics, ministered to by twenty-eight priests, and scattered over a territory nearly as large as Europe. The Australian mainland and Tasmania had in that year a population of 211,095 souls. At the census of that year, there were 35,690 of Bishop Polding’s spiritual subjects in a total population of 130,856 in New South Wales (which then included the present States of Queensland and Victoria). Among the other scatterred Catholics was a little group, poor labourers all, except one family, in a white population of some 15,000 souls in South Australia. This colony had been founded in 1836 as a free and “socially superior” Protestant settlement, from which “Papists and pagans” were to have been rigidly excluded. A few Catholics, however, crept in. They were ministered to by one priest (Father Benson) who lived among them in apostolic poverty from 1839 till the arrival of the first Bishop of Adelaide, Dr. Murphy, in 1842. In Western Australia there were 2,311 hard-pressed colonists at the census of 1840. There were very few Catholics among them, and no priest till 1845, when there arrived in the colony Dom Rudesind Salvado, a Spanish Benedictine, afterwards founder and first Abbot of New Norcia. A closer hierarchical organization was needed. At Bishop Polding’s earnest solicitations new dioceses were created by the Holy See: Hobart, in 1842; Adelaide, in 1843; Perth, in 1845; Melbourne, Maitland, and Port Victoria, in 1848. Sydney also became an archiepiscopal see. Dr. Wilson, the first Bishop of Hobart, will be remembered for his successful opposition to the efforts made, despite the local Church Act of 1837, to have Anglicanism placed on the same official footing as in England. It was the last serious effort to establish a religious ascendancy in any part of Australasia. In New South Wales the first synod was held in 1844. Six years later, the first sod of the first railroad in Australasia was turned in the capital of the mother-colony. At the census of 1851, the Catholic body in the mother-colony had risen to 58,899 in a total population of 190,999. In the Morton Bay District of New South Wales (now Queensland) there were few Catholics, and no resident priest till the Passionist Fathers opened their mission to the aboriginals on Stradbroke Island, in 1843. In the Port Phillip District of New South Wales (now Victoria) there were, in 1851, 18,014 priests (in 1850) and thirteen State-aided primary schools. Dr. Gould was the first Bishop of the new see founded there in 1848.

IV. PERIOD OF COMPARATIVE CALM

The discovery of rich gold in Victoria in 1851 had a profound and far-reaching effect on the history of Australia. There was a delerium of sudden prosperity. Population rushed into the new El Dorado. In 1851, the mainland and Tasmania had a joint population of 211,095, nearly double that of 1841. This rapid increase of inhabitants soon called for the erection of new episcopal sees. That of Brisbane was founded in 1859, the year in which Queensland became a separate colony. The Bishopric of Goulburn was established in 1864; Maitland (a titular see since 1848) and Bathurst, in 1865; the abbacy nullius of New Norcia (aboriginal mission), in 1867; the See of Armidale, in 1869; and those of Ballarat and Sandhurst, in 1874. In the last-mentioned year Melbourne (since 1851 the capital of the separate colony of Victoria) became an archiepiscopal see. The Vicariate Apostolic of Cooktown was formed in 1876, and the Diocese of Rockhampton in 1882. Three years later, in 1885, Dr. Moran (successor to Dr. Vaughan in the Archiepiscopal See of Sydney) was raised to the purple as Australia’s first cardinal. The Plenary Synod held in Sydney in the same year resulted in the formation, in 1887, of the Dioceses of Grafton (now called Lismore), Wilcannia, Sale, and Port Augusta, together with the Vicariates Apostolic of Kimberley (now under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Geraldton) and of Queensland (for aborigines only), while Adelaide, Brisbane, and (in 1888) Hobart became archiepiscopal sees. The Plenary Synod of 1895 led to the formation of the Diocese of Geraldton in 1898. The occupant of that see is administrator of the Diocese of Port Victoria and Palmerston, which, founded in 1848, lost its whole European population in 1849. The latest Plenary Synod of the Church in the Commonwealth took place in 1905, and two important and highly successful Cathlic Congresses were held, the first in Sydney in 1900, the second in Melbourne in 1904. In 1906, there were in the Australian Commonwealth six archbishops (one of them a cardinal, another a coadjutor), fifteen bishops (two of them coadjutors), one abbot nullius, and one vicar Apostolic; in all, a hierarchy of twenty-three prelates exercising episcopal jurisdiction.

V. RELIGIOUS STATISTICS

The following table, compiled from official sources, shows the numerical strength of Catholics on the Australian mainland and in Tasmania for the years named, which have been chosen as being, in most instances, census years: 1888

1891

1897 According to official returns, there were 41,112 children on the rolls of the Catholic schools in New South Wales in the December quarter, 1904, and 5,413 on the rolls of the Catholic schools of Western Australia on the last school week of 1903 (the latest Government figures available for that State). No official information appears in the census or reports of Tasmania, Queensland, or South Australia. The “Australasian Catholic Directory” for 1906 made what seems to be a somewhat conservative estimate when it set down as 105,835, the number of children attending Catholic schools throughout the Commonwealth.

VII. THE ABORIGINES.—The origin of the native tribes of Australia is one of the unsolved riddles of ethnology. An unknown number of these black-skinned people still live in their “wild” state, in small and scattered communities, over vast areas extending from Central Queensland almost to the coast of Western Australia. They have no acquaintance with metal, nor with the bow and arrow, and their weapons of war and chase are (with the exception of the boomerang) of a very rude kind, wooden spears and clubs, stone tomahawks, etc. They are extraordinarily keen and skillful hunters. They are polygamous, given at times to cannibalism and infanticide, and have no permanent dwellings, no pottery, and no idea of cultivation of the soil. They die out fast wherever they come in contact with the white man and his vices. The last Tasmanian aboriginal died in 1876. In New South Wales and Victoria, the dwindling remnants of the native tribes are mostly settled upon reserves under State control. The most permanent and successful missions to the aborigines are those in the Dioceses of Perth and Geraldton (Western Australia).

VIII. CATHOLIC LITERATURE.—Under the penal slavery that long prevailed over a part of Australia, intellectual and moral advancement was subordinated to the two central ideas of punishment and money-getting. For some five decades from the date of the first colonization there was scarcely such a thing as a cultured class; the struggle for existence was generally keen among the free settlers in a virgin country; and education, seldom more than primary, was mainly in the hands of convict teachers and of convict tutors assigned to private families. The literary gloom of Australian penal servitude before the days of the ’48 men was lit up by two non-Catholic Irish convicts, Edward O’Shaughnessy, a gifted poet and political writer, and George Waldron (better known as George Barrington), the prince of modern pickpockets, whose romantic career has found fame even in the pages of the “Dictionary of National Biography.” To Australian Catholics, however, it is especially gratifying that one of the first contributions of a writer of their faith and country dealt a severe blow at the convict system; this work was Dr. Ullathorne’s heart-rending pamphlet, “The Horrors of Transportation.” Time, free immigration, prosperity, higher instruction, more extended educational facilities, and the play of representative institutions have since then combined to develop in the “Land of Dawning” a rich general literature, in many respects sui generis, and marked, especially on its “lighter” side, by a certain weird melancholy which, according to Marcus Clarke, is the predominant feature of Australian scenery. In the literary development of the Commonwealth Catholic writers have borne an honorable part. The following list is made up exclusively of works produced by Catholic authors having at the time of writing a domicile in Australia.

History and Biography.—Ullathorne, “The Horrors of Transportation,” and “The Australian Mission”; Kenny, “The Catholic Church in Australia to the Year 1840”; Therry, “Comparison of the Oratory of the House of Commons Thirty Years Ago and at the Present Day (1856),” “Reminiscences of Thirty Years’ Residence in New South Wales”; Flanagan, “History of New South Wales”; Tenison Woods, “History of the Discovery and Exploration of Australia”; Finn (“Garry-Owen”), “The Chronicles of Early Melbourne”; George Collingridge (whose brother Arthur originated the real art life of the mother-state by founding the Art Society of New South Wales and the classes connected therewith), “History of Australian Discovery”; Mennell, “Dictionary of Australian Biography”; Hogan, “The Irish in Australia”; Kelsh, “Memoir of Bishop Willson.” The principal work written by Cardinal Moran in Australia is his monumental “History of The Catholic Church in Australasia.” Carr (Archbishop of Melbourne), “Fifty years of Progress”; Byrne, “History of the Catholic Church in South Australia” (two small vols. issued); Cleary, “The Orange Society”; Gray, “Australasia, Old and New”; Donohoe (Arthur Cayll), “History of Botany Bay.”

Apologetic and Ascetic Literature.—The most noteworthy contributions to Australian Catholic apologetic literature are those of Cardinal Moran, “Letters on the Anglican Reformation,” and “The Reunion of Christendom”; and of Archbishop Carr, “The Origin of the Church of England,” “The Church and the Bible,” “The Primacy of the Roman Pontiff,” and “Letters in Reply to Dr. Rentoul,” the characteristic feature of which works is the frequency and effectiveness of their appeals to the writings of Protestant historians and divines; Hall, “Who translated the Bible?” A multitude of minor polemical publications on questions of history, missions, doctrine, statistics, socialism, education, medico-moral subjects, religion and science, etc., have appeared from time to time from the pens of Cardinal Moran, Archbishop Carr, Dr. Ullathorne (“Reply to Judge Barton”), Fathers W. Kelly, J. O’Malley, and E. J. Masterson, S.J., the Rev. W. Barry, D.D., the Rev. M. Watson, S.J., Benjamin Hoare, the Rev. P. O’Doherty, the Rev. M. Barrett, and others; Byrne, “True Wisdom” (translated from Thomas a Kempis); “Letters of a Mother to Her Children” and “Sketches of the Lives of Young Saints,” books compiled by Loretto Nuns; Huault, “The Mother of Jesus.” Devotional manuals have been published by the Fathers M. Watson and J. Ryan, S.J., and a prayerbook by the Australian Catholic Truth Society. This useful organization (established at the Second Australian Catholic Congress in 1904) is doing excellent service by its publications, which embrace nearly every department of Catholic literature. A place of honor in Australian apologetic and general literature is rightly due to the two volumes containing the Proceedings of the Australasian Catholic Congresses held at Sydney (1900) and Melbourne (1904).

Physical Science, Law, Politics, etc.—The foremost names in geological science in Australia are those of the Rev. Julian E. Tenison Woods, F.G.S., and the Rev. J. Milne Curran, F.G.S. Father Woods was author of “Geological Observations in South Australia,” “Geology of Portland,” and “North Australia and its Physical Geography.” (Mennell says of this author: “His contributions to the pages of scientific journals and the proceedings of learned societies were numerous and valuable.”) Father Curran is the author of “The Geology of Sydney and the Blue Mountains” and “Quantitative Analysis.” T. A. Coghlan (Agent-General for New South Wales, Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society) is the Mulhall of Australian statistical science. The most important of his many publications while he was Statistician of New South Wales were: “The Wealth and Progress of New South Wales” and “The Seven Colonies of Australasia,” both of which went through numerous editions. His successor as statistician of the mother-state is W. H. Hall, author of “The Official Year-Book of New South Wales.” W. H. Archer, K.S.G.G., published sundry statistical works while Registrar-General of Victoria in its young and strenuous days, and for twenty-five years Dr. E. S. Hall compiled and published the vital statistics of Tasmania. Charles (afterwards Sir Charles) Gavan Duffy was the author of a “Guide to the Land Law of 1862,” which law was passed by a coalition Ministry in which he held the portfolio of Lands. Other legal textbooks were written by Frank Gavan Duffy (son of Sir Charles), Judges Casey and Quinlan, M. Brennan, Bernard O’Dowd, N. G. Power, and J. Hood. Benjamin Hoare, author of “Preferential Trade,” ranks high in political circles as an authority on protective tariffs. John D. Fitzgerald, an author of recognized ability on municipal reform, has written “Greater Sydney and Greater Newcastle.” Frederick J. Bloomfield did the Australasian work in “Webster’s Dictionary.” Helen K. Jerome wrote a work on Japan. The Rev. Julian E. Tenison Woods compiled an “Australian Bibliography”; and useful educational works have issued from his pen and from those of Fathers P. J. O’Mara and W. Kelly, S.J., and of J. W. Foster-Rogers. Archbishop O’Reilly (Adelaide) has written pamphlets on music, a subject on which he is an authority of Australian reputation.

Fiction.—Daniel E. Deniehy, lawyer, statesman, Journalist, will be best remembered for his clever skit, “How I Became Attorney-General of Barataria,” which was famous in its day, and is still as readable as ever. James Francis Hogan published “An Australian Christmas Collection” of colonial stories and sketches. Ambrose Pratt is the author of “The Great Push Experiment,” “Franks, Duellist,” and “Three Years with Thunderbolt.” Among other Australian Catholic writers of fiction whose work has appeared in book form are the following: Miss Tennyson, Roderick Quinn, Laura Archer (a collection of Queensland tales), F. M. Korner (pen name, “George Garnet”), a Loretto nun (author of “I Never Knew”), the Rev. P. Hickey (“Innisfail”). “Australian Wonderland” is a cleverly written book for children, in which two sisters (one of them a Sister of Mercy) collaborated. Newspaper and periodical literature has also been enriched with some excellent work in fiction by Australian Catholic writers.

Poetry.—Among the poets, two Irish singers, “Eva” of the Nation (Mrs. Kevin Izod O’Doherty) and “Thomasine,” are now (1907) passing the evening of their lives in humble retirement in Queensland. Roderick Flanagan (the historian of New South Wales) published in his day a volume of verse. Victor J. Daley was a gifted and prolific verse-writer, but his only published work is “At Dawn and Dusk.” John Farrell, for a time editor of the Sydney Daily Telegraph, was the author of “How He Died, and Other Poems.” In 1897 he wrote a “Jubilee Ode” which was pronounced to be finer than Kipling’s “Recessional” as a piece of national stock-taking. Roderick Quinn has written “The Higher Tide,” and “The Circling Hearths”; Edwin J. Brady, a poet of the sea and wharf side, “The Way of Many Waters”; Bernard O’Dowd, “Dawnward” and “Darrawill of the Silent Land”; Cornelius Moynihan, “Feast of the Bunya, An Aboriginal Ballad,” with a preface containing curious historical, legendary, and ethnological lore regarding the Queensland blacks; the Rev. W. Kelly, S.J., three convent dramas in blank verse; J. Hood, “Land of the Fern”; John B. O’Hara, “Songs of the South” (2d series), “Sonnets, Odes, and Lyrics “; the Rev. M. Watson, S.J., a series of seven handsomely illustrated Christmas booklets in verse which have gone through many editions. Volumes of verse have also been published by Marion Miller (“Songs From the Hills”), and Rena Wallace (“A Bush Girl’s Songs”). Some meritorious work by Australian Catholic poetic writers (including various odes, etc., by the Rev. J. J. Malone) has not appeared in separate form.

Catholic Journalism in Australia had a long and thorny road to travel before it reached assured success. Beginning with “The Chronicle” (founded in Sydney, in 1839), the way was strewn with failures, which, however, helped to form the steps leading others to better things. The existing Catholic newspapers and periodicals of Australia, with their dates of foundation, are, Weekly: Sydney, N. S. W., “The Freeman’s Journal” (the oldest existing newspaper in Australia, founded and first edited by Archdeacon McEncroe in 1850); and “The Catholic Press” (1895); Melbourne, Victoria, “The Advocate” (1868), “The Tribune” (1900); Brisbane, Queensland, “The Australian” (founded by Dr. O’Quinn in 1878), “The Age” (1892); Adelaide, South Australia, “The Southern Cross” (1889); Perth, W. A., “The W. A. Record” (1874); Launceston, Tasmania, “The Monitor” (founded in 1894 by amalgamating “The Catholic Standard” of Hobart, and “The Morning Star” of Launceston).—Monthly: Melbourne, “The Australian Messenger” (1887); “The Austral Light” (an ecclesiastical property since 1899); Sydney, “The Annals of Our Lady “.—Quarterly and Annual. “The Australasian Catholic Record” (founded by Cardinal Moran, in Sydney, in 1894); “The Madonna” (Melbourne, 1897); “The Garland of St. Joseph” (1906). A useful “Catholic Almanac and Family Annual” is published for the Diocese of Maitland. Illustrated scholastic annuals are also issued by most of the Catholic colleges for boys, and by some of the secondary schools for girls.—In size, literary quality, successful management, and influence, the Catholic newspapers and magazines of Australia easily outrival the rest of the religious press in the Commonwealth. Many Catholic names of note in the political, judicial, literary, and scientific history of Australia were, for a time at least, associated with the religious or secular press of the country. Among them may be mentioned: Sir Charles Gavan Duffy; the Right Hon. William Bede Dalley, P.C., Q.C.; the Hon. John Hubert Plunkett, Q.C., M.L.C.; Sir Roger Therry; Richard Sullivan (brother of A.M. and T. D. Sullivan); Judges Therry, Real, Power, O’Connor, Casey, Heydon, and Quinlan; the Hon. Edward Butler, Q.C., M.L.C., and his brother, Thomas Butler; E. W. O’Sullivan; Sir John O’Shannassy, K.C.M.G.; the Hon. Sir Patrick Jennings, K.C.M.G., LL.D., M.L.C.; Edward Whitty, the brilliant Anglo-Irishman, who ended his days in Melbourne; William A. Duncan, C.M.G.; Roderick Flanagan; Daniel E. Deniehy; Philip Mennell, F.R.G.S.; John Farrell; Victor J. Daley; the Rev. Julian E. Tenison Woods; the Hon. J. V. O’Loghlen; the Hon. Hugh Mahon; J. F. Hogan; Benjamin Hoare; Roderick and P. E. Quinn; F. J. Bloomfield; Ambrose Pratt; Helen K. Jerome; John Hughes, K.C.S.G.; John Gavan Duffy; Frank Leverrier (noted as a scientist); Kenneth McDonall;—Nicholson; Frank and Martin Donohoe; Ernest Hoben; C. Brennan; T. Courtney; and others. Phil May first won fame as a caricaturist in the columns of an illustrated weekly published in Sydney. A number of able lay and clerical writers are associated with the Catholic newspapers and periodicals of Australia.

HENRY W. CLEARY

St. Austrebertha

Austrebertha, Saint, Virgin, born c. 630 at Therouane in the modern department of Pas-de-Calais in France; d. February 10, 703 or 704. When her father desired to give her in marriage to a young nobleman, she fled from home and took the veil from the hands of Bishop Saint-Omer. Some time later she entered the monastery of Port on the Somme, where she was later elected prioress. Soon afterwards she was appointed first abbess of the newly erected convent of Pavilly in Lower Seine. Under her direction the nuns of Pavilly became so celebrated for sanctity that parents came from all sides to place their daughters under the guidance of Austrehertha. Her name is in the Roman martyrology and she is honored as patron at Montreuil in the department of Pas-de-Calais.

[Sources missing.]

MICHAEL OTT

St. Austremonius

Apostle and Bishop of Auvergne (c. 314). All that is certainly known of Austremonius is deduced from a few brief sentences in the writings of St. Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc., I, xxx, and De Gloriâ Confessorum, c. xxix). According to this authority he was one of the seven bishops sent from Rome into Gaul about the middle of the third century; he laboured in Auvergne and is said to have been the first Bishop of Clermont. But from a study of the episcopal lists as given by St. Gregory himself, St. Austremonius could hardly have antedated the commencement of the fourth century, since his third successor died in 385. It is more likely, therefore, that he was the contemporary of the three Bishops of Aquitaine who attended the Council of Arles in 314. He was not a martyr. His cult began about the middle of the sixth century, when Cantius, a deacon, saw a vision of angels about his neglected tomb at Issoire on the Couze. His body was afterwards translated to Volvic, and in 761 to the Abbey of Mauzac. Towards the middle of the ninth century, the head of the saint was brought to St.-Yvoine, near Issoire, and about 900 was returned to Issoire, the original place of burial.

Acta SS., Nov., I, 49 sq.; Anal. Boll., XIII, 33–46; Mielanges Havet., 36; Duchesne, Bulletin critique (1888), IX, 203–207. Chevalier, Rep. des sources hist. . (Bio-bibliog.), 2d ed., 390, 391.

FRANCIS P. HAVEY

Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

By this name is designated the European monarchy whose dominions have for their main life-distributing artery the River Danube, in its course from Engelhartszell, near Passau, to Orsova. South of the Danube lie the Austrian Alpine provinces and the provinces of Carinthia and Carnola; north of the Danube are the Carpathian and Sudetic provinces.

AREA AND POPULATION

The monarchy as a whole has an area of about 262,577 square miles (680,887 square kilometres), and a population of about 48,592,000. This gives it the second place in population, among the political divisions of Europe. The average density of its population is, approximately, 185 to the square mile. The monarchy holds sway over: (a) the kingdoms and provinces represented in the Austrian Parliament, or Reichsrat, which have together an area of 115,695 sq. m. (300,008 sq. km.) and a population of 26,969,812; (b) the provinces of the Hungarian Crown which have a total area of 127,204 sq. m. (329,851 sq. km.) and a population of 19,985,465; (c) Bosnia and Herzegovina, with an area of 19,678 sq. m. (51,028 sq. km.) and a population of 1,737,000, occupied and administered by Austria-Hungary, though still theoretically a part of the Ottoman Empire. These populations include a great variety of races. In the Austrian territory there are: Germans, 9,171,000; Czechs, 5,955,000; Poles, 4,259,000; Ruthenians, 3,376,000; Slovenes, 1,193,000; Italians and Ladinians, 727,000. In Hungary the population is composed of: Magyars, 9,180,000; Rumanians, 2,867,000; Germans, 2,138,000; Slovaks, 2,055,000; Croats, 1,734,000; Serbs, 1,079,000; Ruthenians, 443,000. The inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina are Servo-Croatians.

The capitals of the three main divisions are: Austria: Vienna, with 1,675,000 inhabitants; Hungary, Budapest, with 732,000 inhabitants; Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serajevo, with 38,000 inhabitants. The only strip of coast land in Austria-Hungary lies on the Adriatic and has a length of 1,366 miles (2,200 km.). The countries which border on Austria-Hungary are: Italy, Switzerland, the principality of Liechtenstein, Bavaria, Saxony, Prussia, Russia, Rumania, Servia, Turkey, and Montenegro.

CHURCH HISTORY

The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was created by the union of the Germanic, Slavonic, and Hungarian provinces which now lie within its territory. This union took place in 1526. Upon the death of Louis II of Hungary and Bohemia at the battle of Mohács, in that year. Bohemia and Hungary were united to the Austrian possessions of Ferdinand I, of the Hapsburg family. This union was in accordance with the law of succession as well as the result of a free choice. Up to 1536 each of these three divisions of the present empire had its own separate religious history.

A. EARLY CHRISTIANITY

The Romans in the time of Augustus took possession of those provinces of the present Austria-Hungary which lie south of the Danube. In the course of time they built roads, founded cities, turned the territory into Roman provinces, and here and there converted the inhabitants to Christianity. The cities of Aquileia and Salona, episcopal sees from the middle of the first century, were centres of Christianity for Noricum and Pannonia. In the year 294 five Christian workmen were thrown from the marble bridges of Sirmium (Mitrowitz) into the Save and drowned. During the persecution of the Christians under the Emperor Diocletian, in 304, the soldier Florianus was thrown into the Ems at Lauriacum (Lorch). The house of Augustinian canons, at St. Florian, in Upper Austria, now stands on the spot where the body of this saint was buried. A tradition gives the same date for the martyrdom of the two bishops Victorinus of Petovia (Pettau in Southern Styria) and Quirinus of Siscia, who met death where the Kulpa empties into the Save. Even at this period Christianity must have had a large number of adherents in these districts, for already an established organization is found here. The bishops of Noricum were under the control of the Patriarch of Aquileia, while Pannonia was subject to the Metropolitan of Sirmium.

The last representative of Christian culture among the Roman inhabitants of the Danube district is St. Severinus. The story of his life, by his pupil Eugippius, is the only written document we have for the history of the Danubian provinces during the last years of the Roman occupation. Severinus settled near the present city of Vienna, built a monastery for himself and his companions, and led so austere a life that even in winter, when the Danube was frozen, he walked up and down over the ice barefoot. His journeys upon the frozen river were errands of consolation to the despairing provincials, who saw themselves threatened on all sides by bands of marauding barbarians. In these journeys Severinus travelled as far as Castra Batava (Passau), and inland from the river up to Juvavum (Salzburg). God had granted him the gift of prophecy. When Odovakar (Odoacer), King of the Heruli, set out on his march against Rome, he came to the saint and asked for his blessing. Severinus spoke prophetically: “Go forward, my son. To-day thou art still clad in the worthless skins of animals, but soon shalt thou make gifts from the treasures of Italy.” After Odovakar had overthrown the Roman Empire of the West, and had made himself master of Italy, he sent and invited Severinus to ask from him some favour. Severinus only asked the pardon of one who had been condemned to banishment. The Alamannic king, Gibold, also visited him in Castra Batava, and the saint begged as a personal grace that the king cease from ravaging the Roman territory. His usual salutation was “Sit nomen Domini benedictum,” corresponding to our “Praise be to Jesus.” When Severinus lay dying the sobs of his disciples prevented their praying; he himself began to recite the last psalm, and with the closing words of this psalm, “Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum,” he passed away (482). Six years later the Romans withdrew from this region, taking the body of the saint with them, and returned to Italy. Here he was buried with suitable honour in the castle of Luculanum, near Naples.

B. THE MIDDLE AGES

During the period of migrations which followed the fall of the Roman Empire, Austria was the fighting-ground of the barbaric hordes which poured through it. Vindobona disappeared from the face of the earth; Pannonia was entirely laid waste by the Avars, a people related to the Huns. The same fate befell Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola, desolated by the Slovenes, who now took possession of those provinces. The land lying on the upper Drave has since borne the name of “Pustertal” (from the Slovenic pust, “waste”). The Croats and Serbs seized the country south of the Save. The Croats are the first-born sons of the Church among the Slavs. They were converted about the year 650, by Roman priests. The Bajuvari (Bavarians), a people from the West, spread themselves over the whole of Upper Austria. St. Rupert, Bishop of Worms, baptized the Bavarian duke, Theodo, at Regensburg (Ratisbon) and became the Apostle of the Austrian Bajuvarii. He travelled and preached nearly as far as Lauriacum, settled in Salzburg, and there erected a see and founded the monastery of St. Peter (c. 700). St. Peter’s is the oldest Benedictine monastery which has had a continuous existence down to our own times, Monte Cassino having been repeatedly destroyed and deserted. The Benedictine cloister for women, Nonnberg, founded by Rupert’s niece Ehrentraut, is also still standing. The Bavarian Duke Tassilo founded the Benedictine monasteries of Mondsee (748) and Kremsmünster (777). The Bishops of Salzburg brought the Christian Faith and German customs to the Slavs. A quarrel broke out, however, between the Carinthians and the Patriarch of Aquileia. Charlemagne raised the Carinthian see of Salzburg to an archbishopric in 798, settled the dispute with Aquileia by making the Drave the dividing line of the two provinces, and in 803 established the border territories known as the Mark of Friuli and the East Mark.

Moravia was won to Christianity by two brothers, Methodius and Constantine, Greek monks from Thessalonica, known in history as the Apostles of the Slavs. Constantine invented the Glagolitic alphabet, translated the Bible into Slavic, and composed the liturgy in that language. But, as Salzburg and Passau had claim to the region in which the brothers worked, complaint was made against them by the German ecclesiastics. Pope Hadrian II, however, authorized the liturgy in the Slavic language. Constantine remained at Rome in a monastery and took the name of Cyril, while Methodius, after many fruitful labours as Archbishop of Pannonia and Moravia, died 6 April, 885, at Vehlehrad, on the River March. The Apostles of the Slavs are now (pursuant to a decree of Leo XIII) commemorated throughout the Catholic Church on the 5th day of July. The Latin Liturgy was reintroduced in Moravia by Swatopluk, the successor of Duke Ratislaus, and soon after his death the Magyars overthrew the empire of Great Moravia (906). When Moravia is again heard of in history (founding of the bishopric of Olmütz, 1063), it is a province of Bohemia.

Christianity was introduced into Bohemia from Moravia. Of the Slavic tribes which at the end of the fifth century controlled the interior of Bohemia and drove the Germans to the outskirts of the country, the Czechs of Prague were the most important division. In A. D. 871 their prince, Borziwoy, and his wife, Ludmilla, consented to receive baptism from St. Methodius. From this time on the history of Bohemia is an account of the struggles between two contending parties, the Christian-Germanic and the National Heathen. At the instigation of the National Heathen party the saintly Duke Wenzel (Wenceslaus) I was murdered by his brother, Boleslaw I. But even Boleslaw had to rule according to the wishes of the Christian-Germanic party, and his son Boleslaw II founded the Bishopric of Prague (973). The new see was placed under the Archbishop of Mainz, and its first bishop was the Saxon Dithmar. His successor, St. Adalbert (Wojtech), met a martyr’s death (967) at the hands of the heathen Slavs of Prussia, whom he sought to bring to the truth. The Benedictine Order came into Bohemia with the founding of the monastery of Borevnov by Boleslaw II, and Boleslaw’s sister, Milada, was the first abbess of St. George, the Benedictine cloister for women in Prague. Duke Bretislaw seized Gnesen and brought the body of St. Adalbert in triumph to Prague. Dabrowka, the daughter of Boleslaw I, married the Polish Duke Mieczyslaw, and the latter was baptized in 966. The son of Mieczyslaw laid the foundation of an enduring church-organization by forming the four bishoprics of Posen, Kolberg, Breslau, and Cracow, and placing them under the Archbishopric of Gnesen, which had been established in the year 1000.

The Magyars, a people from the Ural-Altai region, moved forward in 895 into the Avarian Wilderness on the Theiss. Attempts to convert them were made by the court of Byzantium as well as by St. Wolfgang, a monk of Maria Einsiedeln, by Piligrim, Bishop of Passau, who, as successor of the Bishops of Lorch, wished to be Metropolitan of all Pannonia, and by Adalbert of Prague. Thus it was brought about that the Magyar ruler Géza, great grandson of Arpad, and his wife Sarolta were favourably inclined to Christianity. The real Apostle of the Magyars, however, was Géza’s great son, St. Stephen. Stephen received a Christian education and was baptized by St. Adalbert. Upon the occasion of his marriage with Gisela, sister of the future emperor, St. Henry II, Stephen vowed to give his people the blessings of Christianity. One of the most important measures taken by him for the security of the new faith was the founding at Gran of an archbishopric with ten subordinate sees. As Stephen’s patron saint in battle had been St. Martin, he founded the Benedictine monastery of Martinsberg. He also founded hospices for the reception of Hungarian pilgrims at Ravenna, Rome, and Jerusalem. Astriens, the Abbot of Martinsberg, obtained for him, from the pope, the title of king. Sylvester II sent Stephen a crown of gold and, according to a tradition (which, however, is not well founded) a Bull which decreed to the Kings of Hungary the privilege of the “Apostolic Majesty.” Having a great devotion to the Blessed Virgin, Stephen caused himself to be crowned on the festival of the Assumption, the 15th day of August, in the year 1000, and church historians have given to Hungary the title of “Mary’s Realm” (Regnum Marianum).

The gradual advance of Christianity in Austria towards the east is shown in the shifting of the abode of the early rulers of the Babenberg (Bamberg) line from Melk, on the Kahlenberg, to Vienna. One of this family, Leopold I, the Illustrious, had already founded at Melk an establishment of secular canons. These were replaced in 1089 by twelve Benedictine monks from Lambach. At the time when Leopold’s youngest son, Adalbert I, the Victorious, was margrave, three youths left this region to go to Paris to study. While on their way, they were obliged to spend a night in the open and fell to speaking of the future. Each wished to become a bishop, and each vowed that, if ever a bishop, he would found a monastery. One, Gebhard, became Archbishop of Salzburg and founded Admont and the Diocese of Gurk; another, Adalbero, Bishop of Würzburg, founded the monastery of Lambach; while the third, St. Altmann of Passau, founded Göttweig for twelve canons under the Rule of St. Augustine. The canons at Göttweig were replaced after the lapse of ten years by Benedictines from St. Blasien in the Black Forest. All three of these bishops remained true to Gregory VII in the controversy of investitures. The Crusades began during the reign of the Margrave Leopold II, the Saint, and many of the crusading armies traversed Austria. Leopold’s mother, Ida, took part in a pilgrimage of which Thieno, Archbishop of Salzburg, was the leader. The archbishop met the death of a martyr, and Ida was made a prisoner. Leopold erected a church on the Kahlenberg and founded the monasteries Klosterneuburg and Heiligenkreuz. His wife, Agnes, widow of the Hohenstaufen Duke Frederick, bore him eighteen children. Their third son, Otto, studied at Paris, entered the Cistercian monastery of Morimond, became Bishop of Freising, and wrote a chronicle, “De Duabus Civitatibus,” and a second work, “Libri Duo de Gestis Friderici I.” By reason of these two works he is the most noted German historian of the Middle Ages.

After a hard struggle, the saintly King Ladislaus (d. 1095) succeeded in regulating the ecclesiastical and civil affairs of Hungary. He founded the Bishopric of Grosswardein, and summoned the dignitaries of the Church and the State to a diet at Szabolcs. This diet is often called a synod, on account of the many decisions arrived at in church matters. The priests were ordered to observe celibacy strictly, the laity were commanded to keep Sunday and feastdays and to abstain from immorality. Ladislaus conquered Croatia, whose duke, Zwonimir, had received from a legate of Gregory VII at Salona (1076) a banner, sword, crown, and sceptre, with the title of king, in return for which he had sworn fealty to the pope.

Henry II, Jasomirgott, was the first Duke of Austria. He built a residence for himself at Vienna (Am Hof), in which was the Pancraz chapel, and founded the Schottenkloster for Benedictine monks from St. Jacob’s at Regensburg. Octavian Wolzner, an architect from Cracow, erected for the new duke the church of St. Stephen, to which the parish of St. Peter was added. Leopold V, the Virtuous, son of Henry II, took part in the Third Crusade and fought so bravely that, as we are told, his armour was stained blood red, and only the part under the sword belt remained white. However, Richard the Lionhearted tore down the Austrian banner at the storming of Ascalon and the enraged duke went home at once. While on his way to England, Richard was seized at Erdberg, and held a prisoner by the duke at Dürrenstein. Crusaders being under the protection of the pope, Celestine III put Leopold V under the ban. To this the duke paid no attention; but when he fell with his horse, at Graz, broke a leg, and found himself near death, his conscience smote him; he sent for Albert III, Archbishop of Salzburg, who was in the neighbourhood, and received absolution from him. Frederick I, the eldest son of Leopold V, ruled only six years and died while on a crusade. The reign of his brother, Leopold VI, the Glorious, was a brilliant one. He too went on a crusade and endeavoured first to capture Damietta, the key to Jerusalem, but was obliged to return home without having accomplished anything. He married a Byzantine princess and formed relations with men of Greek learning and culture. The duke built a new castle for himself (Schweizerhof) and the church of St. Michael. The church was intended for the benefit of the duke’s attendants, retainers, servants, and the townspeople who settled around the castle. The scheme to form a bishopric at Vienna was not carried out, but Eberhard II of Salzburg founded bishoprics at Seckau and Lavant, for Styria and Carinthia. Leopold’s son and successor, Frederick II, the last of the Babenberg line, was knighted with much religious pomp at the feast of the Purification of the Virgin, 1232, in the castle church. Bishop Gebhard of Passau celebrated Mass and gave the consecrated sword to the duke, two hundred young nobles receiving knighthood at the same time. After the ceremony the young duke rode at the head of the newly made knights to Penzing, where jousts were held.

Within a short space of time the national dynasties of the countries under discussion died out in the male lines: the Babenberg Dynasty (Austria) in 1246, the Arpadian (Hungary) in 1301, and the Premyslian (Bohemia) in 1306. In 1282 the German Emperor, Rudolph of Hapsburg, gave Austria in fief to his son Albrecht. To Austria and Styria the dukes of the Hapsburg line soon added Carinthia, Carniola, the Tyrol, and the Mark of the Wends. The rulers of this line are deserving of great praise for their aid in developing church life in these territories. Albrecht I founded the court (Hofburg) chapel in his castle; Duke Rudolph IV in 1359 laid the corner-stone of the Gothic reconstruction of the church of St. Stephen. A hundred and fifty years elapsed before the great tower of the church was completed. With the consent of the pope the same duke founded the University of Vienna in 1365. The university was modelled on the one at Paris and possessed great privileges (freedom from taxation, right of administering justice). When part of the Council of Basle separated from Eugenius IV and set up Felix V as antipope, the theological faculty of the university, of which at that time the celebrated Thomas Ebendorffer of Haselbach was a member, sided with the antipope. But the papal legate, John Carvajal, and Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, the emperor’s governmental secretary, prevailed upon Frederick III to espouse the cause of Eugenius and to sign the Concordat of Vienna (1448). The concordat provided that the annates and the confirmation dues should be restored to the pope, that the pope should have the right to appoint to the canonries in the uneven months, and that the filling of ecclesiastical vacancies at Rome should be reserved to him. The concordat was gradually accepted by all of the German rulers, and up to the present time the relations between the German Church and the papacy are regulated by its provisions. In 1452 Frederick was crowned emperor at Rome, being the last emperor to be crowned in that city. In his reign the Bishoprics of Laibach (1462), Vienna, and Wiener-Neustadt (both the latter in 1469) were founded. During this period a great many monastic houses were founded in Austria, especially by the more recently established orders: Carthusian houses were founded at Mauerbach, Gaming, Agsbach; Franciscan at Vienna, Klosterneuburg, St. Pölten, Maria Enzersdorf, Pupping; Dominican at Graz and Retz.

Under the Luxembourg line Bohemia attained a high degree of material and spiritual prosperity. Charles IV, before his reign began, succeeded in having Prague raised to an archbishopric (1344), and in this way made the country ecclesiastically independent of Germany. Charles had been a student at Paris, and immediately upon ascending the throne he founded the University of Prague (1348), the first university on German soil. Master Matthias of Anras and Peter Parler from Schwäbisch-Gmund began the erection of the stately Cathedral of St. Vitus which is now nearing completion. Parlor also erected the Teynkirche (Teyn church) in Prague, and the church of St. Barbara in Kutzenberg, while Matthias of Anras built the fortress-castle of Karlstein. The crown jewels of Bohemia were preserved in the sumptuous chapel at Karlstein. But Bohemia had a sudden fall from the height it had attained. King Wenzel (Wenceslaus), son of Charles IV, had no control of his temper, and began a quarrel with the archbishop. The archbishop’s vicar-general, John of Pomuk (St. John Nepomucene), refused to tell what he had heard in confession. He was first tortured and then, gagged and bound, was thrown at night into the River Moldau. At this time the first signs appeared in Bohemia of a religious agitation which was destined to bring the greatest sorrow both to Bohemia and to the adjoining countries. Jerome of Prague had become acquainted with the writings of Wyclif at Oxford. He returned home, bringing the teachings of Wyclif with him, and communicated them to his friend Hus. Hus came from Husinetz near Prachatitz. He was the child of a peasant, and had become professor of philosophy at the University of Prague, preacher in the Bohemian language at the Bethlehem chapel, and confessor to Queen Sophia. A complaint was brought in the university against Hus on account of his teaching. Of the four “Nations” (Saxons, Bavarians, Poles, and Bohemians), which had votes in the affairs of the university, only the Bohemians voted for Hus. Hus then turned a personal into a national affair. King Wenzel issued a command that henceforth the Bohemians should have three votes, and the other “Nations” only one vote. Upon this 5,000 students and the German professors withdrew and founded the University of Leipzig. The university was now simply a national one, and Hus without interference taught the following doctrines: the church consists only of the elect; no man is temporal ruler, no man is a bishop, if he be in mortal sin; the papal dignity is an outcome of the imperial power; obedience to the church is the invention of men. Hus was suspended by Archbishop Zbinko; he appealed to the pope (Alexander V) and then to Jesus Christ. John XXIII placed Hus under the ban, Prague under an interdict, and called the Council of Constance. The Emperor Sigismund gave Hus a safe-conduct which protected him from acts of violence on the part of the indignant Germans through whose territory he must pass, but not from the verdict of the council. Hus was repeatedly examined before the council, but would not retract his opinions; the members of the council, therefore, unanimously condemned his errors and delivered him to the secular power, by which, in accordance with the law of the land at the time, he was condemned to death at the stake (1415). Jerome of Prague suffered the same death the next year. While at Constance Hus sanctioned the receiving of the sacrament in both kinds which had been introduced by Master Jacob of Miez (Calixtines). As a former monk, John of Selau, was leading a procession a stone was thrown at him from a window of the town hall. The throng, led by the knight John Zizka of Trocnov, attacked the town hall and threw the judge, the burgomaster, and several members of the town council out of the window into the street, where they were killed by the fall. This is known in history as the “First Defenestration of Prague.” King Wenzel was so excited by the episode that he was struck with apoplexy and died. The Hussite wars caused fearful devastation not only in Bohemia, but in the adjacent countries as well. Fortunately, the Hussites divided into the more moderate Calixtines, under John of Rokyzana, and the “Taborites,” so called from the city and mountain which they named Tabor. The Taborites were led by John Zizka and Procopius the Great, who was also called the “Shaven” (Iloly) because he had been a monk. After Zizka’s death the extreme radicals took the name of “Orphans” because no one was worthy to take Zizka’s place. They were finally conquered, and an agreement, called the Compactata (Treaty of Iglau) based on the Four Articles of Prague, was made with the moderate party (1436). The Compacta provided: that in Bohemia everyone who demanded it should receive Holy Communmion under both kinds; mortal sins should be punished, but only by legal authorities; the Word of God should be freely expounded by clergy appointed for the purpose; ecclesiastics should manage their property according to the rules of the church. After this, Hussitism lived on in the “Bohemian Brethren,” who elected a bishop at Lhota near Reichenau (1467), and were finally carried into the current of the Reformation.

In Hungary Christian culture flourished during the reign of the House of Anjou. Louis the Great founded universities at Altofen and Funfkirchen, and built the fine cathedral at Kaschau. When Constantinople was captured by the Turks (29 May, 1453), a cry of horror resounded throughout Europe, and the pope sent forth John Capistran to preach a crusade. The saintly monk came with an immense following from Italy to Germany, Bohemia, and Hungary. He preached in the open, as the churches could not hold his hearers. A stone pulpit with a statue of the saintly Capistran stands on the east side of St. Stephen’s Cathedral, Vienna. A hundred thousand people crowded the square and the roofs of the houses to hear him. This was the more remarkable because Capistran preached in Latin. Yet all who saw and heard him were moved to their innermost souls. The Turks, in 1456, tried to capture Belgrad, the key to Hungary. The papal legate, John Carvajal, and John Capistran raised a crusading army with which John Hunyady was able to defeat, at Belgrad, a Turkish army much more numerous. This was called the “Battle of the Three Johns.” Hunyady and Capistran died shortly afterwards from camp fever. Hunyady’s son had been educated by John Vitez, Bishop of Grosswardein, afterwards Archbishop of Gran. This prelate instilled such a love of learning into his pupil that when the latter ascended the throne as Matthias Corvinus, he gathered learned men about him, re-established the decayed university at Ofen, and founded a new university at Pressburg. Thirty copyists were kept busy at Ofen transcribing the Greek and Latin classics. The volumes, which were beautifully illuminated anbd handsomely bound, were known as Corvinian books.

C. MODERN TIMES

If in analyzing church history Christian antiquity is taken to represent the period of the life and labours fo the Church among the peoples influenced by Greek and Roman civilization, and the Middle Ages the period of the Church’s life and labours among the Germans and the nations which came into contact with them, then the modern period of history must be taken as that in which the influence of the Church began to extend throughout the whole world. Modern times would, according to this theory, begin with the discovery of the New World. But if the beginning of the modern era is made, as it usually is, to coincide with the Reformation, then it is further marked by the rise of that monarchy which was formed by the union of the Austrian, Slavonian, and Hungarian provinces under the Hapsburgs in 1526.

Ferdinand of Hapsburg, the ruler of the German-Austrian crown provinces, had married, at Linz, Anna of Hungary and Bohemia. When Anna’s brother, Louis II, was killed in the desperate battle of Mohács (1526), Ferdinand of Austria succeeded by right of inheritance and election as King of Bohemia and Hungary. The new doctrine taught at Wittenberg was soon brought into the Austrian provinces. Miners were the first to spread the new teaching. Noble families frequently sent their sons to German universities, and even to Wittenberg, and these students often returned with Protestant ideas, and even brought Protestant preachers with them. The constant danger from the Turks in Austria was exceedingly opportune for the new religious movement. One of the first preachers of the new doctrine in Vienna was Paul of Spretten (Speratus), a Swabian, who had been driven out of Salzburg on account of his Lutheran views. The new doctrine entered Hungary and Transylvania through merchants who brought Lutheran books with them, and it took hold, more especially, among the German population of the Zipser region and among the Saxons of Transylvania. Mátyás Biro, known as Devay, from the place of his origin, Deva in Transylvania, has been called “the Luther of Hungary.” Most of the Hungarian bishops had falleen at the battle of Mohács, and the subsequent disputes concerning the succession to the throne distracted the monarchy. For these reasons the new doctrines spread rapidly, and Devay was able to bring over to it such noble families as the Batthyany and Bocskay. It was then that Calvinism began to be called in Hungary Magyar hit (Hungarian faith), Lutheranism Nemes hit (German faith), and Catholicism Igaz hit (Right faith). Equal success accompanied the preaching of John Gross of Cronstadt in Transylvania, despite the efforts of Georgy Utyeszenich to check him. Utyeszenich (also called, after his mother, Marinuzzi) was prior of the Pauline monastery at Szenstochov near Cracow, and governed Transylvania as guardian of John Sigismund Zápolyas. Gross added Honter to his name in memory of his deliverance by an elder bush (in the Transylvanian dialect hontert) from death by drowning. In order to secure the crown for her son, John Sigismund Zápolyas, his mother, Isabella, was obliged to sanction the decisions of the diet which met at Thorenburg (Torda) near Klausenburg. These granted to adherents of the Augsburg Confession equal rights with the Catholics. In Bohemia and Moravia Lutheranism first found adherents among the Germans and especially among the sect of the Utraquists. Just as the Hapsburg Dynasty showed itself at this period to be the shield of Christianity against the advance of Islam, so also it proved itself by its constancy and zeal to be the support of the Faith against the religious innovations. Pope Pius IV conceded the cup to the laity in the Archdioceses of Gran and Prague, a concession, however, withdrawn by St. Pius V. Ferdinand I sought in many ways to be of aid: by his mandates, by the inspection of convents and parishes, by his care in selecting competent ecclesiastics, by the introduction of the newly established Society of Jesus, and by proposals which were sent to the Council of Trent in support of reforms. The mandates of Ferdinand were of little use, but the inspections and the enforcement of the decisions of the Council of Trent had effect. The Bishops of Vienna, Fabri (Heigerlein), and Frederick Nausea (a Latinization of Gran; Nausia, horror, disgust) were unusual men. With unflagging zeal both preached on Sundays and feast days in the Cathedral of St. Stephen and took part in the religious movement by the publication of theological pamphlets. Nausea’s sermons are characterized in a rude rhyme of the day:—Viel tausend Menschen standen da Es predigt Bischof Nausea, Wie er denn pflegt zu aller Zeit Sein’ Schäflein zgebn selbst die Weid.

“Many thousands gather where Bishop Nausea preaches, and himself, as his wont is, feeds his flock.”-In the Austrian provinces the Jesuits were the most important factor in the defence of the Faith and the elevation of Christian life. Ferdinand I obtained from St. Ignatius the founding of a Jesuit college in Vienna. The first two Jesuits came to Vienna in 1551. They were followed, the next year, by St. Peter Canisius, the first German member of the order, were assigned the abandoned Carmelite monastery Am Hof, obtained two chairs in the theological faculty, and founded a gymnasium with a theological seminary attached. St. Peter Canisius was named court preacher, and for a time was administrator of the Diocese of Vienna. He still influences the present day through his “Summa Doctrinæ Christianæ”; an abridgment of which, called the catechism of Canisius, is still in use. A few year later the Jesuits founded at Prague a gymnasium, a theological school, and a university for philosophical and theological studies, which in contradistinction to the “Carolinum” was called the “Clementinum.” They also founded schools at Innsbruck and at Tyrnau. The tutor and court preacher of Maximilian II, Ferdinand’s eldest son, was Sebastian Pfauser, a man of Protestant tendencies. It was feared that Maximilian would embrace the new creed, but the papal nuncio, Bishop Hosius of Ermland, pointed out to him those inconsistencies in the Protestant doctrine which prove its falsity. Maximilian II gave permission to lords and knights to follow the Augsburg Confession in their own castles, cities, and villages. David Chytræus of Rostock drew up for the Protestants a form of church service. In Bohemia the Evangelicals united with the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren, and called the new agreement the “Bohemian Confession.” They had a consistory of fifteen to which the Evangelical clergy were subordinate. Maximilian’s position in the part of Hungary controlled by them was a difficult one, because rebels concealed their political schemes under the cloak of a struggle for relgious freedom. His brother Charles was master of the inner Austrian provinces, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, and Görz. He summoned the Jesuits to Graz and, in the religious pacification of Brück, granted the free exercise of religion at Graz, Klagenfurt, Laibach, and Judenburg. In return he demanded that the Protestants should leave him and his coreligionists undisturbed in their faith, rights, and estates; besides this the Lutheran preachers and teachers were obliged to leave the cities, market towns, and estates under the personal rule of the archduke. In order to counterbalance the endowed schools of the Styrian provinces the Archduke Charles founded the University of Graz (Carolina) in 1586. Charles’s son Ferdinand (later the Emperor Ferdinand II) was educated at Ingolstadt, and while there he declared, “I would rather give up land and people and go away in nothing but a shirt than sanction what might be injurious to religion.” When he became ruler he appointed commissioners who cleared the land of these preachers (ranters). The bishops George Stobäus of Lavant and Martin Brenner of Seckau (the Hammer of the Heretics) were at the head of these reformatory commissions. But no blood was shed in this counter-reformation.

At the distribution of provinces Archduke Ferdinand, husband of Philippina Welser, had received the Tyrol. The diet of 1570 decided the religious position of that province. The governor, Jacob of Pagrsbach, declared firmly that to grant the wishes of the Protestants would be contrary to the customs and ordinances of the land and, further, that it would be folly to rend religion, the strongest tie which binds hearts together. All classes agreed with him. Rudolph II, Maximilian’s eldest son and successor, lived in the Hradschin at Prague, where he carried on his studies in alchemy and art. The Archduchy of Austria was ruled by his brother Ernst. Ernst was aided by Melchior Khlesl, who brought about the counter-reformation in Austria. Khlesl was the child of Protestant parents; his father had been a baker in Vienna. He was converted by the court preacher, George Scherer. From the time of Scherer until the suspension of the order the court preachers were chosen in unbroken succession from the Jesuits. Khlesl became Provost of St. Stephen’s, Chancellor of the university, and Bishop of Vienna. During the reigns of Ernst and his brother Matthias, Khlesl was all powerful. Rudolph II having shut himself up in Prague, the members of the Hapsburg family chose the Archduke Matthias to be their head. The Bohemians held to Rudolph II, but wrung from him a rescript (Majestätsbrief) in 1609. This confirmed the Bohemian Confession, granted the Protestants permission to use the university, and gave them the right to choose a consistory; it also allowed them three temporal estates of lords, knights, and cities having chartered rights to build Protestant churches and schools. Contrary to the provisions of this agreement, subjects of the Archbishop of Prague built a Protestant church at Klostergrab, and subjects of the Abbot of Braunau did the same at Braunau. The bishops ordered these to be closed, and when the Emperor Matthias supported them the result was (1620) the “Second Defenestration of Prague” with which the Thirty Years War began. The Elector Palatine Frederick V, the head of the Protestant League and of the German Calvinists, was elected King of Bohemia. The cathedral was altered to suit Calvinistic church services. The altars were demolished, the pictures destroyed, and Scultetus, the court preacher, arranged a church service. No ruler ever began to reign under more distressing conditions than Ferdinand II. The insurgents under Thurn stood before the gates of Vienna; those unfriendly to Catholicism within the city made common cause with the enemy. Ferdinand, however, never lost courage. Khlesl, Bishop of Vienna, proved to be too weak and was therefore confined first in the castle of Ambras and then in the castle of Sant’ Angelo at Rome. He lived to have the satisfaction of being restored in state to his diocese. He founded in Vienna the Himmelspfortkloster, which commemorates the beautiful legend of the truant nun whose place as doorkeeper was taken during her absence by the Blessed Virgin.

After the battle of the White Mountain, Ferdinand took severe measures against the disturbers of the peace; they were driven out of the country, and finally the rescript, which had been the source of so much trouble, was annulled. A new constitution was published which, among other provisions, made the clergy the highest estate of the land. The emperor was obliged to give Upper Austria in pledge to Bavaria as security for the cost of the war. The cruelties of the Bavarian troops and Ferdinand’s order, requiring the people either to leave the country or to return to the old belief, led to a peasant revolt under the leadership of Stephen Fadinger, the proprietor of a farm not far from St. Agatha, which was carried on until Fadinger died of a wound at Linz. The Catholic was now again the dominant religion and the Protestants retired into the little-frequented mountain districts. In Hungary te Government could not accomplish so much. However, Peter Pázmán laboured with success against the spread of the new religious doctrines. Pázmán was born at Grosswardein (Nagy Várad) of Calvinistic parents. At sixteen he changed his creed, then entered the Society of Jesus and studied at Cracow, Vienna, and Rome. At Rome Bellarmine and Vasquez were among his teachers. When professor at Graz he published the “Imitatio Christi.” He finally returned to Hungary, became Primate, and gained great influence for the Church through his eloquence, the gentleness of his character, and his strong patriotic feeling. He brought about the return of fifty noble families to the mother church and was the author of a “Guide to Catholic Truth.” He founded at Tyrnau a university which was later transferred to Budapest, and also the Hungarian College at Rome. Believing that the preservation of religion requires worthy servants he founded at Vienna, 1623, a college (Pazmaneum) for the training and instruction of clergy for all the dioceses of Hungary. Ferdinand II called Pázmán his friend. This emperor raised the bishops of Vienna to the rank of prince-bishops (1631). When this terrible religious war came to an end in the Peace of Westphalia, and the diplomats played with religious establishments and monasteries as boys play with nuts, and invented the term “secularization” to express the secular appropriation of the Church’s estates, the Hapsburg princes were not willing to commit Austria to such a policy. At this crisis the Hapsburg Dynasty obeyed the directions of Providence. Had the house of Hapsburg then come forward as champions of the new doctrine which originated at Wittenberg, it would have been easy to renew the shattered imperial power in Germany and give to the crown of the Holy Roman Empire a lustre far exceeding that of any other European diadem. But reverence for God and Holy Church had greater weight with the emperors of this line than worldly advantage. For one hundred and twenty years they battled with the storms which the so-called Reformation had stirred up, while the armies of Islam attacked Vienna and the edge of the Ottoman Empire was pushed forward as far as Raab. Even when Louis XIV forced his way in from the West, bringing calamity in his train, and the war cry of the Osmanli was heard within the imperial citadel, the rulers of Austria still trusted in God. Innocent XI sent subsidies, and the saintly Father Marco D’Aviano aroused Christian enthusiasm by preaching a crusade. The feast of the Holy Name of Mary is a reminder that on the 12th of September, 1683, the power of Islam was forever broken before the walls of Vienna, and that the inheritance of St. Stephen was then freed from the Turkish yoke. God sent the rulers of Austria to do His work, and that they did it is an honour exceeding that of the quickly fading garlands which victory twines about the victor’s chariot. During this period the Piarist and Ursuline orders were active in the work of education. New bishoprics were founded at Leitmeritz (1656) and Königgrätz (1664). Charles VI raised Vienna in 1722 to an archbishopric. While France at this time pointed with pride and reverence to its famous divines, the great preacher of Vienna was the always clever, but often eccentric, Augustinian, Father Abraham a Sanctâ Clarâ, whose family name was Ulrich Megerle. For example, preaching on the feast of the conversion of St. Paul (Pauli), he announced as his theme Gauli, Mauli, and Fauli. Gauli he interpreted to mean pride and sensuality (Gaul, “horse”); Mauli, gluttony, drunkenness, and wrangling (Maul, “mouth”); Fauli, indolence (faul, “lazy”).

The fifty years preceeding the French Revolution are known in history as the period of the “Enlightenment.” The Rationalist writers of this period believed that by enlightenment, in their sense of the word, a cure could be found for the evils of the time, and a means of promoting the happiness of mankind. Men were led more and more away from the influence of the Church, the loftier aspirations of noble and pious souls were scorned, and only the claims of a refined sensuality deemed worthy of consideration. The new ideas made their way into Austria, and that country became the birthplace of Josephinism, so called from the Emperor Joseph II, whose policy and legislation embodied these ideas. Maria Theresa forbade the sale of the book written by Febronius, but soon its sale to the learned and discreet was permitted. Urged by her council, Maria Theresa issued the “Placitum regium,” made a stole-tax ordinance and obtained from Benedict XIV a reduction of the feast days. By this last regulation all the Apostles are commemorated on the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, and all the martyrs in the Mass and Breviary on the feast of St. Stephen. The empress also abolished the convent prisons, and ordered that passages in the Breviary lessons for the feast of St. Gregory VII which are opposed to the increase of the secular power should be covered over with paper. She also put a stop to public excommunications and public penances. The last public penance (1769) was that of a merchant at Pyrawart in Lower Austria who had struck an ecclesiastic. He stood for an hour at the church door holding a black candle. When Clement XIV suppressed the Society of Jesus, the Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Migazzi, sought to save that order in Austria. “If the members of the order should be scattered, it would not be easy to fill their places; it would cost much expense and time to bring conditions back to the point at which these priests had left their work if they were forced to abandon it.” Just twenty years later Migazzi begged the Emperor Francis II to reestablish the order. “I can prove to Your Majesty,” he said, “that even the late French ambassador, who was certainly an unprejudiced witness, did not hesitate to say that but for the suppression of the Jesuits France would never have suffered from the Revolution, which brought such terrible results in its train. Three months before the death of Your Majesty’s grandmother I heard her say, ‘Oh, if I had only followed your advice and had availed myself of your statements!’“ After the suppression of the Jesuits their property was converted into a fund for the aid of students, and the whole system of education was remodelled from top to bottom. Rautenstrauch, Abbot of Braunau, drew up a new scheme for a theological course, in which there should be “no squabbles of schools and scholastic chaos.” Father Gratian Marx, of the Congregation of the Pious Schools, planned a Realgymnasium (high school without Greek) with six classes, which proved very successful. The common schools, which Maria Theresa had called a political necessity, were reorganized by Abbot John Ignaz Felbiger of Sagen in Prussian Silesia, each parish being given a primary school, each district a high school, and the capital of each province a normal school with which an institute for training teachers was connected. Felbiger wrote the necessary school books. The school at Kaplitz in southern Bohemia, under the supervision of the parish priest, Ferdinand Kindermann, was noted as a model school.

In ten years Joseph II published 6,200 laws, court regulations, and ordinances. Even those measures which were good and appropriate in themselves generally bore the evidences of precipitancy. His very first ordinances were directed against the government of the Catholic Church and aroused discontent by their interference with the affairs of the Church. The acceptance of papal decrees without the sanction of the Government was forbidden. The bishops were forbidden to apply for, or make use of, the quinquennial faculties of the Holy See, on the ground that they had full authority to act for themselves. On the other hand, they were not allowed to issue pastoral letters or instructions without the sanction of the Government. The Government soon began to close those monasteries which were not occupied with the spiritual care of a community, teaching, or nursing, and all the brotherhoods were suspended. About 738 religious houses were closed; 13 in Vienna alone; 51 in Lower Austria. The property of these conventual institutions was turned into a fund for church expenses, which was to be administered by the several provinces. In Lower Auistria alone 231 new parishes were formed. Much discontent was caused by the appointment of an “ecclesiastical court commission” which issued a number of arbitrary regulations concerning public worship; only one Mass was to be celebrated in a church, and that at the high altar; in parish churches, during the seasons of fasting, only two fast-day sermons, on Wednesday and Friday, must be preached; afternoon devotions, the Litany of Loretto, and the Rosary were forbidden; a requiem might be celebrated in a parish church upon the occasion of a death, but not upon the anniversary; it was forbidden to expose the Blessed Sacrament in a monstrance, the ciborium must be used instead; only when the Host was displayed could more than six candles be placed on the altar. A special regulation forbade the dressing of statues of the Virgin and ordered that the bodies of the dead should be buried in sacks and covered with quicklime. Further ordinances forbade the illumination and ornamentation of sacred pictures, the exhibition of relics, and pilgrimages. The Edict of Toleration (1781) granted the private exercise of their religion to Lutherans and Calvinists. The marriage law of 1783 runs: “Marriage in itself is regarded as a purely civil contract. Both this contract and the privileges and obligations arising from it are entirely dependent for their character and force on the secular laws of the land.” In 1783, also, all schools, episcopal and monastic, for the training of the clergy were abolished, and general seminaries were founded at Vienna, Budapest, Pavia, and Louvain, with branches at Graz, Olmütz, Prague, Innsbruck, Freiburg, and Pressburg. This measure was intended to check the influence of the bishops in the training of ecclesiastics, and to obtain devoted servants of the State. The Minister of State, Van Swieten, took care that the new schools were supplied with suitable teachers and superintendents.

The first lodge of Freemasons, “Zu den drei Kanonen,” was formed at Vienna in 1742; a lodge called “Zu den gekrönten Sternen und zur Redlichkeit” was formed soon after at Prague. Joseph II, however, had no alliance with Freemasons. “I know little about their secrets,” he said, “as I never had the curiosity to take part in their mummeries.” Still, his words, “The Freemason societies increase and are now to be found in the smallest cities,” show the rapid growth of the order. Although many of the representatives of the Church failed to meet the new tendencies with force and courage, the Prince-Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Migazzi, attacked them boldly. He wrote vigorously and defended the Church with energy. He was well supported by the Primate of Hungary, Count Joseph Batthyányi, and in the lower provinces by the Cardinal Count von Frankenberg. But their efforts were in vain; the movement continued to grow. In this condition of affairs Pius VI felt it necessary to take some action, and he resolved to visit Vienna. This visit (1782) was very oportune for the emperor and the leaders of the new tendency in the empire. Hybel issued the libellous pamphlet, “Was ist der Papst?” The value of the pamphlet literature of the Josephinist movement is not in proportion to its amount. The roads traversed by the papal cortège were lined with the faithful who were eager to obtain the blessing of the Holy Father. The emperor met the pope at Wiener-Neustadt, and on the 22d of March the two heads of the Christian world entered the imperial city. The emperor showed the pope every attention, but his chancellor of state, Prince Kaunitz, was less considerate. At Easter the pope celebrated High Mass in the church of St. Stephen and afterwards blessed, from the balcony of the church facing Am Hof, the vast throng which filled the square. But the object of the pope’s visit was gained only in part, although it may be said that the Josephinist fanaticism began to give place to a more sober mood. When the Holy Father left Vienna, 22 April, after a stay of just one month, the emperor accompanied him as far as Mariabrunn. Here, after praying in the church, the two parted. The next year the emperor visited Rome, where the Spanish ambassador, Azara, and Cardinal Bernis are said to have had a moderating effect upon him. There was no break with the Curia.

One work of lasting value which this emperor undertook was in connexion with diocesan boundaries. He took from the Diocese of Passau that part which lies in Austria and formed with it the See of Linz; the episcopal residence was transferred from Wiener-Neustadt to St. Polten, Bregenz was made the seat of a vicar-general, and a bishopric was founded at Leoben. The worst blunder committed by Joseph II in his latter years was his obstinate adherence, in spite of the warnings of Cardinal Frankenberg, to the scheme of erecting a general seminary at Louvain. Van Swieten put Stöger in charge of it. Stöger was one of the few Catholic priests who had committed themselves unreservedly to the “Enlightenment” movement. Maria Theresa had dismissed him from his position as teacher of church history, and his opinions were to be found in print in his compendium of church history. The career of Aurelius Fessler is a still more distressing example of the influence of the new spirit. Fessler was born in Hungary and came to Vienna as a Capuchin monk. There he became acquainted with Eybel, and as an offset to Eybel’s “Was ist der Papst?” issued “Was ist der Kaiser?” Appointed professor of theology at Lemberg, he entered the Freemason lodge “Phönix zur runden Tafel,” but was soon obliged to leave Lemberg “on account of debt and frivolous demeanour unsuited to his calling.” He became a Lutheran, established himself in Berlin as legal counsellor in ecclesiastical and school cases, got a divorce in order to marry again, and accepted a professorship in the academy at St. Petersburg. His “Reminischeces of My Seventy Years’ Pilgrimage” presents a melancholy picture of long and weary wanderings.

Although the reforms of Joseph II were well-intentioned, yet the independence of the Church suffered detriment through them. His enactments were drafted by Austrian canonists without any previous understanding with the authorities of the Church, and in violation of her rights (jus circa sacra). In many instances the tender germs of religion were killed, and a careless, frivolous way of thinking resulted.

Leopold II, the successor of Joseph II, entered Vienna, 12 March, 1790, and on the 21st of the same month Cardinal Migazzi presented a memorial concerning the painful position of the Austrian Church. As a result, the bishops received an intimation that they were at liberty to point out any serious defects in the existing ecclesiastical conditions. This they did, but, more especially, Cardinal Migazzi enumerated “thirteen grievances and their remedies” in his memorandum. Among these grievances were “the lack of monastic discipline, the general seminaries, the marriage laws, and the Ecclesiastical Commission which had assumed to be the judge of the bishops and their rights.” Leopold II virtually suspended the general seminaries, permitted the bishops to have seminaries under their own control, and granted to the monasteries the right to give theological courses. Religious processions were permitted “to a point not far distant” and Saturday evening devotions were also allowed (without Benediction, however), as well as the exposition of relics.

Francis II was a devout and conscientious Christian, and a ruler who wished to be a father to his people. Nevertheless, it was during his reign that what is called the Josephinist system struck firmer roots. In the first place, the struggle with France, which lasted over twenty years, demanded all the energies of the Government, and during this reign both clergy and people grew more accustomed to the Josephinist regulations. But in addition to this Francis II clung with a childlike devotion to the memory of his uncle Joseph II, whom he called his second father. And, furthermore, whenever any concession was made to the Church, the supporters of Josephinism raised an outcry. In 1793, for instance, the Government was informed that in the church of St. Stephen Mass was celebrated simultaneously at several altars, and that in several places, at the afternoon litanies, Benediction was given with the monstrance. A priest had been the informant. After repeated conferences the cardinal obtained permission to have two Masses said at the same time in the church of St. Stephen, but “the Benediction could be given only once at the close of the service.” The almost insurmountable difficulty in the way of reform was the ecclesiastical court commission. It was the only means of communication between a bishop and the emperor. Migazzi wished, above everything, to eliminate this difficulty. “I am in all things,” he said, “Your Majesty’s most dutiful subject. But in his ecclesiastical character the chief shepherd must say boldly that the placing of such fetters upon the guardians of the Church is an offence to all Catholics, and it is a still greater offence that this power is given to men of worldly or untrustworthy reputation, and even to men known to be dangerous or of notorious character.” The emperor, indeed, sought to do away with the worst features of the system which had come down to him from his predecessors. He authorized the prayer, the solemn benediction of graves, and the pilgrimages to Mariazell (the first of which, in 1792, was led by Migazzi himself), and the draping of “the poor statues of the Mother of God.”

Man cannot at will be stirred to activity or lulled to sleep. However, at the beginning of the nineteenth century a number of circumstances combined to bring about an increase of the religious spirit in Austria. In 1802, the emperor issued two circulars, the first on “the means of elevating the secular clergy” and the second on “the means of improving the regular clergy.” To remedy the lack of priests, the first order increased the number of gymnasia, directed the establishment of a theological training school, with a seminary attached, for each diocese, and granted stipends to divinity students. Ecclesiastics belonging to an order were to wear the habit of their order, and must not live alone; a profession might be made in the twenty-first year, instead of the twenty-fifth. Soon after this the emperor transferred to the bishops the supervision of religious instruction (1808) and the censorship of thelogical works (1814). Repeated commands to officials required them to attend Sunday church-services. A university service, with a university preacher, was founded for university students. Two days before his death the emperor directed his successor to “complete the work he had begun of rectifying those laws, principles, and methods of managing church affairs which had been introduced since 1780.”

The Archbishops of Vienna acted in a manner worthy of their high office. Migazzi’s successor, in 1803, was Sigismund Anton Count Hohenwarth, the instructor of the emperor, and a pastor zealous for souls, who devoted himself especially to the theological schools. After him came Vincenz Eduard Milde (d. 1853) who had gained a good reputation as a theorist in pedagogics and as a practical teacher. An important part in arousing the Church was taken by the following court preachers of that period: Vincenz Darnaut, who prepared an Old Testament history; Frint, author of a compendium of religious knowledge (6 vols.), the man at whose suggestion the emperor in 1816 established the advanced school for secular clergy at St. Augustine, and the founder of the Vienna “Theologische Zeitschrift”; Vincenz Eduard Milde was the author of a textbook of the general theory of pedagogics (2 vols.); Johann Michael Leonhard, who published “Christian Doctrines” in four parts and textbooks for grammar schools; Johann Platz, who continued Frint’s periodical and published “Dogmatic Sermons”; Job, confessor to the queen mother, Caroline Augusta; Albert Schlör, who produced “Meditations upon the Entire Gospel for Ecclesiastics and Priests,” a work still fruitful. The priests whom the emperor received into Austria after the secularization of the abbeys in the empire were also very active. Thirty-five monks who came from St. Blasien, in the Black Forest to St. Paul in Carinthia pursued serious studies; twenty-five from Wiblingen entered Austrian abbeys. Among these were Sebastian Zängerle, who, “praying, working, and bravely fighting,” bequeathed his diocese of Seckau in excellent condition to his successor; and Gregor Thomas Ziegler, who, while professor of dogmatics at Vienna, wrote “On Theological Rationalism,” “Foundation of the Catholic Faith,” and a “Life of Job.” Their efforts were aided by the converts Frederick von Schlegel and Zacharias Werner. Metternich was Schlegel’s patron. Schlegel’s lectures on modern history and on ancient and modern literature, delivered at Vienna, had a beneficial effect, and the “Konkordia,” which he founded, advocated Catholic interests. Werner’s conversion was finally effected by the confession of St. Peter. In reading the “Imitation of Christ” his eye happened to fall on the only words of Peter contained in the work (Im., III, liii, 1). He called the “Imitation of Christ” the “pith of all books.” (Tolle, lege.) During the sessions of the Congress he preached at Vienna with such intense feeling that at times he wept as he recalled with remorse his youthful errors. For a while Hohenwarth entertained him in his palace and Dalberg gave him a gold pen which he presented to the shrine at Mariazell. Werner, who died eleven days after preaching a notable sermon on the feast of the Epiphany, in 1823, was buried at Maria Enzersdorf beside Blessed Clement Maria Hofbauer. Hofbauer was a man of saintly character and prayerful life who, as confessor and preacher, exercised an extraordinary influence over many and was a source of light and instruction for Vienna and Austria. He was born at Tasswitz in Moravia, entered the Redemptorist Order at Rome as its first German member, and was active in the order at Warsaw. He suffered for the Faith, being confined in the fortress of Küstrin, and after coming to Vienna was appointed assistant to the rector of the Italian church through the influence of Archbishop Hohenwarth. He was finally made confessor to the Ursulines. Without noisy effort he produced deep effects. Among his penitents were: Adam von Müller, court councillor and author, whose last words were “Only those facts are worthy of notice which the Catholic Church recognizes as true”; Schlegel; Zacharias Werner; the Princess Jablonowska and Princess Bretzenheim; Privy Councillor Francis de Paul Szechenyi; Professors Fourerius Ackermann, Zängerle, Ziegler; Bishops Rauscher and Baraga. He converted Silbert Klinkowström and Veith. Hofbauer learned on his death-bed that the emperor had recognized the congregation as an order, and, filled with joy, he passed away, praising God, 15 March, 1820. Tondler, who followed in Hofbauer’s footsteps, was born only six days after his death. Hofbauer was beatified in 1886. Cardinal Rauscher said of him: “Father Hofbauer made the final arrangement of the Concordat possible; he gave to the spirit of the time a better direction.”

There were at this time, unfortunately, priests who instead of offering to their fellow-men the pure wheat of the truth sought to give them the chaff of fantastic dreams. Among others, Martin Boos taught that “the Saviour only demands from sinners that they believe in him and make his merits their own. For this reason the formation of a particular society of believers in the living faith is necessary.” Boos supported his views by referring to Professor Sailer, but was imprisoned a whole year by the consistory at Augsburg. After this he had a parish at Gallenkirchen, in Upper Austria, but was obliged to resign his position. Thomas Pöschel, a curate, at Ampfelwang, in Upper Austria, received a heavenly revelation that the millennium had begun. This was to be preceeded by the arrival of Antichrist, who had just appeared in the person of Napoleon. Pöschel died at Vienna in the infirmary for priests. The “Manharter” in Tyrol took the name of the peasant Manhart, who, influenced by the assistant curate Kaspar Hagleitner, maintained that the acts of the Tyrolese ecclesiastics who had sworn fealty to Napoleon were invalid. The Archbishop of Salzburg, Augustine Gruber, and Cardinal Cappellari (Gregory XVI) quieted the peasants.

In 1848, when, as was said at the bishops’ conference at Würzburg, “the judgment of God was passed on thrones and peoples,” the devastating storm broke out in Austria. Even Füster, a professor of theology at the University of Vienna and a university preacher, led students astray. The Prince-Archbishop of Vienna, Vincenz Eduard Milde, issued a warning to the entire clergy “to keep within the limits of their calling.” Nevertheless, the revolutionary spirit sooon threatened the Church. Public demonstrations were made against Archbishop Milde and the papal nuncio, because Pius IX was said to have blessed the Italians who marched out to fight the Austrians. The Redemptorists were driven out of Vienna, and the Jesuits out of Graz. Ronge, whose followers abused the words German and Catholic by calling themselves “German-Catholic,” preached in the Odeon at Vienna and in the taverns at Graz. Unfortunately, Ronge was joined by Hermann Pauli, assistant at Erdberg, and by Hirschberger, chaplain at the home for disabled soldiers. Pauli and Hirschberger came to a sad end: the former died in an insane asylum, the latter committed suicide.

With these exceptions, the clergy of Vienna behaved admirably. In May the curate, Sebastian Brunner, came to the defence of the Church against the hostile press by issuing the “Kirchenzeitung,” and the bishops of various dioceses sent memorials and addresses to the ministry, the imperial diet and the emperor, such as: a statement of the bishops of the Archdiocese of Moravia drawn up by Kutschker, petition of the Prince-Bishop of Lavant to the Imperial Diet; petition of the Archbishop of Görz to the Ministry; “What are the Relations of Church and State? An Answer by the bishops of Bohemia”; memorial of the Archbishopric of Salzburg to the Imperial Diet; memorial of the Archdiocese of Vienna to the Diet; memorial of the bishops of the Archdiocese of the maritime district to the constitutional imperial diet at Kremsier. All these brochures sought the independence of the Church, the breaking of her fetters so that she might be free to raise her hand to bless.

As the appeals of individual bishops and dioceses had little effect, the minister of the interior, Count Stadion, summoned the Austrian bishops to Vienna in order to obtain a unanimous expression of their wishes. Hungary and the Lombardo-Venetian provinces were not included, as they were not yet pacified. This first conference of the Austrian bishops met, 29 April to 20 June, 1849, in the archiepiscopal palace. Sixty sittings were held. Schwarzenberg, the “German cardinal,” presided, and the lately consecrated Bishop Rauscher was secretary. Hungary was represented by the Bishop of Pécs, Scitvosky. Among the theologians were Court Councillor Zenner, of Vienna; Professor Kutschker, of Olmütz; Canon Tarnoczy, of Salzburg; Canon Wiery, of Lavant; Professor Fessler, of Brixen; Canon Jablinsky, of Tarnow; and Canon Ranolder of Pécs. The voluminous memorials presented to the Government by the conference discussed marriage, the endowment funds for religion, school, and student-stipends, livings and endowments for church-services, instruction, the administration of the church, ecclesiastical offices and church services, monastic houses, ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In the resolutions, which cover 207 paragraphs, the bishops marked out for themselves a common course of action. The resolutions of this first confrence of the bishops of Austria were the foundation on which the new structure of the Austrian Church has been built. Before the close of the conference an episcopal committee of five members was formed to press the settlement of the memorials, and to protect the interests of the Church. The chairman of the committee was Cardinal Schwarzenberg, the secretary was Prince-Bishop Rauscher of Seckau. Count Leo Thun, Minister of Instruction, presented the matter at last to His Majesty at two audiences, and the important imperial decrees of 18 and 23 April, 1850, were the results of these interviews. The first ordinance defined the relations of the Catholic Church to the State: Catholics “are at liberty to apply in spiritual matters to the pope”; bishops might issue regulations in matters pertaining to their office without previous permission from state officials; ecclesiastical authorities were allowed to order church punishments; careless administrators of church offices could be suspended. The ordinance of 23 April defined the relations of the Church to public instruction: teachers of religion and theological professors could not be appointed without the consent of the bishop, who could at any time withdraw his ratification; the bishop named one-half of the examining committee at theological examinations; a candidate for a theological doctorate had to subscribe to the Tridentine Confession of Faith in the presence of the bishop before obtaining his degree.

On the 14th of September, 1852, the Emperor Francis Joseph empowered Prince-Bishop Rauscher to act as his representative in drawing up a Concordat, and Pope Pius IX named as his representative, Viale Prelá, the papal nuncio in Vienna. In important questions Rauscher was to consult with the committee on the Church. This committee was composed of Thun, Minister of Instruction; Buol Schauenstein, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Bach, Minister of the Interior; R. von Salvotti, Member of the Imperial Diet; and Freiherr von Kübeck, President of the Imperial Diet. The results of the conferences were to be laid from time to time before the emperor for decision. The negotiations advanced very slowly. The Hungarian bishops presented special desideria (requests), the Patriarch of Venice presented postulata et desideria (demands and requests). In order to expedite matters, Rauscher spent seven consecutive months in Rome, busied with negotiations. The Concordat was at last signed on the emperor’s birthday, 1855. It contains 36 articles. Arts. 5–8 regulate instruction: “All school instruction of Catholic children must be in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church; the bishops are to have charge of religious training; professors of theology are to be chosen from men whom the bishop holds to be most suited to the position; only Catholics shall be appointed professors in the gymnasia [middle schools] set aside for Catholic children; the bishops are to select the religious text-books.” The bishops have the right to condemn books injurious to religion and morals, and to forbid Catholics reading them (Art. 8). The ecclesiastical judge decides matrimonial suits of an ecclesiastical character (Art. 10). The Holy See does not forbid ecclesiastics who have committed misdemeanours and crimes to be brought before the secular courts (Art. 14). The emperor, in exercising the Apostolic prerogative inherited from his ancestors, of nominating the bishops to be canonically confirmed by the Holy See, will in the future, as in the past, avail himself of the advice of the bishops, especially of the bishops of the archdiocese in which the vacant see lies (Art. 19). In all metropolitan churches the Holy Father appoints the highest dignitary. The emperor still appoints all other dignitaries and the canons of the cathedral (Art. 22). The Holy Father empowers the emperor and his successors to present to all canonries and parishes where the right of patronage is derived from the endowment fund for religious or educational foundations, but in such cases the appointee must be one of three candidates nominated by the bishop as suitable for the position (Art. 25). The bishops have the right to bring religious orders into their dioceses (Art. 28). The estates which form the endowment fund for religious and educational foundations are the property of the Church and are managed in its name, the bishops having the supervision of affairs; the emperor is to aid in making up what is lacking in the fund (Art. 31).

The Concordat was intended to be binding upon the entire monarchy, and to be carried out with uniformity in all parts. Thun, therefore, in the emperor’s name, called the bishops of the entire empire to Vienna. On the 6th of April, 1856, the inhabitants of the imperial city saw 66 princes of the Church enter the Cathedral of St. Stephen in state. These ecclesiastics represented the Latin, Greek, and Oriental Rites; among them were German, Hungarian, Italian, and Polish bishops. The procession was closed by pro-nuncio, Cardinal Viale Prelá. The assembly presented to the Government proposals, requests, and resolutions concerning schools, marriage, church estates, appointment to ecclesiastical benefices, monasteries, patronage of livings. The closing session was held 17 June. The emperor received the bishops in a farewell audience. On the occasion Cardinal Schwarzenberg said: “After God, our hope and trust rest on Your Majesty’s piety, wisdom, and justice. When we have reached our dioceses we shall strive most zealously to extend the benefits of the agreement in all directions.” In order to make the Concordat effectual, the bishops held synods in their dioceses: at Gran, 1858; Vienna, 1858; Prague, 1860; Kalocsa, 1863. Fresh life showed itself everywhere. It is now acknowledged that schools of all grades accomplished great things under the Concordat. The primary schools were excellently arranged, a course of study which is still in force was drawn up for the gymnasia, and the University of Vienna gained a world wide reputation under Thun, the author of the Concordat. In 1855 the Institute for Research in Austrian history was formed. Famous members of the medical faculty of the university were the professors: Skodra (percussion and auscultation); Rokitansky (pathological anatomy); Oppolzer; Hebra; Stellwag; Hyrtl; Brücke, and Billroth, the last named being the leading surgeon of the century. Upon Rauscher’s suggestion the number of professors in the department of dogmatic theology of the University of Vienna was increased, in order to ensure a more extended course in this branch. The new men called were, Father Philip Guidi, O.P., and Father Clemens Schrader, S.J., both from Rome. The lectures were obligatory on divinity students in any year of the four years’ course, and were intended also for priests desirous of instruction. The successful developments of art during this period is shown in the church of Altlerchenfeld in Vienna, which was consecrated in 1861. This fine structure was built from the designs of the architecht John George Müller, and was decorated with a series of mural paintings by Joseph Führich, professor at the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. These paintings combine art and true dogma most admirably, and Führich is in them a veritable teacher of the Faith. He was born at Krazau in Bohemia, studied art first at the academy in Prague, afterwards for two years at Rome, and coming to Vienna passed forty-two studious and fruitful years there (d. 1876). Among the large number of his religious paintings the most famous are: The Pater-noster; the Way of the Cross, in the church of St. John on the Prater, Vienna, copies of which can be found in all parts of the world; the Way to Bethlehem; illustrations of the Psalter and the Imitation of Christ; the Prodigal Son; the Book of Ruth. The manner in which Führich developed his scheme of thought in the series of pictures in the Altlerchenfeld church is extremely impressive. Pictures in churches, according to his view, were not merely decorative; through the senses they must unfold to the spirit that inner life of faith which finds its full development in the church. In the vestibule of the church, six pictures portray the work of creation, and a seventh sets forth the rest of the Creator on the Sabbbath. The paintings in the two side aisles represent the Church of the Old Testament, which kept alive the longing for salvation and proclaimed its coming. The paintings of the middle aisle portray the fulfillment of the promise by scenes from the life of Christ. Between the historical pictures are placed at intervals the figure of the Saviour with appropriate historical emblems, such as Christ as a gardener, with a hoe on the shoulder. This is followed by a picture of the owner of the vineyard commanding the gardener to cut down the unfruitful tree. Then Christ as shepherd, followed by an allegorical picture of the transferring of the office of shepherd to Peter; Christ the wayfarer, followed by a representation of the man who fell among thieves; Christ the sower, followed by the approaching harvester with his sickle. These paintings, with those representing the Sermon on the Mount, decorate the church as far as the pulpit. The high altar is adorned with a picture of the Most Holy Trinity. The conception running through the whole series of paintings, from those in the vestibule to that of the high altar, is that the paradise lost by the first human beings is offered to us again by the second Adam in the new heaven.

At this moment of renewed energy in the church, Austria possessed bishops who would have excited the envy of little Cappadocia at the time of the three great Cappadocians. Among these Austrian bishops were: Cardinal Schwarzenberg (d. 1885) and Cardinal Rauscher (d. 1875; life by Wolfsgruber); Francis Joseph Rudigier, Bishop of Linz (d. 1879; life by Meindl); Vincenz Gasser, Prince-Bishop of Brixen (d. 1879; life by Zobl); Joseph Fessler, Bishop of St. Pölten (d. 1872; life by Erdinger); John B. Zwerger, Prince-Bishop of Seckau (d. 1893; life by Oer). The description of this period would not be complete without mention of the foremost German preacher and most fruitful German theologian of the nineteenth century, John Emanuel Veith, and of the philosopher and priest, Anton Günther. Veith was born at Kuttenplan, in Bohemia, and was of Jewish parentage. When he was nine years old his spiritual struggle began. In his twenty-first year, led by Father Hofbauer, he found peace in the Church. He faithfully kept the vow he had made: “I will devote my entire life to the only thing that is eternal, and therefore, the only thing that is important.” Veith became a priest, preached for fourteen years in the Cathedral of St. Stephen at Vienna and died in 1876. At the time of his last illness he was preparing a translation, with commentary, of the Canticle of Canticles. On the day of his death he wrote down the words of Sulamit:

Neu auch wollen wir dort oben

Lieb und Treue ihm geloben.

-”Afresh, will we there above vow to him our faith and love.” Then, putting the pen aside, he said, “It is finished,” and breathed his last. (Life by Löwe.) Richness of thought and a classic elegance of speech characterized Veith’s sermons. Among those published are: “Die Leidenswerkunge Christi”; “Denkbüchlein von der göttlicken Liebe”; “Das Friedensopfer”; “Lebensbilder aus der Passionsgeschichte”; “Die heiligen Berge” (2 vols.); “Homilienkranz” (5 vols.); “Der verlorne Sohn”; “Die Samaritin”; “Die Erweckung des Lazarus”; “Mater Dolorosa”; “Festpredigten” (2 vols.); “Homiletische Vortrage” (7 vols.); “Der Blindgeborne”; “Politische Passionspredigten”; “Eucharistie”; “Weltleben und Christentum”; “Charitas”; “Worte der Feinde Christi”; “Misericordia” (Psalm Miserere); “Das Vaterunser”; “Weg, Wahrheit, und Leben”; “Dodekatheon” (2 vols.); “Die Mächte des Unheils”; “Die Anfänge der Menschenwelt”; “Die Stufenpsalmen”; “Prophetie und Glaube”; “Homiletische Aehrenlese” (2 vols.); “Meditationen über den 118. Psalm”; “Hundert Psalmen”; “Der Leidenweg des Herrn”; “Stechpalmen”; “Dikaiosyne, Die Epistelreihe des Kirchenjahres.” Karl Werner, the son of a teacher, was born at Hafnerbach in Lower Austria and died in 1888. He was first professor of moral theology at St. Pölten, then professor of higher exegesis at the University of Vienna. In Vienna he was appointed member of the advisory council of the minister of instruction, and was elected member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Among the many works of learned research Werner published are: “System der Ethik” (2 vols.); “Grundlinien der Philosophie”; “Der hl. Thomas von Aquino” (3 vols.); “Franz Suarez und die Scholastik der letzten Jahrhunderte” (2 vols.); “Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen Literature der chirstlichen Theologie”; “Geschichte der katholischen Theologie seit dem Trienter Konzil bis zur Gegenwartf”; “Spekulative Anthropologie vom christlich-philosophischen Standpunkt”; “Beda der Ehrwürdige und seine Zeit”; “Alkuin und sein Jahrhundert”; “Gerbert von Aurillac, die Kirche und Wissenschaft seiner Zeit”; “Giambattista Vico als Philosoph und gelehrter Forscher”; “Johannes Duns Scotus”; “Geschichte der Scholastik des späteren Mittelalters” (5 vols.); “Geschichte der italienischen Philosophie des 19. Jahrh.” Many of Werner’s treatises are to be found in the reports of the sessions of the philosophico-historical section of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Anton Günther, founder of the Guntherian school of philosophy, was born at Lindenau, near Leitmeritz, in Bohemia. He studied jurisprudence and philosophy at Prague, and came under the influence of the philosophical ideas of Kant, Fichte, and Jacobi. Blessed Clement Hofbauer led him back to the truth. Günther was consecrated priest, and became teacher of philosophy in noble families, especially in that to which Schwarzenberg, afterwards Cardinal, belonged. For many years he filled the modest position of sacristan of St. Ruprecht, the oldest church in Vienna. After a life spent in philosophical study he died in 1876 (life by Knoodt). Günther’s chief works are: “Vorschule zur spekulativen Theologie des Christentums”; “Peregrins Gastmal”; “Sud- und Nordlichter am Horizont spekulativer Theologie”; “Janusköpfe für Philosophie und Theologie”; “Möhler der letzte Symboliker”; “Thomas a Scrupulis, zur Transfiguration der Persönlichkeits Pantheismen neuster Zeit”; “Die Justes-Milieux in der deutschen Philosophie gegenwartiger Zeit”; “Eurystheus und Herakles”; “Lydia” (a philosophical annual, in collaboration with Veith). Honestly intending to defend faith against the philosophical doubtings which are constantly arising in modern times, Günther fell into the mistake of making the mysteries of faith dependent on their recognition by the understanding, so that knowledge was substituted for faith. A learned war broke out in Germany, in which Günther’s position was damaged by the vagaries of his followers, and at the end of five years’ examination the Congregation of the Index condemned his writings. After the first excitement had subsided Günther gave a proof of the honesty of opinion which had characterized his action from the start. The verdict of the Congregation of the Index was sent to him 23 January, 1857; on 10 “February he handed Cardinal Rauscher his submission, to be forwarded to the Holy Father and to Cardinal Andrea, Prefect of the Congregation of the Index. The thought which consoled Günther in these days of trial was that God demanded of every man the sacrifice of his Isaac, and that this sacrifice was what he now made to God. Goethe says that the subject of profoundest interest in the history of the world is the battle of disbelief against faith. This is still more true of the history of the Church. In 1860 Austria became a constitutional monarchy, and in the next year the foundations of a representative government were laid. The Imperial Parliament was to consist of a House of Peers, to which the archbishops and prince-bishop were to belong, and a House of Deputies. During the first session of the Parliament, Manger, a Protestant deputy, attacked the Concordat and demanded its revision. Upon this the members of the episcopacy in the Upper House and some other bishops met and prepared a memorial which was sent to the emperor. “Of all the party cries,” it ran, “which are put to effective use in electioneering, none has so much prominence at present as the word toleration. True toleration is exercised by the Catholic Church while the harshest intolerance is practised on all sides against the Catholic Church. All its ordinances and institutions are slandered and mistrusted, and every exhibition of Catholic conviction is overwhelmed with scorn and derision.” The events just noted were merely the forerunners of a terrible storm which broke after the disastrous war of 1866. In July of the next year Deputy Herbst moved the preparation of three bills concerning marriage, schools, and the mutual relations of the different religious denominations. A conference of twenty-four bishops was held at Vienna, and a second memorial was sent to the emperor which contained the following: “A party has arisen which has chosen this time of distress for an attack on the religion to which Your Majesty, the Imperial family, and a great majority of the inhabitants of the land belong. We are in the presence of a spectacle which causes the enemies of Austria to smile derisively, and which fills Austria’s sons with shame rather than with anxiety.” Marriage without the blessing of the Church, schools without religion were demanded. In order to obtain suitable teachers for these schools it was proposed to found for the training of teachers institutions where contempt for all that is holy should be instilled. It was not possible, however, to resist the liberal pressure. On the 21st of December, 1867, the new fundamental laws received the imperial approval. The first granted full freedom of faith and conscience and freedom in scientific opinion. The second declared: “All jurisdiction in the state is exercised in the name of the emperor.” Thereby the Church’s exclusive jurisdiction over marriage was impugned. The third law obliged all officials to take an oath to support the constitution. Two professors of dogmatics did not take the oath; these were Schrader, the Jesuit, and Hyacinth Pellgrinetti, the Dominican successor of Guidi. They were obliged to resign their professorships, and their places have not yet been filled.

During the same period the dual constitution was sanctioned, by which the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy as it now exists, was formed “of two distinct co-ordinate States having the same constitutional, legal, and administrative rights.” After a long struggle the emperor signed, 25 May, 1808, the laws concerning marriage, schools, and the status of the several denominations. The first of these laws declares marriage to be a civil contract, makes the civil marriage obligatory, and takes from the Church the judicial power pro foro externo in matrimonial suits. The law concerning schools takes from the bishop any control of the management as well as the right of supervision. These powers are given to an official school committee of the district and town, of which committee ecclesiastics can be chosen members. The bishops select the books used by the catechist and instructors in religious doctrine. The third law grants everyone the right to choose his own religion on attaining the age of fourteen years, but a child between seven and fourteen years of age cannot change his or her religion even at the wish of the parents. As these laws infringed the Concordat in essentials, a secret consistory was held at Rome, 22 June, at which the pope declared: “Leges auctoritate Nostrâ apostolicâ reprobamus, damnamus et decreta ipsa irrita proursus nulliusque roboris fuisse ac fore declaramus.” (“By the Apostolic authority we reprobate and condemn these laws, and declare that their purport was, and shall be, wholly invalid and of no force.”) The bishops upon this issued pastorals. The joint letter of 3 June issued by the Bohemian bishops to the clergy and their joint pastoral of 24 June were condemned by the imperial civil courts of all three instances, on the ground that they were a disturbance of the public peace, and suppressed. Penal proceedings were not brought against Cardinal Schwarzenberg, but Bishop Francis Joseph Rudigier, of Linz, was prosecuted for his pastoral of 7 September. “On account of the misdemeanour committed in the pastoral letter”-of calling the law of 24 May a lie-he was brought before the Supreme Court, found guilty by the jury, and condemned to fourteen days’ imprisonment with costs. The pastoral was ordered to be destroyed. Next day the emperor in a decree remitted the punishment and the legal consequences. The bishops disagreed as to whether the clergy should permit themselves to be chosen members of the school committees, but Rauscher and Schwarzenberg, who were for the permission, carried their point.

The definition of the pope’s infallibility afforded von Stremayr, the Austrian Minister of Instruction, a pretext to demand the abrogation of the Concordat, on the plea that the pope, one of the contracting parties, had received from the definition a new character, which invalidated the original agreement. Beust, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, addressed to Palomba a note which declared: “The Concordat exists no longer; it is annulled.” The abrogation of the Concordat produced a gap in religious legislation. To remedy this four bills were introduced January, 1874, for regulating the legal status of the Catholic Church, the taxing of the fund for the support of religion, the legal status of monasteries, and the recognition of new religious societies. The pope expressed, on the 7th of March, his grief at the attack on the rights of the Church, implied in the assertion that the supreme power in all matters concerning the external life belonged to the State. The bishops assembled again at Vienna and sent this statement to the Ministry and the Upper House: “We repeat that we are ready to agree to the demands which the State makes on us in the bill concerning the legal status of the Catholic Church as far as these demands are in harmony with the Concordat concerning these matters. We cannot and will not acquiesce in a proposition the consummation of which would endanger the welfare of the Church.”

One of the chief causes of the scarcity of priests which now began to be marked was the new law of national defence. By this law youths in their twentieth year during their course at a gymnasium were subject to military duty. The bishops again and again begged for a relaxation of the provisions of the law. But they had, for the time being, no redress except to appeal in individual cases to the indulgence of the emperor. When the bills reached the upper house the bishops defended themselves bravely. Rauscher closed his address of 10 April with these words: “So-called progress no longer considers it necessary to conceal its real aim, and has unmasked its hate against God and eternal truth. But Providence has set a natural limit to all things. The destruction of Christianity is impossible, but Austria may be destroyed if the war against religion is not checked in good time.” Yet, for all this, the first two bills became law, 7 May, 1874. Among other things, the law concerning the legal status of the Church declares that: In order to obtain any ecclesiastical appointment or living, a candidate’s record of past conduct must be blameless when judged by the standard of the civil law (§1); if the Government finds that an ecclesiastical regulation respecting a public church service is not consistent with the public interest, the Government shall then forbid it (§17); the total number of Catholics living in the district of a parish form the parish community (§35); in order to cover the expenses of a parish a tax is to be laid on its members (§36); the ministry of public worship and instruction is authorized to oversee the management of the funds of the churches and church instituitions (§38); the ministry of public workship and instruction is to take care that the ecclesiastical journals do not go beyond the sphere of their proper activity (§60). The law concerning contributions to the fund for the support of religion declares that: Assessments shall be made on incumbents of livings and the communities of the regular orders for the fund for the support of religion in order to meet the expenses of Catholic worship and especially in order to increase the incomes of pastors which have been until now very small (§1); the value of the entire property of the living or of the community shall be taken as the basis (of the assessment) (§2); the amount of the assessments shall be fixed every ten years for the next ten years (§9); and they were to be “one-half of one per cent on amounts up to 10,000 florins [$4,000], one-and-a-half per cent on amounts from 10,000 florins to 20,000 florins [$4,000 to $8,000], and 10 per cent on all amounts over 90,000 florins [$36,000].” The law (signed 20 May) in regard to the legal recognition of religious societies “accepts in full” the principle of religious equality.

Since the passage of these three laws no further enactments have so far been made, with regard to the status of the various denominations in Austria. In the year following their passage Cardinal Rauscher died (24 Nov., 1875). It was due to his wise moderation and caution that Austria escaped the evils of a Kulturkampf (religious conflict). In 1874, von Stremayr offered four projects for bills in the House of Deputies, one of which dealt with the legal status of monastic communities. Rauscher said that it “bore on its forehead unusual marks of mistrust, arbitrariness, and harshness. According to its provisions, the authority of the minister of worship of the time being would be sufficient to sweep from the earth a monastic house which had existed for a thousand years and to enforce the sequestration of its property.” The bill reached the Upper House by the middle of January, 1876. But Cardinal Schwarzenberg succeeded, by means of a memorial of the Austrian archbishops and bishops, in inducing the emperor not to sign it, and the bill has not yet become law.

The parliamentary election of 1879 increased the number of conservative members so that the Right (hohenwart) Party was in the majority. In 1882, the Karl Ferdinand University, at Prague, was divided into a German and a Czech university. Cardinal Schwarzenberg, however, would not consent to a division of the theological faculty. He wrote to the minister, Conrad von Eybesfeld: “The Church does not wish the separation of the nations, but their union in one body, the head of which is Christ. She dedicates the blessings of her activity to all nations, she recognizes the right of every people to independence, she respects and supports the demands of a people for its own language and its own form of instruction. But the Church cannot give to the claims of nationality the first place, they must always be for her a secondary interest. The theological faculty must impress this idea upon their pupils and must not, therefore, drive them apart. They should not deepen and embitter the national differences by a separation; they should strive rather to compose these differences. This duty is above all necessaryl among the various nationalities of Bohemia. In this country it is a special duty of the priesthood to seek to soothe and unify.” The separation took place, however, directly after Schwarzenberg’s death.

An amendment to the school law which somewhat improved matters was laid before the Upper House in 1883. This amendment was the result of numerous memorials from the bishops to the Government and much effort of other kinds. During the debate on the amendment Cardinal Schwarzenberg said: “The bishops for whom I speak to-day recognize the value of the amendment and are ready to work for its passage. But this does not justify the presumption that we consider the amendment as remedying all defects of the school laws, and that our votes are a corroberation of these laws. Only a denominational system of common schools can satisfy the claims of the Church and of the Christian community. The present system is unsatisfactory. While we now give our support, we reserve the right to press our just demands by way of legislation in the future.” The amendment made certain concessions to children who had attended school for six years, and permitted only such persons to be made the principals of schools as were competent to give instruction in the faith to which the majority of the scholars belonged.

Cardinal Schwarzenberg had presided over every meeting of the Austrian bishops since 1849, and had always fulfilled faithfully the duties of the cardinalate. At the meeting of the bishops at Vienna in 1885 he was unable, through illness, to preside at the 8th session. The next day he appeared, although unfit to attend. He was not able to be present again and died of pneumonia 27 March.

A bill called the Prince Alfred Liechtenstein school bill was introduced in October, 1888. It was intended to give the Church greater power over the schools. But while the bishops pressed the demand of “Catholic schools for Catholic children,” the social-democratic convention which met the same year at Hainburg, took its stand upon “common schools without religious teaching, the separation of Church and State, religious belief is a private matter.” Gregr, of the Young Czech party, also declared in behalf of his party associates: “A Leichtenstein has come again to dig a grave for the Bohemian nation, the grave of ignorance and demoralization.” This was an allusion to what had happened after the battle of the White Mountain (1620). Against such opposition the bill could not be carried.

In 1891 Leo XIII regulated the meetings of the Austrian bishops in a manner which has proved fruitful in blessings. A meeting is to be held in Vienna every year. These meetings are either special or general. At these special meetings committees prepare elaborate and exact reports which are laid before the general assembly that meets at least once every five years. These assemblies of the bishops decide the course of the Church. The Austrian bishops feel and act as a unit, as a harmonious episcopacy. Schwarzenberg’s successor, Cardinal Count Schönborn, died in 1899. Cardinal Gruscha, Archbishop of Vienna, followed him at the head of the episcopacy. In reviewing the action of the bishops in their conferences since this time, it is clear that the matter which has chiefly occupied their attention has been the schools of every grade. In all their memorials to state officials, and in all their pastorals to the faithful, one thought continually appears like a vein of gold: a child should learn in school the duties of a Christian and a citizen. This end can be realized only when religion is made the central point of education from which everything radiates, to which everything returns. For this reason the bishops sought (1897, 1898) to obtain the consent of the ministry to an increase in the time given to religious instruction in the primary and secondary schools. Prizes were offered for the pereparation of a Bible (1898). Two catechisms, a larger and a smaller one, were prepared after eight years’ work. These were accepted by the bishops in 1897 and issued with explanatory directions. During this period religious instruction in the middle schools was rearranged, and religious exercises were again introduced. Religious societies (Sodalities of the Blessed Virgin Mary) were organized in 1897 and 1902. Religious instruction was introduced into the Sunday industrial schools (1898). Proposals were made as to the education of teachers of religion in the middle and normal schools (1901). The preparation of a correct textbook of psychology was urged (1894). Prizes were offered for textbooks on religion (1897). The bishops succeeded in obtaining a systematized course in philosophy for the theological schools (1892); they obtained, further, a rearrangement of theological studies and examinations. (Dissertations must be suitable for publication and three examinations are obligatory for a doctorate.) They complained of the spirit prevalent at the universities (1891) and of the unfair treatment of the student-societies composed of faithful Catholic students (1901).

During the reign of Maria Theresa an educational fund was created from confiscated property of the Jesuits. Under Joseph II a religious fund was created from the church property administered by the State only. But Joseph II acknowledged that the State was bound to pay the expenses of Catholic worship, for which the church revenues did not suffice. The salary of parish priests was fixed at 400 florins ($160), that of curates at 200 florins ($80). The retiring pension was made 200 florins ($80). These sums remained unchanged for one hundred years, although the cost of living and the value of money had varied. The speech from the throne in 1871 and 1879 referred to the improvement of the material condition of the clergy as an object of solicitude on the part of the Government, and since 1872 state subventions have been granted for this purpose. In order to obtain the money for this subvention, a tax for the maintenance of the religious fund was created in 1874. But although a sum reaching ten per cent of the capital fund was demanded every ten years, few priests received from it assistance amounting to more than 100 florins ($40). As this subvention was called an “advance” to the fund for the support of religion in the different provinces, the debts of the provinces grew every year, and the entire religious fund was in danger of being used up. The bishops, therefore, sent repeated appeals to the Government, praying for a suitable increase of the salaries of the clergy. In 1903 they agreed to demand for acctive pastors: (a) for curates a minimum salary of 1,000 crowns ($200); for pastors of second-class parishes 1,600 crowns ($320); for parish priests without curates, 2,000 crowns ($400); for parish priests with curates, 2,200 crowns ($440); (b) four retroactive decennial allowances to be reckoned from the date of the grant; the first allowance to be 100 crowns ($20), the second, 200 crowns ($40), the third and fourth to be each 250 crowns ($50), in all 800 crowns ($160). (c) Surplus of money destined for pastoral salaries is not to be drawn upon for the pensions of retired clergymen. For retired curates the bishops suggested a minimum pension of 100 crowns for curates, and of 1,900 crowns ($380) for parish priests. In 1891 and 1894 the bishop requested from the Minister of Worship an exact list of all the debts due by the religious fund in the hands of the Government and of all pious foundations. In 1891 and 1897 they deliberated concerning the delicate question of clerical fees. After a ten years’ trial (1893) the bishops pointed out the hardship of the tax on the religious fund, and pointed out where amendment should be made. The bishops repeatedly discussed (1898, 1899, 1900) the law which promised the formation of parishes. The difficult question of the patronage of livings was also taken up (1899). The Christian character of the family life, the education of the young, the duty of voting (“Vote, vote right”) were repeatedly the subjects of joint pastoral letters (1891, 1901). The bishops discussed the question of founding and supporting a daily religious newspaper (1891, 1982). They assured the Holy Father of their agreement with his letter to Cardinal Guibert, Archbishop of Paris, concerning the disrespectful utterances of Catholic papers about ecclesiastical authorities. They discussed uniform action in carrying out the Apostolic constitution “Officiorum ac munerum” as applied to Catholic newspapers (1898).

As in our day large results are only obtained by association, the bishops have especially encouraged the formation of workingmen’s unions, of Gesellenvereine, the St. Boniface Society (March, 1901), the Holy Childhood Society, and benevolent societies (November, 1897). In these days much that is unsound rises to the surface. The bishops issued warnings against irreligion and national embitterment (1891). They encouraged lectures on Freemasonry (1897), complained of the destructive tendencies which are undoing the strength and force of Austria, and condemned the bad press, “the dangerous foe of faith” (December, 1901).

In 1897 a movement was set on foot which ten years before would have been held to be impossible. Its name, the Los von Rom, is an insult to Catholics, its existence a mortal blow to Austrians. Every possible misuse of speech and writing was employed to rob Catholics of their confidence in their priests, of their attachment to the holy sacraments, and even to the Church. These ribald foes spread desolation over a good part of God’s vineyard in Austria. The “Free from Rome” movement will remain a disgraceful stain, but not in the history of the Catholic Church. Filled with a sense of the sacredness of their duty as bishops and Austrians, the episcopacy warned the faithful in pastorals against the movement and its schemes (1899, 1901). They addressed an earnest memorial to the emperor on the subject (1901), as well as one to Körber, the head of the ministry (November, 1902).

In 1891 the bishops deliberated on cremation and funeral addresses by non-Catholic clergymen in Catholic cemeteries; in 1898 they drew up a form of reconciliation for duellists and their seconds. They exhorted Catholics “to observe faithfully the ordinances against duelling, whether issued by God, the Church, or the State.” After due deliberations, they also adopted resolutions on the position of catechists and the admission of catechetical teachers into the ecclesiastical organization and arranged the manner in which erring ecclesiastics “should be led back to their calling and to the service of God by their fellow-clergymen.” In 1891 they issued regulations concerning the social activity of the clergy, and in 1901 concerning clerical conventions and legal societies.

The bishops aided the several religious communities, and watched over the loyalty of the religious orders. In 1889 the relation of the bishops to the election and consecration of the abbots of new religious foundations was defined. In 1891, the pope granted permission to the strictly cloistered orders of women (Ursulines) to attend university lectures. The Austrian bishops celebrated the diamond jubilee of the consecration of Leo XIII to the priesthood and the golden jubilee of his consecration to the episcopacy by joint letters of veneration to the Holy Father and by joint pastorals to the faithful. In these letters they did not fail to express their regret on the subject of the so-called Roman question, of the offensive Giordano Bruno celebration, and of the 25th anniversary of the taking of Rome. In 1903 they sent a magnificent letter of congratulation to the Holy Father, Pius X.

We must go back five hundred years in the history of Austria to find another ruler who reigned fifty years. On the semi-centennial anniversary, 2 December, 1989, of the reign of the Emperor Francis Joseph, the bishops issued a joint pastoral and sent it with a dedication to the emperor. In the dedication they say: “The mysterious counsels of God have ordained that Your Majesty should spend this day in sorrow. [Empress Elizabeth was assassinated 10 September.] We all suffer with our gracious emperor and ruler. But our grief cannot silence our gratitude; our gratitude to our Lord God who has preserved Your Majesty for us, our gratitude to Your Majesty for fifty years of strong and fatherly protection, for fifty years of self-sacrificing love, for fifty years of exemplary devotion to Your Majesty’s exalted but arduous calling.”

Since 1851 all the provinces of the Austrian Crown have been under one uniform government. Since 1867, however, Hungary has been an independent part of the Hapsburg monarchy, enjoying equal rights with the rest. During the battle over the Concordat which raged in 1867, the Hungarian bishops did not appeal to the Concordat, for fear that the agitation might spread to Hungary. In point of fact, however, they held fast to the Concordat. John Simor, Primate of Hungary from 1866–91, preserved the peace of the Church in the kingdom. There was a conflict, however, respecting the laws concerning baptism. A law of 1868 enacted that in the case of mixed marriages the boys should be brought up in the faith of the father, the girls in that of the mother, even if this were contrary to the desire of the parents. But, when parents so requested, Catholic priests baptized those children who according to the law should be brought up non-Catholic. This practice was called Wegtaufen. Even when, in 1879, the criminal code made the conferring of baptism under such circumstances punishable, the priests were not dismayed-”Go, baptize.” Besides this, they were regularly acquitted by the court of last resort in the suits which were brought against them by the Protestant pastors. In 1890 “dununciation” of such baptisms was forbidden by Rome, and the excitement gradually subsided. Augustine von Roskovány, Bishop of Neutra, was the most learned man among the Hungarian bishops of this time. Von Roskovány was Doctor of Philosophy and Theology, secretary to Ladislaus Pryker, Archbishop of Erlan, and died in 1892. His works are important authorities: “De Matrimoniis mixtis” (7 vols.); “Monumenta pro independentiâ potestatis eccles. ab imperio civili” (13 vols.); “Celibatus et Breviarium” (2 vols.); “Beata Virgo Maria in suo Conceptu immaculata” (9 vols.); “Romanuis Pontifex Primas ecclesiæ et Princeps civilis e monumentis omnium sæculorum” (16 vols.); “Matrimonium in ecclesiâ Catholicâ potestati ecclesiasticæ subjectum” (4 vols.); “Supplementa ad Collectiones Monumentorum et Literaturæ” (10 vols.).

In 1893 the Hungarian Parliament began to meddle with religion. The head of the ministry, Wekerle, introduced three bills enacting that returns of marriages, births, and deaths should be made by a civil registrar; that the Jewish religion should be legally recognized, that permission should be given for its free exercise, and the right to enter or leave the Jewish faith should be granted. These bills were soon followed by others for the amendment of the marriage laws (civil marriage made compulsory) and concerning mixed marriages. Wekerle carried the first three bills, and they became law. Baron Desiderius Banffy was made the head of the ministry, January, 1895. In order to prevent the passage of the two remaining bills by Banffy, the papal nuncio, Agliardi, went to Hungary. But the Hungarian Parliament declared that such interference in the internal affairs of Hungary would not be permitted. Count Kalnocky, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who had supported the nuncio, was replaced by Count Agenor Goluchowsky, and Agliardi was made a cardinal and recalled to Rome. The road was now clear. Count Ferdinand Zichy formed the Catholic people’s party in opposition to Banffy’s aims; but without avail. The two bills became law. The Lutz amendment on pulpits could not be passed during the lifetime of the primate, Simor, but after his death it was adopted (1899).

Article 26 of the Diet of 1790 guaranteed to the Protestants of Hungary the entire control of the affairs of their religion. The Government has hardly any power in regard to either their churches, their schools, or religious foundations. Since 1848 the Catholics have been endeavouring to obtain autonomy. The Catholic congress of 1870 prepared a bill to this end. The Catholic Autonomy Association, consisting of the bishops, the abbots, and certain elected members, clerical and lay, exists to represent the Church in regard to the faithful, on the one hand, and the Government, on the other, in all questions of schools, of church property, and especially (since the minister of public worship might happen to be a non-Catholic) to advise the king in the exercise of his prerogative of nominating bishops. It is plain that the advantage or disadvantage to the Church of autonomy would depend on the composition of the commission. For this reason a commission such as Wekerle wished to form in 1894 was rejected by the bishops, and Zichy’s motion, made on occasion of the Catholic congress of 1897, did not receive government approval. In order to strengthen the claim for autonomy, the bishops, with the exception of Bishop Count Maylath, and the heads of the orders, in 1903, accepted three propositions. These are: that the right to present to bishoprics shall remain in the hands of the minister of worship; that the school system shall remain unaltered; that the fund for the support of religion shall be controlled by the minister of instruction. In 1906 the turning-point in the history of the autonomy question was probably reached in the address from the throne. The Minister of Public worship and Instruction, Count Albert Apponyi, has already requested the primate to state the position of the bishops in regard to autonomy, so that the bill may be properly prepared.

ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATION

The Catholic Church in Austria-Hungary is administered on the system of archiepiscopal provinces with suffragan dioceses, as follows:—(a) In the territories represented in the Imperial (Austrian) Parliament there are seven archiepiscopal provinces of the Latin Rite and one each of the Greek and Armenian Rites. These provinces comprise in the aggregate 34 sees. Archdiocese of Vienna (bishopric 1468, prince-bishopric 1631, prince-archbishopric 1722), with suffragan dioceses of St. Pölten (or St. Hippolytus; transferred from Wiener-Neustadt, 1784) and Linz (founded 1784). Archdiocese of Salzburg (founded c. 700), archbishopric 800), with suffragan dioceses of Trent (founded in second century), Brixen (transferred from Säben in tenth century) with the general vicariate of Feldkirch for Vorarlberg, Gurk (belonging to Klagenfurt, founded 1071), Seckau (belonging to Graz, founded 1219), and Lavant (belonging to Marburg, founded 1228). Archdiocese of Prague (973–1344 subject to Mainz, 1344 archbishopric), with suffragan dioceses of Budweis (founded 1785), Königgrätz (or Regina Hradecensis, founded 1664), and Leitmeritz (founded 1665). Archdiocese of Olmütz (founded 1063, archbishopric 1777), with suffragan diocese of Brünn (founded 1777). Archdiocese of Görz (transferred from Aquileia 1751), with suffragan dioceses of Laibach (founded 1461), Triest and Capo d’Istria, Parenzo and Pola founded sixth century), Veglia (founded 990). Archdiocese of Zara (Jadera, founded fourth century, archbisyopric 1146), with suffragan dioceses of Sebenico (founded 1298), Spolato and Macarska (Spalato erected into an archbishopric 650), Lesina (Pharus, founded in twelfth century), Cattaro (founded in eleventh century), Ragusa (founded 990). Archdiocese of Lemberg (Leopolis, Latin Rite; transferred from Halic 1412), with suffragan dioceses of Tarnów (founded 1783, transferred to Tynice, then to Bochnia, 1816), and Przemysl (founded 1340). The Prince-Bishopric of Cracow (founded about 700) is subject directly to the Holy See. The Catholics in Silesia are under the jurisdiction of the Prince-Bishop of Breslau, who has a vicar-general at Teschen and a summer residence at Johannesberg. The county of Glatz belongs to Prague. Lemberg, Greek-Ruthenian Rite (united in 1597, became an archbishopric in 1808), with suffragan dioceses of Przemysl (subject to Lemberg since 1818) and Stanislawow (founded 1882). Lemberg, Armenian Rite, was founded 1367.

(b) In Hungary there are four archdioceses of the Latin Rite, with 17 suffragan dioceses; and one archdiocese of the Greek Rite, with six suffragan dioceses, making altogether 28 sees. Archdiocese of Esztergom (Strogonium, Gran; founded 1000), the incumbent of which is Primate of Hungary and ex-officio Legate (Legatus Natus), with suffragan dioceses of Nyitra (founded 1029), Vácz (Vacium, Waitzen; founded in eleventh century), Györ (Jaurinum, Raab; founded in eleventh century), Veszprém (founded 1009), Szombathly (Sabaria, Steinamanger; founded 1777), Beszterczebanya (Neusohl; founded 1776), Székes-Fehérvár (Alba Regalis, Stuhlweissenburg; founded 1777), Pécs (Serbinum, Quinque Ecclesiæ, Fünfkirchen; founded 1009), Eperjes (Ruthenian-Greek; founded 1820), Munkács (Munkaczinum; Ruthenian-Greek; founded 1771). Archdiocese of Kalocsa and Bács (founded 1000), with suffragan dioceses of Nagy-Várad (Varadinum Majus, Grosswardein; founded 1077), Csaná [Chronadium (Magyarscanad-Tenesvár); founded 1035], and Erdely [Transylvania (Karlsburg); founded in twelfth century]. Archdiocese of Eger (Agria, Erlau; founded 1000, archbishopric 1804), with suffragan dioceses of Rozsnyó (Rosnavia, Rosenau; founded 1776), Szatmár-Németi (Szathmarium; founded 1804), Szepes [Scepusia, Zips (Szepesváralya); founded 1776], Kassa (Cassovia, Kaschau; founded 1804), and Sabaria (Sacer Mons Pannoniæ, Martinsberg; founded 997). Archdiocese of Zagreb (Zagrabia, Agram; founded 1903, archbishopric 1853), with suffragan dioceses of Djakovár (founded 1781), Zengg-Modrus (founded 1460), and Kriz (Crisium, Kreutz, Greek-Ruthenian Rite; founded 1777). Archdiocese of Fogaras, of the Greek-Ruthenian Rite (founded 1721, archbishopric 1854), has for suffragan dioceses Nagy-Várad (Varadinum Majus, Grosswardein; founded 1777), Lugos (Lugosium; founded 1853), and Szamos-Ujvár (Armenopolis; founded 1777).

(c) In Bosnia and Herzegovina there is one archdiocese: Serajevo (founded 1881), with suffragan dioceses of Banjaluka (founded 1881), Trebinje (Tribonium; founded in ninth century), Mostar (Mandatrium; founded 1881). The Apostolic field-vicariate for the army and navy is directly under the control of the Holy See.

STATISTICS OF RELIGIOUS ORDERS

The following table presents a summary of the parent and branch houses of the religious orders in Austria, together with the number of their inmates:-

Male Orders

Female Orders

Diocese

Houses

Inmates

Houses

Inmates

Vienna (Archdiocese) St. Pölten

41 (62)

1,611

104 (195)

4,230

Linz

16

505

73 (94)

874

Salzburg (Archdiocese)

29

670

124 (126)

1,765

Trent

11

216

102

998

Brixen and Vorarlberg

35

817

130

1,527

Lavant

43

1,171

222

2,656

Seckau

9

163

13

181

Gurk

31

825

67 (90)

1,359

Görz (Archdiocese)

12

230

22 (26)

357

Laibach

7

105

7

238

Veglia

12

264

19

492

Pola

11

64

24

68

Triest

1

21

6

132

Prague (Archdiocese)

7

81

-8

174

Königgrätz

16

704

13

1,517

Leitmeritz

12

88

76

442

Budweis

21

180

48 (55)

442

Olmütz (Archdiocese)

15

188

61

396

Brünn

25

220

33 (36)

1,547

Lemberg (Archd., Lat Rite)

13

136

80 (87)

327

Przemysl (Lat. Rite)

41 (43)

151

28 (30)

1,271

Tarnów

27

1369

153

698

Lemberg (Archd., Gr. Rite)

6

72

97 (99)

340

Przemysl (Gr. Rite)

6

276

54 (55)

86

Stanislawow (Gr. Rite)

6

134

8

19

Zara (Archdiocese)

4

25

1

44

Sebenico

5

20

10

23

Spalato and Macarska

7

83

4

23

Cattaro

15

91

4

125

Ragusa

3

9

9 (14)

8

Cracow (Archdiocese)

19

93

2

51

Breslau

30

604

1

1,166

Lemberg (Arm. Rite)

6

33

58 (73)

425

30

16

1

Totals

542

9,970

1,667

24,018

DENOMINATIONAL STATISTICS. The forty-nine million inhabitants of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy are divided, as to their religious beliefs, as follows:—

AUSTRIAN PROVINCES. HUNGARIAN PROVINCES. GREEK RITE 1,907,936 S BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

C. WOLFSGRUBER

Authentic

The term is used in two senses. It is applied first to a book or document whose contents are invested with a special authority, in virtue of which the work is called authentic. In its second sense it is used as a synonym for “genuine,” and therefore means that a work really emanates from the author to whom it is ascribed. The article VULGATE explains the first sense of the word; the articles on the single books of Sacred Scripture illustrate the second.

F. X. E. ALBERT

Authenticity of the Bible

The authenticity or authority of Holy Writ is twofold on account of its twofold authorship. First, the various books which make up the Bible are authentic because they enjoy all the human authority that is naturally due to their respective authors. Second, they possess a higher authenticity, because invested with a Divine, supernatural authority through the Divine authorship which makes them the inspired word of God. Biblical authenticity in its first sense must naturally be considered in the articles on the several books of Sacred Scripture, in its second sense, it springs from Biblical inspiration, for which see INSPIRATION.

F.X.E. ALBERT

Civil Authority

Civil Authority is the moral power of command, supported (when need be) by physical coercion, which the State exercises over its members. We shall consider here the nature, sources, limits, divisions, origin, and the true and false theories of authority. Authority is as great a necessity to mankind as sobriety, and as natural. By “natural” here is meant, not what accrues to man without any effort of his own (teeth, for example), but what man must secure, even with an effort, because without it he cannot well be man. It is natural to man to live in civil society; and where there is civil society, there must be authority. Anarchy is the disruption of society. Speaking generally, we may say no man loves isolation, solitude, loneliness, the life of a hermit; on the other hand, while many dislike the authority under which they live, no man wishes for anarchy. What malcontents aim at is a change of government, to get authority into their own hands and govern those who now govern them. Even the professed anarchist regards anarchy as a temporary expedient, a preparation for his own advent to power. Authority, then, in the abstract, every man loves and cherishes; and rightly so, for it is his nature to live in society, and society is kept together by authority. The model of hermits was St. Simeon Stylites, so called from his living on the top of a style, or pillar. That was his special vocation; he was no ordinary man. But the political philosopher considers man as man ordinarily and normally is. Two things would strike a stranger from Mars looking down upon this planet: how men on earth love herding together, and how they love moving about. Ordinary man can no more afford to be solitary than he can afford to be stationary, though Simeon Stylites was both. Solitary confinement is the severest of punishments, next to death. It is hard to say whether the solitude or the confinement, proves the more irksome. This simple point, that man cannot live alone, must be insisted upon, for all errors in the theory of authority are rooted in the assumption that man’s living in society, and thereby coming to be governed by social authority, is something purely optional and conventional, a fashion which man could very well discard if he would, as he might discard the wearing of green clothes. Men who would make society a conventional arrangement, and authority a fashion of the hour, have appealed to the noble savage as the standard of humanity proper, forgetting that the savage is no solitary, but a member of a horde, to separate from which would be death, and to ignore the control of which would be death also. Man must live in society, and, in point of historical fact, men have always lived in society; every human development is a social progress. It is natural to man to live in society, to submit to authority, and to be governed by that custom of society which crystallizes into law.

And as it is natural to the individual, so is it natural also for the family to unite with others. Society cannot stop short at the family. As the individual is not sell-sufficient, neither is the family. The family grows and then multiplies. We have a society of families; and that society grown great, and controlled as it needs to be controlled by some common authority, passes into a self-sufficient, autonomous society, otherwise called a State. Hence civil authority is defined as the moral power of command, supported (when need be) by physical coercion, which the State exercises over its constituent members. Civil authority is of God, not by any revelation or positive institution, but by the mere fact that God is the Author of Nature, and Nature imperatively requires civil authority to be set up and obeyed. Nature cannot tolerate intemperance, nor anarchy either. And what Nature absolutely requires, or absolutely refuses as incompatible with her well-being, God commands, or God forbids. God then forbids anarchy; and in forbidding anarchy He enjoins submission to authority. In this sense, God is at the back of every State, binding men in conscience to observe the behests of the State within the sphere of its competence. “Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. . . . Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. . . . For they are the ministers of God, . . “ (Horn. xiii, 1, 5, 6).

Obedience, being a practical thing and not a speculation, cannot abstract from the concrete facts of the case; it is paid to the powers that be, to the authority actually in possession. Obedience is as disobedience; men are never disobedient except to the government of the day. But there are limits to civil obedience, and to the competence of civil authority. As domestic obedience is not to be carried to the extent of rebellion against the civil government, so neither is the State to be obeyed as against God. It is not within the competence of the State to command anything and everything. The State cannot command what God could not command, for instance, idolatry. The authority of the State is absolute, that is to say, full and complete in its own sphere, and subordinate to no other authority within that sphere. But the authority of the State is not arbitrary; it is not available for the carrying out of every whim and caprice. Arbitrary government is irrational government; now no government is licensed to set reason aside. The government of God Himself is not arbitrary; as St. Thomas says: “God is not offended by us except at what we do against our own good” (Contra Gentiles, III, 122). The arbitrary use of authority is called tyranny. Such is the tyranny of an absolute monarch, of a council, of a class, or of a majority. The liberty of the subject is based on the doctrine that the State is not omnipotent. Legally omnipotent every State must be, but not morally. A legal enactment may be immoral, and then it cannot in conscience be obeyed; or it may be ultra vires, beyond the competence of the authority that enacts it, in which case compliance with the law is not a matter of obedience, but of prudence. In either case the law is tyrannical, and “a tyrannical law, not being according to reason, is not, absolutely speaking, a law, but rather a perversion of law” (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., la, 2ae, q. 92, art. 1, ad 4). Man is not all citizen. He is a member, a part of the State, and something else besides. “Man is not subservient to the civil community to the extent of his whole self, all that he is and all that he has” (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, q. 21, art. 4, ad 3). To say nothing of his eternal interests in his relations with his Maker, man has even in this life his domestic interests in the bosom of his family, his intellectual and artistic interests, none of which can be called political interests. Social and political life is not the whole of human life. Man is not the servant of the State in his every action. The State, the majority, or the despot, may demand of the individual more than he is bound to give. Were human society a conventional arrangement, were man, being perfectly well off in isolation from his fellows, to agree by way of freak to live in community with them, then we could assign no antecedent limits to civil authority. Civil authority would be simply what was bargained for and prescribed in the arbitrary compact which made civil society. As it is, civil authority is a natural means to a natural end and is checked by that end, in accordance with the Aristotelean principle that “the end in view sets limits to the means” (Aristotle, Politics, I, 9). The immediate end of civil authority is well set forth by Suarez (De legibus, LII, xi, 7) as “the natural happiness of the perfect, or self-sufficient, human community, and the happiness of individuals as they are members of such a community, that they may live therein peaceably and justly, with a sufficiency of goods for the preservation and comfort of their bodily life, and with so much moral rectitude as is necessary for this external peace and happiness.” Happiness is an attribute of individuals. Individuals are not made happy by authority, but authority secures to them that tranquillity, that free hand for helping themselves, that restful enjoyment of their own just winnings, which is one of the conditions of happiness. Nor does authority make men virtuous, except according to that rough-hewn, outline virtue, which is called “social virtue,” and consists mainly of justice. When the ancients spoke of “virtue” being the concern of the State, they meant justice and efficiency. Neither the virtue nor the happiness of individuals is cared for by the State except “as they are members of the civil community.” In this respect, civil differs from domestic, or paternal, authority. The father cares for the members of his household one by one, singly and individually. The State cares for its members collectively, and for the individual only in his collective aspect. Hence it follows that the power of life and death is inherent in the State, not in the family. A man is hanged for the common good of the rest, never for his own good.

This, then, is one measure of authority, the end which the State has in view. Another is the stage of development at which any given particular State has arrived. For there is not one measure of authority common to all States. As the State develops, it grows in unity, and greater unity means an ampler measure of central authority. There is far more authority in the England of to-day than in the England of the Heptarchy. There was more authority in an Anglo-Saxon kingdom than in a horde of savages. In early civil societies there is no legislative authority, and no law, but only immemorial custom. There is little judicial authority, but injured men, or their families after their death, right their own wrongs, murder is restrained, not by judge, jury, and executioner, but by blood-feud. On the other hand, in highly civilized societies, especially those of a democratic character, the will of the people continually thrusts new functions upon government, such as education, the care of public health, the carrying of letters, the sending of telegrams. The recognition of this fact has been called “the principle of voluntary control.” By it civil authority may be enlarged beyond its natural and essential limits. Like other principles, “the principle of voluntary control” may be pushed too far. Pushed to the limit, it would involve Socialism. Authority, though varying in amount, is as universal as man is everywhere. Man cannot live except under authority, as he cannot live out of civil society. It is by no convention, compact, or contract, that authority takes hold of him. It is a necessity of his nature. But while civil authority, or government, is natural and universal, the distribution of authority, otherwise called the form of government, or the constitution of the State, is a human convention, varying in various countries, and in the same country at different periods of its history. It is scarcely too much to say that there are as many various distributions of civil authority, or various forms of government, as there are varieties of vertebrate animals. They are classified as monarchies, aristocracies, democracies; but no two monarchies are quite alike, nor two democracies. Thus a democracy may be direct, as in ancient Athens, or representative, as in the United States. The monarchy of Edward VII is different from that of George III.

The one point fixed by nature, and by God, is that there must be authority everywhere, and that the authority existent for the time being, under such and such a form, be under that form obeyed; for since there is no actual authority in the country except under that form, to refuse to obey that is to refuse authority simply, and to revert to anarchy, which is against nature: just as a man having nothing but bread and cheese to eat, and refusing to eat his bread and cheese, under pretence that he much prefers mutton, condemns himself to starvation, which again is unnatural. But we must beware of saying of any particular form of authority, monarchy for example, or democracy either, what is true only of authority in the abstract, namely, that all nations are bound to live under it, and that never under any pretence can it be subverted. A country, once monarchical, is not eternally bound to monarchy; and circumstances are conceivable under which a republic might pass into monarchy, as Rome did under Augustus, much to its advantage. Authority rules by Divine right under whatsoever form it is established. No one form of government is more sacred and inviolate than another. Change of persons holding office is usually provided in the constitution, sometimes by rotation, sometimes by vote of the legislative assembly. No monarchical constitution provides for the change of the person of the monarch otherwise than by death or resignation. Change of the form of government can be effected constitutionally, but, as history shows, as often as not, it is brought about unconstitutionally. When the change is complete, the new government rules by right of accomplished fact. There must be authority in the country, and theirs is the only authority available.

DIVISIONS

The progress of civilization subdivides authority into legislative, judicial, and executive, and the latter again into civil and military. The king, or president, is chief of the executive. Authority again is subdivided into imperial and local, the latter emanating from the former and subordinate to it.

ORIGIN

The question of the origin of authority seems first to have been raised by the Roman lawyers. In their hands it assumed the concrete form of the origin of the imperial power. This power they argued to reside primarily in the Roman people; the people, however, did not exercise nor retain it, but transferred it by some implicit lex regia, or king-making ordinance, as a matter of course wholly, and irrevocably to each successive emperor at his accession. With the advent of Christianity, St. Paul’s doctrine came into prominence, that authority is of God; yet in no clear way was it made out how it came of God until St. Thomas Aquinas showed that it was of God inasmuch as it was an essential of the human nature which God has created, according to the doctrine of Aristotle above exposed. Before St. Thomas arose, some churchmen had shown a disposition to cry down the civil power. They could not deny that it was of God, but they regarded it as one of the consequences of the sin of Adam, and argued that, but for the Fall, man would have lived free from coercive jurisdiction. They rehearsed the legend of Romulus, and the asylum that he opened for robbers. States, they said, usually have their origin in rapine and injustice. Others invested the pope with the plenitude of secular as well as spiritual authority, by the gift of Christ, and argued that kings reigned only as his vicegerents, even in civil matters. The Aristoteleanism of St. Thomas was opposed to all this. On the other hand, the imperial and royal party made a pope of the king or emperor; the civil ruler was as much an institution of Christ as the pope himself, and, like the pope, enjoyed a God-given authority, no portion of which could validly be taken from him. This is the doctrine of “the divine right of kings.” According to it, in its rigour, in a State once monarchical, monarchy is forever the only lawful government, and all authority is vested in the monarch, to be communicated by him, to such as he may select for the time being to share his power. This “divine right of kings” (very different from the doctrine that all authority, whether of king or of republic, is from God), has never been sanctioned by the Catholic Church. At the Reformation it assumed a form exceedingly hostile to Catholicism, monarchs like Henry VIII, and James I, of England, claiming the fullness of spiritual as well as of civil authority, and this in such inalienable possession that no jot or tittle of prerogative could ever pass away from the Crown. Against these monstrous pretensions were fought the battles of Marston Moor and Naseby.

Against the same pretensions a more pacific warfare was waged by Francis Suarez, S.J.Suarez argued against James I that spiritual authority is not vested in the Crown, and that even civil authority is not the immediate gift of God to the king, but is given by God to the people collectively, and by them bestowed on the monarch, according to the theory of the Roman lawyers above mentioned, and according to Aristotle and St. Thomas. Authority, he asserted, is an attribute of a multitude assembled to form a State. By their nature they must form a State, and a State must have authority. Authority, therefore, is natural to mankind collectively; and whatever is natural, and rational, and indispensable for human progress, is an ordinance of God. Authority must be, and God will have it to be; but there is no such natural necessity of authority being all centred in one person. Authority is a Divine institution, but kings are a human invention. The saying is a platitude in our time; three centuries ago, when Suarez wrote, it was a bold and startling pronouncement. Suarez saved his loyalty by the concession that the people having bestowed the supreme power on His Majesty’s ancestors ages ago, their posterity could not now resume it, but it must descend, like an heirloom, from the king to the king’s son for all time. This concession was not everywhere borne in mind by posterity. Indeed it would appear a restriction on the development of a State for the distribution of authority to be thus fixed forever. In England at any rate the restriction has been broken through, and the king is not what he was in Stuart times, nor the Parliament either.

THEORIES

There have been two great outbreaks against excess of royal prerogative; one in England, in the middle of the seventeenth century; another in France, at the end of the eighteenth. Each of these two periods was marked by the appearance of a great political writer, Thomas Hobbes in England, Jean Jacques Rousseau in France. Hobbes was a philosopher, Rousseau a rhetorician. Whoever knows Hobbes well can have little to learn from Rousseau. Hobbes is rigidly logical; such inconsistencies as appear in him come from a certain timidity in speaking out, and a humility that approaches nigh to hypocrisy. Rousseau always speaks boldly, makes no pretence to orthodoxy, and frequently contradicts himself. His brilliant style won him the ear of Europe; he popularized Hobbes. To the philosopher, Rousseau is contemptible, but Hobbes is an antagonist worthy of any man’s steel. The best that can be said of Rousseau in philosophy is that he drew out of Hobbes’s principles conclusions which Hobbes was afraid to formulate. Hobbes made of the king a despot; Rousseau showed that, on Hobbesian principles, a king is no better than the people’s bailiff, unless indeed, by military force or otherwise, he can prevent the people from assembling and decreeing his deposition.

Hobbes starts, and Rousseau after him, by contradicting Aristotle. According to Aristotle, man is “by nature a State-making animal”; the individual man, if he is to thrive at all, develops into the family man, and the family man into the citizen; and wherever there is a city, or a nation, there must be self-government, or, in other words, civil authority, whether vested in one or in many. Authority is the very breath of man’s nostrils, as he is a progressive being. Isolation and anarchy are fatal to human progress. Effort, without which man cannot thrive, though it be an effort, and not an initial endowment passively received, Aristotle calls “natural.” The State-making effort is “natural” to man; so is authority “natural,” and, as such, of God, adds Thomas Aquinas. But Hobbes took “natural” in quite another sense. That he held to be “natural” which man is, antecedently to all effort and arrangement on his part to make himself better. Further, his philosophy was tinged with the Calvinism of his day, and he took it that man is of himself “desperately wicked.” What was natural, then, was bad, bad on the whole. Reason being an original endowment of man, Hobbes allowed reason to be natural. He allowed also, with Plato, that wickedness is irrational, by which concession Hobbism is marked off from a celebrated theory stated at the beginning of the second book of Plato’s Republic, to which theory in other respects it bears a strong resemblance; the theory being that right by nature is the interest of the stronger, and only by convention becomes the interest of the State.

This allowing of wickedness to be against reason is a weak point in the logic of Hobbes. But Hobbes would have it that reason is by nature utterly unable to contend with wickedness, that it is overborne by, and made subservient to, passion, and so is degraded into cunning, man becoming more wicked by his possession of reason. Of himself, in his “state of nature,” Hobbesian man is a savage, solitary, sensual, and selfish. When two human beings meet, the natural impulse of each is to lord it over the other. By force, if he is strong, by stratagem, if he is weak, every man seeks to kill or enslave every other man that he meets. Man’s life in this state of nature, says Hobbes, is “nasty, brutish, and short.” So it would be, in an English fen, and in most other places. But Rousseau’s imagination carried him to the Pacific Isles; he became enamoured of “the noble savage.” He fell in with Hobbes’s notion of the “natural,” as being what man is and has antecedently to all human effort. But the “citizen of Geneva,” as he called himself, was curiously free from Calvinistic bias, and believed enthusiastically in the primitive, unmade, natural goodness of man. In Hobbes’s view, though not in Rousseau’s, man had every reason for getting out of his “nasty” state of nature. This was done by a pact, or convention, of every man with all the rest of mankind, to give up solitude with its charms, its independence, and its liberty of preying upon neighbours, and to live in society, the social body thus formed having all the rights of the individuals contributing to form it. This compact of man with man to quit solitude and live in society, to abandon nature and submit to convention, was called by Rousseau, “The Social Contract.” The body formed by it, commonly called the State, Hobbes termed “The Leviathan,” upon the text of Job, xli, 24, “there is no power upon earth that can be compared with him. . . .”

To Hobbes and to Rousseau the State is omnipotent, containing in its one self absolutely all the rights of the citizens who compose it. The wielder of this tremendous power is the General Will, measured against which the will of the individual citizen is not only powerless, but absolutely non-existent. The individual gave up his will when he made the Social Contract. “No rights against the State,” is a fundamental principle with Hobbes and Rousseau. To live in the State at all means compliance with every decree of the General Will. But there is a difficulty in locating this General Will. Hobbes, with laudable perspicacity, seeing that tyranny is better wielded by one man than by a multitude, contemplates the multitude resigning all their power into the hands of a Single Person, and denying themselves the right of meeting without his calling them together; so that, by the simple expedient of never calling them together, the Single Person may incapacitate the people from ever resuming the power which is only theirs when they are all assembled. The General Will in that case is the will of the Single Person. Hobbes’s location of the General Will is not lacking in clearness. But Rousseau would have the sovereign authority to be the inalienable right of the multitude—hence called the “Sovereign People.” They may, if they will, employ a king, or even an emperor; but his majesty, in Rousseau’s phrase, is “Prince” not “Sovereign,” and at stated times, without his calling them together, the Sovereign People must meet and decide, first, whether they will continue to support a throne at all; secondly, whether the throne shall further be filled by the present occupant. Rousseau’s location is also clear, so long as it is understood that the General Will is simply the will of the numerical majority of the Sovereign People. Such a General Will is ascertained by the simple process of counting heads. If in a State of 20,000 citizens, 15,000 vote aye, aye is the General Will, not the will of the majority only, but of the whole 20,000 together; for though 5,000 persons detest the proposal, such detestation lies only in the individual will, sometimes called the “casual will,” and the individual will has ceased to exist by the Compact. Personally they detest the measure, but with their “Real Will” they approve it. Thus, as Rousseau says, they remain as free as the wild man in the woods, obey none but themselves, and follow their own will everywhere.

But a canker-worm lies at the root of this, as of all ultra-democratic doctrines. All originate in a manifestly false supposition, that one man is as good as another. In any sane polity, the predominant Intelligence must guide the counsels of the State, not the predominant Will, which may be no better than caprice. But intelligence is not necessarily attached to majorities. Rousseau himself falters in presence of this awkward truth, and re-states the General Will, as the will which the people have of good in general, albeit in a particular case they are mistaken in what they take to be good. Thus they will one thing, and vote for another. The Real Will in this case is not to be gathered from the actual vote of the majority. The Real Will is of that which the majority would have voted for, had they known better. Rousseau’s theory contemplates “a people of gods,” so he assures us. Such a people would scarce require any government. The ideal, sylvan creatures whom his imagination brings together to form the Social Contract, if not all very intelligent, may be supposed to be all good listeners to intelligent teaching, and thus Intelligence will govern the majority, and the vote of the majority will be an ideally Real Will. Government is an easy matter on such optimistic presuppositions. The eye, however, glances back upon Hobbes’s ruffian primeval, “brutish and nasty.” Hobbes’s view of human nature must check that of Rousseau. Both views are extreme, and the truth lies between them. The democratic rule of a numerical majority is not of universal application. One has to consider the character of the people, and peoples vary. If in one age or place the people approximate to the character of “a people of gods,” or angels, in another country or another time they may be more like devils. “Force, devoid of counsel, of its own bulk comes to a crash,” says Horace (Odes, III, 4). That is the danger of the General Will.

Rousseau, with Hobbes to guide him, starts from a false supposition, that the natural state of man is savage solitude, not civil society; he proceeds through the false medium of the “Social Contract,” false because society is not a thing of convention; false again, because out of all keeping with the evidence of history; and he is apt to end in the tyranny of a brute majority, trampling upon the rights and consciences of individuals; or again in anarchy, his disciples putting too literal a construction upon the promise that henceforth no man shall obey any other than himself.

The doctrines of Rousseau have not escaped the censure of the Church. Rousseau may be recognized in the following propositions, condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX: “The State is the source and origin of all rights, and its rights are unlimited” (n. 39); “Authority is nothing else than numbers, and a sum of material forces” (n. 60): “It is allowable to refuse obedience to lawful princes, and even to rebel against them” (n. 63). Leo XIII, not content with condemning, teaches positive doctrine against Rousseau, to wit: the Aristotelean and Thomist doctrine already stated. Thus the Encyclical “Immortale Dei,” of November, 1885:

Man’s natural instinct moves him to live in civil society; for he can not, if dwelling apart, provide himself with the necessary requirements of life, nor procure the means of developing his faculties. Hence it is Divinely ordained that he should be born into the society and company of men, as well domestic as civil. Only civil society can ensure perfect self-sufficiency of life [an Aristotelean term]. But since no society can hold together unless there be some one over all, impelling individuals efficaciously and harmoniously to one common purpose, a ruling authority becomes a necessity for every civil commonwealth of men; and this authority, no less than society itself, is natural, and therefore has God for its author. Hence it follows that public power of itself cannot be otherwise than of God.

In the theory of Hobbes and Rousseau, Authority is the outcome of contract, not between people and prince, but of every man with every other man to relinquish solitude and its rights, and live in civil society. Rousseau is instant in pronouncing that between people and prince there can be no contract, but the prince is a tenant at will, who may be turned out of doors, with or without reason, any day that the Sovereign People assemble to vote upon him. But there is another theory of contract, centuries older than Hobbes, a theory greatly cherished by Locke and the English Whigs, who found in it the justification of the expulsion of James II in 1688. In this theory, the contract is said to lie between the people and their ruler; the ruler is to be obeyed so long as he fulfils certain conditions, known as “the constitution.” If he violates the constitution, he forfeits his authority and the people may cast him out. Thus ruler and subject are two “high contracting parties.” The ruler has no superiority of status, but of contract only. On this it is to be observed, first, that such a contract lies not in the nature of things, and therefore is not to be taken for granted; but evidence in each particular case should be forthcoming of the contract having been made on those terms as a fact of history. Secondly, this asserted contract labours under the inconvenience that Job declared of old: “ . . . in judgment. There is none that may be able to reprove both, and to put his hand between both” (Job, ix, 32, 33). The contract cannot be enforced at law, for lack of a judge; in case of dispute, each party pronounces in his own favour, and they are like to fight it out. The result is civil war, as between Charles I and his Parliament. But really ruler and subjects are not two “high contracting parties,” as two nations are. The theory is prejudicial to the unity of the State, and countenances revolution. The theory was brought up to meet that delicate inquiry, “What is to be done when Government abuses its authority?” On which see “Moral Philosophy” (Stonyhurst Series), 338–343.

NEWMAN, Aristotle, Politics, (Clarendon Press, Oxford; there is a translation also by Weldon) I; ST. THOMAS, De Regimine Principum, I; LEO XIII, Encyclicals: Latin, five volumes (Tournai); English, The Pope and the People, Select Letters on Social Questions (New York); SUAREZ, Defensio Fidei, III, i, ii, iii; R. W. and A. T. CARLYLE, Medieval Political Theory in the West (London); GIERKE, Political Theories of the Middle Age, tr. by Maitland (Cambridge); RICKABY, Political and Moral Essays, The Origin and Extent of Civil Authority; HOBBES, Leviathan (Cambridge University Press); ROUSSEAU, Le contrat social (London); LOCKE, Of Civil Government; GREEN, Principles of Political Obligation (London and New York); BOSANQUET, Philosophical Theory of the State (London and New York).

JOSEPH RICKABY.

Authorized Version

Name given to the English translation of the Bible produced by the Commission appointed by James I, and in consequence often spoken of as “King James’s Bible.” It is in general use among English-speaking non-Catholics. In order to understand its origin and history, a brief survey is necessary of the earlier English translations of the Scriptures. From very early times portions of the Bible have been translated into English. It is well known that Venerable Bede was finishing a translation of St. John’s Gospel on his deathbed. But the history of the English Bible as a whole does not go back nearly so far; it dates from the so-called Wyclif Version, believed to have been completed about the year 1380. The translation was made from the Vulgate as it then existed, that is before the Sixtine and Clementine revisions, and was well and accurately done. Abbot Gasquet contends confidently (The Old English Bible, 102 sqq.) that it was in reality of Catholic origin, and not due to Wyclif at all; at any rate it seems fairly certain that he had no share in any part of it except the Gospels, even if he had in these; and there is evidence that copies of the whole were in the hands of good Catholics, and were read by them. The version, however, undoubtedly derived its chief importance from the use made of it by Wyclif and the Lollards, and it is in this connection that it is chiefly remembered. During the progress of the Reformation a number of English versions appeared, translated for the most part not from the Vulgate, but from the original Hebrew and Greek. Of these the most famous were Tyndale’s Bible (1525); Coverdale’s Bible (1535); Matthews’ Bible (1537); Cromwell’s, or the “Great Bible” (1539), the second and subsequent editions of which were known as Cranmer’s Bible; the Geneva Bible (1557–60); and the Bishop’s Bible (1568). The art of printing being by this time known, copies of all these circulated freely among the people. That there was much good and patient work in them, none will deny; but they were marred by the perversion of many passages, due to the theological bias of the translators; and they were used on all sides to serve the cause of Protestantism.

In order to counteract the evil effects of these versions, the Catholics determined to produce one of their own. Many of them were then living at various centres on the Continent, having been forced to leave England on account of the Penal Laws, and the work was undertaken by the members of Allen’s College, at Douai, in Flanders, which was for a time transferred to Reims. The result was the Reims New Testament (1582) and the Douay Bible (1609–10). The translation was made from the Vulgate, and although accurate, was sadly deficient in literary form, and so full of Latinisms as to be in places hardly intelligible. Indeed, a few years later, Dr. William Fulke, a well-known Puritan controversialist, brought out a book in which the text of the Bishops’ Bible and the Reims Testament were printed in parallel columns, with the sole purpose of discrediting the latter. In this he did not altogether succeed, and it is now generally conceded that the Douay Bible contained much excellent and scholarly work, its very faults being due to over-anxiety not to sacrifice accuracy. In the meantime the Protestants were becoming dissatisfied with their own versions, and soon after his accession King James I appointed a commission of revision—the only practical outcome of the celebrated Hampton Court Conferences. The commissioners, who numbered forty-seven, were divided into six companies, two of which sat at Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster, respectively; each company undertook a definite portion of the Bible, and its work was afterwards revised by a select committee chosen from the whole body. The instructions for their procedure were, to take the Bishops’ Bible, which was in use in the churches, as their basis, correcting it by a comparison with the Hebrew and Greek texts. They were also given a list of other English versions which they were to consult. The commissioners set to work in 1607, and completed their labours in the short period of two years and nine months, the result being what is now known as the “Authorized Version.” Although at first somewhat slow in gaining general acceptance, the Authorized Version has since become famous as a masterpiece of English literature. The first edition appeared in 1611, soon after the Douay Bible; and although this latter was not one of the versions named in the instructions to the revisers, it is understood that it had considerable influence on them (see Preface to Revised Version, i, 2. Also, J. G. Carleton, “Rheims and the English Bible”).

The Authorized Version was printed in the usual form of chapters and verses, and before each chapter a summary of its contents was prefixed. No other extraneous matter was permitted, except some marginal explanations of the meaning of certain Hebrew or Greek words, and a number of cross-references to other parts of the Scripture. At the beginning was placed a dedication to King James and a short “Address to the Reader.” Books such as Ecclesiasticus, and Machabees, and Tobias, which are considered by Protestants to be apocryphal, were of course omitted. Although it was stated on the title-page that the Authorized Version was “appointed to be read in the Churches,” in fact it came into use only gradually. For the Epistles and Gospels, it did not displace the Bishops’ Version until the revision of the Liturgy in 1661; and for the Psalms, that version has been retained to the present day; for it was found that the people were so accustomed to singing it that any change was inadvisable, if not impossible. Considerable changes were made, from time to time, in the successive editions of the Authorized Version, in the notes and references, and some even in the text. A system of chronology based chiefly on the calculations of Archbishop Ussher was first inserted in 1701; but in many later editions both the dates and many, or even all, of the references or verbal notes have been omitted.

It is generally admitted that the Authorized Version was in almost every respect a great improvement on any of its predecessors. So much was this the case that when Bishop Challoner made his revision of the Douay Bible (1749–52), which is now commonly in use among English-speaking Catholics, he did not scruple to borrow largely from it. Indeed, Cardinal Newman gives it as his opinion (Tracts Theol. and Eccles., 373) that Challoner’s revision was even nearer to the Authorized Version than to the original Douay, “not in grammatical structure, but in phraseology and diction.” Nevertheless, there remained in the Authorized Version here and there traces of controversial prejudice, as for example, in the angel’s salutation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the words “highly favoured” being a very imperfect rendering of the original. In such cases, needless to say, Challoner adhered to the Douay. Moreover, while in the Authorized Versions the names of persons and places were usually given in an anglicized form already in use, derived from the Hebrew spelling, Challoner nearly always kept the Vulgate names, which come originally from the Septuagint. It is partly due to this that the Authorized Version has an unfamiliar sound to Catholic ears. The Authorized Version remained in undisputed possession for the greater part of three centuries, and became part of the life of the people. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, however, it began to be considered that the progress of science called for a new version which should embrace the results of modern research. The work was set on foot by Convocation in 1870, and a Committee was formed, in which the Americans co-operated, resulting in the issue of the Revised Version (1881–84). The Revised Version has never received any definite ecclesiastical sanction, nor has it been officially introduced into church use. It has made its way simply on its merits. But although at the present day it is much used by students, for the general public (non-Catholic) the Authorized Version still holds its ground, and shows no sign of losing its popularity.

BERNARD WARD

Autocephali

(Gr., αὐτοκέφαλοι, independent).

A designation in early Christian times of certain bishops who were subject to no patriarch or metropolitan, but depended directly on the triennial provincial synod or on the Apostolic See. In case of heresy, e.g., or other grave offenses, they could only be judged by these tribunals. Such were the bishops of Cyprus (cf. Council of Ephesus, Act. VII; Trullan Council, can. 39), the Bishops of Iberia and Armenia as late as the time of Photius, those of Britain before the coming of St. Augustine, and for a while those of Ravenna. The extension of the patriarchal authority diminished their number. Quite similar were certain Oriental bishops in the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, who were subject directly to the patriarch of the civil (imperial) diocese to which belonged, and who owed no obedience to their immediate metropolitans; they were not unlike the modern “exempt” bishops immediately subject to the Apostolic See. The most ancient list of them is given in the ninth-century “Notitia” of Leo the Wise, where they are entitled archbishops and metropolitans, though they had no suffragans. Occasionally priests were called “autocephali,” e.g. the clergy of a patriarchal diocese. (See Soz., Hist. Eccl., VI, 21, and Eus., Hist. Eccl., V, 23, with the note of Valesius, also BISHOP, EXEMPTION, RAVENNA.)

NEHER, in Kirchenlex., I, 1733; THOMASSIN, De Vet. et nov. ecc discipl., I, 3, c. 41, n. 17; PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht, VII, 440; LAURENTIUS, Inst. Jur. Eccl. (Freiburg, 1905), # 214.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Autos Sacramentales

(Sp. auto, act or ordinance; sacramental, sacramental, pertaining to a sacrament)

A form of dramatic literature which is peculiar to Spain, though in some respects similar in character to the old Morality plays of England. The auto sacramental may be defined as a dramatic representation of the mystery of the Eucharist. At least this is the definition that would apply to the auto of the time of Calderón. It does not so well fit, however, those of the preceding century, many of which were sacramental in character only because they were presented during the feast of Corpus Christi. They are usually allegorical, the characters representing, for example, Faith, Hope, Air, Sin, Death, etc. There were some indeed, in which not a single human character appeared, but personifications of the Virtues, the Vices, the Elements, etc. As early as the thirteenth century religious exhibitions had been popular with the masses in Spain. These usually took the form of simple dialogue, and were presented during religious festivals, for instance, at Christmas and Easter. But it is not until the beginning of the sixteenth century that we have the first true auto sacramental having for its theme the mystery of the Eucharist. It was “El Auto de San Martin,” by Gil Vicente. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries these Autos continued to appear, being gradually improved and elaborated until brought to their highest state of development by Calderón.

The auto sacramental was always presented in the streets in connexion with the celebration of the feast of Corpus Christi. It was preceded by a solemn procession through the principal streets of the city, the houses along the route being decorated in honour of the occasion. In the procession appeared the priests bearing the Host under a splendid canopy, followed by a devout throng, in which, in Madrid, often appeared the king and his court without distinction of rank, and last of all, in beautiful cars, came the actors from the public theatres who were to take part in the performance. The procession usually halted before the house of some dignitary while the priests performed certain religious ceremonies, the multitude kneeling meanwhile as if in church. At the conclusion of these, the auto was given. These performances, and the procession as well, were given with much splendour and at great expense, being limited only by the resources of the particular town in which they took place.

Of the better known writers of this kind of dramatic literature may be mentioned Juan de la Enzina and Gil Vicente, who wrote in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, while among those who wrote autos when they were at the height of their success was Lope de Vega, who composed no less than four hundred. Very few of these are now extant. Among his best are “The Harvest” and “The Wolf turned Shepherd.” Then came Montalván, whose “Polyphemus” was his best known auto; Valdivielso, who wrote “The Prodigal Son”; and lastly, the most successful of all, Calderón. Although not as prolific as Lope de Vega, Calderón has left about seventy autos, the best known of which are “The Divine Orpheus,” a work of considerable poetic merit, “The Devotion to the Mass,” and “The Captivity of the Ark.” These autos sacramentales produced a great effect on the people. From time immemorial, allegory of every kind had powerfully appealed to them, and these autos took a strong hold on the popular favour, coming as they did during religious festivals, with their music and their splendour, coupled with the fact that they were given at the public expense and with the sanction of the Church. In 1765, their public representation was forbidden by Charles III, but the habits of centuries could not be so easily overcome, and for many years afterward they continued to be presented in some of the smaller towns.

FITZMAURICE-KELLY, Historia de la Literatura Española (Madrid, 1901), passim; TRENCH, Essay on the Life and genius of Calderon (London, 1880); SCHACK, Geschichte der dramatischen Literatur und Kunst in Spanien (Berlin, 1846), III.

VENTURA FUENTES

Ambrose Autpert

An early medieval writer and abbot of the Benedictine Order, born in France, early in the eighth century; died after an abbacy of little more than a year at his monastery of St. Vincent on the Volturno, near Beneventum, in Southern Italy, 778 or 779. Autpert, if forgotten today, was not without a name in his own century. Charlemagne made use of his talents; Pope Stephen IV protected him; and the monastery where he spent many years, and of which he died abbot was famous among the great monasteries of Italy. He has sometimes been confounded with another Autpert who was Abbot of Monte Cassino in the next century, and who left a collection of sermons besides a spiritual treatise. His chief work is Expositio in Apocalypsim (P.L., XXXV, col. 2417–52).

FRANCIS P. HAVEY

Joseph Autran

French poet, born at Marseilles 20 June, 1813; died in the same city, 6 March, 1877. He pursued his classical studies in the Jesuit college of Aix. His father, however, having met with reverses, Autran, obliged to earn his own living, accepted a position as teacher in a religious school. Thus engaged, he published the first work which drew attention to his merits as a poet; this was an ode written on the occasion of Lamartine’s departure for the Holy Land. “Le Départ pour l’Orient” was followed (1835) by a collection of poems entitled “La mer,” remarkable for descriptive power and the charms of its versification. The favour with which it was received led him to publish a second series of the same subject, “Les Poèmes de la mer,” which appeared in 1852. Meantime, he had written another volume of lyrics “Ludibria ventis,” which served to increase his popularity as a singer; also a prose work, “Italie et la Semaine sainte à Rome” (1841), the fruit of a voyage to the Eternal City. the French conquest of Algiers suggested the subject of an epic poem, “Milianah,” published in 1842. In 1848 “La Fille d’Achille,” a tragedy in five acts, shared with Emile Augier’s “Gabrielle” the Prix Monthyon awarded by the French Academy. This was followed by: “Laboureurs et Soldats” (1845), “Vie rurale” (1856), crowned by the French Academy; “Epîtres rustiques”; “Le poème des beaux jours” (1862); “Le Cyclope,” a drama after Euripides (1869); “Les Paroles de Salomon”; “Sonnets Capricieux” (1873); “La Légende des Paladins” (1875). In 1868 Autran was elected a member of the French Academy to succeed Ponsard. In his later days he was stricken with blindness. Autran, though not a poet of the first rank, is a writer whose noble sentiments, chaste imagination, and religious feeling will always endear him to lovers of pure and refreshing poetry. All his works are remarkable for their purity of expression, the music of their rhythm, and a profound feeling for the beauties of nature.

Anthologie des poètes français (Paris, 1892), 302; DE JULLEVILLE, Hist. de la langue et de la littérature françaises (Paris, 1899), VII, 355; DE LAPRADE, Préface des œuvres complètes d’Autran (1874–81).

JEAN LE BARS.

Diocese of Autun

THE DIOCESE OF AUTUN

(Augustodonum).

Comprises the entire Department of Saone et Loire in France. It was suffragan to the Archdiocese of Lyons under the old regime. The sees of Chalons-sur-Saone and Macon were united to Autun after the Revolution, and it then became suffragan to Besancon (1802), afterwards to Lyons (1822). Christian teaching reached Autun at a very early period, as we know from the famous Greek inscription of Pectorius which dates from the third century. It was found in 1839 in the cemetery of St. Peter l’Estrier at Autun and bears testimony to the antiquity and efficacy of baptism and the sacramental words of the Holy Eucharist. Local recensions of the “Passion” of St. Symphorianus of Autun exhibit St. Polycarp on the eve of the persecution of Septimius Severus, assigning to St. Irenaeus two priests and a deacon (Sts. Benignus, Andochius, and Thyrsus), all three of whom depart for Autun. St. Benigus goes on to Langres, while the others remain at Autun. According to this legendary cycle, which dates from about the first half of the sixth century it was not then believed at Autun that the city was an episcopal see in the time of St. Irenaeus (c. 140–211). St. Amator, whom Autun tradition designates as its first bishop, probably occupied the see about 250. The first bishop known to history is St. Reticius, an ecclesiastical writer, and contemporary of the Emperor Constantine (306–337). The Bishop of Autun enjoys the right of wearing the pallium, in virtue of a privilege accorded to the see in 599 by St. Gregory the Great (590–604). In the Merovingian period two Bishops of Autun figured prominently in political affairs; St. Syagrius, bishop during the second half of the sixth century, a contemporary of St. Germanus, Bishop of Paris (a native of Autun), and St. Leodegarius (Léger), bishop from 663 to 680, celebrated on account of his conflict with Ebroin and put to death by order of Thierry III. Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, the future diplomat, was Bishop of Autun from 1788 to 1790, when he resigned. The last bishop of this see appointed in 1882 (d. 1906), was Cardinal Perraud, member of the French Academy. In 670, an important council was held at Autun for the purpose of regulating the discipline of the Benedictine monasteries. The present cathedral of Autun dates from the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and was formerly the chapel of the Dukes of Burgundy; their palace was the actual episcopal residence. In the Diocese of Autun are yet to be seen the ruins of the Benedictine Abbey of Tournus and the great Abbey of Cluny, to which 2,000 monasteries were subject, and which gave to the Church the great pope, Gregory VII (1073–85). Gelasius II (1118–19) died at Cluny, and there also was held the conclave that elected Calixtus II (1119–24). The devotion to the Sacred Heart originated in the Visitation Convent at Paray-le Monial, founded in 1644, and now the object of frequent pilgrimages. At the end of the year 1905 the Diocese of Autun contained 618,227 inhabitants, 65 parishes, 458 succursal, or auxiliary, churches and 68 vicariates.

THE COUNCILS OF AUTUN

The first council, held in 663 (or 670) orders all ecclesiastics to learn by heart the Apostles Creed and the Athanasian Creed, and this seems to be the earliest mention of the latter in France. Cardinal Pitra says in his “Histoire de St. Léger” that this canon may have been directed against Monothelitism, then seeking entrance into the Gallican churches, but condemned beforehand in the latter of these creeds. The Rule of St. Benedict was also prescribed as the normal monastic code. In the Council of 1065, Saint Hugues, Abbot of Cluny, accomplished the reconciliation of Robert, Duke of Burgundy, with the Bishop of Autun. In 1077 Hugues, Bishop of Dié, held a council at Autun, by order of St. Gregory VII; it deposed Manasses, Bishop of Reims, for simony and usurpation of the see, and reproved other bishops for absence from the council. In 1094 Hugues, Archbishop of Lyons, and thirty-three other bishops renewed at Autun the excommunication of Henry IV of Germany, the Antipope Guibert, and their partisans, also that of King Philip of France, guilty of bigamy. Simony, ecclesiastical disorders, and monastic usurpations provoked other decrees, only one of which is extant, forbidding the monks to induce the canons to enter monasteries.

DIOCESE: Gallia Christiana ed nova (1728), IV, 314–437 and Documents, 39–126; DE fontENAY, Autun, ses monuments (Autun, 1889); DUCHESNE, Fastes episcopauz de l’ancienne Gaule, I, 48–56 and II, 174–182 (Paris, 1894 and 1900); CHEVALIER, Tope-bibl. (Paris, 189–99). 269–272.

COUNCILS: MANSI, Coll. Conc. (1748), Supp. I,497,XI,126,XIX,10 sqq.; Supp. II, 25, XX,483; Gallia Christiana, ed. nova (1728), IV, 314–437, 39–126; GAGUARD, Hist. de l’eglise d’Autun (Autun, 1774); CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1804–99, 270.

GEORGES GOYAU

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Auxentius

Auxentius, name of several early Christian personages.—Auxentius of Milan, native of Cappadocia, ordained (343) to the priesthood by Gregory, the intruded Bishop of Alexandria. After the banishment of Dionysius of Milan in 355, Auxentius was made bishop of that see through Arian intrigue, though ignorant of the Latin tongue. Some of the principal Western bishops attempted, but in vain, to bring him to accept the Nicene Creed. He was publicly accused at Milan, in 364, by St. Hilary of Poitiers, and convicted of error in a disputation held in that city by order of the Emperor Valentinian. His submission was only apparent, however, and he remained powerful enough to compel the departure of St. Hilary from Milan. In 359 he forced many bishops of Illyricum to sign the creed of Rimini. Though St. Athanasius procured his condemnation by Pope Damasus at a Roman synod (369), he retained possession of his see until his death in 374, when he was succeeded by St. Ambrose.—Auxentius, Junior, originally Mercurinus, a Scythian, and a disciple of Ulfilas, or Wulfila, of whose life and death he wrote an account that the Arian bishop, Maximinus, included (383) in a work directed against St. Ambrose and the Synod of Aquitesa, 381. This favourite of Justina was the anti-bishop set up in Milan by the Arians on the occasion of the election of Ambrose. He challenged the latter in 386 to a public dispute in which the judges were to be the court favourites of the Arian empress; he also demanded for the Arians the use of the Basilica Portiana. The refusal to surrender this church brought about a siege of the edifice, in which Ambrose and a multitude of his faithful Milanese had shut themselves up. The empress eventually abandoned her favourite and made peace with Ambrose. (Baunard, Saint Ambroise, Paris, 1872, 332–348; Hefele, History of the Councils, I).—Auxentius of Mopsuestia (360). Baronius places this bishop in the Roman martyrology, because of the story told by Philostorgius (in Suidas) that he was at one time an officer in the army of Licinius, and gave up his commission rather than obey the imperial command to lay a bunch of grapes at the feet of a statue of Bacchus. Tillemont (Mémoires, VI, 786–7) is inclined to believe that Auxentius was an Arian; his patronage of the heretic Aetius (Philostorgius, Hist. Eccl., V, 1, 2), points to this conclusion.

Venables in Dict. Christ. Biog., I, 233.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN.

Councils of Auxerre

In 585 (or 578) a Council of Auxerre held under St. Annacharius formulated forty-five canons, closely related in context to canons of the contemporary Councils of Lyons and Mâcon. They are important as illustrating life and manners among the newly-converted Teutonic tribes and the Gallo-Romans of the time. Many of the decrees are directed against remnants of heathen barbarism and superstitious customs; others bear witness to the persistence in the early Middle Ages in France of certain ancient Christian customs. The canons of the council of 695 or 697 are concerned chiefly with the Divine Office and ecclesiastical ceremonies.

MANSI, Coll. Conc., IX, 911; XII, 107; XIV, 786; HEFELE, Conciliengesch., II, 72; ZACCARIA, Dissert. stor. eccles. (1795), XVII, 95–105; Chevalier, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894–99), 275.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN.

Auxiliary Bishop

A bishop deputed to a diocesan who, capable of governing and administering his diocese, is unable to perform the pontifical functions; or whose diocese is so extensive that it requires the labors of more than one; or whose episcopal see has attached to it a royal or imperial office requiring protracted presence at court. According to the present ecclesiastical discipline no bishop can be consecrated without title to a certain and distinct diocese which he governs either actually or potentially. Actual government requires residence, potential does not. Hence, there are two principal classes of bishops, the residential, or diocesan or, local, or ordinary; and the non-residential, or titular. Diocesan bishops have and exercise (de jure) full power of order and jurisdiction, in and over the diocese committed to their exclusive care by the pope. Titulars, as such, have not, and do not exercise, power of order and jurisdiction, in and over their titular sees. All actual jurisdiction in titular sees the pope reserves to himself, and exercises through the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda. The jurisdiction of a diocesan is ordinary. Should a titular perform a jurisdictional function, he uses delegated jurisdiction.

Titular bishops are those who have been appointed by the Holy See to a see or diocese which, in former times, had been canonically established and possessed cathedral church, clergy, and laity, but at present, on account of pagan occupation and government, has neither clergy nor people. It is essential that the titular diocese did once exist, and did cease to exist through death or defection of clergy and faithful, or pagan settlement and government. No vestige of titulars, as defined, appears until the close of the thirteenth century. Evidently the host of wandering bishops without title or see—missionary, regional, or exiled bishops—of whom historians make mention, cannot be classed with our titulars, who did not come into existence until the greater part of the East had passed under pagan rule, and the destruction or defection of the Christian flock and the death of their shepherds ensued. The episcopal succession in those dioceses was maintained as long as a hope remained of their rehabilitation, and their bishops were hospitably received, and frequently used by the diocesans as auxiliaries or vicars, in pontificals in their respective dioceses. Ecclesiastical authority placed some of them in temporary charge of vacant Western dioceses, on condition of their immediate return to their own sees when possible. Others were given the spiritual care of dioceses by civil princes who, avaricious of the episcopal revenues, prevented the appointment of a diocesan bishop. In the fourteenth century, the great number of bishops without occupation, and their invasion of the rights and privileges of the diocesans brought about necessary legislation. Clement V (I, iii de elect. V, Clem.) prohibited the election and consecration of any cleric, without papal license, to any of those vacant sees (sine clero populoque). The first mention of titular bishops occurs in the Lateran decree (sess. 9 de Cardinalibus), wherein Leo X permits the creation of titulars whom the cardinal-bishops may use as suffragans, or auxiliaries, in their respective dioceses. Afterwards, the privilege was extended for various reasons, principal among which were

to preserve from oblivion the memory of those once venerable and important, but now desolate, sees;

that the pope might have at hand efficient and capable assistants (without care of dioceses) in the discharge of the numerous and important ecclesiastical duties of the Apostolic ministry in and outside of the Roman Curia;

that suffragans might be given to bishops impeded by reason of infirmity, partial or entire, or of the great extent of their dioceses, or legitimate and protracted absence from performing their episcopal duties.

Pius V, after the Council of Trent, decreed that suffragans were not to be given unless to cardinals, and to those bishops to whom it was customary to grant them, and who guaranteed a fixed salary to support the dignity of the auxiliary. He also decreed that such auxiliary should not, without papal permission, exercise the pontifical functions in any other diocese, save in that of the diocesan to whom he had been given. Gradually it was extended to other bishops who had solid reasons for assistance. The appointment of all titulars belongs exclusively to the Holy See (Clement, ut supra). Present usage requires an auxiliary, suffragan, and temporary coadjutor (used indiscriminately to mean almost the same office) to be also a titular bishop, yet the former antedate the latter by many centuries. They come down to us from Apostolic times; thus Linus and Cletus were vicars, or auxiliaries, to St. Peter at Rome; Ammianus, to St. Mark of Alexandria; Alexander, to Narcissus (aged 116 years) of Jerusalem; St. Gregory, the theologian, auxiliary in pontificals to St. Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus; St. Augustine, coadjutor of Valerius of Hippo; so likewise those of the rural bishops , who had received episcopal consecration (there were many in the Orient from the third to the seventh, and, in the West, from the eighth to the tenth, centuries), and many exiled bishops, then in the West were auxiliaries to diocesan bishops even up to the Clementine law. Though the terms auxiliary, suffragan, and coadjutor are used indiscriminately, yet there is a difference. Auxiliary bishop is as defined at the beginning of this article. Suffragan bishop is the name given to the auxiliaries of the Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia and Velletri and the Cardinal-Bishop of Sabina. Coadjutors are given to diocesans impeded from performance of their episcopal duties by old age, or bodily infirmity, or sickness, protracted and incurable, such as loss of speech, blindness, paralysis, and insanity. A coadjutor to an insane bishop has full jurisdiction and can exercise all episcopal duties, with the sole exception of disposing of ecclesiastical properties. There are coadjutors in temporals, or in spirituals, or in both temporals and spirituals. The first kind need not be a bishop; a cleric suffices. Coadjutors are also temporary and perpetual; the first has no succession, the latter has, and is called coadjutor with right of succession. Coadjutors with right of succession rarely are granted, and only when urgent necessity and an evident utility are superadded to the above reasons; and then they must be made known to, and approved as such, by the pope. It is not the practice to force a perpetual coadjutor upon an unwilling diocesan, although the pope can do so. Such perpetual coadjutor cannot mix in the ecclesiastical administration, nor do aught but as he is told or permitted by the diocesan. Some of the Fathers of the Vatican Council [I] proposed that, in the future, auxiliary bishops should be appointed instead of perpetual coadjutors. A coadjutor is granted to aid a diocesan in order and jurisdiction as far as is needed; the auxiliary is deputed to aid only in function of order. He may be made vicar-general, and then, by virtue of that office, he has power of jurisdiction. Since auxiliarship, or temporary coadjutorship, is neither a title nor prelature, but an office, it is temporary, and ceases at the death, or suspension, or resignation, of the diocesan. The Holy See, for valid reasons, in the fifteenth century established permanent auxiliarships in Prussia, Poland, Spain, and Portugal. Pius VII (16 July, 1821, Constit. De salute animar.) confirmed such offices in Germany, etc. In these countries the office of auxiliary does not die with the diocesan, but continues under his successors. The auxiliary, sede vacante, however, cannot perform functions strictly episcopal. Successors to such auxiliaries are not given the same, but an entirely different, titular see. Perpetual coadjutorship is irrevocable, and its holder succeeds immediately to the vacant see; no further collation or election is necessary. Office of auxiliary, etc. is revocable at will of pope and diocesan; that of the perpetual coadjutor cannot be taken away unless for canonical causes. Auxiliaries and temporary coadjutors are appointed by the Holy Father at the request of the bishop in need of assistance. The pope (on petition of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, or of Propaganda) as a rule appoints the clergyman named by orator. The election or nomination for perpetual coadjutors is governed by the law for election or nomination (sede vacante) of a new diocesan. The same disposition of mind and body is required for auxiliary, etc. as for diocesan bishops. They must be thirty years complete, and have spent six months in Sacred Orders prior to elevation to the episcopate, yet in the case of the auxiliaries, the most worthy has no rights over the merely worthy. For perpetual coadjutorship most worthy is demanded.

Rights and duties of auxiliaries must be considered from a twofold standpoint: i.e. titulars of a diocese, and auxiliaries of diocesan bishops. By right of consecration a titular auxiliary can validly, but not licitly, without permission of the residential, perform all the functions annexed to the episcopal order by Divine and ecclesiastical law. The Church could, but does not, require the diocesan’s permission, for the validity of the latter functions. Having no actual jurisdiction, he cannot without express consent and permission of the ordinary perform pontifical functions in the city or diocese, nor can he do so, sede vacante, even with the permission of the chapter. Possessing only potential jurisdiction in his titular see, he cannot

hear, or grant faculties to hear, confession of a visiting subject from his titular see;

confirm or ordain him;

send a priest to preach, or to perform any priestly functions, in his titular see;

absolve, or grant faculty to a diocesan priest to absolve, a member of his own household;

assist at the marriage of a titular subject, a visitor where the Tridentine holds;

ordain his familiar of three years’ standing, nor grant indulgences.

Should at any time clergy or Laity sufficiently numerous be found in his titular diocese, and no representative of the Holy See have supervision over it, he can immediately, without any other collation of the benefice, take possession of his titular church. He then ceases to be titular and becomes diocesan. He may, and according to some must, be invited to General Councils, and once there he has decisive vote. A few were present at the Council of Trent and quite a number at the Vatican Council [I]. Although he has not the right to take part in Provincial Councils, he may be invited to do so, but has no decisive vote, unless by unanimous consent and permission of the Provincial Fathers. He can wear everywhere the prelatial dress and ring (the sign of his spiritual union with his titular see), and use the pontifical vestments, ornaments, and insignia, when, by permission of the ordinary, he performs pontifical functions. In general councils and every meeting of bishops where the local prelate is not present, in Rome, and outside of Rome, the titular auxiliary, etc., takes precedence of all bishops (except assistant bishops at pontifical throne) of later consecration. In provincial councils, however, all suffragans outrank all titulars without regard to date of consecration. Titular auxiliaries, as well as diocesans, are obliged to receive episcopal consecration within three months from confirmation, unless this is morally impossible; to make profession of faith and take oath of loyalty and fidelity to the Roman Pontiff, and to go to his titular diocese, if ever it is rehabilitated. By reason of the spiritual union with his see, he cannot be elected, but only postulated, for another diocese. Only the Holy Father can dissolve the spiritual union with the titular see. An auxiliary never has the title of a titular archiepiscopal see: but a perpetual coadjutor often has. The titular archbishop-coadjutor is not bound to petition for the pallium or the use of it. Titular auxiliary is not bound

to make visit ad limina Apostolorum (some say he is);

to residence in his titular see, or in the cathedral city of the diocese in which he holds the office of auxiliary (the place of his residence is regulated by the diocesan);

to say Mass “for the people.”

The criminal and important causes relating to auxiliary bishops are reserved to the Holy See, those of lesser moment to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. By virtue of the office of auxiliary he has a perpetual right to a pension suitable to maintain the episcopal dignity. This is to be paid by the diocesan from the diocesan revenues. The amount of pension and source from which it is to be obtained is generally specified in the Apostolic Letters of appointment. He can hold any benefice he had before and acquire a new one after his consecration, as the office of auxiliary is not a benefice. He enjoys the same honorific privileges (with a few exceptions, viz. throne, cappa magna, mozzetta, and rochet worn without mantelletta, and crosier), pontifical ornaments, and titles, as does the diocesan. He can and must use the prelatial dress, as in the Roman Curia, to wit: rochet over the purple soutane with purple mantelletta, in his attendance in the cathedral, where he has precedence over all other canons and dignitaries, as to choir stall and functions. When he is celebrant in pontifical functions, the canons must assist, but in the usual canonical dress, except ministers in sacred vestments. Not all the canons are bound to meet him at the church door, as he enters to celebrate pontifical Mass. During the ceremony he is assisted by a canon as assistant priest, and deacon. and sub-deacon in sacred vestments. He has no right to the usual two canon-assistant deacons, nor to the seventh candlestick, nor to the usual reverences of the canons at Kyrie, etc., nor the use of the throne or crosier unless by special permission. He uses the faldistorium. He can use the crosier with the special permission of the diocesan, and when he officiates at ordinations, consecrations, and other pontifical functions, during which the rules of the Pontifical demand its use (Caeremon. Epis., I, xvii; Decret. Bracharen. Sept. 1607). It is proper, however, that he impart the episcopal last blessing. He cannot bless publicly the people as he wends his way through the city. It is forbidden him to make visitation of the cloister of nuns without express permission and command of the local prelate. Canons are bound to kiss the auxiliary’s hand when he gives them Holy Communion on Holy Thursday, and assist him in consecrating Holy Oils, conferring Holy Orders, and in all sacred functions strictly episcopal, which he performs for his diocesan. If he be a canon, he is subject, as the other cathedral canons, to diocesan law and the penalties attached to its violation. If the diocesan and the auxiliary assist simultaneously at Mass, the sub-deacon must not give the latter the pax before the canon-assistants at the throne have received it from the bishop ordinary. When the diocesan assists at Mass, or Vespers, the auxiliary must leave his stall and join the other canons in making the prescribed reverences before the Kyrie, Gloria, etc. Should the celebrant be the diocesan, assisted by the chapter in sacred vestments, the auxiliary can wear a cope and a linen mitre (with consent of the local), which latter he must take off and put on by himself. It is expedient that he substitute another in his turn for the Missa Cantata, as he cannot use a faldistorium and pontifical vestments without consent of his diocesan.

ANDREICCI. Hierarachia Ecclesiastica, I, I, De Episcopo titulari; BENEDICT XIV, De Syn. Diaec. II, 7, 1; 13, 6, 5; XIII, 14, 15; XIII, 14, 11; XII, 6, 7; FERRARIS, Bibl. Prompt. Art. VII; WERNZ, Jus Decret. II, 994, no. 807 sqq (de Vicarius in Pontificatibus); BOUIX, De Episcopo (Paris, 1859), IV, 3, I-iii; ZITELLI, I, ii, c, ii; CRAISSON, Manua1e Tot. Jur. Can. (1894) I, 568 sqq.; ICARD, Praelectiones etc. (1893), I, 1, # 5; RIGANTI, Commentaria in Regulas, etc., I, in Reg. I # 5 nn. 79 et seq.; FAGANUS, Commentar. V, De Priv. C. Epicopalia, no. 34 sq.; LEURENIUS, De Vicarius Episcopi. qu. 14, 15, 19; BARBOSA, Jur.Eccls. Univ. (ed. 1677), I, xv, nos. 50, 51, 52 53; VECCHOTTI, Instit. Canon., I, vii, # 72, 73 74, 75, 76; FERRARI, Summa Instit. Canon. (1896) I, xvi; AICHNER, Compendium Jur. Eccles. (1895), 418 sqq.; AGUILAR, Scientiae Jur. Compendium. 227 De Epis. Auxiliaribus; OJETTI, Synop .Rer. Moral, etc. (1904), s.v. Coadjutor; SEBASTIANELLI, Prael. Jur. Canon. De Personis, Appendix de Epis. Titularibus; DE LUCA, Praelec. Jur. Can, I, xviii, art. II, De Epis. Tit.; Analecta Ecclesiastica. III, 400; IV, 217; VI, 476; TAUNTON, Law of the Church (1906) s.v.

P.M.J. ROCK

Auxilius of Naples

The name (probably fictitious, according to Hefele) of an ecclesiastic to whom we owe a series of remarkable writings (P. L., CXXIX, 1054 sqq.) that deal with the controversies concerning the succession and fate of Pope Formosus (891–896), and especially the validity of the orders conferred by him. Auxilius was a Frank, who was ordained a priest, or perhaps only a deacon, in Rome by Formosus, and lived later in lower Italy, apparently at Naples. On the death of Pope Formosus there began for the papacy a time of the deepest humiliation, such as it has never experienced before or since. After the successor of Formosus, Boniface VI, had ruled only fifteen days, Stephen VI (properly VII), one of the adherents of the party of the Duke of Spoleto, was raised to the Papal Chair. In his blind rage, Stephen not only abused the memory of Formosus but also treated his body with indignity. Stephen was strangled in prison in the summer of 897, and the six following popes (to May, 1904) owed their elevation to the struggles of the political parties. Christophorus, the last of them, was overthrown by Sergius III (May, 904-August, 911). Sergius had been a partisan of Stephen VI, and like the latter regarded the elevation of Formosus to the papacy as illegal and the orders conferred by him as null and void. Auxilius was a follower of Formosus, and in several works composed about 908–911, he made a courageous and learned defence, both of Formosus and of the validity of his orders and those of his adherents. Morinus was the first to publish two of these writings in his “De ecclesiasticis ordinationibus” (Paris, 1665). They are entitled, “Libellus de ordinationibus a papâ Formoso factis,” and “Tractatus qui Infensor et Defensor dicitur.”

A third work of Auxilius, of similar import, was found by Mabillon and published by him under the title, “Libellus super causâ et negatio Formosi papæ,” in his “Vetera Analecta” (ed. 1723, IV, 28–32). In his “Auxilius und Vulgarius,” quoted below, Dümmler published from a Bamberg manuscript two further writings of Auxilius, one of which is known as “In defensionem sacræ ordinationis papæ Formosi libellus prior et posterior,” while the other bears in the manuscript itself the title: “Libellus in defensionem Stephani episcopi et præfatæ ordinationis.” (Stephen, Bishop of Naples, had been consecrated by Pope Formosus.) Still another treatise of an unknown author on behalf of Formosus, published by Bianchini in his edition of the “Liber Pontificalis” (1735, IV) is considered by Hergenröther (Photius, II, 370, 373, note 9) to be an extract from the writings of Auxilius, while Dümmler attributes it (op. cit., 42) to Eugenius Vulgarius, an Italian priest and a defender of Formosus. Two other compositions of Eugenius Vulgarius are known: “De causâ Formosianâ,” and “Eugenius Vulgarius Petro Diacono fratri et amico.” All these writings are very important, not only as historical sources but also from a theological point of view, because they take the position that the orders conferred by sinful and excommunicated bishops are not in themselves invalid. In a necrology of the Abbey of Monte Cassino is noted on 25 January the death of an Auxilius, deacon and monk, author of a commentary on Genesis (Mai, Spicilegium Romanum, IX, Appendix; cf. Mabillon, Ann. Ord. S. Benedicti, III, 325). This Auxilius may possibly be identical with the author of the works described above.

Dümmler, Auxilius und Vulgarius; Quellen und Forschungen zur Gesch. des Papsttums in Anfang des 10ten Jahrh. (Leipzig, 1866); Potthast, Bibl. hist. medii ævi, 2d ed. (Berlin, 1896), I, 128; Hurter, Nomenclator, 3d ed. (Innsbruck, 1903), I, 887 sqq.; Hefele, Conciliengesch. 2d ed. (Freiburg, 1879), IV, 562 sqq.; Hergenröther-Kirsch, Kirchengesch., 4th ed. (Freiburg, 1904), II, 196 sqq.; Saltet, Les Réordinations (Paris, 1907), 156 sqq.

J.P. Kirsch

Ava

A German poetess, the first woman known to have written in German and probably identical with a recluse of that name who died in Austria in the vicinity of Melk, A.D. 1127. Almost nothing is known of her life or personality. She herself tells us in a passage in her work that she was the mother of two sons who helped her in procuring the material for her poems. These poems are metrical versions of stories from the New Testament and consist of a “Life of Jesus,” “Antichrist,” “The Gifts of the Holy Ghost,” “The Last Judgment,” and “John the Baptist.” They are preserved in two manuscripts, one at Verona, the other at Gorlitz. The “John the Baptist” is found only in the latter manuscript. Ava’s authorship of this poem, as well as that of the “Life of Jesus” has been questioned, but hardly on sufficient grounds. The poems are naive in tone and display deeply religious sentiments, but, except for occasional passages, they are destitute of poetic merit. Their technique is often crude, assonance taking the place of rhyme and alliteration being not infrequent. The chief source from which Ava drew her material was the New Testament, but she also made use of older German poems and possibly other writings such as the Apocryphal Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour by the Pseudo-Matthew.

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Nicola Avancini

Chiefly known as an ascetical writer, born in the Tyrol, 1612; died 6 December, 1686. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1677, and for some years held the chair of rhetoric and philosophy at Gratz, and subsequently that of theology at Vienna. He was rector of the Colleges of Passau, Vienna, and Gratz, Provincial of the Austrian Province, Visitor of Bohemia, and at his death Assistant for the German Provinces of the Society. In the midst of these onerous duties he found time to publish works on philosophy, theology, and sacred literature, none of which, however, have retained popularity except his “Meditations on the Life and Doctrines of Jesus Christ.” This work, originality in Latin, was translated into the principal European languages and went through many editions. The meditations are considered dry by some, and the English version in use contains much additional matter drawn from the works of other authors. But these meditations, in their simple as well as their extended form, have assisted many most efficaciously in the difficult task of daily meditation. Avancini was also the author of sermons, or orations, and a large number of dramas, suitable for presentation by college students. For a complete list of his works see Sommervogel, I. In English we have the “Meditations on the Life and Doctrines of Jesus Christ. Translated from the German edition of the Rev. John E. Porter, by T.E. Bazalgette, with a preface by the Rev. G. Porter, S.J.” (London, 1875, 2 vols.) Another edition was issued in the Quarterly series by the Rev. H. J. Coleridge, S.J., in 1883.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Avarice

Avarice (from Lat. avarus, “greedy”; “to crave”) is the inordinate love for riches. Its special malice, broadly speaking, lies in that it makes the getting and keeping of money, possessions, and the like, a purpose in itself to live for. It does not see that these things are valuable only as instruments for the conduct of a rational and harmonious life, due regard being paid of course to the special social condition in which one is placed. It is called a capital vice because it has as its object that for the gaining or holding of which many other sins are committed. It is more to be dreaded in that it often cloaks itself as a virtue, or insinuates itself under the pretext of making a decent provision for the future. In so far as avarice is an incentive to injustice in acquiring and retaining of wealth, it is frequently a grievous sin. In itself, however, and in so far as it implies simply an excessive desire of, or pleasure in, riches, it is commonly not a mortal sin.

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Avatār

An Anglicized form of the Sanskrit, avatara, “descent,” from the root tr, “pass” (cf. Latin in-trare), and the preposition ava, “down.”

The word is used, in a technical sense, in the Hindu re!igion to denote the descent upon earth of a portion of the essence of a god, which then assumes some coarser material form, be it animal, monster, or man. Such descents are ascribed in the mythology of Hinduism to various gods, but those ascribed to Vishnu are by far the most important. They are believed to have taken place at different ages of the world, and to have consisted of different proportions of the essence of Vishnu. Their number is variously stated, ranging from ten to twenty-eight, finally becoming indefinitely numerous. Any remarkable man is liable to be regarded as a more or less perfect avatar of Vishnu, and the consequence one of the worst features of Hinduism—has been the offering of divine homage to men, especially the founders of religious sects and their successors.

The ten most famous avatars are:

The Fish, matsya. The basis of this is the story told in the Satapatha Brahmana of how Manu was saved from the Deluge by a great fish, which foretold him of the danger, commanded him to build a boat, and finally towed this boat to a mountain top. The Puranas afterwards declare that this fish was an avatar of Vishnu.

The Tortoise, Kurma. Vishnu in this form offers his back as the pivot on which rests Mt. Mandara, while the gods and demons churn with it various valuable objects from the ocean of milk.

The Boar, Varaha. Like the first, this avatar is concerned with the rescue of the earth from a flood, the boar raising it from the water in which it had been submerged.

The Man-lion, Nara-sinha. Vishu takes this form to deliver the world from a demon, who had obtained from Brahma the boon, that he should be slain neither by a god, a man, nor an animal.

The Dwarf, Vamana. The world having fallen under the possession of another demon, Vishnu, in the form of a dwarf, begged for as much of it as he could cover in three steps. His request was granted, but, from the Rig-Veda on, the most prominent thing in connection vvith Vishnu (originally a sun-god), was that in three strides he traverses the universe. Two strides now sufficing for the redemption of heaven and earth, compassion inspires him to leave the nether regions to the demon he has duped.

Rama with the axe, Parasu-rama. In the form of a hero, Rama, armed with an axe, Vishnu destroys the Ksatriyas, or warrior caste, in the interest of the priestly caste, the Brahmins.

Rama, the great hero of the Hindu Odyssey, the Rama yana, who is made into an avatar of Vishnu.

Krsna, the Indian Hercules, as he is styled by Megasthenes, the most popular hero of India, is the most perfect avatar of Vishnu.

Buddha, a curious result of the triumph of Hinduism over Buddhism. In one version it is explained that Vishnu’s purpose was to destroy the wicked by leading them into a false religion.

Kalki. In this form Vishnu will descend when the world is wholly depraved, destroy utterly the wicked, and restore the happy conditions of the Age of Virtue.

The importance of this theory of avatars to Hinduism is the way in which it has contributed to the wonderful adaptability of that religion. In the Buddha avatar the fact is particularly patent, but, in the Rama and Krsna avatars also, we clearly have the adoption into Hinduism of the cults of these heroes. It is a mere guess that similar compromises with some totemistic forms of religion are to be seen in the Fish, Boar, and Tortoise avatars, and the same might be said of an attempt to see in the Man-lion and Dwarf avatars, traces of the aboriginal religions. The resemblance of these avatars to the doctrine of the Incarnation is most superficial, and as the theory of the avatars has a sufficient basis in Hindu philosophy, several points of contact with the earlier mythology, it is unnecessay to suppose with Weber (Indische Studien, II, 169) that it is the result of an imitation of this dogma.

GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING

Pierre du Bois, Baron d’Avaugour

The Baron d’Avaugour (d. 1664) was sixth Governor General of Canada. Born of an ancient family in Brittany, he served in the French army forty years; travelled in Persia, Russia, Poland, and Sweden, and took part in all the campaigns in Germany. This familiarity with camp life made his naturally eccentric character rough and unsociable as well. In I661 he was chosen to succeed d’Argenson as Governor of New France and arrived in Quebec on 31 August of that year. Utterly averse to pomp and ceremony, he refused the honours which the people of Canada wished to show him, and set out at once for Montreal, in order to familiarize himself with the state of the country. The result was embodied in a report which he sent to Colbert and the great Condé, wherein he advised the fortification of Quebec and the approaches to it by outworks at Ile d’Orléans and at Lévis. He also recommended that the colony should be freed of its useless officials, to be replaced by soldiers who could hold the Iroquois in check, and prevent the Dutch from supplying them with arms. He formed a council, at the head of which he placed the Superior of the Jesuits. The sale of drink to the Indians was forbidden under pain of death, a penalty which the governor indicted on several who had disobeyed his orders. He became embroiled in a quarrel with the bishop and the Jesuits, because they had begged the release of a poor widow whom he had caused to be imprisoned for selling brandy. He dissolved his council, in order to surround himself with more subservient advisers, and removed the prohibition imposed on the sale of liquor. Serious disorders ensued, the priests preached against misuse of authority, and an earthquake which shook the whole valley of the St. Lawrence was looked upon by the people as Divine chastisement. Bishop Laval found it necessary to return to France to ask for the governor’s recall. D’Avaugour was relieved of his command, and a royal cornmissioner was charged to make enquiries as to his conduct. The governor left Quebec, 23 July, 1663. On his arrival in France he sumitted two statements to the king in regard to the measures to be taken for the colonization and defence of Canada; he advised the concentration of the troops at Quebec and the building of a fort at the head of the Richelieu river, also that the Dutch should be driven out of Fort Orange (Albany), and that the French should take possession of the Hudson River, in order to gain exit to the sea. At a later date one of his suggestions was acted on, when veteran soldiers were sent to Canada with permission to settle as colonists. D’Avaugour asked to be allowed to resume active service, and was sent to Austria, where Louis XIV was aiding the rising of the Croats. He died a soldier’s death white bravely defending the fortress of Zrin against the Turks.

J. EDMOND ROY

Ave Maris Stella

(Hail, thou Star of Ocean.)

The first verse of an unrhymed, accentual hymn, of seven stropes of four lines each, assigned in Roman Breviary to Vespers in the Common office, the Office of Saturdays, and the Little Office (as well as for Feasts) of the Blessed Virgin. It has been ascribed wrongly to St. Bernard, but antedates him, being found in a St. Gall manuscript of the ninth century; and also, without sufficient authority, to St. Venantius Fortunatus (d. 609). Its frequent occurence in the Divine Office made it most popular in the Middle Ages, many other hymns being founded upon it.

H.T. HENRY

Ave Regina

An antiphon so called from its first line, Ave regina caelorum (Hail, Queen of Heaven). It is one of the four Antiphons of the Blessed Virgin sung in the Divine Office in turn throughout the year, and is assigned thus from Compline of 2 February (even when the Feast of the Purification is transferred) to Holy Thursday exclusively. It comprises two stanzas of four lines each, followed by its own versicle and response and prayer. Its date of composition is uncertain, but the conjecture of Stella (Inst. Liturg., Rome, 1895) that it antedates the fourth century seems to be without any warrant of external or internal evidence. It is found in the St. Alban’s Book of the twelfth century; in a Munich manuscript thought by Daniel to be of the thirteenth: in a Sarum Breviary of the fourteenth; and in York and Roman Breviaries of the fifteenth. Th. Bernard [Le Breviaire (Paris, 1887), II, 454 sqq.] says it was introduced into the Divine Office by Clement VI in the fourteenth century. He gives a commentary and thinks he can perceive in it elements of the “noble accents . . . aspirations of many Doctors, such as St. Athanasius, St. Ephrem, St. Ildephonsus.” Said during Septuagesima, Lent, Passiontide, the time, namely, of preparation for Easter, it recalls the part Mary had in the drama of the reopening of Heaven to men and shows her as reigning there Queen of Angels. Its opening line was sometimes quoted as the first line of hymns and sequences in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (cf. Dreves and Blume Analecta Hymnica, I, 94; X, 103; XXX, 238; XXXII, 43; XLVI, 136) which, however, had no other relation with the antiphon, being sometimes meditations on the Ave Maria, sometimes distinct poetical compositions, for example:

Ave regina caelorum

Pia virgo tenella,

Maria (virgo), flos florum

Christi (que) clausa cella.

Gratia, quae peccatorum

Dira tulisti bella

and so on, throughout the whole of the Angelical Salutation down to ventris tui, where the poem ends (manuscript of fourteenth century) (loc. cit., XLVI, 136). Or, as a distinct hymn:

Ave. regina caelorum,

Ave. decus angelorum,

Ave. gaudium sanctorum,

Ave. solis regia,

in a manuscript of the fifteenth century (loc. cit., XL, 98). The Ave Regina has been translated by Caswall, “Lyra Catholica” (London, 1849, 1873, 1884; New York, 1851), whose version is used in the “Manual of Prayers” (Baltimore), 77: “Hail, O Queen of Heaven enthroned”; also by Beste, “Church Hymns” (1849): “Hail, thou mighty Queen of Heaven.” The version in the Marquess of Bute’s “Breviary” (Edinburgh, 1879, I, 177) begins: “Hail, O Maris Queen of Heaven.” Schlosser [Die Kirche in lhren Liedern (Freiburg, 1863), I, 251] gives a translation into German in the same rnetre. The plain-song melody in the 6th tone has also a simpler setting [“Manuale Missae et Officiorum” (Rome and Tournai, 1903), 100, 103].

H.T. HENRY

Diocese of Avellino

An Italian diocese in the Province of Naples, suffragan to Benevento. Avellino was founded by St. Sabinus, martyr, in the beginning of the second century. The list of bishops dates from 1124. The Diocese of Frigento, whose list is from 1080 to 1455, was united with that of Avellino from 9 May, 1466, until 27 June, 1818, when it was suppressed. Avellino was vacant from 1782 to 1792. It has 118,649 Catholics; 41 parishes, 243 secular priests, 11 regulars, 80 seminarians, 90 churches and chapels.

Annuario Eccl. (Rome, 1907); Cappelletti, Chiese d’Italia (1884), xix; G. Zigarelli, Storia della cattedra di Avelino e de’ suoi pastori, etc. (Naples, 1856).

E. BUONAIUTI

Avempace

(Ibn Badsha, or Ibn Badja, called by the Scholastics Aven-Pace and Avempace).

Arabian philosopher, physician, astronomer, mathematician, and poet, b. at Saragossa towards the end of the eleventh century; d. at Fez, 1138. In 1118 he was at Seville, where he wrote several treatises on logic. Later, he went to Granada and to Africa. He was, according to Arabian accounts, poisoned by rival physicians. He wrote treatises on mathematics, medicine, and philosophy, and commented on several of Aristotle’s works, notably on the “Physics,” “Meteorologica,” “De Generatione et Corruptione,” portions of “Historiae Animalium” and “De Partibus Animalium.” His works on philosophy included logical treatises, a work “On the Soul,” “The Hermit’s Guide” (Munk translates the title “Regime du Solitaire”), “On the Union of the Intellect with Man,” and a “Valedictory Letter” (Cited in Latin as “Epistola de Discessu” and “Epistola Expeditionis”). Avempace’s logical treatises are said to exist in MSS. In the Escorial Library. His other writings are either lost or still undiscovered. Fortunately, however, a Jewish writer of the fourteenth century, Moses of Narbonne, has left us an account of “The Hermit’s Guide,” which supplements Averroes’ unsatisfactory allusions to that work, and enables us to describe the doctrines it contains. The aim of the treatise is to show how man (the hermit) may, by the development of his own powers of mind, attain a union with the Active Intellect. (See “Arabian School of Philosophy”). Avempace distinguishes two kinds of action: animal action, which is a product of the animal soul, and human action, which is a product of the human soul, that is of free will and reflection. The man who smashes a stone because it has hurt him performs an animal action; but he who smashes the stone so that is will not injure others performs a human action. Now, the first step in the moral education of the hermit is to teach himself to be ruled by will and reason, so that his actions may all be human. That, however, is only the first step. Having attained it, the hermit must strive to higher perfection, so that his actions may become divine. He must strive to come in contact with the spiritual forms, which ascend in increasing degrees of incorporeity from the ideas of the individual soul up to the Actual Intellect itself, above which are only the forms of celestial bodies, that is to say, spiritual substances which, while they have an important cosmic function, have no relation to moral excellence in man. Through ideas, therefore, to the ideas of ideas, through these to abstract ideas of things, and through these last, to the pure form of the Active Intellect—this, according to Avempace, is the way of perfection. The mind which has come into contact with the Active Intellect becomes itself an intellect, the Acquired Intellect (Intellectus Adeptus). It is in reference to this last point that the Schoolmen, notably Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas, mention Avempace and his teaching. Their acquaintance with the author of “The Hermit’s Guide” was made, probably, through his disciple and admirer Averroes, through certain passages in the “Contra Gentiles” would justify the surmise that St. Thomas had perhaps a firsthand acquaintance with the “Epistola Expeditionis.”

Munk, Melanges de philosophie juive et arabe (Paris, 1859), 410–418; Munk, in Dictionnaire des science philosophiques (Paris, 1844–52), s. v. Ibn-Badja; St. Thomas, Contra Gentiles, II, 41; Casiri, Bibliotheca Arabo-hispana (Madrid, 1760), I, 179; Ueberweg-Heinze, Gesch. Der Phil., II, 9th ed. 249 sqq., tr. I, 414; Stockl, Gesch. Der Phil. D.M.A. (Mainz, 1865), II, 58 sqq.

WILLIAM TURNER

Fernando Avendano

Priest born at Lima, Peru, either towards the end of sixteenth or in the beginnig of the seventeenth century; died at Lima, in 1665, shortly after being appointed Bishop of Santiago de Chile. He was one of the most diligent investigators into survivals of the primitive rites and customs of the Peruvian Indians and left valuable notes on the subject, fragments of them being preserved in the work of Arriga. Of great importance to linguistics are his “Sermones de los misterios de nuestra santa Fe católica,” published in 1649 by the order of the Archbishop of Lima, Petro Villagomez. These sermons were delivered in Quichua, and are published with their translation into Spanish.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Averroes

(Abul Walid Mahommed Ibn Achmed, Ibn Mahommed Ibn Roschd).

Arabian philosopher, astronomer, and writer on jurisprudence; born at Cordova, 1126; died at Morocco, 1198. Ibn Roschd, or Averroes, as he was called by the Latins, was educated in his native city, where his father and grandfather had held the office of cadi (judge in civil affairs) and had played an important part in the political history of Andalusia. He devoted himself to jurisprudence, medicine, and mathematics, as well as to philosophy and theology. Under the Califs Abu Jacub Jusuf and his son, Jacub Al Mansur, he enjoyed extraordinary favor at court and was entrusted with several important civil offices at Morocco, Seville, and Cordova. Later he fell into disfavor and was banished with other representatives of learning. Shortly before his death, the edict against philosophers was recalled. Many of his works in logic and metaphysics had, however, been consigned to the flames, so that he left no school, and the end of the dominion of the Moors in Spain, which occurred shortly afterwards, turned the current of Averoism completely into Hebrew and Latin channels, through which it influenced the thought of Christian Europe down to the dawn of the modern era. Averoes’ great medical work, “Culliyyat” (of which the Latin title “Colliget” is a corruption) was published as the tenth volume in the Latin edition of Aristotle’s works, Venice, 1527. His “Commentaries” on Aristotle, his original philosophical works, and his treatises on theology have come down to us either in Latin or Hebrew translations. His “Commentaries,” which earned for him the title of the “Commentator,” were of three kinds: a short paraphrase or analysis, a brief exposition of the text, and a more extended exposition. These are known as the Minor, the Middle, and the Major Commentary, respectively. None of them is of any value for the textual criticisms of Aristotle, since Averroes, being unacquainted with Greek and Syriac, based his exposition on a very imperfect Arabic translation of the Syriac version of the Greek text. They were, however, of great influence in determining the philosophical and scientific interpretation of Aristotle. His original philosophical treatises include: a work entitled “Tehafot al Tchafot,” or “Destructio Destructiones” (a refutation of Algazel’s “Destructio Philosophorum”) published in the Latin edition, Venice 1497 and 1527, two treatises on the union of the Active and Passive intellects, also published in latin in the Venice edition; logical treatises on the different parts of the “Organon,” published in the Venice edition under the title “Quaesita in Libros Logicae Aristotelis”; physical treatises based on Aristotle’s “Physics” (also in the Venice edition); a treatise in refutation of Avicenna, and another on the agreement between philosophy and theology. Of the last two, only Hebrew and Arabic texts exist.

Averroes professed the greatest esteem for Aristotle. The word of the Stagirite was for him the highest expression of truth in matters of science and philosophy. In this exaggerated veneration for the philosopher he went farther than any of the Schoolmen. Indeed, in the later stages of Scholastic philosophy it was the Averroists and not the followers of Aquinas and Scotus who, when accused of subservience to the authority of a master, gloried in the title of “Aristotle’s monkey.” Averroes advocated the principle of twofold truth, maintaining that religion has one sphere and philosophy another. Religion, he said, is for the unlettered multitude; philosophy for the chosen few. Religion teaches by signs and symbols; philosophy presents the truth itself. In the mind, therefore, of the truly enlightened, philosophy supersedes religion. But, though the philosopher sees that what is true in theology is false in philosophy, he should not on that account condemn religious instruction, because he would thereby deprive the multitude of the only means which it has of attaining a (symbolic) knowledge of the truth. Averroe’s philosophy, like that of all other Arabians, is Aristoteleanism tinged with neo-Platonism. In it we find the doctrine of the eternity of matter as a positive principle of being; the concept of a multitude of spirits ranged hierarchically between God and matter and mediating between them; the denial of Providence in the commonly accepted sense; the doctrine that each of the heavenly spheres is animated; the notion of emanation or extraction, as a substitute for creation; and, finally, the glorification of (rational) mystical knowledge as the ultimate aspiration of the human soul—in a word, all the distinctively neo-Platonic elements which Arabians added to pure Aristoteleanism.

What is peculiar in Averroes’ interpretation of Aristotle is the meaning he gives to the Aristotelean doctrine of the Active and Passive Intellect. His predecessor, Avicenna, taught that, while the Active Intellect is universal and separate, the Passive Intellect is individual and inherent in the soul. Averroes holds that both the Active and the Passive Intellect are separate from the individual soul and are universal, that is, one in all men. He thinks that Alexander of Aphrodisias was wrong in reducing the Passive Intellect to a mere disposition, and that the “other Commentators” (perhaps Themistius and Theophrastus) were wrong in describing it as an individual substance endowed with a disposition; he maintains that it is, rather, a disposition in us, but belonging to an intellect outside us. The terms Passive, Possible, Material are successively used by Averroes to designate this species of intellect, which, in ultimate analysis, if we prescind from the dispositions of which he speaks, is the Active Intellect itself. In other words, the same intellect which, when in the act of actually abstracting intelligible species is called active, is called passive, possible or material so far as it is acted upon, is potential, and furnishes that out of which ideas are fabricated. Besides, Averroes speaks of the Acquired Intellect (intellectus acquisitus, adeptus), by which he means the individual mind in communication with the Active Intellect. Thus, while the Active Intellect is numerically one, there are as many acquired intellects as there are individual souls with which the Active Intellect has come in contact. (The Scholastics speak of continuatio of the universal with the individual mind, translating literally the Arabic word which here means contiguity rather than union.) The sun, for instance, while it is and remains one source of light, may be said to be multiplied and to become many sources of light, in so far as it illuminates many bodies from which its light is distributed; so it is with the universal mind and the individual minds which come in contact with it.

The weakness of this doctrine, as a psychological explanation of the origin of knowledge, is its failure to take account of the facts of consciousness, which, as the Scholastics were not slow to point out, indicate that not merely an individual disposition but an active individual principle enters into the action which ones expresses by the words “I think.” Another weakness of the doctrine of monopsychism, or the doctrine that there is but one mind, a weakness at least in the eyes of the Scholastics, is that it leaves unanswered the question of the immortality of the individual soul. . Indeed, Averroes openly admitted his inability to hold on philosophic grounds the doctrine of individual immortality, being content to maintain it as a religious tenet. Averroes’ greatest influence was as a commentator. His doctrines had a varying fortune in Christian schools. At first they secured a certain amount of adherence, then, gradually, their incompatibility with Christian teaching became apparent, and finally, owing to the revolt of the Renaissance from everything Scholastic, they secured once more a temporary hearing. His commentaries, however, had immediate and lasting success. St. Thomas Aquinas used the “Grand Commentary” of Averroes as his model, being, apparently, the first Scholastic to adopt that style of exposition; and though he refuted the errors of Averroes, and devoted special treatises to that purpose, he always spoke of the Arabian commentator as one who had, indeed, perverted the Peripatetic tradition, but whose words, nevertheless, should be treated with respect and consideration. The same may be said of Dante’s references to him. It was after the time of St. Thomas and Dante that Averroes came to be represented as “the arch-enemy of the faith.”

AVERROES’ works in the Venice edition, 1497, 1527, and, in part, in MUNK’S Melanges &c. (Paris, 18569); MUNK, in Dict. des sciences philosophiques (Paris, 1844–52), art. Ibn Roschd; RENAN, Averroes et l’Averroisme (Paris, 9th ed., 1882); MANDONNET, Siger de Brabant et l’Averroisme latin au XIII siecle (Fribourg, 1899); EUBERWEG-HEINZE, Gesch. der Phil., (9th ed., Berlin, 1905), VI 250 sqq. (tr. I); TURNER, Hist. of Phil. (Boston, 1903), 313 sqq.; STOCKL, Gesch. der Phil. des Mittelalters, (Mainz, 1865), II.

WILLIAM TURNER

Diocese of Aversa

Comprising twenty-one towns in the Province of Caserta and twelve in the Province of Naples, it is under the immediate jurisdiction of the Holy See. This city is of relatively recent origin. It arose in the eleventh century on the ruins of Atella, a city of the Oscians, famous for their piquant raillery, which furnished the basis for the licentious interludes called Atellanoe. The ruins of ancient Atella, destroyed during the invasions of the barbarians, are still to be seen in the neighbourhood of Arpino. On these ruins the Norman Duke, Robert Guiscard, built a fortification which in time became a city called Aversa. The same Duke Robert, becoming a vassal of the pope and supporting him in his struggle with the emperor, obtained permission from Leo IX to have the Bishopric of Atella transferred to Aversa. The city has many fine monuments in the Norman style. It contains 54 parishes; 177 churches, chapels, and oratories; 674 secular clergy, and a population of 130,100.

ERNESTO BUONAIUTI

Avesta

The sacred books of Parsees, or Zoroastrians, and the main source of our knowledge concerning the religious and spiritual life the ancient Persians. This collection of writings occupies the same place in the literature of Iran (ancient Persia) that the Vedas do in India. The designation Zend-Avesta, which is often employed to denote the sacred code, is not strictly correct. It owes its origin to a mistaken inversion of the Pahlavi designation Avistak u Zand, a term which probably means “Text and Commentary”; for the word Zand (in the Avesta itself, Zainti) signifies “explanation” and even in the Avesta is applied to the exegetical matter in the text. It is similarly used by the Parsee priests to denote the Pahlavi version and commentary, but not the original scriptures. Whether the term Avistak, which is the Pahlavi form of the word Avesta, has the meaning of “text,” “law,” is not absolutely certain. Some scholars interpret it as “wisdom,” “knowledge.”

Little was known concerning the religion and customs of ancient Persia before the Avesta was brought to Europe in the eighteenth century. From the allusions in Greek and Roman writers, like Herodotus, Plutarch, Pliny, and others, it had long been surmised that such a body of scriptures existed. Scattered allusions in Arabic and Syriac writers strengthened this conviction. But the information to be extracted from these references was vague and meagre. The first scholar to make the language and the contents of the sacred books of the Parsees known to Europe was a young Frenchman, Anquetil du Perron, who in 1754 went to India for this very purpose. His enthusiasm and perseverance overcame the many obstacles he encountered on his journey to Hindustan and the difficuities he met during his stay in Surat. Success at last crowned his efforts, and on his return in 1771 he was able to give to the world the first translation of the Avesta. From the moment of its publication a bitter controversy arose concerning the authenticity of the work. Some scholars, like Sir William Jones, declared that it was a clumsy forgery of modern Parsee priests, and the question was disputed for half a century until the advance made in the study of Sanskrit and comparative philology decided the matter and vindicated the genuineness of the scriptures and the value of Anquetil’s work, although his translation, as a first attempt, was necessarily, imperfect in many respects.

CONTENT AND DIVISIONS

Originally, the sacred scriptures of the Parsees were of far greater extent than would appear from the Avesta in the form in which we now possess it. Only a relatively small portion of the original has in fact been preserved, and that is collected from several manuscripts,since no single codex contains all the texts now known. In its present form, therefore, the Avesta is a compilation from various sources, and its different parts date from different periods and vary widely in character. Tradition tells us that the Zoroastrian scriptures consisted originally of twenty-one nasks (books), but only one of these, the Vendidad, had been completely preserved. The loss of the sacred books is attributed by the followers of Zoroaster to the invasion of Alexander “the accursed Iskandar,” as they call him, who burned the palace library at Persepolis, thus destroying one archetype copy of the text, and threw the other into the river near Samarkand, according to the statement of the Pahlavi records (Dinkard, bk. III, West, “Sacred Books of the East,” XXXVII, pp. xxx, xxxi, and Shatroiha-i Airan, 2–5). For wellnigh five hundred years after the Macedonian invasion the Parsee scriptures remained in a scattered condition, much being preserved only by memory, until the great Zoroastrian under the Sassanian dynasty (A. D. 226–651), when the texts were again collected, codified, translated into Pahlavi, and interpreted. A beginning in this direction had already been made under the last of the Parthian kings, but the great final redaction took place in Sassanian times, under Shahpuhar II (309–379). Our present Avesta is essentially the work of this redaction, although important sections of the text have been lost since then, especially after the Arabs conquered Persia. This conquest ( 637–651) was fatal to the Iranian religion, and caused Zoroastrianism to be supplanted by Mohammedanism and the Avesta by the Koran. As already mentioned, great portions of the scriptures have since disappeared entirely; out of the original twenty-one nasks, the nineteenth alone (the Verdidad) has survived. Portions of other nasks are preserved, interspersed here and there among the Yasna and Vispered, or have come down to us as flattered fragments in Pahlavi works, or have been rendered into Pahlavi, like the Bundahishn (Book of Creation) and the Shayast-la-Shayast (Treatise on the Lawful and Unlawful). In this way we are able to make good some of our losses of the old scriptures enough has been said, however, to explain the lack of coherence noticeable in certain parts of the Avestan code.

The Avesta, as we now have it, is usually divided into five sections, relating to the ritual, hymns of praise, the liturgy, and the law. These sections:

the Yasna, including the Gathas, or hymns;

Vispered;

Yashts;

minor texts, such as the Nyaishes (favourite prayers in daily use among the Parsees), and

Vendidad.

Besides this there are some independent fragments preserved in Pahlavi books (Hadhokt Nask, etc). The main divisions, when taken together, again fall into two groups, the one liturgical comprising Vendidad, Vispered and Yasna, or the Avesta proper, the other general, called Khorda Avesta (Abridged Avesta) and comprising the minor texts and the Yashts. A brief characterization of the five divisions will now be given. (1) The Yasna (Skt. yajna), “sacrifice,” “worship,” the chief liturgical portions of the sacred canon. It consists principally of prayers and hymns used in the ritual, and is divided into seventy-two ha or haiti (chapters), symbolized by the seventy-two strands of the kushti, or sacred girdle with which the young Zoroastrian is invested on his being received into the Church. The middle third of the Yasna (Ys., 28–53), however, is not directly connected with the ritual, but contains the Gathas, the holy psalms, songs which preserved the metrical sayings of Zoroaster himself as used in his sermons. This is the oldest portion of the Avesta and descends directly from the prophet and his disciples. These canticles are metrical in their structure and are composed in the so-called Gatha-dialect, a more archaic form of language than is used in the rest of the Avesta. There are seventeen of the hymns, grouped in five divisions, each group taking its name from the opening words; thus Ahunavaiti, Ushtavaiti, etc. Inserted in the midst of the Gathas is the Yasna Haptanghaiti (the Seven-chapter Yasna) consisting of prayers and hymns in honour of the Supreme Deity, Ahura Mazda, the Angels, Fire, Water, and Earth. This selection also shows a more archaic type of language, and stands next to the Gathas in point of antiquity. Its structure though handed down in prose, may once have been metrical.

(2) The Vispered (vispe ratavo, “all the lords”) is really a short liturgy, very similar in style and form to the Yasna, which it supplements in a briefer form. It owes its name to the fact that it contains invocations to “all the lords.”

(3) The Yashts (yeshti, “worship by praise”), of which there are twenty-one, are hymns in honour of various divinities. These hymns are for the most part metrical in structure, and they show considerable poetic merit in certain instances, which is not common in Avesta. They are of especial interest historically on account of the glimpses they afford us of the great mythological and legendary material in the folklore of ancient Iran used so effectively by Firdausi in his great epic of the Persian kings, the “Shah Namah.” Among the divinities to whom special yashts are devoted we find Ardvi Sura the goddess of waters; Tishtrya, the star Sirius; Mithra, the divinity of light and truth; the Fravashis, or departed souls of the righteous, Verethragna, the genius of Victory and the Kavaya Hvarenah, “kingly glory,” the divine light illuminating the ancient kings of Iran.

(4) The fourth division (minor texts) comprises brief prayers, like the five Nyaishes (to the Sun, Moon, Mithra, Water, and Fire), the Gahs, Siruzas and Afringans (blessings). These selections form a manual of daily devotion.

(5) The fifth division, Vendidad (from vi daeva data, “law against the demons”), is the religious law code of Zoroastrianism and comprises twenty-two fargards (chapters). It begins with an account of Creation in which Ormuzd, the god, is thwarted by Ahriman, the devil; then it describes the occurrence of a destructive winter, a sort of Iranian deluge. The remainder of the book is largely devoted to elaborate prescriptions with regard to ceremonial purification, especially the cleansing from defilement incurred by contact with the dead, and to a list of special penances imposed as a means of atoning for impurity. The Vendidad is an ecclesiastical code, not a liturgical manual. Its different parts vary widely in character and in age. Some parts may be comparatively recent in origins although the greater part is very old.

The Avesta does not represent the whole of the sacred scriptures of the Parsees. It is supplemented by an extensive Pahlavi literature, consisting in part of translations from the sacred canon and in part of original matter. The most notable Pahlavi works belonging here are the Dinkard (Acts of Religion), dating from the ninth century of the Christian Era; Bundahishn, “Original Creation,” finished in the eleventh or twelfth century of the Christian Era, but containing material as old as the Avesta itself, being in part a version of one of the original nasks; the Mainog-i-Khirad (Spirit of Wisdom), a religious conference on questions of faith, and the Arda Viraf Namak, a sort of Zoroastrian “Divina Commedia,” which is especially important because of its account of the Persian ideas concerning the future life. There is also some later Zoroastrian literature in modern Persian, comprising works like the Zartushtnamah (Book of Zoroaster), the Sad-dar (Hundred Doors, or Chapters), the Rivayats (traditional treatises).

LANGUAGE

The language of the Avesta is best designated simply as Avestan, not as Zend, for the reasons given in the beginning of this article. Nor is Old Bactrian a desirable term, since it is by no means proved that the language of the Avesta was spoken in ancient Bactria. The Avestan language is an Indo-Germanic tongue and belongs more specifically to the Iranian group, the other members being the Old Persian of the cuneiform inscriptions, the Pahlavi, and Pazend (or Middle Iranian), and the later dialects, New Persian, Kurdish, Afghan, etc. The Avestan speech is very closely related to Sanskrit; in fact, we are able to transpose any word from one language into the other by the application of special phonetic laws. The script employed in the Avestan texts, as five have them, is not so old as the language itself, but dates from the Sassanian period. It is read from right to left and can be traced ultimately to a Semitic sources. It is not known in what script the original Avesta was recorded.

ZOROASTER

It can no longer be doubted that Zoroaster was a real historical personage. The attempts of some scholars to represent him as a mythical being have failed, even though much that is related about his life is legendary, as in the case of Buddha. The man Zoroaster in the original texts appears as Zarathushtra, from which Zoroaster, our present form of the prophet’s name, is derived through the Greek and Latin. The Avesta always writes Zarathushtra; the Pahlavi has Zartusht; the modern Persian, Zardusht. What the meaning of the name is, cannot be stated positively. All that we know is that the name is a compound, and that the second element, ushtra, means “camel,” the first part has been variously rendered as “old,” “lively,” “golden,” “ploughing,” etc. There has been much discussion as to the date when the prophet lived. The traditional date in the Pahlavi books places his era between the earlier half of the seventh and the sixth century B. C., or, more specially, 660–583 B. C.; but many scholars assign him to a century, or even several centuries, earlier. There is much uncertainty regarding his birthplace and the details of his life. He was undoubtly born in Western Iran. From Western Iran, more specifically Azerbaijan (the ancient Atropatene) he seems to have gone Ragha (Rai) in Media, and even his mission did not meet with success in that region he turned to the East, to Bactria. There a certain king named named Vishtaspa became converted to his creed, the generous patronage of this powerful defender of the faith the new religion soon gained a firm footing. Presumably the faith was carried from Bactria to Media, whence it spread into Persia and was accepted in all probability by the great Achaemenian kings. In the case of Cyrus there is some doubt whether he was adherent of Zoroastrian law, but Darius was a pronounced Mazda-worshipper and presumably, therefore, a true Zoroastrian, as we know that the last kings of the Achaemenian dynasty were genuine followers of the religion. If tradition can be believed, Zoroaster began his ministry at the age of thirty, made a convert, when he was forty-two, of King Vishtaspa, and was slain at the age of seventy-seven, when the Turanians stormed Balkh. This account of the prophet’s death is given, at least, by Firdausi.

Under the kings of the Achaemenian line the religion founded by Zoroaster became one of the great religions of the ancient East. But it shared the fate of the Persian monarchy, it was shattered, though not overthrown, by the conquest of Alexander and fell consequently into neglect under the Seleucid and Parthian dynasties. With the accession of the Sassanian dynasty it met with a great revival. The kings ot the house of Sassan were zealous believers and did everything in their power to spread the faith as a national creed, so that its prosperity rose again to the zenith. Sectarian movements, to be sure, were not lacking. The heresy of Mazdak for a moment imperilled the union of the Zoroastrian Church and State, and Manichaeism, that menace of early Christian orthodoxy, also threatened the ascendancy of the Iranian national faith, which was really its parent. These dangers, however, were only temporary and of minor importance as compared with the Arab conquest, which followed in the seventh century (651) and dealt the fatal blow from which Zoroastrianism never recovered. The victorious followers of Mohammed carried on their proselytizing campaign with relentless vigour. The few Zoroastrians who stood firmly by their faith were oppressed and persecuted. Some remained, and were scattered throughout their native land; but the majority took refuge in India, where their descendants, the Parsees, are found even at the present day. About 10,000 are here and there throughout Persia, chiefly at Yazd and Kirman, but the bulk of the Zoroastrians, upwards of 90,000 souls, constitute a prosperous community in India, chiefly at Bombay.

A.F.J. REMY

Theological Aspects of Avesta

I. GOD

The name of the Supreme God of the Avestic system is Ahura Mazda (in the Achaemenid royal inscriptions, Auramazda), which probably signifies the All-Wise Lord. This divine name was later modified into the Pahlavi form Auharmazd, the modern Persian Ormuzd (Greek Oromazes). Hence the name of Mazdeism commonly applied to Avestic religion.

Ahura Mazda is a pure spirit; His chief attributes are eternity, wisdom, truth, goodness, majesty, power. He is the Creator (datar) of the all good creatures—not, however, of Evil, or evil beings. He is the supreme Lawgiver, the Rewarder of moral good, and the Punisher of moral evil. He dwells in Eternal Light; in the later literature light is spoken of as the clothing of Ahura Mazda or even His “body,” i.e. a kind of manifestation of His presence, like the Old Testament Shekinah. In this same patristic (Pahlavi) literature we find frequent enumerations of the attributes of Ahura Mazda; thus these are said to be “omniscience, omnipotence, all-sovereignty, all-goodness.” Again He is styled “Supreme Sovereign, Wise Creator, Supporter, Protector, Giver of good things, Virtuous in act, Merciful, Pure Lawgiver, Lord of the good Creations.”

II. DUALISM

It has been remarked above that Ahura Mazda is the Creator of all good creatures. This at once indicates the specific and characteristic feature of the Avestic theology generally known as “dualism.” The great problem of the origin of evil which has ever been the main stumbling-block of religious systems, was solved in the Zoroastrian Reform by the trenchant, if illogical, device of two separate creators and creations: one good, the other evil. Opposed to Ahura Mazda, or Ormuzd, is His rival, Anro Mainyus (later, Aharman, Ahriman), the Evil Spirit. He is conceived as existing quite independently of Ahura Mazda, apparently from eternity, but destined to destruction at the end of time. Evil by nature and in every detail the exact opposite of Ahura Mazda, he is the creator of all evil, both moral and physical. Zoroaster in the Gathas says (Ys., xlv, 2, Jackon’s translation):

Now shall I preach of the World’s two primal Spirits,

The Holier one of which did thus address the Evil:

Neither do our minds, our teachings, nor our concepts,

Nor our beliefs, nor words, nor do our deeds in sooth,

Nor yet our consciences, nor souls agree in aught.

It is here to be remarked that the specific name of Ahura Mazda in opposition to the Evil Spirit is Spento Mainyus, the Holy Spirit, and Ahura Mazda and Spento Mainyus are used as synonyms throughout the Avesta. The obviously illogical doctrine of two separate and supreme creators eventually led to certain philosophical attempts to reduce the double system to uniformity. One of these consisted in throwing back the Divine unity to an anterior stage in which Zrvana Akarana, “illimitable time,” becomes the single, indifferent, primordial source from which both spirits proceed. Another solution was sought in attributing two spirits (faculties or functions) to Ahura Mazda himself, his Spento Mainyus and his Anro Mainyus, or his creative and destructive spirit—an idea probably borrowed from lndian philosophy. This seems the favourite doctrine of the modern Parsees of Bombay, as may be seen in Mr. Navroji Maneckji Kanga’s article in the “Babylonian and Oriental Record” for May, 1900 (VIII, 224–28), and it is claimed to be strictly founded on teaching of the Gathas; but although such a development of thought a real monotheism with the Zoroastrian dualism, these theories cannot really be called Avestic at all, except in so far as Zrvana Akarana is an Avestic term. They are “patristic” or “scholastic.”

The result of the dualistic conception of the universe is that of a continuous warfare that has been going on even from the beginning between two hostile worlds or camps. All creatures belong to one or another of the camps, not only sentient and intelligent beings, like the spirit and man, but also the animal and the vegetable worlds. All dangerous, noxious, poisonous animals and plants are evil by their very creation and nature. [We see here the primal germ of Manichæism. Mani was a heretic of the Mazdean faith (A.D. 258). This “heresy” is often reprobated in the Pahlavi religious books, together with Judaism and Christianity.] Hence—in sharp contrast to the Hindi ahimsa, a characteristic tenet of Buddhism, which prohibits the killing of any creature, even the smallest and the most noxious insect—to kill as many as possible of the Khrafstras, or noxious creatures of the Evil Spirit (such as wolves, serpents, snakes, locusts, intestinal worms, ants), is one of the most meritorious of religious actions. This great warfare, both spiritual and material, will go on to the end of time. It is to end in a final triumph of the Good and the annihilation (apparently) of Evil, including Anro Mainyus himself. Such at least is the teaching in the later “patristic” literature.

III. ANGELOLOGY

Dualism in its widest sense seems to be an inherent and ineradicable tendency of the Iranian mind. Almost everything is conceived in pairs or doubles. Hence the constant reference to the “Two Worlds,” the spiritual and the material. The doctrine of the Spirit World, whether belonging to the good or the evil creation, is highly developed in the Avesta and subsequent literature. Around Ahura Mazda is a whole hierarchy of spirits, corresponding very closely with our “angels.” There is, however, this to be noted, that in the Zoroastrian system many of these creature-spirits are demonstrably old Aryan nature deities who have been skilfully transformed into angels, and so fitted into a monotheistic framework, frequently enough, in hymns and other passages, by the simple interpolation of the epithet Mazdadata (created by Mazda), before their names. Of the good spirits who surround Ahura, the most important are the Amesha Spentas (“Holy Immortals” or “Immortal Saints”) generally reckoned as six (though Ahura Mazda himself is frequently included among them, and they are then called seven). These are the characteristic genii of the Gathas and their very names show that they are merely personified attributes of the Creator Himself. They are: Vohu Manah (Good Mind), Asha Vahishta (Best Holiness), Khshathra Vairya (Desirable Sovereignty), Spenta Armaiti (Holy Piety, a female spirit), Haurvatat (Health), and Ameretat (Immortality). In the Younger Avesta and later traditional literature these evident personifications, whose very names are but abstract nouns, become more and more concrete personages or genii, with varying functions, most of all Vohu Manah (Vohuman) rises to a position of unique importance. Dr. L.H. Gray, however, argues, in a very striking article, that even these are evolutions of original naturalistic deities [Archiv für religions wissenschaft (Leipzig, 1904), VII, 345–372]. In later patristic literature Vohu Manah is conceived as the “Son of the Creator” and identified with the Alexandrine Logos. (See Casartelli, Philosophy of the Mazdayasnian Religion, 42–90.) Asha, also (the equivalent of the Sanskrit Rta=Dharma), is the Divine Law, Right, Sanctity (cf. Ps. cxviii), and occupies a most conspicuous position throughout the Avesta.

But besides the Amesha Spentas, there are a few other archangels whose rank is scarcely less, if it does not sometimes exceed theirs. Such is Sraosha (“Obedience”—i.e. to the divine Law). With him are associated, in a trio, Rashnu (Right, Justice) and Mithra. This last is perhaps the most characteristic, as he is the most enigmatical, figure of the Iranian angelology. Undoubtedly in origin (like the Vedic Mitra) a Sun-deity of the primitive Aryan nature-worship, he has been taken over into the Avesta system as the Spirit of Light and Truth—the favourite and typical virtue of the Iranian race, as testified even by the Greek historians. So important is his position that he is constantly linked with Ahura Mazda himself, apparently almost as an equal, in a manner recalling some of the divine couples of the Vedas. It is well known how in later times the Mithra cult became a regular religion and spread from Persia all over the Roman Empire, even into Britain. [See, especially, Cumont’s great work, Monuments relatifs au culte de Mithra” (Paris, 1893).] Nor must mention be omitted of Atars, the Genius of Fire, on account of the particular importance and sanctity attached to fire as a symbol of the divinity and its conspicuous use in the cult (which has given rise to the entirely erroneous conception of Zoroastrianism as “Fire-worship,” and of the Parsees as “Fire-worshippers”). Water, Sun, Moon, Stars, the sacred Haoma plant (Skt. Soma), and other natural elements all have their special spirits. But particular mention must be made of the enigmatical Farvashis, the origin and nature of whom is still uncertain. Some writers [especially Soderblom, “Les Fravashis” (Paris, 1899); “La vie future” (Paris, 1901)] have seen in them the spirits of the departed, like the dii manes, or the Hindu pitris. But, as a matter of fact, their primal conception seems to approach nearest to the pre-existent Ideai of Plato. Every living creature has its own Fravashi, existing before its creation; nay in some places inanimate beings, and, stranger still, Ahura Mazda Himself, have their Fravashis. They play an important role in both the psychology and the ritual cult of Mazdeism.

Face to face with the hierarchy of celestial spirits is a diabolical one, that of the daevas (demons, Pahlavi and Mod. Persian div or dev) and druj’s of the Evil Spirit. They fill exactly the places of the devils in Christian and Jewish theology. Chief of them is Aka Manah (Pahlavi Akoman, “Evil Mind”), the direct opponent of Vohu Manah. Perhaps the most frequently mentioned of all is Aeshma, the Demon of Wrath or Violence, whose name has come down to us in the Asmodeus (Aeshmo daeva) of the Book of Tobias (iii, 8). The Pairikas are female spirits of seductive but malignant nature, who are familiar to us finder the form of the Peris of later Persian poetry and Iegend.

IV. MAN

In the midst of the secular warfare that has gone on from the beginning between the two hosts of Good and Evil stands Man. Man is the creature of the Good Spirit, but endowed with a free will and power of choice, able to place himself on the side of Ahura Mazda or on that of Anro Mainyus. The former has given him, through His prophet Zarathushtra (Zoroaster) His Divine revelation and law is (daena). According as man obeys or disobeys this Divine law his future lot will be decided; by it he will be judged at his death. The whole ethical system is built upon this great principle, as in the Christian theology. Moral good, righteousness, sanctity (asha) is according to the Divine will and decrees; Man by his free will conforms to, or transgresses, these. The Evil Spirit and his innumerable hosts tempt Man to deny or transgress the Divine law, as he tempted Zoroaster himself, promising him as reward the sovereignty of the whole world.—“No!” replied the Prophet, “I will not renounce it, even if body and soul and life should be severed!” (Vendidad, xix, 25, 26). It is well to emphasize this basis of Avestic moral theology, because it at once marks off the Avesta system from the fatalistic systems of India with their karma and innate pessimism. [See Casartelli, “Idée du péché chez les Indo-Eraniens” (Fribourg, 1898.)]. A characteristic note of Iranian religious philosophy is its essential optimism; if there is human sin, there is also repentance and expiation. In the later Pahlavi religious literature there is a proper confession of sin (patet) and a developed casuistry. Asceticism, however, finds no place therein.

Divine worship, with elaborate ritual, is an essential duty of man towards his Creator. There is indeed no animal sacrifice; the leading rites are the offering of the quasi-divine haoma (the fermented juice of the a sacred plant, a species of Asclepias), the exact counterpart of the Vedic soma-sacrifice; the care of the Sacred Fire, the chanting of the ritual hymns and prayers, and passages of the Sacred Books (Avesta).

The moral teaching is closely akin to our own. Stress is constantly laid on the necessity of goodness in thought, word, and deed (humata, hakhta, hvarshta) as opposed to evil thought, word, and deed (dushmata, duzhukhta, duzhvarshta). Note the emphatic recognition of sin in thought. Virtues and vices are enumerated and estimated much as in Christian ethics. Special value is attributed to the virtues of religion, truthfulness, purity and generosity to the poor. Heresy, untruthfulness, perjury, sexual sins, violence, tyranny are specially reprobated. Zoroaster’s reform being social as well as religious agriculture and farming are raised to the rank of religious duties and regarded as spiritually meritorious. The same will account for the exaggerated importance, almost sanctity, attached to the dog. On the other hand, the one repulsive feature of Avestic morality is the glorification, as a religious meritorious act, of the Khvaetva-datha, which is nothing else than intermarriage between the nearest of kin, even brothers and sisters. In later times this practice was entirely repudiated by the modern Parsees.

V. ESCHATOLOGY

After death the disembodied soul hovers around the corpse for three days. Then it sets off across the Cinvat bridge to meet its judgment and final doom in the world beyond the grave. The three judges of souls are Mithra, Sraosha, and Rashnu. The soul of the just passes safely over the bridge into a happy eternity, into heaven (Auhu vahishta, Garo nmana), the abode of Ahura and His blessed angels. The wicked soul falls from the fatal bridge and is precipitated into hell (Duzh auhu). Of this abode of misery a lively description occurs in the later Pahlavi “Vision of Arda Viraf,” whose visit to the Inferno, with the realistic description of its torments, vividly recalls that of Dante. The state called Hamestakan, or Middle State, does not appear in Avesta itself, but is a development of the later patristic theology. It is not, however, conceived, exactly as our Purgatory, but rather as an indifferent state for those whose good and evil deeds are found at death to be in perfect equilibrium. They are therfore neither in suffering nor in happiness. At the end of time, the approach of which is described in the Pahlavi literature in terms strikingly like those of our Apocalypse, will come to the last Prophet, Saosyant (Saviour) under whom all occur the Ressurection of the Dead (Frashokereti), the General Judgment the apokatastasis or renewal of the whole world by the great conflagration of the earth and consequent flood of burning matter. According to the Pahlavi sources, this terrible flood will purify all creatures; even the wicked will be cleansed and added to the “new heavens and the new earth.” Meanwhile a mighty combat takes place between Saoshyant and his followers and the demon hosts of the Evil Spirit, who are utterly routed and destroyed forever. (See Yasht, xix and xiii)

VI. MAZDEISM AND THE PERSIAN KINGS

It is frequently asserted or assumed that the Avesta religion as above sketched was the religion of Darius and the other Achaemenid Kings of Persia (549–336 B.C.) From the cuneiform inscriptions of these sovereigns (in the Old Persian language, a sister dialect of the Avestic Zend) we know pretty well what their religion was. They proclaim themselves Mazdeans (Auramazdiya, Darius, Behistun Column, IV, 56); their Supreme God is Auramazda, greatest of gods (Mathishta baganam). He is Creator of all things—heaven, earth, and man—all things happen by His will (vashna); He sees and knows all things, man must obey His precepts (framana), and follow the “good way” (pathim rastam); man must invoke and praise Him; He hates sin, especially falsehood which is denounced as the chief ot sins, also insubordination and despotism. Inferior spirits are associated with Him, “clan gods” and particularly Mithra and Anahita. Yet, with all these close similarities, we must hesitate to consider the two religious systems are identical. For in this Achaemenid inscriptions there is absolutely no trace of the dualism which is the characteristic and all-prevailing feature of the Avesta, and no allusion whatever to the great prophet Zoroaster, or the revelation of which he was the mouthpiece. The exact relation between the two systems remains enigmatical.

SUMMARY

“The highest religious result to which human reason unaided by revelation, can attain” is the deliberate verdict of a learned Jesuit theologian (Father Ernest Hull, S.J., in “Bombay Examiner” 28 March, 1903). This estimate does not appear exaggerated. The Avesta system may be best defined as monotheism modified by a physical and moral dualism, with an ethical system based on a Divinely revealed moral code and human free will. As it is now followed by the living descendents of its first votaries, the Parsees of India, it is virtually the same as it appears in the Avesta itself, except that its monotheism is more rigid and determined, and that it has shed such objectionable practices as Khvetuk-das (Khvaetva-datha) and seeks to explain them away. A great revival in the knowledge of the old sacred languages (Zend and Pahlavi) which had become almost forgotten, has taken place during the past half-century under the stimulus of European scholarship, whose results have been widely adopted and assimilated. The religious cult is scrupulously maintained as of old. The ancient traditional and characteristically national virtues of truth and open-handed generosity flourish exceedingly in the small, but highly intelligent, community.

L.C. CASARTELLI

Avicebron

Avicebron, Salomo be Jehuda ben Gebirol (or Gabirol), whom the Scholastics, taking him for an Arabian, called Avicebrol (this form occurs in the oldest MSS.; the later MSS. have Avencebron, Avicembron, Avicebron, etc.); a Jewish religious poet, moralist, and philosopher, b. at Malaga in 1020 or 1021; d. at Saragossa, 1070. He was educated at Saragossa, where he spent the remainder of his life, devoting himself to moral and intellectual philosophy, and writing religious poetry. His principal philosophical work, written in Arabic, was translated into Hebrew in the thirteenth century by Falaquera, and entitled “Mekor Chaim” [this was discovered and edited with French translation by Munk, “Melanges” etc., (Paris, 1857)], and into Latin in the twelfth century by Johannes Hispanus and Dominicus Gundissalinus (edited by Baumker, Munster, 1895) under the title “Fons Vit.” His poems were published by Munk (“Melanges,” etc., Paris, 1857), and a Hebrew translation of his ethical writings (Riva, 1562, and Luneville, 1840). Avicebron’s philosophy united the traditional neo-Platonic doctrines with the religious teaching of the Old Testament. From the neo-Platonists, whom he knew chiefly through such apocryphal writings as the “Theologia Aristotelis” and the “Liber de Causis” (see Arabian School of Philosophy), he derived the doctrine of emanation, namely: that there emanated from God, in the first place, the Universal Intelligence, that from the Universal Intelligence there emanated the World-Soul, and that from the World-Soul there emanated Nature, which is the immediate principle of productivity of material things. From the same neo-Platonic sources he derived the doctrine that matter is of itself wholly inert and merely the occasion which is made use of by the Infinite Agent to produce natural effects (Occasionalism). On the other hand, he drew from Biblical sources the doctrine that the Supreme Principle in the production of the Universe was not the Thought of God, but the Divine Will, which, in Scriptural phrase, he calls the Word of God. In thus attempting to combine Jewish religious doctrine with neo-Platonism, the doctrine of creation with the notion of emanation, he introduced into his philosophy elements which are logically incompatible.

His most celebrated doctrine, however, the one by which he was best known to the Christian philosophers of the Middle Ages, was that of the universality of matter. All created things, he taught, are composed of matter and form. God alone is pure actuality. Everything else, even the highest among the angels, is made up of matter (not merely potency, but matter like that of terrestrial bodies) and form, just as man is composed of body and soul. The matter, however, of angelic bodies, while it is like terrestrial matter, is of a purer kind and is called spiritual matter. In other words, there are no created “separate substances,” as the Schoolmen called them. Between the pure spirituality of God and the crude materiality of terrestrial bodies there mediate substances composed of matter and form, which range in ascending scale of spiritual-materiality from the soul of man to the highest angelic nature. This doctrine is mentioned by almost all the great scholastics, and referred by them to the “Fons Vitae” for instance, by Albert the Great (Summa Totius Theol., I, q. xlii, art. 22), by St. Thomas (Qust. Disp., De Anima, art. 6; Opusculum De Subst. Separatis, passim), and Duns Scotus (De Her. Princip. VIII, 4). But, while the first two, in common with the other Dominican teachers, refuted the author of “Fons Vit” on this point, the last mentioned, together with Alexander of Hales and others of the Franciscan School, adopted his doctrine as part of their theory of the angelic nature.

WILLIAM TURNER

Avicenna

(ABN ALI AL HOSAIN IBN ABDALLAH IBN SINA, called by the Latins AVICENNA).

Arabian physician and philosopher, born at Kharmaithen, in the province of Bokhara, 980; died at Hamadan, in Northern Persia, 1037. [Note: Avicenna was actually Persian, not Arabian.]

From the autobiographical sketch which has come down to us we learn that he was a very precocious youth; at the age of ten he knew the Koran by heart; before he was sixteen he had mastered what was to be learned of physics, mathematics, logic, and metaphysics; at the age of sixteen he began the study and practice of medicine; and before he had completed his twenty-first year he wrote his famous “Canon” of medical science, which for several centuries, after his time, remained the principal authority in medical schools both in Europe and in Asia. He served successively several Persian potentates as physician and adviser, travelling with them from place to place, and despite the habits of conviviality for which he was well known, devoted much time to literary labours, as is testified by the hundred volumes which he wrote. Our authority for the foregoing facts is the “Life of Avicenna,,” based on his autobiography, written by his disciple Jorjani (Sorsanus), and published in the early Latin editions of his works.

Besides the medical “Canon,” he wrote voluminous commentaries on Arisotle’s works and two great encyclopedias entitled “Al Schefa,” or “Al Chifa” (i.e. healing) and “Al Nadja” (i.e. deliverance). The “Canon” and portions of the encyclopedias were translated into Latin as early as the twelfth century, by Gerard of Cremona, Dominicus Gundissalinus, and John Avendeath; they were published at Venice, 1493–95. The complete Arabic texts are said to be are said to be in the manuscript in the Bodleian Library. An Arabic text of the “Canon” and the “Nadja” was published in Rome, 1593.

Avicenna’s philosophy, like that of his predecessors among the Arabians, is Aristoteleanism mingled with neo-Platonism, an exposition of Aristotle’s teaching in the light of the Commentaries of Thomistius, Simplicius, and other neo-Platonists.

His Logic is divided into nine parts, of which the first is an introduction after the manner of Porphyry’s “Isagoge”; then follow the six parts corresponding to the six treatises composing the “Organon”; the eighth and ninth parts consists respectively of treatises on rhetoric and poetry. Avicenna devoted special attention to definition, the logic of representation, as he styles it, and also to the classification of sciences. Philosophy, he says, which is the general name for scientific knowledge, includes speculative and practical philosophy. Speculative philosophy is divided into the inferior science (physics), and middle science (mathematics), and the superior science (metaphysics including theology). Practical philosophy is divided into ethics (which considers man as an individual); economics (which considers man as a member of domestic society); and politics (which considers man as a member of civil society). These divisions are important on account of their influence on the arrangement of sciences in the schools where the philosophy of Avicenna preceded the introduction of Aristotle’s works.

A favourite principle of Avicenna, which is quoted not only by Averroes but also by the Schoolmen, and especially by St. Albert the Great, was intellectus in formis agit universalitatem, that is, the universality of our ideas is the result of the activity of the mind itself. The principle, however, is to be understood in the realistic, not in the nominalistic sense. Avicenna’s meaning is that, while there are differences and resemblances among things independently of the mind, the formal constitution of things in the category of individuality, generic universality, specific universality, and so forth, is the work of the mind. Avicenna’s physical doctrines show him in the light of a faithful follower of Aristotle, who has nothing of his own to add to the teaching of his master. Similarly, in psychology, he reproduces Aristotle’s doctrines, borrowing occasionally an explanation, or an illustration, from Alfarabi. On one point, however, he is at pains to set the true meaning, as he understands it, of Aristotle, above all the exposition and elaboration of the Commentators. That point is the question of the Active and Passive Intellect. (See ARABIAN SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY). He teaches that the latter is the individual mind in the state of potency with regard to knowledge, and that the former is the impersonal mind in the state of actual and perennial thought. In order that the mind acquire ideas, the Passive Intellect must come into contact with the Active Intellect. Avicenna, however, insists most emphatically that a contact of that kind does not interfere with the independent substantiality of the Passive Intellect, and does not imply that it is merged with the Active Intellect. He explicitly maintains that the individual mind retains its individuality and that, because it is spiritual and immaterial, it is endowed with personal immortality. At the same time, he is enough of a mystic to maintain that certain choice souls are capable of arriving at a very special kind of union with the Universal, Active, Intellect, and of attaining thereby the gift of prophecy.

Metaphysics he defines as the science of supernatural (ultra-physical) being and of God. It is, as Aristotle says, the theological science. It treats of the existence of God, which is proved from the necessity of a First Cause; it treats of the Providence of God, which, as all the Arabians taught, is restricted to the universal laws of nature, the Divine Agency being too exalted to deal with singular and contingent events; it treats of the hierarchy of mediators between God and material things, all of which emanated from God, the Source of all sources, the Principle of all principles. The first emanation from God is the world of ideas. This is made up of pure forms, free from change, composition, or imperfection; it is akin to the Intelligible world of Plato, and is, in fact, a Platonic concept. Next to the world of ideas is the world of souls, made up of forms which are, indeed, intelligible, but not entirely separated from matter. It is these souls that animate and energize the heavenly spheres. Next to the world of souls is the world of physical forces, which are more or less completely embedded in terrestrial matter and obey its laws; they are, however, to some extent amenable to the power of intelligence in so far as they may be influenced by magic art. Lastly comes the world of corporeal matter; this, according to the neo-Platonic conception which dominates Avicenna’s thought in this theory of emanation, is of itself wholly inert, not capable of acting but merely of being acted upon (Occasionalism). In this hierarchical arrangement of beings, the Active Intellect, which, as was pointed out above, plays a necessary role in the genesis of human knowledge, belongs to the world of Ideas, and is of the same nature as the spirits which animate the heavenly spheres. From all this it is apparent that Avicenna is no exception to the general description of the Arabian Aristoteleans as neo-Platonic interpreters of Aristotle.

There remain two other doctrines of general metaphysical nature which exhibit him in the character of an original, or rather an Arabian, and not a neo-Platonic interpreter. The first is his division of being into three classes: (a) what is merely possible, including all sublunary things; (b) what is itself merely possible but endowed by the First Cause with necessity; such are the ideas that rule the heavenly spheres; (c) what is of its own nature necessary, namely, the First Cause. This classification is mentioned and refuted by Averroes. The second doctrine, to which also Averroes alludes, is a fairly outspoken system of pantheism which Avicenna is said to have elaborated in a work, now lost, entitled “Philosophia Orientalis.” The Scholastics, apparently, know nothing of the special work on pantheism; they were, however, aware of the pantheistic tendencies of Avicenna’s other works on philosophy, and were, accordingly, reluctant to trust in his exposition of Aristotle.

Avicenna Peripatetici . . . Opera (Venice, 1495); MUNK in Dict. des sciences phil. (Paris,1844–52), art. Ibn-Sina; CARRA DE VAUX, Avicenne (Paris, 1900); UEBERWEG-HEINZE, Gesch. der Phil., 9th ed. (Berlin, 1905), II,247, 248; tr. MORRIS (New York, 1890), 412, 413; STOCKL, Lehrb. der Gesch. der Phil. (Mainz, 1888), I, 329 sqq., tr. FINLAY (Dublin, 1903) 293 sqq.; TURNER, Hist. of Phil. (Boston, 1903), 312, 313.

WILLIAM TURNER

Avignon

Avignon, written in the form of Avennio in the ancient texts and inscriptions, takes its name from the House, or Clan, Avennius [d’Arbois de Jubainville, “Recherches sur l’origine de la propriété foncière et des noms des lieux habités en France” (Paris,1890), 518]. Founded by the Cavari, who were of Celtic origin, it became the centre of an important Phocaean colony from Marseilles. Under the Roman occupation, it was one of the most flourishing cities of Gallia Narbonensis; later, and during the inroads of the barbarians, it belonged in turn to the Goths, the Burgundians, the Ostrogoths, and to the Frankish kings of Austrasia. In 736 it fell into the hands of the Saracens, who were driven out by Charles Martel. Boso having been proclaimed King of Provence, or of Arles, by the Synod of Mantaille, at the death of Louis the Stamerer (879), Avignon ceased to belong to the Frankish kings. In 1033, when Conrad II fell heir to the Kingdom of Arles, Avignon passed to the empire. The German rulers, however, being at a distance, Avignon took advantage of their absenceto set up as a republic with a consular form of government, between 1135 and 1146. In addition to the emperor, the Counts of Forcalquier, Toulouse and Provence exercised a purely nominal sway over the city; on two occasions, in 1125, and in 1251, the two latter divided their rights in regard to it, while the Count of Forcalquier resigned anythat he possessed to the bishops and consuls in 1135. During the crusade against the Albigenses the citizens refused to open the gates of Avignon to Louis VIII and the legate, but capitulated after a three months’ siege (10 June—13 September, 1226) and were forced to pull down the ramparts and fill up the moat of their city. Philip the Fair, who had inherited from his father all the rights of Alphonse de Poitiers, last Count of Toulouse, made them over to Charles II, King of Naples and Count of Provence (1290); it was on the strength of this donation that Queen Joan sold the city to Clement VI for 80,000 florins (9 June, 1348).

Avignon, which at the beginning of the fourteenth century was a town of no great importance, underwent a wonderful development during the residence there of nine popes, Clement V to Benedict XIII, inclusively. To the north and south of the rock of the Doms, partly on the site of the Bishop’s Palace, which had been enlarged by John XXII, rose the Palace of the Popes, in the form of an imposing fortress made up of towers, linked one to another, and named as follows: De la Campane, de Trouillas, de la Glacière, de Saint-Jean, des Saints-Anges (Benedict XII), de la Gâche, de la Garde-Robe (Clement VI), de Saint-Laurent (Innocent VI). The Palace of the Popes belongs, by its severe architecture, to the Gothic art of the South of France; other noble examples areto be seen in the churches of St. Didier, St. Peter, and St. Agricola, in the Clock Tower, and in the fortifications built between 1349 and 1368 for a distance of some three miles, and flanked by thirty-nine towers, all of which were erected or restored by popes, cardinals, and great dignitaries of the court. On the other hand, the execution of the frescoes which are on the interiors of the papal palace and of the churches of Avignon was entrusted almost exclusively to artists from Sienna.

The popes were followed to Avignon by agents (factores) of the great Italian banking-houses, who settled in the city. They acted as money-changers, as intermediaries between the Apostolic Chamber and its debtors, living in the most prosperous quarters of the city, which was known as the Exchange. A crowd of traders of all kinds brought to market theproducts necessary to the maintenance of a numerous court and of the visitors who flocked to it; grain and wine from Provence, from the south of France, the Roussillon, and the country roundLyons. Fish was brought from places as distant as Brittany; cloths, rich stuffs, and tapestries came from Bruges and Tournai. We need only glance at the account-books of the Apostolic Chamber, still kept in the Vatican archives, in order to judge of the trade of which Avignon became the centre. The university founded by Boniface VIII in 1303, had a good many students under the Frenchpopes, drawn thither by the generosity of the sovereign pontiffs, who rewarded them with books or with benefices.

After the restoration of the Holy See in Rome, the spiritual and temporal government of Avignon was entrusted to a legate, the cardinal-nephew, who was replaced, in his absence by a vice-legate. When, however, Innocent XII abolished nepotism, he did away with the office of legate, and handed over the government of the Pontifical States to the Congregation of Avignon (1692), which resided at Rome, with the Cardinal Secretary of State as prefect, and exercised its jurisdiction through the vice-legate. This congregation, to which appeals were made from the decisions of the vice-legate, was united to the Congregation of Loretto; in 1774 the vice-legate was made president, thus depriving it of almost all authority. It was done away with under Pius VI.

The Public Council, composed of 48 councillors chosen by the people, four members of the clergy, and four doctors of the university, met under the presidency of the viquier, or chief magistrate, nominated, for a year, by the legate or vice-legate. Their duty was to watch over the material and financial interests of the city; their resolutions, however, were to be submitted to the vice-legate for approval before being put in force. Three consuls, chosen annually by the Council, had charge of the administration of the streets.

From the fifteenth century onward it became the policy of the Kings of France to unite Avignon to their kingdom. In 1476, Louis XI, annoyed that Giuliano della Rovere should have been made legate, rather than Charles of Bourbon, caused the city to be occupied, and did not withdraw his troops until after his favourite had been made a cardinal. In 1536 Francis I invaded the papal territory, in order to drive out Charles V, who held Provence. In return for the reception accorded him by the people of Avignon, Francis granted them the same privileges as those enjoyed by the French, that, especially, of being eligible to offices of state. Henry III made a fruitless attempt to exchange the Marquisate of Saluces for Avignon, but Gregory XIII would not agree to it (1583). In 1663, Louis XIV, in consequence of an attack, led by the Corsican Guard, on the attendants of the Duc de Créqui, his ambassador in Rome, seized Avignon, which was declared an integral part of the Kingdom of France by the Parliament of Provence. Nor was the sequestration raised until after Cardinal Chigi had made an apology (1664). Another attempt at occupation made in 1688, without success, was followed by a long period of peace, lasting till 1768.

Louis XV, dissatisfied at Clement XIII’s action in regard to the Duke of Parma, caused the Papal States to be occupied from 1768 to 1774, andsubstituted French institutions for those in force. These met with the approval of the people of Avignon, and a French party grew up which, after the sanguinary massacres of La Glacière, carried all before it, and induced the Constituent Assembly to decree the unionof Avignon and the Comtat (district) Venaissin with France (14 September, 1791). Article 5 of the Treaty of Tolentino (19 Feb., 1797) definitely sanctioned the annexation; it stated that “The Pope renounces, purely and simply, all the rights to which he might lay claim over the city and territory of Avignon, and the Comtat Venaissin and its dependencies, and transfers and makes over the said rights to the French Republic.” Consalvi made an ineffectual protest at the Treaty of Vienna, in 1815; Avignon was not restored to the Holy See.

ARCHDIOCESE OF AVIGNON

The Archdiocese of Avignon exercises jurisdiction over the territory embraced by the department of Vaucluse. Before the Revolution it had as suffragan sees, Carpentras, Vaison, and Cavaillon. By the Concordat of 1801 these three dioceses were united to Avignon, together with the Diocese ofApt, a suffragan of Aix. At the same time, however, Avignon was reducedto the rank of a bishopric and was made a suffragan see of Aix. The Archdiocese of Avignon was re-established in 1822, and received as suffragansees the Diocese of Viviers (restored in 1822); Valence (formerly under Lyon); Nimes (restored in 1822); and Montpellier (formerly under Toulouse). There is no evidence that St. Rufus, disciple of St. Paul (according to certain traditions the son of Simon the Cyrenean) and St. Justus, likewise held in high honour throughout the territory of Avignon, were venerated in antiquity as bishops of that see. The first bishop known to history is Nectarius, who took part in several councils about the middle of the fifth century. St. Agricol (Agricolus), bishop between 650 and 700, isthe patron saint of Avignon. In 1475 Sixtus IV raised the Diocese of Avignon to the rank of an archbishopric, in favour of his nephew Giuliano della Rovere, who later became Pope Julius II. The memory of St. Eucherius still clings to three vast caves near the village of Beaumont, whither,it is said, the people of Lyons had to go in sea arch of him when they sought him to make him their archbishop. As Bishop of Cavaillon, Cardinal Philippe de Cabassoles, Seigneur of Vaucluse, was the great protector of Petrarch. (For Avignon and its religious architecture see AVIGNON, I. CITY.) At the close of 1905 the Archdiocese of Avignon had 236,949 inhabitants, 29 cures, or parishes of the first class; 144 parishes of the second class, and 47 vicariates.

DUHAMEL, Les origines du palais des papes (Tours, 1882); CHARPENNE, Histoire des réunions temporaires d’Avignon et du comtat Venaissin à la France (Paris, 1886); Histoire de la Révolution dans Avignon et le Comtat Venaissin et de leur réuniondéfinitive à la France (Paris, 1892); EHRLE, Historia Bibliothecae; Romanorum Pontificum (Rome 1890); FANTONI CASTRUCCI, Istoria della Città d’Avignone e del contado Venesino (Venice, 1678); MOLLAT, Jean XXII, fut il un avare?, in Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique (July 1904, and Jan., 1905); MOLLAT AND SAMARAN, La fiscalité pontificale en France au XIVe (Paris, 1905; MÜNTZ, Les Sources de l’histoire des arts dans la ville d’Avignon pendant le XIVe Siècle,in Bulletin Archéologique de la Commission des travaux historiques (1887). Gallia Christiana, Nova (1715), I, 793–870, 1329; Instrumenta, 137–147; DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux de l’ancienne Gaule,I, 258–262; GRANGET, Histoire du diocèse d’Avignon (Avignon,1862).

GEORGES GOYAU

G. MOLLAT

University of Avignon

The University of Avignon (1303–1792), developed from the already existing schools of the city, was formally constituted in 1303, by a Bull of Boniface VIII. With Boniface, King Charles II of Naples should be considered as one of its first great protectors and benefactors. The faculty of law, both civil and ecclesiastical, existed for some time almost exclusively, and always remained the most important department of the university. Pope John XXIII erected (1413) a faculty of theology, the students of which were for a long time only few in number. The faculty of arts never acquired great importance; that of medicine developed especially only in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Bishop, since 1475 Archbishop, of Avignon was chancellor of the university. The vice-legate, generally a bishop, represented the civil power (in this case the pope) and was chiefly a judicial officer, ranking higher than the Primicerius (Rector). The latter was elected by the Doctors of Law, to whom, in 1503, were added four theologians and, in 1784, two Doctors of Medicine. The pope, spiritual head and, after 1348, temporal ruler of Avignon, exercised in this double capacity great influence over the affairs of the university. John XXIII granted it (1413) extensive privileges, such as special university jurisdiction and exemption from taxes. Political, geographical, and educational circumstances forced the university, during the latter period of its existence, to look to Paris rather than to Rome for favour and protection. It disappeared gradually during the French Revolution, and ceased to exist in 1792.

RASHDALL, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford,1895), II, 170–179; FOURNIER, Les status et privilèges des univ.francaises (Paris, 1890–94), II, 301–535; MARCHAND, L’université d’Avignon (Avignon, 1884).

N.A. WEBER

Diocese of Avila

(ABULA)

Diocese; suffragan of Valladolid in Spain. Its episcopal succession dates at least from the fourth century and claims an Apostolic origin. Suppressed in the course of the ninth, it was re-established early in the twelfth, century, after the expulsion of the Moors, and was a suffragan of Mérida until 1120; then of Compostella until 1857. The Catholic population is 189,926. There are 360 priests, 339 parishes, and about 500 churches and chapels. Avila is historically one of the most important cities in the medieval and modern history of Spain. In the fourth century the arch-heretic Priscillian was Bishop of Avila, and in later times many saints had Avila as their home, among them St. Teresa and John of Avila, the “Apostle of Andalusia.” It was once one of the most flourishing cities of Spain, but its population has dwindled to 7,000. Its Moorish castle and ancient eleventh-century cathedral are monumental relics of the past.

BATTANDIER, Ann. Pont. Cath. (Paris, 1905); 216; PICATOSTE, Tradiciones de Avila (Madrid, 1880); GAMS, Kirchengeschichte Spaniens, I, 150, sqq; FLOREZ, Espana Sagrada, XIV, 1–36; MUNOZ, Bibl. Hist. Espana (1858) 42–4.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Francisco de Avila

Curate or vicar in the province of Huarochiri of Peru, later curate at Huánaco, finally Canon of the Church of La Plata (now Sucre), in Bolivia. Born in Peru as a foundling (quorum parentes ignorantur he says himself); date of demise unknown. He was one of the most active investigators of Indian rites and customs of his time. In 1608 he wrote a treatise of the “Errors, False Gods, and Other Superstitions of the Indians of the Provinces of Huarochiri, Mama, and Chaclla,” of which unfortunately only the first six chapters are known to exist and have been translated into English. It is, even in its incomplete form, an invaluable contribution to the knowledge of the Peruvian Indians and their primitive lore. In 1611 Avila wrote an equally important report on the Indians of Huánaco in eastern Peru, of which the unpublished manuscript. is extant. Such writings greatly mitigate the charges which the destruction of fetishes and other objects of primitive worship of the Indians have called forth against the Church. (See PABLO JOSÉ ARRIAGA.)

Fables and Rites of the Incas (Hakluyt Society, 1872); MENDIBURU, Diccionario historico biografico del Peru (1874); ARRIAGA, Extirpacion de la Idolatria del Peru (Lima, 1621); JIMENEZ DE LA ESPADA, Tres relaciones de antiguedades peruanas (Madrid, 1879), Introduction.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Sancho de Avila

Born at Avila of the Kings, in Old Castile, 1546, and named after the place of his birth; died at Plasencia, in the same province, 6 or 7 December, 1625. He was of a distinguished family but was still more eminent for his saintliness, his vast knowledge, and his success as a preacher. He made his ecclesiastical studies and received his doctorate at the great University of Salamanca. He was afterwards consecrated bishop and held, at different times, the Sees of Murcia, Jaen in Andalusia, Siguenza in Old Castile, in 1615, and, seven years later, Plasencia, where he remained until his death. He had been a confessor of St. Theresa. The following works of his in Spanish are worthy of note: “The Veneration Due to the Bodies and Relics of Saints” (Madrid, 1611); “Sermons” (Baeza, 1615); “The Sighs of St. Augustine,” from the Latin (Madrid, 1601, 1626); and, in manuscript, the Lives of St. Augustine and St. Thomas.

WILLIAM DEVLIN

St. Avitus

(Alcimus Ecdicius).

A distinguished bishop of Vienne, in Gaul, from 490 to about 518, though his death is place by some as late as 525 or 526. He was born of a prominent Gallo-Roman family closely related to the Emperor Avitus and other illustrious persons, and in which episcopal honors were hereditary. In difficult times for the Catholic faith and Roman culture in Southern Gaul, Avitus exercised a favourable influence. He pursued with earnestness and success the extinction of the Arian heresy in the barbarian Kingdom of Burgundy (443–532), won the confidence of King Gundobad, and converted his son, King Sigismund (516–523). He was also a zealous opponent of Semipelagianism, and of the Acacian Schism at Constantinople. Like his contemporary, Ennodius of Pavia, he was strenuous in his assertion of the authority of the Apostolic See as the chief bulwark of religious unity and the incipient Christian civilization. “If the pope,” he says, “is rejected, it follows that not one bishop, the whole episcopate threatens to fall” (Si papa urbis vocatur in dubium, episcopatus videbitur, non episcopus, vaccilare.—Ep. xxxiv; ed. Peiper). The literary fame of Avitus rests on a poem of 2,552 hexameters, in five books, dealing with the Scriptural narrative of Original Sin, Expulsion from Paradise, the Deluge, the Crossing of the Red Sea. The first three books offer a certain dramatic unity; in them are told the preliminaries of the great disaster, the catastrophe itself, and the consequences. The fourth and fifth books deal with the Deluge and the Crossing of the Red Sea as symbols of baptism. Avitus deals freely and familiarly with the Scriptural events, and exhibits well their beauty, sequence, and significance. He is one of the last masters of the art of rhetoric as taught in the schools of Gaul in the fourth and fifth centuries. Ebert says that none of the ancient Christian poets treated more successfully the poetic elements of the Bible. His poetic diction, though abounding in archaisms and rhythmic redundancy, is pure and select, and the laws of metre are well observed. It is said that Milton made use of his paraphase [sic] of Scripture in the preparation of “Paradise Lost.” He wrote also 666 hexameters “De virginitate” or “De consolatoriâ castitatis laude” for the comfort of his sister Fuscina, a nun. His prose works include “Contra Eutychianam Hæresim libri II,” written in 512 or 513, and also about eighty-seven letters that are of considerable importance for the ecclesiastical and political history of the years 499–518. Among them is the famous letter to Clovis on the occasion of his baptism. There was once extant a collection of his homilies, but they have perished with the exception of two and some fragments and excerpts. In recent times Julien Havet has demonstrated (Questions mérovingiennes, Paris, 1885), that Avitus is not the author of the “Dialogi cum Gundobado Rege,” a defence of the Catholic Faith against the Arians, purporting to represent the famous Colloquy of Lyons in 449, and first published by d’Achéry (1661) in his “Spicilegium” (V, 110–116). It is a forgery of the Oratorian, Jérome Viguier, who also forged the letter of Pope Symmachus (13 Oct., 501) to Avitus. The works of Avitus are found in Migne, P.L., LIX, 191–398. There are two recent editions: one by R. Peiper (in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Auct. Antiq., VI, Berlin, 1883), the other by U. Chevalier (Lyons, 1890).

Acta SS., 1 February; Avite, sa vie, ses œuvres (Paris, 1870); DENKINGER, St. Avite et la déstruction de l’Arianisme en Gaule (Geneva, 1890); GUIZOT, Hist. De la civilisation en France (1829), II, 198–216; GORINI, Défense de l’Eglise (Paris, 1866), II, 1–86; KURTH, Hist. poétique des mérovingiens (1893), 243 sqq.; YOUNG in Dict. Christ. Biogr., I, 233; BARDENHEWER, Patrologie (Freiburg, 1901), 538, 539.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Order of Aviz

A military body of Portuguese knights.

The Kingdom of Portugal, founded in 1128, was not only contemporaneous with the Crusades but conducted one of its own against the Moors. Some crusaders were bound only by temporary vows, and when these expired they would sometimes return to their country although the war was not ended. This accounts for the favour with which military orders were regarded beyond the Pyrenees, in Portugal as well as in Spain; for in them the vow of fighting against the infidels was perpetual, like other monastic vows. Knights Templar were found in Portugal as early as 1128, and received a grant from Queen Teresa in the year of the Council of Troyes, which confirmed their early statutes. A native order of this kind sprang up in Portugal about 1146. Affonso, the first king gave to it the town of Evora, captured from the Moors in 1211, and the Knights were first called “Brothers of Santa Maria of Evora.” Pedro Henriquez, an illegitimate son of the king’s father, was the first grand master. After the conquest of Aviz the military castle erected there became the motherhouse of the order, and they were then called “Knights of St. Benedict of Aviz,” since they adopted the Benedictine rule in 1162, as modified by John Ziritu, one of the earliest Cistercian abbots of Portugal. Like the Knights of Calatrava in Castile, the Knights of Portugal were indebted to the Cistercians for their rule and their habit—a white mantle with a green fleur-de-lysed cross. The Knights of Calatrava also surrendered some of their places in Portugal to them on condition that the Knights of Aviz should be subject to the visitation of their grand master. Hence the Knights of Aviz were sometimes regarded as a branch of the Calatravan Order, although they never ceased to have a Portuguese grand master, dependent for temporalities on the Portuguese king. At the accession of King Ferdinand (1383) war broke out between Castile and Portugal. When João I, who had been grand master of the Knights of Aviz, ascended the throne of Portugal, he forbade the knights to submit to Castilian authority, and consequently, when Gonsalvo de Guzman came to Aviz as Visitor, the knights, while according him hospitality, refused to recognise him as a superior. Guzman protested, and the point remained a subject of contention until the Council of Basle (1431), when Portugal was declared to be in the wrong. But the right of the Calatravans was never exercised, and the next grand master of the Knights of Aviz, Rodrigo of Sequirol, continued to assert supreme authority over them.

The mission of the military orders in Portugal seemed to fail after the overthrow of Moslem domination, but the Portuguese expeditions across the sea opened up a new field for them. The first landings of Europeans in Africa, the conquest of Ceuta by King João I (1415), the attacks upon Tangier under João’s son Duarte (1437) were also crusades, inspired by a religious spirit and sanctioned by similar papal Bulls. The Knights of Aviz and the Knights of Christ, scions of the Knights Templars, achieved deeds of valour, the former under the Infants Fernando, the latter under Henrique, brother of King Duarte. Fernando displayed a no less heroic forbearance during his six years of captivity among the Moslems, a long martyrdom which after his death placed him among the Blessed (Acta SS.,5 June). This splendid enthusiasm did not last. Soon the whole nation became affected by the wealth that poured in, and the Crusade in Africa degenerated into mere mercantile enterprise; the pontifical Bulls were made a vulgar means of raising money and after the grand mastership of the order (1551) had been vested in the king in perpetuity, he availed himself of its income to reward any kind of service in the army or the fleet. If the wealth of the Knights of Aviz was not as great as that of the Knights of Christ, it was still quite large, drawn as it was from some forty-three commanderies. The religous spirit of the knights vanished, and they withdrew from their clerical brothers who continued alone the conventual life. They were dispensed from their vow of celibacy by Alexander VI (1402), who tolerated their marriage to prevent scandalous concubinage; Julius III (1551) allowed them to dispose freely of their personal properties. Nobility of birth remained the chief requirement of aspirants to the mantle, a requirement confirmed by a decree of 1604. Queen Maria I, supported by Pope Pius VI (1 Aug., 1789), attempted a last reformation and failed. Finally, the military orders were suppressed by Dom Pedro, after the downfall of the Miguelist usurpation (1834).

For Documents: Noronha. Constitucoes de S. Bento de Aviz (Lisbon. 1631). For history: Jos. Da Purificao, Catalogo dos Mestres de Aviz, 1722 (Acad real de Historia); Burro, Chronica de Cister, onde, etc. (Lisbon. 1602); cf Almeida in Mem. Acad. Scient. Lisboa (1837); Helyot Dict. Des ordes religieuz (1847), 1, 348–350; Schefer, Gesch. Von Portugal (Gotha 1834–54); Herculano, History of Portugal (Lisbon, 1554–73).

CH. MOELLER

Council of Avranches

In 1172 (September 27–28) a Council was held at Avranches in France, apropos of the troubles caused in the English Church by the murder of St. Thomas Becket. Henry II, King of England after due penance, was absolved from the censures incurred by the assassination of the holy prelate and swore fidelity to Alexander III in the person of his legate. It was forbidden to confer on children benefice that carry with him the cure of souls, or the children of priests the churches of their fathers. Each parish was required to have an assistant (vicarius) and the Advent fast was commended to all who could observe it, especially to ecclesiastics.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Philippe Avril

Jesuit, born at Angouleme, France, 16 September, 1654; died in a shipwreck in 1698. He was professor of philosophy and mathematics at Paris when he was summoned to the missions of China. Following the instructions of Father Verbiest, then at Pekin, he attempted an overland journey, and travelled for six years through Kurdistan, Armenia, Astrakhan, Persia, and other countries of the East. Arriving at Moscow, he was refused permission to pass through Tatary, and was sent by the Government to Poland, from whence he made his way to Constantinople and from there went back to France. Though exhausted by hemorrhages he set out again on a vessel, which was lost at sea. He has left interesting and valuable accounts of his long wanderings.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Axum

(AUXUME.)

A titular metropolitan see of ancient Christian Ethiopia. Its episcopal list, from about the middle of the fourth century to 650, is found in Gams (p. 462). Modern Axum is the capital of the Abyssinian province of Tigré, and nestles in a kloof, or valley, beneath a lofty peak of the Adoua mountains, at 7,545 feet above the level of the sea. Beneath it is a vast plain in which arise several streams tributary to the Nile. “The features of the place,” says a recent traveller, “are very marked; firstly one comes across the large sacred enclosure, nearly a mile in circumference, thickly planted with trees and reeds, in the centre of which rises the cathedral, surrounded by the monastic buildings and the residence of the Etchigeh, or bishop. This enclosure occupies nearly the whole of the entrance to the valley; beyond it on the hill slopes are the houses of the inhabitants, whilst running up the valley is the long line of stupendous obelisks and beyond is the ancient tank or reservoir from which the inhabitants still get their water supply” (Bent, The Sacred City of the Ethiopians).

The city is of great antiquity, and was, together with Adule (Adoua on the coast) known to the Greeks and Romans as the chief centre of trade, with the interior or Africa, for golddust, ivory, leather, hides, and aromatics. The population is of mixed Ethiopic (negroid) and Arab origin, and is probably descended, in great measure, from an Arab colony settled on the coast at a very remote period. The numerous Himyaritic (Arabic) inscriptions in the vicinity exhibit the influence of Arabia; similarly the stone monuments with their evidences of sun and star worship. Moreover, it is well known that in the sixth century of our era the Kings of Abyssinia, then and long after resident at Axum, extended their sway over the Sabæan and Himyarite (Homerite) tribes of Yemen on the oppposite Arabian shore. Greek influences are also traceable in the architecture of Axum and from a very early date, probably from the days of the Ptolemies of Egypt. In other words, this “sacred city of the Ethiopians” has been from time immemorial an outpost of ancient civilization against the mass of African barbarism. Axum became a Christian city in the time of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who consecrated its first bishop, St. Frumentius, still honoured as the great patron of Abyssinia; since which time (c. 330) the Abyssinian Church has remained in close dependency on the Church of Alexandria, and yet receives from Egypt its chief ecclesiastical officer, the Abouna. There is still extant (P.G. XXV, 635) a famous letter of the Emperor Constantius (337–361) to Aeizanes, the King of Axum, ordering him to send Frumentius to Alexandria to receive the Arian doctrine from the heretical successor intruded in the place of Athanasius. The other principal ecclesiastics resident at Axum are the above mentioned Etchigeh (Etchagué), or principal bishop, always a native; the Nebrid, a kind of archdeacon or head of the priesthood and rector of the cathedral; the Lij Kaneat, or judge in ecclesiastical matters, together with monks and priests of various grades. There are also many persons known as defteras, described as “lay assistants in all the services, acting as singers and performers in all the church ceremonies; the scribes, advocates, and doctors of Abyssinia and the most instructed and intelligent people of the land” (Bent, op. cit., 161).

Axum claims to hold in the innermost recesses of its cathedral the original Tables of the Law and the tabout, or Ark of the Covenant that the Abyssinians say was brought from Jerusalem to their ancient fortress of Ava by Menelek, the son of Solomon, and the Queen of Sheba, and transferred later to Axum. The palace of that famous Queen is also shown at Axum. Until 1538 Axum was both the civil and religious centre of Abyssoinia. In that year, it was captured by Mohammed, Prince of Leïla, since which time the Negus resides at Gondar. The cathedral is a fine edifice, and was built in the sixteenth century during the period of Portuguese influence in Abyssinia, but on the substructure of a very ancient Christian church. It has a flat roof and battlements, and there is a corridor outside where the priests dance and sing. Around the cathedral are many large shadetrees beneath which are built smaller churches or treasuries, in which are stored valuables of all kinds. Its sacred enclosure is not only the centre of ecclesiastical life, but also one of the most honoured sanctuaries in Abyssinia, where any criminal can find shelter by ringing the bell in the porch and declaring three times in a loud voice his intention of claiming a refuge. Women are not allowed to enter it. Indeed, all Axum is practically a sacred, inviolable refuge, for which reason the people enjoy a condition of peace and tranquillity unknown elsewhere in Abyssinia (Bent, 163).

Very interesting are the numerous stone pedestals that once bore metal statues of the preChristian kings of Axum, memorials of victory, and the stone monoliths and obelisks, fallen or standing, estimated by Bent at about fifty. The latter form “a consecutive series from very rude unhewn stones up to the highly finished and decorated obelisks, and it is highly probable that we have here the origin and development of the obelisk side by side” (Bent, 132). The only standing obelisk of the decorated kind, highly carved with sham doors and beam ends, in imitation of a manystoried edifice, is nine stories high, and ends with a semicircular finial, on which is still to be seen a representation of the solar disk. “In other words,” says Mr. Bent (p. 185) “we have before us a perfect representation of the Bethel or House of God terminating in the firmament, in which the Sabæan sungod is supposed to reside.” Altars for animal sacrifices were fitted to the bases of these obelisks; several of them are still visible. Mounds and rubbish heaps are scattered about the sacred enclosure at Axum that doubtless contain many objects of profane and ecclesiastical interest. Near the cathedral is a square enclosure with a pillar at each of its angles, and in the centre twelve stones that Abyssinian tradition says were for the twelve judges of Prester John, but are probably the bases of ancient triumphal thrones of the Kings of Axum. Among the valuable Ethiopic manuscripts found in Abyssinia in modern times is the Book of Axum, or Abyssinian Chronicles, brought back by the traveller Bruce. In 1805 the English traveller, Salt, discovered at Axum a bilingual inscription in Greek and Gheez (the religious language of Abyssinia) of which only the Greek (thirtyone lines) remains. It refers to the exploits of King Aeizanes, already mentioned. In 1833 the German traveller, Rüppell, discovered two other Gheez inscriptions, referring to the deeds of a monarch of Axum in the sixth century. These Gheez inscriptions are valuable for the history of the Semitic alphabet. Some Greek coins, older than the fourth century have been found there, also Ethiopic coins of a somewhat later date, bearing the title “Negush Aksum,” or King of Axum.

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ. (1740), II, 641–660; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 347; Tillemont, Mémoires, etc., VII, 284–289; BRUCE, Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile (Edinburgh, 1788), I, 478; SALT, Travels in Abyssinia, 510; BENT, The Sacred city of the Ethiopians (London, 1896), 152–197.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Diocese of Ayacucho

(Or Guamanga).

A Peruvian diocese, suffragan to Lima. The See of Guamanga was erected by Paul V, 20 July, 1609, was vacant from 1821 to 1838, when it was transferred to Ayacucho. It has 200,610 Catholics; 96 parishes, 120 secular priests, 212 churches or chapels.

Fray Francisco de Ayeta

A Spanish Franciscan of the seventeenth century, and (while time and place of his birth and death are not known as yet, his memorable deeds having been overlooked and neglected until now) one of the most deserving and energetic characters of the end of that century in New Spain or Mexico. He became successively Visitor of the Province of the Holy Evangel of New Mexico, and its Procurator at Madrid; also Commissary of the Inquisition in New Spain. The decline in useful activity among the regular orders in Mexico, which began about the middle of the seventeenth century, being taken as a pretext by the secular authorities for despoiling the regulars of their missions, Ayeta became one of the most fervent defenders of the Franciscans, and he wielded a very aggressive pen. Three books are known to have been published by him, all without date and place; an “Apología del orden de San Francisco en América,” which is supposed to have appeared about 1690; “Defensa de la provincia del Santa Evangelio de México sobre la retención de los curatos y doctrinas”; and “Ultimo recurso de la provincia de San José de Yucatan sobre despojo de parroquias.” Ayeta investigated in person the most remote missions, especially those of New Mexico, and he was the first to warn the Spanish authorities of the storm then preparing among the Pueblo Indians. His report, from 1678, in which he exposed the defenceless condition of the New Mexican colony as against the wild Indians, and the dangerous impression which it had made upon the sedentary tribes, induced the authorities of New Spain to reinforce the garrison at Santa Fe, but it was too late. The Pueblos broke out on the tenth of August, 1680, and for fourteen years New Mexico was lost to Spain. Ayeta hurried to El Paso, and when the fugitives from the North reache4d that post, to the number of two thousand famished and attenuated persons, Ayeta was the first to tender them the needed relief in food and clothing. He was a man of superior mind and indomitable energy, entirely devoted to his task and to his order.

Betancourt, Cronica de la provincia del Santa Evangelio de Mexico (2d ed., Mexico, 1871); Beristain de Souza, Biblioteca Hispano-americana setentrional (Mexico, 1816), I; Sarinana Y Cuenca, Oracion funebre. . . . en las exequieas de veinte y uno religiosos de la observancia & ca. Que murieron a manos de los Indios apostatas del Nuevo Mexico (Mexico, 1681). This sermon is manifestly based upon the data furnished by Ayeta in a yet unpublished report on the priests who were murdered in 1680.—Bandelier, Histoire de la colonisation et des missions du Sonora, Chihuahua, Nouveau Mexique, et Arizona, jusq’a l’an 1700 (MSS. at the Vatican, 1888). See also Documentos para la historia de Mexico (third series, very rare); and Bandelier, Documentary History of the Zuni Tribe, in Journal Am. Arch., No. 1.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón

This Spanish discoverer of Chesapeake Bay, and the first of those daring navigators who tried to find a northwest passage from Europe to Asia, date of birth uncertain; died 18 October, 1526. He was a member of the Superior Council in San Domingo. He sent an expedition to Florida under Francisco Gordillo, who, in June, 1521, landed in lat. 33 deg, 31,’ somewhere near Cape Fear in North Carolina. In quest of the Northwest passage, Ayllon came up from Hispaniola in 1524, and tried the James River and Chesapeake Bay. He received from Charles V a grant of the land he had discovered, and, in 1526, founded the settlement of San Miguel de Guandape, not far from the site of the city of Jamestown, built by the English fully eighty years later. The employment of negro slaves in this work is perhaps the first instance of negro slave-labour within the present territory of the United States. Ayllon died of ship fever, and of the colony of 600 souls he had brought with him only 150 survivors made their way back to Hispaniola.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

James Ambrose Dominic Aylward

Theologian and poet, born at Leeds, 4 April, 1813; died at Hinckley (England), 5 October, 1872. He was educated at the Dominican priory of Hinckley, entered the Order of St. Dominic, was ordained priest in 1836, became provincial in 1850, first Prior of Woodchester in 1854, and provincial a second time in 1866. He composed several pious manuals for the use of his community and “A Novena for the Holy Season of Advent” gathered from the prophecies, anthems, etc., of the Roman Missal and Breviary (Derby, 1849). He reedited (London, 1867) a “Life of Blessed Virgin St. Catherine of Sienna,” translated from the Italian by the Dominican Father John Fen (Louvain, 1609), also an English translation of Father Chocarne’s “Inner Life of Lacordaire” (Dublin, 1867). His essays “On the Mystical Elements in Religion,” and on “Old and Modern Spiritism” were edited posthumously by Cardinal Manning (London, 1874). Father Aylward’s principal monument is his translation of Latin hymns, most of which he contributed to “The Catholic Weekly Instructor.” In his “Annus Sanctus” (London, 1884) Orbey Shipley has reprinted many of them. He says of Father Aylward that he was “a cultivated and talented priest of varied powers and gifts.”

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Aymará

Also Aymara (etymology unknown as yet).

A numerous tribe of sedentary Indians inhabiting the northern sections of Bolivia, part of the eastern declivities of the Andes of that republic, and the sections of Peru bordering upon Lake Titicaca, except its northern extremity, which is held by Quichua-speaking Indians. It is not safe as yet to give their numbers, since white blood has been liberally introduced during three centuries, while on the eastern slopes, in the so-called Yungas, mixture with Negroes has been frequent. Still there are certainly several thousands of them, counting in such mestizos (Cholos) as live according to Indian customs. The name “Aymará” rather applies to the language, which seems allied to the Quichua, or prevailing Indian idiom of the Peruvian mountains and of the southern part of the Bolivian highlands. The Aymará are chiefly mountaineers, inhabiting the elevated table land, or Puna, between the eastern Cordillera and the volcanic coast chain. Limited agriculture, the raising of potatoes and kindred tubers, of quinua (chenopodium quinua), maize, in the few places where it will thrive at the general altitude of over 12,000 feet of the table land. The raising of the llama and alpaca and of some cattle and donkeys, are their chief occupations, also service in the cities as journey men, and on the lake-shore as stevedores. They live in tribal communities (estancias), autonomous, and with executive officers (hilacata and alcalde) whom they choose after the indications of their chief medicine-men, to be afterwards confirmed by the civil authorities of Bolivia. Duration of office is mostly one year. They pay a per capita tax, are not subject to military duty in theory, and are seldom required to perform any. Many of these Indians, while apparently indigent, possess no little wealth, chiefly in coin. Some of them are also artisans. They are nominally Catholics, but preserve a remnant of ancient idolatry, with its rituals and ceremonies, carefully hidden from outsiders. In appearance stolid and humble, they are in fact a cruel, treacherous stock, averse to every attempt at progress, hostile to the whites, particularly to foreigners. But they sometimes make good house servants. They were first visited by the Spaniards in the last days of 1533, whom they received well, owing to their hatred of the Inca tribe of Cuzco. The latter had overrun most of the Lake territory in the course of the fifteenth century and established themselves on the Islands of Titicaca and Koati (see articles) and at Copacavana on the mainland. The relations between the Kollas-as the Quichua call the Aymará, to this day (see KOLLAO)-and the Incas were not friendly. The Spaniards were at first treated with hospitality, but as soon as they returned in greater numbers the western and southwestern Aymará rose in arms and had to be repressed by force. During the civil wars (1538 to 1554) the Aymará, remained passive and suffered (like the rest of the Peruvian Indians) from the consequences. Uprisings of Aymará groups against the Spaniards began in 1629, and local disturbances (in many of which the Indians were at fault) continued. In 1780 a general uprising began among the Aymará, of western Bolivia, but there was no concerted action, and although there were terrible massacres, and the investment of La Paz by the Aymará almost ended in the capture of that city, the Indians were finally subdued in 1782. Since then they have remained comparatively quiet. While a necessary and important element as land-tillers and freighters, journeymen and house servants, they would be, on account of their numbers, a steady menace to Bolivia, were it not for their incapacity for united efforts, their adherence to primitive customs preventing any submission to a common leader. With the coming introduction of railways in Bolivia, the Aymará will have to submit, and modify their habits and customs.

The earliest and best description of the northern and central Aymará, is found in the Relatione per Sua Maesta, written 15 July, 1534, by PEDRO SANCHO in the name of Pizarro and officers, and published (in Italian) by RAMUSIO in vol. III (1565). Relacion del Sitio del Cuzo, 1539 (Madrid, by JIMENEZ DE LA. ESPADA); CIEZA, Parte primera de la cronica del Peru (Antwerp, 1555); Sequnda Parte (Madrid); JUAN DE BETANZOS, Suma y Narracion de los Incas, 1551 (recent publication at Madrid); GARCILASSO DE LA VEGA, comentarios reales de los Incas (Lisbon, 1609); OVIEDO, Historia, general y natural de las Indias (Madrid, 1850); HERRERA Historia general de los Hechos de los Castellanos en las Islas y Tierra firme del Mar Oceano (1729, etc.); ANELLO OLIVA, Historia del Peru (Lima, without date,) this history was written in 1631, BERNABE Cobo, Historia del Nuevo Mundo, 1653 (Seville, 1893). Of later works I only refer to WIENER, Perou et Bolivie (Paris, 1880) and to the works of DR. MIDDENDORF-The Aymará idiom appears first in literature in 1583. Catecismo en la Lengua Espanola y Aymará del Peru, Ordenado por autoridad del Concilo Provincial de Lima (Lima. 1583); Tercer Catecismo y Exposicion de la Doctrina Cristiana, por Sermones (Lima, 1586); BERTONIO, Arte de la Lengua Aymará (Rome, 1603; IDEM, Vocabulario de la Lengua Aymará (Juli southern Peru, 1612). On the uprisings of the Aymará in 1780 to 1782, BALLIVIAN, Archivo boliviano (Paris 1872); also ORDIOZOLA, Docummtos historicos de la Peru (1863), I. A very rare work on the Aymará language and seldom consulted, is TORRES RUBIO, Arte de la Lengua Aymará (Lima, 1616).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Aymeric of Piacenza

A learned Dominican, b. at Piacenza, Italy; d. at Bologna, 19 August, 1327. Soon after his entrance into the Lombard province of the Dominican Order, he was sent (1262) to pursue his studies at Milan, where he formed a close friendship with Niccolo Boccasini, later pope under the name of Benedict XI (1303–04). After teaching philosophy and theology for twenty-four years he was elected Provincial of Greece. In this capacity he travelled to the Chapter General of Toulouse in May, 1304, where a successor to Bernard de Jusix was to be elected, but just before the first session renounced his office and vote, with the consent of the pope. That this act of humility was the cause of his election to the master generalship of the order is the unanimous verdict of all its chroniclers. His first care was to regulate studies in those provinces where the opposition of the Fraticelli to intellectual pursuits had been most felt. He definitely determined the qualifications for degrees in the order. Oriental languages were no less encouraged by him than natural sciences. In 1309 Clement IV enjoined on Aymeric who was on his way to the chapter of Saragossa in Spain, to examine into the charges brought against the Templars. He found little to complain of. In 1310 he was summoned to the Council of Vienne to take part in the process of the Templars. In the meantime, however, he resigned his office, and thus avoided the displeasure of Clement IV, whose policy he never heartily endorsed. At the same time, as he candidly avowed, he was saved from acting against the dictates of his conscience. He is the reputed author of a treatise against the heretics of his day, and of works on moral, dogmatic, and scholastic questions, none of which are known to be extant. Montfaucon (Diarium Italicum, xxvii) speaks of a curious present given by Aymeric to the convent of Bologna. It was the Pentateuch in Hebrew and learned Jews of the time declared that the manuscript had been written by Esdras. “Although this smacks of the fabulous,” cautiously remarks Montfaucon” . . . still it cannot be denied that the codex appears to have been old when given to Aymeric.” As a man of letters Aymeric was in close touch with the learned men of his time. Pietro Crescenzio of Bologna completed his “De Re Rustica” at the repeated solicitations of Aymeric, by whom it was corrected before the author presented it to Charles II of Sicily. The letters of Aymeric are found in “Litterae Encyclicae Magistrorum Generalium Ord. Praed.” (Ed. Reichert, Rome, 1900), which forms the fifth volume of the “Monumenta Hist. Fratr. Praed.” (181–202).

Tiraboschi, Storia della litt. Ital., V, I, 152–153; Quetif and Echard, SS. Ord. Praed., I, 494 sqq.; Mortier, Histoire des Maitres Generaux de l’ordre des Freres Precheurs (paris, 1905), II, 420–473; Kaufmann in Der Katholik, Feb., 1900.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Féliz de Azara

Spanish naturalist, b. at Barbunales in Aragon, 18 May, 1746; d. 1811. He first embraced the military career as an engineer, distinguished himself in various expeditions, and rose to the rank of Brigadier General in the Spanish Army. He was appointed member of the Spanish commission sent to South America, in 1781, to settle the question of limits between the Portuguese and Spanish colonies. He remained in South America till 1801. While there he turned his attention to the study of mammals, less as an anatomist or physiologist than as an observer of the life and habits of quadrupeds. His observations, to which he added a large number of statements obtained by hearsay, were not always favourably criticized, but today the perspicacity of Azara as student of the life South American mammals is generally acknowledged. He also extended his investigations to birds. Before leaving South America, he sent his brother (then Spanish Ambassador at Paris) many notes and observations of a zoological nature, which Moreau de Saint-Méry published at Paris in 1801 under the title of “Essai sur l’histoire naturelle des quadrupèdes du Paraguay.” In 1802 there appeared at Madrid “Apuntamientos para la Historia natural de los cuadrúpedos del Paraguay y Río de la Plata.” In 1809 there appeared at Paris under his name “Voyage dans l’Amérique méridionale depuis 1781 jusqu’en 1801.” In the latter work he criticizes the Jesuit methods of organizing and educating the Indians, showing that he completely failed to understand the nature of the American aborigines. Azara, while an efficient soldier and good engineer, as well as shrewd observer of animal life, was incapable of understanding the character of the Indian, and of grasping the only method by which the Indian could slowly but surely be civilized.

Geografía física y esférica de las provircias del Paraguay y missiones Guaranies, compuesta en el año 1790 (Montevideo, 1904, with portrait and biograpghy by SCHULLER); TSCHUDI, Peru Reiseskizzen (St. Gall, 1846); IDEM, Fauna peruana; BREHM, Das Thierleben (3rd ed.); and the works of Azara himself, enumerated in article.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Aristaces Azaria

A Catholic Armenian abbot and archbishop, b. at Constantinople, 18 July, 1782; d. at Vienna, 6 May, 1854. He was sent at the age of fifteen to the College of the Propaganda in Rome, but his studies were interrupted (1798) by the French invasion. Having taken refuge among the Mechitarists of Triest, he entered their order in 1801, and in the same year was ordained priest. The authorities of the ephemeral Kingdom of Illyria confiscated (1810) the property of his convent, and, after vain attempts to obtain restitution, the monks settled in Vienna, where they lived by the instruction of Armenian youth and the revenue of a printing-press. Azaria was henceforth active as a missionary among his compatriots and a servant of the Holy See. In 1826 he was made general abbot of the community, and in 1827 was raised to the (titular) dignity of Archbishop of Caesarea. Under him the Mechitarist community in Vienna prospered, its library was increased, a bookstore added to the printing-press, and an abundant religious literature created, in Armenian and in German. He opened houses of his community in Rome, Triest, and Stamboul, founded the Armenian journal “Europa,” established an academy for the literary and political improvement of his people, and obtained form the Porte (1830) the creation of an independent Catholic Armenian patriarchate. He wrote several (mostly anonymous) works, among them “De Vitâ Communi Perfecta Religiosorum Utriusque Sexus,” in which he criticizes the condition of many Austrian religious houses, and “Die Erziehung im Geiste des Christenthumes” (Vienna, 1839). After a visit to Rome (1850) in the interest of monastic reform, he returned to Vienna (1852) where he died after the celebration of his golden jubilee.

Hergenrother in Kirchenlex., I, 1768.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Brother Azarias

(Patrick Francis Mullany).

Educator, essayist, littérateur, and philosopher, b. near Killenaule, County Tipperary, Ireland, 29 June, 1847. His education began at home, and after the removal of his family to Deerfield, N.Y., U.S.A., was continued in the union school of that place, and subsequently in the Christian Brothers’ Academy at Utica. Believing himself called to the life of a religious teacher, he entered the novitiate of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, in New York City, on the 24th of February 1862. He taught in Albany, New York City, and Philadelphia until 1866, when he was called to the professorship of mathematics and literature in Rock Hill College, Ellicott City, Md. Gradually his interests were absorbed by literature and philosophy, which, with pedagogy, continued to hold them until the end of his career. From 1879 to 1886 he was President of Rock Hill College. Then followed two years of research in European libraries, chiefly those of Paris and London. On his return to the United States, he became professor of literature in De La Salle Institute, New York City, and remained such till his death at the Catholic Summer School, Plattsburgh, 20 August 1893. The funeral services held in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York City, gave ample testimony to his widespread influence and to the esteem in which he was held.

The secret of his success is to be found in his deep reverence for the apostolate of teaching, a reverence which found expression beyond the walls of the class room. He was a frequent contributor to the “Catholic World,” the “American Catholic Quarterly Review,” and the “American Ecclesiastical Review,” and his name appears in the files of the “Educational Review” and of the “International Journal of Ethics.” His lectures bore the stamp of culture and scholarship. The most notable are these:-”The Psychological Aspects of Educations,” delivered before the Regent’s Convocation, University of the State of New York, 1877; “Literary and Scientific Habits of Thought,” before the International Congress of Education, 1884; “Aristotle and the Christian Church,” before the Concord School of Philosophy, 1885; “Church and State,” before the Farmington School of Philosophy, 1890; “Religion in Education,” before the New York State Teachers’ Association, 1891; “Educational Epochs,” before the Catholic Summer School, 1893. At the time of his death, he was engaged in preparing a “History of Education” for the International Education Series.

His first work as an independent author appeared in 1874, with the title “An Essay Contributing to a Philosophy of Literature” (seventh edition, 1899). It is an excellent key both to his method of study and the plan of presentation to which he consistently adhered in subsequent works and addresses. Renan and Emerson had attempted to make literature a substitute for religion in cultured circles; with characteristic insight and modesty, Brother Azarias proves in this essay that literature draws its life and excellence from religion. He divides the book into three parts: Facts and Principles, Theory, and Practice. In the first he discusses the nature, origin, and function of literature, examines its relation to language and architecture, and formulates the law of literary epochs. He then presents the salient features of the pre-Reformation ages, and argues that the Elizabethan era of letters was the fruit of the seeds of Catholicism that had been planted and nurtured in early Britain. After contrasting ancient and modern literature, he examines the principles of those philosophic systems that have most influenced modern thought. “In the light of these results he studies the literary artist, the morality which is binding on him, and the canons that should guide him in his work. The book is of great value in giving the student correct principles of orientation.

“The Development of Old English Thought” (third edition, 1903) appeared in 1879 as the first part of a projected course in English literature, which, however, was never completed. The author begins with sketching the “continental homestead” of the English; he then contrasts the Celt and Teuton, examines the pagan traditions on which Christian literature was engrafted, and concludes with charming pen pictures of Hilda, Caedmon, Benedict Biscop, and the Venerable Bede. The period covered is the first thousand years of the Christian era.

“Aristotle and the Christian Church” (London and New York, 1888) sets forth the attitude of the Catholic Church towards Aristotelean philosophy in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, shows the difference in spirit between the Stagirite and the Schoolmen, and accounts in part for this by tracing the growing influence of Aristotle in the West and in the East until the two streams of thought converge to swell the tide of Scholasticism. This essay was commended by Cardinal Manning.

“Books and Reading” (seventh edition, New York, 1904) was originally a reprint of two lectures delivered before the Cathedral Library Reading Circle of New York City, 1899). The later editions of the work, while more developed and extended than the first, yet suffer from two disadvantages, the omission of an index and of suggestive courses of reading and study. The book attempts to make literature in general, and Catholic literature in particular, a living force for those even who have not received the benefits of higher education.

“Phases of Thought and Criticism” (1892) is an interesting study of the spiritual sense and its culture. In developing his thesis, Brother Azarias draws a striking contrast first between Newman and Emerson as typical thinkers, and then between the “habits of thought engendered by literary pursuits and those begotten of scientific studies.” The following chapters are concerned with the spiritual sense of three great masterpieces, “The Imitation of Christ,” the “Divina Commedia,” and the “In Memoriam,” each of which, to quote his own words “expresses a distinct phase of thought and is the outcome of a distinct social and intellectual force.” This volume is among the most admired of his writings for thought, style, and method.

Of his minor works the most charming is “Mary, Queen of May,” which was written for the “Ave Maria.” It exhales the faith and trust for a devout client, and reveals those finer qualities of head and heart which bound Brother Azarias so firmly to his order and won him so many friends. After his death many of this contributions to reviews were gathered and published in three volumes, viz. “Essays Educational,” “Essays philosophical,” and “Essays Miscellaneous” (1896). The first of these includes the lectures delivered at the Catholic Summer School, just before his death; the second reprints as its most notable paper the lecture on “Aristotle and the Christian Church,” adding thereto the “Nature and Synthetic Principle of Philosophy,” the “Symbolism of the Cosmos,” “Psychological Aspects of Education” and “Ethical Aspects of the Papal Encyclical on Capital and Labor.” The best papers in the third volume are “Religion in Education,” “Our Catholic School System,” and “Church and State”; of the remaining numbers two are literary in subject, and the third is also found in “Phases of thought and Criticism.”

Smith, Brother Azarias (New York, 1897); Addresses and Letters read at the memorial Meeting in Honor of Brother Azarias (Washington, 1894); Hardy, Educational Review (December, 1893); the Rosary (October, 1893); Henry, Brother Azarias-Threnody, Am. Cath. Q., January, 1894; Stedman-Hutchinson, Library of American Literature.

BROTHER CHRYSOSTOM

Luiz de Azevedo

An Ethiopic missionary and scholar, born, according to probable narration of Franco (Imogem da Vertude em o Noviciado de Coimbra, 359–61), at Carrezedo Montenegro, in the Diocese of Braga, in Portugal, in 1573; died in Ethiopia in 1634. He became a Jesuit in 1588, and sailed for the Indies in 1592. In 1605 he began his missionary labours in Ethiopia, where he remained until his death. Azevedo was called the Apostle Agarus, and is justly reckoned among the most illustrious of the Doctors of the Church of Ethiopia, to which he reclaimed many schismatics. He translated into Chaldaic the commentaries of Father Toletus on the Epitles of St. Paul to the Romans and those of Francis Ribera on the Epitle of St. Paul to the Hebrews; the “Canonical Hours,” the “Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” and other works. He is the author of a grammer of Ethiopic language, and translated into the same tongue the New Testament, a Portughese catechism, instructions on the Apostle’s Creed, and other books of the same nature.

JOSEPH M. WOODS

Juan Azor

Born at Lorca, province of Murcia, Southern Spain, in 1535; entered the Society of Jesus, 18 March, 1559; d. in Rome, 19 February, 1603. He was professor of philosophy and later of theology, both dogmatic and moral, at Piacenza, Alcalá, and Rome, and was a member of the first committee appointed by Father General Acquaviva to draw up the famous “Ratio Studiorum.” Father Azor was a man of wide and solid learning, deeply versed in Greek, Hebrew, and history, as well as in his more special branch of theological science. His chief title to general remembrance rests on his classical work on moral theology, in three folio volumes: “Institutionem Moralium, in quibus universae quaestiones ad conscientiam recte aut prave factorum pertinentes breviter tractantur pars 1ma,” the first volume of which appeared in Rome in 1600, the second six years later, and the last in 1611. The work met with flattering success in Rome and at all the Continental seats of learning, and was honored by a special Brief of Clement VIII. Numerous editions were brought out at Brescia, Venice, Lyons, Cologne, Ingolstadt, Paris, Cremona, and Rome. The work continued to hold its lofty position during the succeeding centuries, was strongly recommended by Bousset in his synodal statutes, and was held in highest regard by that master in moral theology, St. Alphonsus Ligouri. Gury speaks of Father Azor as a “moderate Probabiliorist, in wisdom, in depth of learning and in gravity of judgment taking deservedly high rank among theologians.” There are extant in manuscript other works by Father Azor; in Rome, in the Jesuit archives, a commentary on the Canticle of Canticles; at Würzburg, an exposition of the Psalms and at Alcalá, several theological treatises on parts of the “Summa” of St. Thomas.

Sommervogel, Bib. de la c. de J.; Hurter, Nomenclatur, I, 232.

ARTHUR J. MCCAFFRAY

Azores

(Portuguese Acores, “Falcons”)

An archipelago situated in that tract of the Atlantic Ocean which is known to mariners as the Sargasso Sea. The islands lie, approximately, from S.E. to N.W., about a diagonal of the quadrilateral formed by the 37th and 40th parallels of north latitude and the 24th and 32d meridians of west longitude. Their distribution may be considered as forming three subgroups: the relatively large islands of São Miguel and Santa Maria, to the extreme south-east; Fayal, Pico, São Jorge, Terceira, and Graciosa about midway, Terceira being about 880 geographical (1012 English) miles from the Portuguese coast; Flores and Corvo on the extreme north-west. These nine islands, aggregating in area about 922 square miles, vary greatly in size, from São Miguel, with an area of 288, to Corvo, with an area of not more than 5 square miles. The Formigas and other tiny islets throughout the archipelago are of no importance except as perils to navigation.

Physically, the Azores are in general characterized by the bold and irregular conformation usually found in islands of volcanic origin. The snow-capped volcano which is the predominating feature of Pico rises to a height of 8500 feet; the Vara, in São Miguel, is more than 5500 feet; but the crater of the Sete Cidades volcano, also in São Miguel, is said to be not more than 866 feet above the sea level. The volcanic character of these islands is also unmistakably shown by the recurrence in their mountain-formations of more or less extinct craters (locally called caldeiras—“kettles”), one of which, the Caldeira of Graciosa, forms a steaming lake of pitch. Almost all the islands contain mineral springs, the best known of which are in São Miguel, Terceira, Graciosa, and Flores. As might be expected, the Azores are specially subject to earthquakes; in 1522 the city of Villa Franca, in São Miguel, was destroyed, with, it is said, 6000 of its inhabitants, by an earthquake, and another earthquake, in June, 1811, is memorable for the birth, about two miles off the coast of São Miguel, of the little island which was named Sabrina after the British warship that was present at, and reported, the phenomenon. The climate, through mild and equable, is extremely humid, the number of rainy days in the year averaging about 163, or not far from 50 per cent, and producing a rainfall estimated at very nearly 39 inches; snow never falls, except on the highest mountains; the recorded minimum temperature is about 39°F., the maximum only 81°F. (very exceptionally as high as 86°F.), and the mean for all seasons 63°F.

HISTORY

The existence of this archipelago was not generally known to the inhabitants of Europe before the fifteenth century of our era, although there is evidence that Phoenician, Scandinavian, and Arabian navigators visited it at different periods. In 1432 the Portuguese, Goncalo Velho Cabral, discovered the island of Santa Maria, and by the year 1457 all the islands had been visited by either Portuguese or Flemish explorers, none of whom found any aboriginal inhabitants, wild animals, or reptiles. In 1466 Affonso V of Portugal granted to the Duchess Isabel of Burgundy, his aunt, some sort of feudal privilege in the Azores, in consequence of which the colonists for some time were mostly Flemings, and the Portuguese themselves in those days called the islands As Ilhas Flamengas (the Flemish Islands). The first Portuguese colonies of any importance in the Azores were those of São Miguel, and Terceira, and at the end of the fifteenth century a certain number of the Moors, driven from Granada by Ferdinand and Isabella, took refuge in the islands.

It was not until 1534 that the ecclesiastical organization of the Azores was effected. Until then they had been under the jurisdiction of the Grand Prior of the Order of Christ. The Bull of Pope Paul III, dated 5 November, 1534, immediately after that pontiff’s accession to the Apostolic See, formed a diocese with its metropolis at Angra do Heroismo, is the island of Terceira, to include the whole of this archipelago. The See of Angra was made suffragan to that of Funchal, but in 1547 it was removed from this jurisdiction and placed under that of the then Archiepiscopal (now Patriarchal) See of Lisbon. From 1580 to 1640 the Azores, like the rest of the Portuguese dominions, had to submit to the rule of Spain, and during that period the neighbouring waters were the scene of many hard fights between the Spanish and the English sea-rovers. The commercial prosperity of the islands declined after the recovery of Portuguese independence and the accession of the House of Braganza in 1640. The city of Angra attained some slight historical notoriety in 1662, when Affonso VI, deposed by his brother Dom Pedro, was imprisoned there. Material prosperity began to be restored to the Azores immediately after the period of the French invasion of the Peninsula and the flight of João IV to Brazil (1807), when the former restrictions of commerce were removed. In the Portuguese revolution of 1828–33, the Azorean populations took a decided stand against the absolutist Dom Miguel, repulsed an attack upon the island of Terceira by a Miguelist fleet, and contributed largely to form the Progressista army which landed at Oporto in 1833, driving Dom Miguel into exile, and establishing on the throne the Queen Donna Maria da Gloria, who for two years preceding had resided at Angra.

PRESENT CONDITIONS

The Azores are not a colony, nor a foreign dependency of Portugal, but an integral part of the kingdom. His Most Faithful Majesty is represented in the islands by a governor residing at Angra, which is regarded as the political capital; at the same time the inhabitants are on a legislative and fiscal equality with those of the Portuguese mainland, being regularly represented in the Cortes at Lisbon. The total population of the archipelago in the year 1900 was 256,291 (i.e. 277.9 to the square mile), mostly of Portuguese origin, though of course with considerable intermixture of Flemish and Moorish blood, with traces of immigration from the British Isles, and a sprinkling of negroes.

Economically, the people of the Azores depend chiefly upon agriculture, this term being taken as including the production of wine. Most of the wine produced in the archipelago comes from the island of Pico, and, under the name of Fayal wine, derived form the port whence it was shipped, used to be famous in bygone days. The area exclusively devoted to vineyards is about 9500 acres (nearly 15 square miles), producing nearly 1,000,000 gallons of wine annually. Wheat and a large variety and abundance of fruits are grown in the valleys. Some 6000 men are employed in the fisheries, and the value of their annual catch amounts to about $175,000. The populations of Terceira, São Jorge, and Graciosa, numbering about 72,000, manufacture cheese, butter, soap, linens, woolens, bricks, and tiles; in Fayal, Pico, Flores, and Corvo a population of 58,000 are chiefly engaged in basket-weaving and the fashioning of small fancy articles from the pith of the fig tree. The latest available statistics give the total of shipping annually clearing and entering all the ports of the Azores as 2,052,792 tones, with a total value of exports and imports $1,050,000.

The people are, with rare exceptions, Catholics. Werner (Orbis Terrarum Catholicus, s.v.) says that there are only about 100 Protestants and 30 Jews in the whole Diocese of Angra. This diocese contains 110 parishes and many subsidiary churches and chapels; the cathedral of Angra, under the invocation of the Saviour (São Salvador) has its full staff of dignitaries and a chapter of twelve canons, and there is a seminary which prepares 120 students for the priesthood. The secular clergy number 353 besides which there are eight religious houses in Terceira and fifteen, including four convents of female religious, in São Miguel. The population of the cathedral city is about 11,000, that of Punta Delgada, in São Miguel, exceeding it by about 6000.

Welte in Kirchenlex., I, 1776; Werner, Orb. Terr. Cath.; Grande Enc. s. v. Acores; Enc. Britannica (1902). III and XXVI; Mees, Hist. de la decouverte des Iles Fortunees (Paris, 1901).

E. MACPHERSON.

Azotus

(Heb. Ashdodh; in Sept. Azotos)

(1) One of the five great cities of the Philistines (Jos., xiii, 3), the modern Esdud, situated three miles from the Mediterranean Sea, about half-way between Gaza and Jaffa. The temple of Dagon, whither the Ark of the Covenant was carried by the Philistines, was situated here (I K., v, 1–5; I Mach., x, 83; xi, 4). Azotus, like other Philistine cities, suffered varying fortunes in the wars with Israel, Assyria, and Egypt. Oxias fought against it (II Paral., xxvi, 6), Sargon besieged and took it (Isaias, xx, 1; Schrader, “Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek,” II, 66–67), and Sennacherib did likewise (Schrader, op. Cit., II, 90–91). According to Herodotus, Psammetichus besieged the city for twenty years. In 163 B.C. Judas Machabeus cleared Azotus of idols (I Mach., v, 68), and in 148 B.C. Jonathan and Simon burnt the temple of Dagon (I Mach., x, 83–84). To-day Esdud is a modern village, with many ruins attesting its glorious past. In the New Testament Azotus is mentioned in connection with Philip’s return from Gaza (Acts, viii, 40).

(2) The mountain to which Bacchides pursued the Jews in battle (I Mach., ix, 15).

AZOTUS, A TITULAR SEE OF PALESTINE

Situated near the seacoast, between Jaffa and Ascalon. Its episcopal list (325–536) is given in Gams (452). It is the Ashdod of the Book of Josue (xv, 47), was one of the five principal cities of the Philistines, and the chief seat of the worship of their god Dagon (I Sam., v, 1–7). Herodotus mentions it (II, 157) as having withstood King Psammetichus of Egypt in a siege of twenty-nine years, the longest then known.

Lequien, Oriens Christ. (1740), III, 659–662; Robertson, Biblical Researches, II, 368; Vigouroux in Dict. De la Bible, s.v. Azot.

F.X.E. ALBERT

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Aztecs

Probably from Aztatl (heron), and Tlacatl (man),”people of the heron,” in the Nahuatl, or Mexican, language of Mexico, a surname applied to the tribe of the Mexica, or Chichimeca Mexitin (whence Mexico and Mexicans), a ramification of the Nahuatl linguistic stock which occupied aboriginal Mexico, in more or less contiguous groups, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, when the Spaniards first came into contact with them. The Mexica proper held only a group of islands about the center of Lake Tezecuco, and one or two minor settlements on the shore. In 1519 the tribe numbered about thirty thousand souls of all ages and sexes, and was able to put into the field eight thousand warriors. By far the greater part of the population was concentrated in the central settlement called Tenochtitlan (from tetl, “stone,” nochtli, “prickly pear,” and tlan, “place,” or “site”), which was founded, as is generally admitted, about the year A.D. 1325. Until their settlement upon the lake, the history of the Mexican tribe is uncertain. Data, in the shape of picture-writings, are fragmentary, except such as were executed in the sixteenth century by Indians, under the impulse of the viceroys or of ecclesiastics. These documents record constant shiftings of the tribe from points which are as yet undetermined, like Aztlan (Place of the Heron) and Chicomoztoc (Seven Caves). These places are by most authorities located north of Mexico, and some colour is given to the assumption by the relationship traced between the Nahuatl language of Mexico and Nicaragua and the Shoshonian idioms of the Northwest.

The Mexicans were the last of the Nahuatl-speaking Indians to reach the shore of the great Lake of Mexico. They found the valley occupied by several tribes of the same stock, and were received by these as intrusive destitutes. Thrust back and forth among these tribes for a number of years, and exposed to great sufferings, the feeble remnants of the Mexicans finally sought refuge on some sandy patches that protruded into the middle of the lake, and here they found, if not absolute, at least comparative, security. While in the beginning they had to subsist on aquatic food (fish and insects), they began to slowly increase in numbers. There being little space for tillage, they imitated a device in use among the tribe of Chalco; the construction of rafts which they covered with soil, and thus secured vegetable diet. Timber being obtainable only on the mainland, they resorted to adobe for the construction of shelters, and a settlement was gradually built up which gave promise of stability. Soon after their establishment in the lake, the Mexican tribe was composed of two groups; one of these was Tenochtitlan, the other bore the name of Tlaltelolco. Each of them having their own government, hostilities became inevitable, resulting in the defeat of the Tlaltelolco people. For some time after, the latter were held in a kind of servitude, until mutual resentment commenced to wear off. The overthrow of Tlaltelolco took place at the beginning of the fifteenth century, which is as near a date as we venture to assign, too close precision in dates previous to the conquest not being advisable as yet.

In the meantime, the other tribes speaking the Nahuatl idiom, who were established on the mainland (Tezcuco, Tlacopan, Atzcapozalco, Xochimilco, Chalco, etc.), alternately at peace and at war with each other, had not paid much attention to the Mexicans. About the time of the overthrow of Tlaltelolco, the Tecpanecas of Atzcapozalco obtained decidedly the upper hand and exacted tribute and servitude of their neighbours. They finally attempted to overrun the Aztecs also, and were successful for a short time, but the latter, directed by their war-chief, Moctecuzoma Ilhuicamina, and his colleague, the Cihuacohuatl Tlacaellel, formed an alliance with the tribes of Tezcuco and defeated the Tecpanecas, reducing them to a minimum of influence in the valley. Out of this alliance arose, in the middle of the fifteenth century, a formal league between the Mexicans, the tribe of Tezcuco, and that of Tlacopan, offensive and defensive, after the manner of the “League of the Iroquois.” The events preceding the formation of this league are stated in many ways, according as information has been obtained from one or the other of the tribes entering into it, each claiming, of course, the leading part; but it is certain that the Mexicans held the military leadership, and probably received the greater part of the spoils. From the formation of this league dates that extension of Mexican sway which has led to the erroneous conception of a primitive Mexican nationality and empire.

The first aggressions of the confederates were on the tribes of Xochimilco and Chalco, at the southern outlet of the valley. They seem to have been reduced to tribute and the condition of tributaries and military vassals. Then, in the second half of the fifteenth century, raids began upon Indian groups dwelling outside of the lake basin. These raids were conducted with great shrewdness. East of the valley, powerful tribes of the Nahuatl linguistic stock, such as Tlaxcatla, Huexotzinco, Cholula, and Atlixco, grouped about the great volcano Popoca-tepetl, were carefully avoided at first. The war parties of the confederates circumvented their ranges, pouncing upon more distant groups, nearer the coast. The same thing took place with Indians south of the valley, where the League extended its murderous inroads to Oaxaca. The vanquished were either exterminated or dispersed, if they resisted too well or attempted to recover their independence; or else were reduced to the payment of a tribute, annually collected by special gatherers dispatched from the valley, and of whom the tributaries were mortally afraid. This tribute consisted of products ofthe land, and of human victims for sacrifice. Besides, the subjected tribes were bound to service in war. The social condition of the vanquished was unchanged; they kept their self-government, their autonomy. The extent of Mexican, in the sense of confederate, sway has been exaggerated; neither Yucatan nor Guatemala was affected, and what have been represented as Mexican “subjects,” or “colonies,” in those countries were tribes of Nahuatl language established in the South at a very early date, and having no connection with Mexico and its Indians except the tie of common speech. Hence the so-called “Mexican Empire” was composed of a confederacy, territorially restricted to the lake basin,and outlying tribes, autonomous but tributary. All attempts of the Aztecs and their allies to overrun, in the manner above described, the more powerful tribes residing even in their immediate vicinity, failed. An attack on the Tarascans of Michuacan under the war-chief Axayacatl, about 1475, resulted in disastrous defeat. The wars with Tlaxcala, Cholula, and Huexotzinco, as well as with Atlixco, ended usually in drawn battles, with no decisive advantage for either side. Still, it is not unlikely that the confederates would ultimately have succeeded, since they had, throughtheir raids on the coast-tribes, cut off their adversaries from the supply of salt, and also surrounded them almost completely, cutting off their resources in the direction of the sea.

This was the condition of affairs when, in 1519, Cortez landed at VeraCruz, then an uninhabited beach. He recognized the weak points of the situation, and successively brought over to his side the enemies of the league, then one of its members, Tezcuco, and finally, with these auxiliaries, captured the lake-stronghold of the ancient Mexicans, or Aztecs, putting an end to their existence as a tribe. The degree of culture which the Mexicans, or Aztecs, had reached was not superior to that of any of thesedentary tribes of the Mexican tableland, and in some respects it was below that of the Indians of Yucatan, Honduras, or Chiapas. Their social organization rested on the basis of localized clanship, twenty clans (Calpulli), with descent in the male line, forming the autonomous units which the tribe enveloped like a shell. The representatives of these clans, one for each, constituted the supreme tribal authority, the council, or Tlatocan, and were elected for life or during good behaviour. These in turn, with the sanction of the religious chiefs, selected a head war-chief, or Tlacatecuhtli (Chief of Men), and an administrative head, who bore the strange title of Cihua-Cohuatl (Snake Woman), and probablyhad more religious attributes. It was the former whom the Spaniards understood to be a monarch, whereas he was properly but a chief-executive, subject to removal. Moctecuzoma (Montezuma) was deposed while a captive of Cortes, and there are indications that one of the earlier chieftains (Tizoc), suffered a similar fate. The twenty clans were grouped in four principal quarters, each had its own war-chief with a special title. The four were subordinate to the Chief of Men, who was also ex officio the commander-in-chief of the joint forces of the confederacy. Each clan administered its own internal affairs, the tribal council only intervening in case of dissensions between clans, and managing intercourse with the two other members of the league.

The religious organization of the Mexicans had become very complex. The numerous Shamans (called priests by most authors) were grouped into four subdivisions, the medicine-men (Tlama-cazqui, probably), the hunters (Otomitl), and the warriors; above all of whom were the two Teotecuhtli asheads of worship. This organization was perpetuated, as among many Indian tribes today, by selection and training. The basis of the creed was a rude pantheism. Monotheism was unknown. Nor are there any traces of early Christian teachings. The so-called “cross” of Palenque is, first, not a work of the Mexicans, but of Maya tribes, and, second, it is not a cross but an imperfect Swastika. In consequence of the pantheistic idea of a spiritual essence pervading creation, and individualizing at will in natural or human forms, numberless fetishes, or idols, were manufactured, which entailed a very elaborate cult and a very sanguinary one, from the time that historical deities (deified men) began to assume prevalence. The chief idols of the Mexicans were historic personages, probably Shamans of very early times, surrounded by a halo of miraculous deeds, hence credited with supernatural powers, and, finally, supernatural descent. These fetishes (Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcohuatl, etc.) were sometimes of more than human size, of stone and wood, elaborately carved and bedecked with cloth and ornaments. To the idols, human victims were sacrificed in various ways, and, relatively, in large numbers, although it is scarcely possible that more than hundreds—not thousands as reported—should have been slaughtered annually. The victims were obtained in warfare, and also formed part of the tribute imposed upon conquered tribes. Aside from these cruel executions, the Shamans subjected their own persons to not less cruel tortures and to severe penance.

A certain education was given to the male youth in special buildings connected with the houses of worship and called Telpuchcalli (Houses of the Youth). That education consisted in the rehearsal of ancient songs and the use of weapons. For counting and the preservation of historic memories, as also for tribute, pictographs, executed on thin paste of maguey fibre spread over delicate pieces of tanned hide, were sometimes used. These paintings could indicate numbers (by dots and symbols), names (figures related to the meaning of the word), dates (dots and signs), and events (one or more human figures in action). Besides, they had two distinct calendars, the origin of which seems very ancient. Their great cycle was of fifty-two years subdivided into four periods, of thirteen years each. The years were named Tochtli (Rabbit), Acatl (Reed), Tecpatl (Flint), Calli (House), and these four names were repeated thirteen times in the great cycle. The month consisted of twenty days, named and figures after the same method. They had also a ritual calendar, of twenty periods of thirteen days each, and for ceremonial purposes only. Their numeration went from one to twenty, from twenty to four hundred, eight thousand being the highest figure having a symbol (Xiquipilli, a bag, or sack). Their knowledge of heavenly bodies was limited; they knew the bissextile, and used a rude correction, but had no astronomical instruments. Neither had they any conception of the angle as a means of measuring. Dress and adornment were elaborate, in official functions; otherwise, the costume was simple, of cotton, with sandals and without trousers. The head was bare, except in the case of chiefs and some of the Shamans. Ornaments were of gold, silver, and bright stones, mostly turquoises, the stones being esteemed for colour or brilliancy only. Gold was obtained as tribute, also silver. They knew how to fuse the metals by means of the blowpipe. They used copper and an accidental bronze, but no iron. Obsidian played an important part, being the material for edged tools and mirrors. They had no metallic currency, gold and silver were only for ceremonial and personal decoration.

The buildings of Tenochtitlan were of adobe (sundried bricks). The houses were mostly low, but wide; the places of worship small and dingy chapels, erected on the tops of huge artificial mounds of earth encased in stone work. These mounds (teo-calli, houses of the gods, or spirits) occupied the centre of the settlement, and contained some sculptures remarkable for size and elaborations. The teo-calli were also citadels to the otherwise unprotected pueblos. The several causeways build from Tenochtitlan to the mainland, were very creditable achievements. Tenure of lands was communal, without private ownership, each clan holding a certain area, distributed for use among its members. Agricultural implements were primitive. Land-tillage was of secondary importance toa tribe essentially lacustrine, and which relied chiefly upon warfare for its subsistence. Together with their confederates of Tezcuco and Tlacopan, the ancient Mexicans, or Aztecs, lived by preying upon other tribes, either plundering or levying tribute. They had no thought of founding astate or nationality. Commerce was carried on, even with tribes that were hostile, and it sometimes gave a welcome pretext for aggression. Of domestic quadrupeds they had only a species of indigenous dog. Like all Indian towns, Tenochtitlan had a large central market-place (tianquiz), the extent and resources of which have been considerably exaggerated, as well as most other features of so-called Indian civilization.

Of more recent works, Robertson, History of America, and Prescott, History of the Conquest of Mexico, are most widely known and have a large number of editions, but they should be consulted critically. As an accumulation of references to original sources, Hubert H Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States are very valuable. Eyewitnesses of the conquest like Hernando Cortes, Cartes de Relacion, and the sources in Ramusio are of great importance, but should be treated with circumspection as interested reporters. Important also are Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes, Historia general y moral de las Indias, III (1853); Francisco Lopez de Gomara, Conquista de Mexico, Secunda Parte de la Cronica general de las Indias (1554). Besides, for the status of the Aztecs, or Mexicans, and their degree of culture, the works of ecclesiastics and missionaries; the books of Romolinia; Geronimo de Mendieta, Historia eclesiastica indiana, also of Juan de Torquemada, Monarquia indiana (1729), are of first rank. Camargo, Historia de Tlaxcala (Mexico, 1892); Zurita and Pomar, Nueva coleccion de Documentos para la Historia de Mexico (Mexico, 1891); and Sahagun, Historia general de las Cosas de Nueva Espanña (Mexico, 1828), deserve careful attention. Lastly we refer to Father Diego Duran, Historia de los indios de Nueva España (Mexico, 1867); to Tezozomoc, Cronica mexicana (Mexico, 1878); and to the so-called Codice Ramirez, written by the Jesuit Juan de Tobar, and printed in the same volume as the work of Tezozomoc. Fernando de Alba, Ixtlilxochitl, Relaciones historicas and his Historia de los Chichimecas, antiquos Reyes de Tezcuco (both in Lord Kingsborough’s Antiquities of Mexico) also belong to the same period, the sixteenth century, and were also published much later. In the eighteenth century, Vetia y Echeverria wrote a compendious Historia antiqua de Mexico(Mexico, 1836), and Clavigero his well-known Storia de Messico, of which many editions and translations have appeared. The voluminous collections entitled: Coleccion de documentos para la historia de España, contain many documents of great interest. All these sources should be treated with great critical caution and made use of from a specifically ethnological standpoint. They are all valuable, but suffer from the failings of the knowledge of their times and from the inevitable shortcomings of the personal element. Literature on the Nahuatl or Mexican (Aztec) language begins very soon after the introduction of the printing press in Mexico, that is, after 1535–36.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Azymes

(Gr. azymos, without leaven; Heb. maççoth).

Unfermented cakes used by the Jews in their various sacrifices and religious rites (Ex. xxix, 2,23; Num., vi, 15, 17,19; Lev., ii, 4; vi, 16–17; vii, 12, viii, 2, 26), as commanded by the Law (Ex.,xxiii, 18; xxxiv, 25; Lev., ii, 11). Their use was also prescribed for the Feast of the Passover (Ex., xii, 8, 15; xiii, 3, 6, 7; Num., ix, 11; Deut., xvi, 3, 4, 8). On account of the facility with which they could be prepared, they were also made in ordinary life for unexpected guests (Gen., xviii, 6; Judges, vi, 19–21, etc.) and in times of necessity, e.g., at the time of the Exodus (Ex., xii, 34, 39), whence the name, “bread of affliction” (Deut., xvi, 3). In I Cor., v, 8, unleavened bread is the type of sincerity and truth. Unleavened cakes were especially used for the Feast of Azymes, also called the “solemn feast” (Num., xxviii, 17). This festival was instituted to commemorate Israel’s deliverance from Egyptian bondage (Ex., xii, 17; xiii, 3–10). Its observance began on the fifteenth of Abib, or Nisan “the month of newcorn,” and continued seven days, the first and last of which were specially solemn (Ex., xii, 15–18; xiii, 7; Lev. xxiii, 6–8, etc.). No other but unleavened bread was allowed during the whole feast. Although originally distinct, the Feast of Azymes and the Feast of the Passover are often treated as one and the same (Deut., xvi, 16; Matt., xxiv, 17; Mark,xiv, 12; Luke, xxii, 1, 7).

EDERSHEIM, The Temple and its Services (London,1874); GREEN, The Hebrew Feasts (New York, 1885); SCHULTZ, OldTestament Theology, tr. (Edinburgh, 1892), I.

F.X.E. ALBERT

Azymites

(A privative, and zyme, leaven).

A term of reproach used by the schismatic Greeks since the eleventh century against the Latins, who, together with the Armenians and the Maronites, celebrate the Holy Eucharist with unleavened bread. Since reviling is apt to beget reviling, some few Latin controversialists have retorted by assailing the Greeks as “Fermentarians” and “Prozymites.” There was, however, but little cause for bitterness on the Latin side, as the Western Church has always maintained the validity of consecration with either leavened or unleavened bread. Whether the bread which Our Lord took and blessed at the Last Supper was leavened or unleavened, is another question. Regarding the usage of the primitive Church, our knowledge is so scant, and the testimonies so apparently contradictory, that many theologians have pronounced the problem incapable of solution.

Certain it is that in the ninth century the use of unleavened bread had become universal and obligatory in the West, while the Greeks, desirous of emphasizing the distinction between the Jewish and the Christian Pasch, offered up leavened bread. Some surprise has been expressed that Photius, so alert in picking flaws in the Latin Liturgy, made no use of a point of attack which occupies so prominent a place in the polemics of the later schismatics. The obvious explanation is that Photius was shrewd and learned enough to see that the position of the Latins could not successfully be assailed. Two centuries later, the quarrel with Rome was resumed by a patriarch who was troubled with no learned scruples. As a visible symbol of Catholic unity, it had been the custom to maintain Greek churches and monasteries in Rome and some of Latin Rite in Constantinople. In 1053, Michael Cærularius ordered all the Latin churches in the Byzantine capital to be closed, and the Latin monks to be expelled. As a dogmatic justification of this violent rupture with the past, he advanced the novel tenet that the unleavened oblation of the “Franks” was not a valid Mass; and one of his chaplains, Constantine by name, with a fanaticism worthy of a Calvinist, trod the consecrated Host under his feet. The proclamation of war with the pope and the West was drawn up by his chief lieutenant, Leo of Achrida, metropolitan of the Bulgarians. It was in the form of a letter addressed to John, Bishop of Trani, in Apulia, at the time subject to the Byzantine emperor, and by decree of Leo the Isaurian attached to the Eastern Patriarchate. John was commanded to have the letter translated into Latin and communicated to the pope and the Western bishops. This was done by the learned Benedictine, Cardinal Humbert, who happened to be present in Trani when the letter arrived. Baronius has preserved the Latin version; Cardinal Hergenröther was so fortunate as to discover the original Greek text (Cornelius Will, Acta et Scripta, 51 sqq.). It is a curious sample of Greek logic. “The love of God and a feeling of friendliness impelled the writers to admonish the Bishops, clergy, monks and laymen of the Franks, and the Most Reverend Pope himself, concerning their azyms and Sabbaths, which were unbecoming, as being Jewish observances and instituted by Moses. But our Pasch is Christ. The Lord, indeed, obeyed the law by first celebrating the legal pasch; but, as we learn from the Gospel, he subsequently instituted the new pasch. . . . He took bread, etc., that is, a thing full of life and spirit and heat. You call bread panis; we call it artos. This from airoel (airo), to raise, signifies a something elevated, lifted up, being raised and warmed by the ferment and salt; the azym, on the other hand, is lifeless as a stone or baked clay, fit only to symbolize affliction and suffering. But our Pasch is replete with joy; it elevates usfrom the earth to heaven even as the leaven raises and warms the bread,” etc. This etymological manipulation of artos from airo was about as valuable in deciding a theological controversy as Melanchthon’s discovery that the Greek for “penance” is metanoia. The Latin divines found an abundance of passages in Scripture whereunleavened bread is designated as artos. Cardinal Humbert remembered immediately the places where the unleavened loaves of proposition are called artoi. If the writers of the letter had been familiar with the Septuagint, they would have recalled the artous azymous of Ex., xxix, 2.

To Cærularius the exegetical merit of the controversy was of minor importance. He had found an effective battle-cry, well calculated to infuse into the breasts of his unreasoning partisans that hatred and defiance of the Latins which filled his own breast. The flour and water wafers of the “Franks” were not bread; their sacrifices were invalid; they were Jews not Christians. Their lifeless bread could only symbolize a soulless Christ; therefore, they had clearly fallen into the heresy of Apollinaris. By arts like these, the unfortunate Greeks were seduced from their allegiance to the centre of Catholic unity; and a schism was precipitated which centuries have not yet healed. It is interesting to notice that this question of azyms, which brought forth a cloud of virulentpamphlets and made a deeper impression on the popular imagination than the abstruse controversy of the Filioque, caused little or no discussion among the theologians at the Councils of Lyons and Florence. At the latter Council the Greeks admitted the Latin contention that the consecration of the elements was equally valid with leavened and unleavened bread; it was decreed that the priests of either rite should conform to the custom of their respective Church. Modern Russians have claimed for their nation the dubious honour of having opened this crusade against azyms; but the treatises ascribed to Leontius, Bishop of Kiew, who lived a century earlier than Cærularius, and in which all the well-known arguments of the Greeks are rehearsed, are judged to have proceeded from a later pen.

HERGENRÖTHER, Photius, III, passim; and in K. L., I, 1778–80; HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, 2d ed., IV,766, 772–774; PITZIPIOS, L’Eglise Orientale; NATALIS, Alex. Deazymorum usu, Hist. Eccl. (1778), VII, 380–389; MABILLON, De azymorum Eucharistico, in Vet. Ann. (1723), 522–547; BONA, Rev. Lith. I. c. 23 (a classic text); La question des azymes, in Messager des fideles (1889), 485–490.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

B

ARTICLES

B

Franz Xaver von Baader

Baal, Baalim

Baalbek

Babel

Ludwig Babenstuber

Jacques Babinet

St. Babylas

Babylon

Babylonia

Synod of Baccanceld

Bacchylus

Bachiarius

Paul Bachmann

Augustin de Backer

Peter Hubert Evermode Backx

David William Bacon

John Bacon

Nathaniel Bacon

Baconian System of Philosophy

Diocese of Badajoz

Grand Duchy of Baden

Tommaso Badia

Stephen Theodore Badin

Raphael Badius

John Jacob Baegert

François Baert

Suitbert Bæumer

Vicariate Apostolic of Bagamoyo

Bagdad

Bageis

Cavaliere Giovanni Baglioni

Diocese of Bagnorea

Jean Bagot

Christopher Bagshaw

Bahama Islands

Thomas Bailey

Charles-François Baillargeon

Adrien Baillet

Pierre Bailloquet

Thomas Baily

Christopher Bainbridge

Peter Augustine Baines

Ralph Baines

Abbate Giuseppe Baini

St. Baithen

Michel Baius

Ven. Charles Baker

David Augustine Baker

Francis Asbury Baker

Diocese of Baker City

Thomas Bakócz

Balaam

Balanaea

St. Balbina

Boleslaus Balbinus

Vasco Nuñez de Balboa

Bernardo de Balbuena

Hieronymus Balbus

Baldachinum of the Altar

Jacob Balde

Balderic (Baudry)

Balderic

Bernardino Baldi

Bl. Anthony Baldinucci

Alesso Baldovinetti

St. Baldred

Hans Baldung

Baldwin

Francis Baldwin

Baldwin of Canterbury

Balearic Isles

Ven. Christopher Bales

Mother Frances Mary Teresa Ball

Diocese of Ballarat

Girolamo and Pietro Ballerini

Henry Balme

Jaime Luciano Balmes

Balsam

Theodore Balsamon

Baltasar

Archdiocese of Baltimore

Plenary Councils of Baltimore

Provincial Councils of Baltimore

Jean François Baltus

Jean Balue

Etienne Baluze

Ven. Edward Bamber

Archdiocese of Bamberg

Banaias

Louis Bancel

Matteo Bandello

Anselmo Banduri

Domingo Bañez

Antiphonary of Bangor

Diocese of Bangor

Bangor Abbey

John and Michael Banim

Diocese of Banjaluka

Civil Aspect of Bankruptcy

Moral Aspect of Bankruptcy

Banns of Marriage

John Bapst

Baptism

Baptismal Font

Baptismal Vows

Bl. Baptista Mantuanus

Baptistery

Baptistines

Baptists

Barac

Jacob Baradæus

Frederic Baraga

Ven. Madeleine-Sophie Barat

Nicolas Barat

Alvaro Alonzo Barba

Barbalissos

St. Barbara

Giovanni Francesco Barbarigo

Diocese of Barbastro

Felix-Joseph Barbelin

Barber Family

Giovanni Barbieri

Agostino Barbosa

Ignacio Barbosa-Machado

John Barbour

Paulus Barbus

Barca

Diocese of Barcelona

University of Barcelona

Alonzo de Barcena

John Barclay

William Barclay

Martin del Barco Centenera

Martin de Barcos

Henry Bard

Bardesanes and Bardesanites

Bar Hebræus

Archdiocese of Bari

Barjesus

Moses Bar-Kepha

Ven. Mark Barkworth

Barlaam and Josaphat

Gabriel Barletta

Abbey of Barlings

Ven. Edward Ambrose Barlow

William Rudesind Barlow

Epistle of Barnabas

St. Barnabas

Barnabas of Terni

Barnabites

Federigo Baroccio

Barocco Style

Bonaventura Baron

Vincent Baron

Ven. Cesare Baronius

Diocese of Barquisimeto

Sebastião Barradas

Louis-Mathias, Count de Barral

Joachim Barrande

Jacinto Barrasa

Antoine-Lefebvre, Sieur de la Barre

Balthasar Barreira

Lopez de Barrientos

João de Barros

John Barrow

Ven. William Barrow

Augustin Barruel

John Barry (1)

John Barry (2)

Patrick Barry

Paul de Barry

Johann Caspar Barthel

Jean-Jacques Barthélemy

Francesco della Rossa Bartholi

Bartholomaeus Anglicus

Bartholomew

St. Bartholomew

Ven. Bartholomew of Braga

Bartholomew of Braganca

Bartholomew of Brescia

Bartholomew of Edessa

Bartholomew of Lucca

Bartholomew of Pisa

Bartholomew of San Concordio

Bartholomites

Daniello Bartoli

Giulio Bartolocci

Fra Bartolommeo

Francesco Bartolozzi

Elizabeth Barton

Baruch

Liturgy of Saint Basil

Rule of Saint Basil

Basilians

Basilica (stoa basilike)

Basilides (1)

Basilides (2)

Basilinopolis

Basilissa

Basil of Amasea

Basil of Seleucia

St. Basil the Great

Ecclesiastical Use of Basin

Council of Basle

Diocese of Basle-Lugano

Bas-relief

Bassein

Joshua Bassett

Matthew of Bassi

Bassianus

Claude-Frédéric Bastiat

Guillaume-André-Réné Baston

Prefecture Apostolic of Basutoland

Vicariate Apostolic of Batavia

Bath Abbey

Bath and Wells

William Bathe

St. Bathilde

Diocese of Bathurst

Marco Battaglini

Charles Batteux

Giovanni Giuda Giona Battista

Battle Abbey

Wilhelm Bauberger

Nicolas Baudeau

Michel Baudouin

Gallus Jacob Baumgartner

Louis Baunard

Etienne Bauny

Louis-François de Bausset

Louis-Eugène-Marie Bautain

Fray Juan Bautista

Kingdom of Bavaria

William Bawden

Adèle Bayer

Francisco Bayeu y Subias

Diocese of Bayeux

James Roosevelt Bayley

Joseph Bayma

Diocese of Bayonne

Guido de Baysio

John Stephen Bazin

Use of Beads at Prayers

Beard

Aubrey Beardsley

Beatific Vision

Beatification and Canonization

Mount of Beatitudes

Eight Beatitudes

David Beaton

James Beaton (1)

James Beaton (2)

Beatrix

Lady Margaret Beaufort

Beaulieu Abbey

Renaud de Beaune

Jean-Nicolas Beauregard

Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard

Diocese of Beauvais

Gilles-François-de Beauvais

Jean-Baptiste-Charles-Marie de Beauvais

Roch-Amboise-Auguste Bébian

Abbey of Bec

Martin Becan

John Beccus

Bl. John Beche

Georg Philipp Ludolf von Beckedorff

Thomas Andrew Becker

Pierre-Jean Beckx

Antoine-César Becquerel

Pierre Bédard

Bede

Ven. Bede

Gunning S. Bedford

Henry Bedford

Frances Bedingfeld

Sir Henry Bedingfeld

Cajetan Bedini

Bedlam

Ian Theodor Beelen

Beelphegor

Beelzebub

Ven. George Beesley

Francesco Antonio Begnudelli-Basso

Beguines and Beghards

Albert von Behaim

Martin Behaim

Beirut

Diocese of Beja

John Belasyse

Ven. Thomas Belchiam

Archdiocese of Belem do Pará

Belfry

Belgium

Belgrade and Smederevo

Giacopo Belgrado

Belial

Belief

Albert (Jean) Belin

Ven. Arthur Bell

James Bell

Jerome Bellamy

John Bellarini

Ven. Robert Francis Romulus Bellarmine

Edward Bellasis

Aloysius Bellecius

John Bellenden

Diocese of Belleville

Diocese of Belley

Sir Richard Bellings

Bellini

Jean-Baptiste de Belloy

Bells

Diocese of Belluno-Feltre

François Vachon de Belmont

Ven. Thomas Belson

Henri François Xavier de Belsunce de Castelmoron

Giambattista Belzoni

Pietro Bembo

Prefecture Apostolic of Benadir

Laurent Bénard

Fray Alonzo Benavides

Benda

Popes Benedict I-X

Pope Benedict I

Pope St. Benedict II

Pope Benedict III

Pope Benedict IV

Pope Benedict V

Pope Benedict VI

Pope Benedict VII

Pope Benedict VIII

Pope Benedict IX

Pope Benedict X

Pope Benedict XI

Pope Benedict XII

Pope Benedict XIII

Pope Benedict XIV

Rule of Saint Benedict

Abbey of Benedictbeurn

St. Benedict Biscop

Jean Benedicti

St. Benedict Joseph Labre

Benedictine Order

Benedictional

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament

Benedict Levita

St. Benedict of Aniane

St. Benedict of Nursia

Benedict of Peterborough

St. Benedict of San Philadelphio

Benedictus (Canticle of Zachary)

Benedictus Polonus

Benefice

Benefit of Clergy

Jeremiah Benettis

Archdiocese of Benevento (Beneventana)

Jöns Oxenstjerna Bengtsson

Anatole de Bengy

St. Benignus

St. Benignus of Dijon

Vicariate Apostolic of Benin

Benjamin

Franz Georg Benkert

St. Benno

Benno II

Michel Benoît

Benthamism

Family of Bentivoglio

John Francis Bentley

William Bentney

Joseph Charles Benziger

Girolamo Benzoni

St. Berach

St. Berard of Carbio

Carlo Sebastiano Berardi

Antoine Henri de Bérault-Bercastel

St. Bercharius

Pierre Bercheure

Bl. Berchtold

Berengarius of Tours

Pierre Bérenger

Berenice

Diocese of Bergamo

Nicolas-Sylvestre Bergier

Charles Berington

Joseph Berington

Humphrey Berisford

Berissa

José Mariano Beristain y Martin de Souza

Anton Berlage

Pierre Berland

Fray Tomás de Berlanga

Berlin

Hector Berlioz

Agostino Bernal

St. Bernard

Alexis-Xyste Bernard

Claude Bernard (1)

Claude Bernard (2)

Bernard Guidonis

Bernard of Besse

Bernard of Bologna

Bernard of Botone

St. Bernard of Clairvaux

Bernard of Cluny

Bernard of Compostella

Bernard of Luxemburg

St. Bernard of Menthon

Bernard of Pavia

St. Bernard Tolomeo

Bl. Bernardine of Feltre

Bl. Bernardine of Fossa

St. Bernardine of Siena

Bernardines

Berne

Francesco Berni

Etienne-Alexandre Bernier

Domenico Bernini

Giovanni Lorenzo Bernini

Giuseppe Maria Bernini

François-Joachim-Pierre de Bernis

Berno (Abbot of Reichenau)

Berno

Bernold of Constance

St. Bernward

Beroea

Berosus

Beroth

Pietro Berrettini

Alonso Berruguete

Isaac-Joseph Berruyer

Pierre-Antoine Berryer

Bersabee

Bertha

Berthold

Berthold of Chiemsee

Berthold of Henneberg

Berthold of Ratisbon

Berthold of Reichenau

Giovanni Lorenzo Berti

St. Bertin

Diocese of Bertinoro

Ludovico Bertonio

Pierre Bertrand

St. Bertulf

Pierre de Bérulle

Martin de Bervanger

Archdiocese of Besançon (Vesontio)

Jerome Lamy Besange

Theodore Beschefer

Costanzo Giuseppe Beschi

Beseleel

Jérôme Besoigne

Christopher Besoldus

Johannes Bessarion

Johann Franz Bessel

Henry Digby Beste

Bestiaries

Fray Domingo Betanzos

Fray Pedro de Betanzos

Juan de Betanzos

Bethany

Bethany Beyond the Jordan

Betharan

Bethdagon

Bethel

Bethlehem (1)

Bethlehem (2)

Bethlehem (as used in architecture)

Bethlehemites

Bethsaida

Bethsan

Bethulia

Betrothal

Prefecture Apostolic of Bettiah

Betting

Count Auguste-Arthur Beugnot

St. Beuno

Beverley Minster

Lawrence Beyerlinck

Giovanni Antonio Bianchi

Francesco Bianchini

Giuseppe Bianchini

Charles Bianconi

Pierre Biard

Bibbiena

St. Bibiana

The Bible

Bible Societies

Picture Bibles

Biblia Pauperum

Biblical Antiquities

Biblical Commission

Ven. Robert Bickerdike

Alexander Bicknor

James Bidermann

Gabriel Biel

Diocese of Biella

Marcin Bielski

Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne, Sieur de Bienville

Bigamy (in Canon Law)

Bigamy (in Civil Jurisprudence)

Marguerin de la Bigne

Eberhard Billick

Charles-René Billuart

Jacques de Billy

Bilocation

Bination

Joseph Biner

Etienne Binet

Jacques-Philippe-Marie Binet

Severin Binius

Anton Joseph Binterim

Biogenesis and Abiogenesis

Biology

Flavio Biondo

Jean-Baptiste Biot

Birds (In Symbolism)

Biretta

St. Birinus (Berin)

Fabian Birkowski

Diocese of Birmingham

Heinrich Birnbaum

Defect of Birth

Birtha

Diocese of Bisarchio

Bishop

William Bishop

Bisomus

Robert Blackburne

Black Fast

Blackfoot Indians

Adam Blackwood

St. Blaise

Anthony Blanc

Jean-Baptiste Blanchard

François Norbert Blanchet

St. Blandina

St. Blane

Blasphemy

Matthew Blastares

St. Blathmac

Nicephorus Blemmida

Blenkinsop

The Blessed

Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament

Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament

Blessing

Apostolic Blessing

Diocese of Blois

Peter Blomevenna

Blood Indians

François-Louis Blosius

Heinrich Blyssen

Francis Blyth

Nicolas Bobadilla

Abbey and Diocese of Bobbio

Boccaccino

Giovanni Boccaccio

Placidus Böcken

Edward Bocking

Ven. John Bodey

Jean Bodin

Bodone

Hector Boece

Petrus Boeri

Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius

Bogomili

Archdiocese of Santa Fé de Bogotá

Bohemia

Bohemian Brethren

Bohemians of the United States

Diocese of Boiano

Matteo Maria Boiardo

Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux

Diocese of Boise

Jean de Dieu-Raymond de Cucé de Boisgelin

St. Boisil

Diocese of Bois-le-Duc

Osbern Bokenham

Conrad von Bolanden

Giovanni Vincenzo Bolgeni

Bolivia

Bollandists

Johann Bollig

Archdiocese of Bologna

Giovanni da Bologna

University of Bologna

Jérôme-Hermès Bolsec

Edmund Bolton

Bernhard Bolzano

Archdiocese of Bombay

Cornelius Richard Anton van Bommel

Giovanni Bona

Bonagratia of Bergamo

François de Bonal

Raymond Bonal

Louis-Gabriel-Ambroise, Vicomte de Bonald

Louis-Jacques-Maurice de Bonald

Bona Mors Confraternity

Charles-Lucien-Jules-Laurent Bonaparte

St. Bonaventure

Balthasar Boncompagni

Juan Pablo Bonet

Nicholas Bonet

Jacques Bonfrère

St. Boniface

Pope St. Boniface I

Pope Boniface II

Popes Boniface III

Pope St. Boniface IV

Pope Boniface V

Pope Boniface VI

Boniface VII (Antipope)

Pope Boniface VIII

Pope Boniface IX

Boniface Association

Boniface of Savoy

Boni Homines

Bonizo of Sutri

University of Bonn

Ven. Jean Louis Bonnard

Henri-Marie-Gaston Boisnormand de Bonnechose

Abbey of Bonne-Espérance

Edmund Bonner

Augustin Bonnetty

Bonosus

Institute of Bon Secours (de Paris)

Alessandro Bonvicino

Book of Common Prayer

Foxe’s Book of Martyrs

Archdiocese of Bordeaux (Burdigala)

University of Bordeaux

Cavaliere Paris Bordone

Caspar Henry Borgess

Stefano Borgia

Ambrogio Borgognone

Diocese of Borgo San-Donnino

Diocese of Borgo San-Sepolcro

Pierre-Rose-Ursule-Dumoulin Borie

Prefectures Apostolic of Borneo

Francisco Nicolás Borras

Andrea Borromeo

Federico Borromeo

Society of St. Charles Borromeo

Francesco Borromini

Christopher Borrus

Diocese of Bosa

Peter van der Bosch

Ven. Giovanni Melchior Bosco

Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovich

Antonio Bosio

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Boso

Boso (Breakspear)

Jacques Le Bossu

Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

Ven. John Boste

Archdiocese of Boston

Bostra

Bothrys

Sandro Botticelli

St. Botulph

Lorenzo Boturini Benaducci

Pierre Boucher

Louis-Victor-Emile Bougaud

Guillaume-Hyacinthe Bougeant

Dominique Bouhours

Jacques Bouillart

Emmanuel Théodore de la Tour d’Auvergne, Cardinal de Bouillon

Marie Dominique Bouix

Henri, Count of Boulainvilliers

André de Boulanger

César-Egasse du Boulay

Etienne-Antoine Boulogne

Martin Bouquet

Thomas Bouquillon

Jean-Jacques Bourassé

Thomas Bourchier

Louis Bourdaloue

Hélie de Bourdeilles

Jean Bourdon

François Bourgade

Archdiocese of Bourges (Bituricæ)

Ignace Bourget

François Bourgoing

Gilbert Bourne

Charles de Bouvens

Joachim Bouvet

Jean-Baptiste Bouvier

Diocese of Bova

Diocese of Bovino

Sir George Bowyer

Boy-Bishop

John Boyce

Boyle Abbey

Thomas Bracken

Henry de Bracton

Denis Mary Bradley

Edward Bradshaigh

Henry Bradshaw

William Maziere Brady

Archdiocese of Braga

Diocese of Bragança-Miranda

Brahminism

Louis Braille

Nicolas de Bralion

Donato Bramante

Brancaccio

Francesco Brancati

Francesco Lorenzo Brancati di Lauria

Branch Sunday

Brandenburg

Edouard Branly

Sebastian Brant

Pierre de Bourdeille, Seigneur de Brantôme

Memorial Brasses

Charles Etienne, Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg

Johann Alexander Brassicanus

St. Braulio

Placidus Braun

Francisco Bravo

Brazil

Liturgical Use of Bread

Striking of the Breast

Jean de Brébeuf

Diocese of Breda

Jean Bréhal

Brehon Laws

Bremen

St. Brenach

Michael John Brenan

St. Brendan

Klemens Maria Brentano

Diocese of Brescia

Prince-Bishopric of Breslau

Francesco Giuseppe Bressani

Brethren of the Lord

Raymond Breton

Breviary

Aberdeen Breviary

Heinrich Brewer

Joseph Olivier Briand

Bribery

Briçonnet

Jacques Bridaine

The Bridge-Building Brotherhood

St. Bridget of Sweden

Thomas Edward Bridgett

John Bridgewater

Bridgewater Treatises

St. Brieuc

St. Brigid of Ireland

Brigittines

John Brignon

Paulus Bril

Peter Michael Brillmacher

Ven. Edmund Brindholm

Diocese of Brindisi

Stephen Brinkley

Jacques-Charles de Brisacier

Jean de Brisacier

Archdiocese of Brisbane

Johann Nepomucene Brischar

Ancient Diocese of Bristol

Richard Bristow

British Columbia

Francis Britius

Thomas Lewis Brittain

Ven. John Britton

Diocese of Brixen

St. Brogan

Auguste-Théodore-Paul de Broglie

Jacques-Victor-Albert, Duc de Broglie

Maurice-Jean de Broglie

Jean-Allarmet de Brogny

John Bromyard

John Baptist Brondel

Anthony Brookby

James Brookes

Diocese of Brooklyn

Jean-Baptiste de la Brosse

Brothers Hospitallers of St. John of God

Richard Broughton

Christoph Brouwer

William Brown

Charles Farrar Browne

Orestes Augustus Brownson

Vicariate Apostolic of Brownsville

Heinrich Brück

Joachim Bruel

David-Augustin de Brueys

Louis-Frédéric Brugère

Bruges

Pierre Brugière

John Brugman

Constantino Brumidi

Pierre Brumoy

Filippo Brunellesco

Ferdinand Brunetière

Ugolino Brunforte

Leonardo Bruni

Diocese of Brünn

Francis de Sales Brunner

Sebastian Brunner

St. Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne

St. Bruno (1)

St. Bruno (2)

Giordano Bruno

St. Bruno of Querfurt

Bruno the Saxon

Brunswick (Braunschweig)

Anton Brus

Brusa

Brussels

Simon William Gabriel Bruté de Rémur

Jacques Bruyas

John Delavau Bryant

Bubastis

Gabriel Bucelin

Martin Bucer

Victor de Buck

Buckfast Abbey

Sir Patrick Alphonsus Buckley

Buddhism

Guillaume Budé

Diocese of Budweis

Buenos Aires

Diocese of Buffalo

Claude Buffier

Louis Buglio

Bernardo Buil

Ecclesiastical Buildings

Archdiocese of Bukarest

Bulgaria

Bulla Aurea

Ven. Thomas Bullaker

Bullarium

Spanish Bull-Fight

Angélique Bullion

Bulls and Briefs

Sir Richard Bulstrode

Joannes Bunderius

Michelangelo Buonarroti

Burchard of Basle

Burchard of Worms

St. Burchard of Würzburg

Hans Burckmair

Edward Ambrose Burgis

Francisco Burgoa

Archdiocese of Burgos

Burgundy

Christian Burial

Jean Buridan

Jean Lévesque de Burigny

Franz Burkard

Edmund Burke

Thomas Burke

Thomas Nicholas Burke

Walter Burleigh

Diocese of Burlington

Burma

Peter Hardeman Burnett

James Burns

Burse

Abbey of Bursfeld

Abbey of Bury St. Edmund’s

Ven. César de Bus

Pierre Busée

Hermann Busembaum

Busiris

Buskins

Franz Joseph, Ritter von Buss

Carlos María Bustamante

Thomas Stephen Buston

John Patrick Crichton-Stuart, Third Marquess of Bute

Jacques Buteux

Alban Butler

Charles Butler

Mary Joseph Butler

Buttress

Ven. Christopher Buxton

Byblos

Bye-Altar

Byllis

William Byrd

Andrew Byrne

Richard Byrne

William Byrne

Byzantine Architecture

Byzantine Art

Byzantine Empire

Byzantine Literature

Franz Xaver von Baader

German philosopher, born at Munich, 1765; died at the same place, 23 May, 1841.

I. The idealistic stream of German philosophy which started with Kant and culminated, in two divergent branches, in Hegel and Schopenhauer, encountered on the one side an opposing current of empirical realism setting back from Herbart, and on the other a partly reactionary, and yet partly concurrent movement originating in certain Catholic thinkers. Prominent among the latter was Baader. Having entered the University of Ingolstadt at sixteen and taken his doctorate at nineteen, he continued his medical studies two years longer at Vienna and then assisted his father, who was court physician. He soon gave this up, however, for mining engineering and after considerable travel in Germany he spent about five years in England (1791–96), where he became acquainted with the mysticism of Böhme and with the extremely opposite empiricism of Hume and Hartley. The work of William Godwin, “Enquiry concerning Political Justice,” not only called his attention to moral and social questions but also led him to German philosophy, especially to that of Kant. Baader had a temperamental sympathy for the German Protestant mystic Böhme, but for Kant’s philosophy, especially its ethical autonomism, viz.: that human reason alone and apart from God is the primary source of the supreme rule of conduct, he had nothing but disgust. This he calls “devil’s morality” and fiercely declares that were Satan visibly to reappear on earth it would be in the garb of a professor of moral philosophy. For the English sceptics he had both a natural and an acquired aversion. Reared and educated as a Catholic, though holding some decidedly un-Catholic notions, he could find no satisfaction in reason divorced from faith. Passing through Hamburg on his return from England he met Jacoby, with whom he long lived in close friendship. Schelling likewise counted him as a friend and owed to him some of the mystical trend of his system. On his return to Germany Baader was made Superintendent of the Bavarian mines and was subsequently raised to the nobility for his services. He was awardeda prize of 12,000 gulden given by the Austrian Government for an important discovery relating to the use of Glauber salts instead of potash in the manufacturing of glass. Retiring from business in 1820 he soon afterwards published his “Fragmenta Cognitionis” (1822–25), and at the opening of the University of Munich, in 1826, he was appointed professorof speculative theology. His philosophico-religious lectures (published as “Speculative Dogmatik,” 1827–36) attracted much attention. In 1838, however, a ministerial order prohibiting laymen from lecturing on such subjects obliged him to restrict himself to anthropology. Vigorous in body and in mind he pursued his intellectual work until his final illness.

II. Baader’s “Tag und Studien Büch” (Diary), printed in the first volume of his works, affords an insight into the vicissitudes of his mind and the development of his ideals. It was primarily to his early religious training under his domestic tutor, Sailer, subsequently Bishop of Landshut, that he owed the convictions with which he combatedthe prevailing rationalism by appealing to innate experience and the subjective necessity of faith. Religious reading supplemented by prayer strengthened his natural tendency towards mysticism. Then, too, his eagerness to comprehend Christianity more thoroughly than the rationalistic theology succeeded in doing—the hope of finding the key, as he says, to theworld of mind by putting himself in direct correspondence with the ideal—drew him, in an age poor in positive theology, towards a mystical literature which had combated, if not successfully, at least with earnestnessand good intent, both German and the French rationalism. Saint-Martin’s “Philosophe inconnu,” which fell into his hands in 1787, carried him back to Böhme and thence to the whole theosophic tradition which this German mystic had given to the modern world—to Paracelsus, Meister Eckart, Eriugena, the Cabbala, and the earlier Gnostics. He encountered on his way back to the past a tangible theology, notably in the works of St. Thomas upon which he comments in his Diary, but also in the Fathers and especially in the Bible.

Since, however, it was alien doctrine which had led him to the Catholic, the authority of the latter remained more or less confounded with that of the former. Moreover, his study of the English empiricists and of Kant’s rationalism gave a critical cast to his thought if it did not add to his ideas. In placing theogonic speculations at the basis of his physical and moral ideas, and in seeking from mysticism an answer to the riddles of the universe, he thought to reach a solution of the fundamental problems of his time and realize the dream of his youth—a religious philosophy. Joining the contemplations of mysticism to the exactness of criticism he endeavoured to justify the appeal to both. Mysticism was to fructify criticism and criticism authorize mysticism. He aimed thus at opposing the negative with a positive rationalism. The transcendental truths (metaphysical, and especially theological concepts declared unknowable by Kant) were to find their justification and verification in the human, but at the same time Divinely impressed, consciousness. Reason and feeling separated by Kant were reunited by Baader. Jacoby’s appeal to emotion for the certitude of transcendental truth Baader saw to be, at best, but anegative, an irrational escape, while Fichte, by making such truth the creation of the Ego, failed to account for the Ego itself. The Hegelian logomachy of the Ego and the non-Ego could no more satisfy Baader than could Schelling’s assertion of the absolute identity of subject and object. He had seen from the start the sterility of Schelling’s principle and had confuted its pantheism.

Baader’s aim was a theistic philosophy which would embrace the worlds of nature and of spirit and afford at once a metaphysical solution of the problem of knowledge (science) and an understanding of the Christian idea and the Divine activity as manifested by revelation. Whatever be thought of this ambitious endeavour, and the Catholic student must recognize its variance both with philosophy and theology, Baader’s system surpasses both in depth and in breadth all the other philosophies of his time. He owes this pre-eminence not only to a deeper penetration, but likewise to a broader survey which embraced and estimated many of the facts and truths of Christianity and the science of the past. Unfortunately the false mysticism derived from Böhme led him into a fanciful interpretation of the mysteries of faith, while his attempt at rationalizing those mysteries was often hardly less bizarre. His system, therefore, if it may so be called, had the misfortune, on the one hand, of being ignored becauseof its purpose to synthesize Christian faith and revive the old philosophy and theology; and, on the other, of being rejected because it disfigured Christian teaching by its rationalizing spirit. It consequently may be said to have exercised an intensive and transitional, rather than an extensive and definitive, influence on the movement of thought. English sensism having resulted logically in scepticism, and Kant’s critical effortto save some certainty by purely subjective scrutiny having hopelessly lost the mind in a maze of its own spinning, Baader saw that the only salvation lay in a return to the traditional line of philosophy which had been broken off by Descartes. Unfortunately in resuming that line Baader unwound some of its essential strands and inwove others of less consistent fibre wherewith the remaining threads would not cohere. But in this very harking back to a saner past Baader was influential in hastening the healthier revival which was more definitely effected by his countrymen Kleutgen and Stöckl. Moreover, in so far as Baader opposed the prevailing rationalism and defended Christian truth, his influence is declared by so unprejudiced a writer as Robert Adamson to have extended beyond the precincts of Baader’s Church. Rothe’s “Theologische Ethik” is thoroughly impregnated with his spirit, and among others, J. Müller’s “Christl. Lehre von der Sünde” and Martinsen’s “Christl. Dogmatik” show evident marks of his influence.

III. It is extremely difficult to give any satisfactory conception of Baader’s system within narrow limits. Baader was a most fertile writer but threw out his thoughts in aphorisms, some of which indeed he subsequently collected, but most of which received their development in reviews and personal correspondence. Even his two principal works, “Fragmenta Cognitionis” and “Speculative Dogmatik,” are really mosaics and one has to seek long before discovering any unifying principles. Moreover, he moves in leaps; his style lacks coherence and order. A suggestive expression, a Latin or Franch quotation gives an unlooked-for turn to a discourse. The reader is knocked about from one side to another. Now he may be driven from logic to metaphysics and again from theology to physical philosophy. The author’s ideas often run into those of others leaving no line of demarcation. Add to this the uncertainty of his terminology, his equivocal and often bizarre use, or abuse, of words and the reading of Baader becomes no easy occupation. A summary of his system may be given as follows:

(1) Man’s knowledge is a participation in God’s knowledge. The latter necessarily compenetrates the former which is therefore always con-scientia. Our knowledge is a gift, something received, and in this respect is faith which is therefore a voluntary acceptance of the known object from God’s knowing in us and hence proceeds from the will. This, however, is preceded by an unvoluntary subjection, a necessitated desire—Nemo vult nisi videns. We experience the Indwelling Presence soliciting us to faith. Faith however, in turn, becomes the basis of knowledge in which again faith reaches its completion. Faith is thus as necessary for knowledge as knowledge is for faith. Now the content of faith is expressed by technical formulæ in religious tradition. Hence as philosophy is necessarily connected with the subjective process of faith, sois it likewise with that of tradition. Only thus can it begin and develop. Hence all science, all philosophy, is religious. Natural theology, natural ethics, etc., strictly speaking, are impossible. Philosophy arose only when religious tradition called for explication and purification. Afterwards it divorced itself, but it thus led to its own dissolution.

(2) But faith is not simply a gift (Gabe); it is also a responsibility (Aufgabe). It must be developed by reason, penetrated, vivified, and freed from the possibility of doubt. It is not memory, nor a mere relic of the past. It must cast off the temporary but retain theabiding; be permanent but progressive. Mysteries are not impenetrable, but only concealed truths: “Deum esse non creditur sed scitur” are twin truths. The whole content of religion must be reduced to exact science. There is no closed truth just as there is no closed virtue. Science proceeds from faith, but faith is developed and recast by science.

The hopeless confusion here manifest between knowledge as a natural or purely rational process, and faith, in the Catholic sense of a supernatural virtue, finds a parallel in Baader’s ethics. With him the true, i.e. religious, and hence Christian, ethics knows that God Who gives the law also fulfils it in us, so that from being a burden it ceases to be a law. Fallen man has not the power to restore himself; hereditary sin, the seed of the Serpent, hinders him in this. Still he retains the “Idea,” the seed of the woman, i.e. redeemableness. This possibility is actualized by God’s becoming man, and thus realizing the moral law in “the Man,” the Saviour, Who by overcoming temptation has destroyed evil at its centre and from within, and Who has crushed the Serpent’s head. But evil, too, must be destroyed from without by constant mortification of ego-hood. In this task man cooperating with his fellows for theattainment of happiness is neither a solitary worker, as the Kantian would say, nor completely inactive, as Luther teaches. Like hereditary sin,grace propagates itself quasi per infectionem vitae. Prayer and the Eucharist place man en rapport with Christ, through Whom man, if he cooperate, will be restored to the spiritualized condition whence he fell by sin. This spiritualization thus becomes the final subjective end for the individual and society.

The religious idea here appears as the source and the life of Baader’s sociology. The law of love for God and neighbour is the unitive principle of all social existence, liberty, and equality; as the opposite principle of self-love is the root of all disunion, slavery, and despotism. God is the binding source of all law, from Him is all social authority. Hence Baader strongly opposes the might-makes-right doctrine of Hobbes, and the social contract of Rousseau, no less than Kant’s autonomism, which regards religion as an appendage of morality. Now the religious idea and the moral and juridic law being inseparably conjoined, and neither having actual existence save in Christianity which is concrete in the Catholic Church, civil society (the State), and religious society (the Church),should co-operate. Baader apparently until towards the close of his life held that the Church should have direct—not simply indirect—authority even in civil affairs, and he was enthusiastic for a reinstatement, ina form adapted to his times, of the medieval relation between the two orders. But a change seems to have come over his mind—occasioned very probably by some personal irritation which he felt at the criticism to which his theological teachings were subjected—and he taught for a short time opinions concerning the constitution of the Church and the Papacy which were utterly irreconcilable with Catholic Faith, while the language in which these opinions was conveyed was as unbecoming the philosopher as itwas his subject. Before his death, however, he retracted this portion of his teaching.

While Baader’s sociology maintains that religion is the very root and life of civil society, it takes account also of political and economicadministration. Thus it contains his opinions favouring the organization of the classes, the revival of the medieval “corporations” or industrial associations, the political representation of the proletariat,and some well-reasoned objections to unlimited industrial competition and free trade. On the whole, his sociology is the wisest, strongest, sanest, and most practical part of his whole system, just as his technical theology is the weakest, the most bizarre, unsound, and impractical. The reason of the difference may not improbably be found in the fact that in the former the best elements of his own mind and character were free to assert themselves, while in his theology they seem almost throughout to be under the spell of Böhme whose fanciful mysticism bore him away to aregion as far removed from experience—present and past—as from the world of reason and faith. Apart from theology Baader’s teachings have a permanent value.

Sämtliche Werke (Leipzig, 1851–60), XV, contains biography, XVI, an able sketch of the whole system by LUTTERBECK; HOFFMAN, Vorhalle zur spekulativen Lehre Baaders; Philosophische Schriften, 3 vols.; HAMBERGER, Cardinalpunkte der Baaderschen Philosophie; LUTTERBECK, Philosophische Standpunkte Baaders. See also Stö, Geschichte der modernen Philos., Vol. II; BLANC, Histoire de la philosophie, vol III; ERDMANN, History of Philosophy (tr.), II; HAFFNER in Kirchenlexicon, I, s.v.; SCHMIDT in BACHEM, Staatslexicon, s.v.

F.P. SIEGFRIED

Baal, Baalim

(Hebrew Bá’ál; plural, Be’alîm.)

A word which belongs to the oldest stock of the Semite vocabulary and primarily means “lord,” “owner.” So in Hebrew, a man is styled baal of a house (Ex., xxii, 7: Judges, xix, 22), of a field (Job, xxi, 39), of cattle (Ex., xxi, 28; Isa., i, 3) of wealth (Eccles, v, 12), even of a wife (Ex, xxi, 3; cf. Gen., iii, 16). The women’s position in the Oriental home explains why she is never called Bá’alah of her husband). So also we read of a ram, “baal” of two horns (Dan, viii, 6, 20), of a baal of two wings (i.e. fowl: Eccles., x, 20). Joseph was scornfully termed by his brother a baal of dreams (Gen., xxxvii, 19). And so on. (See IV Kings, i, 8: Isa., xli, 15; Gen., xlix, 23; Ex., xxiv, 14, etc.) Inscriptions afford scores of evidence of the word being similarly used in the other Semitic languages. In the Hebrew Bible, the plural, be’alîm, is found with the various meanings of the singular; whereas in ancient and modern translations it is used only as a referring deities. It has been asserted by several commentators that by baalim the emblems or images of Baal (hámmanîm, máççebhôth, etc.) should be understood. This view is hardly supported by the texts, which regularly points out, sometimes contemptuously, the local or other special Baals.

BAAL AS A DEITY

When applied to a deity, the word Baal retained its connotation of ownership, and was, therefore, usually qualified. The documents speak, for instance, of the Baal of Tyre, of Harran, of Tarsus, of Herman, of Lebanon of Tamar (a river south of Beirut), of heaven. Moreover, several Baals enjoyed special attributions: there was a Baal of the Covenant (Bá’ál Berîth (Judges, viii, 33; ix 4); cf. El Berîth (ibid., ix, 46}; one of the flies (Bá’ál Zebub, IV Kings, i, 2, 3, 6, 16,); there also probably was one of dance (Bá’ál Márqôd); perhaps one of medicine (Bá’ál Márphê), and so on. Among all the Semites, the word, under one form or another (Bá’ál in the West and South; Bel in Assyria; Bal, Bol, or Bel im Palmyra) constantly recurs to express the deity’s lordship over the world or some part of it. Not were all the Baals—of different tribes, places, sanctuaries—necessarily conceived as identical; each one might have his own nature and his own name; the partly fish shaped Baal of Arvad was probably Dagon; the Baal of Lebanon, possible Cid “the hunter”; the Baal of Harran, the moongod; whereas in several Sabean Minaean cities, and in many Chanaanite, Phoenician, or Palmyrene shrines, the sun was the Baal worshipped, although Hadad seems to have been the chief Baal among the Syrians. The diversity of the Old Testament intimates by speaking of Baalim, in the plural, and specifying the singular Baal either by the article or by the addition of another word.

What the original conception was is most obscure. According to W.R. Smith, the Baal is a local God who, by fertilizing his own district through springs and streams, becomes its lawful owner. Good authorities, nevertheless, oppose this view, and reversing the above argument, hold that the Baal is the genius-lord of the place and of all the elements that cause its fecundity; it is he who gives “bread, water, wool, flax, oil, and drink” (Os, ii, 5; in the Hebr. text 7); he is the male principle of life and reproduction in nature, and such is sometimes honoured by acts of the foulest sensuality. Whether or not this idea sprang from, and led to the monotheistic conception of supreme deity, the Lord of Heaven, of whom the various Baals would be so many manifestations, we shall leave to scholars to decide. Some deem that the bible favours this view, for its language frequently seems to imply the belief in a Baal par excellence.

BAAL-WORSHIP AMONG THE GENTILES

The evidence is hardly of such weight as to justify us in speaking of a worship of Baal. The Baal-worship so often alluded to and described in Holy Writ might, perhaps, be better styled, Çid-worship, moon-worship, Melek (Moloch)-worship, or Hadad-worship, according to places and circumstances. Many of the practices mentioned were most probable common to the worship of all the Baals; a few others are certainly specific.

A custom common among Semites should be noticed here. Moved, most likely, by the desire to secure the protection of the local Baal for their children, the Semites always showed a preference for names compounded with that of the deity; those of Hasdrubal (‘Azrû Bá’ál), Hannibal (Hanni Bá’ál), Baltasar, or Belshazzar (Bel-sar-Ushshur), have become famous in history. Scores of such names belonging to different nationalities are recorded in the Bible, and in ancient writers, and in inscriptions.

The worship of Baal was performed in the sacred precincts of the high places so numerous throughout the country (Num., xxii, 41; xxxiii, 52; Deut., xii, 2, etc) or in temples like those of Samaria (III Kings, xvi, 32; IV Kings, x, 21–27) and Jerusalem (IV Kings, xi, 18), even on the terraced roofs of the houses (IV Kings, xxiii, 12; Jer., xxxii, 29). The furniture of these sanctuaries probably varied with the Baals honoured there. Near the altar which existed everywhere (Judges, vi 25; III Kings, xviii, 26; IV Kings, xi, 18; Jer., xi, 13, etc.), might be found, according to the particular place, either an image of the deity (Hadad was symbolized by a calf), or the bætylion (i.e. sacred stone, regularly cone-shaped in Chanaan) supposed to have been originally intended to represent the world, abode of the god; of the hammanim (very possible sunpillars; Lev., xxvi, 30; II Par., xxiv, 4, etc.), and asherah (wrongly interpreted grove in our Bibles; Judges, vi, 25; III Kings, xiv, 23; IV Kings, xvii, 10; Jer., xvii, 2 etc.), a sacred pole, sometimes, possible, a tree, the original signification of which is far from clear, together with votive or commemorative stelae (máççebhôth, usually mistranslated images), more or less ornamented. There incense and perfumes were burned (IV Kings, xxii, 5; Jer., vii, 9, xi, 13, and according to the Hebrew, xxxii, 29), libations poured (Jer., xix, 13), and sacrifices of oxen and other animals offered up to the Baal; we hear even (Jer., vii, 31;xix, 5;xxxii, 35; II Par., xxviii 3) that children of both sexes were not infrequentlly burned in sacrifice to Melek (D. V. Moloch, A.V. Molech), and II Par., xxviii, 3 (perhaps also IV Kings, xxi, 6 ) tells us that young princes were occasionally chosen as victims to this stern deity. In several shrines long trains of priests, distributed into several classes (III Kings, xviii, 19; IV Kings, x, 19; xxiii, 5; Soph., i, 4, etc.) and clad in special attire (IV Kings, x, 22) performed the sacred function; they prayed, shouted to the Baal, led dances around the altar, and in their frenzied excitement cut themselves with knives and lancets, till they were all covered with blood (III Kings, xviii, 26–28). In the meantime the lay worshippers also prayed, kneeling, and paid their homage by kissing the images or symbols of the Baal (III Kings, xix, 18; Os., xiii, 2, Hebr.), or even their own hands. To this should be added the immoral practices indulged in at several shrines (III Kings, xiv, 24; IV Kings, xxiii, 7; cf. Deut., xxiii, 18) in honour of the Baal as male of reproduction, and of his mate Asherah (D.V. Astarthe, A. V. Ashtaroth).

BAAL WORSHIP-AMONG THE ISRAELITES

Nothing could be more fatal to a spiritual faith than this sensual religion. In fact, no sooner than the Israelites, coming forth from the wilderness, been brought into contact with the Baal-worshippers, than they were, through the guile of the Madianites, and the attractions of the licentious worship offered to the Moabitish deity (probably Chamos), easily seduced from their allegiance to Yahweh (Num., xxv, 1–9). Henceforth the name of Beelphegor remained like a dark spot on the early history of Israel {Os., ix, 10; Ps. ev (In the Hebr. cvi), 28}. The terrible punishment inflicted upon the guilty sobered for awhile the minds of the Hebrews. How long the impression lasted we are hardly able to tell; but this we know, that when they had settled in the Promised Land, the Israelites, again forsaking the One True God, paid their homage to the deities of their Chanaanite neighours (Judges, ii, 11, 13 etc.). Even the best families could not, or did not dare, resist the seduction, Gedon’s father, for instant, albeit his faith in his Baal seems to have been somewhat lukewarm (Judges, vi, 31), had erected an idolatrous altar in Ephra (Judges, vi, 25). “And the Lord, being angry against Israel, delivered them into the hands of their enemies that dwelt round about.” Mesopotamians, Madianites, Amalecites, Ammonites, and, above all, Philistines, were successively the providential avengers of God’s disregarded rights.

During the warlike reigns of Saul and David, the Israelites as a whole thought little of shaking Yahweh’s yoke; such also was, apparently, the situation under Solomon’s rule, although the example given by this prince must have told deplorably upon his subjects. After the division of his empire, the Northern Kingdom, first led by its rulers to an unlawful worship of Yahweh, sank speedily into the grossest Chanaanite superstitions. This was the more easy because certain customs, it seems, brought about confusion in the clouded minds of the uneducated portion of the people. Names like Esbaal (I Par., viii, 33; ix, 39), Meribbaal (I Par., viii, 34; ix, 40), Baaliada (I Par., xiv, 7), given by Saul, Johnathen, and David to their sons, suggest that Yahweh was possibly spoken of as Baal. The fact has been disputed; but the existence of such a name as Baalia ( i.e. “Yahweh is Baal,” I Par., xii, 5) and the affirmation of Osee (ii, 16) are arguments that cannot be slighted. True, the word was used later on only in reference to idolatrous worship, and even deemed so obnoxious that bosheth, shame, was frequently substituted for it in compound proper names, thus giving, for instance, such inoffensive forms as Elioda (II Kings, v, 16), Yerubbesheth (II Kings, xi, 21, Hebr.)., Isboseth (II Kings, ii, 10) and elsewhere, Miphiboseth (II Kings, ix, 6; xxi, 8); but these corrections were due to a spirit which did not prevail until centuries after the age with which we shall presently deal.

Achab’s accession to the throne of Israel inaugarated a new era, that of the official worship. Married to a Sidonian princess, Jezebel, the king erected to the Baal of her native city (Cid or Melkart) a temple (III Kings, xvi, 31, 32) in which a numerous body of priests officiated (III Kings, xviii, 19). To what a forlorn state the true faith in the Northern Kingdom fell Elias relates to III Kings, xix, 10, 14: The children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant: they have thrown down thy altars, they have slain thy prophets with the sword. There remained but seven thousand men whose knees had not been bowed before Baal (III Kings, xix, 18). Ochozias, son of Achab and Jezebel, followed in his parents footsteps (III Kings, xxii, 54) and although Joram, his brother and successor, took away the maccebhoth set up by his father, the Baal-worship was not stamped out of Samaria (IV Kings, iii, 2, 3) until its adherents were slaughtered and its temple destroyed at the command of Jehu (IV Kings, x, 18–28). Violent as this repression was, it hardly survived the prince who had undertaken it. The annals of the reigns of his successors witness to the religious corruption again prevailling; and the author of IV Kings could sum up this sad history in the following few words: They forsook all the precepts of the Lord their God: and made to themselves two molten calves, and groves [asherah], and adored all the host of heaven: and they served Baal. And consecrated their sons, and their daughters through fire: and they gave themselves to divinations, and soothsayings: and they delivered themselves to do evil before the Lord, to provoke him. And the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them from his sight. . . . and Israel was carried away out of their land to Assyria, unto this day. (IV Kings, xvii, 16–18, 23).

Meanwhile the kingdom of Juda fared no better. There, also, the princes, far from checking the drift of the people to idolatry, were their instigators and abettors. Established by Joram (IV Kings, viii, 18), probably at the suggestion of Athalia his wife, who was the daughter of Achab and Jezebel, the Phoenician worship was continued by Ochozias (IV Kings, viii, 27). We know from IV Kings, xi, 18 that a temple had been dedicated to Baal (very likely to Baal honoured in Samaria) in the Holy City, either by one of these princes or Athalia. At the latter’s death, this temple was destroyed by the faithful people and its furniture broken to pieces (IV Kings, xi, 18; II Par., xxiii, 17). If this reaction did not crush utterly the Baal-worship in Juda, it left very little of it alive, since, for over a century, no case of idolatry is recorded by the sacred writers. In the reign of Achaz, however, we find the evil not only flourishing again, but countenanced by public authority. But a change has taken place in Juda’s idolatry; instead of the Sidonian Baal, Melek (Moloch), the cruel diety of the Ammonites, had become the people’s favourite (II Par., xxviii, 2; IV Kings, xvi, 3, 4). His barbarous rites rooted out Ezechias, appeared again with the support of Manasses, by whose influence the Assyro-Babylonian astral deities were added to the Pathenon of the Judean idolaters (IV Kings, xxiii, 4, 5) produced no lasting results, and after his death the various superstitions in vogue held sway until “the Lord cast out from his face Juda and Jerusalem” (IV Kings, xxiii, 32, 37; xxiv, 9, 19, and elsewhere).

The Babylonians invasions dealt to the Baal-worship in Palestine a deadly blow. At the restoration Israel shall be Yahweh s people, and He their God (Exech., xiv, 11), and Baal will become altogether a thing of the past.

Selden, De diis syris (1617); Gigot, Biblical Lectures (Baltimore, 1901), V; Id., Outlines Of Jewish History (New York 1905); PEAKES in HASTINGS, Dict. bible, s.v. Baal; THATCHER, ibid., s.v. Phoenicia; OTTLEY, The Religion Of Israel (Cambridge, 1905): SAYCE, The Gods Of Canan, in Contemporary Review for Sept., 1883; W.R. Smith, The Religion Of The Semites (Edinburgh, 1889); BOURQUENOU ET DUTAC, Etudes archeologiques in Etudes Religieuses (1864–1866); LAGRANGE, Etudes sur les religions semitiques (Pairs, 1903); MASPERO, Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient classique (Paris, 1898); REVILLE, La religion des Pheniciens in Revue des deux mondes, for 15 May 1873; TIELE, La religion phenicienne, in Revue de l’histoire des religions (1881), III; VIGOUROUX in Dict. de las bible, s.v. Baal; Id., La bible et les decouvertes modernes (Paris, 1889), III; Id., Les pretres de Baal et leurs successeurs dans l’antiquite et dans le tempra present, in Revue bibilique for April (1896); DE VOGUE, Melanges d’archelogie orientale (Paris 1868); BATHGEN, Beitrage zur semitisches Religionsgeschichte (Berlin, 1888); BAUDISSIN, Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte (1876–78); Id., in HERZOG Realencyklopadie, s.v. Baal und Bel; MARTI, Geschichte der israelitiechen, Religion (1897); MEYER, Ueber einige semitische Gotter, in Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft (1877); MOVERS, Die Phonizier (1841–56); OORT, Dienst des Baal in Israel (Leyden, 1864); SCHRADER, Baal und Bel, in Theologische Studien und Kritiken (1874); SMEND, Lehrbuch der alttestamentlischen Religionsgeschichte (Greiburg, Leipzig, 1893, 1899)

For use of the plural (Baalim), DRIVER, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, on I Sam., vii, 3; BURNEY, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, on I (III), xviii 18.

CHARLES L. SOUVAY

Baalbek

The Heliopolis of the Greek and Latin writers, a Syrian town at the base of the western slope of the Anti-Lebanon, and the see of a Maronite and of a Melchite bishop. Nothing is known of the origin and ancient history of Baalbek, although conjectural attempts have been made to identify it with Baalgad (Jos., xi, 17; xiii, 5), Aven (A.V. Amos, i, 5), etc. Among the monuments of Baalbek were three temples: the Great Temple of Jupiter, the Temple of the Sun, and the Circular Temple of Venus; all of them date from the second century A. D. The so-called Acropolis, on the platform of which two of the temples were erected, is older. Baalbek has been destroyed almost entirely by earthquakes and wars, but even today its ruins are said to be the most beautiful in existence. The boldness of the architecture and the cyclopean dimensions of some of the monoliths of the Acropolis are among the many features interesting both to the scientist and the traveler. The political history of Baalbek is that of the surrounding country. (See SYRIA.)

The introduction of Christianity into Baalbek is obscure. In the life of St. Eudocia, there is mention of one Theodotus, Bishop of Heliopolis, in the reign (117–138) of Hadrian. (Acta SS., 1 March, 8f.) The account is of doubtful historical value and when Constantine forbade the licentious pagan practices, there were no Christians there. Constantine, however, erected a church or perhaps simply transformed one of the temples into a Christian basilica, which he entrusted to a bishop with priests and deacons (Eusebius, Life of Const., III, lviii). During the reign of Julian (361–363) the Christians were severely persecuted (Sozomen, History, V, x). Paganism disappeared from Baalbek only after Theodosius (379–395) had destroyed the idols and probably the Great Temple. Of the former bishops of Baalbek (Heliopolis) only a few scattered names have been preserved. Baalbek is now a titular archiepiscopal see in partibus infidelium, with the Most Rev. Robert Seton, formerly of Newark, New Jersey, U.S.A., as incumbent, consecrated 5 July, 1903. In 1861, Baalbek was made a Maronite bishopric, with about 30,000 Catholics. The Melchite diocese was erected in 1868, and numbers some 5,000 Catholics with fifteen priests, mostly Basilian monks. The Armenians of the district are under the Armenian Archbishop of Aleppo, and the Latins under the vicar Apostolic of the same place. (See ALEPPO) The Orthodox Greeks (schismatical), also have a resident bishop at Baalbek; further, the town is a station of the British Syrian Schools’ Committee with two missionary women, three native women, and a village school, high school, and a dispensary.

On the ruins of Baalbek, see WOOD AND DAWKINS, Ruins of Baalbek (London, 1757); MURRAY, Handbook for Travellers (London, 1868); LEGENDRE in VIG, Dict de la Bib, s.v. On the religious aspect of Baalbek, see LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ. (Paris, 1740), II, 842; WERNER, Orb. Terr. Cath. (Freiburg im Br., 1890); Missionae catholicae (Rome, 1901); BATTANDIER, Ann. Pont. Cath. (Paris, 1907).

R. BUTIN

Babel

Babel occurs in the Vulgate only in Gen., xi, 9; the form Babylonia is found in Bar., i, 1, 4; ii, 22; vi, 1–3; I Mach., vi, 4; II Mach., viii, 20; everywhere else the Vulgate uses the form Babylon. The word is derived from the Babylonian bab-ilu, meaning “gate of God.” Gen., xi, 9, suggests a different meaning based on the derivation of the name from the Hebrew word batál, to confound. The city of Babylon had various names among its inhabitants, e.g. Ka-dingir, Babi-dingir, Tintir, Shu-an-na, etc. The prophets call it “daughter of the Chaldeans” (Is., xlvii, 1), and Sesach or Sesac (Jer., xxv, 26; li, 41), a word variously explained by commentators. It was built on the site of the modern village of Hille. According to Herodotus, a double or perhaps a triple wall, 50 cubits in width and 200 cubits in height, surrounded the town, forming a square of 120 stadia. The square of the interior wall was 90 stadia long and 360 stadia in circumference. Both the Bible and the cuneiform inscriptions assign a very great age to the city, and the Biblical data (Gen., xi, 1–9) concerning the material of the walls are confirmed by the testimony of the ruins. “Let us make brick, and bake them with fire. And they had brick instead of stones, and slime instead of mortar.”

The ancient city possessed marvelous temples, splendid palaces, and curious gardens. Among the temples, two deserve special attention, E-sagila, the temple of Bel Merodach, on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, and E-zida, the temple of Nebo, west of the river. The ruins of these sanctuaries are probably identical with those of Babil and Birs Nimrud, though opinions differ concerning Babil. The buildings were pyramidal in form and rose in several, usually seven, step-like sections. The storied tower of Birs Nimrud counts seven of these quadrangular platforms painted in seven colors, black, white, yellow, blue, scarlet, silver, and gold, and in the same order sacred to the stellar gods, Adar (Saturn), Ishtar (Venus), Merodach (Jupiter), Nebo (Mercury), Nergal (Mars), Sin (the Moon), Shamash (the Sun). It has been learned in the excavations at Nippur that the pyramidal tower or ziggurrat did not constitute the whole of the Babylonian Temple. This latter had an inner and an outer court, both nearly square and nearly of the same dimensions; the tower occupied about one-third of the area of the inner court, and near to it stood the temple proper where the sacrifices were offered. We may infer from the discoveries made in Nippur and in Sippara that a library and a school will be found to have been connected with the Babylonian temples. In the light of these discoveries the story of the Tower of Babel (Gen., xi, 4) assumes a new importance, whether we identify its remains with the runes of Birs Nimrud or with those of the Bel temple at Nippur, or again with those of Babil. No doubt, it was its temples not less than its royal palaces and its hanging gardens that rendered the city of Babylon “glorious among kingdoms, the famous pride of the Chaldeans” (Is., xiii, 19). We meet with the city at the earliest dawn of history, and it flourishes, in spite of its temporary reverses, till it is finally destroyed by Seleucus Nicator; even then Jews kept on inhabiting some of the mounds of Babylon till about A. D. 1000, after which time the country was given up to the roaming tribes of Arabs, in accordance with the words of the prophet: “wild beast shall rest there, and their houses shall be filled with serpents, and ostriches shall dwell there, and the hairy ones shall dance there, and owls shall answer one another there, in the houses thereof, and sirens in the temples of pleasure” (Is., xiii, 21–22). (See TOWER OF BABEL, BABYLONIA)

RAWLINSON, The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World (London, 1879); KING, The Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, King of Babylon (London, 1898); DELATTRE, Les Chaldéens jusqu’ à la formation de l’empire de Nabuchodonosor (Louvain, 1877); NIKEL, Genesis und Keilschriftforschung (Freiburg, 1903); ZIMERN, ed., SCHRADER, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament (Berlin, 1903); KAULEN, Assyrien und Babylonien nach den neuesten Entdeckungen (Freiburg, 1899); HILPRECHT, Exploration in Bible Lands during the Nineteenth Century (Philadelphia, 1903); PETERS, Nippur or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates (NerwYork, 1897); BEZOLD, Ninive und Bablyon (2nd ed. Bielefeld,. 1903); cf. also HAGEN, Lex. Bibl. (Paris, 1905); PANNIER and LEVESQUE in VIG., Dict. de la Bible.

A.J. MAAS

Ludwig Babenstuber

A German philosopher and theologian; vice-chancellor of the University of Salzburg; born 1660 at Teining in Bavaria; died 5 April, 1726, at the Benedictine monastery of Ettal. Having completed his early studies he entered the novitiate of the Order of St. Benedict, at Ettal in 1681, made his religious profession in 1682, and thereafter devoted the greater part of his life to teaching. At the commencement of his studies he had given no promise of brilliancy, but by his untiring application and industry he shortly acquired so vast a store of knowledge, that he soon came to be regarded as one of the most learned men of his day—vir comsummatae in omni genere dictrinae et probitatis, as he is styled in Dom Egger’s “Idea ordinis Hierarchico-Benedictini,” and in the “History of the University of Salzburg.” Until 1690 Babenstuber was Director of the scholasticate of his order at Salzburg, taught philosophy there from 1690 to 1693, then went to Schlehdoft to teach theology in the monastery of the canons regular.

Returning to Salzburg in 1695, the took up successively the professorships of moral theology, dogmatic theology, and exegesis, in the celebrated Benedictine university of that city. He remained at Salzburg for twenty-two years, during which period he held the office of vice-rector for three years, and that of vice-chancellor of the university for six. In 1717 he returned to his monastery at Ettal, where he spent the remainder of his days. In dogmatic theology Babenstuber was a pronounced Thomist; in moral, a vigorous defender of probabilism. He maintained, among other things, that a single author, if he were “beyond contradiction” (omni exceptione major), could, of his own authority, render an opinion probably, even against general opinion. In matters of faith, however, he rejected the principle of probabilism absolutely. In one of his disquisitions he had also stated that it was allowable to celebrate Mass privately on Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday, but before his “Ethica Supernaturalis” had issued from the press, he learned that the Roman tribunals forbade it, and so he promptly corrected that assertion. Babenstuber’s published works include a wide range of subjects, mainly philosophical and theological. The most important are: “Philosophia Thomistica” (4 vols., Salzburg, 1704); “Ethica Supernaturalis” (Augsburg, 1718).

THOMAS OESTREICH

Jacques Babinet

French physicist, born at Lusignan, Vienne, 5 March, 1794; died at Paris, 21 October, 1872. He began his studies at the Lycée Napoléon. There he became a pupil of Binet, whose influence caused him to abandon the study of law, for which his family had destined him, and to devote himself to the pursuit of science. He continued at the Polytechnic School, which he left in 1812 to enter the Military School at Metz. For some time he was attached to the Fifth Regiment of Artillery, but at the Restoration he left the army and began to teach. He was professor of mathematics at Fontenay-le-Comte, then professor of physics at Poitiers, and later at the Lycée Saint-Louis. From 1825 to 1828 he delivered a course of lectures on meteorology; in 1838 he succeeded Savary at the Collège de France; and in 1840 he was elected to the Academy of Sciences.

His scientific fame rests on his work in optics, although his contributions to science include the other branches of physics and mechanics. He improved the valves of the air-pump, attaining a very high vacuum; he constructed a hygrometer and a goniometer, and invented the Babinet compensator, a double quartz wedge used in the study of elliptically polarized light. “Babinet’s theorem” deals with the diffraction of light. He must, however, be chiefly remembered as a great popularizer of science, an amusing and clever lecturer, a brilliant and entertaining writer of popular scientific articles. He fully recognized the limitations of physical science, while his sincere faith showed itself especially at the end, when he passed away with touching resignation, beloved by all for his kindly and charitable nature.

Babinet’s contributions to the “Revue des Deux Mondes” and to the “Journal des Débats” and his lectures on observational science before the Polytechnic Association were collected in eight volumes: “Etudes et lectures sur les sciences d’observation” (1855–65). His other serious works include: “Résumé complet de la physique” (Paris, 1825); “Expériences pour vérifier celles de M. Trevelyan” (Paris, 1835). The following four monographs are published in the Memoirs of the Société Philomathique: “Sur la masse de la planète Mercure” (1825); “Sur la couleur des réseaux” (1829); “Sur la détermination du magnétisme terrestre” (1829); “Sur la cause du retard qu’éprouve la lumière dans les milieus réfringents” (1839).

QUÉRARD, La France littéraire; Dictionnaire de la conversation; La Grande Encylopédie; LAROUSSE, Dictionnaire.

WM. FOX

St. Babylas

Bishop and Martyr. He was the successor of Zebinus as Bishop of Antioch in the reign of the Emperor Gordianus (238–244), being the twelfth bishop of this Oriental metropolis. During the Decian persecution (260) he made an unwavering confession of faith and was thrown into prison where he died from his sufferings. He was, therefore, venerated as a martyr. St. John Chrysostom and the “Acts of the Martyrs” relate further concerning him, that Babylas once refused an emperor, on account of his wrongdoing, permission to enter the church and had ordered him to take his place among the penitents. Chrysostom does not give the name of the emperor; the Acts mention Numerianus. It is more probably Philip the Arabian (244–249) of whom Eusebius (Hist. eccl., VI, xxxiv) reports that a bishop would not let him enter the gathering of Christians at the Easter vigil. The burial-place of St. Babylas became very celebrated. The Caesar Gallus built a new church in honor of the holy martyr at Daphne, a suburb of Antioch, and the bones of the saint were transferred to it. When after this Julian the Apostate consulted the oracle of Apollo at the temple to his god which was near by, he received no answer because of the proximity of the saint. He therefore, had the sarcophagus of the martyr taken back to its original place of burial. In the middle ages the bones of Babylas were carried to Cremona. The Latin Church keeps his feast on January 24th, the Greek Church on September 4th.

J.P. KIRSCH

Babylon

The curial title of a Latin archbishopric, also of a Chaldean patriarchate and of a Syrian archbishopric. See Bagdad.

Babylonia

In treating of the history, character, and influence of this ancient empire, it is difficult not to speak at the same time of its sister, or rather daughter, country, Assyria. This northern neighbour and colony of Babylon remained to the last of the same race and language and of almost the same religion and civilization as that of the country from which it emigrated. The political fortunes of both countries for more than a thousand years were closely interwoven with one another; in fact, for many centuries they formed one political unit. The reader is therefore referred to the article for the sources of Assyro-Babylonian history; for the story of exploration, language, and writing; for its value in Old Testament exegesis, and for much of Babylonian history during the period of Assyrian supremacy.

GEOGRAPHY

The country lies diagonally from northwest to southeast, between 30° and 33° N. lat., and 44° and 48° E. long., or from the present city of Bagdad to the Persian Gulf, from the slopes of Khuzistan on the east to the Arabian Desert on the west, and is substantially contained between the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris, though, to the west a narrow strip of cultivation on the right bank of the Euphrates must be added. Its total length is some 300 miles, its greatest width about 125 miles; about 23,000 square miles in all, or the size of Holland and Belgium together.

Like those two countries, its soil is largely formed by the alluvial deposits of two great rivers. A most remarkable feature of Babylonian geography is that the land to the south encroaches on the sea and that the Persian Gulf recedes at present at the rate of a mile in seventy years, while in the past, though still in historic times, it receded as much as a mile in thirty years. In the early period of Babylonian history the gulf must have extended some hundred and twenty miles further inland. According to historical records both the towns Ur and Eridu were once close to the gulf, from which they are now about a hundred miles distant; and from the reports of Sennacherib’s campaign against Bît Yakin we gather that as late as 695 B.C., the four rivers Kerkha, Karun, Euphrates, and Tigris entered the gulf by separate mouths, which proves that the sea even then extended a considerable distance north of where the Euphrates and Tigris now join to form the Shat-el-arab. Geological observations show that a secondary formation of limestone abruptly begins at a line drawn from Hit on the Euphrates to Samarra on the Tigris, i.e. some four hundred miles from their present mouth; this must once have formed the coast line, and all the country south was only gradually gained from the sea by river deposit. In how far man was witness of this gradual formation of the Babylonian soil we cannot determine at present; as far south as Larsa and Lagash man had built cities 4,000 years before Christ. It has been suggested that the story of the Flood may be connected with man’s recollection of the waters extending far north of Babylon, or of some great natural event relating to the formation of the soil; but with our present imperfect knowledge it can only be the merest suggestion. It may, however, well be observed that the astounding system of canals which existed in ancient Babylonia even from the remotest historical times, though largely due to man’s careful industry and patient toil, was not entirely the work of the spade, but of nature once leading the waters of Euphrates and Tigris in a hundred rivulets to the sea, forming a delta like that of the Nile.

The fertility of this rich alluvial plain was in ancient times proverbial; it produced a wealth of wheat, barley, sesame, dates, and other fruits and cereals. The cornfields of Babylonia were mostly in the south, where Larsa, Lagash, Erech, and Calneh were the centres of an opulent agricultural population. The palm tree was cultivated with assiduous care and besides furnishing all sorts of food and beverage, was used for a thousand domestic needs. Birds and waterfowls, herds and flocks, and rivers teeming with fish supplied the inhabitants with a rural plenty which surprises the modern reader of the cadastral surveys and tithe-accounts of the ancient temples. The country is completely destitute of mineral wealth, and possesses no stone or metal, although stone was already being imported from the Lebanon and the Ammanus as early as 3000 B.C.; and much earlier, about 4500 B.C., Ur-Nina, King of Shirpurla sent to Magan, i.e. the Sinaitic Peninsula, for hard stone and hard wood; while the copper mines of Sinai were probably being worked by Babylonians shortly after 3750, when Snefru, first king of the Fourth Egyptian dynasty, drove them away. It is remarkable that Babylonia possesses no bronze period, but passed from copper to iron; though in later ages it learnt the use of bronze from Assyria.

The towns of ancient Babylonia were the following: southernmost,

Eridu, Semitic corruption of the old name of Eri-dugga, “good city,” at present the mounds of Abu-Sharain; and

Ur, Abraham’s birthplace, about twenty-five miles northeast of Eridu, at present Mughair.

Both of the above towns lay west of the Euphrates. East of the Euphrates, the southernmost town was Larsa, the Biblical Ellasar (Gen., xiv; in Vulg. and D.V. unfortunately rendered Pontus), at present Senkere;

Erech, the Biblical Arach (Gen., x, 10), fifteen miles northwest of Larsa, is at present Warka;

eight miles northeast from the modern Shatra was Shirpurla, or Lagash, now Tello. Shirpurla was one of Babylon’s most ancient cities, though not mentioned in the Bible; probably “Raventown” (shirpur-raven), from the sacred emblem of its goddess and sanctuary, Nin-Girsu, or Nin-Sungir, which for a score of centuries was an important political centre, and probably gave its name to Southern Babylonia—Sungir, Shumer, or, in Gen., x, 10, Sennaar.

Gishban (read also Gish-ukh), a small city a little north of Shirpurla, at present the mounds of Iskha, is of importance only in the very earliest history of Babylonia.

The site of the important city of Isin (read also Nisin) has not yet been determined, but it was probably situated a little north of Erech.

Calneh, or Nippur (in D.V., Gen., x, 10, Calanne), at present Nuffar, was a great religious centre, with its Bel Temple, unrivaled in antiquity and sanctity, a sort of Mecca for the Semitic Babylonians. Recent American excavations have made its name as famous as French excavations made that of Tello or Shirpurla.

In North Babylonia we have again, southernmost, the city of Kish, probably the Biblical Cush (Gen., x, 8); its ruins are under the present mound El-Ohemir, eight miles east of Hilla.

A little distance to the northwest lay Kutha, the present Telli Ibrahim, the city whence the Babylonian colonists of Samaria were taken (IV Kings, xvii, 30), and which played a great role in Northern Babylonia before the Amorite dynasty.

The site of Agade, i.e. Akkad (Gen., x, 10), the name of whose kings was dreaded in Cyprus and in Sinai in 3800 B.C., is unfortunately unknown, but it must have been not far from

Sippara; it has even been suggested that this was one of the quarters of that city, which was scarcely thirty miles north of Babylon and which, as early as 1881, was identified, through British excavations, with the present Abu-Habba.

Lastly, Babylon, with its twin-city Borsippa, though probably founded as early as 3800 B.C., played an insignificant role in the country’s history until, under Hammurabi, about 2300 B.C., it entered on that career of empire which it maintained for almost 2000 years, so that its name now stands for a country and a civilization which was of hoary antiquity before Babylon rose to power and even before a brick of Babylon was laid.

EARLY HISTORY

At the dawn of history in the middle of the fifth millennium before Christ we find in the Euphrates Valley a number of city-states, or rather city-monarchies, in rivalry with one another and in such a condition of culture and progress, that this valley has been called the cradle of civilization, not only of the Semitic world, but most likely also of Egypt. The people dwelling in this valley were certainly not all of one race; they differed in type and language. The primitive inhabitants were probably of Mongolian ancestry, they are styled Sumerians, or inhabitants of Sumer, Sungir, Sennaar. They invented the cuneiform script, built the oldest cities, and brought the country to a great height of peaceful prosperity.

They were gradually overcome, dispossessed, and absorbed by a new race that entered the plain between the two rivers, the Semites, who pressed on them from the north from the kingdom of Akkad. The Semitic invaders, however, eagerly adopted, improved, and widely spread the civilization of the race they had conquered. Although a number of arguments converge into an irrefragable proof that the Sumerians were the aboriginal inhabitants of Babylonia, we have no historical records of the time when they were the sole occupants of the Euphrates Valley; at the dawn of history we find both races in possession of the land and to a certain extent mixed, though the Semite was predominant in the North while the Sumerian maintained himself for centuries in the South. Whence these Sumerians came, cannot be decided, and probably all that will ever be known is that, after a nomadic existence in mountainous districts in the East, they found a plain in the lands of Sennaar and dwelt in it (Gen., xi, 2). Their first settlement was Eridu, then a seaport on the Persian Gulf, where their earliest myths represent the first man, Adapu, or Adamu (Adam?), spending his time in fishing, and where the sea-god taught them the elements of civilization. It is certain, however, that they possessed a considerable amount of culture even before entering the Babylonian plain; for, coeval with the first foundations of their oldest temples, they possessed the cuneiform script, which can be described as a cursive hand developed out of picture-signs by centuries of primeval culture. From whence the Semitic race invaded Babylonia, and what was its origin, we know not, but it must be noted that the language they spoke, though clearly and thoroughly Semitic, is yet so strikingly different from all other Semitic languages that it stands in a category apart, and the time when it formed one speech with the other Semitic tongues lies immeasurably far back beyond our calculations.

The earliest records, then, show us a state of things not unlike that of our Saxon heptarchy: petty princes, or city-monarchies successfully endeavouring to obtain lordship over a neighbouring town or a group of towns, and in turn being overcome by others. And, considering that most of these towns were but a score of miles distant from one another and changed rulers frequently, the history is somewhat confusing.

The most ancient ruler at present known to us is Enshagkushanna, who is styled King of Kengi. Owing to the broken state of the sherd on which the inscription occurs, and which possibly dates soon after 5000 B.C., the name of his capital is unknown. It probably was Shirpurla, and he ruled over Southern Babylonia. He claims to have won a great victory over the City of Kish, and he dedicated the spoil, including a statue of bright silver, to Mullil, the god of Calanne (Nippur). It seems like that Kish was the most southern city captured by Semites; of one of its kings, Manishtusu, we possess a mace-head, as a sign of his royalty, and a stele, or obelisk, in archaic cuneiforms and Semitic Babylonian. Somewhat later Mesilim, the King of Kish, retrieved the defeat of his predecessor and acted as suzerain of Shirpurla. Another probable name of a King of Kish is Urumush, or Alusharshid, though some make him King of Akkad. Whereas our information concerning the dynasty of Kish is exceedingly fragmentary, we are somewhat better informed about the rulers of Shirpurla. About 4500 B.C. we find Urkagina reigning there and, somewhat later, Lugal (lugal, “great man,” i.e. “ prince,” or “king”) Shuggur. Then, after an interval, we are acquainted with a succession of no fewer than seven Kings of Shirpurla: Gursar, Gunidu, Ur-Ninâ, Akur-Gal, Eannatum I, Entemena and Eannatum II—which last king must have reigned about 4000 B.C. De Sarszec found at Tello a temple-wall some of the bricks of which bore the clear legend of Ur-Nina, thus leaving on record this king’s building activity. Thanks to the famous stele of the vultures, now in the Louvre, to some clay steles in the British Museum, and a cone found at Shirpurla, we have an idea of the warlike propensities of Eannatum I, who subdued the people of Gishban by a crushing defeat, made them pay an almost incredible war-indemnity of corn, and appointed over that city his own viceroy, “who placed his yoke on the land of Elam,” “and of Gisgal,” and who is represented as braining with his club foes whose heads are protruding out of the opening of a bag in which they are bound.

That, notwithstanding these scenes of bloodshed, it was an age of art and culture can be evidently shown by such finds as that of a superb silver vase of Entemena, Eannatum’s son and successor, and, as crown-prince, general of his army. After Eannatum II the history of Shirpurla is a blank, until we find the name of Lugal Ushumgal, when, however, the city has for a time lost its independence, for this ruler was the vassal of Shargon I of Akkad, about 3800 B.C. Yet, some six centuries afterwards, when the dynasty of Akkad had ceased to be, the patesis, or high-priests, of Shirpurla were still men of renown. A long inscription on the back of a statue tells us of the vast building achievements of Ur-Bau about the year 3200; and the name of his son and successor, Nammaghani. About two centuries later we find Gudea, one of the most famous rulers the city every possessed. Excavations at Tello have laid bare the colossal walls of his great palace and have shown us how, both by land and sea, he brought his materials from vast distances, while his architecture and sculpture show perfect art and refinement, and we incidentally learn that he conquered the district of Anshan in Elam. After Gudea, we are acquainted with the names of four more rulers of Shirpurla, but in these subsequent reigns the city seems to have quickly sunk into political insignificance. Another Sumerian dynasty was that of Erech, or Gishban. About 4000 B.C. a certain Lugal Zaggisi, son of the Patesi of Gishban, who became King of Erech, proudly styled himself King of the World, as Enshagkushanna and Alusharshid had done, claimed to rule from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, and praises the supreme god Enlil, or Bel, of Nippur, who “granted him the dominion of all from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof and caused the countries to dwell in peace.” Yet to us it seems but a rushlight of glory; for after his son Lugal-Kisalsi the Kingdom of Erech disappears in the night of the past. The same may be said of the dynasty of Agade. Ittibel’s son, Sargon I, suddenly stands before us as a giant figure in history about 3800 B.C. He was a monarch proud of his race and language, for his inscriptions were in his Semitic mother-tongue, not in the Sumerian, like those of previous kings. He is rightly called the first founder of a Semitic empire. Under him flourished Semitic language, literature, and art, especially architecture. He established his dominion in Susa, the capital of Elam, subdued Syria and Palestine in three campaigns, set up an image of himself on the Syrian coast, as a monument of his triumphs, and welded his conquests into one empire. Naram-Sin, his son, even extended his gather’s conquests, invading the Sinai Peninsula and, apparently, Cyprus, where a seal cylinder was found on which he receives homage as a god. On inscriptions of that date first occurs mention of the city of God’s Gate, or Babylon (Bâb-ilu sometimes Bâb-ilani, whence the Greek Babulon, then written ideographically Kâ-Dungir.

After Bingani, Naram-Sin’s son, Semitic successes were temporarily eclipsed; Egypt occupied Sinai, Elam became again independent, and in Babylonia itself the Sumerian element reasserted itself. We find a dynasty of Ur already in prominence. This city seems at two different periods to have exercised the hegemony over the Euphrates Valley or part of it. First under Urgur and Dungi I, about 3400 B.C. This Urgur assumed the title of King of Sumer and Akkad, thus making the first attempt to unite North and South Babylonia into a political unit, and inaugurating a royal style which was borne perhaps longer than the title of any other dignity since the world was made. Ur predominates, for the second time, about 2800 B.C., under Dungi II, Gungunu, Bur-Sin, Gimil-Sin and Ine Sin, whose buildings and fortifications are found in many cities of Babylonia. The history of Ur is as yet so obscure that some scholars (Thureau-Dangin, Hilprecht, Bezold) accept but two dynasties, other (Rogers) three, others (Hugo, Radau) four. The supremacy of Ur is followed, about 2500 B.C., by that of (N) Isin, apparently an unimportant city, as its rulers style themselves Shepherds, or Gracious Lords, of Isin, and place this title after that of King of Ur, Eridu, Erech, and Nippur. Six rulers of Isin are known: Ishbigarra, Libit-Ishtar, Bur-Sin II, Ur-Ninib, Ishme-Dagan, and Enannatum. The last of the city-kingdoms was that of Larsa, about 2300 B.C., with its sovereigns Siniddinam Nur-Adad, Chedornanchundi, Chedorlaomer, Chedormabug, and Eri-Aku. The composition of these royal names with Chedor, the Elamite Kudor, sufficiently shows that they did not belong to a native dynasty, whether Sumerian or Semitic. One of the earliest Elamite invaders of Babylonia was Rim-Amun, who obtained such a foothold on Babylonian soil that the year of his reign was used to date contract tablets, a sure sign that he was at least king de facto. Chedornanchundi invaded Babylonia about the year 2285, reached Erech, plundered its temples, and captured the city-goddess; but whether he established a permanent rule, remains doubtful. Somewhat later Chedorlaomer (Kudur-Laghamar, “Servant of Laghamar,” an Elamite deity), known to us from the Bible, seems to have been more successful. Not only does he appear as overlord of Babylonia, but he carried his conquest as far west as Palestine. Chedormabug was originally Prince of Emutbal, or western Elam, but obtained dominion over Babylonia and rebuilt the temple at Ur. His son, Rim-Sin, or Eri-Aku, considered himself so well established on Babylonian territory that he affected the ancient titles, Exalter of Ur, King of Larsa, King of Sumer and Akkad. Yet he was the least of the city-kings, and a new order of things began with the rise of Babylon.

THE FIRST EMPIRE

The dynasty which laid the foundation of Babylon’s greatness is sometimes called the Arabian. It certainly was West-Semitic and almost certainly Amorite. The Babylonians called it the dynasty of Babylon, for, though foreign in origin, it may have had its actual home in that city, which it gratefully and proudly remembered. It lasted for 296 years and saw the greatest glory of the old empire and perhaps the Golden Age of the Semitic race in the ancient world. The names of its monarchs are: Sumu-abi (15 years), Sumu-la-ilu (35), Zabin (14), Apil-Sin (18), Sin-muballit (30); Hammurabi (35), Samsu-iluna (35), Abishua (25), Ammi-titana (25), Ammizaduga (22), Samsu-titana (31). Under the first five kings Babylon was still only the mightiest amongst several rival cities, but the sixth king, Hammurabi, who succeeded in beating down all opposition, obtained absolute rule of Northern and Southern Babylonia and drove out the Elamite invaders. Babylonia henceforward formed but one state and was welded into one empire.

They were apparently stormy days before the final triumph of Hammurabi. The second ruler strengthened his capital with large fortifications; the third ruler was apparently in danger of a native pretender or foreign rival called Immeru; only the fourth ruler was definitely styled King; while Hammurabi himself in the beginning of his reign acknowledged the suzerainty of Elam. This Hammurabi is one of the most gigantic figures of the world’s history, to be named with Alexander, Caesar, or Napoleon, but best compared to a Charlemagne, a conqueror and a lawgiver, whose powerful genius formed a lasting empire out of chaos, and whose beneficent influence continued for ages throughout an area almost as large as Europe. Doubtless a dozen centuries later Assyrian kings were to make greater conquests than he, but whereas they were giant destroyers he was a giant builder. His large public and private correspondence gives us an insight into his multitudinous cares, his minute attention to details, his constitutional methods. (See “The Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi,” by L. W. King; London, 1898, 3 vols.) His famous code of civil and criminal law throws light on his genius as legislator and judge. The stele on which these laws are inscribed was found at Susa by M. de Morgan and the Dominican friar Scheil, and first published and translated by the latter in 1902. This astounding find, giving us, in 3638 short lines, 282 laws and regulations affecting the whole range of public and private life, is unequalled even in the marvelous history of Babylonian research. From no other document can a more swift and accurate estimate of Babylonian civilization be formed than from this code. (For a complete English translation see T.G. Pinches, op. cit. infra, pp. 487–519.)

Whereas the Assyrian kings loved to fill the boastful records of their reigns with ghastly descriptions of battle and war, so that we possess the minutest details of their military campaigns, the genius of Babylon, on the contrary, was one of peace, and culture, and progress. The building of temples, the adorning of cities, the digging of canals, the making of roads, the framing of laws was their pride; their records breathe, or affect to breathe, all serene tranquility; warlike exploits are but mentioned by the way, hence we have, even in the case of the two greatest Babylonian conquerors, Hammurabi and Nabuchodonosor II, but scanty information of their deeds of arms. “I dug the canal Hammurabi, the blessing of men, which bringeth the water of the overflow unto the land of Sumer and Akkad. Its banks on both sides I made arable land; much seed I scattered upon it. Lasting water I provided for the land of Sumer and Akkad. The land of Sumer and Akkad, its separated peoples I united, with blessings and abundance I endowed them, in peaceful dwellings I made them to live”—such is the style of Hammurabi. In what seems an ode on the king, engraved on his statue we find the words: “Hammurabi, the strong warrior, the destroyer of his foes, he is the hurricane of battle, sweeping the land of his foes, he brings opposition to naught, he puts an end to insurrection, he breaks the warrior as an image of clay.” But chronological details are still in confusion. In a very fragmentary list of dates the 31st year of his reign is given as that of the land Emutbalu, which is usually taken as that of his victory over western Elam, and considered by many as that of his conquest of Larsa and its king, Rim-Sin, or Eri-Aku. If the Biblical Amraphel be Hammurabi we have in Gen., xiv, the record of an expedition of his to the Westland previous to the 31st year of his reign. Of Hammurabi’s immediate successors we know nothing except that they reigned in peaceful prosperity. That trade prospered, and temples were built, is all we can say.

The Amorite dynasty was succeeded by a series of eleven kings which may well be designated as the Unknown Dynasty, which has received a number of names: Ura-Azag, Uru-ku, Shish-ku. Whether it was Semite or not is not certain; the years of reign are given in the “King-List,” but they are surprisingly long (60–50–55–50–28, etc), so that not only great doubt is cast on the correctness of these dates, but the very existence of this dynasty is doubted or rejected by some scholars (as Hommel). It is indeed remarkable that the kings should be eleven in number, like those of the Amorite dynasty, and that we should nowhere find a distinct evidence of their existence; yet these premises hardly suffice to prove that so early a document as the “King-List” made the unpardonable mistake of ascribing nearly four centuries of rule to a dynasty which in reality was contemporaneous, nay identical, with the Amorite monarchs. Their names are certainly very puzzling, but it has been suggested that these were not personal names, but names of the city-quarters from which they originated. Should this dynasty have a separate existence, it is safe to say that they were native rulers, and succeeded the Amorites without any break of national and political life. Owing to the questionable reality of this dynasty, the chronology of the previous one varies greatly; hence it arises, for instance, that Hammurabi’s date is given as 1772–17 in Hasting’s “Dictionary of the Bible,” while the majority of scholars would place him about 2100 B.C., or a little earlier; nor are indications wanting to show that, whether the “Unknown Dynasty” be fictitious or not, the latter date is approximately right.

In the third place comes the Kassite dynasty, thirty-six kings, for 576 years. The tablet with this list is unfortunately mutilated, but almost all the nineteen missing names can with some exactness be supplied from other sources, such as the Assyrian-synchronistic history and the correspondence with Egypt. This dynasty was a foreign one, but its place of origin is not easy to ascertain. In their own official designation they style themselves kings of Kardunyash and the King of Egypt addresses Kadashman Bel as King of Kardunyash. This Kardunyash has been tentatively identified with South Elam. Information about the Kassite period is obtained but sparsely. We possess an Assyrian copy of an inscription of Agum-Kakrime, perhaps the seventh King of this dynasty: he styles himself: “King of Kasshu and Akkad, King of the broad land of Babylon, who caused much people to settle in the land of Ashmumak, King of Padan and Alvan, King of the land of Guti, wide extended peoples, a king who rules the four quarters of the world.” The extent of territory thus under dominion of the Babylonian monarch is wider than even that under the Amorite dynasty; but in the royal title, which is altogether unusual in its form, Babylon takes but the third place; only a few generations later, however, the old style and title is resumed, and Babylon again stands first; the foreign conquerors were evidently conquered by the peaceful conquest of superior Babylonian civilization. This Agum-Kakrime with all his wide dominions had yet to send an embassy to the land of Khani to obtain the gods Marduk and Zarpanit, the most sacred national idols, which had evidently been captured by the enemy. The next king of whom we have any knowledge is Karaindash (1450 B.C.) who settled the boundary lines of his kingdom with his contemporary Asshur-bel-nisheshu of Assyria. From the Tell-el-et-marna tablets we conclude that in 1400 B.C., Babylon was no longer the one great power of Western Asia; the kingdom of Assyria and the Kingdom of Mitanni were its rivals and wellnigh equals. Yet, in the letters which passed between Kadashman-Bel and Amenophis III, King of Egypt, it is evident that the King of Babylon could assume a more independent tone of fair equality with the great Pharao than the kings of Assyria or Mitanni. When Amenophis asks for Kadashman-Bel’s sister in marriage, Kadashman-Bel promptly asks for Amenophis’ sister in return; and when Amenophis demurs, Kadashman-Bel promptly answers that, unless some fair Egyptian of princely rank be sent, Amenophis shall not have his sister. When Assyria has sought Egyptian help against Babylon, Kadashman-Bel diplomatically reminds Pharao that Babylon has in times past given no assistance to Syrian vassal princes against their Egyptian suzerain, and expects Egypt now to act in the same way in not granting help to Assyria. And when a Babylonian caravan has been robbed by the people of Akko in Canaan, the Egyptian Government receives a preemptory letter from Babylon for amende honorable and restitution. Amenophis is held responsible, “for Canaan is thy country, and thou art its King.” Kadashman-Bel was succeeded by Burnaburiash I, Kurigalzu I, Burnaburiash II. Six letters of the last-named to Amenhotep IV of Egypt suggest a period of perfect tranquillity and prosperity. For the cause and result of the first great conflict between Assyria and Babylon see ASSYRIA.

How the long Kassite dynasty came to an end we know not, but it was succeeded by the dynasty of Pashi (some read Isin), eleven kings in 132 years (about 1200–1064 B.C.). The greatest monarch of this house was Nabuchodonosor I (about 1135–25 B.C.); though twice defeated by Assyria, he was successful against the Lulubi, punished Elam, and invaded Syria, and by his brilliant achievements stayed the inevitable decline of Babylon. The next two dynasties are known as those of the Sealand, and of Bazi, of three kings each and these were followed by one Elamite king (c. 1064–900 B.C.). Upon these obscure dynasties follows the long series of Babylonian kings, who reigned mostly as vassals, sometimes quasi-independent, sometimes as rebel-kings in the period of Assyrian supremacy (for which see ).

THE SECOND, OR CHALDEAN, EMPIRE

With the death, in 626 B.C., of Kandalanu (the Babylonian name of Assurbanipal), King of Assyria, Assyrian power in Babylon practically ceased. Nabopolassar, a Chaldean who had risen from the position of general in the Assyrian army, ruled Babylon as Shakkanak for some years in nominal dependence on Ninive. Then, as King of Babylon, he invaded and annexed the Mesopotamian provinces of Assyria, and when Sinsharishkun, the last King of Assyria, tried to cut off his return and threatened Babylon, Nabopolassar called in the aid of the Manda, nomadic tribes of Kurdistan, somewhat incorrectly identified with the Medes. Though Nabopolassar no doubt contributed his share to the events which led to the complete destruction of Ninive (606 B.C.) by these Manda barbarians, he apparently did not in person co-operate in the taking of the city, nor share the booty, but used the opportunity to firmly establish his throne in Babylon. Though Semites, the Chaldeans belonged to a race perfectly distinct from the Babylonians proper, and were foreigners in the Euphrates Valley. They were settlers from Arabia, who had invaded Babylonia from the South. Their stronghold was the district known as the Sealands. During the Assyrian supremacy the combined forces of Babylon and Assyria had kept them in check, but, owing probably to the fearful Assyrian atrocities in Babylon, the citizens had begun to look towards their former enemies for help, and the Chaldean power grew apace in Babylon till, in Nabopolassar, it assumed the reins of government, and thus imperceptibly a foreign race superseded the ancient inhabitants. The city remained the same, but its nationality changed. Nabopolassar must have been a strong, beneficient ruler, engaged in rebuilding temples and digging canals, like his predecessors, and yet maintaining his hold over the conquered provinces. The Egyptians, who had learnt of the weakness of Assyria, had already, three years before the fall of Ninive, crossed the frontiers with a mighty army under Necho II, in the hope of sharing in the dismemberment of the Assyrian Empire. How Josias of Juda, trying to bar his way, was slain at Megiddo is known from IV Kings, xxiii, 29.

Meanwhile Ninive was taken, and Necho, resting satisfied with the conquest of the Syrian provinces, proceeded no further. A few years later, however, he marched a colossal army from Egypt to the Euphrates in hopes of annexing part of Mesopotamia. He was met by the Babylonian army at Carchemish, the ancient Hittite capital, where he wished to cross the Euphrates. Nabopolassar, being prevented by ill health and advancing age, had sent his son Nabuchodonosor, and put him in command. The Egyptians were utterly routed in this great encounter, one of the most important in history (604 B.C.). Nabuchodonosor pursued the enemy to the borders of Egypt, where he received the news of his father’s death. He hastened back to Babylon, was received without opposition, and began, in 604 B.C., the forty-two years of his most glorious reign. His first difficulties arose in Juda. Against the solemn warning of Jeremias the Prophet, Jehoiakim refused tribute, i.e. rebelled against Babylon. At first Nabuchodonosor II began a small guerilla warfare against Jerusalem; then, in 607 B.C., he dispatched a considerable army, and after a while began the siege in person. Jechonias, however, son of Jehoiakim, who as a lad of eighteen had succeeded his father, surrendered; 7000 men capable of bearing arms and 1000 workers in iron were carried away and made to form a colony on a canal near Nippur (the River Chobar mentioned in Ezechiel, i, 1), and Zedekias was substituted for Jechonias as vassal King of Juda.

Some ten years later Nabuchodonosor once more found himself in Palestine. Hophra, King of Egypt, who had succeeded Necho II in 589 B.C., had by secret agents tried to combine all the Syrian States in a conspiracy against Babylon. Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon had entered into the coalition, and at last even Juda had joined, and Zedekias against the advice of Jeremias, broke his oath of allegiance to the Chaldeans. A Babylonian army began to surround Jerusalem in 587 B.C. . They were unable to take the city by storm and intended to subdue it by starvation. But Pharao Hophra entered Palestine to help the besieged. The Babylonians raised the siege to drive the Egyptians back; they then returned to Jerusalem and continued the siege in grim earnest. On July the 9th, 586 B.C., they poured in through a breach in the wall of Ezekias and took the city by storm. They captured the flying Zedekias and brought him before Nabuchodonosor at Riblah, where his children were slain before him and his eyes blinded. The city was destroyed, and the temple treasures carried to Babylon. A vast number of the population was deported to some districts in Babylonia, a miserable remnant only was allowed to remain under a Jewish governor Godolias. When this governor was slain by a Jewish faction under Ishmael, a fraction of this remnant, fearing Nabuchodonosor’s wrath, emigrated to Egypt, forcibly taking Jeremias the Prophet with them.

Babylon’s expedition to Juda thus ended in leaving it a devastated, depopulated, ruined district. Nabuchodonosor now turned his arms against Tyre. After Egypt this city had probably been the mainspring of the coalition against Babylon. The punishment intended for Tyre was the same as that of Jerusalem, but Nabuchodonosor did not succeed as he did with the capital of Juda. The position of Tyre was immeasurably superior to that of Jerusalem. The Babylonians had no fleet; therefore, as long as the sea remained open, Tyre was impregnable. The Chaldeans lay before Tyre thirteen years (585–572), but did not succeed in taking it. Ethobaal II, its king, seems to have come to terms with the King of Babylon, fearing, no doubt, the slow but sure destruction of Tyrian inland trade; at least we have evidence, from a contract-tablet dated in Tyre, that Nabuchodonosor at the end of his reign was recognized as suzerain of the city. Notwithstanding the little success against Tyre, Nabuchodonosor attacked Egypt in 567. He entered the very heart of the country, ravaged and pillaged as he chose, apparently without opposition, and returned laden with booty through the Syrian Provinces. But no permanent Egyptian occupation by Babylon was the result.

Thus Nabuchodonosor the Chaldean showed himself a capable military ruler, yet as a Babylonian monarch, following the custom of his predecessors, he gloried not in the arts of war, but of peace. His boast was the vast building operations which made Babylon a city (for those days) impregnable, which adorned the capital with palaces, and the famous “procession road,” and Gate of Ishtar, and which restored and beautifies a great number of temples in different towns of Babylonia. Of Nabuchodonosor’s madness (Daniel, iv, 26–34) no Babylonian record has as yet been found. A number of ingenious suggestions have been made on this subject, one of the best of which Professor Hommel’s substitution of Nabu-na’id for Nabu-chodonosor, but the matter had better stand over till we possess more information on the period. Of the prophet Daniel we find no certain mention in contemporary documents; the prophet’s Babylonian name, Baltassar (Balatsu-usur), is unfortunately a very common one. We know of at least fourteen persons of that time called Balatu and seven called Balatsu, both of which names may be abbreviations of Baltassar, or “Protect His life.” The etymology of Sidrach and Misach is unknown, but Abednego and Arioch (Abdnebo and Eriaku) are well known. Professor J. Oppert found the base of a great statue near a mound called Duair, east of Babylon, and this may have belonged to the golden image erected “in the plain of Dura of the province of Babylon” (Dan. iii, 1). In 561 B.C., Nabuchodonosor was succeeded by Evil-Merodach (IV Kings, xxv, 27), who released Joachim of Juda and raised him above the other vassal kings at Babylon, but his mild rule evidently displeased the priestly caste, and they accused him of reigning lawlessly and extravagantly. After less than three years he was assassinated by Neriglissar (Nergal-sar-usur), his brother-in-law, who is possibly the Nergalsharezer present at the taking of Jerusalem (Jer. xxxix, 3–13). Neriglissar was after four years succeeded by his son Labasi-Marduk, no more than a child, who reigned nine months and was assassinated.

The conspirators elected Nabonidus (Nabu-na’id) to the throne. He was the last King of Babylon (555–539 B.C.). He was a royal antiquarian rather than a ruling king. From their foundations he rebuilt the great Shamash temple in Sippar and the Sin temple in Harran, and in his reign the city walls of Babylon “were curiously built with burnt brick and bitumen.” But he resided in Tema, shunned the capital, offended the provincial towns by transporting their gods to Shu-anna, and alienated the priesthood of Babylon by what they would call misdirected piety. To us his antiquarian research after first foundation-stones of the temples he rebuilt is of the greatest importance. He tells us that the foundation-stone of the Shamash temple laid by Naram Sin had not been seen for 3200 years, which, roughly speaking, gives us 3800 B.C., for Sargon of Akkad, Naram Sin’s father; upon this date most of our early Babylonian chronology is based. The actual duties of government seem to have been largely in the hands of the Crown Prince Baltassar (Bel-shar-usur), who resided in Babylon as regent.

Meanwhile Cyrus, the petty King of Anshan, had begun his career of conquest. He overthrew Astyages, King of the Medes, for which victory Nabonaid praised him as the young servant of Merodach; he overthrew Croesus of Lydia and his coalition; he assumed the title of King of the Parsu, and ha begun a new Indo-Germanic world power which replaced the decrepit Semitic civilization. At last Nabonaid, realizing the situation, met the Persians at Opis. Owing to internal strife amongst the Babylonians, many of whom were dissatisfied with Nabonaid, the Persians had an easy victory, taking the city of Sippar without fighting. Nabonaid fled to Babylon. Cyrus’s soldiers, under the generalship of Ugbaru (Gobryas), Governor of Gutium, entered the capital without striking a blow and captured Nabonaid. This happened in June; in October Cyrus in person entered the city, paid homage at E-sagila to Marduk. A week later the Persians entered, at night, that quarter of the city where Baltassar occupied a fortified position in apparent security, where the sacred vessels of Jehovah’s temple were profaned, where the hand appeared on the wall writing Mane, Tekel Phares, and where Daniel was offered the third place in the kingdom (i.e. after Nabonaid and Baltassar). That same night Baltassar was slain and the Semitic Empire of Babylon came to an end, for the ex-King Nabonaid spent the rest of his life in Carmania.

In one sense Babylonian history ends here, and Persian history begins, yet a few words are needed on the return of the Jewish captives after their seventy years of exile. It has long been supposed that Cyrus, professing the Mazdean religion, was a strict monotheist and released the Jews out of sympathy for their faith. But this king was, apparently, only unconsciously an instrument in God’s hands, and the permission for the Jews to return was merely given out of political sagacity and a wish for popularity in his new domains. At least we possess inscriptions of him in which he is most profuse in his homage to the Babylonian Pantheon. As Nabonaid had outraged the religious sentiments of his subjects by collecting all their gods in Shu-anna, Cyrus pursued an opposite policy and returned all these gods to their own worshippers; and, the Jews having no idols, he returned their sacred vessels, which Baltassar had profaned, and gave a grant for the rebuilding of their Temple. The very phraseology of the decree given in I Esdras, i,2 sqq., referring to “the Lord God of Heaven” shows his respectful attitude, if not inclination, towards monotheism, which was professed by so many of his Indo-Germanic subjects. Darius Hystaspes, who in 521 B.C., after defeating Pseudo-Smerdis, succeeded Cambyses (King of Babylon since 530 B.C.) was a convinced monotheist and adorer of Ahuramazda; and if it was he who ordered and aided the completion of the temple at Jerusalem, after the interruption caused by Samaritan intervention, it was no doubt out of sympathy with the Jewish religion (I Esdr., vi, 1 sqq). It is not quite certain, however, that the Darius referred to is this king; it has been suggested that Darius Nothus is meant, who mounted the throne almost a hundred years later. Zerubabel is a thoroughly Babylonian name and occurs frequently on documents of that time; but we cannot as yet trace any connection between the Zerubabel of Scripture and any name mentioned in these documents.

SOME SPECIAL BIBLE REFERENCES

(1) The first passage referring to Babylonia is Gen., x, 8–10: “Chus begat Nemrod, and the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon and Arach and Achad and Chalanne in the land of Sennaar.” The great historical value of these genealogies in Genesis has been acknowledged by scholars of all schools; these genealogies are, however, not of persons, but of tribes, which is obvious from such a bold metaphor as: “Chanaan begat Sidon, his first born” (v, 15). But in many instances the names are those of actual persons whose personal names became designations of the tribes, just as in known instances of Scottish and Irish clans or Arab tribes. Chus begat Nemrod. Chus was not a Semite, according to the Biblical account, and it is remarkable that recent discoveries all seem to point to the fact that the original civilization of Babylonia was non-Semitic and the Semitic element only gradually displaced the aborigines and adopted their culture. It must be noted, also, that in v. 22 Assur is described as a son of Sem, though in v. 11 Assur comes out of the land of Sennaar. This exactly represents the fact that Assyria was purely Semitic where Babylonia was not. Some see in Chus a designation of the city of Kish, mentioned above amongst the cities of early Babylonia, and certainly one of its most ancient towns. Nemrod, on this supposition, would be none else than Nin-marad, or Lord of Marad, which was a daughter-city of Kish. Gilgamesh, whom mythology transformed into a Babylonian Hercules, whose fortunes are described in the Gilgamesh-epos, would then be the person designated by the Biblical Nemrod. Others again see in Nemrod an intentional corruption of Amarudu, the Akkadian for Marduk, whom the Babylonians worshiped as the great God, and who, perhaps, was the deified ancestor of their city. This corruption would be parallel to Nisroch (IV Kings, xix, 37) for Assuraku, and Nibhaz (IV Kings, xvii, 31) for Abahazu, or Abed Nego for Abdnebo. The description of “stout hunter” or hero-entrapper would fit in well with the role ascribed to the god Marduk, who entrapped the monster Tiamtu in his net. Both Biblical instances, IV Kings, xvii, 31, and xix, 37, however, are very doubtful, and Nisroch has recently found a more probable explanation.

(2) “The beginning of his kingdom was Babylon and Arach and Achad and Calanne.” These cities of Northern Babylonia are probably enumerated inversely to the order of their antiquity; so that Nippur (Calanne) is the most ancient, and Babylon the most modern. Recent excavations have shown that Nippur dates far back beyond the Sargonid age (3800 B.C.) and Nippur is mentioned on the fifth tablet of the Babylonian Creation-story.

(3) The next Biblical passage which requires mention is that dealing with the Tower of Babel (Gen., xi, 1–9). This narrative, though couched in the terms of Oriental folklore, yet expresses not merely a moral lesson, but refers to some historical fact in the dim past. There was perhaps in the ancient world no spot on all the earth where such a variety of tongues and dialects was heard as in Babylonia, where Akkadians, Sumerians, and Amorites, Elamites, Kassites, Sutites, Qutites, and perhaps Hittites met and left their mark on the language; where Assyrian or Semitic Babylonian itself only very gradually displaced the older non-Semitic tongue, and where for many centuries the people were at least bilingual. It was the spot where Turanian, Semitic, and Indo-Germanic met. Yet there remained in the national consciousness the memory that the first settlers in the Babylonian plain spoke one language. “They removed from the East,” as the Bible says and all recent research suggests. When we read, “The earth was of one tongue,” we need not take this word in its widest sense, for the same word is often translated “the land.” Philology may or may not prove the unity of all human speech, and man’s descent from a single set of parents seems to postulate original unity of language; but in any case the Bible does not here seem to refer to this, and the Bible account itself suggests that a vast variety of tongues existed previous to the foundations of Babylon. We need but refer to Gen., x, 5, 21, 31: “In their kindreds and tongues and countries and nations”; and Gen., x, 10, where Babylon is represented as almost coeval with Arach, Achad, and Calanne, and posterior to Gomer, Magog, Elam, Arphaxad, so that the original division of languages cannot first have taken place at Babel. What historical fact lies behind the account of the building of the Tower of Babel is difficult to ascertain. Of course any real attempt to reach heaven by a tower is out of the question. The mountains of Elam were too close by, to tell them that a few yards more or less were of no importance to get in touch with the sky. But the wish to have a rallying-point in the plain is only too natural. It is a striking fact that most Babylonian cities possessed a ziggurrat (a stage, or temple-tower), and these bore very significant Sumerian names, as, for instance, at Nippur, Dur-anki, “Link of heaven and earth”—“the summit of which reaches unto heaven, and the foundation of which is laid in the bright deep”; or, at Babylon, Esagila, “House of the High Head,” the more ancient designation of which was Etemenanki, “House of the Foundation of Heaven and Earth”; or Ezida, at Borsippa, by its more ancient designation Euriminianki, or “House of the Seven Spheres of Heaven and Earth.” The remains of Ezida, at present Birs Nimrud, are traditionally pointed out as the Tower of Babel; whether rightly, is impossible to say; Esagila, in Babylon itself, has as good, if not a better, claim. We have no record of the building of the city and tower being interrupted by any such catastrophe as a confusion of languages; but that such an interruption because of diversity of speech of the townspeople took place, is not impossible. In any case it can only have been an interruption, though perhaps of many centuries, for Babylon increased and prospered for many centuries after the period referred to in Genesis. The history of the city of Babylon before the Amorite dynasty is an absolute blank, and we have no facts to fill up the fifteen centuries of its existence previous to that date. The etymology given for the name Babel in Gen., xi, 9, is not the historic meaning of the word, which, as given above is Kadungir, Bab-Ilu, or “God’s Gate.” The derivation in Genesis rests upon the similarity of sound with a word formed from the root balal, “to stammer,” or “be confused.”

(4) Next to be mentioned is the account of the battle of the four kings against five near the Dead Sea (Gen., xiv). Sennaar mentioned in v. 1 is the Sumer of the Babylonian inscriptions, and Amraphel is identified by most scholars with the great Hammurabi, the sixth King of Babylon. The initial gutteral of the king’s name being a soft one, and the Babylonians being given to dropping their H’s, the name actually occurs in cuneiform inscriptions as Ammurapi. The absence of the final 1arises from the fact that the sign pi was misread bil or perhaps ilu, the sign of deification, or complement of the name, being omitted. There is no philological difficulty in this identification, but the chronological difficulty (viz., of Hammurabi being vassal of Chedorlaomer) has led others to identify Amraphel with Hammurabi’s father Sin-muballit, whose name is ideographically written Amar-Pal. Arioch, King of Pontus (Pontus is St. Jerome’s unfortunate guess to identify Ellazar) is none else but Rim-Sin, King of Larsa (Ellazar of A. V.), whose name was Eri-Aku, and who was defeated and dethroned by the King of Babylon, whether Hammurabi or Sin-muballit; and if the former, then this occurred in the thirty-first year of his reign, the year of the land of Emutbalu, Eri-Aku bearing the title of King of Larsa and Father of Emutbalu. The name Chedorlahomer has apparently, though not quite certainly, been found on two tablets together with the names Eriaku and Tudhula, which latter king is evidently “Thadal, king of the Nations.” The Hebrew word goyim, “nations,” is a clerical error for Gutium or Guti, a neighbouring state which plays an important role throughout Babylonian history. Of Kudur-lahgumal, King of the Land of Elam, it is said that he “descended on,” and “exercised sovereignty in Babylon the city of Kar-Duniash.” We have documentary evidence that Eriaku’s father Kudurmabug, King of Elam, and after him Hammurabi of Babylon, claimed authority over Palestine the land of Martu. This Biblical passage, therefore, which was once described as bristling with impossibilities, has so far only received confirmation from Babylonian documents.

(5) According to Gen., xi, 28 and 31, Abraham was a Babylonian from the city of Ur. It is remarkable that the name Abu ramu (Honored Father) occurs in the eponym lists for 677 B.C., and Abe ramu, a similar name, on a contract-tablet in the reign of Apil-Sin, thus showing that Abram was a Babylonian name in use long before and after the date of the Patriarch. His father removed from Ur to Harran, from the old centre of the Moon-cult to the new. Talmudic tradition makes Terah an idolater, and his religion may have had to do with his emigration. No excavations have as yet taken place at Harran, and Abraham’s ancestry remains obscure. Aberamu of Apil-Sin’s reign had a son Sha-Amurri, which fact shows the early intercourse between Babylonia and the Amorite land, or Palestine. In Chanaan Abraham remained within the sphere of Babylonian language and influence, or perhaps even authority. Several centuries later, when Palestine was no longer part of the Babylonian Empire, Abd-Hiba, the King of Jerusalem, in his intercourse with his over-lord of Egypt, wrote neither his own language nor that of Pharao, but Babylonian, the universal language of the day. Even when passing into Egypt, Abraham remained under Semitic rule, for the Hyksos reigned there.

(6) Considering that the progenitor of the Hebrew race was a Babylonian, and that Babylonian culture remained paramount in Western Asia for more than 1000 years, the most astounding feature of the Hebrew Scriptures is the almost complete absence of Babylonian religious ideas, the more so as Babylonian religion, though Oriental polytheism, possessed a refinement, a nobility of thought, and a piety, which are often admirable. The Babylonian account of creation, though often compared with the Biblical one, differs from it on main and essential points for

it contains no direct statement of the Creation of the world: Tiamtu and Apsu, the watery waste and the abyss wedded together, beget the universe; Marduk, the conqueror of chaos, shapes and orders all things; but this is the mythological garb of evolution as opposed to creation.

It does not make the Deity the first and only cause of the existence of all things; the gods themselves are but the outcome of pre-existent, apparently eternal, forces; they are not cause, but effect.

It makes the present world the outcome of a great war; it is the story of Resistance and Struggle, which is the exact opposite of the Biblical account.

It does not arrange the things created into groups or classes, which is one of the main features of the story in Genesis.

The work of creation is not divided into a number of days—the principal literary characteristic of the Biblical account.

The Babylonian mythology possesses something analogous to the biblical Garden of Eden. But though they apparently possessed the word Edina, not only as meaning “the Plain,” but as a geographical name, their garden of delight is placed in Eridu, where “a dark vine grew; it was made a glorious place, planted beside the abyss. In the glorious house, which is like a forest, its shadow extends; no man enters its midst. In its interior is the Sun-god Tammuz. Between the mouths of the rivers, which are on both sides.” This passage bears a striking analogy to Gen., ii, 8–17. The Babylonians, however, seem to have possessed no account of the Fall. It seems likely that the name of Ea, or Ya, or Aa, the oldest god of the Babylonian Pantheon, is connected with the name Jahve, Jahu, or Ja, of the Old Testament. Professor Delitzsch recently claimed to have found the name Jahve-ilu on a Babylonian tablet, but the reading has been strongly disputed by other scholars. The greatest similarity between Hebrew and Babylonian records is in their accounts of the Flood. Pir-napistum, the Babylonian Noe, commanded by Ea, builds a ship and transfers hither his family, the beasts of the field, and the sons of the artificers, and he shuts the door. Six days and nights the wind blew, the flood overwhelmed the land. The seventh day the storm ceased; quieted, the sea shrank back; all mankind had turned to corruption. The ship stopped at the land of Nisir. Pir-napistum sends out first a dove, which returns; then a swallow, and it returns, then a raven, and it does not return. He leaves the ship, pours out a libation, makes an offering on the peak of the mountain. “The gods smelled a savour, the gods smelled a sweet savour, the gods gathered like flies over the sacrificer.” No one reading the Babylonian account of the Flood can deny its intimate connection with the narrative in Genesis, yet the former is so intimately bound up with Babylonian mythology, that the inspired character of the Hebrew account is the better appreciated by the contrast.

RELIGION

The Babylonian Pantheon arose out of a gradual amalgamation of the local deities of the early city states of Sumer and Akkad. And Babylonian mythology is mainly the projection into the heavenly sphere of the earthly fortunes of the early centres of civilization in the Euphrates valley. Babylonian religion, therefore, is largely a Sumerian, i.e. Mongolian product, no doubt modified by Semitic influence, yet to the last bearing the mark of its Mongolian origin in the very names of its gods and in the sacred dead languages in which they were addressed. The tutelary spirit of a locality extended his power with the political power of his adherents; when the citizens of one city entered into political relations with the citizens of another, popular imagination soon created the relation of father and son, brother and sister, or man and wife, between their respective gods. The Babylonian Trinity of Anu, Bel, and Ea is the result of later speculation, dividing the divine power into that which rules in heaven, that which rules the earth, and that which rules under the earth. Ea was originally the god of Eridu on the Persian Gulf and therefore the god of the ocean and the waters below. Bel was originally the chief spirit (in Sumerian En-lil, the older designation of Bel, which is Semitic for “chief” or “lord”) of Nippur, one of the oldest, possibly the oldest, centre of civilization after Eridu. Anu’s local cult is as yet uncertain; Erech has been suggested; we know that Gudea erected a temple to him; he always remained a shadowy personality. Although nominal head of the Pantheon, he had in later days no temple dedicated to him except one, and that he shared with Hadad. Sin, the moon, was the god of Ur; Shamash, the sun, was the god of Larsa and Sippar; when the two towns of Girsu and Uruazaga were united into the one city of Lagash, the two respective local deities, Nin-Girsu and Bau, became man and wife, to whom Gudea brought wedding presents. With the rise of Babylon and the political unification of the whole country under this metropolis, the city-god Marduk, whose name does not occur on any inscription previous to Hammurabi, leaps to the foreground. The Babylonian theologians not only gave him a place in the Pantheon, but in the Epos “Enuma Elish” it is related how as reward for overcoming the Dragon of Chaos, the great gods, his fathers, bestowed upon Marduk their own names and titles. Marduk gradually so outshone the other deities that these were looked upon as mere manifestations of Marduk, whose name became almost a synonym for God. And though Babylonians never quite reached monotheism, their ideas sometimes seem to come near it. Unlike the Assyrians, the Babylonians never possessed a female deity of such standing in the Pantheon as Ishtar of Ninive or Arbela. In the Second Empire, Nebo, the city-god of Borsippa, over against Babylon, rises into prominence and wins honours almost equal to those of Marduk, and the twin cities have two almost inseparable gods. Judging from the continual invocation of the gods in every conceivable detail of life, and the continual acknowledgment of dependence on them, and the anxious humble prayers that are still extant, the Babylonians were as a nation pre-eminent in piety.

CIVILIZATION

It is impossible in this article to give an idea of the astounding culture which had developed in the Euphrates Valley, the cradle of civilization, even as early as 2300 B.C. A perusal of the article Hammurabi, and a careful reading of his code of laws will give us a clear insight in the Babylonian world of four thousand years ago. The ethical litany of the Shurpu tablets contains an examination of conscience more detailed than the so-called “Negative” confessions in the Egyptian Book of the Dead and fills us with admiration for the moral level of the Babylonian world. Though polygamists, the Babylonians raised but one woman to the legal status of wife, and women possessed considerable rights and freedom of action. Marriage settlements protected the married, and the unmarried managed their own estates. On the other hand, they possessed an institution analogous to vestal virgins at Rome. These female votaries had a privileged position in Babylonian society; we know, however, of no such dire penalty for their unfaithfulness as the Roman law inflicted. A votary could even enter into nominal marriage, if she gave her husband a maid as Sarah gave Abraham. According to Law 110 of Hammurabi, however, “if a votary who dwells not in a cloister open a wine-house or enter a wine-house for drink, that female they shall burn.” On the other hand (Law 127), “if a man has caused the finger to be pointed against a votary and has not justified it, they shall set that man before the judges and mark his forehead.” The dark side of Babylonian society is seen in the strange enactment: “If the child of a courtesan or of a public woman come to know his father’s house and despise his foster-parents and go to his father’s house, they shall tear out his eyes.” The repeated coupling of the words “votary or public woman” and the minute and indulgent legislation of which they are the objects make us fear that the virtue of chastity was not prized in Babylon. Although originally only a provident, prosperous agricultural people, the Babylonians seem to have developed a great commercial talent; and well might some Assyrian Napoleon have referred to his Southern neighbours as “that nation of shopkeepers.” In 1893 Dr. Hilprecht found 730 tablets twenty feet underground in a ruined building at Nippur, which proved to be the banking archives of the firm Nurashu and Sons, signed, sealed, and dated about 400 B.C. We also possess a deed of purchase by Manishtusu, King of Kish, some 4000 B.C., in archaic Babylonian, which in accuracy and minuteness of detail in moneys and values would compare well with a modern balance sheet that has passed the chartered accountants. Proofs are not lacking of the commercial talents of the Babylonians during the thirty-five centuries between these dates.

LITERATURE

Vast as is the material of Babylonian inscriptions, equally varied are their contents. The great majority no doubt of the 300,000 tablets hitherto unearthed deal with business matters rather than with matters literary; contracts, marriage settlements, cadastral surveys, commercial letters, orders for goods or acknowledgments of their receipt, official communications between magistrates and civil or military governors, names, titles, and dates on foundation stones, private correspondence, and so on. Still a fair percentage has a right to be strictly classed as “literature” or “belles-lettres.” We must moreover constantly keep in mind that only about one-fifth of the total number of these tablets have been published and that any description of their literature must as yet be fragmentary and tentative. It is convenient to classify as follows: (1) the Epos; (2) the Psalm; (3) the Historical Narrative.

(1) THE EPOS

(a) The so called “Seven Tablets of Creation,” because written on a series of seven very mutilated tablets in the Kouyunshik Library. Happily the lacunae can here and there be filled up by fragments of duplicates found elsewhere. Borrowing an expression from the early Teuton literature, this might be called the “saga of the primeval chaos.” Assyrian scribes called it by its first words “Enuma Elish” (When on high) as the Jews called Genesis “Bereshith” (in the beginning). Although it contains an account of the world’s origin, as above contrasted with the account given in the Bible, it is not so much a cosmogony as the story of the heroic deeds of the god Marduk, in his struggle with the Dragon of Chaos. Though the youngest of the gods, Marduk is charged by them to fight Tiamtu and the gods on her side. He wins a glorious victory; he takes the tablets of fate from Kimgu, her husband; he splits open her skull, hews asunder the channels of her blood and makes the north wind carry it away to hidden places. He divides the corpse of the great Dragon and with one half makes a covering for the heavens and thus fixes the waters above the firmament. He then sets about fashioning the universe, and the stars, and the moon; he forms man. “Let me gather my blood and let me set up a man, let me make then men dwelling on the earth.” When Marduk has finished his work, he is acclaimed by all the gods with joy and given fifty names. The gods are apparently eager to bestow their own titles upon him. The aim of the poem clearly is to explain how Marduk, the local god of as modern a city as Babylon, had displaced the deities of the older Babylonian cities, “the gods his fathers.”

(b) The great national epos of Gilgamesh, which probably had in Babylonian literature some such place as the Odyssey or the Aeneid amongst the Greeks and Romans. It consists of twelve chapters or cantos. It opens with the words Sha nagbo imuru (He who saw everything). The number of extant tablets is considerable, but unfortunately they are all very fragmentary and with exception of the eleventh chapter the text is very imperfect and shows as yet huge lacunae. Gilgamesh was King of Erech the Walled. When the story begins, the city and the temples are in a ruinous state. Some great calamity has fallen upon them. Erech has been besieged for three years, till Bel and Ishtar interest themselves in its behalf. Gilgamesh has yearned for a companion, and the goddess Arurn makes Ea-bani, the warrior; “covered with hair was all his body and he had tresses like a woman, his hair grew thick as corn; though a man, he lives amongst the beasts of the field.” They entice him into the city of Erech by the charms of a woman called Samuhat; he lives there and becomes a fast friend of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh and Ea-bani set out in quest of adventure, travel through forests, and arrive at the palace of a great queen. Gilgamesh cuts off the head of Humbabe, the Elamite king. Ishtar the goddess falls in love with him and asks him in marriage. But Gilgamesh scornfully reminds her of her treatment of former lovers. Ishtar in anger returns to heaven and revenges herself by sending a divine bull against Gilgamesh and Ea-bani. This animal is overcome and slain to the great joy of the city of Erech. Warning dreams are sent to Gilgamesh and his friend Ea-bani dies, and Gilgamesh sets out on a far journey, to bring his friend back from the underworld. After endless adventures our hero reaches in a ship the waters of death and converses with Pir-napistum, the Babylonian Noe, who tells him the story of the flood, which fills up the eleventh chapter of some 330 lines, referred to above. Pir-napistum gives to Gilgamesh the plant of rejuvenescence but he loses it again on his way back to Erech. In the last chapter Gilgamesh succeeds in calling up the spirit of Ea-bani, who gives a vivid portrayal of life after death “where the worm devoureth those who had sinned in their heart, but where the blessed lying upon a couch, drink pure water.” Though weird in the extreme and to our eyes a mixture of the grotesque with the sublime, this epos contains descriptive passages of unmistakable power. A few lines as example: “At the break of dawn in the morning there arose from the foundation of heaven a dark cloud. The Storm god thundered within it and Nebo and Marduk went before it. Then went the heralds over mountain and plain. Uragala dragged the anchors loose, the Annunak raised their torches, with their flashing they lighted the earth. The roar of the Storm god reached to the heavens and everything bright turned into darkness.”

(c) The Adapa-Legend, a sort of “Paradise Lost,” probably a standard work of Babylonian literature, as it is found not only in the Ninive library, but even among the Amarna tablets in Egypt. It relates how Adapa, the wise man or Atrachasis, the purveyor to the sanctuary of Ea, is deceived, through the envy of Ea. Anu, the Supreme God, invites him to Paradise, offers him the food and drink of immortality, but Adapa, mistakenly thinking it poison, refuses, and loses life everlasting. Anu scornfully says: “Take him and bring him back to his earth.”

(d) Ishtar’s descent into Hades, here and there bearing a surprising resemblance to well-known lines of Dante’s Inferno. The goddess of Erech goes:

To the land whence no one ever returneth,

To the house of gloom where dwelleth Irkalla,

To the house which one enters but nevermore leaveth,

On the way where there is no retracing of footsteps,

To the house which one enters, and daylight all ceases.

On an Amarna tablet we find a description ghostly and graphic of a feast, a fight, and a wedding in hell. (e) Likewise fragments of legendary stories about the earliest Babylonian kings have come down to us. One of the most remarkable is that in which Sargon of Akkad, born of a vestal maiden of high degree, is exposed by his mother in a basket of bulrushes and pitch floating on the waters of the Euphrates; he is found by a water carrier and brought up as a gardener. This story cannot but remind us of Moses’ birth.

(2) THE PSALM

This species of literature, which formerly seemed almost limited to the Hebrew race, had a luxurious growth on Babylonian soil. These songs to the gods or to some one god are indeed often either weird incantations or dreary litanies; and when after perusal of a good number of them one turns to the Hebrew Psalter, no fair-minded person will deny the almost immeasurable superiority of the latter. On the other hand, naught but unreasoning prejudice would trouble to deny the often touching beauty and nobility of thought in some of these productions of the instinctive piety of a noble race. It is natural moreover that the tone of some Babylonian psalms should strongly remind us of some songs of Israel, where every psalmist boasted that he had as forefather a Babylonian: Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees. Some of these psalms are written in Sumerian with Semitic Babylonian interlinear translations; others in Semitic Babylonian only. They show all sorts of technicalities in versification, parallelism, alliteration, and rhythm. There are acrostics and even double acrostics, the initial and final syllable of each line being the same. These psalms contain praise and supplication of the great gods, but, what is most remarkable, some of them are penitential psalms, the sinner mourning his sin and begging restoration to favour. Moreover, there are a great number of “lamentations” not over personal but over national calamities; and a Babylonian “prophet” wept over the fall of Nippur many centuries before Jeremias wrote his inspired songs of sorrow over the destruction of Jerusalem. Besides these there are numberless omen tablets, magical recipes for all sorts of ills, and rituals of temple service, but they belong to the history of religion and astrology rather than to that of literature.

(3) THE HISTORICAL NARRATIVE

The Babylonians seemed to have possessed no ex professo historians, who, like a Herodotus, endeavoured to give a connected narrative of the past. We have to gather their history from the royal inscriptions on monuments and palace walls and state-cylinders, in which each sovereign records his great deeds in perpetuam rei memoriam. Whereas we fortunately possess an abundance of historical texts of the Assyrian kings, thanks to the discovery of Assurbanipal’s library, we are as yet not so fortunate in the case of Babylonian kings; of the early Babylonian city-kings we have a number of shorter inscriptions on steles and boundary stones in true lapidary style and longer historical records in the great cylinder inscriptions of Gudea of Lagash. Whereas we possess considerable historical texts of Hammurabi, we possess but very little of his many successors on the Babylonian throne until the Second Babylonian Empire, when long historical texts tell us the doings of Nabopolassar, Nabuchodonosor, and Nabonidus. They are all of a pompous grandeur that palls a little on a Western mind, and their self-adulation comes strange to us. They are in the style which popular imagination is wont to attribute to the utterances of His Celestial Majesty, the Emperor of China. They invariably begin with a long homage to the gods, giving lengthy lists of deities, protectors of the sovereign and state, and end with imprecations on those who destroy, mutilate, or disregard the inscription. The Babylonian royal inscriptions, as far as at present known, are almost without exception peaceful in tone and matter. Their ever recurring themes are the erection, restoration, or adornment of temples and palaces, and the digging of canals. Even when at war, the Babylonian king thought it bad taste to refer to it in his monumental proclamations. No doubt the Babylonians must have despised Assyrian inscriptions as bloodthirsty screeds. Because the genius of Babylon was one of culture and peace; therefore, though a world-centre a thousand years before Ninive, it lasted more than a thousand years after Ninive was destroyed.

In addition to literature given after article Assyria: Boscawen, The First of Empires (2d ed., London, 1905); Bezold, Ninive und Babylon (Leipzig, 1903); Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia (London, 1903); Sayce, The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions (London, 1907); Jastrow, Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens (Giessen, I, 1905; II, 1907); Radau, Early Babylonian History (New York, 1900); Lagrange, Historical Criticism and O.T. (London, 1906); Jeremias, Das Alte Testament in Lichte des alten Orients (Leipzig, 1906); Delitzsch, Babel und Bibel (Leipzig and Stuttgart, 1905) for a collection of texts with immediate bearing on O.T.; Winckler, Keilinschriftliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament (Leipzig, 1903).

J.P. ARENDZEN

Synod of Baccanceld

(BAPCHILD, near Sittingbourne, Kent), Synod Of (694).

This meeting was rather a witenagemot, or Parliament, than an ecclesiastical synod, presided over by Wihtred, King of Kent. There were present at its deliberations Brihtwald, Archbishop of Canterbury, Tobias, Bishop of Rochester, besides abbots, abbesses, priests, deacons, and lay lords. The chief enactments are embodied in a charter whose terms secured to the Church forever the donations and privileges bestowed on it by the laity, since “what had once been given to God might never be resumed to man’s use.” Moreover, on the death of prelates, fitting successors were to be appointed with the advice and approval of the archbishop, without any royal intervention; such action would nullify the election; and lay interference was expressly disclaimed as being outside the limits of the laity’s rights. The cathedral churches of Canterbury and Rochester were granted in perpetuity, immunity from royal requisitions or tribute otherwise than voluntary, and these were never to create precedent; all these privileges being secured under severe spiritual penalties for infringement. The interest and importance of this document rest on the fact that Spelman and others regard it as the most ancient English charter. Its authenticity has been called in question; but though different versions of it exist, there can be little doubt of the general genuineness of the terms common to all, as here summarized.

Cotton. MS. Domit. A., VIII; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; SPELMAN, Conc., I; WAKE, State of the Church; WILKINS, Concilia; HADDAN AND STUBBS, Eccl. Docts.

HENRY NORBERT BIRT.

Bacchylus

Bishop of Corinth, whom Eusebius mentions among the prominent second-century churchmen (H. E., V, xxii), is known only by the part he took in sustaining Pope Victor I in the Quartodeciman controversy. When that pope, determining to have the Roman paschal computation universally accepted, wrote to secure the co-operation of influential churches, many synods were held and their presiding bishops wrote to Victor, all, with the exception of the Asiatics in support of his design. Among them was Bacchylus. According to a ninth century witness (c. xiii in Hardouin, Acta Conil., V, 1495) he had held a provincial synod about 195, with eighteen other bishops; and St. Jerome attests that his letter, qualified as elegantem librum, was written in the name of the bishops of Achaia (De vir.ill., c. xliv). Eusebius, however who had perhaps seen the letter, distinguishes it from the synodical epistles by saying that it was written in Bacchylus’s own name (loc. cit., xxiii). It might be that Bacchylus held a synod, but in writing gave his letter a personal rather than a collective form. No text of the letter is extant, the sources above referred to containing the only available data.

JOHN B. PETERSON

Bachiarius

An early fifth-century writer, known only through two treatises which warrant the conjecture that he was a monk, possibly an abbot, and a Spaniard.

The first of these writings, entitled by Gennadius “Liber de Fide” is an apologetical letter to the pope in which Bachiarius, like many another monk coming to Rome from Spain at the time, vindicates his faith against the suspicions of a heterodoxy akin to Priscillianism which were based on his residence in heretical lands. He points out that he left his country because of its errors (whence some conclude that he was exiled) and makes a profession of faith that witnesses to his thorough orthodoxy. The second, entitled “Ad Januariam liber de reparatione lapsi,” is an appeal to an abbot, Januarius, to mitigate his severity towards an incontinent monk who though repentant was excluded from the monastery. The letter breathes a beautiful spirit of prudently tempered charity and like the first is replete with scriptural texts and allusions. The theory of Bachiarius’s identity with the Spanish bishop Peregrinus seems untenable.

Texts of letters with GALLARD’S introduction and GENNADIUS’S references in P. L., XX, 1015–62; MURATORI, Opere (Arezzo, 1770), XI, 248–275; TILLEMONT, Mémoires (Venice, 1732), XVI, 473–476; Venables in Dict. Christ. Biog., I, 236; MANGENOT in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 6.

JOHN B. PETERSON.

Paul Bachmann

(Amincola).

Catholic theological controversialist, born at Chemnitz, Saxony, about 1466. His biographical data are very meager. Nothing is known of his youth, and very little of his life, before his appearance as an opponent of the Lutheran movement. He entered the Order of Cîteaux at the convent of Altenzelle on the Mulde. He seems to have been employed as professor in the Cistercian house of studies newly founded at Leipzig. Here he won the degree of Master of Arts. He was made procurator and finally, in 1522, Abbot of Altenzelle, in succession to Abbot Martin (1493–1522). At the outbreak of Lutheranism, Bachmann sprang into prominence as one of its most energetic opponents. He was one of that distinguished group of scholars composed of Cochlaeus, Emser, Peter Forst, and Augustin von Alveldt, who, under the direction of John of Schleinitz, Bishop of Meissen, fought the movement in Saxony. Bachmann gave special attention to the reformation of monastic life and to a defense of the veneration of the Saints. While he was not wholly successful in preventing defection from the ranks of his own order, he at least hindered the secularization of his own monastery of Altenzelle during his lifetime. His vigorous defense of orthodoxy engaged him in a war of pamphlets with the reformers, in which his own contributions yield little in bitterness of tone and coarseness of language to those of his antagonists. In a contemporaneous satire entitled “Mors et sepultura doctrinae Lutheranae” (Strobel, Opuscula quaedam satirica et ludicra tempore Reform. scripta, Fase. 1, 1784, 49 sqq.) written in the style of the “ Epistolae obscurorum virorum,” Bachmann is very severely handled. A letter is there ascribed to him over the signature Hamnicolus, indignus Abatissa Monstri Cellensis in Misnia.” Besides his controversial pamphlets Bachmann’s writings comprise hymns and devotional works in prose and verse.

Streber in Kirchenlexicon, I, 1829.

MATTHIAS LEIMKUHLER.

Augustin de Backer

Bibliographer, born at Antwerp, Belgium, 18 July, 1809; died at Liège, 1 December, 1873.

He was educated at the Jesuit Colleges of Saint-Nicholas, Beauregard, Saint-Acheul, and Fribourg. In 1835 he was received into the Society of Jesus by the General, Father Roothaan, who sent him to Nivelles, in Belgium, for his novitiate. He taught three years in the College of Namur, and in 1840 began in Louvain his studies for the priesthood. At an early age his vocation as a bibliographer began to manifest itself. While yet a student he made a collection of Elzevirs and planned a work that would give the history of the early printing presses in Europe. In order to acquire the necessary information for this compilation, he visited from 1831 to 1834 the principal libraries of Belgium, and twice those of Paris, thus unwittingly preparing himself for his future labors. While at Louvain he came across the incomplete “Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Jesu” published in 1676 by Father Nathaniel Southwell (Bacon), and he resolved to undertake the work that will ever remain the monument of his laborious life, “Le bibliothèque des écrivains de la compagnie de Jésus.” This colossal work Father de Backer, with the assistance of his brother Aloysius, published in a series of seven quarto volumes in the years 1853–61, and followed this up in 1859–76 with a new edition in three large folios containing the names of 11,000 Jesuit authors. The changes and improvements of this edition are so marked as to make it practically a new work. Besides an introductory sketch of the author, there are recorded under each author the editions, translations, and critiques as well as the works which were published in refutation. Father de Backer died while engaged on a third volume of the new edition, but the work was completed by his brother. Another collaborator in the second edition was Charles Sommervogel, whose own magnificent “Bibliography of the Society of Jesus” in eleven folio volumes was made possible by the gigantic labors of the two de Backers.

Van Tricht, La Bibliotheque des escrivains de la c. de J. et le P. Augustin de backer (Louvain, 1876); Sommervogel, I; Hughes. Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits (New York, 1892).

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Peter Hubert Evermode Backx

Born 10 December, 1805, at Tilburg, Holland; died 28 October, 1868. Ordained priest 17 March, 1832, he may be considered the second founder of the Norbertine Abbey of Tongerloo (Province of Antwerp, Belgium), which was established in 1128, or eight years after the foundation of the Præmonstratensian Order by St. Norbert. It had to suffer much from the Protestants during the second half of the sixteenth century, but the fatal blow was struck by the French Republic, which, on 6 December, 1796, expelled the religious, confiscated the abbey, and sold it to the highest bidder. At that time Tongerloo was at the height of its prosperity. After the suppression of the Jesuits, the abbot and community of Tongerloo had made all arrangements for the continuation of the “Acta Sanctorum” and the “Analecta Belgica” of the Bollandists, and four of its canons were cooperating with two of the former Bollandists in this gigantic publication. The catalogue of the Abbey of Tongerloo, made in 1796, gives the names of one hundred and nineteen priests and professed scholastics and of six novices. A large number of these lived in the abbey, others were attached to parishes belonging to it. Some were completing their theological studies in Rome or at the University of Louvain, one was President of St. Norbert’s College in Rome, another was president of the college of the same name at Louvain. Under the French Republic and again, after the battle of Waterloo, during the reign of William I, King of the Netherlands, the expelled and dispersed religious were not allowed to form a new community, but better times came with the creation of Belgium as a separate kingdom, in 1830. Only sixteen of the one hundred and twentyfive religious were living at that time and nearly all were well advanced in years. The castle of Halmale near Antwerp was rented, and the first novice, Peter Hubert Backx, received the white habit and with it the name in religion of Evermode. Three more young priests and others who had finished their classical studies followed his example. In 1839 Evermode Backx was chosen superior of the revived community.

At the death of one of the proprietors onehalf of the dilapidated Abbey of Tongerloo was bought at a public auction and Abbot Backx led, amidst the rejoicings of the villagers, the young community to Tongerloo, 1 July, 1840. That very afternoon, the Divine Office was resumed with the first Vespers of the Feast of Our Lady’s Visitation. On the following day, the venerable Chrysostom Raemakers, who had celebrated the last Mass on the day of the suppression, 6 December, 1796, sang a solemn Mass in one of the rooms improvised as a temporary oratory, the abbey church and other buildings having been pulled down.

Evermode Backx’s first work was to repair what was left of the former abbey and to erect new buildings for the growing community. In 1849 the second part of the confiscated abbey was bought and in 1852 the first stone of a large church was solemnly laid by the papal nuncio, so that the abbey began to have the appearance of a large and wellordered monastery. After a strenuous government of twentyeight years Evermode Backx died, regretted by his spiritual children. The work was carried on with equal zeal by his successors, the Right Rev. Abbot Chrysostom De Swert (d. 1887) who sent some of his religious to found the priories of Crowle and Spalding, England; the Right Rev. Thomas Heylen, afterwards Bishop of Namur, Belgium, the founder of Corpus Christi Priory, Manchester, and of the Norbertine missions in the Independent State of Congo, Africa; and the Right Rev. Adrian Deckers, formerly Prefect Apostolic in the Congo. The catalogue of the Abbey of Tongerloo for 1907 gives the names of 78 priests, 8 professed scholastics, 4 novices, and 23 lay brothers, or a total of 113 religious, several of whom are engaged in parish work, 14 working in England, and 16 in the Congo missions.

VAN SPILBEECK, De Abdy van Tongerloo in Annales Præm.; Notices from various sources.

MARTIN GEUDENS.

David William Bacon

First bishop of Portland, Maine, U.S.A., born in New York, 5 November, 1813. He made his classical studies at the Sulpician College at Montreal and his theological course at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary, Emmitsburg, Maryland, and was ordained a priest in Baltimore, 13 December, 1838. Returning to New York he served on the mission at Utica and Ogdensburg, and then in New York City and at Belleville, New Jersey. In 1841 he was sent to establish the third parish in Brooklyn, and for this bought the unfinished building begun in November, 1831, as the “Independent Catholic Church” by the Rev. John Farnan, who had been suspended by Bishop Dubois. It was completed and dedicated, 10 June, 1842, under the patronage of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. Here he remained until 1855, when he was named first Bishop of Portland, and consecrated in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York, on the 22d of April of that year. There were only six priests and eight churches in his diocese, which at that time included the entire State of Maine. His zeal, tact, and energy overcame the many obstacles which Know-Nothing bigotry, the Civil War, and the great fire that destroyed most of the city of Portland on the 4th of July, 1866, put in the way of the progress of the Faith in that section. He had the consolation, at his death, of leaving to his successor the care of 63 churches, 52 priests, 23 parish schools, and a Catholic population of about 80,000. In the summer of 1874 he started for Rome with Archbishop McCloskey, but having fallen ill on ship-board was forced to remain in the Naval Hospital at Brest until the Archbishop returned, on his way home. Bishop Bacon was carried on board the steamer and barely reached New York alive. He was taken to a hospital on shore, where he died a few hours later. The bronze altar of the Sacred Heart, in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York, was erected by Archbishop McCloskey in thanksgiving because the life of his old friend was spared until he got back to his native land.

“U.S. Cath. Hist. Soc. Records and Studies” (New York, 1900), II, pts. I-II; MITCHELL, “Golden Jubilee of Bishop Loughlin” (Brooklyn, 1891); MULRENAN, “A Brief Historical Sketch of the Catholic Church on Long Island” (New York, 1871); REUSS, “Biog. Cycl. Of the Cath. Hierarchy” (Milwaukee, Wis., 1898); SHEA, “Hist. Cath. Ch. In U.S.” (New York, 1904).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

John Bacon

(Johannes Anglicus, Johannes De Baconthorpe).

An English Carmelite and theologian, born towards the end of the thirteenth century at the place in the county of Norfolk whence he derives his name; died in London, 1346. He is not to be con founded with Francis de Bachone, the Spanish Carmelite, reader of divinity in Paris from 1362 Procurator General, 1366, doctor, 1369, Provincial of Catalonia (d. circa 1390), doctor sublimis. John Bacon, surnamed doctor resolutus, entered the order at Snitterley, Norfolk, studied at Oxford and Paris, was bachelor previous to 1321, and master in 1325. From 1329 till 1333 he was Provincial of England; the remainder of his life was consecrated to study. He possessed a penetrating mind, and wrote on all the subjects belonging to the ordinary course of studies. His writings comprised more than one hundred and twenty volumes, but are for the greater part lost. The most celebrated among them were those on the Gospels, especially St. Matthew, on St. Paul, and the commentary on the “Sentences,” which was printed in 1510 at Milan, and for a time became the textbook in the Carmelite Order. Bacon follows Averroes in preference to St. Thomas with whom he disagrees on many points. He adopted a system of Realism according to which the universals do not follow but precede the act of the intellect. Truth is materially and causally in the external object, formally in the intellect; in the order of generation and perfection the first subject is the individual substance; although the external object is in itself intelligible, the active intellect is required to render it ultimately intelligible; the conformity of the thing thought with the external object constitutes truth. The final cause of all things is God; but although the first object of our knowledge be the Divine essence Bacon does not admit that this knowledge comes to us by the light of our natural reason; it is, in his opinion, a supernatural gift of grace.

B. ZIMMERMAN.

Nathaniel Bacon

Better known under the assumed name of Southwell, a Jesuit priest and bibliographer, b. in the county of Norfolk, England, in 1598; d. at Rome, 2 Dec., 1676. He received his early training at St. Omers, entered the English College at Rome in 1617, and after his ordination to the priesthood in 1622 was sent to labor on the English missions. Two years later he entered the Jesuit novitiate, but shortly after was transferred to the Roman province, where he discharged the duties of procurator and minister of the English College. Appointed in 1647 Secretary to the General of the Society of Jesus, Father Vincent Caraffa, he displayed such talent for business that he was retained as Secretary by the four succeeding Generals of the Order. Upon his retirement from this office in 1668, he began the well-known “Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Jesu” in folio, published in Rome in 1676. This compilation was based on an earlier work of Father Ribadineira, issued in 1602 and brought down to 1641 by Father Alegambe. Father Southwell revised the original works, adding copious notes of his own. Dr. Oliver praises this volume as “a compilation truly admirable for research, accuracy, elegance of language, piety, and charity of sentiment.” Father Southwell was also the author of “A Journal of Meditations for Every Day of the Year” published in London in 1669. On the same authority we learn that he was accounted by his religious brethren a model of virtue and sanctity. He died in the professed house of the Gesu, at Rome.

Oliver, Collections, etc. (London, 1845), 193; Foley, records of the English Province. S.J., V, 521; VII, 26; Sommervogel, Bibliotheque etc. VII, 1408; Michaud, Bibliographie Universelle, XXXIX.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Baconian System of Philosophy

This system takes its name from its founder, Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam, Viscount St. Albans, statesman and philosopher, born 22 January, 1561; died 9 April, 1626. He was the second son of Lord Keeper Bacon and Anne, his second wife, daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke and sister-in-law of Lord Burghley. In his thirteenth year (1573) he entered Trinity College, Cambridge where he studied under Whitgift. Before he left (1575) he had already acquired considerable reputation for his ability and learning. It was at Cambridge, as he later confessed to Rawley, that he fallen into the dislike of the Aristotelean philosophy—“not for the worthlessness of the author to whom he would ever ascribe all high attributes, but for the unfruitfulness of the way; being a philosophy, as his Lordship used to say, only for disputations and contentions but barren of the production of works for the benefit of man. In which mind he continued until his dying day.”

In June, 1576, he was admitted to Gray’s Inn, being destined for the profession of law; but shortly afterwards was attached to the French embassy of Sir Amyas Paulet. His father died in 1579, leaving him small provision. He thereupon returned to England to continue his legal studies and was admitted barrister 27 June, 1582. Two years later he was elected to Parliament for the Borough of Melcome Regis. In the following year he penned his “Letter of Advice to Queen Elizabeth,” a document of considerable interest to Catholics, as expressing Bacon’s views upon their treatment. Mary Stuart was yet alive, and there were plots and rumours of plots against the queen. There were many adherents of the old faith; and conformity might be secured either by severe measures or by insidious ones. The young member had Catholics for the queen’s enemies. It was impossible, he thought, to satisfy them, dangerous to irritate by too great severity. He recommended changes in the Oath of Supremacy and even went so far as to urge a circumspect toleration of the sectaries because their teaching led to an issue “which your most excellent Majesty is to wish and desire” viz., the diminutions, and weakening of Papists. His political life and advancement, notwithstanding his intrigue and incessant suit for office, were slow; his extraordinary ambition doomed for years to infruition. He had the misfortune to incur the queen’s displeasure by opposing a grant of subsidies in such form as to infringe upon the privileges of the Commons. The patronage he found in Essex led to a friendship as remarkable as its end was dramatic and disastrous. Until 1607, when James I had reigned nearly four years, he had advanced no further in office than to be given the reversion of the post of Registrar of the Star Chamber. But in 1607, he became Solicitor-General. Then, until his fall, he advanced rapidly. The Attorney-Generalship was given to him in 1613. He became successively a member of the Privy Council (1616), Lord Keeper of the Great Seal (1617), Lord Chancellor (1618). He was raised to the peerage with the title of Baron Verulam (1618) and made Viscount St. Albans (1621). Suddenly he fell. He was accused, as Chancellor, of taking bribes. To this charge he pleaded guilty, was deprived, and declared incapable of holding any office, place, or employment in the State. He was excluded from both Parliament and Court, fined 40,000 pounds, and sentenced to imprisonment in the Tower during the king’s pleasure. In time, all his sentence was remitted.

His death occurred five years later on his way to dine at Highgate, he alighted from his carriage purchased, killed, and stuffed a hen with snow in order to observe the retarding effects of cold upon putrefaction. He caught a chill which set up bronchitis. A week later he died in the house of the Earl of Arundel; and was buried, according to his wish, at St. Alban’s in the church or St. Michael.

The philosophy of Lord Bacon is too fragmentary to lend itself to criticism other than discursive, too largely conceived to be brushed aside with a mere line of comment, too full of symbolic expression to be exactly and briefly set down. It is rather of the nature of a method than a system and it is a method that is incomplete. Few attempts at giving a new direction to the pursuit of truth have been more overrated; few the butt of such vigorous criticism. It might be said that Bacon suffered most in it from falling into the very pitfalls that he indicated as dangerous to others. His confidence in his own powers was colossal. Few men could have written as he did in the “Novum Organum”: “The die is cast, the book is written, to be read either now or by posterity—I care not which; it may wait a century for a reader, as God has waited 6000 years for an observer.” “His misconstruction and minimizing of the work of the old philosophers—except, perhaps, Democritus—is as startling as his ignorance of the contemporary science of his day or as the application he makes of his own principles; for the incipient rules of induction” (their use already exemplified in Aristotle’s “Analytica Posteriora”), that find their more exact expression in Mill’s Canons, should have prevented some, at least, of his cruder scientific views. With all his signalling of the insidious dangers of the Idola, he could not altogether rid his understanding of the preoccupations caused by them, even in the presentation of his Inductive Method. These celebrated phantoms of the mind, of which we must be at pains to rid ourselves, are four in number:

the Idola Tribus (preoccupations common to mankind);

the Idola Specus (belonging to the individual);

the Idola Fori (resulting from a confusion of words and things in the common speech of the market-place);

the Idola Theatri (consisting of the received dogmata of philosophers that false possession of the mind by reason of a presumed authority).

Still the fact that he pointed them out and laid stress upon the danger is an advance. His lists, too, of facts, his confused congeries of instances, point the way to a Scientific examination of Nature. Their contents are to be treated by

agreement,

disagreement, and

comparison.

Roughly speaking, this would be tantamount to the use of the Method of Agreement and Difference, taken together with that of Concomitant Variations. What is not brought into sufficient prominence is the extremely useful part played by guesswork and hypotheses in the generalization and grouping of facts and instances; but this is scarcely to be wondered at, since Bacon, though he does allow a grudging value to it, proposed to inauguate certain process by which inductions might be readily produced from facts by an almost mechanical or mathematical process. Interesting to the scholastic philosopher is his treatment of causes—and particularly of the formal causes. There are the usual four causes, the formal and the final belonging, in Bacon’s scheme, to metaphysical investigation; the efficient and material to physical. The aim of the author of the “Novum Organum” was to banish final causes from the scope of physical science. His limiting of tlle efficient cause to physical science throws light on his abupt separation of philosophy and theology (vide infra). With regard to the formal cause of being, our author is peculiarly inconsistent. He uses the term in a succession of different suppositions, so that his true meaning is effectually obcured in the varying uses of the word. But, from a passage in the “De Augmetis,” it may be inferred that he treated of what is known to the scholastic as the forma accidentalis. The “forms” of colour, gravity, density, heat, etc. “of which the essences, upheld by matter, of all creatures do consist” are proposed for investigation—not the forms of substances. It will be noted that he makes the essences consist of these “forms” sustained by matter—a view that, with slight modifications, is to be found in several more modern systems.

Bacon’s object was avowedly a practical one. Given the inductive knowledge of the “form” we ought to be able to produce the logically consequent quality in matter. He conceived it a possibility to juggle with the “forms” in much the same sense as the alchemist of earlier days hoped to transmute essences. His own positive contributions to the advancement of science were meagre in the extreme. No philosopher go to his works for guidance, no scientist for information. Indeed, Dr. Whewell says that no scientic discovery has ever been made by Bacon’s method. The gaps in his system were never bridged by those processes that were to render it complete. But it would be a mark of superficial consideration and historical inaccuracy to label the method that he advanced wholly jejune or useless. As a matter of fact, he called attention to the dangerous neglect of accurate observation that was the reproach of the later scholastics; and he gave an undoubted incentive to the persecution of positive science. If he did litlle himselt to raise science to the position ot dignity it now occupies, he at least indicated the path upon which it should proceed. But in creating the method of induction he abased that of deduction; and without a single general principle as a basis, any philosophy, systematic or mathematical, is open to the charge of inconsequence.

Bacon’s position in regard to revelation is well known. Reason can attain no positive knowledge of God. This must come by faith alone. Religion is above reason, but is not opposed by it. On the contrary it is the office of reason to meet the objections and refute the argurnents that are urged against the truths of revelation, whether Bacon was really a rationalist or a believer has been dlsputed. As a statesman, he was an Anglican and Erastian. As a philosopher, religion does not come within his purview. But there are passages in his writings that show a decidedly reverent and religious spirit, especially in some of the “Essays.”

Lord Bacon’s chief works are contained in the following list. The dates given are those of publication:

“Advancement of Learning,” 1605. (This was expanded and translated into Latin and edited by Rawley as “Opera F. Baconis de Verulamio . . . Tomus primus qui contient de Dignitate et Augmentatis Scientiarum libros IX,” 1623.)

“De Sapientia Veterurm,” 1609 (done into English by Sir A . Gorges, Knight, as “The Wisdom of the Ancients” 1619);

“Essays; Religious Meditations (in Latin); Places of perswasion and disswasion; of the Colours of Good and Civil” (a fragment), 1579. In the second edition (1598) the Meditations are in English. In this first English edition there were 10 Essays; in the second (1612) 38; in the third (1625) 58.

“Historia Ventorum” (Part III of the “Instauratio Magna”), 1622;

“Historia Vitae et Mortis” (2nd Title of Part III, I. M.), 1623;

“New Atlantis” (published by Rawley), 1627.

“Novum Organum,” “Distributio Operis”; “Parasceve”; “Catalogues,” 1620. (The plan of the whole “Instauratio Magna” is laid down in the preface.

“Sylva Sylvarurn” (published by Rawley), 1627.

The chief editions of Bacon’s works were made by Rawley (1627–57); Tenison (1679); Stephens (1734). “Complete editions” by Blackbourne (1730); Mallet (1740); Birch (1763); Montague (1834); Spedding, Ellis, and Heath (1857–83).

FRANCIS AVELING

Diocese of Badajoz

(Pacensis.)

The Latin name Pax, or Civitas Pacensis, was given to this district because it was thought to be the Pax Julia or Pax Augusta of the Romans. But it is now certain that the Pax of the Roman period is the city of Beja, in Portugal, not far from Badajoz, and that the latter name is of Arabic origin. The bishopric was erected in 1225, shortly after it was reconquered from the Moors by King Alfonso IX of Leon. Its first bishop was Don Pedro Perez, appointed by Alfonso X, the Wise, and from that time it has had an uninterrupted succession of bishops. The diocese, which is suffragan to Seville, is bounded on the north by the Dioceses of Coria, Plasencia, and Toledo, on the east by those of Toledo, Ciudad Real, and Cordova, on the south by the Archdiocese of Seville, and on the west by Portugal. It is composed of 136 parishes, divided into 13 vicariates, which in ancient times numbered 18, with a proximately half a million souls. The cathedral has a chapter composed of 5 prelates, 13 canons, 16 beneficed clerics (formerly called medioracioneros), besides the chaplains and other personnel necessary for the proper carrying out of Divine worship. There is a diocesan seminary, under good instructors, for the education of aspirants to the priesthood, also colleges in the city of Badajoz and in Zafra, conducted by the Regular Priests of the Heart of Mary, and several religious communities in other cities. The Poor Clares have an establishment at Almendrales; the discalced Franciscans, Carmelites, and Sisters of St. Anne at Badajoz, and the Augustinians, Carmelites, and Poor Clares elsewhere, making in all 19 communities of cloistered nuns, besides 3 communities of Sisters of Charity who attend the sick at Badajoz, Zafra, and Frenegal de la Sierra. There are schools for primary and religious instruction in all the parishes.

The diocesan territory of Badajoz comprises almost all of the civil province of the same name, which lies between the meridians 4° 30’ 12” and 7° 9’ west of Greenwich, and between 37° 90’ and 39° 30’ north latitude, with an area of 7,143 square miles. Several rivers, among them the famous Guadiana (the Flumen Anas of the ancients), flow through this province, and the Madrid-Caceres-Lisbon railroad traverses it. All of this district is very fertile, and yields all kinds of cereals, wine, and oil, also cork, the manufacture of which is practically the only industry of this section. The climate is hot and unhealthy, intermittent and infectious fevers being very prevalent. This part of Spain was first inhabited by the Vettones and Veturi, descendants of the Celts, and was called Vettonia. When the Romans divided Farther Spain (Hispania Ulterior) into various provinces, Badajoz was made a part of the province of Lusitania, whose capital, Merida (Emerita Augusta), became at the same time the metropolitan see. When the Arabs obtained possession of this territory, Mérida was annexed to the Emirate of Cordova, and ceased to be a bishopric. The city of Mérida is now included in the Diocese of Badajoz. The Kings of Leon and Castile reconquered this section and gave to the part which is now Badajoz and Caceres the name of Estremadura (Extrema Durii), meaning the region on the opposite side of the River Douro, which had for long time been the dividing line between Moors and Christians.

Hernán Cortés, the conqueror of Mexico, was a native of Medellin in the Province and Bishopric of Badajoz. Massona, Archbishop of Mérida, and Paul the Deacon (Paulus Diaconus Emeritensis) may also be mentioned among the distinguished natives of this district; of whom the former took part in the Councils of Toledo, and the latter is known as the author of “De vitâ et Miraculis Patrum Emeritensium.”

Florez, España Sagrada. See also Histories, Year-books, and Ecclesiastical Guides of Spain.

TIRSO LÓPEZ

Grand Duchy of Baden

The Grand Duchy of Baden is situated in the southwestern part of the German Empire, bounded by Switzerland, Alsace, the Palatinate, Hesse, Bavaria, and Wurtemberg, covering an area of 5,821 square miles. According to the census of 1 December 1905, the population numbered 2,010,728, including 1,198,511 Catholics, 762,826 Evangelicals, 8,006 Old Catholics, 2,060 Lutherans, 2,823 Reformed, 2,157 of various Evangelical denominations, 7,449 of other Christian beliefs, 25,893 Jews, and 600 others of various religious persuasions.

I. HISTORY

(A) THE MIDDLE AGES

The present Grand duchy has been formed from the territories of various ecclesiastical and secular rulers. At the beginning of the Christian Era the Baden of to-day was a part of the so-called tithe lands (agri decumates) which were protected by a wall against the barbarian Germans. From this point the Alemanni made repeated incursions into the Roman territory, and after the death of the Emperor Aurelius Probus (282) they took possession of the southern part of the tithe lands. The victories of 496 and 536 made the Franks masters of this region, and Pepin the Short set aside the old form of government by tribal dukedoms in 748, introducing the form of organization of the Frankish Empire. The rise of the Frankish power brought Christianity into the province. The southern part of the country received the Faith about 610 from St. Columbanus and his pupil St. Gall, who were followed a hundred years later by St. Pirminius. St. Trudpert labored in the Breisgau, and St. Kilian in the north-eastern part of the territory. The valley of the Rhine was evangelized from Mainz. Much of the credit for having converted the land belongs to the many monasteries that were founded in the course of these centuries: Reichenau, Honau near Kehl, St. Trudpert, Ettenheimmunster, Gengenbach, Schwarzach, St. Michael near Heidelberg, Petershausen near Constance, and St. Blasien; also monasteries for women, as Sackingen, Waldkirch, Sulzburg, and others.

Under the weak rule of the last Carlovingians and after the extinction of the dynasty, the old form of government by tribal dukedoms again prevailed, and only powerful kings like Otto I, Henry II, and Henry III were able to maintain their authority. The natural allies of the kings against the dukes of the different tribes were the ecclesiastical authorities, the bishops and abbots, who thereby obtained great influence and large possessions. Ecclesiastically the territory of the present Baden was divided into six dioceses: Constance, Speyer, Strasburg, Worms, Mainz, and Wurzburg; moreover the Bishops of Bamberg were wealthy landed proprietors Henry II having bestowed on them Crown-lands in the Ortenau, as well as placing the abbeys of Ettenheimmunster, Gengenbach, and Schuttern under their jurisdiction. The monasteries of Reichenau and St. Blasien, in particular, became possessed of large temporalities. Among secular rulers great prominence was attained by Count Berthold (d. 1078), who claimed descent from the old Allemannian dukes and in 1061 became Duke of Carinthia and Margrave of Verona. In the struggle between the papacy and Emperor Henry IV, Berthold remained faithful to the Church. The youngest of his three sons, Salomon, was Bishop of Constance (1084–1110), and the other two, Berthold II (d. 1111) and Hermann I (d. 1074), were the ancestors of the dukes and margraves of the Zahringen line. The ducal line of descendants received in fief from the Empire a part of Burgundy and central and western Switzerland, with Zürich as capital. Of these rulers Berthold II founded Freiburg in the Breisgau, Berthold IV, Fribourg in Switzerland; and Berthold V, Berne. At the death of Berthold V in 1218 this branch of the family became extinct, and its freehold estates passed on to the margraves of the other branch, whose descendants are still the reigning family of Baden. The first of the line of margraves of this branch was Hermann I, who died a monk in the Abbey of Cluny. Many of his descendants distinguished themselves in the affairs of the Empire, as, for instance, Hermann V (1190–1242), who fought against the Mongols, Rudolf I (1243–88), who was first the enemy and then the friend of Rudolph of Hapsburg; Bernhard I (1372–1431), a generous patron of the monasteries of Gottesaue and Schwarzach; and James I (1431–53), who endowed the collegiate foundation in the city of Baden-Baden. Others, however, lessened the family influence by the repeated partitions of their estates, thus contributing to the territorial subdivisions of what is now Baden.

Among the neighboring rulers those with the largest landed possessions were the Counts of the Rhine Palatinate (Heidelberg etc.), the Hapsburg dynasty, which in the fourteenth century obtained the whole of the Breisgau, together with the cities of Freiburg, Breisach, Waldkirch, and other places; the Counts of Furstenberg, whose domains lay chiefly in the region of the Baar (such as the town of Donaueschingen); and the Counts of Wertheim. There were, besides, numerous rulers of smaller secular principalities, knights of the Empire, and free cities. To all these must be added the ecclesiastical rulers, the six bishops, some 160 monasteries, and a few estates held in commendation by Knights of St. John and the German Knights Templars. The intellectual, spiritual, and economic life which flourished at this time on the Upper Rhine was as varied as the territorial divisions of the land. Evidences of the zeal with which the arts and learning were cultivated not only in the monasteries, but also in the cities, are to be found in the many buildings dating from that period, as, for instance, those at Constance, Freiburg, Ueberlingen, etc., in monastic libraries, in the large attendance at the Universities of Heidelberg, and Freiburg, in the intermediate schools, among which the one at Pforzheim won a high reputation, in the diffusion of the art of printing etc. on account of the undeniable abuses which had crept into ecclesiastical life, many fell under the influence of certain intellectual movements which prepared the way for the Reformation, such as secret religious associations, and the Pseudo-mystics, the Hussites, the Flagellants, and especially Humanism, which was in great favor at the court of the Electors Palatine.

(B) FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE FORMATION OF THE PRESENT STATE

The first impulse to revolutionary religious ideas in Baden came from Luther himself, who in 1518 spent some time in Heidelberg, where he appeared as a public speaker and soon gained adherents. The Reformation first took firm root in the Countship of Wertheim, in Constance (1530), in the Countship of Hanau-Lichtenberg (1530), and in the Electorate of the Palatinate (1546). Free territories under ecclesiastical rulers and the House of Hapsburg remained true to the Catholic Faith. The progress of the Reformation in the Margravate of Baden was far from being uniform. Margrave Christopher I of Baden (1475–1527) had in 1503 united all the family territory, but the division in 1533 between his two sons Bernhard III and Ernest separated the margravate into two parts which were not reunited until 1771. Bernhard received the Margravate of Baden-Baden, and his brother the Margravate of BadenDurlach. A part of the population of Baden-Baden had already adopted the new teachings, but at the death of Bernhard III (1536), Duke Albert V of Bavaria, the guardian of Bernhard’s son, Philip II, brought the country back to the Catholic Faith. Philip himself (1569–88), who had been educated by the Jesuits at Ingolstadt, was a vigorous opponent of the new teaching.

The Baden-Durlach branch of the family laid claim to Baden-Baden during the reign of Philip’s successor, Edward Fortunatus, (1588–1600), occupied a part of the country until 1622, and introduced the Reformation. Margrave William (1622–77), however, after many reverses, succeeded with the aid of the Catholic party in the Empire in gaining the undisputed mastery of the margravate. Aided in an especial manner by the Jesuits and Capuchins, for whom he established houses, he brought the Protestant part of the country back to the Catholic Faith. His successor, Louis William (1677–1707), rendered many services to the Church and the Empire in fighting against the Turks (1683) and the French. Louis William, his wife, Augusta Sibylla, as regent for their son Louis George (1707–61), and the last named in his turn notably furthered the interests of the Church of Baden. With the death of Augustus George (1761–71), who by papal dispensation had left the ecclesiastical state, and who founded many religious institutions, the line of Baden-Baden became extinct, and the succession fell to the Baden-Durlach branch. Margrave Ernest (1527–53) of Baden-Durlach had favored the Reformation, and his son Charles II (1553–77) soon established the Reformation in his domains. After this time the Protestant religion remained dominant in the land of Baden-Durlach and its supremacy was not affected even by the reconciliation to the Church of James III, third son of Charles II, as James’s death followed soon upon his conversion (1690). The most noted of the Baden-Durlach rulers were: Frederick V (1622–59), who founded many schools; Frederick VI (1659–77), who distinguished himself by his devotion to the emperor and the Empire; Charles William (1709–38), who in 1715 established the present capital of Karlsruhe, greatly improved the finances and the administration of justice, and zealously promoted the interests of the schools. His grandson Charles Frederick (1738–1811), during is long reign introduced salutary reforms in all parts of his territory, thus raising his country from the level of a petty principality to the rank of one of the greater central states of the German Empire. The extinction of the Baden-Baden branch greatly increased his possessions, which were still further enlarged by the political changes resulting from the French Revolution. In 1796 Charles Frederick was forced to surrender to France his possessions on the left bank of the Rhine, but was amply compensated by the Imperial Delegates’ Enactment (1803). He received the Diocese of Constance, that part of the Rhine Palatinate lying on the right bank of the river, including the cities of Heidelberg, Mannheim, etc., parts of the Dioceses of Strasburg and Speyer, eleven religious houses and abbeys, and seven cities of the empire. By the Peace of Pressburg (1805), and the accession of Baden to the Confederation of the Rhine (1806), Baden was still further enlarged by the former possessions of Austria in the Breisgau, the city of Constance, and other territories, whereby substantially the present boundaries were established. On 13 August, 1806, Baden was proclaimed a Grand duchy. The enforced participation of the duchy in the campaigns of Napoleon resulted in heavy loss of life and property.

(C) RECENT HISTORY

In 1818 Grand Duke Charles (1811–18), the successor of Charles Frederick, gave the country a fairly liberal constitution. The first Landtag, however, came into conflict with the government of Grand Duke Louis (1818–30), who had been trained in the ideas of absolutism, and was able at times to rule almost despotically. Despite the introduction of many timely reforms during the reign of Grand Duke Leopold (1830–52), there were often bitter contentions between the Government and the representatives of the people. In the course of these difficulties, the opponents of the Government became constantly more inflamed until a leading party of opposition was formed, which, influenced by the prevailing political tendencies, gave evidence of a strong inclination towards radical principles. Radicalism obtained a strong footing not only in the Landtag, but also throughout the country. The revolutionary movement of 1848, which began in France, found, therefore, in Baden a most favorable soil. Although the Government granted many of the demands of the people for more liberal administration, outbreaks occurred. In the beginning these were suppressed, but a mutiny of the troops in Rastatt and Karlsruhe brought victory to the Revolutionists. In May, 1849, the insurgents took possession of Karlsruhe, proclaimed a republic, and established a provisional government. It was only through the aid of Prussia and the German Confederation that the revolution in Baden was repressed, and the Grand duke could reestablish his authority. Severe punishment was meted out to the guilty, especially to the mutinous soldiers.

II. ECCLESIASTICAL CONFLICTS

During the reign of Grand Duke Louis II (1852–56), whose brother Frederick held the regency until 1856, when he himself succeeded to the title, the Government and the representatives of the Catholic Church, who had been at odds for a long time, came into open conflict. The revolutions of the Napoleonic period had shaken the organization of the Church in Germany to its very foundations. In the modern Grand duchy of Baden, as it existed at the beginning of the nineteenth century, two-thirds of the population professed the Catholic religion. They constituted 728 parishes divided among six different diocese (Constance, Strasburg, Speyer, Worms, Mainz, and Wurzburg. A reconstruction of ecclesiastical affairs was manifestly necessary and was made, so far as the State was concerned, by the organization decrees of 1803 and the constitutional decrees of 1807, regulating the position of the State with regard to the Church. Although the first of these decrees guaranteed to Catholics a continuance of their diocesan system, the free exercise of their religion, and the possession and use of church property, shortly after their promulgation a large number of monasteries and charitable institutions were entirely abolished, others confiscated, and still others converted into secular educational institutions. In place of being organized into dioceses as formerly, Catholics were placed under two vicariates (Bruchsal and Constance). A special board was appointed for the administration of the temporal affairs of the Church, first known as the Catholic Kirchensektion (Church Section), and later as the Catholic Oberkirchenrat (Supreme Ecclesiastical Council). Despite the personal good will of Grand Duke Charles Frederick, the spirit of these decrees was unfavorable to the Catholic Church; the rights of the State were unduly extended, to the prejudice of the Church. Worse than the ordinances themselves was the way in which they were put into execution by the Liberal officials of Old Baden, who viewed the Catholic Church with open hostility. The unjust treatment of Catholics in the new Grand duchy and the indignities put upon them were so pronounced that even Napoleon, as Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, in two notes to the Government of Baden (February and March, 1810) protested against it. Unfortunately a large part of the Catholic clergy, who had either been reared in the tenets of Josephinism, or had fallen into the religious indifferentism of the times, failed to rally to the necessary defense of the rights of the Church. Even the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries of the land, as, for example, VicarGeneral Wessenberg, favored the tenets of Febronianism and warmly encouraged the project of a German National Church independent of Rome. This state of affairs prolonged for years the negotiations which had been begun with the Holy See for the reorganization of the Church in Baden. Finally the Bull “Provida solersque” (16 August 1821) established the province of the Upper Rhine (Oberrheinische Kirchenprovinz), defined the boundaries of the five dioceses therein comprised (Freiburg, Fulda, Limburg, Mainz, and Rottenburg), and assigned Freiburg as the seat of the metropolitan. In Baden, by the order of the Grand duke, the candidate for the archiepiscopal see was elected by free vote of the assembled deans (1822), but their choice of Wanker, a professor of theology in Freiburg, was condemned by the pope as canonically invalid. It was only after lengthy negotiations that an agreement was reached; and on 11 April, 1827, Leo XII promulgated the Bull of erection “Ad Dominici greys custodian”; on 16 October, 1827, the deed of foundation was signed; and on 21 October the first archbishop, Bernhard Boll, was consecrated and installed.

Nevertheless a satisfactory adjustment of affairs had not been found. The deed of foundation contained many provisions contrary to the spirit of the papal Bull. In marked contrast to the agreement made with Rome was the church law passed by the Government 30 January, 1830. True, it ensures to Catholics the free profession of faith and public exercise of religion, but, on the other hand, to the State is given an undue amount of power over the Church; all orders and enactments of any importance proceeding from spiritual authorities must, according to this law, be submitted to the approval of the civil powers; it requires that even decrees and dispensations of a general nature issued by the Church, although concerning matters purely spiritual, must be first inspected by the public authorities. It subjects papal Bulls, Briefs, and dispensations to the placet of the sovereign, does away with the canonical court of appeal grants to clergy and laity, by a usurpation of spiritual authority, recourse to the civil courts instead of the higher ecclesiastical courts, etc. The pope as well as the archbishop entered a protest against the provisions of, this law, so permeated with the spirit of a national church, but without success. Although the first archbishops, Bernhard Boll (1827–36) and his successor, Ignaz Demeter (1836–42), acceded to the wishes of the Government as far as their position as Catholic prelates permitted, all their remonstrances against the interference of the State and their appeals for a more liberal treatment of the Church were useless. On the contrary, the Government openly favored movements of a rationalistic and irreligious nature, even on the part of professors of theology in the university of Freiburg; it allowed the just demands of the archbishop for adequate disciplinary powers to pass unnoticed, gave protection to unworthy clerics and those who had been insubordinate to their ecclesiastical superiors, almost entirely excluded the co-operation of the Church in the management of Catholic schools and in the administration of Catholic church property, permitted insults to be leveled against the Church by the Radicals in the Landtag, favored Rongeanism, etc. In spite of this unjust treatment, however, when, in 1848, the flames of the revolution broke out, the Archbishop, Hermann vou Vicari (1842–68), and the majority of the Catholic clergy remained loyal to the rightful sovereign and refused to take the oath required by the revolutionary regime. In consideration of this attitude, the Government, after the victory over the revolutionary forces, seemed disposed to change its policy; it permitted the Jesuits to hold missions among the people and allowed the archbishop greater freedom in the ad- ministration of church discipline. The change, however, was not of long duration; soon the old system of state guardianship was again in force.

The four suffragan bishops of the province of the Upper Rhine also came into conflict with their respective governments in securing freedom for the Catholic Church. To obtain unity of action Archbishop Vicari, in compliance with the regulations of the plenary council of the German Catholic episcopate held at Wurzburg (1848) summoned his suffragans to Freiburg in the spring of 1851. In a memorial addressed to their respective sovereigns, they demanded the privilege of training their priests and appointing them without outside interference, the free exercise of ecclesiastical discipline among priests and laymen, and the privilege of conducting Catholic schools, of establishing religious societies and associations, and of administering church property without hindrance. Having waited in vain for a reply from the Government, the bishops addressed a reminder to the authorities (February, 1852), renewing the demand for the abolition of the state supremacy. Not until 5 March, 1853, did they receive a decision; this contained trivial concessions, but was adverse on the principal points. The old system of state tutelage was to remain unconditionally in force. Thereupon the five bishops reconvened (April, 1853) in Freiburg and embodied their demands in a second memorial dated 18 June, setting forth the inadequacy of the concessions granted 5 March, and reserving to themselves the right of taking further measures. While four of the bishops received from their respective authorities more or less far-reaching concessions, a bitter struggle was precipitated in Baden.

Meanwhile, an occurrence in Baden had increased the estrangement to an open rupture between the civil authorities and the archbishop. After the death of Grand Duke Leopold (24 April 1852), the Government i.e. the Oberkirchenrat, which in 1845 had taken the place of the Kirchensektion, ordered the archbishop to have services held for the deceased. sovereign. In conformity with the laws of the Church the archbishop prohibited the celebration of requiem Masses for Protestant princes and ordered other, appropriate services instead. The authorities, however persisted in their demand, declared the services ordered by the archbishop inadequate, and attempted to induce pastors to celebrate requiem Masses in defiance of the archiepiscopal mandate. Only about sixty out of the 800 priests complied, whereupon the archbishop decreed that the clergy who had disregarded his command should, in expiation, attend certain exercises of five days conducted by the Jesuit Father Roh, at the theological seminary of St. Peter. Although the civil authorities promised their protection to those priests who should resist this sentence, the clergy to a man obeyed the order of the archbishop, ensuring him a victory so complete as to give him the power of resistance in further conflicts.

In response to the second memorial from the bishops of the province of the Upper Rhine, the representatives of the State of Baden refused to make a single concession to the Catholic Church. The archbishop then informed the Government that he would take steps to secure the rights that were his, but were unjustly withheld by the civil authorities. He held competitive examinations for parish appointments and for admittance into the theological seminary, without the presence of a government commissioner; he filled parishes to which the Government could not establish a canonical right of patronage, demanded from the Oberkirchenrat an administration of church property strictly in accordance with canon law, threatening excommunication in case of disobedience. Thereupon the Government placed the official actions of the archbishop under police surveillance, banished the Jesuits from Freiburg, and threatened the clergy who submitted to the Church with the loss of their incomes, and with civil punishment. Two priests of Karlsruhe and Freiburg, who had proclaimed the sentence of excommunication pronounced upon the Oberkirchenrat by the archbishop were actually placed under arrest. On still more unwarrantable interference by the Government, the archbishop issued a circular letter to be read from the pulpits, ordering an independent administration of ecclesiastical institutions without regard for civil mandates, and prohibiting the clergy from having any connection with state officials. The Government, seeing in this enactment an instigation against civil authority, forbade its promulgation in the churches and attempted to seize all copies of the letter, in some cases succeeding by force. A judicial inquiry was instituted against the archbishop (18 May, 1854), charging him with disturbing and endangering the public peace. On 22 May he was placed under arrest, and confined to his room under a guard of gendarmes until 31 May. At the command of the archbishop the diocesan court continued to transact all business, and sent a dispatch to Rome asking the pope to make provisions for the administration of the diocese. All churches were to be draped in mourning, church bells were silent, alters were stripped of their adornments, and everywhere the faithful assembled for public prayer. The pope, in a note dated 8 June, addressed to the civil authorities of Baden took the archbishop under his protection. The government then proposed to enter into negotiations with the Holy See, and a peaceful arrangement was made, which created a tolerable modus vivendi. The proceedings against the archbishop and clergy were stopped and gradually the way was opened, for amicable relations between the civil authorities and the archbishop.

The lengthy negotiations with Rome were brought to a close by the signing of the Concordat of 8 June, 1859, which went far towards meeting the just claims of the Church and accorded practically all the demands of the archbishop, in particular the right of appointment to parishes, religious instruction, participation in the management of church property, the right of decision in questions concerning marriage, etc. Thereupon the Liberals and Democrats rose in opposition to the Concordat; everywhere meetings of protest were held, resulting in 1861 in the dismissal of the Conservative and the formation of a Liberal ministry. The latter, on 29 October, without consulting the Holy See, arbitrarily declared the Concordat null and void and substituted a law quite inimical to the Church, which received the approbation of the Landtag. On 20 November, 1861, the Government and the archbishop came to an agreement concerning the filling of benefices and the administration of church property.

After a short respite, now conflicts arose between the two authorities with reference to the school system (1864). The Government, now entirely under the control of the Liberals, proposed a bill for a school law which almost entirely nullified the influence of the Church on education, conceding to the Church only the supervision of religious instruction. Although Catholic clergy exerted every effort to bring about the failure of this scheme, and the archbishop in a pastoral letter opposed it, the bill in a somewhat aggravated form became a law, and the opposition of the Catholic population expressed in numerous mass meetings and addresses to the duke was completely disregarded. The Liberals, who were in the majority in the Landtag, and had control of the Government, hesitated at nothing to make still more practically effective their principles of hostility to the Church. In 1867 the Government instituted state examinations for theological stu- dents, to be held before a civil commissioner on the completion of the university course. The Curia protested, and forbade the theological students to submit to this examination. As a result the clergy in the parishes subject to the appointment of the Grand duke received, instead of their stipends and appointments as pastors, only those of parish administrators. After the death of the archbishop (15 April, 1868), the Government, by refusing to consider seven out of eight candidates, made the choice of an archbishop practically impossible, and the see remained vacant for eighteen years. In 1869 civil marriage was made obligatory. In 1870 all Catholic institutions not purely ecclesiastical, but devoted to education or to charity, were secularized, withdrawn from the control of the Church, and large endowments left for Catholic purposes were thus alienated from their appointed use. In 1872 the members of religious orders and congregations were forbidden to give elementary instruction, to assist in the work of the ministry, or to conduct missions. In 1873 the Old Catholics were placed on an equal footing with the Catholic Church; several Catholic churches were turned over to them, and their Bishop Reinkens was recognized by the Government as a Catholic national bishop (Landesbischof). In 1874 admission to any ecclesiastical office was made to depend on proof of a general scientific training, meaning thereby a three years’ course at a German university, excluding all Jesuit institutions. The archiepiscopal seminaries and boarding schools for boys were closed. In 1875 undenominational schools were introduced and made obligatory, the Catholic corporation schools were made unsectarian, and several monastic educational institutions were suppressed. Not until after the retirement of the Liberal minister, Jolly, the soul of the anti-Catholic legislation, i.e. since 1876, were measures taken for the re-establishment of peace with the Catholic Church. In 1880 state examinations for theological students were dispensed with; in 1882 the archiepiscopal see was filled by the appointment of Johann Baptist Orbin, who ruled until 1886; his successors were Johann Christian Roos, until 1896; George Ignaz Komp, who died as archbishop elect on the journey to his see (1896), and Thomas Norber from 1896. In 1888 the boarding schools for boys and the seminaries were reopened, and members of religious orders were once more allowed to preach.

Meanwhile the political development of Baden had been undisturbed. In 1866, it is true, the Grand duke had been forced against his will to fight on the side of Austria and the German Confederation against Prussia; but as early as 28 July he arranged a truce and proclaimed his withdrawal from the German Confederation. On 17 August he concluded peace, and an offensive and defensive alliance with Prussia. The military forces of Baden were organized on Prussian lines, and when, in 1870, Baden openly took sides with Prussia, they fought with distinction in many battles. On 25 November Baden entered the North German Confederation, which was strengthened by the accession of the other South German States to the new German Empire (1871). The internal administration was now conducted along Liberal lines. The Liberal majority of the Chamber was not disturbed until 1893. In 1904 a more impartial election law was introduced. The Government, however, still holds to its Liberal tendencies, and refuses the just demands of Catholics for the admission of religious orders of men. Unfriendliness towards the Catholic Church seems again to be gaining ground, as is shown by ordinances requiring an investigation among the whole body of the Catholic clergy on account of alleged abuses of electoral influence and other charges.

III. STATE AND CHURCH IN BADEN

The relations between the Catholic Church and the Government are not entirely satisfactory, as is evident from the historical account, the State often exercising an excessive control. According to the legislation now in force, the Roman Catholic Church in Baden possesses the right of a public corporation with the formation of religious societies. The Church conducts its affairs freely and independently. The clergy are not restricted in their communication with ecclesiastical superiors. The highest spiritual authority of Catholic Baden is the Archbishop of Freiburg, who is also Metropolitan of the province of the Upper Rhine; he is a member of the First Chamber of Baden, ranks immediately after the ministers of state, and enjoys the title of Excellency. Ecclesiastical offices are filled by the church authorities, but are granted only to those who are citizens of Baden and can give proof of having had a general scientific training. No exemption from a regular three years’ course at a German university is granted to anyone who has completed the same course at a Jesuit institution. Every priest on entering the work of the ministry in Baden must take the constitutional oath. The public exercise of church functions is permitted to priests coming from outside of Baden only under certain conditions. Without government authorization no religious order may be brought into Baden, nor may a new foundation be made by an order already established. Moreover, this authorization is subject to revocation. The holding of missions and the work of the ministry by members of religious orders are in general forbidden, unless in case of extreme necessity. By legislation of the German Empire, the obligation of a civil marriage ceremony was introduced, the duty of military service on the part of Catholic theological students abolished, and the Society of Jesus and what the laws call “cognate” orders and congregations excluded from the German Empire.

CHURCH PROPERTY

The property of the archiepiscopal board, the cathedral chapter, the metropolitan church, and the seminary, as well as the funds under the immediate control of the archbishop or the chapter, are managed by the archbishop and the chapter without interference; that under rural chapters by the chapters themselves under the supervision of the ordinary; local property, i.e. the definite property of a separate parish, is administered by a parish council under the presidency of the clergy, the members being chosen for a period of six years from the Catholics of the parish. The property of the ecclesiastical institutions of a district is managed by a commission, half the members being chosen by the Government, and half by the archbishop from the Catholics of the district. The interealary fund (that is to say, the fiscal department for the collection, management, and lawful expenditure of the incomes of vacant benefices in the Grand Duchy of Baden) is administered by a council known as the Catholic Oberstiftungsrat, consisting of a president and six members, under the joint supervision of the archbishop and Government. The members are Catholics, half being appointed by Government, and half by the archbishop. All must meet the approval of both. The president must also be selected and named with the consent of both. The Oberstiftungsrat also supervises the administration of the local and diocesan institutions and of all benefices, occupied or vacant.

Local associations of the members belonging to the churches recognized in Baden have, as parishes, the rights of public corporations. For the defrayal of expenses incident to public worship, as, for example, the maintenance and repair of parish churches and rectories, the purchase and care of the necessary church furniture, and the salaries of the under employees of the church, the parish can assess certain taxes on its members. There is, in addition, a general church assessment for the common needs of the Catholic Church of Baden, e.g. the expenses of the highest ecclesiastical authorities, the establishment of new church offices, etc. The execution of parochial rights and duties is vested in the parish meeting; in those parishes numbering eighty or more members, the parish is represented by an elective council. The resolution of the parish meeting or parochial council determining the church assessment is subject to the approval of the State. To become legally effective, any change in the formation of a parish by reorganization, dissolution, partition or reunion, needs the sanction of the civil authorities. The administration of ecclesiastical foundations (Stiftungen) is also entirely subject to state supervision. All gifts and bequests in favor of existing foundations, likewise the establishment of new and independent ones, require the approbation of the State. Churches, chapels, hospitals, and other public foundations devoted to the care of the poor and orphans, and to similar charitable purposes, are exempt from the house tax. Homes for the care of the sick and the support of the poor, as well as public educational institutions, are exempt from the income tax on the capital invested. The taxable values of rectories are exempt from any parish assessment.

CHURCH AND SCHOOL

The public educational system is under the direction of the State, the highest authority being the Oberschulrat (Supreme Educational Council), which is directly subject to the Minister of the Interior. The highest ecclesiastical superiors may designate a representative to attend the delibera- tions of the Oberschulrat whenever there is question of religious instruction and its place in the plan of studies. In the public schools instruction is given simultaneously to all children of school age, regardless of creed, with the exception of religious instruc tion. The local supervision over the public schools, as well as the supervision of all local school funds, including those of each religious confession, is entrusted to the town council; at the same time each of the creeds represented in the community is represented by its pastor. In the appointment of teachers to public schools all possible respect is had for the religious belief of the children; in schools attended by children of only one creed the teachers are to be of that creed. Religious instruction is provided and supervised by the respective churches and congregations. They may be assisted in this by teachers. The general plan of religious instruction is laid out by the higher spiritual authorities and supervised by their deputies. The establishment of private educational institutions is permitted, but only under certain conditions; these establishments are under state supervision; from time to time the school authorities visit them and hold examinations. Ecclesiastical corporations and institutions may found educational establishments only on the passage of a special law. Members of religious orders or of religious congregations that resemble orders are forbidden to teach in any educational institution in the Grand Duchy of Baden. The Government may grant exemption to individuals, but such exemption is revocable at will. Churches are authorized to maintain institutions for the theological and practical training of young men for the priesthood and to conduct boarding houses (Konvikte) for students who frequent the gymnasia or the university with the intention of preparing themselves for the ecclesiastical state.

IV. STATISTICS

Baden, with the Hohenzollern territories belonging to Prussia, forms the Archdiocese of Freiburg. The strong intermixture of creeds throughout Baden is a result of the earlier territorial dismemberment described above. According to the census of 1905, in 34 of the 53 judicial districts, the Catholics are in the majority. They are especially strong in the north-east (the Tauber valley), the farther Odenwald, and the southern half of Baden. Even here, however, predominantly Protestant districts are to be found, e.g. Kehl, Lahr, Emmendingen, the Margravate of Sulzburg as far as Basle, and the valley of the Wiese as far up as Lorrach; in addition to the districts just mentioned, the country on both sides of the Neckar and the Lower Rhine are overwhelmingly Protestant. Ecclesiastically, Baden is divided into 3 city chapters and 36 rural chapters, with about 814 parishes and curacies, 114 chaplaincies, and 259 assistants. The cathedral parish of Freiburg and the parish of St. Peter are exempted from the above-mentioned chapter system. Besides this, there are 3 military and 3 institutional chaplaincies. At the beginning of 1907 Baden had 1,260 Catholic priests, i.e. pastors, assistants, and chaplains. Of the 1187 ecclesiastical benefices of Baden, 295 are in the gift of the Grand duke as patron; 264 are left to the free collation of the archbishop; 145 are filled through presentations by noblemen, landowners, and others; 168 are disposed of by the so called terna, i.e, the archbishop proposes to the Grand duke three candidates for a benefice, and the latter selects one for canonical institution. In the case of 9 benefices, the right of presentation is alternate; in 47 cases it is disputed or unknown. The salary of pastors and beneficed clergy is derived from the temporalities of the living; the income of poorly equipped parishes is supplemented by an annual state appropriation which sometimes amounts to $50,000.

ORDERS AND CONGREGATIONS

Male orders and congregations are prohibited from making any foundations in the Grand Duchy of Baden. In proportion to the population, the number of orders and congregations of women is small, and new foundations are vigorously opposed by the Government. The following teaching orders are represented: the Sisters of the Holy Sepulcher in Baden-Baden, the Dominican Sisters in Constance, Cistercian Sisters in Lichtenthal near Baden-Baden, in Offenburg the Choir Sisters of St. Augustine from the congregation of Notre Dame (with a branch in Rheinburg), the Ursulines in Villingen (with a branch in Breisach); there are in all 5 orders for the education of girls. The following congregations for the care of the sick are represented in Baden: the Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul, with mother-house at Freiburg, the Sisters of St. Francis, with mother-house at Gengenbach, the Sisters of the Holy Cross, from Ingenbohl in Switzerland, with mother-house at Hegne, near Constance. In addition there are in Baden the Vincentian Sisters from the mother-house at Strasburg, Sisters of the Most Holy Savior (the so-called Niederbronn Sisters), from the mother-house at Oberbronn, Alsace, Franciscan Sisters from the mother-house at Mallersdorf, Bavaria, Josephite Sisters from St. Marx (Alsace), also Sisters of the Holy Cross from the motherhouse at Strasburg.

EDUCATION

As explained above, the school system is entirely under the direction of the State; consequently there are but few purely Catholic educational institutions. For the training of the Catholic clergy there are the archiepiscopal seminary (Priester-seminar) at St. Peter, the home (Konvikt) for theological students at Freiburg, and 4 gymnasial boarding schools at Constance, Freiburg, Rastatt, and Tauberbischofsheim. At the state university (Freiburg) there is a faculty of Catholic theology numbering 11 professors; the number of theological students during the summer semester of 1907 was 226. The 62 Government intermediate schools of Baden (17 classical gymnasia, 3 “real,” 4 preparatory, 7 higher gymnasia; 23 Realschulen, 8 high schools) recorded an attendance in 1905 of 5,157 Catholic students. In 17 of the Government intermediate schools religious instruction is given by 26 specially appointed priests (Religionslehrer); in the others religious instruction is cared for by the local clergy. Of the 11 private intermediate schools for boys, the Institute and School of Monsignor Lender in Sasbach (Progymnasium and Realschule) is Catholic in character; in 1905 it had 483 Catholic students, and 8 priests as religious instructors. The 7 government high schools for girls had in 1905 an attendance of 964 Catholic students. Of the 33 private intermediate schools for girls, attended by 1,437 Catholic girls, 5 are distinctly Catholic in character, and have an attendance of 1,132. The Catholic periodicals now published in Baden number 25.

CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS

In Baden there are 254 institutions for the care of the sick, with 13,800 beds; about 100 of these hospitals, infirmaries, etc. are directed, or are actually served, by Catholic orders and congregations. The Diocese of Freiburg contains 3 orphanages (Riegel, Gurtweil, and Walldurn); in the village of Herthen there is a large institution for the care of imbeciles, with about 400 inmates, under the direction of the Sisters of the Holy Cross; in Heitersheim there is a large institution for the reclamation of girls, directed by a Catholic sisterhood. The Baden non-sectarian Red Cross Society, to which many Catholics belong, has 34 reliefcenters for men, with about 5,500 members, and 333 unions for women, with 57,600 members; the association maintains 75 stations with about 470 employees. There are in Baden 13 Catholic homes for servant girls.

CATHOLIC SOCIETIES

Concerning these societies there are no adequate statistics. We may mention, however, the People’s Union (Volksverein) for Catholic Germany, with 27,100 members, Catholic working-men’s unions (150), Catholic journeymen’s unions (53), apprentices’ unions and clubs for young men (35), and St. Joseph’s unions (2). Freiburg is the center of the associated Charities (Charitasverband) of Catholic Germany. The chief religious societies and confraternities are: the Archconfraternity of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, the Most Pure Heart of Mary, and of Christian Mothers, the League of Prayer for Germany, the Association of the Holy Family, the Association of the Holy Childhood of Jesus, the Boniface Society, the Ludwig Mission Society, St. Michael’s Society, the Societies of St. Vincent de Paul for men and women, and others.

The most important Catholic church edifices are the cathedrals of Freiburg and Constance, the churches of Ueberlingen and Breisach, and those of Baden-Baden, Salem, St. Blasien, Reichenau, Gen- genbach, Bronnbach, Schwarzach, Ladenburg, Neustadt, Karlsruhe.

A complete bibliography is to be found in KIENITZ AND WAGNER, Badische Bibliothek (Karlsruhe, 1897 and 1900). The more important works, especially those treating of ecclesiastical history, are: SCHOPFLIN, Historia Zaringo-Badensis (7 vols., Karlsruhe 1763–66), DUMGE, Regesta Badensia (Karlsruhe 1836); MONE, Quellensammlung der badischen Landesgesch. (4 vols., Karlsruhe, 1836); PREUSCHEN, Badische Geschichte (Karlsruhe, 1842); MONE, Die katholischen Zustande in Baden (Ratisbon 1841 and 1843); BADER Die katholische Kirche in Baden (Freiburg, 1860); LONGNER, Beitrage zur Geschichte oberrheinischen Kirchenprovinz (Tubingen, 1863); Offizielle Aktenstucke uber die Kirchen und Schulfrage in Baden (7 numbers, Freiburg, 1864–75); VIERORDT, Badische Geschichte bis zum Ende des Mittelalters (Tubingen, 1865); BRUCK, Die oberrheinische Kirchenprovinz (Mainz, 1868); SPOHN, Badisches Staatskirchenrecht (Karlsruhe, 1868); FRIEDBERG, Der Staat und die katholische Kirche im Grossherzogtum Baden (2d ed., Leipzig, 1874); KORBER, Die Ausbreitung des Christentums im sudlichen Baden (Heidelberg, 1878); Das Grossherzogtum Baden (Karlsruhe, 1885); BAUMSTARK, Die kirchenpolitischen Gesetze und Verordnungen fur die romischkatholische Kirche im Grossherzogtum Baden (Karlsruhe 1888); WEECH, Badische Geschichte (Karlsruhe, 1890); HEINER, Gesetze die katholische Kirche (in Baden) betreffend (Freiburg, 1890); MAAS, Geschichte der katholischen Kirche im Grossherzogtum Baden (Freiburg, 1891); HEINER, Die kirchlichen Erlasse, Verordnungen und Bekanntmachungen der Erzdiozese Freiburg (2d ed., Freiburg, 1898); MULLER, Badische Landtagsgesch. (Berlin, 1899–1902), I-IV; FESTER AND WITTE, Regesten der Markqrafen von Baden und Hachberg (2 vols.: Innsbruck, 1900); KRIEGER, Topographisches Worterbuch des Grossherzogtums Baden (2d ed., 2 vols., Heidelrberg, 1903–05); GONNER AND SESTER, Das Kirchenpatronatsrecht im Grossherzogtum Baden (Stuttgart, 1904); Zeitschrift fur Geschichte des Oberrheins (Karlsruhe, 1850–85), I-XXXIX; Id., new series (Freiburg, 1886–92, Karlsruhe, 1893–1904, Heidelberg, 1902, sqg.), I-XXII.

The most important historical periodicals are: Zeitschrift fur Geschichte des Oberrheins (Karlsruhe since 1850); Freiburger Diozesanarchiv (Freiburg, since IS65); ALEMANNIA (Bonn, 1873 sqq.; since 1900 in Freiburg).

JOSEPH LINS

Tommaso Badia

Cardinal, author, papal legate, born at Modena, 1483; died at Rome, 6 September, 1547. He entered the Dominican Order in his native city, soon excelled all his brethren in learning, and taught theology successively at Ferrara, Venice, and Rome. When Sylvester de Prierias was sent on a mission to the princes of Italy, Badia was chosen to fill, temporarily, the office of Master of the Sacred Palace, to which he succeeded permanently, probably in 1523. He was put on the commission which drew up the list of abuses to be reformed in the Council of Trent. He took part in the Diet of Worms (1540), not only as disputant, but also as theologian of Cardinal Contarini. On his return to Italy Paul III created him cardinal, and though selected as one of the legates to preside at Trent he was retained at Rome to examine the doctrinal and disciplinary memoranda drawn up in the sessions of the council. It was on his favourable recommendation and approval of its constitutions that Paul III confirmed the Society of Jesus. At his own desire he was buried in the Minerva beside Cardinal Cajetan. He is the author of several philosophical treatises, as well as works on Divine Providence, the immortality of the soul and several treatises against Luther, none of which have been published.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Stephen Theodore Badin

The first Catholic priest ordained within the limits of the original thirteen States of the Union, pioneer missionary of Kentucky, b. at Orléans, France, 17 July, 1768; d. at Cincinnati, Ohio, 21 April, 1853. Educated at Montaigu College, Paris, he entered the Sulpician Seminary of his native city in 1789. He was subdeacon when the seminary was closed by the revolutionary government, in 1791, and sailed from Bordeaux for the American mission in November of the same year, with the Revs. B.J. Flaget and J.B. David, both destined in God’s providence to wear the mitre in Kentucky. They arrived in Philadelphia on the 26th of March, 1792, and were welcomed at Baltimore by Bishop Carroll on the 28th. Stephen T. Badin pursued his theological studies with the Sulpicians and was ordained a priest by Bishop Carroll, 25 May, 1793. His was the first ordination in the United States. After a few months spent at Georgetown to perfect himself in English, Father Badin was appointed to the Mission of Kentucky. He left for that scene of his apostolic labours with Father Barrières, 3 September, 1793, travelled on foot as far as Pittsburgh, and by flat boat down the Ohio, landing at Limestone (Maysville), Ky., where they found twenty Catholic families. They walked sixty-five miles to Lexington, and on the first Sunday of Advent, 1793, Father Badin said his first Mass in Kentucky at the house of Denis McCarthy.

He settled at White Sulphur, Scott County, sixteen miles from Lexington, and for about eighteen months attended this church and neighbouring missions. In April, 1794, his companion, who resided in Bardstown, left for New Orleans, and Father Badin was now alone in the Kentucky mission. For fourteen years he attended to the spiritual wants of the various Catholic settlements, scattered over an extent of more than 120 miles, forming new congregations, building churches, never missing an appointment. To visit his missions regularly he had to live in the saddle, and it is estimated that he rode more than 100,000 miles during his ministry in Kentucky. For many years he was unaided and alone; it was only in July, 1806, that he received permanent help, when the Rev. Charles Nerinckx came to take the larger part of the burden from his shoulders. They lived together at St. Stephen’s, on Pottingers Creek, which was still their headquarters on the arrival, in 1811, of Bishop Flaget, whom Father Badin had suggested and urged as first Bishop of Bardstown. Difficulties about the holding of church property soon arose between the bishop and Father Badin, without, however, interfering with the reverence of the latter for the bishop and the bishop’s friendship for him. Together they went to Baltimore in 1812 to submit the controversy to Archbishop Carroll. It was not settled. They returned to Kentucky in April, 1813, and Father Badin resumed his missionary duties and accompanied his bishop on many pastoral journeys, until 1819. The Rev. J. B. David had been appointed coadjutor in 1817, but persistently refused to accept the honour. Father Badin, believing that this selection would put an end to the controversy about church property, and be for the good of the diocese of which he was the founder, left for France in the spring of 1819. The consecration of Bishop David in September of that year, and unjust suspicions about his disposition of church properties caused him to remain abroad. In 1820 he accepted the parish of Millaney and Marreilly-en-Gault, about forty miles from Orléans. He continued, however, to take the greatest interest in the Kentucky missions, insisted on his loyalty to Bishop Flaget, and helped constantly and generously to secure gifts in money and valuable church-furniture for the missionaries. In 1822 he published in Paris, a “Statement of the Missions in Kentucky,” with the same purpose in view.

Father Badin returned to America in 1828. After a year on the Michigan mission, he went back to Kentucky in 1829. The next year he offered his services to Bishop Fenwick of Cincinnati, and took charge of the Pottawottomie Indians at St. Joseph’s River. Miss Campau of Detroit, an expert Indian linguist, acted as interpreter and teacher, until Father Badin left the place in 1836. Having returned to Cincinnati in that year, he wrote for the “Catholic Telegraph” a series of controversial “Letters to an Episcopalian Friend.” In 1837 he went to Bardstown, Ky., was appointed vicar-general, and continued to visit the various missions. In 1841 he removed to Louisville with the bishop’s household. In that year he conveyed a great deal of church property (notably that of Portland, near Louisville) to the bishop, and a farm to the Very Rev. E. Sorin of Notre Dame, Indiana.

On the 25th of May, 1843, Father Badin celebrated the golden jubilee of his priesthood, at Lexington, where he had offered up the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the first time in Kentucky. In September, 1846, he accepted from Bishop Quarter of Chicago the pastorship of the French settlement at Bourbonnais Grove, Kankakee County, Illinois. In the winter of 1848 he was again in Kentucky, and Bishop-Coadjutor Spalding welcomed him to the episcopal household. About two years later he became the guest of Archbishop Purcell at Cincinnati, and eventually died at the archbishop’s residence. His body lay undisturbed in the cathedral crypt for over fifty years. In 1904 Archbishop Elder permitted its removal to the University of Notre Dame, Indiana.

Father Badin’s writings are: “Etat des missions du Kentucky” (Paris, 1822), tr. in the “U.S. Cath. Miscellany” for December, 1824, and in the “Catholic World,” September, 1875; “Carmen Sacrum,” a Latin poem composed on the arrival of Bishop Flaget in Kentucky, June, 1811, translated into English by Colonel Theodore O’Hara of Frankfort, Ky., author of the “Bivouac of the Dead”; “Epicedium,” Latin poem composed on the occasion of the death of Col. Joe Davis at the Battle of Tippecanoe, 7 November, 1811, translated by Doctor Michell of New York (Louisville, 1844); “Sanctissimæ Trinitatis Laudes et Invocatio” (Louisville, 1843), also the original text and tr. in Webb’s “The Centenary of Catholicity in Kentucky” (Louisville, 1844); “Letters to an Episcopalian Friend”—three controversial articles on the Church and the Eucharist (published in the “Catholic Telegraph” of Cincinnati, 1836).

SPALDING, Sketches of the Early Catholic Missions of Kentucky (Louisville, 1844); IDEM, Life of Bishop Flaget (Louisville, 1852); Life of Rev. Chas. Nerinckx (Cincinnati, 1880); WEBB, Centenary of Catholicity in Kentucky (Louisville, 1884).

CAMILLUS P. MAES

Raphael Badius

A Florentine Dominican of the seventeenth century. He was deeply versed in Tuscan and Florentine antiquities, and his researches made him particularly conversant with quaint and curious matters of history and hagiography. He rendered valuable assistance to the Jesuit Fathers, Henschen and Papebroch, in their labours on the “Acta Santorum,” as they themselves acknowledge (T. II, Junii, ad diem X, de Joanne Dominici, p. 395, n. 6). As Chronicler of the Convent of Santa Maria Novella, Florence, he was also known to the historian and bibliographer Cinellus, who makes frequent and grateful mention of the learned Dominican’s helpful knowledge of the literature and writers of Florence (Bibb. Volante, Scanzia VI, 88; XII, 106). In 1681, he was Dean of the University of Florence. Quétif-Echard, Scriptores Ord. Proed. (Paris, 1721), II, 741)

JOHN R. VOLZ.

John Jacob Baegert

Missionary and ethnographer, born at Schlettstadt in Alsace, 23 December, 1717; died at Neustadt-on-the-Haardt in the Rhenish Palatinate, 29 September (or December), 1777. Baegert belonged to the Alsatian family from which had come several members of religious orders. He studied philosophy for two years, entered the Society of Jesus at Aschaffenberg, 27 September, 1736, taught the humanities at Mannheim in 1740, studied theology at Molshiem, and after ordination, 14 February, 1749, went to America as a missionary. Lower California was given to him as his field of labor. Here he founded the mission of San Ignacio and worked for seventeen years until the expulsion of the Society in 1767. He embarked at Loretto on the return journey, 3 February, 1768, and after a short stay in a Spanish monastery of the Minorites retired to the Jesuit college at Neustadt-on-the-Haardt, where he ended his days. In 1773 Baegert publish anonymously at Mannheim “Nachrichten von die amerikanisher Halbinsel Californien . . . mit einen zweifachen Anhang falscher Nachrichten.” The publication is distinguished by truthfullness of statement and corrects the over-favorable description of conditions in California which had been given by Father Venegas in his account issued at Madrid in 1751. Father Baegert describes the physical character of Lower California, the customs and language of the natives, and narrates the history of the mission. Owing to the numerous ethnographic observations the work was of value up to the middle of the nineteenth century and an edited translation was issued by the Smithsonian Institution in 1863–64; Vivien de Saint-Martin also wrote a detailed account of the work. The contemporaries of Baegert spoke highly of his talent for poetry and his fine personal qualities.

Reports of the Smithsonian Institution (Washington, 1863), 352 sqq.; (1864), 378 sqq.: (1865), 41 sqq.; de Saint-Martin, L’Anne geographique, V, 1866 (Paris, 1867), 233–39; Backer-Sommervogel, Bibliotheque (1890), I, 760, sqq. and (1898), VIII, 1724; Huonder, Deutsche Jesuitenmissionare des XVII. und XVIII. Jahrhunderts in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, sup. to vol. LXXIV (Freiburg im Br., 1899), 106,; Geny ed., Historia, 1631–1765 in Die Jahrbucher der Jesuiten zu Schlettstadt und Rufach, 1615–1765 (Strausburg, 1896), II, 699 sqq. (contains the most readable personal data).

OTTO HARTIG

François Baert

Bollandist, born at Ypres, 25 August, 1651; died at Antwerp, 27 October, 1719. He entered the Society of Jesus at Mechlin, 28 September, 1667. After passing through the novitiate he was regent of several colleges in the province of Belgian Flanders, studied theology and philosophy, and was finally ordained priest in 1680. The following year, 1681, he made assistant to Father Daniel Papebroch, the last survivor of the first generation of Bollandists. The name of Baertius is on the title pages of nine of the volumes of the Acta Sanctorum; the last four of May, and of the first five of June; but to judge from the articles published in these volumes his collaboration is by no means so large as these figures would indicate. There are no articles bearing his signature either in the volumes for May nor in the fifth volume for June. The other four volumes for June contain some fifteen articles by him, all very short excepting the commentaries on St. Columba and Saint Basil the Great, of the date of 9 June. In 1688, in company with Father Conrad Jannick, he made a trip to Austria and Hungary in search of literary material; the journey lasted eight months and the two returned with a large number of documents.

Cuper, Elogium R. P. Francisci Baertii hagiographi in Acta SS., July, II.

CHARLES DE SMEDT

Suitbert Bæumer

Historian of the Breviary and one of the most scholarly patrologists of the nineteenth century, b. 28 March, 1845 at Leuchtenberg near Kaiserswerth (Rhine); d. at Freiburg 12 August, 1894. He made his university studies at Bonn and Tübingen; in 1865 he entered the Benedictine Abbey of Beuron, then newly founded, and was ordained priest in 1869. The years 1875–90 were spent at Maredsous Abbey in Belgium and at Erdington in England; in the latter year he returned to Beuron. Dom Bæum er was long the critical adviser of the printing house of Desclée, Lefebvre and associates at Tournai, for their editions of the Missal, Breviary, Ritual, Pontifical, and other liturgical works. He contributed to leading reviews a number of valuable essays, e.g. on the Stowe Missal (the oldest liturgical record of the Irish Church) in the “Zeitschrift f. kath. Theologie” (1892), on the author of the “Micrologus” (an important medieval liturgical treatise) in “Neues Archiv” (1893), on the “Sacramentarium Gelasinnum” in the “Historisches Jahrbuch” (1893). He also wrote a life of Mabillon (1892) and a treatise on the history and content of the Apostles’ Creed (1893). His most important work is the classical history of the Roman Breviary “Geschichte, des Breviers” (Freiburg, 1895; French tr., R. Biron, Paris, 1905). In this work he condensed the labours of several generations of erudite students of the Breviary and the best critical results of the modern school of historical liturgists.

Allg. deutsche Biographie, XLVI, 257, and the biographical to the German and French texts of his history of the Breviary.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Vicariate Apostolic of Bagamoyo

Vicariate apostolic in German East Africa, separated by a pontifical Decree of 11 May, 1906, from the Vicariate Apostolic of Northern Zanzibar. The Catholics number 14,728 (in all German East Africa there are about 6,700,000 natives, most of whom belong to mixed tribes of the Bantu race). The mission is cared for by the Congregation of the Holy Ghost and the Immaculate Heart of Mary (52) and by the Trappists (8), aided by two congregations of women: Filles de Marie (7), and Sisters of the Precious Blood, formerly Trappistines (28). The first vicar Apostolic, Rt. Rev. Franz Xaver Vogt, of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost, was elected 25 July, 1906. There are 15 churches and chapels, 15 stations with medical service, 15 orphanages, 6 industrial, or trade, and agricultural, schools, 71 schools with 7,574 native pupils, 2 leper stations, and 2 hospitals. The vicar Apostolic resides at Bagamoyo, a small seaport town near the mouth of Kingani, opposite the Island of Zanzibar, and the centre of the telegraph and cable systems of the colony. (See AFRICA.)

Missiones Catholicæ (Propaganda, Rome, 1907). 427; Statesmen’s Year-Book (London, 1907). 1021–22, 225–226; Heilprin’s Gazzetteer (Philadelphia. 1906). 146, 711, 2047.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Bagdad

This city was founded on the Tigris by the second Abbaside Caliph Abou Giafar al Mansur (762 or 764) and named by him Medinet es-Selam, or City of Salvation; Bagdad is a popular name said to mean “Garden of Dat,” a Mussulman dervish. During five centuries it was the rich and brilliant capital of the famous Arabian Empire. Houlagou, a grandson of Genghis Khan, entered it in 1262; it afterwards became a possession of the Kara Koyouli Turks, was taken by Tamerlane, and, in 1517, fell into the hands of the Persians who, except for a short interval in the sixteenth century, ruled over it until 1638, when Sultan Murad made it definitively a city of the Ottoman Empire. It is now the chief town of a vilayet, or district, of the same name, and has lost much of its former importance, though it still remains the most important city of Asiatic Turkey, after Damascus and Smyrna, and a great emporium of international trade. It exports textile fabrics, gold and silverware, horses, dates, etc. There are many beautiful mosques in the city, and the ruins of its ancient walls are still visible. The climate is hot; fevers are frequent, and the plague sometimes appears. Its population, taken as including the neighbouring villages, is said to be about 45,000; of these 86,000 are Mussulmans, mostly Arab Sunnites and Persian Shiites; 52,000 are Jews, and 7,000 Christians. Turkish statistics, however, are usually very uncertain. The Christians are divided as follows: 3,300 Armenians (including about 1,000 Catholics and 100 Protestants), 100 Greeks (50 Catholics); 1,600 (3,000?) Chaldeans; 1,200 Syrians; and 500 Latins.

In 1638, some days after the Turkish conquest, owing to the kindness of Abbas the Great, Urban VIII created, at the expense of a pious French lady, a Latin bishopric for the Catholics in Persia, under the title of Babylon, the old city being then (though erroneously) identified with Bagdad. For a long time the bishops of this title, when they came to the East, resided at Hamadan, in Persia, and for various reasons there were often no bishops, but only vicars Apostolic. It was only in 1742 that Père Joseph-Marie de Jésus, a Carmelite, was allowed to enter this Mussulman town. In 1848 the see became an archbishopric, with Ispahan as a suffragan see, till 1874; the archbishop, Monsignor Trioche, was appointed Apostolic Delegate for the Catholics of Oriental rites. He resigned this office in 1850, and until his death, in 1887, there were special delegates, the last of whom, Monsignor Altmayer, succeeded him and reunited both titles, as did his successor, Monsignor Jean Drure. We must here, moreover, notice that the Latin Archbishop of Bagdad, according to the decree of Urban VII, must always be of French nationality.

The limits of the ecclesiastical province extend as far as Assyria, Mesopotamia, and the territories of Bassorah and Amida, with about 2,000 Latin faithful, mostly foreigners. It includes three Apostolic prefectures: Bagdad, Mardin, and Mossul. The Prefecture of Bagdad is governed by French Discalced Carmelites, who have at Bagdad a large and beautiful college, an elementary school, a dispensary, and stations at Bassorah, Amarah, and Bushire, with primary schools and some ten churches or little chapels. French Sisters of the Presentation of Tours conduct at Bagdad an important school for girls and an orphans’ institute. For the Prefectures of Mardin (French Capuchins) and Mossul French Dominicans), see articles under those titles.

The Apostolic Delegation of Bagdad, for Mesopotamia, Kurdistan, and Armenia Minor, is, as appears from its official appellation, more extensive than the Latin archbishopric. It embraces 5 Armenian dioceses, with 40 priests and about 12,000 faithful; 5 Syrian dioceses, with 80 priests and about 12,000 faithful; 9 Chaldean dioceses, with 160 priests and about 40,000 faithful.

Since the foundation of the Chaldean patriarchate by Innocent XI in 1681, after the conversion of a great many Nestorians, the Chaldean patriarch bears the title of Babylon, i.e. Bagdad. His residence was first at Diarbekir, then at Bagdad (since about 1838), and is now at Mossul. A Syrian archbishopric was also erected in 1862, with the same title of Babylon, or Bagdad; and the titular resides, or is authorized to reside, at Bagdad.

According to Bar-Hebræus (“Chronicon Eccl.,” ed. Lamy, II, 236), Elias, the Greek Patriarch of Antioch, in 910 re-established at Bagdad the ancient residence of the Orthodox Catholicos which had been unoccupied since the Nestorian Schism (432). The Greek name for Bagdad was Eirenopolis, the equivalent of Medinet es-Selam. Eirenopolis is now considered among the Greeks a metropolitan title, and is held by a prelate who assists the Patriarch of Antioch as his vicar.

CUINET, La Turquie d’Asie, III, 3–212; PIOLET, Les missions catholiques françaises au XIXe siècle, I, 222–271; Missiones Catholicæ (Propaganda, Rome, 1907.)

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Bageis

A titular see of Lydia in Asia Minor. This name is found on coins, but becomes Bagis in the Synecdemos of Hierocles and Bage in later “Notiti æ gracæ episcopatuum.” Bageis takes the epithet Cæsarea and names the River Hermos on its coins. It has been placed by Keppel’s inscriptions near Sirghe on the Hermos (Guediztchai); but the site of the city is said to be on the north bank, while Sirghe is on the south side of the river. Harnack (Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 486) maintains that its bishop was present at Nicæa, but this is an error caused by a confusion with Baris, another Lydian city; the lists edited by H. Gelzer and C. H. Turner are silent about Bageis. We know really only three bishops of Bageis: Chrysaphius, or Chrysanthus, at Ephesus (431), placed wrongly by Lequien in a non-existent see, Balcea or Balicia; Leonides, who subscribed the letter of the Lydian bishops to the Emperor Leo I (458); Basilius, at the council under Photius (879). The city still figures in a list about 1170–79. The Lydian Bageis, Bagis, or Bage, is not to be confounded with Bagæ in Numidia.

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ., I, 889; RAMSAY, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, 131.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Cavaliere Giovanni Baglioni

Known as the “Deaf Man of the Barozzo,” a painter of distinction, b. in Rome, 1571; d. there 1644. His artistic work is, however, overshadowed by his biographies of his contemporaries. The literary work which furnishes his chief claim to fame is his “Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects” living in Rome, from 1573 to 1642—from the pontificate of Gregory XIII to that of Urban VIII. He was a pupil of Francesco Morelli and during his life did a number of works of importance at Rome under Popes Sixtus V, Clement VIII, and Paul V, notably in the Vatican, in Saint Peter’s, and in Saint John Lateran. Pope Paul V created him a Knight of the Order of Christ for his painting of Saint Peter raising Tabitha from the dead. This was in St. Peter’s but is not now extant. For the church of Santa Maria dell’ Orto he painted in the chapel of Our Lady with the Zuccheri scenes from the life of the Blessed Virgin. Among other works which he executed for this church is a “Saint Sebastian.” An excellent example of Baglioni’s work is “The Last Supper” at San Nicolo in Carcere. From his brush also there is a “Saint Stephen” in the Cathedral at Perugia, and in that of Loretto a “Saint Catherine.”

BRYAN, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers (London, and New York 1903–05).

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Diocese of Bagnorea

(Anciently NOVEMPAGI, BALNEUM REGIUM).

A diocese situated in the district of Viterbo, Italy, and immediately subject to the Holy See. The Diocese of Bagnorea has a population of about 20,000; the city contains about 4,500 inhabitants. According to tradition, St. Ansanus preached the Gospel here in the third century, and the church of Santa Maria delle Carceri outside the Alban Gate was said to have been built above the prison in which he was confined. There are no records as to the date of the erection of this diocese; St. Gregory the Great, however, is authority for the statement that about the year 600 the Deacon John was appointed bishop of this see. Up to the time of Urban V, Montefiascone was part of the Diocese of Bagnorea, but was made by this pontiff the seat of a new diocese. Ughelli, without, however, adducing any documentary proof, says that the Diocese of Bagnorea was joined to the Diocese of Viterbo, 4 February, 1449, but neglects to mention when they were reestablished as separate dioceses. Among the sacred edifices worthy of note are: the ancient Gothic cathedral and the new cathedral built by Bishop Ulderico Nardi (1698), and restored in 1764 by Bishop Giuseppe Aliuffi. Here is preserved an arm of St. Bonaventure, a citizen of Bagnorea, as well as some of his writings. Among the most celebrated bishops, besides those already mentioned, are St. Aldualdus (861), Corrado Manili (1521), a celebrated professor of law in the Universities of Padua and Pavia, Tommaso Sperandio (1574), Pietro Paolo Febei (1635), who founded the seminary, Martino Cordella, banished to France in 1789 because he would not take the oath of allegiance to the French Republic. During the barbarian invasions, between the sixth and ninth centuries, the city was taken several times by the Goths and the Lombards. In 822 the Emperor Louis I added it to the Papal States.

The Diocese of Bagnorea contains 6 rural deaneries, 24 parishes, 106 churches, chapels, and oratories, 54 secular priests, 45 seminaries, 10 priests, secular and regular, 38 lay brothers, 63 members of female religious orders, 2 schools for girls, and a population of 26,380.

CAPPELLETI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), V, 505; Annuario eccl. (Rome 1906).

U. BENIGNI

Jean Bagot

Theologian, born at Rennes, in France, 9 July, 1591, died at Paris, 23 August, 1664. He entered the Society of Jesus, 1 July, 1611, taught belles-lettres for many years at various colleges of France, philosophy for five years, theology for thirteen years, and became theologian to the General of the Society. In 1647 he published the first part of his work “Apologeticus Fidei” entitled “Institutio Theologica de vera Religione.” In 1645 the second part, “Demonstratio dogmatum Christianorum,” appeared, and in 1646 “Dissertationes theologicae” on the Sacrament of Penance. In his “Avis aux Catholiques,” Bagot attacked the new doctrine the new doctrine on grace, directing against it also his “Lettre sur la conformite de S. Augustin.” In 1653 his “Libertatis et gratiae defensio” was published.

In 1655 Rousse, Curé of Saint Roch (or Masure, the Curé of St. Paul’s), published a little work entitled “De l’obligation des fidèles de se confesser a leur cure, suivant le chapitre 21 du concile general de Latran.” Père Bagot answered this in his “Défense du droit éppiscopal et de la liberté des fidèles,” which he afterwards translated into Latin. A controversy arose, in which various ecclesiastics, including Mgr. de Marca, Archbishop of Toulouse, took sides against Bagot. The work was referred to the faculty of theology at Paris, which censured some of the propositions. Bagot, however, defended his doctrine before this assembly with the result that the censure was removed. he answered his opponents in the “Réponse du P. Bagot.” On his return from Rome he devoted the remaining years of his life to the congregation of the Blessed Virgin, and died superior of the professed house at Paris.

Hurter, Nomenclator, II, 67; de Backer, Bibl. des escriv. de la c. de J., I, 32; Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., I, 774; Idem in Dict. de theol. cath.

G. E. KELLY

Christopher Bagshaw

Convert, priest, prisoner for the Faith, and a prominent figure in the controversies between Catholic priests and the reign of Elizabeth. He came of a Derbyshire family, but the year of his birth is unknown. Hi died in Paris sometime after 1625. Bagshaw was at St. John’s College, Cambridge, in 1566, was graduated B.A. at Balliol, Oxford, 1572, and probably became a Fellow of that college in the same year. As a Fellow he was a party to the expulsion from the college of the afterwards famous Jesuit, Father Parsons.

At proceeding M. A. in 1575, Bagshaw was still a zealous Protestant. His administration as Principal of Gloucester Hall (1579) was unpopular and brief. In 1582, in France, he became a Catholic and was ordained a priest. Going to Rome with the permission of Cardinal Allen, he entered the English College. It is said by Bullen, that he was expelled by Cardinal Boncompagni for his quarrelsome temper and unpopularity. Foley’s list of students of the English College does not contain his name. Later, at Paris he proceeded doctor of divinity and doctor of the Sorbonne, though afterwards he was dubbed by his Jesuit opponents doctor erraticus, doctor per saltum. On his return to England he was imprisoned (1587) in the Tower of London, under the statute of 27th of Elizabeth, an act against Jesuits and Seminarists. (The text of this law is in Hardy and Gee.) With a number of other priests out of the more than 400 labouring in England, he was imprisoned in Wisbeach Castle, 1593.

There now came to a head a factional division among the labourers on the English mission. There were two original sources of difference: the existence of a Spanish faction, headed by the Jesuits, and the Jesuits’ control of the English College at Rome (Cf. Dodd and Tierney; Lingard). The partisan feelings aroused found vent in two controversies in which Bagshaw was prominent, if not first, on the side opposed to the Jesuits and their friends. The earlier dispute, arbitrated after nine months, arose from the vigorous opposition of Bagshaw and the elder clergy to the introduction of a religious rule among the thirty-three priests in Wisbeach Castle. Later, when, partly for the purpose of consolidating English Catholic sentiment in favour of a Catholic successor to Elizabeth, Cardinal Cajetan placed at the head of the English Mission, as archpriest, Father George Blackwell, with instructions to consult the Jesuit provincial on matters of importance (Lingard VIII, vii), Bagshaw headed a party of protest, which, on being disciplined, appealed, with the secret aid of Elizabeth’s government, to Rome. Their appeal was in part successful, though the appointment was confirmed.

Bagshaw, after his liberation, resided abroad, and is described in Daniel Featley’s “Transubstantiation Exploded” as having been Rector of Ave Maria College. This work was published in 1638, and contained notes of a public disputation with Bagshaw. His death and burial, at Paris, occurred after 1625. He may have written in part “A true Relation of the Faction begun at Wisbich by Father Edmonds, alias Weston, a Jesuit, 1595, and continued since by Father Walley, alias Garnet, the Provincial of the Jesuits in England, and by Father Parsons in Rome” (1601); “Relatio Compendiosa Turbarum quas Jesuitæ Angli uná cum D. Georgio Blackwello, Archipresbytero, Sacerdotibus Seminariorum, Populoque Catholico concivere,” etc. (Rouen, 1601).

BULLEN in Dict. of Nat. Biog., II, 400; GILLOW, Bibi. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 100; LINGARD, History at England; FOLEY, Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, I, 42, 481; II, 239, 244; VI, 724, 725; DODD, ed. TIERNEY, Church History of England, III, 40 and appendix.

J. V. CROWNE

Bahama Islands

(OR LUCAYOS)

The most northerly group of the West Indies, are a chain of coral islands lying between 21°42’ and 27°34’ N. lat., and 72°40’ and 79°5’ W. long., composed of twenty-five permanently inhabited islands and an immense number of cays and rocks. The group lies to the east of Southern Florida, and is separated from it by the Gulf Stream; and to the north of Cuba, from which it is separated by the Old Bahama Channel. As to the name, nothing definite seems to be known of the origin of Bahama. It is undoubtably of aboriginal origin, while Lucayos is evidently the Spanish Los Cayos, the Cays.

Of the total population, about 80 per cent are of African negro descent; less than ten per cent are whites, mostly of English and Scotch descent through Loyalists from the American Colonies; and the rest are coloured or mixed. Slavery was abolished, 1 August, 1834; the number of slaves was 10,086 and the owners received compensation at the rate of £12.14.4 per head. New Providence, on which Nassau, the capital, is situated, the only island having a safe harbour, with eighteen feet of water, is the principal island. Owing to its salubrious climate, Nassau is a favourite winter resort for American tourists. The average temperature for the four winter months is 71° F.

POLITICAL STATUS AND EXPORTS

Politically the Bahamas are a British Colony, being governed by a Governor and an Executive Council of eight members, a Legislative Council of nine members appointed by the Crown, and an elective legislative assembly of twenty-nine members. The islands are of coral formation, thus differing completely in their geological structure from the other West India Islands as well as from the adjacent mainland of Florida. Soil and vegetation are sparse. The chief exports are sponge, tortoise shell, ambergris, pink pearls, and shells gathered in the shallow waters of the Bahama Banks. Sisal fibre, pineapples, grapefruit, oranges, and various other tropical fruits, as well as precious woods, form the chief land products of export. The large bulk of the trade, both import and export, is with the United States.

HISTORY

Historically the islands are of interest, because one of them San Salvador (see SAN SALVADOR, THE LANDFALL OF COLUMBUS), was the first land of the New World discovered by Columbus, 12 October, 1492. The Spanish never made a permanent settlement in the Bahamas, but shortly after the discovery they carried off many aborigines to the mines of San Domingo, and ere long the whole population, never perhaps very large, seems to have disappeared. The statement made in some of the recent guide books, that 40,000 souls were supposed to have been carried to the mines of Hispaniola by the Spaniards, is evidently overdrawn. Had the Bahamas ever been so thickly populated, there would remain the evidence of ruins of buildings or of soil cultivation. There are few if any fruit trees whose introduction cannot be traced, and there are no food-animals on the islands. Whatever population there was, must, therefore, have subsisted on fish, corn, yams, and on a very few small wild fruits. There is nothing to warrant the supposition that the Bahamas ever had more than a very sparse aboriginal population. So little is known of the original inhabitants that they cannot be definitely classified. They may have been of Carib stock or of the race that inhabited the adjoining mainland of Florida. The brief description which Columbus gives of them, and the formation of the few skulls discovered, seem to favour the theory that they were either one with the aborigines of Florida, or a mixture of the latter with the Caribs of the West Indies. The fact that they were very mild-mannered, and not cannibalistic, favours the opinion that they were kin to the Seminoles of Florida. Excepting a few skulls, stone idols, and implements, a few of which are to be seen in the public library at Nassau, there are no aboriginal remains, and there are no ruins of any description, a fact which points to a North American, rather than to a West Indian, or Central American, origin.

In 1578 Queen Elizabeth conferred upon Sir Gilbert Humphrey all lands not already occupied by some Christian power, and finding the Bahamas neglected, he annexed them; but no settlement was established. The enmity existing between England and Spain afforded adventurers, chiefly English and French, an excuse to make them a vantage ground from which to make depredations on Spanish shipping to and from the New World, and the natural formation of the Bahamas furnished them an excellent hiding place. During the seventeenth century the islands were the rendezvous of the famous buccaneers. When, at the treaty of Riswick, in 1697, comparative peace was restored among the European nations, England withdrew her protection of the buccaneers, and some returned to more peaceful avocations (thus Morgan, a chief among them, retired to Jamaica, and subsequently was appointed governor of that island), while many others raised the black flag of piracy against all nations, and made the Bahamas a by-word for lawlessness and crime. In 1718, England began the extermination of piracy, and soon established law and order. Since then England has been in almost undisturbed possession. On 2 March, 1776, Captain Hopkins, in command of the first American Navy, took possession of Nassau, in quest of ammunition, and on 17 March departed, carrying with him Governor Brown. In 1781 the Spaniards took possession and organized a government. At the treaty of Paris, in 1783, the Bahamas reverted to England. During the early Spanish possession and depopulation nothing was done for religion, and the periods of buccaneer and pirate rule precluded religious activity. With English rule came gradually the Church of England, and in the first years of the nineteenth century, the Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians made foundations in Nassau. In 1861 the Bahamas were made a bishopric of the Church of England. The inhabitants of the Bahamas are all nominally Christians, and claim allegiance to some one of the denominations named. The Baptists, served almost exclusively by native coloured preachers, are numerically the strongest. There are no reliable religious statistics.

CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE BAHAMAS

Though there existed a tradition of ruins of “religious” buildings being still visible in 1803 on Cat Island (probably dating from the temporary Spanish occupation of 1781–83), there is no evidence of any Catholic priest ever having visited the Bahamas until 1845, when a Father Duquesney, on a voyage from Jamaica to Charleston, S. C., U. S. A. made a stay of six weeks at Nassau, and held services in a private house with perhaps a few Catholic Cubans or Haitians present. In 1863 Rev. J. W. Cummings of New York, and in 1865 a Rev. T. Byrne spent each a few weeks in Nassau, and conducted services. Beginning with 1866, the Rev. Dr. Nelligan of Charleston made several visits, and the Bahamas were recognized in the public prints as belonging ecclesiastically to Charleston, S.C. In 1883 Bishop H.P. Northrop of that diocese paid a short visit. At his request the Propaganda, in a letter dated 28 July, 1885, requested the Archbishop of New York to look after the spiritual interests of the Bahamas, and since that date they have been under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of New York.

In February, 1885, the Rev. C. G. O’Keeffe of New York, while visiting Nassau, organized the few Catholics, with the result that on 25 August, 1885, the cornerstone of the first Catholic Church in the Bahamas was laid by Georgina Ayde-Curran, wife of Surgeon Major Ayde-Curran of the British Army. On 13 February, 1887, it was dedicated under the patronage of St. Francis Xavier, by Archbishop M. A. Corrigan of New York. Father O’Keeffe, to whom belongs the honour of establishing the first Catholic Church in the Bahamas, remained in charge till 1889. In October, 1889, Rev. D. P. O’Flynn came to Nassau with four Sisters of Charity from Mount St. Vincent, New York, who at once opened a free school for coloured children, and a select school. In June, 1890, Rev. D. P. O’Flynn was succeeded by Rev. B. J. Reilly. In February, 1891, the Rev. Chrysostom Schreiner, O. S. B., of St. John’s Abbey, Minnesota, took charge of the mission, and since 1894, two other Benedictine Fathers have been associated with him in the work. In 1893 a new mission was opened at Salvador Point, Andros Island, and in 1897, the Sacred Heart mission was opened in the eastern portion of the city of Nassau. There are therefore, at present St. Francis Xavier’s Church, and Sacred Heart Chapel in Nassau, with each of which is connected a free school, taught by the Sisters of Charity, and an Academy by the same sisters. At St. Saviour’s Mission, Andros Island, there is a free school taught by a lay teacher. The statistics of the mission for 1906 are as follows: 1 church and 2 chapels; 3 Benedictine Fathers, the superior of the mission bearing the title of Vicar Forane of the Bahamas; 9 Sisters of Charity; 1 academy; 3 free schools with an attendance of 470 pupils. Total Catholic population 360.

Turks and Caicos Islands, situated to the north of Haiti, belonging geographically to the Bahama group, were separated from the other Bahamas in 1848, and made a political dependency of Jamaica. There is no Catholic population. Grand Turk, whose one industry is salt-raking, is the seat of the commissioner. It is occasionally visited by priests from Jamaica.

Colonial Office List; Memoirs of Peter H. Bruce (London, 1782); CATESBY, Natural History of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahamas (London, 1770); McKINNON, Tour in the West Indies (London, 1804); IVES, The Isles of Summer (New Haven, Conn., 1880); POWLES, The Land of the Pink Pearl (London, 1888); STARK, History and Guide to the Bahamas (Boston, 1891); NORTHCROFT, Sketches of Summerland (Nassau, 1906). The last named is the most complete and reliable; LESTER, In Sunny Isles, (1897).

CHRYSOSTOM SCHREINER.

Thomas Bailey

Controversialist, died c. 1657. He was son of Bishop Bailey of Bangor and was educated as an Anglican at Magdalen College, Cambridge, where he graduated B.A., in 1627 and M.A., in 1631. After ordination he was appointed SubDean of Wells (1638). During the Civil wars he retired to Oxford where he proceeded Doctor of Divinity. He was a stanch royalist and after the battle of Naseby was for a time in the king’s retinue at Raglan Castle. Subsequently through the help of the Marquess of Worcester, who was a Catholic, he travelled abroad and thus became acquainted with Catholic life, which led to his conversion. On his return he published a work of strong royalist tendencies to prove the divine right of Episcopacy; this book gave offence to Cromwell’s government and resulted in his arrest and imprisonment in Newgate. While a prisoner he wrote another book called “Herba parietis (The Wall-flower), in allusion to his captive state. After his release he retired to Italy, where he obtained employment in the household of Cardinal Ottoboni at Ferrara. He died shortly before the Restoration, probably in the cardinal’s employ, although Anthony à Wood repeats a rumour that he died at Bologna as a common soldier. Among the works published in his name is a life of Blessed John Fisher, which has given rise to some difficulty, for it was written by Dr. Richard Hall in 1559, nearly a century before. Bailey published it with additions which the martyr’s latest biographer, Rev. T. Bridgett, describes as “nothing verbiage and blunders.” He adds that some of the additions “are palpably false and have brought discredit upon Hall.” It was suggested by Dodd that Bailey’s name was added without his knowledge by the bookseller, but if the preface signed T.B. be genuine he certainly claimed authorship, a fact which does not enhance his reputation. His authentic works are: “Certamen Religiosum” (London, 1649), an account of the conference concerning religion between Charles I and the Marquess of Worcester; answered by L’Estrange, Cartwright, and Heylyn; “The Royal Charter granted unto Kings by God Himself” (London, 1649, 1656, 1680); “Herba parietis” London, 1650); “The End to Controversie” (Douai, 1654); “Golden Apothegins of Charles I and Henry, Marquess of Worcester” (London, 1660). Bailey also completed and published Bishop Lindsell’s edition of Theophylact. The book mentioned in Walton’s “Life of Bishop Sanderson” as “Dr. Bailey’s Challenge” may be a separate work but more probably is merely a reference to one of the above.

COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., III, s. v. Bayly; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.; DODD, Church History (1737–42), III, 64; WOOD, Athen. Oxon., ed. BLISS, II, 526; BRIDGETT, Life of Fisher (1890), preface.

EDWIN BURTON

Charles-François Baillargeon

A French-Canadian bishop, b. 26 April, 1798, at Ile-aux-Grues, P. Q.; d. 13 October, 1870. He studied theology at the Seminary of Quebec, where he taught rhetoric. Ordained in 1822, he was successively chaplain at St. Roch, pastor of St. François, Isle of Orleans, of the joint parishes of L’Ange-Gardien and Chateau-Richer. While rector of Notre Dame de Quebec, he displayed apostolic zeal and charity during three visitations of cholera (1832, 1834, 1849), and the horrors of typhus (1847), assisting many Irish orphans. He was made Bishop of Tloa and coadjutor to Archbishop Turgeon of Quebec, 23 February, 1851; being the first Canadian bishop since the conquest appointed without the intervention of the British Crown. He became administrator in 1855 and succeeded as Archbishop of Quebec, 26 August, 1867. He attended the Vatican Council. He published a French translation, with commentary, of the New Testament (2d ed., 1865), lauded by Pius IX, “Recueil d’Ordonnances” (1859), and over thirty important Pastoral Letters, besides many other official documents.

PAQUET, Mgr. Baillargeon (Quebec, 1870); LEGARÉ, Eloge de Mgr. C.-F. Baillargeon (ibid., 1871); TETU, Les Evêques de Quebec (ibid., 1889).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Adrien Baillet

French author, b. 1649 at Neuville en Hez, near Beauvais, France; d. at Paris, 1706. His parents were poor, but the Cordeliers of La Garde, struck by the boy’s piety and alertness of mind, took him into their monastery and then had him admitted to the College of Beauvais, where, at the close of his studies, he became teacher of humanities. Ordained priest in 1676, he served for a time as curate of Lardieu and was then made canon of Beaumont, but neither pastoral nor canonical functions satisfied him. At the end of four years his love of learning took him to Paris, where he secured the place of librarian to the celebrated de Lamoignon. An insatiable reader and a rigid ascetic, he spent his life in the seclusion of study and austerity. In a comparatively short time he had made an analytical catalogue, in thirty-two folios, of Lamoignon’s library. The great mass of erudition thus acquired soon passed into innumerable books. His writings may be divided into three groups: (1) Erudition, (2) History, (3) Religion. To the first group belong: “Jugements des savants sur les priucipaux ouvrages des auteurs” (1685); “Des auteurs déguisés” (1690); “Des enfants célèbres” (1688). With the exception of the last, which still attracts by its curiousness, these books are now almost forgotten, both because they are incomplete and because they have been more than replaced by the works of such writers as Brunet, Querard, Barbier, etc. Baillet’s criticisms were not accepted by all. Ménage, who thought himself ill-treated, wrote the “Anti-Baillet” to which Baillet replied by “Des satires personnelles” (1682). La Monnoie published a revised edition of all the foregoing books, to which he joined by way of introduction an “Abrégé de la vie de M. Baillet” (Paris, 1722; Amsterdam, 1725).

To the second group belong: “Histoire de Hollande” (1690); “Vie de Descartes” (1692); “Vie de Godefroy Hermant”; “Vie de Richer” (1693); “Histoire des démêlés du Pape Boniface VIII avec Philippe le Bel” (1718), etc. The author shows too much sympathy for the Jansenist Hermant and the Gallican Richer. His life of Descartes is replete with interesting but rather garbled information. Lelong thought so well of the “History of the Conflict between Boniface VIII and Philippe le Bel” that he edited it (Paris, 1718).

To the third and by far the most important group belong: “Dévotion à la Vierge et le culte qui lui est dû” (Paris 1694: Tournai, 1712). The avowed purpose of this book is to clear Mariology from indiscreet devotions, but Baillet clearly overreaches himself by bluntly denying the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary and by attacking devotions sanctioned by the Church. The book was put on the “Index Expurgatorius” donec corrigatur in 1694 and 1701. The erudition displayed in “Les vies des saints, composées sur ce qul nous est resté de plus authentique et de plus assuré dans leur histoire” (Paris 1701 and 1794) is prodigious, yet the greater part of it (from January to August) was put on the Index in 1707 and 1711. The cause of that condemnation is the hypercritical spirit evinced throughout in the “Vie des Saints.” While aiming at doing away with unauthenticated miracles, Baillet comes very near casting doubt on all miraculous manifestations. Benedict XIV (De festis, II, xvi, 8) calls him a man with an intemperate mind and an ever-ready disposition to impeach even the best attested facts. The Bollandist Stilting (Acta SS., V, 458, 488) says of him, apropos of Bl. Louis Allemand: “I deem it unnecessary to refute a man who, I find, stumbles at nearly every step.” Other Bollandists reproach him for not keeping the rules he had so well laid down in his “Jugements,” and find him frequently at fault, now by excess of criticism, now by excess of credulity. Eusebius is almost the only ancient historian who finds favour with Baillet. All the other writers of hagiology are held by him in suspicion and almost in contempt. That frame of mind could not yield good results. “Some French critics in sacred biography,” says Alban Butler, in the introduction to his “Lives of the Saints,” “have tinctured their work with a false and pernicious leaven, and, under the name of criticism, established scepticism.” That sentence applies in a measure to Baillet. His contemporaries were not mistaken as to the origin of that pernicious leaven. The Bishop of Gap, Berger de Malissoles, in prohibiting the work in his diocese, wrote: “That book on a great many points of dogma and discipline savours the sentiments not only of Janseni but also of the so-called reformers.”

LA MONNOIE, Abrégé & La vie & M. Baillet (Amsterdam, 1725); HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1892); MIGNE, Diction. de biographie chrétienne (Paris, 1851).

J.F. SOLLIER

Pierre Bailloquet

Missionary among the Indians of Canada, b. 1612, at Saintes, France; d. in the Ottawa missions, 7 June, 1692. He entered the Society of Jesus at Bordeaux, 20 November, 1631, and after ordination was sent as a missionary to Canada. He arrived at Quebec in the summer of 1647, and for forty-five years labored and suffered among the savage tribes that roamed the vast territory extending from Acadia in the east to the lands of the Illinois in the far west. The hardships and privations he endured are well-nigh incredible. According to the “Relations,” he frequently had “the earth for bed and mattress, and strips of bark for a palace, which was filled less with air than with smoke”; and owing to his zeal he was often in danger of being tomahawked or burned at the stake by the savages. When almost eighty years of age and stricken with grievous infirmity, he dragged himself across the snow for leagues to go to the huts of those who were unable to come to him. He died in his eightieth year, having been sixty-one years in the religious life.

De Guilhermy, Menologe de la c. de J., Assistance de France, I, 711; Thwaites, Jesuit Relations, LXXII, 70.

E.P. SPILLANE

Thomas Baily

A Catholic clergyman, b. in Yorkshire, England; d. at Douai, France, 7 October, 1591. He was a student at Glare Hall, Cambridge, where he obtained the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1546. Soon after he became a Fellow of that house receiving the degree of Master of Arts in 1549. In 1554 he was appointed Proctor and in the following year he subscribed to the Roman Catholic Articles. About November, 1557, he was appointed Master of Glare Hall and was given the degree of Bachelor of Divinity in 1558. In the same year Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne and efforts were made by the Protestant party to gain recruits to its ranks, but Baily refused to conform to the new religion. As a consequence he was deprived of his Mastership. He next visited Louvain, where he remained until 30 January, 1576, during the interval receiving the degree of Doctor of Divinity. From Louvain he went to Douai at the invitation of Doctor Allen (afterwards Cardinal), during whose absence he usually filled the position of President of the English College both at Douai and Reims. He finally left Reims, 27 January, 1589, returning to Douai, where he remained until his death. He was associated with Cardinal Allen in the management of the College, the distribution of the labour being that Cardinal Allen had charge of the discipline, Dr. Baily the temporal affairs, and Dr. Bristow, another of Cardinal Allen’s colabourers, the studies. He was buried in the Chapel of St. Nicholas in the parish church of St. James, Douai.

COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., II, 432; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 105.

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE

Christopher Bainbridge

Archbishop of York, and Cardinal, b. at Hilton, near Appleby, in Westmoreland, probably 1464; d. at Rome, 14 July, 1514. He proceeded to Oxford, entering Queen’s College, of which he became provost in or before 1495, being about that time admitted LL.D.; he became later a liberal benefactor to his college. He held a number of benefices, including the treasurership of the Diocese of London, on Henry VII’s presentation, and Master of the Rolls, a post he held till his elevation to the See of Durham, which took place in 1507, nominated thereto by the king, who restored the temporalities of the see to him. He was consecrated on 12 December. This see he held but a short while, being translated to York the next year by a papal Bull dated 20 September, 1508. In 1509 he was sent by Henry VIII as his ambassador to Rome. Julius II created him a cardinal on 10 March, 1511, giving him the title of St. Praxedis, in reward for negotiating Henry’s adherence to the pope as against France, for which country he felt a strong antipathy all his life. As cardinal he was commissioned by Julius to lead a military expedition against Ferrara, which he successfully besieged. He endeavoured to secure from Pope Leo X the bestowal on Henry of the title of “Most Christian King” which Louis of France had forfeited by waging war against the pope; but the peace of 1514 made this project abortive. Bainbridge was poisoned by an Italian priest named Rinaldo de Modena, who acted as his steward or bursar, in revenge for a blow which the cardinal, a man of violent temper, had given him. It was hinted that the crime was perpetrated at the instigation of Sylvester de Gigiis, Bishop of Worcester, the resident English ambassador at Rome, but de Giglis exonerated himself. Bainbridge was buried in the English Hospice, now known as the English College, Rome. He was a stout upholder of Henry’s interests at the Curia.

GAIRDNER in Dict. Nat. Biogr.; WOOD, Athenæ Oxon.; GODWIN, De Præsul.; LE NEVE, Fasti; STUBBS, Episc. Succession; WEAVER, Somerset Incumbents.

HENRY N. BIRT

Peter Augustine Baines

Titular Bishop of Siga, one of the most striking figures among English Catholics at the period of Emancipation, was born at Kirkby, in Lancashire, 25 January, 1787; d. 6 July, 1843. For his early education he was sent to the English monastery at Lampspring, in Hanover, where he arrived in 1798. Four years later the monastery was suppressed by the Prussian Government, and the monks and their pupils returned to England. Some of them, Baines among the number, took refuge at the recently founded monastery at Ampleforth, in Yorkshire. It was not long before his talents and force of character brought him into prominence in the small community there. He joined the Benedictine Order, and held in succession every post of authority in the monastery, the priorship alone excepted.

In 1817 Baines left Ampleforth and was appointed to Bath, one of the most important Benedictine missions in the country. There he became a well-known figure, his sermons attracting great attention not only among Catholics, but also among Protestants. His printed letters in answer to Archdeacon Moysey created quite a stir, being commonly known as “Baines’s Defence.” His reputation continuing to increase, Bishop Collingridge, 0. S. F., Vicar Apostolic of the Western District, chose him for his co-adjutor. He received episcopal consecration as titular Bishop of Siga at the hands of Archbishop Murray, at Dublin, 1 May, 1823.

Bishop Baines soon began to formulate schemes for the future of the district, on that large scale so congenial to his mind. Realizing that, alone among the four, it was without a regular seminary for the education of its clergy, he set himself to work to supply the want. The Western District differed from the other three in that the bishop had always been chosen from among the regular clergy—Benedictines or Franciscans—and a large proportion of the missions were in their hands. Dr. Baines thought that he saw the solution of his difficulty in utilizing the new school which had been recently opened at Downside, near Bath. The fact that it was under Benedictine management appeared to him no disadvantage, and he has assured us that he meant his whole scheme to benefit his order. But he considered that a bishop should be supreme in his own seminary, and boldly proposed that the whole community of monks at Downside should be transferred from the Anglo-Benedictine Congregation, and placed under the Bishop of the Western District. The idea was not favourably received at Downside, so the bishop put forward the alternative proposition that they should exchange their property for that at Ampleforth, hoping that the members of his own monastery might take more kindly to his scheme. This proposal, however, was also refused, and there matters rested for some years.

In 1826 Bishop Baines’s health gave way, and he was ordered a long tour on the Continent. He spent the greater part of the time in Rome, and Wiseman tells us (Last Four Popes, p. 323) that Leo XII, wishing to create a Benedictine Cardinal, fixed upon Bishop Baines for that dignity, and was only prevented by death from carrying out his intention. Bishop Collingridge died 3 March, 1829, the same year in which Catholic Emancipation was passed, and Bishop Baines returned to England, in restored health, to succeed as vicar Apostolic. He at once revived his scheme for the seminary at Downside, and, having failed to secure the consent of the monks, he put forward the contention that the monasteries at Downside and Ampleforth had never been canonically erected, for, owing to the unsettled condition of the English mission, the formality of obtaining the written consent of the ordinary had been overlooked. He drew the drastic conclusion that all the monastic vows had been invalid, and that the property belonged to the bishops. The case was argued out in Rome, but it was considered that, even if the strict law was on Bishop Baines’s side, equity demanded that the rights of the Benedictines should be maintained, and a sanatio was issued by papal authority, making good any possible defects in the past. Leave was given, however, for four of the Ampleforth monks, including the prior, to be secularized. They left, together with thirty of the boys, to join Bishop Baines, who had himself been secularized, in founding a new college. The site chosen was Prior Park, a large mansion outside Bath, which Bishop Baines bought, and he set to work to build two colleges at either end of the “mansion house,” which he dedicated to St. Peter and St. Paul respectively, the former being intended as a lay college, the latter as a seminary. He seems to have had visions of a Catholic University as a sequel to Emancipation, and Prior Park was intended to be its centre.

The new college thus opened under most favourable auspices; but it never became really prosperous. The buildings were on too vast a scale for the number of students, and the older clergy viewed askance an undertaking which they feared would absorb all the resources of the diocese. To add to the difficulties, in the year 1836 a destructive fire almost completely consumed the interior of the mansion, involving fresh outlay in making good the damage. In 1840 the number of vicariates in England was raised from four to eight, Wales being separated off into a district of its own. Bishop Baines continued over the Western District for three years more, when his sudden death took place. On the 4th of July, 1843, he distributed the prizes at Prior Park; the following day he preached at the opening of the new church of St. Mary on the Quay, Bristol, returning to Prior Park in the evening, apparently in his usual health; but the following morning he was found dead in his bed. His funeral at Prior Park was conducted with the solemnity due to his position and his personality; but when, some years later, the college was sold, his body was removed to Downside, where it rests to-day.

Many of Bishop Baines’s sermons, pastorals, etc., were published, and some ran to several editions. An oil painting of him, formerly at Prior Park, is now at the Bishop’s House (St. Ambrose), Clifton There is an engraving in the Catholic Directory for 1844.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.; KENT in Dict. Nat. Biog.; BRADY, Episcopal Succession; OLIVER, Collections; WISEMAN, Last Four Popes; BIRT, Downside; ALMOND, Hist. Of Ampleforth; Memoir in Cath. Directory, 1844.

BERNARD WARD

Ralph Baines

Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, England, b. at Knowsthorp, Yorks, date of birth uncertain; d. 18 November, 1559. Educated at St. John’s College, Cambridge, he was ordained priest at Ely, 1519. Rector of Hardwicke in Cambridgeshire until 1544 when he went to Paris where he became Professor of Hebrew. In 1553 he returned to England and was consecrated Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, 18 November, 1554. He vigorously opposed the Reformers and was one of the eight defenders of Catholic doctrine at the Westminster Conference 1558–59. On the accession of Elizabeth he was deprived of his bishopric (21 June, 1559) and committed to the care of Grindal, Protestant Bishop of London, thus becoming one of the eleven imprisoned bishops. The recent researches of the Rev. G. Philips (op. cit., inf.), who has exhaustively treated the question of the imprisonment of these bishops, prove that, though nominally a guest, he was in fact a strict prisoner. His captivity lasted until 18 November, 1559, when, as Pitts writes, he “died an illustrious Confessor of the Lord.” He wrote “Prima Rudimenta in linguam Hebraicam” (Paris, 1550); “Compendium Michol, hoc est absolutissimæ grammatices Davidis Chimhi” (Paris, 1554); “In Proverbia Salomonis” (Paris, 1555).

SANDERS, Report to Cardinal Moroni, 1561 (Cath. Record Soc. Pubs., 1905), I; PITTS, De Angl. Script. (1623); DODD, Church History (1688), Pt. III, ii, art. 3; COOPER, Athenæ Cantabrigienses, 1,202; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885); BRIDGETT AND KNOX, Q. Eliz. and the Cath. Hierarchy (London, 1889); PHILLIPS, Extinction of the Ancient Hierarchy (London, 1905).

EDWIN BURTON

Abbate Giuseppe Baini

Born in Rome, 21 October, 1775; died there 21 May, 1844. Baini made his first musical studies under the direction of his uncle Lorenzo Baini, a distinguished disciple of the Roman School, who introduced him into the spirit and traditions of the Palestrina style. Later Baini became the pupil and friend of Jannaconi, choirmaster of the Vatican Basilica, through whom he was admitted into the choir of the Sistine Chapel as a bass singer. In 1818 Baini was unanimously elected director of the famous choir, a position which he held till his death.

While Baini has left a considerable number of compositions (notably a ten-voiced “Miserere” which is still performed, alternately with those of Allegri and Bai, during Holy Week, by the Sistine Chapel choir), all of which are written in the style of the great period of classic polyphony, his great lifework was his “Memorie storico-critiche della, vita e delle opere di Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina” (1828). Through the translation into German of this work by Francis de Sales Kandler (Vienna, 1834), the life and labours of Palestrina’s school and period became more accessible and were a powerful influence in the revival and restoration of liturgical music which was about to take its beginning. The publication of Palestrina’s complete works was one of the results of Baini’s biography of the master. Baini lived so completely in the great musical past that he had but scant sympathy with, or understanding for, modern developments of the art. Besides the biography of Palestrina he has left a study on the theory of rhythm of the ancients under the title: “Saggio sopra l’identit à di ritmi musicali e poetici”; an unfinished history of the Sistine Chapel choir; and other essays of a critical or theoretic character.

AMBROS, Geschichte der Musik (Leipzig, 1881); REIMANN, Musik Lex. (Leipzig, 1905).

JOSEPH OTTEN

St. Baithen

An Irish monk, specially selected by St. Columba as one of the band of missionaries who set sail for Britain in 563. Born in 536, the son of Brenaron, he was an ardent disciple of St. Columba, and was appointed Abbot of Tiree Island, a monastery founded by St. Comgall of Bangor. St. Adamnan, in recording the death of St. Columba, tells us that the dying words of the Apostle of Iona, as he was transcribing the fifty-third Psalm, were: “I must stop here, let Baithen write what follows.” Baithen had been looked on as the most likely successor of St. Columba, and so it happened that on the death of that great apostle, in 596, the monks unanimously confirmed the choice of their founder. St. Baithen was in high esteem as a wise counsellor, and his advice was sought by many Irish saints, including St. Fintan Munnu of Taghmon.

St. Adamnan (Eunan), the biographer of St. Columba, tells many interesting incidents in the life of St. Baithen, but the mere fact of being the immediate successor of St. Columba, by the express wish of that apostle, is almost sufficient to attest his worth. The “Martyrology of Donegal” records the two following anecdotes. When St. Baithen partook of food, before each morsel in invariably recited “Deus in adjutorium meum intende.” Also, “when he worked in the fields, gathering in the corn along with the monks, he used to hold up one hand towards Heaven, beseeching God, while with the other hand he gathered the corn.” St. Baithen of Iona is generally known as Baithen Mor, to distinguish him from eight other saints of the same name—the affix mor meaning “the Great.” He wrote a life of his master, and some Irish poems, which are now lost, but which were seen by St= Adamnan. He only ruled Iona three years, as his death took place in the year 600, though the “Annals of Ulster” give the date as 598. Perhaps the true year may be 599. His feast is celebrated on October 6th. Some writers assert that St. Baithen of Iona is the patron of Ennisboyne, County Wicklow, but this is owing to a confusion with St. Baoithin, or Baithin mac Findech, whose feast is commemorated on 22 May. Another St. Baoithin, son of Cuana, whose feast is on 19 February, is patron of Tibohin, in Elphin.

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

Michel Baius

(Or MICHEL DE BAY).

Theologian and author of a system known as Baianism, was b. at Melun in Hainaut, 1513, and d. at Louvain 16 September, 1589. Though poor, he succeeded in procuring, in the various colleges of the Louvain University, a complete course of studies, including humanities, philosophy, and theology. His first appointment, immediately after his ordination, was as principal of the Standonk College, 1541. Three years later he was given the chair of philosophy which he retained till 1550. In that year he took the degree of Doctor of Theology, was made President of the College Adrien and also substitute to the professor of Holy Scripture, then absent at the Council of Trent, the full professorship following two years later at the titular’s death. Baius had very early formed a close friendship with John Hessels. While the three leaders of the university: Tapper, Chancellor; Ravestein, Professor of Theology; and Hasselius, Professor of Holy Scripture, were at the Council of Trent, Baius and Hessels profited by their absence to give vent to long cherished ideas and introduce new methods and new doctrines. On his return from Trent, in 1552, Chancellor Tapper found that evil influences had been at work and asked Cardinal de Granvelle, Archbishop of Mechlin, to interfere. Granvelle succeeded in quieting the innovators for awhile, but Tapper’s death, in 1559, became the signal of fresh disturbances. At the request of the Franciscans, the Sorbonne of Paris had censured eighteen propositions embodying the main innovations of Baius and Hessels. Baius answered the censure in a memoir now lost, and the controversy only increased in acridity. Pope Pius IV, through Cardinal Granvelle, imposed silence upon both Baius and the Franciscans, without, however, rendering any doctrinal decision. When the sessions of the Council of Trent were resumed, in 1561, Baius and Hessels were selected to represent the university at Trent. The papal legate, Commendone, objected to the choice of the university, but Cardinal de Granvelle thought that the two innovators’ presence at Trent would be good both for them and for the university. In 1563 he sent them to Trent, not, however, as delegates of the university, but as theologians of the King of Spain. Just before leaving for Trent Baius had published his first tracts. Unfortunately, the contents of those tracts were not within the programme of the last three sessions of the Council of Trent, and no public discussion of the disputed points took place. It is known, however, that Baius’ and Hessels’ views were distasteful to the Fathers, and that the Catholic king’s prestige alone saved them from formal condemnation.

Baius returned to Louvain in 1564 and the same year published new tracts which, with the addition of another series, were collected in “Opuscula omnia,” in 1566, the year of Hessels’ death. It is likely that Hessels collaborated with Baius in these “Opuscula.” Their defence rested now on Baius alone, and it was no small task. Ravestein, who had succeeded Tapper as chancellor, thought it was high time to call a halt, and informed Rome, requesting decisive action; 1 October, 1567, Pope Pius V signed the Bull, “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” in which were to be found a number of condemned propositions, but without mention of Baius’ name. According to the usage of the Roman Chancery, the papal document was without punctuation, divisions, or numbers. Again, as had been done before in several instances, the objectionable propositions were not censured severally, but to the whole series were applied various “notes,” from “heretical” down to “offensive.” Moreover, not only was Baius’ name not mentioned, but for obvious reasons of prudence in those days, so near the Reformation, the text itself was not to be made public. Those facts gave occasion to many quibbles on the part of the Baianists: What was the exact number of propositions?-76, 79, or 80?-Were they, or were they not, Baius’ propositions?-Why had not a copy of the Bull been given to those on whose honour it was supposed to reflect? In the famous sentence, “quas quidem sententias stricto coram nobis examine ponderatas quamquam nonnullæ aliquo pacto sustineri possent in rigore et proprio verborum sensu ab assertoribus intento hæreticas, erroneas . . . damnamus,” was the comma Pianum to be placed after intento or after possent, the meaning being reversed according as the comma came after the one or the other word? Nevertheless Baius did not stoop to these evasions at first, but when the papal Bull (1567) was brought to the university and read to the faculty, he subscribed with the other professors. Meanwhile, the text of the Bull having been divulged by some indiscreet person, Baius began to find fault with it and wrote to, or for, the pope two lengthy apologies, in vindication, he said, not so much of himself as of St. Augustine. The tone of the apologies was respectful in appearance rather than in reality. By a Brief, dated 1579, Pius V answered that the case had been maturely examined and finally adjudged, and demanded submission. After much tergiversation, wherein he stooped to the ridiculous evasion of the comma Pianum and the practical stultification of a papal act, Baius abjured to Morillon, de Granvelle’s vicargeneral, all the errors condemned in the Bull, but was not then and there required to sign his recantation. The absence of that formality contributed later to revive the discussions. In 1570, at Ravestein’s death, Baius became dean of the faculty. Then rumors went abroad that the new dean was by no means in accord with orthodox teaching. Followers and adversaries suggested a clear pronouncement. It came under the title of the “Explicatio articulorum,” in which Baius averred that, of the many condemned propositions, some were false and justly censured, some only ill expressed, while still others, if at variance with the terminology of the Scholastics, were yet the genuine sayings of the Fathers; at any rate, with more than forty of the seventynine articles he claimed to have nothing whatever to do. Baius, after two recantations, was simply reverting to his original position. The Bull was then solemnly published at Louvain, and subscribed by the whole faculty. Baius accepted it again. His apparent magnanimity even won him sympathy and preferments; he was in quick succession made Chancellor of Louvain, Dean of St. Peter’s Collegiate Church, and “conservator” of the university’s privileges. Thus was peace restored, but only for a while.

Certain inconsiderate views of the master regarding the authority of the Holy See, and even of the Council of Trent, and, on the part of his disciples, the ill disguised hope that Gregory XIII might declare void all that had been done by his predecessor, bade fair to reopen the whole question. Pope Gregory XIII would not permit this. The Bull, “Provisionis nostræ” (1579), confirmed the preceding papal acts and the Jesuit Toletus was commissioned to receive and bring to the pope the final abjuration of Baius. We have it under the name of “Confessio Michaelis Baii.” It reads, in part: “I am convinced that the condemnation of all those propositions is just and lawful. I confess that very many (plurimas) of these propositions are in my books, and in the sense in which they are condemned. I renounce them all and resolve never more to teach or defend any of them.” Despite this recantation, Baius’ errors had sunk too deep into his mind not to occasionally crop up in rash tenets. Up to the last few years of his life sad contests were raised by, or around, him, and nothing short of the official admission by the university of a compact body of doctrine could quell those contests. Baius died in the Church, to which his studiousness, attainments, and rashness came near to infringing. The evil seed he had sown bore fruits of bitterness later on in the errors of Jansenism.

HIS SYSTEM

Baius’ system has been conveniently called Baianism, as a more objective name for it would be difficult to find. It is contained in a series of opuscula, or pamphlets: “On Free Will”; “Justice and Justification”; “Sacrifice”; “Meritorious Works”; “Man’s Original Integrity and the Merits of the Wicked”; “The Sacraments”; “The Form of Baptism”; “Original Sin”; “Charity”; “Indulgences”; “Prayers for the Dead.” Baius himself collected all those pamphlets in “M. Baii opuscula theologica” (Louvain, 1566). The Marurist Gerberon gave a more complete edition: “M. Baii opera cum bullis pontificum et aliis ad ipsius causum spectantibus” (Cologne, 1696). This edition was put on the Index in 1697 on account of its second part, or “Baiana,” in which the editor gives useful information about, but shows too much sympathy for, Baius. The gist of Baianism is also found in the 79 propositions censured by Pius V (Denzinger, Enchiridion, 881–959). All cavil apart, the first 60 are easily identified in Baius’ printed works, and the remaining 19-”tales quae vulgo circumferrentur,” says an old manuscript copy of the Bull “Ex omnibus”-represent the oral teaching of the Baianist wing. In the preface to “Man’s Original Integrity” Baius says: “What was in the beginning the integrity natural to man? Without that question one can understand neither the first corruption of nature (by original sin) nor its reparation by the grace of Christ.” Those words give us the sequence of Baianism: (1) the state of innocent nature; (2) the state of fallen nature; (3) the state of redeemed nature.

(1) STATE OF INNOCENT NATURE

From the fact, so strongly asserted by the Fathers, of the actual conjunction of nature and grace in the first man, Baius infers their necessary connection or even practical identity. In his view, primitive innocence was not supernatural, at least in the ordinary acceptation of that word, but due to, and demanded by, the normal condition of humanity (which cannot, without it, remain in the state of salvation). And that primitive state, natural to man, included among its necessary requirements destination to heaven, immunity from ignorance, suffering, and death, and the inherent power of meriting. None of these was, nor could rightly be called, a gratuitous gift of grace.

(2) STATE OF FALLEN NATURE

The downfall of man is not, and cannot be, according to Baius, the mere forfeiting of gratuitous or supernatural gifts, but some positive evil reaching deep into our very nature. That evil is original sin. By original sin Baius understands, instead of a simple privation of grace, habitual concupiscence itself, transmitted according to the laws of heredity and developed according to the laws of physical and psychical growth. It is a sin or moral evil by itself, even in irresponsible children, and that outside of all relation to a will, be it original or personal. What, then, becomes of human liberty as a source of moral responsibility? Baius does not think it necessary that, in order to be moral agents, we should be free from internal determinism, but only from external compulsion. From so tainted a source, Redemption apart, only tainted actions can flow. They may sometimes appear virtuous, but it is only an appearance (vitia virtutes imitantia). In truth all human actions, not purified by Redemption, are vices pure and simple and damning vices at that (vitia sunt et damnant).

(3) STATE OF REDEEMED NATURE

The gifts of primitive innocence, forfeited by original sin, are restored by Jesus Christ. Then and then only do they become graces, not, indeed, on account of their supernatural character, but because of fallen man’s positive unworthiness. Aided by grace, the redeemed can perform virtuous actions and acquire merits for heaven. Does that entail a higher status, an inner renovation or sanctifying grace?-Baius does not consider it necessary. Moral action, whether called justice, or charity, or obedience to the law, is the sole instrument of justification and virtue and merit. The rôle of grace consists exclusively in keeping concupiscence under control, and in thus enabling us to perform moral actions and fulfil the law. True, Baius speaks of the remission of sin as necessary for justification, but this is only a fictio iuris; in fact, a catechumen before baptism, or a penitent before absolution may, by simply keeping the precepts, have more charity than certain socalled just men. If the catechumen and penitent are not styled just, it is only in deference to Holy Scripture, which requires for complete justice both newness of life (i.e. moral action) and pardon of sin (i.e. of the reatus, or liability to punishment). To grant that kind of pardon is the only object and efficacy of the sacraments of the dead, baptism and penance. With regard to the sacraments of the living, the Eucharist-the only one on which Baius expressed his views-has no other sacrificial value than that of being a good moral action drawing us close to God.

A mere glance at the above sketch cannot fail to reveal a strange mixture of Pelagianism, Calvinism, and even Socinianism. Baius is a Pelagian in his concept of the primitive state of man. He is a Calvinist in his presentation of the downfall. He is more than a Lutheran and little short of the Socinian in his theory of Redemption. Critics know that all these errors were in a manner harmonized in Baius’ mind, but they are not agreed as to what may have been the genetic principle of that theological formation. Some find it in the 38th proposition: “Omnis amor creaturæ rationalis aut vitiosa est cupiditas, quâ mundus diligitur, quæ a Joanne prohibetur, aut laudabilis illa charitas, quâ per spiritum sanctum in corde diffusâ Deus amatur” (The rational creature’s love is either vicious desire, with its attachment to the world, which St. John forbids, or that praiseworthy charity which is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, and through which God is loved). Others see it in a wrong analysis of man, the higher faculties, appertaining to the moral and religious life, being violently torn apart from the lower powers, and so magnified as to become identical with grace and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Others, again, think it is optimism in appraising man’s native condition, or pessimism in gauging his condition after sin, the result being the same with regard to the value of Redemption. Taking the question from an historical standpoint, we find that Baius was from the beginning a humanist with a perfect enthusiasm for Christian antiquity in general, St. Paul and St. Augustine in particular, and a dislike almost amounting to abhorrence for the thoughts and methods of medieval schoolmen. The selfassumed task of interpreting the Apostle of the Gentiles and the great African Doctor apart from the traditional current of Scholastic thought was perhaps an impossibility in itself, but certainly one for Baius’ limited erudition and paradoxical mind. To this allabsorbing mania, much more than to a lack of sincere loyalty to the Church, must we trace Baius’ blindness to the already defined dogmas and his halfrevolts against the living magisterium. A partial explanation of, if not excuse for, that monomania is, however, found in the fact that at the very outset of his theological career Baius came under the influence of men who, like the Dominican Peter de Soto, believed the Catholic reaction against the Reformers had gone somewhat too far, and suggested that more stress be laid on Scripture and Patrology and less on Thomism. That, in his intention at least, Baius only wanted to take the most advantageous position in order the better to defend the Faith against heretics, we know from a letter he wrote (1569) to Cardinal Simonetta: “After reading Peter the Lombard and some other Scholastic Doctor, I endeavoured to bring theology back to Holy Scripture and the writings of the Fathers, those at least who still enjoy some credit with the heretics: Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Leo, Prosper, Gregory, and the like.” Such are the various causes which may in a measure account for the position taken by Baius. The chronology of his writings teaches us little more. It fails to give us a true insight into the logical development of his thought. It may be, after all, that each of the abovementioned genetic principles held priority in his mind at different times and in different needs.

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

The Catholic teaching, already outlined against the Pelagians by various councils and popes from the fifth century, is fully presented against the Reformers by the Council of Trent, especially Session V, Decree on Original Sin, and Session VI, Decree on Justification. In those two sessions, both anterior to Baius’ writings, we find three statements which are obviously irreconcilable with Baius’ three main positions described above: (1) Man’s original justice is represented as a supernatural gift; (2) Original Sin is described not as a deep deterioration of our nature, but as the forfeiture of purely gratuitous privileges; (3) Justification is depicted as an interior renovation of the soul by inherent grace. The condemnation by Pius V of the 79 Baianist tenets is an act of the supreme magisterium of the Church, an ex cathedrâ pronouncement. To say, with the Baianists, that the papal act condemns not the real and concrete tenets of the Louvain professor, but only certain hypothetical or imaginary propositions; to pretend that the censure is aimed not at the underlying teaching, but only at the vehemence or harshness of the outward expressions, is to practically stultify the pontifical document. From the tenor of the Bull, “Ex Omnibus,” we know that to each of the 79 propositions one or several or all of the following censures will apply: hæretica, erronea, suspecta, temeraria, scandalosa, in pias aures offendens. For a more precise determination of the Catholic doctrine, we have to consult, besides the Council of Trent, the consensus Catholicorum theologorum. That consensus was voiced with no uncertainty by such universities as Paris, Salamanca, Alcalá, and Louvain itself, and by such theologians as Cunerus Petri (d. 1580-”De gratiâ,” Cologne, 1583); Suarez (d. 1617-”De gratiâ Dei” in Op. Omn., VII, Paris, 1857); Bellarmine (d. 1623-”De gratiâ et libero arbitrio,” in Controversiæ, IV, Milan, 1621); Ripalda (d. 1648-”Adversus Baium et Baianos,” Paris, 1872); Stayaert (d. 1701-”In propositiones damnatas assertiones,” Louvain, 1753); Tournely (d. 1729-”De Gratiâ Christi,” Paris, 1726); Casini (d. 1755-”Quid est homo?” ed. Scheeben, Mainz, 1862). It should not, however, be omitted here that, even apart from Jansenism, which is a direct offshoot of Baianism, some traces of Baius’ confused ideas about the natural and the supernatural are to be found here and there in the history of theology. The Augustinian School, represented by such able men as Noris, Bellelli, and Berti, adopted, though with qualifications, the idea of man’s natural aspiration to the possession of God and beatific vision in Heaven. The standard work of that school, “Vindiciæ Augustinianæ,” was even once denounced to the Holy See, but no censure ensued. More recently Stattler, Hermes, Günther, Hirscher, and Kuhn evolved a notion of the supernatural which is akin to that of Baius. While admitting relatively supernatural gifts, they denied that the partaking of Divine nature and the adoption to eternal life differ essentially from our natural moral life. That theory was successfully opposed by Kleutgen and seems now to have died out. The new French theory of “immanence,” according to which man postulates the supernatural, may also have some kinship with Baianism, but it can only be mentioned here as it is yet the centre of rather fervid discussions. Matulewicz, “Doctrina Russorum de Statu iustitiæ originalis” (Cracow, 1903), says that modern Russian theology embodies in great measure the condemned views of Baius.

Besides works mentioned in article, DUCHESNE, Histoire du Baianisme (Douai, 1731); DE LA CHAMBRE, Traité historique et dogmatique sur la doctrine de Baius (s.1., 1739); LIGUORI, Trionfo della chiesa (Naples, 1772); LINSENMAN, Michel Baius (Tübingen, 1867); SCHEEBEN in Kirchenlex., s. v., and in Der Katholik (Mainz, 1868); SCHWANE-DEGERT, Histoire des dogmas (Paris, 904), VI; LE BACHELET in Dict. de théol. cath., s. v.; WILHELM AND SCANNELL, Manual of Catholic Theology (New York, 1906); KROLL, The Causes of the Jansenist Heresy in Am. Cath. Quart. (1885), 577.

J.F. SOLLIER

Ven. Charles Baker

(Recté, according to his own entry in the English College David Henry Lewis).

An English Jesuit martyr, born in Monmouthshire in 1616; died at Usk, 27 August, 1679. His father, Morgan Lewis, was a lax Catholic, afterwards converted; his mother, Margaret Pritchard, was a very devout Catholic. David was brought up as a Protestant, and educated at the Royal Grammar School at Abergavenny, of which his father was the head master. In his sixteenth year, he spent three months in Paris as companion to the son of Earl Rivers, and there was received into the Church by a Father Talbot, S.J. On returning to England he remained with his parents till their death and then, having a desire for the priesthood, went to Rome, where he was admitted as an alumnus to the English College, 3 November, 1638. He was ordained priest in 1642, and entered the novitiate of the Society at Sant’ Andrea, 16 April, 1644. In 1647 he was sent to the English mission, but was quickly recalled and made Spiritual Father at the Roman College. In 1648 he returned to England finally, and was assigned to the South Wales District, where he labored zealously for twenty-eight years. It is told of him that to avoid the persecutors, he used to take long and dangerous journeys at night that he might be able to visit the faithful under cover of darkness, and that his devotedness gained for him the title Father of the Poor.

In the summer of 1678, Titus Oates came forward with his pretended revelations, and Parliament in a frenzy of bigotry offered fresh rewards for the discovery and arrest of priests and Jesuits. Father David was one of the victims. A bigoted Calvinist magistrate named Arnold, who had hitherto professed friendship for him, caused him to be arrested at Llantarnam in Monmouthshire, 17 November, 1678. He was carried in a sort of triumphal procession to Abergavenny, where, in allusion to one article of Oates’ fabrications, he was shown to the people as “the pretended Bishop of Llandaff.” He was then committed for trial, and meanwhile imprisoned, first at Monmouth and then at Usk. The trial came off at Monmouth, 16 March, 1679. It was impossible to connect Father David with the pretended Popish Plot, so he was charged under the Statute of 27 Elizabeth, which made it high treason to take orders abroad in the Church of Rome and afterwards to return to England and say Mass. The trial was not too fairly conducted, and the witnesses were of a worthless class. Still the breach of the law was undeniable, and he was condemned to undergo the barbarous penalties which the law prescribed. For the moment, indeed, he was reprieved, and taken up to London, to be confronted with Oates and his associates. It was hoped that he might be induced to save his life either by apostasy or by inculpating some others in the Plot. But this hope proved vain, he was sent back to Monmouthshire, and his sentence was carried out at Usk. The cause of his beautification was introduced, under the name of “David Lewis, alias Charles Baker” by the Decree of 4 December, 1886.

Corbett, State Trials, VII; Florus Anglo-Bavaricus (1685); Challoner, Memoirs of Missionary Priests; Foley, Records of the English Province, S.J.; Gillow, Bib. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v.

SYDNEY F. SMITH

David Augustine Baker

A well-known Benedictine mystic and an ascetic writer, born at Abergavenny, England, 9 December, 1575; died of the plague in London, 9 August, 1641. His father was William Baker, steward to Lord Abergavenny, his mother, a daughter of Lewis ap John (alias Wallis), Vicar of Abergavenny. He was educated at Christ’s Hospital and at Broadgate’s Hall, now Pembroke College Oxford, afterwards becoming a member of Clifford’s Inn, and later of the Middle Temple. At Oxford he lost his faith in the existence of God, but after some years, being in extreme peril of death, he escaped by what appeared to him a miracle. Following up the light thus given him, he was led to the threshold of the Catholic Church, and was received into its fold. In 1605 he joined the Benedictine Order at Padua, but ill-health obliged him to postpone his religious profession, and he returned home to find his father on the point of death. Having reconciled him to the Church and assisted him in his last moments, Father Baker hastened to settle his own worldly affairs and to return to the cloister. He was professed by the Italian Fathers in England as a member of the Cassinese Congregation, but subsequently aggregated to the English Congregation. At the desire of his superiors he now devoted his time and the ample means which he had inherited, to investigating and refuting the recently started error that the ancient Benedictine congregation in England was dependent on that of Cluny, founded in 910. He was immensely helped in his studies and researches for this purpose by the Cottonian Library which contained so many of the spoils of the old Benedictine monasteries in England, and which its generous founder placed entirely at his disposal. In collaboration with Father Jones and Father Clement Reyner he embodied the fruit of these researches in the volume entitled “Apostolatus Benedictorum in Anglia.” At Sir Robert Cotton’s Father Baker came in contact with the antiquary, William Camden, and with other learned men of his day. In 1624 he was sent to the newly established convent of Benedictine nuns at Cambrai, not as chaplain, but to aid in forming the spiritual character of the religious. Here he remained for about nine years, during which time he wrote many of his ascetical treatises, an abstract of which is contained in the valuable work “Sancta Sophia” compiled by Father Serenus Cressy. In 1633 he removed to Douai, where he wrote his long treatise on the English mission, but he was nearly worn out with his austerities before the order came for him to proceed to the battle-field. During his short sojourn in London, Father Baker was forced frequently to change his abode in order to avoid the pursuivants who were on his track. It was not, however, as a martyr that he was to end his days, but as a victim of the plague to which he succumbed in the sixty-sixth year of his age. Of upwards of thirty treatises chiefly on spiritual matters written by Father Baker, many are to be found in manuscript at Downside, Ampleforth, Stanbrook, and other Benedictine monasteries in England. An adequate biography of this master of the ascetic life is still a desideratum.

SWEENEY, Life and Spirit of Father Baker (London, 1861); DODD, Church History, III, 112; WOOD, Athenae Oxon, ed. BLISS, III, 7; Cotton.MS., Julius C., III, f.12; EVANS, Portraits, 12,348–12,349; Dublin Review, New Series, XXVII,337; The Rambler, March, 1851, p.214; COXE, Cat. Codd. MSS. Collegii Jesu, Oxon., 25–30; WELDON, Chronological Notes; Catalogue of Rawlinson MSS.; COOPER in Dict. of Nat. Biog.

J. M. STONE.

Francis Asbury Baker

Priest of the Congregation of St. Paul the Apostle, born Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A., 30 March, 1820; died 4 April, 1865. Father Baker was a son of Dr. Samuel Baker, a physician of note in Baltimore. He was graduated from Princeton College in 1839. His parents, whom he lost early in life, had been Methodists, but their surviving children joined the Episcopal Church. He took orders in that communion, and was ordained a presbyter in September, 1846. His career promised to be not only successful but brilliant. Possessed of many mental gifts, he had, moreover, refinement, wealth, and an engaging personality; he was deeply pious, thoroughly consecrated to his chosen work. He was assigned at first as an assistant at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Baltimore, and six years later was named rector of St. Luke’s Church in the same city. He took rank at once as an eloquent preacher.

The Oxford Movement coincided with the years of his preparation and early ministry, and its influence in the United States resulted in the conversion of many distinguished men. It was not possible that an intelligent and sincere man like Baker could remain unmoved amid the awakening and the return to Catholic principles which the study of primitive and patristic history and theology caused. The severance of intimate ties cost him much, but he obeyed the call and in April, 1853, made his profession of faith. Attracted to the religious state, he entered the Redemptorist Order, was ordained priest in the Cathedral of Baltimore, 21 September, 1856, and began forthwith a laborious but most fruitful career as a missionary. The Redemptorists had inaugurated in 1851 the work of giving missions to the English-speaking Catholics of the United States, and the flood of immigration, then at its height, made the work exhausting and continuous. The missionary band included Fathers Hecker, Walworth, Hewit, and Deshon, all converts and all Americans, an unusually strong and varied combination, and to them Father Baker proved a welcome acquisition. He brought to his work the zeal of an apostle, a matured and persuasive eloquence, and the attraction of a character at once magnetic and saintly. Nor are these the words of mere eulogy. The recollections of the generation which listened to him, the judgment of competent critics, the numerous conversions, the abiding impressions he effected, the evidences which his printed sermons display of oratorical gifts—all entitle Father Baker to a high place among Catholic preachers.

In his sermons we find a blending of argumentation with appeal, a diction at once forceful and finished, and an apt and abundant use of Holy Scripture, which, combining with his earnest and digified delivery, gave to his message a powerful effect. Leaving the Redemptorists with Fathers Hecker, Walworth, Hewitt, and Deshon, for the purpose of organizing a special missionary community for English parishes, he shared with them the labour of founding the Paulist Institute. It was he who gave the impulse and established the tradition of rubrical exactitude and ceremonial splendour which have continued to be a characteristic of that community. He died of typhoid pneumonia contracted in ministering to the sick.

HEWIT, Memoir of the Life of the Rev. Francis A. Baker (New York, 1865); Sermons of the Rev. Francis A. Baker (New York, 1896); WALWORTH, The Oxford Movement in the U.S. (New York, 1895).

MICHAEL PAUL SMITH

Diocese of Baker City

Comprises Wasco, Klamath, Lake, Sherman, Gilliam, Wheeler, Morrow, Grant, Union, Crook, Umatilla, Wallowa, Baker, Harney, and Malheur counties in the State of Oregon, U.S.A., an area of 65,683 square miles. It was established in 1903. The Rev. Charles J. O’Reilly, rector of the Church of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Portland, Oregon, and editor of the “Catholic Sentinel” was named its first bishop and consecrated 25 August of that year. The diocese has a Catholic population estimated at about 4,000, whose spiritual needs are cared for by ten diocesan and seven Franciscan and Jesuit priests. The Sisters of St. Francis, St. Dominic, and the Most Holy Name of Jesus and Mary conduct five schools and academies. At the Umatilla Indian reservation there are more than 500 Catholic Indians attended by the Jesuit fathers of the Rocky Mountain Mission, two Brothers of Christian Instruction, and eight Sisters of St. Francis. There are 13 churches and 36 mission stations in the diocese.

Bishop O’Reilly was born 4 January, 1862, at St. John, New Brunswick, Canada, and educated at the Christian Brothers’ school of St. John and at St. Joseph’s College, Memramcook. He made his theological studies at the Grand Seminary, Montreal, and was ordained priest at Portland 29 June, 1890. He was then appointed to the mission of Oswego and Tegardville, and in February, 1894 was made rector of the Church of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Portland.

Catholic Sentinel (Portland, August, 1903) files; The Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, 1907).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Thomas Bakócz

Cardinal and statesman, b. about 1442, in the village of Erdoed, county Szatmar, Northeastern Hungary; d. 15 June, 1521. His family belonged to the lower class, but was raised to the rank of nobility by his older brother Valentine. Through the generosity of this same brother he was enabled to pursue a thorough course of studies first in the town of Szatmár-Németi, then in Cracow, Poland, and finally in the Italian cities of Ferrara and Padua. He returned to his native country about the year 1470, with the doctor’s degree, and soon after made the acquaintance of a distinguished ecclesiastic from Italy, Gabriel Rangoni, who enjoyed the confidence of King Matthias (1458–90) and held high positions in Hungary. By this prelate Bakócz was introduced to the king about the year 1474; and through a fortunate incident he attracted the attention of his sovereign. He was retained at court, employed in the chancery, and soon became secretary to the king and substitute of the royal chancellor. In 1480 he received a provostship in the town of Titel, Southern Hungary; and in 1486 he was promoted to the Bishopric of Raab. After the death of King Matthias in 1490 Bakócz took an active part in the selection of a new ruler; and when his candidate, Ladislaus II (1490–1516), a Polish prince and King of Bohemia, was chosen, Bakócz was made chancellor of the realm. As such he became the real ruler of his country, whose destinies he directed with firmness and skill. He concluded advantageous treaties with other powers, and made the alliance with Venice the pivot of his foreign policy. On that account he kept Hungary out of the League of Cambrai formed in 1508 between Pope Julius II (1503–13), France, Span, and the Emperor Maximilian (1493–1519) against Venice. No wonder that the authorities of Venice vied with King Ladislaus in securing honours and riches for the powerful and ambitious prelate.

When the Bishopric of Erlau became vacant in 1491, Bakócz was appointed to it by the king. Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) at first opposed, but later ratified, the appointment in 1492; and shortly afterwards, in December of the same year, transferred Backócz to the primatial See of Gran. In addition to this Bakócz was created cardinal in 1500, and made Patriarch of Constantinople in 1507. The republic of Venice gladly assigned to him the revenues which were found within its own territory and attached to the patriarchal title. Not satisfied with all this Bakócz aspired to the papal throne, and received assurances of support the Emperor Maximilian and from Venice; however, adverse circumstances prevented the realization of these hopes. A man of such prominence had necessarily his part in the ecclesiastical events of a general character. When in 1510 several cardinals rebelled against Pope Julius II, both sides tried to win him for their plans. Bakócz maintained a waiting attitude, until the pope, in 1511, condemned the schismatic Council of Pisa and announced that a general synod would be held in the Lateran in 1512. Bakócz was invited to this council, and without further hesitation he sailed on a Venetian ship to Ancona, and arrived in Rome in January, 1512, where he was received by the pope with much pomp and splendour. In the council, which opened the following May, Bakócz took an active part; he was on the committee for the reform of the Church and the Roman Curia. After the death of Pope Julius II, early in 1513, and during the conclave, it became evident that he had little prospect of winning the papal tiara; in fact on the 10th of March Cardinal Medici was chosen as Leo X (1513–21).

The new pope secured at once the service of the influential Bakócz for a crusade against the Turks. He appointed the primate a legate a latere not only for Hungary but also for the neighbouring countries, and granted to him most ample faculties. After his return to Hungary in 1514 Bakócz made preparations at once for the expedition, and soon an army of about 100,000 soldiers was gathered under the leadership of George Dozsa. Unfortunately the nobles were opposed to the enterprise, and the whole matter ended in a civil war between them and the Crusaders, in which the nobility remained victorious. After the death of King Ladislaus II in 1516 the influence of Bakócz ceased almost completely; the last years of his life were spent more in retirement. He was a man of the world, very ambitious, and not always tender in the choice of the means to an end. Out of his large fortune, and through his influential position, hr provided in a princely manner for the members of his family. Owing to the great power so long wielded by him, he made many enemies among his own countrymen, whose opposition triumphed in the end. With all that his personal conduct was blameless; not even a shadow of suspicion was cast upon his character by his enemies. He was deeply religious, and had a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin, in whose honour he fitted out a chapel in the Cathedral of Erlau, and built one near that of Gran. In the latter, a magnificent structure of the Renaissance, his remains found their last resting place.

Fraknot, Erdodi Bakócz Tamais (Budapest, 1889); Danko, in Kirchenlex s. v. Bakacz (Freiburg, 1886), I.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Balaam

The derivation of the name is uncertain. Dr. Neubauer would connect it with the god Ammo or Ammi, as though Balaam belonged to a people whose god or lord was Ammo or Ammi. It is certainly remarkable that Balaam is said (Num., xxii, 5) to come from “the land of the children of Ammo” (D.V. reads “Ammon”).

THE NARRATIVE

The story of Balaam is contained in Numbers, chapters xxii-xxiv; xxvi, 8–16; Deut., xxiii, 4; Josue, xiii, 22; and xxiv, 9–10. There are also references to him in Nehemias, xiii, 2; Micheas, vi, 5; II Peter, ii, 15; Jude, 11; and Apoc., ii, 14. Balac, King of Moab, alarmed at Israel’s victories over the Amorrhites, sent messengers with presents to Balaam, son of Beor, who dwelt in Pethor (the Pitru of the cuneiform texts) to induce him to come and curse Israel. For in those early times, men attached great importance to a curse, as, for instance, that of a father on his child; and Balaam had a special reputation in this matter: “I know,” said Balac to him through his messengers, “that he whom thou shalt bless is blessed, and he whom thou shalt curse is cursed.” When the messengers had delivered their message, Balaam consulted the Lord as to whether he should go or stay, and being refused permission to go, in the morning he gave a negative answer to the ambassadors. Nothing daunted, Balac sent another embassy, composed of men of higher rank, princes, with directions to offer Balaam anything he liked, provided only he would come and curse Israel. Again Balaam consulted the Lord and obtained permission to go, on condition that he undertook to do what God commanded. In view of what follows, some commentators think that this leave was extorted by importunity, and that Balaam was actuated in making his request by mercenary motives, and had fully made up his mind to curse Israel.

The next morning Balaam saddled his ass and set out with the princes of Moab. On the way, the ass manifested every sign of alarm; it swerved suddenly from the path, crushed Balaam’s leg against a wall and finally sank to the ground under him, so that Balaam cruelly beat it and even threatened it with death. Then the ass was endowed by God with the power of speech, and upbraided its master with his cruelty towards it. At the same time Balaam’s eyes were opened and he saw the cause of the ass’s strange conduct, viz. an angel of the Lord standing in the way with drawn sword to bar his passage. The angel upbraided Balaam with his cruel conduct towards the ass and told him that it was the action of the ass which had saved his life. Finally, he permitted Balaam to continue his journey, but only on condition that he would speak nothing but what he commanded. Balac met Balaam on the borders of Arnon, and they went together to Kiriathhuzoth, where sacrifices were duly offered. The following day, Balac took Balaam to BamothBaal, whence he could see the outskirts of the host of Israel. Seven bullocks and seven rams having been sacrificed, and Balaam having gone apart to consult the Lord, the prophet returned to Balac and refused to curse Israel. On the contrary, he eulogized them: “Who,” he said, “can count the dust of Jacob or number the fourth part of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous, and my last end be like his.”

Then Balac took Balaam to the top of Mount Phasga, to see if from there he would not curse Israel. But, after the same rites and formalities had been gone through, Balaam again pronounced a blessing on the Israelites, more emphatic than the former: “Behold, I have received commandment to bless. And he hath blessed, and I cannot reverse it.”

“Neither bless nor curse,” exclaimed Balac. But he resolved to try the prophet once more, and accordingly took him to the top of Mount Phogor which looks towards the wilderness. Here sacrifices were offered, but without further formality, Balaam, under the influence of “the spirit of God,” broke forth into the beautiful eulogy of Israel which begins with the words: “How beautiful are thy tabernacles, O Jacob, and thy tents, O Israel!” Filled with anger, Balac dismissed Balaam to his home. But before departing, the prophet delivered his fourth pronouncement on the glorious future of Israel and the fate of its enemies. His vision, too, piercing beyond the earthly Kingdom of Israel, seems to have dimly seen the Messianic reign to come. “I see him,” he said, “but not now; I behold him, but not nigh; there shall come forth a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel,” etc. Balac and Balaam separated, but before returning to his own country, Balaam sojourned with the Madianites. There he seems to have instigated his hosts to send Madianite and Boabite women among the Israelites to seduce them from their allegiance to Jehovah (Num., xxxi, 16). This was while the children of Israel were dwelling at Settim, and no doubt is closely connected with the troubles and disorder over Beelphegor, told of in the twentyfifth chapter of Numbers. The punishment inflicted by God on the Israelites was signal. A plague fell upon them, and carried off 24,000 (xxv, 9). Nor did Balaam escape. He was slain, together with the five kings of Madian, in the war waged by Israel against that nation related in the thirtyfirst chapter of Numbers.

CONSERVATIVE VIEW

The usual traditional, or conservative, view of the episode of Balaam is that it is an historical narrative in the ordinary sense. The supernatural plays an important part in it, but it is contended that the credibility of the narrative requires only a belief in the miraculous, and that the acceptance of many of the most important parts of the Bible requires such a belief. The episode of the speaking ass is strange; but no stranger than the story of the speaking serpent in Paradise. The future is foretold by Balaam; but so it is by the great prophets of Israel. A question is discussed as to what Balaam was. Was he a prophet in the true sense of the word; or a soothsayer? It does not seem possible to say that he was a prophet in the same sense as Isaias or any of the great prophets of Israel. On the other hand, in Numbers, xxiv, 2, he is said to have spoken under the influence of “the spirit of God.” Indeed, throughout his connection with Balac, he seems to have acted under the influence of God’s spirit. But when his state of life is looked at as such, he cannot be regarded as having belonged to the order of the prophets. St. Thomas calls him “a prophet of the devil.” Scripture does not call him a prophet, but a diviner, and Balac approached him with the price of divination. Moreover, the way in which he joined Balac in idolatrous worship seems to preclude the idea of his being a genuine servant of Jehovah. Prophecy is a gift given for the good of others. Balaam was used for the good of Israel.

CRITICAL VIEW

Modern critics take a different view of the episode, in conformity with their general conclusions as to the Hexateuch. For them the narrative of Numbers, chapters xxii, xxiii, and xxiv, is part of the prophetical history. That is, in these chapters there is no trace of the priestly writer P, though to him is assigned the passage xxv, 6–18, which contains an account of the crime and punishment of Zambri and Cozbi. Though critics are unanimous that chapters xxii, xxiii, and xxiv are the work of the two writers called the Jahvist and the Elohist, they do not find it easy to apportion that part of Numbers between the two authors. Indeed, the only point on which they are agreed is that chapter xxii belongs to the Elohist, with the exception of verses 22–35, which they assign to the Jahvist. This section contains the episode of the ass, and critics say that it destroys the sequence of the narrative. Thus in verse 20 Balaam gets leave from God to go with the princes of Moab; but in verse 22 God is angry with him, apparently because of his going. Though this apparent inconsistency has been variously explained by conservative commentators, critics argue from it and other similar instances, that the episode of the ass (verses 22–35) has been skilfully fitted into the rest of the chapter, but is really the work of another writer; and that the original narrative which is broken off at verse 20 continues at verse 36. Further proofs of dual authorship are often far from clear. Thus, there is said to be a duplication in xxii, 3: “And the Moabites were in great fear of him, and were not able to sustain his assault.” Surely this is weak in the extreme. Does not the natural tendency of the Jewish writer to parallelisms sufficiently explain it?

The reference to historical events in Balaam’s fourth prophecy leads most critical writers to fix the date of its composition not earlier than David’s reign. David’s Moabite war is said to be the war referred to in Num., xxiv, 17. But, putting aside the gift of prophecy, we know that writings of this kind, like the Psalms, are often retouched in ages later than that of their original composition. At most, therefore, it seems legitimate to conclude that this passage shows signs of having been expanded and reedited at that period.

HUMMELAUER, Genesis (Paris, 1895); SAYCE, Early History of the Hebrews (London, 1897); WOODS in HAST., Dict. of the Bible (London, 1898); DRIVER, Genesis (London, 1904); RENAN, Histoire du peuple d’Israël (Paris, 1887);PALIS in VIG., Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1893).

J.A. HOWLETT

Balanaea

A titular see of Syria. The city of this name, a colony of Aradus (Strabo, XVI, 753), is placed by Stephanus Byzantius in Phoenicia, though it belongs rather to Syria. Its first known bishop was present at the Council of Nicaea in 325 (Lequien, Oriens Christ., II, 923). From that time to the sixth century the names of three others are known. At the latter date it was a suffragan of Apamea, the metropolis of Syria Secunda. When Justinian established a new civil province, Theodorias, with Laodicea as metropolis, Balanaea was incorporated with it, but continued to depend ecclesiastically on Apamea, till it obtained the status of an exempt bishopric. This was its condition in the tenth century, when it was directly subject to the Patriarch of Antioch. The Crusaders created there a Latin see, of which a bishop is known about 1200 (Lequien, III, 1189); the river near by it served as a boundary between the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the principality of Antioch. The Franks called if Valania according to the Greek pronunciation, the Musselmans Bulunvoas. Owing to the unsafe conditions of the country the Latin bishop lived at Margat, a neighbouring castle of the Hospitallers. Balanaea, today called Banias, is a little village at the foot of the hill of Qalcat el-Marquab, between Tartous (Tortosa) and Latakia (Laodicea); it is the residence of the kaïmakam of the district. It numbers about 1,550 inhabitants, 1,200 Maronites, and 230 non-Catholic Christians; they cultivate chiefly onion, olive-trees, and a very good tobacco. The roadstead is excellent, but is visited only by small boats.

S. VAILHÉ

St. Balbina

Memorials of a St. Balbina are to be found at Rome in three different spots which are connected with the early Christian antiquities of that city. In the purely legendary account of the martyrdom of St. Alexander (acta SS., Maii, I, 367 sqq.) mention is made of a tribune Quirinus who died a martyr and was buried in the catacomb of Praetextatus on the Via Appia. His grace was regarded with great veneration and is referred to in the old itineraries (guides for pilgrims) of the Roman catacombs. Tradition said that his daughter Balbina, who had been baptized by St. Alexander who had passed her life unmarried, was buried after death near her father in the same catacomb. The feast of St. Balbina is celebrated 31 March. Usuardus speaks of her in his martyrology; his account of St. Balbina rests on the record of the martyrdom of St. Alexander. There is another Balbina whose name was given to a catacomb (coem. Balbinae) which lay between the Via Appia and the Via Ardeatina not far from the little church called Domine quo vadis. Over this cemetery a basilica was erected in the fourth century by Pope Mark. There still exists on the little Aventine in the city itself the old title of St. Balbina, first mentioned in an epitaph of the sixth century and in the signatures to a Roman council (595) of the time of Pope Gregory I. This church was erected in a large ancient hall. Its titular saint is supposed to be identical with the St. Balbina who was buried in the catacomb of Praetextatus and whose bones together with those of her father were brought here at a later date. It is not certain, however, that the two names refer to the same person.

J.P. KIRSCH

Boleslaus Balbinus

A Jesuit historian of Bohemia, born 4 December 1621, at Königgrätz, of an ancient noble family; died 29 November, 1688 at Prague. His entire life was a devoted to collecting and editing the materials of Bohemian history, and his researches have often been utilized by the Bollandists. He wrote over thirty works, the most important of which is “Miscellanea Historica regni Bohemiae” or “Miscellany of Bohemian History” (6 vols., Prague, 1679–87) in which he described the chief historical events of his native land, lives of prominent Bohemians, etc. He also wrote in Latin an “Apology for the Slavic and especially the Bohemian tongue.” Balbinus was the first to edit the ancient vernacular chronicle known as the “Life of St. Ludmilla and Martyrdom of St. Wenceslas,” a new edition of which was published in 1902 by Dr. Pekár and is by him held to be the text of the tenth century, and therefore “the oldest historical work written in Bohemia and by a Bohemian.” Balbinus wrote also “de archiepiscopis Bohemiae” (Prague, 1682) and “Bohemia Sancta, sive de sanctis Bohemiae, Moraviae, Silesiae, Lusatiae” (ibid, 1682).

Sommervogel, Bibl. des escriv. de la c. de J., s. v.; Lutrow, The Historians of Bohemia (London, 1905).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Vasco Nuñez de Balboa

Discoverer of the Pacific Ocean from the west coast of Central America, born in Spain, 1475, either at Badajoz or at Jerez de los Caballeros; died at Darien, 1517.

He went to Central America, in 1500 with Rodrigo de Bastidas and thence, in secret, with Martín Fernández de Enciso to Cartagena. The story that he got aboard either in an empty barrel or wrapped up in a sail may be true. He soon assumed an important role among the participants of the expedition, and settled Darien in 1509. Then he proclaimed himself governor, and sent both Enciso and Nicuesa away. From Darien he undertook, with a few followers, the hazardous journey across the isthmus that led to the discovery of the Pacific Ocean. 25 September, 1513, and established beyond all doubt the continental nature of America.

The appointment in 1514 of Pedrarias Dávila as governor of the regions discovered and partly occupied by Balboa, and his appearance on the coast of Darien with a large armament, at once gave rise to trouble. Arias was an aged man of mediocre attainments, jealous, deceitful, and vindictive. Balboa was generous, careless, and over-confident in the merits of his achievements, and was no match for the intrigues that forthwith began against him. To mask his sinister designs Arias gave one of his daughters to Balboa in marriage. The latter was allowed to continue his explorations while Arias and the Licentiate Gaspar de Espinosa were slowly tightening a net of true and false testimony around him under cover of the inevitable Residencia. The Crown gave Balboa the title of Adelantado of the South Sea, Governor of Coyba and of what subsequently became the district of Panama, but Arias and his agents understood how to reduce these titles to empty honours.

Quevedo, Bishop of Castilla del Oro, was Balboa’s sincere friend and assisted him, but with Quevedo’s departure for Spain the case was lost. Fearful lest the bishop’s appeal for his friend might result against Arias and his party, the Residencia was at once converted into criminal proceedings, death sentence hastily pronounced, and Balboa beheaded for high treason in 1517 at Darien. One of the main pretexts for the sentence was Balboa’s action towards Enciso and Nicuesa.

Balboa has been credited by most authors with having been first to hear of Peru. This is incorrect. In his few attempts at exploring the coast of southern Panama he heard only of Indian tribes of northern or northwestern Colombia.

Oviedo Y Valdez, Historia general y natural de las Indios (Madrid, 1850); Documentos ineditos de Indias (various letters and reports); Gomara, Historia general de las Indias (Medina del Campo, 1553, Zaragoza, 1555); Pascual De Andagoya, Relacion de los sucesos de Pedrarias Dávila, in Navarrete, Coleccion de los’ viajes y descubimientos (Madrid, 1829), III, tr. Markham in the Hakluyt Society’s publications (1865); Irving, Voyages and Discoveries of the Companions of Columbus (London, 1831); Quintana, Vidas de espanoles celebres (Madrid, 1830), II; Diccionario de Historia y Geografia (Mexico, 1853), I; Mendiburu, Dictionario Historico (Lima, 1876), II; Herrera, Historia General (2d ed., Madrid, 1726–30); Prescott, History of the Conquest of Peru; Robertson, History of America

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Bernardo de Balbuena

A Spanish poet, born in Val de Peñas, 1568; died in Porto Rico, 1627. At an early age he was taken by his parents to Mexico, where he received his education. Later he spent twelve years in Jamaica, and then passed the remainder of his days of Bishop of Porto Rico, to which see he was appointed in 1620. He published “La Grandeza Mejicana” in 1604, and in 1608, in Madrid, “Siglo de Oro en las Selvas de Eriphile,” a very learned pastoral romance abounding in beautiful poetic passages. The book, however, contained no description of the scenery or manners of the New World and nothing connected with the history of the times. Possibly for this reason it was not in great demand among Balbuena’s contemporaries. But in 1821 it had the honour of being republished by the Spanish Academy. Another work “El Bernardo ó Victoria de Roncesvalles” was published in Madrid in 1624 (new edition, 1808). It was an epic poem on the subject of Spain’s resistance to the invasion of Charlemagne.

VENTURA FUENTES

Hieronymus Balbus

(Accellini).

Humanist, poet, diplomatist, and Bishop of Gurk in Carinthia, b. about 1450 at Venice; d. there, probably 1535. He was a pupil of Pomponius Laetus, the founder of the Roman Academy. As a young man, by his manner and bearing alike, Balbus gave great offence; he was of a quarrelsome disposition, and, for a time, led a very loose life. But in later years he was highly respected and came to be regarded as one of the most accomplished men of his day. In 1485 he was professor at the University of Paris. His overbearing manner here soon brought him into conflict with various scholars, and in consequence of the attack which these men made on his character, he was obliged to leave Paris in 1491. A few years later (1494), at the invitation of Emperor Maximilian I, he went to the University of Vienna, where he lectured on poetry, the Roman classics, and jurisprudence. He was again in Paris, for a short period, in 1495, and visited London in 1496, but resumed his professorship at Vienna in 1497. Here he became a member of the Danube Society, and lived on terms of intimate friendship with its learned founder, Conrad Celtes the Humanist, at that time professor and librarian at the University of Vienna. In little less than a year, renewed contentions with his colleagues forced him to quit Vienna. Balbus next went to Prague (1498), where he accepted a professorship which had been obtained for him by his Viennese friends. But his irregular conduct, scandalous writings, and disputatious temper soon drove him from the city. On leaving Prague he withdrew to Hungary (Fünfkirchen), and remained in retirement for a period of fifteen years, during which time he changed his manner of life completely, and even took orders. His subsequent career as an ecclesiastic was one of considerable distinction. He became provost of the Cathedral Chapter at Waizen, 1515, later also of that at Pressburg, and, for some years, held an important position at the Court of Hungary, where he was tutor of the royal princes, and private secretary to the king, Ladislaus VI.

In 1521 Balbus appeared at the Diet of Worms as the ambassador of Louis II of Hungary, and attracted considerable attention by an eloquent discourse in which he protested against the innovations of Luther, and urged upon the assembled princes the necessity of a joint undertaking against the Turks. Shortly afterwards he was in the service of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, who, in 1522, designated him Bishop of Gurk, and sent him to Rome on a congratulatory embassy to the newly elected pontiff, Adrian VI. It was a part of his mission also to induce the pope to proclaim a crusade against the Turk. The address which he made on being received by the pope in a public audience, 9 February, 1523, abounded in extravagant rhetoric, but in humanistic circles it was considered a marvel of eloquence. Balbus remained in Rome for some time, and was there consecrated Bishop of Gurk, 25 March, 1523. As a bishop, he enacted many wholesome and timely ordinances, and had the preservation of church discipline sincerely at heart, but he was frequently absent form his diocese. From one of his letters we learn that in the time of Clement VII he lived at Rome for some years in the papal palace and was much in the confidence of that pontiff. In 1530, though quite an old man, he accompanied Charles V to Bologna to attend the emperor’s coronation. At Bologna he wrote his best known work, “De coronatione principum,” which, on account of the views it contains on the relation of Church and State, was placed on the Index, 23 July, 1611. Balbus was the author of many other works. Of these, the poetical, oratorical, and politico-moral writings were edited by Joseph von Retzer (Vienna, 1791–92, 2 vols.). His poems, in part coarse and indelicate, are of no particular merit.

Von Retzer, Nachrichten von dem Leben und den Schriften des chemaligen Bischofs von Gurk Hieronymus Balbi (Vienna, 1790); Allen in English Hist. Review, XVII, 417; Pastor, Kirchenlex., s. v.; Idem, Gesch. Der Pupste (1907), IV, 730, 732; Aschbach, Gesch. Der Univ. Wien (1877), II, 161 sqq.; Hofler, Papst Adrian VI (Vienna, 1880), 370 sqq.; Bauch, Die Rezeption des Humanismus in Wien (1903), 40 sqq.

THOMAS OESTREICH

Baldachinum of the Altar

A dome-like canopy in wood, stone, or metal, erected over the high altar of larger churches, generally supported on four columns, though sometimes suspended by chains from the roof. Other forms will be noted in tracing the cause of its history. The name is late medieval, baldacchino, from Baldocco, Italian form of Bagdad whence came the precious cloths of which in their later development these canopies were made. It was called earlier ciborium, from the Greek kiborion (the globular seed-pod of the lotus, used as a drinking-cup) because of the similarity of its dome top to an inverted cup. The early history of the baldachinum is obscure, but it probably originated in the desire to give to the primitive altar table a more dignified and beautiful architectural setting. The arcosolium altars of the catacombs perhaps foreshadow this tendency. With the construction or adaptation of the larger church edifices of the fourth century, the baldachinum became their architectural centre, emphasizing the importance of the sacrificial table as the centre of Christian worship. Thus, while the altar retained its primitive simplicity of form and proportions, the baldachinum gave it the architectural importance which its surroundings demanded. By its dais-like effect, it designated the altar as a throne of honour. It served also the practical purpose of supporting, between its columns, the altar-curtains, while from its roof were suspended lamps, vases, richly ornamented crowns, and other altar decorations. The summit was surmounted by the altar-cross. The earliest reference to the baldachinum is found in the “Liber Pontificalis” (ed. Duchesne, I, 172, 191, 233, 235) which described the Fastidium argenteum given by Constantine to the Lateran basilica during the pontificate of Sylvester I (314–335) and replaced, after the ravages of Alaric’s Gothic hordes, by another erected during the pontificate of Sixtus III (432- 440). The oldest representation in art is the early sixth-century mosaic in the church of St. George in Thessalonica; while the oldest actual specimen is that in the church of St. Apollinare in Classe at Ravenna (c. 810). The use of the baldachinum was general up to the twelfth century, when it yielded to the growing importance of the reliquary as an adjunct to the altar, sometimes disappearing altogether, sometimes taking the form of a canopy over the relic-casket. With the placing of the altar against the wall, the baldachinum took the form of a projecting dais canopy (v. Altar-Canopy under ALTAR: IN LITURGY) or became the ciborium-like superstructure of the tabernacle or central tower of the altar. Italy was less affected by this evolution than were the centres of Gothic art, and the use of the older form is common there to-day. The most magnificent baldachinum in the world is that in St. Peter’s in Rome designed by Bernini for Pope Urban VIII.

JOHN B. PETERSON.

Jacob Balde

A German poet, b. 4 January, 1604, in the Imperial free town of Ensisheim in Upper Alsace; d. at Neuburg, 9 August, 1668. He studies the classics and rhetoric in the Jesuit college of his native town, philosophy and law at the University Ingolstadt, where on 1 July, 1624, he was admitted into the Society of Jesus. Having undergone the usual ascetical and literary training he taught classics and rhetoric in the colleges of Munich and Innsbruck, and in his leisure hours composed the Latin mock-heroic poem “Batrachomyomachia” (The Battle of the Frogs and the Mice). After completing his theological studies at Ingolstadt, where he was ordained priest in 1633, he was appointed professor of eloquence in the university. Called to Munich a few years later to educate the sons of Duke Albert, he soon after received the office of court preacher to the elector Maximilian. Owing to failing health he was, in 1654, sent to Neuburg on the Danube, where he became the intimate friend and adviser of the Count Palatine Philipp Wilhelm. Here he died. The poetical works of Balde are marked by a brilliant imagination, noble thoughts, wit and humour, strength and tenderness of feeling, great learning, love of nature, and knowledge of the human heart. His mastery of classical Latin was such that he wielded it with astonishing power and originality, and he used the ancient metres and poetical forms with consummate ease and skill. His poetical themes are the world and religion, friendship and fatherland, art and letters. His patriotic accents, says Herder, have made him a German poet for all time. He witnessed the horrors of the Thirty Years War, and the devastation and disruption of his country, and while lamenting the fate of Germany, sought the re-awaken in the hearts of the people the old national spirit.

Balde was above all a lyric poet, many of his odes to the Virgin Mother of God being of surpassing beauty, but he has also written epic and pastoral poems, satires, elegies, and drams. During his lifetime he was acclaimed “the German Horace,” but soon after his death he fell into neglect, until Herder, towards the end of the eighteenth century, by his translation of many of Balde’s lyrics, published in the periodical “Terpsichore,” revived the poet’s memory and the fame of his genius among scholars. Balde, however, could never have become a popular poet in the wider sense of the word, as nearly all his works were written in Latin, which was in his time the international language of the cultured classes, whereas German was too unwieldy and crude a vehicle of poetical expression. Balde’s poetry is not faultless; he occasionally offends against good taste, burdens his verses with mythological lore, and odes not always keep his luxuriant imagination under control. The only complete edition of his works was published in eight volumes at Munich in 1729.

Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la c. de J., s. v.; Westermeyer, Jacobus Balde, sein Leben und seine Werke (Munich, 1868); Baumgartner, Geschichte der Weltlitteratur, IV, 644–656; Mury-Sommervogel, Jacques Balde, notice et bibliographie (Strasburg, Roux, 1901).

B. GULDNER

Balderic (Baudry)

A monk of Liège, a writer and teacher of the twelfth century, b. date unknown, at Florennes in Belgium; d. about 1157. He was proctor at the court of Pope Eugene III, and accompanied him to France when the machinations of Arnold of Bescia compelled the pontiff to leave Rome. At a synod held in Paris in 1147, Balderic became acquainted with Albero, the Archbishop of Trier, who induced him to become head of the cathedral school in Trier. As long as Albero lived, Balderic remained his friend and adviser, and, after his death, wrote his biography, which is remarkable for its classical Latin. It is published in Mon. Germ: Script., VIII, 243 sqq., and in P.L., CLIV, 1307 sqq.

Wattenbach. Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen (Berline, 1894), II, 3; Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (Leipzig, 1903), IV, 476.

MICHAEL OTT

Balderic

(Or Baudry).

Bishop of Dol, in France, chronicler, b. about 1050; d. 7 January, 1130. After a brilliant course of studies at the famous school of Angers, he entered the Abbey of Bourgueil in Anjou, where he became abbot in 1079. In 1107 he received from Pascal II the pallium of Bishop of Dol. He assisted at all the councils held in his day, went several times to Rome, and left an account of a journey to England. He exercised considerable activity in reforming monastic discipline. The last years of his life were spent in retirement. He is remembered as the author of important or interesting contributions to history, poetry, and hagiography.

Balderic’s most valuable work is his “Historiae Hierosolymitanae libri IV,” an account of the First Crusade, based in part on the testimony of eyewitnesses, and submitted for correction to the Abbot Peter of Maillesais, who had accompanied the Crusaders. Among his other works are poems on the conquest of England and on the reign of Philip I; lives, in Latin, of his friend Robertus de Arbrissello (published by the Bollandists under 25 Feb.), of St. Valerian (published by Bouquet, Hit. Eccl. De France), and of St. Hugh of Rouen (published by Du Monstier, “Neustria Pia”); finally a letter to the monks of Fecamp which contains some valuable material relating to Breton manners, and to English and Norman monasteries (Duchesne and Bouquet, Historiens de France).

Histoire litteraire de la France, VIII, 400; Molinier, Sources de l’hist. de France.

J. V. CROWNE.

Bernardino Baldi

An Italian poet and savant, b. at Urbino, 5 June, 1553; d. at the same place, 10 October, 1617. After being initiated into higher mathematics by his fellow-townsman Commandino, he went to Padua (1573) and Rome (1576), where he managed to acquire a wide erudition, scientific, classical, and Oriental; Chaldaic, Arabic, and Persian were among the languages he learned. Having subsequently taken orders, he was made Abbot of Guastalla (Manua) by Prince Ferrante Gonzaga. In spite of many wanderings, entailing long-protracted absences, he retained the abbacy until 1609, when his native city claimed him for the rest of his life. Cardinal Cinzio Aldobrandini, the nephew of Clement VIII, and Francesco Maria della Rovere, Duke of Urbino, were proud of his friendship. The latter entrusted him with an embassy to Venice in 1612.

Baldi’s poetic laurels were mainly earned by “La Nautica,” a didactic poem closely following the “Georgics” in finely polished blank verse (1576). To this were added nineteen “Egloghe miste” (1583) “L’invenzione del bossolo de navigare,” miscellaneous short poems (1590), and the “Epigrammi” (1614). An attempt at introducing fourteen and eighteen syllable lines in “Lauro” (1600) and “Il Diluvio Universale” (1604), met with utter failure. In addition to his Latin poems and several polyglot compilations, we have: “Cento Apologhi” (1583), some dialogues, a well-known “Descrizione del palazzo ducale d’Urbino” (1587), the biographies of Federico, second Duke, and Guidobaldo I, of Urbino, a curious biographical work on Italian and foreign mathematicians (Urbino, 1707), two Latin treatises on Vitruvius, numerous letters and translations from the Targum Onkelos, the Arabic Psalms, Aratus, Musaeus, Hero of Alexandria, Aristotle, etc. The unconstrained elegance of his diction gives him a foremost rank as a prose-writer. A standard edition of his best writings is that of Ugolini and Polidori (Florence, 1859).

P. Ireneo Affo, Vita di Bernardino Baldi (Parma, 1783); Zaccagnini, La Vita e le opere edite ed inedite di Bernardino Baldi (Parma, 1903). As to the sources of La Nautica, see Zaccagnini, Giornale storico della letteratura Italiana (1902), XL, 366–396; as to the Egloghe, Ruberto, Propugnatore, XX.

EDOARDO SAN GIOVANNI

Bl. Anthony Baldinucci

Born 19 June, 1665, at Florence, died 6 November, 1717. He entered the Society of Jesus 21 April, 1681, and was ordained priest 28 October, 1695. After his third year of probation, he began his missionary career at Monte Santo. The field of his labors were the towns of Frascati and Viterbo, in which, with the exception of some more distant places, he labored for the rest of his life. His methods of preaching were of the most unusual and startling character. Splendid processions were organized which proceeded from various parts of the country to the place where the mission was being given. Many of the people wore crowns of thorns and scourged themselves as they went along. When Baldinucci preached he frequently carried a cross, and was loaded down with heavy chains. He often walked up and down among the people scourging himself to blood. The exercises were usually brought to a close by the burning in the public square of cards, dice, musical instruments, etc. He always carried with him a miraculous picture of the Madonna which was borne before him as he proceeded from place to place. The propaganda of devotion to the Blessed Virgin was one of his special aims. To keep order among the vast throngs who flocked to hear him, he always employed a number of laymen whom he called deputati. They were not infrequently men of very bad lives whom he chose purposely in order to conciliate and convert them. His work among the clergy was marked by great prudence and success. Though his preaching was incessant, he found time to write two courses of Lenten Sermons, to gather materials for many more, compose hundreds of discourses, and carry on an immense correspondence. The effect of his apostolic work upon the excitable people among whom he worked was stupendous. At times, when approaching a city, he found crowds covering the walls awaiting his arrival. His particular methods are explainable as those best adapted to his surroundings and times. After twenty years of labor, he died at the age of fifty-two. He was already canonized in public estimation, but, although the official ecclesiastical process was begun in 1753, the decree of his beatification was issued only on 23 April, 1893.

Goldie, Life of B. Anthony Baldinucci (London, 1894); Vanucci, Vita del Beato A. Baldinucci (Rome, 1893); Galuzzi, Life of Baldinucci (Rome, 1720); Budrioli, Summarium (Florence); Bartholomew Pace, S. J. (Baldinucci’s companion), Evidence, Sermon, p. 116.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Alesso Baldovinetti

A notable Florentine painter, b. in Florence, 14 October, 1427; d. there, 29 August, 1499. His father was a wealthy merchant, but leaving the paternal business he registered himself, at the age of twenty-one, as a member of the Academy of Saint Luke. He called himself a pupil of Paolo Uccelli, and according to Vasari, was the master of the famous Ghirlandajo. He experimented much with colours in fresco and oil, but his remaining works are badly preserved. He had the reputation of being the best worker in mosaic of his day.

Baldovinetti assisted Andrea del Castagno and Domenico Veneziano in the frescoes, since destroyed, of Santa Maria Nuova in Florence. Among his works which remain is a large fresco of “The Adoration of the Shepherds” in the cloisters of Santa Annunziata. His was the design for the portrait of Dante by Domenico del Michelino in the duomo. The large panel painting of “The Holy Trinity Adored by Saints Gualberto and Benedetto,” now in the Academy at Florence, was executed for the church of Santa Trinita in that city. He painted on the walls of the choir of that edifice scenes, not now extant, from the Old Testament, containing numerous portraits of his contemporaries. In the chapel of San Miniato, Florence, are frescoes of angels, prophets, and evangelists. The same edifice also contains an “Annunciation.” In the galleries of the Uffizi are an “Enthroned Virgin and Child with Saints,” and a most decorative and quaintly graceful “Annunciation.” His portrait by himself is in the gallery at Bergamo and Girlandajo painted it near his own in his frescoes in Santa Maria Novella, Florence.

Pierotti, Ricordi di A. Baldovinetti (Lucca, 1868); Bryan, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers (London and New York, 1903–05).

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

St. Baldred

(1) a Celtic Bishop of Strathclyde, b. about 643; d. at Aldhame, Haddingtonshire, about 607. He is said to have been the immediate successor of the great St. Kentigern, or Mungo, the f09under of the See of Glasgow, Scotland. Like St. Kentigern, he was of Irish ancestry, but is reckoned as a British saint, inasmuch as Strathclyde was part of Britain. The chronology of the period when he flourished is somewhat obscure, but the best authorities on Scottish history agree that St. Baldred was born towards the middle of the sixth century. Previous to his consecration, St. Baldred had;laboured for many years in Strathclyde, and had founded numerous houses for monks as also for holy virgins in addition to the churches of Aldhame, Tyinguham and Preston Kirk. Owing to the disturbed state of the kingdom, he was forced after a short rule to retire from the spiritual government of the Strathclyde Britons as also happened to his predecessor. His feast is observed on 6 March.

(2) Baldred, or Baltherus, a holy hermit-priest of the eight century, who has been confounded with the preceding Scottish saint. According to Simeon of Durham and Hovendeus the date of his death is give as 756. Turgot of Durham is more explicit, and he tells us that Baldred, or Baltherus, the priest, died ““n the seventeenth year of the episcopate of Cynulf,” that is 756, or on the 6 March, 757. This Baldred is associated with the See of Lindisfarne, and was an Englishman. Numerous miracles are ascribed to him, and his feast is given as 6 March.

To add to the confusion, some writers have imagined that this Baldred is identical with Bilfritt, or Bilfrid, a hermit goldsmith, whose exquisite work may yet be seen in the British Museum on the cover of a Book of Gospels, generally known as the Gospels of St. Cuthbert. This cover was made during the rule of Bishops Eadfrid and Ethelwold of Lindisfarne, 698 to 740. The relics of St. Bilfrid were discovered by Aelfrid, and were placed, with those of St. Baldred, in St. Cuthbert’s shrine at Durham, but were subsequently transferred to the shrine of St. Bede in 1104.

COMERARIUS, quoted in FORBE, Kalendar of Scottish Saints; BOETIUS, Hist. Scot,; Reg. Ep. Glas., II; CHALMER, Caledonia; LESLEY, De Orig. Mor., et Rebus Gest. Scot.; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints (March 6). Acta SS. (March 6), I; BARING GOULD, Lives of the Saints, III; Turgot, Hist. Of Denelon; O’HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints (March), III.

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Hans Baldung

Known as Grien or Grun, from his fondness for brilliant green, both in his own costume and in his pictures, a vigorous and distinguished painter, engraver, and draughtsman on wood, b. at Gmund, Swabia, about 1476; d. at Strasburg, 1545. Baldung was a lifelong friend of Dürer and received a lock of the latter’s hair when he died. Dürer influenced Baldung’s work, as did Matthaeus Grunewald and Martin Schongauer. His portraits, when unsigned, have at times passed as the work of that greater master, Dürer. An exceptional draughtsman and a good colourist, Baldung’s work is marked by an original and fertile imagination. He is thought to have worked with Dürer at Nuremberg for two years, assisting him and painting under his eye the copies of “Adam and Eve” now in the Pitti Gallery at Florence. He became a citizen of Strasburg in 1509, and was made senator the year of his death.

Baldung spent seven years at Freiburg in the Breisgau, where, in a monastery, is found his most famous work, an altar piece, the central portion showing “The Coronation of the Virgin,” the wings bearing on the inside the Apostles and on the outside four scenes from the life of Our Lady. Two altar pieces in the Convent of Lichenthal, near Baden-Baden, are assumed to be his earliest works. Baldung’s paintings are chiefly in public galleries at Berlin, Vienna, Munich, Stuttgart, Prague, Darmstadt, Basle, Karlsrughe, Aschaffenburg, and Frankfort. In the Berlin Museum are “Christ on the Cross” (two pictures), a triptych “Adoration of the Kings,” with saints on the interior and exterior of the wings, and “The Stoning of Saint Stephen”; in the Munich Pinakothek, the portrait of his friend, Margrave Phillipp Christoph of Baden; at Vienna in the Museum, the “portrait of a Young Man,” and a portrait of himself in green; in the Academy, a “Holy Family”; in the Liechtenstein Gallery, “The Ages of Man in Six Female Figures,” and a “Madonna”; in the Schonborn Gallery, “Adam and Eve.”

Champlin and Perkens, Cyclopedia of Painters and Painting (New York, 1886–87); Bryan, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers (London and New York, 1903–05).

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Baldwin

Archbishop of Trier and Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, born 1285; died 1354; he belonged to the noble family of the Counts of Luxemburg, or Lutzelburg, and was a brother of the Emperor Henry VII. When he was only three years of age, his father, Count Henry III, was killed in battle. The charge of Baldwin’s education, therefore, devolved on his mother, Beatrix of Avesnes, and his brother, the future emperor. Being exceptionally talented, he was sent at the early age of thirteen to the University of Paris, where, under the direction of two private tutors, he received a thorough education. In 1305, when the Archbishop of Mainz died, Henry wished to procure this archiepiscopal see and electorate for his brother, and sent his former physician, Peter Aichspalter, then Bishop of Basle, to Pope Clement V, at Avignon, with instructions to use his influence in behalf of Baldwin. The pope, however, refused to entrust the most important archiepiscopal see of Germany to a youth who was then only nineteen years old. When Aichspalter, shortly after, cured the pope of a severe sickness, he was himself made Archbishop of Mainz, with the understanding, it seems that Baldwin was to succeed the aged Archbishop Diether of Trier. Accordingly, when Diether died in 1307; Baldwin became Archbishop and Elector of Trier. He was consecrated, March 11, 1308, at Poitiers by the pope himself and took possession of his archbishopric on the June 2nd, in the same year.

Though only twenty-two years old, Baldwin had many Qualities which fitted him for the triple office of bishop, prince, and elector. Without levying special taxes he paid off within a short time the many debts incurred by his predecessor, and he fearlessly asserted his rights of sovereignty over the refractory municipal authorities of Trier. Shortly after the new archbishop’s consecration the Emperor Albert was murdered (May, 1308), and Baldwin, acting with Archbishop Aichspalter of Mainz, prevailed upon the other electors to award the imperial crown to Henry of Luxemburg. During the short reign of Henry VII (1309–13) Baldwin was his brother’s most influential adviser and accompanied him in his expeditions through the empire and to Rome. After Henry’s death he desired as emperor his nephew, King John of Bohemia, then only eighteen years old. However, seeing the futility of his efforts to win the other electors for King John, and fearing the election of Frederick of Austria, who was hostile to the house of Luxemburg, Baldwin urged the election of Louis of Bavaria. But all his attempts to gain over the opposing electors were unsuccessful, and a double election resulted. During the civil war of eight years which ensued he fought on the side of Louis the Bavarian, and contributed largely to his final success. In the conflict between Louis and Pope John XXII, which was equally disastrous to Church and Empire, Baldwin also sided with Louis, and for this reason did not receive the papal approbation when the Cathedral Chapter of Mainz postulated him as successor to Aichspalter (who died 5 June, 1320). Upon the death, in 1328, of Matthias, whom the pope had appointed Archbishop of Mainz, to succeed Aichspalter, Baldwin was again postulated as archbishop by the Cathedral Chapter of Mainz, took possession of the archdiocese, and administered it nearly nine Tears (1328–37), despite the protests of the pope, who had appointed Henry Virneburg to the position. On the 16th of July, 1338, he took an important part in the meeting of the imperial electors at Rense, near Coblenz, where they protested against all papal interference in the election of the emperors and decided that the emperor elected by them could exercise his imperial authority without the approbation of the pope. When Clement I renewed the excommunication of Louis the Bavarian, and there was hope that Charles IV, a grandnephew of Baldwin would receive the imperial crown, Baldwin finally abandoned the Bavarian and at a meeting at Rense (11 July, 1346) prevailed upon the other electors to declare Louis deposed and elect Charles IV emperor. Baldwin crowned the new emperor at Aachen, 26 July, 1349.

Within his own diocese Baldwin successfully fought against the many robber-barons who at that time infested Europe. He destroyed their strongholds and forced the barons to submit to tile laws or leave his domain. He promoted commerce by erecting the bridge which still spans the River Moselle at Coblenz. Numerous churches in various parts of the diocese were built by him, and many wholesome decrees were passed at the synods which he convoked. But Baldwin, the bishop, dwindles beside Baldwin, the soldier and statesman. During the forty-six years of his reign (1308–54) the destinies of the German Empire largely guided by the powerful hands of this prelate-prince. He was a shrewd diplomat and a brave soldier, but above all he was a member of the house of Luxemburg, and its aggrandizement was the mainspring of his political activities. The Avignonese popes, John XXII and Clement VI, may have set up unjust claims in regard to the imperial Office, but there is no justification for Baldwin’s siding with Louis the Bavarian even after that emperor was deservedly excommunicated. There may have been palliating circumstances as to his administration of the Archdiocese of Mainz in opposition to the pope’s command, but, as a subject of the pope, he should have submitted. He was the author of the so-called “Balduineum,” a collection of documents relating to the possessions and privileges of Trier, together with a series of pictures bearing on Henry’s expedition to Rome, which was republished at Berlin in 1881. His remains lie in the Cathedral of Trier.

MICHAEL OTT

Francis Baldwin

(Also Baudoin).

A celebrated jurist, b. 1 January, 1520 at Arras, then part of the German Empire; d. 24 October, 1573, at Paris. He was sent in his early youth to Louvain, where he studied jurisprudence with great success. At the end of his studies he came to the court of the Emperor Charles V (1519–56) at Brussels. He subsequently travelled extensively, appearing at Paris and Geneva several times and teaching successively at Bourges (1549–56), Strasburg, Heidelberg, Douai, Paris, and Angers. The assertion of his sevenfold change of religion from Catholicism to Calvinism and from Calvinism to Catholicism cannot be substantiated. But it is certain that, in the earlier part of his life, he exhibited toward the Calvinistic system a friendliness incompatible with sound Catholic convictions. This attitude for some time recommended him to princes for the settlement of religious questions interesting both Catholics and Protestants. His attachment to the Faith gradually grew stronger, however, and beginning with the year 1560, he made a serious study of ecclesiastical questions, successfully defending the Catholic religion against Calvin. He died a devout Catholic in the arms of the celebrated Spanish Jesuit, Maldonatus.

Baldwin was a very prolific writer on juridical and ecclesiastical topics. Among his works are: “Constantinus Magnus” (Basle, 1556; Strasburg, 1612); “Minucii Felicis Octavius” (Heidelberg, 1560). He is the first to ascribe the “Octabius” to Minucius Felix; “S. Optati Libri Sex de Schismate Donatistarum” (Paris, 1563); “Discours sur le fait de la Réforme” (Paris, 1564).

Niceron, Hommes Illustr. (Paris, 1734), XXVIII, 255–277; Rass, Convertiten (Freiburg, 1866), II, 176–187; Schaumkell, Der Rechtsgelehrte F. Balduinus (1894).

N.A. WEBER

Baldwin of Canterbury

Thirty-ninth Archbishop, a native of Exeter, date of birth unknown; d. 19 Nov., 1190. He was ordained priest and made archdeacon by Bartholomew, Bishop of Exeter. He subsequently became a Cistercian monk at the Abbey of Ford, in Devonshire, and within a year was made Abbot of Ford. In 1180 he was promoted to the Bishopric of Worcester and in the same year was elected to the primatial see by the bishops of the province. The election was disputed by the monks of Canterbury, who chose first the Abbot of Battle, then Theobald, Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia. King Henry II interfered. Baldwin, who, according to Gervase, refused to accept the archbishopric unless he was elected by the monks, was installed, and an arrangement was entered into by which, in the future, the bishops’ elections were to be disallowed. He was several times engaged in disputes with the Canterbury monks, necessitating the further interference of King Richard and of the Holy See. The prior, Norreys, whom he had nominated, was deposed; but his right to appoint the priors was acknowledged.

Baldwin acted as legate in Wales, where he held a visitation in 1187, and in 1188 preached the Crusade, after having himself taken, The cross on hearing the news of the loss of Jerusalem. In 1190 he set out for the Holy Land, in company with Hubert, Bishop of Salisbury, and others, providing at his own costs two hundred knights and three hundred retainers. While there he acted a vicegerent of the patriarch. Girdles Cambrensis describes he as gentle, kindly disposed, learned, and religious. He died during the siege of Acre, leaving all he possessed for the relief of the Holy Land and naming Bishop Hubert as his executor. His works (to be found in the “Bibliotheca Patrum Cisterciensium,” V) are “De Commendiatione Fide”; “De Sacramento Altaris.” There are also some discourses and a penitential in MS. Preserved in the Lambeth Library.

Gervas of Canterbury, Chronicle, I; Giraldus Cambrensis, De Sex Episcop. Vit.; Idem, Itin. Kambriae Epp. Cantuar.; Gesta Regis Henrici; Introduction to Memorials of Richard I (all in Rolls Series).

FRANCIS AVELING

Balearic Isles

A group in the western part of the Mediterranean belonging to Spain and consisting of four larger islands, Majorca, Minorca, Iviza, and Formentera, and eleven smaller islands of rocky formation. Politically they form the Balearic province, and on 31 December, 1900, had an area of 1936 square miles and a population of 311,649, almost exclusively Catholic. The capital is Palma. The original inhabitants of these islands were of Iberian stock, and were famous in antiquity as slingers. In the seventh century B.C., they were subjugated by the Carthaginians; in 206 B.C., the city of Mahon was built by Hannibal’s brother Mago and called after his name. In 123–122 B.C., the Roman consul Quintus Caecilius Metellus conquered the islands and founded the cities of Palma and Pollentia. The Romans were succeeded in the sovereignty of the islands by the Vandals (426) under Genseric as leader; during the reign of Justinian they were subject to Byzantine authority. Charlemagne incorporated them for a while with the Frankish empire, but in 798 they fell into the hands of the Arabs. About 1230 James I (Jaime) of Aragon gained possession of the island and conferred the sovereignty on his third son, who transmitted it to his descendants; from 1276 to 1343 they formed the independent kingdom of Majorca, a secundo geniture of Aragon, at the latter date being reunited to the Crown. In the war of the Spanish Succession Minorca was occupied by the English (1708) and remained, with the exception of a brief interval (1756–63), in their possession until by the Peace of Versailles (1783) the islands were ceded back to Spain.

Christianity reached the Balearic Isles almost as soon as the Spanish mainland. As early as the fourth century mention is made of Bishops of Minorca and in the fifth century of Bishops of Majorca and Iviza. During the period of Arabian rule these sees were suppressed, and the islands were placed under the Bishop of Barcelona. After the expulsion of the Moors a see was re-established on the island of Majorca (1237), in direct dependence on the Holy See, and in 1238 Raymund de Torella was made first bishop. The diocese, which has been ruled by fifty-two bishops up to the present time, was made subject to the Archbishop of Valencia in 1492; in 1782 Iviza, and in 1795 Minorca were erected into separate sees. In 1851 Iviza was reunited with Majorca. The Balearic Isles are at present divided into two dioceses subject to the ecclesiastical province of Valencia: Majorca and Iviza (Diocesis Majoricensis et Ibusensis), with Palma as the see, and Minorca (Diocesis Minoricensis), with Ciudadela as the see.

The Diocese of Majorca, exclusive of Iviza, embraces the islands of Majorca, Cabrera, and Colubraria; in 1906 it contained a population of 262,000, divided into 8 archipresbyterates, 39 parishes and (at the beginning of 1907) 47 mission churches; 704 priests, including 60 who are not residing in the diocese; 318 churches and oratories. The cathedral chapter consists of 5 prebendaries, 4 officials, and 7 canons. The training of young men for the priesthood is provided for in the seminario conciliar in Palma which has 12 professors and 145 students. In 1907 the diocese contained 33 houses of religious orders conducted by 13 religious congregations of men: Jesuits 1; Capuchins 1; Hermits of St. Augustine 1; Mercedarians 1; Tertiaries regular of St. Francis 3; Mission Priests of St. Vincent de Paul 1; Oratorians of St. Philip Neri 2; Brothers of the Christian Schools 4; Redemptorists 5; Missionaries of the Most Sacred Hearts 4; Carmelites 2; Hermits of Sts. Paul and Anthony 4; Brothers of Mercy 4; and 149 foundations conducted by twenty-five orders and congregations of women: Poor Clares, Dominicans, Hieronymites, Carmelites, Augustinians, Sisters of Mercy, Little Sisters of the Poor, Sorores de Patrocinio, etc. Among the churches the most important is the cathedral at Palma called La Leo, an enormous edifice built in gothic style, begun during the reign of James I and not completed until 1601; in 1905 the cathedral was raised to the rank of a minor basilica. The most frequented places of pilgrimage are the shrines of San Salvador, Nostra Señora de Lluch, and the Santuario del Puig de Pollenza.

The Diocese of Iviza nominally united with Majorca, but in reality ruled by its own vicar-capitular, contains 26,000 Catholics, 22 parishes, 26 churches and chapels, about 50 priests, and 1 seminary.

The Diocese of Minorca embraces the island of that name and contains 40,000 Catholics, 23 parishes, 80 churches and chapels, about 102 secular and 6 regular priests, an episcopal seminary, at Ciudadela, an Instuto de segunda ensenanza at Mahon, 35 primary schools, 3 benevolent institutions conducted by the Sisters of Mercy, viz: a hospital and a foundling asylum at Mahon, and a foundling asylum at Ciudadela. The cathedral was built in 1287 on the site of a mosque, and having been partially destroyed in 1628, was restored in 1719. In 1795 it was raised to the rank of a cathedral.

Bidwell, The Balearic Islands (London, 1876); Cartailhac, Monuments primitifs des iles Baleares (Paris, 1892); Vuillier, Les iles oubliees (Paris, 1893); Salvator, Die Balearen (2 vols., Wurzburg and Leipzig, 1897); Fraisse, Skizzen von den Balearischen Inseln (Leipzig, 1898); Recensio Ecclesioe Maioricensis, 1906 (Palma, 1906, additionees et variationes, 1907); Sampol y Ripoli, Annuario bibliog., (1897), Apunt. Para una Biblioteca mallorquina (Palma, 1898).

JOSEPH LINS

Ven. Christopher Bales

(Or Bayles, alias Evers)

Priest and martyr, b. at Coniscliffe near Darlington, County Durham, England, about 1564; executed 4 March, 1590. He entered the English College at Rome, 1 October, 1583, but owing to ill-health was sent to the College at Reims, where he was ordained 28 March, 1587. Sent to England 2 November, 1588, he was soon arrested, racked, and tortured by Topcliffe, and hung up by the hands for twenty-four hours at a time; he bore all most patiently. At length he was tried and condemned for high treason, on the charge of having been ordained beyond seas and coming to England to exercise his office. He asked Judge Anderson whether St. Augustine, Apostle of the English, was also a traitor. The judge said no, but that the act had since been made treason by law. He suffered 4 March, 1590, “about Easter,” in Fleet Street opposite Fetter Lane. On the gibbet was set a placard: “For treason and favouring foreign invasion.” He spoke to the people from the ladder, showing them that his only “treason” was his priesthood. On the same day Venerable Nicholas Horner suffered in Smithfield for having made Bales a jerkin, and Venerable Alexander Blake in Gray’s Inn Lane for lodging him in his house.

Bridgewater, Concertatio Ecclesiae Catholicae in Anglia (Trier, 1589); Challoner, Memoires; Pollen, Acts of English Martyrs (London, 1891); Northern Catholic Calendar; Knox, Douay Diaries (London, 1878); Morris, Catholics of York under Elizabeth (London, 1891); Foley, Records S. J.; Roman Diary (London, 1880).

BEDE CAMM.

Mother Frances Mary Teresa Ball

Born in Dublin 9 January, 1794; died 19 May, 1861; foundress of the Irish Branch of the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (See Sisters of Loreto.) She was a daughter of John Ball and Mabel Clare Bennet. At the age of nine years, Frances was sent to the convent school at the Bar, York, England, conducted by the English Ladies of the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She remained here until the death of her father, in 1808, and then spent some time with her mother at home. In 1814, under the direction of Dr. Daniel Murray, Archbishop of Dublin, Frances returned to York and entered the novitiate of the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary. There she received her religious training, and made her profession in 1816, taking, in religion, the name of Mary Teresa. Recalled by Archbishop Murray, she returned to Dublin with two novices, in 1821, to establish the Irish Branch of the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary for the instruction of children. In 1822 she opened the first institution of the order in Ireland, in Rathfarnam House, four miles from Dublin. Mother Frances was a woman of great piety and administrative ability. Her energies were devoted to the establishment of schools and to the development of the sisterhood which now has members in many countries.

Coleridge, The Life of Mother Frances Mary Teresa Ball (London, 1881).

EDWIN DRURY.

Diocese of Ballarat

One of the three suffragan dioceses of the ecclesiastical province of Melbourne, Australia. It comprises that part of the State of Victoria which is bounded on the east by the 144th meridian E. longitude, thence by the Loddon to the River Murray; on the north by the River Murray; on the west by South Australia; and on the south by the Southern Ocean.

HISTORY

Victoria (known till 1851 as the Port Phillip District of New South Wales) was first permanently colonized in 1835. The rich pastures of the Ballarat district were occupied in 1838. For thirteen years thereafter the site of Ballarat was a picturesque pastoral scene. In 1851 the Port Phillip District was formed into a separate colony under the name of Victoria. It was a period of severe commercial depression, and many of the colonists prepared to set out for the newly discovered goldfields of Ophir, in New South Wales. On 29 June, 1851, the first profitable goldfield in Victoria was discovered at Clunes by James W. Esmond, an Irish Catholic miner, who had been on the Sacramento in ’49. The hope of the colonists rose; ebbed again as Clunes proved a passing disappointment; then came in with a rush when, in August, rich gold was struck at Ballarat. Many of the little eight-feet-square claims were marvellously rich, lined with “jewelers’ shops” and “pockets” of gold. Ballarat became at a bound the richest goldfield in the world, and forty thousand people were soon encamped upon it. Rich fields were discovered in quick succession at Mount Alexander, Bendigo, and other places. Victoria became the modern Transylvania; there ensued a great rush of population to her shores; and she became, and long remained, the most populous of the Australian colonies. At Ballarat, through the lost battle of the Eureka Stockade the insurgent miners of 1854 ultimately won a victory over the exasperating old system of mining licences and “digger hunts.”

Bishop Goold of Melbourne made strenuous efforts to cope with the conditions created by the sudden expansion of population. The first priest appointed to Ballarat was the Rev. Patrick Dunne, most of whose flock in Coburg had stampeded to the goldfields. Father Dunne lived in a calico hut, slept on a slab of gumtree bark, and had for his first church a canvas tent. For some years afterwards a few priests attended to the spiritual wants of what now comprises the Diocese of Ballarat. It was formed in 1874 out of the See of Melbourne. Its first bishop was the Right Rev. Michael O’Connor, a Dublin priest. He was consecrated in Rome on the 7th May, 1874, and was enthroned in his cathedral at Ballarat on the 20th December of the same year. He introduced the Christian Brothers, the Sisters of Mercy, and the Loreto nuns, and after a fruitful episcopate died on the 14th February, 1883. His successor was the Right Rev. James Moore, consecrated 27 April, 1884. Dr. Moore opened the successful boys’ college at Ballarat, and introduced the Redemptorist Fathers and the Sisters of Nazareth, of St. Joseph, and of St. Brigid. He was skilled in finance, was a builder with big ideas, and at his death, 26th June, 1904, left Ballarat one of the best equipped dioceses in Australasia. He was succeeded by the Right Rev. Joseph Higgins, who was translated from the See of Rockhampton on the 3rd of March, 1905. He made mission- and school-extension the chief work of his episcopate. The Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny were introduced; convents, primary and high schools, and churches (over twenty in two years to March, 1907) erected; and many new missions organized. Much of the work summarized here has been carried out in the once drought-scourged, but now prosperous, Mallee country; and remote Mildura, the Ultima Thule of the diocese, has now a resident priest, a convent of the Sisters of Mercy, and a parish school with a daily attendance of 130 pupils.

RELIGIOUS STATISTICS

In March, 1907, there were: parochial districts, 29; churches, 145; secular priests, 62; regular priests, 10; religious brothers, 17; nuns, 230; convents, 18; college (boys), 1; superior day schools (boys) 2; boarding schools (girls), 10; superior day schools (girls), 9; primary schools, 57; home for aged poor, 1; orphanage, 1; children in Catholic schools, 4,900; Catholic population, 59,488.

Moran, History of the Catholic Church in Australasia (Sydney, s. d.); Jose, History of Australasia (Sydney, 1901); Withers, History of Ballarat (2d ed., Ballarat, 1887); Missiones Catholicoe (Propaganda, Rome, j1907) 688.

HENRY W. CLEARY

Girolamo and Pietro Ballerini

Celebrated theologians and canonists, the sons of a distinguished surgeon of Verona. A rare intellectual sympathy bound these brothers together and led them to assist each other in the preparation and composition of their many works. Girolamo was born at Verona 29 January, 1701, and died 23 April, 1781. After finishing his course in the Jesuit college of his native city he entered the seminary and was ordained a secular priest. In the pursuit of his favourite historical studies he soon came to appreciate the valuable labours of the learned Cardinal Noris, also of Verona, and brought out (1729–33) a complete edition of his works. The scholarship of the editors is best seen in the fourth volume, especially in their dissertations against Garerius, and in their study of the early days of the Patriarchate of Aquileia. They also published (1733) an edition of the writings of Matteo Giberti Bishop of Verona, and in 1739 a critical edition of the sermons of St. Zeno of Verona.

PIETRO BALLERINI

Born 7 September, 1698; died 28 March, 1769, after completing his studies both at college and the seminary was chosen principal of a classical school in Verona. Here he began his long and notable literary career in 1724, when he prepared for his pupils a treatise on the method of study taught and followed by St. Augustine. Some passages in this work gave serious offence to the school of absolute Probabilists, and for some years Pietro was engaged in a lively dispute with them, defending his principles of Probabiliorism in three volumes. Shortly afterwards he turned his attention to the much debated question of usury, and threw his influence against the claims of the Laxists. To sustain his argument in this controversy he prepared (1740) an edition of the “Summa” of St. Antoninus which he sent to Pope Benedict XIV, and also (1774) one of the “Summa” of St. Raymond of Pennafort. During his same year he published “La Dottrina della Chiesa Cattolica circa l’usura,” in which he condemned all forms of usury. This exceptional literary activity made the name of the Ballerini brothers famous throughout Italy, and in 1748 Peter was chosen by the senate of Venice to serve as its canonist in Rome in a dispute over the Patriarchate of Aquileia. His conspicuous talent on this mission attracted the attention of Pope Benedict XIV, who commissioned him to prepare an edition of St. Leo’s works in refutation of the defective one published by Quesnel.

After almost nine years of labour in which he enjoyed free access to all the libraries of Rome, Pietro brought out his monumental work in three volumes (Rome, 1753–57) reproducing the entire edition of Quesnel together with elaborate refutations and additions (Migne, P.L., LIV-LVI). The third volume is a profound study of the sources of canon law. Quesnel had published a collection of canons from a codex which he believed to have been in use under Popes Innocent I, Zozimus, and Leo the Great. Besides disproving this, Pietro brought out in an improved form earlier Latin editions of the canons, together with some very old unknown versions of Greek canons. He also published two valuable works (against Febronius) on papal power, “De vi ac ratione Primatus Romanorum Pontificum” (Verona, 1766), and “De potestate ecclesiastica Summorum Pontificum et Concilorum generalium” (Verona, 1765).

Mazzuchelli, Gli scrittori d’Italia (Brescia, 1753–63), II, part I, 178; Fabroni, Vitae Italorum doctrina excellentium (Pisa, 1778–1805), XVIII, 109.

LEO F. O’NEIL.

Henry Balme

(Or Balma; also called Hugh)

A Franciscan theologian, born at Genera, date uncertain; d. 23 February, 1439. He entered the Order of Friars Minor in the province of Burgundy. He was a man of exceptional worth according to the testimony of St. Colette, whose confessor he was. Possessing an intimate knowledge of his penitent’s life, he wrote a brief account of her marvellous gifts. The saint, however, on hearing of its existence, caused it to be destroyed. Among his other writings is one on “Theologia Mystica” which was attributed to St. Bonaventure and is to be found in many editions of the latter’s works, but the editors of the latest edition (Quaracchi, 1898, Vol. VIII, p. cxi), following Sbaralea, have restored it to its rightful owner.

ANDREW EGAN

Jaime Luciano Balmes

Philosopher and publicist, b. at Vich, Spain, 28 August, 1810; d. there, 9 July, 1848. His parents enriched him with no material wealth, but he owed to them a firm, well-balanced temperament, a thorough education, and, probably to his father, a marvellous memory. If to these endowments we add a penetrating intellect, an instinctive sense of right method, an absorbing passion for knowledge, an unflinching though noble ambition, an indomitable determination, a pure life-wherein no unruly sensuousness seems to have ever beclouded the spirit-and abundant opportunities for mental development, we may be prepared to accept even what looks so much like an extravagance on the part of his biographers, that with his sixteenth year, having passed through the schools of Vich, he had completed the seminary course, including philosophy and elementary theology. The next stage of his education was completed at the University of Cervera, where after seven years he received his licentiate in 1833. Later on, he stood for the dignity of Magistral of Vich, contesting for the position with his former teacher, Dr. Soler. Returning to Cervera after his ordination to the priesthood he held a position as an assistant professor and pursued the study of civil and canon law. He shortly afterwards received the doctorate in pompa. In 1834 he went back to his native place where he devoted himself with his wonted ardour to physics and mathematics, and accepting a position as professor in the latter branch, varied the onerous duties of this position by cultivating the classics and writing poems. The latter, though not of a very high order of merit, served to extend his reputation to the capital. He wrote for the “Madrileno Católico” a prize essay on “Clerical Celibacy” which was so favourably received by the public that he was encouraged to send forth a small book, entitled “Observaciones sociales, políticas, y económicas sobre las buenes del clero” (1840), which won for him national distinction, the essay arousing special interest in the Cortes. Soon afterwards he wrote “Consideraciones sobre la situacion en España,” directed mainly against Espartero, then at the zenith of his power. It was a bold deed and might easily have been fatal to Balmes.

This was followed by a translation, with Spanish introduction, of the maxims of St. Francis de Sales (1840). He was now far advanced in his “Protestantism Compared with Catholicism” but suspended the work for fifteen days to compose “La Religion demonstrado al alcance de los niños” a work of advanced instruction for children which rapidly spread throughout Spain and Spanish America and was translated into English. Elected a member of the Academy of Barcelona (1841), he wrote his inaugural dissertation on “Originality,” an essay which exemplifies the predominant trait of its author’s mind. Having completed his reply to Guizot’s “Civilization in Europe,” he published it at Barcelona (1844) under the title “El Protestantismo comparado con el Catolicismo en sus relaciones con la civilización Europea.” The work was at once translated into French and subsequently into Italian, German, and English, and extended the fame of Balmes throughout the world. This work, which for its wealth of fact and critical insight would alone have taxed the resources of a longer life than that which was allotted to Balmes, left to its author time and energy adequate to accomplish tasks of hardly less magnitude and significance. During the bombardment of Barcelona by Espartero, Balmes, going away unwillingly with his friends, took refuge in a country house with no other books than his breviary, “The Imitation,” and the Bible, and while the cannon roared in his ears the philosopher, repeating the experience of Archimedes at the siege of Syracuse, composed the “El Criterio” (The Criterion, New York, 1875; The Art of Thinking, Dublin, 1882), a thoroughly practical guide on method in the pursuit of knowledge. It seems incredible that the work could have been produced as it was with a month. Shortly after Balmes became associated with two friends, Roca y Cornet and Ferrer y Subirana, in editing “La Civilización,” a widely influential review wherein appeared one of his most powerful, because sympathetic, papers-that on O’Connell. In 1843 Balmes withdrew from the editorship to found in Barcelona a review of his own, “La Sociedad.” It contained a mass of important papers meeting the social, political, and religious exigencies of the time. “La Sociedad” was reprinted at Barcelona in 1851. It was through its pages that the greater part of a notable work, subsequently completed by the author, was issued-”Cartas á un eséptico” (Letters to a Sceptic, Dublin, 1875).

About the date of the appearance of “El Protestantismo” (1844) Balmes was called to Madrid where he established a newspaper “El Pensamiento de la Nacion” in the interests of politics and religion. Its special purpose was the advocacy of the marriage of Isabella II with the eldest son of Don Carlos, a union which appeared to Balmes to offer the most effectual solution of the existing political problems of Spain. He even accepted a mission to Don Carlos and succeeded in persuading the latter to renounce his title of king in favour of the Count of Montemolin. Unfortunately, the plan which might have spared his country many misfortunes failed through French interference. Balmes, seeing his cherished design come to naught when Isabella married her cousin Don Francisco de Assisi, suspended the publication of “El Pensamiento” notwithstanding the remonstrance of friend and foe, for the journal had, through the impress of his mind and character and literary power, come to mark an epoch in the history of the Spanish press. Balmes now retired from the political arena to devote the closing years of a life all too short to the publication of his philosophical writings. In May, 1845, he visited France, Belgium, and England, a journey of which there are few details recorded save that he was feted in Paris, where he also met Chateaubriand, and in Brussels, and Mechlin. Returning to Madrid, he repaired thence to Barcelona where he issued in 1846 his “Filosofía fundamental” (this was translated into English by Henry F. Brownson, with an introduction by his father, Dr. Orestes A. Brownson (New York, 1864). It is an exposition of the philosophy of St. Thomas in view of the intellectual conditions of the nineteenth century. His biographer, Dr. Soler, speaks of this work as one “which, from the stupendous variety of knowledge which it manifests and the richness of its mental treasures, appears a collection of libraries, a mine of science, for there is no faculty foreign to the vast comprehension of its author.” Allowing for some extravagance in this fervid eulogy, no reader competent to judge can fail to recognize the breadth, depth, and practical timeliness of the “Fundamental Philosophy.”

From Barcelona he returned to his native place, where he composed his “Filosofía elemental” (Madrid, 1847), a compendium that became widely used in the schools and which was also translated into English. In 1847 he wrote his pamphlet “Pio Nono” wherein he defends the liberal policy of Pius IX, at the opening of his pontificate, when that pope gave a universal amnesty and adopted constitutional government. Though perhaps the best written of all Balmes’s works, it was unfavourably received, was bitterly attacked by his enemies, and regretted by most of his friends. The pain inflicted on his sensitive spirit by the unjust aspersions and insidious innuendoes of his opponents preyed upon his constitution which, never robust, had been severely taxed by incessant labours. He retired once more to Barcelona dividing there his time between linguistic studies, his inaugural discourse for the Royal Spanish Academy, to which he had been admitted, and the Latin translation of his “Elementary Philosophy,” undertaken at the request of Archbishop Affre of Paris. He returned to his native Vich, May, 1848, where his health steadily declined till the end came on the 9th of July following. Balmes is described as of more than medium stature, slight of frame though well-developed; his face was pale but delicately tinged; his eye penetrating; his aspect agreeable and naturally majestic. His temperament combined the better elements of the traditional four. He was moderate in all lines of conduct, except probably in study and intellectual work, which he seems to have carried at times to a passionate excess. His thoughts and expression were so copious and so close to his call that he could easily dictate to two secretaries on any subject he might take in hand. Exact and methodical in his relations to God, he was no less conscientious in his duties towards his neighbour. Unostentatiously charitable to the poor, he was unaffectedly kind and affable, though somewhat reserved, in all social converse. A strong soul in a sensitive organism, his intellectual life absorbed and spiritualized the physical.

Balmes has a universally admitted place of honour amongst the greatest philosophers of modern times. He knew the reflective thought of his day and of the past. The systems of Germany, from Kant to Hegel, he studied carefully and criticized judiciously. The scholastics, especially St. Thomas, were familiar to him. He meditated on them profoundly and adopted most of their teaching, but passed it through his own mental processes and turned it out cast in the mould of his own genius. Descartes, Leibnitz, and especially the Scottish school, notably Jouffroy, had considerable influence on the method and matter of his thought, which is characterized consequently by a just eclecticism. He deemed it a danger to take lightly the opinions of any great mind, since, as he said, even if they did not reflect complete reality, they rarely were devoid of strong grounds and at least some measure of truth. Balmes was, therefore, one of the most influential causes in reviving sound philosophy in Spain and indeed throughout Europe generally during the second quarter of the nineteenth century-an influence that continues still through his permanent works. Certain indeed of his theories are open to criticism. He perhaps accords too much to an intellectual instinct, a theory of the Scottish school, and too little to objective evidence in the perception of truth. In psychology he rejects the intellectus agens (the abstractive intellect) and the species intelligibilis (intermediary presentations), and he holds the principle of life in brutes to be naturally imperishable.

These, however, are but accidental and relatively unimportant divergencies from the permanent body of the traditional philosophy-the system which receives in his “Filosofía fundamental” a fresh interpretation and a further development in answer to the intellectual conditions of his day; for it was an habitual conviction with Balmes that the philosopher’s business is not merely to rethink and restate but to reshape and develop. While the book just mentioned reflects the speculative aspect of its author’s mind, the work that most fully manifests his personality, his mental, moral, and religious character, and his social and political ideals, together with the range and accuracy of his learning-the work, therefore, that is likeliest to endure-is “El Protestantismo comparado.” Though conceived originally as a reply to Guizot’s “History of Civilization,” it is much more than a critique or a polemic. It is really a philosophy of history-or rather of Christianity-combining profound insight and critical analysis with wide erudition. It searches for the basal principles of Catholicism and of Protestantism, and summons the evidence of history concerning the comparative influence exercised by the former and the latter in the various spheres of human life-intellectual, moral, social, and political. The side on which the author’s sympathies lie is frankly indicated by him, while he appeals to the historical data in justification. It should be read in the Spanish to be fully estimated; for the English translation, done through a French medium, though accurate and scholarly, can hardly be expected to reflect all the light of the original.

For the rest, the general position of Balmes among his countrymen may be summed up in the words of one of the leading Spanish journals, “El Heraldo,” at the time of his death. “Balmes appeared, like Chateaubriand, on the last day of the revolution of his country to demand from it an account of its excesses, and to claim for ancient institutions their forgotten rights. Both mounted on the wings of genius to a height so elevated above the passions of party that all entertained respect and veneration for them. One and the other brought such glory to their country that, though they combated generally prevailing opinions and prejudices, all good citizens wove for them well-earned crowns and loved them with enthusiasm.” Besides the works mentioned above, a collection of fragments and unpublished pieces were issued after his death under the title “Escritos postumos” (Barcelona, 1850); also “Poesias postumas” (ib.), and “Escritos politicos” (ib.).

Soler, Biografia del D. J. Balmes (Barcelona, 1850); Garcia de los Santos, Vida de Balmes (Madrid, 1848); Raffin, J. Balmes, sa vie et ses ouvrages (Paris, 1849; Ger. Tr. Ratisbon, 1852); Art of Thinking (Dublin, 1882, Biog. Introd.); Protestantism and Catholicism Compared (Baltimore, 1850, Biog. Introd.); Gonzalez Herrero, Estudio historico critico sobre las doctinas de Balmes (Oviedo, 1905); Menendez y Pelayo, Historia de los heterodoxos espaniles (Madrid, 1881) III, lib. VIII, iii; Baranera, Balmes (Vich, 1905).

F.P. SIEGFRIED

Balsam

Balsam is an oily, resinous, and odorous substance, which flows spontaneously or by incision from certain plants, and which the Church mixes with olive oil for use as chrism. Balsams are very widely distributed throughout the plant kingdom, being particularly abundant in the pine family, but the name is generally restricted in the present day to resins which in addition to a volatile oil contain benzoic and cinnamic acid. Among the true balsams are the Balm of Gilead, or Mecca, which is cultivated in Arabia, Egypt, Syria, etc., and is extremely costly; the copaiva balsam, and those of Peru and Tolu—all three found chiefly in South America. The term balsam, however, is also applied to many pharmaceutical preparations and resinous substances which possess a balsamic odour.

The practice of the Church of using balsam, as mentioned above, is very ancient, going back possibly to Apostolic times. (See CHRISM.) The scarcity and high price of other perfumes has obliged the Latin Church to be content with balm alone in the mixture of holy chrism; but in the East, where the climate is more favourable than ours to the growth of these plants, the Church uses no less than thirty-six species of precious perfumes, according to the Euchologion, in the oil, which makes it an ointment of exquisite fragrance. The Latin Church does not insist on the quantity or the quality of the balsam to be used; any substance commonly known as a balsam may be utilized, and such a quantity as will give its odour to the oil is sufficient. This mingling of the balsam with the oil is intended to convey, by outward sign, the good odour of Christ, of whom it is written (Cantic., i, 3): “We will run after thee to the odour of thy ointments.” It typifies also the odour of good works, the thought which ought to inspire those who worthily receive the sacraments; and it symbolizes an innocent life and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The balsam is blessed by the bishop at the Mass which he solemnly celebrates on Holy Thursday and is poured into the oil after he has administered Holy Communion to the faithful. The cruet of balsam is brought by a subdeacon to the assistant priest, who in turn places it on a table in the sanctuary before the bishop. The latter blesses the balsam, reciting over it the three prayers found in the Roman Pontifical: he calls it the fragrant tear of dry bark—the oozing of a favoured branch that gives us the priestly unction. Later he mixes the balsam with a little oil on a paten and pours it into the chrism with a suitable invocation: “May this mixture of liquors be to those who shall be anointed with it, a propitiation and a salutary protection for ever and ever. Amen.”

In the early ages the pope, without using any form, as appears from the Roman Ordines, poured the balsam into the oil, while still in the sacristy before Mass (Ordo Romanus, X, n. 3; P. L. , LXXVIII, 1010.), but the blessing took place after the Communion of the pope, and before that of the clergy and the faithful (Duchesne, Christian Worship, 2d Eng. ed., 305, 306, 467). According to the Gregorian Sacramentary (Muratori, ed., P. L., LXXVIII, 330), however, the pope mixes the balsam and oil during the Mass. In the Church of Soissons in France, at one time, the “Veni Creator” was sung before the mingling of the balsam and oil.

MÖHLER in Kirchenlex.

ANDREW B. MEEHAN.

Theodore Balsamon

A canonist of the Greek Church, born in the second half of the twelfth century at Constantinople; died there, after 1195 (Petit). He was a deacon. nomophylax, or guardian of the Laws, and from 1178 to 1183, under the Patriarch Theodosius, he had charge of all ecclesiastical trials or cases. In 1193 he became Greek Patriarch of Antioch. Balsamon’s best work is his “Scholia,” or commentary on the “Nomocanon” of Photius, published first in Latin at Paris (1561), at Basle (1562); in Greek and Latin at Paris (1615), and again at Basle (1620). It is also found in Beveridge’s “Pandecta Canonum,” Oxford, 1672 (P. G., cxxxvii-viii). From 1852 to 1860, Rhalli and Potli published at Athens a collection of the sources of Greek canon law which contains Balsamon’s commentary. In his “Scholia” Balsamon insists on existing laws, and dwells on the relation between canons and laws—ecclesiastical and civil constitutions—giving precedence to the former. Balsamon also compiled a collection of ecclesiastical constitutions and wrote other works, in all of which is apparent his animosity towards the Roman Church. Two of his letters were published: one treating of fasting, the other on the admission of novices into monasteries.

KREUTZWALD in Kirchenlex., s. v.; BEVERIDGE, Prœf. in Pandecta Can., P. G., LXX, 11 sqq.; MORTREUIL, Hist. du droit byzantin (Paris, 1846), III, 1432–45; KRUMBACHER, Gesch. des byzant. litt. (Munich, 1897).

ANDREW B. MEEHAN

Baltasar

(Or, as found in the Septuagint Baltasár.)

Baltasar is the Greek and Latin name for Belshazzar, which is the Hebrew equivalent for Belsarrausur, i.e., “May Bel protect the king.” Bel was the chief and titular god of Babylon. In Daniel, v, Baltasar is described as the son of Nabuchodonosor (A. V., Nebuchadnezzar) and the last King of Babylon. It is there narrated how the town was invaded-by the Medes under Darius, as would seem from Dan., v, 18, 19-whilst the king was giving a sumptuous feast to his nobles. The king himself was slain. The narrator further informs us that the sacred vessels which Nabuchodonosor had carried with him from Jerusalem were defiled on that occasion. By order of king Baltasar they were used during the banquet, and his wives and concubines drank out of them. In the midst of the revelry a hand is seen writing on the wall the mysterious words Mane, Thecel, Phares (A. V., Mene, Tekel, Peres). The king’s counsellors and magicians are summoned to explain the writing, but they fail to do so. The Queen then enters the banquet hall and suggests that Daniel should be called for. Daniel reads and explains the words: the days of the kingdom had been numbered; the king had been weighed in the balance and had been found wanting; his kingdom would be given to the Medes and the Persians.

In the account given by Herodotus of the capture of Babylon by the Persians under Cyrus, Labynitus II, son of Labynitus I and Nicotris, is named as the last King of Babylon. Labynitus is commonly held to be a corruption of Nabomidus. Herodotus further mentions that Cyrus, after laying siege to the town, entered it by the bed of the Euphrates, having drained off its waters, and that the capture took place whilst the Babylonians were feasting (Herod., I, 188–191). Xenophon also mentions the siege, the draining of the Euphrates, and the feast. He does not state the name of the king, but fastens on him the epithet “impious,” ànódios. According to him, the king made a brave stand, defending himself with his sword, but was overpowered and slain by Gobryas and Gadatas, the two generals of Cyrus (Cyrop., vii, 5). The Chaldean priest Berosus names Nabonidus as the last King of Babylon and says that the city was taken in the seventeenth year of his reign. We are further informed by him that Nabonidus went forth at the head of an army to oppose Cyrus, that he gave battle, lost, and fled to Borsippa. In this town he was besieged and forced to surrender. His life was spared, and an abode assigned to him in Karmania. (Prof. C. P. Tiele, BabylonischAssyrische Gesch., 479; Euseb., Præp Ev., ix, 41; Idem, Chron., i, 10, 3.) Josephus follows the Biblical account. He remarks that Baltasar was called by the Babylonians Naboandelus, evidently a corruption of Nabonidus, and calls the queen, grandmother (è mámme) of the king. He adheres to the Septuagint rendering in making the reward held out to Daniel to have been a third portion of the kingdom instead of the title, third ruler in the kingdom. Rabbinical tradition has preserved nothing of historical value.

The cuneiform inscriptions have thrown a new light on the person of Baltasar and the capture of Babylon. There is in the first place the inscription of Nabonidus containing a prayer for his son: “And as for Belsarraasur my eldest son, the offspring of my body, the awe of thy great divinity fix thou firmly in his heart that he may never fall into sin” (Records of the Past, V, 148). It is commonly admitted that Belsarrausur is the same as Belshazzar, or Baltasar. Dr. Strassmaier has published three inscriptions which mention certain business transactions of Belsarrausur. They are the leasing of a house, the purchase of wool, and the loan of a sum of money. They are dated respectively the fifth, eleventh, and twelfth year of Nabonidus. Of greater iimportance is the analytical tablet on which is engraved an inscription by Cyrus summarizing the more memorable events of the reign of Nabonidus and the causes leading up to the conquest of Babylon. The first portion of the tablet states that in the sixth year of Nabonidus, Astyages (Istuvegu) was defeated by Cyrus, and that from the seventh till the eleventh year Nabonidus resided in Tema (a western suburb of Babylon) whilst the king’s son was with the army in Accad, or Northern Babylonia. After this a lacuna occurs, owing to the tablet being broken. In the second portion of the inscription we find Nabonidus himself at the head of his army in Accad near Sippar. The events narrated occur in the seventeenth, or last, year of the king’s reign.-”In the month of Tammuz [June] Cyrus gave battle to the army of Accad. The men of Accad broke into revolt. On the 14th day the garrison of Sippar was taken without fighting. Nabonidus flies. On the 16th day Gobryas the governor of Gutium [Kurdistan] and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle. Afterwards he takes Nabonidus and puts him into fetters in Babylon. On the 3rd day of Marchesvan [October] Cyrus entered Babylon” (Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments; Pinches, Capture of Babylon). In addition to this tablet we have the Cyrus cylinder published by Sir Henry Rawlinson in 1880. Cyrus pronounces a eulogy upon his military exploits and assigns his triumph to the intervention of the gods. Nabonidus had incurred their wrath by removing their images from the local shrines and bringing them to Babylon.

On comparing the inscriptions with the other accounts we find that they substantially agree with the statement by Berosus, but that they considerably differ from what is recorded by Herodotus, Xenophon, and in the Book of Daniel. (1) The inscriptions do not mention the siege of Babylon recorded by Herodotus and Xenophon. Cyrus says Gobryas his general took the town “without fighting.” (2) Nabonidus (555–538 B.C.), and not Baltasar, as is stated in Daniel, was the last King of Babylon. Baltasar, or Belsarrausur, was the son of Nabonidus. Nor was Nabonidus or Baltasar a son or descendant of Nabuchodonosor. Nabonidus was the son of Nebobaladhsuikbi, and was a usurper of the throne. The family of Nabuchodonosor had come to an end in the person of EvilMerodach, who had been murdered by Nergalsharezer, his sister’s husband. The controversy occasioned by these differences between the conservative and modern schools of thought has not yet reached a conclusion. Scholars of the former school still maintain the historical accuracy of the Book of Daniel, and explain the alleged discrepancies with great ingenuity. They assume that Baltasar had been associated with his father in the government, and that as princeregent, or coregent, he could be described in authority and rank as king. For this conjecture they seek support in the promise of Baltasar to make Daniel “third ruler” (D. V., “third prince”) in the kingdom, from which they infer that he himself was the second. Professor R. D. Wilson, of Princeton, claims that the bearing of the title “King” by Baltasar was in harmony with the usage of the time (Princeton Theol. Rev., 1904, April, July; 1905, January, April). The other discrepancy, namely, that Nabuchodonosor is called the father of Baltasar (Dan., v. 2, 11, 18) they account for either by taking the word “father” in the wider sense of predecessor, or by the conjecture that Baltasar was his descendant on the mother’s side.

On the other hand, the school of critics declines to accept these explanations. They argue that Baltasar not less than Nabuchodonosor appears in Daniel as sole and supreme ruler of the State. While fully admitting the possibility that Baltasar acted as princeregent, they can find no proof for this either in the classical authors or in the inscriptions. The inference drawn from the promise of Baltasar to raise Daniel to the rank of a “third ruler” in the kingdom they regard as doubtful and uncertain. The Hebrew phrase may be rendered “ruler of a third part of the kingdom.” Thus the phrase would be parallel to the Greek term “tetrarch,” i.e. ruler of a fourth part, or of a small portion of territory. For this rendering they have the authority of the Septuagint, Josephus, and, as Dr. Adler informs us, of Jewish commentators of repute (see Daniel in the Critics’ Den, p. 26). Furthermore, they argue that the emphatic way in which Nabuchodonosor is designated as father of the king leads the reader to infer that the writer meant his words to be understood in the literal and obvious sense. Thus the queen, addressing Baltasar, thrice repeats the designation “the king thy father,” meaning Nabuchodonosor: “And in the days of thy father light, knowledge and wisdom were found in him [Daniel]: for King Nabuchodonosor thy father appointed him prince of the wise men, enchanters, Chaldeans, soothsayers, thy father, O King.”

SAYCE, The Higher Criticism and the Monuments (London, 1894); KENNEDY, The Book of Daniel from the Christian Standpoint (London, 1898); FARRAR, Daniel (London); ANDERSON, Daniel in the Critics’ Den (London); ORR, The Problem of the O. T. (London, 1906); GIGOT, Special Introduction to the Study of the O. T., pt. II, 366, 367, 369; ROGERS, A History of Babylonia and Assyria (New York, 1902); TIELE, BabylonischAssyrische Gesch., (Gotha, 1886).

C. VAN DEN BIESEN

Archdiocese of Baltimore

The senior see of the United States of America, established as a diocese 6 April, 1789; as an archdiocese 8 April, 1808; embraces all that part of the State of Maryland west of the Chesapeake Bay (6,442 square miles) including also the District of Columbia (64 square miles), making in all 6,502 square miles. The entire population of this area is about 1,273,000. The Catholics numbering 255,000, are principally of English, Irish, and German descent. There are also Polish, Lithuanian, Bohemian, and Italian congregations, and six churches exclusively for black people, four in Baltimore, two in Washington. (See WASHINGTON and DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.)

I. COLONIAL PERIOD

(A) POLITICO-RELIGIOUS BEGINNINGS

Catholic Maryland, the first colony in the New World where religious toleration was established, was planned by George Calvert (first Lord Baltimore), a Catholic convert; founded by his son Cecilius Calvert (second Lord Baltimore), and named for a Catholic queen, Henrietta Maria, wife of Charles I of England. Except for the period of Ingle’s Rebellion (1645–47) its government was controlled by Catholics from the landing of the first colony under Leonard Calvert (25 March, 1634) until after 1649, when the Assembly passed the famous act of religious toleration. The first three Lords Baltimore, George, Cecilius, and Charles, were Catholics. The last three, Benedict Leonard, Charles, and Frederick, were Protestants. Puritans who had been given an asylum in Maryland rebelled and seised the government (165868) and Catholics were excluded from the administration of the province and restrained in the exercise of their faith. When Lord Baltimore again obtained control (1658), religious liberty was restored until 1692.

Taking advantage of Protestant disturbance in the colony, William of Orange, King of England, declared the Proprietary’s claim forfeited, made Maryland a royal province, and sent over Copley, the first royal governor (1692). The Anglican Church was then made the established church of Maryland, every colonist being taxed for its support. In 1702, religious liberty was extended to all Christians except Catholics. Catholics were forbidden (1704) to instruct their children in their religion or to send them out of the colony for such instruction (1715). Priests were forbidden to exercise their functions and Catholic children could be taken from a Catholic parent. Appealed to by Catholics, Queen Anne intervened and the clergy were permitted to perform their duties in the chapels of private families (9 December, 1704). Thus originated the manor chapels, and the so-called “Priests’ Mass-Houses” The apostasy of Benedict Leonard Calvert (1713) was a, cruel blow to the persecuted Catholics. In 1716 an oath was exacted of office-holders renouncing their belief in Transubstantiation. An act disfranchising Catholics followed (1718). Charles Carroll, father of the Signer, went to France (1752) for the purpose of obtaining a grant of land on the Arkansas River for his persecuted brethren. This plan, however, failed. To exterminate Catholicity an attempt was made to pass a bill confiscating the property of the clergy ( 3 May, I754, Lower House Journal in MSS Maryland Archives). The missionaries, having received land from the Proprietaries upon the same conditions as the other colonists, divided their time between the care of souls and the cultivation of their mission supporting farms. The cutting off of these revenues, would therefore have been disastrous to the Church. Fortunately this attempt did not succeed. Such were the political conditions until the time of the Revolution (Archives Maryland Hist. Sec. Baltimore; Johnson, Foundations of Maryland, Baltimore, 1883; Johnston, Religious Liberty in Maryland and Rhode Island, Catholic Truth Society Publications; Browne, George and Cecilius Calvert, New York, 1890; Hall, The Lords of Baltimore, ibid., 1902).

(B) THE FIRST MISSIONARIES

In the first colony brought over by the Ark and the Dove (25 March, 1634) were three Jesuits, Fathers Andrew White and John Althan, and a lay brother, Thomas Gervase (White, Relatio Itineris in Marylandiam, Baltimore ed., 1874; cf. Am. Hist. Review, April 1907 p. 584; Treacy, Old Catholic Maryland, Swedesboro, N.J., 1889; Hughes, Hist. of S.J. in N. America, 1907). The following year another priest and lay brother arrived. Fathers Philip Fisher (real name Thomas Copley) and John Knolles landed in 1637. In 1642, the Roman Congregation of the Propaganda, at Lord Baltimore’s request, sent to Maryland two secular priests, Fathers Gilmett and Territt. Two Franciscans arrived in 1673, one of whom was Father Masaeus Massey a Santa Barbara, a truly apostolic man. There were not more than six Franciscans at any time on the missions in Maryland. Their missions ceased with the death of Father Haddock in 1720. In 1716 two Scotch Recollects (Franciscans) came to the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The title “Apostle of Maryland” belongs unquestionably to Father Andrew White, S.J., whose zeal was boundless. During Ingle’s Rebellion (1645–47) Fathers White and Fisher were taken in chains to England where the former died. Father Fisher returned to Maryland in 1648, dying in 1653, leaving the Rev. Lawrence Stanley on the mission. Fourteen years after the first colony landed nearly all the natives south of what is now Washington had embraced the Faith, living in peaceful happy intercourse with the settlers. Father White said Mass and baptized the princess of the tribe in his wigwam on the Port Tobacco River. A chapel farther down the stream replaced the wigwam which was in turn succeeded by St. Thomas’s Manor church built in 1798 by the Rev. Charles Sewell, S.J. Such was the glorious result of the wisdom and zeal of the first Jesuit missionaries of Maryland (a U. Campbell, in U. S. Cath. Hist. Magazine, Baltimore; Calvert Papers, Maryland Hist. Society, 1889–94; Treacy, op. cit.; The Catholic Cabinet, St. Louie, 1843–45. The Religious Cabinet, Baltimore, 1842)

In accordance with Lord Baltimore’s instruction a church was built in the early days at St. Mary’s, the capital of the province. William Bretton and his wife, Temperance, in 1661 deeded the ground for the chapel of St. Ignatius and the cemetery at Newtown. Newtown Manor was afterwards purchased by the Jesuits. In 1677 a Catholic college was opened by Father Foster, S.J., and Mr. Thomas Hothersall, a scholastic. In 1697 we finds brick chapel at St. Mary’s; frame chapels at St. Inigoes, Newtown, Port Tobacco, Newport; Father Hobart’s chapel (Franciscan) near Newport; one on the Boarman estate, and one at Doncaster in Talbot County. During this period (1634–1700) there were about thirty-five Jesuits in the missions of Maryland all of whom with two or three exceptions were English. They were men of apostolic zeal and disinterestedness. The mission at Bohemia, in Cecil County was founded by Father Mansell (1706) the priests of this mission carrying the Faith into Delaware. St. Inigoes house was established in 1708 end later a chapel was added. Hickory Mission, from which Baltimore was afterwards attended, was established in 1720, and St. Joseph’s Chapel, Deer Creek (the Rev. John Digges, Jr.), in 1742. We find the Rev. Benedict Neale at Priest’s Ford, Harford County, in 1747. St. Ignatius’s Church, Hickory, was established (1792) by the Rev. Sylvester Boarman. About 1755, 900 Catholic Acadian refugees settled in Maryland, but the Catholics were forbidden to give them hospitality. Many of them lost the Faith, but some of their descendants still preserve the Faith for which their fathers suffered. An unfinished house in Baltimore (north-west corner of Calvert and Fayette Streets) was used by them as a chapel. A Catholic school was established in Baltimore (1757) by Mary Ann March, but was closed on account of the violent persecution of Protestant clergymen. The historic Whitemarsh mission was founded in 1760 by the Rev. John Lewis. Frederick Chapel (St. John’s) was built by Father Williams, S.J.; the church was built in 1800 by the Rev. John Dubois, at that time the only priest between Baltimore and St. Louis. The present church was consecrated in 1837. In 1903 the Jesuits gave up the church and novitiate. The Jesuit novitiate was opened at Georgetown, D.C., 1806. During the War of 1812, it was at St. Inigoes and Frederick for a few years, then returned to Georgetown was removed to Whitemarsh about 1820, and to Frederick in 1833, whence in 1903 it was finally removed to St. Andrews-on-the-Hudson, near Poughkeepsie, New York.

In 1669, the Catholic population numbered 2,000; in 1708 it was 2,979 in a population of 40,000; in 1755 about 7,000. In 1766, the following missions were about 7 attended by Jesuits: St. Inigoes, Newtown, Port Tobacco, Whitemarsh, Deer Creek, Fredericktown, Queenstown, Bohemia and Baltimore. The twenty Jesuits on the Maryland mission at the time of their order’s suppression (1773) remained at their posts. The first priest born in Maryland was the Rev. Robert Brooks (1663). His four brothers also became priests. Conspicuous for unselfish zeal at this period was Rev. William Hunter; whilst for over forty years Father George Thorold laboured in Maryland (170043). The clergy was, in general, self-supporting. (Treacy, op. cit.; Extracts from Letters of Missionaries, Baltimore, 1877; Sheet, Life and Times of Archbishop Carroll, New York, 1888.)

(C) THE CATHOLIC COLONISTS

The Catholic population, mostly rural, was generous to the Church and hospitable to the priests. We find many deeds and bequests for ecclesiastical purposes in the early records. Enduring one hundred years of persecution from the Protestants to whom they had offered asylum, proscribed, disfranchised, offered peace and emolument in exchange for apostasy, the Catholics generally continued faithful, and it is inspiring to read the list of Catholic names that survived the dark days, and that are still in evidence on the Catholic roll of honour—Brent, Lee, Fenwick, Boarman, Sewell, Lowe, Gardiner, Carroll, Neale, Jenkins, Digges, Bowling, Edelin, Matthews, Lancaster, Stonestreet, Boone, Mattingly, Brooks, Hunter, Coombes, Spalding Semmes, Dyer, Jamison, Queen, Hill, Gwynn, Wheeler, Elder, McAtee, Pye Miles, Abell, Camalier, Smith, Plowden, Freeman, Maddox, Greenwell, Floyd, Drury, Mudd, Hamilton, Clark, Payne, Brock, Walton, Doyne, Darnall. During the American Revolution, Catholics, with very rare exceptions, sided with the patriots; Maryland’s best Catholic names are to be found on the rolls of the Continental army, both as officers and privates. The most prominent and influential citizens of Maryland during this epoch was Charles Carroll of Carrollton, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. At this time only Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Delaware had removed the disabilities against Catholics. The National Convention (Philadelphia, 1787) granted religious liberty to all. (McSherry, Hist. of Maryland, Baltimore, 1882; Scharf, Hist. of Maryland, Baltimore, 1879.)

II. AMERICAN PERIOD

Such were the conditions in Maryland when the first bishop was appointed. Speaking of this period in 1790 bishop Carroll said “it is surprising that there remained even so much as there was of true religion. In general Catholics were regular and unoffensive nn their conduct, such, I mean, as were natives of the country”—but he complains bitterly of the injury to the Faith caused by those Catholics who came to the colony about this time (Shea, Life of Archbishop Carroll, 49). In fact the Church began to recover from this scandal only forty years after. Catholic Americans were subject spiritually to English Catholic superiors (the archpriests), until 6 September, 1665, when Innocent XI appointed Dr. John Leyburn, Vicar-Apostolic of all The British Colonies in America remained jurisdiction of Dr. Leyburn and his successors, Bishops Gifford, Petre, Challoner, and Talbot, until the appointment of Dr. Carroll. After the Revolution it was plain that the United States could not conveniently remain subject in spirituals to a superior in England. A meeting was called at Whitemarsh (27 June, 1783) by the Rev. John Lewis, Vicar-General of the Vicar Apostolic of London. This meeting was attended by the Revs. John Carroll, John Ashton, Charles Sewell, Bernard Diderick, Sylvester Boarman, and Leonard Neale. It resulted in a petition asking for the appointment of the Rev. John Lewis as Superior, with quasi-episcopal faculties. At this time the French Minister to the United States schemed to make the missions of the United States subject to France. Benjamin Franklin, United States representative to France, ignorant of the true state of affairs, at first supported this intrigue. Congress, however, informed Franklin that the project was one “without the jurisdiction and power of Congress, who have no authority to permit or refuse it.” The American priests then presented a memorial to Pius VI. As a result the appointment of the Rev. John Carroll as Superior of the missions of the United States, with power to administer confirmation, was ratified (9 June, 1784). He received the decree appointing him Prefect Apostolic 26 November, 1784. At this time, there were, according to Dr. Carroll, 15,800 Catholics in Maryland (of whom 3,000 were negreos); 7000 Catholics in Pennsylvania; 200 in Virginia; 1,500 in New York. In 1782 the total population of Maryland was 254,000. There were nineteen priests in Maryland and five in Pennsylvania. Dr. Carroll made his first visitation in Maryland in 1785, and administered confirmation. About this time he took up his residence in Baltimore where the Rev. Charles Sewell was pastor. In 1788, the clergy petitioned Pius VI for the appointment of a bishop. Their request was granted. They were permitted to determine whether the bishop should be merely titular, or should have a see in the United States—and to choose the place for, as well as to elect the occupant of the see.

ELECTION OF BISHOP CARROLL

Twenty-four priests assembled at Whitemarsh. Twenty-three voted for Dr. Carroll, who was, accordingly, appointed first Bishop of Baltimore, subject to the Roman Congregation of the Propaganda. Dr. Carroll was consecrated in the chapel of Lulworth Castle, England, 15 August, 1790, the consecrator being the Right Rev. Charles Walmesley, Senior Vicar Apostolic of England. Before leaving England, Dr. Carroll arranged with the Sulpician Fathers to establish an ecclesiastical seminary in Baltimore at their own expense. Accordingly, the superior, the Rev. Francis Nagot with three priests and five seminarians arrived at Baltimore in July, 1791. The “One Mile Tavern” and four acres of land were purchased and on 18 July, St. Mary’s Seminary was opened.

(A) PROGRESS OF CATHOLICISM

The next year the Revs. J.R. David and B.J. Flaget, afterwards Bishops of Bardstown (Louisville), Kentucky, with Mr. Stephen Badin who was the first priest ordained in Baltimore (1793), arrived. In 1787, the Rev. Joseph Mosley died leaving about 600 communicants on the Eastern Shore, where he had laboured twenty-two years. At this time there was only one other priest stationed there. The next, year the veteran John Lewis died, being the last of the original Maryland missions. In 1789 Georgetown College was founded. A frame church was erected at Westminster (1789), succeeded by Christ Church (1805) under the Rev. Joseph Zucchi. In 1791 the Diocese of Baltimore included all the territory east of the Mississippi, except Florida; in this vast territory there mere churches at Baltimore, New York (1785), Boston (1788), Charleston (1785); in Maryland at St. Inigoes, Newtown, Newport, Port Tobacco. Rock Creek, Annapolis, Whitemarsh, Bohemia, Tuckahoe Deer Creek, Frederick, Westminster; in Pennsylvania: at Philadelphia, Lancaster, Conewago, Goshenhoppen; in Delaware, at Coffee Run, also at Vincennes, Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and Prairie du Rocher. In 1790, a Carmelite community was established at Port Tobacco under Mother Frances Dickinson. The nuns remained there until 1831, when twenty-four sisters under Mother Angela Mudd removed to Baltimore. In 1791, the first diocesan synod in the United States was opened at the bishop’s house in Baltimore. Twenty-two priests and the bishop were present. At this synod the offertory collections were inaugurated. Between 1791 and 1798 seventeen French arrived, some of whom became famous in the of the United States—the Revs. John Dubois (1791), Benedict Flaget, J.B. David, Ambrose Maréchal (1792), William DuBourg, and John Moranville (1794), and John Lefevre Cheverus (1796). Until this time the burden of the missions of Maryland had been borne by the Jesuits. From 1700 to 1805 about ninety Jesuits had laboured on the mission, of whom about sixty were English, sixteen Americans, and the rest German, Irish, Welsh, Belgian, and French. They were apostolic men who devoted their lives without earthly reward to the service of others.

In 1792, Catholics in the eastern section of Baltimore, finding it inconvenient to attend the pro-cathedral, asked for a priest and rented a room in the third story of a house, corner of Fleet and Bond Streets, where the first Mass was said by Bishop Carroll. This congregation numbered about twelve persons. The Rev. Antoine Garnier, from St. Mary’s Seminary, visited them twice weekly until 17 December, 1795, when the Rev. John Floyd took charge. The first church was erected on Apple Alley near Wilks Street. Father Floyd dying in 1797, Father Garnier was again made pastor until 1803, when the Rev. Michael Coddy succeeded him. Dying within the year, his place was taken by the Rev. John Moranville, through whose zeal the cornerstone of St. Patrick’s Church (Broadway and Bank Streets) was laid 10 July, 1804. It was dedicated 29 November, 1807, being then the most imposing church in the diocese. Father Moranville died in 1824, and was succeeded by the Rev. Nicholas Kearney (d. 1840), the Rev. John Dolan (d. 1870), and the Rev. John T. Gaitley (d. 1892). In 1898 the old church was replaced by the present handsome Gothic edifice. St. Patrick’s School, begun by Father Moranville, preceded all public schools In Baltimore. The earliest German Catholic congregation was established 17 February, 1702, assembling for the first time for Divine service in a house near Centre Market. About 1800 Father Reuter a priest in charge of the German Catholics, fomented a schism amongst them. They built a church where St. Alphonsus’s now stands, called it St. John the Evangelist’s, and defied the bishop, who carried the case to the courts, which decided in his favour (1805). Archbishop Eccleston confided the church to the Redemptorists in 1840. The cornerstone of the new church was laid in 1841, the name being changed to St. Alphonsus’s. This church is distinguished for two pastors whose repute for sanctity entitles them to special mention, the Venerable John N. Neumann (Bishop of Philadelphia, 1852–60), the process of whose beatification is still pending in Rome (Berger, Life of Right Rev. John N. Neumann, D.D. New York, 1884); and the Rev. Francis X. Seelos who died in 1867, the first steps towards whose canonization were taken in 1901 (Zimmer, Life of Rev. F.X. Seelos, New York, 1887). St. Joseph’s, Emmitsburg was founded in 1793, by the Rev. Matthew Ryan. The Revs. John Dubois and Simon Brute were afterwards pastors of this church. The first baptismal record of St. Mary’s Church, Bryantown, was entered in 1793. Father David, the first pastor, was transferred to Georgetown in 1804. In 1794, the first church was built in Hagerstown, attended by the Rev. D. Cahill. About 1795 a log church (St. . Mary’s) was built at Cumberland; a brick church was substituted in 1838. It was replaced by the present church (St. Patrick’s) begun in 1849 by the Rev. O. L. Obermeyer, and consecrated in 1883. St. Joseph’s, Taneytown, was built by Mr. Brookes (1796). Its first pastor was the well-known Russian nobleman and convert, Father Demetrius A. Gallitzin.

It was soon seen that a coadjutor for the diocese was desirable in case of the bishop’s death, and the Rev. Lawrence Graessel, a German priest of Philadelphia, was appointed to that office. This zealous priest dying soon after, the Rev. Leonard Neale, a native of Maryland, was selected, and was consecrated 7 December, 1800, at the Baltimore pro-cathedral. A notable event at this time was the marriage of Jerome Bonaparte, brother of Napoleon, to Miss Patterson of Baltimore, Bishop Carroll officiating (24 December, 1803).

(B) EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

As already stated Georgetown College was opened by the Jesuit Fathers in 1791. (Centennial Hist. of Georgetown College, Washington, 1891.) In 1803 the faculty of St. Mary’s Seminary instituted an undenominational college course which continued until 1852, when Loyola, College was opened. During this period it numbered among its students many who afterwards became prominent; among others Robert Walsh, A.B. Roman the Latrobes, the Carrolls, the Jenkins, the Foleys, S. Eccleston, J. Chanche, F.E. Chatard, C.I. White. S.T. Wallis, Robert McLane, C.C. Biddle, Reverdy Johnson, Oden Bowie, Leo Knott, Christopher Johnson. At one time (1839–40) it had 207 students. In the meantime an attempt was made to separate the college from the seminary, and in 1807 Father Nagot established a, college at Pigeon Hills, Pennsylvania, but in 1808, the sixteen students were transferred to a new institution begun at Emmitsburg by the Rev. John Dubois, a Sulpician. Such was the beginning of Mt. St. Mary’s College. It gave to the Church one cardinal (McCloskey) five archbishops, twenty-one Bishops, and five hundred priests. To carry out a design long entertained by the Sulpicians, St. Charles College, petit seminaire, was begun and built on land donated by Charles Carroll of Carrollton. The cornerstone was laid in 1831, but owing to the lack of funds the college was not opened until 1848. The Rev. O.L. Jenkins was its first president, with one instructor and four students, but at his death (1869) there were thirteen instructors, 140 students, and one hundred priests among-its alumni. Since 1853, St. Mary’s Seminary has been exclusively a grand seminaire, with philosophy and theology courses. The memories of the devoted priests who during more than a century have composed its faculties, men of great learning and deep piety, are cherished with loving reverence by the numerous clergy they have taught. The alumni roll of St. Mary’s contains the names of one cardinal, 30 bishops, 1.400 priests (Centennial History of St. Mary’s Seminary Baltimore, 1891). The Society of Jesus was re-established in Maryland (1805) with the Rev. Robert Molyneux as superior.

In 1808, Mrs. Elisabeth Ann Seton, a convert from Episcopalianism, went from New York to Baltimore and lived with some companions next to St. Mary’s Seminary. A convert, the Rev. Samuel S. Cooper, having given Mrs. Seton and her nine companions a lot at Emmitsburg, they founded there (1810) the Academy of St. Joseph. In 1812, the community was established under the rules of the Sisters of Charity and Mrs. Seton was elected mother superior. She died in 1821, leaving a flourishing community of fifty sisters (White, “Life of Eliza A. Seton,” New York, 1853; Seton, “Memoir Letters and Journal of Elizabeth Seton,” New York 1869; De Barbarry, “Elisabeth Seton,” 2 vols., Paris, 1881; Sadlier, New York, s.d.). The community remained independent until 1850, when the sisters allied themselves with the Sisters of Charity of France, adopting the French costume. Thirty-one sisters in the Diocese of New York preferred to continue under the old rule and organized a separate body. During the Civil War (1862–63), 140 Sisters of Charity gave their services on the field and in the hospitals. The following notable institutions have been founded in the diocese from the mother house at Emmitsburg: St. Mary’s Orphan Asylum (1817); Mt. Hope Retreat (1840); St. Vincent’s Infant Asylum (1856); St. Joseph’s House of Industry (1863); St. Agnes’s Hospital (1863).

(C) THE BALTIMORE CATHEDRAL

The acquisition of Louisiana by the United States increased the labours of Bishop Carroll. In 1805, the Holy See made him Administrator Apostolic of Louisiana and the Floridas. Until this time the bishop had officiated in St. Peter’s Church, built about 1770, at the corner of Northeast and Forrest Streets. The Rev. Bernard Diderick, a Belgian priest, attended the church monthly from 1775–82. The Rev. Charles Sewell of St. Mary’s County was the first resident pastor. Persuaded by Dr. DuBourg, the bishop and trustees decided (1806) to erect the new cathedral on the present site. The cornerstone was laid 7 July, 1806, by Bishop Carroll. The first rector of the cathedral was the Rev. Francis Beeston. He died (1809) before the church was finished. His successor was the Rev. Enoch Fenwick (d. 1827), to whose untiring zeal was due the completion of the church in 1821. During the building of the church the congregation had so large that the Sulpicians opened to the chapel of St. Mary’s Seminary, then newly dedicated (1808). For half a century it continued to be the succursal church of the cathedral. On 31 May, 1821, the cathedral was dedicated by Archbishop Maréchal. The architect who had generously given his services gratis, and faithfully watched over the erection of the edifice was Benjamin H. Latrobe, a Protestant gentleman, and a devoted friend of Archbishop Carroll. He was engaged at the same time in building the National Capitol. The high altar of the cathedral was a gift to Archbishop Maréchal from his pupils in Marseilles. The imposing portico of the building was added in 1863, under the direction of the architect, Eben Faxon. The cathedral was consecrated 5 May, 1876, by Archbishop Bayley. During Cardinal Gibbons’s administration a commodious sacristy was erected (1879); the sanctuary was extended (1888); two altars, gifts of Mrs. Michael Jenkins and James Sloan, were added, and the altar rail in memory of William Boggs donated (1906). There are few edifices in the United States as rich in historical memories as the Baltimore Cathedral. Within its walls have been held three plenary councils (1852, 1866, 1884), ten provincial councils, and nine diocesan synods; three cardinals have been invested, Gibbons, 1886; Satolli 1890; Martinelli, 1901; six archbishops have received the pallium, twenty-fire bishops have been consecrated, and 644 priests have been ordained by Cardinal Gibbons alone. The bishops consecrated in the cathedral were, B.J. Fenwick (1825), Dubois (1826), Whitfield (1828), Purcell (1833), Eccleston (1834), Chanche (1841), Whelan (1841), Tyler (1844), Elder (1857), Barry (1857), Verot (1858), Becker (1868), Gibbons (1868), Thomas Foley (1870), Gross (1873), Northrop (1882), Glorieux (1885), Curtis (1886), Haid (1888), John Foley (1888), Chapelle (1891), Donahue (1891), Alien (1897), Granjon (1900), Conaty (1901). In the chapel built by Cardinal Gibbons under the high altar repose the ashes of Carroll, Maréchal, Whitfield, Eccleston, Kenrick, and Spalding. Besides those already mentioned many distinguished clergymen have been associated with the cathedral; Revs. Roger Smith, Charles C. Pise, Charles I. White, first editor of “The Catholic Mirror,” John Hickey, S.S., H.B. Coskery, Thomas Becker, Thomas Foley, Thomas S. Lee, A.A. Curtis, P.J. Donahue, and C.F. Thomas. The cathedral parish has always counted among its members a great number of distinguished persons. Among its pewholders have been Charles Carroll of Carrollton Chief-Justice Taney, David Williamson, Luke Tiernan,Thomas Sim Lee, Thomas C. Jenkins, E. Austin Jenkins, Alfred Jenkins, William George Read, John Hillen, Patrick Bennett, Basil Elder, John Walsh, Solomon Hillen, John and Richard Caton, Dr. Peter Chatard, Abraham White, Jerome Bonaparte, Courtney Jenkins, Mark Jenkins, Basil Spalding, Judge Parkin Scott, Philip Laurenson, M. Benzinger, Charles M. Dougherty, Col. J. N. Bonaparte, William Kennedy, Robert Barry, Columbus O’Donnell, John Murphey. In recent times and at present we find the Attorney-General of the United States, Hon. Charles J. Bonaparte, Michael Jenkins, Joseph Jenkins, Dr. Felix Jenkins, George Jenkins, the Misses Jenkins, Mr. and the Misses Andrews, the Misses Gardner, William Boggs, Daniel Foley, Mrs. and the Misses Mactavish, W. R. Cromwell, Mrs. John S. Gittings, Major N. S. Hill, Richard and Allen MacSherry, Charles G. Nicholson, Miss Emily Harper, C. D. Kenny, A. Leo Knott, J.M. Littig, the Drs. Milholland, Robert Rennert, Robert Jenkins, Henry Rogue, the Messrs. Abell, the Misses Abell, Mrs. Alice Caughy, Messrs. Shriver, Josrph Turner, Mrs. Van Bibber, Owen Daly, Alexander Yearley, Harry Benzinger, James R. Wheeler, Charles Tiernan, Judge Charles Heuisler, Drs. Chatard, Drs. O’Donovan, Dr. Charles Grindall, Messrs. and the Misses Boone, Edgar Gans, Captain Billups, Messrs. Key, F. Dammann, Mrs. J.I. Griffiss, and Victor Baughman. Indeed the roll-call of the cathedral parishioners contains the names of the most distinguished Catholics of their times. It is worthy of remark that although the trustee system has been continued at the cathedral for over one hundred years, there has never been any serious disagreement between the clergy and laity. The archiepiscopal residence was built during Dr. Whitfield’s administration, and the two wings were added in 1865 by Captain William Kennedy.

(D) DIVISION OF THE DIOCESE

In compliance with Bishop Carroll’s request for a division of his diocese, Pius VII (8 April, 1808) issued the Bulls treating four new sees, naming the Rev. Richard L. Concannen, a Dominican for New York; the Rev. Michael Egan, a Franciscan for Philadelphia; the Rev. John Cheverus for Boston, and the Rev. Benedict Joseph Flaget, Suplician, for Bardstown. At the same time Baltimore was made the metropolitan see with Dr. Carroll as the first archbishop. Dr. Concannen, consecrated in Rome (1808), died at Naples (1810) when about to sail. Dr. Egan and Dr. Cheverus were consecrated at Baltimore in the pro-cathedral (1810) and Dr. Flaget at St. Patrick’s the same year. The pallium was conferred on Archbishop Carroll in St. Peter’s, Baltimore, 18 August, 1811. At this time there were in the United States about seventy priests and eighty churches. Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, the Carolinas, what is now Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida were still under the jurisdiction of Baltimore, and 1811 the Holy See added some of the Danish and Dutch West Indies. At this period occurred the interference of Archbishop Troy and other Irish bishops in American affairs (Shea, Life and Times of Abp. Carroll, pp. 664–668). Dr. Carroll’s protest at Rome was rendered ineffectual, owing to the representations of the Dominican Fathers Harold, who had hastened the death of Bishop Egan of Philadelphia, and afterwards, in Europe, enlisted against the Archbishop the support of the Irish prelates. Worn out with the struggle, he died 3 December, 1815.

III. SUCCESSORS OF ARCHBISHOP CARROLL

(A) LEONARD NEALE

Archbishop Carroll was succeeded by Leonard Neale, a native of Maryland. The Poor Clares (Mother Mary de la Marché end two others) had already opened an academy in 1801 at Georgetown, with Miss Alice Lalor as assistant teacher. These nuns returned to Europe after the death of the abbess; Miss Lalor continued the academy. Archbishop Neale erected the community of teachers into a house of the Order of the Visitation 28 December, 1817. Archbishop Neale died 17 June, at Georgetown, and was buried in the convent chapel.

(B) AMBROSE MARÉCHAL

Archbishop Maréchal was born in France, and joined the Company of St. Sulpice. He had already refused the See of Philadelphia (1816), but finally consented to become Archbishop Neale’s coadjutor. He was consecrated at St. Peter’s, Baltimore, 14 December, 1817, by Bishop Cheverus. In his first visitation he confirmed 2,506 persons. In his diocese, which comprised Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, and the territory west of Georgia to the Mississippi, there were then, according to his estimate, 100,000 Catholics. About 10,000 were in Baltimore, having increased to that figure from 800 in 1792. In one year there were 10,000 communions in the seminary chapel alone. There were fifty-two priests, principally French and American born. The Diocese of Baltimore at this time (1819) mourned the loss of Thomas Sim Lee, twice governor, and Maryland’s representative in the Convention which ratified the Constitution. In 1820, two schismatic priests, aided by intriguing Irish prelates, succeeded in having Patrick Kelly secretly appointed to the See of Richmond and John England to that of Charleston. Thus, without the archbishop’s knowledge or consent, New York, Philadelphia, Richmond, and Charleston were given for bishops utter strangers, bound by oath of allegiance to England, then at variance with the United States. The Diocese of Baltimore was thus divided into two parts, Maryland and the District of Columbia on the Atlantic, and a thousand miles off Alabama and Mississippi, with Richmond and Charleston between. Archbishop Maréchal while at Rome, (1821) obtained for the provincial bishops the right to recommend candidates for vacant sees. Mississippi was erected into a Vicariate Apostolic with Dr. DuBourg as Vicar Apostolic; Alabama and Florida were attached to the Vicariate Apostolic of Mobile (1825). In 1822. Bishop Kelly returned to Ireland, and Archbishop Maréchal was appointed Administrator of the Diocese of Richmond. The archbishop died 29 January, 1628.

(C) JAMES WHITFIELD

He was succeeded by James Whitfield, an Englishman by birth. His consecration by Bishop Flaget took place 25 May, 1828, in the cathedral. October 4, 1829, the First Provincial Council of Baltimore was opened, and the same day the archbishop received the pallium. The Fathers of this council were Archbishop Whitfield, Bishops Flaget, the two Fenwicks (Boston and Cincinnati), England, Rosati, and Rev. William Matthews, representing Philadelphia. (See BALTIMORE, THE PROVINCIAL COUNCILS OF.) To carry out the council’s decrees, a Synod, attended by thirty-five priests, was held 31 October, 1831. There were at this time in Maryland about 80,000 Catholics in a population of 407,000; in the District of Columbia about 7,000 in a population of 33,000. There were fifty-two priests in the diocese. Out of his private fortune, Archbishop Whitfield built St. James’s Church, Baltimore (1833) It was first used by English-speaking Catholics, who, finding it too small for their increasing numbers, commenced the erection of St. Vincent’s Church (1841). About the same time the German congregation of St. John’s (Saratoga Street) began the building of their new church, St. Alphonsus; needing in the meantime a place for worship, they were granted the use of St. James’s, after the opening of St. Vincent’s (of which Father Gildea was the first pastor). The Redemptorists from St. Alphonsus took charge henceforth of St. James’s and built there the first convent of their order in the United States. Several other churches were established by the Redemptorists. In 1845, they founded St. Michael’s, a small church on the corner of Pratt and Regester Streets; the present church on the corner of Lombard and Wolfe Streets was commenced in 1857. Its congregation is now one of the largest in the city. The Redemptorists also founded Holy Cross parish, the cornerstone of the church being laid in 1858. Since 1869, the secular clergy have been in charge. The church of the Fourteen Holy Martyrs was begun (1870) by the Redemptorists; in 1874, they transferred it to the Benedictines. Rev. Meinrad Jeggle, O.S.B., was rector from 1878 to 1896. The new church was commenced in 1902. St. Wenceslaus’s, dedicated in 1872, formed the nucleus of the Slav congregations in Baltimore. The Redemptorists took charge of it in 1882. A new church and school were commenced in 1903. In 1873 they began the Sacred Heart Church (Canton).

The Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus was formally established in 1833, with Father William McSherry, a Virginian, as first provincial. The Second Provincial Council met at the cathedral, Baltimore, 20 October, 1833. Besides Archbishop Whitfield, there were present Bishops David, England, Rosati, Fenwick (Boston), Dubois Portier, F.P. Kenrick, Rese, Purcell. Bishop Flaget was absent; the Jesuits, Sulpicians, and Dominicans were represented. A Roman Ritual adapted to the wants of this country was ordered to be prepared. Rev. Samuel Eccleston elected coadjutor, was consecrated in the cathedral 14 September, 1834, by Archbishop Whitfield, who died the following October.

(D) SAMUEL ECCLESTON

Archbishop Eccleston. a native of Maryland, a convert and a Sulpician, was thirty-three years old when he succeeded to the See of Baltimore. During his administration the anti Catholic sentiment began to lose its violence and the tide of conversions set in. In 1834 there were within the jurisdiction of Baltimore (Maryland, Virginia, and District of Columbia) 70 churches and 69 priests. There were only 327 priests in the whole United States. The Visitation Nuns from Georgetown established a house in Baltimore (1837) with Mother Juliana Matthews as first superioress. Mother Anastasia Coombes established another Visitation monastery at Frederick in 1846. In 1852 another house was established (Mt. de Sales) at Catonsville, under Mother Cecilia Brooks.

The Third Provincial Council was held in the cathedral, 1837. It was attended by the archbishop and Rosati, Fenwick (Boston), F. P. Kenrick, Chabrat, Clancy, Bruté, Blanc. Bishop Dubois declined to assist. The Fourth Provincial Council was opened at the cathedral, 16 May, 1840. Ten bishops accepted the invitation of Archbishop Eccleston to attend the council, Flatget, Rosati, Fenwick (Boston), Portier, F. P. Kenrick, Purcell, Blanc, Loras, Miles, De la Hailandière. The Sulpicians, Dominicans, and Redemptorists were also represented. Rev. Richard Whelan and Rev. John Chanche were recommended by this council, respectively for the Dioceses of Richmond and Natchez, thus freeing the archbishop from the administration of Richmond. The St. Vincent de Paul Society was established in the diocese (1840) and the Young Catholic Friends’ Society in 1848. In 1842, the cornerstone of Calvert Hall was laid on the site of the pro-cathedral (Saratoga. Street). The present imposing building was opened 1891. Rock Hill Academy was purchased by the Christian Brothers (1857) and Rock Hill College incorporated 1865.

The Fifth Provincial Council was held in the cathedral, May, 1843. It was attended by seventeen bishops. At this time there were 90,000 Catholics, 58 churches, 70 priests, two seminaries, three colleges, two academies for boys, six for girls, five orphan asylums, and ten free schools. The total population of Maryland in 1840 was 469,232. The Sixth Provincial Council met at the cathedral, 10 May, 1846. Twenty-three bishops were present and four religious orders were represented. “The Blessed Virgin Mary Conceived Without Sin” was chosen as patroness of the Province. Sisters of Notre Dame (mother-house of Eastern Province on Aisquith Street) came to Baltimore, 5 August, 1817. “Notre Dame of Maryland” was established 22 September, 1873. The Seventh Provincial Council met at the cathedral, May, 1849. Archbishop Eccleston, in pursuance of the council’s decision, issued a pastoral letter reviving the custom of Peter’s-pence and inviting Pius IX then in exile at Gaeta, to attend. The Archbishops of Baltimore and St. Louis and twenty-three bishops were present; seven religious orders were represented. This council recommended New Orleans, Cincinnati, and New York as metropolitan sees, also the creation of the Sees of Savannah, Wheeling, and St. Paul. The fathers petitioned for the definition of the Immaculate Conception. One of their decrees forbade priests officiating at marriages where a minister had officiated or intended to do so. The Province of Baltimore now comprised the Dioceses of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Richmond, Wheeling, Charleston, and Savanna.

About this time Rev. John Hickey established a precedent by refusing to testify in court concerning stolen property restored through a penitent. The court sustained him. During Archbishop Eccleston’s time, besides those mentioned above, several other churches were erected. The cornerstone of St. Joseph’s was laid in 1839. In 1849, it was given to the Jesuits, but returned to the diocesan clergy in 1860. The new church was begun in 1899. St. Peter’s, begun in 1843, was consecrated in 1879 under Rev. Edward McColgan, V.G., its first pastor. The Sisters of Mercy came to St. Peter’s from Pittsburg in 1855; Mother Catherine Wynne was first superioress. They afterwards opened Mt. St. Agnes (1867) of which Mother de Chantal Digges was first superioress; they also have charge of the City Hospital. St. Augustine’s (Elkridge) was founded 1845. Its first pastor was Rev. B. Plot the present beautiful church is the gift of Mr. C. D. Kenney (1902). St. Charles Borromeo (Pikesville) was commenced 16 July, 1848, by Father White. The present imposing Romanesque edifice was dedicated 12 March, 1899. The Immaculate Conception parish was organized in 1850 with Rev. Mark Anthony, C.M. ,as its first pastor the present church was dedicated in 1858, during the pastorate of Rev. Joseph Giustiniani, C.M. Archbishop Eccleston died at Georgetown, 22 April, 1851, and was buried in Baltimore. At this time there were in the diocese (Maryland and District of Columbia) 83 churches and chapels; 103 priests; 6 ecclesiastical seminaries; 12 free schools, and 23 charitable institutions; Catholic population 100,000. Rev. H. B. Coskery was administrator until the following August, when Dr. Francis P. Kenrick, Coadjutor-Bishop of Philadelphia, was elevated to the See of Baltimore.

(E) FRANCIS PATRICK KENRIK

Archbishop Kenrick convoked the First Plenary Council of Baltimore, 9 May, 1852. (See BALTIMORE, PLENARY COUNCIL OF.) to carry out the council’s decrees a synod was called (June, 1853), attended by 35 diocesan and 17 regular priests. At this synod parochial rights and limits were defined. The Eighth Provincial Council met in the Baltimore Cathedral, 5 May, 1855. Eight sees were represented. It regulated pew rents and collections, and established a rule for the cathedraticum. Col. B. U. Campbell, a Maryland Catholic, who by his contributions laid the foundation for the history of the Church in the United States, died about this time (1855). In 1856 the Catholics of the city of Baltimore numbered 81,000, and had 13 churches, while in the entire diocese (Maryland and the District of Columbia) there were 99 churches and chapels, 130 priests, and a population of 120,000. The Forty Hours’ Devotion was established in the diocese (1858). In 1858 the Ninth Provincial Council was held in the cathedral; 8 bishops were present and 6 religious orders were represented. At the Council’s request the Holy See granted to the Archbishop of Baltimore the precedence in councils and meetings, held by the prelates of the United States, even though he were not senior archbishop. The petition of the Fathers of this Council for a perpetual dispensation from the Saturday abstinence was granted. In 1862, the Baltimore Province comprised Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Charleston, Savannah, Richmond, Wheeling, Erie, and the Vicariate Apostolic of Florida. In the Diocese of Baltimore there were 124 churches and chapels; 170 priests, 36 free schools, 35 charitable institutions: Catholic population 150,000.

A synod was convened (1863) at which the version of the Bible revised by the archbishop was adopted as the one to be used in the diocese. Under Archbishop Kenrick, the following churches were built in Baltimore: St. John’s in 1853, with Rev. J. B. McManus as first pastor. The present church was opened in 1856. The church of St. Ignatius Loyola was consecrated 15 August 1856. Rev. John Early, S.J., was its first, pastor and founder of Loyola College on Holliday Street (1852); in 1855 the present college was opened on Calvert Street (Hist. Sketch of Loyola Baltimore, 1902). Many distinguished citizens claim it as their Alma Mater. St. Bridget’s Church (Canton) was dedicated 1854 and was built by Rev. James Dolan out of his private means, as were also St. Mary’s, Govanstown, and the Dolan Orphans’ Home. Rev. John Constance was first pastor of St. Bridget’s. New churches were begun in Kent County, Long Green, and Clarkesville during 1855. Archbishop Kenrick died 6 July, 1863, and Very Rev. H.B. Coskery, a native of Maryland, again became administrator. He had been appointed Bishop of Portland in 1854, but had returned the Bulls.

Black Catholics.

During his administration St. Francis Xavier’s Church for negroes was dedicated (1864). Its first pastor was Father Michael O’Connor. It was put in charge of the Josephites (1871) from Mill Hill College, England, brought to Baltimore by Rev. Herbert Vaughan. These missionaries came to minister to the Catholic negroes of Maryland, there being—greatly to the honour of their Catholic masters—16,000 of them in the State at the time of the emancipation. From St. Francis sprung St. Monica’s, St. Peter Claver’s (1889), and St. Barnabas’s (1907), all churches for black people. As early as 1828 the Sulpician Father Jacques Joubert founded at Baltimore a house of Coloured Oblate Sisters of Providence. They conduct at present St. Frances’s Academy and Orphanage, and in Washington St. Cyprian’s Parochial School and Academy. St. Joseph’s Seminary was opened in Baltimore by the Josephites (1888) with three white and one black student. Epiphany Apostolic College, its preparatory seminary, was opened in 1889 by Rev. Dominic Manley. 1881 St. Elizabeth’s Home for black children was established in Baltimore by Mother Winifred and three English Sisters of St. Francis. Their convent on Maryland Avenue was opened in 1889, the house being a gift to the order from Mrs. E. Austin Jenkins.

(F) MARTIN JOHN SPALDING

At Archbishop Kenrick’s death the United States Government attempted to interfere in the selection of an archbishop, but failed (Cathedral Records, Baltimore, 100G. p. 46; Shea, Hist. of Cath. Ch. in U. S., 1844–66, New York 1889–92 p. 393), and the Rt. Rev. Martin John Spalding, Bishop of Louisville, was elected 23 May, 1864. Archbishop Spalding invited the Sisters of the Good Shepherd from Louisville (1864) to come to Baltimore, and established them in a home given by Mrs. Emily Mactavish Their work is the reformation of fallen women and the preservation of young girls. At this time (1864) the Church lost one of its foremost members, Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the United States. The Tenth Provincial Council was opened in the cathedral, 25 April 1869; 14 prelates were present. The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore met 7 October, 1866, in the cathedral. It recommended the establishment of the Apostolic Vicariate of North Carolina. St. Mary’s Industrial School for Boys, erected on land donated by Mrs. Emily Mactavish, was opened in 1866, and placed in charge of the Xaverian Brothers from Belgium. Mt. St. Joseph’s College, begun (1876) as an aid to the Xaverian Noviate has now 40 novices and 150 students. St. James’s Home (Baltimore) furthers the work of the Industrial School by securing positions for, and boarding, older boys. It has about 70 boarders. A somewhat unusual event took place in August, 1868, when Revs. James Gibbons and Thomas Becker were consecrated together in the cathedral by Archbishop Spalding. Woodstock College, the seminary of the Jesuit Fathers, was opened in 1869; Father Angelo Barasci was its first rector. Since then many standard treatises on theology philosophy, and science have been published by its professors, the best known being the works of Mazzella, De Augustinis, Sabetti, Maas, Piccirelii. and Sestini. In 1865 John T. Stephanini and Charles Long, Passionist Fathers, were appointed to St. Agnes’s Church, Catonsville. The Passionist monastery of St. Joseph was completed in 1868; Father Long was elected its first rector. It was destroyed by fire in 1883 and a new monastery was built in 1886. The Little Sisters of the Poor were established in Baltimore, 6 April, 1869. Since then 3,082 old people have been cared for by them. Rev. Thomas Foley, who had been at the cathedral for twenty-two years, was consecrated Administrator of Chicago in 1870. Archbishop Spalding died 7 February, 1872. During his administration the churches built in Baltimore were: St. Martin’s (Fulton Avenue) cornerstone laid in 1865, Rev. John Foley, first pastor; St. Mary’s Star of the Sea founded in 1869, by Rev. Peter McCoy. The Sisters of St. Joseph came to this parish in 1875. After Archbishop Spalding’s death, Very Rev. John Dougherty administered the diocese until the installation of Archbishop Bayley (October, 1872).

(G) JAMES ROOSEVELT BAYLEY

Archbishop Bayley had been an Episcopalian minister in New York, became a Catholic, a priest, and at the time of his elevation to Baltimore, was Bishop of Newark. Philadelphia was made a metropolitan see in 1875. The Province of Baltimore was thus limited to the Sees of Baltimore, Charleston, Richmond, Wheeling, Savannah, Wilmington, St. Augustine (created 1870), and the Vicariate of North Carolina. There were in the diocese in 1870, 160 churches and chapels; 230 priests; 18 charitable, and six educational, institutions. In one year the archbishop confirmed two hundred times. Of the: 6,405 persons confirmed, 817 were converts The Eighth Provincial Synod opened in Baltimore, 27 August, 1875; 93 priests and representatives of 8 religious communities were present. St. Ann’s (York Road) built by Capt. William Kennedy and his wife, was dedicated in 1874, Rev. William E. Bartlett being its first pastor. The Capuchin Fathers established themselves in the diocese (1875) in the Monastery of St. Peter and Paul, Cumberland. In 1882, it was made the seminary of the order; 59 priests have been ordained there. Previous to this, the Redemptorist, Rev. John N. Neumann, had built the church of St. Peter and Paul on the site of Fort Cumberland (1848). In 1866, the Carmelites succeeded the Redemptorists and remained until 1815, when the Capuchin Fathers took charge. When the Redemptorists left Cumberland, they established (1867) their House of studies at Ilchester (Hist. of the Redemptorists at Annapolis, Ilchester, 1904). St. Catherine’s Normal Institute for training Catholic teachers was established in Baltimore (1875) by Sisters of the Holy Cross. They have schools also attached to the churches of St. Patrick and St. Pius. The latter church was begun by Archbishop Bayley, its erection being made possible by a generous donation of Mr. Columbus O’Donnell. It was dedicated in 1879, with Rev. L.S. Malloy first pastor. The Right Rev. James Gibbons, Bishop of Richmond, was made coadjutor with right of succession 20 May. 1877. Archbishop Bayley died the following October.

(H) JAMES GIBBONS

Archbishop Gibbons is the only Archbishop of Baltimore born in that city. The Third Plenary Council met in the cathedral 9 November, 1884—being the largest council held outside of Rome since the Council of Trent. The zuchetta was conferred upon Cardinal Gibbons 7 June, 1886, and the following March he was invested in Rome and took possession of his titular church, Santa Maria in Trastevere. The Ninth Provincial Synod was convened in Baltimore September, 1886, 115 priests at tending; 8 religious orders were represented. The Catholic University of America was instituted in 1887, and the Archbishop of Baltimore was named, ex officio, the Chancellor. The centenary of the diocese was celebrated November, 1889. There were present Cardinals Gibbons and Taschereau; Msgr. Satolli, representative of the pope, 8 archbishops, 75 bishops, 18 monsignori, and 400 priests. Canada Mexico, England, and Ireland were represented. On that occasion leading Catholic laymen took part in a Catholic Congress (Hughes, Proceedings of Catholic Congress Detroit, 1890) and there was a procession of 30,000 men with Mr. James R. Wheeler as marshal. In 1893, the cardinal’s Silver Jubilee was celebrated. Nearly every see in the United States was represented; there were also present representatives of the Holy Father, and of the episcopate of England, Ireland, Canada, and Oceania. Bishop A. A. Curtis was consecrated in the cathedral November, 1886 and Bishop P. J. Donahue in 1894. 29 April, 1906, the centenary of the laying of the cornerstone of the cathedral was celebrated. There were present the cardinal, the apostolic delegate Most Rev. Diomede Falconio, 9 archbishops, 56 bishops, 4 abbots, and about 800 priests.

Among the late additions to the diocese are the Mission Helpers and the Sisters of Divine Providence. The Mission Helpers opened a house in Baltimore in 1890 it was canonically organized, 5 November 1906. The Sisters of Divine Providence (of Kentucky) were established in the diocese in 1892, having charge of the household interests of the Catholic University, St. Mary’s Seminary, and the cardinal’s residence. The churches built during Cardinal Gibbons’s administration, in addition to those already mentioned are: St. Andrew’s, dedicated 6 October, 1878; St. Paul’s founded in 1899 (the present imposing church was erected in 1903); St. Gregory’s by means of a donation of Mr. Patrick McKenna (1884); St. Stanislaus’s (Polish), founded in 1880 and taken over in 1906 by the Franciscans; Corpus Christi built through the munificence of the sons and daughters of Mr. Thomas C. Jenkins, in memory of their parents. and dedicated 1 January, 1891; St. Lee’s (Italian); begun in 1880, by Rev. J. L. Andreis. During the administration of Cardinal Gibbons 86 new churches have been erected in the diocese. At present there are 211 priests of the diocese and 273 of religious orders. There are 128 churches with resident pastors and 136 chapels. In Baltimore there are 44 (24 built during the administration of Cardinal Gibbons) and 18 in Washington (10 built in the same period). There are three universities, 11 seminaries, 13 colleges and academies, 95 parochial schools with 21,711 pupils, and 7 industrial schools. The Catholic population is at present about 255,000. The increase (1906) was 10,611, of whom 800 were converts.

Owing to the disinterested spirit of its archbishops, the Archdiocese of Baltimore, the Mother Church of the United States, has been subdivided until, in extent of territory, it is one of the smallest. Yet it yields to none in its spirit of faith and in the generosity of its people. Whenever called upon by the voice of religion its children have responded in a manner beyond their proportionate share. In support of the Catholic University, it is surpassed by none in proportion to its population. In the gatherings of the prelates of the United States the Catholic homes of Baltimore have welcomed the visitors to their hospitality. Probably no diocese has been so enriched by private donations for churches and institutions. The growth of the Catholic population is due first to natural increase, secondly to immigration and thirdly to conversion. The large proportion of conversions must be attributed in a great measure to the personal popularity of its present archbishop, Cardinal Gibbons, and to the influence of his convert-making book, “The Faith of Our Fathers.”

WILLIAM T. RUSSELL

Plenary Councils of Baltimore

While the ecclesiastical province of Baltimore comprised the whole territory of the American Republic, the provincial councils held in that city sufficed for the church government of the country. When, however, several ecclesiastical provinces had been formed, plenary councils became a necessity for the fostering of common discipline. As a consequence, the Fathers of the Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore requested the Holy See to sanction the holding of a plenary synod. The petition was granted and the pope appointed Archbishop Kenrick of Baltimore as Apostolic Delegate to convene and preside over the council.

I. THE FIRST PLENARY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE

The First Plenary Council of Baltimore was solemnly opened on 9 May, 1852. Its sessions were attended by six archbishops and thirty-five suffragan bishops. The Bishop of Monterey, California, was also present, although his diocese, lately separated from Mexico, had not yet been incorporated with any American province. Another prelate in attendance was the Bishop of Toronto, Canada. The religious orders and congregations were represented by the mitred Abbot of St. Mary of La Trappe and by the superiors of the Augustinians, Dominicans, Benedictines, Franciscans, Jesuits, Redemptorists, Vincentians, and Sulpicians. The last solemn session was held on the 20th of May. The decrees were as follows:

The Fathers profess their allegiance to the pope as the divinely constituted head of the Church, whose office it is to confirm his brethren in the Faith. They also declare their belief in the entire Catholic Faith as explained by the ecumenical councils and the constitutions of the Roman pontiffs.

The enactments of the seven provincial councils of Baltimore are obligatory for all the dioceses of the United States.

The Roman Ritual, adopted by the First Council of Baltimore, is to be observed in all dioceses, and all are forbidden to introduce customs or rites foreign to the Roman usage. Sacred ceremonies are not to be employed in the burial of Catholics whose bodies are deposited in sectarian cemeteries; or even in public cemeteries, if there be Catholic cemeteries at hand.

The Baltimore “Ceremonial” is to be used all through the country.

Bishops are to observe the canons concerning ecclesiastical residence.

Bishops are exhorted to choose consultors from among their clergy and to ask their advice in the government of the diocese. A monthly meeting of these consultors to discuss diocesan affairs is praiseworthy.

A chancellor should be constituted in every diocese, for the easier and more orderly transaction of business.

Bishops should appoint censors for books relating to religion.

European priests desiring to be received into an American diocese must have written testimonials from their former bishops and the consent of the ordinary here.

Our quasi-parishes should have well-defined limits, and the jurisdiction and privileges of pastors should be indicated by the bishops. The ordinary can change these limits and it is his right to appoint the incumbents.

After next Easter, matrimonial banns must be published, and bishops should dispense with this only for grave reasons.

Pastors themselves should teach Christian doctrine to the young and ignorant.

Bishops are exhorted to have a Catholic school in every parish and the teachers should be paid from the parochial funds.

An ecclesiastical seminary should be erected in each province.

The bishops or their delegates should demand every year an account of the administration of church funds from those who administer them, whether laymen or clerics.

Laymen are not to take any part in the administration of church affairs without the free consent of the bishop. If they usurp any such authority and divert church goods to their own use or in any way frustrate the will of the donors; or if they, even under cover of the civil law, endeavour to wrest from the bishop’s hands what has been confided to his care, then such laymen by that very fact fall under the censures constituted by the Council of Trent against usurpers of ecclesiastical goods.

When the title to a church is in the bishop’s name, pastors are warned not to appoint trustees or permit them to be elected without the bishop’s authority.

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament must be performed in all dioceses in the manner prescribed by the Baltimore “Ceremonial.”

Bishops should use their influence with the civil authorities to prevent anyone in the army or navy from being obliged to attend a religious service repugnant to his conscience.

A Society for the Propagation of the Faith, similar to that in France, should be fostered and extended.

The faithful are exhorted to enter into a society of prayer for the conversion of non-Catholics.

A petition should be addressed to the Holy See asking for extraordinary faculties concerning matrimonial cases and the power, also, of delegating such faculties.

Permission to use the short formula in the baptism of adults is to be requested of the Holy See, either for perpetuity or for twenty years.

The sixth decree of the Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore is to be understood as applying to those who rashly (temere) marry before a Protestant minister. Priests should give no benediction to those whom they know to intend to remarry before a preacher, or who, having done so, show no signs of penitence.

These decrees are binding as soon as they are published by the Archbishop of Baltimore after their revision and approval by the Holy See.

In sending the pope’s approval of these decrees, the prefect of the Propaganda exhorted the bishops to add the feasts of the Circumcision of Our Lord and the Immaculate Conception B.V.M. to the festivals already observed. He added that although some diversity as to fasts and feasts is found in the American dioceses, still it is not desirable to lessen the number in those places where they are in accord with the discipline of the universal Church, because fewer feasts are observed in other American dioceses. The bishops are not to labour for conformity among the dioceses in customs that are foreign to the discipline of the universal Church, for thus the appearance of a national Church would be introduced. The cardinal prefect added that the Holy See tolerated relaxations of the common law of the Church for grave reasons, but such derogations were not to be confirmed and extended, but rather every effort was to be made to bring about the observance of the universal discipline. As to the method of adult baptism, the Holy See extended the dispensations to use the short formula for another five years. A letter from Cardinal-Prefect Franzoni, added to the acts of the council, treats of the question of how the bishops are to be supported by their dioceses. It likewise insists that priests ordained titulo missionis are not to enter religious orders without the consent of their ordinaries, as they are required to make oath that they will serve perpetually in the diocese for which they were ordained. In the acts of this council is found a statement of the Bishop of Monterey concerning the California Missions. He informed the Fathers that a large sum of money had formerly been placed in the hands of the Mexican Government to be used under the sanction of Spanish law for the support of the Californian missionaries. For years they had received none of this money and the late revolutions made any hope of reparation unlikely. However, as it is reported that the civil power in California intends to demand this money from the Mexican treasury for public purposes, he desired to know what effort the American bishops thought it desirable to make in the premises. The outcome of the whole discussion was the sending of a letter on the subject to the Archbishop of Mexico. We may add here that this money was later recovered and employed for the Church in California. (See CALIFORNIA sub-title History.)

II. THE SECOND PLENARY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE

The Second Plenary Council was presided over by Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore as Delegate Apostolic. It was opened on the 7th of October and closed on 21 October, 1866. The acts note that, at the last solemn session, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, was among the auditors. The decrees of this council were signed by seven archbishops, thirty-nine bishops or their procurators, and two abbots. The decrees are divided into fourteen titles and subdivided into chapters.

Title i, Concerning the Orthodox Faith and Present Errors, declares the Catholic doctrine (cap. i) on Divine revelation and the one Church of Christ; (ii) the nature and necessity of faith; (iii) the Holy Scripture; (iv) the Holy Trinity; (v) the future life; (vi) the pious invocation and veneration of the B.V. Mary and the saints. (vii) The seventh chapter in which the present errors are discussed treats of (a) the dissensions among the Protestant sects and of zeal for their conversion. (b) Indifferentism. The Fathers warn their flock against the teaching that one religion is as good as another provided one be honest and just to his neighbour. They call this a plague, spreading under the guise of charity and benevolence. (c) Unitarianism and Universalism. These theories the first denying the divinity of Christ and the other eternal punishment, tend to the rejection of the supernatural in religion. (d) Transcendentalism and Pantheism. These are the systems of men, who having dethroned God, make a deity of man. (e) Abuse of magnetism. The faithful are warned that magnetism is often employed for superstitious and illicit purposes, namely, to forecast the future by means of female “mediums.” (f) The hallucinatiom and dangers of spiritism. There is little reason to doubt that some of the phenomena of spiritism are the work of Satan. It is noteworthy that the leaders of this system deny either implicitly or explicitly the divinity of Christ and the supernatural in religion.

Title ii, Concerning the Hierarchy and the Government of the Church, treats (cap. i) of the Roman pontiff; (ii) of the hierarchy teaching and ruling; (iii) of provincial councils, which ought to be held every three years; (iv) of diocesan synods, in which the bishop alone is legislator and judge. This chapter also treats of quarterly conferences for the discussion of theological questions by the clergy. (v) The officials of the bishop are considered in this chapter. Besides the diocesan consultors and the vicar-general, the bishop should appoint vicars forane or rural deans who are to preside at clerical conferences, to watch over ecclesiastical property, to counsel the junior clergy and report annually to the bishop on the state of their districts. Other officials mentioned are the secretary, chancellor, notary, and procurator for temporal affairs. Synodal examiners and judges for the criminal cases of clerics are also to be constituted. The latter, by delegation of the bishops, hold courts of the first instance and they should follow a judicial method closely approximating that prescribed by the Council of Trent.

Title iii, Concerning Ecclesiastical Persons, is divided into seven chapters. (cap. i) Of metropolitans. (ii) Of bishops; they are to make a visitation of their dioceses frequently; they should provide support for aged and infirm priests; before death they should appoint an administrator sede vacante for their dioceses. If this has not been done, the metropolitan is to make the appointment, or if it be a question of the metropolitan church itself, then the senior suffragan bishop constitutes an administrator until the Holy See can provide. The administrator cannot make innovations in the administration of the diocese. (iii) Of the election of bishops. A method for episcopal nominations to American sees is given, as also the requisite qualifications for candidates. (iv) Of priests exercising the sacred ministry. When several priests serve a church, one only must be designated as pastor. Priests should often preach to their people; they must not marry or baptize the faithful of other dioceses. Although our missions are not canonical parishes, yet it is the desire of the bishops to conform as much as possible to the discipline of the universal church in this matter. In cities containing more than one church, accurate limits for their districts should be assigned. When in these decrees the terms “parish” or “parochial rights” are used, the bishops have no intention of thereby indicating that the rector of a church is irremovable. No priest should be appointed to a parish unless he has made an examination before the bishop and two priests, and has been five years in the diocese. This does not apply to regulars. (v) Of preaching. While explaining the Church’s doctrine, preachers should also treat fully of points denied by heretics or unbelievers. Their style, however, is not to be controversial but explanatory. In their method they should follow the Roman Catechism and make a careful study of the writings of the Fathers of the Church. Let them accommodate themselves to the capacity of their auditors. In reprehending vices, let them never become personal; neither should they be influenced in their preaching by human motives but declare the truth fearlessly. They are not to mingle political and civil matters with religious doctrines in their sermons or attack public magistrates. While the custom of delivering funeral orations is to be retained, yet care must be taken not to bestow undue praise. In all sermons let prolixity be avoided. (vi) Of clerical life and manners. Clerics are to avoid a dress and personal appearance not becoming their station. They should abstain from all improper spectacles and games. Let them avoid having recourse to civil tribunals when possible. They must not engage in trade forbidden by the canons. Let them not be importunate in speaking of money matters to their flocks. The custom of priests taking money on deposit, for which ‘interest is to be paid, is condemned. Let bishops as well as priests observe the prescriptions of the Council of Trent concerning their households. All clerics should avoid idleness as a pest. (vii) Of ecclesiastical seminaries. The erection of preparatory as well as greater seminaries is recommended. Theology and philosophy, Scripture and Hebrew are to be taught in the latter. No student is to pass from one seminary to another without testimonial letters. In those dioceses where Germans are found who cannot speak English, it is expedient that the seminarians learn enough German to hear confessions.

Title iv, Of Ecclesiastical Property.-The decrees of the first seven councils of Baltimore concerning the abuses of lay trustees and of the best method of securing church property by civil sanction are repeated and re-enacted. As to lay trustees, they must not be members of secret societies nor men who have not fulfilled the paschal duty. They cannot expend a sum of money above three hundred dollars without written consent of the bishop. The pastor, not the trustees, appoints organist, singers, sacristan, school-teachers, and others employed about the parish. When difference of opinion exists between pastor and trustees, all must abide by the decision of the bishop. All misunderstanding between the ordinary and regulars concerning temporal affairs will be averted if, at the founding of a new house, a document be drawn up expressing clearly all that relates to the foundation itself, to the rig ts thence flowing and to the duties connected with it.

Title v, Of the Sacraments.-(i) The Roman Ritual and the Baltimore “Ceremonial” are to be followed. Pastors should keep registers of batisms, confirmations, marriages, and funerals. All of these, except the last, should be written in Latin. (ii) Of baptism. It must always be conferred in the church except in case of imminent death. Whether for infants or adults, all rites omitted at baptism must be afterwards supplied. As a rule converts are to be baptized; but care must be taken to inquire if they had been previously validly baptized, lest the sacrament be repeated. The same is to be said of those baptized in danger of death by laymen. Churching after child-birth, which has been generally neglected in this country, is to be insisted upon. (iii) Of confirmation. Sponsors of the same sex as the recipient are to be employed. (iv) Of the Holy Eucharist. Frequent Communion is to be encouraged. Children should as a rule be admitted to First Communion between ten and fourteen years of age. (v) Of penance. (vi) Of indulgences. Preachers must be careful not to recommend doubtful or fictitious indulgences. Let them propose such as the faithful can gain most frequently, easily, and with greatest fruit. (vii) Of extreme unction. Olive oil is required for this sacrament. The Fathers commend the proposition of the Bishop of Savannah to establish a community of Trappists on lands near St. Augustine, Florida, who would supply genuine olive oil, wine, and beeswax candles for the use of the churches. (viii) Of Holy orders. Clerics cannot be ordained without a canonical title. By Apostolic dispensation, our priests have thus far been ordained titulo missionis for the most part. The Holy See is to be petitioned for a continuation of this privilege. (ix) Of Matrimony. Rules are laid down for determining doubts concerning the probable death of soldiers in the late civil war. Mixed marriages are to be discouraged. (x) Of the sacramentals.

Title vi, Of Divine Worship.-(i) Of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Priests are never to leave the altar to collect alms from the faithful. Our quasi-parish-priests are not obliged to apply their Mass for their flock on festival days. (ii) Of Benediction and the Forty Hours’ Exposition. The latter is to be performed according to the manner sanctioned by the Holy See for the Diocese of Baltimore. (iii) Of Vespers. The rudiments of the Gregorian chant should be taught in the parish schools.

Title vii, Of Promoting Uniformity of Discipline.- (i) Of fasts and feasts. Those now in use in each province are to be retained. The Patronal Feast of the Immaculate Conception is, however, to be celebrated in every diocese as of obligation. (ii) Of uniformity in other matters. Bishops should endeavour to use a uniform method of acting in granting matrimonial dispensations. Catholics may be buried with sacred rites in non-Catholic cemeteries if they possess a lot in them, provided it was not acquired in contempt of church law. The poor must be buried gratuitously. Entrance money should not be collected at churches. Orphans are to be cared for. Faculties for blessing cemeteries and church bells may be delegated to priests.

Title viii, Of Regulars and Nuns.-(i) When a religious community has accepted a diocesan work, strictly so called, it should not relinquish it without giving the bishop notice six months beforehand. A clear distinction is to be made as to what property belongs to a religious community and what to the diocese. (ii) Nuns are not to make solemn vows until ten years after the taking of simple vows. Bishops are not to permit religious women to travel around soliciting alms.

Title ix, Of the Education of Youth.-(i) Of parish schools. Teachers belonging to religious congregations should be employed when possible in our schools. The latter should be erected in every parish. For children who attend the public schools, catechism classes should be instituted in the churches. (ii) Industrial schools or reformatories should be founded, especially in large cities. (iii) A desire is expressed to have a Catholic university in the United States.

Title x, Of Procuring the Salvation of Souls.-(i) Of seal for souls. (ii) Missions in parishes are to be encouraged; missionaries must not, however, interfere in the administration of the parish. (iii) Various confraternities and sodalities are named and recommended and regulations are given for their institution. (iv) Priests, both secular and regular, are exhorted to endeavour to further the conversion of the negroes in our midst.

Title xi, Of Books and Newspapers.-(i) Parents should guard their children against bad books. The bishops desire that textbooks in Catholic schools and colleges should be purged of everything contrary to faith. (ii) Of the dissemination of good books. (iii) Prayer books should not be published until officially revised. (iv) Newspapers are frequently injurious to good morals. When a Catholic newspaper has a bishop’s approbation, this means only that he judges that nothing will be published against faith or morals in its pages. He does not make himself responsible, however, for all that the paper contains.

Title xii, Of Secret Societies.-The Freemasons were long ago condemned by the Church. The Odd Fellows and Sons of Temperance are also forbidden societies. In general, the faithful may not enter any society which, having designs against Church or State, binds its members by an oath of secrecy.

Title xiii, Concerning the Creation of New Bishoprics.

Title xiv, Of the Execution of the Conciliar Decrees.- A number of important instructions and decrees of the Holy See are appended to the Acts of this council.

III. THE THIRD PLENARY COUNCIL

The Third Plenary Council was presided over by the Apostolic Delegate, Archbishop Gibbons of Baltimore. Its decrees were signed by fourteen archbishops, sixty-one bishops or their representatives, six abbots, and one general of a religious congregation. The first solemn session was held 9 November, and the last 7 December, 1884. Its decrees are divided into twelve titles.

Preliminary Title. All the decrees of the Second Plenary Council remain in force except such as are abrogated or changed by the present council.

Title i, Of the Catholic Faith.

Title ii, Of Ecclesiastical Persons.-(i) Of bishops. When a see becomes vacant, the archbishop will call together the consultors and irremovable rectors of the diocese and they shall choose three names which are to be forwarded to Rome and to the other bishops of the province. The latter shall meet together and discuss the candidates. If they wish, they may reject all the names proposed by the clergy and substitute others, but they must give their reasons for this action when sending their recommendation to Rome. (ii) Of diocesan consultors. They should be six or at least four in number. If this be impossible, however, two will suffice. The bishop chooses the consultors, half at his own option, the other half after nomination by the clergy. The bishop should ask the advice of his consultors as to holding and promulgating a diocesan synod; dividing parishes; committing a parish to religious; constituting a committee for diocesan seminaries; choosing new consultors or examiners non-synodically; concerning transactions about church-property where the sum involved exceeds five thousand dollars; exacting new episcopal taxes beyond the limits designated by the canons. Consultors hold office for three years and they may not be removed except for grave reasons. They are to vote collectively. When the episcopal see is vacant, the administrator must ask their counsel in all the above-mentioned cases. (iii) Of examiners of the diocesan clergy. They are to be six in number. Their duties are principally to examine the junior clergy, and the candidates for irremovable rectorships. (iv) Of deans and vicars forane. The institution of these district officials is recommended to the bishops. It is advisable to bestow on them some faculties beyond what other rectors have and some honorary pre-eminence. (v) Of irremovable rectors. Parishes to have such rectors must have a proper church, a school for boys and girls, and revenues sufficiently stable for the support of the priest, church, and school. In all dioceses every tenth rector should be irremovable if the requisite conditions are obtainable. The candidate for such rectorship must have been in the ministry ten years and shown himself a satisfactory administrator in spirituals and temporals. He must also make a prescribed examination (concursus). An irremovable rector cannot be removed from his office except for a canonical cause and according to the mode of procedure contained in the Instruction “Cum Magnopere.” (vi) Of the concursus. The examination for irremovable rectorships must take place before the bishop or vicar-general and three examiners. Candidates must reply to questions in dogmatic and moral theology, liturgy, and canon law. They are also to give a specimen of catechetical exposition and of preaching. The qualities of the candidates are also to be weighed in forming a judgment. The bishop is to give the vacant rectorship only to a candidate who has received the approving votes of the examiners. (vii) Of the diocesan clergy. 1. Priests ordained for a diocese are bound by oath to remain in it. 2. Alien priests bringing satisfactory testimonials from former bishops may be incardinated in a diocese only after a probation of three or five years, and formal adscription by the ordinary. We may note that this council speaks of presumptive incardination also, but by a later Roman decree (20 July, 1898) that form of adscription is abrogated. 3. Infirm priests should be cared for. 4. Unworthy priests have no just claims to support, yet if they wish to amend, a house governed by regulars should be provided for them. (viii) Of clerical life and manners. Priests should make a spiritual retreat once every year, or at least every two years. They are exhorted to give themselves to solid reading and study. They are to avoid conduct that can afford even the least suspicion of evil. They are not to bring an action against another cleric before a civil tribunal about temporal matters without written permission of the bishop. As to ecclesiastical affairs, they are to remember that judgment pertains only to the church authorities. (ix) Of regulars. The provisions of the papal constitution “Romanos Pontifices” are extended to the United States. This constitution treats of the exemption of regulars from episcopal jurisdiction; of what concerns their ministry in a diocese; and of their temporal possessions. All controversies on these subjects are to be referred to the prefect of the Propaganda. Bishops are to recur to him also in matters concerning institutes of simple vows that are not diocesan but have their own superior-general. Diocesan Institutes, even having a rule approved by the Holy See, are entirely subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary. Bishops are to see that the laws of enclosure (clausura) are observed. Regulations are laid down for the ordinary and extraordinary confessors of nuns. Those who belong to religious brotherhoods, whose members are forbidden to aspire to the priesthood, may not, after leaving such congregation, be ordained for any diocese without a dispensation from Rome.

Title iii, Of Divine Worship.-(i) Of celebrating Mass twice on the same day. (ii) Of uniformity in feasts and fasts. In future in all dioceses of this country there are to be the following six feasts of obligation and no others: The Immaculate Conception, Christmas, Circumcision of Our Lord (New Year’s Day), Ascension, Assumption, and All Saints’ Day. No new dispositions are made as to fast days. (iii) Of the Lord’s Day. The faithful are to be exhorted to observe it properly. (iv) Of sacred music. Profane melodies are forbidden. The music should accord with the sacredness of time and place. Psalms are not to be curtailed at Vespers. The Mass must not be interrupted by the length of the choir-singing.

Title iv, Of the Sacraments.-(i) Of the baptism of converts. The ritual prescribed for their reception into the Church is to be observed. (ii) Of matrimony. Catholics who marry before a sectarian minister are excommunicated. Mixed marriages are not to be contracted unless promises are given that the Catholic party is in no danger of perversion, and will strive to convert the non-Catholic party. Also that all the children born of the union are to be brought up Catholics. No dispensation from these promises can be given.

Title v, Of the Education of Clerics.-(i) Preparatory seminaries should be instituted. The pupils should be taught Christian Doctrine, English, and at least one other language according to the necessities of the diocese. They must learn to speak and write Latin. Greek is also to be taught. The usual branches of profane learning, not omitting the natural sciences, as well as music and the Gregorian chant are to be part of the curriculum. (ii) Of the greater seminaries. Judgment must be exercised in admitting aspirants to the priesthood and they must be zealously formed to virtue and learning. Two years are to be devoted to a philosophical and four to a theological course. The faculty of theology is to embrace dogmatic and moral theology, Biblical exegesis, church history, canon law, liturgy and sacred eloquence. Great care must he taken in the selection of spiritual directors and professors for the students. Examinations are to be held semi-annually or annually in the presence of the bishop or vicar-general and the examiners of the clergy. Students are to be warned to spend their vacations in a manner becoming the clerical profession. The temporal and spiritual administration of the seminary belongs principally to the bishop; he is to be aided by two commissions, one for spirituals and one for temporals. (iii) Of the principal seminary or university. The Fathers consider the times ripe for creating a Catholic university, and for this purpose they appoint a commission. The university is to be entirely under the management of the episcopate. The bishops should, however, continue to send some of their subjects to Rome, Louvain, and Innsbruck, as the new university is intended for postgraduate theological studies. (iv) Of the examinations of the junior clergy. For five years after ordination, priests must make an annual examination in Scripture, dogmatic and moral theology, canon law, church history, and liturgy. (v) Of theological conferences. All priests having cure of souls must attend ecclesiastical meetings for the discussion of questions of doctrine and discipline. These conferences are to be held four times a year in urban and twice a year in rural districts.

Title vi, Of the Education of Catholic Youth, treats of (i) Catholic schools, especially parochial, viz., of their absolute necessity and the obligation of pastors to establish them. Parents must send their children to such schools unless the bishop should judge the reason for sending them elsewhere to be sufficient. Ways and means are also considered for making the parochial schools more efficient. It is desirable that these schools be free. (ii) Every effort must be made to have suitable schools of higher education for Catholic youth.

Title vii, Of Christian Doctrine.-(i) Of the office of preaching. (ii) A commission is appointed to prepare a catechism for general use. When published it is to be obligatory. (iii) Of prayer books. (iv) Of books and newspapers. While objectionable writings are to be condemned, Catholics should oppose them also by orthodox newspapers and books.

Title viii, Of Zeal for Souls.-(i) Immigrants should be instructed by priests of their own language. (ii) A commission is appointed to aid the missions among Indians and Negroes. (iii) Censures against secret societies are to be made known to the faithful. If Rome has not condemned a particular society by name, it will belong only to a commission consisting of the archbishops of the country to decide whether it falls under the laws of forbidden organizations or not. If they cannot agree, the matter is to be referred to Rome. On the other hand, Catholic societies, especially those of temperance, are to be encouraged.

Title ix, Of Church Property.-(i) The Church’s right to hold property. (ii) The bishop is the guardian and supreme administrator of all diocesan property. (iii) Priests are diligently to guard parochial property under the direction of the bishop. If they do not request their salary at the proper time, they are supposed to have renounced their right to it. (iv) In choosing lay trustees only those members of the congregation have a voice, who, being twenty-one years of age, have fulfilled the paschal precept, have paid for a seat in the church during the past year, have sent their children to Catholic schools and belong to no prohibited society. The pastor is ex officio president of the board of trustees. (v) In all churches some seats must be set aside for the poor. Abuses incident to picnics, excursions, and fairs are to be guarded against. Balls are not to be given for religious purposes. It is a detestable abuse to refuse the sacraments to those who will not contribute to collections. Bishops are to determine the stipend proper for ecclesiastical ministries. Foreign priests or religious cannot solicit alms in a diocese without the consent of the ordinary.

Title x, Of Ecclesiastical Trials.-(i) Every diocese is to have an episcopal tribunal. (ii) Its officials for disciplinary cases are to be a judge, fiscal procurator or diocesan attorney, attorney for the accused, and a chancellor. To those may be added an auditor, a notary, and apparitors. For matrimonial cases the officials are to be an auditor, defender of the marriage tie, and a notary. The interested parties may also employ advocates. (iii) In criminal causes, the bishop, according as the law and case demand, may proceed either extra-judicially or judicially. This chapter describes the method to be employed in both instances.

Title xi, Of Ecclesiastical Sepulture.-Cemeteries should be properly cared for.

Title xii. The decrees of this council are binding as soon as they are promulgated by the Delegate Apostolic. At the request of the Fathers, the Holy See permitted the celebration in the United States of the feasts of St. Philip of Jesus, St. Turibius, and St. Francis Solano. It also granted to the bishops, under certain conditions, the power of alienating church goods without previously referring each case to Rome. The Fathers of this council signed the postulation for the introduction of the cause of beatification of Isaac Jogues and René Goupil, martyrs of the Society of Jesus, and of Catherine Tegakwitha, an Iroquois virgin. This Third Plenary Council exhibits the actual canon law of the Church in the United States.

Acta te Decreta Conc. Plen. I (Baltimore, 1858); Acta te Decreta Conc. Plen. II (Baltimore, 1868); Smith, Notes on Second Plenary Council (New York, 1874); Acta te Decreta Conc. Plen. Ill (Baltimore, 1886); Nilles, Commentaria on Conc. Conc. Plen. III (Innsbruck, 1888).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Provincial Councils of Baltimore

These councils have a unique importance for the Church in the United States, inasmuch as the earlier ones legislated for practically the whole territory of the Republic, and furnished moreover a norm for all the later provincial councils of the country. This article touches on only those parts of the legislation which may seem in any way to individualize the discipline of the Church in the United States or depict the peculiar needs and difficulties of its nascent period.

I. The First Provincial Council was held in 1829 and was attended by one archbishop and four bishops. Its decrees refer to the enactments of two previous conventions which may be summarized briefly. Bishop Carroll’s Diocesan Synod of 1791 decreed: (No. 3) The ceremonies of baptism need not be supplied for converted heretics who had been previously validly baptized. (No. 4) As a rule children are not to be confirmed before the age of reason. (No. 5) The offerings of the faithful are to be divided into three parts: for the support of the pastor, the relief of the poor, and the sustentation of the church. (No. 11) The faithful are to be warned that the absolution of priests not approved by the bishop is invalid. (No. 15) None are to be married until they know the Christian Doctrine. Slaves, however, need know only the principal truths, if more cannot be acquired. (No. 16) In mixed marriages the non-Catholic must promise before witnesses to bring up the offspring of the union as Catholics. (No. 17) Hymns and prayers in the vernacular are to be encouraged at evening services. (No. 20) Catholics may work on days of obligation owing to the circumstances of place, but they must hear Mass if possible. (No. 23) The rich are to be warned that they sin grievously if, through their parsimony, pastors cannot be sustained and multiplied. (No. 24) When there is question of refusing Christian burial, the bishop must be consulted beforehand when possible.

The second series of enactments referred to are the articles concerning ecclesiastical discipline sanctioned by the common consent of the Archbishop of Baltimore and the other American bishops in 1810. The main articles are: (No. 2) Regulars should not be withdrawn from pastoral work without the consent of the bishops, if their assistance be deemed a necessity to the existence or prosperity of their missions. (No. 3) The Douay version of the Bible is to be used. (No. 5) Baptism must be conferred in the church where possible. (No. 6) If no sponsor can be obtained, private baptism only is to be administered. (No. 9) The faithful are to be warned against improper theatres, dances, and novels. (No. 10) Freemasons cannot be admitted to the sacraments.

Besides ordering the publication of these decrees along with their own synodical enactments, the fathers of the First Provincial Council decreed: (No. 1) Priests should labour in any mission assigned to them by the bishops. (No. 5) Owing to the abuses of lay trustees all future churches should be consigned to the bishop when possible. (No. 6) Trustees cannot institute or dismiss a pastor. No ecclesiastical patronage exists in this country. (No. 10) Infants of non-Catholics may be baptized if their parents promise to give them a Catholic education, but the sponsor must be a Catholic. (No. 20) In administering the sacraments and in the burial service, Latin and not English must be employed. (No. 31) A ceremonial written in English is to be drawn up. (No. 34) Catholic schools should be erected.

At one of the sessions of this council several lawyers (among them R. B. Taney, afterwards Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States) gave advice to the bishops on points of American law concerning property rights and ecclesiastical courts. In addition to their decrees, the bishops asked and obtained form Rome permission to use for adults the formula of infant baptism; to consecrate baptismal water with the form approved for the missionaries of Peru, and to extend the time for fulfilling the paschal precept, i.e. from the first Sunday of Lent to Trinity Sunday.

II. The Second Council, held in 1833, was attended by one archbishop and nine bishops. The main decrees were: (No. 3) A delimitation of the American dioceses. (No. 4) A method of selecting bishops, which a later Council (Prov. VII) modified. (No. 5) Recommending the entrusting to the Jesuits of the Indian missions in the West, as also (No. 6) the missions among former American slaves, repatriated in Liberia, Africa, to the same fathers. (No. 8) Bishops are exhorted to erect ecclesiastical seminaries.

III. The Third Council in 1837 was composed of one archbishop and eight bishops. Its decrees enacted: (No. 4) Ecclesiastical property is to be secured by the best means the civil law affords. (No. 6) Ecclesiastics should not bring ecclesiastical cases before the civil tribunals. (No. 7) Priests are prohibited from soliciting money outside their own parishes. (No. 8) Pastors are warned against permitting unsuitable music at Divine worship. (No. 9) The two days following Easter and Pentecost are to be days of obligation no longer. (No. 10) Wednesdays in Advent are not to be days of fast and abstinence.

IV. The Fourth Council in 1840 issued decrees signed by one archbishop and twelve bishops as follows: (No. 1) In mixed marriages no sacred rites or vestments are to be used. (No. 5) Temperance societies are recommended to the faithful. (No. 6) Pastors are to see that those frequenting public school do not use the Protestant version of the Bible or sing sectarian hymns. They must also employ their influence against the introduction of such practices into the public schools. (No. 8) Bishops are to control ecclesiastical property and not permit priests to hold it in their own name. Among those attending this council was the Bishop of Nancy and Toul, France, to whom the fathers granted a right to a decisive vote. A letter of consolation was sent by the council to the persecuted bishops of Poland, and another of thanks to the moderators of the Leopold Institute of Vienna, Austria.

V. In 1843, the Fifth Council was attended by one archbishop and sixteen bishops. Among its enactments were: (No. 2) Laymen may not deliver orations in churches. (No. 4) It is not expedient that the Tridentine decrees concerning clandestine matrimony be extended to places where they have not been already promulgated. (No. 5) Pastors are to be obliged to observe the law of residence. (No. 6) Priests may not borrow money for church uses without written permission of the bishop.

VI. The Sixth Council (One archbishop and twenty-two bishops attending) in 1846, decreed: (No. 1) that the Blessed Virgin Mary conceived without sin is chosen as the patron of the United States. (No. 2) Priests ordained titulo missionis may not enter a religious order without permission of their ordinaries. (No. 3) The canons concerning the proclaiming of the banns of matrimony are to be observed. At the request of the fathers, the Holy See sanctioned a formula to be used by the bishops in taking the oath at their consecration.

VII. In 1849 two archbishops and twenty-three bishops held the Seventh Council. The main decrees were: (No. 2) The Holy See is to be informed that the fathers think it opportune to define as a dogma the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (No. 3) A change in the election of bishops in introduced. (No. 5) Bishops are not to give an exeat at the request of a priest unless it be certain that another bishop will receive him. (No. 6) Priests are forbidden to assist at the marriages of those who have already had a ceremony performed by a Protestant minister, or who intend to have such ceremony performed. (No. 7) A national council should be held in Baltimore in 1850, by Apostolic Authority. The fathers moreover petitioned the Holy See to raise New Orleans, Cincinnati, and New York to metropolitan dignity and to make a new limitation of the Provinces of Baltimore and St. Louis. They desired likewise that Baltimore should be declared the primatial see of the Republic. The pope granted the first part of the petition, but deferred acting on the question of primacy.

VIII. The Eighth Council was assembled in 1855. One archbishop and seven bishops or their representatives attended it. This council enacted: (No. 1) The fathers joyfully receive the dogmatic decision of the pope defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (No. 2) Priests are warned that after August, 1857, adults must be baptized according to the regular formula for that service in the Roman Ritual and not according to that for infant baptism. (No. 4) No tax is to be demanded for dispensations from matrimonial impediments. (No. 6) Bishops are exhorted to increase the number of their diocesan consultors to ten or twelve. It will not be necessary, however, to obtain the opinion of all of them, even on important matters. For this, the counsel of three or four will suffice. On the death of the bishop, however, all the consultors shall send to the archbishop their written opinions as to an eligible successor for the vacant see. (No. 7) The various diocesan synods should determine on the best mode of providing for the proper support of the bishop. (No. 8) The fathers desire to see an American College erected in Rome. To the Acts of this council is appended a decree of the Holy See, sanctioning a mode of procedure in judicial causes of clerics.

IX. The Ninth Council in 1858 was attended by one archbishop and seven bishops. The main work of this synod consisted in drawing up petitions to the Holy See concerning a dispensation from abstinence on Saturdays; the conceding of certain honorary privileges to the Archbishop of Baltimore; the granting to the bishops the permission to allow the Blessed Sacrament to be kept in chapels of religious communities not subject to the law of enclosure. All of these petitions were granted by the Holy See. That concerning the Archbishop of Baltimore granted to him, as ruler of the mother-church of the United States, an honorary pre-eminence, to consist in his taking precedence of any other archbishop in the country, without regard to promotion or consecration, and in his having the place of honour in all councils and conventions. The fathers also sent to Rome an inquiry as to the nature of the vows (solemn or simple) of religious women, especially of Visitation Nuns in the United States, an answer to which was deferred to a later time (1864). The question was also discussed as to whether Archbishop Kenrick’s version of the Bible should be approved for general use. It was finally decided to wait for Dr. John Henry Newman’s expected version, and then to determine along with the bishops of other English-speaking countries on one common version.

X. In 1869, the Tenth Council enacted decrees that were signed by one archbishop, twelve bishops, and one abbot. Among these decrees we note: (No. 5) Bishops are exhorted to establish missions and schools for the negroes of their dioceses. (No. 7) Priests are to be appointed to aid the bishops in administering the temporal concerns of the diocese. They are also to supervise the spiritual and material affairs of religious women. At the request of the fathers, the Holy See extended for five years the privilege of using the short formula in the baptism of adults.

It should be remarked that the first seven provincial councils of Baltimore were practically, though not formally, plenary councils of the United States.

The numbers of decrees indicated in the text will be found conformable to any authorized edition of these councils; Acta et Decreta S. Conc. Receniorum. Collectio Lacensis. Auctoribus Presbyt., S. J. (Freiburg, 1875), contains in vol. III, the full text of the decrees of these ten councils; Concilia Provincialia Baltimori Habita ab Anno, 1829 ad 1849 (Baltimore, 1851), gives the acts of only the first seven provincial councils.

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Jean François Baltus

Theologian, born at Metz, 8 June, 1667; died at Reims, 9 March, 1743. He entered the Society of Jesus, 21 November, 1682, taught humanities at Dijon, rhetoric at Pont-à-Mousson, Scripture, Hebrew, and theology at Strasburg, where he was also rector of the university. In 1717, he was general censor of books at Rome, and later rector of Chalon, Dijon, Metz, Pont-à-Mousson, and Chalons. He left several works of value to the Christian apologist, notably: (1) “Réponse à l’historie des oracles de M. de Fontenelle,” a critical treatise on the oracles of paganism, in refutation of Van Dale’s theory and in defense of the Fathers of the Church (Strasburg, 1707), followed in 1708 by “Suite de la réponse à l’historie des oracles.” (2) “Défense des S. Pères accusés de platonisme” (Paris, 1711); this is a refutation of “Platonisme dévoilé” a work of the Protestant minister Souverain of Poitiers. (3) “Jugement des SS, Pères sur la morale de la philosophie païenne” (Strasburg, 1719). (4) La religion chrétienne prouvée par l’accomplissement des prophéties de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testament suivant la méthode des SS. Pères” (Paris, 1728). (5) “Défense des prophéties de la religion chrétienne” (Paris, 1737). To these may be added a funeral oration on the Most Rev. Peter Creagh, Archbishop of Dublin (Strasburg, 1705), “The Acts of St, Balaam, Martyr,” and the “Life of St. Frebonia, Virgin and Martyr” (Dijon, 1720 and 1721 respectively).

Sommervogel in Dict. de theol. cath., s. v.; Id., Bibl. de la c. de J., I, 856–860; VIII, 1736.

MARK J. MCNEAL

Jean Balue

A French cardinal, b. probably c. 1421, in Poitou; d. 5 October, 1491, at Ripatransone (March of Ancona). He has been frequently, but erroneously, called “de la Balue.” He was graduated as licentiate in law about 1457, and at an early date entered the ecclesiastical state. He became so intimate with Jacques Juvénal des Ursins, Bishop of Poitiers (1449–57), that the latter named him executor of his will. The charge that in this capacity he misappropriated funds destined for the poor must be received with reserve. After the death of Des Ursins, Balue entered the service of John de Beauvau, Bishop of Angers (1451–67), who made him vicar-general (1461). In 1462, he accompanied his bishop to Rome, and thenceforth his career was marked by clever and unscrupulous intrigue. On his return, he was introduced by Charles de Melun to King Louis XI (1461–83), and, owing to the royal favour, his rise both in ecclesiastical and civil affairs was rapid. In 1464, Louis XI made him his almoner; the same year, Balue received the Abbeys of Fécamp and Saint-Thierri (Reims) and in 1465, that of Saint-Jean-d’Angély, two priories, and the Bishopric of Evreux. Having obtained the deposition of his benefactor, Beauvau, from the See of Angers, he secured the see for himself (1467). His intrigues in the affair of the Pragmatic Sanction procured him, at the request of Louis XI, the cardinalate, to which Paul II (1464–71) reluctantly raised him (1467). Guilty of high treason, he was arrested two years later (1469) with his accomplice William d’Haraucourt, Bishop of Verdun (1456–1500). As a cardinal, he could not be judged by a civil tribunal, but the negotiations between the pope and the king, regarding his trial, remaining fruitless, he was held captive by Louis XI for eleven years (1469–80). The baseless story of his detention in an iron cage originated in Italy in the sixteenth century. After many fruitless attempts, the pope in 1480 obtained Balue’s freedom through Cardinal Julian de la Rovere, later Pope Julius II (1503–13). Balue went to Rome with the cardinal, was restored to all his rights and dignities (1482) and was named Bishop of Albano (1483). At the death of Louis XI (1483) he came, at the request of Charles VIII, as papal legate to France and left it as French ambassador to Rome (1485). Balue succeeded, moreover, in securing, besides several benefices, the nomination as Protector of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem and Guardian to Prince Djem, brother of the Sultan of Turkey. But his end was near; he died in 1491 and was buried at Rome. He had attained numerous dignities and amassed wealth, but dishonoured the Church.

Forgeot, Jean Balue (Paris, 1895); Pastor, Gesch. Der Papste (Freiburg, 1904), 4th ed., II, 372–375; tr. IV, 102–105 (London, 1894).

N.A. WEBER

Etienne Baluze

French scholar and historian, b. at Tulle, 24 December, 1630; d. in Paris, 28 July, 1718. His education was commenced at the Jesuit college of his native town, where he distinguished himself by his intelligence, his constant devotion to study, and his prodigious memory. Obtaining a scholarship on the recommendation of his professors, he completed his classical courses at the College of St. Martial, which had been founded at Toulouse, in the fourteenth century, by Pope Innocent VI for twenty Limousin students. Resolved to devote himself to the study of literature and history, Baluze set to work with great zeal, perseverance, and success. Critical and painstaking in the investigation of facts, he undertook to study the origins of the French nation, its customs, laws, and institutions, using for this purpose only genuine documents and original records instead of fanciful legends and fabulous stories, thus introducing a scientific spirit into historical research, philology, and chronology.

At the age of twenty-two he wrote a remarkable work of historical criticism. A Jesuit, Father Frizon, had just published a book, “Gallia purpurata,” containing the lives of the French cardinals, which met with great success until Baluze gave out (1652) his “Anti-Frizonius” in which he pointed out and corrected many errors made by Father Frizon. In 1654, Pierre de Marca, Archbishop of Toulouse, one of the greatest French scholars in the seventeenth century, appointed Baluze his secretary. Upon the death of his patron, in June, 1662, Baluze published the “Marca Hispanica,” a remarkable historical and geographical description of Catalonia. This work made him known to Colbert, who appointed him his librarian, a position he held for thirty years, many years, that is, after Colbert’s death. The excellent collection of manuscripts and books which was found in the latter’s library was the fruit of his care and advice. His own collection was also very important; it comprised about 1100 printed books, 957 manuscripts, more than 500 charters, and seven cases full of various documents. Baluze is to be ranked among those benefactors of literature who have employed their time and knowledge in collecting form all sources ancient manuscripts, valuable books, and state papers. He annotated them with valuable comments, being very well acquainted with profane and ecclesiastical history as well as with canon law, both ancient and modern.

The number of works Baluze published is considerable; we shall mention the most important among them: (1) “Marii Mercatoris opera” (1684), collated with manuscripts and enriched with notes illustrative of the history of the Middle Ages. (2) “Regum Francorum capitularia” (1677). This collection contains several capitularies never published before. Baluze corrected them with great accuracy and in his preface gave an account of the original documents and of the authority of the several collections of the capitularies. (3) “Epistolae Innocentii Papae III” (1682); not a complete collection, as Baluze was refused the use of the letters preserved in the Vatican. (4) “Conciliorum nova collectio” (1683), containing such pieces as are wanting in Labbe’s collection. (5) “Les vies des papes d’Avignon” (1693), in which he gave a preference to Avignon over Rome as the seat of the Popes. (6) “Miscellanea” (1680), of which Mansi published a new edition in 1761. (7) “Historia Tutelensis” (1717), or the history of Tulle. This was Baluze’s favourite work. He wrote it out of love for his native place, “ne in nostrâ patriâ peregrini atque hospites esse videamur.” It embraces a period of eight centuries, from the founding of the city (900), to the episcopate of Daniel de Saint-Aulaire (1702). The history of Tulle is divided into three books, the first dealing with the counts, the second with the abbots, and the third with the bishops.

In 1670, Baluze was appointed professor of canon law at the Collège de France, of which he became director in 1707, with a pension awarded by the king. But he soon felt the uncertainty of courtly favours. Having attached himself to Cardinal de Bouillon, who had engaged him to write the history of his family, he became involved in the cardinal’s disgrace. Baluze was accused of having used spurious papers in his patron’s interest. Consequently he received a lettre de cachet ordering him to retire to Lyons. Being expelled from the university and deprived of his personal fortune, he wandered from Rouen to Blois, from Blois to Tours, and later to Orléans, where he lived until 1713. After the peace of Utrecht, the family of Cardinal de Bouillon recovered the favour of the king, and Baluze was recalled, but never again employed as a professor or as a Director of the Collège de France. He lived far from Paris and was engaged in publishing St. Cyprian’s works at the time of his death. Baluze, together with Luc d’Achéry, Mabillon, Sainte-Marthe, Ducange, Montfaucon, and others, gathered an immense quantity of rich materials which the historians of the nineteenth century, such as Sismondi, Guizot, Augustin and Amédée Thierry, Michelet, Henri Martin, Fustel de Coulanges, were to use with the greatest skill.

Page, Etienne Baluze, sa vie, ses ouvrages, son exil, sa defense in Bulletin de la societe des lettres, sciences, et arts de la Correze (Tulle, 1898), V, 20; Michaud, Biographie universelle, II, s. v.; Fage, Les oeuvres de Baluze cataloguees et decrites; Memoire de l’Academie des Inscriptions, XVIII; Delisle, Le cabinet des manuscrits, Baluze, Colbert, I.

JEAN LE BARS

Ven. Edward Bamber

(Alias Reading).

Priest and martyr, b. at the Moor, Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire; executed at Lancaster 7 August, 1646. Educated at the English College, Valladolid, he was ordained and sent to England. On landing at Dover, he knelt down to thank God, which act, observed by the Governor of the Castle, was the cause of his apprehension and banishment. He returned again, and was soon afterwards apprehended near Standish, Lancashire; he had probably been chaplain at Standish Hall. On his way to Lancaster Castle he was lodged at the Old-Green-Man Inn near Claughton-on-Brock, and thence managed to escape, his keepers being drunk. He was found wandering in the fields by one Mr. Singleton of Broughton Tower (who had been warned in a dream to help him), and was assisted and sheltered by him. Arrested the third time, he was committed to Lancaster Castle, where he remained in close confinement for three years, once escaping, but recaptured. At his trial with two other priests, Whitaker and Woodcock, two apostates witnessed against him that he had administered the sacraments, and he was condemned to die. He suffered with great constancy, reconciling to the Church a felon executed with him, and encouraging his fellow-martyrs to die bravely. His conduct so enraged the persecutors that they urged the executioner to butcher him in a more than usually cruel and savage manner. An ode composed on his death is still extant.

Challoner, Memoirs (1750); Watson, Decacordon of ten Quodlibet Questions (1602); Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885).

BEDE CAMM.

Archdiocese of Bamberg

The Archdiocese of Bamberg, in the kingdom of Bavaria, embraces almost the whole of the presidency of Upper Franconia, the northern part of Middle Franconia (in particular the cities of Nuremberg, Furth, Ansbach, and Erlangen), parts of Lower Franconia, of the Upper Palatinate, and of the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg. According to the census of 1 December, 1900, the archdiocese then contained 379,442 Catholics; in 1907 the Catholics numbered 410,000 and members of other denominations 720,000. Bamberg as an ecclesiastical province includes, besides the Archdiocese of Bamberg, the suffragan dioceses of Würzburg, Eichstatt, and Speyer, all of Bavaria.

HISTORY

In the early centuries the region afterwards included in the Diocese of Bamberg was inhabited for the most part by Slavs; the knowledge of Christianity was brought to these people chiefly by the monks of the Benedictine Abbey of Fulda, and the land was under the spiritual authority of the Diocese of Würzburg. The Emperor Henry II and his pious wife Kunigunde decided to erect a separate bishopric at Bamberg, which was a family inheritance. The emperor’s purpose in this was to make the Diocese of Würzburg less unwieldy in size and to give Christianity a firmer footing in the districts of Franconia. In 1008, after long negotiations with the Bishops of Würzburg and Eichstatt, who were to cede portions of their dioceses, the boundaries of the new diocese were defined, and John XVIII granted the papal confirmation in the same year. The new cathedral was consecrated 6 May, 1012, and in 1017 Henry II founded on Mount St. Michael, near Bamberg, a Benedictine abbey for the training of the clergy. The emperor and his wife gave large temporal possessions to the new diocese, and it received many privileges out of which grew the secular power of the bishop (cf. Weber in “Historisches Jahrbuch der Gorresgesellschaft” for 1899, 326–345 and 617–639). Pope Benedict VIII during his visit to Bamberg (1020) placed the diocese in direct dependence on the Holy See. In 1248 and 1260 the see obtained large portions of the estates of the Counts of Meran, partly through purchase and partly through the appropriation of extinguished fiefs. The old Bishopric of Bamberg was composed of an unbroken territory extending from Schlusselfeld in a north-easterly direction to the Franconian Forest, and possessed in addition estates in the Duchies of Carinthia and Salzburg, in the Nordgau (the present Upper Palatinate), in Thuringia, and on the Danube. By the changes resulting from the Reformation the territory of this see was reduced nearly one half in extent; in 1759 the possessions and jurisdictions situated in Austria were sold to that State. When the secularization of church lands took place (1802) the diocese covered 1276 square miles and had a population of 207,000 souls.

Up to this period the Diocese of Bamberg had been ruled by 63 bishops. The first eight were appointed by the German emperors; after this they were chosen by the clergy and people jointly; still later they were elected by the cathedral chapter. On several occasions, when the election was disputed, the appointment was made by the pope. The first bishop, Eberhard I (1007–40), chancellor to Henry II, greatly increased the possessions of the diocese; Suidger (1040–46) became pope under the name of Clement II; Hartwig (1047–53) defended the rights of his see against the Bishop of Würzburg and received the pallium from the pope in 1053; Adalbero (1053–57) was followed by Gunther (1057–65) who held the first synod of Bamberg (1058). Gunther died at Odenburg (Sopron) in Hungary, while on a crusade. Hermann (1065–75) acquired the Principality of Banz; in the struggle between the empire and the papacy he took the side of the empire. He was charged with obtaining his election by simony and deposed. Rupert (1075–1102), as partisan of Henry IV, was a member of the pseudo-Synod of Brixen which declared Pope Gregory VII to be deposed; on this account the bishop was excommunicated. During his episcopate Rupert did much for the encouragement of classical learning in the diocese. St. Otto I (1102039), the Apostle of the Prussians and Pomeranians, had a large share in the reconciliation of the pope and the emperor by the Concordat of Worms; he founded numerous churches and monasteries and during a famine showed large-hearted generosity to his subjects. Otto’s immediate successors were men of less distinction: Egilbert (1139–46), who had been Patriarch of Aquileia; Eberhard II of Otelingen (1146–70) who with great pomp celebrated, in 1147, the canonization of Henry II. Eberhard increased the territory of the diocese, but, being a partisan of Frederick I, he was for a time under sentence of excommunication. He was succeeded by Hermann II, of Aucach (1170–77). Otto II, of Andechs (1177–96), rebuilt in 1181 the cathedral, which had been burned. Otto II understood how to remain loyal both to the emperor and the pope. Thiemo (1196–1202) obtained in 1200 the canonization of the Empress Kunigunde, joint foundress with the emperor Henry II of the see; Conrad, Duke of Silesia (1201–03), died soon after his election; Eckbert, Count of Meran and Andechs (1203–37), was suspected of being privy to the murder of King Philip of Germany in 1208; the ban of the empire was proclaimed against him, and he was removed form his see, but in 1212 he was restored, and in 1217 took part in an unsuccessful crusade to Palestine. In spite of his warlike disposition he was zealous in promoting the spiritual life of his clergy. Poppo I, Count of Andechs (1237–42), soon retired from his office; Henry I of Bilberstein (1242–51) received from the emperor the title of Prince-Bishop for himself and his successors, as well as numerous rights of sovereignty. Thenceforth the Bishops of Bamberg had ecclesiastical precedence directly after the archbishops.

Their power was encroached on, however, from two directions; on the one side by the cathedral canons, the so-called Brothers of St. George, who abandoned the vita communis during the episcopate of Bishop Berthold of Leiningen (1257–85) and developed gradually into a cathedral chapter. In time the cathedral chapter of Bamberg was chosen, as in other German dioceses, exclusively from the nobility; the chapter, by so-called election pacts (Wahlkapitulationen) forced the bishops to abandon numerous privileges and many of the church livings under their control in favour of the chapter, limited the bishop’s disciplinary authority over the clergy as well as his right to levy taxes, and abridged other powers. The episcopal authority was also limited, as in other parts of Germany, by the growing power of the towns which rebelled against the secular jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical princes. Thus the city of Bamberg revolted (1291) against Arnold of Solms (1286–96), a quarrel which was settled in 1291 by arbitration in favour of the bishop. During this episcopate the finances of the diocese became much involved, and the indebtedness increased under Leopold I of Grundlach (1297–1303). A Dominican appointed by the pope, Wulfing of Stubenberg (1304–18), founded in Bamberg a Dominican monastery and a convent of Dominican nuns. Several of the succeeding bishops ruled for brief periods: John of Guttingen (1322–23), afterwards Bishop of Friesing; Henry II of Sternberg (1324–28), a Dominican; John, Count of Nassau (1328–29), who died before consecration; Werntho Schenk of Reicheneck (1320–35); Leopold II of Egloffstein 91335–43), who maintained ecclesiastical discipline in his diocese and shrewdly kept out of the quarrels between pope and emperor. Frederick I of Hohenlohe (1344–52) did much to establish peace between the imperial and ecclesiastical authorities; in 1348 he had a register (urbarium) drawn up of all the estates and rights belonging to the see. Leopold III of Bebenburg (1353–63) was granted the right of coinage and re-established the disordered finances of the see. Frederick II of Truhendingen (1364–66) was followed by Louis, Margrave of Meissen (1366–74), who soon became Elector of Mainz. Lamprecht of Brunn (1374–98), formerly Bishop of Strasburg, imposed new taxes in order to reduce the indebtedness of the see. This led to a revolt of the citizens of Bamberg, and the bishop was put to flight in 1379; in 1380 he conquered the city and imposed heavy penalties upon it. Albert, Count of Wertheim (1399–1421), settled a quarrel of many years’ standing with the Burgrave of Nuremberg and protected the Jews living in the diocese. Frederick III of Aufsess (1421–31), one of the most religious princes of his age, convened a synod in order to restore ecclesiastical discipline and to check the avarice and immorality of the clergy; the opposition to these reforms, especially that of the cathedral canons, forced him to resign the see (d. 1440). Anthony of Rotenhan (1432–59) was unable to improve the bad condition of the episcopal finances of the bishopric; in 1440 the citizens of Bamberg forced him to flee, but he soon afterwards took the city by storm and executed a number of the citizens. The diocese was several times devastated by Hussites. More peaceful times now followed: George I of Schaumberg (1459–75), an able ruler, restored ecclesiastical discipline among the people, clergy, and monasteries, and encouraged the newly discovered art of printing (the printer Pfister had a press at Bamberg as early as 1460). Philip of Henneberg (1475–87) continued the labours of his predecessor, redeemed a large number of the estates mortgaged by Anthony of Rotenhan to the Jews, and in 1478 drove the Jews out of the diocese. Henry III Gross of Tockau (1487–1501) was an energetic organizer and issued a number of laws; in 1491 he held a synod. Veit I Truchsess of Pommersfelden (1501–03) and George II Marschalk of Ebnet (1503–05) had very brief reigns.

The period of the Reformation was an unfortunate one for the diocese. Luther’s doctrines very soon found entrance into its territory. The fortieth bishop, George III Schenk of Limburg (1502–22), did much to encourage art and the erection of churches, but he showed himself weak in his opposition to the religious innovations and allowed the writings of the Reformers to be printed and spread in the diocese. Luther’s doctrines also found friends and well-wishers in the cathedral chapter. Weigand of Redwitz (1522–56) desired to make a stand against the progress of the Reformation, but was prevented by political and social conflicts. In 1524 the peasants, excited by the preaching of evangelical freedom by the adherents of the new teachings, revolted in several places and refused to pay tithes. The city of Bamberg also rebelled against the bishop; the citizens called on the peasants for aid, plundered the episcopal palace, the houses of the canons and clergy, the monasteries, and a large number of estates in the open country which belonged to the nobles and clergy. Geoerge von Truchsess, commander of the army of the Swabian Confederation, restored order; a number of the revolutionary leaders were executed, a heavy punishment was inflicted on the city of Bamberg, and the nobles who had suffered loss received unnecessarily large compensation. In spite of the bishop’s zeal for souls, the Reformation spread through the diocese, and Protestantism gained a footing, especially in Nuremberg and in the Franconian possessions of the Electors of Brandenburg. This period was followed by an era of calm during the episcopates of George IV Fuchs von Rugheim (1556–61), Veit II of Würzburg (1561–77), John George I Zobel of Giebelstadt (1577–80), Martin von Eyb (1580–83); none of these men, however, were able to correct abuses and reduce the debts of the see. The cathedral chapter was chiefly responsible for the troubles under which the diocese suffered; their nepotism, simony, avoidance of ordination to the priesthood, and, in many cases, their evil lives (concubinage was common) prevented reform. Ernst von Mengersdorf (1583–91) took energetic measures against the moral decay of clergy and people; in 1585 he founded a seminary in Bamberg for the training of priests; he also did much to improve the material welfare of the people. Neithart von Thungen (1591–98) laboured with great success in behalf of the counter-Reformation; he provided for the education of the clergy, enlarged the ecclesiastical seminary, and re-established the Catholic religion in his territory in accordance with the then accepted principles of law. A less successful episcopate was that of John Philip von Gebsattel (1599–1609), during whose reign the pest desolated the diocese. John Gottfried von Aschhausen (1609–22), who, after 1617, was also Bishop of Würzburg, took energetic measures against concubinage among the clergy. In 1612 he called in the Jesuits, to whom he gave the house and church of the Carmelites; he put the Jesuits in charge of the ecclesiastical seminary and made them the cathedral preachers. In this way the bishop insured the reform of his clergy and the spiritual renewal of Catholicism. There is one stain on his memory which also rests on that of his successor: the toleration and encouragement of trials for witchcraft.

Many misfortunes befell the diocese during the Thirty Years War; among those were heavy war imposts, spoliation, and devastation. In 1632 Bamberg was conquered by the Swedes, and in 1633 was obliged to recognize Barnard of Weimar as its ruler. Bishop John George II Fuchs von Dornheim (1623–33) died in Carinthia far away from his see. Franz von Hatzfeld (1633–42) was not able to enter his diocese until 1635. Melchior Otto Voit of Salzburg (1642–53) changed the gymnasium into a university in 1647; his successors, Philip Valentine Voit von Reineck (1655–72), Philip von Dernbach (1672–83), Marquard Sebastian Schenk von Stauffenberg (1683–93), followed his example in encouraging the spiritual activity of the Jesuits and other orders, in the improvement of schools, and in reducing the indebtedness of the diocese. A time of great prosperity was the period of the two Counts von Schonborn, Lothair Franz (1693–1729), and Frederick Charles (1729–46). After 1695 the former of these two bishops, Lothair Franz, was elected Elector of Mainz; he built the prince-bishop’s palace (now a royal residence), a large college for the Jesuits, as well as several castles, and was a great patron of art and learning; the latter, Frederick Charles, added faculties of law and medicine to the university and adorned the city with numerous public buildings. On account of his pulpit eloquence his contemporaries gave him the name of the German Fleury. The reigns of the next bishops, John Philip Anthony von Frankenstein (1746–53) and Franz Conrad, Count von Stadion (1753–57), were also peaceful. During the administration of Adam Frederick, Count von Seinsehim (1757–79), the diocese suffered greatly from the Seven Years War; during its progress the Prussians ravaged and plundered the region, levied contributions on the inhabitants, and carried off the church treasures. When pestilence and famine followed the other miseries of war the bishop showed great liberality in providing for his starving subjects. Franz Ludwig von Erthal (1779–95), who was at the same time Bishop of Würzburg, was another prelate who aimed to promote the welfare of the diocese; he issued wise laws, tried to equalize the burdens of taxation, founded charitable institutions (the general hospital at Bamberg among them), and raised the standard of the clergy. But although personally religious, in the political relations of the Church he yielded in a measure to the prevailing tendencies of the Aufklarung (illumination) movement of his day. Christoph Franz von Buseckj (1745–1802) was the last Prince-Bishop of Bamberg. In 1796 he took refuge at Prague from the French invasion, and in 1799 at Saalfeld. He had only just returned, in 1802, when Bavaria seized his prince-bishopric; and in 1803 the delegates of the empire formally enacted the secularization of Bamberg, and allotted it to be a possession of the Elector of Bavaria. All the provostships and monasteries were then suppressed, the university was changed into the still extant lyceum, and the prince-bishop was pensioned.

Upon the death of von Buseck (1805) George Charles von Fechenbach, Bishop of Würzburg, administered the affairs of the diocese until 1808. After this the see remained vacant for ten years; the ecclesiastical government was carried on by a vicariate-general, consisting of a president and eight counsellors. The concordat agreed upon between Bavaria and Rome in 1817 brought in a new era. Bamberg was made an archbishopric with boundaries as given at the beginning of this article. The first archbishop, Count Joseph von Stubenberg, previously Prince-Bishop of Eichstatt, took possession of the archiepiscopal see of Bamberg in 1818 and administered both dioceses until his death in 1824. Bishop von Stubenberg deserves great credit for the manner in which he protected the property of the Catholic Church. He was followed by (1824–52) Joseph Maria, Freiherr von Fraunberg, who had been Bishop of Augsburg, (1842–58) Boniface Caspar von Urban, (1858–75) Michael von Deinlein, who founded a seminary for boys and encouraged Catholic associations and missions among the people, (1875–90) Frederick von Schreiber, and (1890–1904) Joseph von Schork, a noted pulpit orator. Archbishop von Schork promoted missions (Volksmissionen) among the people, as well as charitable and social organizations among clergy and laity. Frederick Philip von Abert (b. at Munnerstadt, 1 May, 1852) was appointed Archbishop, 30 January, 1905.

ECCLESIASTICAL STATISTICS

The Archdiocese of Bamberg is divided into the archiepiscopal commissariat of the city of Bamberg and 20 rural deaneries. The diocesan year-book for 1906 gives: 194 parishes and dependent stations; 35 curacies; 113 chaplaincies; 58 benefices; 583 churches and chapels; 406 secular clergy; 29 regular clergy; 788 Catholic parish schools; 23 Catholic district school inspectors; 202 local school inspectors. The cathedral chapter is composed of 1 provost, 6 deans, 10 canons, 1 honorary canon, and six curates. The secular priests have a clerical association (Faaedus Ottonianum) with 320 members and a home for invalid priests; the association has also a retiring fund (Emeritenfonds) of $92,500. There are 7 houses of male orders, with 90 members, namely: 4 Franciscan with 17 priests and 29 brothers; 1 of Calced Carmelites with 5 priests, 3 clerics, and 7 brothers; 1 of Conventual Minorites, with 5 priests, 5 brothers, and 3 novices; 1 of Brothers of Charity, with 2 priests, 11 brothers, and three novices. The archdiocese contains a large number of houses of the female orders and congregations: 17 houses, in 8 localities, of the English Ladies (Englische Fraulein) with 223 inmates; 13 houses of the Poor School-Sisters, with 1223 inmates; 3 houses of the Franciscan Sisters, with 11 inmates, from the mother-house of Maria-Stern at Augsburg; 8 houses of the Tertiary Sisters of St. Francis, from Mallersdorf, with 35 inmates; 8 houses of the Franciscan Sisters, from the convent of Dillingen with 43 inmates; 5 houses of Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul with 55 inmates; 17 houses in 10 localities containing 107 inmates, of the Sisters of the Most Holy Saviour from the mother-house at Oberbronn, with 107 inmates; 12 houses, with 32 inmates, of the Daughters of the Holy Redeemer from the mother-house at Würzburg; 2 convents, with 11 inmates, of the Sister of Oberzell; making a total of 85 houses with 640 female religious. For the training of the clergy there are an archiepiscopal seminary for priests (50 students) and an archiepiscopal seminary for boys (75 pupils). The students of the seminary (Priesterseminar) are educated at the Royal Lyceum, which has philosophical and theological faculties and 9 clerical professors; the pupils of the seminary for boys’ school (Knabenseminar) attend the two gymnasia of Bamberg in each of which an ecclesiastic acts as religious instructor (Religionslehrer). The clergy have also charge of the von Aufsess seminary and home for Catholic students. The Franciscans have at Bamberg a seminary for students at the gymnasia who wish to enter the order after completing their studies. Of the female congregations, the English Ladies conduct 3 Academies and boarding-schools for girls, and 7 primary girls’ schools; the other congregations conduct common schools, housekeeping and industrial schools, and creches. The orders and congregations in the diocese have some 90 charitable institutions under their care, among these are: 15 alms-houses and infirmaries; 12 hospitals; 22 creches; 15 centres for obtaining visiting nurses; 1 insane asylum; 4 homes for unemployed servants; 5 poor-houses, etc. Among the Catholic societies in the diocese may be mentioned: 50 Associations for workingmen and Mechanics; 14 Journeymen’s Associations (Gesellenvereine); 7 Apprentices’ Societies; 1 Workingwomen’s and 1 Shopgirls’ Association; the Ludwig-Mission Association; the St. Boniface Association; the Christian Family Association; the Society of Christian Mothers; the Catholic Men’s Society, the People’s Union for Catholic Germany, etc.

The most important ecclesiastical building of the diocese is the cathedral. The edifice erected by the Emperor Henry II, the Saint, was destroyed by fire in 1081; the new cathedral, built by St. Otto of Bamberg, was consecrated in 1111, and in the thirteenth century received its present late-Romanesque form. It is about 309 feet long, 92 feet broad, 85 feet high, and the four towers are each about 266 feet high. Among the finest of its monuments is that to the Emperor Henry II and his Empress Kunigunde, considered the masterpiece of the sculptor Tilman Riemenschneider. Among other noteworthy churches of the city are the twelfth-century church of the former Benedictine Abbey of St. Michael and the upper parish church, a Gothic building dating from 1387. Among the finest churches of the diocese are those of the Fourteen Martyrs, Gossweinstein, and Mariaweiher—all places of pilgrimage; the Gothic church of Our Lady at Nuremberg, and the churches of the former abbeys of Banz and Ebrach.

Ludewig, Scriptores rerum episcopatus Bambergensis (Frankfort and Leipzig, 1718); Schneidawind, Statistische Beschreibung des Hochstifts Bamberg (Bamberg, 1797); Ussermann, Episcopatus Bambergensis (St. Blasien, 1802); Roppelt, Historisch-topographische Beschreibung des Hochstifts Bamberg (Nuremberg, 1805); Jack, Geschichte der Provinz Bamberg, 1006–1803 (Bamberg, 1809–10); Idem, Beschreibung der Bibliothek zu Bamberg (Nuremberg, 1831–35); Idem, Bambergische Jahrbucher von 741 bis 1833 (Bamberg, 1829–34); Von Strauss, Das Bistum Bamberg in seinen drei wichtigsten Epochen (Bamberg, 1823); Eisenmann, Geographische Beschreibung des Erzbistums Bamberg (Bamberg, 1833); Jaffe, Monumenta Bambergensia (Berlin, 1869); Weber, Geschichte der gelehrten Schulen im Hochstift Bamberg 1007–1803 (Bamberg, 1880–81); Idem, Der Kirchengesang im Furstbistum Bamberg (Cologne, 1893); Idem, Das Bistum und Erzbistum Bamberg (Bamberg, 1895); Looshorn, Die Geschichte des Bistums Bamberg—brought down to 1729 (1886–1906), vols. I-III, Munich, vols. IV-VI, Bamberg); Leist, Bamberg (Bamberg, 1889); Rosel, Unter dem Krummstab. 2 Jahrhunderte Bamberger Geschichte (Bamberg, 1895); Pfister, Der Dom zu Bamberg (Bamberg, 1896); Wrosky, Die Bamberger Domskulpturen (Strasburg, 1897); Wild, Staat und Wirtschaft in den Bistumern Bamberg und Würzburg (Heidelberg, 1904); Schematismus der Geistlichkeit des Erzbistums Bamberg, 1906 (Bamberg, 1906); Jahresbericht uber Bestand und Wirken des Historischen Vereins Bamberg (Bamberg, 18- to 1905), 64 vols.

JOSEPH LINS

Banaias

(A. V. Benaiah; Kenrick, Banaiah; Heb. bnyhw, also bnyh, “Jehovah hath built up”-Gesenius; Gr. Banaías, Banaía; Lat. Banaias, Banaia).

The name of several men mentioned in the Bible. The orthography varies, but the component elements of the various forms are the same.

The most famous of all who bore the name was “the son of Joiada, the priest”-”the most valiant among the thirty”-”captain of the third company for the third month” (I Par., xxvii, 5, 6). The meaning of the text is not clear; he seems to have been a priest and one of the principal officers at court. “Joiada, the son of Banaias” (I Par., xxvii, 34) may be a false reading, in which the names have been interchanged. Banaias is credited with three notable exploits that required strength and courage: (a) He killed two lions, or perhaps brave warriors of Moab (“two lion-like champions of Moab”-Gesenius, s. v. aryal; in Gr. and Lat. the Heb. word is merely transliterated, leaving the meaning doubtful; (b) he descended into a pit and there killed a lion; (c) he also vanquished and put to death an Egyptian hero of extraordinary size and great strength (II K., xxiii, 20, 21=I Par., xi, 22, 23). He commanded the “Cerethi and Phelethi,” or “the king’s guards”-D. V. footnote (II K., viii, 18; I Par., xviii, 17), or “Cerethites” and “Phelethites” (II K., xx, 23). The D. V. describes him as “the first among the thirty, but yet to the first three he attained not, and David made him of his council” (I Par., xi, 25). In II K., xxiii, 23, the Heb. text gives the same history, but the Gr. and the Lat. versions cause confusion by notable variations. The A. V. reads: “Behold, he was honourable among the thirty, but attained not to the first three: and David set him over his guard” (I Chron., xi, 25). This is from the Heb., but “guard” may be questioned (Gesenius renders the word by “a hearing, audience”). “The first among the thirty” (D. V.) is far from being exact (Jos., Ant., vii, 12).

Banaias supported Solomon’s title to the throne against the ambitious intrigues of Adonias (III K., i, 32–38, 44), whom, by Solomon’s command, he afterwards put to death (III K., ii, 46). For some Rabbinic literature, see Jew. Encycl s. v.

JOHN J. TIERNEY

Louis Bancel

Born at Valence, 1628; died at Avignon, 1685. When very young he entered the Dominican Order at Avignon. Even before his ordination to the priesthood he was appointed lector of philosophy. He afterwards taught theology at Avignon. He was remarkable for his subtle intellect and prodigious memory. He was the first to receive the appointment to the chair of theology in the University of Avignon (1654). This chair he held till his death. He was elected several times Dean of the Theological Faculty and always presided at the public defence of the theses of the candidates for academical degrees. He was also Synodal Examiner of the Diocese of Avignon, and Prefect of the Avignon legation. He wrote: “Moralis D. Thomae, Doctoris Angelici ex omnibus ipsius operibus deprompta” (Avignon, 1677; Venice, 1723, 1757, 1758, 1780); and “Brevis universae theologiae cursus” (Avignon, 1684–92). As the author died while the third volume was in press, the editing of the work was finished by Joseph Patin, O.P. From the last tome was expunged a thesis maintaining as probable the salvation of unbaptized infants by the faith of their parents. The unpublished manuscripts of “Opus integrum de Castitate” and “Opus de veritate solius religionis Christianae” were left with the Dominicans at Avignon.

Quetif and Echard, Script. Ord. Proed., II, 705; Hurter, Nomenclator, II, 585; Marchand, L’universite d’Avignon aux XVII et XVIII siecles (Paris, 1900), 19.

M. A. WALDRON.

Matteo Bandello

Born at Castelnuovo di Scrivia in Piedmont, Italy, in 1480; died Bishop of Agen, France, in 1565. [According to other sources, he was born in 1485 and died in 1561.—Ed.] He entered the Order of St. Dominic; but his life and writings bear slight trace of a religious character (3 Vols. Lyons, 1554 passim; Vol. IV appeared in 1573). He is best known by his Novelle, 214 in number. These tales show very considerable literary skill. But they are of no credit to the churchman. In many cases they are perverse descriptions of horrors and wickedness. Many of them were translated into English by Painter, and furnished themes to the dramatists of the Elizabethan period. It is by this means, most likely, that Shakespeare learned the story of Romeo and Juliet. The story of “Parisina” told by Bandello was later taken up by Byron. The best edition of the Novelle is that of Silvestri, Milan, 1813–14, in nine volumes. Some of them are contained in the second volume of the “Tesoro dei Novellieri Italiani,” Paris, 1847. Some were translated by Roscoe, in “Italian Novelists,” III, (London, 1825).

Quetif and Echard, Script. Ord. Proed., II, 155; Landale, Beitrage zur Gesch. Der ital. Novelle (1875); Symonds, Renaissance in Italy; Dunlock, Hist. of Prose Fiction; Masi in Nuova Antologia, 1892; Spampinato, Matteo Bandello e le sue novelle (Nola, 1896).

W.S. REILLY

Anselmo Banduri

Archaeologist and numismatologist, b. 1671 at Ragusa, off the coast of Dalmatia; d. at Paris, 4 January, 1743. He joined the Benedictines at an early age, studied at Naples, and was eventually sent to Florence, then a flourishing centre of higher studies. Here he made the acquaintance of the famous Benedictine scholar Montfaucon, then travelling in Italy, in search of manuscripts for his edition of the works of St. John Chrysostom. Banduri rendered him valuable services and in return was recommended to Duke Cosmo III as a proper titular for the chair of ecclesiastical history in the University of Pavia. It was also suggested that the young Benedictine be sent to Paris for a period of preparation, and especially to acquire a sound critical sense. After a short sojourn at Rome, Banduri arrived at Paris in 1702 and entered the Abbey of Saint Germain des Pres, as a pensioner of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. He soon became an apt disciple of the French Maurists and began an edition of the anti-iconoclastic writings of Nicephorus of Constantinople, of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and of other Greek ecclesiastical authors. Banduri never published these works, though as late as 1722 he announced, as near at hand, their appearance in four folio volumes. In the meantime, he was attracted by the rich treasures of Byzantine manuscript and other material in the Bibliotheque Royale and the Bibliotheque Colbert. In 1711 he published at Paris his “Imperium Orientale, sive Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae,” etc., a documentary illustrated work on the Byzantine Empire, based on medieval Greek manuscripts, some of which were then first made known. He also defended himself successfully against Casimir Oudin, an ex-Premonstratensian, whose attacks were made on a second-hand knowledge of Banduri’s work. In 1718 he published, also at Paris, two folio volumes on the imperial coinage from Trajan to the last of the Palaeologi (98–1453), “Numismata Imperatorum Romanorum a Trajano Decio usque ad Palaeologos Augustos” (supplement by Tanini, Rome, 1791). Of this work Father Eckhel, S.J., prince of numismatologists, says (Doctrina Nummorum I, cviii) that it contains few important contributions. At the same time he praises the remarkable bibliography of the subject that Banduri prefixed to this work under the title of “Bibliotheca nummaria sive auctorum qui de re nummaria scripserunt,” reprinted by Fabricius (Hamburg, 1719). In 1715 Banduri was made an honorary foreign member of the Academy of Inscriptions, and in 1724 was appointed librarian to the Duke of Orleans; he had in vain solicited a similar office at Florence on the death of the famous Magliabecchi.

Freret in Mem. De l’acad. des inscr. et belles lettres, XVI, 348.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Domingo Bañez

(Originally and more properly VAÑEZ and sometimes, but erroneously, IBAÑEZ).

A Spanish Dominican theologian, b. 29 February, 1528, at Medina del Campo, Old Castile; d. there 22 October, 1604. The qualifying Mondragonensis, attached to his name, seems to be a patronymic after his father John Bañez of Mondragon, Guipuscoa. At fifteen he began to study philosophy at the University of Salamanca. Three years later he took the Dominican habit at St. Stephen’s Convent, and made his profession 3 May, 1547. During a year’s review of the liberal arts and later, he had th afterwards distinguished Bartolomé Medina as a fellow student. Under such professors as Melchior Cano (1548–51), Diego de Chaves (1551), and Pedro Sotomayor (1550–51) he studied theology, laying the foundations of the erudition and acquiring the acumen which later made him eminent as a theologian and an exponent and defender of Thomistic doctrine. He next began teaching, and under Domingo Soto, as prior and regent, he field various professorships for ten years. He was made master of students, explaining the “Summa” to the younger brethren for five years, and incidentally taking the place, with marked success, of professors who were sick, or who for other reasons were absent from their chairs at the university. In the customary, sometimes competitive, examinations before advancement he is said easily to have carried off all honours. He taught at the Dominican University of Avila from 1561 to 1566. About 1567 he was assigned to a chair of theology at Alcalá, the ancient Complutum. It appears that he was at Salamanca again in 1572 and 1573, but during the four scholastic years 1573–71 he was regent of St. Gregory’s Dominican College al Valladolid, a house of higher studies where the best students of the Castilian province were prepared for a scholastic career. Elected Prior of Toro, he went instead to Salamanca to compete for the chair of Durandus, left vacant by Medina’s promotion to the chief professorship. He occupied this position from 1577 to 1580. After Medina’s death (30 December 1580) he appeared again as competitor for the first chair of the university. The outcome was an academic triumph for Bañez and he was duly installed in his new position amid the acclamations of professors and students. There he laboured for nearly twenty years. His name acquired extraordinary authority, and the leading schools of orthodox Spain referred to him as the proeclarissimum jubar—“the brightest light”—of their country.

In another way, Bañez in his prime was rendering memorable service to the Church as director and confessor of St. Teresa (1515–82). Her own words mark him as the spiritual adviser who was most relied upon as a guide and helper, both in her interior life and in her heroic work of the Carmelite reform. “To the Father Master Fra Dominie Bañez, who is now in Valladolid as Rector of the College of St. Gregory, I confessed for six years, and, whenever I had occasion to do so, communicated with him by letter. . . . All that is written and told, she communicated to him, who is the person with whom she has had, and still has, the most frequent communications.” (See “Life of St. Teresa of Jesus, by herself,” tr. by David Lewis, 3d ed., London, 1904, Relation VII, 448, 450.) Of the first foundation of the reform, St. Joseph’s Monastery at Avila, she wrote that Bañez alone saved it from the destruction resolved upon in an assembly of civil and religious authorities (op. cit., ch. xxxvi, 336 sqq.). He did not then know the saint, but “from that time forth he was one of her most faithful friends, strict and even severe, as became a wise director who had a great saint for his penitent.” He testifies, in the process of her beatification that he was firm and sharp with her, while she herself was the more desirous of his counsel the more he humbled her, and the less he seemed to esteem her (op. cit., p. , xxxvi). He looked for the proof of her love of God in her truthfulness, obedience, mortification, patience, and charity towards her persecutors, while he avowed that no one was more incredulous than himself as to her visions and revelations. In this his mastery of the spiritual life was shown to be as scientific as it was wholesome and practical. “It was easy enough to praise the writings of St. Teresa and to admit her sanctity after her death. Fra Bañez had no external help in the applause of the many, and he had to judge her book as a theologian and the saint as one of his ordinary penitents. When he wrote, he wrote like a man whose whole life was spent, as he himself tells us, in lecturing and disputing” (ibid.).

As the schoolman, the lecturer, and academic disputant, Bañez stands forth as a figure of unprecedented distinction in scholastic Spain. In his time discussion was rife, and disquieting tendencies counter to the beaten paths of Augustine and Thomas manifested themselves. The great controversy, with whose beginnings his name is prominently associated, goes back to a public disputation held early in 1582. Francisco Zumel, of the Order of Mercy, was moderator. Prudentius Montemayor, a Jesuit, argued that Christ did not die freely, and consequently suffered death without merit, if the Father had given him a command to die. Bañez asked what the consequences would have been if the Father had given command not only as to the substance of the act of death, but also as to its circumstances. Prudentius responded that in that case there remained neither liberty nor merit. Louis de Leon, an Augustinian, sided with Prudentius and presently the discussion was taken up by the masters in attendance and carried to the kindred subjects of predestination and justification. Other formal disputations ensued, and strong feeling was manifested. Juan de Santa e Cruz, a Hieronymite, felt constrained to refer the matter to the Inquisition (5 February), and to his deposition he appended sixteen propositions covering the doctrines in controversy. Leon declared that he had only defended the theses for the sake of argument. His chief thought was to prevent them from being qualified as heretical. Notwithstanding these and further admissions, he was forbidden to teach, publicly or privately, the sixteen propositions as reviewed and proscribed.

In 1588, Luis Molina, a Jesuit brought out, at Lisbon, his celebrated “Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiæ donis,” bearing the censura, or sanction, of a Dominican, Bartolomeu Ferreiro, and dedicated to the Inquisitor General of Portugal, Cardinal Albert of Austria; but a sentiment against its appearance in Spain was aroused on the ground of its favouring some of the interdicted propositions. The cardinal, advised of this, stopped its sale, and requested Bañez and probably some others to examine it. Three months later, Bañez gave his opinion that six of the 11 forbidden propositions appeared in the “Concordia.”

Molina was asked to defend himself, and his answers to the objections and to some other observations were added as an appendix, with which, sanctioned anew (25 and 30 August, 1589), the work was permitted to circulate. It was regarded as an epoch-making study, and many Fathers of the Society of Jesus rallied to its defense. From Valladolid where the Jesuit and Dominican schools in 1594 held alternate public disputations for and against its teaching on grace, the contention spread over all Spain. The intervention of the Inquisition was again sought, and by the authority of this high tribunal the litigants were required to present their respective positions and claims, and a number of universities, prelates, and theologians were consulted as to the merits of the strife. The matter was referred however, by the papal nuncio to Rome, 15 August 1594, and all dispute was to cease until a decision was rendered. In the meantime, to offset his Dominican and other critics, Molina brought counter accusations against Bañez and Zumel. The latter submitted his defense in three parts, all fully endorsed by Bañez, 7 July 1595. The Dominican position was set forth about the same time by Bañez and seven of his brethren, each of whom presented a separate answer to the charges. But the presiding officer of the Inquisition desired these eight books to be reduced to one, and Bañez, together with Pedro Herrera and Didacus Alvarez was instructed to do the work. About four months later Alvarez presented their joint product under the title “Apologetica fratrum prædicatorum in provinciâ Hispaniæ sacræ theologiæ professorum, adversus novas quasdam assertiones cujusdam doctoris Ludovici Molinæ nuncupati,” published at Madrid, 20 November, 1595. It is noteworthy that this work was signed and ratified by twenty-two masters and professors of theology. To it was added a tract on the intrinsic efficacy of Divine grace. Nearly two years later, 28 October, 1597, Bañez resumed the case in a new summary and petitioned the pope to permit the Dominican schools to take up their teaching again on the disputed questions. This was the “Libellus supplex Clementi VIII oblatus pro impetrandâ immunitate a lege silentii utrique litigantium parti impositâ,” published at Salamanca. An answer to the “Libellus” was conveyed in a letter of Cardinal Madruzzi, 25 February, 1598, written in the name of the pope, to the nuncio in Spain: “Inform the Fathers of the Order of Preachers that His Holiness, moderating the prohibition that was made, grants them the faculty freely to teach and discuss, as they did in the past, the subject-matter de auxiliis divinae gratia, et eorum efficaciâ, conformably to the doctrine of St. Thomas; and likewise the Fathers of the Society, that they also may teach and discuss the same subject-matter, always holding, however, to sound Catholic doctrine.” (Serry, Hist. Cong. de Aux., I, XXVI.) This pronouncement practically ended whatever personal participation Bañez had in the famous controversy.

It has been contended that Bañez was at least virtually the founder of present-day Thomism, especially in so far as it includes the theories of physical premotion, the intrinsic efficacy of grace, and predestination irrespective of foreseen merit. To any reader of Bañez It is evident that he would have met such a declaration with a strenuous denial. Fidelity to St. Thomas was his strongest characteristic. “By not so much as a finger-nail’s breadth, even in lesser things,” he was wont to say, “have I ever departed from the teaching of St. Thomas.” He singles out for special animadversion the views in which his professors and associates dissent even lightly from the opinions of the Angelic Doctor. “In and throughout all things, I determined to follow St. Thomas, as he followed the Fathers,” was another of his favourite assurances. His zeal for the integrity of Thomistic teaching could brook no doctrinal novelty, particularly if it claimed the sanction of St. Thomas’s name. In the voluminous literature of the De Auxiliis and related controversies, the cardinal tenets of Thomism are ascribed by its opponents to a varied origin: The Rev. G. Schneeman, S. J., (Controversiarum de divinæ gratiæ liberique arbitrii Concordiâ initiae progressus, Freiburg im Br., 1881), the Rev. Father De Regnon, S. J. (Bañez et Molina, Paris, 1883) and the Rev. Father Gaudier, S. J. (in the Revue des Sciences Ecclésiastiques, Amiens, 1887, p. 153) are probably the foremost modern writers who designate the Thomists as Bannesians. But against them appears a formidable list of Jesuits of repute who were either Thomists themselves or authorities for other opinions. Suarez, for instance (Op. omn., XI, ed Vives, Paris, 1886, Opuse., I, Lib. III, De Auxiliis vii), credits Medina with the first intimations of physical premotion and elsewhere (Op. omn., XI, 50; Opusc. I, Lib. I, De Conc.-Dei, xi, n 6) admits that St. Thomas himself once taught it. Toletus (Comment. in 8 Lib. Aristotelis, Venice, 1573, Lib. II, c. iii, q.8) and Pererius (Pref. to Disquisit. Magicarum Lib. VI, I Ed.) considered as Thomistic the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was the work (1566) of three Dominican theologians. [For Delrio see Goudin, Philosophia (Civita Vecchia, 1860), IV pt. IV, 392, Disp. 2, q. 3, 2.] The Rev. Victor Frins S. J., gives it as his opinion (S. Thomæ Aq. O.P. doctrina de Cooperatione Dei cum omni naturâ creatâ præsertim liberâ, Responsio ad R.P. Dummermuth O.P., Paris, 1893) that whilst Medina and Pedro Soto (1551) taught physical predetermination, the originator of the theory was Francis Victoria, O.P. (d. 1546). The Dominicans Ferrariensis (1576), Cajetan (1507), and Giovanni Capreolus (d. 1436) are also accredited Thomists in the estimation of such authorities as the Jesuits Becanus [Summa Theol. Schol. (Mainz, 1612), De Deo, xviii, no 14] and Azorius [Institut. Moral. (Rome, 160–11), Lib. I, xxi, 7], and the theologians of Coimbra (Comment. in 8 libros Phys., Lib. II, q. 13, a. 1). Molina, strangely enough, cites the doctrine of a “certain disciple of St. Thomas”—supposedly Bañez—as differing only in words from the teaching of Scotus, instead of agreeing with that of Aquinas [Concordia (Paris 1876), q. 14, a. 13, Disp. 50]. These striking divergences of opinion of which only a few have been cited would seem to indicate that the attempt to father the Thomistie system on Bañez has failed. [Cf. Defensio Doctrinæ S. Thomæ, A.M. Dummermuth O.P., Louvain and Paris, 1895, also Card. Zigliara, Summa Phil. (Paris, 1898), II, 525.]

The development of Thomistic terminology in the Dominican school was mainly due to the exigencies not only of the stand taken against Molina and the forbidden propositions already mentioned, but of the more important defense against the attacks and aberrations of the Reformers. The “predetermination” and “predefinition” of Bañez and his contemporaries, who included others besides Dominicans, emphasized, on the part of God’s knowledge and providence, a priority to, and independence of future free acts, which, in the Catharino-Molinistic theories, seemed to them less clearly to fall under God’s causal action. These terms, however, are used by St. Thomas himself. (Comment. de divinis nominibus, Lect. iii.) The words “physical premotion” were meant to exclude, first a merely moral impulse and, secondly, a concurrence of the Divine causality and free will, without the latter’s subordination to the First Cause. That such terms, far from doing violence to the teachings of their great leader, are their true expression, has, of course, been an unvaried tenet of the Thomistic school. One of the presiding officers of the Congregation De Auxiliis, Cardinal Madruzzi, speaking of Bañez in this connection, said: “His teaching seems to be deduced from the principles of St. Thomas and to flow wholly from St. Thomas’s doctrine, although he differs somewhat in his mode of speaking” (Serry, Hist. Cong. de Aux. appendix, col. 89). It seems but fair to the memory of Bañez that this opinion should ultimately prevail.

As a writer, Bañez is clear, direct and vigorous. Occasionally prolix, he is never dull or inane. He treats a subject lengthily only when it is highly important or manifestly useful. His thought is generally lucidity itself in his pithiest scholastic condensations, nor is it less perspicuous when he adopts a freer and more elegant style in behalf of a wider range of readers. Of copious erudition, he was also keen in logic and profoundly versed in metaphysics, surpassing, in this respect, the ablest of his contemporaries. He evidenced a broad-minded and progressive spirit in placing, at no little expense, a fully equipped printing establishment in the convent of St. Stephen, and in employing for its successful operation the best craftsmen that were then to be had. The list of his works is completed as follows: (1) “Scholastica commentaria in Iam partem angelici doctoris D. Thomæ usque ad 64 qu.,” fol. Salamanca, 1584; Venice, 1585, 1602; Douai, 1614; (2) “Scholastica commentaria super cæteras Iae partis quæstiones,” fol. Salamanca, 1588; (3) “Scholastica commentaria in IIam IIae, quibus quae ad fidem spem et charitatem spectant, clarissime explicantur usque ad quæst. XLVI,” fol. Salamanca, 1584; Venice, 1586; (4) “Scholastica commentaria in IIam IIae quaest. LVII ad LXXVII de jure et justitia decisiones,” fol. Salamanca, 1594; 1604, Venice, 1595; Cologne and Douai, 1615; (5) “Relectio de merito et augmento charitatis anno MDLXXXIX Salamanticæ in vigilia pentecostes solemniter pronunciata,” Salamanca, 1590, 1627; (6) “Commentaria in quaestiones Aristotelis de greneratione et corruptione,” fol. Salamanca, 1585; Venice, 1596; Cologne, 1614; (7) “Institutiones minoris dialecticae and In Aristotelis dialecticam,” Cologne, 1618; (8) “Responsio ad quinque quæstiones de efficaciâ divinæ gratiæ,” Angelica Library, Rome, MS. R.1. 9. fol. 272; (9) “Respuesta contra una relación compuesta por los padres de la compañia de Jesus de Valladolid,” Medina del Campo 1602, MS., Dominican Library, Avila.

BAÑEZ, autobiography in preface to Comment. in Iam P., D. Thomae.; QUÉTIF-ECHARD, Scriptores Ord. Praed. Paris 1721) II, 352; TOURON, Hist. des hommes illustres de 1’ordre de S. Dominique (Paris 1743) IV, 750; MANDONNET in Dict. de théol. cath. (Paris 1903), Fasc. X, col. 140; MORGOTT in Kirchenlex. (2d ed., Freiburg 1882), 1, s. v. Bañez; SERRY, Hist. congregationum de auxiliis (Venice, 1740); MEYER, Hist. congregatioum de divinae gratiae auuxiliis (Venice, 1740); DUMMERMUTH, S. Thomae ct Doctrin. Praemotionis Physicae (Paris, 1886); GAYRAUD, Thomisme et Molinisme (Toulouse, 1889); BERTHTER in Revue Thomiste for 1893, 87; REGNON, Bannésianisme et Molinisme (Paris 1890); GAYRAUD, Réplique au R.P. Th. de Regnon (Toulouse 1890).

JOHN R. VOLZ.

Antiphonary of Bangor

An ancient Latin manuscript, supposed to have been originally written at Bangor (Ireland).

The codex, found by Muratori in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, and named by him the “Antiphonary of Bangor” (“Antiphonarium Benchorense”), was brought to Milan from Bobbio with many other books by Cardinal Federigo Borromeo when he founded the Ambrosian Library in 1609. Bobbio, which is situated in a gorge of the Apennines thirty-seven miles north-east of Genoa, was founded by St. Columbanus, a disciple of St. Comgal, founder of the great monastery at Bangor on the south side of Belfast Lough in the county of Down. St. Columbanus died at Bobbio and was buried there in 615. This establishes at once a connection between Bobbio and Bangor, and an examination of the contents of the codex placed it beyond all doubt that it was originally compiled in Bangor and brought thence to Bobbio, not, however, in the time of St. Columbanus. There is in the codex a hymn entitled “ymnum sancti Congilli abbatis nostri,” and he is referred to in it as “nostri patroni Comgilli sancti.” Again there is a list of fifteen abbots, beginning with Comgal and ending with Cronanus who died in 691; the date of the compilation, therefore, may be referred to 680–691. Muratori, however, is careful to state in his preface that the codex, though very old, and in part mutilated, may have been a copy made at Bobbio, by some of the local monks there, from the original service book. It is written, as regards the orthography, the form of the letters, and the dotted ornamentation of the capital letters, in “the Scottic style,” but this, of course, may have been done by Gaelic monks at Bobbio. The actual bearer of the codex from Bangor is generally supposed and stated to have been St. Dungal, who left Ireland early in the ninth century, acquired great celebrity on the Continent, and probably retired to Bobbio towards the close of his life. He bequeathed his books to “the blessed Columbanus,” i.e., to his monastery at Bobbio. The antiphonary, however, cannot be identified with any of the books named in the catalogue of the books bequeathed by Dungal, as given by Muratori (Antiquitatis Italicae Medii Aevi, Milan, 1740, III, 817–824). Here only a summary can be given of the contents of the codex to which the name of “Antiphonary” will be found to be not very applicable: (1) six canticles; (2) twelve metrical hymns; (3) sixty-nine collects for use at the canonical hours; (4) special collects; (5) seventy anthems, or versicles; (6) the Creed; (7) the Pater Noster. The most famous item in the contents is the venerable Eucharistic hymn “Sancti venite Christi corpus sumite,” which is not found in any other ancient text. It was sung at the Communion of the clergy and is headed, “Ymnum quando comonicarent sacerdotes.” A text of the hymn from the old MS. Of Bobbio, with a literal translation, is given in “Essays on the Discipline and Constitution of the Early Irish Church,” (p. 166) by Cardinal Moran, who refers to it as that “golden fragment of our ancient Irish Liturgy.” The Creed in this codex differs in its wording from all other forms known to exist. It is in substance the original Creed of Nicaea. It does not contain the ex Patre Filioque procedit, but merely states the homoousia of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Warren, The Antiphonary of Bangor: an Early Irish MS. (a complete facsimile in collotype, with a transcription, London, 1893); Idem, Liturgy and Ritual of the Keltic Church (Oxford, 1881), pp. 187–194; Muratori, Anecdota Ambrosiana, in Opera Omnia (Arezzo, 1770), II, part iii, 217; P.L., LXXII, 579; Reeves, Ulst. Journ. Archeol., I, 168.

ARTHUR UA CLERIGH

Diocese of Bangor

(Bangorium, Bangoriensis)

Diocese; anciently known as Bangor Vawr, situated in Carnarvonshire on the Menai Straits, must be distinguished from Bangor Iscoed also in Wales, and the celebrated Irish monastery of Bangor in County Down. The foundation of the see is traditionally ascribed to St. Daniel or Deiniol (d. 584?) who is stated to have been consecrated by St. Dubricius, or, according to others, St. David. Some writers place his death in 544, others in 554, while the tenth century “Annales Cambriae” assign it to 584. Yet even this date is regarded by recent research as too early. We may, perhaps, safely ascribe the foundation of the see to the close of the sixth century. The history of the diocese before the Norman Conquest is so obscure that Godwin (De praesulibus Angliae, 1743) does not allow that there were any bishops at all before the coming of the Normans.

In 1092 Hervey, a cleric in the court of William Rufus, was consecrated Bishop of Bangor and in the same year was present in that capacity at the council held by St. Anselm at Westminster, being the first Welsh bishop to attend an English council. His rule was not successful, for difficulties arose owing to his people resenting the coming of a stranger ignorant of their language, customs, and character. He, on the other hand, adopted violent measures in the assertion of his rights, with the result that bloodshed ensued, and he finally had to take refuge in England, where he was translated to the See of Ely in 1108. The cathedral had been destroyed by the Normans in 1071, but was subsequently rebuilt, though no trace of Norman work remains in the present structure. Anian (1267–1305), who, as Bishop of Bangor, baptized Edward II took the chief part in rebuilding the cathedral. He also draw up the “Missale in usum Ecclesiae Banchorensis” and the “Pontifical” which represent the liturgical books of “the use of Bangor.” It again suffered severely in the wars between the English and Welsh during the reign of Henry III, and in 1402 was entirely burnt down by Owen Glendower. There could hardly have been a vigorous diocesan life, for the cathedral and episcopal residence lay in ruins for nearly a century. At length in 1496, a vigorous administrator became bishop in the person of Henry Deane, prior of the Austin canons at Llanthony near Gloucester. He immediately began to rebuild the ruined choir and his work still exists. Besides restoring his cathedral, he was active in regaining the possessions of the see which had been annexed by the more powerful men in the neighbourhood. Unfortunately for Bangor after four years’ rule he was in 1500 translated first to Salisbury, and afterwards to Canterbury. He is said to have left his crosier and mitre, both of great value, to his successor, on condition that he should proceed with the rebuilding.

But neither of the next two bishops, Thomas Pigot, Abbot of Chertsey (1500–03), and John Penny (1504–08), did anything for the fabric. On the translation of Bishop Penny to Carlisle, Bangor was entrusted to Thomas Skevington, or Pace (1509–33), who of all its bishops did most for it. He was Abbot of Beaulieu in Hampshire, and though he did not reside in his see, he showed practical interest in his diocese by completing the cathedral. He rebuilt the entire nave and tower, and presented four bells which were afterwards sold by the first “reforming” bishop. He also rebuilt the episcopal residence. He died in 1533, and after the short episcopates of John Capon (1534–39) and John Bird (1539–41), was followed by Arthur Bulkeley, who resided in the diocese indeed, but who is accused of having neglected it in his own interests. According to the Anglican historian, Godwin, he was struck blind while watching the cathedral bells, which he had sold, being shipped off. But this story is questioned by Brown Willis, the historian of the Welsh cathedrals. Bulkeley died in 1553, and was succeeded by William Glynn (1553–58) the last Catholic bishop.

Since the Reformation the cathedral has continued to serve the Anglican bishops in its old capacity, while also doing duty as the parish church of the town. It is the smallest and humblest of all the cathedrals in England or Wales, being an embattled cruciform structure resembling a good-sized parish church. The diocese consisted of the whole of Anglesea and Carnarvonshire, with the greater part of Merionethshire and some parishes in the counties Denbigh and Montgomery. There were three archdeaconries, Bangor, Anglesea, and Merioneth. The arms of the see were gules, a bend, or gutty de poix between two mullets, argent.

Walcott, Memorials of Bangor (1860); Willis, Survey of Bangor (1721); Godwin, De praesulibus Angliae (1743); Winkle, Cathedral Churches of England and Wales (London, 1860), III, 153; Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. Daniel, Hervey, Deane, Skevington, Bulkeley.

EDWIN BURTON

Bangor Abbey

The name of two famous monastic establishments in Ireland and England.

(1) The Irish Abbey of Bangor was situated in the County Down, on the southern shore of Belfast Lough. Sometimes the name was written “Beannchor,” from the Irish word beann, a horn. According to Keating, a king of Leinster once had cattle killed there, the horns being scattered round, hence the name. The place was also called the Vale of Angels, because, says Jocelin, St. Patrick once rested there and saw the valley filled with angels. The founder of the abbey was St. Comgall, born in Antrim in 517, and educated at Clooneenagh and Clonmacnoise. The spirit of monasticism was then strong in Ireland. Many sought solitude the better to serve God, and with this object Comgall retired to a lonely island. The persuasions of his friends drew him from his retreat; later on he founded the monastery of Bangor, in 559. Under his rule, which was rigid, prayer and fasting were incessant. But these austerities attracted rather than repelled; crowds came to share his penances and his vigils; they also came for learning, for Bangor soon became the greatest monastic school in Ulster. Within the extensive rampart which encircled its monastic buildings, the Scriptures were expounded, theology and logic taught, and geometry, and arithmetic, and music; the beauties of the pagan classics were appreciated, and two at least of its students wrote good Latin verse. Such was its rapid rise that its pupils soon went forth to found new monasteries, and when, in 601, St. Comgall died, 3,000 monks looked up for light and guidance to the Abbot of Bangor.

With the Danes came a disastrous change. Easily accessible from the sea, Bangor invited attack, and in 824 these pirates plundered it, killed 900 of its monks, treated with indignity the relics of St. Comgall, and then carried away his shrine. A succession of abbots continued, but they were abbots only in name. The lands passed into the hands of laymen, the buildings crumbled, and when St. Malachy, in the twelfth century, became Abbot of Bangor he had to build everything anew. The impress of his zeal might have had lasting results had he continued in this position. But he was promoted to the See of Down, and Bangor again decayed. By the Statute of Kilkenny the “mere Irish” were excluded from it, though it did not prosper thereby. In 1469, the Franciscans had possession of it , and a century later the Augustinians, after which, at the dissolution of the monasteries in that part of Ireland, it was given by James I to James Hamilton, created Viscount Clandeboye. An irregular succession of Catholic abbots was still kept up, the last being Abbot MacCormack, who lived in France, but, returning to Ireland during the Reign of Terror, found a refuge at Maynooth College and died there in the early years of the nineteenth century.

Among the Abbots of Bangor few acquired fame, but many of the students did. Findchua has his life written in the Book of Lismore; Luanus founded 100 monasteries and St. Carthage founded the great School of Lismore. From Bangor Columbanus and Gall crossed the sea, the former to found Luxeuil and Bobbio, the latter to evangelize Switzerland. In the ninth century a Bangor student, Dungal, defended orthodoxy against the Western iconoclasts. The present town of Bangor is a thriving little place, popular as a seaside resort. Local tradition has it that some ruined walls near the Protestant church mark the site of the ancient abbey; nothing else is left of the place hallowed by the prayers and penances of St. Malachy and St. Comgall.

(2) The Welsh Abbey of Bangor was situated in Flintshire, not far from Chester, and in the Middle Ages was often confounded with Bangor in Carnarvonshire, which was an episcopal see. The date of its foundation and its founder’s name are equally uncertain. With great confidence and evident conviction, Montalembert declares that its founder was St. Iltud, or Iltyde. But some allowance must be made for French partiality, for Iltud was an Armoric Gaul. His life and acts are narrated in the “Lives of the Cambro-British Saints”; they have been edited by Mr. Rees; and though it is stated that he was an Armorican, and had been a soldier, and married, before he became a monk, it is not said that he was connected with Bangor. It is more probable that the abbey was founded by Dunawd, a Welshmen, whence it was often called Bangor Dunawd. And if St. Deiniol was the son of Dunawd, as it is said, this would fix the foundation of the Flintshire abbey at about the beginning sixth century, for Bangor in Carnarvonshire was founded by St. Deiniol in 514. It would also dispose of the assertion that Pelagius, the heretic, was at one time its abbot, for he died long before. It is certain that Bangor was the greatest monastic establishment in Wales, having at one time 2,000 monks. The Angles and Saxons had then conquered Britain and had treated the Britons with great severity. A remnant of these latter found refuge in Wales, where they brooded over their wrongs, and being Christians themselves, refused to preach the Gospel to their conquerors. When St. Augustine came to England, in the last years of the sixth century, he visited the Britons in Wales. Their moral condition was then bad; they clung to the old mode of celebrating Easter, and some errors of doctrine had also crept into their creed. He had a conference with delegates from Bangor, but they refused to co-operate with him in the work of converting the still unconverted English. In punishment, he predicted that, as they refused to preach the way of life to the English, they would at the hands of these same English suffer death. And this came to pass in 603 when Ethelfrid of Northumbria defeated the Britons near Chester. Hearing that the monks of Bangor were praying for his enemies, he turned aside from the battle and put 1,200 of them to death. Extensive ruins of this abbey still remained in the twelfth century, but in Ussher’s time, in the seventeenth century, these ruins had all but disappeared. On the site of the abbey now stands the small town of Bangor-on-the-Dee.

WARREN, ed., The Antiphonary of Bangor (London, 1893); STOKES, Lives of the Saints from the Book of Lismore (Oxford, 1890); ARCHDALL, Monasticon Hibernicum (Dublin, 1893); O’HANLON, Life of St. Malachy (Dublin, 1859); LANIGAN, Ecclesiastical History (Dublin, 1822); USSHER, Works (Dublin, 1847); Annals of the Four Masters (Dublin, 1854); HEALY, Ancient Schools and Scholars of Ireland (Dublin, 1896); REEVE, Adamnan (Dublin, 1857); Wars of the Gael and Gall (London, 1867); REES, Lives of the Cambro-British Saints (Llandovery, 1853); LINGARD, Anglo-Saxon Church (London, 1845); BEDE, Ecclesiastical History (in Bohn’s Series); William of Malmesbury (in Bohn’s Series); Giraldus Cambrensis (in Bohn’s Series) MONTALEMBERT, Monks of the West (New ed. London, 1898).

E. A. D’ALTON.

John and Michael Banim

JOHN BANIM

Poet, dramatist, novelist, b. 3 April, 1798, at Kilkenny, Ireland; d. 31 August, 1842. His father, following the double occupation of farmer and storekeeper, was in easy circumstances. John’s literary efforts began very early; at ten he wrote some verses and a tale of considerable length. After a preparatory training in private schools he entered Kilkenny College in 1810. Having a taste for painting and drawing he went to Dublin in 1813 to study art. In two years he was back in Kilkenny, became a drawing teacher, and fell desperately in love with one of his pupils, a girl two years his junior. The girl’s father refused his consent, wit the result that in two months she died of a broken heart. Her lover almost followed her example. An entire disregard of self at the time of the funeral caused paralysis and left him a victim of spinal disease, which afflicted him almost incessantly and finally caused his death. At the end of a year he set out for Dublin with a literary career in view. It was not long before he made his reputation. In 1821, when only twenty-three years old, he wrote the tragedy “Damon and Pythias,” which was played at Covent Garden with Macready and Charles Kemble in the principal parts. After his marriage, which took place during a visit to his parents, he planned with his brother Michael, “The Tales of the O’Hara Family.” These were to be written in collaboration, each brother to submit his work to the other for revision. As a result, it is impossible to distinguish from internal evidence the work of each. Their ambition was to do for Ireland what Scott, by his Waverley Novels, had done for Scotland—to make their countrymen known with their national traits and national customs and to give a true picture of the Irish character with its bright lights and deep shadows. To London, a wider field for literary work, Banim went in 1822 “without friends and with little money to seek his fortune.” The next ten years were a fruitful season, during which he contributed frequently to various periodicals, and produced a considerable number of operative pieces, dramas, essays, and novels, but always at the expense of “wringing, agonizing, burning pain.” Writing of this period to his brother, he says: “Of more than twenty known volumes I have written, and treble their quantity in periodicals, no three pages have been penned free from bodily pain..” The little crumbs of comfort he received he generously shared with his countryman, Gerald Griffin, who wrote of his early struggles in London: “What would I have done if I had not found Banim?” In 1829 John Banim was ordered to France in the hope that he might repair his shattered health, but the journey was of no avail. In a few years a stroke of paralysis “deprived him of the use of his limbs and brains.” In 1835 he returned to Kilkenny by slow stages. Dublin and his native city showed him signal honour by demonstrations that moved him deeply. A public appeal for assistance met with such generous response that his financial troubles were ended. The Government, in recognition of his literary work, granted him a pension of £150, and an additional sum of £40 a year for the education of his daughter. His last work was the revision of a story which he had inspired and encouraged his brother to write, “Father Connell,” the picture of his beloved parish priest of Kilkenny. He died in his own Windgap Cottage, just outside Kilkenny, at the early age of forty-four. His principal works are: the poems, “Soggarth Aroon,” “Aileen,” “The Celt’s Paradise”; the dramas, “Damon and Pythias” and “The Prodigal”; and the novels, “John Doe,” “The Fetches,” “Peter of the Castle,” “The Mayor of Windgap,” and “The Boyne Water,” the last a political novel.

Michael Banim

Novelist, and co-worker with his brother John, b. at Kilkenny, Ireland, 5 August, 1796: d. 30 August, 1874. At sixteen he began the study of law, but soon abandoned it because of business reverses which befell his father. He took upon himself his father’s burden and re-established his parents in comfortable circumstances. The little leisure his business cares allowed him he made the most of by gathering material for “The Tales of the O’Hara Family.” At the urgent request of John, he contributed several of the stories, his first, “Crohoore of the Billhook,” being perhaps the most popular of all. But Michael generously kept himself in the background in order to let his younger brother have all the honour of their joint production. Out of twenty-four volumes he wrote thirteen. Unlike John, however, he was a man of action, and threw himself earnestly into various movements for the uplifting of his countrymen, educationally and economically. After serving for many years as postmaster of Kilkenny, he died at the age of seventy-eight at Booterstown, not far from Dublin. The principal works of Michael Banim are: “Crohoore of the Billhook,” “The Ghost Hunter,” “Father Connell,” and “The Croppy,” a tale of 1798.

The Banims may be justly called the first national novelists of Ireland. They knew their countrymen not as the strange, grotesque caricatures too often portrayed in fiction, but as members of the great human family with noble impulses and generous traits. Their work, however, is notably free from patriotic bias. Their Irishmen have their faults. Though naturally sympathetic, tender-hearted, and forgiving, these typical Celts could become stern, bitter, and revengeful. Ignorance, poverty, and cruelty are shown to exist among the peasantry. But the reader cannot fail to see the cause of all this-the natural working out of religious persecution and political oppression. Criticism has been directed against some of their writings as “harrowing,” and “impure.” The latter criticism is unfortunately justified; John admitted and regretted it, and Michael acted on it by preventing one of the stories, “The Nowlans,” from being reprinted. As to the “harrowing” elements, which are certainly conspicuous, the brothers answered: “We paint from a people of a land among whom, for the last six centuries, national provocations have never ceased to keep alive the strongest and often the worst passions of our nature.” It may be added that, besides their desire to give a true picture of their country, still crippled and prostrate from the effects of the Penal Laws, they were undoubtedly influenced by the Romantic movement, then at its height. A recent edition of the works of the Banims, in ten volumes, which gives a life of John Banim, appeared in New York, 1896.

Murray, Life of John Banim (London, 1857); Read, Cabinet of Irish Literature (London, 1891); The Nation and The Freeman’s Journal, (Dublin) files; Krans, Irish Life and Irish Fiction (New York, 1903); Dict. Of Nat. Biogr. .

M. J. FLAHERTY.

Diocese of Banjaluka

The Diocese of Banjaluka in Western Bosnia includes some of the most beautiful portions of the province. Banjaluka is the ancient Roman Ad Ladios. By the Bull “Ex hâc augustâ,” 5 July, 1881, restoring the Catholic hierarchy in Bosnia, Leo XIII created one archiepiscopal and three episcopal sees, Banjaluka being the first in precedence among the Latter. It includes 4 deaneries, 32 parishes, and more than 80,000 faithful. Its first bishop, Marian Markovic, O. S. F., was consecrated 4 May, 1884, but only as Apostolic administrator. His first cathedral was a half-ruined shed, but he afterwards acquired a little church near his residence. At present (1907) most of the parishes are held by Franciscans. In the year 1869 was founded at Mariastern an abbey of Trappists which has already sent out two monastic colonies, to Josephsburg and to Marienburg in Bosnia, and another to Zara in Dalmatia. There are hospitals and schools conducted by Sisters of Charity and Sisters of the Precious Blood. In 1900 Banjaluka and Bihatch also became a diocese for the so-called Orthodox population, the Metropolitan residing at Banjaluka.

Leonis XIII Acta (Rome, 1882), 288–312; Missiones Catholicœ (Rome, 1897), 92–103; Missiones Catholicœ (Propaganda, Rome, 1907), 109.

L. PETIT.

Civil Aspect of Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy (La banqueroute; earlier English terms, bankruptship, bankrupture) in civil jurisprudence as well as in popular signification is the fact of becoming, or the state of being, a bankrupt. In the statute of 1705, 4 Anne, c. XVII, as printed in the Cambridge edition of the English Statutes, the word is spelled bankrupcy, but the statute of 1711, 10 Anne, c. XV, as printed in the same edition, and in the London edition, adopts the present spelling. Being derived from bankrupt, as insolvency is derived from insolvent, the retaining of the letter t has been suggested to be an instance of erroneous spelling (Murray, Dict., s. v. “Bankruptcy”). Etymologically, bankrupt has been said to be made up of the Latin words bancus, “table,” and ruptus, “broken,” denoting “the wreck or breakup of a trader’s business” (Murray, Dict., loc. cit.), “whose shop or place of trade is broken up or gone” (Wharton, Law Lexicon, s. v. “Bankrupt”).

Statutory mention of the word bankrupt seems to be earlier than that of the word bankrupcy, and is first to be found in the title of the English statute of 1542, “against such persons as do make bankrupt,” a translation, perhaps, of the French “qui font banque route.” (Blackstone, Commentaries, Bk. II, c. xxxi, p. 472, Note e). This statute recites that some “persons craftily obtaining into their hands great substance of other men’s goods” either flee to parts unknown or keep their houses, not paying “their debts and duties,” but consuming “the substance obtained by credit of other men for their own pleasure and delicate living.” For distribution rateably of such persons’ assets among their creditors this statute provides a summary method which, to quote Blackstone, is “extra judicial” “allowed merely for the benefit of commerce” (II Commentaries, 477). We learn, however, from the recitals of a statute of 1570 that, notwithstanding the law of 1542 “made against bankrupts,” “those kind of persons have and do still increase.” And therefore a new definition is made of a debtor who “shall be reputed, deemed and taken for a bankrupt,” and subjected to an “extra-judicial” method. Such a debtor, it is enacted, must be a native-born subject or denizen who, being a “merchant or other person using or exercising the trade of merchandise,” “or seeking his or her trade or living by buying and selling,” shall have been guilty of certain specified fraud and concealment. The assets of such a debtor may, pursuant to this statute, be divided rateably among those of the creditors who are native-born subjects. Thus the limitation of meaning suggested by the explanation cited of its Latin etymology was placed upon the word bankrupt, and thereafter a trader only could be adjudged a bankrupt in England. Debtors who were not traders, and whose means were inadequate to payment of their debts in ordinary course of business, were known as insolvents. But statutory definitions of persons to be deemed occupied in trade became very comprehensive. Yet with special regard, apparently, for “noblemen, gentlemen and persons of quality” investing in the “East India Company or Guiney Company” and certain other enterprises, the imputation of being merchants or traders within any “statutes for bankrupts” is, by a statute of 1662, expressly spared to persons putting in money in these stocks. The circumstance of occupation is, under the present English Bankruptcy Act, immaterial. Aliens and denizens had been brought within the law by a statute of the year 1623.

By the law of Scotland bankruptcy is not limited to any particular occupation. But according to Scotch law insolvency, that is, inability to pay debts or fulfil obligations, does not become bankruptcy until, in manner determined by statute, this inability is publicly acknowledged, and is thus, as expressed in the statute, “notour.” The purpose of the English Statutes of 1542 and 1570 did not extend beyond distribution of the bankrupt’s property among his creditors. Right of recourse against the debtor by ordinary process of law for any remaining indebtedness these statutes expressly preserved. But by the statute of 1705 a bankrupt, duly surrendering all his effects and conforming to the law, might obtain his discharge from liability for debts theretofore contracted. And more modern statutes permit a debtor himself to institute proceedings in bankruptcy. The Scotch law now permits a “notour bankrupt” to apply for what is termed a decree of cessio bonorum, by which he may be discharged from his debts.

The Constitution of the United States (Art. I, § 8) confers upon Congress power to “establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.” Under this provision Congress may disregard any distinction between bankruptcy and insolvency laws, of which laws Chief Justice Marshall remarks (Wheaton’s Reports, IV, 194) that the line of partition between them is not so distinctly marked as to enable any person to say with positive precision what belongs exclusively to the one and not to the other class of laws. Originally, however, insolvency laws and bankruptcy laws were prompted by opposite motives and were clearly distinguishable. The motive of insolvency laws was the relief of insolvent debtors, by affording them a remedy against imprisonment and, in ancient Rome, other penalties. On the contrary, the motive of bankruptcy laws was, as already seen, the relief of creditors by affording a remedy against dishonest debtors who might possibly not be insolvent, but whose conduct while indebted was deemed to be such as to entitle their creditors to the summary relief which the law “made against bankrupts” afforded. English as well as Roman insolvency laws contemplated the cases of debtors whom ordinary process of law could reach, but the operation of the English statute of 1542 is limited to debtors who “make bankrupt” and against whom such process was ineffectual, and the statute of 1570 is further limited to traders. The court afterwards established, in the reign of George III, for cases of insolvency was “the Court for relief of insolvent debtors”; but bankrupt laws, remarks Sir Edward Coke, are to be construed “for the aid, help, and relief of the creditors.” And under certain circumstances a solvent debtor may by the United States law be pronounced a bankrupt.

Congress has passed four bankruptcy laws; the Act passed 4 April, 1800, which was repealed by Act of 19 December, 1803; the Act passed 19 August, 1841, repealed by Act of 3 March, 1843; the Act passed 2 March, 1867, and repealed 7 June, 1878, and the Act of 1 July, 1898, yet (1907) in force.

At the time of the adoption of the United States Constitution a suggestion was rejected that the power of Congress concerning bankruptcy should be confined to merchants and traders. Yet by the Act of 1800 only a merchant or other person resident in the United States and “actually using the trade of merchandise by buying and selling in gross, or by retail, or dealing in exchange or as a banker, broker, factor, underwriter, or marine insurer could be adjudged a bankrupt. Voluntary bankruptcy is not mentioned in the Act of 1800, but by the Act of 1841 “all persons” residing in any State, District, or Territory of the United States owing debts not incurred through defalcation as a public officer or in a fiduciary capacity might apply to become voluntary bankrupts. Involuntary bankruptcy was still restricted to merchants and certain other classes of business men. The Act of 1867 provided for both voluntary and involuntary bankruptcy without regard to the debtor’s occupation. By the Act of 1898, the several District Courts of the United States, the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, the District Courts of the several Territories, and the United States Courts in the Indian Territory and the District of Alaska are made courts of bankruptcy. A person is within this Act insolvent whose property (exclusive of property wrongfully conveyed, transferred, concealed, or removed) is at a fair valuation insufficient to pay his debts. Any natural person or unincorporated company or business corporation as defined in the Act, and owing at least one thousand dollars (except certain natural persons specified), may be adjudged an involuntary bankrupt. Proceedings in involuntary bankruptcy are to be instituted by petition filed within four months after an act of bankruptcy. Such an act consists in conveying, transferring, concealing, or removing, or permitting to be concealed or removed, any of the debtor’s property with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors or any of them; or in transferring while insolvent any property with intent to prefer a creditor or creditors; or in suffering or permitting, while insolvent, any creditor to obtain a preference through legal proceedings or in not having such preference vacated or discharged. So a general assignment for benefit of creditors and certain proceedings under Insolvent Laws, or application by an insolvent for a receiver or trustee are acts of bankruptcy. On the other hand, “any qualified person,” namely, any person who owes debts provable in bankruptcy (except a corporation) “may file a petition to be adjudged a voluntary bankrupt.” The assets of the bankrupt are to be divided among his creditors, and the court of bankruptcy is empowered to grant him a discharge, that is, a “release . . . from all of his debts which are provable in bankruptcy, except such as are excepted by this Act.”

The power conferred on Congress by the Constitution does not wholly preclude the several States of the Union from passing bankruptcy laws. A State may enact such laws conclusive as to the rights of its own citizens, provided such laws do not impair the obligation of contracts within the meaning of the Constitution, nor conflict with any existing Act of Congress establishing a uniform system of bankruptcy.

So far we have considered our subject from a legal point of view. From the point of view of the political economist, bankruptcy and insolvency laws are of great importance. For cost of production of goods includes risk of bad debts, and therefore laws lessening this risk decrease the cost of production. John Stuart Mill concludes that most individual insolvencies are the result of misconduct. But the occurrence of many business failures in a community at any period is a warning or symptom of “the politico-economical disease” which economists denominate a commercial crisis, and for this deeper causes are sought than mere individual misconduct. By fortuitous causes which could not have been foreseen the most skilful calculations may fail; demand for particular kinds of goods may lag behind a supply which has become excessive because of mistakes of the “captains of industry” as to extent of future demand. And there results a disarrangement of the relation between production and consumption, a disturbance of equilibrium, so that commercial settlements become impossible and a crisis ensues. Notable crises of modern times were: the crisis of Hamburg in 1799, when 82 failures occurred; the English crisis of 1814, when 240 banks suspended; in the United States, the “wild-cat” crisis of 1837, when all the banks closed, the crisis of 1857, when there occurred 7,200 failures, and the crisis of 1873. To economists, conditions of this kind, resulting from the causes just mentioned, have seemed to denote the necessity for the establishment of a new equilibrium. And it has been suggested that the Jewish jubilee was a means to that end, and an ordinance somewhat in the character of an insolvency or bankruptcy law.

A political community may fail, as may an individual, in meeting financial engagements. There may thus occur what has been termed state, or public, bankruptcy. Of this an ancient instance was the action of the Roman Senate in reducing the weight of the As after the first Punic War. And similar instances of governmental dishonesty occurred during the Middle Ages. In later times State bankruptcy has often taken the form of enforced conversion, involving partial repudiation, of the State debt. At the close of the reign of Louis XIV of France, the State was bankrupt, and to the celebrated John Law was vainly entrusted its financial rescue. The government set up by the French Revolution became not only bankrupt itself, but by its contest with Austria drove the latter empire into the bankruptcy of 1811. And the bankruptcy of Austria has even been said to have become permanent. Turkey, Spain, and some Spanish-American republics may be mentioned as States becoming bankrupt through repudiation. The same remark may be made concerning some of the States of the United States.

MURRAY, New English Dictionary (Oxford and New York, 1888); WHARTON, Law Lexicon (10th ed., London, 1902); STEPHEN, New Commentaries on the Laws of England (14th ed., London, 1903), II, 190, 215, 220; LAROUSSE, Grand Dictionnaire universel du XIXe siècle (Paris, 1867), s. v. Banqueroute; La Grande Encycl. (Paris), s. v. Banqueroute; The Statutes at Large (Cambridge, 1763–64), V, 132; VI, 271; VII, 288; VIII, 128; XI, 162; XII, 308; XVI, 340; The Statutes at Large (London, 1769), IV, 525; Statutes of the United Kingdom (London, 1813), 375; COKE, The Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (London, 1797), 277; PARSONS, The Law of Contracts (8th ed.), III, 379, 383, 384, 385; STORY, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (4th ed., Boston, 1873), II, § 1113; ibid., note 2, § 1106; WHEATON, Reports: Supreme Court of the United States (New York, 1819), IV, 208, and (New York, 1827), XII, 213; KENT, Commentaries on American Law, II, 389; United States Statutes at Large (Boston, 1848), II, 19 and 248; ibid., V, 440 and 614; ibid. (Boston, 1868); XIV, 517, and (Washington, 1879) XX, 99; United States Compiled Statutes, 1901 (St. Paul, 1902), III, 3418; ibid. (St. Paul, 1905, Supplement, 1905), 683; BRANDENBURG, The Law of Bankruptcy (2d ed., Chicago, 1901), 66; BELL, Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland (7th ed., Edinburgh, 1890), s. vv. Bankruptcy, Cessio bonorum; BRODIEINNES, Comparative Principles of the Laws of England and Scotland (Edinburgh, 1903), 25, 26; WILLIAMS, The Law and Practice of Bankruptcy (8th ed., London, 1904); MILL, Principles of Political Economy (New York, 1881), Bk. V, ix, § 8; ROSCHER, tr. LALOR, Principles of Political Economy (New York, 1878), Bk. IV, i, § 215; MULHALL, The Dictionary of Statistics (London, 1899), s. v. Bankruptcy; GIBBINS, Industry in England (2d ed., New York, 1898) §§ 259–260; CRABB, English Synonyms (New York, 1879), s. v. Insolvency, etc.

CHARLES W. SLOANE

Moral Aspect of Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy must be considered not only from the legal but also from the moral point of view; for sound morality prescribes that debts must be paid. But a man who becomes bankrupt proclaims his inability to pay his debts in full as they become due. Such an acknowledgement does not now entail the penalty of slavery or of imprisonment as of old; the law takes possesion of his property and divides it among his creditors. If it suffices after all to pay his creditors in full, there is an end of the matter, justice and conscience are satisfied. If, however, as is usually the case, the creditors only receive a portion of what is due to them, they have suffered loss through the action of the bankrupt, and if he is the voluntary cause of that loss, he is morally to blame as the cause of injustice to his neigbour. There is no moral blame attributable to a man who through misfortune and by no fault of his own has become bankrupt and unable to pay his debts. But if bankruptcy has been brought about by the debtor’s own fault, he must be condemned in the court of morals, even if he escape without punishment in the court of law. Bankruptcy may be the result of one’s own fault in a great variety of ways. Living beyond one’s means, negligence or imprudence in the conduct of business, spending in betting and gambling money which is due to creditors are frequent causes of debtors appearing in the bankruptcy court. All such causes are accompanied with more or less of moral quilt, in proportion to the bankrupt’s advertence to their probable consequences, and the voluntariness of his action.

Breaches of the moral law are also committed in a great variety of ways in connection with the bankruptcy itself. The benefit of the law is extended to the bankrupt debtor if he faithfully complies with all its just requirements. To do this then is a matter of conscience. He is bound to make a full disclosure of all his property, and to surrender it all for the benefit of his creditors. He may indeed retain what the law allows him to retain, but nothing else, unless the law makes no provision at all for him, and the result of surrendering everything would be to reduce himself and those dependent on him to destitution. Such a result, however, must not be readily presumed in the case of modern bankruptcy law which is humane in its treatment of the unfortunate debtor and makes what provision is necessary for him. It is obvious that it is against the rights of creditors and against justice for an insolvent debtor to transfer some of his property to his wife or to a friend, who will keep if for him till the storm blows over, so that the creditors cannot get at it. In the same way a debtor is quilty of dishonesty and fraud if he hide or remove some of his property, or if he allows a fictitious debt to be proved against the estate.

Loss is caused the creditors and injustice is committed by an insolvent debtor who continues to trade after the time when he fully recognizes that he is insolvent, and that there is no reasonable hope of recovering himself. He may continue to pay what debts he can as they become due if payment is demanded by his creditors, and he may make current payments for value received. But if in contemplation of bankruptcy he pays some creditor in full with a view of giving that creditor preference over the others, he becomes quilty of a fraudulent preference. Bankruptcy law indeed prescribes that certain privileged debts should be paid in full, but it lays down that the rest must be paid rateably among the creditors without favour to any. If a bankrupt through favour pays a creditor in full, while the others have in consequence to be satisfied with less than their just share, he is quilty of fraud. This is not only the case if such payment is made after the petition in bankruptcy has been presented, but also if it is done within a certain period, fixed by law, before the presentation of a petition. In Great Britain this period is three months, in the United States it is four months previous to the adjudication. Laws forbidding such preferential payments are just, and they should be observed. If they have been violated, and such fact becomes known, the payments may be removed by the trustee in bankruptcy or the official receiver. However, although fraudulent preferences are contrary to positive law, it is not clear that they are against natural justice so as to impose on the quilty parties an obligation in conscience apart from any order of the court to make restitution. The question is disputed among theologians, and some maintain that no obligation to make such restitution can be imposed, apart from a positive order of the court, inasmuch as after all the preferred creditor has only got what belonged to him.

If the conduct of the bankrupt with reference to his bankruptcy has been such as the law requires, the court grants him a discharge; otherwise he will be subject to certain disabilities as an undischarged bankrupt. Some special debts and obligations are not affected by the discharge, and the question arises whether an absolute discharge extinguishes the debt, or merely releases the bankrupt from legal liability. The effect of such a judicial act depends on the law of the country. If that law expressly provides that a bankrupt who has obtained his discharge is not thereby freed from his former obligations, but merely protected against legal proceedings of debt, there is an end of the question. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the law of a country may release an honest and unfortunate debtor from his load of indebtedness, and make him free to start business afresh. In commercial societies especially such an enactment might conduce to the public good, since it is not granted to fraudulent debtors but only to such as are honest and fulfil the rigorous requirements of the law. It is merely a question of fact as to what is the effect of the law of any particular country. Lawyers and theologians are agreed that in most countries the effect of a discharge is merely to bar legal proceedings for debt against the bankrupt. His moral obligation to pay all his debts in full when he is able to still remains; he may put off payment till such time as he can conveniently fulfil his obligations, and in the meanwhile he is guaranteed freedom from molestation. This seems to be the effect of the National Bankruptcy Law of the United States. “Since the discharge is personal to the bankrupt, he may waive it, and since it does not destroy the debt but merely releases him from liability, that is, removes the legal obligation to pay the debt, leaving the moral obligation unaffected, such moral obligation is a sufficient consideration to support a new promise” (Brandenburg, The Law of Bankruptcy, 391).

On the contrary, an absolute discharge, when granted to the honest bankrupt according to English law, frees the bankrupt from his debts, with certain exceptions, and makes him a clear man again. This is admitted by English lawyers and by theologians who treat of the effect of the English law of bankruptcy. When, therefore, an honest bankrupt has obtained his absolute discharge in an English court, he is under no strict obligation, legal or moral, to pay his past debt in full, though if he choose to do so, his scupulous rectitude will be much appreciated. What has been said about bankruptcy applies also to compositions or schemes of arrangement with one’s creditors when they have received the sanction of the court.

LUGO, De Justitia et Jure (Paris, 1869), disp. XX; LEHMKUHL, Theologia Moralis (Freiburg, 1898), I, nn, 1026, 1035; CORLLY, De Justitia et Jure (Dublin, 1870–77), III, n, 1232; Am Eccl. Review (Philadelphia) XXXI, 348.

T. SLATER.

Banns of Marriage

(Lat. bannum, pl. bann-a,-i from an Old English verb, bannan, to summon).

In general the ecclesiastical announcement of the names of persons contemplating marriage. Its object is to discover any impediments to a proposed marriage; incidentally, it makes known to all duly interested in the latter the fact of its near celebration. The subject will be treated under the following heads: I. History; II. Tridentine Legislation; III. Mode of Publication; IV. Denunciation of Impediments; V. Sanctions; VI. Dispensation from Banns; VII. Non-Catholic Usage; VIII. Civil Law.

I. HISTORY

From the beginning of Christian society the marriage of its members was looked on as a public religious act, subject to ecclesiastical control (Tertullian, “De monog.,” c. xi; “De pudicitia,” c. iv.). The obligation of making known to the bishop all proposed marriage dates as far back as the beginning of the second century (Ignat, ad Polyc., c.v.). and ceased only when, in the fifth and succeeding centuries, owning to the development of the parochial system, it became the duty of the parish priest to prevent invalid or illicit marriages, in which duty he could and did avail himself of the aid of reputable parishoners (Capitula Caroli imp., ad. an. 802, ed. Borentius in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Leges, I, 98). The publication in the church of the names of persons intending marriage seems to have originated in France about the end of the twelfth century; it was already a custom of the Gallican Church in 1215, when Innocent III mentions it in a letter to the Bishop of Beauvais (c. 27, x, iv, 1). In the same year the Fourth Lateran Council made it a general ecclesiastical law (c. 3, x, De clandest, desponsat., iv, 3). The Council of Trent confirmed this law, and specified to a certain extent the manner of its execution. It must be noted that by the council’s own special act its marriage decree “Tametsi,” with its provision for the banns (see CLANDESTINITY) is binding only in those parishes in which it has been severally promulgated; hence, when such formal promulgation is lacking the obligation of proclaiming the banns rest not on the Tridentine law, but on the earlier Lateran canon, also on local or particular ecclesiastical legislation and custom. (SEE MARRIAGE) In England the First Council of Westminster provided (xxii, 2) that the law of publishing in the church the banns of marriage must be observed, but made no provision for the manner or time of introducing the practice (Taunton). In the United Stated the Sixth Provincial of Baltimore recommended the bishops of the province to introduce the laws of the banns as laid down by the Councils of Lateran and Trent (juxta mentem concilli Lateranensis et Tridentini). The First Plenary Council of Baltimore (1852) decreed (n0.88) that after Easter 1853 the banns should be published, and dispensation given for only very grave reasons. The Second Pleanry Council (1866) confirmed that above (nos. 331–333) and declared the law a very useful one and already received by custom (saluberrima disciplina jam usu recepta). According to Zitelli (Apparatus jurus eccl., 403) at least one publication should be made in those regions and parishes in which the marriage decree of the Council of Trent has not been published; Von Scherer remarks (p. 146, n. 14) that the pre-Tridentine or Lateran law demanded no more than one publication. It is of some interest to note that by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Inquisition (14 June, 1703) the French missionaries in Canada were obliged to publish the banns for their savage converts.

II. TRIDENTINE LEGISLATION

In order to check the increase of clandestine marriages, the Council of Trent decreed (Sess. XXIV, De ref. matr., c. i) that before the celebration of any marriage the names of the contracting parties should be announced publicly in the church during the solemninzation of Mass, by their own parish priest on three consecutive Holy Days (Waterworth, The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and (Ecumenical Council of Trent, London, 1848, 196 ssq.). Such an publication, of course, can be made only at the request of the parties themselves, and after the parish priest is aware of their mutual free consent. Moreover, the parish priest cannot refuse to publish the banns excepted for reasons stated in the canon law. If the contracting parties refuse to consent to the publication of the banns, the parish priest cannot assist at their marriage, and where the Tridentine legislation does not obtain he is bound to warn them not to attempt marriage elsewhere. In course of time this Tridentine decree has given occasion to more specific interpretation, regularly and primarily applicable where the decree has been promulgated. Among the more important authentic decisions are the following: The proper (own) parish priest of persons intending marriage is he in whose parish both (or one of) the contracting parties have a true domicile or quasi-domicile, i.e. a fixed residence or one that can be legally constructed as such. When both parties permanently reside in the same parish no difficulty can arise as to the parish priest whose right and duty it is to publish the banns. But it may happen that one party resides, or that both parties have each more than one domicile or quasi-domicile, in which case the publication of the banns should occur. regularly speaking, in every parish where at the time of the marriage the parties retain such domicile or quasi-domicile. (SEE DOMICILE, PARISH PRIEST, MARRIAGE.) It may be noted here that while in general a quasi-domicile is acquired by actual residence in a place with the intention of remaining there the greater part of the year, in England and in the United States the law presumes a quasi-domicile from one’s months residence of either party in the place of the marriage. (S. Congr. Inq. to the bishops of England and the United States, 7 June, 1867; see also its decree of 6 May, 1886). A decree of the same congregation (9 November, 1898) provides that anywhere a mere residence of six months shall constitute a quasi-domicile. In the case of unsettled persons possessed of no domicile (vagi) the banns are published (with episcopal permission) where the marriage takes place, and in the place or places of their birth. The banns of minors must also be published in the place of residence or their parents or guardians. The law of quasi-domicile is also frequently to servants, apprentices, soldiers and students in institutions of learning. In the case of mixed marriages, publications of the banns is forbidden (Greg. XVI to the bishops of Bavaria, 12 September, 1834) but is tolerated in the United States by a decree of the Congregation of the Propaganda (3 July, 1847), provided there be no mention of the religious persuasion (confessio acatholica) of the non-Catholic party (see also S. Congr. Inq., 4 July 1874, in Collectanea S. Congr. de Prop. Fide, Rome, 1893, no. 1223). In Germany and Austria this is also customary in some places (Heiner). The three consecutive Holy Days (dies festivi) may be Sundays or other feast of obligation. Custom has in many places exempted Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. It is also customary in some places to proclaim the banns on suppressed feast days, also at Vespers, provided there be on such occasions a considerable attendance of people in the church (S. Congr. Inq., 25 October 1586; 29 April 1823). The banns are published regularly at the parish or principal Mass, though the publication may occur at any other Mass on the prescribed days, nor is it required that such publication be repeated at more than one Mass on the aforesaid days. By a rescript of the Congregation of Propaganda the Vicars Apostolic of India were permitted to publish the banns on weekdays. In some places it is provided that the banns shall not be published on two immediately consecutive feast days; similarly that the marriage shall not take place on the day of the last publication(particularly if it be the only one). It may be noted that the general ecclesiastical law does not forbid the marriage on the day of the third publication. The period for which the publication of the banns is valid depending in local ecclesiastical authority and custom. The Roman Ritual (Tit. vii, c. i, n. 11) fixes a limit of two months, but leaves the bishops free to act as prudence dictates. The Second Provincial Council of Quebec (1863) established a period of two months. In practice the period varies from six weeks to six months. It may be added that the marriage of members of royal houses (matrimonia principum) are by custom exempted from publication of the banns

III. MODE OF PUBLICATION

The parish priest or his representative (vicar, curate) announces in an audible voice, usually before or after the sermon, for each of the contracting parties the baptismal and family name, names of parents, place of birth or residence, age, condition, (single or previously married, and according to the Roman Ritual, loc. cit., n.13, the name of the woman’s former husband). It also should be stated whether the actual proclamation is the first, second, or third, and whether there will be a dispensation from further publications. The priest adds that a serious obligation rests on everyone to reveal to him any known impediment to the proposed marriage. The parish priest is expected to keep a record or register of all publications of banns made by him, also the certificates of publications made at his request in other parishes, the fact and consequences of which he is entitled to know.

IV. DENUNCIATION OF IMPEDIMENTS

Whoever is morally certain either by his own knowledge or through reliable persons, of an impediment (e.g. consanguinity, affinity, previous marriage) to an intended marriage, is conscience bound to reveal it to the parish priest of the contacting parties; it then becomes the duty of such parish priest to investigate the statement made to him (usually under oath) and decide to the character of the evidence; if a grave suspicion be aroused in him, he must refer the case to the bishop, who decides whether a dispensation can or cannot be granted. Confessors, lawyers, physicians, midwives, are not bound to reveal impediments known to them through the discharge of their official or professional duties, nor does and obligation rest on those who fear that to make known and impediment would cause great detriment to themselves or their families, or who are aware that no good can result from their action, or know that the contracting parties have already made known the impediment. Once aware of the impediment the parish priest must defer the marriage, refer the matter to the bishop, and, where the Tridentine marriage decree is not valid he ought to warn the parties not to attempt marriage elsewhere. For further details as to the obligation or revealing known impediments, see the moral theologians generally, especially the third book of Sanchez, “De Matrimonio,” and the sixth volume of Ballerini-Palmieri, “Theologia Moralis” (Prato, 1894) also the “Bibliotheca Prompta” of Ferraris, s.v.

V. SANCTIONS

Omission of the banns, even partial, makes a marriage illicit, but not invalid. The bishop may inflict on the contracting parties such ecclesiastical penance as he sees fit to impose, and he also may punish similarly the witnesses to the marriage. Should later on an impediment be discovered that renders the marriage null and void, they cannot hope, be the strict letter of the law, to obtain a dispensation, nor can they hope to have their marriage considered a putative or apparent one, entailing the legitimation of their children. The bishop is empowered by the law to inflict on the offending parish priest, besides other punishment, three years suspension from his office; it is worth noting that a similar sanction was enjoined by the fifteenth century canon law of England (Lindwood’s Provinciale, Oxford, e.d., 1679, p.271)

VI. DISPENSATION FROM BANNS

The Council of Trent allows the bishop to dispense with the publication of the banns, provided there be a sufficient reason; one such is indicated by the Council itself, i.e. fear of a malicious thwarting of the intended marriage. The vicar-general, vicar-capitular, and administrator of a diocese may also dispense from the banns. In case the contracting parties belong to different dioceses, the permission of one bishop (usually the one in whose diocese the marriage takes place) is held sufficient by many canonists. In some countries, as in Bavaria, a mutual understanding to this effect exists. The bishop may also allow the deans or the parish priests to dispense from one or two publications. In many diocese the parish priest is especially authorized to dispense from the banns for death-bed marriages; elsewhere this authority is delegated to the deans or the more centrally located parish priests. The parish priest may himself decide that the obligation of asking a dispensation no longer exists for him, i.e. in cases of urgent necessity when, on the one hand, he cannot reach the bishop and, on the other, the reasons are such that the latter would be bound to grant the dispensation. In all cases where the three publications are omitted, the contracting parties are regularly required to take the oath before the bishop (juramentum de statu libero) they are not previously betrothed or married, and that they know of no impediment to their marriage (Clement X, Cum Alias, 21 August, 1670; Ballerini-Palmieri, VI, 716–718).

By a decision of the Congregation of the Inquisition (8 August, 1900) the bishop may delegate to the parish priest the performance of this duty. The banns are omitted in the case of revalidation of marriage (Sägmüller, 489) and secret marriages i.e. regularly performed in the church, but behind closed doors, and the record of which, together with the pertinent baptisms, is kept in a special book in the diocesan chancery (Ballerini-Palmiere, op. cit., VI. 778). Dispensation from all the banns is regularly granted only for a very urgent reason; less weightily reasons suffice for a dispensation from two publications or from one. Among the reasons recognized by the law, other than that mentioned by the Council of Trent; are: notable difference of age, or condition of life; peril of the good name of either party; the approach of Advent or Lent, when marriage cannot be solemnized; notable temporal or spiritual detriment; imminent departure of the bride-groom; etc. The diocesan chancery usually charges a fee to cover the clerical expenses, it being forbidden to make any charge for the dispensation itself (S. Cong. of Propaganda to the bishops of Ireland, 12 February, 1821; cf. its decree of 1750; also the Encyclical of 1768 to the same bishops, and Collectanea S. Cong. prop. Fid., Rome, 1893. 1221). At times the parish priest collects a fee for the publication of banns (Von Scherer, 147); it is reckoned as one of his jura stolæ, or casual sources of revenue.

VII. NON-CATHOLIC USAGE

The Orthodox Greek Church does not require publication of the banns; on the other hand, for every marriage the Greek priest requires regularly a special permission of the bishop; at Constantinople, and in other archiepiscopal churches this permission is granted through the Chartophylax. As the presence of the priest is essential to the validity of a Greek marriage, clandestine unions are practically impossible. (For the Eastern-Rite Catholics in Italy the Tridentine decree is obligatory, having been published in Greek in all their parishes by order of Clement VIII and again by order of Benedict XIV; see Vering, 873). The German Lutheran churches provide for publication of banns in a manner quite similar to the Catholic discipline (ibid, 874). In the Church of England the publication of the banns is a normal preliminary of marriage, both by ecclesiastical law and, as explained below, by civil statute. The Book of Common Prayer directs that the banns of all who are to be married shall be published on three several Sundays or Holy Days during the time of the morning service or of evening service (if there be no morning service) immediately after the second lesson. The form of publication is analogous to Catholic usage, and if the parties reside in different parishes, the banns must be published in both

VIII. THE CIVIL LAW OF BANNS

In several European countries the civil law insists by its own authority on the publication of banns; in Austria, for instance, all marriages performed without at least one publication of the banns, and in the parishes of both contacting parties, are declared invalid by the Civil Code (Vering, 862, note 23; Von Scherer, 161). In England, until 1753, there was no statutory publication of the banns; in that year was passed a marriage act, known as Lord Hardwicke’s Act (26 Geo. II, c. xxxviii), which provided among other essentials, that in the future the true names of all persons intending marriage should be published in the church, otherwise the marriage would be null and void. It was, however, expressly provided that the act should not apply across the seas; hence it never became a part of the English Common Law as received in the United States. The actual civil legislation in England dates mostly from the reign of George IV and William IV, and relieves Catholics and Dissenters from the obligation of having their banns published in the churches of the Establishment, as was the case after the passing of Lord hardwicke’s Act, though in other respects and with considerable modifications, that act still governs the marriage contract in England; in substance it is the Tridentine decree. According to actual English statute legislation, a marriage in the Church of England is invalid without a previous due publication of the banns or a license from the proper ecclesiastical authority granted only within the church of the parish in which one of the parties shall have resided for fifteen days before the marriage. The true names of the parties must be published in an audible voice on three successive Sundays at the morning service, after the second lesson, in the church of the parish in which the parties dwell, or with the bishop’s consent, in a public chapel. The officiating clergyman is entitled to demand seven day’s notice of the intended publication, with the names of the parties, place of abode, and the time they have lived there. The dissent of parents or guardians renders null and void the publication of the banns of minors. The banns or license are valid for a period of three months only. It is to be noted that the omission of the banns invalidated the marriage only when the omission is known and willful. Non-Anglicans (Jews and Quakers excepted, as otherwise provided for) are freed from the obligations of banns or ecclesiastical license, but they must give notice to the registrar of the district within which the parties have lived for seven days previous. This notice is inscribed in a marriage notice book open to public inspection at all seasonal times, and thereafter suspended for twenty-one days in some conspicuous place in the registrar’s office and accompanied by a declaration as to absence of impediments, necessary consent of parents or guardians, etc. (“Encyclopedia of the Laws of England,” London, 1897, II, 1–3; “American and English Encyclopedia of Law,” 2d ed., 1901, XIX,1190–93; Phillimore, “Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England,” 2d ed., London, 1895, II 580 sqq. For the publication of banns in the (Protestant) churches of Ireland an Scotland see W.P. Eversley, “The Law of the Domestic Relations” (2d ed., London, 1890). In most of the United States a license to marry must be obtained by the contracting parties; in Delaware and Ohio publication of the banns is equivalent to a license (H.J. Desmond, The Church and the law, Chicago, 1898, 66). In all the provinces of the Dominion of Canada publication of the banns is required in default of a license to marry. In the Province of Quebec, in default of a license issued to non-Catholics, the publication of the banns is required on three Sundays or Holy Days with reasonable intervals, at morning service, or if none, at an evening service. If the parties belong to different churches, these publications must take place in each church. They must contain the names, surnames, qualities or occupation and domicile of the parties to be married, and whether they are of age or minors, also the names, surnames, occupations, and domicile of their fathers and mothers, and the name of the former husband or wife. A certificate of due publication of the banns is also required before the marriage, and mention is made of it in the Act of marriage; this certificate must be signed by the person who published the banns, and must contain all the above details stated in the banns themselves. Such certificate is not required if the banns were published by the same person who performed the marriage. Unless the parties have an actual domicile of six months in the place of publication, the latter must occur in the place of last domicile in Lower Canada, or if out of Canada the officer must ascertain that no legal impediment exists. if the parties are under the authority of others the publication must take place in the domicile of such authority (R.S. Weir, The Civil Code of Lower Canada, Montreal, 1898, Nos. 57, 58, 130–134). In France the civil code prescribes the publication on two distinct Sundays of the names, occupations, domiciles, and names of parents of persons intending to marry. The marriage cannot take place until three days after the second; if a year is allowed to elapse there must be a fresh publication of the banns. Marriages contacted abroad between French subjects or between a French subject and a foreigner, but according to foreign law, are recognized in France. The publication of the banns, however, cannot be omitted under pain of invalidating the marriage.

For the history of banns see ESMEIN, Le mariage en droit canonique (Paris, 18891). I, 78; SCHULTE, Handbuch des kath. Eherechts (1855), 40; BINDER, Vom kirchl, Aufgebot der Ehe (1857); SCHLINDLER, Die Notwendigkeit und die Umstande des Eheaufgebots (Warnsdorf, 1884); Archiv f. kath. Kirchenrecht. I, 129, 275; II, 546; IV, 391. All manuals of canon law and moral theology deal at more or less length with this subject, e.g. LAURENTIUS, Instit. Jur. Eccl. (Freiburg, 1903). Nos.567–569; HEINER, Grundriss des kath. Eherechts (4th ed., 1900):SAGMULLER, lehrb, des kan.Rechts (Freiburg, 1900 sq.) 485–490; VERING, Lehrbuch des kath. . . . Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1893), 859–863; VON SCHERER, handbuch des Kirchenrechts (Graz, 1898), II, 143–161. Cf. also FERRARIS, Prompta bibliotheca can., s.v.; FELIE, De impedimentis et dispensat. matr. (Louvain, 1874), 151–177; TAUNTON, The law of the Church (London and St. Louis; 1906), s.v.; BALLERINI-PALMIERE, Theologia Moralis (Prato, 1894)., VI. 427–447; GASPARRI, Tractatus canon, de matrimonio (2d ed., Rome,1892)

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

John Bapst

Jesuit missionary and educator, b. at La Roche, Fribourg, Switzerland, 17 December, 1815; d. at Mount Hope, Maryland, U.S.A., 2 November, 1887. At twelve he began his studies at the college of Fribourg, and on 30 September, 1835, entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus. He was ordained priest, 31 December, 1846, after the usual course of studies and teaching. He arrived in New York in 1848 and, though ignorant of both English and Indian, was sent to minister to the Indians at Old Town, Maine. The inhabitants received him with every demonstration of joy, but he found them in a very degraded moral condition. They had been without a priest for twenty years, and he laboured zealously for their reformation. He founded several temperance societies in Maine. In 1850 he left Old Town for Eastport. His work immediately began to attract attention, both for its results among Catholics and the number of converts who were brought into the Church. As his missions covered a large extent of territory, he became generally known through the State. When the Know-Nothing excitement broke out he was at Ellsworth. Besides being disliked as a Catholic priest, he was particularly obnoxious because of his efforts to establish a Catholic school there. On 3 June his house was attacked, and on 5 June, 1851, in pursuance of an order of the Town Council, which was directed to be published in the papers, he was dragged out of the residence of one of his people, was tarred and feathered, and ridden on a rail to the woods outside the town, and ordered to leave the neighbourhood. Some acounts have it that there was an attempt to burn him to death, which, for some reason or other, was prevented. He recovered from his injuries and continued his work. The outrage at Ellsworth met with general condemnation. Father Bapst built the first church at Bangor, which was dedicated in 1856. He remained there for three years and was then sent to Boston as rector of the college which was at that time the house of higher studies for the Jesuit scholastics. He was afterwards superior of all the houses of Canada and New York, and subsequently superior of a Residence in Providence, R.I. In 1879 his mind began to fail, a result, it was thought, of the Ellsworth occurrence. His remains were interred at Woodstock, Maryland.

Woodstock Letters, XVI, 324; XVII, 218, 361; XVIII, 83, 1;;29, 304; XX, 61, 241, 406; SHEA, Hist. of the Catholic Church in U.S. (New York, 1904).

T.J. CAMPBELL

Baptism

One of the Seven Sacraments of the Christian Church; frequently called the “first sacrament,” the “door of the sacraments,” and the “door of the Church.” The subject will be treated under the following headings:

I. Authoritative Statement of Doctrine

II. Etymology

III. Definition

IV. Types

V. Institution of the Sacrament

VI. Matter and Form of the Sacrament

VII. Conditional Baptism

VIII. Rebaptism

IX. Necessity of Baptism

X. Substitutes for the Sacrament

XI. Unbaptized Infants

XII. Effects of Baptism

XIII. Minister of the Sacrament

XIV. Recipient of Baptism

XV. Adjuncts of Baptism

XVI, Ceremonies of Baptism

XVII. Metaphorical Baptism At the outset we think it advisable to give two documents which express clearly the mind of the Church on the subject of baptism. They are valuable, also, as containing a summary of the main points to be considered in the treatment of this important matter. Baptism is defined positively in the one and negatively in the other.

(1) THE POSITIVE DOCUMENT: “THE DECREE FOR THE ARMENIANS”

“The Decree for the Armenians,” in the Bull “Exultate Deo” of Pope Eugene IV, is often referred to as a decree of the Council of Florence. While it is not necessary to hold this decree to be a dogmatic definition of the matter and form and minister of the sacraments, it is undoubtedly a practical instruction, emanating from the Holy See, and as such, has full authenticity in a canonical sense. That is, it is authoritative. The decree speaks thus of Baptism:

Holy Baptism holds the first place among the sacraments, because it is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church. And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water; and it is indifferent whether it be cold or hot. The form is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. We do not, however, deny that the words: Let this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; or: This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, constitute true baptism; because since the principal cause from which baptism has its efficacy is the Holy Trinity, and the instrumental cause is the minister who confers the sacrament exteriorly, then if the act exercised by the minister be expressed, together with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the sacrament is perfected. The minister of this sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to baptize, by reason of his office, In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay, even a pagan or heretic can baptize, provided he observes the form used by the Church, and intends to perform what the Church performs. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all sin, original and actual; likewise of all punishment which is due for sin. As a consequence, no satisfaction for past sins is enjoined upon those who are baptized; and if they die before they commit any sin, they attain immediately to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.

(2) THE NEGATIVE DOCUMENT: “DE BAPTISMO”

The negative document we call the canons on baptism decreed by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, De Baptismo), in which the following doctrines are anathematized (declared heretical):

The baptism of John (the Precursor) had the same efficacy as the baptism of Christ,

True and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and therefore the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost” are metaphorical.

The true doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is not taught by the Roman Church,

Baptism given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost with the intention of performing what the Church performs, is not true baptism,

Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation.

A baptized person, even if he wishes it, can not lose grace, no matter how much he sins, unless he refuses to believe.

Those who are baptized are obliged only to have faith, but not to observe the whole law of Christ.

Baptized persons are not obliged to observe all the precepts of the Church, written and traditional, unless of their own accord they wish to submit to them.

All vows made after baptism are void by reason of the promises made in baptism itself; because by these vows injury is done to the faith which has been professed in baptism and to the sacrament itself.

All sins committed after baptism are either forgiven or rendered venial by the sole remembrance and faith of the baptism that has been received.

Baptism although truly and properly administered, must be repeated in the case of a person who has denied the faith of Christ before infidels and has been brought again to repentance.

No one is to be baptized except at the age at which Christ was baptized or at the moment of death.

Infants, not being able to make an act of faith, are not to be reckoned among the faithful after their baptism, and therefore when they come to the age of discretion they are to be rebaptized; or it is better to omit their baptism entirely than to baptize them as believing on the sole faith of the Church, when they themselves can not make a proper act of faith.

Those baptized as infants are to be asked when they have grown up, whether they wish to ratify what their sponsors had promised for them at their baptism, and if they reply that they do not wish to do so, they are to be left to their own will in the matter and not to be forced by penalties to lead a Christian life, except to be deprived of the reception of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments, until they reform.

The doctrines here condemned by the Council of Trent, are those of various leaders among the early reformers. The contradictory of all these statements is to be held as the dogmatic teaching of the Church.

The word Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea of the sacrament. Scripture uses the term baptize both literally and figuratively. It is employed in a metaphorical sense in Acts 1:5, where the abundance of the grace of the Holy Ghost is signified, and also in Luke 12:50, where the term is referred to the sufferings of Christ in His Passion. Otherwise in the New Testament, the root word from which baptism is derived is used to designate the laving with water, and it is employed, when speaking of Jewish lustrations, and of the baptism of John, as well as of the Christian Sacrament of Baptism (cf. Hebrews 6:2; Mark 7:4). In ecclesiastical usage, however, when the terms Baptize, Baptism are employed without a qualifying word, they are intended to signify the sacramental washing by which the soul is cleansed from sin at the same time that water is poured upon the body. Many other terms have been used as descriptive synonyms for baptism both in the Bible and Christian antiquity, as the washing of regeneration, illumination, the seal of God, the water of eternal life, the sacrament of the Trinity, and so on. In English, the term christen is familiarly used for baptize. As, however, the former word signifies only the effect of baptism, that is, to make one a Christian, but not the manner and the act, moralists hold that “I christen” could probably not be substituted validly for “I baptize” in conferring the sacrament.

The Roman Catechism (Ad parochos, De bapt., 2, 2, 5) defines baptism thus: Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration by water in the word (per aquam in verbo). St. Thomas Aquinas (III:66:1) gives this definition: “Baptism is the external ablution of the body, performed with the prescribed form of words.” Later theologians generally distinguish formally between the physical and the metaphysical defining of this sacrament. By the former they understand the formula expressing the action of ablution and the utterance of the invocation of the Trinity; by the latter, the definition: “Sacrament of regeneration” or that institution of Christ by which we are reborn to spiritual life. The term “regeneration” distinguishes baptism from every other sacrament, for although penance revivifies men spiritually, yet this is rather a resuscitation, a bringing back from the dead, than a rebirth. Penance does not make us Christians; on the contrary, it presupposes that we have already been born of water and the Holy Ghost to the life of grace, while baptism on the other hand was instituted to confer upon men the very beginnings of the spiritual life, to transfer them from the state of enemies of God to the state of adoption, as sons of God. The definition of the Roman Catechism combines the physical and metaphysical definitions of baptism. “The sacrament of regeneration” is the metaphysical essence of the sacrament, while the physical essence is expressed by the second part of the definition, i.e. the washing with water (matter), accompanied by the invocation of the Holy Trinity (form). Baptism is, therefore, the sacrament by which we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost, that is, by which we receive in a new and spiritual life, the dignity of adoption as sons of God and heirs of God’s kingdom.

Having considered the Christian meaning of the term “baptism,” we now turn our attention to the various rites which were its forerunners before the New Dispensation. Types of this sacrament are to be found among the Jews and Gentiles. Its place in the sacramental system of the Old Law was taken by circumcision, which is called by some of the Fathers “the washing of blood” to distinguish it from “the washing of water.” By the rite of circumcision, the recipient was incorporated into the people of God and made a partaker in the Messianic promises; a name was bestowed upon him and he was reckoned among the children of Abraham, the father of all believers. Other forerunners of baptism were the numerous purifications prescribed in the Mosaic dispensation for legal uncleannesses. The symbolism of an outward washing to cleanse an invisible blemish was made very familiar to the Jews by their sacred ceremonies. But in addition to these more direct types, both the New Testament writers and the Fathers of the Church find many mysterious foreshadowings of baptism. Thus St. Paul (I Cor., x) adduces the passage of Israel through the Red Sea, and St. Peter (1 Peter 3) the Deluge, as types of the purification to be found in Christian baptism. Other foreshadowings of the sacrament are found by the Fathers in the bathing of Naaman in the Jordan, in the brooding of the Spirit of God over the waters, in the rivers of Paradise, in the blood of the Paschal Lamb, during Old Testament times, and in the pool of Bethsaida, and in the healing of the dumb and blind in the New Testament,

How natural and expressive the symbolism of exterior washing to indicate interior purification was recognized to be, is plain from the practice also of the heathen systems of religion. The use of lustral water is found among the Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Hindus, and others. A closer resemblance to Christian baptism is found in a form of Jewish baptism, to be bestowed on proselytes, given in the Babylonian Talmud (Dollinger, First Age of the Church). But above all must be considered the baptism of St. John the Precursor. John baptized with water (Mark, i) and it was a baptism of penance for the remission of sins (Luke, iii). While, then, the symbolism of the sacrament instituted by Christ was not new, the efficacy which He joined to the rite is that which differentiates it from all its types. John’s baptism did not produce grace, as he himself testifies (Matt., iii) when he declares that he is not the Messias whose baptism is to confer the Holy Ghost. Moreover, it was not John’s baptism that remitted sin, but the penance that accompanied it; and hence St. Augustine calls it (De Bapt. contra Donat., V) “a remission of sins in hope.” As to the nature of the Precursor’s baptism, St. Thomas (III:38:1) declares: The baptism of John was not a sacrament of itself, but a certain sacramental as it were, preparing the way (disponens) for the baptism of Christ.” Durandus calls it a sacrament, indeed, but of the Old Law, and St. Bonaventure places it as a medium between the Old and New Dispensations. It is of Catholic faith that the Precursor’s baptism was essentially different in its effects from the baptism of Christ, It is also to be noted that those who had previously received John’s baptism had to receive later the Christian baptism (Acts, xix).

That Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism is unquestionable. Rationalists, like Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, I, 68), dispute it, only by arbitrarily ruling out the texts which prove it. Christ not only commands His Disciples (Matthew 28:19) to baptize and gives them the form to be used, but He also declares explicitly the absolute necessity of baptism (John 3): “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God.” Moreover, from the general doctrine of the Church on the sacraments, we know that the efficacy attached to them is derivable only from the institution of the Redeemer. When, however, we come to the question as to when precisely Christ instituted baptism, we find that ecclesiastical writers are not agreed. The Scriptures themselves are silent upon the subject. Various occasions have been pointed out as the probable time of institution, as when Christ was Himself baptized in the Jordan, when He declared the necessity of the rebirth to Nicodemus, when He sent His Apostles and Disciples to preach and baptize. The first opinion was quite a favorite with many of the Fathers and Schoolmen, and they are fond of referring to the sanctification of the baptismal water by contact with the flesh of the God-man. Others, as St. Jerome and St. Maximus, appear to assume that Christ baptized John on this occasion and thus instituted the sacrament. There is nothing, however, in the Gospels to indicate that Christ baptized the Precursor at the time of His own baptism. As to the opinion that it was in the colloquy with Nicodemus that the sacrament was instituted, it is not surprising that it has found few adherents. Christ’s words indeed declare the necessity of such an institution, but no more. It seems also very unlikely that Christ would have instituted the sacrament in a secret conference with one who was not to be a herald of its institution.

The more probable opinion seems to be that baptism, as a sacrament, had its origin when Christ commissioned His Apostles to baptize, as narrated in John, iii and iv. There is nothing directly in the text as to the institution, but as the Disciples acted evidently under the instruction of Christ, He must have taught them at the very outset the matter and form of the sacrament which they were to dispense. It is true that St. John Chrysostom (Hom., xxviii in Joan.), Theophylactus (in cap. iii, Joan.), and Tertullian (De Bapt., c. ii) declare that the baptism given by the Disciples of Christ as narrated in these chapters of St. John was a baptism of water only and not of the Holy Ghost; but their reason is that the Holy Ghost was not given until after the Resurrection. As theologians have pointed out, this is a confusion between the visible and the invisible manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The authority of St. Leo (Ep. xvi ad Episc. Sicil.) is also invoked for the same opinion, inasmuch as he seems to hold that Christ instituted the sacrament when, after His rising from the dead, He gave the command (Matthew 28): “Go and teach . . . baptizing”; but St. Leo’s words can easily be explained otherwise, and in another part of the same epistle he refers to the sanction of regeneration given by Christ when the water of baptism flowed from His side on the Cross; consequently, before the Resurrection. All authorities agree that Matt., xxviii, contains the solemn promulgation of this sacrament, and St. Leo does not seem to intend more than this. We need not delay on the arguments of those who declare baptism to have been necessarily established after Christ’s death, because the efficacy of the sacraments is derived from His Passion. This would prove also that the Holy Eucharist was not instituted before His death, which is untenable. As to the frequent statement of the Fathers that the sacraments flowed from the side of Christ upon the Cross, it is enough to say that beyond the symbolism found therein, their words can be explained as referring to the death of Christ, as the meritorious cause or perfection of the sacraments, but not necessarily as their time of institution.

All things considered, we can safely state, therefore, that Christ most probably instituted baptism before His Passion. For in the first place, as is evident from John 3 and 4, Christ certainly conferred baptism, at least by the hands of His Disciples, before His passion. That this was an essentially different rite from John the Precursor’s baptism seems plain, because the baptism of Christ is always preferred to that of John, and the latter himself states the reason: “I baptize with water . . . [Christ] baptizeth with the Holy Ghost” (John, i). In the baptism given by the Disciples as narrated in these chapters we seem to have all the requisites of a sacrament of the New Law:

the external rite,

the institution of Christ, for they baptized by His command and mission, and

the conferring of grace, for they bestowed the Holy Ghost (John 1).

In the second place, the Apostles received other sacraments from Christ, before His Passion, as the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, and Holy orders (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXVI, c. i). Now as baptism has always been held as the door of the Church and the necessary condition for the reception of any other sacrament, it follows that the Apostles must have received Christian baptism before the Last Supper. This argument is used by St. Augustine (Ep. clxiii, al. xliv) and certainly seems valid. To suppose that the first pastors of the Church received the other sacraments by dispensation, before they had received baptism, is an opinion with no foundation in Scripture or Tradition and devoid of verisimilitude. The Scriptures nowhere state that Christ Himself conferred baptism, but an ancient tradition (Niceph., Hist. eccl, II, iii; Clem. Alex. Strom., III) declares that He baptized the Apostle Peter only, and that the latter baptized Andrew, James, and John, and they the other Apostles.

(1) MATTER

In all sacraments we treat of the matter and the form. It is also usual to distinguish the remote matter and the proximate matter. In the case of baptism, the remote matter is natural and true water. We shall consider this aspect of the question first.

(a) Remote matter

It is of faith (de fide) that true and natural water is the remote matter of baptism. In addition to the authorities already cited, we may also mention the Fourth Council of the Lateran (c. i). Some of the early Fathers, as Tertullian (De Bapt., i) and St. Augustine (Adv. Hær., xlvi and lix) enumerate heretics who rejected water entirely as a constituent of baptism. Such were the Gaians, Manichians, Seleucians, and Hermians. In the Middle Ages, the Waldensians are said to have held the same tenet (Ewald, Contra Walden., vi). Some of the sixteenth century reformers, while accepting water as the ordinary matter of this sacrament, declared that when water could not be had, any liquid could be used in its place. So Luther (Tischr., xvii) and Beza (Ep., ii, ad Till.). It was in consequence of this teaching that certain of the Tridentine canons were framed. Calvin held that the water used in baptism was simply symbolic of the Blood of Christ (Instit., IV, xv). As a rule, however, those sects which believe in baptism at the present time, recognize water as the necessary matter of the sacrament. Scripture is so positive in its statements as to the use of true and natural water for baptism that it is difficult to see why it should ever be called in question. Not only have we the explicit words of Christ (John 3:5) “Unless a man be born again of water,” etc., but also in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul there are passages that preclude any metaphorical interpretation. Thus (Acts, x, 47) St. Peter says “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized?” In the eighth chapter of the Acts is narrated the episode of Philip and the eunuch of Ethiopia, and in verse 36 we read: “They came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?” Equally positive is the testimony of Christian tradition. Tertullian (op. cit.) begins his treatise: “The happy sacrament of our water.” Justin Martyr (Apol., I) describes the ceremony of baptism and declares: Then they are led by us to where there is water . . . and then they are laved in the water.” St. Augustine positively declares that there is no baptism without water (Tr. xv in Joan.).

The remote matter of baptism, then, is water, and this taken in its usual meaning. Theologians tell us consequently that what men would ordinarily declare water is valid baptismal material, whether it be water of the sea, or fountain, or well, or marsh; whether it be clear or turbid; fresh or salty; hot or cold; colored or uncolored. Water derived from melted ice, snow, or hail is also valid. If, however, ice, snow, or hail be not melted, they do not come under the designation water. Dew, sulfur or mineral water, and that which is derived from steam are also valid matter for this sacrament. As to a mixture of water and some other material, it is held as proper matter, provided the water certainly predominates and the mixture would still be called water. Invalid matter is every liquid that is not usually designated true water. Such are oil, saliva, wine, tears, milk, sweat, beer, soup, the juice of fruits, and any mixture containing water which men would no longer call water. When it is doubtful whether a liquid could really be called water, it is not permissible to use it for baptism except in case of absolute necessity when no certainly valid matter can be obtained. On the other hand, it is never allowable to baptize with an invalid liquid. There is a response of Pope Gregory IX to the Archbishop of Trondhjem in Norway where beer (or mead) had been employed for baptism. The pontiff says: “Since according to the Gospel teaching, a man must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, those are not to be considered validly baptized who have been baptized with beer” (cervisia). It is true that a statement declaring wine to be valid matter of baptism is attributed to Pope Stephen II, but the document is void of all authority (Labbe, Conc., VI).

Those who have held that “water” in the Gospel text is to be taken metaphorically, appeal to the words of the Precursor (Matt., iii), “He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.” As “fire” must certainly be only a figure of speech here, so must “water” in the other texts. To this objection, it may be replied that the Christian Church, or at least the Apostles themselves, must have understood what was prescribed to be taken literally and what figuratively. The New Testament and church history prove that they never looked on fire as a material for baptism, while they certainly did require water. Outside of the insignificant sects of Seleucians and Hermians, not even heretics took the word “fire” in this text in its literal meaning. We may remark, however, that some of the Fathers, as St. John Damascene (Orth. Fid., IV, ix), concede this statement of the Baptist to have a literal fulfillment in the Pentecostal fiery tongues. They do not refer it, however, literally to baptism. That water alone is the necessary matter of this sacrament depends of course on the will of Him Who instituted it, although theologians discover many reasons why it should have been chosen in preference to other liquids. The most obvious of these is that water cleanses and purifies more perfectly than the others, and hence the symbolism is more natural.

(b) Proximate matter

The proximate matter of baptism is the ablution performed with water. The very word “baptize,” as we have seen, means a washing. Three forms of ablution have prevailed among Christians, and the Church holds them all to be valid because they fulfill the requisite signification of the baptismal laving. These forms are immersion, infusion, and aspersion. The most ancient form usually employed was unquestionably immersion. This is not only evident from the writings of the Fathers and the early rituals of both the Latin and Oriental Churches, but it can also be gathered from the Epistles of St. Paul, who speaks of baptism as a bath (Ephes., v, 26; Rom., vi, 4; Tit., iii, 5). In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, however, were growing common in the thirteenth century and gradually prevailed in the Western Church. The Oriental Churches have retained immersion, though not always in the sense of plunging the candidate’s entire body below the water. Billuart (De Bapt., I, iii) says that commonly the catechumen is placed in the font, and then water is poured upon the head. He cites the authority of Goar for this statement. Although, as we have said, immersion was the form of baptism that generally prevailed in the early ages, it must not thereby be inferred that the other forms of infusion and aspersion were not also employed and held to be valid. In the case of the sick or dying, immersion was impossible and the sacrament was then conferred by one of the other forms. This was so well recognized that infusion or aspersion received the name of the baptism of the sick (baptismus clinicorum). St. Cyprian (Ep. lxxvi) declares this form to be valid. From the canons of various early councils we know that candidates for Holy orders who had been baptized by this method seem to have been regarded as irregular, but this was on account of the culpable negligence supposed to be manifested in delaying baptism until sick or dying. That such persons, however, were not to be rebaptized is an evidence that the Church held their baptism to be valid. It is also pointed out that the circumstances under which St. Paul (Acts, xvi) baptized his jailer and all his household seem to preclude the use of immersion. Moreover, the acts of the early martyrs frequently refer to baptizing in prisons where infusion or aspersion was certainly employed.

By the present authorized ritual of the Latin Church, baptism must be performed by a laving of the head of the candidate. Moralists, however, state that in case of necessity, the baptism would probably be valid if the water were applied to any other principal part of the body, as the breast or shoulder. In this case, however, conditional baptism would have to be administered if the person survived (St. Alph., no. 107). In like manner they consider as probably valid the baptism of an infant in its mother’s womb, provided the water, by means of an instrument, would actually flow upon the child. Such baptism is, however, later to be repeated conditionally, if the child survives its birth (Lehmkuhl, n. 61). It is to be noted that it is not sufficient for the water to merely touch the candidate; it must also flow, otherwise there would seem to be no real ablution. At best, such a baptism would be considered doubtful. If the water touches only the hair, the sacrament has probably been validly conferred, though in practice the safer course must be followed. If only the clothes of the person have received the aspersion, the baptism is undoubtedly void. The water to be employed in solemn baptism should also be consecrated for the purpose, but of this we shall treat in another section of this article. It is necessary in baptizing to make use of a threefold ablution in conferring this sacrament, by reason of the prescription of the Roman ritual. This necessarily refers, however, to the liceity, not to the validity of the ceremony, as St. Thomas (III:66:8) and other theologians expressly state. The threefold immersion is unquestionably very ancient in the Church and apparently of Apostolic origin. It is mentioned by Tertullian (De cor. milit., iii), St. Basil (De Sp. S., xxvii), St. Jerome (Dial. Contra Luc., viii), and many other early writers. Its object is, of course, to honor the three Persons of the Holy Trinity in whose name it is conferred. That this threefold ablution was not considered necessary to the validity of the sacrament, however, is plain. In the seventh century the Fourth Council of Toledo (633) approved the use of a single ablution in baptism, as a protest against the false trinitarian theories of the Arians, who seem to have given to the threefold immersion a significance which made it imply three natures in the Holy Trinity. To insist on the unity and consubstantiality of the three Divine Persons, the Spanish Catholics adopted the single ablution and this method had the approval of Pope Gregory the Great (I, Ep. xliii). The Eunomian heretics used only one immersion and their baptism was held invalid by the First Council of Constantinople (can. vii); but this was not on account of the single ablution, but apparently because they baptized in the death of Christ. The authority of this canon is, moreover, doubtful at best.

(2) FORM

The requisite and sole valid form of baptism is: “I baptize thee (or This person is baptized) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” This was the form given by Christ to His Disciples in the twenty-eighth chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel, as far, at least, as there is question of the invocation of the separate Persons of the Trinity and the expression of the nature of the action performed. For the Latin usage: “I baptize thee,” etc., we have the authority of the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. iv) and of the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union. In addition we have the constant practice of the whole Western Church. The Latins also recognize as valid the form used by the Greeks: “This servant of Christ is baptized,” etc. The Florentine decree acknowledges the validity of this form and it is moreover recognized by the Bull of Leo X, “Accepimus nuper,” and of Clement VII, “Provisionis nostrae.” Substantially, the Latin and Greek forms are the same, and the Latin Church has never rebaptized Orientals on their return to unity. At one time some Western theologians disputed the Greek form, because they doubted the validity of the imperative or deprecatory formula: “Let this person be baptized” (baptizetur). As a matter of fact, however, the Greeks use the indicative, or enuntiative, formula: “This person is baptized” (baptizetai, baptizetur). This is unquestionable from their Euchologies, and from the testimony of Arcudius (apud Cat., tit. ii, cap. i), of Goar (Rit. Græc. Illust.), of Martene (De Ant. Eccl. Rit., I) and of the theological compendium of the schismatical Russians (St. Petersburg, 1799). It is true that in the decree for the Armenians, Pope Eugene IV uses baptizetur, according to the ordinary version of this decree, but Labbe, in his edition of the Council of Florence seems to consider it a corrupt reading, for in the margin he prints baptizatur. It has been suggested by Goar that the resemblance between baptizetai and baptizetur is responsible for the mistake. The correct translation is, of course, baptizatur.

In administering this sacrament it is absolutely necessary to use the word “baptize” or its equivalent (Alex. VIII, Prop. damn., xxvii), otherwise the ceremony is invalid. This had already been decreed by Alexander III (Cap. Si quis, I, x, De Bapt.), and it is confirmed by the Florentine decree. It has been the constant practice of both the Latin and Greek Churches to make use of words expressing the act performed. St. Thomas (III:66:5) says that since an ablution may be employed for many purposes, it is necessary that in baptism the meaning of the ablution be determined by the words of the form. However, the words: “In the name of the Father,” etc., would not be sufficient by themselves to determine the sacramental nature of the ablution. St. Paul (Coloss., iii) exhorts us to do all things in the name of God, and consequently an ablution could be performed in the name of the Trinity to obtain restoration of health. Therefore it is that in the form of this sacrament, the act of baptism must be expressed, and the matter and form be united to leave no doubt of the meaning of the ceremony. In addition to the necessary word “baptize,” or its equivalent, it is also obligatory to mention the separate Persons of the Holy Trinity. This is the command of Christ to His Disciples, and as the sacrament has its efficacy from Him Who instituted it, we can not omit anything that He has prescribed. Nothing is more certain than that this has been the general understanding and practice of the Church. Tertullian tells us (De Bapt., xiii): “The law of baptism (tingendi) has been imposed and the form prescribed: Go, teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” St. Justin Martyr (Apol., I) testifies to the practice in his time. St. Ambrose (De Myst., IV) declares: “Unless a person has been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he can not obtain the remission of his sins,” St. Cyprian (Ad Jubaian.), rejecting the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only, affirms that the naming of all the Persons of the Trinity was commanded by the Lord (in plena et adunata Trinitate). The same is declared by many other primitive writers, as St. Jerome (IV, in Matt.), Origen (De Princ., i, ii), St. Athanasius (Or. iv, Contr. Ar.), St. Augustine (De Bapt., vi, 25). It is not, of course, absolutely necessary that the common names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be used, provided the Persons be expressed by words that are equivalent or synonymous. But a distinct naming of the Divine Persons is required and the form: “I baptize thee in the name of the Holy Trinity,” would be of more than doubtful validity. The singular form “In the name,” not “names,” is also to be employed, as it expresses the unity of the Divine nature. When, through ignorance, an accidental, not substantial, change has been made in the form (as In nomine patriâ for Patris), the baptism is to be held valid.

The mind of the Church as to the necessity of serving the trinitarian formula in this sacrament has been clearly shown by her treatment of baptism conferred by heretics. Any ceremony that did not observe this form has been declared invalid. The Montanists baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and Montanus and Priscilla (St. Basil, Ep. i, Ad Amphil.). As a consequence, the Council of Laodicea ordered their rebaptism. The Arians at the time of the Council of Nicæa do not seem to have tampered with the baptismal formula, for that Council does not order their rebaptism. When, then, St. Athanasius (Or. ii, Contr. Ar.) and St. Jerome (Contra Lucif.) declare the Arians to have baptized in the name of the Creator and creatures, they must either refer to their doctrine or to a later changing of the sacramental form. It is well known that the latter was the case with the Spanish Arians and that consequently converts from the sect were rebaptized. The Anomæans, a branch of the Arians, baptized with the formula: “In the name of the uncreated God and in the name of the created Son, and in the name of the Sanctifying Spirit, procreated by the created Son” (Epiphanius, Hær., Ixxvii).

Other Arian sects, such as the Eunomians and Aetians, baptized “in the death of Christ.” Converts from Sabellianism were ordered by the First Council of Constantinople (can. vii) to be rebaptized because the doctrine of Sabellius that there was but one person in the Trinity had infected their baptismal form. The two sects sprung from Paul of Samosata, who denied Christ’s Divinity, likewise conferred invalid baptism. They were the Paulianists and Photinians. Pope Innocent I (Ad. Episc. Maced., vi) declares that these sectaries did not distinguish the Persons of the Trinity when baptizing. The Council of Nicæa (can. xix) ordered the rebaptism of Paulianists, and the Council of Aries (can. xvi and xvii) decreed the same for both Paulianists and Photinians.

There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty. Thus St. Paul (Acts, xix) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ’s name: “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Those who were converted by Philip. (Acts, viii) “were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,” and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins (Acts, ii).

Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Albertus Magnus are invoked as authorities for this opinion, they declaring that the Apostles so acted by special dispensation. Other writers, as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor, hold also that such baptism would be valid, but say nothing of a dispensation for the Apostles. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms “in the name of Jesus,” “in the name of Christ,” either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another. In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts, xix) imply quite plainly that they did not. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: “In whom then were you baptized?” This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them.

The authority of Pope Stephen I has been alleged for the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only. St. Cyprian says (Ep. ad Jubaian.) that this pontiff declared all baptism valid provided it was given in the name of Jesus Christ. It must be noted that the same explanation applies to Stephen’s words as to the Scriptural texts above given. Moreover, Firmilian, in his letter to St. Cyprian, implies that Pope Stephen required an explicit mention of the Trinity in baptism, for he quotes the pontiff as declaring that the sacramental grace is conferred because a person has been baptized “with the invocation of the names of the Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Ghost.” A passage that is very difficult of explanation is found in the works of St. Ambrose (Lib. I, De Sp. S., iii), where he declares that if a person names one of the Trinity, he names all of them: “If you say Christ, you have designated God the Father, by whom the Son was anointed, and Him Who was anointed Son, and the Holy Ghost in whom He was anointed.” This passage has been generally interpreted as referring to the faith of the catechumen, but not to the baptismal form. More difficult is the explanation of the response of Pope Nicholas I to the Bulgarians (cap. civ; Labbe, VIII), in which he states that a person is not to be rebaptized who has already been baptized “in the name of the Holy Trinity or in the name of Christ only, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (for it is one and the same thing, as St. Ambrose has explained).” As in the passage to which the pope alludes, St. Ambrose was speaking of the faith of the recipient of baptism, as we have already stated, it has been held probable that this is also the meaning that Pope Nicholas intended his words to convey (see another explanation in Pesch, Prælect. Dogm., VI, no. 389). What seems to confirm this is the same pontiff’s reply to the Bulgarians (Resp. 15) on another occasion when they consulted him on a practical case. They inquired whether certain persons are to be rebaptized on whom a man, pretending to be a Greek priest, had conferred baptism? Pope Nicholas replies that the baptism is to be held valid “if they were baptized, in the name of the supreme and undivided Trinity.” Here the pope does not give baptism in the name of Christ only as an alternative. Moralists raise the question of the validity of a baptism in whose administration something else had been added to the prescribed form as “and in the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary.” They reply that such baptism would be invalid, if the minister intended thereby to attribute the same efficacy to the added name as to the names of the Three Divine Persons. If, however, it was done through a mistaken piety only, it would not interfere with the validity (S. Alph., n. 111).

From the foregoing it is evident that not all baptism administered by heretics or schismatics is invalid. On the contrary, if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really “intends to perform what the Church performs” the baptism is undoubtedly valid. This is also authoritatively stated in the decree for the Armenians and the canons of the Council of Trent already given. The question becomes a practical one when converts to the Faith have to be dealt with. If there were one authorized mode of baptizing among the sects, and if the necessity and true significance of the sacrament were uniformly taught and put in practice among them, there would be little difficulty as to the status of converts from the sects. But there is no such unity of teaching and practice among them, and consequently the particular case of each convert must be examined into when there is question of his reception into the Church. For not only are there religious denominations in which baptism is in all probability not validly administered, but there are those also which have a ritual sufficient indeed for validity, but in practice the likelihood of their members having received baptism validly is more than doubtful. As a consequence converts must be dealt with differently. If it be certain that a convert was validly baptized in heresy, the sacrament is not repeated, but the ceremonies which had been omitted in such baptism are to be supplied, unless the bishop, for sufficient reasons, judges that they can be dispensed with. (For the United States, see Conc. Prov. Balt., I.) If it be uncertain whether the convert’s baptism was valid or not, then he is to be baptized conditionally. In such cases the ritual is: “If thou art not yet baptized, then I baptize thee in the name,” etc. The First Synod of Westminster, England, directs that adult converts are to be baptized not publicly but privately with holy water (i.e. not the consecrated baptismal water) and without the usual ceremonies (Decr. xvi). Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated.

As to the baptism of the various sects, Sabetti (no. 662) states that the Oriental Churches and the “Old Catholics” generally administer baptism accurately; the Socinians and Quakers do not baptize at all; the Baptists use the rite only for adults, and the efficacy of their baptism has been called in question owing to the separation of the matter and the form, for the latter is pronounced before the immersion takes place; the Congregationalists, Unitarians and Universalists deny the necessity of baptism, and hence the presumption is that they do not administer it accurately; the Methodists and Presbyterians baptize by aspersion or sprinkling, and it may be reasonably doubted whether the water has touched the body and flowed upon it; among the Episcopalians many consider baptism to have no true efficacy and to be merely an empty ceremony, and consequently there is a well-grounded fear that they are not sufficiently careful in its administration. To this may be added, that Episcopalians often baptize by aspersion, and though such a method is undoubtedly valid if properly employed, yet in practice it is quite possible that the sprinkled water may not touch the skin. Sabetti also notes that ministers of the same sect do not everywhere follow a uniform method of baptizing. The practical method of reconciling heretics with the Church is as follows:—If baptism be conferred absolutely, the convert is to make no abjuration or profession of faith, nor is he to make a confession of his sins and receive absolution, because the sacrament of regeneration washes away his past offences. If his baptism is to be conditional, he must first make an abjuration of his errors, or a profession of faith, then receive the conditional baptism, and lastly make a sacramental confession followed by conditional absolution. If the convert’s former baptism was judged to be certainly valid, he is only to make the abjuration or the profession of faith and receive absolution from the censures he may have incurred (Excerpta Rit. Rom., 1878). The abjuration or profession of faith here prescribed is the Creed of Pius IV, translated into the vernacular. In the case of conditional baptism, the confession may precede the administration of the rite and the conditional absolution be imparted after the baptism. This is often done as a matter of fact, as the confession is an excellent preparation for the reception of the sacrament (De Herdt, VI, viii; Sabetti, no. 725).

To complete the consideration of the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, we must give some account of the celebrated controversy that raged around this point in the ancient Church. In Africa and Asia Minor the custom had been introduced in the early part of the third century of rebaptizing all converts from heresy. As far as can be now ascertained, the practice of rebaptism arose in Africa owing to decrees of a Synod of Carthage held probably between 218 and 222; while in Asia Minor it seems to have had its origin at the Synod of Iconium, celebrated between 230 and 235. The controversy on rebaptism is especially connected with the names of Pope St. Stephen and of St. Cyprian of Carthage. The latter was the main champion of the practice of rebaptizing. The pope, however, absolutely condemned the practice, and commanded that heretics on entering the Church should receive only the imposition of hands in paenitentiam. In this celebrated controversy it is to noted that Pope Stephen declares that he is upholding the primitive custom when he declares for the validity of baptism conferred by heretics.

Cyprian, on the contrary, implicitly admits that antiquity is against his own practice, but stoutly maintains that it is more in accordance with an enlightened study of the subject. The tradition against him he declares to be “a human and unlawful tradition.” Neither Cyprian, however, nor his zealous abettor, Firmilian, could show that rebaptism was older than the century in which they were living. The contemporaneous but anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate” says that the ordinances of Pope Stephen, forbidding the rebaptism of converts, are in accordance with antiquity and ecclesiastical tradition, and are consecrated as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance of all the saints and of all the faithful. St. Augustine believes that the custom of not rebaptizing is an Apostolic tradition, and St. Vincent of Lérins declares that the Synod of Carthage introduced rebaptism against the Divine Law (canonem), against the rule of the universal Church, and against the customs and institutions of the ancients. By Pope Stephen’s decision, he continues, antiquity was retained and novelty was destroyed (retenta est antiquitas, explosa novitas). It is true that the so-called Apostolic Canons (xlv and xlvi) speak of the non-validity of baptism conferred by heretics, but Döllinger says that these canons are comparatively recent, and De Marca points out that St. Cyprian would have appealed to them had they been in existence before the controversy. Pope St. Stephen, therefore, upheld a doctrine already ancient in the third century when he declared against the rebaptism of heretics, and decided that the sacrament was not to be repeated because its first administration had been valid, This has been the law of the Church ever since.

Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti), The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained, The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance. Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John, iii, He declares: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means. This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto), In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. We have rendered votum by “desire” for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism, The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (II, xxii): “Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God,infants, children, and youths” (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (III De Anima) says “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.” A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Ep, xxviii, Ad Hieron.) reads:”Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ,” St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:” No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity.” In the Pelagian controversy we find similarly strong pronouncements on the part of the Councils of Carthage and Milevis, and of Pope Innocent I. It is owing to the Church’s belief in this necessity of baptism as a means to salvation that, as was already noted by St. Augustine, she committed the power of baptism in certain contingencies even to laymen and women. When it is said that baptism is also necessary, by the necessity of precept (praecepti), it is of course understood that this applies only to such as are capable of receiving a precept, viz. adults.

The necessity in this case is shown by the command of Christ to His Apostles (Matt., xxviii): “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them,” etc. Since the Apostles are commanded to baptize, the nations are commanded to receive baptism. The necessity of baptism has been called in question by some of the Reformers or their immediate forerunners. It was denied by Wyclif, Bucer, and Zwingli. According to Calvin it is necessary for adults as a precept but not as a means. Hence he contends that the infants of believing parents are sanctified in the womb and thus freed from original sin without baptism. The Socinians teach that baptism is merely an external profession of the Christian faith and a rite which each one is free to receive or neglect. An argument against the absolute necessity of baptism has been sought in the text of Scripture: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” (John 6). Here, they say, is a parallel to the text: “Unless a man be born again of water.” Yet everyone admits that the Eucharist is not necessary as a means but only as a precept. The reply to this is obvious. In the first instance, Christ addresses His words in the second person to adults; in the second, He speaks in the third person and without any distinction whatever. Another favorite text is that of St. Paul (I Cor., vii): “The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband; otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy.” Unfortunately for the strength of this argument, the context shows that the Apostle in this passage is not treating of regenerating or sanctifying grace at all, but answering certain questions proposed to him by the Corinthians concerning the validity of marriages between heathens and believers. The validity of such marriages is proved from the fact that children born of them are legitimate, not spurious. As far as the term “sanctified” is concerned, it can, at most, mean that the believing husband or wife may convert the unbelieving party and thus become an occasion of their sanctification. A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance, and it was done apparently because he believed that the emperor had had the baptism of desire. The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga: “Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without the redemption of baptism.” The arguments for a contrary usage sought in the Second Council of Arles (c. xii) and the Fourth Council of Carthage (c. Ixxix) are not to the point, for these councils speak, not of catechumens, but of penitents who had died suddenly before their expiation was completed. It is true that some Catholic writers (as Cajetan, Durandus, Biel, Gerson, Toletus, Klee) have held that infants may be saved by an act of desire on the part of their parents, which is applied to them by some external sign, such as prayer or the invocation of the Holy Trinity; but Pius V, by expunging this opinion, as expressed by Cajetan, from that author’s commentary on St. Thomas, manifested his judgment that such a theory was not agreeable to the Church’s belief.

The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.

(1) THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The “baptism of the Holy Ghost” is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate.” The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John, iii), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John, xiv): “He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.” And again: “If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.” Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice “except by the washing of regeneration or its desire” (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: “Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it.” St. Augustine (IV, De Bapt., xxii) and St. Bernard (Ep. Ixxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John, iii), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John, xiv) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.

(2) THE BAPTISM OF BLOOD

The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term “washing of blood” (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (De Bapt., xvi) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the “washing of water” (lavacrum aquæ). “We have a second washing,” he says “which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood.” St. Cyprian (Ep. lxxiii) speaks of “the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood” (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XIII, vii) says: “When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism.” The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: “Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven” (v. 32); and: “He that shall lose his life for me shall find it” (v. 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Adv. Valent., ii) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church. Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tr. lxxiv in Joan.): “He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him.” This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults. (Cf. Suarez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)

The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.

In speaking of souls who have failed to attain salvation, these theologians distinguish the pain of loss (paena damni), or privation of the beatific vision, and the pain of sense (paena sensus). Though these theologians have thought it certain that unbaptized infants must endure the pain of loss, they have not been similarly certain that they are subject to the pain of sense. St. Augustine (De Pecc. et Mer., I, xvi) held that they would not be exempt from the pain of sense, but at the same time he thought it would be of the mildest form. On the other hand, St. Gregory Nazianzen (Or. in S. Bapt.) expresses the belief that such infants would suffer only the pain of loss. Sfondrati (Nod. Prædest., I, i) declares that while they are certainly excluded from heaven, yet they are not deprived of natural happiness. This opinion seemed so objectionable to some French bishops that they asked the judgment of the Holy See upon the matter. Pope Innocent XI replied that he would have the opinion examined into by a commission of theologians, but no sentence seems ever to have been passed upon it. Since the twelfth century, the opinion of the majority of theologians has been that unbaptized infants are immune from all pain of sense. This was taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, St. Bonaventure, Peter Lombard, and others, and is now the common teaching in the schools. It accords with the wording of a decree of Pope Innocent III (III Decr., xlii, 3): “The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell.” Infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin.

Other theologians have urged that, under the law of nature and the Mosaic dispensation, children could be saved by the act of their parents and that consequently the same should be even more easy of attainment under the law of grace, because the power of faith has not been diminished but increased. Common objections to this theory include the fact that infants are not said to be deprived of justification in the New Law through any decrease in the power of faith, but because of the promulgation by Christ of the precept of baptism which did not exist before the New Dispensation. Nor would this make the case of infants worse than it was before the Christian Church was instituted. While it works a hardship for some, it has undoubtedly improved the condition of most. Supernatural faith is now much more diffused than it was before the coming of Christ, and more infants are now saved by baptism than were justified formerly by the active faith of their parents. Moreover, baptism can more readily be applied to infants than the rite of circumcision, and by the ancient law this ceremony had to be deferred till the eighth day after birth, while baptism can be bestowed upon infants immediately after they are born, and in case of necessity even in their mother’s womb. Finally it must be borne in mind that unbaptized infants, if deprived of heaven, would not be deprived unjustly. The vision of God is not something to which human beings have a natural claim. It is a free gift of the Creator who can make what conditions He chooses for imparting it or withholding it. No injustice is involved when an undue privilege is not conferred upon a person. Original sin deprived the human race of an unearned right to heaven. Through the Divine mercy this bar to the enjoyment of God is removed by baptism; but if baptism be not conferred, original sin remains, and the unregenerated soul, having no claim on heaven, is not unjustly excluded from it.

As to the question, whether in addition to freedom from the pain of sense, unbaptized infants enjoy any positive happiness in the next world, theologians are not agreed, nor is there any pronouncement of the Church on the subject, Many, following St. Thomas (De Malo, Q. v, a. 3), declare that these infants are not saddened by the loss of the beatific vision, either because they have no knowledge of it, and hence are not sensible of their privation; or because, knowing it their will is entirely conformed to God’s will and they are conscious that they have missed an undue privilege through no fault of their own. In addition to this freedom from regret at the loss of heaven, these infants may also enjoy some positive happiness. St. Thomas (In II Sent., dist. XXXIII, Q. ii, a. 5) says: “Although unbaptized infants are separated from God as far as glory is concerned, yet they are not separated from Him entirely. Rather are they joined to Him by a participation of natural goods; and so they may even rejoice in Him by natural consideration and love,” Again (a. 2) he says: “They will rejoice in this, that they will share largely in the divine goodness and in natural perfections.” While the opinion, then, that unbaptized infants may enjoy a natural knowledge and love of God and rejoice in it, is perfectly tenable, it has not the certainty that would arise from a unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church, or from a favorable pronouncement of ecclesiastical authority.

[Editor’s note: On this subject, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”]

We may add here some brief remarks on the discipline of the Church in regard to unbaptized persons. As baptism is the door of the Church, the unbaptized are entirely without its pale. As a consequence:

Such persons, by the ordinary law of the Church, may not receive Catholic funeral rites. The reason of this regulation is given by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III, XXVIII, xii): “It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive.” According to Canon Law (CIC 1183), however, catechumens “are to be considered members of the Christian faithful” as regard funeral rites. The Plenary Council of Baltimore also decrees (No. 389) that the custom of burying the unbaptized relatives of Catholics in the family sepulchers may be tolerated. [Editor’s note: The 1983 Code of Canon Law excepts an unbaptized child of Catholic parents, if the parents had intended to have him baptized.]

A Catholic may not marry an unbaptized person without dispensation, under pain of nullity. This impediment, as far as illiceity is concerned, is derived from the natural law, because in such unions the Catholic party and the offspring of the marriage would, in most cases, be exposed to the loss of faith. The invalidity of such marriage, however, is a consequence only of positive law. For, in the beginning of Christianity, unions between the baptized and unbaptized were frequent, and they were certainly held valid. When, then, circumstances arise where the danger of perversion for the Catholic party is removed, the Church dispenses in her law of prohibition, but always requires guarantees from the non-Catholic party that there will be no interference with the spiritual rights of the partner of the union. (See IMPEDIMENTS OF MATRIMONY.)

In general, we may state that the Church claims no authority over unbaptized persons, as they are entirely without her pale. She makes laws concerning them only in so far as they hold relations with the subjects of the Church.

This sacrament is the door of the Church of Christ and the entrance into a new life. We are reborn from the state of slaves of sin into the freedom of the Sons of God. Baptism incorporates us with Christ’s mystical body and makes us partakers of all the privileges flowing from the redemptive act of the Church’s Divine Founder. We shall now outline the principal effects of baptism.

(1) THE REMISSION OF ALL SIN, ORIGINAL AND ACTUAL

This is clearly contained in the Bible. Thus we read (Acts 2:38): “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.” We read also in the twenty-second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles (v. 16): “Be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” St. Paul in the fifth chapter of his Epistle to the Ephesians beautifully represents the whole Church as being baptized and purified (v. 25 sq.): “Christ loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of water in the word of life: that he might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” The prophecy of Ezechiel (xxxvi, 25) has also been understood of baptism: “I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness (inquinamentis), where the prophet is unquestionably speaking of moral defilements. This is also the solemn teaching of the Church. In the profession of faith prescribed by Pope Innocent III for the Waldensians in 1210, we read: We believe that all sins are remitted in baptism, both original sin and those sins which have been voluntarily committed.” The Council of Trent (Sess. V., can. v) anathematizes whomsoever denies that the grace of Christ which is conferred in baptism does not remit the guilt of original sin; or asserts that everything which can truly and properly be called sin is not thereby taken away. The same is taught by the Fathers. St. Justin Martyr (Apol., I, Ixvi) declares that in baptism we are created anew, that is, consequently, free from all stain of sin. St. Ambrose (De Myst., iii) says of baptism: “This is the water in which the flesh is submerged that all carnal sin may be washed away. Every transgression is there buried.” Tertullian (De Bapt., vii) writes: “Baptism is a carnal act in as much as we are submerged in the water; but the effect is spiritual, for we are freed from our sins.” The words of Origen (In Gen., xiii) are classic: “If you transgress, you write unto yourself the handwriting [chirographum] of sin. But, behold, when you have once approached to the cross of Christ and to the grace of baptism, your handwriting is affixed to the cross and blotted out in the font of baptism.” It is needless to multiply testimonies from the early ages of the Church. It is a point on which the Fathers are unanimous, and telling quotations might also be made from St. Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, St. Hilary, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and others.

(2) REMISSION OF TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT

Baptism not only washes away sin, it also remits the punishment of sin. This was the plain teaching of the primitive Church. We read in Clement of Alexandria (Pædagog., i) of baptism: “It is called a washing because we are washed from our sins: it is called grace, because by it the punishments which are due to sin are remitted.” St. Jerome (Ep. Ixix) writes: “After the pardon (indulgentiam) of baptism, the severity of the Judge is not to be feared.” And St. Augustine (De Pecc. et Mer., II, xxviii) says plainly: “If immediately [after baptism] there follows the departure from this life, there will be absolutely nothing that a man must answer for [quod obnoxium hominem teneat], for he will have been freed from everything that bound him.” In perfect accord with the early doctrine, the Florentine decree states: “No satisfaction is to be enjoined upon the baptized for past sins; and if they die before any sin, they will immediately attain to the kingdom of heaven and to the vision of God.” In like manner the Council of Trent (Sess. V) teaches: “There is no cause of damnation in those who have been truly buried with Christ by baptism . . . Nothing whatever will delay their entrance into heaven.”

(3) INFUSION OF SUPERNATURAL GRACE, GIFTS, AND VIRTUES

Another effect of baptism is the infusion of sanctifying grace and supernatural gifts and virtues. It is this sanctifying grace which renders men the adopted sons of God and confers the right to heavenly glory. The doctrine on this subject is found in the seventh chapter on justification in the sixth session of the Council of Trent. Many of the Fathers of the Church also enlarge upon this subject (as St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, and others), though not in the technical language of later ecclesiastical decrees.

(4) CONFERRAL OF THE RIGHT TO SPECIAL GRACES

Theologians likewise teach that baptism gives man the right to those special graces which are necessary for attaining the end for which the sacrament was instituted and for enabling him to fulfill the baptismal promises. This doctrine of the schools, which claims for every sacrament those graces which are peculiar and diverse according to the end and object of the sacrament, was already enunciated by Tertullian (De Resurrect., viii). It is treated and developed by St. Thomas Aquinas (III:62:2). Pope Eugene IV repeats this doctrine in the decree for the Armenians. In treating of the grace bestowed by baptism, we presume that the recipient of the sacrament puts no obstacle (obex) in the way of sacramental grace. In an infant, of course, this would be impossible, and as a consequence, the infant receives at once all the baptismal grace. It is otherwise in the case of an adult, for in such a one it is necessary that the requisite dispositions of the soul be present. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, c. vii) states that each one receives grace according to his disposition and co-operation. We are not to confound an obstacle (obex) to the sacrament itself with an obstacle to the sacramental grace. In the first case, there is implied a defect in the matter or form, or a lack of the requisite intention on the part of minister or recipient, and then the sacrament would be simply null. But even if all these essential requisites for constituting the sacrament be present, there can still be an obstacle put in the way of the sacramental grace, inasmuch as an adult might receive baptism with improper motives or without real detestation for sin. In that case the person would indeed be validly baptized, but he would not participate in the sacramental grace. If, however, at a later time he made amends for the past, the obstacle would be removed and he would obtain the grace which he had failed to receive when the sacrament was conferred upon him. In such a case the sacrament is said to revive and there could be no question of rebaptism.

(5) IMPRESSION OF A CHARACTER ON THE SOUL

Finally, baptism, once validly conferred, can never be repeated. The Fathers (St. Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others) so understand the words of St. Paul (Heb., vi, 4), and this has been the constant teaching of the Church both Eastern and Western from the earliest times. On this account, baptism is said to impress an ineffaceable character on the soul, which the Tridentine Fathers call a spiritual and indelible mark. That baptism (as well as Confirmation and Holy orders) really does imprint such a character, is defined explicitly by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. ix). St. Cyril (Præp. in Cat.) calls baptism a “holy and indelible seal,” and Clement of Alexandria (De Div. Serv., xlii), “the seal of the Lord.” St. Augustine compares this character or mark imprinted upon the Christian soul with the character militaris impressed upon soldiers in the imperial service. St. Thomas treats of the nature of this indelible seal, or character, in the Summa (III:63:2).

The early leaders of the so-called Reformation held very different doctrines from those of Christian antiquity on the effects of baptism. Luther (De Captiv. Bab.) and Calvin (Antid. C. Trid.) held that this sacrament made the baptized certain of the perpetual grace of adoption. Others declared that the calling to mind of one’s baptism would free him from sins committed after it; others again, that transgressions of the Divine law, although sins in themselves, would not be imputed as sins to the baptized person provided he had faith. The decrees of the Council of Trent, drawn up in opposition to the then prevailing errors, bear witness to the many strange and novel theories broached by various exponents of the nascent Protestant theology.

The Church distinguishes between the ordinary and the extraordinary minister of baptism. A distinction is also made as to the mode of administration. Solemn baptism is that which is conferred with all the rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Church, and private baptism is that which may be administered at any time or place according to the exigencies of necessity. At one time solemn and public baptism was conferred in the Latin Church only during the paschal season and Whitsuntide. The Orientals administered it likewise at the Epiphany.

(1) ORDINARY MINISTER

The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is first the bishop and second the priest. By delegation, a deacon may confer the sacrament solemnly as an extraordinary minister. Bishops are said to be ordinary ministers because they are the successors of the Apostles who received directly the Divine command: “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Priests are also ordinary ministers because by their office and sacred orders they are pastors of souls and administrators of the sacraments, and hence the Florentine decree declares: “The minister of this Sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to administer baptism by reason of his office.” As, however, bishops are superior to priests by the Divine law, the solemn administration of this sacrament was at one time reserved to the bishops, and a priest never administered this sacrament in the presence of a bishop unless commanded to do so, How ancient this discipline was, may be seen from Tertullian (De Bapt., xvii): “The right to confer baptism belongs to the chief priest who is the bishop, then to priests and deacons, but not without the authorization of the bishop.” Ignatius (Ep. ad Smyr., viii): “It is not lawful to baptize or celebrate the agape without the bishop.” St. Jerome (Contra Lucif., ix) witnesses to the same usage in his days: “Without chrism and the command of the bishop, neither priest nor deacon has the right of conferring baptism.” Deacons are only extraordinary ministers of solemn baptism, as by their office they are assistants to the priestly order. St. Isidore of Seville (De Eccl, Off., ii, 25) says: “It is plain that baptism is to be conferred by priests only, and it is not lawful even for deacons to administer it without permission of the bishop or priest.” That deacons were, however, ministers of this sacrament by delegation is evident from the quotations adduced. In the service of ordination of a deacon, the bishop says to the candidate: “It behooves a deacon to minister at the altar, to baptize and to preach.” Philip the deacon is mentioned in the Bible (Acts, viii) as conferring baptism, presumably by delegation of the Apostles. It is to be noted that though every priest, in virtue of his ordination is the ordinary minister of baptism, yet by ecclesiastical decrees he can not use this power licitly unless he has jurisdiction. Hence the Roman Ritual declares: The legitimate minister of baptism is the parish priest, or any other priest delegated by the parish priest or the bishop of the place.” The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore adds: “Priests are deserving of grave reprehension who rashly baptize infants of another parish or of another diocese.” St. Alphonsus (n. 114) says that parents who bring their children for baptism without necessity to a priest other than their own pastor, are guilty of sin because they violate the rights of the parish priest. He adds, however, that other priests may baptize such children, if they have the permission, whether express, or tacit, or even reasonably presumed, of the proper pastor. Those who have no settled place of abode may be baptized by the pastor of any church they choose.

(2) EXTRAORDINARY MINISTER

In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infidel or Jew. The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Moreover, he must thereby intend really to baptize the person, or technically, he must intend to perform what the Church performs when administering this sacrament. The Roman Ritual adds that, even in conferring baptism in cases of necessity, there is an order of preference to be followed as to the minister. This order is: if a priest be present, he is to be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, and a man to a woman, unless modesty should require (as in cases of childbirth) that no other than the female be the minister, or again, unless the female should understand better the method of baptizing. The Ritual also says that the father or mother should not baptize their own child, except in danger of death when no one else is at hand who could administer the sacrament. Pastors are also directed by the Ritual to teach the faithful, and especially midwives, the proper method of baptizing. When such private baptism is administered, the other ceremonies of the rite are supplied later by a priest, if the recipient of the sacrament survives.

This right of any person whatsoever to baptize in case of necessity is in accord with the constant tradition and practice of the Church. Tertullian (De Bapt., vii) says, speaking of laymen who have an opportunity to administer baptism: “He will be guilty of the loss of a soul, if he neglects to confer what he freely can,” St. Jerome (Adv. Lucif., ix): “In case of necessity, we know that it is also allowable for a layman [to baptize]; for as a person receives, so may he give,” The Fourth Council of the Lateran (cap. Firmiter) decrees: “The Sacrament of Baptism . . . no matter by whom conferred is available to salvation, “ St. Isidore of Seville (can. Romanus de cons., iv) declares: “The Spirit of God administers the grace of baptism, although it be a pagan who does the baptizing,” Pope Nicholas I teaches the Bulgarians (Resp, 104) that baptism by a Jew or a pagan is valid. Owing to the fact that women are barred from enjoying any species of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the question necessarily arose concerning their ability to bestow valid baptism, Tertullian (De Bapt., xvii) strongly opposes the administration of this sacrament by women, but he does not declare it void. In like manner, St. Epiphanius (Hær., lxxix) says of females: “Not even the power of baptizing has been granted to them,” but he is speaking of solemn baptism, which is a function of the priesthood. Similar expressions may be found in the writings of other Fathers, but only when they are opposing the grotesque doctrine of some heretics, like the Marcionites, Pepuzians, and Cataphrygians, who wished to make Christian priestesses of women. The authoritative decision of the Church, however, is plain. Pope Urban II (c. Super quibus, xxx, 4) writes, “It is true baptism if a woman in case of necessity baptizes a child in the name of the Trinity.” The Florentine decree for the Armenians says explicitly: “In case of necessity, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay even a pagan or heretic may confer baptism.” The main reason for this extension of power as to the administration of baptism is of course that the Church has understood from the beginning that this was the will of Christ. St. Thomas (III:62:3) says that owing to the absolute necessity of baptism for the salvation of souls, it is in accordance with the mercy of God, who wishes all to be saved, that the means of obtaining this sacrament should be put, as far as possible, within the reach of all; and as for that reason the matter of the sacrament was made of common water, which can most easily be had, so in like manner it was only proper that every man should be made its minister. Finally, it is to be noted that, by the law of the Church, the person administering baptism, even in cases of necessity, contracts a spiritual relationship with the child and its parents. This relationship constitutes an impediment that would make a subsequent marriage with any of them null and void unless a dispensation were obtained beforehand. See AFFINITY.

Every living human being, not yet baptized, is the subject of this sacrament.

(1) BAPTISM OF ADULTS

As regards adults there is no difficulty or controversy. Christ’s command excepts no one when He bids the Apostles teach all nations and baptize them.

(2) BAPTISM OF INFANTS

Infant baptism has, however, been the subject of much dispute. The Waldenses and Cathari and later the Anabaptists, rejected the doctrine that infants are capable of receiving valid baptism, and some sectarians at the present day hold the same opinion. The Catholic Church, however, maintains absolutely that the law of Christ applies as well to infants as to adults. When the Redeemer declares (John 3) that it is necessary to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost in order to enter the Kingdom of God, His words may be justly understood to mean that He includes all who are capable of having a right to this kingdom. Now, He has asserted such a right even for those who are not adults, when He says (Matthew 19:14): “Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.” It has been objected that this latter text does not refer to infants, inasmuch as Christ says “to come to me.” In the parallel passage in St. Luke (18:15), however, the text reads: “And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them”; and then follow the words cited from St. Matthew. In the Greek text, the words brephe and prosepheron refer to infants in arms. Moreover, St. Paul (Colossians 2) says that baptism in the New Law has taken the place of circumcision in the Old. It was especially to infants that the rite of circumcision was applied by Divine precept. If it be said that there is no example of the baptism of infants to be found in the Bible, we may answer that infants are included in such phrases as: “She was baptized and her household” (Acts 16:15); “Himself was baptized, and all his house immediately” (Acts 16:33); “I baptized the household of Stephanus” (I Corinthians 1:16).

The tradition of Christian antiquity as to the necessity of infant baptism is clear from the very beginning. We have given many striking quotations on this subject already, in dealing with the necessity of baptism. A few, therefore, will suffice here. Origen (in cap. vi, Ep. ad Rom.) declares: “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants.” St. Augustine (Serm. xi, De Verb Apost.) says of infant baptism: “This the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perseveringly guards even to the end.” St. Cyprian (Ep. ad Fidum) writes: “From baptism and from grace . . . must not be kept the infant who, because recently born, has committed no sin, except, inasmuch as it was born carnally from Adam, it has contracted the contagion of the ancient death in its first nativity; and it comes to receive the remission of sins more easily on this very account that not its own, but another’s sins are forgiven it.” St.Cyprian’s letter to Fidus declares that the Council of Carthage in 253 reprobated the opinion that the baptism of infants should be delayed until the eighth day after birth. The Council of Milevis in 416 anathematizes whosoever says that infants lately born are not to be baptized. The Council of Trent solemnly defines the doctrine of infant baptism (Sess. VII, can. xiii). It also condemns (can. xiv) the opinion of Erasmus that those who had been baptized in infancy, should be left free to ratify or reject the baptismal promises after they had become adult. Theologians also call attention to the fact that as God sincerely wishes all men to be saved, He does not exclude infants, for whom baptism of either water or blood is the only means possible. The doctrines also of the universality of original sin and of the all-comprehending atonement of Christ are stated so plainly and absolutely in Scripture as to leave no solid reason for denying that infants are included as well as adults.

To the objection that baptism requires faith, theologians reply that adults must have faith, but infants receive habitual faith, which is infused into them in the sacrament of regeneration. As to actual faith, they believe on the faith of another; as St. Augustine (De Verb. Apost., xiv, xviii) beautifully says: “He believes by another, who has sinned by another.” As to the obligation imposed by baptism, the infant is obliged to fulfill them in proportion to its age and capacity, as is the case with all laws. Christ, it is true, prescribed instruction and actual faith for adults as necessary for baptism (Matt., xxviii; Mark, xvi), but in His general law on the necessity of the sacrament (John, iii) He makes absolutely no restriction as to the subject of baptism; and consequently while infants are included in the law, they can not be required to fulfill conditions that are utterly impossible at their age. While not denying the validity of infant baptism, Tertullian (De Bapt., xviii) desired that the sacrament be not conferred upon them until they have attained the use of reason, on account of the danger of profaning their baptism as youths amid the allurements of pagan vice. In like manner, St. Gregory Nazianzen (Or. xl, De Bapt.) thought that baptism, unless there was danger of death, should be deferred until the child was three years old, for then it could hear and respond at the ceremonies. Such opinions, however, were shared by few, and they contain no denial of the validity of infant baptism. It is true that the Council of Neocæsarea (can. vi) declares that an infant can not be baptized in its mother’s womb, but it was teaching only that neither the baptism of the mother nor her faith is common to her and the infant in her womb, but are acts peculiar to the mother alone.

(3) BAPTISM OF UNBORN INFANTS

This leads to the baptism of infants in cases of difficult delivery. When the Roman Ritual declares that a child is not to be baptized while still enclosed (clausus) in its mother’s womb, it supposes that the baptismal water can not reach the body of the child. When, however, this seems possible, even with the aid of an instrument, Benedict XIV (Syn. Diaec., vii, 5) declares that midwives should be instructed to confer conditional baptism. The Ritual further says that when the water can flow upon the head of the infant the sacrament is to be administered absolutely; but if it can be poured only on some other part of the body, baptism is indeed to be conferred, but it must be conditionally repeated in case the child survives its birth, It is to be noted that in these last two cases, the rubric of the Ritual supposes that the infant has partly emerged from the womb. For if the fetus was entirely enclosed, baptism is to be repeated conditionally in all cases (Lehmkuhl, n, 61). In case of the death of the mother, the fetus is to be immediately extracted and baptized, should there be any life in it. Infants have been taken alive from the womb well after the mother’s death. After the Cæsarean incision has been performed, the fetus may be conditionally baptized before extraction if possible; if the sacrament is administered after its removal from the womb the baptism is to be absolute, provided it is certain that life remains. If after extraction it is doubtful whether it be still alive, it is to be baptized under the condition: “If thou art alive.” Physicians, mothers, and midwives ought to be reminded of the grave obligation of administering baptism under these circumstances, It is to be borne in mind that according to the prevailing opinion among the learned, the fetus is animated by a human soul from the very beginning of its conception. In cases of delivery where the issue is a mass that is not certainly animated by human life, it is to be baptized conditionally: “If thou art a man.”

(4) BAPTISM OF INSANE PERSONS

The perpetually insane, who have never had the use of reason, are in the same category as infants in what relates to the conferring of baptism, and consequently the sacrament is valid if administered.

If at one time they had been sane, baptism bestowed upon them during their insanity would be probably invalid unless they had shown a desire for it before losing their reason. Moralists teach that, in practice, this latter class may always be baptized conditionally, when it is uncertain whether or not they had ever asked for baptism (Sabetti, no. 661). In this connection it is to be remarked that, according to many writers, anyone who has a wish to receive all things necessary to salvation, has at the same time an implicit desire for baptism, and that a more specific desire is not absolutely necessary.

(5) FOUNDLINGS

Foundlings are to be baptized conditionally, if there is no means of finding out whether they have been validly baptized or not. If a note has been left with a foundling stating that it had already received baptism, the more common opinion is that it should nevertheless be given conditional baptism, unless circumstances should make it plain that baptism had undoubtedly been conferred. O’Kane (no. 214) says that the same rule is to be followed when midwives or other lay persons have baptized infants in case of necessity.

(6) BAPTISM OF THE CHILDREN OF JEWISH AND INFIDEL PARENTS

The question is also discussed as to whether the infant children of Jews or infidels may be baptized against the will of their parents. To the general query, the answer is a decided negative, because such a baptism would violate the natural rights of parents, and the infant would later be exposed to the danger of perversion. We say this, of course, only in regard to the liceity of such a baptism, for if it were actually administered it would undoubtedly be valid. St. Thomas (III:68:10) is very express in denying the lawfulness of imparting such baptism, and this has been the constant judgment of the Holy See, as is evident from various decrees of the Sacred Congregations and of Pope Benedict XIV (II Bullarii). We say the answer is negative to the general question, because particular circumstances may require a different response. For it would undoubtedly be licit to impart such baptism if the children were in proximate danger of death; or if they had been removed from the parental care and there was no likelihood of their returning to it; or if they were perpetually insane; or if one of the parents were to consent to the baptism; or finally, if, after the death of the father, the paternal grandfather would be willing, even though the mother objected. If the children were, however, not infants, but had the use of reason and were sufficiently instructed, they should be baptized when prudence dictated such a course.

In the celebrated case of the Jewish child, Edgar Mortara, Pius IX indeed ordered that he should be brought up as a Catholic, even against the will of his parents, but baptism had already been administered to him some years before when in danger of death.

(7) BAPTISM OF THE CHILDREN OF PROTESTANT PARENTS

It is not licit to baptize children against the will of their Protestant parents; for their baptism would violate parental right, expose them to the danger of perversion, and be contrary to the practice of the Church. Kenrick also strongly condemns nurses who baptize the children of Protestants unless they are in danger of death.

(8) BAPTISM WITH THE CONSENT OF NON-CATHOLIC PARENTS

Should a priest baptize the child of non-Catholic parents if they themselves desire it? He certainly can do so if there is reason to hope that the child will be brought up a Catholic (Conc. Prov, Balt., I, decr, x). An even greater security for the Catholic education of such child would be the promise of one or both parents that they themselves will embrace the Faith.

(9) BAPTISM OF THE DEAD

Concerning baptism for the dead, a curious and difficult passage in St. Paul’s Epistle has given rise to some controversy. The Apostle says: “Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized for them?” (I Cor., xv, 29), There seems to be no question here of any such absurd custom as conferring baptism on corpses, as was practiced later by some heretical sects. It has been conjectured that this otherwise unknown usage of the Corinthians consisted in some living person receiving a symbolic baptism as representing another who had died with the desire of becoming a Christian, but had been prevented from realizing his wish for baptism by an unforeseen death. Those who give this explanation say that St. Paul merely refers to this custom of the Corinthians as an argumentum ad hominem, when discussing the resurrection of the dead, without approving the usage mentioned,

Archbishop MacEvilly in his exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, holds a different opinion. He paraphrases St. Paul’s text as follows: “Another argument in favor of the resurrection. If the dead will not arise, what means the profession of faith in the resurrection of the dead, made at baptism? Why are we all baptized with a profession of our faith in their resurrection?” The archbishop comments, as follows: “It is almost impossible to glean anything like certainty as to the meaning of these very abstruse words, from the host of interpretations that have been hazarded regarding them (see Calmet’s Dissertation on the matter). In the first place, every interpretation referring the words ‘baptized,’ or ‘dead’ to either erroneous or evil practices, which men might have employed to express their belief in the doctrine of the resurrection, should be rejected; as it appears by no means likely that the Apostle would ground an argument, even though it were what the logicians call an argumentum ad hominem, on either a vicious or erroneous practice. Besides, such a system of reasoning would be quite inconclusive. Hence, the words should not be referred to either the Clinics, baptized at the hour of death, or to the vicarious baptisms in use among the Jews, for their departed friends who departed without baptism. The interpretation adopted in the paraphrase makes the words refer to the Sacrament of Baptism, which all were obliged to approach with faith in the resurrection of the dead as a necessary condition. Credo in resurrectionem mortuorum. This interpretation—the one adopted by St. Chrysostom—has the advantage of giving the words ‘baptized’ and ‘dead’ their literal signification. The only inconvenience in it is that the word resurrection is introduced. But, it is understood from the entire context, and is warranted by a reference to other passages of Scripture. For, from the Epistle of the Hebrews (vi, 2) it appears that a knowledge of the faith of the resurrection was one of the elementary points of instruction required for adult baptism; and hence the Scriptures themselves furnish the ground for the introduction of the word. There is another probable interpretation, which understands the words ‘baptism’ and ‘dead’ in a metaphorical sense, and refers them to the sufferings which the Apostles and heralds of salvation underwent to preach the Gospel to the infidels, dead to grace and spiritual life, with the hope of making them sharers in the glory of a happy resurrection. The word ‘baptism’ is employed in this sense in Scripture, even by our divine Redeemer Himself—‘I have a baptism wherewith to be baptized,’ etc. And the word ‘dead’ is employed in several parts of the New Testament to designate those spiritually dead to grace and justice. In the Greek, the words ‘for the dead,’ uper ton nekron that is, on account of or, in behalf of the dead, would serve to confirm, in some degree, this latter interpretation. These appear to be the most probable of the interpretations of this passage; each, no doubt, has its difficulties. The meaning of the words was known to the Corinthians at the time of the Apostle. All that can be known of their meaning at this remote period, can not exceed the bounds of probable conjecture” (loc. cit., chap. xv; cf. also Cornely in Ep. I Cor.).

(1) BAPTISTERY

According to the canons of the Church, baptism except in case of necessity is to be administered in churches (Conc. Prov. Balt., I, Decree 16). The Roman Ritual says: “Churches in which there is a baptismal font, or where there is a baptistery close to the church.” The term “baptistery” is commonly used for the space set aside for the conferring of baptism. In like manner the Greeks use photisterion for the same purpose—a word derived from St. Paul’s designation of baptism as an “illumination.” The words of the Ritual just cited, however, mean by “baptistery,” a separate building constructed for the purpose of administering baptism. Such buildings have been erected both in the East and West, as at Tyre, Padua, Pisa, Florence, and other places. In such baptisteries, besides the font, altars were also built; and here the baptism was conferred. As a rule, however, the church itself contains a railed-off space containing the baptismal font. Anciently fonts were attached only to cathedral churches, but at the present day nearly every parish church has a font. This is the sense of the Baltimore decree above cited. The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore declared, however, that if missionaries judge that the great difficulty of bringing an infant to church is a sufficient reason for baptizing in a private house, then they are to administer the sacrament with all the prescribed rites. The ordinary law of the Church is that when private baptism is conferred, the remaining ceremonies are to be supplied not in the house but in the church itself. The Ritual also directs that the font be of solid material, so that the baptismal water may be safely kept in it. A railing is to surround the font, and a representation of St. John baptizing Christ should adorn it. The cover of the font usually contains the holy oils used in baptism, and this cover must be under lock and key, according to the Ritual.

(2) BAPTISMAL WATER

In speaking of the matter of baptism, we stated that true, natural water is all that is required for its validity. In administering solemn baptism, however the Church prescribes that the water used should have been consecrated on Holy Saturday or on the eve of Pentecost. For the liceity (not validity) of the sacrament, therefore, the priest is obliged to use consecrated water. This custom is so ancient that we can not discover its origin. It is found in the most ancient liturgies of the Latin and Greek Churches and is mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, 43). The ceremony of its consecration is striking and symbolic. After signing the water with the cross, the priest divides it with his hand and casts it to the four corners of the earth. This signifies the baptizing of all the nations. Then he breathes upon the water and immerses the paschal candle in it.

Next he pours into the water, first the oil of catechumens and then the sacred chrism, and lastly both holy oils together, pronouncing appropriate prayers. But what if during the year, the supply of consecrated water should be insufficient? In that case, the Ritual declares that the priest may add common water to what remains, but only in less quantity. If the consecrated water appears putrid, the priest must examine whether or not it is really so, for the appearance may be caused only by the admixture of the sacred oils. If it has really become putrid, the font is to be renovated and fresh water to be blessed by a form given in the Ritual. In the United States, the Holy See has sanctioned a short formula for the consecration of baptismal water (Conc. Plen. Balt., II).

(3) HOLY OILS

In baptism, the priest uses the oil of catechumens, which is olive oil, and chrism, the latter being a mixture of balsam and oil. The oils are consecrated by the bishop on Maundy Thursday. The anointing in baptism is recorded by St. Justin, St. John Chrysostom, and other ancient Fathers. Pope Innocent I declares that the chrism is to be applied to the crown of the head, not to the forehead, for the latter is reserved to bishops. The same may be found in the Sacramentaries of St. Gregory and St. Gelasius (Martene, I, i). In the Greek Rite the oil of catechumens is blessed by the priest during the baptismal ceremony.

(4) SPONSORS

When infants are solemnly baptized, persons assist at the ceremony to make profession of the faith in the child’s name. This practice comes from antiquity and is witnessed to by Tertullian, St. Basil, St. Augustine, and others. Such persons are designated sponsores, offerentes, susceptores, fidejussores, and patrini. The English term is godfather and godmother, or in Anglo-Saxon, gossip. These sponsors, in default of the child’s parents, are obliged to instruct it concerning faith and morals. One sponsor is sufficient and not more than two are allowed. In the latter case, one should be male and the other female. The object of these restrictions is the fact that the sponsor contracts a spiritual relationship to the child and its parents which would be an impediment to marriage. Sponsors must themselves be baptized persons having the use of reason and they must have been designated as sponsors by the priest or parents. During the baptism they must physically touch the child either personally or by proxy. They are required, moreover, to have the intention of really assuming the obligations of godparents. It is desirable that they should have been confirmed, but this is not absolutely necessary. Certain persons are prohibited from acting as sponsors. They are: members of religious orders, married persons in respect to each other, or parents to their children, and in general those who are objectionable on such grounds as infidelity, heresy, excommunication, or who are members of condemned secret societies, or public sinners (Sabetti, no. 663). Sponsors are also used in the solemn baptism of adults. They are never necessary in private baptism.

(5) BAPTISMAL NAME

From the earliest times names were given in baptism. The priest is directed to see that obscene, fabulous, and ridiculous names, or those of heathen gods or of infidel men be not imposed. On the contrary the priest is to recommend the names of saints. This rubric is not a rigorous precept, but it is an instruction to the priest to do what he can in the matter. If parents are unreasonably obstinate, the priest may add a saint’s name to the one insisted upon.

(6) BAPTISMAL ROBE

In the primitive Church, a white robe was worn by the newly baptized for a certain period after the ceremony (St. Ambrose, De Myst., c. vii). As solemn baptisms usually took place on the eves of Easter or Pentecost, the white garments became associated with those festivals. Thus, Sabbatum in Albis and Dominica in Albis received their names from the custom of putting off at that time the baptismal robe which had been worn since the previous vigil of Easter. It is thought that the English name for Pentecost—Whitsunday or Whitsuntide, also derived its appellation from the white garments of the newly baptized. In our present ritual, a white veil is placed momentarily on the head of the catechumen as a substitute for the baptismal robe.

The rites that accompany the baptismal ablution are as ancient as they are beautiful. The writings of the early Fathers and the antique liturgies show that most of them are derived from Apostolic times. The infant is brought to the door of the church by the sponsors, where it is met by the priest. After the godparents have asked faith from the Church of God in the child’s name, the priest breathes upon its face and exorcises the evil spirit. St. Augustine (Ep. cxciv, Ad Sixtum) makes use of this Apostolic practice of exorcising to prove the existence of original sin. Then the infant’s forehead and breast are signed with the cross, the symbol of redemption. Next follows the imposition of hands, a custom certainly as old as the Apostles. Some blessed salt is now placed in the mouth of the child. “When salt,” says the Catechism of the Council of Trent “is put into the mouth of person to be baptized, it evidently imports that, by the doctrine of faith and the gift of grace, he should be delivered from the corruption of sin, experience a relish for good works, and be delighted with the food of divine wisdom.” Placing his stole over the child the priest introduces it into the church, and on the way to the font the sponsors make a profession of faith for the infant. The priest now touches the ears and nostrils of the child with spittle. The symbolic meaning is thus explained (Cat. C. Trid.) “His nostrils and ears are next touched with spittle and he is immediately sent to the baptismal font, that, as sight was restored to the blind man mentioned in the Gospel, whom the Lord, after having spread clay over his eyes, commanded to wash them in the waters of Siloe; so also he may understand that the efficacy of the sacred ablution is such as to bring light to the mind to discern heavenly truth.” The catechumen now makes the triple renunciation of Satan, his works and his pomps, and he is anointed with the oil of catechumens on the breast and between the shoulders: “On the breast, that by the gift of the Holy Ghost, he may cast off error and ignorance and may receive the true faith, ‘for the just man liveth by faith’ (Galatians 3:11); on the shoulders, that by the grace of the holy spirit, he may shake off negligence and torpor and engage in the performance of good works; ‘faith without works is dead’ (James 2:26),” says the Catechism.

The infant now, through its sponsors, makes a declaration of faith and asks for baptism. The priest, having meantime changed his violet stole for a white one, then administers the threefold ablution, making the sign of the cross three times with the stream of water he pours on the head of the child, saying at the same time: “N___, I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” The sponsors during the ablution either hold the child or at least touch it. If the baptism be given by immersion, the priest dips the back part of the head three times into the water in the form of a cross, pronouncing the sacramental words. The crown of the child’s head is now anointed with chrism, “to give him to understand that from that day he is united as a member to Christ, his head, and engrafted on His body; and therefore he is called a Christian from Christ, but Christ from chrism” (Catech.). A white veil is now put on the infant’s head with the words: “Receive this white garment, which mayest thou carry without stain before the judgment seat of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that thou mayest have eternal life. Amen.” Then a lighted candle is placed in the catechumen’s hand, the priest saying: “Receive this burning light, and keep thy baptism so as to be without blame. Observe the commandments of God; that, when Our Lord shall come to His nuptials, thou mayest meet Him together with all the Saints and mayest have life everlasting, and live for ever and ever. Amen.” The new Christian is then bidden to go in peace.

In the baptism of adults, all the essential ceremonies are the same as for infants. There are, however, some impressive additions. The priest wears the cope over his other vestments, and he should be attended by a number of clerics or at least by two. While the catechumen waits outside the church door, the priest recites some prayers at the altar. Then he proceeds to the place where the candidate is, and asks him the questions and performs the exorcisms almost as prescribed in the ritual for infants. Before administering the blessed salt, however, he requires the catechumen to make an explicit renunciation of the form of error to which he had formerly adhered, and he is then signed with the cross on the brow, ears, eyes, nostrils, mouth, breast, and between the shoulders. Afterwards, the candidate, on bended knees, recites three several times the Lord’s Prayer, and a cross is made on his forehead, first by the godfather and then by the priest. After this, taking him by the hand, the priest leads him into the church, where he adores prostrate and then rising he recites the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. The other ceremonies are practically the same as for infants. It is to be noted that owing to the difficulty of carrying out with proper splendor the ritual for baptizing adults, the bishops of the United States obtained permission from the Holy See to make use of the ceremonial of infant baptism instead. This general dispensation lasted until 1857, when the ordinary law of the Church went into force. (See COUNCILS OF BALTIMORE.) Some American dioceses, however, obtained individual permissions to continue the use of the ritual for infants when administering adult baptism.

The name “baptism” is sometimes applied improperly to other ceremonies.

(1) BAPTISM OF BELLS

This name has been given to the blessing of bells, at least in France, since the eleventh century. It is derived from the washing of the bell with holy water by the bishop, before he anoints it with the oil of the infirm without and with chrism within. A fuming censer is then placed under it. The bishop prays that these sacramentals of the Church may, at the sound of the bell, put the demons to flight, protect from storms, and call the faithful to prayer.

(2) BAPTISM OF SHIPS

At least since the time of the Crusades, rituals have contained a blessing for ships. The priest begs God to bless the vessel and protect those who sail in it, as He did the ark of Noah, and Peter, when the Apostle was sinking in the sea. The ship is then sprinkled with holy water.

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Baptismal Font

A basin or vase, serving as a receptacle for baptismal water in which the candidate for baptism is immersed, or over which he is washed, in the ceremony of Christian initiation. In the Church’s present practice it is ordinarily a decorative stone basin, though metal or wood are used; supported on a pedestal or columns at a convenient height for receiving the water which is poured over the head of the person baptized, a form which marks the term of a development graphically illustrating the history of the mode of conferring baptism.

ARCHAEOLOGY

In the Apostolic Age, as in Jewish times (John, iii, 23), baptism was administered without special fonts, at the seaside or in streams or pools of water (Acts, viii, 38); Tertullian refers to St. Peter’s baptizing in the Tiber (De bapt., iv); similarly; in later periods of evangelization, missionaries baptized in rivers as is narrated of St. Paulinus in England by Bede (Hist. Eccl., II, xiv-xvi). Indoor baptism, however, was not uncommon (Acts, ix, 18; xvi, 33) and, for the sake of both privacy and solemnity, came to be the rule; while reverence for the rite itself and for the water, which came in time to receive a special consecration, gave rise to the use of a special basin or font for the baptismal ceremony and, at a later period, for the preservation of the water. With the establishment of distinctively Christian places of worship this font became one of their important adjuncts. In the East it took the form of a pool or cistern, similar to those of the baths, often larger, and deep enough to permit total immersion. Whence it was called kalymbethra (swimming-bath), a name which in its Latin equivalent, natatorium, was also used in the West, as was the term piscina with its apt allusion to birth and life in the waters (Tertullian, De bapt., i; St. Augustine, De schis. Donat., III, ii). The name fons (a spring of water) was also in early use and came to prevail.

The oldest western fonts are found in the Roman catacombs, cisterns hewn from the tufa in the floor of baptismal chapels. Examples are to be found in the Ostrian Cemetery, where in a small shallow basin in the floor a spring wells up in the Cemetery of Pontianus, where an oblong reservoir about eighteen square feet in surface area and three feet in depth, is yet filled with water (Marucchi, Archéologie Chrétienne, II, 63); that of St. Felicitas (ibid., 304); and of St. Priscilla, where in 1901 was found a basin of particular interest on account of its presumably high antiquity as a baptismal center (Marucchi in Nuovo Bullettino, 1901, 73). Besides these actual specimens, the font is also depicted in the remains of early Christian art. In nearly every instance it is a shallow pool or basin in which the neophyte stands with feet immersed, while water is poured on him from an overhead stream or from a vase held by the person baptizing. That this was the ordinary mode of baptizing during the early centuries, is a view the acceptance of which is compelled by all recent study in the archaeology of baptismal fonts (de Rossi, Bullettino di Archeol., 1876, 8–15; Duchesne, Les Eglises séparées, Paris, 1905, 89–96). With the church-building activity of the fourth century the font was reverently enshrined in the magnificent baptisteries which date from that period. It took the form of a basin which was either entirely below the level of the baptistery floor or was partially raised above it by a low curb of masonry, over which the neophytes passed by steps, in going down into the water; to the ascent and descent, as well as to the number of steps this involved, there was often attached a mystical significance (Isidore of Seville, De divin. off., II, xxv). These fonts were either circular or octagonal in form and rarely hexagonal or square; a few were in the form of a cross (Gregory of Tours, Mirac., I, xxiv), a type more common in the East than in the West, while an occasional sarcophagus-shaped font was suggested, perhaps by the allusion to baptism in Romans, vi, 4.

In size fonts varied, but as a rule they were large enough for the simultaneous baptism of a few catechumens. Their average depth of less than three feet points to the continued prevalence of but partial immersion down to the eighth century. Water was provided either by natural springs or by pipes leading into the basins, though there are many examples of its being poured in from above the font, over the heads of the neophytes. Drain pipes conducted the water into the earth or into a nearby stream after the ceremony. These early fonts were lined and paved with marble or other decorative stone and were often highly ornamented, features more common in the West than in the East where simpler fonts, sometimes even of wood, were used. The “Liber Pontificalis” (ed. Duchesne, I, 174) describes in detail the Constantinian font in the Lateran baptistery as a porphyry basin heavily ornamented with silver; on its rim were a golden lamb and seven silver stags from whose mouths gushed water from the Claudian aqueduct; the golden lamb was flanked by statues of the Savior and of St. John the Baptist. From the center of the font arose a porphyry column bearing a golden lamp in which, during the ceremonies of baptism, was burned an oil of fragrant odor. This font was despoiled by the barbarian invaders, but its general design may be seen in the present day structure. The passing of the period of adult conversion to Christianity and the growing prevalence of infant baptism with a consequent frequency of administration determined a change in the structure of the fonts. Instead of a basin below the floor level, walls of masonry were built up to a height of three or four feet, to facilitate the ministers holding a child over its opening; or a font hewn from solid stone rested on the chapel floor. Immersion of children had come to be the rule, and as the practice was adopted too in the case of adults, the fonts were sometimes large enough to admit of their being immersed. With the thirteenth century, however, simple infusion came by degrees to be adopted, and with its general use, the font became smaller and more shallow, and was raised from the floor on piers or columns. The older type of font continued to find favor in Italy, but in the Northern countries the winter chill of the waters hastened the general use of infusion, and as this rite required for each person baptized but a small quantity of water, the font generally took the simple form and small dimensions it has today.

CANON LAW AND LITURGY

The Church’s legislation kept pace with this development. Early enactments urged stone as the regular material, though metal was permitted. With the erection of fonts for the continual preservation of the water, reverence and cleanliness became the Church’s chief concern; the font, if not of impermeable stone, must be lined with metal; it must be used exclusively for baptism, and to guard it against profanation, securely covered and locked. Frequency of thirteenth-century legislation on this point throughout Northern Europe reveals the prevalence of a passing superstitious belief in the magical efficacy of the font and its waters. The constitutions of Bishop Poore of Sarum (Salisbury, c. 1217) and of St. Edmund of Canterbury (1236) combated the abuse in England as did the Councils of Tours (1236), Trier (1238), Fritzlar (1243), and Breslau (1248), on the Continent. The cover was enacted in the name of cleanliness and decoration as well, and, besides a close-fitting, cloth-lined lid, there was demanded in many dioceses an outer dome-like cover, sometimes highly ornamented and draped with a canopy or veil. The repugnance to continued repetition of baptism over a font whose water was to last for ten months, was overcome by providing two compartments, one to contain the Baptismal water, the other, always empty and clean to receive the drippings and drain them into the sacrarium, a provision embodied by Benedict XIII in his still authoritative “Memoriale Rituum” (Tit. vi, cap. ii, #5, 9). The Roman Ritual (Tit. ii, cap. i, 28–30) epitomizes the present law providing that the font should be in the church or in a nearby baptistery, within a railed enclosure and secured by lock and key; of a substantial material fit to hold water; of becoming shape and ornamentation and so covered as to exclude anything unclean (cf. Council II Balt., #234–237). As models of diocesan legislation concerning fonts are cited the synodal acts of St. Charles Borromeo (Acta Eccl. Mediolan., Paris, 1643, 58–63) and those of Benedict XIII when Archbishop of Benevento (Collectio Lacensis, I, 69 sq.)

Two important liturgical functions center at the font, the baptismal rite itself, and the blessing of the font. The earliest allusion to such a blessing is by Tertullian who refers to the sanctification of the water by the invocation of God (De bapt., iv). St. Cyprian speaks of its being purified and sanctified by the priest (Ep. lxx, Ad Jan.); St. Basil considered the blessing, already of long-standing practice in his day, as of Apostolic institution (De Spiritu Sancto, xxvii); St. Ambrose first refers to an extended ritual including blessings, exorcism, and invocations (De myst., iii, 14–20). The oldest extant rite is that of the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, xliii). an extended prayer in Eucharistic form. The blessing of the font is henceforward an important feature of the sacramentaries and ordines, which contain nearly all the features of the present rite. It served as the preliminary to baptism, which was solemnized on the vigils of Easter and Pentecost; and notwithstanding the increasing frequency of solemn baptism, the blessing was reserved for those two days on which it should now be carried out in all churches having fonts (Decreta S.R.C., 3331–4005). This blessing is in the form of a long Eucharistic prayer the burden of which is an appeal that the Holy Spirit descend on the water and endow it with regenerative virtue, during which the celebrant performs a series of expressive ceremonies of high antiquity. He divides the water in the form of a cross; signs it with the cross; divides the water and casts a portion of it toward the four cardinal points; breathes on it in exorcism and dips in it the Paschal candle. After the prayer he pours into the water first the oil of catechumens, then the Holy chrism, a rite alluded to by St. Gregory of Tours (loc. cit.), and finally the two oils simultaneously.

ROGERS, Baptism and Christian Archeology (Oxford, 1903); IDEM in Studia Biblica, V, 239–361; COTE, The Archeology of Baptism (London, 1876); CORBLET, Histoire du Sacrement de Baptême (Paris, 1881); Venables in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. v.; CHARDON, Histoire des sacrements (Paris, 1745), I, 174–223; HEUSER in Eccl. Rev., XX, 449–454; ENLART, Etude sur quelsques fonts baptismaux du nord de la France (Paris, 1890); VAN DER STAPPEN, Sacra Liturgia (Mechlin, 1900), IV, 32–36; PIGHI, Liturgia Sacramentorum (Verona, 1902), 36–39; FERRARIS, Bibl. prompt. (Paris, 1852), 991–992; 1003–08.

JOHN B. PETERSON

Baptismal Vows

The name popularly given to the renunciations required of an adult candidate for baptism just before the sacrament is conferred. In the case of infant baptism, they are made in the name of the child by the sponsors. It is obvious that these promises have not the theological import of vows properly so called. According to the Roman Ritual, at present in use, three questions are to be addressed to the person to be baptized, as follows: “Dost thou renounce Satan? and all his works? and all his pomps?” To each of these interrogation the person, or the sponsor in his name, replies: “I do renounce.” The practice of demanding and making this formal renunciation seems to go back to the very beginnings of organized Christian worship. Tertullian among the Latins and St. Basil among the Greeks are at one in reckoning it as a usage which, although not explicitly warranted in the Scriptures, is nevertheless consecrated by a venerable tradition. St. Basil says this tradition ascends from the Apostles. Tertullian, in his “De Coronâ,” appears to hint at a twofold renunciation as common in his time, one which was made at the moment of baptism and another made sometime before, and publicly in the church, in the presence of the bishop. The form of this renunciation a found in the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, 4) has a quaint interest. It is as follows: “Let therefore the candidate for baptism declare thus in his renunciation: ‘I renounce Satan and his works and his pomps and his worship and his angels and his inventions and all things that are under him.’ And after his renunciation let him in his consociation say: ‘And I associate myself to Christ and believe and am baptized into one unbegotten being’“, etc.

Where there was a baptistery the renunciations were made in the proaulion oikon, the vestibule or ante-room, as distinguished from the esoteron oikon, the inner room where the baptism itself was administered. The catechumen, standing with his face to the West, which symbolized the abode of darkness, and stretching out his hand, or sometimes spitting out in defiance and abhorrence of the devil, was wont to make this abjuration. It was also customary after this for the candidate for baptism to make an explicit promise of obedience to Christ. This was called by the Greeks syntassesthai Christo, the giving of oneself over to the control of Christ. St. Justin Martyr testifies that baptism was only administered by those who, together with their profession of faith, made a promise or vow that they would live in conformity with the Christian code. Hence the generally employed formula: syntassomai soi, Christe, “I surrender myself to thee, O Christ, to be ruled by thy precepts.” This took place directly over the apotaxis or renunciation of the devil, and was variously described by the Latins as promissum, pactum, and votum. During this declaration of attachment to Jesus Christ the person to be baptized turned towards the East as towards the region of light.

The practice of renewing the baptismal promises is more or less widespread. This is done under circumstances of special solemnity such as at the closing exercises of a mission, after the administration of First Communion to children, or the conferring of the Sacrament of Confirmation. It is thus intended as a way of reaffirming one’s loyalty to the obligations taken over by membership in the Christian Church.

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Bl. Baptista Mantuanus

(Or SPAGNOLI). Carmelite and Renaissance poet, born at Mantua, 17 April, 1447, where he also died, 22 March, 1516. The eldest son of Peter Spagnoli, a Spanish nobleman at the court of Mantua, Baptista studied grammar under Gregorio Tifernate, and philosophy at Pavia under Polo Bagelardi. The bad example of his schoolfellows led him into irregularities. He fell into the hands of usurers and, returning home, was turned out of his father’s house owing to some calumny. He went to Venice and later on to Ferrara where he carried out his resolution of entering the Carmelite convent which belonged to the then flourishing Reform of Mantua. In a letter addressed to his father (1 April, 1464), and in his first publication, “De Vitâ beatâ,” he gave an account of his previous life and of the motives which led him to the cloister.

Baptista pursued his studies at Ferrara and Bologna where he was ordained priest, received his degrees, and delivered lectures in philosophy and divinity. The Duke of Mantua entrusted him with the education of his children, and the connection with the ducal family resulted in a number of poetical works, the “Trophaeum Gonzagae” and the “Fortuna Gonzagae,” on the various misfortunes of the young duke; “Contra amorem” containing good advice to Sigismondo Gonzaga, and other poems celebrating the latter’s elevation to dignities, even to the Roman purple. Six times (each for two years with four years interval) Baptista was nominated vicar general of his congregation, and, in 1513, general of the whole order through the exertions of his former disciples, the duke and the cardinal. The chapter, however, resenting the intervention, restricted his powers. He held the office until his death, but, broken in health and energy, he exercised but little influence beyond consolidating the congregation of Albi, a French imitation of the Mantuan Reform. Baptista Mantuanus was beatified in 1890, his feast being assigned to 23 March.

Chiefly known as one of the most prolific Renaissance poets he excelled in almost every form of Latin verse; Virgil, however, was his favourite model. A monument represents the two poets of Mantua with Poetry hesitating to whom she is to offer the crown: “Cui dabo?” Baptista exercised too little self restraint, however, to deserve it. He was bitterly attacked concerning the good taste of his earlier works printed without his knowledge, and also, but groundlessly, with reference to the legitimacy of his birth. To the end he made too free use of pagan mythology.

BENEDICT ZIMMERMAN.

Baptistery

The separate building in which the Sacrament of Baptism was once solemnly administered, or that portion of the church-edifice later set apart for the same purpose.

In ancient times the term was applied to a basin, pool or other place for bathing. The Latin term baptisterium was also applied to the vessel or tank which contained the water for baptism, and in the Early Church denoted indifferently the baptismal font and the building or chapel in which it was enshrined. There is no means of knowing when the first baptisteries were built; but both their name and form seem borrowed from pagan sources. They remind one of the bathing apartments in the thermae, and the fact that Pliny, in speaking of the latter, twice uses the word baptisteria seems to point to this derivation. The term was also applied to the bath in the circular chamber of the baths at Pompeii and to the tank in the triangular court of suburban villas. The earliest extant type of baptistery is found in the catacomb chambers in which were the baptismal-pools. (See BAPTISMAL FONT.) These rooms were sometimes spacious; that in the Roman catacomb of Priscilla adjoins other larger cubicula used perhaps for the adjuncts of the baptismal rite; that of the Pontian cemetery bears traces of sixth-century mural decoration, a beautiful crux gemmata with other Christian symbols being yet visible. With the construction of edifices for Christian worship a special building was erected for the ceremonies of initiation. Ordinarily circular or polygonal, it contained in the centre the font; a circular ambulatory gave room for the ministers and witnesses who, with the neophytes, were numerous at the Easter and Pentecost solemnities; radiating from the structure were rooms for the preparation of the candidates, and sometimes a chapel with altar for the Eucharistic service following baptism (cf. BAPTISM), as may be seen in the Lateran baptistery, The building sometimes joined, but was generally adjacent to, the cathedral or church to which it belonged, and was usually situated near the atrium or forecourt. Immersion gradually gave way to infusion, though in the South the custom of immersing children in the baptisteries persisted long after the North had commenced infusion in the small baptismal chapels. When separate baptisteries were no longer needed, the term was then applied to that part of the church which was set apart for an contained the baptismal font. The font was sometimes placed in a separate chapel or compartment, sometimes in an inclosure formed by a railing or open screen work; and often the font stands alone, either in the vestibule of the church, or in an arm of the transept, or at the western extremity of one of the aisles, and occasionally in the floor chamber of the western tower.

The modern baptistery is merely that part of the church set apart for baptism. According to the Roman Ritual, it should be railed off; it should have a gate fastened by a lock; and should be adorned, if possible, with a picture of the baptism of Christ by St. John. It is convenient that it should contain a chest with two compartments, one for the holy oils, the other for the salt, candle, etc. used in baptism. The form of the early baptisteries seems to have been derived from the Roman circular temples of tombs. And in adopting the plans, the early Christians modified them to some extent, for the internal columns which, in Roman examples were generally used in a decorative way, were now used to support the walls carrying the domes. To cover a large area with one roof was difficult; but by the addition of an aisle in one story, round a moderate-sized circular tomb, the inner walls could be replaced by columns in the lower half, which gave such buildings as these early baptisteries.

The earliest existing baptistery is that of the Lateran, said to have been erected in its original form under Constantine. Throughout the Roman world round or polygonal baptisteries seem to have been constantly employed from the fourth century onwards. In many places the Italians have preserved the separate building for baptism, while north of the Alps the practice generally prevailed of administering the rite in the churches. The construction of the baptistery of the Lateran is interesting because of a direct adaptation of the columnar system of the basilica to a concentric plan. The inner octagon is upheld by eight simple shafts, upon the straight entablature of which a second story of columns is superimposed. The original character of the ceiling and the roof cannot now be determined, but the weak supports were hardly adapted to bear a vault of masonry. Although baptisteries and mortuary chapels were generally built as simple cylindrical halls, without surrounding passages, other examples of the two modes of extension are not lacking.

The arrangement of the baptistery requires but brief notice. A flight of steps descended into the round or polygonal font (piscina or fons), which was sunk beneath the level of the floor, and sometimes raised a little above it by a row of columns which supported curtains to insure the most perfect privacy and decency during the immersion. The columns were united occasionally by archivolts, more frequently by architraves adorned by metrical inscriptions; the eight distichs in the Lateran baptistery are ascribed to Sixtus III.

The baptistery of Pisa, designed by Dioti Salvi in 1153, is circular, 129 feet in diameter, with encircling aisle in two stories. Built of marble, it is surrounded externally on the lower story by half columns, connected by semicircular arches, above which is an open arcade in two heights, supported by small detached shafts. It was not completed till A. D. 1278, and has Gothic additions of the fourteenth century, in consequence of which it is not easy to ascertain what the original external design really was. The structure is crowned by an outer hemispherical dome, through which penetrates a conical dome 60 feet in diameter over the central space, and supported on four piers and eight columns. Thus, if there were another internal hemispherical cupola, it would resemble the constructive dome of St. Paul, London. This baptistery bears remarkable similarity to the church of San Donato (ninth century) at Zara, in Dalmatian, which, however, has a space only 30 feet in diameter. The baptistery at Asti, if examined with those of San Antonio, will give a very compete idea of Lombardic architecture in the beginning of the eleventh century. More or less interesting examples of baptisteries exist at Biella, Brindisi, Cremona, Galliano, near Milan, Gravedona, Monte Sant’ Angelo, Padua, Parma, Pinara, Pistoia, Spalato, Verona, and Volterra. These are very few examples in Italy of circular or polygonal buildings of any class belonging to the Gothic age. Baptisteries had passed out of fashion. One such building, at Parma, commenced in 1196, deserves to be quoted, not certainly for its beauty, but as illustrating those false principles of design shown in buildings of this age in Italy. In later Romanesque and Gothic periods, in Italy, where the churches were not derived from a combination of a circular Eastern church with a Western rectangular nave, as in France, but were correct copies of the Roman basilica, the baptistery always stands alone. In Germany, the earlier baptistery was joined to the square church and formed a western apse. The only examples in England are at Cranbrook and Canterbury; the latter, however, is supposed to have been originally part of the Treasury. It is not known at what time the baptistery became absorbed into the basilica. The change was made earlier in Rome than elsewhere. A late example of a separate baptistery, which, although small, is very beautiful in design, is in a court alongside the cathedral at Bergamo. This may be regarded as a connecting link between large buildings and fonts.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Baptistines

I. Hermits of St. John the Baptist. II. Missionaries of St. John the Baptist. III. Sisterhood of St. John the Baptist.

I. The Congregation of the Hermits of St. John the Baptist of France was founded about 1630 by Brother Michel de Saint-Sabine who reformed and united the hermits of various dioceses. He established for each diocese a visitor who was aided by four majors and a secretary. The bishop received the religious when they took the habit and made their profession, and the brothers in a diocese met together once a year. The pious reformer gave the congregation a collection of statutes which regulated their mode of life. The first bishops to make these statutes obligatory in their dioceses were the Bishop of Metz (1633), and the Bishop of Cambrai (1634). Brother Jean-Baptiste who had a great reputation for virtue carried this reform into the Dioceses of Vienne, Lyons, Geneva, Le Puy, and Langres. The Bishop of Langres, Louis-Armand de Simiane de Gardes, added in 1680, for the hermits in his diocese, several ordinances to those of Brother Michel. He established four visitors, one for each division of the diocese and the brothers wore a white habit to distinguish them from vagrant and lax hermits. Brother Jean-Baptiste went to the Diocese of Angers to found the hermitage of Gardelles; and died there in the odour of sanctity, 24 December, 1691.

II. The congregation of missionary priests of St. John the Baptist, called Baptistines, was founded by a Genoese, Domenico Olivieri. He began by uniting several zealous priests with himself for the evangelization of the people of the cities and country. His plan of forming from this company an association the members of which should devote their time especially to missions was encouraged by Cardinal Spinola and the scheme afterwards received the approbation of Benedict XIV. The pope confirmed the new congregation in his Brief of 23 September, 1755, and placed it under the control of the Cardinal Prefect of the Propaganda. The institute had a house and an oratory at Tome near the church of St. Isidoro, and the members held missions in the different churches of the city and in the surrounding country. The Propaganda, realizing their zeal and virtue, wished to employ them in distant missions. A number of them were, therefore, sent to Bulgaria, Macedonia, and China; some became bishops. Foreign missions did not absorb all their activity, for a number were employed in the service of the Church in Italy, two, Father Imperiali and Father Spinelli becoming cardinals. The only vows imposed by the pious founder were those of continuance in the congregation and readiness to go to missions to which the members should be sent by the Propaganda. Olivieri died at Genoa in the odour of sanctity, 13 June, 1766. His society disappeared during the troubles which overwhelmed Italy at the end of the eighteenth century.

III. The Baptistines, or hermit sisters of St. John the Baptist, had as their founder Giovanna Maria Baptista Solimani. In 1730, when she was forty-two years old, she gathered her first companions together at Moneglia, not far from Genoa. The congregation intended to lead a life of penitence in imitation of the precursor of Christ and under his patronage. All the choir sisters, therefore, added to their names in religion that of Baptista in honour of their illustrious model. The Capuchin, Father Athanasius, aided them by his advice during the drawing up of their constitutions. Soon after, Providence gave them the direction of the saintly priest Olivieri, the cause of whose canonization has been introduced. Shortly after taking Olivieri as their director the founder now went to Rome to obtain the confirmation of the Holy See; through the aid of the Barnabite, Mario Maccabei, the approbation of Benedict XI was obtained in 1744. Two years later, 20 April, 1746, the Archbishop of Genoa received the religious profession of Giovanna Solimani and her twelve companions. Soon after this, Mother Solimani was elected abbess and governed the house until her death 8 April, 1758. In 1755 the congregation had sent a colony to Rome which founded a convent near the church of San Nicola da Tolentino. Houses were also founded in some of the other cities of Italy. The congregation drew its members from among the young girls and widows who were admitted into their houses as lay-sisters. Tertiaries took care of their churches and gathered the alms of which they had need. A rigorous cloister was observed. The sisters rose at midnight for Matins, slept in their clothes, went bare-footed, and observed a continual abstinence. The whole life was one of extreme austerity. Several convents of the congregation still exist in Italy.

Helyot, Histoire des ordres religieux, VIII, 112–116; Grandet, La vie d’un solitaire inconnu mort en Anjou, en odeur de saintete (Paris, 1699); Heimbucher, Die Orden und Kongregationen, II, 307–308, 375.

JEAN M. BESSE

Baptists

(Greek, baptizein, to baptize).

A Protestant denomination which exists chiefly in English speaking countries and owes its name to its characteristic doctrine and practice regarding baptism.

I. DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES

The Baptists consider the Scriptures to be the sufficient and exclusive rule of faith and practice. In the interpretation of them, every individual enjoys unrestricted freedom. No non-Scriptural scheme of doctrines and duty is recognized as authoritative.

General creeds are mere declarations of prevalent doctrinal views, to which no assent beyond one’s personal conviction need be given. The two principal Baptist confessions of faith are the Confession of 1688, or Philadelphia Confession, and the New Hampshire Confession. The Philadelphia Confession is the Westminster (Presbyterian) Confession (1646) revised in a Baptist sense. It first appeared in 1677, was reprinted in 1688, approved by the English Baptist Assembly of 1689, and adopted by the Baptist Association at Philadelphia in 1742, a circumstance which accounts for its usual name. It is generally accepted by the Baptists of England and the Southern States of the Union, whereas the Northern States are more attached to the New Hampshire Confession. The latter was adopted by the New Hampshire State Convention in 1833. Its slight doctrinal difference from the Philadelphia Confession consists in a milder presentation of the Calvinistic system.

Baptists hold that those only are members of the Church of Christ who have been baptized upon making a personal profession of faith.

They agree in the rejection of infant baptism as contrary to the Scriptures, and in the acceptance of immersion as the sole valid mode of baptism. All children who die before the age of responsibility will nevertheless be saved. Baptism and the Eucharist, the only two sacraments, or ordinances as they call them, which Baptists generally admit, are not productive of grace, but are mere symbols. Baptism does not bestow, but symbolizes, regeneration, which has already taken place.

In the Eucharist Jesus Christ is not really present; the Lord’s Supper merely sets forth the death of Christ as the sustaining power of the believer’s life. It was instituted for the followers of Christ alone; hence Baptists, in theory, commonly admit to it only their own church members and exclude outsiders (closed communion). Open communion, however, has been practised extensively in England and is gaining ground today among American Baptists.

In church polity, the Baptists are congregational; i.e. each church enjoys absolute autonomy. Its officers are the elders or bishops and the deacons. The elder exercises the different pastoral functions and the deacon is his assistant in both spiritual and temporal concerns. These officers are chosen by common suffrage and ordained by councils consisting of ministers and representatives of neighbouring churches. A church may, in case of need, appeal for help to another church; it may, in difficulty, consult other churches; but never, even in such cases, can members of one congregation acquire authority over another congregation. Much less can a secular power interfere in spiritual affairs; a state church is an absurdity.

II. HISTORY

(1) THE BAPTISTS IN THE BRITISH ISLES

Persons rejecting infant baptism are frequently mentioned in English history in the sixteenth century. We learn of their presence in the island through the persecutions they endured. As early as 1535 ten Anabaptists were put to death, and the persecution continued throughout that century. The victims seem to have been mostly Dutch and German refugees. What influence they exerted in spreading their views is not known; but, as a necessary result, Baptist principles became, through them, less of an unacceptable novelty in the eyes of Englishmen. The first Baptist congregations were organized in the beginning of the seventeenth century. Almost at the very start, the denomination was divided into “Arminian,” or “General” Baptists, so named because of their belief in the universal character of Christ’s redemption, and “Calvinistic” or “Particular” Baptists, who maintained that Christ’s redemption was intended for the elect alone. The origin of the General Baptists is connected with the name of John Smyth (d. 1612), pastor of a church at Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, which had separated from the Church of England. About 1606, pastor and flock, to escape persecution, emigrated to Amsterdam, where they formed the second English congregation. In 1609, Smyth, owing possibly in some measure to Mennonite influence, rejected infant baptism, although he retained affusion. In this he was supported by his church. Some members of the congregation returned to England (1611 or 1612) under the leadership of Helwys (c. 1550–1616) and formed in London the nucleus of the first Baptist community. Persecution had abated, and they do not seem to have been molested. By 1626 there were in different parts of England five General Baptist churches; by 1644, they had increased, it is said, to forty-seven; and by 1660 the membership of the body had reached about 20,000. It was between 1640 and 1660 that the General Baptists began to claim that immersion was the only valid mode of baptism. They were persecuted by Charles II (1660–85); but the Act of Toleration (1689) brought relief and recognized the Baptists as the third dissenting denomination (Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists). In the eighteenth century, Anti-Trinitarian ideas spread among the General Baptists, and by 1750, many, perhaps the majority of them, had become Unitarians. As a result of the great Wesleyan revival of the second half of the eighteenth century, new religious activity manifested itself among the General Baptists.

Dan Taylor (1738–1816) organized the orthodox portion of them into the New Connection of the General Baptists. The latter appellative soon disappeared, as the “Old Connection,” or unorthodox party, gradually merged into the Unitarian denomination. In 1816, the General Baptists established a missionary society. Their doctrinal differences with the Particular Baptists gradually disappeared in the course of the nineteenth century, and the two bodies united in 1891.

The Particular Baptists originated shortly after the General Baptists. Their first congregation was organized in 1633 by former members of a London “Separatist Church,” who seceded and were re-baptized. Mr. John Spillsbury became their minister. In 1638 a second secession from the original church occurred, and in 1640 another Particular Congregation was formed. The opinion now began to be held that immersion alone was real Baptism. Richard Blunt was sent to the Netherlands to be duly immersed. On his return he baptized the others, and thus the first Baptist church in the full meaning of the term was constituted in 1641. In 1644 there were seven Particular Baptist churches in London. They drew up a confession of faith (1644), which was republished in 1646. The Particular Baptists now rapidly increased in numbers and influence. Some of them held prominent positions under Cromwell. With the latter’s army Baptists came to Ireland, where the denomination never flourished, and to Scotland, where it took firm root only after 1750 and adopted some peculiar practices. Wales proved a more fruitful soil. A church was founded at or near Swansea in 1649. In the time of the Commonwealth (1649–60), churches multiplied owing to the successful preaching of Vavasour Powell (1617–70); and the number of Baptists, all Calvinistic, is today comparatively large in Wales and Monmouthshire. One of the prominent men who suffered persecution for the Baptist cause under Charles II was John Bunyan (1628–88), the author of “The Pilgrim’s Progress.” In the first part of the eighteenth century the Particular Baptists injured their own cause by their excessive emphasis of the Calvinistic element in their teaching, which made them condemn missionary activity and bordered on fatalism. The Wesleyan revival brought about a reaction against the deadening influence of ultra-Calvinism. Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) and Robert Hall (1764–1831) propounded milder theological views. The Baptist Home Mission Society was formed in 1779. In 1792 the foundation of the Baptist Missionary Society at Kettering, Northamptonshire, inaugurated the work of missions to the heathen. In this undertaking William Carey (1761–1834) was the prime mover. Perhaps the most eminent Baptist preacher of the nineteenth century in England was C. H. Spurgeon (1834–92), whose sermons were published weekly and had a large circulation. In recent years, the Baptists created a “Twentieth Century Fund,” to be expended in furthering the interests of the denomination.

(2) THE BAPTISTS IN THE UNITED STATES

The first Baptist Church in the United States did not spring historically from the English Baptist churches, but had an independent origin. It was established by Roger Williams (c. 1600–83). Williams was a minister of the Church of England, who, owing to his separatist views, fled to America in search of religious freedom. He landed at Boston (February, 1631), and shortly after his arrival was called to be minister at Salem. Certain opinions, e.g. his denial of the right of the secular power to publish purely religious offences and his denunciation of the charter of the Massachusetts Colony as worthless, brought him into conflict with the civil authorities. He was summoned before the General Court in Boston and refusing to retract, was banished (October, 1635). He left the colony and purchased from the Narrangansett Indians a tract of land. Other colonists soon joined him, and the settlement, which was one of the first in the United States to be established on the principle of complete religious liberty, became the city of Providence. In 1639 Williams repudiated the value of the baptism he had received in infancy, and was baptized by Ezekiel Holliman, a former member of the Salem church. Williams then baptized Holliman with ten others, thus constituting the first Baptist church in the New World. A second church was founded shortly after (c. 1644) at Newport, Rhode Island, of which John Clarke (1609–76) became the pastor. In the Massachusetts Colony, from 1642 onward, Baptists, because of their religious views, came into conflict with the local authorities. A law was passed against them in 1644. In spite of this, we find at Rehoboth, in 1649, Baptists who began to hold regular meetings. In 1663, John Myles, who had emigrated with his Baptist church from Swansea, Wales, settled in the same place and most writers date the establishment of the first Baptist church in Massachusetts from the time of his arrival. The community removed in 1667 to a new site near the Rhode Island frontier, which they called Swansea. The first Baptist church in Boston was established in 1665, and the organization of the first one in Maine, then part of Massachusetts, was completed in 1682. The members of the latter, on account of the persecution to which they were still subjected, removed in 1684 to Charleston, South Carolina, and founded the first Baptist church in the South. The church of Groton (1705) was the first in Connecticut, where there were four in existence at the beginning of the religious revival known as the Great Awakening (1740).

During the period of these foundations in New England, Baptists appeared also in New York State, at least as early as 1656. The exact date of the establishment of the first church there is not ascertainable, but it was very probably at the beginning of the eighteenth century. From 1684 on, churches also appeared in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. Cold Spring, Bucks Co., had the first one in Pennsylvania (1684); and Middletown heads the list in New Jersey (1688). A congregation was organized also in 1688 at Pennepek, or Lower Dublin, now part of Philadelphia. The latter churches were to exert very considerable influence in shaping the doctrinal system of the largest part of American Baptists. Philadelphia became a centre of Baptist activity and organization. Down to about the year 1700 it seemed as if the majority of American Baptists would belong to the General or Arminian branch. Many of the earliest churches were of that type. But only Particular Baptist congregations were established in and about Philadelphia, and these through the foundation of the Philadelphia Association in 1707, which fostered mutual intercourse among them, became a strong central organization about which other Baptist churches rallied. As a result, we see today the large number of Particular (Regular) Baptists. Until the Great Awakening, however, which gave new impetus to their activity, they increased but slowly. Since that time their progress has not been seriously checked, not even by the Revolution. True, the academy of Hopewell, New Jersey, their first educational institution, established in 1756, disappeared during the war; but Rhode Island College, chartered in 1764, survived it and became Brown University in 1804. Other educational institutions, to mention only the earlier ones, were founded at the beginning of the nineteenth century: Waterville (now Colby) College, Maine, in 1818; Colgate University, Hamilton, New York, in 1820; and in 1821, Columbian College at Washington (now the undenominational George Washington University).

Organized mission work was also undertaken at about the same time. In 1814 “The General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America for Foreign Missions” was established at Philadelphia. It split in 1845 and formed the “American Baptist Missionary Union” for the North, with present head-quarters at Boston, and the “Southern Baptist Convention,” with head-quarters at Richmond (Virginia), and Atlanta (Georgia), for foreign and home missions respectively. In 1832, the “American Baptist Home Mission Society,” intended primarily for the Western States, was organized in New York where it still has its headquarters. In 1824, the “Baptist General Tract Society” was formed at Washington, removed to Philadelphia in 1826, and in 1840 became the “American Baptist Publication Society.” The Regular Baptists divided in 1845, not indeed doctrinally, but organically, on the question of slavery. Since that time, attempts at reunion having remained fruitless; they exist in three bodies: Northern, Southern, and Coloured. The Northern Baptists constituted, 17 May, 1907, at Washington, a representative body, called the “Northern Baptist Convention,” whose object is “to give expression to the sentiment of its constituency upon matters of denominational importance and of general religious and moral interest.” Governor Hughes of New York was elected president of the new organization.

(3) THE BAPTISTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES

(a) America

The earliest Baptist church in the Dominion of Canada was organized at Horton, Nova Scotia, in 1763, by the Rev. Ebenezer Moulton of New England. This church, like many of the earlier ones, was composed of Baptists and Congregationalists. The influx of settlers from New England and Scotland and the work of zealous evangelists, such as Theodore Seth Harding, who laboured in the Maritime Provinces from 1795 to 1855, soon increased the number of Baptists in the country. The end of the eighteenth century was marked by a period of revivals, which prepared the formation of the “Association of the Baptist churches of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick” in 1800. In 1815, a missionary society was formed, and the work of organization in every line was continued throughout the nineteenth century, growing apace with Baptist influence and numbers. In 1889 some previously existing societies were consolidated in the “Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec,” whose various departments of work are: home missions, foreign missions, publications, church edifices, etc. Among the educational institutions of the Canadian Baptists may be mentioned Acadia College (founded 1838), Woodstock College (founded 1860), and McMaster University at Toronto (chartered 1887). Moulton College for women (opened 1888) is affiliated to the last mentioned institution. In other parts of America the Baptists are chiefly represented in the countries colonized by England. Thus we find a Baptist church in Jamaica as early as 1816. In Latin America the Baptist churches are not numerous and are of missionary origin. Recently, the Northern Baptists have taken Porto Rico as their special field, while the Southern Baptist Convention has chosen Cuba.

(b) European Continent

The founder of the Baptist churches in Germany was Johann Gerhard Oncken, whose independent study of the Scriptures led him to adopt Baptist views several years before he had an opportunity of receiving “believers’ baptism.” Having incidentally heard that an American Baptist, B. Sears, was pursuing his studies at Berlin, he communicated with him and was with six others baptized by him at Hamburg in 1834. His activity as an evangelist drew new adherents to the movement. The number of the Baptists increased, in spite of the opposition of the German state churches. In Prussia alone relative toleration was extended to them until the foundation of the Empire brought to them almost everywhere freedom in the exercise of their religion. A Baptist theological school was founded in 1881 at Hamburg-Horn. From Germany the Baptists spread to the neighbouring countries, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Russia. Nowhere on the Continent of Europe has the success of the Baptists been so marked as in Sweden, where their number is larger today than even in Germany. The Swedish Baptists date from the year 1848, when five persons were baptized near Gothenburg by a Baptist minister from Denmark. Andreas Wiberg became their great leader (1855–87). They have had a seminary at Stockholm since 1866. Among the Latin nations the Baptists never gained a firm foothold, although a Particular Baptist church seems to have existed in France by 1646, and a theological school was established in that country in 1879.

(c) Asia, Australasia, and Africa

William Carey first preached the Baptist doctrine in India in 1793. India and the neighbouring countries have ever since remained a favourite field for Baptist missionary work and have flourishing missions. Missions exist also in China, Japan, and several other Asiatic countries. The first Baptist churches in Australasia were organized between 1830 and 1840 in different places. Immigration from England, whence the leading Baptist ministers were until very recently drawn, increased, though not rapidly, the numbers of the denomination. During the period which elapsed between 1860 and 1870, a new impulse was given to Baptist activity. Churches were organized in rapid succession in Australia, and missionary work was taken up in India. The two chief hindrances complained of by Baptists in that part of the world, are State Socialism, i.e. excessive concentration of power in the executive, and want of loyalty to strictly denominational principles and practices. The Baptist churches of the African continent are, if we except South Africa, of missionary origin. The Negro Baptists of the United States had at an early date missionaries in this field. Two coloured men, Lott Carey, a former slave, and Colin Teague, set sail in 1820 for Liberia; where the first church was organized in 1821. Today we find Baptist missions in various parts of Africa.

III. MINOR BAPTIST BODIES

Side by side with the larger body of Baptists, several sects exist. They are found chiefly in the United States.

(1) The Baptist Church of Christ originated in Tennessee, about 1808, and spread to several other Southern States. Its doctrine is a mild form of Calvinism, with belief in a general atonement and admission of feet-washing as religious ordinance. [Communicants, 8,254 according to Dr. H. K. Carroll, the acknowledged authority, whose statistics, published in “The Christian Advocate” (New York, 17 January 1907, p. 98), we shall quote for these sects.]

(2) The Campbellites, Disciples of Christ, or Christians, date back as a distinct religious body to the early part of the nineteenth century. They are the outgrowth of that movement which manifested itself simultaneously in some of the religious denominations in the United States in favour of the Bible alone without creeds. Thomas Campbell (1763–1854) and Alexander Campbell (1788–1866), father and son, became the leaders of the movement. (Communicants, 1,264,758).

(3) The Dunkards (from the German tunken, to dip), German Baptists, or Brethren, were founded about 1708 in Germany by Alexander Mack. Between 1719 and 1729 they all emigrated to the United States and settled mostly in Pennsylvania. They are found today in many parts of the Union, but divisions have taken place among them. They practise threefold immersion, hold their communion service, which is preceded by the agape, in the evening, and seek to be excessively simple and unostentatious in their social intercourse, dress, etc. (Membership 121,194.)

(4) The Freewill Baptists correspond in doctrine and practice to the English General Baptists, but originated in the United States. They exist in two distinct bodies. The older was founded in North Carolina and constituted an association in 1729. Many of its members subsequently joined the Regular Baptists. Those who did not unite became known as the “Free Willers” and later as the “Original Freewill Baptists,” and are found in the two Carolinas. The larger body of the “Freewill Baptists” was founded in New Hampshire. Benjamin Randall organized the first church at New Durham in 1780. The denomination spread throughout New England and the West, and was joined in 1841 by the “Free-Communion Baptists” of New York (increase, 55 churches and 2500 members). It maintains several colleges and academies, and has changed its official name to “Free Baptists.” The American General Baptists are in substantial doctrinal agreement with the Freewill Baptists. (Membership: Original Freewill Baptists, 12000; Freewill Baptists, 82,303; General Baptists, 29,347.)

(5) The Old Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists are Manichaean in doctrine, holding that there are two seeds, one of good and one of evil. The doctrine is credited to Daniel Parker, who laboured in different parts of the Union in the first half of the nineteenth century (12,851 communicants).

(6) The Primitive Baptists, also called Old-School, Anti-Mission, and Hard-Shell, Baptists constitute a sect which is opposed to missions, Sunday schools, and in general to human religious institutions. They arose about 1835 (126,000 communicants).

(7) The foundation of the Separate and of the United Baptists was the result, either immediate or mediate, of the attitude taken by some Baptists toward the Whitefield revival movement of the eighteenth century (Separate Baptist, 6,479; United Baptists, 13,209).

(8) The Seventh-Day Baptists differ from the tenets of the Baptists generally only in their observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord. They appeared in England in the latter part of the sixteenth century under the name of “Sabbatarian Baptists.” Their first church in this country was organized at Newport, R. I. in 1671. In 1818 the name Seventh Day Baptists was adopted (Communicants, 8493).

(9) The Six-principle Baptists are a small body and date from the seventeenth century. They are so called from the six doctrines of their creed, contained in Heb., vi, 1–2: (a) Repentance from dead works; (b) Faith toward God; (c) The doctrine of Baptism; (d) The imposition of hands; (e) The resurrection of the dead; (f) Eternal judgment. (858 communicants).

(10) The Winebrennerians or Church of God were founded by John Winebrenner (1797–1860) in Pennsylvania, where their chief strength still lies. The first congregation was established in 1829. The Winebrennerians admit three Divine ordinances: baptism, feet-washing, and the Lord’s Supper (41,475 communicants).

IV. STATISTICS

According to the American Baptist Year-Book, published annually at Philadelphia, there were in 1907, not including the minor Baptist sects, 5,736,263 Baptists in the world. They had 55,505 churches and 38,216 ordained ministers. The denomination counted 4,974,014 members in North America; 4,812,653 in the United States, with church property worth $109,960,610; and 117,842 in Canada. South America has but 4,465 Baptists; Europe 564,670 (434,751 in Great Britain, 44,656 in Sweden 33,790 in Germany, 24,132 in Russia); Asia, 155,969; Australasia, 24,402; and Africa, 12,743. The statistic statement of Dr. H. K. Carroll, already referred to above, credits the Regular Baptists together with eleven branch denominations in the United States for 1906 with a membership of 5,140,770, 54,566 churches and, 38,010 ministers; Regular Baptists, North, 1,113,222; South, 1,939,563; Coloured, 1,779,969. The divisions in the bibliography correspond to the divisions of the article.

I. STRONG, Systematic Theology (3d ed., New York, 1890); SCHAFF, The Creeds of Christendom (New York, 1877), I, 845–859; III, 738–756; MCCLINTOCK AND STRONG, Cyclopedia of Bibl., Theol., and Eccl. Lit. (New York, 1871), I, 653–660; CATHCART. The Baptist Encyclopedia (Philadelphia, 1881). II.—(1) CROSBY, The History of the English Baptists (London, 1738–40); IVIMEY, A History of the English Baptists (London, 1811–30); TAYLOR, The History of the English General Baptists (London, 1818); ARMITAGE, A History of the Baptists (New York, 1887); VEDDER, The Baptists (New York, 1903) in the Story of the Churches Series. (2) NEWMAN, A History of the Baptist Churches in the United States (4th ed., New York, 1902) in Am. Church Hist. Ser., II, bibliog., xi-xv; BURRAGE, A History of the Baptists in New England (Philadelphia, 1894); VEDDER, History of the Baptists in the Middle States (Philadelphia, 1898); SMITH, A History of the Baptists in the Western States (Philadelphia, 1900); RILEY, A History of the Baptists in the Southern States (Philadelphia, 1899). (3) NEWMAN, A century of Baptist Achievement (Philadelphia, 1901); LEHMAN, Geschichte der deutsch. Baptisten (Hamburg, 1896); SCHROEDER, History of the Swedish Baptists, (New York, 1898). III. CARROLL, The Religious Forces of the United States (New York, 1893) in Amer. Church Hist. Series, I; TYLER, The Disciples of Christ (New York, 1894) in same Series, XII, 1–162; STEWART, History of the Freewill Baptists (Dover, New Hampshire, 1862).

N. A. WEBER.

Barac

(Heb. Baraq, lightning)

The deliverer of the Israelites from the power of the Chanaanites under the judgeship of Debbora. He was the son of Abinoem of Cedes in Nephtali (Judges, iv, 6) and probably belonged to the tribe of Issachar (v, 15). When, after the death of the Judge Aod, “the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord,” (iv, 1), they were delivered into the hands of the Chanaanite King Jabin of Asor who grievously oppressed them for twenty years (iv, 3). Thereupon the prophetess Debbora of Mount Ephraim, between Rama and Bethel, instigates Barac, manifestly a leading captain of the time, to assemble 10,000 men of the tribes of Nephtali and Zabulon (iv, 6; cf. v, 14) and to take the field against Sisara, the general of Jabin’s army. Barac assembles his warriors at Cedes, moves to Mount Thabor, and by a rush down the mountain surprises the Chanaanites (iv, 10, 12, 14; cf. v, 15, 19, 21). The panic-stricken army of Sisara is attacked, routed, pursued, and finally cut to pieces (iv, 16). Sisara, having taken to flight, seeks refuge in the tent of Jahel, the wife of Haber, the Cinite, where he meets with a treacherous end (iv, 21; cf. v, 26). This signal victory of Barac, which put an end to the power and oppression of Jabin, and which was followed by a period of forty years’ rest, is commemorated in the triumphal ode of Debbora and Barac (v). For the various accounts of Barac’s exploits which critics detect in Judges, iv, and v, see JUDGES, BOOK OF.

F.X.E. ALBERT

Jacob Baradæus

A Syrian Monophysite bishop, born in Tella, towards the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century, died in 578. He was the son of Theophilus bar Manu, a priest of Tella, and hence his real name was Jacob bar Theophilus; the surname Burde’ana, corrupted into Baradæus, was derived from the coarse horse-cloth barda’than which he usually wore. After receiving a good education he became a monk in the monastery of Pesíltâ, and a disciple of Severus, the head of the Monophysites. In the first half of the sixth century, Monophysitism. weakened by internal dissensions and by the opposition of the Emperor Justinian, was on the verge of disappearing, especially when its leader Severus died, 538. Probably through the influence of the Empress Theodora, Baradæus was made Bishop of Edessa in 543, and henceforth devoted all his energies to the defence of Monophysitism. Through his untiring activity he breathed a new life into what seemed a mere expiring faction. At the cost of great hardship, he went around ordaining priests and deacons and strengthening his coreligionists. There exists a profession of faith addressed to him by the abbots of the province of Arabia, with 137 signatures (see Lamy, in “Actes du XIe Congrès des Orientalistes,” §4, Paris, 1897) showing that he was the undisputed leader in Monophysite circles. It is because of his prominence that the Monophysites were, and still are, called after his name, Jacobites. Baradæus has left very little in writing: a liturgy, and a few letters.

The main source for the life of Baradæus is JOHN OF EPHESUS, Ecclesiastical History, the third part of which has been published by CURETON (Oxford, 1853), and Lives of the Oriental Saints, LAND ed. in his Anecdota Syriaca, II, 249–257; DUVAL, Littérature Syriaque (2nd ed., Paris, 1900); KLEYN, Jacobus Baradæus (Leyden, 1882).

R. BUTIN

Frederic Baraga

First Bishop of Marquette, Michigan, U.S.A., b. 29 June, 1797, at Malavas, in the parish of Dobernice in the Austrian Dukedom of Carniola [present-day Slovenia—Ed.]; d. at Marquette, Mich., 19 January, 1868. He was baptized on the very day of his birth, in the parish church of Dobernice, by the names of Irenaeus Frederic, the first of which, however, he never used, retaining only the second. His parents, Johann Nepomuc Baraga and Maria Katharine Josefa (nee de Jencic), had five children, of whom Frederic was the fourth. His father was not rich, but his mother inherited after her father’s death the estate of Malavas, besides a vast fortune. They were God-fearing and pious, and strove, while they survived, to give a good education to their children. His mother died in 1808, and his father in 1812, and Frederic spent his boyhood in the house of Dr. George Dolinar, a layman, professor in the diocesan clerical seminary at Laibach.

In 1816 young Frederic Baraga entered the University of Vienna, studied law, and graduated in 1821, but soon turned his thoughts to the clerical state, and entered the seminary of Laibach that same year. He was ordained priest 21 September, 1823, at Laibach, and laboured with great zeal and spiritual success as assistant in St. Martin’s parish, near Krainberg, and at Metlika, in Lower Carniola. On the 29th of October, 1830, he left his native land for the United States to spend the rest of his life in the Indian missionary field. After a journey of two months, he landed in New York on the 31st of December, 1830. He then proceeded to Cincinnati, Ohio, where he arrived 18 January, 1831. He was most kindly received by the Rt. Rev. Edward Fenwick, Bishop of Cincinnati, and during the winter and spring months laboured among the German Catholics of that city and elsewhere. On the 28th of May, 1831, he arrived at Arbre Croche, now Harbor Springs, his first Indian mission. There he laboured with apostolic zeal at the conversion of the Ottawas during two years and four months, during which time he baptized 547 Indian adults and children. He was succeeded in 1833 by Rev. F. Saenderl, Superior of the Redemptorists in the United States. On or about the 8th of September, 1833, Baraga left Arbre Croche to found a new Indian mission at Grand River, Mich. He arrived at his destination (now Grand Rapids, Mich.) on the 23d of September. He immediately began the building of a combination church, school, and pastoral residence, which was very poor, owing to the deficiency of funds. There he laboured most earnestly, though not as successfully as at Arbre Croche, until February, 1835, when he was succeeded by Father Andrew Viszoczky, a Hungarian priest. Baraga himself estimated the number of his converts at about two hundred, but Bishop Rese estimated the number of Indian converts in his diocese in 1834 at three thousand, with twelve churches or chapels.

Baraga’s next Indian mission was among the Chippewas at La Pointe, Wisconsin, where he arrived 27 July, 1835. There he laboured successfully for about eight years, baptizing 981 Indians and whites. In 1843 he founded the L’Anse Indian mission in Michigan, arriving there on the 24th of October. For ten years he laboured in this vast mission, being for many years the only Catholic priest in Upper Michigan. He attended not only to the Indians, but also to the whites of the vast territory, as the discovery of iron and copper drew many German, French, and English-speaking Catholics to the Northern Peninsula of Michigan. Truly incredible are the hardships and labours of Baraga at this period of his life. On the 29th of July, 1853, the Northern Peninsula of Michigan was detached from the Diocese of Detroit and erected into a vicariate Apostolic, and Baraga was appointed its first bishop. He was consecrated in the cathedral of Cincinnati by Archbishop Purcell, Bishop LeFevre of Detroit and Bishop Henni of Milwaukee officiating as assistant consecrators. Shortly after his elevation to the episcopal dignity Bishop Baraga issued two circulars to his people, one in Chippewa and the other in English. His jurisdiction extended not only to the whole Northern Peninsula of Michigan, but also to a large part of the Lower Peninsula, to Northern Wisconsin, and to the North Shore of Lake Superior. He laboured in this vast extent of territory for fifteen years, travelling almost incessantly, from the opening to the close of navigation year after year. On the 23d of October, 1865, by Apostolic authority he transferred his See from Sault Ste. Marie to Marquette, where he died at the age of seventy years.

Bishop Baraga will always rank with the foremost authors in American Indian literature. He composed the first known Chippewa grammar. This was a truly Herculean task, for he had to establish after long and close observation and deep study all the rules of the Chippewa grammar. This grammar has gone through three editions. In his preface to his Chippewa dictionary, printed in preface to his Chippewa dictionary, printed in Cincinnati, O., in 1853, by Jos. A. Hermann, he says: “This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first Dictionary of the Otchipwe language ever published. The compilation of it has cost me several years of assiduous labour.” This dictionary has also passed through several editions. Both grammar and dictionary are most highly prized and constantly used by Indian missionaries and others. His Indian prayer book and works of instruction are much read by both Indians and their pastors. Baraga always wrote in a very simple and clear style. His writings are admirably adapted to the limited capacity of his Indian readers, and can be understood even by ignorant Indian children. His “Dusna Tasa,” a prayer book in Slovenian, his own native language, passed through ten editions, the last, in 1905, with 84,000 copies. This alone is a proof of its great popularity and usefulness.

In addition to the “Theoretical and Practical Grammar of the Otchipwe [Chippewa] Language” (Detroit, 1850), the Chippewa dictionary, and the “Dusna Tasa” mentioned above, the published works of Bishop Baraga include: “Veneration and Imitation of the Blessed Mother of God,” in Slovenian (1830); “Animie-Misinaigan,” an Ottawa prayer book; “Jesus o Bimadisiwim” (The Life of Jesus), in Ottawa (Paris, 1837); “On the manners and customs of the Indians” in Slovenian (Laibach, 1837); “Gagikwe-Masiniagan,” a sermon-book, in Chippewa (1839 and 1859); “Zlata Jabelka”—“Golden Apples” (Laibach, 1844); “Kagige Debwewinan”—“Eternal Truths”; “Nanagatawendamo-Masinaigan”—Instructions on the Commandments and sacraments.

No Indian missionary of modern times was more beloved and revered by both Indians and whites than Baraga. He loved his Indians with a warm-hearted devotion which they reciprocated. Men of all positions in society, Catholics and non-Catholics, revered him as an ideal man, Christian, and bishop. Michigan has named after him one of her counties, several towns, and post offices, and his name has been given to one of the principal streets of Marquette. In his native country he is, if possible, even more popular than in America. His life, published in Slovenian, in 1906, has already (1907) reached a sale of 85,000 copies. That life might be summed up in the one phrase: Saintliness in action.

Verwyst, Life and Labours of Rt. Rev. Frederic Baraga (Milwaukee, 1900); Razen, History of the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie and Marquette; Elliott, Baraga among the Indians in Am. Cath. Q. Rev. (1896) 106 sqq.

CHRYSOSTOM VERWYST.

Ven. Madeleine-Sophie Barat

Foundress of the Society of the Sacred Heart, born at Joigny, Burgundy, 12 December, 1779; died in Paris, 24 May, 1865. She was the youngest child of Jacques Barat, a vine-dresser and cooper, and his wife, Madeleine Foufé, and received baptism the morning after her birth, her brother Louis, aged eleven, being chosen godfather. It was to this brother that she owed the exceptional education which fitted her for her life-work. Whilst her mother found her an apt pupil in practical matters, Louis saw her singular endowments of mind and heart; and when, at the age of twenty-two, he returned as professor to the seminary at Joigny, he taught his sister Latin, Greek, history, natural science, Spanish, and Italian. Soon she took delight in reading the classics in the original, and surpassed her brother’s pupils at the seminary.

After the Reign of Terror, Louis called Sophie to Paris, to train her for the religious life, for which she longed. When he had joined the Fathers of the Faith, a band of fervent priests, united in the hope of becoming members of the Society of Jesus on its restoration, he one day spoke of his sister to Father Varin, to whom had been bequeathed by the saintly Léonor de Tournély the plan of founding a society of women wholly devoted to the worship of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, to prayer and sacrifice, and destined to do for girls what the restored Society of Jesus would do for boys. Father Varin had vainly sought a fitting instrument to begin this work; he now found one in this modest, retiring girl of twenty. He unfolded the project, which seemed to satisfy all her aspirations, and she bowed before his authoritative declaration that this was for her the will of God. With three companions she made her first consecration, 21 November, 1800, the date which marks the foundation of the Society of the Sacred Heart. In September, 1801, the first convent was opened at Amiens, and thither Sophie went to help in the work of teaching. It was impossible yet to assume the name “Society of the Sacred Heart,” lest a political significance be attached to it; its members were known as Dames de la Foi or de l’Instruction Chrétienne. Father Varin allowed Sophie to make her vows, 7 June, 1802, with Genevieve Deshayes.

The community and school were increasing, and a poor school had just been added, when it became evident to Father Varin that Mademoiselle Loquet, who had hitherto acted as superior, lacked the qualities requisite for the office, and Sophie, although the youngest, was named superior (1802). Her first act was to kneel and kiss the feet of each of her sisters. Such was ever the spirit of her government, November, 1804, found her at Sainte-Marie-d’en-Haut, near Grenoble, receiving a community of Visitation nuns into her institute, One of them, Philippine Duchesne, was later to introduce the society into America. Grenoble was the first of some eighty foundations which Mother Barat was to make, not only in France but in North America (1818), Italy (1828), Switzerland (1830), Belgium (1834), Algiers (1841). England (1842), Ireland(1842), Spain (1846), Holland (1848), Germany (1851), South America (1853) Austria (1853), Poland (1857).

Mother Barat was elected superior-general in January, 1806, but a majority of one vote only, for the influence of an ambitious priest, chaplain at Amiens, wellnigh wrecked the nascent institute. Prolonged prayer, silent suffering, tact, respect, charity, were only means she used to oppose his designs. With Father Varin, now a Jesuit, she elaborated constitutions and rules grafted on the stock of the Institute of St. Ignatius. These rules were received with joy in all the houses, Amiens alone excepted; but Mother Barat’s wisdom and humility soon won submission even here. In 1818 she sent Mother Duchesne, with four companions, to the New World; her strong and holy hand was ever ready to support and guide this first missioner of the Society. She called all the superiors together in council at Paris in 1820, to provide a uniform course of studies for their schools. these studies were to be solid and serious, to fit the pupils to become intelligent wives and devoted mother; to give that cultivation of mind. that formation of character, which go to make up a true women; all was to stamped and sealed with strong religious principles and devotion to the Sacred Heart.

Foundations multiplied, and Mother Barat, seeing the necessity of a stronger guarantee of unity, sought it in union with Rome. The solemn approbation was obtained much sooner than usual, owing to a memoir drawn up by the foundress and presented to Leo XII in May, 1826. The decree of approbation was promulgated in December. The society being now fully organized and sealed by Rome’s approval, for forty years Mother Barat journeyed from convent to convent, wrote many thousand letters, and assembled general congregations, so as to preserve its original spirit. The Paris school gained European repute; Rome counted three establishments, asked for and blessed by three successive pontiffs. At Lyons Mother Barat founded the Congregation of the Children of Mary for former pupils and other ladies. in he same year (1832), she began at Turin the work of retreats for ladies of the world, an apostleship since widely and profitably imitated. Numerous foundations brought Mother Bart onto personal contact with all classes. We find her crossing and recrossing France, Switzerland, Italy, often on the eve of revolutions; now the centre of a society of émigrés whose intellectual gifts, high social position, and moral worth are seldom found united; now sought out by cardinals and Roman princesses during her vicits to her Roman houses; at another time, speaking on matters educational with Madame de Genlis; or again, exercising that supernatural ascendency which aroused the admiration of such men as Bishop Fraysinous, Doctor Récamier, and Duc de Rohan.

These exterior labours were far from absorbing all mother Barat’s time or energies; they coexisted with a life of ever-increasing holiness and continual prayer; for the real secret of her influence lay in her habitual seclusion from the outside world, in the strong religious formation of her daughters which this seclusion made possible, and in the enlightened, profound, ans supernatural views on education which she communicated to the religious engaged in her schools. She worked by and through them all, and thus reached out to the ends of the earth. In spite of herself she attracted and charmed all who approached her. New foundations she always entrusted to other hands; for, like all great rulers, she had the twofold gift of intuition in the choice of persons fitted for office, and trust of those in responsible posts. Allowing them much freedom of action in details, guiding them only by her counsels and usually form afar. Prelates who now and them ventured to attribute to her the successes of the society, saw that instead of pleasing, they distressed her exceedingly.

Beloved by her daughters, venerated by princes and pontiffs, yet ever lowly of heart, Mother Barat died at the mother-house in Paris, on Ascension Day, 1865, as she had foretold, after four days’ illness. She was buried at Conflans, the house of novitiate, where her body was found intact in 1893. In 1879 she was declared Venerable, and the process of beatification introduced. [Note: Mother Barat was canonized in 1925.]

ALICE POWER.

Nicolas Barat

A French Orientalist, born at Bourges during the first quarter of the seventeenth century; died in 1706 at Paris. He began his studies at Sens, and continued them in Paris, where he was instructor in the Manzarin College. There he came under the influence of Richard Simon, the famous Orientalist and Biblical scholar. The greater part of his published work was done in collaboration with other scholars. With Père Bordes he edited the posthumous work of Thomassin, “Glossarium universale hebraicum” (Paris, 1697), and aided J.B. Duhamel in the publication of his Bible (Paris, 1706). At the time of his death he was engaged on a French translation of Schabtai’s “Rabbinical Library.” His critical opinions, and much curious literary information that he had acquired, were published posthumously under the title, “Nouvelle bibliothèque choisie” (Amsterdam, 1714, 2 vols.).

TALLEMANT, Eloge de M. Barat in Mémoires de l’académie des inscrip. et belles lettres, I, 345; BOZE, Histoire de l’acad. des inscrip., I, 41.

ENEAS B. GOODWIN.

Alvaro Alonzo Barba

A secular priest of whom Nicolas Antonio (Bibliotheca hispana nova, 1786) says “Baeticus ex oppido Lepe, apud Potosi”; hence of Andalusian origin. By Lepe and Potosi, Lipes in western Bolivia might be indicated. He lived at Potosi during the period when its silver-mines were most productive and luxury and revelry among the Spanish residents and mine-owners had nearly reached the climax. Father Barba, in the midst of a turmoil of sensuality, divided his time between his sacerdotal duties and a close study of the ores of this region and their treatment. There had been, since 1570, a complete revolution in the treatment of silver-ores, through the application of quick-silver, and a number of improvements followed, of which Barba had knowledge. In 1640 he published at Madrid, a book entitled “Arte de los Metales,” which, though properly metallurgic and out of date, is still of value as the earliest work on South American ores and minerals. Many of its indications are well worthy the attention of miners and prospectors. This is especially the case in regard to mineral localities in Bolivia. The book was republished in Spanish in 1729, in 1770 and, recently, in Chile. There is a French translation from 1751 and one also in English.

Pinelo, Epitome, etc., (1738), II; Nicolas Antonio, Bibliotheca hispana nova (Madrid, 1786); Mendiburu, Dicc. Hist. -biog., etc., (Lima, 1876), II; Relaciones geograficas de Indias (Madrid, 1885), II, Appendix iv.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Barbalissos

A titular see of Mesopotamia. It was a city in Provincia Augusta Euphratensis, where the Equites Dalmatae Illyriciani kept garrison (Notit. Dignitat. Orientis, ed. Boecking, 88, 389). Justinian raised anew its walls (Orocop., Deaedific., II, 19; Malalas, Chronograph., XVIII, in Migne, P.G., XCVII, 676). At an early date it was a suffragan of Hierapolis, a metropolis in the Patriarchate of Antioch. Its bishop Antonius was present at the Council of Nicaea (325); two other bishops, Aquilinus and Marinianus, are known between 431 and 451 (Lequien, II, 949). The see is still mentioned in the sixth century. From 793 to 1042 five Jacobite bishops are known bearing this title (Revue de l’Orient chretien, VI, 191). Its site is marked by the ruins at Qala’ at Balis, which partly retains the old name, south of Meskene, on the road from Aleppo to Soura, where the Euphrates turns suddenly to the east. The spellings Barbarissos and Barbairissos in later “Notitiae” are wrong; so is Barbaricus campus in Procopius (De bello Persico, II, 99). Lequien (I, 407) wrongly gives Barbalissus as synonymous with Balbisse, another bishopric in Cappadocia, known only in 1143.

S. VAILHÉ

St. Barbara

Virgin and Martyr. There is no reference to St. Barbara contained in the authentic early historical authorities for Christian antiquity, neither does her name appear in the original recension of St. Jerome’s martyrology. Veneration of the saint was common, however, from the seventh century. At about this date there were in existence legendary Acts of her martyrdom which were inserted in the collection of Symeon Metaphrastes and were used as well by the authors (Ado, Usuard, etc.) of the enlarged martyrologies composed during the ninth century in Western Europe. According to these narratives, which are essentially the same, Barbara was the daughter of a rich heathen named Dioscorus. She was carefully guarded by her father who kept her shut up in a tower in order to preserve her from the outside world. An offer of marriage which was received through him she rejected. Before going on a journey her father commanded that a bath-house be erected for her use near her dwelling, and during his absence Barbara had three windows put in it, as a symbol of the Holy Trinity, instead of the two originally intended. When her father returned she acknowledged herself to be a Christian; upon this she was ill-treated by him and dragged before the prefect of the province, Martinianus, who had her cruelly tortured and finally condemned her to death by beheading. The father himself carried out the death-sentence, but in punishment for this he was struck by lightning on the way home and his body consumed. Another Christian named Juliana suffered the death of a martyr along with Barbara. A pious man called Valentinus buried the bodies of the saints; at this grave the sick were healed and the pilgrims who came to pray received aid and consolation. The emperor in whose reign the martyrdom is placed is sometimes called Maximinus and sometimes Maximianus; owing to the purely legendary character of the accounts of the martyrdom, there is no good basis for the investigations made at an earlier date in order to ascertain whether Maximinus Thrax (235–238) or Maximinus Daza (of the Diocletian persecutions), is meant.

The traditions vary as to the place of martyrdom, two different opinions being expressed: Symeon Metaphrastes and the Latin legend given by Mombritius makes Heliopolis in Egypt the site of the martyrdom, while other accounts, to which Baronius ascribes more weight, give Nicomedia. In the “Martyrologium Romanum parvum” (about 700), the oldest martyrology of the Latin Church in which her name occurs, it is said: “In Tuscia Barbarae virginis et martyris,” a statement repeated by Ado and others, while later additions of the martyrologies of St. Jerome and Bede say “Romae Barbarae virginis” or “apud Antiochiam passio S. Barbarae virg..” These various statement prove, however, only the local adaptation of the veneration of the saintly martyr concerning whom there is no genuine historical tradition. It is certain that before the ninth century she was publicly venerated both in the East and in the West, and that she was very popular with the Christian populace. The legend that her father was struck by lightning caused her, probably, to be regarded by the common people as the patron saint in time of danger from thunder-storms and fire, and later by analogy, as the protector of artillerymen and miners. She was also called upon as intercessor to assure the receiving of the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist at the hour of death. An occurrence of the year 1448 did much to further the spread of the veneration of the saint. A man named Henry Kock was nearly burnt to death in a fire at Gorkum; he called on St. Barbara, to whom he had always shown great devotion. She aided him to escape from the burning house and kept him alive until he could receive the last sacraments. A similar circumstance is related in an addition to the “Legenda aurea.” In the Greek and present Roman calendars the feast of St. Barbara falls on 4 December, while the martyrologies on the ninth century, with exception of Rabanus Maurus, place it on 16 December. St. Barbara has often been depicted in art; she is represented standing in a tower with three windows, carrying the palm of a martyr in her hand; often also she holds a chalice and sacramental wafer; sometimes cannon are displayed near her.

Passio, in SYMEON METAPHRASES (Migne, P.G., CXVI, c01.301 sqq.); MOMBRITIUS, Vitae sanctorum (Venice, 1474), I, f01.74, SURIUS, Deprobatis sanctorum historiis (Cologne, 1575), VI, 690, a work relating the incident at Gorkum; WIRTH, Danae in christlichen Legenden (Vienna, 1892); VITEAU, Passio ns des saints Ecaterine, Pierre d’Alexandrie, Barbara et Ansyia (Paris, 1897); Legenda aurea des Jacobus a Voragine, ed. GRÄSSE (Leipzig, 1846), 901; Martyrologies of BEDE (Migne, P.L.,XCIV, col. 1134), ADO (Migne, op. cit., CXXIII, c01.415), USUARDUS (ibid., CXXIV, c01.765 and 807), RABANUS MAURUS (ibid., CX, col. 1183); GALESINO, S. Barbarae virg. et mart., ed. SURIUS, loc. cit., 690–692; CÉLESTIN, Histoire de S. Barbe (Paris, 1853); VILLEMOT, Histoire de S. Barbe, vierge et martyre (Paris, 1865); PEINE, St. Barbara, die Schutzheilige der Bergleute unde der Artillerie, und ihre Darstellung in der Kunst (Freiberg, 1896).

J.P. KIRSCH

Giovanni Francesco Barbarigo

Italian Cardinal, nephew of Blessed Gregorio Barbarigo (1625–97), born in 1658 at Venice; died in 1730. He first entered the diplomatic service and was twice sent as representative of the Venetian Republic to the court of King Louis XIV of France. Later he entered the ecclesiastical state and became primicerius of the church of St. Mark at Venice. In 1697 he was named by Innocent XII Bishop of Verona, was transferred to Brescia in 1714, created cardinal in 1720, and in 1723 became a successor of his uncle in the See of Padua. He was a zealous prelate promoted the cause of beatification of Gregorio Barbarigo, and lent his encouragement to the production of literary works. To his suggestion was due the inception of the ecclesiastical history of Verona, and the works of St. Zeno, Bishop of Verona (362–380), were reprinted at his expense (Padua, 1710).

FELLER, Biog. Univ., supplement (Paris, 1850), 9.

N.A. WEBER

Diocese of Barbastro

(Barbastrum and Civitas Barbastrensis)

Suffragan diocese of the Spanish province of Huesca. The city (originally, perhaps, Bergidum or Bergiduna) is at the junction of the rivers Cinca and Vero. In the time of the Romans it was a part of Hither Spain (Hispania Citerior), afterwards called Tarraconensis. It was taken by the Arabs, under the leadership of Muza (711), and the name Barbaschter given to it, from which the name Barbastrum, according to the generally accepted opinion, is derived. It was held by the Saracens until about the year 1063, when it was retaken by Don Sancho Ramirez, King of Aragon. The Arabs once more obtained possession, but Aremengol IV, Count of Urgel, reconquered it, and after a third Arab conquest it was restored to Spain, in 1101, by Pedro I, King of Aragon, who, with the pope’s consent, constituted it an episcopal see, transferring the see from the ancient city of Roda to Barbastro. The first bishop, Poncio, went to Rome to obtain the pope’s permission for this transfer. Many provincial and diocesan councils have been held in the city; the Cortes of Spain has met there occasionally, and during one of its sessions, King Ramiro, called the Monk, abdicated the crown (1134).

The diocese is bounded on the north by the Pyrenees, on the east and south by the Diocese of Lerida, and on the west by those of Huesca and Yaca. It is a suffragan of Saragossa and is composed of 154 parishes under the supervision of ten archpriests, or vicars. The population is about 240,000. The clergy number about 220, and there are 231 churches and 177 chapels. The diocese was annexed to Huesca in the sixteenth century, but was afterwards made independent and remained so until the Concordat of 1851, which annexed it once more to Huesca, preserving its name and administration. It is administered at present by the titular Bishop of Claudiopolis, Don Juan Antonio Ruano, preconized Bishop of Lerida. Among its bishops, Ramon II, who is venerated as a saint, and the above-mentioned Ramiro, called the Monk, a prince of the royal house of Aragon, deserve special mention.

Bartolome and Lupercio Argensola, historians and classical Spanish writers, were born in Barbastro. Bortolome is the author of the “Historia de las Molucas,” “Anales de Aragon,” and “Regla de Perfeccion”; Lupercio wrote three tragedies, “Isabel,” “Jebe,” and “Alejandro,” and some poems published with others written by his brother Bartolome. The cathedral, the episcopal palace, the seminary, and the college of the Clerks Regular of the Pious Schools, or Piarists, are among the most noted buildings in the city. Besides the seminary for the education of young ecclesiastics, there are, in the diocese, various communities of both sexes devoted to a contemplative life and the education of the young. The Piarists, the Sons of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Poor Clares, and the Capuchin nuns have foundations in the capital, the Benedictines in the town of Pueyo, and the Discalced Carmelites in Graus and Salas-Altas. There are schools in all the towns of the diocese.

Florez, Espana Sagrada, and its continuation by Father Jose de la Canal (1836), XLVI, 148–70; XLVIII, 225–28; Munoz, Bibl. Hist. Esp. (1858), 47–8.

TIRSO LOPEZ

Felix-Joseph Barbelin

Styled the “apostle of Philadelphia,” b. at Luneville, Province of Alsace, France, 30 May, 1808; d. in Philadelphia, 8 June, 1869. He was the oldest of six children, of whom five became religious, his youngest brother Ignace-Xavier being the founder of the Apostolic School at Amiens. He received his early training at the home of a reverend grand-uncle, and made his philosophical and theological studies in a seminary of which another grand-uncle was president. He entered the Society of Jesus, 7 January, 1831, at Whitemarsh, Maryland, U. S. A., and for some years was stationed at Georgetown College, D. C., as disciplinarian and teacher of French. In 1836 he became assistant pastor of Holy Trinity Church at Georgetown, and in 1838 was transferred to Philadelphia, thereafter the scene of his apostolic labours. For more than a quarter of a century he was pastor of Old St. Joseph’s, Willing’s Alley, which became, mainly during his term of office, the centre from which radiated Catholic influences throughout the city and diocese. His zeal was untiring. He founded St. Joseph’s Hospital in his adopted city, and was the first to establish sodalities for men and women and for the young who were always the objects of his fatherly solicitude. In 1852 he was appointed the first President of St. Joseph’s College. His many good works brought him into contact with most of the Catholics of the city, while his charity towards all and particularly his love of children and devotion to their interests made him an object of veneration to Catholics and Protestants alike. His memory is still held in benediction.

His life was written by Eleanor C. Donnelly (Philadelphia, 1886); Woodstock Letters, IV, 108; V, 81.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Barber Family

DANIEL BARBER

Daniel Barber, soldier of the Revolution, Episcopalian minister and convert, b. at Simsbury, Connecticut, U.S.A., 2 October, 1756; d. at Saint Inigoes, Maryland, 1834. The conversion of the Barber family, despite the prejudices of a Puritan education and environment, was one of the most notable and far-reaching in its results of any recorded in the early annals of the church in New England. Daniel Barber has left a “History of My Own Times” (Washington, 1827), in which he states that his father and mother were Congregational Dissenters of strict Puritanic rule and he continued in that sect until his twenty-seventh year, when he joined the Episcopalians. Previous to this he had served two terms as a soldier in the Continental army. In his thirtieth year he was ordained a minister of the Episcopalian Church at Schenectady, New York. He married Chloe Case, daughter of Judge Owen of Simsbury, Connecticut, and about 1787, with his wife, his three sons, and a daughter, moved to Claremont, New Hampshire. He exercised the duties of the ministry for thirty years without doubt concerning the soundness of his ordination, when one day the chance reading of a Catholic book opened up for him the whole issue of the validity of Anglican orders, by impugning Parker’s consecration. This doubt was further increased by a visit for conference to the famous Bishop Cheverus, then a priest in Boston, and the inability of his Episcopalian associates to offer any satisfactory refutation of the arguments advanced by the Catholic priest. Father Cheverus also gave him a number of Catholic books, which he and the other members of his family read eagerly.

In 1807, at the instance of her parents, he baptized Fanny, daughter of General Ethan Allen, who subsequently became a convert and died a nun in the convent of the Hotel-Dieu, Montreal. A visit he made there greatly impressed him, and Miss Allen’s change of faith indirectly had much to do with his own conversion. The books Father Cheverus gave him he not only studied carefully himself, but gave them to his wife and children. His son, Virgil Horace, who was a minister in charge of an Episcopalian academy at Fairfield, near Utica, New York, was specially attracted by these books when with his wife he visited his father, and he took Milner’s “End of Controversy” back to New York. This visit resulted in the conversion of both husband and wife in 1817. The following year Virgil returned to Claremont from New York, taking with him Father Charles Ffrench, a Dominican who was officiating there at St. Peter’s church. The priest remained a week in Daniel Barber’s house preaching and saying Mass, with the result that he had seven converts, including Mrs. Daniel Barber and her children, Mrs. Noah Tyler, who was Daniel Barber’s sister, and her eldest daughter Rosetta. Mrs. Tyler was the mother of William Tyler, first Bishop of Hartford, Connecticut. Her husband and six other children were subsequently converted, and four of the daughters became Sisters of Charity.

Mrs. Daniel Barber was a woman of great strength of mind and resolution. She died in her seventy-ninth year, 8 February, 1825. Her husband was not baptized with her, but on the fifteenth of November, 1818 gave up his place as minister of the Episcopalian parish of Claremont. He then went to visit friends in Maryland and Washington, where he took the final step and entered the Church. He spent the rest of his life, after the death of his wife, in Maryland and Pennsylvania, near his son Virgil, and he died in 1834 at the house of the Society of Jesus at Saint Inigoes, Maryland. Two pamphlets, printed at Washington, “Catholic Worships and Piety Explained and Recommended in Sundry Letters to a Very Dear Friend and Others” (1821), and “History of My Own Times,” give interesting details of his life and show him to have been honest in his convictions and earnestly desirous of knowing the truth and disposed to embrace it when found.

Virgil Horace Barber

Virgil Horace Barber, son of Daniel, b. at Claremont, New Hampshire, 9 May, 1782; d. at Georgetown, D.C., 25 March, 1847. He himself said that the first step leading to his conversion was the reading through curiosity of a little book “A Novena to St. Francis Xavier” belonging to a pious Irish servant girl who was employed in his house while he was principal of the Episcopalian Academy at Fairfield, New York. This raised doubts concerning his Protestant faith, which his bishop, Dr. Hobart, and other Episcopalian ministers could not solve for him. During a visit to New York City, in 1816, he called on Father Benedict J. Fenwick, S.J., with the result that he resigned his Episcopalian charge at Fairfield, and went to New York, where he and his wife Jerusha (b. New Town, Connecticut, 20 July, 1789) were received into the Church with their five children, Mary (b. 1810); Abigail (b. 1811); Susan (b. 1813); Samuel (b. 1814); and Josephine (b. 1816). At first he opened a school in New York, but this lasted only seven months, for both he and his wife determined to enter religious life, he the Society of Jesus, and she the Visitation Order. Under the direction of their friend, Father Fenwick, in June, 1817, they set out for Georgetown, D. C., where Mr. Barber and his son Samuel went to the college of the Jesuit Fathers, and his wife and the three oldest girls were received into the Visitation convent. The youngest child, Josephine, then ten months old, was taken care of by Father Fenwick’s mother. The superior at Georgetown, Father John Grassi, S.J., shortly after sailed for Rome and took Mr. Barber with him as a novice. Mr. Barber remained there a year and then returned to Georgetown, where he continued his studies until December, 1822, when he was ordained a priest at Boston. After his ordination he was sent to his old home, Claremont, New Hampshire, where he built a church and laboured for two years. He then spent some time on the Indian missions in Maine, and was after recalled to Georgetown College, where he passed the remainder of his days.

Nearly three years after their separation, 23 February, 1820, husband and wife met in the chapel of Georgetown convent to make their vows in religion. She first went through the formula of the profession of a Visitation nun, and he the vows of a member of the Society of Jesus. Their five children, the eldest being ten and the youngest three and a half years old, were present. Mrs. Barber had been admitted into the Visitation convent on the twenty-sixth of July, 1817, taking the name of Sister Mary Augustine. Her novitiate was one of severe trials, as well on account of her affection for her husband as on account of her children, who were a heavy burden to the community then in a state of extreme poverty. Her pious perseverance triumphed, and she became one of the most useful members of the order, serving in the convents of Georgetown, Kaskaskia, St. Louis, and Mobile, where she died 1 January, 1860. She had the happiness of seeing all her children embrace a religious life. Mary, the eldest, entered the Ursuline convent, Mt. Benedict, near Charlestown, Massachusetts, as Sister Mary Benedicta, 15 August, 1826, and died in the convent of the order in Quebec, 9 May, 1844. Abigail, Susan, and Josephine also became Ursulines. The first died in Quebec, 8 December, 1879, and Susan in the convent at Three Rivers, Canada, 24 January, 1837. Samuel, the son, graduated at Georgetown College in 1831 and immediately entered the Society of Jesus. After his novitiate he was sent to Rome, where he was ordained. He returned to Georgetown in 1840, and died, aged fifty years, at St. Thomas’s Manor, Maryland, 23 February, 1864.

De Goesbriand, Catholic Memoirs of Vermont and New Hampshire (Burlington, Vermont, 1886); Lathrop, A Story of Courage (Boston, 1894); Shea, The Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1856); Idem, Memorial History of Georgetown College (Washington, 1891); U. S. Cath. Hist. Soc. Records and Studies (New York, October, 1900).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Giovanni Barbieri

Giovanni, called from his squinting, “Il Guercino”; a famous painter of religious subjects, b. at Cento, near Bologna, 2 February, 1591; d. at Bologna, 22 December, 1666. His parents were in very humble circumstances. It is related that he gave such early indication of his great talents that before he reached the age of ten he had painted on the front wall of his home a figure of the Virgin. His first instructor was Bartolommeo Bertozzi, and when sixteen he entered the school of Benedetto Gennari, the elder, at Cento. As a youth he had studied with great admiration a famous painting of Ludovico Carracci at the convent of the Capuchins at Cento, which had much influence on his work. Father Mirandola, head of the convent, took Barbieri under his protection, had him taught, and secured him commissions.

After spending some time in Bologna, where he studied with Cremonini and Gennari, the young painter went to Venice, where he received the counsels of Palma. At Ferrara he painted the portrait of the legate, Cardinal Jacopo Serra, who made him a chevalier. On the invitation of Cardinal Ludovisi, later Pope Gregory XV, he went to Rome. There he did the “Aurora” at the Villa Ludovisi, and his celebrated painting of St. Petronilla in the Capitol. After the death of his papal patron, Barbieri, refusing the invitations of James I to go to England and of Louis XIII to visit France, returned to Cento and established there an academy which was much frequented by foreign as well as native painters. He painted the portraits of the Duke of Modena, and after the death of Guido, whose style he imitated, he settled at Bologna, where he died, leaving much wealth.

Calvi, Life of Giovanni Barbieri (Bologna, 1808); Bryan, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers (London and New York, 1903–05).

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Agostino Barbosa

A noted canonist, b. at Guimaraens, Portugal, in 1589; consecrated in Rome, 22 March, 1649, Bishop of Ugento in Otranto, Italy, he died seven months later. Having studied canon law in his native land, he went to Rome. Being without books, his astounding memory served him instead. Sanctity and affability won for him entrance into the libraries of the city, where he passed long hours reading sedulously and memorizing without effort, so that returning to his room he was able to put in writing the fruits of the day’s labour. About 1632 he went to Madrid, where he applied himself to writing and fulfilled various duties confided to him till 1648.

Among Barbosa’s many writings, all of which evidence intimate acquaintance with authors, sources, and controverted questions, we mention the following: “Pastoralis Sollicitudinis, sive de Officio et Potestate Episcopi Tripartita Descriptio” (Rome, 1621; Lyons, 1629; in folio, 1641, 1650, etc.). A similar work relating to parish priests was published in Rome in 1632, Lyons, 1634, Geneva, 1662, Venice, 1705, in quarto. “Variae Juris Tractationes” (in folio, Lyons, 1631 and 1644; Strasburg, 1652). “Juris Ecclesiastici Universi Libri III” (Lyons, 1633, 1645, 1718). All the canonical works of Barbosa were published at Lyons, 1657–75, in 19 vols. In quinto, 16 vols. in folio, and again, 1698–1716, 20 vols. in quinto, 18 vols. in folio.

Hurter in Kirchenlex., s. v.; Wernz, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1898), I, 408.

ANDREW B. MEEHAN

Ignacio Barbosa-Machado

A Portuguese historian, born at Lisbon in 1686; died in 1734. He pursued his studies at the University of Coimbra, was later sent to Brazil as a magistrate, and after the death of his wife entered the ecclesiastical state. He has left a number of historical works, the most important of which is “Fastos Politicos e Militares de Antiqua e Nova Lusitania” (Lisbon, 1745), dealing with the history of Portugal and Brazil. He was a brother of the more famous Diego Machado Barbosa (1682–1772), also a priest and writer, and author of a notable monument of Portuguese literature “Bibliotheca Lusitana, Historica, Critica e Chronologica” (Lisbon, 1741–59).

V. FUENTES

John Barbour

Scottish ecclesiastic and author of “The Bruce,” a historical poem in the early Scottish or Northern English dialect, b. about 1320; d. 1395. He was already Archdeacon of Aberdeen in 1357, an honour not likely to have been attained much before his fortieth year. At various times, 1357, 1364, 1365, 1368, he obtained, originally at the request of King David of Scotland, passports from the King of England for travel to Oxford or to France, presumably for the purpose of special study or research, or for the renewal of old college associations. In 1357 he was appointed by the Bishop of Aberdeen one of the commissioners to meet at Edinburgh and confer abut the ransom from England of David II, captured at Neville’s Cross, 1346. In 1373, and occasionally in later years, he was one of the auditors of the exchequer. In 1378, as a reward for his patriotic poem, he was assigned, from the royal rents payable by the city, a perpetual pension of twenty shillings, and in 1388, an additional royal pension for life of £10 Scots from the customs of Aberdeen. He received also from the king £10 in 1377, and £5 in 1386. Innes has pointed out that in addition to these pensions and gifts, and perquisites incidental to the wardship of a minor, Barbour enjoyed the revenue of a prebend and a considerable income as archdeacon. His pension of twenty shillings he left as a foundation for Masses for himself and his parents, to be said by all the priests at the cathedral on the Wednesday after Low Sunday. As Jamieson shows, the pension was not bequeathed to a hospital, but probably reverted to the Crown at the Reformation. The copy of the document assigning his pension to the dean and chapter of Aberdeen may be found in Skeat, along with the forty-eight other documents which establish the facts of Barbour’s life.

Barbour, “the earliest poet and the first detailed historian of Scotland,” writing in that northern dialect of Middle English which afterward came to be specifically called Scotch, composed, besides “The Brut” and “The Stewart’s Original,” which are lost, the long patriotic narrative poem called “The Bruce.” This work, upon which Barbour was engaged in 1375, exists in two manuscripts, dated 1487 and 1489, written by John Ramsay, who has been identified with a later prior of the Carthusian monastery at Perth. The second of these copies was made at the request of Simon Lochmalony, vicar of Auchter Monsey, near Perth. An earlier, incomplete manuscript, written by Fenton, a monk of Melrose, in 1369, is not extant. “The Bruce,” extending through 6,000 octosyllabic couplets, variously divided into fourteen or twenty books, told to a generation of Scotchmen flushed with victory and the sense of dearly-bought independence the story of the struggles of their grandfathers, sang the glories of freedom, and pictured the civic and knightly virtues of Bruce and Douglas. The narrative runs from the dispute for the crown of Scotland between Balliol and the first Robert, whom Barbour poetically identifies with his grandson, to the death of the Black Douglas in Spain while on his way to the Holy Land with the heart of Bruce. It pictures such events as Bannockburn, the siege of Berwick, the expedition to Ireland, and the wanderings of the king, and sketches the characters of Stewart, Randolph, Bruce, and Douglas. The author finds a place, too, for descriptions of nature, for touches showing the tenderness of the true soldier, for snatches of grim humour or sharp dialogue, for digressions on necromancy and astrology, and for learned allusions to the favourite classic authors of the day. This narrative, which Barbour called a romance, is regarded as being in essential points a faithful history, and was so received by generations of readers. Scott used of its material in “Castle Dangerous,” “The Lord of the Isles,” and “Tales of a Grandfather.” The principal editions of “The Bruce” are those of Pinkerton (Edinburgh, 1790); Jamieson (Edinburgh, 1820); Cosmo Innes (Edinburgh), and, according to more modern requirements of scholarship, that of Professor Skeat for the “Early English Text Society,” and the “Early Scottish Text Society.” Some fragments on the tale of Troy, and a long poem on the lives of the saints formerly attributed to Barbour are no longer thought to be his work.

Mackay in Dict. Nat. Biog.; Veitch, Feeling for Nature in Scottish Poetry; Lanier, Music and Poetry.

J. VINCENT CROWNE.

Paulus Barbus

Italian philosopher and theologian, b. at Soncino, Lombardy, and hence known also by the name of Soncinas which appears at the head of his books; d. at Cremona, 4 August, 1494. When a mere youth he entered the Dominican Order and made his philosophical and theological studies in its schools. He afterwards taught philosophy and theology with great success at Milan, Ferrara, and Bologna. At the time of his death he was prior of the Cremona Convent. Exhibiting extraordinary intellectual powers, and expressing his deep thoughts in eloquent speech and finished writing, he merited and received the esteem of his learned contemporaries, notably of Pico della Mirandola. Many of his writing were lost at an early date. The following have been printed frequently: (1) “Quaestiones super divina sapientia Aristotelis” (principal edition, Lyons, 1579); (2) “Divinum Epitoma quaestionum in IV libros senentiarum a principe Thomistarum Joanne Capreolo Tolesano disputatarum” (principal edition, Pavia, 1522). The place and date of (3) “In libros praedicabilium et praedicamentorum expositio” are unknown.

Quetif and Echard, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum, I, 279.

ARTHUR L. MCMAHON

Barca

A titular see of Cyrenaica in Northern Africa. According to most archaeologists it was situated at Medinet el Merdja, but according to Graham (Roman Africa) at Tolometa, or Tolmeita. After being often destroyed and restored, it became, during the Roman period, a mere borough (Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, I, 459), but was, nevertheless, the site of a bishopric. Its bishop, Zopyros (Zephyrius is a mistake), was present at the Council of Nicaea in 325 (Gelzer, Patrum Nicaenorum nomina, 231). The subscriptions at Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) give the names of two other bishops, Zenobius and Theodorus. The see must have disappeared when the Arabs conquered the Pentapolis in 643 (Butler, The Arab Conquest of Egypt, 430).

Lequien, Oriens Christ., II, 625: Gams, Series episcop., 462.

L. PETIT.

Diocese of Barcelona

(Barcino).

One of the suffragan dioceses of the Archdiocese of Tarragona. The city of this name is the capital of Catalonia and of the province of Barcelona. It is situated on the coast of north-eastern Spain, and is familiarly known as the “Queen of the Mediterranean.”

HISTORY

Barcelona is one of the most ancient cities of Spain, and the most important after the capital. Founded by Hamilcar in the ancient region of Laletana, it was in the possession of the Carthaginians until they were driven out of Spain when it passed under the power of the Romans, who favoured it in many ways. Julius Caesar bestowed on it the name of Julia Augusta Faventia in recognition of the support given him in his struggle with Pompey; later he made it a Roman colony and gave it to the jus Latii, which conferred on the inhabitants, although still belonging to Hispania Tarraconensis, the full privileges of Roman citizenship. The city remained unimportant until Ataulf, King of the Visigoths, chose it for his residence (415). Later it passed successively into the hands of the Arabs (713) and the Franks (801). Finally, Wilfrid the Hairy declared his independence and gave the Spanish March, or the Marca Hispanica, as the Franks had called it, the name of the County of Barcelona. It remained under the independent government of its own counts until the marriage of Petronilla, daughter of Ramiro the Monk, with the Count of Barcelona (1137) united Aragon and Catalonia. After 1164, when Petronilla resigned in favour of her son Alfonso, the two states formed but one kingdom. Barcelona, being situated on the shores of the Mediterranean and on the military road between Spain and France, was comparatively easy of access, and the Gospel was preached there by the immediate disciples of the Apostles. The See of Barcelona, unlike most very ancient sees, whose origins are obscure, has preserved catalogues of its bishops from Apostolic times, and although all the names given cannot be admitted as authentic, the greater number are handed down in all the catalogues. In the twelfth century the diocese was restored by Ramon Berengar, Count of Barcelona, since which time the succession of bishops has been uninterrupted. In the long line of bishops we find many illustrious names. St. Severus, a native of the city, was martyred by Dacianus in the reign of Diocletian. St. Pacianus (360–390) is famous for the clearness and spirituality of his doctrinal writings; in chapter cvi of his “De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis,” St. Jerome praises the chaste life of Pacianus, his eloquence, and his writings on baptism and penance, also those against heretics, particularly the Novations. St. Oligarius, noted for the great purity of his life, was the first metropolitan of this province. Bishop Urquinaona was revered for his great charity; one of the handsomest plazas of Barcelona is still called by his name. Among the saints of this diocese are: the famous virgin, St. Eulalia, a martyr of the third century, whose relics are preserved in a rich shrine in the crypt of the cathedral; Sts. Juliana and Sempronia, virgins and martyrs; the African saints, Cucuphas and Felix, martyred in the city of Barcelona; St. Raymund of Pennafort, founder of the Order of Mercy for the Redemption of Captives, confessor of Gregory IX (1227–41), and compiler of the famous “Decretals,” in which he collected the scattered decrees of popes and councils.

COUNCILS OF BARCELONA

Many councils and assemblies of Spanish bishops were held in Barcelona, two provincial councils in the Visigothic period. The first (c. 540), at which the metropolitan and six bishops assisted, promulgated ten canons, ordaining that the Miserere should be said before the Canticle; that in the Vespers and Matins the benediction should be given to the people; that clerics should not wear the hair long or shave their beards; that penitents should wear the hair short, put on a religious garb, and devote their time to prayer; that the “beatific benediction” should be given to the sick so that they could receive Holy Communion, and that the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon (451) with regard to monks should be observed. At the Second Provincial Council (c. 599), attended by the metropolitan and twelve bishops, four canons were promulgated, the first and second prohibiting any fee for Holy orders and for the chrism used for Confirmation; the third and fourth commanding the observation of the canons referring to those awaiting Holy orders, and excommunicating those who, after having made a vow of chastity and changed their secular dress for the religious garb, should contract a carnal marriage, even if a woman had been forced by violence, unless she immediately separated from the one who had violated her; a similar excommunication was also pronounced on those who married after they had received the “blessing of penance” (benedictio paenitentiae), i.e. penitents who had taken an additional vow of continency. Other councils were also held there: that of 1125, presided over by St. Olegarius, the Metropolitan and Bishop of Barcelona; that of 1339 to decide in the matter of the subsidies asked from the clergy; that of 1377, a quasi-plenary council; that of 1387, on the occasion of the Western Schism, which proclaimed legitimate the election of Clement VII, those of 1417, 1517, and 1564 which are of no special importance. In 1904 the Congreso Hispano-Americano de las Congregaciones Marianas was held at Barcelona and was attended by thousands of persons for the purpose of making uniform laws for the congregation and that of the Luises.

MONUMENTS

Among the many monuments of the city, the most important is the cathedral, built in the early days of the Church in honour of the Holy Cross. It was rebuilt by order of Berengar I, the Old, Count of Barcelona, and his wife, Dona Almodis, and consecrated in 1058. In the thirteenth century it was enlarged, and was finally completed in 1338. It is Gothic in style, one its most notable features being the “door of the Inquisition,” a beautiful piece of work composed of small columns and pointed arches on a diminishing scale, which conceals the jasper steps that lead to the sanctuary. The façade La Piedad, composed of graceful pointed arches, is one of the purest examples of Spanish Gothic. The church of St. Severus unites in its façade all the architectural charms of the fifteenth century in which it was built; its main tabernacle is noted for the rich carving of its pointed arches; its chapel of St. Eulalia is exceedingly delicate and beautiful. The church of Santa Ana has two pictures by Juncosa. The ancient church of Santa Maria del Mar is also a beautiful specimen of Gothic architecture. Santa Maria del Pino has the most spacious and lofty nave of all the Gothic churches in Barcelona. The church of Sts. Justo and Pastor was the first dedicated to the worship of the true God in Barcelona. Judging form its present appearance, the unfinished Templo Expiatorio de la Sagrada Familia, built form the alms of the faithful, will be the finest ecclesiastical edifice in Barcelona. The famous sanctuary of Monserrat is outside the city. Apart from its antiquity and religious interest, it is remarkable for its wealth of precious stones, and for the beautiful chapels representing the mysteries of the Rosary; all these are modern and are an evidence of the piety of the faithful. The Diocese of Barcelona also possesses archives of great value in which many precious documents, saved from the Almohad conquest under Almanzor (1184–98), are preserved, as well as the priceless books called Exemplaria, wherein are chronicled ecclesiastical functions, oaths of kings, and other notable events, which make them the best source of information for the history of Catalonia.

CHARITY AND EDUCATION

It would be difficult to find in Spain another city where Christian charity is manifested in more ways than in Barcelona. Besides many general and private hospitals in the city, there exist a multitude of asylums for all classes of persons maintained by religious congregations and pious associations. Notable among them is the girls’ orphan asylum of San Jose de la Montana. The asylum and maternity home (casa de lactancia) of Bressol, for the children of labourers, takes care annually of 1,200 healthy and 2,300 sick children. The asylum of La Sagrada Familia cares for about 300 children of working mothers. The asylum of La Madre de Dios del Carmen of Hostafranchs, besides sheltering about 600 children and old persons, has a pious association especially for arranging marriages between persons who have been living together illegally, and legitimizing the children; in one year it procured 120 such marriages. The asylum of St. Raphael is for scrofulous children, and the asylum Del Parque relieves annually 94,234 poor, and provides sleeping accommodations for 20,000 poor annually. The house of the Good Shepherd shelters about 300 young women rescued from houses of ill fame. The asylum of the Visitation assists young women who are in want, and in the nineteen years of its existence has preserved the purity and virtue of more than 3,000 young women. There are between forty and fifty other institutions for charitable purposes, among them the Duran asylum for incorrigible boys. Two have for their object the distribution of food and the serving of meals to working-men; one distributed 117,125 free rations in one year, and the other fed about 300 working-men daily. The Montes Pios of Nuestra Senora de la Esperanza, of Barcelona, of Santa Madrona, and of Nuestra Senora de Monserrat, are societies for the aid of female domestics and working-men. An association of fathers of families has in one year prevented the publication of 45,000 obscene books and photographs.

In addition to the diocesan seminary, there are Christian Doctrine classes attended by 6,000 children, and Sunday Schools, supervised by 161 young ladies, where over 2,000 women received instruction, and are thus prevented from attending public dance-halls. Connected with each of the asylums before mentioned is one or more schools; the religious orders conduct free schools attended by 12,000 boys and girls. There are 8 colleges, under the Jesuits, the Piarists, and other religious orders.

A number of Catholic periodicals are published in the diocese: the “Boletin Eclesiastico de la Diocesis,” the “Revista Popular,” founded and directed by Dr. Sarda y Salvany, author of the famous book “Liberalismo es Pecado,” which as been translated into many languages; the “Comentarius Scholaris,” published by the diocesan seminary students; “Anales del culto a San Jose”; the “Mensajero del Nino Jesus de Praga”; “Anales de Nuestra Senora del Sagrado Corazon”; “La Monta de San Jose,” official organ of the association; “El Boletin Salesiano”; “Las Misiones Catolicas”; “La Hormiga de Oro”; “La Revista Social”; and “Los Estudios Franciscanos.” “El Correo Catalan” is the only strictly Catholic newspaper. It has the blessing of the sovereign pontiff, and counts many of the clergy among its contributors.

STATISTICS

There are 231 parishes, 13 archipresbyterates, 1,180 secular priests, 360 regular clergy, and 89 religious communities. In 1906 the population, nearly all Catholic, was 1,054,531.

V. de la Fuente, Hist. Ecca. De Espana (Madrid, 1875); Villanueva, Viage literario a las iglesias de Espana (Madrid, 1803–52), XVII, 128–226; XVIII, 1–83, and passim; Florez, Espana Sagrada (Madrid, 1754 sqq.), XXVIII-XXIX; Aymerich, Nomina et Acta ep. Barc. (biid., 1760); Gams, Kircheng, Spaniens (Ratisbon, 1874), II, ii; Espana Ecca. (Madrid, 1902), IV; Coleccion de documentos hist. (Barcelona, 1893–95); Albo y Marti, The Charities of Barcelona (Spanish, ibid., 1901).

TIRSO LOPEZ

University of Barcelona

This was an outgrowth of the ecclesiastical schools founded in the eleventh century. To these were added gradually the chairs held by the Dominicans in their convent and those established in the Academia by the Kings of Aragon. In 1430, the town council of Barcelona took measures for the founding of a Stadium Generale in order to prevent the migration of their young men to Lerida and to the foreign universities of Paris, Toulouse, and Bologna. But the university as such dates from 1450, the year in which its charter was granted by Alfonso V of Aragon and confirmed by the Bull “Constitutus in Speculo” of Pope Nicholas V. The pope conferred upon the new university all the privileges enjoyed by the University of Toulouse and authorized the erection of chairs in theology, canon and civil law, arts, and medicine. The young institution had to struggle with all sorts of difficulties. For nearly a century it had no buildings adapted to its purposes. In 1544, however, it entered upon a new era, with suitable structures and equipment, and in 1567 it received the richly endowed priory of St. Ann, formerly held by the Order of St. John. The teaching of grammar and rhetoric was entrusted to the Jesuits (1576) and the diocesan seminary was affiliated to the university (1568). In 1714 the Faculties, with the exception of that of medicine, were transferred to Cervera. By royal decree of Charles III, a college of surgery was established at Barcelona in 1764. The Faculties returned from Cervera to Barcelona in 1823, and in 1837 the new university was formally inaugurated. It withstood the disturbances that occurred in 1840 and 1856, passed under State control in 1857, and was provided with additional buildings (1863–73). At present it has five Faculties: philosophy and letters, law, science, medicine, and pharmacy, with 56 instructors and 1,900 students. The Archives of the Crown of Aragon, founded in 1346, contain 3,759,314 documents, and the library about 2,000 manuscripts.

La Fuente, Historia de las Universidades (Madrid, 1884), I; Zarate, De la Instruccion Publica en Espana (Madrid, 1855); RASHDALL, Universities of Europe in the M. A. (Oxford, 1895), II, Pt. 1, 94.

E.A. PACE

Alonzo de Barcena

(Also Barzana).

A native of Bacza in Andalusia, Spain, b. 1528; d. at Cuzco, Peru, 15 January, 1598. He became a Jesuit in 1565, and went to Paris in 1569. He was first destined for the missions of Heartier, whence he was ordered (1577) to Juli, on the shores of Lake Titicaca in Southern Peru. He became one of the founders of this important mission. Barcena remained in Central Bolivia for eleven years, when the Provincial Atienza sent him to Tucuman in Argentina. His work among the various tribes of that region and of Paraguay continued until 1693, when he was made Commissary of the Inquisition in those provinces. Exhausted physically by his long and arduous labors, Barcena died at Cuzco in Peru. He is credited with having had a practical knowledge of eleven Indian languages and with having written grammars, vocabularies, catechisms in most of them. These manuscripts are possibly still in the archives of Lima. Only one of his writings is known to have been published: a letter full of important ethnographic and linguistic detail, on the Indians of Tucuman, on the Calchaquis, and others. The letter (see below) published in 1885, is dated 8 September, 1594, at Asunción in Paraguay, and is addressed to the Provincial John Sebastian.

Calancha, Coronica moralizada (Lima, 1638), I; Lozano, historia de la Compania de la Jesus de la provincia del Paraguay (Madrid, 1755); Idem, Descripcion del Gran Chaco (Cordova, 1733); Lorenzo Hervas, Catalogo delle Lingue conoscuiti e noticia della loro affinita e diversita (Foligno, 1784); Charlevoix, Historie du Paraguay (Paris, 1757); Saldamandando, Antiquos Jesuitas del Peru (Lima, 1882); Relaciones geograficas de Indias (Madrid, 1885), II, contains the Carta de P. Alonso de Barzana, de la Compania de Jesus al P. Juan Sebastian, su Provincial, the letter mentioned above (Appendix 30, III); Ludewig, The Literature of American Aboriginal Indians (London, 1858), 76, mentions a work of Father Barcena under the title of Lexica et praecepta grammatica, item liber confessionis et precum in quinque Indorum Linguis (Peru, 1590); it is probably one of the manuscripts alluded to above. The title is taken from Southwell, Bibliotheca Societatis Jesu (Rome, 1676).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

John Barclay

Author of the political novel “Argenis” and other Latin works in prose and verse, was b. 28 January, 1582, at Pont-à-Mousson; d. in Rome, August, 1621. His father was William Barclay. John Barclay received his early schooling from the Jesuits, and at the age of nineteen he published a commentary on the “Thebais” of Statius. In 1603 father and son, perhaps attracted by the union of the Scotch and English crowns, tried their fortunes in London. The son dedicated to James his “Euphormionis Lusinini Satyricon.” After a brief stay in France, John returned to England in 1605.

He married a brilliant and clever Frenchwoman, and was again in London in 1606. He published, in Paris, 1607, the second part of his “Satyricon” and about the same time his poems, under the title “Sylvae,” and a narrative of the Gunpowder Plot (English translation, Oxford, 1634). His publication in 1609 of his father’s work, “De Potestate Papae,” which denied the temporal jurisdiction of the pope over princes, and his declaration therewith that he would defend his father’s memory, led to a prolonged controversy, in which his known opponents were Bellarmine and a Jesuit, Andreas Eudaemon Joannes. A further series of polemics was occasioned by his “Apology” (1611) for the “Satyricon,” in which he attacked the Jesuits and his father’s former patron, the Duke of Lorraine. In his “Icon Animorum,” a fourth part of the Satyricon” (London, 1614), he described the character and manners of the European nations, mentioning Scotland with special affection. In 1615 a volume of his poems appeared in London.

In England Barclay received occasional help from the king and the Earl of Salisbury, and won the friendship of Isaac Casaubon, Ralph Thorie, and especially, in 1606, of du Peiresc, an attache of the French Embassy and a patron of learning. In 1616 Barclay, at the invitation of Paul V, went to Rome, where he was welcomed by Bellarmine and pensioned by the pope. Perhaps to prove his Catholic loyalty he published in 1617 his “Paraenesis ad Sectarios.” Completing in July, 1621, his Latin novel “Argenis,” he died in the following month. The facts as to the removal of his monument and inscription from St. Onofrio have been perhaps permanently obscured by partisan dispute. His friend Ralph Thorie published an elegy in 1621. Barclay was admired by his contemporaries for his honesty, his rare courtesy, and a conversational charm that owed something to grave irony. His varied learning and talents made him a formidable opponent.

The most important of Barclay’s writings, the “Argenis,” published by du Peiresc at Paris, 1621, has been admired by Richelieu, Leibnitz, Jonson, Grotius, Pope, Cowper, Disraeli, and Coleridge. This work is a long romance which introduces the leading personages of international importance. To it were indebted, in whole or in part, Fenelon’s “Telemaque,” du Ryer’s tragi-comedy “Argenis et Poliarque,” Calderon’s “Argenis y Poliarco,” an Italian play “Argenide,” by de Cruylles, and a German play by Christian Weysen, 1684. The “Argenis” was soon translated into French, Spanish, and German. English translations appeared as follows: by Kingsmill Long, London, 1626; by Sir Robert Le Grys and Thomas May, London, 1629, and in 1772, under the title of “The Phoenix,” by Clara Reeve. Ben Jonson in 1623 entered a translation at Stationers’ Hall. There have been translations into Italian, Dutch, Greek, Hungarian, Polish, Swedish, and Icelandic. An English translation, by Thomas May of the fourth part of the “Satyricon,” under the title, “The Mirror for Minds,” was printed in London, 1633.

Portraits of Barclay may be found in the first edition of the “Argenis,” in the volume of 1629 of Le Grys and May, and in the later work of Collignon.

Garnett in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; Gillow, Dict. Engl. Cath., s. v.; Hailes, Life of John Barclay (Edinburgh, 1786); Barclay, poems in Delitiae Poetarum Scotorum; Boucher, Latin Dissertation on Argenis (Paris, 1874); Dupond, L’Argenis de Jean Barclay (Paris, 1875); Dukas, Bibliographie du Satyricon de J. B. (Paris, 1880); Collignon, Notes Hist., Litt., et Bibliographiques sur l’Argenis de J. B. (Paris, 1902); Schmid, Barclay’s Argenis—with bibliography and key (Munich, 1903).

J. V. CROWNE.

William Barclay

Scottish Jurist, b. 1546; d. at Angers, France, 3 July, 1608. He was of a good Aberdeenshire family, and studied first at Aberdeen University and later, having emigrated to France like so many of the Catholic youth of Scotland at that time, under eminent teachers at Paris and Bourges. In 1578, on the recommendation of his uncle, Edmund Hay, first rector of the newly founded University of Pont-à-Mousson, he was appointed to the chair of civil law there by the Duke of Lorraine, who made him also dean of the faculty of law and a counciller of state. Three years later he married Anne de Malleviller, a lady of an honourable Lorraine family. Barclay published in 1600 his largest work, “De Regno et Ragali potestate,” in defence of the rights of kings, against Buchanan and other writers. The doctrines laid down in this book, which was dedicated to Henry IV, are discussed at length by Locke in his “Civil Government.” After twenty-five years’ tenure of his professorship, Barclay resigned his chair in 1603 and returned to England, where the new monarch, James I, was inclined to welcome with favour one who had so learnedly asserted the views on the Divine right of kings which he himself held. Barclay’s fidelity, however, to the Catholic religion stood in the way of his advancement, and, rejecting the king’s offer of a lucrative appointment on condition that he renounced his faith, he returned to France. An offer was immediately made to the renowned jurist to accept the professorship of law in the University of Angers, which had been vacant for some years. In 1605 he published at Paris an elaborate work on the Pandects, dedicated to King James. Barclay mentions in this work his intention to write a book about the king, but he never lived to publish it. He was buried at the Cordeliers Church at Angers. His most famous work, “De Potestate Papae,” directed against the pope’s authority over kings in temporal matters, appeared in 1609, with a preface written by his son. Cardinal Bellarmine published a rejoinder to it. (See BARCLAY, JOHN.)

Irving, Lives of Scottish Writers, I, 210–233; Menage, Remarques sur la vie de Pierre Ayvault (1675), 228–230; Mackenzie, Writers of the Scots Nation (1722), III, 4268, 478; Otto, Thesaurus Juris Romani, III.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Martin del Barco Centenera

Born 1535, at Logroño, in the Diocese of Plasencia of Estremadura (Spain); died c. 1602. He became a secular priest and in 1572 accompanied, as chaplain, the expedition of Juan Ortiz de Zárate to the Rio de La Plata. For twenty-four years he followed the vicissitudes of Spanish exploration in the Argentine with undaunted courage, and was made archdeacon of the church of Paraguay. In 1582 he went to Lima and acted as secretary to the third council held in that city. He returned to Europe, where he finished his poetical work, known as “La Argentina,” which he dedicated to the Viceroy of Portugal (for Philip III of Spain). It appeared in 1602. Soon after, del Barco died. The poetic merit of the “Argentina” is slender, like that of all the epics composed about this time on American subjects. It is a work of ponderous rhyme. But its historical value is considerable. He describes nearly a quarter of a century of Spanish efforts in the Argentine and adjacent countries, of which he was mostly an eyewitness, and thus fills a considerable blank in our knowledge of the history of that period, otherwise but little known. He also alludes to the English piracies committed by Drake and Cavendish, and to events of importance in Peru during the administration of the Viceroy Toledo. Several of the violent earthquakes of the time are also mentioned and described, though not always with correctness in regard to dates.

Leon y Pinelo, Epitome (1629–1738); Nicolas Antonio, Bib. Hisp. Nova (madrid, 1786); Barcia, Historiadores primitivos de Indias, 1749 (reprint of the Argentina; a later reprint appeared in De Angelis’s collection); La Argentina, Conquista del Rio de la Plata y Tucuman (in 28 Cantos, Lisbon, 1602); Mendiburu, Diccionario historico biografico (Lima, 1876), II.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Martin de Barcos

French theologian of the Jansenist School, b. at Bayonne, 1600; d. at St. Cyran, 1678. He was a nephew of du Vergier de Hauranne, Abbot of St. Cyran, who sent him to Belgium to be taught by Jansen. When he returned to France he served for a time as tutor to the son of Arnauld d’Andilly and later, 1644, succeeded his uncle at the abbey of St. Cyran. He did much to improve the abbey; new buildings were erected, the library much increased, and the strictest rule enforced. Unlike many commendators of his day who scarcely ever saw the abbeys over which they held authority, Barcos became an active member of St. Cyran, was ordained priest 1647, and gave himself up to the rigid asceticism preached by his sect. His friendship with du Vergier and Arnauld and, through them, with Port-Royal soon brought him to the front in the debates of Jansenism. He collaborated with du Vergier in the “Petrus Aurelius” and with Arnauld in the book on “Frequent Communion.”

Of his own treatises, some bear on authority in the Church and some on the then much-mooted questions of grace and predestination. To the first class belong (1) “De l’autorité de St. Pierre et de St. Paul” (1645), (2) “Grandeur de l’Eglise de Rome qui repose sur l’autorité de St. Pierre et de St. Paul” (1645). (3) “Eclaircissements sur quelques objections que l’on a formées contre la grandeur de l’Eglise de Rome” (1646). These three books were written in support of an assertion contained in the book “On Frequent Communion,” namely: “St. Peter and St. Paul are the two heads of the Roman Church and the two are one.” This theory of dual church authority, implying an equality of the two Apostles, was condemned as heretical by Pope Innocent X, in 1674 (Denzinger, Enchiridion, 965).

To the second class belong (1) A censure of Sirmond’s “Praedestinatus” (1644). (2) “Quae sit Saneti Augustini et doctrinae eius auctoritas in ecclesia?” (1650). Barcos holds that a proposition clearly founded on St. Augustine can be absolutely accepted and taught, regardless of a papal Bull. That exaggeration of the African Doctor’s authority was, from the beginning of the controversy, the main prop of the Jansenists who read in St. Augustine what they pleased and then claimed immunity from the authority of the Church. This new error was condemned by Pope Alexander VIII, 1690 (Cf. Denzinger, no. 1187). (3) “Exposition de la foy de Eglise romaine touchant la grâce et la prédestinatin” (1696). This book was written at the request of the Jansenist Bishop of Aleth, Pavillon, and may be looked upon as the official exposé of Jansenism. It was condemned by the Holy Office, 1697, and again, 1704, when it was published with the “Instructions sur la grâce” of Antoine Arnauld.

Hurter, Nomenclator, II (Innsbruck, 1893); Migne, Dict. de biog. Chret. (Paris, 1851); Jungmann in Kirchenlex., I, 1894; Beard, Port-Royal (London, 1861); Fuzet, Les Jansenistes (Paris, 1876); Sainte-Beuve, Port-Royal (Paris, 1878).

J.F. SOLLIER

Henry Bard

(BARON BROMLEY AND VISCOUNT BELLAMONT)

An English soldier and diplomat, b. 1604; d. 1660. He was the son of the Reverend George Bard, Vicar of Staines, Middlesex, England, a representative of an old Norfolk family. He was educated at Eton, and in 1632 entered King’s College, Cambridge, where he took the Master’s degree and a fellowship. Before this date he had travelled considerably, having visited Paris, and journeyed on foot through France, Italy, Turkey, Palestine, and Egypt. It is alleged that during his sojourn in the last country he surreptitiously got possession of a copy of the Koran which was the property of one of the mosques, and which he appropriated and afterwards presented to his college.

Bard’s habits of life were expensive, the liberality and generosity of his wealthy brother, Maximilian, enabling him to indulge them. His accomplishments included the knowledge of several languages and, coupled with his experience as a traveller and a wide knowledge of men and events, served to commend him to Charles I, with whom he became a favourite, and whose policy throughout the Civil War he sustained as a strong partisan. He was one of the earliest to take up arms in the king’s behalf, obtaining through the queen a colonel’s commission. He distinguished himself at York, and at the battle of Cheriton Down, was severely wounded, lost an arm, and was taken prisoner. In May of 1646 he received his discharge and on again joining the king received the reversionary grant of the office of Governor of the Island of Guernsey and Captain of Cornet Castle. Later he was appointed to the command of a brigade and was made governor of Camden House, Gloucestershire. Failing to hold this post against the assaults of the Parliamentarians, he burned the house to the ground.

Bard was also Governor of Worcester about 1643, and in October, 1646, he distinguished himself by being among the first to scale the ramparts, a feat which he is said to have performed at Naseby also. On 8 July, 1646, he was created Baron Bard and Viscount Bellamont in the Kingdom of Ireland. In the following December Bard was again taken prisoner, when on his way to Ireland, but was finally liberated on his promising to go beyond the sea and never to return without permission. The court of Charles II at The Hague furnished the needed resting-place. In May of 1649 he was arrested, charged with murdering Dr. Dorislaus. The charge came to naught, and in 1656 Bard was sent from Bruges as special ambassador by Charles II to the Shah of Persia, to obtain financial help to recover the throne of England. The mission failed, as the Persian monarch was under obligations to England for aid rendered him at Ormuz and was therefore unable to comply with the request of Charles. Bard, who had been a Catholic for several years, lost his life in a windstorm in the desert of Arabia about 1660.

Henderson, in Dict. Nat. Biog., III, 175; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 128.

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE

Bardesanes and Bardesanites

(Bar-Daisan)

Syrian Gnostic or, more correctly, a Syrian poet, astrologist, and philosopher, b. 11 July 154 (164?), at Edessa, of wealthy Persian, or Parthian parents; d. 222, at Edessa. To indicate the city of his birth his parents called him “Son of the Daisan,” the river on which Edessa is situated. On account of his foreign extraction he is sometimes referred to as “the Parthian” (by Julius Africanus), or “the Babylonian” (by Porphyrius); and, on account of his later important activity in Armenia, “the Armenian,” (by Hippolytus). His pagan parents, Nuhama and Nah ‘siram, must have been people of rank, for their son was educated with the crown-prince of the Osrhoenic kingdom, at the court of Abgar Manu VIII. Julius Africanus says that he saw Bardesanes, with bow and arrow, mark the outline of a boy’s face with his arrows on a shield which the boy held. Owing to political disturbances in Edessa, Bardesanes and his parents moved for a while to Hierapolis (Mabug), a strong centre of paganism. Here the boy was brought up in the house of a heathen priest Anuduzbar. In this school, no doubt, he learnt all the intricacies of Babylonian astrology, a training which permanently influenced his mind and proved the bane of his later life. At the age of twenty-five he happened to hear the homilies of Hystaspes, the Bishop of Edessa; he received instruction, was baptized, and even admitted to the dioconate or the priesthood. “Priesthood,” however, may merely imply that he ranked as one of the college of presbyters, for he remained in the world, had a son called Harmonius, and when Abgar IX, the friend of his youth, ascended the throne (179) he took his place at court. He was clearly no ascetic, but dressed in Oriental finery “with berylls and caftan,” according to St. Ephrem.

His acceptance of Christianity was perfectly sincere; nor do later stories, that he left the Catholic Church and joined the Valentinian Gnostics out of disappointed ambition, deserve much credit. His royal friend became (probably after 202, i.e. after his visit and honourable reception at Rome) the first Christian king; and both king and philosopher laboured to create the first Christian State. Bardesanes showed great literary activity against Marcion and Valentinus, the Gnostics of the day. But unfortunately, with the zeal of a convert anxious to use his previous acquirements in the service of the newly found truth, Bardesanes mixed his Babylonian pseudo-astronomy with Christian dogma and thus originated a Christian sect, which was vigorously combated by St. Ephrem. The Romans under Caracella, taking advantage of the anti-Christian faction in Edessa, captured Abgar IX and sent him in chains to Rome. Thus the Osrhoenic kingdom, after 353 years’ existence, came to an end. Though he was urged by a friend of Caracalla to apostatize, Bardesanes stood firm, saying that he feared not death, as he would in any event have to undergo it, even though he should now submit to the emperor. At the age of sixty-three he was forced to take refuge in the fortress of Ani in Armenia and tried to spread the Gospel there, but with little success. He died at the age of sixty-eight, probably at Edessa. According to Michael the Syrian, Bardesanes had besides Harmonius two other sons called Abgarun and Hasdu.

WRITINGS

Bardesanes apparently was a voluminous author. Though nearly all his works have perished, we find notices of the following: (a) Dialogues against Marcion and Valentinus (Theodoretus, Haer. fab., I, xxii; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV, xxx, 3). (b) Dialogue “Against Fate” addressed to Antoninus. Whether this Antoninus is merely a friend of Bardesanes or a Roman emperor and, in the latter case, which of the Antonini is meant, is matter of controversy. It is also uncertain whether this dialogue is identical with “The Book of the Laws of the Countries,” of which later on (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV, xxx, 2; Epiphanius, Haer., LVI, I; Theodoretus, Haer. fab., I, xxii). (c) A “Book of Psalms,” 150 in number, in imitation of David’s Psalter (St. Ephrem, Serm. Adv. Haer., liii). These psalms became famous in the history of Edessa; their words and melodies lived for generations on the lips of the people. Only, when St. Ephrem composed hymns in the same pentasyllabic metre and had them sung to the same tunes as the psalms of Bardesanes, these latter gradually lost favour. We probably possess a few of Bardesanes’ hymns in the Gnostic “Acts of Thomas”; the “Hymn on the Soul”; the “Espousals of Wisdom”; the consecratory prayer at Baptism and at Holy Communion. Of these, however, only the “Hymn on the Soul” is generally acknowledged to be by Bardesanes, the authorship of the others is doubtful. Though marred by many obscurities, the beauty of this hymn on the soul is very striking. The soul is sent from its heavenly home to the earth, symbolized by Egypt, to obtain the pearl of great price. In Egypt it forgets for a while its royal parentage and glorious destiny. It is reminded thereof by a letter from home, succeeds in snatching a raiment of light, it returns to receive its rank and glory in the kingdom of its father. (d) Astrologico-theological treatises, in which his peculiar tenets were expounded. They are referred to by St. Ephrem, and amongst them was a treatise on light and darkness. A fragment of an astronomical work by Bardesanes was preserved by George, Bishop of the Arab tribes, and republished by Nau in “Bardesane l’astrologue” etc. (Paris, 1899). (3) A “History of Armenia.” Moses of Chorene (History of G. A., II, 66) states that Bardesanes, “having taken refuge in the fortress of Ani, read there the temple records in which also the deeds of kings were chronicled; to these he added the events of his own time. He wrote all in Syriac, but his book was afterwards translated into Greek.” Though the correctness of this statement is not quite above suspicion, it probably has a foundation in fact. (f) “An Account of India.” Bardesanes obtained his information from the Hindu ambassadors to the Emperor Eliogabalus. A few extracts are preserved by Porphyry and Stobaeus (Langlois, Fragm. Hist. graec., V, lxviii sqq.). “Book of the Laws of the Countries.” This famous dialogue, the oldest remnant not only of Bardesanite learning, but even of Syriac literature, if we except the version of Holy Writ, is not be Bardesanes himself, but by a certain Philip, his disciple. The main speaker, however, in the dialogue is Bardesanes, and we have no reason to doubt that what is put in his mouth correctly represents his teaching. Excerpts of this work are extant in Greek in Euseb. (Praep. Ev., VI, x, 6 sqq.) and in Caesarius (Quaestiones, xlvii, 48); in Latin in the “Recognitions” of Pseudo-Clement, IX, 19sqq. A complete Syriac text was first published from a sixth- or seventh-century MS. in the British Museum, by Cureton, in his “Spicilegium Syriacum” (London, 1855), and recently by Nau. It is disputed whether the original was in Syriac or in Greek; Nau is decided and rightly in favour of the former. Against a questioning disciple called Abida, Bardesanes seeks to show that man’s action are not entirely necessitated by Fate, as the outcome of stellar combinations. From the fact that the same laws, customs, and manners often prevail amongst all persons living in a certain district, or, though locally scattered, living under the same traditions, Bardesanes endeavours to show that the position of the stars at the birth of individuals can have but little to do with their subsequent conduct. Hence the title “Book of the Laws of the Countries.”

SYSTEM

Various opinions have been formed as to the real doctrine of Bardesanes. As early as Hippolytus (Philos., VI, 50) his doctrine was described as a variety of Valentinianism, the most popular form of Gnosticism. A. Hilgenfeld in 1864 wrote an able defence of this view, based mainly on extracts from St. Ephrem, who devoted his life to combating Bardesanism in Edessa. But the strong and fervent expressions of St. Ephrem against the Bardesanites of his day are not a fair criterion of the doctrine of their master. The extraordinary veneration of his own countrymen, the very reserved, and half-respectful allusion to him in the early Fathers, and above all the “Book of the Laws of the Countries” suggest a milder view of Bardesanes’s aberrations. He cannot be called a Gnostic in the proper sense of the word. He believed in an Almighty God, Creator of heaven and earth, whose will is absolute, and to whom all things are subject. God endowed man with freedom of will to work out his salvation. This world He allowed to be a mixture of good and evil, light and darkness. All things, even those which we now consider inanimate, have a measure of liberty. In all of them the light has to overcome the darkness. After six thousand years this earth shall have an end, and a world without evil shall take its place. To Bardesanes the sun, moon, and planets were living beings, to whom, under God, the government of this world was largely entrusted; and though man was free, he was strongly influenced for good or for evil by the constellations. Bardesanes’ catechism must have been a strange mixture of Christian doctrine and references to the signs of the Zodiac. Misled by the fact that “spirit” is feminine in Syriac, he seems to have held erroneous views on the Trinity. He apparently denied the Resurrection of the Body, but thought Our Lord’s body was endowed with incorruptibility as with a special gift.

SCHOOL

Bardesanes’s son Harmonius strayed farther from the path of orthodoxy. Educated at Athens, he added to the Chaldee astrology of his father Greek errors concerning the soul, the birth and destruction of bodies, and a sort of metempsychosis. A certain Marinus, a follower of Bardesanes, is refuted in the “Dialogue of Adamantius.” This Marinus, a dualist, held the doctrine of a two-fold primeval being; for the devil, according to him is not created by God. He was also a Docetist, as he denied Christ’s birth of a woman. According to St. Ephrem, the Bardesanites of his day were given to many puerilities and obscenities. Sun and Moon were considered male and female principles, and the ideas of heaven amongst the Bardesanites were not without an admixture of sensuality. St. Ephrem’s zealous efforts to suppress this powerful heresy were not entirely successful. Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa in 431–432, found it flourishing everywhere. Its existence in the seventh century is attested by Jacob of Edessa; in the eighth by George, Bishop of the Arab tribes; in the tenth by the historian Masudi; and even in the twelfth by Shashrastani. Bardesanism seems to have degenerated first into Valentinianism and then into common Manichaeism. The last-named writers states: “The followers of Daisan believe in two elements, light and darkness. The light causes the good, deliberately and with free will; the darkness causes the evil, but by force of nature and necessity. They believe that light is a living thing, possessing knowledge, might, perception, and understanding; and from it movement and life take their source; but that darkness is dead, ignorant, feeble, rigid, and soulless, without activity and discrimination; and they hold that the evil within them is the outcome of their nature and is done without their co-operation” [Haarbrucker tr. (Halle, 1850), I, 293].

Buonaiuti, Lo Gnosticismo (Rome, 1907); Nau, Bardesane l’astrologue, le livre des lois des pays (2d ed., Paris, 1899); Idem, Dictionnaire de theol. Cath., s. v. (Paris, 1903); Bardenhewer, Gesch. Der altk. Lit. (Freiburg, 1902), I, 337 sqq.; Merx, Bardesances von Edessa (Halle, j1j863); Hilgenfeld, Bardesanes der letzte Gnostiker (Leipzig, 1864); Hort in Dict. Of Christ. Biog., s. v.; Schonfelder in Kirchenlex., s. v.

J.P. ARENDZEN

Bar Hebræus

(Abu’l Faraj).

A Jacobite Syrian bishop, philosopher, poet, grammarian, physician, Biblical commentator, historian, and theologian, b. at Meletine (Malatia), Asia Minor, 1226; d. at Maragha, Persia, 1286. He was the son of a Jewish physician, Aaron, a convert to the Jacobite faith; hence his surname of Bar ‘Ebraya (Bar Hebræus), “Son of the Hebrew.” Under the care of his father he began as a boy (a teneris unguiculis) the study of medicine and of many other branches of knowledge, which he pursued as a youth at Antioch and Tripoli, and which he never abandoned until his death. In 1246 he was consecrated Bishop of Gubos, by the Jacobite Patriarch Ignatius II, and in the following year was transferred to the See of Lacabene. He was placed over the Diocese of Aleppo by Dionysius (1252) and finally was made Primate, or Maphrian, of the East by Ignatius III (1264). His episcopal duties did not interfere with his studies; he took advantage of the numerous visitations, which he had to make throughout his vast province, to consult the libraries and converse with the learned men whom he happened to meet. Thus he gradually accumulated an immense erudition, became familiar with almost all branches of secular and religious knowledge, and in many cases thoroughly mastered the bibliography of the various subjects which he undertook to treat. How he could have devoted so much time to such a systematic study, in spite of all the vicissitudes incident to the Mongol invasion, is almost beyond comprehension. The main claim of Bar Hebræus to our gratitude is not, however, in his original productions, but rather in his having preserved and systematized the work of his predecessors, either by way of condensation of by way of direct reproduction. Both on account of his virtues and of his science, Bar Hebræus was respected by all, and his death was mourned not only by men of his own faith, but also by the Nestorians and the Armenians. He was buried at the convent of Mar Matthew, near Mosul. He has left us an autobiography, to be found in Assemani, “Biblioth. Orient.,” II, 248–263; the account of his death (ibid.) was written by his own brother, Bar Sauma. The works of Bar Hebræus are:—

1. ENCYCLOPEDIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL

(1) His great encyclopedic work is his Hewath Hekhmetha, “The Cream of Science,” which deals with almost every branch of human knowledge, and comprises the whole Aristotelean discipline, after Avicenna and other Arabian writers. This work, so far, has not been published, with the exception of one chapter, by Margoliouth, in “Analecta Orientalia ad poeticam Aristoteleam” (London, 1887), 114–139. The rest is to be found only in MSS., preserved at Florence, Oxford, London, and elsewhere. (2) Teghrath Teghratha, “Commerce of Commerces,” a résumé of the preceding, also unpublished. (3) Kethabha dhe-Bhabhatha, “Book of the Pupils of the Eyes”; compendium of logic and dialectics. (4) Kethabha dhe-Sewadh Sophia, “Book of Speech of Wisdom”; compendium of physics and metaphysics. To these should be added a few translations of Arabic works into Syriac, as well as some treatises written directly in Arabic.

2. BIBLICAL

The most important work of Bar Hebræus is Aucar Raze, “Storehouse of Secrets,” a commentary on the entire Bible, both doctrinal and critical. Before giving his doctrinal exposition of a passage, he first considers its critical state. Although he uses the Peshitto as a basis, he knows that it is not perfect, and therefore controls it by the Hebrew, the Septuagint, the Greek versions of Symmachus, Theodotion, Aquilla, by Oriental versions, Armenian and Coptic, and finally by the other Syriac translations, Heraclean, Philoxenian and especially Syro-Hexapla. the work of Bar Hebræus is of prime importance for the recovery of these versions and more specially for the Hexapla of Origen, of which the Syro-Hexapla is a translation by Paul of Tella. His exegetical and doctrinal portions are taken from the Greek Fathers and previous Syrian Jacobite theologians. No complete edition of the work has yet been issued, but many individual books have been published at different times. (See bibliography at the end of article.)

3. HISTORICAL

Bar Hebræus has left a large historical work called Makhtbhanuth Zabhne, “Chronicon,” in which he considers the history from the Creation down to his own day. It is divided into two portions: the first deals with political and civil history and is known as the “Chronicon Syriacum”; the second, “Chronicon Ecclesiasticum,” comprising the religious history, begins with Aaron and treats in a first section of the history of the Western Syrian Church and the Patriarchs of Antioch, while a second section is devoted to the Eastern Church, the Nestorian Patriarchs, and the Jacobite Maphrians. Bar Hebræus utilized almost all that had been written before him. The best edition of the “Chronicon Syriacum” is that of Bedjan, “Gregorii Barhebræi Chronicon Syriacum” (Paris, 1890). The best edition of the “Chronicon Ecclesiasticum” is that of Abbeloos and Lamy (3 vols., Louvain, 1872–77). The “Chronicon Syriacum” was rendered into Arabic by Bar Hebræus himself under the name of “History of Dynasties”; the latest and the best edition of his work is that of Salhani (Beirut, 1890).

4. THEOLOGICAL

In theology Bar Hebræus was a Monophysite. He probably, however, thought that the differences between Catholics, Nestorians, and the rest were of a theological, but not of dogmatical nature, and that they did not affect the common faith; hence, he did not consider others as heretics, and was not himself considered as such, at least by the Nestorians and the Armenians. In this field, we have from him Menarath Qudhshe, “Lamp of the Sanctuary,” and the Kethabha dhe-Zalge, “Book of Rays,” a summary of the first. These works have not been published, and exist in manuscript in Paris, Berlin, London, Oxford, Rome. Ascetical and moral theology were also treated by Bar Hebræus, and we have from him Kethabha dhe-Ithiqon, “Book of Ethics,” and Kethabha dhe-Yauna, “Book of the Dove,” an ascetical guide. Both have been edited by Bedjan in “Ethicon seu Moralia Gregorii Barhebræi” (Paris and Leipzig, 1898). The “Book of the Dove” was issued simultaneously by Cardahi (Rome, 1898). Bar Hebræus codified the juridical texts of the Jacobites, in a collection called Kethabha dhe-Hudhaye, “Book of Directions,” edited by Bedjan, “Barhebræi Nomocanon” (Paris, 1898). A Latin translation is to be found in Mai, “Scriptorum Veter. Nova Collectio,” vol. X. Bar Hebræus has left besides many other works. On grammatical subjects we have the “Book of Splendours” and “Book of the Spark,” both edited by Martin, “Oeuvres grammaticales de Aboul Faradj dit Barhebræus” (2 vols., Paris, 1872); also works on mathematics, astronomy, cosmography, medicine, some of which have been published, but others exist only in manuscript.

Most editors of Bar Hebræus works also give in their introductions some valuable biographical and bibliographical notes. ASSEMANI, Bibliotheca Orientalis (Rome, 1719–28), II, 248–321; WRIGHT, A short history of Syriac Literature (London, 1894), 265–281; DUVAL, La littérature Syriaque (Paris, 1900), passim, see index; GÖTTSBERGER, Bar Hebræus u. seine Scholien z. Heiligen Schrift (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1900).

For information as to works of BAR HEBRÆUS classified above under I: DUVAL, op. cit., 262, 432; GÖTTSBERGER, op. cit., 29–34.

For II (Biblical), list of the published works are given in: KLOSTERMANN, Syrische Grammatik (Berlin, 1905), 138 sqq.; DUVAL, op. cit., 81, n. 2; GÖTTSBERGER, op. cit., 76; to which should be added GÖTTSBERGER in Zeitschr. f. d. Alttest. Wissenschaft (1901), 101–144. There exists several MSS, of the Storehouse of Secrets, for which see DUVAL, loc. cit.; GÖTTSBERGER, op. cit., 62–71.

III. For the Chronicon, see list of sources in ASSEMANI, op. cit., 313 sqq.

IV. (Theological) ASSEMANI, op. cit., 284 sqq.; DUVAL, op. cit., 235.

R. BUTIN

Archdiocese of Bari

An archdiocese situated in the province of the same name, in Apulia, Southern Italy. The city of Bari is the principal city in the province, with a population of about 65,000, and is located on a peninsula which extends into the Adriatic. Anciently called Barium, it fell into the power of the Romans after the war with Pyrrhus, retaining, however, its autonomy. Being a seaport facing the Orient, Bari must have received Christianity at a very early date. According to a local tradition, St. Peter himself preached the Gospel there and consecrated the first bishop. History, however, is silent as to the beginning of Christianity in this city.

The first known Bishop of Bari was Gervasius, who, in 347, assisted at the Council of Sardica. In 530 Bishop Peter held the title of Metropolitan under Epiphanius, Patriarch of Constantinople. In 780 Bishop Leontius was present at the Seventh Oecumenical Council, the Second of Nicaea. In the ninth century the Saracens laid waste Apulia, destroyed the city of Canosa (Canusium) and captured Bari. In 841, however, the Byzantine army reconquered Bari, and in 844 St. Angelarius, Bishop of Canosa, then in ruins, brought to Bari the relics of Sts. Rufinus, Memorus, and Sabinus, which he had rescued from the ruins. Pope Sergius II conferred on him the title of Bishop of the two dioceses of Bari and Canosa, a title which the Archbishops of Bari retain to the present time. In 933 Pope John XI granted the Bishops of Bari the use of the pallium. It seems that the Bishops were dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople until the tenth century. Giovanni II (952) was able to withdraw from this influence, refusing to accept the prescriptions of the patriarch concerning liturgical points. All connection was finally severed in the eleventh century, and Bari became a direct dependency of Rome. Archbishop Bisanzio (1025) obtained form the pope the privilege of consecrating his suffragans; he also began the construction of the new cathedral, which was continued by his successors, Nicolo (1035), Andrea (1062), and Elia (1089), the last-named a member of the Benedictine Order.

In 1097 some Bari sailors, on their return from the East, brought with them the relics of St. Nicholas, Bishop of Mira, for which Roger, Duke of Apulia, built a splendid church; this became the object of great veneration and of innumerable pilgrimages. About this time Urban II, being in Apulia, went to Bari to venerate the relics of the holy wonder-worker and to consecrate the basilica. Here also he held a council, attended by 183 bishops, to consider the reunion of the Greeks with the Church of Rome. St. Anselm of Canterbury distinguished himself at this council by his learned defence of the procession of the Holy Ghost and the use of unleavened bread for the Holy Eucharist. Another council had been held at Bari in 1064, presided over by Arnoldo, Vicar of Alexander II. Of the later provincial councils that of 1607 is worthy of mention. In the reorganization of the dioceses of the Kingdom of Naples, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Diocese of Bitetto was suppressed and made a part of the Diocese of Bari. The suffragan sees under Bari are: Conversano, Rufo, and Bitonto.

The most celebrated religious edifice of Bari is the church of San Nicolo, one of the most beautiful examples of Norman architecture. It consists of an upper and a lower church, both richly adorned with precious marbles. The cathedral, dedicated to the Assumption, is likewise remarkable for the two high bell towers with which it is flanked.

The most celebrated Archbishops of Bari, in addition to those already mentioned, are: Romualdo Grisoni (1280), distinguished for his restorations of churches; Bartolomeo Prignano (1377), later Pope Urban VI, who, however, never saw this see; Ascanio Gesualdo (1613), who gave a wonderful example of charity in the earthquake of 1632; Diego Sersale (1638), who at his own expense rebuilt the cathedral, the episcopal palace, and the seminary; the Dominican Tommaso Maria, of the Dukes of Bagnara (1684), who died in the odour of sanctity.

The Diocese of Bari contains a population of 300,400. It contains 7 rural deaneries, 33 parishes, 260 churches, chapels, and oratories, 250 secular priests, 110 seminarists, 30 regular clergy, 34 lay brothers, 200 members of female congregations, 45 schools for boys, 35 for girls.

Cappelletti, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XXI; Annuario eccl. (Rome, 1906).

U. BENIGNI

Barjesus

(Gr. Bariesous).

A false prophet found in the company of the Proconsul Sergius Paulus by St. Paul and Barnabas during their stay at Paphos in Cyprus (Acts 8:6–12). Because of his opposition to the Proconsul’s conversion to Christianity, Barjesus was struck blind by St. Paul. He was also called Elymos (Arabic, ‘alim, i.e. “wise”), which St. Luke translated by “magician.” (Acts 13:8).

F.X.E. ALBERT

Moses Bar-Kepha

One of the most celebrated Jacobite bishops and writers of the ninth century, born at Balad, about the year 813; died at the age of ninety, in 903. A biography of him, written by an anonymous Syriac writer, is preserved in one of the Vatican manuscripts, extracts from which are given by Asemani in his “Bibliotheca Orientalis” (II, 218f.). He was a monk and afterwards became bishop of three cities, Beth-Ramman, Beth-Kionaya and Mossoul on the Tigris, assuming the name of Severus. For ten years he was the patriarchal “Periodeutes,” or visitor, of the Diocese of Tagrit where, by his wise administration and learning, he acquired a great fame and reputation. He was buried in the monastery of St. Sergius, situated on the Tigris, near his native city.

The works of Moses Bar-Kepha are very numerous, and deal with many theological, philosophical, controversial, exegetical, and liturgical subjects. The principal are: (1) A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, often quoted by Bar Hebraeus, and most of it still extant in manuscript form; (2) a treatise on predestination and free will, preserved in a MS. in the British Museum (Add. 14,731); (3) a commentary on Aristotle’s “Dialectics,” mentioned by Bar Hebraeus; (4) a commentary on the Hexameron in five books, preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris (Syr. 241), a passage of which is translated into French by Abbé Nau in his “Bardésane l’astrologue” (Paris, 1899), p. 59; (5) a “Tractatus de Paradiso,” in three parts, dedicated to his friend Ignatius. [The Syriac original of this work is lost, but a Latin version of it was published by Masius (Antwerp, 1569) under the title “De Paradiso Commentarius.”] (6) A treatise on the soul, in forty chapters, with a supplementary essay on the utility of offering prayers and sacrifices for the dead. [This treatise is preserved in the Vatican Library; a German translation of it is given by O. Braun in his “Moses Bar-Kepha und sein Buch von der Seele” (Freiburg, 1891).] (7) A “Tractatus de sectis,” or, “Liber disputationum adversus haereses” (see Assemani, B.O. II, 57); (8) a treatise on the Sacraments; (9) a commentary on the Liturgy; (10) an ecclesiastical history. His other works comprise discourses, homilies, and a commentary on the writings of St. Gregory Nazianzen.

BRAUN, Moses Bar-Kepha; BAR HEBRAEUS, Chronicon Ecclesaisaticum, ed. LAMY (Louvain, 1872–77) I, 394–395; II, 217; ASSEMANI, Bibliotheca Orientalis, II, 218f.; WRIGHT, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894), 207–211; Kirchenlex., s. v.; DUVAL, La Littérature Spriaque (Paris, 1907), 391–392.

GABRIEL OUSSANI

Ven. Mark Barkworth

(Alias LAMBERT.)

Priest and martyr, born about 1572 in Lincolnshire; executed at Tyburn 27 February, 1601. He was educated at Oxford, and converted to the Faith at Douai in 1594, by Father George, a Flemish Jesuit. In 1596 Barkworth went to Rome and thence to Valladolid. On his way to Spain he is said to have had a vision of St. Benedict, who told him he would die a martyr, in the Benedictine habit. Admitted to the English College, 16 December, 1596, he was ordained priest in 1599, and set out for the English Mission together with Ven. Thomas Garnet. On his way he stayed at the Benedictine Abbey of Hyrache in Navarre, where his ardent wish to join the order was granted by his being made an Oblate with the privilege of making profession at the hour of death. After having escaped great peril at the hands of the heretics of La Rochelle, he was arrested on reaching England and thrown into Newgate, where he lay six months, and was then transferred to Bridewell. Here he wrote an appeal to Cecil, signed “George Barkworth.” At his examinations he behaved with extraordinary fearlessness and frank gaiety. Having been condemned he was thrown into “Limbo,” the horrible underground dungeon at Newgate, where he remained “very cheerful” till his death.

Barkworth suffered at Tyburn with Ven. Roger Filcock, S.J., and Ven. Anne Lyne. It was the first Tuesday in Lent, a bitterly cold day. He sang, on the way to Tyburn, the Paschal Anthem: “Hæc dies quam, fecit Dominus exultemus et lætemur in ea.” On his arrival he kissed the robe of Mrs. Lyne, who was already dead, saying: “Ah, sister, thou hast got the start of us, but we will follow thee as quickly as we may”; and told the people: “I am come here to die, being a Catholic, a priest, and a religious man, belonging to the Order of St. Benedict; it was by this same order that England was converted.” He was tall and burly of figure, gay and cheerful in disposition. He suffered in the Benedictine habit, under which he wore a hair-shirt. It was noticed that his knees were, like St. James,’ hardened by constant kneeling, and an apprentice in the crowd picking up his legs, after the quartering, called out to thers: “Which of you Gospellers can show such a knee?” Barkworth’s devotion to the Benedictine Order led to his suffering much from the hands of the superiors of the Vallalodid College. These sufferings are probably much exaggerated, however, by the anti-Jesuit writers Watson, Barneby, and Bell.

CAMM, A Benedictine Martyr in England (London, 1897); CHALLONER, Memoirs (1750); W.C., A Reply to Father Persons’ Libel (1603); WATSON, Decacordon of ten Quodlibet Questions (1602); KNOX, Douay Diaries (London, 1878).

BEDE CAMM.

Barlaam and Josaphat

The principal characters of a legend of Christian antiquity, which was a favourite subject of writers in the Middle Ages. The story is substantially as follows: Many inhabitants of India had been converted by the Apostle St. Thomas and were leading Christian lives. In the third or fourth century King Abenner (Avenier) persecuted the Church. The astrologers had foretold that his son Josaphat would one day become a Christian. To prevent this the prince was kept in close confinement. But, in spite of all precautions, Barlaam, a hermit of Senaar, met him and brought him to the true Faith. Abenner tried his best to pervert Josaphat, but, not succeeding, he shared the government with him. Later Abenner himself became a Christian, and, abdicating the throne, became a hermit. Josaphat governed alone for a time, then resigned, went into the desert, found his former teacher Barlaam, and with him spent his remaining years in holiness. Years after their death, the bodies were brought to India and their grave became renowned by miracles. Barlaam and Josaphat found their way into the Roman Martyrology (27 November), and into the Greek calendar (26 August). Vincent of Beauvais, in the thirteenth century, had given the story in his “Speculum Historiale.” It is also found in an abbreviated form in the “Golden Legend” of Jacobus de Voragine of the same century.

The story is a Christianized version of one of the legends of Buddha, as even the name Josaphat would seem to show. This is said to be a corruption of the original Joasaph, which is again corrupted from the middle Persian Budasif (Budsaif=Bodhisattva). Still it is of historical value, since it contains the “Apology” presented by the Athenian philosopher Aristides to the Emperor Adrian (or Antoninus Pius). The Greek text of the legend, written probably by a monk of the Sabbas monastery near Jerusalem at the beginning of the seventh century, was first published by Boissonade in “Anecdota Graeca” (Paris, 1832), IV, and is reproduced in Migne, P.G., XCVI, among the works of St. John Damascene. The legend cannot, however, have been a work of the great Damascene, as was proved by Zotenberg in “Notices sur le livre de Barlaam et Josaphat” (Paris, 1886) and by Hammel in “Verhandl. des 7 interneat. Orientalisten Congresses,” Semit. Section (Vienna, 1888). Another edition of the Greek was made by Kechajoglos (Athens, 1884). From the original Greek a German translation was made by F. Liebrecht (Münster, 1847). Latin translations (Minge, P.L., LXXIII), were made in the twelfth century and used for nearly all the European languages, in prose, verse and in miracle plays. Among them is prominent the German epic by Rudolph of Ems in the thirteenth century (Königsberg, 1818, and somewhat later at Leipzig). From the German an Icelandic and Swedish version were made in the fifteenth century. At Manila the legend appeared in the Tagala language of the Philippines. In the East it exists in Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Hebrew.

Muller, Migration of Fables in Contemp. Review (July, 1870); Idem, Selected Essays (London, 1881); Liebrecht in Jahrbuch fur romanische und englische Litteratur II; Braunholz, Die erste nichtchristliche Parabel des Barlaam u. Josaphat, ihre Herkunft und Verbreitung (Hale, 1884); Kahn, B.U.J., eine biobibliographisch-litteraturgeschichtliche Studie.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Gabriel Barletta

(Sometimes called Barlete, De Barolo, Barolus)

Preacher, b., according to some, in the Neapolitan territory at Barletta, whence he took his name, or, according to others, at Aquino; d. sometime after 1480. Little is known of his life other than that he was a Dominican and probably a pupil of St. Antoninus. All his contemporaries held him in high esteem as an orator. He was generally proposed, even during his lifetime, as the model orator. After his death his fame did not diminish, if the popular saying which Altamura has preserved for us be a criterion. Throughout Italy it was the common saying: Nescit praedicare qui nescit barlettare. His sermons appeared in two volumes at Brixen in 1497, and have been reprinted very frequently since. Echard says that no less than thirteen editions appeared in eighty years. The best edition is that of Venice (1577), in two volumes.

In form his sermons are nothing else than the ordinary homily on the virtues and vices of life. He spares none of the foibles and weaknesses of his contemporaries, and in his denunciations passages of eloquent and biting sarcasm are often met with. At times he descends to an almost burlesque mimicry, as witness his sermon on the manner in which the rich ecclesiastic says the Lord’s prayer. Coarse things are also to be found, but not so frequently as in the printed sermons of some of his rivals. He has been blamed for this coarseness by Bayle and Theophilus Raynaud, but his name has been completely vindicated by Dominic Casales, O.P., in the work “Candor lilii seu Ordo Praedicatorum a calumniis Petri a Valle Clausa [i.e. Theop. Reynaldi] vindicatus.” Some maintain (Tubing, Quartalschrift, 1872, II, 270) that Barletta is not the author of the sermons which bear his name. They base their contention on a sentence of Leander Alberti [Descrizzione di tutta Italia (Bologna, 1550), 200], who says that an unskilled youth whom he knew gathered together old and unknown sermons and ascribed them to Barletta. Furthermore, they must have appeared in the vernacular, whilst we know them in the Latin alone. Thus they have suffered many changes and alterations. But up to the seventeenth century there was no question of the authorship. They show sure signs of the times and are not unworthy of his fame. Hence, scholars generally accept them as authentic.

Quetif and Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed., I, 844, append., II, 823; Tiraboschi, Storia della letteratura italiana, VI, 1124; Paulus in Literarische Beilage der Kolnischen Volkszeitung (1904), No. 10.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Abbey of Barlings

Located about six miles E.N.E. of Lincoln, England, founded in 1154 in honour of Our Lady by Ralph de Haye who had given some lands to the Abbot of Newhouse (also in Lincolnshire, the first abbey of the Norbertine Order erected in England, founded in 1143) with the request to send a colony of White Canons to Barlings. The abbey was afterwards removed to Oxeney, another locality in the same township, where it was dissolved by Henry VIII in 1537. Much information concerning the Abbey of Barlings, as well as concerning other Norbertine abbeys in England, may be derived from Bishop Redman’s “Register of Visitations,” preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, and lately published in three volumes by Abbot Gasquet under the title of “Collectanea Anglo-Premonstratensia.” This register contains various documents, lists of White Canons in each abbey, notes and remarks made at the time of each visitation, during a period of about thirty-five years that Redman was visitor of all the Norbertine abbeys and priories in England for the Abbot-General of the Order of Prémontré. Richard Redman was Abbot of the Norbertine Abbey of Shap in Westmoreland when he became visitor, and he acted in the same capacity when he successively became Bishop of St. Asaph in 1472, of Exeter in 1495, and of Ely in 1501. He died 24 August, 1505.

This register records no fewer than nine visitations of Barlings Abbey made by Redman. The various lists found therein give the names of about eighteen canons at each visitation. The names of nineteen abbots are known; the first abbot was called Adam (1154), the last Matthew Mackarel (1532–37) who is said to have been one of the leaders of the Pilgrimage of Grace in Lincolnshire. The supposed complicity of Abbot Mackarel, like that of other heads of religious houses, gave Henry VIII the opportunity of laying hands upon the Abbey of Barlings and of placing it under the law of attainder. The abbey church, 300 feet in length, was defaced, the lead torn from the roofs, and melted down under the special direction of Cromwell. Abbot Mackarel, some of his religious, and many of the clergy and laity were taken to Lincoln, and some of these were afterwards sent to the Tower in London. Those in Lincoln, among whom there were four canons of Barlings, were tried 6 March, 1537, and ordered for immediate execution. Towards the end of March, Abbot Matthew Mackarel, one of his canons and some others were tried in London before Chancellor Oudeley, found guilty, and condemned to be hanged and quartered. At the time of the dissolution the abbey and its possessions were granted to Charles, Duke of Suffolk. An arch and part of a wall are the only remains. The Right Rev. Martin Geudens, of Corpus Christi Priory, Manchester, was named Titular Abbot of Barlings, 7 May, 1898, and blessed 17 September, of the same year.

Annales Praem.; Monasticon Anglic.; REDMAN, Mss. Register in GASQUET, Collectanea Anglo-Premonstratensia; GASQUET, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries (6th ed., London, 1895).

MARTIN GEUDENS.

Ven. Edward Ambrose Barlow

(ALIAS RADCLIFFE AND BRERETON.)

Priest and martyr, b. at Barlow Hall, 1585; d. 10 September, 1641. He was the fourth son of Sir Alexander Barlow, Knight of Barlow Hall, near Manchester, by Mary, daughter of Sir Uryan Brereton, Knight of Handforth Hall, Co. Chester, and was baptized at Didsbury Church 30 November, 1585; the entry in the register may still be seen. Educated at the Benedictine monastery of St. Gregory, Douai, he entered the English College, Valladolid, 20 September, 1610, but returned to Douai where his elder brother William Rudesind was a professed monk. He was himself professed in 1616 and ordained, 1617. Sent to England, he laboured in South Lancashire with apostolic zeal and fervour. He resided chiefly at Wardley Hall, the seat of the Downe family, near Manchester, and at Morley’s Hall, a mansion of the Tyldesleys, in the parish of Leigh, some seven miles from Manchester. At the former, his skull is still preserved, in a little receptacle on the staircase. At the latter he was apprehended for the fifth and last time on Easter Sunday, 25 April, 1641. He was arrested by the Vicar of Eccles, who marched at the head of his parishoners, clad in his surplice, and was followed by some 400 men armed with clubs and swords. He was preaching at the time and could have escaped in the confusion, but yielded himself up to his enemies, and was carried off to Lancaster Castle. Here after four months’ imprisonment he was tried, on 6 or 7 September, and sentenced next day, having confessed that he was a priest. On Friday, 10 September, he suffered the usual penalties at Lancaster.

A beautiful picture of his life is given by Challoner from two manuscript relations belonging to St. Gregory’s monastery, one written by his brother Dom Rudesind Barlow, President of the AngloBenedictine Congregation. There is another manuscript, entitled “The Apostolical Life of Ambrose Barlow,” written by one of his pupils for Dom Rudesind, which is at present in the Library of Owen’s College, Manchester. It is to be printed among the publications of the Chetham Society. This contains many details hitherto unpublished. Two portraits of this martyr exist and also one of his father, Sir Alexander. Many of his relics are also preserved, a hand being at Stanbrook Abbey near Worcester. A full biography is in course of preparation.

Allanson, Biographical MSS. (preserved at Ampleforth Abbey), I; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885); Challoner, Memoirs; Fletcher Moss, Pilgrimages to Old Homes (Didsbury, 1903); Idem, History of Didsbury (Manchester); Idem, Chronicles of Cheadle, Cheshire (Didsbury, 1894); Dodd, Church History of England (Brussels, 1739).

BEDE CAMM.

William Rudesind Barlow

Third son of Sir Alexander Barlow of Barlow Hall, near Manchester, England, and Mary Brereton his wife, date of birth uncertain; d. at Douai, 19 Sept., 1656. The martyr Ven. Edward Barlow, was his younger brother and was educated with him at the English College, Douai. Wishing to become a Benedictine, he joined the Spanish congregation, being professed at Cella Nueva in Gallicia in 1605. Ordained priest in 1608 he became Doctor of Divinity at Salamanca. In 1611 he went to St. Gregory’s, Douai, where he was made prior in 1614, and, two years later, professor of theology at St. Vaast’s College, an office which he held for forty years. Weldon says: “He formed almost all the bishops, abbots, and professors that flourished in those parts for some time after. He was esteemed the first or chief of the scholastic divines or casuists of his time, and in knowledge of the canon law inferior to no one of his time or the age before.” The circle of his friends included Bellarmine and other contemporary scholars.

He more than once refused the dignity of abbot and bishop, “and it was thought he would have refused that of cardinal, which was said to have been preparing for him.” From 1621 to 1629 he was PresidentGeneral of the English Congregation. In 1633 he became titular CathedralPrior of Canterbury. Beyond a circular letter to the English Benedictines about their relations to the vicar Apostolic, none of his writings are left, although Gee, writing in 1624, attributes to him a book called “The Enemies of God.” Weldon adds that after his death a bishop offered the Benedictines of Douai an establishment if they would give him Father Rudesind’s writings. “But in vain they were sought for, for they were destroyed by an enemy.” It is said that on the death of Dr. Bishop, the vicarApostolic, he was consulted by the pope as to the best successor, and that he warmly recommended Dr. Smith, who was appointed, but later he opposed that prelate on the question of the extent of the vicar Apostolic’s jurisdiction.

WELDON, Chronological Notes of the Eng. Benedictines, 1709 (London, 1881); XXXI; SNOW, Necrology of the Eng. Benedictines (London, 1883); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885), I, 136.

EDWIN BURTON

Epistle of Barnabas

AUTHORITIES FOR THE TEXT AND EDITIONS

There is a triple tradition of the Greek text of this document. Up to 1843 eight manuscripts of the Epistle of Barnabas were known to be in Western libraries. These manuscripts were all derived from a common source, and no one of them contained chapters i-v, 7a. Since then two complete manuscripts of the texts have been discovered that are independent of each other and of the preceding group of texts, namely: the famous Codex Sinaiticus of the Bible (fourth century), in which the Epistle of Barnabas and “The Pastor” follow the books of the New Testament, and the Jerusalem Codex (eleventh century), which includes the Didache. There is also an old Latin version of the first seventeen chapters which is, perhaps, of the end of the fourth century (St. Petersburg, Q., I, 39). This version is a very free one and can hardly serve for the restoration of the text. The same is true for the citations from the epistle in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, and others. The text authority for the text is the Codex Sinaiticus.

Contents

The Epistle of Barnabas contains no clue to its author nor to those for whom it was intended. Its aim is to impart to its readers the perfect wisdom (gnosis), that is an exact knowledge of the economy of salvation. It is made up of two parts, the subject of each being announced in verses 6 and 7 of the first chapter. The first part (ch. i-v, 4) is hortatory; in the evil days that are now at hand in which the end of the world and the Judgment shall appear, the faithful, freed from the bonds of the Jewish ceremonial law, are to practise the virtues and to flee from sin. The second part (ch. v, 5-xvii) is more speculative, although it tends, owing to the nature of the argument, to establish the freedom of Christians in respect to the Mosaic regulations. The author wishes to make his readers comprehend the real nature of the Old Testament. He shows how the ordinances of the Law should be understood as referring allegorically to the Christian virtues and institutions, and he pauses to make plain by a series of symbolical explanations, that are often singular, how the Old Testament prefigures Christ, His Passion, His Church, etc. Before concluding (ch. xxi) the author repeats and enlarges the exhortations of the first part of the epistle by borrowing from another document (the Didache or its source) the description of the two ways, the way of light and that of darkness (xviii-xx).

Use of Allegory

The epistle is characterized by the use of exaggerated allegory. In this particular the writer goes far beyond St. Paul the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and St. Ignatius. Not content with regarding the history and institutions of the Jews as containing types of Christianity, he casts aside completely the transitory historical character of the old religion. According to many scholars he teaches that it was never intended that the precepts of the Law should be observed in their literal sense, that the Jews never had a covenant with God, that circumcision was the work of the Devil, etc.; thus he represents a unique point of view in the struggle against Judaism. It might be said more exactly that he condemns the exercise of worship by the Jews in its entirety because in his opinion, the Jews did not know how to rise to the spiritual and typical meaning which God had mainly had in view in giving them the Law. It is this purely material observance of the ceremonial ordinances, of which the literal fulfilment was not sufficient, that the author holds to be the work of the Devil, and, according to him, the Jews never received the divine covenant because they never understood its nature (ch. vii, 3, 11, ix, 7; x, 10; xiv).

Intent

The Epistle of Barnabas is not a polemic. The author takes no notice of paganism. Although he touches on different points that had relations to the doctrines of the Gnostics, still he has no knowledge of these latter. The perfectly composed manner in which he expounds the wisdom he desires to impart shows that another, heretical wisdom (gnosis) is not in his thoughts. Moreover, the way in which he speaks of the Old Testament would not be explicable if he had known the wrong use that a Basilides or a Marcion could make of it. Besides, there was nothing in the Judaizing theories to alarm his faith. He speaks of Judaism only in the abstract, and nothing in the letter excites the suspicion that the members of his flock had been exposed to the peril of falling again under the yoke of the Law. No clear situation is described in the letter. In short, it should be regarded rather as the peaceful speculations of a catechist and not as the cries of alarm of a pastor. Consequently, it cannot be admitted that the author may have wished to take part in the struggle against the Judaizers either at Jerusalem or at Rome.

Date

This abstract discussion of Judaism is the sign of an epoch when the Judaizing controversies were already a thing of the past in the main body of the Church. In settling the date of the letter reference is often made to verses 3–5 of chapter four, where the writer, it is believed, finds the fulfilment of the prophecy of Daniel (Dan. 7:7, sqq.) in the succession of the Roman Emperors of his time. Starting from this, some critics place the composition of the epistle in the reign of Vespasian, others in the reign of Domitian, and still others in the reign of Nerva. But there is nothing to prove that the author considers the prophecy to be already accomplished. Besides, he might have taken the words of the prophecy to mean a series of kingdoms instead of a line of kings. It is necessary, therefore, to fall back on verses 3–5 of chapter xvi. Reference is here made to the command given by Adrian in A.D. 130 for the reconstruction, in honour of Jupiter, of the Temple at Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by Titus. Adrian had also forbidden the Jews to practise circumcision. The writer of the letter makes allusion to this (ch. ix, 4). The epistle must, consequently, have been written in A.D. 130–131.

General Characteristics

In what befell Jerusalem and the Temple the author saw the refutation by events of the errors of the Jews, or rather of the Ebionites, for it is the latter that he has in mind whenever his language grows more definite (ch. iv, 4, 6; v, 5; xii, 10; xvi, 1). His flock are not in danger of falling into these errors. Therefore, he never attacks them directly. He simply takes advantage of the opportunity that occurrences offer him to give his opinions as to the position and nature of Judaism and its Law. Hence the epistle, in its general character, is more like a treatise or a homily than a letter. However, the epistolary form is not entirely fictitious. The author is not writing to Christians in general, but to a particular church in which he has exercised the office of a didaskalos and from which he finds himself separated (ch. i, 2, 4; xxi, 7, 9).

From a literary point of view the Epistle of Barnabas has no merit. The style is tedious, poor in expression, deficient in clearness, in elegance, and incorrectness. The author’s logic is weak, and his matter is not under his control; from this fact arise the numerous digressions. These digressions, however, afford no reason for doubting the integrity of the letter, or for regarding as interpolations either entire chapters, or a consecutive number of verses or parts of verses in each chapter. One scholar, Wehofer, thought that he had discovered, in the arrangement of the epistle, an adherence to the laws of the Semitic strophe. But the phenomena noted are found in all authors who work out their thought without being able to subordinate the argument to the rules of literary style.

From the dogmatic point of view the chief importance of the epistle is in its relation to the history of the Canon of the Scriptures. It cites, in fact, the Gospel of St. Matthew as Scripture (ch. 4:14), and even recognizes as in the Canon of the Sacred Books (gegraptai), along with the collection of Jewish writings, a collection of Christian ones (ch. v, 2), the contents of which, however, cannot be determined. The author regards several apocryphal books as belonging to the Old Testament—probably IV Esdras (ch. xii,1) and without doubt Henoch (ch. iv, 3; xvi, 5). In his Christology, his soteriology and his doctrine concerning justification the author develops the ideas of Paul with originality. It has been wrongly said that he regards the pre-existent Christ as only a spirit in the image of God. Without explicitly asserting the consubstantiality and the true sonship, he evidently acknowledges the Divine nature of Christ from before the Creation. The eschatological descriptions are decidedly moderate. He is a millenarian, but in speaking of the Judgment to come he simply expresses a vague belief that the end is approaching.

Nationality of the Author and History of the Epistle

The extremely allegorical character of the exegesis leads to the supposition that the author of the letter was an Alexandrian. His way of constantly placing himself and his readers in opposition to the Jews makes it impossible to believe that either he or the larger part of his readers were of Jewish origin. Besides, he is not always familiar with the Mosaic rites (cf. ch. vii). The history of the epistle confirms its Alexandrine origin. Up to the fourth century only the Alexandrians were acquainted with it, and in their Church the epistle attained to the honour of being publicly read. The manner in which Clement of Alexandria and Origen refer to the letter gives confirmation to the belief that, about the year A.D. 200, even in Alexandria the Epistle of Barnabas was not regarded by everyone as an inspired writing.

P. LADEUZE

St. Barnabas

Barnabas (originally Joseph), styled an Apostle in Holy Scripture, and, like St. Paul, ranked by the Church with the Twelve, though not one of them; b. of Jewish parents in the Island of Cyprus about the beginning of the Christian Era. A Levite, he naturally spent much time in Jerusalem, probably even before the Crucifixion of Our Lord, and appears also to have settled there (where his relatives, the family of Mark the Evangelist, likewise had their homes, Acts, xii, 12) and to have owned land in its vicinity (iv, 36–37). A rather late tradition recorded by Clement of Alexandria (Strom., II, 20, P.G., VIII, col. 1060) and Eusebius (H. E., II, i, P. G., XX, col. 117) says that he was one of the seventy Disciples; but Acts (iv, 36–37) favours the opinion that he was converted to Christianity shortly after Pentecost (about A.D. 29 or 30) and immediately sold his property and devoted the proceeds to the Church. The Apostles, probably because of his success as a preacher, for he is later placed first among the prophets and doctors of Antioch (xiii, 1), surnamed him Barnabas, a name then interpreted as meaning “son of exhortation” or “consolation.” (The real etymology, however, is disputed. See Encyl. Bibli., I, col. 484.) Though nothing is recorded of Barnabas for some years, he evidently acquired during this period a high position in the Church.

When Saul the persecutor, later Paul the Apostle, made his first visit (dated variously from A.D. 33 to 38) to Jerusalem after his conversion, the Church there, remembering his former fierce spirit, was slow to believe in the reality of his conversion. Barnabas stood sponsor for him and had him received by the Apostles, as the Acts relate (ix, 27), though he saw only Peter and James, the brother of the Lord, according to Paul himself (Gal., i, 18, 19). Saul went to his house at Tarsus to live in obscurity for some years, while Barnabas appears to have remained at Jerusalem. The event that brought them together again and opened to both the door to their lifework was an indirect result of Saul’s own persecution. In the dispersion that followed Stephen’s death, some Disciples from Cyprus and Cyrene, obscure men, inaugurated the real mission of the Christian Church by preaching to the Gentiles. They met with great success among the Greeks at Antioch in Syria, reports of which coming o the ears of the Apostles, Barnabas was sent thither by them to investigate the work of his countrymen. He saw in the conversions effected the fruit of God’s grace and, though a Jew, heartily welcomed these first Gentile converts. His mind was opened at once to the possibility of this immense field. It is a proof how deeply impressed Barnabas had been by Paul that he thought of him immediately for this work, set out without delay for distant Tarsus, and persuaded Paul to go to Antioch and begin the work of preaching. This incident, shedding light on the character of each, shows it was no mere accident that led them to the Gentile field. Together they laboured at Antioch for a whole year and “taught a great multitude.” Then, on the coming of famine, by which Jerusalem was much afflicted, the offerings of the Disciples at Antioch were carried (about A.D. 45) to the mother-church by Barnabas and Saul (Acts, xi). Their mission ended, they returned to Antioch, bringing with them the cousin, or nephew of Barnabas (Col., iv, 10), John Mark, the future Evangelist (Acts, xii, 25).

The time was now ripe, it was believed, for more systematic labours, and the Church of Antioch felt inspired by the Holy Ghost to send out missionaries to the Gentile world and to designate for the work Barnabas and Paul. They accordingly departed, after the imposition of hands, with John Mark as helper. Cyprus, the native land of Barnabas, was first evangelized, and then they crossed over to Asia Minor. Here, at Perge in Pamphylia, the first stopping place, John Mark left them, for what reason his friend St. Luke does not state, though Paul looked on the act as desertion. The two Apostles, however, pushing into the interior of a rather wild country, preached at Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, at Derbe, and other cities. At every step they met with opposition and even violent persecution from the Jews, who also incited the Gentiles against them. The most striking incident of the journey was at Lystra, where the superstitious populace took Paul, who had just cured a lame man, for Hermes (Mercury) “because he was the chief speaker,” and Barnabas for Jupiter, and were about to sacrifice a bull to them when prevented by the Apostles. Mob-like, they were soon persuaded by the Jews to turn and attack the Apostles and wounded St. Paul almost fatally. Despite opposition and persecution, Paul and Barnabas made many converts on this journey and returned by the same route to Perge, organizing churches, ordaining presbyters and placing them over the faithful, so that they felt, on again reaching Antioch in Syria, that God had “opened a door of faith to the Gentiles” (Acts, xiii, 13—xiv, 27; see article PAUL, SAINT).

Barnabas and Paul had been “for no small time” at Antioch, when they were threatened with the undoing of their work and the stopping of its further progress. Preachers came from Jerusalem with the gospel that circumcision was necessary for salvation, even for the Gentiles. The Apostles of the Gentiles, perceiving at once that this doctrine would be fatal to their work, went up to Jerusalem to combat it; the older Apostles received them kindly and at what is called the Council of Jerusalem (dated variously from A.D. 47 to 51) granted a decision in their favour as well as a hearty commendation of their work (Acts, xiv, 27—xv, 30; see articles COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM; SAINT PETER). On their return to Antioch, they resumed their preaching for a short time. St. Peter came down and associated freely there with the Gentiles, eating with them. This displeased some disciples of James; in their opinion, Peter’s act was unlawful, as against the Mosaic law. Upon their remonstrances, Peter yielded apparently through fear of displeasing them, and refused to eat any longer with the Gentiles. Barnabas followed his example. Paul considered that they “walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel” and upbraided them before the whole church (Gal., ii, 11–15). Paul seems to have carried his point. Shortly afterwards, he and Barnabas decided to revisit their missions. Barnabas wished to take John Mark along once more, but on account of the previous defection Paul objected. A sharp contention ensuing, the Apostles agreed to separate. Paul was probably somewhat influenced by the attitude recently taken by Barnabas, which might prove a prejudice to their work. Barnabas sailed with John Mark to Cypress, while Paul took Silas an revisited the churches of Asia Minor. It is believed by some that the church of Antioch, by its God-speed to Paul, showed its approval of his attitude; this inference, however, is not certain (Acts, xv, 35–41).

Little is known of the subsequent career of Barnabas. He was still living and labouring as an Apostle in 56 or 57, when Paul wrote I Cor. (ix, 5, 6). from which we learn that he, too, like Paul, earned his own living, though on an equality with other Apostles. The reference indicates also that the friendship between the two was unimpaired. When Paul was a prisoner in Rome (61–63), John Mark was attached to him as a disciple, which is regarded as an indication that Barnabas was no longer living (Col., iv, 10). This seems probable. Various traditions represent him as the first Bishop of Milan, as preaching at Alexandria and at Rome, whose fourth (?) bishop, St. Clement, he is said to have converted, and as having suffered martyrdom in Cyprus. The traditions are all late and untrustworthy. With the exception of St. Paul and certain of the Twelve, Barnabas appears to have been the most esteemed man of the first Christian generation. St. Luke, breaking his habit of reserve, speaks of him with affection, “for he was a good man, full of the Holy Ghost and of Faith.” His title to glory comes not only from his kindliness of heart, his personal sanctity, and his missionary labours, but also from his readiness to lay aside his Jewish prejudices, in this anticipating certain of the Twelve; from his large-hearted welcome of the Gentiles, and from his early perception of Paul’s worth, to which the Christian Church is indebted, in large part at least, for its great Apostle. His tenderness towards John Mark seems to have had its reward in the valuable services later rendered by him to the Church. The feast of St. Barnabas is celebrated on 11 June. He is credited by Tertullian (probably falsely) with the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the so-called Epistle of Barnabas is ascribed to him by many Fathers.

JOHN F. FENLON

Barnabas of Terni

(Interamna)

Friar Minor and missionary, d. 1474 (or 1477). He belonged to the noble family of the Manassei and was a man of great learning, being Doctor of Medicine and well versed in letters and philosophy. Despising the honours and vanities of the world, he entered the Order of Friars Minor in the Umbria province of the order and practised, with unusual fervour, every virtue of the religious life. After devoting himself assiduously to the study of theology, Barnabas began to preach with wonderful success, but a severe illness obliged him to abandon this work. Although gifted with the grace of prayer and contemplation in an eminent degree, he was almost continually employed in different offices of importance, for which his prudence, kindness, and affability well fitted him. By word and example he proved himself a zealous promoter of that branch of the order known as the Observance. He died at the hermitage of the Carceri on Mount Subiaco at an advanced age and his remains were deposited there in the Chapel of St. Mary Magdelene. He is commemorated in the Franciscan martyrology on 17 February. To Barnabas belongs the honour of having established the first of the celebrated monti di pietà, or charitable loan-institutions, designed to protect poor people against the outrageous usury of the Jews. After consulting his fellow religious Fortunatus Coppoli, who had been an eminent jurisconsult, and with the generous co-operation of the wealthy Perugians, Barnabas established the first monte di pietà in their city in 1462. Violent opposition ensued, but Barnabas and Fortunatus prevailed over their enemies at a public disputation. Barnabas next extended his work to other cities; it was enthusiastically taken up by several great Franciscan missionaries, and in their day, the monti di pietà wonderfully improved the social conditions of Italy. (See BERNARDINE OF FELTRE.)

Wadding, Annales Minorum (2d ed.), XIV, 93, XV, 318; Holzapfel, Die Anfanger der Montes Pietatis (Munich, 1903), 35 passim.

THOMAS PLASSMANN

Barnabites

The popular name of a religious order which is canonically known by the title, given to it by Pope Paul III in 1535, of Regular Clerics of St. Paul (Clerici Regulares Sancti Pauli). This institute was founded by three Italian noblemen: St. Anton Maria Zaccaria (canonized by Leo XIII, 27 March, 1897), Ven. Barthelemy Ferrari, and Ven. Jacopo Morigia, the last two of Milan. Second in seniority of the orders of regular clerics (the Theatines being first), the foundation of the Barnabites as a congregation dates form the year 1530. Clement VII, by the Brief “Vota per quae vos,” 18 February, 1533, canonically approved of the congregation; Paul III, by the Bulls “Dudum felicis recordationis,” 28 July, 1535, and “Pastoralis officii cura,” 29 November, 1543, exempted them from the jurisdiction of their diocesan. Lastly, the Bulls of Julius III, “Rationi congruit” and “Ad hoc nos Deus praetulit,” dated respectively 22 February, and 11 August, 1550, confirmed and augmented the existing privileges of the institute, which, from being a congregation, thenceforward became a religious order in the strict canonical sense, its members, however, still adhering to the custom of calling it “the Congregation.”

The popular name Barnabites came naturally to the Congregation through its association with the church of St. Barnabas, Milan, which came into its possession within the earliest years of the foundation of the institute, which was at first peculiarly Milanese. St. Charles Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan, presided, in 1579, as Cardinal Protector, over the commission which determined once for all the constitution of the order, and the general chapters were regularly held at Milan until the reign of Alexander VII (1655–67), who ordered them to convene in Rome. Innocent XI (1676–89), however, finally decreed that the general chapters of the Barnabites should assemble in Rome and Milan alternately. These assemblies of the provincials are held every three years for the election of a new general, whose term of office is limited to that period, only one re-election being allowed to each incumbent of the office. The members of the order make, in addition to the three regular vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, a vow never to strive for any office or position of dignity, or to accept such otherwise than under a command of the Holy See. The scope of their special vocation, besides preaching in general, catechizing, hearing confessions, giving missions, ministrations in hospitals and prisons, and the education of youth, includes also a particular devotion to the thorough study and exposition of St. Paul’s Epistles. Their habit is the black soutane (tunica talaris) which formed the usual garb of Milanese secular priests in the time of St. Charles Borromeo.

SPREAD OF THE ORDER

The Congregation has never failed of the holy object for which it was instituted: to revive the ecclesiastical spirit and zeal for souls among the clergy. Church history records the substantial assistance which that saint received from them in his great work of reforming the Diocese of Milan; his biographies make mention of his affection for them and of the satisfaction which he took in sojourning at their house of St. Barnabas. St. Francis of Sales, who loved to call himself a Barnabite, invited the Congregation into his diocese, to establish colleges at Annecy and at Thonon; while the Barnabite Guerin was his coadjutor and later, having succeeded him in the See of Geneva, was conspicuous for the zeal with which he promoted his canonization. The Barnabites, who take a holy pride in the title of episcoporum adjutores, have constantly cultivated the meek and gentle spirit of St. Francis of Sales in their relations with ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan clergy, and members of other religious orders. Though never very extensive, the spreading of the order in Europe began very soon after its foundation. Their chief theatres of action were in Italy, France, Savoy, Austria, and Bohemia.

In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII, at the solicitation of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, sent Barnabite Fathers to Malta, and in 1610 Henry IV of France obtained their services in defence of Catholicism in Bearn, whence they spread to Paris and other parts of France. The Emperor Ferdinand II invited them into Austria, in 1627, to oppose the spread of Protestantism, and gave them the court parish of St. Michael, where a house was built for their accommodation. The order also possesses at Vienna the parish church of Maria-Hilf, a famous sanctuary erected in thanksgiving for Sobieski’s deliverance of the city from the Turks in 1683. Belgium has recently proved a providential refuge for the order, those expelled from France by the Government of that country having established themselves at Brussels and in other parts of the neighbouring kingdom.

FOREIGN MISSIONS

In 1718, when Clement XI sent Monsignor Mezzabarba to the Emperor of China to attempt a settlement of the famous question of the Chinese Rites, His Holiness attached five Barnabites to the special mission. No substantial result was obtained, but when the rest of the party left the country, one member of the order, Father Ferrari, remained in China, taking up his residence first at Peking and then at Canton, where he sowed the first seed of that work of the Holy Infancy with which the name of the French Bishop =460rbin-Janson is justly associated. From that time until 1738 the companions of Father Ferrari preached the Gospel in Cochin China, where =46ather Alessandro degli Alessandri was for sixteen years vicar Apostolic. The Holy See meanwhile desiring a regular Barnabite mission in Ava and Pegu, the order willingly assumed that duty, and the mission was maintained until 1832, when the inability to supply labourers for this field, the consequence of Napoleon’s suppression of the religious orders necessitated its transfer to the Paris Society of Foreign Missions. An account of what the Barnabites accomplished in Ava and Pegu may be found in Cardinal Wiseman’s translation (published by the Asiatic Society) of Sauzerman’s “Religione del regno Birmano.” The Regular Clerics of St. Paul also kept missionaries, for some time, in Scandinavia. Their missions are now established in Brazil.

SAINTS AND OTHER DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE CONGREGATION

Besides its canonized Saints Anton Maria Zaccaria and Alexander Sauli, and Blessed Xavier M. Bianchi (d. 1815) who was known as the Thaumaturgus of Naples, the Barnabite Order glories in a number of Venerables, among whom have been several religious distinguished for their austere purity and taken to their reward while yet young. Upon the extraordinary graces, such as miracles and vision, undeniably vouchsafed to members of the order, it is not expedient here to insist; Alfonso Paleotti, however, who in 1591 succeeded his cousin, Cardinal Gabriel Paleotti, In the Archbishopric of Bologna, relates in his autobiography that when he was praying for light and help in the government of his archdiocese, a holy man who was commonly called il Vidente, on account of his gift of vision, told him, as a message form the Blessed Virgin, that he out to send for the Barnabites and make them penitenzieri, because they had a great devotion for her, were her faithful servants, and she would assist them in drawing souls to the practice of daily Communion.

Learning, the pursuit of which the Barnabites regard as a great preservative of religious observance has always been cultivated among them in all its branches. To cite only a few names, the order has been distinguished in theology by Rotarius, Pozzobonelli, and Maderni; in Biblical science by Corio and Vercellone; in ecclesiastical history by Tornielli, whose “Annales Sacri” are regarded as an introduction to those of Baronius; in liturgiology by Gavantus; in archaeology by Caronni, whose work receives praise in Eckel’s “Doctina nummorum veterum”; Cortenova, who illustrated the antiquities of Friuli and Aquileia; Delle Torre, who restored the Forum Julii of Cividale; Ungarelli the Egyptologist, friend of Champollion and Rosellini, and interpreter of the Roman obelisk; and Benzi, who elucidated the inscription of Vercelli. Among the name of Barnabites who have been eminent in philosophy are those of Baranzano, the friend of Galileo and of Francis Bacon, who communicated to him first the theory of the “Novum Organum,” of Cardinal Gerdil, and of Pini, the author of “Protologia”; among those eminent in physical and mathematical science, Frisi, Cavallezi, Denza, founder of the Italian Meteorological Society and first director of the Vatican Observatory, and Bertelli, the seismologist. To the Barnabite architect Binaghi is due the restoration of the Escorial towards the close of the sixteenth century, whilst the Barnabite Mazenta was the architect both of the Cathedral of Bologna and of the fortifications of Leghorn. To these name might be added those of many Barnabites who have become famous in literature, and the order has given to the Catholic Church more than fifty bishops and these six members of the Sacred College: Caddini, Fontana, Gerdil, Lambruschini, Bilio, and Graziello.

In 1856 Count Schouvaloff, a distinguished Russian convert, joined the Barnabite Congregation, and died in 1859. It was his ardent desire that his brethren might do something for the reunion of Christendom. With this object the order has founded an Association of Masses, and by the Brief “Apositum super Nobis,” dated 30 April, 1872, Pius IX granted a plenary indulgence to all who should assist at the Mass for the reunion of Christendom to be celebrated once a month in the Chapel of the Barnabites at Paris. His Holiness, moreover, granted to the general of the order faculties for extending the like privilege to any other church in which a monthly Mass for the same intention should be said upon the day appointed by the ordinary. This privilege is freely extended by the general to all bishops who may desire it.

Sicco and Mosio, De Cleric, Reg. S. Pauli Cong. Et Parentibus Syonpsis (Milan, 1682); Barelli, Memorie dell’ origine =8A della Congregazione dei Chierici Reg=8ABarnabiti (Bologna, 1703–07); Constitutiones Cleric. Reg. S. Pauli Decollati (Milan, 1579; Milan, 1617; Naples, 1829); Grazioli, Praestantium virorum qui in Congregatione S. Pauli vulgo Barnabitarum memoria nostra floruerunt (Bologna, 1751); Ungarelli, Bibliotheca Script. E Cong. Cleric. Reg. S. Pauli (Rome, 1836); Gabuzio, Hist. Cong. Cleric. Reg. S. Pauli (Rome, 1852); Colombo, Profili biografici di insigni Barnabiti (Lodi, 1871).

CES. TONDINI DI QUARENGHI.

Federigo Baroccio

Called Fiore d’Urbino, a distinguished painter and engraver, born at Urbino, 1528; died at the same place, 30 September, 1612. His father, who was Ambrogio Baroccio, a sculptor, of a Milanese family, gave him his first art lessons. He then studied drawing with Francesco Manzocchi of Forli. His uncle, the architect Bartolommeo Genga, deciding that Federigo must become an artist, placed him with the eminent Venetian painter, Battista Franco, then in the service of Duke Guidobaldo II at Urbino. On Franco’s departure Baroccio went to his uncle’s house at Pesaro, and while studying perspective with him, copied some pictures of Titian in the ducal gallery. When twenty he went to Rome and spent his time chiefly in the study of the works of his great townsman, Raphael. On his return to Urbino, Baroccio copied the pastels of Correggio, and painted some pictures which brought him much reputation. His subjects were chiefly religious, and included some large altarpieces. Of these he etched two masterpieces, “The Pardon of San Francesco d’Assisi,” which is at Urbino, and “The Annunciation,” which is at Loretto.

Returning to Rome, where Guido della Rovere was one of his patrons, the artist, together with Federigo Zuccaro, received from Pope Pius IV the commission to decorate the little palace of the Bosco di Belvedere in the Vatican. At this time it is said that he was poisoned at a banquet given him by some painters jealous of his success. From this he never recovered, for four years was unable to work at all, and for the rest of his life but a few hours a day. After three years at Perugia, and a short visit to Florence, Baroccio returned to end his long life of eighty-four years at Urbino, dying of apoplexy. In the Louvre are his “Circumcision,” “The Virgin and Child Jesus adored by St. Anthony and St. Lucy,” and “St. Catherine”; in the London National Gallery a “Holy Family”; at Urbino a “Last Supper” and “St. Sebastian”; at the cathedral in Perugia a “Descent from the Cross”; at Ravenna “The Martyrdom of St. Vitalis”; at Naples a “Holy Family”; and at Rome a “Last Supper” and “Christ and Magdalen.”

BRYAN, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers (London and New York, 1903–05).

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Barocco Style

(Fr. baroque).

A debased application to architecture of Renaissance features. The term is also employed to denote a bad taste in design and ornament generally. Carlo Maderna (1556–1639), Bernini (1598–1680), and Borromini (1599–1667), were among the more famous who practiced this form of art. Among the most prominent examples are the churches of Santa Maria della Vittoria by Maderna, and Santa Agnese, by Borromini, both at Rome. Naples particularly is full of baroque churches, a few of which, like the Gesù Nuovo, are dignified and creditable designs. The domical church of Santa Maria della Salute, at Venice, by Longhena, is a majestic edifice in excellent style, and here and there other churches offer exceptions to the then prevalent baseness of architecture. The three Venetian churches, San Barnaba (1749), San Basso (1670), and San Moise, are examples of three different types of the baroque. This style prevailed in church architecture for nearly two centuries. See RENAISSANCE.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Bonaventura Baron

A distinguished Irish Franciscan theologian, philosopher, and writer of Latin prose and verse, b. at Clonmel, County Tipperary, Ireland, 1610; d. at Rome, 18 March, 1696. His mother was a sister of the well-known Franciscan, Luke Wadding, and his brother Geoffrey was a trusted ambassador of the Irish Confederates in their negotiations with the continental rulers. He himself joined the Franciscan community of Clonmel, pursued his studies in philosophy at Louvain, and afterwards proceeded to Rome, where he took up his residence in the Irish College of St. Isidore founded by his uncle, Father Wadding. Here, on the completion of his theological course, he was appointed professor, and devoted himself specially to a defence of the Scotist system then generally assailed. During his stay in Rome he published numerous works on theology, philosophy, and history, a full list of which is appended below. About the year 1651 he left Rome, owing, it is said, to some difficulty with the master of the sacred palace, and went first to a house of his order at Schwaz in the Tyrol, and then to Salzburg, where he was kindly received by Archbishop Guidobald. He was sent as provincial commissary into Hungary (about 1656), was again in Schwaz (1661), went to Paris, taught for some time at Wurzburg, where he published a volume of his “Opuscula” (1668), taught theology at Lyons, and finally returned to Italy. It is said that representations were made to secure his appointment to the Archbishopric of Cashel, but that he declined the office. He was appointed historiographer (1676) by Cosmo de’ Medici, Grand-duke of Tuscany, and was elected a member of the Academy of Florence. While under the patronage of the grand-duke he published the “Trias Tuscia,” in honour of three remarkable religious of the country, and, in the same year, the “Orbes Medicei.” His last work was a history of the Order for Redemption of Captives, from 1198 till 1297. He died 18 March, 1696, and was buried at St. Isidore’s in Rome, where his tomb with the inscription, written by John De Burgo, a rector of the college, still exists. Two contemporary oil paintings of him have come down to us, one preserved in St. Isidore’s, the other in the Franciscan house, Dublin. His principal works are “Panegyrici Sacroprophani” (Rome, 1643; Lyons, 1656); “Obsidio et expugnatio Arcis Duncannon sub Thoma Preston”; “Praelusiones Philosophicae” (Rome, 1651; Lyons, 1661); “Boetius Absolutus” (Rome, 1653); “Scotus defensus et amplificatus” (3 vols., Cologne, 1664); “Cursus Theologicus” (6 vols., 1670); “Opuscula” (4 vols., 1666–71); “Annales Ordinis Sanctae Trinitatis pro redemptione captivorum ab anno 1198 usque ad annum 1297” (Rome, 1864).

Annales Minorum (Fonseca, 1731); Ware, Irish Writers, ed. Harris, 253; Gilbert ed., History of Irish Confederation and War in Ireland, 1641–48 (Dublin, 1882); Franciscan MSS. (Dublin); Meehan, Rise and Fall of the Irish Franciscan Monasteries (Dublin, 1872), 89–93, 217.

JAMES MACCAFFREY.

Vincent Baron

A Dominican theologian and preacher, b. at Martres, in the department of the Haute-Garonne, France, 17 May, 1604; d. in Paris, 21 January 1674. At the age of seventeen he passed form the college of the Jesuits in Toulouse to the Dominican convent of St. Thomas in the same city. There he made his religious profession, 16 May, 1622, completed his course in philosophy and theology, and taught these branches. As early as 1634 he was first professor in his convent and conventual doctor in the University of Toulouse. Rare erudition, depth of thought, and clearness of exposition earned for him the reputation of being one of the leading theologians of France. While discharging his professorial duties he delivered courses of Lenten sermons in the principal churches of Toulouse, Avignon, Bordeaux, and other cities of Southern France. Upon the invitation of the bishops of Languedoc he preached throughout their dioceses for ten years, reviving the faith of Catholics, elevating their morals, and combating the errors of the Calvinists, with whose ministers he frequently joined in open debate, sometimes in their public synods. He published an abridgment of these controversies under the title “L’heresie convaincue” (Paris, 1668). Of his sermons to Catholic congregations we have only those preached at Paris in 1658 and 1659 (Paris, 1660), doctrinal discourses and panegyrics possessing much intellectual merit, composed in the forced style and manner of his age. In the pulpit Father Baron was always a teacher; but while intent upon forming the minds of his hearers he won their hearts by his disinterestedness, sincerity, and charity. From 1630 to 1659 he filled the office of prior in the convents of Toulouse (twice), Rhodez, Castres, Albi, Avignon, and in the general novitiate in Paris, always promoting the reforms in study and religious observance inaugurated by Sebastian Michaelis in the first years of the century. In 1660, having declined the office of provincial in the Province of Toulouse, he was sent by the master-general of his order to make a canonical visitation of the Portuguese convents. On his return to Paris he devoted himself during the remaining fourteen years of his life to the composition of theological works.

His most important productions were written to satisfy the desire expressed by Pope Alexander VII to the Dominicans assembled in a general chapter at Rome in 1656, that they should publish a course in moral theology conformable to the doctrine of St. Thomas, and thus correct the laxity of morals encouraged by certain casuists. These works were: (1) “Theologiae Moralis adv. Laxiores probabilistas pars prior” (Paris, 1665); (2) “Manuductionis ad Moralem Theologiam pars altera” (Paris, 1665); (3) “Theologia moralis Summa bipartita” (Paris, 1667). In these works, while condemning opinions that seemed too lax, and censuring others that appeared to be too rigorous, he ably defended the system of Probabiliorism. With the famous critic Jean de Launoy he was long in controversy as to the “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas the authenticity of which he ably defended, although he did not demonstrate it, as later writers have done. The manuscript of a work entitled “Apologia pro sacra congregatione Indicis” having been published with alterations made by a stranger, which brought upon it the condemnation of the Sacred Congregation, he promised a new edition, which was embodied in his “SS. Augustini et Thomae vera et una mens de libertate humana” (Paris, 1666). Another valuable work is his “Libri V apologetici pro religione, utraque theologia, moribus ac juribus Ord. Praed.” (Paris, 1666). At the time of his death he was engaged on a complete course in theology to be entitled “D. Thomas sui Interpres.” From this work, but half completed and never published, the one bearing the same title by Antoninus Massoulie, O.P., is entirely distinct.

Quetif et Echard, Script Ord. Praed., II, 655; Touron, Hist. des hommes illus. De l’ordre de St. Dominique, V, 489–498.

ARTHUR L. MCMAHON

Ven. Cesare Baronius

Cardinal and ecclesiastical historian, born at Sora in the Kingdom of Naples, 30 August, 1538; died at Rome, 30 June, 1607; author of “Annales Ecclesiatici,” a work which marked an epoch in historiography and merited for its author, after Eusebius, the title of a Father of Ecclesiastical History.

Baronius was descended from the Neapolitan branch of a once powerful family, whose name, de Barono, was changed by Cesare himself to the Roman form, Baronius. His parents, humble citizens of Sora in the Sabines, some sixty miles east of Rome, could bestow no ancestral wealth and power upon their only son. He was, however, to possess qualities which better proclaim nobility—a deeply religious spirit, a charity to which selfishness was painfuly repgunant, a firmness of will tempered in humble obedience, and a keenness and vigour of mind scrupulously dedicated to the cause of truth. These qualities distinguished Baronius as a peer in sanctity and scholarship among many saintly and learned contemproraries. He inherited his more vigorous traits of character from his father Camillo, a worldly and ambitious man, whose strong will and tenacity of purpose were one day to clash with like qualities in his equally determined son. To the influence of his pious and charitable mother, Portia Phaebonia, whose devotion to Cesare’s religious interests was intensified by what she considered his miraculous deliverance from death in infancy, he owed his conspicuous tender qualities and childlike simplicity of faith. To this latter was due his vivid realization of God’s guidance, vouchsafed often in visions and dreams. Baronius received his early education from his intelligent parents and in the schools of nearby Veroli. His intense love of study and intellectual maturity encouraged his father to send him, at the age of eighteen, to the school of law at Naples. There, after a few months of confusion due to the Franco-Spanish war for Italian dominion compelled him to remove to Rome, where, in 1557, he became a pupil of Cesare Costa, a master in civil and canon law.

He was there but a short time when he met one who was potently to influence his destiny and determine, even to details, his career and occupations. It was Philip Neri, a priest remarkable for his sanctity and and for the spirit of piety and charity with which he inspired a little group of priests and lay-men whom he had formed into a confraternity of good works at the church of San Girolamo della Carità. The importance of this meeting cannot be overestimated; a Baronius the world might have had, but the Baronius of history is the creature of St. Philip Neri. He was impressed by the serious law student of such transparent innocence of life and finding in him a responsive subject, enrolled him in his little band. This did not prevent Baronius from continuing the studies for which he came to Rome, but in all else his surrender of self to Philip’s guidance was spontaneous and complete. It was not without its sacrifices. In token of renunciation he burned a volume of his own Italian verses in the composition of which he had shown marked proficiency; the same fate later befell his doctorate diploma. For three years, in his zeal, he yearned to become a Capuchin friar, but Philip restrained him. More distressing still was the bitter antagonism of his father, who saw in all this but folly and the frustration of his paternal ambition. He feared, too, the extinction of his family, whose hope for a brilliant revival was centred alone in Cesare. Father and son were firm. Camillo cut off his scanty allowance and Cesare was compelled to live on the hospitality of one of Philip’s friends. For six years Baronius led a semi-religious life with the community of San Girolamo, the nucleus of the Congregation of the Oratory. From Philip he received direction in study and spiritual guidance, and at his bidding gave all his spare time to charitable work among the sick and poor.

During the year 1558 Philip assigned to him the important work of preaching at the conferences given often during the week in the church of San Girolamo. In 1564 he received priestly ordination and resolved to cast his lot with Philip’s little band, but so intense was his ardor for the religious life that he had already taken vows of poverty, chastity, humility, and obedience to Philip as to a superior. Of his will he was to be the yielding instrument for yet twenty-five years. That time was to be given to the preparation of his work on ecclesiastical history, about which Baronius’ life-interest henceforth centres.

The credit of its conception belongs to Philip, as Baronius testifies with filial devotion in the “Annals.” The saint shared keenly in the distress and dismay caused in Catholic circles by the publication of the “Centuries of Magdeburg” (Ecclesiastica Historia: integram ecclesiae Christi ideam complectens, congesta per aliquot studiosos et pios viros in urbe Magdeburgica, 13 vols., Basle, 1559–74). The purpose of this work was to commit history to the cause of Protestantism by showing how far the Catholic Church had departed from primitive teaching and practices, in contrast to the consonance therewith of the Reformed Church. It was conceived in 1552 by Mathias Flach Francowiez (Flacius Illyricus) and, with the collaboration of several Lutheran scholars and the co-operation of evangelical princes and other wealthy Protestants, was hurriedly completed. Its thirteen volumes dealt each with a century of the Christian Era, whence the name “Centuriators” applied to the authors. Though the work had the great merit of being the pioneer in the field of modernized church history, and displayed considerable critical spirit, its unscrupulously partisan colouring of Lutheran claims and its misrepresentations of Catholicity predestined it to but ephemeral honour. It is of interest only as a sunken landmark in the field of historical literature, and as the stimulus of Baronius’s genius. The publication of its initial volumes, however, at a time when its polemical value made it acceptable to Protestants, provided the Reformers with a most formidable weapon of attack on the Catholic Church. It did much harm. The feasibility of a counter attack appealed to Catholic scholars, but nothing adequate was provided, for the science of history was still a thing of the future. Its founder was as yet but twenty-one years of age and knew very little of history. It was in that youth that St. Philip Neri discerned a possible David who would rout the Philistines of Magdeburg. He forthwith directed Baronius to devote his conferences at San Girolamo exclusively to the history of the Church. Baronius was disconcerted. History had no attraction for him. His youthful zeal would rather vent itself in the fiery moral conferences which he had creditably given during the preceding year. But he obeyed, and within three years summarily covered the field of church history in his conference and developed a keen interest in historical studies. Twice he gave the course before his ordination to the priesthood, and five times again did he repeat it during the following twenty-three years, perfecting his work with each succeeding series. The early historians and the Fathers became his familiars. The libraries of Rome yielded to his diligent quest a host of unpublished documents. Monuments, coins, and inscriptions told to him unsuspected stories.

What he did in and about Rome willing correspondents did for him elsewhere, and the name of Baronius came to be known over Europe as a synonym for unprecedented historical penetration, power of research, and zeal for verification. Philip’s plan for arranging in lasting form the material thus garnered must have been made known to Baronius before 1569, but despite the importance of the work, he was compelled by his master to share in all the exercises of the now growing Oratory. At the church of San Giovanni dei Fiorentini. which he served from 1564 to 1575, he had his part in the parish ministrations and took his turn in the menial domestic services. “Baronius coquus perpetuus” was the legend he playfully inscribed in the Oratory kitchen, where he often received distinguished visitors. To the many mortifications imposed by Philip he added generously, and and thereby provoked the digestive disorders that often racked his body in life and ultimately precipitated his death. Despite all obstacles, his prodigious capacity for work and contentment with but four to five hours sleep a night made possible an amazing progress in his researches. After the canonical foundation of the Oratory (15 July, 1575) he took up his residence at Santa Maria in Vallicella, definitive home of the new congregation, and led the same busy life. In the early eighties plans were matured for the publication of the new church history, and by 1584, a quarter of a century since he began his preparation, Baronius had the work well under way, when his patience suffered a new trial. Gregory XIII confided to him the revision of the Roman Martyrology. The work was necessary because of confusion in feast-days due to the Gregorian calendar-reform (1582); besides, it was an opportune time to correct the many errors of copyists long accumulating in the Martyrology. Baronius gave two years to the wide research amd keen criticism the work demanded. His annotations and corrections were published in 1586, and in a second edition he corrected several errors which he was chagrined to have overlooked in the first (Martyrologium Romanum, cum Notationibus Caesaris Baronii, Rome, 1589).

The difficulties which beset Baronius in the publication of the “Annals” were many and annoying. He prepared his manuscript unaided, writing every page with his own hand. His brother Oratorians at Rome could lend him no assistance. Those at Naples, who helped him in revising his copy, were scarcely competent and almost exasperating in their dilatoriness and uncritical judgment. The proofs he read himself. His printers, in the infancy of their art, were neither prompt nor painstaking. In the Spring of 1588 the first volume appeared and was universally acclaimed for its surprising wealth of inforomation, its splendid erudition, and its timely vindication of papal claims. The “Centuries” were eclipsed. Those highest in ecclesiastical and civil authority complimented the author, but more gratifying still was the truly phenomenal sale the book secured and the immediate demand for its translation into the principal European languages. It was Baronius’ intention to produce a volume every year; but the second was not ready until early in 1590. The next four appeared yearly, the seventh late in 1596, the other five at still-longer intervals, up to 1607, when, just before his death, he completed the twelfth volume, which he had foreseen in a vision would be the term of his work. It brought the history down to 1198, the year of the accession of Innocent III.

Baronius’ student life during the twenty years of publication was even more disturbed than formerly. His growing repute brought heavy penalties to one of his humility. Three successive popes would have made him a bishop. In 1593 he became superior of the Oratory, succeeding the aged Philip, on whose death, in 1596, he was re-elected for another triennial term. In 1595 Clement VIII, whose confessor he was, made him protonotary Apostolic and, on 5 June, 1596, created him cardinal. Baronius bitterly regretted his removal from the Oratory to reside at the Vatican, or even away from Rome when the papal court was absent from the city, a circumstance doubly distressing as it prevented active work on the “Annals.” In 1597 Clement paid the highest possible tribute to his erudition by naming him Librarian of the Vatican. This office, together with the charge of the newly founded Vatican press and his duties in the Congregations, left still less time for his “Annals.” Troubles he had of another order. His zeal for the liberties of the church had early invited the disfavour of Philip II of Spain, who, because he was the strongest Catholic sovereign in Europe, was striving to exercise undue influence on the papacy. He incurred Philip’s further displeasure by supporting the cause of his enemy, the excommunicate Henry IV of France, whose absolution Baronius warmly advocated. The “Annals” were condemned by the Spanish Inquisition. Later on, when he published his treatise on the Sicilian Monarchy, proving the prior claim of the papacy to that of Spain in the suzerainty of Sicily and Naples, he provoked the bitter hostility of both Philip II and Philip III. He found solace, however, in the thought that the enmity of Spain would prevent the growing possibility of his being made pope. This hope was severely tried in the two conclaves of 1605. Baronius was the choice of a majority of the cardinals and, despite Spanish opposition, might have been elected had he not turned his diplomacy to encompass his own defeat. Thirty-seven votes out of a necessary forty in the first conclave and a violent attempt to precipitate his “adoration” in the second attest the esteem in which he was held.

In the spring of 1607 Baronius returned to the Oratory, for a vision had warned him that his sixty-ninth year would be his last, and he had reach the portended last volume of the “Annals.” Soon, critically ill, he was removed to Frascati, but, discerning the end, he returned to Rome, where he died 30 June, 1607. His tomb is at the left of the high altar in the church of Santa Maria in Vallicella (Chiesa Nuova).

Cardinal Baronius left a reputation for profound sanctity which led Benedict XIV to proclaim him “Venerable” (12 January, 1745). The restorations which he made in his titular church of Sts. Nereus and Achilleus and in St. Gregory’s on the Coelian still feebly bespeak his zeal for decorous worship. But the “Annals” constitute the most conspicuous and enduring monument of his genius and devotion to the Church. For three centuries they have been the inspiration of students of history and an inexhaustible storehouse for research. No one work has treated so completely the epoch with which they deal. Nowhere are there to be found collected so many important documents. Unbiased scholars recognize in them the foundation-stone of true historical science, and in their author the qualities of the model historian: indefatigable diligence in research, passion for verification, accuracy of judgment, and unswerving loyalty to truth. Even in the bitter controversies which the early volumes aroused, Baronius’ most scholarly critics acknowledged his thoroughness and honesty. But this does not imply that the work was faultless or final, Master though he was, Baronius was a pioneer. Gifted with a critical spirit which was, to say the least, much keener than that of his contemporaries, his exercise of it was tentative and timid. Yet he stimulated a spirit of criticism which would infallibly advance the science of history far beyond the reaches attainable by himself. With this wider vision his successors have been enabled to subject the “Annals” to no little corrective criticism. His scanty knowledge of Greek and Hebrew limited his resources in dealing with Oriental questions. Despite his care, he cited many documents as authentic which a more enlightened criticism has rejected as apocryphal. His most serious defects were incident to the very accuracy he essayed in casting his history in the strictly annalistic form. The attempt to assign to each successive year its own events involved him in numerous chronological errors. Baronius himself recognized the possibility of this and made many corrections in his second edition (Mainz, 1601–05); and later it was by his allies, and not by his enemies, that the most thorough efforts at chronological revision were made, a point seemingly lost on those who refer to Pagi’s “refutation” of Baronius’ errors. One has but to recall the diversity of opinion in matters of chronology among the chief exponents of historical science to-day to find palliation for the mistakes of that science’s founder. Whatever must be said in justice to Baronius, it remains true that the present-day value of his work is to be measured in the light of these defects, and it is to the critical editions of the “Annals” that the student will profitably refer, bearing always in mind that the mistakes of Baronius affect but little the value of the precious lecacy his industry and genius handed down to later historians. The most extensive work of emendation is that of the Pagi: “Critica historico-chronologica in Annales,” etc. (3d ed., Antwerp, 1727, 4 vols.). Its preface contains a good study of the early criticsim of the “Annals.”

To the original twelve volumes of the “Annals” there have been added continuations in the style of Baronius. The most worthy are those of the three Oratorians: Raynaldus, ablest of the continuators, who with material accumulated by Baronius carried the history to the year 1565 (Rome, 1646–77, 9 vols.); Laderchi, who continued it thence to 1571 (Rome, 1728–37, 3 vols.); and August Theiner, to 1583 (Rome, 1856). Less notable are the continuations of the Polish Dominican, Bzovius, 1198 to 1571 (Cologne, 1621–30, 9 vols.), and the French bishop, Sponde, 1198 to 1647 (Paris, 1659). There is a good study of the work of the continuators by Mansi in the Bar-le-Duc edition of Baronius, XX, p iii-xi. Many epitomes of the work have been made, the best being that of Sponde (Cologne, 1690, 2 vols.). As an exemplar of recent scientific working of a small portion of the field covered by Baronius may be cited, Rauschen, “Jahrbücher der Christlichen Kirche unter dem Kaiser Theodosius dem Grossen. Versuch einer Erneuerung der Annales Ecelesiastici des Baronius für die Jahre 378–395” (Freiburg im Br., 1897). The best editions of Baronius are those of Lucca (1738–59, 38 vols.) and Bar-le-Duc (1864–83, 37 vols.); the former contains the continuations of Raynald and Laderchi, the critique of Pagi and others, and is enriched by the notes of Archbishop Mansi; the latter contains what is best in the former and the editorial additions of Father Theiner, whose continuation was to be included. Publication was suspended with the history of the year 1571. Baronius published many lesser works, most of which found place in the “Annals.” His life of St. Gregory Nazianzen is in Acta SS., XV, 371–427.

JOHN B. PETERSON

Diocese of Barquisimeto

(De Barquisimeto)

Diocese in Venezuela, South America. The city is the capital of the State of Lara, is about 161 miles south-west of Caracas, and contains about 30,000 inhabitants, though some authorities give a lower figure. Founded in 1552 by the Spaniards, under the name of Nueva Segovia, Barquisimeto is one of the oldest Spanish possessions in South America. In 1812 it was almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. The Diocese of Barquisimeto was erected in 1847, comprising the three States of Lara, Carabobo, and Falcon. By a decree of the Congregation of the Consistory, 12 February, 1907, the episcopal residence was transferred to Valencia (38,654), in the State of Carabobo, and the boundaries of the diocese rearranged. It is now bounded on the north and west by the Caribbean Sea, on the south by the diocese of Merida (or the State of Trujillo) on the east by the State of Calabozo and the two dioceses of Zamora, and Guiana. The diocese contains 528,215 Catholics, 68 priests, and 110 churches and chapels.

Battandier, Ann. Pont. Cath. (Paris, 1906), 198; Missiones Catholicae (Propaganda, Rome, 1907).

U. BENIGNI

Sebastião Barradas

A Portuguese exegete and preacher, born at Lisbon in 1543; died at Coimbra in 1615. In 1558 he entered the Society of Jesus. He was professor of scripture for many years at Coimbra and Evora and preached with such zeal that he was styled the Apostle of Portugal. He published two works:

“Commentaria in concordiam et historiam evangelicam” (4 vols., Coimbra, 1599–1611). This work, which is a treasure house for preachers on the Gospels, was freqently reprinted in Germany, Italy, and France. The last edition was printed at Sugsburg, 1642.

“Itinererarium filiorum Israel ex Aegypto in terram repromissis” (Lyons, 1620). It is a useful commentary on the Book of Exodus.

JOHN CORBETT

Louis-Mathias, Count de Barral

Archbishop of Tours, France, born 26 April, 1746, at Grenoble; died 7 June, 1816, at Paris. He was educated for the priesthood at the seminary of St. Sulpice, in Paris, and after ordination was made secretary, then coadjutor, and in 1790, successor, to his uncle, the Bishop of Troyes. In 1791, he refused to take the oath to the civil constitution of the clergy, and withdrew from France to Constance in Switzerland and later to England. In 1801 he returned home, and was appointed, under the new concordat between France and the Holy See, to govern the Diocese of Meaux, and in 1805 was promoted to the Archbishopric of Tours. During the long and harassing negotiations which Napoleon carried on with Pope Pius VII, while the latter was virtually a prisoner at Savona and Fontainebleau, Archbishop de Barral acted frequently as the emperor’s intermediary. He was afterwards appointed almoner to the Empress Josephine, and he pronounced her funeral oration. Later still he was named a senator and a count of the Empire. On the downfall of Napoleon, the archbishop took his seat in the Chamber of Peers under Louis XVIII, and in the government of the “Hundred Days,” which followed on the return of Napoleon from Elba, he still retained his political position. On the second restoration of the Bourbons, however, he was obliged to resign, and from this time till his death, which occured in the following year, he confined himself entirely to the administration of his archdiocese. He has left among other works:—“Fragments relatifs à l’histoire ecclésiastique des premières années du XIXe siècle” (Paris, 1814); and a posthumous work, published by his brother: “Défense des libertés de l’église gallicane et de l’assemblée du clergé de France tenue en 1682, on refutation de plusieurs ouvrages publié récemment en Angleterre sur l’infaillibilité du Pape” (Paris, 1817).

EDWARD A. GILLIGAN.

Joachim Barrande

French palæontologist, b. at Sangues (Haute-Loire), 11 August, 1799; d. at Frohsdorff, near Vienna, 5 October, 1883. He was educated at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris and was selected by Charles X to be the tutor of his grandson, the Duc de Bordeaux, also known as the Count de Chambord. When the king abdicated in 1830 he accompanied the royal family to England and Scotland and finally to Prague. He continued throughout his life on terms of intimate friendship with the duke, who, after the death of the king, took up his residence at Frohsdorff, and he acted also as the administrator of his property. Barrande’s interest was early awakened in the fossil remains of his adopted country and their distribution in the various strata. The field was a new one for until the date of his first publication scarcely any attention had been paid to stratigraphical geology and palæontology in Bohemia. During the summers of 1840–50 he made preliminary surveys on foot of the Silurian district, an area of about 140 sq. miles. This was the beginning of his extensive investigations on the Silurian system of Bohemia. Quarries were opened and workmen engaged to search for fossils, and for forty-three years he devoted his time and resources to the vast undertaking and especially to describing, naming, and figuring the numerous specimens which he discovered. The results of his labours are contained in his great work-”Système silurien de centre de la Bohême-which stands almost unrivalled in palæontological literature” (von Zittel). The first volume was published in 1852 and at the time of his death twenty-two large quarto volumes with 1160 plates had appeared. Barrande was also the author of “Colonie dans le bassin silurien de la Bohême” (1860); “Documents sur la faune primordiale et le système taconique en Amérique” (1861); “Représentation de colonies de la Bohême dans le bassin silurien du nord-ouest de la France” (1863); “Cephalopodes-Etudes générales.” His private life was simple and uneventful. He carried on a correspondence with the leading geologists of other countries, some of whom visited him at Prague. At his death he provided means for the completion of his “Sytéme silurien” and bequeathed his library and valuable collection of fossils to the Natural History Museum at Prague.

Geological Magazine (Dec. 1883: new series, Decade II, Vol. X, No. xii); VON ZITTEL, History of Geology and Palæontology (London, 1901).

H. M. BROCK

Jacinto Barrasa

(Or Barraza).

Born at Lima, Peru, early in the seventeenth century; died there, 22 Nov., 1704. When, in the seventeenth century, the different religious orders appointed historiographers or official chroniclers of the work done in their several American provinces, the Jesuits selected Father Ignacio Arbieto for their Peruvian missions, but as his account was not accepted Father Jacinto Barrasa was appointed in his stead. His fame was principally as a preacher, and two volumes of his “Sermones” were published, one at Madrid in 1678, the other at Lima in 1679. In the latter year he finished his voluminous history of the Society of Jesus in Peru, which is still at Lima in private hands, and comprises 1,350 pages of manuscript. Its title is: Historia de las fundaciones de los colegios y casas de la Compania de Jesus, con la noticia de las vidas y virtudes religiosas de algunos varones ilustres que en ella trabajaron. No allusions are made in that chronicle to any other events than those of a religious or ecclesiastical nature. In addition to his “Sermones,” a “Panegirico,” pronounced by him in 1669 on the beatification of St. Rose of Lima, was also printed. Torres Saldamando Los Antiquos Jesuitas del Peru (Lima, 1882); Cobo, Historia de la fundacion de Lima (published at Lima, 1882, but written in the year 1639).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Antoine-Lefebvre, Sieur de la Barre

Tenth French Governor-General of Canada, b. at Paris in 1622; d. in 1690. De la Barre was made a counsellor of the Parlement (High Court) in 1646, master of requests in 1653, and was Intendant of Paris during the civil war. After this he successively held other offices until he became Intendant of Bourbonnais in 1663. There he formed a company called “Compagnie de la France équinoxiale” to colonize Guiana, and was appointed lieutenant-general and governor of that part of America. He sailed from Rochelle in 1664 with the Marquis de Tracy, who had been appointed viceroy of the French possessions in America. After establishing himself at Cayenne, which de Tracy had taken from the Dutch, de la Barre returned to France in the autumn of the same year, and while there published an account of his mission and his hopes for the future of Guiana, under the title of “La Description de la France équinoxiale.” Soon after, he was appointed commander of Guiana and the French Antilles. In 1671 he was made captain of a man-of-war; I the same year he published the “Journal du voyage du sieur de la Barre en la terre ferme et ile de Cayenne.”

De la Barre was appointed Governor-General of Canada to replace Frontenac, and reached Quebec early in October, 1682. He received wise and detailed instructions for his guidance in the government of the colony and was especially directed to prevent the disorders caused by the traders and to keep them from fraudulent practices. De la Barre was already old and was animated more by the love of money than by the desire to advance the interests of the colony. He was induced by some of the traders to join in various enterprises. Instead of devoting himself to the organization of the internal affairs of the colony he allowed his advisers to dispatch a trading expedition to Hudson Bay and aided them in sending clandestine trading parties to Albany, to the region of the Mississippi, and the West. In 1684, under pretext of overawing the Iroquois, he took a body of ill-equipped troops as far as Fort Frontenac at the head of Lake Ontario. The troops were in reality intended to be an escort to a trading expedition in which he was interested. Sickness broke out among his soldiers, and he was obliged to make a disgraceful treaty with the Iroquois. De la Barre gave the Iroquois unrestricted rights in the region extending towards the country of the Illinois Indians, which de la Salle at that time was on the point of winning for France in spite all the obstacles that the governor put in his way. Louis XIV heard of the disastrous expedition to Fort Frontenac and recalled de la Barre (10 March, 1685), who did not leave Quebec, however, until the arrival of his successor, the Marquis de Denonville, in October, 1685. In 1687 de la Barre was again appointed Governor of Cayenne and died three years later.

Hozier Manuscripts; Collection Moreau Saint-Mery, IV; Archives coloniales de France, Series B, IX, X; C, VI, VII; New York Colonial Documents, IX; Parkman, Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV, 72–115.

J. EDMOND ROY

Balthasar Barreira

A Portuguese Jesuit missionary, born at Lisbon, 1531; died 1612, on the mission of Angola, south-west coast of Africa, the scene of his life’s labors. His literary works consist chiefly of “Relations” written to the supervisors of the Society of Jesus, describing the condition of the province with regard to both its political and spiritual aspects. He has recounted in detail the victory of the Spaniards, led by Paul de Morales, over an army of native negroes in the year 1583. Accounts of the conversion of pagan tribes and the baptisms of native kings as well as treatises on the manners and customs of the people are the principal subjects of his writings.

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., I, 918.

JAMES M. COTTER

Lopez de Barrientos

A Spanish Dominican bishop, patriot, and diplomat, b. at Medina del Campo, Kingdom of Leon 1382; d. at Cuenca, 21 May, 1469. He was of noble parentage, and after receiving a liberal education in the University of Salamanca, entered the Dominican Order, in his native town, when about eighteen years of age. After his religious profession, he was again sent to Salamanca for a course of divinity. In this he showed extraordinary talent and love for study. He soon became known as one of the greatest theologians of Spain, and was appointed to the first chair of theology in that famous university. In 1433, John II of Castile and Leon called him to his court, to be his confessor and tutor to their heir presumptive, afterwards Henry IV. Because of his ability and prudence, he was then made Grand Chancellor of State and Inquisitor General. He became successively Bishop of Segovia, 1439; of Avila, 1442; of Cuenca, 1444. Later he refused the Archbishopric of Compostella. John II, in his last will and testament, 1454, also named him tutor to Prince Alphonsus, a younger son. By his wise counsel and eminent statesmanship, he rendered his king and country conspicuous service. He also did much in the way of religious reformation and works of charity, and was a liberal patron of learning. His name frequently appears in the Spanish history of those troublous times. His writings comprise a treatise on the sacraments, a compendium of moral theology, a commentary on a part of the “Book of Decretals” (all in Latin), and several Spanish manuscripts on ecclesiastical matters and doctrinal subjects.

Touron, Hist. des hommes ill. De l’ordre de Saint Dominique (Paris, 1743–49), III; Echard, Script. Ord. Praed. (Paris, 1719–21), I; Mariana, Historia de rebus Hispaniae (Toledo, 1592).

VICTOR F. O’DANIEL.

João de Barros

Historian, b. in Portugal, 1496; d. 20 October, 1570. Of his early youth little is known. In 1522, he went to Mina in Portuguese Africa, and was made treasurer of the Casa da India, Mina, and Ceuta (African possessions) in 1525, and again in 1532. Here he cultivated his literary inclinations and attached himself to the Crown of Portugal by other ties than those of a faithful subordinate and accountant. At the age of twenty-four, he published a romance of the Emperor Clarimundo, a legendary ancestor of the kings of Portugal. In 1539, when Brazil had begun to be looked upon as an important accession to Portuguese colonial possessions, he obtained a grant of fifty-leagues along the coast at the mouth of the Amazon and forthwith equipped an expedition to occupy it. Ten vessels with nine hundred men, under command of Aires da Cunha, set sail for Brazil, but were wrecked at the bar of the Maranhão, and nearly everybody perished. Two sons of Barros were in the expedition, but their fate is not given. This brought Barros almost to the verge of poverty. He thereafter clung to historic studies, protected and favoured by the king, at whose instigation he wrote his classical work, “Asia,” considered of value as a fine piece of Portuguese literature and for the information it affords. Besides giving an account of discovery and conquest, it touches frequently upon the earl iest attempts at Christianization by the Portuguese in their African and Asiatic possessions, the founding of churches, etc. The first decade appeared in 1552. Only three have been fully published. A fourth, of somewhat questionable authenticity, has been partly printed.

On the life of Barros, see DE FERIA, Vida de Joao de Barros (Lisbon, 1778); SILVA, Diccionario bibliografico portuguez (Lisbon, 1859), III; Biographie universelle (Paris, 1854), I.

A.D. F. BANDELIER

John Barrow

Priest, descended from a family of stanch Catholic yeomen, b. 13 May, 1735, at Westby-in-the-Fylde, Lancashire; d. 12 February, 1811, at Claughton, Lancashire. His uncle, Father Edward Barrow, S. J., had been serving the mission at Wesby Hall in 1717 when he was outlawed as a popish priest and his goods forfeited. John Barrow, after a course of seven years at the English College in Rome, was impressed at Portsmouth and served five years in the navy. Deserting at Dunkirk, he was acquitted by the court-martial through pretending successfully to understand no language but Italian. In 1761, after escorting two young women from London to the Convent of the Poor Clares at Gravelines, where his sister was a nun, he resumed his studies at Douai, and was ordained there 17 June, 1766. After a short stay in London at the house in Red Lion Square occupied by the parents of Bishop Milner, he set out on horseback for Claughton in Lancashire. At this mission, which had been formerly attached to the Hall, the seat of the ancient family of Brockholes, he remained from the time of his arrival, in July, 1766, until his death. He was buried at the adjoining mission of New House.

Father Barrow was a man of notable courage, will and industry. He ws a master of French and Italian, wrote elegant Latin and forceful English. “He may sometimes have shown but scant courtesy to the wishes or commands of his own bishop, but he insisted that everybody else should be obedient and deferential to ecclesiastical authority” (Gillow). He enlarged the parish church of Claughton, in 1794, improved the roads as township overseer, made wise reinvestments of the fund for the secular clergy, and negotiated with Sir Edward Smythe for the acquirement by exchange of the land for Ushaw College. Though his name is on the list of Douai writers, no description of his writing is recorded. It is likely that he contributed to the Catholic Committee controversy. Gillow’s quotations from unpublished letters would imply that Barrow was no gentle opponent. In a letter preserved at Claughton the Cardinal Secretary of State praises warmly Father Barrow’s Catholic loyalty and his zeal for the cause of the Holy See.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 145; GRADWELL, Historical Sketch of the Mission of Claughton in the Liverpool Catholic Almanac, 1885.

J. V. CROWNE.

Ven. William Barrow

(Alias Waring, alias Harcourt).

An English Jesuit martyr, born in Lancashire, in 1609, died 30 June, 1679. He made his studies at the Jesuit College, St. Omers, and entered the Society at Watten in 1632. He was sent to the English mission in 1644 and worked on the London district for thirty-five years, becoming, in the beginning of 1678, its superior. In May of that year he was arrested and committed to Newgate on the charge of complicity in the Oates Plot. The trial, in which he had as fellow-prisons his colleagues, Father Thomas Whitebread, John Fenwick, John Gavan, and Anthony Turner, commenced 13 June 1670, and is famous, or rather infamous, in history. Lord Chief Justice Scroggs presided, and Oates, Bedloe, and Dugdale were the principal witnesses for the Crown. The prisoners were charged with having conspired to kill the king and subvert the Protestant religion. They made a brave defense, and by the testimony of their own witnesses and their cross-examinations of their accusers proved clearly that the latter were guilty of wholesale perjury. But Scroggs laid down the two monstrous principals that

as the witnesses against them had recently received the royal pardon, none of the undeniable previous misdemeanors could be legally admitted as impairing the value of their testimony; and

that no Catholic witness was to be believed, as it was presumable that he had received a dispensation to lie.

Moreover, he obstructed the defense in every way by his brutal and constant interruptions. Accordingly, Father Barrow and the others, though manifestly innocent, were found guilty, and condemned to undergo the punishment of high treason. They suffered together at Tyburn, 20 June, 1679. By the papal decree of 4 December, 1886, this martyr’s cause was introduced under the name of “William Harcourt.” Corbett, State Trials, VII; Tanner, Brevis Relatio (Prague, 1883); Florus Anglo-Bavaricus (Liege, 1685); Foley, records of the English Province S.J., V; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v. Barrow; Idem, Lancashire Recusants.

SYDNEY F. SMITH

Augustin Barruel

Controversialist and publicist, born at Villeneuve de Berg (Ardeche); 2 October, 1741; died at Paris, 5 October, 1820. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1756 and taught grammar at Toulouse in 1762. The storm against the Jesuits in France drove him from his country and he was occupied in college work in Moravia and Bohemia until the suppression of the order in 1773. He then returned to France and his first literary work appeared in 1774: “Ode sur le glorieux avenement de Louis Auguste au trone.” That same year he became a collaborator of the “Année littéraire,” edited by Fréron. His first important work was “Les Helveiennes, ou Lettres Provinciales philosophiques” (Amsterdam, 1781). The seventh edition of the work (Paris, 1839) contains a sketch of the author. Of these letters, the seventy-sixth is considered most brilliant. His book provoked a controversy with M. Giraud-Soulavie, and the replies and counter-replies were many.

In the meantime, national affairs in France were growing more and more turbulent, but Barruel continued his literary activity, which from now on occupied itself specially with public questions. In 1789 appeared “Lettres sur le Divorce,” a refutation of a book by Hennet. From 1788 to 1792 he edited the famous “Journal Ecclesiastique” founded by Dinouart in 1760. In this periodical was published Barruel’s “La Conduite du. S. Siège envers la France,” a vigorous defense of Pope Pius VI. He likewise wrote a number of pamphlets against the civil oath demanded from ecclesiastics and against the new civil constitution during 1790 and 1791. He afterward gathered into one “Collection Ecclésiastique” all the works relative to the clergy and civil constitution. The ninth volume of this collection was published in 1793.

The storm of the French Revolution had in the meantime (1792) forced Barruel to seek refuge in England, where he became almoner to the refugee Prince de Conti. Here he wrote in 1793 the well-known “Historie du Clergé pendant la Revolution Francaise.” He dedicated the work to the English nation in recognition of the hospitality it had shown toward the unfortunate French ecclesiastics. It has been translated into German, Italian, Spanish, Polish, and English. The English version went through several editions and did much to strengthen the British nation in its opposition to French revolutionary principles. An American edition of the work appeared at Burlington in 1824. While in London, Barruel published an English work, “A Dissertation on Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Catholic Church” (1794). But none of his works attracted so much attention as his “Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du Jacobinisme” (London, 1797–98). It appeared in an English dress: “Memoirs of the History of Jacobinism and Freemasonry of Barruel, translated into English by the Hon. Robert Clifford” (London, 1798) in four volumes. This important work is an endeavor to account for the French Revolution by a study of the anti-Christian and anti-social principles of the secret societies and the encyclopedic philosophers. Owing to its translation into every modern language it was everywhere read and commented upon. A sharp criticism in the “Monthly Review” brought forth a reply from Barruel who greatly increased the circulation of his book by issuing an abridgement of it in 1798. The Freemasons of France, Germany, and England angrily contested his assertions and a voluminous literature was the consequence. While some are of the opinion that Barruel’s work attributes to the secret societies many evil deeds for which they are not responsible, all admit that his exposition of their principals and the logical consequences flowing from them is the work of a powerful mind. Barruel, indeed, seems to have been the first to portray clearly the necessary consequences to civil government, to the Church, and to the social order that must result from the atheistic oathbound associations that had acquired such tremendous power on the continent of Europe.

On the fall of the Directory in 1802, Barruel was enabled to return to France. He fully accepted and persuaded many other clergymen to accept the new political order of things in his native country and he wrote several books to defend his opinions. When the Concordat was made in 1801 between Pius VII and Napoleon, Barruel wrote: “Du Pape et de ses Droits Religieux.” His last important controversy was his defense of the Holy See in its deposition of the French bishops, which had been necessitated by the new order of things in France, established by the Concordat. His book appeared also in English: “The Papal Power, or an historical essay on the temporal power of the Pope” (London, 1803). Many attacked the work, but as usual the author did not suffer an antagonist to go unanswered. His new work involved him in a very extended controversy, for his work was translated into all the principal European languages. His friends and foes alike became involved in a wordy war. Blanchard published in London no less than three refutations. Two works are erroneously attributed to Barruel: “L’Historie civile, politique et religieuse de Pie VI” and “Découverte importante sur le système de la Constitution du Clergé, décrété par l’Assemblée nationale.” The many articles Barruel contributed to journals and his many published letters are not touched on here. He had promised to compose two works which never appeared, viz: “Historie des Sociétés Secrètes au Moyen-Age” and “Dissertation sur la Croisade contre les Albigeois.” In regard to the latter work, Barruel stated his object would be to defend the Church against the reproach of having deposed kings and having freed their subjects from the oath of allegiance. He contended that objections on this score arose only from an ignorance of history. During the whole course of a life of multiplied activity, Barruel was ever the wakeful apologist and unwearied defender of Christian truth and the rights of the Church. At the time of his death, he was engaged on a refutation of the philosophical system of Kant, but never completed his work.

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J. (Brussels, 1890); Dussault, Notice sur la vie du Barruel (Paris, 1825); Hurter, Nomen Lit., III (Innsbruck 1895); De Backer, Bibl. des ecrivains S. J. (Liege, 1853); Querad, La France litteraire (Paris, 1827), I, 196,97.

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

John Barry (1)

Captain in the United States navy, b. at Tacumshane, County Wexford, Ireland, in 1745; d. at Philadelphia, 13 September, 1803. At an early age Barry was sent to sea. He arrived at Philadelphia when he was fifteen years old, and made that city his home to the time of his death. He was employed in the West Indian trade and commanded several vessels until December 1774, when he sailed from Philadelphia, as captain of a fine ship “The Black Prince,” bound for Bristol, England, returning to Philadelphia 13 October 1775, the day the Continental Congress, then in session there, authorized the purchase of two armed vessels for the beginning of the United States Navy. Barry immediately volunteered his services, and he was assigned to the first vessel purchases, the “Lexington.” His commission was dated 7 December 1775, the first issued by the Marine Committee of the Continental Congress. On 22 December, 1775, Esek Hopkins was appointed Commander-in-chief of the Navy-but was dropped from its roll in March, 1777. Barry was in command of the “Lexington” from his appointment until October 1776, when he was assigned to the “Effingham,” 28guns, then building in Philadelphia. During that time he performed efficient service in lower Delaware Bay; on 31 March,1776, he put to sea eluding the British man-o-war “Roebuck” on guard in Delaware Bay, and on 7 April fell in with the “Edward,” a tender of the British man-o-war “Liverpool” and after a sharp engagement captured her; Barry brought his prize to Philadelphia arriving 11 April, 1776. This was the first war vessel captured by a commissioned Continental naval officer that was brought to that city. He was officially connected to the “Effingham” until her destruction 7 May 1777, by the British forces then in control of Philadelphia. She had been sunk, by order of Washington and the Naval Board, in the Delaware for some time previously and then raised only to be destroyed by the enemy. In December, 1776, Barry, owing to a blockade of his ship in the Delaware by the English, with a company of volunteers joined the army under Washington and took part in the battles of Trenton and Princeton. He was aide to General Cadwalleder and special aid to General Washington who held him in high esteem. Returning to his command, he carried out many gallant and daring boat expeditions on the Delaware, successfully annoying and capturing vessels laden with supplies for the British Army. In 1778 he was ordered to command the “Raleigh,” 32 guns, and sailed from Boston 25th September 1778. On the 27th he fell in with two British frigates the “Experiment,” 50 guns, and the “Unicorn,” 22 guns and after a gallant and unequal engagement Barry ran his ship ashore and set her on fire, escaping with most of his crew. Being without a Continental command Barry accepted, 18 February, 1779, command of the privateer “Delaware” 12 guns and during the cruise captured the British sloop of war “Harlem” 14 guns. In November, 1780, he was ordered to command the “Alliance,” 36 guns at Boston in which he sailed to France, 11th February 1781, with Col. John Laurens, special commission to the French Government. On the return trip he captured the brig, “Mars” 22 guns and the brig “Minerva,” 10 guns. On 28th May he fell in with the “Atlanta,” 16 guns, and the “Trepassey,” 14 guns and after a very sharp fight of three hours they struck their colours. In this fight Barry was severely wounded in the shoulder by a grape shot. On 23 December, 1781, he sailed from Boston for France with the Marquise de Lafayette as passenger, and returning arrived at New London 13 May, 1782. He sailed, 4 August, 1782, on the most successful cruise of the war; the prizes he captured sold for £600,000. Returning by way of West Indies and Havana, on 10 March 1783, he fell in with the British frigate “Sybille,” 38 guns, and after a sharp fight of 45 minutes she hauled off apparently much injured and joined two other ships with which she had been in company. This was the last encounter of the Revolutionary war at sea. Peace was declared 11th April 1783, the “Alliance” was sold, and the country was without a navy. The United States navy was permanently organized by Act of Congress, 27 March 1794. Six captains were appointed by President Washington, “by and with the consent of the Senate,” and Barry headed the list. His commission, signed by George Washington, president was dated 22 February 1797 and appointed him captain in the navy “to take rank from the 4th day of June, 1794”-”Registered N0.1.” He was thus made officially the ranking officer of the United States navy. He superintended the building of the frigate “United States,” 44 guns, and made several cruises in her with other vessels under his command. In 1801 the navy was reduced to a peace basis; nine captains were retained Barry being at the head of the list. His sea service was ended, and being in poor health, he remained at home in Philadelphia until his death. Barry has often been referred to as “Commodore”; there was no such grade in the United States navy until 17 July 1862. Captain was the highest grade before that date, although the non-official title of commodore was generally applied to a captain while in command of two or more vessels. Barry was married twice, both times to Protestants who subsequently became converts to the Catholic faith. His first wife died in 1771, and on 7 July 1777, he married Sarah Austin who survived him. She died on 13 November 1831. Both his wives are buried with him in the graveyard of St Mary’s Church, Philadelphia. There was no issue from either marriage. His epitaph was written by Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence. A statue and fountain were erected in his memory in 1976 in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia, by the Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America. A portrait (copy of the original by Gilbert Struart) was presented to the city of Philadelphia by the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick, 18 March, 1895, to be placed in Independence Hall. In 1906 Congress passed a bill appropriating $50,000 for the erection of a monument in Washington to the memory of Captain John Barry; and 16 March 1907, a bronze statue of him was erected in Independence Square, Philadelphia, by the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick.

DRAKE Dictionary of American Biography(Boston 1872) ALLEN,American Biog. Dict. (3rd ed., Boston 1857); ABBOT, The Naval History of the U.S. (New York, 1896); MACLAY, History of the Navy (New York, 1895);SPEARS,The History of Our Navy (New York 1897); LOSSING, History of the US Navy (Hartford 1870); PAULLIN, The Navy in the American Revolution(Cleveland, Ohi0,1906); GRIFFIN, History of Commodore John Barry (Centennial ed., Philadelphia 1903); PREBLE, The Flag of the U.S. (Boston, 1880); COOPER, Naval History( 1856).

JOHN FUREY.

John Barry (2)

Second Bishop of Savannah, Georgia, U.S.A.; b. 1799 in the parish of Oylegate, Co. Wexford, Ireland; d. in Paris, 19 November, 1859. He was accepted as an ecclesiastical student by Bishop England, and was ordained priest at Charleston, S.C., 24 September, 1825. After ministering for several years in Georgia, in which State he opened the first Catholic day school at Savannah, he was made Vicar-General of the Diocese of Charleston and superior of the seminary in 1844, while still retaining charge of the parish at Augusta, Georgia. In 1853 he was appointed Vicar-General of Savannah, under Bishop Gartland, and when, in 1854, that prelate died of yellow fever, he was named administrator of the diocese, and as such attended the Eighth Provincial Council of Baltimore, in May, 1855. He was then appointed to the vacant see and consecrated at Baltimore, 2 August, 1857. He governed the diocese with energy and was especially notable during his missionary labours for his charity and zeal in several yellow-fever epidemics. Ill health forcing him to make a visit (July, 1859) to Europe, he died at the house of the Brothers of St. John of God, in Paris, 19 November, 1859, having lost is reason some time before his death. His body was brought back to Savannah for burial, in September, 1865.

Shea, Hist. Cath. Ch. In U. S. (New York, 1904); Reuss, Biog. Cycl. Of the Cath. Hierarchy (Milwaukee, Wis., 1898); Clarke, Lives of the Deceased Bishops (New York, 1872); Catholic Almanac, 1833 to 1860.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Patrick Barry

Horticulturist, b. near Belfast, Ireland, May, 1816; d. at Rochester, New York, U. S. A., 23 June, 1890. After teaching for a while in his native land, he emigrated to America in 1836 and was employed by a nurseryman at Flushing, Long Island. In 1849 he became a partner in the same business with George Ellwanger at Rochester, New York. The firm took the lead in importing from abroad or developing by culture improved varieties of flowering plants and fruits, hardy exotics, and introducing to cultivation wild species of shade trees. Their nurseries developed into the largest in the country. Barry wrote extensively on subjects connected with pomology and flower-gardening, and edited “The Genesee Farmer” from 1844 to 1852, and “The Horticulturalist” from 1852 to 1854. His published works include a “Treatise on the Fruit Garden” (New York, 1851; new ed. 1872) and a “Catalogue of the American Pomological Society.”

Cycl. Of Am. Biog. (New York, 1900).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Paul de Barry

Born at Leucate in 1587; died at Avignon, 28 July, 1661. He was a member of the Society of Jesus, rector of the Jesuit colleges at Aix, Nimes, and Avignon, and Provincial of Lyons. He composed a number of devotional works on the Blessed Virgin, St. Joseph, and the saints, and a “Pensez-y-bien,” which latter had a large circulation and has been translated into several languages. The only ones of his works translated into English are “Pious Remarks upon the Life of St. Joseph,” published in 1600; the “Glories of St. Joseph” (Dublin, 1835); “Devotions to St. Joseph,” edited by the Rev. G. Tickell, S.J. (London, 187- [sic]).

Bibliotheque de la compagnie de Jesus, I, 945.

S.H. FRISBEE

Johann Caspar Barthel

A German canonist, b. 10 June, 1697, at Kitzingen, Bavaria; d. 8 April, 1771. He was the son of a fisherman, attended the schools of his native place, and from 1709 to 1715 studied at the Jesuit College at Würzburg. In 1715 he entered the seminary of the latter city and in 1721 was ordained priest. Christopher von Hutten, Prince-Bishop of Würzburg, sent him, in 1725, to Rome to study ecclesiastical law under Prosper Lambertini, later Pope Benedict XIV. Barthel returned as Doctor Utriusque Juris, in 1727, to Würzburg, where he became president of the seminary and (1728) professor of canon law at the university. Other ecclesiastical and academical honours, among them the vice-chancellorship of the university (1754), were conferred upon him. He took an active part in settling the controversy occasioned by the erection of the new Diocese of Fulda (1752). His chief importance, however, lies in his career as a teacher. His work in that line was appreciated by both Catholics and Protestants, and his lectures were circulated at various schools. He broke with the traditional method in canonical science, being one of the first to adopt the historico-critical treatment in Germany. His efforts to distinguish between the essentials and nonessentials in Catholic doctrines, and his attribution of excessive power to the State in its relations with the Church caused his opinions to be denounced at Rome as unorthodox. In his “Promemoria” (1751) he submitted his views and method to his former teacher, Benedict XIV, and obtained a favourable decision. His works, apart from what was written in the Fulda controversy, as “De Pallio” (1753), deal principally with the relations between Church and State, especially in Germany. Several of them are found in the “Opuscula juridica varii argumenti” (Würzburg, 1765, 1771).

Stamminger in Kirchenlex., 1, 2051, 2052; Schulte, Die Geschichte d. Quellen in Lit. des kan. Rechts (Stuttgart, 1875–80), III, I, 183–185; Idem, Allg. Deutsch. Biograph. (Leipzig, 1875 -), II, 103.

N.A. WEBER

Jean-Jacques Barthélemy

A celebrated French numismatologist and writer, b. at Cassis (Provence), 1716; d. in Paris, 1795. He began his classical studies at the College of the Oratory in Marseilles, took up philosophy and theology at the Jesuits’ college, and finally attended the seminary of the Lazarists, where he devoted most of his time to Oriental languages. He soon became renowned for his scholarship and earnestness in learned researches, in which he rivalled the Humanists of the Renaissance. Having completed his course, he received the tonsure and wore the ecclesiastical habit without taking Holy orders. For several years he lived in his lonely residence at Aubagne, near Marseilles, devoting himself entirely to numismatics, under the direction of his friend. M. Cary of Marseilles. In 1744, he went to Paris and became secretary to M. de Boze, keeper of the medals at the King’s Library, and three years later he was elected to the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres. In 1753, he succeeded M. de Boze and remained in this position until the Revolution, during his term nearly doubling the collection.

In 1754 he was sent to Italy on a scientific mission. On his way, he gathered a large number of medals, and conceived the idea of the book which made his name famous, “Voyage du Jeune Anacarsis en Grece vers le milieu du IVe siecle avant l’ere vulgaire.” This book, begun in 1756, was not finished until 1788, and was a description of ancient Greece, of Hellenic civilization, institutions, arts, history, philosophy, and literature, appealing to every class by reason of its charming narratives and vivid pictures. In successive reprints and English translations (London, 1790, 1800), it still finds readers. Recent archaeological discoveries have shown some of the statements to be erroneous, but on the whole the book remains a very successful attempt to diffuse a correct knowledge of Greek manners and customs. From the time of Barthélemy’s journey through Italy, the Duke of Choiseul had been his patron and had given him many pensions and benefices. After the fall of his friend (1770), Barthélemy followed him into exile at Chanteloup, near Amboise, where unlike the abbés de cour he was busily engaged in polishing his elaborate literary productions. He was elected to the French Academy in 1789. During the Revolution, he was arrested (September, 1793) and confined in a prison for a few days. On his release he declined to resume his functions as keeper of the medals, and having been despoiled of his fortune by the Revolution died in poverty. Besides the “Voyage du jeune Anacharsis,” Barthélemy has left a number of essays on Oriental languages and archaeology, originally read before the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres; “Les amours de Caryte et de Polydore,” a novel illustrating ancient manners; “Un voyage en Italie”; and “Memoires” of his life. His works were edited by Villenave (1821).

Barthélemy, Memoires (works, 1821), I; Mancini-Nivernais, Essai sur la vie de J. J. Barthélemy (Paris, 1795); Sainte-Beuve, Causeries du Lundi, VII; Villemain, Tableau de la litterature francaise au XVIIIe siecle (Paris, 1828), xlii; Villenave in Barthélemy’s works (1821), I.

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Francesco della Rossa Bartholi

Friar Minor and chronicler, died c. 1372. Little is known of his life save what may be gathered from his own writings. A native of Assisi, he is found in 1312 as a student in Perugia, and in 1316 at Cologne, whence he returned to Umbria bearing many relics, including those of St. Louis, King of France, given him by the latter’s daughter, Princess Blanche, who had become a Poor Clare. In 1320 and in 1326, he was lector of theology at the Porziuncula, in 1332 guardian at S. Damiano and in 1334 he was at the Sacro Convento. He appears to have lived to a great age. He was acquainted with Marinus of Assisi, Blessed John of La Verna, Alvarus Pelagius and other well-known Franciscans. Whether he is to be identified with the Francesco Rubea who is mentioned among the partisans of Michael de Cesena or with the Franciscus de Assisio who was long imprisoned at Florence on a charge of heresy is a matter of conjecture. Although Bartholi wrote several works including a history of the Passion, he is best known for his “Tractatus de Indulgentiâ Sanctae Mariae de Portiunculâ” composed about 1335. He spent many of his later years in retouching and completing this treatise, which is of great importance for the history of the origin and evolution of the Indulgence, in so far as it comprises a complete collection of the ecclesiastical information and popular legends then obtainable on the subject. It was first published by Paul Sabatier with a wealth of critical apparatus in the Collection d’Etudes” (Paris, 1900, Vol. II). (See .)

Wadding, Script. Ord. Min. (1650), 114; Sbaralea, Supplementum (1806), 245; Mazzuchelli, Scrittori d’Italia (1758), II, 1, 441–442; Narducci, Giunte al Mazzuchelli (1884), 60; Faloci in Miscell. Francescana (1887), II, 149–153; Van Ortroy in Annalect. Bolland. (1902), XXI, 372–380.

PASCHAL ROBINSON

Bartholomaeus Anglicus

Franciscan encyclopedist of the thirteenth century. An Englishman by birth he had been professor of theology at the University of Paris, when, in 1224 or 1225, he entered the newly established Order of St. Francis in company with his countryman and fellow-professor of theology, Haymo of Faversham, and two other professors of the same faculty. He continued his lectures in the claustral school till 1231, when he was sent to Magdeburg in Germany. He was succeeded by his illustrious countryman Alexander of Hales (q.v.) who, by being a member of the university, raised the private school of the Franciscans to the dignity of a school of the university. The date of Bartholomaeus’s death is unknown. He was formerly identified with a later Franciscan and Englishman, Bartholomaeus of Glanvilla, or Glaunvilla, who died about 1360, and to him the famous work “De proprietatibus rerum” was ascribed. Recent researches place beyond doubt that the two men must be distinguished and that the authorship of the work in question must be attributed to the Magdeburg professor of 1231.

“De proprietatibus rerum” is an encyclopedia of all the sciences of that time: theology, philosophy, medicine, astronomy, chronology, zoology, botany, geography, mineralogy, are the subjects treated in the nineteen books of this work. We have in it the first important encyclopedia of the Middle Ages and the first in which the works of Greek, Arabian, and Jewish naturalists and medical writers, which had been translated into Latin shortly before, were laid under contribution. Aristotle, Hippocrates, Theophrastus, the Jew Isaac Medicus, the Arabian Haly, and other celebrities are quoted. To Bartholomaeus must be given that honor which has been accorded until recently to the Dominican, Vincent of Beauvais, whose work exceeds by ten times the 400 page folio volume of Bartholomaeus. Like the later “Speculum universale” of Vincent, the “De proprietatibus rerum” enjoyed unbounded popularity. Witness to this are the many manuscripts and editions There is hardly a large library in Europe which has not manuscript copies of it, the National Library at Paris possessing as many as eighteen. Very many editions appeared in print, at least fourteen before the year 1500, and one as late as 1601 at Frankfort. By being translated and thus made accessible to the laity, the encyclopedia of Bartholomaeus exercised a greater influence on medieval thought than that of Vincent. Of the latter’s work only the “Speculum historiale” was translated, but Bartholomaeus’s work went through eight editions in French, two in Belgian, one in English and one in Spanish prior to 1500. The work of Bartholomaeus, though not fulfilling modern requirements of natural sciences, remains a valuable source of information to the student of medieval times.

DELISLE in Histoire litt. de la France (Paris. 1888), XXX, 352f.; FELDER, Geschichte der Studien im Franziskanerorden (Freiburg, 1904), 248, 395f.

JOHN M. LENHART.

Bartholomew

“APOSTLE OF ARMENIA.”

Also called Bartholomaeus Parvus (the Little), born at Bologna, year not known; died 15 August, 1333. Nothing certain has been preserved as to his family. At the end of the thirteenth century, while still young, he entered the Dominican Order, made his studies in the monastery of his native town, and soon became noted as a capable theologian and a preacher zealous for souls. Pope John XXII cherished a great desire not only to keep the Catholic Armenians in connection with the Roman See, but also to lead the schismatic part of this people into unity with the Church; for this reason he supported and encouraged the Dominican missions in the regions inhabited by Armenians. Bartholomew was selected to be the head and leader of a little band of Dominican missionaries whom John XXII sent to Armenia. He was consecrated bishop and received as his see the city of Maragha, lying east of Lake Urumiah. Accompanied by several companions the new missionary bishop arrived (1318–20) in the territory assigned to him. He studied the Armenian language, built a monastery for his brethren of the order, and with the aid of these began his apostolic labors. He met with such success that large numbers of heathen and Mohammedans were converted and many schismatic Armenians were brought into Catholic unity. The zealous bishop gave great care to this latter part of his missionary labors, as he found many Armenians favorably disposed to union. Bartholomew’s reputation for saintliness and learning spread rapidly into distant regions and came to the knowledge of a group of Armenian monks who were striving after a higher degree of perfection and the attainment of Church unity. The leader of these monks was the learned John of Kherna (Kherni), the head of a monastery near Kherna in the district of Erentschag (now Alenja), not far from Nachidjewan. John was a pupil of the celebrated theologian Isaias, whose school had produced 370 doctors of theology (Vartabed). In 1328 John of Kherna sought out Bishop Bartholomew, remained with him a year and a half and became a warm advocate of union with the Roman Church. He sent an invitation to a conference, drawn up by the zealous missionary, to his former fellow-students, and Bartholomew went with him to Kherna, where the conference was held. The result was that a large number of learned monks joined John of Kherna in submitting to the authority of the Holy See. In order to promote union and raise religious life John founded in 1330, with the consent of Bartholomew, a religious congregation called the “Uniats (Unitores) of St Gregory the Illuminator,” which was later incorporated with the Dominicans. About this time Bartholomew seems to have substituted Nachidiewan for Maragha as his see. This brought him nearer to the center of Armenia, so that he was able to work more efficiently for the development of the union. He translated a number of works into the Armenian language, as the Psalter, treatises of St. Augustine, the “Summa contra Gentiles” of St. Thomas, and a part of the “Summa Theologica”; he also wrote several original works, especially a work on casuistry and a treatise on the sacraments.

Conciliationes ecclesiae Armenae cum Romana, ed. CLEM. GALANO, Armenian and Latin (Rome, 1650), Pt. I, 598f.; MELLONI, Atti e memorie degli uomini illustri in santità nati o morti in Bologna (Bologna, 1779), cl. II, vol. II, 110–142; TOURON, Hist. des hommes illustres de l’ordre de S. Dominique (Paris, 1743), II, 110f.; TOURNEBIZE, Histoire politique et religieuse de l’Arménie, Les Frères-Unis de S. Grégoire l’Illuminateur in Revue de l’Orient chrétien (1906), 74f.; Bréhier, L’Eglise et l’Orient au moyen áge (Paris, 1907), 280–281.

J.P. KIRSCH

St. Bartholomew

One of the Twelve Apostles, mentioned sixth in the three Gospel lists (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14), and seventh in the list of Acts (1:13).

The name (Bartholomaios) means “son of Talmai” (or Tholmai) which was an ancient Hebrew name, borne, e.g. by the King of Gessur whose daughter was a wife of David (II Kings 3:3). It shows, at least, that Bartholomew was of Hebrew descent; it may have been his genuine proper name or simply added to distinguish him as the son of Talmai. Outside the instances referred to, no other mention of the name occurs in the New Testament.

Nothing further is known of him for certain. Many scholars, however, identify him with Nathaniel (John 1:45–51; 21:2). The reasons for this are that Bartholomew is not the proper name of the Apostle; that the name never occurs in the Fourth Gospel, while Nathaniel is not mentioned in the synoptics; that Bartholomew’s name is coupled with Philip’s in the lists of Matthew and Luke, and found next to it in Mark, which agrees well with the fact shown by St. John that Philip was an old friend of Nathaniel’s and brought him to Jesus; that the call of Nathaniel, mentioned with the call of several Apostles, seems to mark him for the apostolate, especially since the rather full and beautiful narrative leads one to expect some important development; that Nathaniel was of Galilee where Jesus found most, if not all, of the Twelve; finally, that on the occasion of the appearance of the risen Savior on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias, Nathaniel is found present, together with several Apostles who are named and two unnamed Disciples who were, almost certainly, likewise Apostles (the word “apostle” not occurring in the Fourth Gospel and “disciple” of Jesus ordinarily meaning Apostle) and so, presumably, was one of the Twelve. This chain of circumstantial evidence is ingenious and pretty strong; the weak link is that, after all, Nathaniel may have been another personage in whom, for some reason, the author of the Fourth Gospel may have been particularly interested, as he was in Nicodemus, who is likewise not named in the synoptics.

No mention of St. Bartholomew occurs in ecclesiastical literature before Eusebius, who mentions that Pantaenus, the master of Origen, while evangelizing India, was told that the Apostle had preached there before him and had given to his converts the Gospel of St. Matthew written in Hebrew, which was still treasured by the Church. “India” was a name covering a very wide area, including even Arabia Felix. Other traditions represent St. Bartholomew as preaching in Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, Armenia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, and on the shores of the Black Sea; one legend, it is interesting to note, identifies him with Nathaniel. The manner of his death, said to have occurred at Albanopolis in Armenia, is equally uncertain; according to some, he was beheaded, according to others, flayed alive and crucified, head downward, by order of Astyages, for having converted his brother, Polymius, King of Armenia. On account of this latter legend, he is often represented in art (e.g. in Michelangelo’s Last Judgment) as flayed and holding in his hand his own skin. His relics are thought by some to be preserved in the church of St. Bartholomew-in-the-Island, at Rome. His feast is celebrated on 24 August. An apocryphal gospel of Bartholomew existed in the early ages.

LE CAMUS, Vie de Notre Seigneur (tr. New York, 1906), I; IDEM in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, where references are given for the sources of the traditions, FOUARD, Life of Christ (New York, 1891).

JOHN F. FENLON

Ven. Bartholomew of Braga

Born at Verdela, near Lisbon, May, 1514; died at Viana, 16 July, 1590. Bartholomew Fernandez, later known as a Martyribus, out of veneration for the church in which he was baptized, came of humble parentage. He entered the Dominican Order, 11 November, 1527, and was professed 20 November, 1529. On the completion of his studies, he taught philosophy in the monastery at Lisbon, and then for about twenty years theology in various houses of his order. In 1551 he received the Master’s degree at the provincial chapter of Salamanca. While teaching theology in the monastery of Batalha, he was summoned to Evora by the Infante Dom Luis to undertake the religious education of his son, Dom Antonio, who was entering the ecclesiastical state. He devoted two years to this task. In 1558, against his own desires, and only out of obedience to his provincial, Luis of Granada, he accepted the appointment to the archiepiscopal See of Braga, for which he had been chosen by Queen Catherine, and in 1559 received episcopal consecration. With true apostolic zeal he devoted himself to the duties of his new office.

On the resumption of the General Council of Trent in 1561, Bartholomew repaired to the council and took part in the last sessions. He was highly esteemed among the Fathers of the council both on account of his theological learning and the holiness of his life, and he exercised great influence in the discussions, particularly those with regard to the decrees on the reform of ecclesiastical life. On the conclusion of the council he returned, in February, 1564, to his see, and in 1566 held an important provincial synod in which excellent decrees were passed for the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline and the elevation of the moral life of clergy and people (Concilium provinciale Bracarense quartum, Braga, 1567). The archbishop now devoted himself most zealously to the task of carrying out the reforms of the Council of Trent as well as the decrees of his own provincial synod. A great famine and a visitation of the plague revealed the depths of his charity. After repeated requests, having received, on 20 February, 1582, permission to resign his see, he withdrew to the monastery of his order at Viana, to prepare in solitude for the end.

In 1845 Gregory XVI declared him Venerable. In the interests of a truly Christian life and the promotion of ecclesiastical discipline, he wrote: “Compendium spiritualis doctrinae ex variis sanc. Patrum sententiis magana ex parte collectum” (Lisbon, 1582); “Stimulus pastorum ex gravissimis sanct. Patrum sententiis concinnatus, in quo agitur de vita et moribus episcoporum aliorumque praelatorum” (Rome, 1564; published at the instance of St. Charles Borromeo); “Catechismo ou Doutrina christiana” (Lisbon, 1562). All these writings have been frequently republished and translated into several languages. A collective edition is: “Opera omnia cura et studio Malachiae d’Inguinbert, archiep. Theodos.” (1 vol. Fol. In 2 parts, Rome, 1734–35).

Quetif-Echard, Script. ord. Praed. (Paris, 1721), II, 296; Munoz, Vida de Fra Bartolme de los Martyres (Madrid, 1645); De Sacy, La vie de Dom Barthelemy des Martyrs (Paris, 1663). There is a detailed biography in the introduction to the above-mentioned collective edition of his works. For his beatification, Romana seu Bracharen, beatificationis et canonizationis Barth. De Martyribus positio super virtutibus (3 vols. fol., Rome, 1819–44).

J.P. KIRSCH

Bartholomew of Braganca

Born about 1200; died 1 July, 1271. He made his studies at Padua, receiving there the habit of the Dominican Order from the hands of St. Dominic. According to Leander, author of the oldest life of Bartholomew, he was made master of the sacred palace in 1235, during the pontificate of Gregory IX; but there is no mention of this event in his last testament, where he expressly states the important positions held by him. He was appointed to the See of Nemonicum, in Cyprus, 1248; what city this was is not now known. While King Louis of France was engaged upon his expedition against the Infidel, Bartholomew joined the king and queen at Joppa, Sidon, and Acre, in the character of Apostolic legate, according to some writers, his own account merely stating that he visited the king and queen at these places. King Louis desired him to make a visit to France, promising rich relics for his church, should he comply with the request. To ensure the presence of so distinguished a prelate at his own court, Alexander IV made him Bishop of Vicenza, in 1256, and during his tenure of that see he was subject to the tyranny of Ezzelino, a notorious enemy of religion. This persecution, however, served to bring out the true qualities of pastor which Bartholomew possessed in a high degree. It has been said that he was named Patriarch of Jerusalem, but this is doubtful, his testament being silent on this point also. In 1254, he was sent as legate to the courts of England and France and as Henry III was, at this time, in Aquitaine, thither Bartholomew betook himself, towards the close of that year, accompanying the English king and queen to Paris. He was, on this occasion, presented by the King of France with a relic of the true Cross and a thorn from Our Saviour’s Crown. These he afterwards placed in the beautiful Dominican Church, built by him, at Vicenza and known as the Church of the Crown. He was venerated by the people and, according to the Bollandists, has always been honoured with the title of Blessed. He wrote commentaries on Scripture, was the reputed author of a commentary on the “Hierarchy” of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, of two volumes of sermons, and some smaller works.

Acta SS., July, I, 246 sqq.; also May, VII, 692.

WILLIAM DEVLIN.

Bartholomew of Brescia

An Italian canonist, b. probably in the second half of the twelfth century at Brescia; d. 1258. He studied Roman and ecclesiastical law at Bologna, where he himself became a teacher. It is believed that he was murdered, when Ezzelino, the leader of the Ghibellines, captured Brescia (1258). His literary work consisted almost entirely in the revision of the productions of other writers. His “Brocarda,” or Canonical Rules (Lyons, 1519), were a working-over of those of Damasus (twelfth and thirteenth centuries); his “Casus decretorum” were a revision of the “Casus” of Benencasa (d. c. 1206); the “Historiae super libro Decretorum” reproduced the work of an unknown author. Both his “Casus” and “Historiae” derive their importance from their incorporation into the Paris edition (1505) of Gratian’s “Decretum.” The “Ordo Judiciarius” of Tancred (d. c. 1235) was also revised by Bartholomew. More important than the preceding works was his “Glassa Ordinaria” to the “Decretum” of Gratian, a correction of the “Glossa,” or “Apparatus,” of Johannes Teutonicus (thirteenth century). His only certain independent work was the “Quaestiones dominicales et veneriales,” lectures delivered on Sundays and Fridays.

Schulte, Gesch. der Quellen u. Literatur des kan. Rechts (Stuttgart, 1875–80), II, 83–88; Scherer in Kirchenlex. (2d ed., Freiburg, 1882), I, 2055, 2056; Hurter, Nomenclator.

N.A. WEBER

Bartholomew of Edessa

Syrian apologist and polemical writers. The place of his birth is not known, it was probably Edessa or some neighbouring town, for he was certainly a monk of that city, and in his refutation of Agarenus, he calls himself several times “the monk of Edessa.” The time in which he flourished is also doubtful; it is certain, however, that it was after the Mohammedan conquest of Syria, and the controversy concerning the sacred images which began in 725. There is a work of his written in Greek, which he directed against one Agarenus, a Mohammedan. The beginning of the refutation is lost; the title as given by Le Moyne (Varia Sacra, Leyden, 1685), is “Elenchus et Confutatio Agareni.” This work may be read in the Migne collection, P.G., CVI, 1381–1448. This treatise, as it now stands, opens with a statement of the objections of Mohammedans against Christianity, among which are the dogmas of the Blessed Trinity, of the Incarnation, and of Confession. Bartholomew then gives his answers, and makes many counter-charges against Mohammed and his so-called Revelation.

The main lines of argumentation are taken from the life of the prophet himself. Bartholomew shows that nothing either in his parentage, education, or life betrays any God-given mission. From this he concludes that Mohammed was an imposter, preaching without any Divine credentials. Bartholomew is well acquainted not only with the Christian position which he defends, but also with the position of his adversaries; he knows the customs, practices, and beliefs of the Arabs, and he boasts that he has read all of their books. A second treatise “Contra Muhammedum” is also printed in Migne (loc. cit., 1448–58) under the name of Bartholomew of Edessa; but, in spite of the numerous resemblances, explainable otherwise than by identity of authorship, the differences are of such a nature as to make the ascription of it to Bartholomew unjustified. Such are e.g. the names and the number of Mohammed’s wives and children; the editor of the Koran; the Nestorian monk who taught Mohammed Christianity, etc.

Cave, Dissertatio de scriptoribus incerta aetatis in Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria (Oxford, 1740–43), 11; Ceillier, Histoire generale des auteurs sacres et ecclesiastiques (Paris, 1860–68), XII, 103.

R. BUTIN

Bartholomew of Lucca

(Or de Fiadonibus, sometimes abbreviated Ptolomeo or Tolomeo)

Historian, b. about 1227 at Lucca; d. about 1327. At an early age he entered the Dominican Order. He was distinguished for piety, and his intense application to study, for which reasons he won the respect and warm friendship of St. Thomas Aquinas. He was not only his disciple, but also his confidant and confessor (Ptolom., H. E., XXIII, viii). In 1272 he accompanied St. Thomas from Rome to Naples where he still was in 1274, when the news of his master’s death at Fossa Nuova reached him. He was elected prior of the convent of his native city in 1288. At Naples (1294), he took an active part in the public demonstration which was made to prevent Pope Celestine V from resigning. In 1301 he was elected Prior of Santa Maria Novella at Florence. Later he removed to Avignon where he was chaplain for nine years (1309–18) to Cardinal Patrasso, Bishop of Albano, and after the Cardinal’s death in 1311 to his fellow-religious Cardinal William of Bayonne. Echard affirms that he was the close friend and often the confessor of John XXII, who appointed him Bishop of Torcello, March 15, 1318. A conflict with the Patriarch of Grado concerning the appointment of an abbess of St. Anthony’s at Torcello led to his excommunication in 1321, and exile. In 1323 he made peace with the patriarch, returned to his see, and died there in 1327.

The best-known work of Bartholomew is his “Annales” (1061–1303), finished about 1307, wherein are recorded in terse sentences the chief events of this period. (Muratori, Rer. Ital. Script., XI, 1249 sqq.; or in the better edition of C. Minutoli, “Documenti di Storia Italiana.” Florence, 1876, VI, 35 sqq.). His “Historia Ecclesiastica Nova” in twenty-four books relates the history of the Church from the birth of Christ till 1294; considering as appendixes the lives of Boniface VIII, Benedict XI, and Clement V, it reaches to 1314 (Muratori, loc. cit., XI, 751 sqq.; the life of Clement V is in Baluze, “Vitae pap. Aven.,” 23 sqq.). He also wrote a “Historia Tripartita” known only from his own references and citations. The “Extract de chronico Fr. Ptolomaei de Luca” and the “Excerpta ex chronicis Fr. Ptolomaei” are no longer considered original works by separate authors, but are extracts from the “Historia Ecclesiastica Nova” by some unknown compiler who lived after the death of Bartholomew. He is also well known for his completion of the “De Regimine Principum,” which St. Thomas Aquinas had been unable to finish before his death. This was no small task, for the share of Bartholomew begins with the sixth chapter of the second book and includes the third and fourth books (vol. XVI, in the Parma, 1865, edition of St. Thomas). Though he does not follow the order of the saint, yet his treatment is clear and logical. A work on the “Hexaemeron” by him was published by Masetti in 1880. With a few exceptions, the writings of Bartholomew have always been held in high esteem. He showed great care in verifying his statements. The lives of the Avignon popes were written from original documents under his hands and were controlled by the statements of eye-witnesses. His acceptance of fables now exploded, e.g. the Popess Joan, must be attributed to the uncritical temper of his time.

Kruger, Des Ptolomaeus Lucencis Leben und Werke (Gottingen, 1874); Konig, Tolomeo v. Lucca, cin biographischer Versuch (Harburg, 1878); Quetif and Echard, SS. O.P., I, 541; Potthast, Bibl. Hist. med. oevii (Berlin, 1896), 945.

THOS M. SCHWERTNER

Bartholomew of Pisa

Friar Minor and chronicler. The fact that there were two Friars Minor named Bartholomew living in Pisa at the same time has caused considerable confusion, and most recent writers, following Marianus of Florence, Mark of Lisbon, and Wadding, have fallen into the error of attributing to Bartholomew Albisi the famous “Book of Conformities,” which was really written by Bartholomew Rinonico. The latter, with whom we are here concerned, was a Pisan of noble family. In 1352 he was a student at Bologna and later filled the office of Lector there as well as at Padua, Pisa, Sienna, and Florence. He also preached for many years with great succession different Italian cities. He died about 1401, renowned no less for sanctity than for learning, and is commemorated in the Franciscan Martyrology in 4 November.

Bartholomew’s chief title to fame rests upon his remarkable book, “De Conformitate Vitae B. P. Francisco ad Vitam Domini Nostri Jesu Christi,” begun in 1385 and formally approved by the general chapter held at Assisi in 1399. Enthusiastically received on its appearance and long held in high esteem, this work became the object of bitter and stupid attacks on the part of Lutherans and Jansenists. Against it Erasmus Alber wrote the “Alcoranus Franciscanus” (Der Barfusser Monche Eulenspiegel und Alcoran mit ciner Vorrede D. M. Luthers, 1531) in reply to which Henry Sedulius, O. F. M., published his “Apologeticus adversus Alcoranum Franciscanorum pro libro Conformitatum” (Antwerp, 1607). Subsequent writers on Franciscan history treated the Pisan’s work with most unmerited ostracism; more recently it has come to be lauded in certain circles in terms which savour of exaggeration. Between these extreme views, the patient and discerning student will find the “Conformities” a book of very uneven value. The parallels between the lives of Our Lord and St. Francis which form its basis are sometimes forced, but nowhere does it make St. Francis the equal of Christ. Side by side with fantastic legends, ridiculous visions, and other absurdities, it contains much really credible and precious historical information, revealing besides a deep knowledge of Scripture and theology and a critical temper not usual at the time it was written. It is rightly considered a source of great importance for students of Franciscan history. It was first printed at Milan in 1510 and in 1513. The new edition published at Bologna in 1590 is mutilated and corrupted, especially in the historical parts, at almost every page. A sorely needed critical edition of the text has lately been published in tom. IV of the “Analecta Franciscana” (Quaracchi, 1906).

In addition to the “Conformities,” Bartholomew left some thirty other works, including an exposition of the Rule of the Friars Minor found in the “Speculum” Morin (Rouen, 1509) and a book “De Vita B. Mariae Virginis,” published at Venice in 1596; his Lenten sermons were printed at Milan in 1498, Venice, 1503, and Lyons, 1519. Sbaralea and others have erroneously attributed to him the “Summa Casuum Conscientiae,” which is really the work of Bartholomew a S. Concordio of Pisa, O. P., and the “Vita B. Gerardi,” which was written by Bartholomew Albisi mentioned above.

Wadding, Annales, ad. ann. 1399, IX, vii, viii, and Scriptores (1650), 48; Sbaralea, Supplementum, 109; Tiraboschi, Stor. lett. Ital. (1805), V, 144; Da Civezza, Bibl. San Francescana (1879), 463–464, 470–471; Sabatier, Vie de S. Francois (Paris, 1894), Etude, pp. cxv sqq.; Felder, Gesch. der Wissenschaftl. Studien im Franziskanerord. (Freiburg, 1904), 104 and passim; Goubovich, Biblioteca Bio-Bibliografica (Quaracchi, 1906), 71 and passim; Faloci in Miscell. Francesc. (1901), VIII, fasc. V, 148 sqq.

PASCHAL ROBINSON

Bartholomew of San Concordio

(Also of Pisa)

Canonist, and man of letters, b. at San Concordia, near Pisa about 1260; d. at Pisa, 11 June, 1347. He entered the Dominican Order in 1277, studied at Pisa, Bologna, and Paris, and taught at Lucca, Florence, and Pisa. A preacher of renown, he was as learned as he was devout, as skilled in Latin and Tuscan poetry as he was versed in canon and civil law. His fame rests chiefly on his alphabetically arranged “Summa de Casibus Conscientiae,” a variously called “Pisana,” “Pisanella,” “Bartholomaea,” and “Magistruccia.” The idea if not the basis of this work was a “Summa Confessorum” by John Rumsik, O. P., Lector of Freiburg (d. 1314). Bartholomew’s treatise was clear and concise, and it conformed to the newer laws and canons of his time. Evidently a highly useful digest, it was very popular and much used during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and was among the first books undertaken by some of the earliest printers of Germany, France, and Italy. Nicholas of Osimo, O.M., added a supplement in 1444, which also appeared in many editions. Others likewise incorporated the work in later handbooks, notably James of Ascoli, O. M., 1464, and Ange de Clavasio, O.M., in his “Summa Angelica.” Apart from several MSS. on moral and literary subjects, his works include “De documentis antiquorum,” edited by Albertus Clarius, O. P. (Tarvisi, 1601) in 8 vo. The same treatise in the vernacular, “Ammaestramenti degli antichi” (Florence, 1662), came to be regarded as a Tuscan classic.

Quetif-Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed. (Paris, 1719), I, 623; Mandonnet in Dict. de theol. cath., 436; Panzer, Aelteste Buchdruckergeschichte Nurnbergs (Nuremberg, 1789), p. 18, n. 22; Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1906), II, 612.

JOHN R. VOLZ.

Bartholomites

The name given to Armenian monks who sought refuge in Italy after the invasion of their country by the Sultan of Egypt in 1296. The first of their number landed at Genoa, where a church of St. Bartholomew was built for them, hence their name Bartholomites. Others soon followed this first band and were established in various Italian cities, in Parma, Sienna, Pisa, Florence, Civitavecchia, Rome, and Ancona. To these early foundations were afterwards added others at Milan, Naples, Perugia, Gubbio, Ferrar, Bologna, Padua, Rimini, Veterbo, etc.; in fact the Bartholomites were both numerous and prosperous. In the beginning they observed the Rule of St. Basil and the Armenian Liturgy, Clement V acknowledging their right thereto. But in time they abandoned their national traditions for the Roman Liturgy, adopted a habit resembling that of the Dominicans and finally replaced the Rule of St. Basil by that of St. Augustine. Innocent VI, who approved this change (1356), also confirmed the union of their monasteries into one congregation governed by a superior-general and a general chapter. The superiors-general were at first elected for life, but in 1474 Pope Sixtus IV caused them to be voted for every three years.

Boniface IX granted the congregation the privileges of the Order of St. Dominic and Innocent VIII and Paul III ratified the same; nevertheless the Bartholomites were prohibited from joining any other religious order except that of the Carthusians. Durazzo, their first cardinal protector, was appointed by Urban VIII in 1640, but they did not long enjoy this signal advantage. Their regular observance began to decline, their ranks were but meagrely recruited and most of their houses had to be closed till at length only four or five were left, in which about forty monks lived as best they could. There seemed to be no way of averting this decadence. Innocent X authorized the Bartholomites to enter other religious orders or else to secularize themselves, assuring each of them a pension. He suppressed their congregation and its houses and revenues were put to new uses. Among the most noted Bartholomites were: Father Martin, who conducted the first Armenian monks to Genoa and was their superior; Father Anthony of Pisa, who was the first superior-general of their congregation; Esteban Palma, who four times held the office of general and laboured zealously for the reform of the congregation; Cherubini Cerbelloni of Genoa and Paul Costa of Milan, who were celebrated preachers and Scoti, Pori, Girolamo Cavalieri, J. B. Ladriani, and Gregorio Bitio who left literary works which were, however, soon forgotten. In their church at Genoa is still preserved the celebrated portrait of Christ known as the Holy Face of Edessa.

Bitio, Relazione del principio e statto della Religione de’ Fr. di S. Basili degli armeni in Italia; Helyot, Histoire des ordres monastiques, I, 243–248.

J.M. BESSE

Daniello Bartoli

An historian and littérateur, born at Ferrara, 12 February, 1608; died in Rome, 12 January, 1685. After a brilliant course of studies under the Jesuits, he entered the novitiate of San Andrea, Rome, in 1623, before the completion of his sixteenth year. The story of the labors and sufferings of the members of the Society of Jesus in the Indies and Japan awakened in the youthful religious an ardent desire to emulate the zeal and devotion of the missionaries. He asked to be sent on the foreign missions, but Father Mutius Vitelleschi, the General of the Order, kept him in Italy. After some years of teaching, Father Bartoli began his apostolic career as a preacher, his sermons meeting with extraordinary success in Ferrara, his native place, Genoa, Lucca, Florence, and Rome. He was engaged in this fruitful ministry when the contemplation of the evils to youth, caused by the reading of romances, suggested one of his first books, “The Learned Man.” This work was received with great applause and is said to have gone through eight editions in the first year of its publication; it was translated into French, German, and English.

The success of this venture decided the vocation of Father Bartoli as a writer. He was called to Rome by his superiors in 1650, and from that time until his death he published many works in history as well as other departments of literature, all of them written in Italian. The best known and the most important is a history of the Society of Jesus, which appeared in Rome from 1650 to 1673, in six volumes folio, and was translated into Latin by Father Janin, S.J. Bartoli’s works were collected and published in Florence in 1826, in 50 volumes, 16mo. He is universally esteemed for his erudition, as well as for the purity and elegance of his style. His fellow countrymen have honored him with a place among the classical writers of the Italian language.

Bartoli, Opere Varie (Venice, 1716). A sketch of the author is prefixed to the first volume. See also edition of Marietti (Turin, 1825–56); Patrignani, Menologio for 13 Jan, p. 119; Southwell, Biblioth. Script. S.J., 164; Boero, Comm. della vita e delle opere del P. Dan. Bartoli (Bologne, 1865); Sommervogel, Biblioth., I, 965 sq.: Feller. Dict. Histor.’ Cretimeau-Joli, Hist. de la c. de J. (Brussels, 1851), IV, 261; Drews, fasti Soc. Jes. for 13 Jan., p. 17; De Guilhermy, Menol. de la c. de J., Assistance d’Italie, Part I.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Giulio Bartolocci

A Cistercian monk and learned Hebrew scholar, b. at Celleno in the old kingdom of Naples, 1 April, 1613; d. at Rome, 19 October, 1687. He began his Hebrew studies under Giovanni Battista, a converted Jew, and in 1651 was appointed professor of Hebrew and rabbinical literature at the Collegium Neophytorum at Rome and Scriptor Hebraicus at the Vatican Library. It was here that he, with the assistance of Battista, collated the materials for his famous work “Bibliotheca Magana Rabbinica” which appeared in four volumes during the years 1675–93. The last volume was published by his disciple, Carlo Giuseppi Imbonati, who also published a supplementary volume in 1694. This monumental work contains an account of Jewish literature and embodies besides it numerous bibliographical and biographical data, a number of dissertations on Jewish customs, etc. Although it has been adjudged uncritical by Richard Simon, Bartolocci’s work was adopted by Wolf as the basis of his own “Bibliotheca Hebraica.” Bartolocci died as Abbot of the monastery of St. Sebastiani ad Catacumbas in Rome.

Wolf, Bibl. Hebr., I, 6–9; Furst, Bibl. Jud., I, 89, iii, lxxiv; Nouvelle Biographie Universelle, s. v.; Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v.; Kaulen in Kirchenlexicon, s. v.

F.X.E. ALBERT

Fra Bartolommeo

An Italian painter and a member of the Dominican Order, b. in 1475 in the territory belonging to Florence, d. at Florence in 1517. He bore the worldly name of Bartolommeo di Pagholo del Fattorillo and was called, more familiarly, Baccio della Porta, the nickname being a reference to the circumstances of his family. His work as a painter characterizes the transition of the Renaissance from its early period to the time of its greatest splendour. In 1484 he entered the studio of Cosimo Rosselli one of whose pupils at the same time was a lad of about Bartolommeo’s age, Mariotto Albertinelli. The friendship between Bartolommeo and the somewhat more worldly Albertinelli caused the two to form a business partnership in 1490 which lasted until 1312. At times the two friends were estranged on account of Bartolommeo’s admiration for Savonarola.

Bartolommeo adopted Savonarola’s theories concerning art, painted the reformer’s picture a number of times and after Savonarola’s tragic end (1498) entered the same order to which the reformer had belonged. Before this, though, he had painted the fresco of the Last Judgment, which is in the Church of Santa Maria Nuova, Florence. The upper part of the fresco depicts the Saviour. the Virgin Mary, and the Apostles; the figures while preserving their traditional dignity exhibit a striking freedom in the pose. The work also shows an entirely new perception of perspective. The lower half of the fresco, painted by Albertinelli is also skillfully composed. At times, perhaps, a little more action would be preferable. Besides this work all that we have of Bartolommeo’s first period are numerous carefully executed drawings which are in various collections. Savonarola made the same deep impression on Bartolommeo that he made on many other Florentine painters. According to Vasari, the artist, influenced by Savonarola’s preaching, threw his secular and mythological designs into the bonfire.

For a number of years after his entrance (1500) into the Convent of San Marco he gave up his art although he did not become a priest. However, he resumed his work, painting in the style of Angelico which was in agreement with the spirit of Savonarola and also in part in the style of Masaccio and Filippino He had previously studied the Florentine art of the time with great care and painted, above all, in the manner of this school. The influence of Leonardo da Vinci, who worked at Florence, or near by, from 1501 to 1508, is also evident. The “Last Judgment” drew the attention of Raphael, who was eight years the younger of the two, to Bartolommeo. Bartolommeo had charge of the studio of San Marco when Raphael came to Florence. Raphael visited Bartolommeo and the acquaintance was productive of benefit to both. In 1508 Raphael went to Rome. In the same year a visit to Venice gave Bartolommeo a new stimulus. The influence of the rich colouring used by Bellini and Titian showed itself in the altar-piece (in the Museum at Lucca), which represents God the Father, with St. Catherine and Mary Magdalen in ecstasy. Some years later Bartolommeo went for a short time to Rome. Here he studied the works of Michelangelo in addition to those of Raphael. For a while he was in Lucca, but generally he worked at San Marco, where he finally died.

Fra Bartolommeo developed his undoubted talent for painting by the most diligent study. In his work depth of religious feeling and the dignity suitable to sacred subjects are happily united with the advance in the technic of art of his time. In perspective, characterization of his subject, drapery, colour, grouping, and rhythm of pose and movement Bartolommeo holds to the Cinquecento, while the impression made by his devotional pictures is in no way lowered by realism or by seeking after external effect. The works which he painted to sell were not so naive and unconscious as the Fiesole pictures, for Bartolommeo came more in contact with the world. The “Vision of St. Bernard” exhibits a shy tender grace, the “Marriage of St. Catherine” (in the Pitti Palace, Florence) has more animation although filled with the mystic depths of religious feeling. Bartolommeo loved symmetry in the grouping, but he understood how to avoid monotony by varying the position of the body, the turn of the head, and by the use of other signs of movement as, for example, in the “Mother of Mercy” in the museum at Lucca. In an unfinished altar-piece a beauty of form expressive of the character of the personages is united to skillful variety and strict adherence to the subject. This altar-piece (in the Uffizi Palace, Florence) represents the patron saints of Florence with the Madonna and Child. St. Anna who is also portrayed is somewhat higher in position, while two angels sit at the foot of the altar and others are poised over the whole group.

The art with which Bartolommeo expressed the individuality of his subjects is still greatly admired in small frescoes which he produced, such as the “Ecce Homo” and representations of the Madonna with various saints. The heroic figure of St. Mark in the Pitti Palace, Florence, an imitation of the style of Michelangelo, is less striking in expression and pose than in the treatment of the drapery. A delightful simplicity and dignity characterize the painting of a Risen Christ blessing the world. The evangelists are with him and the world is seen as a landscape in a mirror held by two angels. Still more unassuming but yet more beautiful is a Madonna with St. Stephen and John the Baptist. Another canvas which is greatly admired is a “Descent from the Cross”; or, “Lamentation over Christ,” in which the expression of suffering on the faces is most finely graded and so subdued that a heavenly peace illumines the group. Bartolommeo’s masterpieces are to be found chiefly in Florence and Lucca.

SCOTT, Fra Bartolommeo (London, 1881); LÜBKE, Geschichte der italianische Malerei (Stuttgart, 1878), II; FRANTZ Fra Bartolommeo della Porta (Ratisbon, 1879); IDEM, Geschichte der christlichen Malerei (Freiburg, 1894), II.

G. GIETMANN

Francesco Bartolozzi

An engraver, etcher, and painter, b. at Florence, 1727; d. at Lisbon, 1815. His father was a goldsmith of excellent family and early taught the use of the burin to his boy who, when ten years of age, engraved two heads which gave promise of his future powers. In the Florentine Academy he learnt to work in oil, chalks, and aquarelle. Unsurpassed by any artist of his day in his knowledge of anatomy, and with a passion for the antique, young Bartolozzi became a master in depicting beauty of expression, movement, and form.

From 1745 until 1751 he studied with Wagner, the Venetian historical engraver. This apprenticeship ended, he married Lucia Ferro and the young pair, on Cardinal Bottari’s invitation went to Rome. Returning to Venice, his fame grew very rapidly, and in 1764, Dalton, King George III’s librarian, took him to England, where he was appointed Engraver to the King, and, for years later, Royal Academician. In London he engraved over two thousand plates, nearly all in the stipple or the “red-chalk style,” a method recently invented by the French, but brought into vogue and elevated into a distinct art by Bartolozzi. He devoted himself to the human figure, and his engravings abound in sweet and tender types of beauty, graceful in form and outline. Everywhere are found delicate modulations of light and shade with a roundness, finish, and suggestion of flesh never before seen in engraved work.

Bartolozzi’s drawing was superb; and although he was a reproductive artist he improved the work he copied, especially the drawing, even Sir Joshua Reynolds thanking him for such a service. His pupils called him the “god of drawing.” His splendid line work was obscured by the great popularity attained by his stippled prints, and his few etchings show a free, bold, and unfettered sweep of line. They, too, were reproduced from pictures by others, but the translation always improved on the original. In 1802 Bartolozzi went to Lisbon, where he was knighted, and where he worked and taught until his death. He was buried in the church of Saint Isabella. Among Bartolozzi’s best reproductions are the “Royal Academy Diploma,” “The Marlborough Gems,” the “Illustrations to Shakespeare,” and some of his small “Tickets,” all in stipple; and “The Silence” and “Clytie,” engraved in pure line.

TUER, Bartolozzi and His Works (London, 1881), 2 vols.

LEIGH HUNT

Elizabeth Barton

Born probably in 1506; executed at Tyburn, 20 April, 1534; called the “Nun of Kent.” The career of this visionary, whose prophecies led to her execution under Henry VIII, has been the source of a historical controversy which resolves itself into the question: Was she gifted with supernatural knowledge or was she an impostor?

In 1525, when nineteen years of age, being then employed as a domestic servant at Aldington, Kent, she had an illness during which she fell into frequent trances and told “wondrously things done in other places whilst she was neither herself present nor yet heard no report thereof.” From the first her utterances assumed a religious character and were “of marvellous holiness in rebuke of sin and vice.”

Her parish priest, Richard Masters, convinced of her sincerity, reported the matter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who sent a commission of three Canterbury Benedictines, Bocking, Hadleigh, and Barnes, two Franciscans, Hugh Rich and Richard Risby, a diocesan official, and the parish priest to examine her again. Shortly after the commission pronounced in her favour, her prediction that the Blessed Virgin would cure her at a certain chapel was fulfilled, when in presence of a large crowd she was restored to health. She then became a Benedictine nun, living near Canterbury, with a great reputation for holiness. Her fame gradually spread until she came into wide public notice.

She protested “in the name and by the authority of God” against the king’s projected divorce. To further her opposition, besides writing to the pope, she had interviews with Fisher, Wolsey, and the king himself. Owing to her reputation for sanctity, she proved one of the most formidable opponents of the royal divorce, so that in 1533 Cromwell took steps against her and, after examination by Cranmer, she was in November, with Dr. Bocking, her confessor, and others, committed to the Tower. Subsequently, all the prisoners were made to do public penance at St. Paul’s and at Canterbury and to publish confessions of deception and fraud.

In January, 1534, a bill of attainder was framed against her and thirteen of her sympathizers, among whom were Fisher and More. Except the latter, whose name was withdrawn, all were condemned under this bill; seven, including Bocking, Masters, Rich, Risby, and Elizabeth herself, being sentenced to death, while Fisher and five others were condemned to imprisonment and forfeiture of goods. Elizabeth and her companions were executed at Tyburn on 20 April, 1534, when she is said to have repeated her confession.

Protestant authors allege that these confessions alone are conclusive of her imposture, but Catholic writers, though they have felt free to hold divergent opinions about the nun, have pointed out the suggestive fact that all that is known as to these confessions emanates from Cromwell or his agents; that all available documents are on his side; that the confession issued as hers is on the face of it not her own composition; that she and her companions were never brought to trial, but were condemned and executed unheard; that there is contemporary evidence that the alleged confession was even then believed to be a forgery. For these reasons, the matter cannot be considered as settled, and unfortunately, the difficulty of arriving at any satisfactory and final decision now seems insuperable.

Act of Attainder, 25 Henry VIII, cap. xii; Wright, Suppression of the Monasteries; Gardner, Letters and Papers of Henry VIIIfor 1533–4; Lee in Dict. Nat. Biog., III, 343; Gasquet, Henry VIII and the Eng. Monasteries (1889), I, iii; Bridgett, Life of Fisher (1890), xi; Idem, Life of More (1892), xvii.

EDWIN BURTON

Baruch

(Hebrew Barûkh, blessed, Benedict; Sept. Barouch).

The disciple of Jeremiah, and the traditional author of the deuto-canonical book, which bears his name. He was the son of Nerias (Jer. 32:12, 32:16; 36:4, 8, 32; Bar. 1:1), and most probably the brother of Saraias, chief chamberlain to King Sedecias (Jer. 32:12; 51:59; Bar. 1:1). After the temple of Jerusalem had been plundered by Nebuchadnezzar (599 B.C.), he wrote under the dictation of Jeremiah the oracle of that great prophet, foretelling the return of the Babylonians, and read them at the risk of his life in the hearing of the Jewish people. He wrote also the second and enlarged edition of the prophecies of Jeremiah after the first had been burned by the infuriated king, Joachim (Jer. 36). Throughout his life he remained true to the teachings and ideals of the great prophet, although he seems at times to have given way to feelings of despondence, and perhaps even of personal ambition (cf. Jer. 45). He was with Jeremiah during the last siege of Jerusalem and witnessed the purchase by the prophet of his ancestral estate in Anathoth (Jer. 32). After the fall of the Holy City and the ruin of the Temple (588 B. C.), Baruch lived probably for some time with Jeremiah at Masphath. His enemies accused him of having prompted the prophet to advise the Jews to remain in Juda, instead of going down into Egypt (Jer. 43), where, according to a Hebrew tradition preserved by St. Jerome (In Isaiah 30:6, 7), both died before Nebuchadnezzar invaded that country. This tradition, however, conflicts with the data found in the opening chapter of the Prophecy of Baruch, wherein we are told of Baruch writing his book in Babylonia, reading it publicly in the fifth year after the burning of the Holy City, and apparently being sent to Jerusalem by the Jewish captives with sacred vessels and gifts destined to the sacrificial service in Yahweh’s Temple. It conflicts likewise with various traditions, both Jewish and Christian, which perhaps contains some particles of truth, but which do not allow us to determine the date, pace, or manner of Baruch’s death, with anything like probability.

In the Catholic Bible “the Prophecy of Baruch” is made up of six chapters, the last of which bears the special title of an “epistle of Jeremiah,” and does not belong to the book proper. The Prophecy opens with an historical introduction (1:1–14), stating first (1–2) that the book was written by Baruch at Babylon in the fifth year after Jerusalem had been burned by the Chaldeans, and next (verses 3–14) that it was read in an assembly of King Jechonias and other Babylonian exiles upon whom it produced the most beneficial effects. The first section in the body of the book (1:15; 3:8) contains a twofold confession of the sins which led to the exile (1:15–2:5; 2:6–13), together with a prayer that God may at length forgive His people (2:14; 3:8). While the foregoing section has much in common with the Book of Daniel (Dan. 9:4–19), Baruch’s second section (3:9; 4:4) closely resembles passages in Job 28, 38. It is a beautiful panegyric of that Divine Wisdom which is nowhere found except in the Law given to Israel; only in the guise of the Law has Wisdom appeared on the earth and become accessible to man; let, therefore, Israel prove faithful again to the Law. The last section of the Book of Baruch extends from 4:5 to 5:9. It is made of up four odes, each beginning with the expression, “Take courage” (4:5, 21, 27, 30), and of a psalm closely connected with the eleventh of the apocryphal Psalms of Solomon (4:36; 5:9). Chapter 6 contains as an appendix to the whole book “The Epistle of Jeremiah,” sent by that prophet “to them that were to be led away captive into Babylon” by Nebuchadnezzar. Because of their sins they were to be removed to Babylon and to remain there “for a long time, even to seven generations.” In that heathen city they would witness the gorgeous worship paid to “gods of gold, and of silver, and of stone, and of wood,” but should not conform to it. All such gods, it is argued in various ways, are powerless and perishable works of man’s hands; they can do neither harm nor good; so that they are not gods at all.

It is certain that this sixth chapter of Baruch is truly distinct from the rest of the work. Not only its special title, “The Epistle of Jeremiah,” but also its style and contents clearly prove that it is a writing wholly independent of the Prophecy of Baruch. Again, while some Greek manuscripts that have Baruch have not the “Epistle,” others, among the best, have it separate from the Book of Baruch and immediately before the Lamentations of Jeremiah. The fact that the sixth chapter of Baruch bears the title, “The Epistle of Jeremiah,” has been, and is still in the eyes of many, a decisive reason for holding the time-honoured view that the great prophet is its author. It is also urged that the vivid and accurate description of the splendid, but infamous, worship of the Babylonian gods in Baruch, vi, makes for the traditional authorship, since Jer. 13:5, 6, probably speaks of the twofold journey of Jeremiah to the Euphrates. Finally it is affirmed that a certain number of Hebraisms can be traced back to a Hebrew original point in the same direction. Over against this traditional view, most contemporary critics argue that the Greek style of Baruch, vi, proves that it was originally written not in Hebrew, but in Greek, and that consequently Jeremiah is not the author of the Epistle ascribed to him. For this and for other reasons suggested by the study of the contents of Baruch, vi, they think that St. Jerome was decidedly correct when he called this writing pseudepigraphos, that is, inscribed with a false name. However this may be, an important study of the Canon of Holy Writ proves that, despite the assertions of Protestants to the contrary, Baruch 6 has always been recognized by the Church as an inspired work.

With regard to the original language of the Book of Baruch proper (chaps. 1–5), a variety of opinions prevail among contemporary scholars. Naturally enough, those who simply abide by the title which ascribes the Book to Baruch, admit that the whole work was originally written in Hebrew. On the contrary, most of those who question or reject the correctness of that title think that this writing was totally, or at least partially, composed in Greek. It is indeed true that the Greek literary features of the various sections do not point back with equal force to a Hebrew original. Yet, it can hardly be doubted that the whole of Baruch proper in its extant Greek form looks like a translation. The linguistic evidence is also confirmed by the following considerations:

It is highly probable that Theodotion (end of the second century of our era) translated the Book of Baruch from a Hebrew original.

There are some marginal notes of the Syro-Hexaplar text stating that a few words in the Greek “are not found in the Hebrew.”

Baruch 1:14 says that the book was meant to be read publicly in the Temple; hence it must have been composed in Hebrew for that purpose.

Besides this unity as regards its original language, Baruch presents a certain unity in point of subject-matter, so that most of those who maintain that the whole work was primitively written in Hebrew admit also its unity of composition. There are, however, in the Book of Baruch many traces of the compilatory process whereby its various parts were apparently brought together. The difference in literary form between 1–3:8, on the one hand and 3:9–5, is very great indeed, and, taken together with the abrupt manner in which the panegyric on Wisdom is introduced at 3:9, suggests a difference with respect to origin. The two confessions of the sins which led to the exile in 1:15; 3:8, are put side by side without any natural transition. The literary differences between 3:9–4:4, and 4:5–5:9, are considerable, and the beginning of the third section at 4:5, is no less abrupt than that of the second at 3:9. Again, the historical introduction seems to have been composed as a preface to only 1:15–2:5. In view of these and other such facts, contemporary critics generally think that the work is the outcome of a compilatory process, and that its unity is due to the final editor, who put together the various documents which obviously bore upon the exile. Such a literary method of composition does not necessarily conflict with the traditional authorship of the Book of Baruch. Many of the sacred writers of the Bible were compilers, and Baruch may, and, according to the Catholic scholars who admit the compilatory character of the work inscribed to him, must, be numbered among them. The grounds of Catholics for this view are chiefly three:

The book is ascribed to Baruch by its title;

it has always been regarded as Baruch’s work by tradition;

its contents present nothing than would be later than Baruch’s time, or that should be regarded as foreign to the style and manner of that faithful disciple and secretary of Jeremiah.

Over against this view, non-Catholics argue:

That its ultimate basis is simply the title of the book;

that this title itself is not in harmony with the historical and literary contents of the work; and

that those contents, when impartially examined, point to a much later compiler than Baruch; in fact some of them go so far as to ascribe the composition of the book to a writer living after A.D. 70.

Catholics easily disprove this last date for the Book of Baruch; but they do not so easily dispose of the serious difficulties that have been raised against their own ascription of the whole work to Baruch. Their answers are considered sufficient by Catholic scholars generally. Should anyone, however, judge them inadequate, and therefore consider the Book of Baruch as the work of a later editor, the inspired character of the book would still remain, provided this later editor himself be regarded as inspired in his work of compilation. That the Book of Baruch is “a sacred and canonical” writing has been defined by the Council of Trent; that it has just as much right to be held “inspired of God” as any other book of Holy Writ can readily be shown by a close study of the Canon of the Bible. Its Latin rendering in our Vulgate goes back to the old Latin version anterior to St. Jerome, and is tolerably literal from the Greek text.

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Liturgy of Saint Basil

Several Oriental liturgies, or at least several anaphoras, have been attributed to the great St. Basil, Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia from 370 to 379. That St. Basil composed a liturgy, or rather reformed an existing liturgy, is beyond doubt, since besides the constant tradition of the Byzantine Church there are many testimonies in ancient writings to establish the fact. In a treatise on the tradition of the Divine liturgy attributed to St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (434–466), it is stated that when St. Basil noticed the slothfulness and degeneracy of men, how they were wearied by the length of the liturgy, he shortened it in order to cure their sloth (P.G., LXV, 849). More certain testimony to the existence of a liturgical text which went under the name of St. Basil is given in a letter of Peter the Deacon, one of the Scythian monks sent to Rome to settle certain dogmatic questions. Writing about the year 520 to the African bishops in exile in Sardinia, Peter, an Oriental, mentions a Liturgy of St. Basil, which was known and used throughout the entire East, and even quotes a passage from it: “Hence, also, Blessed Basil, Bishop of Cæsaria, in a prayer of the holy altar, with which almost the entire East is familiar, says among other things: Grant us, O Lord, Thy strength and protection; make the evil good and preserve the just in their righteousness. For Thou canst do all things and there is no one who may oppose Thee; for when Thou desirest, Thou savest, and no one resists Thy will.” (P.L., LXV, 449.)

Leontius of Byzantium, writing about the middle of the sixth century, censures Theodore of Mopsuestia because he was not content with the liturgies handed down by the Fathers to the churches, but composed a Mass of his own, showing, thereby, no reverence either for that of the Apostles, or for that composed in the same spirit by the great St. Basil (P.G., LXXXVI, 1368). The Quinisext, or Trullan Council (692), in its thirtysecond canon draws an argument from the written liturgy of the archbishop of the church of the Cæsareans, St. Basil, whose glory has spread through the whole world (Mansi, Coll. Conc., XI, 958). Finally, in the Barberini library there is a manuscript of the latter part of the eighth, or the early part of the ninth, century which contains a Greek liturgy entitled the “Liturgy of St. Basil.”

It is not known precisely just what the nature of the Basilian reform was, nor what liturgy served as the basis of the saint’s work. Very probably he shortened and changed somewhat the liturgy of his own diocese, which was akin to the Liturgy of St. James. In later times it underwent some development, so that with our present knowledge of its history it would be almost impossible to reconstruct it as it came from the pen of the Bishop of Cæsarea. According to the tradition of the Greek Orthodox Church, their liturgy is practically the work of St. Basil, due allowance being made for changes and amelioration in the course of time. This is older than either of the other two Byzantine liturgies, and is mentioned under the name of St. Basil in ancient times as if it were then the normal liturgy. Of the anaphoras attributed to St. Basil the Syriac and Armenian are probably derived from the Byzantine Greek with some modifications. The Abyssinian is a translation of the Coptic, while the Coptic, Arabic, and Greek Egyptian liturgies are substantially the same. These Egyptian anaphoras of St. Basil are different from the Cæsarean or Byzantine liturgy, and do not possess all the characteristics of the Alexandrian Rite, but appear rather to be modelled on the Syrian type, so they are probably an importation into Egypt. The Greek Egyptian contains several prayers (identical with those in the Byzantine liturgy) expressly ascribed to St. Basil, and from these it may derive its title.

The Cæsarean or Byzantine Liturgy is used in the countries which were evangelized from Constantinople, or which came under its influence for any considerable period. It is used, for example, by the Orthodox and Uniat Greek churches in the Orient, as well as by the Greek communities in Italy and Sicily. Translated into the Old Slavonic it is used by Orthodox and Uniat Catholics in Russia and in some parts of the Austrian Empire; translated into Georgian and Rumanian it is used respectively in Georgia and Rumania. It has also been translated into several other languages and dialects for use in the Russian dependencies and where the Russian Church has missions, as well as into Arabic for use in Syria. Since the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has become the normal liturgy of the Greek Church, that of St. Basil is now used only on the Sundays of Lent with the exception of Palm Sunday, on Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday, on the vigils of Christmas and of the Epiphany, and on the feast of St. Basil, which in the Greek calendar occurs on the first day of January.

The liturgy may be divided into the Mass of the catechumens and the Mass of the faithful. The first contains the prayers of the prothesis, of the antiphons, of the little entrance, and of the trisagion, the lessons, and the prayers of the ectenes and of the catechumens. The Mass of the faithful begins with the two prayers of the faithful, and contains the prayer of the great entrance, the prayers of the Offertory, which is expressly ascribed to St. Basil, the kiss of peace, the Creed, and the Anaphora. The Anaphora proper, starting with the Eucharistic Preface followed by the Sanctus, embraces the preparatory prayers for the Consecration, the Consecration itself, the Epiclesis or invocation of the Holy Ghost, the Great Intercession for the living and the dead, the Lord’s Prayer, the inclination, Elevation, Communion, thanksgiving, and dismissal.

GOAR,Eùchológion, sive rituale græcorum (Venice, 1730); BRIGHTMAN, Liturgies Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1906) I, prints the Barberini MS., p. 308, the prayers of the modern liturgy, p. 400. Tr. will be found in: BRETT, A Collection of the Principal Liturgies (London, 1838), and SWANSON, The Greek Liturgies (Cambridge, 1884); NEALE, History of the Holy Eastern Church (London, 1850); PROBST, Liturgie des vierten Jahrhunderts und deren Reform (Münster, 1893); RENAUDOT, Liturgiarum orientalium collectio (Frankfort, 1847).

J.F. GOGGIN

Rule of Saint Basil

I.

Under the name of Basilians are included all the religious who follow the Rule of St. Basil. The monasteries of such religious have never possessed the hierarchical organization which ordinarily exists in the houses of an order properly so called. Only a few houses were formerly grouped into congregations or are today so combined. St. Basil drew up his Rule for the members of the monastery he founded about 356 on the banks of the Iris in Cappadocia. Before forming this community St. Basil visited Egypt, Palestine, Coelesyria, and Mesopotamia in order to see for himself the manner of life led by the monks in these countries. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, who shared the retreat, aided Basil by his advice and experience. The Rule of Basil is divided into two parts: the “Greater Monastic Rules” (Regulae fusius tractatae, Migne, P.G., XXXI, 889–1052), and the “Lesser Rules” (Regulae brevius tractatae, ibid., 1051–1306). Rufinus who translated them into Latin united the two into a single Rule under the name of “Regulae sancti Basilii episcopi Cappadociae ad monachos” (P.L., CIII, 483–554); this Rule was followed by some western monasteries. For a long time the Bishop of Caesarea was wrongly held to be the author of a work on monasticism called “Contitutiones monasticae” (P.G., XXXI, 1315–1428). In his Rule St. Basil follows a catechetical method; the disciple asks a question to which the master replies. He limits himself to laying down indisputable principles which will guide the superiors and monks in their conduct. He sends his monks to the Sacred Scriptures; in his eyes the Bible is the basis of all monastic legislation, the true Rule. The questions refer generally to the virtues which the monks should practice and the vices they should avoid. The greater number of the replies contain a verse or several verses of the Bible accompanied by a comment which defines the meaning. The most striking qualities of the Basilian Rule are its prudence and its wisdom. It leaves to the superiors the care of settling the many details of local, individual, and daily life; it does not determine the material exercise of the observance or the administrative regulations of the monastery. Poverty, obedience, renunciation, and self-abnegation are the virtues which St. Basil makes the foundation of the monastic life.

As he gave it, the Rule could not suffice for anyone who wished to organize a monastery, for it takes this work as an accomplished fact. The life of the Cappadocian monks could not be reconstructed from his references to the nature and number of the meals and to the garb of the inmates. The superiors had for guide a tradition accepted by all the monks. This tradition was enriched as time went on by the decisions of councils, by the ordinances of the Emperors of Constantinople, and by the regulations of a number of revered abbots. Thus there arose a body of law by which the monasteries were regulated. Some of these laws were accepted by all, others were observed only by the houses of some one country, while there were regulations which applied only to certain communities. In this regard Oriental monasticism bears much resemblance to that of the West; a great variety of observances is noticeable. The existence of the Rule of St. Basil formed a principle of unity.

II. THE MONASTERIES OF THE EAST

The monasteries of Cappadocia were the first to accept the Rule of St. Basil; it afterwards spread gradually to all the monasteries of the East. Those of Armenia, Chaldea, and of the Syrian countries in general preferred instead of the Rule of St. Basil those observances which were known among them as the Rule of St. Anthony. Neither the ecclesiastical nor the imperial authority was exerted to make conformity to the Basilian Rule universal. It is therefore impossible to tell the epoch at which it acquired the supremacy in the religious communities of the Greek world; but the date is probably an early one. The development of monasticism was, in short, the cause of its diffusion. Protected by the emperors and patriarchs the monasteries increased rapidly in number. In 536 the Diocese of Constantinople contained no less than sixty-eight, that of Chalcedon forty, and these numbers continually increased. Although monasticism was not able to spread in all parts of the empire with equal rapidity, yet what it probably must have been may be inferred from these figures. These monks took an active part in the ecclesiastical life of their time; they had a share in all the quarrels, both theological and other, and were associated with all the works of charity. Their monasteries were places of refuge for studious men. Many of the bishops and patriarchs were chosen from their ranks. Their history is interwoven, therefore, with that of the Oriental Churches. They gave to the preaching of the Gospel its greatest apostles. As a result monastic life gained a footing at the same time as Christianity among all the races won to the Faith. The position of the monks in the empire was one of great power, and their wealth helped to increase their influence. Thus their development ran a course parallel to that of their Western brethren. The monks, as a rule, followed the theological vicissitudes of the emperors and patriarchs, and they showed no notable independence except during the iconoclastic persecution; the stand they took in this aroused the anger of the imperial controversialists. The Faith had its martyrs among them; many of them were condemned to exile, and some took advantage of this condemnation to reorganize their religious life in Italy.

Of all the monasteries of this period the most celebrated was that of St. John the Baptist of Studium, founded at Constantinople in the fifth century. It acquired its fame in the time of the iconoclastic persecution while it was under the government of the saintly Hegumenos (abbot) Theodore, called the Studite. Nowhere did the heretical emperors meet with more courageous resistance. At the same time the monastery was an active center of intellectual and artistic life and a model which exercised considerable influence on monastic observances in the East. Further details may be found in “Prescriptio constitutionis monasterii Studii” (Migne, P.G., XCIX, 1703–20), and the monastery’s “Canones de confessione et pro peccatis satisfactione “ (ibid., 1721–30). Theodore attributed the observances followed by his monks to his uncle, the saintly Abbot Plato, who first introduced them in his monastery of Saccudium. The other monasteries, one after another adopted them, and they are still followed by the monks of Mount Athos. The monastery of Mount Athos was founded towards the close of the tenth century through the aid of the Emperor Basil the Macedonian and became the largest and most celebrated of all the monasteries of the Orient; it is in reality a monastic province. The monastery of Mount Olympus in Bithynia should also be mentioned, although it was never as important as the other. The monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, which goes back to the early days of monasticism, had a great fame and is still occupied by monks. Reference to Oriental monks must here be limited to those who have left a mark upon ecclesiastical literature: Leontius of Byzantium (d. 543), author of a treatise against the Nestorians and Eutychians; St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, one of the most vigorous adversaries of the Monothelite heresy (P.G., LXXXVII, 3147–4014); St. Maximus the Confessor, Abbot of Chrysopolis (d. 662), the most brilliant representative of Byzantine monasticism in the seventh century; in his writings and letters St. Maximus steadily combated the partisans of the erroneous doctrines of Monothelitism (ibid., XC and XCI); St. John Damascene, who may perhaps be included among the Basilians; St Theodore the Studite (d. 829), the defender of the veneration of sacred images; his works include theological, ascetic, hagiographical, liturgical, and historical writings (P.G., XCIX). The Byzantine monasteries furnish a long line of historians who were also monks: John Malalas, whose “ hronographia” (P.G., XCVII, 9–190) served as a model for Eastern chroniclers Georgius Syncellus, who wrote a “Selected Chronographia”; his friend and disciple Theophanes (d. 817), Abbot of the “Great Field” near Cyzicus, the author of another “Chronographia” (P.G., CVIII); the Patriarch Nicephorus, who wrote (815–829) an historical “Breviarium” (a Byzantine history), and an “Abridged Chronographia” (P.G., C, 879–991); George the Monk, whose Chronicle stops at A. D. 842 (P.G. CX). There were, besides, a large number of monks, hagiographers, hymnologists, and poets who had a large share in the development of the Greek Liturgy. Among the authors of hymns may be mentioned: St. Maximus the Confessor; St. Theodore the Studite; St. Romanus the Melodist; St. Andrew of Crete; St. John Damascene; Cosmas of Jerusalem, and St. Joseph the Hymnographer. Fine penmanship and the copying of manuscripts were held in honor among the Basilians. Among the monasteries which excelled in the art of copying were the Studium, Mount Athos, the monastery of the Isle of Patmos and that of Rossano in Sicily; the tradition was continued later by the monastery of Grottaferrata near Rome. These monasteries, and others as well, were studios of religious art where the monks toiled to produce miniatures in the manuscripts, paintings, and goldsmith work. The triumph of orthodoxy over the iconoclastic heresy infused an extraordinary enthusiasm into this branch of their labors.

From the beginning the Oriental Churches often took their patriarchs and bishops from the monasteries. Later, when the secular clergy was recruited largely from among married men, this custom became almost universal, for, as the episcopal office could not be conferred upon men who were married, it developed, in a way, into a privilege of the religious who had taken the vow of celibacy. Owing to this the monks formed a class apart, corresponding to the upper clergy of the Western Churches; this gave and still gives a preponderating influence to the monasteries themselves. In some of them theological instruction is given both to clerics and to laymen. As long as the spirit of proselytism existed in the East the monasteries furnished the Church with all its missionaries. The names of two have been inscribed by Rome in its calendar of annual feasts, namely, St. Cyril and St. Methodius, the Apostles of the Slavs. The Byzantine schism did not change sensibly the position of the Basilian monks and monasteries. Their sufferings arose through the Mohammedan conquest. To a large number of them this conquest brought complete ruin, especially to those monasteries in what is now Turkey in Asia and the region around Constantinople. In the East the convents for women adopted the Rule of St. Basil and had constitutions copied from those of the Basilian monks.

III. SCHISMATIC BASILIANS

The two best known monasteries of the schismatic Basilians are those of Mount Athos and of Mount Sinai. Besides these there are still many monasteries in Turkey in Asia, of which 10 are in Jerusalem alone, 1 at Bethlehem, and 4 at Jericho. They are also numerous on the islands of the Aegean Sea: Chios 3, Samos 6, Crete about 50, Cyprus 11. In Old Cairo is the monastery of St. George. In Greece where there were formerly 400 monasteries, there were, in 1832, only 82, which by 1904 had increased to 169; 9 Basilian convents for women are now in existence in Greece. In Rumania there are 22 monasteries; in Servia 44, with only about 118 monks; in Bulgaria 78, with 193 inmates. Montenegro has 11 monasteries and about 15 monks; Bosnia 3 and Herzegovina 11. In Dalmatia are 11 monasteries and in Bukowina 3. Hungary has 25 monasteries and 5 branch houses. The schismatic monks are much more numerous in Russia; in this country, besides, they have the most influence and possess the richest monasteries. Nowhere else has the monastic life been so closely interwoven with the national existence. The most celebrated monasteries are Pescherskoi at Kieff and Troïtsa at Moscow; mention may also be made of the monasteries of Solovesk, Novgorod, Pskof, Tver, and Vladmir. Russia has about 9,000 monks and 429 monasteries. There is no diocese which has not at least one religious house. The monasteries are divided into those having state subventions and monasteries which do not receive such aid.

IV. CATHOLIC BASILIANS

A certain number of Basilian monasteries were always in communion with the Holy See. Among these were the houses founded in Sicily and Italy. The monastery of Rossano, founded by St. Nilus the Younger, remained for a long time faithful to the best literary traditions of Constantinople. The monasteries of San Salvatore of Messina and San Salvatore of Otranto may be mentioned; the monastery of Grottaferrata was also celebrated. The emigration of the Greeks to the West after the fall of Constantinople and the union with Rome, concluded at the Council of Florence, gave a certain prestige to these communities. Cardinal Bessarion, who was Abbot of Grottaferrata, sought to stimulate the intellectual life of the Basilians by means of the literary treasures which their libraries contained.

A number of Catholic communities continued to exist in the East. The Holy See caused them to be united into congregations, namely: St. Savior founded in 1715, which includes 8 monasteries and 21 hospices with about 250 monks; the congregation of Aleppo with 4 monasteries and 2 hospices; that of the Baladites (Valadites) with 4 monasteries and 3 hospices. These last two congregations have their houses in the district of Mount Lebanon. St. Josaphat and Father Rutski, who labored to bring back the Ruthenian Churches into Catholic unity, reformed the Basilians of Lithuania. They began with the monastery of the Holy Trinity at Vilna (1607). The monastery of Byten, founded in 1613, was the citadel of the union in Lithuania. Other houses adopted the reform or were founded by the reformed monks. On 19 July, 1617, the reformed monasteries were organized into a congregation under a proto-archimandrite, and known as the congregation of the Holy Trinity, or of Lithuania. The congregation increased with the growth of the union itself. The number of houses had risen to thirty at the time of the general chapter of 1636. After the Council of Zamosc the monasteries outside of Lithuania which had not joined the congregation of the Holy Trinity formed themselves into a congregation bearing the title of “Patrocinium [Protection] B.M.V.” (1739). Benedict XIV desired (1744) to form one congregation out of these two, giving the new organization the name of the Ruthenian Order of St. Basil and dividing it into the two provinces of Lithuania and Courland. After the suppression of the Society of Jesus these religious took charge of the Jesuit colleges. The overthrow of Poland and the persecution instituted by the Russians against the Uniat Greeks was very unfavorable to the growth of the congregation, and the number of these Basilian monasteries greatly diminished. Leo XIII, by his Encyclical “Singulare praesidium” of 12 May, 1881, ordained a reform of the Ruthenian Basilians of Galicia. This reform began in the monastery of Dabromil; its members have gradually replaced the non-reformed in the monasteries of the region. They devote themselves, in connection with the Uniat clergy, to the various labors of the apostolate which the moral condition or the different races in this district demands.

V. LATIN BASILIANS

In the sixteenth century the Italian monasteries of this order were in the last stages of decay. Urged by Cardinal Sirlet, Pope Gregory XIII ordained (1573) their union in a congregation under the control of a superior general. Use was made of the opportunity to separate the revenues of the abbeys from those of the monasteries. The houses of the Italian Basilians were divided into the three provinces of Sicily, Calabria, and Rome. Although the monks remained faithful in principle to the Greek Liturgy they showed an inclination towards the use of the Latin Liturgy; some monasteries have adopted the latter altogether. In Spain there was a Basilian congregation which had no traditional connection with Oriental Basilians; the members followed the Latin Liturgy. Father Bernardo de la Cruz and the hermits of Santa Maria de Oviedo in the Diocese of Jaen formed the nucleus of the congregation. Pope Pius VI added them to the followers of St. Basil and they were affiliated with the monastery of Grottaferrata (1561). The monasteries of Turdon and of Valle de Guillos, founded by Father Mateo de la Fuente, were for a time united with this congregation but they withdrew later in order to form a separate congregation (1603) which increased very little, having only four monasteries and a hospice at Seville. The other Basilians, who followed a less rigorous observance, showed more growth; their monasteries were formed into the two provinces of Castile and Andalusia. They were governed by a vicar general and were under the control, at least nominally, of a superior general of the order. Each of their provinces had its college or scholasticate at Salamanca and Seville. They did not abstain from wine. Like their brethren in Italy they wore a cowl similar to that of the Benedictines; this led to recriminations and processes, but they were authorized by Rome to continue the use of this attire. Several writers are to be found among them, as: Alfonso Clavel, the historiographer of the order; Diego Niceno, who has left sermons and ascetic writings; Luis de los Angelos, who issued a work on, “Instructions for Novices” (Seville, 1615), and also translated into Spanish Cardinal Bessarion’s exposition of the Rule of St. Basil; Felipe de la Cruz. who wrote a treatise on money loaned at interest, that was published at Madrid in 1637, and one on tithes, published at Madrid in 1634. The Spanish Basilians were suppressed with the other orders in 1833 and have not been re-established. At Annonay in France a religious community of men was formed (1822) under the Rule of St. Basil, which has a branch at Toronto, Canada (See BASILIANS, PRIESTS OF THE COMMUNITY OF ST. BASIL.)

BESSE, Les moines d’Orient (Paris, 1900); MARTIN, Les moines de Constantinople (Paris, 1897), GUÉPIN, Un apótre de l’union des églises au XVII siècle, St. Josaphat (Paris, 1897); LEROY-BEAULIEU La religion in L’empire des Tsars et les Rusees (Paris, 1889) III; CLAVEL, Antigüedad de la religión y regla de san Basilio (Madrid, 1645); HÉLYOT, Histoire des ordres monastiques, I; HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden and Kongregationen, I, 44–47; MINIASI, San Nilo (Naples, 1892); RODOTÀ, Origine, progresso e stato attuale del rito greco in Italia (Rome, 1755); SILBERNAGL-SCHNITZER, Verfassung, etc., in Kirchen des Orients (Munich, 1905); MILASCH-PESSIC, Kirchenrecht d. morgene. Kirche (2nd ed., Mostar, 1905).

J.M. BESSE

Basilians

(Priests of the Community of St. Basil)

During the French Revolution, Mgr. D’Aviau, the last Archbishop of Vienne, saw his clergy diminish so rapidly through persecution, that only about one-third of them remained, with no recruits to replace them. It was impossible to maintain a college or a seminary, so in 1800 he founded a school in the almost inaccessible little village of St. Symphorien de Mahun, in the mountains of the Vivarais. This institution was placed in the charge of Father Lapierre, who had managed to take care of the parish of St. Symphorien during this period of persecution. His assistant was Father Marie Joseph Actorie, who had been professor of philosophy in the seminary of Die before the Revolution. In spite of its humble beginning and the many dangers to which it was exposed, the school prospered. In 1802, the state of the country had improved to such an extent that concealment was no longer necessary, and Father Picansel, parish priest of Annonay, and vicar general of the diocese, succeeded in obtaining from the municipal authorities of that town the lease of a former Franciscan monastery, to which the school was transferred. For many years the school performed the work which the bishop had expected from it, but the long fight against poverty and the persecution of so-called liberals threatened at last to be too much for those in charge. Some other method had to be tried, and in 1822, the professors asked to be permitted to found a religious community, with the college at Annonay for its mother-house. The bishop of Viviers, in whose diocese the town of Annonay was included, granted the necessary permission, and appointed a commission to draw up a rule for the new society. On 21 November, 1822, the ten members who were at the time the teaching staff of the college, made the promise which bound them temporarily to the work. They were, Fathers Lapierre, Duret, Vallon, Polly, Tourvieille, Tracol, Martinèche, Fayolle, Payan, and Pages.

In 1837 a constitution was drawn up and sent to Rome for approval. By this the members of the society were to be bound by the simple vows of poverty, obedience, chastity, and stability. The vow of poverty, however, was limited. Each member of the community could retain all his own property and his Mass intentions, and was to receive a small salary from the community. By this vow he could not accumulate and increase his possessions, but had to spend all his salary and the annual income from his property, and this included the prohibition of speculation or any other worldly moneymaking. This community was to be under the direction of a superior general, residing at Annonay, the Diocese of Viviers, France. The aim of the society was to be the education of Catholic youth, especially of such as intended to become priests. This constitution was signed by several French bishops, all of whom had been able to appreciate the work done by the community, and to testify to the piety and zeal of its members. The Holy See was pleased to declare the society worthy of praise, and in 1863 Pius IX confirmed this decree, granting at the same time certain privileges and imposing certain restrictions on the possessions of the community. A few years ago, the constitutions were again sent to Rome, but the Holy See wished to make some changes in the administration of the community, and these are now being tested with a view to their final approval. When the recent decree banishing religious orders from France was put in force, the Basilians had colleges in Annonay, Périgueux, Aubenas, Privas, and Vernoux, in France; Blidah and Bone in Algiers; and Plymouth in England. All these, with the exception of he last, were transfered to seculars or confiscated, and the religious obliged to scatter until more favourable times.

In 1852, Mgr. De Charbonnel, Bishop of Toronto, Canada, requested the Basilians to found a college in his diocese. Accordingly, a small number were sent there, and opened a school which has developed into the present St. Michael’s College, the headquarters of the Basilians in America. It was opened in a small house, but was soon moved to a wing of the bishop’s palace which had been built for the purpose. In September, 1855, the cornerstone of the present building was laid. Since then various additions have been made, and the college is now able to accommodate a large number of students. The first superior was Father Soulerin, who managed the college from 1852 to 1865, when he was elected superior general of his community. St. Michael’s is federated with the University of Toronto, its president is ex officio a member of the Senate of the university and of the university council, and it also appoints two other representatives to the senate. There are three courses of study open to its students, the commercial, the classical, and the philosophical. Among the more prominent of those who made their studies, either partially or entirely, at St. Michael’s were the Archbishop of Toronto and the Bishops of Hamilton, Peterborough, London, and Sault Ste. Marie in Canada and Albany and Columbus in the United States.

The American Province includes four other colleges and numerous parishes. The colleges are Assumption college, Sandwich, Canada; St. Basil’s College, Waco; St. Thomas’s College, Houston, and St. Mary’s Seminary, La Porte, in Texas. Of the parishes in charge of the Basilians, the most important are St. Basil’s and the Holy Rosary, Toronto, Sandwich, Amherstburg, and Owen Sound in Canada, and St. Anne’s, Detroit. The noviciate of the community and the scholasticate are in Toronto. The novitiate lasts for one year, after which the members remain under temporal vows for three years. As no one can enter the society who does not intend to become a priest, the final vows are not taken until the subdiaconate, so that, if, at the end of three years the scholastic is not ready for Holy orders, he renews his temporal vows. St. Basil’s College, Waco, Texas, was founded in 1889. The course of studies includes both the commercial and classical departments. St. Thomas’s College, Houston, Texas, was founded in 1900. It is a day school. St. Mary’s Seminary, La Porte, Texas, was opened in October, 1901, by the Rt. Rev. N.A. Gallagher, Bishop of Galveston. Its primary object is the education of young men for the priesthood, but there is also maintained in connection with the seminary a college in which boys and young men are prepared for any of the learned professions. It is under the direct supervision of the Bishop of Galveston.

J.C. PLOMER

Basilica (stoa basilike)

(Stoa basilike, or basileios).

The term basilica can indicate either the architectural style of a church, or its canonical status. Both senses will be treated in this article.

“BASILICA” IN THE ARCHITECTURAL SENSE

In architecture, the term basilica signifies a kingly, and secondarily a beautiful, hall. The name indicates the Eastern origin of the building, but it is in the West, above all in Rome, that the finest examples of the basilica are found. Between 184 and 121 B.C. there were built in the Forum at Rome the basilicas of Porcia, Fulvia, Sempronia, and Opimia; after 46 B.C. the great Basilica Julia of Caesar and Augustus was erected. These buildings were designed to beautify the Forum and to be of use both for market purposes and for the administration of justice. They were open to the public and were well lighted. According to Vitruvius, who in this certainly agrees with Greek authorities, the usual construction of a basilica was the following:

The ground plan was a parallelogram in which the width was not greater than one-half of the length and not less than one-third of it. When there was more space in the length, porticoes were built on the short sides. The middle space was separated by columns from a lower ambulatory or portico; the width of the ambulatory equalled the height of the columns and measured one-third of the width of the central space. Above the columns just mentioned stood others, giving entrance to the light, which were shorter and slighter, in order that, as in organic structures, a tapering effect upwards should be given (De architectura, V, i, or ii). A basilica erected by Vitruvius himself showed a decided variation from this plan. It had two ambulatories, one above the other. Part of the columns of the middle space was left free so that light might enter. These columns rose up to the rafters. Pilasters leaning against the columns served to carry the flat roof of the ambulatories, the length of the middle nave was double its breadth and six times the breadth of the ambulatory. One of the long sides of the parallelogram spread out into an apse where legal cases were tried, but it was separated by the width of the ambulatory from the space for merchants (the ancient exchange).

The same writer speaks (VI, viii or v) of half-public basilicas in the houses of distinguished statesmen which served as council-chambers and for the settlement of disputes by arbitration. Vitruvius compares these (VI, v or iii) with the Egyptian halls because the latter had also covered ambulatories around a middle space supported by columns and openings for light between columns above. These are the distinctive features of a basilica which we may venture to define as an oblong structure with columns, having an ambulatory of lower height, receiving light from above, and possessing a projecting addition designed to serve a particular purpose.

The form of the basilica of the early Christian church corresponds so exactly to the shape of the basilica of the Forum or of the house that it does not seem necessary to seek another model, as for instance, the atrium or the cemetery cells. The dark, narrow temple was entirely unsuited for the holding of the Christian church services. These services, which began with the Last Supper, were often held in large rooms in the dwellings of prosperous Christians. When these facts are considered it cannot be a matter of surprise that as early as the time of Constantine the style and name of the basilica seem to have been in common use for the Christian place of worship. Moreover, the chief deviations from the general type of the ancient basilica, such as five aisles, pillars, angular form of the apse, omission of the portico, etc., have been used as well in the Christian basilica to which the original meaning of the word basilica, “the hall of the king,” could now again be applied.

As a rule, the building at this time was divided into three parts by columns, the well-lighted central part rose higher than the other divisions, and there was an apse. Only, in place of the former surrounding portico, or ambulatory, there was a side aisle to the right and left. There were also basilicas with five and seven aisles. The old construction of the basilica with an apse was well suited to the service of the altar. A transept extending more or less towards both sides was often placed between the nave and the apse both to serve practical needs and on account of its symbolism. The roofing of the transept together with the apse and portico produced variety in the exterior of the basilica. Vaulting, in the West, was used only at times in the side aisles; nothing beyond a flat roof was ventured upon for the very broad middle nave, and often, at the beginning, the rafters of the roof were left uncovered.

It was only after the fifth century that round or square side-towers came into use. These towers were first incorporated in the main building in Syria. The early Christian basilica showed a high, yet light construction, and was roomy and well lighted. The arcades with slender columns which led up to the altar were a particularly beautiful feature. The round form of the arches, of the window-heads, and the ground plan of the basilica were the first indications of the Romanesque style. The idea of a room in which the King of Kings gave audience naturally led to rich ornamentation. The back wall of the apse and the “arch of triumph,” which opened into the transept, were decorated with mosaics. The altar stood in, or before, the apse under a decorated baldacchino (ciborium). The walls were often adorned with pictures, and the floor was made of mosaic. Much use was made in the rich churches of beautiful woven stuffs and of fine goldsmith- work. If the employment of these symbols had a tendency to inspire pride, other observances produced humility of mind, as, for example, the symbolic washing at the fountain.

G. GIETMANN.

Basilides (1)

The earliest of the Alexandrian Gnostics; he was a native of Alexandria and flourished under the Emperors Adrian and Antoninus Pius, about 120–140. St. Epiphanius’s assertion that he was a disciple of Menander at Antioch and only later moved to Alexandria is unlikely in face of the statement of Eusebius and Theodoret that he was an Alexandrian by birth. Of his life we know nothing except that he had a son called Isidore, who followed in his footsteps. The remark in the Acts of Archelaus (lv) that Basilides was “a preacher amongst the Persians” is almost certainly the result of some confusion. Basilides invented prophets for himself named Barcabbas and Barcoph, and claimed to have received verbal instructions from St. Matthias the Apostle and to be a disciple of Glaucias, a disciple of St. Peter.

HIS SYSTEM

As practically nothing of Basilides’ writing is extant and as we have no contemporaneous Gnostic witnesses, we must gather the teaching of this patriarch of Gnosticism from the following early sources: (a) St. Irenaeus, “Contra Haereses,” I, xxiv, written about 170; (b) Clement of Alexandria, “Stromata,” I, xxi, II, vi, viii, xx, IV, xi, xii, xxv, V, I, etc., written between 208–210, and the so-called “Excerpta ex Theodoto” perhaps from the same hand; (c) Hippolytus of Rome, “Philosophumena,” VII, written about 225; (d) Pseudo-Tertullian, “Against All Heresies,” a little treatise usually attached to Tertullian’s “De Praescriptionibus,” but really by another hand, perhaps by Victorinus of Pettau, written about 240 and based upon a non-extant “Compendium” of Hippolytus; (e) Artistic remains of Gnosticism such as Abrasax gems, and literary remains like the Pistis Sophia, the latter part of which probably dates back to the end of the second century and, though not strictly Basilidian, yet illustrates early Alexandrian Gnosticism. Later sources are Epiphanius, “Adv. Haer.,” xxiv, and Theodoret, “Haer. Fab. Comp.,” I, iv. Unfortunately, the descriptions of the Basilidian system given by our chief informants, St. Irenaeus and Hippolytus, are so strongly divergent that they seem to many quite irreconcilable. According to Irenaeus, Basilides was apparently a dualist and an emanationist, and according to Hippolytus a pantheistic evolutionist.

Seen from the viewpoint of Irenaeus, Basilides taught that Nous (Mind) was the first to be born from the Unborn Father; from Nous was born Logos (Reason); from Logos, Phronesis (Prudence); from Phronesis, Sophia (Wisdom) and Dynamis (Strength) and from Phronesis and Dynamis the Virtues, Principalities, and Archangels. By these angelic hosts the highest heaven was made, by their descendants the second heaven, and by the descendants again of these the third, and so on till they reached the number 365. Hence the year has as many days as there are heavens. The angels, who hold the last or visible heaven, brought about all things that are in the world and shared amongst themselves the earth and the nations upon it. The highest of these angels is the one who is thought to be the God of the Jews. And as he wished to make the other nations subject to that which was especially his own, the other angelic principalities withstood him to the utmost. Hence the aversion of all other peoples for this race. The Unborn and Nameless Father seeing their miserable plight, sent his First-born, Nous (and this is the one who is called Christ) to deliver those who should believe in him from the power of the angelic agencies who had built the world. And to men Christ seemed to be a man and to have performed miracles. It was not, however, Christ who suffered, but rather Simon of Cyrene, who was constrained to carry the cross for him, and mistakenly crucified in Christ’s stead. Simon having received Jesus’ form, Jesus assumed Simon’s and thus stood by and laughed at them. Simon was crucified and Jesus returned to His Father. Through the Gnosis (Knowledge) of Christ the souls of men are saved, but their bodies perish.

Out of Epiphanius and Pseudo-Tertullian we can complete the description this: the highest god, i.e. the Unborn Father, bears the mystical name Abrasax, as origin of the 365 heavens. The Angels that made the world formed it out of Eternal Matter; but matter is the principle of all evil and hence both the contempt of the Gnostics for it and their docetic Christology. To undergo martyrdom in order to confess the Crucified is useless, for it is to die for Simon of Cyrene, not for Christ.

Hippolytus sets forth the doctrine of Basilides as follows:

There was a time when nothing existed, neither matter nor form, nor accident; neither the simple nor the compound, neither the unknowable nor the invisible, neither man or angel nor god nor any of these things, which are called by names or perceived by the mind or the senses. The Not-Being God (ouk on theos) whom Aristotle calls Thought of thought (noesis tes noeseos), without consciousness, without perception, without purpose, without aim, without passion, without desire, had the will to create the world. I say “had the will” only by way of speaking, because in reality he had neither will, nor ideas nor perceptions; and by the word ‘world’ I do not mean this actual world, which is the outcome of extension and division, but rather the Seed of the world. The seed of the world contained in itself, as a mustard seed, all things which are eventually evolved, as the roots, the branches, the leaves arise out of the seedcorn of the plant.

Strange to say this World-seed or All-seed (Panspermia) is still described as Not-Being. It is a phrase of Basilides: “God is Not-Being, even He, who made the world out of what was not; Not-Being made Not-Being.”

Basilides distinctly rejected both emanation and the eternity of matter. “What need is there,” he said, “of emanation or why accept Hyle [Matter]; as if God had created the world as the spider spins its thread or as mortal man fashions metal or wood. God spoke and it was; this Moses expresses thus: ‘Let there be light and there was light.’” This sentence has a Christian ring, but we must not forget that to Basilides God was Absolute Negation. He cannot find words enough to bring out the utter non-existence of God; God is not even “unspeakable” (arreton), He simply is Not. Hence the popular designation of Oukontiani for people who always spoke of Oukon, Not-Being. The difficulty lies in placing the actual transition from Not-Being into Being. This was probably supposed to consist in the Sperma or Seed, which in one respect was Not-Being, and in the other, the All-seed of the manifold world. The Panspermia contained in itself a threefold Filiation, Hyiotes: one composed of refined elements, Leptomeres, a second of grosser elements, Pachymeres, and a third needing purification, Apokatharseos deomenon.

These three Filiations ultimately reach the Not-Being God, but each reaches him in a different way. The first Filiation rose at once and flew with the swiftness of thought to the Not-Being God. The second, remaining as yet in the Panspermia, wished to imitate the first Filiation and rise upwards; but, being too gross and heavy, it failed. Whereupon the second Filiation takes to itself wings, which are the Holy Ghost, and with this aid almost reaches the Not-Being God. But when it has come near, the Holy Ghost, of different substance from the Second Filiation, can go no further, but conducts the Second Filiation near to the First Filiation and leaves. Yet he does not return empty but, as a vessel full of ointment, he retains the sweet odour of Filiation; and he becomes the “Boundary Spirit” (Methorion Pneuma), between the Supermundane and the Mundane where the third Filiation is still contained in the Panspermia. Now there arose out of the Panspermia the Great Archon, or Ruler; he sped upwards until he reached the firmament, and thinking there was nothing above and beyond, and not knowing of the Third Filiation, still contained in the Panspermia, he fancied himself Lord and Master of all things. He created to himself a Son out of the heap of Panspermia; this was the Christ and being himself amazed at the beauty of his Son, who was greater than his Father, he made him sit at his right hand; and with him he created the ethereal heavens, which reach unto the Moon. The sphere where the Great Archon rules, i.e. the higher heavens, the lower boundary of which is the plane where the moon revolves, is called the Ogdoad.

The same process is repeated and we have a second Archon and his Son and the sphere where they rule is the Hebdomad, beneath the Ogdoad. Lastly, the third Filiation must be raised to the Not-Being God. This took place though the Gospel. From Adam to Moses the Archon of the Ogdoad had reigned (Rom., v, 14); in Moses and the Prophets the Archon of the Hebdomad had reigned, or God of the Jews. Now in the third period the Gospel must reign. This Gospel was first made known from the First Filiation through the Holy Ghost to the Son of the Archon of the Ogdoad; the Son told his Father, who was astounded and trembled and acknowledged his pride in thinking himself the Supreme Deity. The Son of the Archon of the Ogdoad tells the Son of the Archon of the Hebdomad, and he again tells his father. Thus both spheres, including the 365 heavens and their chief Archon, Abrasax, know the truth. This knowledge is not conveyed through the Hebdomad to Jesus, the Son of Mary, who through his life and death redeemed the third Filiation, that is: what is material must return to the Chaos, what is psychic to the Hebdomad, what is spiritual to the Not-Being God. When the third Filiation is thus redeemed, the Supreme God pours out a blissful Ignorance over all that is and that shall so remain forever. This is called “The Restoration of all things.”

From Clement of Alexandria we get a few glimpses into the ethical side of the system. Nominally, faith was made the beginning of the spiritual life; it was not, however, a free submission of the intellect, but a mere natural gift of understanding (Gnosis) bestowed upon the soul before its union with the body and which some possessed and others did not. But if faith is only a natural quality of some minds, what need of a Saviour, asks Clement, and Basilides would reply that faith is a latent force which only manifests its energy through the coming of the Saviour, as a ray of light will set naphtha on fire. Sin was not the results of the abuse of free will but merely the outcome of an inborn evil principle. All suffering is punishment for sin; even when a child suffers, this is the punishment of its own sin, i.e. the latent evil principle within; that this indwelling principle has had no opportunity to manifest itself, is immaterial. The persecutions Christians underwent had therefore as sole object the punishment of their sin. All human nature was thus vitiated by the sinful; when hard pressed Basilides would call even Christ a sinful man, for God alone was righteous. Viewed in another way evil was a sort of excrescence on the rational soul, the result of an original disturbance and confusion. “Their whole system,” says Clement, “is a confusion of the Panspermia (All-seed) with the Phylokrinesis (Difference-in-kind) and the return of things thus confused to their own places.” St. Irenaeus and St. Epiphanius reproach Basilides with the immorality of his system, and St. Jerome calls Basilides a master and teacher of debaucheries. It is likely, however, that Basilides was personally free from immorality and that this accusation was true neither of the master nor of some of his followers. That Basilidianism, together with the other forms of Gnosticism, eventually led to gross immorality, there can be no doubt. Clement of Alexandria and St. Epiphanius have preserved for us a passage of the writings of Basilides’ son and successor, which counsels the free satisfaction of sensual desires in order that the soul may find peace in prayer. And it is remarkable that Justin the Martyr in his first Apology (xxvi), that is, as early as 150–155, suggests to the Roman emperors that possibly the Gnostics are guilty of those immoralities of which Christians are falsely accused. It is true that in this passage he mentions only Simon, Menander, and Marcion by name; but the passage is general in tone, and elsewhere Valentinus, Basilides, and Saturninus follow in the list.

WRITINGS

Nearly all the writings of Basilides have perished, but the names of three of his works and some fragments have come down to us.

(a) A Gospel. Origin in his Homily on Luke, I, states that Basilides had dared to write a Gospel according to Basilides. St. Jerome and St. Ambrose adopt this state of Origen; and St. Jerome, in the Prologue of his Commentary on St. Matthew, again speaks of an “Evangelium Basilidis.” In all likelihood this “Gospel” was compiled out of our canonical Gospels, the text being curtailed and altered to suit his Gnostic tenets, a diatessaron on Gnostic lines.

(b) A Gospel Commentary in twenty-four books. (Clement of Alexandria calls it “Exegetica”; the Acta Archelai et Manetis, “Tractatus.”) Fragments of this Commentary have come down to us (in Stromata, IV, 12–81, sqq.; Acta Arch., lv; probably also in Origen, Commentary on Romans V, i).

(c) Hymns. Origen in a note on Job, xxi, 1 sqq., speaks of “Odes” of Basilides; and the so-called Muratorian Fragment, containing a list of canonical and non-canonical books (170 or thereabouts) ends with the words: “etiam novu psalmorum librum marcioni conscripserunt una cum Basilide assianum catafrycum constitutorem.” This sentence, notwithstanding its obscurity, supports Origen’s statement. For a collection of Basilidian fragments see Hilgenfeld, “Ketzergeschichte des Urchrist” (Leipzig, 1884), 207, 213.

SCHOOL

Basilides never formed a school of disciples, who modified or added to the doctrines of their leader. Isidore, his son, is the only one who elaborated his father’s system, especially on the anthropological side. He wrote a work on the “Psyche Prosphyes” or Appendage-Soul; another work, called “Ethics” by Clement and “Paraenetics” by Epiphanius; and at least two books of “Commentaries on the Prophet Parchor.” Basilidianism survived until the end of the fourth century as Epiphanius knew of Basilidians living in the Nile Delta. It was however almost exclusively limited to Egypt, though according to Sulpicius Severus it seems to have found an entrance into Spain through a certain Mark from Memphis. St. Jerome states that the Priscillianists were infected with it. Of the customs of the Basilidians, we know no more than that Basilides enjoined on his followers, like Pythagoras, a silence of five years; that they kept the anniversary of the baptism of Jesus as a feast day and spent the eve of it in reading; that their master told them not to scruple eating things offered to idols; that they wore amulets with the word Abrasax and symbolic figures engraved on them, and, amongst other things, believed them to possess healing properties.

Although Basilides is mentioned by all the Fathers as one of the chiefs of Gnosticism, the system of Valentinus seems to have been much more popular and wider spread, as was also Marcionism. Hence, though anti-Gnostic literature is abundant, we know of only one patristic work, which had for its express purpose the refutation of Basilides, and this work is no longer extant. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., IV, vii, 6–8) says: “There has come down to us a most powerful refutation of Basilides by Agrippa Castor, one of the most renowned writers of that day, which shows the terrible imposture of the man.” With the exception of a few phrases given by Eusebius we know nothing of this Agrippa and his work. (See GNOSTICISM.)

Buonaiuti, Lo Gnosticismo (Rome, 1907); Duchesne, Hist. ancienne de l’Eglise (3d ed., Paris, 1907), I, xi, s.v. La Gnose et le Marcionisme; Bareille in Dict. de theol. Cath., s. vv. Abrasax, Basilide; Leclercq, Dict. d’arch. Chret., s.v. Abrasax; Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirch. Lit. (Freiburg, 1902), I; King, The Gnostics and Their Remains (2d ed., London, 1887); Mead, Fragments of a Faith Forgotten (London and Benares, 1900); Hort in Dict. Christ. Biog., I, 268–281; Mansel, Gnostic Heresies; De Groot, Basilides als erster Zeuge fur das N. T. (Leipzig, 1868); Urlhorn, Das Basilidianische System (Gottingen, 1855).

J.P. ARENDZEN

Basilides (2)

Martyrs bearing the name of Basilides are mentioned in the old martyrologies on three different days, namely, on 10, 12, and 28 June. Under the last date is placed the long list of Alexandrian martyrs who suffered during the persecution of Septimius Severus, and among these occurs the name of a Basilides. Eusebius gives an entire chapter of his church history (VI, v) to Basilides and Potamiana. After Potamiana had been sentenced to death Basilides, an officer of the court, led her to execution. He showed himself compassionate to Potamiana and kept back the heathen rabble who would have mocked her. Potamiana thanked him and exhorted him to be consoled, for after her death she would entreat the Lord concerning him and would reward his kindness. Shortly after this Basilides was called on to take an oath. He replied that he could not swear, and openly acknowledged himself to be a Christian. When taken before the judge he made an unwavering confession and was thrown into prison. He was visited by several Christians to whom he related that, three days after her martyrdom, Potamiana had appeared to him and had set a crown on his head with the assurance that the Lord would soon take Basilides to Himself. Basilides was then baptized and the next day he was beheaded. In the present Roman martyrology his name appears on 30 June. In the so-called martyrology of St. Jerome and in the present list of Roman martyrs the name of a Basilides appears on 10 and 12 June. On each occasion the name is accompanied by a statement of the locality of the martyrdom at Rome on the Via Aurelia. The names of the companions in martyrdom of Basilides vary on the two different days. The list for 12 June is very involved; apparently the same martyr is referred to on both days and for some reason his name is repeated on 12 June. The Acts of the martyrdom of a Roman Basilides are still in existence; they have, however, no historical existence and belong to a date considerably later.

EUSEBIUS, Hist. eccl. (Turin, 1746), VI, v, ed. VALESIUS, I, 228; Martyrol. Hieronym., ed. DE ROSSI and DUCHESNE in Acta SS., November, II, 77; MOMBRITIUS, Sanctuarium (Venice, 1474); Acta SS., Junii, II, 508 sqq.; ALLARD, Hist. des persecutions (Paris, 1866), II, 76 sqq.

J.P. KIRSCH

Basilinopolis

A titular see of Asia Minor. Originally a small village in Bithynia Prima, it obtained the rank of a city under, or perhaps shortly before, Julian the Apostate (Mansi, VII, 305). The first known bishop, Alexander, was consecrated by St. John Chrysostom about 400. Other bishops are Gerontius (451), Cyriacus (518), Sisinnius (680), Georgius (787), and Anthimus in 878 (Lequien, Or. Chr., I, 623–625). At Chalcedon (451) the see had been the object of a sharp contest between the metropolitans of Nicomedia and Nicaea about jurisdiction. Basilinopolis was finally made by the council a suffragan of Nicomedia (Mansi, ibid., 301–314); and it remained so until about 1170 under Manuel Comnenus (Hierocles, Synecdemos, ed. Parthey, 169). The see does not figure in a “Notitia episcopatuum” of the fifteenth century, the city doubtless having been destroyed by the Osmanli. Its exact site is not known. According to W. M. Ramsay (Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, 179), it was probably situated on the western side of the Lake of Nicaea (Isnik-Ghueul), near Bazar-Keui, between Kios (Ghemlek) and Nicaea (Isnik).

Lequien, Oriens Christ., I, 623–626.

S. VAILHÉ

Basilissa

Various female martyrs, attributed to different localities yet bearing the common name of Basilissa, are referred to in all the catalogues of martyrs both of early Christianity and of the Middle Ages; their names also appear in the calendars and liturgical books of the Greek and Roman Churches. Nothing is known positively as to any one of these sufferers for the Christian Faith; the Acts of their martyrdoms, so far as such exist, are purely legendary and originated at a later date. The fact, however, that the name occurs several times in the so-called martyrology of St. Jerome and in old Greek catalogues is certain proof that that a number of female martyrs named Basilissa were actually venerated in the ancient Church. At the same time, it is not impossible that the same martyr is recorded on different days. Among these saints should be mentioned: Julian and Basilissa of Antioch; in the martyrology of St. Jerome (ed. Rossi-Duchesne, 6) they are given as martyrs under 6 January. A later legend makes Basilissa the virgin wife of Julian and narrates that she died a natural death together with other virgins, while Julian suffered martyrdom in company with many other Christians during the Diocletian persecution. The same martyrology makes mention, under 12 March, of a female martyr Basilissa, wife of Felicio, and states the locality “in Asia.” On the next day 13 March, occurs the name of another martyr called Basilissa, wife of the presbyter Eustacius of Nicomedia. Later legends, which were accepted by the Greek menologies and synaxaria, speak of a virgin and martyr, Basilissa of Nicomedia, whose feast was celebrated on 3 September; this Basilissa is probably identical with the one just mentioned. On 22 March the names of two martyrs, Basilissa and Calinice, are given with the statement “in Galatia.” Under 16 April the old catalogues contain the names of a number of martyrs of Corinth, among whom appears a Basilissa; according to later accounts these sufferers for the Faith were all thrown in to the sea. Under the previous day, 15 April, two Roman matrons, Basilissa and Anastasia, are recorded; they apparently died in the persecution of Nero. Another female martyr of Rome, whose name is sometimes written Basilla and sometimes Basilissa, was venerated on 20 May. She was buried, it is stated, on the Via Salaria. The celebrated Roman martyr Basilla, who died in 304 and whose feast is entered from the year 354 under 22 September is the oldest known Roman catalogue of feasts (Depositio martyrum), was buried in the catacomb of Hermes on the Via Salaria Vetus. It is, therefore, a question whether the saint given under 20 May and this latter Basilla are not one and the same person; but the identity of the two cannot be positively affirmed. The present martyrology includes several of these saints; 9 January, Basilissa of Antioch; 22 March, Basilissa and Callinice; 15 April, Basilissa and Anastasia; 3 September, Basilissa of Nicomedia.

For Basilissa of Antioch and her companions, Acta SS., January , I, 570 sqq., and Mombritius, Sanctuarium, I, 216 sqq.; II, 45 sqq. For Basilissa and Anastasia, Acta SS., April, II, 372. For Basilissa and Callinice, Ibid., March, III, 277. For Basilissa of Nicomedia, Ibid., September, I, 609 sqq.

J.P. KIRSCH

Basil of Amasea

(Basileus or Basilius)

Bishop and Martyr. In St. Jerome’s Latin version of the Chronicle of Eusebius the statement occurs under the 275th Olympiad (A.D. 321–324) that Basileus, Bishop of Amasea in Pontus, suffered martyrdom in the reign of Licinius [ed. Schone (Berlin, 1875), 191]. There is no reason for doubting the trustworthiness of this information. Among the signatures of the bishops who attended the Councils of Ancyra and Neo-Caesarea (314) is to be found the name of Basileus of Amasea (Mansi, Coll. conc., II, 534, 548). Eusebius also relates (Hist. eccl., X, viii) that in the time of Licinius Christians were treated with great cruelty, especially in Amasea and the other cities of Pontus, and that, in particular, the governor inflicted upon several bishops the ordinary punishments of evildoers. St. Athanasius mentions the great Basileus of Pontus among the bishops of the early part of the fourth century who held firmly to the like substance of the Son with the Father; the reference is evidently to the martyr-bishop of Amasea (Athan. Opera, ed. Mannius, I, 122). The statement of Philostorgius [ed. Valesius; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. (Turin, 1748), III, 433], that Basileus attended the Council of Nicaea, cannot be quoted against this proof of the martyrdom of Basileus under Licinius, as there is evidently a mistake in what Philostorgius says; among the signatures at the Council of Nicaea appears that of Eutychianus as Bishop of Amasea. The Acts of the martyrdom of Basileus, supposedly written by an eyewitness, a presbyter named Johannes, are not authentic and the narrative is entirely legendary. The feast of Basileus falls on 26 April, on which date it occurs both in the Greek synaxaria and menaea and in the Roman martyrology.

Acta SS., April, III, 416–422; Surius, De prob. vitis Sanctor. (Cologne, 1571), II, 857–864; Tillemont, Memoires (Brussels, 1732), V, 219 sqq., 352 sqq.

J.P. KIRSCH

Basil of Seleucia

Bishop and ecclesiastical writer, date of birth uncertain; d., probably, between 458 and 460; was distinguished during the period when the Eastern Church was convulsed by the Monophysite struggles, and was necessarily obliged to take sides in all those controversies. Those of his writings which have come down to us, though somewhat too rhetorical and involved, prove clearly that he was a man of great literary ability.

He was appointed Bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, between the years 432 and 447, and was on of those who took part in the Synod of Constantinople, which was summoned (448) by the Patriarch Flavian for the condemnation of the Eutychian errors and the deposition of their great champion, Dioscurus of Alexandria. Curiously enough, though Basil seems to have agreed to these measures, he attended the Latrocinium, or Robber Synod, of Ephesus, held in the next year (440) and induced probably more by the threats and violence of the Monophysite party than by their arguments, he voted for the rehabilitation of Eutyches and for the deposition of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and was thus regarded for a time as a supporter of Monophysite opinions. Like the other prominent supporters of Dioscurus, he should have been removed from his see had he not in the meantime accepted the doctrine contained in the Dogmatic Epistle of Pope Leo to Flavian, and joined in the condemnation of Eutyches and Dioscurus. After this period he seems to have continued a zealous opponent of the Monophysite party, for we find that in the year 458 he joined with his fellow-bishops of Isauria, in an appeal to the Emperor Leo I, requesting him to use his influence in forwarding the Decrees of Chalcedon, and in securing the deposition of Timotheus Aelurus, who had intruded himself (457) into the Patriarchate of Alexandria. This is the last reference we find to Basil, and it is commonly supposed that he died shortly afterwards.

Forty-one sermons (logoi) on different portions of the Old Testament have come down to us under his name, and are found in Migne (P.G., LXXXV, 27–474), where is also his history of the protomartyr Thecla and of the miracles wrought at her grave (ibid., 477–618). Most of these sermons may be regarded as genuine, though some of them are now generally assigned to Nestorius. According to Photius, Basil also dealt in verse with the life and miracles of Thecla.

Hefele, Conciliengeschichte (2d ed.), II, 331, 375, 430; Fabricus-Harles, Bibl. Gr., IX, 90, 97; Lipsius, Die apok. Apostelgesch. (1887), II, I, 426, 432; Batiffol, Revue Bib. (1900), IX, 329–353; Bardenhewer, Patrologie (Freiburg, 1901), 468, 469.

JAMES MACCAFFREY.

St. Basil the Great

Bishop of Caesarea, and one of the most distinguished Doctors of the Church. Born probably 329; died 1 January, 379. He ranks after Athanasius as a defender of the Oriental Church against the heresies of the fourth century. With his friend Gregory of Nazianzus and his brother Gregory of Nyssa, he makes up the trio known as “The Three Cappadocians,” far outclassing the other two in practical genius and actual achievement.

LIFE

St. Basil the Elder, father of St. Basil the Great, was the son of a Christian of good birth and his wife, Macrina (Acta SS., January, II), both of whom suffered for the faith during the persecution of Maximinus Galerius (305–314), spending several years of hardship in the wild mountains of Pontus. St. Basil the Elder was noted for his virtue (Acta SS, May, VII) and also won considerable reputation as a teacher in Caesarea. He was not a priest (Cf. Cave, Hist. Lit., I, 239). He married Emmelia, the daughter of a martyr and became the father of ten children. Three of these, Macrina, Basil, and Gregory are honoured as saints; and of the sons, Peter, Gregory, and Basil attained the dignity of the episcopate.

Under the care of his father and his grandmother, the elder Macrina, who preserved the traditions of their countryman, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213–275) Basil was formed in habits of piety and study. He was still young when his father died and the family moved to the estate of the elder Macrina at Annesi in Pontus, on the banks of the Iris. As a boy, he was sent to school at Caesarea, then “a metropolis of letters,” and conceived a fervent admiration for the local bishop, Dianius. Later, he went to Constantinople, at that time “distinguished for its teachers of philosophy and rhetoric,” and thence to Athens. Here he became the inseparable companion of Gregory of Nazianzus, who, in his famous panegyric on Basil (Or. xliii), gives a most interesting description of their academic experiences. According to him, Basil was already distinguished for brilliancy of mind and seriousness of character and associated only with the most earnest students. He was able, grave, industrious, and well advanced in rhetoric, grammar, philosophy, astronomy, geometry, and medicine. (As to his not knowing Latin, see Fialon, Etude historique et littéraire sur St. Basile, Paris, 1869). We know the names of two of Basil’s teachers at Athens—Prohaeresius, possibly a Christian, and Himerius, a pagan. It has been affirmed, though probably incorrectly, that Basil spent some time under Libanius. He tells us himself that he endeavoured without success to attach himself as a pupil to Eustathius (Ep., I). At the end of his sojourn at Athens, Basil being laden, says St. Gregory of Nazianzus “with all the learning attainable by the nature of man,” was well equipped to be a teacher. Caesarea took possession of him gladly “as a founder and second patron” (Or. xliii), and as he tells us (ccx), he refused the splendid offers of the citizens of Neo-Caesarea, who wished him to undertake the education of the youth of their city.

To the successful student and distinguished professor, “there now remained,” says Gregory (Or. xliii), “no other need than that of spiritual perfection.” Gregory of Nyssa, in his life of Macrina, gives us to understand that Basil’s brilliant success both as a university student and a professor had left traces of worldliness and self-sufficiency on the soul of the young man. Fortunately, Basil came again in contact with Dianius, Bishop of Caesarea, the object of his boyish affection, and Dianius seems to have baptized him, and ordained him Reader soon after his return to Caesarea. It was at the same time also that he fell under the influence of that very remarkable woman, his sister Macrina, who had meanwhile founded a religious community on the family estate at Annesi. Basil himself tells us how, like a man roused from deep sleep, he turned his eyes to the marvellous truth of the Gospel, wept many tears over his miserable life, and prayed for guidance from God: “Then I read the Gospel, and saw there that a great means of reaching perfection was the selling of one’s goods, the sharing of them with the poor, the giving up of all care for this life, and the refusal to allow the soul to be turned by any sympathy towards things of earth” (Ep. ccxxiii). To learn the ways of perfection, Basil now visited the monasteries of Egypt, Palestine, Coele-Syria, and Mesopotamia. He returned, filled with admiration for the austerity and piety of the monks, and founded a monastery in his native Pontus, on the banks of the Iris, nearly opposite Annesi. (Cf. Ramsay, Hist. Geog. of Asia Minor, London, 1890, p. 326). Eustathius of Sebaste had already introduced the eremitical life into Asia Minor; Basil added the cenobitic or community form, and the new feature was imitated by many companies of men and women. (Cf. Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., VI, xxvii; Epiphanius, Haer., lxxv, 1; Basil, Ep. ccxxiii; Tillemont, Mém., IX, Art. XXI, and note XXVI.) Basil became known as the father of Oriental monasticism, the forerunner of St. Benedict. How well he deserved the title, how seriously and in what spirit he undertook the systematizing of the religious life, may be seen by the study of his Rule. He seems to have read Origen’s writings very systematically about this time, for in union with Gregory of Nazianzus, he published a selection of them called the “Philocalia.”

Basil was drawn from his retreat into the area of theological controversy in 360 when he accompanied two delegates from Seleucia to the emperor at Constantinople, and supported his namesake of Ancyra. There is some dispute as to his courage and his perfect orthodoxy on this occasion (cf. Philostorgius, Hist. Eccl., IV, xii; answered by Gregory of Nyssa, In Eunom., I, and Maran, Proleg., vii; Tillemont, Mém., note XVIII). A little later, however, both qualities seem to have been sufficiently in evidence, as Basil forsook Dianius for having signed the heretical creed of Rimini. To this time (c. 361) may be referred the “Moralia”; and a little later came two books against Eunomius (363) and some correspondence with Athanasius. It is possible, also, that Basil wrote his monastic rules in the briefer forms while in Pontus, and enlarged them later at Caesarea. There is an account of an invitation from Julian for Basil to present himself a court and of Basil’s refusal, coupled with an admonition that angered the emperor and endangered Basil’s safety. Both incident and correspondence however are questioned by some critics.

Basil still retained considerable influence in Caesarea, and it is regarded as fairly probable that he had a hand in the election of the successor of Dianius who died in 362, after having been reconciled to Basil. In any case the new bishop, Eusebius, was practically placed in his office by the elder Gregory of Nazianzus. Eusebius having persuaded the reluctant Basil to be ordained priest, gave him a prominent place in the administration of the diocese (363). In ability for the management of affairs Basil so far eclipsed the bishop that ill-feeling rose between the two. “All the more eminent and wiser portion of the church was roused against the bishop” (Greg. Naz., Or. xliii; Ep. x), and to avoid trouble Basil again withdrew into the solitude of Pontus. A little later (365) when the attempt of Valens to impose Arianism on the clergy and the people necessitated the presence of a strong personality, Basil was restored to his former position, being reconciled to the bishop by St. Gregory of Nazianzus. There seems to have been no further disagreement between Eusebius and Basil and the latter soon became the real head of the diocese. “The one,” says Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. xliii), “led the people the other led their leader.” During the five years spent in this most important office, Basil gave evidence of being a man of very unusual powers. He laid down the law to the leading citizens and the imperial governors, settled disputes with wisdom and finality, assisted the spiritually needy, looked after “the support of the poor, the entertainment of strangers, the care of maidens, legislation written and unwritten for the monastic life, arrangements of prayers, (liturgy?), adornment of the sanctuary” (op. cit.). In time of famine, he was the saviour of the poor.

In 370 Basil succeeded to the See of Caesarea, being consecrated according to tradition on 14 June. Caesarea was then a powerful and wealthy city (Soz., Hist. Eccl., V, v). Its bishop was Metropolitan of Cappadocia and Exarch of Pontus which embraced more than half of Asia Minor and comprised eleven provinces. The see of Caesarea ranked with Ephesus immediately after the patriarchal sees in the councils, and the bishop was the superior of fifty chorepiscopi (Baert). Basil’s actual influence, says Jackson (Prolegomena, XXXII) covered the whole stretch of country “from the Balkans to the Mediterranean and from the Aegean to the Euphrates.” The need of a man like Basil in such a see as Caesarea was most pressing, and he must have known this well. Some think that he set about procuring his own election; others (e.g. Maran, Baronius, Ceillier) say that he made no attempt on his own behalf. In any event, he became Bishop of Caesarea largely by the influence of the elder Gregory of Nazianzus. His election, says the younger Gregory (loc. cit.), was followed by disaffection on the part of several suffragan bishops “on whose side were found the greatest scoundrels in the city.” During his previous administration of the diocese Basil had so clearly defined his ideas of discipline and orthodoxy, that no one could doubt the direction and the vigour of his policy. St. Athanasius was greatly pleased at Basil’s election (Ad Pallad., 953; Ad Joann. et Ant., 951); but the Arianizing Emperor Valens, displayed considerably annoyance and the defeated minority of bishops became consistently hostile to the new metropolitan. By years of tactful conduct, however, “blending his correction with consideration and his gentleness with firmness” (Greg. Naz., Or. xliii), he finally overcame most of his opponents.

Basil’s letters tell the story of his tremendous and varied activity; how he worked for the exclusion of unfit candidates from the sacred ministry and the deliverance of the bishops from the temptation of simony; how he required exact discipline and the faithful observance of the canons from both laymen and clerics; how he rebuked the sinful, followed up the offending, and held out hope of pardon to the penitent. (Cf. Epp. xliv, xlv, and xlvi, the beautiful letter to a fallen virgin, as well as Epp. liii, liv, lv, clxxxviii, cxcix, ccxvii, and Ep. clxix, on the strange incident of Glycerius, whose story is well filled out by Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, New York, 1893, p. 443 sqq.) If on the one hand he strenuously defended clerical rights and immunities (Ep. civ), on the other he trained his clergy so strictly that they grew famous as the type of all that a priest should be (Epp. cii, ciii). Basil did not confine his activity to diocesan affairs, but threw himself vigorously into the troublesome theological disputes then rending the unity of Christendom. He drew up a summary of the orthodox faith; he attacked by word of mouth the heretics near at hand and wrote tellingly against those afar. His correspondence shows that he paid visits, sent messages, gave interviews, instructed, reproved, rebuked, threatened, reproached, undertook the protection of nations, cities, individuals great and small. There was very little chance of opposing him successfully, for he was a cool, persistent, fearless fighter in defence both of doctrine and of principles. His bold stand against Valens parallels the meeting of Ambrose with Theodosius. The emperor was dumbfounded at the archbishop’s calm indifference to his presence and his wishes. The incident, as narrated by Gregory of Nazianzus, not only tells much concerning Basil’s character but throws a clear light on the type of Christian bishop with which the emperors had to deal and goes far to explain why Arianism, with little court behind it, could make so little impression on the ultimate history of Catholicism.

While assisting Eusebius in the care of his diocese, Basil had shown a marked interest in the poor and afflicted; that interest now displayed itself in the erection of a magnificent institution, the Ptochoptopheion, or Basileiad, a house for the care of friendless strangers, the medical treatment of the sick poor, and the industrial training of the unskilled. Built in the suburbs, it attained such importance as to become practically the centre of a new city with the name of he kaine polis or “Newtown.” It was the motherhouse of like institutions erected in other dioceses and stood as a constant reminder to the rich of their privilege of spending wealth in a truly Christian way. It may be mentioned here that the social obligations of the wealthy were so plainly and forcibly preached by St. Basil that modern sociologists have ventured to claim him as one of their own, though with no more foundation than would exist in the case of any other consistent teacher of the principles of Catholic ethics. The truth is that St. Basil was a practical lover of Christian poverty, and even in his exalted position preserved that simplicity in food and clothing and that austerity of life for which he had been remarked at his first renunciation of the world.

In the midst of his labours, Basil underwent suffering of many kinds. Athanasius died in 373 and the elder Gregory in 374, both of them leaving gaps never to be filled. In 373 began the painful estrangement from Gregory of Nazianzus. Anthimus, Bishop of Tyana, became an open enemy, Apollinaris “a cause of sorrow to the churches” (Ep. cclxiii), Eustathius of Sebaste a traitor to the Faith and a personal foe as well. Eusebius of Samosata was banished, Gregory of Nyssa condemned and deposed. When Emperor Valentinian died and the Arians recovered their influence, all Basil’s efforts must have seemed in vain. His health was breaking, the Goths were at the door of the empire, Antioch was in schism, Rome doubted his sincerity, the bishops refused to be brought together as he wished. “The notes of the church were obscured in his part of Christendom, and he had to fare on as best he might,—admiring, courting, yet coldly treated by the Latin world, desiring the friendship of Rome, yet wounded by her reserve,—suspected of heresy by Damasus, and accused by Jerome of pride” (Newman, The Church of the Fathers). Had he lived a little longer and attended the Council of Constantinople (381), he would have seen the death of its first president, his friend Meletius, and the forced resignation of its second, Gregory of Nazianzus. Basil died 1 January, 379. His death was regarded as a public bereavement; Jews, pagans, and foreigners vied with his own flock in doing him honour. The earlier Latin martyrologies (Hieronymian and Bede) make no mention of a feast of St. Basil. The first mention is by Usuard and Ado who place it on 14 June, the supposed date of Basil’s consecration to the episcopate. In the Greek “Menaea” he is commemorated on 1 January, the day of his death. In 1081, John, Patriarch of Constantinople, in consequence of a vision, established a feast in common honour of St. Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom, to be celebrated on 30 January. The Bollandists give an account of the origin of this feast; they also record as worthy of note that no relics of St. Basil are mentioned before the twelfth century, at which time parts of his body, together with some other very extraordinary relics were reputed to have been brought to Bruges by a returning Crusader. Baronius (c. 1599) gave to the Naples Oratory a relic of St. Basil sent from Constantinople to the pope. The Bollandists and Baronius print descriptions of Basil’s personal appearance and the former reproduce two icons, the older copied from a codex presented to Basil, Emperor of the East (877–886).

By common consent, Basil ranks among the greatest figures in church history and the rather extravagant panegyric by Gregory of Nazianzus has been all but equalled by a host of other eulogists. Physically delicate and occupying his exalted position but a few years, Basil did magnificent and enduring work in an age of more violent world convulsions than Christianity has since experienced. (Cf. Newman, The Church of the Fathers). By personal virtue he attained distinction in an age of saints; and his purity, his monastic fervour, his stern simplicity, his friendship for the poor became traditional in the history of Christian asceticism. In fact, the impress of his genius was stamped indelibly on the Oriental conception of religious life. In his hands the great metropolitan see of Caesarea took shape as the sort of model of the Christian diocese; there was hardly any detail of episcopal activity in which he failed to mark out guiding lines and to give splendid example. Not the least of his glories is the fact that toward the officials of the State he maintained that fearless dignity and independence which later history has shown to be an indispensable condition of healthy life in the Catholic episcopate.

Some difficulty has arisen out of the correspondence of St. Basil with the Roman See. That he was in communion with the Western bishops and that he wrote repeatedly to Rome asking that steps be taken to assist the Eastern Church in her struggle with schismatics and heretics is undoubted; but the disappointing result of his appeals drew from him certain words which require explanation. Evidently he was deeply chagrined that Pope Damasus on the one hand hesitated to condemn Marcellus and the Eustathians, and on the other preferred Paulinus to Meletius in whose right to the See of Antioch St. Basil most firmly believed. At the best it must be admitted that St. Basil criticized the pope freely in a private letter to Eusebius of Samosata (Ep. ccxxxix) and that he was indignant as well as hurt at the failure of his attempt to obtain help from the West. Later on, however, he must have recognized that in some respects he had been hasty; in any event, his strong emphasis of the influence which the Roman See could exercise over the Eastern bishops, and his abstaining from a charge of anything like usurpation are great facts that stand out obviously in the story of the disagreement. With regard to the question of his association with the Semi-Arians, Philostorgius speaks of him as championing the Semi-Arian cause, and Newman says he seems unavoidably to have Arianized the first thirty years of his life. The explanation of this, as well as of the disagreement with the Holy See, must be sought in a careful study of the times, with due reference to the unsettled and changeable condition of theological distinctions, the lack of anything like a final pronouncement by the Church’s defining power, the “lingering imperfections of the Saints” (Newman), the substantial orthodoxy of many of the so-called Semi-Arians, and above all the great plan which Basil was steadily pursuing of effecting unity in a disturbed and divided Christendom.

WRITINGS

DOGMATIC

Of the five books against Eunomius (c. 364) the last two are classed as spurious by some critics. The work assails the equivalent Arianism of Eunomius and defends the Divinity of the Three Persons of the Trinity; it is well summarized by Jackson (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, VIII). The work “De Spiritu Sancto,” or treatise on the Holy Spirit (c. 375) was evoked in part by the Macedonian denial of the Divinity of the Third Person and in part by charges that Basil himself had “slurred over the Spirit” (Gregory Naz., Ep. lviii), that he had advocated communion with all such a should admit simply that the Holy Ghost was not a creature (Basil, Ep. cxiii), and that he had sanctioned the use of a novel doxology, namely, “Glory be to the Father with the Son together with the Holy Ghost” (De Sp. S., I, i) The treatise teaches the doctrine of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, while avoiding the phrase “God, the Holy Ghost” for prudential reasons (Greg. Naz., Or. xliii). Wuilcknis and Swete affirm the necessity of some such reticence on Basil’s part. (Cf. Jackson, op. cit., p. XXIII, note.) With regard to Basil’s teaching on the Third Person, as expressed in his work against Eunomius (III, i), a controversy arose at the Council of Florence between the Latins and the Greeks; but strong arguments both external and internal, availed to place Basil on the side of the “Filioque.” The dogmatic writings were edited separately by Goldhorn, in his “S. Basilii Opera Dogmatica Selecta” (Leipzig, 1854). The “De Spiritu Sancto,” was translated into English by Johnston (Oxford, 1892); by Lewis in the Christian Classic Series (1888); and by Jackson (op. cit.).

EXEGETICAL

These include nine homilies “On the Hexaemeron” and thirteen (Maran) genuine homilies on particular Psalms. A lengthy commentary on the first sixteen chapters of Isaias is of doubtful authenticity (Jackson), though by a contemporary hand. A commentary on Job has disappeared. “The Hexaemeron” was highly admired by Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. xliii, no. 67). It is translated entire by Jackson (op. cit.). The homilies on the Psalms are moral and hortatory rather than strictly exegetical. In interpreting the Scripture, Basil uses both the literal and the allegorical methods, but favours the literal system of Antioch. His second homily contains a denunciation of usury which has become famous.

HOMILETICAL

Twenty-four sermons, doctrinal, moral, and panegyrical in character, are looked upon as generally genuine, certain critical difficulties, however, remaining still unsolved. Eight of these sermons were translated into Latin by Rufinus. The discourses place Basil among the very greatest of Christian preachers and evince his special gift for preaching upon the responsibilities of wealth. The most noteworthy in the collection are the homilies on the rich (vi and vii) copied by St. Ambrose (De Nabuthe Jez., v, 21–24), and the homily (xxii) on the study of pagan literature. The latter was edited by Fremion (Paris, 1819, with French translation), Sommer (Paris, 1894), Bach (Münster, 1900), and Maloney (New York, 1901). With regard to Basil’s style and his success as a preacher much has been written. (Cf. Villemain, “Tableau d’éloq. Chrét. au IVe siècle,” Paris, 1891; Fialon, “Etude Litt. sur St. B.,” Paris, 1861); Roux, “Etude sur la prédication de B. le Grand,” Strasburg, 1867; Croiset, “Hist. de la litt. Grecque,” Paris, 1899.)

MORAL AND ASCETICAL

This group contains much of spurious or doubtful origin. Probably authentic are the latter two of the three prefatory treatises, and the five treatises: “Morals,” “On the Judgment of God,” “On Faith,” “The Longer Monastic Rules,” “The Shorter Monastic Rules.” The twenty-four sermons on morals are a a cento of extracts from the writings of Basil made by Simeon Metaphrastes. Concerning the authenticity of the Rules there has been a good deal of discussion. As is plain from these treatises and from the homilies that touch upon ascetical or moral subjects, St. Basil was particularly felicitous in the field of spiritual instruction.

CORRESPONDENCE

The extant letters of Basil are 366 in number, two-thirds of them belonging to the period of his episcopate. The so-called “Canonical Epistles” have been assailed as spurious, but are almost surely genuine. The correspondence with Julian and with Libanius is probably apocryphal; the correspondence with Apollinarus is uncertain. All of the 366 letters are translated in the “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.” Some of the letters are really dogmatic treatises, and others are apologetic replies to personal attacks. In general they are very useful for their revelation of the saint’s character and for the pictures of his age which they offer.

LITURGICAL

A so-called “Liturgy of St. Basil” exists in Greek and in Coptic. It goes back at least to the sixth century, but its connexion with Basil has been a matter of critical discussion (Brightman, “Liturgies, Eastern and Western,” Oxford, 1896, I; Probst, “Die Liturgie des vierten Jahrhunderts und deren Reform,” Münster, 1893, 377–412).

EDITIONS OF ST. BASIL

The editio princeps of the original text of the extant works of Basil appeared at Basle, 1551, and the first complete Latin translation at Rome, 1515 (autograph manuscript in the British Museum). The best edition is that of the Maurist Benedictines, Garnier and Maran (Paris, 1721–30), republished with appendixes by Migne (P. G., XXIX-XXXII). For fragments attributed to Basil with more or less certainty, and edited by Matthaei, Mai, Pitra, and others, see Bardenhewer, “Patrologie” (Freiburg, 1901), 247. Portions of letters recently discovered in Egyptian papyri were published by H. Landwehr, “Grieschische Handschriften aus Fayûm,” in “Philologus,” XLIII (1884).

GREG. NAZ., Prationes, especially xliii; IDEM, Epistolae; Carm. de vit=E1 su=E2; GREG. NYSS., Vita Macrinae; IDEM, Or. in laudem fratris Basilii; IDEM, In Eunom., I; SOCRATES, Hist. Eccl., IV, xxvi; VI, iii; SOZOMON, Hist. Eccl., VI, xxvi; VI, xv, xvi, xvii, xxii; RUFINUS, Hist. Eccl., II, ix; THEODORET, Hist. Eccl., IV, xix; PHILOSTORGIUS, Hist. Eccl., VIII, xi-xiii; EPHILEM SYRUS, Encomium in Bas., ap. COTELIER, Mon. Eccl. Gr., II; JEROME, De Vir. Illust., cxvi. The Vita Basilii by AMPHILOCHIUS is a forgery of about the ninth century. NEWMAN, Church of the Fathers, I-III

JOSEPH MCSORLEY

Ecclesiastical Use of Basin

Basins were extensively used in the Jewish Ritual and were in early use in Christian churches for ablutions and to receive lamp-drippings etc. The Missal prescribes its used at the “Lavabo” of the Mass; the “Cæremoniale Episcoporum” provides a basin for bearing the cruets and for the preparatory ablutions of bishops. They are ordinarily of ornamented metal.

JOHN B. PETERSON

Council of Basle

Convoked by Pope Martin V in 1431, closed at Lausanne in 1449. The position of the pope as the common Father of the Christian world had been seriously compromised by the transfer of the papal court to Avignon, and by the subsequent identification of the interests of the Church with those of a particular race. Men began to regard the papacy more as a national than a universal institution, and their feeling of religious loyalty was often nearly balanced by the promptings of national jealousy. Nor was the papacy likely to be strengthened by the events of the Great Western Schism (1378–1417), when rival claimants were seen contending for the throne of St. Peter and for the allegiance of the Christian nations. Such a spectacle was well calculated to shake men’s belief in the monarchical form of government and to drive them to seek elsewhere a remedy for the evils which then afflicted the Church. It was not strange that the advocates of a general council as the final arbitrator, the ultimate court of appeal to which all, even the pope, must yield, should have secured a ready attention. The success of the Council of Constance (1414–18) in securing the withdrawal or deposition of the three rival popes had supplied a strong argument in favour of the conciliar theory. It is clear both from the speeches of some of the Fathers of Constance as well as from its decrees that such a feeling was rapidly gaining ground, and that many people had come to regard the government of the Church by general councils, convoked at regular intervals, as the one most in harmony with the needs of the time. As a result, in the 39th session of the Council of Constance (9 October, 1417) we find it decreed: that general councils should be held frequently; that the next should be convoked within five years; the following seven years later, and after this, a council should be held every ten years; that the place of convocation should be determined by the council itself, and could not be changed even by the pope unless in case of war or pestilence, and then only with the consent of at least two-thirds of the cardinals. It was in accordance with this decree that Martin V convoked the Council of Basle, and it is only by understanding the feeling underlying this decree that we can grasp the significance of the dispute waged between Eugene IV and the council. Which was to govern the Church? Was it to be the pope or the council? That was the issue really at stake.

Whether Basle is to be regarded as a general council, and if so, in what sense, has been often warmly discussed. The extreme Gallicans (e.g. Edmund Richer, Hist. Concil. Gen., III, vii) contend that it should be reckoned as cumenical from its beginning (1431) till its end in Lausanne (1449); while the moderate writers of the Gallican school (e.g. Nat. Alexander, IX, pp. 433–599) admit that after the appearance of the Bull of Eugene IV (18 September, 1437) transferring the council to Ferrara, the proceedings at Basle can be regarded only as the work of a schismatical conventicle. On the other hand, writers like Bellarmine (De Concil., I, vii), Roncaglia, and Holstein absolutely refuse to number Basle among the general councils of the Church on account of the small number of bishops in attendance at the beginning, and the subsequent rebellious attitude in face of the papal decrees of dissolution. The true opinion seems to be that put forward by Hefele (Conciliengesch., 2d ed., I, 63–99) that the assembly at Basle may be regarded as cumenical from the beginning until the Bull “Doctoris Gentium” (18 September, 1437) transferred its sessions to Ferrera, and that the decrees passed during that period regarding the extirpation of heresy, the establishment of peace among Christian nations, and the reform of the Church, if they are not prejudicial to the Apostolic See, may be considered as the decrees of a general council. In accordance with the above-mentioned decree of Constance, the Council of Pavia had been convoked by Martin V (1423), and on the appearance of the plague in that city its sessions were transferred to Sienna. Very little was done except to determine the place where the next council should be held. An Italian city was looked upon with disfavour, as likely to be too friendly to the papacy; the French bishops and the Paris University were anxious that some place in France should be selected; but finally, owing mainly to the representations of Emperor Sigismund, Basle was agreed upon by all, and this choice having been made, the council was dissolved (7 March, 1424). As the time approached for the assembling of the council Martin V was urged from all sides to place no obstacle in the way, and though knowing the tendency at the time, and fearing that the council would lead to revolution rather than reform, he finally gave his consent and appointed Cardinal Giuliano Cæsarini as president (1 February, 1431).

The principal purpose of the council was to be the reformation of the Church in its “head and members,” the settlement of the Hussite wars, the establishment of peace among the nations of Europe, and finally the reunion of the Western and Eastern Churches. The demands of the Roman Curia, its constant interference in the bestowal of benefices, the right of appeal on all matters to the rejudice of the local authorities, the financial burdens involved in such instituttions as annates, expectancies, and reservations, not to speak of the direct papal taxation, only too common since the thirteenth century, had given just grounds for complaint to the clergy and secular powers of the different nations. These papal taxes and encroachments on the rights of the local authorities, both ecclesiastical and civil, had long been bitterly resented, especially in England and Germany, and it was because a remedy for these abuses was hoped for only from a general council that people regarded sympathetically the assembly at Basle, even at times when they did not agree with its methods. In addition to these, the question of simony, of concubinage among the clergy, or reorganization of diocesan and provincial synods, of the abuse of censures, especially of interdict, called for some reform in the discipline of the Church. But besides these disciplinary matters the teaching of Wyclif and Hus had found sumpathetic supporters in England and Bohemia, and notwithstanding the condemnation at Constance the Hussites were still a powerful party in the latter country. Though the death of their leader Ziska (1424) had proved a serious loss, the different sections still continued the struggle, and Emperor Sigismund was naturally anxious that an end should be put to the war which had already taxed his resources to the uttermost. Furthermore, the growing power of the Turks was a menace not alone to the existence of the Eastern Empire but to the whole of Europe, and made it imperative upon the Christian princes to abandon their internecine strife and unite with the Greeks in defence of their common Christianity agains the power of Islam. The movement in favour of reunion had been specially favoured by Martin V and by the Emperor John VII Pal ologus (1425–48).

The president of the council, Cardinal Giuliano Cæsarini, appointed by Martin V and confirmed by Eugene IV, presided at the first public session, but retired immediately upon the receipt of the papal Bull dissolving the council (December, 1431). The members then nominated Bishop Philibert of Constance as president. Later on, probably at the seventh general session (6 November, 1432), Cæsarini resumed the presidency and continued the guiding spirit in opposition to the pope till the extreme element under Cardinal d’Allemand of Arles began to gain the upper hand. In the general assembly (6 December, 1436) he refused to agree to the wishes of the majority that Basle, Avignon, or some city of Savoy should be selected as the meeting place of the council to be held for the reunion of the Greeks with the Western Church, but he continued to act as president till the 31st of July, 1437, when a decree was passed summoning Pope Eugene IV to appear at Basle within sixty days to answer for his disobedience. Cæsarini finally left Basle after the appearance of the Bull, “Doctoris Gentium” (18 September, 1437) transferring the council to Ferrara, and joined the adherents of the pope. After his withdrawal, Cardinal d’Allemand played the leading part and on the election of the antipope, Felix V, was nominated by him as president of the assembly. The nomination however, was disregarded by the members who thereupon elected the Archbishop of Tarentaise. The other members of the council who took a prominent part in the proceedings were Capranica who had been appointed cardinal by Martin, but who as hsi appointment had not been published was not admitted to the conclave on the death of Martin nor recognized by Eugene; Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, afterwards Pope Pius II; the renowned scholar Nicholas of Cusa; Cardinal Louis d’Allemand; John of Antioch; John of Ragusa, and the two canonists, Nicholas, Archbishop of Palermo, and Louis Pontanus.

Eugene IV confirmed his predecessor’s appointment of Cæsarini as president ont he very day of his coronation (12 March), but with certain reservations which were dictated by Eugene’s desire of holding a council in some city more convenient for the representatives of the Greeks. There was present at Basle on the day on which the council should have been opened (4 March) only one delegate, but by the beginning of April, three representatives arrived from the University of Paris, together with the Bishop of Chalons and the Abbot of Cîteaux. These six came together (11 April) and issued pressing letters of invitation to the cardinals, bishops, and princes of Europe. Cæsarini, who up to this time had been engaged in the crusade organized against the Hussites, endeavoured to reassure the delegates and to restrain their eagerness, while the influence of Sigismund was employed in the same direction. The pope wrote to Cæsarini (31 May) requesting him to settle the affair of the Hussites as quickly as possible and then to proceed to Basle for the opening of the council. On the reception of this letter the legate determined, after consultation with Sigismund, to remain with the military forces, but at the same time to dispatch two of his companions, John of Palomar and John of Ragusa, to act as his representatives at Basle. These arrived there on 19 July and held an assembly (23 July) in the Cathedral of Basle at which the documents of authorization were read, and the council declared formally opened. Though there were not a dozen members present the assembly immediately arrogated itself the title of a general council, and began to act as if its authority were secured.

Cæsarini, after the failure of his crusade against the Hussites, arrived in Basle on the 11th of September and a few days later (17 September), in accordance with instructions received from Eugene, dispatched John Beaup re to Rome, in the capacity of delegate, to inform the pope of the proceedings. The delegate who was unfavourable to the continuance of the council represented to the pope that very few prelates had attended, that there was little hope of an increased number owing to the war between Burgundy and Austria and the general unsafety of the roads, and that even the city of Basle itself was in danger and its people unfriendly to the clergy. On the receipt of this news Eugene issued (12 November) a commission to Cæsarini, signed by twelve cardinals, empowering him to dissolve the council, if he should deem it advisable,a nd to convoke another to meet at Bologna eighteen months after the dissolution. Meanwhile the assembly at Basle had entered into communication with the Hussites, requesting them to send representatives to the council, and, in case they complied, granting letters of safe-conduct. This was understood at Rome as indicating a desire to reopen for discussion questions of doctrine already settled at Constance and at Sienna, and as a result Eugene IV issued (18 December) a Bull dissolving the council and convoking anohter to meet at Bologna. th

Before the arrival of this Bull Cæsarini had already (14 December) held the first public session, at which were present three bishops, fourteen abbots, and a considerable body of doctors and priests. Naturally enough, the Bull of dissolution, though not entirely unexpected, gave great offense, to those present, and on the 3rd of January, 1432, when it was to have been read, the members absented themselves from the sitting to prevent its publication. Cæsarini forwarded to Rome a strongly worded protest against the dissolution, in which he pointed out the evil consequences which would result from such a step, but at the same time in obedience to the papal Bull he resigned his position as president of the council. Sigismund, who had already appointed Duke William of Bavaria protector of the council, was also opposed to the action of Eugene IV, as he had great hopes that through this council the Hussite controversy might be terminated; on the other hand, he wished to stand well with the pope, from whom he expected the imperial crown. Hence it is that while sympathizing generally with the council, he played the role of mediator rather than that of defender. Delegates were dispatched from Basle to secure the withdrawal of the Bull.

Many of the princes of Europe who had hoped for useful reforms from the labours of the council expressed their disapproval of the papal action, and more especially the Duke of Milan who was personally hostile to Eugene IV. Relying on this support the second public session was held (15 February, 1432) at which were renewed the decrees of Constance declaring that a general council had its authority directly from Christ and that all, even the pope, ar bound to obey it. Besides, it was decreed that the “General Council” now in session could not be transferred, prorogued, or dissolved without its own consent. Everything seemed just then to favour the council. Sigismund had a powerful army in Northern Italy; an Assembly of the French Clergy at Bourges (February, 1432) declared for the continuation of the council at Basle and resolved to send representatives; the Duke of Burgundy wrote that he would send the bishops of his own nation and would use his influence with the King of England to induce him to do likewise; the Dukes of Milan and Savoy were equally sympathetic, while the Paris University declared that the devil alone could have inspired the pope to adopt such a course. Thus encouraged the council held its third public session (29 April, 1432) in which the pope was commanded to withdraw the Bull of dissolution and to appear at Basle either personally or by proxy within three months. A similar summons was addressed to the cardinals, and both pope and cardinals were threatened with judicial proceedings unless they complied. In the fourth public session (20 June, 1432) it was decreed that in case the papal throne should become vacant during the time of the council, the conclave could be held only at its place of session; that in the meantime Eugene IV should appoint no cardinals except at the council, nor should he hinder any person from attending, and that all censures pronounced against it by him were null and void. They even went so far as to appoint a governor for the territory of Avignon and to forbid any papal embassy to approach Basle unless letters of safe-conduct had been previously requested and granted.

Sigismund was in constant communication with the pope and urged him to make some concessions. In the beginning Eugene IV agreed to allow a national council to be held in some German city for the reform of the abuses in the Church of Germany and for the settlement of the Hussite controversy. Later on, he was willing to permit the council at Basle to continue its discussions on church reform, the Hussite controversy, and the establishment of peace among Christian nations, provided that its decisions were subject to the papal confirmation, and provided, too, that a council should be held in Bologna, or some Italian city for the reunion of the Eastern Church. Sigismund forwarded this letter to Basle (27 July) and exhorted the delegates to moderation. On the 22d of August, the plenipotentiaries of the pope were received at Basle and addressed the council at length, pointing out that the monarchical form of government was the one established by Christ, that the pope was the supreme judge in ecclesiastical affairs, and that the Bull of dissolution was not due to the pope’s jealousy of a general council as such. They ended by declaring that the assembly at Basle, if it persisted in its opposition to Eugene, could be regarded only as a schismatical conventicle, and was certain to lead, not to reform, but to still greater abuses. In the name of the pope they made an offer of Bologna or some city in the Papal States as the place for the future council, the pope to resign his sovereign rights over the city selected, so long as the assembly should be in session. The council replied to this communication (3 September) by reasserting the superiority of a general council over the pope in all matters appertaining to faith, discipline, or the extirpation of schism, and by an absolute rejection of the offers made by the penipotentiaries.

In the sixth public session (6 September), at which were present four cardinals (Cæsarini, Branda, Castiglione, and Albergati) and thirty-two bishops, it was proposed to declare Eugene and his eighteen cardinals contumacious, but this proposal was postponed, owing, mainly, to the representations of Sigismund. In October, the standing orders for the transaction of the business of the council were drawn up. Without reference to their ecclesiastical rank the members were divided into four committees, on which the four nations attending the council should be equally represented. The votes of the cardinals or bishops were of no more importance than thos of the professors, canons, or parish priests; in this way it was secured tha tthe inferior clergy should have the controlling voice in the decisions of the council. Each committee was to carry on its sittings in a separate hall and to communicate its decisions to the others, and it was only when practical unanimity had been secured among the committees tha tthe matter was introduced at a public session of the whole body. This arrangement, whereby the irresponsible members had gained the upper hand, tended to bring affairs to a crisis. In the seventh public session (6 November) it was arranged that in case of Eugene’s death the cardinals should appear at the council within 60 days for the holding of the conclave. Shortly afterwards, at the eighth public session (18 December), the pope was allowed a further term of sixty days to withdraw the Bull of dissolution, under threat of canonical proceedings in case he failed to comply, and, finally, at the tenth public session (19 February, 1433) this threat was enforced, and in the presence of five cardinals and forty-six bishops the pope was declared contumacious and canonical proceedings were instituted against him.

Eugene IV, afflicted with bodily suffering, deserted by many of his cardinals, and hard pressed by Italian rebels, endeavoured by every means in his power, together with the support of Philip, Duke of Milan, to bring about a settlement. He proposed (14 December, 1432) an Italian town as the place for the council, allowing the assembly at Basle four months to settle up the Hussite controversy; on the rejection of this, he agreed that it should be held in a German city provided twelve impartial bishops and the ambassadors of the different countries so wished it. Later still (1 February, 1433) he accepted a German town unconditionally, and even went so far as to agree to accept (14 February, 1433) Basle itself in case the decrees against the papal power were withdrawn, his own legate allowed to preside, and the number of bishops present at least seventy-five. These offers were rejected by the council (March, 1433), the decree about the superiority of a general council renewed (27 April), and it was with difficulty that Duke William of Bavaria prevented the opening of the process against the pope in the twelfth general session (13 July). Meanwhile Sigismund had made peace with Eugene and had received the imperial crown in Rome (31 may, 1433). He requested the council not to proceed further against the pope until he himself should be present, and on the other hand he pressed the pope to make some further concession. In response to this appeal Eugene issued (1 August, 1433) a Bull in which he declared that he was willing and content that the council should be recognized as lawfully constituted from the beginning and continued as if nothing had happened, and that he himself would assist its deliberations by every means in his power, provided, however, that his legates were admitted as real presidents, and that all decrees against himself or his cardinals were withdrawn. This declaration coincided exactly with the formula sent by Cæsarini to the emperor (18 June) except that the pope had inserted “we are willing and content” (volumus et contentamur) in place of the words “we decree and declare” (decernimus et declaramus). This change was displeasing to the council, implying, as it did, mere toleration and not the approbation which they desired; so relying upon Eugene’s troubles in Italy with the Colonnas, the Duke of Milan, and others, they refused to accept even this concession. Finally, on the 15th of December, 1433, Eugene issued a Bull in which he accepted the formula “we decree and declare” by which he withdrew all his previous manifestos against the Council of Basle.

Thus peace was established between the two parties, but the reconciliation was more apparent than real. The papal legates were indeed admitted as presidents, but their jurisdiction was denied, their powers limited by the will of the council, they were even forced to accept the decrees of Constance which they did in their own name but not in the name of the pope (24 April, 1434), and finally when in the eighteenth public session (26 June) the Constance decrees were solemnly renewed they refused to attend. In spite of their efforts the council continued in its opposition to the pope, claiming jurisdiction in all affairs, political and religious, and entering into negotiations with the Greeks about the reunion of the Churches. At the twentieth public session (22 January, 1435) the reform of the church discipline was begun. Decrees were passed against concubinage of the clergy and the abuse of excommunications and interdicts. On the 9th of June, 1435, annates and all the customary papal taxes were abolished, although no steps were taken to provide for the financial status of the papacy. Later still the papal collectors were ordered to appear in Basle to render an account of their work and all outstanding debts due to the pope were to be paid at Basle. The papal delegates, especially Traversari and Anton de Vito, defended the rights of Eugene, but the moderate element was gradually losing control in the assembly, and the extreme party, gathered around Cardinal Louis d’Allemand, could no longer be restrained. No legislation had any chance of being passed unless directed against the Holy See. At last, after the papal deputies, Cardinals Albergati and Cervantes, had been received very badly at Basle (25 March, 1436), and after decrees had been passed regarding the future conclave, the papal oath, the number of cardinals, etc., Eugene IV realized that conciliation was no longer possible, and addressed a Note to the princes of Europe in which he summed up the injuries inflicted on the papacy by the council and requested the different rulers to withdraw their bishops from Basle and assist in the preparation for another general council from the deliberations of which something better might be awaited.

The council had previously opened communication with the Greeks (September, 1434) to determine where the assembly for reunion should be held. In December, 1436, it was proposed that the council should be held either at Basle itself, at Avignon, or in Savoy. Cardinal Cæsarini refused to put this proposal to the meeting, but on the motion of Cardinal d’Allemand it was passed. The pope refused to consent, and the deputies of the Greek Emperor protested against it (23 February, 1437), whereupon a new embassy was dispatched to Constantinople. The Greeks refused to come either to Basle or Savoy, and the people of Avignon had shown no desire that the council should be held there. A strong minority, including the papal legates, and most of the bishops present, wished that some Italian city should be selected; the majority, led by Cardinal d’Allemand and composed mainly of the inferior clergy, were opposed to this proposal, and after a disorderly session (7 May, 1437), at which both parties published their decrees, Eugene IV confirmed that of the minority, and the Greek ambassador declared it to be the once acceptable to the emperor. The revolutionary party now completely controlled the council. Against the wishes of C sarini, Cervantes, and Sigismund, the pope was commanded (31 July, 1437) to appear before the council to answer for his disobedience, and on the 1st of October he was declared contumacious. Eugene IV replied to these excesses by the publication of the Bull “Doctoris gentium” (18 September), in which it was stated that unless the delegates abandoned their methods and confined themselves for a limited number of days only to the Bohemian affair the council would be transferred to Ferrara. The reply was a reassertion of the superiority of a general council (19 October). Cardinal Cæsarini made one final effort to effect a reconciliation, but failed, and then, accompanied by all the cardinals except d’Allemand and by most of the bishops, he left Basle and joined the pope at Ferrara, to which place the council had been definited transferred by a Bull of Eugene IV (30 December).

Henceforth the assembly at Basle could be regarded only as schismatical. Most of the Christian world stood loyal to the pope and to the Council of Ferrara. Englad, Castile and Aragon, Milan, and Bavaria disavowed the assembly at Basle, while, on the other hand, France and Germany, though recognizing Eugene IV, endeavoured to maintain a neutral position. In a meeting of the French Clergy at Bourges (May, 1438), at which were present delegates from the pope and from Basle, it was determined to remain loyal to Eugene, while at the same time many of the reforms of Basle were accepted with certain modifications. It was on this basis that the twenty-three articles of the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges were drawn up (7 July, 1438). In Germany, after the death of Sigismund (9 December, 1437), delegates of both parties attended at Frankfurt (1438) to seek the assistance of the princes, but they declared for neutrality until a king had been elected, and even after the election of Albrecht II the attitude of neutrality was maintained till at last, in Mainz (March, 1439), they followed the example of France and declared for Eugene IV as lawful pope while they accepted many of the reforms of Basle.

In Basle itself it was resolved to depose the pope and in order to prepare the way for deposition three articles were drawn up, namely:

that a general council is superior to a pope;

that the pope cannot prorogue, or dissolve such an assembly;

that whoever denies these is a heretic.

Cardinal d’Allemand was the leading spirit in this undertaking. Against the wishes of the bishops and most of the ambassadors present, these decrees were passed (16 may, 1439), and Eugene IV was deposed as a heretic and schismatic (25 June). Immediately steps were taken to elect his successor. Cardinal Louis d’Allemand, eleven bishops, five theologians, and nine jurists and canonists formed the conclave, and on the 30th of October, 1439, Amadeus, ex-Duke of Savory, was elected and took the name of Felix V. Since his retirement he had been living with a body of knights, which he organized as the Order of St. Maurice, on the banks of the Lake of Geneva. He was closely connected with many of the princes of Europe, and the council stood in bad need of the wealth which he was reputed to possess. He named Cardinal d’Allemand president, but the conventicle resented this act of authority and elected instead the Archbishop of Tarentaise (26 February, 1440). Steps were also taken to levy taxes on ecclesiastical benefices to provide revenue for Felix V (4 August, 1440). But the election of an antipope alienated the sympathy of the world from Basle. Henceforth they could rely only upon Switzerland and Savoy. Disputes soon broke out between Felix V and the conventicle at Basle. It refused to allow his name to precede that of the council in the promulgation of its decrees, and he was unwilling to undergo the expense of supporting nuncios in the different countries. The sessions became less frequent, the relations between Felix V and the council were strained until, at last, in defiance of its wishes, he left Basle and took up his residence at Lausanne (December, 1442). Disappointed in the hope of securing the support of Sforza, Aragon, or Milan, the council held its last session at Basle (16 May, 1443), and decreed that a general council should be held in Lyons after three years; that until the opening of this the Council of Basle should continue its work, and in case the city of Basle should become unsafe that it should be transferred to Lausanne. No decrees of general interest were passed after this session. But it was some time before the princes of Germany could be induced to abandon the attitude of neutrality. At different diets, Nuremberg (1438), Mainz (1441), Frankfort (1442), Nuremberg (1443, 1444), Frankfort (1445), it was proposed that a new general council should be held to settle the disputes between Basle and Eugene IV. A sentence of deposition issued by Eugene IV against the Prince-Electors of Cologne and Trier who favoured Basle roused all the princes of Germany against him, and at the Diet of Frankfort (1446) it was resolved to send an embassy to Rome to demand the convocation of a new council, and, in the meantime, the recognition of the reforms effected in Basle; else they would withdraw from their allegiance. The Emperor Frederick III dissented from this decision and sent his secretary, Æneas Sylvius, to confer with the pope. At last, after long negotiation in Rome and Frankfort, an agreement was arrived at (February, 1447) known as the Concordat of the Princes. On their side they agreed to abandon the attitude of neutrality, while the pope restored the deposed princes and accepted with modifications certain of the reforms of Basle. In accordance with this agreement the Vienna Concordat was drawn up between the successor of Eugene IV and the Emperor Frederick III. The pope’s rights in the appointment to benefices were clearly defined, and the sources of revenue to take the place of the annates, then abolished, were agreed upon. Once this had been concluded, Frederick III forbade the city of Basle to harbour any longer the schismatical assembly, and in June, 1448, they were obliged to retire to Lausanne. Finally, after a few sessions at Lausanne, Felix V resigned and submitted to the lawful pope, Nicholas V. The members of the assembly also elected Nicholas as pope and then decreed the dissolution of the council (25 April, 1449).

It only remains to deal with the negotiations between the Council of Basle and the Hussites. The latter were invited, as we have seen, at the very beginning of the council, but it was only in the fourth session (20 June, 1432) that the conditions proposed by the Hussites were accepted, and prayers orderd for their return to the Church. About the beginning of January, 1433, nearly three hundred of the Calixtine party arrived, and after repeated negotiations in Prague and Basle, the four articles demanded by the Hussites were agreed upon with certain modifications. These were Communion under both kinds, though their priests were to teach that Communion under one kind was equally valid; free preaching of the word of God, but subject to ecclesiatical authority; the punishment of mortal sin, but only by a lawful tribunal; the retention of their temporalities by the clerics, who were however, bound to bestow their superfluous wealth according to the canons. These formed the Compact of Prague, agreed upon the 30th of November, 1433. Many of the more extreme sects, such as the Taborites, refused to accept this treaty, but after their defeat (Lippau, 1434) a better feeling set in, and a similar compact was proclaimed at Iglau in July, 1436, and enforced byt he Council of Basle (15 January, 1437).

The Council of Basle might have done much to secure reforms, then so badly needed, and to restore confidence in ecclesiastical authority. From all sides it was assured of sympathy and support as the one remedy for the abuses which existed. But under the influence of extreme theories and theorists it allowed itself to be hurried into an inglorious struggle with the pope, and the valuable time and energy which should have been given up to useful legislation were spent in useless discussions. It succeeded in fixing the eyes of the world upon the abuses, but without the pope it had not sufficient authority to carry through the necessary reforms, and as a consequence the secular rulers undertook what the ecclesiastical authority had shamefully failed to set right. It struck a terrible blow at the rights of the Holy See and shook men’s faith in the pope’s spiritual power at a time when his temporal sovereignty was in imminent danger. In this way it led directly in France, through the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, to the establishment of Gallicanism as a definite formula, while in Germany, through the long intervals of neutrality, people were prepared for the complete severance from the Holy See which was afterwares effected in the Reformation.

JAMES MACCAFFREY.

Diocese of Basle-Lugano

Basle-Lugano is the largest Catholic diocese of Switzerland. It is composed of the two Dioceses of Basle and Lugano which are united only by having a bishop in common.

I. THE DIOCESE OF BASLE

This has taken the place of the old Diocese of Augst (Augusta Rauracorum), the origin of which is obscure; a Bishop of Augst was a member of a council held at Cologne in 346. When Augusta Rauracorum sank into decay during the disorders of the migrations the seat of the diocese was transferred to the present Basle (Basilea), founded in 374 by the Emperor Valentinian I. No definite information has been preserved concerning the first bishops. The most important bishop in the early period of the history of the diocese is Hatto, a Benedictine from the monastery of Reichenau, who was a friend of Charlemagne; he was Bishop of Basle from the year 805. He issued a capitulary of great importance for his diocese, resigned his position in 822, and retired to Reichenau where he died in 836. During the episcopate of Adalbert (999–1025) the foundation of the secular jurisdiction of the Bishops of Basle was laid by the grants made by King Rudolph III of Burgundy; the king appointed the bishop administrator and protector of several religious foundations, bestowed a number of towns and territories on him, and conferred various rights, such as the right of coinage, hunting-rights, etc. Adalbert rebuilt the cathedral which had been pillaged by the Magyars and consecrated it with much pomp in 1019 in the presence of the Emperor Henry II and his wife. Adalbert’s immediate successors Ulrich II (1025–40) and Dietrich (1041–53) were included among the spiritual princes of the Holy Roman Empire. In the period following Adalbert’s administration the territory of the diocese was greatly increased, especially through gifts made by the Emperors Henry II, Henry III, and Conrad II.

As princes of the empire the Bishops of Basle were drawn into the struggle between the papacy and the empire; most of the bishops took sides with the emperors against the popes. Berengar (1057–72) promoted, in opposition to Alexander II, the nomination of the Antipope Honorius at a synod held at Basle in 1061; Burkhard of Hasenburg (1071–1107) was one of the most resolute champions of the imperial claims and a faithful partisan of Henry IV whom he accompanied to Canossa. Ortlieb of Froburg (1137–64) went with the Emperor Conrad III on a crusade to Palestine and took part in the Italian campaigns of Frederick Barbarossa; Ludwig of Ortlieb was also a partisan of the emperor and of the Antipope Paschal; Alexander III, therefore, deposed him in 1179. Among the succeeding bishops the most noteworthy were: Henry II of Thun (1238–49), who built the oldest bridge across the Rhine near Basle (replaced in 1904–06 by a new one; Henry of Isny (1275–86), a Franciscan, who after 1286 was Archbishop of Mainz, as was also his successor Peter Rich of Richenstein (1286–96), a devoted partisan of Rudolph of Hapsburg; Peter of Aspelt (1296–1306), later Archbishop of Mainz, who laboured to restore church discipline in his diocese. During the fourteenth century the prestige of the See of Basle declined; many of the bishops involved the diocese in debt in various ways; by taking part in the political quarrels, by feuds with the nobles living in Basle, and by quarrels with the city, which was rapidly growing in strength. The city of Basle brought nearly the whole of the jurisdiction over itself from the impecunious bishops and made itself almost entirely independent of episcopal secular rule. When John II of Münsingen (1335–65) was placed under the ban, along with the city of Basle, as a partisan of Louis the Bavarian, the citizens of the town threw the papal nuncio into the Rhine and forced the clergy to continue the church services or to leave the place. The earthquake of 1356 destroyed a large part of the city and also did much damage to the cathedral. John III of Vienne (1366–82) became involved in a dispute with Bern which led to a quarrel with Basle and the siege of this city by the bishop. The increased burden of debt thus caused was a source of great anxiety to the succeeding bishops, several of whom resigned their office. It was not until the episcopate of John IV of Fleckenstein (1423–36), who held two reform synods, that the see rose again to high reputation. The Council of Basle (1431–49) was held in the city of the same name during this episcopate and that of the following bishop, Frederick of the Rhine (1436–51). (See BASLE, COUNCIL OF.) The diocese suffered greatly at the time of the struggle of the Swiss confederation with Charles of Burgundy; many towns and castles were ravaged and burned during these troubles.

The Diocese of Basle attained its greatest extent in the course of the fifteenth century. The spiritual power of the bishops, but not their secular jurisdiction, extended over the entire northwestern part of the present Switzerland lying between the Rivers Aare, Rhine, and Doubs, over the southern part of the present Alsace as far as Rappoltsweiler and Schlettstadt, as well as over some small districts in Baden and France. The Reformation was to rob the bishops of a large part of their flock. At the beginning of the religious agitation the diocese was under the rule of Christopher of Utenheim (1502–27), one of the most distinguished of the Prince-Bishops of Basle. He was a friend of the arts and sciences and promoter of the new art of printing, then flourishing at Basle. In order to train and reform his clergy Bishop Christopher held in 1503 a synod at which excellent statutes were issued; he also called learned men as professors and preachers for the university that had been founded in 1460. This late measure, however, promoted the entry of the new doctrine. A number of the scholars who had been appointed, as Capito, Pellicanus, Oeeolampadius, and for a time also, Erasmus and Glareanus, took sides with the Reformers and worked for the spread of the Reformation. Basle became a centre for the printing and dispatch in all directions of the writings of the Reformers. Before long the Great Council and the citizens were split into two religious parties and internal disputes were common. Bent from extreme age, Bishop Christopher, in 1527, resigned his see. Before his successor Philip of Gundelsheim (1527–53) was able to enter the city, the party advocating the new doctrine obtained control, the Catholic members of the great Council were driven from office, the Catholic religion was declared to be abolished, the monasteries were closed, and the churches were plundered. The bishop changed his place of residence to Pruntrut (Porrentruy); the cathedral chapter went to Freiburg-in-the-Breisgau and did not return into the territory of the diocese until 1678 when it established itself at Arlesheim.

Succeeding bishops devoted themselves to repairing the severe losses which the diocese had suffered during the Reformation. The bishop who deserves the greatest credit for the restoration of the prosperity of the bishopric was Jacob Christopher Blarer von Wartensee (1575–1608). He made an alliance offensive and defensive with the Catholic cantons of Switzerland in 1580, proclaimed the decisions of the Council of Trent, held in 1581 a diocesan synod which bore good fruit, and brought back to the Church numerous subjects who had been estranged from the Catholic religion. He was ably seconded in his labours by the Jesuits whom he called in 1591 to Pruntrut and put in charge of the newly founded college. His successors followed in his footsteps, especially Joseph William Rink von Baldenstein (1608–28). In the course of the Thirty Years War the diocese suffered from invasions by the troops of Bernard of Weimar. During the episcopate of Bishop John Conrad von Roggenbach (1656–93) the cathedral chapter established itself once more in the diocese, at Arlesheim, as has been mentioned above. Bishop Conrad von Reinach (1705–37), who founded the seminary for priests and built Castle Delsberg, a residence of the prince-bishops, issued a series of ordinances in 1726 which curtailed the rights and privileges of the land. This caused a revolt that lasted into the episcopate of his successor Jacob Sigmund von Reinach (1737–43) and was only suppressed with the aid of French troops. The three leaders of the revolt were executed in 1740. An estrangement resulted that was not overcome in spite of all the efforts of the succeeding bishops, Joseph William Rink von Baldenstein 91744–62), Simon Nicholas von Froberg (1762–75), and Frederick Ludwig von Wangen-Geroldseck (1775–82).

The French Revolution put an end to the secular jurisdiction of the bishops. The prince-bishopric was occupied by French troops in 1792 and Bishop John Sigmund von Roggenbach (1782–94) fled to Constance. His territory was turned into the Rauracian Republic which after four months was incorporated, 1793, in the French Republic. Besides the loss of secular jurisdiction the bishop had also to forego a large part of his ecclesiastical diocese, for, according to the Concordat made in 1801 between Pius VII and Napoleon, a large part of the Bishopric of Basle was given to the Diocese of Strasburg. The next bishop, Francis Xavier von Neveu (1794–1828), resided first at Constance and then at Offenburg; he ruled only a small territory in the present Cantons of Solothurn, Aargau, and Bern. It was not until 1814 that the bishop obtained again the right to ecclesiastical supervision over the larger part of the former prince-bishopric; but his efforts to bring about the restoration of the secular power were unavailing. In 1815 the Congress of Vienna gave the territory of the diocese of the Cantons of Bern and Basle, with the exception of the portion already belonging to Germany. Not long after this, however, the Diocese of Basle was enlarged. After the disorders of the Napoleonic era the Swiss confederation had been reorganized; in order to make it equally independent in Church matters the Swiss part of the Diocese of Constance was separated in 1814 from that bishopric and placed provisionally under a vicar Apostolic. Long negotiations were entered into between the cantons in the territory of which these portions of the diocese lay, and it was finally resolved to carry out the plan that had been steadily urged by the Canton of Solothurn; this was, to revive the Bishopric of Basle and to define anew its boundaries. The negotiations with Rome were concluded in 1828; the Bull of Leo XII, “Inter praecipua Nostri Apostolatus munera,” issued 7 May, 1828, settled the boundaries of the new Diocese of Basle, and the Bull of 13 July, 1828, was solemnly read at Solothurn in the collegiate church of Sts. Ursus and Victor which had been elevated to a cathedral. Bishop Francis Xavier von Neveu died a few days later. The new cathedral chapter, which had been appointed, in order to bring it into existence by the pope, nominated as bishop the dean of the cathedral who had formerly been the administrator Apostolic, Anthony Salzmann (1828–54). The new Diocese of Basle, which is directly dependent on the Apostolic See, embraced at first the Cantons of Lucern, Bern, Solothurn, and Zug; in 1829 Aargau and Thurgau were added; somewhat later Basle, for the Catholic district of Birseek; in 1841 Schaffhausen, first provisionally, and then, in 1858, definitely although without confirmation from Rome.

The germs of many conflicts lay hid in this merely provisional new arrangement and in the uncertainty as to the legal relations of the new see. However, during the episcopate of Bishop Salzmann and that of his immediate successor Charles Arnold (1854–62), the founder of a seminary for priests at Solothurn, peace was fairly well preserved. During the episcopate of Eugene Lachat (1863–85) a struggle broke out, caused by the Old-Catholic movement which won many adherents in Switzerland. The liberal cantons of the Diocese of Basle (all except Lucerne and Zug) closed the seminary for priests in April, 1870, and forbade the promulgation of the decrees of the Council of the Vatican. When in 1871 the bishop, nevertheless, proclaimed these decrees, the majority of the cantons belonging to the diocese voted his deposition, 29 January, 1873, and dissolved the cathedral chapter, 21 December, 1874, which had refused to elect a new bishop. The bishop, being forced to leave his residence, went to Lucerne which, like the canton of Zug, had protested against the action of the other cantons and had remained faithful to the bishop. Here in Lucerne he continued to administer the diocese. His appeals to the federal authorities of Switzerland were rejected and the Catholic community was forbidden to have communication with him. It was not until the pontificate of Leo XIII that this unfortunate state of affairs was brought to an end and peace re-established. Bishop Lachat resigned his office in 1885 and was made titular Archbishop of Damietta and Administrator Apostolic of the newly formed Bishopric of Lugano (see below). He died in 1886. On 19 January, 1885, the Holy See appointed Frederick Fiala Bishop of Basle (1885–88). The new bishop sought to efface the traces of the late struggle and re-establish the cathedral chapter; he died 4 May, 1888. Leonard Haas (1888–1906) was appointed to the see 11 July, 1888. Bishop Haas was an eloquent preacher; he encouraged the use of congregational singing and held a diocesan synod in 1896. He was followed in 1906 by Dr. Jacob Stammler, born 2 January, 1840, and ordained to the priesthood in 1863.

STATISTICS

The present Diocese of Basle (excluding Lugano) embraces the Cantons of Basle, Bern, Lucerne, Solothurn, Aargau, Thurgau, and Schaffhausen; in 1900 it contained 444,471 Catholics and 903,400 Protestants. The majority of the inhabitants are Germans, although in the Canton of Bern some 6,000 Catholics speak French. For the spiritual direction of the Catholic community the diocese is divided into 8 deaneries, 14 rural chapters, 406 parishes, and 149 curacies and chaplaincies. The parishes in the Cantons of Zug and Schaffhausen are not united in a rural chapter. The secular priests number 660; the regular clergy (O.S.B. and O.M.C.) 85. The cathedral senate, which as the right to elect the bishop, consists of five resident canons (canonici residentiales) and six non-resident canons (canonici forenses); besides these there are seven cathedral capitulars, who do not belong to the cathedral senate. In 1907 the office of capitular was vacant. There is a collegiate church at Lucerne having an independent provost and 9 canons (in 1907 the canonries were not filled), and a collegiate church at Beromunster with 1 provost and 20 regular canons (the number of canons in 1907 was 17).

The schools for the education of the clergy are: a cantonal theological school at Lucerne with a seminary for priests, and at Zug St. Michael’s boarding-school for boys. The private seminary for teachers at Zug is entirely Catholic in character. In accordance with the Swiss constitution the public schools are open to members of all denominations, consequently there are no genuine Catholic parish schools. In the Cantons of Lucerne and Zug, which are almost entirely Catholic, instruction is given in many of the schools by Catholic teaching-sisters, who are obliged to pass a state examination. The male orders and their houses in the Diocese of Basle are as follows: Capuchins, 7 houses with 73 priests, 19 clerics, and 24 lay brothers; the Hermit-Brothers of Luthern, 1 house; the Benedictines of Mariastein, who were included in the Swiss congregation of the Benedictines, were driven in 1874 from Mariastein and have gone to Durrenberg near Salzburg; the Benedictines of Muri have gone for the same reason to Gries near Bozen, and the Cistercians of Wittengen to Meherau near Breganz. The female orders and congregations are more largely represented in the diocese than the male orders. These institutes and their houses are as follows: Benedictine nuns, 4; Franciscan Sisters, 1; Cistercians, 2; Clares, 1; Sisters of St. Francis de Sales, 1 house with a boarding-school for girls attached; Sisters of Charity, 5; Sisters of the Divine Providence, 1. There are large numbers of the Sisters of the Cross of Ingenbohl, who have charge chiefly of orphan asylums and hospitals and who act as attendants on the sick; also of the teaching Sisters of the Holy Cross of Menzingen, who carry on large institutes for girls at Menzingen, Baldegg, and Cham, and conduct, besides, 250 elementary schools, and 45 institutions for the poor, orphans, and sick in different parts of Switzerland. In addition to the three Catholic schools for girls mentioned above, there are similar institutions at Solothurn and Lucerne. The most important Catholic church of the diocese is the Cathedral of Solothurn, which was built, 1762–63, in the style of the Italian Renaissance; others worthy of mention are: the collegiate church of St. Leodegar at Lucerne (built 1633–35); the church of St. Oswald at Zug; the churches of the former monasteries of Fischingen, Kreuzlingen, and Beromunster; the church of the institute at Menzingen, etc. The most frequented pilgrimages are: Mariastein near Basle, and Vorburg near Delsberg. (See SWITZERLAND).

II. THE DIOCESE OF LUGANO

The Diocese of Lugano was erected by a Bull of Leo XIII (7 September, 1888). It includes the Swiss Canton of Ticino, where the population is almost entirely Catholic and Italian is the common language. Before the Diocese of Lugano was founded the Canton of Ticino was under the jurisdiction, in ecclesiastical matters, of bishops who were not Swiss. The smaller, northern part belonged to the Archdiocese of Milan, and, consequently, still uses the Ambrosian Rite; the other, and much larger part of the canton, belonged to the Diocese of Como. Soon after the formation of the Canton of Ticino, in 1803, efforts were made to separate it in its church relations as well as from foreign powers and to unite it in these with the rest of Switzerland. But it was several decades before the Great Council, in 1855, went thoroughly into the matter. Without consultation with the Holy See the Federal Council in 1859 declared the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Como and Milan to be abolished in the territory of Switzerland; after this negotiations were begun with Rome. No settlement of the question was reached until the pontificate of Leo XIII. By the convention of 1 September, 1884, made between the Curia and the Federal Council, Ticino was canonically separated from its former diocesan connections and was placed provisionally, under an administrator Apostolic, the pope appointing as administrator Bishop Lachat of Basle (see above). After Bishop Lachat’s death (1886) the new Bishopric of Ticino was formed by the Bull of circumscription “Ad universam” of Leo XIII (7 September, 1888), and united with the Diocese of Basle under the title of the Diocese of Basle-Lugano. The same year the Church of San Lorenzo was elevated to a cathedral. The union is merely a nominal one, for, although the Bishop of Basle is called the Bishop of Lugano he exercises no rights of jurisdiction in this diocese. It is, in reality, under the independent rule of an administrator Apostolic who has the rank and power of a bishop. He is appointed by the pope with the concurrence of the Bishop of Basle from among the members of the clergy of the Canton of Ticino. The first administrator Apostolic was Eugene Lachat; he was followed by Mgr. Vincent Molo (1887–1904), and Mgr. Alfred Peri-Morosini. The latter was born 12 March, 1862, and was consecrated 17 April, 1904.

STATISTICS

According to the Swiss census of 1900 the Diocese of Lugano includes 135,200 Catholics in a total population of 142,800 for the Canton of Ticino. For purposes of religious administration the diocese is divided into 14 episcopal vicariates, 5 rural chapters, and 248 parishes and chaplaincies; 54 parishes use the Ambrosian Rite; the other 194 parishes belong to the Latin Rite. The care of souls is exercised by 330 secular priests and 22 regular clergy. The cathedral chapter consists of an arch-priest and 16 canons (10 resident and 6 non-resident). The collegiate churches are: Bellinzona, a provost and 14 canons; Agno, a provost and 7 canons; Locarno, a provost and 8 canons; Balerna, a provost and 8 canons, and Mendrisio, a provost and 8 canons. Catholic institutions of learning are: the seminary for priests at Lugano; the episcopal seminary for boys, Santa Maria near Pollegio; the papal academy at Ascona; the College Don Bosco at Bellinzona; the Institute Dante Allighieri, conducted by the Somaschi, at Bellinzona, and the institute at Olivone. The orders and congregations in the diocese and the number of their houses are as follows: Capuchins, 4 houses; the Somaschi, 1; Benedictine nuns, 1; Augustinian nuns, 1 house, which has an academy in connection with it; Capuchin nuns, 1; Sisters of Mercy of St. Vincent de Paul, 2 (hospitals at Lugano and Locarno); School-Sisters of Menzingen, 2 (college at Bellinzona); Sisters of the Holy Cross, 3 (they also conduct an asylum for the deaf and dumb at Locarno); Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul, 1; Sisters of the Childhood of Jesus, 1; and the Sisters of the Divine Providence, 1. The most noted church of the diocese is the cathedral of San Lorenzo at Lugano, which was built in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and has a celebrated Renaissance façade; the most frequented place of pilgrimage is the shrine Madonna del Sasso not far from Locarno, which is the national shrine of the Canton of Ticino.

I. BASLE: Neugart, Episcopatus Constantiensis Alemannicus (St. Blasien, 1803, Freiburg, 1862, 2 vols.); Schneller, Die Bischofe von Basel (Zug, 1830); Touillat, Monuments de l’histoire de l’ancien eveche de Bale (Porrentruy, 1852–66, 5 vols.); Merian, Geschichte der Bischofe von Basel (Basle, 1860–62), 2 parts extending to 1330; Attenhofer, Die rechtliche Stellung der katholischen Kirche gegenuber der Staatsgewalt in der Diozese Basel (Lucerne, 1869); Vautrey, Histoire des eviques de Bale (Einsiedeln, 1884–86, 2 vols.); Schmidlin, Die katholisch-theolo-gische und kirchliche Litteratur des Bistums Basel vom Jahre 1750 bis zum Jahre 1893 (Bern, 1894–95); Fleiner, Staat und Bischofswahl im Bistum Basel (Leipzig, 1897); Daucourt, Les eveches suisses (Freiburg, 1901); Idem, Dictionnaire historique des paroisses de l’eveche de Bale (Porrentruy, 1893–1905, 5 vols.); Buchi, Die katholische Kirche der Schweiz (Munich, 1902); Slatus cleri omnium Helvetiae dioecesium (Solothurn, 1905).

II. LUGANO: Franscini, Der Kanton Tessin, historisch, geographisch und statistisch geschildert (St. Gall and Bern, 1835); Peri-Morosini, La questione diocesana ticinese, ovvero origine della diocesi di Lugano (Einsiedeln, 1892); Rahn, Die mittelalterlichen Kunstdenkmaler des Kantons Tessin (Zurich, 1893); Borrani, Il Ticino sacro (Lugano, 1899); Cantu, Storia della citta e della diocesi di Como (Milan, 1829–32, 3d ed., Como, 1899–1900); Motta, Bolletino storieo di Ticino “/I. (since 1879), and the works by Buchi and Daucourt quoted in the bibliography above.

JOSEPH LINS

Bas-relief

A sculpture executed upon and attached to a flat surface. The usual impression produced by an artistic relief is that about one-half of the actual proportions of the object are being seen in their third dimension of depth. Strictly speaking, however, relief sculpture is subdivided into various kinds. In alto-rilievo (Italian for “high relief”) the figures are sculptured partly or wholly in the round, that is, they project entirely, or almost entirely, from the surface of the block in which they are cut. The metopes from the Parthenon (Elgin Marbles) now in the British Museum are among the best examples of alto-rilievo. Mezzo-rilievo (Italian for semi-relief; French, demi-relief) presents figures that are rounded to half their natural proportions, but without detached parts. Basso-rilievo (Italian for low-relief; French, bas-relief) is a form of surface-ornamentation in which the projection is very slight. The finest known specimen of low relief is the frieze around the cella of the Parthenon; large portions of it are to be seen in the British Museum. The lowest kind of relief is that described by the Tuscan term rilievo-stíacciato (depressed or flattened relief). This scarcely rises from the surface upon which it is carved, and is mostly an art of fine lines and delicate indications. Donatello’s Florentine Madonnas and saints are among the best examples. Finally cavo-rilievo (Italian for hollow relief; French, relief-en-creux) is a method of concave sculpture in which the highest part or outline is on a level with the surface, while the roundness is considerably below it. Cavo-rilievo was practiced chiefly by the Egyptians whose hollow reliefs are known by the Greek term Koilanaglyphs.

Relief is the form of sculpture that comes nearest to painting, both having composition, perspective, and the play of light and shadow. Relief would seem to have much in common with drawing, though in reality less importance attaches to line than to the modeling of contour and to the true and effective rendering of chiaroscuro. The human form is undoubtedly the proper object of relief, which appears to be particularly suited to the representation of numerous figures in action. . In the Greek and Roman classic reliefs these figures are usually in processional order, engaged in historic or military events, or in the ceremonial of worship. Relief is well suited, also, to the portrayal of series of scenes, as in the bronze doors of various Italian baptisteries illustrating the Old and the New Testament. Figures and objects in relief are generally worked out in the same material as the background, though there are exceptions to this rule in Greek art, and in the decorative work of the Chinese and Japanese. In the larger reliefs marble, bronze, and terra-cotta are used exclusively; while in smaller works the precious metals and stones, ivory, stucco, enamel, wood, etc., predominate. The reliefs of the Egyptians and Assyrians, not highly plastic, were made more effective by the introduction of strong colors. The early Greeks also made use of polychromy, as instanced in the metope relief in the Museum of Palermo. In Gothic art and in the Renaissance it was the custom to tint wood, terra-cotta, and stucco, but not marble or stone. Relief is one of the earliest forms of sculpture practiced, and probably originated with the stone-cutters of prehistoric days, though clay and wood are supposed to have been the earliest materials employed, owing to greater facility in molding and carving them.

There is reason to believe that relief sculpture existed before the introduction of sculpture in the round, or when only rude figures of the deities had been attempted. The Babylonians, Assyrians, and Hittites practiced it contemporaneously with sculpture in the round. The Egyptians, though they employed a kind of low relief, especially on the interiors of buildings, made a still greater use of Koilanaglyphs. The Greeks, conceiving relief sculpture in its purely plastic sense, achieved the greatest mastery of the art. With them it was used both as an ornament and as an integral part of the plan when allied with architecture. Distinguishing strictly between high and low relief, they used the former between the triglyphs, and the tympana of the temples, and the latter in friezes, tombstones, etc. Certain fixed principles governed the Greek relief: the spaces were adequately filled the backgrounds never carved, and it was a rule that all heads should be at the same height from the base, whether the figures sat, rode, or stood (Isokepholeia). In the Hellenistic period a more picturesque and dramatic form of composition prevailed, and the backgrounds were carved in pictorial style. With the Etruscans relief was applied mainly in the artistic handicrafts. In Rome it frequently degenerated into a pictorial mode in which several planes were employed, but examples are still extant that are highly classic, e. g. the groups of the Arch of Titus, the continuous winding reliefs of the Column of Trajan, imperial sarcophagi (in the Vatican), and reliefs of the Capitol Museum, Rome. The Romans no doubt owed their finest reliefs to the Greek artists they harbored and employed upon themes taken from the history of Rome.

The Christian era inaugurated what might be mistaken for a new art, but the change was in subject more than in mode, for all the early examples show a great similarity to antique models in form, pose, and drapery. Christian relief appears mainly in the sarcophagi with their Biblical, Apostolic, or symbolic subjects: Daniel in the lions’ den, Moses striking water from the rock, the adoration of the Magi, the raising of Lazarus, the Good Shepherd. Heathen myths are also used, invested with a new significance: Orpheus is Christ, drawing the creatures of the wild by the sweet strains of his music, Ulysses attached to the mast is believed to typify the Crucifixion (O. Marucchi). Occasionally a carving on a Catacomb tombstone shows real merit, and the lamps adorned with Christian symbols are frequently artistic. As they depart from the classic tradition, however, Christian reliefs grow ruder and more imperfect. Those of the latter part of the second and the third century have little merit. The fourth century, in spite of the decline, bequeathes some specimens, now in the Lateran Museum; the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus in the vaults of St. Peter’s is highly esteemed as a work of art. When the Christian basilica replaced the cubiculum the influence of imperial Constantinople had substituted mosaics for both sculpture and painting. The few reliefs of that period that have survived bear a strongly Byzantine character, which is also apparent in all early Frankish workmanship, reliefs, ivory diptychs, etc. The reliefs of Ravenna, from the time of Theodoric, show the same influence in combination with the Teutonic spirit, as in the sixth-century sculptures of San Vitale. In figure-carving, however, there is a distinct tending from symbolism to realism. The rude Lombardic bas-reliefs of Milan and Brescia frequently border on the grotesque, but the authors went to nature for their hunting scenes and forms of animals. The bronze reliefs of the church of St. Michael, Hildesheim, Germany, are one of the legacies of the eleventh century; those of the Golden Gate, Freiburg, are considered the finest work of the late Romanesque period.

With the merging of the Romanesque into the Gothic, relief sculpture assumes a new character and a peculiar importance in its close association with architecture, and in the many uses it is put to in tympana, spandrels, etc. As a purely Christian and beautiful form of art it ranks high; numerous examples are extant, especially in the northern countries of Europe. In Italy it had small hold, for as early as 1300 Andrea Pisano, who is called a Gothic, was inaugurating a renaissance. Picturesque relief reached its fullest development in Florence, as in the baptistery doors of Ghiberti and the marble pulpit of Santa Croce by Benedetto da Majano. Donatello in his admirable high and low reliefs and the Della Robbias in their enamels return to a more plastic conception. During the entire baroque period (Michelangelo being the last Italian sculptor of the late Renaissance) works of a low order of inspiration prevailed. The Danish sculptor Thorwaldsen, influenced by the study of Attic models, produced reliefs of great beauty and plasticism. The works of Canova were likewise classics, though frequently cold and feeble. Rauch in Germany and Rude in France modeled spirited reliefs. In our day at the head of the admirable French school of sculpture stands Rodin, an impressionist and psychologist, producing unfinished reliefs which nevertheless are almost Greek in their imprint of life. In Germany, Austria, and England, fine reliefs, especially decorative works, are being modeled. In Spain and Italy the younger men are forming new schools of plastic work. In America, though good work in relief is done, sculpture in the round prevails. Everywhere the tendency is to neglect the distinction between the different kinds of relief, to be independent in method and treatment, and principles sway as of old between the pictorial the pictorial and the plastic.

LÜBKE, History of Art (tr. New York, 1877); GARDNER, A Handbook of Greek Sculpture (London, 1897); MARUCCHI, Lee catacombes romaines (Rome, 1890); PERKINS, Historical Handbook of Italian Sculpture (London, 1883); MÜNTZ, Les précurseurs de la Renaissance (Paris, London, 1882).

M. L. HANDLEY.

Bassein

A town situated twenty-nine miles north of Bombay in British India, and now of much historic interest as an old settlement of the Portuguese. It is the birthplace of St. Gonsalo Garcia, the only Indian saint, who was a companion of St. Philip de las Casas, the first native of America to be canonized. These two missionaries were in the group of the first martyrs of Japan, crucified on the hill of Nagasaki, 5 February, 1597. Bassein was the most important settlement of the Portuguese in the north of India, Goa lying farther to the south. In many respects Bassein was Goa’s rival in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as Bombay is of Calcutta now. The city of Bassein, in the island of the same name, was founded in 1536 by Nunho de Cunha, one of those intrepid Portuguese soldiers who distinguished themselves in India as warriors, administrators, and zealous workers for the spread of the Gospel. He conquered the island from its Mohammedan ruler, Bahadur Shali, King of Gujerat, and soon had a strong fort built in the south-western corner. The island is rich in timber, which was regarded in the sixteenth century as the best material for ship-building. Its fertility and position, together with its healthy climate, made it a commercial centre of some importance, and the home of many Portuguese noblemen.

Side by side with this early conquest and colonization the Gospel was spread by the zeal of the Franciscan missionary, Antonio do Porto, to whom is attributed the conversion of 10,156 pagans, and who is knows as the “Apostle of Bassein.” Father Antonio do Porto built at Aghasshi in the northern Bassein district, as early as 1535, an orphanage for the education and maintenance of forty boys, all converts from paganism, under the invocation of Nossa Senhora da Luz. This orphanage gave to the Church the first Indian martyrs known to history. In April, 1540, a Mohammedan force from Gujerat approached the orphanage, on the return from a fruitless attack on the Bassein fort. Nearly all the inmates of the orphanage had fled for shelter to the fort, but five of them had remained. These were at first urged to renounce their faith; failing in this, the Mohammedans cruelly tortured them, and locking them in a room set fire to it.

In 1542 the Jesuits came to Bassein. St. Francis Xavier visited the city of Bassein three times, once in 1544, and twice in 1548. During his last visit, in December, 1548, he founded the College of the Holy Name of God. The Jesuits on their advent divided both the missionary and educational work with the Franciscans, the latter labouring among the lower, and the former among the higher, classes. Other religious orders also found their way to Bassein, which became the centre of their missionary activity. In the college of the Jesuits in the Bassein fort St. Gonsalo Garcia was brought up from his early youth. He was born about the year 1564. At the age of sixteen he voluntarily accompanied some of the Jesuit fathers of the college, who were ordered to join the mission of Japan. He laboured with singular zeal as a catechist for eight years, having acquired the Japanese language marvellously within a short time. During that time he petitioned to join the order, but as his reception was delayed he left the Jesuits on the best of terms and became a merchant. He was blessed with an abundance of riches which he distributed largely among the poor.

Business interests often took Gonsalo to Manila, where he used to visit the Franciscan fathers and assist them as an interpreter in hearing the confessions of some Japanese Christians. On one occasion, when deep in prayer, he was inspired to seek admission into the Franciscan Order. He did so, and became an exemplary lay brother. On 21 May, 1593, he was sent back to Japan with a body of Franciscans to aid them in preaching the Gospel. The many conversions made by them caused a persecution which gave to the Church the first martyrs of Japan. There were twenty-six in number and were crucified on a hill at Nagasaki 5 February, 1597. They were beatified in 1627, and canonized in 1862.

Bassein was taken from the Portuguese by the Mahrattas in 1739, from the Mahrattas by the English in 1802, and is now a ruined town of much historic interest which no one who goes to Bombay fails to visit. The fort is perhaps the best of the ruined Portuguese fortifications in India. Bassein is a Christian oasis in the midst of the pagan and Mohammedan population of India. It has nine churches, twelve priests, and 16,119 Christians, all Catholics; a Protestant mission was opened in 1904 by the Ritualists but did not flourish and is now practically abandoned.

D’Cunha, History and Antiquities of Bassein; The Bombay Gazetteer, XIII, XIV; Fernandes, Life of St. Gonsalo Garcia.

P.A. FERNANDES

Joshua Bassett

Convert and controversialist, Master of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, England, under James II, b. about 1641, at Lynn Regis, where his father was a merchant; d. in London, in 1720. In 1657, after preliminary instruction by a Mr. Bell, he was admitted sizar of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, in care of a Mr. Bolt. He proceeded B.A. in 1661, M.A. in 1665, and B.D. in 1671. In 1664 he became junior fellow, and in 1673 senior fellow of his college. On the death of Dr. Richard Minshull in December, 1686, he was, by mandate of James II, elected Master of Sidney Sussex College. He was installed without the usual oaths, and in January declared himself a Catholic. He had Mass celebrated in his private rooms, and altered some of the college statutes which stood in the way of his co-religionists. He was concerned in the famous dispute which arose when the king demanded that the university confer the degree of M.A. upon the Benedictine, Alban Francis. After the Revolution, when Bassett, having left the college in haste, desired to take away his personal belongings, he was threatened with arrest as a priest. It is thought, however, that Bassett had not been ordained. He died in extreme poverty.

The critics of Bassett admitted that he possessed learning and ability, but objected to his pride and to his interference, for religious reasons, with college regulations and routine. He forbade a chapel service on the 5th of November, disciplined a speaker who had satirized Rome, and threatened to take over the chapel for Catholic services. Craven, who was Master of Sidney Sussex College, declared in 1725 that Bassett “had so many nostrums in his religion that no part of the Roman Church could own him.” Gillow believes that Bassett acted in his conversion from a thorough conviction. His known or supposed writings are: (1) “Ecclesiae Theoria Nova Dodwelliana Exposita” (1713), the only work containing his name on the title page; (2) “Reason and Authority” (1687); (3) “Essay towards a proposal for a Catholic communion . . . by a minister of the Church of England” (1704); this was reprinted in 1879, with an introduction, in “An Eirenicon of the Eighteenth Century” by H. N. Oxenham; (4) Occasional verses in the University collections.

Cooper in Dict. Nat. Biog., III, 381; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Engl. Cath., I, 153; Macaulay, History of England.

J. V. CROWNE.

Matthew of Bassi

Founder and first Superior-General of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchins, the principal branch issued from the Reform of the Observance, b. in 1495, at Bascio, Diocese of Montefeltro, in the Duchy of Urbino; d. at Venice in 1552. At the age of seventeen he entered the Order of the Observants at Montefiorentino. In 1525 he was a priest and missionary, being a member of the Reformed Province of Ancona. Moved by the need for reform which was felt almost all through the Franciscan family, he resolved, in 1525, the year of the Jubilee, to begin a more austere life, choosing a form of garb more resembling that of St. Francis. Clement VII granted his request and also permitted him to preach everywhere and to have a companion. Some other members of the Observance asked and obtained permission to join him, and on the 3d of July, 1528, the pope isue the Bull “Religionis zelus,” by which the new Reform was cononically approved and placed under the nominal jurisdiction of the Conventuals. The name “Capuchin,” at first given by the people to the new Franciscan monks, was afterwards officially adopted. In the pontifical decrees Bassi’s followers are variously style “Capucini,” “Capuciati,” “Capulati,” and “Fratres de Observantiâ Capucinorum.”

In April, 1529, the new order held its first chapter at Albacina, where Matthew of Bassi was elected vicar-general by acclamation. A code of constitutions which was to serve as a basis to the Reform was elaborated. But the humble founder did not hold his charge very long. After visiting his brethren, wishing to resume his apostolic career, and perhaps feeling powerless against the difficulties which menaced his disciples, he resigned his office. Thenceforward he took no part in the government of the order. He even decided, about 1537, to return to the obedience of the Observants, through fear of incurring some ecclesiastical censure. As it was, these last had obtained, at different times, Bulls or Decrees against the new Reform. Bassi preached through the whole of Italy and part of Germany. He died at Venice, in the midst of his labours, and was buried in the Church of the Observants of that city in the presence of a vast concourse of people attracted by his reputation as a saint. The following eulogy by Arthur du Monstier is read in the Franciscan Martyrologium under the 3d of August: “There died at Venice, Blessed Matthew, confessor, founder of the congregation of Capuchins. His continual fastings, vigils and prayer, his most high poverty and ardent zeal for souls, lastly his extraordinary holiness and the gift of miracles made his memory glorious.”

Joan, de Terranova, Chronica de origine fratrum capucinorum s. Francisci, in Acta SS., VIII, 4 Maii, 281–289; De Lisbonne, Chronica dos Menores (Lisbon, 1615); Boverius, Annales Capucinorum, (Lyons, 1632); Wadding, Annales Minorum (Lyons, 1647); Bullarium Capucinorum (Rome); Chronica historico-legalis seraphici Ordinis FF. Min.(Naples, 1650), I, 258; Da Cesinale, Storia delle Missione dei Cappucincini (Paris, 1867); Patrem, Tableau synoptique de l’histoire de tout l’Ordre séraphique (Paris, 1879); Analecta Ord. Min. Capuc.; Palomès, Des fréres mineurs et de leurs dénominations (Palermo, 1901); De Pavie, L’Aquitaine séraphique (Vanves, 1905), II, xi, 183.

F. CANDIDE.

Bassianus

Bishop of Ephesus (444–448). As a priest of Ephesus the charities of Bassianus so won the affection of the people that his bishop, Mennon, aroused to jealousy, sought his removal by promoting him to the Bishopric of Evaza. Bassianus repudiated the consecration to which he was violently forced to submit, an attitude approved by Mennon’s successor, Basil. On the latter’s death (444) Bassianus succeeded him and though popular enthusiasm disregarded canonical procedure his election was confirmed by Theodosius II and reluctantly by Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople. Bassianus reigned undisturbed for four years. At the Easter celebration in 448 he was seized by a mob and imprisoned. The emperor was importuned to remove him, and the case was referred to Pope Leo I and the Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, who declared the election invalid. Stephen, whom Bassianus called the ringleader of his opponents, was elected in his stead. The Council of Chalcedon on 29 October, 451, considered the plea of Bassianus for reinstatement and was disposed to favour him, but owing to the complex irregularities of the case it was deemed advisable to declare the see vacant. Bassianus and Stephen were retired on a pension with episcopal dignity. During the process Stephen cited Pope Leo’s letter deposing Bassianus, a document unfortunately lost.

Hardouin, Acta Concil. (Paris, 1714), II, 546–558; Tillemont, Memoires (Venice, 1722), XV, 460–465, 690–692, 895–896; Hefele, Conciliengesch. (Freiburg, 1875), II, 495–497; tr. (Edinburgh, 1883), III, 370–376; Venables in Dict. Christ. Biog., I, 298.

JOHN B. PETERSON

Claude-Frédéric Bastiat

A French economist, b. at Mugron, a small city in the Department of Landes, 29 June, 1801; d. at Rome, 24 December, 1850. He was the son of Pierre Bastiat, whose father had founded at Bayonne a business house that prospered in consequence of the franchise granted this port by the Treaty of Versailles, but ceased to flourish under the prohibitory regime of the Empire. The widely different effects of these two economic systems upon the fortunes of his family undoubtedly gave rise to Bastiat’s free-trade opinions. Left an orphan at the age of nine, he was brought up by his paternal grandfather and, after pursuing his studies at St. Sever and Sorèze, entered the business founded by his grandfather and then conducted by his uncle at Bayonne. Returning to Mugron in 1825, he inherited an extensive estate through the death of his grandfather, and subsequently devoted himself to farming. After the Revolution of 1830 he was appointed justice of the peace at Mugron and, being deeply interested in political economy, gave himself up to it with great earnestness and constituted himself the champion of commercial liberty. In 1841 he published his first essay “Le fisc et la vigne” and, apprised of the free-trade movement that Cobden was then directing in England, joined forces with him. In 1844, his article, “L’influence des tarifs anglais et francais” in the “Journal des Economistes” opened his way to fame. Then, appeared successively: “Sophismes économiques“, “Cobden et la ligue,” and several pamphlets, one of which, “Pétition des marchands de chandelles“, against the sun that interferes with the candle merchants’ trade, is a little masterpiece of verve and delicate irony. Elected to the Constituent Assembly in 1848, and then to the Legislative Assembly, he became the implacable enemy of socialism, against which he wrote: “Propriété et loi,” “Capital et rente“, “Justice et fraternité,” “Protectionisme et communisme,” and other treatises. In 1849 he published “Harmonies économiques,” which the illness that had already undermined his health prevented him from finishing.

Bastiat belonged to the Liberal school and enunciated its principles on the following liens: “Let men work, trade, learn, form partnerships, act and react upon one another, since according to the decrees of Providence, naught save order, harmony, and progress can spring from their intelligent spontaneity.” (Harmonies, p. 12.) Of a sincere and generous nature he was fitted to understand and defend Catholic truth; but the prejudices in the midst of which he lived kept him aloof from the Faith until the very eve of his death. It was in Rome that his eyes were opened to the light of Catholicism, and Prodhon, his enemy, says that in his last hour Bastiat cried out with Polyeucte: “I see, I know, I believe; I am a Christian.” Some time before his death he declared that if God would but grant him a new lease of life he would devote his energy to the development of Christian harmony and political economy, but he did not live to fulfill his vow. Bastiat’s complete works were published by Guillaumin (Paris, 1854, 1872).

Baunard, La Foi et ses victoires (Paris, 1884–1902), II, 107; Perrin, Les doctrines economiques depuis un siecle (Paris, 1880), IX, 125; Gardelle, Frederic Bastiat (discourse at the reopening of the Court of Appeals at Pau, 1879); Passy, Notice biographique sur Frederic Bastiat (Paris, 1855); De Fontenay, Notice sur la vie et les ecrits des Frederic Bastiat (introduction to his works); De Molinari, F. Bastiat, in Journal des economistes, XXVII, 15 Feb., 1851; Macleod in Dict. Of Political Economy.

STANISLAS A. LORTIE

Guillaume-André-Réné Baston

A French theologian, b. at Rouen, 29 November, 1741; d. at Saint-Laurent, 26 September, 1825. He studied theology at St. Sulpice in Paris and finished his studies at Angers. He was then appointed professor of theology at Rouen. During the Revolution he wrote against the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Having refused to take the oath, he was obliged to go into exile (1792), first to London, then to Holland, and finally to Kosfeld in Westphalia. In 1803 he returned to Rouen, where he was appointed vicar-general and dean of the chapter by Archbishop Cambacérès. As a Gallican, he won the favour of Napoleon, who appointed him Bishop of Séez (1813) and the chapter of the cathedral accepted him as capitular vicar. Pope Pius VII failing to approve of this nomination, the cathedral chapter revoked the nomination (1814), and Baston went into retirement at Saint-Laurent near Pont-Audemer, where he died. Baston was the author of numerous works on theology, the most important being “Lectiones theologicae,” written while he was professor theology, in collaboration with Abbé Tuvache (10 vols., Rouen, 1818), and he published several polemical works on the subject of theology: “Réponse au mémoire et à la consulation de M. Linguet, touchant l’indissolubilité du mariage” (Paris, 1772); “Les entretiens du pape Ganganelli” (Clement XIV) (Antwerp, 1777); “Voltairimeros, ou première journée de M. de Voltaire dans l’autre monde” (Brussels, 1779). During the Revolution he wrote many pamphlets against the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and his book “Doctrine catholique sur le mariage” (1791) was published about the same time. During his exile in Kösfeld he began his “Mémoires,” edited lately by the Société d’histoire contemporaine (3 vols., Paris, 1897–99). In his last years he wrote “Réclamation pour l’Eglise de France et pour la vérité contra l’ouvrage de M. le comte de Maistre [Du Pape]” (Rouen, 1821); “Antidote contre les erreurs et la réputation de l’Essai sur l’indifférence en matière de religion” (Paris, 1823); “Concordance des lois civiles et des lois ecclésiastiques touchant le mariage” (Paris, 1824).

Memoires de l’Abbe Baston, ed. Loth and Verger (Paris, 1897); Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1895), III; Bellamy in s. v.

G.M. SAUVAGE

Prefecture Apostolic of Basutoland

(Prefecture Apostolic of Basutoland)

Basutoland, a mountainous district of South Africa, is bounded on the north and west by the Orange River Colony, on the easy by Natal, and on the south by Cape Colony. It has an area of 10,293 square miles. The white population is about 700 and natives number about 309,000. The chief town is Maseru. The county is administered by native chiefs under an acting British Resident Commissioner who meets the National Assembly or “Pitso” in council once a year. Whites require special permission to settle in the country. The climate is healthful, though cold in winter, while the summer is characterized by heavy rains. The country has no railway nor roads properly so called. Basutoland was annexed to Cape Colony in 1871, and became a British Crown Colony in 1884. The inhabitants, till about 1820, were Bushmen of a low type but they have been replaced by highly intelligent Kafirs. The principal articles of export are wheat, mealies, and wool, Kafir corn, mohair, and cattle.

Basutoland, first a part of the Vicariate Apostolic of Natal, and later of the Vicariate of Kimberley, was made an independent prefecture by the Holy See on 8 May, 1894. It comprises the whole of the territory known as Basutoland. The first prefect Apostolic of the new ecclesiastical territory was the Rev. Father Monginoux, O.M.I.; he was succeeded by the Rev. Father Baudry, O.M.I., and the latter by the Rev. Father Cenez, O.M.I. The Oblates of Mary Immaculate established themselves in the portion of South Africa about 1862. Roma, the first Catholic mission in Basutoland, was founded by the Right Rev. Dr. Allard, O.M.I., in 1862. The first church was built in the same year. The second mission situated about six miles from Roma was founded in 1867 and received the name of St. Michael. Since then, several new missions have been established in different parts of the territory. The prefecture possesses at present 19 churches, chapels, and stations, 5 convents, and 9 schools. The missionary work is carried on by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate assisted by the Sisters of the Holy Family. The total number of Oblate Fathers in Basutoland is at present 19; lay brothers, 6; European Sisters, 34; native Sisters, 12; total number of Catholics, about 8,900; catechumens, 700; children attending school, about 1,200.

Undoubtedly Christianity has progressed immensely during recent years in Basutoland, and it would have spread still more speedily had the resources been more abundant. Unfortunately, there, as elsewhere in South Africa, everything seems to be precarious. Agriculture is too often compromised by long droughts, and crops are sometimes destroyed by locusts, all of which bring on misery and famines. In addition to this the limited number of priests does not allow the evangelization of the country to be carried out on a very large scale. The population, however, is well settled, which greatly facilitates the work of the missionary, who can remain always in touch with his flock.

Barkley, Among Boers and Basutos (London, 1900); Widdicombe, Fourteen Years in Basutoland (London, 1892); Missiones Catholica (Propaganda, Rome, 1907), 431.

A. LANGOUET.

Vicariate Apostolic of Batavia

(Vicariate Apostolic of Batavia)

When the Portuguese took possession of the island of Java, of which Batavia is the capital, they brought the Christian religion with them; but the Dutch, having conquered Java in 1596, set about the destruction of Catholicism. Nevertheless, the memory has been preserved of a Friar Minor who was expelled from Batavia in 1721, and attempted to continue his apostolic labours in China. It was with difficulty that a priest could enter Java, and, if recognized, he was hunted out. When in 1807 Louis Napoleon became King of Holland, Pius VII divided all the Dutch territory outside of Europe into three prefectures, two in the West Indies and the third, with Batavia for its seat, in the East Indies. At this period the Dutch missionaries James Nelissen and Lambert Preffen set out for the Sunda Islands, and reached Batavia, 4 April, 1808. The Government gave them at first a ruinous Calvinist place of worship, and then added to this act of generosity sufficiently to enable them to erect a church, which was blessed, under the title of Our Lady of the Assumption, 6 November, 1829. Nelissen died 6 December, 1817, and Preffen succeeded him in this prefecture.

On the 20th of September, 1842, Gregory XVI raised the Prefecture of Batavia to a vicariate Apostolic, and Monsignor Groof, titular Bishop of Canea, and previously prefect Apostolic of Surinam, became the first vicar Apostolic. A coadjutor was given him, 4 June, 1847, in Monseigneur Pierre-Marie Vrancken, titular Bishop of Colophon, who succeeded him in 1852. The Dutch Government, however, did not leave the first missionaries in peace, and Monsignor Groof, together with Father Van den Brand, a missionary priest, was expelled. Monsignor Vrancken died in 1874, and Pius IX then entrusted the mission of Batavia to the Dutch Jesuits. The first Jesuit vicar Apostolic was Monsignor Claessens (1874–93), who was succeeded by Monsignor Staal (1894–97) and Monsignor Luypen, the present (1907) incumbent of the office. The Jesuits energetically set about the development of the mission, which then comprised the islands of Java, Sumatra, Borneo, the Sunda group, Timor, the Celebes, and the Moluccas.

In 1851 the Catholics in the vicariate numbered between 5000 and 6000; in 1879 there were 23,527, not including the Catholic members of the garrison, and 27 missionaries were labouring in different parts of the Sunda Islands. Although the whole island of Borneo and Dutch New Guinea have since been separated form the vicariate, Streit’s “Atlas des missions” now gives the following statistics: Total population of the vicariate, 37,325,000; native Christians, 27,313 (in addition to 25,000 European Catholics); 720 catechumens; 54 religious in priest’s orders; 40 male religious not priests; 250 Sisters of different orders; 94 catechists; 22 principal stations; 78 secondary stations; 40 churches, and 59 schools with 2482 pupils.

Pius IX had separated the British portions of the islands of Borneo and Labuan from the vicariate in 1855; in 1903 Leo XIII erected Dutch New Guinea into a new prefecture; and Pius X, in 1905, formed a prefecture out of the remainder of the island of Borneo, again taken from the territory of the vicariate. There still remains of its territory: the island of Sumatra, 181,250 sq. m.; Java, 50,715 sq. m.; the small islands of the Sunda group (Bali, Lombok, Sumbawa, Sumba, Flores, and Timor) aggregating 36,507 sq. m.; and Celebes, 73.270 sq. m. The Moluccas have been attached to the Prefecture of Dutch New Guinea. The Vicariate of Batavia, therefore, now comprises an area of more than 340,000 sq. m., or more than the combined areas of the German Empire and Great Britain and Ireland. The principal stations are: in Sumatra, Medan, in the north-east and Padang, in the west; in Java, Batavia (residence of the vicar Apostolic), Samerang, and Surabaya; in Timor, Fialarang; in Flores, Maumeri and Laruntuk; in Celebes, Macassar and Menado. The natives speak their own dialects, but in the coast towns Dutch and Malay are the languages current. The Ursulines, established at Batavia and Surabaya, furnish the largest contingent of religious women in the vicariate, amounting to 170.

Analecta ord. Min. capue. for September, 1905; Streit, Atlas des missions; Missiones Catholicae (Propaganda, Rome, 1907), 263.

ALBERT BATTANDIER

Bath Abbey

The first religious house in Bath was a monastery of nuns founded by King Osric, A.D. 676. This was followed by a community of Benedictine monks, who were visited and reformed by St. Dunstan. King Edgar was solemnly crowned in the abbey church of St. Peter in 973, and a few years later the abbot was St. Elphege, afterwards Bishop of Winchester and Archbishop of Canterbury, who was killed by the Danes in 1012. Ælfsige, who died in 1087, was the last Abbot of Bath; for in 1088 William Rufus granted the abbey and its lands to John de Villula, Bishop of Wells, and the resident superior was henceforth a cathedral prior instead of an abbot. This bishop later restored its lands to the monastery, which was endowed also by other benefactors. A great fire, in 1137, destroyed nearly the whole city, greatly damaging the abbey buildings, which were promptly rebuilt. In the following century there was a warm dispute between the monks of Bath and the canons of Wells as to their respective rights in electing the bishop. Innocent IV decreed, in 1245, that the election should be held alternately in either city, that the bishop should have a throne in both churches and should be styled Bishop “of Bath and Wells.” This arrangement continued until the Reformation, and the subsequent occupants of the see have retained the double title. Henry VIII’s Commission visited Bath in August, 1535, and a report of the usual type followed. In 1539 Prior Hollewell surrendered the house and revenues (valued at £617) to the king, and the monastic life of the abbey came to an end.

The present church of St. Peter, occupying only the nave of the great Norman fabric, was begun by Prior Birde, about 1500, to replace John de Villula’s church, which had fallen into decay. The new church was not finished until 1572, and is thus one of the latest specimens of Perpendicular work in England. The latest so-called restoration took place in 1874. No trace remains of the monastery, of which the last portion (probably the prior’s lodgings) disappeared in 1755. Since 1679 the Catholic mission of Bath has been served by the English Benedictines.

HUNT (ed.), Chartularies of the Priory of St. Peter at Bath (1893); FOWLER, The Benedictines in Bath (1895); BRITTON, ed. PEACH, Bath Abbey Church (1887); Somerset Record Society, VII; CARTER, Account of the Abbey of Bath (1798); MORRIS (ed.), British Association of Handbook to Bath (1888).

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Bath and Wells

BADONIENSIS ET WELLENSIS

(Bath, Aquae Solis, Bathonia, Bathensis, Bathoniensis; Wells, Theoradunum, Velliae, Ecclesia Fontanensis, Vellensis, Wellensis).

Ancient diocese coextensive with the county of Somerset, England. The first Bishop of Bath and Wells, properly so described, was appointed by the pope in 1244, but the diocese has a much longer history, though its bishops used different titles; Somerset, Wells, Bath, or Bath and Glastonbury, being at different times employed. Æthelhelm (909–914), afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, first exercised episcopal jurisdiction there, choosing the secular church of Wells as his cathedral. Henceforth, there was a certain rivalry between the secular canons of Wells and the monks of the two great abbeys, Glastonbury and Bath. The advantage, however, lay with the latter and the cathedral church at Wells maintained but a struggling existence. During the time of Edward the Confessor (1042–66), the energetic Bishop of Gisa (1060–88), who on his appointment found the church small and poor, and the few canons who served it forced to beg their bread, succeeded in putting matters on a firmer foundation. He not only erected buildings in which they could live a community life, but obtained grants of lands for their support from St. Edward the Confessor, Harold, and William the Conqueror. This good work was partly undone by his successor, John de Villula (1088–1122), who removed the see to Bath, using the abbey there as his cathedral. It was not until the appointment of Bishop Robert of Lewes (1136–66), who rebuilt the cathedral at Wells and in other ways proved himself a wise and liberal administrator, that an arrangement was made by which Bath should take precedence of Wells, but that future bishops should have a throne in both churches and should be elected by the two chapters conjointly. This arrangement lasted through the administrations of Reginald de Bohun (1174–91), who brought St. Hugh of Lincoln to England; the turbulent Savaric (1192–1205), who annexed Glastonbury by force; and lastly Jocelin Troteman de Welles (1206–42), who though a native of Wells was known as Bishop of Bath and Glastonbury until 1219 when he gave up all claim to Glastonbury and styled himself Bishop of Bath. But though he omitted Wells from his title, he did more than any other bishop for the town, for he restored and enlarged the cathedral, adding the beautiful west front, increased the number of canons from thirty-five to fifty, and founded a grammar school. On his death, the monks of Bath ignoring the chapter of Wells, elected as his successor Roger, one of their own community, for whom they obtained royal and papal confirmation, but the consequent appeal by the Wells chapter brought about the final settlement of the difficulty. The pope decided that Roger should remain bishop with the style “Bishop of Bath and Wells,” and that the old arrangement as to joint election should in future be observed.

The history of the see was thenceforth tranquil, only three bishops during the next two centuries calling for special mention, Ralph of Shrewsbury (1329–63), who completed the buildings; Thomas Bekynton (1443–65), another liberal benefactor of the city; and Oliver King (1495–1503), who rebuilt Bath Abbey in the Perpendicular style. One bishop, William Bytton (1267–74), died with a reputation for sanctity and his tomb became a place of pilgrimage. In the fifteenth century there were two absentee bishops, Adrian de Castello (1504–18), during whose tenure the see was administered by the historian Polydore Vergil; and Cardinal Wolsey (1518–23), who held the see simultaneously with that of York. After the dissolution of Bath Abbey in 1538, the bishop, though retaining the old style, had his seat at Wells alone, but final ruin was impending. In 1549 the notorious William Barlow was intruded into the see, and alienated much of its property. On the accession of Mary he fled, and was succeeded by the last Catholic Bishop, Gilbert Bourne (1554–59), who held the see till he was deprived of it by Elizabeth and imprisoned in the Tower, thus becoming one of the eleven Confessor-Bishops who died in bonds. He died in 1569. Of the twin cathedrals of the diocese, Bath Abbey was rebuilt (1499–1530) in late Perpendicular style and is the last complete monastic building erected before the Reformation, while the cathedral at Wells, though small, is the most perfect example of a secular cathedral and one of the most beautiful Gothic buildings in England. Dating in the main from the early thirteenth, it was practically complete by the middle of the fourteenth century. The diocese contained three archdeaconries, Bath, Wells, and Taunton. The arms of the see were:- Azure, a saltier quarterly quartered, or and az.

HUNTER, A brief History of the bishoprick of Somerset to 1174 (Camden Society, 1840), 8; FREEMAN, History of the Cathedral Church of Wells (London, 1870); REYNOLDS, Wells Cathedral, its Foundation, Constitution, History and Statutes (1880); Registers of Bishops Giffard, Bowett and Fox (Somerset Record Society, 1889–99); CHURCH, Chapters in the Early History of the Church of Wells, 1136–1333 (London, 1894); DEARMER, The Cathedral Church of Wells and a History of the Episcopal See (London, 1898, 3rd ed., 1903); Somerset Archaeological Society Transactions.

EDWIN BURTON

William Bathe

Writer on music and education, b. at Dublin, Ireland, 2 April, 1564; d. at Madrid, 17 June, 1614. His parents, John Bathe and Eleanor Preston, were distinguished both by their lineage and by their loyalty to the Catholic Faith. He went to Oxford about 1583 and while a student there wrote “A Brief Introduction to the Art of Music” (London, 1584). Another treatise from his pen, “A Brief Introduction to the Skill of Song,” was published at London in 1600. These writings and his skill as master of various instruments, especially the Irish harp, won him the favour of Queen Elizabeth to whom he was related through the Kildare family. His own inclinations, however, were towards the religious life. From the English court he went to Louvain where he studied theology. On 6 August, 1595 (1596) he entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus at Tournai. His later studies were pursued at St. Omer and completed at Padua. In 1601 Bathe was selected by the father general to accompany Father Mansoni, the Apostolic Nuncio, to Ireland. This mission led them first to the Court of Spain and while there they learned that peace had been concluded between Spain and England and that the journey to Ireland was no longer necessary. Bathe remained in Spain, living at Valladolid and later at the Irish College in Salamanca. It was here that he wrote his principal work “Janua Linguarum” (Salamanca, 1611). It was designed to facilitate the study of languages and thus to aid missionaries, confessors, and students both young and old. For this purpose, 1330 short sentences were grouped under certain headings, the Latin and Spanish on opposite pages, with an index giving the translation of the Latin words—in all about 5300. The work went through many editions in which its method was applied, by various combinations, to eleven languages, including Greek and Hebrew. It was printed at London (1615), Leipzig (1626), Milan (1628), Venice (1655), and by 1637 it had been published in Bohemian, Illyrian, and Hungarian. An English edition (London, 1617) bore the title, “The Messe of Tongues (Latin, French, English, Hispanish).” It naturally found imitators, and among these the great work by John Amos Comenius holds first rank. In the preface to his “Janua Linguarum Reserata” (1631), Comenius acknowledges his indebtedness to Bathe, while in the work itself he adopts and develops the plan which the Jesuit had originated. Bathe is also credited by some of his biographers (Alegambe, Sherlock) with a treatise on “The Mysteries of Faith” and another on the “Sacrament of Penance.” Sommervogel, however, takes a different view. To his industry as a writer Bathe added an unflagging zeal for the spiritual welfare of his fellowmen, the relief of suffering, and the instruction of the poorer classes. He had just been invited by the King of Spain to give the spiritual exercises to the members of the Court when death ended his labours.

SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de c. de J.; MACDONALD in The Irish Eccl. Record, X, 527; HOGAN, Distinguished Irishmen of the Sixteenth Century (London, 1894); COOPER in Dict. of Nat. Biog.; PACE, Bathe and Comenius, in Cath. Univ. Bull. (Washington, 1907), XIII.

E.A. PACE

St. Bathilde

(Or BATILDE).

Wife of Clovis II, King of France, time and place of birth unknown; d. January; 680. According to some chronicles she came from England and was a descendant of the Anglo-Saxon kings, but this is a doubtful statement. It is certain that she was a slave in the service of the wife of Erchinoald, mayor of the palace of Neustria. Her unusual qualities of mind and her virtues inspired the confidence of her master who gave many of the affairs of the household into her charge and, after the death of his wife, wished to marry her. At this the young girl fled and did not return until Erchinoald had married again. About this time Clovis II met her at the house of the mayor of the palace, and was impressed by her beauty, grace, and the good report he had of her. He freed and married her, 649. This sudden elevation did not diminish the virtues of Bathilde but gave them a new lustre. Her humility, spirit of prayer, and large-hearted generosity to the poor were particularly noticeable.

Seven years after their marriage Clovis II died, 656, leaving Bathilde with three sons, Clothaire, Childeric, and Thierry. An assembly of the leading nobles proclaimed Clothaire III, aged five, king under the regency of his mother, Bathilde. Aided by the authority and advice of Erchinoald and the saintly bishops, Eloi (Eligius) of Noyon, Ouen of Rouen, Leéger of Autun, and Chrodebert of Paris, the queen was able to carry out useful reforms. She abolished the disgraceful trade in Christian slaves, and firmly repressed simony among the clergy. She also led the way in founding charitable and religious institutions, such as hospitals and monasteries. Through her generosity the Abbey of Corbey was founded for men, and the Abbey of Chelles near Paris for women. At about this date the famous Abbeys of Jumièges, Jouarre, and Luxeuil were established, most probably in large part through Bathilde’s generosity. Berthilde, the first Abbess of Chelles, who is honoured as a saint, came from Jouarre. The queen wished to renounce her position and enter the religious life, but her duties kept her at court. Erchinoald died in 659 and was succeeded by Ebroin. Notwithstanding the ambition of the new mayor of the palace, the queen was able to maintain her authority and to use it for the benefit of the kingdom. After her children were well established in their respective territories, Childeric IV in Austrasia and Thierry in Burgundy, she returned to her wish for a secluded life and withdrew to her favourite Abbey of Chelles near Paris.

On entering the abbey she laid down the insignia of royalty and desired to be the lowest in rank among the inmates. It was her pleasure to take her position after the novices and to serve the poor and infirm with her own hands. Prayer and manual toil occupied her time, nor did she wish any allusion made to the grandeur of her past position. In this manner she passed fifteen years of retirement. At the beginning of the year 680 she had a presentiment of the approach of death and made religious preparation for it. Before her own end, that of Radegonde occurred, a child whom she had held at the baptismal font and had trained in Christian virtue. She was buried in the Abbey of Chelles and was canonized by Pope Nicholas I. The Roman martyrology places her feast on 26 January; in France it is celebrated 30 January.

Acta SS., II; DUBOIS, Histoire ecclésiastique de Paris, 198; BINET, La vie excellente de Sainte Bathilde (Paris, 1624); CORBLET, Hagiographie du diocèse d’Amiens (1874); DES ESSARTS, Sainte Bathilde in Correspondant (1873), XXXII, 227–246; DRIOUS, La reine Bathilde (Limoges, 1865); GREÉCY in Revue archéologique (1865), XII, 603–610.

A. FOURNET

Diocese of Bathurst

Diocese situated in New South Wales, Australia, in the ecclesiastical Province of Sydney, comprises the territory immediately west of the Dividing Range; it extends north to the Barwon River, is bounded on the west by the Macquarie River as far up as Warren and thence by a line to the Lachlan River twenty miles below Eauabolong.

HISTORY

Bathurst (population in 1901, 9,223) was founded in 1824. Owing to the hostility of the aboriginals and other causes, population filtered slowly into the rich Bathurst plains till the first paying goldfield was discovered in the district, in 1851. The first church in Bathurst, says Cardinal Moran, “was nothing better than a bark hut.” It was superseded in 1861 by a fine new edifice (now the cathedral), which was erected at a cost of £12,000 by Dean Grant, pastor of Bathurst for nearly twenty years till his death in 1864. In 1865 Bathurst, then part of the Diocese of Sydney, was made the cathedral centre of a new diocese, which extended from the River Murray to Queensland, and from the Blue Mountains to the border of South Australia. That vast and sparsely populated territory was divided at the time into five missions, ministered to by six priests, with seven small churches and six state-aided Catholic schools, attended by 492 pupils. Its first bishop was the Right Rev. Matthew Quinn, who had taken an active part in organizing the Irish Brigade that fought for the defence of the Papal States in 1860. He was consecrated in Dublin, 14 November, 1865, and reached Bathurst 1 November, 1866, accompanied by five priests and seven pioneer Sisters of Mercy. Years of toilsome organization followed—laborious visitations; opening new missions and supplying them with clergy; church, school, and convent extension; the introduction of the (Australian) Sisters of St. Joseph and the Patrician Brothers; the founding of a Catholic newspaper, the “Record”; the erection of St. Stanislaus’ College, in 1873, at a cost of £15,000, and of St. Charles’ Ecclesiastical Seminary eight years later. Dr. Quinn was a man of great energy, deep piety, cultivated intellect, and, says Cardinal Moran, was one of the “foremost champions of religious education in Australia.” At his death 16 January, 1885, there were in the diocese 28 priests, 56 Catholic schools, 21 convents, 192 nuns, and 5 religious brothers. Dr. Quinn was succeeded by the Right Rev. Joseph Patrick Byrne (consecrated 9 August, 1885). In 1887 the new Diocese of Wilcannia was formed out of the Bathurst Diocese. At the same time some districts from the Maitland diocese were added to the Bathurst jurisdiction. Dr. Byrne, says Cardinal Moran, “strenuously and successfully carried on the great work of education and religion begun by his predecessor,” and, like him, was “a model to his clergy in his unwearying and self-sacrificing toil.” St. Stanislaus’ College, which from its foundation had been under the control of secular priests, was in 1888 entrusted to the Vincentian Fathers. It is now (1907) one of the foremost educational institutions in Australia, and noted for the work done in its well-equipped physical and chemical laboratories. When pronounced to be stricken by an incurable malady, Dr. Byrne received from his priests and people, on the Epiphany, 1901, a pathetic demonstration of affection, accompanied by a money gift of £2,530. He passed away on the 12th of January, 1901. To him succeeded the Right Rev. John Dunne—builder, missioner, organizer—who was consecrated 8 September, 1901. He is to complete the architecturally fine college of St. Stanislaus, and under his administration the missionary and scholastic traditions of the diocese are well sustained. The efficiency of the Catholic schools is in no small measure due to the system of inspection inaugurated by the Rev. J. J. Brophy, D. D., LL. B. The principal lay benefactors of the diocese are Mr. James Dalton, K.S.G., and Mr. John Meagher, K.S.G.

RELIGIOUS STATISTICS

In the diocese there are: 18 parochial districts; 89 churches; 29 secular priests; 7 regular priests; 7 religious brothers; 242 nuns; 1 college; 8 boarding schools for girls; 11 day high schools; 39 primary schools (with 3,496 pupils); 1 orphanage; 4,298 children in Catholic schools; and a Catholic population of about 27,000.

Moran, History of the Catholic Church in Australasia (Sydney, s. d.); Hutchinson, Australasian Encyclopaedia (London, 1892); The Australian Handbook (Sydney, 1906); Australasian Catholic Directory for 1907 (Sydney, 1907); Report of the Catholic Schools in the Diocese of Bathurst for the Year 1906 (Dubbo, 1907); Missiones Catholicae (Propaganda, Rome, 1907), 694.

HENRY W. CLEARY

Marco Battaglini

A historian of the councils, b. at Rimini, Italy, 25 March, 1643; d. at Cesena, 19 September, 1717. He studied law at Cesena, both civil and ecclesiastical, and at the age of sixteen he obtained the degree of doctor in both branches. After some years of service in the civil administration of the Papal States, he entered the priesthood, was appointed Bishop of Nocera in Umbria, 1690, and in 1716 was transferred to Cesena. He was greatly esteemed for his learning, and for his generous and frank character. His principal works are: (1) “Il legista filosofo” (Rome, 1680), or the man of law as a philosopher; (2) “Istoria universale di tutti i concilii” (Venice, 1686, 1689, 1696, 1714). The first edition contained the history of only 475 councils; in subsequent editions that of 403 more was added. A valuable supplement was the catalogue of all the ancient and contemporary episcopal sees; (3) “Annali del sacerdozio e dell’ imperio intorno all’ intero secolo decimo settimo” (Venice, 1701–11; Ancona, 1742), or history of the world during the seventeenth century in the form of annals.

Hurter, Nomenclator, II; Bauer in Kirchenlex., II.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Charles Batteux

Abbé and writer on philosophy and aesthetics, b. near Vouziers, France, 6 May, 1713; d. at Paris, 14 July, 1780. He was professor at Paris of the humanities and rhetoric, then of Greek and Roman philosophy, and was made a member of the Academy of Inscriptions and of the Académie Française. His works on Epicurus and other Greek philosophers attracted much attention. At the time of his death he was issuing a large collection of memoirs on China; the series was continued by Bréquigny and de Guignes. Of Batteux’s writings those that received at once the most praise and blame were the following three works: “Beaux-arts réduits à un même principe,” “Cours de belles-lettres,” and “Traité de la construction oratoire.” These were issued later in five volumes under the common title: “Cours des belles-lettres,” and in a new edition of six volumes, in 1824, as “Principes abrégés de la littérature.”

Following Aristotle, but taking at the same time a somewhat one-sided and superficial view of the philosopher’s meaning, Batteux deduced art from the free imitation of nature, that is, from the free copying of nature in its beautiful forms. Utility is the aim of the mechanical arts; beauty, the end of the fine arts, and both utility and beauty the aim of the beautifying arts. Architecture and oratory belong to the last category. The arts aim to influence either sight or hearing and are divided, therefore, into two classes. Besides these the rhythmical arts, music and dancing, and, in addition, painting and poetry are closely related to one another. In these writings there is a lack of comprehensive definitions of the different arts; those given are often inexact and uncertain. Nevertheless, Batteux may be regarded as the real founder of aesthetics in France. Of his works devoted exclusively to rhetoric and poetry mention should be made of “Les quatres poétiques d’Aristot, d’Horace, de Vida, et de Boileau” in two volumes.

Critical mention of Batteux may be found in: Necrologe des hommes celebres de France, XVI; Annee litteraire, 1780; Schasler, Gesch. der Zesthetik; Zimmermann, Gesch. der Aesthetik.

G. GIETMANN

Giovanni Giuda Giona Battista

(His original name was Jehuda Jona Ben-Isaac).

Born of Jewish parents at Safed in Galilee, on the 28th of October, 1588; d. at Rome, 26 May, 1668. As a Jewish rabbi he undertook an extensive journey through Europe, and it was during his stay in Poland that he was converted to Catholicism. After his conversion he was sent by the King of Poland on a mission to Constantinople, where he was arrested as a spy, and narrowly escaped with his life though the intervention of the ambassador of Venice. Later he went to Italy, where he taught Hebrew and Aramaic at the Academy of Pisa and then at the Propaganda at Rome. Among his pupils was Giulio Barolocci, who is indebted to his learned master for the idea and plan of his famous work “Bibliotheca Magana Rabbinica.” Battista’s principal work was the translation of the Gospels from Latin into Hebrew, published, with a preface by Clement IX, at Rome, 1668.

Rey in Vig., Dict. De la Bible, s. v.; Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v. Bartolocci.

F.X.E. ALBERT

Battle Abbey

Founded by William the Conqueror on the site of the Battle of Senlae or Hastings (1066), nearly seven miles from the town of Hastings, in the County of Sussex, England. The building was begun in the following year, but was erected on such a great scale that it was not finished till the reign of William Rufus. It was designed for one hundred and forty monks, though there were never more than sixty in residence at one time. The first monks were from the Benedictine Abbey of Marmoutier in Normandy; the new foundation was dedicated to the Holy Trinity, St. Mary, and St. Martin, and was consecrated on 11 February, 1094. The king offered there his father’s sword and coronation robes, and the abbey was enriched by many privileges, including the right of sanctuary, of treasure trove, of free warren, and of inquest, and the inmates and tenants were exempt from all episcopal and secular jurisdiction. It was ruled by a mitred abbot who afterwards had a seat in Parliament and who had the curious privilege of pardoning any criminal he might meet being led to execution. The monastic buildings were about a mile in circuit and formed a large quadrangle, the high altar of the church being on the spot where Harold fell. At the Abbey was kept the famous “Roll of Battle Abbey” which was a list of all those who accompanied William from Normandy. As time went on and the honour of descent from one of these Norman families was more highly thought of, unauthentic additions seem to have been made, and the present state of the text of the Roll is unsatisfactory from a critical point of view. At the time of the suppression of the Abbey (May, 1538), there were seventeen monks in residence and the income was returned as £987 which would be more than £10,000 in present value. Abbot Hammond, the last of the line of thirty-two abbots, was pensioned off and the buildings were given to Sir Antony Browne, a royal favourite, who pulled down the abbey, and built a mansion on its site. The entrance gate and considerable ruins now alone remain of the original buildings. In 1719, Lord Montague sold Battle Abbey to Sir Thomas Webster whose descendants held it until 1858, when it was bought by Lord Harry Vane, afterwards Duke of Cleveland. On the death of Duchess of Cleveland in 1901 it was purchased by Sir Augustus Webster, a descendant of its former owners. Through the eighteenth century a small Catholic congregation continued to exist at Battle, and now there is a Catholic church and a resident priest in the town.

The Chronicle of Battle Abbey, 1066–1176, ed. Lower (London, 1851); Chronicon Monast. De Bello in Anglia Christiana (London, 1846); Dugdale, Monasticon (London, 1821), III, 233–259; Custumals of Battle Abbey 1283–1312 (Camden Society, 1887), New Series, XLI; Duchess of Cleveland, The Battle Abbey Roll (London, 1889), 3 vols.; Clarke, Catalogue of Muniments of Battle Abbey (London, 1835), in 97 folio volumes.

EDWIN BURTON

Wilhelm Bauberger

German physician, novelist, and poet, b. at Thannhausen in Swabian Bavaria, 3 March, 1809; d. at the same place, 8 February, 1883. As a physician he was greatly esteemed for his skill, but more so for his kindliness of manner. His fame rests chiefly, however, on his tales. The earliest of these, “Die Beatushöhle,” written at the age of nineteen, while the author was still a medical student, met with such extraordinary success among all classes of readers that Bauberger published all his subsequent tales as by the author of “Die Beatushohle.” He drew his most successful themes from history and legend. His recognized model for the spirit and tone of his stories was Christoph Schmid.

Bauberger also essayed lyrical and dramatic compositions, but with indifferent success, for, along with much that is strong and beautiful, his verse contains more that is feeble and commonplace. His fame as a writer suffered no permanent eclipse from the inferiority of his poetry, for new tales, exhibiting all the charm of his early work, constantly appeared to redeem his dramatic failures or half-successes. Bauberger’s literary activity continued unabated until his death. A list of his works printed during his lifetime is found in Kehrein’s “Lexicon der kath. Dichter, Volks- und Jugendschriftsteller im 19ten Jahrhundert” (1872), I, 13, and a complete list of his posthumous works in the “Allgemeine deutsche Biographie,” XLVI, 232 sqq.

Heindle, Repertorium der Padagogik, I, 34.

MATTHIAS LEIMKUHLER.

Nicolas Baudeau

Regular Canon and economist, b. at Amboise, France, 25 April, 1730; d. in 1792. He became a religious of the Abbey of Chancelade, near Périgueux, and taught theology there for some time. It was there that he wrote his “Analyse de l’ouvrage du pape Benoît XIV sur les béatifications et canonisations” (Paris, 1759), which was examined and approved by the pope himself. It is found in Migne’s “Theologiae Cursus Completus” (tom. III). He was called to Paris by the Archbishop de Beaumont and there he gave all his time to the study of economics. In 1765 he founded a periodical “Les Ephémérides du citoyen” in which he attacked the principles of Quesnay and of the physiocratical school. Soon after, he accepted and defended these principles and became one of their most notable supporters. In 1771 he published his most important work, “Première introduction à la philosophie économique,” in which he expounds the doctrines of the physiocratical school. There are two great economic factors, nature and art; and there are three kinds of art, fecund or productive, which consists in helping nature to give the most abundant production possible (hunting, fishing, breeding, agriculture, etc.); sterile or non-productive, which gives to these productions a more useful or pleasing form (industry, commerce, etc.); social art, which gives the knowledge, protection, and means necessary for the exercise of the productive and non-productive arts (instruction, religious worship, protection, administration). Productive art is the most important.

When he died he had lost the use of his faculties. Besides the works already mentioned, he wrote “Idées d’un citoyen sur l’administration des finances du roi” (1763); “Idées d’un citoyen sur les besoins, les droits, et les devoirs des vrais pauvres” (1765); “Lettres sur les émeutes populaires” (1768); “Lettres d’un citoyen sur les vingtièmes et autres impôts” (1768); “Principes économiques de Louis XII et du Cardinal d’Amboise, de Henri IV, et du duc de Sully sur l’administration des finances” (1775); “Charles V, Louis XII, et Henri IV aux Français” (1787).

Migne, Theologiae Cursus Completus, III; Espinas, Histoire des doctrines economiques; Daire, Collection des principaux economistes.

G.M. SAUVAGE

Michel Baudouin

Italian missionary, born in Quebec, Canada, 8 March, 1692, entered the Society of Jesus in France at the age of twenty-one, arrived in Louisiana (on his return to America) in 1728; d. at New Orleans in, or after, 1768. Shortly after his arrival in Louisiana, he was sent to the Choctaw Mission, where he labored for eighteen years. When he was on the eve of deriving some fruit from his labors, he was recalled by his superior to New Orleans, owing to the disturbances excited by the English among the Indians and the dangers to which he was exposed. He was Superior-General of the Louisiana mission from 1749 until the expulsion of the Jesuits from that colony in 1763. When that untoward event took place, Father Baudouin was not banished from the country as his fellow Jesuits were, but with a pension of three or four hundred francs was allowed to remain in the colony, a planter having offered the aged priest a home on his estate.

Thwaites, Jesuit Relations, Index Vol. LXXII, 78, where full references are given; Kip, early Jesuit Missions in North America (London, 1847), II.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Gallus Jacob Baumgartner

A Swiss statesman, b. 18 October, 1797, at Altstätten, Switzerland; d. 12 July, 1869, at St. Gallen. After attending the gymnasium at St. Gallen he studied law at Fribourg, Switzerland, and at Vienna. From 1817 to 1819 he was a tutor in Hungary. Returning to Vienna in 1819, he was arrested there after the murder of Kotzebue by Sand on the false suspicion of belonging to a Swiss political society and was expelled form the city in 1820. He began his political career as keeper of the archives of his native canton, St. Gallen. This position gave him the opportunity of learning the topography, history, laws, and legal relations of the canton. In 1822 he was made official secretary; in 1825 he became a member of the great council of the canton and was appointed chancellor.

On account of his knowledge of business he was selected, in 1831, for the position of Landammann, or chief magistrate of the canton, and held the office until 1846. During his administration he bent all his energies to making a closely united republic out of the loosely connected cantons, and to improving the Swiss roads and water-ways. Appointed a delegate, at this time, to the diet at Lucerne he endeavoured at the diet to bring about a reorganization of the confederation. He wished to create a vigorous, organically united republic similar to that of the United States, retaining at the same time a large amount of independence for the individual cantons. Baumgartner’s chief opponents in carrying out this project were the Catholic clergy, for he aimed to separate the Church entirely from Rome and to place it under the control of the State. He was largely influenced by “Josephinism” and by the ideas of Wessenberg.

In 1832, at his suggestion, the Bishopric of Chur was dissolved. In 1834, at the so-called Assembly of Baden, he gave expression to his views in the motions he introduced. These were, that ecclesiastical administration of law be placed under the control of the State, that he should have direction of the education of the clergy, that the ecclesiastical right of patronage should be limited and that the privileges of the religious orders should be revoked. When his political friends in 1841 dissolved the monastic houses of Aargau by force, plundered them, and drove their inmates away, he saw to what his Church policy would lead. Soon after this he changed his opinions and came over to the side of his former opponents. On this account he had to retire from his position as Landammann. In 1845 he again entered the diet as representative of the Catholic Peoples’ party, but after two years was forced out by the victory of the Liberals. He now urged the views of the Catholic Church in the press and in popular assemblies. He was once more a member of the Swiss federal assembly, 1857–60, and became again Landammann but was overthrown in 1864.

The present political organization, well-ordered administration, and material prosperity of the canton of St. Gallen are due to Baumgartner’s public labours; the Catholic Church owes to him especially the founding of the Bishopric of St. Gallen. Besides all this he prepared the way for the later development of Switzerland in the outline of a new constitution for the confederation which he drew up. After his defeat in 1864, Baumgartner withdrew altogether from public life and devoted himself to the study of the history of his native canton. The results of his researches appeared in two works issued by him: “Die Schweiz in ihren Kämpfen und Umgestaltungen von 1830–1850” (4 vols, Zurich, 1853, 1866), and “Geschichte des schweizerischen Freistaats und Kantons St. Gallen” (2 vols., Zurich, 1868). A third volume of the history was prepared by his son, Alexander, from the papers Baumgartner left at his death, and issued at Einsideln in 1890. A biography of Baumgartner giving full detail of his life has been published by his son under the title: “Gallus Jakob Baumgartner und die neuere Staatssentwicklung der Schweiz” (Freiburg, Baden, 1892).

Heindle, Repertorium der Padagogik, I, 34.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Louis Baunard

Educator, b. at Bellgarde (Loiret), France, in 1828. He was one of the clergy of Orléans, until 1877, after which he was attached to the Catholic University of Lille, first as professor, and later as rector. No Catholic university profited more by the Law of 1875 that granted freedom of higher education. The transfer of the State University from Douai to Lille did not retard the progress of the Catholic institution. Guided by its zealous rector, and supported by the active charity of the manufacturers of Northern France, the University of Lille has graduated a great number of Catholic physicians, lawyers, and business men. Many young priests also have been prepared at Lille for the career of teaching, which they have since followed as professors in the petits seminaires and boarding schools. Technical courses exist for those who intend to devote themselves to manufacturing industries; a department of economics and the social sciences was established through the efforts of M. Duthoit for the development of the social principles of Catholicism; finally the “university extension,” a sort of popular circulating university, provides for lectures by the university professors in all the industrial centres of Northern France.

Mgr. Baunard received the degree of Doctor of Letters, in 1860; in the two theses which he wrote he treated of the pedagogy of Plato and of Theodulphus, Bishop of Orléans in the time of Charlemagne; both works which marked the beginning of a literary activity surpassed by few. As hagiographer he wrote on St. John the Apostle (1869) and St. Ambrose (1871). He wrote the biographies of Louise de Marillae, the foundress of the Daughters of Charity (1898); of Madame Barat (1876), foundress of the Ladies of the Sacred Heart; of Vicomte Armand de Melun (1880), Cardinal Pie, Bishop of Poitiers (1886), Cardinal Lavigerie (1896), M. Ernest Lelièvre, founder of the Little Sisters of the Poor (1905), and M. Vrau, the great Christian manufacturer (1906). The French religious history of the nineteenth century was summarized by him in “un siècle de l’Eglise de France” (1901). He contributed notable works of religious psychology in his celebrated books, “Le doute et ses victimes” (1865), in which the pages on Jouffroy were both new and surprising, and “La foi et ses victoires” (1881–83). Whatever his subject, Mgr. Baunard was always an “awakener of souls” by reason of his delicate literary conscientiousness and his admirable fecundity. His “Espérance” (1892) throws much light on the beginnings of the contemporary religious revival among intelligent Frenchmen; his “L’évangile du pauvre” (1905) appeared opportunely during a period of social unrest. As university rector, Mgr. Baunard occupies a foremost place in history of the Catholic university movement; as author, he collected much important material for the religious history of modern France.

GEORGES GOYAU

Etienne Bauny

Theologian, b. in 1564 at Mouzon, Ardennes, France; d. 3 December, 1649, at Saint Pol de Léon. He was admitted into the Society of Jesus, 20 July, 1593, and after teaching humanities and rhetoric he was promoted to the chair of moral theology which he occupied for sixteen years. He was for a time superior of the Jesuit residence at Pontoise.=20 So high was his reputation for learning and holiness, that he had the confidence of the most distinguished prelates of his age, especially of François Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, who chose him as his spiritual director, and of René de Rieux, Bishop of Léon, who entrusted to him the settlement of the most delicate affairs of his episcopate. Bauny’s knowledge of moral theology was singularly profound, but he was in many points too lenient. His undue indulgence excited the pharisaical indignation of the Jansenists, and it was to him that Pascal, Arnauld, and others turned, when they accused the Society of Jesus of teaching lax morality. He was a man of extraordinary severity towards himself, a skilful guide of souls, full of charity towards sinners, prudent in the management of affairs; hence we are not surprised to read that he died in the odour of sanctify, almost in the very exercise of his apostolic ministry, at the advanced age of eighty-five.

His published works are: (1) “Constitutiones Synodales dioecesis Leonensis, a Renato de Rieux Episcopo Leonensi promulgatae Paulipoli in Leoniâ” (Paris, 1630); (2) “Pratique du droit canonique au gouvernement de l’Eglise, correction des moeurs, et distribution des bénéfices, le tout au style et usage de France” (Paris, 1634); (3) “De Sacramentis ac Personis Sacris, earumque dignitate, obligationibus ac jure, juxta sacrarum litterarum testimonia, SS. Patrum sententias Canonum ac Conciliorum sanctiones, cum summariis, indice duplice, uno tractatuum et quaestionum, rerum altero. Theologiae moralis pars prima” (Paris, 1640) in fol.; (4) “Tractatus de censuris ecclesiasticis” (Paris, 1642), in fol.; (5) “Nova beneficiorum praxis=8A” (Paris, 1649). The second and third of these works are on the Index.

Guilhermy, Menologe de la c. de J., Assistance de France, II, 559; Hurter, Nomenclator, I, 494; Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la c. de J., I, col. 1058.

T. B. BARRETT.

Louis-François de Bausset

A French cardinal, writers, and statesman, b. in 1748 at Pondichery, where his father held an administrative position; d. in Paris, 1824. He studied in France at the Jesuit “College de la Fleche” and at St. Sulpice. Ordained priest, he became vicar-general at Aix in 1772; administrator of Digne, 1778; Bishop of Alais, in Languedoc, 1784. Although a prominent member of the Assembly of Notables of Languedoc in 1786 and in 1788, he was not delegated to the Etats Generaux of 1789. In 1791, Bausset was one of the first bishops who endorsed the “Exposition of Principles on the Civil Constitution of the Clergy.” He declined to take the oath and passed to Switzerland. Returning to France in 1792, he was incarcerated, but set free when Robespierre fell (9 Thermidor). He then returned to Villemoison, where he began his literary career. After the Concordat of 1801 Bausset cheerfully resigned his see into the hands of Pius VII. Ill health prevented his appointment to one of the newly-formed sees, but Napoleon made him a canon of St. Denis (1806) and a member of the council of the University of France (1808). Under the Restoration, he became president of the University council and peer of the realm (1815); Member of the French Academy (1816); Cardinal (1817), and Minister of State (1821). The valuable library and manuscripts of Bausset were bequeathed to St. Sulpice.

The career of Bausset as educator and statesman deserves no special notice; he was guided by, more than he guided, the policy of the two regimes under which he served. From his pen we have, besides several minor writings, “Exposé des principes sur le serment,” with a long introduction by Emery (Paris, 1796); “Notices historiques” on Cardinal Boisgelin Talleyrand (Paris, 1821); two considerable biographies: “Histoire de Fénelon” (Versailles, 1809; Paris, 1823; ed. Migne, 1826) and “Histoire de J.-B. Bossuet, évêque de Meaux” (Paris, 1814, 1819; Versailles, 1821; Besancon, 1847). The original documents concerning Fenelon he had from the Abbe Emery, Superior of Saint-Sulpice. Bossuet’s manuscripts, not yet purchased by the National Library, he borrowed from Lamy, a bookseller into whose hands they had fallen. The purity of his style won for Bausset the decennial prize awarded by the Institute of France to the best biography. Still, that very purity often passes into a tiresome sameness which fails to suggest either the winning qualities of Fenelon’s character or the elevation of the Eagle of Meaux. As a historian, Bausset fails in critical acumen and judicial impartiality. His “Histoire de Fenelon” is so much of a panegyric that, especially in the delicate and intricate question of the Quietist movement, it needs to be supplemented and corrected by such works as those of Griveau and of Crouslé. It is said that the “Histoire de Bossuet” was written as an offset against the partiality which Bausset had shown to Fenelon; if so, Bausset had a strange way of rehabilitating the subject of his second biography, praising Bossuet’s Gallicanism as Bossuet himself, tormented in his last years by the “Defensio cleri gallicani,” would not have wished it praised. Brunetière calls Bausset’s “Histoire of Bossuet” “la plus franchement gallicane de toutes.”

Villeneuve-Bargement, Notice historique sur le Cardinal Bousset (Marseilles, 1824); Dussault, Annales litteraires, (Paris, 1818), t. IV.

J.F. SOLLIER

Louis-Eugène-Marie Bautain

Philosopher and theologian, b. at Paris, 17 February, 1796; d. there, 15 October, 1867. After a course at the Ecole Normale, where he was influenced by Cousin and Jouffroy, he became (1819) professor of philosophy at Strasburg. Three years later he took up the study of medicine and finally that of theology and was ordained priest (1828). As director of the seminary at Strasburg, he at first won distinction by his work in apologetics, especially against atheism and materialism. He was chiefly interested, however, in the problem of the relations between faith and reason, concerning which he accepted the view of Fideism and Traditionalism, and reduced to a minimum the function of reason. Divine revelation, he claimed, is the only source of knowledge and certitude. He was consequently obliged to sign (18 November, 1835) six propositions containing the Catholic doctrine on faith and reason. After the examination at Rome of his work, “Philosophie du christianisme” (Paris, 1835), Bautain signed (8 September, 1840) six other propositions differing but slightly from those of 1835. Finally, in obedience to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, he promised (26 April, 1844) not to teach that the existence of God, the spirituality and immortality of the soul, the principles of metaphysics, and the motives which make revelation credible are beyond the reach of unaided reason. Bautain was appointed Vicar-General of Paris (1850) and taught at the Sorbonne (1853–62). His works include: “De l’enseignement de la philosophie au 19me siècle” (Strasburg, 1833); “Psychologie experimentale” (ib., 1839); “Philosophie morale” (ib., 1842); “La religion et la liberté” (Paris, 1848); “La morale de l’Evangile” (ib., 1855); “La philosophie des lois” (ib., 1860); “La Conscience” (ib., 1868).

De Regny, L’abbe Bautain, sa vie et ses oeuvres (Paris, 1884); Bellamy in Dict. de theol. cath., s. v.; Ingold, Lettres inedites du P. Rozaven in Bulletin Critique, 5 April, 25 June, 1902. (These letters refer to Bautain’s visit to Rome in 1840.) Hurter, Nomenclator, III, 999.

E.A. PACE

Fray Juan Bautista

Born at Mexico, 1555; date of death unknown, but probably between 1606 and 1615. He joined the Franciscans in his native city, and taught theology and metaphysics at the convent of St. Francis of Mexico. He was also a definitor of the province, and became Guardian of Tezcuco twice (1595 and 1606), of Tlatelolco (1600), and of Tacuba in 1605. Although born at Mexico, he did not at first care to familiarize himself with the language of the Mexican Indians who formed the main part of the population among which he had been born and raised. He looked with indifference on the Nahuatl, the language of the so-called Aztecs. But after joining the Franciscans and becoming acquainted with the educational work going on through the Church among the Indians he willingly listened to the representations of older members of the order, and soon acquired a thorough knowledge of the idiom. A number of his works are known by title only. Ten of these were written in the Nahuatl language, previous to 1607; several were printed at Mexico.

Mendieta, Historia eclesiastica Indiana (finished in 1599 but first published by Yeazbalceta, Mexico, 1870); Juan de Torquemada, Los veinte y uno Libros Rituales y Monarchia Indiana con el origen y guerras de los Indios occidentales (first ed., Madrid, 1613; 2d ed., ibid., 1725); Pinelo, Epitome (2d ed., Madrid, 1737–58); Nicolas Antonio, Biblioteca Hispana nova (Madrid, 1766), II; Joaquin Garcia Ycazbalceta, Bibliografia mexicana del Siglo XVI (Mexico, 1886).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Kingdom of Bavaria

I. POLITICAL CONSTITUTION, AREA, POPULATION

The present Kingdom of Bavaria—named after the German tribe called Boiarii—has formed, since 1871, a constituent part of the German Empire. It is an independent State of the confederation with special rights; its rulers belong to the Wittelsbach dynasty, the head of the Government in 1907 being Prince-Regent Luitpold. In time of peace the king or his representative is the head of the army; in time of war the emperor, as head of all the forces, has, by agreement, the control. As the second state (in size) of the empire Bavaria has six representatives in the Federal Council and forty-eight in the Imperial Parliament (Reichstag), the latter deputies being chosen by direct vote. In its present form Bavaria consists of two parts of unequal size, geographically some distance from each other, on either side of the Rhine. It has an area of 29,283 square miles, and a population (census of 1 December, 1905) of 6,254,372 persons. According to individual declaration of belief 4,608,469 persons, or 70 per cent of the population, belong to the Catholic Church; 1,843,123 persons, or 28.3 per cent of the population, are adherents of the Lutheran and Calvinist confessions; while other religious bodies (Old-Catholics, Irvingites, Mennonites, Methodists, etc.) have but a small following. There are in Bavaria 56,000 Jews, living chiefly at Munich, Nuremberg, and Fürth, who are engaged principally in commercial and industrial pursuits; they form a large proportion of the physicians, lawyers, and judges of the country. The German population of Bavaria is made up as follows: descendants of the Boiarii, living in Upper and Lower Bavaria and in the greater part of the Upper Palatinate; Franconians, a mixture of Rhine Franks, Thuringians, and Slavs, found in the region of the Main and the Redwitz; Swabians, living in the province bearing their name; and the inhabitants of the Palatinate, a mixed race of Roman and German blood having their home on the left bank of the Rhine. The difference of stock is evidenced by the variety of dialects and provincial characteristics. Naturally these distinctions are not so marked in the cities.

Outside the Rhenish Palatinate Bavaria is an elevated, hilly country. It is bounded on the south by the Alps, on the east by the mountains called the Bohemian Forest (Böhmerwald), and on the north by the range called the Franconian Forest (Frankenwald), while the various ranges called Fichtelgebirge, Spessart, and Rhongebirge represent isolated districts of larger or smaller extent. The Rhine Palatinate is divided by spurs of the Vosges into an easterly and a westerly half, both parts having a fruitful soil. The chief rivers are the Danube and the Rhine. The former enters the country at Ulm and leaves it at Passau. Under ordinary conditions it is navigable for large craft below Ratisbon. Its tributaries in Bavaria from the south are the Iller, a stream rich in fish, the Lech, the Isar, and the Inn; from the north its tributaries are the Wörnitz, the Altmühl, the Regen, and the Vils. For a distance of about fifty-three miles the Rhine forms the boundary between the Rhenish Palatinate and Baden. The three Franconian provinces lie in the valley of the Main, a stream bordered by vineyards and much used for commerce beyond Bamberg. Three flourishing Bavarian cities are situated on its banks: Schweinfurt, Würzburg, and Aschaffenburg. The southern tributaries of the Main, which leave Bavarian territory near Ostheim, are the Regnitz and the Tauber; the northern are the Rodach and the Saale. Only a small part of Lake Constance belongs to Bavaria, but there are numerous lakes in Swabia and a still larger number in Upper Bavaria. Many of these bodies of water are noted for their picturesque scenery, such as the Ammersee, Alpsee, Würmsee, Tegernsee, Königssee, and especially Chiemsee, known as the “Lake of Bavaria.” It also contains much mineral wealth: iron, coal, granite, basalt, and salt, of which last there is a large yield of excellent quality. There are numbers of mineral springs, some of which are known throughout the world. Farming in lower Bavaria and cattle-breeding in Swabia, Upper Bavaria, and Middle Franconia are the chief occupations, while the wines of Franconia and the Palatinate and the fruit and vegetables of Bamberg have a high reputation. Industrial life centres in Nuremberg, Fürth, Augsburg, and Ludwigshafen. As a centre of art Munich holds, without question, the highest rank in Germany. The railway lines have a length of about 3,700 miles, to which additions are constantly being made.

No expense is spared in advancing education. In 1903–04 the common schools cost over $7,500,000. The Bavarian troops are equipped with the same arms as the other division of the Imperial German army but wear a different uniform. They are commanded by native generals and consist of three army corps which are divided as follows: 23 infantry regiments, 11 cavalry regiments, 14 artillery regiments, 2 chasseur regiments, 3 battalions of pioneers, 3 transportation battalions, and 1 railway battalion. Including all the reserves the Bavarian army numbers over 200,000 men. The annual cost of the army is $20,000.000.

II. EARLY HISTORY

The early history of Bavaria varies according to the province in question; the races that now live peacefully together under the rule of the Wittelsbach dynasty were once constantly engaged in bloody feuds. A thousand years ago the Bavarian domain included what is now Upper and Lower Austria and the Alpine provinces of the Tyrol and Styria. (See AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN MONARCHY.) The Palatinate was united with Bavaria proper through its rulers; on the extinction (1778) of the younger (Bavarian) branch of the Wittelsbach line the elder (Palatinate) branch became the reigning house of electoral Bavaria. Before the changes caused by the French Revolution and the disappearance of the Holy Roman Empire (1803 and 1819) those parts of Franconia and Swabia which now belong to Bavaria enjoyed a more or less independent existence, such as Ansbach-Bayreuth, the Archbishoprics of Würzburg, Bamberg, Eichstätt, Augsburg, etc., the free cities of Augsburg, Nuremberg, Schweinfurt, Kempten, etc., the principalities of Castell and Oettingen, the possessions of the Counts of Orttenburg, Giech, etc. Only the most important periods in the history of the Duchy and, later, Electorate of Bavaria can be touched on in this article.

The Boiarii, apparently, were either related to the Marcomanni or else identical with that people who, after the Romans had been driven out of the region in the fifth century, began to spread from the right bank of the Danube and gradually extended their control as far as the River Lech and deep into the Alpine region. The chiefs of the Boiarii belonged to the family of the Agilolfings who chose Ratisbon at an early date as their capital. Duke Garibald I, who lived in the middle of the sixth century, seems to have had the power of a sovereign. His daughter, Theodelinda, became Queen of the Langobardi. Her brother, Tassilo I, was, however, obliged to acknowledge the supremacy of the Franks which his son, Garibald II, was able to throw off for a time (about 630). But this independence was of short duration. The Franks under Charles Martel again subdued his descendants. When Tassilo II, who had done much to further the spread of Christianity and civilization in the direction of Eastern Europe, sought to regain his lost independence he was deposed and sent to a monastery.

Bavaria now became a Frankish province ruled by representatives of the Frankish king (794). It came into greater prominence when Louis the German, who had received the eastern part of the Frankish kingdom by the Treaty of Verdun (843), made his residence in Bavaria. His grandson Arnulf, Duke of Carinthia, was crowned emperor in 896. One of his relatives, Margrave Leopold, who fell in a battle (906) against the Magyars, is regarded as the first of the line of Seheyren-Wittelsbach. Upon the extinction of the Carlovingian dynasty Arnulf, son of Leopold, claimed the position of a sovereign prince. This involved him in war with Henry I the Saxon, King of Germany, whose partly successful attempt to conquer Arnulf was completed by Otto I. After the deposition of Eberhard I, the elder son of Duke Arnulf (939), Bavaria no longer had native-born rulers but Saxons, Franconians, and members of the Welf family who ruled as vassals of the king with the title of duke. Not until Emperor Frederick I, in 1180, rewarded Otto of Wittelsbach for his courage by granting him Bavaria did a genuine Bavarian ascend the throne of his fathers. Otto and his energetic successors laid the foundation of the future importance of Bavaria.

In 1214 the Rhine Palatinate was united to Bavaria. Louis II (1253–94) was succeeded by his son Louis III (known as Emperor Louis IV of the Holy Roman Empire) who, by an agreement in 1329 at Pavia, took Bavaria proper, leaving to Rudolph, his brother, the Rhine Palatinate. The large possessions which Louis III secured for his family (Holland, Brandenburg, the Tyrol, etc.) were lost to his successors by discord and successive partitions. Albert IV, however, reunited the country into one domain and secured it against further division by his law of 1506. His son William IV (1508–50) and his grandson Albert V (1550–79) prevented Lutheran and Anabaptist doctrines from entering Bavarian territory. During the reign of William V (1579–98) and still more during the reign of Maximilian I (1598–1651), Bavaria stood at the head of the counter-Reformation and the Catholic League. To these two rulers it was due that the progress of the Reformation was checked, and that some of the territory which had been affected by it was restored to the Church. The Emperor Ferdinand II granted Duke Maximilian of Bavaria for his loyalty the electoral dignity (1623). Bavaria paid a bitter price for its new position in the devastations of the Thirty Years’ War. Ferdinand Maria (1651–79) sought to restore the prosperity of the country, but affairs were thrown into confusion during the reigns of his son, Maximilian Emanuel (1679–1726), conqueror of the Turks, and of his grandson Charles Albert (1726–45) by the wars of the Spanish and Austrian successions. It was not until the reign of the Elector Maximilian (Joseph) III (1745–77) that order was again restored. During this reign the Jesuits were suppressed (1773).

Maximilian was the last of the younger branch of the Wittelsbach line. After his death the elder (Palatinate) branch of the family succeeded to the throne in the person of the art-loving Charles Theodore (1778–99), under whom a papal nunciature was established at Munich (1785). The last years of Charles Theodore were embittered by many misfortunes. The young French Republic took from him the territory on the other side of the Rhine and he had to endure many humiliations from his subjects. Up to this time Bavaria had been entirely a Catholic country. New conditions arose when Maximilian IV (Joseph) ascended the throne (1799). This ruler was twice married to Protestants; non-Catholics were granted the same political rights as Catholics, and Lutheran services allowed at the capital. The Government proceeded with severity against all forms of Catholic religious life. The number of churches which were dismantled or profaned at this time is hardly credible; treasures of art of earlier days were sold for a mere pittance or shamefully treated; whole wagonloads of books and documents were burned or thrown into the river; professorial positions filled by avowed opponents of all religions; and an extravagant and frivolous luxury became the fashion at Court. In 1805 Bavaria entered into an alliance with Napoleon against Austria and Russia. In return for this the victorious Corsican made Bavaria a kindgom (1 January, 1806). As a member of the Rhenish Confederation Maximilian (Joseph) IV fought against Prussia in 1806, against Austria in 1809, and against Russia in 1812. Thirty thousand Bavarian troops died in Russia, victims of the climate or of encounters with the Cossacks. After the battle of Leipzig Bavaria joined the Allies at the right moment, so that it was able to retain the greater part of its territory. After the chancellor, Count von Montgelas, had retired form office (2 February, 1817) efforts were made to restore former conditions and that same year a Concordat, which is still operative, was made with the Roman Curia; the next year the king granted a constitution which has produced good results in every respect.

During the reign of the King Louis I (1825–48) the Church prospered greatly; old cathedrals were restored; new churches and monasteries founded; and painters and sculptors came in large number to Munich where they found profitable employment. The colossal figure of Bavaria, the Hall of Fame, the Walhalla, the Hall of Freedom, and the basilica of St. Boniface keep alive the memory of Louis I, the greatest ruler in the history of Bavaria. The revolutionary movement of 1848 compelled Louis to abdicate. His son, Maximilian II (1848–64), a well-meaning but weak ruler, did much to further learning, especially in the domain of history; he was not fortunate, however, in the men he selected to fill professorships and on this account lost popularity with his Catholic subjects. His successor, the visionary Louis II (1864–86), ascended the throne at the age of eighteen. The civil war of 1866 obliged Bavaria to make great sacrifices. Four years later the Bavarian army took an honourable part in the Franco-German war, and in 1871 Bavaria became a member of the new German Empire. During the reign of Louis II special encouragement was given to architecture and industrial art. The growing insanity of the king necessitated the appointment of Prince Leopold as “regent of the kingdom,” and not long after Louis met his death, in a manner never clearly explained, in the Starnbergersee. As his brother Otto was mentally incapable of ruling, Leopold (b. 12 March, 1821) continued in his office of regent. Bavaria has prospered greatly under his wise rule; his grandson Leopold, assures the succession in his line.

III. INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY

The Christian faith was probably first introduced into Bavaria, both on the Danube and on the Rhine, by Roman soldiers and merchants. [Cf. Huber, “Geschichte der Einführung und Verbreitung des Christenthums in Südosten Deutschlands” (Salzburg, 1874–75), 4 vols.; Hefele, “Geschichte der Einführung des Christenthums im sudwestlichen Deutschland” (Tubingen, 1837).] In the earliest ages of the Church Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg) was famous on account of the martyrdom of St. Afra and her companions; Ratisbon had also its confessors and the same may be said of Speyer. But it was not until the end of the German migrations and the establishment of more orderly conditions in the Merovingian-Carlovingian Empire that Christianity took firm root. As is well known, at first Irish, and later Frankish and Anglo-Saxon missionaries sowed the seed of the Gospel in the hearts of the rude warriors whose life until then had been given to fighting, hunting, gambling, and drinking. Among these missionaries were: St. Kilian and his pupils Colonat (Coloman) and Totnan at Würzburg; in the Alpgau region St. Magnus; at Ratisbon and Freising St. Rupert, St. Emmeram, and St. Corbinian. Stricter regulations were introduced by Winfrid (St. Boniface) who is in truth entitled to the name of the “Apostle of the Germans.” The Dioceses of Freising, Ratisbon, Passau, Würzburg, and Eichstätt were either established or reorganized, while the founding of monasteries made it possible to train the priesthood properly and to raise the spiritual and moral level of the laity. When Boniface was created Archbishop of Mainz (747) Augsburg and Constance became his suffragans, having previously belonged, respectively, to Aquileia and Besancon. After Charlemagne had overthrown the native ruling family, the Agilolfings, Pope Leo III erected (798) the new province of Salzburg to which Ratisbon, Freising, Passau, and Seben (Brixen) in what is not the Tyrol, were attached. But the first mentioned dioceses together with Neuburg, which in a short time disappeared, were left dependent on Mainz. With some changes of names and boundaries these are still in existence. The Diocese of Bamberg, later formed from the existing provinces, was not a suffragan of Mainz but was directly dependent on the Apostolic See. The small Diocese of Chiemsee, founded in 1206, was always dependent on Salzburg; it was suppressed at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

IV. ECCLESIASTICAL DIVISIONS

The present ecclesiastical division of Bavaria rest upon the Bull of Circumscription issued by Pope Pius VII, 1 April, 1818, and made public, 23 September, 1821. According to this Bavaria is divided into the two church provinces of Munich-Freising and Bamberg; the first archdiocese has for suffragans Augsburg, Passau, and Ratisbon; the suffragans of the second are Würzburg, Speyer, and Eichstätt. The Ministry of the Interior for Worship and Education has charge of the interests of the Crown and State in their relations to the Catholic Church of the country; this ministry is the chief State guardian of the various religious and charitable endowments and is aided therein by the civil authorities of the governmental districts. A court of administration has been in existence since 1878 which has control over various matters relating to religious societies (among others, the religious training of children). Cf. Silbernagl, “Verfassung und Verwaltung sämmtlicher Religionsgenosssenschaften in Bayern” (4th ed. Ratisbon, 1900); Schecht, “Bayerns Kirchenprovinzen, ein Ueberblick uber Geschichte und gegenwartigen Bestand der katholischen Kirche im Königreich Bayern” (Munich, 1902).

The boundaries of the diocese do not agree with the boundaries of the political division except in the case of Würzburg (Lower Franconia) and of Speyer (Rhine Palatinate). The Archdiocese of Bamberg extends across Bavaria from Wurtemberg to Bohemia and Saxony; the territory of the suffragan Diocese of Würzburg stretches beyond the boundaries of the country. Eichstätt includes parts of Middle Franconia, the Upper Palatinate, Upper Bavaria, and Swabia. Ratisbon is the largest diocese; it includes not only the greater part of the Upper Palatinate but also parts of Upper and Lower Bavaria, as well as Upper Franconia. The Archdiocese of Munich-Freising embraces besides the greater part of Upper Bavaria a part of Lower Bavaria, chiefly included in the suffragan Diocese of Passau. The Diocese of Augsburg includes the whole of Swabia and the western judicial districts of Upper Bavaria; in the north it extends well into Middle Franconia.

V. CHURCH STATISTICS

According to the “Zeitschrift des königlichen bayerischen statistischen Bureau” (1906, nos. 2 and 3) the Catholic population of the various districts was as follows:—

Upper Bavaria—1,299,372

Lower Bavaria—700,118

Rhine Palatinate—391,200

Upper Palatinate and Ratisbon—525,933

Upper Franconia—316,545

Middle Franconia—227,119

Swabia and Neuburg—646,220

Total—4,653,469

In the Rhine Palatinate, Upper Franconia, and especially in Middle Franconia the non-Catholic population is decidedly in the majority, namely: Rhine Palatinate, 479,694; Upper Franconia, 362,519; Middle Franconia, 623,546. In Upper Bavaria, Lower Franconia, and Swabia the Protestants number over 1000,000 persons, while in the Upper Palatinate the figures are hardly half as large. In Lower Bavaria there are not over 10,000 non-Catholics. Rapid growth is reported in the Catholic parishes of Nuremberg (90,000), Augsburg (70,000), Erlangen, Schweinfurt, and Memmingen; the Protestant parishes have increased in population in Munich (80,000), Würzburg (15,000), Aschaffenburg, Ingolstadt, and Forchheim; while in the Catholic provinces Protestant churches and chapels are rapidly springing up. The same can hardly be said of Catholic churches in the Protestant districts, although more has been done in this direction lately than in former years and a few parishes like Wunsiedel, Hof, and Weissenburg here and there possess creditable churches. The establishment of the Boniface Verein might have proved very helpful in this respect for King Louis I (founder of the Ludwig-Mission Verein, which is exclusively Bavarian) has, in spite of all efforts, prevented its establishment in the kingdom.

Every diocese has a cathedral chapter which, according to the Concordat, besides choir-service acts as a council for the bishop. These chapters include a provost, dean, a number of canons, and curates. In Munich, besides the chapter there is a collegiate foundation of court preachers (St. Cajetan) similarly organized. At the close of 1904 there were 3,022 parishes serviced by 3,144 parish priests or curates, and 2,578 vicars and chaplains; there were also 1,985 regular clergy (Benedictines, Franciscans, Carmelites, Capuchins) living in 86 monasteries and hospices. The order for women had at that date 12,586 members in 79 houses and 1,087 dependencies. With a few exceptions the female religious devote themselves to teaching and nursing. There are in Bavaria over 1,000 Protestant parishes with 1,400 pastors and assistant preachers. In 1903 the Catholic Church funds, including real estate, amounted to about $42,500,000; the funds of the Protestant denominations to $5,000,000. As the revenues from the church funds are often not sufficient to keep the church buildings, etc., in repair, a number of cities have decided to impose a church tax, which so far has been moderate. [Cf. Geiger, “Taschenkalender fur den katholischen Klerus” (Ratisbon, 1907), as to the salaries, pensions, and ranking of the clergy.]

VI. EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS

The school system consists of public schools, continuation and technical schools, gymnasia with classical courses, Realgymnasia (no Greek), Realschulen (high-schools without Latin and Greek), Oberrealschulen (gymnasia with no Latin or Greek, which prepare for the technical schools), commercial schools, seminaries for teachers, lyceums, 3 universities, a technical high-school, etc. Except in rare cases the primary schools are chiefly denominational. The middle and high-schools are used by all denominations. Religious instruction is provided for these schools as well as for the primary ones. The universities at Munich and Würzburg have Catholic theological faculties. There is at Munich a seminary for the training of priests called the Georgianum and the provinces have similar institutions, generally in connection with lyceums. Following the directions of the Council of Trent there are in all the diocese seminaries for boys (petits séminaires) which are intended to prepare youths without means to study in the gymnasia. In Munich the total number of university instructors is 250; in Würzburg, 158; in Erlangen, 100; in the technical high-school, 100. In the other institutions the number of teachers is correspondingly smaller.

The attendance of students at Munich is between 5,000 and 6,000; at Würzburg, 1,400. The students at the technical high-school number about 3,000; the academy of fine arts and the academy of music have each 300 students. In 1904 the lyceums had about 1,000 matriculated students. Some of the gymnasia, such as that of St. Stephen at Augsburg and those at Metten and Munnerstadt, are in charge of members of the regular orders (Benedictines and Augustinians). The majority of the professors are, however, laymen. In Bavaria for various reasons relatively more Protestants than Catholics study the higher branches, consequently the non-Catholic professors nearly everywhere equal in number those of the Catholic Faith. This condition of affairs has been somewhat changed by the labours of the Albertus-Magnus Verein as well as by the work of the associations and leagues of Catholic students. Efforts have also been made to increase the number of progymnasia (without higher classes) in certain Catholic districts; the Protestant districts are better equipped with such schools.

Bavaria is well supplied with institutions for the care of the sick, the crippled, children, and old people. Many of these foundations are largely endowed and date back to the earlier centuries. In the Catholic benevolent institutions members of the religious orders of both sexes are active; the Protestant institutions are served by deaconesses. There are also institutions in which both faiths are represented, as the hospital at Augsburg, where patients of both denominations are cared for by Catholic and Protestant sisters. At Munich there are only sisters of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and at Nuremberg deaconesses, although in both places the percentage of patients of other faiths is large. The clergy of the different faiths exercise their office undisturbed in the hospitals of both cities. Of the other humanitarian associations mention should be made of the Gesellenverein which gives travelling journeymen-mechanics an opportunity for further education. In nearly all the larger towns it has lodging-houses and in a few places large, well-equipped homes. Workingmen’s Unions endeavour to counteract the tendencies of the Social Democrats; citizens’ and voters’ associations strive to send to the Bavarian as well as to the Imperial Parliament representatives of pronouncedly Christian principles.

VII. CIVIL STATUS OF THE CHURCH

The relations of Church and State are settled in all important points by the Concordat and the Constitution [cf. Silbernagl, op. cit.; Idem. “Lehrburh des katholischen Kirchenrechts” (Ratisbon, 1903), 4 vols.; Girón y Arcas, “La situación jurídica de la Iglesia en los diversos estados de Europa y de América” (Madrid, 1905)]. Although the promises made the Holy See were not kept in all particulars, for instance in the early seventies of the nineteenth century, yet, taken altogether, conditions are satisfactory; this is owing largely to the strong religious feeling of the reigning dynasty, once more thoroughly Catholic. The Catholic Church has, however, no special privileges. It is on the same footing as the Lutheran, the Reformed, and the Greek schismatics.

Parishes under the jurisdiction of monasteries, as in Austria, are not known in Bavaria. Where members of the religious orders assume pastoral functions, it is only by way of substitution; in these cases they receive the same governmental support as do the secular clergy. The funds of the Church are liable to taxation as other funds. No concession or mitigation is granted. Priests are not obliged to sit as lay assessors, nor to act as jurors, nor to be guardians of minors. Military service is not obligatory on theological students, at least, if when the army is mobilized, they have been ordained subdeacons. In this case they are employed as nurses. The civil code has limited ecclesiastical jurisdiction in matters of marriage, but Catholics still respect the teaching of the Church, especially that death alone can dissolve marriage. A serious question is the great increase of mixed marriages, especially in the large cities, and the consequent Protestant education of children. Owing to various considerations, the evil has not been combated as vigorously as it should be. Prisons and reformatories are, as a rule, visited by clergymen of all faiths, but full provison is made for the pastoral supervision of Catholic prisoners. Prisoners condemned to death are accompanied by priests to the scaffold. Gifts and testamentary bequests for religious and benevolent objects are frequent. They are made under the regulation of the civil code by which any association that has given proper notification to the authorities is regarded as a person in the sense of the law. In the cities the cemeteries belong, as a rule, to the civil community, but nearly everywhere in the country they are part of the parish and are used in common by the Christian confessions. Cremation is not permitted in Bavaria although there is an agitation in its favour.

Those desiring more detailed information are referred to the following authorities: Hopf, “Bayerische Geschichte in Zeittafeln” (Nuremberg, 1865); Denk and Weiss, “Unser Bayerland” (Munich, 1906); Riezler, “Geschichte Bayerns” (Gotha, 1878, 1903), 6 vols.; Döberl, “Entwickelungsgeschichte Bayerns” (Munich, 1906), 1 vol., extending to 1648. A reliable authority on the Wittelsbach dynasty is: Hautle, “Genealogie des erlauchten Stammhauses Wittelsbach” (Munich, 1870). Among the authorities for the Rhine Palatinate are: Häusser, “Geschichte der rheinischen Pfalz” (Heidelberg, 1845), 2 vols.; Remling, “Geschichte der Bischöfe zu Speyer” (Mainz, 1852), 4 vols.; Hilgard, “Urkendenbuch zur Geschichte der Stadt Speyer” (Strasburg, 1885); Molitor “Urkendebuch bezüglich zur Geschichte der Stadt Zweibrücken” (Zweibrucken, 1888). For the history of Franconia: Stein, “Geschichte Frankens” (Schweinfurt, 1883–86), 2 vols. For the history of Swabia: Braun, “Geschichte der Bischofe von Augsburg” (Augsburg, 1813), 4 vols.; Steichele, “Das Bisthum Augsburg, historisch und statistisch beschrieben” (Augsburg, 1864–94), 6 vols., continuation by Schröder; Baumann, “Geschichte des Algäu” (Kempten, 1880–94), 3 vols.

PIUS WITTMANN.

William Bawden

(Or Baldwin).

An English Jesuit, born at Cornwall, 1563; died at St.-Omer, 28 September, 1632. Father Bawden studied for five years at Oxford and later spent some time at Douay College, from whence he went to Reims, arriving at the latter institution 31 December, 1582. Leaving Reims, he went, 13 August, 1583, to Rome and in the English College at that city, he completed his studies for the priesthood, and was ordained priest, 16 April, 1586. After his ordination he served one year as English penitentiary at St. Peter’s, when his health failed. He next went to Belgium, and in 1590, on joining the Jesuits, he became professor of theology at Louvain. His health failing again he went to Brussels, where he resided for eleven years. His next change was to Germany, where he was arrested and sent to England for an alleged connection with the Gunpowder plot. He was incarcerated in the Tower for eight years and was tortured in the hope of extracting a confession from him. His innocence being established, he was liberated, but at the same time banished. In 1621 he was appointed rector of Louvain, and the next year was transferred to the rectorship at St-Omer’s College, where he remained until his death.

Cooper in Dict. Nat. Biog., III, 39; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 156.

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE

Adèle Bayer

(née Parmentier)

Eldest daughter of Andrew Parmentier, b. in Belgium, 4 July, 1814, and d. in Brooklyn, New York, 22 January, 1892. Andrew Parmentier, a horticulturist and civil engineer, was b. at Enghien, Belgium, 3 July, 1780, and d. in Brooklyn, New York, 26 November, 1830. His father, Andrew Joseph Parmentier, was a wealthy linen merchant, and his eldest brother Joseph had a European repute as a horticulturist and landscape gardener. Trained by the latter, Andrew emigrated to New York in 1824, on his way to the West Indies, taking with him his share of the family estate. He was persuaded by friends to remain in New York as a place where his abilities and scientific training would meet with recognition. He purchased a tract of land near Brooklyn which he laid out as a horticultural park. It became famous in a short time and his services as an expert in designing pleasure grounds were sought for in many places North and South. He is said to have exercised a more potent influence in landscape gardening in the United States than any other person of his profession up to that time. He was the first to introduce into the United States the black beech tree and several varieties of shrubs, vegetables, and vines. He was one of the founders and trustees of St. James’s, the first Catholic church in the present Diocese of Brooklyn, and was at the height of his influence and repute when he died in Brooklyn, 26 November, 1830. After his death his daughter Adèle and her mother (Sylvia M., b. at Louvain, Belgium, 1793; d. in Brooklyn, New York, 27 April, 1882), carried on his Botanical and Horticultural Gardens until 1832, when they were sold. Thereafter they devoted most of their time and income to works of charity, aided substantially the Indian missions of Father De Smet, S.J., the establishment in Indiana of the Sisters of Providence from Brittany, the Little Sisters of the Poor in Brooklyn, and other good works. Adèle was married, 8 Sept., 1841, to Edward Bayer, a German Catholic merchant (d. 3 Feb., 1894), at the first nuptial Mass celebrated in Brooklyn. During the Civil War Madame Bayer began caring for the spiritual and temporal wants of the sailors at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, a work to which she devoted the remainder of her life. For thirty years she toiled unostentatiously at this voluntary task and was known and revered as a guardian and friend by seamen all over the world.

Stiles, History of the City of Brooklyn (Brooklyn, 1870); U. S. Cath. Hist. Soc. Records and Studies (New York, 1900), II, pt. I; Ibid (New York, 1904), III, pt. II.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Francisco Bayeu y Subias

Born at Saragossa, 9 March, 1734; died Madrid, 4 August, 1795, a distinguished religious and historical painter. He first studied at Tarragona with José Luzán Martinez, and gaining the first prize at the Academy there, he received a pension to go to Madrid, where he entered the San Fernando Academy and had for his master Antonio Gonzales Velasquez. While there he attracted the attention of Raphael Mengs, then court painter to Carlos III. After returning to Saragossa, he was recalled, on the suggestion of Mengs, by that monarch, who put him to work on the country palaces of El Pardo and Aranjuez and on the new Royal Palace at Madrid. He also painted pictures for several churches in Madrid. Painting with, and presumably partly under the direction of, Mengs he become devoted to his style and is classed with his school. Don Pedro de Madrazo in the Prado catalogue speaks of him as a mannered painter only to be appreciated as a frescoist. In 1765 Bayeu y Subias was chosen a member of the San Fernando Academy, and became, twenty-three years later, its director and painter to the court. In the palace at Madrid are his frescoes, “The Fall of the Giants,” “The Apotheosis of Hercules,” and “The Conquest of Granada.” He decorated the royal chapel at Aranjuez, and pictured scenes from the life of St. Bruno at the convent of the Carthusians in Madrid. He painted many frescoes in the churches of Toledo and Saragossa, being assisted on the latter by his brother and pupil, Ramón, b. Saragossa, 1746; d. Aranjez, 1793. His subjects at the Toledo cathedral are scenes from the life of St. Eugenio. There are fifteen works by the painter in the Museum of the Prado at Madrid. Among them are “The Coronation of the Virgin,” “The Ascension,” “The Evangelist St. Matthew,” “The Evangelist St. Mark,” “The Evangelist St. Luke,” “The Evangelist St. John,” “Olympus”—all studies for more important works—“St. Francis de Sales Founding the Order of the Visitation,” the last being attributed by some to Ramón Bayeu y Subias, “View of the Canal of Manzanares,” “View of the Paseo de las Delicias in Madrid,” “Luncheon in the Country,” a scene in a Manzanares orchard, and four sketches of sacred allegories for arch panels at the college of San Ildefonso. Don Francisco was an etcher as well as a painter, and executed a small number of plates.

Champlin and Perkins, Cyclopedia of Painters and Painting (New York, 1886–88); Bryan, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers (London and New York, 1903–05).

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Diocese of Bayeux

DIOCESE OF BAYEUX (BAJOCÆ).

Coextensive with the Department of Calvados, is suffragan to the Archbishopric of Rouen. At the time of the Concordat (1862) the ancient Diocese of Lisieux was united to that of Bayeux. A pontifical Brief, in 1854, authorized the Bishop of Bayeux to call himself Bishop of Bayeux and Lisieux.

THE SEE OF BAYEUX

A local legend, found in the breviaries of the fifteenth century, makes St. Exuperius, first Bishop of Bayeux, an immediate disciple of St. Clement, and his see a foundation of the first century. St. Regnobertus, the same legend tells us, was the successor of St. Exuperius. But the Bollandists and M. Jules Lair have shown how little ground there is for this legend; it was only towards the middle of the fourth century that St. Exuperius founded the See of Bayeux; after him the priest St. Reverendus did much for the propagation of the Faith in these parts. A certain number of the successors of St. Exuperius were saints: Rufinianus; Lupus (about 465); Vigor (beginning of the sixth century), who destroyed a pagan temple, then still frequented; Regnobertus (about 629), who founded many churches, and whom the legend, owing to an anachronism, made first successor to Exuperius; and Hugues (d. 730), simultaneously bishop of two other sees, Paris and Rouen. We may also mention Odon of Conteville (1050–97), brother of William the Conqueror, who built the cathedral, was present at the Battle of Hastings, intrigued for the tiara on the death of Gregory VII (1085), and died a crusader in Sicily; Cardinal Trivulce (1531–48), papal legate in the Roman Campagna during the siege and pillage of Rome by the Constable de Bourbon; Cardinal d’Ossai (1602–04), an illustrious diplomatist prominently identified with the conversion of Henry IV. Claude Fauchet, who after being court preacher to Louis XVI, became one of the “conquerors” of the Bastille, was chosen Constitutional Bishop of Bayeux in 1791, and was beheaded 31 October, 1793. Mgr. Arnette, coadjutor, with right of succession to the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris was, until 1905, Bishop of Bayeux. In the municipal Musée Archéologique is preserved the famous “Bayeux Tapestry,” one of the most remarkable relics of medieval textile art. Its contemporary embroideries reproduce scenes from the Norman Conquest of England (1066) and are valuable as illustrations of eleventh-century costume and life.

THE SEE OF LISIEUX

The first known Bishop of Lisieux is Theodibandes, mentioned in connexion with a council held in 538. The most celebrated among his successors were Freculfus (d. 850), a pupil of the palace school founded by Charlemagne, and author of a universal history; Arnoul (1141–81), statesman and writer; Nicole Oresne (1378–82), philosopher, mathematician, and tutor to Charles V; Pierre Cauchon (1432–42), concerned in the condemnation of Joan of Arc; Thomas Basin (1447–74), the historian of Charles VII, and one of the promoters of the rehabilitation of Joan of Arc; Guillaume du Vair (1618–21), the well-inown philosopher who left the bench for the Church.

In the Middle Ages both sees were very important. The Bishop of Bayeux was senior among the Norman bishops, and the chapter was one of the richest in France. The See of Lisieux maintained the Collége de Lisieux at Paris for poor students of the diocese. Important councils were held within this diocese, at Caen, in 1042 and 1061; in the latter was proclaimed “the Truce of God.” The statutes of a synod held at Bayeux about 1300, furnish a very fair idea of the discipline of the time.

Among the abbeys of the Diocese of Bayeux should be mentioned those of St. Stephen (Abbaye-aux- Hommes) and of the Trinity (Abbaye-aux-Dames), both founded at Caen by William the Conqueror (1029–87) and his wife Matilda, in expiation of their unlawful marriage. The former of these abbeys was governed by the celebrated Lanfranc, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury. Other abbeys were those of Troarn of which Durand, the successful opponent of Berengarius, was abbot in the eleventh century, and the Abbaye du Val, of which Rancé was abbot, in 1661, prior to his reform of La Trappe. The Abbey of St. Evroul (Ebrulphus) in the Diocese of Lisieux, founded about 560 by St. Evroul, a native of Bayeux, is famous as the home of Ordericus Vitalis, the chronicler (1075–1141). Venerable Jean Eudes founded in 1641 in Caen the congregation of Notre Dame de Charité du Refuge, which is devoted to the protection of girls and includes 33 monasteries in France and elsewhere. At Tilly, in the Diocese of Bayeux, Michel Vingtras established, in 1839, the politico-religious society known as La Miséricorde, in connexion with the survivors of La Petite Eglise, which was condemned in 1843 by Gregory XVI. Daniel Huet, the famous savant (1630–1721) and Bishop of Avranches, was a native of Caen.

At the close of the year 1905 the Diocese of Bayeux included a population of 410,178, 73 pastorates, 640 mission churches, and 120 curacies remunerated by the State. According to the latest statistics (1907) obtainable, the Diocese of Bayeux has 2 infant asylums, 16 infant schools, 1 deaf-mute institute, 1 orphanage where farming is taught, 9 girls’ orphanages, 4 industrial schools, 2 trades schools, 1 refuge for young women, 6 hospitals and hospices, 1 dispensary, 4 communities for the care of the sick in their homes, 3 private hospitals, 1 private insane asylum, 9 homes for the aged, all conducted by sisters; and 1 orphanage where farming is taught, conducted by brothers.

In 1900 the following congregations were represented in the diocese: the Franciscans at Caen and the Premonstratensians, who have an abbey at Juaye-Mondaye. Among the local congregations are the diocesan missionaries, stationed at the basilica of Notre Dame de la Déliverande, directors of several educational institutions throughout the diocese. In this diocese also was founded the congregation of Our Lady of Charity and Refuge established at Caen in 1641 by Venerable Jean Eudes for the preservation of young girls. This congregation has 33 monasteries in France and other countries.

Gallia christiana (nova) (1759), XI, 346–405, 762–814, Instrumenta, 59–106, 199–218; Acta SS. XVI, May; LAIR, Etudes sur les origines de l’évéché de Bayeux in Bibliotheque des Ecoles des Chartes (1861–63); FARCY, Abbayes du diocése de Bayeux (Laval, 1886–88); CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl., 327–331, 1707–08; CORTE, Tapestry of Bayeux (Paris, 1878).

GEORGES GOYAU.

James Roosevelt Bayley

First Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, U.S.A.; eighth Archbishop of Baltimore, Maryland; b. at Rye, New York, 23 August, 1814; d. at Newark, 3 October, 1877. His Dutch and English non-Catholic ancestors were locally notable. His father was the son of Dr. Richard Bayley, professor of anatomy in Columbia College, New York, and inaugurated the New York quarantine system. Mother Seton, foundress of the Sisters of Charity in the United States, was his aunt. He was named after his maternal grandfather, James Roosevelt, a merchant of large fortune, who made him his heir, but altered the will when Bayley became a Catholic priest, under the mistaken idea that priests could not possess property. A large part of the money went to build the Roosevelt Hospital in New York. Bayley’s early schools days were spent at Amherst College, where he once thought of going to sea and obtained a commission of midshipman in the navy. He abandoned the plan, however, and continuing his studies, entered Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut, to prepare for the Episcopalian ministry. He graduated here in 1835 and after receiving orders was appointed rector of St. Peter’s church, Harlem, New York. He resigned this charge in 1841 and went to Rome, where on 28 April, 1842, he was baptized and received into the Catholic church in the room of St. Ignatius by Father Esmond, S.J. He then entered the seminary of St. Sulpice at Paris for his theological studies. Returning to New York, he was ordained priest by Bishop Hughes, 2 March, 1844, and made a professor and the vice-president of the seminary at Fordham. He was acting president there in 1846 and was next given charge of the parish at the Quarantine Station on Staten Island, so long the residence of his grandfather, Dr. Bayley. Bishop Hughes then appointed him his private secretary, an office he held for several years and in which his administrative ability was specially manifested. He devoted some of his leisure to the collection and preservation of local historical data, much of which would otherwise have been lost. Part of this material he published in a small volume “A Brief Sketch of the Early History of the Catholic Church on the Island of New York” (New York, 1853; 2nd ed., 1870).

When the Diocese of Newark was established he was named its first bishop and consecrated 30 October, 1853, in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York, by Archbishop Bedini, the Apostolic Nuncio to Brazil, who wan then en route to Rome. The Bishops of Brooklyn and Burlington were consecrated at the same time, the first occurrence of such an elaborate ceremony in the United States. Bishop Bayley’s work of organizing the new diocese was not easy. He had more than 40,000 Catholics, mainly of Irish and German extraction, with only twenty-five priests to minister to them. There was not a single diocesan institution, no funds, and poverty on all sides. He therefore applied for help to the Association of the Propagation of the Faith of Lyons, France, and to the Leopoldine Association of Vienna and from both received material assistance. In a letter he wrote 10 April, 1865, reviewing the condition of the diocese after his first ten years there he says: “I find that while the Catholic population has increased a third, the churches and priests have doubled in number. In 1854 there was no religious community. Now we have a monastery of Benedictines, another of Passionists, a mother-house of Sisters of Charity, conducting seventeen different establishments; two convents of Benedictine nuns, two others of German Sisters of Notre Dame and two others of the Sisters of the Poor of St. Francis. In 1854 there was no institution of learning; to-day we have a flourishing college and a diocesan seminary, an academy for young ladies, a boarding school for boys, and parish schools attached to almost all the parishes.” In addition to these he introduced the Jesuits and the Sisters of St. Joseph and of St. Dominic into the diocese, and was one of the strongest upholders of the temperance movement of the seventies. He made several journeys to Rome and the Holy Land, attending the canonization of the Japanese martyrs at Rome in 1862; the centenary of the Apostles in 1867; and the Oecumenical Council in 1869.

At the death of Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore he was promoted, on 30 July, 1872, to succeed that prelate. He left Newark with much reluctance. In 1875 as Apostolic Delegate he imposed the cardinal’s biretta on Archbishop McCloskey of New York. In May, 1876, he consecrated the Baltimore cathedral, having freed it from debt. Convening the Eighth Provincial Synod of the clergy, August, 1875, he enacted many salutary regulations, particularly with regard to clerical dress, mixed marriages, and church music. Illness obliged him to ask for a coadjutor and Bishop Gibbons of Richmond was appointed to that position 29 May, 1877. The archbishop then went abroad to seek for relief, but in vain. He returned to his former home in Newark in August, 1877, and after lingering for two months, died in his old room, where he had laboured for so long. At his own request he was buried beside his aunt, Mother Seton, at the convent at Emmitsburg, Maryland. He was a noble model of a Christian bishop. He seemed animated with the spirit of St. Francis de Sales, full of zeal in the episcopal office and of kindness and charity to all mankind. In conversation he once told Bishop Corrigan that before his conversion he thought of becoming a Jesuit, and before his consecration a Redemptorist, but from both intentions his director dissuaded him. In addition to the volume on the Church on New York he wrote the “Memoirs of Simon Gabriel Brute, First Bishop of Vincennes” (New York, 1855).

Flynn, The Catholic Church in New Jersey (Morristown, 1904); Shea, History of the Cath. Ch. In the U.S. (New York, 1889–92); Cathedral Records (Baltimore, 1906); Reuss, Biog. Cycl. Of the Cath. Hierarchy of the U.S. (Milwaukee, 1898).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Joseph Bayma

Jesuit mathematician and scientist, b. in Piedmont, Italy, 9 November, 1816; d. at Santa Clara, California, U.S.A. 7 February, 1892. He entered the Society of Jesus, 5 February, 1832, and distinguished himself in literature, mathematics, and physics. He was in charge of the episcopal seminary of Bertinoro when the troubles of 1860 forced him and many of his brethren to seek shelter in England. Hitherto he had given no special attention to philosophy, but at Stonyhurst he took it up and taught it for some seven years. His powerful and original mind soon produced three volumes of “Realis Philosophia,” which were printed for private circulation. No sooner were they out than he introduced numerous corrections; thus the printed volumes cannot be relied upon as evidence of his mature opinions. In 1868 Father Bayma left for California, where he was Rector of Saint Ignatius’ College, San Francisco, for three years, but afterwards resided at Santa Clara, teaching elementary mathematics there until his death. At his death he left behind, in manuscript, an elaborate new edition of the “Realis Philosophia” which never saw the light. His published works are “Molecular Mechanics” (Cambridge, 1866); “The Love of Religious Perfection,” originally in Italian, in the style of the “The Imitation of Christ” (published in English, Dublin, 1863); articles in “The Catholic World,” XVII-XXI (1873–75), the best printed account of his philosophy; two articles in the “Am. Cath. Q. Rev.,” II (1877); and “A Discussion with an Infidel,” being a review of Büchner’s “Force and Matter” (New York, London, and Leamington, 1901). His elementary works on mathematics, all published in San Francisco, are: “Algebra” (1890), “Geometry” (1895), “Analytical Geometry” (1887), “Plane and Spherical Trigonometry” (1886), “Infinitesimal Calculus” (1889).

Father Bayma took the Venerable Bede for his model, and loved to refer to the old Breviary Lesson, which used to be read in England on St. Bede’s day. It ran: “Bede [and Bayma too] was handsome of stature, grave of gait, rich and sonorous of voice, eloquent of speech, noble of countenance, a blend of affability and severity. He was affable to the god and devout, formidable to the proud and negligent. He was always reading, always writing, always teaching, always praying.” Only the young men who sat under him could know his fascination as a teacher. To posterity he must be known by his “Molecular Mechanics,” a metaphysical and mathematical work treating of the constitution of matter. With Roger Boscovich, Bayma reduces all matter to unextended points, centres of force acting in the inverse square of the distance. Thus acting upon one another, but of course not touching, for Bayma abhorred continuous matter and upheld actio in distans, these points were bound up into molecules, and molecules into bodies. Boscovich made his points, or elements, attractive at molar distances, repulsive at molecular. Bayma divides elements into attractive and repulsive, the former always attracting, the later always repelling; the attractive elements preponderating in the in the nucleus of the molecule, the repulsive in the envelope. The work drew attention at Cambridge, and at Trinity College, Dublin. The author was advised to test his theories by ten years of experiments in chemistry and electricity. Unhappily, this was never done. One of his proofs certainly lies open to grave objection, but Bayma’s main theory does not stand or fall with that proposition. The gravest objection against the theory is its alleged failure to account for inertia. Father Bayma ever professed the utmost reverence for St. Thomas. His saying was: “the metaphysics of St. Thomas, with modern physics.”

JOSEPH RICKABY

Diocese of Bayonne

(Lapurdum)

The Diocese of Bayonne comprises the Department of Basses-Pyrenees. Reorganized in 1802, it included, besides certain parishes of the Diocese of Dax and Tarbes, the Diocese of Oloron and Lescar. It was suffragan to the Archiepiscopal See of Toulouse from 1802 to 1822, thereafter to that of Auch.

DIOCESE OF BAYONNE

Local tradition maintains that St. Leo, the martyr, with whose memory is associated a miraculous fountain, was the first Bishop of Bayonne. No bishop is historically known prior to the sixth century, although some think that Bayonne, designated as civitas in the Treaty of Andelot (587), must have had a bishop at that time, whilst others couple the foundation of the See of Bayonne with the establishment of the Kingdom of Aquitaine (778). Until 1655, the Diocese of Bayonne included much Spanish territory, i.e. the four Archpresbyteries of Bastan, Lerin, Cinco Villas in Navarre, and Fontarabia in Guipuzcoa, a remnant of Charlemagne’s conquests beyond the Pyrenees. Christopher de Beaumont, afterwards Archbishop of Paris, occupied the See of Bayonne from 1741 to 1745 and Astros occupied it from 1820 to 1830.

SEES OF LESCAR AND OLORON

A local legend recorded in the great “Breviaire de Lescar” of 1541, and patterned after the Limousin legend of St. Martial, holds that St. Julian, sent from Bordeaux by St. Leontius, was the first Bishop of Lescar; but according to history, St. Galactorius, martyred perhaps by the Visigoths after their defeat at Vouille, and St. Gratus, both mentioned in the council of Agde (506), were respectively the first incumbents of the See of Lescar and the See of Oloron known to history. Until 1789 the Bishops of Lescar presided by right over the Assembly of the States of Bearn. Amongst those who occupied the See of Oloron was Roussel, the Dominican (1536–50), protégé of Margaret of Navarre and a convert to Calvinism.

Sponde (Spondanus, 1568–1643), Bishop of Pamiers, who carried on the work of Baronius; Duvergier de Hauranne (1581–1643), Abbe de St. Cyran, the second founder of Jensenism, and Cardinal Lavigerie were born in territory now included in the Diocese of Bayonne. Betharram is celebrated as a place of pilgrimage as also are Notre Dame de Pietat, at Paradies, and Notre Dame de Sarrance, visited by King Louis XI. In 1899 the following institutions were to be found in the diocese: 1 infant asylum, 38 infant schools, 2 orphanages where farming is taught, 10 girls’ orphanages, 5 gratuitous industrial schools, 2 houses of refuge for young girls, 2 patronages, 1 temporary home for servants, 4 hospitals or hospices, 1 insane asylum, 6 homes for the aged, and 1 private hospital, all conducted by Sisters, and 2 orphanages where farming is taught, conducted by Brothers, and 4 patronages for young people conducted either by priests or brothers. At the close of 1905 the Diocese of Bayonne contained 426,347 inhabitants, 43 pastorates, 449 succursales or mission churches, and 91 curacies.

In 1900 the following religious orders were represented in the diocese: the Jesuits and Franciscans at Pau, and the Capuchins at Bayonne. Among the local congregations are: the Auxiliary Priests of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, devoted to teaching and missionary work, founded at Betharram in 1841. They have missions at Bethlehem, Buenos Ayres, and Montevideo. The Servants of Mary, who teach and serve in hospitals; their mother-house is at Anglet. The Bernardines, with mother-house also at Anglet, were founded in 1846; they keep perpetual silence and divide their time between prayer and work of sewing and embroidery.

Gallia christiana (nova) (1715), I, 1261–1324; instrumenta, 197–202; Dubarat, Dtudes de l’histoire locale et religieuse (Pau, 1889–92); Idem, Le breviaire de Lescar de 1541 (Pau, 1891); Dubarat and Haristoy, Etudes historiques et religieuses du diocese de Bayonne (1892); Duchesne, Fastes episcopaux, II; Chevalier, Topobibliographie, s.v.

GEORGES GOYAU

Guido de Baysio

(Baisio)

An Italian canonist, b. about the middle of the thirteenth century of a noble Ghibelline family; d. at Avignon, 10 August, 1313. The probable place of his birth is Reggio, where he also studied law under Guido de Suzaria. Here he became, successively, doctor and professor of canon law and also obtained an ecclesiastical benefice as canon. Gerhard, Bishop of Parma, attached him to himself and remained his patron also as Cardinal-Archbishop of Sabina (d. 1301). To this patron Baysio dedicated his chief work, a commentary on the “Decretum” of Gratian, which he wrote about the year 1300 and entitled “Rosarium.” It is an excellent collection of older glossaries, not contained in the “Glossa Ordinaria,” and principally compiled from Huguccio. Many additions to the glossary which are found in the editions, published since 1505 (Paris), are taken from the “Rosarium” of Baysio and appear over his name.

In 1296 Pope Boniface VIII appointed Baysio Archdeacon of Bologna and chancellor of the celebrated university in that city. Here he at first taught canon law privately and later on became a public professor, which position he held for three years. Called to Avignon in 1304 he retained the dignity of archdeacon, held the office of papal chaplain, and also served in the Apostolic chancery until his death. His stay at Avignon was marked by several literary productions. Here he wrote an accurate and complete, but rather diffuse, commentary on the Liber Sextus and also a “Tractatus super haeresi et aliis criminibus in causa Templariorum et D. Bonifacii.” This latter work was written in connection with the condemnation of the Templars at the Council of Vienne. The second part of the work constitutes a defence of the orthodoxy of Boniface VIII, and is published in Mansi, “Coll. Sacr. Concil.,” XXV (Venice, 1782), 415–426. Having held the position of archdeacon, Baysio is often known by the name Archidiaconus and thus quoted (see Ferraris, Bibliotheca, Rome, 1892), VIII, 271. His chief work, the “Rosarium,” has gone through many editions: Strasburg, 1472; Rome, 1477; Venice, 1480; 1513; 1601, etc. The “Apparatus ad Sextum,” Milan, 1480; Venice, 1577.

Schulte, Geschichte der Quellen u. Litteratur des kan. Rechts (Stuttgart, 1875), II, 186–190; Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1899), IV, 413; Scherer in Kirchenlex., II, s. v.

LEO GANS

John Stephen Bazin

Third Bishop of Vincennes (now the Diocese of Indianapolis), b. at Duerne, near Lyons, France, 15 Oct., 1796; d. at Vincennes, Indiana, U.S.A., 23 April, 1848. He was educated in his native country and ordained in the Cathedral of Lyons, 22 July, 1822. In 1830 he came to America and began his labours among the Catholics of Mobile, Alabama, where for seventeen years he toiled zealously for the religious instruction of the young, organizing the Sunday schools and establishing the Catholic Orphan Asylum Society. He was also the vicar-general of the diocese. In 1846 at the request of Bishop Portier, Father Bazin went to France to secure the services of the Society of Jesus for the College of Spring Hill, Alabama, and of the Brothers of the Christian Schools for the Boys’ Orphan Asylum. In both efforts he was successful. When the Right Rev. Célestine de la Hailandiere, Bishop of Vincennes, resigned his see in 1847, Father Bazin was consecrated his successor on the 24th of October of that year. His episcopal career, which promised to be one of great usefulness to the Church, was cut short by his untimely death.

Clarke, Lives of the Deceased Bishops (New York, 1888), II, 370; Shea, History of the Catholic Church in U.S. (New York, 1889), IV, 200 sqq.; Reuss, Biographical Cyclopaedia of the Catholic Hierarchy (Milwaukee, Wis., 1898).

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Use of Beads at Prayers

Beads variously strung together, according to the kind, order, and number of prayers in certain forms of devotion, are in common use among Catholics as an expedient to ensure a right count of the parts occurring in more or less frequent repetition. Made of materials ranging from common wood or natural berries to costly metals a precious stones, they may be blessed, as they are in most cases, with prayer and holy water, thereby becoming sacramentals. In this character they are prescribed by the rules of most religious orders, both of men and women, to be kept for personal use or to be worn as part of the religious garb. They are now mostly found in the form of the Dominican Rosary, or Marian Psalter; but Catholics are also familiar with the Brigittine beads, the Dolour beads, the Immaculate Conception beads, the Crown of Our Saviour, the Chaplet of the Five Wounds, the Crosier beads, and others. In all these devotions, due to individual zeal or fostered by particular religious bodies, the beads serve one and the same purpose of distinguishing and numbering the constituent prayers.

Rationalistic criticism generally ascribes an Oriental origin to prayer beads; but man’s natural tendency to iteration, especially of prayers, and the spirit and training of the early Christians may still safely be assumed to have spontaneously suggested fingers, pebbles, knotted cords, and strings of beads or berries as a means of counting, when it was desired to say a specific number of prayers. The earliest historical indications of the use of beads at prayer by Christians show, in this as in other things, a natural growth and development. Beads strung together or ranged on chains are an obvious improvement over the well-known primitive method instanced, for example, in the life of the Egyptian Abbot Paul (d. A. D. 341), who used to take three hundred pebbles into his lap as counters and to drop one as he finished each of the corresponding number of prayers it was his wont to say daily. In the eighth century the penitentials, or rule books pertaining to penitents, prescribed various penances of twenty, fifty, or more, paters. The strings of beads, with the aid of which such penances were accurately said, gradually came to be known as paternosters. Archaeological records mention fragments of prayer beads found in the tomb of the holy abbess Gertrude of Nivelles (d. 659); also similar devices discovered in the tombs of St. Norbert and of St. Rosalia, both of the twelfth century. The Bollandists quote William of Malmesbury (De Gest. Pont. Angl., IV, 4) as stating that the Countess Godiva, who founded a religious house at Coventry in 1040, donated, when she was about to die, a circlet or string of costly precious stones on which she used to say her prayers, to be placed on a statue of the Blessed Virgin. In the course of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, such paternosters came into extensive use especially in the religious orders. At certain times corresponding to the canonical hours, lay brothers and lay sisters were obliged to say a certain number of Our Fathers as an equivalent of the clerical obligation of the Divine Office. The military orders, likewise, notably the Knights of St. John, adopted the paternoster beads as a part of the equipment of lay members. In the fifteenth century, wearing the beads at one’s girdle was a distinctive sign of membership in a religious confraternity or third order. If a certain worldliness in the use of beads as ornaments in those days had to be checked, as it was by various capitulary ordinances prohibiting monks and friars, for instance, from having beads of coral, crystal, amber, etc., and nuns from wearing beads around the neck, evidence is not wanting that paternosters were also openly carried as a sign of penance, especially by bands of pilgrims processionally visiting the shrines, churches, and other holy places at Rome. From their purpose, too, it is natural that prayer beads were prized as gifts of friendship. They were especially valued if they had been worn by a person of known sanctity or if they had touched the relics of any saint, in which cases they were often piously believed to be the instruments of miraculous power and healing virtue.

Beads were generally strung either on a straight thread, or cord, or so as to form a circlet, or loop. At the present time chained beads have almost entirely taken the place of the corded ones. To facilitate the counting or to mark off certain divisions of a devotion, sets of beads, usually decades, are separated from each other by a larger bead or sometimes by a medal or metal cross. The number of beads on a chaplet, or Rosary, depends on the number of prayers making up each particular form of devotion. A full Rosary consists of one hundred and fifty Hail Marys, fifteen Our Fathers, and three or four beads corresponding to introductory versicles and the “Glory be to the Father,” etc. Such a “pair of beads” is generally worn by religious. Lay people commonly have beads representing a third part of the Rosary. The Brigittine beads number seven paters in honour of the sorrows and joys of the Blessed Virgin, and sixty-three aves to commemorate the years of her life. Another Crown of Our Lady, in use among the Franciscans, has seventy-two aves, based on another tradition of the Blessed Virgin’s age. The devotion of the Crown of Our Lord consists of thirty-three paters in honour of the years of Our Lord on earth and five aves in honour of His sacred wounds. In the church Latin of the Middle Ages, many names were applied to prayer beads as: devotiones, signacula, oracula, precaria, patriloquium, serta, preculae, numeralia, computum, calculi, and others. An Old English form, bedes, or bedys, meant primarily prayers. From the end of the fifteenth century and in the beginning of the sixteenth, the name paternoster beads fell into disuse and was replaced by the name ave beads and Rosary, chaplet, or crown.

The use of beads among pagans is undoubtedly of greater antiquity than their Christian use; but there is no evidence to show that the latter is derived from the former, any more than there is to establish a relation between Christian devotions and pagan forms of prayer. One sect in India used a chaplet consisting generally of one hundred and eight beads made of the wood of the sacred Tulsi shrub, to tell the names of Vishnu; and another accomplished its invocations of Siva by means of a string of thirty-two or sixty-four berries of the Rudr=E2ksha tree. These or other species of seeds or berries were chosen as the material for these chaplets on account of some traditional association with the deities, as recorded in sacred legends. Some of the ascetics had their beads made of the teeth of dead bodies. Among some sects, especially the votaries of Vishnu, a string of beads is placed on the neck of children when, at the age of six or seven, they are about to be initiated and to be instructed in the use of the sacred formularies. Most Hindus continue to wear the beads both for ornament and for use at prayers. Among the Buddhists, whose religion is of Brahminic origin, various prayer-formulas are said or repeated with the aid of beads made of wood, berries, coral, amber, or precious metals and stones. A string of beads cut from the bones of some holy lama is especially valued. The number of beads is usually one hundred and eight; but strings of thirty or forty are in use among the poorer classes. Buddhism in Burma, Tibet, China, and Japan alike employs a number of more or less complicated forms of devotion, but the frequently recurring conclusion, a form of salutation, is mostly the same, and contains the mystic word OM, supposed to have reference to the Buddhistic trinity. It is not uncommon to find keys and trinkets attached to a Buddhist’s prayer beads, and generally each string is provided with two little cords of special counters, ten in number, in the form of beads or metal disks. At the end of one of these cords is found a miniature thunderbolt; the other terminates in a tiny bell. With the aid of this device the devotee can count a hundred repetitions of his beads or 108 x 10 x 10 formulas in all. Among the Japanese, especially elaborate systems of counting exist. One apparatus is described as capable of registering 36,736 prayers or repetitions.

The Moslems use a string of ninety-nine (or one hundred) beads called the subha or tasbih, on which they recite the “beautiful” names or attributes of Allah. It is divided into three equal parts either by a bead or special shape or size, or by a tassel of gold or silk thread. The use of these Islamic beads appears to have been established as early as the ninth century independently of Buddhistic influences. Some critics have thought the Mohammedan chaplet is kindred to a Jewish form of one hundred blessings. The beads in general use are said to be often made of the sacred clay of Mecca or Medina. Among travellers; records of prayer beads is the famous instance, by Marco Polo, of the King of Malabar, who wore a fine silk thread strung with one hundred and four large pearls and rubies, on which he was wont to pray to his idols. Alexander Von Humboldt is also quoted as finding prayer beads, called Quipos, among the native Peruvians.

JOHN R. VOLZ.

Beard

Among the Jews, as among most Oriental peoples, the beard was especially cherished as a symbol of virility; to cut off another man’s beard was an outrage (II Kings, x, 4); to shave or to pluck one’s own beard was a sign of mourning (Jer., xli, 5; xlviii, 37); to allow the beard to be defiled constituted a presumption of madness (I Kings, xxi, 13). Certain ceremonial cuttings of the beard which probably imitated pagan superstition were strictly forbidden (Lev., xiv, 9). These usages which we learn from the Bible are confirmed by the testimony of monuments, both Egyptian and Assyrian, in which the Jews are invariably depicted as bearded. The Egyptians themselves commonly shaved, and we are told that Joseph, on being taken from his prison, was made to shave before appearing in the presence of the king (Gen., xli, 14).

Similarly in Greece and in Rome, shortly before the time of Christ, it was the fashion to shave, but from the accession of Hadrian onwards, as we may see from the existing statues of the Roman emperors, beards once more became the order of the day. With regard to the Christian clergy, no clear evidence is available for the early centuries. The Apostles, in our most ancient monuments, are for the most part represented as bearded, but not uniformly so. (See Weiss-Liebersdorff, Christus- und Apostelbilder, Freiburg, 1902.) St. Jerome seems to censure the practice of wearing long beards, but no very definite conclusion can be drawn from his allusions or from those of his contemporary, St. Augustine. The positive legislation on the subject for clerics appears to be Canon 44 of the so-called Fourth of Carthage, which in reality represents the synodal decrees of some council in Southern Gaul in the time of St. Cæsarius of Arles (c. 503). There it enjoined that a cleric is to allow neither hair nor beard to grow freely (Clericus nec comam nutriat nec barbam) though this prohibition is very probably directed only against beards of excessive length. Still this canon, which was widely quoted and is included in the “Corpus juris” had great influence in creating a precedent. (See for example the “Penitential” of Halitgar and the so-called “Excerptions” attributed to Egbert of York.) So far as concerns England in particular it was certainly regarded throughout the Middle Ages as uncanonical to allow the beard to grow. A cleric was known as a shorn man (bescoren man, Laws of Wihtred, A.D. 96), and if it should seem that this might refer to the tonsure, we have a law of King Alfred: “If a man shave off another’s beard let him make amends with twenty shillings. If he bind him first and then shave him like a priest (hine to preoste bescire) let him make amends with sixty shillings.” And under Edgar we find the canon: “Let no man in holy orders conceal his tonsure, nor let himself be misshaven nor keep his beard for any time, if he will have God’s blessing and St. Peter’s and ours.” A similar practice obtained generally throughout the West and it was one of the great subjects of reproach on the part of the Greek Church, from the time of Photius onwards, that the Roman clergy systematically cut off their beards. But as Ratramnus of Corbie protested, it was foolish to make an outcry about a matter which concerned salvation so little as this barbæ detonsio aut conservatio.

The legislation requiring the beard to be shaved seems to have remained in force throughout the Middle Ages. Thus an ordinance of the Council of Toulouse, in 1119, threatened with excommunication the clerics who “like a layman allowed hair and beard to grow,” and Pope Alexander III ordained that clerics who nourished their hair and beard were to be shorn by their archdeacon, by force if necessary. This last decree was incorporated in the text of the canon law (Decretals of Gregory IX, III, tit. i, cap. vii). Durandus, finding mystical reasons for everything, according to his wont, tells us that “length of hair is symbolical of the multitude of sins. Hence clerics are directed to shave their beards; for the cutting of the hair of the beard, which is said to be nourished by the superfluous humours of the stomach, denotes that we ought to cut away the vices and sins which are a superfluous growth in us. Hence we shave our beards that we may seem purified by innocence and humility and that we may be like the angels who remain always in the bloom of youth.” (Rationale, II, lib. XXXII.)

In spite of this, the phrase barbam nutrire which was classical in the matter, and was still used by the Fifth Council of Lateran (1512), always remained somewhat ambiguous. Consequently usage in the sixteenth century began to interpret the prohibition as not inconsistent with a short beard. There are still many ordinances of episcopal synods which deal with the subject, but the point upon which stress is laid is that the clergy “should not seem to be aping the fashions of military folk” or wearing flowing beards like goats (hircorum et caprarum more), or allowing the hair on their upper lip to impede their drinking of the chalice. This last has always been accounted a solid reason in favour of the practice of shaving. To judge by the portraits of the popes, it was with Clement VII (1523) that a distinct beard began to be worn, and many among his successors, for example Paul III, allowed the beard to grow to considerable length. St. Charles Borromeo attempted to check the spread of the new fashion, and in 1576 he addressed to his clergy a pastoral “De barbâ radendâ” exhorting them to observe the canons. Still, though the length of clerical beards decreased during the seventeenth century, it was not until its close that the example of the French court and the influence of Cardinal Orsini, Archbishop of Beneventum, contributed to bring about a return to the earlier usage. For the last 200 years there has been no change, and an attempt made by some of the clergy of Bavaria in 1865 to introduce the wearing of beards was rebuked by the Holy See.

As already noted, in Eastern lands a smooth face carries with it the suggestion of effeminacy. For this reason the clergy, whether Catholic or Schismatic, of the Oriental churches have always worn their beards. The same consideration, together with a regard for practical difficulties, has influenced the Roman authorities in according a similar privilege to missionaries, not only in the East but in other barbarous countries where the conveniences of civilization cannot be found. In the case of religious orders like the Capuchins and the Camaldolese Hermits the wearing of a beard is prescribed in their constitutions as a mark of austerity and penance. Individual priests who for medical or other reasons desire to exempt themselves from the law require the permission of their bishop.

BARBIER DE MONTAULT, Le costume et les usages ecclésiastiques (Paris, 1901), 1, 185, 196; THALHOFER in Archiv f. kath. Kirchenrecht (Innsbruck, 1863), X, 93 sqq.; ID. in Kirchenlex., 1, 2049–51; SEGHERS, The Practice of Sharing in the Latin Church in Am. Cath. Quart. Rev. (1882), 278; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1904), 11, n. 178. For pre-Christian times see: VIGOUROUX in Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Barbe; EWING in HAST., Dict. of the Bible, s. v. Beard.

HERBERT THURSTON

Aubrey Beardsley

English artist, born at Brighton, 1872; died at Mentone, France, 16 March, 1898. It has been cleverly said that Beardsley was “a boy who never grew up,” and the statement has a considerable amount of truth in it. He was a wonderfully precocious boy all his life, with the frank merriment, enthusiasm, and exuberance of a lad. He was unable to withstand the desire to do clever, mischievous things and to shock people of narrow opinions, and his ignoble and vicious works were more the result of his Puck-like mischief and eccentricity of habit than of any evil disposition. His earliest published work was a programme for an entertainment in 1888 at Brighton Grammar School, where he was a pupil, and his next in the “Bee Magazine,” Blackburn, 1891.

Young Beardsley commenced work as a clerk in the Guardian Fire Office, but at the earnest persuasions of Aymer Vallance and Pennell he entered Fred Brown’s studio at Westminster and devoted his attention to illustration. While still a lad he attracted the attention of Sir E. Byrne-Jones and Puvis de Chavannes, and it said much for his genius that it received encouragement from men so different in their aims and practice. When nineteen he accepted the tremendous task of illustrating the “Morte D’Arthur,” and carried it through. The famous article upon him in the “Studio” appeared in April, 1893, and from that moment his work was in great demand. In April, 1894, he became art editor of the “Yellow Book,” the first numbers of which caused a great sensation. He was responsible for the first four volumes and then, with Arthur Symons, started the “Savoy,” to which he contributed a series of drawings. During his short life he carried the art of black and white further than any man since Albrecht Dürer. His special qualities were described by Hammerton as of “extreme economy of means, the perfection of discipline, of self-control, and of thoughtful deliberation at the very moment of invention.”

Beardsley had a marvellous knowledge of the quality of line, a real and powerful sense of beauty, coupled with a constant desire to be quaint, fanciful, or bizarre. He possessed a vigour, inventiveness, and daintiness almost unapproachable in the work of any other man. Hammerton speaks of the “serene surety of his drawing,” of his “superb sense of style”‘ but Beardsley’s love of mischief, which he deeply regretted, led him into serious faults and caused him to be often misunderstood. By those who knew him he was regarded as the most original, brilliant, witty, and lovable man they ever met. His illustrations of “Salome,” “The Rape of the Lock,” “Mademoiselle de Maupin” and “Volpone” are amongst his greatest works. From boyhood he had bad health and suffered from frequent attacks of haemorrhage. He was always a man of deep religious feeling and became a Catholic at the close of his life (31 March, 1895).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Beatific Vision

The immediate knowledge of God which the angelic spirits and the souls of the just enjoy in Heaven. It is called “vision” to distinguish it from the mediate knowledge of God which the human mind may attain in the present life. And since in beholding God face to face the created intelligence finds perfect happiness, the vision is termed “beatific.” For further explanation of the subject, see HEAVEN.

E.A. PACE

Beatification and Canonization

HISTORY

According to some writers the origin of beatification and canonization in the Catholic Church is to be traced back to the ancient pagan . In his classic work on the subject (De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione) Benedict XIV examines and at the very outset refutes this view. He shows so well the substantial differences between them that no right-thinking person need henceforth confound the two institutions or derive one from the other. It is a matter of history who were elevated to the honour of apotheosis, on what grounds, and by whose authority; no less clear is the meaning that was attached to it. Often the decree was due to the statement of a single person (possibly bribed or enticed by promises, and with a view to fix the fraud more securely in the minds of an already superstitious people) that while the body of the new god was being burned, an eagle, in the case of the emperors, or a peacock (Juno’s sacred bird), in the case of their consorts, was seen to carry heavenward the spirit of the departed (Livy, Hist. Rome, I, xvi; Herodian, Hist. Rome, IV, ii, iii). Apotheosis was awarded to most members of the imperial family, of which family it was the exclusive privilege. No regard was had to virtues or remarkable achievements. Recourse was frequently had to this form of deification to escape popular hatred by distracting attention from the cruelty of imperial rulers. It is said that Romulus was deified by the senators who slew him; Poppaea owed her apotheosis to her imperial paramour, Nero, after he had kicked her to death; Geta had the honour from his brother Caracalla, who had got rid of him through jealousy.

Canonization in the Catholic Church is quite another thing. The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments. The chief difference, however, lies in the meaning of the term canonization, the Church seeing in the saints nothing more than friends and servants of God whose holy lives have made them worthy of His special love. She does not pretend to make gods (cf. Eusebius Emisenus, Serm. de S. Rom. M.; Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XXII, x; Cyrill. Alexandr., Contra Jul., lib. VI; Cyprian, De Exhortat. martyr.; Conc. Nic., II, act. 3).

The true origin of canonization and beatification must be sought in the Catholic doctrine of the worship (cultus), invocation, and intercession of the saints. As was taught by St. Augustine (Quaest. in Heptateuch., lib. II, n. 94; Contra Faustum, lib. XX, xxi), Catholics, while giving to God alone adoration strictly so-called, honour the saints because of the Divine supernatural gifts which have earned them eternal life, and through which they reign with God in the heavenly fatherland as His chosen friends and faithful servants. In other words, Catholics honour God in His saints as the loving distributor of supernatural gifts. The worship of (latreia), or strict adoration, is given to God alone; the worship of (douleia), or honour and humble reverence, is paid the saints; the worship of hyperdulia (hyperdouleia), a higher form of dulia, belongs, on account of her greater excellence, to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Church (Aug., Contra Faustum, XX, xxi, 21; cf. De Civit. Dei, XXII, x) erects her altars to God alone, though in honour and memory of the saints and martyrs. There is Scriptural warrant for such worship in the passages where we are bidden to venerate angels (Ex., xxiii, 20 sqq.; Jos., v, 13 sqq.; Dan., viii, 15 sqq.; x, 4 sqq.; Luke, ii, 9 sqq.; Acts, xii, 7 sqq.; Apoc., v, 11 sqq.; vii, 1 sqq.; Matt., xviii, 10; etc.), whom holy men are not unlike, as sharers of the friendship of God. And if St. Paul beseeches the brethren (Rom., xv, 30; II Cor., i, 11; Col., iv, 3; Ephes., vi, 18, 19) to help him by their prayers for him to God, we must with even greater reason maintain that we can be helped by the prayers of the saints, and ask their intercession with humility. If we may beseech those who still live on earth, why not those who live in heaven?

It is objected that the invocation of saints is opposed to the unique mediatorship of Christ Jesus. There is indeed “one mediator of God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” But He is our mediator in His quality of our common Redeemer; He is not our sole intercessor nor advocate, nor our sole mediator by way of supplication. In the eleventh session of the Council of Chalcedon (451) we find the Fathers exclaiming, “Flavianus lives after death! May the Martyr pray for us!” If we accept this doctrine of the worship of the saints, of which there are innumerable evidences in the writings of the Fathers and the liturgies of the Eastern and Western Churches, we shall not wonder at the loving care with which the Church committed to writing the sufferings of the early martyrs, sent these accounts from one gathering of the faithful to another, and promoted the veneration of the martyrs.

Let one instance suffice. In the circular epistle of the Church of Smyrna (Eus., Hist. Eccl., IV, xxiii) we find mention of the religious celebration of the day on which St. Polycarp suffered martyrdom (23 February, 155); and the words of the passage exactly express the main purpose which the Church has in the celebration of such anniversaries:

We have at last gathered his bones, which are dearer to us than priceless gems and purer than gold, and laid them to rest where it was befitting they should lie. And if it be possible for us to assemble again, may God grant us to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom with gladness, thus to recall the memory of those who fought in the glorious combat, and to teach and strengthen by his example, those who shall come after us.

This anniversary celebration and veneration of the martyrs was a service of thanksgiving and congratulation, a token and an evidence of the joy of those who engaged in it (Muratori, de Paradiso, x), and its general diffusion explains why Tertullian, though asserting with the Chiliasts that the departed just would obtain eternal glory only after the general resurrection of the body, admitted an exception for the martyrs (De Resurrectione Carnis, xliii). It must be obvious, however, that while private moral certainty of their sanctity and possession of heavenly glory may suffice for private veneration of the saints, it cannot suffice for public and common acts of that kind. No member of a social body may, independently of its authority, perform an act proper to that body. It follows naturally that for the public veneration of the saints the ecclesiastical authority of the pastors and rulers of the Church was constantly required. The Church had at heart, indeed, the honour of the martyrs, but she did not therefore grant liturgical honours indiscriminately to all those who had died for the Faith. St. Optatus of Mileve, writing at the end of the fourth century, tells us (De Schism, Donat., I, xvi, in P.L., XI, 916–917) of a certain noble lady, Lucilla, who was reprehended by Caecilianus, Archdeacon of Carthage, for having kissed before Holy Communion the bones of one who was either not a martyr or whose right to the title was unproved.

The decision as to the martyr having died for his faith in Christ, and the consequent permission of worship, lay originally with the bishop of the place in which he had borne his testimony. The bishop inquired into the motive of his death and, finding he had died a martyr, sent his name with an account of his martyrdom to other churches, especially neighboring ones, so that, in event of approval by their respective bishops, the cultus of the martyr might extend to their churches also, and that the faithful, as we read of St. Ignatius in the “Acts” of his martyrdom (Ruinart, Acta Sincera Martyrum, 19) “might hold communion with the generous martyr of Christ (generoso Christi martyri communicarent). Martyrs whose cause, so to speak, had been discussed, and the fame of whose martyrdom had been confirmed, were known as proved (vindicati) martyrs. As far as the word is concerned it may probably not antedate the fourth century, when it was introduced in the Church at Carthage; but the fact is certainly older. In the earlier ages, therefore, this worship of the saints was entirely local and passed from one church to another with the permission of their bishops. This is clear from the fact that in none of the ancient Christian cemeteries are there found paintings of martyrs other than those who had suffered in that neighborhood. It explains, also, almost the universal veneration very quickly paid to some martyrs, e.g., St. Lawrence, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Sixtus of Rome [Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien (Paris, 1903), 284].

The worship of confessors—of those, that is, who died peacefully after a life of heroic virtue—is not as ancient as that of the martyrs. The word itself takes on a different meaning after the early Christian periods. In the beginning it was given to those who confessed Christ when examined in the presence of enemies of the Faith (Baronius, in his notes to Ro. Mart., 1 January, D), or, as Benedict XIV explains (op, cit., II, c. ii, n. 6), to those who died peacefully after having confessed the Faith before tyrants or other enemies of the Christian religion, and undergone tortures or suffered other punishments of whatever nature. Later on, confessors were those who had lived a holy life and closed it by a holy death in Christian peace. It is in this sense that we now treat of the worship paid to confessors.

It was in the fourth century, as is commonly held, that confessors were first given public ecclesiastical honour, though occasionally praised in ardent terms by earlier Fathers, and although an abundant rewards (multiplex corona) is declared by St. Cyprian to be theirs (De Zelo et Livore, col. 509; cf. Innoc. III, De Myst. Miss., III, x; Benedict XIV, op. cit., I, v, no 3 sqq; Bellarmine, De Missâ, II, xx, no 5). Still Bellarmine thinks it uncertain when confessors began to be objects of cultus, and asserts that it was not before 800, when the feasts of Sts. Martin and Remigius are found in the catalogue of feasts drawn up by the Council of Mainz. This opinion of Innocent III and Benedict XIV is confirmed by the implicit approval of St. Gregory the Great (Dial., I, xiv, and III, xv) and by well attested facts; in the East, for example, Hilarion (Sozomen, III, xiv, and VIII, xix), Ephrem (Greg. Nyss., Orat. in laud. S. Ephrem), and other confessors were publicly honoured in the fourth century; and, in the West, St. Martin of Tours, as is gathered plainly from the oldest Breviaries and the Mozarabic Missal (Bona, Rer. Lit., II, xii, no. 3), and St. Hilary of Poitiers, as can be shown from the very ancient Mass-book known as “Missale Francorum,” were objects of a like cultus in the same century (Martigny, Dictionnaire des antiquités chrétiennes, s. v. Confesseurs).

The reason of this veneration lies, doubtless, in the resemblance of the confessors’ self-denying and heroically virtuous lives to the sufferings of the martyrs; such lives could truly be called prolonged martyrdoms. Naturally, therefore, such honour was first paid to ascetics (Duchesne, op. cit., 284) and only afterwards to those who resembled in their lives the very penitential and extraordinary existence of the ascetics. So true is this that the confessors themselves are frequently called martyrs. St. Gregory Nazianzen calls St. Basil a martyr (Orat. de laud., P.L., XXXVI, 602); St. Chrysostom applies the same title to Eustachius of Antioch (Opp. II, 606); St. Paulinus of Nola writes of St. Felix of Nola that he won heavenly honours, sine sanguine martyr (“a bloodless martyr”—Poem., XIV, Carm. III, v, 4); St. Gregory the Great styles Zeno of Verona a martyr (Dial. III. xix), and Metronius gives to St. Roterius (Acta SS., II, May 11, 306) the same title. Later on, the names of confessors were inserted in the diptychs, and due reverence was paid them. Their tombs were honoured (Martigny, loc. cit.) with the same title (martyria) as those of the martyrs. It remained true, however, at all times that it was unlawful to venerate confessors without permission of the ecclesiastical authority as it had been so to venerate martyrs (Bened. XIV, loc. cit., vi).

We have seen that for several centuries the bishops, in some places only the primates and patriarchs (August., Brevic. Collat. cum Donatistis, III, xiii, no 25 in P.L., XLIII, 628), could grant to martyrs and confessors public ecclesiastical honour; such honour, however, was always decreed only for the local territory over which the grantors held jurisdiction. Still, it was only the Bishop of Rome’s acceptance of the cultus that made it universal, since he alone could permit or command in the Universal Church [Gonzalez Tellez, Comm. Perpet. in singulos textus libr. Decr. (III, xlv), in cap. i, De reliquiis et vener. Sanct.]. Abuses, however, crept into this form of discipline, due as well to indiscretions of popular fervour as to the carelessness of some bishops in inquiring into the lives of those whom they permitted to be honoured as saints. Towards the close of the eleventh century the popes found it necessary to restrict episcopal authority on this point, and decreed that the virtues and miracles of persons proposed for public veneration should be examined in councils, more particularly in general councils. Urban II, Calixtus II, and Eugenius III followed this line of action. It happened, even after these decrees, that “some, following the ways of the pagans and deceived by the fraud of the evil one, venerated as a saint a man who had been killed while intoxicated.” Alexander III (1159–81) took occasion to prohibit his veneration in these words: “For the future you will not presume to pay him reverence, as, even though miracles were worked through him, it would not allow you to revere him as a saint unless with the authority of the Roman Church” (c. i, tit. cit., X. III, xlv). Theologians do not agree as to the full import of this decretal. Either a new law was made (Bellarmine, De Eccles. Triumph., I, viii), in which case the pope then for the first time reserved the right of beatification, or a pre-existing law was confirmed. As the decretal did not put an end to all controversy, and some bishops did not obey it in as far as it regarded beatification (which right they had certainly possessed hitherto), Urban VII published, in 1634, a Bull which put an end to all discussion by reserving to the Holy See exclusively not only its immemorial right of canonization, but also that of beatification.

NATURE OF BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION

Before dealing with the actual procedure in causes of beatification and canonization, it is proper to define these terms precisely and briefly in view of the preceding considerations.

Canonization, generally speaking, is a decree regarding the public ecclesiastical veneration of an individual. Such veneration, however, may be permissive or preceptive, may be universal or local. If the decree contains a precept, and is universal in the sense that it binds the whole Church, it is a decree of canonization; if it only permits such worship, or if it binds under precept, but not with regard to the whole Church, it is a decree of beatification.

In the ancient discipline of the Church, probably even as late as Alexander III, bishops could in their several dioceses allow public veneration to be paid to saints, and such episcopal decrees were not merely permissive, but, in my opinion, preceptive. Such decrees, however, could not prescribe universal honour; the effect of an episcopal act of this kind, was equivalent to our modern beatification. In such cases there was, properly speaking, no canonization, unless with the consent of the pope extending the cultus in question, implicitly or explicitly, and imposing it by way of precept upon the Church at large. In the more recent discipline beautification is a permission to venerate, granted by the Roman Pontiffs with restriction to certain places and to certain liturgical exercises. Thus it is unlawful to pay to the person known as Blessed (i.e. the Beatus, Beatified), public reverence outside of the place for which the permission is granted, or to recite an office in his honour, or to celebrate Mass with prayers referring to him, unless special indult be had; similarly, other methods of honour have been interdicted. Canonization is a precept of the Roman Pontiff commanding public veneration to be paid an individual by the Universal Church. To sum up, beatification, in the present discipline, differs from canonization in this: that the former implies (1) a locally restricted, not a universal, permission to venerate, which is (2) a mere permission, and no precept; while canonization implies a universal precept.

In exceptional cases one or other element of this distinction may be lacking; thus, Alexander III not only allowed but ordered the public cultus of Bl. William of Malavalle in the Diocese of Grosseto, and his action was confirmed by Innocent III; Leo X acted similarly with regard to Bl. Hosanna for the city and district of Mantua; Clement IX with regard to Bl. Rose of Lima, when he selected her as principal patron of Lima and of Peru; and Clement X, by making her patron of all America, the Philippines, and the Indies. Clement X also chose Bl. Stanislaus Kostka as patron of Poland, Lithuania, and the allied provinces. Again, in respect to universality, Sixtus IV permitted the cultus of Bl. John Boni for the Universal Church. In all these instances there was only beatification. The cultus of Bl. Rose of Lima, it is true, was general and obligatory for America, but, lacking complete preceptive universality, was not strictly speaking canonization (Benedict XIV, op. sit., I, xxxix).

Canonization, therefore, creates a cultus which is universal and obligatory. But in imposing this obligation the pope may, and does, use one of two methods, each constituting a new species of canonization, i.e. formal canonization and equivalent canonization. Formal canonization occurs when the cultus is prescribed as an explicit and definitive decision, after due judicial process and the ceremonies usual in such cases. Equivalent canonization occurs when the pope, omitting the judicial process and the ceremonies, orders some servant of God to be venerated in the Universal Church; this happens when such a saint has been from a remote period the object of veneration, when his heroic virtues (or martyrdom) and miracles are related by reliable historians, and the fame of his miraculous intercession is uninterrupted. Many examples of such canonization are to be found in Benedict XIV; e.g. Saints Romuald, Norbert, Bruno, Peter Nolasco, Raymond Nonnatus, John of Matha, Felix of Valois, Queen Margaret of Scotland, King Stephen of Hungary, Wenceslaus Duke of Bohemia, and Gregory VII. Such instances afford a good proof of the caution with which the Roman Church proceeds in these equivalent canonizations. St. Romuald was not canonized until 439 years after his death, and the honour came to him sooner than to any of the others mentioned. We may add that this equivalent canonization consists usually in the ordering of an Office and Mass by the pope in honour of the saint, and that mere enrollment in the Roman Martyrology does not by any means imply this honour (Bened. XIV, 1, c., xliii, no 14).

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND CANONIZATION

Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s. v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: “Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.” These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Suarez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.

What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven. The formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than this:

“In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast.” (Ad honorem . . . beatum N. Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ac sanctorum catalogo adscribimus statuentes ab ecclesiâ universali illius memoriam quolibet anno, die ejus natali . . . piâ devotione recoli debere.)

There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a saint. This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which they publish is infallible (Pesch, Prael. Dogm., I, 552). This general agreement of theologians as to papal infallibility in canonization must not be extended to beatification, not withstanding the contrary teaching of the canonical commentary known as “Glossa” [in cap. un. de reliquiis et venerat. SS. (III, 22) in 6; Innocent., Comm. in quinque Decretalium libros, tit. de reliquiis, etc., no 4; Ostiensis in eumd. tit. no 10; Felini, cap. lii, De testibus, etc., X (II, 20); Caietani, tract. De indulgentiis adversus Lutherum ad Julium Mediceum; Augustini de Ancona, seu Triumphi, De potestate eccl., Q. xiv, a. 4). Canonists and theologians generally deny the infallible character of decrees of beatification, whether formal or equivalent, since it is always a permission, not a command; while it leads to canonization, it is not the last step. Moreover, in most cases, the cultus permitted by beatification, is restricted to a determined province, city, or religious body (Benedict XIV, op. cit., I, xlii). Some, however, have thought otherwise (Arriaga, Theol., V, disp. 7, p. 6; Amicus, Theol., IV, disp. 7, p.4, no 98; Turrianus on II-II, V, disp. 17, no 6; Del Bene, De S. Inquisit. II, dub. 254).

PRESENT PROCEDURE IN CAUSES OF BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION

We must first distinguish causes of martyrs from those of confessors or virgins, since the method followed is not entirely identical in both cases.

THE BEATIFICATION OF CONFESSORS

In order to secure beatification (the most important and difficult step in the process of canonization) the regular procedure is as follows:

Choosing of a vice-postulator by the postulator-general of the cause, to promote all the judicial inquiries necessary in places outside of Rome. Such inquiries are instituted by the local episcopal authority.

The preparation of the inquiries (processus) all of which are carried on by the ordinary episcopal authority. They are of three kinds: (a) Informative inquiries regard the reputation for sanctity and miracles of the servants of God, not only in general, but also in particular instances; there may be several such inquiries if the witnesses to be examined belong to different dioceses. (b) Processes de non cultu are instituted to prove that the decrees of Urban VIII regarding the prohibition of public worship of servants of God before their beatification have been obeyed; they are generally conducted by the bishop of the place where the relics of the servant of God are preserved. (c) Other inquiries are known as Processiculi diligentiarum and have for their object the writings attributed to the person whose beatification is in question; they vary in number according to the dioceses where such writings are found, or are thought likely to be found, and may not be judicially executed before an “Instruction” is obtained from the promotor of the Faith by the postulator-general and by him sent to the bishop in question.

The results of all these inquiries are sent to Rome, to the Congregation of Rites, in charge of a messenger (portitor) chosen by the judges, or by some other secure way, in case a rescript of the congregation dispenses from the obligation of sending a messenger.

They are opened, translated if necessary into Italian, a public copy is made, and a cardinal is deputed by the pope as relator or ponens of the cause, for all which steps rescripts of the congregation, confirmed by the pope, must be obtained.

The writings of the servant of God are next revised by theologians appointed by the cardinal relator himself, authorized to so act by a special rescript. Meantime, the advocate and the procurator of the cause, chosen by the postulator-general, have prepared all the documents that concern the introduction of the cause (positio super introductione causae). These consist of (a) a summary of the informative processes, (b) an information, (c) answers to the observations or difficulties of the promotor of the Faith sent by him to the Postulator.

This collection of documents (positio) is printed and distributed to the cardinals of the Congregation of Rites forty days before the date assigned for their discussion.

If nothing contrary to faith and morals is found in the writings of the servant of God, a decree is published, authorizing further action (quod in causâ procedi possit ad ulteriora), i. e., the discussion of the matter (dubium) of appointment or non-appointment of a commission for the introduction of the cause.

At the time fixed by the Congregation of Rites an ordinary meeting (congregatio) is held in which this appointment is debated by the cardinals of the aforesaid congregation and its officials, but without the vote or participation of the consultors, though this privilege is always granted them by prescript.

If in this meeting the cardinals favour the appointment of the aforesaid commission, a decree to that effect is promulgated, and the pope signs it, but, according to custom, with his baptismal name, not with that of his pontificate. Thenceforward the servant of God is judicially given the title of Venerable.

A petition is then presented asking remissorial letters for the bishops in partibus (outside of Rome), authorizing them to set on foot by Apostolic authority, the inquiry (processus) with regard to the fame of sanctity and miracles in general. This permission is granted by rescript, and such remissorial letters are prepared and sent to the bishops by the postulator-general. In case the eye-witnesses be of advanced age, other remissorial letters are usually granted for the purpose of opening a process known as “inchoative” concerning the particular virtues of miracles of the person in question. This is done in order that the proofs may not be lost (ne pereant probationes), and such inchoative process precedes that upon the miracles and virtues in general.

While the Apostolic process concerning the reputation of sanctity is under way outside of Rome, documents are being prepared by the procurator of the cause for the discussion de non cultu, or absence of cultus, and at the appointed time an ordinary meeting (congregatio) is held in which the matter is investigated; if it be found that the decree of Urban VIII has been complied with, another decree provides that further steps may be taken.

When the inquiry concerning the reputation of sanctity (super famâ) has arrived in Rome, it is opened (as already described in speaking of the ordinary processes, and with the same formalities in regard to rescripts), then translated into Italian, summarized, and declared valid. The documents super famâ in general are prepared by the advocate, and at the proper time, in an ordinary meeting of the cardinals of the Congregation of Rites, the question is discussed: whether there is evidence of a general repute for sanctity and miracles of this servant of God. If the answer is favourable, a decree embodying this result is published.

New remissorial letters are then sent to the bishops in partibus for Apostolical processes with regard to the reputation for sanctity and miracles in particular. These processes must be finished within eighteen months and when they are received in Rome are opened, as above described, and by virtue of an equal number of rescripts, by the cardinal prefect, translated into Italian, and their summary authenticated by the Chancellor of the Congregation of Rites.

The advocate of the cause next prepares the documents (positio) which have reference to the discussion of the validity of all the preceding processes, informative and Apostolic.

This discussion is held in the meeting called congregatio rotalis from the fact that it is only judges of the Rota who vote. If the difficulties of the promotor of the Faith are satisfactorily answered, the decree establishing the validity of the inquiries or processes is published.

Meanwhile all necessary preparation is made for the discussion of the question (dubium): Is there evidence that the venerable servant of God practiced virtues both theological and cardinal, and in an heroic degree? (An constet de virtutibus Ven. servi Dei, tam theologicis quam cardinalibus, in heroico gradu?) In the causes of confessors this step is of primary importance. The point is discussed in three meetings or congregations called respectively, ante-preparatory, preparatory, and general. The first of these meetings is held in the palace of the cardinal relator (reporter) of the cause, and in it only consultors of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, and with their chairman, or prefect, presiding, the third is also held in the Vatican, and at it the pope presides, and both cardinals and consultors vote. For each of these congregations the advocate of the cause prepares and prints official reports (positiones), called respectively report, new report, final report, concerning the virtues, etc.,—positio, positio nova, positio novissima, super virtutibus. In each case, before proceeding to the subsequent meeting, a majority of the consultors must decide that the difficulties of the promotor of the Faith have been satisfactorily solved.

When the Congregation of Rites in the above described general meeting has decided favourably, the pope is asked is asked to sign the solemn decree which asserts that there exists evidence of the heroic virtues of the servant of God. This decree is not published until after the pope, having commended the matter to God in prayer, gives a final consent and confirms by his supreme sentence the decision of the congregation.

The miracles now remain to be proved, of which two of the first class are required in case the practice of virtues in the heroic degree has been proved, in both ordinary and Apostolic inquiries or processes by eyewitnesses—three, if the eyewitnesses were found only in the ordinary processes; four, if the virtues were proven only by hearsay (de auditu) witnesses. If the miracles have been sufficiently proven in the Apostolic processes (super virtutibus) already declared valid, steps are taken at once to prepare the documents with regard to miracles (super miraculis). If in the Apostolic processes only general mention has been made of the miracles, new Apostolic processes must be opened, and conducted after the manner already described for proving the practice of virtues in an heroic degree.

The discussion of the particular miracles proceeds in exactly the same way and in the same order as that of the virtues. If the decisions be favourable, the general meeting of the congregation is followed by a decree, confirmed by the pope, in which it is announced that there is proof of miracles. It must be noted here that in the positio for the ante-preparatory congregation there are required, and are printed, opinions of two physicians, one of whom has been chosen by the postulator, the other by the Congregation of Rites. Of the three reports (positiones) above mentioned, and which are now also required, the first is prepared in the usual way; the second consists of an exposition of the heroic virtues of the servant of God. an information, and a reply to later observations of the promotor of the Faith; the last consists only of an answer to his final observations.

When the miracles have been proved, another meeting of the Congregation of Rites is held in which it is debated once, and only once, whether or not, given the approbation of the virtues and miracles, it is safe to proceed with the solemnities of beatification. If a majority of the consultors be favourable, a decree to this effect is issued by the pope, and at the time appointed by him the solemn beatification of the servant of God takes place in the Vatican Basilica, on which occasion a pontifical Brief is issued permitting the public cultus and veneration of the beatified person now known as Blessed (Beatus).

THE BEATIFICATION OF MARTYRS

The causes of martyrs are conducted in the same way as those of confessors as far as the informative processes and those de non cultu and ad introductionem causae are concerned. But when once the commission of introduction has been appointed they advance much more rapidly.

No remissorial letters are granted for Apostolic processes concerning the general reputation for martyrdom and miracles; the letters sent call for an immediate investigation into the fact of martyrdom, its motive, and the particular miracles alleged. There is no longer a discussion of the general reputation for martyrdom or miracles.

The miracles are not discussed, as formerly, in separate meetings, but in the same meetings that deal with the fact and the motive of the martyrdom.

The miracles (signa) required are not those of the first class; those of the second class suffice, nor is their number determined. On some occasions the decision as to miracles has been entirely dispensed with.

The discussion as to martyrdoms and miracles, formerly held in three meetings or congregations, viz. the ante-preparatory, preparatory, and general, is now usually conducted, through a dispensation to be had in each instance from the sovereign pontiff, in a single congregation known as particularis, or special. It consists of six or seven cardinals of the Congregation of Rites and four or five prelates especially deputed by the pope. There is but one positio prepared in the usual way; if there be an affirmative majority a decree is issued concerning the proof of martyrdom, the cause of martyrdom, and miracles. (Constare de Martyrio, causâ Martyrii et signis.)

The final stage is a discussion of the security (super tuto) with which advance to beatification may be made, as in the case of confessors; the solemn beatification then follows.

This procedure is followed in all cases of formal beatification in causes of both confessors and martyrs proposed in the ordinary way (per viam non cultus). Those proposed as coming under the definition of cases excepted (casus excepti) by Urban VIII are treated in another way. In such cases it must be proved that an immemorial public veneration (at least for 100 years before the promulgation, in 1640, of the decrees of Urban VIII) has been paid the servant of God, whether confessor or martyr. Such cause is proposed under the title of “confirmation of veneration” (de confirmatione cultus); it is dealt with in an ordinary meeting of the Congregation of Rites. When the difficulties of the promotor of the Faith have been satisfied, a pontifical decree confirming the cultus is promulgated. Beatification of this kind is called equivalent or virtual.

THE CANONIZATION OF CONFESSORS OR MARTYRS

The canonization of confessors or martyrs may be taken up as soon as two miracles are reported to have been worked at their intercession, after the pontifical permission of public veneration as described above. At this stage it is only required that the two miracles worked after the permission awarding a public cultus be discussed in three meetings of the congregation. The discussion proceeds in the ordinary way; if the miracles be confirmed another meeting (super tuto) is held. The pope then issues a Bull of Canonization in which he not only permits, but commands, the public cultus, or veneration, of the saint.

It is with the utmost possible brevity that I have described the elements of a process of beatification or canonization. It may be easily conjectured that considerable time must elapse before any cause of beatification or canonization can be conducted, from the first steps of the information, inquiry, or process, to the issuing of the decree super tuto. According to the constitution of this Congregation, more than one important discussion (dubia majora) cannot be proposed at the same time. It must be remembered

that the same cardinals and consultors must vote in all discussions;

that there is but one promotor of the Faith and one sub-promotor, who alone have charge of all observations to be made with regard to the dubia;

that these cardinals and consultors have to treat questions of ritual as well as processes of canonization and beatification.

To execute all this business there is but one weekly meeting (congressus), a kind of minor congregation in which only the cardinal prefect and the major officials vote; in it less important and practical questions are settled regarding rites as well as causes, and answers are given, and rescripts which the pope afterwards verbally approves. The other meetings of the congregation (ordinary, rotal, and “upon virtues and miracles”) may be as few as sixteen in the course of the year. Some other cause must therefore be found for the slow progress of causes of beatification or canonization than a lack of good will or activity on the part of the Congregation of Rites.

EXPENSES

It will not be out of place to give succinctly the ordinary actual expenses of canonization and beatification. Of these expenses some are necessary others merely discretionary, e.g. the expenses incurred in obtaining the different rescripts) others, though necessary, are not specified. Such are the expenses of the solemnity in the Vatican Basilica, and for paintings representing the newly beatified which are afterwards presented to the pope, the cardinals, officials, and consultors of the Congregation of Rites. The limits of this class of expenses depend on the postulator of the cause. If he chooses to spend a moderate sum the entire cause from the first process to the solemn beatification will not cost him less than $20,000. The expenses of the process from beatification to canonization will easily exceed $30,000. In illustration of this we subjoin the final account of the expenses of the public solemnities in the Vatican Basilica for the canonization by Leo XIII, of Saints Anthony Maria Zaccaria and Peter Fourier, as published by the Most Rev. Diomede Panici, titular Archbishop of Laodicea, then Secretary of the Congregation of Rites.

To decoration of the Basilica, lights, architectural designs, labour, and superintendence—Lire 152,840.58

Procession, Pontifical Mass, preparation of altars in Basilica—8,114.58

Cost of gifts presented to Holy Father—1,438.87

Hangings, Sacred Vestments, etc.—12,990.60

Recompense for services and money loaned—3,525.07

To the Vatican Chapter as perquisites for decorations and candles—18,000.00

Propine and Competenza—16,936.00

Incidental and unforeseen expenses—4,468,40

Total—221,849.10 or (taking the lira equivalent to $.193 in 1913 United States money) $42,816.87.

CAMILLUS BECCARI.

Mount of Beatitudes

This name is given to the place where Our Saviour delivered the “Sermon on the Mount,” beginning with the Beatitudes. The scene of this discourse is traditionally located on Karn Hattin (or Kurun Hattîn), the Horns of Hattin, a mountain which receives its name from the little village at its northern base and from the two cones or horns which crown its summit. Karn Hattin is in Galilee in easy distance of Nazareth, Cana, and Mt. Tabor to the southwest, of Tiberias and Lake Gennesaret (the Sea of Galilee) to the east, and of Capharnaum to the northeast, in the centre, therefore, of much of the ministry of Jesus. It lies 1, 816 feet above the lake and 1,135 feet above the sea level (according to Baedeker, Palestine and Syria, Leipzig, 1898, pp. 285, 288, which has the high authority of Socin and Benzinger). This mountain, rising above the hills that skirt the lake, is the onl height to the west that can be seen from its shores. It consists of a low ridge about one-quarter of a mile long extending east and west, and rising at each extremity into a cone or horn. The horn, which is the taller, is only sixty feet above the ridge. Between the horns lies an uneven platform which could easily accomodate the crowd that followed Jesus; but it is believed that the spot on which the discourse was given is lower down, on a level place on the southern side of the mountain, corresponding with St. Luke’s description (topou pedinou), vi. 17, which may mean a level place, as well as a “plain.” From the eastern slope of the hill there is a beautiful view, to the east, of the lake with the Jôlan (Gaulanitis) mountains beyond, to the south, the plateau of Ard el-Hamma and Mt. Tabor, and to the north the snowy height of Mt. Hermon. The tradition that there was a village on the mountain top, if true (the only proof being the remains of a wall which served as defence to a camp), might lend point to the reference in the sermon to the city which was seated on a hill and could not be hid (Matt., v, 14); and the beautiful flowers that abound there might include the unindentified “lilies of the field” (vi, 28). Bishop Le Camus (Notre Voyage aux Pays Bibliques, II, pp. 220–222) thought he never saw elsewhere and never imagined so lovely a variety and harmony in the beauty of flowers; other travellers are scarcely so enthusiastic, but all agree the spot has a charm of its own. The Horns of Hattin are mentioned by a feeble and late tradition as the site of the second multiplication of loaves. the Jews of the locality point out here also the tomb of Jethro, father-in-law of Moses. During the Crusades the plain below was the scene of the battle in which Saladin dealt the death-blow to French power in Palestine (3–4 July, 1187).

The tradition regarding the scene of the Sermon on the Mount, though usually received with a certain degree of favour by Scriptural scholars, apparently does not go back beyond the crusaders. St. Jerome, the best informed man of his day on points of this nature, knew of no such tradition and merely conjectured that the scene was on Mt. Tabor or some other high mountain of Galilee (Comm. in Ev. S. Matt. in Cap. v). The Gospels, in fact, afford but little help in determining the site. Matt., v, 1, locates the sermon on the mountain (to oros), and Luke, vi. 12, uses the same expression for the spot from which Our Lord descended before He preached on the “level place,” vi, 17. The expression most naturally “suggests that the sermon had long been traditionally connected with a mountain and seems to mean the mountain on which the sermon was delivered” (Allen, St. Matthew, New York, 1907).Some scholars even see in the definite article the indication of a particular mountain which the Evangelists suppose known to the reader; but popular curiosity concerning the scene of particular Gospel events is a growth of later date. Some interpret it as “the mountain that was at hand.” Others refuse to see in the mountain a reference to any particular mountain at all, but interpret the word as meaning “the tableland, the mountainous district.” To oros is used in this sense in the Septuagint translation of Gen., xix, 17, 19, 30, xxxi, 23, 25, xxxvi, 8, 9. and appears to have the same meaning in Matt., xiv, 23, xv, 29, mark, vi, 46, Luke, ix, 28, John, vi, 3. Possibly the word is to be thus interpreted here also, but St. Luke more probably refers (vi, 12) to a particular mountain on which Our Lord spent the night in prayer and from which he descended to the level place or tableland to preach the discourse.

According to another opinion recently put forth by certain critics, the mountain is purely ideal in Matthew, while Luke a plain is the place on which the Beatitudes were spoken. The author of the First Gospel, in the opinion of Loisy (Le Discours sur la Montagne) “desires to have for the publication of the New Law, a setting analogous to that which is described in Exodus (xx, 18–22) for the Old Law. The mountain of Matthew is the Sinai of the Gospel where Jesus speaks as the prince of the kingdom of God and shows himself greater than Moses . . . To seek an exact geographical determination here is no more expedient than in the case of the mountain of the temptation,” which was purely, being represented as high enough to afford a view of all the kingdoms of the world. There is probably an element of truth in this opinion; nearly all the Fathers seek a symbolic meaning in the mountains (v. St. Thomas Aquinis, Catena Aurea, loc. cit.) and are probably right in attributing it to Matthew. But his account and that of St. Luke have too matter-of-fact an air to allow us to believe that either intended the mountain to be regarded as purely ideal. Matthew, believed then, that the New Law, just as the Old, was really given on a mountain. We are assuming here, of course, that the Sermon on the Mount was a genuine discourse by Our Lord, not a mere rearrangement of His sayings made by Matthew.

If we seek to determine the particular mountain to which the Evangelists allude, we cannot advance with anything like certainty beyond the ancient opinion of St. Jerome (Comm. in Ev. Matt.) that the events before and after the discourse show that it was given on some mountain in Galilee. It is not unlikely that the locality was not far distant from Capharnaum, into which Our Lord entered after finishing his discourse (Matt., viii., 5; Luke, vii, 1); but the Evangelists do not say how soon after the discourse he entered Capharnaum. We know from their literary methods that it may have been a day, a week, or even more, for they had little interest in the chronological sequence of events, and the attempt to press details of this sort only results in interminable contradictions. Besides, the site of Capharnaum itself is uncertain. Neither Evangelist gives us a hint as to what vicinity Jesus set out from to ascend the mountain, except that it was somewhere in Galilee; how can the mountain be determined? It is true many (e.g. Stanley) assume it must have been from the lakeside or its neighbourhood; but no word in the Gospel warrants the assumption though it is the most likely one.

In favor of Karn Hattin, it is said, is the fact that it is accesible from all sides, which is thought to be demanded by the narratives of Matthew ( iv, 25, v, 1) and Luke (vi, 17). But this argument, although it is accepted by Dean Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, London, 1883, p. 369) who is usually quite rigorous in requiring proof, has little force, since the multitude did not flock to the mountain from all sides, but, according to Matthew, at least, first gathered together and followed Jesus up the mountainside. (Cf. iv, 25, v, 1, with vii, 28, where the multitude, not merely the disciples, are found on the spot where the sermon was delivered). There is little but negative evidence in favour of Karn Hattin; Edersheim (Life and Times of Jesus, New York, 1896) says there are several reasons which make it unsuitable, but gives none. It is near the scenes of Our Lord’s greatest activity and fulfills all the requirements of the narrative. We must add, however, that so great an authority as Robinson ( Biblical Researches in Palestine, III, 487) says there are a number of hills to the west of the lake equally suitable as Karn Hattin; but this hardly gives its proper force to the word, the mountain, which seems to mark the place as distinct from the hills of almost uniform height in the vicinity.

LEGENDRE in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, 1528, s.v. Beatitudes, Mont des; FOUARD, The Christ (New York, 1891); ANDREWS, The Life of Our Lord (New York, 1901); THOLUCK, Die Bergrede, tr. The Sermon on the Mount (Philadelphia, 1860); VOTAW in HAST., Dict. of the Bible, Extra Volume, s.v. Sermon on the Mount; LE CAMUS, The Life of Christ (tr. New York). II; MAAS, The Gospedl according to St. Matthew (St. Louis, 1896), 57, 58.

JOHN F. FENLON

Eight Beatitudes

The solemn blessings (beatitudines, benedictiones) which mark the opening of the Sermon on the Mount, the very first of Our Lord’s sermons in the Gospel of St. Matthew (v, 3–10). Four of them occur again in a slightly different form in the Gospel of St. Luke (vi, 22), likewise at the beginning of a sermon, and running parallel to Matthew, 5–7, if not another version of the same. And here they are illustrated by the opposition of the four curses (24–26). The fuller account and the more prominent place given the Beatitudes in St. Matthew are quite in accordance with the scope and the tendency of the First Gospel, in which the spiritual character of the Messianic kingdom—the paramount idea of the Beatitudes—is consistently put forward, in sharp contrast with Jewish prejudices. The very peculiar form in which Our Lord proposed His blessings make them, perhaps, the only example of His sayings that may be styled poetical—the parallelism of thought and expression, which is the most striking feature of Biblical poetry, being unmistakably clear.

The text of St. Matthew runs as follows:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)

Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. (Verse 4)

Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)

Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)

Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8)

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)

Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)

TEXTUAL CRITICISM

As regards textual criticism, the passage offers no serious difficulty. Only in verse 9, the Vulgate and many other ancient authorities omit the pronoun autoi, ipsi; probably a merely accidental omission. There is room, too, for serious critical doubt, whether verse 5 should not be placed before verse 4. Only the etymological connection, which in the original is supposed to have existed between the “poor” and the “meek,” makes us prefer the order of the Vulgate.

FIRST BEATITUDE

The word poor seems to represent an Aramaic ‘ányâ (Hebr. ‘anî), bent down, afflicted, miserable, poor; while meek is rather a synonym from the same root, ‘ánwan (Hebr. ‘ánaw), bending oneself down, humble, meek, gentle. Some scholars would attach to the former word also the sense of humility; others think of “beggars before God” humbly acknowledging their need of Divine help. But the opposition of “rich” (Luke, vi, 24) points especially to the common and obvious meaning, which, however, ought not to be confined to economical need and distress, but may comprehend the whole of the painful condition of the poor: their low estate, their social dependence, their defenceless exposure to injustice from the rich and the mighty. Besides the Lord’s blessing, the promise of the heavenly kingdom is not bestowed on the actual external condition of such poverty. The blessed ones are the poor “in spirit,” who by their free will are ready to bear for God’s sake this painful and humble condition, even though at present they be actually rich and happy; while on the other hand, the really poor man may fall short of this poverty “in spirit.”

SECOND BEATITUDE

Inasmuch as poverty is a state of humble subjection, the “poor in spirit,” come near to the “meek,” the subject of the second blessing. The anawim, they who humbly and meekly bend themselves down before God and man, shall “inherit the land” and possess their inheritance in peace. This is a phrase taken from Ps. xxxvi (Hebr., xxxvii), 11, where it refers to the Promised Land of Israel, but here in the words of Christ, it is of course but a symbol of the Kingdom of Heaven, the spiritual realm of the Messiah. Not a few interpreters, however, understand “the earth.” But they overlook the original meaning of Ps. xxxvi, 11, and unless, by a far-fetched expedient, they take the earth also to be a symbol of the Messianic kingdom, it will be hard to explain the possession of the earth in a satisfactory way.

THIRD BEATITUDE

The “mourning” in the Third Beatitude is in Luke (vi, 25) opposed to laughter and similar frivolous worldly joy. Motives of mourning are not to be drawn from the miseries of a life of poverty, abjection, and subjection, which are the very blessings of verse 3, but rather from those miseries from which the pious man is suffering in himself and in others, and most of all the tremendous might of evil throughout the world. To such mourners the Lord Jesus carries the comfort of the heavenly kindgom, “the consolation of Israel” (Luke, ii, 25) foretold by the prophets, and especially by the Book of Consolation of Isaias (xi-lxvi). Even the later Jews knew the Messiah by the name of Menahhem, Consoler. These three blessings, poverty, abjection, and subjection are a commendation of what nowadays are called the passive virtues: abstinence and endurace, and the Eighth Beatitude (verse 10) leads us back again to the teaching.

FOURTH BEATITUDE

The others, however, demand a more active behaviour. First of all, “hunger and thirst” after justice: a strong and continuous desire of progress in religious and moral perfection, the reward of which will be the very fulfilment of the desire, the continuous growth in holiness.

FIFTH BEATITUDE

From this interior desire a further step should be taken to acting to the works of “mercy,” corporal and spiritual. Through these the merciful will obtain the Divine mercy of the Messianic kingdom, in this life and in the final judgment. The wonderful fertility of the Church in works and institutions of corporal and spiritual mercy of every kind shows the prophetical sense, not to say the creative poer, of this simple word of the Divine Teacher.

SIXTH BEATITUDE

According to biblical terminology, “cleanness of heart” (verse 8) cannot exclusively be found in interior chastity, nor even, as many scholars propose, in a genral purity of conscience, as opposed to the Levitical, or legal, purity required by the Scribes and Pharisees. At least the proper place of such a blessing does not seem to be between mercy (verse 7) and peacemaking (verse 9), nor after the apparently more far-reaching virtue of hunger and thirst after justice. But frequently in the Old and New Testaments (Gen., xx, 5; Job, xxxiii, 3; Pss., xxiii (Hebr., xxiv), 4; lxxii (Hebr., lxxiii), 1; I Tim,i.5; II Tim, ii, 22) the “pure heart” is the simple and sincere good intention, the “single eye” of Matt., vi, 22, and thus opposed to the unavowed by-ends of the Pharisees (Matt., vi, 1–6, 16–18; vii, 15; xxiii, 5–7, 14) This “single eye” or “pure heart” is most of all required in the works of mercy (verse 7) and zeal (verse 9) in behalf of one’s neighbor. And it stands to reason that the blessing, promised to this continuous looking for God’s glory, should consist of the supernatural “seeing” of God Himself, the last aim and end of the heavely kingdom in its completion.

SEVENTH BEATITUDE

The “peacemakers” (verse 9) are those who not only live in peace with others but moreover do their best to preserve peace and friendship among mankind and between God and man, and to restore it when it has been disturbed. It is on account of this godly work, “an imitating of God’s love of man” as St. Gregory of Nyssa styles it, that they shall be called the sons of god, “children of your Father who is in heaven” (Matt., v, 45).

EIGHTH BEATITUDE

When after all this the pious disciples of Christ are repaid with ingratitude and even “persecution” (verse 10) it will be but a new blessing, “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

So, by an inclusion, not uncommon in biblical poetry, the last blessing goes back to the first and the second. The pious, whose sentiments and desires whose works and sufferings are held up before us, shall be blessed and happy by their share in the Messianic kingdom, here and hereafter. And viewed in the intermediate verses seem to express, in partial images of the one endless beatitude, the same possession of the Messianic salvation. The eight conditions required constitute the fundamental law of the kingdom, the very pith and marrow of Christian perfection. For its depth and breadth of thought, and its practical bearing on Christian life, the passage may be put on a level with the Decalogue in the Old, and the Lord’s Prayer in the New Testament, and it surpassed both in its poetical beauty of structure.

Besides the commentaries on St. Matthew and St. Luke, and the monographs on the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes are treated in eight homilies of ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, P.G., XLIV, 1193–1302, and in one other of ST. CHROMATIUS, P.L., XX, 323–328. Different partristical sermons on single beatitudes are noticed in P.L. ., CXXI (Index IV) 23 sqq.

JOHN P. VAN KASTEREN.

David Beaton

(Or Bethune)

Cardinal, Archbishop of St. Andrews, b. 1494; d. 29 May, 1546. He was of an honourable Scottish family on both sides, being a younger son of John Beaton of Balfour Fife, by Isabel, daughter of David Monypenny of Pitmilly, also in Fife. Educated first at St. Andrews, he went in his seventeenth year to Glasgow, where his uncle, James Beaton, was then archbishop, and where his name appears in the list of students of the university, in 1511. He completed his education in Paris, and in 1519 was appointed by James V Scottish resident at the French court. His first ecclesiastical preferment was to the rectories of Campsie and Cambushing, to which he was presented by his uncle, the Archbishop of Glasgow, and when the latter was translated to the primatial see in 1522, he resigned to his nephew the commendatory Abbacy of Arbroath, obtaining for him from Pope Adrian IV a dispensation from wearing the monastic habit. Beaton returned from France in 1525, took his seat in Parliament as Abbot of Arbroath, and was soon created by the young king Lord Privy Seal, in succession to Bishop Crichton of Dunkeld. James dispatched him to Paris in 1533, with Sir Thomas Erskine, in order to renew the Scottish alliance with Francis I, and to negotiate for the marriage of James with Magdalen, only daughter of the French king. Beaton was present at the marriage of the royal pair at Notre-Dame on 1 January, 1537, and returned with them to Scotland in May; but the young queen died of consumption two months later. We next find Beaton on a mission in England, negotiating about certain difficulties which had arisen on the Border. The Queen-Mother (Margaret) wrote specially commending the Abbot of Arbroath to her brother, Henry VIII, mentioning that he was “gret wyth the Kyng” (of Scots). A few months later he was again in Paris, arranging for the marriage of his widowed king with Mary of Guise. After the ceremony (by proxy) in the French capital, Beaton conducted the bride to Scotland, assisted at the solemnization of the marriage in St. Andrews Cathedral, and was afterwards sponsor (together with the Archbishop of Glasgow) to the first child that was born of the union. His elevation to the episcopate took place during this second embassy to the French court. King Francis nominated him to the Bishopric of Mirepoix (a suffragan see of Toulouse, with an annual revenue of 10,000 livres), and he received the papal confirmation on 5 December, 1537. Two months later he assisted at the coronation of James and Mary at Holyrood, himself crowning the queen. In 1538 the Kings of France and Scotland showed their appreciation of Beaton’s services by petitioning Pope Paul III to advance him to the cardinalate. James in making this request (15 August, 1538) protested his own firm attachment to the Holy See, and urged the necessity of some ecclesiastic being invested with a dignity which would enable him to represent the majesty of the Church in Scotland, and better withstand the “insane errors” of the time. The king repeated his request a month later, and on 20 December, 1538, Beaton was created Cardinal Priest of the Title of St. Stephen on the Cœlian Hill. This had been the title of Cardinal John de Salerno, who had presided at the meeting of Scottish bishops at Perth in the reign of William the Lion; but the only Scottish cardinal before Beaton had been William Wardlaw, Bishop of Glasgow, who died in 1387. Early in 1539 Archbishop James Beaton of St. Andrews died, and his nephew the cardinal (who had six months before been appointed his coadjutor with right of succession) was promoted to the primacy of Scotland. A year later, at his request, William Gibson, Titular Bishop of Libaria, was nominated his coadjutor, with an annual income of £200, paid out of the revenues of the archiepiscopal see.

Beaton, whose commanding ability had now raised him to the highest position attainble in Scotland by a subject, was to have that ability fully tested in the growing unrest of the times, and in the relations, becoming rapidly more and more strained, between James V and his uncle, Henry VIII of England. The latter, in his designs to detach Scotland from its allegiance to the Holy See and bring it into subjection to himself, was supported by the Douglases and other powerful nobles, and by the sympathy of his sister, the Queen- Mother Margaret. James, on the other hand, was backed by the zeal, wealth, influence, and talent of the whole clergy of the realm, and by many loyal Scottish lords; he had the sympathy of France and of the Emperor of Germany, the strong support of the Holy See, and the warm adherence of the great mass of his subjects. Henry in vain tried to shake his nephew’s confidence in Beaton by sending two successive embassies to Scotland, in order to urge James to follow his example in usurping the supremacy of the Church in his dominions. The King of Scots refused to be drawn into Henry’s net, mantained his unshaken trust in Beaton’s statesmanship and patriotism, and declined to leave his kingdom for a personal interview with his uncle. His intrigues being baffled, Henry had recourse to force; and hostilities broke out between the two kingdoms in 1542. The Scotch, successful in the first engagement, were hopelessly defeated by the English forces on Solway Moss, and James died broken-hearted at Falkland soon afterwards, leaving a daughter (Mary) a week old, to inherit the crown. Beaton produced a document in which he, with three nobles, was appointed regent by the late monarch’s will; but the nobles assembled in Edinburgh refused to act on this, declared the Earl of Arran (heir- presumptive to the throne) regent during the queen’s minority, and imprisoned the cardinal on a false charge of conspiring with the Duke of Guise against Arran’s authority. Henry now commenced negotiations with the Scottish regent and Parliament with the object of arranging a marriage between the infant queen and his own heir (afterwards Edward VI), of getting the Scottish fortresses and the government of the country committed into his hands, and the person of Mary entrusted to his custody. Arran and the Parliament agreed to the project of marriage, but were resolute against the rest of Henry’s schemes. Meanwhile the unjust imprisonment of the cardinal-primate had been followed by the proclamation of an interdict throughout the kingdom; and so deep was the feeling aroused among the still Catholic people by the closing of the churches and the suspension of the sacraments that it was thought prudent at once to release Beaton. The undaunted primate instantly summoned the bishops and clergy to St. Andrews; and the assembly, fully alive to that imminent danger (menacing both Church and State) of Henry’s insolent demands, spontaneously voted a large sum, taxed on their own benefices, in defence of the national rights. Beaton by his patriotic ardour awakened similar sentiments in the people at large; the person of the baby queen was safeguarded, and a number of the nobles, including the regent himself (who about this time abjured the new doctrines and submitted to the Catholic Church), abandoned their unnatural alliance with the enemies of Scotland, and ranged themselves on the cardinal’s side.

In October, 1543, Marco Grimani, Patriarch of Aquileia, came from Rome as nuncio to the Scottish court; and it was during his sojourn in Scotland that the high dignity of legate a latere was (in January, 1544) bestowed on Beaton by the pope. About the same time the cardinal was invested with the office of chancellor of the kingdom; the Parliament annulled the treaty of marriage between the queen and Prince Edward, on the ground of the duplicity and bad faith of Henry VIII; vigorous measures were taken against the “English party” among the Scottish nobles; and the bishops were desired to take equally stern measures for the suppression of heretical doctrines. Furious at the frustration of his schemes, Henry now connived at, and indeed openly encouraged, a plot for the removal from his path of the able and patriotic man who had been the chief instrument in foiling his ambitious plans. George Wishart (whose identity, long disputed, with the Wishart afterwards put to death as a heretic has been conclusively proved by the published State Papers of the time) was employed to negotiate between Crichton of Brunston and Beaton’s English enemies, on the subject of the assassination of the cardinal. Nearly three years were devoted to the intrigues and correspondence connected with this dark scheme; and, meanwhile, the primate never relaxed his zeal and diligence in the performance of his high functions. He summoned another convention of the clergy in Edinburgh in January, 1546, when further large sums were voted in support of the defence of the realm against the invading armies of England; and two months later he convoked a provincial council at St. Andrews. The great general council was already sitting at Trent, but no Scottish prelate was able to attend it, the cardinal himself seeking dispensation from Pope Paul III, on the ground of the overwhelming nature of his duties in Scotland. The council at St. Andrews was interrupted by the apprehension and trial, for preaching heretical doctrines, of George Wishart. The trial took place in St. Andrews Cathedral, in presence of the two archbishops and other prelates; the articles of accusation were read and duly proved; and Wishart, remaining obdurate in his errors, was condemned to death, and suffered (being first strangled and afterwards burned) at St. Andrews on 28 March, 1546.

The profound impression caused throughout Scotland by Wishart’s execution induced Beaton’s enemies to hurry on their murderous designs; and two months later a pretext was found for the consummation of the long-cherished plot in a dispute which had arisen on a question of property, between the cardinal and Norman Leslie, Master of Rothes. The latter, with his uncle John Leslie, Kirkaldy of Grange, and James Melville, undertook the work of butchery; and at daybreak on 29 May, 1546, they obtained admission into the castle of St. Andrews, and dispatched the cardinal with repeated blows of their swords. Thus perished, in the forty-fifth year of his age, one to whom (as his most recent, and far from partial, biographer, Professor Herkless, declares) “historic truth must give a place among Scotland’s greatest statesmen and patriots.” No student of his life and of the history of his times can deny the justice of this tribute; and it may fairly be added that he proved himself not less vigilant in the discharge of the spiritual functions of his office, in watching over the interests of the Scottish Church, and protecting her by every means at his command from the inroads of heresy and schism. As to the charge of persecution brought against him, account must be taken of the age in which he lived, and the prevailing sentiments of the time. Seven persons in all are said to have suffered death under him; and Hosack, comparing this number with the hundreds of lives sacrificed under some of his contemporaries, concludes that Beaton deserves rather to be commended for his moderation than denounced for his barbarity. With regard to his moral character, it has been violently attacked by his enemies, and no less warmly defended by his friends. The charges of immorality against him, never raised until after his death, are in many cases absurd and contradictory; and Leslie, Winzet, and the others who strenuously denied them, are fully as worthy of credit as those who maintained them. The evidence from contemporary history is indeed insufficient to decide the truth or falsity of these charges; and Lyon, the historian of St. Andrews, prudently concludes that the accusations and the denials may be considered as neutralizing one another.

There are two well-known portraits of Beaton, one (formerly in the Scots College at Rome, now at Blairs College, Aberdeenshire), depicting him in his doctor’s cap, with slightly silvered brown hair, clear-cut features, and a noble and commanding air. In the other portrait, which hangs in Holyrood Palace, he is represented in a black dress, with white bands, and wearing the red skull-cap of a cardinal.

LESLEY, Hist. of Scotland (Bannatyne Club, 1830), 149, 155, 158; State Papers, Henry VIII (Foreign and Domestic), V, VI; THEINER, Monumenta, 609, 611, 613; LYON, Hist. of St. Andrews, Ancient and Modern (Edinburgh, 1838); HERKLESS, Cardinal Beaton, Priest and Politician (Edinburgh, 1891); Diurnal of Occurrents in Scotland to the year 1575; KEITH, Catalogue of the Bishops of Scotland (1755), 23, 24; LYNSAYE, Tragedy of David Cardinall and archbishoppe of Saint Andrewes (London, 1546); Epistolæ Reg. Scot., I, 339–341; HAY, Ad Cardinalem D. Beaton Gratulatorius Panegyricus.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

James Beaton (1)

(Or Bethune)

A Scottish Archbishop; b. c. 1473; d. at St. Andrews, 1539, was the sixth and youngest son of John Beaton of Balfour, in Fife. He graduated as Master of Arts at St. Andrews University in 1493, four years later was Precentor of Dornoch Cathedral (Diocese of Caithness), and in 1503 Provost of the Collegiate Church of Bothwell. Next year he became Prior of Whithorn and Abbot of Dunfermline, and in 1505 was made Treasurer of the Kingdom. In 1508 he as elected to the See of Galloway, in succession to George Vaus, but before his consecration he was chosen to succeed Robert Blackader (who had died, whilst on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, in July, 1508) as Archbishop of Glasgow, and was consecrated at Stirling, 15 April, 1509. With the archbishopric he held the commendatory Abbeys of Arbroath and Kilwinning, and in 1515 he became Chancellor of Scotland. King James V, whose father had fallen at Flodden in 1513, was at this time a child of three, and Beaton, as one of the Council of Regency, without whose consent the queen-mother could not act, was one of the most important personages in the realm during the minority of the young king. The country was at this time distracted by the feuds between two of the regents, Angus and Arran, and Beaton, who was connected with the latter (for Arran had married as his third wife a daughter of Sir James Beaton of Creich), naturally espoused his kinsman’s side. A well-known story tells how Bishop Gavin Douglas of Dunkeld came to Glasgow to urge the archbishop to allay the strife within the council, and how Beaton, striking his breast as he declared upon his conscience that he was powerless in the matter, caused the coat of mail which he wore under his ecclesiastical habit to rattle. “Alas, my Lord,” said his brother bishop at this strange sound, “I fear your conscience clatters!” In 1522 Beaton was translated to St. Andrews, vacant by the death of Archbishop Foreman. As primate he threw all his powerful influence into the scale against the intrigues of Henry VIII to obtain predominance in Scotland; and it was greatly owing to his statesmanship that the old league with France was maintained, and that the young king chose for his bride Magdalen of France instead of Mary of England. Albany’s jealousy had deprived Beaton of the chancellorship some years previously, and he was never reappointed, though he enjoyed the full favour of the king. A few months after the second marriage of James (to Mary of Guise) the primate got his nephew, David Cardinal Beaton, appointed his coadjutor with right of succession and he died in the autumn of 1539 in his castle at St. Andrews.

The stormy period in which Beaton’s public life was cast, with France and England both intriguing for the alliance of Scotland, and the independence of the kingdom trembling in the balance, has made him, perhaps inevitably, appear to posterity more prominent as a statesman (in which quality there is no room for doubt as to his ability or his patriotism) than as a churchman and a prelate. There is, however, evidence that during both his thirteen years’ tenure of the See of Glasgow and the seventeen years during which he held the primacy, he concerned himself closely with both the material and spiritual interests of the two dioceses, and in particular with the advancement of learning. In Glasgow he added and endowed altars in his cathedral, made additions also to the episcopal palace, which he encircled with a wall, and he erected stone bridges in various parts of the diocese. He was, moreover, as sedulous as his predecessors had been in safeguarding the ancient privileges of the archiepiscopal see. On his translation to St. Andrews he proved himself a constant benefactor to the university of that city, and he founded there a new college (St. Mary’s) for the study of divinity, civil and canon law, medicine, and other subjects. The new college was confirmed by Pope Paul III in February, 1538, and was extended and completed by Beaton’s successor, Archbishop Hamilton, sixteen years later. It still exists as the divinity college of the university. Finally, Beaton showed himself ever zealous for the preservation of the unity of the Faith in Scotland. Under the direct orders of the pope (Clement VII) and unhesitatingly supported by the king, he caused many of those engaged in propagating the new doctrines to be arrested, prosecuted, and in some cases put to death. Modern humanity condemns the cruel manner of their execution; but such severities were the result of the spirit of the age, for which Archbishop Beaton cannot be held responsible. There is no reason to doubt that his motive in sanctioning the capital punishment of notorious heretics were simply to avert the miseries which religious schism could not but entail on a hitherto united people.

Regist. Episcop. Glasg., II, 547 sqq.; Theiner, Monumenta, 553, 594, 597; Acts Parl. Scotl., II; Keith, Hist. Cat. Of Scott. Bishops (1755); Walcott, Ancient Church of Scotland, 190, 191; Teulet, Papiers d’etat, III.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

James Beaton (2)

(Or Bethune)

Archbishop of Glasgow, b. 1517; d. 24 April, 1603; the son of James Beaton of Balfarg (a younger son of John Beaton of Balfour) and nephew to Cardinal David Beaton. He was elected to the archbishopric in 1551, on the resignation of the archbishop-elect Andrew Gordon, and not being yet in priests’s orders was ordained in Rome, and consecrated there on the 28th of August, 1552. For eight troublous years he administered the affairs of his diocese and stood faithfully by the queen-regent, Mary of Guise, in her dealings with the disaffected Scottish nobles, who were plotting the destruction of the ancient Church in order to enrich themselves with the spoils. In March, 1539, we find him assisting at the provincial council at Edinburgh summoned by the primate, Archbishop Hamilton—the last assembly of the kind which was to meet in Scotland for three hundred and twenty-six years. The events of 1560, the treaty of alliance with England against France, the commencement of the work of destruction of cathedrals and monasteries, and, finally, the death of the queen-regent, no doubt actuated Beaton in his resolve to quit the distracted kingdom. He repaired to Paris, taking with a great mass of the muniments and registers of his diocese, and much church plate and other treasures, which he deposited in the Scots College.

Queen Mary immediately appointed him her ambassador at the French Court, and he remained both up to her forced abdication in 1567, and during the rest of her life, her most faithful friend and adviser. He did not hesitate, after the murder of Darnley, to inform her frankly of the dark suspicions attaching to her, and the necessity of the assassins being punished. On the 15th of February, 1574, Beaton’s name appears at the head of the list of the Catholic prelates and clergy declared outlaws and rebels by the Scottish Privy Council; but he nevertheless continued to enjoy in his exile the favour of the young king (James VI) who, about 1586, appointed him, as the late sovereign had done, ambassador at Paris. Beaton held several benefices in France, including the income of the Abbey De la Sie, in Poitou, and the treasurership of St. Hilary of Poitiers. His intimate association with the House of Guise had naturally led him to join with the League against Henry IV, and on its dissolution he was threatened with banishment; but by the intervention of Cardinals Bourbon and Sully and of the king himself, he was allowed to remain in France, where he was regarded with the greatest esteem. Perhaps the most remarkable testimony to the respect felt for his character in Scotland is to be found in the fact that in 1598, nearly forty years after the overthrow of the ancient Church, the archbishop was formally restored, by an act of the Scottish Parliament, to all his “heritages, honours, dignities, and benefices, notwithstanding that he has never acknowledged the religion professed within the realm.” He survived to witness, a month before his death, the union of the English and Scottish crowns under King James. On the 24th of April, 1603, when James was actually on his way to London to take possession of hew new kingdom, the archbishop died in Paris, on the eighty-sixth year of his age, and half a century after his episcopal consecration.

Beaton had lived in Paris for forty-three years, and had been Scottish ambassador to five successive kings of France. He was buried in the church of St. John Lateran at Paris, his funeral being attended by a great gathering of prelates, nobles, and common people. The poetical inscription on his tomb eulogizes him, in the exaggerated language of the times, as the greatest bishop and preacher of his age in the whole world. A sounder estimate of his worth is that of his Protestant successor in the See of Glasgow, Spottiswoode, who describes him as “a man honourably disposed, faithful to his queen while she lived and to the king her son; a lover of his country, and liberal to all his countrymen.” No breath of scandal, in a scandalous age, ever attached to the honour of his name or the purity of his private life. Beaton left his property, including the archives of the Diocese of Glasgow, and a great mass of important correspondence, to the Scots College in Paris. Some of these documents had already been deposited by him in the Carthusian monastery in the same city. In the stress of the French Revolution many of these valuable manuscripts were packed in barrels and sent to St. Omers. These have unfortunately disappeared, but the papers left in the college were afterwards brought safely to Scotland, and are now preserved at Blairs College, the Catholic seminary near Aberdeen.

Regist. Episc. Glasg., pp. i-ix, liii; Grub, Eccles. Hist. of Scotl., II, 31, 155, 279; Chambers, Biogr. Dict. Of Eminent Scotsmen, I, 108, 109; Acts of Parl. of Scotl., IV, 169, 170; Reg. Priv. Coun. Scotl., II, 334; Keith, Cat. of Scott. Bishops, 153, 154.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Beatrix

(OR BEATRICE).

The name Beatrix has been borne by a certain number of holy persons, but no one of them has attained to any very eminent renown of sanctity.

I. SAINT BEATRIX

A Roman virgin and martyr, inscribed in the Roman Martyrologium on 29 July. She is believed to have been the sister of the martyrs Simplicius and Faustinus whom she buried in the Via Portuensi. The legend says that she was then denounced as a Christian by Lucretius to whom she was betrothed, and was strangled by her own servants. Lucretius shortly afterwards died suddenly by the visitation of God.

II. SAINT BEATRIX D’ESTE

Died 1262. Custom seems to warrant the giving the title Saint to one of the two holy nuns named Beatrix d’Este. She belonged to the family of the Norman Dukes of Apulia and was herself the daughter of the Marques of Ferrara. She was betrothed to Galeazzo Manfredi of Vicenza, but he died of his wounds, after a battle, just before the wedding day, and his bride refused to return home, but attended by some of her maidens, devoted herself to the service of God, following the Benedictine rule, at San Lazzaro just outside Ferrara. Her cultus was approved by Clement XIV, and Pius VI allowed her festival to be kept on 19 January.

III. BEATRIX

Beatrix seems also to have been accepted as the Latin name of a noble lady of Bohemia, called in Bohemian Bozena, who lived at the end of the twelfth century and became a nun. Her brother was the famous St. Hrosnata, one of the patrons of the Kingdom of Bohemia. From the Bollandist life of Hrosnata (Acta SS., 4 July) it would seem that his sister Beatrix was honoured on 13 November.

IV. BEATRIX D’ESTE

Aunt of the saint of that name, who is generally known as Blessed Beatrix, seems to have died in 1226 or perhaps in 1246. She was born in the castle of d’Este, became a nun in the convent of Santa Margherita at Solarolo, but not finding herself sufficiently secluded from the world, she founded another religious house in a deserted monastery at Gemmola. Her body after death was translated to the church of Santa Sophia at Padua and it was a tradition that when anything important was about to befall the family of Este, she turned in her grave so that the noise was audible throughout the church. An account of her is given in the Acta SS. under 10 May.

V. BLESSED BEATRIX

A Cistercian nun, first prioress of the convent called Nazareth near Lier in Brabant; d. 1269. She came of a wealthy family, but wishing to consecrate herself to God, at the age of seven she went to live with the Béguines. She afterwards joined the Cistercian nuns at Valle Florida whence she was sent to commence the new foundation at Nazareth. She practised very severe austerities, wearing a girdle of thorns and compressing her body with cords. Our Lord is said to have appeared to her and to have pierced her heart with a fiery dart. After Nazareth was abandoned in a time of disturbance, the body of Blessed Beatrix is believed to have been translated by angels to Lier. Her day is 29 July, and a short life of her is included by Henriquez in his “Lilia.”

VI. BLESSED BEATRIX OF ORNACIEUX

Died about 1306, a Carthusian nun who founded a settlement of the order at Eymieux in the department of Drome. She was specially devout to the Passion of Christ and is said to have driven a nail through her left hand to help herself to realize the sufferings of the Crucifixion. Her cultus was confirmed by Pius IX in 1869. (See “Anal. jur. pont.,” 1869, XI, 264.) There are modern lives by Bellanger and Chapuis and a full account in Lecoulteux, “Ann. Ord. Cath.” (V, 5). Her feast is on 13 February.

VII. BLESSED BEATRIX DA SILVA

A Portuguese nun, d. 1 September, 1490. In Portuguese she is known as Blessed Brites. She was a member of the house of Portalegre and descended from the royal family of Portugal. She accompanied the Portuguese Princess Isabel to Spain, when she married John II of Castile. There Beatrix seems to have aroused the jealousy of her royal mistress and was imprisoned for three days without food. After a vision of Our Blessed Lady, whom she saw attired in the blue mantle and white dress of the Conception Order which she was afterwards to found, Beatrix was allowed to retire to Toledo where she entered the Dominican Order. There she lived forty years, being specially honoured and frequently visited by Queen Isabel the Catholic. The latter aided her to found an order in honour of the Immaculate Conception, which adopted the Franciscan Rule. It was approved by Innocent VIII in 1480 and with some modifications by Julius II in 1511. Beatrix died ten days before the solemn inauguration of her new order. She is much honoured in Spain, and there is a life of her by Bivar. (See also the “Anal. jur. pont.,” III, 549.)

A fuller notice of all the above will be found in Dunbar, Dictionary of Saintly Women (London, 1904), I, 107–110. Several of them also are noticed with more or less fullness in the Acta SS. on their respective days. Cf. Chevalier, Rép. des sources hist., Bio-Bibl. (2d ed., 1905).

HERBERT THURSTON.

Lady Margaret Beaufort

Countess of Richmond and Derby, b. 1441; d. 1509, daughter and heiress of John Beaufort, first Duke of Somerset. Her father, the grandson of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and great-grandson of Edward III, having died when she was three years old, she was brought up by her mother with the greatest care and devotion. Married while a mere child to John de la Pole, son of the Duke of Suffolk, whose ward she was, she refused to ratify the union on attaining the years of discretion and was then given in marriage to Edmund ap Meredith ap Tudor, Earl of Richmond and brother of Henry VI, of whom, with his brother Jasper, she became the ward on Suffolk’s attainder. Edmund died (1456) a few months after the marriage, his posthumous son Henry, Earl of Richmond (afterwards Henry VII), being born 28 January, 1456. In 1459 Margaret married Lord Henry Stafford, her cousin on both her father’s and mother’s side, who traced his descent from Henry III. He died in 1482. Her third husband was Thomas, Lord Stanley, afterwards created Earl of Derby. She was instrumental in bringing to an end the disastrous Wars of the Roses; her son, the head of the Lancastrian party, who, as a result of the victory of Bosworth (1485) became King Henry VII, took in marriage Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV.

Lady Margaret Beaufort was an exceedingly religious woman-”to God and to the Churche full obedient and tractable sechyng his honour and plesure full besyly” (Mornynge Remembraunce),-and a model of piety and devotion. Blessed John Fisher, who became her chaplain in 1502 and who had singular opportunities of understanding the nobleness of her character both as her spiritual director and as the instrument of her princely benefactions, bears testimony to her virtues and good works in the funeral oration preached at her Month’s Mind. All England, he says, had cause to mourn her death. The poor would miss her bounteous alms: the students of both universities, “to whom she was as a moder,” and the learned her patronage. The virtuous and devout lost in her a loving sister; religious and priests and clerks a powerful defender. Divine service “dayly was kept in her chappel with grate nombre of preests clerckes and children to her grate charge and cost.” She was used to recite the Divine Office, as well as the Office of Our Lady, and to assist at many Masses daily. She made a public vow of chastity before Fisher and was enrolled as a “sister” in many monastic houses, among others in those of the Charterhouse, Croyland, Durham, and Westminster. In her own establishment she provided for the education of numbers of young men at her own cost, for many of whom she used her influence with great wisdom and discernment in the matter of ecclesiastical preferment.

Besides her private works of charity and of benevolence, and her benefactions to religious houses, she was a munificent patron of learning, establishing Readerships (now Professorships) in Divinity at Oxford and Cambridge (Royal Licenses, 1496, 1497: Charters, 8 September, 1503); and, in 1504, she made provision for a preacher to deliver six yearly sermons “to the praise and honour of the Holy Name of Jesus and the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.” By her liberality God’s House at Cambridge was refounded as Christ’s College (Royal License, 1505) for a master, twelve fellows, and forty-seven scholars. St. John’s College, Cambridge, was also established, in the place of the ancient foundation of St. John’s Hospital, by provision made in her will, in a codicil to which she states her intention of founding and suitably endowing a college for a master and fifty scholars. She had a tender devotion to the Real Presence and translated into English and caused to be printed the fourth book of the “Imitation of Christ,” which treats of the Blessed Sacrament. The “Mornynge Remembraunce” refers to the burning faith with which she received the Body of the Lord upon her death-bed. She also herself translated “The Mirroure of Golde for the sinful soule.” Historians agree in extolling her many signal qualities and virtues, criticizing if anything the “devotion those days afforded,” the “errors of the age she lived in.” The Catholic sees the important part she played in the civil and political history of her time, but perceives in her as well a singularly high example of a Christian life, in which a robust and sturdy faith bore its natural and wholesome fruits in deeds of liberality and benevolence.

Fisher, The Funeral Sermon of Margaret, Countess of Richmond and Derby (ed. T. Baker; 2d ed. Hymers, London, 1840); Cooper, Memoir of Margaret, Countess of Richmond and Derby (London, 1874); Halsted, Life of Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby (London, 1839); Dublin Review, VIII, p. 134; Bridgett, Life of Blessed John Fisher (London); Baker, History of the College of St. John the Evangelist; Lodge, Illustrious personages of Great Britain.

FRANCIS AVELING.

Beaulieu Abbey

(abbatia quae vocitatur Bellus Locus)

Beaulieu Abbey was a Cistercian house in Hampshire, one of the three monasteries founded by King John (c. 1204) and peopled by thirty monks from Cîteaux. The founder granted it a rich, if miscellaneous, endowment, including land in the New Forest, corn, money, one hundred and twenty cows, twelve bulls, a golden chalice, and an annual tun of wine. The buildings were dedicated in 1246, in the presence of King Henry III and his queen, Richard Earl of Cornwall, and many prelates and nobles. Pope Innocent III constituted Beaulieu an “exempt abbey,” with the right of sanctuary; and this was sought in 1471 by Ann Neville, wife of Warwick the King-maker, the day before the battle of Barnet. Twenty-six years later Perkin Warbeck fled to Beaulieu from the pursuing armies of Henry VII. Shortly before the suppression of the monastery in 1539, the Visitors’ report mentioned that “thirty-two sanctuary-men, who were here for debt, felony, or murder,” were living within the monastic precincts with their wives and families.

The first Abbot of Beaulieu was Hugh, and the last Thomas Stephens, elected in 1535. In the following year the abbey, with its annual revenue of £326, was granted to Thomas Wriothesley, afterwards Earl of Southampton. It passed later through the Dukes of Montagu to the Dukes of Buccleuch; and Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, the Duke of Buccleuch’s nephew, now (1907) owns it. He resides in the old gatehouse of the abbey, which has been carefully restored. Little else remains of the domestic buildings, except the fine early English refectory, used as the parish church. The cloisters are in ruins, but the guest-house dormitory still exists, and has been restored. Not a stone is left of the beautiful church, 335 feet long, with a nave of nine bays, transepts, tower, and double-aisled choir with circular apse, of a purely Continental type most unusual in England. The late Duke of Buccleuch had the foundations of the church, with every column and buttress, carefully traced out and marked in sand. Netley Abbey, on the other side of Southampton Water, was founded from Beaulieu in 1239, by Henry III.

Dugdale, Monast. Anglic., V, 680 sqq.; Registr. Cart. Mon. de Bello Loco (Cott. MSS., Brit. Mus., Nero, A, xii, 1); Tanner, Notitia Monastica (Hampshire, vi); Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (Victoria County Histories), II, 140–146.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Renaud de Beaune

A French Bishop, b. in 1527, at Tours; d. 1606 in Paris. Before entering the ecclesiastical state he held secular positions such as Councillor of Parliament and Chancellor of Francis of Valois, Duke of Touraine. The royal court greatly favoured him and appointed him to numerous ecclesiastical offices. In 1568, he became Bishop of Mende and in 1581, Archbishop of Bourges. King Henry IV of France named him his grand almoner in 1591 and appointed him to the Archbishopric of Sens in 1595; but the pope did not confirm the appointment until 1602. He was a member of the commission instituted by Henry IV in 1600 to reform the University of Paris. By his contemporaries, Renaud de Beaune was considered one of the greatest orators of the time. Posterity rated his work for the pacification of France higher than his oratorical talent. It was his influence that led to the successful issue of the conference of Suresnes, near Paris, in 1593. He promised the conversion of Henry IV and brought about peace between the latter and the “League.” He received the abjuration of the king, and, although the absolution of an excommunicated prince was reserved to the pope, absolved him, July, 1593, on condition, however, that the approval of the Roman authorities should be obtained. In spite of this condition the absolution was invalid, and the action of the archbishop caused, at least partly, the delay in obtaining the papal confirmation of his nomination to the See of Sens. The principal works of de Beaune are: (1) Some discourses, among them funeral orations on Mary, Queen of Scots (1587), and on Queen Catharine de Medici (1589); (2) translation of the Psalms of David into French (Paris, 1575, 1637); (3) “La reformation de l’université de Paris (1605, 1667).

Chalmel, Histoire de Touraine (Paris, 1828), IV, 29–32; Gautier in Grande Encyc., V, 1054.

N.A. WEBER

Jean-Nicolas Beauregard

Celebrated French pulpit orator, born at Metz in Lorraine, 4 December, 1733; died at the castle of Gröningen in Southern Germany, 27 July, 1794. He entered the Society of Jesus at Nancy, 30 September, 1749. After his noviceship and higher studies, he taught classics and rhetoric with distinction for six years at the colleges of the Society in Nancy, Verdun, Strasburg, and Pont-a-Mousson. His theological studies, which followed, were made in Strasburg, and after the year of third probation, Father Beauregard was back at Nancy for the year 1766–67 as perfect of studies. The next year he was assigned to the task of preaching, which thenceforth became the work of his life. Having gained a wonderful reputation in the lesser towns of France, he was summoned to Paris, where his success was even more phenomenal. Especially noteworthy was the course of sermons preached before the court during the Lent of 1789, in which Father Beauregard is said to have clearly foretold the evils that were about to engulf France. Father Beauregard escaped the first terror of the revolution, but was forced to flee to London in 1794. Later on his established himself at Maestricht, then at Cologne, while his declining years were spent at the castle of the Princess Sophie of Hohenlohe-Bartenstein. His works, which for the most part are still only in manuscript, consist of sermons and letters. A collection of his sermons, made by one of his hearers, was first printed at Paris in 1820, often reprinted, and later embodied in Migne’s “Orateurs Sacrés,” vol. LXXI.

Daniel Le P. Beauregard sa vie et ses travaux; Sommervogel, Bibl.de la c. de J., I; Hamy, Galerie illustrie de la c. de J., I.

JOHN F. X. MURPHY.

Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard

Soldier, b. near New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., 28 May, 1818; d. there 20 February, 1893. He was appointed to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and graduated in 1838. Assigned first to an artillery regiment, he passed to the engineers and served thereafter in that corps. During the war with Mexico he was engaged in the siege operations at Vera Cruz, Cerro Godo, Contreras, Chapultepec, and the city of Mexico, being wounded twice in the last-mentioned battle (13, 14 September, 1847), and was brevetted major. After fourteen years of continuous service he was made Captain of Engineers, 3 March, 1853. The war over, he was given supervision of the construction work along the Gulf coast, and on 23 January, 1861, was detailed as superintendent of the Military Academy at West Point. He almost immediately resigned, however, on 20 February, 1861, and threw in his lot with the seceding States of the Southern Confederacy. He was placed in command at Charleston, South Carolina, and began the Civil War by the attack on Fort Sumter. When the fort was evacuated he was sent to Virginia and was in charge of the Confederate forces in the battle of Bull Run, 21 July. He was then sent to Tennessee, was second in command to A.S. Johnson at the battle of Shiloh; succeeding Johnson, when the latter was killed, he nearly routed the Union army in the first day’s fight. Reinforcements arriving for his adversary, Gen. Grant, he was forced to retreat on the next day. Beauregard’s failing health compelled him to take a leave of absence for three months, when, with a promotion to a general’s rank, he was again placed in command at Charleston, where he successfully resisted for a year and a half the siege operations of Gen. Gilmore and his naval assistants. In May, 1864, he joined Lee in Virginia and held Petersburg against Union advance. In October of the same year he was made commander of the military division of the West and sent to Georgia, and then to North Carolina where he united with Gen. J.E. Johnson to resist the march of Gen. Sherman. The attempt was futile and they surrendered, April, 1865. After the war he became president of the New Orleans, Jackson and Mississippi Railroad, and Adjutant-General of the State of Louisiana. In 1866 he refused the offer of the chief command of the Rumanian army, and in 1869 that of the army of the Khedive of Egypt. He lent his name to the Louisiana Lottery and as its salaried manager was for several years one of its chief supporters. He was the author of “Principles and Maxims of the Art of War” (Charleston, 1863) and “Report of the Defence of Charleston” (Richmond, 1864).

Roman, Military Operations of Gen. Beauregard in the War between the States, 1861–65 (New York, 1884); Cycl. of Am. Biog. (New York, 1900).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Diocese of Beauvais

(Bellovacum)

A suffragan diocese of the archiepiscopal See of Reims. The Dioceses of Beauvais, Noyon, and Senlis having been suppressed by the Concordat of 1802 for the benefit of Amiens, a see was re-established at Beauvais in 1822, having within its jurisdiction the former Diocese of Beauvais and a large portion of the ancient Dioceses of Noyon and Senlis. A pontifical Brief of 1851 authorizes the incumbents of the See of Beauvais to call themselves Bishops of Beauvais, Noyon, and Senlis.

DIOCESE OF BEAUVAIS

Tradition looks upon St. Lucianus, sent to Beauvais by Pope Fabianus and martyred, about 275, with his companions Maxianus and Julianus, as the founder of Christianity in that place. The martyrdom of St. Romana under Diocletian, of St. Just during the atrocious persecution by the legendary Rictiovarus (about 419), of St. Maxentia, daughter of the King of Scotland, who, about 450, preferred to die rather than follow her fiance, render the primitive Church of Beauvais illustrious. The exact date of the foundation of the episcopal see is obscure, but we know that the bishop who occupied it from 632 to 660 was the thirteenth incumbent. Among its bishops Beauvais counts Odo (860–881), charged by Nicholas I in 867 to answer with Hinemar the grievances of Photius; Gui (1063–85), who founded St. Quentin of Beauvais, the great school of theology; Pierre Cauchon (1420–32), identified with the condemnation of Joan of Arc; Jean Juvenal des Ursins (1433–44), author of the Chronicle of Charles VI; Cardinal Odet de Chatillon (1535–62), nephew of Coligny, who turned Protestant at the Reformation; Francois-Joseph de la Rochefoucauld (1772–92), martyred in the Carmelite prison in 1792; and Feutrier (1825–30), minister of ecclesiastical affairs in the Martignac cabinet.

DIOCESE OF SENLIS

The Church founded at Senlis by St. Rieul (Regulus) about 300, had its ninth bishop, St. Levangius, in 511. Saints Sanctinus, Agmarus, and Autbertus were bishops in the sixth and seventh centuries.

DIOCESE OF NOYON

The headquarters of the city of the Veromandui, who undoubtedly had a bishop from the beginning of the fourth century, having been destroyed by the barbarians, the bishops were without a residence until St. Médard (530–545), fourteenth bishop, installed himself at Noyon. This city counted among its bishops the goldsmith St. Eloi (Eligius, 640–659), Dagobert’s prime minister; St. Mummolenus (second half of seventh century), and St. Eunutius (eighth century). The Belgian See of Tournai was cut off from Noyon in 1146.

These sees played an important part in the history of France during the Carlovingian, and at the beginning of the Capetian, period. A council convoked at Beauvais by Charles the Bald, in 845, elected Hincmar Archbishop of Reims. At Compiegne where, next to his hunting-lodge, Charles the Bald had built the great Abbey of Notre Dame, placing therein the bodies of Sts. Cornelius and Cyprian, and where Kings Louis the Stammerer and Eudes were crowned and buried, there were held, in the course of the ninth century, numerous councils which regulated the political and religious questions of the time. A council at Compiegne in 1092 forced the heretic Roscelin to retire, and one at Senlis in 1310, condemned nine Templars. Being Count of Beauvais from 1013, and Peer of France from the twelfth century, the Bishop of Beauvais wore the royal mantle at the coronation of the Kings of France; it was he, who, with the Bishop of Langres, was wont to raise the king from his throne to present him to his people. The Bishop of Noyon was both duke and peer. The monastic life was established in this region by St. Evrost in the sixth, and St. Germer in the seventh, century.

The medieval Cathedrals of Beauvais and Senlis are inferior in point of interest to that of Noyon, which is one of the most beautiful monuments of the twelfth century. During the Middle Ages, on each recurring 14th of January, the Feast of Asses was celebrated in the Beauvais Cathedral, in commemoration of the flight of the Virgin into Egypt, and every year, on 27 June, there is a religious procession through the streets of Beauvais to perpetuate Jeanne Hachette’s opposition to Charles the Bold in 1472. John Calvin was a native of Noyon, and Cardinal Pierre d’Ailly was born in Compiegne. The places of pilgrimage are: Notre Dame de Bon Secours at Compiegne, a shrine erected in 1637 as an expression of gratitude for the raising of the siege of the city by the Spaniards; Notre Dame de Bon Secours at Gannes; Notre Dame de Bon Secours at Feuquieres; Notre Dame du Hamel at L’Hamel Notre-Dame; Notre Dame de Bon Secours at Montmelian; Notre Dame de Senlis at Senlis; Notre Dame des Fleurs at Ville-en-Braye.

In 1899 the following institutions were found in the diocese: 6 infant asylums, 44 infant schools, 14 girls’ orphanages, 1 free industrial school, 2 patronages, 2 charity kitchens, 9 hospitals and hospices, 1 house of retreat, 12 homes for the aged, 9 communities devoted to care for the sick in their homes, all conducted by nuns; and 2 patronages under the care of the Brothers of the Christian Schools. In 1900 there were the following religious orders for men: Marists at Senlis, Redemptorists as Thury in Valois, and Fathers of the Holy Ghost at Beauvais. Among the orders for women there were no congregations belonging exclusively to the diocese. At the close of 1905 the Diocese of Beauvais had 407,808 inhabitants, 39 pastorates, 501 succursal parishes (mission churches), and 10 curacies.

Gallia christiana (1751), IX, 691–773; Instrumenta, 239–280; X, 1378–1465; Instrumenta, 423–520; IX, 918–1036; Instrumenta, 359–394; Delettre, Histoire du diocese de Beauvais depuis son etablissement au troisieme siecle (Beauvais, 1842–1843); Vitet, Monographie de Notre Dame de Noyon (Paris, 1854); Duchesne, Fastes episcopaux, I, 13–14; Chevalier, Topobibl., 342–344.

GEORGES GOYAU

Gilles-François-de Beauvais

Jesuit writer and preacher, born at Mans, France, 7 July, 1693; died probably at Paris about 1773. He entered the Society of Jesus 16 August, 1709, and taught belles-lettres, rhetoric, and philosophy. After ordination he was assigned to preach and give the Advent course at Court in 1744, during which year he published his “Life of Ven, Ignatius Azevedo, S.J.” and in 1746 that of Ven. John de Britto, S.J., the latter of which has been translated into English by Father Faber of the Oratory (Richardson, London, 1851). He wrote a number of other works of devotion and for spiritual reading.

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., IX, 1080–82.

MARK J. MCNEAL

Jean-Baptiste-Charles-Marie de Beauvais

A French bishop, b. at Cherbourg, 17 October, 1731; d. at Paris, 4 April, 1790. The sermons he preached before the court during Advent, 1768, and Lent, 1773, raised his reputation as a pulpit orator to such a height that he was promoted to the See of Senez. He distinguished himself on all occasions by his devotion to the Church and is considered one of the best preachers of the eighteenth century. In 1783 he resigned his bishopric and settled at Paris. In 1789 he was made a member of the States-General. His sermons were printed at Paris in 1806, prefaced by an interesting account, written by the Abbe Boulogne, of the preacher and his discourses. The most celebrated of his funeral orations is the one on Louis XV; this discourse, however, failed to please the courtiers. The best of his panegyrics are one on St. Augustine, delivered before the Assembly of the Clergy of France, and one on St. Louis, before the Académie Française.

De Feller, Biographie universelle (Paris, 1847); Bernard, La chaire francaise au dix-huitieme siecle (Paris, 1901).

JOS. N. GIGNAC

Roch-Amboise-Auguste Bébian

Born 4 August, 1789 at Pointe-à-Pitre, Guadeloupe; died there 24 February, 1839. His father sent him to France, where he was committed to the care of his godfather, the Abbé Sicard, the well-known educator of the deaf and dumb. The latter put him under the direction of Abbé Jauffret then exhibiting a great interest in the education of deaf-mutes. After a brilliant course at the Lycée Charlemagne in Paris, Bébian devoted himself to the study of the system of education of the deaf and dumb. He followed the courses of instruction given by Abbé Sicard and gave special attention to Laurent Clerc, a deaf-mute who afterwards became president of an institution for the deaf and dumb at Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A. As prefect of studies in the institution for the deaf and dumb at Paris, he directed all his efforts to finding the signs best adapted, in precision and extension of meaning, to the expression of the ideas of the deaf and dumb.

Bébian published the result of his studies in his first book, “Essai sur les sourds-muets et sur le langage naturel” (1817). His principal works, under the titles “Mimographie” (1822) and “Manuel d’enseignement pratique des sourds-muets” (1822), laid down the principles used in the institution for the deaf and dumb in Paris. After leaving this school, he published several other works, the most important being “L’éducation des sourds-muets mise a la portée des instituteurs primaires et de tous les parents.” Having refused the direction of the schools for the deaf and dumb of St. Petersburg and New York, he founded a similar institution at Paris on the boulevard Montparnasse; later he became director of the school of Rouen and finally went back to Guadeloupe, where he founded a school for the negroes. He had already written, in 1819, “Eloge historique de l’abbé de l’Epée,” which was awarded the prize offered by the Academy of Sciences.

G.M. SAUVAGE

Abbey of Bec

The Benedictine Abbey of Bec, or Le Bec, in Normandy, was founded in the earlier part of the eleventh century by Herluin, a Norman knight who about 1031 left the court of Count Gilbert of Brionne to devote himself to a life of religion. The abbey itself is now in ruins, but the modern name of the place, Bec-Helloin, preserves the memory of its founder. There is some difference in reckoning the date of the foundation, for Herluin’s religious family was twice moved to new quarters, and any one of the three dates may be regarded as the beginning of the famous abbey. Herluin’s first foundation was at Bonneville, or Burneville, where a monastery was built in 1034, and here in 1037, Herluin was consecrated abbot. But in a few years it was decided to move to a more suitable site, two miles away, by the banks of the Bec (Danish, Bæk, a brook) which gave its name to the abbey. This removal took place about 1040. About two years after this, Lanfranc, who had already become famous for his lectures at Avranches, left the scene of his triumphs and came to bury himself in this humble home of piety. At first his retreat was unknown to the world without, while his new brethren seem to have been unaware of his worth. But within a few years from his arrival at Bec, he had opened a new school, and scholars were flocking from all parts to listen to his lectures. The abbey grew and prospered and the good work begun by the simple piety of Herluin was crowned by the learning of Lanfranc. Before long it was necessary to build a larger and more lasting monastery. As the site first chosen had proved to be unsatisfactory, the new foundations were laid in another spot, higher up the valley of the Bec and further away from the water. This important change was really the work of Lanfranc, who was now the prior and the right hand of the aged abbot. As the first change of site was closely followed by the arrival of one great teacher, this second foundation was almost coincident, with the coming of a yet greater glory of the abbey, St. Anselm of Canterbury.

The future archbishop and Doctor of the Church first came to Bec in 1060 while the work of building was in progress, and the year before the monks were able to move into their new home. In 1062, Lanfranc was appointed Abbot of Caen, and Anselm, in spite of the fact that he had been such a short time at Bec, was chosen to take his place as prior. In the school also the famous master was succeeded by his yet more illustrious disciple=2E When the new abbey church at Bec, which had taken some fifteen years to build, was finished in 1077, it was consecrated by Lanfranc, who was now of Canterbury. Abbot Herluin, the founder, died in the following year, and Anselm succeeded him as second Abbot of Bec. Only six years later Abbot Anselm was called to take the place of his old master, Lanfranc as Archbishop of Canterbury. The abbey continued in existence down to the French Revolution. The long list of abbots from the eleventh to the eighteenth century, given in “Gallia Christiana” (XI, 222–239), contains many of the most illustrious French names, and shows that even in its later years Bec was a place of some importance. It had suffered much in the Hundred Years War with England, and still more in the Huguenot troubles. But after these days of desolation it was restored to something of its former state by the Congregation of St. Maur. Thus the chief house of medieval learning was renewed by the fathers of modern historical scholarship. This restoration was too soon undone by the forces of revolution; but the Maurists rendered a more enduring service to the abbey by their admirable editions of Lanfranc, Anselm, and the “Chronicon Beccense.” Of the old abbey whose erection is recorded in that chronicle, some ruins still remain. The later buildings now serve as a military station. This transformation is a curious counterpart to the change effected at Fort Augustus.

In its later years the Abbey of Bec was but one among many religious houses doing good work for learning and religion, but in the golden age of Lanfranc and Anselm it held a unique position, and exerted a far-reaching influence on the course of church history and the advancement of theological learning. In its early days the abbey gave three archbishops to the See of Canterbury: Lanfranc, Anselm, and Theobald the fifth abbot. Among other prelates who came from this famous school, it will be enough to mention Pope Alexander II, William, Archbishop of Rouen, Arnost, Gundulf, and Emulf, Bishops of Rochester, Ivo of Chartres, Fulk of Beauvais, and Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster. Of the influence of Lanfranc’s work at Bec John Richard Green says very truly: “His teaching raised Bec in a few years into the most famous school of Christendom. It was in fact the first wave of the intellectual movement which was spreading from Italy to the ruder countries of the West. The whole mental activity of the time seemed concentrated in the group of scholars who gathered around him; the fabric of the canon law and of medieval scholasticism with the philosophical scepticism which first awoke under its influence, all trace their origin to Bec” (A Short History of the English People, I, ii, 3). When we remember how deep and far-reaching has been the influence of its greatest scholar, Anselm, on later theology, we cannot but feel that though the old Abbey may be in ruins the school of Bec still lives on, and all may sit at the feet of its famous masters.

Chronicon Beccensis (1034–1468), ed. D’ACHÉRY in Lanfranci Cant. Op. (Paris, 1648), app. 1–32 (an excerpt from an old history of the abbey carrying the story to 1591); also in P.L., CL; GILBERT CRISPIN, Life of Herluin in P.L., CL, 695 sqq.; MILO CRISPIN, Vitæ Lanfr et al. abb. in d’Achéry, op. cit., 1 sqq.; 311 sqq. (containing lives of the next four abbots). Cf. also lives and letters of Anselm and Lanfranc; RULE, The Life and Times of St. Anselm (London. 1883); RAGEY, Histoire de Saint Anselme (Paris, 1889), the last two containing full and graphic accounts of the foundation and early history of Bec; PORÉE, L’Abbaye du Bec an dix-huitieme siècle (Evreux, 1901).

W.H. KENT

Martin Becan

Becan (Verbreck, van der Breck), Martin, controversialist, b. at Hilvarenbeck, Brabant, Holland, 6 January, 1563; d. at Vienna, 24 January, 1624. He entered the Society of Jesus, 22 March, 1583, taught theology for twenty-two years at Wuerzburg, Mainz, and Vienna, and was confessor to Emperor Ferdinand II from 1620 until the time of his death. He possessed a style clear and dignified, and noticeably free from the bitterness which marked the polemical literature of the day. His writings were directed principally against Calvin, Luther, and the Anabaptists; of these, his “Manuale Controversarium,” Mainz, 1623, treating of predestination, free will, the Eucharist, and the infallibility of the Church, passed through several editions. For a complete list, see Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus” (I, col. 1091–1111), wherein are mentioned by title forty-six volumes. His chief theological work, “Summa Theologiae Scholasticae (4 vols. 4to, Mainz, 1612) is in great part a compendium of Suarez’s Commentary on St. Thomas Aquinas. By a decree of the Congregation of the Index, 3 January, 1613, his book “Controversia Anglicana de postestate regis et pontificis” was put on the Index donec corrigatur, not so much to condemn certain exaggerations it contained as to prevent the faculty of theology at Paris from condemning it and at the same time adding some declarations against papal authority. The “Controversia” was corrected and published somewhat later with a dedication to Pope Paul V. Becan, in 1608, published at Mainz, “Aphorismi doctrinae Calvinistarium ex eorum libris, dictis et factis collecti,” in reply to Calvin’s “Aphorismi doctrinae Jesuitarum.” Aphorismus XV, Jesuiti vero qui se maxime nobis opponunt, aut necandi aut si id commode fier non potest, ejiciendi, aut certe mendaciis ac calumniis opprimendi sunt” (The Jesuits, our chief adversaries, ought to be put to death, or if that cannot easily be done, they ought to be banished, or, at any rate, overwhelmed with lies and calumnies), has been misconstrued so as to make it appear than Becan wished to say that Aphorismus XV contained the very words of Calvin. That such was not Becan’s intention is clear from the title of the book, “Aphorismi ex eorum libris dictis et factis collecti” and the development shows that the author was only drawing what he considered to be a logical conclusion from the action of the Calvinists of the time. A lengthy discussion about this aphorism was carried on by A. Sabatier in the “Journal de Genève” (26 January, 1896; 10 May, 1896) and the “Revue Chrétienne” (1 March, 1896; 1 June, 1896), and by J. Brucker in the “Etudes” (15 April, and 15 July, 1896).

Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la c. de J., I, 1091–1111; De Backer, Bibl. des escriv. la c. de J., I, 56; Bruckner, in Dict. de theol. cath., s. v.; Hurter, Nomenclature, I, 293.

FRANCIS D. O’LAUGHLIN

John Beccus

Beccus (Gr. Βεκκος), John, Patriarch of Constantinople in the second half of the thirteenth century, one of the few Greek ecclesiastics who were sincerely in favour of reunion with the Church of Rome. He was born in the early part of the thirteenth century in Constantinople, where he joined the ranks of the clergy. His ability, learning and moral qualities marked him for advancement and he was soon promoted to the office of chartophylax. The Patriarch Arsenius (1255–66) held him in high esteem, and defended him against the emperor’s displeasure which he had incurred by suspending a priest who blessed a marriage in the church of an imperial palace without permission. Beccus, however, recovered the imperial favor and gradually gained the confidence of Michael Palæologus (1259–82). He was selected repeatedly to conduct delicate or difficult negotiations with foreign potentates. His sentiments towards the Christians of Western Europe, or the Latins, were not at all friendly at the beginning. When, after the destruction of the Latin Empire in Constantinople, the Emperor Michael Palæologus conceived the plan of reuniting the Greek and the Latin Churches, the Patriarch Joseph (1268–75) and his chartophylax, John Beccus, were strongly opposed to it. In a meeting of the ecclesiastics of Constantinople held about the year 1273, Beccus declared in the presence of the emperor that the Latins were in reality heretics, although they were not called thus. His audacity was punished with imprisonment. In his enforced retirement Beccus found leisure to study the points of difference between the Greeks and Latins. The emperor, anxious to win him over, sent such writings to him as were favourable to the views of the Latin Church, among, them the works of Nicephorus Blemmida or Blemmydes. From the works of Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, and others he learned that the Greek and the Latin Fathers substantially agreed on matters of Christian faith. The only difference was, that while the Latin writers considered the Holy Ghost to proceed from Father and Son, the Greeks preferred to state the He proceeds from the Father through the Son. Once satisfied on this subject, he became actively interested in the work of reunion, and retained these sentiments to the end. Meanwhile the union was happily concluded in the council held at Lyon (1274) and proclaimed at Constantinople (January 1275). The Patriarch Joseph could not be induced to accept it, and was removed from his office according to a previous understanding. John Beccus was elected in his place. On the 2d of June, Pentecost Sunday, 1275, he received the episcopal consecration.

After his elevation to the patriarchal see one of his main objects was to convince of the lawfulnes of the union those of the Greeks who were either partisans of the schism or else had renounced it only in a half-hearted way. In April, 1277, a synod was held in Constantinople, where the union was again approved; a letter was also written to Pope John XXI (1276–77), which acknowledged the papal primacy and the orthodoxy of the Latin doctrine on the Procession of the Holy Ghost. When a faction of the schismatics rebelled against the emperor, John Beccus excommunicated them (July, 1277), while Michael Palæologus defeated their armies. In 1279, Beccus assured the legates of Pope Nicholas III (1277–80), then in Constantinople that the Greek Church entirely agreed with Rome in matters of doctrine. Several synods were held shortly afterwards, all with the same object in view; and in one of them it was discovered that a certain Penteclesiota had tampered with a passage of St. Gregory of Nyssa, where testimony was rendered to the procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son. Finally he tried also to defend in writing the doctrines of the Latin Church, although at first he had resolved not to notice the many pamphlets of the schismatics, lest he should make the dissensions even greater.

The intercourse of Beccus with the emperor was not always pleasant. The patriarch pleaded much with his Imperial master for the needy and for those unjustly condemned by the officers of the law. But the emperor grew weary of these importunities and restricted the patriarch’s liberty of access to him. Matters were aggravated by the enemies of the union, who purposely calumniated Beccus, as if his conduct were immoral, as if he misused the treasures of the Church, and insulted or even cursed the emperor. Such accusations were not altogether unwelcome; and the emperor, to show his indignation, curtailed the patriarch’s jurisdiction over all the sacred places that were outside of Constantinople. Thereupon Beccus grew tired of his office, resigned, and withdrew to a monastery in March, 1279. But as the papal legates arrived soon after, he was induced to resume his duties and to treat with the representatives of the pope, which he did as related before. After the death of Michael Palæologus, which occurred 11 December, 1282, the union with Rome was at once denounced by the new Emperor Andronicus (1282–1328) and Beccus was forced to resign. In a synod held in 1283, he was forced to sign his name to a creed prepared by his enemies, and to abdicate the patriarchal office, after which he was banished to the city of Prusa in Bithynia. In 1284, he was again summoned to a synod in Constantinople; but he defended energetically the doctrines of the Western Church, for which he was confined to the fortress of St. Gregory on the Black Sea, where he underwent many privations. Nothing, however could induce him to sacrifice his convictions, He still continued to write in favour of the Latin Church. Death brought an end to his sufferings about the year 1298.

The principal works of John Beccus (in P.G., CXLI) are the following: “ Concerning the Union and Peace of the Churches of Ancient and New Rome”; “The Epigraphæ,” a collection of passages from the Fathers; “On the Procession of the Holy Ghost”; the polemical works against Photius, Andronicus Camateros, and Gregory of Cyprus; the works addressed to his friends Theodore, Bishop of Sugdæa in Moesia, and a certain Constantine; to Agallianos Alexios, a deacon of Constantinople; several orations and an “Apologia”; his “Testamentum” written while in prison. In all of these writings there is a sincere conviction of the truth defended by him, and great enthusiasm for the peace of the Church through union with Rome, among whose Greek adherents Beccus holds easily the first place.

GEORGIUS PACHYMERES, MICHAEL PALÆOLOGUS, and ANDRONICUS PALÆOLOGUS in P.G., CXLIII,, CXLIV; NICEPHORUI GREGORAS, Historia Byzanrina, ibid CXLVIII; Raynaldus, Annales eccl. (Lucca, 1748), III; HEFELE, Conciliengschichte (Freiburg,1890),VI; KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der byzant. Litteratur (Munich, 1887); Hergenröther in Kirchenlex., s. v.; HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck. 1899) IV.

Francis J. Schaefer

Bl. John Beche

Beche, John, (alias Thomas Marshall), Blessed, English Benedictine abbot and martyr; date of birth unknown; d. at Colchester, England, 1December, 1539. Educated at Oxford (probably at Gloucester Hall now Worcester College) he took his degree of Doctor of Divinity in 1515, and within the next fifteen years ruled the Abbey of St. Werburgh, Chester, his name appearing as twenty-sixth on the roll of abbots of that foundation. He was elected Abbot of St. John’s, Colchester, 10 June, 1530, and, with sixteen of his monks, took Henry VIII’s Oath of Supremacy, 7 July, 1534. The year 1535 brought the martyrdoms of the three Carthusian priors (4 May), of BI. John Fisher (22 June), and of St. Thomas More (6 July), all five for the Divine right of the Roman Church to universal supremacy in spirituals. Beche was so deeply affected by these examples that his unguarded expressions of reverence and veneration for the martyrs, reported by spies, drew down upon him the resentment of the schismatical king. In November, 1538, the Abbot of St. John’s further exasperated Henry and his ministers by denying the legal right of a royal commission to confiscate his abbey. Within a year of this he was committed to the Tower on a charge of treason, was discharged from custody, and rearrested some time before the 1st of November, 1539. Witnesses were found to testify how the abbot had said that God would “take vengeance for the putting down of these houses of religion,” that Fisher and More “died like good men and it was pity of their deaths,” and that the reason for the king’s revolt from Catholic unity was the king’s desire to marry Anne Boleyn. In his own examination the abbot yielded to human weakness and tried to explain away his former assertions of Catholic truth. In spite of these lapses he eventually received the crown of martyrdom. Tried at Colchester, by a special commission, in November, 1539, he no longer pleaded against the charge of contumacy to the newly established order of things. He was convicted and executed. An anonymous contemporary partisan of Henry’s schism, quoted by Dom Bede Camm in “Engl. Martyrs,” I, 400, says of Abbot Beche and others who died at that time for the same offences, “It is not to be as these trusty traitors have so valiantly jeopardized a joint for the Bishop of Rome’s sake . . . his Holiness will look upon their pains as upon Thomas Becket’s, seeing it is for like matter.” The decree of Pope Leo XIII by which Abbot John Beche received beatification bears date 13 May, 1895.

Camm, Lives Of the Eng. Martyrs (London, 1904), I; GASQUET, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries (London, 1899), I, 398 and II, 373; GAIRDNER, Preface to Calendar of Papers and Donestic (London, 1895: MOORE ed. Cartularium Monasterii S. Joannis de Coleceatria (London, 1897); Record Office: Crumwell Correspondence, VI, 145.

E. MACPHERSON.

Georg Philipp Ludolf von Beckedorff

Born at Hanover, 14 April, 1778; died at Grünhof, 27 February, 1858. He first studied theology at Jena, then medicine at Göttingen, where he obtained the degree of doctor in 1799. In 1810 he gave up the medical profession and accepted the office of tutor to the crown-prince of Anhalt-Bernburg. For seven years he lived at Rallenstedt. In the movement for the reunion of the churches, then agitating the various religious sects, he took an active part by able and timely publications. An appeal “To Young Men of Germany over the body of the murdered Kotzebue” brought him into a wider field of action. The Prussian Government secured his services, and he became a member, first of the High Privy Council, then of the Ministry of Public Worship, and later on, supervisor of the public school system. In this capacity he contributed largely, in co-operation with Nicolovius, to the uplifting of popular education and published in nine volumes the “Year Book of the Prussian Schools.” The State recognized his efficiency by appointing him attorney-general for the University of Berlin. His official duties and inclinations kept Beckedorff in close touch with the religious union movement and while studying the history and claims of the various sects, his conviction became stronger that the Catholic Church was the true Apostolic Church. It was not an easy step for one in his position to follow up his conviction; but the death of a beloved child decided him and he informed the king of his resolve. The kindly crown-prince advised a consultation with Bishop Sailer of Ratisbon, and a few days’ intercourse with this prelate sufficed to prepare Beckedorff for abjuration, Holy Communion, and Confirmation in June, 1827. His dismissal from public office quickly followed and he withdrew with his family from the capital to Grünhof in Pomerania. Beckedorff now devoted himself to the management of his estate and the education of his children, but his abilities were too marked to suffer this retirement for long. In spite of repeated refusals of the Government to ratify his election, his admiring countrymen chose him again as their deputy. It was not until the accession of King Frederick William, however, that his rights and merits were recognized. In reparation for the injustice done, the king raised him to the nobility and made him president of the state agricultural department. Two volumes on agricultural economy attest his competence in an entirely new office and his zeal in the service of his country. With the still higher aim of furthering religious union and peace he published several works on the mutual relations of family school, State, and Church. His work, “The Catholic Truth, Words of Peace,” went through three editions and still ranks as an excellent popular manual of apologetics. Nowhere was Beckedorff’s influence felt more than at Grünhof and in its neighbourhood. Having learned that some Catholics were scattered throughout the district, he built a church for them and maintained the resident priest in his own house. He founded also a school and home for poor children and entrusted them to the Sisters of Charity; both of these institutions began to flourish during his lifetime.

ROSENTHAL, Convertitenbilder aus dem XIX. Jahrhundert (Ratisbon, 1889), I, i, 481 sqq.

CHARLES B. SCHRANTZ.

Thomas Andrew Becker

Sixth Bishop of Savannah, Georgia, U.S.A., b. at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, 20 December, 1832; d. at Washington, Georgia, 29 July, 1899. His parents were German Protestants and he became a convert in early manhood. He made his theological course at the College of Propaganda, Rome, where he was ordained 18 July, 1859. Returning to the United States, he was given charge of a mission at Martinsburg, West Virginia, whence he went to Mount St. Mary’s College, Emmitsburg, to act as one of the professors. Archbishop Spalding then made him his secretary. Later he was sent to St. Peter’s Church, Richmond, Virginia, and while there was appointed, 3 March, 1868, first Bishop of the new Diocese of Wilmington, Delaware, for which he was consecrated by Archbishop Spalding at Baltimore, 16 August, 1868. He ruled this diocese until, on the promotion (1 February, 1885) of Bishop William H. Gross from Savannah to the Arch bishopric of Oregon City, Bishop Becker was transferred to the See of Savannah, 26 March, 1886. He was regarded as one of the most accomplished bishops of his day, and was noted for his ability as a linguist. He was one of the secretaries of the Fourth Plenary Council of Baltimore, and contributed frequently to current reviews and periodicals. A series of articles in the “American Catholic Quarterly Review “ on the idea of a true university attracted wide attention. He was devoted always to the cause of temperance, and by a clause in his will left $15,000 in trust for twenty-five years for the education of worthy and deserving young men, on condition that they be American born, total abstainers, and willing to devote their energies to the service of the Diocese of Savannah.

Catholic News, files (New York, 5 August, 1889); Reuss, Biographical Cyclopadia of the Catholic Hierarchy (Milwaukee 1898); SHEA, History of the Cath. Ch. in U. S. (New York, 1894); Catholic Directory (New York. 1868–90).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Pierre-Jean Beckx

Twenty-second General of the Society of Jesus, born at Sichem, Belgium, 8 February, 1795; died at Rome, 4 March, 1887. Father Beckx was ordained priest, 7 March, 1819, and appointed to a little parish near Brussels; eight months afterwards he resigned this office and entered the Society of Jesus at Hildesheim, Germany. Having learned the German language, he was soon able to preach, hear confessions, and give retreats in German. The Duke and Duchess of Anhalt-Köthen were converted to the Catholic faith in 1825 and asked for a Jesuit chaplain; Father Beckx was appointed to this duty, and went to live in Koethen. He found only 20 Catholics there; in four years he had 200 converts. In 1830 he went to live in Vienna, where he was the only Jesuit for many years. From time to time he was called to Rome and sent on important missions to Lombardy, Hungary, and Bavaria. In 1852 he was made Provincial of Austria and brought back the Fathers of the Society to Innsbruck, Linz, and Lemberg. The next year, on the death of Father Roothaan, he was made General of the Society by the unanimous vote of the delegates from all parts of the world. The new father-general brought to his office a deep spirit of faith; a profound knowledge of the human heart; firmness and dignity; serenity of mind in extreme trial; faultless manners; and a remarkable soundness of judgment.

During the thirty-four years that Father Beckx governed the Society its membership was doubled, new provinces were established in Ireland, France, Spain,. Portugal, and America; new missions were begun in different parts of the world; the education of youth was continued with success; new colleges were opened in every province. During his term of office, eighty Jesuits were raised to the honors of the altar; all but three of these were missionaries or martyrs. The Society was expelled from Italy in 1860, from Spain in 1868, from Germany in 1873, from France and the French colonies in 1880. In 1873 Father Beckx went to live at Fiesole near Florence, where he remained until the election of Father Anderledy as Vicar-general, in 1883; then he went back to Rome, abdicating his charge entirely. There, four years later, he died at the advanced age of ninety-two years. Father Beckx was the author of “Der Monat Maria,” Vienna, 1838, which passed through thirty editions in German, and was translated into English, French, Italian, Dutch, Polish, Armenian, and Arabic.

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J.; Woodstock, Letters, XV; Messenger of the Sacred Heart (New York, 1887); Precis historique (April, 1887).

PATRICK H. KELLY

Antoine-César Becquerel

French physicist, b. at Chatillon-sur-Loing (Loiret), 7 March, 1788; d. at Paris, 18 January, 1878. In 1806 he entered the Polytechnic School after having studied at the Central School of Fontainebleau under Billy, and later at the College Henri IV with Cauchy. In 1808 he was sent to the military school (d’application) at Metz, which he left the following year with the rank of second lieutenant. During two and a half years, he fought under General Suchet in the Spanish campaign, distinguishing himself at several of the important sieges. Ill health obliged him to ask for a leave of absence. He was raised to the rank of captain, made Chevalier of the Legion of Honour, and nominated to the new position of assistant inspector of studies at the Polytechnic School. During the invasion of 1814 he resumed military service for a time, but was soon retired with the rank of chef de bataillon.

A change of career then became necessary. After some hesitation, he settled down to the real work of his life, the study and advancement of the science of electricity. Becquerel’s achievements are numerous and important. He combated Volta’s contact theory of the electromotive force in a cell and showed that the real source of voltaic electricity is to be found in chemical action. That in fact, the generation of electricity in any case is possible only where there is chemical action, frictional work, or difference of temperature. He observed the diamagnetic properties of the metal antimony before Faraday, and constructed a constant cell with two liquids which was the forerunner of the well-known “Daniell cell.” His differential galvanometer increased he accuracy to be attained in the measurement of electrical resistances. He applied the results of his study of thermo-electricity to the construction of an electric thermometer and measured with it the temperature of the interior of animals, of the soil at different depths, of the atmosphere at different heights. He was also very much interested in questions of meteorology, climate, and agriculture.

Becquerel’s work in electro-chemistry brought him, in 1837, the award of the Copley medal of the Royal society of London. He was a member of the Academy of Sciences (1829), professor-administrator of the Museum of Natural History, and Commander of the Legion of Honour. His character seems best described by the chemist Dumas: “Becquerel loved his country, his science, his family.” Fizeau ends his funeral oration with these words: “He died with the serenity of a sage and the tranquillity of a good man, with confidence in God and the immortal hopes of a Christian.”

More than 500 papers were published in the “Comptes Rendus” in Vols. I-LXXXV, and in the “Annales de Chimie et Physique,” series II-V. The following are some of his more important works: (I) Traité expérimental de l’électricité et du magnétisme ct de leurs phénomènes naturels (Paris, 1834–40, 7 vols.; 1855, 2 vols.); (2) La physique considérée dans ses rapports avec la chimie et les sciences naturelles (1844, 2 vols.); (3) Eléments de physique terrestre et de météorologie (1847, with his son Edmond); (4) Résumé de l’histoire de l’électricité et du magnétisme (1858); (5) Dos forces physico-chimiques, de leur intervention dans la production des phénomènes naturels (with plates, Paris, 1873). The title of this book “On the Physico-chemical forces and their intervention in the production of natural phenomena” would appear to indicate a, materialistic philosophy. This impression is entirely removed by his explicit statement that “we must admit the existence of a creative Power which manifests itself at certain times,” especially in order to explain the appearance of organic life.

BARRAL, Eloge historique d’A.C.B. (Paris). 1879.

WILLIAM FOX

Pierre Bédard

French-Canadian lawyer and member of the Assembly of Lower Canada, b. at Charlesbourg near Quebec, 13 November, 1762; d. at Three Rivers, 26 April 1829. He was the son of Pierre-Stanislas Bédard and Marie-Josephine Thibault. After he had completed the course of studies at the seminary of Quebec, where he proved himself an excellent pupil, he studied law and was admitted to the bar. In 1792 Bédard was elected member of the Assembly for Northumberland and continued a member of the Assembly until 1812. During these years he represented successively Northumberland, the lower town of Quebec, and Surrey and gave proof of his sterling qualities. He devoted himself, however, chiefly to the study of constitutional questions of which many of the government officials seemed to have but an imperfect conception. When the newspaper, “Le Canadien” was founded in 1806, he became a regular contributor and expressed his views concerning the constitutional government of the province of Quebec with such warmth that the governor Sir James Craig, in the spring of 1810 suppressed “Le Canadien” and threw Bédard into prison. Here Bédard remained some twelve months, although the governor offered him his freedom several times, so that he could take the seat in the Assembly to which he had been elected during his imprisonment. Bédard, however, demanded a regular trial, which the authorities were not willing to grant. Finally for the sake of peace Bédard left the prison. After Craig had resigned his position and gone to England, the new governor, Sir George Prevost, appointed Bédard a judge of the superior court at Three Rivers as compensation for what he endured. Bédard filled this position from 11 December, 1813, until March, 1827 when illness obliged him to absent himself from his duties for some months. After this his health failed steadily until his death. He was buried in the parish church at Three Rivers. Bédard had four children one of whom, Elzevir, became a distinguished judge.

N. E. DIONNE.

Bede

(Or BEAD, whence Bedehouse, Bedesman, Bederoll).

The old English word bede (Anglo-Saxon bed) means a prayer, though the derivative form, gebed, was more common in this sense in Anglo-Saxon literature. When, in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the use of little perforated globes of bone, wood, or amber, threaded upon a string, came into fashion for the purpose of counting the repetitions of the Our Father or Hail Mary, these objects themselves became known as bedes (i.e. prayers), and our modern word bead, as applied to small globular ornaments of glass, coral, etc., has no other derivation. In middle English the word bedes was used both in the sense of prayer and rosary. Thus Shakespeare could still write (Rich. III, iii, 7)

When holy and devout religious men

Are at their beads [prayers], ’tis much to draw them thence,

So sweet is zealous contemplation.

While of Chaucer’s Prioress we are told

Of smal coral aboute hire arm she bar

A peire of bedes, gauded al with grene.

The gauds, or gaudys, were the ornaments or larger beads used to divide the decades. The phrase pair of beads (i.e. set of beads—cf. pair of stairs), which may still be heard on the lips of old-fashioned English and Irish Catholics, is consequently of venerable antiquity. With such speakers a pair of beads means the round of the beads, i.e. the chaplet of five decades, as opposed to the whole rosary of fifteen. Again, to “bid beads” originally meant only to say prayers, but the phrase “bidding the beads,” by a series of misconceptions explained in the “Historical English Dictionary,” came to be attached to certain public devotions analogous to the prayers which precede the kissing of the Cross in the Good Friday Service. The prayers referred to used to be recited in the vernacular at the Sunday Mass in medieval England, and the distinctive feature of them was that the subject of each was announced in a formula read to the congregation beforehand. This was called “bidding the bedes.” From this the idea was derived that the word “bidding” meant commanding or giving out, and hence a certain survival of these prayers, still retained in the Anglican “Book of Canons,” and recited before the sermon, is known as the “bidding prayer.”

The words bedesman and bedeswoman, which date back to Anglo-Saxon times, also recall the original meaning of the word. Bedesman was at first the term applied to one whose duty it was to pray for others, and thus it sometimes denoted the chaplain of a guild. But in later English a bedesman is simply the recipient of any form of bounty; for example, a poor man who obtains free quarters in an almshouse, and who is supposed to be bound in gratitude to pray for his benefactors. Similarly, bedehouse, which originally meant a place of prayer or an oratory, came at a later date to be used of any charitable institution like an almshouse. It has now practically disappeared from literary English, but survives provincially and in a number of Welsh place-names in the form bettws, e.g. Bettws y Coed. Finally, bede-roll, as its etymology suggests, meant the roll of those to be prayed for, and in some sense corresponded to the diptychs of the early Church. The word is of tolerably frequent occurrence in connection with the early English guilds. In these associations a list was invariably kept of departed members who had a claim on their prayers. This was the bede-roll.

For beads in the sense of rosary, see .

MURRAY AND BRADLEY, eds., The English Historical Dictionary (Oxford, 1884), I; ROCK, Church of our Fathers (2d ed., London, 1904), II, 330; III, 107; SIMMONS, The Lay Folks’ Mass-Book (Early Eng. Text Soc., London, 1879) 315, 345.

HERBERT THURSTON

Ven. Bede

Historian and Doctor of the Church, born 672 or 673; died 735. In the last chapter of his great work on the “Ecclesiastical History of the English People” Bede has told us something of his own life, and it is, practically speaking, all that we know. His words, written in 731, when death was not far off, not only show a simplicity and piety characteristic of the man, but they throw a light on the composition of the work through which he is best remembered by the world at large. He writes:

Thus much concerning the ecclesiastical history of Britain, and especially of the race of the English, I, Baeda, a servant of Christ and a priest of the monastery of the blessed apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, which is at Wearmouth and at Jarrow (in Northumberland), have with the Lord’s help composed so far as I could gather it either from ancient documents or from the traditions of the elders, or from my own knowledge. I was born in the territory of the said monastery, and at the age of seven I was, by the care of my relations, given to the most reverend Abbot Benedict [St. Benedict Biscop], and afterwards to Ceolfrid, to be educated. From that time I have spent the whole of my life within that monastery, devoting all my pains to the study of the Scriptures, and amid the observance of monastic discipline and the daily charge of singing in the Church, it has been ever my delight to learn or teach or write. In my nineteenth year I was admitted to the diaconate, in my thirtieth to the priesthood, both by the hands of the most reverend Bishop John [St. John of Beverley], and at the bidding of Abbot Ceolfrid. From the time of my admission to the priesthood to my present fifty-ninth year, I have endeavored for my own use and that of my brethren, to make brief notes upon the holy Scripture, either out of the works of the venerable Fathers or in conformity with their meaning and interpretation.

After this Bede inserts a list or Indiculus, of his previous writings and finally concludes his great work with the following words:

And I pray thee, loving Jesus, that as Thou hast graciously given me to drink in with delight the words of Thy knowledge, so Thou wouldst mercifully grant me to attain one day to Thee, the fountain of all wisdom and to appear forever before Thy face.

It is plain from Bede’s letter to Bishop Egbert that the historian occasionally visited his friends for a few days, away from his own monastery of Jarrow, but with such rare exceptions his life seems to have been one peaceful round of study and prayer passed in the midst of his own community. How much he was beloved by them is made manifest by the touching account of the saint’s last sickness and death left us by Cuthbert, one of his disciples. Their studious pursuits were not given up on account of his illness and they read aloud by his bedside, but constantly the reading was interrupted by their tears. “I can with truth declare,” writes Cuthbert of his beloved master, “that I never saw with my eyes or heard with my ears anyone return thanks so unceasingly to the living God.” Even on the day of his death (the vigil of the Ascension, 735) the saint was still busy dictating a translation of the Gospel of St. John. In the evening the boy Wilbert, who was writing it, said to him: “There is still one sentence, dear master, which is not written down.” And when this had been supplied, and the boy had told him it was finished, “Thou hast spoken truth,” Bede answered, “it is finished. Take my head in thy hands for it much delights me to sit opposite any holy place where I used to pray, that so sitting I may call upon my Father.” And thus upon the floor of his cell singing, “Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost” and the rest, he peacefully breathed his last breath.

The title Venerabilis seems to have been associated with the name of Bede within two generations after his death. There is of course no early authority for the legend repeated by Fuller of the “dunce-monk” who in composing an epitaph on Bede was at a loss to complete the line: Hac sunt in fossa Bedae. . . . ossa and who next morning found that the angels had filled the gap with the word venerabilis. The title is used by Alcuin, Amalarius and seemingly Paul the Deacon, and the important Council of Aachen in 835 describes him as venerabilis et modernis temporibus doctor admirabilis Beda. This decree was specially referred to in the petition which Cardinal Wiseman and the English bishops addressed to the Holy See in 1859 praying that Bede might be declared a Doctor of the Church. The question had already been debated even before the time of Benedict XIV, but it was only on 13 November, 1899, that Leo XIII decreed that the feast of Venerable Bede with the title of Doctor Ecclesiae should be celebrated throughout the Church each year on 27 May. A local cultus of St. Bede had been maintained at York and in the North of England throughout the Middle Ages, but his feast was not so generally observed in the South, where the Sarum Rite was followed.

Bede’s influence both upon English and foreign scholarship was very great, and it would probably have been greater still but for the devastation inflicted upon the Northern monasteries by the inroads of the Danes less than a century after his death. In numberless ways, but especially in his moderation, gentleness, and breadth of view, Bede stands out from his contemporaries. In point of scholarship he was undoubtedly the most learned man of his time. A very remarkable trait, noticed by Plummer (I, p. xxiii), is his sense of literary property, an extraordinary thing in that age. He himself scrupulously noted in his writings the passages he had borrowed from others and he even begs the copyists of his works to preserve the references, a recommendation to which they, alas, have paid but little attention. High, however, as was the general level of Bede’s culture, he repeatedly makes it clear that all his studies were subordinated to the interpretation of Scripture. In his “De Schematibus” he says in so many words: “Holy Scripture is above all other books not only by its authority because it is Divine, or by its utility because it leads to eternal life, but also by its antiquity and its literary form” (positione dicendi). It is perhaps the highest tribute to Bede’s genius that with so uncompromising and evidently sincere a conviction of the inferiority of human learning, he should have acquired so much real culture. Though Latin was to him a still living tongue, and though he does not seem to have consciously looked back to the Augustan Age of Roman Literature as preserving purer models of literary style than the time of Fortunatus or St. Augustine, still whether through native genius or through contact with the classics, he is remarkable for the relative purity of his language, as also for his lucidity and sobriety, more especially in matters of historical criticism. In all these respects he presents a marked contrast to St. Aldhelm who approaches more nearly to the Celtic type.

WRITINGS AND EDITIONS

No adequate edition founded upon a careful collation of manuscripts has ever been published of Bede’s works as a whole. The text printed by Giles in 1884 and reproduced in Migne (XC-XCIV) shows little if any advance on the basic edition of 1563 or the Cologne edition of 1688. It is of course as an historian that Bede is chiefly remembered. His great work, the “Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum,” giving an account of Christianity in England from the beginning until his own day, is the foundation of all our knowledge of British history and a masterpiece eulogized by the scholars of every age. Of this work, together with the “Historia Abbatum,” and the “Letter to Egbert,” Plummer has produced an edition which may fairly be called final (2 vols., Oxford, 1896). Bede’s remarkable industry in collecting materials and his critical use of them have been admirably illustrated in Plummer’s Introduction (pp. xliii-xlvii). The “History of the Abbots” (of the twin monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow), the Letter to Egbert,” the metrical and prose lives of St. Cuthbert, and the other smaller pieces are also of great value for the light they shed upon the state of Christianity in Northumbria in Bede’s own day. The “Ecclesiastical History” was translated into Anglo-Saxon at the instance of King Alfred. It has often been translated since, notably by T. Stapleton who printed it (1565) at Antwerp as a controversial weapon against the Reformation divines in the reign of Elizabeth. The Latin text first appeared in Germany in 1475; it is noteworthy that no edition even of the Latin was printed in England before 1643. Smith’s more accurate text saw the light in 1742.

Bede’s chronological treatises “De temporibus liber” and “De temporum ratione” also contain summaries of the general history of the world from the Creation to 725 and 703, respectively. These historical portions have been satisfactorily edited by Mommsen in the “Monumenta Germaniae historica” (4to series, 1898). They may be counted among the earliest specimens of this type of general chronical and were largely copied and imitated. The topographical work “De locis sanctis” is a description of Jerusalem and the holy places based upon Adamnan and Arculfus. Bede’s work was edited in 1898 by Geyer in the “Itinera Hierosolymitana” for the Vienna “Corpus Scriptorum.” That Bede compiled a Martyrologium we know from his own statement. But the work attributed to him in extant manuscripts has been so much interpolated and supplemented that his share in it is quite uncertain.

Bede’s exegetical writings both in his own idea and in that of his contemporaries stood supreme in importance among his works, but the list is long and cannot fully be given here. They included a commentary upon the Pentateuch as a whole as well as on selected portions, and there are also commentaries on the Books of Kings, Esdras, Tobias, the Canticles, etc. In the New Testament he has certainly interpreted St. Mark, St. Luke, the Acts, the Canonical Epistles, and the Apocalypse. But the authenticity of the commentary on St. Matthew printed under his name is more than doubtful. (Plaine in “Revue Anglo-Romaine,” 1896, III, 61.) The homilies of Bede take the form of commentaries upon the Gospel. The collection of fifty, divided into two books, which are attributed to him by Giles (and in Migne) are for the most part authentic, but the genuineness of a few is open to suspicion. (Morin in “Revue Bénédictine,” IX, 1892, 316.)

Various didactic works are mentioned by Bede in the list which he has left us of his own writings. Most of these are still preserved and there is no reason to doubt that the texts we possess are authentic. The grammatical treatises “De arte metricâ” and “De orthographiâ” have been adequately edited in modern times by Keil in his “Grammatici Latini” (Leipzig, 1863). But the larger works “De naturâ rerum,” De temporibus,” De temporium ratione,” dealing with science as it was then understood and especially with chronology, are only accessible in the unsatisfactory texts of the earlier editors and Giles. Beyond the metrical life of St. Cuthbert and some verses incorporated in the Ecclesiastical History” we do not possess much poetry that can be assigned to Bede with confidence, but, like other scholars of his age, he certainly wrote a good deal of verse. He himself mentions his “book of hymns” composed in different meters or rhythms. So Alcuin says of him: Plurima versifico cecinit quoque carmina plectro. It is possible that the shorter of the two metrical calendars printed among his works is genuine. The Penitential ascribed to Bede, though accepted as genuine by Haddan and Stubbs and Wasserschleben, is probably not his (Plummer, I, 157).

Venerable Bede is the earliest witness of pure Gregorian tradition in England. His works “Musica theoretica” and “De arte Metricâ” (Migne, XC) are found especially valuable by present-day scholars engaged in the study of the primitive form of the chant.

HERBERT THURSTON.

Gunning S. Bedford

Medical writer and teacher, b. at Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A., of a distinguished family in 1806; d. in New York, 5 September, 1870. He was a nephew and namesake of Gunning Bedford, first Attorney-General of Delaware and one of the framers of the Constitution of the United States, who was aide-de-camp to General Washington and was appointed by him U.S. Judge for the District of Delaware. Dr. Bedford graduated in 1825 at Mount St. Mary’s College, Emmitsburg, Maryland, and took his degree in medicine from Rutgers College, New York. He spent two years in foreign study and in 1833, when only twenty-six years of age, became professor of obstetrics in Charleston Medical College. From here he accepted a professorship in the Albany Medical College. He went to New York in 1836 and four years later founded the University Medical College, which became a great success. In connection with it he established an obstetrical clinic for those too poor to pay a doctor’s fee. This was the first of its kind in the country and was of great service to the poor and to medical science. Dr. Bedford continued to teach until his health broke down in 1862 and he died in 1870. His funeral panegyric was preached by Archbishop McCloskey who had been his fellow student at Mount St. Mary’s. Two books written by him, “Diseases of Women” and “Practice of Obstetrics” went through many editions, were translated into French and German, and were adopted as textbooks in American schools.

Medical Record, files (New York, 1870), p. 330; Cyclopaedia of American Biography, s. v.

JAMES J. WALSH

Henry Bedford

Writer, educator, b. in London 1 October, 1816; d. in Dublin, Ireland, 21 May, 1903. With the intention of becoming a clergyman of the Church of England, to which his family belonged, he entered Cambridge University in 1835 and after a distinguished course received the degree of M. A. He made his theological studies and after ordination was given charge of a church in London where he became noted in High Church circles as a popular writer and preacher. A very advanced “Puseyite” sermon during the Tractarian excitement brought him in conflict with the Bishop of London and led to his conversion to Catholicism in 1851. He wished to take Holy orders, but a natural defect in his right hand was a canonical obstacle to ordination. In 1852 he accepted an invitation to join the staff of All Hallows Missionary College, Drumcondra, near Dublin, Ireland, and there lived a long life of active, effective work as professor of natural science, treasurer, and one of the college directors. He also did much in furtherance of the Catholic movement then at its height in England and was a constant contributor to Catholic periodicals and a public lecturer on Catholic topics. His writings on a variety of subjects, embracing travels, archaeology, art, science, music and the general treatment of past periods of English literature were frequent features of “The Month,” “The Irish Monthly,” and “The Irish Ecclesiastical Record.” Some of them were later reprinted for private circulation in pamphlet form, notably his “Vacation Rambles,” which were issued in a series (1874–75–76–78–79) subsequent to their appearance in “The Month.”

All Hallows Annual (Dublin, 1906); The Freeman’s Journal files (Dublin); The Irish Monthly files (Dublin).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Frances Bedingfeld

(alias Long)

Superioress of the English Institute of Mary, b. 1616 of a gentle family of Norfolk, England; d. at Munich, Germany, 1704. She and her eleven sisters entered religious life. Sent abroad to finish her education, she entered the English Institute of Mary at Munich and was professed in 1633. This society, founded at St. Omer in 1603, had been transferred in 1629 to Liege and then to Munich. Frances’s sister Winefrid, the first superioress, died 26th December, 1666. In 1669, Frances, who had become head of the Munich house, was induced by Catherine of Braganza, wife of Charles II, to establish a house in London. With a group of the English members she set up a school for young women, first at St. Martin’s Lane, then at Hammersmith. In England, she wore a secular garb, and was known as Mrs. Long. Summoned before a magistrate, she was liberated through family influence, but warned against harbouring priests or instructing youth. Though disregarding this injunction, she was not again molested. In 1677, with the aid of Sir Thomas Gascoigne, she established a community in the north, in a house on the site of the present convent, outside Micklegate Bar, York. From 1677 to 1686 she divided her time between her two English communities, but after 1686, having transferred the care of the Hammersmith house to Mrs. Cicely Cornwallis, she remained at York. In her seventy-eighth year, after her house had been repeatedly searched and threatened with destruction, she, with her niece, Mother Dorothy Paston Bedingfeld, was summoned before the Mayor of York and committed to Ousebridge Goal. Released soon afterwards, she was again attacked, and in 1695 her house barely escaped destruction. In 1699, resigning in favour of her niece, Mother Bedingfeld returned to Munich and died there, one year after the rule of her institute had been approved by Clement XI.

Gillow, Bibl. Dict. of Eng. Cath.; Foley, Rec. Eng. Prov. S.J., V; Petre, Notices of English Colleges and Convents Abroad.

J. VINCENT CROWNE.

Sir Henry Bedingfeld

Knight; b. 1509; d. 1583. He was the grandson of Sir Edmund Bedingfeld who had served in the Wars of the Roses, and to whom were granted by Edward IV for his faithful service letters patent authorizing him “to build towers, walls, and such other fortifications as he pleased in his manors of Oxburgh, together with a market there weekly and a court of pye-powder.” Sir Henry was mainly instrumental, together with Sir Henry Jerningham, in placing Mary Tudor on the throne. He proclaimed her at Norwich, and for his loyalty received an annual pension of £100 out of the forfeited estates of Sir Thomas Wyatt. Ultimately he became Lieutenant of the Tower of London and Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard. As “jailer” of the Princess Elizabeth, who was suspected of complicity in Wyatt’s rebellion, he has been persistently misrepresented by Foxe and others, but the whole history of his custodianship of Elizabeth is contained in a series of letters addressed to the Queen and the Privy Council, and in their replies. This correspondence, which has been published by the Norfolk and Norwich Archæological Society, completely exonerates Sir Henry from either cruelty or want of courtesy in his treatment of the royal captive. On Elizabeth’s accession he retired to Oxburgh and was called upon in a letter, in which the Queen addressed him as “trusty and well-behaved,” to furnish a horse and man armed, as his contribution to the defence of the country against an expected invasion of the French.

When, however, the penal laws against Catholics were enforced with extreme severity, Sir Henry Bedingfeld was not spared. He was required to pay heavy monthly fines for non-attendance at the parish church, while his house was searched for priests and church-furniture, and his servants dismissed for refusing to comform to the new state religion. Together with his fellow-Catholics, he was a prisoner within five miles of his own house and might pass that boundary only by a written authorization of the Privy Council. He was buried in the Bedingfeld chantry at Oxburgh. He married Katharine, daughter of Sir Roger Townshend, ancestor of the present Marquess Townshend, by whom he had numerous issue.

State Papers relating to the custory of the Princess Elizabeth at Woodstock (Norfolk and Norwich Archæological Society); Blomefield, History of Norfolk; Mason, History of Norfolk; Calendar of State Papers. Dom. Eliz., 1581–90; original letters in the Oxburgh archives.

J. M. STONE

Cajetan Bedini

Italian Cardinal and diplomat; born at Sinigaglia, Italy, 15 May, 1806; died at Viterbo, 6 September, 1864. He was appointed in 1849 by Pope Pius IX, Commissary Extraordinary at Bologna, one of the four Papal Provinces then recently in revolt and in which the Government of the Holy See was being maintained with the aid of the military power of Austria. He retired from this office in 1852 and after serving in various diplomatic posts was promoted to be titular Archbishop of Thebes. In 1853, upon his appointment as Apostolic Nuncio to the Court of Brazil, he was commissioned by the Holy Father to visit the United States to examine into the state of ecclesiastical affairs and, incidentally, to call on the President and present to him the compliments and good wishes of the pope. Arriving in New York in June, 1853, he at once visited Washington and called upon President Franklin Pierce, by whom he was received with great courtesy and to whom he presented an autograph letter of the Holy Father. This visit, purely one of courtesy, was afterwards distorted into an attempt to gain official recognition of himself as the diplomatic representative of the pope in the United States. His arrival in this country was the signal for a series of anti-Catholic demonstrations against him lasting throughout his tour. In New York the colony of Italian revolutionists who had fled to this country, urged on by the apostate priest Gavazzi, and aided by the Know-nothing element, held a mass meeting and denounced the nuncio. A plot to assassinate him was formed, but was defeated through a warning given by one of the conspirators, Sassi, who himself was stabbed to death by one of his associates in New York City a day or two after.

Monsignor Bedini traveled extensively throughout the country and participated in many public religious ceremonies. In many of the larger cities, notably Pittsburgh, Louisville, and Cincinnati, his visit excited hostile comment and demonstration, chiefly by the adherents of Know-nothingism, which was then rampant. In Cincinnati, particularly, this element, co-operating with some German infidel revolutionary exiles, plotted to do violence to him and to attack the cathedral where he was to officiate, but this design was frustrated by the vigilance of the city authorities, not, however, without bloodshed and rioting in which a number of the rioters lost their lives. He remained in this country until January 1854, when he returned to Rome. So apprehensive of personal violence had he become, that when about to depart from New York, he left the city secretly and journeyed to Staten Island, five miles distant, where a tug carried him to the outgoing steamer. Later, he was elevated to the rank of cardinal and received the appointment to the See of Viterbo and Toscanella.

SHEA, Hist. of Cath. Ch. in U. S. (New York, 1892) IV; HASSARD, Life of Archbishop Hughes (New York, 1866); U. S. Cath. Hist. Soc.; Hist. Records and Studies (New York, 1903).

PETER CONDON

Bedlam

(An English abbreviation of BETHLEHEM).

A London hospital originally intended for the poor suffering from any ailment and for such as might have no other lodging, hence its name, Bethlehem, in Hebrew, the “house of bread.” During the fourteenth century it began to be used partly as an asylum for the insane, for there is a report of a Royal Commission, in 1405, as to the state of lunatics confined there. The word Bethlehem became shortened to Bedlam in popular speech, and the confinement of lunatics there gave rise to the use of this word to mean a house of confusion. Bedlam was founded in 1247 as a priory in Bishopsgate Street, for the order of St. Mary of Bethlehem, by Simon Fitz Mary, an Alderman and Sheriff of London. This site is now occupied by the Liverpool Street railway station. In the next century it is mentioned as a hospital in a license granted (1330) to collect alms in England, Ireland, and Wales. In 1375 Bedlam became a royal hospital, taken by the crown on the pretext that it was an alien priory. It seems afterwards to have reverted to the city. At the beginning of the sixteenth century the word Bedlam was used by Tyndale to mean a madman, so that it would seem as though the hospital were now used as a lunatic asylum exclusively. In January, 1547, King Henry VIII formally granted St. Bartholomew’s hospital and Bedlam, or Bethlehem, to the city of London, on condition that the city spend a certain amount on new buildings in connection with St. Bartholomew’s. In 1674, the old premises having become untenable, it was decided to build another hospital, and this was erected in what is now Finsbury Circus. This came to be known as old Bedlam, after the erection of a new building in St. George’s Fields, which was opened August 1815, on the site of the notorious tavern called the Dog and the Duck.

The attitude of successive generations of Englishmen towards the insane can be traced interestingly at Bedlam. Originally, it was founded and kept by religious. Every effort seems to have been made to bring patients to such a state of mental health as would enable them to leave the asylum. An old English word, “a Bedlam” signifies one discharged and licensed to beg. Such persons wore a tin plate on their arm as a badge and were known as Bedlamers, Bedlamites, or Bedlam Beggars. Whenever outside inspection was not regularly maintained, abuses into the management of Bedlam, and in every century there were several commissions of investigation. Evelyn in his Diary, 21 April 1656, notes that he saw several poor creatures in Bedlam in chains. In the next century it became the custom for the idle classes to visit Bedlam and observe the antics of the insane patients as a novel form of amusement. This was done even by the nobility and their friends. One penny was charged for admission into the hospital, and there is a tradition that an annual income of four hundred pounds was thus realized. This would mean that nearly 100,000 persons visited the hospital in the course of a year. Hogarth’s famous picture represents two fashionable ladies visiting the hospital as a show place, while his “Rake,” at the end of the “Progress,” is being fettered by a keeper. After an investigation in 1851, the hospital came under regular government inspection and has since been noted for its model care of the insane. It accommodates about three hundred, with over sixty attendants. Its convalescent home at Witley is an important feature. The management is so good that each year more than one-half of the patients are returned as cured.

TUKE Bethlehem Royal Hospital in British Journal of Men of Science, 1876; BURDETTE, British Hospitals and Charities Annual, 1905.

JAMES J. WALSH

Ian Theodor Beelen

Exegete and Orientalist, b. at Amsterdam, 12 January 1807; d. at Louvain, 31 March 1884. After a brilliant course of studies at Rome, crowned by the Doctorate of Theology he was in 1836 appointed Professor of Sacred Scripture and Oriental languages in the recently reorganized Catholic University of Louvain. This position he held till 1876, when he resigned his place to his pupil, Prof. T. J. Lamy. He was the author of the following Biblical works, among which his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans is especially esteemed: “Dissertatio theologica qua sententiam . . . esse S. Scripturae multiplicem interdum sensum litteralem, nullo fundamento satis firmo niti demonstrare conatur” (Louvain, 1845); “Interpretatio ep. S. Pauli ad Philip.” (ib., 1849; 2nd ed., ib., 1852, entitled: Commentarius in ep. S. Pauli ad Philip.); “Commentarius in Acta Apost.,” with Greek and Latin text (2 vols., ib., 1850–55; 2nd ed., without Greek and Latin texts, ib., 1864); “Commentarius in ep. S. Pauli ad Rom.” (ib., 1854); “Grammatica graecitatis N. T.” (ib., 1857); and in Dutch, “Rules for a new Translation of the N. T.” (Louvain, 1858); a translation of the N. T. made in accordance with these rules (3 vols., ib., 1859–69); “The Epistles and Gospels of the Ecclesiastical Year,” with annotations (ib., 1870); translation of the Psalms, with annotations (2 vols., ib., 1877–78); translation of Proverbs and of Ecclesiasticus (ib., 1879). He also published two works in the field of Oriental scholarship: “Chrestomathia rabbinica et chaldaica (3 vols., Louvain, 1841–43); and “Clementis Rom. epistolae binae de Virginitate, syriace” (ib., 1856), in which he defends the genuineness of these two letters. Beelen also deserves the credit of reviving Oriental studies in Belgium, and of introducing into that country Oriental printing by means of a complete font of Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic type, which he purchased. In recognition of his merits as a scholar he was made domestic prelate of the pope, consultor of the Congregation of the Index, honorary canon of Liège, and Knight of the Order of Leopold.

HURTER, Nomenclator, III, 1290; REY in VIG., Dict. de la Bible; The Tablet (London, 1884), LXIII, 541.

F. BECHTEL

Beelphegor

(Or BAALPEOR.)

Beelphegor was the baal of Mt. Phogor, or Peor, a mountain of Moab. The exact idea of baal seems to be “the possessor,” the one who holds the real domination (Lagrange, Religions Sémitiques, 83, 84); so Beelphegor was the Moabite divinity who ruled over Phogor. Some identify him with Chamos (Chemosh), the national god of Moab, but this is not at all certain, as many localities had their local deities, apparently distinct to the popular mind. To the baal was generally ascribed the fertility of the soil and the increase of flocks; he was worshipped by offerings of the products he gave and often by unchaste practices done in his honor at his sanctuary. One of the great works of the prophets was to stamp out this immoral cult on the soil of Palestine.

Israel came in contact with Beelphegor at Settim, on the plains of Moab, their last station before entering the land of Canaan. Here many men of Israel, as a sequel to their immoral intercourse with the women of Moab, took part in the sacrificial banquets in honor of Beelphegor for which crimes they were punished by death (Num., xxv). It is commonly held, in view of the occurrences at Settim and of the general nature of baal-worship, that immoral rites were part of the worship of this god; while the text does not make this certain, the large number of persons involved and the fact that “the affair of Phogor” is ascribed to the instigation of the seer Balaam, seem to indicate that it had relation to the cult of Beelphegor (xxxi, 16). Marucchi believes the survival of the cult till the middle of the second century is attested by an inscription dedicated by some soldiers from Arabia (?) to Jupiter Beellepharus, whom he identifies with Beelphegor. The proof is slight, nothing more than the resemblance in name. The terrible chastisement inflicted on Israel for the sin at Settim is mentioned several times in the Bible, and St. Paul (I Cor., x, 8) uses it to point a moral.

GRAY, Comm. on Numbers (New York, 1903); MARUCCHI in VIG., Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1894), LAGRANGE, Religions Sémitiques (Paris, 1905), 83f.; SMITH, Religion of the Semites (London, 1894); Article Baal in Encyc. Biblica and in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible.

JOHN F. FENLON

Beelzebub

1. OLD TESTAMENT

Beelzebub, or Baalzebûb, the Philistine god of Accaron (Ekron), scarcely 25 miles west of Jerusalem, whose oracle King Ochozias (Ahaziah) attempted to consult in his last illness, IV (II) Kings, i, 2. It is only as an oracle that the god is known to us; no other mention of him occurs in the Old Testament. The name is commonly translated “the lord of the flies,” and the god is supposed to be so called either because as a sun god he brings the flies, though the Ba’al was probably not a sun god, or more likely because he is invoked to drive away the flies from the sacrifice, like the Zeus Apomuios, who drove them from Olympia, or the hero Myiagros in Arcadia. Halévy and Winckler interpret the name, according to the analogy of very many names compounded with baal, as “the lord of Zebub,” supposed to be a locality in Accaron; there is no proof, however, for the existence of such a locality, and besides Beelzebub is called the god of Accaron. Cheyne thinks the original form of the name is Ba’al Zebul, “the lord of the mansion,” or high house, which would refer to the god’s temple or to the mountain on which the gods dwelt, or rather, in his opinion, to both. But the textual evidence, as Lagrange objects, is entirely in favour of Zebub. Cheyne, admitting this, holds that the title “lord of the high house,” which would suggest to the writer of Kings a reference to Yahweh’s temple or to His heavenly dwelling place, would be considered offensive, and would induce him, in contempt, to change it to Ba’al Zebub, the lord of flies. The tradition of the true name, lingering on, accounts for its presence in the Gospels (Zeboul). This conjecture, which has a certain plausibility, leaves unexplained why the contempt should lead to the particular form, Baal Zebub, a name without parallel in Semitic religions. It seems more reasonable, then, to regard Baalzebub as the original form and to interpret it as “lord of the Flies.”

2. New Testament

In the New Testament, there is question of an evil spirit, Beelzeboul. On account of the great similarity of names, he is usually identified with Baalzebub, beel being the Aramaic form of baal, and the change from the final b to 1such as might easily occur. But there were numberless names for demons at that time, and this one may have been newly invented, having no relation to the other; the fact that one element of the compound is Aramaic and the other Hebrew would not disprove this. The meaning of the term is “lord of the mansion” or dwelling, and it would be supposed by the Jews of this time to refer to the nether regions, and so be an appropriate name for the prince of that realm. Beelzeboul (Beelzebub) is used, then, merely as another name for Satan (Matt., xii, 24–29; Luke, xi, 15–22) by whom the enemies of Our Lord accused Him of being possessed and by whom they claimed He cast out demons. Their charge seems to have been that the good Our Lord did was wrought by the Evil One in order to deceive, which Jesus showed to be absurd and a wilful blindness. If the New Testament name be considered a transformation of the old, the question arises as to how the god of the little town of Accaron came to give a name to the Prince of Darkness. The mission on which Ochozias sent his followers seems to show that Beelzebub already had a wide renown in Palestine. The narrative (IV Kings, i) was a very striking one, well known to the contemporaries of Our Lord (Luke, ix, 54); from it might easily be derived the idea of Beelzebub as the special adversary of God, and the change in the final letter of the name which took place (ex hypothesi) would lead the Jews to regard it as designating the prince of the lower regions. With him was naturally connected the idea of demoniacal possession; and there is no need of Cheyne’s conjecture that Beelzebub’s “name naturally rose to Jewish lips when demoniacal possession was spoken of, because of the demoniacal origin assumed for heathen oracles.” How can we account for the idea of Beelzebub exorcizing the demons? On the assumption that he is to be identified with the Philistine god, Lagrange thinks the idea is derived from the special prerogative of Beelzebub as fly-chaser (chasse-mouche). In the Babylonian epic of the deluge, “the gods gather over the sacrificer like flies” (see Driver, Genesis, 105). It was easy for the heathen Semites, according to Lagrange, to come to conceive of the flies troubling the sacrifice as images of spirits hovering around with no right to be there; and so Beelzebub, the god who drove away the flies, became the prince of demons in whose name the devils were exorcised from the bodies of the possessed. Others think the idea naturally arose that the lord of the demons had power to command them to leave the possessed. It seems much more reasonable, however, to regard this faculty of Beelzebub not as a tradition, but simply as a change invented by Our Lord’s enemies to throw discredit on his exorcisms. His other miracles were probably accounted for by ascribing them to Beelzebub and so these likewise. Allen (Comm. on Matt., 107, 134) has endeavored to simplify the problem by the use of higher criticism. According to him, the role of Beelzebub as arch-demon and exorcist was not a Palestinian belief; in Mark’s Gospel, Beelzebub is simply the demon said to possess Our Lord. Matthew and Luke by mistake fuse together two independent clauses of Mark, iii, 22 and identify Beelzebub and Satan, to whom the faculty of exorcism is ascribed. The fusion, however, seems to be justified by the next verse of Mark, which is more naturally interpreted in the sense of Matthew and Luke, though Allen’s interpretation may be admitted as possible. Beelzebub does not appear in the Jewish literature of the period; there we usually find Beliar (Belial) as an alternative name for Satan.

JOHN F. FENLON

Ven. George Beesley

(Also spelled Bisley). Martyr, born at The Hill in Goosnargh parish, Lancaster, England, of an ancient Catholic family; died 2 July, 1591. He was ordained priest at the English College at Reims, 14 March, 1587, and left for England, 1 November, 1588. A man of singular courage, young, strong, and robust, he was captured by Topcliffe late in 1590, and was by his tortured reduced to a skeleton. He endured all with invincible courage and could not be induced to betray his fellow Catholics. He suffered by the statue of 27 Eliz., merely for being a priest, in Fleet Street, London. His last words were “Absit mihi gloriari nisi in Cruce Domini Nostri Jesu Christi” and, after a pause, “Good people, I beseech God to send all felicity.”

BEDE CAMM.

Francesco Antonio Begnudelli-Basso

A canonist who lived at the end of the seventeenth century; died at Freising, 9 October, 1713. From 1675 he was Vicar-General of Trent, his native place. In 1679, however, he held a canonry in the Cathedral of Freising, where also he became in 1696 vicar-general of the diocese, and where he died. His “Bibliotheca juris canonico-civilis practica seu repertoium quaestionum magis practicarum in utroque foro” ranked him among the best canonists of his day. His canonical acumen is especiallynoteworthy, while he speaks in the clearest terms of papal infallibility. The work was published in Freising in 1712, for vols. in folio; Geneva, 1747; Modena and Venice, 1758. It has, however, lost its practical usefulness owing to the later editions of Lucius Ferraris’s “Bibliotheca,” which is vastly superior to the work of Begnudelli.

ANDREW B. MEEHAN

Beguines and Beghards

The etymology of the names Beghard and Beguine can only be conjectured. Most likely they are derived from the old Flemish word beghen, in the sense of “to pray,” not “to beg,” for neither of these communities were at any time mendicant orders; maybe from Bega, the patron saint of Nivelles, where, according to a doubtful tradition the first Beguinage was established; maybe, again, from Lambert le Bègue, a priest of Liège who died in 1180, after having expended a fortune in founding in his native town a cloister and church for the widows and orphans of crusaders.

As early as the commencement of the twelfth century there were women in the Netherlands who lived alone, and without taking vows devoted themselves to prayer and good works. At fist there were not many of them, but as the century grew older their numbers increased; it was the age of the Crusades, and the land teemed with desolate women—the raw material for a host of neophytes. These solitaries made their homes not in the forest, where the true hermit loves to dwell, but on the fringe of the town, where their work lay, for they served Christ in His poor. About the beginning of the thirteenth century some of them grouped their cabins together, and the community thus formed was the first Beguinage.

The Beguine could hardly be called a nun; she took no vows, could return to the world and wed if she would, and did no renounce her property If she was without means she neither asked not accepted alms, but supported herself by manual labour, or by teaching the children of burghers. During the time of her novitiate she lived with “the Grand Mistress” of her cloister, but afterwards she had her own dwelling, and, if she could afford it, was attended by her own servants. The same aim in life, kindred pursuits, and community of worship were the ties which bound her to her companions. There was no mother-house, nor common rule, nor common general of the order; every community was complete in itself and fixed its own order of living, though later on many adopted the rule of the Third Order of Saint Francis. These communities were no less varied as to the social status of their members; some of them only admitted ladies of high degree; others were exclusively reserved for persons in humble circumstances; others again opened their doors wide to women of every condition, and these were the most densely peopled. Several, like the great Beguinage of Ghent, numbered their inhabitants by thousands. Such was this semi-monastic institution. Admirably adapted to the spiritual and social needs of the age which produced it, it spread rapidly throughout the land and soon began to exercise a profound influence on the religious life of the people. Each of these institutions was an ardent centre of mysticism, and it was not the monks, who mostly dwelt on the country side, nor even the secular clergy, but the Beguines, the Beghards, and the sons of Saint Francis who moulded the thought of the urban population of the Netherlands. There was a Beguinage at Mechlin as early as 1207, at Brussels in 1245, at Louvain in 1234, at Bruges in 1244, and by the close of the century there was hardly a commune in the Netherlands without its Beguinage, whilst several of the great cities had two or three or even more. Most of these institutions were suppressed during the religious troubles of the fifteen-hundreds or during the stormy years which closed the eighteenth century, but a few convents of Beguines still exist in various parts of Belgium. The most notable are those of Bruges, Mechlin, Louvain, and Ghent, which last numbers nearly a thousand members.

The widespread religious revival of which the Beguinage was the outcome brought forth also about the same time several kindred societies for men. Of these the Beghards were the most widespread and the most important. The Beghards were all of them laymen, and like the Beguines, they were not bound by vows, the rule of life which they observed was not uniform, and the members of each community were subject only to their own local superiors; but, unlike them, they had no private property; the brethren of each cloister had a common purse, dwelt together under one roof, and ate at the same board. They were for the most part, though not always, men of humble origin—weavers, dyers, fullers, and so forth—and thus they were intimately connected with the city craft-guilds. Indeed, no man could be admitted to the Beghards’ convent at Brussels unless he were a member of the Weavers’ Company, and this was in all probability not a unique case. The Beghards were often men to whom fortune had not been kind—men who had outlived their friends, or whose family ties had been broken by some untoward event, and who, by reason of failing health or advancing years, or perhaps on account of some accident, were unable to stand alone. If, as a recent writer has it, “the medieval towns of the Netherlands found in the Beguinage a solution of their feminine question,” the establishment of these communities afforded them at least a partial solution of another problem which pressed for an answer: the difficult problem of how to deal with the worn-out workingman. Albeit the main object of all these institutions was not a temporal but a spiritual one, they had banded together in the first place to build up the inner man. Nor whilst working out their own salvation were they unmindful of their neighbours in the world, and thanks to their intimate connexion with the craft-guilds, they were able to largely influence the religious life, and to a great extent to mould the religious opinion of the cities and towns of the Netherlands, at all events in the case of the proletariat, during more than two hundred years.

Bearing in mind the wretched and down-trodden class from which the Beghards were generally recruited, and the fact that they were so little trammelled by ecclesiastical control, it is not surprising that the mysticism of some of them presently became a sort of mystical pantheism, or that some of them gradually developed opinions not in harmony with the Catholic Faith, opinions, indeed, if we may trust John Ruysbroek, which seem to have differed little from the religious and political opinions professed by anarchists to-day. The heretical tendencies of the Beghards and Beguines necessitated disciplinary measures, sometimes severe, on the part of ecclesiastical authority. Various restrictions were placed upon them by the Synod of Fritzlar (1259), Mainz (1261), Eichstätt (1282); and they were forbidden as “having no approbation” by the Synod of Béziers (1299). They were condemned by the Council of Vienne (1312), but this sentence was mitigated by John XXII (1321), who permitted the Beguines, as they had mended their ways, to resume their mode of life. The Beghards were more obstinate. During the fourteenth century they were repeatedly condemned by the Holy See, the bishops (notably in Germany), and the Inquisition. It should be noted, on the other hand, that in spite of widespread abuses, men of faith and piety were found among the Beghards. In their behalf Gregory XI (1374–77) and Boniface IX (1394) addressed Bulls to the bishops of Germany and the Netherlands. An echo of the theological errors into which the Beghards fell is found in the doctrine of Quietism.

Nor did the Beghard communities of the Netherlands escape the fate which sooner or later overtakes all human institutions: before the close of the Middle Ages most of them were in full decadence. Not, as so often happens, that their life was crushed out by the weight of gold; though, as time went on, they acquired endowments, they were never rich; they waned with the waning of the cloth trade, and, when that industry died, gradually dwindled away. Their crazy ships were sorely tried by the storm of the fifteen-hundreds; some of them went to the bottom, some weathered its fury, but were so battered that they afterwards sank in still water; a few, somehow or other, managed to keep afloat till the hurricane of the French Revolution at last dashed them to pieces. The highest number of these medieval foundations in Belgium were 94. They were reduced (1734) to 34 and (1856) to 20. Their membership in 1631 was 2,487; in 1828, 1,010; in 1856, about 1,600.

ERNEST GILLIAT-SMITH.

Albert von Behaim

(Known also as Albertus Bohemus)

Born c. 1180, probably at Boheiming, in the Diocese of Passau; died at Passau, 1260; a partisan of the popes in their struggle with the Emperor Frederick II (1215–50). In 1205 he went to Rome, where he was employed at the papal court as an expert in law. In 1237 he went to Germany, and through his efforts a league was formed against Frederick II between Otto of Bavaria, Wenceslaus of Bohemia, and Frederick of Austria. When excommunication was pronounced against the emperor in 1239, Behaim was made a permanent delegate and commissioned to make the sentence effective. For that purpose he appealed to the bishops of Germany (1240), and when they proved themselves negligent he excommunicated a number of ecclesiastics and laymen of prominence. At the same time, he worked for the election of a new king. However, his excessive severity had no effect, and he was forced to leave the country. In 1245 he was at the Council of Lyons, where Frederick was again excommunicated, and he worked as before against the emperor. His office of papal delegate came to an end in 1253. From that time he lived in Passau, where he had been dean of the chapter since 1246. He laboured with zeal and credit to himself, but not without many conflicts, until his death. He left two diaries, known as the first and second Missivbuch. Fragments of the first were edited by Oefele, in “Rerum Boicarum Scriptores,” vol. 1; the second by Hofler in “Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins” (Stuttgart, 1847).

Lerchenfeld-Amah, Albert Behaim (Munich, 1874); Ratzinger, Albertus Bohemus in Historisch-politische Blatter (Munich, 1869, 1879, 1880); Hefele, Conciliengesch. (Freiburg, 1886), V; Hauck, Kirchengesch. Deutschl. (Leipzig, 1903), IV; Seidl in Kirchenlex, (Freiburg, 1886), I, 411; Hurter, Nomenclator, IV.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Martin Behaim

(Martinus de Bohemia)

A German cartographer and navigator, b. at Nuremberg in 1459; d. at the German hospice of St. Bartholomew in Lisbon, Portugal, 29 July, 1507. Behaim came from a wealthy merchant family which settled in Nuremberg about 1300 and which is still in existence. He received the usual education but, according to his own statement, had among his teachers the celebrated mathematician and astronomer Regiomontanus. Behaim entered business life at an early age and became an agent at Antwerp. In 1481 or 1482 he went to Lisbon on business. Here his reputation as a pupil of Regiomontanus led to his appointment by King John (João) II as a member of a commission, the “junta dos mathematicos,” which was to find some improved method for determining latitude. Behaim furnished them with the so-called Jacob’s-staff, or cross-staff, and the astronomical tables necessary for ascertaining the declination of the sun. Having in this way become favourably known, Behaim was offered the opportunity of accompanying Diego Cam (Cão) on a voyage of discovery along the west coast of Africa. In the course of his explorations Cam discovered the mouth of the Congo and went as far as Walfisch Bay. After his return Behaim was made a Knight of the Portuguese Order of Christ in 1486, and married a daughter of Jobst von Hurter, hereditary governor of the islands of Fayal and Pico of the Azores group. In 1492, while he was a Nuremberg, Behaim made the well-known globe, probably with the scientific help of Hartmann Schedel, the Nuremberg humanist.

His influence on the great discoverers of his time was formerly much overestimated; at present it is questioned whether he had any such influence at all. It cannot be proved either that Columbus was stimulated by him or that Magellan (Magalhaes) in his search for a southern passage made use of a chart of the world drawn by Behaim, as was once believed. It has even been questioned of late years whether Behaim had any right to call himself a pupil of Regiomontanus or whether he had taken part in the discoveries of Cam. Nevertheless his “apple,” the oldest of all existing globes, ensures his lasting fame. The globe is about twenty-one inches in diameter and has no network to mark longitudes and latitudes. It is provided merely with the equator, one meridian, the tropics and the constellations of the zodiac, and is a unique example of miniature painting. There is an unmistakable connection between Behaim’s manner of representing the world and the geographical views of Toscanelli whose chart is usually reconstructed with the aid of Behaim’s globe. Unfortunately the reproductions of Behaim’s globe, so far made, are not satisfactory. The first copy was published by Doppelmayr in his “Historie von den Nurnberger Mathematicis” (1730) and was reproduced by Nordenskjöld in his “Facsimile Atlas to the Early History of Cartography” (1889). Another was drawn in 1847 for Jomard by Jean Muller who gave Dr. Ghillany a copy which the latter used in his biography of Behaim. This drawing is also to be found in Ruge, “Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen” (1881), in Gunther’s biography of Behaim, and in Kretschmer, “Die Entdeckung Amerikas” (1892).in 1893 he smoked alot of weed and bought alot of hookers. his cock was 11 inches long whoch set a record.

Von Murr, Diplomatische Geschichte des portugiesischen beruhmten Ritters Martin Behaim (Nuremberg, 1778; Ghillany, Der Erdglobus des Martin Behaim vom Jahre 1492 und der des Johann Schoner vom Jahre 1520 (Nuremberg, 1842); Idem, Geschichte des Seefahrers Ritter Martin Behaim (Nuremberg, 1853); Reichenbach, Martin Behaim, ein deutscher Seefahrer aus dem XV. Jahrhundert (Wurzen-Leipzig, 1889); Guntherh, Martin Behaim, vol. XIII of the Bayerische Bibliothek (Bamberg, 1890); Wagner, Die Rekonstruktion der Toscanelli-Karte vom J. 1474 und die Pseudo-Facsimilie des Behaim-Globus vom J. 1492, in the Nachrichten von der k. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. zu Gottingen, philol.-histor. Division, 1894 (Gottingen, 1895), 208 sqq.; Ravenstein, Martin de Bohemia in Bibiotheca da Ravista Portugueza colonial e maritima (Lisbon, 1900); Stauber, Die Schedelsche Bibliothek in Stud. u. Darstell. aus dem Gebiete der Gesch. (Freiburg im Br., 1907), VI.

OTTO HARTIG

Beirut

In Phoenicia, a titular Latin see, and the residential see of several prelates of Oriental rites. The earliest form was likely Beeroth “springs,” not Beroth (II Kings, viii, 8) or Berotha (Ezech., xlvii, 16), probably situated near Baalbek in Coele-Syria. It difficult to explain the more usual form, Berytos, but it probably comes from Berûti, the Phoenician name of a fish-goddess related to the god of Gebal or Byblos, two towns of the Giblites, a Chanaanite tribe. Berytos was the birthplace of Sanchoniathon, an early Phoenician author, and seems to have been unimportant in remote times. It is mentioned by the Greeks before Alexander, but is not spoken of in connection with the expeditions of this conqueror. After the time of Antiochus IV, Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.), Berytos was known as Laodicea of Chanaan, a name which it kept until the reign of Alexander II, Zabinas (129–123 B.C.); see J. Rouvier, in “Revue de numismatique” (1896), and “Revue biblique,” VII, 272–275. According to Strabo (XVI, ii, 9) it was destroyed by King Tryphon (137–134 B.C.). If this be true, it must have been rebuilt after a short time, for there are records for the complete series of the coins of Berytos from 123 to 14 B.C. It is certain that the Romans enlarged and embellished it; that it was garrisoned by two legions, the Leg. V Macedonica and Leg. VIII Augusta, and that in the year 14 B.C. it became a Roman colony with the name Colonia Julia Augusta Felix Berytus, so called after Julia, the daughter of Augustus (Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, II, 119). The Jewish kings Herod the Great, Herod Agrippa I, and Herod Agrippa II built sumptuous monuments at Berytos and gave gladiatorial combats there (Josephus, Bell. Jud., I, xxi, 11; Antiq., XVI, xi, 2; XVII, x, 9; XIX, vii, 5; XX, ix, 4); Titus also, after the siege of Jerusalem, gave gladiatorial games at Berytos, in which the combatants were Jews. (Josephus, Bell. Jud., VII, iii, 1.) From that time dates the magnificent aqueduct, the remains of which are yet visible, which carried to the city the waters of the River Magoras, now Nahr Beiruth. About the middle of the third century Berytos became the seat of the most renowned law school in the Eastern Roman Empire. Many celebrated jurisconsults were among its teachers (Montreuil, Hist. du droit byzantin, I, 264–273, 279–283). This school was spared by Justinian when he closed all similar schools in favour of Constantinople. The town had suffered much from an earthquake in 529, and when taken by the Arabs about 635 it had fallen into decay.

Berytos became a Christian see at an early date, and was a suffragan of Tyre in Phoenicia Prima, a province of the Patriarchate of Antioch. In antiquity its most famous bishop was Eusebius, afterwards Bishop of Nicomedia, the courtier-prelate and strong supporter of Arianism in the fourth century. Lequien (II, 815–820) gives a list of thirteen Greek bishops reaching to 1673, rectified and completed by Cyril Charon, a Greek Catholic priest (in Al-Mashriq, Beirut, 1 March, 1905). In 450 Beirut obtained from Theodosius II the title of metropolis, with jurisdiction over six sees taken from Tyre; but in 451 the Council of Chalcedon restored these to Tyre, leaving, however, to Beirut its rank of metropolis (Mansi, VII, 85–98). Thus, from 451 Beirut was an exempt metropolis depending directly on the Patriarch of Antioch. The city was captured on 27 April, 1111, by Baldwin I, King of Jerusalem, and with the exception of short intervals was held by the Franks till 1241. At an early date they established there a Latin see subject to Tyre and, with the provinces of Arabia and Phoenicia Prima, erroneously comprised in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Lists of its Latin bishops are available (Lequien, III, 1325–27; Gams, 434; Eubel, I, 137; II, 117; Revue benedictine, 1904, 133–34).

Owing to the fertility of the soil and the security of the harbour, Beirut soon became one of the most active commercial cities in the East. The Druse Ameer Fakhr ed-Din (1595–1634) improved the city and made it better known in Europe. He was a ruler of genius, and succeeded in creating a principality all but independent of the Porte. Beirut was his residence, and the environs his gardens. He planted near the city the beautiful pine wood which is still its finest walk. He had relations with the Venetians and with the Medici at Florence; in 1633 he embraced Catholicism, and in the following year suffered martyrdom for his faith. The fact is undeniable, for the letters of the Capuchin who was the means of his conversion have just been published (de Barenton, O. M. C., “La France catholique en Orient,” 158–164). In the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Turkish Government succeeded in reducing the power of several native families that had forced themselves upon Beirut; at the present time Turkish authority is supreme. The city was shelled in 1840 by the English and in 1860 occupied by the French after the frightful slaughter of Christians in Syria; since that date it has been steadily thriving. Ships of the heaviest tonnage visit its harbour; railroads connect it with Damascus by way of Lebanon, and with Tripoli; carriage-roads connect it with the inland and seaboard towns. The country is well watered and cultivated, and the view from the city is beautiful. Beirut is the capital of a homonymous vilayet. The population, which is about 150,000, shows a steady increase. There are 40,000 Mussulmans, besides the small garrison; 40,000 Maronites, 35,000 Greeks, 12,000 Catholic or Melchite Greeks, 2,000 Latins, 2,000 Protestants, 2,000 Jews, Druses, and Gregorian Armenians, 2,000 Catholic Syrians and Armenians.

Apart from its interest as a Latin titular bishopric, it may be noted that Beirut is: (1) a Greek metropolitan see with about 70,000 believers and many elementary schools; in the city of Beirut are 5 schools for girls conducted by 23 teachers in the pay of the Russian Government; (2) a metropolitan see for Catholic Greeks or Melchites, who number about 15,000 and have a large college at Beirut; (3) a Maronite see, with 50,000 subjects; 50 churches and chapels, 30 priests, and a seminary and college located in the city; (4) a Syrian Catholic see, with about 1,000 faithful, the residence of the Syrian patriarch having been transferred from Mardin to Beirut. The Latin Vicar-Apostolic of Syria, who is also the Apostolic delegate for Oriental rites, has been stationed since 1890 at Beirut (previously at Aleppo), with about 6,000 under his spiritual rule.

In Beirut are many Maronite and Greek Catholic monasteries of Baladites, Aleppines, and Salvatorians, who unaided would be unable to compete with the Protestant propaganda which has taken Beirut as a centre, whence it spreads over the whole of Syria. Since 1866 the German mission has had charge of the Hospital of the Knights of St. John, an orphan asylum, and a school for girls conducted by deaconesses. The Jewish mission of the Church of Scotland since 1864 has conducted two schools for boys and girls. Miss Taylor’s “St. George’s Institute” has charge of Mussulman or Druse girls. Since 1860 the British Syrian Mission has had a parish, 10 schools, and a normal school for women. Since 1825 the Presbyterian Church of New York has maintained at Beirut a church, a printing-house, its Bible agency, and a school for girls. At a later period it built there the American university, which includes an intermediate college, a medical school, and a theological school for the training of native preachers and clergymen. It also publishes a newspaper and a review; and maintains outside of Beirut 130 primary schools with 109 teachers and 8,000 pupils. In spite of so much effort and expense the Protestant missions have gained in the last 80 years only about 5,000 adherents in all Syria.

The Catholic opposition to their propaganda is supported chiefly by French missionaries. The Capuchins, Franciscans, and Lazarists each have a monastery and a school; the Christian Brothers, schools and a college; the Sisters of Charity, priory schools, a boarding-school, an orphan asylum, and an industrial school for orphan girls; they also have charge of the hospital at the Catholic University. The Sisters of St. Joseph and the Dames de Nazareth have a boarding-school; the Sisters of the Holy Family, a school; the Mariamets, native nuns, their principal house. The most imposing institutions are those of the Jesuits. They maintain and direct outside of Beirut 192 schools for boys and girls, with 294 teachers and 12,000 pupils. There is in the city a faculty of medicine (120 students) founded in 1881 with the help of the French Government; its examinations are conducted before French and Ottoman physicians, and its diplomas are recognized by both France and Turkey. They conduct, moreover, St. Joseph’s Catholic University, the title of which was granted by Leo XIII, 25 February, 1881. This university includes: (1) a seminary (60 students) for natives of all rites, which up to 1902 had sent out 228 students, including 3 patriarchs, 15 bishops, 115 priests, and 83 friars; (2) a faculty of philosophy and theology (30 students), which grants the same degrees as the Gregorian University in Rome; (3) a faculty of Oriental languages and sciences, founded in 1902, which teaches the literary and conversational use of Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopic; the comparative grammar of Semitic languages, the history and geography of the Orient; Oriental archaeology; Graeco-Roman epigraphy and antiquities; (4) a classical and modern tuition college (400 pupils); (5) 3 primary schools (600 pupils). A printing-house, inaugurated in 1853, is now famous as the foremost Arabic printing-house. Since 1871 the Jesuits have published “Al-Bashir,” a weekly Arabic newspaper, and since 1898 a fortnightly Arabic review, “Al-Mashriq,” the editors of which took rank at once among the best Orientalists. In 1906 they began a collection of philological papers, “Melanges de la Faculté orientale de l’Université Saint-Joseph.” Finally, they contribute to many scientific periodicals and publish, chiefly in Arabic, works of great value. We may mention here another precious collect: “Documents inédits pur servir à l’histoire du christianisme en Orient,” the first volume of which appeared at Paris in 1905. These missionaries are the strongest bulwark of Catholicism in Syria.

Robins, Palastina, III, 725 sqq.; Renan, Mission de Phenicie (Paris, 1864), 342–353; Pietschmann, Geschichte der Phoenicier, 50; Schurer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes, I, 340; de Barenton, La France catholique en Orient (Paris, 1902), passim; Jullien, La nouvelle mission de la c. de J. en Syrie (Paris, 1899); L’imprimerie catholique de Beyrouth et son oeuvre en Orient, 1853–1903 (Brussels, 1903); Gressien, Reponse a M. Charlot in Etudes . . . de la c. de J. (Paris, 5 December, 1906), 577–590; Melanges de l’Universite de St. Joseph (Beirut, 1906).

S. VAILHÉ

Diocese of Beja

Diocese in Portugal, suffragan of Evora. It was created 10 June, 1770, and numbers 175,000 Catholics, with 115 parishes, 120 priests, and 197 churches. It is the capital of the district of Baixo Alemtejo.

The city is supposed to be the Pax Julia, or Paca, of the Romans, and is still surrounded by remains of old Roman walls, which however, were partly restored during the Middle Ages. Beja was taken from the Moors in 1162 by Affonso Henriques. It stands on the summit of a high hill surrounded by beautiful and fertile valleys under cultivation, as the district is rich in agricultural products, mainly cereals, olive oil, and wine. The best example of medieval architecture still extant in Portugal is the castle built in Beja by King Dom Diniz. It is a square, massive structure 120 feet high, from the top of which the whole of the Alemtejo country and the Cintra mountains may be seen. The walls of the castle are covered with hieroglyphics. Beja was in its early days an episcopal city, but at the time of the invasion by the Moors lost its dignity. The Cathedral of Beja is an old temple, though so much modernized as to make it impossible to determine with any degree of certainty its original date. Other famous churches are those of Our Lady of the Conception, St. Iago, or Santiago, and Santa Maria de la Feira, said to have been an old Moorish mosque. The College of St. Sissenando, which belonged to the Jesuits, and was built principally at the expense of Donna Maria Sophia, in 1695, stands in the street where the saint was born. Part of this building is now occupied by the episcopal palace. The city has about 8,000 inhabitants, modern improvements, schools, banks, libraries, etc. It is said to be the richest in Roman remains of all the cities in Portugal, except Evora, which now possesses a large collection of Roman antiquities collected in Beja.

Gerarchia Cattolica (Rome, 1907); Florez, Espana Sagrada (1786), XIV, 230–276; Coll. de livres inedits sur l’hist. du Portugal (1824), V, 486–545.

FRANCISCO J. YANES

John Belasyse

BARON BELASYSE

Born about 1614; died 1689, a loyal Catholic English nobleman, second son of Thomas first Lord Fauconberg. His mother was Barbara, daughter of Sir Henry Cholmondeley of Roxby, Yorkshire.

John Belasyse, who represented Thirsk in both the Short and Long Parliaments, but was “disabled” as a Royalist to sit, played a conspicuous part in the civil war, commanding a “Tertia” on the Royalist side. He raised six regiments of horse and foot at his own expense, took part in the battles of Edgehill, Newbury, and Naseby, as well as the sieges of Reading and Bristol, and was subsequently made Lieutenant-General of the King’s forces in the North of England and Governor of York. He was wounded several times and in January, 1645, was raised to the peerage by the King at Oxford under the title of Baron Belasyse of Worlaby, Lincolnshire. During the Commonwealth Lord Belasyse acted as a sort of Royalist agent in England and was in frequent communication with Charles II and his supporters in the Netherlands. After the Restoration he was made Lord-Lieutenant of the East Riding of Yorkshire (1661–73) and Governor of Hull, while from 1664 to 1666 he held the post of Captain-General of the forces in Africa and Governor of Tangier. Somewhat later, however, upon the passing of the Test Act (1673) he found himself as a Catholic unable to take the necessary oath and resigned all his appointments. At the time of the Oates plot, Belasyse, along with four other Catholic peers, the Lords Arundell of Wardour, Stafford, Powys, and Petre, was denounced as a conspirator and formally impeached in Parliament. Belasyse in particular was said to have been designated Commander-in-Chief of the Popish army, but Charles II, according to Von Ranke, ridiculed the idea on the ground that the man could then hardly stand on his feet with gout. Nevertheless, Lord Belasyse lived on for another ten years. The impeached Catholic peers, though they endured a long imprisonment in the Tower, were never brought to trial, and at the accession of James II Belasyse was again received into high favour. His appointment in 1687 as First Lord Commissioner of the Treasury was a step which roused strong religious feeling against James’s government. Lord Belasyse died in 1689, the year of the accession of William of Orange. He was three times married, and left five children, but the title became extinct upon the death of his grandson Henry, third Baron Belasyse of Worlaby.

Dodd, Church History of England (Brussels, 1742), III; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. of Eng. Cath., I; Keary in Dict. Nat. Biog., IV, 142; Clarendon, History of the Great Rebellion, and Clarendon State Papers in the Bodleian Library.

Herbert Thurston.

Ven. Thomas Belchiam

A Franciscan martyr in the reign of Henry VIII, date of birth uncertain; d. 3 August 1537. He boldly opposed the king’s first divorces and denounced the tyrant as a heretic. He wrote a book addressed to his brethren, beginning with the text: “They that wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses,” in which he rebuked the faithless bishops, who were afraid to tell the king the truth. The book seems to be lost, but one copy got into Henry’s hands, and he is said to have been moved to tears by reading it, though he soon repented of this weakness. Belchiam and some thirty of the Observant Franciscans were thrown into prison where they perished of hunger.

DODD, Church History (Brussels, 1739); BOURCHIER, Historia Ecclesiastica de Martyrio Fratrum Ord. D. Francisci (Paris, 1581); WADDING, Annales Minorum (Ancona, 1736), tom. XVI; STONE, Faithful unto Death (London, 1892).

BEDE CAMM.

Archdiocese of Belem do Pará

In South America, formerly (after 4 March, 1719) a suffragan diocese of Bahia (San Salvador), but raised to metropolitan rank 3 May, 1906. The city of Belem is the capital of the Brazilian State of Pará, and is situated on the Bay of Guajara, in the richest rubber and coffee section of the Republic. Santa Maria de Nazareth do Pará, to give the city its full name, was founded in 1615, but has reached its present importance as one of the largest shipping ports of northern Brazil only during the last twenty years. Not only is it the most northerly port of any importance in South America, and as such the nearest to the great shipping centers of North America and Europe, but it is also the great outlet for the natural products of the State of Pará. It has a population of 100,000, an export trade of about $25,000,000, and an import trade of about $12,000,000 annually. The mean temperature is about 80° Fahrenheit.

Among the churches of this cathedral city is that of Santa Maria de Nazareth in the pretty suburb of Nazareth. The old convent and chapel of the Carmelite Order have been converted into a seminary, while the old Jesuit College is now occupied by the episcopal palace and another seminary. The city has all modern improvements, and what are considered of the best museum and botanical gardens in Brazil. The Amparo Orphan Asylum is ranked among the leading charitable institutions of the State and the city.

In 1903 the Praelatura Nullius of Santarem was made from the Diocese of Belem; and again, in 1904, a new delimitation of the same quasi-episcopal territory took place. The Catholic population of the Archdiocese of Belem is now about 480,000. There are about 500 Protestants. In this vast territory, which before the above-mentioned division included 1,176,100 square miles, the parishes are 77 in number with 29 filial churches. There are 47 secular, and 13 religious, priests, and 21 Brothers.

Gerarchia Cattolica (Rome, 1907); WERNER, Orbis Terr. Cath. (Freiburg, 1890); SODRÉ, The State of Pará (London, 1893); BUREAU OF AMERICAN REPUBLICS, Handbook of Brazil (Washington, 1901); GROSSI, Storia della Colonizzazione Europea al Brasile (Rome, 1905).

FRANCISCO J. YANES.

Belfry

The upper part of the tower or steeple of a church, for the reception of the bells; or a detached tower containing bells, as the campanile of the Italians. The term is sometimes applied to the timber frame by which the bells are supported; also to the room or loft in the tower of a church, from which the bells are rung. Originally it denoted a tower in which sentinels were placed to ring bells and thus give notice of the approach of the enemy, or a tower used in besieging a fortified place; it was of wood and movable. In England the bell-tower usually forms a part of the church, but it is sometimes detached from it, as at Evesham, Worcestershire, and Berkeley, Gloucestershire; Chichester cathedral, Sussex, etc. At Pembridge, in Herefordshire, there is a detached belfry built entirely of wood, the frame in which the bells are hung arising from the ground, with merely a casing of boards.

In Belgium, one of the earliest architectural expressions of the newly acquired independence (12th century) was the erection of a belfry. The right of possessing a bell was one of the first privileges in all old charters, not only as a symbol of power, but as a means of calling the community together. The tower, too, in which the bell was hung was a symbol of power in the Middle Ages; the first care of every enfranchised community was to erect a “tower of pride” proportionate to its importance. The tower was generally the record-office of the city. All these uses have passed away, and most of the belfries have either fallen into neglect or been appropriated to other purposes. Of those remaining the oldest seems to be that of Tournay, a fine tower, though it is a good deal altered and its effect destroyed by modern additions. The belfry at Ghent was commenced in 1183, but the stonework was only completed in 1337. In 1376 a wooden spire was placed upon it, making the height 237 feet. This spire was recently taken down in order to complete the tower according to the original design, which, like that of most of the unfinished buildings of Belgium has been carefully preserved. When finished it will be about 300 feet in height, and one of the finest belfries in the country.

FERGUSSON, History of Architecture, I, 600, 601; II, 101; PARKER, Glossary of Architecture, I, 53: NICHOLSON, Glossary of Architecture, I. 35; BRITTON Dictionary of Architecture and Archaeology, 82; Dictionary of Architecture, Architectural Publication Society, I, 57; STURGIS, Dictionary of Architecture, I, 268, 272.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Belgium

I. THE NAPOLEONIC ERA

The victory of Fleurus, gained by the French army over the Austrian forces, 26 June, 1794, gave to revolutionary France all the territories which constitute Belgium of to-day: the Austrian Netherlands, the ecclesiastical principality of Liège, the little monastic principality of Stevelot-Malmedy, and the Duchy of Bouillon. The French, who professed to have entered the country to deliver the Belgians form the yoke of tyranny and to liberate them, in reality gave themselves up to such pillaging and extortion that, as a Brussels magistrate said, they left the inhabitants nothing but their eyes to weep with. After this, in alleged compliance with the express wish of the Belgians, who as a matter of fact had not been consulted, a decree of the Convention, dated 1 October, 1795, proclaimed the annexation of the Belgian provinces to France.

At the beginning of the French rule, which was to last twenty years (1794–1814), religious conditions were not identical in the annexed countries. Religion was deeply rooted in what had formerly been the Austrian Netherlands. They had revolted in 1789 against the reforms of Joseph II, which were inspired by the spirit of sophistry. Jansenism, Febronianism, and Josephinism had gained but few partisans there; the University of Louvain was a bulwark of Catholic orthodoxy; even the Vonckist party, which in 1789 had been clamouring for political reforms, showed great respect for religion and had taken as its motto Pro aris et focis. On the other hand, in the ancient principality of Liège, which, since the fourteenth century had shown the deepest sympathy with France, public sentiment was gallophile, revolutionary, and even somewhat Voltairean; the predominant desire was to throw off the yoke of the priests, and the principality had literally cast itself into the arms of France through hatred of the theocracy. But the French Government soon caused these local differences to be lost sight of in the common hatred of the foreign oppressor.

The Directory began by enforcing, one after another, the French revolutionary laws concerning monastic orders and public worship in Belgium. Religious houses, except those devoted to teaching or to the care of the sick, were suppressed; it was forbidden to wear an ecclesiastical garb; the clergy were forced to publish a declaration recognizing the people of France as the sovereign authority, and promising submission and obedience to the laws of the Republic; the communes were forbidden to contribute to the expenses of public worship and every external symbol of religion was prohibited. The Belgians stood firm, and the elections of the fifth year having shown an undeniable reaction of public opinion against the revolutionary spirit, the clergy appealed to the Five Hundred (Cinq Cents) to demand a suspension of the declaration until a papal decision should be received settling the question its licitness. In the meanwhile, the priests who had not made the declaration continued to exercise their priestly functions in the Belgian provinces, and the tribunal of La Dyle acquitted those who were brought before it. At this juncture, Camille Jordan made a favourable report to the Cinq Cents on the clergy’s request, and thus the Belgians had the honour of changing the current of French legislation for the better.

The coup d’état of the fifth Fructidor, however, carried out by the revolutionary members of the Directory, destroyed all hope. The victorious conspirators dismissed many Belgians who had been elected, and the elections of the sixth year, conducted under the violent pressure of republican deputies, gave the Government the wished-for results. Then persecution began again. The observance of the decadi, or the last day of the republican decade (week of ten days), was made obligatory and the Sunday rest was forbidden; for the second time, the wearing of any ecclesiastical garb was prohibited; in the suppression of religious orders no exception was made for nursing and teaching orders; seminaries and secular chapters were likewise abolished. The University of Louvain was closed on the ground of not having “the kind of public instruction conformable to Republican principles.” As if the “declaration” had not sufficiently overtaxed consciences, priests were compelled to take an oath of hatred for royalty. On the refusal of the great majority, they were banished en masse and a decree issued, closing all churches served by recalcitrant priests. The officials of many communes ignored this order, and in more than one respect, it became a source of trouble. The interdicted priests continued to exercise their functions in the woods, or in private houses which afforded them places of retreat; in many places the faithful, deprived of the clergy, assembled in churches or in barns, to celebrate “blind Masses” as they were called, viz. Masses without consecration, or any services at the altar. The French deputies daily devised new methods of persecution in revenge for the opposition of public opinion, all the more unconquerable by reason of its silence and its tranquillity.

Things did not rest here. The spark that started the conflagration was the enforcing (1798) in the Belgian provinces of the French conscription laws requiring the enlistment of young men in the armies of the Republic. Rather than shed their blood for masters whom they hated, they rose in revolt, first in Waesland and in Campine, then in Flanders and in German Luxemburg. The Walloon provinces took part in the movement, but with much less energy. This was “the peasants’ war” called in Luxemburg, “the war of the cudgels” (Klöppelkrieg). There was no lack of courage and devotion among the combatants, and some among them afforded admirable examples of heroism. However, they were poorly armed, had inefficient commanders, and were totally lacking in discipline and military organization; they were deprived of the support of the nobility and of the middle class, who remained absolutely inactive, and they were abandoned even by the Austrian Government which had every reason to stir up a Belgian insurrection. Consequently they could offer no serious resistance to the French troops. They fell back every time they met the enemy in open field; those who did not die in battle were later shot.

After this rising had been quelled, the persecution of the clergy was resumed; 7,500 priests were illegally condemned to be deported. The great majority escaped, only four or five hundred being arrested. Of this number, the oldest and those who were ill were detained in Belgium and in France; about three hundred were sent to Rochefort with Guiana as their ultimate destination, and, in the interval, were held at the Ile de Re and the Ile d’Oleron where they had much to undergo from ill treatment. It was the darkest hour during the French domination, and was terminated by the coup d’état of 18 Brumaire, 1799. The new Government did not persecute on principle, but only in so far as it was believed necessary to enforce the revolutionary laws, to maintain the interests of the party in power. A solution of difficulties was supposed to have been discovered when the clergy were required to take merely an oath of “fidelity to the Republic as resting on the sovereignty of the people.” The Belgian bishops who were refugees in England condemned this oath because the doctrine of the sovereignty of the peopled seemed to them heretical. They also refused to sanction the promise of fidelity to the Constitution of the seventh year, which the Government exacted of the clergy before permitting them to exercise the duties of their ministry, because the Constitution rested on false bases and contained articles deserving of condemnation. The leader of this opposition was a priest named Corneille Stevens (1747–1828), who, appointed administrator of the Diocese of Namur (1799) by Cardinal Frankenberg, Archbishop of Mechlin, forbade the clergy to promise fidelity to the Constitution, and who, in a series of pamphlets appearing under the pseudonym of Lemaigre, continued to advocate resistance. Finally, the Concordat of 15 August, 1801, brought, if not final peace, at least a truce. At the pope’s request, the four Belgian bishops who had survived the persecutions tendered their resignations and of the nine episcopal sees into which Belgium had been divided since 1559, five only were retained: Mechlin Tournai, Ghent, Namur, and Liège. The bishoprics of Antwerp, Bruges, Ypres, and Ruremonde were suppressed. This organization of 1801 is still effective with this difference, however, that the See of Bruges was re-established in 1834, and that of Ruremonde in 1840.

Great was the rejoicing in the Belgian provinces when, on Pentecost day, 1802 (6 June), Catholic worship was solemnly re-established throughout the country. For some years, the name of Bonaparte, the First Consul, was most popular, and it even seemed as if the “new Cyrus,” by the great boon which he had granted Belgium, had gained the support of the Belgians for a foreign government. The bishops appointed by Napoleon fostered in the people sentiments of personal devotion to him, and to such an extent that to-day they cannot be acquitted of the charge of exceeding all bounds in the adulation and servility. There were, it is true, protests against the new regime. The “non-communicants,” as they were styled, refused to recognize the Concordat, contending that it had been forced upon the pope, and they formed a schismatical group, termed the “little church” (la petite église), which, though continually falling off in numbers, has preserved its existence, until very recent times. The members have often been erroneously designated as Stevenists. Stevens did not oppose the Concordat. The champion of a rigorous and uncompromising orthodoxy, he recognized the authority of the bishops of the Concordat, but mercilessly condemned their cringing attitude towards the civil authorities, against whose religious policy he never ceased protesting. Form the recesses of his retreat he sent forth brochures, training his guns upon “Saint Napoleon,” whose feast day had been fixed by the Government as the 15th of August. He also attacked bitterly the imperial catechism of 1806 already adopted by the great part of the French clergy, which contained a special chapter upon the duties of the faithful toward the emperor. This uninterrupted propaganda struck a responsive chord in the national consciousness and was doubtless responsible for the courage displayed by the Belgian episcopacy in refusing to accept the imperial catechism, which was adopted only in the Diocese of Mechlin. Stevens was perhaps the most unbending adversary Napoleon ever encountered, and their contest was extremely interesting. Although the emperor offered thirty thousand francs to anyone who would deliver Father Stevens into his hands, the priest was never seized; nor was he silenced as long as the Empire lasted. When Napoleon fell (1814) he came out of his retreat, entered the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Namur, and submitted all his writings to the judgment of the Holy See, which, however, never pronounced upon them.

The Belgian bishops were wearied with the exactions of the Government, which went so far as to require every year special pastoral letters impressing upon the people their military duty on the occasion of each call for conscripts, and they, as well as the body of the people, had already lost confidence in Napoleon, when, in 1809, he made the tremendous mistake of suppressing the temporal power of the pope and of annexing the States of the Church to the Empire. From that day, he was regarded by the Belgians as a persecutor. Count de Morode-Westerloo, a Belgian, and Prince Corsini, an Italian, alone dared to express publicly in the Senate their disapproval of this usurpation, and thus prevent it from receiving a unanimous ratification. The more anti-religious the policy of the emperor, the more energetic became the resistance of the Belgians, and the more spirited the conduct of their bishops, who discarded the language of the courtier for that of the pastor. While the bishops of Mechlin and Liège, recently appointed by the emperor, denounced their own clergy, at Ghent, Tournai, and Namur, Bishops de Broglie, Hirn, and Pisani de la Gaude, respectively gave examples of noble firmness. Named Chevalier of the Legion of Honour, Bishop de Broglie declined on the plea of being unable in conscience to take the oath to maintain the territorial integrity of the Empire which thenceforth would comprise the States of the Church. “Your conscience is a fool,” said the Emperor, turning his back. At the famous council of 1811, convoked by Napoleon without the authorization of the imprisoned pope, the attitude of de Broglie and of Hirn was no less courageous; they, together with the Bishop of Troyes, succeeded in inducing the council to defeat the imperial decree limiting the pope’s right of institution. The very next day, the council was dissolved by imperial command, and the three bishops were arrested and thrown into prison, not to be released until they had been forced to tender their resignations. Their successors appointed by Napoleon were not recognized in their respective diocese, in which the clergy and the faithful were a unit in their resistance. More and more incensed, the emperor fell to striking blindly; numbers of priests were imprisoned, and all the seminarists of Ghent were drafted into the army and dispatched to Wesel on the Rhine, where forty-nine of them succumbed to contagious diseases (1813). Such was the end of a regime which had been acclaimed by the Belgians with universal joy. The fall of Napoleon was greeted with no less satisfaction, and many Belgian volunteers took up arms against him in the campaigns of 1814 and 1815. In this nation of loyal Catholics, it was Napoleon’s blundering religious policy which alienated his subjects.

II. THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS (1814–30)

Soon after the victory of the Allied Powers, who became masters of Belgium, they established there a provisional government under the Duke of Beaufort (11 June, 1814). The new governing powers promptly proclaimed to the Belgians that, in conformity with the intentions of the Allied Powers, “they would maintain inviolable the spiritual and the civil authority in their respective spheres, as determined by the canonical laws of the Church and by the old constitutional laws of the country.” These declarations roused hopes which, however, were destined to be disappointed; for by the secret treaty of Chaumont (1 March, 1814), confirmed by Article 6 of the Treaty of Paris (30 May, 1814), it had even then been decided that Holland should receive an addition of territory, and that this addition should be Belgium. The secret Treaty of London (23 June, 1814) furthermore provided that the union of the two countries was to be internal and thorough, so that they “would form one and the same State governed by the constitution already established in Holland, which would be modified by mutual consent to accord with new conditions.” The new State took the name of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and was placed under the sovereignty of William I of Orange-Nassau.

The object of the Powers in creating the Kingdom of the Netherlands was to give France on her northern frontier a neighbour strong enough to serve as a barrier against her, and with this aim in view they disposed of the Belgian provinces without consulting them. The State resulting form this union seemed to offer numerous guarantees of prosperity from the standpoint of economics. Unfortunately, however, the two peoples, after being separated for more than two centuries, had conflicting temperaments; the Dutch were Calvinists, the Belgians Catholics, and the former, although greatly in the minority, 2,000,000 as against 3,500,000 Belgians, expected to rule the Belgians and to treat them as subjects. These differences could have been lessened by a sovereign who would take the duty on himself; they were, however, aggravated by the policy adopted by William I. Arbitrary, narrow-minded, obstinate, and moreover an intolerant Calvinist, he surrounded himself almost exclusively with Dutchmen, who were totally ignorant of Catholic matters and of the Belgian character. In addition, he was imbued with the principles of “enlightened despotism” which made him regard his absolutism as the form of government best suited to the needs of his kingdom, and thus he was unequal to his tasks from the very outset. While still Prince of Fulda, he had persecuted his Catholic subjects until the Diet was forced to check him. As King of the Netherlands, he showed that he had learned nothing by experience, and imagined that he could effect the fusion of the two peoples by transforming Belgium into Holland as far as possible.

On the other hand, the Belgians, passionately attached to their national traditions, and even more to their religious unity, did not take sufficiently into account the profound changes which had taken place in the conditions of the two peoples. Forgetful of the French Revolution and the consequent upheaval of Western Europe they were convinced that past conditions could be restored even in the midst of a society that had outgrown them; nor did they grasp the fact that as the Treaty of London established freedom of worship in the Kingdom of the Netherlands they were under an international obligation which could not be put aside. They calmly demanded, first of the Allied Sovereigns, then of the Congress of Vienna, not only the restoration of the former rights of the Church, but the re-establishment of their old constitution in its entirety. Their disappointment was great when their sovereign, obeying the provisions of the Treaty of London, submitted for their acceptance the “Fundamental Law of Holland,” with some modifications. Leaving out of the question the initial injustice in granting each country the same numerical representation in the States-General, despite the fact that the population of Belgium was almost twice that of Holland, it entirely overthrew the old order of things, suppressed the clergy as an order, abolished the privileges of the Catholic Church, and guaranteed the enjoyment of the same civil and political rights to every subject of the king, and equal protection to every religious creed. The Belgian bishops promptly made respectful appeals to the king. William having disregarded these, they issued a “Pastoral Instruction” for the use of the prominent Belgians summoned to present their views on the revised Fundamental Law. This condemned the Law as contrary to religion and forbade its acceptance. The high-handed course taken by the Government to hinder the effectiveness of these measures proved unavailing; of the 1,603 prominent Belgians consulted, 280 did not vote, 796 voted against the Fundamental Law, and only 527 declared themselves in favour of it. The Fundamental Law was therefore rejected by the nation; for, adding to the 527 favourable votes the 100 unanimous votes of the States of Holland, there was a total of only 637 votes. Nevertheless, the king declared the Fundamental Law adopted, because, according to him, those who did not vote were to be regarded as favouring it, while of the 796 who opposed it, 126 did so only because they misunderstood its meaning. Owing to this “Dutch arithmetic,” as King William’s computations were termed, Belgium found itself under a constitution which it had legally repudiated, a constitution too which proved to the Kingdom of the Netherlands a heavy burden during its brief, stormy existence.

The adoption of the Fundamental Law, by the king’s decision, did not end the conflict between the civil authority and the Belgian conscience. Besieged with questions as to whether it was permissible to take the oath of fidelity to the Fundamental Law, the bishops published their “Doctrinal Decision,” which condemned it (1815). In consequence, many Catholics in obedience to their religious superiours, refused to take the oath, resigned their offices and their seats in the legislature. On the other hand, the Prince de Méan, former Prince-Bishop of Liège, took the required oath, and the king immediately appointed him to the archiepiscopal See of Mechlin, then vacant. The king next had attempted to gain the Holy See for his side in his struggle with the Belgian episcopacy, by practically demanding of it Bulls of canonical investiture for his candidate as well as a formal censure of the “Doctrinal Decision.” The pope replied gently but firmly, condemning the words of the oath of allegiance to the Fundamental Law, sending a Brief of commendation to the bishops, and refusing investiture to the Prince de Méan until he should have publicly declared that his oath had not bound him to anything “contrary to the dogmas and laws of the Catholic Church, and that in swearing to protect all religious communions, he understood this protection only in its civil sense.” The condescension of the Holy See in this matter, instead of winning the king to moderation, seemed to make him bolder. Reviving the obsolete claims of the old Gallican and Josephinist governments, and determined to overcome the opposition of the Bishop of Ghent, he had the bishop prosecuted for having published the “Doctrinal Decision”; for having corresponded with Rome without authorization; and for having published the papal Bulls without approbation. The Brussels Court of Assizes condemned the bishop to be deported for contumacy (1817), and the Government, carrying the sentence even farther, had the bishop’s name written on the pillory, between two professional thieves sentenced to be pilloried and branded. The clergy of the Diocese of Ghent who remained faithful to the bishop were also persecuted by the State. The conflict would have continued indefinitely had not the prelate died in exile, in 1821, after having had twice confessed the Faith in the face of persecution. After his death, the Government conceded that the oath should be binding only from the civil point of view, which set at rest the Catholic conscience and ended the difficulties which had beset the first six years of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

If there had been any real desire on the part of King William to respect the conscience of Catholics, who constituted the greater part of the nation, he would now have inaugurated a policy, which would have set aside religious differences, and started the kingdom along lines leading to the frank and cordial fusion of the two peoples. This was not done. On the contrary, in his obstinate determination to treat the sovereign pontiff as an outsider, and to bring the Catholic Church under the omnipotence of the State, William in his blind fury continued his policy of oppression. Before the above-mentioned conflict, the king had created a State commission for Catholic affairs and had declared in the decree that “no church ordinance coming from a foreign authority—[i.e. the pope] could be published without the approval of the Government.” This was equivalent to re-establishing in the full dawn of the nineteenth century the placet of the despotic governments of the former regime. Going farther, he instructed this commission “to be on their guard in maintaining the liberties of the Belgian Church,” an extravagant formula borrowed from defunct Gallicanism, implying that the commission should take care to withdraw the Belgian Church from the legitimate authority of the pope. The men he had chosen to help him pushed their distrust and hatred of the Catholic hierarchy farther than he did. Baron Goubau, the head of the board of Catholic worship, and his superior, Van Maanen the minister of justice, by a system of petty persecutions soon made their names the most hated in Belgium, and largely increased the unpopularity of the Government.

In 1821 the Government began to be chiefly occupied with the suppression of liberty in the matter of education. Since the foundation, in 1817, of the three State universities, Liège, Ghent, and Louvain, higher education had been entirely under the control of the State, which now assumed control of middle inferior education (20 May, 1821) by a ministerial ordinance which allowed no free school to exist without the express consent of the Government. Lastly, a decree of 14 June, 1825, suppressed free middle superior instruction by determining that no college could exist without being expressly authorized, and that no one could teach the children of more than one family without an official diploma. A second decree of the same date declared anyone who made his studies abroad ineligible for any public office in the kingdom. The State having monopolized all lay education, there still remained the training of the clergy, which by the general canons of the Church, and those of the Council of Trent, in particular, belonged exclusively to the bishops. By a third decree, 14 June, 1825, said to be a revival of that of Joseph II, establishing the General Seminary, a State institution was erected under the name of Philosophical College (College philosophique), in which every aspirant for the priesthood was obliged to make a course of at least two years before he could be admitted to a grand séminaire.

On this occasion, the Archbishop of Mechlin, whose servility toward the king had till then known no limit, did not hesitate to make some respectful remonstrances to the Government, declaring that he could not in conscience accept these decrees. Goubau, in answering, repeated in substance Napoleon’s gibe to the Prince de Broglie, “Your conscience will be regarded as a mere pretext and for good reasons.” The other bishops, however, the capitular vicars of vacant sees, and the rest of the clergy, unanimously took sides with the Archbishop of Mechlin and joined in his protest. The Catholic Belgian deputies to the States-General protested; the Holy See protested in its turn. Nothing availed; the Government closed the free colleges one after another, thereby ruining a flourishing educational system in which Belgian families had absolute confidence; the Philosophical College was opened with great pomp, with a corps of instructors little thought of, either from a scientific or a moral point of view; students were drawn thither by bursaries or scholarships, and by exemption from military service. The Government becoming more radical than ever, then undertook to create schism in the Belgian Church by elaborating a plan, whereby the authority of the Holy See would be abolished and the bishops placed immediately under the Government.

But all these measures only increased the discontent of the Belgians and their passive resistance. To get the mastery, the Government conceived the idea of having recourse a second time to the sovereign pontiff, and broaching again the project of a Concordat, which had failed in 1823, on account of the king’s inadmissible claims. The king counted, on the one hand, on wresting as many concessions as possible from the Holy See, and on the other, on gaining popularity among the Belgians through the arrangement he would make with the pope. These calculations failed, and once more the superiority of papal diplomacy was made manifest in the difficult negotiations which finally resulted in the Concordat of 1827. The Philosophical College ceased to be obligatory for clerics and became a matter of choice; in place of having the right of designating the bishops, the king was obliged to content himself with that of vetoing the choice made by the Chapters. The Concordat, which filled the Catholics with joy, excited the ire of the Calvinists and the Liberals, and the Government tried hard to quiet the latter by showing the worst possible will in the application of the treaty which it had just concluded with the Vatican. The Philosophical College was not declared optional until 20 June, 1829; vacant episcopal sees were provided with titulars elected according to the conditions laid down in the Concordat, but a royal decree rendered the recruiting of the clergy almost impossible save from the ranks of the old pupils of the Philosophical College. The Catholic opposition, headed by Bishop Van Bommel, the new Bishop of Liège, was so vigorous, and political complications so grave, that the king at last consented to permit the bishops to reorganize their seminaries as they wished (20 October, 1829). Then, as the crisis became more serious, he went farther, and on 9 June, 1830, entirely suppressed the Philosophical College, which had been deserted form the time attendance had become optional. On 27 May of the same year, the king even revoked his decrees regarding freedom in education; he thanked Goubau and committed to Catholic zeal the direction of matters concerning Catholic worship, and would have left no ground for grievance on the part of Catholics had he not, at the last moment, seen fit, in the negotiations with the Holy See, to demand the right of approving appointments to canonries. But all the king’s concessions, which were really extorted from him by force of circumstances, and despite his dogged reluctance, came too late, and the negotiations in regard to the question of canons were still in progress when the Belgian Revolution broke out.

As to the causes of an event so decisive for the future of the Belgian people, it is highly improbable that if King William had given them grounds for complaint only in religious matters, the public discontent would have culminated in a revolution. The Catholics, faithful to the teachings of the Church and to the counsels of their pastors, had no wish to exceed what was lawful and knew that they should confine themselves to peaceful protests. But the Government had injured many other interests to which a great number were more sensitive than they were to the oppression of the Catholic Church, at which they would have been wholly indifferent if, indeed, they would not have rejoiced. It will suffice to recall the principal grievances. Although Holland’s population was less than Belgium by almost half, each nation was allowed the same number of deputies in the States-General. Acquaintance with the Dutch language was at once made obligatory for all officials. The greater number of institutions of the central Government were located in Holland, and the majority of the offices were reserved for the Dutch. Taxes on corn and on slaughtering weighed most heavily on the southern provinces. The press was under the arbitrary control of the Government and the courts, and they vigorously prohibited any criticism of the Government and its deputies. The Government stubbornly opposed the introduction of the jury system, the verdicts of which, inspired by a saner appreciation of public feeling, would often have calmed opinion instead of inflaming it. Lastly, as if wishing to fill the measure of its blunders, the Government shamelessly hired an infamous forger condemned by the French tribunals, a certain Libri-Bagnano, whose journal, the “National,” never ceased insulting and taunting every Belgian who had the misfortune of incurring the displeasure of the Government. There came a time when the Liberals, who, as late as 1825, had applauded the Government in its persecution of the Church, found themselves attacked in their turn, and began to protest with more violence than the Catholics had ever done.

Then the inevitable happened. Equally oppressed, the two parties forgot their differences, and joined forces. The fiery anti-clerical Louis de Potter, author of various historical works extremely irreligious in tone, was one of the first to advocate, from prison in which he was confined for some violation of laws concerning the press, the union of the Catholics and the Liberals. This union was made the more easy because the greater part of the Catholics, under the influence of the teachings of Lamennais and the pressure of events, had abandoned their stand of 1815 and had rallied to the doctrine of “liberty in all and for all.” Once effected, the union of Catholics and Liberals soon bore fruit. Their first step, proposed by the Catholics who wished to employ lawful means only, was the presentation of petitions by every class of society in turn. Hundreds of petitions piled up in the offices of the States-General, demanding liberty of education, freedom of the press, and the righting of other wrongs. While these petitions were being circulated the perfect order that was maintained deceived the king. On a tour which he made through the southern provinces, to convince himself personally as to the state of the public mind, he received such demonstrations of loyalty that he persuaded himself that the petition was a factitious movement, and went so far as to declare, at Liège, that the conduct of the petitioners was infamous (1829).

This false step was his undoing. In the face of his refusal to initiate any reforms, the country became incensed, and the direction of the national movement passed from the hands of the peaceful Catholics into those of the impatient Liberals. The resistance soon took on a revolutionary character. The ecclesiastical authorities had foreseen this, and had for a long time opposed both the “Union,” and the petitions which were its first manifestation. The Bishops of Ghent and Liège had come forward to remind the faithful of their duties to the sovereign; the Archbishop of Mechlin had assured the Government of the neutrality of the clergy; the nuncio had shown his disapproval of the “Union,” and the Cardinal-Secretary of State had stigmatized it as monstrous. But the religious authorities soon found themselves powerless to control the movement. The Catholics, imitating the Liberals, had recourse to violent language; their most important periodical refused to print the conciliatory letter of the Bishop of Liège, which one of the Liberal leaders styled an episcopal-ministerial document; the lower clergy, in turn, allowed itself to be drawn into the current; the Government, wilfully blind, continued wantonly, in its imprudence, to pile up the materials for a great conflagration; at last nothing was lacking but a fuse. This came from France. The revolution of July, 1830, lasting from the 27th to the 29th, overthrew the government of Charles X; on 25 August, of the same year, a riot broke out in Brussels and brought on the revolution which culminated in the conflicts between (24–26 September) the Dutch troops and the people of Brussels assisted by re-enforcements of volunteers from the provinces. The whole country rose up; at the end of some weeks the Dutch army had evacuated the soil of the southern provinces, and Belgium was free.

III. INDEPENDENT BELGIUM (1830–1905)

As has been shown, not only was the revolution the work of two parties but the chief role in it had been played by the Liberals, and for a long time, although a minority in the nation, their ranks supplied the principal leaders in national life. The Catholics did not close their eyes to this state of things. Sincerely attached to the Union of 1828, they wanted a unionist policy without laying too much stress on party names. The provisional government which assumed the direction of affairs after the revolution had but one Catholic among its ten members, and had as head and inspiration, Charles Rogier, who, in September, 1830, had come, at the head of the Liège volunteers, to lend a strong helping hand to the combatants in Brussels. The constituent Congress, convoked by the provisional government, was in great majority composed of Catholics; partisans of liberty “in all and for all,” in conformity with the teachings of Lamennais. The Liberal minority was split into two groups; the stronger professed the same ideas of liberty as the Catholics; the other was made up of a small number of sectarians and of State idolaters who had dreams of bringing the Catholic Church into subjection to the civil power. The leaders of the Catholic group were Count Félix de Mérode, a member of the provisional government, and Baron de Gerlache, President of the Congress; the most prominent among the Liberals were Charles Rogier, Joseph Lebeau, Paul Devaux, J. B. Nothomb, and Sylvan Van de Weyer; the group of sectarians followed the orders of Eugene Defacqz. The Constitution which resulted from the deliberations of the Congress reflected the dispositions of the great majority of the assembly and showed at the same time a reaction against the tyrannical regime of King William. It proclaimed the absolute freedom of worship and of the press, which the Liberals put first, and also freedom of education and association, two things especially dear to the Catholics; concessions were even made to the prejudices of some, by rendering obligatory the priority of civil marriage over the religious ceremony and commanding that no one should be forced to observe the religious holidays of any denomination. The Congress showed the same broad-mindedness in the choice of a sovereign. The first selection fell on the Duke de Nemours, son of Louis Philippe, but the French king, fearing the jealousy of the European powers, dared not accept the throne for his son. Then, after having given the regency for some months to Baron Surlet de Chokier, the Congress declared in favour of Prince Leopold de Saxe-Coburg Gotha, widower of the Princess Charlotte, heir presumptive to the Crown of England. Though a Protestant prince, Leopold I (1831–65) showed himself worthy of the confidence of a Catholic people; during his entire reign he maintained an even balance between the two parties, and never lost his solicitude for the moral and religious interests of the nation. Owing largely to Leopold’s wise policy, Belgium successfully inaugurated free institutions, and showed the world that a Catholic people is capable of progress in every field.

During the early years of the new kingdom both sides remained faithful to the union of 1828, the administration being divided between the Catholics and Liberals. The dominant thought was to defend against Holland the patrimony of independence and of liberty won by the revolution, patriotism inspiring unanimous opposition to the foreigner. The tendency towards mutual conciliation was evident in the organic laws perfected during these early years, especially in that of 1842 on primary education which was passed unanimously by the Chamber, save for three blank votes, and received the unanimous vote of the senate. This law, the work of J. B. Nothomb, the minister, made religious teaching obligatory, but dispensed dissidents from attendance. King Leopold expressed his gratification on signing it. For thirty-seven years this remained the fundamental charter of public education. At this time, everyone of whatever party was convinced of the necessity of religion in the education of the people. The clergy readily rallied to the support of the bill and even suffered a great number of the 2,284 private schools which they had opened to be closed that they might co-operate in the establishment of the public schools.

The law of 1842 was, in a way, the last product of Unionist principles. Since the treaty of 1839 had definitely regulated Belgium’s position in regard to Holland, the fear of an outside enemy had been removed, and the Liberal party was convinced that there was no longer anything to hinder its political doctrines from prevailing in the national government. This attitude was partly justified by the state of affairs. The Catholics were weak, without organization, without a press, without consciousness of their own strength; they had no relish for partisan contests, and they counted on Unionism to maintain public life along the lines of 1830. In contrast to the Catholic masses who lacked cohesion, and consciousness of their strength, the Liberals formed a young, spirited, united party, gaining recruits form the bourgeoisie and the learned classes alike, commanding much sympathetic support from official circles, in possession of a press with twenty times the influence of the Catholic press, in a word, master of the Belgium Government since 1830. Paul Devaux, one of the most remarkable men of this party and one of the organizers of the Union in 1828, became the apostle of Liberalism in its later development, which implied the abolition of the Union and the victory of a policy exclusively Liberal in character. The articles which, beginning with 1839, he published in the “National Review,” founded by him, exerted an enormous influence upon his party and even gradually won over to his ideas a large number of moderate Liberals.

While the Union of 1828 was being dissolved and some of its promoters were seeking to give a partisan predominance to mixed ministries, the dissenters, who cherished an implacable hatred for the Catholic Church, wished to profit by the new turn of affairs in Liberal ranks to avenge the defeat they had met with at the hands of the constituent Congress. The Masonic lodges entered on the scene with the avowed intention of forming the “conscience” of the Liberal party and of outlining its programme. They established a large society called “The Alliance,” which soon numbered 1,000 members, and which was to serve as their agent and go-between with that part of the people in which Freemasonry awakened distrustfulness. In 1846, the Alliance called together a Liberal Congress, presided over by Eugene Defacqz, the dissenter of 1830, now Grand Master of Belgian Freemasonry. The same secrecy was preserved in the deliberations of the Congress as in the Lodges, from which it originated, and the only knowledge its proceedings was to be gained from the programme which it published. In this document, side by side with political reforms, appeared “the real independence of the civil power,” a mere formula signifying systematic war on the Church, and “the organization of public instruction under the exclusive direction of civil authority, which should be granted legal means to maintain a competition with private establishments, without the interference of the clergy, on the ground of authority. At the time that this programme was being drawn up, the Congress made plans for a general confederation of Liberalism in Belgium, which with the Alliance as centre and type, was to establish in each district an association of free Liberal electors, bound in honour to vote for the candidates chosen by the Congress. There were also be electoral division in every one of the cantons to extend the influence of the association. General reunions were to be held periodically to enable the alliance to reach the members of the associations and imbue them with the Masonic spirit. The Liberal Congress of 1846 brought the session to a close with “a resolution favouring the liberation of the lower clergy,” whom they hoped to incite against the bishops by suggesting possibilities of bettering their condition. This resolution brought out strongly the true character of the Congress, as a reactionary movement against the work of the National Congress of 1830. It stands to reason that the strong impulse stirred up by the Congress in the ranks of the Liberal party, and the ardent hopes based on it reacted on the legislative elections, while the Catholics remained buried in their dream of Unionism, then merely an anachronism. The elections of 1847 placed the Liberals in power.

The new Government brought together in the same ministry Charles Rogier, member of the Congress of 1830, and Frere-Orban, one of the promoters of the Congress of 1846. Under the influence of the latter, a man of great talent but extremely arbitrary, whose imperious will got the better of the unionist scruples of his colleague, the Cabinet declared that it would inaugurate a “new policy” taking as its principle the “independence of the civil power.” And as a matter of fact, from this time forth, war was made on religious influence with a bitterness destined to divide the Belgian nation into two hostile camps. De Haussy, the Minister of Justice, set about applying to charitable foundations the most unheard-of principles. According to him, only charitable (State) bureaux could receive charitable bequests, and all endowments were to be turned over to them, even though the testator had made the selection of an administrator for the endowment an indispensable condition. On the other hand, the law of 1850 on middle-superior education was inspired by a spirit diametrically opposite to that of the law concerning primary education; it showed the Government’s intention of using the taxpayers’ money to start competition with free education, and if, as a matter of policy, the clergy were invited to give religious instruction in public institutions, conditions were such as to make their co-operation lack both dignity and effectiveness.

The Belgian nation was not yet ripe for the adoption of a policy so out of harmony with the spirit of its national traditions, and after five years, the cabinet was overthrown. A more moderate Liberal cabinet modified the law of 1850 by adopting the “agreement of Antwerp” made between the communal administration of that city and the bishops, giving to the clergy the guarantees required for their admission to the public institutions of secondary education. The support given to this agreement, by the chamber, the vote being 86 to 7, showed that the necessity of religious instruction was still understood by a large number of Liberals. The elections of 1855, which returned a Catholic majority, resulted in a cabinet presided over by P. de Decker, who may be called the last of the Unionists. This cabinet, which its friends might have reproached with excessive moderation, was destined to be overthrown as reactionary. One of its members, A. Nothomb, drafted a law concerning charitable bequests intended to protect the interest of testators and repair the unfortunate effects of De Haussy’s legislation. Testators were authorized to appoint special administrators for their bequests, but the powers of the latter were circumscribed and their exercise placed under the strict supervision of the State (1857). Under the leadership of Frere-Orban, who under the pseudonym of Jean Van Damme had just written a sensational pamphlet, the Liberals pretended to find in this scheme a roundabout restoration of the monastic main-morte; they called it the law of the convents, and when the plan was brought up for discussion, they organized riots which intimidated the head of the cabinet. He took advantage of the communal elections, which had been favourable to the Liberal party, to tender the resignation of the cabinet. This pusillanimous conduct delivered the Government again into the hands of the Liberals, who held power for thirteen years (1857–70).

During this long period the new ministry, which was merely the outcome of a riot, did nothing but emphasize the anti-religious character of its policy. The real head was Frere-Orban, who in the end forced his colleague, Rogier, to retire (1868), and carried out successively the principal features in his programme of secularization. More prominent than ever was the alleged aim of protecting civil society against the “encroachments of the clergy.” The law of 1859 on charitable endowments was the counterpart of that of 1857 and the despoiling policy inaugurated in 1847 by de Haussy. A law of 1869, of the same animus, confiscated all the bursaries for free scholarships, nine-tenths of which had been established to advance the Christian education of the young, annulling the formal provision of the testators. A law of 1870 confined exemption from military service to students of the grands séminaires, refusing it to novices of religious orders. In actual practice, the Government was sectarian and intolerant towards religion and the clergy. It countenanced the efforts prompted by the Masonic lodges to secularize cemeteries, notwithstanding the decree of Prairial, twelfth year, that there should be a cemetery for each denomination, which left Catholic cemeteries under the Church’s jurisdiction. Appointments to public offices, especially to the magistracy, were noticeably partisan. An example of the petty prejudice of the Government was its suppression of the annual subsidy which the Bollandists (q. v.) had hitherto received for the continuation of their magnificent work, the “Acta Sanctorum.”

It seemed as if the rule of the Liberal party would continue indefinitely, and that Catholics were permanently excluded from power, which their adversaries declared they were incapable of exercising. However, the Catholics made use of their long exclusion from a share in governmental affairs in at last seriously attempting to organize their forces. Jules Malou devoted himself most energetically to this task, and for the first time, the broad outlines of organization were visible, an organization such as the Liberal party had long possessed. At the same time, in imitation of the German Catholics, they held important Congresses at Mechlin, in 1863, 1864, and 1867, which awakened Catholic enthusiasm and gave courage to the pessimists. In this way, Catholics found themselves able to resume the struggle with new vigour. Dissensions in the Liberal party, the strenuous opposition to the Liberals, or Doctrinaires, of the Government, on the part of men of advanced ideas, who claimed the double title of Progressists, and of Radicals, combined to help the Catholics and in 1870, they finally succeeded in overthrowing the Liberal Government.

The Liberals then had recourse to the means which had contributed to their success in 1857. The ministry had appointed as Governor of Limburg P. de Decker, who had been the head of the ministry of 1855, and whose name had been connected with the failure of a financial association. The Liberals affected to be greatly scandalized and organized riots which so frightened Leopold II that he dismissed his ministry (1871). He replaced it, it is true, by another Catholic ministry, of which Jules Malou was president. Though formed during the disturbances of a popular outbreak in defiance of the wishes of the large cities, which were all Liberal in their sympathies, and secretly impugned before the king by Jules Van Praet, the royal secretary, who was nicknamed the “Seventh Ministry,” this ministry managed to hold out until 1878 only by dint of being as unobtrusive as possible. None of the anti-religious laws made by the Liberals were revised, not even the one concerning bursaries, which had been passed by a bare majority. There was no restoration of the balance of power in public offices, which continued to be held by the Liberals. In 1875, the Burgomaster of Liège having forbidden the Jubilee processions in that city, in defiance of the Constitution, the Government dared not annul his illegal order and had the humiliation of seeing the 1,500 Liberals tender him a complimentary banquet. Catholic rule seemed in very truth what its adversaries called it, an “empty parenthesis,” and, towards the end of his administration, Jules Malou in a Catholic meeting, summed it up in these words: “we have existed”—Nous avons vécu.

When a turn in the elections brought the Liberals back into power, after the Catholic administration had dragged out a precarious existence of eight years, they were able to continue their anti-Catholic policy from the point where they had left it. While out of office they had become more irreligious owing to the growing influence of Masonry. Not only the clergy, but the Church, and religion itself, became the objects of their attack. They encouraged writers who, like Professor Laurent of the University of Ghent, denied the necessity of granting liberty to the Church, or who, like Professor de Laveleye of the University of Liège, asserted the superiority of Protestantism. Their Antwerp associations flooded the country with copies of a pamphlet written by the latter in this vein. Besides this, the Liberals sought to make the country Protestant by supporting de Laveleye and Goblet d’Alviella, who, taking advantage of a quarrel between the villagers of Sart-Dame-Aveline and the parish priest, introduced Protestant worship there and tried to proselytize the inhabitants. They adopted the name Gueux (beggars) which they found in the story of the religious troubles of the sixteenth century. Their presses daily waged war on the Catholic religion; their carnival pageants were vulgar parodies which exposed the most sacred things to popular derision. Lastly, the leaders of the movement agreed upon a revision of the law of 1842 dealing with primary instruction. Once more in power they set about their work of uprooting Christianity without delay, and framed the famous school law of 1879, which the Catholics called the “Law of Misfortune” (Loi de malheur), a name it still retains.

The work of drafting this law was placed in charge of Van Humbeck, the Minister of Public Instruction, a Freemason who some years before had declared in his lodge that “Catholicism was a corpse that barred the way of progress and would have to be thrown into the grave.” The law did him justice, being in every respect the reverse of the law of 1842; it excluded from the schools all religious instruction, and barred from the ranks of teachers all graduates of free normal, i.e. religious schools. But for once, Freemasonry had counted too much on the apathy and good nature of the Catholic masses. The resistance was unanimous. At the call of the bishops Catholics rose in a body and entered on a campaign of petitions; committees for resistance were everywhere formed; public prayers were offered in all the churches for delivery from “teachers without faith,” and “godless schools.” In the Chambers, the Catholics after emphatic protests refused to take any part in the discussion of the law even of its amendment, which forced the Liberals to do their worst and to shoulder the entire responsibility. It was carried without formal opposition. The President of the Senate, Prince de Ligne, a Liberal, resigned his post, deploring the division of the nation in to Guelphs and Ghibellines. The Catholics, co-operating with the bishops and the clergy, achieved wonders. In one year they erected three or four thousand Catholic schools; the rule that there should be one to each commune was obeyed with few exceptions. More than 2,000 teachers of both sexes resigned their position, the great number to take part in free education often at a very small salary. At the end of a year, the State schools had lost fifty-five per cent of their pupils, and retained only thirty-eight per cent of the entire body of school children, while the Catholic schools had sixty-one per cent. Many of the State schools were entirely deserted, and others had a ridiculously small attendance. Dumbfounded and enraged at such unexpected resistance, the Government tried every resource, however contemptible or absurd. Negotiations were begun with the Vatican, and a breach of diplomatic relations threatened, in the hope of forcing Leo XIII to condemn the action of the Belgian bishops. Nothing came of this, and in consequence the Belgian ambassador to the Holy See was recalled. To intimidate the clergy and the Catholics, a decree was passed ordering an inquiry as to the execution of the school law, and the investigators journeyed through the country like real judges, and cited people before their tribunal at random, exposing the most respectable people to the insults of the mob. This tour of investigation was scarcely finished, when the Freemasons, carrying their blindness to the limit, proposed to the Chamber another inquiry concerning the main-morte measure that is to say, a campaign against convents. This time, the nearness of elections dictated a more prudent policy and the motion was lost by a majority of two votes.

The country was roused to great excitement. In the face of open persecution, the Catholics showed unexpected energy. Foreseeing their triumph, they established the “Union for the Redress of Grievances,” to compel their candidates in the event of their election to adopt a vigorous policy. On 10 June, 1884, the country was called on to pronounce judgment. The result was overwhelming. Half the members of the Chamber had been candidates for re-election. Only two Liberal deputies were returned, the others being defeated in the whirlwind which uprooted Liberalism. Amid great national rejoicing, the Catholics resumed the reins of power, which they have held uninterruptedly for twenty-three years. “We shall surprise the world by our moderation” said one of their leaders; and in this moderation which is not devoid of energy, lies their strength. The school law of 1879 was repealed without delay, the first time in the history of Belgium that a Catholic Government had courage to repeal a law made by the Liberals. The legislators of 1884, however, did not revive the law of 1842. Taking into consideration the change of times, they took the primary schools from State control and placed them under the communes, leaving each commune to decide whether or not religious instruction should be given; the State subsidized these schools, on condition that they would accept the State programme and would submit to State inspection; all laws subversive of liberty were repealed, and, needless to say, relations with the Vatican were resumed.

The Liberals, counting on the support of the cities, thought that by violence they could bring about a reaction against the decision of the electoral body, as they had done in 1857 and 1871. With the connivance of the Burgomaster of Brussels, they assailed and scattered a peaceful procession of 80,000 Catholics, who had come to the capital to make a demonstration in favour of the Government, and, as in 1857, appealed to false statistics of the communal elections of 1884, to prove that the voters had changed their minds. In this way, they obtained from King Leopold II the dismissal of Charles Woeste and Victor Jacobs, the two ministers whom they held in special aversion. Jules Malou, the head of the Cabinet, protested, and followed his colleagues into retirement. But the Catholic party remained in power and M. Beernaert, who succeeded Malou, inaugurated the era of prosperity which has placed Belgium in the front rank among nations.

The situation confronting the Government bore no resemblance to that of former years. Since 1830, the inner national energy had been absorbed by the struggle between the Catholics and the Liberals, both representing bourgeois voters, who were divided as to the amount of influence to be allowed to Catholicism in public affairs. By 1886 a change had come about. A third party had come into existence known as the “Workingman’s Party,” which, recruited entirely from the labouring classes, presented a dangerous platform, comprehending not reforms but economic and social revolutionary measures. This Socialist party had been secretly taking shape since 1867, and continued in Belgium the traditions of the “Internationale,” created by Karl Marx. It proclaimed to the workingmen that they were slaves, promised to give them liberty and prosperity and, as the first means towards the necessary reforms, to secure for them the right of suffrage. In this way the great mass of the people were won over and organized while the two older parties were wholly occupied with their traditional quarrel. Not that eminent Catholics, such as Edouard Ducpetiaux, to mention one of the highest rank, had not sought for a long time a way of bettering the condition of the working classes, or that many zealous men had not made disinterested attempts to bring about such a result; but the body of the nation had not realized the political role soon to be played by the dense ranks of the organized proletariat, and hence had not tried to find legislative means of satisfying their demands. Moreover, the administrative classes, Liberals as well as Catholics, were under the influence of the Manchester school. The policy of non-interference was accepted as the guiding principle, and particularly when there was any question of labour legislation, the words on every tongue were: “most liberty, least government.”

When, therefore, in 1886, serious uprisings, plainly revolutionary in character, took place, first at Liège (18 March), and soon afterwards in the industrial districts of Hainaut, the whole country was thrown into a state of consternation and alarm. The labour party came forward and put the social question before the country in the form of incendiarism and riots. The most enlightened Catholics grasped the significance of these events and saw that the time had come for turning their attention towards labour reform. Under the presidency of Bishop Doutreloux of Liège, three Congresses of Social Works were held at Liège, in 1886, 1887, and 1890, in which the most vital question were studied and exhaustively discussed. Groups were formed, especially among the younger men, to introduce the most urgent reforms into the Catholic platform; Canon Pottier, professor of moral theology in the grand séminaire of Liège, became the apostle of the reform movement; the Catholic friends of reform established a Democratic Christian League, which, encouraged by the bishops and keeping within the bounds of the strictest orthodoxy, bent all its energies on reform. The Bishop of Liège formed among the secular priests a new order, “The Almoners of Labour,” whose zeal and devotion were entirely directed to bettering the lot of the working people.

As for the Government, it proved equal to its task, new and unforeseen as it was. A through investigation of the labour question gave an understanding of the nature and extent of the principal grievances of the working classes, after which the necessary reforms were energetically entered upon. For several years, the entire legislative activity devoted itself to the redress of the most crying evils. Councils of Industry and of Labour were formed; legislation was passed on the following subjects: workingmen’s dwellings, wages, the abolition of the truck system, the illegality of attaching or assigning wages, labour inspection, child-labour, and the labour of women. Strong encouragement was given to mutual benefit societies which had been hitherto in anything but a flourishing condition. To these important laws was added the commendable law of conditional condemnation and liberation, the work of M. Lejeune, the minister of justice; it has since been imitated by many larger countries.

This work, which extended over ten years, culminated in a revision of the Constitution, which the advanced members of the Liberal party had been demanding for a long time, and which the Socialists were now insisting on. This revision had become imperative. Belgium was a country which had very few voters; out of a population of more than six millions there never were more than 150,000, and during the last years of the Liberal Government no less than six laws had been passed to diminish this number still further by excluding entire classes of Catholic voters. In spite of this, and though it was clear to all that the Catholics would be the first to profit by a revision, through a spirit of conservatism, they shrank from taking the initiative in this matter. One of the their leaders, M. Woeste, was its declared adversary. The Liberals, observing this hesitation on the part of their opponents, joined the Socialists in demanding the revision, hoping for its refusal. Under these circumstances, and with a full appreciation of the necessities of the situation, M. Beernaert proposed the revision of the Constitution, and succeeded, after many difficulties, in having the revision adopted by the party of the Right. The revision was as broad as possible: the motion for universal suffrage was passed without opposition—a suffrage, however, modified by plural voting as proposed by M. Nyssens, a deputy of the Right. Each Belgian was to have one vote; a married man who could prove his title to some property had two; a man able to give certain proofs of education had three. The electoral body was increased tenfold, and henceforth only the worthless and the incompetent were excluded form the administration of public affairs in Belgium (1893).

In this way the Belgian Government, by exercising prudence as well as courage, succeeded in a few years in carrying out a splendid reform programme, and deserved the admirable eulogy of Fernand Payen, a French jurisconsult: “We have before us the most complete body of legislation which the history of this century can show in any country.” A former liberal minister praised hardly less emphatically the wise policy of the Catholic Government, by declaring that it was difficult to combat it because if offered no grounds for complaint. For the first time in the history of Belgium Catholics showed their ability to govern, that is to say, their ability to comprehend at a glance the needs of the times and to meet them satisfactorily. Even the king, hitherto distrustful of Catholics, gradually gave up his prejudices, and at every election the voters confirmed their tenure of power. The party of the Right showed their ingratitude towards M. Beernaert, by declining, partly through motives of personal interest, to vote for the proportional representation of parties, and this the head of the Cabinet demanded as an indispensable item in the revision of the Constitution. On this refusal, M. Beernaert resigned his position at the head of the Cabinet, in 1894, depriving Belgium of her greatest statesman.

Results proved M. Beernaert’s wisdom. From the time of the revision, the Liberal party, which had its exclusive support in the bourgeoisie of the cities, had been entirely shut out of Parliament, where its place had been taken by a strong group of Socialists. This group, destitute, for the most part of culture and parliamentary training, introduced coarse and violent methods of discussion into the Chamber, seriously compromising the dignity of parliamentary debate. On the other hand, the total suppression of Liberal representation was both an injustice, since this party still retained the sympathies of the middle class in the large cities, and a danger for the true parliamentary spirit was violated by the exclusion from public life of views which had lately been all powerful and were still very much alive. Proportional representation seemed to be the only way of restoring parliamentary balance, and it came about that those who had caused M. Beernaert’s loss of power to avoid this very thing were won over to his views. Proportional representation was therefore proposed and carried, making electoral legislation in Belgium the most complete in the world. The Liberals returned to the Chambers, the Catholics sacrificing their overwhelming majority in their desire for the representation of every shade of opinion to be found in the electoral body, thus substituting the three parties for the two which had divided the power previous to 1893.

The Catholics, nevertheless, retained a permanent majority. The successors of M. Beernaert continued to conduct the Government along his lines, even if with less prestige and authority. From time to time the administration was affected by reactionary influences, occasionally compromised by mistakes in policy, but the current of social legislation has not changed its course. In 1895, a special department of Labour was created, and M. Nyssens, the first minister, filled the position with great distinction. Laws were passed regulating workshops, trade unions, pensions for workmen, insurance against accidents while working, and providing for rest on Sundays. The number and importance of these legislative enactments was such that a Socialist deputy codified and published them in a collection, rendering thereby tacit but significant homage to the Government responsible for them.

But the very stability of the Government, which each successive election retained in power, was the despair of its enemies who saw the impossibility of overthrowing it by legal methods. The Socialists decided that their success would be greater if they obtained by threats, or, if necessary, by violence, a new revision of the Constitution, suppressing the plural vote and replacing it by universal suffrage, pure and simple: “One man, one vote.” Failing to bring about this reform by intimidating the Chamber, they sent revolutionary bands into the streets. “I have always tried to dissuade you from violence,” said Vandervelde, their leader, to his audience of workingmen; “but to-day, I say to you: The pear is ripe, and must be plucked.” Another leader, Grimard, the Socialist senator, and a millionaire, even went to far as to declare that he would turn over his whole fortune to the workingmen and would start again at nothing. Intoxicated by these words, the workingmen of many large cities and industrial districts abandoned themselves to excesses, and blood was shed in several places, notably at Louvain. The energy with which the Government applied repressive measures, however, soon put an end to these attempts. Then the General Council of the workingmen’s party declared a general strike, the last weapon of the revolutionary party. This failed after a few days, and the General Council was forced to advise the workmen to return to work. The prestige of the Socialists with the popular masses was greatly impaired by the failure of so great an effort and the Catholic Government came out of the crisis stronger than ever (1902).

There remained but one way of overcoming the Government: the alliance of the two opposition parties, the Socialists and the Liberals. This was effected at the time of the general elections of 1906. Although from the economic point of view the two parties were antipodal, they were united in their anticlerical sympathies, and there was reason to fear that their success would mean the downfall of religion. In their certainty of success they circulated the names of their future ministers, and open preparation were made for the festivities attendant on their victory. But their alliance met with a crushing defeat in the elections of 1906, which left the Catholic Government as strong as ever. The fetes, commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of national independence, had been celebrated throughout the country with unrestrained enthusiasm, under the patronage of the Catholic Government, which, in 1909, will celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of its own existence. In the history of Belgium no government has held power so long, and the Catholic party has come to be more and more of a national party, or, to speak more correctly, the nation itself.

This summary would be incomplete if the history of the struggles in defence of religion and of social order were not supplemented by the internal history of the Catholic people of Belgium, i.e. the development of popular opinion during a quarter of a century. Generally, in the face of adversaries who attacked their most precious possession, the religion of their fathers, Catholics had proclaimed themselves “conservatives”; their political association were thus designated and it was the name which the leaders of the party were fond of applying to themselves in Parliament. But the appearance of the workingmen on the political scene and the programme of their claims in pointed opposition to the conservatives (1886), brought home to enlightened Catholics the danger of this name. Hence the name “Conservative” was repudiated not only by the advanced members of the party, who called themselves “Democratic Christians,” but even by the Catholics opposed to reforms, who really aimed at preserving the economic regime which had caused all the grievances of the working class. The latter, rejecting the term “Conservative” as a wrong done them, desire to be called simply “Catholics.” Of the two groups, that of the Democratic Christians is at present numerically inferior, although more influential by reason of its enthusiasm, its activity, its faculty for taking the initiative, and its propaganda. To understand this it must be recalled that before the revision of the Constitution the Catholic, like the Liberal, party was exclusively a bourgeois party, as its members had to pay a large poll tax for the privilege of suffrage. Its leaders for the most part were drawn from the upper bourgeoisie, and those whose ability and energy called them to a share in the direction of affairs had no other ideals, or interests, than those of the bourgeoisie. When the revision heavily recruited their ranks, the new voters, though large in number, played the part of mere privates and had no active part in the management of the parties. Those of the newcomers, who were conscious of possessing the requisite ability and courage in order to carry out their ideas and programme were obliged to organize new groups, which were looked at askance by the former leaders, often even regarded with suspicion, and accused of socialistic tendencies.

In a large number of arrondissements, the rivalry of conservative and democratic tendencies among Belgian Catholics resulted in the establishment of two distinct political groups, and the Belgian bishops, and the most farsighted leaders, found it a hard task to prevent an open rupture. At Ghent, where the Democratic Christians assumed the harmless name of Anti-Socialists, there was never any real danger of a break in the ranks. At Liège, which was a centre of opposition to democratic ideas, Catholic circles being under the control of employers and financiers inimical to reform principles, a rupture was barely averted. At Alost, where the break was beyond control, the Abbe Daens organized an independent and radical body, which, taking the name of “Christene Volksparty” (Christian people’s party), abandoned by the Anti-Socialists, opposed the Catholics more bitterly than the Socialists. It made common cause with the latter in carrying on a campaign against the Government in the elections of 1906. But, apart from the Daensists, a group, very small at most, which in its best days was unable to send more than two or three representatives to the Chamber, the Democratic Christians, in all their electoral battles, have always marched to the polls side by side with the conservative Catholics. They hold the controlling vote indispensable for any victory, and their leaders in Parliament have been in the front ranks in advocating the labour legislation which has produced the social laws. After opposing them for a long time, the Conservatives have gradually become accustomed to regard them as an essential factor of the Catholic army. In the meantime, the birth and progress of this group clearly marked the evolution which is taking place in the Catholic party in the direction of a new social ideal, an evolution too slow for some, and too rapid for others, but in any case, evident and undeniable.

IV. CONCLUSION

This politico-religious history of Belgium, covering over a hundred years, contains more than one lesson. In the first place, it clearly establishes the fact that in every generation the Belgian nation has fought with vigour against every regime that was inimical to its faith. It struggled against the French Republic, against Napoleon I, against William I, against the Liberal Government, against the coalition of the Liberals and the Socialists, and has come forth victorious. In the second place it must be remarked that the war on the religion of the people has daily assumed a more threatening aspect. At the close of the eighteenth century, Belgium had no enemies except its foreign oppressors, abetted by a few handfuls of traitors. Under the Dutch Government, it was evident that the generation which developed under the French domination had been partly won over to revolutionary doctrines, and that among the bourgeoisie of the cities there was a body which no longer recognized the authority of religion in social matters. After 1846, it was manifest that this faction was under the control of the Masonic lodges, and had positively declared itself for war upon religion and the Church. In 1886, it was evident that, in the bourgeois class, the great mass of workingmen had been won over to the cause of irreligion and that the population of the industrial districts had been seriously affected. In addition to this, the four larger cities of Belgium, Brussels, Antwerp, Liège, and Ghent, and most of the cities of the Walloon provinces, had gone over to the Anti-Catholic party. The defenders of religion and its oppressors tended to become numerically equal, a state of things that would be apparent to all, were it not masked in a way by the system of plural voting. In the votes cast at the general elections there is always a Catholic majority, but it is a question whether the majority of voters are Catholics. If it is asked whether the Catholics, namely, the Belgians who submit to the teachings of the Church, still constitute the majority of the nation, the answer would be more or less doubtful. This leads to a third remark. The resistance to the enemies of religion has not been as effective as the duration and intensity of the contest might lead one to believe. Whenever the Catholics were successful, they have been satisfied with keeping the power in their hands; they have not exercised it to carry out their programme. No Catholic wrongs have been redressed; every law made by the Liberals against the church and the clergy has remained unrepealed, and it was only in 1884 that the Government, supported by the entire nation, felt strong enough to inaugurate a bolder policy. But the revision of the School Law of 1879 is the solitary instance of this progress, and will probably continue to be so for some time to come.

The social condition of the Catholic religion in Belgium, while doubtless favourable, is not, therefore, free from danger. The School Law of 1884, amended in 1895, is inadequate to guarantee the Christian education of the people. It is evaded by the municipal government of the capital, which manages by trickery to exempt the majority of the children from religious instruction, and even in the Liberal communes, where the pupils receive religious instruction, it is neutralized by the lessons given them by their freethinking teachers. Many of the public schools are now developing generations of unbelievers. This is a matter that needs attention. It is also imperative to re-enforce the Catholic army by drawing recruits from the only source open to it, namely, the people. To do this the Government must accentuate the character of its social legislation, which is too often compromised by provisions which deprive it of a large part of its effectiveness. The law on trade unions deprives them of the means most likely to make them prosper, which is to make trade. The law on labour accidents would be excellent, if insurance against accidents was made obligatory. The law enjoining the Sunday rest, carried with the co-operation of the Socialists, contains such a large number of exceptions and is enforced with such want of earnestness that it is almost a dead letter. The Socialists declare, often with a semblance of truth, that the laws passed to benefit the workingmen are mere blinds, and it is not always easy to convince them of the contrary. The continuation of the Catholic regime in Belgium seems to be contingent on a radical reform of school legislation, on provision for the division of State subventions among all the communal or private schools in proportion to the services that they render, and greater boldness in the solution of the labour questions. Religion has in Belgium so strong a support in popular loyalty and devotion that by judiciously taking advantage of them at the proper time, an indefinite tenure of power will be ensured.

V. STATISTICS

According to the census of 31 December, 1905, the population of Belgium is 7,160,547. The great majority of the inhabitants are Catholic, but the lack of religious statistics makes it difficult to give the exact number of non-Catholics. There are about 30,000 Protestants, 3,000 to 4,000 Jews and several thousand persons who, not having been baptized, do not belong to any faith. The kingdom is divided into six dioceses, namely: The Archdiocese of Mechlin and the suffragan Dioceses of Bruges, Ghent, Liège, Namur, and Tournai. Each diocese has a seminary and one or several preparatory schools for the training of the clergy; there are, in addition, the Belgian College at Rome, a seminary to which all the Belgian bishops send the best of their pupils, and the College of the Saint-Esprit at Louvain, where a superior theological course is pursued. The secular clergy number 5,419; the regular clergy, 6,237; these latter are distributed in 293 houses. The religious orders in Belgium have 29,303 members living in 2,207 houses; the members of the orders, both male and female, devote their time chiefly to teaching and nursing the sick; the male orders also aid the secular clergy in parochial work.

Under the guidance of this large body of labourers for the Church, the religious life in Belgium is intense, and the works of piety and charity are very numerous. Statistics of these charities are given in Madame Charles Vloebergh’s “La Belgique charitable,” in the preface to which M. Beernaert states that no country has their equal. Belgium also takes a share out of all proportion to the size of its territory in international works of piety and in foreign missions. It is at the head of the work of the Eucharistic Congress, two of its bishops, Monseigneur Doutreloux, of Liège, and Monseigneur Heylen, of Namur, having been the first two presidents of the association. Five sessions of this congress have been held in Belgium; at Liège (1883), Antwerp, Brussels, Namur, and Tournai. Equally distinguished are the services of Belgium in the sphere of Catholic missions. The congregation of secular priests of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, founded at Scheutveld near Brussels in 1862, labour for the evangelization of Mongolia and the Congo; several of their members have suffered martyrdom in these countries. The Belgian Jesuits have for their mission-field Calcutta and Western Bengal. Their missionaries are trained in the Apostolic school established at Turnhout. The American seminary at Louvain (1857) aids in recruiting the secular clergy of the United States. Other religious orders also labour for the evangelization of foreign regions. The toils and heroism of a number of the Belgian missionaries have given them a world-wide renown; such are, Father Charles de Smedt, the apostle to the Indians of the Rocky Mountains, and Father Damien de Veuster, who devoted himself to the lepers of Molokai.

The great success of Catholicism in Belgium is largely explained by the freedom it enjoys under the Constitution. “The freedom of religions and their public exercise, as well as the right to the expression of opinions on all subjects are guaranteed, with the exception of misdemeanours committed in exercising this liberty” (art. 14). The sole restriction to this liberty is contained in article 16 of the Constitution which says that a civil marriage must always precede the religious ceremony, with such exceptions as may be established by law. The priest who, in fulfilling his duty, blesses a marriage in extremis under this article is in danger of prosecution and condemnation; the law which the Constitution provided for, and which would have protected such cases, has never been passed. With the exception of this and the law authorizing divorce, to which, however, recourse is seldom had, it may be said that the legislation of Belgium conforms to the Catholic standard of morality. Although the Church is independent in Belgium, and the country has no State religion, it does not follow that the governmental and the religious authorities have no connection with each other. Tradition and custom have produced numerous points of contact and relation of courtesy between Church and State. The latter pays the stipends of the Catholic clergy as well as of the clergy of the Protestant and Jewish religions, very moderate salaries which have been slightly increased by a law passed in 1900. The State also assists in the expense of erecting buildings for religious purposes and of keeping them in repair. The parishes have been granted a civil existence and can hold property; each parish has a board of administration, of which the major of the town is a member by law, for the aid of the clergy in the management of the finances of the Church. The Liberal party, it is true, has tried a number of times to get control of the church property, but the law of 1870 (a compromise law), concerning the temporalities of the different religions, only requires the supervision of the public authorities over expenses concerning which the intervention of these authorities is requested. Students at the theological seminaries, who are to be parish priests, are exempted from military duty. Finally, the civil authorities are officially present at the “Te Deum” which is sung on the national anniversaries; and except during the period of 1880–84 (see above) the Government has maintained diplomatic relations with the Holy See.

VI. EDUCATION

The most successful work of the Belgian Church as been done in the field of education, in spite of most violent opposition on the part of the Liberal party. Article 17 of the Constitution, says, concerning instruction: “Teaching is free; all preventive measures are forbidden; the repression of offences is reserved to the law. Public instruction given by the State is equally regulated by law.” The Constitution, therefore, supposed at the same time a free instruction and an instruction by the State; it guarantees complete liberty to the first and subordinates the latter to the enactments of the law. The Catholics alone have made use of this article of the Constitution to establish a flourishing series of schools and colleges leading up to a university. The Liberals have contented themselves with founding a university (subsidized by the city of Brussels and the province of Brabant) and an insignificant number of schools, and are generally satisfied with State instruction for their children; this instruction they endeavour to make as neutral, that is, as irreligious as possible. They also favour in every way State instruction to the detriment of the free teaching. There are two State universities, Ghent and Liège, which have, respectively, 1000 and 2000 students. There are also 20 State athenaeums with 6000 students, besides 7 communal colleges having about 1000 pupils; these institutions are for secondary education in its upper classes. The lower classes are taught in 112 intermediate schools, 78 of which are for boys and 34 for girls, with a total of 20,000 pupils. There are also 11 intermediate schools opened by the communes, 5 for boys and 6 for girls, with a total of 4000 pupils. The law of 1895 makes the communes responsible for primary instruction; each commune is obliged to have at least one school, but it may be relieved of this responsibility if it is shown that private initiative has made sufficient provision for instruction. The State intervenes also in primary instruction by means of its normal schools for male and female teachers, by employing school inspectors whose business it is to see whether all the legal requirements are observed, and by the subsidies granted to communes which carry out the law.

Compared with these State institutions the schools established for free education are equal and in several respects superior. The Catholic University of Louvain, founded by the bishops, has 2200 students; it is surrounded by several institutes, one of the most famous of which is the “Institut philosophique,” of which Monseigneur Mercier, now Cardinal Archbishop of Mechlin, was the founder and first president (until 1906). The Episcopal Institute of St. Louis at Brussels and the Jesuit College of Notre-Dame at Namur prepare pupils for the degrees of philosophy and letters. There are 90 free colleges for intermediate instruction, most of them diocesan, other carried on by the different religious orders, among whom the Jesuits take the lead with 12 colleges, having 5500 pupils. The free colleges have a total of 18,000 pupils, which is more than three times that of corresponding State schools. The situation is the intermediate classes of the lower grade is not so satisfactory for Catholics and may be called the dark page of their school statistics.

Since 1879 the subject of primary education has been the real battle-field; during this struggle the Catholics almost attained the ideal, having at least one school in almost every commune. But this was done at the cost of great sacrifices, so that since the suppression of the “Law of Misfortune” (Loi de malheur) of 1879, which had taken the Christian character from the primary schools, Catholics have accepted the communal schools in their renewed Christian form and have given up those which they had founded. The State, moreover, subsidizes the free schools when they give the guarantees necessary from a pedagogical point of view, and it authorizes the communes to adopt them as communal schools. Notwithstanding this, the legislation concerning primary teaching is far from being absolutely satisfactory; the large communes evade or even openly disregard the law, and it is only at long intervals that the Government interferes to check the most scandalous abuses. The law puts the State instruction and the free teaching on an absolute equality, and this equality is maintained by the Government; the diplomas granted by the free universities open the way to government positions just as do those granted by the State universities; the certificates given by the free institutes are equal to those of the State schools.

VII. CEMETERIES

It is only by the greatest exertions that the Catholics of Belgium have saved the Catholic schools. In regard to the question of cemeteries they have shown less vigour. The decree of Prairial of the year XII (1804), by which the cemeteries of Belgium were regulated, stipulated that, in localities where several religions exist, each form of faith should have its own cemetery, and that where there was but one cemetery it should be divided into as many sections as there were different denominations. The Catholic cemeteries, in conformity with the Ritual, had separate sections for those who had died in communion with Church, for infants dying without baptism, for those to whom the Church had refused religious burial, and for free-thinkers who died outside of the Catholic communion. There was no conflict until 1862 when, obedient to the order of the Freemason lodges, the Liberals declared the law of 1804 to be unconstitutional. The Government, then carried on by the Liberals, left it to the communal authorities to apply the law of 1804 or not, and for some fifteen years the law was disregarded or observed at the pleasure of the mayors of the town. With the lapse of time the enforcement of the law declined, and a further step was taken; in 1879, the year of the Loi de malheur, the Court of Cassation suddenly changed its traditional method and began to convict those mayors who enforced the law of 1804. From this date the enforcement of the law became a misdemeanour, and many adverse sentences fell on the authorities who believed themselves bound in conscience to maintain this decree. Owing to the inactivity of the Catholics, there has been, since that time, no freedom with regard to cemeteries in Belgium.

Claessens, La Belgique chretienne depuis la conquete francaise jusqu’a nos jours, 1794–1880 (Brussels, 1883); De Lanzac de Laborie, La domination francaise en Belgique, 1795–1814 (Paris, 1895); Van Caenghem, La guerre de paysans (Grammont, 1900); De Gerlache, Histoire du royaume des Pays-Bas (Brussels, 1875); Terlinden, Guillaume I, roi des Pays-Bas, et l’Eglise catholique en Belgique, 1814–1830 (Brussels, 1906); Juste, La revolution belge de 1830 (Brussels, 1872); Colenbrander, De Belgische omwenteling (The Hague, 1905); Thonissen, La Belgique sous le regne de Leopold I (Liège, 1855–1858); Balau, Soixante-dix ans d’histoire contemporaine de Belgique, 1815–1884 (Brussels, 1889); Discailles, Charles Rogier (Brussels, 1883–95); Hymans, Frere-Orban (Brussels, 1905); Nyssens, Eudore Pirmez (Brussels, 1893); De Trannoy, Jules Malou (Brussels, 1983); Verhaegen, La lutte scolaire en Belgique (Ghent, 1905); Van Hoorebeke, Histoire de la politique contemporaine en Belgique depuis 1830 (Brussels, 1905); Bertrand, Histoire de la democratie et du socialisme en Belgique depuis 1830 (Brussels, 1905); MacDonnel, King Leopold II: His Rule in Belgium and the Congo (London, 1905); Blok, Geschiedenis van het nederlandsche volk (Leyden, 1905), Statistics of Belgium in the Census of 31 December, 1900; Annuaire de statistique (1906); Annuaire de clerge belge (1906); Vloeberghs, La Belgique charitable (Brussels, 1904).

GODEFROID KURTH.

Belgrade and Smederevo

Titular (united) sees of Servia. The history of these sees is as confused as their present plight is pitiful from the Catholic stand-point. Dalmatia and Illyria claim St. Titus, the disciple of St. Paul, as their first Christian missionary; but the first Bishop of Belgrade, Theodosius, dates only from 1059. As the ancient Singidunum, however, it was an episcopal see in the fourth century, but gradually declined during the invasions of the barbarian Slavs. The medieval see was founded by the King of Croatia. The Hungarians and the Venetians disputed the possession of Belgrade (Serb Beograd, white city). The latter having destroyed the town (1126), the episcopal see was transferred to the neighbouring Scardona, so extensively embellished by them that it received the name of Scardona Nova. Religion had long flourished there, for one of the bishops at the Council of Salona (530) signs as Episcopus Ecclesiae Scardinitanae. On the occasion of the transfer to Scardona the title of Belgrade disappears for centuries from ecclesiastical history. The neighbouring city of Smederevo (Lat. Smendria) was also an episcopal see. Gams gives the names of four of its bishops from 1544 to 1605, a list, beginning 1334, of bishops whom he styles “of Belgrade and Semendria” (Nadoralbenses et Belgradenses). It is certain that in 1650 Innocent X re-established the title and See of Belgrade; for a Brief (4 December, 1651) is extant addressed to Matthew Benlich, Episcopus Bellegradensis, Ecclesiae Samadiensis Administrator, creating him vicar Apostolic for those sees of the Church of Hungary which were under Turkish domination.

In 1729 the two Dioceses of Belgrade and Smederevo were united by Benedict XIII, and in 1733 Vincent Bagradin became the first holder of the double title. Thenceforward the list of bishops is regular and complete. The “Notizie di Roma” (the official annual of the Holy See) gives the names of all the prelates of this see. Until recent years Belgrade and Smederevo were considered residential sees; it is expressly so stated in the consistory of 1858. It was added that these two sees (ancient Alba Graeca and Singidunum respectively) were suffragans of the metropolitan See of Antivari, and that the nomination to them resided in the Emperor of Austria, “but as they are held by the infidels, their actual state is passed over in silence.” For many years the title was given to the auxiliary of an Hungarian bishop (at present to the auxiliary of the Archbishop of Zagrab) who was bound to reside with his superior. The “Gerarchia” for 1906, without giving any notice of the change, has transferred this see to the list of titular bishoprics, though Bishop Krapac, who now holds the title, was named in 1904 as a residential bishop.

The present condition of this Church is most lamentable. The limits of the diocese are those of the Kingdom of Servia, which has an area of 18,630 square miles and a population (1905) of 2,6786,989, belonging for the most part to the Greek schism, which is the official religion of the State. Since 1851 the Bishop of Diokovar acts as administrator Apostolic; since 1886 the territory is united to the ecclesiastical province of Scutari (Kirch. Handlex., I, 533). There are only two or three priests, who divide their activities between the three principal stations of Belgrade (4,000 Catholics), Kragujevatz (200), and Nish (2,000). There are also seven secondary stations, numbering about 1,000 Catholics all told. (It is to be noted that according to the “Statesman’s Year Book” for 1907, the Servian census of 1900 gives 10,243 Catholics.) One church, two chapels, and two elementary schools (at Belgrade and Nish respectively) complete the list of the mission’s resources.

The statistics say nothing of Uniat Greeks, which leads us to suppose that these Latin Catholics are only western Europeans whose business obliges them to reside in Servia. Belgrade has (1905) a population of 80,747. Situated on the right bank of the Danube, just below the Save, it has always been a natural fortress, and as such is famous in military history. From 1522 to 1867 it passed alternately from Turks to Austrians; in the latter year the Turkish garrison was withdrawn, and in 1878, by the Treaty of Berlin, Belgrade became the capital of the new Christian Kingdom of Servia.

Missiones Catholicae (1906); Gams, Series Episcoporum, 396; Eubel, I, 371, II, 219; Farlati, Ilyr. Sacr. (1769–1819), IV, 1–9, VIII, 144–151, 250–254; Kallay, Geschichte des Serben (1878); Mollat, La Serbie contemporaine (Paris, 1902).

ALBERT BATTANDIER

Giacopo Belgrado

Italian Jesuit and natural philosopher, born at Udine, 16 November, 1704; died in the same city, 26 March, 1789. He belonged to a noble family and received his education at Padua. He entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus 16 October, 1723, and showed marked talent, studying mathematics and philosophy at Bologna, under Father Luigi Marchenti, a former pupil of Varignon at Paris. After completing his philosophical studies he taught letters for several years at Venice, where he won the affection of his students as well as the esteem and friendship of the scholars of that city. He studied theology at Parma and then became professor of mathematics and physics at the university, holding this position for twelve years. While at Parma he did much experimental work in physics with apparatus specially constructed by two of his assistants. After pronouncing his solemn vows on 2 February, 1742, Belgrado was summoned to the court, where he was appointed confessor, first to the Duchess, and later to the Duke Don Philippo, The title of mathematician of the court was also bestowed on him. He 1757 he erected an observatory on one of the towers of the college of Parma and furnished it with the necessary instruments. In 1773, he became rector of the college at Bologna. He was a member of most of the academies of Italy and a corresponding member of the Academie des Sciences of Paris. He was likewise one of the founders of the Arcadian colony of Parma. He wrote on a variety of subjects, among his works being “I Fenomeni Elettrici” (1749); “Della riflessione de’ corpi dall’ acqua e della diminuzione della mole de’ sassi ne torrebti e ne’ fiumi” (1755); “De analyseos vulgaris usu in re physica” (1761–62); “Delle sensazioni del freddo e del calore” (1764); “Theoria Cochleae Archimedis” (1967); “Dell’ esistenza di Dio da’ teoremi geometrici” (1777), etc.

Mazzuchelli, Gli Scrittori d’Italia (Brescia, 1760), II, ii; Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la c. de J. (new ed., Paris, 1890).

H.M. BROCK

Belial

Found frequently as a personal name in the Vulgate and various English translations of the Bible, is commonly used as a synonym of Satan, or the personification of evil. This sense is derived from II Cor., vi, 15, where Belial (or Beliar) as prince of darkness is contrasted with Christ, the light. It is clear in the Vulgate and Douay translations of III Kings, xxi, 10 and 13, where the same Hebrew word is rendered once as Belial and twice as “the devil.” In the other instances, too, the translators understood it as a name for the prince of evil, and so it has passed into English. Milton, however, distinguishes Belial from Satan, regarding him as the demon of impurity. In the Hebrew Bible, nevertheless, the word is not a proper name, but a common noun usually signifying “wickedness” or “extreme wickedness.” Thus, Moore renders “sons of Belial” as “vile scoundrels” (Judges, xix, 22); most prefer “worthless fellows.” In some cases belial seems to mean “destruction,” “ruin”; thus in Ps. xii, 9 (Heb.), the word is parallel to the thought of utter destruction and seems to mean the same. In Ps., sviii, 5, it is parallel to “death” and “Sheol”; some understand it as “destruction,” Cheyne as “the abyss.” The etymology of the word is doubtful; it is usually taken to be a compound meaning “worthlessness.” Cheyne suggest an alternate that means “that from which no one comes up,” namely the abyss, Sheol. St. Jerome’s etymology “without yoke,” which he has even inserted as a gloss in the text of Judges, xix, 22, is contrary to Hebrew philology. Belial, from meaning wickedness or Sheol, could develop into a name for the prince of evil or of darkness; and as such was widely used at the beginning of our era. Under the names Beliar, Berial, he plays a very important rôle in apocryphal literature, in the “Ascension of Isaias,” the “Sibylline Oracles,” and the “Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.” He is the prince of this world and will come as Antichrist; his name is sometimes given also to Nero, returning as Antichrist.

CHEYNE in Encyc. Bib. (New York, 1899); MOORE, Commentary on Judges (New York, 1900), 419; GARVIE in HAST., Dict. of Bible (New York, 1903); DEANE, Pseudepigrapha (Edinburgh, 1891); LESÊTRE in VIG., Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1894); CHARLES, Ascension of Isaiah (London, 1900); CHARLES, Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian (London, 1899).

JOHN F. FENLON

Belief

(be and lyian, to hold dear).

That state of the mind by which it assents to propositions, not by reason of their intrinsic evidence, but because of authority. Though the term is commonly used in ordinary language, as well as in much philosophical writing, to cover a great many states of mind, the quasi-definition advanced is probably the best calculated to differentiate belief from all other forms of mental assent. In framing it, respect is paid to the motive of the assent rather than to its nature; for, since intellectual assent is of its nature simple and indivisible, no differentiae proximae can be assigned by which it could be separated into various species. As the objects of belief, also, are of a nature similar to those of knowledge, opinion, and doubt, so, again, no criterion of division can be found in them (as in the case of the objects of separate faculties) to distinguish it from other mental states. St. Thomas Aquinas qualifies his definition of faith with the addition of the note of certainty (Summa, I-II, Q. i,a.4). Though he treats of faith as a theological virtue in the article cited, his words may well be extended to include belief as a purely natural state of the mind. It will thus be seen to cover intellectual assent to truths accepted on authority either human or Divine. In the former case belief may be designated by the synonym credence; in the latter the more usual term is faith. Often, also, belief is used in the sense of fiducia, or trust; and this especially in Protestant theology as a substitute for faith. By the definition given above we are enabled to distinguish belief

from intelligence, in that the truth of the fact or proposition believed is not seen intuitively;

from science or knowledge, since there is no question of resolving it into its first principles;

from doubt, because belief is an assent and positive;

from opinion and conjecture, in which the assent is not complete.

Belief, however, as has already been noted, is often indiscriminatingly used for these and for other states of mind from which for the sake of accuracy it should be as carefully distinguished as is possible. Though we may know a thing and at the same time believe it (as in the case of the existence of God, which is a natural verity as well as a revealed truth), it is in the interest of clearness that we should keep to the distinction drawn and not confound belief and knowledge, because of the fact that the same truth may simultaneously be the object of both. But there is another very general use of the term belief in which it is taken to designate assent complete enough to exclude any practical doubt and yet distinguishable from the assent of knowledge. In this use no account is taken of authority. We have many convictions resting upon evidence that is not sufficiently clearly presented to our mind to enable us to say we know, but abundantly sufficient for us to produce a practically unqualified assent. While this would seem to fall under the Scholastic head of opinion, it is the point about which has turned the controversy that has been waged since David Hume brought the question into prominence upon the philosophic issue. Briefly, to select a certain number of typical writers for examination, the issues involved are these. How far do we believe—in the sense of trusting our natural faculties in their reports and judgments; and in how far can we be said to know? Hume, in accordance with his sensistic principles, would restrict our knowledge to purely ideal truths. We are capable of knowing, according to the Scotch sceptic, such ideal principles as those of mathematics, together with the conclusions that are derived from them. But our attribution of an objective reality to what we imagine to be the causes of sensations is a belief. So also are such judgments as that of the principle of causality. We cannot be said to know, but to believe, that there is actually such a relation as that of effect to cause. We believe this, and other similar truths, because of a peculiar character of vivacity, solidity, firmness, or steadiness attaching to our conceptions of them. The division is an arbitrary one and the explanation offered as to the nature of belief unsatisfactory and insufficient. Similarly, James Mill would have the assent given to the objective reality of beings a belief. With him the occasion of the belief is the association of ideas; or, rather, as he wrongly states it, the association of ideas is the belief. If belief is a state of mind at all, it can scarcely be described as an association of ideas. Such an association could at most be considered as a cause of the belief. John Stuart Mill in his note to his father’s Analysis, makes belief a primitive fact. It is impossible to analyze it. Locke, though he deals at length with belief, does not try to analyze it or do more than assign objects to it and investigate the grounds of credibility. Alexander Bain originally held belief to be a function of the will rather than a state of the intellect. In his opinion it was the development of the will under the pursuit of immediate ends. Later he modified this opinion, and, while retaining the essentially volitional and emotional character, or tendency, as causes, relegated the act of belief itself to the intellectual part of man’s nature. Father Masher, S.J., whose admirable treatment of the whole subject ought to be consulted, advances an acute criticism of Dr. Bain’s position. He points out

that readiness to act is a test of belief, not the belief itself;

that belief is generally not active but characteristically passive;

that primitive credulity, which Bain makes a chief factor in belief, involves a vicious circle, explaining, as it does, belief by credulity or believing.

A not inconsiderable part of the “Grammar of Assent” is concerned with this subject, though hardly dealing with the problem on the foregoing lines. In his treatment of “Simple Assent,” and especially in sections 4 and 5 of Chapter iv, Par. 1, Cardinal Newman’s view can be found. He calls the notional assent that we give to first principles presumption. We cannot be said to trust our powers of reasoning or memory as faculties, though we may be supposed to have a trust in any one of their particular acts. That external nature exists is a first principle and is founded upon an instinct. The use of the term is justified by the consideration that the brute creation also possesses it. Further, “the belief in causation” is one of these presumption the assent to it notional. But, on the other hand, “we believe without any doubt that we exist; that we have an individual and identity all our own; . . . that we have a present sense of good and evil, of a right and a wrong . . .” Again: “Assent on reasonings not demonstrative is too widely recognized an act to be irrational, unless man’s nature is irrational, too familiar to the prudent and clear minded to be an infirmity or an extravagance.” It will be noted that Newman

justifies belief as an assent because based on a common use of the rational faculty. Demonstrative grounds may be lacking, but the conviction is none the less neither an infirmity nor an extravagance, but rational.

He groups belief and knowledge together under the heading of presumption without drawing any hard and fast line between them. And indeed, from the point of view of mere assent, there is nothing psychological by which they are to be distinguished: since assent itself, as has been noted, is a simple and ultimate fact. The difference lies elsewhere. In this broader sense of belief, it is to be found in the antecedent cause of the assent. For knowledge there will be explicit, for belief implicit, intuition or evidence.

Of German philosophers who have treated this topic, Germar, Fechner, and Ulrici may be consulted. The first limits belief to a conscious assent arising from fact; that is, an assent given without consciousness of its causes or grounds. In the case where the causes or grounds become actual factors in the consciousness, the belief rises to the dignity of knowledge. Kant’s view naturally has belief as the necessitated result of the practical reason. It is to be considered epistemologically rather than psychologically. We believe in such truths as are necessitated by the exigencies of our moral nature. And these truths have necessary validity on account of the requirements of that moral nature. We need motives upon which to act. Such beliefs are practical and lead to action. All natural truths that we accept on belief might conceivably be accepted as truths of knowledge. The implicit may unfold and become explicit. This frequently happens in ordinary experience. Evidence may be adduced to prove assertions. Similarly, any truth of knowledge may be accepted as belief. What is said to be known to one individual may be, and often is, accepted upon his testimony by another. A great variety of factors may play their part in the genesis of belief. We are accustomed to assent to propositions that we cannot be said to know, on account of many different causes. Some of them are often inadequate and even frivolous. We frequently discover that our beliefs rest on no stable foundation, that they must be reconstructed or done away with altogether. The ordinary reasons upon which belief may be based can be reduced to two: testimony and the partial evidence of reason. A third class of causes of belief is sometimes added. Feeling, desire, and the wish to believe have been noted as antecedent causes of the act of assent. But that feeling, desire, or the wish to believe is a direct antecedent is open to discussion. It cannot be denied that many so-called beliefs, more properly described, perhaps, as trust or hope, have their immediate origin in feelings or wishes; but, as a rule, they seem not to be capable of bearing any real strain; whereas we are accustomed to consider that belief is one of the most unchangeable of mental states. Where these antecedents work indirectly through the election of the will, to which reference is made below, belief may issue as a firm and certain assent.

(1) Testimony is a valid and satisfactory cause of assent provided it possess the necessary note of authority, which is the sole direct antecedent of the ensuing belief. Our ultimate witness must know his facts or truths and be veracious in his presentation of them. Intermediated witnesses must have accurately preserved the form of the original testimony. In the case of human testimony the ordinary rules of prudence will naturally be applied before giving credence to its statements. Once, however, the question of knowledge and veracity is settled, belief may validly issue and an assent be given as to a certainty. Of course there is room also for doubt or for opinion, as the credentials of the authority itself may very almost indefinitely. But there is a further class of truths believed upon testimony that does not fall within the scope of natural investigation and inquiry. The supersensible, supraintellectual truths of revelation, at any rate in the present state of man’s existence, cannot be said to be assented to either on account of an intuition of their nature or because of any strict process of demonstration of their validity. They are netigher evident in themselves nor in their principles. The assent to such truths is of the same nature as that given to truths believed naturally. Only here the authority motivating it is not human but Divine. Acts of assent on such authority are known as acts of faith and, theologically speaking, connote the assistance of grace. They are, none the less, intellectual acts, in the eliciting of which the will has its part to play, just as are those in which assent is given to the authoritative utterances of credible human witnesses. With regard to the nature of this authority upon which such supernatural truths are assented to in faith, it is sufficient to indicate that God’s knowledge is infinite and His veracity absolute.

(2) The partial evidence of reason has already been touched upon. It may be note, however, that the evidence may be relative either relatively or absolutely. In the first case we may have recourse to the authority of those who know for our belief or base it for ourselves upon such evidence as is forthcoming. In the second, as is the case with much of the teaching of science and philosophy, the whole human race can have no more than a strictly so-called belief in it. Probable opinions, conjectures, obscured or partially recalled memories, or any truths or facts of which we have not a consciously evidential grasp, are the main objects of a belief resultant upon partial evidence. In this its distinction from knowledge lies. We are said to know intuitional truths as well as all those that are indirectly evident intheir principles. We know all facts and truths of our own personal experience, whether of consciousness or of objective nature. Similarly, we know the truth of the reports of memory that come clearly and distinctly into into consciousness. Nor is it necessary, with Hamilton, to have recourse to an initial belief or trust as implied in all knowledge. We cannot properly be said to trust our faculties. We do not believe evident truth.

(3) With the two immediate causes of belief already noted, the action of the will must also be alluded to. Under this head emotion, feeling, and desire may conveniently be grouped, since they play an important, though indirect, part in motiving assents through the election of the will and so causing belief. The action of the will referred to is observed especially in a selection of the data to be examined and approved by the intellect. Where there are several sets of evidences or partial arguments, for and against, the will is said to cause belief in the sense of directing the intellect to examine the particular set of evidences or arguments in favour of the resultant assent and to neglect all that might be urged against it. In this case, however, the belief can easily be referred tot he partial evidence of reason, in that as a rational, rather than a volitional act, it is due to the actual considerations beore the mind. Whether these are voluntarily restricted or incomplete from the very nature of the case, does not alter the fact that the assent is given because of the partial evidence they furnish. In faith the meritorious nature of the act of belief is referred to this elective action of the will.

The effects of belief may be summed up generally under the head of action or movement, though all beliefs are not of their nature operative. Indeed, it would seem to depend more on the nature of the content of the belief than upon the act of believing. As with certain truths of knowledge, there are beliefs that leave us unmoved and even tend to restrict and prevent rather than instigate to action. The distinction drawn between the assents of knowledge and belief cannot be said to be observed at all closely in practice, where they are frequently confused. It is none the less undoubtedly felt to exist, and, upon analysis of the antecedents, the one can readily be distinguished from the other. It is found that most o the practical affairs of ordinary life depend entirely upon beliefs. In the vast majority of cases in which action is called for it is impossible to have striclty so-called knowledge upon which to act. In such cases belief readily supplies its place, growing stronger as it is justified by the event. Without it, as a practical incentive to action and a justification of it, social intercourse would be an impossibility. Such things as our estimates of the character of our friends, of the probity of those with whom we transact business, are examples of the beliefs that play so large and so necessary a part in our lives. In their own subject-matter they are on a par with the reasonable beliefs of science and philosophy—founded, as are hypotheses and theories, upon practically sufficient, yet indemonstrative and incomplete data.

MAHER, Psychology in Stonyhurst Series (London, 1890); NEWMAN, An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent (London, 1870); BAIN, Mental and Moral Science (London, 1868–72); MILL, Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind (London, 1829); J.S. MILL, Notes to new edition of The Analysis (London, 1869); IDEM, Dissertations and Discussions (London, 1859–75); SULLY, Sensationa nd Intuition: Studies in Psychology and Aesthetics (London, 1874)); JAMES, The Principles of Psychology (New York, 1890); BALFOUR, A Defence of Philosophic Doubt (London, 1879); WARD, The Wish to Believe (London, 1885); ULRICI, Glauben und Wissen, Spekulation und exacte Wissenschaft (Leipzig, 1858); FECHNER, Die drei Movive und Grunde des Glaubens (Leipzig, 1863); BALDWIN, Dict. Of Philosophy, s.v.

FRANCIS AVELING

Albert (Jean) Belin

French prelate and writer, b. in Besançon early in the seventeenth century; d. 29 April, 1677. He made his profession in the Benedictine monastery of Faverney, 29 December 1629, and spent some time at the monasteries of Charité-sur-Loire, Nevers, and Paris as prior and subsequently as abbot. He was consecrated Bishop of Belley, 14 February, 1666. His works, which were written in French, are: “Pierre philosophale” (Paris, 1653); “Talismans justifiés” (ibid., 1653); “Poudre de sympathie mystérieuse: (ibid., 1653); “Poudre de projection demontrée” (ibid., 1653); “Le voyage inconnu” (ibid., 1653); “Principes de ves convainquantes des vérités du christianisme” (ibid., 1666); “Preuves convainquantes des verites du christianisme” (ibid., 1666); “Emblèmes eucharistiques, ou octave du très S. Sacrement” (1647, 1660); “Les solides pensées de l’ame, pour la porter à son devoir” (Paris, 1668). He is probably identical with Alphonsus Belin, O.S.B., Prior of Charité-sur-Loire in the latter half of the seventeenth century, and author of “La vérité de la religion catholique et las fausseté de la religion prétendue réformée” (Nevers 1683).

Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1893); Ziegelbauer, Historia Res Literaria O.S.B. (Augsburg, 1754), III; Calmet, Bibliotheque Lorraine (1751).

ALEXIUS HOFFMANN.

Ven. Arthur Bell

(alias FRANCIS)

Friar Minor and English martyr, b. at Temple-Broughton near Worcester, 13 January, 1590; d. at London, 11 December, 1643. When Arthur was eight his father died and his mother gave him in charge of her brother Francis Daniel, a man of wealth, learning and piety, who sent him at the age of twenty-four to the English college at St.-Omer; thence he went to Spain to continue and complete his studies. Having been ordained priest, he received the habit of the Franciscan Order at Segovia, 8 August, 1618, and shortly after the completion of his novitiate was called from Spain to labour in the restoration of the English province. He was one of the first members of the Franciscan community at Douai, where he subsequently fulfilled the offices of guardian and professor of Hebrew. In 1632 Bell was sent to Scotland as first provincial of the Franciscan province there; but his efforts to restore the order in Scotland were unsuccessful and in 1637 he returned to England, where he laboured until November, 1643, when he was apprehended as a spy by the parliamentary troops at Stevenage in Hertfordshire and committed to Newgate prison.

The circumstances of his trial show Bell’s singular devotedness to the cause of religion and his desire to suffer for the Faith. When condemned to be drawn and quartered it is said that he broke forth into a solemn Te Deum and thanked his judges profusely for the favour they were thus conferring upon him in allowing him to die for Christ. The cause of his beatification was introduced at Rome in 1900. He wrote “The History, Life, and Miracles of Joane of the Cross” (St.-Omer, 1625). He also translated from the Spanish of Andrew a Soto “A brief Instruction how we ought to hear Mass” (Brussels, 1624).

THADDEUS, The Franciscans in England (London, 1898), V 35, 36; VI, 39; VII, 47, 49, 50; IX, 62, 66–68; XV, 200–202; ANGELUS A S. FRANCISCO (RICHARD MASON), Certamen Seraphicum (Quaracchi, 1885), 127–157; ORTOLANI, De causis beatorum et servorum Dei ord. min. (Quaracchi, 1905), 14.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

James Bell

Priest and martyr, b. at Warrington in Lancashire, England, probably about 1520; d. 20 April, 1584. For the little known of him we depend on the account published four years after his death by Bridgewater in his “Concertatio” (1588), and derived from a manuscript which was kept at Douay when Challoner wrote his “Missionary Priests” in 1741, and is now in the Westminster Diocesan Archives. A few further details were collected by Challoner, and others are supplied by the State Papers. Having studied at Oxford he was ordained priest in Mary’s reign, but unfortunately conformed to the established Church under Elizabeth, and according to the Douay MS. “ministered their bare few sacraments about 20 years in diverse places of England.” Finally deterred by conscience from the cure of souls and reduced to destitution, he sought a small readership as a bare subsistence. To obtain this he approached the patron’s wife, a Catholic lady, who induced him to be reconciled to the Church. After some time he was allowed to resume priestly functions, and for two years devoted himself to arduous missionary labours. He was at length apprehended (17 January 1583–84) and, having confessed his priesthood, was arraigned at Manchester Quarter-Sessions held during the same month, and sent for trial at Lancaster Assizes in March. When condemned and sentenced he said to the Judge: “I beg your Lordship would add to the sentence that my lips and the tops of my fingers may be cut off, for having sworn and subscribed to the articles of heretics contrary both to my conscience and to God’s Truth.” He spent that night in prayer and on the following day was hanged and quartered together with Ven. John Finch, a layman, 20 April, 1584.

BRIDGEWATER, Concertatio ecclesiæ Catholicæ in Anglia, 1588; YEPEZ, Historia particular de la persecucion de Inglatera, 1599; CHALLONER, Missionary Priests 1741; Dict. Nat. Biog., IV, 163; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 173, citing State Papers in Public Record Office.

EDWIN BURTON

Jerome Bellamy

Jerome Bellamy of Uxenden Hall, near London, England, d. 1586, a member of an old Catholic family noted for its hospitality to missionaries and recusants. He was a warm sympathizer with Mary Queen of Scots. In the latter years of the sixteenth century the Babington plot to free Mary and assassinate Elizabeth was exposed, and Babington, with two of his fellow- conspirators, Barnewell and Donne, sought refuge in Bellamy’s house. He concealed them and was later arrested with them and accused of complicity in the plot. All four were indicted, tried, convicted 15 September, 1586, and within six days thereafter executed.

GILLOW, BIBL. DICT. ENG. CATH., I, 176.

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE

John Bellarini

Barnabite theologian, b. at Castelnuovo, Italy, in 1552; d. at Milan, 27 August, 1630. He was Visitor and twice Assistant General of his order. He taught theology at Padua and Rome, and was highly esteemed by bishops and cardinals, particularly by Gregory XV. Best known as a moral theologian, he has left a number of solid theological treatises, the most valuable of which is a commentary on the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism, in two parts, forming two distinct volumes. The first, for the instruction of the faithful, is entitled “Doctrina d. Concilii Tridentini et Cathechismi Romani de Symbolo Apostolorum” (Brescia, 1603). The parts of this work relating to the decalogue have been published in French. The second work, designed for the conversion of heretics, and entitled “Doctrina Catholica ex Sacro Concilio Tridentino et Catechismo Romano” (Milan, 1620), has passed through several editions. Bellarini also composed a number of booklets in Italian for confessors and penitents, and a treatise on the doctrine of St. Thomas on physical predetermination and on the determination in general of all things and causes into active operation (Milan, 1606). He is also the author of a work on method (Milan, 1606), which was republished under a slightly different title, along with his “Mirror of Divine and Human Wisdom” (Milan, 1630).

MANGENOT in Dict. de theol. cath., II, 539; Bibliotheca Scriptorum e Cong. Cler. Regul. s. Pauli (Rome, 1836), 140.

S.H. FRISBEE

Ven. Robert Francis Romulus Bellarmine

(Also, “Bellarmino”).

A distinguished Jesuit theologian, writer, and cardinal, born at Montepulciano, 4 October, 1542; died 17 September, 1621. His father was Vincenzo Bellarmino, his mother Cinthia Cervini, sister of Cardinal Marcello Cervini, afterwards Pope Marcellus II. He was brought up at the newly founded Jesuit college in his native town, and entered the Society of Jesus on 20 September, 1560, being admitted to his first vows on the following day. The next three years he spent in studying philosophy at the Roman College, after which he taught the humanities first at Florence, then at Mondovi. In 1567 he began his theology at Padua, but in 1569 was sent to finish it at Louvain, where he could obtain a fuller acquaintance with the prevailing heresies. Having been ordained there, he quickly obtained a reputation both as a professor and a preacher, in the latter capacity drawing to his pulpit both Catholics and Protestants, even from distant parts. In 1576 he was recalled to Italy, and entrusted with the chair of Controversies recently founded at the Roman College. He proved himself equal to the arduous task, and the lectures thus delivered grew into the work “De Controversiis” which, amidst so much else of excellence, forms the chief title to his greatness. This monumental work was the earliest attempt to systematize the various controversies of the time, and made an immense impression throughout Europe, the blow it dealt to Protestantism being so acutely felt in Germany and England that special chairs were founded in order to provide replies to it. Nor has it even yet been superseded as the classical book on its subject-matter, though, as was to be expected, the progress of criticism has impaired the value of some of its historical arguments.

In 1588 Bellarmine was made Spiritual Father to the Roman College, but in 1590 he went with Cardinal Gaetano as theologian to the embassy Sixtus V was then sending into France to protect the interests of the Church amidst the troubles of the civil wars. Whilst he was there news reached him that Sixtus, who had warmly accepted the dedication of his “De Controversiis,” was now proposing to put its first volume on the Index. This was because he had discovered that it assigned to the Holy See not a direct but only an indirect power over temporals. Bellarmine, whose loyalty to the Holy See was intense, took this greatly to heart; it was, however, averted by the death of Sixtus, and the new pope, Gregory XIV, even granted to Bellarmine’s work the distinction of a special approbation. Gaetano’s mission now terminating, Bellarmine resumed his work as Spiritual Father, and had the consolation of guiding the last years of St. Aloysius Gonzaga, who died in the Roman College in 1591. Many years later he had the further consolation of successfully promoting the beatification of the saintly youth. Likewise at this time he sat on the final commission for the revision of the Vulgate text. This revision had been desired by the Council of Trent, and subsequent popes had laboured over the task and had almost brought it to completion. But Sixtus V, though unskilled in this branch of criticism, had introduced alterations of his own, all for the worse. He had even gone so far as to have an impression of this vitiated edition printed and partially distributed, together with the proposed Bull enforcing its use. He died, however, before the actual promulgation, and his immediate successors at once proceeded to remove the blunders and call in the defective impression. The difficulty was how to substitute a more correct edition without affixing a stigma to the name of Sixtus, and Bellarmine proposed that the new edition should continue in the name of Sixtus, with a prefatory explanation that, on account of aliqua vitia vel typographorum vel aliorum which had crept in, Sixtus had himself resolved that a new impression should be undertaken. The suggestion was accepted, and Bellarmine himself wrote the preface, still prefixed to the Clementine edition ever since in use. On the other hand, he has been accused of untruthfulness in stating that Sixtus had resolved on a new impression. But his testimony, as there is no evidence to the contrary, should be accepted as decisive, seeing how conscientious a man he was in the estimation of his contemporaries; and the more so since it cannot be impugned without casting a slur on the character of his fellow-commissioners who accepted his suggestion, and of Clement VIII who with full knowledge of the facts gave his sanction to Bellarmine’s preface being prefixed to the new edition. Besides, Angelo Rocca, the Secretary of the revisory commissions of Sixtus V and the succeeding pontiffs, himself wrote a draft preface for the new edition in which he makes the same statement: (Sixtus) “dum errores ex typographib ortos, et mutationes omnes, atque varias hominum opiniones recognoscere c**oe*pit, ut postea de toto negotio deliberare atque Vulgatam editionem, prout debebat, publicare posset, morte prfventus quod cœperat perficere non potuit.” This draft preface, to which Bellarmine’s was preferred, is still extant, attached to the copy of the Sixtine edition in which the Clementine corrections are marked, and may be seen in the Biblioteca Angelica at Rome.

In 1592 Bellarmine was made Rector of the Roman College, and in 1595 Provincial of Naples. In 1597 Clement VIII recalled him to Rome and made him his own theologian and likewise Examiner of Bishops and Consultor of the Holy Office. Further, in 1599 he made him Cardinal-Priest of the title of Santa Maria in viâ, alleging as his reason for this promotion that “the Church of God had not his equal in learning.” He was now appointed, along with the Dominican Cardinal d’Ascoli, an assessor to Cardinal Madruzzi, the President of the Congregation de Auxiliis, which had been instituted shortly before to settle the controversy which had recently arisen between the Thomists and the Molinists concerning the nature of the concord between efficacious grace and human liberty. Bellarmine’s advice was from the first that the doctrinal question should not be decided authoritatively, but left over for further discussion in the schools, the disputants on either side being strictly forbidden to indulge in censures or condemnations of their adversaries. Clement VIII at first inclined to this view, but afterwards changed completely and determined on a doctrinal definition. Bellarmine’s presence then became embarrassing, and he appointed him to the Archbishopric of Capua just then vacant. This is sometimes spoken of as the cardinal’s disgrace, but Clement consecrated him with his own hands—an honour which the popes usually accord as a mark of special regard. The new archbishop departed at once for his see, and during the next three years set a bright example of pastoral zeal in its administration.

In 1605 Clement VIII died, and was succeeded by Leo XI who reigned only twenty-six days, and then by Paul V. In both conclaves, especially that latter, the name of Bellarmine was much before the electors, greatly to his own distress, but his quality as a Jesuit stood against him in the judgment of many of the cardinals. The new pope insisted on keeping him at Rome, and the cardinal, obediently complying, demanded that at least he should be released from an episcopal charge the duties of which he could no longer fulfil. He was now made a member of the Holy Office and of other congregations, and thenceforth was the chief advisor of the Holy See in the theological department of its administration. Of the particular transactions with which his name is most generally associated the following were the most important: The inquiry de Auxiliis, which after all Clement had not seen his way to decide, was now terminated with a settlement on the lines of Bellarmine’s original suggestion. 1606 marked the beginning of the quarrel between the Holy See and the Republic of Venice which, without even consulting the pope, had presumed to abrogate the law of clerical exemption from civil jurisdiction and to withdraw the Church’s right to hold real property. The quarrel led to a war of pamphlets in which the part of the Republic was sustained by John Marsiglio and an apostate monk named Paolo Sarpi, and that of the Holy See by Bellarmine and Baronius. Contemporaneous with the Venetian episode was that of the English Oath of Alliance. In 1606, in addition to the grave disabilities which already weighed them down, the English Catholics were required under pain of prœmunire to take an oath of allegiance craftily worded in such wise that a Catholic in refusing to take it might appear to be disavowing an undoubted civl obligation, whilst if he should take it he would be not merely rejecting but even condemning as “impious and heretical” the doctrine of the deposing power, that is to say, of a power, which, whether rightly or wrongly, the Holy See had claimed and exercised for centuries with the full approval of Christendom, and which even in that age the mass of the theologians of Europe defended. The Holy See having forbidden Catholics to take this oath, King James himself came forward as its defender, in a book entitled “Tripoli nodo triplex cuneus,” to which Bellarmine replied in his “Responsio Matthfi Torti.” Other treatises followed on either side, and the result of one, written in denial of the deposing power by William Barclay, an English jurist resident in France, was that Bellarmine’s reply to it was branded by the Regalist Parlement of Paris. Thus it came to pass that, for following the via media of the indirect power, he was condemned in 1590 as too much of a Regalist and in 1605 as too much of a Papalist.

Bellarmine did not live to deal with the later and more serious stage of the Galileo case, but in 1615 he took part in its earlier stage. He had always shown great interest in the discoveries of that investigator, and was on terms of friendly correspondence with him. He took up too—as is witnessed by his letter to Galileo’s friend Foscarini—exactly the right attitude towards scientific theories in seeming contradiction with Scripture. If, as was undoubtedly the case then with Galileo’s heliocentric theory, a scientific theory is insufficiently proved, it should be advanced only as an hypothesis; but if, as is the case with this theory now, it is solidly demonstrated, care must be taken to interpret Scripture only in accordance with it. When the Holy Office condemned the heliocentric theory, by an excess in the opposite direction, it became Bellarmine’s official duty to signify the condemnation to Galileo, and receive his submission. Bellarmine lived to see one more conclave, that which elected Gregory XV (February, 1621). His health was now failing, and in the summer of the same year he was permitted to retire to Sant’ Andrea and prepare for the end. His death was most edifying and was a fitting termination to a life which had been no less remarkable for its virtues than for its achievements.

His spirit of prayer, his singular delicacy of conscience and freedom from sin, his spirit of humility and poverty, together with the disinterestedness which he displayed as much under the cardinal’s robes as under the Jesuit’s gown, his lavish charity to the poor, and his devotedness to work, had combined to impress those who knew him intimately with the feeling that he was of the number of the saints. Accordingly, when he died there was a general expectation that his cause would be promptly introduced. And so it was, under Urban VIII in 1627, when he became entitled to the appellation of Venerable. But a technical obstacle, arising out of Urban VIII’s own general legislation in regard to beatifications, required its prorogation at that time. Though it was reintroduced on several occasions (1675, 1714, 1752, and 1832), and though on each occasion the great preponderance of votes was in favour of the beatification, a successful issue came only after many years. This was partly because of the influential character of some of those who recorded adverse votes, Barbarigo, Casante, and Azzolino in 1675, and Passionei in 1752, but still more for reasons of political expediency, Bellarmine’s name being closely associated with a doctrine of papal authority most obnoxious to the Regalist politicians of the French Court. “We have said,” wrote Benedict XIV to Cardinal de Tencin, “in confidence to the General of the Jesuits that the delay of the Cause has come not from the petty matters laid to his charge by Cardinal Passionei, but from the sad circumstances of the times” (Études Religieuses, 15 April, 1896).

WRITINGS

A full list of Bellarmine’s writings, and of those directed against him, may be seen in Sommervogel’s “Bibliothhque de la compagnie de Jésus.” The following are the principal:

Controversial works. “Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei adversus hujus temporis hereticos,” of the innumerable editions of which the chief are those of Ingolstadt (1586–89), Venice (1596), revised personally by the author, but abounding in printer’s errors, Paris or “Triadelphi” (1608), Prague (1721), Rome (1832); “De Exemptione clericorum,” and “De Indulgentiis et Jubilaeo,” published as monographs in 1599, but afterwards incorporated in the “De Controversiis”; “De Transitu Romani Imperii a Graecis ad Francos” (1584); “Responsio ad praecipua capita Apologiae . . . pro successione Henrici Navarreni” (1586); “Judicium de Libro quem Lutherani vocant Concordiae” (1585); four Risposte to the writings on behalf of the Venetian Republic of John Marsiglio and Paolo Sarpi (1606); “Responsio Matthaei Torti ad librum inscriptum Triplici nodo triplex cuneus” 1608); “Apologia Bellarmini pro responsi one sub ad librum Jacobi Magnae Britanniae Regis” (1609); Tractatus de potestate Summi Pontificis in rebus temporalibus, adversus Gulielmum Barclay” (1610).

Catechetical and Spiritual Works. “Dottrina Cristiana breve,” and “Dichiarazione più copiosa della dottrina cristiana” (1598), two catechetical works which have more than once received papal approbation, and have been translated into various languages; “Dichiarazione del Simbolo” (1604), for the use of priests; “Admonitio ad Episcopum Theanensem nepotem suum quae sint necessaria episcopo” (1612); “Exhortationes domesticae,” published only in 1899, by Pére van Ortroy; “Conciones habitae Lovanii,” the more correct edition (1615); “De Ascensione mentis in Deum” (1615); “De Aeterna felicitate sanctorum” (1616); “De gemitu columbae” (1617); “De septem verbis Christi” (1618); “De arte bene moriendi” (1620). The last five are spiritual works written during his annual retreats.

Exegetical and other works. “De Scriptoribus ecclesiasticis” (1615); “De Editione Latinae Vulgatae, quo sensu a Concilio Tridentino definitum sit ut ea pro authenticae habeatur,” not published till 1749; “In omnes Psalmos dilucida expositio” (1611). Complete editions of Bellarmine’s Opera omnia have been published at Cologne (1617); Venice (1721); Naples (1856); Paris (1870).

Ven. R. Bellarmini, S.R.E. Cardinalis, vita quam ipse scripsit (with an Appendix), written in 1613, at the request of Fathers Eudfmon Joannis and Mutius Vitelleschi, first published among the acta of the Process of Beatification 1675; republished in 1887 by DÖLLINGER AND REUSCH, with notes many of which are useful but the general tone of which is unfair and spiteful; a multitude of unpublished documents in the archives of the Vatican, Simancas, Salamanca, the Society of Jesus, etc.; Epistolœ familiares (1650); EUDAEMON JOANNIS, De pio obitu Card. Bellarmini (1621); FINALI, Esame fatto per me, that is, by the lay brother who attended him in his last sickness, MS.; lives by FULIGATI (1624; translated into Latin with additions by PETRA SANCTA, 1626) and BARTOLI, (1678); CERVINI, Imago virtutum (1625). These form the chief original material. Of derived lives the best are those by FRIZON (1708), and COUDERC (1893). See also LE BACHELET IN VACANT, Dict. de thiol. cath.; and for Bellarmine’s doctrine on papal authority, DE LA SERVIÈRE, De Jacobo Angl. Rege cum Card. R. Bellarmine . . . disputante (1900).

SYDNEY F. SMITH

Edward Bellasis

Serjeant-at-Law, b. 14 October, 1800; d. 24 January, 1873; was one of the most able and respected of that little band of English converts who in the later years of the Tractarian movement joined the Catholic Church from the ranks of the legal profession. The distinguished advocate, J. R. Hope-Scott, who married Sir Walter Scott’s granddaughter, and the conveyancer, Edward Badeley, to whom Cardinal (then Doctor) Newman in 1867 dedicated his volume of “Verses on Various Occasions,” were the Serjeant’s lifelong friends, and all three became Catholics about the same time. Edward Bellasis was the son of the Rev. George Bellasis, D.D., a scion of a younger branch of the Belasyse family (see ), and of his second wife, Leah Cooper Viall, the daughter and heiress of Emery Viall of Walsingham, Norfolk. His uncle, General John Bellasis, and his half-brothers, Joseph and George, won high military honours in India towards the close of the eighteenth century. Edward was educated at Christ’s Hospital, and after making his legal studies at the Inner Temple he contrived at a relatively early age to form an excellent practice at the Chancery bar. It was, however, the period of great railway developments in the United Kingdom, and Bellasis, turning his attention to the Parliamentary Committees, was constantly retained as counsel for the various companies in the proceedings to which the opening up of the new lines gave rise. In 1844 he received the coif of Serjeant-at-Law, a dignity now abolished, and amongst other causes célèbres took part in the famous libel action, Achilli v. Newman, in 1852, and in the litigation connected with the title and estates of the last Catholic Earl of Shrewsbury. In this, as in all his legal work, Bellasis set an example of great disinterestedness. He retired from the profession in 1867, leaving behind him the reputation of an excellent lawyer and a careful and finished speaker.

Although brought up amid rather evangelical surroundings, Serjeant Bellasis had followed with great interest the developments of the Oxford movement. His Catholic tendencies were stimulated partly by the narrowness of anti-Roman prejudice which he recognized in the attitude of his fellow-religionists, and partly by his intercourse with Catholics whom he met on his travels abroad. His approach towards the Church was slow and characteristically prudent, but the friendships he formed with many advanced Anglicans like Oakley, W. G. Ward, and J. B. Morris, who before long passed over to the Roman side, could not fail to produce an effect. Eventually he was received into the Church by Father Brownhill, S.J., 27 December, 1850. His wife and children followed soon after. From that time until his death Serjeant Bellasis was amongst the most devoted and edifying of Catholic laymen. His interest in all Catholic projects was keen, his social and intellectual position was such as commanded respect, and his charity was inexhaustible. From the founding of the new school of the Oratorians under the direction of Dr. Newman, at Edgbaston, to the providing of scientific apparatus for the Observatory at Stonyhurst; from the collection of relics for churches to the encouragement of the Nazareth House Sisters who tended the aged poor, the Serjeant was foremost in every good work. His personal holiness, fostered by constant private retreats, and his kindliness towards all won him universal respect and lent additional effectiveness to the conciliatory pamphlets which he occasionally published in explanation of Catholic truth. His first wife had died as early as 1832. By his second marriage, in 1835, with Miss Eliza Garnett, he left ten children, of whom two sons, the eldest and the youngest, are priests, and three daughters became nuns. In nothing is the beauty of the Serjeant’s character more plainly seen than in those fragments of his intercourse with his children which have been reproduced by his biographer. After his death on the 24th of January, 1873, Cardinal Newman wrote: “He was one of the best men I ever knew.” Newman’s “Grammar of Assent,” published in 1870, bears a dedication to Bellasis. Of the Serjeant’s own publications the best remembered is a volume of short dialogues collected under the title “Philotheus and Eugenia.”

Bellasis, Memorial of Mr. Serjeant Bellasis (2d ed., London, 1895), a charming biography written by his son, Mr. Edward Bellasis, Lancaster Herald, and partly based on some autobiographical notes. It includes two excellent portraits. Dict. of Nat. Biog., IV, 180; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. of Eng. Cath., I.

HERBERT THURSTON.

Aloysius Bellecius

Jesuit ascetic author, born at Freiburg im Breisgau, 15 February, 1704; died at Augsburg, 27 April, 1757. He taught philosophy one year and theology seven, and spent four years as a missionary in South America among the Indians living along the Amazon. Recalled to Europe, he was charged with the spiritual care of his religious brethren and later with the direction of the seminary of Porrentruy in the Diocese of Basle. He is the author of a number of ascetical works in Latin, most of which have been translated into different languages and often reprinted. The most noteworthy of these are: “Christianis pie moriens” (1749); “Virtutis Solidae praecipua impedimenta, subsidia, et incitamenta” (1755); “Medula Asceseos seu exercitia S.P. Ignatii” (1757); “Triduum Sacrum praecipue Religiosorum usui accomodatum” (1757). English translations of the last three have been made and are still in print. The first, entitled “Solid Virtue,” is translated from the French (London, 1887); the second appeared under the title “Spiritual Exercises according to the method of St. Ignatius,” translated from the Italian version of Father Bresciani, S.J. by William Hutch, D.D. (London, 1876). In this translation Father Bresciani slightly modified some of the opinions of Bellecius which he considered too rigid. The third translation was made by Father John Holtzer, S.J., and was published in New York in 1882. It is entitled: “Solid Virtue: A Triduum and Spiritual Conferences.” The Triduum is an abridgement of Bellecius’s larger work on “Solid Virtue”—an abridgement made by himself. The three Spiritual Conferences show practically in what solid virtue consists.

Bibliotheque de la compagnie de Jesus, I, 1260; Watrigant in dict. de theol. cath., II, 599.

S.H. FRISBEE

John Bellenden

(Ballenden, or Ballantyne)

A Scotch poet, b. at Haddington or Berwick in the latter part of the fifteenth century; d. at Rome, c. 1587. He was a Catholic and at an early age matriculated at the University of St. Andrews. Later he went to Paris, where he took the degree of Doctor of Divinity at the Sorbonne. Returning to Scotland, he brought with him from Paris the great work by Hector Bocce, the “Historia Scotorum,” and was received with great favour at the court of James V. He was subsequently appointed by the king to undertake the work of translating the “Historia” into the Scotch vernacular, which, together with some poems that he wrote at this period, occupied him about three years. He was also commissioned by the king to translate Livy into English, a work which hitherto had not been attempted. Bellenden was appointed Archdeacon of Moray, and in the succeeding reign he was vigorous in his opposition to Protestantism. This opposition subsequently led to his flight to escape persecution. He is supposed to be identical with one of the same name who was at one time secretary to Archibald, Earl of Angus.

Dict. Nat. Biog., IV, 186.

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE

Diocese of Belleville

The Diocese of Belleville comprises that part of southern Illinois, U.S.A., which lies south of the northern limits of St. Clair, Clinton, Marion, Clay, Richland, and Lawrence counties, an area of 11,678 square miles. This territory was formerly a part of the Diocese of Alton, but upon the demise of Bishop Baltes, of that see, a new diocese was erected, 7 January, 1887, with the episcopal see at Belleville, St. Clair Co. The Rev. John Janssen, who had held the office vicar-general successively under Bishop Juncker and Bishop Baltes of Alton, was appointed first bishop of the newly erected diocese on 28 February, 1888, and consecrated on 25 April, 1888. The standing of the new diocese at that time is shown by the following statistics: secular priests fifty-six; regular four; churches with resident priests fifty-three; missions with churches twenty-nine; academies three; parochial schools fifty-three; children attending 5,395; orphan asylum 1; orphans 30; hospitals 3. The Catholic population was about 50,000 and remained almost stationary for a number of years. The mining industries in the southern part of the diocese are fast developing, so that, with immigration, the population has increased to 56,200, with bright prospects for the future. The diocese has 100 secular and two regular priests; eighty-two churches with resident priests; thirty-two missions with churches; eighteen chapels; twenty-four ecclesiastical students; a high school for boys; two academies for young ladies; sixty-seven parochial schools with 5,033 pupils; an orphan asylum with 112 orphans; eight hospitals; and a house for the aged. The following religious communities are represented in the diocese: Brothers of Mary, Sisters of Christian Charity, Sisters of St. Dominic, Franciscan Sisters, Hospital Sisters of St. Francis, School Sisters of St. Francis, Sisters of the Poor Handmaids of Christ, Sisters of the Holy Cross, Sisters of St. Joseph, Polish Sisters of St. Joseph, Sisters of Loretto, School Sisters of Notre Dame, Sisters of the Precious Blood, Servants of Mary, Ursuline Sisters, and White Benedictine Sisters of Mt. Olive.

To this diocese belong some of the oldest missions of the West. The records of the church of Kaskaskia date from the year 1695 and give the name of the Rev. Jac. Gravier, S.J., as the missionary priest. The Jesuits continued to attend to the wants of the Indian tribe of the Kaskaskias and of the French, and alternately the Jesuit Fathers De Beaubois, Le Boullenger, Tartarin, Aubert, and Meurin had this territory as the field of their apostolic labours. Father Meurin was the last Jesuit doing missionary work at Kaskaskia; the order was suppressed in his time. He died at Prairie du Rocher and is buried at Florissant, Missouri. The Rev. P. Gibault who in 1768 came from Quebec was the first secular priest, who as resident pastor of Kaskaskia had charge also of the large surrounding territory, and who became vicar-general of the territory of Illinois. He continued his arduous labours until 1791, the time of his death. Until 1820 the Lazarist Fathers were in this field; after that the work was continued by secular priests. The old town of Kaskaskia, with its statehouse and church, has been swallowed up by the Mississippi River and about two miles farther inland a new town and a new church have been built up.

The organization of the congregation of Prairie du Rocher coincides with the building of the first Fort Chartres on the banks of the Mississippi in 1720. The Rev. J. Le Boullenger, chaplain of the militia stationed at the Fort, was placed in charge of the congregation. The church, built by the people, was placed under the protection of St. Anne. In 1743 the Rev. J. Gagnon, S.J., took charge of the mission and laboured there until his death in 1755. His remains were interred by the side of the altar in the chapel in the cemetery. This chapel was built in 1734, and placed under the patronage of St. Joseph. When the river inundated one corner of the newly built stone structure at Fort Chartres and threatened the village and St. Anne’s church, the Fort was evacuated, the village deserted; its inhabitants sought the high ground at the foot of the bluffs, and the cemetery chapel became the parish church and served as such until 1858, when a brick church was erected. Among the missionaries who worked there, the names of Gabriel Richard (later Delegate to Congress from Michigan); Doutien Olivier (who lived to by ninety-five years of age); Xavier Dahmen, and John Timon (later Bishop of Buffalo, New York) deserve special mention. The early records of the old church of Cahokia have been lost, and accurate data can be found from the year 1783 only. At that time the religious wants of the Catholics of Cahokia and the surrounding territory, including St. Louis across the river, were attended to by Father De Saintpierre. When in 1843 the Diocese of Chicago was erected, Cahokia, Prairie du Long, Belleville, Shoal Creek (now Germantown), Kaskaskia, Prairie du Rocher, and Shawneetown were the only parishes in the territory new comprised by the Diocese of Belleville.

Shea, Hist. of Cath. Ch. In U.S. (New York, 1904); Missiones Catholicae (Propaganda, Rome, 1907), 539.

H.J. HAGEN

Diocese of Belley

Diocese of Belley (Bellicium)

Coextensive with the civil department of Ain and a suffragan of the Archbishopric of Besançon. Although suppressed at the time of the Concordat, the diocese of Belley was re-established in 1822 and took from the Archdiocese of Lyons the arrondissements of Belley, Bourg, Nantua, and Trévoux, and from the Archdiocese of Chambéry the arrondissement of Gex.

Local tradition maintains that Belley was evangelized in the second century by the martyrs Marcellus and Valerian, companions of St. Pothinus. The first bishop of historic certainty is Vincentius, mentioned in 552. Others who occupied the see were St. Hippolytus, Abbot of Condat (eighth century); St. Anthelm (1163–78), seventh General of the Carthusian Order; St. Arthaud (1179–90), founder of the Carthusians at Arvières; Camus (1609–29), a noted preacher and romancist; and Monseigneur Francois M. Richard (1872–75), later Cardinal and Archbishop of Paris. Belley honours in a special manner St. Amandus, Bishop of Maastricht, who founded the Abbey of Nantua about 660; St. Vulbas, a patrician of Bourgogne and a war companion of King Dagobert, treacherously assassinated in 642; St. Rambert, killed by order of Ebroin in the seventh century, whose name has been given to a city of the diocese; St. Trivier, the solitary, who died about 650; St. Barnard (ninth century), who founded the great Benedictine Abbey of Ambronay and died Archbishop of Vienna; St. Lambert (twelfth century), founder of the Cistercian Abbey at Chezery; St. Roland (twelfth century), Abbot of Chezery; St. Stephen of Chatillon, who founded the Carthusian monastery at Portes, in 1115, and died Bishop of Die; St. Stephen of Bourg, who founded the Carthusian monastery at Meyria in 1116; and Bl. Jean-Baptiste Vianney (1786–1859), parish priest at Ars.

The Diocese of Belley which, in the Middle Ages, had no less than eight Carthusian monasteries, was the birthplace of the Joséphistes, a congregation founded by Jacques Crétenet (1606–67), a layman and surgeon who became a priest after the death of his wife; of the teaching order of the Sisters of St. Charles, founded by Charles Demia of Bourg (1636–89); and of three teaching orders founded in the first half of the nineteenth century: the Brothers of the Society of the Cross of Jesus; the Brothers of the Holy Family of Belley, and the Sisters of St. Joseph of Bourg. In 1858 a Trappist monastery was established in the unhealthy Dombes district. Cardinal Louis Aleman (1390–1450) and Soeur Rosalie (1787–1856), noted in the history of modern Parisian charities, were both native of the Diocese of Belley. Blessed Pierre-Louis-Marie Chanel was born at Cuet near Bourg. For thirty years of its existence (1701–31), “Le Journal de Trévoux,” a valuable repertory of the literary and religious history of the period, was published by the Jesuits at Trévoux, in this diocese. The church at Brou, near Bourg, is a marvel of architecture and contains some wonderful pieces of sculpture. It was built between 1511 and 1536 under the direction of Margaret of Austria, widow of Philibert (II) the Fair, Duke of Savoy.

The latest statistics for the diocese have the following institutions: 1 maternity hospital, 66 infant schools, 1 deaf-mute institute, 3 boys’ orphanages, 10 girls’ orphanages, 21 hospitals, or hospices, 2 dispensaries, 21 communities for the care of the sick in their homes, 1 home for incurables, and 5 homes for the aged, all conducted by sisters; and 1 deaf-mute institute, and 2 insane asylums conducted by brothers.

In 1900 the following religious orders were represented in the Diocese of Belley: Carthusians, at Portes and Sélignac; Trappists at Notre Dame des Dombes; Marists at Belley; Lazarists at Musiniens; and Fathers of the Blessed Sacrament at Trévoux. Congregations local to the diocese are: two teaching orders; the Brothers of the Society of the Cross of Jesus founded by M. Bochard in 1824, and the Brothers of the Holy Family, founded by Brother Taborin in 1835; and the Sisters of St. Joseph, with mother-house at Bourg, very numerous throughout the department. At the close of the year 1905 the Diocese of Belley contained 350,416 inhabitants, 36 parishes, 404 mission churches, and 75 curacies.

Gallia christiana (1860), XV, 601–644; Instrumenta, 305–358; Depery, Histoire hagiologique de Belley (Bourg, 1834, 1835); Nyd, Etudes sur les origines du siege episcopal de Belley and Recherches historiques sur les origines et les temps anciens du diocese de Belley in the Revue de la societe litteraire de l’Ain (1878, 1879, 1884, 1885); Duchesne, Fastes episcopaux, I, 16; Chevalier, Topobibl., 362.

GEORGES GOYAU

Sir Richard Bellings

(Or Belling)

Irish historian, b. near Dublin early in the seventeenth century; d. in 1677. He was the son of Sir Henry Bellings, a Catholic landowner in Leinster. He was trained to the law and entered Lincoln’s Inn, London, and while there wrote a supplementary book (the sixth) to Sir Philip Sydney’s “Arcadia,” which has been generally printed with that work. He returned to Ireland, became a member of the Irish Parliament, and married a daughter of Viscount Mountgarret. In 1642, when the Irish Confederation was formed, Bellings joined, his father-in-law being president, and became secretary to the Supreme Council. He was sent to the continent in 1644 as a representative of this body. In the following year he returned to Ireland and was active as a royalist till 1649, when he withdrew to France, most of his property having been confiscated by the Cromwellians. His estate was restored to him after the accession of Charles II, who, with Ormonde, held him in high regard. He died in 1677 and was buried near Dublin. Perhaps his chief work is his defence of the Catholics of Ireland, “Vindiciarum Catholicorum Hiberniae libri duo,” which, under the pseudonym of “Philopater Irenaeus,” was published at Paris in 1650. During his later years he also wrote an account of Irish affairs (1641–48), an imperfect copy of which was printed in 1772. The complete work was, however, recovered, and was published under the editorship of John T. Gilbert, with the following title: “History of the Irish Confederation and the War in Ireland, 1641–48.” This edition (Dublin, 1882–85) is enriched with many valuable documents and many illustrative notes, and was published form the original MSS. The above-mentioned “Vindication” is regarded as one of the most trustworthy of the many works written on that period. However, the Irish Franciscan, Father John Ponce, controverted many of its statements in his “Richardi Bellingi Vindiciae Eversae” (Paris, 1653). A “Letter from Richard Bellings to M. Callaghan” on Irish affairs (Paris, c. 1652) is to be found in a French translation of the same date in the Gilbert Library, Dublin.

Harris, Writers of Ireland (Dublin, 1764), I, 165.

D.J. O’DONOGHUE

Bellini

GIACOMO (JACOPO) BELLINI

Father of Gentile and Giovanni Bellini, b. about 1400; d. 1471. Interest in him arises mainly from the fact that he was the teacher of his sons who were the chief founders of the Venetian school of painting. The paintings produced by Giacomo Bellini which are still in existence are unimportant and few in number. His interesting sketch-book proves, however, his industry and power of observation. It contains copies of antique statues and reliefs, drawings portraying Biblical stories and Christian legends, and sketches form nature and life which are executed with animation and show a sense of perspective in the composition. He was a competitor in art of the painters of the Vivarini family who came from the neighbouring island of Murano; Antonio and Bartolommeo Vivarini opened a studio in Venice but they were excelled by the Billinis. Giacomo Bellini had worked under Gentile da Fabriano in his native city and at Florence. He had also been employed at other places, especially at Padua, where he came under the influence of the classic and plastic tendencies of Squarcione. His sons at an early age became his assistants at Venice.

GENTILE BELLINI

(Born about 1427; died 1507). He was the elder of the brothers. He also had been in Padua and painted at first in the style of Squarcione, Donatello, and Mantegna; this style was good in conveying individuality, but it was weak in composition and somewhat clumsy. The painting containing the four heroic-sized figures of Saints Mark, Theodore, Jerome, and Francis, the picture of the patriarchs surrounded by ecclesiastics and angels, a Madonna with the benefactors of a religious foundation, and a bust-portrait of the doge belong to this period. At first Gentile worked mainly in partnership with his father and brothers, as at Padua in the Cappella di Gattamelata. But after the father retired, Gentile’s fame soon exceeded that of the elder Bellini. He painted eight pictures in the Scuola di San Giovanni Evangelista at Venice in continuation of his father’s work “The Miracle of the Holy Cross.” Three of these pictures, painted between 1490–1500, are preserved in a damaged condition at the Academy of Venice. These pictures bear throughout the characteristic peculiarities of the Venetian school of painting. They are filled with figures from real life, which are clearly modelled, each figure having its own individuality; the religious processions are stately, the architecture which appears is of great splendour, and skill is shown in the perspective of lines and atmosphere.

The “Sermon of St. Mark at Alexandria,” now at Milan, which Giovanni completed after the death of his brothers, equals those just mentioned in worth. It also shows a large number of figures skilfully grouped, an over-elaborate architectural background, much pomp in the scene depicted, brilliant light, and great richness of colour. The Oriental costumes added a new grace to the painting. In 1479 Gentile had gone to Constantinople on the recommendation of the Signory who had been requested by the Sultan Mohammed II to send him a portrait-painter. Gentile painted the Sultan and other important personages. He brought home a great many sketches, including one of the Sultan and the Dowager Sultana in sitting posture. The journey to Constantinople was not only instructive but greatly increased the fame of the painter. Among the fruits of this trip are a portrait (in the Layard collection at Venice) giving the head and shoulders of Mohammed, and the canvas “Reception of the Venetian Ambassadors by the Grand Vizier,” now in the Louvre. The visit to Constantinople had, however, interrupted another large undertaking. In 1474 Gentile had been honoured with the commission to restore the paintings in the Great Council Chamber of the doge’s palace and to add to their number. Earlier artists had painted for the hall a series of pictures on a large scale representing scenes from the history of Venice. Gentile after his return from Constantinople, in company with his brother, went on with the work. The seven pictures they produced were destroyed in the fire of 1577. In his middle and later period Gentile abandoned tempera and painted in oil.

GIOVANNI BELLINI

Giovanni Bellini (born about 1428; died 1516) carried the new form of art to its greatest height. He was greatly influenced by the tendencies which have been mentioned; of these the style of his father and of the Paduan school had the most effect upon him. Mantegna was his brother-in-law. Another painter who strongly affected him was Antonello da Messina. Messina was the first person in Italy to understand the Flemish method of painting in oil, and towards the end of his life he spent several years (1474–76) in Milan and Venice. The surroundings of Venetian life and the realistic direction which Venetian art had taken gave the Venetian painters a keep perception of the charm of colour, so that even the short time during which Messina was with them sufficed to lead them into a new path. The genius of Giovanni Bellini enabled him to obtain the full benefit of the new stimulus; at the same time other painters, Bartolommeo and Luigi Vivarini, Gentile Bellini, and other men, also took up the new technic. The use of the new medium produced a softness of outline and an improvement in the modelling which tempered the hardness of the Paduan style and obtained beautiful effects in colour. Giovanni had more feeling and a keener spiritual insight than his brother, and his style gradually developed until he attained a perfect harmony of drawing, perspective, drapery, light, and colour.

His two Pietas, in Venice, produce a deep effect on the mind, yet they betray a striking harshness which becomes at times even ugliness, showing that the characteristic qualities of his style had not yet developed into a harmonious beauty. The painting at Berlin of the “Angels Mourning over Christ” although in the relief style, is noble, tender, and rich in colour. The feeling of devotion loses nothing here through the realistic portrayal of all the details. A peculiarity of these pictures is the upright position of the dead body of Christ. The smaller pictures of the Madonna appear at all stages in the development of the artist. Notwithstanding their large number they show no real repetition; at times the expression of Mother and Child is very earnest, at times strange, then again it is lovely and perfectly natural. In one of them the Child listens in a most winning way to the song of the angels and looks upward with open mouth in childlike astonishment, while the Mother is absorbed in her Infant.

The carefully worked out details of these pictures are not too obtrusive. Giovanni preferred half-length figures even when a number of saints were grouped together; as, for example, in the pictures which represent Mary Magdalen and St. Catherine, or St. Paul and St. George, in company with the Madonna. Similar to these is the fine picture “The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple.” Mary offers the Child to the high-priest over a table while the aged Simeon and Joseph worship. Giovanni did not attempt to solve, even in his larger works, such difficult problems of perspective and of the gradation of light and shade as his brother undertook. He had, however, learned from his brother the entire art of the distribution of light and shade and applied it with more skill to bringing out the inner feeling of a composition. Unfortunately we are not able to judge of his style in historical work as we are in the case of his brother. His historical compositions, seven in all, were painted for the Great Council Chamber of the doge’s palace. He worked on these from 1479 until his death; at times the work was done in conjunction with his brother, at times he had the aid of other men. The paintings were all destroyed by the fire in 1577. Two duplicates remain of the portraits of the doges, painted in the same place, and these show his skill in portrait-painting. His masterpieces, however, are his great devotional and altar pictures.

Giovanni’s artistic powers entered their period of highest development in 1479. In this year he completed the first large oil painting produced at Venice. In a niche which rises in arched form over pilasters is enthroned the Madonna holding with a solemn, earnest expression the Divine Child. The Child stretches out its little hands towards the worshipping sufferer, Job, who is thus honoured as a patron of the Church. Near Job stands St. Francis, farther back is John the Baptist, to the right are St. Sebastian, St. Dominic, and Bishop Leo. At the foot of the throne are angels playing musical instruments, above in the curve of the arch are cherubim and the inscription, “Ave virginiei flos intemerate pudoris.” The Virgin herself seems to be thrilled by the solemn inspiration of the moment and raises her left as if in warning not to disturb the music of the angels. Deep devotion is expressed on all the faces. A large picture of the year 1488 at Murano in which St. Martin presents the Doge Barbarigo to the enthroned Madonna suffers somewhat from a mechanical symmetry. Nevertheless the same musical tone prevails in it, together with great richness of colouring and costume. On each side is seen a beautiful landscape in the distance. By means of the action presented a greater unity is obtained in this canvas than in the one just mentioned, and much more still than in the Madonna of San Zaccaria, Venice (1505). In the latter the enthroned Madonna holding the Child is surrounded by Saints Catherine, Peter, Jerome, and Lucia. Each one of the saints is separately absorbed in devotion while an angel at the foot of the throne softly touches the strings of his instrument in accompaniment to the spirit of adoration. Here also the feeling produced by the music creates the unity of the whole composition and the painting is a wonderful expression of adoring worship. The scene is laid in a beautiful Renaissance structure the arches of which are adorned with mosaics.

One can perceive the unity of composition attained by means of this spirit of devotion and music of the angels even in those canvases where the surrounding saints stand in separate niches. Such, for example, is the picture where four saints are represented on the wings of an altar-piece in the church of Santa Maria dei Frari at Venice (1488). The Mother and Child are enthroned in the middle space; at their feet two boy-angels are playing cheerfully on the lute and flute. A lighter, although by no means a jarring impression, is made by this triptych. The separated position of the saints, to whom an altar and a church had been consecrated, recalls the practice of the older painters. By uniting the saints in the same space and giving then an outer as well as an inner relation to one another Bellini created the so-called “Sacre Conversazioni,” or “the Societies of Saints.” It was not necessary that the personages should belong to the same historical time, as they receive in the altar-piece a new, ideal life. The spirit of devotion inspired by the Madonna and her Divine Child unites them sufficiently but the more so when a new bond of union arises from the action indicated in the composition, such as, in many cases, the beautiful music or even the effect produced by light and shade.

A couple of pictures should be mentioned in which Giovanni, whom time never robbed of the freshness of his imagination, set for himself problems in landscape-painting. In 1501 he painted a “Baptism of Christ” in which the art of Georgione and Titian seems to be apparent. The scene is laid in a romantic mountain-valley lighted by the evening sunshine. Three kneeling angels are the witnesses. The influence of younger painters is very evident in a picture having the same tone as the one just mentioned, the picture of St. Jerome. Giovanni continued to learn even when he was old, although he was properly more often the teacher and never obscured his own individuality of style. St. Jerome, in this picture, is seated on a great rock in front of a mountain landscape and is absorbed in the study of the Scriptures. In the foreground, on an eminence, stands St. Augustine absorbed in thought, and on the other side is St. Christopher holding the Child Jesus. These three mighty men of Christianity may also be considered as bound together by an inner spiritual unity. In the “Death of Peter the Martyr” there is a prospect to right and left from the forest out over a city and mountains. Such vistas are always important features in the genre pictures for which Giovanni had a strong liking. Giovanni had little taste for mythological scenes and his few canvases of this kind do not need mention.

Berenson, The Venetian Painters (New York and London, 1897); Woltmann and Woermann, Geschichte der Malerei (Leipzig, 1879); Riehl, Kunstcharaktere (Frankfort, 1893); Woermann, Geschichte der Kunst (Leipzig, 1900).

G. GIETMANN

Jean-Baptiste de Belloy

Cardinal-Archbishop of Paris, b. 9 October, 1709, at Morangles in the Diocese of Beauvais; d. in Paris, 10 June, 1808. Although of an ancient family of no mean military fame, young Belloy preferred an ecclesiastical career, made his classical and theological studies at Paris, where he was ordained priest, and received the degree of Doctor in Theology in 1737. In the ministry he shone more by his virtue than by his learning. Sweetness of character, enlightened and moderate zeal, unswerving fidelity to the principles and traditions of the church, characterized him through life, and rendered even his early ministry remarkably fruitful. His bishop, Cardinal de Gevres, appointed him vicar-general and archdeacon of his cathedral. In 1751 he was consecrated Bishop of Glandeves. At the famous Assembly of the French Clergy of 1755, he took sides with the moderate party and contributed to the restoration of tranquillity in the Church of France. Dissensions occasioned by the bull “Unigenitus” had become so great in the Diocese of Marseilles that, at the death of the saintly Bishop de Belsunce, there was imminent danger of schism. In this emergency a chief pastor of consummate prudence and tact was needed, and Bishop de Belloy was accordingly transferred to that see. Without sacrifice of principle or duty, by gentleness, tact, and justice, he gained the confidence of both parties and restored peace. In July, 1790, the National Assembly decreed the suppression of the Diocese of Marseilles. The bishop withdrew, but sent to the assembly a letter of protest against the suppression of one of the oldest episcopal sees of France. He retired to Chambly, a little town near his native place, where he remained during the most critical period of the Revolution. When, in 1801, the sovereign pontiff decided that the French bishops should tender their resignation in order to facilitate the conclusion of the Concordat, he was the first to comply, setting the example which exercised great influence over the other bishops. Napoleon, highly pleased with this act of devotion to Church and State, appointed the nonagenarian bishop to the See of Paris. Notwithstanding his extreme age he governed his new diocese with astonishing vigour and intelligence, reorganized the parishes, provided them with good pastors, and visited his flock in person. He restored the Crown of Thorns (10 August, 1806) to its place of honour in the Sainte Chapelle. Napoleon was so well satisfied that he asked and readily obtained for him the cardinal’s hat, which Pius VII placed on the prelate’s venerable head in a consistory held in Paris, 1 February, 1805. At his death Cardinal de Belloy had spent seventy-five years in the holy ministry to the edification of all and the evident satisfaction of both Napoleon and Pius VII, then engaged in deadly conflict. He is buried in Notre Dame, Paris, where the monument erected by Napoleon in his honour is one of the finest in the cathedral.

Fisquet, La France pontificale (Paris), I, 542–556; Feller, Biog. Univ., II, 199.

CHARLES B. SCHRANTZ

Bells

The subject will be treated under the following heads:

I. Origin;

II. Benediction;

III. Uses;

IV. Archaeology and Inscriptions;

V. Points of Law.

I. ORIGIN

That bells, at any rate hand-bells of relatively small size, were familiar to all the chief nations of antiquity is a fact beyond dispute. The archaeological evidence for this conclusion has been collected in the monograph of Abbé Morillot and is quite overwhelming. Specimens are still preserved of the bells used in ancient Babylonia and in Egypt, as well as by the Romans and Greeks, while the bell undoubtedly figured no less prominently in such independent civilizations as those of China and Hindustan. There is consequently no reason why the bells upon the high priest’s ephod (Ex., xxxiii, 33) should not have been tiny bells of normal shape. Further it may be inferred from the purposes for which they were used that the tintinnabula of which we read in the classics, must at least in some instances have betokened hand-bells of larger size. See for example Martial, “Epig.,” xiv, 161, where the signal for the opening of the baths is made with a tintinnabulum also described as œs thermarum. None the less, the question whether anything corresponding in size to a church bell was known in pre-Christian times does not readily admit of an answer. We are not only ignorant of the dimensions, but also of the shape of the kodon which was used for example to announce the opening of the public markets (Cf. Strabo, Geogr., IV, xxi). We translate the word as bell, but it is possible that it would be more correctly rendered gong or cymbals. The officer who made the round of the sentries at night carried a (Thucyd., IV, cxxxv; Aristoph., Aves, 842 sqq.), and it is difficult to believe that anything resembling an ordinary bell could have been used for a duty in which the avoidance of accidental noise must often have been of the highest importance.

In coming to the Christian period the same difficulty is encountered. A new set of terms is introduced, signum, campana, clocca, nola, which are all commonly translated “bell,” and it is certain that at a later period these were all used to denote what were in the strictest sense “church bells” of large size. The first Christian writer who frequently speaks of bells (signa) is Gregory of Tours (c. 585). We learn that they were struck or shaken, and we find mention of a cord being used for this purpose (funem illum de quo signum commovetur, “De Vitâ Martini,” I, xxviii), while as regards the use of these signa it appears that they rung before church services and that they roused the monks from their beds. Again, the word signum appears in the almost contemporary “Life of St. Columban” (615), for when one of his monks was dying Columban is said to have assembled the community by ringing the bell (signo tacto omnes adesse imperavit), Krusch, “Scrip. Merov.,” IV, 85). Similar expressions, signo tacto, or cum exauditum fuerit signum, are used in Constitutions attributed to St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 513) and in the Rule of St. Benedict (c. 540). Moreover, if Dom Ferotin’s view of the very early date of the Spanish ordinals which he has published (Monumenta Liturgica, V) could be safely accepted, it is possible that large bells were in common use in Spain at the same period. Still it must be remembered that signum primarily meant a signal and we must not be too hasty in attributing to it a specific instead of a generic meaning when first employed by Merovingian writers.

Again, the word campana, which even in the early Middle Ages undoubtedly meant a church bell and nothing else, occurs first, if Reifferscheid’s “Anecdota Cassinensia” (p. 6) may be trusted, in Southern Italy (c. 515) in a letter to the deacon Ferrandus to Abbot Eugippius. It has been suggested from a Latin inscription connected with Arval Brethren (C.I., L. VI, no. 2067) that it was previously used to mean some kind of brazen vessel. However, no quite satisfactory examples of campana in church Latin seem to be forthcoming before that latter part of the seventh century, and it is then found in the North. It is used by Cummian at Iona (c. 665) and by Bede in Northumbria (c. 710), and frequently elsewhere after that date. In Rome, the “Liber Pontificalis” tells us that Pope Stephen II (752–757) erected a bellfry with three bells (campanae) at St. Peter’s. It was probably this name which led Walafrid Strabo in the first half of the ninth century to make the assertion that bells were of Italian origin and that they came from Campania and more particularly from the town of Nola. Later writers went further and attributed the invention to St. Paulinus of Nola, but as St. Paulinus himself in the minute description which he has left of his own church makes no mention of bells, this is extremely improbable.

The word clocca (Fr. cloche; Ger. Glocke; Eng. clock) is interesting because in this case it is definitely known what was meant by it. It was certainly Irish in origin and it occurs at an early date both in Latin and in the Irish form clog. Thus it is found in Book of Armagh and is used by Adamnan in his life of St. Columbkill written c. 685. The Irish and English missionaries no doubt imported it into Germany where it appears more than once in the Sacramentary of Gellone. It is plain that in primitive Celtic lands an extraordinary importance was attached to bells. A very large number of these ancient bells, more than sixty in all—the immense majority being Irish—are still in existence. Many of them are reputed to have belonged to Irish saints and partake of the character of relics. The most famous is that of St. Patrick, the clog-an-edachta, or “bell-off-the-will” now preserved in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin. There seems no serious reason to doubt that this was taken from the tomb in the year 552. Like most of these bells, it had an official and hereditary custodian (in this case named Mulholland) in whose possession it remained, being handed down for centuries from father to son. Other similar early bells are those of St. Senan (c. 540) and St. Mura; there are several in Scotland and Wales, one at St. Gall in Switzerland, one known as the Saufang at Colonge, and another at Noyon in France. The evidence for the extraordinary veneration with which these bells were regarded in Celtic lands is overwhelming. Even Giraldus Cambrensis notes in the twelfth century that upon them was taken the most solemn form of oath. They were also carried into battle, and even though the earlier specimens are nothing but rude cow-bells, wedge-shape in form and made of iron plate bent and roughly riveted, still they were often enclosed at a later daye in cases or “shrines” of the richest workmanship. The shrine of St. Patrick’s bell bears an inscription of some length from which we learn that this beautiful specimen of the jeweler’s craft must have been wrought about 1005. History tends to repeat itself, and if we remember the important part played in the missionary work of St. Francis Xavier by the handbell with which he gathered round him the children, the idle, or the curious, we have probably a clue to the intimate association of these very early Celtic bells with the work of Christianity. When in 1683 Father Maunoir, the great Breton missionary, had at last to relinquish further expeditions, the bell which he handed on to his successor was regarded as a sort of investiture. It may be noted that the famous round towers of Ireland, which are now generally recognized to have been places of refuge against the inroads of the Danes and other marauders were commonly called cloc teach. The bells occasionally stored there for the sake of safety seem to have been regarded as the most precious of their treasures and from this circumstance the towers probably derived their name, though it is of course possible that they in some cases served as belfries in the more ordinary sense.

The great development in the use of bells may be identified with the eighth century. It was then, seemingly, that they began to be regarded as an essential part of the equipment of every church, and also that the practice of blessing them by a special form of consecration became generally prevalent. If we interpreted literally a well-known passage in Bede (Hist. Eccl. ., IV, xxi), we should have to believe that already in the year 680, the bell (campana) that was rung at Whitby at the passing away of St. Hilda was heard at Hackness thirteen miles off. But the whole setting of the story implies that Bede regarded the occurrence as miraculous and that the distance might as well as have been thirty miles as thirteen. On the other hand, it is clear that in the eighth century church towers began to be built for the express purpose of hanging bells in them, which implies that the bells must have been increasing in size. The case of St. Peter’s in Rome has already been noticed. So in the annals of St. Vandrille (cap. x, p. 33) we read that in the time of Ermharius who died in 738 that abbot had a bell made, to be hung in the little tower (turricula) “as is the custom of such churches”; while the “Monachus Sangallensis” (DeCarlo Magno, I, xxxi) tells the story of a monastic bell-founder who asked Charlemagne to give him a hundred pounds of silver with a proportionate amount of cooper to provide materials for a single bell. In any case it is certain from Charlemagne’s “Capitularies,” as well as from Alcuin, Amalarius, and other writers of the early ninth century that by that time in the Frankish dominions every parish church was expected to have one bell. In the next century Regino of Pr m, providing a programme of questions to be asked at an episcopal visitation, puts in the very first place a question about the church bells. Seeing that the clearest evidence of the popularity of church bells in Carlovingian times is encountered in regions where the influence of Irish or English missionaries had prevailed, it may perhaps be concluded that this development should be traced to Celtic influence. The missionary’s hand-bell, with which he gathered his congregation together in the open air, would soon become sacred as a thing immediately associated with him and his work. Moreover, the idea would grow up that no religious service could take place without some preliminary ringing of a bell. Although we have traces of the use of signa and companae in monasteries before the Irish became missionaries, there is no evidence to show that these were bells rather than gongs. On the other hand, semantron, used to announce the beginning of service in Greek monasteries, was a flat plate of metal and its name (from semainein, “to make a signal”) is obviously the counterpart of signum. Further we also find in the old glossary of the tenth century that the Greek word tympanon (drum) is given as the equivalent of campanum (Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum. III, 24). At the same time, we can trace in Ireland itself a gradual evolution of the shape of the bell, passing from the small cow-bell of riveted iron to the cast bronze instrument of considerable size with which we are now familiar.

II. BENEDICTION

Since the beginning of the sixteenth century there has been much purposeless controversy over the question of the so-called “baptism” of the bells. Protestant critics, following the lead of Luther himself, have professed to find in the rite not only superstition but a profanation of the sacrament. But one might as well be scandalized at the ceremonial usually followed in the launching and christening of a ship. The phrase “baptism of bells” is merely popular and metaphorical. It has been tolerated, but has never been formally recognized by the Church. (Benedict, XIV, Instit., 47, n. 33). Every Catholic child is aware that the essence of the Sacrament of Baptism consists in the form: “I baptize thee,” etc., but no properly authorized ritual for the blessing of the bells is known to have contained any phrase which can be regarded as an equivalent or parody of these words. Certain local “agenda” in which something of the sort is found, for example in Colonge (see Schönfelder, Liturgishe Bibliothek, I, 99–100) appear never to have received any official recognition (cf. The Month, September 1907). On the other hand, the ceremonial of the Church is often imitative. The rite for the blessing of palms closely follows the arrangement of the variable portions of the Mass. The order for the coronation of a king copies that so nearly for the consecration of a bishop that Anglican writers recently contended the king is a “spiritual person” invested with episcopal powers. Hence it would not be surprising that in the “Benedictio Signi vel Compan a certain resemblance should be traced to details in the ritual of baptism. Exorcisms are used, and water and salt and unctions with the holy oils; the bell receives a name, and formerly, at least, the name was suggested by a “godfather.” But for all the controversy the resemblances are really very superficial. The following is a summary of the ceremony now in use from which the medieval pontificals differ but slightly. The bishop in white vestments first recites seven psalms with his attendant clergy to implore the Divine assistance. The he mixes salt with water, reciting prayers of exorcism analogous to those always used in the preparation of holy water, but making special reference to the bell and to the evil influences of the air—the phantoms, the storms, the lightning—which threaten the peace of devout Christians who come to the church to sing the praises of God. Then the bishop and his attendants “wash” (lavant) the bell inside and out with the water thus prepared and dry it with towels, the psalm “Laudate Dominum de coelis” and five others of similar import being sung meanwhile. These are followed by various unctions, those on the outside of the bell being made with the oil of the sick in seven places, and those on the inside with chrism in four places. In the accompanying prayers mention is made of the silver trumpets of the Old Law and of the fall of the walls of Jericho, while protection is asked once more against the powers of the air, and the faithful are encouraged to take refuge under the sign of the Holy Cross. In this respect the prologue of Longfellow’s “Golden Legend” leaves a generally correct impression, despite the inaccurate statement:

For those bells have been anointed

And baptized with holy water.

In making the unctions, and not, be it noticed, in washing the bell, a form is used introducing the patron saint: “May this bell be + hallowed, O Lord, and + consecrated in the name of the + Father, and of the + Son and of the + Holy Ghost. In honour of St. N. Peace be to thee.” Finally, the thurible with incense (thymiama) and myrrh are placed under the bell so that the smoke arising may fill its cavity. Then another prayer is said of similar purport to the last, and the ceremony ends with the reading of the passage in the Gospel concerning Martha and Mary. In all essentials this ritual agrees with that in use in Carlovingian times, found in many manuscripts and dating probably as far back as the pontificate of Egbert of York in the middle of the eighth century. The washing and the unctions were prescribed as at present, but of old we find no trace of the form of words or of the name-giving which now accompany the unctions. That the ritual for the blessing of bells, which has thus been in use in the Church for nearly twelve hundred years, was framed with any design of imitating the ceremonies of baptism seems highly improbable for many reasons. First there is no triple immersion, nor strictly speaking any pouring of water. The bell is “washed” by the bishop and his assistants, just as the altars are washed on Maundy Thursday. Further there is nothing whatever to recall the ephpheta ceremony, yet this is the one detail in the rite of baptism, which would seem in place if the ritual were transferred to a bell. Against the argument used by the Reformers that Charlemagne in his capitularies decreed ut cloccas non baptizent, it might be urged as a quite natural explanation of this ordinance that some practice may have begun to grow up which seemed too closely to parody the rite of baptism and that the prevalence of our existing less objectionable ceremonial was precisely the result of Charlemagne’s intervention. It is possible that a rubric found in one or two, but no more of the extant pontificals “Tunc sub trin infusione aqu sanct impone ei [i.e. campan ] nomen, si velis,” preserves the trace of the practice which Charlemagne condemns. Certain Spanish ordinals, the original of which must date from the seventh century or earlier, contain a quite different rite for the blessing of bells (Ferotin, onumenta Liturgica, V 160). Here there is no mention of unctions or of any washing with holy water, but there are exorcisms and prayers of the same general purport as those found in the Roman Pontifical. Indirectly this Spanish ritual, by speaking of “hoc vas concretum generibus metallorum,” proves that from an early date a combination of metals was used in founding bells.

III. USES

The first ecclesiastical use of bells was to announce the hour of church services. It is plain that in the days before watches and clocks some such signal must have been a necessity, more especially in religious communities which assembled many times a day to sing the Divine praises. Among the Egyptian cenobites we read that a trumpet used for this purpose; among the Greeks a wooden board or sheet of metal was struck with a hammer; in the West the use of bells eventually prevailed. In the Merovingian period there is no trustworthy evidence for the existence of large bells capable of being heard at a distance, but, as it became needful to call to church the inhabitants of a town or hamlet, bell turrets were built, and bells increased in size, and as early as the eighth century we hear of two or more bells in the same church. Perhaps these were at first intended to reinforce each other and add to the volume of sound. But, in any case it became in time a recognized principle that the classicum, the clash of several bells ringing at once, constituted an element of joy and solemnity befitting great feasts (Rupert of Deutz, De Div. Oofic., I, 16). Medieval consuetudinaries show that where there were many bell, different bells were used for different purposes. Even in ordinary parish churches it was customary to ring not only for Mass but before both Matins and Vespers (Hartzheim, IV, 247; V, 327) while differences in the manner of ringing and the number of bells employed indicated the grade of the feast, the nature of the service, the fact that a sermon would be preached, and many other details. The custom of making such announcement by bell still survives here and there. Thus in Rome on the evening before a fast day, the bells are rung for a quarters of an hour in all the parish churches to remind people of their obligation on the morrow.

Some rude lines quoted in the gloss of the “Corpus Juris,” and often found in inscriptions, describe the principal functions of a bell (cf. Longfellow, The Golden Legend):

Laudo Deum verum plebem voco congrego clerum

Defunctos ploro, nimbum fugo, festa decoro.

(I praise the true God, I call the people, I assemble the clergy;

I bewail the dead, I dispense storm clouds, I do honour to feasts.)

Or otherwise:

Funera plango fulmina frango sabbata pango

Excito lentos dissipo ventos paco cruentos

(At obsequies I mourn, the thunderbolts I scatter, I ring in the sabbaths;

I hustle the sluggards, I drive away storms, I proclaim peace after bloodshed.)

Under defuntos ploro we may reckon the “passing bell,” which in its strict meaning is a usage of very early date. In all the monastic orders when any one of the community seemed to be at the point of death a signal was given by ringing a bell or striking a wooden board (tabula) either to summon the monks to his bedside or to admonish them to pray (see Eddius Vita Wilfridi, 64). This was extended later to parish churches, and a bell was rung to announce that a parishioner was in his agony, which seemingly developed further into a bell tolled after his decease to solicit prayers for his soul. So deeply rooted were these practices in England that it was found impossible at the Reformation to abolish them altogether. Hence, the “Canons” of the Church of England prescribe (Can. lxvii): “When any is passing out of this life a bell shall be tolled and the minister shall not then slack to do his last duty. And after the party’s death, if it so fall out, there shall be rung no more than one short peal, and one before the burial, and one after the burial.” “Though the tolling of this bell,” says Ellacombe, “has been prescribed for four distinct occasions, modern custom has limited it to two: first, after the death of the parishioner, to which the term passing-bell has been incorrectly transferred; and the second time during the procession of the funeral from the house of the deceased to the church-gate or entrance.” In many places it was formerly customary by some variation in the manner of ringing to indicate the sex, quality, or age of the deceased. Thus Durandus in the fourteenth century directed that when anyone was in extremis the passing-bell should be tolled twice for a woman, thrice for a man, and for a cleric a greater number of times according to the orders which he had received. Among Celtic peoples the ancient hand-bells which , as already noted, were some immediately connected with God’s worship, partly as relics of holy men, were usually carried and rung at funerals. To this day St. Finnian’s little bell lies exposed upon the altar of a ruined chapel in one of the Catholic districts of the Highlands of Scotland. It is used at funeral, but is otherwise left unprotected, being regarded with such deep veneration by all that no one dares to interfere with it (see Macdonald, Moldart Oban, 188, 120). In many parts of France there were formerly confraternities of hand-bell-ringers who regularly attended funerals, walking at the head of the procession. They also paraded the streets at night and rang to remind people to pray for the holy souls. This happened especially on the eve of All Saints and on Christmas eve (Morillot, Clochettes, 160 sqq.).

In Rome, the “De Profundis” is rung every evening by the parish churches one hour after the Ave Maria. Clement XII in 1736 granted an indulgence for this practice and endeavoured to extend it. This custom is observed in many other places, particularly in North America.

The Curfew (ignitegium), a warning to extinguish fires and lights, after which all respectable characters went home to bed, was possibly of ecclesiastical origin but seems to have been rung as a rule by the town bell (compana communiae, bancloche). Still in many cases one of the church bells was used for this and similar purposes. In England this was particularly frequent, and in many small towns and parishes he curfew is rung To this day at hours varying from 8 p.m. to 10.

The Angelus or Ave Maria may or may not have developed out of the curfew. There seems good reason to believe that a special bell, often called the Gabriel bell, was devoted to this purpose. In the Middle Ages the Angelus seems commonly to have been rung with three equal peals and this arrangement still obtains in many places. In Rome, where the Ave Maria is sung half an hour after sunset this method obtains: three strokes and a pause, four strokes and a pause, five strokes and a pause, a final stroke.

From the introduction of the Elevation of the Host in the Mass at the beginning of the thirteenth century it seems to have been customary to ring one of the great bells of the church, at any rate during the principal Mass, at the moment when the Sacred Host was raised on high. This was to give warning to the people at work in the fields in order that they might momentarily knell down and make an act of adoration. It seems, however, not improbable that in England the big bell was not commonly rung but that a small hand-bell was used for the purpose. This was taken to a small window (low side window) ordinarily closed by a shutter, thrust through the aperture and rung outside the church. Whether this was distinct from the little bell which the rubrics of the Mass now order to be rung by the server is not quite clear. It may be noted here that in regard to this same tintinnabulum usage varies very much in different countries. In Belgium, France, and some other places, this little bell is rung also at the “little elevation” before the Pater Noster. In Rome it is never rung at the Domino non sum dignus and is not used at all at Masses said by the pope or by cardinals.

In the rite of the blessing of the bells the verse is applied to them vox Domini in virtue, vox Domini in magnificentiâ (The voice of the Lord is in power; the voice of the Lord in magnificence, Ps., xxviii, 4). It is in no doubt in virtue of the solemnity which they lend to worship that the “Ceremoniale Episcoporum” directs that they are to be rung in honour of the bishop when he visits the church. The same mark of respect is observed in the case of secular princes, while such occasions as processions of the Blessed Sacrament, solemn Te Deums, marriages, and days of national rejoicing are similarly distinguished. On the other hand, in token of mourning the bells are silent from the Gloria of the Mass on Maundy Thursday until the Gloria on Holy Saturday. This rule goes back to the eighth century and Amalrius is authority for the statement that then as now a wooden rattle was used in their place. Again the idea of vox Domini in Virtute in remembrance of their special consecration has led to the bells being rung at times of storm and apprehended danger. The inscription Salva Terra often found in the old bells of the South of France seems to bear special reference to this virtue of the bells as sacramentals.

IV. ARCHEOLOGY AND INSCRIPTIONS

Unquestionably the oldest existing Christian bells are those of Irish, or at least Celtic, origin, of which, as already stated, a surprisingly large number are preserved. The earliest, made of iron plate, bent and riveted, seem to have been dipped in melted bronze, a process which probably much improved their sonority. Somewhat later hand-bells began to be cast in bronze, and one such specimen (eight inches in diameter and nearly a foot high) can be dated by the aid of the inscription which it bears OR AR CHUMASACH MC AILILLIA [A prayer upon (i.e. for) Chumasach on of Aillil]. Now as Chumasach, steward of the Church of Armagh, died in 904, this bell probably belongs to the closing years of the ninth century. Another bell of early date, but of small size (five and one-half inches high and seven inches in diameter), is preserved in the Museum of Cordova. It bears the inscription: “Offert hoc manus Sanson abbatis [sic] in domum sancti Sebastiani martyris Christi era DCCCCLXIII.” This is the Spanish Era and corresponds with A.D. 925. Of church bells properly so called, the earliest existing specimens seem to belong to the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries. They are for the most part of a sort of beehive, thimble, or barrel shape, sometimes disproportionately broad, sometimes narrower, while the sides are commonly straight or even in some few instances converge a little toward the bottom. They are also often perforated with three or four small triangular apertures in the upper part of the bell. The inscriptions, when they occur, are engraved and not as a rule cast in relief. Most of them are very short, but this is probably due to the accident that so very few early bells have survived, for we have record of much longer inscriptions engraved on bells as far back as the ninth century. Thus Folcuin who was Abbot of Lobbes from 965 to 990, tells us in his chronicle of one of his predecessors Harbert (835–864) who had a bell made with the inscription:

Harberti imperio componor ab arte Paterni

Nec musis docta en cantus modulabor am nos

Nocte dieque vigil depromam carmina Christi.

Folcuin himself set up bells which bore the words: “Jussu Fulcuini me condidit artificis manus Daniels, ad laudem triadis”; and “Fulcuinus Deo et patrono suo S. Ursmaro.” This last instance, perhaps the earliest example of a bell with a aname, throws an interesting light on the origin of the practice of assigning bells to a particular patron. Again we know the Cistercianss of Waverley about 1239 had a bell made with the legend:

Dicor nomine quo tu Virgo domestica Christi

Sum Domini pr co cuius tutela fuisti.

And an even longer inscription consisting of four hexameter lines was to be read upon the bell called Edmund at Bury, which dated from about 1105. The oldest bell now in existence is probably that known as the Lullus bell at Hesrfeld which may belong to the middle of the eleventh century, but the oldest which bears a certain date [i.e. 1164] is said to be one at Iggensbach in Bavaria. It may be doubted, however, whether certain ancient Italian bells at Siena snd elsewhere have yet been adequately studied (see Ellacombe, 405, 530). In England many medieval bells still survive, but no dated bell is older than that of Claughton in Lancashire, 1296. As regards the lettering of inscriptions, it suffices to say that while the earliest bells often show a very ornate style of character, known as “crowned Lombardie,” those of the fifteenth and late fourteenth century approximate to the ordinary Gothic or “black letter” type. As regards the inscriptions themselves, both purport and wording are infinitely varied. Some are barbarous in syntax and metre, others have evidently been submitted to some sort of scholarly revision. That the practice of naming bells began, as stated by Baronius, with the dedication of a bell to St. John the Baptist by Pope John XIII in 969 rests on unsatisfactory evidence, but most existing medieval bells preserve some indication of the name by which they were called. A very large number were in one way or another dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, and most of these were probably used either for the Angelus or at the Mary Mass. The inscriptions vary indefinitely. One of the commonest was

Protege prece piâ quos convoco Sancta Maria

or what is metrically a little more correct

Ora mente piâ pro nobis Virgo Maria.

In Germany a very favorite inscription for Mary bells was:

Maria vocor. O rex gloriae veni cum pace.

This almost certainly was meant as a reference to the Incarnation, for in many cases this legend was joined with the words: “Et homo factus est.” Such bells were probably used for the Angelus. Bells in honor of St. Peter were also very common. In England we find many such inscriptions as

Petrus ad aeternae ducat nos pascua vitae

or again:

Nomen Petri fero qui claviger exstat in aevo.

Inscriptions to the saints, notably to St. Gabriel for the Angelus, were numerous. Thus, to take an English example, we have at Shapwick, Dorset,

I Kateryne Goddess derlying, to thee Mari shall I synge.

Among French bells allusion to protection against the powers of darkness was frequently, and many bells were called Sauveterre. Thus we have: “Jhs autem transiens per medium illorum ibat. Salva terre m’étais nommée.” Or again we often find only: “Xtus vincit; Xtus regnat; Xtus imperat.” Later inscriptions were often chronographic. Thus in bell of 1659 we have:

Rupta bis ante fui nunc integra reddita cantem

Magno IgnI LiqVefaCta Deo reparata benIgno

—capitals in second line giving the date MDCLVIIII.

The following inscriptions are on the principal bell of St. Peter’s Basilica, Rome: On the upper part:

+ In nomine Domine Matris, Petrique Paulique,

Accipe devotum, parvum licet, accipe munus

Quod tibi Chrste datum Petri Paulique triumphum

+ Explicat, et nostra, petit populique salutem

Ipsorum pietate dari meritisque refundi

Et Verbum car factum est. + Anno milleno trecento cum quiquageno

Additis et tribus, Septembris mense, colatur.

Ponderat et mille decies septiesque libarum.

+ Campanam hanco longo use confractum non plus quam quatuordecim mille libras pendere compertum est; Benedictus XIV addito usque ad viginiti mille libras mertallo, conflari et denuo refici iussit, anno reparatae salutis MDCCXVVII.

+ Eandem septimo vix exacto lustro, rimis actis inutilem, uno plus et viginti millibus pondo metalli repertam, Pius Sextus, Pont. Max. non mediocri metallo superaddito ad idem ponderis conflari fundique mandavit, anno Domini MDCCLXXXV, Pont. XI.

Aloysius eques Valider construxit.

For the credit of eighteenth century scholarship, it seems desirable to explain that only the latter part of this inscription belongs to the pontificate of Pius VI. The earlier portion with its metrical irregularities is simply a copy of what was read upon the great bell of St. Peter’s at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Probably the metal came from the bell originally cast by Leo IV in 850, or even earlier under Pope Stephen II. Then, when the campanile was burned down in 1303, Boniface VIII had a new bell made with the inscription which stands first in the above series. Only fifty years afterwards the tower was struck by lightning, and a new great bell was founded (colatur, cf. the French couler) in September 1353. Then Benedict XIV had the ball recast in larger size in 1747, and when this cracked (rimis actis), the metal was once more used by Aloysius Valader to make the present beautiful bell under Pius VI in 1785. (See Cancellieri, De Secrateriis, Rome, 1786, III, 1357, and IV, 1995 sqq,)

In point of size any very great development of medieval bells was probably checked by the mechanical difficulty of ringing them. At Canterbury, for example, we hear of as many as twenty-four men being required to ring one bell, while sixty-three men were needed for the whole peal of five (Ellacombe, 443). In the eleventh century a bell given by King Robert to the church in Orleans was thought to be of remarkable size, but it weighed little over a ton. The “Cantabona” bell of Blessed Azelin at Hildesheim (eleventh century) is said to have weighed about four tons, a Rouen bell of 1501 sixteen tons, and the still existing “Maria Gloriosa” of Erfurt Cathedral, cast in 1497, weighs thirteen tons. Of modern bells consecrated with the rites of the Catholic Church, the laergest is that of Cologne Cathedral, which was made out of captured French cannon, and weighs nearly twenty-seven tons. That in the Church of the Sacred Heart at Montmarte weights over eighteen, and others at Vienna and Rouen about seventeen. In the Catholic cathedral of Montreal is a bell of thirteen and one-half tons. The very beautiful bell of St. Peter’s, Rome, weighs about nine tons. The gigantic bells cast in Russia, China, Japan, and Burma seem only to be struck with a hammer and never properly “rung.” The largest bell in England is that of St. Paul’s Cathedral, London, which weighs seventeen and one-half tons.

V. POINTS OF LAW

In medieval England it was distinctly laid down that the church bells and ropes had to be provided at the cost of the parishioners. The canon law assumed that cathedral had five or more bells, a parish church two or three, while the churches of the medicant orders, like public oratories, were originally limited to one. The solemn ceremony of benediction provided in the Pontifical can only be carried out by a bishop or by a priest specially empowered, and it is only to be employed in the case of bells intended for church use. For other bells, a simpler blessing is provided in the “Rituale.” Numerous prohibitions exist against the church bells being used for “profane” purposes, e.g. for summoning meetings or for merely secular festivities and in particular for executions. In Catholic ecclesiastical legislation the principle is maintained that the control of the bells rests absolutely with the clergy. In cathedral churches according to the Cermoniale Episcoporum” this jurisdiction is vested in the Sacrista. Theoretically, the actual ringing of the bells should be performed by the ostiarius and in the conferring of this minor order the cleric is given a bell to ring, but for centuries past his functions have everywhere become obsolete, and lay bell-ringers have been almost exclusively employed. Finally, we may note a decision of the secular courts given in an action brought against the Redemptorists of Clapham, England, in 1851, whereby an injunction was granted to restrain these Fathers from ringing their bells at certain hours, at which, as it was complained, such ringing caused unreasonable annoyance to residents in the neighbourhood.

HERBERT THURSTON

Diocese of Belluno-Feltre

(Diocese of Belluno-Feltre).

Belluno, which was anciently called Bellunum, the metropolis of the province of that name in Venetia, Italy, is situated on a hill between the torrent of Ardo and the River Piave, and has a population of 10,000. At the end of the tenth century Belluno was affected by the political disturbances then agitating the Venetian provinces. Bishop Joannes II (959) obtained from Emperor Otto I for himself and his successors the title of count and temporal sovereignty over this city and the surrounding territory. He also fortified the city. In the course of time there were many disputes over the civil mastery of Belluno, but in 1420 the inhabitants of their own accord acknowledged the authority of Venice. Belluno is the seat of a bishopric suffragan to the Patriarchate of Venice, and is united with the See of Feltre. Christianity is said to have been first preached there by St. Hermagoras, a disciple of St. Mark and first Bishop of Aquileia, and next by Prosdocimus, first Bishop of Padua. Ughelli places the first bishop, Theodorus, in the reign of Emperor Commodus and the second, St. Salvator, as succeeding under Pertinax. About 300 another Theodorus is thought to have brought from Egypt the remains of St. Giovata, patron of the city. The first bishop known to history is a certain Laurentius, who, in 587, attended the schismatic assembly convened by Severus, Patriarch of Aquileia, in connection with the dispute of the Three Chapters. The twelfth century was a stormy period for Belluno, in both civil and ecclesiastical respects. In 1197, Bishop Gerardo de Taccoli was murdered by the inhabitants of Treviso, after which Innocent III united the Diocese of Belluno with that of Feltre.

Feltre, the ancient Feltria, is situated in the province of Belluno in Venetia, on the River Colmeda, and contains 13,000 inhabitants. From the year 80 B.C. it enjoyed the rights of Roman citizenship. It was besieged during the invasion of Attila. Emperor Henry III created the Bishops of Feltre counts of the city and vicinity, but their authority was almost constantly assailed by the Counts of Camino, by Ezzelino da Romano, the Scaligeri, the Carrara, and finally by the Visconti themselves. At last, in 1404, the city fell into the power of the Venetians. Feltre also claims to have received the Gospel from St. Prosdocimus. St. Victor, a martyr, is said to have lived there about A.D. 170. The first Bishop of Feltre whose date can be fixed is Fonteius, who in 579 took part in a council in Aquileia and in 591 dedicated a book to Emperor Mauritius. Drudo of Camino (1174) was the first bishop of the united sees of Belluno and Feltre, the latter being their residence of the bishop. The twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries were filled with civil strife.

In 1462, at the request of the Venetian Republic, the two dioceses were separated. The first Bishop of Belluno was Ludovico Donato. Bishops Pietro Barozzi, Mose Buffarello, and Bernardo Rossi (1499) rebuilt the cathedral. One of the most illustrious bishops was Luigi Lollin (1595) who did much to promote the love of learning among the clergy and left large bequests to perpetually provide for a number of priests at the University of Padua. Giulio Berlendis (1655) completed the work of enforcing the Tridentine reforms, and Gianfrancesco Bembo, a member of the Somaschi (1695), was very zealous in the cause of popular education. In 1818 the diocese was reunited with that of Feltre. Among the Bishops of Feltre after the separation mention should be made of Angelo Faseolo (1464), who was appointed on many legations in connection with the Crusade against the Turks; Lorenzo Campeggio (1512), famous as the nuncio to England during the time of Henry VIII, later made cardinal and transferred (1520) to Bologna. He was succeeded by his nephew Tommaso Campeggio, who was nuncio several times. Agostino Gradenigo (1610) restored the cathedral; Zerbino Lugo (1640) built the seminary; Giovanni Bortoli (1748) was a distinguished professor of canon law at Padua.

The most remarkable sacred edifices in Belluno are, in addition to the cathedral, the church of San Pietro, and that of San Stephano, the latter in Gothic style; all three contain paintings by the most distinguished Venetian artists. In Feltre there are the cathedral, dedicated to St. Laurence, the oratory of San Giacomo, the churches of San Giorgio in Villabruna, and San Rocco; in the last named the painting over the high altar is the work of Palma il Vecchio. Outside the city, on the slopes of Mount Misnea is the church of SS. Vittore e Corona, erected by the Crusaders of Feltre after the First Crusade.

The Diocese of Belluno contains 72 parishes, 280 churches, chapels, and oratories, 137 secular priests, 22 regulars, 22 seminarists, 5 lay brothers, 29 sisters, and a population of 127,500. Feltre has 17 parishes, 100 churches, chapels and oratories, 48 secular priests, 25 regulars, 56 seminarists, 2 schools for boys and 2 for girls, and a population of 48,000.

Cappelletti, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844); Annuario eccl. (1906).

U. BENIGNI

François Vachon de Belmont

Fifth superior of the Sulpicians at Montreal, b. at Grenoble, France, 1645; d. 1732. He went to Canada in 1680 and was appointed a missionary among the Indians of La Montagne; he filled this position until 1700, when he succeeded Dollier de Casson as superior of the order. He erected at his own expense Fort de La Montagne on the site of the present Grand Séminaire, built the old seminary which still exists in the street of Notre Dame, and began the construction of the Lachine canal. Among his writings are: “Histoire du Canada,” printed in the “Collection de mémoires et de relations sur l’histoire ancienne du Canada,” published by the Historical Society of Quebec; “Histoire de l’eau-de-vie en Canada,” printed in the above mentioned “Collection”; “Oraison funèbre de la Mère Bourgeoys,” quoted by Faillon in “Vie de la Soeur Bourgeoys,” II, 88–98; “Eloges de quelques personnes mortes en odeur de saintetá à Montréal,” and a number of memoirs still in manuscript. Mention should also be made of the funeral oration of Bishop Montmorency-Laval, first Bishop of Quebec, delivered at Montreal, June, 1708.

BERTRAND, “Bibliothèque Sulpicienne ou hist. litt. de la c. de Saint-Sulpice (Paris 1900).

A. FOURNET

Ven. Thomas Belson

Martyr, b. at Brill in Oxfordshire, England, dated uncertain; d. 5 July 1589. He was at the college in Reims in 1584, and in 1589 was arrested at the Catherine Wheel Inn, near Balliol College, Oxford, with his confessor George Nicols, Richard Yaxley, a priest, and Prichard, a servant. They were sent to London, whence, after examination before Walsingham and repeated tortures in Bridewell and the Tower, they were sent back to Oxford to be tried. Belson was found guilty of felony for assisting the priests, and was executed with his companions at Oxford. He suffered after the priests and, kissing the dead bodies of his pastors, begged the intercession of their happy souls that he might have the grace to imitate their courage and constancy.

YEPES, Historia Particular de la persecucion de Inglaterra (Madrid, 1599); CHALLONER, Memoirs; KNOX, Douay Diaries; STAPLETON, Post-Reformation Catholic Missions in Oxfordshire (London, 1906).

BEDE CAMM.

Henri François Xavier de Belsunce de Castelmoron

Bishop of Marseilles, b. 1671 at the Château de la Force, in Périgord; d. 1755 at Marseilles. His father was Armand de Belsunce, Marquis de Castelmoron and his mother Anne de Caumont de Lausun. He studied classics in Paris at the College de Clermont or Louis-le-grand and then entered the Society of Jesus. In 1699 he left the Society to become Vicar-General of Agen. The “Vie de Suzanne de Foix,” his aunt, was written by him and published while at Agen, 1709. That same year he was made Bishop of Marseilles. The heroic charity he displayed during the plague of 1720 and 1721 has made his name a household word and won for him the title of “Good Bishop.” When the plague broke out a large fleet was taking the Princess of Orléans to Italy where she was to marry the Duke of Modena. The suite of the princess took to flight, and with them all the notables of the city, but Bishop Belsunce remained with a few heroic friends, and together they battled against the plague with heroic self-sacrifice and devotion, till they conquered it. In his address to the Assembly of the Clergy in 1725, Belsunce stated that more than 250 priests and religious perished in their mission of Christian charity. But he was the soul of the rescuers and the praises bestowed on him by Pope and Millevoye (“Essay on Man” and “Belsunce ou la peste de Marseille”) are not above his real merits. The King of France offered him, by way of recognition, the See of Laon to which was attached the first ecclesiastical peerage of the realm and afterwards the metropolitan See of Bordeaux. Belsunce refused both and contented himself with accepting the pallium sent him by Clement XII. During his incumbency Belsunce fought against another plague called Jansenism. He attended, 1727, the Synod of Embrun where Soanen was condemned. He opposed with all his power Colbert of Pamiers. In spite of the protest of the Parliament of Provence, he instructed his priests to refuse absolution to the appellants against the Bull “Unigenitus.” Nearly all his pastoral instructions are against Jansenism. Belsunce was a writer of no mean power. Besides the “Vie de Suzanne de Foix” (Agen, 1709), and his pastoral instructions, we have from his pen “Le combat chrétien” translated from St. Augustin’s “De Agone Christiano” and “L’art de bien mourir” translated from Bellarmine’s “De Arte Bene Moriendi,” also “Antiquités de l’Eglise de Marseille” (Marseilles, 1747–51). All these writings have been published by Jauffret under the title of “Oeuvres de Belsunce” (Metz, 1822).

Barbet, Eloge de Belsunce (Paris, 1821); Rohrbacher, Histoire universelle (Paris, 1885), XI; Berengier, Vie de Mgr. de Belsunce (Paris, 1887).

J.F. SOLLIER

Giambattista Belzoni

An Egyptian explorer, b. at Padua, Italy, in 1778. d. Gato, Africa, 3 Dec., 1823. His father was a barber, and intended his son to follow that trade, but the boy, who was a born traveller, left home at the age of fifteen, and after some wanderings settled down at Rome, where he began the study of hydraulics. Whether or not he became a monk is uncertain, but, at any rate, he quitted Rome in 1798 and travelled as far as Holland. Having returned to Italy, he again departed in 1803 and travelled through the British Isles, being finally obliged, by reduced circumstances, to secure an engagement in pantomine. Leaving England, he went to Egypt, where, at the request of the pasha, he undertook a scheme for raising the waters of the Nile at Zubra, but the work was later abandoned by the authorities, and he turned his attention to unearthing the colossal bust of Memnon now in the British Museum. Having accomplished this difficult task, he ascended the Nile, and besides many other important Egyptological investigations, made his famous discovery of the mummy of Psammethis. Again setting out from Cairo, he explored the pyramid of Chephren, travelled through Fayum, visited Lake Moeris and the ruins of Arsinoe, penetrated into Libya, and reached the oasis of El-Cassar. In 1819 he went to England, whence, after a stay of a few years, he set out for further travels in Africa, intending to explore Timbuktu and the sources of the Niger, and to visit Benin and Abyssinia; but having landed, he was attacked by a fever, and died. He printed a narrative of his journeys at London in 1821, and his original drawings of “The Tombs of the Kings” were published by his widow, at London, in 1829.

EDWIN RYAN.

Pietro Bembo

A famous Italian scholar and Cardinal, b. of a noble family at Venice, 20 May, 1470; d. at Rome, 18 January, 1547. He was the son of Bernardo Bembo, whose enthusiasm for Italian literature led him to raise a monument to Dante at Ravenna. His early education was received at Florence. He afterwards studied Greek under Lascaris at Messina and philosophy under Pomponazzo at Padua. After spending some time at the court of Ferrara, where he met Lucrezia Borgia, with whom he maintained a Platonic friendship for many years, he went in 1506 to Urbino, where he became the leading figure among the brilliant group of men of wit and culture gathered about the court. In 1512 he accompanied his intimate friend, Giuliano de’ Medici, to Rome, where a short time afterwards he was appointed secretary to Pope Leo X. He remained at Rome for eight years, enjoying the society of many distinguished men and loved and admired by all who knew him. There he became enamoured of the beautiful Morosina. It was at her urgent solicitation that Bembo, in 1520, on the death of Leo X, withdrew from public affairs and retired with his health impaired by severe sickness to Padua, where he lived in ease and elegance, devoting himself to literary pursuits and the society of his learned friends. Here he collected an extensive library and formed a rich museum of medals and antiquities. His Paduan retreat became the gathering-place of all the most cultured and most scholarly men in Italy. In 1529 he accepted the office of historiographer of the republic of Venice, and shortly afterwards was appointed librarian of St. Mark’s. In 1539 Pope Paul III recalled him to Rome and conferred on him the cardinal’s hat. From the time of Bembo’s ecclesiastical preferment there was a marked change in his conduct. Heretofore his life had been anything but edifying—in fact it had been more pagan than Christian. But now he renounced the study of the classics and applied himself chiefly to the study of the Fathers and the Holy Scriptures. Two years after he was raised to the cardinalate, he was made Bishop of Gubbio, and still later he received the Bishopric of Bergamo. He died more admired and lamented than any man of letters of his time and was buried not far from Pope Leo in the Church of the Minerva.

Bembo was a thorough master of elegant diction. He possessed beyond any contemporary the formal perfection of style, both in Latin and Italian, demanded by the age in which he lived. In his Latin writings it was his aim to imitate as closely as possible the style of Cicero. His letters were masterpieces of Latin style and of the art of letter-writing. He is said to have passed his compositions through numerous portfolios, revising them in each one of them. Bembo’s works include a history of Venice, poems, dialogues, criticisms and letters. The most important are: “Rerum Veneticarum Libri XII” (1551), a history of Venice covering the period from 1487 to 1513, originally published in Latin, but afterwards translated by the author into Italian; “Gli Asolani” (Venice, 1505), a dialogue in Italian on Platonic love, composed in imitation of Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations, and dedicated to Lucrezia Borgia; “Le Prose,” a short treatise on the Italian language; “Le Rime” (Venice, 1530); “Carmina” (Venice, 1533), a collection of Latin poems; and several volumes of letters, written in Latin. Besides these original works he edited the Italian poems of Petrarch, printed by Aldus (1501), and the “Terze rime” of Dante (1502). His collected works were published at Venice in four volumes in 1729.

SYMONDS, Renaissance in Italy (New York, 1900), II; The Revival of Learning; GARNETT, A History of Italian Literature (New York, 1898); VON REUMONT, Gesch. Der Stadt Rom.; TIRABOSCHI, Stor. Lett. Ital. (1809), VII, 1, 110–111, 235–251; III, 926–931, 1120; IV, 1560; BATTAGLIA, Elogio del Cardinale P. Bembo (Venice, 1827); BECCATELLI, Vita di Pietro Bembo, cardinale, in Istor. case Venez. (1718), II, xxxii-li.

EDMUND BURKE

Prefecture Apostolic of Benadir

Prefecture Apostolic in Africa; lies between 8° and 12° N. lat., and between 42° and 51° 16’ E. long. It comprises the whole territory of Italian Somaliland, the area of which is a little more than 192,800 square miles, or nearly twice that of Italy; and its boundaries are identical with those of the Italian possessions in East Africa, namely: on the east, the Indian Ocean; on the north, the Gulf of Aden from Cape Guardafui to the boundary of British Somaliland; on the west, the same British boundary as far south as the Juba River; and on the south, the course of that river from Lugh to the Indian Ocean. The longest meridian within this territory measures 776 miles, while the greatest width is 559 miles.

The commercial company which had been formed for the exploitation of El Banadir (i.e. “The Ports,” now the littoral region of Italian Somaliland) found it to its own interest to call the Church to its aid, and asked for missionaries, to whom it assigned a subsidy of 10,000 lire ($2,000) per annum. Propaganda, by a decree of 21 January, 1904, entrusted the mission to the Discalced Trinitarians, for which order the redemption of captives is a special tradition, and the first prefect Apostolic, Father Leander of the Seven Dolours, embarked within the same year. However, the presence of a religious who would jealously watch the slave trade, and denounce infractions of the treaties, might become inconvenient; the governor, therefore, forbade Father Leander to enter his territory, and the prefect Apostolic, excluded from his mission, was obliged to take refuge in the British territory to the south. The governor’s order was rescinded in May, 1906, and Father Leander then entered upon his prefecture; but on the 10th of July, 1906, he died in Gelib, nearly 250 miles from the coast. Towards the end of that year Father Guglielmo da San Felice was sent as successor to Father Leander, taking with him five religious of his own order. At the present writing (9107) too short a time has, of course, elapsed to permit of obtaining any information as to the actual progress of missionary work in Italian Somaliland.

The residence of the prefect Apostolic is at Brava, while the headquarters of the colonial government are at Mogadishu (Mogadoxo, or Mukdishu). The population of the whole territory is estimated at 3,000,000, almost all Mohammedans. Slavery is practised, and the efforts of the Anti-Slavery Society to suppress the slave trade, by representations to the Italian Government, have so far had no result.

Missiones Catholicae (Propaganda, Rome, 1907), 355; Statesman’s Year Book (London, 1907).

ALBERT BATTANDIER

Laurent Bénard

Chief founder of the Maurist Congregation of the Benedictine Order, b. at Nevers, 1573; d. at Paris, 1620. He joined the Cluniac Benedictines at Nevers, became a Doctor of the Sorbonne and later Prior of the Cluny College, Paris, which he reformed with the help of two monks of the recently established Congregation of St.-Vannes. Refusing the abbacy of St. Etienne, Caen, and the grand-priorship of Cluny, he passed through a second novitiate at St.-Vannes, and renewed his profession there in 1615. At his suggestion the Congregation of St.-Maur was formed, to be for France what that of St.-Vannes was for Lorraine. Royal letters patent were obtained for it in 1618 and the project was warmly supported by Cardinal de Retz and others. Bénard’s works include “Parénèses,” “De l’esprit des ordres religieux,” “Instructions Monastiques,” “L’éloge Bénédictin,” and “Police régulière,” all published in Paris between 1616 and 1619.

Tassin, Hist. Lit. Cong. S. Maur (Brussels, 1770); Sainte-Marthe, Gallia Christiana (Paris, 1744), VII, 474.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Fray Alonzo Benavides

(Benavidez)

Archbishop of Goa in the Portuguese Indies. Although a prelate of high rank, the life of Fray Alonzo de Benavides is very imperfectly known, He was born on the Island of San Miguel, professed in the Franciscan convent of Mexico in 1603, and, after acting as master of novices at the convent of Puebla, became Custos of the Missions of New Mexico, returned to Spain in 1630 and there was in communication with the Venerable María de Agreda. Upon his return to America he was made Archbishop of Goa. The date and place of his death are as yet unknown. Fray Alonzo de Benavides was indefatigable in his efforts to promote the welfare, temporal and spiritual, of New Mexico. He it was who, through the agency of Fray Esteban de Peréa, secured a reinforcement of missionaries for the utterly neglected province. In order to excite interest in those remote regions, he wrote and published two booklets, full of exaggerations in regard to the number of Indians, but otherwise of the highest value for the ethnography and ethnology of New Mexico. They must be judged as “encouraging guides,” embodying at the same time much accurate and valuable information gathered from personal knowledge. His account of the numbers of people and villages may have been influenced by data taken from Espejo but such mistakes do not affect the value of his writings in general. He published “Relación de los grandes Tesoros espirituales y temporales descubiertos con el auxilio de Dios en el Nuevo Mexico,” in 1630, and is best known through the “Memorial que Fray Juan de Santander de la orden de San Francisco &c. presenta á la Majestad Católica del Rey” (Madrid, 1630 translated into various languages and republished).

Memorial (Madird, 1630 ); Pinelo, Epitome (Madrid, 1738), II; Beristain, Biblioteca, etc. Mexico, 1816), II; Vetancourt, Teatro mexican (Mexico, 1698); especially Cronica de la Provincia del Santo Evangelio de Mexico; bandelier, Final Report, etc., I and II.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Benda

A titular see of Albania. Its history is closely connected with that of the Sees of Narenta and Mostar. Narenta, or in Italian Narona, represents the ancient Chelmium, or Chulmia, and its bishop, a suffragan of Dyrrhachium (Durazzo), took the title of episcopus Stephanensis, or Stephaniacensis, the cathedral being dedicated to St. Stephen; this is the title of Cosmas at the council under Photius in 879. But as these bishops resided at Spalato, the title shortly became Spalatensis. About the middle of the fourteenth century, Narenta became the seat of a Latin bishopric, to which was united the See of Benda, the chief town in a district of this name, near Croia, in the pashalik of Scutari. Its bishop thus obtained a double title, episcopus Bendensis et Stephanensis, to which, about 1400, was added the title Priscensis, or Prisnensis, from Prisca, or Prisna, probably identical with the village Presa, or Press, in Albania. Be that as it may, these three titles were borne from the first by only one titular; Gams separates them wrongly (Series episcop., 422). The first titular was not, as is commonly said, the Domincan Petrus de Anagnia, but Demetrius, probably identical with the Franciscan Demetrius de Scutaro who is mentioned in the Bullar Franciscan. (VI, n. 662). From the seventeenth century the see became titular, probably because the bishops had transferred their residence to Mostar, on the left bank of the River Narenta, a see known as Mandatriensis et Dumnensis.

Farlati, Illyricum sacrum, VII, 401–405; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica medii oevi, I, 488; II, 266 and 327.

L. PETIT.

Popes Benedict I-X

In subarticles Pope Benedict I, Pope St. Benedict II, Pope Benedict III, Pope Benedict IV, Pope Benedict V, Pope Benedict VI, Pope Benedict VII, Pope Benedict VIII, Pope Benedict IX, Pope Benedict X

Pope Benedict I

Of the first Pontiff who bore the name of Benedict practically nothing is known. The date of his birth is unknown; he d. 30 July, 579. He was a Roman and the son of Boniface, and was called Bonosus by the Greeks (Evagrius, Hist., V, 16). The ravages of the Lombards rendered it very difficult to communicate with the emperor at Constantinople, who claimed the privilege of confirming the election of the popes. Hence there was a vacancy of nearly eleven months between the death of John III and the arrival of the imperial confirmation of Benedict’s election, 2 June, 575. He reigned four years, one month, and twenty-eight days. Almost the only act recorded of him is that he granted an estate, the Massa Veneris, in the territory of Minturnae, to Abbot Stephen of St. Mark’s “near the walls of Spoleto” (St. Gregory I, Ep. ix, 87, I. al. 30). Famine followed the devastating Lombards, and from the few words the Liber Pontificalis has about Benedict, we gather that he died in the midst of his efforts to cope with these difficulties. He was buried in the vestibule of the sacristy of the old basilica of St. Peter. In an ordination which he held in December he made fifteen priests and three deacons, and consecrated twenty-one bishops.

The most important source for the history of the first nine popes who bore the name of Benedict is the biographies in the Liber Pontificalis, of which the most useful edition is that of Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis (Paris, 1886–92), and the latest that of Mommsen, Gesta Pontif. Roman. (to the end of the reign of Constantine only, Berlin, 1898). Jaffé, Regesta Pont. Rom. (2d ed., Leipzig, 1885), gives a summary of the letters of each pope and tells where they may be read at length. Modern accounts of these popes will be found in any large Church history, or history of the City of Rome. The fullest account in English of most of them is to be read in Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1902, passim).

HORACE K. MANN.

Pope St. Benedict II

Date of birth unknown; died 8 May, 685; was a Roman, and the son of John. Sent when young to the schola cantorum, he distinguished himself by his knowledge of the Scriptures and by his singing, and as a priest was remarkable for his humility, love of the poor, and generosity. He became pope 26 June, 684, after an interval of over eleven months. To abridge the vacancies of the Holy See which followed the deaths of the popes, he obtained from the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus a decree which either abolished imperial confirmations altogether or made them obtainable from the exarch in Italy [cf. “Liber Diurnus RR. PP., ed. Sickel (Vienna, 1889), and Duchesne’s criticism, “Le Liber Diurnus” (Paris, 1891)]. He adopted Constantine’s two sons by receiving locks of their hair sent him by the emperor. To help to suppress Monothelism, he endeavoured to secure the subscriptions of the Spanish bishops to the decrees of the Sixth General Council (see ep. in P.L., XCVI, 423), and to bring about the submission to them of Macarius, ex-Bishop of Antioch. He was one of the popes who favoured the cause of St. Wilfred of York (Eddius, “Vita Wilfridi,” ed. Raine in “Historians of York,” I, 62 sqq. Cf. Raine, “Lives of the Archbishops of York,” I, 55 sqq.). Many of the churches of Rome were restored by him; and its clergy, its deaconries for the care of the poor, and its lay sacristans all benefited by his liberality. He was buried in St. Peter’s.

The most important source for the history of the first nine popes who bore the name of Benedict is the biographies in the Liber Pontificalis, of which the most useful edition is that of Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis (Paris, 1886–92), and the latest that of Mommsen, Gesta Pontif. Roman. (to the end of the reign of Constantine only, Berlin, 1898). Jaffé, Regesta Pont. Rom. (2d ed., Leipzig, 1885), gives a summary of the letters of each pope and tells where they may be read at length. Modern accounts of these popes will be found in any large Church history, or history of the City of Rome. The fullest account in English of most of them is to be read in Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1902, passim).

HORACE K. MANN.

Pope Benedict III

Date of birth unknown; d. 17 April, 858. The election of the learned and ascetic Roman, Benedict, the son of Peter, was a troubled one. On the death of Leo IV (17 July, 855) Benedict was chosen to succeed him, and envoys were despatched to secure the ratification of the decree of election by the Emperors Lothaire and Louis II. But the legates betrayed their trust and allowed themselves to be influenced in favour of the ambitious and excommunicated Cardinal Anastasius. The imperial missi, gained over in turn by them, endeavoured to force Anastasius on the Roman Church. Benedict was insulted and imprisoned. Most of the clergy and people, however, remained true to him, and the missi had to yield. Benedict was accordingly consecrated on the 29th of September, or 6th of October, 855, and though his rival was condemned by a synod, he admitted him to lay communion. Owing to dissensions and attacks from without, the kingdom of the Franks was in disorder, and the Church within its borders was oppressed. Benedict wrote to the Frankish bishops, attributing much of the misery in the empire to their silence (cf. “Capitularia regum Francorum,” ed. Boretius, II, 424); and to lessen its internal evils endeavoured to curb the powerful subdeacon Hubert (Ep. Bened., in Mon. Germ. Epp., V, 612), who was the brother-in-law of Lothaire II, King of Lorraine, and defied the laws of God and man till he was slain, in 864. In an appeal made to Benedict from the East, he held the balance fair between St. Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Gregory, Bishop of Syracuse. He was visited by the Ango-Saxon King Ethelwulf with his famous son Alfred, and completed the restoration of the Schola Anglorum, destroyed by fire in 847. He continued the work of repairing the damage done to the churches in Rome by the Saracen raid of 846. He was buried near the principal gate of St. Peter’s. One of his coins proves there was no Pope Joan between Leo IV and himself [Garampi, “De nummo argenteo Bened. III” (Rome, 1749)].

The most important source for the history of the first nine popes who bore the name of Benedict is the biographies in the Liber Pontificalis, of which the most useful edition is that of Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis (Paris, 1886–92), and the latest that of Mommsen, Gesta Pontif. Roman. (to the end of the reign of Constantine only, Berlin, 1898). Jaffé, Regesta Pont. Rom. (2d ed., Leipzig, 1885), gives a summary of the letters of each pope and tells where they may be read at length. Modern accounts of these popes will be found in any large Church history, or history of the City of Rome. The fullest account in English of most of them is to be read in Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1902, passim).

HORACE K. MANN.

Pope Benedict IV

Date of birth unknown; died in the summer of 903.

The Popes Benedict from the fourth to the ninth inclusive belong to the darkest period of papal history. The reigns of several of them were very short, and very little is known about their deeds. The dates of their accession to the See of Peter and of their deaths are largely uncertain.

Benedict IV, a Roman and the son of Mammalus, became pope in the first half of 900. His high birth, his generosity, his zeal for the public good are loudly commended by the contemporary historian Frodoard, who gives him the title of “Great.” The principal historic act of his reign was his crowning Louis the Blind as emperor. He supported the decision of Pope Formosus, who had ordained him priest, in favour of Argrim’s claim to the See of Langres (Jaffé, “Regesta,” 3527, 3528), upheld the cause of Stephen, Bishop of Naples (Auxilius ap. Dümmler, “Auxilius und Vulgarius,” 96 sqq.), excommunicated the assassin of Fulk, Archbishop of Reims (Frodoard, Hist. Remensis, IV, 10), and offered practical sympathy to Malacenus, Bishop of Amasia, who had been driven from his see by the advances of the Saracens (Jaffé, loc. cit., 3530). Fulda and other monasteries received privileges from him. He was buried in front of St. Peter’s near the gate of Guido.

The most important source for the history of the first nine popes who bore the name of Benedict is the biographies in the Liber Pontificalis, of which the most useful edition is that of Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis (Paris, 1886–92), and the latest that of Mommsen, Gesta Pontif. Roman. (to the end of the reign of Constantine only, Berlin, 1898). Jaffé, Regesta Pont. Rom. (2d ed., Leipzig, 1885), gives a summary of the letters of each pope and tells where they may be read at length. Modern accounts of these popes will be found in any large Church history, or history of the City of Rome. The fullest account in English of most of them is to be read in Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1902, passim).

HORACE K. MANN.

Pope Benedict V

Date of birth unknown; died 4 July, 965.

Benedict V was elected pope (May, 964) in very critical circumstances. The powerful emperor, Otho I, had forcibly deposed the unworthy John XII, and had replaced him by a nominee of his own who took the title of Leo VIII. But at the first opportunity the Romans expelled Leo, and on the death (14 May, 964) of the lawful pope, John XII, elected the Cardinal-Deacon Benedict (known from his learning as Grammaticus-see Benedict of Soracte, xxxvii). Otho was furious, marched on Rome, seized Benedict, and put an end to his pontificate (23 June, 964. -Liutprand, Hist. Ottonis, xxi; Thietmar, Chron., II, 18). It is more probable that Benedict was degraded by force than that he voluntarily declared himself an intruder. After reinstating Leo, Otho left Rome and carried Benedict with him to Germany. Placed under the care of Adaldag, Archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen, who treated him with great consideration, he was even then acknowledged as pope by some of the German clergy. His remains, first laid to rest in the cathedral at Hamburg, were afterwards translated to Rome (Adam of Bremen, Gesta, II, 10; IV, 39, 40; VI, 53).

The most important source for the history of the first nine popes who bore the name of Benedict is the biographies in the Liber Pontificalis, of which the most useful edition is that of Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis (Paris, 1886–92), and the latest that of Mommsen, Gesta Pontif. Roman. (to the end of the reign of Constantine only, Berlin, 1898). Jaffé, Regesta Pont. Rom. (2d ed., Leipzig, 1885), gives a summary of the letters of each pope and tells where they may be read at length. Modern accounts of these popes will be found in any large Church history, or history of the City of Rome. The fullest account in English of most of them is to be read in Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1902, passim).

HORACE K. MANN

Pope Benedict VI

Date of birth unknown; d. August, 974 (see Ricobaldi of Ferrara, Compil. Chron., in Rer. Ital. SS. IX). Benedict, Cardinal-Deacon of St. Theodore, a Roman and the son of Hildebrand, was elected as the successor of John XIII, who died 6 September, 972; but the necessity of waiting for the ratification of the Emperor Otho delayed his consecration till 19 January, 973. Nothing is known of his deeds, except that he confirmed the privileges of some churches and monasteries. The most striking event of his pontificate is the tragic close. He was seized and thrown into the Castle of Sant’ Angelo by a faction of the nobility headed by Crescentius and the Deacon Boniface VII. There, after a confinement of less than two months, he was strangled by their orders, to prevent his release by Sicco, an imperial envoy, sent to Rome by Otho II.

The most important source for the history of the first nine popes who bore the name of Benedict is the biographies in the Liber Pontificalis, of which the most useful edition is that of Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis (Paris, 1886–92), and the latest that of Mommsen, Gesta Pontif. Roman. (to the end of the reign of Constantine only, Berlin, 1898). Jaffé, Regesta Pont. Rom. (2d ed., Leipzig, 1885), gives a summary of the letters of each pope and tells where they may be read at length. Modern accounts of these popes will be found in any large Church history, or history of the City of Rome. The fullest account in English of most of them is to be read in Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1902, passim).

HORACE K. MANN.

Pope Benedict VII

Date of birth unknown; d. c. October, 983. Acting under the influence of Sicco (see Benedict VI), the Roman clergy and people elected to succeed Benedict VI another Benedict, Bishop of Sutri, a Roman and the son of David (October, 974). His authority was opposed by Boniface VII, and, though the antipope himself was forced to fly, his party followed fiercely in his footsteps and compelled Benedict to call upon Otho II for help. Firmly established on his throne by the emperor, he showed himself both desirous of checking the tide of simony which was rising high in the Church, and of advancing the cause of monasticism, which then meant that of civilization. In response to a request of the people of Carthage “to help the wretched province of Africa,” he consecrated the priest James, who had been sent to him for the purpose (see the letter of the papal legate, the Abbot Leo, to the Kings Hugh Capet and Robert). Though he did not die till about October, 983, our knowledge of his undertakings is not in proportion to the length of his pontificate.

The most important source for the history of the first nine popes who bore the name of Benedict is the biographies in the Liber Pontificalis, of which the most useful edition is that of Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis (Paris, 1886–92), and the latest that of Mommsen, Gesta Pontif. Roman. (to the end of the reign of Constantine only, Berlin, 1898). Jaffé, Regesta Pont. Rom. (2d ed., Leipzig, 1885), gives a summary of the letters of each pope and tells where they may be read at length. Modern accounts of these popes will be found in any large Church history, or history of the City of Rome. The fullest account in English of most of them is to be read in Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1902, passim).

HORACE K. MANN.

Pope Benedict VIII

Date of birth unknown; d. 9 April, 1024. The first of the Tusculan popes, being the son of Gregory, Count of Tusculum, and Maria, and brother of John XIX, he was, though a layman, imposed on the chair of Peter by force (18 May, 1012). Nevertheless, dislodging a rival, he became a good and strong ruler. On the 14th of February, 1014, he crowned the German king, Henry II, emperor (Thietmar, Chron., VI, 61), and ever kept friendly with him. The peace of Italy was promoted by his subjugating the Crescentii, defeating the Saracens, and allying himself with the Normans, who appeared in its southern parts in his time. Going to Germany, he consecrated the cathedral of Bamberg (Ann. Altahen. Majores, 1020; Chron. Cass., II, 47), visited the monastery of Fulda, and obtained from Henry a charter confirmatory of the donations of Charlemagne and Otho. To restrain the vices of clerical incontinence and simony, he held, with the emperor, an important synod at Pavia (1022 -Labbe, Concilia, IX, 819), and supported the reformation which was being effected by the great monastery of Cluny. To further the interest of peace, he encouraged the “Truce of God” and countenanced the ecclesiastical advancement of Gauzlin, the natural brother of Robert the Pious, King of France. This he did because, though illegitimate, Gauzlin was a good man, and his loyal brother was very desirous of his promotion (cf. life of Gauzlin, in “Neues Archiv.,” III). Benedict VIII was one of the many popes who were called upon to intervene in the interminable strife for precedence between the Patriarchs of Grado and of Aquileia (Dandolo, Chron., IX, 2, n. 2). In 1022 he received Ethelnoth of Canterbury “with great worship and very honourably hallowed him archbishop,” and reinstated in his position Leofwine, Abbot of Ely (A.S. Chron., 125, 6, R.S.). A friend of St. Odilo, Abbot of Cluny, and one of the few popes of the Middle Ages who was at once powerful at home and great abroad, Benedict VIII has, on seemingly insufficient grounds, been accused of avarice.

The most important source for the history of the first nine popes who bore the name of Benedict is the biographies in the Liber Pontificalis, of which the most useful edition is that of Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis (Paris, 1886–92), and the latest that of Mommsen, Gesta Pontif. Roman. (to the end of the reign of Constantine only, Berlin, 1898). Jaffé, Regesta Pont. Rom. (2d ed., Leipzig, 1885), gives a summary of the letters of each pope and tells where they may be read at length. Modern accounts of these popes will be found in any large Church history, or history of the City of Rome. The fullest account in English of most of them is to be read in Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1902, passim).

HORACE K. MANN.

Pope Benedict IX

The nephew of his two immediate predecessors, Benedict IX was a man of very different character to either of them. He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter. Regarding it as a sort of heirloom, his father Alberic placed him upon it when a mere youth, not, however, apparently of only twelve years of age (according to Raoul Glaber, Hist., IV, 5, n. 17. Cf. V, 5, n. 26), but of about twenty (October, 1032). Of his pontifical acts little is known, except that he held two or three synods in Rome and granted a number of privileges to various churches and monasteries. He insisted that Bretislav, Duke of Bohemia, should found a monastery, for having carried off the body of St. Adalbert from Poland. In 1037 he went north to meet the Emperor Conrad and excommunicated Heribert, Archbishop of Milan, who was at emnity with him (Ann. Hildesheimenses, 1038). Taking advantage of the dissolute life he was leading, one of the factions in the city drove him from it (1044) amid the greatest disorder, and elected an antipope (Sylvester III) in the person of John, Bishop of Sabina (1045 -Ann. Romani, init. Victor, Dialogi, III, init.). Benedict, however, succeeded in expelling Sylvester the same year; but, as some say, that he might marry, he resigned his office into the hands of the Archpriest John Gratian for a large sum. John was then elected pope and became Gregory VI (May, 1045). Repenting of his bargain, Benedict endeavoured to depose Gregory. This resulted in the intervention of King Henry III. Benedict, Sylvester, and Gregory were deposed at the Council of Sutri (1046) and a German bishop (Suidger) became Pope Clement II. After his speedy demise, Benedict again seized Rome (November, 1047), but was driven from it to make way for a second German pope, Damasus II (November, 1048). Of the end of Benedict it is impossible to speak with certainty. Some authors suppose him to have been still alive when St. Leo IX died, and never to have ceased endeavouring to seize the papacy. But it is more probable that the truth lies with the tradition of the Abbey of Grottaferrata, first set down by Abbot Luke, who died about 1085, and corroborated by sepulchral and other monuments within its walls. Writing of Bartholomew, its fourth abbot (1065), Luke tells of the youthful pontiff turning from his sin and coming to Bartholomew for a remedy for his disorders. On the saint’s advice, Benedict definitely resigned the pontificate and died in penitence at Grottaferrata. [See “St. Benedict and Grottaferrata” (Rome, 1895), a work founded on the more important “De Sepulcro Benedicti IX,” by Dom Greg. Piacentini (Rome, 1747).]

The most important source for the history of the first nine popes who bore the name of Benedict is the biographies in the Liber Pontificalis, of which the most useful edition is that of Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis (Paris, 1886–92), and the latest that of Mommsen, Gesta Pontif. Roman. (to the end of the reign of Constantine only, Berlin, 1898). Jaffé, Regesta Pont. Rom. (2d ed., Leipzig, 1885), gives a summary of the letters of each pope and tells where they may be read at length. Modern accounts of these popes will be found in any large Church history, or history of the City of Rome. The fullest account in English of most of them is to be read in Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1902, passim).

HORACE K. MANN.

Pope Benedict X

The bearer of this name was an antipope in the days of Nicholas II, 1056–61.

HORACE K. MANN.

Pope Benedict XI

(Nicholas Boccasini)

Born at Treviso, Italy, 1240; died at Perugia, 7 July, 1304. He entered the Dominican Order at the age of fourteen. After fourteen years of study, he became lector of theology, which office he filled for several years. In 1296 he was elected Master General of the Order. As at this time hostility to Boniface VIII was becoming more pronounced, the new general issued an ordinance forbidding his subjects to favour in any way the opponents of the reigning pontiff; he also enjoined on them to defend in their sermons, when opportune, the legitimacy of the election of Boniface. This loyalty of Boccasini, which remained unshaken to the end, was recognized by Boniface, who showed him many marks of favour and confidence. Thus with the two cardinal-legates, the Dominican General formed the important embassy, the purpose of which was the concluding of an armistice between Edward I of England and Philip IV of France, then at war with each other. In the year 1298 Boccasini was elevated to the cardinalate; he was afterwards appointed Bishop of Ostia and Dean of the Sacred College. As at that time Hungary was rent by civil war, the cardinal-bishop was sent thither by the Holy See as legate a latere to labour for the restoration of peace. At the time of the return of the legate to Rome, the famous contest of Boniface VIII with Philip the Fair had reached its height. When, in 1303, the enemies of the pope had made themselves masters of the sacred palace, of all the cardinals and prelates only the two Cardinal-Bishops of Ostia and Sabina remained at the side of the venerable Pontiff to defend him from the violence of William of Nogaret and Sciarra Colonna.

A month after this scene of violence, Boniface having died, Boccasini was unanimously elected Pope, 22 October, taking the name of Benedict XI. The principal event of his pontificate was the restoration of peace with the French court. Immediately after his election Philip sent three ambassadors to the pope bearing the royal letter of congratulation. The king, while professing his obedience and devotion, recommended to the benevolence of the pope the Kingdom and Church of France. Benedict, judging a policy of indulgence to be necessary for the restoration of peace with the French court, absolved Philip and his subjects from the censures they had incurred and restored the king and kingdom to the rights and privileges of which they had been deprived by Boniface. The Colonna cardinals were also absolved from their censures, but not reinstated in their former dignities. This policy of leniency Benedict carried out without compromising the dignity of the Holy See or the memory of Boniface VIII. Nogaret and Sciarra Colonna and those implicated in the outrage of Anagni were declared excommunicated and summoned to appear before the pontifical tribunal. After a brief pontificate of eight months, Benedict died suddenly at Perugia. It was suspected, not altogether without reason, that his sudden death was caused by poisoning through the agency of William of Nogaret. Benedict XI was beatified in the year 1773. His feast is celebrated at Rome and throughout the Dominican Order on the 7th of July. He is the author of a volume of sermons and commentaries on a part of the Gospel of St. Matthew, on the Psalms, the Book of Job, and the Apocalypse.

Ptol. Luc., Hist. Eccl. III, 672; Bernardus Guidonis, Vit. pont. rom., IX, 1010; Script. Ord. Præd., I, 444; Grandjean, Les registres de Benoît XI (Paris, 1883); Funke, Papst Benedikt XI (Münster, 1891); Artaud de Montor, History of the Popes (New York, 1867), I, 481–484; Année Dominicaine, vii, 125–54; 874–77; and the monograph of Ferreton (Treviso, 1904).

M. A. WALDRON

Pope Benedict XII

(JACQUES FOURNIER)

Third of the Avignon popes, b. at Saverdun in the province of Toulouse, France, elected 20 December, 1334; d. at Avignon 24 April, 1342. Nothing is known of his parentage or boyhood. In youth he became a Cistercian monk in the monastery of Boulbonne, whence he moved to that of Fontfroide, whose abbot was his natural uncle, Arnold Novelli, by whose name Fournier was also known. He studied at the University of Paris, where he received the doctorate in theology. Meantime he was made Abbot of Fontfroide, succeeding his uncle who was created cardinal 19 December, 1310. In December 1317, he became Bishop of his native Diocese of Palmiers, was translated to Mirepoix 26 January, 1327, and was made cardinal by Pope John XXII, 18 December, 1327. On the latter’s death, 4 December, 1334, the cardinals in conclave, most of whom opposed a return to Rome, demanded of Cardinal de Comminges whose election seemed assured, the promise to remain at Avignon. His refusal precipitated an unexpected canvass for candidates. On the first ballot, 20 December, 1334, many electors, intending to sound the mind of the conclave, voted for the unlikely Cardinal Fournier, who, though he was one of the few men of real merit in the college, was but lightly regarded because of his obscure origin and lack of wealth and following. He amazed the conclave by receiving the necessary two-thirds vote. On 8 January, 1335, he was enthroned as Benedict XII.

Resolved to re-establish the papacy at Rome, Benedict signalized his accession by providing for the restoration of St. Peter’s basilica and the Lateran. He was prepared to acquiesce in the petition of a Roman deputation soliciting his return, but his cardinals pictured the impossibility of living in faction-rent Italy. They were right, whatever were their motives, and Benedict yielded. Conscience- stricken during a critical illness, he proposed as a compromise a transfer of his court to Bologna. The cardinals urged the slender hope of securing obedience, and Benedict decided to remain at Avignon, where in 1339 he commenced to build the massive papal castle which still exists. Mindful always of distracted Italy, he often sent money to succour the famine- stricken people and to restore churches. Reform of abuse was Benedict’s chief concern. Immediately after his elevation he remanded to their benefices clerics not needed at Avignon, and menaced with summary chastisement violators of the law of residence. He revoked the scandalous “expectances” granted by his predecessors and forbade conferring benefices in commendam. (See .) He condemned unseemly “pluralities” and conferred benefices with such conscientious discrimination that several were left long vacant, and so gave colour to the calumny that he was himself harvesting their revenues. He inveighed vigorously against greed for gain among ecclesiastics; regulated the taxes on documents issued by papal bureaux; made episcopal visitation less of a financial burden to the clergy; abolished the practice of countersigning requests for papal favours, which was extremely lucrative to venal officials; and established the Registry of Supplications for the control of such petitions. Abhorring nepotism, he granted preferment to but one relative, naming the eminent John Bauzian Archbishop of Arles in deference to the insistence of the cardinals; he compelled his only niece to discourage noble suitors, and marry one of her own humble rank. A legend, vouched for by Ægidius of Viterbo (d. 1532), accredits him with saying, “a pope should be like Melchisedech, without father, mother, or genealogy.” Monastic reform particularly engaged his zeal. Himself a Cistercian, he sought to revive pristine monastic fervour and devotion to study. Pertinent papal constitutions and visitations of monasteries attest his solicitude for a monastic renaissance.

Being a learned theologian, he was as bishop, cardinal, and pope, keenly interested in scholastic discussions. He terminated the controversy on the vexed question as to whether the Beatific Vision was enjoyed before or only after the General Judgment. John XXII had advocated the latter view and stirred up vigorous discussion. Eager to solve the question, Benedict heard the opinions of those maintaining the theory of deferred vision, and, with a commission of theologians, gave four months to patristic research. Their labours terminated in the proclamation (29 January, 1336) of the Bull “Benedictus Deus” defining the immediate intuitive vision of God by the souls of the just having no faults to expiate. Zealous too for the preservation of the Faith, he stimulated the bishops of infected districts to vigilance in the repression of heresy and urged the use of the preventive remedies of the Inquisition. He combatted energetically the anti-papal doctrines which the ecclesiastico- political theorists of the disturbed Avignon period had spread, and which were unfortunately sustained by a school of misguided Franciscans. (See , , , .) Distressed by disloyalty in Ireland, he tried to persuade Edward III to establish the Inquisition in his realm and urged him to assist the Irish bishops to extirpate heresy. But, though the most ardent foe of heresy, Benedict was remarkably patient and loving in dealing with heretics. He looked also to the union of the Eastern Church with Rome through a delegate of the Emperor Andronicus, whose sincerity, however, Benedict was forced to question; manifested his solicitude for the Church in Armenia which, in the early fourteenth century, suffered from Mohammedan invasions, succouring the unfortunates in temporal matters and healing doctrinal differences which had long rent Armenia with schism.

In purely ecclesiastical affairs Benedict’s pontificate was creditable to himself and productive of good to the Church. Pious, prudent, and firm, he strove conscientiously to meet the Church’s needs at a critical period. In political relations, however, he was not so successful. Inexperienced in politics, he had little taste for diplomacy and an imperfect knowledge of men and affairs of the world. Conflicting political motives confused him, and hesitancy and vacillation contrasted painfully with his firmness and decision in ecclesiastical matters. Though determined to act independently of Philip VI of France, the latter generally succeeded in committing the pope to his policy. He helped to prevent his return to Rome. He frustrated his desire to make peace with the Emperor Louis of Bavaria whom John XXII had excommunicated for fomenting sedition in Italy, proclaiming himself King of the Romans, and intruding an antipope. Willing to absolve him should he but submit to the Church, Benedict exposed to Louis’s delegates his generous terms of peace (July, 1335). But Philip, aided by the cardinals, persuaded the pope that his generosity encouraged heresy and rebellion. Benedict yielded. Thrice the imperial envoys came to Avignon, but French influence prevailed, and, on 11 April, 1337, Benedict declared it impossible to absolve Louis. The latter, as Benedict feared, allied himself with Edward III of England against France. In vain the pope tried to avert war, but he was no match for the kings and their allies. His good offices were spurned; and he was humiliated by Philip’s later alliance with Louis, who had also allied to himself the pope’s political and ecclesiastical enemies, and by the emperor’s denial of the pope’s authority over him, and, worst insult of all, by his usurpation of papal power in declaring the nullity of the marriage of John Henry of Bohemia and Margaret Maultasch, that the latter might marry his son, Louis of Brandenburg. The French king hindered Benedict’s projected crusade against the infidels, making the war with England an excuse to forego his promise to lead the armies, and even diverting the money subscribed for it to financing his own wars, despite the protests of the conscientious pope. Benedict’s crusading ardour found solace in Spain, where he encouraged the campaign against the Mohammedans who in 1339 invaded the peninsula.

Benedict XII has not escaped calumny. Reformer, foe of heresy, builder of the Avignon papal palace, unwilling ally of France and enemy of Germany, he made many enemies whose misrepresentations have inspired most non- Catholic appreciations of his character. Much harm was done to his memory by the satires of Petrarch, who, though befriended and honoured by Benedict, yet bitterly resented his failure to return to Rome. His natural obesity, too, stimulated caricature and undeserved criticism. But history offers a vindication and testifies that, though he failed to cope successfully with the political difficulties to which he fell heir, his piety, virtue, and pacific spirit, his justice, rectitude, and firmness in ruling, his zeal for doctrinal and moral reform, and his integrity of character were above reproach.

Raynaldus, in Baronius, Annales (Bar-le-Duc, 1872), XXV, 20–274; Christophe, Hist. de la papauté pendant le XIVe siècle (Paris, 1853), II, 36–79; Rocquain, La Cour de Rome (Paris, 1895), II, 437–463; Pastor-Antrobus, History of the Popes (St. Louis, 1898), I, 83–86; Vidal, Benoît XII: Lettres (Paris, 1902); Daumet, Benoît XII: Lettres (Paris, 1889); Acta SS., XIII, 83–86; Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne (Paris, 1886), II, 486, 527; Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores f(Milan, 1734), III-XIII; Le Bachelet in Dict. théol. cath., II, 653–704, an exhaustive theological study with a good bibliography.

JOHN B. PETERSON.

Pope Benedict XIII

(PIETRO FRANCESCO ORSINI)

Born 2 February, 1649; died 23 February, 1730. Being a son of Ferdinando Orsini and Giovanna Frangipani of Tolpha, he belonged to the archducal family of Orsini-Gravina. From early youth he exhibited a decided liking for the Order of St. Dominic, and at the age of sixteen during a visit to Venice he entered the Dominican novitiate against the will of his parents, though he was the eldest son and heir to the title and estates of his childless uncle the Duke of Bracciano. Their appeal to Clement IX was fruitless; the pope not only approved the purpose of the young novice, but even shortened his novitiate by half in order to free him from the importunities of his relatives. As student and novice, the young prince was a model of humility and zeal, and devoted himself to the acquisition of ecclesiastical learning. At the age of twenty-one he was promoted to a professorship. On 22 February, 1672, he was elevated to the cardinalate by his relative Clement X. He protested strenuously against the honour, but was compelled to accept it under the vow of obedience by the General of the Dominicans, at the insistence of the pope. As cardinal he adhered strictly to the observance of the rule of his order, and never laid aside his habit. In 1675 having the choice between the Archbishopric of Salerno and that of Manfredonia (Siponto) he chose the latter because it was a poor diocese and required great exercise of pastoral zeal. His virtuous life not only overcame the opposition made by his relatives when he became a monk, but exercised such a salutary influence that in time his mother, his sister, and two of his nieces embraced the religious life in the Third Order of St. Dominic. During the conclave that followed the death of Clement X (1676), he was one of the band of cardinals known as the zelanti who had agreed that no considerations of worldly prudence would influence them in the choice of a new pope. In the government of his diocese, Cardinal Orsini was unremitting in his labours and zeal. He visited even the most remote hamlets and was not less watchful over temporal than over spiritual things. He provided for the needs of the people, repaired churches and held a diocesan synod, the decrees of which he published. In 1680, when Innocent XI transferred him to Cesena, he left to the people of Siponto a memorial of his apostolic activity, his devotion to the poor and his constant preaching brought about a thorough-going reformation among both clergy and people. Seeing on his frequent journeys the condition of the churches in even the poorest parishes, he neglected none and by the promulgation of strict rules, he abolished all known abuses.

In 1686, a serious illness, attributed by his physicians to the climate, caused his transfer to Benevento, where he remained for thirty-eight years or until he was elected pope. During this long period he seldom left his diocese. Each year he made an episcopal visitation to every parish. Whenever necessary, he built or renovated churches. He built hospitals and strove incessantly for the alleviation of the sufferings of the poor. Twice during his episcopate (5 June, 1688, and 14 March, 1702) Benevento was visited by earthquakes and on these occasions his courage, his active charity in behalf of the stricken inhabitants, and his energy in the reconstruction of the city, won for him the title of the “Second Founder” of Benevento. He held two provincial synods, the first in 1693 attended by eighteen bishops, the second in 1698, with an attendance of twenty, the acts of which were approved at Rome. The only reproach made against his administration is that his simplicity and child-like confidence exposed him to the wiles of some unscrupulous persons who abused his confidence.

Cardinal Orsini had already taken part in four conclaves, when Innocent XIII died in March, 1724; and in all he had acted in the spirit of the zelanti. The conclave at which he was himself chosen assembled on 20 March; two months afterwards (25 May) no choice had been made. This long delay weighed heavily on the soul of Orsini, who commenced a novena of prayers to his patron, St. Philip Neri, that the election of a new pope might be no longer delayed. Before the novena was finished he saw with terror that he himself would be chosen, and, reluctant to accept a position which filled him with dread, he sought by all means in his power to prevent his election. Against his oft repeated protestations he was chosen 29 May, 1724, and even after the final vote was taken he refused to yield, arguing that his age, his physical weakness, his incapacity, and a resolution which he made never to become pope, should exempt him from such a grave responsibility. He yielded only when it was made clear to him that grave dangers were to be feared if the conclave should be reopened. So with tears, and obeying the command of the general of his order, he allowed himself to be proclaimed pope. In honour of Benedict XI, a member of the Dominican Order, he took the name of Benedict XIV, which he shortly changed to Benedict XIII as Peter de Luna who had previously borne the name (1394–1423) was a schismatic.

His first concern as pope was to enforce rigidly ecclesiastical discipline. He issued several decrees on ecclesiastical dress and was unsparing in his efforts to abolish any semblance of luxury or worldly pomp among the cardinals. During the Jubilee of 1725, he discharged personally the duties of Grand Penitentiary, and is said to have seriously considered the revival of public penances for certain grave offences. In order to encourage the foundation of diocesan seminaries, he organized a special commission (Congregatio Seminariorum). At a provincial Roman Lateran synod held in 1725, he required an unqualified acceptance of the Bull Unigenitus and through his efforts Cardinal de Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, was led to accept it in 1728. During his pontificate Benedict retained the Archbishopric of Benevento which he administered by a vicar-general and which he twice visited (1727, 1729).

In diplomatic matters and in his relations with foreign powers Benedict did not exhibit the vigour and conservatism which marked his administration in religious matters. His love of peace led him to attempt a settlement of the dispute in regard to the ecclesiastical privileges of the Kings of Naples (Monarchia Sicula) by a revocation of the constitution of Clement XI (1715) and by granting to the King of Naples (and Sicily) and his successors the right to appoint a spiritual judge in ecclesiastical affairs, reserving, however, the most important cases to the Holy See. The quarrel with Victor Amadeus of Savoy was compounded by giving to the king the right of patronage over the churches and monasteries in his dominions, without, however, conceding any claim to the incomes from vacant benefices. Towards John V, King of Portugal, the pope exhibited extraordinary firmness in refusing a claim based on the privileges held by other courts to propose candidates for the cardinalate. This was in consequence of the protests made by the cardinals against the election of Vincenzo Biechi, Nuncio to Lisbon. In retaliation John recalled all Portuguese residents in Rome, forbade all communication with the Roman Curia, and attempted to prevent the sending of the customary alms from Portugal to Rome; he also interfered with applications for dispensations from matrimonial impediments. At many courts of Europe grave offense was taken by the extension (1728) to the Universal Church of the Office of Gregory VII containing an account of the excommunication and deposition of Henry IV, which to Gallicans and Protestants seemed offensive.

Although full justice can scarcely be done to the virtuous life and the fatherly zeal for the interests of religion of Benedict, his pontificate lost much of its lustre because of his misplaced confidence in Cardinal Nicolò Coscia, who had been his coadjutor at Benevento. The pope was ignorant of the peculations and venality of his favourite, whose greed did much to diminish the prestige of the Holy See, and against whom a popular uprising took place on the pope’s death, resulting in ten years’ imprisonment for this unworthy cardinal. Benedict’s theological writings were published in three volumes (Ravenna, 1728).

QUÉTIF-ECHARD, Script. Ord. Praed., I, 814; CAVALIERI, Galleria de sommi ponteficia, Patriarch . . . dell’ O. P. (Benevento, 1696), I, 668; PITTONI, Vita del sommo pontefice Benedetto XIII (Venice, 1730); BORGIA, Benedicti XIII vita (Rome, 1752); GUARNACCI, Hist. pontif. roman., I, 39, II, 409 sqq.; SANDINI, Vitae pontif. roman. (Rome, 1763); GRONE, Papstgeschichte (Ratisbon, 1875); SENTIS, Die Monarchia Sicula (Freiburg, 1869), 159 sqq.; ARTAUD DE MONTOR, History of the Roman Pontiffs (New York, 1867), II.

PATRICK J. HEALY

Pope Benedict XIV

(PROSPERO LORENZO LAMBERTINI.)

Son of Marcello Lambertini and Lucretia Bulgarini, b. at Bologna 31 March, 1675; d. 3 May, 1758. His early education was received from tutors. At the age of thirteen he went to the Collegium Clementianum in Rome where he studied rhetoric, philosophy, and theology. St. Thomas Aquinas was his favourite author, but the bent of his own mind was towards historical and legal studies in which latter he excelled, as well in civil as in ecclesiastical law. In 1694, though only nineteen, he received the degree of Doctor of Theology and Doctor Utriusque Juris (canon and civil law). On the death of Innocent XII he was made consistorial advocate by Clement XI, and shortly afterwards Consultor of the Holy Office. In 1708 he was appointed Promotor of the Faith; in 1712 canon theologian at the Vatican and assessor of the Congregation of Rites; in 1713 he was named domestic prelate; in 1718 secretary of the Congregation of the Council; and in 1725 titular Bishop of Theodosia. He was made Bishop of Ancona in 1727 and cardinal 30 April, 1728. He was transferred to the Archbishopric of Bologna in April, 1731, in succession to Lorenzo Corsini who had become pope as Clement XII.

Benedict XIV is best known to history as a student and a scholar. Though by no means a genius, his enormous application coupled with more than ordinary cleverness of mind made him one of the most erudite men of his time and gave him the distinction of being perhaps the greatest scholar among the popes. His character was manysided, and his range of interests large. His devotion to science and the serious investigation of historical problems did not interfere with his purely literary studies. “I have been reproached,” he once said, “because of my familiarity with Tasso and Dante and Ariosto, but they are a necessity to me in order to give energy to my thought and life to my style.” This devotion to the arts and sciences brought Lambertini throughout his whole life into close and friendly contact with the most famous authors and scholars of his time. Montfaucon, whom he knew in Rome, said of him, “Young as he is, he has two souls: one for science, the other for society.” This last characterization did not interfere with his restless activity in any of the many important positions which he was called on to fill, nor did it diminish his marvellous capacity for the most arduous work.

The zeal and energy which Lambertini carried to this office infused new life into all his subjects. He himself explained his assiduity by saying that he looked on the episcopate not as an honour, but as an opportunity to do good. His administration was exemplary: he visited all parts of his diocese, held synods, incited the people to piety by word and example, and supervised the affairs of his diocese so thoroughly that nothing needing change or correction escaped him. His humility and vast learning were a source of inspiration and strength to his clergy, and his broad firm grasp of public affairs and public questions gave him a position of unique influence among rulers and people. In his opinion the foundation of success in episcopal administration was thorough harmony between bishop and clergy, and this he succeeded in obtaining. Because of his wonderful gifts and his extraordinary success as Bishop of Ancona, Pope Benedict XIII wished to transfer him to some position of greater responsibility affording a wider field for the display of his powers and activity, but he replied in his usual jocose vein that no change of place could make him other than he was, cheerful, joyous, and the friend of the pope. When he was transferred to Bologna in 1731 his energies and activities seemed to redouble. He became all things to all men and is said to have never allowed anyone to leave his presence dissatisfied or in anger, and without being strengthened and refreshed by his wisdom, advice, or admonitions. His efforts were largely directed to the improvement of clerical education in his diocese. He reformed the programme of studies in his seminary and drew up a new curriculum in which special stress was laid on the study of Sacred Scripture and patrology.

When Clement XII died (6 February, 1740) the fame of Lambertini was at its highest. Through intrigues of various kinds the conclave which commenced on 17 February lasted for six months. It was composed of fiftyfour cardinals of whom fortysix were Italians, three French, four Spanish, and one German. These were split into several parties. One was composed of those who had been appointed by Clement XI, Innocent XIII, and Benedict XIII; another of those appointed by Clement XII who were known as the new college. The long, tedious session and the intense heat did not improve the temper of the cardinals; after six months of fruitless effort and constant intrigue, the election seemed no nearer than in the beginning. Various expedients were suggested, such as the withdrawal of the names of the leading candidates and the substitution of others, but without avail. After several plans had been tried to end the deadlock, Lambertini, whose name had been proposed as a compromise, addressed the conclave, saying: “If you wish to elect a saint, choose Gotti; a statesman, Aldobrandini; an honest man, elect me.” These words spoken as much perhaps in jest as in earnest helped to end the difficulty. Lambertini was chosen and took the name of Benedict XIV in honour of his friend and patron Benedict XIII. As pope, Lambertini was no less energetic, brave, and unassuming than before his election. His great learning placed him in a position to deal successfully with ecclesiastical situations that needed reformation, and the broad Christian spirit which animated his dealings with foreign powers removed the pressure and hostility of even Protestant courts and rulers. He was undoubtedly liberal in his political dealings, though he never lost sight of the essential interests of the Church and religion.

PUBLIC POLICY

To go to the extreme limit of concession and conciliation seems to have been the principle that dominated all Benedict’s actions in his negotiations with governments and rulers, so much so, indeed, that he has not escaped criticism even from those within the Church as being too prone to settle difficulties by making concessions or compromises. However his actions may be judged, whatever may be thought of his motives, it cannot be denied that he aimed constantly at peace and that few causes of friction remained after the close of his administration. Moreover, in estimating the value and effect of his concessions, it is seen that in nearly every case he strengthened the moral influence of the papacy even though some rights of patronage or other material interests were abandoned. Nor was his influence less potent among Protestant than Catholic rulers; the universal esteem in which he was held throughout the world meant much in an epoch, the close of which was to witness the disruption of many timehonoured institutions, social and political as well as religious. An enumeration of his principal dealings with the heads of states will show that Benedict wisely abandoned, in most cases, the shadow of temporal authority to maintain the substance of spiritual supremacy.

The King of Portugal received the right of patronage over all the sees and abbeys in his kingdom (1740) and was further favoured with the title of Rex Fidelissimus (1748). In the matter of church revenues and the allotment of ecclesiastical benefices Spain was also treated very generously. In 1741 permission was granted to tax the income of the clergy, and in 1753 the Government received the right of nomination to nearly all the Spanish benefices; in 1754 an agreement was ratified by which the revenues from all the benefices in Spain and in the American colonies were paid into the government treasury to carry on the war against the African pirates. The King of Sardinia received the title of Vicar of the Holy See which carried with it the right of nomination to all the ecclesiastical benefices in his dominions and the income of the pontifical fiefs in lieu of which a yearly indemnity of one thousand ducats was to be paid. Through the mediation of the pope a tribunal was established in Naples consisting of an equal number of clerical and lay members presided over by an ecclesiastic, which formed the final court for the trial of ecclesiastical cases. As mediator between the Kinghts of Malta and the King of Naples the pope brought a long standing controversy to a happy termination. By the Encyclical “Ex omnibus christiani orbis” (16 October, 1756), the bitter controversy regarding the question of admitting to the sacraments persons who would not accept the Bull “Unigenitus” was brought to a close. While insisting on the authority of the “Unigenitus” and pointing out that it was the duty of all the faithful to accept it with veneration, the pope decrees that only those persons should be excluded from the sacraments whose opposition to the pontifical constitution was public and notorious, and who therefore should be regarded as public enemies. The title of King of Prussia, taken in 1701 by the Elector of Brandenburg, was recognized by Benedict against the vigorous opposition of many members of the Curia. He was referred to as the sage par excellence by Maria Theresa, and received many encomiums from the sultan to whom he playfully referred in his writings as the “Good Turk.” At the close of his pontificate the only question of importance in the foreign relations of the Holy See which had not been successfully settled was that concerning the Patriarchate of Aquileia over which the Republic of Venice and the emperor claimed control. Benedict decided that the rights of the patriarchate should be divided between the Archbishopric of Görz, in Austria, and that of Udine in the Venetian States. This decision was regarded as unjust by Venice, which in retaliation decreed that no Bull, Brief, or communication of the Holy See should be promulgated within the jurisdiction of the Republic without the supervision and approval of the Government.

TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL RULER

As temporal sovereign Benedict governed the States of the Church with wisdom and moderation and introduced many reforms for the purpose of diminishing abuses and promoting the happiness and prosperity of the people. With a view to replenishing the treasury which had been exhausted by the extravagance of some of his predecessors, especially that of Benedict XIII under the influence of Cardinal Coscia, and because of the enormous outlay for public buildings under Clement XII, he made no promotions to the Sacred College for four years. Measures were set on foot to reform the nobility, a new regional division of the city was introduced for the purpose of greater administrative efficiency, agriculture was fostered and encouraged by the introduction of new and improved methods, commerce was promoted, and luxury restrained, while the practice of usury, against which he published the Encyclical (1745), was almost entirely suppressed. Benedict abandoned none of the claims of his predecessors, but the liberal use of his powers had no other aim than the promotion of the arts of peace and industry. How serious the problem was is best seen from his own words: “The pope orders, the cardinals do not obey, and the people do as they please.”

In purely spiritual and religious matters the influence of Benedict left a lasting impress on the entire Church and its administration. His Bulls and Encyclicals, which have played such an important part in defining and clarifying obscure and difficult points of ecclesiastical law, were learned treatises full of wisdom and scholarship. The vexed question of mixed marriages, unions between Catholics and Protestants, demanded settlement in consequence of the increasing frequency with which they occurred. Much of the bitterness of the Reformation time had passed away and Protestants sought to have their marriages with Catholics solemnized with ceremonies equal to those when both parties were Catholics. Though the doctrine prevailed in Rome that the contracting parties were the real ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony, no general unanimity prevailed among theologians on this point. Without derogating in the least from this theory, Benedict in reply to the questions from bishops in many places, especially in Holland and Poland, decreed by the Bull “Magnæ nobis admirationis” (29 June, 1748) that mixed marriages were allowable only under certain welldefined conditions, the principal of which was that children born of those marriages should be brought up in the Catholic Faith, but that such marriages while tolerated, should never be performed with the ceremonies that imply formal ecclesiastical approval.

RELATIONS WITH EASTERN CHURCHES

Under the skilful hand of Benedict a formal union was consummated with some of the Eastern Churches. The frequent attempts of the Greek Melchite Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem to obtain recognition from the Holy See did not for a long time result in any definite union, because of dissatisfaction on the part of the popes with the formulation of the Oriental creeds. In 1744, Benedict XIV sent the pallium to Seraphin Tanas whom he acknowledged as Patriarch of the Greek Melchites of Antioch. The conflicts in the Maronite Church, after the deposition of Jacob II, which seriously threatened its unity were settled in a national council (1736), the decrees of which were approved by Benedict. On 18 March, 1751, he renewed the prohibitions of Clement XII against the Freemasons, and though very few governments regarded the suppression of this society as demanding decisive action on their part, laws were at once passed by Spain and Naples, and in 1757 by Milan. The controversy in regard to Chinese and Malabar customs, or the system of accommodation to heathenism which some missionaries had permitted their converts to practice, and by which it was said that pagan ideas and pagan practices had been grafted on Christianity, was terminated by Benedict XIV who issued two Bulls on the subject, and required the missionaries to take an oath that such abuses would not be tolerated in the future. The Bull “Ex quo singulari,” in regard to the abuses in China, was published 11 July, 1742; that in regard to Malabar, “Omnium sollicitudinum,” 12 September, 1744. (See CHINA, INDIA.) Because of the manner in which church festivals had been multiplied, Benedict strove to diminish them. This he did in Spain in 1742, in Sicily and Tuscany in 1748, and later in Sardinia, Austria, and the Papal States. Such a move met with much opposition from many cardinals. Benedict silenced their reproaches by saying that fewer feasts observed in a more Christian manner would contribute more to the glory of religion.

LITURGICAL REFORMS

In liturgical matters Benedict XIV was extremely conservative. He viewed with grief the profound changes which had been introduced into the Roman Calendar since the time of Pius V. The increase in the number of Feasts of Saints and the multiplication of offices with the rank of Duplex had superseded the old ferial and dominical offices, and throughout his entire pontificate he set himself determinedly against the introduction of any new offices in the Breviary, a policy which he adhered to so strictly that the only change it underwent during his administration was that Leo the Great received the title of Doctor. So profoundly impressed was he with the necessity of a thorough revision of the Breviary which would eliminate those portions with which the critical sense of the eighteenth century found fault that he commissioned the Jesuit, Fabio Danzetto, to prepare a report on the subject. This report in four volumes of notes was of such a sweeping character that it is said to have caused Benedict to desist from his project. The plan of reforming the Roman Martyrology was, however, carried to a successful issue, and a new edition was published by his authority in Rome in 1748. The same is true of the “Cæremoniale Episcoporum,” which Benedict XIII undertook to reform and which Benedict XIV published (1752) in the now usual form. The classical work of Benedict on liturgical matters is his “De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et de Beatorum Canonizatione” which still regulates the process of beatification and canonization. Other important liturgical writings of Benedict deal with the sacrifice of the Mass and the feasts of Our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and some saints. Besides these he published numerous works on the rites of the Greeks and Orientals; Bulls and Briefs on the celebration of the octave of the Holy Apostles, against the use of superstitious images, on the blessing of the pallium, against profane music in churches, on the golden rose, etc.

In order that the clergy should not be deficient in ecclesiastical and historical science, and that they might not lack opportunity to profit by the intellectual progress of the period, he founded at Rome four academies for the study of Roman antiquities, Christian antiquities, the history of the Church and the councils, and the history of canon law and liturgy. He also established a Christian museum, and commissioned Joseph Assemani to prepare a catalogue of the manuscripts in the Vatican Library, which he enriched by the purchase of the Ottobonian Library containing 3,300 MSS. of unique value and importance. He founded chairs of chemistry and mathematics in the Roman university known as the Sapienza, and many others for painting, sculpture, etc., at other schools. Over all these foundations he exercised the closest supervision; he also found time to carry out many schemes for the building and adornment of churches in Rome. The fact that Benedict never raised a Jesuit to the cardinalate is attributed to his hostility to the Society; on the other hand, it must be noted that it was to a Jesuit, Emmanuel Azevedo, that he committed the complete edition of his works (1747–51). He had been long urged by his friends Cardinals Passionei and Archinto to order a thorough reformation of that body, but it was not until the last year of his life that any decisive action was taken. On 1 April, 1758, he issued a Brief by which Cardinal Saldanha was commissioned to inspect all the colleges and houses of the Society in Portugal, and to undertake a reform of the same, but this authority was withdrawn by his successor, Clement XIII.

Benedict XIV sought recreation in the society of learned men and artists, among whom he shone as a wit and a scholar. Gay, lively, and talkative, his conversation at times amazed, if it did not shock, the staid sensibilities of some of the dignified courtiers who came in contact with him. Mild and gracious in his demeanour to all who approached him, the pope was at times lacking neither in energy nor spirit. On one occasion a violent scene took place in which the pope expressed in a most decided manner his disapproval of the tactics of the French court. Choiseul, the French ambassador, called at the Vatican to request that the appointment of Cardinal Archinto to succeed Cardinal Valenti as Secretary of State be deferred until after some matters in which the French king was interested were decided. Choiseul himself gives an account of this scene (Letters, p. 169), without, however, relating all the details. The conversation was more lively than Choiseul reported, and from the “Mémoires” of the Baron de Besonval (p. 106) we learn that when the pope had grown tired of the importunities of Choiseul he seized him by the arm and pushing him into his own seat said: “Be pope yourself” (Fa el Papa). Choiseul replied: “No, Holy Father, let us each do his part. You continue to be pope and I shall be ambassador.” This brusqueness, however, was not usual with Benedict. He could be gay as well as serious. The Abbate Galiani once presented him with a collection of minerals saying: Dic ut lapides isti panes fiant (Command that these stones be made bread), and the hint was not lost. The miracle requested was performed and the abbé received a pension.

To his subjects Benedict was an idol. If they complained at times that he wrote too much and governed them too little, they all agreed that he spoke well and wittily, and his jokes and bon mots were the delight of Rome. Cares of state, after his elevation to the pontificate prevented him from devoting himself as much as he would have wished to his studies of former days; but he never lacked intellectual stimulus. He surrounded himself with such men as Quirini, Garampi, Borgia, Muratori, and carried on an active correspondence with scholars of many shades of opinion. His intellectual preeminence was not only a source of pride to Catholics, but formed a strong bond with many not of the Faith. Voltaire dedicated to him his “Mahomet” with the words: “Au chef de la véritable religion un écrit contre le fondateur d’une religion fausse et barbare.” On another occasion he composed for a portrait of the pope the following distich:

Lambertinus hic est, Romæ decus, et pater orbis

Qui mundum scriptis docuit, virtutibus ornat. (This is Lambertini, the pride of Rome, the father of the world,

who teaches that world by his writings and honours by his virtues.)

The distich caused discussion regarding the quantity of “hic,” but the pope defended the prosody of Voltaire who confirmed his opinion by a quotation from Virgil which he said ought to be the epitaph of Benedict. Great as a man, a scholar, an administrator, and a priest, Benedict’s claim to immortality rests principally on his admirable ecclesiastical writings. The most important of them, besides those already mentioned, are: “Institutiones Ecclesiasticæ,” written in Italian, but translated into Latin by P. Ildephonsus a S. Carolo; it is a collection of 107 documents, principally pastoral letters, letters to bishops and others, independent treatises, instructions, etc., all of which are really scientific dissertations on subjects connected with church law or the care of souls; the classical work “De Synodo Dioecesanâ,” published after his elevation to the papacy, an adaptation to diocesan administration of the general ecclesiastical law; this book is called by Schulte, because of its influence, one of the most important, if not the most important, modern work in canon law; “Casus Conscientiæ de mandato Prosp. Lambertini Archiep. Bonon propositi et resoluti,” valuable for the lawyer as well as the confessor; “Bullarum Benedicti XIV,” which contains the legislation of his pontificate, many of its documents being scientific treatises. He also compiled a “Thesaurus Resolutionum Sacræ Congregationis Concilii,” the first attempt at a scientific presentation of the “Praxis” of the Roman Congregations. A complete edition of his works appeared at Rome (1747–51) in twelve folio volumes, by Emmanuel Azevedo, S. J., who also translated into Latin the Italian documents. A better and more complete edition is that of Venice, 1788. The latest and most serviceable (Prato, 1844) is in seventeen volumes. Some letters of Benedict were published by Kraus: “Briefe Benedicts XIV an den Canonicus Pier Francesco Peggi in Bologna (1729–1758) nebst Benedicts Diarium des Conclaves von 1740” (2d ed., Freiburg, 1888). Cf. Batiffol, “Inventaire des lettres inédites du Pape Bénoit XIV” (Paris, 1894); R. De Martinis, “Acta Benedicti XIV”; (Naples, 1884, passim). In 1904 Heiner edited three hitherto unpublished treatises of Benedict XIV on rites, the feasts of the Apostles, and the Sacraments.

The best account of the writings of Benedict and the sources for his life are contained in the abovementioned work of KRAUS. See also GUARNACCHI, Vitæ et res gestæ Romanor. Pontif. et Card. a Clem. X usque ad Clem XI (Rome, 1857); NOVAES, Storia de’ Sommi Pontefici (Rome, 1822); RANKE, Die röm. Päpste in den letzten vier Jahrh. (Leipzig, ed. 1900); Vie du Pape Bened. XIV (Paris, 1783); GRÖNE, PapstGeschichte (Ratisbon, 1875), II. For a long account of the Curia and the character of the cardinals in the time of Benedict XIV, see CHOISEUL, Lettres et Mémoires inédites, publiées par Maurice Boutry (Paris, 1895). On Benedict as a canonist see SCHULTE, Gesch. der Quellen und Litt. des can. Rechts (Stuttgart, 1880), III, 503 sqq.

PATRICK J. HEALY

Rule of Saint Benedict

This work holds the first place among monastic legislative codes, and was by far the most important factor in the organization and spread of monasticism in the West. For its general character and also its illustration of St. Benedict’s own life, see the article SAINT BENEDICT. Here, however, it is treated in more detail, under the following heads:

I. The Text of the Rule; II. Analysis of the Rule; III. Practical Working of the Rule.

The exact time and place at which St. Benedict wrote his Rule are not known, nor can it be determined whether the Rule, as we now possess it, was composed as a single whole or whether it gradually took shape in response to the needs of his monks. Somewhere about 530 however, may be taken as a likely date, and Monte Cassino as a more probable place than Subiaco, for the Rule certainly reflects St. Benedict’s matured monastic and spiritual wisdom. The earliest chronicler says that when Monte Cassino was destroyed by the Lombards in 581, the monks fled to Rome, carrying with them, among other treasures, a copy of the Rule “which the holy Father had composed”; and in the middle of the eighth century there was in the pope’s library a copy believed to be St. Benedict’s autograph. It has been assumed by many scholars that this was the copy brought from Monte Cassino; but though this is likely enough, it is not a certainty. Be that as it may, this manuscript of the Rule was presented by Pope Zachary to Monte Cassino in the middle of the eighth century, a short time after the restoration of that monastery. Charlemagne found it there when he visited Monte Cassino towards the end of the century, and at his request a most careful transcript of it was made for him, as an exemplar of the text to be disseminated throughout the monasteries of his empire. Several copies of the Rule were made from it, one of which survives to this day; for there can be no doubt that the present Codex 914 of the St. Gall Library was copied directly from Charlemagne’s copy for the Abby of Reichnau. An exact diplomatic reprint (not in facsimile) of this codex was published at Monte Cassino in 1900, so that the text of this manuscript, certainly the best individual text of the Rule in existence, can be studied without difficulty. Various other manuscripts go back to Charlemagne’s manuscript, or to its original at Monte Cassino, which was destroyed by fire in 896, and thus the text of the so-called autograph may be restored by approved critical methods with quite unusual certainty, and could we be certain that it really was the autograph, there would be no more to say.

But as already pointed out, it is not quite certain that it was St. Benedict’s autograph, and the case is complicated by the circumstance that there is in the field another type of text, represented by the oldest known manuscript, the Oxford Hatton manuscript 42, and by other very early authorities, which certainly was the text most widely diffused in the seventh and eighth centuries. Whether this text was St. Benedict’s first recension and the “autograph” his later revision, or whether the former is but a corrupted form of the latter, is a question which is still under debate, though the majority of critics lean towards the second alternative. In either case, however, the text of the “autograph” is the one to be adopted. The manuscripts, from the tenth century onwards, and the ordinary printed editions, give mixed texts, made up out of the two earliest types. Thus the text in current use is critically a bad one, but very few of the readings make any substantial difference.

The Rule was written in the Lingua Vulgaris or Low Latin vernacular of the time, and contains much syntax and orthography not in conformance with the classical models. There is as yet no edition of the Rule that satisfies the requirements of modern criticism, though one is in process of preparation for the Vienna “Corpus” of Latin Ecclesiastical writers. A sufficiently good manual edition was published by Dom Edmund Schmidt. of Metten, at Ratisbon in 1892, presenting in substance the text of St. Gall manuscript, with the Low Latin element eliminated.

The number of commentators on the rule is legion. Calmet gives a list of over a hundred and thirty such writers, and Ziegelbauer gives a similar list. The earliest commentary, in point of date, is that which has been variously ascribed to Paul Warnefrid (a monk of Monte Cassino about 780–799), Hildemar, Ruthard of Hirsau, and others. Hildemar, a Gallic monk, brought to Italy by Angelbert, Archbishop of Milan, reformed the monastery of Sts. Faustinus and Jovita at Brescia and died in 840. Marténe, who considered this commentary to be the best ever produced, maintained that Hildemar was its real author, but modern critics attribute it to Paul Warnefrid. Amongst other commentators the following deserve mention: St. Hildegard (d. 1178), the foundress and first Abbess of Mount St. Rupert, near Bingen on the Rhine, who held that St. Benedict’s prohibition of flesh-meat did not include that of birds; Bernard, Abbot of Monte Cassino, formerly of Lérins and afterwards a Cardinal (d. 1282); Turrecremata (Torquemada) a Dominican (1468); Trithemius, Abbot of Sponheim (1516); Perez, Archbishop of Tarragona and Superior-General of the congregation of Valladolid; Haeften, Prior of Afflighem (1648); Stengel, Abbot of Anhausen (1663); Mége (1691) and Marténe (1739) Maurists; Calmet, Abbot of Senones (1757); and Mabillon (1707), who discusses at length several portions of the Rule in his Prefaces to the different volumes of the “Acta Sanctorum O.S.B.”

It is impossible to gauge the comparative value of these and other commentaries, because the different authors treat the Rule from different points of view. That of Calmet is perhaps the most literal and exhaustive on many important points; those of Marténe and Haeften are mines of information regarding monastic tradition: Perez and Mége are practical and pious, though the latter has been considered lax in many of the views maintained; that of Turrecremata is useful as treating the Rule from the standpoint of moral theology; and others give mystical interpretations of its contents. It may be pointed out that in studying the Rule as a practical code of monastic legislation, it is necessary to facilitate uniformity of observance, each congregation of the order has its own constitutions, approved by the Holy See, by which are regulated many of the matters of detail not touched upon by the Rule itself.

Before proceeding to analyze St. Benedict’s Rule and to discuss its leading characteristics, something must be said about the monasticism that preceded his times, and out of which his system grew, in order that some idea may be gained as to how much of the Rule was borrowed from his precursors and how much was due to his own initiative. Such considerations are important because there is no doubt whatever that the introduction and propagation of St. Benedict’s Rule was the turning-point which changed the whole trend of monasticism in the West.

The earliest forms of Christian monachism were characterized by their extreme austerity and by their more or less eremetical nature. In Egypt, the followers of St. Anthony were purely eremetical, whilst those who followed the Rule of St. Pachomius, though they more nearly approached the cenobitical ideal, were yet without that element of stability insisted upon by St. Benedict, viz: the “common life” and family spirit. Under the Antonian system the austerities of the monks were left entirely to their own discretion; under the Pachomian, though there was an obligatory rule of limited severity, the monks were free to add to it what other ascetical practices they chose. And in both, the prevailing idea was that they were spiritual athletes, and as such they rivaled each other in austerity. Syrian and strictly Oriental monasticism need not be considered here, as it had no direct influence on that of Europe. When St. Basil (fourth century) organized Greek monasticism, he set himself against the eremetical life and insisted upon a community life, with meals, work, and prayer, all in common. With him the practice of austerity, unlike that of the Egyptians, was to be subject to control of the superior, for he considered that to wear out the body by austerities so as to make it unfit for work, was a misconception of the Scriptural precept of penance and mortification. His idea of the monastic life was the result of the contact of primitive ideas, as existing in Egypt and the East, with European culture and modes of thought.

Monasticism came into Western Europe from Egypt. In Italy, as also in Gaul, it was chiefly Antonian in character, though both the rules of St. Basil and St. Pachomius were translated into Latin and doubtless made their influence felt. As far as we know, each monastery had practically its own rule, and we have examples of this irresponsible form of monastic life in the community St. Benedict was called from his cave to govern, and in the Gyrovagi and Sarabitae whom he mentions in terms of condemnation in the first chapter of his Rule. A proof that the pervading spirit of Italian monachism was Egyptian lies in the fact that when St. Benedict determined to forsake the world and become a monk, he adopted, almost as a matter of course, the life of a solitary in a cave. His familiarity with the rules and other documents bearing upon the life of the Egyptian monks is shown by his legislating for the daily reading of the “Conferences” of Cassian, and by his recommendation (c. 73) of the “Institutes” and “Lives” of the Fathers and the Rule of St. Basil.

When, therefore, St. Benedict came to write his own Rule for the monasteries he had founded, he embodied in it the result of his own mature experience and observation. He had himself lived the life of a solitary after the most extreme Egyptian pattern, and in his first communities he had no doubt thoroughly tested the prevailing type of monastic rule. Being fully cognizant, therefore, of the unsuitability of much in the Egyptian systems to the times and circumstances in which he lived, he now struck out on a new line, and instead of attempting to revivify the old forms of asceticism, he consolidated the cenobitical life, emphasized the family spirit, and discouraged all private venture in austerities. His Rule thus consists of a carefully considered combination of old and new ideas; rivalry in austerity was eliminated, and there was to be henceforth a sinking of the individual in the community. In adapting a system essentially Eastern, to Western conditions, St. Benedict gave it coherence, stability, and organization, and the verdict of history is unanimous in applauding the results of such adaptation.

Of the seventy-three chapters comprising the Rule, nine treat of the duties of the abbot, thirteen regulate the worship of God, twenty-nine are concerned with discipline and the penal code, ten refer to the internal administration of the monastery, and the remaining twelve consist of miscellaneous regulations.

The Rule opens with a prologue or hortatory preface, in which St. Benedict sets forth the main principles of the religious life, viz.: the renunciation of one’s own will and the taking up of arms under the banner of Christ. He proposes to establish a “school” in which the science of salvation shall be taught, so that by persevering in the monastery till death his disciples may “deserve to become partakers of Christ’s kingdom.”

In Chapter 1 are defined the four principle kinds of monks: (1) Cenobites, those living in a monastery under an abbot; (2) Anchorites, or hermits, living a solitary life after long probation in the monastery; (3) Sarabites, living by twos and threes together, without any fixed rule or lawfully constituted superior; and (4) Gyrovagi, a species of monastic vagrants, whose lives spent in wandering from one monastery to another, only served to bring discredit on the monastic profession. It is for the first of these classes, as the most stable kind, that the Rule is written.

Chapter 2 describes the necessary qualifications of an abbot and forbids him to make distinction of persons in the monastery except for particular merit, warning him at the same time that he will be answerable for the salvation of the souls committed to his care.

Chapter 3 ordains the calling of the brethren to council upon all affairs of importance to the community.

Chapter 4 summarizes the duties of the Christian life under seventy-two precepts, which are called “instruments of good works” and are mainly Scriptural either in letter or in spirit.

Chapter 5 prescribes prompt, cheerful, and absolute obedience to the superior in all things lawful, which obedience is called the first degree of humility.

Chapter 6 deals with silence, recommending moderation in the use of speech, but by no means prohibiting profitable or necessary conversation.

Chapter 7 treats of humility, which virtue is divided into twelve degrees or steps in the ladder that leads to heaven. They are: (1) fear of God; (2) repression of self-will; (3) submission of the will to superiors; (4) obedience in hard and difficult matters; (5) confession of faults; (6) acknowledgment of one’s own worthlessness; (7) preference of others to self; (8) avoidance of singularity; (9) speaking only in due season; (10) stifling of unseemly laughter; (11) repression of pride; (12) exterior humility.

Chapters 9–19 are occupied with the regulation of the Divine Office, the opus Dei to which “nothing is to be preferred,” or Canonical Hours, seven of the day and one of the night. Detailed arrangements are made as to the number of Psalms, etc., to be recited in winter and summer, on Sundays, weekdays, Holy Days, and at other times.

Chapter 19 emphasizes the reverence due to the presence of God.

Chapter 20 directs that prayer in common be short.

Chapter 21 provides for the appointment of deans over every ten monks, and prescribes the manner in which they are to be chosen.

Chapter 22 regulates all matters relating to the dormitory, as, for example, that each monk is to have a separate bed and is to sleep in his habit, so as to be ready to rise without delay, and that a light shall burn in the dormitory throughout the night.

Chapter 23–30 deal with offences against the Rule and a graduated scale of penalties is provided: first, private admonition; next, public reproof; then separation from the brethren at meals and elsewhere; then scourging; and finally expulsion; though this last is not to be resorted to until every effort to reclaim the offender has failed. And even in this last case, the outcast must be received again, should he so desire, but after the third expulsion all return is finally barred.

Chapter 31 and 32 order the appointment of a cellarer and other officials, to take charge of the various goods of the monastery, which are to be treated with as much care as the consecrated vessels of the altar.

Chapter 33 forbids the private possession of anything without the leave of the abbot, who is, however, bound to supply all necessaries.

Chapter 34 prescribes a just distribution of such things.

Chapter 35 arranges for the service in the kitchen by all monks in turn.

Chapter 36 and 37 order due care for the sick, the old, and the young. They are to have certain dispensations from the strict Rule, chiefly in the matter of food.

Chapter 38 prescribes reading aloud during meals, which duty is to be performed by such of the brethren, week by week, as can do so with edification to the rest. Signs are to be used for whatever may be wanted at meals, so that no voice shall interrupt that of the reader. The reader is to have his meal with the servers after the rest have finished, but he is allowed a little food beforehand in order to lessen the fatigue of reading.

Chapter 39 and 40 regulate the quantity and quality of the food. Two meals a day are allowed and two dished of cooked food at each. A pound of bread also and a hemina (probably about half a pint) of wine for each monk. Flesh-meat is prohibited except for the sick and the weak, and it is always within the abbot’s power to increase the daily allowance when he sees fit.

Chapter 41 prescribes the hours of the meals, which are to vary according to the time of year.

Chapter 42 enjoins the reading of the “Conferences” of Cassian or some other edifying book in the evening before Compline and orders that after Compline the strictest silence shall be observed until the following morning.

Chapters 43–46 relate to minor faults, such as coming late to prayer or meals, and impose various penalties for such transgressions.

Chapter 47 enjoins on the abbot the duty of calling the brethren to the “world of God” in choir, and of appointing those who are to chant or read.

Chapter 48 emphasizes the importance of manual labour and arranges time to be devoted to it daily. This varies according to the season, but is apparently never less than about five hours a day. The times at which the lesser of the “day-hours” (Prime, Terce, Sext, and None) are to be recited control the hours of labour somewhat, and the abbot is instructed not only to see that all work, but also that the employments of each are suited to their respective capacities.

Chapter 49 treats of the observance of Lent, and recommends some voluntary self-denial for that season, with the abbot’s sanction.

Chapters 50 and 51 contain rules for monks who are working in the fields or traveling. They are directed to join in spirit, as far as possible, with their brethren in the monastery at the regular hours of prayers.

Chapter 52 commands that the oratory be used for purposes of devotion only.

Chapter 53 is concerned with the treatment of guests, who are to be received “as Christ Himself.” This Benedictine hospitality is a feature which has in all ages been characteristic of the order. The guests are to be met with due courtesy by the abbot or his deputy, and during their stay they are to be under the special protection of a monk appointed for the purpose, but they are not to associate with the rest of the community except by special permission.

Chapter 54 forbids the monks to receive letters or gifts without the abbot’s leave.

Chapter 55 regulates the clothing of the monks. It is to be sufficient in both quantity and quality and to be suited to the climate and locality, according to the discretion of the abbot, but at the same time it must be as plain and cheap as is consistent with due economy. Each monk is to have a change of garments, to allow for washing, and when traveling shall be supplied with clothes of rather better quality. The old habits are to be put aside for the poor.

Chapter 56 directs that the abbot shall take his meals with the guests.

Chapter 57 enjoins humility on the craftsmen of the monastery, and if their work is for sale, it shall be rather below than above the current trade price.

Chapter 58 lays down rules for the admission of new members, which is not to be made too easy. These matters have since been regulated by the Church, but in the main St. Benedict’s outline is adhered to. The postulant first spends a short time as a guest; then he is admitted to the novitiate, where under the care of a novice-master, his vocation is severely tested; during this time he is always free to depart. If after twelve month’ probation, he still persevere, he may be admitted to the vows of Stability, Conversion of Life, and Obedience, by which he binds himself for life to the monastery of his profession.

Chapter 59 allows the admission of boys to the monastery under certain conditions.

Chapter 60 regulates the position of priests who may desire to join the community. They are charged with setting an example of humility to all, and can only exercise their priestly functions by permission of the abbot.

Chapter 61 provides for the reception of strange monks as guests, and for their admission if desirous of joining the community.

Chapter 62 lays down that precedence in the community shall be determined by the date of admission, merit of life, or the appointment of the abbot.

Chapter 64 orders that the abbot be elected by his monks and that he be chosen for his charity, zeal, and discretion.

Chapter 65 allows the appointment of a provost, or prior, if need be, but warns such a one that he is to be entirely subject to the abbot and may be admonished, deposed, or expelled for misconduct.

Chapter 66 provides for the appointment of a porter, and recommends that each monastery should be, if possible, self-contained, so as to avoid the need of intercourse with the outer world.

Chapter 67 gives instruction as to the behavior of a monk who is sent on a journey.

Chapter 68 orders that all shall cheerfully attempt to do whatever is commanded them, however hard it may seem.

Chapter 69 forbids the monks to defend one another.

Chapter 70 prohibits them from striking one another.

Chapter 71 encourages the brethren to be obedient not only to the abbot and his officials, but also to one another.

Chapter 72 is a brief exhortation to zeal and fraternal charity

Chapter 73 is an epilogue declaring that this Rule is not offered as an ideal of perfection, but merely as a means towards godliness and is intended chiefly for beginners in the spiritual life.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RULE

In considering the leading characteristics of this Holy Rule, the first that must strike the reader is its wonderful discretion and moderation, its extreme reasonableness, and its keen insight into the capabilities as well as the weaknesses of human nature. Here are no excesses, no extraordinary asceticism, no narrow-mindedness, but rather a series of sober regulations based on sound common-sense. We see these qualities displayed in the deliberate elimination of austerities and in the concessions made with regard to what the monks of Egypt would have looked upon as luxuries. A few comparisons between the customs of these latter and the prescriptions of St. Benedict’s Rule will serve to bring out more clearly the extent of his changes in this direction.

With regard to food, the Egyptian ascetics reduced it to a minimum, many of them eating only twice or thrice a week, whilst Cassian describes a meal consisting of parched vetches with salt and oil. three olives, two prunes, and a fig, as a “sumptuous repast” (Coll. vii, 1). St. Benedict, on the other hand, though he restricts the use of flesh-meat to the sick, orders a pound of bread daily and two dishes of cooked food at each meal, of which there were two in summer and one in winter. And he concedes also an allowance of wine, though admitting that it should not properly be the drink of monks (Chapter 40). As to clothing, St. Benedict’s provision that habits were to fit, to be sufficiently warm, and not too old, was in great contrast to the poverty of the Egyptian monks, whose clothes, Abbot Pambo laid down, should be so poor that if left on the road no one would be tempted to take them (Apophthegmata, in P.G. LXV, 369). In the matter of sleep, whereas the solitaries of Egypt regarded diminution as one of their most valued forms of austerity, St. Benedict ordered from six to eight hours of unbroken sleep a day, with the addition of a siesta in summer. The Egyptian monks, moreover, often slept on the bare ground, with stones or mats for pillows, and often merely sitting or merely reclining, as directed in the Pachomian Rule, whilst Abbot John was unable to mention without shame the finding of a blanket in a hermit’s cell (Cassian, Coll. xix, 6). St. Benedict, however, allowed not only a blanket but also a coverlet, a mattress, and a pillow to each monk. This comparative liberality with regard to the necessaries of life, though plain and meagre perhaps, if tested by modern notions of comfort, was far greater than amongst the Italian poor of the sixth century or even amongst many of the European peasantry at the present day. St. Benedict’s aim seems to have been to keep the bodies of his monks in a healthy condition by means of proper clothing, sufficient food, and ample sleep, so that they might thereby be more fit for the due performance of the Divine Office and be freed from all that distracting rivalry in asceticism which has already been mentioned. There was, however, no desire to lower the ideal or to minimize the self-sacrifice that the adoption of the monastic life entailed, but rather the intention of bringing it into line with the altered circumstances of Western environment, which necessarily differed much from those of Egypt and the East. The wisdom and skill with which he did this is evident in every page of the Rule, so much so that Bossuet was able to call it “an epitome of Christianity, a learned and mysterious abridgement of all the doctrines of the Gospel, all the institutions of the Fathers, and all the Counsels of Perfection.”

St. Benedict perceived the necessity for a permanent and uniform rule of government in place of the arbitrary and variable choice of models furnished by the lives and maxims of the Fathers of the Desert. And so we have the characteristic of collectivism, exhibited in his insistence on the common life, as opposed to the individualism of the Egyptian monks. One of the objects he had in view in writing his Rule was the extirpation of the Sarabites and Gyrovagi, whom he so strongly condemns in his first chapter and of whose evil lives he had probably had painful experience during his early days at Subiaco. To further this aim he introduced the vow of Stability, which becomes the guarantee of success and permanence. It is only another example of the family idea that pervaded the entire Rule, by means of which the members of the community are bound together by a family tie, and each takes upon himself the obligation of persevering in his monastery until death, unless sent elsewhere by his superiors. It secures to the community as a whole, and to every member of it individually, a share in all the fruits that may arise from the labours of each monk, and it gives to each of them that strength and vitality which necessarily result from being one of a united family, all bound in a similar way and all pursuing the same end. Thus, whatever the monk does, he does it not as an independent individual but as part of a larger organization, and the community itself thus becomes one united whole rather than a mere agglomeration of independent members. The vow of Conversion of Life indicates the personal striving after perfection that must be the aim of every Benedictine monk. All the legislation of the Rule, the constant repression of self, the conforming of one’s every action to a definite standard, and the continuance of this form of life to the end of one’s days, is directed towards “putting off the old man and putting on the new,” and thereby accomplishing the conversio morum which is inseparable from a life-long perseverance in the maxims of the Rule. The practice of obedience is a necessary feature in St. Benedict’s idea of the religious life, if not indeed its very essence. Not only is a special chapter of the Rule devoted to it, but it is repeatedly referred to as a guiding principle in the life of the monk; so essentials it that it is the subject of a special vow in every religious institute, Benedictine or otherwise. In St. Benedict’s eyes it is one of the positive works to which the monk binds himself, for he calls it labor obedientiae (Prologue). It is to be cheerful, unquestioning, and prompt; to the abbot chiefly, who is to be obeyed as holding the place of Christ, and also to all the brethren according to the dictates of fraternal charity, as being “the path that leads to God” (Chapter 71). It is likewise extended to hard and even impossible things, the latter being at least attempted in all humility. In connexion with the question of obedience there is the further question as to the system of government embodied in the Rule. The life of the community centres round the abbot as the father of the family. Much latitude with regard to details is left to “discretion and judgement,” but this power, so far from being absolute or unlimited, is safeguarded by the obligation laid upon him of consulting the brethren—either the seniors only or else the entire community—upon all matters affecting their welfare. And on the other hand, wherever there seems to be a certain amount of liberty left to the monks themselves, this, in turn, is protected against indiscretion by the repeated insistence on the necessity for the abbot’s sanction and approval. The vows of Poverty and Chastity, though not explicitly mentioned by St. Benedict, as in the rules of other orders, are yet implied so clearly as to form an indisputable and essential part of the life for which he legislates. Thus by means of the vows and the practice of the various virtues necessary to their proper observance, it will be seen that St. Benedict’s Rule contains not merely a series of laws regulating the external details of monastic life, but also all the principles of perfection according to the Evangelical Counsels.

With regard to the obligation or binding power of the Rule, we must distinguish between the statutes or precepts and the counsels. By the former would be meant those laws which either command or prohibit in an absolute manner, and by the latter those that are merely recommendations. It is generally held by commentators that the precepts of the Rule bind only under the penalty of venial sin, and the counsels not even under that. Really grave transgressions against the vows, on the other hand, would fall under the category of mortal sins. It must be remembered, however, that in all these matters the principles of moral theology, canon law, the decisions of the Church, and the regulations of the Constitutions of the different congregations must be taken into consideration in judging of any particular case.

No higher testimony as to the inherent excellencies of the Rule can be adduced than the results it has achieved in Western Europe and elsewhere; and no more striking quality is exhibited by it than by its adaptability to the ever-changing requirements of time and place since St. Benedict’s days. Its enduring character is the highest testimony to its wisdom. For fourteen centuries it has been the guiding light of a numerous family of religious, men and women, and it is a living code at the present day, just as it was a thousand years ago. Though modified and adapted, from time to time, to suit the peculiar necessities and conditions of various ages and countries, by reason of its wonderful elasticity its principles still remain the same, and it has formed the fundamental basis of a great variety of other religious bodies. It has merited the encomiums of councils, popes, and commentators, and its vitality is as vigorous at the present time as it was in the ages of faith. Though it was no part of St. Benedict’s design that his spiritual descendants should make a figure in the world as authors or statesmen, as preservers of pagan literature, as pioneers of civilization, as revivers of agriculture, or as builders of castles and cathedrals, yet circumstances brought them into all these spheres. His sole idea was the moral and spiritual training of his disciples, and yet in carrying this out he made the cloister a school of useful workers, a real refuge for society, and a solid bulwark of the Church (Dudden, Gregory the Great, II, ix). The Rule, instead of restricting the monk to one particular form of work, makes it possible for him to do almost any kind of work, and that in a manner spiritualized and elevated above the labour of merely secular craftsmen. In this lies one of the secrets of its success.

The results of the fulfilment of the precepts of the Rule are abundantly apparent in history. That of manual labour, for instance, which St. Benedict laid down as absolutely essential for his monks, produced many of the architectural triumphs which are the glory of the Christian world. Many cathedrals (especially in England), abbeys, and churches, scattered up and down the countries of Western Europe, were the work of Benedictine builders and architects. The cultivation of the soil, encouraged by St. Benedict, was another form of labour to which his followers gave themselves without reserve and with conspicuous success, do that many regions have owed much of their agricultural prosperity to the skillful husbandry of the sons of St. Benedict. The hours ordered by the Rule to be devoted daily to systematic reading and study, have given to the world many of the foremost scholars and writers, so that the term “Benedictine erudition” has been for long centuries a byword indicative of the learning and laborious research fostered in the Benedictine cloister. The regulations regarding the reception and education of children, moreover, were the germ from which sprang up a great number of famous monastic schools and universities which flourished in the Middle Ages.

It is true that as communities became rich and consequently less dependent upon their own labours for support, the primitive fervour for the Rule diminished, and for this reason charges of corruption and absolute departure from monastic ideals have been made against monks. But, although it is impossible to deny that the many reforms that were initiated seem to give colour to this view, it cannot be admitted that the Benedictine Institute, as a whole, ever became really degenerate or fell away seriously from the ideal established by its legislator. Individual failures there certainly were, as well as mitigations of rule, from time to time, but the loss of fervour in one particular monastery no more compromises all the other monasteries of the same country than the faults of one individual monk reflect necessarily upon the rest of the community to which he belongs. So, whilst admitting that the rigour of the Rule has varied at different times and in different places, we must, on the other hand, remember that modern historical research has entirely exonerated the monastic body as a whole from the charge of a general departure from the principles of the Rule and a widespread corruption of either ideal or practice. Circumstances have often rendered mitigations necessary but they have always been introduced as such and not as new or better interpretations of the Rule itself. The fact that the Benedictines still glory in their Rule, guard it with jealousy, and point to it as the exemplar according to which they are endeavouring to model their lives, is in itself the strongest proof that they are still imbued with its spirit, though recognizing its latitude of application and its adaptability to various conditions.

MONTALAMBERT, Monks of the West (Tr., London, 1896), IV; TOSTI, St. Benedict, tr. Woods (London, 1896); DOYLE, The Teaching of St. Benedict (London,1887); DUDDEN, Gregory the Great (London, 1905); BUTLER Lausiac History of Palladius, Introd., XIX in Cambridge Texts and Studies (Cambridge, 1898); IDEM, The Text of St. Benedict’s Rule, in Downside Review, XVII, 223; and in Journal of Theol. Studies, III, 458; BESSE, Le Moine Bénédictine (Ligué], 1898); HAEFTEN, Disquisitiones Monasticae (Antwerp, 1644); SCHMIDT, Regula Scti. Benedicit (Rtatisbon, 1880, 1892); WOELFFLIN, Benedicti Regula Monachorum (Leipzig, 1895); TRAUBE, Textgeschicte der Regula S. Benedicti (Munich 1898).

COMMENTARIES: WARNEFRID (Monte Cassino, 1880); MÈGE (Paris, 1687); MARTÈNE (Paris, 1690); also in P.L. LXVI; CALMET (Paris, 1734); MABILLON, Prefaces to Acta Sanctorum O.S.B. (Venice, 1733).

ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE RULE: ANONYMOUS (Ramsgate, 1872; Rome, 1895); DOYLE, ed. (London, 1875); VERHEYEN (Atchison, Kansas, 1906); HUNTER-BLAIR (Fort Augustus, Scotland, 1906).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Abbey of Benedictbeurn

Situated in the Bavarian Alps, about thirty miles south of Munich. It was formerly in the diocese of Augsburg, but some writers, including Mabillon, have wrongly described it as having been in that of Freising. The name has been variously spelt as Beuren, Beuern, Buron, Beweren, Baiern, Bayrn, etc., but that given above is the officially accepted spelling at the present time. Tradition, as well as manuscripts dating as far back as the tenth century, ascribe its foundation in the year 740, to three brothers of noble birth, named Lanfrid, Wulfram, and Eliland, acting under the influence of St. Boniface, who was then preaching the Faith in Bavaria. The three founders, each in turn, ruled the monastery, which in 955 (or 973, according to some authorities) was destroyed by the Huns, who then ravaged the country. Restored in 969 by Wolfold, a secular priest, it continued as a college of regular clergy, or canons, until 1031. Through the influence of the Emperor Henry III, the Benedictine rule was revived there in 1031 by Abbot Ellinger and eleven monks from the neighbouring Abbey of Tegernsee.

Under the next abbot, Gothelm, the famous monastic school was established. The abbey also became a great place of pilgrimage and the scene of many miracles, by reason of the relics of St. Anastasia which were brought thither in 1053. Throughout the Middle Ages it continued to flourish as a home of learning and piety. Many privileges were granted by different popes, and several of the emperors honoured it with their favour and their visits. The Abbots Ortolph II (1271–84) and Henry III (1284–89) were made Princes of the Empire by Rudolph of Hapsburg. The abbey was four times burnt down, viz: in 1248, 1377, 1378, and 1490, and as often rebuilt. In 1611 its numbers were depleted by a plague which carried off many of the monks, and it also suffered during the Swedish invasion under Gustavus Adolphus and the Thirty Years’ War in the seventeenth century. In 1803 the abbey was suppressed by the Government and the monks, thirty-four in number, dispersed. The conventual buildings became successively a barracks, a military hospital, and a stud-house. In 1901 Freiherr von Kramer-Klett, the restorer of several Bavarian monasteries, offered five and one-half million marks for the property, but was met by a demand for twelve millions, which he refused.

The library and archives contained many priceless manuscripts and charters. Ziegelbauer (Hist. Lit. Ord. S.B., I, 543) printed a catalogue of the library, dated 1250, in which more than one hundred and fifty books and MSS. are enumerated. Mabillon, who visited the abbey in 1683, and Bernard Pez, librarian of Melk, who was there in 1717, have both left on record their testimony as to the great value of the codices there preserved. At the suppression the library comprised 40,000 volumes. A number of these were incorporated with the Court Library and the remainder left to be disposed of by the subsequent occupants of the abbey.

Amongst the illustrious men produced by Benedictbeurn the following deserve mention: Gothelm, abbot 1032–62; founded the monastic school in 1033. Gotschalk, who translated the relics of St. Anastasia to Beurn in 1053; the first historian of the abbey (“Breviarium Gotschalki” in Mon. Germ. Hist., IX, 221). Dom Simon Speer, martyr; tortured and put to death by the Swedes for refusing to surrender the goods of the abbey, 1632. Magnus, abbot 1707–40; resuscitated the school, 1711. Dom Carolus Meichelbeck, “the Livy of Bavaria,” b. 1669; took the habit, 1687 and was librarian and archivist from 1696 till his death in 1734. He taught philosophy and theology and wrote various historical works, including the “History of the diocese of Freising,” the “Chronicon Benedicto-Buranum,” and the “Annals of the Bavarian Congregation.”

Various charters, etc., in Monumenta Boica (Munich); Yepes, Chronicon Generale O.S.B. (Yrache, 1609), III, 87; Mabillon, Annales O.S.B. (Paris, 1703–39), ed. 1735, II, 114; Meichelbeck, Chronicon Benedicto-buranum (Benedictbeurn, 1752); Kuen, Collectio Scriptorum (Ulm, 1755); Pertz, Mon. Germ. Hist.; Script. (Hanover, 1851), IX, 210; Von Hefner, Leistungen des Klosters Benediktbeuern, in Oberbaierisches Archiv, III, 337; Rettberg, Deutschl. Kirchengesch., II, 165; Daffner, Gesch. des Klosters Benediktbeuren (Munich, 1893); Schlegmann, Gesch. der Sakularisation im rechtsrheinischen Bayern (Regensburg, 1903–05).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

St. Benedict Biscop

An English monastic founder, born of a noble Anglo-Saxon family, c. 628; died 12 January 690. He spent his youth at the court of the Northumbrian King Oswy. When twenty-five years old, he made the first of his five pilgrimages to Rome. On his return to England, Benedict introduced, whenever he could, the religious rites as he saw them practised in Rome. Soon afterwards he made a second pilgrimage, stopping on his return at Lérins, in 666, to take the religious habit. When, two years later, he returned to Rome, Pope Vitalian sent him and the monk Adrian as advisers with Theodore, the newly appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. After two years, in 671, he resigned this office and made another pilgrimage to Rome. During this and his two succeeding pilgrimages to the city of the Apostles he collected numerous relics, books, and paintings for the monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow, the former of which he founded in 674, the latter in 682. He also engaged Abbot John, Arch-cantor of St. Peter’s in Rome, to teach Roman chant at these monasteries. Benedict was the first to introduce into England the building of stone churches and the art of making glass windows. His festival is observed on 12 February.

MONTALEMBERT, Monks of the West (Boston), II, 493; HOPE, Conversion of the Teutonic Race (London), I, 400; STANTON, A Menology of England and Wales (London, 1892); ALLIES, Hist. of the Church in England (London, 1892), I, 59; MABILLON, Acta SS. O.S.B., saec. II. His biography in Latin by ST. BEDE is published in P.L., XCIV, 711–734.

MICHAEL OTT

Jean Benedicti

A Franciscan theologian of the sixteenth century belonging to the Observantine Province of Tours and Poitiers. He became in time secretary of the order and in this capacity accompanied the minister-general, Christopher a Capite Fontium, throughout the whole of Europe in the latter’s canonical visitation of Franciscan houses. Afterwards he was made comissary-general of the French and visitor of many Italian Provinces, and in order to fulfill a vow went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Wadding says that he was a man of most distinguished parts and great culture, having thoroughly mastered the learning of his day and being especially conversant with the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin tongues. In 1599 the first edition of his “Somme des péchés et le remède d’iceux comprenant tous les cas de conscience” was published in Paris and was immediately in great demand among confessors, for we learn that after having been revised, corrected, and augmented by the Theological Faculty of Paris it reached its fifteenth edition. He also wrote “La triomphante victoire de la Sainte Vierge” which tells of a remarkable exorcism in the church of the Cordeliers at Lyons. His remains were interred in the Friary at Laval.

WADDING, Annales minor. ad ann., 1596, IV; SBARALEA, supp. ad script. O.M. (Rome, 1806).

ANDREW EGAN.

St. Benedict Joseph Labre

Born 26 March, 1748 at Amettes in the Diocese of Boulogne, France; died in Rome 16 April, 1783.

He was the eldest of fifteen children. His parents, Jean-Baptiste Labre and Anne-Barba Grandsire, belonged to the middle class and so were able to give to their numerous offspring considerable opportunities in the way of education. His early training he received in his native village in a school conducted by the vicar of the parish. The account of this period furnished in the life written by his confessor, Marconi, and that contained in the one compiled from the official processes of his beatification are at one in emphasizing the fact that he exhibited a seriousness of thought and demeanor far beyond his years. Even at that tender age he had begun to show a marked predilection for the spirit of mortification, with an aversion for the ordinary childish amusements, and he seems from the very dawning of reason to have had the liveliest horror for even the smallest sin. All this we are told was coexistent with a frank and open demeanor and a fund of cheerfulness which remained unabated to the end of his life.

At the age of twelve his education was taken over by his paternal uncle, François-Joseph Labre, curé of Erin, with whom he then went to live. During the six following years which he spent under his uncle’s roof, he made considerable progress in the study of Latin, history, etc. but found himself unable to conquer a constantly growing distaste for any form of knowledge which did not make directly for union with God. A love of solitude, a generous employment of austerities and devotedness to his religious exercises were discernible as distinguishing features of his life at this time and constitute an intelligible prelude to his subsequent career.

At the age of sixteen he resolved to embrace a religious life as a Trappist, but having on the advice of his uncle returned to Amettes to submit his design to his parents for their approval he was unable to win their consent. He therefore resumed his sojourn in the rectory at Erin, redoubling his penances and exercises of piety and in every way striving to make ready for the life of complete self-annihilation to which the voice within his soul seemed to be calling him.

After the heroic death of his uncle during an epidemic in September 1766, Benedict, who had dedicated himself during the scourge to the service of the sick and dying, returned to Amettes in November of the same year. His absorbing thought at this time was still to become a religious at La Trappe, and his parents fearing that further opposition would be resistance to the will of God fell in with his proposal to enter the cloister. It was suggested, how ever, by his maternal uncle, the Abbé Vincent, that application be made to the Carthusians at Val-Sainte-Aldegonde rather than to La Trappe. Benedict’s petition at Val-Sainte-Aldegonde was unsuccessful but he was directed to another monastery of the same order at Neuville. There he was told that as he was not yet twenty there was no hurry, and that he must first learn plain-chant and logic. During the next two years he applied twice unsuccessfully to be received at La Trappe and was for six weeks as a postulant with the Carthusians at Neuville, he finally sought and obtained admission to the Cistercian Abbey of Sept-Fonts in November, 1769. After a short stay at Sept-Fonts during which his exactness in religious observance and humility endeared him to the whole community, his health gave way, and it was decided that his vocation lay elsewhere. In accordance with a resolve formed during his convalescence he then set out for Rome. From Chieri in Piedmont he wrote to his parents a letter which proved to be the last they would ever receive from him. In it he informed them of his design to enter some one of the many monasteries in Italy noted for their special rigor of life. A short time, however, after the letter was dispatched he seems to have had an internal illumination which set at rest forever any doubts he might have as to what his method of living was to be. He then understood “that it was God’s will that like St. Alexis he should abandon his country, his parents, and whatever is flattering in the world to lead a new sort of life, a life most painful, most penitential, not in a wilderness nor in a cloister, but in the midst of the world, devoutly visiting as a pilgrim the famous places of Christian devotion.” He repeatedly submitted this extraordinary inspiration to the judgment of experienced confessors and was told he might safely conform to it. Through the years that followed he never wavered in the conviction that this was the path appointed for him by God. He set forward on his life’s journey clad in an old coat, a rosary about his neck, another between his fingers, his arms folded over a crucifix which lay upon his breast. In a small wallet he carried a Testament, a breviary, which it was his wont to recite daily, a copy of the “Imitation of Christ,” and some other pious books. Clothing other than that which covered his person he had none. He slept on the ground and for the most part in the open air. For food he was satisfied with a piece of bread or some herbs, frequently taken but once a day, and either provided by charity or gotten from some refuse heap. He never asked for alms and was anxious to give away to the poor whatever he received in excess of his scanty wants. The first seven of the thirteen remaining years of his life were spent in pilgrimages to the more famous shrines of Europe. He visited in this way Loreto, Assisi, Naples, Bari, Fabriano in Italy; Einsiedeln in Switzerland; Compostella in Spain; Parav-le-Monial in France. The last six years he spent in Rome, leaving it only once a year to visit the Holy House of Loreto. His unremitting and ruthless self-denial, his unaffected humility, unhesitating obedience and perfect spirit of union with God in prayer disarmed suspicion not unnaturally aroused as to the genuineness of a Divine call to so extraordinary a way of existence. Literally worn out by his sufferings and austerities, on the 16th of April 1783, he sank down on the steps of the church of Santa Maria dei Monti in Rome and, utterly exhausted, was carried to a neighboring house where he died. His death was followed by a multitude of unequivocal miracles attributed to his intercession. The life written by his confessor, Marconi, an English version of which bears the date of 1785, witnesses to 136 miraculous cures as having been certified to up to 6 July, 1783. So remarkable, indeed, was the character of the evidence for some of the miracles that they are said to have had no inconsiderable part in finally determining the conversion of the celebrated American convert, Father John Thayer, of Boston who was in Rome at the time of the saint’s death. Benedict was proclaimed Venerable by Pius IX in 1859 and canonized by Leo XIII 8 December, 1881. His feast is kept on the 16th of April, the day of his death.

Biog. Univ. (Paris, 1811–28); Biog. Eccles. Completa (Madrid, 1857); Life of Venerable Benedict Joseph Labre, French tr., BARNARD (London, 1785); Life of the Venerable Servant of God, Benedict Joseph Labre (Oratorian Series, London, 1850).

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Benedictine Order

The Benedictine Order comprises monks living under the Rule of St. Benedict, and commonly known as “black monks.” The order will be considered in this article under the following sections:

I. History of the Order;

II. Lay brothers, Oblates, Confraters, and Nuns;

III. Influence and Work of the Order;

IV. Present Condition of the Order;

V. Benedictines of Special Distinction;

VI. Other Foundations Originating from, or Based upon, the Order.

I. HISTORY OF THE ORDER

The term Order as here applied to the spiritual family of St. Benedict is used in a sense differing somewhat from that in which it is applied to other religious orders. In its ordinary meaning the term implies one complete religious family, made up of a number of monasteries, all of which are subject to a common superior or “general” who usually resides either in Rome or in the mother-house of the order, if there be one. It may be divided into various provinces, according to the countries over which it is spread, each provincial head being immediately subject to the general, just as the superior of each house is subject to his own provincial. This system of centralized authority has never entered into the organization of the Benedictine Order. There is no general or common superior over the whole order other than the pope himself, and the order consists, so to speak, of what are practically a number of orders, called “congregations,” each of which is autonomous; all are united, not under the obedience to one general superior, but only by the spiritual bond of allegiance to the same Rule, which may be modified according to the circumstances of each particular house or congregation. It is in this latter sense that the term Order is applied in this article to all monasteries professing to observe St. Benedict’s Rule.

BEGINNINGS OF THE ORDER

St. Benedict did not, strictly speaking, found an order; we have no evidence that he ever contemplated the spread of his Rule to any monasteries besides those which he had himself established. Subiaco was his original foundation and the cradle of the institute. From St. Gregory we learn that twelve other monasteries in the vicinity of Subiaco also owed their origin to him, and that when he was obliged to leave that neighbourhood he founded the celebrated Abbey of Monte Cassino, which eventually become the centre whence his Rule and institute spread. These fourteen are the only monasteries of which there is any reliable evidence of having been founded during St. Benedict’s lifetime. The tradition of St. Placid’s mission to Sicily in 534, which first gained general credence in the eleventh century, though accepted as genuine by such writers as Mabillon and Ruinart, is now generally admitted to be mere romance. Very little more can be said in favour of the supposed introduction of the Benedictine Rule into Gaul by St. Maurus in 543, though it also has been strenuously upheld by many responsible writers. At any rate, evidences for it are so extremely doubtful that it cannot be seriously regarded as historical. There is reason for believing that it was the third Abbot of Monte Cassino who began to spread a knowledge of the Rule beyond the circle of St. Benedict’s own foundations. It is at least certain that when Monte Cassino was sacked by the Lombards about the year 580, the monks fled to Rome, where they were housed by Pope Pelagius II in a monastery adjoining the Lateran Basilica. There, in the very centre of the ecclesiastical world, they remained for upwards of a hundred and forty years, and it seems highly probable that this residence in so prominent a position constituted an important factor in the diffusion of a knowledge of Benedictine monasticism. It is generally agreed also that when Gregory the Great embraced the monastic state and converted his family palace on Apostle, it was the Benedictine form of monachism that he adopted there.

It was from the monastery of St. Andrew in Rome that St. Augustine, the prior, and his forty companions set forth in 595 on their mission for the evangelization of England, and with them St. Benedict’s idea of the monastic life first emerged from Italy. The arguments and authorities for this statement have been admirably marshalled and estimated by Reyner in his “Apostolatus Benedictinorum in Angliâ” (Douai, 1626), and his proofs have been adjudged by Mabillon to amount to demonstration. [Cf. Butler, “Was St. Augustine a Benedictine?” in Downside Review, III (1884).] At their various stopping places during the journey through France the monks left behind them traditions concerning their rule and form of life, and probably also some copies of the Rule, for we have several evidences of its having gradually introduced into most of the chief monasteries of Gaul during the seventh century. Lérins, for instance, one of the oldest, which had been founded by St. Honoratus in 375, probably received its first knowledge of the Benedictine Rule from the visit of St. Augustine and his companions in 596. Dismayed by the accounts they had heard of the ferocity of the English, the missionaries had sent their leader back to Rome to implore the pope to allow them to abandon the object of their journey. During his absence they remained at Lérins. Not long after their departure, Aygulph, Abbot of Fleury, was called in to restore the discipline and he probably introduced the full Benedictine observance; for when St. Benedict Biscop visited Lérins later on in the seventh century he received the Benedictine habit and tonsure from the hands of Abbot Aygulph. Lérins continued through several centuries to supply from its monks bishops for the chief churches of Southern Gaul, and to them perhaps may be traced the general diffusion of St. Benedictine’s Rule throughout that country. There, as also in Switzerland, it had to contend with and supplement the much stricter Irish or Celtic Rule introduced by St. Columbanus and others. In or practised side by side. Gregory of Tours says that at Ainay, in the sixth century, the monks “followed the rules of Basil, Cassian, Caesarius, and other fathers, taking and using whatever seemed proper to the conditions of time and place,” and doubtless the same liberty was taken with the Benedictine Rule when it reached them. In other monasteries it entirely displaced the earlier codes, and had by the end of the eighth century so completely superseded them throughout France that Charlemagne could gravely doubt whether monks of any kind had been possible before St. Benedict’s time. The authority of Charlemagne and of his son, Louis the Pious, did much, as we shall presently see, towards propagating the principles of the Father of western monachism.

St. Augustine and his monks established the first English Benedictine monastery at Canterbury soon after their arrival in 597. Other foundations quickly followed as the Benedictine missionaries carried the light of the Gospel with them throughout the length and breadth of the land. It was said that St. Benedict seemed to have taken possession of the country as his own, and the history of his order in England is the history of the English Church. Nowhere did the order link itself so intimately with people and institutions, secular as well as religious, as in England. Through the influence of saintly men, Wilfrid, Benedict Biscop, and Dunstan, the Benedictine Rule spread with extraordinary rapidity, and in the North, when once the Easter controversy had been settled and the Roman supremacy acknowledged (Synod of Whitby, 664), it was adopted in most of the monasteries that had been founded by the Celtic missionaries from Iona. Many of the episcopal sees of England were founded and governed by the Benedictines, and no less than nine of the old cathedrals were served by the black monks of the priories attached to them. Even when the bishop was not himself a monk, he held the place of titular abbot, and the community formed his chapter.

Germany owed its evangelization to the English Benedictines, Sts. Willibrord and Boniface, who preached the Faith, there in the seventh and eighth centuries and founded several celebrated abbeys. From thence spread, hand in hand, Christianity and Benedictine monasticism, to Denmark and Scandinavia, and from the latter even to Iceland. In Spain monasteries had been founded by the Visigothic kings as early as the latter half of the fifth century, but it was probably some two or three hundred years later St. Benedict’s Rule was adopted. Mabillon gives 640 as the date of its introduction into that country (Acta Sanctorum O. S. B., saec. I, praef. 74), but his conclusions on this point are not now generally accepted. In Switzerland the disciples of Columbanus had founded monasteries early in the seventh century, two of the best known being St. Gall’s, established by the saint of that name, and Dissentis (612), founded by St. Sigisbert. The Celtic rule was not entirely supplanted by that of St. Benedict until more than a hundred years later, when the change was effected chiefly through the influence of Pepin the Short, the father of Charlemagne. By the ninth century, however, the Benedictine had become the only form of monastic life throughout the whole of Western Europe, excepting Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, where the Celtic observance still prevailed for another century or two. At the time of the Reformation there were nine Benedictine houses in Ireland and six in Scotland, besides numerous abbeys of Cistercians.

Benedictine monasticism never took such deep root in the eastern countries of Europe as it had done in the West. The Bohemians and the Poles, nevertheless, owed their conversion respectively to the Benedictine missionaries Adalbert (d. 997) and Casimir (d. 1058), whilst Bavaria and what is now the Austrian Empire were evangelized first by monks from Gaul in the seventh century, and later on by St. Boniface and his disciples. A few of the larger abbeys founded in these countries during the ninth and tenth centuries still exist, but the number of foundations was always small in comparison with those farther west. Into Lithuania and the Eastern Empire the Benedictine Rule never penetrated in early times, and the great schism between East and West effectually prevented any possibilities of development in that direction.

EARLY CONSTITUTION OF THE ORDER

During the first four or five centuries after the death of St. Benedict there existed no organic bond of union amongst the various abbeys other than the Rule itself and obedience to the Holy See. According to the holy legislator’s provisions each monastery constituted an independent family, self-contained, autonomous, managing its own affairs, and subject to no external authority except that of the local diocesan bishop, whose powers of control were, however, limited to certain specific occasions. The earliest departures from this system occurred when several of the greater abbeys began sending out offshoots, under the form of daughter-houses retaining some sort of dependence upon the mother abbey from which they sprang. This mode of propagation, together with the various reforms that began to appear in the eleventh and succeeding centuries, paved the way for the system of independent congregations, still a feature peculiar to the Benedictine Order.

REFORMS

A system which comprised many hundreds of monasteries and many thousands of monks, spread over a number of different countries, without any unity of organization; which was exposed, moreover, to all the dangers and disturbances inseparable from those troublous times of kingdom-making; such a system was inevitably unable to keep worldliness, and even worse vices, wholly out of its midst. Hence it cannot be denied that the monks often failed to live up to the monastic ideal and sometimes even fell short of the Christian and moral standards. There were failures and scandals in Benedictine history, just as there were declensions from the right path outside the cloister, for monks are, after all, but men. But there does not seem ever to have been a period of widespread and general corruption in the order. Here and there the members of some particular house allowed abuses and relaxations of rule to creep in, so that they seemed to be falling away from the true spirit of their state, but whenever such did occur they soon called forth efforts for a restoration of primitive austerity; and these constantly recurring reform movements form one of the surest evidences of the vitality which has pervaded the Benedictine Institute throughout its entire history. It is important to note, moreover, that all such reforms as ever achieved any measure of success came invariably from within, and were not the result of pressure from outside the order.

The first of the reforms directed towards confederating the monastic houses of a single kingdom was set on foot early in the ninth century by Benedict of Aniane under the auspices of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious. Though a Benedictine himself born in Aquitaine and trained at Saint-Seine near Dijon, Benedict was imbued with the rigid austerity of the East, and in his Abbey of Aniane practiced a mode of life that was severe in the extreme. Over Louis he acquired an ascendancy which grew stronger as years went on. At his instigation Louis built for him a monastery adjoining his own palace at Aix-la-Chapelle, which was intended to serve as a model according to which all others were to be reformed, and to bring about this end Benedict was invested with a general authority over all the monasteries of the empire. Absolute uniformity of discipline, observance, and habit, after the pattern of the royal monastery, was then the general scheme which was launched at an assembly of all the abbots at Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) in 817 and embodied in a series of eighty capitula passed by the meeting. Though by reason of the very minuteness of these capitula, which made them vexatious and ultimately intolerable, this scheme of centralized authority lasted only for the lifetime of Benedict himself, the capitula (printed in full in Herrgott, “Vetus Disciplina Monastica,” Paris, 1726) were recognized as supplying a much needed addition to St. Benedict’s Rule concerning points not sufficiently provided for therein, and as filling much the same place then as the approved Constitutions of a monastery or congregation do now.

A century later, in 910, the first real reform that produced any widespread and general effect was commenced at the Abbey of Cluny in Burgundy, under St. Berno, its first abbot. The object was an elaboration of the Benedictine ideal, for the uniform preservation of which a highly centralized system of government, hitherto unknown to Benedictine monachism, except as suggested by St. Benedict of Aniane, was introduced. It was in fact the establishment of a veritable order, in the common acceptance of that term, within the Benedictine family, the abbot of Cluny retaining an actual headship over all dependent houses, the latter being governed only by priors as his vicars. For two centuries or more Cluny was probably the chief religious influence in the Latin Church, as it was also the first abbey to obtain exemption from episcopal oversight. Through the efforts of Berno’s immediate successors the congregation grew apace, partly by founding new houses and partly by incorporating those already existing, so that by the twelfth century Cluny had become the centre and head of an order embracing some 314 monasteries in all parts of Europe, France, Italy, the Empire, Lorraine, Spain, England, Scotland, and Poland. Although the congregation had its own constitutions and was absolutely autonomous, its members always claimed to be and were actually recognized as real Benedictines; hence it was not strictly a new order but only a reformed congregation within the order. (See CLUNY).

Following the example of Cluny, several other reforms were initiated from time to time in different parts during the next three centuries, which while taking the Rule of St. Benedict as a basis, aimed frequently at a greater austerity of life than was practised by the black monks or contemplated by the holy Rule. Some were even semi-eremitical in their constitution, and one-Fontevrault-consisted of double monasteries, the religious of both sexes being under the rule of the abbess. In dealing with these reformed congregations a distinction must be made between those which, like Cluny, continued to be considered as part of the main Benedictine body, and those which constituted practically new and independent orders, like Cîteaux, and have always been looked upon as outside the Benedictine confederation, though still professing the Rule of St. Benedict in some form or other. Those of the former category are treated here, since they and their successors constitute the order as we understand it at the present day. In the latter class the most important were Camaldoli (1009), Vallombrosa (1039), Grammont (1076), Cîteaux (1098), Fontevrault (1099), Savigny (1112), Monte Vergine (1119), Sylvestrines (1231), Celestines (1254), and Olivetans (1319). All of these will be described in detail under the respective titles.

The influence of Cluny, even in monasteries which did not join its congregation or adopt any of the other reforms mentioned above, was large and far-reaching. Many such abbeys, including Subiaco and Monte Cassino, adopted its customs and practices, and modelled their life and spirit according to the example it set. Monasteries such as these often became in turn the centres of revival and reform in their respective neighbourhoods, so that during the tenth and eleventh centuries there arose several free unions of monasteries based on a uniform observance derived from a central abbey. These unions, the germ of the congregational system which developed later on, deserve a somewhat detailed enumeration here. In England there had been three distinct efforts at systematic organization. The various monasteries founded by St. Augustine and his fellow-monks had preserved some sort of union, as was only natural with new foundations in a pagan country proceeding from a common source of origin. As Christianity spread through the land this necessity for mutual dependence diminished, but when St. Benedict Biscop came to England with Archbishop Theodore in 669, it fell to him to foster a spirit of uniformity amongst the various Benedictine monasteries then existing. In the tenth century St. Dunstan set himself to reform the English monastic houses on the model of Fleury and of what he had seen successfully carried out at Ghent during his exile in Flanders. With his co-operation St. Ethelwold brought out his “Concordia Regularis,” which is interesting as an early attempt to procure a uniform observance in all the monasteries of a nation. A century later Lanfranc continued the same idea by issuing a series of statutes regulating the life of the English Benedictines. It should be noted here that these several attempts were directed only towards securing outward uniformity, and that as yet there was apparently no idea of a congregation, properly so called, with a central source of all legislative authority. In Fra Chaise-Dieu (Auvergne), St. Victor (Marseilles), St. Claude, Lérins, Sauve-Majour, Tiron, and Val-des-Choux, were all centres of larger or smaller groups of houses, in each of which there was uniformity of rule as well as more or less dependence upon the chief house. Fleury adopted the Cluniac reform, as did also St. Benignus of Dijon, though without subjection to that organization; and all were eventually absorbed by the congregation of St. Maur in the seventeenth century, excepting St. Claude, which preserved its independence until the Revolution, Val-des-Choux, which became Cistercian, and Lérins, which in 1505 joined the Italian congregation of St. Justina of Padua. In Italy the chief groups had their centres at Cluse in Piedmont, at Fonte Avellana, which united to the Camaldolese congregation in 1569, La Cava, which joined the congregation of St. Justina in the fifteenth century, and Sasso-Vivo, which was suppressed as a separate federation in the same century and its forty houses united to other congregations of the Benedictine family. The monasteries of Germany were divided chiefly between Fulda and Hirschau, both of which eventually joined the Bursfeld Union. (See BURSFELD.) In Austria there were two groups of monasteries, the abbeys of Melk (Molck or Melek) and Salzburg being the chief houses. They continued thus until well into the seventeenth century, when systematic congregations were organized in compliance with the Tridentine decrees, as well be described in due course. Other free unions, for purposes of mutual help and similarity of discipline, were to be found also in Scotland, Scandinavia, Poland, Hungary, and elsewhere, in which the same idea was carried out, viz., not so much a congregation in its later sense, with a centralized form of government, as a mere banding together of houses for the better maintenance of rule and policy.

Notwithstanding all these reform movements and unions of monasteries, a large number of Benedictine abbeys in different countries retained to the end of the twelfth century, and even later, their original independence, and this state of things was only terminated by the regulations of the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215, which were to change materially the whole trend of Benedictine polity and history. By the twelfth canon of this council it was decreed that all the monasteries of each ecclesiastical province were to unite into a congregation. The abbots of each province or congregation were to meet in chapter every third year, with power to pass laws binding on all, and to appoint from amongst their own number “visitors” who were to make canonical visitation of the monasteries and to report upon their condition to the ensuing chapter. In each congregation one of the abbots was to be elected president, and the one so chosen presided over the triennial chapter and exercised a certain limited and well-defined authority over the houses of his congregation, in such a way as not to interfere with the independent authority of each abbot in his own monastery. England was the first and for some time the only country to give this new arrangement a fair trial. It was not until after the issue of the Bull “Benedictina” by Benedict XII, in 1336, that other countries, somewhat tardily, organized their national congregation in conformity with the designs of the Lateran Council. Some of these have continued to the present day, and this congregational system is now, with very few exceptions and some slight variations in matters of detail, the normal form of government throughout the order.

PROGRESS OF THE ORDER

At the time of this important change in the constitution of the order, the black monks of St. Benedict were to be found in almost every country of Western Europe, including Iceland, where they had two abbeys, founded in the twelfth century, and from which missionaries had penetrated even into Greenland and the lands of the Eskimo. At the beginning of the fourteenth century the order is estimated to have comprised the enormous number of 37,000 monasteries. It had up to that time given to the Church no less than 24 popes, 200 cardinals, 7,000 archbishops, 15,000 bishops, and over 1,500 canonized saints. It had enrolled amongst its members 20 emperors, 10 empresses, 47 kings, and 50 queens. And these numbers continued to increase by reason of the additional strength which accrued to the order form its consolidation under the new system. In the sixteenth century the Reformation and the religious wars spread havoc amongst its monasteries and reduced their number to about 5,000. In Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden, where several houses had joined the German (Bursfeld) Union, the order was entirely obliterated by the Lutherans about 1551 and its property confiscated by the crown. The arbitrary rule of Joseph II of Austria (1765–90) and the French Revolution and its consequences completed the work of destruction, so that in the early part of the nineteenth century, the order numbered scarcely more than fifty monasteries all told. The last seventy years, however, have witnessed a remarkable series of revivals and an accession of missionary enterprise, with the result that there are now over one hundred and fifty monasteries of black monks, or, including affiliated congregations and convents of nuns, a total of nearly seven hundred. These revivals and examples of expansion will now be treated in detail under the headings of the various congregations, which will bring the history of the order down to the present day.

(1) The English Congregation.-The English were the first to put into practice the decrees of the Lateran Council. Some time was necessarily spent in preliminary preparations, and the first general chapter was held at Oxford in 1218, from which time up to the dissolution under Henry VIII the triennial chapters appear to have been held more or less regularly. (Details of these chapters will be found in Reyner, “Apostolatus Benedictinorum.”) At first only the monasteries of the southern province of Canterbury were represented, but in 1338, in consequence of the Bull “Benedictina,” the two provinces were united and the English congregation definitely established. This system of the union of houses and periodical chapters interfered in the least possible degree with the Benedictine tradition of mutual independence of monasteries, though the Bull “Benedictina” was intended to give some further development to it. In other countries attempts were made from time to time to effect a greater degree of organization, but in England there was never any further advance along the path of centralization. At the time of the dissolution there were in England nearly three hundred houses of black monks, and though the numbers had from one cause or another somewhat declined, the English congregation may truthfully be said to have been in a flourishing condition at the time of the attempt to suppress it in the sixteenth century. The grave charges brought against the monks by Henry VIII’s Visitors, though long believed in, are not now credited by serious historians. This reversal of opinion has been brought about mainly through the researches of such writers as Gasquet (Henry VIII and the English Monasteries, London, new ed., 1899; Eve of the Reformation, London, 1890), and Gairdner (Prefaces to “Calendars of State Papers of Henry VIII”).

Throughout the period of suppression the monks were the champions of the old Faith, and when turned out of their homes very few conformed to the new religion. Some sought refuge abroad, others accepted pensions and lingered on in England hoping for a restoration of the former state of things, whilst not a few preferred to suffer lifelong imprisonment rather than surrender their convictions and claims. In Queen Mary’s reign there was a brief revival at Westminster, where some of the surviving monks were brought together under Abbot Feckenham in 1556. Of the monks professed there during the three years of revived existence, Dom Sigebert Buckley alone survived at the beginning of the seventeenth century; and he, after forty years of imprisonment, when nigh unto death, in 1607, invested with the English habit and affiliated to Westminster Abbey and to the English congregation two English priests, already Benedictines of the Italian congregation. By this act he became the link between the old and the new lines of English black monks, and through him the true succession was perpetuated. About the same time a number of English monks were being trained abroad, mostly in Spain, for the English mission, and these were in 1619 aggregated by papal authority to the English congregation, though the monasteries founded by them had perforce to be situated abroad. St. Gregory’s at Douai was established in 1605, St. Lawrence’s at Dieulouard in Lorraine in 1606, and St. Edmund’s at Paris in 1611. The first two of these communities remained on the continent until driven to England by the French Revolution, but the third has only recently returned. In 1633, by the Bull “Plantata,” Pope Urban VIII bestowed upon the restored English congregation “every privilege, grant, indulgence, faculty, and other prerogative which had ever belonged to the ancient English congregation” and also approved of its members taking on oath by which they bound themselves to labour for the reconversion of their country. So zealous were they in this twenty-seven suffered martyrdom for the Faith, whilst eleven died in prison. Two other monasteries were added to the congregation, viz., Lamspring in Germany in 1643, and Saint-Malo in Brittany in 1611, the latter, however, being passed over to the French (Maurist) congregation in 1672.

In 1795 the monks of Douai were expelled from their monastery by the Revolution, and after many hardships, including imprisonment, escaped to England, where, after a temporary residence at Acton Burnell (near Shrewsbury), they settled in 1814 at Downside in Somerset. The monks of Dieulouard were also driven out at the same time and after some years of wandering established themselves in 1802 at Ampleforth in Yorkshire. The monks of St. Edmund’s, Paris, not successful in making their escape from France, were dispersed for a time, but when, in 1818, the buildings of St. Gregory’s at Douai were recovered by the congregation, the remnants of St. Edmund’s community reassembled and resumed conventual life there in 1823. For eighty years they continued undisturbed, recruited by English subjects and carrying on their school for English boys, until, in 1903, the “Association Laws” of the French government once more expelled them from their monastery; returning to England, they have established themselves at Woolhampton in Berkshire. The Abbey of Lamspring continued to flourish amongst Lutheran surroundings until it was suppressed by the Prussian Government in 1802 and the community dispersed. In 1828 a restoration of conventual life in a small way was attempted at Broadway in Worcestershire, which lasted until 1841. The monks then went to other houses of the congregation, though the community was never formally disbanded. Continuity was preserved by the last survivors of Broadway being incorporated in 1876 into the newly founded community of Fort Augustus in Scotland. In 1859 St. Michael’s priory, at Belmont, near Hereford, was established, in compliance with a decree of Pius IX, as a central novitiate and house of studies for the whole congregation. It was also made the pro-cathedral of the Diocese of Newport, the bishop and canons of which are chosen from the English Benedictines, the cathedral-prior acting as provost of the chapter. Up to 1901 Belmont had no community of its own, but only members from the other houses who were resident there either as professors or students; the general chapter of that year, however, decided that novices might henceforth be received for St. Michael’s monastery. In 1899 Leo XIII raised the three priories of St. Gregory’s (Downside), St. Lawrence’s (Ampleforth), and St. Edmund’s (Douai) to the rank of abbeys, so that the congregation now consists of three abbeys, and one cathedral-priory, each with its own community, but Belmont still remains the central novitiate and tyrocinium for all the houses. Besides its regular prelates, the English congregations, by virtue of the Bull “Plantata” (1633), allowed to perpetuate as titular dignities the nine cathedral-priories which belonged to it before the Reformation, viz., Canterbury, Winchester, Durham, Coventry, Ely, Worcester, Rochester, Norwich, and Bath; to these have been added three more, Peterborough, Gloucester, and Chester, originally Benedictine abbeys but raised to cathedral rank by Henry VIII. Six ancient abbacies also, St. Alban’s, Westminster, Glastonbury, Evesham, Bury St. Edmunds, and St. Mary’s, York, are similarly perpetuated by privilege granted in 1818.

(2) The Cassinese Congregation.-To prevent confusion it is necessary to pint out that there are two congregations of this name. The first, with Monte Cassino as its chief house, was originally known as that of St. Justina of Padua, and with one exception has always been confined to Italy. The other is of much later institution and is distinguished by the title of “Primitive Observance.” What follows relates to the former of these two.

Most of the Italian monasteries had fallen under the influence of Cluny in the tenth and eleventh centuries, and had adopted its customs, but by the end of the fourteenth century they had so greatly declined that there was then hardly one left in which the Cluniac observance was retained. The Abbey of St. Justina at Padua, which had formerly been Cluniac, was in a very corrupt and ruinous state in 1407 when Gregory XII bestowed it in commendam on the Cardinal of Bologna. That prelate, desirous of reform, introduced some Olivetan monks, but the three remaining Cluniac monks appealed to the Venetian Republic against this encoachment on their rights, with the result that the abbey was restored to them and the Olivetans dismissed. The cardinal resigned the abbey to the pope, who thereupon gave it to Ludovico Barbo, a canon regular of St. George in alga. He took the Benedictine habit and received the abbatial blessing in 1409. With the help of two Camaldolese monks and two canons of Alga, he instituted a reformed observance, which was quickly adopted in other monasteries as well. Permission was obtained from the pope for these to unite and form a new congregation, the first general chapters of which was held in 1421, when Abbot Barbo was elected the first president. Amongst those that joined were the celebrated abbeys of Subiaco, Monte Cassino, St. Paul’s in Rome, St. George’s at Venice, La Cava, and Farfa. In 1504 its title was changed to that of the “Cassinese Congregation.” It gradually came to embrace all of the chief Benedictine houses of Italy, to the number of nearly two hundred, divided into seven provinces, Rome, Naples, Sicily, Tuscany, Venice, Lombardy, and Genoa. In 1505 the Abbey of Lérins in Provence together with all its dependent houses joined it. A highly centralized system of government was developed, modelled on the Italian republics, by which the autonomy of the individual houses was almost entirely destroyed. All power was vested in a committee of “definitors,” in whose hands were all appointments, from that of president down to the lowest official in the smallest monastery. But in spite of this obvious departure from the Benedictine ideal and the dangers arising from such a system, the congregation continued in considerable prosperity until the wars of the Revolution period; and the later decrees of the Italian government put a check to its reception of novices and began a series of suppressions which have reduced its numbers enormously and shorn it of much of its former greatness. The formation of the congregation of Primitive Observance from out of its midst has still further diminished the congregation, until it now consists nominally of sixteen monasteries, some entirely without communities, and only three or four with sufficient numbers to keep up full conventual observances.

(3) The Cassinese Congregation of Primitive Observance.-In the year 1851 Abbot Casaretto of Subiaco initiated at Genoa a return to a stricter observance than was then in vogue, and several other monasteries of the Cassinese congregation, including Subiaco itself, desiring to unite in this reforming movement, Pius IX joined all such abbeys into one federation, which was called after its chief house, the “Province of Subiaco.” Before long monasteries in other countries adopted the same reformed observance and became affiliated to Subiaco. In 1872 this union of monasteries was separated altogether from the original congregation and erected as a new and independent body under the title of the “Cassinese Congregation of Primitive Observance,” which was divided into provinces according to the different countries in which its houses were situated, with the Abbot of Subiaco as abbot-general of the whole federation.

(a) The Italian Province dates from the original federation in 1851, and comprises ten monasteries with over two hundred religious. One of these is the Abbey of Monte Vergine, formerly the mother-house of an independent congregation, but which was aggregated to this province in 1879.

(b) The English Province was formed in 1858 when certain English monks at Subiaco obtained permission to make a foundation in England. The Isle of Thanet, hallowed by the memory of St. Augustine’s landing there twelve hundred and sixty years previously, was selected and a church which Augustus Welby Pugin had built at Ramsgate was placed at their disposal. By 1860 a monastery had been erected and full conventual life established. It became a priory in 1880 and in 1896 an abbey. In course of time, in addition to serving several neighbouring missions, the community embarked on work in New Zealand, where Dom Edmund Luck, a Ramsgate monk, was made Bishop of Auckland. They also undertook work in Bengal in 1874, but this has since been relinquished to the secular clergy.

(c) The Belgian Province began in 1858 with the affiliation to Subiaco of the eleventh-century Abbey of Termonde. Afflighem followed in 1870, and since then two new foundations have been made in Belgium, and quite recently missionary work has been undertaken in the Transvaal, South Africa.

(d) The French Province, perhaps the most numerous and flourishing in the congregation, dates from 1859. Jean-Baptiste Muard, a parish priest and founder of a society of diocesan missioners, became a monk at Subiaco. After his profession there in 1849, he returned to France with two companions and settled at Pierre-qui-Vire, a lonely spot amid the forests of Avallon, where a most austere form of Benedictine life was established. After his death in 1854, the abbey he had founded was affiliated to the Cassinese P. O. congregation and became the mother-house of the French province. New foundations were made at Béthisy (1859), Saint-Benoit-sur-Loire, the ancient Fleury (1865), Oklahoma, Indian Territory, U.S.A., with an Apostolic vicariate attached (1874), Belloc (1875), Kerbeneat (1888), Encalcat (1891), Nino-Dios, Argentina (1899), and Jerusalem (1901). In 1880 the French Government annexed Pierre-qui-Vire and expelled the community by force; some of them, however, were able to regain possession a year or two later. The remainder sought refuge in England, where in 1882 they acquired the site of the old Cistercian Abbey of Buckfast, in Devonshire. Here they are gradually rebuilding the abbey on its original foundations. The “Association Laws” of 1903 again dispersed the congregation, the monks of Pierre-qui-Vire finding a temporary home in Belgium, those of Belloc and Encalcat going to Spain, and Kerbeneat to South Wales, whilst those of Béthisy and Saint-Benoit, being engaged in parochial work, obtained authorization and have remained in France.

(e) The Spanish Province dates from 1862, the year in which the ancient Abbey of Montserrat, founded in the ninth century, was affiliated to the Cassinese P. O. congregation. The old Spanish congregation, which ceased to exist in 1835, is dealt with separately. Other old monasteries which had been restored, St. Clodio in 1880, Vilvaneira in 1883, and Samos in 1888, were, in 1893, joined with Montserrat to form the Spanish province. Since then new foundations have been made at Pueyo (1890), Los Cabos (1900), and Solsona (1901), besides one at Manila (Philippines) in 1895. This province also includes the Abbey of New Nursia in Western Australia, founded in 1846 by two exiled monks from St. Martin’s Abbey, Compostella, who after the general suppression in 1835 had found a home at La Cava in Italy. Seeing no hope of a return to Spain they had volunteered for foreign mission work and were sent to Australia in 1846. Their names were Joseph Serra and Rudesind Salvado. They settled amongst the aboriginal inhabitants at a place some seventy miles north of Perth, which they called New Nursia in honour of St. Benedict’s birthplace, and there worked as pioneers of civilization and Christianity amongst the natives. Their labours were crowned with success and their abbey gradually became the centre from which a number of outlying mission stations were established. Dom Serra became coadjutor to the Bishop of Perth in 1848, and Dom Salvado was made Bishop of Port Victoria in 1849, though he still remained superior of New Nursia, which was made an abbey in 1867 with a diocese attached. It had been aggregated to the Italian province of the congregation in 1864, but was transferred to the Spanish province on its formation in 1893. The monks own vast tracts of bushland around their monastery and they rear horses, sheep, and cattle on a large scale. The community includes a number of aboriginal converts amongst its lay brethren.

(4) The Bursfeld Union.-Although more fully dealt with in a separate article, something must be said here about this congregation. Formed in 1430, it included all the principal monasteries of Germany, and at the height of its prosperity numbered one hundred and thirty-six houses of men and sixty-four of women. It flourished until the Protestant Reformation, which with the religious wars that followed entirely obliterated it, and most of its monasteries passed into Lutheran hands. In 1628 the few remaining representatives of the congregation, having recovered a right to some of their possessions, offered seven monasteries to the newly resuscitated English congregation, on condition that the task of getting rid of the Lutheran occupants should devolve upon the English monks, whilst the monasteries should be restored to the Bursfeld congregation in the event of its ever requiring them. No advantage was taken of this offer except with regard to two houses-Rintelin, which was used as a seminary for a few years by the English Benedictines, and Lamspring, which continued as an abbey of English monks from 1644 to 1802. No other monasteries of the Bursfeld Union were ever restored to Benedictine use. (See BURSFELD.)

(5) The Spanish Congregation.-There were originally two distinct congregations in Spain, that of the “Claustrales” or of Tarragona, formed in 1336, and that of Valladolid, organized in 1489. At the time of the general suppression in 1835, the former comprised sixteen abbeys, and the latter fifty, besides one or two priories in Peru and Mexico. Belonging to the Claustrales were Our Lady’s Abbey, Vilvaneira, St. Stephen’s, Rivas del Sil, founded in the sixth century, and St. Peter’s, Cardena, which claimed to be the oldest in Spain. The Valladolid congregation had St. Benedict’s, Valladolid (founded 1390), for its mother-house, and amongst its houses were St. Martin’s, Compostella (ninth century); St. Benedict’s, Sahagun, the largest in Spain; St. Vincent’s, Salamanca, famous for its university; Our Lady’s, Montserrat; and St. Domingo at Silos. Of the sixty-six monasteries suppressed in 1835, five have been restored, viz., Montserrat (1844), St. Clodio (1880), Vilvaneira (1883), and Samos (1888) by the Cassinese P. O. congregation, and Silos (1880) by the French monks from Ligugé. Of the rest, sixteen remain as parish churches, thirteen are now occupied by other religious orders, two or three are used as barracks, two as prisons, one as a diocesan seminary, a few have been converted into municipal buildings or private residences, and the remainder have been destroyed.

(6) The Portuguese Congregation.-In the sixteenth century the monasteries of Portugal were all held by commendatory abbots and consequently were in a very unsatisfactory state as regards discipline. A reform was initiated in 1558 in the Abbey of St. Thirso, monks from Spain being introduced for the purpose. After much difficulty the leaders succeeded in spreading their reform to two or three other houses, and these were formed into the Portuguese congregation by Pius V in 1566. The first general chapter was held at Tibaes in 1568 and a president elected. The congregation eventually comprised all the monasteries of Portugal and continued in a flourishing state until the wholesale suppression of religious houses in the early part of the nineteenth century, when its existence came to an abrupt end. Only one Benedictine monastery in Portugal has since been restored-that of Cucujães, originally founded in 1091. Its resuscitation in 1875 came about in this way: to evade the law forbidding their reception of novices, the Brazilian Benedictines had sent some of the subjects to Rome for study and training in the monastery of St. Paul’s, where they were professed about 1870. The Brazilian government refusing them permission to return to that country, they settled in Portugal and obtained possession of the old monastery of Cucujães. After twenty years of somewhat isolated existence there, unable to re-establish the Portuguese congregation, they were, in 1895, affiliated to that of Beuron. Thus Brazil, which had received its first Benedictines from Portugal, became in turn the means of restoring the Benedictine life in that country.

(7) The Brazilian Congregation.-The first Benedictines to settle in Brazil came from Portugal in 1581. They established the following monasteries: St. Sebastian, Bahia, (1581); Our Lady of Montserrat, Rio de Janeiro (1589); St. Benedict, Olinda (1640); the Assumption, Sao Paulo (1640); Our Lady’s, Parahyba (1641); Our Lady’s, Brotas (1650); Our Lady’s, near Bahia (1658); and four priories dependent on Sao Paulo. All these remained subject to the Portuguese superiors until 1827, when in consequence of the separation of Brazil from the Kingdom of Portugal, an independent Brazilian congregation was erected by Leo XII, consisting of the above eleven houses, with the Abbot of Bahia as its president. A decree of the Brazilian government in 1855 forbade the further reception of novices, and the result was that when the empire came to an end in 1889, the entire congregation numbered only about twelve members, of whom eight were abbots of over seventy years of age. The abbot-general appealed for help to the pope, who applied to the Beuronese congregation for volunteers. In 1895 a small colony of Beuronese monks having spent some time in Portugal learning the language, set out for Brazil and took possession of the abandoned Abbey of Olinda. The divine office was resumed, mission work in the neighbourhood commenced, and a school of alumni (pupils destined for the monastic state) established. Two new abbeys have also been added to the congregation: Quixada, founded in 1900, and St. Andre at Bruges (Belgium) in 1901, for the reception and training of subjects for Brazil. In 1903 Rio de Janeiro was made the mother-house of the congregation and the residence of the abbot-general.

(8) The Swiss Congregation.-The earliest monasteries in Switzerland were founded from Luxeuil by the disciples of Columbanus, amongst whom was St. Gall, who established the celebrated abbey afterwards known by his name. By the end of the eighth century the Benedictine Rule had been accepted in most, if not in all of them. Some of these monasteries still exist and their communities can boast of an unbroken continuity from those early days. The various monasteries of Switzerland were united to form the Swiss congregation in 1602, through the efforts of Augustine, Abbot of Einsiedeln. The political disturbances at the end of the eighteenth century reduced the number of abbeys to six, of which five still continue and constitute the entire congregation at the present day. They are as follows: (a) Dissentis, founded in 612; plundered and destroyed by fire in 1799; restored 1880. (b) Einsiedeln, founded 934, the abbey from which the Swiss-American congregation has sprung. (c) Muri, founded 1027; suppressed 1841; but restored at Gries (Tyrol) 1845. (d) Engelberg, founded 1082. (3) Maria Stein, founded 1085; the community was disbanded in 1798, but reassembled six years later; again suppressed in 1875, when the members went to Delle in France; expelled thence in 1902, they moved to Dürnberg in Austria, and in 1906 settled at Bregenz. The sixth abbey was Rheinau, founded 778, which was suppressed in 1862; its monks, being unable to resume conventual life, were received into other monasteries of the congregation.

(9) The Congregation of St.-Vannes.-To counteract the evils resulting from the practice of bestowing ecclesiastical benefices upon secular persons in commendam, then rife throughout Western Europe, Dom Didier de la Cour, Prior of the Abbey of St.-Vannes in Lorraine, inaugurated in 1598 a strict disciplinary reform with the full approbation of the commendatory abbot, the Bishop of Verdun. Other monasteries soon followed suit and the reform was introduced into all the houses of Alsace and Lorraine, as well as many in different parts of France. A congregation, numbering about forty houses in all, under the presidency of the prior of St.-Vannes, was formed, and was approved by the pope in 1604. On account of the difficulties arising from the direction of the French monasteries by a superior residing in another kingdom, a separate congregation—that of St.-Maur—was organized in 1621 for the monasteries in France, whilst that of St.-Vannes was restricted to those situated in Lorraine. The latter continued with undiminished fervour until suppressed by the French Revolution, but is privileges were handed on by Gregory XVI in 1837 to the newly founded Gallican congregation, which was declared to be its true successor, though not enjoying actual continuity with it.

(10) The Congregation of St.-Maur.-The French monasteries which had embraced the reform of St.-Vannes were in 1621 formed into a separate congregation named after St. Maur, the disciple of St. Benedict, which eventually numbered on hundred and eighty houses, i.e. all in France except those of the Cluniac congregation. The reform was introduced mainly through the instrumentality of Dom Laurent Bénard and quickly spread through France. Saint-Germain-des-Prés at Paris became the mother-house, and the superior of this abbey was always the president. The constitution was modelled on that of the congregation of St. Justina of Padua and it was a genuine return to the primitive austerity of conventual observance. It became chiefly celebrated for the literary achievements of its members, amongst whom it counted Mabillon, Montfaucon, d’Achery, Martene, and many others equally famous for their erudition and industry. In 1790 the Revolution suppressed all its monasteries and the monks were dispersed. The superior general and two others suffered in the massacre at the Carmes, 2 September, 1792. Others sought safety in flight and were received into Lamspring, and abbeys of Switzerland, England, and North America. A few of the survivors endeavoured to restore their congregation at Solesmes in 1817, but the attempt was not successful, and the congregation died out, leaving behind it a fame unrivalled in the annals of monastic history. (see MAURISTS.)

(11) The Congregation of St. Placid.-This congregation was also an outcome of the reform instituted at St.-Vannes. The Abbey of St. Hubert in Ardennes, which had been founded about 706 for canons regular but had become Benedictine in 817, was the first in the Low Countries to embrace the reform. To facilitate its introduction, monks were sent from St.-Vannes in 1618 to initiate the stricter observance. In spite of some opposition from the community as well as from the diocesan, the Bishop of Liège, the revival of discipline gradually gained the supremacy and before long other monasteries, including St. Denis in Hainault, St. Adrian, Afflighem, St. Peter’s at Ghent, and others followed suit. These were formed into a new congregation (c. 1630) which was approved by Pope Urban VIII, and existed until the Revolution. Two abbeys of this congregation, Termonde and Afflighem, have since been restored and affiliated to the Belgian province of the Cassinese P. O. congregation.

(12) The Austrian Congregations.-For many centuries the monasteries of Austria maintained their individual independence and their abbots acquired positions of much political power and dignity, which, though considerably diminished since medieval times, are still such as are enjoyed by no other Benedictine abbots. The example of reform set by the congregation of St. Justina in the fifteenth century exercised an influence upon the Austrian monasteries. Beginning (1418) in the Abbey of Melk (founded about 1089), the reform was extended to other houses, and in 1460 a union of those that had adopted it was proposed. Sixteen abbots were present at a meeting held in 1470, but for some reason this union of abbeys does not seem to have been at all lasting, for in 1623 a new Austrian congregation was projected to consist of practically the same abbeys as the former congregation: Melk, Göttweig, Lambach, Kremsmunster, Vienna, Garsten, Altenburg, Seitenstetten, Mondsee, Kleinck, and Marienberg. In 1630 it was proposed to unite this congregation, those of Busfeld and Bavaria, and all the houses that were still independent, into one general federation, and a meeting was held at Ratisbon to discuss the scheme. The Swedish invitation, however, put an end to the plan and the only result was the formation of another small congregation of nine abbeys, with that of St. Peter’s, Salzburg, at its head. These two congregations, Melk and Salzburg, lasted until towards the end of the eighteenth century, when the despotic rule of Joseph II (1765–90) gave them their death-blow. In 1803 many of the abbeys were suppressed and those that were suffered to remain were forbidden to receive fresh novices. The Emperor Francis I, however, restored several of them between the years 1809 and 1816, and in 1889 those that still survived, some twenty in number, were formed into two new congregations under the titles of the Immaculate Conception and St. Joseph, respectively. The former comprises ten houses under the presidency of the Abbot of Göttweig, and the latter seven, with the Abbot of Salzburg at its head. The congregation of the Immaculate Conception, in which are Kremsmunster, dating from 777, St. Paul’s in Carinthia, and the Scots monastery at Vienna, includes none of later date than the twelfth century; whilst in the congregation of St. Joseph there are Salzburg (before 700), Michaelbeuern (785), four others of the eleventh century, and only one of recent foundation, Innsbruck (1904).

(13) The Bavarian Congregation.-A reform initiated amongst the monasteries of Bavaria, based upon the Tridentine decrees, caused the erection of this congregation in 1684. It then consisted of eighteen houses which flourished until the general suppression at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Beginning in 1830, the pious King Ludwig I restored the abbeys of Metten and Ottobeuern (founded in the eighth century), Scheyern (1112), and Andechs (1455), and founded new monasteries at Augsburg (1834), Munich (1835), Meltenburg (1842), and Schaftlarn (1866). Pius IX restored the congregation (1858) comprising the above houses, of which the Abbot of Metten is president. The abbeys of Plankstetten (1189) and Ettal (1330) were restored in 1900 and 1904, respectively and added to the congregation.

(14) The Hungarian Congregation.-This congregation differs from all others in its constitution. It comprises the four abbeys of Zalavar (1919), Bakonybel (1037), Tihany (1055), and Domolk (1252), which are dependent on the Arch-Abbey of Monte Pannonia (Martinsberg), and to these are added six “residences” or educational establishments conducted by the monks. The members of this body are professed for the congregation and not for any particular monastery, and they can be moved from one house to another at the discretion of the arch-abbot and his sixteen assessors. The arch-abbey was founded by Stephen, the first king of Hungary, in 1001, and together with the other houses enjoys an unbroken succession from the date of foundation. The congregation is affiliated to the Cassinese, though it enjoys a status of comparative independence.

(15) The Gallican Congregation.-This, the first of the new congregations of the nineteenth century, was established in 1837 at Solesmes in France by Dom Guéranger. He had been professed at St. Paul’s, Rome, and though at one time desirous of joining the community of Monte Cassino, was urged by the Bishop of Le Mans to restore the Benedictine Order in France. He acquired possession of the old Maurist priory of Solesmes, which Pope Gregory XVI made an abbey and the mother-house of the new congregation. He also declared it to be the true successor to all the privileges formerly enjoyed by the congregations of Cluny, St.-Vannes, and St.-Maur. Guéranger was soon joined by numbers of offshoots. In this way Ligugé, originally founded by St. Martin of Tours in 360, was restored in 1853, Silos (Spain) in 1880, Glanfeuil in 1892, and Fontanelle (St. Wandrille), founded 649, in 1893. New foundations were likewise made at Marseilles in 1865, Farnborough (England), and Wisque in 1895, Paris 1893, Kergonan 1897, and a cell from Silos was established in Mexico in 1901. The community of Solesmes have been expelled from their monastery by the French government no less than four times. In the years 1880, 1882, and 1883 they were ejected by force, and, being afforded hospitality in the neighbourhood, kept up their corporate life as far as possible, using the parish church for the Divine Office. Each time they succeeded in re-entering their abbey, but at the final expulsion in 1903 they were, in common with all other religious of France, driven out of the country. The Solesmes monks have settled in the Isle of Wight, England, those of Fontanelle, Glanfeuil, Wisque, and Kergonan have gone to Belgium, those of Ligugé to Spain, and those of Marseilles to Italy. The Fathers at Paris have been allowed to remain, in consideration of the important literary and history work on which they are engaged. This congregation has endeavoured to carry on the work of the Maurists, and numbers many well-known writers amongst its members. The Abbot of Solesmes is the superior general, to which position he has been twice re-elected.

(16) The Congregation of Beuron.-This congregation was founded by Dom Maurus Wolter, who, whilst a seminary professor, was fired with the desire of restoring the Benedictine Order in Germany. He went to St. Paul’s, Rome, where he was joined by his two brothers, and all were professed in 1856, one dying soon after. The two survivors, Maurus and Placid, set out in 1860, with a sum of £40 and the pope’s blessing, to reconquer Germany for St. Benedict. In 1863, through the influence of the Princess Katharina von Hohenzollern, they obtained possession of the old Abbey of Beuron, near Sigmaringen, which had been originally founded in 777, but was destroyed in the tenth century by Hungarian invaders and later restored as a house of canons regular; it had been unoccupied since 1805. Dom Maurus became the first abbot of Beuron and superior of the congregation. In 1872 a colony was sent to Belgium to found the Abbey of Maredsous, of which Dom Placid was first abbot. The community of Beuron were banished in 1875 by the “May Laws” of the Prussian Government and found a temporary home in an old Servite monastery in the Tyrol. Whilst there their numbers increased sufficiently to make new foundations at Erdington, England, in 1876, Prague in 1880, and Seckau, Styria, in 1883. In 1887 Beuron was restored to them, and since then new houses have been established at Maria Laach, Germany (1892), Louvain, and Billerbeck, Belgium (1899 and 1901), and in 1895 the Portuguese monastery of Cucujães was added to the congregation. The founder died in 1900, and his brother, Dom Placid Wolter, succeeded him as Archabbot of Beuron.

(17) The American Cassinese Congregation.-Nothing very definite can be said with regard to the first Benedictines in North America. There were probably settlements amongst the Eskimo from Iceland, by way of Greenland, but these must have disappeared at an early date. In 1493 a monk from Montserrat accompanied Columbus on his voyage of discovery and became vicar-Apostolic of the West Indies, but his stay was short, and he returned to Spain. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries one or two English monks, and at least one of the Maurist congregation, worked on the American mission; and at the time of the French Revolution negotiations had been commenced by bishop Carroll, first Bishop of Baltimore, for a settlement of English Benedictines in his diocese, which, however, came to nothing. The Benedictine Order was first established permanently in America by Dom Boniface Wimmer, of the Abbey of Metten, in Bavaria. A number of Bavarians had emigrated to America, and it was suggested that their spiritual wants in the new country should be attended to by Bavarian priests. Dom Wimmer and a few companions accordingly set out in 1846, and on their arrival in America they acquired the church, a house, and some land belong to the small mission of St. Vincent, Beatty, Pennsylvania, which had been founded some time previously by a Franciscan missionary. Here they set to work, establishing conventual life, as far as was possible under the circumstances, and applying themselves assiduously to the work of the mission. Reinforced by more monks from Bavaria and their poverty relieved by some munificent donations, they accepted additional outlying missions and established a large college. In 1855 St. Vincent’s, which had already founded two dependent priories was made an abbey and the mother-house of a new congregation, Dom Wimmer being appointed first abbot and president. Besides St. Vincent’s Arch-Abbey, the following foundations have been made: St. John’s Abbey, Collegeville, Minnesota, founded 1856, mainly through the generosity of King Ludwig I of Bavaria; connected with the abbey is a large college for boys, with an attendance of over 300; St. Benedict’s Abbey, Atchison, Kansas, founded 1857, said to possess the finest Benedictine church in America, built in the style of the Rhenish churches of the tenth and eleventh centuries; there is in connexion a school with 150 boys; St. Mary’s Abbey, Newark, New Jersey, founded 1857, with a school of 100 boys; Maryhelp Abbey, Belmont, North Carolina, founded 1885, the abbot of which is also vicar-Apostolic of North Carolina; attached to the abbey are two colleges and a school, with over 200 students; St. Procopius’s Abbey, Chicago, founded 1887, with a school of 50 boys and an orphanage attached; St. Leo’s Abbey, Pasco County, Florida, founded 1889; this abbey has a dependent priory in Cuba; St. Bernard’s Abbey, Cullman County, Alabama, founded 1891, with a school of over 100 boys; St. Peter’s Priory, established in Illinois in 1892 and transferred to Muenster, Saskatchewan, N. W. T., in 1903; St. Martin’s Priory, Lacey, the State of Washington, founded 1895.

(18) The Swiss American Congregation.-In 1845 two monks from Einsiedeln in Switzerland came to America and founded the monastery of St. Meinrad, in Indiana, serving the mission and conducting a small school for boys. It became a priory in 1865, and in 1870 was made an abbey and the centre of the congregation which was canonically erected at the same time. The first abbot, Dom Martin Marty, became, in 1879, first Vicar Apostolic of Dakota, where he had some years previously inaugurated mission work amongst the Indians. The following new foundations were made: Conception Abbey, Conception, Missouri (1873), the abbot of the abbey being president of the congregation; New Subiaco Abbey, Spielerville, Arkansas (1878); St. Benedict’s Abbey, Mount Angel, Oregon (1882); St. Joseph’s Abbey, Covington, Louisiana (1889); St. Mary’s Abbey, Richadton, North Dakota (1899); St. Gall’s Priory, Devil’s Lake (1893), the last two communities subject to the same abbot. To all these monasteries are attached numerous missions, in which the monks exercise the cure of souls. They also have several seminaries and colleges.

(19) The Congregation of St. Ottilien.-This congregation, specially established for the work of foreign missions, was commenced in 1884 in the Abbey of St. Ottilien, in Bavaria, under the title of the “Congregation of the Sacred Heart.” It was not then Benedictine, but in 1897 was affiliated to the Cassinese congregation and in 1904 formally incorporated into the Benedictine Order. The Abbot of St. Ottilien is the superior general and the Beuronese Abbot of Seckau the apostolic visitor. This congregation has been largely recruited from the congregation of Beuron, to which it is bound by close ties. In 1901 it established a cell at Wipfeld, in Bavaria, and it has also ten mission stations in Central Africa, one of its members being Vicar Apostolic of Zanzibar. Its roll of honour was opened in August, 1905, by a bishop, two monks, two lay brothers, and two nuns, who suffered martyrdom for the Faith at the hands of the Central African natives.

(20) Independent Abbeys.-Besides the above congregations there also are two independent abbeys, which belong to no congregation, but are immediately subject to the Holy See; (a) The Abbey of Fort Augustus, Scotland. Founded in 1876, as a priory of the English congregation, mainly through the munificence of Lord Lovat, its first community was drawn from the other houses of that body. It was intended partly to continue the community of Sts. Denis and Adrian, originally of Lamspring, which had been dispersed since 1841, and of which there were only one or two surviving members; and partly to preserve continuity with the Scottish monasteries that had from time to time been founded in different parts of Germany and Austria, and of which there was, likewise, only one survivor-Father Anselm Robertson, professed at St. Jame’s, Ratisbon, in 1845. These monks took up residence with the new community and assisted in the clothing of the first novice received for Fort Augustus. In order that its members might be exempt from the external mission work with which the English Benedictines are specially charged, the monastery was, in 1883, separated from the English congregation by the Holy See, and in 1888 was made an independent abbey, directly subject to the pope. A monk of the Beuron congregation, Dom Leo Linse, was at the same time appointed its first abbot. The Beuronese constitutions were first adopted, but these have since been replaced by new constitutions. Of late years the community has undertaken the spiritual care of three parishes in the vicinity of the abbey. (b) St. Anselm’s Abbey and International Benedictine College, Rome. This was originally founded in 1687 as a college for Benedictines of the Cassinese congregation, but later on monks of other congregations were also admitted. Having ceased to exist in 1846, it was revived on a small scale by the Abbot of St. Paul’s, and reconstituted in 1886 as a college and university for Benedictines from all parts of the world by Leo XIII, who at his own expense erected the present extensive buildings. In 1900 the abbey church was consecrated, in the presence of a great gathering of abbots from all over the world, by Cardinal Rampolla, acting as representative of the pope. St. Anselm’s is presided over by Abbot Hildebrand de Hemptinne (who is also Abbot of Maredsous) with the title of “Abbot Primate” of the whole order. It has power to grant degrees in theology, philosophy, and canon law, and both professors and students are drawn from all congregations of the order. There is accommodation for one hundred students, but the full number in residence at one time has not yet exceeded sixty.

II. LAY BROTHERS, ORLATES, CONFRATERS, AND NUNS

(1) Lay Brothers.-Up to the eleventh century in Benedictine houses no distinction of rank was made between the clerical and the lay brethren. All were on an equal footing in the community and at first comparatively few seem to have been advanced to the priesthood. St. Benedict himself was probably only a layman; at any rate it is certain that he was not a priest. A monk not in sacred orders was always considered as eligible as a priest for any office in the community, even that of abbot, though for purposes of convenience some of the monks were usually ordained for the service of the altar; and until literary and scholastic work, which could only be undertaken by men of some education and culture, began to take the place of manual labour, all shared alike in the daily round of agricultural and domestic duties. St. John Gualbert, the founder of Vallombrosa, was the first to introduce the system of lay brethren, by drawing a line of distinction between the monks who were clerics and those who were not. The latter had no stalls in choir and no vote in chapter; neither were they bound to the daily recitation of the breviary Office as were the choir monks. Lay brothers were entrusted with the more menial work of the monastery, and all those duties that involved intercourse with the outside world, in order that the choir brethren might be free to devote themselves entirely to prayer and other occupations proper to their clerical vocation. The system spread rapidly to all branches of the order and was imitated by almost every other religious order. At the present day there is hardly a congregation, Benedictine or otherwise, that has not its lay brethren, and even amongst numerous orders of nuns a similar distinction is observed, either between the nuns that are bound to choir and those that are not, or between those that keep strict enclosure and those that are not so enclosed. The habit worn by the lay brethren is usually a modification of that of the choir monks, sometimes differing from it in colour as well as in shape; and the vows of the lay brethren are in most congregations only simple, or renewable periodically, in contrast with the solemn vows for life taken by the choir religious. In some communities at the present time the lay brothers equal and even outnumber the priests, especially in those, like Beuron or New Nursia, where farming and agriculture are carried out on a large scale.

(2) Oblates.-This term was formerly applied to children offered by their parents in a solemn way to a monastery, a dedication by which they were considered to have embraced the monastic state. The custom led to many abuses in the Middle Ages, because oblates sometimes abandoned the religious life and returned to the world, whilst still looked upon as professed religious. The Church, therefore, in the twelfth century, forbade the dedication of children in this way, and the term oblate has since been taken to mean persons, either lay or cleric, who voluntarily attach themselves to some monastery or order without taking the vows of religious. They wear the habit and share all the privileges and exercises of the community they join, but they retain dominion over their property and are free to leave at any time. They usually make a promise of obedience to the superior, which binds them as long as they remain in the monastery, but it only partakes of the nature of a mutual agreement and has none of the properties of a vow or solemn contract.

(3) Confratres.-A custom sprang up in the Middle Ages of uniting lay people to a religious community by formal aggregation, through which they participated in all the prayers and good works of the monks, and though living in the world, they could always feel that they were connected in a special way with some religious house or order. There seem to have been Benedictine confratres as early as the ninth century. The practice was widely taken up by almost every other order and was developed by the mendicants in the thirteenth century into what are now called “third orders.” It was peculiar to Benedictine confratres that they were always aggregated to the particular monastery of their selection and not to the whole order in general, as is the case with others. The Benedictines have numbered kings and emperors and many distinguished persons amongst their confratres, and there is hardly a monastery of the present day which has not some lay people connected with it by this spiritual bond of union.

(4) Nuns.-Nothing very definite can be said as to the first nuns living under the Rule of St. Benedict. St. Gregory the Great certainly tells us that St. Benedict’s sister, Scholastica, presided over such a community of religious women who were established in a monastery situated about five miles from his Abbey of Monte Cassino; but whether that was merely an isolated instance, or whether it may be legitimately regarded as the foundation of the female department of the order, is at least an open question. We do not even know what rule these nuns followed, though we may conjecture that they were under St. Benedict’s spiritual direction and that whatever rule he gave them probably differed but little, except perhaps in minor details, from that for monks which has come down to us bearing his name. It seems tolerably certain, at any rate, that as St. Benedict’s Rule began to be diffused abroad, women as well as men formed themselves into communities in order to live a religious life according to its principles, and wherever the Benedictine monks went, there also we find monasteries being established for nuns. Nunneries were founded in Gaul by Sts. Caesarius and Aurelian of Arles, St. Martin of Tours, and St. Columbanus of Luxeuil, and up to the sixth century the rules for nuns in most general use were those of St. Caesarius and St. Columbanus, portions of which are still extant. These were, however, eventually supplanted by that of St. Benedict, and amongst the earliest nunneries to make the change were Poitiers, Chelles, Remiremont, and Faremoutier. Mabillon assigns the beginning of the change to the year 620 though more probably the Benedictine Rule was not received in its entirety at so early a date, but was only combined with the other rules then in force. Remiremont became for women what Luxeuil was for men, the centre from which sprang a numerous spiritual family, and though later on it was converted into a convent of noble cannonesses, instead of nuns properly so called, a modified form of the Benedictine Rule was still observed there. St. Benedict’s Rule was widely propagated by Charlemagne and his son, Louis the Pious, and the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 817 enforced its general observance in all the nunneries of the empire. The Abbey of Notre Dame de Ronceray, at Angers, founded in 1028 by Fulke, Count of Anjou, was one of the most influential convents in France in the Middle Ages, and had under its jurisdiction a large number of dependent priories.

The earliest convents for women in England were at Folkestone, founded 630, and St. Mildred’s in Thanet, established 670, and it is probable that under the influence of the successors of St. Augustine’s monks at Canterbury and elsewhere, these nunneries observed the Benedictine Rule from the first. Other important Anglo-Saxon convents were: Ely, founded by St. Etheldreda in 673, Barking (675), Wimborne (713), Wilton (800), Ramsey, Hants (967), and Amesbury (980). In Northumbria, Whitby (657) and Coldingham (673) were the chief houses of nuns. St. Hilda was the most celebrated of the abbesses of Whitby, and it was at Whitby that the synod which decided the paschal controversy was held in 664. Most of these convents were destroyed by Danish invaders during the ninth and tenth centuries, but some were subsequently restored and many others were founded in England after the Norman conquest.

The first nuns in Germany came from England in the eighth century, having been brought over by St. Boniface to assist him in his work of conversion and to provide a means of education for their own sex amongst the newly evangelized Teutonic races. Sts. Lioba, Thecla, and Walburga were the earliest of these pioneers, and for them and their companions, who were chiefly from Wimborne, St. Boniface established many convents throughout the countries in which he preached. In other parts of Europe nunneries sprang up as rapidly as the abbeys for men, and in the Middle Ages they were almost, if not quite, as numerous. In later medieval times the names of St. Gertrude, called the “Great,” and her sister St. Mechtilde, who flourished in the thirteenth century, shed a lustre on the Benedictine nuns of Germany. In Italy the convents seem to have been very numerous during the Middle Ages. In the thirteenth century several were founded in which the reform of Vallombrosa was adopted, but none of these now exist. There were also convents belonging to the reforms of Camaldoli and Mount Olivet, of which a few still survive.

Except in the Bursfeld Union, which included houses of both sexes, and in the Cistercian reform, where the nuns were always under the Abbot of Cîteaux, and a few others of minor importance, the congregational system was never applied to the houses of women in an organized way. The convents were generally either under the exclusive direction of some particular abbey, through the influence of which they had been established, or else, especially when founded by lay people, they were subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese in which they were situated. These two conditions of existence have survived to the present day; there are nine belonging to the first and over two hundred and fifty to the second category.

Early in the twelfth century France was the scene of a somewhat remarkable phase in the history of the Benedictine nuns. Robert of Arbrissel, formerly chancellor to the Duke of Brittany, embraced an eremitical life in which he had many disciples, and having founded a monastery of canons regular, carried out a new idea in 1099 when he established the double Abbey of Fontevrault in Poitou, famous in France for many centuries. The monks and nuns both kept the Benedictine Rule, to which were added some additional austerities. The law of enclosure was very strictly observed. In 1115 the founder placed the entire community, monks as well as nuns, under the rule of the abbess, and he further provided that the person elected to that office should always be chosen from the outside world, as such a one would have more practical knowledge of affairs and capacity for administration than one trained in the cloister. Many noble ladies and royal princesses of France are reckoned amongst the abbesses of Fontevrault. (See FONTEVRAULT.)

Excepting at Fontevrault the nuns seem at first not to have been strictly enclosed, as now, but were free to leave the cloister whenever some special duty or occasion might demand it, as in the case of the English nuns already mentioned, who went to Germany for active missionary work. This freedom with regard to enclosure gave rise, in course of time, to grave scandals, and the Councils of Constance (1414), Basle (1431), and Trent (1545), amongst others, regulated that all the professedly contemplative orders of nuns should observe strict enclosure, and this has continued to the present time as the normal rule of a Benedictine convent.

The Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century affected the nuns as well as the monks. Throughout north-western Europe the Benedictine institute was practically obliterated. In England the convents were suppressed and the nuns turned adrift. In Germany, Denmark, and Scandinavia the Lutherans acquired most of the nunneries and ejected their inmates. The wars of religion in France also had a disastrous effect upon the convents of that country, already much enfeebled by the evils consequent on the practice of commendam. The last few centuries, however, have witnessed a widespread revival of the Benedictine life for women as well as for men. In France, especially, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, there sprang up several new congregations of Benedictine nuns, or reforms were instituted among those already existing. These were not strictly congregations in the technical sense, but rather unions or groups of houses which adopted a uniform observance, though the individual convents still remained for the most part subject to their respective bishops. Mention may be made of the reforms of Montmartre, Beauvais, Val-de-Grace, and Douai, and those of the Perpetual Adoration founded at Paris in 1654 and Valdosne in 1701. The French Revolution suppressed all these convents, but many have since been restored and fresh foundations added to their number.

The first convent of English nuns since the Reformation was founded at Brussels in 1598; and another was established at Cambrai in 1623 under the direction of the English Benedictine Fathers of Douai, from which a filiation was made at Paris in 1652. At Ghent in 1624 a convent was founded under Jesuit guidance, and established daughter-houses at Boulogne in 1652, Ypres in 1665, and Dunkirk in 1662. All these communities, except that of Ypres, were expelled at the French Revolution and escaped to England. That of Cambrai is now at Stanbrook and still remains a member of the English congregation under the jurisdiction of its abbot-president. The Brussels community is now at East Bergholt, and the Paris nuns at Colwich, whence an off-shoot has been planted at Atherstone (1842). Those of Ghent are now at Oulton; Boulogne and Dunkirk, having combined, are settled at Teignmouth. The convent of Ypres alone remains at the place of its original foundation, having survived the troublous times of the Revolution. There are also small Benedictine convents of more recent foundation at Minster (Thanet), Ventnor, Dumfries, and Tenby, and one at Princethorpe, originally a French community founded at Montargis in 1630, but driven to England in 1792, and now almost exclusively English. The nuns of Stanbrook, Oulton, Princethorpe, Ventnor, and Dumfries conduct boarding-school for the higher education of young ladies, and those of Teignmouth, Colwich, Atherstone, and Dumfries have undertaken the work of perpetual adoration.

In Austria many of the medieval convents have remained undisturbed, and likewise a few in Switzerland. In Belgium there are seven dating from the seventeenth century, and in Germany fourteen, established mostly during the last half century. In Italy, where at one time they were very numerous, there still remain, in spite of recent suppressions, eighty-five Benedictine convents dating from the Middle Ages, with over a thousand nuns. Holland has three convents of modern date, and Poland one, at Warsaw, founded in 1687. The convents of Spain numbered thirty at the time of the suppressions of 1835. The nuns were then robbed of all their possessions, but managed to preserve their corporate existence, though in great poverty and with reduced numbers. Ten of the old convents have since been restored, and eleven new ones founded. It is a peculiarity of the Spanish convents that their abbesses who are elected triennially, receive no solemn blessing, as elsewhere, nor do they make use of any abbatial insignia.

Benedictine life in America may be said to be in a flourishing condition. There are thirty-four convents with nearly two thousand nuns, all of which have been founded within the last sixty years. The first establishment was at St. Mary’s, Pennsylvania, where Abbot Wimmer settled some German nuns from Eichstätt in 1852; this is still one of the most important convents in the United States, and from it many filiations have been made. St. Benedict’s convent at St. Joseph, Minnesota, founded in 1857, is the largest Benedictine convent in America. Other important houses are at Allegheny (Pennsylvania), Atchison (Kansas), Chicago (2), Covington (Kentucky), Duluth (Minnesota), Erie (Pennsylvania), Ferdinand (Indiana), Mount Angel (Oregon), Newark (New Jersey), New Orleans (Louisiana), Shoal Creek (Arkansas), and Yankton (South Dakota). The nuns are chiefly occupied with the work of education, which comprises elementary schools as well as boarding school for secondary education. All the American convents are subject to the bishops of their respective dioceses.

III. INFLUENCE AND WORK OF THE ORDER

The influence exercised by the Order of St. Benedict has manifested itself chiefly in three directions: (1) the conversion of the Teutonic races and other missionary works; (2) the civilization of north-western Europe; (3) educational work and the cultivation of literature and the arts, the forming of libraries, etc.

(1) Missionary Work of the Order.-At the time of St. Benedict’s death (c. 543) the only countries of Western Europe which had been Christianized were Italy, Spain, Gaul, and part of the British Isles. The remaining countries all received the Gospel during the next few centuries, either wholly or partially through the preaching of the Benedictines. Beginning with St. Augustine’s arrival in England in 597, the missionary work of the order can be easily traced. The companions of St. Augustine, who is usually called the “Apostle of England,” planted the Faith anew throughout the country whence it had been driven out nearly two centuries previously by the Anglo-Saxon and other heathen invaders. St. Augustine and St. Lawrence at Canterbury, St. Justus at Rochester, St. Mellitus at London, and St. Paulinus at York were Benedictine pioneers, and their labours were afterwards supplemented by other monks who, though not strictly Benedictine, were at least assisted by the black monks in establishing the Faith. Thus St. Birinus evangelized Wessex, St. Chad the Midlands, and St. Felix East Anglia, whilst the Celtic monks from Iona settled at Lindisfarne, whence the work of St. Paulinus in Northumbria was continued by St. Aidan, St. Cuthbert, and many others. In 716 England sent forth Winfrid, afterwards called Boniface, a Benedictine monk trained at Exeter, who preached the Faith in Friesland, Alemannia, Thuringia, and Bavaria, and finally, being made Archbishop of Mentz (Mainz), became the Apostle of central Germany. At Fulda he placed a Bavarian convert named Sturm at the head of a monastery he founded there in 744, from which came many missionaries who carried the Gospel to Prussia and what is now Austria. From Corbie, in Picardy, one of the most famous monasteries in France, St. Ansgar set out in 827 for Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, in each of which countries he founded many monasteries and firmly planted the Benedictine Rule. These in turn spread the Faith and monasticism through Iceland and Greenland. For a short time Friesland was the scene of the labours of St. Wilfrid during a temporary banishment from England in 678, and the work he began there was continued and extended to Holland by the English monks Willibrord and Swithbert. Christianity was first preached in Bavaria by Eustace and Agilus, monks from Luseuil, early in the seventh century; their work was continued by St. Rupert, who founded the monastery and see of Salzburg, and firmly established by St. Boniface about 739. So rapidly did the Faith spread in this country that between the years 740 and 780 no less than twenty-nine Benedictine abbeys were founded there.

Another phase of Benedictine influence may be founded in the work of those monks who, from the sixth to the twelfth century, so frequently acted as the chosen counsellors of kings, and whose wise advice and guidance had much to do with the political history of most of the countries of Europe during that period.

In more recent times the missionary spirit has manifested itself anew amongst the Benedictines. During the penal times the Catholic Church in England was kept alive in great measure by the Benedictine missioners from abroad, not a few of whom shed their blood for the Faith. Still more recently Australia has been indebted to the order for both its Catholicity and its hierarchy. The English congregation supplied some of its earliest missionaries, as well as its first prelates, in the persons of Archbishop Polding, Archbishop Ullathorne, and others during the first half of the nineteenth century. Later on, the Spanish monks, DD. Serra and Salvado, arrived and successfully evangelized the western portion of the continent from New Nursia as a centre. Mention must also be made of the numerous missions amongst the North American Indians by the monks of the Swiss-American congregation from St. Meinrad’s abbey, Indiana; and those of the American-Cassinese congregation in various parts of the United States, from St. Vincent’s Arch-Abbey, Beatty, Pennsylvania. Apostolic work was also done by the English Fathers of the Cassinese P. O. congregation amongst the Hindus in Western Bengal, and amongst the Maoris in New Zealand; and French monks of the same congregation laboured in the Apostolic vicariate of the Indian Territory, U. S. A., from the headquarters at the Sacred Heart Abbey, Oklahoma. In Ceylon the Sylvestrine Benedictines have undertaken (1883) missionary work amongst the natives in the Diocese of Kandy, the bishop of which is a member of the order; and still more recently the congregation of St. Ottilien, expressly established to provide workers for the foreign mission field, has established missions amongst the native tribes of Central Africa, where the seeds of the Faith have already been watered by the blood of its first martyrs.

(2) Civilizing Influence of the Order.-Christianity and civilization go hand in hand, and hence we naturally look to North-western Europe for the effects of the civilizing influences exerted by the Benedictine missionaries. St. Benedict himself began by converting and civilizing the barbarians who overran Italy in the sixth century, the best of whom came and learned the Gospel principles at Monte Cassino. Previous to the institution of monasticism labour had been regarded as the symbol of slavery and serfdom, but St. Benedict and his followers taught in the West that lesson of free labour which had first been inculcated by the fathers of the desert. Wherever the monks went, those who were not employed in preaching tilled the ground; thus whilst some sowed in pagan souls the seeds of the Christian Faith, others transformed barren wastes and virgin forests into fruitful fields and verdant meadows. This principle of labour was a powerful instrument in the hands of the monastic pioneers, for it attracted to them the common people who learned form the monasteries thus reared as from object lessons the secrets of organized work, agriculture, the arts and sciences, and the principles of true government. Neander (Eccl. Hist.) points out that the profits accruing from the labour of the monks were employed ungrudgingly for the relief of the distressed, and in times of famine many thousands were saved from starvation by the charitable foresight of the monks. The accounts of the beginnings of abbey after abbey present the same features with recurring regularity. Not only were the marshes drained, sterile plains rendered fertile, and wild beasts tamed or driven away, but the bandits and outlaws who infested many of the great highways and forests were either put to flight or converted from their evil ways by the industrious and unselfish monks. Around many of the greater monasteries towns grew up which have since become famous in history; Monte Cassino in Italy and Peterborough and St. Alban’s in England are examples. Large-hearted abbots, eager to advance the interests of their poorer neighbours, often voluntarily expended considerable annual sums on the building and repairing of bridges, the making of roads, etc., and everywhere exercised a benign influence directed only towards improving the social and material condition of the people amongst whom they found themselves. This spirit, so prevalent during the ages of faith, has been successfully emulated by the monks of later times, of which no more striking instances in our own day can be cited than the wonderful influence for good amongst the aboriginal inhabitants of Western Australia possessed by the Spanish Benedictines of New Nursia, and the great industrial and agricultural work done amongst the native tribes of South Africa by the Trappists at Mariannhill and their numerous mission stations in Natal.

(3) Educational Work and the Cultivation of Literature.-The work of education and the cultivation of literature have always been looked upon as belonging by right to the Benedictines. In the earliest days of the order it was the custom to receive children in the monasteries that they might be educated by the monks. At first such children were always destined for the monastic state, and St. Benedict legislated in his Rule for their solemn dedication by their parents to the service of God. St. Placid and St. Maur are examples from St. Benedict’s own day and amongst other may be instanced the English saint, Bede, who entered the monastery of Jarrow in his seventh year. The education of these children was the germ out of which afterward developed the great monastic schools. Although St. Benedict urged upon his monks the duty of systematic reading, it was Cassiodorus, the quondam minister of the Gothic kings, who about the year 538 gave the first real impetus to monastic learning at Viviers (Vivarium) in Calabria. He made his monastery a Christian academy, collected a great number of manuscripts, and introduced an organized plan of study for his disciples. The liberal arts and the study of the Holy Scriptures were given great attention, and a monastic school was established which became the pattern after which many others were subsequently modelled.

In England St. Augustine and his monks opened schools wherever they settled. Up to that time the tradition of the cloister had been opposed to the study of profane literature, but St. Augustine introduced the classics into the English schools, and St. Theodore, who became Archbishop of Canterbury in 668, added still further developments. St. Benedict Biscop, who returned to England with Archbishop Theodore after some years abroad, presided over his school at Canterbury for two years and then, going north, transplanted the new educational system to Wearmouth and Jarrow, whence it spread to Archbishop Egbert’s school at York, which was one of the most famous in England in the eighth century. There Alcuin taught the seven sciences of the “trivium” and “quadrivium,” i.e. grammar, rhetoric, and logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy. (See ARTS, THE SEVEN LIBERAL.) Later on King Alfred, St. Dunstan, and St. Ethelwold did much to foster learning in England, substituting monks for secular canons in several cathedrals and greatly improving the monastic schools. Ramsey Abbey, founded by St. Oswald of Worcester, long enjoyed the reputation of being the most learned of the English monasteries. Glastonbury, Abingdon, St. Alban’s, and Westminster were also famous in their day and produced many illustrious scholars.

In France Charlemagne inaugurated a great revival in the world of letters and stimulated the monks of his empire to study, as an essential of their state. To further this end he brought over from England in 782 Alcuin and several of the best scholars of York, to whom he entrusted the direction of the academy established at the royal court, as well as various other schools which he caused to be started in different parts of the empire. Mabillon gives a list of twenty-seven important schools in France established under Charlemagne (Acta Sanctorum O. S. B., saec. IV, praef., 184). Those of Paris, Tours, and Lyons eventually developed into universities. In Normandy, later on, Bec became a great scholastic centre under Lanfranc and St. Anselm, and through them gave a fresh impetus to the English schools. Cluny also took its share in the work and became in turn the custodian and fosterer of learning in France.

In Germany St. Boniface opened a school in every monastery he founded, not only for the younger monks, but also for the benefit of outside scholars. Early in the ninth century two monks of Fulda were sent to Tours by their abbot to study under Alcuin, and through them the revival of learning gradually spread to other houses. One of the two, Rabanus Maurus, returning to Fulda in 813, became scholasticus or head of the school there, later abbot, and finally Archbishop of Mainz. He was the author of many books, one of which, his “De Institutione Clericorum,” is a valuable treatise on the faith and practice of the Church in the ninth century. This work probably exercised a beneficial influence on all the cloister-schools of the Frankish Empire. Hirschau, a colony sent out from Fulda in 830, became a celebrated seat of learning and survived till the seventeenth century, when both the monastery and its library were destroyed during the Thirty Years War. Reichenau, which suffered a similar fate at the same time, owed its early celebrity to its school under Walafrid Strabo, who had studied at Fulda and on his return became scholasticus and subsequently abbot. In Saxony the monastery of New Corbie also possessed a famous school, which sent forth many learned missionaries to diffuse learning over Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. It was founded by Ansgar, the apostle of Scandinavia, who came from Old Corbie in 822, where he had been the favourite disciple of Paschasius Radbertus, a theologian, poet, musician, and author of Scriptural commentaries and an exposition of the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.

After the death of Charlemagne the revival of secular learning which he had begun waned somewhat, except in the Benedictine abbeys where the study of letters still remained the prerogative of the monks. The Abbey of St. Gall, in particular, during the tenth century drew to its walls numerous students desirous of gaining the knowledge that was imparted there, and produced many celebrated writers. The fame of Reichenau also revived, and from it was founded Einsiedeln (934), which helped to carry on the traditions of the past. Nor was Italy behindhand, as is shown by the history of such monastic schools as Monte Cassino, Pomposia, and Bobbio.

Most of the older universities of Europe have grown out of monastic schools. Paris, Tours, and Lyons have been mentioned; amongst others were Reims and Bologna, and, in England, Cambridge, where the Benedictines of Croyland first set up a school in the twelfth century. At Oxford, the English Benedictines, though they could not claim to be the founders, took an important part in the university life and development. Monks had from time to time been sent from different abbeys to study there, but in 1283 a number of the chief monasteries combined in founding a joint college for their members, called St. Benedict’s, or Gloucester, Hall, which is now Worcester College. In 1290 the cathedral-priory of Durham established for its own monks St. Cuthbert’s College, which is now Trinity; and in 1362 another college, now Christ Church, was founded for the monks of Canterbury. The Cistercians had Rewley Abbey just outside the town, founded about 1280, and St. Bernard’s College, now St. John’s, established in 1436 by Archbishop Chichele. All these colleges flourished until the Reformation, and even after the dissolution of the monasteries many of the ejected monks retired to Oxford on their pensions, to pass the remainder of their days in the peace and seclusion of their Alma Mater. Feckenham, afterwards Abbot of Westminster under Queen Mary, was the last English Benedictine to graduate at Oxford (about 1537) until, in 1897, the community of Ampleforth Abbey opened a hall and sent some of their monks there to study for degrees.

Besides being the chief educational centres during the Middle Ages, the monasteries were, moreover, the workshops where precious manuscripts were collected, preserved, and multiplied. To the monastic transcribers the world is indebted for most of its ancient literature, not only the Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers, but those of the classical authors also. (Numerous examples are cited in Newman, Essay on the Mission of St. Benedict, 10.) The monastic scriptoria were the book-manufactories before the invention of printing, and rare MSS. were often circulated amongst the monasteries, each one transcribing copies before passing the original on to another house. Without doubt the copying was often merely mechanical and no sign of real scholarship, and the pride taken by a monastery in the number and beauty of its MSS. sometimes rather that of the collector than of the scholar, yet the result is the same as far as posterity is concerned. The monks preserved and perpetuated the ancient writings which, but for their industry, would undoubtedly have been lost to us. The copyists of Fontanelle, Reims, and Corbie were especially noted for the beauty of their penmanship, and the number of different MSS. transcribed by some of their monks was often very large.

Full particulars are given by Ziegelbauer (Hist. Lit. O. S. B., I) of the most important medieval Benedictine Libraries. The following are some of the chief amongst them: In England: Canterbury, founded by St. Augustine, enlarged by Lanfranc and St. Anselm, containing, according to a catalogue of the thirteenth century, 698 volumes; Durham, catalogues printed by the Surtees Society (VII, 1838); Whitby, catalogues still existing; Glastonbury, catalogues still existing; Wearmouth; Croyland, burnt in 1091, containing 700 volumes; Peterborough. In France: Fleury, MSS. deposited in the town library of Orleans, 1793; Cobrie, 400 of the most valuable MSS. removed to Saint-Germain-des-Prés, Paris, 1638, the remainder, partly to the National Library, Paris (1794), and partly to the town library of Amiens; Saint-Germain-des-Prés; Cluny, MSS. dispersed by the Huguenots, except a few which were destroyed at the Revolution; Auxerre; Dijon. In Spain: Montserrat, the majority of the MSS. still existing; Valladolid; Salamanca; Silos, library still existing; Madrid. In Switzerland: Reichenau, destroyed in the seventeenth century; St. Gall, dating from 816, still existing; Einsiedeln, still existing. In Germany: Fulda, much indebted to Charlemagne and Rabanus Maurus, with 400 copyists under Abbot Sturm, and containing, in 1561, 774 volumes; New Corbie, MSS. removed to the University of Marburg in 1811; Hirschau, dating from 837; St. Blaise. In Austria and Bavaria: Salzburg, founded in the sixth century, and containing 60,000 volumes; Kremsmunster, of the eleventh century, with 50,000 volumes; Admont, the eleventh century, 80,000 volumes; Melk, the eleventh century, 60,000 volumes; Lambach, the eleventh century, 22,000 volumes; Garsten; Metten. In Italy: Monte Cassino, three times destroyed by the Lombards in the sixth century, by the Saracens, and by fire in the ninth, but each time restored and still existing; Bobbio, famous for its palimpsests, of which a tenth-century catalogue is now in the Ambrosian Library, Milan, printed by Muratori (Antiq. Ital. Med. Aev., III); Pomposia, with an eleventh-century catalogue printed by Montfaucon (Diarium Italicum, c. xxii).

Besides preserving the writings of the ancient authors, the monks were also the chroniclers of their day, and much of the history of the Middle Ages was written in the cloister. English history is especially fortunate in this respect, the monastic chroniclers including St. Bede, Ordericus Vitalis, William of Malmesbury, Florence of Worcester, Simeon of Durham, Matthew Paris, and Eadmer of Canterbury. The rise of the scholastics, for the most part outside the Benedictine Order, in later medieval times, seems to have checked, or at any rate relegated to the background, both the literary and the educational activity of the black monks, whilst the introduction of the art of printing rendered superfluous the copying of MSS. by hand; at the same time it is worth noticing that many of the earliest printing presses were set up in Benedictine cloisters, e.g. by Caxton at Westminster, and by some authorities the invention of movable types is also ascribed to the sons of St. Benedict.

The most notable revival of learning in post-Reformation times was that effected by the congregation of St.-Maur in France in the seventeenth century. Diligent and profound study in all departments of ecclesiastical literature was one of the professed objects of this reform, and a congregation that produced such men of letters as Mabillon, Montfaucon, d’Achery, Menard, Lami, Garnier, Ruinart, Martene, Sainte-Marthe, and Durand needs no further eulogy than a reference to their literary achievements. Their editions of the Greek and Latin Fathers and their numerous historical, theological, archaeological, and critical works are sufficient evidence of their industry. There were not less successful in the conduct of the schools they established, of which those at Soreze, Saumur, Auxerre, Beaumont, and Saint-Jean d’Angely were the most important. (See MAURISTS.)

The arts, sciences, and utilitarian crafts also found a home in the Benedictine cloister from the earliest times. The monks of St. Gall and Monte Cassino excelled in illumination and mosaic work, and the latter community are credited with having invented the art of painting on glass. A contemporary life of St. Dunstan states that he was famous for his “writing, painting, moulding in wax, carving of wood and bone, and for work in gold, silver, iron, and brass.” Richard of Wallingford at St. Alban’s and Peter Lightfoot at Glastonbury were well-known fourteenth-century clockmakers; a clock by the latter, formerly in Wells cathedral, is still to be seen in the South Kensington Museum, London.

In modern times the monks of Beuron have established a school of art where painting and design, especially in the form of polychromatic decoration, have been brought to a high stage of perfection. The printing presses of Solesmes and Ligugé (both now confiscated by the French Government) have produced much excellent typographical work, whilst the study and restoration of the traditional plainchant of the Church in the same monasteries, under DD. Pothier and Mocquereau, is of world-wide reputation. Embroidery and vestment-making are crafts in which many communities of nuns excel, and others, like Stanbrook, maintain a printing office with considerable success.

IV. PRESENT CONDITION OF THE ORDER

DEVELOPMENT OF EXTERNAL ORGANIZATION

A brief sketch of the constitution and government of the order is necessary for a proper understanding of its present organization.

According to St. Benedict’s idea, each monastery constituted a separate, independent, autonomous family, the members of which elected their own superior. The abbots, therefore, of the different houses were equal in rank, but each was the actual head of his own community and held his office for life. The necessities of the times, however, the need for mutual support, the establishment of daughter-houses, and possibly the ambition of individual superiors, all combined in course of time to bring about a modification of this ideal. Although foreshadowed by the Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) capitula of 817 under St. Benedict of Aniane, the actual results of which died out with their originator, the first real departure from the Benedictine ideal, subjecting the superiors of different houses to one central authority, was made by Cluny in the tenth century. The plan of the Cluniac congregation was that of one grand central monastery with a number of dependencies spread over many lands. It was feudalism applied to the monastic institute. Every prior or subordinate superior was the nominee of the Abbot of Cluny and held office only during his pleasure; the autonomy of the individual communities was destroyed so far, even, that no monk could be professed in any house except by permission of the Abbot of Cluny, and all were obliged usually to spend some years at Cluny itself. But notwithstanding the extent of this departure from Benedictine tradition, the Cluniacs were never considered to have seceded from the main Benedictine body or to have instituted a new order. Hirschau, in Germany, copied Cluny, though with less conspicuous success, and Cîteaux developed the system still further and constituted a new order outside the Benedictine fold, which has ever since been regarded as such. The example of Cluny produced imitators and many new unions of monasteries subject to a central abbey resulted. The Lateran Council of 1215, perceiving the good points of the system as well as its dangers, set itself to strike the mean between the two. The risks of an ever-widening breach between those which adhered to Benedictine tradition and those which had adopted the Cluniac ideas, were to be minimized, whilst at the same time uniformity of observance and the mutual strength resulting therefrom, were to be fostered. The council decreed that the monasteries of each country should be banded together into a congregation; periodical representative chapters were to ensure systematic government after one pattern; the appointment of definitors and visitors was to secure uniformity and cohesion; and the autonomy of the individual monasteries were to be preserved. The plan promised well, but England alone seems to have given it a fair trial. In some of the countries it was not until the issue of the Bull “Benedictina” in 1336, or even the Tridentine decrees of two centuries later, that any serious attempt was made towards carrying out the proposals of 1215. Meanwhile certain Italian reforms had produced a number of independent congregations outside the order, differing from each other in organization and spirit, and in each of which the departure from Benedictine principles was carried a stage further. Even in the Cluniac congregation the power of the Abbot of Cluny was, after the twelfth century, somewhat curtailed by the institution of chapters and definitors. The Sylvestrines (1231) preserved the perpetuity of superiors and recognized the advantages of a representative chapter, though its chief superior was something more than a mere primus inter pares. The Celestines (1274) adopted a somewhat similar system of centralized authority, but differed from it in that their superior was elected triennially. The Olivetans (1319) marked the furthest point of development by instituting an abbot-general with jurisdiction over all the other abbots as well as their communities. The general chapter nominated the officials of all the houses; the monks belonged to no one monastery in particular, but to the whole congregation; and by thus destroying all community rights, and placing all power in the hands of a small committee, the Olivetan congregation approximated nearest to the alter orders like the Dominicans and Jesuits, with their highly centralized systems of government. The congregation of St. Justina of Padua was modelled on similar lines, though afterwards considerably modified, and some centuries later St.-Vannes and St.-Maur followed in its wake. The Spanish congregation of Valladolid, too, with its abbot-general, and with superiors who were not perpetual and chosen by the general chapters, must be classed with those that represent the line of departure from earlier Benedictine tradition; as must also the resuscitated English congregation of the seventeenth century, which inherited its constitution from that of Spain. In these two latter congregations, however, there were some modifications, which made their dissent from the original ideal less marked than in those previously enumerated. On the other side, as representing those that preserved the traditional autonomy and family spirit in the individual houses, we have the Bursfeld Union which, in the fifteenth century, made an honest attempt to carry out the Lateran decrees and the provisions of the Bull “Benedictina.” The Austrian, Bavarian, and Swiss congregations of the same period followed out the same idea, as do also almost all of the more modern congregations, and by the legislation of Leo XIII the traditional principles of government have been revived in the English congregation. In this way the true Benedictine ideal was restored, whilst by means of general chapters, at which every monastery of the congregation was represented, and by the periodical visitations made by the presidents or others elected for that duty, uniform observance and regular discipline were preserved. The presidents were elected by the other abbots composing the chapter and their office was merely presidential not that of a superior general or abbas abbatum.

PRESENT SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

All the congregations of more recent formation have been constituted, with slight variations, on the same plan, which represents the normal and traditional form of government in the order. Uniformity in the various congregations is further secured by what are called Constitutions. These are a series of declarations on the holy Rule, defining its interpretation and application, to which are added other regulations on points of discipline and practice not provided for by St. Benedict. The constitutions must be approved at Rome, after which they have binding force upon the congregation for which they are intended. The capitula of Aachen and the Concordia Regularis were the earliest examples of such constitutions. Amongst others may be mentioned the “Statues” of Lanfranc, the “Discipline of Farfa,” the “Ordo” of Bernard of Cluny, and the “Constitutions” of St. William of Hirschau. (The three latter are printed by Herrgott in “Vetus Disciplina Monastica,” Paris, 1726.) Since the thirteenth century every congregation has had its own set of constitutions, in which the principles of the Rule are adapted to the particular work of the congregation to which they apply. Each congregation is composed of a certain number of monasteries, the abbots of which, with other officials and elected representatives, form the general chapter, which exercises legislative and executive authority over the whole body. The power possessed by it is strictly limited and defined in the constitutions. The meetings of the chapter are held usually every two, three, or four years and are presided over by one of the members elected to that office by the rest. Whilst the office of abbot is usually for life, that of the president is generally only for a term of years and the person holding it is not in all cases eligible for continuous re-election. Each president, either by himself or in conjunction with one or more specially elected visitors, holds canonical visitations of all the houses of his congregation, and by this means the chapter is kept informed of the spiritual and temporal condition of each monastery, and discipline is maintained according to the constitutions.

THE ABBOT PRIMATE

In order the better to bind together the various congregations that constitute the order at the present day, Pope Leo XIII, in 1893, appointed a nominal head over the whole federation, with the title of Abbot Primate. The traditional autonomy of each congregation, and still further of each house, is interfered with in the least possible degree by this appointment, for, as the title itself indicates, the office is in its nature different from that of the general of an order. Apart from matters explicitly defined, the abbot primate’s position with regard to the other abbots is to be understood rather from the analogy of a primate in a hierarchy than from that of the general of an order like the Dominicans or Jesuits.

METHODS OF RECRUITING

The recruiting of the various monasteries of the order differs according to the nature and scope of the influence exerted by each individual house. Those that have schools attached to them naturally draw their members more or less from these schools. The English congregation is recruited very largely from the schools attached to its monasteries; and other congregations are similarly recruited. Some educate and train in their monasteries a number of alumni, or pupils provisionally intended for the monastic state, who though not in any way bound to do so, if showing any signs of vocation, are encouraged to receive the habit on reaching the canonical age.

A candidate for admission is usually kept as a postulant for at least some weeks in order that the community he seeks to join may judge whether he is a suitable person to be admitted to the probationary stage. Having been accepted as such, he is “clothed” as a novice, receiving the religious habit and a religious name, and being placed under the care of the novice-master. According to the Rule he has to be trained and tested during his period of noviceship, and canon law requires that for the most part the novice is to be kept apart form the rest of the community. For this reason the novices’ quarters are generally placed, if possible, in a different part of the monastery from those occupied by the professed monks. The canonical novitiate lasts one year, at the end of which, if satisfactory, the novice may be admitted to simple vows, and at the conclusion of another three years, unless rejected for grave reasons, he makes his solemn vows of “Stability, Conversion of manners, and Obedience.” (Rule of St. Benedict.)

HABIT

With slight modifications in shape in some congregations the habit of the order consists of a tunic, confined at the waist by a girdle of leather or of cloth, a scapular, the width of the shoulders and reaching to the knees or ground, and a hood to cover the head. In choir, at chapter, and at certain other ceremonial times, a long full gown with large flowing sleeves, called a “cowl,” is worn over the ordinary habit. The colour is not specified in the Rule but it is conjectured that the earliest Benedictines wore white or grey, as being the natural colour of undyed wool. For many centuries, however, black has been the prevailing colour, hence the term “black monk” has come to signify a Benedictine not belonging to one of those separate congregations which has adopted a distinctive colour, e. g. the Camaldolese, Cistercians, and Olivetans, who wear white, or the Sylvestrines, whose habit is blue. The only differences in colour within the Benedictine federation are those of the monks of Monte Vergine, who though now belonging to the Cassinese congregation of Primitive Observance, still retain the white habit adopted by their founder in the twelfth century, and those of the congregation of St. Ottilien, who wear a red girdle to signify their special missionary character.

PRESENT WORK OF THE ORDER

Parochial work is undertaken by the following congregations: Cassinese, English, Swiss, Bavarian, Gallican, American-Cassinese, Swiss-American, Beuronese, Cassinese P.O., Austrian (both), Hungarian, and the Abbey of Fort Augustus. In the majority of these congregations the mission are attached to certain abbeys and the monks serving them are under the almost exclusive control of their own monastic superiors; in others the monks only supply the place of the secular clergy and are, therefore, for the time being, under their respective diocesan bishops.

The work of education is common to all congregations of the order. It takes the form in different places of seminaries for ecclesiastical studies, schools, and gymnasia for secondary education not strictly ecclesiastical, or of colleges for a higher or university course. In Austria and Bavaria many of the government lycées or gymnasia are entrusted to the care of the monks. In England and America the Benedictine schools rank high amongst the educational establishments of those countries, and compete successfully with the non-Catholic schools of a similar class. Those of the American Cassinese congregation have already been enumerated; they include three seminaries, fourteen schools and colleges, and an orphanage, with a total of nearly two thousand students. The Swiss American congregation carries on scholastic work at five of its abbeys. At. St. Meinrad’s, besides the seminary, there is a commercial college; at Spielerville (Arkansas) and Mount Angels (Oregon) are seminaries; and at Conception, Spielerville, Covington (Louisiana), and Mount Angel are colleges. The English Benedictines have large and flourishing colleges attached to each of their abbeys, and belonging to Downside are also two other smaller schools, one a “grammar school” at Ealing, London, and the other a preparatory school recently established at Enniscorthy, Ireland.

FOREIGN MISSIONARY WORK

Besides the congregation of St. Ottilien, which exists specially for the purpose of foreign missionary work, and has ten mission stations in the Apostolic Vicariate of Zanzibar, a few others are also represented in the foreign mission field. Both American congregations labour amongst the Indians, in Saskatchewan (N.W.T., Canada), Dakota, Vancouver’s Island, and elsewhere. The Cassinese P.O. congregation has missions in the Apostolic Vicariate of the Indian Territory (U.S.A.) and in Argentina, under the monks of the French province, in New Zealand under the English province, in Western Australia (Diocese of New Nursia and Apostolic Vicariate of Kimberley) and in the Philippines under the Spanish province, and the Belgian province has quite lately made a foundation in the Transvaal, South Africa. The Brazilian congregation has several missions in Brazil, which are under the direction of the Abbot of Rio de Janeiro, who is also a bishop. In the island of Mauritius the Bishop of Port Louis is generally an English Benedictine. Mention has already been made of the work of the Sylvestrine Benedictines in Ceylon and of the Cistercians in Natal, South Africa.

Missions Missions and Churches Served

Statistics of the Order

Congregation Monasteries Monks Missions

Congregation Monasteries Monks Missions and Churches Served No. of Souls Administered to Schools Students

Cassinese 16 188 274 170,540 6 476

English 4 277 79 87,328 5 380

Swiss 5 355 42 34,319 7 978

Bavarian 11 383 51 78,422 10 1,719

Brazilian 13 110 6 4 770

Gallican 11 374 1 550 2 42

American Cassinese 10 753 151 110,320 18 1,702

Beuronese 9 711 14 3,812 5 141

Swiss American 7 348 103 35,605 10 675

Cassinese P.O. 36 1,092 90 115,410 17 859

Austrian:

Imm. Conc. 11 647 367 460,832 11 1,891

St. Joseph 7 293 61 55,062 10 901

Hungarian 11 198 145 37,269 6 1,668

St. Ottilien 2 163 10 2,835 3 190

St. Anselm’s 1 1

155 5,940 1,402 1,192,734 114 12,392

Orders and congregations professing the Rule of St. Benedict but not included in the Benedictine Federation are as follows:—

Monasteries No. of Religious

Camaldolese 19 241

Vallombrosa 3 60

Cistercians (Common Observance) 29 1,040

Cistercians (Trappists) 58 3,637

Sylvestrines 9 95

Olivetans 10 122

Mechitarists 14 152

142 5,347

Nuns, Benedictine and others:—

Convents No. of Religious

Benedictine Nuns:

1. Under Benedictine Abbots 9 251

2. Under Bishops 253 7,156

Camaldolese Nuns 5 150

Cistercian Nuns 100 2,965

Olivetan Nuns 20 200

387 10,722

The foregoing tables, which are taken from the “Album Benedictinum” of 1906, give a grand aggregate of 684 monasteries, with 22,009 religious of both sexes. The statistics for missions and churches served include those churches and missions over which the monasteries exercise the right of patronage, as well as those actually served by monks.

V. BENEDICTINES OF SPECIAL DISTINCTION

The following lists are not intended to be in any way exhaustive; they merely profess to include some of the more famous members of the order. The names are classified according to the particular sphere of work in which they are most celebrated, but although many of them might therefore have a just claim to be included in more than one of the different classes, when the same individual was distinguished in several different departments of work, from considerations of space and for the avoidance of unnecessary repetition, his name has been inserted only under one head. The lists are arranged more or less chronologically, except where some connecting features seem to call for special grouping. To most of the names the country to which the individual belonged is added in parenthesis.

Popes

St. Gregory the Great (Rome); born c. 540, d. 604; one of the four Latin doctors; celebrated for his writings and for his reform of ecclesiastical change; called the “Apostle of England” because he sent St. Augustine to that country in 596. Sylvester II or Gerbert (France), 999–1003; a monk of Fleury. St. Gregory VII or Hildebrand Aldobrandeschi (Tuscany), 1073–85; a monk of Cluny and afterwards Abbot of St. Paul’s, Rome. Bl. Victor III (Benevento), 1087–87; Abbot of Monte Cassino. Paschal II (Tuscany), 1099–1118; a monk of Cluny. Gelasius II or Giovanni da Gaeta, John Cajetan (Gaeta), 1118–19; historian. St. Celestine V or Pietro di Murrhone (Apulia), b. 1221, d. 1296; founder of the order of Celestines; was elected pope 1294, but abdicated after reigning only six months. Clement VI (France), 1342–52; a monk of Chaise-Dieu. Bl. Urban V (France), 1362–70; Abbot of St. Victor, Marseilles. Pius VII or Barnaba Chiaramonti (Italy), 1800–23; was taken by force from Rome and imprisoned at Savona and Fontainebleu (1809–14) by Napoleon, whom he had crowned in 1804; returned to Rome in 1814. Gregory XVI or Maurus Cappellari (Venice), 1831–46, a Camaldolese monk and Abbot of St. Andrew’s on the Coelian Hill, Rome.

Apostles and Missionaries

St. Augustine (Rome), d. 604; Prior of St. Andrew’s on the Coelian Hill; the Apostle of England (596); first Archbishop of Canterbury (597). St. Boniface (England), b. 680, martyred 755; Apostle of Germany and Archbishop of Mainz. St. Willibrord (England), born c. 658, d. 738; the Apostle of Friesland. St. Swithbert (England), d. 713; the Apostle of Holland. St. Rupert (France), d. 718; the Apostle of Bavaria and Bishop of Salzburg. St. Sturm (Bavaria), d. 779; first Abbot of Fulda. St. Ansgar (Germany), b. 801, d. 865; monk of Corbie and Apostle of Scandinavia. St. Adalbert, d. 997; the Apostle of Bohemia.

Founders of Abbeys and Congregations, Reformers, etc.

St. Erkenwald (England), died c. 693; Bishop of London; founder of Chertsey and Barking abbeys. St. Benedict Biscop (England), d. 690; founder of Wearmouth and Jarrow. St. Filbert (France), d. 684; founder of Jumieges. St. Benedict of Aniane (France), d. 821; reformer of monasteries under Charlemagne; presided at council of abbots, Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle), 817. St. Dunstan (England), d. 988; Abbot of Glastonbury (c. 945), and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury (961); reformer of English monasteries. St. Berno (France), d. 927; founder and first Abbot of Cluny (909). St. Odo or Eudes (France), b. 879, d. 942; second Abbot of Cluny. St. Aymard (France), d. 965; third Abbot of Cluny. St. Majolus or Maieul (France), b. 906, d. 994; fourth Abbot of Cluny; Otto II desired to make him pope in 974 but he refused. St. Odilo (France), d. 1048; fifth Abbot of Cluny. Bernard of Cluny (France), d. 1109; famous in connexion with the eleventh-century “Ordo Cluniacensis” which bears his name. Peter the Venerable (France), d. 1156; ninth Abbot of Cluny; employed by several popes in important affairs of the Church. St. Romuald (Italy), b. 956, d. 1026; founder of the Camaldolese congregation (1009). Herluin (France), d. 1078; founder of Bec (1040). St. Robert of Molesmes (France), b. 1018, d. 1110; founder and Abbot of Molesmes (1075); joint-founder and first Abbot of Cîteaux (1098). St. Alberic (France), d. 1109; joint-founder and second Abbot of Cîteaux. St. Stephen Harding (England), d. 1134; joint-founder and third Abbot of Cîteaux. St. Bernard (France), b. 1091, d. 1153; joined Cîteaux with thirty other noblemen (1113); founded Clairvaux (1115); wrote many spiritual and theological works; was a statesman and adviser of kings, and a Doctor of the Church; he preached the Second Crusade throughout France and Germany at the request of Eugenius III (1146). St. William of Hirschau (Germany), c. 1090; author of “Constitutions of Hirschau.” St. John Gualbert (Italy), b. 999, d. 1073; founder of Vallombrosa (1039). St. Stephen or Etienne (France), d. 1124; founder of Grammont (1076). Bl. Robert of Arbrissel (France), d. 1116; founder of Fontevrault (1099). St. William (Italy), d. 1142; founder of Monte Vergine (1119). St. Sylvester (Italy), b. 1177, d. 1267; founder of the Sylvestrines (1231). St. Bernard Ptolemy (Italy), b. 1272, d. 1348; founder of the Olivetans (1319). Ludovico Barbo (Italy), d. 1443; first a canon regular, then Abbot of St. Justina of Padua and founder of the congregation of the same name (1409). Didier de la Cour (France), b. 1550, d. 1623; founder of the congregation of St.-Vannes (1598). Laurent Bénard (France), b. 1573, d. 1620; Prior of Cluny College, Paris, and founder of the Maurist congregation (1618). José Serra (Spain), b. 1811, died c. 1880; Coadjutor bishop of Perth, Australia (1848); and Rudesind Salvado (Spain), b. 1814, d. 1900; Bishop of Port Victoria (1849); founders of New Nursia, Australia. Prosper Guéranger (France), b. 1805, d. 1875; founder of the Gallican congregation (1837); restored Solesmes (1837); well known as a liturgical writer. Jean-Baptiste Muard (France), b. 1809, d. 1854; founder of Pierre-qui-Vire and of the French province of the Cassinese Congregation of the Primitive Observance (1850). Maurus Wolter (Germany), b. 1825, d. 1900; founder of the Beuronese congregation (1860); Abbot of Beuron (1868). Pietro Francesco Casaretto (Italy), b. 1810, d. 1878; founder and first Abbot-General of Cassinese congregation of Primitive Observance (1851). Boniface Wimmer (Bavaria), b. 1809, d. 1887; founder of American Cassinese congregation (1855). Martin Marty (Switzerland), b. 1834, d. 1896; founder of Swiss American congregation (1870); Abbot of St. Meinrad’s, Indiana (1870); Vicar Apostolic of Dakota (1879). Jerome Vaughan (England), b. 1841, d. 1896; founder of Fort Augustus Abbey (1878). Gerard van Caloen (Belgium), b. 1853; restorer of Brazilian congregation; Abbot of Bahia (1896); titular Bishop of Phocaea (1906).

Scholars, Historians, Spiritual Writers, etc.

St. Bede (England), b. 673, d. 735; monk of Jarrow, Doctor of the Church, historian, and commentator. St. Aldhelm (England), d. 709; Abbot of Malmesbury and Bishop of Sherborne. Alcuin (England), d. 804, monk of York; founder of schools in France under Charlemagne. Rabanus Maurus (Germany), d. 856; Archbishop of Mainz. St. Paschasius Radbertus (Germany), d. 860; Abbot of Corbie. Ratramnus (Germany), d. 866; a monk of Corbie, who took part in Sacramentarian controversy. Walafrid Strabo (Germany), d. 849; a monk of Fulda, and afterwards Abbot of Reichenau. Abbon of Fleury (France), tenth century; at one time a monk at Canterbury. Notker (Switzerland), d. 1022; a monk of St. Gall; theologican, mathematician, and musician. Guido d’Arezzo (Italy), died c. 1028; inventor of the gamut. Hermannus Contractus (Germany), eleventh century; a monk of St. Gall; learned in Eastern languages; author of the “Salve Regina.” Paul Warnefrid, or Paul the Deacon (Italy), eighth century; historian and teacher (scholasticus) at Monte Cassino. Hinemar (France), d. 882; a monk of St. Denis; Archbishop of Reims (845). St. Peter Damian (Italy), b. 988, d. 1072; a monk of the Camaldolese reform at Fonte Avellano; Cardinal Bishop of Ostia (1057). Lanfranc (Italy), b. 1005 in Lombardy, d. at Canterbury, 1089; a monk at Beck (1042); founder of the school there; Archbishop of Canterbury (1070). St. Anselm (Italy), b. 1033 in Piedmont, d. 1109; a monk at Bec (1060); Abbot of Bec (1078); Archbishop of Canterbury (1093); usually considered the first scholastic. Eadmer (England), d. 1137; a monk of Canterbury and disciple of St. Anselm, whose life he wrote. The English historians; Florence of Worcester, d. 1118; Simeon of Durham, d. 1130; Jocelin de Brakelonde, d. 1200, a monk and chronicler of Bury St. Edmunds; Matthew Paris, d. 1259, a monk of St. Albans; William of Malmesbury, died c. 1143; Gervase of Canterbury, died c. 1205; Roger of Wendover, d. 1237, a monk of St. Albans. Peter the Deacon (Italy), died c. 1140; a monk of Monte Cassino. Adam Easton (England), d. 1397, a monk of Norwich; Cardinal (1380). John Lydgate (England), died c. 1450; a monk of Bury St. Edmunds; poet. John Wheathamstead (England), d. 1440; Abbot of St. Albans. Johannes Trithemius (Germany), b. 1462, d. 1516; Abbot of Spanheim, a voluminous writer and great traveller. Louis Blosius (Belgium), b. 1506, d. 1566; Abbot of Liessies (1530); author of the “Mirror for Monks.” Juan de Castaniza (Spain), d. 1599; a monk of St. Saviour’s, Onna. Benedict van Haeften (Belgium), b. 1588, d. 1648; Prior of Afflighem. Clement Reyner (England), b. 1589, d. 1651; a monk at Dieulouard (1610); Abbot of Lamspring (1643). Augustine Baker (England), b. 1575; d. 1641; a monk of Dieulouard and author of “Sancta Sophia.” Augustine Calmet (France), b. 1672, d. 1757; Abbot of Senones-en-Vosges; best known for his “Dictionary of the Bible.” Carolus Meichelbeck (Bavaria), b. 1669; d. 1734; librarian and historian of Benediktbeuern. Magnoald Ziegelbauer (Germany), 1689, d. 1750; author of a literary history of the Order of St. Benedict. Marquard Herrgott (Germany), b. 1694, d. 1762; a monk of St.-Blasien. Suitbert Baumer (Germany), b. 1845, d. 1894; a monk of Beuron. Luigi Tosti (Italy), b. 1811, d. 1897; abbot; Vice-Archivist to the Holy See. J. B. F. Pitra (France), b. 1812, d. 1889; a monk of Solesmes; Cardinal-Bishop of Frascati (1863); librarian of the Holy Roman Church. Francis Aidan Gasquet (England), b. 1846; a monk of Downside and Abbot-President of the English Benedictine congregation. Fernand Cabrol (France), b. 1855; Abbot of Farnborough (Gallican congregation). Jean Besse (France), b. 1861; a monk of Ligugé. Germain Morin, of the Beuronese congregation, b. 1861. John Chapman, of the Beuronese congregation, b. 1865. Edward Cuthbert Butler (England), b. 1858; Abbot of Downside (1906).

The Congregation of St.-Maur

The following are some of the chief writers of this congregation: Adrien Langlois, d. 1627; one of the first Maurists. Nicolas Menard, b. 1585, d. 1644. Gregoire Tarrisse, b. 1575, d. 1648; first Superior General of the congregation. Luc d’Achery, b. 1609, d. 1685. Antoine-Joseph Mege, b. 1625, d. 1691. Louis Bulteau, b. 1625, d. 1693. Michel Germain, b. 1645, d. 1694; a companion of Mabillon. Claude Martin, b. 1619, d. 1707; the greatest of the Maurists. Thierry Ruinart, b. 1657, d. 1709; a companion and biographer of Mabillon. Francois Lamy, b. 1636, d. 1711. Pierre Coustant, b. 1654, d. 1721. Denis de Sainte-Marthe, b. 1650, d. 1725. Julien Garnier, b. 1670, d. 1725. Edmond Martene, b. 1654, d. 1739. Ursin Durand, b. 1682, d. 1773. Bernard de Montefaucon, b. 1655, d. 1741. Rene-Prosper Tassin, d. 1777.

Bishops, Monks, Martyrs, etc.

St. Laurence (Italy), d. 619; came to England with St. Augustine (597), whom he succeeded as Archbishop of Canterbury (604). St. Mellitus (Italy), d. 624; a Roman abbot, sent to England with other monks to assist St. Augustine (601); founder of St. Paul’s, London, and first Bishop of London (604); Archbishop of Canterbury (619). St. Justus (Italy), d. 627; came to England (601); first Bishop of Rochester (604) and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury (624). St. Paulinus of York (Italy), d. 644; came to England (601); first Bishop of York (625); Bishop of Rochester (633). St. Odo (England), d. 961; Archbishop of Canterbury. St. Elphege or Aelfheah (England), d. 1012; Archbishop of Canterbury (1006); killed by the Danes. St. Oswald (England), d. 992; nephew of St. Odo of Canterbury; Bishop of Worcester (959); Archbishop of York (972). St. Bertin (France), b. 597, d. 709; Abbot of Saint-Omer. St. Botolph (England), d. 655; abbot. St. Wilfrid, born c. 634, d. 709; Bishop of York. St. Cuthbert, d. 687; Bishop of Landisfarne. St. John of Beverley, d. 721; Bishop of Hexham. St. Swithin, d. 862; Bishop of Winchester. St. Ethelwold, d. 984; Bishop of Winchester. St. Wulfstan, d. 1095; Bishop of Worcester. St. Aelred, b. 1109, d. 1166; Abbot of Rievaulx, Yorkshire. St. Thomas of Canterbury or Thomas Becket, born c. 1117, martyred 1170; Chancellor of England (1155); Archbishop of Canterbury (1162). St. Edmund Rich, d. 1240; Archbishop of Canterbury (1234); died in exile. Suger (France), b. 1081, d. 1151; Abbot of St. Denis and Regent of France. Bl. Richard Whiting, abbot of Glastonbury, Bl. Roger James, and Bl. John Thorn, monks of Glastonbury; Bl. Hugh Faringdon, Abbot of Reading, Bl. William Eynon, and Bl. John Rugg, monks of Reading; and Bl. John Beche, Abbot of Colchester; all executed (1539) for denying the supremacy of Henry VIII in ecclesiastical matters. John de Feckenham (or Howman), d. 1585; last Abbot of Westminster; died in prison. Sigebert Buckley, born c. 1517, d. 1610; a monk of Westminster; the link between the old and new English congregations. Ven. John Roberts, born c. 1575, martyred 1610; founder of St. Gregory’s, Douai. William Gabriel Gifford, b. 1554, d. 1629; professor of theology at Reims (1582); Dean of Lille (1597); a monk at Dieulouard (1609); Archbishop of Reims (1622). Leander of St. Martin (John Jones), b. 1575, d. 1635; President of the English congregation and Prior of St. Gregory’s, Douai. Philip Ellis, b. 1653, d. 1726; Vicar Apostolic of the Western District (1688); transferred to Segni, Italy (1708). Charles Walmesley, b. 1722, d. 1797; Vicar Apostolic of the Western District (1764); a Doctor of the Sorbonne and F. R. S. William Placid Morris, b. 1794, d. 1872; a monk of Downside; Vicar Apostolic of Mauritius (1832). John Bede Polding, b. 1794, d. 1877; a monk of Downside; Vicar Apostolic in Australia (1834); first Archbishop of Sydney (1851). William Bernard Ullathorne, b. 1806, d. 1889; a monk of Downside; Vicar Apostolic of the Western District (1846); transferred to Birmingham (1850); resigned (1888). Roger Bede Vaughan, b. 1834, d. 1883; a monk of Downside; Cathedral Prior of Belmont (1863); coadjutor to Archbishop Polding (1872); succeeded as Archbishop of Sydney (1877). Cardinal Sanfelice (Italy), b. 1834, d. 1897; Archbishop of Naples; formerly Abbot of La Cava. Joseph Pothier (France), b. 1835; inaugurator of the Solesmes school of plain-chant; Abbot of Fontanelle (1898). Andre Mocquereau (France), b. 1849; Prior of Solesmes and successor to Dom Pothier as leader of the school. John Cuthbert Hedley, b. 1837; a monk of Ampleforth; consecrated Coadjutor Bishop of Newport (1873); succeeded as Bishop (1881). Benedetto Bonazzi (Italy), b. 1840; Abbot of La Cava (1894); Archbishop of Benevento (1902). Domenico Serafini (Italy), b. 1852; Abbot General of the Cassinese Congregation of Primitive Observance (1886); Archbishop of Spoleto (1900). Hildebrand de Hemptinne (Belgium), b. 1849; Abbot Primate of the order; Abbot of Maredsous (1890); nominated Abbot Primate by Leo XIII (1893).

Nuns

St. Scholastica, died c. 543; sister to St. Benedict. Among English Benedictine nuns, the most celebrated are: St. Etheldreda, d. 679; Abbess of Ely. St. Ethelburga, died c. 670; Abbess of Barking. St. Hilda, d. 680; Abbess of Whitby. St. Werburgh, d. 699; Abbess of Chester. St. Mildred, seventh century; Abbess in Thanet. St. Walburga, d. 779; a nun of Wimborne; sister to Sts. Willibald and Winnibald; went to Germany with Sts. Lioba and Thecla to assist St. Boniface c. 740. St. Thecla, eighth century; a nun of Wimborne; Abbess of Kitzingen; died in Germany. St. Lioba, d. 779; a nun of Wimborne; cousin to St. Boniface; Abbess of Bischofsheim; died in Germany. Among other Benedictine saints are: St. Hildegard (Germany), b. 1098, d. 1178; Abbess of Mount St. Rupert; St. Gertrude the Great (Germany), d. 1292; Abbess of Eisleben in Saxony (1251). St. Mechtilde, sister to St. Gertrude and nun at Eisleben. St. Frances of Rome, b. 1384, d. 1440; widow; founded order of Oblates (Collatines) in 1425.

VI. FOUNDATIONS ORIGINATING FROM OR BASED UPON THE BENEDICTINE ORDER

It has already been shown in the first part of this article how the reaction which followed the many relaxations and mitigations that had crept into the Benedictine Order produced, from the tenth century onwards, a number of reforms and independent congregations, in each of which a return to the strict letter of St. Benedict’s Rule was attempted, with certain variations of ideal and differences of external organization. That of Cluny was the first, and it was followed, from time to time, by others, all of which are deal with in separate articles.

St. Chrodegang

Besides those communities which professedly adhered to the Benedictine Rule in all its strictness, there were others founded for some special work or purpose, which, while not claiming to be Benedictine, took that Rule as the basis upon which to ground their own particular legislation. The earliest example of this was instituted by St. Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz, who in the year 760 brought together his cathedral clergy into a kind of community life and drew up for their guidance a code of rules, based upon that of St. Benedict. These were the first “regular canons,” and the idea thus started spread very rapidly to almost every cathedral of France, Germany, and Italy, as well as to some in England. In the latter country, however, it was not an entirely new idea, for we learn from Bede’s “Ecclesiastical History” (I, xxvii) that even in St. Augustine’s time some sort of “common life” was in vogue amongst the bishops and their clergy. St. Chrodegang’s institute and its imitations prevailed almost universally in the cathedral and collegiate churches until ousted by the introduction of the Austin Canons.

Carthusians

A word must here be said as to the Carthusian Order, which some writers have classed amongst those founded on the Benedictine rule. This supposition is based chiefly on the fact that they have retained the name of St. Benedict in their Confiteor, but this was more probably done out of recognition of that saint’s position as the Patriarch of Western Monasticism than from any idea that the order was a filiation from the older body. Confusion may also have arisen on account of the founder of the Carthusians, St. Bruno, being mistaken for another of the same name, who was Abbot of Monte Cassino in the twelfth century and therefore a Benedictine.

Independent Benedictine Congregations

The various reforms, beginning with Cluny in the tenth century and extending to the Olivetans of the fourteenth, have been enumerated in the first part of this article and are described in greater detail in separate articles, under their respective titles. To these must be added the Order of the Humiliati, founded in the twelfth century by certain nobles of Lombardy who, having rebelled against the Emperor Henry VI, were taken captive by him into Germany. There they commenced the practice of works of piety and penance, and were for their “humility” allowed to return to Lombardy. The order was definitely established in 1134 under the guidance of St. Bernard, who placed it under the Benedictine rule. It flourished for some centuries and had ninety-four monasteries, but through popularity and prosperity corruption and irregularities crept in, and after an ineffectual attempt at reformation, Pope Pius V suppressed the order in 1571. Mention must also be made of the more modern Armenian Benedictine congregation (known as Mechitarists), founded by Mechitar de Petro in the eighteenth century, in communion with the Holy See; this is now reckoned amongst the non-federated congregations of the order. (See HUMILIATI, MECHITARISTS.)

Quasi-Benedictine Foundations

(1) Military Orders

Hélyot enumerates several military orders as having been based upon that of St. Benedict or in some way originating from it. Though founded especially for military objects, as for instance the defence of the holy places at Jerusalem, when not so engaged, these knights lived a kind of a religious life in commanderies or preceptories, established on the estates belonging to their order. They were not in any sense clerics, but they usually took vows of poverty and obedience, and sometimes also of chastity. In some of the Spanish orders, permission to marry was granted in the seventeenth century. The knights practised many of the customary monastic austerities, such as fasting and silence, and they adopted a religious habit with the tunic shortened somewhat for convenience on horseback. Each order was governed by a Grand Master who had jurisdiction over the whole order, and under him were the commanders who ruled over the various houses. The following were the military orders connected with the Benedictine Order, but for fuller details the reader is referred to separate articles. (a) The Knights Templars, founded in 1118. St. Bernard of Clairvaux drew up their rule, and they always regarded the Cistercians as their brethren. For this reason they adopted a white dress, to which they added a red cross. The order was suppressed in 1312. In Spain there were: (b) The Knights of Calatrava founded in 1158 to assist in protecting Spain against the Moorish invasions. The Knights of Calatrava owed their origin to the abbot and monks of the Cistercian monastery of Fitero. The general chapter of Cîteaux drew up a rule of life and exercised a general supervision over them. The black hood and short scapular which they wore denoted their connexion with Cîteaux. The order possessed fifty-six commanderies, chiefly in Andalusia. The Nuns of Calatrava were established c. 1219. They were cloistered, observing the rule of the Cistercian nuns and wearing a similar habit, but they were under the jurisdiction of the Grand Master of the knights. (c) Knights of Alcantara, or of San Julian del Pereyro, in Castille, founded about the same time and for the same purpose as the Knights of Calatrava. They adopted a mitigated form of St. Benedict’s Rule, to which certain observances borrowed from Calatrava were added. They also used the black hood and abbreviated scapular. It was at one time proposed to unite this order with that of Calatrava, but the scheme failed of execution. They possessed thirty-seven commanderies. (d) Knights of Montesa, founded 1316, an offshoot from Calatrava, instituted by ten knights of that order who placed themselves under the abbot of Cîteaux instead of their own Grand Master. (e) Knights of St. George of Alfama, founded in 1201; united to the Order of Montesa in 1399.

In Portugal there were three orders, also founded for purposes of defence against the Moors:—(f) The Knights of Aviz, founded 1147; they observed the Benedictine Rule, under the direction of the abbots of Cîteaux and Clairvaux, and had forty commanderies. (g) The Knights of St. Michael’s Wing, founded 1167; the name was taken in honour of the archangel whose visible assistance secured a victory against the Moors for King Alphonso I of Portugal. The rule was drawn up by the Cistercian Abbot of Alcobaza. They were never very numerous, and the order did not long survive the king in whose reign it was founded. (h) The Order of Christ, reared upon the ruins of the Templars about 1317; it became very numerous and wealthy. It adopted the Rule of St. Benedict and the constitutions of Cîteaux, and possessed 450 commanderies. In 1550 the office of grand master of this order, as well as that of Aviz, was united to the crown. (I) The Monks of the Order of Christ. In 1567, a stricter life was instituted in the convent of Thomar, the principal house of the Order of Christ, under this title, where the full monastic life was observed, with a habit and vows similar to those of the Cistercians, though the monks were under the jurisdiction of the grand master of the Knights. This order now exists as one of the noble orders of knighthood, similar to those of the Garter, Bath, etc., in England. In Savoy there were the two orders: (k) the Knights of St. Maurice, and (1) those of St. Lazarus, which were united in 1572. They observed the Cistercian rule and the object of their existence was the defence of the Catholic Faith against the inroads of the Protestant Reformation. They had many commanderies and their two principal houses were at Turin and Nice. In Switzerland also the Abbots of St. Gall at one time supported (m) the military Order of the Bear, which Frederick II had instituted in 1213.

(2) Hospitallers

The Order of the Brothers Hospitallers of Burgos originated in a hospital attached to a convent of Cistercian nuns in that town. There were a dozen Cistercian lay brothers who assisted the nuns in the care of the hospital, and these, in 1474, formed themselves into a new order intended to be independent of Cîteaux. They met with much opposition, and, irregularities having crept in, they were reformed in 1587 and placed under the abbess of the convent.

(3) Oblates

The Oblates of St. Frances of Rome, called also Collatines, were a congregation of pious women, founded in 1425 and approved as an order in 1433. They first observed the rule of the Franciscan Tertiaries, but this was soon changed for that of St. Benedict. The order consisted chiefly of noble Roman ladies, who lived a semi-religious life and devoted themselves to works of piety and charity. They made no solemn vows, neither were they strictly enclosed, nor forbidden to enjoy the use of their possessions. They were at first under the direction of the Olivetan Benedictines, but after the death of their foundress, in 1440, they became independent.

(4) Orders of Canonesses

Information is but scanty concerning the chapters of noble canonesses, which were fairly numerous in Lorraine, Flanders, and Germany in medieval times. It seems certain, however, that many of them were originally communities of Benedictine nuns, which, for one reason or another, renounced their solemn vows and assumed the state of canonesses, whilst still observing some form of the Benedictine Rule. The membership of almost all these chapters was restricted to women of noble, and in some cases of royal, descent. In many also, whilst the canonesses were merely seculars, that is, not under vows of religious, and therefore free to leave and marry, the abbesses retained the character and state of religious superiors, and as such were solemnly professed as Benedictine nuns. The following list of houses is taken from Mabillon and Hélyot, but all had ceased to exist by the end of the eighteenth century:—In Lorraine: Remiremont; founded 620; members became canonesses in 1515; Epinal, 983; Pouzay, Bouxières-aux-Dames, and Metz, of the eleventh or twelfth century. In Germany: Cologne, 689; Homburg and Strasburg, of the seventh century; Lindau, Buchau, and Andlau of the eighth century; Obermunster, Niedermunster, and Essen of the ninth century. In Flanders: Nivelles, Mons, Andenne, Maubeuge, and Belisie of the seventh century; and Denain, 764. The members of the following houses in Germany having renounced their solemn vows and become canonesses in the sixteenth century, abandoned also the Catholic Faith and accepted the Protestant religion: Gandersheim, Herford, Quedlinburg, Gernrode.

The Benedictine Order in General.—Montalembert, Monks of the West (London, 1896), Eng. Tr., new ed., with preface by Gasquet; Newman, Mission of St. Benedict and Benedictine Schools, in Historical Sketches (London, 1873); Gasquet, Sketch of the Life and Mission of St. Benedict (London, 1895); Maitland, The Dark Ages (London, 1845); Mabillon, Annales O. S. B. (Paris, 1703–39); Id., Acta SS. O. S. B. (Venice, 1733); Yepez, Chronicon generale Ord. S. P. N. Benedicti (Cologne, 1603); Hélyot, Histoire des ordres religieux (Paris, 1792); Id., Dict. Des ordres religieux (Paris, 1860); Mege, Commentaire sur la regle de S. Benoit (Paris, 1687); Calmet, Commentaire (Paris, 1734); Menard, Codex regularum (Paris, 1638); Besse, Le moine benedictin (Ligugé, 1898); Braunmuller in Kirchenlex., s. v.; Herzog, Realencyclopadie (Leipzig, 1897), s. v.; Heimbucher, Die Order und Kongregationen der katholischen Kirche (Paderborn, 1896), I; Ziegelbauer, Hist. Lit. O. S. B. (Augsburg, 1754); Album Benedictinum (St. Vincent’s, Pennsylvania, 1880; Rome, 1905); Tanner, Notitia Monastica (London, 1744); Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, with Stevens’s continuation (London, 1817–30); Gasquet, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries (London, 1899); Id., The Eve of the Reformation (London, 18990); Gairdner, Prefaces to Calendars of State Papers of Henry VIII; Taunton, English Black Monks of St. Benedict (London, 1897); Dudden, Gregory the Great (London, 1905), I; Eckenstein, Women under Monasticism (Cambridge, 1896); Hope, St. Boniface and the Conversion of Germany (London, 1872); Reyner, Apostolatus Benedictinorum in Anglia (Douai, 1626); Hind, Benedictines in Oxford in Ampleforth Journal, VI, 1901.

Special Congregations.—Duckett, Charters and Records of Cluni (Lewes, England, 1890); Sackur, Die Cluniacenser (Halle a S., 1892–94); Janauschek, Origines Cisterciensium (Vienna, 1877); Gaillardin, Les Trappistes (Paris, 1844); Guibert, Destruction de Grandmont (Paris, 1877); Salvado, Memorie Storiche (Rome, 1851); Berengier, La Nouvelle-Nursie (Paris, 1878); Brullee, Vie de P. Muard (Paris, 1855), tr. Robot, 1882; Thompson, Life of P. Muard (London, 1886; de Broglie, Mabillon (Paris, 1888); Id., Montfaucon (Paris, 1891); Houtin, Dom Couturier (Angers, 1899); Van Galoen, Dom Maur Wolter et les origines de la cong. De Beuron (Bruges, 1891); Dolan, Succisa Virescit in Downside Review, I-IV.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Benedictional

(Benedictionale).

A book containing a collection of benedictions or blessings in use in the Church. In the ancient sacramentaries, particularly in the Gregorian, various early forms of blessings are found. In some manuscripts these benedictions are interspersed throughout the book, while in others they are given separately. The blessings collected from the Gregorian Sacramentary constitute the so-called Benedictionale. From the very ancient manuscript of the Caesarean Library, Lambecius edited this Benedictiona1e, believing that he was the first to give it to the public. In this, however, Lambecius erred, since nearly all the blessings contained in this manuscript had been previously published, though under a different order, or arrangement, by Ménard (d. 1644). Pamelius (Liturgicon Ecclesiae Lat., II) also edited a benedictional from two manuscripts of the time of Charlemagne or a little later, formerly in the library of the Queen of Sweden, now in the Vatican. Many discrepancies, nevertheless, are to be noted between the work of Pamelius and the original manuscripts from which it is supposed to be drawn. The “Liber Sacramentorum” of Ratoldus, of the tenth century, likewise contains numerous blessings; but the most complete benedictional is that found in two manuscripts (Nos. 62, 63) of the monastery of St. Theodoric, near Reims, written about 900. From a manuscript in the Abbey of St. Eligius Ménard edited a benedictional, while Angelo Rocca has given us one from a manuscript of the Vatican Library. The pontifical of Egbert, Archbishop of York (732–766), published by the Surtees Society in 1853, contains numerous forms of blessings. The blessings in use in the present day are found for the most part in the Missal and in the Ritual.

Praef. in librum Sacram. S. Greg., in P. L., LXXVIII, 601f.; CXXI, 865f.; SINKER in Dict. of Christ. Antiq.

ANDREW B. MEEHAN

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament

One of the most generally popular of Catholic services is Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, known in France as Salut and in Germany as Segen. It is ordinarily an afternoon or evening devotion and consists in the singing of certain hymns, or litanies, or canticles, before the Blessed Sacrament, which is exposed upon the altar in a monstrance and is surrounded with lights. At the end, the priest, his shoulders enveloped in a humeral veil, takes the monstrance into his hands and with it makes the sign of the cross (hence the name Benediction) in silence over the kneeling congregation. Benediction is often employed as a conclusion to other services, e. g. Vespers, Compline, the Stations of the Cross, etc., but it is also still more generally treated as a rite complete in itself. There is a good deal of diversity of usage in different countries with regard to details, but some of the elements are constant. The use of incense and wax candles, which even in the poorest churches must not be less than ten in number, the singing of the “Tantum ergo” with its versicle and prayer, and the blessing given with the Blessed Sacrament are obligatory everywhere. In Rome the principle obtains that the only portion of the service which is to be regarded as strictly liturgical is the singing of the “Tantum ergo” and the giving of the Benediction which immediately follows. This idea is emphasized by the fact that in many Roman churches the celebrant, vested in cope and preceded by thurifier, acolytes, etc., only makes his entry into the sanctuary just before the “Tantum ergo” is begun. Previously to this the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, informally so to speak, by a priest in cotta and stole; and then choir and congregation are left to sing litanies and canticles, or to say prayers and devotions as the occasion may demand, the whole service being of a very popular character.

In English-speaking countries the service generally begins with the entry of the priest and his assistants in procession and with the singing of the “O Salutaris Hostia” as soon as the Blessed Sacrament is taken out of the tabernacle. Indeed in England the singing of the “O Salutaris” is enjoined in the “Ritus servandus,” the code of procedure approved by a former synod of the Province of Westminster. On the other hand, the Litany of Our Lady, though usually printed after the “O Salutaris” and very generally sung at Benediction, is nowhere of obligation. It may be added that further solemnity is often given to the service by the presence of deacon and subdeacon in dalmatics. When the bishop of the diocese officiates he uses mitre and crosier in the procession to the altar, and makes the sign of the cross over the people three times in giving the benediction. On the other hand, a very informal sort of service is permitted, where the means for carrying out a more elaborate rite are not available. The priest, wearing cotta and stole, simply opens the tabernacle door. Prayers and devotions are said or sung, and then the priest blesses those present with the veiled ciborium before the tabernacle door is again closed. The permission, general or special, of the bishop of the diocese is necessary for services where Benediction is given with the monstrance.

HISTORY OF THE DEVOTION

It is easy to recognize in our ordinary Benediction service, the traces of two distinct elements. There is of course in the first place the direct veneration of the Blessed Sacrament, which appears in the exposition, blessing, “Tantum ergo,” etc. But besides this we note the almost invariable presence of what at first sight seems an incongruous element, that of the litany of Loreto, or of popular hymns in honor of Our Lady. Tracing our present service back to its origin we find that these two features are derived from different sources. The idea of exposing the Blessed Sacrament for veneration in a monstrance appears to have been first evolved at the end of the thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century. When the elevation of the Host at Mass was introduced in the early years of the thirteenth century, probably as a form of protest against the theological views of Peter the Chanter, the idea by degrees took firm hold of the popular mind that special virtue and merit were attached to the act of looking at the Blessed Sacrament. To such extremes did this prepossession go, that the seeing of the Host at the moment of the elevation was judged to be the most vital part of attendance at Mass. On certain churches in Spain a screen of black velvet was held up behind the altar in order that the priest’s hands and the Host might be more easily seen from afar; in others strict injunctions were given to the thurifer that he should on no account allow the smoke of the thurible to obstruct the view of the Host. Furthermore, we read that when men were dying and were unable on account of vomiting or any other cause to receive Holy Viaticum, the Blessed Sacrament was brought to them and held up before them to look at. Indeed, a virtual prohibition of this practice stands to this day amongst the rubrics of the “Rituale Romanum.”

Under the influence of this idea, the Blessed Sacrament in the processions which became common after the institution of the feast of Corpus Christi in 1246, came by degrees to be carried in transparent vessels, resembling our present monstrances. Moreover, a custom grew up, especially in Germany, of keeping the Blessed Sacrament continually exposed to view in churches. It was forbidden by many synods, but a sort of compromise was arrived at through the construction of the Sakramentshäuschen of which so many examples still exist in central Europe. These tabernacles, of great height and imposing appearance, were erected in the most conspicuous part of the church, and there the Blessed Sacrament was reserved in a monstrance behind a metal door of lattice-work which allowed a more or less free view of the interior. It was thus that the practice developed, though partly kept in check by synodal decrees, of adding solemnity to any function, even the Mass itself, by exposing the Blessed Sacrament during its continuance.

Turning now to our second element, we find that from the beginning of the thirteenth century, a custom prevailed among the confraternities and guilds which were established at that period in great numbers, of singing canticles in the evening of the day before a statue of Our Lady. These canticles were called Laude and were often composed in the vulgar tongue, becoming in the hands of such poets as the Franciscan Giacopone da Todi, one of the great popular influences which helped to develop a native Italian literature. Confraternities were formed for the express purpose of singing these canticles and their members were called Laudesi. It was such a company of Laudesi that brought together the seven holy founders who, in the first half of the thirteenth century, established the Order of Servites, or Servants of Mary. Although the laude hardly flourished outside Italy, where both the language and the character of the people lent themselves readily to the composition of innumerable canticles, the idea of an evening service of a popular character sung before the statue of Our Lady, spread throughout Europe. In particular, the “Salve Regina,” a special devotion of the Servites, Dominicans, Carmelites, and other orders, was consecrated by usage to this rite, and we find traces everywhere of its being sung, often by choirs of boys, for whom a special endowment was provided, as a separate evening service. In France, this service was commonly known as a Salut, in the Low Countries as the Lof, in England and Germany, simply as the Salve.

Now it seems certain that our present Benediction service has resulted from the general adoption of this evening singing of canticles before the statue of Our Lady, enhanced as it often came to be in the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, which as employed at first only as an adjunct to lend it additional solemnity. The blessing at the close seems to have been added simply because the custom gained ground of making the sign of the cross over the people whenever the Blessed Sacrament was replaced in the tabernacle after a procession or after being carried to the sick or any kind of an exposition. But in the course of the seventeenth century, we find numberless bequests for Saluts in French wills, the items to be sung, often of a most miscellaneous character, being minutely specified, and among these the condition is frequently appended that the Blessed Sacrament should be exposed during the whole time of the Salut.

The development which is too intricate to be given here in further detail, may be investigated in the works mentioned below.

To the REV. V. DE BUCK, the Bollandist, belongs the merit of having first called attention to the true history of this devotion. See Précis Historiques (Brussels, 1872), XXI, 59–70. His conclusions have been developed by the present writer in The Month, June to September, 1901, October, 1905, and in the book Corpus Domini (in preparation 1907). Useful material may be found in THIERS, Traité de l’Exposition du S. Sacrement, written in 1673. The account of Benediction given by such authorities as CORBLET, Histoire du Sacrement de l’Eucharistie (Paris, 1885), II, 419–431, is not satisfactory. For the rubrical aspects of the service see DE MONTAULT, (Euvres Complètes (Paris, 1892), VI, 503–531; Revue Théologique (Paris, 1857), II, 305, 464, 693: WAPELEHORST, Compendium Sacrae Liturgiae (New York, 1904), 6th ed., 218f.; O’LOAN, Ceremonies of some Ecclesiastical Functions (3d ed., Dublin, 1901), 152–163.

HERBERT THURSTON

Benedict Levita

Benedict Levita (of Mainz), or Benedict the Deacon, is the name given to himself by the author of a forged collection of capitularies which appeared in the ninth century. The collection belongs to the group of pseudo-Isidorian forgeries that includes the pseudo-Isidorian recension of the Spanish collection of canons, the so-called “capitula Angilramni,” and the collection of false decretals of the pseudo-Isidore. The name Benedict is, without doubt, an assumed one; the statement that he had been a deacon in the Church of Mainz and that the collection had been made from the archiepiscopal archives of Mainz at the command of the late Archbishop Autgar (825–847) is clearly also untrue. Nothing is known concerning the real author. On internal evidence it may be accepted that these forged capitularies were composed in the western part of the Frankish empire and not at Mainz; the grounds for this belief are, especially, the opposition shown to the institution of “chorepiscopi,” and further the circumstance that the collection was first used and found readiest acceptance among the Western Franks. The close relationship between this collection and Pseudo-Isidore lends some probability to the supposition that it arose in the Archdiocese of Reims. As to the time when it appeared there is no reason to doubt the statement of the author that Archbishop Autgar of Mainz was then dead. Consequently the collection was made after 847 (Autgar died 21 April, 847). This is confirmed by a metrical panegyric, prefixed to the collection, in praise of the Carlovingian rulers, and in which Louis the German, the Emperor Lothair, and Charles the Bald are described as living, a fact which points to the years following 843. Another clue is offered by “Additamentum” IV in which the forged pseudo-Isidorian decretals have evidently been used. But the way in which these decretals are employed by Benedict shows that the Pseudo-Isidorian collection had not yet reached its completed form. The latest date for the appearance of this collection of canons may, therefore, be given as from 848 to 850. The time of composition cannot be more exactly determined; it was somewhere between the years 847–850.

The author represents his collection as the continuation and completion of the collection of genuine capitularies in four books, “Capitularia regum Francorum,” produced in 827 by Ansegisus, Abbot of Fontanelle. He divides it into three books which designates as “liber quintus,” “sextus,” and “septimus.” Three other writings precede the first book; a prologue in verse, a preface in prose which treats of the origin and contents of the collection, and the aforesaid metrical panegyric on the rulers of the Carlovingian line; beginning with Pepin and Carloman and ending with the sons of Louis the Pious. Four supplementary writings (additamenta) are annexed to the last book; (I) The Aachen capitulary of 817 concerning the monasteries; (II) the report of the bishops (August, 829) to the Emperor Louis the Pious; (III) a few genuine capitularies and a large number of forged ones, just as in the main body of the collection; (IV) a large number (170) of extracts taken from various sources, among which are also forgeries of the Pseudo-Isidore. The work of Abbot Ansegisus was taken as a model for the collection. As to the sources of the collection, about one-fourth of it consists of genuine capitularies (a certain kind of royal decrees customary in the Frankish Empire); in fact, the genuine materials used by the author surpass sometimes those used by Ansegisus. Most of the pretended capitularies are, however, not genuine. Among the genuine sources, from which the larger portion of them are drawn, are: the Holy Scriptures; the decrees of councils; papal decrees; the collection of Irish canons; the ordinances of the Roman law, the “leges Visigothorum” and “Baiuwariorum”; the “Libri Penitentiales” or penitential books; the writings of the Church Fathers, and letters of bishops. He repeats himself frequently; a number of chapters are duplicated literally or nearly word for word. The chief aim of the forger was to enable the Church to maintain its independence in face of the assaults of the secular power. The author stands for the contemporary movement in favour of ecclesiastical reform, and in opposition to the rule of the Church by the laity. The first two editions (Tilius, Paris, 1548, and Pithoeus, Paris, 1588) are incomplete; the collection is found complete in Baluze, Capitularia regum Francorum (Paris, 1677), I, col. 801–1232, and in Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae Hist.: Leges, II (Hanover, 1837), 2, 39–158 (cf. Migne, P.L., XCVII, col. 699–912). E. Seckel is preparing a new edition for the Monum. Germ. Hist.: Capitularia, III).

Hinschius, Decretales pseudoisidorianae et Capitula Angilramni (Leipzig, 1863); Schneider, Die Lehre con den Kirchenrechtsquellen (2nd ed., Ratisbon, 1892), 75 sqq.; Lot, Etudes sur le regne de Louis Capet (Paris, 1903), 361 sqq.; Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1900), II, 527 sqq.; Seckel, Studien zu Benedict Levita in Neues Archiv. (1900), XXVI, XXIX, XXXI.

J.P. KIRSCH

St. Benedict of Aniane

Born about 745–750; died at Cornelimünster, 11 February, 821. Benedict, originally known as Witiza, son of the Goth, Aigulf, Count of Maguelone in Southern France, was educated at the Frankish court of Pepin, and entered the royal service. He took part in the Italian campaign of Charlemagne (773), after which he left his royal master to enter the religious life, and was received into the monastery of St. Sequanus (Saint-Seine). He gave himself most zealously to practices of asceticism, and learned to value the Rule of St. Benedict as the best foundation for the monastic life. Returning home in 779, he established on his own land near the little river of Aniane a new monastic settlement, which soon developed into a great monastery, under the name of Aniane, and became the model and centre of the monastic reform in France, introduced by Louis the Pious. The emperor’s chief adviser was Benedict, and the general adoption of the Rule of St. Benedict in the monasteries of the Empire was the most important step towards the reform. Benedict took a prominent part in the synods held in Aachen in 816 and 817, the results of which were embodied in the important prescriptions for the restoration of monastic discipline, dated 10 July, 817; he was the enthusiastic leader of these assemblies, and he himself reformed many monasteries on the lines laid down in the ordinances promulgated there. In order to have him in the vicinity of his royal residence, Louis had founded on the Inde, a stream near Aachen, the Abbey of Cornelimünster, which was to be an exemplar for all other abbeys, and to be under the guidance of Benedict. In the dogmatic controversy over Adoptionism, under the leadership of Felix of Urgel, Benedict took the part of orthodoxy. To promote the monastic reforms, he compiled a collection of monastic rules. A pupil of his, the monk Ardo, wrote a biography of the great abbot.

For Benedict’s writings, see Codex regularum monasticarum et canonicarum in P.L., CIII, 393–702; Concordia regularum, loc. cit; Letters, loc. cit., 703–1380. Other treatises (loc. cit., 1381 sqq.) ascribed to him are probably not authentic. ARDO SMARAGDUS, Life, op. cit., CIII, 353 sqq.; Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XV, I, 200–220; Acta SS., Feb., II, 606 sqq.; NICOLAI, Der hl. Benedict, Gründer von Aniane und Cornelimünster (Cologne, 1865); PAULINIER, S. Benoit d’Aniane et la fondation du monastere de ce nom (Montpellier, 1871); FOSS, Benedikt von Aniane (Berlin, 1884); PUCKERT, Aniane und Gellone (Leipzig, 1899); HAUCK, Kirchengesch. Deutschlands (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1900), II, 575 sqq.; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 12 Feb.

J.P. KIRSCH

St. Benedict of Nursia

Founder of western monasticism, born at Nursia, c. 480; died at Monte Cassino, 543. The only authentic life of Benedict of Nursia is that contained in the second book of St. Gregory’s “Dialogues.” It is rather a character sketch than a biography and consists, for the most part, of a number of miraculous incidents, which, although they illustrate the life of the saint, give little help towards a chronological account of his career. St. Gregory’s authorities for all that he relates were the saint’s own disciples, viz. Constantinus, who succeeded him as Abbot of Monte Cassino; and Honoratus, who was Abbot of Subiaco when St. Gregory wrote his “Dialogues.”

Benedict was the son of a Roman noble of Nursia, a small town near Spoleto, and a tradition, which St. Bede accepts, makes him a twin with his sister Scholastica. His boyhood was spent in Rome, where he lived with his parents and attended the schools until he had reached his higher studies. Then “giving over his books, and forsaking his father’s house and wealth, with a mind only to serve God, he sought for some place where he might attain to the desire of his holy purpose; and in this sort he departed [from Rome], instructed with learned ignorance and furnished with unlearned wisdom” (Dial. St. Greg., II, Introd. in Migne, P.L. LXVI). There is much difference of opinion as to Benedict’s age at the time. It has been very generally stated as fourteen, but a careful examination of St. Gregory’s narrative makes it impossible to suppose him younger than nineteen or twenty. He was old enough to be in the midst of his literary studies, to understand the real meaning and worth of the dissolute and licentious lives of his companions, and to have been deeply affected himself by the love of a woman (Ibid. II, 2). He was capable of weighing all these things in comparison with the life taught in the Gospels, and chose the latter, He was at the beginning of life, and he had at his disposal the means to a career as a Roman noble; clearly he was not a child, As St. Gregory expresses it, “he was in the world and was free to enjoy the advantages which the world offers, but drew back his foot which he had, as it were, already set forth in the world” (ibid., Introd.). If we accept the date 480 for his birth, we may fix the date of his abandoning the schools and quitting home at about A.D. 500.

Benedict does not seem to have left Rome for the purpose of becoming a hermit, but only to find some place away from the life of the great city; moreover, he took his old nurse with him as a servant and they settled down to live in Enfide, near a church dedicated to St. Peter, in some kind of association with “a company of virtuous men” who were in sympathy with his feelings and his views of life. Enfide, which the tradition of Subiaco identifies with the modern Affile, is in the Simbrucini mountains, about forty miles from Rome and two from Subiaco. It stands on the crest of a ridge which rises rapidly from the valley to the higher range of mountains, and seen from the lower ground the village has the appearance of a fortress. As St. Gregory’s account indicates, and as is confirmed by the remains of the old town and by the inscriptions found in the neighbourhood, Enfide was a place of greater importance than is the present town. At Enfide Benedict worked his first miracle by restoring to perfect condition an earthenware wheat-sifter (capisterium) which his old servant had accidentally broken. The notoriety which this miracle brought upon Benedict drove him to escape still farther from social life, and “he fled secretly from his nurse and sought the more retired district of Subiaco.” His purpose of life had also been modified. He had fled Rome to escape the evils of a great city; he now determined to be poor and to live by his own work. “For God’s sake he deliberately chose the hardships of life and the weariness of labour” (ibid., 1).

A short distance from Enfide is the entrance to a narrow, gloomy valley, penetrating the mountains and leading directly to Subiaco. Crossing the Anio and turning to the right, the path rises along the left face oft the ravine and soon reaches the site of Nero’s villa and of the huge mole which formed the lower end of the middle lake; across the valley were ruins of the Roman baths, of which a few great arches and detached masses of wall still stand. Rising from the mole upon twenty five low arches, the foundations of which can even yet be traced, was the bridge from the villa to the baths, under which the waters of the middle lake poured in a wide fall into the lake below. The ruins of these vast buildings and the wide sheet of falling water closed up the entrance of the valley to St. Benedict as he came from Enfide; to-day the narrow valley lies open before us, closed only by the far off mountains. The path continues to ascend, and the side of the ravine, on which it runs, becomes steeper, until we reach a cave above which the mountain now rises almost perpendicularly; while on the right hand it strikes in a rapid descent down to where, in St. Benedict’s day, five hundred feet below, lay the blue waters of the lake. The cave has a large triangular-shaped opening and is about ten feet deep. On his way from Enfide, Benedict met a monk, Romanus, whose monastery was on the mountain above the cliff overhanging the cave. Romanus had discussed with Benedict the purpose which had brought him to Subiaco, and had given him the monk’s habit. By his advice Benedict became a hermit and for three years, unknown to men, lived in this cave above the lake. St. Gregory tells us little of these years, He now speaks of Benedict no longer as a youth (puer), but as a man (vir) of God. Romanus, he twice tells us, served the saint in every way he could. The monk apparently visited him frequently, and on fixed days brought him food.

During these three years of solitude, broken only by occasional communications with the outer world and by the visits of Romanus, he matured both in mind and character, in knowledge of himself and of his fellow-man, and at the same time he became not merely known to, but secured the respect of, those about him; so much so that on the death of the abbot of a monastery in the neighbourhood (identified by some with Vicovaro), the community came to him and begged him to become its abbot. Benedict was acquainted with the life and discipline of the monastery, and knew that “their manners were diverse from his and therefore that they would never agree together: yet, at length, overcome with their entreaty, he gave his consent” (ibid., 3). The experiment failed; the monks tried to poison him, and he returned to his cave. From this time his miracles seen to have become frequent, and many people, attracted by his sanctity and character, came to Subiaco to be under his guidance. For them he built in the valley twelve monasteries, in each of which he placed a superior with twelve monks. In a thirteenth he lived with “a few, such as he thought would more profit and be better instructed by his own presence” (ibid., 3). He remained, however, the father or abbot of all. With the establishment of these monasteries began the schools for children; and amongst the first to be brought were Maurus and Placid.

The remainder of St. Benedict’s life was spent in realizing the ideal of monasticism which he has left us drawn out in his Rule, and before we follow the slight chronological story given by St. Gregory, it will be better to examine the ideal, which, as St. Gregory says, is St. Benedict’s real biography (ibid., 36). We will deal here with the Rule only so far as it is an element in St. Benedict’s life. For the relations which it bore to the monasticism of previous centuries, and for its influence throughout the West on civil and religious government, and upon the spiritual life of Christians, the reader is referred to the articles MONASTICISM and BENEDICT, SAINT, RULE OF.

THE BENEDICTINE RULE

1. Before studying St. Benedict’s Rule it is necessary to point out that it is written for laymen, not for clerics. The saint’s purpose was not to institute an order of clerics with clerical duties and offices, but an organization and a set of rules for the domestic life of such laymen as wished to live as fully as possible the type of life presented in the Gospel. “My words,” he says, “are addressed to thee, whoever thou art, that, renouncing thine own will, dost put on the strong and bright armour of obedience in order to fight for the Lord Christ, our true King.” (Prol. to Rule.) Later, the Church imposed the clerical state upon Benedictines, and with the state came a preponderance of clerical and sacerdotal duties, but the impress of the lay origin of the Benedictines has remained, and is perhaps the source of some of the characteristics which mark them off from later orders.

2. Another characteristic feature of the saint’s Rule is its view of work. His so-called order was not established to carry on any particular work or to meet any special special crisis in the Church, as has been the case with other orders. With Benedict the work of his monks was only a means to goodness of life. The great disciplinary force for human nature is work; idleness is its ruin. The purpose of his Rule was to bring men “back to God by the labour of obedience, from whom they had departed by the idleness of disobedience.” Work was the first condition of all growth in goodness. It was in order that his own life might be “wearied with labours for God’s sake” that St. Benedict left Enfide for the cave at Subiaco. It is necessary, comments St. Gregory, that God’s elect should at the beginning, when life and temptations are strong are strong in them, “be wearied with labour and pains.” In the regeneration of human nature in the order of discipline, even prayer comes after work, for grace meets with no co-operation in the soul and heart of an idler. When the Goth “gave over the world” and went to Subiaco, St. Benedict gave him a bill-hook and set him to clear away briars for the making of a garden. “Ecce! labora!” go and work. Work is not, as the civilization of the time taught, the condition peculiar to slaves; it is the universal lot of man, necessary for his well-being as a man, and essential for him as a Christian.

3. The religious life, as conceived by St. Benedict is essentially social. Life apart from one’s fellows, the life of a hermit, if it is to be wholesome and sane, is possible only for a few, and these few must have reached an advanced stage of self-discipline while living with others (Rule, 1). The Rule, therefore, is entirely occupied with regulating the life of a community of men who live and work and pray and eat together, and this is not merely for a course of training, but as a permanent element of life at its best. The Rule conceives the superiors as always present and in constant touch with every member of the government, which is best described as patriarchal, or paternal (ibid., 2, 3, 64). The superior is the head of a family; all are the permanent members of a household. Hence, too, much of the spiritual teaching of the Rule is concealed under legislation which seems purely social and domestic organization (ibid. 22–23, 35–41). So intimately connected with domestic life is the whole framework and teaching of the Rule that a Benedictine may be more truly said to enter or join a particular household than to join an order. The social character of Benedictine life has found expression in a fixed type for monasteries and in the kind of works which Benedictines undertake, and it is secured by an absolute communism in possessions (ibid. 33, 34, 54, 55), by the rigorous suppression of all differences of worldly rank—“no one of noble birth may [for that reason] be put before him that was formerly a slave” (ibid. 2). and by the enforced presence of everyone at the routine duties of the household.

4. Although private ownership is most strictly forbidden by the Rule, it was no part of St. Benedict’s conception of monastic life that his monks, as a body, should strip themselves of all wealth and live upon the alms of the charitable; rather his purpose was to restrict the requirements of the individual to what was necessary and simple, and to secure that the use and administration of the corporate possessions should be in strict accord with the teaching of the Gospel. The Benedictine ideal of poverty is quite different from the Franciscan. The Benedictine takes no explicit vow of poverty; he only vows obedience according to the Rule. The rule allows all that is necessary to each individual, together with sufficient and varied clothing, abundant food (excluding only the flesh of quadrupeds), wine and ample sleep (ibid., 39, 40, 41, 55). Possessions could be held in common, they might be large, but they were to be administered for the furtherance of the work of the community and for the benefit of others. While the individual monk was poor, the monastery was to be in a position to give alms, not to be compelled to seek them. It was to relieve the poor, to clothe the naked, to visit the sick, to bury the dead, to help the afflicted (ibid., 4), to entertain all strangers (ibid., 3). The poor came to Benedict to get help to pay their debts (Dial. St. Greg., 27); they came for food (ibid., 21, 28).

5. St. Benedict originated a form of government which is deserving of study. It is contained in chapters 2, 3, 31, 64, 65 of the Rule and in certain pregnant phrases scattered through other chapters. As with the Rule itself, so also his scheme of government is intended not for an order but for a single community. He presupposes that the community have bound themselves, by their promise of stability, to spend their lives together under the Rule. The superior is then elected by a free and universal suffrage. The government may be described as a monarchy, with the Rule as its constitution. Within the four corners of the Rule everything is left to the discretion of the abbot, the abuse of whose authority is checked by religion (Rule, 2), by open debate with the community on all important matters, and with its representative elders in smaller concerns (ibid., 3). The reality of these checks upon the wilfulness of the ruler can be appreciated only when it is remembered that ruler and community were bound together for life, that all were inspired by the single purpose of carrying out the conception of life taught in the Gospel, and that the relation of the members of the community to one another and to the abbot, and of the abbot to them, were elevated and spiritualized by a mysticism which set before itself the acceptance of the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount as real and work-a-day truths.

6. (a) When a Christian household, a community, has been organized by the willing acceptance of its social duties and responsibilities, by obedience to an authority, and, further, is under the continuous discipline of work and self-denial, the next step in the regeneration of its members in their return to God is prayer. The Rule deals directly and explicitly only with public prayer. For this Benedict assigns the Psalms and Canticles, with readings from the Scriptures and Fathers. He devotes eleven chapters out of the seventy-three of his Rule to regulating this public prayer, and it is characteristic of the freedom of his Rule and of the “moderation” of the saint, that he concludes his very careful directions by saying that if any superior does not like his arrangement he is free to make another; this only he says he will insist on, that the whole Psalter will be said in the course of a week. The practice of the holy Fathers, he adds, was resolutely “to say in a single day what I pray we tepid monks may get through in a whole week” (ibid., 18). On the other hand, he checks indiscreet zeal by laying down the general rule “that prayer made in common must always be short” (ibid., 20). It is very difficult to reduce St. Benedict’s teaching on prayer to a system, for this reason, that in his conception of the Christian character, prayer is coexistent with the whole life, and life is not complete at any point unless penetrated by prayer. .

(b) The form of prayer which thus covers the whole of our waking hours, St. Benedict calls the first degree of humility. It consists in realizing the presence of God (ibid., 7). The first step begins when the spiritual is joined to the merely human, or, as the saint expresses it, it is the first step in a ladder, the rungs of which rest at one end in the body and at the other in the soul. The ability to exercise this form of prayer is fostered by that care of the “heart” on which the saint so often insists; and the heart is saved from the dissipation that would result from social intercourse by the habit of mind which sees in everyone Christ Himself. “Let the sick be served in very deed as Christ Himself” (ibid., 36). “Let all guests that come be received as Christ” (ibid., 53). “Whether we be slaves or freemen, we are all one in Christ and bear an equal rank in the service of Our Lord” (ibid., 2).

(c) Secondly, there is public prayer. This is short and is to be said at intervals, at night and at seven distinct hours during the day, so that, when possible, there shall be no great interval without a call to formal, vocal, prayer (ibid., 16). The position which St. Benedict gave to public, common prayer can best be described by saying that he established it as the centre of the common life to which he bound his monks. It was the consecration, not only of the individual, but of the whole community to God by the oft-repeated daily public acts of faith. and of praise and adoration of the Creator; and this public worship of God, the opus Dei, was to form the chief work of his monks, and to be the source from which all other works took their inspiration, their direction, and their strength.

(d) Lastly, there is private prayer, for which the saint does not legislate. It follows individual gifts—“If anyone wishes to pray in private, let him go quietly into the oratory and pray, not with a loud voice, but with tears and fervour of heart” (ibid., 52). “Our prayer ought to be short and with purity of heart, except it be perchance prolonged by the inspiration of divine grace” (ibid., 20). But if St. Benedict gives no further directions on private prayer, it is because the whole condition and mode of life secured by the Rule, and the character formed by its observance, lead naturally to the higher states of prayer. As the Saint writes: “Whoever, therefore, thou art that hastenest to thy heavenly country, fulfil by the help of Christ this little Rule which we have written for beginners; and then at length thou shalt arrive, under God’s protection, at the lofty summits of doctrine and virtue of which we have spoken above” (ibid., 73). for guidance in these higher states the Saint refers to the Fathers, Basil and Cassian.

From this short examination of the Rule and its system of prayer, it will be obvious that to describe the Benedictine as a contemplative order is misleading, if the word is used in its modern technical sense as excluding active work; the “contemplative” is a form of life framed for different circumstances and with a different object from St. Benedict’s. The Rule, including its system of prayer and public psalmody, is meant for every class of mind and every degree of learning. It is framed not only for the educated and for souls advanced in perfection, but it organizes and directs a complete life which is adapted for simple folk and for sinners, for the observance of the Commandments and for the beginnings of goodness. “We have written this Rule,” writes St. Benedict, “that by observing it in monasteries, we may shew ourselves to have some degree of goodness in life and a beginning of holiness. But for him who would hasten to the perfection of religion, there are the teachings of the holy Fathers, the following whereof bringeth a man to the height of perfection” (ibid., 73). Before leaving the subject of prayer it will be well to point out again that by ordering the public recitation and singing of the Psalter, St. Benedict was not putting upon his monks a distinctly clerical obligation. The Psalter was the common form of prayer of all Christians; we must not read into his Rule characteristics which a later age and discipline have made inseparable from the public recitation of the Divine Office.

We can now take up again the story of Benedict’s life. How long he remained at Subiaco we do not know. Abbot Tosti conjectures it was until the year 529. Of these years St. Gregory is content to tell no more than a few stories descriptive of the life of the monks, and of the character and government of St. Benedict. The latter was making his first attempt to realize in these twelve monasteries his conception of the monastic life. We can fill in many of the details from the Rule. By his own experiment and his knowledge of the history of monasticism the saint had learnt that the regeneration of the individual, except in abnormal cases, is not reached by the path of solitude, nor by that of austerity, but by the beaten path of man’s social instinct, with its necessary conditions of obedience and work; and that neither the body nor the mind can be safely overstrained in the effort to avoid evil (ibid., 64). Thus, at Subiaco we find no solitaries, no conventual hermits, no great austerities, but men living together in organized communities for the purpose of leading good lives, doing such work as came to their hand—carrying water up the steep mountain-side, doing the other household work, raising the twelve cloisters, clearing the ground, making gardens, teaching children, preaching to the country people, reading and studying at least four hours a day, receiving strangers, accepting and training new-comers, attending the regular hours of prayer, reciting and chanting the Psalter. The life at Subiaco and the character of St. Benedict attracted many to the new monasteries, and their increasing numbers and growing influence came the inevitable jealousy and persecution, which culminated with a vile attempt of a neighboring priest to scandalize the monks by an exhibition of naked women, dancing in the courtyard of the saint’s monastery (Dial. St. Greg., 8). To save his followers from further persecution Benedict left Subiaco and went to Monte Cassino.

Upon the crest of Monte Cassino “there was an ancient chapel in which the foolish and simple country people, according to the custom of the old Gentiles, worshipped the god Apollo. Round about it likewise upon all sides there were woods for the service of devils, in which, even to that very time, the mad multitude of infidels did offer most wicked sacrifice. The man of God, coming hither, feat in pieces the idol, overthrew the altar, set fire on the woods and in the temple of Apollo built the oratory of St. Martin: and where the altar of the same Apollo was, he made an oratory of St. John: and by his continual preaching he brought the people dwelling in those parts to embrace the faith of Christ” (ibid., 8). On this spot the saint built his monastery. His experience at Subiaco had led him to alter his plans, and now, instead of building several houses with a small community in each, he kept all his monks in one monastery and provided for its government by appointing a prior and deans (Rule, 65, 21). We find no trace in his Rule, which was most probably written at Monte Cassino, of the view which guided him when he built the twelve small monasteries at Subiaco. The life which we have witnessed at Subiaco was renewed at Subiaco was renewed at Monte Cassino, but the change in the situation and local conditions brought a corresponding modification in the work undertaken by the monks. Subiaco was a retired valley away in the mountains and difficult of access; Cassino was on one of the great highways to the south of Italy, and at no great distance from Capua. This brought the monastery into more frequent communication with the outside world. It soon became a centre of influence in a district in which there was a large population, with several dioceses and other monasteries. Abbots came to see and advise with Benedict. Men of all classes were frequent visitors, and he numbered nobles and bishops among his intimate friends. There were nuns in the neighbourhood whom the monks went to preach to and to teach. There was a village nearby in which St. Benedict preached and made many converts (Dial. St. Greg., 19). The monastery became the protector of the poor, their trustee (ibid., 31). their refuge in sickness, in trial, in accidents, in want.

Thus during the life of the saint we find what has ever since remained a characteristic feature of Benedictine houses, i.e. the members take up any work which is adapted to their peculiar circumstances, any work which may be dictated by their necessities. Thus we find the Benedictines teaching in poor schools and in the universities, practising the arts and following agriculture, undertaking the care of souls, or devoting themselves wholly to study. No work is foreign to the Benedictine, provided only it is compatible with living in community and with the performance of the Divine Office. This freedom in the choice of work was necessary in a Rule which was to be suited to all times and places, but it was primarily the natural result of the which St. Benedict had in view, and which he differs from the founders of later orders. These later had in view some special work to which they wished their disciples to devote themselves; St. Benedict’s purpose was only to provide a Rule by which anyone might follow the Gospel counsels, and live, and work and pray, and save his soul. St. Gregory’s narrative of the establishment of Monte Cassino does little more for us than to supply disconnected incidents which illustrate the daily life of the monastery. We gain only a few biographical facts. From Monte Cassino St. Benedict founded another monastery near Terracina, on the coast, about forty miles distant (ibid., 22). To the wisdom of long experience and to the mature virtues of the saint, was now added the gift of prophecy, of which St. Gregory gives many examples. Celebrated among these is the story of the visit of Totila, King of the Goths, in the year 543, when the saint “rebuked him for his wicked deeds, and in a few words told him all that should befall him, saying ‘Much wickedness do you daily commit, and many sins have you done: now at length give over your sinful life. Into the city of Rome shall you enter, and over the sea shall you pass: nine years shall you reign, and in the tenth shall you leave this mortal life.’ The king, hearing these things, was wonderfully afraid, and desiring the holy man to commend him to God in his prayers he departed: and from that time forward he was nothing so cruel as before he had been. Not long after he went to Rome, sailed over into Sicily, and in the tenth year of his reign he lost his kingdom together with his life.” (ibid., 15).

Totila’s visit to Monte Cassino in 543 is the only certain date we have in the saint’s life. It must have occurred when Benedict was advanced in age. Abbot Tosti, following others, puts the saint’s death in the same year. Just before his death we hear for the first time of his sister Scholastica. “She had been dedicated from her infancy to Our Lord, and used to come once a year to visit her brother. To whom the man of God went not far from the gate to a place that did belong to the abbey, there to give her entertainment” (ibid., 33). They met for the last time three days before Scholastica’s death, on a day “when the sky was so clear that no cloud was to be seen.” The sister begged her brother to stay the night, “but by no persuasion would he agree unto that, saying that he might not by any means tarry all night out of his abbey. . . . The nun receiving this denial of her brother, joining her hands together, laid them on the table; and so bowing her head upon them, she made her prayers to Almighty God, and lifting her head from the table, there fell suddenly such a tempest of lightening and thundering, and such abundance of rain, that neither venerable Bennet, nor the monks that were with him, could put their head out of door” (ibid., 33). Three days later, “Benedict beheld the soul of his sister, which was departed from her body, in the likeness of a dove, to ascend into heaven: who rejoicing much to see her great glory, with hymns and lauds gave thanks to Almighty God, and did impart news of this her death to his monks whom also he sent presently to bring her corpse to his abbey, to have it buried in that grave which he had provided for himself” (ibid., 34).

It would seem to have been about this time that St. Benedict had that wonderful vision in which he came as near to seeing God as is possible for man in this life. St. Gregory and St. Bonaventure say that Benedict saw God and in that vision of God saw the whole world. St. Thomas will not allow that this could have been. Urban VIII, however, does not hesitate to say that “the saint merited while still in this mortal life, to see God Himself and in God all that is below him.” If he did not see the Creator, he saw the light which is in the Creator, and in that light, as St. Gregory says, “saw the whole world gathered together as it were under on beam of the sun. At the same time he saw the soul of Germanus, Bishop of Capua, in a fiery globe carried up by the angels to Heaven” (ibid., 35). Once more the hidden things of God were shown to him, and he warned his brethren, both “those that lived daily with him and those that dwelt far off” of his approaching death. “Six days before he left this world he gave orders to have his sepulchre opened, and forthwith falling into an ague, he began with burning heat to wax faint; and when as the sickness daily increased, upon the sixth day he commanded his monks to carry him into the oratory, where he did arm himself receiving the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ; and having his weak body holden up betwixt the hands of his disciples, he stood with his own hands lifted up to heaven; and as he was in that manner praying, he gave up the ghost” (ibid., 37). He was buried in the same grave with his sister “in the oratory of St. John the Baptist, which [he] himself had built when he overthrew the altar of Apollo” (ibid.). There is some doubt whether the relics of the saint are still at Monte Cassino, or whether they were moved in the seventh century to Fleury. Abbot Tosti in his life of St. Benedict, discusses the question at length (chap. xi) and decides the controversy in favour of Monte Cassino.

Perhaps the most striking characteristics in St. Benedict are his deep and wide human feeling and his moderation. The former reveals itself in the many anecdotes recorded by St. Gregory. We see it in his sympathy and care for the simplest of his monks; his hastening to the help of the poor Goth who had lot his bill-hook; spending the hours of the night in prayer on the mountain to save his monks the labour of carrying water, and to remove from their lives a “just cause of grumbling”; staying three days in a monastery to help to induce one of the monks to “remain quietly at his prayers as the other monks did,” instead of going forth from the chapel and wandering about “busying himself worldly and transitory things.” He lets the crow from the neighboring woods come daily when all are at dinner to be fed by himself. His mind is always with those who are absent; sitting in his cell he knows that Placid is fallen into the lake; he foresees the accident to the builders and sends a warning to them; in spirit and some kind of real presence he is with the monks “eating and refreshing themselves” on their journey, with his friend Valentinian on his way to the monastery, with the monk taking a present from the nuns, with the new community in Terracina. Throughout St. Gregory’s narrative he is always the same quiet, gentle, dignified, strong, peace-loving man who by the subtle power of sympathy becomes the centre of the lives and interests of all about him. We see him with his monks in the church, at their reading, sometimes in the fields, but more commonly in his cell, where frequent messengers find him “weeping silently in his prayers,” and in the night hours standing at “the window of his cell in the tower, offering up his prayers to God”; and often, as Totila found him, sitting outside the door of his cell, or “before the gate of the monastery reading a book.” He has given his own portrait in his ideal picture of an abbot (Rule, 64):

It beseemeth the abbot to be ever doing some good for his brethren rather than to be presiding over them. He must, therefore, be learned in the law of God, that he may know whence to bring forth things new and old; he must be chaste, sober, and merciful, ever preferring mercy to justice, that he himself may obtain mercy. Let him hate sin and love the brethren. And even in his corrections, let him act with prudence, and not go too far, lest while he seeketh too eagerly to scrape off the rust, the vessel be broken. Let him keep his own frailty ever before his eyes, and remember that the bruised reed must not be broken. And by this we do not mean that he should suffer vices to grow up; but that prudently and with charity he should cut them off, in the way he shall see best for each, as we have already said; and let him study rather to be loved than feared. Let him not be violent nor over anxious, not exacting nor obstinate, not jealous nor prone to suspicion, or else he will never be at rest. In all his commands, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be prudent and considerate. In the works which he imposeth let him be discreet and moderate, bearing in mind the discretion of holy Jacob, when he said: ‘If I cause my flocks to be overdriven, they will all perish in one day.’ Taking, then, such testimonies as are borne by these and the like words to discretion, the mother of virtues, let him so temper all things, that the strong may have something to strive after, and the weak nothing at which to take alarm.

HUGH EDMUND FORD

Benedict of Peterborough

Abbot and writer, place and date of birth unknown; d. 1193. He was educated at Oxford, and was appointed in 1174 chancellor to Richard, Archbishop of Canterbury, and in 1175 became Prior of Christ Church, Canterbury. As Abbot of Peterborough from 1177 to his death in 1193, he was a learned and able executive. He restored the abbey finances to a sound basis, and was active till his death in completing and beautifying the buildings. Through his personal favour with Richard I he secured for his abbey various rights and privileges. He has been sometimes confused with Benedict of Sansetun, later Bishop of Rochester, vice-chancellor during the absence of King Richard. He had the library enriched by transcriptions of standard works in theology, exegesis, law, science, and poetry. He wrote a history of Becket’s “Passion,” preserved in part in the work on Becket known as “Quadrilogus,” and also, a first-hand account of Becket’s “Miracles” (Robertson, “Materials for the History of Thomas Becket,” Rolls Series, 1876). He was formerly regarded as the author of “Gesta Henrici II,” which Stubbs would identify with the lost “Tricolumnis” of Richard Fitz-Neal, author of the “Dialogus de Scaccario.”

Gardiner and Mullinger, Introduction to the Study of Eng. Hist. (London, 1894); Giles, Life and Miracles of St. Thomas of Canterbury, by Benedict, etc. (Caxton Society, 1850).

J. V. CROWNE.

St. Benedict of San Philadelphio

(Or BENEDICT THE MOOR)

Born at San Philadelphio or San Fradello, a village of the Diocese of Messina in Sicily, in 1526; d. 4 April, 1589. The parents of St. Benedict were slaves from Ethiopia who were, nevertheless, pious Christians. On account of their faithfulness their master freed Benedict, the first-born child. From his earliest years Benedict was very religious and while still very young he joined a newly formed association of hermits. When Pope Pius IV dissolved the association, Benedict, called from his origin Æthiops or Niger, entered the Reformed Recollects of the Franciscan Order. Owing to his virtues he was made superior of the monastery of Santa Maria de Jesus at Palermo three years after his entrance, although he was only a lay brother. He reformed the monastery and ruled it with great success until his death. He was pronounced Blessed in 1743 and was canonized in 1807. His feast is celebrated 3 April.

GUÉRIN, Le palmier séraphique ou vie des saints et des hommes et femmes illustres des ordres de St. François (Bar-le-Duc, 1872), IV, 44–75; LÉON, L’auréole séraphique, Vie des saints et bienheureux des trois ordres de St. François (Paris, 1862), II, 1 sqq.

J.P. KIRSCH

Benedictus (Canticle of Zachary)

The Benedictus, given in Luke 1:68–79, is one of the three great canticles in the opening chapters of this Gospel, the other two being the Magnificat and Nunc dimittis. The Benedictus was the song of thanksgiving uttered by Zachary on the occasion of the birth of his son, St. John the Baptist. It is Jewish in form, but Christian in sentiment. The local colouring and nationalistic character of the first half are so noticeable that Loisy has conjectured that it existed previously as a simple psalm, which Zachary adapted, his additions being, he contends, easily discernible. (Revue d’hist. et de lit. relig., May-June, 1903, p. 289). There are, however, grave objections to this view, and an opposite theory has been put forth that the Benedictus was composed with special reference to the names of Elizabeth, Zachary, and John, for Elizabeth, Jusjurandum quod juravit; Zachary, Memorari (testamenti sui sancti); and John, Ad faciendam misericordiam.

The whole canticle naturally falls into two parts. The first (verses 68–75) is a song of thanksgiving for the realization of the Messianic hopes of the Jewish nation; but to such realization is given a characteristically Christian tone. As of old, in the family of David, there was power to defend the nation against their enemies, now again that of which they had been so long deprived, and for which they had been yearning, was to be restored to them, but in a higher and spiritual sense. The horn is a sign of power, and the “horn of salvation” signified the power of delivering or “a mighty deliverance.” While the Jews had impatiently borne the yoke of the Romans, they had continually sighed for the time when the House of David was to be their deliverer. The deliverance was now at hand, and was pointed to by Zachary as the fulfilment of God’s oath to Abraham; but the fulfilment is described as a deliverance not for the sake of worldly power, but that “we may serve him without fear, in holiness and justice all our days.”

The second part of the canticle is an address by Zachary to his own son, who was to take so important a part in the scheme of the Redemption; for he was to be a prophet, and to preach the remission of sins before the coming or the Orient, or Dawn, from on high. The prophecy that he was to “go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways” (v. 76) was of course an allusion to the well-known words of Isaias (xl, 3) which St. John himself afterwards applied to his own mission (John 1:23); and which all the three Synoptics adopt (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:2; Luke 3:4). It is probably due to the first part of the canticle, as a song of thanksgiving for the coming of the Redeemer, that it finds an appropriate place in the office of the Church every morning at Lauds. It is believed to have been first introduced by St. Benedict (Beaume, I, 253). According to Durandus, the allusion to Christ’s coming under the figure of the rising sun had also some influence on its adoption. It is also used in various other liturgical offices, notably at a funeral, at the moment of interment, when words of thanksgiving for the Redemption are specially in place as an expression of Christian hope.

BERNARD WARD

Benedictus Polonus

A medieval Friar Minor missionary and traveller (c. 1245) companion of Giovanni da Piancarpino, and author of the brief chronicle “De Itinere Fratrum Minorum ad Tartaros,” concerning the first Franciscan missions to the Tatars. This work was unknown apparently to Wadding and Sbaralea, the literary historians of the order. It was first published by D’Avezac in the “Recueil de Voyages” (Paris, 1839, IV, 774–779). Cf. the “Chronicle” of Glassberger in “Analecta Franciscana” (II, 71). The report of Benedictus is important for the curious letter of the Great Khan to Innocent IV.

GOLUBOVICH, Biblioteca bio-bibliografica della terra santa e dell’ oriente Francescano (Quaracchi, 1906), 213–215.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN.

Benefice

(Lat. Beneficium, a benefit)

Popularly the term benefice is often understood to denote either certain property destined for the support of ministers of religion, or a spiritual office or function, such as the care of souls, but in the strict sense it signifies a right, i. e. the right given permanently by the Church to a cleric to receive ecclesiastical revenues on account of the performance of some spiritual service. Four characteristics are essential to every benefice:

the right to revenue from church property, the beneficed cleric being the usufructuary and not the proprietor of the source of his support;

a twofold perpetuity, objective and subjective, inasmuch as the source of income must be permanently established and at the same time the appointment to the benefice must be for life, and not subject to revocation, save for the causes and in the cases specified by law;

a formal decree of ecclesiastical authority giving to certain funds or property the character or title of a benefice;

an annexed office or spiritual function of some kind, such as the care of souls, the exercise of jurisdiction, the celebration of Mass or the recitation of time Divine Office.

This last mentioned element is fundamental, since a benefice exists only for the sake of securing the performance of duties connected with the worship of God, and is based on the Scriptural teaching that they who serve the altar should live by the altar. In fact, as Innocent III declares, the sole purpose of the foundation of benefices was to enable the church to have at her command clerics who might devote themselves freely to works of religion.

HISTORY

The need which benefices are intended to meet was in the earlier centuries of the life of the Church satisfied in other ways. From the beginning, the clergy was supported by the liberality of the faithful, but originally all offerings were transmitted to the bishop, who took charge of their administration and distribution. Usually the mass of donations was divided into four portions, of which one went to the support of the bishop, another to the maintenance of the clergy, a third to the repair and construction of churches, and a fourth to the relief of the needy and afflicted. Under this system even those clerics who ministered in rural parishes were obliged to send the oblations received in their churches to the bishop, to swell the common fund and to be submitted to the ordinary rule of allotment. The inconvenience attending this method, especially because the offerings were frequently in kind, increased with the growth of the Church, particularly with the multiplication of country parishes. Moreover the Church came to possess considerable real property. Hence early in the sixth century we find in some places the practice of allowing some of the clergy to retain for themselves and for their churches the gifts which they had received or even the income from property which the Church had acquired. The latter form of grant, in connexion with lands or permanent endowments, was known as precaria, a name which indicates its unstable tenure; on the death of the possessor the source of his revenue reverted to the common fund of church property, and could not serve for the support of a cleric unless devoted anew to this purpose by a formal act of ecclesiastical authority. Though these precariœ were in the beginning contrary to the canons, circumstances justified their increasing employment, and they paved the way for the recognition of the modern benefice.

All that was needed to transform the precariœ into benefices, was to do away with the need of a new episcopal decree assigning the income from certain lands or other property to the support of a priest on the occurrence of a vacancy, and to recognize in the source of income a perpetual foundation for this specific purpose. When this was done and the incumbent was given permanency in office, the modern benefice came into being. It was of gradual growth, its beginning dating from the sixth century and its universal adoption being delayed until the eleventh century. Since the usufruct allowed to clerics resembled the grants of land which sovereigns were accustomed to make to subjects who had distinguished themselves by military or political service, and which the Church was at times compelled to concede to powerful lay lords in order to secure necessary protection in troubled times, it was natural that the term benefice, which had been applied to these grants, should be employed to denote the similar practice in regard to ecclesiastics. Wherever the common law of the Church holds sway the establishment of benefices is the rule. In more than one country a system developed by centuries of piety has fallen before decrees of secularization, but if the usurping government makes a pretence of compensation by stipends to the clergy, such stipends are regarded by the Church as beneficiary revenue, and those who receive them retain the status of beneficed clerics. In the United States benefices are almost unknown. A solitary example in New Orleans figured as a notable exception in the decree of the Second Plenary Council. A few parochial benefices are found in the province of San Francisco, and there is good ground for the opinion which sees in permanent rectorships all the requisites of a benefice; but these instances, with the episcopates, are in marked contrast with the general organization of the Church in the United States. In England, also, benefices are the exception, but in Canada they are more common (Gignac, Compend. Jur. Eccl., Quebec, 1906). The beneficiary system plays an important part in the discipline of the evangelical churches on the continent of Europe, and of the State church of England. In 1900, out of 22,800 clergymen at work in the Anglican Church, 13,872 were beneficed. (For benefices or “livings” in the Anglican Church see Phillimore, “Ecclesiastical Law”; Idem, “Book of Church Law,” London, 1899, 227; ibid. the Benefices Act of 1898. For the Evangelical Churches see Hinschius, “Kirchenrecht,” Berlin, 1869 sq.; Friedberg, “Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts,” 4th ed., 1895; Real Encyk. f. Prot. Theol. und Kirche, 3d ed., 1897, II, 596.)

DIVISION

Benefices are divided into simple and double; major and minor; elective, presentative, and collative; residential and non-residential; perpetual and manual; secular and regular. Simple benefices are those which involve only the duty of reciting the Divine Office or of celebrating Mass. Double benefices imply the care of souls or jurisdiction in the external forum or administrative functions, and, if they be episcopal or supra-episcopal in rank, are styled major benefices. A benefice is elective when the appointing authority may collate only after some electoral body has named the future incumbent; presentative when such nomination belongs to a patron; collative when the bishop or other superior appoints independently of any election or presentation. The distinction between residential and non-residential benefices is based upon the fact that in some cases the canons or articles of foundation impose the obligation of residence in the locality of the benefice while in other cases no such obligation is annexed. Manual benefices are not benefices in the strict sense, since their distinctive note is that appointments to them are revocable at the will of the collating authority. A legal presumption exists that all benefices are secular, but those which exist in churches or houses of religious orders or which by custom or by the will of the founder have been appropriated to religious are known as regular benefices. This last distinction has at times a special importance because of the rule requiring that secular benefices be conferred only on secular clerics, regular benefices only on regulars.

CREATION

Benefices can be created only by ecclesiastical authority, since the right to revenue which they suppose is always necessarily connected with some spiritual function, and is therefore reckoned among the jura spiritualia controlled by the Church. The competent authority may be the pope or a bishop or one possessing quasi-episcopal authority, it being always understood that the pope has exclusive control of all major benefices. A benefice must be erected in a church or at an altar, under the title of some saint or mystery, and with the annexed obligation of rendering some spiritual service. Since the idea of compensation is always implied, a sufficient endowment must in every case be guaranteed, the amount varying with the character of the benefice, the locality of the foundation, and the nature of the services which are to be rendered. In some countries, as in Austria, the consent of the civil authorities is a necessary preliminary to the creation of a benefice.

MODIFICATION

A benefice once erected is understood to be perpetual, but the law must and does provide for circumstances which may require an alteration of the status of a benefice by union or division, or even its entire suppression or extinction. Sometimes, owing to changed conditions, especially to a diminution of revenue, it becomes necessary to unite two or more benefices. This union may be effected in two ways, either so that an entirely new individual entity is brought into being, or so that the original titles remain, but are conferred on one cleric instead of several. In this latter case a distinction has to be made between a union in which both benefices retain their legal autonomy and a union in which one benefice is made legally dependent on the other. The pope alone can unite major benefices; minor benefices are subject in this respect to episcopal authority, with very few exceptions. A bishop is not allowed to proceed to the union of benefices unless such action be justified by reasons of necessity or of advantage, and unless a hearing be first granted to all interested persons. The patron, if there be one, and the cathedral chapter are the only parties whose consent, as distinguished from mere opinion, is required. The division of benefices, which is most frequently verified in connexion with parishes, is authorized when the incumbent is unable on account of increasing obligations to meet the requirements of his office, even with the help of such auxiliaries as the law allows. The formalities are generally the same as for a union. The term “dismembration” is frequently employed as a synonym for division, but strictly speaking it denotes an act by which a part of the goods or revenues of one benefice is given perpetually to another benefice or to some other ecclesiastical entity. In this case no new benefice is set up, and the act in question is in reality simply an alienation of church property, and is therefore governed by the rules applicable to alienation. Dismembration is also used at times to signify the separation of a certain territory with its inhabitants from one parish and its incorporation in another, which may be effected for sufficient reason. The extinction of benefices occurs when both the benefice and the church to which it is attached are utterly destroyed or cease completely to have any connexion with Catholic worship, as happened in the past when certain countries were overrun by infidels or heretics, and in more recent times on the occasion of acts of usurpation by the civil power. Suppression differs from extinction in that it simply terminates the existence of a benefice, leaving intact the church and any other benefices which may be connected with it. Suppression involves a diminution of religious service, and is consequently regarded as odious in law. Nevertheless a bishop may for good reasons and with the consent of his chapter proceed to suppression, and at times such action is rendered necessary by a considerable depreciation in the value of the beneficiary property or by the departure of the population to whose spiritual needs the benefice was intended to minister. Suppression is not infrequently requested by patrons. In such cases the practice is not to consent to absolute suppression, at least of the religious service depending on the benefice, but simply to the exoneration of the patron and his renunciation of the jus patronatus.

COLLATION

The collation or granting of benefices may be ordinary or extraordinary, free or necessary. The distinction between ordinary and extraordinary collation is based upon the fact that while, ordinarily major benefices are disposed of by the pope and minor benefices by bishops, it may occasionally happen that this rule suffers an exception in so far as it relates to bishops, either because of a special provision of the law in favour of the pope or of some other authority, or because, on the failure of the bishop to act, the right to appoint devolves on his superior. These exceptions are known as extraordinary collations. From the eleventh century, extraordinary collations by the pope became more and more common, usually taking the form of mandata de providendo, literœ expectativœ, and reservations. The mandata de providendo were intended to give to the cleric named therein a right to a benefice already vacant in the diocese of the bishop to whom the mandate was directed. Literœ expectativœ were similar papal interventions in regard to diocesan benefices, but affected benefices not yet vacant, the recipient of the letter being given a claim on a benefice as soon as it should be at the disposal of the bishop. These two methods of extraordinary collation were not productive of happy results; they proved to be prejudicial to episcopal authority; they were taken advantage of by unworthy aspirants for ecclesiastical offices; and at times they were fraudulently obtained and offered for sale. Hence their reprobation by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, cap. xix De ref). This animadversion of Trent was not, it is needless to say, a limitation of any papal prerogative; its sole purpose being to forestall possible abuses on time part of petitioners for favours from the Holy See. Reservations are still in operation, and consist in this, that the pope reserves to himself in specified cases the collation of certain diocesan benefices. After serving for centuries as a cause of much controversy, they were finally regulated by laws defining accurately the instances in which collation was to be reserved to the pope. One of the most important reservations which may serve as an example is contained in the ninth rule of the Apostolic Chancery (see CHANCERY, APOSTOLIC), which provides that those diocesan benefices which fall vacant during eight months of the year are to be at the disposal of the pope, but that bishops who observe the law of residence may freely dispose of all benefices vacated during the six alternate months beginning with February. To-day reservations are in effect to some extent throughout the Church; for example, they affect the first dignities in chapters in the Province of Quebec and canonries in England; but Italy is the only country in which they are in full operation. Apart from cases provided for in reservations, the pope rarely, if ever, exercises his right of extraordinary collation. A collation, whether made by the pope or by a bishop, is said to be free when it is not conditioned by any act of an elector or of a patron; necessary when it follows election or nomination by competent persons or presentation by patrons. In many countries, concordats have secured to the representatives of civil authority an important part in appointments to benefices. Thus in Bavaria the king nominates to all archiepiscopal and episcopal sees; and a similar right has been granted to the Emperor of Austria and to the King of Portugal; in Hanover the chapter, before proceeding to the election of a bishop, must allow the Government to cancel the names of those candidates whom it judges unacceptable. Secular intervention in the collation of minor benefices varies from the royal nomination of the King of Portugal to the governmental exequatur required by Italian law. The interests of religion are safeguarded by the canonical requirement that in every case the candidate must be confirmed by ecclesiastical authority before he can lawfully begin his incumbency. (For abuses in the collation of benefices, see PATRONAGE, COMMENDATORY ABBOTS, INVESTITURES.)

CONDITION OF COLLATION

In order that benefices may the more effectually fulfill the purposes for which they were instituted, various laws have been enacted governing the act of collation. Whether the collation be free or necessary it must always be gratuitous, to avoid simony; free, that is without coaction; unconditional; public, so that it may be readily proved; and granted within six months from the date of vacancy. Moreover no benefice can be conferred before it is vacant, nor can seculars receive the benefices of regulars, nor regulars those which are secular in character. Plurality of benefices also is forbidden. This last regulation was introduced very early in the history of benefices to assure the faithful execution of the trust attached to ecclesiastical foundations, as well as to guard against the evils which follow luxury; but in the course of time its effectiveness was considerably diminished by a distinction drawn between compatible and incompatible benefices. It was claimed that a benefice which does not require residence is perfectly compatible with one which does, and also that several simple benefices might very properly be held at the same time. This view held sway down to the time of the Council of Trent, which ordained that the possession of more than one benefice is lawful only when the first benefice obtained does not suffice for the support of the incumbent, and that in no case should both be residential. The Holy See alone can dispense from the observance of this law. The act of collation is further conditioned by canons requiring certain qualities in the appointee:

(A) THE CLERICAL STATE AND CELIBACY

Tonsure is necessary for all benefices, and higher orders must be received by aspirants to important charges; thus cardinals are obliged to receive within the year the order corresponding to their rank in the sacred college; archbishops and bishops must have been subdeacons for at least six months; parish priests must receive the priesthood within a year.

(B) AGE

Before the Council of Trent a simple benefice could lawfully be conferred on a cleric as early as his seventh year, but since that council the recipient of a simple benefice must be in his fourteenth year, and for double benefices the age of twenty-four years completed is always required. A greater maturity is demanded for certain offices, e. g. thirty years completed for the episcopate, and forty years for the post of canon penitentiary.

(C) CHARACTER

The appointee must be of legitimate birth and of good reputation, and free from censure and irregularity.

(D) RELATIVE WORTHINESS

In the case of a choice between several candidates for a bishopric or for a parish, the collator must appoint the most worthy, i. e. the one who possesses in the highest degree the qualities necessary for a successful discharge of the duties connected with the benefice in question. The same rule applies to prelacies with quasiepiscopal jurisdiction, to the canon theologian and to the canon penitentiary. As to other benefices authorities differ, the preferable opinion maintaining that in all cases the most worthy is to be chosen.

(E) SCIENCE

According to a law of Trent (Sess. VII, c. xiii, De ref.) no one can be collated to a benefice unless his fitness has been demonstrated in an examination conducted by the ordinary. In the case of parochial benefices, this examination must take the form of a concursus. (See CONCURSUS.) For some appointments the possession of a degree in theology or in canon law is demanded, as evidence of requisite learning; a bishop must be a doctor or a licentiate in canon law or in theology, or have the public testimony of a university as to his fitness to teach others; an archdeacon also must be a doctor or a licentiate in canon law or in theology; and similar qualifications are demanded for other offices. The Holy See, is, at the present time, insisting that the law concerning degrees be faithfully observed.

(F) EXTRAORDINARY REQUIREMENTS

These may be imposed by the articles of foundation or by secular law. Founders of benefices are given a great deal of liberty in attaching conditions to the act of collation, provided that these conditions be approved by ecclesiastical authority. In consequence, it happens at times that only members of a certain family or citizens of some town or city are eligible, or even, in some few instances, persons of noble birth. More onerous, and not always acceptable to the church, is the interference of civil authorities in the matter of collation. In many places only a person declared acceptable to the Government, or a citizen, or a native, or one who swears fidelity to the Government at the time of appointment, or who receives the royal exequatur, can hope to be collated. In Portugal and in Bavaria, the permission of the Government is necessary for ordination, and without this permission, which is given after an examination by secular authorities, a cleric is incapacitated for benefices in these two kingdoms. The Bavarian law also contains the curious provision that no subject is to enter the German College at Rome so long as it is conducted by the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, or by any similar order, and that all who contravene this ordinance are to be considered as personœ non gratœ to the Government and excluded from all benefices and posts at its disposal.

OBLIGATIONS

All beneficed clerics are bound to make a profession of faith within two months from the date of taking possession, to perform faithfully the duties pertaining to their charge, to recite the canonical hours, and if the benefice held be double, to reside in the place in which their benefice is located. Violation of the law of residence is punished by loss of revenues during the time of absence, and if persisted in, by privation.

VACANCY

The tenure of the incumbent of a benefice is perpetual, in the sense that it can be terminated only by death or for causes specified in the law. It is provided in the law that in the event of certain acts vacancy shall occur ipso facto; as when the incumbent marries or attempts marriage, when he takes solemn vows in a religious order, when he violates the canon forbidding plurality, when he fails to receive within the prescribed time the necessary ordination, when he obtains episcopal consecration, when he is guilty of any crime to which penalty of deprivation is expressly attached. In other cases deprivation follows a judicial process, instituted in virtue of laws authorizing the bishop to punish certain offences in this manner. Moreover a cleric has the right to resign his benefice provided the resignation be offered freely and for just reasons, and be accepted by a competent superior, and he may also, with certain conditions, exchange benefices with another incumbent.

REVENUES

The holder of a benefice is not the owner of the foundation from which he derives his support; he occupies in reference to it the position of a tutor or guardian who must defend its interests. His chief duty is to maintain it as a perpetual means of support for ministers of religion. Its fruits or revenues, however, belong to him, but with the obligation of devoting to pious causes, and especially to the relief of the poor, all that is not needed for his own support. Formerly, this superfluous revenue could not be disposed of by will, but a universal custom has long since authorized such testamentary disposal, provided it be made in favour of pious causes or of the poor. In fact, in most places on account of the difficulty of distinguishing a cleric’s patrimonial property from his beneficiary revenue, the right is recognized to dispose freely by will of all property. (See JUS SPOLII.)

DUARENE, De Sacris Ministeriis et Beneficiis (Paris, 1564); REBUFFI, Praxis Beneficiorum (Lyons, 1580); GARZIAS, De Beneficiis (Cologne, 1614); CORRADUS, De Praxi Beneficiariâ (Naples, 1656); LOTTERIUS, De Re Beneficiariâ (Lyons, 1659); LEURENIUS, Forum Beneficiale (Cologne, 1674); GOHARD, Traité des Bénéfices (Paris, 1765); SGUANIN, Tractatus Beneficiarius (Rome, 1751); THOMASSINUS, Vetus et Nova Discipline circa Ecclesiœ Beneficia et Beneficiarios (Venice, 1766), the classic historical work on Benefices; GAGLIARDI, Tractatus de Beneficiis (Naples, 1842); ZITELLI, Apparatus Juris Eccl. (Rome, 1907); GROSS, Das Recht an der Pfründe (Graz, 1887); GALANTE, Il Beneficio Ecclesiastico (Milan, 1895); VERING, Lehrbuch des kath. prot. und oriental. Kirchenrechts, etc. (3d ed., Freiburg, 1893), 452 sqq.; ROTH, Geschichte des Beneficialwesens (Erlangen, 1850); STUTZ, Geschichte des Beneficialwesens bis Alexander III (Berlin, 1895); TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906).

JOHN T. CREAGH

Benefit of Clergy

The exemption from the jurisdiction of the secular courts, which in England, in the Middle Ages, was accorded to clergymen. This exemption included all who had been tonsured and wore the ecclesiastical dress, and was shared in by monks and nuns. In Saxon days ecclesiastical and civil cases were decided in shire and hundred courts where the bishop sat side by side with the ealdorman or sheriff. From the days of the Conqueror ecclesiastical courts were held distinct from the secular courts. Gratian (cap. xlvii, 11a pars Dec., Causa XI, ix 1) sums up the privilege of the clergy thus: “From the above it is to be understood that a clergyman is not to be brought before the public courts either in a civil or criminal case,unless perhaps the bishop should not wish to decide the civil case, or unless he should, in a criminal case, degrade him.” William forbade his judges and ministers and every layman to meddle with the laws regarding the bishop. These privileges of the clergy were substantially respected by the Norman kings, though their tendency to arbitrariness caused them in special cases to seek to override them. They were at the root of the controversy between Henry II and St.Thomas Becket. Henry alleged that the old customs of the kingdom required that a criminous clerk should be accused in a lay court, whence he was to be transferred to the ecclesiastical court, and, if found guilty, to be degraded and returned for punishment to the lay court. St.Thomas objected, in the name of the Church law, to the first accusation in the lay court. Fitzstephen (Materials III, 47, quoted in Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law) says of the alleged customs: “They had never been previously written, nor were there any such customs in the Kingdom.” The author of the “Leges Henrici” (ibid.) says plainly that no accusation, be it for grave crime, be it for light offence, is to be brought against any ordained clerk save before his bishop. (Leg. Hen. I, 57, x 9.) When a clerk was brought before a lay court, he proved his claim to benefit of clergy by reading, and he was turned over to the ecclesiastical court, as only the clergy were generally able to read. This gave rise to the extension of the benefit of clergy to all who could read. By statute in the reign of Edward III (25 Edw.III, c.4) it was enacted that all manner of clerks, secular and religious, should enjoy the privilege of Holy Church for all treasons and felonies, except those immediately affecting his Majesty. This provision was applicable also to all who could read. In the reign of Henry VII a distinction was drawn between persons actually in Holy orders and those who in other respects secular, were able to read, by which the latter were allowed the benefit of the clergy only once, and on receiving it were to be branded on the left thumb with a hot iron in order to afford evidence against them on a future occasion. Henry VIII (28 Hen. VIII, c. 1, x 32, Hen. VIII, c.iii,x 8) had even the clergy branded for the first time, but Edward VI abolished this, and excepted atrocious crimes, murder, poisoning, burglary, highway robbery, and sacrilege from benefit of clergy (1 Edw. VI, c. xii x 10), but peers of the realm were to be discharged in every case for the first offence, except murder and poisoning, even though unable to read. After a layman was burnt on the hand, a clerk discharged on reading, a peer without either burning or penalty, they were delivered to the ordinary to be dealt with according to the ecclesiastical canons. The clerical authorities instituted a kind of purgation. The party was required to take an oath of innocence, twelve compurgators were called to testify to their belief in the falsehood of the charges. Afterwards he brought forward witnesses to completely establish his innocence. If found guilty, the culprit was degraded if a clerk, and all were compelled to do penance. Many escaped by perjury and leniency; hence steps were taken in the more atrocious crimes to annul the privilege. Later this privilege was allowed only after conviction for men who claimed it because able to read, and then they knelt to the court praying for their clergy and (18 Elizabeth, c. vii,x 2) the party was burnt on the hand, and discharged without any interference of the Church to annul his conviction. The judges were empowered (18 Elizabeth, c. vii) to direct the prisoner to be imprisoned for a year or a shorter period. Women in the reign of William and Mary were admitted to the privileges of men in clergyable felonies, on praying the benefit of the statute (3 and 4 Will. and M. c. ix, x 5). The idle ceremony of reading was abolished by 5 Anne c.vi, and all before entitled were now admitted to its benefit. Branding was abolished and the offenders could be committed to a house of correction for six to twenty-four months. (Geo. IV, c. xi; 6 Geo, I, c. xxiii provides for felonious thefts the transportation of offenders to America for seven years.) The privilege of benefit of clergy was entirely abolished in England in 1827, by Statutes 7 and 8 Geo. IV, c.xxvii, sect. 6. In the colonies it had been recognized, but by Act of Congress of 30 April, 1790, it was taken away in the federal courts of the United States. Traces of it are found in some courts of different states, but it has been practically outlawed by statute or by adjudication. it is now universally obsolete in English and American law.

STEPHEN, History of Criminal Law, I, xiii; POLLOCK AND MAITLAND, History of English Law (Cambridge), I, s.v. Clergy, GREEN, History of the English People, II, bk. II, i; FLANAGAN, History of Church in England, A.D. 1076 (London, 1857); CHITTY, Criminal Law, s.v. Benefit of Clergy; DESMOND, The Church and The Law (Chicago, 1898); BLACK, Law Dictionary, s.v.

R.L. BURTSELL

Jeremiah Benettis

Friar Minor Capuchin and historical writer, d. in 1774. He belonged to the Province of Piedmont in Italy, and left two valuable historical treatises. The first, entitled “Chronica et critics historiæ sacrse et profanæ” (Rome, 1766), deals with various astronomical questions and the religious rites and ceremonies of ancient peoples, and was written with a view to facilitate the study of Sacred Scripture. In the second work, entitled ‘LPrivilegiorum S. Petri vindicia” (Rome, 1756–66), he gives a history of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

HURTER, Nomenclator, III, 111.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Archdiocese of Benevento (Beneventana)

(BENEVENTANA).

Benevento, the ancient Beneventum, the principal city of the province of the same name in Campania, is situated on the River Calore, and contains a population of 25,000. It was founded at a very early period by the Samnites, who named it Maleventum. In 275 B.C. the Romans, having conquered Pyrrhus not far from there, took possession of the city and changed its name to the present form. In 268 B.C. a Roman colony was established at Beneventum, which was enlarged and beautified by Augustus and other emperors. The arch of Trajan (porta aurea), entirely of Parian marble, still bears eloquent witness to the munificence of that emperor. In 545 the city was captured and destroyed by Totila, King of the Goths, but was rebuilt in 589 by the Lombard King Autharis, and made the seat of a duchy. In 1047 it fell into the hands of the Normans, who, however, were forced to relinquish it by Emperor Henry III in 1053.

The city, with the surrounding territory, was then turned over to Pope Leo IX, a relative of the emperor, in payment of the annual tribute rendered the Holy See by the Church of Bamberg; but shortly afterwards it was reoccupied by the Normans. The pope thereupon placed himself at the head of a powerful army “ut saltem humano terrore resipiscerent, qui divina iudicia minime formidant” (that those who fear not the judgments of God may at least repent through human dread; Ep. VII ad Constantin. Monomach.). The opposing forces met at the Dragonara, and after a severe struggle the papal troops were put to flight, and the pope himself was forced to retire to Civitella. There Leo wrought more by word of mouth than the arms of all his soldiers had been able to accomplish. The Norman leaders swore fealty to the sovereign pontiff, conducted him back to Benevento with great honour, and continued from that time forward the most devoted and loyal champions of the Holy See. This warlike expedition of Leo IX called forth the severe criticism of St. Peter Damian.

Thenceforward Benevento was a part of the territory of the Holy See, which was always represented there by a delegate. From 1769 to 1774 it was in the possession of Ferdinand I of Naples and in 1806 Napoleon made Talleyrand Duke of Benevento. In 1814 it again came under the jurisdiction of the Holy See; and from 1838 to 1841 Joachim Pecci (later Leo XIII) was civil delegate to this part of the papal state in the heart of the Kingdom of Naples and won great praise for his wise administration and his stern repression of brigandage. In 1860 Benevento was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy. Most noted among the citizens of Benevento during ancient times are: Papinianus, the jurisconsult, and Arbilius, the grammarian; Popes Felix IV, Victor III (Dauferio), and Gregory VIII (Alberto di Morra) who were natives of Benevento; Cardinal Pietro Morra, Giovanni da Castrocelo, Dionisio Lorerio, Nicolò Coscia, Camillo Domenico, Gennaro de Simone, Bartolommeo Pacca, and Carlo Maria Pedieini.

Benevento is the seat of an archdiocese, which has as suffragans the Dioceses of Alife, Ariano, Ascoli, and Cerignola, Avellino, Boiano, Bovino, Larino, Lucera, San Severo, Sant’ Agata de’ Goti, Telese, and Termoli.

According to local tradition, the Christian Faith was first preached there by St. Potinus, at the command of St. Peter the Apostle. At a later period, during the persecution of Diocletian, we find mentioned as bishop of this city St. Januarius, who together with Proculus, his deacon, and two laymen, was imprisoned and beheaded at Pozzuoli in 305. His relics are preserved in the Cathedral of Naples, which also contains the remains of St. Agrippinus who was Bishop of Benevento. In 929 Benevento was raised to the dignity of a metropolitan see.

The cathedral, founded at a very early period was rebuilt in 1692, after being destroyed in the earthquake of 1688. The interior, divided into five naves, has fifty-four marble columns, which furnish a magnificent perspective. Mention should also be made of the two thrones near the high altar, carved about 1311 by a sculptor named Nicola. Of special historical interest is the so-called “altar of peace,” erected in memory of the peace concluded at Benevento between Clement VII and Charles V, after the famous sack of Rome (1527). The façade is entirely of a yellowish marble; the great central door is of bronze, of Byzantine workmanship, brought from Constantinople in the twelfth century. In the spacious vestibule are the tombs of the Lombard dukes. The bell tower, constructed almost entirely of the fragments of ancient monuments, was begun by Bishop Capo di Ferro (1254).

The church of St. Sophia, in form a great rotunda, is also deserving of mention. It dates back to the Lombard epoch, if indeed it is not a pagan temple converted into a church. The cupola is particuiarly remarkable, being set upon six antique Corinthian columns. The church of Santa Maria delle Grazie is held in great veneration; adjoining it is a monastery the abode first of Benedictines, but since 1450 of monks of the Minor Observance. The statue of the Madonna with the Child in her arms is said to have been brought from Greece by St. Artelais, niece of Narses, general of the army of Justinian.

A number of councils were held at Benevento: those of 1059, 1061, and 1087, in the last of which Victor III excommunicated Guibert, the antipope; that of 1091, in which the excommunication was renewed, and a number of disciplinary canons formulated; that of 1108 against lay investitures; those of 1113 and 1117, the latter against the Antipope Burdinus; others in 1119, 1314, 1470, 1545, as recorded by Harduin, in the seventh volume of his collection of the Councils. In the following centuries the Archbishops of Benevento frequently held provincial synods. Gian Battista Foppa (1643) and Vincenzo Maria Orsini, O. P. (1686), later Pope Benedict XIII, did much to restore and beautify the churches of the city.

Among the bishops famous in the history of the Church of Benevento, passing over some saints of uncertain date, are: St. Marcianus (533), St. Zenoe (543), St. Barbatus (663), who had a golden serpent, an object of idolatrous worship of the Lombards, melted and made into a sacred paten which was preserved up to the time of the French invasion in 1799; Amaldo, a Franciscan monk (1533); Gaspare Colonna, generous in the decoration of churches, who, at the time of the Colonna consipiracy against Pope Eugenius IV, was imprisoned with the others, but quickly released; Giovanni della Casa, a distinguished writer and Italian orator (1544); Cardinal Giacomo Savelli (1560), founder of the seminary; Cardinal Pompeio Arrigoni (1607); Cardinal Sinibaldo Doria (1731) who suffered much from the intrigues of Nicolò Coscia, administrator under the above-mentioned Archbishop Orsini. Doria founded a great library, subsequently enlarged by Cardinal Francesco Maria Banditi in 1775; Cardinal Domenico Spinucci (1796); Cardinal Camillo Siciliano di Rende (1879).

The Archdiocese of Benevento has a population of 590,500 Catholics, with 138 parishes, 460 churches and chapels, 839 secular priests, 70 priests belonging to religious orders, 350 seminarists, 40 lay brothers, and 120 members of female religious orders.

CAPPELLETTI. Le chiese d’ltalia (Venice, 1844), III 9; Annuario Eccl. (Rome, 1907), 292–297; STEFFANO BORGIA, Memorie Storiehe della pontificia città di Benevento (Rome, 1763fi9); MEOMARTINI, I Monumaii e le opere d’arte della città di Benevento (ibid., 1889–92); BARBIER DE MONTAULT, Le polais archiép. de Bénévnet in Revue de l’art Chrètien (1875), III. 345–385; ZIGARELLI, Storie di Benevento (Naples, 1860).

U. BENIGNI

Jöns Oxenstjerna Bengtsson

(JOANNES BENEDICTI).

Archbishop of Upsala, Sweden, b. 1417; d. in 1467. He was a member of the illustrious Oxenstjerna family, various representatives of which had already become prominent in the public life of Sweden. At the time of his appointment to the archbishopric (1448) Bengtsson was archpriest of the chapter of Upsala. He asked the Council of Basle for a confirmation of his election, and he had himself consecrated (30 June, 1448) by his suffragans, the day after they had crowned Karl Knutsson Bonde as King. On 1 July, Archbishop Bengtsson crowned the queen. The confirmation of his appointment by Pope Nicholas V did not reach him until the ensuing year.

The importance of Archbishop Bengtsson is political rather than ecclesiastical, though his pastoral visitations show that he was not unmindful of the spiritual welfare of those under his care. In 1457, as Archbishop of Upsala, he received from the pope the title of Primate of Sweden; the Archbishops of Lund, however, were permitted to retain their title of Primate of the Church of Sweden. The life of Archbishop Bengtsson fell in Sweden’s most troublous days. By the Union of Calmar (1397) the three kingdoms of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, while preserving their individual independence, were to be ruled by one king, and the foreign affairs of all three were to be regulated as those of a united country. The advantages of this union were lost sight of on the death of its promoter, Queen Margaret (1412). Her successor Erik of Pomerania, by a change of policy, aroused in Sweden a spirit of discontent, which, after successive revolutions and the election of Karl Knutsson as viceroy (1438), resulted in the deposing of Erik. His successor, Christopher of Bavaria, died in 1448. In Sweden, which was torn by the strife between the partisans of a national kingdom and those of a government in union with Denmark and Norway, the national party elected Karl Knutsson king. A few months later Christian I became King of Denmark, and two years afterwards also King of Norway. Meanwhile, dissensions increased in Sweden. As King Karl Knutsson, to escape from money troubles, increased taxes and confiscated church property, dissatisfaction spread among clergy and people, and Archbishop Bengtsson placed himself at the head of the opposition (1457). Entering his cathedral, he laid aside his pontifical insignia, took up helmet, breastplate, and sword, and announced his intention not to resume his pontifical robes until Karl Knutsson should be banished from the country. Knutsson was forced to yield and fled to Germany. Thereupon Christian I came from Denmark and was formally recognized King of Sweden, and crowned at Stockholm by Archbishop Bengtsson.

General discontent soon followed, especially when Christian I, on becoming heir to his uncle, Duke Adolph of Holstein, found himself in great financial straits. To meet his obligations, he levied enormous taxes, even in Sweden, without exempting ecclesiastics, religious foundations, or the moneys collected by papal mandate to defray the expenses of a crusade against the Turks. During a temporary absence of Christian I in Finland, the archbishop held the regency of Sweden; seeing the people in revolt against him and the heavy imposts, he took up their cause and suspended the collection of taxes. The king showed his displeasure by arresting the archbishop and sending him to Denmark. A revolution broke out afresh in Sweden, Karl Knutsson was recalled to the throne, and Christian I, to recover the country, became reconciled with his prisoner. Bengtsson went at once to Sweden, where he roused the people against King Karl Knutsson, whom he excommunicated. The archbishop succeeded finally in bringing about Knutsson’s abdication, and the recognition of Christian I once more as King of Sweden. In reality however, the archbishop held the reins of power and administered affairs as though he were the actual sovereign. He was unable to sustain this rôle. Discontented factions combined against him and, in 1466, elected Erik Axelsson Thott as regent, whereupon Archbishop Bengtsson was compelled to retire. Dissensions continued, and the king of the Swedish party, Knutsson, once more took the place of the king who represented the union of the three countries. The archbishop found an asylum with his friend Magnus Gren, on the island of Œland,, where he died 15 December, 1467, “poor and exiled, regretted by no one, hated by many, and feared by all.”

The key to the political activity of Bengtsson is to be found in the ambition that was a part of his character—ambition for his family and his country. There was a strong antagonism between the great Oxenstjerna family, to which the archbishop belonged, and the Bonde family, of which the king, supported by the national party, was member. Moreover, the archbishop was aware that the nobility and the leading men of Sweden, before the Union of Calmar, had in general failed to respect the clergy and the property of the Church. In a union of Sweden with Denmark and Norway, he foresaw a limitation of the power of the Swedish nobles; in his character of archbishop, it was clear to him that such curtailment would be a safeguard to the temporalities of the Church.

REUTERDAHL, Svenska Kyrkans historia (Lund, 1838–66); ALLEN, De tre nordiske rigers historie (Copenhagen, 1870); DALIN, Svea Rikes Historia (Stockholm. 1747–62); GEIJER Svaska Folkets Historia (Œrebro, 1832–36); STRINHOLM, Svenska Folkets Historia fra äldsta til närväranda Tider (Stockholm, 1834–54); MONTELIUS, HILDEBRAND, ALIN, Sveriges Historia (1876–81); STYFFE, Bidrag til Skandinaviens Historia (Stockholm. 1870); MÜLLER, De föste Konger of det oldenburgske hus; OVERLAND, Illustr. Norges historie (Krnia, 1885–95); NISSEN, De nordiske Kirkers historie (Krnia, 1884) DUNHAM, History Of Denmark, Sweden and Norway (London: 1840); CRONHOLM, A History Of Sweden (Chicago, 1902).

E.A. WANG

Anatole de Bengy

A martyr of the French Commune, b. at Bourges, 19 September, 1824; d. in Paris, 26 May, 1871. He spent nine years in residence at the Jesuit College of Brugelette, and in 1834 entered the Society of Jesus. During the Crimean War he served as chaplain to the French soldiery and thereafter until 1870 devoted his life to college work. When the Franco-Prussian War broke out, he again sought and obtained the post of Chaplain. He rendered signal service to the sick and wounded during the siege of Paris. After the war he retired to the school of Sainte-Geneviève to resume his work as professor, but he did not long enjoy the tranquillity of school-life. At midnight, 3 April, a battalion or National Guards surrounded the school and placed all the Jesuit inmates under arrest as hostages of the Commune. De Bengy cheered his companions during the dark days of anticipated death. On Friday, 26 May, with two Jesuit companions and some forty other victims, he was led to the court of the Cité Vincennes, Rue Haxo, where he met his death joyfully amid the frenzied shouts of the maddened Communists.

DE PONLEVOY, Actes de la captivite et de la mort des RR. PP. Olivaint, Ducoudray, Caubert, Clerc, de Bengy (15th ed., Paris, 1882).

D. J. KAVANAGH.

St. Benignus

Date of birth unknown; d. 467, son of Sesenen, an Irish chieftain in that part of Ireland which is now County Meath. He was baptized by St. Patrick, and became his favorite disciple and his coadjutor in the See of Armagh (450). His gentle and lovable disposition suggested the name Benen, which has been Latinized as Benignus. He followed his master in all his travels, and assisted him in his missionary labors, giving most valuable assistance in the formation of choral services. From his musical acquirements he was known as “Patrick’s psalm-singer,” and he drew thousands of souls to Christ by his sweet voice. St. Benignus is said not only to have assisted in compiling the great Irish code of Laws, or Senchus Mor, but also to have contributed materials for the “Psalter of Cashel,” and the “Book of Rights.” He was present at the famous synod which passed the canon recognizing “the See Of the Apostle Peter” as the final court of appeal in difficult cases, which canon is to be found in the Book of Armagh. St. Benignus resigned his coadjutorship in 467 and died at the close of the same year. His feast is celebrated on the 9th of November. Most authorities have identified St. Patrick’s psalm-singer with the St. Benignus who founded Kilbannon, near Tuam, but it is certain, from Tirechán’s collections in the Book of Armagh, that St. Benignus of Armagh and St. Benignus of Kilbannon were two distinct persons. The former is described as son of Sesenen of County Meath, whilst the latter was son of Lugni of Connaught, yet both were contemporaries. St. Benignus of Kilbannon had a famous monastery, where St. Jarlath was educated, and he also presided over Drumlease. His sister, Mathona, was Abbess of Tawney, in Tirerrill.

CAPGRAVE, Nova Legenda Angliæ (1516), fol. 36, for the oldest lives of the saint; see also HARDY, Descriptive Catalogue, etc., 1, 89; WARE-HARRIS, Antiquities of Ireland. 1, 34. II 6: O’HANLON, Lives of Irish Saints (9 November), XI; WHITLEY STOKES (ed.), Tripartite Life of St. Patrick, Rolls Series (London, 1887), in index s. v. BENÉN, BENIGNUS; Bibl. Hagiogr. Lat. (1898), 172, 1324; FORBES in Dict. of Christ. Biog., 1, 312. The very ancient Leabhar-na-gceart or Book of Rights, said to have been compiled by BENIGNUS was edited by O’DONOVAN for the Celtic Society (Dublin. 1847). BENIGNUS is also said to have been the original compiler of the Psalter of Cashel (see CASHEL).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

St. Benignus of Dijon

Martyr honoured as the patron saint and first herald of Christianity of Dijon (Divio) an old city in the territory of the Gallic tribe of the Lingones (civitas Lingonum, Langres). It is an historical fact that Benignus suffered martyrdom in a persecution of the third century and was publicly honoured as a martyr. His feast falls on 1 November; his name stands under this date in the so-called Martyrology of St. Jerome (ed. Rossi-Duchesne; cf. Acta SS., November, I1, 138). Early in the sixth century no particulars concerning the person and life of Benignus were known at Dijon. According to Gregory of Tours the common people reverenced his grave; but Bishop Gregory of Langres (507 or 507–539 or 540) wished to put an end to this veneration, because he believed the grave to belong to a heathen. Having learned in a vision at night that the burial spot was that of the holy martyr Benignus, he had the tomb in which the sarcophagus lay restored, and he build a basilica over it. About this date there was a sudden appearance of Acts of the martyrdom of the saint, which were brought to Dijon by a pilgrim on the way to Italy (Gregor. Tur., De gloriâ martyrum, I, li; Migne P.L., LXXI, 752). These accounts have no historical basis; according to them St. Polycarp of Smyrna had sent Benignus as a missionary to Dijon, where he had laboured as a priest and had finally died a martyr. For some unknown reason his death is placed in the persecution under Aurelian (270–275). The author had not noticed that the sending by Polycarp and the martyrdom under Aurelian are chronologically irreconcilable. Duchesne has proved that these “Acts” belong to a whole group of legends which arose in the early years of the sixth century and were intended to describe the beginnings of Christianity in the cities of that region (Besançon, Autun Langres, Valence). They are all falsifications by the same hand and possess no historical value.

Acta SS., Nov. . I, 134 sqq.; Duchesne, Fastes épiscopaux de l’ancienne Gaule (Paris, 1894), I. 48 sqq.; Tillemont, Mémoires (ed. 1695), III, 38 sqq,. 603 sqq.; DE BELLOGUET, Origines Dijonnaises (Dijon, 1852); Bougaud, Etude hist. et crit. sur la mission, les actes, et le culte de S. Bénigne (Autun, 1859); BEAUNE, De la mission de S. Bénigne et du martyre des SS. Jumeaux à Langres (Langres, 1861).

J.P. KIRSCH

Vicariate Apostolic of Benin

(Vicariate Apostolic of the Coast of Benin. Also called Oræ Benini).

Includes an extensive negro country and the former kingdom of Western Equatorial Africa, in Upper Guinea, on the Bight of Benin, or Gulf of Guinea. In 1860 a mission was founded in the former Kingdom of Dahomey, but as this name was disliked by the inhabitants the title was changed to “Vicariate of the Coast of Benin.” The mission of Dahomey was separated from Benin in 1882 and made a Prefecture Apostolic, in 1901 a Vicariate Apostolic. On 10 May, 1894, the Niger mission was also cut off. Since the latter date the Vicariate of the Coast of Benin has been bounded by Dahomey, the Niger, and the Bight of Benin; it includes the British colony of Lagos (Southern Nigeria), the native Kingdom of Porto Novo (under French protection), and the native kingdoms of Yoruba, Isebou, Ibadan, etc.

The region is rich in vegetable resources. Cotton is indigenous and is woven by the women. Among the pagan blacks human sacrifices are frequent; cruelty in atrocious forms is characteristic of these natives. The coast is indented with estuaries, some of considerable breadth and studded with islands. Behind the flat shores plateaux rise to heights of 2000 and 3000 feet. There is an extensive traffic in salt, palm oil, and other staples. The area is about 55,985 square miles, about one-half of which belongs to Great Britain; the population in 1901 numbered 1,500,000, and there were in the territory about 308 Europeans. The appointment of a vicar Apostolic dates from 1891; the residence is at Lagos, which in 1901 had a population of 41,847, of whom 233 were Europeans. The vicar Apostolic is chosen from the members of the Society for African missions of Lyons to whom the mission has been entrusted. The development of this mission has been greater than that of Dahomey, as the British Government grants the missionaries greater freedom for their spiritual labours and gives subsidies to the mission schools when this course furthers British interests. The first converts among the blacks were ex-slaves returned from Brazil; for a long time they were catechized by one of their own race, known as “Padre Antonio,” who kept alive the Faith till the arrival of the Fathers from Lyons (Louvet, 291). The missionaries number 26 regular clergy and 1 lay brother; they have charge of about 15,500 Catholics. The chief stations are: Lagos, situated on an island at the mostly of the Ogun, and known as the “African Liverpool,” Titolo, Tocpo, Abeokuta, Oyo, Ibadan, Islluré, lbowon. Less important and more irregularly served are Eboute-Meta, Bada-gri, Iboakté, Awé, Ishwo. The Vicariate has a number of flourishing schools with 2,059 pupils, of whom 800 are in the school at Lagos. There are 25 catechists. Orphanages and hospitals have also been founded, and a promising agricultural school exists at Tocpo. The principal hospital is the one conducted at Abeokuta by Father Coquard, commonly called Dr. Coquard; he is consulted as a physician as far as Lagos, a town where there are English physicians. The King of Aqué, the head of the federation of Abeokuta, grants a subsidy to the hospital and, although a heathen, is present with his followers at the chief festivals of the Catholic mission. The mission territory includes three large cities: Abeokuta, Ilorin, and Ibadan. Constrained to defend themselves against raids from Dahomey, the native blacks have gathered in Abeokuta, on the left bank of the Ogun, in large numbers, variously estimated from 150,000 to 200,000, and have surrounded the city, or collection of 140 villages, with a wall twenty-four miles in circuit. Ibadan has a reputed population of 150,000 and Ilorin 60,000 to 80,000. As yet no Catholic missions have been established in them.

La société des missions africaines de Lyon et ses Missions (Loyns), HEILPRIN Gazetteer (Philadelphia, 1906); Statesman’s Year-Book (London, 1907); Missiones Catholicae, (Rome 1900); BINGER, Du Niger au Golfe de Guinée (Paris, 1892) TOUTéE, Dahomé, Niger et Touarez (Paris, 1897); MIELE La Côte d’Ivoire (Paris, 1900); PLANQUE in PIOLLET, Mission franc. cath. au, XIXe siècle (Paris, 1902), Afrique, V, 196–200 LOUVET, Miss. cath. au, XIXe siècle (Paris, 1898), 292.

ALBERT BATTANDIER

Benjamin

(Heb. binjamin, “son of the right hand”).

(1) The youngest son of Jacob born of Rachel. His original name was Ben-oni (Heb. “son of my sorrow”), given to him by his mother just before she died in child-birth, but was changed to Benjamin by Jacob (Gen. xxxv, 18). The Samaritan reading, Benjamim, i.e. “son of days,” would refer to the advanced age of Jacob at the time of Benjamin’s birth. Upon the loss of Joseph, Benjamin’s full-brother, Jacob’s affections were bestowed upon Benjamin, and it was only with great reluctance that he permitted his beloved child to accompany his brethren to Egypt to purchase corn. (Gen. xlii, 36; xlii, 15). Joseph, too, showed a marked preference of Benjamin to his other brethren and puts the latter’s mind concerning him to a rather severe test (Gen., xliv-xlvi).

(2) The son of Balan and grandson of Benjamin, Jacob’s son (I Paralip., vii, 10).

(3) One of the sons of Herem who had married a foreign wife in the days of Esdras (I Edras, x, 32).

(4) One of those who took part in the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem at the time of Nehemias (II Esdras, iii, 23; cf. xii, 33).

(5) The name of the gate in the northern wall of Jerusalem (Jer., xxxvi, 12; Zach., xiv, 10). It is not mentioned by Nehemias in his enumeration of the gates of Jerusalem (II Esdras, iii).

(6) The name of the northern gate of the Temple, where Jeremias was imprisoned (Jer., xx, 2; xxxviii, 7, 14), probably the same as “watch-gate” (II Esdras, xii, 38) and as the one spoken of in Jeremiah (viii, 3, 5, 16; ix, 2).

(7) Name of eastern gate of the ideal Jerusalem as drawn by Ezechiel (Ezech., xlviii, 32).

(8) Name of one of the twelve tribes of Israel which during the sojourn in Egypt numbered 35,400 warriors, and according to a second census 45,6000 (num., i, 36; xxvi, 41). The territory assigned to it is defined in Josue, xviii, 11 sqq. It was about twenty-five miles in length and twelve in breadth, and was bounded on the north by Ephraim, on the east by the Jordan, on the south by Juda, and on the west by Dan. The nature of the territory was conducive to breed a race of hardy warriors such as the Benjamites who are depicted by Jacob as “a ravenous wolf, in the morning [he] shall divide the spoil” (Gen., xlix, 27). During the period of the Judges the tribe was well nigh exterminated on account of a crime committed within its territory (Jud., xix-xxi). It was from this tribe that Saul, the first king of the monarchy, was chosen (I Sam., ix, 1, 2, 19; x, 1, 20 sqq.). After the death of Saul the tribe of Benjamin remained loyal to his son, Isboseth (II Sam., ii, 9 sqq.), until David became king of all Israel (II Sam., v, 1–5). At the time of the revolt from Rehoboam the tribes of Benjamin, Juda, and Simeon remained true and formed the Kingdom of Juda (III Kings, xii, 21), which also constituted the nucleus of the restored nation. St. Paul glories in belonging to the tribe of Benjamin (Philipp., iii, 5).

F.X.E. ALBERT

Franz Georg Benkert

German theologian and historical writer, b. 25 September, 1790, at Nordheim, near the mountain district of Rhon, Germany; d. 20 May, 1859, at Coburg. After finishing his studies at the gymnasium in Münnerstadt he studied theology at Würzburg and was ordained priest in 1816. He was first a curate at Gaurettersheim and in 1821, was made vice-principal of the theological seminary at Würzburg. While holding these positions Benkert continued his studies. In 1823 he received a doctorate, having offered the dissertation: “De Duplici Missâ Catechumenorum et Fidelium.” From 1823 to 1838 he had the position of principal and in 1838 he was made a cathedral canon and cathedral dean.

At that time, in common with the ecclesiastics of other diocese, the clergy of the Diocese of Würzburg suffered greatly from the religious disease of the age, “Josephinism,” and were inclined to a sickly and enervating rationalism. The destructive effects of these rationalistic tendencies showed themselves everywhere in the life of the Church. Even when acting as vice-principal Benkert showed himself deserving of much praise in that he sought to reawaken in the younger clergy the spirit of the Church and to cultivate in them an interest, and a knowledge of, the old theological schools. In 1822 he founded the periodical: “Der Religionsfreund für Katholiken mit Beiträgen religiös gesinnter Manner.” He issued the periodical in the desire to increase the influence of his efforts and also to win over the older ecclesiastics.

The periodical appeared in six volumes, 1822–26. It attracted much attention and was copied in France in the “Ami de la Religion.” In connection with G. J. Saffenrevter he issued, 1828–40, a continuation of this, his first, periodical, entitled: “Allgemeiner Religions- und Kirchenfreund und Kirchenkorrespondent, eine theologische und kirchenhistorische Zeitschrift.” At the same time he published, 1828–34, a periodical entitled “Athanasia, eine theologische Zeitschrift, besonders für die gesamte Pastoral, für Kirchengeschichte, auch für Pädagogik.” This appeared in sixteen volumes. He continued the same publication from 1835 to 1840 in connection with J. M. Düx. As Benkert was more apt to be swayed by his zeal for the right than by prudence, he made many enemies, especially among the older clergy. He therefore severed his connection with his periodicals in 1840, and devoted himself to the study of the history of his native district. His historical writings have only a local interest. A larger and more important work which he undertook on the Rhön was never completed.

Kerz, Litteraturzeitung (1824), II, 101 sqq.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

St. Benno

Benno, Saint, Bishop of Meissen, b., as is given in biographies written after his lifetime, about 1010; d., probably, June 16, 1106. He is said to have been the son of a Count Frederick von Woldenberg (Bultenburg) and to have been educated by his relative St. Bernward of Hildesheim. But these statements and the date of his birth cannot be proved to be historically correct. It is, however, certain that he was a canon of Goslar about the middle of the eleventh century, and that he was made Bishop of Meissen in 1066. At that time the great struggle between the Emperor Henry IV and the papacy over investiture, which involved the independence of the Church, was raging. Benno took part in the revolt of the Saxon nobles against Henry (1073). In 1075 he was taken prisoner by the emperor, who was then victorious, and kept in prison for a year. As, later, he upheld the party of Pope Gregory VII he was deposed at the synod of Mainz, 1085, by the prelates belonging to the imperial party and Felix, a partisan of the emperor, received the bishopric. Three years later Benno recognized the Antipope Wibert (Clement III) and obtained his see again; at a later date, however, he separated himself from his schismatical party and recognized Urban II (1088–99) as the rightful pope. The authorities of the eleventh and twelfth centuries contain no further information as to his life.

The Diocese of Meissen extended towards the east as far as the River Bober and included Upper and Lower Lausitz, which were inhabited by Slavs. According to later tradition Benno devoted the last years of his life to missions among these heathen tribes. He was reputed to be the founder of the cathedral of Meissen and in after-ages was the most venerated bishop of the diocese. He was canonized by Pope Adrian VI in 1523 (Bull “Excelsus Dominus” in Bullarium Romanum, Turin ed., VI, 18 sqq.) and his relics were, with great solemnity, exposed for veneration, May 16, 1524. Luther took this occation to publish his lampoon “Wider den neuen Abgott and alten Teufel, der zu Meissen soli erhoben werden.” After Saxony had adopted Protestantism Duke Albert V of Bavaria had the relics of the saintly bishop transferred to Munich and placed in the church of Our Lady (now the cathedral). Since this time Benno had been the patron saint of Munich-his feast is celebrated June 16. He is represented with a fish and a key; according to a legend he gave the key of the cathedral of Meissen, when starting on his journey to Rome, to one of the canons with the command to throw it into the Elbe as soon as Henry IV should be excommunicated. This was done; after Benno’s return a large fish was caught in the Elbe and the key was found hanging to one of its fins, so that the bishop received it again.

J. P. KIRSCH.

Benno II

Bishop of Osnabrück, b. at Luningen in Swabia; d. 27 July, 1088, in the Benedictine monastery of Iburg near Osnabrück. His parents sent him at an early age to the monastic school of Strasburg where the learned Herman (Contractus) of Reichenau was then teaching. Having completed his education and made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, he taught for some time at Speyer in Rhenish Bavaria. On account of his skill in architecture he was made imperial architect by Emperor Henry III and, as such, supervised the construction of numerous castles and churches in the empire. When the Rhine, which flowed close to the Cathedral of Speyer, threatened to undermine the foundation of that building, Benno saved the majestic structure by changing the course of the river. In 1047 he became teacher at the Benedictine school of Goslar (Hanover) and, shortly after, was made head master of the cathedral school at Hildesheim. In 1051 he accompanied Azelin, bishop of that see, on the emperor’s Hungarian campaign and upon his return was made provost of the Cathedral of Hildesheim and archpriest at Goslar.

In 1069 Benno was consecrated Bishop of Osnabrück, then vacant through the death of Benno I. During the conflict between Gregory VII and Henry IV, Benno for a long time sided with the emperor. When, at the Synod of Worms, in 1076, Gregory VII was deposed, Benno, like most other German bishops, signed the formula of deposition and incurred ecclesiastical excommunication. With some other well-meaning excommunicated bishops, Benno hastened to Italy, where the pope freed them from the ban at Canossa, before Henry himself arrived there to feign repentance. After the emperor’s second excommunication, Benno tried to bring about a reconciliation, but, seeing the insincerity of the emperor, gave up in despair and retired to the monastery of Iburg, which he had founded in 1070. In a little house near the monastery he lived according to the rule of the monks during the week, while on Sundays and holydays he assisted at his cathedral in Osnabrück. Bennos’s piety and justice made him much beloved by his flock. Strunck (Westphalia Saneta, Paderborn, 1855) and Heitemeyer (Die Heiligen Deutschlands, Paderborn, 1889) include him in the list of saints. Kerler (Die Patronate der Heiligen, Ulm, 1905) says that he is invoked against grasshoppers, because he once dispersed them by his prayers.

Thyen, Mittheil. Des hist. Vereins zu Osnabruck, IX, 1–243; Wattenbach, Geschichtsquellen im Mittalalter (Berlin, 1894), II, iii. The most important source is Vita Bennonis, by Norbert, a contemporary of Benno and third Abbot of Iburg (1085–1117). It is published in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XII, 58–84. See also Breslau, Die echte und interpolierte Vita Bennonis in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fur altere deutsche Geschichtskunde (Strasburg, 1902), 77–135.

MICHAEL OTT

Michel Benoît

Born at Autun (or Dijon), France, 8 October, 1715; died at Peking, 23 October, 1774, a Jesuit scientist, for thirty years in the service of Kien Lung, Emperor of China. He studied at Dijon, and at St. Sulpice, Paris, and entered the Jesuit Novitiate at Nancy, 18 March, 1737. After three years of renewed entreaties, he was granted his desire of the Chinese mission, but before his departure completed his astronomical studies at Paris under de l’Isle, de la Caille, and Le Monnierr, who attached much importance to his later correspondence. On his arrival at Peking in 1774 (or 1775), a persecution was raging against the missionaries in the provinces; still, as their scientific ability made them indispensable to the government, Father Benoît was retained at court and entrusted with the task of designing and carrying out a great system of decorative fountains in the royal gardens. He spent many years in this work, for which he evinced rare talent. He built European houses within the enclosures of these gardens and in front of one, in the Italian style of architecture, he constructed a curious water clock. The Manchu characterize the twelve hours of their day (twenty-four hours, European time) by twelve animals of different species. On two sides of a large triangular basin of water Father Benoît placed figures of these animals, through the mouths of each of which, successively, for two hours, was forced a jet of water by some ingenuous mechanical device. While applying himself to his astronomical studies, he taught the emperor the use of the reflecting telescope. Among his numerous works were: (1) A large map of the world (twelve and a half by six and a half feet), to which he added valuable astronomical and geographical details.—(2) A general chart of the empire and surrounding country, engraved on copper, though at the outset he was as little versed in this art as were his Chinese collaborators, whom he had chosen from the best wood-engravers in the country. The work was done on 104 plates (two feet two inches by one foot two inches, Chinese measure). Sixteen designs of the emperor’s battles had been engraved on copper in France, at the expense of Louis XV, and when these were sent to China, with numerous prints made from them, the emperor immediately desired Father Benoît to print further copies. This required new presses for these delicately wrought French plates, new methods of wetting the paper, distributing ink, etc. The result was successful, even rivaling the work done in France, but it was Father Benoît’s last service. He died of apoplexy, ripe in religious and apostolic virtues. The emperor said of him, “That was a good man, and generous in his service”; a missionary remarked, on hearing this, that, had the words been said of a Tartar or Chinese, they would have rendered illustrious a long line of descendants. Father Benoît was the author of many letters, preserved in the “Lettres édifiantes”; he translated into Chinese “the Imitation of Christ,” while in the “Mémoires sur les Chinois” are many memoirs, descriptions, and sketches ascribed to him, but unsigned.

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J.; De Feller-Pérénnis, Biog. univ. (Paris, 1834), II, 217.

WILLIAM DEVLIN.

Benthamism

Jeremy Bentham an English jurist and reformer, born at Houndsditch, London, 15 February, 1748; died in London 6 June, 1832, was of middle-class parentage. After passing through Westminster school he went to Oxford, where he took his Bachelor’s degree in 1763 and his Master’s degree in 1776. He qualified for the Bar, but soon, disgusted with what he called the “Demon of Chicane,” he abandoned the practice of law and devoted himself to the study of philosophers then in favour, chiefly Locke, Hume, Montesquieu, Helvétius, Beccaria, and Barrington. Under the influence of these writers, he entered upon what proved to be a lifelong and fruitful career of speculation upon the principles of legislation and political government. Bentham’s primary purpose was not the construction of theories or the establishment of abstract principles. He first attacked specific abuses in the English system of penal legislation. In tracing these abuses to their source he was led to investigate the ultimate principles of law; and subsequently he undertook to construct a complete science of legislation. In like manner, his efforts to lay bare the evils existing in the legislative machinery carried him on to assail the defects of the British Constitution itself.

He published anonymously, in 1776, his first noticeable work, “A Fragment on Government,” in the preface of which he formulated his celebrated utilitarian principle, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number,” which he borrowed from Beccaria or Priestly. It is the use which he makes of this principle that characterizes Bentham among philosophers. By it exclusively he would estimate the value of juridical, political, social, ethical, and religious systems and institutions; does utility justify their existence? In 1779 Bentham’s chief work, “Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation” appeared. It is the only important one that was published by himself alone; all the others were compiled with more or less co-operation from his followers. One of these disciples, E. Dumont, helped to secure for Bentham, at the opening of the nineteenth century, international fame as a legal and social reformer by arranging Bentham’s writings and publishing them in French. About this period he was engaged in many philanthropic schemes, the chief of which was one for the reform of the convict prison system. This undertaking, though aided by the British Government, proved a failure. After the peace of 1815, when the codification of laws was occupying a large place in the attention of statesmen, Bentham’s writings were studied, and he himself consulted, by jurists of Russia, Spain, Germany, and some South American countries. He also exerted an influence upon legislation in the United States, notably Pennsylvania and Louisiana. In England his ideas of political reform were taken up by the leaders of the rising radicalism, Cobbett, George Grote, the two Mills, and others. With them, in 1823, he established the “Westminster Review” as the organ of the party. He maintained a correspondence with many prominent men of his day, including Madison and Adams Presidents of the United States.

Bentham attacked the Established Church as a factor in the general system of abuse, and from the Church he passed, characteristically, to the Catechism, then to the New Testament, and finally to Religion itself. In the “Analysis of Religion,” published by George Grote under the pseudonym of Philip Beauchamp, he applies the utilitarian test to religion, and finds religion wanting. True to this same principle in ethics, Bentham maintained happiness to be the sole end of conduct; pleasure and pain, the discriminating norm of right and wrong; and he reduced moral obligation to the mere sanction inherent in the pleasant or painful results of action.

The patriarch of utilitarianism, as Bentham has been called, was of upright character and simple in his manner of life. His bent of mind was for the abstract; and he was singularly deficient in the wisdom of the practical man of the world. Nevertheless circumstances turned him to grapple with intensely practical problems; and, with the help of his followers, he has wielded on political development and philosophic thought in England a powerful influence which is far from exhausted. The spread of his ideas contributed signally to the carrying of Catholic Emancipation in 1829 and the beneficent parliamentary reform of 1832. At the same time they helped to open the way in English ethical and theological speculation for the positivism and agnosticism of the last half of the nineteenth century. One of his principal works, “Deontology, or the Science of Morality,” was published after the author’s death by his disciple Sir J. Bowring, who also edited Bentham’s collected works in eleven volumes (1838- 43). This edition has not been superseded. A good edition of the “Fragment on Government” was issued by the Clarendon Press in 1891.

STEPHEN, The English Utilitarians (New York and London, 1900), I, which contains a complete list of Bentham’s voluminous writings; ATKINSON, Bentham: his life and work (London, 1905); ALBEE, A History of English Utilitarianism (New York and London, 1902); HALÉVY, La formation du radicalisme philosophique (Paris, 1901); REEVES, Bentham and American Jurisprudence (London, 1906); DILLON, Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America (Boston, 1894); AUSTIN, Lectures on Jurisprudence (London, 1865, 5th ed.).

JAMES J. FOX.

Family of Bentivoglio

Originally from the castle of that name in the neighbourhood of Bologna, Italy. They claimed descent from Enzio (c. 1224–72), King of Sardinia, a natural son of Frederick II. During the fourteenth century the family belonged to one of the workingmen’s guilds at Bologna, where it became all-powerful in the fifteenth century. It contracted alliances with the Kings of Aragon, the Dukes of Milan and other sovereigns; and in its later history, became on of the prominent families of Ferrara. The following are the principal ecclesiastical members: (1) GUIDO, Cardinal, b. at Ferrara 1579; d. at Rome 1644. He studied at Padua, went to Rome and was subsequently sent by Paul V as nuncio to Flanders (1607) and France (1617). He successfully settled the differences that arose between Catholics and Huguenots, was created cardinal in 1621, and appointed by King Louis XII protector of French interests at Rome. He held the latter position until 1641, the date of his appointment to the episcopal See of Palestrina. He was the most trusted friend of Pope Urban VIII and would undoubtedly have become his successor, had he not died during the conclave. He left several historical works, dealing chiefly with affairs in Flanders and France; they were translated into French, and published as a collection (Venice, 1668). (2) CORNELIO, Cardinal, b. at Ferrara 1668; d. at Rome 1732. He went at an early age to Rome, was appointed Archbishop of Carthage, and in 1712 nuncio to Paris. He showed more zeal than discretion in his dealings with the Jansenists and had to be recalled at the death of Louis XIV (1715). He became cardinal in 1719, and Spanish Minister Plenipotentiary at Rome in 1726, a position which he held until his death.

Kaulen, in Kirchenlex., II, 385, 386; Mazzuchelli, Scrittori d’Italia (Brescia, 1760) II, ii, 867–82.

N.A. WEBER

John Francis Bentley

English architect, b. at Doncaster, Yorkshire, in 1839; d. in London, February, 1902. From early days he exhibited a strong inclination towards the profession in which he was to make so great a mark. His parents were not in sympathy with him, so, at the age of sixteen, he placed himself voluntarily with the Clerk of the Works at Loversall Church. In 1855 he began his probation with Sharpe, Stewart & Co., of Manchester, going to London, in 1858, where he was associated with Holland & Hannan and then with Henry Clutton. He started for himself in 1868. He was a firm believer in the architectural principles and methods of the Middle Ages, giving to every detail in his work, from foundation to furniture, his personal attention. He was an apt modeller and had tried his hand with success at stone carving. As a draughtsman, and especially as a colourist, he was very successful, his designs for marble and metal work, jewellery, stained glass, and heraldic decorations being of great beauty.

His first important commission was from Cardinal Manning, for the seminary at Hammersmith, and amongst his buildings should be mentioned the Church of the Holy Rood, at Watford; the convent chapel, at Braintree; the chapel of Beaumont College, Old Windsor; St. Anne’s Cathedral, Leeds; and St. Mary’s, Cadogan Place, Chelsea. He was also responsible for the baptistery, font, and monstrance at St. Francis, Notting Hill; the reredos and altar at St. Charles, Ogle Street, Marylebone, sedilia and Sacred Heart chapel in the church of the Jesuit Fathers at Farm Street; and the decoration at Carlton Towers. In 1894, he received his commission to build the cathedral at Westminster, and at once started for Italy to make a careful study of the various great basilicas, and the mosaic work at Ravenna. He devoted himself with great concentration to this, his life memorial, producing the most remarkable ecclesiastical building erected in England since the Reformation, and receiving high praise all over Europe on his extraordinary success.

He was a person of brusque, reserved manner, but kind and friendly to those who really knew him. He had the strongest dislike to the preparation of show drawings and to the system of architectural competition and, being a man wholly lacking in self-assertion, and reticent in conversation, was never as well known in general circles as he deserved to be. His great characteristics as an architect were his careful attention to detail, his solicitude that all the fittings should be in perfect harmony with the building, and the sparing use he made of iron. He was awarded the gold medal of the Institute of Architects in February, 1902, but never received it, as on the 1st of March he was seized with paralysis and died the following morning. He was present at the trial of acoustic qualities made in his cathedral, but was not spared to see its formal opening. He was buried at Mortlake.

Architectural Review, XI, XII; The Builder, LXXXII; Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, IX; Obituary Notice in The Times (London, March, 1902).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

William Bentney

(Alias Bennet).

An English Jesuit priest born in Cheshire, 1609; died 30 October, 1692. He entered the Society of Jesus 7 September, 1630, was sent to the English missions in 1640, and labored there with great zeal and success for forty-two years. He was then arrested, at the instigation of a nobleman to whose sisters he was administering the sacraments, and was taken to the Leicester jail. No one in those parts being willing to bear witness against him, Bentney was at once transferred to Derby, where he was tried and sentenced to death at the spring assizes of 1682. His execution was delayed for unknown reasons, and on the accession of James II he was released. He was rearrested, however, tried and condemned after the Revolution, but the sentence remained suspended, and in 1692 he died in Leicester jail.

Foley, Records, V, 490, and Collect; Gillow, Bibl. Dict Eng. Cath.

SYDNEY F. SMITH

Joseph Charles Benziger

Founder of the Catholic publishing house that bears his name, b. at Einsiedeln , Switzerland, 1762; d. there, 1841. In 1792 he started a small business in religious articles, but he soon felt the effects of the French Revolution. The French invasion forced him to take flight with his family, and for about a year they resided at Feldkirch, Austria, where his eldest son, Charles, was born. In 1800 they returned to Einsiedeln, which had been devastated by pillage and army requisitions. All Mr. Benziger’s modest fortune was gone, but with redoubled efforts he set about repairing his losses, and started in business as a bookseller. He was made president of the county, and his credit and personal financial sacrifices proved of great help, especially during the famine of 1817. In 1833, Charles and Nicholas Benziger succeeded their father under the firm name of “Charles and Nicholas Benziger Brothers,” and two years later, in addition to their book publishing business began the lithographing of religious pictures, as well as the coloring of them by hand, before the introduction of chromolithography.

Charles Benziger, son of the founder, b. 1799, d. 1873, a man of unusual strength and energy with a good classical education, devoted himself especially to the literary end of the business. In 1840 the “Einsiedler Kalender” was founded; it is still published and furnishes an interesting illustration of the development of the art of printing. “The Pilgrim,” a popular Catholic periodical established at the same time, lasted only ten years. Charles, too, took an active part in public life, and showed moderation and energy as President of the Canton of Schwyz. His health failed and in 1860 he retired from business

Nicholas Benziger, brother of the preceding, b. 1808, d. 1864, who took charge of the technical part of the business, proved himself a pioneer, introducing to the mountain village of Einsiedeln a series of improved trades methods as they appeared from time to time in the great centres of Europe and America. Under his guidance the work of book-binding, which was formerly carried on in the family at home, was systematized. In 1844 the old hand-press was superseded by the first power press. Stereotyping was introduced in 1846; in 1856 steel and copper printing; and in 1858 electrotyping. In 1853, a house was opened in New York. By this time the two brothers had built up a business in Catholic books and prints that was known the world over. They also took an active part in charitable work, and started a fund for a hospital, which has since been erected.

On the retirement of Charles and Nicholas Benziger (1860) the business was continued by Charles, Martin, and J. N. Adelrich, sons of the former, and Nicholas, Adelrich, and Louis, sons of the latter. Under this third generation, the different branches of the house were still further developed, chromolithography and other modern printing methods being added. In 1867, the “Alte und Neue Welt,” the first illustrated popular Catholic German magazine on a large scale, was begun, and then appeared a number of illustrated family books of devout reading and a series of school books, including a Bible history in twelve languages, together with prayer books by well-known authors. Between 1880 and 1895 a fourth generation succeeded to the business, and the firm name was changed to Benziger and Company

The house of Benziger Brothers in the United States was established in New York in 1853 by the Swiss house, but its development as a publishing house did not begin until 1860 when J. N. Adelrich Benziger (d. 1878) and Louis Benziger (d. 1896) took charge. In 1860, a house was opened in Cincinnati and in 1887 one in Chicago. The publishing of English Catholic books was vigorously undertaken, and to-day the catalogue covers the field of devotional, educational, and juvenile literature, besides works of a theological character. Since 1864 the firm has manufactured sacred vessels and church furniture. The American firm of Benziger Brothers is now independent of the Swiss house. The Holy See conferred on the firm the title “Printers to the Holy Apostolic See” in 1867, and “The Pontifical Institute of Christian Art” in 1888.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Girolamo Benzoni

Born at Milan about 1519. He went to America in 1541 and successively visited the Antilles and the Isthmus, Guatemala, and the west coast of South America. He returned to Spain and thence to Italy, in 1556. Of his subsequent life nothing is known. Some hints in his book suggest that his main purpose in the New World was commerce, which he often had to carry on with difficulty as trading by foreigners in the Spanish colonies was not looked upon with favor by the Spaniards. Benzoni, while not unsuccessful in what he undertook, conceived an inveterate hatred of the Spanish people and Government and in return for the protection given him and for favors which he was compelled reluctantly to acknowledge, wrote and published a book of diatribes and accusations against Spain in America. It contains interesting details about the countries he visited, but abounds in errors and often in intentional misstatements. What Benzoni states about the Antilles is a clumsy rehash of Las Casas. His reports on the conquests of Mexico, and Peru bristle with errors.

The book of Benzoni “Historia del Mondo Nuovo” was published at Venice in 1565. He dedicated it to Pope Pius IV. It was at the time when the controversy concerning the treatment of the Indians was hottest, and a work, written by one who had just returned from the New World after a stay of fifteen years could not fail to attract attention. In writing it, no standard of criticism was applied; this was not in the spirit of the times. The ultra-philanthropists found Benzoni a welcome auxiliary, and foreign nations, all more or less leagued against Spain for the sake of supplanting its mastery of the Indies, eagerly adopted his extreme statements and sweeping accusations. Several editions were published in rapid succession; translations were made into English as well as into several other languages. Intrinsically, the book has small merit, except in as far as it presents and describes facts witnessed by the author. Even these are not always faithfully reported. It might be called a controversial document because of its violent partiality and hostility. It does not notice mitigating circumstances, and ignores what is good when it does not suit the author. Benzoni writes sometimes like a disappointed trader, and always as a man of limited education and very narrow views. His “Historia del Mondo Nuovo” (Venice, 1565) was reprinted in 1572, and translated into French by Eustace Vignon, 1579. Aside from the annotations which are often trivial and as partial as the book itself, the English translation, “History of the New World by Girolamo Benzoni” (London, 1857), by the Hakluyt Society, is certainly the best.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

St. Berach

Of Termonbarry, d. 595; a disciple of St. Kevin and a celebrated Irish saint, whose memory is still fresh in County Roscommon. He was of the tribe of Cinel Dobtha, or O’Hanley of Doohey Hanley, to which also belong the MacCoilidh family. Most of his long life was spent in the Diocese of Elphin and he built his church at Cluain Coirpthe since known as Termonbarry or Kilbarry. His sister, St. Midabaria, was abbess of a nunnery at Bumlin (Strokestown), of which she is venerated as patroness on 22 February. Her ancient conventual church and graveyard are still to be seen. Under the title of “Berach of Cluain Coirpthe” St. Berach is honored in several martyrologies, and his holy life attracted pilgrims to Kilbarry from all parts of Ireland. The MacCoilidh family, whose name was anglicized to Cox in the early years of the seventeenth century, were hereditary custodians of St. Berach’s crosier, and were coarbs, or lay abbots, of Kilbarry. The crosier is now in the Dublin Museum. In 1890, Dr. M. F. Cox, of Dublin, the lineal representative of the MacCoilidhs, unearthed St. Berach’s boat, and had it placed beside the present Catholic church of Whitehall, near Kilbarry. St. Berach’s oratory at Cluain Coirpthe was replaced by a fine damhliag (stone church), built by MacCoilidh and O’Hanley in 916, and acquired the name of Termon Barry, or Kilbarry, that is the church of St. Berach. Some authorities give his feast as 11 February, but most martyrologists assign him 15 February. Kilbarrack Chureh, County Dublin, was also called after this saint, as in his early days he spent some time there and performed many miracles, duly recorded in his life. His bell was long preserved at the Abbey of Glendalough, but has disappeared since the sixteenth century.

O’DONOVAN, Acta Sanctorum; Annals of the Four Masters; Annals of Ulster (Rolls Series); O’HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints (15 February), II; STOKES, Early Christian Art in Ireland (1887); COLGAN, Acta Sanct. Hib. (15 February); HEALY, Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars (4th ed., 1902); Cox, MS. Meccoilidhana; KELLY, Patron Saints of the Diocese of Elphin (1904).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

St. Berard of Carbio

(Or BERALDUS).

Friar Minor and martyr; d. 16 January, 1220. Of the noble family of Leopardi, and a native of Carbio in Umbria, Berard was received into the Franciscan Order by the Seraphic Patriarch himself, in 1213. He was well versed in Arabic, an eloquent preacher, and was chosen by St. Francis, together with two other priests, Peter and Otho, and two lay-brothers, Accursius and Adjutus, to evangelize the infidels of the East. On the conclusion of the Second General Chapter in 1219, St. Francis believed that the time had then come for the religious of his order to extend their apostolic labours beyond the Italian peninsula and Northern Europe; and, choosing for himself and twelve other religious the greater part of Syria and Egypt, he allotted to Berard and his companions the missions of Morocco. The five missionaries set sail from Italy, and after sojourning some time in Spain and Portugal finally arrived in the Kingdom of Morocco. Their open preaching of the Gospel there and their bold denunciation of the religion of Mahomet soon caused them to be apprehended and cast into prison. Having vainly endeavoured to persuade them to abandon the true religion, the Moorish king in a fit of rage opened their heads with his scimitar, and thus were offered to God the first fruits of the blood of the Friars Minor. Berard and his companions were canonized by Sixtus V, in 1481. The feast of the martyrs of Morocco is kept in the order on the 16th of January.

LEO,Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the Three Orders of St. Francis (Taunton, 1883), I, 99–111; WADDING, Annales Minorum, I, 155, 318, 320 et passim; Anatecta Franciscana (Quaracchi, 1885), II, 13; Passio Sanctorum Martyrum, Frairum Beraldi, etc., in Anal. Francis, (Quaracchi, 1897), III, 579–596; also Anal. Francis, (Quaracchi, 1906), IV, 322–323; Acta SS., January, II, 426–435; Catalogus SS. Frat. Min., ed. LEMMENS (Rome, 1903).

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Carlo Sebastiano Berardi

Canonist, b. at Oneglia, Italy, 26 August, 1719; d. 1768. Having studied theology at Savona under the Piarists, he was promoted to the priesthood and then began the study of law at Turin, paying particular attention to canonical jurisprudence. In 1749 he was appointed prefect of the law-faculty of the University of Turin, while from 1754 till his death he was professor of canon law in the same institution.

Berardi’s works are: (1) “Gratiani canones genuini ab apocryphis discreti, corrupti ad emendatiorum codicum fidem exacti, difficiliores commodâ interpretatione illustrati” (4 vols. quarto, Turin, 1752–57; Venice, 1777, 1783). Richter (in Proleg. ad Gratiani Decretum) says of this work that one knows not whether to admire more the knowledge or diligence evidenced in it, while all unanimously declare that, as a critical exposition of Gratian’s Decretum, it is surpassed by Antonio Agostino’s work alone. The great value of the work lies in this, that it sets forth the original authorities of the Decretum, though carelessness is apparent at times in the author’s endeavors to distinguish genuine sources from those that are spurious. Berardi, moreover, is occasionally hypercritical. A compendium of this work by an unknown writer, published at Venice, 1778, is entitled, “Compendium Commentariorum Caroli Sebastiani Berardi in Canones Gratiani.” (2) “De Variis Sacrorum Canonum Collectionibus ante Gratianum,” published together with his first work. (3) “Commentaria in Jus Ecclesiasticum Universum,” four vols. quarto, Turin, 1766; two vols. octavo, Venice, 1778, 1789; 1847). This is an excellent treatise from the viewpoint both of theory and practice. (4) “Institutiones Juris Ecclesiastici” (2 vols. Turin, 1769), a work that is to be read with caution.

WEURNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1898), I, n. 315, 396, 397; SCHULTE, Die Geschichte d. Quellen, III, par. 1, 524; VALLAURI, Storia delle Univeraita degli Studi del Piemonte, III, 219.

A. B. MEEHAN

Antoine Henri de Bérault-Bercastel

A writer of church history, b. 22 November, 1720, at Briey, Lorraine; d. about 1794 at Noyon, France. At an early age he entered the Society of Jesus, but left it after his ordination to the priesthood. He was made parish priest of Omerville and later a canon of Noyon. His most important work is entitled “Histoire de l’église” and was issued at Paris, 1778–90, in twenty-four volumes. The history gives a circumstantial account of the Church from the time of its founding up to the year 1721. It is not so much intended for students and learned investigators as for educated Christians, and especially for those priests whose professional cares do not allow them time to carry on higher studies. On account of its general usefulness his work has had a large circulation; in spite of many defects, especially in the later volumes, it has often been republished, as at Maastricht (1780–91), at Toulouse (1811). It has also been translated into foreign languages; it was published in Italian at Venice (1793), and in German at Vienna (1784). Various scholars have continued the history or have issued it in a condensed form. Instances are the edition of Guillon (Besancon, and Paris, 1820–21), that of Pelier de la Croix (Ghent, 1829–33), and that of Robiano (Lyons and Paris, 1835 and 1842). The best edition, with a continuation up to 1844, was edited by Henrion (Paris, 1844). The best condensed edition was edited by Gams (Innsbruck, 1854–60).

HURTER, Nomenclator, III, 347.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

St. Bercharius

(BERERUS).

Abbot of Hautvillers in Champagne, b. 636; d. 28 March, 696. Descended from a distinguished Aquitanian family, he received his instruction from St. Nivard (Nivo), Archbishop of Reims, under whose charge he advaneed rapidly in virtue and learning. Believing himself called to the sacred ministry, he entered the monastery of Luxeuil under St. Walbert, and by his humble and faithful performance of duty soon excelled his fellow-novices. Upon his return to Reims he induced St. Nivard to erect the cloister of Hautvillers, of which Bercharius himself became the first abbot. Wholly given up to prayer and meditation he also instructed his brethren to lead a contemplative life. Ever zealous for the propagation of the Faith, he founded two cloisters in the Diocese of Châlons-sur-Marne, the one (Puisye or Moutier-en-Der) for men, the other (Pellmoutier, Puellarum Monasterium) for women. These institutions he enriched by donations of valuable relics, procured on a journey to Rome and the Holy Land.

The monk Daguin, provoked by a reprimand from Bercharius, stabbed him during the night. No word of complaint or censure did he utter when the murderer was led before him; but he gloried in exhorting the transgressor to penance and in requesting him to make a pilgrimage to Rome to obtain pardon and absolution. Daguin left the monastery never to return. After two days of severe suffering, the saint succumbed to his wound, a martyr not for the Faith, indeed, but for charity and justice. His remains were preserved at Moutier-en-Der until the suppression of religious orders at the close of the eighteenth century. The commemoration of his name occurs in the martyrology on the 16th of October.

BUTLER, XV, 252; ADSO, Vita S. Bercharii; SURIUS, X, 481.

BARNABAS DIERINGER.

Pierre Bercheure

(BERCHOIRE, BERSUIRE).

A learned French Benedictine, b. 1290 at St. Pierre du Chemin (Vendee); d. 1362 at Paris. He joined the Order of St. Benedict at Maillezais, later lived at Avignon for a period of twelve years with Cardinal Peter de Pratis, Bishop of Praeneste, and in 1354 was made prior of St. Eligius at Paris. He was an eloquent preacher and a voluminous homiletical writer. His most important work is the “Repertorium morale,” for the use of preachers, a kind of Biblico-moral dictionary, in which the principal words of Scripture are arranged alphabetically and moral reflections attached thereto. It appeared some time before 1355 and was dedicated to Cardinal de Pratis. The “Repertorium” proved to be one of the most popular books of its kind and was frequently printed first at Cologne in 1477, and again at Nuremberg (1489), Lyons (1517), Paris (1521), Venice (1589), Antwerp (1609), etc. A French translation by Richard Leblanc appeared at Paris in 1584. Other works of Bercheure are: “Reductorium morale” to the Sacred Scriptures in thirty-four books, embracing all the books of the Bible, printed at Strasburg in 1474, Basle (1515), Lyons (1536); “Inductorium morale biblicum”; sixteen books on God and the world; and a French translation (the earliest) of Livy, made about 1350 at the request of King John the Good published at Paris in 1514 in three volumes. His “Inductorium morale biblicum,” commentaries, discourses, letters, and other treatises, have never been printed. Editions of his collected works appeared at Lyons (1520), Venice (1583, 1631), Cologne (1650, 1669), etc. .

GAUTIER in Actes acad. Bordeaux (1844), VI, 495; PANNIER, in Bibl. de l’ec. d. Chartes (1872), XXXIII, 325–364; CHEVALIER, Bio-bibliographie, s. v. Bersuire; BRAUNMULLER in Kirchenlex., II, 389; ZIEGELBAUER, Hist. rei litt. Ord. S. Ben., III, 183 sqq.

THOMAS OESTREICH

Bl. Berchtold

(BERTHOLD).

Abbot of the Benedictine Monastery of Engelberg in Switzerland; date of birth unknown; d. 3 November, 1197. Before becoming abbot he was a monk at Engelberg and a favorite disciple of the learned abbot, Blessed Frowin. When Frowin was on the point of dying he advised his monks to elect the pious Berchtold as his successor. Accordingly, after Frowin’s death, which occurred 27 March, 1178, Berchtold was chosen abbot. Following in Frowin’s footsteps, he was intent on maintaining strict monastic discipline, the importance of which he inculcated by his own example. Nor did he neglect, at the same time, to encourage his monks in the pursuit of Divine and human knowledge. By his order they reproduced many old writings, some of which are still extant in the library of Engelberg. The more learned monks were encouraged to write original works. When Abbot Burchard openly taught that the souls of the just had gone to heaven before the Resurrection of Christ, Berchtold himself wrote “Apologia contra errorem Burchardi Abbatis S. Joannis in Thurthal seu Vallis Taurinae,” in which he shows himself not only well versed in Holy Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers but also a master in theological knowledge and dialectical skill. Abbot Burchard became convinced of his error, retracted, and died a saintly death. Though especially mindful of the spiritual and intellectual advancement of his monks. Berchtold did not omit to provide also for the temporal welfare of Engelberg. He procured for his monastery many financial privileges, among which was the right to levy tithes upon the churches of Stanz and Buochs, which were under his jurisdiction. The contemporaneous annals of Engelberg, which are published in “Mon. Germ. Hist., SS.,” XVII, 280, relate that Berchtold foretold the death of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. Later chronicles state that, through his blessing, the lake near Stanzstad was stocked with fish, and that shortly before his death he three times changed water into wine. He is generally represented in the act of blessing fish. His miracle of turning water into wine is corroborated by an epigram beneath a representation of him which was kept in the choir of Engelberg up to the seventeenth century. At Engelberg his feast is celebrated on the anniversary of his death.

Acta SS. (Paris, 1887), Nov. 1, 385; MURER, Helvetia Sancta (Lucerne, 1648; St. Gall, 1751); BURGENER, Helvetia Sancta (Einsiedeln and New York, 1860), I, 80; Versuch einer urkundlichen Darstellung des reichsfreien Stiftes Engelberg (Lucerne, 1846); MAYER, Das Benediktiner Stift Engelberg (Lucerne, 1891).

MICHAEL OTT

Berengarius of Tours

Born at Tours about 999; died on the island of St. Cosme, near that city, in 1088. Having completed his elementary studies in his native city, he went to the school of Chartres in order to study arts and theology under the direction of the famous Fulbert. There he was distinguished by his curious and quick intelligence. It seems that even at this early time his bent of mind and singular opinions were a source of anxiety to his master. (M. Clerval, Les Ecoles de Chartres au Moyen Age, Chartres, 1895.) After the death of Fulbert (1029) Berengarius left Chartres and took charge, as scholasticus, of the school of St. Martin of Tours. His reputation spread rapidly and attracted from all parts of France numerous and distinguished disciples, who afterwards held positions of importance in the Church. Among them are mentioned, though there is some doubt about the first two, Hildebert of Lavardin who became Bishop of Le Mans and Archbishop of Tours, St. Bruno, the founder of the Carthusians, Eusebius Bruno, afterwards Bishop of Angers, Frolland, Bishop of Senlis, Paulinus, dean of Metz. In 1039 Berengarius was chosen archdeacon of Angers by Hubert, bishop of that city. Berengarius accepted this office, but continued to live at Tours and direct his school.

It was about 1047 that the teaching of Berengarius touching the Holy Eucharist began to attract attention. In the Eucharistic controversy of the ninth century, Radbert Paschasius, afterwards abbot of Corbie, in his De Corpore et Sanguine Domini (831), had maintained the doctrine that in the Holy Eucharist the bread is converted into the real body of Christ, into the very body which was born of Mary and crucified. Ratramnus, a monk of the same abbey, defended the opinion that in the Holy Eucharist there is no conversion of the bread; that the body of Christ is, nevertheless, present, but in a spiritual way; that it is not therefore the same as that born of Mary and crucified. John Scotus Erigena had supported the view that the sacraments of the altar are figures of the body of Christ; that they are a memorial of the true body and blood of Christ. (P. Batiffol, Etudes d’histoire et de théologie positive, 2d series, Paris, 1905.) When, therefore, Hugues, Bishop of Langres, and Adelman écolâtre of Liège, discussed Berengarius’s teachings on this subject, the latter answered by appealing to the authority of Erigena. It was at this point that Lanfranc, abbot of the monastery at Le Bec, attacked as heretical the opinion of Erigena and defended the doctrine of Radbert Paschasius. Berengarius, in his defense, wrote a letter which Lanfranc received in Rome whither he had gone to take part in a council. The letter was read in this council (1050); Berengarius was condemned, and was ordered to appear at a council which was to be held the same year at Vercelli. King Henry I being titular Abbot of St. Martin of Tours, Berengarius applied to him for permission to go to the council. It is probable that at this time the conferences of Brionne and Chartres were held in which Berengarius unsuccessfully defended his opinions. (Cf. Durand of Troarn, Liber de Corpore et Sanguine Christi, xxxiii, in Migne, P.L., CXLIX, 1422.) The king, for reasons which are not exactly known, ordered Berengarius to be imprisoned, and at the council of Vercelli (1050) his doctrine was examined and condemned.

The imprisonment, however, did not last long. The Bishop of Angers, Eusebius Bruno, was his disciple and supporter, and the Count of Anjou, Geoffrey Martel, his protector. The following year, by order of Henry I, a national synod was held in Paris to judge Berengarius and Eusebius Bruno; neither was present, and both were condemned. At the Council of Tours (1055), presided over by the papal legate Hildebrand, Berengarius signed a profession of faith wherein he confessed that after consecration the bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Christ. At another council held in Rome in 1059, Berengarius was present, retracted his opinions, and signed a formula of faith, drawn up by Cardinal Humbert, affirming the real and sensible presence of the true body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. (Mansi, XIX, 900.) On his return, however, Berengarius attacked this formula. Eusebius Bruno abandoned him, and the Count of Anjou, Geoffrey the Bearded, vigorously opposed him. Berengarius appealed to Pope Alexander II, who, though he intervened in his behalf, asked him to renounce his erroneous opinions. This Berengarius contemptuously refused to do. He then wrote his De Sacrâ Coenâ adversus Lanfrancum Liber Posterior, the first book of which—now lost—had been written against the Council of Rome held in 1059. He was again condemned in the Councils of Poitiers (1075), and of St. Maixeut (1076), and in 1078, by order of Pope Gregory VII, he came to Rome, and in a council held in St. John Lateran signed a profession of faith affirming the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, born of the Virgin Mary. The following year, in a council held in the same place Berengarius signed a formula affirming the same doctrine in a more explicit way. Gregory VII then recommended him to the bishops of Tours and Angers, forbidding that any penalty should be inflicted on him or that anyone should call him a heretic. Berengarius, on his return, again attacked the formula he had signed, but as a consequence of the Council of Bordeaux (1080) he made a final retraction. He then retired into solitude on the island of St. Cosme, where he died, in union with the Church.

DOCTRINES AND THEIR CONDEMNATION

According to some of their contemporaries, Berengarius held erroneous opinions about the spiritual power, marriage, the baptism of children, and other points of doctrine. (Bernold of Constance, De Berengerii haeresiarchae damnatione multiplici in P.L., CXLIX, 1456; Guitmond, De Corporis et Sanguinis Christi veritate in Eucharistiâ, P.L., CXLIX, 1429, 1480.) But Berengarius’s fundamental doctrine concerns the Holy Eucharist.

In order to understand his opinion, we must observe that, in philosophy, Berengarius had rationalistic tendencies and was a nominalist. Even in the study of the question of faith, he held that reason is the best guide. Reason, however, is dependent upon and is limited by sense-perception. Authority, therefore, is not conclusive; we must reason according to the data of our senses. There is no doubt that Berengarius denied transubstantiation (we mean the substantial conversion expressed by the word; the word itself was used for the first time by Hildebert of Lavardin); it is not absolutely certain that he denied the Real Presence, though he certainly held false views regarding it. Is the body of Christ present in the Eucharist, and in what manner? On this question the authorities appealed to by Berengarius are, besides Scotus Erigena, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine. These fathers taught that the Sacrament of the Altar is the figure, the sign, the token of the body and blood of the Lord. These terms, in their mind, apply directly to what is external and sensible in the Holy Eucharist and do not, in any way, imply the negation of the real presence of the true body of Christ. (St. Aug. Serm. 143, n.3; Gerbert, Libellus De Corp. et Sang. Domini. n. 4, P.L., CXXXIX, 177.) For Berengarius the body and blood of Christ are really present in the Holy Eucharist; but this presence is an intellectual or spiritual presence. The substance of the bread and the substance of the wine remain unchanged in their nature, but by consecration they become spiritually the very body and blood of Christ. This spiritual body and blood of Christ is the res sacramenti; the bread and the wine are the figure, the sign, the token, sacramentum.

Such is the doctrine of Berengarius in his various discussions, letters, and writings up to the Council of Rome in 1059. (Migne P.L., CXLII, 1327; CL, 66; Martène and Durand, Theasaurus Novus Anecdotorum, Paris, 1717, IV.) At this council, Berengarius signed a profession of faith affirming that the bread and wine after consecration are not only a sign, but the true body and blood of Christ which can be perceived in a sensible and real manner. (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Domini, ii, in P.L., CL, 410.) As already said, Berengarius retracted this confession. He maintained that the bread and wine, without any change in their nature, become by consecration the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, a memorial of the body crucified and of the blood shed on the cross. It is not, however, the body of Christ as it is in heaven; for how could the body of Christ which is now in heaven, necessarily limited by space, be in another place, on several altars, and in numerous hosts? Yet the bread and the wine are the sign of the actual and real presence of the body and blood of Christ. (De Sacrâ Coenâ; Lanfranc, op. cit.)

In the two councils of Lateran (1078 and 1079) Berengarius accepts and signs this profession of faith that after the consecration, the bread is the true body of Christ, the very body born of the Virgin—that the bread and wine on the altar, by the mystery of the sacred prayer and words of our Redeemer, are substantially converted into the very flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, true and life-giving, etc. (Martène et Durand, op. cit., IV, 103; Denzinger, Enchiridion, Wurzburg, 1900, n. 298.) In his explanation of this profession of faith, written after the council, Berengarius again clearly denies transubstantiation. He declares that, at the Last Supper, by virtue of the Lord’s blessing, the bread and wine, keeping their natural properties, received a power of sanctification and became the sacrament of His body and blood; that the bread and wine on the altar are the very body of Christ, His true and human body. (artene et Durand, op. cit., IV, 107.) From all of which we conclude that, during his life, and before his final prefession of faith, Berengarius certainly denied transubstantiation. As to the real presence, his thought is rather obscure and his attitude hesitating. There is much divergence of opinion among historians and theologians on the interpretation of Berengarius’s doctrines about this point, if it does not appear clearly that he denies the Real Presence, if perhaps the difficulty for him is in the mode rather than in the fact of the real presence; yet his exposition of it, together with his principles of philosophy, endanger the fact itself of the Real Presence and sounds very much like a negative of it.

INFLUENCES

Outside of Eusebius Bruno, who supported Berengarius, at least for a time, no theologian of importance systematically defended his doctrine. We know, however, from ecclesiastical writers of his own and the following period that the influence of his principles was widespread and caused serious disturbance. (Guitmund, op. cit. in P.L., CXLIX, 1429 sqq.; Durand of Troarn, Liber de Corp. et Sang. Christi, in P.L., CXLIX, 1421.) The writers of the following century continue their dissertations against the New Berengarians (cf. Gregorius Barbarigo in Hurter’s Sanctorum Patrum opuscula selecta, XXXIX); they find traces of his influence in various current phrases and sometimes warn against expressions which might be understood in the Berengarian sense. The Council of Piacenza (1095) again condemned Berengarius’ doctrine. His teachings favoured, at least to some extent, the diverse heresies of the Middle Ages about the Holy Eucharist, as also the Sacramentarians of the sixteenth century. The great theologians of the time were unanimous in protesting against his principles, attacking his opinion as contrary to the teaching of tradition and the doctrine of the Church. Among them we may mention especially Adelman, Scholasticus of Liège,; Hugues, Bishop of Langres; Lanfranc, then Abbot of Le Bec; Guitmund, a disciple of Lanfranc who became Bishop of Aversa; Durand, Abbot of St. Martin of Troarn; Bernold of Constance, and others, most of them Benedictines. (L. Biginelli, I benedittini e gli studi eucaristici nel medio evo, Turin, 1895.)

The error of Berengarius, as is the case with other heresies was the occasion which favoured and even necessitated, a more explicit presentation, and a more precise formulation of Catholic doctrine about the Holy Eucharist. Some expressions, among those used even by the adversaries of the Berengarian doctrine, were corrected. It was Hildebert of Lavardin, a contemporary of Berengarius if not his pupil, who first used the word transubstantiation. (Sermones xciii; P.L., CLXXI, 776.) The Council of Rome in 1079 in its condemnation of Berengarius, expresses more clearly than any document before it, the nature of this substantial change; and St. Thomas, in his definition of Transubstantiation uses almost the same terms as the council. (Sum. Theol., III, Q. lxxv, a. 4.) Though the feast of Corpus Christi was officially established only in the thirteenth century, its institution was probably occasioned by these eucharistic controversies. The same may be said of the ceremony of the elevation of the Host after the consecration in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

There is no complete edition of the works of Berengarius. Only one volume has been published by Visher in Berlin (1834) containing the second part of his De Sacrâ Coenâ, under the title: Berengarii Turonensis opera quae Supersunt tam inedita quam edita, I, De Sacra Coena adversus Lanfrancum liber posterior. Others of his opinions and writings are to be found in the works quoted above and in P.L., CL, 63, 66; H. Sudendorf, Berengarius Turonensis oder eine Sammlung ihn betreffender Briefe (Hamburg, 1850).

GEORGE M. SAUVAGE

Pierre Bérenger

(Peter of Poitiers, Petrus Scholasticus).

A French writer who flourished about the middle of the twelfth century. From the second name we may, perhaps, infer that Poitiers was his native place. He was a disciple of Abelard, and is celebrated chiefly for his vigorous defence of his master in a letter which he addressed to St. Bernard after Abelard’s condemnation at the Council of Soissons in 1141. Later on he wandered through the Cevennes Mountains, hunted, he tells us, not by wild beasts, but by the Christian faithful of the Diocese of Mende, who apparently took sides with St. Bernard. Those attacks were the occasion of a letter which he directed to the Bishop of Mende, and in which he retracted all that he had said against “the man of God” in his former epistle. There is also extant a letter of Bérenger’s against the monks of the Grand Chartreux (Contra Carthusienses). Finally, we find mention of a treatise, now lost, in which he discussed the doctrine of the Incarnation. The three letters are published by Migne (P.L., CLXXVIII, 1857 sqq.). That addressed to St. Bernard, while not wanting in grace and elegance of style, is altogether too intemperate in tone to deserve serious consideration as an historical document. In it occurs the well-known description of an informal meeting of the bishops on the eve of the Council of Soissons. If we are to believe Pierre, the prelates were primed in a most disgraceful manner in St. Bernard’s interests, and the condemnation of Abelard was decided before the council actually opened. Even if the author of this story had not afterwards excused it on the ground that is was the work of an inconsiderate youth, overcome by the ardour of his devotion to his teacher, the violent tone of the letter itself would be enough to condemn it. In the letter to the Bishop of Mende Pierre protests that he would recall all that he has written against St. Bernard were it possible to suppress all the copies of the letter, and begs that what he wrote be taken as a jest. He goes even farther when he says that his more mature judgment condemns the doctrines attributed by St. Bernard to Abelard—not, indeed, because they are untrue, but because they are unsafe. The invective against the Carthusians pays high tribute to the rule of the order, but finds fault with the proclivity of the members of the order to indulge in malicious gossip. Pierre exhibited many of the traits of his master. He was by nature a lover of contention, totally devoid of respect for the prestige of either person or institution. His sole merit was the undeniable vivacity and brilliancy of his style and his unusually extensive acquaintance with the poets of classical antiquity. He professed his devotion to Catholic dogma and apparently maintained that Abelard, though he had spoken of matters of faith in a manner novel and unsafe, had not been guilty of formal heresy, and had not been treated with that mercy to which his love of Catholic truth, as he saw it, entitled him.

Remusat, Abelard (Paris, 1855), I, 234 sqq.; Cousin, Petri Abaelardi opera (Paris, 1859), II, 771 sqq.; Vacandard in Dict. de theol. cath., s. v.

WILLIAM TURNER

Berenice

A titular see of Egypt which was situated at the end of Major Syrtis where Bengazi stands to-day. Its old name was Euhesperides, or Hesperides, for which Ptolemy III Evergetes substituted Berenice in honour of his wife (Droysen, Geschichte des Hellenismus, III, 2, 331). Like the other cities of Cyrenaica, it had received a Jewish colony, so it became early an important Christian centre. Dionysius of Alexandria (264–282) wrote a letter to its bishop, Ammonas (Eusebius, H. E. VII, 26), who is also spoken of in the “Apophthegmata Patrum” (Cotelier, Monum. Eccles. Graec. I, 385; Migne, P.G., LXV, 119). Daces was present at the Council of Nicaea in 325 (H. Gelzer, Patrum Nicaen. Nomina, 219). In 394, Probatius followed to Constantinople the Patriarch of Alexandria, Theophilus (Mansi, III, 852). The city was restored by Justinian (Procopius, De Aedif. VI, 2). It is mentioned with the wrong spelling “Beronice,” by Hierocles (733, 3) and by Georgius Cyprius (n. 794) among the bishoprics of the Lybian Pentapolis, but is omitted by the later “Notitiae.” It must have disappeared, like so many other sees, at the time of the Arab invasion in the seventh century.

Lequien, Oriens Christ., II, 623–626; Gams, Series episcoporum, 462.

L. PETIT

Diocese of Bergamo

(Diocese of Bergamo).

The city, called by the ancients Bergomum, is capital of the province of that name in Lombardy, and contains 45,000 inhabitants. It is said to be of Etruscan foundation. During the anarchy that reigned in Italy in the eleventh century, Bergamo set itself up as a commune, and as such joined the various leagues of Lombard communes formed to resist the power of the German emperors. At a later period, however, a number of powerful families succeeded each other in the mastery of the city, e.g. the Turriani, the Visconti, and the Suardi. From 1797 to 1859 Bergamo passed through all the political vicissitudes of Northern Italy. It has always been a city of great industrial and commercial importance. The neighbouring territory is rich in minerals, chiefly iron; there are also extensive quarries of choice marble. Among the celebrities of Bergamo are the poet, Bernardo Tasso, father of Torquato; the Jesuit Maffei, known for his history of Italian literature; Donizetti, the musical composer; Cardinal Angelo Mai, etc.

Bergamo is the seat of a bishop, suffragan to the Archbishop of Milan; the diocese contains a population of 430,000. Legend traces the beginnings of Christianity in this city back to St. Barnabas, said to have ordained St. Narnus who became first Bishop of Bergamo. More trustworthy is the account of the martyrdom of St. Alexander, said to have been tribune of the Theban Legion. Whatever the value of the details of the legend, the fact has been proved that long before Diocletian proclaimed the great persecution in 303, both Galerius and Maximian in the West inaugurated, on their own responsibility, a crusade against Christianity and sought particularly to remove all Christians from the armies (Allard, La persécution de Dioclétien, I, 101–146). St. Alexander was one of the victims of this persecution, and his martyrdom may well have taken place in 287. To this martyr was dedicated the first cathedral of the city, richly endowed by the Lombard king, Grimoaldus, and by Charlemagne.

In 1561 this was destroyed by the Venetians on account of its adaptability to the purposes of a fortress, and the church of San Vincenzo was raised to the dignity of a cathedral under the title of San Alessandro. This is a magnificent church adorned with a cupola of unusual size, rebuilt in 1689 after the designs of Carlo Fontana. It contains paintings by Previtali, Tiepolo, Ferrari, Moroni, Palma il Giovine, and Colghetti who decorated the interior of the cupola in the nineteenth century; likewise Bassorilievos of Fantoni, of exquisite workmanship. Worthy of special note is the octagonal baptistery formed of eight pieces of rosso antico (old red marble), the work of Giovanni da Campione, originally placed in the church of Santa Maria Maggiore, the most beautiful of the churches of Bergamo. The interior is decorated with wonderful frescoes by Cavagna, Procaccini, Luca Giordano, Ciro Ferri, etc. Remarkable also are the tombs of Cardinal Longo, of the Alessandri, and of Bartolommeo Colleoni, the last a work of the sculptor Amedeo. The chapel of this tomb is adorned with paintings by Tiepolo, Angelica Kaufmann, and Giuseppe Crespi. Other churches are those of San Alessandro in Colonna, with a beautiful “Last Supper” by Calligarino; San Alessandro della Croce, adorned by Palma il Vecchio, Bramantino, and others; San Andrea with paintings of Padovanino and Moretto; San Grata; San Bartolomeo; Santa Maria del Sepolero with a wonderful picture of St. Sigismund, the masterpiece of Previtali. Among the shrines of the diocese may be mentioned that of the Blessed Virgin della Cornabusa, formed by a great natural cavern, extending between three and four hundred feet into Monte Albenza, not far from the Jura Pass. Within recent times Bergamo has become the centre of important and far-reaching Catholic movements of a popular character.

The diocese contains 350 parishes, 512 churches, chapels, and oratories, 1,157 secular and 58 regular clergy, 400 seminarists, 84 lay brothers, 478 members of female religious orders, 8 schools for boys, 34 for girls, and a population of 430,000.

Cappelletti, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XI, 445; Mutio, Sacra istoria di Bergamo (1616); Gerrino, Synopsis eccl. bergomensis (1734); Lupi, Codex diplomaticus civitatis et ecclesiae bergomensis (1784).

U. BENIGNI

Nicolas-Sylvestre Bergier

French theologian, b. 31 December, 1715 at Darney in Lorraine; d. at Versailles, 9 April, 1790. After a course of theology in the University of Besançon, he received the degree of doctor, was ordained priest, and went to Paris to finish his studies. Returning to Besançon in 1748, he was given charge of a parish and later became president of the college of the city, which had formerly been under the direction of the Jesuits. In 1769 the Archbishop of Paris, M. de Beaumont, appointed him canon of the cathedral, and thenceforth Bergier resided at Paris. A pious priest and an energetic student, he devoted a great part of his time to writing in defence of religion. He agreed to correct certain articles of the “Encyclopédie,” but found himself obliged to write entirely original articles which then formed the “Dictionnaire de theologie” as a part of the “Encyclopédie.”

The works of Bergier are in the fields of apologetics and theology, except “Les elements primitifs des langues” (Besançon, 1764) and “L’origine des dieux du paganisme” (Paris, 1767). Among his apologetical and theological works, the most important are: “Le déisme refuté par lui-même” (Paris, 1765); “La certitude des preuves du christianisme” (Paris, 1767, also published in Migne’s “Démonstrations évangéliques,” XI); “Reponses aux Conseils raisonnables de Voltaire” (Paris, 1771, also in Migne, ibid.); “Apologie de la religion chrétienne”—against d’Holbach’s “Christianisme devoile” (Paris, 1769); “Réfutation des principaux articles du dictionnaire philosophique”; “Examen du matééééééééérialisme” (Paris, 1771); “Traité historique et dogmatique de la vraie religion” (Paris, 1780, and 8 vols. 8vo., 1820). The “Dictionnaire theologique” has been often edited, especially by Gousset in 8 vols. (Besançon, 1838) and Migne (Paris, 1850). Some of his writings concerning divorce, the question of the mercy of God and the origin of evil, and one volume of sermons were published after his death. Though on certain points, as on the questions of grace and the supernatural necessity of revelation, the doctrine of Bergier lacks precision and completeness, the value of his theological and apologetical work cannot be denied.

Notice historique, as an introduction to the Dictionnaire théologique, ed. by Migne (Paris, 1850); Janner in Kirchenlex., II, 408; Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1895), III; Dublanchy in Dict. de théol. cath., s. v.

G.M. SAUVAGE

Charles Berington

Titular Bishop of Hiero-Caesarea, b. at Stock, Essex, England, 1748; d. 8 June, 1798. His life is a continued story of disappointed hopes and expectations. At thirteen he was sent to the English College at Douai, where his abilities at once showed themselves; but he never applied himself to his work. His progress was so unsatisfactory that four years later he was removed and sent to St. Gregory’s Seminary, Paris. According to his cousin, the Rev. Joseph Berington, he did very little better at Paris than at Douai, though he succeeded at last in taking his doctorate at the Sorbonne in 1776. On his return to England, he became chaplain at Ingatestone Hall, a few miles from his birthplace. After travelling for two years with young Mr. Giffard of Chillington, on his return, Berington was appointed coadjutor to Bishop Thomas Talbot, Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District, becoming at the same time titular Bishop of Hiero-Caesarea.

The Midland District, one of the four into which for ecclesiastical purposes England was then divided, was at that time the stronghold of “Cisalpine” opinions. With these Charles Berington was in full sympathy, in consequence of which, in 1788, he was elected a member of the Catholic Committee, who were then agitating for the repeal of the Penal Laws, for which end they were unfortunately willing to minimize some of their Catholic principles. Two other ecclesiastics were elected at the same time, the Rev. Joseph Wilkes, O.S.B., and Bishop James Talbot, Vicar Apostolic of the London District, though the latter’s appointment was merely nominal, for he never attended the meetings. Berington took a leading part in the disputes which followed between the Committee and the bishops, and though his sympathies were chiefly with the former, he exerted a restraining influence on them, and was ever trying to bring about an understanding between the two contending parties. Nevertheless, he did not scruple to sign his name to the most extreme documents which appeared in the official publications of the Committee known as the “Blue Books,” and he defended the oath intended to be imposed by the legislature on the Catholics, which was afterwards condemned by the Holy See. In the midst of these disputes Bishop James Talbot died, and endeavours were made by the Committee to secure the appointment of Berington in his place, so that he might reside in London and exert the influence attached to the position. These endeavours failed, and Dr. Douglass was appointed Vicar Apostolic. Some of the more extreme laymen, however, maintained that they had a right to choose their own bishop, and called upon the Catholic body to disavow the prelate appointed by Rome, and to rally round Berington; but on this occasion the latter showed his sound sense by publishing a letter in which he refused to have anything to do with these machinations, by which action he practically put an end to them.

Bishop Thomas Talbot died in 1795, and Charles Berington succeeded as Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District. Again he appeared to have a career before him. Before giving him his special faculties, however, Rome called upon him to withdraw his signature from the Blue Books. For several years he demurred, being still under “Cisalpine” influence. At length, through the intervention of Monsignor Erskine, who was living in England as an informal papal envoy, Berington was induced to sign the necessary retraction, on 11 October, 1797. After some delay due to the disturbed state of Rome, his faculties were sent, but they never reached him, for he died suddenly of apoplexy while riding home from Sedgley Park.

Charles Butler, Hist. Memoirs of English Catholics; Milner, Supplem. Memoirs; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.; Amherst, History of Catholic Emancipation; Husenbeth, Life of Milner; Brady, Episcopal Succession in England and Ireland, etc.

BERNARD WARD

Joseph Berington

One of the best known Catholic writers of his day, b. at Winsley, in Herefordshire, 16 January, 1743; d. at Buckland, 1 December, 1827. He was educated at the English College at Douai, showing such talent and originality of mind that after his ordination to the priesthood he was promoted to the chair of philosophy in the university. In this position his inclination towards liberal opinions became apparent, and his theses, prepared for the exhibition of his pupils, created such a stir that he thought it prudent to resign. On his return to England, he occupied several positions in turn, each intended to give him leisure to pursue his studies. From 1776 to 1782 he was chaplain to Mr. Thomas Stapleton, of Carlton, Yorkshire, acting at the same time as tutor to his son, with whom he afterwards travelled around Europe. We next find him at Oscott, then a lonely country mission, where his cousin, Charles Berington, who had been appointed coadjutor bishop, joined him. Both the Beringtons were of the same caste of mind; both were favourers of the committee appointed to represent the Catholics in their struggle for emancipation, which gained for itself an unfortunate notoriety for its liberalizing principles, and the generally anti-episcopal tendency of its action. The Midland District was the chief centre of these opinions, and fifteen of the clergy of Staffordshire formed themselves into an association of which Joseph Berington was the leader, the primary object being to stand by their bishop, Thomas Talbot, who was partly on that side. Afterwards, however, they were led into other action, especially in taking up the case of Rev. Joseph Wilkes, who had been suspended by his bishop in consequence of his action on the committee, which laid them open to criticism.

Joseph Berington was by this time becoming well known as an author with an attractive style of writing, but of very advanced views. His “State and Behaviour of English Catholics” (1780) contained more than one passage of doubtful orthodoxy; his “History of Abelard” (1784) brought into prominence the same philosophical tendencies which had before manifested at Douai; and his “Reflexions,” addressed to Rev. J. Hawkins, an apostate priest (1785 and 1788), were much criticized; while perhaps more than all, the “Memoirs of Panzani,” which he edited with an Introduction and Supplement (1793), gave him the reputation of being a disloyal Catholic. Under these circumstances, when Sir John Throckmorton of Buckland in Berkshire, appointed Berington his chaplain, Dr. Douglass, Bishop of the London District (in which Buckland was situated), refused to give him faculties, till in 1797 he printed a letter explaining his views, which the bishop considered satisfactory. A year or two later, Dr. Douglass again suspended him, until he signed a further declaration in 1801.

Berington passed the remainder of his life at Buckland, where he wrote the most extensive of all his works, “The Literary History of the Middle Ages” (1811). He published many other books at different times; but some of his writings remained in manuscript, lest their publication should give offence. In private life Joseph Berington was a model priest, exact in the discharge of his duties, and noted for his charity to the poor. He was respected by all who knew him, Catholic and Protestant alike, and after his death a slab was erected in his memory in the Protestant church at Buckland with an inscription written by his friend, Rev. John Bew, formerly President of Oscott. The only likeness extant is a silhouette, in the Catholic Directory for 1832. Berington’s works (besides those mentioned in the text) are: “Present State of Caths.” (1787); “Rights of Dissenters” (1789); “Henry II, Richard and John” (1790); “Examination of Events termed Miraculous” (1796); “Gother’s Prayers” (1800); “Faith of Catholics” (1813); “Decline and Fall of Cath. Relig. in Eng.” (1813, a reprint of Memoirs of Panzani); numerous letters and pamphlets and many other works in MS.

Cooper in Dict. Of Nat. Biog.; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.; Ward, Cath. London a Century ago (1905); Husenbeth, Life of Milner; Cath. Miscellany (1828).

BERNARD WARD

Humphrey Berisford

Confessor (c. 1588) of whom the only extant account occurs in the MS. marked “F,” compiled during the seventeenth century by Father Christopher Grene. This MS. which is now at the English College in Rome has been partly printed in Foley’s “Records” (III). Of Humphrey Berisford it states that he was a gentleman of the county of Derby, whose father, an esquire, was a Protestant. The account continues: “He studied at Douay about two years. Returning from thence, his father employed him about his suit in law, and having once a suit against one, who fearing to be cast by his means, accused him before the judge for a recusant. When the cause should have been heard the judge examined him. He constantly professed his faith. Then the judge offered both favour to his cause and liberty if he would but only say he would go to their church; which he utterly refused. Therefore he was committed to prison where he remained seven [blank in original] then died a prisoner.” Gillow conjectures that the missing word was years and states that he died in Derby Gaol about 1588. To this account nothing can with certainty be added. The “Douay Diaries” mention one “Beresfordus” among other “sons of men of position” (nobilium filii) as leaving the college in November, 1576. On 31 May, 1577, he is spoken of as returning from Paris and is then alluded to as clarus adolescens. But this young man cannot be certainly identified with Humphrey Berisford as there were at this time other Catholics of the same name, three of whom, James, Oswald, and Frederick Beresford, were prisoners in the Poultry Counter in London, in this very year.

FOLEY, Records Eng. Prov., S. J. III, 230; GILLOW, Bib. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885), I, 200; Douay Diaries (London, 1877), 113, 122.

EDWIN BURTON

Berissa

(Berisa or Verissa)

A titular see of Pontus Polemoniacus, in Asia Minor which Kiepert and Ramsay have rightly identified with the modern village of Baulus or Bolus, south-west of Tokat. In the time of St. Basil it was included in the Diocese of Ibora, as appears from letters LXXXVI and LXXXVII of the great bishop, but soon after became an independent bishopric in Armenia Prima, with Sebasteia as metropolis. This important change took place before 458, when its bishop, Maxentius (written wrongly Ausentius), subscribed with his colleagues of Armenia Prima the synodal letter to the Emperor Leo (Mansi, XII, 587–589). Hierocles, at the beginning of the sixth century, does not treat it as an independent city; but it is mentioned as such by Justinian in a Novella of 536, among the cities of Armenia Secunda. It must be remembered that this emperor, when creating the province of Armenia Quarta in 536, gave to Armenia Prima the name of Armenia Secunda, without altering, however, the established ecclesiastical organization, so that Berissa remained a suffragan see of Sebasteia. Among its bishops may be mentioned Thomas, who was present at the fifth oecumenical council, in 553 (Mansi, IX, 175), and another at the sixth in 680 (ibid., XI, 66). It appears still later in the “Notitiae Episcopatuum” as suffragan to Sebasteia, and its name is written sometimes Berisse, sometimes Berisse; Merisse and Kerisse are merely palaeographical mistakes. Berissa was a Latin bishopric as late as the fifteenth century, when Paul II appointed the Franciscan Libertus de Broehun to succeed the deceased bishop, John (Wadding, Annales Minorum, VI, 708).

Lequien, Oriens Christ., I, 433; III, 1071; Gams, Series episcop., 440; Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, 329.

L. PETIT

José Mariano Beristain y Martin de Souza

Mexican bibliographer, b. in Puebla, Mexico, 22 May, 1756; d. at Mexico, 23 March, 1817. He went to Spain and spent some time in the family of the former Bishop of Puebla, then Archbishop of Toledo. Returning to Mexico (1811) he was made Archdeacon of the Metropolitan church of Mexico (1813), and was afterwards its Dean. Beristain was a secular priest who had made thorough studies at Mexico and perfected them in Spain under the most favourable circumstances. He wrote a number of treatises, some of them on economic subjects, but hardly any were published, the manuscripts being mostly lost through carelessness in sending them to Europe. His great work is the “Biblioteca hispano-americana septentrional,” the last part of which was published after his death. For this he used as a basis the “Biblioteca mexicana” of Bishop Juan José de Eguiara y Eguren of which only the first volume (as far as “J”) appeared in print. Beristain at first intended to republish Eguiara, completing the alphabet by means of sketches and notes left by the author, but, as he proceeded to carry out the idea, he found that it would be preferable to compose an independent bibliography, incorporating in it the material Equiara had collected. The “Bibioteca” of Beristain is, thus far, the most complete work on the subject that exists, but it contains many errors in names and dates. Still, if we take into account the time when he wrote, and the great obstacles he had to overcome in the shape of distances from sources and their frequent inaccessibility, it must be considered a monumental work and, up to this day, the principal source of knowledge of the bibliography of Mexico and Central America.

Autobiography in the Biblioteca hispano-americana septentrional (Mexico, 1816–19); Diccionario universal de Historia y Geografia (Mexico, 1853), I; Ycazbalceta, Bibliotecas de Eguiara y de Beristain; Memorias de la academia Mexicana (Mexico, 1878), I.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Anton Berlage

Dogmatic theologian, b. 21 December, 1805, at Münster, Westphalia; d. there, 6 December, 1881. He studied philosophy and theology in the same city, after completing his course at the Gymnasium, and proceeded to the University of Bonn in 1826. Esser, at Münster, and especially Hermes, at Bonn, led him to such speculations in theology as would have proved detrimental, had he not prosecuted his studies at Tübingen, during 1829 and 1830, under Drey, Hirscher, and Möhler, who influenced him by their historic method, thus saving him from the danger of philosophical systems then prevalent in Germany. He graduated as Doctor of Theology at the University of Munich while yet a deacon, and soon after began his long career as professor in the Academy of Münster, his native town, where he taught till his death. In 1832 he was ordained priest without ever having taken a course in any ecclesiastical seminary. His first book, “Apologetik der Kirche,” was published in 1835, and favourably noticed by Protestant critics. He was appointed, first, associate professor, then regular professor, lecturing on apologetics and moral theology, but he ultimately restricted himself to dogmatic theology. His influence on the theological faculty of the Academy was so marked that its spirit may be said to be his. He became dean of the faculty in 1849 and, with Bisping, Schwane, and others, established the fame of his Alma Mater, excelling less in speculation than in argument and in positive exposition of dogma. Kihn numbers him among those who discussed theological matters philosophically, while Knöpfler regards him as belonging to the Tübingen school. Bruck, in his history of the Catholic Church in the nineteenth century, declares, “Berlage’s writings excel in correct expression of dogmatic principles, in elegance of language, and in clearness of diction.” Those who have been his pupils say that as a lecturer he was concise, direct, and refined. He garnered the fruit of his studies in seven volumes, “Katholische Dogmatik,” published 1839–64.

Kaulen in Kirchenlex., s. v.; Bruck, Geschichte der Kathol. Kirche im XIX, Jahrhundert; Kihn, Encyclopadie und Methodologie der Theologie, 404; Knopfler, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, 727; Litterarische Handweiser, 1881, no. 303.

JOS. SELINGER

Pierre Berland

Archbishop of Bordeaux, b. 1375 in Médoc; d. 1457 at Bordeaux. Being of humble extraction, it was only through the liberality of friends that he was able to study the humanities at Bordeaux and canon law at Toulouse. Ordained priest, he was, first, secretary to the Archbishop of Bordeaux, then canon of St. Andrew’s, and afterwards pastor of Soliac. In 1430 he was made Archbishop of Bordeaux. During his incumbency, he took a great interest in educational matters, founded the University of Bordeaux, endowed St. Raphael’s College with twelve scholarships for indigent students, and in general won the character of a highly cultured and saintly prelate. His position as archbishop was most delicate. During the Hundred Years’ War, the province of Guyenne had showed marked preference for the English Crown. On the other hand, the conduct of the English toward Joan of Arc, martyred shortly after Berland’s preferment, coupled with the ambition of Henry VI, who had himself solemnly crowned King of France at Paris, could not meet the approval of the worthy archbishop. Twice he went north in an endeavour to bring his suzerain to greater moderation. Having failed in this, he transferred his allegiance to Charles VII, King of France, and was instrumental in bringing about the submission of the whole province to the French Crown, and with the termination of the Hundred Years’ War. Berland, old and inform, resigned his see in 1457 and died shortly afterwards, venerated by his people. His remains were laid at rest in the vault of the cathedral, and his name is yet honoured at Bordeaux. The tower he caused to be built at St. Andrew’s church in 1440, is called in his honour “Pey Berland” or “Pere Berland” even to this day. Louis XI had obtained from Sixtus IV the appointment of a commission with a view towards Berland’s beatification, but the cause fell through at that prince’s death. This fact, coupled with the veneration of the people, accounts for the appellation “Bienheureux Berland” by which he is known.

Gallia Christ. (Paris, 1720), II; Moreri, Dict. hist. (Amsterdam, 1740); Comptes-rendus des travaux de la commission des monuments historiques de la Gironde (Paris, 1852).

J.F. SOLLIER

Fray Tomás de Berlanga

Bishop of Panama, b. at Berlanga in Spain, date uncertain; d. there 8 August, 1551. He was professed at the convent of San Esteban of Salamanca, 10 March, 1608, in the Dominican Order, and in time was elected prior of the convent on the Island of Hispaniola (Santo Domingo). The Dominicans of Hispaniola then depended on the province of Andalusia, but Berlanga obtained at Rome, in 1528, the establishment of a separate province under the name of Santa Cruz, of which was made provincial in 1530. From Santa Domingo he claimed the newly founded province of Santiago de Mexico as being under his jurisdiction, but was successfully opposed by Fray Domingo de Betanzos. About the same time he was proposed for the Bishopric of Panama, and went thither. His vast and indefinite diocese embraced everything discovered, and to be discovered, on the South-American west coast, from which but a few years previous had come the news of the discovery of Peru by Pizarro. When, therefore, the Spanish crown began to notice signs of trouble between Pizarro and Almagro, about their respective territorial limits, it sent Bishop Berlanga to Peru with power to arbitrate between the two on any question at issue. At the same time the Spanish monarch, the Emperor Charles VI, by a decree (cédula) dated 19 July, 1534, ordered Berlanga to make a report on the condition and prospects of Peru, its geographical and ethnographic peculiarities. The arbitration failed. Pizarro had (perhaps because he had been secretly informed of the bishop’s mission) settled for the time being with Almagro and sent him off to Chile, so that no communication from Berlanga reached him. The latter’s office as arbitrator was thereby practically vacated, and he returned to his see, refusing all advances made to him by Pizarro. The latter displayed considerable feeling, complaining that, as long as the conquest was in doubt, he had been left alone, but that now that it had been achieved “a step-father had been sent to him.” Berlanga sent to the crown a description of what he saw, a brief and unvarnished report from the standpoint of a cool-headed observer. His mission was well intended, but practically impossible. Pizarro had artfully removed the other party to the proposed arbitration, and Berlanga was too honest to yield to insinuations of a one-sided investigation. Of the gifts tendered he accepted for himself a dozen silver spoons valued at twelve ducats, 600 pesos for the hospital of Panama, and 400 for the hospital of Nicaragua. After promoting the construction of the convent of Santa Domingo at Lima, Berlanga returned, in 1357, to Spain where he died in his native town.

Oviedo, Historia general, etc. (Madrid, 1850, etc.); Cieza, Cronica del Peru; Vedia, Historiadores primitivos de Indias, II, and especially the third part: Guerra de las Salinas, MSS. unpublished; Documentos ineditos de Indias (important letters by Berlanga); Davila Padilla, Historia de la fundacion y discurso de la provincia de Santiago de Mexico (2d ed., Brussels, 1625); Herrera, Historia general, (2d ed., Antwerp, 1729, etc.); Anon., Conquista y poblacion del Peru in Historiadores primitivos de Chile; Mendiburu, Diccionario (Lima, 1876), II; Relaciones geograficas de Indias (1885), I, Introduction. Jimenez de la Espada, in the same introduction, mentions a report by Berlanga, Relacion de la calidad de la tierra, puertos y poblacion del Peru (dated February 3, 1538, printed on page 41 of the Introduction); Libro primero de Cabildos de Lima (Lima, 1888).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Berlin

Capital of the German Empire and of the Kingdom of Prussia, and residence of the German Emperor and Prussian, King. It is situated in the heart of the Mark of Brandenburg, on both sides of the Spree above its entrance into the Havel. The city covers an area of 24–1/2 sq. miles and had, 1 December, 1905, 2,040,148 inhabitants, not including the population of the suburbs which are virtually parts of the city. Of the inhabitants of Berlin 223,948 are Catholics; 1,695,251 are Protestants; 98,893 Jews, and 22,056 belong to other denominations.

HISTORY

The present city of Berlin has grown out of two settlements of the Wends: Kolln, lying on an island in the Spree, and Berlin, opposite, on the right bank of the Spree. Kolln is mentioned for the first time in an official document dated 1237; Berlin, in 1244. Even at this date both places possessed the rights of Brandenburgian cities, but were not equal in importance to other cities of the Mark. A number of old churches, which are still among the most important ones of the city, testify to the active religious life prevalent at this early date, as: the church of St. Mary, erected at the end of the thirteenth century; the church of St. Nicholas; the church of the Grey Monastery (Kirche des grauen Klosters), a Gothic edifice built at the end of the thirteenth century. Altogether there were about eighteen church-buildings in Berlin before the Reformation. It was not until the two towns were united into one community, in 1307, that the place grew to be of some importance. In the tumultuous times which prevailed in the Mark of Brandenburg during the fourteenth century, Berlin and Frankfort-on-the-Oder became the leaders of the confederation of the cities against the nobles, and joined the Hanseatic League. When the Emperor Charles IV obtained the Mark from the house of Wittelsbach, Berlin rose against him, but was defeated and compelled to open its gates to the emperor. Berlin paid an unwilling obedience to Frederick I of Hohenzollern who made his entry into the city in 1415. When the Elector Frederick II again separated the two cities and erected a fortified castle between Berlin and Kolln, on the site of the present royal residence, the inhabitants, under the leadership of Bernd Ryke, revolted, stormed the house in which the elector was accustomed to live when in Berlin, and destroyed the public records. Frederick conquered the rebels and took from the city its jurisdiction and other privileges. In 1451 the castle was completed; Elector John Cicero chose it for his usual residence, which greatly increased the importance of Berlin. The Reformation found ready acceptance in Berlin, and after the death of Joachim I (see BRANDENBURG) it triumphed over the old Faith. The nobility living in the neighbourhood of Berlin accepted the new doctrine at Teltow, April, 1539, and the Elector Joachim II, in the same year, followed their example. On the 2d of November the first celebration of the Lord’s Supper according to the Lutheran Rite took place at Berlin in the Dominican church, which was later transformed into a Protestant cathedral. In 1540 the new church ritual for the Mark was settled and printed at Berlin. The Reformation in a short time gained a complete ascendancy, the monasteries were suppressed, and the Franciscan Father Petrus (d. 1571) was the last Catholic priest in Berlin until the coming of the Dominicans about one hundred and fifty years later.

The city suffered greatly during the Thirty Years War, its population sinking to 4,000 in consequence of a plague. It slowly recovered from the injuries inflicted by this war during the reign of Frederick William, the Great Elector, grew in size, and was surrounded by new fortifications. Immigrants from the Low Countries and French Huguenots, who brought many branches of industry with them, raised the number of inhabitants to 20,000. Frederick I made Berlin the royal residence and adorned it with many fine buildings, the most famous architect and sculptor of the time being Schluter. In 1709 Frederick introduced a common government for the five divisions of the city which had gradually grown up. In 1696 he founded the Academy of Fine Arts, and in 1700 the Academy of Sciences, of which Leibnitz was the first president. Berlin suffered greatly during the Seven Years War, in the course of which it was seized and plundered in 1575 by the Austrians, and in 1760 by the Russians; but under the wise rule of Frederick the great (Frederick II) it rapidly recovered from the damage done to it and became an important centre of commerce, industry, and intellectual life. The number of inhabitants increased to 115,000. Frederick William II also spent large sums of money in beautifying the royal city. Under Frederick William II there was a temporary check to its development during the era of the Napoleonic ascendancy. In 1808 the city acquired the right of self-government to a limited degree, and in 1809 the University of Berlin was founded. During the long period of peace which followed the downfall of Napoleon a new development of the city began and its artistic embellishment of Schinkel, Rauch, Schadow, and others made rapid progress. In 1838 the first railway, from Berlin to Potsdam, was opened; the railway traffic increased the industrial importance of the city, and in 1844 the first large industrial exhibition of the German States belonging to the customs-union was held here. On the 15th of March, 1848, a revolution broke out; more than 1,000 barricades were erected, and encounters between the soldiers and the populace occurred; on the 18th of March a bloody struggle took place in the streets of Berlin in which the soldiers were victorious, but they afterwards withdrew from the city at the order of the king. In 1871 Berlin became the capital of the new German Empire. From 13 June to 13 July, 1878, were held the sessions of the Berlin Congress; since this date Berlin has developed into a great metropolis; it has become the most important industrial city of the European continent, the most important railway centre, and one of the chief commercial cities of the empire.

For about one hundred and fifty years after the Reformation Catholicism was suppressed in Berlin; public Catholic church services were forbidden; Mass could be said only in the private chapels of the Catholic embassies. As late as 1653 the elector was obliged to promise the Protestant diet that he would not allow private or public Catholic church services. In order to be able to raise troops more easily in Catholic districts Frederick William I in 1720 gave the first permission for the holding of public Catholic services in a private house in Berlin; soon after this the first Catholic chapel was fitted up. The pastoral care was exercised by Dominicans from Halberstadt; the saintly Father Bruhns being particularly successful in his labours. The conquest of Catholic Silesia by Frederick the Great drew many Catholics to Berlin, and the church of St. Hedwig was built for the Catholic community (1747–73), Frederick the Great giving the ground. He also built a small church at the home for disabled soldiers, for the Catholic pensioners. The addition of large Catholic territories in consequence of the partition of Poland, the secularization of 1802–03, and that of 1815 by the Vienna Congress likewise increased the number of Catholics in Berlin, but it was not until 1848 that they obtained more freedom. Since then the growth of the Catholic population has kept pace with the development of the municipality. Under Frederick the Great the Catholic population was about 5,000 in 107,000 inhabitants; in 1817 there were 186,570 Protestants to 6,157 Catholics; in 1843, 16,453 Catholics, to 328,253 Protestants; 1853, 19,075 Catholics; 1871, 51,517; 1885, 99,579; 1900, 188,440 Catholics in Berlin proper. Church buildings did not increase in the same ratio, and the need of more edifices grew continually greater. With the aid of the whole of Catholic Germany a number of Catholic churches was erected in the decade beginning with 1890 to meet this want, but the construction of new church buildings, especially in the rapidly growing environs and suburbs of Berlin is still one of the most imperative needs of Catholicism in the capital of the German Empire.

STATISTICS

Ecclesiastically, Berlin belongs to the Delegation of the Mark of Brandenburg, which is under a delegate of the Prince-Bishop of Breslau; the delegate is the Provost of St. Hedwig’s in Berlin. The Archipresbyterate of Berlin embraces the city of Berlin with the exception of a small part of Friedrichsberg (2,686 Catholics), and includes also the suburbs called Treptow, Straulau, Schoneberg, and a part of Charlottenburg (as far as the parish of St. Matthias); the Catholics in the presbyterate numbered in 1907, 239,666, of whom 221,262 lived in Berlin proper. The other suburbs, both large and small, belong to the Archipresbyterate of Charlottenburg. In 1907 the Catholic clergy of Berlin consisted of 13 clergy of higher rank (the provost, 7 parish priests, and 5 military chaplains), 31 assistant clergy, 7 priests in other positions, and 15 living in community—altogether 66 priests, of whom 26 do not come from the Diocese of Breslau. The archipresbyterate is divided for the cure of souls into 14 districts composed of 8 parishes and 6 vicariates; in 1907 another vicariate was in process of erection. The Catholic soldiers are formed into 6 church communities or parishes; Berlin is also the seat of the Catholic field-provostship for the Prussian army and the imperial navy. In 1907 Berlin had 8 Catholic parish churches and 18 chapels where public church services were held; these with the private chapels made 31 church edifices; 1 church building and 1 chapel were then in process of construction. With the exception of the church of St. Hedwig and the church in the home for invalided soldiers, all of the Catholic church buildings of Berlin were erected in more recent times. The principal churches are: St. Hedwig (1747–73—see above); in the style of the Pantheon at Rome; St. Michael, the first Catholic garrison-church of Berlin (1851–61) in early Renaissance style; St. Sebastian, the largest Catholic church of Berlin (1890–93) in Gothic style, tower 269 feet high; St. Paul, a Dominican church (1892–93) in Gothic style; St. Matthew, a Gothic building (1893–95), tower 302 feet high; St. Pius (1898–94), rather tasteless Gothic; St. John, the second Catholic garrison church and one of the largest buildings of Berlin (1894–97), in Romanesque style; church of the Heart of Jesus (Herz-Jesukirche), Romanesque style (1897–98).

SCHOOLS

There has been no public Catholic higher school for boys in Berlin since the struggle between the Catholic Church and the State (Kulturkampf) swept away the Catholic Progymnasium; there is, however a private higher school for boys with about 130 pupils. The Catholic boys who attend the state and city high-schools are divided, for purposes of religious instruction, into twelve groups of four sections each. There are 3 higher Catholic schools for girls; two of these prepare teachers, and one is conducted by the Ursulines and includes a conservatory of music. There are 30 Catholic schools for primary instruction, attended by over 20,000 Catholic children, namely the parish school of St. Hedwig and 29 Catholic town-district schools.

ORDERS, CONGREGATIONS, AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS

The male orders in Berlin are: Dominicans, 1 house with 10 priests and 7 brothers; the Poor Brothers of St. Francis, 1 house with 17 brothers who carry on an orphan asylum for boys. The female orders and congregations in Berlin proper had, in 1907, 18 houses and 387 inmates: the Ursulines, a house with 37 inmates, carry on a boarding-school for girls, a higher school for girls united to a private seminary for teachers and a conservatory of music; the Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo, a house with 56 Sisters, have charge of St. Hedwig’s hospital, which has an average of 530 patients and 160 convalescents; Dominican nuns, 4 houses with 95 sisters, carry on the St. Katherine Home, which includes a day-nursery and home for women servants, the St. Antonius Home, which includes a kindergarten and nursery for small children, a home for women servants, and an institution of visiting nurses for the sick and poor, the Maria-Victoria Sanatorium, a hospital and institution for visiting-nurses for the sick and poor, and the St. Vincent Ferrer Home, a dispensary and home of nurses for the sick and poor and a home for women servants; the Grey Sisters, 7 houses with 137 sisters, have in charge 4 dispensaries and homes for visiting-nurses, St. Joseph’s Hospital, and the St. Afra Home, which includes a rescue and orphan asylum, a home for women servants and a creche; these sisters are also the nurses in 2 garrison hospitals. The Sisters of St. Mary, 58 sisters in 4 houses, 1 of which is in Berlin-Rixdorf, conduct the Hospital of St. Mary, 3 homes for visiting-nurses, and a housekeeping and needlework school combined with a kindergarten. The Sisters of St. Joseph, 13 sisters in 1 house, conduct a hospice or boarding-home for single women and young girls; a boarding-school where housekeeping is taught, and a house for retreats. St. Joseph’s Orphan Asylum, housing 200 children, is conducted by ladies, not professed religious, who lead a king of conventual life. Taking these and other Catholic institutions together, there are in Berlin proper 4 Catholic hospitals, 12 dispensaries and homes for visiting-nurses, 4 institutions for convalescents, 3 institutions for the care of small children, 9 day-nurseries, 5 homes for children of school-age, 3 hospices for young men, 6 hospices, or boarding-homes, for ladies—for self-supporting women who are bookkeepers, telephone employees, and the like—8 homes for girls who are out of employment; 7 housekeeping and needlework schools, 3 orphan asylums and institutions for first communicants, 1 rescue home for girls.

ASSOCIATIONS

There is much activity among the Catholic societies of Berlin. In 1907 the religious associations were: 21 brotherhoods and confraternities of the Rosary; 9 societies of the Childhood of Jesus; 8 societies of Christian mothers; 7 confraternities of the Holy Family; 7 altar societies for the making of vestments; 11 St. Charles Borromeo societies; 9 societies for collecting funds, especially for the Boniface associations; 12 sodalities of the B.V.M., 10 youths’ or St. Aloysius sodalities. Among the local charitable associations are: the Catholic charity organization of Berlin and its suburbs, an association of all the Catholic benevolent institutions, endowments, and societies of Berlin and its environs; Societies of St. Vincent de Paul, including 16 conferences for men and 16 conferences for women; the St. Hedwig’swomen’s association; the society of the B.V.M. for the protection of girls; 4 societies for the care of lying-in women; the Catholic burial association; the society for the care of the Catholic deaf and dumb of Berlin, its environs, and the whole delegature. The most important associations in connection with the various callings are: the Catholic Journeymen’s Union, having a building of its own; the Catholic Apprentices’ Union; the Master-Workmen’s Union; 13 Catholic workmen’s unions, with about 2800 working-men members, which belong to the district organization for Berlin; 11 associations, having 1500 members, which belong to the Berlin district organization, and are composed of working-women, unmarried, and married women; the unions of the organized Catholic Workingmen’s associations (28); the Christian unions, 32 groups with over 4000 workingmen members; the Catholic business men’s society with 400 members; 2 societies of Catholic male and female teachers; 9 associations of Catholic students; 2 Philister societies. Among the political associations should be named: the Peoples Union of Catholic Germany with about 4000 members; 13 organized groups in Berlin proper of the Centre Party; the Windthorst Union. Besides these there are some 20 singing, and church-choir, societies, and about 25 social societies. The most important of the 6 Catholic papers are: “The Germania,” and the “Markische Zeitung.”

Streckfuss, Berlin im 19, Jahrh. (Berlin, 1867–69); Idem, 500 Jahre Berliner Gesch. (5th ed., Berlin, 1900); Schwebel, Gesch. der Stadt Berlin (Berlin, 1888); Geiger, Berlin 1688–1840 (Berlin, 1893–94); Holtze, Gesch. der Stadt Berlin (Tubingen, 1906); Cortain, Das kathol. Berlin (Berlin, 1906); Amtliche Fuhrer durch die furstbischofliche Delegatur (Berlin, 1907).

JOSEPH LINS

Hector Berlioz

French composer, b. at La Côte Saint-André, near Grenoble, 11 December, 1803; d. at Paris, 8 March, 1869. His father, a physician, wished Hector to follow his own profession, and for that purpose sent him to the Medical School in Paris. Young Berlioz soon changed the dissecting room for the library of the Conservatoire, where he sought to acquaint himself with the scores of the masters of music. Heretofore his musical studies had been confined to a rudimentary knowledge of the flute and of the guitar. After studying harmony with Lesveur for a few months, Berlioz composed a mass, which was performed in the church of St. Roch. Being admitted to the Conservatoire in 1823, he became noted not only for his great talent, but also for his rebellion against academic traditions. For the pure classicism of Cherubini, the head of the school, he had no respect, nor did he ever learn to understand and appreciate Palestrina, Händel, or Bach. Bent on giving expression to his teeming ideas in his own fashion, Berlioz, like the romanticists in literature, proceeded by violating or ignoring every established rule. As a consequence he never fully mastered the various forms of composition. With his “Fantastic Symphony,” a cantata called “La mort de Sardanapale” which won for him the Prix de Rome (carrying with it a five years’ pension), and a number of lesser works, Berlioz laid the foundation of the new school of composition which is known as the school of programme music. It is the endeavour of composers of this school to express by means of music definite ideas and moods and even to relate definite events. Although Berlioz has written a number of works on liturgical texts, hardly any of them have the liturgical character. His “Requiem,” written for double chorus, an enormous orchestra, four military bands, and organ, suggests Michelangelo in its gigantic conception, While it strikes terror into the heart of the hearer, it does not inspire devotion. A “Te Deum” is built on equally large scale, and is more notable for its pomp and splendour than for its prayerfulness. Although Berlioz was a child of his time and in his music gave expression to every passion of man, he did not lose the Catholic sense, as is shown by the attraction liturgical texts had for him, and also by numerous other traits. Thus in his “Damnation de Faust” he sends Faust to eternal perdition accompanied by most gruesome music, instead of ultimately saving him in accordance with the pantheistic creed of Goethe. Berlioz is one of the most striking examples of modern subjectivism, and the numerous works he has left behind-symphonies with and without chorus, operas, an oratorio, “The Childhood of Christ,” songs, choruses, etc.-give us an idea of what he might have been had he remained faithful to Catholic ideals.

JOSEPH OTTEN

Agostino Bernal

Spanish theologian, born at Magallon in Aragon in 1587; died at Saragossa, 13 September, 1642. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1603 when sixteen years old. Being a finished classical scholar he taught humanities and rhetoric with success. The greater part of his life, however, he spent as professor of philosophy and theology at Saragossa, where he died. He was a man of rare innocence and candor of soul; so great was his love of prayer that it would be hard to say to which he devoted more time, to meditation or to study. He was looked upon by many as one of the most learned men of his age. His published works are: “Desputationes de Divini Verbi Incarnatione” (Saragossa, 1639); “Disputationes de Sacramentis in genere, Eucharistia et Ordine” (Lyons, 1651) a posthumous work.

Southwell, Bibliotheca, 93; Hunter, Nomenclator, 380.

TIMOTHY B. BARRETT.

St. Bernard

(BARNARD.)

Archbishop of Vienne, France. Born in 778; died at Vienne, 23 January, 842. His parents, who lived near Lyons and had large possessions, gave him an excellent education, and Bernard in obedience to the paternal wish, married and became a military officer under Charlemagne. After seven years as a soldier the death of his father and mother recalled him. Dividing his property into three parts—one for the Church, one for the poor and one for his children—he retired to the wilderness of Ambronay where there was a poor monastery. Bernard bought the monastery, enlarged it, and become one of its inmates. Upon the death of the abbot he was elected (805) to the vacant position. In 810 he was chosen Archbishop of Vienne to succeed Volfère, but it was only upon the command of Pope Leo III and of Charlemagne that he accepted the honour. He was consecrated by Leidtrade, Archbishop of Lyons, and distinguished himself by his piety and learning. He took part in drawing up the Capitularies of Charlemagne and aided Agobard in a work upon Jewish superstitions.

Bernard was a member of the Council of Paris (824) convoked by Louis the Pious, at the request of Eugenius II, in the hope of bringing about an agreement between the Church of France and that of the East as to the devotion to be paid to images. Bernard took an unfortunate position in the quarrels between Louis the Pious and his sons over the partition of the empire between the three sons of his first marriage, to which the monarch had agreed. Like Agobard of Lyons, Bernard sided with the oldest son, Lothair, and was one of the prelates who deposed the emperor at Compiègne and condemned him to make a public penance. Louis soon regained his authority and another council of bishops annulled the action of the one of Compiègne. Agobard and Bernard were deposed, but the sentence of deposition was never carried out, owing to the intervention of Lothair, who had been reconciled to his father. From this time on, the archbishop devoted himself entirely to the duties of his pastoral office. Towards the end of his life he loved to retire to a solitary spot on the banks of the Isère where stands to-day the town of Romans which owes its origin to him. On the approach of death he had himself removed to Vienne. He is honoured in Dauphiny as the patron saint of agricultural labourers.

Acta SS. (3d ed.), January, 111, 157–197; Bibl. hag. lat. (1898), 149–150; CHAPHUIS, St. Bernard ,Archévêque de Vienne (Grenoble, 1898).

A. FOURNET

Alexis-Xyste Bernard

Bishop of St. Hyacinth, P.Q., Canada. b. at Beloeil, P.Q., 29 December, 1847. He made his classical and theological studies under the Sulpician Fathers in Montreal, and was ordained priest 1 October, 1871. After a year as curate he became successively President of Sorel College, Canon of the Cathedral, Archdeacon, Secretary for the diocese, Vicar-General, Provost of the Chapter, and Prothonotary Apostolic. After the death of Bishop Moreau, in 1901, Mgr. Bernard was continued in the office of Vicar-General by Bishop Decelles, and, when the latter died, in 1905, was elected Vicar-Capitular. The Institute of the Sisters of St. Joseph, owe to him their organization, and formation as a teaching body. Besides “Synodal Decrees,” and a summary of the “Clerical Conference,” he edited the “Pastoral Letters” of the bishops of the diocese, in nine volumes. He declined the See of St. Hyacinth on the plea of his enfeebled health, until he received from Pope Pius X a peremptory order to accept. He was consecrated 15 February, 1906.

L.O. ROBERGE

Claude Bernard (1)

A French ecclesiastic known as “the poor priest” (le pauvre prêtre), b. at Dijon 23 December, 1588; d. in Paris, 23 March, 1641. His father was a distinguished lawyer, and filled successively offices of honour and responsibility. Young Bernard was educated at the Jesuit College of Dole and was remarked for his brilliant imagination and wit. Pierre Le Camus, Bishop of Belley, urged him to enter the priesthood, but he declined, saying that he preferred the life of a poor gentleman to that of a poor priest. Shortly afterwards he went to Paris as a protégé of M. de Bellegarde, Governor of Bourgogne. For a while the social life of the capital attracted him; gradually, however, some disappointments together with the death of an intimate friend who was killed in a duel, brought about a decided change in his mode of life and led up to his entrance into the priesthood. He was ordained by the above mentioned Bishop Le Camus and invited to his first Mass the poor of the city, distributing to them all his possessions, and, later on. an inheritance of 400,000 livres, or about eighty thousand dollars.

Henceforth Bernard devoted himself to the service of the poor, and delighted in the name of “the poor priest.” The poor, the sick and the prisoners were his special care; He fed, nursed, consoled, and instructed them with more than motherly tenderness. This life of self-sacrifice seemed rather to increase his personal charms. Wealthy and distinguished persons sought his company, and for honour of entertainment at his modest table contributed abundantly to his charities. His kindly wit never deserted him. When Cardinal Richelieu once pressed upon him the acceptance of some favours he replied that he would be pleased if stronger boards were placed in the tumbril, or cart, on which the condemned were taken to execution. “It is a pity,” said he, “that the constant dread of falling through the vehicle should distract out attention from God.”

Bernard’s methods were characterized by some as odd and reprehensible. He continued, however to enjoy the friendship and admiration of saintly priests like Bourdoise, Olier, and St. Vincent de Paul-an ample justification of his character and sacerdotal ministry. In the history of charity, he bears a striking resemblance to St. Francis of Assisi and St. Vincent de Paul, and his beatification has often been urged by the royal court and by the clergy of France. He founded at Paris, for the education of the poor candidates for the priesthood, the seminary of Trent-Trois which still exists. He contributed much to popularize the beautiful prayer to the Blessed Virgin known as the Memorare, sometimes attributed to him but certainly of an earlier date.

The life of Bernard has been written by GAUFFRE (1680); LEMPEREUR (1708); RIOM (1834); FELLER, Biog. univ.(Paris 1834), II, 244; ROHERBACHER,Hist.de l’Eglise(1850) XXV, 251–261.

CHARLES B.SCHRANTZ

Claude Bernard (2)

French physiologist, b. 12 July, 1813 at Saint Julien near Villefranche, France; d. at Paris, 10 February, 1878. His father was the proprietor of a vineyard and his early education, which was begun by the village curé, was obtained at the Jesuit college in Villefranche. Going to Lyons to continue his studies, he became instead a pharmacist’s assistant. While here, his literary ambitions led him to write a comedy, “La rose du Rhone,” which was put on the stage. Encouraged by its reception, he wrote a five act drama and setting out in 1834 for Paris, submitted it to Saint Marc Girardin, the well-known critic. The latter found evidence of literary ability in the young author’s work, but advised him to study medicine as a more certain means of securing a livelihood than literature. Bernard followed this counsel, which proved the turning point in his career, and the play “Arthur de Bretagne” was not published until long after his death in 1886.

Bernard devoted himself particularly to anatomy and physiology but, being of a retiring disposition and somewhat awkward in manner, he did not impress his professors or fellow students with the power of which he was later to give proof. In 1839, he was appointed interne to Magendie, professor of medicine at the Collège de France, and one of the physicians of the Hotel Dieu, noticing his skill in dissection, soon made him his préparateur, or lecture assistant. This latter appointment, in spite of many disadvantages, proved a fortunate one, and Bernard now began the researches in physiology which made him famous. His first important work was a study of the pancreas and its functions. This was followed by the discovery of the glycogenic function of the liver—perhaps his most noteworthy achievement, particularly on account of its bearing on current views in biology. It had been supposed by biologists that the animal, unlike the plant, could not build up complex compounds within itself, but could only utilize those furnished by the plant such as carbohydrates, proteids, etc., resolving them into constituents suited to its own needs. Bernard undertook the task of tracing out the various transformations of food stuffs within the animal organism, beginning with the carbohydrates; and he not only found, contrary to the accepted view, that sugar was formed in the liver, but he was also able to isolate a substance from the hepatic tissue which, though not sugar, was converted by fermentation into dextrose. He made a special study of its properties and called it “glycogen.”

Bernard did not pursue his investigations in this field any farther, but took up the study of the influence of the nervous system on animal heat. This led to the discovery of the vaso-motor system. He found that severing the cervical sympathetic on one side of the neck of a rabbit caused a sensible rise in the temperature of the affected region. Further experiments on the sub-maxillary and other glands showed, as he announced to the Académie des Sciences, in 1858, that when the gland is actively secreting, the venous blood issuing from it is red. Two sets of nerves control the action of the gland, stimulation of the chorda tympani making the venous blood red, while stimulation of the sympathetic nerve makes it darker than usual. He was thus able to formulate the statement: “the sympathetic nerve is the constrictor of the blood vessels; the chorda tympani is their dilator,” and it may be said with truth that all subsequent work on the vaso-motor system has been based on these researches. The physiological effects of poisons, particularly of curare and carbon monoxide, also engaged Bernard’s attention. He found that the former—an arrow poison employed by South American Indians—rendered the motor nerves inactive, while the sensory and central nervous system remained intact. His analysis of the action of the latter showed that it instantly replaces the oxygen of the red blood corpuscles, while it cannot of itself be subsequently replaced by oxygen.

In 1855 Bernard succeeded Magendie as professor at the Collège de France, having been appointed his deputy as early as 1847. In 1862 his health failed and it was not until 1870 that he fully recovered. In his later years he made the acquaintance of Napoleon III, who was much impressed by him and established two well-equipped laboratories for him—one at the Sorbonne, the other at the Musee d’Histoire Naturelle. In 1867 the emperor made him a member of the Senate, and in 1868 he was admitted to the Académie des Sciences. He devoted himself to scientific work and the revision of his published lectures until shortly before his death. He received a public funeral, at the expense of the State, from the Cathedral of Notre Dame, being the first Frenchman of science to be thus honoured. A statue was erected in his honour in 1886 in the court of the Collège de France, and also, in 1894, in the court of the Faculty of Medicine at Lyons. Bernard’s chief contribution to physiological literature, apart from his original papers presented to various societies, are his “Leçons,” in seventeen volumes, upon various topics in physiology. These comprise his lecture courses which were reported by his students and revised by himself.

Foster, Claude Bernard (New York, 1899); Walsh, Makers of Modern Medicine (New York, 1907).

HENRY M. BROCK

Bernard Guidonis

Inquisitor of Toulouse against the Albigenses and Bishop of Lodève, b. at Royères (Limousin) in 1261, d. at Lauroux (Hérault), 30 December, 1331. He was one of the most prolific writers of the Middle Ages. He entered the Dominican Convent at Limoges, and made his profession in 1280. Ten Years later he was made Prior of Albi, and subsequently at Carcassonne, at Castres, and at Limoges. In recompense for his services as Inquisitor he was made Bishop of Tuy in Galicia, by Pope John XXII, and a year later Bishop of Lodève. In spite of his manifold occupations he wrote numerous works of great importance such as: “Fleurs des chroniques,” which is a universal chronicle from the time of Our Lord to 1331; “Chronique abrégée des empereurs,” “Chronique des rois de France,” “Catalogue des Évêques de Limoges,” “Traité sur les saints du Limousin,” “Traité sur l’histoire de l’abbaye de St. Augustin de Limoges,” “Chronique des Prieurs de Grandmont” (as far as 1318), “Chronique des Prieurs d’Artize” (as far as 1313), “Chronique des évêques de Tolouse” (as far as 1327), “Sanctoral ou Miroir des saints,” “Vie des saints,” “Traité sur les soixante-douze disciples et sur les apôtres,” “Traité sur 1’époque de la eélébration des conciles,” “Compilation historique sur l’ordre des Dominicains,” “Pratique de l’inquisition.” This last is practically his most important work. It is an exposé of the prerogatives and duties of the inquisitor: its citations, its forms of condemnation, its instructions for examinations, constitute a unique document for the study of the Inquisition during the first period of its existence. This work, lost for a time, was published later in extenso by l’abbé Douais, “Practice Inquisitionis hæreticae pravitatis, auctore Bernardo Guldonis (Toulouse, 1886). Bernard is also the author of a number of theological treatises; “Abrégé de la doctrine chrétienne,” “Traité de la messe,” “Traité sur la conception de la Vierge” and also of different sermons.

DESLISLE, Notices sur les manuscrits de Bernard-Guy in Coll. (Paris, 1879), XXVII; MOLINIER L’inquisition dans le midi de la France au XIII et au XIV siècle (Paris, 1880).

M. DE MOREIRA

Bernard of Besse

Friar Minor and chronicler, a native of Aquitaine, date of birth uncertain; he belonged to the custody of Cahors and was secretary to St. Bonaventure. He took up the pen after the Seraphic Doctor, he tells us, to gather the ears the latter had dropped from his sheaf, lest anything of so great a memory as that of St. Francis might perish. His “Liber de Laudibus Beati Francisci” composed about 1280, besides a resume of some of the earlier legends, contains brief and valuable information about the companions of St. Francis and the foundation of the three Franciscan Orders, and is the only thirteenth-century document which specifies the first biographies of St. Francis. About 1297–1300 he compiled a catalogue of the ministers general up to his time, which is also a source of much importance for the study of Franciscan history. Critical editions of both these works have been published by the Friars Minor of Quaracchi [In Analecta Franciscana, III (1897), 666–707] and by Father Hilarin Felder of Lucerne, O. M. Cap. “Liber de Laudibus” etc. (Rome, 1897). Bernard also wrote the life of Blessed Christopher of Cahors inserted in the “Chronica XXIV Generalium” (ed. Quaracchi, 1897, 161–173) and is very probably the author of the “Speculum Disciplinae” and of the “Epistola ad Quendam Novitium” erroneously attributed to St. Bonaventure (See Bonav. Opera Omnia ed. Quaracchi, 1898, VIII, 583 sqq. and 663 sqq.).

Wadding, Scriptores Ord. Minorum (1650), 59, and Sbaralea, Supplementum (1806), 135; Fabricius, Bib. Med. Aev. (1734), 218; Danou, Hist. Litt. France (1838), XIX, 437; DENIFLE, Archiv. f. litt. und Kirchengesch. des M. A. (1885), I, 145 sqq. and 630 sqq., also Misc. Francescana (1886), I, L sqq.; Othon, L’Aquitaine Seraphique (1900), I, passim.

PASCHAL ROBINSON

Bernard of Bologna

(Also Bernardine; Flovitano Toselli).

Friar Minor Capuchin and Scotist theologian, born at Bologna, 17 December, 1701; died 19 February, 1768. In 1717 he entered the Capuchin Order and some years later filled successively the office of professor of moral and dogmatic theology and several times he ld positions of responsibility. Perhaps the best known of Bernard of Bologna’s writings in the “Bibliotheca Scriptorum O. Min. S. Francisci Cap.,” a work which resembles Wadding’s well-known “Scriptores Ord. Min.” It was published at Venice in 1747, and a n appendix appeared at Rome in 1852. Besides this work Bernard wrote an elementary treatise on philosophy according to Duns Scotus entitled “Institutio Philosophica praemittenda theologiae” (Venice, 1766), and a treatise on dogmatic theology, “Institutio Th eologica” (Venice, 1746). He is also the author of a “Phrasarium S. Scripturae” composed for the use of preachers and authors.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Bernard of Botone

Generally called Parmensis from his birthplace, Parma in Italy, a noted canonist of the thirteenth century; date of birth unknown; d. 1263, or, according to Hurter, 24 March, 1266. Under Tancred he studied in Bologna, where later he accepted the chair of canon law. Here Durantis was his disciple. Bernard obtained a canonry in the Cathedral of Bologna, and was also named chaplain to Popes Innocent IV and Alexander IV, by whom he was employed in solving questions of weight. According to the inscription o his tombstone he was Chancellor of the University of Bologna. Bernard found ample scope for his literary activity in his chosen branch, canon law. From glosses, summaries, and similar works, which had appeared on the Decretals of Gregory IX and other collections, he completed, just before his death, a work on the Gregorian Decretals. This, owing to his exact knowledge of former collections and thorough grasp of his subject, won for him the admiration of his contemporaries; so that he was styled “Glassator,” and his work, commonly known as “Glossa Ordinaria,” became the fruitful source of later glosses, which were printed with Gregory’s collection. Bernard was careful to note what he had taken from others, while his own comments were signed “Bern.” The “Glossa Ordinaria” was given to the press in Mainz in 1472, 1473, and in Rome in 1474. In this Roman edition there are additions, especially from the “Novella Commentaria” of Giovanni Andrea (d. 1348). Bernard’s “Casus Longi” on separate chapters of the same Gregorian Decretals is equally meritorious. It was frequently edited: Paris, 1475; Venice, 1477; Bologna, 1487; Strasburg, 1488, 1493; Lyons, 1500. Another work, entitled “Summa super Titulis Decretalium,” was based on similar writings of his master, Tancred, of Bernard of Pavia and others. It is a clear, concise treatise, found in the works of Nicolaus de Tudeschis (Milan, five volumes in folio).

Hurter, Nomenclator, IV, coll. 290, 291; Leurin, Introductio in Corpus Juris Canonici (Freiburg, 1889), 149, 150; Schulte, Die Geschichte der Quellen und Lit. des kanonischen Rechts (Stuttgart, 1875–80), II, 114–117.

ANDREW B. MEEHAN

St. Bernard of Clairvaux

Born in 1090, at Fontaines, near Dijon, France; died at Clairvaux, 21 August, 1153.

His parents were Tescelin, lord of Fontaines, and Aleth of Montbard, both belonging to the highest nobility of Burgundy. Bernard, the third of a family of seven children, six of whom were sons, was educated with particular care, because, while yet unborn, a devout man had foretold his great destiny. At the age of nine years, Bernard was sent to a much renowned school at Chatillon-sur-Seine, kept by the secular canons of Saint-Vorles. He had a great taste for literature and devoted himself for some time to poetry. His success in his studies won the admiration of his masters, and his growth in virtue was no less marked. Bernard’s great desire was to excel in literature in order to take up the study of Sacred Scripture, which later on became, as it were, his own tongue. “Piety was his all,” says Bossuet. He had a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and there is no one who speaks more sublimely of the Queen of Heaven. Bernard was scarcely nineteen years of age when his mother died. During his youth, he did not escape trying temptations, but his virtue triumphed over them, in many instances in a heroic manner, and from this time he thought of retiring from the world and living a life of solitude and prayer.

St. Robert, Abbot of Molesmes, had founded, in 1098, the monastery of Cîteaux, about four leagues from Dijon, with the purpose of restoring the Rule of St. Benedict in all its rigour. Returning to Molesmes, he left the government of the new abbey to St. Alberic, who died in the year 1109. St. Stephen had just succeeded him (1113) as third Abbot of Cîteaux, when Bernard with thirty young noblemen of Burgundy, sought admission into the order. Three years later, St. Stephen sent the young Bernard, at the head of a band of monks, the third to leave Cîteaux, to found a new house at Vallée d’Absinthe, or Valley of Bitterness, in the Diocese of Langres. This Bernard named Claire Vallée, of Clairvaux, on the 25th of June, 1115, and the names of Bernard and Clairvaux thence became inseparable. During the absence of the Bishop of Langres, Bernard was blessed as abbot by William of Champeaux, Bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne, who saw in him the predestined man, servum Dei. From that moment a strong friendship sprang up between the abbot and the bishop, who was professor of theology at Notre Dame of Paris, and the founder of the cloister of St. Victor.

The beginnings of Clairvaux were trying and painful. The regime was so austere that Bernard’s health was impaired by it, and only the influence of his friend William of Champeaux, and the authority of the General Chapter could make him mitigate his austerities. The monastery, however, made rapid progress. Disciples flocked to it in great numbers, desirous of putting themselves under the direction of Bernard. His father, the aged Tescelin, and all his brothers entered Clairvaux as religious, leaving only Humbeline, his sister, in the world and she, with the consent of her husband, soon took the veil in the Benedictine Convent of Jully. Clairvaux becoming too small for the religious who crowded there, it was necessary to send out bands to found new houses. n 1118, the Monastery of the Three Fountains was founded in the Diocese of Châlons; in 1119, that of Fontenay in the Diocese of Auton (now Dijon) and in 1121, that of Foigny, near Vervins, in the Diocese of Laon (now Soissons), Notwithstanding this prosperity, the Abbot of Clairvaux had his trials. During an absence from Clairvaux, the Grand Prior of Cluny, Bernard of Uxells, sent by the Prince of Priors, to use the expression of Bernard, went to Clairvaux and enticed away the abbot’s cousin, Robert of Châtillon. This was the occasion of the longest, and most touching of Bernard’s letters.

In the year 1119, Bernard was present at the first general chapter of the order convoked by Stephen of Cîteaux. Though not yet thirty years old, Bernard was listened to with the greatest attention and respect, especially when he developed his thoughts upon the revival of the primitive spirit of regularity and fervour in all the monastic orders. It was this general chapter that gave definitive form to the constitutions of the order and the regulations of the “Charter of Charity” which Pope Callixtus II confirmed 23 December, 1119. In 1120 Bernard composed his first work “De Gradibus Superbiae et Humilitatis” and his homilies which he entitles “De Laudibus Mariae.” The monks of Cluny had not seen, with satisfaction, those of Cîteaux take the first place among the religious orders for regularity and fervour. For this reason there was a temptation on the part of the “Black Monks” to make it appear that the rules of the new order were impracticable. At the solicitation of William of St. Thierry, Bernard defended himself by publishing his “Apology” which is divided into two parts. In the first part he proves himself innocent of the invectives against Cluny, which had been attributed to him, and in the second he gives his reasons for his attack upon averred abuses. He protests his profound esteem for the Benedictines of Cluny whom he declares he loves equally as well as the other religious orders. Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, answered the Abbot of Clairvaux without wounding charity in the least, and assured him of his great admiration and sincere friendship. In the meantime Cluny established a reform, and Suger himself, the minister of Louis le Gros, and Abbot of St. Denis, was converted by the apology of Bernard. He hastened to terminate his worldly life and restore discipline in his monastery. The zeal of Bernard did not stop here; it extended to the bishops, the clergy, and the faithful, and remarkable conversions of persons engaged in worldly pursuits were among the fruits of his labours. Bernard’s letter to the Archbishop of Sens is a real treatise “De Officiis Episcoporum.” About the same time he wrote his work on “Grace and Free Will.”

In the year 1128, Bernard assisted at the Council of Troyes, which had been convoked by Pope Honorius II, and was presided over by Cardinal Matthew, Bishop of Albano. The purpose of this council was to settle certain disputes of the bishops of Paris, and regulate other matters of the Church of France. The bishops made Bernard secretary of the council, and charged him with drawing up the synodal statutes. After the council, the Bishop of Verdun was deposed. There then arose against Bernard unjust reproaches and he was denounced even in Rome, as a monk who meddled with matters that did not concern him. Cardinal Harmeric, on behalf of the pope, wrote Bernard a sharp letter of remonstrance. “It is not fitting” he said “that noisy and troublesome frogs should come out of their marshes to trouble the Holy See and the cardinals.” Bernard answered the letter by saying that, if he had assisted at the council, it was because he had been dragged to it, as it were, by force. “Now illustrious Harmeric,” he added, “if you so wished, who would have been more capable of freeing me from the necessity of assisting at the council than yourself? Forbid those noisy troublesome frogs to come out of their holes, to leave their marshes . . . Then your friend will no longer be exposed to the accusations of pride and presumption.” This letter made a great impression upon the cardinal, and justified its author both in his eyes and before the Holy See. It was at this council that Bernard traced the outlines of the Rule of the Knights Templars who soon became the ideal of the French nobility. Bernard praises it in his “De Laudibus Novae Militiae.”

The influence of the Abbot of Clairvaux was soon felt in provincial affairs. He defended the rights of the Church against the encroachments of kings and princes, and recalled to their duty Henry Archbishop of Sense, and Stephen de Senlis, Bishop of Paris. On the death of Honorius II, which occurred on the 14th of February, 1130, a schism broke out in the Church by the election of two popes, Innocent II and Anacletus II. Innocent II having been banished from Rome by Anacletus took refuge in France. King Louis le Gros convened a national council of the French bishops at Etampes, and Bernard, summoned thither by consent of the bishops, was chosen to judge between the rival popes. He decided in favour of Innocent II, caused him to be recognized by all the great Catholic powers, went with him into Italy, calmed the troubles that agitated the country, reconciled Pisa with Genoa, and Milan with the pope and Lothaire. According to the desire of the latter, the pope went to Liège to consult with the emperor upon the best means to be taken for his return to Rome, for it was there that Lothaire was to receive the imperial crown from the hands of the pope. From Liège, the pope returned to France, paid a visit to the Abbey of St. Denis, and then to Clairvaux where his reception was of a simple and purely religious character. The whole pontifical court was touched by the saintly demeanor of this band of monks. In the refectory only a few common fishes were found for the pope, and instead of wine, the juice of herbs was served for drink, says an annalist of Cîteaux. It was not a table feast that was served to the pope and his followers, but a feast of virtues. The same year Bernard was again at the Council of Reims at the side of Innocent II, whose oracle he was; and then in Aquitaine where he succeeded for the time in detaching William, Count of Poitiers, from the cause of Anacletus.

In 1132, Bernard accompanied Innocent II into Italy, and at Cluny the pope abolished the dues which Clairvaux used to pay to this celebrated abbey—an action which gave rise to a quarrel between the “White Monks” and the “Black Monks” which lasted twenty years. In the month of May, the pope supported by the army of Lothaire, entered Rome, but Lothaire, feeling himself too weak to resist the partisans of Anacletus, retired beyond the Alps, and Innocent sought refuge in Pisa in September, 1133. In the meantime the abbot had returned to France in June, and was continuing the work of peacemaking which he had commenced in 1130. Towards the end of 1134, he made a second journey into Aquitaine, where William X had relapsed into schism. This would have died out of itself if William could have been detached from the cause of Gerard, who had usurped the See of Bordeaux and retained that of Angoulême. Bernard invited William to the Mass which he celebrated in the Church of La Couldre. At the moment of the Communion, placing the Sacred Host upon the paten, he went to the door of the church where William was, and pointing to the Host, he adjured the Duke not to despise God as he did His servants. William yielded and the schism ended. Bernard went again to Italy, where Roger of Sicily was endeavouring to withdraw the Pisans from their allegiance to Innocent. He recalled the city of Milan, which had been deceived and misled by the ambitious prelate Anselm, Archbishop of Milan, to obedience to the pose, refused the Archbishopric of Milan, and returned finally to Clairvaux. Believing himself at last secure in his cloister Bernard devoted himself with renewed vigour to the composition of those pious and learned works which have won for him the title of “Doctor of the Church.” He wrote at this time his sermons on the “Canticle of Canticles.” In 1137 he was again forced to leave his solitude by order of the pope to put an end to the quarrel between Lothaire and Roger of Sicily. At the conference held at Palermo, Bernard succeeded in convincing Roger of the rights of Innocent II and in silencing Peter of Pisa who sustained Anacletus. The latter died of grief and disappointment in 1138, and with him the schism. Returning to Clairvaux, Bernard occupied himself in sending bands of monks from his too-crowded monastery into Germany, Sweden, England, Ireland, Portugal, Switzerland, and Italy. Some of these, at the command of Innocent II, took possession of Three Fountains Abbey, near the Salvian Waters in Rome, from which Pope Eugenius III was chosen. Bernard resumed his commentary on the “Canticle of Canticles,” assisted in 1139, at the Second General Lateran Council and the Tenth Oecumenical, in which the surviving adherents of the schism were definitively condemned. About the same time, Bernard was visited at Clairvaux by St. Malachi, metropolitan of the Church in Ireland, and a very close friendship was formed between them. St. Malachi would gladly have taken the Cistercian habit, but the sovereign pontiff would not give his permission. He died, however, at Clairvaux in 1148.

In the year 1140, we find Bernard engaged in other matters which disturbed the peace of the Church. Towards the close of the eleventh century, the schools of philosophy and theology, dominated by the passion for discussion and a spirit of independence which had introduced itself into political and religious questions, became a veritable public arena, with no other motive than that of ambition. This exaltation of human reason and rationalism found an ardent and powerful adherent in Abelard, the most eloquent and learned man of the age after Bernard. “The history of the calamities and the refutation of his doctrine by St. Bernard,” says Ratisbonne, “form the greatest episode of the twelfth century.” Abelard’s treatise on the Trinity had been condemned in 1121, and he himself had thrown his book into the fire. But in 1139 he advocated new errors. Bernard, informed of this by William of St. Thierry, wrote to Abelard who answered in an insulting manner. Bernard then denounced him to the pope who caused a general council to be held at Sens. Abelard asked for a public discussion with Bernard; the latter showed his opponent’s errors with such clearness and force of logic that he was unable to make any reply, and was obliged, after being condemned, to retire. he pope confirmed the judgment of the council, Abelard submitted without resistance, and retired to Cluny to live under Peter the Venerable, where he died two years later.

Innocent II died in 1143. His two successors, Celestin II and Lucius, reigned only a short time, and then Bernard saw one of his disciples, Bernard of Pisa, Abbott of Three Fountains, and known thereafter as Eugenius III, raised to the Chair of St. Peter. Bernard sent him, at his own request, various instructions which compose the “Book of Consideration,” the predominating idea of which is that the reformation of the Church ought to commence with the sanctity of the head. Temporal matters are merely accessories; the principal are piety, meditation, or consideration, which ought to precede action. The book contains a most beautiful page on the papacy, and has always been greatly esteemed by the sovereign pontiffs, many of whom used it for their ordinary reading.

Alarming news came at this time from the East. Edessa had fallen into the hands of the Turks, and Jerusalem and Antioch were threatened with similar disaster. Deputations of the bishops of Armenia solicited aid from the pope, and the King of France also sent ambassadors. The pope commissioned Bernard to preach a new Crusade and granted the same indulgences for it which Urban II had accorded to the first. A parliament was convoked at Vezelay in Burgundy in 1134, and Bernard preached before the assembly. The King, Louis le Jeune, Queen Eleanor, and the princes and lords present prostrated themselves at the feet of the Abbot of Clairvaux to receive the cross. The saint was obliged to use portions of his habit to make crosses to satisfy the zeal and ardour of the multitude who wished to take part in the Crusade. Bernard passed into Germany, and the miracles which multiplied almost at his every step undoubtedly contributed to the success of his mission. The Emperor Conrad and his nephew Frederick Barbarossa, received the pilgrims’ cross from the hand of Bernard, and Pope Eugenius, to encourage the enterprise, came in person to France. It was on the occasion of this visit, 1147, that a council was held at Paris, at which the errors of Gilbert de la Porée, Bishop of Poitiers, were examined. He advanced among other absurdities that the essence and the attributes of God are not God, that the properties of the Persons of the Trinity are not the persons themselves in fine that the Divine Nature did not become incarnate. The discussion was warm on both sides. The decision was left for the council which was held at Reims the following year (1148), and in which Eon de l’Etoile was one of the judges. Bernard was chosen by the council to draw up a profession of faith directly opposed to that of Gilbert, who concluding by stating to the Fathers: “If you believe and assert differently than I have done I am willing to believe and speak as you do.” The consequence of this declaration was that the pope condemned the assertions of Gilbert without denouncing him personally. After the council the pope paid a visit to Clairvaux, where he held a general chapter of the order and was able to realize the prosperity of which Bernard was the soul.

The last years of Bernard’s life were saddened by the failure of the Crusade he had preached, the entire responsibility for which was thrown upon him. He had accredited the enterprise by miracles, but he had not guaranteed its success against the misconduct and perfidy of those who participated in it. Lack of discipline and the over-confidence of the German troops, the intrigues of the Prince of Antioch and Queen Eleanor, and finally the avarice and evident treason of the Christian nobles of Syria, who prevented the capture of Damascus, appear to have been the cause of disaster. Bernard considered it his duty to send an apology to the pope and it is inserted in the second part of his “Book of Consideration.” There he explains how, with the crusaders as with the Hebrew people, in whose favour the Lord had multiplies his prodigies, their sins were the cause of their misfortune and miseries. The death of his contemporaries served as a warning to Bernard of his own approaching end The first to die was Suger (1152), of whom the Abbot wrote to Eugenius III: “If there is any precious vase adorning the palace of the King of Kings it is the soul of the venerable Suger.” Thibaud, Count of Champagne, Conrad, Emperor of Germany, and his son Henry died the same year. From the beginning of the year 1153 Bernard felt his death approaching. The passing of Pope Eugenius had struck the fatal blow by taking from him one whom he considered his greatest friend and consoler. Bernard died in the sixty-third year of his age, after forty years spent in the cloister. He founded one hundred and sixty-three monasteries in different parts of Europe; at his death they numbered three hundred and forty-three. He was the first Cistercian monk placed on the calendar of saints and was canonized by Alexander III, 18 January 1174. Pope Pius VIII bestowed on him the title of Doctor of the Church. The Cistercians honour him as only the founders of orders are honoured, because of the wonderful and widespread activity which he gave to the Order of Cîteaux.

The works of St. Bernard are as follows:

“De Gradibus Superbiae,” his first treatise;

“Homilies on the Gospel ‘Missus est’“ (1120);

“Apology to William of St. Thierry” against the claims of the monks of Cluny;

“On the Conversion of Clerics,” a book addressed to the young ecclesiastics of Paris (1122);

“De Laudibus Novae Militiae,” addressed to Hughes de Payns, first Grand Master and Prior of Jerusalem (1129). This is a eulogy of the military order instituted in 1118, and an exhortation to the knights to conduct themselves with courage in their several stations.

“De amore Dei” wherein St. Bernard shows that the manner of loving God is to love Him without measure and gives the different degree of this love;

“Book of Precepts and Dispensations” (1131), which contains answers to questions upon certain points of the Rule of St. Benedict from which the abbot can, or cannot, dispense;

“De Gratiâ et Libero Arbitrio” in which the Catholic dogma of grace and free will is proved according to the principles of St. Augustine;

“Book of Considerations,” addressed to Pope Eugenius III;

“De Officiis Episcoporum,” addressed to Henry, Archbishop of Sens.

His sermons are also numerous:

“On Psalm 90, ‘Qui habitat’“ (about 1125);

“On the Canticle of Canticles.” St. Bernard explained in eighty-six sermons only the first two chapters of the Canticle of Canticles and the first verse of the third chapter.

There are also eighty-six “Sermons for the Whole Year”; his “Letters” number 530.

Many other letters, treatises, etc., falsely attributed to him are found among his works, such as the “l’Echelle du Cloître,” which is the work of Guigues, Prior of La Grande Chartreuse, les Méditations, l’Edification de la Maison intérieure, etc.

M. GILDAS.

Bernard of Cluny

Bernard of Cluny (or of Morlaix), a Benedictine monk of the first half of the twelfth century, poet, satirist, and hymn-writer, author of the famous verses “On the Contempt of the World.” His parentage, native land, and education are hidden in obscurity. The sixteenth-century writer John Pits (Scriptores Angliae, Saec. XII) says that he was of English birth. He is frequently called Morlanensis, which title most writers have interpreted to mean that he was a native of Morlaix in Brittany, though some credit him to Murlas near Puy in Béarn. A writer in the “Journal of Theological Studies” (1907), VIII, 354–359 contends that he belonged to the family of the Seigneurs of Montpellier in Languedoc, and was born at Murles, a possession of that distinguished family; also that he was at first a monk of St. Sauveur d’Aniane, whence he entered Cluny under Abbot Pons (1109–22). It is certain that he was a monk at Cluny in the time of Peter the Venerable (1122–56), for his famous poem is dedicated to that abbot. It may have been written about 1140. He left some sermons and is said to be the author of certain monastic regulations known as the “Consuetudines Cluniacenses,” also of a dialogue (Colloquium) on the Trinity. The “De Contemptu Mundi” contains about 3,000 verses, and is for the most part a very bitter satire against the moral disorders of the monastic poet’s time. He spares no one; priests, nuns, bishops, monks, and even Rome itself are mercilessly scourged for their shortcomings. For this reason it was first printed by Matthias Flaccus as one of his testes veritatis, or witnesses of the deep-seated corruption of the medieval Church (Varia poemata de corrupto ecclesiae statu, Basle, 1557), and was often reprinted by Protestants in the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This Christian Juvenal does not proceed in an orderly manner against the vices and follies of his age. It has been well said that he seems to eddy about two main points: the transitory character of all material pleasures and the permanency of spiritual joys. Bernard of Cluny is indeed a lyrical writer, swept from one theme to another by the intense force of ascetic meditation and by the majestic power of his own verse, in which there lingers yet a certain fierce intoxication of poetic wrath. His highly wrought pictures of heaven and hell were probable known to Dante; the roasting cold, the freezing fire, the devouring worm, the fiery floods, and again the glorious idyl of the Golden Age and the splendours of the Heavenly Kingdom are couched in a diction that rises at times to the height of Dante’s genius. The enormity of sin, the charm of virtue, the torture of an evil conscience, the sweetness of a God-fearing life alternate with heaven and hell as the themes of his majestic dithyramb. Nor does he dwell in generalities; he returns again and again to the wickedness of woman (one of the fiercest arraignments of the sex), the evils of wine, money, learning, perjury, soothsaying, etc.; this master of an elegant, forceful, and abundant Latinity cannot find words strong enough to convey his prophetic rage at the moral apostasy of his generation, in almost none of whom does he find spiritual soundness. Youthful and simoniacal bishops, oppressive agents of ecclesiastical corporations, the officers of the Curia, papal legates, and the pope himself are treated with no less severity than in Dante or in the sculptures of medieval cathedrals. Only those who do not know the utter frankness of certain medieval moralists could borrow scandal from his verses. It may be added that in medieval times “the more pious the chronicler the blacker his colours.” The early half of the twelfth century saw the appearance of several new factors of secularism unknown to an earlier and more simply religious time: the increase of commerce and industry resultant from the Crusades, the growing independence of medieval cities, the secularization of Benedictine life, the development of pageantry and luxury in a hitherto rude feudal world, the reaction from the terrible conflict of State and Church in the latter half of the eleventh century. The song of the Cluniac is a great cry of pain wrung from a deeply religious and even mystical soul at the first dawning consciousness of a new order of human ideals and aspirations. The turbid and irregular flow of his denunciation is halted occasionally in a dramatic way by glimpses of a Divine order of things, either in the faraway past or in the near future. The poet-preacher is also a prophet; Antichrist, he says, is born in Spain; Elijah has come to life again in the Orient. The last days are at hand, and it behoves the true Christian to awake and be ready for the dissolution of an order now grown intolerable, in which religion itself is henceforth represented by cant and hypocrisy.

The metre of this poem is no less unique than its diction; it is a dactylic hexameter in three sections, devoid of caesura, with tailed rhymes and a feminine leonine rhyme between the two first sections; the verses are technically known as leonini cristati trilices dactylici, and are so difficult to construct in great numbers that the writer claims Divine inspiration (the impulse and inflow of the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding) as the chief agency in the execution of so long an effort of this kind. It is, indeed, a solemn and stately verse, rich and sonorous, not meant, however, to be read at one sitting, at the risk of surfeiting the appetite. Bernard of Cluny is an erudite writer, and his poem leaves an excellent impression of the Latin culture of the Benedictine monasteries of France and England in the first half of the twelfth century. The modern interest of English-speaking circles in this semi-obscure poet centres in the lovely hymns of exceptional piety, warmth, and delicacy of sentiment dispersed through his lurid satire; one of them, “Jerusalem the Golden,” has become particularly famous.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Bernard of Compostella

(1) BERNARD OF COMPOSTELLA (ANTIQUUS)

A canonist of the early thirteenth century, a native of Compostella in Spain. He is called Antiquus to distinguish him from another, as below. He became a professor of canon law in the University of Bologna. Bernard compiled a collection of the decrees promulgated by Innocent III during the first ten years of his pontificate (1198–1208). This work, often called by the scholars of Bologna “Compilatio Romana,” because the author took his documents from the Roman archives, was not of much practical worth, since an official or authentic collection, extending to 1210, rendered Bernard’s compilation superfluous. Only portions of either of these collections were printed (ed. “Ant. Augustini Opera,” Lucca, 1769, IV, 600–608).

(2) BERNARD OF COMPOSTELLA (JUNIOR OR MODERNUS)

A canonist who lived in the middle of the thirteenth century, called Compostellanus from the fact that he possessed an ecclesiastical benefice in Compostella. He was known also as Brigantius from his birthplace in Galicia, Spain; later of Monte Mirato, Bernard was chaplain to Innocent IV, a noted canonist, at whose exhortation he wrote a work entitled “Margarita,” an index of Innocent’s “Apparatus,” or commentary on the five books of the Decretals of Gregory IX. The “Margarita” was published in Paris, 1516. Bernard was the first to write a commentary on the constitutions of Innocent IV (not published). A third work was entitled “Casus seu Notabilia” on the five books of Decretals, which was intended as a complete and practical commentary, but which owing to the author’s death, did not go beyond the title sixth of the first book, consequently not published.

Schulte, Die Geschichte der Quellen, II, 118, 119; Laurin, Introductio in Corpus Jur. Can. (Freiburg, 1889), III; Hurter, Nomenclator, IV col. 192.

ANDREW B. MEEHAN

Bernard of Luxemburg

Dominican theologian, controversialist, and Inquisitor of the Archdioceses of Cologne, Mainz, and Trier; born at Strassen near Cologne; died at Cologne, 5 October, 1535. He studied at the latter place where he entered the Order of Preachers, received the baccalaureate at Louvain, 1499, and was appointed Master of Students at Cologne, 1505, 1506. In 1507 he became Regent of Studies at Louvain; fellow of the college of Doctors at Cologne, in 1516; and served twice as Prior of Cologne. As the author of the “Catalogus haereticorum,” he has been described as somewhat lacking in critical judgment; but he was otherwise a safe and indefatigable defender of the Faith against the heretics of his time. His important works are: “Catalogus haereticorum omnium,” etc. (Erfurt, 1522; Cologne, 1523; Paris 1524); “Concilium generale malignantium,” etc. (1528); “De ordinibus militaribus,” etc. (Cologne, 1527).

QUÉTIF-ECHARD, Script. Ord. Praed (Paris, 1721), II, 93; PAULUS in Der Katholik (Mainz, 1897), XVI, 166–171; MANDONNET in Dict. de theol. cath. (Paris, 1903), 788; HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1906), II, 1251.

J. R. VOLZ.

St. Bernard of Menthon

Born in 923, probably in the castle Menthon near Annecy, in Savoy; died at Novara, 1008. He was descended from a rich, noble family and received a thorough education. He refused to enter an honorable marriage proposed by his father and decided to devote himself to the service of the Church. Placing himself under the direction of Peter, Archdeacon of Aosta, under whose guidance he rapidly progressed, Bernard was ordained priest and on account of his learning and virtue was made Archdeacon of Aosta (966), having charge of the government of the diocese under the bishop. Seeing the ignorance and idolatry still prevailing among the people of the Alps, he resolved to devote himself to their conversion. For forty two years he continued to preach the Gospel to these people and carried the light of faith even into many cantons of Lombardy, effecting numerous conversions and working many miracles.

For another reason, however, Bernard’s name will forever be famous in history. Since the most ancient times there was a path across the Pennine Alps leading from the valley of Aosta to the Swiss canton of Valais, over what is now the pass of the Great St. Bernard. This pass is covered with perpetual snow from seven to eight feet deep, and drifts sometimes accumulate to the height of forty feet. Though the pass was extremely dangerous, especially in the springtime on account of avalanches, yet it was often used by French and German pilgrims on their way to Rome. For the convenience and protection of travelers St. Bernard founded a monastery and hospice at the highest point of the pass, 8,000 feet above sea-level, in the year 962. A few years later he established another hospice on the Little St. Bernard, a mountain of the Graian Alps, 7,076 feet above sea-level. Both were placed in charge of Augustinian monks after pontifical approval had been obtained by him during a visit to Rome.

These hospices are renowned for the generous hospitality extended to all travelers over the Great and Little St. Bernard, so called in honor of the founder of these charitable institutions. At all seasons of the year, but especially during heavy snow-storms, the heroic monks accompanied by their well-trained dogs, go out in search of victims who may have succumbed to the severity of the weather. They offer food, clothing, and shelter to the unfortunate travelers and take care of the dead. They depend on gifts and collections for sustenance. At present, the order consists of about forty members, the majority of whom live at the hospice while some have charge of neighboring parishes.

The last act of St. Bernard’s life was the reconciliation of two noblemen whose strife threatened a fatal issue. He was interred in the cloister of St. Lawrence. Venerated as a saint from the twelfth century in many places of Piedmont (Aosta, Novara, Brescia), he was not canonized until 1681, by Innocent XI. His feast is celebrated on the 15th of June.

SURIUS, Vl, 358; DORSAZ, Vie d. S. Bernard de Menthon (Paris, 1862); BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, VI, 577; Miscell. Stor. Ital. (1894) xxxi, 341 sqq.; ALDEGUIER, Vie de St. Bernard, Apotre des Alpes (Toulouse, 1858).

BARNABAS DIERINGER.

Bernard of Pavia

A noted canonist, provost of the cathedral chapter of Pavia, and, in 1190, promoted to the Bishopric of Faenza, became Bishop of Pavia in 1198; d. 18 September, 1213. About 1190 he compiled a work entitled “Breviarium Extravagantium” to complete and bring down to his own day Gratian’s “Decretum.” Bernard quotes authorities in an abbreviated form; hence the title. With the exception of a small fragment of a letter of St. Gregory the Great, he took nothing from Gratian. Later decrees and a few fragments of Roman and German civil law are found in the work. The “Breviarium” soon found favor in the University of Bologna, and from the time of Tancred (d. about 1235) was termed “Compilatio Prima” the first collection of canon law after Gratian’s while other collections are styled “Compilatio Secunda,” “Tertia” etc.

The “Breviarium” is divided into five books, the books into 152 titles, the titles into 912 chapters, the chronological order being observed as far as possible. The first book treats of persons who exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the second of civil judicial processes, the third of matters pertaining to clerics and regulars, the fourth of matrimony, the fifth of ecclesiastical crimes and criminal procedure. While no rubrics are prefixed to the books of Bernard, his titles and chapters have their own peculiar inscriptions. The “Breviarium” was published in a work entitled “Antiquae Collectiones Decretalium, cum Ant. Augustini, Episcopi Ilerdensis, notis” (Lerida, 1576, Paris, 1609); also in the work: “Ant. Augustini Opera” (Lucca, 1765-; 4 vols.) Joseph Anthony de Riegger, a professor in the University of Prague (d. 1795) published an incomplete edition of the “Breviarium” (Freiburg, 1778) in which he attempted to harmonize Bernard’s work with the Decretals of Gregory IX.

Bernard wrote a “Summa Decretalium,” a compendium of his “Breviarium,” which for a long time constituted the chief text-book of the schools and was edited by Laspeyres (Ratisbon, 1860). Bernard’s first work was entitled: “Summa de Matrimonio,” which was followed by another: “Summa de Electione.” Both are short treatises (see Laspeyres, op. cit., 287–323). His last work, begun in Faenza and finished after he became Bishop of Pavia. bears the title, “Casus Decretalium,” part of which Laspeyres edited. Bernard also wrote a glossary on his “Breviarium,” a life of St. Lanfranc, Bishop of Ticino, and commentaries on Ecclesiasticus and the Canticle of Canticles.

LAURIN, Introductio in Corpus Juris Can. (Freiburg, 1888), 97 sqq.:HURTER, Nomenclator, IV, 191, 192; AEMILIUS FREIBERG in Quinque Compilationes Antiquae (Leipzig, 1882), pp. VI sqq.

ANDREW B. MEEHAN

St. Bernard Tolomeo

Founder of the congregation of the Blessed Virgin of Monte Oliveto, born at Siena in Tuscany in 1272; died in 1348. He received at baptism the name of Giovanni, but took that of Bernard out of admiration for the saintly Abbot of Clairvaux. He was educated by his uncle, Christopher Tolorneo, a Dominican, and desired to enter the religious life, but his father’s opposition prevented, and he continued his studies in secular surroundings. After a course in philosophy and mathematics lie devoted himself to the study of civil and canon law, and of theology. For a time Bernard served in tile armies of Rudolph of Hapsburg. After his return to Siena he was appointed by his fellow citizens to the highest positions in the town government. While thus occupied he was struck with blindness. Having recovered his sight through the intervention of the Blessed Virgin he retired (1313) to a solitary spot about ten miles from Siena, where he led a life of the greatest austerity.

The fame of his virtues soon attracted many visitors, and Bernard was accused of heresy. He went to Avignon and cleared himself of this charge before John XXII without difficulty. Upon his return he founded the congregation of the Blessed Virgin of Monte Oliveto, giving it the Rule of St. Benedict. The purpose of the new religious institute was a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin. Guido, Bishop of Arezzo, within whose diocese the congregation was formed, confirmed its constitution, (1319), and many favours were granted by Popes John XXII, Clement VI (1344), and Gregory XI. Upon the appearance of the pest in the district of Arezzo, Bernard and his monks devoted themselves to the care of the sick without any personal ill effects After having ruled the religious body he had founded for twenty-seven years Bernard died, at the age of seventy-six. His death was followed by many miracles and the congregation became a nursery of saints. In 1634 the Congregation of Rites declared that the Blessed Bernard Tolomeo was deserving of veneration among the saints. In the Roman Martyrology he is commemorated on 21 August.

CUPER, in Acta SS (1739) Aug. IV. 464–75: MARÉCHAUX, Vic du bienheureux Bernard Tolomei (Paris, 1898).

A. FOURNET

Bl. Bernardine of Feltre

Friar Minor and missionary, b. at Feltre, Italy, in 1439 and d. at Pavia, 28 September, 1494. He belonged to the noble family of Tomitano and was the eldest of nine children. In 1456 St. James of the Marches preached the Lenten course at Padua, and inspired to enter the Franciscan order, Bernardine was clothed with the habit of the Friars Minor in May of the same year. He completed successfully his studies at Mantua and was ordained priest in 1463. Cured miraculously of an impediment in his speech, Bernardine began the long and fruitful apostolate which has caused him to be ranked as one of the greatest Franciscan missionaries of the fifteenth century. Every city of note and every province from Lombardy in the north to Sardinia and the provinces of the south became successively the scene of his missionary labours; and the fruits of his apostolate were both marvellous and enduring. Bernardine, however, will be best remembered in connexion with the monti di pietà of which he was the reorganizer and, in a certain sense, the founder. The word mons which literally means an accumulation of wealth or money, now called capital, seems to have been a generic term used in the fifteenth century to signify lending-houses in general; and hence the montes pietatis or monti di pietà were a species of charitable lending-establishments not, perhaps, unlike our modern pawnbrokers’ establishments, but possessing, of course, none of the sinister features of the latter. As originally instituted the monti di pietà were intended as a timely and effectual remedy for the evils occasioned by the usury then practiced by the Jews upon the people of Christian Italy; and Blessed Bernardine’s places where they had not previously existed afford an explanation of the fact that he is generally represented carrying in his hand a monte di pietà, that is, a little green hill composed of three mounds and on the top either a cross or a standard with the inscription: Curam illius habe. As an author Bernardine has left us little if anything of importance, but it is interesting to note that the authorship of the well-known Anima Christi has as often as not been ascribed to Blessed Bernardine of Feltre. The fact, however, that the Anima Christi was composed sometime before the birth of Blessed Bernardine disproves any claim that he might have of being its author. As in the case of St. Ignatius, Bernardine also made frequent use of it and recommended it to his brethren. The feast of Blessed Bernardino is kept in the Order of Friars Minor on the 28th of September. (See MONTI DI PIETÀ).

Leo, Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the Three Orders of St. Francis (Taunton, 1886), III, 243–265; Wadding, Annales Minorum, VI, 142, XII, 442, passim; Acta SS., September, VII, 814–914; Zanettini, Compendio della vita del Beato Feltrese, Bernardino Tomitano (Milan); Flornoy, Le Bienheureux Bernardin de Feltre (Paris, 1898); Ludovice de Besse, Le Bienheureux Bernardin de Feltre et son oeuvre (Tours, 1902).

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Bl. Bernardine of Fossa

Of the Order of Friars Minor, historian and ascetical writer, b. at Fossa, in the Diocese of Aquila, Italy, in 1420; d. at Aquila, 27 November, 1503. Blessed Bernardine belonged to the ancient and noble family of the Amici, and sometimes bears the name of Aquilanus on account of his long residence and death in the town of Aquila. He received his early training at Aquila and thence went to Perugia to study canon and civil law. On the 12th of March in the year 1445, he received the Seraphic habit from St. James of the Marches who was then preaching a course of Lenten sermons at Perugia. From the time of his entrance into religion, Bernardine never ceased to advance in religious perfection, and the success which crowned his missionary labours throughout Italy, as well as in Dalmatia and Serigonia, bears witness to the eminent sanctity of his life. Bernardine fulfilled the office of provincial of the province of St. Bernardine and of the province of Dalmatia and Bosnia, and would have been chosen Bishop of Aquila had not his humility forbidden him to accept this dignity. His cult was approved by Leo XII, 26 March, 1828. His feast is kept in the Franciscan Order on the 7th of November. The writings of Blessed Bernardine include several sermons and divers ascetical and historical opuscules; among the latter, the “Chronica Fratrum Minorum Observantiae” deserves special mention. This interesting chronicle was first edited by Leonard Lemmens, O.F.M., from the autograph manuscript, and is prefaced by an interesting life of Blessed Bernardine and a critical estimate of his writings. It may also be mentioned that Bernardine is the author of the first life of his patron, St. Bernardine of Siena.

Leo, Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the three Orders of St. Francis (Taunton, 1887), IV, 42–44; Lemmens, Chronica Fratrum Minorum Observantiae B. Bernardini Aquilani (Rome, 1905); Wadding, Annales Minorum, XII, 277- 480; Hurter, Nomenclator, IV, 968; Hugh a Pescocostanza, Vita del B. Bernardino da Fossa (Naples, 1872).

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

St. Bernardine of Siena

Friar Minor, missionary, and reformer, often called the “Apostle of Italy,” b. of the noble family of Albizeschi at Massa, a Sienese town of which his father was then governor, 8 September, 1380; d. at Aquila in the Abruzzi, 20 May, 1444. Left an orphan at six Bernardine was brought up with great care by his pious aunts. His youth was blameless and engaging. In 1397 after a course of civil and canon law, he joined the Confraternity of Our Lady attached to the great hospital of Santa Maria della Scala. Three years later, when the pestilence revisited Siena, he came forth from the life of seclusion and prayer he had embraced, to minister to the plague-stricken, and, assisted by ten companions, took upon himself for four months entire charge of this hospital. Despite his youth Bernardine proved fully equal to this task, but the heroic and unremitting labour it involved so far shattered his health that he never completely recovered. Having distributed his patrimony in charity, Bernardine received the habit of the Friars Minor at San Francesco in Siena, 8 September, 1402, but soon withdrew to the Observantine convent of Columbaio outside the city. He was professed 8 September, 1403 and ordained 8 September, 1404. About 1406 S. Vincent Ferrer, while preaching at Alexandria in Piedmont, foretold that his mantle should descend upon one who was then listening to him, and said that he would return to France and Spain leaving to Bernardine the task of evangelizing the remaining peoples of Italy.

Nearly twelve years passed before this prediction was fulfilled. During this period, of which we have no details, Bernardine seems to have lived in retirement at Capriola. It was in 1417 that his gift of eloquence was made manifest and his missionary life really began at Milan at the close of that year. Thenceforth, various cities contended for the honour of hearing him, and he was often compelled to preach in the market places, his auditors sometimes numbering thirty thousand. Bernardine gradually gained an immense influence over the turbulent, luxurious Italian cities. Pius II, who as a youth had been a spellbound auditor of Bernardine, records that the saint was listened to as another Paul, and Vespasiano da Bisticci, a well-known Florentine biographer, says that by his sermons Bernardine “cleansed all Italy from sins of every kind in which she abounded.” The penitents, we are told, flocked to confession “like ants,” and in several cities the reforms urged by the saint were embodied in the laws under the name of Riformazioni di frate Bernardino. Indeed, the success which crowned Bernardine’s labours to promote morality and regenerate society, can scarcely be exaggerated. He preached with apostolic freedom, openly censuring Visconti, Duke of Milan, and elsewhere fearlessly rebuking the evil in high places which undermined the Quattrocento. In each city he denounced the reining vice so effectively that bonfires were kindled and “vanities” were cast upon them by the cartload. Usury was one of the principal objects of the saint’s attacks, and he did much to prepare the way for the establishment of the beneficial loan societies, known as Monti di Pietà. But Bernardine’s watchward, like that of St. Francis, was “Peace.” On foot he traversed the length and breadth of Italy peacemaking, and his eloquence was exercised with great effect towards reconciling the mutual hatred of Guelphs and Ghibellines. At Crema, as a result of his preaching, the political exiles were recalled and even reinstated in their confiscated possessions. Everywhere Bernardine persuaded the cities to take down the arms of their warring factions from the church and palace walls and to inscribe there, instead, the initials I. H. S. He thus gave a new impulse and a tangible form to the devotion to the Holy Name of Jesus which was ever a favourite topic with him and which he came to regard as a potent means of rekindling popular fervour. He used to hold a board in front of him while preaching, with the sacred monogram painted on it in the midst of rays and afterwards expose it for veneration. This custom he appears to have introduced at Volterra in 1424. At Bologna Bernardine induced a card-painter, who had been ruined by his sermons against gambling, to make a living by designing these tablets, and such was the desire to possess them that the man soon realized a small fortune.

In spite of his popularity—perhaps rather on account of it—Bernardine had to suffer both opposition and persecution. He was accused of heresy, the tablets he had used to promote devotion to the Holy Name being made the basis of a clever attack by the adherents of the Dominican, Manfred of Vercelli, whose false preaching about Antichrist Bernardine had combated. The saint was charged with having introduced a profane, new devotion which exposed the people to the danger of idolatry, and he was cited to appear before the pope. This was in 1427. Martin V received Bernardine coldly and forbade him to preach or exhibit his tablets until his conduct had been examined. The saint humbly submitted, his sermons and writings being handed over to a commission and a day set for his trial. The latter took place at St. Peter’s in presence of the pope, 8 June, St. John Capistran having charge of the saint’s defence. The malice and futility of the charges against Bernardine were so completely demonstrated that the pope not only justified and commended the saint’s teaching, but urged him to preach in Rome. Martin V subsequently approved Bernardine’s election as Bishop of Siena. The saint, however, declined this honour as well as the Sees of Ferrara and Urbino, offered to him in 1431 and 1435, respectively, saying playfully that all Italy was already his diocese. After the accession of Eugene IV Bernardine’s enemies renewed their accusations against him, but the pope by a Bull, 7 January 1432, annulled their highhanded, secret proceedings and thus reduced the saint’s calumniators to silence, nor does the question seem to have been reopened during the Council of Basle as some have asserted. The vindication of Bernardine’s teaching was perpetuated by the feast of the Triumph of the Holy Name, conceded to the Friars Minor in 1530 and extended to the Universal Church in 1722.

In 1433 Bernardine accompanied the Emperor Sigismund to Rome for the latter’s coronation. Soon after he withdrew to Capriola to compose a series of sermons. He resumed his missionary labours in 1436, but was forced to abandon them in 1438 on his election as Vicar-General of the Observants throughout Italy. Bernardine had laboured strenuously to spread this branch of the Friars Minor from the outset of his religious life, but it is erroneous to style him its founder since the origin of the Observants may be traced back to the middle of the fourteenth century. Although not the immediate founder of this reform, Bernardine became to the Observants what St. Bernard was to the Cistercians their principal support and indefatigable propagator. Some idea of his zeal may be gathered from the fact that, instead of the one hundred and thirty Friars constituting the Observance in Italy at Bernardine’s reception into the order, it counted over four thousand before his death. In addition to the number he received into the order, Bernardine himself founded, or reformed, at least three hundred convents of Friars. Not content with extending his religious family at home, Bernardine sent missionaries to different parts of the Orient and it was largely through his efforts that so many ambassadors from different schismatical nations attended the Council of Florence in which we find the saint addressing the assembled Fathers in Greek. Having in 1442 persuaded the pope to accept his resignation as vicar-general so that he might give himself more undividedly to preaching, Bernardine resumed his missionary labours. Although a Bull was issued by Eugene IV, 26 May, 1443, charging Bernardine to preach the indulgence for the Crusade against the Turks, there is no record of his having done so. There is, moreover, no good reason to believe that the saint ever preached outside Italy, and the missionary journey to Palestine mentioned by one of his early biographers may perhaps be traced to a confusion of names.

In 1444, notwithstanding his increasing infirmities, Bernardine, desirous that there should be no part of Italy which had not heard his voice, set out to evangelize the Kingdom of Naples. Being too weak to walk, he was compelled to ride an ass. But worn out by his laborious apostolate of forty years the saint was taken down with fever and reached Aquila in a dying state. There lying on the bare ground he passed away on Ascension eve, the 20th of May, just as the Friars in choir were chanting the anthem: Pater manifestavi nomen Tuum hominibus . . . ad Te venio. The magistrates refused to allow Bernardine’s body to be removed to Siena, and after a funeral of unprecedented splendour laid it in the church of the Conventuals. Miracles multiplied after the saint’s death, and he was canonized by Nicholas V, 24 May, 1450. On 17 May, 1472, Bernardine’s body was solemnly translated to the new church of the Observants at Aquila, especially erected to receive it, and enclosed in a costly shrine presented by Louis XI of France. This church having been completely destroyed by earthquake in 1703, was replaced by another edifice where the precious relics of St. Bernardine are still venerated. His feast is celebrated on 20 May.

St. Bernardine is accounted the foremost Italian missionary of the fifteenth century, the greatest preacher of his day, the Apostle of the Holy Name, and the restorer of the Order of Friars Minor. He remains one of the most popular of Italian saints, more especially in his own Siena. With both painters and sculptors he has ever been a favourite figure. He frequently finds a place in della Robbia groups; perhaps the best series of pictures of his life is that by Pinturicchio at Ara Coeli in Rome, while the carved reliefs on the facade of the Oratory of Perugia, built in 1461 by the magistrates of that faction-rent city in gratitude for Bernardine’s efforts for peace among them, are considered one of the loveliest productions of Renaissance art. But the best portrait of Bernardine is to be found in his own sermons and this is especially true of those in the vernacular. That we are able to enter so thoroughly into the spirit of these Prediche volgari is due to the pious industry of one Benedetto, a Sienese fuller, who took down word for word, with a style on wax tablets, a complete course of Bernardine’s Lenten sermons delivered in 1427, and afterwards transcribed them on parchment. Benedetto’s original manuscript is lost, but several very ancient copies of it are extant. All the forty-five sermons it comprises have been printed (Le Prediche Volgari Di Siena, 1880–88, 3 vols.). These sermons which often lasted three or four hours, throw much light on the fifteenth-century preaching and on the customs and manners of the time. Couched in the simplest and most popular language—for Bernardine everywhere adapted himself to the local dialect and parlance—they abound in illustrations, anecdotes, digressions, and asides. The saint often resorted to mimicry and was much given to making jokes. But his native Sienese gayety and characteristic Franciscan playfulness detracted nothing from the effect of his sermons, and his exhortations to the people to avert God’s wrath by penance, are as powerful as his appeals for peace and charity are pathetic. Very different from these popular Italian sermons taken down della viva voce are the series of Latin sermons written by Bernardine, which are in fact formal dissertations with minute divisions and subdivisions, intended to elucidate his teaching and to serve rather as a guide to himself and others than for practical delivery. Besides these Latin sermons which reveal profound theological knowledge, Bernardine left a number of other writings which enjoy a high reputation—dissertations, essays, and letters on practical, ascetical, and mystical theology, and on religious discipline, including treatises on the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph, used in the Breviary lessons, and a commentary on the Apocalypse. Bernardine’s writings were first collected and published at Lyons in 1501. De la Haye’s edition, “Sti. Bernardini Senensis Ordinis Seraphici Minorum Opera Omnia,” issued at Paris and Lyons in 1536, was reprinted there in 1650, and at Venice in 1745. As a result of the petition addressed to the Holy See in 1882 by the General Chapter of the Friars Minor, requesting that St. Bernardine be declared a Doctor of the Church, a careful inquiry was instituted as to the authenticity of the works attributed to the saint. Some of these are certainly spurious and others are doubtful or interpolated, while not all the saint’s genuine works are contained in the editions we possess. A complete and critical edition of St. Bernardine’s writings is much needed. An excellent selection from his ascetical works was recently issued by Cardinal Vives (Sti. Bernardini Senensis de Dominicâ Passione, Resurrectione et SS. Nomine Jesu Contemplationes, Rome, 1903).

We are fortunate in possessing several detailed lives of St. Bernardine written by his contemporaries. Three of these are given in full bin the Acta Sanctorum Maji, V, with Comm. Praev. by Henschen. The earliest by Bernabaeus Senensis, an eyewitness of much he records, was compiled in 1445 shortly after the saint’s death. The second by the celebrated humanist, Maphaeus Vegius, who knew the saint personally, was printed in 1453. The third by Fra Ludovicus Vincentinus of Aquila was issued after the translation of the saint’s body in 1472. A fourth contemporary biography by a Friar Minor, hitherto unedited, has lately been printed both by Father Van Ortroy, S.J., in the Anal. Bolland. (XXV, 1906, pp. 304–389) and by Father Ferdinand M. d’Ardules, O.F.M. (Rome, 1906). The life of St. Bernardine written in Italian by his name Bl. Bernardine of Fossa (d. 1503), and mentioned by Sbaralea and others does not appear to have come down to us. But the latter’s “Chronica Fratrum Minorum Observantiae,” edited by Lemmens (Rome, 1902), contains several important references. A valuable account of Bernardine’s youth is furnished by Leonardus (Benvoglienti) Senensis, Sienese ambassador to the pope. This work which was edited by Father Van Ortroy in Anal. Bolland., XXI (1902), 53–80, was compiled in 1446 at the instance of St. John Capistran. The “Life” of St. Bernardine attributed to St. John himself, and the one transcribed by Surius in his “Vita SS.” (1618), V, 267–281, as well as the tributes to Bernardine of Pius II and St. Antoninus and the acts of his canonization are found in vol. I of de la Haye’s edition of Bernardine’s works.

Wadding, Annales, XII, ad ann. 1450, n. I and Scriptores (1650), 57–58; Sbaralea, Supplementum (1806), 131–134, 725; Amadio Luzzo, Vita di S. Bernardino (Venice, 1744; Rome, 1826; Siena, 1854; Monza, 1873); Berthaumier, Hist. De S. Bernardin (Paris, 1862); Toussaint, Das Leben des H. Bernardin von Siena (Ratisbon, 1873); Life of St. Bernardine of Siena (London, 1873); Leo de Clary, Lives of the Saints of the Three Orders of St. Francis (Taunton, 1886), II, 220–275; Leon, Vie de St. Bernardin (Vanves, 1893); Alessio, Storia di S. Bernardino e del suo tempo (Mondovi, 1899); Ronzoni, L’Eloquenza di S. Bernardino (Siena, 1899). Undoubtedly the best modern life of St. Bernardine is that by Paul Thureau-Dangin of the French Academy: Un predicateur populaire dans l’Italie de la Renaissance: S. Bernardin de Siene (Paris, 1896). This brilliant monograph has been translated into Italian (1897), German (1904), and English (1906).

PASCHAL ROBINSON

Bernardines

Title of certain sisters of the order of Cîteaux who at the end of the sixteenth and in the seventeenth century, made energetic efforts to restore the primitive observance of their rule. They were the Bernardine Recollects (Bernardas Recoletas) in Spain; the Bernardines of Divine Providence, the Bernardines of the Precious Blood; and the Bernardines of Flines and of Lille, in France and Savoy; and some isolated foundations in Belgium and in Peru. The first reform was due to the Abbesses of Las Huelgas of Burgos, who towards the end of the sixteenth century, had reformed the Abbeys of Gradefes, Perales, and St. Anne of Valladolid, where Jane de Ayala introduced the true spirit of Cîteaux. In 1601 St. Anne of Valladolid became the mother-house of the new reform, and in 1606 the constitutions were approved by Paul V. This reform extended as far as the Indies and the Canary Islands.

In 1622 Louise-Theresa-Blanche de Ballon, daughter of Charles-Emmanuel de Ballon, chamberlain of the Duke of Savoy and later ambassador of this prince in France and Spain, began, under the direction of St. Francis of Sales, her near relative, the reform of the monastery of St. Catherine (Savoy). She afterwards went with five sisters to Rumilly and founded the Congregation of Bernardines of Divine Providence. This reform spread into Savoy and France. The constitutions were printed in 1631. In 1634 Mother de Ponçonnas, who with four other Cistercian sisters of Grenoble had embraced the reform, having gone to Paris to found a new house, had the constitutions reprinted with some changes. Louise de Ballon then had them again printed so as to conform to the first constitutions-an action which caused the separation of the convents of France and Savoy. The convents of France formed what is known as the congregation “of St. Bernard.” Mother Baudet de Beauregard who succeeded Mother de Ponconnas in the government of the monastery of Paris, changed the name from Bernardines of Divine Providence to Bernardines of the Precious Blood (1654). Their rules were approved by the Abbot of Prières, Vicar General of the Strict Observance of Cîteaux, and the Prior of St. Germain-des-Près, as Vicar General of the Cardinal de Bourbon, received the vows of the new community on the 27th of August of the same year.

The monasteries of the congregation now number (I) Bernardine Recollects, 13; (II) Bernardines founded by Mother de Ballon, 2; (III) Bernardines of Flines, 2; (IV) Bernardines of Lille, 3; (V) Bernardines isolated in Belgium and Peru, 6. The houses of France have been closed by the Government. The Bernardines of to-day are engaged in teaching and follow a somewhat modified rule.

The Bernardines of Spain rise every day at three o’clock, and on days of great solemnities at two o’clock. For the office they follow the Cistercian Breviary. They fast two days a week from Pentecost tot he 14th of September, four days a week from the 14th of September to Easter Sunday, and every day during Advent, Septugesima time, and Lent. Meat is allowed three times a week except during Advent and the nine weeks before Easter Sunday. Their habit consists of a woolen robe and their bed is conformable to the regulations. They live in community in sickness as well as in health. With the Bernardines of Mother de Ballon this rule is still more mitigated. They rise at five o’clock summer and winter. Silence is kept except during the recreation which follows dinner and supper. They fast two days a week from Easter Sunday to Pentecost, and on Saturday also during Advent. They abstain from meat on the Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays of the whole year.

M. GILDAS.

Berne

The fourth city of Switzerland in population, capital of a canton of the same name which is the second of the Swiss cantons in size and first in population, and since 1848, capital of the Swiss Confederation, is situated at a point 1,788 feet above the sea level, in Lat. 46°57’ N., and Long. 7° 26’ E. The larger part of the city is built on a peninsula that projects into the Aar from its left bank. In the Middle Ages Berne contained over 5,000 inhabitants; in 1764, 13,681; in 1850, 27,558; in 1900, 64,064. This late number includes 60,622 Germans, 3,087 French, 902 Italians, 762 of mixed Romance blood; divided as to religion, there are 57,946 Protestants, 6,278 Catholics, 668 Jews, and 481 persons belonging to other creeds. As capital of the Swiss Confederation, Berne is the seat of the national, as well as of the cantonal, government, and the official residence of all representatives of foreign Powers. Being the point of junction of seven different lines of railroad, Berne is visited annually by some 200,000 tourists and is the headquarters of a number of international unions and associations, such as the International Postal Union; the International Telegraph Union; the International Patent Office; the International Express Union; the International Publishers’ Congress; the International Peace Society; the Blue Cross Society. It is the residence of a “Christian-Catholics” (Old-Catholic) bishop, and a Catholic parish priest, the centre of a large trade in agricultural produce and of considerable manufactures (chiefly spun silk, machinery, and scientific and musical instruments). It is one of the best built cities in Switzerland, having broad streets and large squares, while it has preserved, more than most of the larger Swiss cities, the old national characteristics in its domestic and municipal architecture. There are six bridges across the Aar, of which the two most important are the iron Kirchenfeldbrucke, 217 yards long, built in 1882–83, and the Kornhausbrucke, 388 yards long, and 157 feet above the River Aar, built in 1896–98. The city contains 7 churches and several chapels. The Catholic church of the Holy Trinity, built in 1896–1900, with a tower 147 feet high, is in the style of an early Christian basilica. The church of Sts. Peter and Paul, originally Catholic, was turned over to the Old Catholics in 1874. The most important of the secular buildings are: the Rathaus of the Canton, built 1406–16; the old and new Federal Buildings; the Parliament Building (Parlamentsgebäude), erected 1895–1902; and the new University Buildings (1900–03).

The University of the Canton of Berne was founded in 1834 by the reorganization of the academy already in existence; it has a Protestant theological faculty, an Old Catholic theological faculty, and faculties of philosophy, law, medicine, and veterinary medicine; its yearly expenses are 880,000 francs ($176,000), and the endowment amounts to over a million francs ($200,000). Connected with the university are an observatory, a botanical garden, and numerous institutes and clinics; the University Library was, in 1905, united with the City Library, the joint collection amounting to some 200,000 volumes, including many valuable manuscripts. Besides these there are a public and a private gymnasium, a secondary school for boys, a public and a private secondary school for girls, a normal school (at Muristalden), an industrial art school, which is combined with the cantonal industrial art museum, students’ workshops, and schools for mechanics, art, and music. Among the numerous learned societies established at Berne are the Swiss Society for the Natural Sciences, founded in 1815, and the Historical Research Society of Switzerland, founded in 1840; the Cantonal Hospital contains 360 beds and has an endowment of over eight million francs ($1,600,000); it was founded in 1354, and since 1884 has been situated on the Kreuzmatt in Holligen. Other hospitals are: a hospital for infectious diseases, founded in 1284, and containing 128 beds; a hospital for women, with maternity department, 1781; the city Burgerspital, founded in 1742, and having an endowment of some 7 million francs ($1,400,000); the city Zieglerspital, founded in 1867, and having an endowment of some 3 million francs ($600,000); the Jennerspital for Children; the Cantonal Insane Asylum; a town orphan asylum for boys and girls, Magdalen asylum, and numerous private institutions. Among the Catholic societies and associations are: the Catholic Journeymen’s Union (Gesellenverein), founded in 1868; the Association of St. Vincent de Paul for aiding the poor, 1868; Women’s Society for the Encouragement of Religious Life and Aid of the Poor, 1875; Congregation of the Children of Mary, for young girls, 181; the parish Cecilia Association (since 1878) a church-choir society; Men’s Society, founded in 1872, reorganized in 1899 as the Catholic Association of the City of Berne, for the protection of Catholic interests, and united with the social union, Bernia, founded in 1887.

HISTORY

The many remains discovered show that the territory surrounding Berne was occupied in prehistoric times. After the Romans had been driven out, the region was occupied by the Alemanni and Burgundians; in A.D. 534 it belonged to the Franks, in 888 it formed part of the second Burgundian empire, together with which it was absorbed into the Holy Roman Empire in 1032. The Dukes of Zahringen received the territory as a fief from the empire, and the last duke of this line, Berthold V, founded the city of Berne in 1191. At his death (1218) it was made a free city of the empire. With but few interruptions the city was able to preserve its independence during its long and frequent wars with the Counts of Kyburg, the Emperor Rudolph of Hapsburg, the Burgundian ruler, Charles the Bold, and so on. It was also able by a clever and consistent policy to increase the size of its territory; in 1415 it conquered Aargau, and Vaud was annexed in 1536. The Disputation of Berne, held in January, 1528, through the efforts of Berthold Haller, Valerius Anshelm, Franz Kolb, and other friends of Zwingli, resulted in the adoption of the Reformation by the city and the increase of the possessions of the State by the confiscation of church property; the land thus acquired amounted to 186 square miles. During the many religious wars which followed (1529, 1531, 1656, 1712) Berne suppressed all forms of Catholic life; in this it followed the example of, and acted in concert with, Zurich, which, with Berne, occupied the most prominent position in the Confederation. The extreme oligarchical rule of the few patrician families caused a rebellion of the peasants in 1653, and the conspiracy of Samuel Henzi in 1749, both of which uprisings were suppressed with much bloodshed, and the power of the Government became more absolute. It was not until the French Revolution that the oligarchy was swept away. After a brave struggle, Berne was taken and plundered by the French (5 March, 1798); it lost the Aargau and Vaud and became the capital of the newly founded Helvetian Republic. As compensation for the loss of the Aargau and Vaud, the Congress of Vienna (1815) gave Berne the greater part of the suppressed Bishopric of Basle and the cities of Biel and Neuenstadt. The oligarchical government, which was re-established, was obliged to abdicate at the outbreak of the Revolution of July, and a new Constitution was adopted (21 July, 1831) which granted democratic representation. This Constitution was amended in a radical direction in 1848 by the adoption of direct voting without property qualification; in 1896 a new Constitution was accepted which granted initiative by the people.

It was not until 1798 that the Catholics, in virtue of section 6 of the Constitution of the Helvetian Republic, were able to re-establish their church organization. In 1799 the Franciscan Father Girard became the first parish priest, being at the same time vicar-general to the Bishop of Lausanne; in 1804 he retired from Berne to become a teacher at Freiburg and Lucerne. Relations with the cantonal government were fairly good during the pastorates of his numerous successors, yet the Catholic community remained a private association and was not recognized by the authorities, although the Constitution of 1848 guaranteed freedom of public worship. The Catholic community made use of the French Protestant church until Father Baud (1832–67) built a Catholic church (1858–64); in 1864 the parish, together with the old part of the canton, was included in the Diocese of Basle. The Catholics refused to recognize the deposition of Bishop Lachat of Basle and rejected the laws of 1873–74, which were unfavourable to the Church; these included the laws concerning parish elections, the cantonal synod as the highest church authority, and civil marriage. In the consequent religious struggle (Kulturkampf) they were obliged to give up their church and all church-endowments to the Old Catholics, who were favoured in every way by the authorities, as was shown by the erection of an Old Catholic theological faculty in 1874, etc. It was not until the decade beginning with 1880 that, during the pastorate of Father Jacob Stammler, a truce was established between Church and State. Father Stammler built a new church, 1896–1900, and was raised to the See of Basle-Lugano in 1906.

The chronicles of Valerius Anshelm (d. 1540) and other medieval writers have been edited (1884–1901) by the Historical Society of the Canton of Berne. See also Fontes rerum Bernensium (a collection of documents earlier than the year 1366—Berne, 1877–1903). Walthard, Description de la ville de Berne (Berne, 1827); Fischer, Geschichte der Disputation und Reformation in Bern (Berne, 1828); Von Rodt, Bernische Stadgeschichte (1886); Idem, Berns Burgerschaft und Gesellenschaft (Berne, 1891); Idem, Bern in den XIII.-XIX. Jahrhut. (Berne, 1898–1907); Schwab and Demme, Die Armenpflege der Stadt Bern (1899); Von Mulinen, Berns Geschichte 1191–1891 (a pamphlet—Berne, 1891); Geiser, Die Verfassung des alten Bern 1191–1798 (Berne, 1891); Idem, Geschichte des Armenwesen im Kanton Bern (Berne, 1j894); Stammler, Die St. Antoniuskirche in Bern in Katholische Schweizerblatter (1893); Idem, Geschichte der Rumischkatholischen Gemeinde in Bern (Solothurn, 1901); Daguet, Le Pere Girard et son temps (Paris, 1896), II; Turler, Das Franziskanerkloster in Bern, in pamphlet issued at the opening of the new high-school at Berne (Berne, 1903); Annual Reports of the Statistical Bureau of Berne.

GREGOR REINHOLD

Francesco Berni

An Italian comic poet, b. at Lamporecchio (Florence) 1497 or 1498; d. at Florence, 26 May, 1535. The son of noble but impoverished parents, he spent his early years in the Tuscan capital fighting want. At twenty better luck awaited him in Rome, where Cardinal Bibbiena, his relative the Cardinal’s nephew, Angelo Dovizi, and Giovanni Mattia Giberti, Bishop of Verona and Datary to Leo X, successively employed him. In the datary, however, he had found a hard taskmaster, who kept him at his correspondence all day long and would not countenance the buffooneries in which the young clerk took huge delight. So, in 1531 we find Berni at Padua in rapturous freedom, gaily bent on bandying insults with the notorious Aretino. Still, the autumn of the same year saw him back at his desk in the episcopal residence of Verona, penning letters with a reluctant hand. Not until 1533, when Cardinal Ippolito dei Medici, who had engaged him the year before, made him a canon of the Florentine cathedral, did he find a position that pleased him. But that long dreamed of life, with its unbridled frolic and happy idleness, was not to last, for, becoming involved in the feud then raging between Ippolito and Alessandro dei Medici, he fell victim to poison under very mysterious circumstances two years afterwards.

Berni’s most extensive work, the refashioning of Matteo Maria Boiardo’s chivalric poem, “L’Orlando innamorato,” was published at Milan seven years after his death and again at Venice, 1545. Leaving the original plot and detailed dénouement entirely unchanged, the jovial Florentine sought to enamel with a smooth diction, and colour with many a quip and prank what he thought offensive on account of its ruggedness of form and dullness of style. Thus he unwittingly made a parody of a creation strong and noble in its native simplicity. Undoubtedly Berni’s fame is more deservedly due to his “Rime,” embracing “Sonetti,” “Sonettesse,” and “Capitoli,” wherein the Bernesque manner found its inception as well as highest achievement, and snivelling Petrarchists were pitilessly flouted. In spite of numberless imitators, including such men as Benedetto Varchi, Ercole Bentivoglio, Giovanni Mauro, Matteo Franzesi, and Ludovico Dolce, Berni’s easy flowing tercets, fairly bubbling over with graceful raillery and capering mirth, dwarfed all his rivals. The “Rime, Poesie latine, e Lettere” were edited by A. Virgili at Florence, in 1885. Nor are the Latin poems, a rustic farce known as “Catrina” (Florence, 1567), and the “Dialogo contro i poeti” (Ferrara, 1527) unworthy productions of his facile pen. The morality of Berni’s writings is far from commendable.

Virgili, Francesco Berni, con documenti inediti (Florence, 1881). About the Bernesque type of poetry see: Mazzoni, Fra libri e carte (Rome, 1887); Gaspary, Geschichte der ital. Lit. (Strasburg, 1888), II, 514.

EDOARDO SAN GIOVANNI

Etienne-Alexandre Bernier

French Bishop, b. at Daon (Mayenne), 31 October, 1762; d. at Paris, 1 October, 1806. He was a first professor of theology in the higher seminary and in the University of Angers, then pastor of St. Laud’s parish, in that city. During the Revolution he refused to take the Civil Oath, and succeeded by his eloquence in arousing the peasants of Anjou and Vendée into insurrection. He then became one of the most important leaders of the whole movement by his personal influence both with the chiefs and on the different military councils. He was called “L’Apôtre de la Vendée.” As to what was his real conduct during this insurrection, towards the end of it especially, its various historians do not agree. At any rate, after the 18th Brumaire, Bernier played the part of negotiator between the First Consul and the insurgents. When Bonaparte had resolved, in spite of all difficulties and opposition, to unite the French nation and the Catholic Church, he chose the Abbé Bernier to represent the French Government in the preparatory negotiations. This choice was a happy one, on the part of the First Consul, for, despite how widely historians differ in their appreciations of Bernier’s character, none of them denies him a deep and subtle intelligence, an untiring and resourceful activity, and a seductive influence—all qualities which made him a clever politician.

As soon as Mgr. Spina and Caselli, the pope’s envoys, arrived at Paris, in November, 1800, Bernier entered into relations with them, and, at once began, with Mgr. Spina, the preparatory negotiations on the important points which were to be discussed, namely, the resignation of the bishops, the reduction of the number of dioceses, the alienation of ecclesiastical properties, nomination to the bishoprics, and the taking of the oath of fidelity to the constitution. They successively presented four projects of reduction, followed by another project drawn up by Napoleon himself. Difficulties arose, necessitating the presence in Paris of the Papal Secretary of State, Consalvi, in June, 1801. The Concordat was to be signed on 13 July, and Bernier had been appointed by a decree of the preceding day (Messidor 23, an. IX) as one of the three representatives of the French Government, to conclude the Concordat and sign it. In the meantime, the project agreed upon had been changed by Bonaparte; letters were exchanged between Consalvi and Bernier; Consalvi refused to sign the new project. Negotiations continued until the 16th of July, when an agreement was reached and the Concordat signed at 2 o’clock in the morning. (See CONCORDAT.) In 1802 Bernier was named Bishop of Orléans, by Bonaparte.

D’Haussonville, L’Eglise romaine et le premier empire (1868); Cretineau-Joy, Histoire de la Vendée militaire; Leon Seche, Les origines du Concordat (Paris, 1895); Cochard, Mgr. Bernier, eveque d’Orleans (Orleans, 1901); Mathieu, Le Concordat de 1801 (Paris, 1903); Sevestre, L’Histoire, le texte, et la destinee du concordat de 1801 (2nd ed., Paris, 1905); Consalvi, Memoires (1864); Theiner, Documents inedits relatifs aux affaires de l’Eglise de France, 1790–1800 (1857); Idem, Histoire des deux concordats de la Republique Francaise (Paris, 1875); Boulay de la Meurthe, Documents sur la negociation du Concordat et sur les autres rapports de la France avec le S. Siege (Paris, 1891–97), I-III; Rinieri, La diplomatie pontificale au XIXe siecle, le concordat entre Pie VIII et le Premier consul 1800–1802 (French tr., Paris, 1903).

G.M. SAUVAGE

Domenico Bernini

Son of the famous artist Giovanni Lorenzo Bernini, lived in the early part of the eighteenth century. He became a prelate and canon of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome. He devoted himself to the study of ecclesiastical history and wrote an extensive history o f the heresies, “Istoria, di tutte l’heresie,” 4 vols. fol. (Rome 1705–17); also, “Memorie istoriche di ciò che hanno operato i sommi pontefici nelle guerre contra i Turchi” in quarto (Rome, 1685); “Il tribunale della S. Ruota Romana (Rome, 1717)

G. M. SAUVAGE

Giovanni Lorenzo Bernini

One of the most vigorous and fertile of Italian architects and sculptors, b. at Naples in 1598; d. at Rome in 1680. Bernini in his art is the most industrious of Roman artists, and his work tends largely to the baroque. In addition to his abilities as sculptor and architect he possessed those of a painter and even of a poet. His father, a painter and sculptor of moderate skill, gave him his first lessons in art. In 1608 the father was called to Rome and took Lorenzo with him. It is said that the boy even in his eighth year had carved a beautiful marble head of a child; in his fifteenth year he produced the “David with a Sling” which is now in the Villa Borghese. Paul V employed him, and under the five following popes he rose to great fame and importance. He was the favorite of Urban VIII (Barberini). In 1629 he became the architect of St. Peter’s and superintendent of Public Works in Rome. He ruled in art like a second Michelangelo, although his style bore little resemblance to that of the latter. Mazarin tried in 1664 to persuade him to come to Paris, but he did not visit that city until 1665 when he accepted an invitation from Louis XIV. A son named Paul and a numerous suite accompanied him to Paris and Versailles. Jealousy, however, prevented the carrying out of his plans for the Louvre, nor was he able to maintain himself long in Paris. His pupil, Mathias Rossi, was also forced, not long after the master’s departure, to leave the city. The king, however, treated Bernini with great honor during his stay and rewarded him munificently. Bernini made a bust and an equestrian statue of Louis XIV which were in a style agreeable to the taste of that monarch. Queen Christina of Sweden visited Bernini during her stay in Rome; and on an order of King Philip IV he made a huge crucifix for the royal mortuary chapel. He also carved busts of Charles I of England and his wife Henrietta. Bernini triumphed over all his detractors and became in the end as rich as he was famous.

It is not necessary to speak here of his writings and of his comedies in verse. Nor need mention be made of his paintings which amount to some two hundred canvases. He owes his fame to his architectural work, for which he had in Rome great and inspiring examples. He never lacked imagination, inventive power, or courage in undertaking a task. He did not copy the simplicity of the. antique and often deliberately departed from the canons of art in the hope of excelling them (chi non esce talvolta della regola, non la passa mai). The art of this period in aiming at outward effect lost all moderation and went to too great an extreme. In completing the church of St. Peter Bernini was naturally obliged to exert all his powers. As the seventh architect engaged in the work he gave the finishing touches to the great undertaking. With sound judgment he followed the plan of Maderna—to increase the effect of the façade by means of flanking towers. He wished, however, to make the towers a more important feature than in Maderna’s scheme, keeping them though in such proportion that in the distance they should appear some thirty meters below the dome. As one tower was well under way it fell down on account of the weakness of the foundation laid by Maderna. One of the most brilliant works of Bernini is the colonnade before St. Peter’s. It proves the truth of the axiom he laid down: “An architect proves his skill by turning the defects of a site into advantages.” The slope of the ground from the doorway of the basilica to the bridge over the Tiber suggested the scheme of laying out the great stairway of twenty-two steps and the great and equally well-conceived terrace. The ground available being limited on two sides by neighboring houses, Bernini avoided the danger of coming too close to the buildings by adopting the beautiful elliptic form of the colonnade, which encloses, nevertheless, as large a ground-surface as the Colosseum.

The avenue thus formed is perhaps, the most beautiful one in the world. When the piazza is approached from the distance a fine view is at first obtained of the dome; unfortunately the dome is more and more obscured, on nearer approach, by the portico and the façade of the church. Four rows of Tuscan columns, placed to right and left and having altogether the form of an ellipse, traverse the piazza from one end to the other. Between the middle rows of columns two carriages can pass. The slope of the ground without being sharp enough to produce fatigue causes the eye to look steadily upward. In the middle of the ellipse, which is 895x741 feet, stands the obelisk, 84 feet high, which was placed here in 1586 by Sixtus V. Back of the ellipse rises the terrace. Two galleries unite the ellipse with the portico, the height of which is best realized by comparing it with these galleries. Everything here is on a great scale. When, however, the pope gives the blessing from the balcony, the convergence of the lines in the arrangement of the piazza causes the space to appear much greater than it really is. The stairway (Scala Regia), which ascends from the portico to the Sala Regia, offers a fine perspective. Limitation was here turned into a source of beauty. Bernini had a large share in the erection of the stately Barberini palace at Rome. He built the beautiful Odescalchi palace, took part in adorning the piazza Navona with the obelisk, and designed the pleasing statues of the river-gods for the great fountain.

In speaking of Bernini’s work as a sculptor it may that in this field the decadence of his art makes itself apparent. The skeleton representing Death on the tomb of Urban VIII, in the church of St. Peter, is placed in the midst of ideal and really beautiful figures. Weaker still, with the exception of the portrait, is the tomb of Alexander VII. “St. Theresa pierced by an Arrow” is exceedingly effective, the “Rape of Persephone,” as well as his “Apollo and Daphne,” are weak and sensuous. On the other hand, the equestrian statue of Constantine in St. Peter’s suffers from its size, as the heroic proportions do not appear to be united with the necessary intrinsic worth. Today the canopy (baldacchino) is as universally condemned as it was then (1633) admired. Neither is approval now given to the “Chair of St. Peter” in the tribune of the basilica. Viewed as a sculptor Bernini is at times extreme, without force, theatrical in the pose, affected in details, or over-luxuriant in physical graces. He was entirely in accord with the spirit of his time and countenanced it with all the authority of his ability and fame. He attached more importance to grace of outward form than to intrinsic merit, and aimed more at external effect than at the real artistic completeness of the work. Yet among his productions as a sculptor are many excellent works. As examples may be given the tomb of the Countess Matilda In St. Peter’s, and the statues of St. Ludovica Albertoni and St. Bibiana in the niches of the colonnade of St. Peter’s. In the niches of these columns are 162 statues made after designs by Bernini. In his work on the Bridge of Sant’ Angelo he shows at least wonderful richness of design. He by no means failed in designs for tombs and in portrait busts; for example, the bust of his daughter and that of Innocent X.

He often spoiled the pure plastic effect of his work by two or three false conceptions. He held that the antique repose of sculpture, which, it must be acknowledged, at times nearly degenerates into stiffness, must be transformed into effective action at any cost. The naturalistic painting of the time drove the sculptors into this course. But in the plastic arts the reason for extreme action is often not clear and it appears weak, sentimental, and theatrical. When. the work is executed in polished marble, for which Bernini had a strong predilection, over-action is apt to degenerate into the opposite of what is intended and to become an extreme ugliness, or a miscarried attempt at grandeur. On account of these misconceptions of art Bernini’s work was often a failure. The style of sculpture which aims solely at outward effect is seen to best advantage when it is used in connection with architecture. The statues designed by Bernini for the façade of St. Peter’s and of the Lateran belong to this form of art. Action appears at its best in sculpture when used as decoration and on a small scale. The decorative architectural style is better suited, therefore, for relief work than for sculpture in the round.

DOMINICI, Vite dei Pittori, Scultori ed Architetti Napolitani (Naples, 1840); KUHN , Kunstgeschichte (Einsiedeln, 1891); IDEM, Roma (Einsiedeln, 1878); DOHME , Kunst und Künstler (Leipzig, 1879).

G. GEITMANN

Giuseppe Maria Bernini

A Capuchin missionary and Orientalist, b. near Carignan in Piedmont; d. in Hindustan in 1753. For many years he was a missionary in the East Indies, and acquired a remarkable knowledge of the languages and dialects of India. In his travels through the country he made a special and careful study of the manners, customs, and religious beliefs and practices of the people. The results of his studies were collected in his work: “Notizie laconiche di alcuni usi, sacrifizi, ed idoli nel regno di Neipal, raccolte nel anno 1747.” This work has never been published, but is preserved in manuscript in the library of the Propaganda at Rome, and in the museum of Cardinal Borgia. Bernini also wrote “Dialogues,” in one of the Indian languages, also preserved in manuscript in the Propaganda; a translation of “Adhiatma Ramayana”; one of “Djana Sagara,” and a collection of historical studies under the title, “Mémoires historiques” (Verona).

Dizionario Biografico Universale (Florence, 1840). A very mediocre translation of the Notizie into English has been published in Asiatic Researches, II.

ENEAS B. GOODWIN.

François-Joachim-Pierre de Bernis

A French cardinal and statesman, b. 1715 at Saint-Marcel-d’Ardèche; d. at Rome, 1794. The Bernis family possessed many titles of nobility but was almost reduced to poverty. François, the youngest son, was destined for an ecclesiastical career and sent to St.-Sulpice. He left that institution at the age of nineteen to go into the world to retrieve the family fortune. The title of Abbé, by which he was known, meant in those days little more than the tonsure and the black gown; it certainly meant only that to him. Young Bernis was a worldling in the full sense of the word, but success was slow in coming. His noble birth gave him access to the chapters of Brioude and Lyons; his ready wit and courteous manners opened to him the mansions of the wealthy, and the French Academy admitted him in recognition of certain literary essays whose principal merit was gallantry; but all this only concealed, without relieving, his poverty. It was at this time that Bernis was introduced to the future Madame de Pompadour, an acquaintance which soon meant a pension of 1500 livres and, later, the appointment as ambassador to Venice.

Once at Venice, Bernis rapidly rose. He succeeded in adjusting some differences between the Venetians and Pope Benedict XIV, and thus won the favour of the latter. The knowledge he had acquired of European diplomacy made him valuable to his Government, and partly in view of possible preferment in the Church and partly through a desire of breaking with the past, Bernis received the subdeaconship at the hands of the Patriarch of Venice. In 1756 Louis XV recalled him to make him his minister of foreign affairs, but his tenure of office was short and full of trials. The alliance of France with Austria against England and Prussia resulted in the Seven Years’ War in which France was the loser, and Bernis was held responsible for both the alliance and its consequences. It is true that this new policy had been practically inaugurated by Rouillé, Bernis’s predecessor in the foreign office; that the worthlessness of the French generals, all creatures of Madame de Pompadour, and not Bernis’s carelessness or incompetency, was the true cause of the defeats of the French; that the treaty of Paris, which terminated the war, insured to the French some appreciable advantages; yet, despite this, Bernis lost the favour of the people and, along with it, the friendship of Madame de Pompadour. He tendered his resignation, and was, by a harsh letter of Louis XV, banished to the Abbey of Vic-sur-Aisne, near Soissons. Pope Clement XIII was the only one to remember him. Just as the fallen minister was going into exile, he received a papal motu proprio making him cardinal (1758).

Bernis profited by his six years of enforced retirement, receiving the diaconate and the priesthood. In 1764, after the anger of the king and Madame de Pompadour had subsided, he was sent to Albi as archbishop. His zeal there won him the esteem of all and prepared him for a still higher position, that of ambassador of France at Rome (1769). Bernis’s influence in Rome was considerable. It was felt in the conclave of 1769, which elected Ganganelli, and in that of 1774, which elected Braschi. In the suppression of the Jesuits by Clement XIV, Bernis is far from deserving all the blame that is put on him. It is well known that he personally regretted the measure, and that as ambassador he tried to avert it by assisting the wavering pope in securing the delays for which he had asked. But the pressure exercised by the Bourbons of Spain, Naples, and France, and the passive attitude and tacit consent of Austria brought the negotiations to an abrupt termination. When the French Revolution broke out, Bernis held, in the national church of St. Louis des Français, a solemn funeral for the martyred Louis XVI; he also placed his palace at the disposal of the princesses of France who had sought refuge in Rome, and finally resigned his post rather than take the constitutional oath. The last three years of his life he spent in Rome in comparative poverty, devoting himself to the French exiles and fully justifying the epithet, “Protector of the Church of France,” bestowed upon him by Pope Pius VI. The French colony in Rome erected a magnificent mausoleum in his honour, and the church of St. Louis received his remains.

Bernis’s life has too long received but scant appreciation because of the levity of his youth, which he was the first to regret and called the delicta iuventutis meæ. The publication of his “Mémoires” in 1878 has put a new construction on many things and given us a truer and better opinion of him. Although the first part of his life cannot be defended, still, from the time of his ordination at Venice and Soissons, the courtier took a higher view of the sanctity of the priestly character, and was no discredit to it. Bernis was a writer of no mean talent. His “Poésies” show a bright imagination and a facile pen; his “Letters” are not inferior to Voltaire’s; and the poem “Religion vengée,” though lacking the calm beauty of Racine’s similar production, still has inspiring passages. Didot published Bernis’s Oeuvres mêlées en prose et en vers” (Paris, 1797), and Masson edited his “Mémoires” (1878).

Encyclopédie des gens du monde (Paris, 1834); MASSON, Mémoires et lettres de François-Joachim, Cardinal de Bernis (Paris, 1878); IDEM, Le Cardinal de Bernis depuis son ministère (Paris, 1884); DE LA ROCHETERIE, Revue des questions historiques (Paris, 1879), XXVI, 214; THEINER, Histoire de Clément XIV (Paris, 1852); D’ARMAILHAC, L’église nationale de St. Louis des Français (Rome, 1894).

J.F. SOLLIER

Berno (Abbot of Reichenau)

Famous as orator, poet, philosopher, and musician, born (date unknown) at Prum near Trier; d. 7 June, 1048. He became Abbot of Reichenau in 1008. Educated in the school of St. Gall, Berno visited Rome with the Emperor Henry II, and upon his return introduced many reforms in the liturgical music of his native land. Among his books are the “Tonarium,” “De varia psalmorum atque cantuum modulatione,” and “De consona tonorum diversitate,” all of which are contained in Migne’s “Patrology” and in Gerbert’s “Scriptores.” Another work attributed to him, but less known, is entitled “De instrumentis musicalibus.”

Living and writing at a time when the traditions of Rome and St. Gall were still fresh, Berno has left, in his works on music, a fruitful source of information to those who are interested in ascertaining and restoring the rhythmical form in which the Gregorian melodies were originally sung. Berno’s testimony, with that of other early writers, supports the view of those who hold that the Gregorian melodies consist of long and short note-values, as against the theory that all notes in the chant are of equal length.

Wagner, Neumenkunde (Freiburg, 1905); Bonvin, On Gregorian Rhythm (New York, 1906); Voix de St. Gall (Fribourg, Switzerland, 1906).

JOSEPH OTTEN

Berno

(Apostle of the Obotrites), in the latter half of the twelfth century. The Obotrites were one of the Slav tribes known under the common name of Wends, and dwelt along the Baltic in Mecklenburg. Three bishoprics had been erected in their country as early as the tenth century, Oldenburg (transferred to Lubeck in the twelfth century), Ratzeburg, and Mecklenburg, but they remained vacant during the greater part of the eleventh century. Duke Henry the Lion, of Saxony, having partly subdued the Obotrites, re-established the three bishoprics, and in 1155 selected Berno as Bishop of Mecklenburg. He was a Cistercian monk of the flourishing monastery of Amelungsborn on the Weser, and was consecrated in Rome by Pope Adrian IV. As these sees were not only episcopal residences but also political centres and strongholds of foreign power, the Obotrites identified the Christian with the German name and detested both. No wonder that Berno at first met with small success in his missionary labours. The Obotrite Prince Niklot, the fiercest enemy both of the Germans and of the Christian religion, had not yet submitted to German ascendancy and was the greatest obstacle to the conversion of the people. Berno was even obliged in 1158 to transfer his episcopal see from Mecklenburg to Schwerin, whither German colonists had already penetrated. From Schwerin as a centre, the zealous and intrepid missionary bishop began his work of preaching, destroying idols, baptizing, and building churches, and penetrated as far as Demmin in hither Pomerania. Here, in 1163, he converted the powerful Prince Pribislav, son of Niklot, who, however, fell away again the very next year, made war upon the Germans, and attacked, and nearly killed the bishop at the altar. In the end he had to acknowledge the German supremacy and remained henceforth loyal to the Christian religion.

In 1168 Berno undertook a missionary expedition to the island of Rugen and destroyed the temple and the great idol of the pagan inhabitants, whom by patience and kindness he won over to the Christian religion. In the year 1171 he consecrated the Cathedral of Schwerin, where in 1177, he held the first synod. The greatest service which this apostolic man rendered to those countries was the introduction of his religious brethren, the Cistercian monks. The monastery of Doberan, which through the bishop’s efforts was founded by Pribislav in 1171, soon became a centre from which radiated Christian civilization far and wide. The monks had been brought from his own monastery of Amelungsborn. Two years later Dargun was founded and entrusted to Danish monks. This monastery, however, did not flourish until the Danish monks were replaced by monks from Doberan. During the schism caused by Frederick Barbarossa, Berno, like all the Cistercians, never wavered in his loyalty to the legitimate pope, though his metropolitan, the Archbishop of Bremen, had joined the cause of the antipope. When at last Frederick made his peace with Alexander III, Berno was enabled to make a journey to Rome (1178) to pay his homage to the pope, who confirmed the erection of his diocese. During the Lent of the following year he took part in the General Council of the Lateran. During his absence in Rome, the Wends had risen against the Germans, the great monastery of Doberan had been destroyed and its seventy-eight inmates massacred. When peace was re-established Doberan was rebuilt and again peopled by monks from Amelungsborn in 1186. Berno died in 1191 (1190?) having laboured as bishop of Mecklenburg for over thirty years.

Diekamp in Kirchenlex., II, s. v.; Allgemeine deutsche Biog., II, s. v.; Hergenrother-Kirsch, Kirchengesch., II, 536–538, a full bibliography, ibedem, 277, 278, 535, 536; Chevalier, Bio-bibl. (Paris, 1905), s. v.

B. GULDNER

Bernold of Constance

Historian and theologian, b. in Swabia about 1054; d. at Schaffhausen, 16 September, 1100. He entered the school of Constance under the renowned Bernard of Constance, and made rapid progress in study. He attended the Lenten Synod of Rome, in 1079, at which Berengarius retracted his errors. Remaining in Italy till 1084 he returned to Constance for the episcopal consecration of Gebhard, whose action in enforcing the reform decrees of Gregory VII he later on defended. In the same year he was ordained priest by the papal legate, Cardinal Otto of Ostia. In 1086 he went with Bishop Gebhard as counsellor to King Herman, to the battle of Bleichfeld. About the same time he entered the Benedictine Abbey of St. Blasien in the Black Forest near Schaffhausen, and in 1091 the Abbey of All Saints in the city itself, where he died. His name has ever been associated with the reforms of Gregory VII. The seventeen tracts that have reached us are mostly apologies for the pope’s policy, or vindications of men who advocated or enforced it in Germany. Chief among these are: “De prohibendâ sacerdotum incontinentiâ,” written against the married clergy; “De damnatione schismaticorum,” wherein he justified the pope’s condemnation of that abuse; “Apologeticus super excommunicationem Gregorii VII,” a defence of the pope’s excommunication of Henry IV and his partisans. Bernold is the author of a chronicle (Mon. Germ. Hist., Script., V) which is still highly esteemed. The latter part is a terse record of contemporary event by a knowing and intelligent observer. Dom Morin has shown (Revue Benedictine, VIII, 385–395) that Bernold is the author of the “Micrologus,” an important medieval liturgical treatise. Several other works are ascribed to him, but without sufficient evidence.

Strelau, Leben und Werke des Monches Bernold von Sanct-Blasien (Jena, 1889); Schultzen, De Bertholdi et Bernoldi chronicis (Bonn, 1867); Peyret, Bernold de Constance; La Reforme de Saint Gregoire VII (Saint-Etienne, 1904); Pertz in Mon. Germ. Hist., Script., V; Thaner, ibid., II; Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter (Berlin, 1877), II, 43.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

St. Bernward

Thirteenth Bishop of Hildesheim, Germany, b. about the middle of the tenth century; d. 20 November, 1022. He claimed descent from a noble Saxon family, which counted among its members men of distinction in Church and State. His grandfather was Athelbero, Count Palatine of Saxony. Having lost his parents at an early age, he came under the care of his uncle Volkmar, Bishop of Utrecht, who entrusted his education to Thangmar, the pious and learned director of the cathedral school at Heidelberg. Under this master, Bernward made rapid progress in Christian piety as well as in the sciences and in the liberal and even mechanical arts. He became very proficient in mathematics, painting, architecture, and particularly in the manufacture of ecclesiastical vessels and ornaments of silver and gold. He completed his studies at Mainz, where he was ordained priest by archbishop Willigis, Chancellor of the Empire (975–1011). He declined a valuable preferment in the diocese of his uncle, Bishop Volkmar, and chose to remain with his grandfather, Athelbero, to comfort him in his old age. Upon the death of the latter, in 987, he became chaplain at the imperial court, and was shortly afterwards appointed by the Empress-Regent Theophano, tutor to her son Otto III, then six years of age. The youthful emperor is known to have been a learned and religious prince, for which he was indebted in no small degree to his instructor.

Bernward remained at the imperial court until 993, when he was elected Bishop of Hildesheim. His long episcopate of nearly thirty years was prolific of great results for the Diocese of Hildesheim. Thangmar, his former tutor, who subsequently became his biographer, describes in eloquent terms, how the saint, after performing his episcopal functions in the cathedral, was wont to visit the various workshops connected with the cathedral school, and with his own hands manufactured gold and silver vessels for the enrichment of the altars. Under his direction arose numerous churches and other edifices, including even fortifications for the defence of his episcopal city against the invasions of the pagan Normans. As evidences of his skill in the practice of the mechanical arts there are still preserved in Hildesheim a cross of rich and exquisite workmanship, known as the “Bernward Cross,” the famous Bernward column, with winding reliefs representing scenes from the life of Christ, two bronze doors of the Cathedral of Hildesheim, showing Scriptural scenes, and two candlesticks symbolic of Christ, the light of the world. A monument of his zeal and skill is St. Michael’s abbey-church at Hildesheim—now Protestant—one of the most magnificent basilicas in Germany. His knowledge and practice of the arts were wholly employed in the service of the Church. A man of extraordinary piety, he was much given to prayer and the practice of mortification. Shortly before his death in 1022 he had himself invested with the Benedictine habit. He was canonized by Pope Celestine III in 1193. His feast occurs on 20 November.

Stimmen aus Maria Laach (1885), XXVIII; GFR RER, Papst Gregor VII, V, XXXIII, LIV; KUhn, Allgemeine Kunst-Geschichte, XIII.

J. A. BIRKHAEUSER.

Beroea

(Later, Berrhoea, Beroie, and Beroe).

A titular see of Macedonia, at the foot of Mount Bermios, now Doxa; it still preserves its ancient name, pronounced Veria by the Greeks (Turkish Kara-Feria, Slav Ber). The Romans captured it after the battle of Pydna (168 B.C.) and from 49 to 48 Pompey took up his winter quarters there (Plutarch, Pomp. 64). In its Jewish synagogue St. Paul preached successfully (Acts, xvii, 10, 13); on withdrawing he left at Beroea his disciples Silas and Timothy. Onesiums, formerly Philemon’s slave, was its first bishop according to the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, 46). At the time of the last partition of the empire, it was allotted to Macedonia Prima (Hierocles, Synecdemos, 638), and its see made suffragan to Thessalonica. Amongst its bishops, Gerontius was present at Sardica in 344, Luke at the Latrocinium of Ephesus in 449, Timothy at the Council of Constantinople under the Patriarch Menas in 536, Joseph at the Eighth Oecumenical Council in 869. Under Andronicus II (1283–1328) Beroea was made a metropolis. The actual Greek metropolitans add the title of Naoussa, a neighbouring city. It has now about 10,000 inhabitants.

Besides this Beroea, there was in Thracia a Beroe, or Augusta Trajana (Hierocles, 635), whither Pope Liberius (355–358) was exiled (Sozomen, IV, 11). It is called Berrhoea, or Beroe, in episcopal lists (Georgius Cyprius, 53; Parthey, Notit. episc., VI, 57; VII, 53; VIII, 57). Its Turkish name was Eski-Zagra, for which the present Bulgarian substitute is Stara-Zagora. For its episcopal list see Lequien, I, 1165–68; Gams, 427. Beroea is also an ancient name of Aleppo.

Lequien, Or. Christ., II, 71–74; Gams, Series episcop., 429; Leake, Northern Greece, III, 290 sqq.; Cousinery, Voyage en Macedoine, I, 57 sqq.

L. PETIT.

Berosus

(Berosós or Berossós)

The name of a native historian of Babylonia and a priest of the great god Bel (Bel-Marduk). He flourished during and after the lifetime of Alexander the Great, althrough the exact dates of his birth and death are unknown. It is certain, however, that he lived in the days of Alexander (356–326 B. C.) and continued to live at least as late as Antiochus I Soter (280–261 B. C.), to whom he dedicated his famous history of Babylonia.

The meaning of his name is uncertain, notwithstanding the fanciful etymology of Scaliger and others who claim it is composed of Bar and Hosea, “Son of Hosea.”

Concerning his personality very little is known with certainty. According to Vitruvius and Pliny (whose testimony, taken as a whole, is to be accepted with caution), Berosus was profoundly versed in the science of astronomy and astrology; that much is certain. Leaving Babylonia, he settled for awhile in Greece, on the island of Cos, where he opened a school of astronomy and astrology. From there he passed to Athens where his wonderful learning and remarkable astronomical predictions brought him such fame that a statue with a gilt tongue was erected in his honour in the public gymnasium. Vitruvius attributes to him the invention of a semi-circular sundial. Justin Martyr, undoubtedly through a misunderstanding, affirms that the Babylonian Sibyl who gave oracles at Cumæ in the time of the Tarquins was a daughter of Berosus. Tatian, the disciple of Justin, and himself a Mesopotamian by birth, rightly calls Berosus the most learned historian of Western Asia. It is doubtful, however, whether the Babylonian Berosus is the same person as the astronomer Berosus of whom many Greek and Latin historians make mention.

Berosus wrote a history of Babylonia, probably under title of “Babyloniaca,” though it is referred to under the title of “Chaldaica” by Josephus and Clement of Alexandria. The work was divided into three books, or parts, of which the first dealt with human history from the beginning of the world to the Flood, the second from the Flood to Nabonassar (747 B. C.), and the third from Nabonassar to Alexander the Great and even as far down as the reign of his patron Antiochus. The materials of this history, written in Greek, he professes to have derived from ancient Babylonian chronicles and inscriptions preserved in the temple of Bel in Babylon, and there is every reason to believe in the truth of his assertion, as most of his statements, notwithstanding the manifold and unconscientious handlings which his work underwent at the hands of later Greek and Roman writers, show a remarkable agreement with the cuneiform records and inscriptions found in the libraries and temples of Babylonia and Assyria. Unfortunately, however, by far the greater part of this priceless work has perished. What has come down is in the form of fragments preserved principally by late Greek historians and writers, such as Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenus, and Apollodorus, whose writings are quoted by Josephus, Nicholas of Damascus, Julius Africanus, Eusebius, Syncellus, and a few others. So it is apparent that the views put forth by Berosus come down in a very roundabout manner. In places his statements have been so garbled as to seem absurd, and yet, fragmentary as his work is, it is of great importance.

Of the origin of the gods and of the world, according to the cosmology and mythology of the Babylonians, Berosus has the following account, preserved by Damascius, which shows a remarkable agreement with the Babylonian Creation epic discovered recently and masterly discussed and studied by Smith, Delitzsch, Jenson, Zimmern, Jastrow, King, Dhorme, and others. “Among the barbarians, the Babylonians seem to pass over the first of all principles in silence, imagining two to begin with, Tavthe (Tiamat, the Hebrew Tehôm) and Apason (Apsu), making Apason the consort of Tavthe, whom they called the ‘mother of the gods.’ The issue of their union, as they said, was an only son, Myomis (Mummu), who seems to me to stand for the visible world, offspring of the first two principles, from whom are subsequently produced another generation, Dache and Dachos (should be Lachme and Lachmos=Lahamu and Luhmu). A third follows from the same parents, Kisare (Kishar) and Assoros (Aushar), of whom three gods are born: Anos (Anu), Illinois (Elim?=Bel) and Aos (Ea); finally the son of Aos and of Davke is Belos (Bel-Marduk), called by them the ‘demiurge’“ (Damascius, De primis principiis, ed. Kopp, 125, p. 184).

Berosus’s account of the creation of the world and of mankind, as preserved to us by Syncellus who copied it from Alexander Polyhistor, runs as follows: “There was a time when all was darkness and water, and from the midst thereof issued spontaneously monstrous animals and the most peculiar figures: men with two wings, and others with four, with two faces or two heads, one of a man, the other of a woman, on one body, and with the two sexes together; men with goats’ legs and goats’ horns, or with horses’ hoofs; others with the hinder parts of a horse and the foreparts of a man, like the hippocentaurs. There were, besides, human-headed bulls, dogs with four bodies and fishes’ tails, horses with dogs’ heads, animals with the head and body of a horse and the tail of a fish, other quadrupeds in which all sorts of animal shapes were confused together, fishes, reptiles, serpents, and every kind of marvellous shapes, representations of which may be seen in the paintings of the temple of Belos. A woman named Omoroca (Um- Uruk, the mother of Uruk) presided over this creation; in the Chaldean language she bears the name of Thavatth (Tiamat), signifying in Greek ‘the sea,’ and she is also identified with the moon.

“Things being in this condition, Belos (Bel-Marduk) came upon the scene and cut the woman in half; of the lower part of her body he made the earth, and of the upper half the heavens, and all the creatures that were in her disappeared. This is a figurative way of explaining the production of the universe and of animated beings from humid matter. Belos then cut off his own head, and the other gods having kneaded the blood flowing from it with the earth, formed men, who by that means were gifted with understanding, and made participants of divine thought.

“Thus it was that Belos, interpreted by the Greeks as signifying Zeus, having divided the darkness, separated the heavens and the earth, and ordered the world; and all animated beings who were not able to endure the action of light perished. Belos, seeing that the earth was a desert, though fertile, commanded one of the gods to cut off his head, and kneading the blood which flowed with earth, he produced men, as well as those animals who are able to live in contact with the air.-Then Belos also formed the stars, the sun, the moon, and the five plantets.” (Ap. Syncell., 29; Euseb., Chronic. Armen., I, ii, iv, ed. Mai, p. 10; ed. Lenormant, Fragment 1.)

His account of the Deluge, which shows a remarkable agreement with the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh epic and a striking similarity to the parallel narrative of Genesis, is of great importance, and has come down to us through Alexander Polyhistor; a short extract is also given by Abydenus. After referring to the ten antediluvian kings (cf. the ten antediluvian patriarchs of Genesis), Berosus proceeds as follows: “Obartes (Ubaratutu) being dead, his son, Xisuthros, reigned eighteen sars (64,800 years). It was in his time that the great Deluge came to pass, the history of which is related in the following manner in the sacred documents: Cronus (Ea) appeared to him in his sleep and announced to him that on the 15th of the month of Daisios (the Assyrian month Sivan, a little before the summer solstice), all mankind would perish by a deluge. He then commanded him to take the beginning, the middle and the end of all that had been consigned to writing, and to bury it in the city of the Sun, Sippara; after that to build a ship, and go on board of it with his famiy and dearest friends; to place in the vessel provisions for food and drink, and to introduce into it animals, both fowls and quadrupeds; lastly, to get everything ready for navigation. And when Xisuthros asked in which direction he should steer his vessel, he was told ‘toward the gods,’ and to pray that good should come of it to men.

The deluge having come upon them, and soon subsiding, Xisuthros loosed some birds, who, having found neither food or place of rest, returned to the vessel. Some days later, Xisuthros again gave them their liberty, but they returned once more to the ship, their feet soiled with mud.

“At last, being loosed for a third time, the birds returned no more. Then Xisuthros understood that the earth was bare; he made an opening in the roof of the ship and found that it had gone aground upon a mountain. Then he came down with his wife, his daughter and his pilot, worshipped the Earth, raised an altar and sacrificed thereon to the gods; at this moment he disappeared with those who bore him company.

“Nevertheless, those who remained in the ship, not seeing Xisuthros return, also descended to the ground and began to look for him, calling him by name. They never saw Xisuthros again, but a voice from heaven made itself heard, bidding them be pious towards the gods; that he had received the reward of his piety in being taken up to dwell henceforth among the gods, and his wife, his daughter and the pilot of the vessel shared this great honour. The voice said, moreover, to those who were left, that they should return to Babylonia, and agreeably to the decrees of fate dig up the writings buried at Sippara, in order to transmit them to men. It added that the country where they then were was Armenia. After hearing the voice they sacrificed to the gods, and returned on foot to Babylonia. A portion of Xisuthros’ ship, which finally went aground in Armenia, is still found in the Gordyæan Mountains in Armenia, and pilgrims bring away asphaltum which they have scraped from the fragments; they use it against witchcraft. As to the companions of Xisuthros, they arrived in Babylonia, dug up the writings buried at Sippara, founded a number of cities, built temples, and restored Babylon.”

The chronological history of Babylonia, according to Berosus, was as follows: The first period, reaching from the Creation to the Flood, is said to have included ten reigns of 432,000 years. Some of the names of these antediluvian kings have been found also in the cuneiform inscriptions. The second period includes eighty-six kings and a period of 34,080 years, which bring us down to about 2500 B. C. The third period incluldes eight Median kings who, towards 2500 B. C. must have invaded Babylonia. These are followed by eleven other monarchs, the record of the duration of whose reigns is lost. The fifth period includes forty-nine Chaldean kings and 458 years. The end of this period brings us down to about 2000 B. C. The sixth period includes Arabian kings with 245 years. This so-called Arabian dynasty is identical with the now historically ascertained first Semitic dynasty, to which Hammurabi belonged. The seventh period includes forty-five kings and 526 years. The succeeding parts of Berosus’s chronology are lost, up to the period of Nabonassar whose era commenced in 747 B. C. The history of this period, which reaches the reign of Alexander the Great, including such illustrious kings as Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, Cyrus, etc., is well known to us from the cuneiform inscriptions.

Collections of the fragments of Berosus have been made by RICHTER, (Leipzig, 1825); MÜLLER, Fragmenta Historicum Græcorum (2 vols., Paris, 1848); CORY, Ancient Fragments (London, 1832). The best and most exhaustive study on Berosus and his history is that of the late Catholic Assyriologist, LENORMANT, Essai de Commentaire de fragments cosmogoniques de Bérose (Paris, 1871). For the best text of Berosus see also SMITH, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, s. v.; ROGERS, History of Babylonia and Assyria (New York, 1901), I, 258 sqq., 327 sqq.; BRUNENGO, L’impero di Babilonia e di Ninive (1885), I, 67 sqq.

GABRIEL OUSSANI

Beroth

(BEEROTH)

A city in Chanaan, one of the confederation of cities under the headship of Gabaon (Gibeon), whose territory was invaded by the Israelites under Josue (Jos., ix). Its inhabitants, together with those of three neighbouring cities, in order to save themselves from extermination, went to Josue in the disguise of travellers from afar and begged mercy; the Israelites entered into a league with them, but when the deception was discovered made them hewers of wood and drawers of water for themselves. Their city was afterwards assigned to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos., xviii, 25), but it seems to have remained Chanaanite till the monarchy, as it was only “reckoned” among the cities of Benjamin (II Kings, iv, 2). Later the Berothites fled to Gethaim (iv, 3), probably at the time Saul sought to slay the Gabaonites (Gibeonites, II Kings, xxi, 2), with whom the Berothites seem to have been reckoned (Jos., ix, 3, 17). Two descendants of these Berothites slew Isboseth, the son of Saul, claimant to his throne and rival of David; they brought his head to David, who punished the murder with death (II Kings, iv). Probably revenge on Saul for his injury to their fathers was one of their motives, for blood feud was regarded as a duty. Naharai, armour-bearer of Joab, David’s great general, was a Berothite (II Kings, xxiii, 37), and we read of men of Beroth among the returned exiles (I Esd., ii, 25; II Esd., vii, 29), though these were more probably Israelites.

Beroth is usually identified with El-Bîréh, a town of 800 inhabitants, about 9 miles north of Jerusalem, near which is an abundance of water (Beroth wells) at which tradition reports Joseph and Mary halted on their return from Jerusalem when they missed the Child Jesus (Luke, ii). It was the usual stopping place of caravans to Nâbulus and Nazareth.

LEGENDRE in VIG., Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1895); ROBINSON, Biblical Researches in Palestine (Boston, 1874), I, 452.

JOHN F. FENLON

Pietro Berrettini

(Called Pietro da Cortona)

A distinguished Italian painter, architect, and writer, b. at Cortona, in Tuscany, 1 November, 1596; d. at Rome, 16 May, 1669. He studied first under his uncle, Filippo Berrettini, and then at Florence under Andrea Commodi. At the age of fifteen he left that city for Rome, and entered the studio of Baccio Ciarpi, a Florentine painter. There he applied himself to the study of the works of Raphael, Michelangelo, and Polidoro, to that of the antique sculptures and notably of the bas-reliefs of the column of Trajan. While still very young he attracted the attention of Cardinal Sacchetti, who became his protector, and for whom were painted the first two of his works, “The Battles of Alexander” and “The Rape of the Sabines.” Thereupon, Pope Urban VIII gave him the order to decorate a chapel of the church of Santa Bibiana. Such was his success there that he received the commission to paint what proved to be his most celebrated work, the ceiling of the great salon of the Barberini Palace, representing, in allegory, the history of that family. He then designed some mosaics for the dome of St. Peter’s. After a trip through Lombardy and a sojourn at Venice, he went to Florence, where the Grand Duke Ferdinand II employed him to decorate the Pitti Palace. There he painted several important frescoes, but left without completing the series, angered by the actions of jealous rivals. The compositions included “Clemency of Alexander to the Family of Darius,” “The History of Masinissa,” “The Continence of Cyrus,” and “The Firmness of Porsenna.” The work was completed by his pupil Ciro Ferri. On his return to Rome Berrettini received many important commissions, acquiring a great reputation. He executed a number of frescoes in churches, as well as easel pictures. He became wealthy, and Pope Alexander VII created him a Chevalier of the Order of the Golden Spur. His principal pupils were Francesco Romanelli, Ferri, Testa, Giordano, and Borgognone. He is buried in the church of San Martino, of which he was architect, and to which he left a large sum of money.

Bryan, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers (London and New York, 1903–05).

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Alonso Berruguete

For his mastery of the arts of painting, sculpture, and architecture, sometimes called the Spanish Michelangelo, b. at Paredes de Nava, in Castile, about 1480; d. at Toledo, 1561. He was the second son of the painter, Pedro Berruguete, who was his first instructor. His family, however, chose the law for his profession and obtained for him an official position at Valladolid, the title of which he held for years, probably long after he had devoted himself to art. It is said that the fame of Michelangelo led him to Italy after his father’s death and he entered the school of that great master in Florence and had among his friends Andrea del Sarto and Bandinelli. In the competition with Leonardo he made a copy of Buonarroti’s great cartoon of Pisa. Accompanying his master to Rome, where he assisted him in the Vatican, he was one of the sculptors chosen by Bramante to compete in making a copy of the Laocoon to be cast in bronze, Sansovino, however, being the winner. On his return to Florence, he was engaged by the nuns of San Geronimo to finish an altarpiece left unfinished at his death by Filippo Lippi. After a long residence in Italy, Berruguete, in 1520, went back to Spain, where he was greatly honoured by Charles V, who appointed him a chamberlain, and court painter and sculptor, and gave him much work to do at Madrid, at the Palace of El Pardo, and at the Alhambra. With Philip II he continued in favour and became a rich man, married a lady of quality and bought the lordship of Ventosa near Valladolid. After his return to Spain, the artist lived for some time at Saragossa, where he made an altar and a tomb for the church of Santa Engracia. At Valladolid he executed many works for churches and monasteries, notable among which is the high altar of the Church of San Benito el Real, belonging to the convent of the Benedictines, on which he spent six years. Berruguete worked with Filipe de Vigar on the sculptures of the cathedral at Toledo. There also, in the hospital of St. John the Baptist, is one of his finest works, executed when he was nearly eighty years of age, the monument of its founder, the Cardinal Archbishop Juan de Tavera. His best work in painting is considered to be in the cathedral of Palencia and in the church of Ventosa; his best work in bronze and marble in the cathedral and other buildings of Toledo.

Sir William Stirling-Maxwell, Annals of the Artists of Spain (London, 1891); Bryan, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers (London and New York, 1903–05).

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Isaac-Joseph Berruyer

Born at Roueb, 7 November, 1681; died at Paris, 18 February, 1758. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1697. His great work is “A History of the People of God,” published in three parts. The first of these parts bears the title “Historie du peuple de Dieu depuis son origine jusqu’à la venue du Messie” (7 vols., Paris, 1728). A revised and augmented edition of this was published in Paris in 1733. Next followed (Paris, 1734), a supplement, containing a continuation of the prophecies of the Old Testament, the History of Job, maps necessary for understanding the sacred history, etc. By 1736 seven editions of the work had been issued. It was translated into German, Italian, Spanish, and Polish. The second part of the “history” was published, also at Paris, in 1753: “Historie du peuple de Dieu depuis la naissance du Messie jusqu’à la fin de la Synagogue.” in 1754 an édition plus exacte appeared at Antwerp (8 vols.) and in 1755, at Paris, still another edition (4 vols.). The latter contained five questions: (1) On Christ, the object of scriptures; (2) On Christ, the Son of God; (3) On Christ, the Son of Man; (4) On Christ, the founder of a new religion; (5) On the Presentation of Christ in the Temple and the Purification of the B.V.M. According to de Backer this second part of the History was published without the knowledge, and against the will, of the superiors in the Jesuit house in Paris. Berruyer put his name to only a small number of copies of this publication. The third part of the work has the title, “Historie du peuple de Dieu, ou paraphrase des Epitres des Apotres” (2 vols., Lyons, 1757).

The work, as various parts appeared, aroused a great uproar and some bitter controversy. Written in a brilliant, very rhetorical and lively style, it was, nevertheless, deservedly criticized. Serious fault was found with the author for giving to portions of the sacred narrative the air of romance rather than of sober history. The freedom with which he described certain facts was considered unbecoming in a Christian writer, and offensive to the Christian reader. Some propositions put forward by him were construed as favoring Nestorianism. But above all Berruyer was blamed for following the singular and paradoxical opinions of Hardouin. For these reasons, the work was condemned by many bishops of France, by the superiors of the Society, by the Sorbonne, and by the Parliament of Paris. The first part was put on the index, 27 May, 1732; the second part, 3 December, 1754, and by a Brief of Benedict XIV, 17 February, 1758; the third part 24 April, 1758, and by and Brief of Clement XIII, 2 December, 1758. (See “Index Librorum Prohibitorum,” Rome, 1900, 62). A corrected edition of the first part, approved by the Roman Censors, was published at Besançon in 1828.

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., I, 1357. de Backer, Bibl. des escrivains de la c. de J., III, 144; Hurter, Nomeclator Literarius, II, 1350.

JOSEPH M. WOODS

Pierre-Antoine Berryer

French advocate, orator, and statesman, son of Pierre-Nicolas Berryer, an advocate, b. at Paris, 4 January, 1790; d. at Augerville, 29 November, 1868. A pupil of the College de Juilly, which the Oratorians had reopened in 1796, Berryer, after having believed himself favoured with an ecclesiastical vocation, eventually consecrated himself to the forensic career. “Leaving college to the sound of the artillery of Jena,” he displayed his Bonapartist sentiments in certain verses upon Marie Louise which he wrote in 1810; but eighteen months’ study of the reports of the Constituent Assembly, under the guidance of Bonnemant, a former member of that assembly, made a monarchist of Berryer, in 1812, and a monarchist he remained to the end of his days. He always maintained the principle that “the king is not the head of a party”; he took the view that France was not antagonistic to the king personally, or to the king’s right, but to the monarchist party, and it was always Berryer’s idiosyncrasy to be independent with respect to that party. He distinguished himself at the beginning of the Restoration by assisting his father and the elder Dupin in the defence of Marshal Ney and by his own defence of two generals, Debelle and Cambronne, compromised in the Hundred Days. Debelle, condemned to death, had his punishment commuted to ten years’ imprisonment, after an application made by Berryer to the Duc d’Angoulême; Cambronne was acquitted, and Berryer, accused of having in his speech for the defence, maintained the right of insurrection, defended himself victoriously. In 1818 he defended General Canuel, and in 1820 General Donnadieu, both charged with exaggerating the importance of the Lyons and Grenoble risings, which they had suppressed. These interventions of Berryer were very displeasing to the Decazes ministry; but the young advocate, having thus combated the spirit of reprisals against the old Napoleonic army, which the Restoration was developing, next directed his energies to opposing a certain shade of liberalism which seemed to him dangerous to monarchical principles. In 1830, in order to supply the property qualification needed to legalize his election as Deputy for the Department of Haute-Loire, his friends purchased for him the estate of Angerville, in Loiret. His first parliamentary speech (9 March, 1830) was in defence of the Croan and the Polignac Ministry against the address of the two hundred and twenty-one, which he considered seditious. On hearing this speech Royer-Collard remarked, “There is a Power” (Voilà une puissance).

Under the July Monarchy Berryer was one of the most formidable members of the opposition. After vainly endeavouring to dissuade the Duchesse de Beri from her insurrectionary enterprise, he was himself arrested as an accomplice, but was acquitted by the jury. He then entered upon a campaign for the liberation of the duchess, and defended Chateaubriand against the charge of complicity. Returned by various constituencies in successive general elections he was the idol of both Legitimists and Republicans. His political life interfered so much with his law practice that in order to live he was obliged to sell his estate of Angerville; Legitimists and Republicans united, in 1836, to buy it back for him. He continued to advocate every measure calculated to limit the arbitrary power of the central government—jury trials for press offences, nomination of mayors by the communes, abolition of the property qualification. The speech was long famous with which, in 1834, he defeated the treaty according to the United States tardy compensation for vessels confiscated by Napoleon. He was of counsel for the defence in the case of Louis Bonaparte’s Boulogne attempt, in 1840; defended the Republican Ledru-Rollin in 1841, in a series of four addresses to the Chamber; in 1844 gloried in the “Belgrave Square Pilgrimage” which, with four other Legitimists, he had made to the Comte de Chambord. Elected by the Department of Bouches-du-Rhône to the Constituent Assembly of 1848, and to the Legislative of 1849, Berryer voted with the Right, but without supporting any of the intrigues of Louis Bonaparte. After the 2d of December 1851, he returned to his practice at the Bar. Montalembert, prosecuted in 1858 for an article suspected of advocating for France the liberties of England, had Berryer for his advocate. Monarchist to the end, he exerted himself as a private individual to reconcile the Houses of Bourbon and Orléans. In 1863 he was chosen to represent the Bouches-du-Rhône, sat with the opposition, and sharply attacked the Mexican war policy of the Imperial Government.

The Academy received Berryer in 1855; on the 20th of December, 1861, the fiftieth anniversary of his call to the Bar, all the advocates of France united in honouring him with a splendid banquet. Only a few days before his death, he wrote to the Comte de Chambord a letter which is an admirable testament of the Monarchist faith. Berryer was a life-long defender of religious liberty. He was the first to make clear (in his articles on the Gallican Church in the “Quotidienne”) the changes wrought by the Revolution in the relations between Church and State; he showed that what the State called “Gallican liberties” represented henceforth only a right to oppress the Church. In 1846 and 1847, in two letters to Bishop Fayet of Orléans, he urged Catholics to take their stand on the common ground of liberty. It was in this spirit that, in 1826, he had pleaded for Lamennais, who had accused the Gallican Church of atheism, and that, in 1828, he wrote against the Martignac ordinances on the episcopal schools (petits séminaires). In 1831 he spoke against the re-establishment of divorce; in 1833 against the project of Portalis tending to state recognition of marriages by priests. His reply to M. Thiers, 3 March, 1845, on the Jesuits, remains, says M. Thureau-Dangin, “a sovereign, definitive refutation of all those who, then or since, have pretended to invoke against the religious orders the old laws of proscription.” Berryer defended the religious associations with all the more authority because, in that same year, pleading for three carpenters who had combined to secure a suspension of work, he formally asserted the right of labour to combine (droit de coalition ouvriere), which right French law was not to recognize until 1863. He gained great popularity among the labouring classes when he compared the restrictions imposed on them with the toleration accorded to “coalitions formed in other spheres of society, with the aim of securing not a wage-increase of 10 centimes, but an enormous advantage for operations involving hundreds of millions.” Liberty of association for all; respect by the State for the autonomy of the Church—such was the principle from which he never wavered, and in the name of which he brought about, in 1850, the defeat of Jules Favre’s project which would have compelled the Church to re-establish the non-amovability of certain members (desservants) of the lower clergy. The return of Berryer to the practice of his religious duties, under the influence of his friend, Pere de Ravignan, S. J., was the crowning reward of his fruitful activity in behalf of the Church.

Berryer never wrote his discourses; he meditated before speaking. Even his apparent improvisations were deceptive—“The extempore speaker,” he used to say, “has repeated the same thing to himself twenty or a hundred times.” During the Restoration his lectures on eloquence at the “Société des Bonnes Etudes” were attended by such men as Montalembert and Lacordaire. He was admired by all for his sincerity and the absence of all oratorical artifice. There was something astounding in the suddenness with which, after a moment of apparent inattention, he was wont to crush his opponent’s argument. “If I could act as M. Berryer speaks!” said the actress Rachel, moved by his natural and spontaneous eloquence. On another occasion when Berryer was speaking against Jules Favre, the latter referred to him as “my sublime adversary.”

Berryer, Discours parlementaires, 5 vols.; Plaidoyers, 4 vols. (Paris, 1872–78); Cauviere, Berryer, sa vie judiciaire, ses discours (Marseilles, 1871); Lecanuet, Berryer (Paris, 1892); Lacombe, Berryer, 3 vols. (Paris, 1894–95), the leading work on Berryer.

GEORGES GOYAU

Bersabee

(Bar sb or Beersheba)

A town on the southern extremity of Palestine, one of the most familiar geographical names of Holy Writ, known on account of its position and its connexion with several incidents in Hebrew history. Throughout most of that history, it was proverbially the extreme point to the south in the country; from “Dan to Bersabee” included the entire length of the country from north to south (Jud. xx, 1, etc.; I Par., xxi, 2 “from Bersabee to Dan”); later, after the destruction of the northern kingdom, the territory was sometimes described as extending “from Gabaa to Bersabee” (IV K., xxiii, 8), or “from Bersabee to Mount Ephraim” (II Par., xix, 4); and finally, after the exile, the place still remains as the southernmost point in the phrase “from Bersabee unto the valley of Emmon” (II Esdras, xi, 30). Milton has helped to fix the name and locality of the town in the minds of English readers by his reference

To Beërsaba, where the Holy Land

Borders on Egypt and the Arabian shore.

Still, it was not exactly on the southern border, which was considered to run “along the ‘river of Egypt,’ the present Wady el-Arish, nearly 60 m. S. E. of Beersheba” (G. A. Smith); but there was little arable land beyond it, and it was practically the last stopping point in the country.

The name means, literally “the well of seven,” but Gen., xxi, 30, 31, and xxvi, 26–33, explain it as “the well of swearing.” The former narrative, with its insistence on the “seven” (sheba’) ewe-lambs, leads one to expect the name to be interpreted as “the well of seven,” and inclines one to regard the other explanations as a gloss, or as evidence of the interweaving of another narrative; yet it may be “that the two explanations resolve themselves into one; for the Hebrew word ‘to swear’ (nishba, the reflexive of the unused shaba) seems to mean properly (as it were) ‘to seven-oneself,’ i. e. to pledge oneself in some way by seven sacred things, so that if it be assumed that the ‘seven lambs’ were used for this purpose, only one ceremony would be described in the passage” (Driver, Genesis, 215). Seven was regarded as a sacred number. Still, Driver prefers the explanation “well of seven,” that is, seven wells; but there is no evidence that there were ever seven wells in the vicinity. G. A. Smith inclines to the meaning “well of the seven gods,” but offers no proof to support it.

Each of the two narratives referred to has its own account of the occasion which gave rise to the name. In the first, it was bestowed by Abraham, when, after a conflict between his herdsmen and those of King Abimelech as to the ownership of a well, he concluded a covenant with the king, who was accompanied by his captain, Phicol. In the second, it was bestowed many years later by Isaac when, after a conflict between his herdsmen and those of King Abimelech as to the ownership of a well, he concluded a covenant with the king, who was accompanied by his captain, Phicol. Other points in the two accounts are parallel also, though there are many differences. The traditional opinion regards them as narratives of two different series of events which befell the two patriarchs, surprising in certain details, perhaps, yet not remarkable for the essential facts which are such as might easily recur. The modern critical opinion considers that the same tradition became attached to two different names and was embodied in two different documents (the Elohistic and the Jahvistic; see articles: , ). “Doubtless, history repeats itself,” says Prof. Sayce (Early Hebrew History, 64); “disputes about the possession of wells in a desert-land can frequently recur, and it is possible that two kings of the same name may have followed one another on the throne of Gerar. But what does not seem very possible is that each of these kings should have had a ‘chief captain of his host’ called by the strange non-Semitic name of Phicol; that each of them should have taken the wife of the patriarch, believing her to be his sister; or that Beersheba should twice have received the same name from the oaths sworn over it.” The differences of detail are regarded by the upholders of the traditional opinion as proofs that two distinct facts are related, and by critics as variations that “would naturally arise from the fluctuation of tradition.” (Driver, Genesis, 255.)

Bersabee, the village that grew up around the wells at this spot, is identified with the present Bir es-Seba which is twenty-eight miles south-west of Hebron, on the road to Egypt. The country surrounding it, known as the desert of Bersabee, is a soil that is said to be naturally very fertile, needing only irrigation to make it productive; the few cultivated plots in the valley give “fine crops of wheat and barley.” In the spring, sheep, goats, and camels find there a rich pasture land. Three wells may be seen there to-day, one of which, however, is dry. The largest is believed to have been dug by Abraham (Gen., xxi) and is at least very ancient. It is a solidly constucted piece of masonry, about thirty-eight feet deep; it still furnishes abundant sweet water. The climate of Bersabee, though very hot, is regarded as healthy. The highest altitude is 950 feet above the Mediterranean. At this day, the desert presents a picture of the same pastoral, patriarchal life that we see in Genesis (Conder, Palestine, 52–55). Bersabee, with the desert around, is the cradle of the Hebrew race and connected with memories of Agar and Ismael (Gen., xxi), of Abraham (ib.), of Isaac (xxvi), of Jacob who was born there, and his sons (xxviii, xlvi), of the sons of Samuel (I K., viii, 2), of Elias (III K., iii), and of Amos, who denounced its idolatry (v, 5, viii, 14). It formed, at first, part of the territory of Juda (Josue, xv, 28) and later fell to the lot of Simeon (xix, 2). Its site as a halting-place on the road to Egypt made it well known to all. After the Exile, it again became a centre for the Jews (II Esd., xi, 27), and in the days of the empire had a Roman garrison. It was most flourishing in the early Christian ages, when the hermits flocked there. For a time, it was an episcopal see. Extensive ruins of dwellings and public edifices, mostly of Roman days, still remain.

CONDER, Palestine (New York, s. d.); IDEM, Tent Work (London, 1880); DRIVER, Genesis (New York, 1904); LEGENDRE in VIG., Dict. de la Bible; SMITH in Encyc. Bib. (New York, 1899); HULL in HAST., Dict. of Bible (New York, 1903).

JOHN F. FENLON

Bertha

Of the various holy women bearing the name of Bertha, five are more particularly worthy of notice.

I. BERTHA, QUEEN OF KENT

Died c. 612. She was a Frankish princess, daughter of Charibert and the pious Ingoberga. In marrying the pagan King Ethelbert of Kent, she brought her chaplain Liudhard with her, and restored a Christian church in Canterbury, which dated form the Roman occupation, dedicating it to St. Martin. The present St. Martin’s at Canterbury occupies the same site. St. Augustine, who was sent by Gregory the Great to preach the Gospel in England in 596, no doubt owed much of his favourable reception to the influence of Bertha. St. Gregory in 601 addressed to her a letter of thanks, which is still preserved. It is printed in Haddan and Stubbs, III, 17. Ethelbert himself was baptized on Whitsunday in 597, and Canterbury became the mother-church of England. Bertha was sometimes styled “Saint,” but there is no clear evidence of cultus. (See, on this point, the poems of Reginald of Canterbury in the “Neues Archiv,” xiii.) Fuller accounts of Bertha will be found in Lingard, “Anglo-Saxon Church;” “Dict. Nat. Biog.,” Plummer, “Bede,” and Routledge, “Church of St. Martin.”

II. ST. BERTHA (VIRGIN AND MARTYR)

Abbess of Val d’Or, near Avenay, Reims, d. about 690. She was wife of St. Gumbert, Lord of Champenois, a nobleman of royal blood. He built a nunnery for his wife and her maidens at Avenay, and retired himself to a monastery on the coast, where he was soon afterwards put to death by pagan marauders. When the people of Avenay suffered form lack of water, St. Peter appeared to Bertha and showed her a field where there was a good spring. This she bought for a pound of silver. It became a holy well which cured diseases and supplied both her own nuns and the hamlet of Avenay with water. Bertha was martyred by Gumbert’s relatives, who were indignant at the distribution of his money to the poor. Whether the abbey founded at Avenay followed the Benedictine or the Columban Rule, does not seem certain even to Mabillon. The whole legend in fact is very late and unreliable. St. Bertha’s feast is on the 1st of May. (See Acta SS. for that day.)

III. ST. BERTHA (ABBESS OF BLANGY IN ARTOIS)

Died about 725. She was the daughter of Rigobert, Count of the Palace under Clovis II, and married Siegfried, a relation of the king. After twenty years, when he died, she determined to found a nunnery. Two buildings which she constructed fell down, but an angel in a vision guided her to another spot, and there after many difficulties a nunnery was built, which she entered with her two elder daughters, Deotila and Gertrude. A still later legend represents this Gertrude as much persecuted by the attentions of a great noble, Roger, who wished to marry her by force, but she was saved from his violence by her mother’s firm courage and trust in God. Some time before her death Bertha is said to have resigned her office of abbess and to have shut herself up in a little cell built against the church wall. But the whole story of Bertha, as Mabillon and the Bollandists agree, is of very late date and historically worthless. Her feast is kept on the 4th of July. (See Acta SS. for that day, and Décobert, “Ste. Berthe et son Abbaye de Blangy,” Lille, 1892).

IV. BLESSED BERTHA DE BARDI (ABBESS)

Born in Florence, date uncertain; died 24 March, 1163. She was the daughter of Lothario di Ugo, Count of Vernio, and is ordinarily called Bertha de Bardi, but the name should probably be d’Alberti. She joined the order of Vallombrosa, a branch of the Benedictines, at Florence, but she was soon sent to govern and reform a convent of the order at Cavriglia in Valdarno, where she lived famous for miracles until her death. (See Acta SS. for that day, and Soldani, “Vita di S. Berta,” Florence, 1731.)

V. BLESSED BERTHA DE MARBAIS

Died 1247. She was a Cistercian nun, who became the first abbess of a convent which was founded by Jane, Countess of Flanders, in 1127 at Marquette or Marchet, near Lille. She died on 18 July, and is briefly noticed on that day in the Acta SS. Bertha is called Blessed by the Cistercian chronicler, Henriquez, but the evidence of cultus is very slight.

Dunbar, Dictionary of Saintly Women (London, 1904); Chevalier, Repertoire des sources historiques: Bio-Bibliographie (Paris, 1905).

HERBERT THURSTON

Of the various holy women bearing the name of Bertha, five are more particularly worthy of notice.

I. BERTHA, QUEEN OF KENT

Died c. 612. She was a Frankish princess, daughter of Charibert and the pious Ingoberga. In marrying the pagan King Ethelbert of Kent, she brought her chaplain Liudhard with her, and restored a Christian church in Canterbury, which dated form the Roman occupation, dedicating it to St. Martin. The present St. Martin’s at Canterbury occupies the same site. St. Augustine, who was sent by Gregory the Great to preach the Gospel in England in 596, no doubt owed much of his favourable reception to the influence of Bertha. St. Gregory in 601 addressed to her a letter of thanks, which is still preserved. It is printed in Haddan and Stubbs, III, 17. Ethelbert himself was baptized on Whitsunday in 597, and Canterbury became the mother-church of England. Bertha was sometimes styled “Saint,” but there is no clear evidence of cultus. (See, on this point, the poems of Reginald of Canterbury in the “Neues Archiv,” xiii.) Fuller accounts of Bertha will be found in Lingard, “Anglo-Saxon Church;” “Dict. Nat. Biog.,” Plummer, “Bede,” and Routledge, “Church of St. Martin.”

II. ST. BERTHA (VIRGIN AND MARTYR)

Abbess of Val d’Or, near Avenay, Reims, d. about 690. She was wife of St. Gumbert, Lord of Champenois, a nobleman of royal blood. He built a nunnery for his wife and her maidens at Avenay, and retired himself to a monastery on the coast, where he was soon afterwards put to death by pagan marauders. When the people of Avenay suffered form lack of water, St. Peter appeared to Bertha and showed her a field where there was a good spring. This she bought for a pound of silver. It became a holy well which cured diseases and supplied both her own nuns and the hamlet of Avenay with water. Bertha was martyred by Gumbert’s relatives, who were indignant at the distribution of his money to the poor. Whether the abbey founded at Avenay followed the Benedictine or the Columban Rule, does not seem certain even to Mabillon. The whole legend in fact is very late and unreliable. St. Bertha’s feast is on the 1st of May. (See Acta SS. for that day.)

III. ST. BERTHA (ABBESS OF BLANGY IN ARTOIS)

Died about 725. She was the daughter of Rigobert, Count of the Palace under Clovis II, and married Siegfried, a relation of the king. After twenty years, when he died, she determined to found a nunnery. Two buildings which she constructed fell down, but an angel in a vision guided her to another spot, and there after many difficulties a nunnery was built, which she entered with her two elder daughters, Deotila and Gertrude. A still later legend represents this Gertrude as much persecuted by the attentions of a great noble, Roger, who wished to marry her by force, but she was saved from his violence by her mother’s firm courage and trust in God. Some time before her death Bertha is said to have resigned her office of abbess and to have shut herself up in a little cell built against the church wall. But the whole story of Bertha, as Mabillon and the Bollandists agree, is of very late date and historically worthless. Her feast is kept on the 4th of July. (See Acta SS. for that day, and Décobert, “Ste. Berthe et son Abbaye de Blangy,” Lille, 1892).

IV. BLESSED BERTHA DE BARDI (ABBESS)

Born in Florence, date uncertain; died 24 March, 1163. She was the daughter of Lothario di Ugo, Count of Vernio, and is ordinarily called Bertha de Bardi, but the name should probably be d’Alberti. She joined the order of Vallombrosa, a branch of the Benedictines, at Florence, but she was soon sent to govern and reform a convent of the order at Cavriglia in Valdarno, where she lived famous for miracles until her death. (See Acta SS. for that day, and Soldani, “Vita di S. Berta,” Florence, 1731.)

V. BLESSED BERTHA DE MARBAIS

Died 1247. She was a Cistercian nun, who became the first abbess of a convent which was founded by Jane, Countess of Flanders, in 1127 at Marquette or Marchet, near Lille. She died on 18 July, and is briefly noticed on that day in the Acta SS. Bertha is called Blessed by the Cistercian chronicler, Henriquez, but the evidence of cultus is very slight.

Dunbar, Dictionary of Saintly Women (London, 1904); Chevalier, Repertoire des sources historiques: Bio-Bibliographie (Paris, 1905).

HERBERT THURSTON

A Jesuit professor and writer, born at Issoudun, 1704; died at Bourges, 1782. He taught philosophy at Rennes and Rouen, and theology at Paris. From 1745 to 1762 he was editor of the “Mémoires de Trévoux,” and because of his powerful opposition to the infidel “encyclopédistes” was bitterly attacked, especially by Voltaire. Between 1745 and 1749 he published volumes XIII to XVIII of the history of the French Church (1320–1559). The previous volumes had been prepared by Fathers Longueval (I-VIII), Fontenai (IX, X, and part of XI), and Brumoy (the end of XI and XII). In 1762, when the Society of Jesus was suppressed in France, the Dauphin appointed him tutor of his sons and librarian of the court library, but two years later his position at court became so disagreeable that he left France and spent the following ten years in Germany. On his return in 1774, he retired to Bourges. These years of retirement were spent in study and writing. After his death several of his works were published by Father de Querbuef: (1) A translation of the Psalms with notes (8 vols.); this was often reprinted. (2) Five volumes on Isaiah. (3) Five volumes of “Réflexions Spiritualles.”

De Querbeuf in Psaumes traduits, preface; Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., I, 1377, with complete bibliography; Brucker in Dict. de theol. cath., s.v.

JOHN CORBETT

Berthold

Bishop, Apostle of the Livonians, killed 24 July, 1198, in a crusade against the pagan Livonians who threatened destruction to all Christians that lived in their territory. He was previously Abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Lockum in Hanover. At the death of Meinhard, the first Bishop of Livonia (c. 1196), Archbishop Hartwig of Bremen, to whose province belonged the newly converted countries along the eastern shores of the Baltic Sea, appointed Abbot Berthold successor. It seems very probable that, as Damberger asserts in his ÒSynchronistische Geschichte der Kirche und der Welt im MittelalterÓ, when Meinhard came to Bremen in 1186 to obtain help in his apostolic labours in Livonia, Berthold joined the band of missionaries who accompanied him thither. On this assumption, Berthold had been working ten years as a missionary among the Livonians when he became their second bishop and was, therefore, well acquainted with his field of labour.

The Livonian pagans were fanatically opposed to Christianity. Berthold’s predecessor, assisted by merchants from Bremen and Lübeck and a few converted natives, had built fortifications along the River Düna, where Christians held their religious services and could protect themselves against the fury of the pagans. Following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Berthold tried to gain their confidence and good will by kindness. At first they appeared to become less hostile, but soon their old hatred revived. When Berthold attempted to bless the Christian cemetery at Holm, their pagan fanaticism broke loose in all its fury and they decided either to burn the bishop together with his church at Holm or to drown him in the Düna. The Christians fled to their strongholds at Uxküll and Holm, while the bishop escaped in a ship to LŸbeck.

Pope Celestine III, shortly before his death, was preparing to send a fleet of crusaders to protect the Christians of the Baltic Provinces, and his successor, Innocent III, continued the work. Berthold gained the financial assistance of Archbishop Hartwig and many merchants of Bremen and LŸbeck. In a short time a large fleet was ready for departure well equipped and loaded with crusaders and many German peasants who were to settle permanently in Livonia. It put to sea at LŸbeck and crossed the Baltic, entering the River DŸna from what is now called the Gulf of Riga. Near the mouth of the DŸna the German peasants landed with the purpose of making their homes in the vicinity, and laid the foundations of the city Riga, at present one of the most important commercial seaports in Russia. Berthold, accompanied by the crusaders, sailed up the river as far as Holm, where the pagan Livonians had gathered with the intention of attacking the fleet. Having vainly attempted to come to a peaceful agreement with them, Berthold and his companions sailed some distance down the river, with the Livonians in eager pursuit. Finally, the pagans agreed to a suspension of hostilities to gain time for collecting larger forces. At the first opportunity, however, they fell upon the Christians who ventured outside their fortifications, and hostilities were resumed. The crusaders were victorious, but Berthold’s horse became intractable and galloped into the midst of the fleeing Livonians. A pagan by the name of Ymant thrust his lance into Berthold’s back, inflicting a wound that caused speedy death. The bishop’s body was buried by the crusaders at UxkŸll whence it was transferred to Riga by Bishop Albert of Apeldern whom Archbishop Hartwig of Bremen had appointed Berthold’s successor. Soon after the death of Berthold many of the vanquished pagans came to the crusaders, expressing their regret at the unhappy occurrence and asked to be baptized. The final conversion of Livonia was effected by Bishop Albert, who was assisted in his apostolic labours by the newly founded Order of the Brothers of the Sword which in 1237 was affiliated with the Teutonic Order.

GRUBBER, Origines Livoniæ sacræ et civiles (Frankfort and Leipzig, 1740); DAMBERGER, Synchronistische Geschichte der Kirche und der Welt im Mittelalter (Ratisbon, 1856), IX, 328–336, 437–438; SEITERS, in Kirchenlex., s.v.

MICHAEL OTT

Berthold of Chiemsee

A German bishop and theological writer, b. 1465 at Salzburg, Austria; d. 19 July, 1543, at Saalfelden (duchy of Salzburg). His real name was Berthold Pürstinger, frequently called Pirstinger; but he is generally known as Berthold of Chiemsee, from his episcopal see, situated on one of the islands of the Bavarian lake of Chiemsee. We have but little information regarding his early life. He was licentiate in civil, and doctor in ecclesiastical law, and in 1495 he appears as the Magister Cameræ of the Archbishop of Salzburg, and in 1508 was appointed Bishop of Chiemsee. During his episcopal career (1508–25), he resided at Salzburg, in the quality of coadjutor to the archbishop of the latter place.

Berthold twice conspicuously used his influence with the Archbishop of Salzburg in behalf of the unfortunate: in 1511 in favour of the Salzburg town-councillors who had been condemned for high treason, and again in 1524 in the interest of the rebellious peasants. He was present at the Provincial Council of Salzburg (1512), and also took an active part in 1522 in that of Mühldorf (Bavaria), which was convened to devise means of stemming the tide of Lutheran progress. Soon after, he resigned his bishopric (1526) and retired to the monastery of Raitenhaslach on the Austro-Bavarian frontier. In 1528, or 1529, he removed to Saalfelden, where he founded (1533) a hospital with a church for infirm priests. He died there and was buried in the parish church.

After his resignation of his episcopal functions Berthold devoted his time to literary pursuits. At the suggestion of Matthew Lang, the Cardinal Archbishop of Salzburg, (1519–40), he wrote his “Tewtsche Theologey” (German Theology—Munich, 1528) and translated it afterwards into Latin Augsburg, 1531). Earnestness in the suppression of abuses and mildness in his dealings with others were characteristic traits of Berthold, and they appear also in his works; his “Theology” does not bear the bitterly polemical stamp of similar contemporaneous writings. The work does not seem to have been in great demand, as neither the original nor the translation was reprinted until Reithmeier re-edited the work (1852). The book, however, was important. The German original is valuable from both a linguistic and theological point of view. Linguistically, it proves that Luther was not the only able exponent of religious doctrines in the vernacular; theologically, it exhibits the character of Catholic teaching at the time.

The other writings of Berthold were: (1) “Tewtsch Rational,” a treatise on the Mass; (2) “Keligpuchel,” a defence of the Catholic doctrine and practice of Communion under one kind, against the Reformers; (3) “Onus Ecclesiæ” or “Burden of the Church” (Landshut, 1524) is also generally attributed to him. It is a fearless exposition, from a Catholic point of view, of the abuses then prevalent in the Church. The book occasioned much comment and was reprinted twice in 1531, at Cologne and probably at Augsburg, and again in 1620 without indication of place.

GREINZ, Berthold von Chiemsee (Salzburg, 1904); REITMEIER, Tewtsche Theologey (Munich, 1852); WERNER, Die Flugschrift “Onus Ecclesiæ” (Giessen, 1901); FICKER, in Realencyclop. fŸr Protest. Theol., (Leipzig, 1905), XVI, 307–315; MATTES-PUNKES in Kirchenlex., II, 472–475; SCHAFF-HERZOG, Relig.-Encycl. (New York), I, 252.

N.A. WEBER

Berthold of Henneberg

Archbishop and Elector of Mainz, b. 1441; d. 21 December, 1504. Having completed his education at the University of Erfurt, he became a canon of the Cathedral of Cologne in 1464. Three years later he came to the imperial court of Frederick III. He was chosen Archbishop of Mainz in 1484 and consecrated 20 May, 1485. When in 1486 Maximilian I was elected Roman King, to rule in union with his father, Frederick III, Berthold, as imperial chancellor, obtained the right of having all royal documents submitted to him for signature. Being heart and soul for a political reform of the tottering empire, he used all his influence to bring about a change in its constitution. How Berthold wished to reform the empire may be gathered from the programme submitted to the emperor at the diet of Worms in 1495. All state affairs were to be managed by an imperial council (Reichsrath) consisting of seventeen members. The councillors were to be chosen by the electors and the estates, while the emperor was to appoint the president of the council. The emperor, of course, justly rejected such a programme which would have changed the empire into an oligarchy, with the emperor a mere figure-head.

Berthold’s ecclesiastical reforms, on the other hand, which were even more pressing than political changes, were accompanied with great success. He encouraged and urged the reformation of the clergy and the religious orders, which was already in progress, and was especially solicitous for a better education of the clergy. He courageously resisted the heretical tendencies of many humanists and, though friendly disposed towards the better ones, scathingly rebuked others. To guard against impure literature he established in his diocese, on 4 January, 1486, a censorship of the press, which was the first in history. Berthold had long been dissatisfied with the many pecuniary demands of Rome upon Germany and the improprieties that often accompanied the preaching of indulgences, and shortly before his death he respectfully submitted these grievances of the German nation to Pope Pius III, who had just succeeded Alexander VI. He is buried in the Cathedral of Mainz, where a magnificent monument perpetuates his memory.

WECKERLE, De Bertholdi Hennebergensis archiep. Mog. studiis politicis (Münster, 1868); JANSEN, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1893) I, passim (tr., St. Louis); MAX JANSEN, Kaiser Maximilian I (Munich, 1905), 65 sq.

MICHAEL OTT

Berthold of Ratisbon

A Franciscan of the monastery of that city and the most powerful preacher of repentance in the thirteenth century, b. about 1210; d. at Ratisbon, 14 December, 1272. He was probably a member of a well-to-do middle class family of Ratisbon named Sachs. The excellence of his literary training is proved by his sermons which show more than common acquaintance with the ancient classics. From his knowledge of the usages of secular life, it may be inferred that he was a man of mature age before he entered the monastery. The first fixed date in BertholdÕs life is 1246, when the papal legate appointed him and David of Augsburg inspectors of the convent of NiedermŸnster, a proof of the high regard in which Berthold was then held. One of his contemporaries, the Abbot of Niederaltaich, who is a reliable historian, speaks in 1250 of the great reputation that Berthold had in Bavaria as a preacher. Four years later the missionary trips of this preacher extended as far as the valley of the Rhine, Alsace, and Switzerland. During the next ten years Berthold’s apostolic labours led him eastward into Austria, Moravia, Bohemia, and Silesia. In 1263 Pope Urban IV appointed him to preach the Crusade and Albert the Great was designated as his assistant. When speaking to Slavonic audiences, Berthold naturally employed an interpreter, just as St. Bernard, in his day, made use of an interpreter in Germany. Notwithstanding any difficulties that might arise as to speech, wherever he went Berthold exerted an extraordinary power of attraction over his hearers so that the churches were not able to hold the great crowds of plain people who came from all quarters to his services, and he was often obliged to preach in the open air. When this was the case, a pulpit was generally arranged under the spreading branches of a linden tree. Long after his day “Berthold’s linden” was to be seen at Glatz. About 1270 he seems to have returned to Ratisbon where he remained the rest of his life. The Franciscan martyrology includes his name among the blessed of the order, and his remains form the most precious relic among the treasures of the cathedral at Ratisbon. The poets and chroniclers of his time made frequent reference to Berthold. He was called “sweet Brother Berthold,” “the beloved of God and man,” “a second Elias,” “the teacher of the nations”; all of these expressions are proofs of the high esteem in which his activities were held. The secret of the preacher’s success lay partly in the saintliness of his life and partly in his power to make use of the language of humble life. He became the great master, it may be said, the classic of homely speech, and this rank has been maintained by his sermons to the present day. One of his two popular discourses on the Last Judgment became a favourite book of the people under the title “The Valley of Josaphat.” There is no doubt that Brother Berthold preached in German. For a long time, however, scholars disagreed as to how his sermons had been preserved. It is now generally accepted that the sermons were often written down afterwards in Latin, frequently with marginal comments in German; these reports of the sermons, as they may be called, partly German, partly Latin, or at times in the language in which they were delivered, are what have been handed down to posterity. The discourses thus preserved are of the greatest importance for the history of the development of the literature of homiletics; they are of equal value as rich sources for determining the condition of education and culture in the thirteenth century. It is difficult, therefore, to understand how this greatest of German preachers to the poor could have been forgotten for centuries. It was not until some of Brother Berthold’s sermons were published in 1824 that attention was called to the eloquent Franciscan. Since this date, the enthusiasm for Berthold has grown steadily so that he has become a favourite, both of Germanic scholars and of the historians of the development of German civilization. He is also regarded as the great pattern of homely pulpit eloquence.

KLING, Bertholds, des Franziskaners, deutsche Predigten (Berlin, 1824); PFEIFFER UND STROBL, Berthold von Regensburg (Vienna, 1862, 1880); G . . . BEL, Die Missionspredigten des Franziskaners Berthold von Regensburg, in jetziger Schriftsprache (Ratisbon, 1873); H . . . TZL, Beati Fr. Bertholdi a Ratisbona sermones ad religiosos (Munich, 1882); UNKEL, Berthold von Regensburg (Cologne, 1882); STROMBERGER, Berthold von Regensburg (GŸterslob, 1877); MICHAEL, Gesch. des deutschen Volkes vom 13. Jahrh. bis zum Ausgange des M. A. (Freiburg im Br., 1897), II, III, 144–180.

N. SCHEID

Berthold of Reichenau

A Benedictine monk and chronicler of the celebrated Abbey of Reichenau on the Lake of Constance; d. probably in 1088. He was a disciple and friend of the learned Hermannus Contractus. When Hermannus saw death approaching, he entrusted to Berthold all the wax tablets that contained the writings which he had not yet committed to parchment and commissioned Berthold to peruse them and, after careful revision, to copy them on parchment. Berthold was also exhorted by his dying master to continue the famous world-chronicle, begun by Hermann, which in chronological order related the history of the world from the birth of Christ to 1054, the year in which Hermann died. To the continuation of this chronicle and to a biography of his master and friend, Hermannus Contractus, is due whatever fame is attached to the name of Berthold.

The chronicle, as far as it was written by Berthold, comprises a concise and impartial history of the troublesome times immediately preceding the accession of Gregory VII and probably also of the early reign of this great pontiff. It is reprinted to the year 1080, with an introduction by Pertz, in “Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.” V, 264–326, and in P.L., CXLVII, 314–442. Pertz contends that Berthold did not begin the continuation of Hermann’s chronicle until 1076, and that in the execution of it he made use of another chronicle, written by Bernold who was also a monk at Reichenau; but it has been proved almost beyond doubt by Giesebrecht and Schulzen that Berthold was the first to continue Hermann’s chronicle and that Bernold’s chronicle is a continuation of Berthold’s. It is, however, still undecided as to what year Berthold’s chronicle extends. Ussermann and Schulzen hold that it extends only to the year 1066, while Pertz, Giesebrecht, and others believe that Berthold wrote the chronicle at least to the middle of the year 1080, where the manuscript suddenly ceases in the middle of a sentence.

The original text of Berthold is no longer in existence and all the existing copies have been compiled from various manuscripts found in the monasteries of St. Gall, St. Blaise, Muri, and Engelberg. The chronicle was continued by Bernold to the year 1100, and by others to the year 1175. From various passages in Berthold’s chronicle it appears that, for a short time at least, he considered Cadalus, Bishop of Parma, as the legitimate occupant of the papal throne; but he soon noticed his mistake and from the year 1070, or even earlier, acknowledged Alexander II as the true pope. Bernold remarks in his chronicle under the year 1088 that Berthold, an excellent teacher who was very well versed in Holy Scripture, died at an advanced age on the 12th of March.

GIESEBRECHT, Gesch. der deutschen Kaiserzeit (4th ed.), III, 1032; SCHULZEN, De Bertoldi et Bernoldi Chronicis dissertatio historica (Bonn, 1867); WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen (Berlin, 1894), II, vii; HAUCK, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (Leipzig, 1906), III, 952.

MICHAEL OTT

Giovanni Lorenzo Berti

An Italian theologian, b. 28 May, 1696, at Sarravezza, Tuscany; d. 26 March, 1766, at Pisa. His parents were of the lower class. At the age of fifteen he entered the Augustinian order, and preached with success before he had attained his twenty-third year. He subsequently occupied important offices in his order, i.e. those of general secretary, prefect of the Angelica (the former valuable library of the Augustinians at Rome), general assistant. He first taught philosophy, then theology, at Sienna, Florence, Bologna, Padua, Rome, and finally (1748) became professor of ecclesiastical history at Pisa. He suffered, in 1762, a stroke of apoplexy which was repeated and eventually caused his death. His literary career was an agitated one. By order of Father Schiaffinatti, his Superior General, he wrote the extensive work “De Theologicis Disciplinis” (Rome, 1739–45), an exposition of the theological teaching of St. Augustine. The book, which appeared in several editions, was vehemently attacked by d’Ise de Saléon (who was successively Bishop of Agen, 1730–35, Bishop of Rodez, 1735–46, and Archbishop of Vienne, 1747–51) and by Languet de Gergy, Archbishop of Sens (1731–53). They accused Berti of Jansenism. In answer, the latter published: (1) “Augustinianum Systema de Gratiâ” (Rome, 1747; Munich, 1750); (2) “In Opusculum” (Leghorn, 1756). The accusations against Berti were submitted to the Roman authorities. Benedict XIV (1740–58) had his book examined and found its teaching sound. Besides other works published in this controversy, Berti wrote: (1) “Commentarius de Rebus gestis S. Augustini” (Venice, 1756); (2) “S. Augustini Quaestionum de Scientiâ,. . . . dilucidatio” (Pisa, 1756); (3) “De Haeresibus Trium Priorum Saeculorum” (Bassano, 1769); (4) “Historia Ecclesiastica” (Florence, 1753), an ecclesiastical history, which he later published in an abridged form (Pisa, 1760), and which, thus shortened, was frequently re-edited (recently at Turin, 1892).

N.A. WEBER

St. Bertin

Abbot of St. Omer, b. near Constance about 615; d. about 709. At an early age he entered the monastery of Luxeuil in France where, under the austere Rule of St. Columban, he prepared himself for his future missionary career. About the year 638 he set out, in company with two confrères, Mummolin and Ebertram, for the extreme northern part of France in order to assist his friend and kinsman, Bishop St. Omer, in the evangelization of the Morini. This country, now in the Department Pas-de-Calais, was then one vast marsh, studded here and there with hillocks and overgrown with seaweed and bulrushes. On one of these hillocks, Bertin and his companions built a small house whence they went out daily to preach the word of God among the natives, most of whom were still heathens. Gradually some converted heathens joined the little band of missionaries and a larger monastery had to be built. A tract of land called Sithiu had been donated to Omer by a converted nobleman named Adrowald. Omer now turned this whole tract over to the missionaries, who selected a suitable place on it for their new monastery. But the community grew so rapidly that in a short time this monastery also became too small and another was built where the city of St. Omer now stands. Shortly after Bertin’s death it received the name of St. Bertin. Mummolin, perhaps because he was the oldest of the missionaries, was abbot of the two monasteries until he succeeded the deceased St. Eligius as Bishop of Noyon, about the year 659. Bertin then became abbot. The fame of Bertin’s learning and sanctity was so great that in a short time more than 150 monks lived under his rule, among them St. Winnoc and his three companions who had come from Brittany to join Bertin’s community and assist in the conversion of the heathen. When nearly the whole neighbourhood was Christianized, and the marshy land transformed into a fertile plain, Bertin, knowing that his death was not far off, appointed Rigobert, a pious monk, as his successor, while he himself spent the remainder of his life preparing for a happy death. Bertin began to be venerated as a saint soon after his death. His feast is celebrated on 5 September. In medieval times the Abbey of St. Bertin was famous as a centre of sanctity and learning. The “Annales Bertiniani” (830–882; Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., I, 419–515) are important for the contemporary history of the West Frankish Kingdom. The abbey church, now in ruins, was one of the finest fourteenth-century Gothic edifices. In later times its library, archives, and art-treasures were renowned both in and out of France. The monks were expelled in 1791 and in 1799 the abbey and its church were sold at auction. The valuable charters of the abbey are published in Guerard, “Cartulaire de l’abbaye de St. Bertin” (Paris, 1841; appendix by Morand, ibid., 1861). The list of abbots is given in “Gallia Christiana nova,” III, 485 sqq. See Laplane, “Abbés de St. Bertin” (St. Omer, 1854–55).

MABILLON, Acta SS. O. S. B., sæc. III, I, 93–150; Acta SS., 2 September, 549–630; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 5 Sept.; MONTALEMBERT, Monks of the West (Boston), I, 628 sqq.; GUÉRIN, Vies des Saints (Paris), X, 492 sqq. The earliest sources are two anonymous biographies, one of them written before the middle of the ninth century, the other somewhat later. They are published by MABILLON and by the Bollandists, loc. cit.

MICHAEL OTT

Diocese of Bertinoro

Bertinoro, anciently called Forum Truentinorum, and, at the time of the Gothic war, Petra Honorii, whence the present name, is a small city in Romagna, province of Forli, Italy. According to legend, about the year 303 St. Illuminata, a virgin of Ravenna, took refuge here, but did not escape martyrdom. Up to 1360 Bertinoro was subject to the Bishop of Forlimpopoli; in that year, however, Cardinal Albornoz being commander of the troops of Pope Gregory IX, the latter city was destroyed, and the episcopal seat was transferred to Bertinoro. A word will first be said of Forlimpopoli.

Forlimpopoli was founded in 173 B.C. by the Consul M. Popilius Laenas. The first bishop is supposed to have been St. Rufillus, appointed by Pope St. Sylvester, and he is supposed to have transformed a temple of Isis into a church. At all events St. Rufillus is the patron of the city, and the church in which his body is preserved is said to have been an ancient temple of Hercules. In 500 Asellus, Bishop of Forlimpopoli, was present at the Roman synod that passed on the election of Pope Simmaeus, and in 649 Bishop Stephen attended the Roman council concerning the Monothelites. This city had much to suffer from the Lombards, and in 665 or 670, while the people were assembled in the cathedral for the ceremonies of Holy Saturday, it was suddenly attacked by King Grimoald, who pillaged it and butchered numbers of the people and clergy (Paul Diac., Hist. Lang., V, x). By the famous donation of Pepin, Forlimpopoli with the other cities of the exarchate and the Pentapolis was made apart of the patrimony of St. Peter. In 1073 during the episcopate of Pietro, St. Peter Damian went to Forlimpopoli to reform ecclesiastical disciplines, and on this occasion is thought to have delivered a sermon on St. Rufillus, which Vecchiazzani, an historian of this city, claims to have discovered at Rimini in the Library of St. Jerome. But this is very doubtful. Among the successive bishops, Ubertello (1214) and Taddeo (1285) were noted for their beneficence and their efforts for the preservation of peace. During the fourteenth century Romagna was at the mercy of petty tyrants and Forlimpopoli was ruled by the Ordelaffi of Forli. Innocent VI first tried censures as a means of enforcing his commands as sovereign, and sent Cardinal Albornoz to Forlimpopoli (1355). Francesco II, of the Ordelaffi family, however, when the cardinal had left, burned the statue of the pope in the public square, and was guilty of great cruelty towards the clergy.

In 1360 Albornoz took the city by force, obliged the inhabitants to abandon it, and razed it to the ground. The episcopal see was then transferred to Bertinoro, and the bishop, Roberto dei Resinelli, an Augustinian, took with him the relics of St. Rufillus. Forlimpopoli was gradually rebuilt, and Leo XII restored it to the rank of a city. The bishop, however, remained at Bertinoro. In 1377 Roberto was succeeded by Bishop Teobaldo, who received from Urban VI the civil authority over Bertinoro and Cesena, and by virtue of his authority fought against the bodies of mercenaries recruited by the Antipope Clement VII, by whom he was made prisoner. Bishop Ventura degli Abati was highly praised by Martin V for his learning and piety. Tommaso Caselli, a Dominican (1544), was an able theologian; Gianandrea Caligari (1580), formerly nuncio to Poland, restored the Cathedral of Santa Caterina. Giovanni della Robbia (1624), a Dominican, established at Forlimpopoli the Accademia degli Infiammati. In 1803 Pope Pius VII was obliged to suppress the Diocese of Bertinoro which, however, was re-established in 1817. From 1824 to 1859 it was united to the Diocese of Sarsina. In the Diocese of Bertinoro is situated the celebrated church of Polenta, in Romanesque style, which inspired one of the most beautiful odes of Carducci.

The diocese contains 63 parishes, 93 churches, chapels, and oratories, 92 secular priests, 78 regulars, 32 seminary students, 5 lay brothers, 90 members of female religious orders, 1 school for boys, and 5 for girls, and a population of 32,500.

Cappelletti, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), II; Annuario eccl. (Rome, 1906).

U. BENIGNI

Ludovico Bertonio

An Italian missionary, born 1552 at Rocca Contrada near Ancona; died at Lima, Peru, 3 August, 1625. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1575. Sent to Peru six years later, he labored principally among the Aymara Indians of southern Peru and of Bolivia, and has left valuable works on the Aymara language. His earliest publications on that idiom appeared under the title “Arte breve de la lengua aymara para introducir el Arte grande de la misma lengua” (Rome, 1603), also “Arte y gramatica muy copiosa de la lengua aymara” etc. The printing press having been introduced and established by the Jesuits at the Indian mission of Juli in southwestern Peru, Bertonio had the following works printed there, all in the year 1612:—Arte de la lengua aymara con una selva de frases en la misma lengua y su declaracion en romance Vocabulario de la lengua aymara (first and second part) Confesionario muy copioso en dos lenguas, aymara y espanola (etc.) Libro de la vida y milagros de Ntro Senor Jesuchristo en dos lenguas, aymara y romance, traducido del que recopilo el Liocenciado Alonso de Villegas (etc.) The publications by Father Bertonio being as rare as they are important, Platzmann has published in facsimile the “Arte y grammatica” of 1603 and the Vocabularies. Manual Vincente Ballivian in a pamphlet conclusively refutes the slur cast by Sir Clemente Markham on Bertonio, that the latter invented the name “Aymara.”

Torres Saldamando, Los antiguos Jesuitas del Peru (Lima, 1882); Mendiburu, Diccionario (Lima, 1876), II: Ballivian, Boletin de la Sociedad geografica de la Paz.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Pierre Bertrand

(1) A French Cardinal, theologian, and canonist, b. 1280 at Annonay in Vivarais; d. 1348 or 1349 at the Priory of Montaud, near Avignon. His noble parentage is known to us through the manuscript memoir of Grasset, a Celestine monk of the seventeenth century (Discours généalogique de la noble maison de Bertrand et de leur alliance aven celle de Colombier). The legal profession seems to have been the first aim of his education He successively studied and taught law in the Universities of Avignon, Montepellier, Orléans, and Paris. Prized as one of the best law-regents of his day, he soon reached high positions in the Parliament of Paris, the King’s Council, and the Queen’s Chancery. His definite calling lay, however, in another direction, and he became a priest. His priestly career was no less brilliant than his legal success. We find him in rapid succession Dean of Puy-en-Valais, Bishop of Nevers, Bishop of Autun. In 1331 Pope John XXII made him a cardinal in recognition of many services rendered to the Church. Among these services are to be reckoned several charitable institutions founded at Annonay, and the Collège d’Autun, or Collège Cardinal, established in Paris on behalf of fifteen poor students, five for theology, five for law, and five for the fine arts. Bertrand’s best title to recognition is, however, his defence of the rights of the Church both by word of mouth and also with his pen. Fournier, in his “Officialitiés du moyen-âge” (Paris, 1880), points out, at the beginning of the Valois dynasty, a strong tendency of the State towards curtailing the Church’s traditional rights. In 1329 took place the famous “Conférence de Vincennes,” where Pierre de Cugnieres, speaking for Philippe de Valois, bitterly complained of undue extension of ecclesiastical privileges (e.g., the ordination of clerics for the sole purpose of enjoying the privilegium fori; causes des veuves, or widow’s causes drawn to ecclesiastical courts; the free use of censures to enforce the Church’s privileges; appeals to the Church form the decision of civil courts, etc.). Pierre Bertrand, then Bishop of Autun, was the principal spokesman of the clergy. He replied in a spirit of conciliation to all charges bearing on minor points, but strongly upheld what he considered the essential rights of the Church. Following on the lines of the Bull “Unam Sanctam” of Boniface VIII, he summed up his plea in four statements; (1) the secular power is from God; (2) yet, it is not by itself sufficient for the government of the people, for which spiritual jurisdiction is also required; (3) although nothing prevents the two powers from being in the same hands; (4) still, whether in the same or different hands, they stand in a certain relation of subordination, the spiritual power being the higher of the two. His views are to be found in “Libellus adversus Petrum de Cugneriis” and “De origine et usu jurisdictionum,” published in Paris in 1495 and 1584 respectively, and later inserted in volume XIV of the “Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum” (Cologne, 1618). Many other writings of Cardinal Bertrand (apologetical, canonical, pastoral) have not been published and are reported to be in the Vatican Library.

(2) Bertrand, Pierre, de Colombier (also known as Bertrand Pierre), a French cardinal, nephew of the foregoing, whose name he adopted, b. in 1279, at Colombier in Vivarais; d. in 1361 at the priory of Montaud, near Avignon. Like his uncle, he studied law and occupied important positions in the Parliament of Paris. Ordained priest, he soon rose to distinction, became Bishop of Nevers, then of Autun, later of Arras, and was made cardinal by Clement VI, 1344. His career as a cardinal was a distinguished one. The popes at Avignon used him as their trusted agent in many delicate missions, notably for the termination of the war between France and England and the election of Charles of Bohemia to the imperial throne. He met little success in his endeavour to stop the Hundred Years’ War, but brought about the desired election of Charles IV, and, having in the meantime become Dean of the Sacred College, was naturally chosen by Innocent VI to go to Rome and crown the new emperor. Cardinal de Colombier left no writings. The Celestine monks of Colombier and Montaud, whose benefactor he was, held his and his uncle’s memory in great veneration. We are indebted to them for many biographical details on the two Cardinals Bertrand.

Annales Ecclesiastici, anno 1329 (Lucca, 1750), XXIV; Gallia Christiana (Paris, 1720–70), III, IV and XII; Mazon in Grande Encyclopedie; Idem, Essai historique Vivarais (Tournon, 1890); Chevalier, Rep. Des sources hist.: Bio-bibl.

J.F. SOLLIER

St. Bertulf

Abbot of Bobbio, date of birth unknown; d. 639 or 640. He was the son of a pagan nobleman in Austrasia and a near relative of St. Arnulf, Bishop of Metz, whose pious example had such an influence on Bertulf that he became a Christian and in 620 entered the monastery of Luxeuil. A few years later he became acquainted with Abbot Attala, who had come to Luxeuil on a visit, and, with permission of Abbot Eustace of Luxeuil, joined Attala’s community at Bobbio in Italy. Upon the death of Attala, in 627, Bertulf was elected by the monks of Bobbio as their abbot. Like his holy predecessor, he insisted on the observance of the austere rule introduced by St. Columban, the founder of Bobbio, and preached fearlessly against Arianism, which had gained a firm foothold in Italy under the Lombard kings. When the Bishop of Tortona endeavoured to bring Bobbio under his own jurisdiction, Bertulf hastened to Rome, where Pope Honorius received him kindly and granted the monastery entire exemption from episcopal jurisdiction. Jonas, a monk of Bobbio, who accompanied Bertulf on his journey to Rome, relates that, while returning to his monastery, Bertulf was attacked by a deadly fever, and cured miraculously by St. Peter. The same author ascribes a few other miracles to the prayers of St. Bertulf. Most martyrologies give him the title of saint. His feast is celebrated on 19 August.

The first source for Bertulf’s biographies is a short life written by the above-mentioned monk, JONAS OF BOBBIO; MABILLON, Acta SS. O. S. B., sæc, II, 160; and the BOLLANDISTS, Acta SS., August, III, 752, have published this biography. See also MABILLON, Annales Benedicti, ad an. 628, vii; MONTALEMBERT, Monks of the West (Boston), I, 582 sqq.; LECHNER, Martyrologium des Benediktiner-Ordens (Augsburg, 1855), 323; GUÉRIN, Vies des Saints (Paris), X, 27 sqq.

MICHAEL OTT

Pierre de Bérulle

Cardinal, and founder of the French congregation of the Oratory, born in the province of Champagne, France, at the château of Cérilly, 4 February, 1575; died October, 1629. De Bérulle came from a distinguished family of magistrates. From his youth and even before his ordination he devoted himself to the conversion of Protestants and wrote a “Discourse on Interior Abnegation.” After entering the priesthood he was made chaplain to Henry IV and, in company with his friend the Cardinal du Perron and St. Francis de Sales, he continued his labours for the conversion of the Huguenots. With the co-operation of Madame Acarie (the B. Marie of the Incarnation) he introduced Carmelite nuns of the Reform of St. Teresa into France, a work attended with many difficulties. In 1611 de Bérulle founded the congregation of the Oratory on the model of the one formed some years before by St. Philip Neri at Rome. Owing to the differences of time and place the French congregation varied in some important respects from the Italian Oratory. (Cf. FRENCH CONGREGATION OF THE ORATORY.) In speaking of the French Oratorians it should be remembered that from this congregation proceeded the seventeenth-century reform of the clergy of France. The celebrated Jesuit Cotton called the French Oratory “necessary to the Church,” and St. Francis de Sales said also that there was “nothing more saintly and more useful to the Church and God.” While filling the office of Superior-General of the Oratory Father de Bérulle was also actively employed in the public affairs of the time; for example, in the arrangements for the marriage of Charles I of England with Henrietta of France, sister of Louis XIII. Pope Urban VIII in 1627 rewarded de Bérulle’s services to Church and State by creating him a cardinal. Two years later de Bérulle died while saying Mass. His disciple, St. Vincent de Paul, said of him: “He is one of the most saintly priests I have known,” and his friend St. Francis de Sales declared: “He is everything which I should desire to be myself.” Cardinal de Bérulle left several works, the remarkable qualities of which led Pope Urban VIII to call him the Apostolus Verbi incarnati. “This expression,” wrote Cardinal Perraud, also an Oratorian, in his work “L’Oratoire de France aux XVIIIe et XVIIIIe siècles,” “is more than a magnificent panegyric awarded to the piety of the founder of the Oratory; in a word, it contains the essential epitome of his written works, for if may be said of them, as of the entire life of the saintly cardinal, that the one aim was to make our Saviour Jesus Christ better known and more loved.” The chief works of Cardinal de Bérulle are: (1) “Traité des énergumènes” (Troyes, 1599). (2) “Discours etc.” (Paris, 1609) on various subjects. (3) “Discours de l’état et des grandeurs de Jésus” (Paris, 1623). The last mentioned work was reprinted several times; the substance and often the actual expressions are to be found in the diffuse “Méditations” of Father Bourgoing and also in Bossuet’s “Elévations sur les mystères.” (4) “Vie de Jésus” (Paris, 1629); this was a sequel to the preceding work, which the pious author had just finished at the time of his death. (5) “Elévation à Jésus-Christ sur Sainte Madeleine” (Paris, 1627). Father Bourgoing issued a complete edition of the works of Cardinal de Bérulle (Paris, 1644), which included some writings not mentioned above, and he added to the edition a “table of the theology of this great author arranged according to the order of the ‘Summa’ of St. Thomas.” In 1856 the Abbé Migne reprinted the third edition of the complete works. Cardinal de Bérulle’s writings exhibit a robust and vigorous doctrine full of unction and piety, which is set forth at times in a somewhat diffuse style. One of his biographers, Father Cloysenet, has said: “He wrote the books at his leisure and weighed each word,” and the biographer adds very justly that the reader is rewarded for his trouble, for “it is impossible to read them without feeling oneself filled with love for our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

Tabaraud, Histoire du Pere de Bérulle (Paris, 1817), II; Perraud, L’Oratoire de France, ch. iii, iv; Houssaye, M. de Bérulle et les Carmelites; Le Pere de Bérulle et l’Oratoire; Le cardinal de Bérulle et Richelieu (Paris, 1872–76), III; Ingold, Essai de bibliographie oratorienne (Paris, 1882); Idem, Les miracles du cardinal de Bérulle (Paris, 1881).

A. M. P. INGOLD.

Martin de Bervanger

A French priest, founder of charitable institutions; b. at Sarrelouis, 15 May, 1795; d. at Paris, 1865. After being for some time assistant pastor in his native city, he took part, in 1822, in the foundation of the Association Royale de Saint-Joseph, and later of the Oeuvre de Saint-Henri. These two institutions were destined to give to workingmen free instruction and professional training. To reach this end more effectively, he founded, in 1827, a boarding-school where, besides manual training, poor boys could receive intellectual, religious, and moral education. This is the Oeuvre de Saint-Nicolas. In the beginning only seven children were in the establishment, but it soon developed and was transferred form its poor quarters in the Faubourg Saint-Marceau, to a better location in the Rue Vaugirard. At the time of the Revolution of 1830, the first two institutions disappeared, but the Institution Saint-Nicolas remained. It had many difficulties to overcome; the resources were insufficient; proper instructors could not always be found; suspicions of political intrigues were entertained by the Government, which led to various vexatious inquiries. De Bervanger succeeded in overcoming all obstacles, and the institution became more and more prosperous. Soon a branch establishment was founded at Issy. In 1859 De Bervanger turned over the institution to Cardinal Morlot, Archbishop of Paris, who gave the direction of it to the Christian Brothers. It has since been enlarged. De Bervanger wrote the “Règle de l’oeuvre de Saint Nicolas” (1853).

Dictionnaire de pedagogie (Paris, 1887), I, pt. I, 189.

C.A. DUBRAY

Archdiocese of Besançon (Vesontio)

Archdiocese coextensive with the departments of Doubs, Haute-Saône, and the district of Belfort. Few nineteenth-century dioceses have undergone similar territorial changes. The Concordat of 1802 gave the Diocese of Besançon all those districts which, in 1822, constituted the Diocese of St. -Claude. In 1806, Besançon was given jurisdiction over the three parishes of the principality of Neufachatel (Switzerland) which fell under the control of the See of Lausanne in 1814. In 1870, after the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by Germany, the district of Belfort was withdrawn from the See of Strasburg and attached to that of Besançon. The metropolitan jurisdiction of Besançon also underwent singular changes. In 1802 its suffragans were the Bishoprics of Dijon, Autun, Metz, Nancy, and Strasburg. Under the Restoration, Dijon and Autun were withdrawn from Besançon, the latter becoming the metropolitan of the Sees of Saint-Dié, Verdun, and Belley. In 1874, after the German conquest, the churches of Metz and Strasburg were under the direct control of the Holy See.

Local legends attribute the evangelization of Besançon to Sts. Ferréol and Ferjeux, sent thither by St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. Duchesne has proved that these legends belong to a chain of narratives forged in the first half of the sixth century and of which the “passion” of St. Benignus of Dijon was the initial link. The catalogue of the earliest bishops of Besançon is to be read with caution. The first bishop known to history is Celidonius (c. 445); other incumbents of the see were St. Rothadius, a monk at Luxeuil and organizer of the monastic life; St. Donatus; St. Hugh I (1031–67), prince of the empire, the real founder of the city whose markets, commerce, and schools he established; Cardinal de Granvelle (1584–86), the famous minister of Philip II, who built the palace of Besançon; Antoine-Pierre de Grammont (1662–98), who strenuously opposed Jansenism and the Reformation, strove to uplift the clergy, and, in 1691, transferred to Besançon the University of Dôle; Le Coz (1802–15), former constitutional bishop whose personality provoked in the diocese no little opposition to the Concordat; Cardinal de Rohan-Chabot (1828–33); Cardinal Mathieu (1834–75), who distinguished himself by his defence of the temporal power, and was a member of the “Opposition” at the Vatican council. He opposed strenuously in his diocese the “simultaneous churches” which sprang up throughout the district of Montbéliard where Protestants are numerous.

The monastery of Luxeuil, founded by St. Columbanus (d. 615), gave to the Diocese of Besançon a series of saints. First came the direct successors of St. Columbanus; the Abbot St. Eustasius who founded a celebrated school in this monastery; the Abbot St. Valbert who sent monks to found the Abbeys of St. -Valéry, St. -Omer, and St. -Bertin, and died in 665; the Abbot St. Ingofroid; St. Donatus, who became Bishop of Besançon; and St. Ansegisus, author of a celebrated collection of capitularies. The Abbey of Lure was founded at the beginning of the seventh century by St. Déicole (Deicolus), or Desle, disciple of St. Columbanus; later its abbots were princes of the Holy Empire. The Abbey of Baume les Dames, founded in the fifth century and in which Gontran, King of Burgundy, was buried, was the school where St. Odo, afterwards Abbot of Cluny, studied in the tenth century; at the end of the eighth century there was built near it an abbey for Benedictine nuns, members of the nobility. During the Revolution, the superb church of this abbey was laid waste. Among the other saints of the Diocese of Besançon may be mentioned the hermit St. Aldegrin (tenth century), and St. Peter Fourier (1565–1640), one of those who, in the seventeenth century, inaugurated systematic education for girls. During the Middle Ages several popes visited Besançon, among them Leo IX who consecrated the altar of the old Cathedral of St. Etienne in 1050, and Eugenius III, who, in 1148, consecrated the church of St. Jean, the new cathedral. A council was held at Besançon in 1162, presided over by Frederick Barbarossa, in the interest of the Antipope Victor against Pope Alexander III. Guido of Burgundy who was pope from 1119 to 1123 under the name of Calixtus II, and the Jesuit Nonnotte (1711–93) an adversary of Voltaire, were natives of Besançon. The miracle wrought through the Sacred Host of Faverney, during a fire in the year 1608, is annually commemorated by elaborate ceremonies. The places of pilgrimage are: Notre Dame du Chêne at Scey; Notre Dame d’Aigremont; the pilgrimage of St. Pierre of Tarentaise at Cirey-les-Bellevaux, where St. Pierre de Tarentaise died in 1174; Notre Dame des Jacobins at Besançon; and Notre Dame de la Motte at Vesoul. Parts of the Cathedral of St. Jean at Besançon were erected as early as the eleventh century.

In 1899 the following institutions were to be found in the diocese: 15 infant schools in Besançon and 35 in Vesoul; 1 deaf-mute institute in Besançon; 3 girls’ orphanages in Besançon and 3 in Vesoul; 2 protectories in Besançon; 1 house of correction in Besançon and 1 in Vesoul; 2 hospitals and hospices in Besançon and 8 in Vesoul; 12 communities for the care of the sick in their homes in Besançon and 8 in Vesoul; 1 house of retreat in Besançon and 1 in Vesoul; 3 homes for the aged in Besançon; 1 infant asylum, 1 boys’ orphanage, and 4 gratuitous industrial schools in Vesoul, all conducted by nuns; 1 deaf-mute institute and 1 boys’ orphanage in Besançon conducted by brothers.

In 1900 the diocese had the following religious orders, Men: Capuchins, Eudists, and Marianists at Besançon, and Trappists at Notre Dame de la Grace de Dieu. Women (purely local orders): Sisters of Charity of Besançon, nursing and teaching, founded in 1799; Sisters of the Divine Providence of Frasne-le-Chateau, teaching, founded in 1780; the Daughters of St. James, nursing sisters with a mother-house at Besançon. At the close of 1905 the Archdiocese of Besançon had 657,773 inhabitants, 60 pastorates, 814 succursal parishes (mission churches), and 97 curacies.

Gallia christiana (1860), XV, 1, 322; Instrumenta, 1–124; Richard, Histoire des dioceses de Besançon et de Saint-Claude (Besançon, 1847–50); Suchet, Notre Dame de Besançon et du departement du Doubs (Besançon, 1892); Bergier, Etude sur l’hymnaire bisontin du cardinal Mathieu, archeveque de Besançon (Besançon, 1886); Duchesne, Fastes episcopaux, 1; Chevalier, Topobibl., 382–384.

GEORGES GOYAU

Jerome Lamy Besange

Born at Linz, 1726; died 1781. For twenty-four years he taught Scripture at Salzburg. He published the following works: Introductio in Vetus Testamentum (2 vols., Steyr, 1765); Introductio in sancta quatuor Evangelia” (Venice, 1775); Introductio in Acta Apostolorum (Pavia, 1782); Fasciculus Myrrhæ, a commentary on the Passion (Steyr, 1766); Die sieben Busspsalmen (Salzburg, 1776).

PARISOT in VIG., Dict de la Bible.

JOHN CORBETT

Theodore Beschefer

Jesuit missionary in Canada, born at Châlons-sur-marne, 25 May, 1630; died at Reims, 4 February, 1711. He entered the Society of Jesus at Nancy, 24 May, 1647, studied philosophy and theology at Pont-a-Mousson, taught humanities and rhetoric for seven years at various colleges in France, and after his third year of probation came to Canada in 1665. From Quebec, where he was stationed for three years after his arrival, he set out on an embassy to the Mohawks, and to the Dutch at Albany, but a sudden outbreak of Indian hostilities compelled him to turn back. In 1670–71, however, he was a missionary among the Iroquois. In 1672, he returned to Quebec, becoming superior of the Canadian missions in 1680, and retaining that office until 1687. A year later he was prefect of classes in the College of Quebec, and in 1689 returned to France, where he acted as procurator of the missions. During his stay in Canada he was spiritual director of the Ursalines at Quebec, and their annals describe him as “a man of distinguished merit, and a director of great wisdom and experience.”

Thwaites, Jesuit Relations, LXII, 91; XLIX, 273, 274; Rochemonteix, Les Jesuites et la Nouvelle-France au XVIIe siecle (Paris, 1895–96), III, 371; Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., I, 1402, VIII, 1830.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Costanzo Giuseppe Beschi

Born at Castiglione in the Venetian Republic, 1680; died at Manapar c. 1746. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1698, and went to the Mandura mission in 1710, during nearly forty years of apostolic life proving himself a worthy successor of the founder of the Mandura Mission, the celebrated Roberto de’ Nobili. Once he barely escaped suffering death for the Christian religion. Though primarily a missionary and always at the head of a district, he is better know as one of the classical writers of Tamil literature. No sooner had he arrived in India than he began the study of Sanskrit, Telugu, and especially of Tamil. Thanks to his genius and indefatigable industry, he mastered the Tamil grammar in five years, and for the next twenty years made so thorough a study of the whole field of Tamil literature that the native men of letters bowed to him as their master. He composed a grammar of High Tamil, and was the first to write a grammar of Low Tamil (the common dialect) which still remains the foundation of scientific Tamil philology. He is also the complier of several Tamil dictionaries, among them the quadruple lexicon containing words, synonyms, categories of words, and rhymes; a Tamil-Latin and Latin-Tamil-Portuguese dictionary. He wrote several ascetical books in Tamil, especially doctrinal instructions for the use of the native catechists; also controversial tracts against the Danish Lutheran missionaries who sought to gain a foothold in the Mandura Mission. Beschi is, however, best known as a Tamil poet. In a poem of 1100 stanzas, “Kittêri ammalle saritiram” he sings the praises of the martyr St. Quiteria (not St. Catherine, as some writers have mistakenly asserted). His greatest poetical work is the “Tembavani” (The Unfading Garland), one of the Tamil classics. This Tamil “Divina Comedia” is divided into thirty-six cantos, containing 3,615 stanzas. “It is,” says Baumgartner, “the noblest epic poem in honor of St. Joseph written in any literature, East or West. In one of the most difficult languages of southern India Beschi produced a poem which for richness and beauty of language. for elegance of meter, popular treatment, and true poetical conception and execution, is the peer of the native classics; in nobility of thought and subject-matter, it is as superior to them as the harmonious civilization of Christianity rises above the confused philosophical dreams and ridiculous fables of idolatry.” Another poem “Paramartaguru Kadey” (the adventures of Guru Paramarta), in which he delightfully satirizes the foibles and conceited ignorance of the native gurus (heathen teachers) is the most entertaining book in Tamil literature, bubbling over with wit and humor. It has also been translated into English, French, German, Italian, and Canarese. Graesse and Babington, editors respectively of the German and English translations. seem to be ignorant both of Beschi’s authorship of the book and of his great importance to the literature of Southern India, for they make no mention of his name. The tradition that he was at one time prime minister to a native raja is not sufficiently authenticated. In 1744, he was rector of the mission of Manapar, where he died. His memory lives to this day in Southern India.

Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la c. de J., I, col. 1402–09, s. v.; Bertrand, La Mission du Madure, IV, 342–375; Jean, le Madure’ (Tournai, 1894), I, 152–163; in particular Baumgartner, Geschichte der Weltliteratur (Freiburg im Br., 1897). II. 345–354.

B. GULDNER

Beseleel

(Beçál’el, in the shadow of God).

I. The son of Uri and grandson of Hur of the tribe of Juda (Exodus 31:2; 35:30; I Paralipomenon 2:20; II Paralipomenon 1:5). Being naturally endowed with a certain originality of invention, he was expressly called by God to be the chief architect of the tabernacle and its many appurtenances (Exodus 31:2 sqq.). To him were entrusted the preparation of the holy oils, the incense, the priestly vestments, and finally the building of the ark and of the furniture for court and tabernacle. Special Divine gifts were also given to him and his assistants, especially Ooliab, for the proper execution of their office (Exodus 31:3–6; 35:34–35; 36:1).

II. One of the sons of Phahath-Moab who married a foreigner in the days of Esdras (I Esdras 10:30).

F.X.E. ALBERT

Jérôme Besoigne

A Jansenist writer, b. at Paris, 1686; d. 1763. Ordained in 1715, he received the doctorate of the Sorbonne three years later. He was also assistant principal of the College of Plessis, but his defence of Jansenism and his opposition to the Bull “Unigenitus” obliged him to resign the post. In 1729, the Sorbonne erased him from the list of Doctors and, in 1731, he was exiled from Paris. During the following year he was allowed to return. He wrote a “History of the Abbey of Port Royal” (6 vols.), and “Lives of the Four Bishops engaged in the case of Port Royal.” We have also from his pen two works on Scripture: “Concorde des livres de la Sagesse” (Paris, 1737), reprinted in Migne’s “Cursus Completus” (XVIII) and “Morale des Apôtres ou concorde des épîtres de saint Paul et des épîtres cononiques du N. T.” (Paris, 1747).

Memoire sur la vie et les ourvrages de Jerome Besoigne (Paris, 1763); Querard, La France litteraire (Paris, 1827), I, 315–316; Heurtebize in Dict. de theol. cath., with a list of his Jansenistic writings; Rey in Dict. De la Bible.

JOHN CORBETT

Christopher Besoldus

A German jurist and publicist, b. of Protestant parents in 1577 at Tubingen, Würtemberg; d. 15 September, 1638 at Ingolstadt, Bavaria. He studied jurisprudence and graduated as Doctor of Law in 1598; and in 1610 became professor of law at Tubingen. He was held in high regard as a teacher, and his counsel was frequently sought in juridical questions by the civil administration. His studies extended beyond his specialty; he acquired the knowledge of nine languages; perused the Scriptures, the writings of the Fathers, and of the medieval mystics. His inclination towards the Catholic religion grew with his knowledge of it. He was publicly converted at Heilbronn in 1635. Two years later, he accepted the chair of Roman Law at the University of Ingoldstadt. He was considering the offer of a professorship at the University of Bologna, tendered him by Pope Urban VIII, when he died. On his death-bed he conjured his wife to embrace the Catholic faith; three months later she was received into the Church with her eight-year old daughter. The nobleness of character and erudition of Besoldus have been recognized even by his opponents, although an attempt was made to ascribe his conversion to interested motives. His works are very numerous. His publication of three volumes of documents from the Stuttgart archives gave offence because their contents tended to prove that the immediate dependency of the Würtemberg monasteries on the Empire (Reichsunmittelbarkeit) implied for the local dukes the obligation of restoring the confiscated religious property. His writings are important for the history of the causes of the Thirty Years War.

Rass, Convertiten (Freiburg, 1867), V, 310–328; Gunter, Religionsedikt von 1629 (Stuttgart, 1902), 294–306; Stintzing, Gesch. d. deutschen Rechtswissensch, (1880), I, 692 sqq.; Stemmer-Bruck, in Kirchenlex., II, 526–528.

N.A. WEBER

Johannes Bessarion

(OR BASILIUS).

Cardinal; b. at Trebizond, 1389, or according to others, 1395, but most probably in 1403; d. at Ravenna 18 November, 1472. Some claim illustrious parentage for him, but, as to this nothing certain is known. In 1413, while still very young, he was sent to Constantinople, where he devoted himself to study, achieving great success in the field of letters. In 1423 he entered the Order of St. Basil and in the same year was sent to the Peloponnesus to study philosophy under Gemistus Pletho. It is known that Pletho was a bitter opponent of Aristotle, against whom he championed with immoderate zeal the doctrines of Plato, without, however, distinguishing between genuine platonism and neo-Platonism. The lessons of Pletho, though making Bessarion a follower of Plato, did not prevent him from perceiving the many points of contact between the two philosophers, and, during the revival of ancient learning, constantly defending the harmonizing of the two systems; he criticized the unrestrained partisanship of his master quite as much as that of Michael Apostolius. His learning and eloquence soon excited the admiration and respect of all and brought him, within a short space of time, various ecclesiastical dignities. In 1436 he was made Bishop of Nicæa, but was not destined to see his diocese, however, and the emperor, John VIII Palæologus, had him accompany him to the Council of Ferrara, which they reached 4 March, 1438. Here his dignity and touching eloquence, as well as his vast theological erudition, gave him such great authority among the Greek bishops that the happy issue of the council—the reunion with the Latin Church—may be attributed in great part to him. This was fully recognized, as on 6 July, 1439, in the cathedral of Florence, to which the council had been transferred, he was commissioned to read the Greek redaction of the Act of Union.

Bessarion returned to Greece, but during the same year is found once more at Florence with Eugenius IV, who, in the consistory of 18 December, 1439 (according to others 8 January, 1440), created him cardinal of the title of the Twelve Holy Apostles. At the same time another Greek, Archbishop Isidore, received the sacred purple. The brief duration of the union of the churches is well known. Bessarion himself, having changed to the Latin Rite was cordially hated by the schismatic Greeks. This notwithstanding, Bessarion continued to work zealously for the union of the other Oriental schismatic churches, the Jacobites and Ethiopians (1442), the Syrians (1444), the Chaldeans and Maronites (1445). At this time, also, to refute the accusations of Marcus of Ephesus, against the council, he wrote the book: “De successu synodi florentinæ.” Nicholas V, like Eugenius IV, gave evidence of the great regard in which he held the Greek scholar. In 1449 he made him Bishop of Ulazzara and in the same year conferred on him the suburbicarian See of Sabina, for which that of Frascati was shortly after substituted. In the following year he was sent as papal legate to Bologna, a city torn by constant factional quarrels. In the Brief of appointment of 26 February, 1450, the pope says he is sending Bessarion tamquam angelum pacis, and expresses the hope that with his experience and prudence he may be able to govern the city in peace.

Bessarion continued as governor of Bologna for five years, achieving complete success in calming the internal discord. Not satisfied with that, he introduced wise reforms into the city government and in the administration of justice. Above all he lavished all his attention and generosity on the university, Bologna’s greatest glory, restoring the building which threatened to fall into ruins. He gathered there as teachers the most famous professors of the time, supplying at his own expense the deficiencies in their honoraria, and encouraging with munificence particularly the study of the classics. Thus, he gathered about him a court of poets and men of letters. He was cordial to all, even the lowliest; by stringent legislation he sought to curb immoderate luxury; and he rebuilt and adorned many churches of the city, among them that of San Luca. By his prudent and far-seeing administration and his absolute impartiality he won the confidence of the citizens of Bologna, so that on his departure they honoured his memory in an inscription; and ever afterwards in all their necessities and in all transactions with the Holy See, they had recourse to his intervention.

While Bessarion was legate in Bologna, Cardinal Stefano Porcaro was in banishment in that city, being assigned one hundred ducats in addition to the annual pension of three hundred granted him by the pope. Porcaro succeeded in eluding Bessarion’s vigilance and escaping to Rome. Bessarion did not delay in apprising the pope of his flight. The rest is well known. In 1453 Nicholas V died; and in the conclave following his death, Bessarion was all but chosen to succeed him; however, Calixtus III was finally elected. Constantinople had just fallen into the hands of the Turks and the Byzantine Empire had been destroyed. Thereupon Bessarion used all his influences with Francesco Foscari, the Doge of Venice, as well as with the new pope to persuade them to take up the offensive against the invading barbarians. Not confining his efforts to words, at the cost of heavy pecuniary sacrifices he furthered the cause of the crusade. His zeal was still more pronounced under Pius II, whose election was due in a special manner to him. In the congress of Mantua, convened by the pope in 1459 for the purpose of forming a league of all Christian princes against the Turks, Bessarion took a most active part, not justified, however, by results. The love of his native land impelled him to accept the commission given him by the pope to attend two German diets held the following year, one on the 2nd of March at Nuremberg, the other on the 25th of the same month at Worms. Neither, however, had any practical results. At the command of the pope he went to Vienna to induce the emperor to assist with arms and supplies Matthias Corvinus, the young King of Hungary. After a long wait the German leaders, 17 September, asked for another delay, and only the express wish of Pius II kept Bessarion in Germany for a whole year, pleading the cause of the Christians of the Orient. Internal discord among the German leaders prevented them from reaching any decision concerning the crusade, and Bessarion returned to Rome disillusioned and discouraged. As a reward for his labours the pope bestowed on him the commendatory Abbey of Grotta-Ferrata of Greek Basilians, which became a centre of learned pursuits. Shortly afterwards, on the death of Cardinal Isidore, metropolitan of Kiew and Patriarch of Constantinople, Bessarion received the patriarchal title.

In 1463 Pius II once more sent him to Venice to win that republic over to the cause of the crusade which the pope, on his own initiative, wished to organize. Long, serious discussions ensued, and at last, in September of the same year, the republic signed a treaty of alliance with Matthias Corvinus, and on 20 October the crusade was solemnly proclaimed. The results hoped for, however, were not entirely achieved. During the pontificate of Paul II who continued the crusade, Bessarion withdrew from active affairs and devoted himself entirely to study, cultivating the friendship of many Greek and Italian scientists then in Rome, and engaging in learned discussions with them. Thus he won the title of Litterarum patronus. In his house the first Accademia was founded. In 1470 when Paul II desired to organize a new crusade, Bessarion wrote the letter “De Bello Turcis inferendo.” Sixtus IV, who approved the plans of his predecessor, sent Bessarion once more as legate to the King of France, the Duke of Burgundy, and the King of England to settle the discords which had arisen between the first two, and to induce the last-mentioned to join in the great expedition against the enemy of Christianity. On 20 April, 1472, he left Rome—but was received in an unfriendly manner both in Burgundy and at Paris so that he was forced to return to report the complete failure of his mission. The disappointment, the discomforts of travelling, and his great age made sad havoc on his strength. At Ravenna he was obliged to interrupt his journey; there his death occurred at the Abbey of St. John the Evangelist, 18 November, 1472. His body was taken to Rome and interred in a tomb which had been erected in the portico of the convent of the Conventual Minorites, close by the Basilica of the Twelve Holy Apostles. A simple sarcophagus, on which is inscribed a Greek distich of his own composition, contains his remains.

All the aspirations of Bessarion, which, more than great, were unique, were absorbed by three ideas: the union of the Oriental Church with the Latin, the rescue of Greek lands from the Mussulman yoke, and the triumph of classic literature and philosophy, especially the Greek. If the realization of the first two was only partial or, in a way, temporary, the third was certainly fulfilled to a more complete degree than perhaps Bessarion himself had dared hope. His labours in that direction had lasting success. By his translations of Xenophon’s “Memorabilia,” Aristotle’s “Metaphysics,” etc., he paved the way for a more exact knowledge of the real thought of the Stagyrite. His part in the reconciliation of Platonism and Aristoteleanism has already been mentioned. In this contest of intelligence, he wrote the works “In calumniatorem Platonis” against George of Trebizond, who in his translation of the Laws of Plato had sharply criticized their author, exalting Aristotle instead. In the fifth book of his work, Bessarion, in turn, enumerates the faults of translation and the errors in the commentary of George. At a tremendous outlay, he gathered together a library of eight hundred codices of Greek MSS., and still at his own expense had many others copied by men of letters. After 1464 he gave these treasures to the Republic of Venice with which he had always been in the greatest sympathy. These codices formed the nucleus of the famous “Bibliotheca Sancti Marci.”

The greater part of Bessarion’s works are to be found in P.L., CLXI. Concerning Bessarion: Al. Blandinus, De vitâ et rebus pestis Bessarionis (Rome, 1777); Wolfg. v. Goethe, Studien und Forschungen über das Leben und Zeit des Card. B. (Jena, 1874); Vast, Le Card. B. (Paris, 1878); Sadov, Bessarion de nicée son rôle au concile de Ferrara (Florence and St. Petersburg, 1883); Rocholl, Bessarion (Leipzig, 1904).

U. BENIGNI.

Johann Franz Bessel

(In religion Gottfried)

Benedictine, abbot, and historian, b. 5 September, 1672, at Buchen, in the Grand-duchy of Baden; d. at Göttweig, 22 January, 1749. He made his course in the humanities at Aschaffenburg, Würzburg, and Bamberg, and in 1690 entered the University of Salzburg, conducted by the Benedictines, where he specialized in philosophy, also attending lectures on theology and jurisprudence. Attracted by the learning and piety of his teachers, he resolved to become a religious and entered the Benedictine Order at Göttweig on the Danube, Lower Austria, 15 June, 1692. After making his vows (21 June, 1693), he completed his theological course at Vienna, was ordained (21 March, 1696), and on 23 May was granted the degree of Doctor of Theology, being shortly afterwards appointed Lector in philosophy and theology in the monastery of Seligenstadt on the Main. In 1699 he was summoned to the electoral court of Mainz by Archbishop Lothar Franz von Schonborn, who immediately sent him to Rome to study the curial practice of the Rota Romana. Having completed a two years’ course in law, he obtained the degree of Doctor Juris Utriusque, and on his return to Mainz (1703) he was appointed vicar-general and supreme judge of the whole archdiocese by his benefactor. He was also employed on various diplomatic missions, as, for instance, to the court of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel in connection with the conversion of Duke Anton Ulrich and his granddaughter, the Princess Elisabeth Christine, later the wife of Emperor Charles VI. He made three journeys to Rome to settle differences between the pope and the emperor concerning the limits of the province of Commacchio. On 7 February, 1714, he was elected Abbot of Göttweig, and from that time forward was commissioned by the emperor to conduct diplomatic negotiations, in addition to being made imperial theologian and serving twice as honorary rector of the University of Vienna.

Abbot Bessel was the second founder of Göttweig, which became, under his rule of thirty-five years, a centre of learning. He added to the rare Hebrew, Greek, and Roman coins and bracteates collections of copper-plate engravings (over 20,000), minerals, shells, and paintings. By the expenditure of princely sums he enriched the library with thousands of volumes, chiefly on historical subjects, as well as incunabula and MSS. Himself a thorough scholar, he encouraged among his religious all undertakings of a scientific or artistic nature. When the abbey was almost totally destroyed by fire, he gathered, by judicious management, means sufficient to rebuild it on a more splendid scale.

Personally, Abbot Bessel was a retiring religious, presenting to all a shining example of monastic piety and virtue. Besides several comparatively unimportant works, such as “Mararita pretiosa,” “Curiae Romanae praxis,” and “Austriae ritus,” he published (Vienna, 1732) two letters of St. Augustine to Optatus, Bishop of Mileve, which had been until then unknown. He is erroneously credited with the authorship of “Quinquaginta Romano-catholicam fidem omnibus aliis praeferendi motiva” (Mainz, 1708), a controversial work written originally in Latin, but translated into almost every European tongue. The work which brought him lasting renown and a place in the records of the science of history is entitled “Chronicon Gottwicense, tomus prodromus” (Tegernsee, 1732). Not, as might be thought, a history of the abbey, this single volume is a comprehensive work on German diplomatics, treating of manuscripts found in registers and archives, original documentary evidence, diplomas of German emperors and kings, and inscriptions and seals, illustrated with maps and engravings on copper. The author also discusses medieval geography, as well as the royal palace-domains (Pfalzen) and the various districts of Germany. Great learning and clear critical acumen distinguish this work, which marked an epoch in the history of German diplomatics, and has served as the basis of all later works on the same subject.

Albert, Gottfried Bessel und das Chronicon Gottwicense in Freiburger Diocesan-Archiv. (1899), XXVII, 217–250.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Henry Digby Beste

Miscellaneous author, b. at Lincoln, England, 21 October, 1768; d. at Brighton, 28 May, 1836. He was the son of the Rev. Henry Beste, D.D., prebendary of Lincoln Cathedral. His mother, Magdalen, daughter and heiress of Kenelm Digby, Esq., of North Luffenham in Rutland, claimed to be the representative of the extinct male line of the historic Sir Everard and Sir Kenelm Digby. His father dying in 1782, Henry was sent two years later by his mother to Oxford. He became a commoner of Magdalen College, where he took his B.A. degree in 1788 and his M.A. in 1781. He was afterward elected to a fellowship, which he resigned when the family estates came to him on the death of his mother. In September, 1791, he took deacon’s orders in the Anglican church, and a little later retired to Lincoln, displaying great activity there as a preacher. Doubts about the spiritual authority of the Established Church sprang up in his mind, which were strengthened by intercourse with the Abbé Beaumont, then in charge of the small Catholic chapel at Lincoln. The result was that he was received into the Catholic Church by Rev. Mr. Hodgson, Vicar-General of the London district, 26 May, 1798. In 1800, he married Sarah, daughter of Edward Sealy, Esq., and was the father of the well-known author, John Richard Digby Beste. His first works were a treatise entitled “The Christian Religion briefly defended against the Philosophers and Republicans of France (octavo, 1793), and in the same year a discourse on “Priestly Absolution” which was republished in 1874. It is interesting that this latter work anticipated some of the Tractarian arguments and met with the warm commendation of the chief members of the University of Oxford in 1794. After his conversion Beste was an occasional contributor to Catholic periodicals. He also travelled abroad and spent several years in France and Italy. Cardinal Wiseman met him at Rome in the Jubilee of 1825, and mentions him in his “Last Four Popes” (Boston, 1858), p. 245). In 1826 Best English Family’s Residence there during that period, preceded by some account of the Conversion of the Author to the Catholic Faith” (octavo). Two years later he wrote a similar book on his stay in Italy. Ten years after his death appeared his last work, called “Poverty and the Baronet’s Family, a Catholic Story” (12mo, 1846).

GILLOW, BIBL. DICT. ENG. CATH., S. V.; Kent IN Dict. Nat. Biog., IV, 416.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Bestiaries

Medieval books on animals, in which the real or fabulous characteristics of actually existent or imaginary animals (such as the griffin, dragon, siren, unicorn, etc.) were figuratively treated as religious symbols of Christ, the devil, the virtues and vices. The origins of a symbolism of this character, taken from nature, are to be sought in antiquity and above all in the ancient East. Eastern literature, as well as the Greco-Roman literature dependent on it, ascribed to certain animals, whether fabulous or real (the lion, the tiger, the snake, the eagles) a certain connection with the life and actions of man and the gods, and made a corresponding religious use of them. This is exemplified in the Oriental and especially Egyptian worship of animals. Many reminiscences of this animal symbolism are encountered in the Old Testament. From the earliest period Christian fancy interpreted these animals according to the symbolism of the Old Testament, and so depicted them in Christian art. Thus, for example, in the Catacombs some are symbolic of what is good, e.g. the lamb or sheep representing the soul or the believer, the dove the soul, the phoenix Christ or immortality, and the peacock immortality; others symbolic of what is bad, e.g. the serpent representing the devil; still others, especially in later times, are to be interpreted in various senses; thus the lion may symbolize either Christ or the devil. An early compilation of such allegorical interpretations of the nature of plants and animals, made up partly from antique materials, is still extant in the “Physiologus,” the much copied and much used “natural history” of the Middle Ages, and the basis of all later bestiaries. Similar compilations are the “Liber formularum” of Eucherius, some parts of the “Libri originum” of Isidore, parts of the writings of Bede and Rabanus, and the treatise long ascribed to the second-century Melito of Sardes, and known as “Clavis” or “The Key,” which appeared in its present form towards the eleventh century. Later bestiaries obtained much valuable material from the “Libri moralium” of Gregory the Great. The medieval bestiaries are more or less exact translations or imitations of the “Physiologus”; e.g. the bestiary of Philippe de Thaun, about 1121, edited by Thomas Wright (London, 1841), and two bestiaries of the thirteenth century, one by Pierre of Picardy, the other by Guillaume of Normandy published by Hippeau (Caen, 1852). The bestiary appears in its complete development in Richard de Fournival’s “Bestiaire d’Amour,” written in the fourteenth century and published by Hippeau (Paris, 1860), in the treatise “De animalibus” attributed to Bl. Albertus Magnus, in the “Tractatus de bestiis et aliis rebus” supposed to have been written by Hugo of St. Victor, above all in the “Speculum naturale” of Vincent of Beauvais.

The influence of the symbolism of the bestiaries is plainly seen in the various forms of medieval intellectual life. It was evident in the sermon and also in the liturgy as shown by the symbolic use of the bee in the blessing of Easter candles and the blessing of wine on the feast of St. John as a preventive of poisoning from snake-bites. The metrical animal fables, particularly, exhibit the widespread taste for this form of allegory. The influence of the symbolism of the bestiaries is still more manifest in medieval sculpture, both Romanesque and Gothic. Though the use of animal subjects in the oldest Irish and Merovingian art has apparently no deeper aim than the enjoyment of grotesque forms, yet animal symbolism appears from the earliest date as an element of Romanesque art, especially in miniature and sculpture, in both of which it often exhibits a close dependence on the bestiaries. (See ANIMALS IN CHRISTIAN ART; SYMBOLISM.)

Eckl, Die symbolische Zoologie in Organ fur christ. Kunst (1869), No. XII-XXII; KOLLOFF, Die sagenhafte und symbolische Tiergesch, des Mittelalters in RAUMER, Taschenbuch (1867), 177–269; KREPNER, Ueoer die Tierbucher des Mittelalters in HERRIG, Archiv, Vol. LV; Katholischer Seelsorger (1898), 460 sqq.

JOSEPH SAUER

Fray Domingo Betanzos

A Dominican missionary, d. at Valladolid, Sept., 1549. One of the most illustrious Dominicans of the sixteenth century in America. A native of Leon in Spain, he first studied jurisprudence at Salamanca, then became a Benedictine and lived as a hermit on the Island of Ponza for five years. He then joined the Dominicans, who had established themselves on the Island of Hispaniola (Santo Domingo) in 1510. Betanzos went there four years later. In 1516 he, with several other Dominicans, wrote a violent letter to Las Casas on the rapid disappearance of the Indians of the Antilles, indulging in the grossest exaggerations about the numbers of the aboriginal population (which they had no means of knowing, even approximately), and the excesses purported to have been committed by the Spaniards. In 1526, Betanzos went to Mexico and founded the Dominican province of Santiago de México. Hardly had it been established when Fray Tomás de Berlanga set forth a claim that it belonged to his newly founded province of Santa Cruz with the provincial seat at Santo Domingo. Betanzos went to Spain in 1531 and obtained from the Holy See the independence of his foundation. He also established the Dominican Province of Guatemala. As Provincial of Mexico in 1535, he at once organized missions among three Indian linguistic stocks: Nahuatl (Aztec, or Mexican), Mixteco, and Tzapoteco. He returned to Spain in 1549, and died in September of the same year at Valladolid. The Bishopric of Guatemala was tendered to Betanzos, but he declined it. While, in his letter of 1516, he acquiesced in the extreme views of his brethren of the order on the question of Indian policy, in the “Opinion” (Parecer) given by him in 1541, and approximately repeated in 1542, just as the unfortunate “New Laws” regarding the Indies were to be promulgated under the influence of Las Casas, he assumed an entirely different attitude. Free from all controversial spirit, he quietly gave his opinion in a sense diametrically opposed to the measures Las Casas pressed upon the Government. This is significant, coming from a member of the same order and of almost equal rank. Betanzos was an intimate friend of the most distinguished Franciscans of Mexico—Archbishop Zumarraga, Motolinia, and others, who did not harmonize with Las Casas in his extreme tendencies. He is credited with the authorship of an addition to the “Doctrina” of Fray Pedro de Cordova which appeared in 1544, and possibly in 1550, but this is not yet fully established.

Ycazbalceta, Coleccion de Documentos para la Historia de Mexico (Mexico, 1866), I; Domingo de Betanzos, Parecer; Documentos ineditos de Indias, VII; Carta a Bartolome de las Casas; Mendieta, Historia eclesiastica indiana, 1599 (Mexico, 1870); Davila Padilla, Historia de la fundacion y discurso de la provincia de Santiago de Mexico (2d ed., Brussels, 1625); Beristain, Biblioteca hispano-americana setentrional (Mexico, 1816), I; Remesal, Historia de la Provincia de San Vicente de Chyapa y Guatemala de la Orden de Santo Domingo (Madrid, 1619); the same book is also known as, Historia general de las Indias Occidentales y particular de la gobernacion de Chiapas y GuatemalaTeatro eclesiastico de la primitiva Iglesia de las Indias occidentales (Madrid, 1649); Diccionario de Historia y Geografia (Madrid, 1865), I.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Fray Pedro de Betanzos

A Franciscan missionary, b. at Betanzos in Galicia; d. at Chomez, Nicaragua, 1570. He was one of the earliest Franciscan missionaries to Guatemala, and founder of the Church in Nicaragua. He is said to have acquired, in eight years, the use of fourteen Indian languages, including the Nahuatl. It is certain that he possessed an extraordinary gift for linguistics since in one year he mastered the three principal idioms of Guatemala, Quiché, Kakchiquel, and Zutuhil, speaking them as perfectly as the Indians themselves. It was during this time, and on account of his writings, that the controversy began between the Franciscans and Dominicans over the use of the Indian term “Cabovil” as a synonym for God. Betanzos insisted that they were not synonymous and always wrote “Dios,” even in Indian idioms. The Dominicans on the other hand kept up the native term “Cabovil.” The Franciscans were right, since the aborigines had no conception of monotheism, and “Cabovil” means, not a personal supreme Deity, but the spiritual essence which all Indians believe to pervade the world, localizing and individualizing at will; an animistic idea underlying Indian fetishism. Betanzos was one of the authors of a work published at Mexico and entitled, “Arte, Vocabulario y Doctrina Christiana en Lengua de Guatemala.” It is probably the book printed in Mexico previous to 1553 and ascribed to the “Franciscan Fathers,” and also to Bishop Marroquin of Guatemala. No copy of it, however, is known to exist. It is the earliest work printed in any of the languages of Guatemala.

Casual mention of Fray Pedro de Betanzos is found in Ycazbalceta, Bibliografia mexicana, (Mexico, 1886), in which an edition of the Catecismo y Doctrina is mentioned (Mexico, 1556), and a reimpression (Guatemala, 1724). The title of the 1556 edition is Catecismo y Doctrina Cristiana en idioma Utlateco; of the 1724 print, Doctrina Cristiana en lengua GuatemaltecaBibliot. hispano-americana set. (Mexico, 1816), I, who in turn obtained them from Vazques. Cronica de la Provincia del Illmo, Nombre de Jesus, del Orden de San Francisco de Guatemala (Guatemala, 1714–16). Squier, Monograph of Authors,, etc., (New York, 1861), copies Beristain. See also Ludewig, Literature of American Aboriginal Languages (London, 1858). On the controversy over the use of the words “Dios” and “Cabovil” see Remesal, Historia de la provincia de San Vicente de Chyapa y Guatemala (Madrid, 1619).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Juan de Betanzos

Unfortunately very little is known as yet of this official, who has left such valuable works on the Indian traditions and language of Peru. He was a Spaniard by birth and came to Peru at an early day. Whether or not he was still on the Island of Santo Domingo in 1539, as notary or scribe, is uncertain. He was at Cuzco in 1542 and officiated as quasi-interpreter at the investigation of Indian historical traditions ordered by Vaca de Castro. (See PERU.) Even then he had acquired a solid acquaintance with the Quichua idiom. He married an Indian girl of the Inca tribe and composed the first catechism known to us in the Quichua language. The manuscript is now in the National Archives at Lima. In 1551 he finished his book entitled “Suma y Narración de los Incas &c” (dedicating it to the viceroy Antonio de Mendoza), one of the most important sources for ancient Peruvian history. Unfortunately only a part of this work is still known to exist. It embodies the earliest accounts of Indian traditions from Bolivia and extreme southern Peru, and as they were gathered by Betanzos within less than fifteen years after the landing of Pizarro, they can hardly be much tainted by contact with Europeans. Of the life of Betanzos, after 1551, practically nothing is known.

Betanzos, Suma y Narracion de los Incas que los Indios Llamaron Capaccuna (1551, published by Jimenez de la Espada, Madrid, 1880); Espada, Tres Relaciones de Antiguedades peruanas (Madrid, 1878, Introduction); Garcia, El Origen de los Indios (Father Garcia owned the complete manuscript of Betanzos as late as 1607); Espada, Una Antigualla peruana (Madrid, 192). The report on the Incas bears the title Discurso sobre la Descendencia y Gobierno de los Ingas, and is dated 1542; Bandelier, Aboriginal Myths and Traditions concerning the Island of Titicaca (1904. Am. Anthropologist, VI, No. 2); Idem, The Cross of Carabuco (ibid., VI, No. 5); Mendiburu, Diccionario, etc. (Lima, 1876), II.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Bethany

(Bethania).

A village of Palestine, fifteen furlongs, or one mile and three-quarters, east of Jerusalem, at the base of the southwestern slope of the Mount of Olives. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament; in the New Testament it comes into prominence as the Village of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, and as the scene of the great miracle of the raising of Lazarus to life by Jesus. Here Jesus often received hospitality in the house of his friends, Mary, Martha, and Lazarus; and near this village Jesus ascended into Heaven. The most accepted etymology of the name is Beit-æAniaæ, “House of Misery.” The Talmud derives the name from Beit-Hine, or Betæuni, “House of Dates.” The modern name of the village is el-æAzariye, so called from the memory of Lazarus. The initial letter of the name Lazarus is elided in Arabic after the 10f the article.

Some believe that the present village of Bethany does not occupy the site of the ancient village; but that it grew up around the traditional cave which they suppose to have been at some distance from the house of Martha and Mary in the village; Zanecchia (La Palestine d’aujourd’hui, 1899, I, 445f.) places the site of the ancient village of Bethany higher up on the southeastern slope of the Mount of Olives, not far from the accepted site of Bethphage, and near that of the Ascension. It is quite certain that the present village formed about the traditional tomb of Lazarus, which is in a cave in the village. The identification of this cave as the tomb of Lazarus is merely possible; it has no strong intrinsic or extrinsic authority. The site of the ancient village may not precisely coincide with the present one, but there is every reason to believe that it was in this general location. St. Jerome testifies: “Bethany is a village at the second milestone from Aelia [Jerusalem], on the slope of the Mount of Olives, where the Savior raised Lazarus to life, to which event the church now built there bears witness” (Onom. ed. Lagarde 1008, 3).

In the early ages this church was called the “Lazarium” and held in great veneration. Towards the close of the fourth century St. Silvia declares that on the Saturday before Palm Sunday the clergy of Jerusalem and the people go out to the Lazarium at Bethany, so that not only the place itself but the fields round about are full of people. In memory of this ancient custom the Franciscan Fathers of the Holy Land and the pilgrims go out and worship at the tomb of Lazarus on Friday of Passion Week. There is no Catholic chapel at Bethany. The Schismatic Greeks have a monastery and chapel there. The land about Bethany is largely a desert of stone, and from the elevated ground north of the village, the eye sweeps over an undulating desert even to the valley of the Jordan. The present village is made up of about forty wretched Moslem houses; there is not a Christian in the village. The only notable ruin at Bethany is that of a tower, a few paces southeast of the tomb of Lazarus. The massive stones yet remaining in portions of the walls indicate that it is older than the Crusades; it may date from the fourth or fifth century. In 1138 Melisenda, wife of King Fulke I, of Jerusalem, founded a cloister of nuns at Bethany but the ruins of this cloister have not been identified. The sites of the house of Martha and Mary, and of that of Simon the leper are shown at Bethany; but it is evident that these localizations are purely imaginary.

Quarterly statements of the Palestine Exploration Fund; Palestine Pilgrims’ Tent Society; HEJDET in VIG., Dict. de la Bib.; GUÉRIN, Samarie; BAEDEKER-BENZIGER, Palästina und Syrien; MURRAY, Handbook, Syria and Palestine; DE HAMME, Ancient and Modern Palestine, tr. ROTTHIER (New York), IV; FAHRNGRUBER, Nach Jerusalem, II, 15f.; Survey of Western Palestina, Mem., II, 89; MOMMERT, Aenon and Bethania (Leipzig, 1903), 30–56; HAGEN, Lexicon Biblicum; BREEN, Diary of my Life in the Holy Land.

A.E. BREEN

Bethany Beyond the Jordan

(Bethania peran tou Iordanou).

In the text of St. John’s Gospel, i, 28, the author locates the event of Our Lord’s baptism by St. John the Baptist at Bethany across the Jordan and there is herein a celebrated variant. The greatest number of the ancient codices, and those of greatest authority, have Bethania, “Bethany.” This reading is approved by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, and others. The uncial codices, C2, K, T, U, A, II, many minuscule codices, the Sinaitic Syriac, and Cureton’s Syriac text have Bethabara. This reading was approved by Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, and Chrysostom. Origen, in his commentary on this place of St. John’s Gospel, declares as follows: “We are not ignorant that in nearly all codices Bethany is the reading. But we were persuaded that not Bethany, but Bethabara should be read, when we came to the places that we might observe the footprints of the Lord, of His disciples, and of the prophets. For, as the Evangelist relates, Bethany the home of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, is distant from Jerusalem fifteen furlongs, while the Jordan is distant one hundred and eighty furlongs. Neither is there a place along the Jordan which has anything in common with the name Bethany. But some say that among the mounds by the Jordan Bethabara is pointed out, where history relates that John baptized.”

Archaeological research has failed to identify either Bethany or Bethabara beyond the Jordan; the conjectures range from the ruins on the bank of the Jordan opposite Mahadet Hadschle less than two miles north of the mouth of the Jordan, even to Mahadet ‘Abara, a ford of the Jordan near Bethshean. All things considered, the most probable opinion is that there was a Bethany fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, and another across the Jordan. The name of this latter may have been a transliteration of a Hebrew phrase meaning “the place of the ship.” Bethany across the Jordan has shared the fate of many other Biblical sites which have disappeared from the earth.

The reading “Bethabara” came into the codices on the authority of Origen.

A.E. BREEN

Betharan

A city of the Amorrhites in the valley-plain east of the Jordan, about twelve miles from Jericho (Numbers 32:36; Joshua 13:27). It was rebuilt by the tribe of Gad and later fortified by Herod Antipas, who named it Livias in honor of the wife of Augustus. As she was later called Julia, Josephus speaks of the city as Julias. Having been burnt at the fall of Jerusalem, it was restored by the Christians and became a bishopric. The site is identified by some with Tell el Rameh, six miles east of the Jordan, by others with Beit Harran.

HEIDET in VIG., Dict. de la Bible; RIESS, Bibel-A11as (2nd ed., 1887); MERRILL, East of the Jordan, 383.

JOHN CORBETT

Bethdagon

Name of two cities in Palestine. (1) A city (Jos., xv, 41) of the tribe of Juda “in the plains,” that is, the territory below Joppa between the mountains and the Mediterranean. Its site is uncertain. (2) A city (Jos., xix, 27) of Aser near Zabulon, supposed to be Tell Daæouk, southeast of Akka.

For references and conjectures see HAGEN, Lex. Biblicum, s. v.

JOHN CORBETT

Bethel

(Hebrew word meaning “house of God”).

An ancient Cansanitish town, twelve miles north of Jerusalem, not far from Silo on the way to Sichem. The primitive name was Luza. Abram twice offered sacrifice east of Bethel (Gen., xii, 8; xiii, 3). In these passages the name of Bethel is used by anticipation, as it was given to the town by Jacob after his vision (Gen., xxviii, 19). When the Israelites entered the promised land, Bethel was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin, but it was taken and occupied by the Ephraimites (Judges, i, 22–26). It was a place of importance in the subsequent history. Here the Israelites in the days of the Judges were wont to consult the Lord (Judges, xx, 18, 26; xxi, 2; the phrase “in Silo” added in these texts by the Vulgate is a mistake) and the Ark of the Covenant was probably here for a time. Samuel was wont to judge in Bethel every year. After the division of the kingdoms Jeroboam desecrated the place by erecting a golden calf and introducing the Egyptian worship of Apis. This continued until Israel was led captive to Assyria (IV K., x, 29) and was frequently denounced by the prophets Osee and Amos. Shortly before his assumption, Elias visited Bethel, where there was a school of prophets (IV K., ii, 2, 3); the boys from the town mocked Eliseus on his return and were destroyed by bears (ibid., 23). One of the priests who had been carried away captive was allowed to return somewhat later and dwelt in Bethel to teach the people (IV K., xvii, 28). Great confusion of idolatrous worship sprang up, until Josias finally destroyed the altar and the high place there (IV K., xxiii, 15). After the Captivity, the Benjaminites returned to Bethel. In the time of the Macchabees, it was fortified by Bacchides. There is no mention of Bethel in the New Testament, but Josephus records that it was taken by Vespasian (Bell. Jud., IV, ix, 9). Eusebius mentions the place as a village. It is commonly identified nowadays with Beitin. The ruins of several Christian churches on the spot would indicate that in the Middle Ages it had again grown to some importance. The name “Bethel” is also read in Jos., xii, 16 and I K., xxx, 27; it is probably another name for Bethul (Jos., xix, 4), a city of the tribe of Simeon, the site of which is uncertain.

HAGER, Lexicon Biblicum, s. v.; SMITH, Hist. Geogr. of the Holy Land, 119, 250f.; 290f., 352; ZANECCHIA, La Palestine d’aujourdæhui (1890), II, 488f.; SCHENZ in Kirchenlex., s. v.

JOHN CORBETT

Bethlehem (1)

A titular see of Palestine. The early name of the city was Ephrata; afterwards Bethlehem, “House of Bread”; today Beith-Lahm, “House of Flesh.” There died Rachel, Jacob’s wife (Gen., xxxv, 19); David was born there (I Kings, xvii, 12), and many other Biblical personages. There was enacted the gracious idyll of Ruth and Booz. There, above all, the Savior was born, a descendant of David, and from this fact the humble village has acquired unparalleled glory. It was at Bethlehem, also, that in the fourth century St. Jerome, St. Paula, and St. Eustochium fixed their residence. According to John Cassian, it was in a monastery of Bethlehem that the office of Prime was instituted. As early as the second century it was indicated by St. Justin Martyr, a native of Neapolis (Nablous), as the place of the Nativity. About A.D. 330 Constantine the Great built a basilica on this site. The present church appears to date from a later time—either the fifth or the sixth century—and has been repaired at still later periods. The Frankish kings were wont to come from Jerusalem to be crowned at Bethlehem, in memory of the coronation of David by Samuel. The greater part of the church is now shared by various communions, while the choir belongs to the Greeks alone, the Grotto of the Nativity is open to the Latins, the Greeks, and the Armenians, who hold services there each in turn.

The first Bishop of Bethlehem, Arnolfo (1099–1103), was appointed by the Crusaders. The see was not canonically erected until 1109, when the title was united with that of Ascalon, till then a Greek diocese (Revue de l’Orient latin, I, 141). The Diocese of Bethlehem-Ascalon existed from 1109–1378, but since the middle of the thirteenth century its bishops resided at Clamecy in France. The Diocese of Bethlehem-Clamecy was created in 1378, and suppressed by the Concordat between Napoleon and Pius VII, in 1801. The titular Bishoprics of Bethlehem and Ascalon, however, had existed separately from 1378 to 1603, when they were suppressed. From 1801 to 1840 both residential and titular sees, either of Bethlehem or Ascalon, were extinct. In 1840, Gregory XVI reunited the title of Bethlehem in perpetuum to the independent Abbey of St. Maurice d’Agaune in Switzerland. In 1867 the titular See of Ascalon was also re-established.

Bethlehem is today a little town with about 10,000 inhabitants, exclusive of foreigners (5,000 Latins, 100 Catholic, or Melchite, Greeks, 4,000 Greeks, a few Armenians and Mussulmans). The inhabitants are very active and industrious. Besides agriculture, they are engaged in the fabrication of wooden, mother-of-pearl, and bituminous limestone objects, such as beads, crosses, etc. The women are remarkably beautiful and wear a peculiar costume which is very rich and of ancient pattern The Franciscans govern the Latin parish, a scholasticate, a primary school, and an asylum; the Christian Brothers have a novitiate for native young men; the Fathers of the Sacred Heart, or Betharramites, have a scholasticate for their missions in South America; the Salesians conduct an industrial school with an orphanage and an elementary school; the Sisters of St. Joseph of the Apparition have two convents, a school, an orphanage, and an infant school; the Sisters of Charity have a hospital and an orphanage; the Carmelite nuns, a monastery. The Greek Catholic parish lately established has not yet a church. There are also Greek and Armenian monasteries, and schools conducted by Greeks, Armenians, and Protestants.

LEQUIEN, Or. Christ., III, 1275–1386; GAMS 516; EUBEL, I 138; II, 118; RIANT, Etudes sur l’histoire de 1’évéché de Bethléem (Genoa, 1888), completed by pagers in Revue de l’Orient latin, I, 140–160, 381–412, 475–524; II, 35–72, with an exhaustive bibliography; MAS-LATRIE, Trésor de chronologie (Paris, 1889), col. 1391–94; GUÉRIN, Judée, I, 120–207; CONDER, Tentwork in Palestine, I, 282.

S. VAILHÉ.

Bethlehem (2)

The old Hebrew name bêth lehem, meaning “house of bread,” has survived till the present day. In its Arabic form, however, bêt lahm, it means “house of meat.” Several scholars (Smith, Hist. Geog. of the Holy Land, 1906, 318. n. 2) hold that the name is connected with Lakhmu, one of the divinities in the Babylonian Creation myth and that Bethlehem was a sacred shrine of that god in ancient times. This is possible, but there is no actual evidence in favor of the conjecture. Two cities of the name are known from Sacred Scripture: Bethlehem and Bethlehem of Judea.

BETHLEHEM

Bethlehem is mentioned in Jos., xix, 15, as one of the twelve cities belonging to the tribe of Zabulon. It is but a small town, poorly built, and of no great importance (Buhl, Geog. des alten Palästina, 1896, 215), a little less than seven miles southwest of Sapphoris (Saffurieh) and seven miles northwest of Nazareth, the home of Our Lord. Critics do not agree among themselves whether the Bethlehem described in Judges, xii, 8, 10, as the home of Abesan (Ibzan), one of the minor judges, is the same as that of Jos., xix, 15, or Bethlehem of Juda. A large number if not the majority of modern commentators are in favor of Bethlehem of Zabulon. But ancient tradition (Josephus, Antiq., V, vii, 13; cf. also Moore, Judges, Int. Crit. Com.) made Abesan spring from Bethlehem of Juda and the view is ably defended by Father Lagrange in his commentary (Smith, op cit.; Hogg, Encyc. Bib., IV, 5389). In any case the importance of that city was never great. But the efforts of some modern critics have made it more famous. Unable to accept as historical the narratives of Our Lord’s birth in Bethlehem of Juda, these scholars would place the Nativity in Bethlehem of Zabulon, referred to in the Talmud (Megilla, 70, a) as Bethlehem seriyyah, which is regarded as equivalent to noseryyah, i.e. Bethlehem of Nazareth (of Galilee), a certainly remarkable combination of two names so well known from the Gospels (Réville, Jésus de Nazareth, 2nd ed., Paris, 1906, I, 360).

BETHLEHEM OF JUDEA

“Bethlehem of Judea” [so the Greek text of Matt., ii, 1, erroneously corrected by St. Jerome to Bethlehem of Juda, thinking that the Evangelist had in his original text conformed to the Old Testament usage (Judges, xvii, 7, xix, 1; I Kings (Sam.), xvii, 12)], is much more celebrated than its northern namesake as the birthplace of David, and above all, of Our Lord. The city, which numbers now [1907] about 10,000 inhabitants, almost exclusively Christians, is situated five miles south of Jerusalem at a very short distance from the highroad from Jerusalem to Hebron, in the midst of a most beautiful country (Buhl, op. cit., 19), which contrasts favorably with the neighborhood of Jerusalem. At an altitude of 2,350 feet it spreads out between Wadi el Hrobbe in the North and the Wadi er-Rahib in the south; the land of Moab is visible in the southeast, a detail to be remembered in reading the beautiful story of Ruth the Moabitess, the scene of which is Bethlehem (Smith, op. cit.). The main resources of Bethlehem are agriculture and the sale of religious articles; the city is also the market place of the peasants and Bedouins of the neighborhood.

According to Gen., xxxv, 16, 19; xlviii, 7, Bethlehem was associated with the patriarchal history. The sepulchre of Rachel, or Qubbet Ràhil (Rachel’s dome) as it is called now, about one mile north of Bethlehem, still shown to the pilgrim and venerated by Christians, Mohammedans, and Jews, is referred to again in I Kings (Sam.), x, 2, and Matt., ii, 16–18; cf. Jer., xxxi, 15. As an examination of these passages shows, the tradition presents some obscurities, and critics question the correctness of the gloss (Gen., xxxv, 19) which identifies Ephrata with Bethlehem, supposing it the result of a confusion between Bethlehem-Ephrata [Ruth, iv, 11; Mich., v, 2 (1)], i. e. our Bethlehem, and another Ephrata in the north, otherwise unknown, or assume two different traditions regarding Rachel’s sepulchre. (Cf. commentaries: Driver in Hast., “Dict. of the Bible,” IV, 193, a; Buhl, op. cit., 156, 159; Bädeker-Benzinger, “Palästina und Syrien,” 1904, 91.) Bethlehem is mentioned also in Judges as the home of the young Levite who went to Michas (xvii, 7f.) and of the young woman (xix, 1f.) whose death caused the expedition against the tribe of Benjamin. In the Old Testament, however, it is connected especially with the great King David (I Kings, xvi, 1 and passim), whose name is given to the three cisterns (Bi’ Da’ud), found northwest of the town, not far from the tomb of Rachel. A tradition not older than the end of the fifteenth century, according to Bädeker-Benzinger (p. 91), sees therein the cistern referred to in II Kings, xxiii, 14f. and I Par. (Chron.), xi, 16f. Later the city was fortified by Roboam (II Par., xi, 6), and I Esd. (Ezrah), ii, 21f. [cf. II Esd. (Nehem.), vii, 26] informs us of the return of 123 Bethlehemites from the Captivity.

In the New Testament, we have, with the exception of John, vii, 42, references to Bethlehem only in Matt., ii, and Luke, ii, whose narratives of the birth of the Savior in the city of David have rendered it most dear to Christians. Many modern critics, however, are making Bethlehem again “little among the thousands of Judah” (Schmidt, The Prophet of Nazareth, 1905, 246) by attacking the historical value of the Gospel narratives. Some place Our Lord’s birth at Nazareth, called His patrisin the Gospels (Mark, vi,1, and parall.; cf. i,9; i,24, etc.); this is done by almost all those who deny the historicity of the Infancy, endeavoring to explain our narratives as a legend arisen from the Jewish tradition that the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, occasioned by Micheas, v, 2 (1). (Cf. Targum; also John, vii, 42; Strauss, Life of Christ, tr. Eliot, from the 4th Germ. edit., 1840, sect. 32, end, sect. 39; Usener in “Encyc. Bib.,” III 3346–47; Schmidt, op. cit., 243, 246; Weiss in “Die Schriften des N. T.,” Göttingen, 1906, I, 1, pp. 46, 221–223, 393–395.) Others more seldom give the explanation already mentioned.

This question, which is part of the larger problems connected with cc. I-ii of Matt. and Luke, cannot be discussed here. [See besides the lives of Jesus and commentaries; Ramsay, “Was Christ born at Bethlehem?,” 1898.] Suffice it to remark here that if the second explanation removes some difficulties, it requires us to go entirely behind the narratives of both Matthew and Luke, who most clearly mean only Bethlehem of Juda (see Knowling “Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels,” New York, 1906, I, 204). Against the first explanation it may be noted with many critics that Matthew and Luke agree independently in placing the birth at Bethlehem without, in St. Luke’s case, any sign of influence of Micheas’ prophecy (Knowling, op. cit.; Nichol, “Dictionary of Christ,” I, 195, a; Jacquier “Hist. des livres du N. T.,” Paris, 1905, II, 209). We must not, however, exaggerate the value of that argument. (Cf. Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, Jan.-Feb., 1906, 62f.) These difficulties were unknown to the ancient writers, who reproduce simply the Gospel narratives with additions, in some cases possibly historical. About 150 we find St. Justin Martyr referring (Dial., lxxviii) to the Savior’s birth as having taken place in a cave near the village of Bethlehem; such cave stables are not rare in Palestine. (Cf. Massie in Hast., Dict. of the Bible, III, 234; Expository Times, May, 1903, 384; Bonaccorsi, “Il Natale,” Rome, 1903, 16–20.) The tradition of the birth in a cave was widely accepted, as we see from Origen’s words about a century later: “In Bethlehem the cave is pointed out where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling clothes, and the rumor is in those places and among foreigners of the Faith that indeed Jesus was born in this cave.” (Contra Celsum, I, li.) It is reproduced also in the apocryphal gospels (Pseudo-Matt., xiii, ap. Bonaccorsi, op. cit., 159–163; Protevang. of James, xvii sqq., Bonaccorsi, 155–159; Gospel of the Infancy, II-IV, Bonaccorsi, 163–164). Over the traditional spot of the Nativity stands a church (St. Mary of the Nativity), surrounded on the northwest and southwest by the convents of the Latins (Franciscans), Greeks, and Armenians, respectively. The building is, apart from additions and modifications made by Justinian (527–565), substantially the work of Constantine (about 330). Underneath that most ancient and venerable monument of Christianity, a favorite resort of pilgrims throughout the centuries, is the grotto of the Nativity. The Nativity chapel, running in the same general direction as the church (east to west), is situated under the choir; at the eastern end is a silver star with the inscription: Hic de Virgine Maria Jesus Christus natus est and near the chapel of the Crib (see Bonaccorsi, op. cit., 77–113). Other grottoes to the north and north-west connected with that of the Nativity are associated, mostly by recent traditions (c. fifteenth century), with the narratives of Matt., ii, mainly, and with the memory of the great scholar St. Jerome and his company of pious and learned friends (Sanders, Etudes sur S. Jérome, Paris, 1903, 29f.).

EDWARD ARBEZ

Bethlehem (as used in architecture)

An architectural term used in the Ethiopic Church for the oven or bakehouse for baking the Korban or Eucharistic bread. It is a usual attachment to Coptic churches and is generally situated somewhere within the enclosure of the church. It is shown in the plan of Mari Mina and the adjoining church of Mari Banai. The four walls of Dair Abu Makar enclose one principal and one or two smaller court-yards around which stand the cells of the monks, domestic buildings, such as the milkroom, the oven (Bethlehem), the refectory and the like.

BUTLER, The Ardent Coped Churches of Egypt, I, 48.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Bethlehemites

I. MILITARY ORDERS

There were two military orders dedicated to Our Lady of Bethlehem and known under the name of Bethlehemites. Mathew Paris calls attention to the former in his “Grande Chronique” (tr. Huillard-Bréholles, Paris, 1840, 8vo, III, 300) where he mentions that Henry III of England authorized them to open a house in a suburb of Cambridge (1257); but he leaves us in complete ignorance as to their founder, where they originated, and their history. We only know that their habit was similar to that of the Dominicans and that a red star, whose five rays emanated from an azure centre, decorated the breast of their cape. This was in commemoration of the star that appeared to the Magi and led them to Bethlehem. Nothing further is known of this military order. There was an order of knights whose members wore a red star on their costume and who might have been called Bethlehemites because of having a house in Bethlehem at the time of the Crusades; this was the Military Order of Crusaders of the Red Star (Ordo militaris crucigerorum cum rubeâ stellâ). They came from Palestine to Bohemia in 1217, and Blessed Agnes of Bohemia confided two hospitals to their charge. They have since remained in that country where they devote themselves to the care of the sick, to education, and to the various works of the ecclesiastical ministry.

After the taking of Constantinople by the Turks (1453), Pius II founded under the patronage of Our Lady of Bethlehem an order of knights for the defence of the Island of Lemnos which Cardinal Louis, Patriarch of Aquileia, had recaptured from Mohammed II. The island was to be their headquarters whence they were to oppose the attacks of the Moslems by way of the Ægean Sea and the Hellespont. The order was composed of brother-knights and priests governed by an elective grand-master. The white costume worn by the members was decorated with a red cross and the rule prescribed for them was very similar to that of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. The pope installed this community 18 January, 1459, and, that their needs might be supplied, turned over to them the property and revenues of the orders of St. Lazarus, of Sainte-Marie du Ch teau des Bretons, of Bologna, of the Holy Sepulchre, of Santo Spirito in Sassia, of St. Mary of the Crossed Friars, and of St. James of Lucca, all of which were suppressed for this purpose. Pius II alluded in a Bull to this foundation and the bravery of its knights, but the second capture of Lemnos by the Turks rendered the institution useless. Thus the order of Our Lady of Bethlehem was suppressed almost as soon as founded and those orders whose goods the pope had transmitted to it were re-established.

HOSPITALERS

The hospitaler Bethlehemites, or Belemites, were founded by the Ven. Pedro de Betancourt. A descendant of the celebrated Juan de Betancourt, who, early in the fifteenth century, achieved the conquest of the Canary Islands for Henry III of Spain, Pedro was born at Villaflora on the Island of Teneriffe in 1619. From childhood he led a pious, austere life and in 1650 left family and country, thus carrying out his desire of going to the West Indies. During the following year he reached Guatemala, the capital of New Spain, where he intended to prepare for the priesthood that later he might go forth and evangelize Japan. However, three years of unsuccessful study at a Jesuit college led him to abandon this idea and, after holding the position of sacristan for a while in a church dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, he rented a house in a suburb of the city called Calvary, and there taught reading and catechism to poor children. But this charitable work did not furnish sufficient outlet for his zeal. The condition of the sick poor excited his compassion and he sheltered them in his home which he converted into a hospital. His zeal elicited benefactions from those around him and the bishop and governor supplied him with all the conveniences he required. Several individuals provided for the purchase of the houses surrounding the one he then occupied and on their site was erected a hospital in which this servant of God could labour to better advantage. He himself worked with the masons. The hospital was thoroughly equipped and stocked and even offered an opportunity for the religious installment of those who tended the sick. The institution was placed under the patronage of Our Lady of Bethlehem. Helpers soon joined Pedro de Betancourt and at length was formed a congregation of brothers generally known as Bethlehemites and so called on account of their house. But the care of the sick did not totally absorb their attention; they likewise lent their assistance in the two other hospitals of the city and Pedro continued to befriend poor children. The prisoners also excited his compassion. Every Thursday he begged for them through the city and visited them in their cells. The neglected souls in purgatory were also the objects of his solicitude and at the principal gates of the city he founded two hermitages, or chapels, wherein religious of his community begged, so that masses might be celebrated for the souls of the deceased. He himself would travel the streets at night ringing a bell and recommending these souls to be prayed for. His devotion to the Blessed Virgin was inspiring and during a novena of preparation for the feast of the Purification his religious, with arms extended in the form of a cross, recited the rosary in their chapel at midnight in the midst of a great throng. In 1654 he made a vow to defend the Immaculate Conception even at the peril of his life. He died, exhausted by labour and penance, 25 April, 1667, at the age of forty-eight. His funeral was impressive and at the request of the Capuchin Fathers he was buried in their church where, for a long time, his remains were held in veneration.

Before establishing his Guatemala hospital Pedro de Betancourt had become affiliated with the Third Order of St. Francis, adopting its religious garb which he still retained after founding his congregation. He personally trained his first disciples and had no wish to organize a community, but simply to establish his hospital. He sent Brother Anthony of the Cross to Spain to solicit the king’s approbation of the work. The favour was granted, but Pedro died before the messenger’s return. From that time the community prospered, beginning with the extension of the hospital and the erection of a beautiful church. Brother Anthony, who assumed the government, drew up constitutions which he submitted to the bishop of the diocese for approval and it was at this juncture that the Capuchins requested him to make some alterations in the habit worn by his religious. A free school for poor children was already connected with the Bethlehem hospital, a feature of all new foundations. One of these was soon undertaken by Brother Anthony of the Cross who sent two of his community to Peru where they were very favourably received by the viceroy to whom he had recommended them. Doctor Antoine d’Arvila gave them the Hospital of Notre Dame du Carmel which he was then establishing at Lima and afterwards solicited admission among them. In 1672 Brother Roderick of the Cross obtained the confirmation of this establishment by the King of Spain and it was also through his efforts that Pope Clement X confirmed the congregation and its constitutions (1673). After his return to America this religious founded the Hospital of St. Francis Xavier in Mexico and those of Chachapoyas, Cajamarca, and Trujillo, going back to Spain in 1681 to secure the confirmation of these new institutions. The Council of the Indies assigned the hospital of Lima an income of 3,000 crowns. The Bethlehemites, because of making only simple vows, remained under diocesan jurisdiction from which they wished, however, to be freed so that their congregation might be converted into a regular religious order bound by solemn vows. The Spanish court did not approve this plan and at first the Holy See was not favourable to it, but due chiefly to the influence of Cardinal Mellini, former nuncio at Madrid, Roderick of the Cross at length overcame all difficulties and in the Bull of 26 March, 1687, Innocent XI authorized these religious to make the three solemn vows according to the rule of St. Augustine and to have a superior-general, and granted them all the privileges of the Augustinian friars and convents. Later, Clement XI renewed this authorization and these favours, adding thereunto the privileges of the mendicant orders, of the Regular Clerks, of the Ministers of the Sick, and of the Hospitallers of Charity of St. Hippolytus (1707).

Meanwhile the order was multiplying its foundations in Latin America and was established in Arequipa, Cuzco, Santiago de Cuba, Puebla, Guadalajara, Guanajuato, Dajaka, Vera Cruz, Havana, Santiago de Chile, Buenos Ayres, and Guatemala la Nueva. A school for poor children was connected with every hospital and the pious, devoted lives of these religious won them esteem and gratitude. They were especially admired during the plague of 1736, a fact unanimously acknowledged by the writers who describe the condition of Latin America in the eighteenth century. But this did not prevent their suppression, as well as that of all other religious, in 1820. At that time their superior-general resided in Mexico and the Bethlehemites were scattered throughout two provinces, that of Peru including twenty-two houses and that of New-Spain, eleven. To the ordinary religious vows they added that of caring for the sick even at the risk of their own lives. In 1688 Brother Anthony of the Cross, with the help of a pious woman, Marie Anne del Gualdo, founded at Guatemala a community of Bethlehemite nuns and a hospital exclusively for women. These nuns were cloistered and observed the same rule as the men and they, too, were suppressed in 1820.

H LYOT, Histoire des ordres monastiques, III, 355–356; VIII, 371–372; BARONIUS, Annales ecclesiastici (Lucca, 1753), XXIX, 179–180; HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen, I, 497–498; DE MONTALVO, Vida del venerable Pedro de San Jos Betancourt (Rome, 1718); EYZAGUIRRE, Los intereses cat licos en Am rica (Paris, 1859), II, 304–306, 408–410.

J.M. BESSE

Bethsaida

Bethsaida is:

a city, or perhaps two cities, on the shore of the Lake of Genesareth, the frequent scene of Christ’s preaching and miracles (Matt., xi, 21; Luke, x, 13).

in the Vulgate, a pool in Jerusalem, also called Bethesda (John, v, 2).

a titular see.

I. THE CITY

(Gr. Bethsaidaa; from the Aramaic meaning “house, or place, of fishing”). The old writers, up to the sixteenth century, knew of but one Bethsaida, though they do not seem to have always indicated the same site. Since then it has been a much debated question whether there were not two places of this name: one east of the Jordan; the other west, near Capharnaum. A Bethsaida, which the Tetrarch Philip enlarged into a city and named Julias, after the daughter of Augustus, existed east of the river, near where it enters the lake (Josephus, Ant., XVIII, ii, 1; Bell. Jud., II, ix, 1; III, x, 7; Vita, 72). Near this Bethsaida took place the feeding of the five thousand (Luke, ix, 10) and the healing of the blind man (Mark, viii, 22). Whether another is to be admitted, depends on two questions on which the controversy mainly turns: whether Julias, though belonging politically to Gaulonitis, was comprised within the limits of Galilee (John, xii, 21) and whether, in Mark, vi, 45, and John, vi, 17, a direct crossing from the eastern to the western shore is intended. The negative view seems to be gaining ground. In the supposition: of two Bethsaidas, the western would be the home of Peter, Andrew, and Philip (John, i, 44; xii, 21), and the Bethsaida of Matt., xi, 21 and Luke, x, 13. Julias is identified by many with et-Tell; but, as this is somewhat too far up the river to answer Josephus’s description, others prefer El-Araj, close to the shore, or Mesæadîyeh farther east. The partisans of a western Bethsaida are much divided on its site æAinet-Tâbigha and Khân Minyeh are most favored.

II. THE POOL

[Gr. Bethsaida, Bethesda, Bethzatha.) Bethesda is supported by most Greek manuscripts, still Bethzatha may be the true reading and Bethesda a corruption, as Bethsaida most probably is Bethesda, probably meaning “House of Mercy.” The etymology of Bethzatha is uncertain. This pool had five porches in which the sick lay “waiting for the moving of the waters” (John, v, 3) and most likely steps led down to it. Here the Savior cured a man “that had been eight and thirty years under his infirmity.” The Vulgate and most of the Fathers call it a “sheep pool” (probatike, probatica), but the Greek text of John, v, 2, is commonly understood to mean that it was situated near the sheep gate. This would place it north of the temple area. The early writers speak of it as a double pool, the fifth portico running between the two basins, but give no details as to its location. From the sixth to the thirteenth century, it is mentioned as being near the present church of St. Anne. Just west of this church an old double pool was discovered some years ago, which is, there is little doubt, the pool spoken of by medieval writers, and probably the old pool of Bethesda. Since the fourteenth century Birket Isrâæîn, northeast of the temple area, is pointed out as Bethesda. Others prefer the Fountain of the Virgin (æAin Sitti Mariam, or æAin Umm ed-Derej) because of its intermittent flow; or the pool of Siloe, which, being fed by the preceding, shares its intermittence. Lastly, some advocate Hammâm esh-Shifâ (Bath of Health), west of the temple area, because of its name.

THE TITULAR SEE

It is uncertain at what period Bethsaida, the former of the two cities (Julias) mentioned under I, became a titular see depending on Scythopolis. There was in the region of Nineveh another Bethsaida, with a Jacobite titular bishop in 1278.

I. In favor of the hypothesis of two cities of the same name, ROBINSON Bibl. Researches (London, 1856), II, 405; III, 358; RELAND Palätina (Utrecht, 1714), 653, 869; GUÉRIN, Galilee (Paris, 1880), I, 329; EWING in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible; VAN KASTEREN in Rev. Bibl., III, 65f. In favor of one, SMITH, Histor. Geogr. of the Holy Land, 457f. MARTA in Rev. Bibl., III, 445; BUHL, Geogr. d. alt. Paläst. (Freiburg im Br. 1896), 241f.; FURRER in Zeitschr d Deutsch. Pal. Ver., II, 66. See also: SCHÜRER, Jewish People (tr. New York, 1891), I, ii, 14; II, i, 135; HEIDET in VIG., Dict. do la Bible, I, 1713f.,

II.—Survey of Western Palest., Jerusalerm, 115f.; Palest. Explor. Fund, Quart. Stat., 1888, 115f.; ROBINS0N, Bibl. Re searches (London, 1856), I, 330f.; GUÉRIN, Jérusalem (Paris 1889). 282f.; LIÉVIN DE HAMME, Terre Sainte (1897), I, 338–340; TOBLER, Denkblätter aus Jerus., 53–69; SCHICK in Zeitschr. d. Deutsch. Pal. Ver., XI, 178–183; HEIDET in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, 1723f. III.—LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ., II, 1577.

F. BECHTEL

Bethsan

(Heb. Beth Shean, or Beth Shan, “place of rest”). A city within Issachar, but assigned to Manasses (Jos., xvii, 11; I Par., vii, 29); later Scythopolis, now the village Beisan, three miles west of the Jordan. Because of its strength the Israelites could not take it at the time of the conquest (Jos., xvii, 16; Judges, i, 27), and when the Philistines hung up the bodies of Saul and his three sons on its walls after the battle of Gelboe (II Kings, xxi, 12), it was probably still in the hands of the Chanaanites. Under Solomon it was the center of an administrative district (III Kings, iv, 12). About the beginning of the third century B. C. it was named Scythopolis, probably because Scythians had settled there. After paying tribute to the Ptolemies it passed under Syrian rule in 198 B. C., and in 107 fell into the hands of John Hyrcanus. Pompey took it from the Jews, and thenceforth it was a free city and one of the chief towns of Decapolis. In Christian times it became an episcopal and later a metropolitan see.

ROBINSON, Bibl. Researches (London, 1856), III, 326–332; Survey of Western Palest., Mem. II, 101–114; SCHÜRER, Jewish People (tr. New York, 1891), II, i, 110–113, RELAND, Palästina (Utrecht, 1714), 992, 998; GUËRIN, Samarie (Paris, 1874, 1875), I, 284–299.

F. BECHTEL

Bethulia

(Gr. Betuloua).

The city whose deliverance by Judith, when besieged by Holofernes, forms the subject of the Book of Judith. The view that Bethulia is merely a symbolic name for Jerusalem or a fictitious town, has met with little favor, even among those who deny the historical character of the book. Bethulia is clearly distinguished from Jerusalem (iv, 6; xi, 14, 19; xv, 5, 8; the references throughout the article being to the fuller Greek text), and the topographical details leave no doubt that the story, even if it be only a pious romance, is connected with a definite place. Its site, however, is in dispute. Beside Sânûr, Mithilîyeh, or Misilîyeh, Tell Kheibar and Beit-Ilfa, which have divided opinion for some time, Haraiq el-Mallah, Khirbet Sheikh Shibel, el-Bârid and Sichem (Bethulia being considered a pseudonym) have recently been proposed as sites of Bethulia.

The city was situated on a mountain overlooking the plain of Jezrael, or Esdrelon, and commanding narrow; passes to the south (iv, 6, 7; vi, 11–13); at the foot of the mountain there was an important spring, and other springs were in the neighborhood (vi, 11, vii, 3, 7, 12). Moreover it lay within investing lines which ran through Dothain, or Dothan, now Tell Dothân, to Belthem, or Belma, no doubt the same as the Belamon of viii, 3, and thence to Kyamon, or Chelmon, “which lies over against Esdrelon” (vii, 3). These data point to a site on the heights west of Jenîn (Engannim), between the plains of Esdrelon and Dothan, where Haraiq, Kh. Sheikh Shibel, and el-Bârid lie close together. Such a site best fulfils all requirements. It lies between lines drawn from Tell Dothân to Belæema, probably Belma, or Belamon, and from the latter to el-Yâmûn, probably Kyamon; there are a number of springs and wells in the neighborhood, and near by are the two passes of Kefr Adân and Burqîn, so narrow in places that two horsemen cannot ride abreast. One of the three above-named places is in all probability the site of ancient Bethulia. The other sites are all deficient in some essential requirement.

Survey of Western Palest. Mem. II, 156; ROBINSON, Bibl. Researches (London, 1856), III, 337f.; TORREY in Journ. Am. Or. Soc., XX, 160f.; GUÉRIN, Samarie (Paris, 1874 1875), I, 344–350; RAUMER, Paläst. (4th ed., Leipzig, 1860) 151; RITTER, Erdkunde (Berlin 1848–52), XV, 423f.; SCHULTZ in Zeitschr. d. deutsch. morgenl. Gesch., III, 48; HEIDET in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, I, 1751f.; MARTA, Intorno al vero sito di Betulia (Florence, 1887); BRUNENGO in Civiltà Catt., ser. 13, IX, 527; ZANECCHIA, La Palest. d’aujourd., II, 581.

F. BECHTEL

Betrothal

(Lat. sponsalia).

The giving of one’s troth—that is, one’s true faith or promise. Betrothal, in the Catholic Church, is a deliberate and free, mutual, true promise, externally expressed, of future marriage between determinate and fit persons. It is a promise, compact, or agreement—not merely an intention; and, like all contracts, it must be entered into with deliberation proportionate to the obligation which it begets; it must be free from force, substantial error, and grave fear. The promise given must be mutual; a promise on the part of one only, with acceptance by the other, does not constitute a betrothal. The consent, of course, as in all contracts, must be true, or sincere, not feigned; it must be given with the intention of binding oneself, and this intention must be expressed verbally, by writing, or by action, in person or by proxy. Lastly, this contract, like matrimony, can exist only between two definite persons whose capacity is recognized by the Church; that is, between whom there is no matrimonial impediment, either as regards the licitness or validity of the contract. The betrothal is a promise of future marriage, and hence it differs from the marriage contract itself, which deals with that state as in the present.

FORMALITIES

Formal betrothal is not customary in the United States, or in English-speaking countries generally, as it is among certain nations, where the ceremony is sometimes solemn (before ecclesiastical witnesses) and sometimes private (made at home before the family or friends as witnesses). Among English-speaking peoples the betrothal, if it occurs, is generally without the presence of a third party. In Spain (S. C. C., 31 January, 1880; 11 April, 1891) and in Latin America (Acta et Decreta Conc. Pl. Amer. Lat., p. 259, in note 1) a betrothal compact is considered invalid by the Church unless written documents pass between the contracting parties. This practice obtains in other countries also, but its observance is not necessary to validate the agreement.

EFFECTS

A valid betrothal begets chiefly two effects. There arises first an obligation in justice, binding the contracting parties to keep their agreement; viz. to marry at the time specified; or, when the date of marriage is not agreed upon, whenever the second party to the compact reasonably demands the fulfillment of the marriage-promise. Marriage, consequently, with a third party is forbidden, though not invalid. There arises, secondly, owing to an ecclesiastical law, a diriment impediment, known as “public decency,” extending to relatives in the first degree of the parties betrothed. Hence, a marriage contracted between the male party to a betrothal and the mother, sister, or daughter of the other party; and, vice versa, between the woman and the father, brother, or son of the man, would be null and void. This impediment continues to exist in all its force, even after the betrothal has been legitimately dissolved. The first of these effects, an obligation of justice, may arise, it will be seen, from a betrothal compact which has not all the essentials of the definition given above; not so, however, of the second effect. It is sometimes stated that a betrothal does not bind in English-speaking countries. This is inexact, to say the least. There is no exception at any time, or in any country, to the binding force arising from a valid betrothal, even though it be not public (S. C. S. Off., 11 Aug., 1852), or to the impediment begotten thereby. Engagements very frequently, though not always, are rather proposals of matrimony than promises as explained above, and in them an essential element of the betrothal is wanting (Sabetti, Theol. Mor., n. 838, qu. 30; Kenrick, Theol. Mor., nos. 23, 37).

DISSOLUTION

A betrothal may be dissolved: (1) By the mutual and free consent of the contracting parties. (2) By a diriment impediment, which subsequently arises between said parties. In this case the innocent party is released form his or her obligation, but not the one through whose fault the impediment arose. The latter may be held to the contract, if the impediment be such that the Church can dispense from it. (3) By a valid marriage entered into with a third person. (4) By protracted delay on the part of either of the contracting parties in fulfilling the agreement to marry, in which case the innocent party is released from obligation. (5) By one of the contracting parties choosing a higher state of perfection, as for example by solemn profession in a religious order, by the reception of major orders, etc. (6) By any notable change in body or soul or worldly state of one of the parties—any grave circumstance which if it had happened or been known before the betrothal would have prevented it. To these may be added the impossibility of contracting matrimony, and a dispensation granted by the pope for just causes.

PROCEDURES FOR BREACH OF PROMISE

In case of refusal to complete the contract by marriage an action before the diocesan court is permissible. Bishops, however, are counseled not ordinarily to enforce marriage in such cases, as generally it would prove unhappy. In English-speaking countries these matters are, as a rule, taken into the civil courts, where the only remedy is a breach-of-promise suit, the penalty being a fine. In the United States, before the civil law, betrothal has only the moral force of a mutual promise. Betrothal in England was once a legal bar to matrimony with another; at present the only legal remedy for the violation of the betrothal is an action for breach of promise.

HISTORY

Jewish and Roman laws and customs must have influenced the early practice of the Church anent betrothal. The Jewish laws of marriage, and consequently of betrothal, were based in a great measure on the supposition that it was a purchase. In the law of Moses there are certain provisions respecting the state of the virgin who is betrothed, but nothing particularly referring to the act of betrothal. Selden’s “Uxor Hebraica” gives the schedule of later Hebrew contracts of betrothal. Where the contract was in writing, it was written out by the man before witnesses and delivered to the woman, who must know its import. Rome, on the other hand, at the beginning of the Christian Era, had ceased to consider marriage as a wife-purchase. Marriage, and still more betrothal, was a purely civil compact, verbally concluded. Under later Roman law, which constituted a basis for our ecclesiastical legislation, betrothal was looked upon simply as a contract of future marriage, stronger indeed than the engagement, since to enter into a second betrothal compact was held to be as infamous as bigamy itself. No legal forms were prescribed for the early Roman betrothal, but the compact was generally accompanied by the man’s sending to the woman the iron betrothal ring (annulus pronubus). As the Empire grew in importance, so did the betrothal contract, while at the same time its obligations were more frequently disregarded. Hence the practice of giving earnest-money, or pledges of fidelity (arrhoe), came into prominence; another step led to gifts being bestowed by the parties, one upon the other. The kiss, the joining of hands, and the attestation of witnesses were other elements introduced. Even in England formal engagements of this kind were common down to the time of the Reformation. As barbarian influence, however, began to affect the Empire, the betrothal took on more the semblance of wife-purchase.

The Church, at the beginning of the third century at the latest, recognized betrothal as a perfectly valid and lawful contract. In the fourth century, in Africa at least, according to the testimony of St. Augustine (Sermo viii, 18; Sermo xxxvii, 7; Sermo cccxxxii, 4, etc.), espousals were contracted in writing, the instrument (tabulae), signed by the bishop, being publicly read. At the same time the dowry, if any, was given, or nuptial gifts were exchanged. Pope Benedict I (573–577), writing to the Patriarch of Gran, declares that it is connubial intercourse that makes two one, that mere betrothal would not prevent a man from entering into wedlock with the sister of his betrothed. The question of relationship, then, arising from the betrothal contract was mooted even at that early period. Gregory the Great (590–603) allowed a woman who was betrothed to dissolve her engagement in order to enter a convent (Bk. VI, Ep. xx).

At the end of the ninth century betrothal had become a very frequent subject of Church legislation. From a reply of Pope Nicholas to the Bulgarians in 860 (Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum, c. iii) it is apparent that the preliminaries leading up to a marriage in the Church were: (1) The betrothal or espousal; the expression of consent by the contracting parties, and the consent also of their parents, or guardians, to the projected marriage. (2) The subarrhatio, or delivery of the ring by the man to the woman by way of an earnest, or pledge. (3) The documentary transfer, by the man to the woman, of the dowry, in the presence of witnesses. The marriage was to follow immediately, or after an interval more or less protracted. These rites are still recognized in modern uses. The ceremony of betrothal is found in a measure in the present nuptial service. There is a declaration of consent, which, since the marriage follows immediately after, is de praesenti. The placing of the ring on the finger of the bride by the bridegroom constitutes the subarrhatio, while in many places transferring of the dowry is represented by a medal or coin—a relic of Salic law and of wife-purchase. (See Martene, De Antiq. Ecc. Ritibus, I, ix, a. 3, n. 4, speaking of a ritual of the Church of Reims.)

Consult recognized authorities in canon law or moral theology for present discipline. Magani, L’Antica Liturgia Rom. (Milan, 1897), 360 sqq.; Duchesne, Christian Worship (tr. 1904), XIV; Ludlow in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. v. ANDREW B. MEEHAN

Prefecture Apostolic of Bettiah

Prefecture Apostolic in northern India, includes as part of its jurisdiction the entire native state of Nepal, which has an area of more than 59,000 square miles and a population of nearly 3,000,000. The prefecture is bounded on the north by Tibet; on the east, by the Ghagra; on the south, by the Ganges; and on the west, approximately, by the Kusi.

In 1738 Father Joseph of Carignano, a Capuchin, on his way to the missions of Nepal and Tibet, arrived at Bettiah, not far from the southern boundary of the former kingdom. The Queen of Bettiah, being grievously sick, was cured by him; in return, she allowed him to preach the Gospel. The Nepal war of 1769 obliged the Christians to retire southwards to the neighbourhood of Bettiah. In 1883 Father Alexander of Albano opened an orphanage at Chaknee; but, as the number of Italian missionaries was falling off, this district, then a portion of the Allahabad mission, was turned over (29 October 1889) to the Capuchins of the Province of Northern Tyrol. By a decree of 20 April, 1892, this country was made an independent prefecture, suffragan to the See of Agra; the districts of Bettiah, Champaru, Sarun, Tiroot, Muzuffarpore, Dharbanga, and part of those of Bhagalpur and Monghyr were assigned to it. Propaganda added, 19 May 1893, the whole of Nepal, a territory wider than the whole of the original prefecture, and which extends to the borders of Tibet. Nepal thus became separated form the Diocese of Allahabad; it can scarcely be said, however, to have ever been evangelized, seeing that within its 59,000 square miles Rampur is the only station.

Generally speaking, missionary activity in this prefecture has been concentrated in the Bettiah district. According to the latest statistics of the Capuchin missions, the prefecture numbers 13,000,000 inhabitants, of whom only 3,633 are Catholics. Nearly all the Europeans (220) are Anglicans. In 1889 the mission had only three stations; there are now 12 stations and 11 churches or chapels. The principal stations are Bettiah (the residence of the Prefect Apostolic, Ilarione da Abtei), Chohoree, Chaknee, Latonah, Somastipore, Dharbanga, Somesar, Rampur (in Nepal), and Ramnagar. The minor stations are Mazuffarpore, Sonepore, Chapra, and Hipore. The mission is administered by 14 Capuchin priests, aided by 8 lay brothers. There are also 20 Sisters of the Holy Cross (Kreuzschwestern) from Switzerland; 35 schools, with 854 pupils; and 10 orphanages, with 403 orphans.

Status Missionum Ord. Min. Cap. (1906).

ALBERT BATTANDIER

Betting

A bet may be defined as the backing of an affirmation or forecast by offering to forfeit, in case of an adverse issue, a sum of money or article of value to one who, by accepting, maintains the opposite and backs his opinion by a corresponding stipulation.

Although there are no Federal Statutes in the United States on this matter, many of the states make it a penal offence when the bet is upon a horse-race, or an election, or a game of hazard. Betting contracts are also frequently made void. Similarly in Great Britain betting in streets and public places, and the keeping of betting houses are forbidden by law, and wagering contracts are null and void. Such laws are just and useful, inasmuch as they serve to keep within the bounds of decency the dangerous habit of gambling, and the many evils which are usually associated with it.

Although betting is to be discouraged as being fraught with danger, and although it may be morally wrong, still in particular cases it is not necessarily so. As I may give the money of which I have the free disposal to another, so there is nothing in sound morals to prevent me from entering into a contract with another to hand over to him a sum of money if an assertion be found to be true, or if a certain event come to pass, with the stipulation that he is to do the same in my favour if the event be otherwise.

This may be an innocent form of recreation, or a ready way of settling a dispute. However, the practice is very liable to abuse, and that it may be morally justifiable theologians require the following conditions:

The parties must have the free disposal of what they stake, and

both must bind themselves to stand by the event and pay in case of loss. Welshing is wrong in morals as it is in law.

Both must understand the matter of the bet in the same sense, and

it must be uncertain for them both. If, however, one has absolutely certain evidence of the truth of his contention, and says so to the other party, he is not precluded from betting if the latter remains obstinate.

If a bet fulfils these conditions and the object of it is honest, so that the bet is not an incentive to sin, it will be a valid contract, and therefore obligatory in conscience. Debts of honour then are also debts that we are bound in conscience to pay if they fulfil the conditions just laid down. It follows that the avocation of the professional bookmaker need not be morally wrong. It is quite possible to keep the moral law and at the same time so to arrange one’s bets with different people that, though in all probability there will be some loss, still there will be gain on the whole. (See GAMBLING.) LEHMKUHL, Theologia Moralis (Freiburg, 1898), I, n, 1138; BALLERINI, Opus Morale (Prato, 1892), III, 788.

T. SLATER.

Count Auguste-Arthur Beugnot

French historian and statesman, b. at Bar-sur-Aube, 25 March, 1797; d. at Paris, 15 March, 1865. He was a son of Jacques-Claude Beugnot, who was a Deputy in the Legislative Body of 1791, Minister of Finance to Jerome, King of Westphalia in 1807, Minister of the Interior under the Provisional Government of 1814, and Postmaster General in 1815. At the age of twenty-one August-Arthur Beugnot made known his ability as an historical writer by dividing with Mignet the prize of the Académie des Inscriptions (1818) for the best essay on the institutions of St. Louis. The competitions of 1822 and 1831 led to his work on “The Jews of the West” and his “History of the Destruction of Paganism in the West,” in consequence of which he was elected to the Académie des Inscriptions. To the general public the latter of these two works was more especially known; it was placed on the Index, and has lost its vogue since the appearance of Seeck’s treatise on the same subject. The learned, however, attach a higher value to the works of Beugnot on the Middle Ages; his editions of the “Assizes of Jerusalem” (1841–43), of Beaumanoir’s book of the “Customs of Beauvaisis” (1842), and of the “Olim,” or ancient registers of the Parliament of Paris (1839–48). These editions are of great value for the history of feudal and customary law, and is associated with the voluminous publication of the “Historians of the Crusades,” which began in a memoir written by him in 1834. Beugnot entered politics in 1841 as a Peer of France, was Deputy for Haute-Marne in the Chamber of 1849, and under the Empire went into a retirement which lasted until his death.

The Villemain educational plan of 1844, to subject the heads of independent institutions to the jurisdiction of the university, and to impose upon their pupils the obligation of making their studies in rhetoric and philosophy in certain prescribed establishments, was opposed by Beugnot on liberal principles, whilst others opposed it on religious grounds. This project was withdrawn in January, 1845, its author having become demented. Beugnot, who had destroyed the draft of a speech in support of the Villemain programme, was welcomed by the Catholics as a labourer entering the vineyard at the eleventh hour. In 1845 he advocated the claim of the bishops, as of all other citizens, to the right of petition. In his pamphlet, “L’état théologien,” he made it clear that the attacks on the Jesuits were neither more nor less than attempts to destroy the liberty of association, and the Jesuits empowered him to treat with Guizot in their name at the time of the negotiations between France and the Holy See in regard to the dispersion of the Society. As drafter of the Law of 1850 on Liberty of Teaching, he vainly endeavoured to prevent the return of the bill to the Council of State, 7 November, 1849, and in the decisive debate (14 January to 15 March, 1850) he vigorously seconded the efforts of Montalembert, Parieu, and Thiers which resulted in victory for the Church and liberty.

Wallon, Eloges academiques (Paris, 1882), I.

GEORGES GOYAU

St. Beuno

Abbot of Clynnog, d. 660(?), was, according to the “Bucced Beuno,” born in Powis-land and, after education and ordination in the monastery of Bangor, in North Wales, became an active missioner, Cadvan, King of Gwynedd, being his generous benefactor. Cadwallon, Cadvan’s son and successor, deceived Beuno about some land, and on the saint demanding justice proved obdurate. Thereupon, Cadwallon’s cousin Gweddeint, in reparation, “gave to God and Beuno forever his township,” where the saint (c. 616) founded the Abbey of Clynnog Fawr (Carnarvonshire).

Beuno became the guardian and restorer to life of his niece, the virgin St. Winefride, whose clients still obtain marvellous favours at Holywell (Flintshire). He was relentless with hardened sinners, but full of compassion to those in distress. Before his death “on the seventh day of Easter” he had a wondrous vision. Eleven churches bearing St. Beuno’s name, with various relics and local usages, witness to his far-reaching missionary zeal. He is commemorated on the 21st of April.

REES, Lives of Cambro-British Saints (1853); the Bucched Beuno found in this work gives a secure basis of names and dedications; cf. POLLEN in The Month, February, 1894, 235; STUBBS, Councils, I, 160; Dict. Nat. Biog., IV, 444.

PATRICK RYAN

Beverley Minster

A collegiate church at Beverley, capital of the East Riding of Yorkshire, served by a chapter of secular canons until the Reformation. The foundation owes its origin to St. John of Beverley early in the eighth century, when the locality was a clearing in the forest of Deira (Indrawood), afterwards known as Beverlac (A.S. Beoferlic), a name possibly due to the colonies of beavers in the river Hull. St. John here founded a community of monks and another of nuns, but traditions as to the existence of an earlier church are legendary and untrustworthy. Later the saint, having resigned his See of York, retired here and died (721), his shrine being in the minster. After the destruction of the monastery by the Danes, a chapter of secular canons was founded By King Athelstan in gratitude for his victory at Brunanburh (937), as he had visited the shrine on his march north. It remained a popular place of pilgrimage throughout the vicissitudes of the Danish and Norman invasions. Few particulars about the early history of the church are known, but a fire in 1188 destroyed the greater part of it, and the present Gothic minster, rivalling the great cathedrals in beauty, dates from that time. The west front in particular is unsurpassed as a specimen of the Perpendicular style. The choir and double transepts were built early in the thirteenth century; while the present nave replaced the Norman nave a century later. Throughout the Middle Ages the shrine was frequented by pilgrims, and the charters of its liberties were renewed by successive monarchs. Its banner was placed on the standard at the “battle of the Standard” (1138), and it was further honoured after the victory of Agincourt, which was won on the feast of the translation of St. John (25 October, 1415), and was attributed by Henry V to that saint’s intercession (Lyndwode, “Provinciale,” II, “Anglicanae”). The minster was originally served by a chancellor, precentor, sacrist, nine canons, nine vicars-choral and seven berefellarii or clerks, but in time several chantry priests and minor officials were added. The temporalities were administered by a provost, who was not necessarily a member of the chapter. The former office was held by many noted Englishmen, including St. Thomas Becket and John de Thoresby, afterwards Cardinal. Blessed John Fisher is believed to have received his first education at the grammar school attached to the minster. The chapter being secular, the minster escaped the ruin that fell on the monasteries under Henry VIII, but was dissolved in 1547 under the “Colleges and Chantries Act” of Edward VI. The seventy-seven collegiate officers thus dispossessed were replaced by a vicar and three assistants reduced, under Elizabeth, to a vicar and one curate. Gradually the minster fell into decay until, in 1713, a restoration became necessary to save it from ruin. This was successfully executed, and as a result of further work in 1866 and subsequent years it still remains one of the most remarkable Gothic churches in England.

DUGDALE, Monasticon; POULSON, Beverlac (London,1829); OLIVER, History and Antiquities of the Town and Minster of Beverley (Beverley, 1829); PETIT, Remarks on Beverley Minster, in Arch. Institutes York Vol. (1848); CRICK MER, Ecclesiastical History of Beverley Minster (Beverley, 1890); HIATT, Beverley Minster (London, 1904).

EDWIN BURTON

Lawrence Beyerlinck

Belgian theologian and ecclesiastical writer, b. at Antwerp, April, 1578; d. at the same place, 22 June, 1627. The son of a noted pharmacist, he prepared at Louvain for the same profession but, deciding to enter the priesthood, he was ordained June, 1602. While a theological student he taught poetry and rhetoric at the college of Vaulx and as pastor of Herent was professor of philosophy at a nearby seminary of canons regular. In 1605 he came to the ecclesiastical seminary of Antwerp, taught philosophy and theology and later became superior. In 1608 he was canon, censor, and theologian of the church of Antwerp; in 1614 he was made protonotary. Beyerlinck was an exemplary priest, a gifted rhetorician, orator, and administrator, and an indefatigable worker. Besides seminary and diocesan work he was engaged continually in preaching and writing. Compilation was his bent. His works are mainly encyclopedic; his knowledge more extensive than profound. He wrote, e.g. a second volume (Antwerp, 1611) of the “Opus Chronographicum orbis universi a mundi exordio usque ad annum MDCXI” (first volume to year 1572 by Opmeer), a collection of lives of popes, rulers, and illustrious men; and the “Magnum Theatrum Vitae Humanae, hoc est Rerum Divinarum Humanarumque syntagma Catholicum Philosophicum Historicum Dogmaticum,” etc. (Cologne, 1631, 7 vols; Venice, 1707, 8 vols.), an encyclopedia of information on diverse subjects arranged in alphabetical order. Its scope ranges from profound theological dissertations to merest trivialities. Much of its vast material was gathered by others, but to Beyerlinck belongs the credit of giving the work its final form. His numerous other publications are listed in the works referred to in the appended bibliography.

Vita Auctoris in Magnum Theatrum (Cologne, 1631), I, preface; Foppens, Bibliotheca Belgica (Brussels, 17390, 804–805; Biog. univ. (Paris, 1811), IV, 426.

JOHN B. PETERSON.

Giovanni Antonio Bianchi

Friar Minor and theologian, b. at Lucca, 2 October, 1686; d. at Rome, 18 January, 1768. At the age of seventeen he entered the Franciscan Order. He was once elected to the office of Provincial of the Roman Province, and for a number of years was professor of philosophy and theology. During these years of professorship, he no doubt acquired much of the extensive and accurate acquaintance with ecclesiastical subjects displayed in the productions of his later life. He possessed a memory of such range and tenacity that he was considered a prodigy by the many students and scholars who came to visit him in his convent cell. Bianchi was held in high esteem by the Roman Curia and by Clement XII, whose successor, Benedict XIV, appointed him consultor of the Holy Office.

It was perhaps at the instance of Clement XII that Bianchi composed his scholarly and exhaustive defence of the rights and privileges of the Roman Pontiff, which had been attacked by the Neapolitan lawyer, Pietro Giannone, in the latter’s “Storia civile del regno di Napoli.” Bianchi’s work which was entitled “Della podesta e della polizia della chiesa, trattati due contro le nuove opinioni di Pietro Giannone” appeared in Rome in six volumes between the years 1745 and 1751. In the first treatise (2 vols.) Bianchi defends the indirect power of the Roman Pontiff over temporal sovereigns; while he lucidly and forcibly defends the rights of the pope as regards the external laws and government of the Church, in the second treatise, which comprises the remaining four volumes. Amid the storm of controversial literature provoked by the treatise of the Dominican theologian, Daniele Concina, “De Spectaculis theatralibus,” Bianchi’s “Sui vizii e sui difetti del moderno teatro e sul modo di corregerli ed emendarli” appeared at Rome in 1753. In this he contends with Scipio Maffei against Concina for the lawfulness, within certain limits, of modern theatrical displays. Notwithstanding these graver preoccupations, Bianchi found time to indulge his predilection for poetry and tragic writing, and his compositions in this field, though of minor importance, show him to be an accomplished master of his own native Tuscan.

Hurter, Nomenclator, II, 1530–32; D’Alencon in Dict. de theol. cath. (Paris, 1900), II, 812; Schulte, Geschichte der Quellen und Litteratur des Canonischen Rechts, (Stuttgart, 1880), III, 512; Feller, Biographie universelle (Paris, 1848), II, 2.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Francesco Bianchini

A student of the natural sciences, and an historian, b. at Verona, Northern Italy, 13 December, 1662; d. at Rome, 2 March, 1729. At first he devoted himself to the study of mathematics, physics, and astronomy; later he also took a course in theology. In 1699 he was advanced to deaconship, but never became a priest. In 1684 he transferred his residence to Rome, where he found at once a protector in Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni, of whose library he became custodian. When the cardinal became Pope Alexander VIII (1689–91) he still extended his favours to Bianchini; after Alexander’s death, his nephew, also Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni, lodged the scholar in his own palace. Bianchini received also many honours and commissions of trust from succeeding popes. In 1703 he was elected president of the society devoted to the study of historical antiquities; he was made secretary of the commission for the reform of the calendar and he was sent to Paris with the cardinal’s hat destined for Rohan Soubise. During this journey he was received everywhere with consideration by the learned. The University of Oxford furnished the expenses of his sojourn in England. Benedict XIII (1724–30) appointed him historiographer of the synod held at the Lateran, Rome (1725). He was a member of many learned academies in Italy and elsewhere. He was distinguished for “a great purity of life and an exceeding modesty of mind,” as the canons of St. Mary Major expressed it in his epitaph. His chief works are: “Two Dissertations on the Calendar and the Cycle of Julius Caesar, and the Paschal Canon of St. Hippolytus” (Rome, 1703); “A Solution of the Paschal Problem” (Rome, 1703); one volume of “A Universal History” (Rome, 1697); an edition of the “Liber Pontoficalis” in four volumes, three of which were edited by himself (Rome, 1718–29), and the fourth by his nephew, Giuseppe Bianchini (Rome, 1735). Besides the text of the lives of the popes the work contains learned introduction, various readings of the manuscripts, copious notes by himself and others, and several documents relative to the history of the popes. It was republished in Migne, P.L., CXXVII-CXXVIII.

Hurter, Nomenclator, II; Duchesne, Etude sur le Lib. Pontif. (Paris, 1877), 118, 119.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Giuseppe Bianchini

(Giuseppe Blanchini).

Italian Oratorian, Biblical, historical, and liturgical scholar, b. at Verona, 1704; d. in Rome, 1764. Clement XII and Benedict XIV, who highly appreciated his learning, entrusted him with several scientific labours. Bianchini had contemplated a large work on the texts of the Sacred Scriptures, “Vindiciae Canonicarum Scriptuarum Vulgatae latinae editionis,” which was to comprise several volumes, but only the first, in which, among other things, are to be found fragments of the “Hexapla” (cod. Chisianus), was published (Rome, 1740). Much more important is his “Evangeliarium quadruplex latinae versionis antiquae,” etc., 2 vols. (Rome, 1749). Among his historical labours may be mentioned the fourth volume which Bianchini added to the publication of his uncle, Francesco Bianchini, “Anastasii bibliothecarii Vitae Rom. Pontif.” (Rome, 1735); he also published the “Demonstratio historiae ecclesiasticae quadripartitae” (Rome, 1752–54). The chief liturgical work of Bianchini is “Liturgia antiqua hispanica, gothica, isidoriana, mozarabica, toletana mixta” (Rome, 1746). He also undertook the edition of the works of B. Thomasius (Tomasi), but only one volume was issued (Rome, 1741).

Villarosa, Memorie degli Scrittori Filippini (Naples, 1837); Mangenot, Joseph Bianchini et les anciennes versions latines de la Bible (Amiens, 1892); Hurter, Nomenclator, III, 71 sqq.

R. BUTIN

Charles Bianconi

Merchant and philanthropist, b. 26 September, 1785, in the duchy of Milan; d. near Clonmel, Ireland, 22 September, 1875. At an early age he was sent to Ireland, as apprentice to an Italian printseller, became a distinguished and wealthy merchant, and was the first to establish (1815–58) throughout the island a system of rapid and cheap transportation of persons and of government mail. He was an intimate friend of O’Connell, a promoter of Catholic Emancipation, a benefactor of many Catholic charities, and a practical friend of the Catholic University at Dublin. The English postmaster general in his Report for 1857 said that “no living man has ever done more than he for the benefit of the sister kingdom.” In the development of his vast transportation system he displayed extraordinary energy and ingenuity, and did much to increase the resources of his adopted country, while he promoted in a remarkable way its social relations. His residence at Longfield, near Clonmel, was a centre of hospitality, and a source of much practical activity for the general welfare of his country.

O’Ryan, Charles Bianconi (Dublin, 1905), and Bianconi’s life by his daughter, Mrs. Morgan John O’Connell (Dublin, 1885).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Pierre Biard

Jesuit missionary, born at Grenoble, France, 1576; died at Avignon, 17 November, 1622. In 1608 he was called from a chair in scholastic theology and Hebrew at Lyons by Father Coton, the king’s confessor and preacher, to take charge of the Jesuit mission in Acadia. As de Monts, the founder of Acadia, was a Calvinist, and a considerable number of the colonists were also of that religion, vehement opposition was made to the appointment of Biard and his companion, Edmond Masse, as missionaries. Through the interposition of the Marquis de Guercheville, who purchased the vessel that was bringing out supplies, the Jesuits, after three years of waiting, were enabled to obtain passage by becoming part owners of the ship and cargo. They left France, 21 January, 1611, and arrived on Pentecost Day, 22 May, at Port Royal. They met with but little success. The predecessor of the missionaries, a secular priest named Josue Flesche, had baptized indiscriminantly. This the Jesuits refused to do. The colonists, moreover, remained hostile, and viewed as a business speculation, the enterprise was a failure. Madame de Guercheville, who had succeeded de Monts as proprietor, finally sent out another vessel under La Saussaye, and ordered him to stop at Port Royal, and, taking the two Jesuits, found a colony elsewhere. Obeying instruction, La Saussaye sailed over to what is now Bar Harbor. The new establishment was called Saint Sauveur. This was in 1613. It was hardly begun when Samuel Argall came up from Virginia, plundered the colony, and took Biard and another Jesuit with four colonists to Jamestown where only the authority of Argall prevented them from being hanged. Another expedition was fitted out to complete the destruction of Saint Sauveur and Port Royal, and the two Jesuits were compelled to accompany the marauders.

Everything was ruined and Biard and his companion were made to appear as if they had instigated the attack. They sailed off with the attacking party who intended to return them to the English colony, where they would probably have been executed, but the vessel on which they were held as prisoners was driven by storms across the ocean. Frequently they were on the point of being thrown overboard, but when the ship was compelled to enter the Port of Fayal in the Azores, Biard and his companions consented to remain in the hold lest their discovery should entail the death of their captor. A second time, upon entering Milford Haven, in Wales, the captain having no papers, and being in a French ship, was on the point of being hanged as a pirate, but Father Biard saved him by explaining the situation to the authorities. The missionary was then sent to France, where he had to meet a storm of abuse because of the suspicion that he had helped in the destruction of Port Royal. Champlain, however, vindicated him. He was never returned to Canada, but resumed his work as a professor of theology, and afterwards became famous as a missionary in the south of France, and towards the end of his life was made military chaplain in the armies of the king. Lescarbot, who was unfriendly to the Jesuit missionaries, speaks of Biard in flattering terms.

Rochemonteix, Les Jesuites et la Nouvelle France; Charlevoix, Hist, de la Nouvelle France; Les Relationes; Oeuvres Champlain, V, viii; Faillon, Colonie francaise; Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Bibbiena

(Bernardo Dovizi)

An Italian Cardinal and comedy-writer, known best by the name of the town Bibbiena, where he was born 4 Aug., 1470; d. at Rome, 9 Nov., 1520. His obscure parentage did not prevent him from securing a literary training at the hands of the best scholars and from associating with the most conspicuous men that Florence could boast. A jovial temper and racy Tuscan wit enhancing the charm of good looks and courtly manners soon made him the preceptor as well as the boon companion of Giovanni dei Medici’s merry hours. When the Medici were banished and sorrow followed mirth (Nov., 1494) it was seen that a gay man of the world could become a brave and steadfast friend. Not long after, the protection of Julius II and many honours at the Roman court were to be his reward. In 1513 his strenuous exertions on behalf of his lifelong patron secured the election of Giovanni dei Medici to the pontifical throne. Such services Leo X repaid by bestowing on him the purple robe, appointing him his treasurer and entrusting him with many important missions, among them a legation to France (1518). Later on, the cardinal’s strong sympathies for France lost him Leo’s confidence. The story, however, that he was poisoned, in spite of Giovio and Grassi’s reports, has absolutely no foundation. (Pastor, Geschichte der Papste, IV, Part I, Leo X.) As cardinal he steadily extended a generous patronage to art. From Raphael, whose devotion he won, we have his best likeness. His literary fame is mainly connected with the first good comedy written in Italian prose, “La Calandra” (also, known as “Il Calandro” and “La Calandria”), a distinctly juvenile production, probably given for the first time at Urbino, about 1507, and very elaborately performed at Rome, seven years later, in the presence of Leo X and Isabella Gonzaga d’Este, Marchioness of Mantua. Though marred by many scenes glaringly immoral, and though built upon the plot of Plautus’s “Menaechmi,” it possessed the features of modern comedy and won plaudits for its sparkling wit and fine characterization. Ariosto and Machiavelli imitated him in their plays. The latest edition of “La Calandra” is in the “Teatro Italiano Antico” (Florence, 1888).

Gaspary, Geschichte der italienischen Litteratur (Strasburg, 1888), II, 577; Roscoe, Life of Leo X; Bandini, Il Bibiena il ministro di Stato (Florence, 1760); Moretti, Bibbiena Dovizi e la Calandra in the Nuova Antoligia (1882), 601, 623; Solerti, La rappresentazione della Calandra a Lione nel 1548 (Florence, 1901).

EDOARDO SAN GIOVANNI

St. Bibiana

The earliest mention in an authentic historical authority of St. Bibiana (Vibiana), a Roman female martyr, occurs in the “Liber Pontificalis” where in the biography of Pope Simplicius (468–483) it is stated that this pope “consecrated a basilica of the holy martyr Bibiana, which contained her body, hear the ‘palatium Licinianum’ “ (ed. Duchesne, I, 249). This basilica still exists. In the fifth century, therefore, the bodily remains of St. Bibiana rested within the city walls. We have no further historical particulars concerning the martyr or the circumstances of her death; neither do we know why she was buried in the city itself. In later times a legend sprang up concerning her, connected with the Acts of the martyrdom of Sts. John and Paul and has no historical claim to belief. According to this legend, Bibiana was the daughter of a former prefect, Flavianus, who was banished by Julian the Apostate. Dafrosa, the wife of Flavianus, and his two daughters, Demetria and Bibiana, were also persecuted by Julian= Dafrosa and Demetria died a natural death and were buried by Bibiana in their own house; but Bibiana was tortured and died as a result of her sufferings. Two days after her death a priest named John buried Bibiana near her mother and sister in her home, the house being later turned into a church. It is evident that the legend seeks to explain in this way the origin of the church and the presence in it of the bodies of the above mentioned confessors. The account contained in the martyrologies of the ninth century is drawn from the legend.

J.P. KIRSCH

The Bible

A collection of writings which the Church of God has solemnly recognized as inspired.

The name is derived from the Greek expression biblia (the books), which came into use in the early centuries of Christianity to designate the whole sacred volume. In the Latin of the Middle Ages, the neuter plural for Biblia (gen. bibliorum) gradually came to be regarded as a feminine singular noun (biblia, gen. bibliae, in which singular form the word has passed into the languages of the Western world. It means “The Book,” by way of eminence, and therefore well sets forth the sacred character of our inspired literature. Its most important equivalents are: “The Divine Library” (Bibliotheca Divina), which was employed by St. Jerome in the fourth century; “the Scriptures,” “the Holy Scriptures”—terms which are derived from expressions found in the Bible itself; and “the Old and New Testament,” in which collective title, “the Old Testament” designates the sacred books written before the coming of Our Lord, and “the New Testament” denotes the inspired writings composed since the coming of Christ.

It is a fact of history that in the time of Christ the Jews were in possession of sacred books, which differed widely from one another in subject, style, origin and scope, and it is also a fact that they regarded all such writings as invested with a character which distinguished them from all other books. This was the Divine authority of every one of these books and of every part of each book. This belief of the Jews was confirmed by Our Lord and His Apostles; for they supposed its truth in their teaching, used it as a foundation of their doctrine, and intimately connected with it the religious system of which they were the founders. The books thus approved were handed down to the Christian Church as the written record of Divine revelation before the coming of Christ. The truths of Christian revelation were made known to the Apostles either by Christ Himself or by the Holy Ghost. They constitute what is called the Deposit of Faith, to which nothing has been added since the Apostolic Age. Some of the truths were committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and have been handed down to us in the books of the New Testament. Written originally to individual Churches or persons, to meet particular necessities, and accommodated as they all were to particular and existing circumstances, these books were gradually received by the universal Church as inspired, and with the sacred books of the Jews constitute the Bible.

In one respect, therefore, the Bible is a twofold literature, made up of two distinct collections which correspond with two successive and unequal periods of time in the history of man. The older of these collection, mostly written in Hebrew, corresponds with the many centuries during which the Jewish people enjoyed a national existence, and forms the Hebrew, or Old Testament, literature; the more recent collection, begun not long after Our Lord’s ascension, and made up of Greek writings, is the Early Christian, or New Testament, literature. Yet, in another and deeper respect, the Biblical literature is pre-eminently one. Its two sets of writings are most closely connected with regard to doctrines revealed, facts recorded, customs described, and even expressions used. Above all, both collection have one and the same religious purpose, one and the same inspired character. They form the two parts of a great organic whole the centre of which is the person and mission of Christ. The same Spirit exercised His mysterious hidden influence on the writings of both Testaments, and made of the works of those who lived before Our Lord an active and steady preparation for the New Testament dispensation which he was to introduce, and of the works of those who wrote after Him a real continuation and striking fulfilment of the old Covenant.

The Bible, as the inspired recorded of revelation, contains the word of God; that is, it contains those revealed truths which the Holy Ghost wishes to be transmitted in writing. However, all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible (see TRADITION); neither is every truth in the Bible revealed, if by revelation is meant the manifestation of hidden truths which could not other be known. Much of the Scripture came to its writers through the channels of ordinary knowledge, but its sacred character and Divine authority are not limited to those parts which contain revelation strictly so termed. The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical “because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church.” The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement.

It will be seen, therefore, that though the inspiration of any writer and the sacred character of his work be antecedent to its recognition by the Church yet we are dependent upon the Church for our knowledge of the existence of this inspiration. She is the appointed witness and guardian of revelation. From her alone we know what books belong to the Bible. At the Council of Trent she enumerated the books which must be considered “as sacred and canonical.” They are the seventy-two books found in Catholic editions, forty-five in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New. Protestant copies usually lack the seven books (viz: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and I, II Machabees) and parts of books (viz: Esther 10:4–16:24, and Daniel 3:24–90; 13:1–14:42) which are not found in the Jewish editions of the Old Testament.

The Bible is plainly a literature, that is, an important collection of writings which were not composed at once and did not proceed from one hand, but rather were spread over a considerable period of time and are traceable to different authors of varying literary excellence. As a literature, too, the Bible bears throughout the distinct impress of the circumstances of place and time, methods of composition, etc., in which its various parts came into existence, and of these circumstances careful account must be taken, in the interests of accurate scriptural interpretation. As a literature, our sacred books have been transcribed during many centuries by all manner of copyists to the ignorance and carelessness of many of whom they still bear witness in the shape of numerous textual errors, which, however, but seldom interfere seriously with the primitive reading of any important dogmatic or moral passage of Holy Writ.

In respect of antiquity, the Biblical literature belongs to the same group of ancient literature as the literary collections of Greece, Rome, China, Persia, and India. Its second part, the New Testament, completed about A.D. 100, is indeed far more recent than the four last named literature, and is somewhat posterior to the Augustan age of the Latin language, but it is older by ten centuries than our earliest modern literature. As regards the Old Testament, most of its contents were gradually written within the nine centuries which preceded the Christian era, so that its composition is generally regarded as contemporary with that of the great literary works of Greece, China, Persia, and India. The Bible resembles these various ancient literatures in another respect. Like them it is fragmentary, i.e. made up of the remains of a larger literature. Of this we have abundant proofs concerning the books of the Old Testament, since the Hebrew Scriptures themselves repeatedly refer us to more ancient and complete works as composed by Jewish annalists, prophets, wise men, poets, and so on (cf. Numbers 21:15; Josue 10:13; II Kings 1:18; I Paralip. 29:29; I Mach. 16:24; etc.). Statements tending to prove the same fragmentary character of the early Christian literature which has come down to us are indeed much less numerous, but not altogether wanting (cf. Luke 1:1–3; Colossians 4:16; I Corinthians 5:9). But, however ancient and fragmentary, it is not to be supposed that the Biblical literature contains only few, and these rather imperfect, literary forms. In point of fact its contents exhibit nearly all the literary forms met with in our Western literatures together with other peculiarly Eastern, but none the less beautiful. It is also a well-known fact that the Bible is so replete with pieces of transcendent literary beauty that the greatest orators and writers of the last four centuries have most willingly turned to our sacred books as pre-eminently worthy of admiration, study, and imitation. Of course the widest and deepest influence that has ever been, and ever will be, exercised upon the minds and hearts of men remains due to the fact that, while all the other literatures are but man’s productions, the Bible is indeed “inspired of God” and, as such, especially “profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice” (II Timothy 3:16).

Providentissimus Deus in the Great Encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII (New York, 1903); BARRY, The Tradition of Scripture (New York, 1906); VAUGHAN, The Bible: Its Use and Abuse; BREEN, Introduction to Holy Scripture; HUMPHREY, The Written Word; GIGOT, General Introduction; CORNELY, Introductio Generalis; HUNTER, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, I.

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Bible Societies

Protestant Bible Societies, established for the purpose of publishing and propagating the Bible in all parts of the world, are the logical outcome of the principle: “The Bible, and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants.” Precisely to what extent that theological formula is held true even by the stanchest evangelicals, may be a matter of dispute, but the consistent and heroic efforts of the Bible societies to provide a version of the sacred text in every tongue and to supply the ends of the earth with Bibles, can scarcely be explained unless Chillingworth’s famous formula be taken to mean literally that the possession of a copy of the Bible is an indispensable means of salvation. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the societies for the world-wide propagation of the Bible, like the Protestant missionary societies, are a late outgrowth of Protestantism. It is well known that the sects did not seriously bestir themselves about mission work until two hundred years after the Reformation, and historically the Bible societies are an appendage and a consequence of the missionary organizations. Some efforts were made to provide a systematic dissemination of Bibles as early as the time of Charles I of England, and before the formation of Bible societies on a scale of world-wide activity, there existed a number of organizations which made Bible distribution a feature of their work. Among them were, (1) The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (1698), which spread copies of Holy Writ in England, Wales, India, and Arabia; (2) The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Wales (1662); (3) The Society for Sending Missionaries to India, founded in 1705 by King Frederick of Denmark; (4) The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1701), which devoted a large share of its attention to the American Colonies; (5) The Scottish Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge among the Poor (1750); (6) The Naval and Military Bible Society (1780). The foundation of these and similar societies was but an indication of the vast work that was to come. The great reaction against the religious apathy, and, indeed, infidelity of the English people in the eighteenth century brought with it the foundation of numerous missionary societies, and this new enthusiasm for Christianity resulted in the foundation of the most famous and the most effective of all Bible societies, The British and Foreign Bible Society, 7 March, 1804. The first impulse to the formation of this organization was given by a group of Nonconformist ministers and laymen, but when completely formed, the society included an equal number of members of the Established Church and of the various sects. Its avowed purpose was “to encourage the wider circulation of the Bible without note or comment.”

At present, the British and Foreign Society is governed by an executive committee of 36 laymen, 15 from the Church of England, 15 dissenters, and 6 foreign members who must reside in or near London. The growth and work of this society have been extraordinary. It controls, according to the latest statistics (1906) almost 8,000 auxiliary societies; 5,729 in Great Britain and 2,224 abroad. Its translations of the sacred text number about 380. Its operations in India have been particularly thorough, but in every country where its agencies are established, its work can only be measured in vast figures. It disposes annually of about 5,190,000 copies of the Scriptures (whole Bibles, New Testaments and other portions), and spends each year £250,000 ($1,210,000). In the hundred years of its existence, this society has distributed 186,680,000, volumes at an expenditure of £14,194,000 ($68,699,000). There have been numerous offshoots, some in the nature of developments, others schisms, but the size, wealth, and prestige of the parent society have always overshadowed those of its children and its rivals. Mention must also be made of the Hibernian Bible Society, and the National Bible Society of Scotland, the names of which sufficiently designate their field of labour.

On the Continent, Count Canstein founded a German Bible Society in 1710. Others were established at Nuremberg (1804), Berlin (1806), Saxony (1813), and Schleswick-Holstein (1826). The Berlin society was united with the Prussian Bible Society in 1814. The Danish Bible Society dates form 1814, the Russian from 1812; a Bible society was founded in Finland in 1812, one in Norway in 1815, and one in the Netherlands 1813, one in Malta in 1817, and one in Paris 1818.

In America, we find the Continental Congress so impressed with the scarcity of Bibles that in 1777 it passed a resolution calling for the printing of 20,000 copies. Facilities were not at hand for the fulfillment of such a work, and it was not done. But in 1782, Congress commended the publication of the Bible which had just been made in Philadelphia. There had been local Bible societies in the Colonies, but these were not united with the American Bible Society until 1816. This society has become next in size and in importance to its counterpart, the British and Foreign Bible Society and in 1907 controlled 620 auxiliary societies in the United States and 11 agencies in the Latin-American countries and elsewhere. The Society has no established agency in Europe, but maintains correspondents in Norway, Sweden, Russian Finland, Germany, Switzerland, France, Spain, Italy, and Austria. In these countries it either co-operates with the National Bible societies, or lends assistance to the local Protestant churches. For example, the American Bible Society has been co-operating closely for the last fifty years with the Methodist Episcopal Church in Bremen, Germany, and in that time and place has assisted in the publication of over a million volumes of Scripture. The American Society has extended its efforts into the Levant, a regular agency being established in Constantinople. It works in conjunction with the Protestant missionaries in Bulgaria, Turkey, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, and the Sudan. In these countries alone, it has distributed over 3,000,000 volumes during the past half-century. All told, the copies of the Bible, or parts of the Bible distributed by the American Bible Society for one year, ending 31 March, 1906, were 2,236,755, and during the ninety years of its work it has disposed of 78,509,529 volumes.

After being duly impressed by these figures and those of the still more prolific British Society, the Catholic reader naturally questions whether the amount of good done is, after all, to be measured by the number of volumes distributed. A considerable number of Protestant missionaries have already answered the question negatively, and if we may judge from many letters from ministers in the mission field, there is a growing feeling among thinking Protestants that the promiscuous distribution of the Bible “without note or comment” is a doubtful means of propagating Christian doctrine. Even as a means of proselytism, the scattering of Bibles seems not to produce the expected results. A missionary on the Malay peninsula, among others, complains that although thousands of Bibles were distributed, it was, so far as he could learn, “with scarcely any perceptible benefit.” He “did not hear of a single Malay convert on the whole peninsula.” The natives of the missionary countries are, according to reports, eager to obtain books from the societies, but agents and missionaries and bishops have reported that in many cases the volumes were used for vulgar and profane purposes. Indeed, the reckless distribution of the Scriptures in too many cases becomes an occasion for the profanation of the written Word, rather than for the growth of religion. Instances of abuse of the Bible could be collected freely from the letters of missionaries, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

But for deeper reasons than this, the attitude of the Church toward the Bible societies is one of unmistakable opposition. Believing herself to be the divinely appointed custodian and interpreter of Holy Writ, she cannot without turning traitor to herself, approve the distribution of Scripture “without note or comment.” The fundamental fallacy of private interpretation of the Scriptures is presupposed by the Bible societies. It is the impelling motive of their work. But it would be likewise the violation of one of the first principles of the Catholic Faith—a principle arrived at through observation as well as by revelation—the insufficiency of the Scriptures alone to convey to the general reader a sure knowledge of faith and morals. Consequently, the Council of Trent, in its fourth session, after expressly condemning all interpretations of the sacred text which contradict the past and present interpretations of the Church, orders all Catholic publishers to see to it that their editions of the Bible have the approval of the bishop. Besides this and other regulations concerning Bible-reading in general, we have several acts of the popes directed explicitly against the Bible societies. Perhaps the most notable of these are contained in the Encyclical “Ubi Primum” of Leo XII, dated 5 May, 1824, and Pius IX’s Encyclical “Qui Pluribus,” of 9 November, 1846. Pius VIII in 1829 and Gregory XVI in 1844, spoke to similar effect. It may be well to give the most striking words on the subject form Leo XII and Pius IX. To quote the former (loc. cit.): “You are aware, venerable brothers, that a certain Bible Society is impudently spreading throughout the world, which, despising the traditions of the holy Fathers and the decree of the Council of Trent, is endeavouring to translate, or rather to pervert the Scriptures into the vernacular of all nations. It is to be feared that by false interpretation, the Gospel of Christ will become the gospel of men, or still worse, the gospel of the devil.” The pope then urges the bishops to admonish their flocks that owing to human temerity, more harm than good may come from indiscriminate Bible-reading. Pius IX says (loc. cit.): “These crafty Bible Societies, which renew the ancient guile of heretics, cease not to thrust their Bibles upon all men, even the unlearned,—their Bibles, which have been translated against the laws of the Church, and often contain false explanation of the text. Thus, the divine traditions, the teaching of the fathers, and the authority of the Catholic Church are rejected, and everyone in his own way interprets the words of the Lord, and distorts their mean, thereby falling into miserable errors.”

Thus are given the chief reasons of the opposition of the Church. Furthermore, it can scarcely be denied that the Bible societies, by invading the Catholic countries and endeavouring to foist the Protestant versions upon a Catholic people, have stirred up much discord, and have laid themselves open to the charge of degrading the Sacred Book by using it as an instrument of proselytism. Still in almost all the books and pamphlets which are written to show the results of Bible propagandism, naïve complaints are made by the writers that the Catholic priests forbid the dissemination of the Scriptures among their people. The societies do not offer to supply Catholics with Catholic Bibles, fortified with the ecclesiastical Imprimatur, and supplied with the necessary notes of explanation. If such an offer were refused, there might be some pretext for the complaints of the societies, but so long as they follow their present course, it must be evident that they have small ground for wonder if the authorities of the Church oppose them. The true attitude of the Church towards the popular use of the Scriptures is shown by the establishment of the Societa di San Geronimo, for the translation and diffusion of the Gospels and other parts of the Bible among the Italian peoples.

There have been many dissensions and some schisms among the members of the Bible societies themselves. At the very foundation of the British and Foreign Bible Society Bishop Marsh, consistently with the principles of the Church of England, objected to the printing of the text, “without note or comment,” and recommended the addition of the Book of Common Prayer. The objection was, of course, overruled. In 1831, the British and Foreign Bible Society decided to demand belief in the Trinity as a requisite to membership. This led to a schism and the foundation of the Trinitarian Bible Society. Another schismatic society, originating from a doctrinal difference, is the Bible Translation Society, a body composed of Baptists who were dissatisfied because the original society’s Bibles did not translate the texts which relate to baptism by words that would signify immersion. Again, from the American Bible Society, there has been a schism of Baptists, originating, as in England, over the translation of baptizein. This dissident body, founded in 1837, is called The American and Foreign Bible Society. This organization in turn experienced a secession, the recalcitrants forming the American Bible Union, in 1850.

After a Hundred Years (London, 1904), report of the British and Foreign Bible Society for the centenary years; Canton, The Story of the Bible Society (London, 1904); The Centenary History of the Bible Society (1907); The American Bible Society, Eighty-ninth Annual Report (1905); Vaughan, Concerning the Holy Bible, its Use and Abuse (London, 1904), 160, reports from Protestant missionaries in foreign lands, concerning abuses in Bible-distribution; Encyclopedia of Missions (New York, 1904), s. v. American Bible Society, British and Foreign Bible Society; Darlow and Moule, Hist. Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture (London, 1903–04).

JAMES M. GILLIS

Picture Bibles

In the Middle Ages the Church made use of pictures as a means of instruction, to supplement the knowledge acquired by reading or oral teaching. For books only existed in manuscript form and, being costly, were beyond the means of most people. Besides, had it been possible for the multitude to come into the possession of books, they could not have read them, since in those rude times, education was the privilege of few. In fact, hardly anyone could read, outside the ranks of the clergy and the monks. So frescoes of scenes from the Old and New Testaments, stained-glass windows, an the like were set up in the churches, because, as the Synod of Arras (1025) said, “The illiterate contemplated in the lineaments of painting what they, having never learnt to read, could not discern in writing.” Especially did the Church make use of pictures to spread abroad a knowledge of the events recorded in the Bible and of the mutual connection between the leading facts of the Old and New Testaments, whether as type and antitype, or as prophecy and fulfillment. For this purpose the picture Bibles of the Middle Ages were copied and put in circulation. The most important of the picture Bibles of the Middle Ages which have survived is that variously styled the “Bible Moralisée,” the “Bible Historiée,” the “Bible Allégorisée” and sometimes “Emblémes Bibliques.” It is a work of the thirteenth century, and from the copies that still survive there is no doubt that it existed in at least two editions, like to one another in the choice and order of the Biblical texts used, but differing in the allegorical and moral deductions drawn from these passages. The few remarks to be made here about the “Bible Moralisée” will be made in connection with copies of the first and second redactions which have come down to us.

The copy of the first edition, to which reference has been made, is one of the most sumptuous illustrated MSS, preserved to us from the Middle Ages. Unfortunately, it no longer exists in the form of a single volume, nor is it kept in one place. It has been split up into three separate parts kept in three distinct libraries. The first part, consisting of 224 leaves, is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. The second part of 222 leaves is in the National Library in Paris; and the third part, made up of 178 leaves, is kept in the library of the British Museum. Six leaves of the third part are missing, so that it ought to contain 184 leaves. When complete and bound together, therefore, the whole volume consisted of 630 leaves, written and illustrated on one side only. This Bible, as indeed all the picture Bibles of the Middle Ages, did not contain the full text of the Bible. Short passages only were cited, and these not so as to give any continuous sense or line of thought. But the object of the writer seems to have been chiefly to make the texts cited the basis of moral and allegorical teaching, in the manner so common in those days. In the Psalter he was content with copying out the first verse of each psalm; whilst when dealing with the Gospels he did not quote from each evangelist separately, but made use of a kind of confused diatessaron of all four combined. An attempt was made to establish a connection between the events recorded in the Old Testament and those recorded in the New, even when there does not seem to be any very obvious connection between them. Thus the sleep of Adam, recorded in the beginning of Genesis, is said to prefigure the death of Christ; and Abraham sending his servant with rich presents to seek a wife for his son is a type of the Eternal Father giving the Gospels to the Apostles to prepare the union of His Son with the Church.

The entire work contains about 5,000 illustrations. The pictures are arranged in two parallel columns on each page, each column having four medallions with pictures. Parallel to the pictures and alternating with them are two other narrower columns, with four legends each, one legend to each picture; the legends consisting alternatively of Biblical texts and moral or allegorical applications; whilst the pictures represent the subjects of the Biblical texts or of the applications of them. In the MS. copy of the “Bible Moralisée,” now under consideration, the illustrations are executed with the greatest skill. The painting is said to be one of the best specimens of thirteenth-century work and the MS. was in all probability prepared for someone in the highest rank of life. A specimen of the second edition of the “Bible Moralisée” is to be found in the National Library in Paris (MS. Français No. 167). Whilst it is identical with the copy which has just been examined in the selection and order of the Biblical passages, it differs from it in the greater simplicity and brevity of the moral and allegorical teaching based on them. Another important Bible, intended to instruct by means of pictures, was that which has been called the “Bible Historiée toute figurée.” It was a work of the end of the thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century. In general outline and plan it resembles the class of Bible which has gone before, but it differs from it in the selection of Bible passages and in the allegorical explanations derived from them. Coming to the life of Our Lord, the author of the “Bible Historiée toute figurée” dispensed with a written text altogether, and contented himself with writing over the pictures depicting scenes of Our Saviour’s life, a brief explanatory legend. Many specimens of this Bible have come down to us, but we select part of one preserved in the National Library in Paris (MS Français No. 9561) for a brief description. In this MS. 129 pages are taken up with the Old Testament. Of these the earlier ones are divided horizontally in the centre, and it is the upper part of the page that contains the picture illustrative of some Old Testament event. The lower part represents a corresponding scene from the New Testament. further on in the volume, three pictures appear in the upper part of the page, and three below. Seventy-six pages at the end of the volume are devoted to depicting the lives of Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin.

It must not be supposed that these were the only Bibles of this class that existed in the Middle Ages. On the contrary, from the great number of copies that have survived to our own day we may guess how wide their circulation must have been. We have a MS. existing in the British Museum (addit. 1577) entitled “Figures de la Bible” consisting of pictures illustrating events in the Bible with short descriptive text. this is of the end of the thirteenth, or the beginning of the fourteenth, century. Of the same date is the “Historia Bibliæ metrice” which is preserved in the same library and, as the name implies, has a metrical text. But we have specimens of manuscript illustrated Bibles of earlier date. Such is the Bible preserved in the library of St. Paul’s, outside the walls of Rome; that of the Amiens Library (MS. 108), and that of the Royal Library of The Hague (MS. 69). So numerous are the surviving relics of such Bibles, back even so far as the eleventh and twelfth centuries, that it may be safely said that the Church made a systematic effort to teach the Scriptures in those days by means of illustrated Bibles.

SINGLE ILLUSTRATED BOOKS OF THE BIBLE

The Bibles that have come under notice so far illustrate the entire Scriptures. But what was done for the Bible in full was also done for its various parts. Numerous beautifully illustrated psalters have come down to us, some of them going as far back as the ninth century, as, for instance, the Psalter of the University of Utrecht. One thing that comes out clearly from a study of the contents and character of these psalters is that a very large proportion of them were executed by artists working in England. So, too, the book of Job and the Apocalypse were copied separately and adorned with numerous illustrations. But, as we should have expected, the Gospels were a specially favourite field for the medieval artists who devoted their time to picture-painting.

BIBLIA PAUPERUM

A class of illustrated Bibles to which no allusion has been made, but which had a wide circulation especially in the fifteenth century was the “Biblia Pauperum.” As it name indicates, it was especially intended for the poor and ignorant, and some say that it was used for purposes of preaching by the mendicant orders. It existed at first in manuscript (indeed a manuscript copy is still in existence in the library of the British Museum); but at a very early period it was reproduced by xylography, then coming into use in Europe. As a consequence the “Biblia Pauperum” was published and sold at a much cheaper rate than the older manuscript picture Bibles. The general characteristics of this Bible are the same as those of the earlier picture Bibles. The pictures are generally placed only on one side of the page, and are framed in a kind of triptych of architectural design. In the centre is a scene from the New Testament, and on either side of it typical events from the Old Testament. Above and below the central picture are busts of four noted prophets or other famous characters of the Old Testament. In the corners of the picture are the legends. The number of these pictures in the “Biblia Pauperum” was usually from forty to fifty.

Picture Bibles of the Middle Ages did not exhaust the resources of Christians in illustration of the Bible. Since the fifteenth century a host of artistic geniuses have contributed to make the events of Scripture live in colour before our eyes. Most noted amongst them were Michelangelo and Raphael; the former chiefly famous for his Pietà and the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel; the latter for seven cartoons illustrating events in the New Testament. Perhaps no sacred picture has been so often copied as “The Last Supper” of Leonardo da Vinci painted in the refectory of the Dominican convent in Milan. Well known, too, are Fra Bartolomeo’s “Presentation in the Temple” in vienna, and Rubens’s numerous Bible pictures, to be found in the Louvre, Brussels, Vienna, Munich, and London, but chiefly at Antwerp, where are his “Descent from the Cross,” “Crucifixion,” and “Adoration of the Magi,” the most famous of his works. These are but a few out of a number of illustrious names too numerous to mention here and including Botticelli, Carrucci, Holman, Hunt, Leighton, Murillo, Veronese, Tintoretto, and Watts.

To study the works of the great Bible-illustrators is not so difficult as might be supposed. For of late years a great number of collections of Bible prints have been made, some containing engravings of the most famous paintings. In the first half of the last century Julius Schnorr collected together 180 designs called his “Bible Pictures, or Scripture History”; and another series of 240 pictures was published in 1860 by george Wigand; whilst later in the century appeared Dalziel’s “Bible Gallery.” Hodder and Stoughton have published excellent volumes reproducing some of the pictures of the greatest masters. Such are “The Old Testament in Art” (2 parts); “The Gospels in Art,” “The Apostles in Art,” and “Bethlehem to Olivet,” this latter being made up of modern pictures. The Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge has not been behindhand, but has issued amongst other publications a volume on “Art Pictures from the Old Testament” with ninety illustrations, and another on the Gospels with 350 illustrations from the works of the great masters of the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries.

HORNE, Introduction to the Holy Scriptures (London, 1822), II, 3d ed.; HUMPHREY, History of the Art of Printing (London, 1868); LEVESQUE in VIG., Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1894), s.v. Bible en image; DELISLE, Hist. littéraire de la France (Paris, 1893), XXXI, 213–285; BERJEAU, Biblia Pauperum, reproduced in facsimile from one of the copies in the British Museum, with an historical and bibliographical introduction (London, 1859).

J.A. HOWLETT

Biblia Pauperum

(BIBLE OF THE POOR).

A collection of pictures representing scenes from Our Lord’s life with the corresponding prophetic types. The series commonly consists of forty or fifty pages. The page is divided into nine sections. The four corners are used for explanatory texts. The central pictures represent scenes from Our Lord’s life, arranged chronologically. Above and below these are pictures of prophets and on each side are scenes from the Old Testament. It is thus a concordance of the Old and the New Testaments in which is gathered together the common tradition of the Church on the types and figures of the Old Testament, as taught by the liturgy and the Fathers. hence they were called sometimes “Figuræ typicæ Veritis Testamenti atque antitypicæ Novi Testamenti” or “Historia Christi in Figuris.” An interesting reproduction and description of a page on the Blessed Sacrament is given in Vigouroux, “Dictionnaire de la Bible,” s.v.

The invention of these picture-books is ascribed to St. Ansgar, Bishop of Bremen. This is stated in a note added to a copy at Hanover and in the cathedral at Bremen there are remains of pictures, corresponding to this copy. The name, however, of “Biblia Pauperum” does not seem to have been primitive. It was added by a later hand to a manuscript in the Wolffenbüttel library; the manuscript was thus catalogued, and the name became common. It is uncertain why they were so called. Perhaps it was because the ancient saying that pictures were the Bible of the poor, that is, of the uneducated. Some think that the name came from their use by the mendicant orders as books of instruction. Others suppose that the term means inexpensive; manuscripts had been beyond the means of most people; when the art of printing from engraved blocks was introduced these picture-books were among the first printed and gained a wide circulation. We have no definite information as to the purpose for which these books were intended. Probably it was for religious instruction; perhaps also to serve as models for artists. It is certain that they exercised a great influence in spreading a knowledge of the mysteries of Faith, affording themes for preachers and artists. At Hirschau in Swabia, the entire series of pictures is reproduced in stained glass.

Only a few manuscript copies of the “Biblia Pauperum” are extant; they come from the school of John van Eyck 1366–1466). The blockbook, or xylographic process, appeared early in the fifteenth century, and Sotheby counts seven editions made from these wooden slabs. Only one side of the paper was printed, two sheets being pasted together to make a leaf. Five copies are in the Bibliothèque Nationale: four have forty plates; one copy is coloured by hand; the fifth has fifty plates. The first edition from moveable types was printed by Pfister at Bamberg in 1462. The earlier editions have Latin texts; later they were printed in the vernacular. A German “Armenbibel” was published in 1470, and at Paris in 1503, A. Vérard published “Les Figures du Viel Testament et du Nouveau.” In some of the printed editions the original arrangement of pictures and text was modified. In the latter half of the fifteenth century these books were very popular. As improved methods made it possible to issue the whole Bible with illustrations, the “Biblia” fell into disuse and disappeared. Several facsimile reproductions have appeared with historical and bibliographical introductions notably by Berjeau (1859); Camesina and Heider (Vienna, 1863); Unwin (London, 1884), with introduction by Dean Stanley; Einsle (Vienna, 1890); Laib and Schwarz (1892) and P. Heitz (1902). SOTHEBY, The Block-Books or Xylographic Delineations of Scripture History issued in Holland, France, and Germany (London, 1858). See also the introductions to the facsimile editions, VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, a.v.; STREBER in Kirchenlex., s.v.; CHEVALIER, Rép. des sources hist. du moyen âge: Topo-bibl.

JOHN CORBETT

Biblical Antiquities

This department of archæology has been variously defined and classified. Some scholars have included in it even Biblical chronology, geography, and natural history, but wrongly so, as these three branches of Biblical science belong rather to the external environment of history proper. Archæology, properly speaking, is the science of antiquities, and of those antiquities only which belong more closely to the inner life and environment of a nation, such as their monumental records, the sources of their history, their domestic, social, religious, and political life, as well as their manners and customs. Hence, history proper, geography, and natural history must be excluded from the domain of archæology. So also the study of monumental records and inscriptions and of their historical interpretation must be left either to the historian, or to the sciences of epigraphy and numismatics. Accordingly, Biblical Archæology may be appropriately defined as: the science of;

I. DOMESTIC, or SOCIAL,

II. POLITICAL, and

III. SACRED, ANTIQUITIES of the Hebrew nation. Our principal sources of information are:

(a) The Old Testament writings;

(b) the archæological discoveries made in Syria and Palestine;

(c) the Assyro-Babylonian, Egyptian, and Canaanitish monuments;

(d) the New Testament writings;

(e) the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds;

(f) comparative study of Semitic religions, customs, and institutions.

I. DOMESTIC ANTIQUITIES

(1) FAMILY AND CLAN

The Old Testament books present us the Hebrews as having passed through two stages of social development: the pastoral and the agricultural. The stories of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, picture them as dwelling in tents and constantly moving from one pasture-ground to another. In course of time tents merged into huts, huts into houses, and these into settlements, villages, and cities, surrounded by cornfields, vineyards, oliveyards, and gardens. Flocks and herds became rarer and rarer till the time of the early monarchy and afterwards, when, with few exceptions, they gave way to commerce and trade. As among all nations of antiquity, a coalition of various members, or branches, of the same family constituted a clan which, as an organization, seems to have antedated the family. A coalition of clans formed a tribe which was governed by its own chiefs or leaders. Some of the Hebrew clans at the time of the settlement in Canaan seem to have been organized, some to have been broken up and wholly or partially incorporated with other clans. A man’s standing in his clan was so important that if he was cast out he became ipso facto an outlaw, unless, indeed, some other clan could be found to receive him. After the settlement, the Hebrew clan-system changed somewhat and slowly degenerated till the time of the monarchy, when it fell into the background and became absorbed by the more complicated system of national and monarchical government.

(2) MARRIAGE AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FAMILY

In ancient Hebrew times the family, as a social organization, and as compared with the clan, must have held a secondary place. Comparative Semitic analogy and Biblical evidences seem to indicate that among the early Hebrews, as among other early Semitic nations, man lived under a matriarchate system, i.e. kinship was constituted by uterine ties, and descent was reckoned through female lines; the father’s relation to his children being, if not ignored, certainly of little or no importance. Hence a man’s kin were the relatives of his mother, not those of his father; and consequently all hereditary property descended in the female line. The position of woman during the early Hebrew period, although inferior to what it became later, was not as low and insignificant as many are inclined to believe. Many episodes in the lives of women like Sarah, Rebeccah, Rachel, Deborah, Mary the sister of Moses, Delilah, Jephtah’s daughter, and others are sufficient evidences. The duties of a woman, as such and as a wife and mother, were heavy both physically and morally. The work in and about the home devolved upon her, even to the pitching of the tent, as also the work of the field with the men at certain seasons. The position of the man as father and as the head of the household was of course superior to that of the wife; upon him devolved the duty and care of the training of the children, when they had reached a certain age, as also the offering of sacrifices, which necessarily included the slaughtering of domestic animals, and the conduct of all devotional and ritualistic services. To these must be added the duty of maintaining the family, which presupposes a multitude of physical and moral obligations and hardships.

Polygamy was an acknowledged form of marriage in the patriarchal and post-patriarchal periods, although in later times it was considerably restricted. The Mosaic law everywhere requires a distinction to be made between the first wife and those taken in addition to her. Marriage between near relatives was common, owing to a desire to preserve, as far as possible, the family bond intact. As the family was subordinate to the clan, the whole social life of the people, marriage, and even property rights were under the surveillance of the same. Hence a woman was to marry within the same clan; but if she chose to marry without the clan, she should do so only upon such terms as the clan might permit by its customs or by its action in a particular case. So, also, a woman might be allowed, where compensation was made, to marry and leave her clan, or she might contract through her father or other male relative with a man of another clan provided she remained with her people and bore children for her clan. This marriage-form, known to scholars under the term of Sadiqa-marriage, was undoubtedly practised by the ancient Hebrews as positive indications of its existence are found in the Book of Judges and particularly in the cases of Jerubbaal, Samson, and others. The fact itself that Hebrew harlots who received into their tents or dwellings men of other clans, and who bore children to their own clan, were not looked upon with much disfavour is a sure indication of the existence of the Sadiqa-marriage type among the Hebrews. One thing is certain, however, that no matter how similar the marriage customs of the ancient Hebrews may have been to those of the early Arabs, the marriage tie among the former was much stronger than, and never as loose as, among the latter. Another form of Hebrew marriage was the so-called levirate type (from the Lat. levir, i.e. brother-in-law), i.e. the marriage between a widow, whose husband had died childless, and her brother-in-law. She was, in fact, not permitted to marry a stranger, unless the surviving brother-in-law formally refused to marry her. The levirate marriage was intended first, to prevent the extinction of the name of the deceased childless brother; and secondly, to retain the property within the same tribe and family. The first-born son of such a union took the name of the deceased uncle instead of that of his father, and succeeded to his estate. If there were no brother of the deceased husband alive, then the next of kin was supposed to marry the widow as we find in the case of Ruth’s relative who yielded his right to Boaz. According to the laws of Moses, a man was forbidden to remarry a divorced wife, if she had married again and become a widow, or had been divorced from her second husband. Israelites were not forbidden to intermarry with any foreigners except the seven Canaanitish nations; hence Moses’ marriage to a Midianite, and afterwards to a Cushite woman and that of David to a princess of Geshur were not against the Mosaic law. The high-priest was to marry a virgin of his own people, and in the time of Ezechiel even an ordinary priest could not marry a widow, unless she were the widow of a priest.

Betrothal was mostly a matter of business to be transacted by the parents and near family friends. A distinction between betrothal and marriage is made even in the Mosaic law, where betrothal is looked upon as more than a promise to marry; it was in fact its initial act, and created a bond which could be dissolved only by death or by legal divorce. Faithlessness to this vow of marriage was regarded and punished as adultery. Betrothal actually took place after a dowry had been agreed upon. As a rule, it was given to the parents of the bride, though sometimes to an elder brother. Marriage contracts appear to have been mostly oral, and made in the presence of witnesses. The earliest account of a written one is found in the Book of Tobit (D. V. Tobias). The wedding festivities lasted ordinarily seven days, and on the day of the wedding the bridegroom, richly dressed and crowned, went in procession to the bride’s house to take her away from her father. The bride, deeply veiled, was led away amid the blessings of her parents and friends. The bridal procession not infrequently took place at night, in the blaze of torches and with the accompaniment of songs, dancing, and the highest expressions of joy.

Adultery was punished by death, through stoning of both participants. A man suspecting his wife of unfaithfulness might subject her to a terrible ordeal which, it was thought, no guilty wife could well pass through without betraying her guilt. Divorce among the ancient Hebrews was as frequent as among any other civilized nation of antiquity. Mosaic laws attempted only to restrict and to regulate it. Any “unseemly thing” was sufficient ground for divorce, as also was barrenness. The wife, however, was not allowed to separate herself from her husband for any reason; in the case of her husband’s adultery, he as well as the other guilty party, as we have seen, would be punished with death.

Concubinage, which differs widely from polygamy, was also extensively practised by the Hebrews. A concubine was less than a wife, but more than an ordinary mistress, and her rights were jealously guarded in the Mosaic Code. The children born of such a union were in no case considered as illegitimate. The principal distinction between a legal wife and a concubine consisted in the latter’s social and domestic inferiority. Concubines were not infrequently either handmaids of the wife, or captives taken in war or purchased of their fathers. Canaanitish and other foreign women or slaves could in no case be taken as concubines. The seducer of an unbetrothed maiden was compelled either to marry her or to pay her father a heavy fine. In later times, ordinary harlotry was punished, and if the harlot was the daughter of a priest she was burnt. Idolatrous harlotry and sodomy were severely punished.

The domestic and social life of the Hebrews was frugal and simple. They indulged very little in public games and diversions. Hunting and fishing were looked upon as necessities of life. Slavery was extensively practised, and slaves were either Hebrews or foreigners. The Mosaic law is against any kind of involuntary slavery, and no Hebrew slave was allowed to be sold to foreigners. An Israelitish slave was to be set free after five or six years servitude and not without some compensation, unless he were willing to serve another term. As was natural, Hebrew slaves were more kindly treated by their Hebrew masters than were foreign ones, who were either captives in war or purchased.

(3) DEATH AND BURIAL

The principal sicknesses and diseases mentioned in the Old Testament are: intermittent, bilious, and inflammatory fevers, dysentery produced by sunstroke, inflammation of the head, fits, apoplectic paralysis, blindness, inflammation of the eyes, hæmorrhages, epilepsy, diarrh a, dropsy, various kinds of skin eruptions, scabies, and the various forms of leprosy. To these must be added some psychical diseases, such as madness, melancholy, etc., and also various forms of demoniacal possession. No explicit mention of professional physicians and surgeons is made in the Old Testament.

In case of death, the body was washed and wrapped in a linen cloth and, if financial circumstances allowed, anointed with sweet-smelling spices and ointments. Embalming was neither a general nor a common practice. Burial took place, usually, on the day of the person’s death. The dead body was never burnt, but interred, unless for some particular reason, as in the case of Saul and his sons. Mourning customs were various, such as wearing sackcloths, scattering dust and ashes on the head, beating the breast, plucking and pulling out the hair and the beard, throwing oneself upon the earth; rending the garments, going about barefooted, veiling the face, and in some cases abstaining from eating and drinking for a short time. The usual period of mourning lasted seven days. With few exceptions the bodies were interred outside of the town, either in caves or in public cemeteries. Persons of high social and financial standing were publicly mourned, and their bodies placed in sepulchres hewn in rock.

(4) FOOD AND MEALS

The principal articles of food among the ancient Hebrews can be easily summarized from the interesting description of the land of Canaan occurring in the Book of Deuteronomy, where it is said to he “a land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and fig trees, and pomegranates; a land of oil olive, and honey; a land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it” (Deut., viii, 8, 9). Their meals were undoubtedly of the simplest description, and their table was more rich with fish, milk, fruit, and vegetables than with meat. Animal food in general was in favour with the people at large, but the Mosaic law restricted its use to almost the minimum. Animals or parts of animals designated for sacrifice or other holy uses could only be eaten under specific conditions. In the eleventh chapter of Leviticus and the fourteenth of Deuteronomy, a list is given of a large class of animals which were looked upon as ceremonially unfit to be eaten. Animals, furthermore, were classified as pure and impure, or clean and unclean, and the complicated legislation of the Pentateuch concerning the use of these is partly based on sanitary, partly fanciful, and partly ceremonial grounds. The evening meal was the principal meal of the day, and if knives, forks, spoons, and other like instruments were used in the preparation of the meals they were not used at the table. Hands were washed before and after meals. Neither prayer, nor grace, nor blessing seems to have been proffered before or after the repast. In other particulars the table usages and customs of the ancient Hebrews may reasonably be supposed to have been like those of modern Palestine.

(5) DRESS AND ORNAMENTS

The materials for clothing were principally cotton, linen, and wool; silk is once, or never, mentioned in the Old Testament. The wearing of a mixed fabric of wool and linen was forbidden by the Mosaic law. So, also, either sex was forbidden to wear the garments proper to the opposite sex. The outer garment of men consisted of loose, flowing robes, which were of various types and forms. On the four corners of this outer robe a fringe, or tassel, was attached. The undergarment, which was the same for both sexes, consisted, generally, of a sleeveless tunic or frock of any material desired, and reached to the knees or ankles. That of the woman was longer and of richer material. The tunic was fastened at the waist with a girdle. The fold made by the girdle served at the same time as a pocket. A second tunic and the shawl, which was long and of fine material, were also in use. The outer garment of the Hebrew women differed slightly from that of the men, and no detailed description of it is found in the Bible. It was undoubtedly richer and more ornamented than that of the other sex. The most accepted colour for ordinary garments was white, and the art of bleaching cloth was from very early times known and practised by the Hebrews. In later times, the purple, scarlet, and vermilion colours were extensively used, as well as the black, red, yellow, and green. Girdles were worn by both sexes, and golden girdles were not unknown. Men covered the head with some kind of a turban, or cap, although it is doubtful whether its use was universal in pre-Mosaic and Mosaic times. In ancient times women did not wear veils, but probably covered their heads with kerchiefs, mufflers, or mantles. Sandals were in general use, but not among the poorer classes, or among the farmers and shepherds. Worthy of notice is the ceremony mentioned in Deut., xxv, 9, according to which if a man refuses to marry the wife of his brother, who had died childless, “Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in [or before] his face, and she shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto the man that will not build up his brother’s house.” The drawing off of the shoe evidently indicated the surrender of the rights which the law gave the man to marry his brother’s widow. Likewise the modern custom of throwing a slipper sportively after a newly wedded pair leaving the parental house appears to have a like symbolical significance; the parents and family friends thereby symbolically renounce their right to the daughter or son in favour of the husband or wife. Finger-rings, ear-rings, and bracelets were extensively used by both men and women, but more so by the latter. Prosperous men always carried a staff and a seal. All these ornamental articles, however, were more indulged in by the Egyptians, Assyrians, and other Oriental nations than by the Hebrews. Hebrew women wore also cauls, anklets, and ankle-chains, scent-bottles, and decorated purses, or satchels. Perfumery was also indulged in; and extensive use was made of pigments as applied to the eyelids and eyebrows by women. Tattooing on the face, arms, chest, and hands was in all probability practised by the Hebrews, although it was to a certain extent incompatible with certain Mosaic prescriptions.

(6) PASTORAL AND AGRICULTURAL LIFE

According to the Biblical records, tilling the ground and the rearing of cattle and sheep were the first and earliest occupations of men. In Patriarchal times the latter was in greater favour, while in the later Hebrew period the first prevailed over the second. This transition from the pastoral, or nomadic, to the agricultural, or settled, life was a natural consequence of the settlement in Canaan, but at no time did the two occupations exclude each other. Both, in fact, were important, indispensable, and necessary. The sheep was, of course, the principal animal both as an article of food and as wool-producers besides its constant use as a sacrificial animal. Sheep’s milk was also a favourite article. Rams also, with from two to as many as eight horns, are not infrequently mentioned. Goats are frequently mentioned, and cows and oxen were utilized for milk and butter and for tilling the ground. Horses and camels were imported from Arabia. Poultry and hens are not once mentioned in the Old Testament. The ass was a common and useful animal for transportation, but the mule is not mentioned in the Bible prior to the time of the monarchy. The life of the Hebrew and Eastern shepherds in general was by no means easy or uneventful. Jacob, in fact, in reproaching his father-in-law, Laban, says: “Thus I was: in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep fled from mine eyes” (Gen., xxxi, 40); and of his own pastoral life and its perils David tells us that “there came a lion, an a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock: and I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth” [I Sam. (D. V. I Kings), xvii, 34, 35]. The shepherd’s duties were to lead out the flock to pasture, watch them, supply them with water, go after the straying ones, and bring them all safely back to the fold at night. These formed his riches, trade, occupation, and sustenance.

Agriculture is the natural product of settled life. Nevertheless we read of Isaac that during the prevalence of a famine in Palestine he cultivated land in the vicinity of Gerar, which produced a hundredfold (Gen., xxvi, 12). The Mosaic law recognizes land as the principal possession of the Hebrews, and its cultivation as their chief business. Hence every Hebrew family was to have its own piece of ground, which could not be alienated, except for limited periods. Such family estates were carefully surveyed; and it was regarded as one of the most flagrant of crimes to remove a neighbour’s landmark. Estates were divided into so many yokes, that is, such portions as a yoke of oxen could plough in a single day. The value of the land was according to its yield in grain. Irrigation was practised to a certain extent in Palestine, though not carried to the same extent as in Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt. The chief dependence for moisture was on the dew and the drenching rains of the rainy season. The climate of Palestine was, as a whole, favourable to agriculture, although in modern times the valleys and the plains have greatly deteriorated in fertility. The ground was ordinarily fertilized by the ashes of burnt straw and stubble, the chaff left after threshing, and the direct application of dung. According to the Mosaic law, every tillable land should enjoy on each seventh year a sabbath, or a rest. The year in question is called the Sabbatic Year, in which the field was not to be tilled. The object of this prescription was to heighten the natural fertility of the soil. What grew spontaneously in that year was to be not alone for the owner, but, on equal terms, for the poor, for strangers and for cattle. It is doubtful, however, whether this law was scrupulously observed in later Hebrew times. The most widely cultivated grains were wheat and barley, as well as spelt and millet. Of plants and vegetables the principal were grape-vines, olive-trees, nuts, apples, figs, pomegranates, beans, lentils, onions, melons, cucumbers, etc. The season for ploughing and cultivating the ground extended from October to March; that of gathering the crops from April or May to September. The plough was similar to our modern one. It was ordinarily drawn by two oxen, cows or asses, never, however, by an ass and an ox together. It was also forbidden under penalty of confiscation to sow the same field with two kinds of seeds. The beginning of the harvest was signalized by bringing a sheaf of new grain (presumably barley) into the sanctuary and waving it before the Lord. The grain was generally cut with the sickle, and sometimes pulled up by the roots. Fields and fruit-orchards were not to be gleaned by their owners, as this privilege was given to the poor and strangers, as in the case of Ruth. The threshing and winnowing were performed in the open field, the first by means of cattle yoked together, the other by shovels and fans.

(7) COMMERCE

The Hebrew people of olden times were not inclined towards commerce and did not indulge in it. This is probably due partly to the geographical position of Palestine and partly to its physical features. For although, geographically, Palestine would seem to have offered the most natural highway to connect the opulent commercial nations of Egypt, Syria, Ph nicia, Assyria, and Babylonia, nevertheless, it lacked a sea-coast. Hence the Israelites remained essentially agriculturists. The trade of the Israelites consisted chiefly in the mutual exchange of products among themselves. At the time of David and Solomon, caravans from Egypt, Arabia, and Syria were not infrequently sent to Palestine and vice versa. The ships which Solomon is said to have sent to remote lands were built and manned by the Ph nicians. But even this revival of commercial spirit among the Hebrews was short-lived, for it ended with the life of Solomon. Solomon’s commercial activities have been also greatly misunderstood and exaggerated. A faint revival of the Solomonic commercial spirit was inaugurated by King Jehoshaphat, of whom we read that he made “ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir for gold: but they went not; for the ships were broken at Eziongeber” [I (D. V. III) Kings, xxii, 48]. During and after the Babylonian Captivity, the Hebrews were compelled by circumstances to resort to trade and commerce, as they had come into constant contact with their Babylonian brethren and with the numerous Syro-Ph nician and Aramæan tribes and colonies. The historian Josephus well summarizes this whole matter when, in his work against Apion, he says: “We neither inhabit a maritime country, nor do we delight in merchandise, nor in such a mixture with other men as arises from it.”

Previous to the Babylonian Captivity, coined money does not seem to have circulated among the Hebrews, although a few references in Isaiah and other prophets seem to indicate its existence. Silver and gold were bought and exchanged by weight and value. The talent, the shekel, the kesitah, and the maneh (mina) are late Hebrew terms and of Babylonian origin. After the Exile, and especially during the Persian, Greek, and Roman dominations, coined money became quite common in Palestine, such as the quadrans, the assarion, the denarius, the drachma, the stater, the didrachma, etc.

During the time of the monarchy and afterwards., such trades and occupations as woodworking, metalworking, stone-working, tanning, and weaving were thoroughly in evidence among the most industrious class of the Israelites, but the Chosen People cannot be said to have attained considerable skill and success in these directions.

(8) SCIENCE, ARTS, ETC.

At no time can the Hebrews be said to have developed a liking for the study of history, astronomy, astrology, geometry, arithmetic, grammar, and physical science in general. The Book of Job, Proverbs, and the many parables which Solomon is said to have written contain but meagre and popular notions, mostly drawn from observations of everyday life and happenings, while others are, to a great extent, due to the Babylonian influence and civilization which, from very early times, and especially during and after the Captivity, seem to have invaded the entire literary and social life of the Hebrews. Hence the Hebrew astronomical system, their calendar, constellations, sacred numbers, names of the months, solar and lunar months, etc., are of Babylonian origin. The Book of Job no less than the early chapters of Genesis show the traces of this same Babylonian influence.

As the Tell-el-Amarna letters have conclusively shown, the art of writing must have been known in Canaan and among the ancient Hebrews as early as the Mosaic age, and even earlier. Whether, however, this art was utilized by them to any great extent, is another question. Hebrew literature is one of the most venerable and valuable literary productions of the ancient East; and, although in respect of quantity and variety far inferior to that of the Assyro-Babylonians and Egyptians, nevertheless, in loftiness of ideals, sublimity of thoughts, and standard of morals and ethics, it is infinitely superior to them.

The art of music, both vocal and instrumental, occupies a high position in the Bible. Previous to the time of David, the music of the Hebrews seems to have been of the simplest character, as direct efforts to cultivate music among them appear first in connexion with the schools of the prophets, founded by Samuel. Under David’s direction not less than four thousand musicians, i.e. more than the tenth part of the tribe of Levi, praised the Lord with “instruments” in the service of the temple. A select body of two hundred and eighty-eight trained musicians led this chorus of voices, one person being placed as leader over a section consisting of twelve singers. Heman, Asaph, and Ethan were among the most famous of these leaders. Men and women were associated together in the choir. In later Hebrew times the art of music developed still further till it reached its acme under Hezekiah and Josiah. The Hebrew musical instruments were, like those of other nations of antiquity, chiefly of three kinds, viz: stringed instruments, wind instruments, and such as were beaten or shaken to produce sound. To the first class belong the harp, the psaltery (also rendered “viol,” “dulcimer,” etc.), the sackbut (Lat. Sambuca). To the second belong the flute, the pipe (Lat. fistula), and the trumpet. To the last belong the tabret, or timbrel, the castanets, and the cymbals.

In mechanical arts, the Israelites were far behind their Egyptian and Assyro-Babylonian neighbours. The author of I Samuel (D. V. I Kings) gives a sorry but true picture of the times preceding the activity of Samuel as follows: “Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel . . . but all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock.” In the times of Solomon, however, as it appears in connexion with the building of the temple, conditions materially improved. Of the artisan classes, those working in wood and metals were always, perhaps, the most numerous in Israel. Among the former were carpenters, cabinet-makers, wood-carvers, manufacturers of wagons, of baskets, of various household utensils, including the distaff and the loom, and of the tools used in agriculture, such as ploughs, yokes, threshing-machines, goads, and winnowing-shovels. Workers in metals mentioned in the Bible are gold- and silversmiths and workers in brass and iron. Some of the tools of which they made use were the anvil, the bellows, the smelting-furnace, the fining-pot, the hammer, and the tongs. Among the various products of these Hebrew metal-workers are settings for precious stones, gilding, axes, saws, sickles, knives, swords, spear-heads, fetters, chains, bolts, nails, hooks, penstocks, pans for cooking purposes, ploughshares, and the wheels of threshing-instruments. Copper or bronze was also used in manufacturing some of these articles. Other artisans mentioned in the Bible are: stone-masons, brick- and tile-makers, engravers, apothecaries, perfumers, bakers, tanners, fullers, spinners, weavers, and potters. Most of these trades and mechanical arts, however, came into prominence during the reign of Solomon and his successors.

II. POLITICAL ANTIQUITIES

(1) CIVIL ADMINISTRATION

It has been truly said that law as law was unknown in early Israel. The customs of the clans and the conduct of the elders or of the most influential members of the tribe were looked upon as the standards of law and morality. Lawfulness was a matter of custom more or less ancient and more or less approved; and penalty was equally a matter of custom. When custom failed in a specific case, judgment could be rendered and new precedents might be made which in process of time would crystallize into customs. Hence the old tribal system among primitive Semitic clans, and especially in early Israel and Arabia, knew no legislative authority; and no single person or group of persons was ever acknowledged as having power to make laws or to render judgment. Of course prominent individuals or families within the tribe enjoyed certain privileges in acknowledgment of which they performed certain duties. In many cases they were called upon to settle differences, but they had no judicial powers and, if their decision did not satisfy the litigants, they had neither the right nor the power to enforce obedience, much less to inflict punishment. Within the tribe all men are on a footing of equality, and under a communistic system petty offences are unreasonable. Serious misdemeanour is punished by expulsion; the offender is excluded from the protection of his kinsmen, and the penalty is sufficiently severe to prevent it being a common occurrence. The man who is wronged must take the first step in gaining redress; and when it happens that the whole tribe is aroused by the perpetration of any exceptionally serious crime, the offence is fundamentally regarded as a violation of the tribe’s honour, rather than as a personal injury to the family of the sufferer. This condition of affairs, however, does not necessarily imply a condition of utter lawlessness. On the contrary, tribal customs formed practically a law of binding character, although they were not regarded as law in the proper sense of the term.

That such was the prevalent social condition of the ancient Hebrews in the patriarchal period is quite certain. The few recorded incidents in the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob furnish ample illustration of it. The long sojourn of the Hebrews in Egypt and the comparatively advanced civilization with which they there came in contact, as well as their settlement in Canaan, might be expected to have influenced their old tribal system of law and justice. Nevertheless, the authentic historical records of Israel’s national formation and even the legislation of the Book of the Covenant, which is undoubtedly the oldest Hebrew code of laws, when carefully examined, utterly fail to show any such remarkable advance in the administration of law and justice over the old nomadic tribal system. It is true, that as Dr. Benzinger remarks, “before the monarchy Israel had attained a certain degree of unity in matters of law; not in the sense that it possessed a written law common to all the tribes, or as a uniform organization for the pronouncing of legal judgments, but in the sense that along with a common God it had a community of custom and of feeling in matters of law, which community of feeling can be traced back very far. ‘It is not so done in Israel’ and ‘Folly in Israel, which ought not to be done’ are proverbial expressions reaching back to quite early times.” Nevertheless, law as law, with legislative power and authority, or a uniform system of legal procedure with courts and professional judges, were unknown in the earlier period of Israelitish history.

A study of the different Hebrew terms for judge clearly shows that a professional class of judges and, consequently, duly constituted courts did not exist in Israel till the first period of the monarchy, and even later. The Shoterim were primarily subordinate military officials, who were employed partly in the maintenance of civil order and military discipline. It was not until post-Exilic times that the term was applied to one with judicial power. Mehokek (primarily from hakak, “to cut in,” “to inscribe,” “to decide,” etc., and subsequently, as in Arabic, “to be just,” “right,” etc.) meant originally commander or ruler. The shophetim (Lat. sufetes; Assyrian sapatu), from which the “Book of Judges” takes its title, were not judges, but champions and deliverers. Hence, in Hosea (D. V. Osee), vii, 7, and Ps., ii, 10, shophetim is a synonym of “kings” and “rulers,” and the sufetes of the Ph nician cities and colonies were called “kings” by the Greeks. Other terms, such as palil, quasin, the meaning of which is rather obscure, primarily mean “umpire” in general, “chief,” and “petty ruler.” The only Hebrew word which, properly speaking, means “judge,” in its etymology and historical significance, is dayyan (found in all Semitic languages: Arab. dayyân; Aramaic dayyâna; Assyrian da-a-nu or da-ia-nu, etc.). Although the stem meant originally “to requite,” “to compensate,” “to govern,” and “to rule,” we have sufficient warrant to believe that it meant, from the very earliest times, “to decide,” and “to render decision.” In the Old Testament, however, the word rarely occurs. In I Sam. (D. V., I Kings), xxiv, 15, it is even questionable whether it belongs to the original text, and it is only in post-Exilic times that the word meant “professional judge.”

What was the polity of the Hebrew tribes prior to the time of Moses is not difficult to describe.

“Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob governed their families with an authority well nigh unlimited. Their power over their households was little short of a sovereign dominion. They were independent princes. They acknowledged no subjection, and owed no allegiance to any sovereign. They formed alliances with other princes. They treated with kings on a footing of equality. They maintained a body of servants, trained to the use of arms; were the chiefs who led them in war, and repelled force by force. They were the priests who appointed festivals, and offered sacrifices. They had the power of disinheriting their children, of sending them away from home without assigning any reason, and even of punishing them capitally.

“The twelve sons of Jacob ruled their respective families with the same authority. But when their descendants had become numerous enough to form tribes, each tribe acknowledged a prince as its ruler. This office, it is likely, was at first hereditary in the oldest son, but afterwards became elective. When the tribes increased to such an extent as to embrace a great number of separate households, the less powerful ones united with their stronger relatives, and acknowledged them as their superiors. In this way, there arose a subdivision of the tribes into collections of households. Such a collection was technically called a family, a clan, a house of fathers, or a thousand. This last appellation was not given because each of these sub- divisions contained just a thousand persons, or a thousand households; for in the nature of things, the number must have varied, and in point of fact, it is manifest from the history, that it did. As the tribes had their princes, so these clans, families, or thousands had their respective chiefs, who were called heads of houses of fathers, heads of thousands, and sometimes simply heads. Harrington denominates these two classes of officers phylarchs, or governors of tribes, and patriarchs, or governors of families. Both, while the Israelites were yet in Egypt, were comprehended under the general title of elders. Whether this name was a title of honour, like that of sheikh (the aged) among the Arabs, and that of senator among the Romans, or whether it is to be understood, according to its etymology, as denoting persons actually advanced in years, is uncertain, These princes of tribes and heads of thousands, the elders of Israel, were the rulers of the people, while they remained still subject to the power of the Pharaohs, and constituted a kind of ‘imperium in imperio.’ Of course they had no written constitution, nor any formal code of laws, but governed by custom, reason and the principles of natural justice. They watched over and provided for the general good of the community, while the affairs of each individual household continued under the control of its own father. For the most part, it may be supposed, only those cases which concerned the fathers of families themselves would come under the cognizance and supervision of the elders.

During their wanderings through the Desert the Hebrew tribes had no occasion to introduce any radical change in this form of government, for they had to contend with continuous difficulties of a social, moral, and religious character. And, although numerically superior to many Canaanitish tribes, they were, nevertheless, lacking in military discipline and were constantly moving from place to place. Realizing the necessity of defending themselves against the predatory tribes and rivals for the possession of fertile lands and oases they soon developed a military spirit, which is the strongest external principle of cohesion in nomadic life.

The administration of justice in Israel in the Mosaic age, and for a long time after, was in the hands of the elders, the local judges, and, somewhat later, the priests and the Levites, joined afterwards by the prophets. The elders, who represented the former heads of the families and clans under the tribal system, had undoubtedly ample jurisdiction concerning family affairs, disputes about conjugal relations, inheritances, the division of property, the appointment of the goel or upholder of the family, and the settlement of blood-revenge. The local judges, as we have remarked, were not what this technical title ordinarily means. They were merely arbitrators and advisers in settling disputes which could not be settled by the elders, and very often they had to decide cases of appeal from the ordinary bench of elders at the city gates. They were, as a rule, taken from the body of the elders of the city, and later on from the princes, chiefs, and military officers of the army. The third class consisted of priests, and later on of prophets. They were appealed to in all difficult cases, their authority and influence being undoubtedly very strong. To appeal to a priest was to appeal to God Himself, for the priest was universally acknowledged as the official representative of Yahweh. His decisions were regarded as “directions,” and as such they were of an advisory character, thus constituting the “oracle” of the Hebrews. As originally each family group had its own priest, resort was naturally had to him for light on practical difficulties, not so much the settling of disputes as pointing out the safe, judicious, or righteous way for the individuals of the household in embarrassment. The prophets were also, in course of time, appealed to, not so much as official representatives of Yahweh as from the fact that they were regarded as men eminent in wisdom and spiritual authority. From the eighth century downwards the authority of the priests was greatly overshadowed by that of the prophets, who managed the destinies of the whole nation with an almost unlimited authority and assertiveness, proclaiming themselves as the messengers of Yahweh and the mouthpieces of His orders. A single judicial centre for the whole nation was never attained till the period of the monarchy. During the period of the Judges several leading judicial centres existed, such as Shiloh, Beth-el, Gilgal, Mizpah, Ramah, etc.

Whether Hebrew judges held their office for life is not altogether certain, although the presumption is that they did. It is likewise uncertain whether any salary or compensation was attached to the office. In the case of the Ten Judges, no revenues were appropriated for them, except, perhaps, a larger share of the spoils taken in war; and in case of the ordinary local judges or elders the offering of presents was quite common. This at first may have been a kind of testimonial of gratitude and respect, but it afterwards degenerated into mere bribery and corruption.

Whether the office of princes of tribes, chiefs, military officers, elders, and judges was hereditary or elective, is not easy to determine. Both systems may have been according to the different circumstances; but that in the majority of cases it was hereditary, admits of no doubt, for such was the prevailing custom in the ancient East and, to a certain extent, is so even in our own days.

No external sign of honour seems to have been attached to the dignity of judges and elders in Israel. They were without pomp, retinue, or equipage, although the passage in the Song of Deborah relating to those “who ride on white asses and sit in judgment” probably refers to the princes of the tribes, chiefs, elders, and judges in their respective capacities of military commanders, magistrates, and moral advisers and arbiters. In the East, even at the present day, the quadis, or chief judges and magistrates, have the distinctive privilege of riding either on mules or white asses, as against the military officers and civil governors who must ride on horses.

That the office of chief magistrate was unknown in ancient Israel is quite certain. In the whole Pentateuchal legislation allusion to such an institution is absolutely wanting. The supreme authority of the Hebrew community was in Yahweh. Moses, strictly speaking, was but the viceroy of Yahweh and the same, to a certain extent, may also be said of Joshua. Their successors, the judges, were rather military commanders than judges or magistrates in the strict sense. With the beginning of the monarchy, the civil as well as the military power began to be concentrated, as far as possible, in the person of the king. But the Pentateuchal legislation as a whole is decidedly adverse to the idea of concentrating all power in the person of the king, or in that of any individual, and it is not improbable that the writer of Deut., xvii, was influenced by Israel’s historical experience under the monarchy.

Allusions to the administration of law and justice in the old Book of the Covenant are extremely meagre and utterly fail to give us any clear (or even vague) reference to legal procedure, judges, courts, or to any system of administration of justice. It is true that the Book of the Covenant contains statutes and judgments, apparently enacted by some authoritative power; for such an authority must be assumed, otherwise there would be no meaning in the precise fixing of punishment, etc., such as the punishment of death, seven times prescribed, and the avenging on the body of the guilty person the wrong he had done. Still, as Kautzsch rightly remarks, “we are wholly in the dark as to the circle from which all the statutes and judgments proceeded, and, above all, as to the public authority by which scrupulous obedience was ensured. And, emphatically as justice and impartiality in legal cases is insisted on (xxiii, ff.), there is not a single indication as to who is authorized to pronounce sentence or to supervise the execution of the verdict.” In two cases, however, viz., in Exodus, xxi, 6 and xxii, 8, in which the case is complicated and the law doubtful, the Book of the Covenant insists that the parties should present themselves “before God” (Elohim): in the first case probably to perform a symbolic act which will have legal effect, and in the second probably to obtain an oracle. The Septuagint seems to have understood the sense of the phrase before God in its most obvious meaning, rendering it “before the tribunal of God,” i.e. that the matter is to be referred to the judgment of God, presumably in the sanctuary or before the priest. Rabbinical tradition, however, as early as the time of St. Jerome, took the word Elohim (God) as a plural, i.e. “gods,” arguing that the word here means simply “judges,” from the fact that, on account of the sacredness of their office, and the place where their decisions were rendered (often in the temple or at some sacred shrine) the Judges were called “gods.” The rabbinical interpretation which has been followed by the majority of ancient and modern commentators ingenious though it be, is nevertheless erroneous for, considering the fact that the two cases referred to were such as no judge could decide with any certainty or probability , and in which only a divine intervention could bring about a satisfactory solution, we may assume that the rabbinical interpretation is untenable. This conclusion has been admirably vindicated by the Code of Hammurabi, where, in several cases in which the doubt is such as to make any human wisdom of no avail, and any judicial decision untrustworthy, the decision is left to God Himself. Hence, in all such cases Hammurabi decrees that the litigants should present themselves “before God,” and swear by His name, i.e. take an oath. The expression used by Hammurabi is exactly the same as that used in the two passages of Exodus referred to, and the cases in which the expression is applied are analogous. But in the Code of Hammurabi “to appear before God” is the same as “to swear by the name of God,” or “to take a solemn oath”; hence, in the two passages of Exodus, to appear before Elohim does not mean to appear before the judges, but to take a solemn oath at some holy place or sanctuary where the presence of the deity was more sensibly felt. By taking an oath the man in question constitutes God as the judge before whom he protests his innocence and affirms his rights. God is thereby called upon to avenge Himself upon the perjurers. And this God is neither Bel, nor Marduk, nor any other particular god, but is the Deity in its almost abstract form—He who is considered to be everywhere and to know everything. Hence the rabbinical interpretation, followed, till the discovery of the Code of Hammurabi, by the majority of commentators, may be confidently dismissed.

The legislation of Deuteronomy, on the other hand, which is in the main considerably later than that of the Book of the Covenant, furnishes us with more abundant details concerning the administration of law and justice in Israel. These are contained mainly in xvi, 18–20; xvii, 8–13, and 14–20; xix, 15–20, and xxv, 1–4. From II Chronicles (D. V. Paralipomenon) we learn that King Jehoshaphat established in Jerusalem a supreme tribunal, or court of justice, where priests and lay judges participated in the administration of justice each in their own sphere, and that he appointed judges in all cities of Judah. Details are lacking, but in its broader features the judicature thus established by Jehoshaphat agrees remarkably with the system prescribed in Deuteronomy, xvii, 8–13. Even in this case it is doubtful whether these judges and tribunals could in any satisfactory measure compare with the Babylonian legal system of the time of Hammurabi. In Ezechiel’s time (and this brings us down to the sixth century B. C.) the priests seem to have absorbed all administrative power, while the author of I Chronicles, evidently influenced by Ezechiel or Deuteronomy, tells us that David had appointed 6,000 Levites as judges, which is quite inadmissible. In the post-Exilic times, and during the Greek and Roman periods, reference is made to professional judges, local courts, and tribunals in all the cities of Israel, which was undoubtedly due to Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman influences.

Judicial or legal procedure was very simple in early Israel. In Exodus, xviii, 22, we are told that the elders appointed by Moses at Horeb were to judge the people “at all seasons”; and in Numbers, xxvii, 2 (cf. Exodus, xviii, 19 sqq.), we read that Moses rendered judgments before the tabernacle of Yahweh, where he sat with Aaron and the princes or elders of the congregation to teach statutes and give judgments. According to Deuteronomy, xxi, 19; xxii, 15; and xxv, 7 (cf. Prov., xxii, 22; Amos , v, 11, 15; and Ruth, iv, 1, etc.), the judges in the cities had their seat at the gate, which was the thoroughfare of the public, or in the public squares of the city, where the markets were held, or in some other open place. Even the supreme judges administered justice in public; Deborah, for instance, under a palm-tree, and the kings at the gate, or in the court, of the royal palace. Solomon is said to have erected a porch, or hall of judgment, in Jerusalem, for his own royal court of justice, and from Jeremiah we learn that in later times the princes of Judah exercised judgment in a chamber of the royal palace. Jeremiah himself, when accused by the priests and false prophets, was judged by the princes of the people, who are said to have come out of the king’s house into the temple to judge at the entrance of the new gate before the assembled people. The litigants, viz., the plaintiff and the defendant, appeared personally before the elders, and presented their complaints orally. The accused, if not present, could be summoned to appear. Advocates are unknown in the Old Testament, for the plaintiff was supposed to look after his own case if he desired satisfactory judgment. Litigants were also at liberty to settle their differences personally, without appealing to the judge. The judge was held bound to hear and examine the case closely and conscientiously, his chief method of inquiry being the examination of the testimony of the witnesses. The accusations of the father against his rebellious child needed no support of witness. In other cases, however, especially criminal cases, not fewer than two or three witnesses were absolutely required. In all probability the testimony of slaves, children under age, and women was not accepted, as is expressly stated by Josephus and the Talmud, although not mentioned in the Old Testament. Witnesses were thoroughly examined, and, as in the Code of Hammurabi, false witnesses were punished according to the lex talionis, viz., by inflicting the precise kind of punishment the false witness had intended to bring upon his victim by his falsehood. Witnesses do not seem to have been put on oath, but when the nature of the case was such as to make it impossible to have or to produce witnesses as in a case of theft,, the oath was then administered to the accused, and the case decided. When the discovery of the crime and of the guilty party was a practical impossibility, Yahweh was looked to for the accomplishment of the task.

The Law affixes no civil punishment for perjury; it forbids it as a profanation of Yahweh’s name and threatens it with divine punishment. It must be noted, however, that in all cases in which an oath was taken before a judgment-seat it consisted merely of an adjuration addressed by the judge and responded to by the person sworn with an Amen. “Only in common life did the person swearing himself utter the oath, either: ‘So Yahweh do to me, and more also,’ or ‘God [Elohim] do so to me,’ etc., or ‘as Yahweh liveth.’ But in such cases the name of Yahweh was probably avoided, and the oath was taken by the life (soul) of the man, to whom one wished to protest by oath. In later times, it became common, especially among the Pharisees, to swear by heaven, by the earth, by the temple, the holy city, and by one’s own head.”

The verdict, or the sentence, was pronounced orally, although from Job, xiii, 16; and Isaiah, x, 1, it appears that in some cases the sentence may have been given in written form. The sentence was to be executed without delay. Punishment was administered before the eyes of the judge, and that of stoning by the whole congregation or the people of the city, the witnesses being required to put their hands first to the execution of the guilty.

The practice of ordeals as means for ascertaining the truth, or obtaining a confession of guilt, was by no means unknown in Israel, although Josephus expressly tells us that torture and the bastinado for this purpose were first introduced into Israel by the Herodians. The most important one is the so-called “ordeal of jealousy,” prescribed in Numbers, v, 11–31, in the case of a woman suspected of adultery which cannot be legally proved. For this purpose the husband of the suspected woman would bring her to the priest; he must also bring with him an offering of barley meal, which is called “a meal-offering of jealousy, a meal-offering of memorial bringing guilt to remembrance.” The priest brings the woman before Yahweh, makes her take an oath of purgation, and then gives her to drink a potion described as “the water of bitterness that causeth the cure,” consisting of “holy water” with which dust from the floor of the tabernacle has been mingled, and into which the written words of the oath have been washed. If the woman be guilty the potion proves harmful; if innocent, harmless; in the latter case, moreover, the woman becomes fruitful.

The existence, at least at certain periods, of corruption and dishonesty in the administration of justice in Israel, and especially among the priests, need hardly be insisted on. The example of the two sons of Eli, notorious for their greed, is well known. Micah, Isaiah, Hosea, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, and Malachi freely and vehemently accuse the Hebrew judges of unfairness, injustice, respect of persons, bribery, and dishonesty in their legal decisions.

(2) THE ARMY

While in Egypt, the Hebrews lived a peaceful pastoral life under the supreme control of the Pharaohs. During their forty-years wandering in the desert, they had no enemy to fight, and no land to conquer; but when the time of their entering Canaan approached, the situation was completely changed. Here they were face to face with old settled Canaanitish tribes and nations, such as the Philistines, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Amorites, the Jebusites, the Hivites, the Perizzites, and many others, whom they had to attack, defeat, and exterminate. “Ye shall utterly destroy,” was the command of Yahweh, “all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: and ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place” (Deut., xii, 2, 3). Hence the creation and organization of an army became a necessity, and it is morally certain that in their first wars every available Hebrew fighter took part. From the time of David down to the late monarchical period a regular army was selected and organized. From Num., i, 3, it appears that the whole male population over twenty years of age if capable of bearing arms, were liable to military duty. At the time of the Judges, it is certain that the Israelitish army was composed wholly of infantry, as David was the first to use horses and chariots for military purposes, and it was Solomon who first established a distinct cavalry army. In the middle days of the monarchy the Hebrews could raise an army of one hundred and eighty thousand men [I Kings (D. V. III Kings), xii, 21], and on some occasions twice and even three times as many [see II Chronicles (D. V. Paralip.), xiii, 3, and xiv, 8]. These figures, however, need be greatly lowered, as they are due probably to a copyist’s error. The army was divided into hundreds and thousands, with their appropriate leaders, captains of hundreds and captains of thousands, if on their arrival by septs or clans they were not thus organized. It is certain, however, that in point of armament and military organization and discipline the Hebrew army was greatly inferior to either the Egyptian or the Assyrian. Before undertaking any military operation. Yahweh was consulted through a prophet or through the Urim and Thummim, and sacrifices were offered just as in Homer’s times. This custom, however, was practised by all nations of antiquity. From many Biblical passages [such as Judges, vii, 16; I Sam. (D. V. Kings), xi, 11; II Sam. (D. V. Kings), xviii, 2; I Kings (D. V. III Kings), xx, 27; and II Macc., viii, 22, etc.] it clearly appears that the attacking Israelitish army was usually divided into three divisions, one in the centre and two on the flanks. Isaiah refers even to the “wings” of the army (viii, 8). A column advancing to conflict was preceded by two ranks of spearmen; next to these was a rank of bowmen, and behind them came the slingers. Spies were often sent out in advance to learn the position and the strength of the enemy, while night-attacks, with skilfully divided forces, were not infrequent. The beginning of the battle was signalized by the blast of a trumpet, accompanied by the shouts of the combatants. The Ark with its ephod was considered indispensable. It was borne before the army, who, as it was taken up, cried out, “Arise, 0 Yahweh, and let Thine enemies be scattered, and let them that hate Thee flee before Thee.” The principal equipment for war was the helmet, shield, and other defensive armour, the bow, the sling, the sword, the spear, the javelin, and other instruments which must have been common to all Oriental nations, although not explicitly mentioned in the Bible.

III. SACRED ANTIQUITIES

Some of the Hebrew festivals are originally of historical character, i.e. are commemorative of some great historical event in the life of the Hebrew nation; while others are primarily religious, or of ethico-religious significance. To the first category belong the Feast of Passover, the Feast of Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, and other minor ones mentioned below such as the Feast of Purim, etc. To the second class belong the Sabbath, the New Moon, the Feast of Trumpets, the Sabbatical Year and the Year of Jubilee. The former were more properly called festivals; the latter, sacred seasons. The latter are lunar; the former are solar—based on the lunar and solar system respectively. The principal features of the three great historical festivals consisted in making a pilgrimage, or a visit, to the Temple, as prescribed in Exodus, xxiii, 14, 17: “Three times in the year shalt thou hold pilgrimage unto me, three times in the year shall all thy men appear before Yahweh, the God of Israel.”

The Passover (whence our Pascha), with which the Feast of the Unleavened Bread is closely connected and almost identified, although originally distinct from it, constituted the opening festival of the Jewish ecclesiastical year, and was celebrated on the 14th of Nisan (Abib), which month approximately corresponds to our April. It was instituted in commemoration of the Exodus from Egypt, when the Angel of Death went forth to destroy the first-born of the Egyptians, passing over (whence Passover), however, the houses of the Hebrews, on the lintels of whose doors the blood of a lamb had been sprinkled. The Passover Festival was celebrated as follows: An unblemished male lamb a year old (called the paschal lamb) was to be selected by each family in Israel. It was to be killed on the evening of the fourteenth day and consumed the same night. The flesh was to be roasted, not eaten raw, or boiled, and not a bone of the animal was to be broken. Along with it, unleavened bread and bitter herbs might be used, but nothing more; and whatever portions were not needed for food were to be destroyed the same night by burning. Hence, on the evening of the thirteenth day of Nisan, all leaven was scrupulously removed from the Jewish homes. The fourteenth day was thus regarded as a holiday, on which all servile work was suspended. In later Hebrew times, however, the Passover Festival was somewhat modified.

The Feast of the Pentecost, also called the Feast of Weeks, Feast of Harvest, Day of Firstfruits, etc., was celebrated on the fiftieth day after the Passover, i.e. on or about the 8th of Siwan, the third month of the Jewish ecclesiastical year. It lasted a single day, and it marked the completion of the corn harvest. According to later Jewish traditions, the Feast of Pentecost was also instituted in commemoration of the giving of the Law to Moses. It is mentioned in the Bible for the first time in the second Book of Maccabees. With the Feast of Pentecost the New Year holiday season closed: The characteristic ritual of this feast consisted in offering and waving to Yahweh in his Temple two leavened loaves of wheaten flour, together with a sin offering, burnt offering, and peace offering, and its object was to offer to Yahweh the flrst-fruits of the harvest, and to thank Him for it.

The Feast of Tabernacles, or Booths, was observed for seven days, i.e. from the 15th to the 22nd of Tisri (the seventh month of the Jewish year, approximately corresponding to our October), following closely upon the Day of Atonement. It marked the completion of the fruit-harvest (which included the oil- and wine-harvest), and, historically, it commemorated the forty-years wandering in the wilderness, when all the Hebrew tribes and families, for lack of houses and buildings, lived in tents and booths. “The sacrifices at this feast were far more numerous than at any other. On each of the seven days one kid of the goats was offered as a sin offering, and two rams and fourteen lambs as a burnt-offering. Also seventy bullocks were offered on the seven days, beginning with thirteen on the first day and diminishing by one each day, until on the seventh day seven were offered. After the seven days a solemn day of ‘holy convocation’ was observed which marked the conclusion, not only of the feast of Tabernacles, but of the whole cycle of the festal year. On this day one bullock, one ram, and seven lambs were offered as a burnt offering, and one goat for a sin offering.” The earliest Biblical allusion to this feast is found in I (D. V. III) Kings, viii, 2, and xii, 32.

Besides these three great festivals, certain minor ones were observed by the Hebrews: The word Purim is probably of Persian origin (Furdigan, Pordigân, or Pardiyân), and the feast so named was instituted to commemorate the overthrow of Haman, the triumph of Mordecai, and the escape of the Jews from utter destruction in the time of Esther. It was celebrated in the 14th and 15th day of Adar (the twelfth and last month of the Jewish Year).—The Feast of the Dedication of the Temple was instituted in 164 B. C. by Judas Maccabæus, when the Temple, which had been desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes, was once more purified and rededicated to the service of Yahweh. It commenced on the 25th of Chislew, the ninth month of the Jewish year (corresponding to our December), and lasted for eight days. It was a feast of universal and unbounded joy, delight, and happiness, as was that of Purim. Other minor feasts were the Feast of the Wood Offering; The Reading of the Law; Feast of Nicanor; of the Captured Fortress; of Baskets, etc.

The sacred seasons, or religious festivals, are primarily a development of the institution of the Sabbath and based on the lunar system of the Calendar. It has been often remarked, and with good reason, that in all the Hebrew Religious Festivals the sacred number seven is the dominating factor. Every 7th day was a Sabbath. Every seventh month was a sacred month. Every seventh year was a Sabbatical year. Seven times seven was the year of Jubilee. The Feast of the Passover, with the Feast of the Unleavened Bread, began fourteen days (2x7) after the beginning of the month, and lasted seven days. The Feast of Pentecost was seven times seven days after the Feast of the Passover. The Feast of Tabernacles began fourteen days (2x7) after the beginning of the month and lasted seven days. The seventh month was marked by;

(1) the Feast of Trumpets on the first day,

(2) the Fast of Atonement on the tenth day,

(3) Feast of Tabernacles from the fifteenth day to the twenty-first. The days of the “Holy Convocation” were seven in number—two at the Passover, one at Pentecost, one at the Feast of Trumpets, one at the Day of Atonement, and one at the Feast of Tabernacles, and one on the day following, the eighth day.

The institution of the Hebrew Sabbath may be traced in its origin to the early Babylonians who, according to the majority of Assyriologists, seem to have been its originators, although among the Hebrews it developed on altogether different lines. It was celebrated on the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th day of the lunar month. It is doubtful whether it was known and observed in patriarchal and pre-Mosaic times. Moses, in instituting—or rather in modifying—the old institution of the Sabbath, connects it with the seventh day of the Creation period, on which God is said to have rested. By the ancient Babylonians it was looked upon as an unlucky day, on which it was unlucky to do any public work, consequently was a day of rest.

The New Moon Festival consisted in celebrating the reappearance of the moon, and as such it was universally practised by all Semitic nations. Hence, in all probability, it was an acknowledged pre-Mosaic Hebrew institution. On this day the law enjoined only the offering of special sacrifices and the blowing of trumpets. Abstinence from work was not obligatory. On the day of the new moon of the seventh month the festival in question was more solemnly and more elaborately celebrated. After the Babylonian exile, however, the festival assumed a new character, similar to that of the New Year Celebration.

The Feast of Trumpets is the New Moon Festival of the seventh, or Sabbatical, month of the year.

The Sabbatical Year occurred every seventh year, and in it fields were not to be tilled.

The Year of Jubilee occurred every fifty years, i.e. at the end of seven Sabbatic years, just as Pentecost occurred on the fiftieth day after the Passover Festival. Its principal features were the emancipation of the Hebrew slaves and the return of mortgaged property to its hereditary owners.

The great Hebrew Fast Festival was the “Day of Atonement,” or Yom Kippur. It was celebrated on the tenth day of the seventh month, on which day atoning sacrifices were offered for the sins and uncleannesses of the people of Israel as a whole, and for the purification of the temple in all its parts and appurtenances. It is significant that the earliest mention of it in the Bible occurs in such post-Exilic writings as Zech. (D. V. Zach.), iii, 9; Nehemiah, vii, 73; ix, 38; and Sirach, 1, 5 sqq. A ceremony connected with the Day of Atonement is the so-called For Azazel. It consisted in sending into the wilderness the remaining goat (the “emissary goat”), the sins of the people of Israel having first been placed symbolically upon its head.

Treatises on Biblical Arch ology by JARN (Vienna, 1817); ROSENMÜLLER (Leipzig, 1823–31); DE WETTE (Leipzig, 1864); EWALD (Göttingen, 1866); HANEBERG (Munich, 1869); ROSKEFF (Vienna, 1857); KINZLER (Stuttgart, 1884); SCHEGG (Freiburg, 1886). For English readers the best and most available works are KEIL, Manual of Biblical Arch ology (tr., 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1887); BISSELL, Biblical Antiquities (Philadelphia, 1888); FENTON, Early Hebrew Life (London, 1880); DAY, The Social Life of the Hebrews in the Semitic Series (New York, 1901); TRUMBULL, The Blood Covenant; ID., The Threshold Covenant; ID., The Salt Covenant; various articles in SMITH, Dictionary of the Bible; KITTO, Biblical Cyclopedia; VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible; HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible; and Jewish Encyclopedia. The most recent and authoritative works on the subject, however, are BENZIGER, Hebräische Archäologie (Freiburg im Br., 1894); NOWACK, Lehrbuch der hebräischen Archäologie (Freiburg im Br., 1894); BUHL, Die socialen Verhältnisse der Israeliten (Berlin, 1899), tr. into French by CINTRE (Paris, 1904); LEVY, La famille dans l’antiquité israelite (Paris, 1905). Of great value, especially for later Old Testament times, are also the classical works of SCHÜRER, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3 vols., 1898–1901), tr. from the 2nd ed. (5 vols., London and New York); EDERSHEIM, The Rites and Worships of the Jews (New York, 1891); ID., The Temple, its Ministry and Service (London, 1874); ID., Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (London and New York).

GABRIEL OUSSANI

Biblical Commission

A committee of cardinals at Rome who, with the assistance of consultors, have to secure the observance of the prescriptions contained in the Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus” for the proper interpretation and defence of Sacred Scripture. Its official name is “Commissio Pontificia de re biblicâ.” It was formally established by the Apostolic letter of Leo XIII, “Vigilantiæ,” 30 October, 1902.

CONSTITUTION

The Commission was first appointed in August, 1901, with three cardinal members and twelve consultors. After the formal establishment two cardinals and twenty-eight consultors from various parts of the world were added to the first list. There is no limitation to the number of consultors. In June, 1907, the Commission was made up of five cardinals, Rampolla, Satolli, Merry del Val, Segna, and Viven y Tuto. The consultors were forty-three: Amelli, O.S.B. (Rome), Balestri, O.S.A. (Rome), Bardenhewer (Munich), Cereseto, Cong. Orat. (Genoa), Coriani (Milan), Chauvin (Laval), Cornely, S.J. (Rome), Delattre, S.J. (Tronchiennes), Disterwald (Cologne), Esser, O.P. (Rome), Fillion, P.S.S. (Paris), Fleming, O.F.M. (England), Fracassini (Perugia), Genocchi, M.S.C. (Rome), Gismondi, S.J. (Rome), Gonfalonieri (Florence), Grannan (Washington), Gutberlet (Fulda), Hoberg (Freiburg im Br.), Höpfl (Rome), van Hoonacker (Louvain), von Hummelauer, S.J. (Valkenburg), Janssens, O.S.B., Second Secretary (Rome), Torio (Palencia), Kaulen (Bonn), Lagrange, O.P. (Jerusalem), Lamy (Louvain), Legendre (Angers), Lépicier, S.M. (Rome), Lepidi, O.P. (Rome), Lesêtre (Paris), Mangenot (Paris), Méchineau, S.J. (Rome), Mercati (Rome), Molini, O.F.M. (Rome), Nikel (Breslau), Poels (Washington), Prat, S.J. (Rome), B. Schaefer (Vienna), Scheil, O.P. (Paris), Talamo (Rome), Vigouroux, P.S.S., First Secretary (Rome), and Weiss (Braunsberg).

METHOD OF PROCEDURE

The Commission is constituted on the lines of an ordinary Roman Congregation. The consultors in Rome hold meetings twice a month, at which the secretaries preside. The results of their delibarations are presented by the secretaries to the cardinals, who also meet twice a month, on the second and fourth Sundays. It belongs to the cardinals to propose the questions for the study of the Commission and they alone have a vote in determining the answers. They may sanction or modify the judgments of the consultors, or send back the entire question for further study, or may commission one or other consultor to make a special report. After the meeting, the secretaries report to the Holy Father, who may ratify the decision or remand the question for further consideration. Papers sent by consultors who live at a distance from Rome are read at the meetings of the consultors, when relevant to the subject under discussion.

SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION

It is the duty of the Commission: (1) to protect and defend the integrity of the Catholic Faith in Biblical matters; (2) to further the progress of exposition of the Sacred Books, taking account of all recent discoveries; (3) to decide controversies on grave questions which may arise among Catholic scholars; (4) to give answers to Catholics throughout the world who may consult the Commission; (5) to see that the Vatican Library is properly furnished with codices and necessary books; (6) to publish studies on Scripture as occasion may demand. It was the wish of Leo XIII that a periodical bulletin of Biblical studies should be published at Rome, and a special Institute for higher Biblical studies established. Lack of funds has made such an establishment impossible for the present, but the idea has not been abandoned. To the Commission has been entrusted the awarding of an annual prize, founded by Lord Braye, for the best essay on a Biblical topic. In April, 1907, the Commission, with the approval of the sovereign pontiff, invited the Benedictine Order to undertake a collection of the variant readings of the Latin Vulgate as a remote preparation for a thoroughly amended edition.

DEGREES IN SACRED SCRIPTURE

On 23 February, 1904, Pius X empowered the Commission to confer the degrees of Licentiate and Doctor in the faculty of Sacred Scripture on priests who, having previously attained the doctorate in theology, should pass successful examinations, oral and written, in matter defined by the Commission. The judges must be at least five consultors. Examinations have since been held twice a year, in June and November. The official announcements of the Commission are communicated to the “Revue Biblique,” which is not, however, the official organ of the Commission. (See “Revue Biblique,” 1905, p. 448.)

DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION

Four important decisions on disputed Biblical questions have been issued by the Commission: (1) On the occurrence in Scripture of “implicit citations,” i. e. quotations from unispired documents which the sacred writer does not vouch for, though he does not expressly acknowledge them as quotations. These may not be admitted unless proved by solid arguments (13 February, 1905). (2) On the historical character of certain narratives. It is not lawful to question the historical character of books hitherto regarded as historical, unless in a case where the sense of the Church is not opposed and where, subject to her judgment, it is proved by solid arguments that the sacred writer did not intend to write history (23 June, 1905). (3) On the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. This has not been disproved by critical arguments. Mosaic authorship, however, need not imply that Moses wrote with his own hand or dictated all of it; the books may have been composed by secretaries to whom he suggested the thoughts and whose work he approved as principal and inspired author. It is consistent also with the use by Moses of documents, oral or written, and does not exclude the presence of such additions or imperfections in the present text as would leave it substantially and integrally the work of Moses (27 June, 1906). (4) On the authorship and historical character of the Fourth Gospel. It is historically certain that St. John wrote it. The Gospel is an historical document, narrating the actual facts and speeches of Our Lord’s life (29 May, 1907).

AUTHORITY OF ITS DECISIONS

The Commission though formed like a Congregation is not a Congregation but seemingly of lower rank. Its decisions are approved by the pope and published by his command. Such approval, when given in formâ communi, does not change the nature of the decisions as emanating from a Congregation or Commission, nor does it make them specifically pontifical acts; much less does it imply an exercise of the pope’s personal prerogative of infallibility. Hence they are not infallible or unchangeable, though they must be received with obedience and interior assent, by which we judge that the doctrine proposed is safe and to be accepted because of the authority by which it is presented. These decisions are not the opinions of a private assembly, but an official directive norm; to question them publicy would be lacking in respect and obedience to legitimate authority. We are not hindered from private study of the reasons on which they are based, and if some scholar should find solid arguments against a decision they should be set before the Commission.

For details about the Commission consult the Roman correspondence of The Tablet (London), 11 January, 15 November, 22 November, 1902; 7 February, 23 May, 1903; 12 March, 2 July, 19 November, 1904; for the documents, Revue biblique (1903 and later); for the English translation of the Letter Vigilantiæ, The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII (New York, 1903), 537; for the authority of decisions, Nouvelle revue théol. (Tournai), May, 1907; CHOUPIN, Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du S.-Siège (Paris, 1907).

JOHN CORBETT

Ven. Robert Bickerdike

Martyr, a Yorkshire layman, b. at Low Hall, near Knaresborough (date unknown), but residing at York; d. 5 August (or 8 October), 1585. Arrested for giving a priest, Ven. John Boste, a glass of ale, he was also accused at his trial of using treasonable words. He was acquitted, but Judge Rhodes, determined to have his blood, had him removed from the city gaol to the Castle and tried once more at the Lammas Assizes on the same charge. He was then condemned. One of his offences was that, when Ven. Francis Ingleby was being dragged on the hurdle to execution, hearing a minister’s wife say: “Let us go into the Tolbooth and we shall see the traitorly thief come over on the hurdle,” he said, “No; no thief, but as true as thou art.” These words were supposed to be the cause of his death. He suffered at York.

Bridgewater, Concertatio (Trier, 1589); Morris, The Catholics of York under Elizabeth (London, 1891); Challoner, Memoirs.

BEDE CAMM.

Alexander Bicknor

Archbishop of Dublin, date of birth unknown; d. 1349. As his surname suggests he came from a family of Kent, England. He was elected Archbishop of Dublin in 1310, being at that time Prebendary of Maynooth and Treasurer of Ireland. This selection was, however, set aside by Edward II in favour of Lech who soon died; after this, in May, 1314, Edward petitioned Pope Clement V to confirm Bicknor’s appointment. The request was earnestly repeated in 1317, and he was finally consecrated in Rome, 22 July of this year. In 1318 he was appointed Lord Justice of Ireland. On some unrecorded ground his name appears as attending the English Parliament, and he took part on 24 September, 1318, in promulgating at St. Paul’s the excommunication of Robert Bruce. Even though, as a diplomatist, he was frequently absent from his diocese, he showed his interest in it by building an episcopal residence, and he endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to attach a college to St. Patrick’s Cathedral. In 1323 he was in France on an embassy, in 1324 he was engaged in negotiating peace with France and in arranging a Spanish match for Edward, Prince of Wales. In this he failed; and on his return Edward II charged him with the loss of La Rozelle. About this time he joined with Queen Isabella in concerting the overthrow of the Despensers, then the royal favourites. On 28 May, 1325, Edward II asked the pope to remove Bicknor from the kingdom, accusing him of the surrender of La Rozelle, of defaming Hugh Despenser, of improperly excommunicating Robert Pinchbeck, and of not accounting for sums received while Treasurer of Ireland. Bicknor joined Queen Isabella and others in declaring Prince Edward guardian of the kingdom, at an assembly at Bristol; later, in 1327, he swore publicly at the London Guildhall to maintain the queen’s cause as against the king. In 1329 Edward seized his diocesan revenues as a set-off to the sums unaccounted for by Bicknor as Treasurer of Ireland. In 1330 Bicknor became papal collector. He quarrelled with the Bishop of Ossory, who, on appeal to Edward II, was banished for nine years during which period Bicknor, as metropolitan, visited the See of Ossory and seized the revenues. In 1348 Bicknor held a synod at Dublin at which useful disciplinary decrees were passed. He engaged in a dispute with the Archbishop of Armagh about the right to the primacy of Ireland.

Dict. Nat. Biogr., Rymer, Fadera; Chronicles of Edward I and II in Rolls Series; Ypodigma Neustriae.

HENRY NORBERT BIRT

James Bidermann

A poet and theologian of great learning and sanctity, b. at Ebingen, Germany, in 1578; d. at Rome, 20 August, 1639. He entered the Society of Jesus at Lansberg in 1594, and after the usual preliminary training he taught rhetoric at Munich from 1606 to 1615, and later spent eight years teaching philosophy and theology at Dillingen. In 1624, he was called to Rome where he fulfilled the duties of theologian and censor of books until his death. From an early age Bidermann distinguished himself in many branches of learning. Such was his reputation for scholarship that the famous Matthew Rader, a professor of Dillingen, celebrated his fame in a Latin poem, in which he spoke of him as another Aquinas, Aristotle, Cicero, and Maro. Besides numerous volumes of dramas, epigrams, biographical sketches, etc. Bidermann wrote many books on philosophy and theology. Amongst the best-known are:

Theses Theologicae (1620);

Sponsalia (1621);

Poenitentiae Sacramentum (1621);

Matrimonia Impedimenta (1621);

Censurae (1622);

Irregularitas (1622);

Suffragia (1623);

Jesu Christi Status Triplex, Mortalis, Immortalis, Sacramentalis (1623);

Conscientia (1624);

Proluciones Theologicae quibus Pontificis Rom. dignitatis adversus haeresim propugnata est (1624);

Eleemosyna (1625);

Gratia (1625);

Agnosticon libri tres pro miraculis (1626)

Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la c. de J., I, 1443; Bernard in Dict. de la theol. cath. XII, 813; Hurter, Nomenclator, I, 303.

R. H. TIERNEY.

Gabriel Biel

Called “the last of the Scholastics,” b. at Speyer, Germany, c. 1425; d. at Tübingen, 1495. His studies were pursued at Heidelberg and Erfurt. While still a young man, he was noted as a preacher in the cathedral of Mainz, of which he was vicar. Later he became superior of the “Clerics of the Common Life” at Butzbach, and in 1479 was appointed provost of the church in Urach. At this period he co-operated with Count Eberhard of Wurtemberg in founding the University of Tübingen. Appointed in 1484 the first professor of theology in the new institution, he continued the most celebrated member of its faculty until his death. Though he was almost sixty years of age when he began to teach, Biel’s work, both as professor and as writer, reflected the highest honour on the young university. His first publication, on the Canon of the Mass, is of permanent interest and value. His second and most important work is a commentary on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard. In this he calls Occam his master, but the last three books show him more Scotist than Nominalist. Scheeben describes him as “one of the best of the Nominalists, clear, exact, and more positive as well as more loyal to the Church than any of the others” (Dogmatik, no. 1073). The historian Janssen declares that he was one of the few Nominalists who erected a theological system without incurring the charge of unorthodoxy. (Cf. Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, I, 127, 15th ed.) He was neither narrow nor excessively speculative. Though a Nominalist, he was tolerant of Realism, which also flourished at Tübingen under the leadership of Konrad Summenhart. A Scholastic, he was, to quote Janssen, “free from empty speculations and ingenious intellectual juggling, being concerned with questions and needs of actual life” (ibidem), was interested in the social movements of his time, and maintained friendly relations with the Humanists. One of the latter, Heinrich Bebel, gave him the title of “monarch among theologians.” His theological writings were repeatedly brought into the discussions of the Council of Trent.

Living as he did in a transition period, Biel exhibits characteristics of two intellectual eras. According to some, he was a Scholastic who expounded Aristotle rather than the Scriptures; according to others, he defended freer theological teaching, and opposed the ancient constitution of the Church and the authority of the pope. As a matter of fact, he acknowledged the primacy and supreme power of the Roman Pontiff, but, in common with many other theologians of his time, maintained the superiority of general councils, at least to the extent that they could compel the pope’s resignation. And he displayed no more theological freedom than has been claimed and exercised by some of the strictest theologians. Among the opinions defended by Biel concerning matters controverted in his day, the following are worthy of mention: (A) That all ecclesiastical jurisdiction, even that of bishops, is derived either immediately or mediately from the pope. In this connection it is to be noted that his defence of the episcopal claims of Diether von Ysenburg won him thanks of Pius II. (B) That the power of absolving is inherent in sacerdotal orders, and that only the matter, i.e. the persons to be absolved, can be conceded or withheld by the ordinary. (c) That the minister of baptism need have no more specific intention than that of doing what the faithful, that is, the Church, intends. (d) That the State may not compel Jews, or heathens, or their children to receive baptism. (e) And that the Contractus Trinus is morally lawful. All of these opinions have since become the prevailing theological doctrine.

The subject on which Biel held the most progressive views is political economy. Roscher, who with Schmoller introduced him to modern students of economics, declares that Biel’s grasp of economics enabled him not only to understand the work of his predecessors, but to advance beyond them. (Cf. Geschicte der Nationalokonomik in Deutschland, 21 sqq.) According to Biel, the just price of a commodity is determined chiefly by human needs, by its scarcity, and by the difficulty of producing it. His enumeration includes all the factors that govern market price, and is more complete and reasonable than any made by his predecessors. (Cf. Garnier, L’idée du just prix, 77.) The same author maintains that concerning the occupation of the merchant or trader, Biel is more advanced than St. Thomas, since he attaches no stigma to it, but holds it to be good in itself, and the merchant entitled to remuneration because of his labour, risks, and expense. Biel’s discussion of these subjects is contained in book IV of his commentary on the “Sentences.” He wrote a special work on currency, ein wahrhaft goldenes Buch, in which he stigmatizes the debasing of coinage by princes as dishonest exploitation of the people. In the same work he severely condemns those rulers who curtailed the popular rights of forest, meadow, and water, and who imposed arbitrary burdens of taxation, as well as the rich sportsmen who encroached upon the lands of the peasantry. His works are: “Sacri canonis Missae expositio resolutissima literalis et mystica” (Brixen, 1576); an abridgment of this work, entitled “Epitome expositionis canonis Missae” (Antwerp, 1565); “Sermones” (Brixen, 1585), on the Sundays and festivals of the Christian year, with a disquisition on the plague and a defence of the authority of the pope; “Collectorium sive epitome in magistri sententiarum libros IV” (Brixen, 1574); “Tractatus de potestate et utilitate monetarum.”

Moser, Vitae professorum Tubingensium ord. Theolog. dec. 1 (Tubingen, 1718); Winkelmann, Beschreibung von Hessen und Hersfeld (Bremen, 1711); Linsenmann, Gabriel Biel, in Theologische Quartalschrift (Tubingen, 1865), passim; Plitt, Gabriel Biel als Prediger (Erlangen, 1879); Garnier, De l’idee du juste prix (Paris, 1900), 74–83; Linsenmann in Kirchenlex., s. v.; Hurter, Nomenclator; Schwane, Dogmengeschichte (Freiburg, 1882), III, passim; Turner, Hist. of Philosophy (Boston, 1903) 409; Ashley, English Economic History (New York, 1893), II, 332, 441–46.

JOHN A. RYAN.

Diocese of Biella

The city of Biella, the see of the diocese of that name, is an important industrial centre (anciently called Bugelia) of Piedmont, Italy, in the province of Novara. The diocese contains about 200,000 inhabitants, and is a suffragan of the Archdiocese of Vercelli. Until 1772 Biella had no bishop, but was under the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Vercelli. In that year Clement XI, yielding to the desire of King Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia, established the Diocese of Biella by the Bull “Praecipua.” The first bishop was Giulio Cesare Viancino, formerly Archbishop of Sassari in Sardinia. In 1803 Napoleon suppressed the diocese, which again fell under the jurisdiction of Vercelli, but was re-established in 1817 by Pius VII who appointed as bishop the Minor Observantine, Bernardino Ballato. It is difficult to determine when the Gospel was first preached at Biella; certainly not before it reached Vercelli. According to the opinion of the Fedele Savio, S.J., the latter city received the Faith in the second half of the third century from Milan.

In the shrine of Maria Santissima d’Oropa, situated on a lofty mountain near Biella, the diocese preserves a memorial of St. Eusebius, the great Bishop of Vercelli, who was banished to the Orient by Emperor Constantius for his courageous defence of Catholic truth against Arianism. St. Eusebius, according to tradition, upon his return from the East, is said to have brought three pictures of the Madonna painted on cedar wood, one of which, the image of Oropa, he placed in a small oratory he had built. In the tenth century the chapel was placed in charge of the Benedictines. The latter having abandoned the place, Pius II, in 1459, made over the shrine to the chapter of the collegiate church, now the Cathedral of Biella, to which is has since belonged. In the sixteenth century, the inhabitants of Biella, in thanksgiving for their deliverance from the plague, built a stately church over the chapel. Even today the shrine of Oropa draws many devout pilgrims.

Among the religious edifices of the city of Biella, the most notable is the Gothic cathedral, built in 1402. Its beautiful choir is by Galliari. The baptistery, in the form of a small temple, is said to be an ancient Roman edifice.

Cappelletti, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XIV, 649.

U. BENIGNI

Marcin Bielski

(Or Wolski)

A Polish chronicler, b. of noble parentage on the patrimonial estate of Biala (whence the family name), in the province of Sieradz, Poland, in 1495; d. there, 1575; the name Wolski is derived from his estate at Wola. One of two Polish writers, of the same name, he was the first to use the Polish language, hence his designation as the father of Polish prose. He was educated in the University of Cracow, founded by Casimir the Great in 1364, and spent some time with the military governor of that city. He served in the army in the wars against the Wallachians and Tatars, and participated in the battle Obertyn (Galicia), 1531. He ranks among Poland’s most prolific writers, and the development of historical studies in that country is due to his extensive writings. He is the author of numerous works: “Zywoty Filosofow” (Lives of the Philosophers, 1535); “Kronika Swiata” (Universal Chronicle, 1550–64), from the earliest time down to his day, divided into six periods, was the first important universal history published in the national idiom, and the first attempt at a comprehensive history of Poland, from 550 to 1580; in the second edition (1554) there is a reference to America; after the author’s death the work was continued, rearranged, and brought down to the year 1597, under the title of “Kronika Polska” (Chronicle of Poland) by his son Joachim (b. 1540; d. 1599), secretary to King Sigismund III; “Sprawa Rycerskiego,” a treatise on military art (1569), according to a Greek science of warfare, in eight parts, contains valuable data about the Polish army, and kindred subjects. After the demise of Bielski several satirical poems were published: “Seym Majowy,” (The May Diet, 1590), descriptive of the degradation of Hungary, and an appeal to his countrymen to emulate a higher standard of life: “Seym Niewiesci,” (Woman’s Council, 1586–95), analytical of the then existing political conditions in Poland: “Sen Maiowy” (Dream of a Hermit, 1586); “Komedia Justina y Konstanciey” (Comedy of Justinian and Constantia, 1557).

Estreicher, Polish bibliography (1800–70); Bohomolec, Collection of Histories (Warsaw, 1764); Idem, Martin Bielski (Warsaw, 1764); Sobieszczanski, Chronicle of Poland (Warsaw, 1851); Sibeneycher, Chronicle of Poland (Cracow, 1597); Turowski, Chronicle of Poland (Cracow, 1855–62).

JOSEPH SMOLINSKI

Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne, Sieur de Bienville

French Governor of Louisiana and founder of New Orleans, b. in Montreal, Canada, 24 February, 1680; d. in Paris, 7 March, 1767. His father, Charles le Moyne de Bienville, settled in Canada in 1640; his three brothers, Iberville, Serigny, and Chateauguay, likewise distinguished themselves in the early history of Louisiana. In 1698–1699, Bienville accompanied his brother Iberville in an expedition despatched from France to explore the territory near the mouth of the Mississippi. They founded a settlement at old Biloxi, where in 1700 Bienville become commandant, and, after Iberville’s death in 1706, governor of the colony.

It was believed in France that Louisiana presented a rich field for enterprise and speculation and a grant with exclusive privileges was obtained by Antoine Crozat for fifteen years. In 1712 Crozat appointed M. la Mothe Cadillac, governor, and M. de Bienville lieutenant-governor. But Cadillac dying in 1715, Bienville once more assumed the reins of government. In 1716, he conducted an expedition against the Natchez Indians, and having brought them to terms, finished the fort “Rosalie” which had been commenced by his brother, Iberville, sixteen years before. In 1717, Epinay, a new governor, arrived in the colony, bringing with him the decoration of the Cross of St. Louis for Bienville. In the meantime, Crozat, failing to realize the great profits he had expected, abandoned the whole enterprise and surrendered his charter to the king in 1717. Another company was at once formed and Bienville received a new commission as governor of the province. He now resolved to remove the headquarters from Biloxi, Mobile, and St. Louis Bay to the more fertile region of the Mississippi River, and in 1718 he selected the site for a new settlement, which he called New Orleans. He left fifty persons there to clear the land and build some houses, but it was not till 1722 that it became the seat of government.

Experience had shown Bienville that the fertile soil of the lower Mississippi, as well as the climate, was well adapted to the cultivation of sugar, cotton, tobacco, and rice, and that Europeans were not fitted for field-work in the burning suns of Louisiana, for they sickened and died. The first plantation of any extent was therefore commenced with negroes imported from Guinea. In 1719, the province became involved in hostilities with the Spaniards in consequence of the war with France and Spain. The governor twice reduced the town of Pensacola and sent detachments to prevent the Spaniards from making inroads into upper Louisiana, and the country bordering on the Rio Grande.

When peace was restored immigrants began to arrive in great numbers from France and Germany. In the autumn of 1726, the Government of Louisiana passed out of the hands of Bienville and he retired to France to recruit his health. In 1734, the king reappointed him Governor and Commandant-General of Louisiana, and early in the autumn he arrived at New Orleans and entered upon the duties of his office. An expedition against the Chickasaw Indians in the spring of 1736 resulted in disaster, but another expedition in 1739 met with better success. This campaign closed his military and official career in the colony. He returned to France under a cloud of censure from the Government, after having faithfully served his country for more than forty years. He was buried with military honours in the cemetery of Montmartre.

French, Louisiana Historical Collections (New York, 1846–53), Pt. III, 20–22; Hamilton, Col. Mobile, vii-xiv; Thwaites, Jesuit Relations, LXVI, 342; French, Historical Memoires of Louisiana (New York, 1853), for portrait and valuable additional information.

E.P. SPILLANE

Bigamy (in Canon Law)

According to the strict meaning, the word should signify the marrying of a second after the death of the first wife, in contradistinction to polygamy, which is having two simultaneous wives. The present usage in criminal law of applying the term bigamy to that which is more strictly called polygamy is, according to Blackstone (Lib. IV, n. 163), a corruption of the true meaning of bigamy. Canonically viewed, bigamy denotes (a) the condition of a man married to two real or interpretative wives in succession, and as a consequence (b) his unfitness to receive, or exercise after reception, tonsure, minor and sacred orders. This unfitness gives rise to an irregularity which is an impediment impedient and not diriment, hence orders conferred in violation of it are valid but illicit. This irregularity is not a punishment, medicinal nor punitive, as there is no sin nor fault of any kind in a man marrying a second wife after the death of his first, or a third after the death of his second; it is a bar against his receiving or exercising any ecclesiastical order or dignity.

ORIGIN

This irregularity is not affixed to bigamy by either the natural or Mosaic law. It has its true origin in the apostolic injunction of St. Paul: “It behoveth, therefore, a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife” (I Tim., iii, 2); “Let deacons be the husbands of one wife” (loc. cit., 12) and, “ . . . the husband of one wife” (Tit., i, 6). By these words the Apostle does not enjoin marriage on bishops and deacons [Sts. Paul, Titus, and Timothy were celibates as were, according to Tertullian (“Monogamy,” iv, in “Ante Nicene Fathers,” Amer. Edit.) all the Apostles with exception of St. Peter], but he forbids bigamists to be admitted to Sacred orders. Owing to the small number of those who practiced celibacy at the coming of Christ, the Apostles found it impossible to supply celibates for bishops, priests, and deacons and were forced to admit married men to Sacred orders. Blamelessness of life, however, was required, and since iteration of marriage was considered by the Apostles and the people as a strong presumption of incontinency it was decreed that should the bishop-elect (priest- or deacon-elect) be a married man, he must have had only one wife, and further, that after his ordination he should live apart from her. St. Epiphanius (Hær. lxiv, 4) and St. Jerome (Epist. Contra Vigilantium, 1) assert that such was the general custom of the Church. This practice of celibacy before or after ordination was universal in all the Churches of the East as well as of the West until about the year A.D. 700 when in the Synod of Trullo concession was made to Greek priests to cohabit with the wives they had married before ordination. They were forbidden, however, to marry again under penalty of absolute deposition from the ministry. In the Pauline injunction no mention is made of subdeacons or clerics in minor orders, for the simple reason that those orders were not then instituted. The Apostolic Canons (fourth century), which extended the Pauline prohibition to all grades of the sacrament of orders, were not universally observed. Vestiges of a lax discipline on this point are to be met with in France (Council of Orange, c. xxv) and in Spain (Counc. of Toledo, cc. iii and iv). The Church of Rome, on the contrary, strictly followed the Apostolic canons. This is evident from the decrees of the Sovereign Pontiffs Innocent I (401–417), Hilary (461–469), Gregory I (590–604), Celestine III (1191–98), and Innocent III (1198–1216). Gregory IX (1227–41) and Gregory X (1271–76) further decreed that bigamists should be deprived of every clerical privilege and the right to wear the clerical garb and tonsure under penalty of excommunication. The Council of Trent finally forbade bigamists to exercise functions attached to minor orders, even though these functions were, on account of the necessity of the times, allowed to be performed by laymen (Sess. XXIII, c. xvii, de Reform.).

The reason for the existence of this irregularity is twofold: moral and mystical. The moral reason, which was that of the Orientals and some Latin Fathers, is the presumed incontinency on the part of the bigamist and his consequent unfitness to discharge efficiently the office of the priesthood among a people who looked with great suspicion upon a bigamist and held him in little or no esteem. The mystical reason, which was and is the primary reason of the Western Church (it admits the moral reason, but as secondary to the mystical) is the defect in the perfect resemblance of the second marriage to the great type of Christian marriage—the mystical union of Christ with the Church. This union is the union of one husband (Christ) with one spouse (the Church) without spot or blemish. Second marriages destroy the unity of one husband with one virgin wife, and cause a dividing of one flesh with two bodies, instead of cementing the union of two bodies in one, according to Genesis, ii, 24, “They shall be two [one husband, one wife] in one flesh.” This division of one body with two, instead of union with one body, is the bed-rock of this irregularity. This defect in the perfect resemblance of the second marriage (real or interpretative) to the great type of marriage gives rise to the irregularity, and to the name by which it is known, “ex defectu sacramenti.” It is not proper that one who has received a sacrament defective in its resemblance to its exemplar should become a dispenser of sacraments to others.

DIVISION

In the first centuries there was only one kind of bigamy called true, or real, or proper. A second kind, called interpretative or fictitious, was afterwards added. In the Middle Ages a third kind, called similar, was introduced by the scholastics (Devoti, can. univ., II, p. 206). Durandus was the first to use the term similitudinaria (Specul., pars. I, de dispens. Juxta. n. 6). Since then the traditional division has been and is threefold, viz. real, interpretative, and similar. Many canonists of this century and last hold that similar bigamy should not be included under the irregularity ex bigamia. Another division is made, but there is no unanimity concerning it, i.e. bigamy ex defectu sacramenti (by reason of defective sacrament) and bigamy ex delicto (by reason of guilt). D’Annibale (Summul. Theol., Pars. 1, n. 417 and 418, note 11 fourth edit.) holds that similar bigamists and not a few interpretative bigamists are irregular ex delicto, and not ex defectu sacramenti. St. Alphonsus (lib. VII, de IrregUl., n. 436) and very many others, as well as the National Synods of the Syrians (an. 1888, p. 173, edit. 1899) and of the Copts (Cairo, an. 1898, p. 142), class all three kinds of bigamists as irregular ex defectu sacramenti. Bigamy in general is the state of a man who has really or interpretatively contracted and consummated two valid or two invalid marriages, or one valid and the other invalid, or one real, and the other a spiritual, marriage. Two things are essential to every kind of bigamy: (1) a marriage valid or invalid-adulterous connections or concubinage do not enter into the question at all; (2) a carnal knowledge by which the parties legally married become one flesh, and without which there is neither bigamy nor irregularity.

Real bigamy demands two valid and legal and consummated marriages with virgins; therefore, two real wives one after the other. It is indifferent whether or not the marriages took place before or after baptism, or one before and the other after; the second successive marriage imperfectly symbolizes “the great Sacrament of Christ in the Church” (Ephes., v, 32), and the irregularity is present (Pope Innocent I, Decret., can. 13, dist. 34). There is, therefore, no real bigamy (a) if either or both marriages are invalid, (b) if either or both have not been consummated, (c) if either or both women have not been virgins, (d) if one of the two ceremonies was a valid, consummated marriage, and the other a mere betrothal followed by carnal union.

Interpretative bigamy is the state of a man who has not as a matter of fact had two legal wives in succession, but whose matrimonial ventures—whether one or two—are accompanied with such circumstances as to warrant the law by a legal fiction to hold him as a bigamist and irregular. It is to be remembered that the laws which govern fictitious (similar and interpretative) bigamy must be strictly construed, for two reasons: (1) because there is question of an irregularity—something odious; and (2) it is a fiction of law and therefore does not hold unless in those cases expressly mentioned in the law (Fagnanus, cap. In Præsen., n. 23, de Probat.). Pope Benedict XIV wisely remarks (Ad addendum, 15 February, 1753, par. 15), “It is the sole right of the legislator, and beyond the power of any private author or doctor, to draw legal conclusion from a fiction of law. Many, therefore, of the ablest canonists of recent years (v.g. D’Annibale, Gaspari, Icard, Wernz, Lombardi, Ballerini-Palmieri), as also the national synods of the Copts and Syrians, restrict real and interpretative bigamies to the case where a man marries either two valid and legal wives, or a widow, or a corrupt woman, or knows his wife carnally after she has been corrupted by a third party.

Interpretative bigamy is threefold:—

(1) When a man contracts and consummates only one, and that a valid marriage, or weds one wife to whom he is united in one flesh, yet the circumstances are such that the law considers two marriages and two wives. Of this class there are three cases: (a) When a single man marries a widow already made one flesh with a former husband (Decretal Greg., Lib. I, Tit. xxi, Cap. iii). Here the woman has had two husbands and has divided her flesh with two instead of being cemented to only one. Her marriage to the second husband is defective in its resemblance to the marriage symbol—union of Christ with the Church; the second husband is not the only husband of the one wife who herself should have been the wife of only one husband. As the wife in this case has had two real husbands, so, by fiction of law, her husband is considered to have had two interpretative wives. (b) When he marries an unmarried woman, already by a third party corrupted (Pope Hilary, Synod. Rom. Cap. ii, Dist. XXXIV, c. ix, Decret.). Here again is a division of flesh with two instead of union with one, and hence the defect, and, as a consequence, the irregularity. (c) When he carnally knows his own wife after she has committed adultery or has been forcibly oppressed (Decretum, c. xi; c. xii). The husband in this case is not barred from orders unless the adultery of the wife whom he as a layman has married was conclusively proved; nevertheless, in this case, as in cases (a) and (b), ignorance on the part of the husband (sc. of the widowhood or corruption or adultery or rape of his wife) would not except him from bigamy and irregularity, since there is here question of an irregularity ex defectu sacramenti and not ex delicto. The defect is present irrespective of his knowledge.

(2) When he marries once, but the marriage is invalid. (a) The one in Sacred orders who marries a widow-marriage invalid on account of diriment impediment of S. Orders-and is carnally joined to her, is an interpretative bigamist and irregular (Cap. VII, Tit. XXI, De. Big.). Pope Innocent (loc. cit.) says that although this cleric is not a real bigamist, yet with him, as with a real bigamist, it was not lawful to dispense as the husband of a widow, not because of the defect in the sacrament, but on account of the marital intention joined with carnal union. Although not expressed in the above canon, yet it is the common opinion that the cleric in major order who marries a woman corrupted by a third party is a bigamist and irregular. He would not be irregular if We married a woman seduced by himself and known by no other man (Schmalz., Tit. XXI, De Bigam., n. 6). Civil marriage will suffice in this case, even where the Tridentine law is published (S. U. I., December 22, 1880). (b) Invalid by reason of a preexisting marriage bond (ligamen), as, for instance, where the man marries a woman who has been divorced, repudiated, or rejected by a former husband, or who has divorced or left him. In this case the marriage is defective, the woman having shared her body with two, and hence he who married her is irregular for the above-mentioned reason (Lib. 1, Tit. XXI, C. I; Dist. XXXIV, Can. xv). (c) If the marriage was invalid by reason of a diriment impediment other than order and ligamen, the more prominent opinion holds that the irregularity is incurred. Fagnanus (Comment., Cap. iv, De Big., n. 45) asserts that the prelates of the Rota, to whom the case was specially referred by the pope, decided that a cleric in minor orders who contracted and consummated an invalid marriage with a widow was an interpretative bigamist and irregular and stood in need of dispensation, and that Pope Urban, upon the strength of that decision, granted dispensation. Many of the best canonists of today (e.g. D’Annibale and Gaspari) hold the contrary. The case is not expressed in law, they say, and is a legal fiction which at all times is dangerous and is totally unwarranted if the two cases differ in every respect, as do these—the one being in major, and the other in minor orders; the one in bad faith and the other in good faith. Yet, after all is said pro and con, it still remains true that the proximate cause of the irregularity in the law cited is identical with that of the second case, to wit, marital intent with carnal consummation.

(3) When a man marries twice and either or both marriages are invalid, as (a) he who having contracted and consummated a marriage with a virgin, upon her death received Sacred orders, and afterwards, without any deception on his part, contracts and consummates a sacrilegious and invalid marriage with a virgin or widow, becomes an interpretative a virgin and irregular, not because of any defect in the sacrament in the second marriage, which is no marriage and no sacrament, but because of the marital intent followed by consummation by means of which the necessary division of his body with two has been effected (Innocent III, cap. iii, iv, De Big.). Should the cleric feign, rather than honestly intend, the second marriage, in order to accomplish the carnal union, some are of the opinion that he does not incur the irregularity, the marital intent required by the Innocentian law not being verified; others more commonly affirm that irregularity is contracted. The reason given by the affirmants is that the Innocentian marital intent is not so much the intention to contract a valid marriage, as to externally contract and consummate, an intention that is always presumed to be present in such cases. External marriages are always supposed to be free and voluntary. Simulation is never presumed, but must, on the contrary, be demonstrated. (b) Should the first marriage before receiving Sacred orders be invalid on account of any diriment impediment (ve.g., consanguinity or the like), although the case is not expressly stated in the law, the general opinion, with a few exceptions, is that he is an interpretative bigamist and irregular. In answer to their opponents, the affirmants say that the marriage mentioned (Cap. iv, De Big.) may have been invalid, as there is no certainty that it was valid, in which case the argument from one species to another would be legitimate. (c) Should both marriages be invalid, some assert there is no interpretative bigamy or irregularity. Certainly there is no law for it. Others, as St. Alphonsus (Vol. VII, n. 455; Suarez., Disp. XLIX, Sect. II, n. 11) teach as the most common and notable opinion that there is present the marital intent with the carnal consummation which alone suffices to induce the irreclarity. Canonists differ in opinion as to the case where two invalid marriages were contracted and consummated in good faith. The most common and probable opinion is that irregularity is contracted, for the reason that it is not the guilt of the desire, but the intention to contract and consummate the two marriages which is the reason of the irregularity as laid down by Innocent III (Cap. 4, De Big). By almost common consent the irregularity is said to be contracted by the cleric tonsured or in minor orders or layman who, after having contracted and consummated a marriage invalid on account of a known impediment and afterwards, whether his wife be living or dead, contracts and consummates another marriage even with a virgin. There is present in the case a division of flesh and the marital intent necessary to produce irregularity.

Similar Bigamy is nowhere clearly and expressly stated in the law. It owes its existence to the almost universal and constant teaching of canonists and theologians since the time of Durandus. Similar bigamy is twofold: (1) When a religious who has been solemnly professed in a religious order approved by the Church marries a virgin and carnally knows her as such. (2) When a cleric in Sacred orders, in violation of the law of celibacy, contracts and consummates a marriage with a virgin. This form of bigamy presupposes only one carnal marriage and a spiritual marriage, which are interpretatively considered two marriages, and each putative husband is considered to have two interpretative wives. The carnal marriages are invalid by reason of the diriment impediment of solemn religious profession and of orders respectively; but because of the marital intent followed by carnal consummation, some claim that similar bigamy and irregularity are incurred by reason of the defective signification of the sacrilegious marriage to the symbol of matrimony; some admit that there is no bigamy, but an irregularity arising from the sacrilegious marriage; others again insist that there is an irregularity on account of some kind of a defect in the sacrament, but there is no law declaring it to be bigamous and irregular. Gaspari (De Sacra Ordin., nn. 393 sqq.) and others reject the first opinion altogether and very conclusively show that the canons of common law and the canons of Gratian upon which the first opinion is grounded are not to the point. Gaspari shows that the decrees (Decretales—Lib. IV, Tit. 6, Cap. i, 2 and 4) of Pope Alexander III do not refer to bigamy or irregularity, but speak of suspensions and excommunication; that the Gratian canons treat of religious men and women who have broken their vows and are to be removed from their grade, and subjected to the same penances as were at that period imposed upon bigamists. Pope Clement, in his decree (Lib. 4, Tit. Unicus de Cons. et aff. Clem.) also speaks of excommunication and not irregularity. The constitution of Pius IX, “Apostolicae Sedis” imposes upon similar bigamists excommunication reserved to the ordinaries, and nothing more. It is evident, therefore, that the law affixes no note of irregularity to a so-called similar bigamist. Practically speaking, however, there is little difference, as the so-called similar bigamists are prevented, on account of the censure and the infamy of their act, from receiving higher orders or exercising those already received; and should they solemnly exercise the functions of their grade, they would become irregular on account of the violated censure. The bishop can, when they have put away the woman, done penance, and led edifying lives, absolve them from the censure and dispense them from any irregularity, if any has been incurred, and promote them to higher orders. It is certain, however, that religious, not in Sacred orders, with simple vows, who contract and consummate marriage with a virgin or with a renegade nun who has broken her solemn vows, is neither a bigamist nor irregular. No such case is found in the canon.

EFFECTS

Bigamy begets irregularity, the principal effect of which is to entirely exclude from the reception and use and exercise of any ecclesiastical order and benefice attached to any order. Pope Gregory X (Lib. 1, Tit. XII, Cap. Unic. in Sexto) further declared that bigamists should be stripped of every clerical privilege, removed from the protection of the ecclesiastical, and subjected to civil, jurisdiction, deprived of the canon safeguarding their person from personal attack, and forbidden to wear the tonsure and clerical garb, under penalty of excommunication to be incurred at the moment of their attempted marriage. The Council of Trent also forbids to bigamists the exercise of any office or function of minor orders, even of such functions as are usually, by permission, allowed to married laymen on account of scarcity of celibate clerics (Sess. XXIII, C. 17, De Reform). Clerics in minor orders whose marriages were invalid are not comprehended under the Tridentine law. Clerics in Sacred orders and religious clerics, who, by virtue of the law of celibacy and religious profession, are spiritually wedded to the clerical and religious states respectively, are not comprehended under the law stripping them of every clerical privilege, and the use of tonsure and clerical garb, and this out of respect to their sacred character. Clerics on the other hand, in minor orders are not wedded to the clerical state; hence they come under the law. Bishops who knowingly an without permission confer Sacred orders on a bigamist are by the Third Council of Arles (Dist . LV, Can. 2) suspended from saying Mass for one year, and by the decretal law (Lib. 1, Tit. 21, Cap. ii) were deprived of the power of giving to others the orders they had conferred on a bigamist. Since the constitution “Apostolicae Sedis,” the only punishment is that which the Holy Father may deem fit to impose upon the bishop violating the canons.

DISPENSATION

This irregularity is removed neither by baptism nor religious solemn profession, but by dispensation. The pope, and he alone, can dispense with this prohibition to receive orders. He can dispense with a mere ecclesiastical law, such as is the Pauline injunction, although it is of Apostolic origin. Pope Lucius III, whilst urging the unlawfulness of granting a dispensation in face of St. Paul’s prohibition, did, however, grant it to Nicholas de Tudeschis, a celebrated canonist, better known as Abbas Panormitanus (Glossa, ad verb. Fiat, C. Lector, XVIII, Dist. XXXIV). Dispensations in cases of one who marries two real wives or a widow are exceedingly difficult to obtain (Lib. I, Tit. 9, De Renunt. Sec. Personae). Worthy of note is the fact that the dispensation does not efface the defect in the sacrament, but the unfitness arising therefrom is removed. It is the universal opinion of today, whatever may have been the opinion of canonists in the past, that the pope alone can dispense all bigamists, real and interpretative, as regards minor as well as Sacred orders, and the collation and use of the simple, as of great, benefices. The reason is evident: bishops cannot dispense in the laws of their superiors, to wit, the pope or General Council. Some canonists claim that bishops, by virtue of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, C. 6, De Ref), can dispense with interpretative bigamy arising from occult guilt. D’Annibale (loc. cit.) on this point well remarks that it is exceedingly difficult for such acts to be private. Sanchez asserts that it is of little moment whether or not the fact is private or public, since the irregularity is not ex delicto, but ex defectu Sacramenti. It is certain that bishops, where there is a grave and positive doubt about the existence of interpretative bigamy and its consequent irregularity, can grant dispensation. Bishops can dispense with all similar bigamists as above defined after they have left their putative wives, done penance, and led edifying lives, and can admit them to the exercise of all ecclesiastical functions (Lib. IV, Tit. VI, Cap. i, Qui Clerici et Vov.; Lib. III, Tit. III, Cap. Sane 4). Regular prelates, i.e. generals, provincials, abbots, priors, guardians, having quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, cannot, in virtue of the common law and apart from special privileges, dispense their own subjects with real or interpretative bigamy, even as regards minor as well as major orders. No such power has been given them by pope or general council. By virtue of privilege of Pius V (Constit. “Rom. Pont. Circumspecta,” June 21, 1571, Sec. 3), joined with that of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, Cap. vi, etc.) power to dispense in irregularities on account of occult guilt, given to bishops, was extended to regular prelates. By virtue of the privilege of Sixtus IV, regular prelates cannot dispense with real, interpretative, and public similar bigamists (P. Venantius, 0. F. M., Compend. Privil. Regularium, ed. 1906; Piat, Vol. II, p. 577, 2). As a matter of fact, the Sixtine constitution (Reg. Univ. Eccles., August 31, 1474) makes a special exception in the case of bigamy. The general opinion, that they cannot grant dispensation to their subjects who are real or interpretative bigamists, is evident from the fact that the decretal law (C. Altercationis in 6º) has reserved that faculty to the pope; second, Tridentine law is against such faculty; third, declaration of s. c. c. (3 January, 1589) has so decided; fourth, present practice of granting privileges and faculties to religious orders as a rule makes an exception of bigamy, e.g., constit. of Leo XII, 1826, “Plura Intra,” directed to the Society of Jesus, withholds the faculty of dispensing with bigamists. If religious prelates do possess the faculty of dispensing in such cases, it must be by virtue of some special privilege of recent date. Bishops of the United States and of England, and vicars Apostolic subject to the Propaganda (these latter only in foro interno) have special faculties (Formula I, II, and IV respectively) to dispense interpretative bigamists; and in cases of paramount importance, on account of great scarcity of priests, bishops in the United States can dispense also with real bigamists. According to general opinion, the multiplication of marriages does not increase the number of irregularities contracted; so the bigamist and trigamist equally incur only one irregularity. In applications for dispensations mention of only two out of the many marriages is sufficient, and that whether they are all real or interpretative or mixed bigamies. In the opinion, however, of those who divide interpretative bigamies into ex defectu sacramenti and ex delicto bigamies, it is necessary, in the case where a grave sin is the cause of the irregularity, to name both the irregularity ex delicto (with sin) and the irregularity ex defectu sacramenti (without sin).

FERRARIS, Bibliotheca (Rome, 1885), s. v.; FAGNANUS, Comment, in Decret. (1709) 1, 497 sqq.; PIRHING (ed., 1674), I, 489–499; VAN ESPEN, Jus. Eccles. Univ. (ed., 1781), II, Pars. II, pp. 104 sqq.; DEVOTI, Jus. Can. Univ. (Rome, 1839), II, 206 sqq.; WERNZ, Jus. Decret., II, 156–164; GASPARI, De Sacrâ Ordinat., I, 236–254; SANTI (ed., 1898), I, 203–210; D’ANNIBALE, Summula Theol. Mor., Pars. I, 428, Ed. IV; BALLERINI-PALMIERI, Opus. Theol., VII, De Censuris, 385 sqq.; ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Diction. Canonique, s. v.

P.M.J. ROCK

Bigamy (in Civil Jurisprudence)

(Fr. bigamie, from Lat. bis, twice, and Gr. gamos, marriage)

Bigamy, in civil jurisprudence, and especially in criminal law, is a “formal entering into of a marriage while a former one remains un-dissolved” (Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes § 577), “the crime of having two wives or husbands at once” (Murray, New Dict., s.v.) or “two or more wives or husbands” (Century Dict., s.v.). Bigamy, being “a species of polygamy” (Stephen, New commentaries, IV, 83), may be designated by the latter word (Bishop, op. cit.); for Sir Edward Coke defines “polygamus” to be one “qui duas vel plures duxit uxores” (3d Instit., XXVII). But its very general use in English statutes and authorities renders bigamy in many instances the word of more ready reference (Russell, a Treatise on Crimes, 659).

Bigamy as defined is classed by jurists among those acts injurious to public morality by which the State or community generally is injured, and which may therefore properly be made criminal. The crime consists, according to french law (Carpentier, Codes et lois; code pénal, 340, note) “in the fact of the celebration of the second marriage before dissolution of the first,” or, to quote an American authority, in “the prostitution of a solemn ceremony which the law allows to be applied only to a legitimate union,” involving “an outrage on public decency and morals” and “a public scandal” (Bishop, op. cit.). And so Boswell quotes Dr. Samuel Johnson, commenting on Luther’s allowing the Landgrave of Hesse two wives with the consent of the wife to whom he was first married, thus: “There was no harm in this, so far as she was only concerned, because volenti non fit injuria. But, it was an offence against the general order of society, and against the law of the Gospel, by which one man and one woman are to be united.”

Although among many nations plurality of wives or polygamy has been legally recognized, yet the fact has been observed “that among not a few uncivilized people polygamy is almost unknown or even prohibited” (Westermarck, The History of Human Marriage, 435), and where tolerated, bigamy is its usual form, as was the case among the Hebrews (op. cit., 430). In the earlier days of Babylon, bigamy is said to have been the exception and monogamy the prevailing practice (Johns, Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, 134). The Assyrian kings appear to have been monogamists, the kings of ancient Egypt seem to have had only one wife, and the same remark may be made of their subjects (Westermarck, 432, 442, 447). The law of China prohibits taking of a second wife during lifetime of the first (Westermarck, 445). Mohammed, when allowing his followers four wives, is said to have sought to restrict what he felt himself unable to abolish. And he is said to have been of opinion that, although an unlimited number of wives might live together in harmony, this among so few as four would be impossible. Events seem to have proved the correctness of his judgment, for “the quarrels, jealousies and expenditure of four wives vying with each other” (Colquhoun, Summary etc., § 575) are said to have brought about the monogamy usual among modern Mohammedans. Of those in India ninety-five per cent are monogamists, and it is said that in Persia two per cent only have a plurality of wives (Westermarck, 439). “’Tis true,” writes Lady Mary Wortley Montagu from Adrianople, in 1717, concerning the Turks, “their law permits them four wives; but there is no instance of a man of quality that makes use of his liberty or of a woman of rank that would suffer it” (Works, II, 190). The ancient romans were monogamists (Westermarck, 433). And in the time of Emperor Justinian (527–565) the illegality of bigamy was firmly established: “Duas uxores codem tempore habere non licet” and “eadem duobus nupta esse non potest” are the expressions of the Institutes (Lib. I, tit. X, vv. 6,7).

The law of England is thus laid down by an authority supposed to be of the time of Edward I (1272–1307), the king, “who,” remarks Sir William Blackstone, “hat justly been styled our English Justinian” (Commentaries, IV, 425): “It has sometimes been that a man from wickedness has married several women, all living at the same time; but Holy Church says that of such women none but the first is his lawful wife; wherefore, the law regards the others only as false wives” (Britton, Lib. V, 11). While the first marriage continues undissolved by death, or by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, a subsequent marriage is, by English common law, a mere nullity and void (Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Part IV, 80; Bishop, New commentaries on Marriage, etc., 1, § 717). No length of absence and no error as to survival of the absent can render valid the second ceremony. But in defining bigamy as a crime, statutes have been more indulgent. Notwithstanding what we have quoted from the authority of the thirteenth century, there seems to have been no English statute defining and punishing bigamy as a crime until the year 1604, English law being in this respect more backward than the law of Scotland, which so early as 1551 pronounced bigamy as a crime punishable with the pains of perjury, these being confiscation of goods, imprisonment, and infamy (Bell, Dict. And Digest of the laws of Scotland, s.v.). By an English statute of 1604, upon which later English laws and laws in the United States have been modelled, any married person who should marry within England or Wales, the former husband or wife being living, became guilty of felony. But the statute did not extend to persons whose husband or wife remained continually “beyond the seas by the space of seven years,” nor to a person “whose husband or wife shall absent him or herself the one from the other by the space of seven years together in any parts within his majesty’s dominions, the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that time.” The statute thus established an arbitrary period of absence as exempting from criminality a second marriage. That absence within England should justify the second marriage, the one marrying was required to be ignorant of the survival of the absent husband or wife; but respecting absence “beyond the seas” we are told by Blackstone, “Where either party hath been continually abroad for seven years whether the party in England hath notice of the other’s being living or no” (Commentaries, Bk. IV. 164), there can be no felony under the statute. The statute, not otherwise providing and its violation being made a felony, men prosecuted thereunder were, according to the general law of the period, entitled to “benefit of clergy” (Coke, sup.), subject to which conviction under the statute was punishable with death. The English statute of 1861, now in force, exempts from punishment a second marriage only where there has been continual absence of seven years, and the person marrying shall not know the absent husband or wife “to be living within that time.” Those guilty under the statute are liable to penal servitude of not more than seven nor less than three years or to imprisonment of not more than two years. Bigamy is a crime within the statute, if committed by a British subject, wherever the offence may be committed. The French “Code pénal” provides the punishment of “travaux forcés à temps” for a person who, being married, shall contract another marriage before dissolution of the former marriage.

A United States Statute declares guilty of polygamy every person, having a husband or wife living, who “in a territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction,” marries another, unless thee shall have been absence of five years, the absent husband or wife “not known to be living and believed to be dead,” or unless there shall have been a divorce or judicial annulment of the previous marriage. The punishment provided is a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and not more than five years’ imprisonment. The Constitution of the United Sates declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (constitution, amendments, Art. 1). The question has accordingly been raised whether legislation such as has just been quoted may not violate the Constitution in the instance of an adherent to a religion of which bigamy is claimed to be a tenet. But the Supreme court of the United States, speaking by Mr. Justice Field, held that “however free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subject of punitive legislation,” that “bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries,” few crimes being “more pernicious to the best interest of society,” and therefore that “to call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind.” Free exercise of religion ought not, in the opinion of the Court, to be construed to mean toleration of crime (Davis v. Reason, United States Reports, CXXXIII, 333, 341, 342, 345). Alien polygamists are, by a United States Statute excluded from admission to the United States. The statute books of various states of the Union contain laws modelled upon, and with provisions more or less similar to, those of the English law of 1604, and defining bigamy, or in the statutes of some States, polygamy, as a crime. Formerly by the Virginia law (United States reports, XCVIII, 165) and by the law of North Carolina (Kent, Commentaries, Part IV, 79 note d), bigamy was punished by death. Now its punishment in Virginia is imprisonment of not more than eight nor less than three years (Code § 3781), and in the North Carolina of not more than ten years nor less than four months (Revisal, § 3361). In the State of New York the punishment is not more than five years’ imprisonment, and the period of absence excusing second marriage is fixed at five years, the former husband or wife having been absent from the one remarrying “without being known by him or her within that time to be living and believed by him or her to be dead” (Birdseye, Revised Statutes, 306). Divorce (unless for fault of the party remarrying), due permission of court, or annulment of the previous marriage, or sentence to life imprisonment of the former husband or wife also excuses the remarriage. Absence, therefore, not dissolving a previous marriage, on proof that a husband or wife who had been supposed to be dead is in fact living, the second marriage may be adjudged to be a nullity. The law will not sanction bigamy by recognizing the two marriages to be simultaneously valid. According to the law of New York, the earlier marriage ceases to be binding until one of the three parties to the two marriages procures a judgment pronouncing the second marriage void (Ne York Court of Appeals Reports, CXIV, 120; Birdseye, op. cit., 1042; cf. Bishop, New Commentaries).

The recently recovered Code of the Babylonian King Hammurabi (about 2250 B.C.), in its regulations respecting bigamy affords some interesting comparisons with modern legislation on the same subject. By that ancient statute a wife “has no blame” who remarries after her husband has been taken captive, “if there was not maintenance in his house” (§ 134). But “if there was maintenance in his house,” the captive’s wife who remarries “shall be prosecuted and shall be drowned’ (§ 133). Another section resembles a provision of an existing New York statute. By this statute, if the second marriage be annulled because the former husband or wife is living, children of this marriage are deemed to be “legitimate children of the parent who at the time of the marriage was competent to contract” (Birdseye, Revised Statutes, 993). In like manner this code of four thousand years ago ordains that if, in the instance of the woman who “has no blame,” there be children of her second marriage, she shall return to her first husband if “he return and regain his city,” “but the children shall follow their own father.” As if to rebuke want of patriotism or love of home the wife of a man who “has left his city and fled” might remarry and “because he hated his city and fled” the fugitive returning was not allowed to reclaim his wife (§ 136).

Tennyson has made double marriage the subject of his poem “Enoch Arden.” We may notice how carefully the poet causes a period to elapse longer than the seven years mentioned in the English Statute:—. . . . . . ten years

Since Enoch left his hearth and native land

Fled forward, and no news of Enoch came,

before his wife listens to the argument, which, however, the poet is not so unpoetical as to reinforce by quoting the statute:—It is beyond all hope, against all chance,

That he who left you ten long years ago

Should still be living.

- and, like the woman pronounced blameless by the old Babylonian code, for whom “there was not maintenance,” Enoch’s wife was “poor and wanting help” when she consented to the remarriage which Enoch, returning contrary to all seeming hope and chance, after having been so long “cast away and lost,” ratified in his self-effacing prayer for strength “not to tell, never to let her know”—cf. Hammurabi, Code, § 135.

MURRAY, New English Dictionary (Oxford and New York 1988), s.v.; The Century Dictionary (New York), s.v.; BISHOP, Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (3d ed., Chicago, 1901); ID., New Commentaries on Marriage, Divorce, and Separation (Chicago, 1891); STEPHEN, New Commentaries on the Laws of England (14th ed., London, 1903); RUSSELL, A Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanours (6th ed., London, 1896); HOLLAND, The Elements of Jurisprudence (10th ed., New York and London, 1906); The Statute at Large (London, 1710), 111; A Compendious Abstract of the Public General Acts (London, 1861), XXXIX; BELL, Dictionary and Digest of the Laws of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1890). Tit. Bigamy; CARPENTIER, Codes et lois (Paris, 1899); COKE, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (London, 1680), XXVII; BIRDSEYE, The Revised Statutes, Codes, and General Laws of the State of New York (3d ed., New York, 1901); Reports of Cases decided in the Court of Appeals (Albany, 1889), CXIV, 120; POLLARD, code of Virginia (St. Paul, 1904), §§ 3781, 3782; Revisal of 1905 of North Carolina (Raleigh, 1905), § 3361; Compiled Statutes of the United States, 1901 (St. Paul, 1902), 3633; Supplement (to the same), 1905 (St. Paul, 1905), 276; BOSWELL, Life of Johnson, ed. HILL (Oxford, 1887), V, 217; WESTERMARCK, The History of Human Marriage (London, 1891); DE COLQUHOUN, A Summary of the Roman Civil Law (London, 1849); works of the Rt. Hon. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (6th ed., London, 1817), II, 180; BRITTON, tr. NICHOLS (Washington, 1901; JOHNS, (Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts, and Letters (New York, 1904).

CHARLES W. SLOANE

Marguerin de la Bigne

(Binius, Bignaeus)

French theologian and patrologist, b. about 1546 at Bernières-le-Patry, Normandy; d. about 1595. He studied at the College of Caen, and at the Sorbonne in Paris where he received the doctorate. He was named canon of his native Diocese of Bayeux and, later, dean of the church of Mans. At the Provincial Council of Rouen, in 1581, he sustained the rights of his cathedral chapter against Bernadin de St. François, Bishop of Bayeux, and provoked an unfortunate conflict with the latter which ended in de la Bigne’s resignation from his canonry. He resumed, then, at the Sorbonne the patristic studies in which he had been long engaged. He had early perceived that Protestant misquotation and misinterpretation of patristic texts was a menace to Catholic interests and resolved to collect and edit the available documents of the Fathers. He published in 1575 his “Sacra Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum” (Paris, 8 vols.; additional volume in 1579; later editions, Paris, 1589; Lyons, 27 vols., 1677; Cologne, 1694). It contains the writing, some complete, some fragmentary, of our two hundred Fathers, many published for the first time. Particular care was given to the elucidation of texts corrupted by heretics. This work was the pioneer in the field of critical patristics. He published, also “Statuta Synodalia Parisiensium Episcoporum, Galonis Adonis et Willilmi; item Decreta Petri et Galteri, Senonensium Episcoporum” (Paris, 1578); and an edition of St. Isidore of Seville (Paris, 1580), in which for the first time the latter’s works were gathered in one work.

Migne, P.L., LXXXI, 209–212.

JOHN B. PETERSON.

Eberhard Billick

(Also Steinberger, Lat. Latomus, Lapicida).

German theologian, opponent of the Reformation, born 1499 or 1500 at Cologne; died there 12 January, 1557. Of a family which gave a number of prominent men to the Carmelites of Cologne, Eberhard entered the Carmelite Order in 1513, took his vows in 1514, became a priest and master of students in 1525, and reader of divinity in 1526; he matriculated at the University of Cologne in 1528, was made Prior of Cassel, 1531, Prior of Cologne, 1536–42, received his licentiate and doctorate of divinity, 1540 and in 1542 was appointed Provincial of the province of Lower Germany. He retained this dignity until his death, for, although nominated auxiliary Bishop of Cologne, he did not live to be consecrated. Billick’s activity on behalf of his order was successful; he enrolled numerous candidates, improved the plan of studies, saved several monasteries from destruction, re-established others, and reformed both his own province and that of Upper Germany, His chief importance, however, lies in his dealings with the Archbishop of Cologne. If Cologne remained true to the Catholic cause the merit is principally due to the provincial of the Carmelites. As the leader of the lower clergy he protested against the heretical tendencies of Archbishop Hermann von Wied, who since 1536 had favoured the Reformers. Von Wied was excommunicated in 1546, gave up the archbishopric in 1547, and died in 1552. It was Billick’s exposure of the archbishop’s breach of faith that led to the latter’s deposition. Writing against Bucer, Billick drew upon himself the ire of Luther and Melanchthon. He took part in the disputations of Worms, 1540, Ratisbon, 1541 and 1546, and Augsburg, 1547, and as theologian accompanied the new Archbishop of Cologne to the Council of Trent, 1551.

B. ZIMMERMAN.

Charles-René Billuart

Billuart, Charles-René, Dominican preacher, controversialist, and theologian, b. at Revin, a small town of the Ardennes on the Meuse, Belgium, January 28, 1685; d. there January 20, 1757. He completed his classics at the Jesuit college of Charleville and soon after entered the Dominican convent in his native town. He was sent to the novitiate at Lille, whence he returned a year later for profession, November 7, 1702. He followed the regular courses, receiving ordination in 1708. The two following years he spent at Liege, pursuing higher studies, and in 1710 was appointed professor of philosophy at Douai. The next year he was transferred to Revin, but was speedily promoted to a chair of theology which he held until 1715, when he was appointed master of students at Douai. Here, in 1718, he became second regent of studies and was also designated to preach the Advent and Lenten courses at Liege. Invited to Maastricht by Count Tilly, the famous Catholic governor of the city and Commander-in-Chief of the armies in Holland, he preached on the Real Presence during the Corpus Christi celebration and later defended the doctrine at a public discussion in the town hall. All this had been arranged by the count, who had the satisfaction of seeing the ministers reduced to silence by Billuart’s incisive logic and irresistible learning. After three years as Prior of Revin, Billuart was called to the regency of Douai and three years later, October 15, 1728, he was elected provincial. The honors of the doctorate were conferred upon him in 1729. In 1732 he again preached a course at Liege, adding to his fame as a preacher. He next held the office of Prior of Revin for three successive terms until, in 1741, he was reelected provincial. In 1746 he began and in five years completed his celebrated and monumental work, the “Summa S. Thomae hodiernis Academiarum moribus accommodata” (19 vols. Liege, 1746–51). This work had been entrusted to him by the master general of the order nearly fourteen years before. It was a fitting response to a petition of his former colleagues at Douai, and it answered a general demand, as is evidenced by its publication in thirteen standard editions. In 1754, while serving a third term as provincial, Billuart published a compendium, also well known to the scholastic world, in six editions, the “Summa Summae S. Thomae, sive compendium theologise” (Liege, 1754).

Billuart’s work is characterized by a facile style, copious treatment, and fearless exposition; by well planned logical divisions and precise, clear-cut distinctions. It ranks among the leading commentaries on St. Thomas. It is esteemed for its annexed historical essays, the materials for which are drawn largely from the ecclesiastical history of Natalis Alexander, O.P. In his moral science Billuart favors a moderate probabiliorism, in which position, however, he no longer commands a very great following outside of his own school. Generally speaking, Billuart stands forth as a theologian of authority. He is one of the foremost writers who have shed lustre on the school of the Angelic Doctor. In his polemical writings, Billuart was a devoted member of his order and a keen disciple of St. Thomas, zealous for the integrity of the saint’s accepted teachings. Dignified in bearing, he was gentle to those around him. He was unremitting in his labors and a man of prayer withal, much given to devotion to the Blessed Sacrament.

His principal works, besides those mentioned, are the following: “Supplementum cursus theologiae” (Liege, 1759); “De mente ecclesise catholicae circa accidentia eucharistise” (Liege, 1715); “Le thomisme venge de sa pretendue condamnation par la constitution Unigenitus” (Brussels, 1720); “Lettre a MM. les docteurs de la faculte de theologie de l’universite de Douai” (1723); “Examen critique des reflexions sur to bref de notre S. Pere le pape Benoit XIII” (1725); “Le thomisme triomphant par le bref Demissas preces de Benoit XIII”; “Reponse . a M. Stievenard, Chanoine de Cambrai, au sujet de son Apologie pour feu Msgr. de Fenelon”; “Avis a M. Stievenard sur la seconde Apologie pour Msgr. Fenelon”; “Justification de l’avis”; “Apologie du thomisme triomphant” (Liege, 1731); “Reponse a l’auteur d’un libelle” (1734); “Apologie . contre l’Histoire du baianisme composee par le Pere Duchesne” (Avignon, 1738); “Sermons du R. P. C. R. Billuart,” edited by Abbe Lelievre (2 vols., Paris, 1846).

J. R. VOLZ.

Jacques de Billy

(Billi)

A French patristic scholar, theologian, jurist, linguist, and a Benedictine abbot, b. 1535 at Guise in Picardy; d. 25 December, 1581 at Paris. He began his studies at Paris, completed a course of philosophy and theology before he was eighteen years of age, and then, at the request of his parents went to Orléans and later to Poitiers to study jurisprudence. But having no inclination for law, he devoted most of his time to literature. The early death of his parents (Louis de Billy, of an old French family originally from Ile-de-France, and Marie de Brichanteau) gave him the opportunity he desired of pursuing unhampered his favourite study of letters. Quietly withdrawing to Lyons and later to Avignon, de Billy devoted himself, for a period, entirely to the study of Greek and Hebrew. He already held in commendam the Abbey of St.-Léonard of Ferrières in Anjou, and the Priory of Taussigny in Tourraine, when his older brother Jean, who had hitherto led a very worldly life, suddenly announced his intention of becoming a Carthusian, and resigned in favour of Jacques his two abbeys, Notre-Dame des Châtelliers and St.-Michel-en-l’Herme. After some hesitation de Billy accepted them, then entered the Order of St. Benedict, and later was made a regular abbot. Thenceforth he led a very ascetic life and governed his monasteries with great prudence. He was especially solicitous for the proper observance of monastic discipline and with that object in view renewed, in 1566, the statutes of his predecessor, Abbot Bertrand de Moussy. During the civil wars that devastated France at this period the monastery of St.-Michel-en-l’Herme was wholly destroyed. The abbot himself was frequently obliged to seek refuge from the ravages of war, and resided, for short periods, at Laon, Nantes, Paris, and in the Priory of Taussigny. The hardships he had to undergo in his journeyings, his incessant toil and study, and his ascetic observances gradually shattered his health, and while staying in Paris with his friend Gilbert Génébrard, he died at the comparatively early age of forty-six. He was buried in the choir of the church of Saint-Séverin.

From that day on which he entered the novitiate, de Billy set aside all profane studies and devoted himself exclusively to the study of the Fathers. His critical abilities and exceptional linguistic attainments (he wrote Greek and Latin with singular purity and precision) enabled him to do much for the emendation of the text and the correct interpretation of many obscure passages in the Church Fathers. His favourite among the Fathers was St. Gregory Nazianzen. His principal works are: (1) “S. Gregorii Nazianzeni opera omnia latine” (Paris, 1569); a second and better edition appeared in 1583. (2) “Consolations et instructions” (Paris, 1570). (3) “Récréations spirituelles” (Paris, 1573). (4) “S. Gregorii Nazianzeni opuscula” (Paris, 1575). (5) “Interpretatio Latina xviii priorum capitum S. Irenaei” (Paris, 1575). (6) “Antholigia sacra” (Paris, 1576). (7) “Joannis Damasceni opera” (Paris, 1577). (8) “Locutiones Graecae” (Paris, 1578). (9) “Opuscula aliqua S. Joannis Chrysostomi” (Paris, 1581). (10) “S. Isidori Pelusiotae epis. Libri tres” (Paris, 1585). (11) “S. Epiphanii opera” (Paris, 1612).

Ziegelbauer, Hist. rei lit. O. S. B. (Augsburg, 1754), III, 353; IV, 90, 99, 107; Niceron, Memoires, XXII, 187; Dom Prancois, Bibl. Gen. Des ecrivains de l’ordre de S. Benoit, (Bouillon, 1777), I, 126; Dupin, Nouv. Bibl. Des auteurs eccl. (Amsterdam, 1710), XVI, 123; Huet, De clar. Interpr., 261; Gallia Christiana (Paris, 1720), II, 1296, 1421; Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. (Venice, 1771), XVII, 335; P.G., XXV, prol.

THOMAS OESTREICH

Bilocation

(Latin bis, twice, and locatio, place.)

I. The question whether the same finite being (especially a body) can be at once in two (bilocation) or more (replication, multilocation) totally different places grew out of the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist. According to this Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in every consecrated Host wheresoever located. In the endeavour to connect this fact of faith with the other conceptions of the Catholic mind theologians make the following distinctions:

The place of a body is the surface of the body or bodies immediately surrounding and in contact with the located body.

A physical body is in place commensurably (circumscriptively) inasmuch as the individual portions of its exterior surfaces answer singly to the corresponding portions of the immediately environing surfaces of the body or bodies that constitute its place.

A being is definitively in place when it is entire in every portion of the space it occupies. This is the mode of location proper to unembodied spirits and to the human soul in the organism whereof it is the “substantial form,” i.e. the actuating and vitalizing principle. A spirit cannot, of course, be in loco circumscriptively since, having no integrant parts, it cannot be in extensional contact with the surrounding dimensions. It may be said, therefore, to locate itself by its spiritual activity (will) and rather to occupy than to be occupied by place, and consequently to be virtually rather than formally in loco. Such a mode of location cannot be natural to a physical body. Whether it can be so absolutely, supernaturally, miraculously, by an interference on the part of Omnipotence will be considered below.

A mixed mode of location would be that of a being which is circumscriptively in one place (as is Christ in heaven), and definitively (sacramentally) elsewhere (as is Christ in the consecrated Host).

II. That bilocation (multilocation) is physically impossible, that is, contrary to all the conditions of matter at present known to us, is the practically unanimous teaching of Catholic philosophers in accordance with universal experience and natural science. As to the absolute or metaphysical impossibility, that is, whether bilocation involves an intrinsic contradiction, so that by no exertion even of Omnipotence could the same body be at once in wholly different places—to this question the foregoing distinctions are pertinent.

Catholic philosophers maintain that there is no absolute impossibility in the same body being at once circumscriptively in one place and definitively elsewhere (mixed mode of location). The basis of this opinion is that local extension is not essential to material substance. The latter is and remains what it is wheresoever located. Local extension is consequent on a naturally universal, but still not essentially necessary, property of material substance. It is the immediate resultant of the “quantity” inherent in a body’s material composition and consists in a contactual relation of the body with the circumambient surfaces. Being a resultant or quasi effect of quantity it may be suspended in its actualization; at least such suspension involves no absolute impossibility and may therefore be effected by Omnipotent agency. Should, therefore, God choose to deprive a body of its extensional relation to its place and thus, so to speak, delocalize the material substance, the latter would be quasi spiritualized and would thus, besides its natural circumscriptive location, be capable of receiving definitive and consequently multiple location; for in this case the obstacle to bilocation, viz., actual local extension, would have been removed. Replication does not involve multiplication of the body’s substance but only the multiplication of its local relations to other bodies. The existence of its substance in one place is contradicted only by non-existence in that same place, but says nothing per se about existence or non-existence elsewhere.

If mixed replication involves no absolute contradiction, definitive replication a fortiori does not.

Regarding the absolute possibility of a body being present circumscriptively in more than one place, St. Thomas, Vasquez, Silv. Maurus, and many others deny such possibility. The instances of bilocation narrated in lives of the saints can be explained, they hold, by phantasmal replications or by aerial materializations. Scotus, Bellarmine, Suarez, DeLugo, Franzelin, and many others defend the possibility of circumscriptive replication. Their arguments as well as the various subtle questions and difficulties pertinent to the whole subject will be found in works cited below.

BALMES, Fundamental Philosophy (New York, 1864); DALGAIRNS, The Holy Communion (London, 1868); FABER, The Bl. Sacrament (Baltimore, 1855); GUTBERLET, Die Metaphysik (Münster, 1880); NYS, Cosmologie (Louvain, 1906); LA FARGE, L’idée de continu (Paris. 1894); PESCH, Philosophia Nat. (Freiburg, 1897); URRABURU, Cosmologia (Valladolid, 1892).

F.P. SIEGFRIED

Bination

The offering up of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass twice on the same day by the same celebrant.

It is believed by some (Magani, L’Antica Liturgia Romana, Pt. I, p. 296, Pt. II, p. 187) that even from Apostolic times private Masses were celebrated whenever convenient. Be this as it may, it is certain that in the first years of Christianity public Masses were offered on Sundays only; later, on Wednesdays and Fridays also (Tertullian, De Oratione, xiv). To these three days Saturday was added, especially in the East (St. Basil, Ep. cclxxxix). St. Augustine, who died in 430, assures us (Ep. liv.) that while, in his time, Mass was celebrated only on Sundays in some places, in others on Saturdays and Sundays, it was nevertheless in many places customary to have the Holy Sacrifice daily (St. August., op. cit.), in Spain (Council of Toledo, year 400), in Northern Italy (St. Ambrose, Sermo xxv), in Constatinople (St. John Chrysos. In Ep. ad Ephesios), as well as elsewhere. The daily Mass became universal about the close of the sixth century. Nay more, it was not long before priests began to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice two, three or more times daily, according to their own desire, till the sacred canons (Gratian, De Conseer., dist. I, can. liii) put a limit to their devotion in this regard, and Alexander II (d. 1073) decreed that a priest should be content with saying Mass once a day, unless it should be necessary to offer a second—never more—for the dead. Notwithstanding this legislation, the practice continued of celebrating oftener on some of the greater feasts: thus on the first of January one Mass was said of the Octave of the Nativity of Christ, another in honour of the Blessed Virgin; three Masses were said by bishops on Holy Thursday, in one of which sinners were reconciled to the Church, a second for the Consecration of the Oils, and a third in keeping with the feast; two Masses were said on the Vigil of the Ascension, as well as on the feast itself; three Masses were celebrated on Easter, and three also on the Nativity of St. John Baptist. On the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul the pope said one Mass in the basilica of St. Peter and a second in that of St. Paul. Finally, abolishing all these customs, Pope Innocent III (d. 1216) prescribed that a simple priest should say but one Mass daily, except on Christmas, when he might offer the Holy Sacrifice three times; while Honorius III (d. 1227) extended this legislation to all dignitaries. This then I sthe descipline of both the Eastern and Western Church, from which no one may recede without grave sin.

It must be noted, nevertheless, that the Church has found it advisable under certain conditions to modify her discipline in this regard. Thus moral theology permits a priest to say two Masses on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation, in care of necessity, when, namely, a number of faithful would otherwise be deprived of the opportunity of hearing Mass. This would be verified, for example, were a priest in charge of two parishes or missions with no other celebrant available, or were the church too small to accommodate at one time all the parishioners (See Bull, “Declarasti,” of Benedict XIV, Bullarium IV, 32 sqq., 16 March, 1746; Leo XIII, Litt. Apost. “Trans Oceanum,” 18 April, 1897). The ordinary of the diocese, however, is to judge, in these and similar cases, of the necessity of binating. For similar causes, the gravity of which is not quite so apparent, Rome grants to priests of missionary countries the privilege of saying two Masses (three in Mexico, according to an indult of Pope Leo XIII, Acta S. Sedis, XIII, 340, XXIX, 96) on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation, under conditions practically the same as stated above (See Bull “Apostolicum ministerium,” of Benedict XIV, for the Anglican Missions, 30 May, 1753, Bullarium, X, 197 sqq.; Conc. Plen. Balt. III, Tit. Iii, cap. I; Acta et Decreta Conc. Plen. Americae Latinae, no. 348 sqq.; Putzer, “Commentarium in Facultates Apost.,” no. 159 sqq.). As regards permission to binate, theologians are agreed that it should not be given unless about thirty persons would otherwise be put to notable inconvenience to avoid missing Mass. In certain extraordinary cases this number is reduced to twenty, while, if there is question of those detained in prison or bound by the laws of the papal cloister, from ten to fifteen inmates will suffice to permit bination. It must be borne in mind that even in such cases a priest is permitted to say a second (never a third) Mass only in case another celebrant may not be had; that a stipend may not be accepted for the second Mass; that the ablutions are not to be taken at the first Mass, as this would break the fast prescribed. A celebrant who is to say two Masses in the same church uses the same chalice for both, not purifying it at the first Mass. If the second Mass is to be said in a different church, the celebrant immediately after the last Gospel of the first Mass returns to the centre of the altar, consumes whatever drops of the Precious Blood may still remain in the chalice, and then purifies the chalice into a glass on the altar, is consumed together with the second ablution of a subsequent Mass, or emptied into the sacrarium. It might even be given to a lay person who is in the state of grace and fasting, as is done with the water in which the priest’s fingers are cleansed, when Holy Communion is given to the sick. The chalice thus purified at the end of the first Mass may be used for the second Mass or not, as the celebrant may see fit.

Pope Benedict XIV (d. 1758) conceded to all priests, secular and regular, of the kingdoms of Spain and Portugal the privilege of saying three Masses on All Souls’ Day (2 November). This privilege still holds for all places which belonged to one or other of these kingdoms at the time when it was granted. The ordinary stipend is allowed for one only of these Masses; while the other two must be offered for all the souls of purgatory.

Hergenrother in Kirchenlex., S.V. Bination; Bamberger, Pastoralblatt, 1878, N. 46–48; Neher, Die Bination (Ratisbon, 1874); Instructio S.C. de Propag. Fide, 24, May 1870.

ANDREW B. MEEHAN

Joseph Biner

Canonist, historian, and theologian, b. at Gluringen Switzerland, 1697; d. at Torrenburg, Germany, 24 March, 1766. His fame rests principally on a truly amazing erudition. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1715, received the usual training of its members and was later professor of canon law in the universities of Ingolstadt, Dilingen, and Innsbruck. He entered zealously into all the controversies with the sectaries of his time, especially with the Swiss heretics. As a consequence, all his works have a polemical tinge.

In 1739 appeared his “Catholische Anmerkung über die neueste uncatholische Controvers-Schreiber,” directed against certain opponents in Zurich. This was followed in 1744 by “Indifferentismus,” a treatise on religious indifference and liberalism in dogmatic teaching. Biner published ‘Heiligkeit der Kirche” in 1750, discussing the marks of the true Church and giving sketches of eminent Catholics. The best of his polemical works, one of enduring merit, is “De Summâ Trinitate, Fide Catholicâ et Hierarchiâ Ecclesiasticâ.” It appeared in 1765 and shows him at his best as a theologian and canonist. His last controversial treatise, which appeared the same year and was published like all the others at Vienna, is entitled: “Kurzer Begriff der heutigen Glaubenstreitigkeiten.” It is an examination and refutation of various Protestant confessions of faith.

Biner’s chief work of a purely canonical character is “Dissertationes juridicæ de beneficiis ecclesiasticis” (Innsbruck, 1746). His masterpiece is the “Apparatus erudictionis ad jurisprudentiam ecclesiasticam.” The work, despite its title, is not restricted to canon law, but is also historical, polemical, and theological. It was published at Vienna, 1754–66 in eight quarto volumes. It is a work of vast erudition and a veritable storehouse of history and canon law. Dividing his material by centuries, Biner treats of the various species of law, of the history of the church councils, of the political and religious vicissitudes of the various nations, of treaties and concordats, etc. Interspersed in the work are many valuable excursuses on Jansenism, Probabilism, Public Penance, Origin of Imperial Electors, etc. It is to be regretted, however, that a work displaying such stupendous industry and erudition should be rendered less valuable for students by an unscientific arrangement of material and the want of an index. The vastness of the knowledge which Biner displays, however, has received its meed of praise even from his opponents. He wrote many other work besides those mentioned in the text, which may be found in De Backer and Sommervogel.

HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1895), III; DE BACKER, Bibl. Des Ecrivans, S.J. (LIEGE, 1853); SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. De la c. de J. (Brussels, 1890).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Etienne Binet

Jesuit author, born at Dijon, France, 1569; died at Paris, 1639. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1690 and was rector of the colleges at Rouen and Paris, and provincial of Paris, Lyons, and Champagne. He was the author of forty-five published works, the first of which, on devotion to the Blessed Virgin, passed through eleven editions. His “Flowers from the Psalms” (Rouen, 1615) was translated into Italian and Latin; “Consolation and Joy for the Sick and Afflicted” (Rouen, 1616), was republished fourteen times in eight years; an “Essay on Nature’s Wonders” (Rouen, 1621) was one of the most popular scientific works of the century; it passed through 24 editions before 1658. Father Binet published a “Life of St. Ignatius” and a “Life of St. Francis Xavier,” in 1622, when these saints were canonized. His “Vies es SS. Elzear et Dauphine” was translated into English (London, 1638); “Vie de Ste. Aldegonde was published in English at Paris in 1632; “Purgatory Surveyed,” a translation by Father Ashby (London, 1663) was brought out again by Father Anderdon (London, 1874); “The Rich Man Saved by the Golden Gate of Heaven; Motives and Power of Almsgiving” (Paris, 1627) is dedicated to his mother, who was still living at the age of eighty-five (Latin, Italian, and German translations of this work were published); “Mary, God’s Masterpiece” (Paris, 1634) had six editions. Two years later he published a work which was received with the greatest enthusiasm: “How Should Religious Superiors Govern?” Twelve editions editions of this were published in French, three in Latin, three in Italian, and one in German. “Divine Favors Granted to St. Joseph” (Paris, 1639) was translated into English (London, 1890). Father Binet’s works are marked by a clear, graceful style, and quite an original turn of thought; they abound in apt quotations from Scriptures and the Fathers; although written 250 years ago they still furnish both pleasurable and profitable spiritual reading. Father Binet was the school-fellow and life-long friend of St. Francis de Sales, whose cheerful spirituality his own so much resembles.

Southwell, Bibl.; Papillon, Bibl. des auteurs de Bourgogne; Sommervogel, Bibl., I, 1487–1506; Butenschoen in Archiv. litt. del l’Europe, III, 315–325; Hamy, Notice bibliographique, prefaced to his edition of Father Binet’s Des attraits . . . de l’amour de Jesus Christ (Paris, 1900).

PATRICK H. KELLY

Jacques-Philippe-Marie Binet

French mathematician and astronomer, b. at Rennes, in Brittany, 2 February, 1786; d. in Paris, 12 May, 1856. After two years of study at the Ecole Polytechnique, he was appointed, in 1806, student-engineer in the government department of bridges and roads. Teaching, however, soon attracted him. For some time, he was professor of mathematics at the Lycée Napoléon. He then became, at the Ecole Polytechnique, successively, répétiteur of descriptive geometry, examiner, professor of mechanics, and inspecteur-général of studies. In 1823, he succeeded Delambre in the chair of astronomy at the Collège de France. Because of his intense devotion to the cause of Charles X, the Government of July, 1830, removed him from the Ecole Polytechnique, although it allowed him to retain his professorship at the Collège de France. He had been made a member of the Société Philomathique, in 1812. In 1843, he was elected to succeed Lacroix in the Académie des Sciences, of which he was a most active member and had become president at the time of his death. Binet was a man of modest manner and a devout Catholic.

To mathematics, mechanics, and astronomy, Binet contributed many valuable articles on a great variety of topics. These articles were published in the “Bulletins de la Société philomathique,” in the “Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences,” in the “Journal des Mathématiques” (Liouville) and, chiefly, in the “Journal de l’Ecole polytechnique.” He also rewrote, to a large extent, the second volume of the “Mécanique analytique” of Lagrange for the edition of 1816. A few of his principal articles are: “Mémoire sur la théorie des axes conjugués et des moments d’inertie des corps,” enunciating the principle sometimes called Binet’s Theorem (Journ. de l’Ec. pol., IX, 1813); “Mémoire sur la détermination analytique d’une sphère tangente à quatre autres sphères (ibid., X, 1815); “Mémoire sur la détermination des orbites des planètes et des comètes” (ibid., XIII, 1831); “Mémoire sur les intégrales définies eulériennes et sur leur application à la théorie des suites ainsi qu’à l’évaluation des fonctions des grands nombres” (ibid., XVI, 1839; Paris, 1840); “Mémoire sur les inégalités séculaires du mouvement des planètes” (Journal de Math., V, 1840); “Mémoire sur la formation d’une classe très étendue d’équations réciproques renfermant un nombre quelconque de variables” (Paris, 1843).

Comptes rendus de l’Académie de sciences; Journal de l’Ecole polytechnique.

PAUL H. LINEHAN.

Severin Binius

Historian and critic, b. in 1573 in the village of Randerath, Western Germany; d. 14 February, 1641. He made his studies at the gymnasium of St. Lawrence, in cologne, and later taught in the same school for several years. After his ordination to the priesthood he obtained the degree of doctor of divinity from the University of Cologne, where he taught general ecclesiastical history and ecclesiastical discipline, eventually becoming (1627–30) Rector Magnificus of the university. Binius was successively canon in two chapter-churches of Cologne and finally in the cathedral. In 1631 he was made counsellor and vicar-general of the archdiocese, a promotion due to his learning and one which was amply justified by his ability in managing the affairs of the archdiocese. Besides his many ordinary occupations he was active in the ecclesiastical ministry; he was also very charitable towards the poor, especially to needy students.

The reputation of Binius is owing chiefly to his edition of the Councils of the Church. The previous collections by Jacques Merlin, Peter Crabbe, and Lorenzo Surius appeared incomplete to him, lacking as they did explanatory notes. With the help of other scholars he prepared a new edition of the councils in four volumes (Cologne, 1606) under the title “Concilia generalia et provincialia.” It gives only the Latin text, and contains the acts of the councils, the decretal letters, and the lives of the popes. Binius added copious explanatory notes drawn largely from the “Ecclesiastical Annals” of Baronius. A second edition, considerably enlarged and containing also the Greek text, appeared at Cologne in 1618. In 1639 a third edition in nine volumes appeared at Paris, in preparation for which extensive use was made of the collection of councils published at Rome from 1608 to 1612. Binius also prepared an edition of the ecclesiastical histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, and Evagrius.

KESSEL, IN Kirchenlez (Freiburg,1887), II; HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1892), I; HEFELE, Conciliengesch (Freiburg, 1873), I; HARTZHEIM, Bibl. Colon. (Freiburg, 1747), 295.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Anton Joseph Binterim

Born at Düsseldorf, 19 September, 1779; died at Bilk, 17 May, 1855, a theologian of repute and for fifty years parish-priest of Bilk. He attended the Jesuit school in his native town, and then entered the Franciscan Order at Düsseldorf, 8 May, 1796. After his studies at Düren at Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle), he was ordained priest at Cologne, 19 September, 1802. On the suppression (1803) of the Franciscan monastery to which he was attached, he was forced to retire from the religious life; after the usual examinations, he was appointed pastor of Bilk, 21 June, 1805, and administered the parish until his death. Father Binterim was the author of numerous theological treatises in defence of the Church against the attacks of the rationalists of the day, drawing his material from ancient ecclesiastical and literary sources. His many successes in controversy gained him numerous enemies and particularly the hatred of the partisans of Hermes who accused him of unlawful intrigue with Rome, evil transactions with the Jesuits, and treasonable practices against the Government. At one period, he suffered imprisonment for six months in the citadel of Wesel. Father Binterim wrote indefatigably against the existing evil of mixed marriages and the Prussian legislation of 17 August, 1825, on such marriages, depriving the mother of all rights in the education of her child; he advised the formation of societies to protest against such abuses, and urged on pastors the duty of warning the young of the evils following upon marriages with Protestants. Resisting all offers of preferment, he remained in his parish until his death. He left his large library to the people of his parish.

Binterim’s writings are chiefly remarkable for their depth of research into the sources of ecclesiastical history and literature. In particular his principal work, “Die vorzüglichsten Denkwürdigkeiten der christkatholischen Kirche mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Disciplin derselben in Deutchland, frei bearbeitet nach der Schrift des Neapolitaners Pelliccia (de christianâ ecclesiæ primæ mediæ et novissimæ ætatis politiâ)” (7 vols., 17 parts, Mainz, 1825–41), is illustrative of many points of Christian Archæology. In addition to this mention may be made of: “Pragmatische Geschichte der deutschen Concilien” (7 vols., Mainz, 1835–49); and “Die alte und neue Erzdiöcese Köln” (Mainz, 1828–30), a treatise on the geography, statistics, and history of the Archdiocese of Cologne. He also wrote a large number of smaller works on theological, historical, controversial, and apologetic subjects, such as matrimonial questions; the use of Latin in the church ritual; the discussion as to whether St. Peter was ever in Rome, or was Bishop of Rome; the Monita Secreta of the Jesuits (Düsseldorf, 1853), an old myth revamped in Northern Germany; the sale of Hosts in Germany and France (2d ed., Düsseldorf, 1852).

KESSEL, in Kirchenlez., II, 848.

WILLIAM DEVLIN.

Biogenesis and Abiogenesis

According to their Greek derivation these two terms refer to the origin of life. Biogenesis is the theory that life originates only from pre-existing life; while the theory of abiogenesis implies that life may also spring from inorganic matter as such.

Some philosophers maintain that life existed prior to inorganic matter. Thus Fechner considers the stars and the universe as conscious organic beings of a higher order, which in the course of time differentiated themselves to organisms of an inferior kind. W. Preyer imagines the present world of organisms as a last remnant of gigantic primeval organisms, whose breath, perchance, was luminous iron-vapor, whose blood was liquid metal, and whose food meteorites—a fantastic conception which offers no solution of the problem. Others, again, as Liebig, Helmholtz, W . Thompson, E. Dubois-Reymond, assume the transference of small living germs from other cosmic globes to our cooling earth by means of meteorites—an evasion of the question at issue, with the additional difficulties arising from the nature of meteorites. Lastly, others admit that life must have originated somewhere and at some time, since our earth and all the celestial spheres were once in a state of fusion, incapable of sustaining living germs. But here opinions diverge. Those who deny a special directive principle assert that matter and energy as such are sufficient to account for the origin of life. Vitalists, on the other hand, maintain that life is generated from living beings only; its origin must ultimately be sought in a creative act of God, who endowed matter with a force sui generis that directed the material energies towards the formation and development of the first organisms. Hence the distinction between abiogenesis and biogenesis. Let us examine which view harmonizes best with the facts actually observed.

A most careful and universal research has proved beyond prudent doubt that all visible organisms arise only from germs of the same kind and never from inorganic matter. Omne vivum ex vivo. However the conditions of the experiment be varied, provided the receptacles and materials are free from living germs, results always verify Pasteur’s well-known aphorism: La génération spontanée est une chimère. The attempts of J. B. Burke to produce small living cells from inorganic matter by means of radium were unsuccessful; the radiobes produced were merely bursting gas bubbles of microscopic size. Similarly, Pflüger’s cyanic acid, which he compared to half-living molecules, is but a dead chemical compound. The formation of cells by a process of crystallization, as was assumed by the founders of the cell-theory has likewise proved unfounded. In short, Virchow’s statement, Omnis cellula ex cellulâ, has become an axiom of biology. Now, it is a principle universally acknowledged that the laws derived from present observations of nature are applicable also to past phenomena. How, then, can the defenders of abiogenesis uphold their theory in the face of contrary facts?—Two explanations are offered. Many authors, such as Halliburton, Verworn, Rosenthal, assume that the conditions of the earth during earlier periods were perhaps more favorable for the origin of life than those which come under our experience. Others call the spontaneous origin of life from inorganic matter a logical necessity, and add as explanation that the cell must consist of more primitive units of life, which will ever remain invisible, and whose spontaneous origin from matter is thus withdrawn from observation. These units of life have received various names; Weismann, for instance, calls them “biophorids.”

But these assumptions are arbitrary. Scientific research has established the cell as the simplest and lowest unit of visible independent life. No living organism has as yet been discovered that did not contain at least two essential elements of great complexity: a granule of chromatin and some amount of cytoplasmic substance. Deprive of these constituents no cell continues to live. Hence, if life ever originated from inorganic matter, it had to appear in the form of an organized cell. Invisible biophorids are no more capable of life than the visible chromatin granules, whose parts they are supposed to be. Even if such entities as biophorids could live independently, they could not have originated spontaneously; for however primitive an organism be imagined, it must at least be capable of nourishing itself, of propagating its kind, and of evolving into higher specific forms. But such a diversity of function supposes a differentiation of structure, made up of different chemical compounds of high tension and continuously unstable equilibrium. Besides,, there must be in the most primitive biophorids a perfect correlation of parts and a purposeful anticipation of future ends, tending towards the gradual perfection of individual and species. But crystals, as well as all chemical combinations and mixtures, show clearly that inorganic matter as such tends toward stability of equilibrium and homogeneity of structure. How, then, did those complicated chemical compounds of unstable equilibrium which composed the first organisms originate, especially since, at the beginning, the crust of the earth, totally burnt, was in the desolate condition of perfect oxidation? Besides, it is hard to see how the energy of the sun could serve to reduce the ashes, since to-day that action depends on the presence of chlorophyll and similar substances, which again are products of cells. Even if some form of energy would at once commence continually to unite the atoms to such unstable and complicated bodies as the phosphoric proteids, there is still wanting a directive to build up, by means of existing matter and energy, the chemical compounds into correlated structures, and to make them active organisms.

Matter, then, can never, not even under the most favorable circumstances, produce either living cells or living biophorids, and hence we conclude that life owes its origin to God, the Creator of matter and energy.

VON HARTMANN, Das Problem des Lebens (Bad Sachsa, 1906), 178; TYNDALL, Fragments of Science; BASTIAN, Nature and Origin of Living Matter (London); WASMANN, Die Moderne Biologie und die Entwicklungstheorie (Freiburg, 1906), 182; ROSENTHAL, Allgemeine Physiologie (Leipzig, 1901), 552; WEISMANN, Vorträge über die Descendenztheorie (Jena, 1904), II, 305; MUCKERMANN in The Messenger (New York, April, 1906).

H. MUCKERMANN

Biology

(from bios, life and logos, reason, account, reasoning)

Biology may be defined as the science on life and living organisms. It is essentially a science of observation and experiment and comprises the study of the structure, origin, development, functions, and relation to environment of plants and animals, discussing at the same time the causes of these phenomena. Biology is obviously divided into zoology (zoon, “animal”) and botany (botane, “herb”), according as the organism is either an animal or a plant. The biology of man is called anthropology (anthropos, “man”) which, as far as it concerns man’s body, is a subdivision of zoology. The science of insects is called entomology (entomon, “insect”). Biology is not a science of yesterday, but is as old as the human race. Its main development, however, took place during the last centuries. As a result of this development a great number of daughter-sciences have sprung into existence, each commanding its own more or less distinct field of research, and all united again to approach more and more the nature of life and to give us a clearer and more comprehensive idea of the variety and causes of vital phenomena.

An organism, be it plant or animal, may be considered under a threefold aspect: either in its structure, or in its functions, or in its development. And the science of biology is divided, correspondingly.

I. BRANCHES AND SUBDIVISIONS

The science which describes the structure of organisms is called morphology (morphe, “shape”). This may be either external or internal, and either simply descriptive or comparative. But in every case morphology concerns itself only with structure, in so far as this is a definite arrangement of matter.

External morphology treats of the size and shape of external parts and organs. Its chief purposes are, first, the identification of plants and animals according to certain systems of classification and, secondly, to facilitate the study of the functions of the various organs which it describes. It is practically the same as systematic biology, which treats of the kingdoms, classes, orders, families, genera, species, and varieties of organisms.

Internal morphology studies the interior structure of organisms and their parts; that is, organs, tissues, and cells. Accordingly it is subdivided into anatomy (anatemno, “cut up”), dealing with the gross structure of organisms, histology (istos, “web”), with the minute structure of the tissues, and cytology (kytos, “cell”), with that of the cells, which are the ultimate structural and functional units of life.

Secondly, there are two sciences which refer to the functions, or activities, of organisms, according as these are performed by the single parts of the organism or by the organism as a whole. The latter science is called bionomics; the former physiology. Both physiology and bionomics not only describe and compare, but also inquire into the proximate causes of the various activities, and are thus intimately related to physics and chemistry, and at the same time are of paramount importance for the philosophy of life and of plant and animal activity. Bionomics (sometimes called æcology) observes how an organism acts with regard to its environment; that is, it describes the mode of nutrition, dwelling-place (oikos), propagation, care of offspring, peculiar relation to certain classes of other organisms (symbiosis), geographical and geological distribution, and so forth. Physiology explains in detail how the single organs, tissues, and cells discharge their manifold functions, how a muscle contracts, how a gland pours out its secretion, and whether such functions are due to physical and chemical forces, whether and how far they are subject to a special directive.

Thirdly, the several biological sciences which describe the development of organisms are comprised under the general name of morphogeny (morphe and genea, “origin”), or biogeny. The two branches of morphogeny are ontogeny (ont-, participial stem, “being”) and phylogeny (phylon, “race,” “stock”). The former traces the gradual development of a single individual from the egg to the perfect being; the latter, that of the so-called “systematic species” from its ultimate ancestor, from which it is supposed to have been derived by evolution. Embryology is a special branch of ontogeny, and describes the gradual differentiation of the fertilized ovum until it has attained the structure peculiar to the particular organism.

Supplementary to the biological sciences above enumerated is the science of palæontology, which describes the fossil forms of plants and animals buried and petrified in the strata of the earth. The sciences of pathology, teratology, and numerous others, which pertain rather to medicine, cannot be considered here.

II. THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

The historical development of the biological sciences may aptly be divided into four great periods: the first centring around Aristotle, Galen, and Albertus Magnus; the second commencing with Vesalius; the third, with Linnæus; the last with the theory of the cell, established by Schwann.

FIRST PERIOD

Aristotle (384–322 B. C.) laid the foundations upon which the magnificent edifice of biology has been constructed. His works, “De historiâ animalium,” “De partibus animalium,” and “De generatione animalium,” contain the first scientific attempt to classify animals and to explain their various biological and physiological functions. Aristotle enumerates in his works about 500 kinds of animals. He distinguished groups (gene) from species (eide), divided all animals into animals with blood (enaima) and animals without blood (anaima), and again into eight principal groups, and thus established a system of classification which is still maintained, at least in a corresponding form, in our own days. He also knew many physiological facts, and made several discoveries in bionomics which were rediscovered only in the nineteenth century. The influence of the great Stagirite upon posterity was very great, and for nearly 2,000 years most students of biology were more or less satisfied, like the younger Pliny, to study and commentate the works of Aristotle. In morphology and physiology, however, a considerable advancement was made by Claudius Galen, who was born in A. D. 131. Galen was a Greek by birth and later on a well-known physician in Rome. He was the first to define physiology as the science which explains the functions of the single parts (usus partium) of an organism.

Together with Aristotle’s works Galen’s morphological and physiological teachings reigned supreme in all the schools of the Middle Ages till the time of Vesalius. Only among the princes of Scholastic philosophy were there any who stepped out of the narrow circle of Aristotelean biology and commenced to study and interpret anew the living book of nature. We refer here mainly to the Dominican, Blessed Albertus Magnus (1193–1280) and to his pupils, Thomas of Chatimpré and Vincent of Beauvais. Blessed Albertus wrote seven books on plants and twenty-six books on animals. Of the latter works, some are based on original research, while others contain many new and accurate observations which to-day are becoming more and more highly appreciated by scientists.

SECOND PERIOD

The second period began with the Belgian anatomist Andreas Vesalius, born at Brussels, 1 January—5. Vesalius was the first who dared to oppose energetically the authority of Galen in certain anatomical questions and to insist that in such matters not the method of interpretation, but that of dissection and of personal observation alone could lead to truth and progress. In 1537 Vesalius was made Doctor of Medicine in the University of Padua, where, during the following five years he conducted the public dissections. At the end of this time he published an illustrated folio on the structure of the human body, “Fabrica humani corporis,” which appeared at Basle in 1543. In this famous volume Vesalius corrected many errors of Galen, introduced his new method of dissection and experiment in the study of anatomy, and thus became the founder of modern anatomy. The attempt of Vesalius to overthrow traditional methods met with much encouragement, but much more opposition, apparently, for a year after the publication of his “Fabrica” he accepted the post of court physician offered to him by Charles V. In 1563 he made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and on his way back, in 1564, died on the island of Zante.

One of the greatest successors of Vesalius was William Harvey, born at Folkestone, England, in 1578. Harvey studied medicine at Padua at the time when the Tuscan Fabricius ab Aquapendente (1537–1619) held the chair of anatomy and wrote his exposition of the Galenic doctrine concerning the circulation of the blood. In 1604 he joined the Royal College of Physicians in London. Later on he became physician to Charles I, and died 3 June, 1667. The importance of Harvey’s work for biology consists in the demonstration of the true circulation of the blood through the arteries and veins. This demonstration, which he developed for the first time in his anatomical lectures at the Royal College in the year 1615, was published in 1628 under the title of “Exercitatio de cordis motu.” Together with the discovery of the lymphatics by Aselli (1623), to which it gave rise, it constitutes the beginning of modern physiology whose existence and development is in no small degree due to the purely experimental method definitely introduced by Harvey.

Meanwhile Galileo Galilei had made his discoveries in physics, and it was not long before these discoveries began to exercise their influence upon biological studies. It was especially Giovanni Alphonso Borelli, born at Naples, 28 January, 1608, who successfully attacked the mechanical problems suggested by muscular movement. When professor of mathematics at the University of Pisa he became acquainted with Marcello Malpighi, of Bologna, through whom he became interested in anatomical studies, and soon set about preparing a treatise on animal motion, “De motu animalium,” which was the first of the great contributions to physical physiology. This influential work appeared in 1680, shortly after the death of its author. While Borelli was still at work on his “De motu,” another anatomist, Nicolaus Stenson, or Steno (1638–86) developed in the same line, together with his friend Malpighi, the special physiology of glands and tissues. Steno, a convert from Lutheranism to Catholicism, was professor of anatomy in Copenhagen, his native city, and afterwards a priest and bishop in Hanover. He was one of the first to recognize the importance of the rising science of chemistry, although his attention was too much occupied with the new science of geology, which he had founded, to leave him much time for other investigations. The introduction of chemical methods in biological studies had already been accomplished by Jan Baptista van Helmont, born at Brussels in 1577, who in his turn was greatly influenced by the fantastic pilgrim Paracelsus (Theophrastus Bombast von Hohenheim), and through him by the Benedictine monk Basil Valentine. The latter lived about the time of Johannes Gutenberg and is known as the last alchemist and the first chemist.

Van Helmont’s important work, “Ortus medicinæ” appeared four years after his death, but it was the first of its kind and, like Borelli’s book, exercised an important influence on future investigations. The most valuable idea of the “Ortus medicinæ” is the explanation of digestion by fermentative processes. Perhaps the most influential of van Helmont’s intellectual descendants was Franz de la Boe, or Franciscus Sylvius, professor of medicine at Leyden from 1658 till his death in 1672. Sylvius was the teacher of such brilliant men as Steno and Regner de Graaf, to whom we owe several important biological discoveries. Without making any great discoveries himself he succeeded in directing the attention of physiologists, much more than van Helmont had done, to the importance of chemistry for the solution of biological problems. Thus he became the founder of the iatro-chemical school which, in opposition to the iatro-physical school of Borelli’s followers attempted to explain all vital processes by mere chemistry.

The work of Malpighi both closes this second period in the history of biology and reaches far out into modern times. Marcello Malpighi was born at Crevalcore near Bologna, in 1628, the year in which Harvey published his essay on the circulation of the blood, He did more for the general advancement of biology than any other scientist since the days of Vesalius. With the Englishman Nehemiah Grew, he laid the foundation of vegetable morphology. His work on the silkworm argues him a remarkable anatomist, and his description of the development of the hen’s egg entitles him to be considered the first embryologist. But his most important work consists in the discovery of the capillaries and the air-sacs in the lungs, and of the structure of glands and glandular organs. During the greater part of his splendid career Malpighi was professor of medicine at Bologna. In 1691 Pope Innocent XII called him to Rome to be the papal physician; Malpighi complied with the invitation, and died at Rome, 28 November, 1694. A great part of Malpighi’s success was due to the fact that the microscope, one of the most important scientific instruments of modern times, had just been invented.

It is noteworthy that nearly all the great pioneers of biological progress during this second period were devoted Catholics. The Church never hampered these great scientists, so long as they proceeded by way of exact demonstration, and kept within their own province, but left them perfectly free in their investigations. The exceptional ecclesiastics who assumed an unfriendly attitude towards scientific enlightenment may well be excused when we consider, as a mere physiological fact, how deeply inherited conceptions take root in the individual mind, and, moreover, how easily any novel idea may be misinterpreted as conflicting with religious truth. But the most determined opponents of biological innovations were indeed not ecclesiastics at all, but professors of biology who found it hard to give up the ancient traditions of their lifelong study.

THIRD PERIOD

Of Linnæus (Karl von Linné) it has been said that he found natural science a chaos and left it a cosmos. The son of a Protestant minister, he was born 23 May, 1707, at Rashult in the south of Sweden; died 1778. In 1741 he was made professor of medicine, and a little later of botany, in the University of Upsala, of which he was an alumnus. His main work, “Systema naturæ,” was published for the first time in 1735. Its most complete edition is the 17th, which appeared ten years after the author’s death. As its title indicates, the work is essentially a system of classification, comprising all the minerals, plants, and animals known in Linnæus’ time, arranged according to classes, genera, and species. The value of this classification is mainly due to the precision of its new nomenclature. According to this “binomial” nomenclature each plant or animal received a generic and a specific name, as, for instance, Felis catus and Felis leo, indicating at once the systematic relation of the organism. Linnæus exercised a vast influence upon the biologists of his time and considerably furthered the collection of numerous morphological facts which served the great scientists of the following century as the foundation of their various theories.

To the Frenchman, Marie-François-Xavier Bichat (1771–1802), morphology owes its position as a logically co-ordinated science. Bichat was the first to introduce into biology the distinction between systems composed of heterogeneous organs and systems composed of homogeneous tissues. In a system of the former class all the organs serve some particular group of vital functions, as, for instance, the digestive system. The latter class of systems comprises all tissues which have an identical structure, as, for instance, the system of secretion. To the scientific principle established by Bichat two others were soon added which are of still greater importance in morphology. These are the laws of correlation and of homology of organs. According to the law of correlation there is a certain interdependence of all the organs of an animal, so that from the peculiar structure of one organ we may conclude as to the structure of most other organs. The law of the homology of organs maintains that all organs constructed according to the same pattern must have similar functions. But, as the same function is not necessarily bound to the same structure (e. g., the function of breathing, which may be accomplished by gills as well as by lungs), the law was complemented by the principle of the analogy of organs.

These highly suggestive laws were chiefly established by George Dagobert Cuvier—like Linnæus, a devout Protestant—who was born in 1769 at Mömpelgardt, Würtemberg, and died, a peer of France, in 1832. His chief works were written when he was professor of comparative anatomy at the Jardin des Plantes in Paris. In Cuvier’s mind originated the celebrated theory of types, which was established in the year 1812. Taking the principle for the new division of the animal kingdom from the peculiar organization of the animal, Cuvier comprises the classes of mammals, birds, and reptiles under the name of vertebrates, which had shortly before been introduced by Lamarck. The other classes of animals were divided into three provinces (embranchements), the molluscs, the articulates, and the radiates. As the doctrine of the constancy of species, Cuvier’s system was opposed by Etienne-Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1722–1844), who emphasized the universal unity of the plan of structure pervading the animal kingdom. Cuvier also made an extensive study of the petrified organisms of prehistoric ages, and thus became the founder of the science of palæontology. Cuvier’s system was further developed by C. E. von Baer (1792–1876), who discovered the mammalian ovum, and through his studies of the development of the chick laid the foundations to the science of comparative morphogeny.

During the same period of the eighteenth century the science of physiology made considerable progress though the work of Boerhaave, Stahl, and Haller. Hermann Boerhaave (1668–1738) was for a long time professor of medicine at Leyden. He was an adherent neither of the extreme chemical nor of the extreme physical school, but tried to reconcile both doctrines. His main work, “Institutiones medicæ,” was published in 1708. A similar position as to the causes of physiological phenomena was assumed by George Ernest von Stahl (1660–1734), famous in the annals of chemistry for his phlogiston theory. Stahl’s views were embraced by a pupil of Boerhaave, Albrecht von Haller (1708–77), who united in his voluminous work, “Elementa Physiologiæ corporis humani,” all the theories and discoveries known to his time, and grouped them in a new manner, so that his book may be called the first modern textbook of physiology. About the time when Haller died Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier (who was guillotined by the Convention in 1794) added to the sum of physiological knowledge by solving the problem of oxidation and respiration.

FOURTH PERIOD

Meanwhile another important discovery had been made which gradually inaugurated the fourth and most splendid period of biology, the chief activities of which centre about the structure and functions of the cell, and about individual and specific evolution. During the same period immense progress has been made in bionomics, palæontology, morphology, physiology, and, indeed, all biological sciences. The fact has already been alluded to that, towards the close of the sixteenth century, a native of Holland, Zachary Janssen, had invented the microscope, which, after it had been considerably improved by Francesco Fontana, of Naples, and Cornelis van Drebbel, of Holland, was used by Malpighi, Jan Swammerdam (1627–80) of Amsterdam, the Englishmen Hooke and Grew, and by Antonius von Leeuwenhoek (1632–1723), the famous discoverer of the infusorians. Robert Hooke (1635–1702) was the first to represent in his “Micrographia” a group of cells which he had discovered with his microscope in plants; but Malpighi and Grew are generally credited with having discovered the cell. About a century later Kaspar Friedrich Wolff published his important “Theoria generationis” (1759) which clearly shows that he must have observed cells in plants as well as in animals. All this, however, was but preliminary; the new era in biology was fairly opened only when, in the years 1838 and 1839, the botanist Schleiden and, especially, the zoologist Schwann, established the first theory of the cell: that the cell is the ultimate structural and functional unit of life. Theodor Schwann was born at Neuss, near Cologne, in 1810 and became professor of anatomy at Louvain in 1839, and at Liège in 1848, and died in 1882. He was a faithful Catholic throughout his life. Schwann’s theory was further developed by F. Leydig (1857), by M. Schultze (1861), and by a host of such eminent scientists of the present generation, as J. Reinke, O. Hertwig, Waldeyer, Edmund B. Wilson, and many others. The name histology (see definitions at beginning of this article) was introduced by K. Meyer in 1819, whilst John B. Carney, who died in 1899 as a Catholic priest and professor at Louvain, is the acknowledged author and able promoter of cytology.

Together with cytology there came into prominence the science of ontogeny which has led many biologists of to-day back to a vitalistic conception of the phenomena of life. This science it was that suggested E. Häckel’s biogenetic law, to which it also gave the deathblow. According to Häckel’s theory, ontogeny is said to be a short and rapid repetition of phylogeny. The first to trace the entire development of all the tissues from the germ cells was Schwann. The question: whether the embryo was preformed in the egg and originated by a simple evolution; or whether it had to be developed by an entirely new formation, or epigenesis; was mainly solved by the theory of epigenetic evolution established by Driesch and numerous colabourers. The science of phylogeny began when Lamarck, the founder of the modern theory of descent, controverted the immutability of species on scientific grounds.

The Chevalier de Lamarck (Jean-Baptiste-Pierre-Antoine de Monet de Lamarck) was born in 1744. At the age of forty-nine he became professor of the zoology of invertebrates in the Jardin des Plantes at Paris. His theory of evolution was fully explained for the first time in his “Philosophie zoologique” and later in his “Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres.” During the last seventeen years of his life Lamarck was blind and lived in extreme poverty. The last two volumes of his “Histoire naturelle” he dictated to an affectionate daughter, who remained at her father’s side till his death in 1829. During its first period of energetic development the theory of evolution, as proposed by Lamarck and, in a modified form, by Saint-Hilaire, failed to supersede the theory of the constancy of species, which was defended by such influential men as Cuvier; nor, indeed, were the facts known at that time in any way sufficient to ensure its acceptance. However, after Charles Darwin had published his “Origin of Species,” in 1859, the new science progressed with the greatest rapidity, and at the present day there are but few prominent naturalists who do not contribute their share to phylogeny. At the same time it has gone through a considerable intrinsic development, mainly with respect to the rise and decline of the theory of natural selection as the chief factor in the development of species. Charles Darwin was born at Shrewsbury in 1809. He studied at the universities of Edinburgh and Cambridge, from 1831 to 1836 accompanied an English scientific expedition on board the “Beagle,” and passed the rest of his life in the village of Down, Kent, where he produced the numerous works which had such an incalculable influence on his age. Among Darwin’s fellow-workers Alfred Russel Wallace (born 1822) occupies the first place, since he was the co-discoverer of the principle of natural selection. Other distinguished men who took part in the development of this branch of biology were Huxley, Lyell, Nägeli, Weismann, Asa Gray. Probably the most important discoveries were those made by Hugo De Vries and by Gregor Johann Mendel, Abbot of the Augustinian Monastery at Altbrünn, where he died in 1884. Mendel’s laws of heredity, based as they are on a splendid array of facts, will be of especial influence upon future theories of heredity and development.

Together with phylogeny the science of palæontology, founded by Cuvier, developed mainly through the influence and personal activity of such men as Joachim Barrande (1799–1883), Jean-Baptiste-Julien d’Omalius d’Halloy (1783–1875), James Dwight Dana (1813–95), Oswald Heer (1809–83), and many more. These giants in the natural sciences were at the same time faithful Christians, the first two being Catholics. Still more impressive than the progress of palæontology is that of systematic biology and bionomics, branches to which a thousand modern scientists have devoted the entire energy of their lives. The result of all this scientific activity is apparent in the immense collections preserved in the museums of Washington, London, New York, and other large cities, and in the simple fact that the systematic species scientifically described amount to no fewer than 500,000 animals and 200,000 plants. The Linnæan system of classification was perfected in many ways, especially by the botanists A. L. von Jussieu (1789), A. P. Decandelle (1813), and by the zooligists Cuvier, C. T. E. von Siebold (1848), and R. Leuckart (1847). The greatest of modern morphologists since the time of Albrecht von Haller are Richard Owen (1870–92), the comparative anatomist, Johann Müller, the father of German medicine, and Claude Bernard, the prince of physiologists. Müller was born 14 July, 1801, at Coblenz, and died 28 April, 1858, as professor of anatomy and physiology in the University of Berlin. He was the teacher of such well-known men as Virchow, Emil Dubois-Reymond, Helmholtz, Schwann, Lieberkühn, M. Schultze, Remak, Reichert, all of whom have done magnificent work in various departments of biology. Müller was chiefly an experimental physiologist, and established a vast number of facts which he described with great accuracy. At the same time he defended with energy the existence of a special vital force, which directs the various physical and chemical forces for the attainment of specific structures and functions. In the present generation biologists are gradually returning to Müller’s views, which for a time they had more or less completely abandoned. The great physiologist lived all his life, as he died, a faithful Catholic. The same may almost be said of his contemporary in France, Claude Bernard born in 1813, at St.-Julien, not far from Lyons, and died in 1880. Bernard’s main discoveries refer to the phenomena of nervous inhibition and internal glandular secretion. For a time he yielded to the materialistic philosophy of his age ,but he soon abandoned it, perhaps through the influence of his friend Pasteur.

Louis Pasteur (died 28 September, 1895), the father of preventive medicine, was probably the most gifted and influential biologist of the nineteenth century. His discoveries, which are inscribed on his tomb, in the Institut Pasteur, at Paris, extend from 1848 to 1885, and relate to the nature of fermentations, to the minutest organisms and the question of abiogenesis, to the diseases of silkworms, to the propagation of diseases by microbes, and above all to the supremely important principle of experimental immunity to pathogenic bacteria. Pasteur was a model Catholic, the most ideal scientist known in the history of biology.

Many more prominent biologists, such as Ramon y Cajál, Wundt, Brooks, Strassburger, Wasmann, have done and are still doing admirable work in the interest of biological sciences.

FOSTER, Lectures on the History of Physiology during the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries (Cambridge, 1901); KNELLER, Das Christentum und der Vertreter der neueren Naturwissenschaft (Freiburg, 1903); WASMANN, Die moderne Biologie und die Entwicklungstheorie (Freiburg, 1906); WALSH, Makers of Modern Medicine (New York, 1907); Catholic Churchmen in Science (Philadelphia, 1906); OSBORN, From the Greeks to Darwin (New York, 1905).

H. MUCKERMANN

Flavio Biondo

A distinguished Italian archæologist and historian, b. at Forli in 1388; d. at Rome in 1463. He was the founder of the science of archælogy and of Christian and medieval topography. He studied under Ballistario of Cremona and was remarkable for learning even in his youth. He lived for some time at Milan, where he discovered and copied the only manuscript of Cicero’s dialogue “Brutus.” In 1432 he became secretary to Pope Eugenius IV, who was afterwards driven out of Rome. Biondo accompanied the pope in his exile, was his secretary at Ferrara and Florence, and returned to Rome with him. Later he served in the same capacity under Popes Nicholas V, Calixtus III, and Pius II. An earnest student of antiquities and a man of wonderful erudition, he applied himself with indefatigable industry to the task of collecting materials for his historical archaeological and topographical works. He gathered his materials from original sources. Biondo was the author of three encyclopedias, which have formed the basis of all subsequent dictionaries of Roman archæology and antiquities. His works, which were edited after his death by his sons, include: “Romæ Instauratæ Libri Tres” (1482), dedicated to Pope Eugenius IV, a valuable study of the ancient monuments of Rome, the first attempt at a topographical description of the city, giving also a complete list of the principal Christian churches and chapels, when and by whom built, etc.; “Romæ Triumphantis Libri Decem” (1482), dedicated to Pius II, a study of the institutions and customs of the ancient Romans; “Italia Illustrata” (1474), a description of Italy in fourteen regions, with an accurate list of the cities, etc. Biondo’s historical researches bore fruit in a great work entitled “Historiarum ab Inclinatione Romanorum Imperii, Decades III, Libri XXXI” (Venice, 1483), covering the period from the fall of the Roman Empire to the author’s own time (1440). The work was divided into decades, but Biondo’s death prevented him from completing the vast undertaking after he had written three decades and the first book of the fourth.

GREGOROVIUS, Rome in the Middle Ages, tr. HAMILTON (London, 1900), VII, Pt. II, 603 sqq.; PASTOR, The History of the Popes, tr. and ed. ANTROBUS (London, 1891); MASIUS, Flavio Biondo, sein Leben und Seine Werke (Leipzig, 1879).

EDMUND BURKE

Jean-Baptiste Biot

A physicist and mathematician, born at Paris, France, 21 April, 1774; died. there, 3 February, 1862. He studied at first at the College of Louis-le-Grand; in 1793 he joined the artillery of the Army of the North, but soon left the service to enter the École Polytechnique. After going to Beauvais as a professor in the central school of that city, he returned to Paris, in 1800, to occupy, at the age of 26, the chair of mathematical physics in the Collège de France. He had the distinction of ultimately belonging to three of the classes of the Institute; in 1803 he was admitted to the Academy of Sciences; in 1841, to the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres; and in 1856, to the French Academy. After beginning his career as a mathematician and astronomer, he was assigned to the section of geometry in the Academy of Sciences. Among the interesting incidents in his career may be cited his ascension in a balloon with Gay-Lussac in 1804. They rose to a height of 13,000 feet for the purpose of studying the magnetic, electrical, and chemical condition of the atmosphere at various elevations.

Biot was actively engaged in the various branches of the geodetic work involved in the famous measurement of the quadrant of a meridian, for the purpose of standardizing the length of the new unit, the meter. As a member of the Bureau of Longitudes he went, in 1806, with young Arago, to Formentera, in the Balearic Islands, to resume the measurement of a degree of the meridian, interrupted by the death of Mechian. In 1808 he determined, with Mathieu, the length of the seconds pendulum at Bordeaux and Dunkirk. In 1817 he went to Scotland and the Shetland Islands to verify the geodetic operations of the English under Colonel Mudge. In 1824 he returned to Italy, Sicily, and Spain, in order to correct some of the observations of the year 1808. He contributed more than 250 memoirs to various societies and periodicals. This enormous work covers the entire field of experimental and mathematical physics, as well as ancient and modern astronomy. He was the champion of the corpuscular theory of light which he extended to some most ingenious explanations of the very complex phenomena of polarization. Biot discovered the laws of rotary polarization by crystalline bodies and applied these laws to the analysis of saccharine solutions. His fame rests chiefly on his work in polarization and double refraction of light.

Regular habits of study and recreation kept him in good health and led to a ripe old age. His mental attitude may be indicated by his opposition to the open meetings of the Academy; he feared the influence of the vulgar public upon the scientific tone of the Institute. Since he was brought up in the turbulent times of the Revolution, it is not surprising to find him among the insurgents, in 1795, attempting to overthrow the Convention. Again, in 1804, he succeeded at first in prevailing on the Institute not to vote for Bonaparte’s elevation to the throne. He protested against the introduction of purely political matters into the deliberations of a scientific body. His religious views became more pronounced towards the end of his life. He is said to have received the Sacrament of Confirmation at the hands of his own grandson.

The more elaborate works of Biot are: “Traité de géometrie analytique,” 1802 (8th ed., 1834); “Traité de physique expérimentale et mathématique,” 4 vols., 1816; “Précis de physique,” 2 vols., 1817; “Traité d’astronomie physique,” 6 vols. with atlas, 1850; “Mélanges scientifiques et littéraires,” 3 vols., 1858. The last is a compilation of a great many of his critiques, biographies, and accounts of voyages.

Proc., Am. Ass’n of Arts and Sciences, 1862, VI; SAINTE-BEUVE, Nouveaux Lundis (Paris, 1879), II.

WILLIAM FOX

Birds (In Symbolism)

Many kinds of birds are used in Christian symbolism. The first to be so employed was the Dove; it stood for the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, for when Jesus was baptized the Holy Ghost descended in bodily shape as a dove upon Him (Luke, iii, 22). It was also used as a symbol of peace, because a dove brought to Noe a bough of an olive-tree as a sign that the deluge of wrath was at an end. In early Christian art the Apostles and the faithful were generally represented as doves, the first because they were the instruments of the Holy Ghost, carrying peace to the world; the second because in their baptism they received the gift of reconciliation, entering with the dove (the Holy Ghost) into the Ark of God, the Church. Sometimes in symbolical writing it stands for rest: Who will give me wings like a dove, and I will be at rest?—(Ps., liv, 7); often for simplicity, innocence, and love: Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves (Matt., x, 16); Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled; One is my dove, my perfect one. (Cant., v, 2; vi, 8.) The Eagle is a symbol of Christ and His Divine nature, of regeneration by baptism; it is also an emblem of St. John the Evangelist. As the eagle can gaze upon the shining orb of the sun with steadfast eyes, so can Christ gaze undazzled upon the refulgent glory of God the Father. Dante refers to the strong eye of the eagle (Parad., i, 47, 48):—

I saw Beatrice turn’d, and on the sun

Gazing, as never eagle fix’d his ken.

—It was a popular delusion among the ancients that the eagle could renew its youth by plunging three times into a spring of pure water, a belief alluded to by David: Thy youth shall be renewed like the eagle’s (Ps., cii, 5), hence the primitive Christians, and later the medieval symbolizers, used the eagle as a sign of baptism, the well-spring of salvation, in whose water the neophyte was dipped three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, in order to wash from his soul the old man of sin and put on the youth of a child of light. This bird was used as the emblem of St. John, because in his Gospel St. John dwells particularly upon the Divinity of the Redeemer and contemplates with the unflinching eye of an eagle the highest truths. The Pelican is a symbol of the atonement and the Redeemer. It was supposed to wound itself in order to feed its young with its blood and to bring to life those who were dead—the “pelicane who stricketh blood out of its owne bodye to do others good” (Lyly, Euphues). Allusion is made to this belief in “Hamlet” (act iv):—

To his good friend thus wide I’ll ope my arms

And, like the kind, life-rendering pelican,

Repast them with my blood.

Therefore it was deemed a fitting symbol of the Saviour, the nostro pelicano of Dante, Who shed His blood in order to give eternal life to the children of men. Skelton in his “Armorie of Birds” says:—

Then sayd the Pellycan:

When my Byrdts be slayne

With my bloude I them revyve.

Scripture doth record

The same dyd our Lord

And rose from deth to lyve.

The Phoenix is a symbol of the Resurrection and of eternity. According to legend this mythical bird could never die; on attaining its five-hundredth year it committed itself to the flames of a funeral pyre, only to rise reborn from its own ashes. Dante used it as a symbol of the souls of the damned (Inf., xxiv, 197–208). The Peacock in Byzantine and early Romanesque art was used to signify the Resurrection, because its flesh was thought to be incorruptible. (St. Augustine, City of God, xxi, c, iv.) It was also a symbol of pride. The Raven is a symbol of the Jews of confession and penance. The Cock is a symbol of vigilance, and also an emblem of St. Peter. The Vulture has always typified greed. Many other birds were used during the Middle Ages for symbolic and ecclesiological purposes; while the preachers of these centuries developed the symbolism of each one of these emblems to a degree that now seems far-fetched and often obscure, nevertheless, they made it clear that religious instruction can be gained from birds and even from the common things of life.

LAUCHERT, Geschichte des Physiologus (Strasburg, 1889); CAHIER, Mélanges d’archéol. (Paris, 1847–56); NEAL AND WEBB, The Symbolism of Churches and Church Ornaments (New York, 1896); DIDRON, Christian Iconography (London, 1851); EVANS, Animal Symbolism in Ecclesiastical Architecture (London, 1896); VIOLLET-LE-DUC, Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle (Paris, 1853).

CARYL COLEMAN

Biretta

A square cap with three ridges or peaks on its upper surface, worn by clerics of all grades from cardinals downwards. The use of such a cap is prescribed by the rubrics both at solemn Mass and in other ecclesiastical functions. Etymologically, the word biretta is Italian in origin and would more correctly be written beretta (cf. however the French barette and the Spanish bireta). It probably comes from birrus, a rough cloak with a hood, from the Greek pyrros, flame-coloured, and the birretum may originally have meant the hood. We hear of the birettum in the tenth century, but, like most other questions of costume, the history is extremely perplexed. The wearing of any head-covering, other than hood or cowl, on state occasions within doors seems to have originally been a distinction reserved for the privileged few. The constitutions of Cardinal Ottoboni issued by him for England in 1268 forbid the wearing of caps vulgarly called “coyphae” (cf. the coif of the serjeant-at-law) to clerics, except when on journey. In church and when in the presence of their superiors their heads are to remain uncovered. From the law the higher graduates of the universities were excepted, thus Giovanni d’Andrea, in his gloss on the Clementine Decretals, declares (c. 1320) that at Bologna the insignia of the Doctorate were the cathedra (chair) and the birettum.

At first the birettum was a kind of skull-cap with a small tuft, but it developed into a soft round cap easily indented by the fingers in putting it on and off, and it acquired in this way the rudimentary outline of its present three peaks. We may find such a cap delineated in many drawings of the fifteenth century, one of which, representing university dignitaries at the Council of Constance, who are described in the accompanying text as birrectati, is here reproduced. The same kind of cap is worn by the cardinals sitting in conclave and depicted in the same contemporary series of drawings, as also by preachers addressing the assembly. The privilege of wearing some such head-dress was extended in the course of the sixteenth century to the lower grades of the clergy, and after a while the chief distinction became one of colour, the cardinals always wearing red birettas, and bishops violet. The shape during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was everywhere considerably modified, and, though the question is very complicated, there seems no good reason to reject the identification, proposed by several modern writers, of the old doctor’s birettum with the square college cap, popularly known as the “mortar-board,” of the modern English universities. The college cap and ecclesiastical biretta have probably developed from the same original, but along different lines. Even at the present day birettas vary considerably in shape. Those worn by the French, German, and Spanish clergy as a rule have four peaks instead of three; while Roman custom prescribes that a cardinal’s biretta should have no tassel. As regards usage in wearing the biretta, the reader must be referred for details to some of the works mentioned in the bibliography. It may be said in general that the biretta is worn in processions and when seated, as also when the priest is performing any act of jurisdiction, e. g. reconciling a convert. It was formerly the rule that a priest should always wear it in giving absolution in confession, and it is probable that the ancient usage which requires an English judge assume the “black cap” in pronouncing sentence of death is of identical origin.

HERBERT THURSTON

St. Birinus (Berin)

Confessor, first Bishop of Dorchester (in what is now the County of Oxford, not Dorchester, the capital of Dorsetshire), and Apostle of Wessex; date of birth unknown; died 3 December, 650, at his see and was buried in his own church there. Later (680) his remains were deposited by Bishop Headda in the cathedral at Winchester, where finally (4 September, 972) Bishop Ethelwold enshrined them in silver and gold. According to Bede, Birinus came to Britain on the advice of Pope Honorius I (625–638), having been consecrated bishop by Asterius at Genoa. He promised “to sow the seed of the holy faith in the inner parts beyond the English,” but on his arrival (634) found the West Saxons so pagan that he decided to devote his ministry to them. God blessed his zeal by the conversion of their king, Cynegils (635), of his son Cwichelm (636), and of Cwichelm’s son Cuthred (639). Cynegils’ daughter (Cyneburga?) was also baptized, and Oswald, the holy King of Northumbria, who had come to Cynegils in suit of her hand, was sponsor to her father and wedded her. Doubtless his presence helped Birinus much in his first spiritual conquests. Immediately after this, Oswald and Cynegils gave him Dorcic, or Dorchester, the capital of Wessex, for his see, where “he built and consecrated many churches and by his labours called many to the Lord.”

Birinus had great devotion for the Body of Our Lord, as is shown in the account of his walking on the sea to procure the corporal given him by Pope Honorius, wherein he ever carried the Blessed Eucharist. Field strangely disposes of this miracle and others as allegorical or fabricated, after allowing, however, that their chroniclers had some common source of information lost to us now. Many miracles took place at the discovery of Birinus’s relics, and Huntingdon among others speaks of “the great miracles of Birin.” At present, there is a growing devotion to him in the Established Church. due probably to the connection of the royal family with Cedric, a side branch of whose stock was Cynegils. Field enumerates many modern Protestant memorials. The Catholics of Dorchester honoured their patron, in, 1849, with a beautiful chapel.

CHARLES L. KIMBALL

Fabian Birkowski

Polish preacher, b. at Lemberg, 1566; d. at Cracow, 1636. He completed his studies at the University of Cracow, where he also began to teach philosophy in 1587. After having taught there for five years he entered the Dominican Order (1592), and devoted himself for some time to a deeper study of theology. Thereupon he began his career as a preacher in the church of the Holy Trinity at Cracow where the king attended Divine worship. During fourteen years his fame as a preacher drew immense crowds. Sigismund III was much attached to him and often consulted him on matters temporal and spiritual. He induced Birkowski to follow the court when it was transferred to Warsaw. He also appointed him court-preacher to his son Wladislaw. In the crusades of 1617 and 1618 against Turkey, Russia and Walachia, the friar took no small part, and some of his best sermons were delivered to the soldiers. Two years before his death he retired to his monastery and never left it save to preach on some great occasion or in behalf of charity. Birkowski is considered one of the greatest orators of Poland. His contemporaries spoke of him as the “Sarmatian Chrysologus,” and posterity has not found anyone superior to him in purity of diction in the sixteenth century. He uses Scripture quotations very often, though he also refers frequently to Virgil, Horace and Homer, and among letter writers to Justus Lipsius. He has no respect for the learning and temper of Erasmus. Of his sermons only a few have been published. There are three volumes of sermons for Sundays and Holy Days, besides panegyrics on St. Josaphat, Sigismund III, his wife Constantia, and sermons on the Blessed Virgin delivered in camp.

QUÉTIF AND ECHARD, Script. Ord. Præd., II, 542; MECHERZYNSKI, Hist. Wymowy w Polasce, II 325–329.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Diocese of Birmingham

(BIRMINGHAMIA, BIRMINGHAMIENSIS)

One of the thirteen dioceses erected by the Apostolic Letter of Pius IX, 27 September, 1850), which restored a hierarchy to the Catholic church in England. It comprises the counties of Oxford, Stafford, Warwick, and Worcester. It take sits name from the municipal city of Birmingham in Warwickshire, the largest town of the four countries. Previous to 1850, these same four counties were included, first in the Midland, then in the Central, District or Vicariate, which had been governed by Vicars-Apostolic since 1688, of whom by far the most illustrious was Bishop Milner (1803 -26)-a man equally learned in polemics, ecclesiastical history, and sacred archæology. To his untiring energies and undaunted front against a strongly organized schismatical opposition, the Church in England owes its present stability and its solid ecclesiastical unity. Under Milner, whose episcopal residence was at Wolverhampton (Staffordshire), this vicariate became the starting-point and then the centre of the Catholic Movement, or Revival, in the last century (1800–50). Its prominence as well as its lustre was due not merely to its central position, but chiefly to Milner’s brilliant talents, his magnetic influence, and clear foresight. Its two educational establishments-Sedgley Park School, Wolverhampton, and St. Mary’s College, Oscott, Birmingham-presided over and staffed by exceptionally able men, lent their aid also to this great movement by supplying a zealous body of clergy and a laity thoroughly grounded in Catholic principles. When, later on, the Oxford movement led to so many conversions, Oscott College became the rallying point for the Catholic forces, inasmuch as its then president, Bishop Wiseman (1840–17), was the acknowledged leader and interpreter. To Oscott John Henry Newman had come from Littlemore after his reception into the church, and many other distinguished converts besides.

The last vicar-Apostolic of this henceforth historic vicariate was William Bernard Ullathorne, O.S.B., who was consecrated 21 June, 1846. After ruling the Western Vicariate for a short time he was translated to the Central District, to become the first Bishop of the newly created See of Birmingham. Next to Wiseman, he had done most to promote the restoration of the hierarchy. On 27 October, 1850, Bishop Ullathorne was enthroned in St. Chad’s Cathedral, Birmingham, when Dr. Newman preached his celebrated sermon “Christ on the Waters,” second only to the “Second Spring” delivered at the First Provincial Synod of Westminster at Oscott (July, 1852). The cathedral and bishop’s house had been erected in Bishop Walsh’s vicariate (21 June, 1840) from designs drawn by Augustus Welby Pugin, the foremost promoter of the revival of Gothic architecture, who, through the munificence of John, 16th Earl of Shrewsbury, adorned the diocese with many ecclesiastical buildings. Over the high altar of St. Chad’s Cathedral rest the relics of its patron which had been enshrined till the Reformation in Lichfield Cathedral. On 24 June, 1852, the cathedral chapter, consisting of a provost and ten canons, was duly erected, to which three honorary canons have since been added. The first and third provosts, respectively, were Mgr. Weedall, D.D., and Dr. Northcote, both presidents of Oscott. The first diocesan synod was held 9 and 10 November, 1853, since which time there have been thirteen other synods (1853–1906). In 1873, owing to refusal to renew the lease, Sedgley Park School was transferred to St. Wilfrid’s, Cotton, Staffordshire, formerly the residence of Father Faber and the Oratorians. In the October of the same year St. Bernard’s diocesan Seminary was opened at Olton, Warwickshire, of which the first rector was the Rev. Edward Ilsley, successively canon and bishop-auxiliary (December 4, 1879).

In July, 1879, Bishop Ullathorne resigned, becoming titular Archbishop of Cabasa. He retired to Oscott, where he died 21 March, 1889. Two persons stand forth conspicuous in the history of the Birmingham diocese whose relations with Bishop Ullathorne were exceptionally close. Cardinal Newman and Mother Margaret Hallahan. The former lived and died at the oratory, Edgbaston, Birmingham, and the new basilica opened 9 October, 1906, will perpetuate his memory. The latter was the foundress of the English Congregation of Nuns of the Third Order of St. Dominic, who have convents and hospitals at Stoke on Trent and Stone. The latter is the burying place both of Archbishop Ullathorne and Mother Margaret. The large number of communities of women who have found a home in this diocese attracted by the personality of Bishop Ullathorne include Benedictines (2 abbeys, 3 priories), Poor Clares, Little Sisters of the Poor, Sisters of Mercy and of St. Paul-the latter introduced from Chartres by Mother Geneviève Dupuis. Another religious force, specially characteristic of the diocese, has been the annual reunions in the Town Hall, Birmingham, which, begun in 1855, have been presided over by eminent Catholics, and have tended to keep the clergy and laity in touch with one another. Mention, too, must be made of John Hardman of Birmingham, whose firm has done so much in promoting ecclesiastical art, notably stained-glass and metal work, and whose benefactions to the cathedral choir have enabled it to reach a standard of excellence in church music which places it first among Catholic choirs. On 17 February, 1888, Dr. Ilsley became the second Bishop of Birmingham, and at once took in hand the difficult task of protecting and rescuing the destitute Catholic children of the diocese. St. Edward’s Home for homeless boys was opened at Coleshill (Warwickshire), 6 November, 1906, with branch houses for boys and girls, similarly situated, in various centres, besides a Home for Working Boys and a Night Refuge, both in Birmingham. In July, 1889, Oscott College was closed to lay students and reopened as a Central Seminary for ecclesiastics only. The progress of Catholicism since 1850 is gauged by a comparison of a few statistics from the years 1851 and 1906, respectively: clergy, 124 and 297; churches, 82 and 189; religious communities, 19 and 97.

The Catholic directory (1800–1907); Birmingham Catholic calendar and directory (1900–07); AMHERST, History of Catholic Emancipation (London, 1886); ULLATHORNE, Restoration of Hierarchy (London, 1881); The Oscotian (3d series); HUSENBETH, Life of Milner (Dublin, 1862); IDEM, Life of Mgr. Weedall (London, 1860); DEANE, Letters of Abp. Ullathorne (London, 1892); Autobiography of Abp. Ullathorne (London, 1891); ULLATHORNE, Pastorals (1850–88); HUSENBETH, History of Sedgley Park School (London, 1856); WARD, Life and Times of Card. Wiseman (London, 1897); BARRY, Newman (London, 1904); IDEM, Sermon Preached at Requiem of Provost Northcote (1907); DEVINE, Life of Fr. Ignatius Spencer (London, 1866); Life of M. Margaret Hallahan (London, 1869); Life of M. Francis Raphael Deane, O.S.D. (London, 1895); History of St. Chad’s Cathedral (Birmingham, 1904); STAPLETON, History of Post-Reformation Missions in Oxfordshire (London, 1906); GILLOW, History of St. Austin’s , Stafford (London, s.d.); IDEM, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.; Memorials of Bp. Amherst (London, 1903); WILLINGTON, Catholicism in Leamington (1906); NORRIS, Baddesley Clinton (London, 1897); CHATTAWAY, Salford Priors (1895); FERREY, Memoirs of Augustus Welby Pugin (London 1861); ILSLEY, Pastorals (1888–1907).

JOHN CASWELL.

Heinrich Birnbaum

(Also known as DE PIRO, the latinized form of this German name)

A pious and learned Carthusian monk, b. in 1403; d. 19 February, 1473. Little is known of him before his entrance into the Carthusian monastery at Cologne on 14 March, 1435, at the age of 32 years. On account of his edifying example in the observance of the rule and his extensive scriptural and theological learning he was highly esteemed by his confrères, and as early as 1438, only three years after his entrance into the order, he became prior of the monastery of Mont Saint André at Tournai (Doornik) in Belgium. The desire for a reform of the religious orders, which animated many great men of the fifteenth century, had also penetrated the soul of Birnbaum. Being a true reformer, he soon succeeded, by the irresistible force of his own pious example, in abolishing the few abuses that had found admittance into the various monasteries over which he became prior, and in restoring the austere monastic discipline established by the founder St. Bruno. After holding the position of prior at Mont Saint André for eleven years, he was active in the same office successively at Wesel in Rhenish Prussia, until 1457; at Rettel in Lorraine, until 1459; at Trier, until 1461; and at Diest in Belgium, until 1463. In 1463 he was appointed prior at Liège, but ill health forced him to resign this position and retire to the Carthusian monastery at Cologne, where he had spent the first days of this monastic life. The remaining ten years of his life Birnbaum spent in writing several ascetic works and in preparing for a happy death. There were with him at that time in the Carthusian monastery of Cologne some of the most learned and saintly men of Germany such as Hermann Appeldorn (d. 1472), Hermann Grefken (d. 1480), Heinrich von Dissen (d. 1484), and Werner Rolewink (d. 1502). Birnbaum wrote for the instruction and direction of the members of his order a number of works, many of which, however, have not yet been put in print, also: “Defensio pro Immaculato Conceptu B.M.V.,” and “Excepta ex malo granato cum nonnullis conjunctis.” He has often been confounded with his uncle of the same name, one of the most learned jurists of the fifteenth century, who was for some time provost of St. Kunibert’s at Cologne, and who died in 1439. See “Le Grand Dictionnaire Historique” (Amsterdam, 1698), III, 138; also Jöcher, “Gelehrten Lexicon,” III, 1589.

KESSEL, in Kirchenlexikon, II, 862; MARX, Geschichte des Erzstiftes Trier, II, ii, 331.

MICHAEL OTT

Defect of Birth

(ILLEGITIMACY)

A canonical impediment to ordination. When used in this connection, the word illegitimate has, in canon law, a well-defined meaning, which is: “born out of lawful wedlock.” Illegitimate birth is an impediment to the reception of orders, and inhibits the exercise of the functions of orders already received. It is a canonical impediment, because established and laid down in the canon law as a hindrance to entering the clerical state. This prohibition does not touch the validity of orders, but makes the reception of them illicit. It extends to first tonsure. The inhibition that is set up is restricted to the functions that belong exclusively to the clergy. In the early ages of the Church no law prevented the ordination of illegitimates. They were then, sometimes, debarred from ordination, but only because of a real or supposed depravity of life. Pope Urban II (1088–99) prohibited the ordination of the illegitimate offspring of clerics, unless they became members of approved religious orders. The Council of Poitiers, under Paschal II (1099–1118), extended this prohibition to all persons of illegitimate birth. These regulations were later approved by other popes and councils.

The law as laid down in the Decretals of Gregory IX (I, X) mentions only the offspring of clerics and those begotten in fornication. But in the sixth book of the Decretals all persons of illegitimate birth are expressly included. These may be ranged in the following classes: (1) Natural illegitimates, or the offspring of parents who at the time of the birth or conception of such offspring, were capable of contracting Christian marriage. (2) Spurious illegitimates, or those born of a known mother and an unknown father—unknown because the mother had carnal relations with several men. (3) Adulterine illegitimates, those begotten of parents, one or both of whom, at the time of conception and birth of such offspring, were lawfully married to a third person. (4) Incestuous illegitimates, or persons whose parents could not marry because of an invalidating impediment of consanguinity or affinity. (5) Sacrilegious illegitimates, or the offspring of parents who are restrained from marriage because of the impediment of Holy orders or solemn religious vows. The practice of the present day also holds as illegitimates abandoned children of unknown parentage. Legitimacy may not be presumed or established by negative proof. Positive documentary evidence must be adduced.

The law of illegitimacy directly debars all the foregoing classes of persons from promotion to orders, and the exercise of the functions proper to the orders already received; and it indirectly prevents such persons from obtaining a benefice. Directly, also, it prevents them from obtaining certain benefices, for the Council of Trent (Sess. 25, c. 15 de ref.) Decreed that the illegitimate children of clerics should be incapacitated from obtaining any kind of a benefice in the Church where their fathers held one; from rendering any service in said church; and from receiving any pensions on the revenues of the paternal benefice. This law is not established and laid down as a punishment for the person to whom it is applied. It safeguards the honour and dignity of Holy orders. The clerical state which has the dispensing of the mysteries of God must be beyond reproach. No stain should be upon it, no blame possible. Therefore the Church raises the barrier of illegitimacy before the entrance to the priesthood. Thus the crime of the parents is held up to just reprobation, and is condemned even in the lives of their offspring. The danger of the father’s incontinence being continued in the life of the son is greatly lessened, for strong indications of purity of life must be given before the door of God’s ministry can be opened.

The defect of illegitimate birth may be cured in four ways: (1) By the subsequent marriage of the parents; (2) By a rescript of the pope; (3) By religious profession; (4) By a dispensation.

(1) The subsequent marriage of the parents of an illegitimate has, by a fiction of law, a retroactive power which carries the marriage back to the time of the birth of the offspring and covers it with lawful wedlock. In order that the fiction of law may produce this effect, the parents, at the time of the conception or, at least, at the birth of such offspring, must have been capable of contracting lawful marriage. Therefore, this more of legitimation is applicable only to natural illegitimates. And these, though legitimized by the subsequent marriage of the parents, or even by an Apostolic dispensation, are forever excluded from the dignity of the cardinalate. (2) A rescript of the pope confers legitimacy in so far as it is required for spiritual affairs throughout the universal Church. (3) Religious profession in an approved order cures the defect of illegitimacy. Religious profession is the taking of the solemn religious vows; but the simple vows taken after the noviciate in some orders produce a like effect. This mode of legitimation only renders illegitimates capable of ordination. It cannot be extended to dignities or even to regular prelacies. Hence, illegitimates thus legitimized are still debarred from the position of abbot; and women of illegitimate birth, for like reasons, cannot hold the position of abbess or prioress. (4) A dispensation granted by a lawful superior removes the defect of illegitimate birth, but only for some express purpose. It is not a mode of absolute legitimation. The purposes for which it is granted must be specified; as for promotion to minor orders, to major orders, to a specified benefice.

A dispensation of this kind runs counter to the common law. It is of strict interpretation, and therefore cannot be extended from like to like or from greater to less, unless the one is included in, and presupposes, the other. Such is the case when a dispensation is conceded to an illegitimate to receive Holy orders. Such orders require a title, and this title is, in canon law, a benefice. The pope is the lawful superior for the universal Church, and as such he can dispense in all cases where a dispensation is possible. Bishops and other prelates having quasi-episcopal jurisdiction can dispense their own subjects, in this matter, for first tonsure, minor orders, or a simple benefice; but not for major orders, even though the illegitimacy be occult. This episcopal, or quasi-episcopal, jurisdiction does not extend to a benefice which was immediately possessed by the father of the person seeking the dispensation, nor to a benefice which by custom or privilege requires its possessor to be in major orders.

FERRARIS, Prompta Bibliotheca; SCHMALZGRÜBER, Jus Ecclesiasticum; SANTI-LEITNER, Pr lectiones Juris Canonici (New York, 1905); Dizionario di Casuistica Morale (Venice, 1841); SABETTI, Theologia Moralis (New York, 1889); KONINGS, Theologia Moralis (Boston, 1874); B NNINGHAUSEN, Tractatus Juridico-canon, de irregularitatibus (Münster, 1863).

JAMES H. DRISCOLL.

Birtha

A titular see of Osrhaene, probably identical with Birejik (Zegma) on the left bank of the Euphrates, c. 62 miles west of Orfa (Edessa), and 95 miles north of Aleppo. Birtha (Aramæan, Bîrthâ “castle”) is spoken of as a castle by ancient authors (Hierocles, 715, 2). There was also a see called by the Greeks Macedonopolis, the foundation of the great city being attributed by legend to Alexander the Great (Amm. Marcell., XX, vii, 17). That Macedonopolis and Birtha are one see is proved by the subscriptions at the Council of Niceæa, where we see that Bjrt in both Syriac and Arabic lists corresponds with Macedonopolis in Greek and Latin lists (Gelzer, Patrum Niceænorum nomina, 242). The true name of the bishop present at the council is Mareas, not Marcus. Daniel, Bishop of Macedonopolis, is said to have been present at the Council of Chalcedon (451). From the sixth century only the name Birtha survives (Georgius Cyprius, n. 899). Emperor Anastasius, after his victories over the Persians in 505, entrusted Sergius, Bishop of Birtha, with the work of repairing the city (Wright, ed., The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite, XCI, lxxi), an undertaking that was completed by Justinian (Procop., De ædific. Just., II, 4). The oldest “Tacticon” of the Patriarchate of Antioch, issued under Anastasius I (599) places Birtha first among the suffragan sees of Edessa (Kerameus, ed., Anekdota Hellenika, lxv); the name is written Byrte in a later redaction (ibid., lxix), and Virchi in an old Latin translation (Tobler and Molinier, Itinera Hierosolymitana, I, 322). Birtha was destroyed by Timour-Leng in the fourteenth century. Birejik is to-day the chief town of a caza in the vilayet of Aleppo with 10,000 inhabitants, including 1,500 Christians, all Armenians, and one-half of whom are Catholics.

Ptolemy (V, xviii, xix) speaks of a fortress Birtha on the Tigris in Southern Mesopotamia and of another in Arabia on the Euphrates below Thapsacus. The site of the first is unkown, the latter is at Ed-Deir (Ritter, Erdkunde, XI, 691), but perhaps both are the same as Birtha or Macedonopolis.

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ., II, 985; CUINET, La Turquie d’Asie, II, 265–269; GEORGIUS CYPERIUS, ed. GELZER, 154; GAMS, Series Episcoporum, 437.

L. PETIT.

Diocese of Bisarchio

Situated in Sardinia, in the province of Sassari, district of Nuoro, and suffragan to the Archdiocese of Sassari. The episcopal residence, however, is at Ozieri. Nothing is known as to the early history of Christianity in either the city or Diocese of Bisarchio. The first bishop mentioned is Costantino Madrone (c. 1102), who was succeeded in 1116 by Bishop Pietro. The bishop’s residence has changed several times, once to Giracle, and again to Ardera. In 1503, at the death of Fra Cnlcerando, bishop of this see, Bisarchio was incorporated into the Diocese of Alghero. The diocese was reestablished by Pius VII in his Bull of 9 March, 1803, and bestowed upon Giannantioco Azzei, who in 1819 was promoted to the archiepiscopal See of Oristano, his native place. The episcopal residence was then definitely transferred to Ozieri. The cathedral, built in 1153, is well planned.

The Diocese of Bisarchio contains 24 parishes, 116 churches, chapels, and oratories, 78 secular priests, 25 seminarists, and a population of 40,000.

U. BENIGNI

Bishop

(Anglo-Saxon Biscop, Busceop, German Bischof; from the Greek episkopos, an overseer, through Latin episcopus; Italian vescovo; Old French vesque; French évêque).

The title of an ecclesiastical dignitary who possesses the fullness of the priesthood to rule a diocese as its chief pastor, in due submission to the primacy of the pope.

It is of Catholic faith that bishops are of Divine institution. In the hierarchy of order they possess powers superior to those of priests and deacons; in the hierarchy of jurisdiction, by Christ’s will, the are appointed for the government of one portion of the faithful of the Church, under the direction and authority of the sovereign pontiff, who can determine and restrain their powers, but, not annihilate them. They are the successors of the Apostles, though they do not possess all the prerogatives of the latter. (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, ch. iv; can. vi, vii. See APOSTOLIC COLLEGE.) The episcopate is monarchical. By the Will of Christ, the supreme authority in a diocese does not belong to a college of priests or of bishops, but it resides in the single personality of the chief. The subject will be treated under five heads:

I. Historical Origin;

II. Present Legislation:

III. Rights and Powers of the Bishop;

IV. Obligations of the Bishop;

V. Non Catholic use.

I. HISTORICAL ORIGIN

The historical origin of the episcopate is much controverted: very diverse hypotheses have been proposed to explain the texts of the inspired writings and of the Apostolic Fathers relating to the primitive ecclesiastical hierarchy. They are most easily found in the work of von Dunin-Borkowski, on the latest researches concerning the origin of the episcopate (Die Neuren Forschungen uber die Anfange des Episkopats, Frieburg, 1900). The Apostolic and consequently the Divine origin of the monarchical episcopate has always been contested but especially so since Protestantism put forward the doctrine of a universal Christian priesthood. At the present day, rationalistic and Protestant writers, even those who belong to the Anglican Church, reject the Apostolic institution of the episcopate; many of them relegate its origin to the second century. Loning attempts to prove that originally there were several different organizations, that some Christian communities were administered by a body of presbyters, others by a college of bishops, others again by a single bishop. It is the last named form of organization, he declares, which has prevailed (Gemeindeverfassung des Urchristentums. Halle, 1889). Holtzmann thinks that the primitive organization of the churches was that of the Jewish synagogue; that a college of presbyters or bishops (synonymous words) governed the Judaeo Christian communities; that later this organization was adopted by the Gentile churches. In the second century one of these presbyter-bishops became the ruling bishop. The cause of this lay in the need of unity, which manifested itself when in the second century heresies began to appear. (Pastoralbriefe, Leipzig, 1880.) Hatch, on the contrary, finds the origin of the episcopate in the organization of certain Greek religious associations, in which one meets with episkopoi (superintendents) charged with the financial administration. The primitive Christian communities were administered by a college of presbyters; those of the presbyters administered the finances were called bishops. In the large towns, the whole financial administration was centralized in the hands of one such officer, who soon became the ruling bishop (The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, Oxford, 1881). According to Harnack (whose theory has varied several times), it was those who had received the special gifts known as the charismata, above all the gift of public speech, who possessed all authority in the primitive community. In addition to these we find bishops and deacons who possess neither authority nor disciplinary power, who were charged solely with certain functions relative to administration and Divine worship. The members of the community itself were divided into two classes: the elders (presbyteroi) and the youths (neoteroi). A college of presbyters was established at an early date at Jerusalem and in Palestine, but elsewhere not before the second century; its members were chosen from among the presbyteroi, and in its hands lay all authority and disciplinary power. Once established, it was from this college of presbyters that deacons and bishops were chosen. When those officials who had been endowed with the charismatic gifts had passed away, the community delegated several bishops to replace them. At a later date the Christians realized the advantages to be derived from entrusting the supreme direction to a single bishop. However, as late as the year 140, the organization of the various communities was still widely divergent. The monarchic episcopate offers its origin to the need of doctrinal unity, which made itself felt at the time of the crisis caused by the Gnostic heresies.

J.B. Lightfoot, who may be regarded as an authoritative representative of the Anglican Church, holds a less radical system. The Primitive Church, he says, had no organization, but was very soon conscious of the necessity of organizing. At first the apostles appointed deacons; later, in imitation of the organization of the synagogue, they appointed presbyters, sometimes called bishops in the Gentile churches. The duties of the presbyters were twofold: they were both rulers and instructors of the congregation. In the Apostolic age, however, traces of the highest order, the episcopate properly so called, are few and indistinct. The episcopate was not formed from the Apostolic order through the localization of the universal authority of the Apostles, but from the presbyteral (by elevation). The title of bishop originally common to all came at length to be appropriated to the chief among them. Within the period compassed by the Apostolic writings, James, the brother of the Lord, can alone claim to be regarded as a bishop in the later and more special sense of the term. On the other hand, through especially prominent in the Church of Jerusalem, he appears in the Acts as a member of the body. As late as the year 70; no distinct signs of episcopal government yet appeared in Gentile Christendom. During the last three decades of the first century, however, during the lifetime of the latest surviving Apostle, St. John, the episcopal office was established in Asia Minor. St. John was cognizant of the position of St. James at Jerusalem. When therefore, he found in Asia Minor manifold irregularities and threatening symptoms of disruption, he not unnaturally encouraged in these Gentile churches an approach to the organization, which had been signally blessed and had proved effectual in holding together the mother-church of Jerusalem amid dangers no less serious. The existence of a council or college necessarily supposes a presidency of some kind, whether this presidency be assumed by each member in turn, or lodged in the hands of a single person. It was only necessary, therefore, to give permanence, definiteness, stability to an office the germ of which already existed. There is no reason, however, for supposing that any direct ordinance was issued to the churches by St. John. The evident utility and even pressing need of such an office, sanctioned by the most venerated name in Christendom, would be sufficient to secure its wide though gradual reception. The earliest bishops, however, did not hold the position of independent supremacy which was and is occupied by their later representatives. This development is most conveniently grasped in connection with three great names: Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyprian, who represent as many successive advances towards the supremacy ultimately attained. By Ignatius the bishop is regarded as the centre of unity; to Irenaeus he is the depositary of primitive truth; to Cyprian, he is the absolute vicegerent of Christ in things spiritual (Lightfoot, The Christian Ministry, 181–269, in his commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, London, 1896).

Catholic writers agree in recognized the Apostolic origin of the episcopate, but are much divided as to the meaning of the terms which designate the hierarchy in the New Testament writings and the Apostolic Fathers. One may even ask if originally these terms had a clearly defined significance (Bruders, Die Verfassung der Kirche bis zum Jahre 175, Mainz, 1904). Nor is there greater unanimity when an attempt is made to explain why some churches are found without presbyters, others without bishops, others again where the heads of the community are called sometimes bishops, sometimes presbyters. This disagreement increases when the question comes up as to the interpretation of the terms which designate other personages exercising a certain fixed authority in the early Christian communities. The following facts may be regarded as fully established:

To some extent, in this early period, the words bishop and priest episkopos and presbyteros) are synonymous (See the article: APOSTOLIC COLLEGE.)

These terms may designate either simple priests (A. Michiels, Les origines de l’épiscopat. Louvain, 1900, 218 sqq.) or bishops possessing the full powers of their order. (Batiffol. Etudes d’histoire et de théologie positive, Paris, 1902, 266 sqq.: Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l’église. Paris. 1906, 94.)

In each Community the authority may originally have belonged to college or presbyter-bishops. This does not mean that the episcopate, in the actual sense of the term, may have been plural, because in each church the college or presbyter-bishops did not exercise an independent supreme power; it was subject to the Apostles or to their delegates. The latter were bishops in the actual sense of the term, but they did not possess fixed sees nor had they a special title (Batiffol, 270) Since they were essentially itinerant, they confided to the care of some of the better educated and highly respected neophytes the fixed necessary functions relating to the daily life of the community.

Sooner or later the missionaries had to leave the young communities to themselves, whereupon their direction direction fell entirely upon local authorities who thus received the Apostolic succession.

This local superior authority, which was of Apostolic origin, was conferred by the Apostles upon a monarchic bishop, such as is understood by the term today. This is proved first by the example of Jerusalem, where James, who was not one of the Twelve Apostles, held the first place, and afterwards by those communities in Asia Minor of which Ignatius speaks, and where, at the beginning of the second century the monarchical episcopate existed, for Ignatius does not write as though the institution were a new one.

In other communities, it is true, no mention is made of a monarchic episcopate until the middle of the second century. We do not wish to reject the opinion of those who believe that there are in several documents of the second century traces of the monarchic episcopate, that is to say, of an authority superior to that of the college of the presbyter-bishops. The reasons which some writers allege, in order to explain why, for example, in the Epistle of Polycarp no mention is made of a bishop, are very plausible. The best evidence, however, for the existence at this early date of a monarchical episcopate is the fact that nowhere in the latter half of the second century is the least trace to be found of a change of organization. Such a change would have robbed the supposed college of presbyter-bishops of their sovereign authority, and it is almost impossible to comprehend how this body would have allowed itself to be everywhere despoiled of its supreme authority, without leaving in the contemporary documents the least trace of a protest against so important a change. If the monarchical episcopate began only in the middle of the second century it impossible to comprehend how at the end of second century the episcopal lists of several important bishoprics giving the succession of bishops as far back as the first century were generally known and admitted. Such, for instance, was the case at Rome.

This theory, it must be carefully noted, does not contradict the historical texts. According to these documents, there was a college of presbyters or of bishops which administered several churches, but which had a president who was no other than the monarchic bishop. Although power of the latter had existed from the beginning it became gradually more conspicuous. The part played by the presbyterium, or body of priests, was a very important one in the earlier days of the Christian Church; nevertheless it did not exclude the existence of a monarchic episcopate (Duchesne, 89–95).

During the first three centuries, the entire religious life of the diocese centered around the person of the bishop. The priests and deacons were his auxiliaries but they worked under the immediate direction of the bishop. In large cities, however, like Rome, it was soon found necessary to hand over permanently to the priests and deacons certain definite functions. Moreover, as a result of the spread of Christianity outside the great centres of population, the bishop gradually left to other ecclesiastics the administration of a fixed portion of the diocesan territory. In the East, at first bishoprics were created in all districts where there was a considerable number of Christians. But this system presented great inconveniences. To distant or rural localities, therefore, the Church sent bishops, who were only the delegates of the bishop of the city, and who did not possess the right of exercising the most important powers of a bishop. Such bishops were known as Chorepiscopi or rural bishops. Later on, they were replaced by priests (Gillman, Das Institut der Chorbisch¨fe im Orient, Munich, 1003). The establishment of parishes from the fourth and the fifth century on gradually freed the bishops from many of their original charges; they reserved to themselves only the most important affairs, i.e. those which concerned the whole diocese and those which belonged to the cathedral church. However, above all other affairs, the bishops retained the right of supervision and supreme direction. While this change was taking place, the Roman Empire, now Christian, granted bishops other powers. They were exclusively empowered to take cognizance of the misdemeanors of clerics, and every lawsuit entered into against the latter had to be brought before the bishop’s court. The Emperor Constantine often permitted all Christians to carry their lawsuits before the bishop, but this right was withdrawn at the end of the fourth century. Nevertheless, they continued to act as arbitrators, which office the earliest Christians had committed to them. More important, perhaps, is the part which the Roman law assigns to the bishops as protectors of the weak and oppressed. The master was permitted to legally emancipate his slave in the bishop’s presence; the latter had also the power to remove young girls from immoral houses where their parents or masters had placed them, and to restore them to liberty. Newly born infants abandoned by their parents were legally adjudged to those who sheltered them, but to avoid abuses it was required that the bishop should certify that the child was a foundling. The Roman law allowed the bishops the right to visit prisons at their discretion for the purpose of improving the condition of prisoners and of ascertaining whether the rules in favour of the latter were observed. The bishops possessed great influence over the Christian emperors, and though in the Eastern Church these intimate relations between Church and State led to Casaropapism, the bishops of the West preserved in a great measure their independence of the Empire (Löning, Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts, Strasburg, 1878, I, 314–331; Troplong, De l’influence du christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains, Paris, 1842, new ed., 1902).

The authority of the bishop was even greater after the barbarian invasions; among the Germanic peoples he soon became an influential and powerful personage. He inspired confidence and commanded respect. He was beloved for he protected the young and the weak, he was the friend of the poor, was accustomed to intercede on behalf of the victims of injustice, and especially on behalf of orphans and women. Through his influence, in many spheres, he became the real master of the episcopal city. The only functionaries whose authority was comparable with that of the bishop were the dukes and the counts, representatives of the king. In certain districts the preeminence showed itself clearly in favour of the bishop; in some cities the bishop became also count. In France, as a general rule, this state of affairs did not continue, but in Germany many bishops became temporal lords or princes. Finally, the bishop acquired an extensive civil jurisdiction not only over his clergy but also over the laity of his diocese (Viollet, Histoire des institutions politiques de la France, Paris, 1890, I. 380–409). Such an exalted position was not without its difficulties. One of the gravest was the interference of the lay authority in the election of bishops. Until the sixth century the clergy and the people elected the bishop on condition that the election should be approved by the neighbouring bishops. Undoubtedly, the Christian Roman emperors sometimes intervened in these election, but outside the imperial cities only, and generally in the case of disagreement as to the proper person.

As a rule they contented themselves with exercising an influence on the electors. But from the beginning of the sixth century, this attitude was modified. In the East the clergy and the primates, or chief citizens, nominated three candidates from whom the metropolitan chose the bishop. At a later date, the bishops of the ecclesiastical province assumed the exclusive right of nominating the candidates. In the West, the kings intervened in these elections, notably in Spain and Gaul, and sometimes assumed the right of direct nomination (Funk, “Die Bischofswahl im christlichen Altertum und im Anfang des Mittelalters” in “Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen,” Paderborn: 1897, I, 23–39; Imbart. de la Tour. “Les élections épiscopales dans lancienne France,” Paris, 1890). This interference of princes and emperors lasted until the quarrel about Investitures, which was especially violent in Germany, where from the ninth to the eleventh centuries abbots and bishops had become real temporal princes. (See INVESTITURE.) The Second Lateran Council (1139) handed over to the chapter of the cathedral church the sole right of choosing the bishop, and this legislation was sanctioned by the Decretals (Decretum Gratiani. P. I., Dist. lxiii, ch. xxxv; ch. iii. De causa possessionis et proprietatis, X, II, xii; ch. liv, De electione et electi potestate, X, I, vi; Friedberg, Corpus Juris Canonici, Leipzeig, 1879–81, I, 247, II, 95,276) The bishops of the Middle Ages acquired much temporal power, but this was accompanied by a corresponding diminution of their spiritual authority. By the exercise of the prerogative of the primacy the Holy See reserved to Itself all the most important affairs, the so-called causae majores, as for instance the canonization of saints (ch. i, De reliquiis X, III, xlv; Friedberg, II, 650), the permission to venerate publicly newly discovered relics, the absolution of certain grave sins, etc. Appeals to the pope against the judicial decisions of the bishops became more and more frequent. The religious orders and the chapters of cathedral and collegiate churches obtained exemption from episcopal authority. The cathedral chapter obtained a very considerable influence in the administration of the diocese. The pope reserved also to himself the nomination of many ecclesiastical benefices (C. Lux. Constitutionum apostolicarum de generali beneficiorum reservatione collectio et Breslau, 1904). He also claimed the right to nominate the bishops, but in the German Concordat of 1448 he granted the chapters the right to elect them, while in that of 1516 he permitted the King of France to nominate the bishops of that nation. Subsequently the Council of Trent defined the rights of the bishop and remedied the abuses which had slipped into the administration of dioceses and the conduct of bishops. The council granted them the exclusive right of publishing indulgences; it also impressed upon them the obligation of residence in their dioceses, the duty of receiving consecration within three months after their elevation to the episcopate, of erecting seminaries, of convoking annual diocesan synods, of assisting at, provincial synods, and of visiting their dioceses. It also forbade them to cumulate benefices, etc. The same council diminished exceptions from episcopal authority, and delegated to the bishops some of the rights which in the past the Holy See had reserved for itself. Subsequent pontifical acts completed the Tridentine legislation, which is still valid. Protestantism and at a later date the French Revolution destroyed all temporal power of the bishops; thenceforth they were free to consecrate themselves with greater earnestness to the duties of their spiritual ministry.

II. PRESENT LEGISLATION

Two classes of bishops must be distinguished, not with regard to the power of order, for all bishops receive the fullness of the priesthood but with regard to the power of jurisdiction: the diocesan bishop and the titular bishop or, as he was called before 1882 the episcopus in partibus infedelium. The former is here considered. Those belonging to the second class cannot perform any episcopal function without the authorization of the diocesan bishop; for as titular bishops there have no ordinary jurisdiction. They can; however, act as auxiliary bishops, i.e. they may be appointed by the pope to assist a diocesan bishop in the exercise of duties arising from the episcopal order but entailing no power of jurisdiction. (See AUXILIARY BISHOP.) Such a bishop is also called vicarius in pontificalibus, i.e. a representative in certain ceremonial acts proper to the diocesan bishop, sometimes suffragan bishop, episcopus suffraganeus. In the proper sense of the term, however, the suffragan bishop is the diocesan bishop in his relations with the metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province to which he belongs, while the bishop who is independent of any metropolitan is called an exempt bishop, episcopus exemptus. The titular bishop may also be coadjutor bishop when he is appointed to assist an ordinary bishop in the administration of the diocese. Sometimes he is incorrectly called auxiliary bishop. He possesses some powers of jurisdiction determined by the letters Apostolic appointing him. Often also, notably in missionary countries, the coadjutor bishop is named cum jure successionis, i.e. with the right of succession; on the death of the diocesan bishop he enters on the ordinary administration of the diocese.

The Council of Trent determined the conditions to be fulfilled by candidates for the episcopate, of which the following are the principal: birth in lawful wedlock, freedom from censure and irregularity or any defect in mind, purity of personal morals, and good reputation. The candidate must also be fully thirty years of age and have been not less than six months in Holy orders. He ought also to have the theological degree of Doctor or at least be a licentiate in theology or canon law or else have the testimony of a public academy or seat of learning (or, if he be a religious, of the highest authority of his order) that he is fit to teach others (c. vii, De electione et electi potestate, X.I. vi; Friedberg, II, 51. Council of Trent. Sess. XXII, De ref., ch. ii). The Holy Office is charged with the examination of persons called to the episcopate, with the exception of the territories subject to the Congregation of the Propaganda or to the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, or of those countries where the nomination of bishops is governed by special laws and concordats (“Motu Proprio” of Pope Pius X. 17 December, 1903; “acta sanctae Sedis, 1904, XXXVI, 385). We have said that the Decretals recognize the right of the cathedral chapters to elect the bishop. This right has long been long withdrawn and is no longer in force. In virtue of the second rule of the Papal Chancery the choice of bishops belongs exclusively to the pope (Walter, Fontes juris eccesiastici antiqui et hodierni, Bonn, 1861, 483) Exceptions to this rule, however, are numerous. In Austria (with the exception of some episcopal sees), in Bavaria, in Spain, in Portugal and in Peru, the Government presents to the sovereign pontiff the candidates for the episcopate. It was so in France, and in several South American Republics before the rupture or denunciation of the concordats between the states and the Apostolic See. By the cessation of these concordats such states lost all right of intervention in the nomination of bishops; this does not, however prevent the Government in several South American Republics from recommending candidates to the sovereign pontiff. The cathedral chapter is authorized to elect the bishop in several dioceses of Austria, Switzerland, Prussia, and in some States of Germany, notably in the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine. The action of the electors, however, is not entirely free. For example, they may not choose persons distasteful to the Government (Letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State to the Chapters of Germany, 20, July 1900; Canonist Contemporain, 1901, XXIV, 727). Elsewhere the pope himself nominates bishops, but in Italy the Government insists that they obtain the royal exequatur before taking possession of the episcopal see. In missionary countries the pope generally permits the “recommendation” of candidates, but this does not juridically bind the sovereign pontiff, who has the power to choose the new bishop from persons not included in the list of recommended candidates. In England the canons of the cathedral select by a majority of the votes, at three successive ballots, three candidates for the vacant episcopal see. Their names, arranged in alphabetical order, are transmitted to the Propaganda and to the archbishop of the province, or to the senior suffragan of the province, if the question is one of the election of an archbishop. The bishops of the province discuss the merits of the candidates and transmit their observations to the Propaganda. Since 1847 the bishops are empowered, if they so desire, to propose other names for the choice of the Holy See, and a decision of the Propaganda (25 April, 3 May, 1904) confirms this practice (Instruction of Propaganda, 21 April, 1852; “Collectanea S. C. de Propagandâ Fide,” Rome, 1893. no. 42; Taunton, 87–88). Analogous enactments are in force in Ireland. The canons of the cathedral and all the parish priests free from censure and in actual and peaceful possession of their parish or united parishes, choose in a single ballot three ecclesiastics. The names of the three candidates who have obtained the greatest number of votes are announced and forwarded to the Propaganda and to the archbishop of the province. The archbishop and the bishops of the province give the Holy See their opinion on the candidates. If they judge that none of the candidates is capable of fulfilling the episcopal functions no second recommendation is to be made. If it is a question of the nomination of a coadjutor bishop with the right of succession the same rules are followed, but the presidency of the electoral meeting, instead of being given to the metropolitan, his delegate, or the senior bishop of the province, belongs to the bishop who asks for the coadjutor (Instruction of Propaganda, 17 September, 1829, and 25 April, 1835; “Collectanea,” nos. 40 and 41). In Scotland, where there is no chapter of canons, they follow the rules as in England; and when there is no chapter, the bishops of Scotland and the archbishops of Edinburgh and Glasgow choose by a triple ballot the three candidates. The names of these latter are communicated to the Holy See together with the votes which each candidate has obtained. At the same time is transmitted useful information about each of them according to the questions determined by the Propaganda (Instruction of the Propaganda, 25 July, 1883; “Collectanea.” no. 45). In the United States of America the diocesan consultors and the irremovable rectors of the diocese assemble under the presidency of the archbishop or the senior bishop of the province, and choose three candidates, the first dignissimus, the second dignior, and the third digmus. Their names are sent to the Propaganda and to the archbishops of the province; the archbishop and the bishops the province examine the merits of the candidates proposed by the clergy and in their turn, by a secret ballot propose three candidates. If they choose other candidates than those designated by the clergy, they indicate their reasons to the Propaganda. In the case of the nomination of a coadjutor with right of succession, the meeting of the clergy is presided over by the bishop who demands a coadjutor. If it concerns a newly created diocese, the consulters of all the dioceses from whose territory the new diocese was formed and all the irremovable rectors of the new diocese choose the three candidates of the clergy. Finally, if it is a matter of replacing an archbishop or of giving him a coadjutor with right of succession all the metropolitans of the United States are consulted by the Propaganda (Decree of Propaganda, 21 January, 1861, modified by that of 31 September, 1885; Collectanea, no. 43). In Canada by a decree of 2 December, 1862, the Church still follows the rules laid down by the Propaganda on 21 January, I861, for the United States (Collectanea. no. 43; Collectio Lacensis 1875, III, 684, 688). Every three years the bishops must communicate to the Propaganda and to the metropolitan the names of the priests they think worthy of episcopal functions. In addition, each bishop must designate in a secret letter three ecclesiastics whom he believes worthy to succeed him. When a vacancy occurs, all the bishops of the province indicate to the archbishop or to the senior bishop the priests whom they consider recommendable. The bishops then discuss in a meeting the merits of each of the priests recommended, and proceed to the nomination of the candidates by secret vote. The acts of the assembly are transmitted to the Propaganda. In Australia, a method similar to that in use in the United States is followed. Two differences, however, are to be noted: first the bishops still signify every three years, to the metropolitan and to the Propaganda the names of the priests whom they consider worthy of the episcopal office. Second, when the nomination of a coadjutor bishop is in question, the presidency over the assembly of consultors and irremovable rectors belongs not to the bishop who demands a coadjutor, but to the metropolitan or to the bishop delegated by him (Instruction of Propaganda, 19 May, 1866, modified by the decree of 1 May, 1887; Collectanea, no. 44).

Whatever the manner of his nomination, the bishop possesses no power until his nomination has been confirmed by the Holy See, whether in consistory or by pontifical letters. Moreover, he is forbidden to enter on the administration of his diocese therefore taking possession of his see by communication to the cathedral chapter the letters Apostolic of his nomination (Const. “Apostolicae Sedis,” 12 October, 1869, V, i; “Collectanea,” no. 1002). From this moment, even before his consecration, the new bishop is entitled in his diocese to all rights of jurisdiction. He is required to make the prescribed profession of faith in the first provincial synod held after his elevation (Council of Trent, Sess., XXV, De ref., ch. ii). Finally, he is obliged within the space of three moths to receive episcopal consecration. The right of consecrating a bishop belongs to the sovereign pontiff, who generally permits the newly elected to be consecrated by three bishops of his own choice. However, if the consecration takes place in Rome, he must select a cardinal or one of the major patriarchs residing at Rome. If however, his own metropolitan is at that time in Rome, he would be obliged to choose him. The consecration ought to take place on a on a Sunday or on the feast of an Apostle, by preference in the cathedral church of the diocese or at least within the ecclesiastical province (Council of Trent, Sess., XXIII, De ref., ch. ii). Before consecration, the bishop must take an oath of fidelity to the Holy See. (For the formula of this oath for the bishops of the United States of America see “Acta et Decreta conc. Plen. Balt., III,” Baltimore, 1886. Appendix, 202.) Consecration by a single bishop would not be invalid but would be illicit. However, the bishops of South America have the privilege of being consecrated by one bishop assisted by two or three priests, if it prove difficult for them to obtain three bishops (Letters Apostolic of Leo XIII “Trans Oceanum,” 18 April 1897; “Acta Sanctae Sedis,” 1896–97, XXIX, 659). Episcopal consecration has the effect of giving to the bishop the full powers of Order. (See Holy Orders. )

III. RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE BISHOP

The bishop possesses, as already stated, the powers of order and jurisdiction. The power of order comes to him through episcopal consecration, but the exercise of this right depends on his power of jurisdiction. The sacerdotal ordination performed by every duly consecrated bishop is undoubtedly valid, yet the bishop can ordain only in conformity with the enactments of canon law. Only the bishop can confer major orders. The question has been discussed, as to whether the pope could delegate to a priest, for example the abbot of a monastery, the power to ordain a deacon. The bishop is the only ordinary minister of the Sacrament of Confirmation (Council of Trent, Sees. XXIII, can. vii). Ecclesiastical law has reserved certain benedictions and consecrations to him, viz., those which are performed with holy oil. The following functions are reserved to the bishop: the dedication of a church, the consecration of an altar, of chalices and patens, and generally of the articles serving for the celebration of Holy Mass, the reconciliation of a desecrated church, the benediction of bells, the benediction of an abbot, the benediction of the holy oils, etc. A bishop is forbidden to exercise the Pontificalia—i.e. to perform episcopal functions in another diocese—without the consent of the ordinary, i.e. the proper bishop (Council of Trent, Sess. VI, De ref., ch. v).

Besides the power of order, bishops possess that of jurisdiction; they have the right to prescribe for the faithful the rules which the latter must follow in order to obtain eternal salvation. The power of jurisdiction is of Divine origin, in the sense that the pope is held to establish in the Church bishops whose mission it is to direct the faithful in the way of salvation. The bishops have then in their dioceses an ordinary jurisdiction, limited, however, by the rights that the pope can reserve to himself in virtue of his primacy. But this jurisdiction is independent of the will and consent of the faithful, and even of the clergy. In certain important matters, however, the bishop must at times seek the advice, at other times the consent, of the cathedral chapter. In certain countries where chapters are not established, the bishop is bound to consult in some specified cases the consultores cleri dioecesani, or diocesan consultors (Third council of Baltimore, nos. 17–22, 33, 179). On the other hand, certain classes of persons, especially the regulars properly so called, are exempt from episcopal authority, and certain matters are removed from the bishops jurisdiction. Moreover, he has no power against the will of a superior authority, i.e. the pope, the councils, whether general, plenary, or provincial. The Bishop possess also other important powers through “delegated” jurisdiction which is accorded to him either by law, whether written or established through the Roman Congregations. The last named jurisdiction he exercises in the name of the Apostolic See (see below). Certain writers attribute to the bishop a third kind of jurisdiction which they call “quasi-ordinary” jurisdiction, but there are wide differences as to the definitions of this kind of jurisdiction. Several writers (such as: Wernz, II, 10; Bargilliat, “Praelect. ju. can.,” Paris, 1900, I, 164; and amoung the older canonists, Boix, “De princep. juris canonici,” Paris, 1852, 530) think that this distinction is useless; the jurisdiction known as quasi-ordinary is nothing else than an ordinary or delegated jurisdiction granted by written law or by custom.

It is a controverted question whether the bishops hold their jurisdiction directly from God or from the sovereign pontiff. The latter opinion, however, is almost generally admitted at the present day, for it is more in conformity with the monarchical constitution of the Church, which seems to demand that there should be no power in the Church not emanating immediately from the sovereign pontiff. Authors who hold the contrary opinion say that it is during the episcopal consecration that bishops receive from God their power of jurisdiction. But habitually before their consecration the bishops have already all powers of jurisdiction over their dioceses (Bargilliat, I, 442–445). Another question also discussed is whether the potestas magisterii, or teaching authority, is a consequence of the power of order or of jurisdiction (Sägmüller, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts, Frieberg, 1900–04, 24–25). Whatever the conclusion, teaching authority will here be ranked among the powers of jurisdiction. The teaching authority of the bishop and his governing authority (potestas regiminis) will now be successively considered, the latter comprising the legislative, dispensative, judicial, coercive, and administrative powers.

A. TEACHING AUTHORITY

By Divine law bishops have the right to teach Christian doctrine (Matt., xxviii, 19; Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, De ref., ch. iv; Encyclical of Leo XIII, “Sapientiae christianae,” 10 January, 1890; “Acta Sanctae Sedis”: 1890, XXXII, 385). At the same time, the obligation of instructing the faithful either personally or, if hindered, through other ecclesiastics is incumbent upon them. They are bound also to see that in the parish churches the parish priests fulfil the requirements of preaching and teaching which the Council of Trent imposes on them (Sess. V, De ref., ch. ii; Sess. XXIV, De ref. ch. iv). The bishop must also supervise the teaching of Christian doctrine in the seminaries, as well as in secondary and primary schools (Conc. Balt. III, nos. 194 sqq.; Const. “Romanos pontifices,” 8 May, 1881; op. cit., Appendix, 212). In virtue of this right of superintendence, and because of the intimate relations which exist between instruction and education, the bishop is empowered to forbid attendance at undemominational schools, at least in those districts where Catholic schools exist, and where attendance at the former schools is dangerous. In virtue of the same right he will very often be bound to erect Catholic schools or favour their establishment (Third Council of Baltimore, nos. 194–213). No one is allowed to preach Christian doctrine without the consent of the bishop, or at least without his knowledge if it is a question of exempt religious preaching in their own churches (Council of Trent, Sess. V, De ref., ch., ii; Sess. XVIV, De ref., ch. iv). The Bishop has power to supervise writings published or read in his diocese; works regarding the sacred sciences are subject to his approbation; he may forbid the reading of dangerous books and newspapers. He exercises a special control over the publications of the secular clergy, who are bound to consult him before undertaking the direction of newspapers or of publishing works even upon profane matters (Const. of Leo XIII, “Officiorum et munerum,” 25 January, 1897; Vermeersch, “De probitione et censura liborum,” 4th ed., Rome, 1906). He has the right of special supervision over the manuals used in educational establishments, and as far as possible he will encourage the publication of good books and good newspapers (Third Council of Baltimore, nos. 210,220, 221, 225, 226). The bishop is the Inquisitor natus or protector of the faith for his diocese. He has not, it is true, the right to define, outside an ecumenical council, controverted questions with regard to faith and morals, but when a heated discussion arises in his diocese, he can impose silence upon the parties concerned while awaiting a decision from the Holy See. If anyone, however, denies a point of doctrine defined by the Church, even though it be all exempt religious, the bishop will have the power to punish him (Council of Trent, Sess. V, De ref., ch. ii; Sess. XXIV, De ref., ch, iii). He must likewise guard the faithful of his diocese against dangerous societies condemned by the Holy See (Third Council of Baltimore, nos. 244–255).

B. GOVERNING AUTHORITY

(1) Legislative Power

The bishop can enact for his diocese those laws which he considers conducive to the general good. Though he is not bound to convoke a synod for this purpose, his legislative power is not absolute. He cannot legislate contra jus commune, i.e. enact a law contrary to the general law of the Church, written or established by custom, or to the decisions of general, plenary, or provincial councils. This is on the principle that an inferior cannot act contrary to the will of his superiors (ch. 11, “De electione et electi potestate,” I, iii, in the Clementines; Friedberg, II, 937) He can, however, enact laws juxta jus commune, i.e. he can urge the observance of provisions of the common ecclesiastical law by penalizing the violation of the same (ch. ii. De constitutionibus, VI, I, ii; Friedberg, II, 937). He can determine the common ecclesiastical law, i.e. he can permit or forbid that which the common law neither forbids nor permits with certitude, and can apply to the particular needs of his diocese the general enactments of the pontifical laws. Many writers say that the bishop has also the power to enact laws praeter jus commune, i.e. to regulate those matters concerning which the common ecclesiastical law is silent; or at least particular points unforeseen by the common law. In any case, if the bishop wishes to add to the enactments of the common law (and the same principle is valid when it is a question of applying to the needs of his own diocese a general law of the Church), he must take care to make no enactment on matters which the common law, in the intention of the supreme legislator, has completely regulated. The common law implicitly forbids any episcopal action in such matters. Thus, e.g., the bishop cannot introduce new irregularities. In his diocesan legislation the bishop must not go beyond the purpose intended by the common ecclesiastical law. Thus, the latter forbids the clergy to take part in games of chance (ludi aleatorii), the aim of the law being to, condemn the love of lucre and to avoid scandal; at the same time the bishop cannot forbid in private houses other games which are not games of chance. On the other hand, if it be a matter concerning which the common law is silent, the bishop may take all necessary measures to prevent and put and end to abuses and to maintain ecclesiastical discipline. He must abstain, however, from imposing on his clergy extraordinary charges and obligations, and from unusual innovations. The legislative power of the bishop præter jus commune, is, therefore, far from being absolute. (Chaeys-Bouuaert, De canonicâ cleri sæcularis obedientiâ, Louvain, 1904, 69–77). Canonical writers discuss the right of the bishop to abrogate a local custom contrary to the enactments of the common ecclesiastical law. He probably has not the right, provided that the custom be juridical, i.e. a reasonable one and legitimately prescribed this custom obtains only because of pontifical consent, it does not belong to the bishop to act contrary to the will of the pope. The power of granting dispensations is correlative to the legislative power. The bishop may, therefore, dispense with regard to all diocesan laws. He may also dispense, in particular cases only, from the laws of provincial and plenary synods; any dispensation of these laws would be almost impossible, if it were necessary on all such occasions to convoke a fresh provincial or plenary synod. The bishop however, cannot dispense from enactments that relate directly to himself, and impose obligations upon him, or from enactments that accord rights to a third party. The bishop cannot dispense from laws made by the sovereign pontiff. To this there are, however, some exceptions. In certain matters, the written law or custom has granted this right to the bishop. He may also dispense from such laws in virtue of an expressly delegated power, or even sometimes in virtue of the consent, presumed or tacit, of the sovereign pontiff. These cases in reality are determined by custom. Canonical writers also admit that a bishop may grant a dispensation, when there is a doubt whether a dispensation is required, though in such a case it may be a question whether any dispensation at all is requisite (Bargilliat, I, 483–491)

(2) Judicial Power

This power is exercised in two ways: without legal apparatus (extra judicialiter) or in a judicial process (judicialiter). In his diocese the bishop is judge in the first instance in all trials, civil and criminal that pertain to the ecclesiastical tribunal, unless the persons be exempt from his authority, or the matters reserved for other judges; such. e.g., are the process of canonization reserved to the pope or the misdemeanors of a vicar-general, which fall under the cognizance of the archbishop. (Ch. vii, De officio judicis ordinarii, VI, I, xvi; Friedberg, II, 988; Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, De ref., ch. xx.) In ecclesiastical trials he must conform to the general or special provisions of the law. (For matrimonial trials see “Instructio de judiciis ecclesiasticis circa causas matrimoniales” in “Acta et decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis III,” Appendix, 262; for trials of ecclesiastics see the Instruction of the Propaganda, “Cum Magnopere,” which reproduces substantially the Instruction of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars of 11 June, 1880, op. cit., 287; see also S. Smith, “New procedure in criminal and disciplinary causes of ecclesiastics,” 3d ed., New York, 1898.) The bishop has also judicial power which he exercises extra judicialiter both in foro externo (publicly) and in foro interno (in conscience). He has the power to absolve his subjects from all sins and censures not reserved to the Holy See. Moreover, the absolution from a censure inflicted by an ecclesiastical judge is always reserved for the latter or to his superiors (Bull, “Sacramentum Poenitentiæ” 1 June, 1741 in “Benedicti XIV, Bullarium,” Venice, 1775, I, 22; Const. “Apostolicæ Sedis,” “Collectanea S.C.P.,” 1002). On the other hand, the bishop may reserve to himself absolution from certain sins (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, “De poenit.,” ch. vii; Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, nos. 124, 127)

(3) Coercive Power

The right to punish is a necessary consequence if the right to judge. Formerly the bishop could and did inflict even corporal punishments and fines. These are no longer customary even for ecclesiastics. The usual penalties for the laity are censures; for ecclesiastics, religious exercises, confinement for a time in a monastery. (Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, nos. 72–73), degradation to an office of less importance (privatio officii ecclesiastici), and censures, especially suspension. The bishop may inflict suspension ex informatâ conscientia, i.e. on his personal responsibility, and without observing any legal formality, but in cases foreseen by the law (Instruction of Propaganda, 20 October, 1884; Conc. Balt. in, Appendix, 298). To the coercive power of the bishop belongs also the right of issuing certain commands (præcepta) i.e. of imposing on a particular ecclesiastic special obligations sanctioned by certain penalties (Constitution, “Cum Magnopere” nos. 4 and 8). He has also the lawful power to remove the penalties inflicted by him. Bishops call also grant indulgences: cardinals 200, archbishops 100, and bishops, 50 days’ indulgence (Decree of Congregation of Indulgences, 28 August, 1903; Acta Sanctae Sedis. XXXVI, 318).

(4) Administrative Power

The matters to which the administrative power of the bishop extends can only be briefly indicated here:

The foremost is the supreme direction of the clergy. At the present day, generally speaking, it might be said that the bishop has the right to retain in his diocese a priest to whom he has entrusted ecclesiastical functions and given the means of subsistence (Claeys-Bouuaert, 200–244). In case of necessity or great utility, e.g. given the scarcity of priests, the bishop may compel an ecclesiastic to accept ecclesiastical functions, but he will require a pontifical indult to impose upon him the cura animarum, or cure of souls. Ecclesiastics ordained titulo missionis (see HOLY ORDERS, MISSIONS) take upon themselves special obligations in this matter. (See Instruction of Propaganda. 27 April, 1871, and the Reply of 4 February, 1873; Conc. Plen. Balt. III, Appendix, 204–211; decree “De seminariorum alumnis” 22 December, 1905; “Acta Sanctae Sedis,” 1905, XXXVIII, 407.) The bishop may also nominate to the benefices and ecclesiastical functions of his own diocese. Certain nominations, however, are reserved to the Holy See, and in several countries the right of patronage still exists.

The bishop, moreover, intervenes in the administration of ecclesiastical property. No alienation whatever of ecclesiastical goods is possible without his consent, and he exercises supreme supervision over their administration.

He has a special right of intervention in all matters relating to Divine worship and to the sacraments; he authorizes and supervises the printing of liturgical books, regulates public worship, processions, exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, celebration of the Holy Mass, celebration of Mass twice on the same day by the same priest (see Bination), and exorcisms; his consent is required for the erection of churches and oratories; he authorizes the public veneration of the relics of saints and of those who have been beatified; he exercises supervision over statues and images exposed for the veneration of the faithful: he publishes Indulgences, etc. But in all these matters his power is not unlimited; he must conform to the enactments of the canon law.

Bishops have also a “delegated jurisdiction” which they exercise in the name of the Holy See; this power is granted to them a jure or ab homine. Ecclesiastical law frequently accords to bishops delegated powers; but it would be wrong to say, for instance, that every power of dispensation granted by a general law of the Church is a delegated one. Such power is perhaps quite as often an ordinary power. But when the law accords a power of jurisdiction to the bishop, tanquam Sedis apostolicæ delegatus, it is a delegated power that he receives. (See, for example, Council of Trent, Sess. V, De ref. ch., I, ii; Sess. VI, De ref., ch. iii; Sess. VII, De ref., ch. vi, viii, xiv, etc). Writers do not agree as to the nature of the power accorded to the bishop also as a delegate to the Apostolic See, etiam tanquam sedis apostolicæ delegatus. Some maintain that it is in this case the bishop has at the same time both ordinary and delegated power, but only relative to such persons as are subject to his jurisdiction. (Reiffenstuel, Jus canonicum universum, Paris, 1864, tit. xxix, 37); others contended that in this case the bishop has ordinary jurisdiction with regard to his subjects, and only a delegated one with regard to those who are exempt (Hinschius, System des katholischen Kirchenrechts, Berlin, 1869, I, 178; Scherer, Handbuch des Kirchenrechts, Graz, 1886, I, 421, note 36); others maintain that the bishop has the same time both an ordinary and a delegated power over his subjects, and a delegated power over those who are exempt (Wernz, II, 816); finally, others see in this formula only a means of removing any obstacles which might pervent the bishop from using the power accorded to him (Santi, Praelect. jur. can., New York, 1898, I, 259). The delegated powers ab homine are at the present of very geat importance especially in missionary countries. The Apostolic Penitentiary grants those which are only concerned with the forum of conscience. The others are granted by the Congregation of the Propaganda. They are called facultates habituales, because not granted for a determined individual case. These faculties are no longer accorded only to the bishop in his own person but to the ordinaries, that is to say, to the bishop, to his successor, to the administrator pro tem of the diocese, and to the vicar general, to vicars apostolic, prefects, etc. (Declaration of the Holy Office, 26 November, 1897, 22 April, 1898, 25 June, 1898, 5 September, 1900; Acta Sanctae Sedis, 1897–98, XXX, 627, 702; 1898–99, XXXI, 120; 1900–01, XXXIII, 225). As a general rule the bishop can subdelegate these powers, provided that the faculties do not forbid it (Holy Office, 16 December, 1898; Acta Sanctæ Sedis, 1898–99, XXXI, 635). For further information see Putzer-Konings, “Commentarium in facultates apostolicas” (5th ed., New York, 1898). On the other hand, the bishop can always ask the Holy See for such delegated powers as are necessary in the administration of his diocese. The bishop is also the ordinary and habitual executor of the dispensations which the Holy See grants in foro externo, i.e. for public use or application.

IV. OBLIGATIONS OF THE BISHOP

In describing the rights of bishops we have already in great measure indicated what their obligations are. All their efforts must aim at preserving the true faith and a high moral tone among the people; they attain this end by good example, by preaching, by daily solicitude for the good administration of the diocese, and by prayer. Bishops, in effect, are bound by the Divine law to implore the help of God for the faithful committed to their care. Canon law has determined more fully this obligation, and imposes upon the bishops the obligation of celebrating Mass for the faithful of their dioceses (missa pro grege) every Sunday, on the feast days of obligation and on the abrogated feast days (Const. Leo XIII “In supremâ,” 10 June, 1882; “Collectanea, S.C.P.,” no. 112). The bishop is bound to take special care of the education of youth and of the training of his clergy; he must exercise continual vigilance over the latter and assist them with his counsels, The Church has imposed as special obligations upon bishops the canonical visitation of the diocese and the holding of an annual diocesan synod. The bishop is bound to visit each year the greater part of his diocese either personally or, if prevented, through his delegates. This visit will permit him to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation (Council of Trent, Sess. XXXIV, De ref., ch. iii). The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore grants the bishop three years for making this visitation (Acta et decreta, no 14). The Council of Trent ordered that an annual diocesan synod should be held (Sess. XXIV, De ref. ch. ii). At present, the Holy See no longer urges the strict observation of this legislation (Santi Praelect. Jur. can., I, 360) The Third Council of Baltimore decreed that the bishop should take counsel with the diocesan consultors whenever he wished to convoke a synod (Acta et decreta, no. 20) It is then unnecessary for the synod to assemble every year. However in missionary countries the Holy See desires that these synods should be rather frequent and dispenses the bishop from the observation of the formalities difficult to fulfill, e.g. the convoking of all ecclesiastics who ought to be present at the synod (Letter of Propaganda to the Bishop of Milwaukee, 19 July, 1889, “Collectanea, S.C.P.” no. 117). It is evident, finally, that the bishop cannot fulfill the duties of his office unless he observes the law of residence. The bishop is obliged to reside in his diocese and it is proper that he should be in the episcopal city on the principal feast days of the year. He cannot be absent from his diocese for more than three months, except for grave reason approved of by the Holy See (Council of Trent. Sess. VI, De ref., ch. i; Sess. XXXIII, De ref., ch. i; Benedict XIV, “Ad universae christianae,” 3 September, 1746; Letters of Propaganda, 24 April and 24 August 1861; “Collectanea, S.C.P.,” nos. 103, 105).

The bishop has also obligations regarding the Holy See. Throughout his entire administration he must conform to the general legislation of the Church and the directions of the pope. In this respect two special obligations are incumbent upon him: he must pay the Visitatio ad limina Apostolorum, and present the Relatio de statu diocesis, i.e. he must visit the shrines of Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome and present a report on the condition of his diocese. In the time of Paschal II (1099–1118), only metropolitans were bound to pay this visit. The Decretals imposed this obligation upon bishop whose consecration the pope reserved to himself (C. iv, “De electione et electi potestate”; X, I, vi; c. xiii, “De majoritate et obentia” X, I, xxxiii; c. iv, “De jurejurando,” X, II, xxiv; Friedberg, II, 49, 201. 360). It has become general since the fifteenth century, and Sixtus definitely ruled in favour of this obligation (Bull, “Romanus Pontifex,” 20 December, 1585; “Bullarum amplissima collectio,” ed. Cocquelines, Rome, 1747, IV, iv, 173). According to this Bull the bishops of Italy and the neighbouring islands, of Dalmatia and Greece, must make the visit ad limina every three years; those of Germany, France, Spain, England, Portugal, Belgium, Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, and the islands of the Mediterranean Sea every four years; those of other parts of Europe, of North Africa, and the isles of the Atlantic Ocean situated to the east of the New World, every five years; those of other parts of the world every ten years. The bishops of Ireland, in virtue of a privilege of 10 May, 1631, are bound to pay this visit only every ten years. Even in the case of more recently erected sees the years are counted from 20 December, 1585, date of the aforesaid Bull (Instruction of Propaganda, 1 June, 1877; Collectanea, S.C.P.,” no. 110). The bishops must pay this visit personally and for this purpose are allowed to absent themselves from their dioceses. The bishops of Italy for four months, other bishops for seven months. The Holy See sometimes dispenses a bishop from the obligation of paying this visit personally, and permits him to send, as his delegate, a priest of his diocese, especially one of those who have been promoted to a high office (dignitates), or a priest of the diocese sojourning at Rome, or even the agent of the bishop in that city, if an ecclesiastic. While this visit, as stated above, ought to be paid the third, fourth, fifth, or tenth year, the rule suffers frequent exceptions in practice (Wernz, II, 914). The Visitatio Liminum includes a visit to the tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul, an audience with the Holy Father, and a written report which the bishop ought to present to the Congregation of the Council (Congregatio specialis super statu ecclesiarum also called Concilietto) according to the formula of Benedict XIII in 1725 (A. Lucidi, De Visitatione saerorim Liminum, 5th ed., Rome, 1883).

Bishops subject to the Propaganda present this statement to the latter congregation (the proper formula is in “Acta Sanctae Sedis,” 1891–92; XXIV, 382. “Collectanea,” no. 104). In addition they ought also to send every five years, a report to the Propaganda according to the formulary drawn up by this congregation 24 April, 1861 (Collectanea, no. 104). This obligation had formerly been all annual one (Decrees of Propaganda, 31 October, 1838, 27 September, 1843, and 23 March, 1844; Collectanea, nos. 97–99; Third Council of Baltimore, no. 14).

Finally, mention may be made of certain privileges enjoyed by bishops. They do not fall under suspensions and interdicts, latæ sententia, i.e. incurred ipso facto, unless express mention of them is therein made; those who are guilty of assaults upon them are punished with an excommunication reserved speciali modo to the sovereign pontiff; they possess the right of having a domestic chapel and enjoy the privilege of the altare portabile, or portable altar, etc.

V. NON-CATHOLIC USE

The title of bishop is still retained in certain Protestant churches. For its use in the Anglican Church see Sir R. Phillimore. “Ecclesiastical Law in the Church of England” (new ed., 1895; F. Makeower, “Verfassung der Kirche von England” (1894), and the “Encycl. Britannica” (9th ed.), III, 788–789; cf., also O. J. Reichel. “A Short Manual of Canon Law” (The Sacraments), London, 1896, 283-’298. For its use in the national Protestant Churches of Denmark and Sweden, see articles treating of those countries, and for its history and use in the Evangelical churches of Prussia and the European continent, Jacobson-Friedberg in “Real-Encycl. f. prot. Theol. und Kirche” (3d ed., 1897), III, 246–247. For its use in Protestant churches of the United States see BAPTISTS, METHODISTS, MORMONS. The antiquities and constitution of the Greek episcopate are treated by J. M. Heineccius in “Abbildung der alten und neuen griechischen Kirche” (Leipzig, 1711), and in Milasch-Pessic, “Das Kirchenrecht der morgenländischen Kirche” (Germ. tr. of 2nd ed., Mostar, 1905); the actual conditions of the Greek episcosate, Catholic and Orthodox (Schismatic), are described in Silbernagl-Schnitzer, Verfassung und gegenwartiger Bestand samtlicher “Kirchen des Orients” (2nd ed., Ratisbon, 1904), passim.

A. VAN HOVE

William Bishop

The first superior in England in episcopal orders since the old hierarchy died out in the reign of Elizabeth, born c. 1553 at Brailes in Warwickshire, where his family continued to reside until recent times; d. 16 April, 1624. He went to Gloucester Hall, Oxford, in 1570; but retired abroad four years later, and joined Allen at the English College, Douai. From thence he went to Rome, and after completing his studies and being ordained priest, we find him once more in England, where he was called upon to endure many and great hardships. On at least two occasions, he was apprehended, imprisoned for some years, and then banished. It was during one of these periods of banishment that he went to Paris and took the degree of Doctor of Divinity at the Sorbonne. Dr. Bishop took a leading part in the unfortunate disputes between seculars and regulars at that time. The latter party, by means of their influence at Rome, had secured the appointment of an “archpriest” as superior of the English mission. The secular clergy resented this, calling out for the restoration of episcopal government in some form. They became known as “the Appellants,” and were favoured by Elizabeth, who contrived to assist them secretly to prosecute their appeals. In 1598 Bishop himself went to Rome, with another priest, to lay their case before the Holy See. On their arrival, however, they found the Jesuit influence still supreme, and by order of Cardinal Cajetan, Protector of England, they were imprisoned at the English College under Father Persons. After three months’ confinement, they were dismissed, but with a strict injunction not to go back to England. It was not until there had been further representations and another deputation to Rome that four years later this injunction was removed.

Soon after his return, in 1603, Bishop drew up the famous “Protestation of Allegiance” to Queen Elizabeth, signed by twelve other priests besides himself, in which they definitely took up their stand against those who aimed at the conversion of England by political means. At least one of these priests (Roger Cadwallador) was afterwards martyred and probably also a second (Robert Drury), though there is some doubt about his identity. Elizabeth never saw the “Protestation,” for on the very day on which it was signed, she was seized with what proved to be her last illness. It was violently denounced by the opposing party; but it would seem that Rome was large-minded enough not to condemn it, for when more than twenty years later the petition of the clergy was at length granted, and a vicar Apostolic of England was appointed with episcopal powers, William Bishop was chosen for the office. He became nominally Bishop of Chalcedon, in partibus infidelium. Dr. Bishop was only to be Vicar Apostolic for ten months; but during that short time he organized a systematic form of ecclesiastical government, consisting of five vicars-general, assisted by archdeacons and rural deans throughout the country. He also instituted a chapter of twenty-four canons, who were to assume jurisdiction whenever there should be for any reason no vicar Apostolic, which happened at one time for thirty years. His right to make such institution has often been questioned, but during the period referred to, Rome recognized their jurisdiction. On the restoration of the hierarchy in 1850, when diocesan chapters were erected, the “Old Chapter” did not dissolve, but changed its name, and as the “Old Brotherhood of the Secular Clergy” it exists to-day, a lasting memorial to the work of the first vicar Apostolic. An oil painting of Bishop hangs at Archbishop’s House, Westminster, London, a print of which appeared in the “Catholic Directory” for 1810. The works of Bishop are: “A Reformation of a Catholicke Deformed, in answer to W. Perkins” (1604; Part II, 1607); “Answer to Mr. Perkins’s Advertisement” (1607); “Reproof of Dr. Abbot’s Defence of a Catholicks Deformed” (1608); “Disproof of Dr. Abbot’s Counterproofs” (1614); “Defence of King’s Title”; “Pitts, de Illustribus Angliæ Scriptoribus” (1619); “Protestation of Loyalty” (see above); pamphlets on archpriest controversy, etc.

Dodd, Ch. Hist. of Eng., ed. Tierney; Douay Diaries; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. of Eng. Catholics; Butler, Hist. Memoirs (1819); Berington, Memoirs of Panzani (1794); Catholic Directory, 1810; Brady, Annals of Cath. Hierarchy (1877); Law, Jesuits and Seculars in Reign of Elizabeth (1889); MS. Life in Westminster Archives, London.

BERNARD WARD.

Bisomus

A tomb large enough to contain two bodies. The ordinary tombs (loci) in the galleries of the Roman catacombs contained one body. It sometimes happened, however, that a space large enough to contain two bodies was excavated. Such a double grave is referred to in inscriptions as locus bisomus. An inscription from the catacomb of St. Calixtus, for instance, informs us that a certain Boniface, who died at the age of twenty-three years and two months, was interred in a double grave which had been prepared for himself and for his father (Bonifacius, qui vixit annix XXII et II (mens) es, positus in bisomum in pace, sibi et patr. suo). A fourth- century inscription tells of two ladies who had purchased for their future interment, a bisomus in a “new crypt” which contained the body of a Saint:

IN CRYPTA NOBA RETRO SAN

CTUS EMERVM VIVAS BALER

RA ET SABINA MERUM LOC

V BISOM AB APRONE ET A

BIATORE

Like so many pious but rather superstitious persons of that age “Balerra” and “Sabina” wished to be buried in the closest proximity to a martyr, retro sanctos, a privilege which, as we learn from another inscription, “many desire but few receive” (quod multi cupiunt et rari accipiunt). NESBITT, in Dict. Christ. Ant., s. v.; NORTHCOTE AND BROWNLOW, Roma Sott. (London, 1878); MARUCCHI, Eléments d’arch. chrét.: notions gén. (Paris, 1899).

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Robert Blackburne

An English Catholic who suffered imprisonment in the closing years of the seventeenth, and during the earlier half of the eighteenth, centuries; he died in 1748.

He was a son of Richard Blackburne, of Thistleton, Lancaster. The Blackburne family is one of the most ancient and respected Catholic families in Lancashire. Robert Blackburne was arrested in 1695 on suspicion of being connected with what was known as the Lancashire Plot. He was never brought to trial, although kept in prison for fifty-three years. The case was more than once brought to the attention of Parliament, but nothing was done for his relief. He was never tried or released, and finally died in prison.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 223.

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE.

Black Fast

This form of fasting, the most rigorous in the history of church legislation, was marked by austerity regarding the quantity and quality of food permitted on fasting days as well as the time wherein such food might be legitimately taken.

In the first place more than one meal was strictly prohibited. At this meal flesh meat, eggs, butter, cheese, and milk were interdicted (Gregory I, Decretals IV, cap. vi; Trullan Synod, Canon 56). Besides these restrictions abstinence from wine, specially during Lent, was enjoined (Thomassin, Traité des jeûnes de l’Eglise, II, vii). Furthermore, during Holy Week the fare consisted of bread, salt, herbs, and water (Laymann, Theologia Moralis, Tr. VIII; De observatione jejuniorum, i). Finally, this meal was not allowed until sunset. St. Ambrose (De Elia et jejunio, sermo vii, in Psalm CXVIII), St. Chrysostom (Homil. iv in Genesim), St. Basil (Oratio i, De jejunio) furnish unequivocal testimony concerning the three characteristics of the black fast. The keynote of their teaching is sounded by St. Bernard (Sermo. iii, no. 1, De Quadragesima), when he says “hitherto we have fasted only until none” (3 p.m.) “whereas, now” (during Lent) “kinds and princes, clergy and laity, rich and poor will fast until evening.” It is quite certain that the days of Lent (Muller, Theologia Moralis, II, Lib. II, Tr. ii, sect. 165, no. 11) as well as those preceding ordination were marked by the black fast. This regime continued until the tenth century when the custom of taking the only meal of the day at three o’clock was introduced (Thomassin, loc. cit.). In the fourteenth century the hour of taking this meal was changed to noon-day (Muller, loc. cit.). Shortly afterwards the practice of taking a collation in the evening began to gain ground (Thomassin, op. cit., II, xi). Finally, the custom of taking a crust of bread and some coffee in the morning was introduced in the early part of the nineteenth century. During the past fifty years, owing to ever changing circumstances of time and place, the Church has gradually relaxed the severity of penitential requirements, so that now little more than a vestige of former rigour obtains.

ST. THOMAS, Summa Theol., II, Q. ii, 2–147; BINGHAM, Antiquities of the Christian Church (London, 1844); GUNNING, The Paschal or Lent Fast (Oxford, 1845)

J.D. O’NEILL

Blackfoot Indians

An important tribe of the Northern Plains, constituting the westernmost extension of the great Algonquian stock. Instead of being a compact people with a head chief and central government, they are properly a confederacy of three sub-tribes speaking the same language, namely:

Siksika or Blackfoot proper;

Kaina (Kæna), or Blood; and

Pikûni, or Piegan.

Each sub-tribe is again subdivided into bands, to the number of some fifty in all. In close alliance with them are the Atsína, or Grosventres, a branch of the more southern Arapahoe, and the Sassi, a detached band of the Beaver Indians farther to the north.

As is usually the case with Indian etymologies, the origin of the name is disputed. One tradition ascribes it to the blackening of their moccasins from the ashes of prairie fires on their first arrival in their present country. It may have come, however, from the former wearing of a black moccasin, such as distinguished certain southern tribes. The name is also that of a prominent war-society among tribes of the Plains.

As indicated by linguistic affinity, the Blackfeet are immigrants from the East. In the early nineteenth century, and until gathered upon reservations, they held most of the immense territory stretching from the southern headwaters of the Missouri, in Montana, almost to the North Saskatchewan, in Canada, and from about 105° W. longitude to the base of the Rocky Mountains. They are now settled on three reservations in the Province of Alberta, Canada, and one in Montana, U.S., being about equally divided between the two governments. The Atsina are also now settled in Montana, while the Sassi are in Alberta.

Most of the early estimates of Blackfoot population are unreliable and usually exaggerated. The estimate made by Mackenzie (about the year 1790) of 2250 to 2550 warriors, or perhaps 8500 souls, is probably very near the truth for that period. In 1780, 1837, 1845, and 1869, they suffered great losses by smallpox. In 1883–84 some 600 on the Montana reservation died of starvation in consequence of a simultaneous failure of the buffalo and reduction of rations. In addition to these wholesale losses, they suffered a continual wasting from wars with the surrounding tribes—Cree, Assiniboin, Sioux, Crow, Flathead, Kutenai—for the Blackfeet were a particularly warlike and aggressive people, and, with the exception of the two small tribes living under their protection, they had no allies. The official Indian report for 1858 gives them 7300 souls, but a careful unofficial estimate made about the same time puts them at 6720. In 1906 they were officially reported to number in all 4617, as follows: Blackfoot Agency, Alberta, 842; Blood Agency, Alberta, 1204, Piegan Agency, Alberta, 499; Blackfoot Agency (Piegan), Montana, 2072.

In their culture the Blackfeet were a typical Plains tribe, living in skin tipis, roving from place to place without permanent habitation, without pottery, basketry, or canoes, having no agriculture except for the planting of a native tobacco, and depending almost entirely upon the buffalo for subsistence. Their traditions go back to a time when they had no horses, hunting the buffalo on foot by means of driveways constructed of loose stones; but as early as 1800 they had many horses taken from the southern tribes, and later became noted for their great herds. They procured guns and horses about the same time, and were thus enabled to extend their incursions successfully over wide areas.

While generally friendly to the Hudson’s Bay Company traders, they were, in the earlier period, usually hostile towards Americans, although never regularly at war with the government. Upon ceremonial occasions each of the three principal tribes camped in a great circle, as usual among the Plains tribes, the tipis of each band occupying a definite section of the circle, with the “medicine lodge,” or ceremonial sacred structure, in the centre of the circle. The assertion that these smaller bands constituted exogamic clans seems consistent with Plains Indians custom. There was also a military society consisting of several subdivisions, or orders, of various rank, from boys in training to the retired veterans who acted as advisers and directors of the rites. Each of these orders had its distinctive uniform and equipment, songs and dance, and took charge of some special function at public gatherings. There were also the ordinary secret societies for the practice of medicine, magic, and special industrial arts, each society usually having its own sacred tradition in the keeping of a chosen priest. the industrial societies were usually composed of women. The ordinary dress in old times was of prepared deerskins; the arms were the bow, knife, club, lance, and shield, and, later, the gun. The principal deity was the sun, and a supernatural being known as Napi, “Old Man”—perhaps an incarnation of the same idea. The great tribal ceremony was the Sun Dance, held annually in the summer season. The marriage tie was easily broken, and polygamy was permitted. The dead were usually deposited in trees, or sometimes in tipis, erected for the purpose on prominent hills.

The earliest missionary work among the Blackfeet was that of the French Jesuits who accompanied the explorer Verendrye in the Saskatchewan region in 1731–42. Among these many be named Fathers Nicholas Gonnor, Charles Mesaiger, and Jean Aulneau. Nothing more was done until the establishment of the Red River colony by Lord Selkirk, who, in 1816, brought out Fathers Dumoulin and Provencher from Montreal to minister to the wants of the colonists and Indians. Their Indian work, at first confined to the Crees and Ojibwa, was afterwards extended, under the auspices of the Oblates, to the Blackfeet and Assiniboin. Among the most noted of these Oblate missionaries were Father Albert Lacombe (1848–90), author of a manuscript Blackfoot dictionary, as well as of a monumental grammar and dictionary of the Cree, and Father Emile Legal (1881–90), author of several important manuscripts relating to the Blackfoot tribe and language. Protestant mission work in the tribe was begun by the Wesleyan Methodists about 1840 (though without any regular establishment until 1871), and by the Episcopalians at about the same date.

GRINNELL, Blackfoot Lodge Tales (1892); HAYDEN, Ethnography and Philology of the Missouri River Valley Tribes (1862); HODGE, Handbook of Am. Indians; MOONEY, Missions, Siksika, etc., in reports, Bureau of Am. Ethnology (1907); MACKENZIE, Voyages (1801); PILLING, Bibliography of the Algonquin Languages, s.vv. Blackfoot, Lacombe, Legal, McLean, Tims, in Reports, B. Am. Ethn. (1891); WISSLER, Blackfoot Indians in Ontario Archæological Report for 1905 (Toronto, 1906); Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs (U.S.) and Superintendent of Indian Affairs (Canada).

JAMES MOONEY

Adam Blackwood

Author, b. at Dunfermline, Scotland, 1539; d. 1613. He was a great-nephew of Robert Reid, Bishop of Orkney (1541–58), who provided for his education, both his parents being dead, at the University of Paris. On the bishop’s death, Queen Mary’s generosity enabled Adam to complete his studies at Paris and Toulouse. He taught philosophy at Paris and published there a funeral poem on King Charles IX (1574) and a work on the relation between religion and government (1575). Archbishop James Beaton recommended him to Mary for the office of Judge of the Parliament of Poitiers (Poitou was under her jurisdiction as Dowager of France), and here he married Catherine Courtinier. Blackwood collected a good library, and wrote several books, one an “Apology for Kings,” denouncing Buchanan’s views with much bitterness, and another a vigourous defence of Queen Mary, published in Paris (nominally in Edinburgh) after her death. Other works by him were a book of pious meditations in prose and verse and an ascetic commentary on the fiftieth Psalm. Blackwood died in 1613, and was buried at Poitiers. His widow married Francois de la Mothe le Vayer, and one of his daughters became the wife of George Crichton, Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Paris.

Adami Blacvodoei opera omnia (Paris, 1644), ed. GABRIEL; NAUDE (with a portrait and prefatory life); IRVING, Scottish Writers, I, 161–169; DEMPSTER, Hist. Eccles: Gentis Scotorum, 116; BLACKWOOD, Martyrs de la Royne d’Escosse is included in JEBB, De vitâ et rebus gestis Mariae Scot. Reginae (1725), II, 175 (Maitland Club tr., 1734).

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

St. Blaise

(BLASIUS) Bishop and martyr.

The ninth-century martyrologies of Europe in their lists, which are accompanied by historical notices, give on 15 February the name of St. Blasius, Bishop of Sebaste and martyr. The Greek synaxaria mention him under 11 February. In the oldest known recension of the so-called martyrology of St. Jerome the name of St. Blasius does not appear; it is only in the later, enlarged catalogues that he is mentioned. The historical notices concerning him in the above-mentioned martyrologies and synaxaria rest on the legendary Acts. All the statements agree that St. Blasius was Bishop of Sebaste in Armenia and most of the acounts place his martyrdom in the reign of Licinius (about 316). As these reports may rest on old traditions which are bound up with the veneration of the saint in the Church liturgy, they are not to be absolutely rejected. It can perhaps be assumed that St. Blasius was a bishop and that he suffered martyrdom at the beginning of the fourth century. All the particulars concerning his life and martyrdom which are found in the Acts are purely legendary and have no claim to historical worth. There are besides various recensions of the text of the Acts. According to the legend Blasius was a physician at Sebaste before he was raised to the episcopal see. At the time of the persecution under Licinius he was taken prisoner at the command of the governor, Agricolaus. The hunters of the governor found him in the wilderness in a cave to which he had retired and while in prison he performed a wonderful cure of a boy who had a fishbone in his throat and who was in danger of choking to death. After suffering various forms of torture St. Blasius was beheaded; the Acts relate also the martyrdom of seven women. The veneration of the Oriental saint was brought at an early date into Europe, as is shown by the recitals in the historical martyrologies of the ninth century, and the Latin recension of the legend of St. Blasius; so that Blasius became one of the most popular saints of the Middle Ages. The actual reason for the unusual veneration has not yet been made clear. Most probably one ground was that according to the legend he was a physician and wonderful cures were ascribed to him; for this reason the faithful sought his help and intercession when ill. Numberless churches and altars were dedicated to him and many localities (Taranto, Ragusa, the Abbey of St. Blasius in the Black Forest, etc.) claimed to possess some of his relics. He was also one of the Fourteen Holy Martyrs. In many places on the day of his feast the blessing of St. Blasius is given: two candles are consecrated, generally by a prayer, these are then held in a crossed position by a priest over the heads of the faithful or the people are touched on the throat with them. In other places oil is consecrated in which the wick of a small candle is dipped and the throats of those present are touched with the wick. At the same time the following blessing is given: “Per intercessionem S. Blasii liberet te Deus a malo gutteris et a quovis alio malo” (May God at the intercession of St. Blasius preserve you from throat troubles and every other evil). In some dioceses is added: “in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus” and the priest makes the sign of the cross over the faithful. In the Latin Church his feast falls on 3 February, in the Oriental Churches on 11 February. He is represented holding two crossed candles in his hand (the Blessing of St. Blasius), or in a cave surrounded by wild beasts, as he was found by the hunters of the governor.

Acta SS. . February, I 331–336; (Commentarius), 336–353 (Acta); MOMBRITIUS, Sanctuarium, I, 81–83; ed. BOLLANDISTS (Brussels, 1898–99), I, 204–205; METAPHRASTES, Vita Santorum in MIGNE, P.G., CXVI, col. 817 sqq.; Synaxarium Constantinopel., ed. DELAHAYE (Brussels, 1902), 458; UHRIG, Die XIV heiligen Nothelfer in Theol. Quartalschrift (Tübingen, 1888), 72 sqq.: NICCOLAI, Memorie storiche di S. Biagio, vescovo e martire, protettore della republica di Ragusa (Monza, 1889); ELLES, The Holy Helpers, Sts. Blaise and Erasmus in The Dublin Review (1889), 340 sqq.; PISTRE, Vie de S. Blaise, évéque de Sébaste (Toulouse, 1861).

J.P. KIRSCH

Anthony Blanc

Fifth Bishop, and first Archbishop, of New Orleans, La., U.S.A., b. at Sury, near Lyons, France, 11 Oct., 1792; d. at New Orleans, 20 June, 1860. He was one of the first ecclesiastical students afer the restoration of the Church in France, and was ordained priest on 22 July, 1816, by Bishop Dubourg of New Orleans, in the Seminary at Lyons, during a visit of that prelate in search of help and volunteers for the American mission. He came to America in September, 1817, landing at Annapolis, Md., with several young seminarians, and was entertained until the end of October by Charles Carroll at Carrolton. He then went with Bishop Dubourg to New Orleans and for nearly fifteen years led the arduous life of a missionary over the wide field of the Mississippi Valley. In 1831, Bishop De Neckere appointed him his vicar-general and wanted to make him his coadjutor, but he refused the promotion. When the Bishop died, in 1853, Father Blanc was named administrator, and was consecrated bishop of the diocese, 22 November, 1835. His jurisdiction extended over the States of Louisiana and Mississippi, and in 1838 Texas was added. In 1842 he came into conflict with the lay trustees of the Cathedral over his right to appoint its rector, in the course of which contest he had to interdict the church. Litigation in the courts and appeals to the State Legislature dragged out the controversy for more than a year, but all the issues were decided in favour of the Bishop. In 1838 he established a diocesan seminary and introduced into the diocese the Lazarists, the Jesuits, the Redemptorists, the Christian Brothers, the Sisters of charity, the Sisters of Notre Dame, the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, and the Congregations of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and of the Holy Cross. He attended the first Plenary Council of Baltimore, and was one of the few American prelates present in Rome when the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed (8 Dec., 1854). New Orleans was made an archbishopric, 19 July, 1850), and he received the pallium, 16 February, 1851. During his tenure of the see many old abuses were corrected; the number of churches was increased from 26 to 73, of priests from 27 to 92, and many schools, academics, colleges, convents, and asylums testified to his zeal and labours. He died suddenly at his residence in new Orleans, discharging with activity to the last the arduous duties of his office.

SHEA, Hist. Cath. Ch. In U.S. (New York, 1904); REUSS, Biog. Cycl. Of the Catholic Hierarchy (Milwaukee, Wis., 1898); CLARKE, Lives of the Deceased Bishops 9New York, 1872), II; Catholic Almanac 1861; Delta (files, New Orleans, 23 June, 1860).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Jean-Baptiste Blanchard

(Duchesne).

A French Jesuit and educator, born 12 October, 1731, at Tourteron in the department of Ardennes; died 15 June, 1797. In 1746 he entered the Society of Jesus, and later was professor at Metz, Verdun, and Pont-à-Mousson. At the time of the suppression of the Society he changed his name of Duchesne to that of Abbe’ Blanchard, under which his works were published. He left the order, however, in 1762, before it was suppressed, retired to Belgium, and for seven years remained near Namur, occupied with pedagogical questions. He wrote “Le temple des Muses fabulistes” (Liège, 1776, 2 vols.) and “L’Ecole des moers” (Namur and Paris, 1775, 2 vols.). The latter work was first published without the author’s name under the title, “Les poète des moeurs, ou les maximes de la sagesse . . .” (1771), and later was reprinted several times with the title “Maximes des l’honnête homme, ou les poète des moeurs.” Blanchard’s main work was published after his death by Bruyset, “Préceptes pour l’éducation des deux sexes à l’usage des families chrétiennes” (Lyon, 1803, 2 vols.); a new edition in 1807 was entitled “Education chrétienne à l’usage de l’un et de l’autre sexe.” Blanchard adopts to Christian education the principle found in Rousseau’s “Emile.” In the work there is little originality; yet, besides judiciously chosen questions, we find very useful suggestions and good criticisms of Rousseau’s views. It is divided into three parts: physical education, moral education, and education of girls. Great importance is attached to physical culture, health, hygiene of the whole organism, and of the special sense-organs. Useful rules are given for the formation of intellect, feelings, and will. Good pronunciation and reading are insisted on. Blanchard rightly rejects the principal of negative education advocated by Rousseau. It would be very harmful to wait until reason develops to make the child exercise it; on the contrary, it must be developed by proper exercise and under proper guidance. To start for a long journey, he says, the traveler does not wait until the sun is high in the sky, but rather profits by the first rays of light; so it must be with the child. As to the education of women, Blanchard’s views seem rather narrow today. Woman is made for dependence. Her instruction must be limited to a few elementary notions; Fénelon’s principals and the “Avis d’une màre à sa fille” of Madame de Lambert, which Blanchard reproduces, must form the basis of her moral education.

Bouillot, Biographie ardennaise; Compayre in La grande encyclopedie, VI, 1011, and in Dictionnaire de pedagogie (Paris, 1887), I, 262; Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la c. de J. (2d ed., Brussels and Paris, 1890), I, 1538; Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes et pseudonymes (Paris, 1884), 729.

C.A. DUBRAY

François Norbert Blanchet

Missionary and first Archbishop of Oregon City, U.S.A., son of Pierre Blanchet, a Canadian farmer, born 30 September, 1795, near Saint-Pierre, Riviere du Sud, Province of Quebec; died 18 June, 1883, at Portland, Oregon. After three years in the village school he went in 1810, with his brother Augustin Magloire, later the first Bishop of Nesqually, to the Seminary of Quebec, where he was ordained priest 18 July, 1819. He was stationed at the cathedral for a year and was then sent to Richibucto, New Brunswick, as pastor of the Micmac Indians and Acadian settlers, among whom he spend seven years of missionary apprenticeship, enduring poverty, isolation, and innumerable hardships. In 1827 he was recalled to Montreal and appointed pastor of St. Joseph de Soulanges, a parish of 2000 souls. During the cholera epidemic of 1832 Father Blanchet attended the stricken so fearlessly that the Protestants of the place presented him with a testimonial. In 1837 he was appointed vicar-general by Archbishop Signay for the Oregon mission, a vast region never before visited by a priest, and he set out on 3 May, 1838, accompanied by the Rev. Modeste Demers with the annual express of the Hudson’s Bay Company. The journey from Lachine to Fort Vancouver, a distance of about 5,000 miles, was made in canoes, by portages, in barges, on horseback, and in light boats. It took them nine days to cross the Rocky Mountains, on the summit of which, at three o’clock in the morning of 16 October Father Blanchet celebrated Mass. They arrived at Fort Vancouver on 24 November. The territory assigned to the two priests embraced about 375,000 square miles. It extended from California to Alaska and from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean.

For four years they laboured alone, going from settlement to settlement, facing every peril of a wild country, recalling the scattered faithful to the practice of religion and instructing the aborigines. Then two other priests from Canada, the Revs. A. Langlois and Z. Boldue, came to their assistance. In 1844 they were reinforced by the great missionary, Father De Smet, with four other Jesuit priests, three lay brothers, and six Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur. The immense territory of the Oregon mission was made an Apostolic vicariate 1 December, 183; Father Blanchet was named its first vicar Apostolic and titular Bishop of Philadelphia. The letters from Rome arrived in August, 1844. To receive episcopal consecration he started for Canada 5 December, boarded a steamer on the Columbia River, touched at Honolulu, doubled Cape Horn, landed at Dover, England, went by rail to Liverpool, took a vessel to Boston and thence proceeded by rail to Montreal, a journey of 22,000 miles. He was consecrated by Bishop Bourget int he Cathedral of Montreal 25 July, 1845. Later he returned to Europe, visiting Rome, France, Belgium, Germany, and Austria in the interests of his diocese. He gathered together six secular priests, four Jesuit priests, three lay brothers, and seven Sisters of Notre Dame. They sailed from Brest 22 February, 1847, and reached the Columbia River on 12 August. The bishop was translated to the See of Draza by letters of 4 May, 1844, to avoid the confusion of his former title with that of Philadelphia, U.S.A. The Vicariate was erected into a province 24 July, 1846. Bishop Blanchet was made Archbishop of Oregon City, his brother Magloire became Bishop of Walla Walla, and Father Demers Bishop of Vancouver’s Island.

The archbishop was indefatigable. He summoned his first provincial council in 1848; attended the First Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1852; went in 1855 to South America and collected for two years in Chile, Peru, and Bolivia; returned to Canada in 1859 and took back to Oregon 31 priests, sisters, and servants. He attended the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1866; celebrated, 19 July, 1869, the golden jubilee of his ordination, and in the following October set out for Rome to assist at the Vatican Council, where he voted for the definition of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. He was still in the city 26 September, 1870, when the temporal power of the papacy was overthrown. When Bishop Seghers was made his coadjutor in 1879 he retired to the hospital of the Sisters of Providence at Portland. He wrote the story of the Oregon mission (Historical sketches of Catholicity in Oregon) in a series of papers published in the “Catholic Sentinel” of that city. In 1880 he resigned and wa appointed titular Archbishop of Amida. He consecrated three bishops—Demers, D’Herbomez, and Seghers. He found on the Pacific coast a wilderness, spiritual as well as material; the left, after forty-six years of heroic work, a well-provided ecclesiastical province. His name will be forever illustrious in the history of the Church in America as the first archbishop of the Northwest and the Apostle of Oregon.

L.W. REILLY

St. Blandina

Virgin and martyr.

She belongs to the band of martyrs of Lyons who, after some of their number had endured the most frightful tortures, suffered a glorious martyrdom in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (177) and concerning whose death we have the touching report sent by the Church of Lyons to the Churches of Asia Minor (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V, 2). The fanaticism of the heathen populace in Lyons had been excited against the Christians so that the latter, when they ventured to show themselves publicly, were harassed and ill-treated. While the imperial legate was away the chiliarch, a military commander, and the duumvir, a civil magistrate, threw a number of Christians, who confessed their faith, into prison. When the legate returned, the imprisoned believers were brought to trial. Among these Christians was Blandina, a slave, who had been taken into custody along with her master, also a Christian. Her companions greatly feared that on account of her bodily frailty she might not remain steadfast under torture. But although the legate caused her to be tortured in a horrible manner, so that even the executioners became exhausted “as they did not know what more they could do to her,” still she remained faithful and repeated to every question “I am a Christian and we commit no wrongdoing.” Through fear of torture heathen slaves had testified against their masters that the Christians when assembled committed those scandalous acts of which they were accused by the heathen mob, and the legate desired to wring confession of this misconduct from the Christian prisoners. In his report to the emperor the legate stated that those who held to their Christian belief were to be executed and those who denied their faith were to be released; Blandina was, therefore, with a number of companions subjected to new tortures in the amphitheater at the time of the public games. She was bound to a stake and wild beasts were set on her. They did not, however touch her. After this for a number of days she was led into the arena to see the sufferings of her companions. Finally, as the last of the martyrs, she was scourged, placed on a red-hot grate, enclosed in a net and thrown before a wild steer who tossed her into the air with his horns, and at last killed with a dagger. Her feast is celebrated 2 June.

Acta SS., June, I, 161 sqq.; ALLARD, Histoire des persécutions (Paris, 1892), I, 397 sqq.

J.P. KIRSCH

St. Blane

Or BLAAN).

Bishop and Confessor in Scotland, b. on the island of Bute, date unknown; d. 590. His feast is kept on 10 August. He was a nephew of St. Cathan, and was educated in Ireland under Sts. Comgall and Kenneth; he became a monk, went to Scotland, and eventually was bishop among the Picts. Several miracles are related of him, among them the restoration of a dead boy to life. The Aberdeen Breviary gives these and other details of the saint’s life, which are rejected however, by the Bollandists. There can be no doubt that devotion to St. Blane was, from early times, popular in Scotland. His monastery became the site of the Cathedral of Dunblane. There was a church of St. Blane in Dumfries and another at Kilblane. The year of the saint’s death is variously given as 446, 590, and 1000; 446 (Butler, Lives of the Saints) is evidently incorrect; the date 1000, found in Adam King, “Kalendar of Scottish Saints” (Paris, 1588), in Dempster, “Menologium Scotorum” (Bonn, 1622), and in the “Acta SS.,” seems to have crept in by confusing St. Kenneth, whose disciple Blane was, with a Kenneth who was King of Scotland about A.D. 1000. The highest authorities say the saint died 590. The ruins of his church at Kingarth, Bute, where his remains were buried, are still standing and form an object of great interest to antiquarians; the bell of his monastery is preserved at Dunblane.

FORBES, Kalendars of Scottish Saints (Edinburgh, 1872); BARRETT, A Calendar of Scottish Saints (Fort Augustus, 1904); Acta SS., 10 August, XXXVI, 560.

M.J. O’MALIA

Blasphemy

Blasphemy (Greek blaptein, “to injure,” and pheme, “reputation”) signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem. In this broad sense the term is used by Bacon when in his “Advancement of Learning” he speaks of “blasphemy against learning.” St. Paul tells of being blasphemed (I Cor., iv, 13) and the Latin Vulgate employs the word blasphemare to designate abusive language directed either against a people at large (II Kings, xxi, 21; I Par., xx, 7) or against individuals (I Cor., x, 30; Tit., iii, 2).

MEANING

While etymologically blasphemy may denote the derogation of the honour due to a creature as well as of that belonging to God, in its strict acceptation it is used only in the latter sense. Hence it has been defined by Suarez as “any word of malediction, reproach, or contumely pronounced against God: (De Relig., tract. iii, lib. I, cap. iv, n. 1). It is to be noted that according to the definition (1) blasphemy is set down as a word, for ordinarily it is expressed in speech, though it may be committed in thought or in act. Being primarily a sin of the tongue, it will be seen to be opposed directly to the religious act of praising God. (2) It is said to be against God, though this may be only mediately, as when the contumelious word is spoken of the saints or of sacred things, because of the relationship they sustain to God and His service.

Blasphemy, by reason of the significance of the words with which it is expressed, may be of three kinds.

It is heretical when the insult to God involves a declaration that is against faith, as in the assertion: “God is cruel and unjust” or “The noblest work of man is God.”

It is imprecatory when it would cry a malediction upon the Supreme Being as when one would say: “Away with God.”

It is simply contumacious when it is wholly made up of contempt of, or indignation towards, God, as in the blasphemy of Julian the Apostate: “Thou has conquered, O Galilaean.”

Again, blasphemy may be (1) either direct, as when the one blaspheming formally intends to dishonour the Divinity, or (2) indirect, as when without such intention blasphemous words are used with advertence to their import.

THE MALICE OF BLASPHEMY

Blasphemy is a sin against the virtue of religion by which we render to God the honour due to Him as our first beginning an last end. St. Thomas says that it is to be regarded as a sin against faith inasmuch as by it we attribute to God that which does not belong to Him, or deny Him that which is His (II-II, Q. xiii, art. I). De Lugo and others deny that this is an essential element in blasphemy (De just. et jure caeterisque virt. card., lib. II, c. xiv, disp. v, n. 26), but as Escobar (Theol. mor., lib. xxviii, c. xxxii, n. 716 sqq.) observes, the contention on this point concerns words only, since the followers of St. Thomas see in the contempt expressed in blasphemy the implication that God is contemptible—an implication in which all will allow there is attributed to God that which does not belong to Him. What is here said is of blasphemy in general; manifestly that form of the sin described above as heretical is not only opposed to the virtue of religion but that of faith as well. Blasphemy is of its whole nature (ex toto genere suo) a mortal sin, the gravest that may be committed against religion. The seriousness of an affront is proportioned to the dignity of the person towards whom it is directed. Since then the insult in blasphemy is offered to the ineffable majesty of God, the degree of its heinousness must be evident. Nevertheless because of slight or no advertence blasphemy may be either a venial sin only or no sin at all. Thus many expressions voiced in anger escape the enormity of a grave sin, except as is clear, when the anger is vented upon God. Again, in the case where blasphemous speech is uttered inadvertently, through force of habit, a grave sin is not committed as long as earnest resistance is made to the habit. If, however, no such effort is put forth there cannot but be grave guilt, though a mortal sin is not committed on the occasion of each and every blasphemous outburst. It has been said that heretical blasphemy besides a content directed against religion has that which is opposed to the virtue of faith. Similarly, imprecatory blasphemy is besides a violation of charity. These forms of the sin being specifically distinct from the simpler kind, it is necessary to specify their character in confession. Whether blasphemy has been direct or indirect, however, calls not for specification on the part of the penitent, since both these forms are specifically the same, though clearly differing in the degree of malice. The question has been raised whether blasphemy against the saints differs in kind from that uttered immediately against God. While De Lugo thinks that such a difference obtains (De Poenit., disp. xvi, n. 178 sqq.) the opposite opinion of St. Alphonsus seems more tenable, for as the latter theologian observes, the saints, ordinarily speaking, are not blasphemed because of their own excellence but because of their close relationship to God (Theol. Moral., lib. IV, n. 132).

THE PENALTIES ATTACHED TO BLASPHEMY

In the Old Law the blasphemer was punished by death. So God appointed on the occasion of the blasphemy of Salumith’s son: “The man that curseth His God, shall bear his sin: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die: all the multitude shall stone him, whether he be a native or a stranger. He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die” (Lev., xxiv, 15–16). Upon hearing blasphemy the Jews were wont in detestation of the crime to rend their clothes (IV Kings, xviii, 37, xix,1; Matt., xxvi, 65).

Among the Athenians blasphemy was actionable and according to Plutarch, Alcibiades was made to suffer the confiscation of his goods for ridiculing the rites of Ceres and Proserpine (Plutarch, Alcibiades). Among the ancient Romans blasphemy was punishable, though not by death. In the time of Justinian we find most severe enactments against this sin. In a constitution of A. D. 538 the people are called upon to abstain from blasphemy, which provokes God to anger. The prefect of the city is commanded to apprehend all such as shall persist in their offence after this admonition and put them to death, that so the city and the empire may not suffer because of their impiety (Auth. Col., Tit. vii, 7 November). Among the Visigoths, anyone blaspheming the name of Christ or expressing contempt of the Trinity had his head shorn, was subjected to a hundred stripes, and suffered perpetual imprisonment in chains. Among the Franks, according to a law enacted at the Diet of Aachen, A. D. 818, this sin was a capital offence. In the Gospels blasphemy is described as one of “the things that defile a man” (Matt., xv, 20; Mark, vii, 21–23).

Medieval canon law punished the blasphemer most severely. By a decree of the thirteenth century one convicted of blasphemy was compelled to stand at the door of the church during the solemnities of the Mass for seven Sundays, and on the last of these days, divested of cloak and shoes, he was to appear with a rope about his neck. Obligations of fasting and alms-giving were likewise imposed under heaviest penalties (Decret., lib. V, tit. xxvi). The rigours of the ancient discipline were insisted upon by Pius V in his Constitution “Cum primum apostolatus” (p. 10). According to the law herein laid down, the layman found guilty of blasphemy was fined. The fine was increased upon his second offence, and upon his third he was sent into exile. If unable to pay the fine, he was upon the first conviction condemned to stand before the door of the church, his hands tied behind him. For the second offence he was flogged, and for the third his tongue was pierced, and he was sentenced to the galleys. The blasphemous cleric, if possessed of a benefice, lost upon his first offence a year’s income; upon his second he was deprived of his benefice and exiled. If enjoying no benefice, he was first subjected to a fine and bodily punishment; on repeating the offence he was imprisoned, and still persisting, he was degraded and condemned to the galleys.

BLASPHEMY IN CIVIL LAW

Blasphemy cognizable by common law is defined by Blackstone to be “denying the being or providence of God, contumelious reproaches of our Saviour Jesus Christ, profane scoffing at the Holy Scripture, or exposing it to contempt or ridicule.” The United States once had many penal statutes against blasphemy, which were declared constitutional as not subversive of the freedom of speech or liberty of the press (Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, Vol. IV, 582). In the American Decisions (Vol. V, 335) we read that “Christianity being recognized by law therefore blasphemy against God and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures are punishable at Common Law,” Accordingly where one uttered the following words “Jesus Christ was a bastard and his mother was a whore,” it was held to be a public offence, punishable by the common law. The defendant found guilty by the court of common pleas of the blasphemy above quoted was sentenced to imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Sum. Theol., II-II, Q. xiii, a. 3; Q. cv. a, 2ad, 3am; Q. lxxx, a. 3; I-II, Q. x, a. 2; ST. LIGUORI, Theol. moral., lib. IV, tract. ii, c. i.; BALLERINI, Opus. theol. moral., II, 366 sqq.; NOLDIN, Theol. moral., II, 195; DISNEY, A View of Ancient Laws against Immorality and Profaneness; OBLET in Dict. de théol. cath., s. v. Blasphème.

JOHN WEBSTER MELODY

Matthew Blastares

A monk of the Order of St. Basil, living in the fourteenth century, who applied himself to the study of theology and canon law. Through the labours of John the Scholastic, Photius, Zonaras, Balsamon, and others the Greek Church possessed some collections of laws and commentaries. There was, however, need of a more comprehensive work, and one better adapted to the needs of the time. It appeared about 1335, in the “Syntagma” of Blastares, a collection of ecclesiastical constitutions in alphabetical order, written in Greek. The full title might be translated into Latin thus: “Syntagma alphabeticum rerum omium, quae in sacris divinisque canonibus comprehenduntur, elaboratum partier et compositum per minimum ex hieromonachis Matthaeum Blastarem.” The collection, which contains a long preface, is arranged alphabetically by means of the initial letters of the words which indicate the subject-matter of each chapter; several chapters are thus found under one letter. For example under the Greek Lambda: Thoughts concerning the degrees of relationship in reference to matrimony, concerning marriages permitted and prohibited. Under Delta: Thoughts on last testaments, deacons, justice, ecclesiastical trials, etc.

In each chapter the author first gives the law of the Church on the subject and then, if there be any, the civil law also, setting forth the sense rather than the exact wording of either, and contenting himself with noting where the constitutions referred to may be found. The “Syntagma,” commonly called “Nomocanon” or, by metaphor, (pedalion) (rudder), soon became extensively employed, and is still used in the Greek Church, as is evidenced by the fact that an edition of the work in six volumes was published in Athens from 1852 to 1860, under the auspices of the Holy Synod. This edition bears the title: (Syntagma ton Theion kai hieron kanonon). This work is also found in the Synodicon of Beveridge (P.G., CXLIV, CXLV) published at Oxford in 1672. There are also attributed to Blastares a tract on matrimonial cases, and two poems published by Goar in Greek and Latin, one on the offices of the Church of Constantinople, the other on the court. His “Syntagma,” like other medieval law-books of the Greeks, breathes a spirit inimical to the Roman Church.

MOHLER in Kirchenlex.; VERING, Lehrbuch des Kirchenr., 17; WALTER, Lehrbuch des Kirchenr., xiv. 79, 80; BEVERIDGE, Prolegom. In Pandecta Canonum, I, 21 sqq.; KRUMBACHER, Gesch. der bysant. Litt. (Munich, 1897), 607.

A.B. MEEHAN

St. Blathmac

A distinguished Irish monk, b. in Ireland about 750. He suffered martyrdom in Iona, about 835. He is fortunate in having had his biography written by Strabo, Benedictine Abbot of Reichenau (824–849), and thus the story of his martyrdom has been handed down through the ages. Strabo’s life of this saint is in Latin hexameters, and is to be found in Messingham’s “Florilegium Insulæ Sanctorum” (Paris, 1624). A scion of a noble family he early showed a religious turn of mind, and longed to be enrolled in the noble army of martyrs, a wish which was afterwards fulfilled. His name was latinized Florentius (from the fact of the Irish word Blath meaning a flower), and as a religious, he was most exemplary, finally becoming abbot. In 824 he joined the community of Columban monks at Iona, and not long afterwards the Danes ravaged the island. One morning, as he was celebrating Mass, the Scandinavian rovers entered the monastic church and put the monks to death. St. Blathmac refused to point out the shrine of St. Columba, which was really the object of plunder, and he was hacked to pieces on the altar step. His body was afterwards reverently interred where the scene of martyrdom took place, and numerous miracles are claimed to have been wrought through his intercession. The date of his death is given by the “Annals of Ulster” as 825, although Mabillon places it thirty-six years earlier.

REEVES, Adamman (Dublin, 1857); O’DONOVAN, Four Masters (Dublin, 1856); MESSINGHAM, Florilegium Insul=A6 Sanctorum (Paris, 1624); MABILLON, Annales Ordinis S. Benedicti, III; P.G., CXIII; Annals of Ulster (Rolls Series); HEALY, Insula Sanctorum et Doctorum (Dublin, 1902), 4th ed.; MORAN, Irish Saints in Great Britain (Callan, 1903).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

Nicephorus Blemmida

(BLEMMYDES)

A learned monk and writer of the Green Church, b. about 1198, at Constantinople; d. 1272. After the establishment of the Latin Empire (1204) his family emigrated to Asia Minor. Blemmida there received a careful training and was soon reputed one of the most learned men of his time. About 1223 he became one of the Byzantine clergy, at that time established in Nicaea. But owing to difficulties and jealousies he renounced all worldly prospects, became a monk, and built a monastery near Ephesus, over which he presided until his death. In this condition he felt free from all entanglements and on various occasions exhibited independence and courage. At one time he dismissed from the church of his monastery the Princess Marcesina, a mistress of the Emperor John Ducas Batatzes (1222–54), and in justification of his conduct wrote an encyclical letter. Again, when the patriarch Joseph of Constantinople (1268–75) sought to obtain recognition against the former Patriarch Arsenius (1255–66), he met with a straight refusal from Blemmida. Nevertheless Blemmida was held in high esteem by the contemporary Greek Emperors. The aforementioned John Ducas, far from venting his wrath on him, accepted the rebuke as well merited. When the Patriarchal See of Constantinople fell vacant, in 1255, it was offered to Blemmida by Emperor Theodore II, Lascaris (1254–58); but he preferred his quiet monastic life.

The reputation of Blemmida was really due to his vast learning. Many a Greek youth of high estate learned from him the beauty of letters, or the secrets of philosophy and theology. Among his pupils were the learned Georgius Acropolites and the royal prince, afterwards emperor, Theodore II, Lascaris. Blemmida was the author of several poems, of letters, of a work on the duties of an emperor, of two autobiographies, of two geographical works, of philosophical writings on logic and physics, and of a rule of life for his monks. Among his theological works may be mentioned a commentary on the Psalms, a discourse on the Trinity and Christ ology, and two orations on the Holy Ghost. One of these orations was addressed to Jacob, Archbishop of Bulgaria; the other to Theodore Lascaris. In both he proved, from passages of Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria and other Fathers, that the procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son, or from the Father through the Son, was genuine Catholic doctrine. In this precisely consists his importance. He was among the few Greek writers who recognized that the Latin church was correct in its belief. This is evident not only from his own writings, but also from the explicit contemporary evidence of such men as Beccus, Pachmeres, and Nicephorus Gregoras. It was through the reading of the works of Blemmida that Beccus was converted to the teaching held by the Latin Church, and induced to write in its defence. Most of the works of Blemmida so far published are found in Migne’s “Patrologia Graeca,” CXLII (Paris, 1855), or in the ‘Bibliotheca Teubneriana” (Leipzig, 1896).

GEORGIUS ACROPOLITES, Annales in P.G., CXL, (Paris, 1857); see also CXLIII, CXLIV, CXLVIII; RAYNALDUS, Annales Eccl. (Lucca, 1747, 1748), II, III; KRUMBACHER, Gesch. der byzant. Literatur (Munich, 1897).

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Blenkinsop

PETER BLENKINSOP

Catholic publisher, b. in Ireland; married a sister of Archbishop Oliver Kelly of Tuam and emigrated with his family from Dublin to Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A., in 1826, where he established a printing and publishing house for Catholic books; he issued (1827) Pise’s “History of the Church,” 5 vols., and began the “Metropolitan,” a monthly magazine (1830). Blenkinsop had three children: William A., Peter J., and Catherine.

William A. Blenkinsop

William Blenkinsop was b. in Dublin, 1819; d. 8 January, 1892, in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. He studied at St. Mary’s college, Baltimore, from 1833–39, taught there (1839–44) taking the degree of A.M., and was ordained by Archbishop Eccleston in 1843. He went with Bishop Chanche to Natchez and laboured on the Mississippi mission for seven years; in 1850 he became affiliated to the Diocese of Boston and was appointed pastor of Cabotsville (now Chicopee), where he built a church, one of the finest in the State; his pastoral charge included a large part of the Connecticut Valley in Massachusetts. . When offered the position of Vicar-General of Natchez, he responded that he had more people in his parish than were in the whole Diocese of Natchez. In 1864, he became pastor of the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul, Boston, where he remained for twenty-eight years. He was model of priestly virtue, courtly in manners, simple as a child, and generous to the poor. He was buried in St. Augustine’s Cemetery, Boston.

Peter J. Blenkinsop

Peter Blenkinsop was b. in Dublin, 19 April, 1818; d. in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 5 November, 1896. He studied at Georgetown College, Washington, D. C., entered the Society of Jesus in 1834, and was ordained by Archbishop Eccleston 26 July, 1846. He was President of Holy Cross College, Worcester, Massachusetts, from 1854–57, which he rebuilt after its destruction by fire. He was also pastor at Frederick, Maryland, St. Joseph’s church, Philadelphia, and was stationed at various times in the Jesuit colleges at Worcester, Georgetown, and Philadelphia.

Catherine Blenkinsop

Born in Dublin 18 April, 1816; died at Emmitsburg, Maryland. She entered the Sisters of Charity at the latter place in May, 1831, at the age of fifteen. She took the name of Euphemia with the religious habit and was stationed successively at St. Joseph’s School, New York, St. Peter’s School, Baltimore, St. Mary’s Asylum in the same city, and in 1855, at the mother-house, as assistant. During the Civil War she was entrusted with the delicate mission of directing the institutions of the Sisters of Charity in the South, and was the mainstay of the Sisters in their arduous labours; in 1866 she was appointed visitatrix of the community, which she continued to direct until her death.

MCCOY, History of Springfield Diocese (Boston, 1900); HEALY, Sermon Preached on Death of Mother Euphemia (Boston, 1887).

E. I. DEVITT.

The Blessed

There are at present two ways in which the Church allows public worship to be paid those who have lived in the fame of sanctity or died as martyrs. Of these some are beatified, others are canonized. (See BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION). Beatification is a permission for public worship restricted to certain places and to certain acts. In the more recent discipline of the Church, the pope alone can beatify, though formerly bishops could grant the honour of beatification to those of the faithful who had shed their blood for Christ or lived lives of heroic virtue. All those permissions for public worship which in the early ages of the Church were granted to particular churches and spread thence with the sanction of other bishops to other congregations, to be finally made a matter a precept for the universal Church by the Roman pontiff, constituted beatification and canonization in the exact sense of the word. It was only beatification while the cult, of the martyr for instance, was restricted to the place where he had suffered, but became canonization when it was received in the entire Church. The difference between canonization and beatification lies in the presence or absence of two elements which are found united in canonization and either separate or entirely absent from beatification, though generally only one is lacking. These elements are:

the precepts regarding public worship, and

its extention to the whole Church.

In exceptional cases one or other of these is wanting; sometimes the cult of the beatified is not only permitted but enjoined, though not for the universal Church, and in other instances it is permitted for the whole Church but not enjoined. The case of Bl. Rose of Lima is an instance of the occurrence of both elements, though that did not of itself suffice for her canonization, as one of the elements was not really complete. When Clement X chose her as patron of all America, the Philippines, and the Indies, and by the same act allowed her cultus in the entire Church, it was clearly a case where a cultus was enjoined in America and merely allowed for the remainder of the Church. The nature of beatification makes it evident that the worship of the blessed is restricted to certain places and persons, and may be given only after permission. Such permission is usually granted to those persons or places which have in some way been connected with the blessed. In the case of a religious, it is granted to the members of the order or congregation to which he belonged; if a canon of a church, that church or chapter receives the permission; if a martyr, a bishop, or resident of some place for a long period, the concession is made to the place of his martyrdom or to his see or to the place that he adorned with his virtues. In some cases the place of his birth or burial is included. And in all these instances it may be that the concession is made only to the mother church, or to the church in which his body lies, or it may be extended to the whole city or diocese. With Benedict XIV (De canonizatione de SS., Lib. IV, part. II, cap. i, n. 12) we may add that such grants are affixed to the day on which the blessed died or to some other determined day. When this cultus is allowed to certain persons or places it is still further restricted with respect to the manner in which it is to be given, and not all acts of worship which the customs and discipline of the Church allow to be paid canonized saints may be used in the worship of the beatified. Benedict XIV (loc. cit., c. ii) treats the question at length and with regard to the inquiry as to whether a votive Mass may be said in honour of the blessed in places where the cultus has been granted decides in the negative against Castropalao and Del Bene. His opinion has since been confirmed by the decree of Alexander VII of 27 September, 1659, in which decree the pope settled many questions regarding the worship of the blessed. It may be remarked that ordinarily votive Masses cannot be said in honour of the blessed, though for several centuries they have been said in virtue of special indults. The oldest indult which Benedict XIV quotes in this connection is that granted by Clement VII to the Dominicans of the Convent of Forlì, 25 January, 1526, to celebrate the Mass of Blessed James Salomonio “as often during the year as their devotion may move them to do so.” Besides this indult there is another granted by Alexander VII at the request of Ferdinand Gonzaga, Prince of Castiglione, on 22 May, 1662, “to celebrate votive Masses in honour of Blessed Aloysius (Gonzaga) in the collegiate mother church of the town of Castiglione during the year.” And this indult, a few months afterwards, was extended so as to allow “votive Masses of the same Blessed Aloysius to be celebrated in the church of the Regular Clerics of the Society of Jesus during the year on days not impeded by the rubrics.”

Alexander VII further ordered that images of the blessed should not be exposed in any church, sanctuary, or oratory whatever, and especially in those in which Mass or other Divine services are held, without previous consultation with the Holy See. This rule is of such strict interpretation that in virtue of the granting of this indult it cannot be presumed that permission is had to place the images of the blessed upon the altars. They may be placed upon the walls of the church only. However, an indult permitting a contrary use is not of altogether rare occurrence in the recent discipline of the Church, and it is to be remarked that even in the time of Alexander VII a decree of the Congregation of Rites of 17, April, 1660, declared that the concession of an indult to say the Mass and Office of a blessed implied permission to place his picture or statue upon the altar, though the opposite does not hold. The same pope also decided that the names of the blessed should be entered in no catalogue except those proper to the persons who had received permission to honour then with cultus and a Mass and Office. He ruled too that no prayers should be addressed the blessed in public services except those granted and approved by the Holy See and that their relics should not be carried in procession. It must, however, be observed here in passing that Alexander VII, as he especially declares in his decrees, did not intend to do away with any cultus that had been rendered to the blessed with the common consent of the Church, or from time immemorial, or approved by the writings of the Fathers and the saints, or even one which had been tolerated by the Holy See and the different ordinaries for more than a hundred years. In addition to all this, we have other decrees of the Congregation of Rites, such as: that the names of the blessed are not to be enrolled in the martyrology; that neither altars nor churches may be dedicated to them; that they may not be chosen as local patrons. It must not be forgotten that exceptions may be made by indult even in these cases. Recently, to quote an instance, Pius X at the request of the English bishops, in the matter of the English martyrs whom Leo XIII had beatified, granted that in each diocese an altar might be erected to each of the nine principal martyrs whose names are mentioned in the decree, the churches in which they were to be erected being designated by the bishops. Beatification is an entirely different matter from canonization, and is but a step to it, being in no wise an irreformable decision of ecclesiastical authority. The observation of Benedict XIV then goes without saying, that the blessed are not to be given the title of saints; further that the distinctive signs which ecclesiastical use has made customary in regard to statues and pictures of saints cannot be used in the case of blessed, who are not to be represented with the aureola, but with rays above (op. cit., Lib. I, c, xxxvii).

To conclude, we may observe that in the cultus of the blessed great attention must be given to the indult which in each specific instance determines, according to the wishes of the sovereign pontiff, the restrictions with regard to persons, places, and acts of worship. This matter, and very justly so, has been made the subject of special legislation on the part of the Congregation of Rites which decreed on 5 October, 1652, that no one could go beyond the limits set by the words of the indults of the Holy See in regard to beatification. The solemnities of beatification cannot be compared with those of canonization. They are briefly as follows: On the day on which beatification takes place Mass is said in St. Peter’s in presence of the entire Congregation of Rites. After the Gospel, instead of a homily, the secretary of the Congregation reads the pope’s decree, on the conclusion of which the painting of the newly beatified, which stands over the altar, is uncovered and the Mass is finished. About the hour of Vespers the Holy Father comes down to the basilica to venerate the new blessed. After the beatification permission is granted to celebrate solemn triduums, and by a special decree Mass and Office are allowed to be said yearly on a fixed day, but with restrictions as to place, and it is permitted to insert the name in the special martyrologies. The expenses of a beatification from the first steps to the conclusion approximate 100,000 lire ($20,000). (See BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION).

CAMILLUS BECCARI.

Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament

An enclosed congregation and a reform of the Dominican Order devoted to the perpetual adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. It was founded in the face of great opposition by Father Anthony Le Quieu, a French Dominican, whose canonization was stopped by the French Revolution. Born in 1601 at Paris, he entered the Order of Friars Preachers in the Rue St. Honoré, in 1622, and was in due time made master of novices first in his own monastery, and afterwards at Avignon (1634). While at the latter place (1639), he began to lay the foundation of the institute he desired to establish, but it was not until twenty years later (1659) that, after great difficulty, the first house was opened at Marseilles for the three ladies whom the saintly founder had begun to train at Avignon. The Bishop of Marseilles gave them the habit the following year, approved the rule and constitutions Father Le Quieu had drawn up, and erected them into a simple congregation. It was not till after the death of the founder, who lived to see another foundation made at Bollène, that the constitutions were approved by Pope Innocent XII (1693), who authorized the nuns to take solemn vows and bound them to enclosure. This was the first congregation instituted for the perpetual adoration of the Blessed Sacrament; it is not an austere one, but the degree of perfection put before the members by the founder is very high. The original mother-house at Marseilles was suppressed at the French Revolution, when the nuns were dispersed, but it was reopened in 1816; the Bollène houses suffered more severely. Thirteen of the nuns endured martyrdom under the Commune; their cause of beatification is now before the Holy See; the remainder of the Bollène community returned to their convent and resumed their work of perpetual adoration in 1802. The Bollène nuns sent three of their number with one lay sister, under the Reverend Mother Emilie Pellier to England to found a house at Cannington (1863), a community which was afterwards moved to Taunton in Somersetshire, where it has since remained. There is also a house at Oxford, and another near Newport. After Father Le Quieu’s death foundations were made in the south of France, and after the French Revolution other houses were founded in the same locality. Since then a house has been established in Normandy, from which another convent has been opened at Hal in Belgium. There are no houses of this congregation in America.

PALLOT, Vie du Père Antoine Le Quieu (1847); STEELE, Convents of Great Britain (St. Louis, 1902), 117.

FRANCESCA M. STEELE.

Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament

One of the most recent congregations of religious women in the Catholic Church and one of entirely American origin, founded by Miss Katharine Drexel at Philadelphia, Pa., in 1889, for missionary work among the Indians and coloured people of the United States. The formal approbation of the Holy See was given to the congregation in July, 1907.

The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore gave a new impetus to missionary work among the coloured and Indian races and as one of the results of its recommendations, Right Reverend James O’Connor, Bishop of Omaha, acting in conjunction with Miss Katherine Drexel, daughter of the late Francis A. Drexel of Philadelphia, decided with the approval of the Most Reverend P. J. Ryan, Archbishop of Philadelphia, to form a new congregation of two races. For some years previous to this step, Miss Drexel had been very active in re-establishing and supporting schools in many of the Indian reservations. The survey of the field of work revealed about 250,000 Indians neglected, if not practically abandoned, and over nine million of negroes still struggling through the aftermath of slavery.

The piteous condition of these two races decided Miss Drexel to devote both her fortune and her life to them. With the approval of high church authorities in the United States, she gathered around her young women imbued with the same ideas, and thus founded, towards the close of 1899, the nucleus of the new community. In order to be well grounded in the principles of the religious life, the first members made a two years’ noviiate with the Sisters of Mercy. After this, they continued their period of preparation in the old Drexel homestead, Torresdale, near Philadelphia. Early in 1892 a mother-house and novitiate were opened at Maud, Pennsylvania, adjoining which was erected a manual training and boarding school for coloured boys and girls.

The distinctive spirit of this institute is the consecration of its members, body and soul, to the service to Jesus Christ ever present in the Holy Eucharist. His Eucharistic life is to be the inspiration of the entire varied activity of the sisters. Besides the vows usual in all religious communities, the sisters pledge themselves to work exclusively for the spiritual and temporal welfare of the Indian and coloured races. By their rule, the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament may

undertake all kinds of educational works;

they may care for orphans or spiritually or corporally destitute children;

they may attend the sick by visiting them in their homes or by conducting hospitals;’

they may shelter destitute and deserving women;

they may visit and instruct inmates of prisons and reformatories;

they may establish and conduct homes for the aged;

they may establish schools and classes outside their own houses, visit the poor in order to look after their religious welfare and also to teach them habits of good living, neatness, and thrift-in short, to make them self-sustaining men and women.

The sisterhood now numbers one hundred and twelve members. In 1894, St. Catharine’s boarding and industrial school for Pueblo Indians was opened at Santa Fe, New Mexico; in 1899, the Institute of St. Francis de Sales, Rock Castle, Va., a boarding academy and industrial school, was opened for the training of Southern coloured girls; in 1902, St. Michael’s Mission, Arizona, for the education of Navajo Indians, a boarding and industrial school, was completed and opened. The Academy of the Immaculate Mother, Nashville, Tenn., was opened in 1905. In this school girls are also trained to become teachers, while others not desiring to teach may tke a full course of domestic science and dressmaking. In 1906, the sisters commenced work at Carlisle, Pa., by instructing the Indian pupils of the Government School, and conducting a day school for coloured children.

SISTER MERCEDES

Blessing

In its widest acceptation this word has a variety of meanings in the sacred writings:

It has taken in a sense that is synonymous with praise; thus the Psalmist, “I will bless the Lord at all times, His praise shall be always in my mouth” (Ps. xxxiii, 1).

It is used to express a wish or desire that all good fortune, especially of a spiritual or supernatural kind, may go with the person or thing, as when David says: “Blessed art thou, and it shall be well with thee” (Ps. cxxvii, 2).

It signifies the sanctification or dedication of a, person or thing to some sacred purpose; “Christ took bread and blessed, and broke” (Matt., xxvi, 26).

Finally it is employed to designate a gift so Naaman addresses Eliseus: “I beseech thee therefore take a blessing of thy servant” (IV Kings, vi, 15).

With these various significations it is not the present purpose to deal. Coming, then, to its strictly liturgical and restricted sense, blessing may be described as a rite, consisting of a ceremony and prayers performed in the name and with the authority of the Church by a duly qualified minister, by which persons or things are sanctified as dedicated to Divine service, or by which certain marks of Divine favour are invoked upon them. The following aspects of the subject will be discussed:

I. Antiquity;

II. Minister;

III. Objects;

IV. Efficacy; and

V. Rite employed in administering.

I. ANTIQUITY

The custom of giving blessings goes back to the very earliest times. In the morning of Creation, on the completion of each day’s work, God blessed the living creatures that came from His hands, bidding them increase and multiply and fill the earth (Gen. i-ii). When Noe emerged from the Ark, he received God’s benediction (Gen., ix, 1), and this heritage he transmitted through his sons, Sem and Japheth, to posterity. The pages of the Old Testament testify abundantly to the great extent to which the practice of blessing prevailed in the patriarchal ages. The head of each tribe and family seemed to be privileged to bestow it with a special unction and fruitfulness, and the priests at the express direction of God were wont to administer it to the people. “Thus shall you bless the children of Israel . . . and the Lord will turn His countenance and give them peace” (Num., vi, 23–26). That great value was attributed to blessings is seen from the strategy adopted by Rebecca to secure Jacob’s blessing for her favourite son. In general estimation it was regarded as a mark of Divine complacency and as a sure way to secure God’s benevolence, peace, and protection. The New Dispensation saw the adoption of this rite by Our Divine Lord and His Apostles, and so, elevated, ennobled, and consecrated by such high and holy usage, it came at a very early stage in the Church’s history to assume definite and concrete shape as the chief among her sacramentals.

II. MINISTER

Since, then, blessings, in the sense in which they are being considered, are entirely of ecclesiastical institution, the Church has the power to determine who shall have the right and duty to confer them. This she has done by entrusting their administration to those who are in sacerdotal orders. The solitary case in which one inferior to a priest is empowered to bless, is where the deacon blesses the paschal candle in the ceremonies of Holy Saturday. This exception is more apparent than real. For in the instance referred to the deacon acts by way of a deputy and, moreover, employs the grains of incense already blessed by the celebrant. Priests, then, are the ordinary ministers of blessings, and this is only in the fitness of things since they are ordained, as the words of the Pontifical run: “ut quæcumque benedixerint benedicantur, et quacumque consecraverint consecrentur” (That what-ever they bless may be blessed, and whatever they consecrate shall be consecrated). When, therefore, laymen and women are represented as blessing others it is to be understood that this is an act of will on their part, a wish or desire for another’s spiritual or temporal prosperity, an appeal to God which has nothing to recommend if but the merits of personal sanctity. The ordinary greetings and salutations that take places between Christians and Catholics, leavened by mutual wishes for a share of heavenly grace, must not be confounded with liturgical blessings. St. Gregory first definitely taught that the angels are divided into hierarchies or orders, each having its own role to play in the economy of creation. Similarly the Church recognizes different orders or grades among her ministers, assigning to some higher functions than to others. The working out of this idea is seen in the case of conferring blessings. For while it is true that a priest can ordinarily give them, some blessings are reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, some to bishops, and some to parish priests and religious. The first class is not large. The pope reserves to himself the right to bless the pallium for archbishops, Agnus-Deis, the Golden Rose, the Royal Sword, and also to give that benediction of persons to which an indulgence of some days is attached. He may, and in the case of the last mentioned often does, depute others to give these. To bishops belongs the privilege of blessing abbots at their installation, priests at their ordination, and virgins at their consecration; of blessing churches, cemeteries, oratories, and all articles for use in connection with the altar, such as chalices, vestments, and clothe, military standards, soldiers, arms, and swords; and of imparting all blessings far which Holy Oils are required. Some of these may, on delegation, be performed by inferiors. Of the blessings which priests are generally empowered to grant, some are restricted to those who have external jurisdiction, like rectors or parish priests, and others are the exclusive prerogative of persons belonging to a religious order. There is a rule, too, by which an inferior cannot bless a superior or even exercise the ordinary powers in his presence. The priest, for instance, who says Mass at which a bishop presides is not to give the final blessing without permission from the prelate. For this curious custom authors cite a text from the Epistle to the Hebrews: “And without all contradiction that which is less is blessed by that which is greater” (vii, 7). It would seem an overstraining of the passage to say that it affords an argument for maintaining that an inferior minister cannot bless one who is his superior in rank or dignity, for the text either merely ennunciates an incident of common usage, or means that the inferior by the fact that he blesses is the greater, since he acts as the representative of God.

III. OBJECTS

The range of objects that come under the influence of the Church’s blessing is as comprehensive as the spiritual and temporal interests of her children. All the lower creatures have been made to serve man and minister to his needs. As nothing, then, should be left undone to enhance their utility towards this end, they are placed in a way under the direct providence of “Every creature of God is good . . .” , as St. Paul says “for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (I Tim., iv, 4–5). There is also the reflection that the effects of the Fall extended to the inanimate objects of creation, marring in a manner the original aim of their existence and making them, in the hands of evil spirits, ready instruments for the perpetration of iniquity. In the Epistle to the Romans St. Paul describes inanimate nature, blighted by the primal curse, groaning in travail and anxiously awaiting its deliverance from bondage. “The expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the Sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope” (viii, 19–20). From this it will be easily seen how very reasonable is the anxiety of the Church that the things which are use in daily life and particularly in the service of religion, should be rescued from contaminating influences and endowed with a potency for good. The principal liturgical blessings recognized and sanctioned by Church are contained in the Roman Ritual and the Pontifical. The Missal, besides the blessing given at the end of Mass, contains only those blessings associated with the great functions incidental to certain days of the year, such as the blessing of palms and ashes. In the Pontifical are found the blessings that are performed de jure by bishops, such as the solemn blessing of persons already referred to, the forms for blessing kings, emperors, and princes at their coronation, and those before mentioned as of episcopal prerogative.

The great treasury of ecclesiastical blessings is the Roman Ritual.

(1) FORMULÆ FOR BLESSING PERSONS

First comes a blessing for pilgrims to the Holy Land, on their departure and return containing beautiful prayers and apt allusions to the Magi journeying through the Arabian desert under the guidance of the Star, to Abraham leaving his own country and setting his face towards the distant land of Canaan, to the Angel companion of the younger Tobias, and, finally, an appeal to God to prove to the wayfarers a solace on their journey, a shade from summer heats, a shelter in storm, and a haven of safety. Next follow blessings of persons with Holy Water before Mass, for an adult who is sick, for a number of sick people, one for a woman on the approach of confinement and another after childbirth, blessings for infants, for children come to the use of reason and for those arrived at years of discretion, for children on their presentation in Church, that they may lead good Christian lives, for boys and girls on the Feast of the Holy Infancy that they may grow up to imitate the virtues of the Saviour and reach salvation under His guidance.

(2) BLESSINGS FOR THINGS

(a) In addition to the blessings already mentioned for articles destined for altar purposes, the Roman Ritual has formulæ for blessing crosses, images of Our Lord, of the Blessed Virgin and saints, church organs, processional banners, new bells for church uses and for other purposes, dress and cinctures worn in honour of Our Lady and of other saints, monstrances, reliquaries, vessels for Holy Oils, church ornaments, clerical habits, medals, pictures, and crosses for the Stations, rosaries of all the recognized kinds, water, candles, the Trisagion of the Holy Trinity, the different scapulars of Our Lady, of Our Lord, of the Blessed Trinity, of St. Joseph, St. Michael the Archangel, and other saints. Most of the objects just enumerated, as, for instance, rosaries and scapulars, receive what is called an indulgenced blessing, that is to say, by the pious employment and use of them persons are enabled to gain an indulgence.

(b) The following articles of food have benedictions assigned to them: paschal lamb, eggs, oil, wine, lard, cheese, butter, dripping, salt, and water which is used as antidote to rabies. There is also a form for everything that may be eaten. The fruits of the earth, such as grapes, corn, and the garnered harvest, seeds that are put into the earth, wine and the vintage, herbs and grasses may all in a fitting and appropriate language be “sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”

(c) The lower animals which minister to the reasonable requirements of the human family may have blessings invoked upon them in order that the measure of their usefulness may be increased. Thus, birds of the air, beasts of the field, bees that afford such examples of industry to man, horses and oxen broken to the yoke, and. other beasts of burden are included in the formularies of the Ritual. The Creator is invoked to grant to the brute strength and health to bear his burthen and, if attacked by sickness or plague, to obtain deliverance.

(d) The Ritual has blessings for houses and schools and for the laying of their foundation stones; for stables for the lower animals and every other building of any description for which no special formula is at hand. There is also a special blessing for the bridal chamber.

(e) Lastly inanimate things that subserve the equitable needs and convenience of society may receive from the Church the stamp of her benediction before they are sent on their way to do their appointed tasks. Such, for instance, are new ships, new railways with trains and carriages, new bridges, fountains, wells, cornmills, limekilns, smelting-furnaces, telegraphs, steam engines, machines for producing electricity. The many serious accidents that occur explain the concern of the Church for those whose lives are exposed to danger from these various sources.

IV. EFFICACY

The inquiry will be confined to the Blessings approved of by the Church. As has been said, the value of a blessing given by a private person in his own name will be commensurate with his acceptableness before God by reason of his individual merits and sanctity. A blessing, on the other hand, imparted with the sanction of the Church has all the weight of authority that reaches to the voice of her who is the well-beloved spouse of Christ, pleading on behalf of her children. The whole efficacy, therefore, of these benedictions, in so far as they are liturgical and ecclesiastical, is derived from the prayers and invocations of the Church made in her name by her ministers.

Blessings may be divided into two classes, viz: invocative and constitutive. The former are those in which the Divine benignity is invoked on persons or things, to bring down upon them some temporal or spiritual good without changing their former condition. Of this kind are the blessings given to children, and to articles of food, The latter class are so called because they permanently depute persons or things to Divine service by imparting to them some sacred character, by which they assume a new and distinct spiritual relationship. Such are the blessings given churches and chalices by their consecration. In this case a certain abiding quality of sacredness is conferred in virtue of which the persons or things blessed become inviolably sacred so that they cannot be divested of their religious character or be turned to profane uses. Again, theologians distinguish blessings of an intermediate sort, by which things are rendered special instruments of salvation without at the same time becoming irrevocably sacred, such as blessed salt, candles, etc. Blessings are not sacraments; they are not of Divine institution; they do not confer sanctifying grace; and they do not produce their effects in virtue of the rite itself, or ex opere operanto. They are sacramentals and, as such, they produce the following specific effects:

Excitation of pious emotions and affections of the heart and, by means of these, remission of venial sin and of the temporal punishment due to it.

Freedom from power of evil spirits;

Preservation and restoration of bodily health.

Various other benefits, temporal or spiritual.

All these effects are not necessarily inherent in any one blessing; some are caused by one formula, and others by another, according to the intentions of the Church. Neither are these effects to be regarded as infallibly produced, except in so far as impetration of the Church has this attribute. The religious veneration, therefore, in which the faithful regard blessings has no faint of superstition, since it depends altogether on the Church’s suffrages offered to God that the persons using the things she blesses may derive from them certain supernatural advantages. Instances are alleged in the lives of the saints where miracles have been wrought by the blessings of holy men and women. There is no reason to limit the miraculous interference of God to the early ages of the Church’s history, and the Church never accepts these wonderful occurrences unless the evidence in support of their authenticity is absolutely unimpeachable.

V. RITE EMPLOYED

Before a minister proceeds to impart any blessing he should first satisfy himself that it is one which he is duly qualified to give, either by his ordinary or delegated powers. He should next use the prescribed rite. As a rule, for the simple blessings of the Ritual, a soutane, surplice, and stole of the requisite colour will be sufficient. A clerk should be at hand to carry the Holy Water or incense if required, or to prepare a lighted candle. The blessings are ordinarily given in a church; but, if if necessary, they can be lawfully administered elsewhere according to to the exigencies of place or other circumstances or privileges, and without any sacred vestment.

PATRICK MORRISROE.

Apostolic Blessing

The solemn blessing (urbi et orbi) which, before 1870, the Holy Father himself gave from the loggias of:

St. Peter’s on Maundy Thursday and Easter;

the Lateran, on Ascension Day; and

Santa Maria Maggiore, on the feast of the Assumption of the B.V.M.

The popes very often delegated to others the power to give this blessing in answer to petitions from princes, at the close of missions, and on such occasions. This power was restricted by Clement XIII, 3 September, 1762, to patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops, who petition the Apostolic See for it; they can give the Apostolic blessing on Easter Sunday and on some other feasts. Prelates who have the use of the pontificalia and jurisdiction over a certain territory can give it only once a year. A certain formula is prescribed. The superiors of certain religious orders, especially the Franciscans, can give it twice a year in the churches of their own order; they must use a formula and ask permission of the ordinary (30 August, 1763). The faculty is occasionally granted to particular priests, regular or secular, to give the Apostolic blessing upon return from Rome, at the close of missions or retreats; in this case no solemn rite is required. The Apostolic blessing is a sacramental with which is grated a plenary indulgence (under the usual conditions), but no absolution from ecclesiastical censures. During a jubilee this blessing cannot be given. A special feature of this blessing is the Apostolic benediction in articulo mortis. This blessing is given to those who are in danger of death by priests who possess the required faculty. A formula is prescribed by Benedict XIV; to gain the indulgence it is necessary to receive the sacraments, to invoke the name of Jesus, and be resigned to the will of God. In missionary countries the bishops can subdelegate every priest to grant this indulgence (5 April, 1772). It is not suspended by a jubilee.

FREDERICK G. HOLWECK

Diocese of Blois

Blois (Diocese of), (Blesensis), coextensive with the civil department of Loir-et-Cher and a suffragan of Paris. On 1 July, 1697, Innocent XII canonically erected the Bishopric of Blois, that territory having theretofore been dependent on the Diocese of Chartres. Prior to the Revolution, the Diocese of Blois was less extensive than at present, almost the entire arrondissement of Romorantin being subject to the Bishopric of Orléans, and the Bas-Vendômois to that of Mans. The Concordat of 1802 gave Loir-et-Cher to the Diocese of Orléans, and in 1822 the Diocese of Blois was re-established. Monseigneur de Thémines, who was Bishop of Blois in 1776 and died in exile in 1829, was one of the most obstinate enemies of the Concordat. St. Solennius, Bishop of Chartres under Clovis, is a patron of Blois; his relics were preserved by a miracle.

Owing to the proximity of the monasteries of Micy and Marmoutier, Blois counts among its saints a number of monks; Lubinus, Bishop of Chartres in the sixth century; Laumerus, Abbot of Corbion in the Diocese of Chartres (d. About 590), whose body was transported to Blois, at the time of the Norman invasions, by fugitive monks, who founded in that city the Abbey of St. Laumer; St. Deodatus, the anchorite, also called St. Dié (sixth century), who assured Clovis of the victory at Vouillé (507); the solitaries Victor and Leonardus; and Aigulphus (seventh century), a native of Blois and Abbot of Lérins, who was assassinated. Peter of Blois, who came from the Abbey of St. Laumer, was conspicuous in the twelfth century for his defence of St. Thomas Becket and for encouraging devotion to the Blessed virgin. The Venerable Charles of Blois, killed in 1364 at the Battle of Auray, was the son of Guy, count of Blois. The Benedictines had several great abbeys in this diocese, one at Selles-sur-Cher, begun as early as the sixth century by the hermit, St. Eusinus, and another at Pontlevoy, now a college. The monastery of the Blessed Trinity at Vendôme, dedicated in 1040, was also quite celebrated. The Oratorians Jean Morin and Jerôme Viguier, learned ecclesiastics of the seventeenth century, were natives of Blois.

At the close of year 1905, the Diocese of Blois had a population of 275,538; 28 pastorates, 266 mission churches, and 8 curacies with subventions from the State. According to the latest statistics, the following institutions are to be found in the diocese: 48 infant schools conducted by sisters; 2 orphanages where farming is taught, conducted by the Frères de St. Francois Régis and the Soeurs du Protectorat de St. Joseph; 7 girls’ orphanages conducted by sisters; 1 house of refuge for young women, conducted by the Religieuses de Notre Dame de la Charité; 5 patronages at Blois; 1 patronage at Romorantin; 8 hospitals and hospices conducted by sisters; 5 houses of retreat conducted by sisters; 5 communities of sisters who care for the sick in their homes; and 9 homes for the aged conducted by sisters.

In 1900 the following congregations were represented in the diocese; the Capuchins at Blois and Premonstratensians at Authon. Among the local congregations are the Sisters of Our Lady of Providence, with mother-house at Blois, who have charge of orphan asylums. The most frequented place of pilgrimage is Notre Dame de Villethion at Saint Amand. Others are Notre Dame de Nanteuil at Montrichard, Notre Dame des Aydes at Blois, and Notre Dame des Blanches at Pontlevoy, a sanctuary built at the end of the tenth century by Gilduin, opponent of Foulques Nerra.

Gallia christiana (1744), VIII, 1343–1407; Instrumenta, 412—478; DUPRE, Notice sur les saints de Blois (Blois,1860); CHEVALIER, Topobibl., 421, 422.

GEORGES GOYAU

Peter Blomevenna

(PETER A LEYDIS)

Carthusian, b. at Leyden, in Holland in 1466; d. 30 September, 1536. Owing to the avarice and cruelty of his parents and relatives, his early years were spent in poverty and hardship. But he led withal a singularly pure and devoted life. Entering the Carthusian Order, he distinguished himself by his absorption in heavenly things and his zeal for the glory of God. In 1506 he was elected prior of the Carthusian monastery of cologne, a post which he held until his death, twenty-nine years later. His long term of office enabled him to do much to promote strict religious observance both in his monastery and throughout the Rhenish province, of which he had been named visitor. Besides his active work among his brethren, he found time for the composition of several treatises which have a certain value as ascetic and controversial literature. In his “Enchiridion Sacerdotum” (1532) he enlarges upon the august mystery of the Holy Eucharist. His “De Bonitate Divinâ” is a valuable work for preachers of the word of God. In 1513 he translated into the Latin tongue the Franciscan De Herp’s ascetic treatise “Directorium Aureum Contemplativorum,” adding thereto explanatory notes. He also edited several volumes of Denis the Carthusian (Dionysius of Rickel) and wrote vigourously against the then nascent Protestant heresy. Among Blomevenna’s controversial works are “Candela Evangelica” (1536); “Assertio Purgatorii” (1534); “De Auctoriate Ecclesiae” (1535; “De Vario Modo adorandi Deum, Sanctos et eorum Imagines’ (1535).

HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1899), IV, 1149.

E. J. DEVINE

Blood Indians

A group of North American aborigines forming part of the Blackfeet Tribe, which, with the Apapahoes and Cheyennes, constitute the Western division of the great Algonquin family. (See BLACKFOOT INDIANS.) The Blood Indian (Kæna) group is now subdivided into several branches, or clans, the most important of which is (1) the Ini-poyex (Standing-buffaloes), which is sub-divided into (a) Keaý-etapix (Bear people), (b) Noto-spitax (All-tall-people), (c) Mami-ahoyin (Fish-eaters), (d) Ayom-okekax (Closely-camped), (e) Akæ-pokax (Many-children), (f) Apikax (Scabby). Other clans of the group are (2) the Six-immokax (Black-elks), (3) Akæ-namax (Many-scabbed-mouths), and (4) the Tsi-sokasimix (Buffalo-coats).

The language of the Blood Indians is like that of the other two groups of the Blackfeet, with but few and unimportant peculiarities. It is called Blackfoot, and is classed as one of the branches of the Algonquin, though it possesses only a very limited number of words in common with the other branches of the same family. The aboriginal name, Kæna, might, it seems, be translated “Already-chief”; but the true meaning is in fact altogether lost, and no one, even among these people themselves, could now give a satisfactory interpretation of it. In the sign language, the gesture for Kæna is made by rapidly passing the right hand, palm downward, if front of the mouth, of which gesture the exact signification is also lost.

In the year 1882 the Bloods were supposed to number about 1800 souls; they now number not more than 1200. The former of these estimates may have been exaggerated, as it was difficult at that time to obtain statistics of mortality, but it is undoubtedly true that the numbers of these people have considerably diminished in the last twenty-five years, and that they are still, slowly, but steadily, diminishing. They used to be, as a rule, well-developed and powerful physical specimens of humanity, some of the men being over 6 feet 6 inches in height, the women generally shorter, but strong and healthy-looking. Their present physical condition, however, shows the melancholy constitutional effects of consumption and scrofula. The country over which the Bloods, with the other Blackfeet tribes, formerly roamed extended from the basin of the Missouri, on the south, northwards to the Red Deer River in the Canadian Province of Alberta, with the Rocky Mountains as its western boundary. Since 1877, when they entered into a treaty with the Canadian Government, they have been settled on the tract of land known as the Blood Reserve. This reserve, lying near the Belly buttes, which had always been a favourite resort of the tribe, is bounded on the west by the Belly River, on the north by the Belly River and the Old Man River, on the east by the St. Mary River, and on the south by the Mormon settlement of Cardston.

Like most prairie Indians, the Bloods are very proud and superstitious. In their own way they are a very religious people, religion being a part of every important act of their lives. Their religious system closely resembles that of other Algonquins, but especially of the Crees. It centres in the worship of the sun (Natos), the moon (Kokomi-kisum), some constellations, and also some minor deities-genii of the mountains, forests, and streams. The most important of their religious practices is the sun-dance (okan), an elaborate ceremonial performance which needs months of preparation and ends with a week or so of festivities, in which fasting, self-torture, and self-mutilation are joined with rejoicings and frolics of every description. This practice, although dying out, is still revived from time to time. Other superstitious dances and performances are parts of the same curious and intricate system.

While the tribe was constantly roaming from place to place in the immense territory which now forms the states of Montana and the Dakotas, and the Province of Alberta, they were but rarely and irregularly visited by Catholic missionaries, among whom were Fathers de Smet and Imoda, S. J., and Father A. Lacombe, O. M. I. After the settlement of the tribe on their reserve, however, in 1877, it became possible to establish permanent missions among them. Of the three denominations—Catholic, Anglican, and Methodist—which had established missions among the Bloods in 1881, the first and second have remained in the field. They maintain industrial and boarding schools, and have educated a number of Indian children. The progress of Christianity has been slow. Unfortunately, the example of many of the whites has not been of a nature to attract the Indians to the white man’s religion; yet there is a goodly number (about 35) of young Catholic families, mostly made up of the boys and girls educated in the Catholic schools. Besides, most of the children are baptized Catholics when young, and when these have been trained and educated the number of Catholic families will increase. There are also a few Protestant families. At the present time there are two Catholic priests on the Blood Reserve, with a neat little church, a residence, and a boarding school conducted by seven Sisters with some forty pupils. Children are also sent to the industrial school, which is established at a place about 100 miles distant from the Reserve, and is open to all the Blackfeet tribes. On the reserve there is a hospital conducted by Sisters of Charity for the exclusive benefit of the Indians, and institution which was probably unique of its kind at the time of its foundation, in 1893. Polygamy has been almost entirely eradicated, yet the bulk of the adult population—over thirty years of age, that is—are still pagans, and can be thoroughly habituated to Catholic practices only in a very limited number of cases. One most remarkable case of this kind was that of Chief Red-Crow (Mikahestow), who was converted and lived the life of a practical Catholic for several years preceding his death, which occurred in 1890.

The progress of civilization among the Bloods during the last twenty-five years may be regarded as marvellous in the extreme. At first they were trained to become farmers; but this occupation was not to their liking, and little progress was made. For the last twelve years, therefore, a new policy has been adopted which has proved to be the right one. In pursuance of this later policy, the Indians have been set to ranching and cattle-raising—a congenial occupation. Many of them now have herds of their own, and are self-supporting. Noteworthy progress has also been achieved in their dress, housing, preparation of food, treatment of wives, and, generally, in their ideas of social relations; so much so that the Blood Indian of to-day may be considered an entirely different being from his predecessor of twenty-five years ago.

EMILE J. LEGAL.

François-Louis Blosius

(DE BLOIS).

A Benedictine abbot and spiritual writer, born at Donstienne, near Liège, Flanders, 1506; died at Liessies, 1566. His parents were nobles of Hainault, his father being Sieur of Jumigny. He became page to the Archduke Clares (afterwards Emperor Charles V) but entered the Abbey of Liessies when only fourteen. Whilst still a novice he was sent to study at the University of Louvain, whence he was recalled in 1527 to become coadjutor to the Abbot, Gilles Gippus, his nomination as such being confirmed by a Bull of Pope Paul III. Three years later, in 1530, he succeeded Gippus as thirty-fourth Abbot of Liessies, and received ordination and the abbatial blessing in the same year. His first care was the cultivation in his abbey of a true monastic spirit and strict discipline, which had somewhat declined under his predecessors. He had hardly settle down to the work of reform before Flanders was immersed in war owing to its invasion by Francis I of France, which occurred in 1537. Liessies, being on the frontier, became in consequence an unsafe habitation and Blosius proposed a move to the priory of Ath, in the interior, but most of his monks, being opposed to his reform, either elected to remain at Liessies or else went to other laxer monasteries. The abbot, however, with three monks, returned to Ath and there he at once restored the primitive observance of the rule. In spite of opposition the reform gained ground and numbers increased rapidly. When a return to Liessies became possible, in 1545, the reform was accepted by those that had remained there and was confirmed by a Bull of Pope Paul III. Blosius next began a restoration and enlargement of the abbey buildings, which were only completed after his death. In 1556 Charles V offered him the Archbishopric of Cambrai and the abbacy of Tournai, both of which he refused in order that he might remain at Liessies. In personal character he was distinguished for his gentleness, his generosity to the poor, his love of chastity, and his devotion to the Mother of God. He was a diligent student, especially of the Scriptures, the works of the Fathers, and the mystical writers of the fourteenth century. His own writings were numerous, the chief being “Speculum Monachorum,” written in Latin, translated into French 1726, and into English 1872 (Mirror for Monks, by Sir John Coleridge), “Entretiens spirituels,” and “Instructions spirituelles et pensées consolantes.” His complete works were first published at Louvain in 1568 and have been many times reprinted and translated. Of English editions, besides “Mirror for Monks,” there are “A Book of Spiritual Instruction” (London, 1900) and “Comfort for the Faint-hearted” (London, 1902), both translated by Father Bertrand Wilberforce, O.P.

Acta SS., I, 430; ZIEGELBAUER, Hist. Lit., O.S.B. (Augsburg, 1745), I, 100–482; HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1892), I, 43; De Blois, A Benedictine of the Sixteenth Century, tr. LOVAT (London, 1878).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Heinrich Blyssen

Born at Cologne or Bonn, Germany in 1526; died at Graz, 24 April, 1586. He entered the Society of Jesus, and St. Ignatius, appreciating his logic and knowledge of theology, sent him with eleven other Jesuits to Bohemia to combat heresy there, and to sustain a public discussion with the disciples of Luther and Hus. Though only twenty-five years of age, he acquitted himself with honor, and in 1556 he became professor of theology and Hebrew at the Jesuit college at Prague. Still maintaining his controversy with the heretics of Bohemia, he published a collection of theses: “De ciborum delectu atque jejunio” (Prague 1559). To continue the work of public lectures which he began, he gave a Sunday course of polemics to the clergy and laity. Appointed rector of the college at Prague in 1561, he was transferred in 1570 to the college at Graz, where he vigorously continued his lectures on theology. Attacked by Jacob Heerbrand on his doctrine concerning the Church, he published a defense of his thesis: “Defensio assertionum theologicarum de verâ et sacrosanctâ Christi, quam habet in terris, Ecclesiâ militante (Ingolstadt, 1577). His last and principal work, “De uno geminoque sacrae eucharistiae synaxeos salubriter percipiendae ritu ac usu” was published (Ingolstadt, 1585) when he was provincial of Austria.

Orlandini, Hist. Soc. Jesu (Rome, 1614), XII, 283; XVI, 396; Socher, Historia prov. Austr. Soc. Jesu (Vienna), VIII, 320; Schmidt, Historia Soc. Jesu prov. Bohemiae (Prague, 1747), I, 536; Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J. (1550), I.

M. DE MOREIRA

Francis Blyth

English Carmelite, reviser of the Douay Bible, born c. 1705; d. in London, 11 December 1772. Though born of Protestant parents, be joined the Catholic Church while yet a youth, and entered the Carmelite novitiate at Modena in 1723, taking the name Simon Stock of the Blessed Trinity. Having obtained a dispensation from irregularity on account of a defect in vision, he proceeded to Malta for a course of studies, and after ordination returned to England, in November, 1730, where he first served a mission in Wiltshire. In 1741 he became assistant chaplain, and in 1756 chaplain-major to the Portuguese embassy in London, where he remained until his death. From 1742 till 1755, he also was Vicar Provincial of the English Carmelites. While in London, he assumed the name of Courtney. The chapels of the various embassies being recognized as places of worship for Catholics, the chaplains held a position not unlike that of parish priests, and Father Blyth distinguished himself by his eloquent and zealous preaching. The first ambassador under whom Father Blyth served was Dom Sebastiâo-José de Carvalho e Mello, afterwards Marquez de Pombal (1739–45), whom he was, at a later period accused of having aided in high-handed proceedings against the Jesuits. He indignantly protested against the calumny. Blyth was buried in the cemetery of St. Pancras, London, and, being a man of great literary attainments and author of many works, a memorial was raised there in his honour. His chief labour was the revision, in conjunction with Bishop Challoner, of the so-called Douay Bible; while adhering closely to the text of the Vulgate, the revisers sacrificed the energetic language of the older translators for a much weaker one which frequently lacks dignity. His other works comprise expositions of the Penitential Psalms and other portions of Holy Scripture, sermons, and controversial writing.

The Rheims Testament, with Annotations (London, 1738); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 252; ZIMMERMAN, Carmel in England (London, 1899), 373.

B. ZIMMERMAN.

Nicolas Bobadilla

Born at Valencia, Spain, 1511; died at Loretto, Italy, 23 September, 1590. After having taught philosophy in his native country, he went to Paris to acquire a more perfect knowledge of Greek and Latin. Here he met Ignatius of Loyola, joined him in his plans, and was among the first seven followers of the saint to consecrate themselves to God in the Society of Jesus at Montmartre, 15 August, 1534. Hereafter, Bobadilla’s career was a very active one, as a most zealous worker in the cause of the Catholic Faith. While serving the sick in the camp of the army of Charles V about Ratisbon, he himself caught the plague. Here, too, about this time, 1546, as he was returning from the camp into the city, he was waylaid by assassins and severely wounded. At another time he barely escaped with his life from an attempt to poison him.

By order of the Sovereign Pontiff Paul III, Bobadilla took a prominent part in the Diets of Nuremburg, 1543, and of Speyer, 1543, as well as in that of Ratisbon, 1546. Shortly after this an incident occurred which forced him to leave Germany. In 1548, the “Interim” of Augsburg was published by the Emperor, Charles V. It was a tentative document intended to suggest a basis of agreement between Catholics and Protestants until their religious differences could be definitely settled. But as it seemed to the eyes of many Catholics to go to far, and in the eyes of many Protestants not far enough, it satisfied neither party. Bobadilla opposed it in speech and in writing, and so vigorously, that though he was highly esteemed in the imperial court, he was obliged, by the Emperor’s order, to retire from Germany. He was a most popular preacher, as evidenced by the fact that he delivered sermons in seventy-seven archbishoprics and bishoprics in Italy, Germany, and Dalmatia.

The writings of Bobadilla cover a wide range of topics. Among them are commentaries on some chapters of Genesis and other portions of the Old and New Testaments; annotations on the Gospels; treatises on predestination, the sacraments and their use, against the Lutherans; cases of conscience; a defense of the Council of Trent against Melanchthon and Calvin, etc. The last survivor of the seven first companions of Ignatius of Loyola, Bobadilla took part in the election of four generals of the Society of Jesus.

BOERO, Vita del servo di Dio P. Nicola Bobadilla, della c. di G. (Florence, 1879); SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c. de J., I, 1553; ORLANDINI, Hist. Soc. Jesu, I, 81, 135, 170.

JOSEPH M. WOODS

Abbey and Diocese of Bobbio

The diocese (Ebovium, or Bobium; Diœcesis Eboviensis, or Bobiensis), which is suffragan to the Archiepiscopal See of Genoa, is coterminous with the civil district of Bobbio. This district is situated in the Province of Pavia and contains, besides Bobbio, its chief town, only two small villages and eighteen communes. The diocese was suppressed from 1803 to 1817, during which time it was annexed to Alexandria, then to Casala. Pius VII re-established it in 1818. The population, entirely Catholic, is (1907) about 30,000. There are 52 parishes and 105 churches or chapels, served by 80 secular priests. The cathedral chapter consists of a provost, archpriest, and ten canons. In the diocesan seminary there are at present 40 students. Under Bishop Gianelli a congregation of priests was formed in 1839 under the title of Oblates of St. Alphonsus Liguori. They devote themselves especially to hearing confessions in prisons and hospitals, as well as to spreading good literature among the people. Bobbio also possesses a Congregation of Daughters of Mary, popularly known as Gianelliane.

HISTORY.—The origin of the See of Bobbio, indeed of the town itself, is due to the establishment of a monastery here by the Irish saint, Columban, in 614. The Lombards, with other savage tribes, had invaded northern Italy under their leader Alboin in 568. A half-Arian, half-heathen horde, wherever they passed all the horrors of wanton destruction and cruelty marked their track. But at length the new barbarian ruler Agilulph, became less hostile and by degrees even not unfavorably disposed towards the Catholic Faith. Queen Theodelinda, whom he married in 590, was a fervent Catholic; she had wonderful influence over her consort, and at last he was converted by the preaching of Columban. From the day of his baptism, Agilulph displayed great zeal for the conversion of his subjects, and for this purpose gave St. Columban a ruined church and devastated district known as Ebovium, which, before the Lombards seized it, had formed part of the Patrimony of St. Peter. Columban had set his heart on this secluded place, for while intent on instructing the Lombards he chose solitude for his monks and himself. By the side of this little church, which was dedicated to St. Peter, soon arose the walls of an abbey. Here the nucleus of what was to be the most celebrated library in Italy was formed by the MSS. which Columban had brought from Ireland and the treatises of which he himself was the author.

The sainted founder of Bobbio was laid to rest (23 November, 615), but his crosier passed into worthy hands. The names of St. Attala (627) and St. Bertulf (640) will live forever in ecclesiastical history. Both were conspicuous for holiness and learning, and both inherited Columban s apostolic spirit. It was indeed sorely needed, for a reaction towards Arianism set in, which became formidable under the Arian king, Rotharis (636–652). Arioald, the immediate predecessor of Rotharis, who became a Catholic, had before his conversion caused St. Bladulf, a monk of Bobbio, to be assassinated, because Bladulf would not salute him, as being an Arian. It is said that Attala restored Bladulf to life and delivered Arioald from a diabolical possession, the punishment of his crime; and that this two-fold miracle led to Arioald’s conversion. In 628, when St. Bertulf made a pilgrimage to Rome, Honorius I exempted Bobbio from episcopal jurisdiction, thus making the abbey immediately subject to the Holy See. Under the next abbot, Bobolen, the rule of St. Benedict was introduced. At first its observance was optional, but in e course of time it superseded the more austere rule hitherto in use, and Bobbio joined the Congregation of Monte Cassino. In 643, at the request of Rotharis and Queen Gundelberga, Pope Theodore I granted to the Abbot of Bobbio the use of the mitre and other pontificals. It has even been asserted that Bobbio had a bishop, named Peter Aldus, as early as the seventh century, but according to the best authorities (Ughelli, Gams, and others), the See of Bobbio was not founded till four centuries later, although recent investigation has shown that the name of its first bishop really was Peter Aldus (Savio, 158).

From the seventh century on, in the midst of widespread turmoil and ignorance, Bobbio remained a home of piety and culture. Through the efforts of St. Columban’s disciples, increasing numbers of the Lombards were received into the Church. But during the first half of the seventh century, the large tract of country lying between Turin and Verona, Genoa and Milan, was m a very irreligious and disturbed state; and even idolatry was not unknown. In fact not until the reign of the usurper Grimoald (663–673), himself a convert, was the bulk of the nation brought into the Church. But from that time Arianism disappeared in the West. The historians of the abbey regard as one of its chief glories the prominent part which it took in the final contest with this heresy. Theodelinda’s nephew, the pious Arribert (653—663), restored all the lands of Bobbio which belonged by right to the Prince of the Apostles. Arribert II also gladly confirmed this restitution to John VII in 707. The unruly Lombards soon dispossessed the pope, but in 756 Aistulf was compelled by Pepin to give up the lands. In 774 Charlemagne made liberal grants to the Abbey. In 1153 Frederick Barbarossa confirmed by two charters various rights and possessions. Thus it came to pass that the abbots were for centuries entrusted with a large administration of temporals.

The fame of Bobbio reached the shores of Ireland, and the memory of Columban was dear to the hearts of his countrymen. Bobolen’s successor was St. Comgall who had resigned his see in Ireland in order to become a monk of Bobbio; St. Cummian who did the same died in the abbey about 730 (Holder-Egger in “Mon. Germ. Hist.”); and the learned St. Dungal (d. after 827) bequeathed to the abbey his valuable library, consisting of some seventy volumes, among which was the famous “Antiphonary of Bangor “. A tenth-century catalogue, published by Muratori, shows that at that period every branch of knowledge, divine and human, was represented in this library. Many of the books have been lost, the rest have long since been dispersed and are still reckoned among the chief treasures of the later collections which possess them. In 1616 Cardinal Federigo Borromeo took for the Ambrosian Library of Milan eighty-six volumes, including the famous “Bobbio Missal,” written about 911, the Antiphonary of Bangor,” and the palimpsests of Ulfila’s Gothic version of the Bible. Twenty-six volumes were given, in 1618, to Paul V for the Vatican Library. Many others were sent to Turin, where, besides those in the Royal Archives, there were seventy-one in the University Library until the disastrous fire of 26 January, 1904. As scholars of later ages have owed a great deal to the Bobbio MSS., so, too, did those of the tenth century. Gerard of Aurillac, for example, who was afterwards Pope Sylvester II, became Abbot of Bobbio in 982; and with the aid of the numerous ancient treatises which he found there he composed his celebrated work on geometry. And indeed it appears that at a time when Greek was almost unknown in western Europe, the Irish monks of Bobbio read Aristotle and Demosthenes in the original tongue.

In the year 1014, the Emperor Henry II, on the occasion of his own coronation in Rome, obtained from Benedict VIII the erection of Bobbio as a see. Peter Aldus, its first bishop, had been Abbot of Bobbio since 999, and his episcopal successors for a long time lived in the abbey, where many of them had been monks. According to Ughelli and others, Bobbio was made a suffragan see of Genoa in 1133; but Savio finds this subordination mentioned for the first time in a Bull of Alexander III, dated 19 April, 1161. From time to time disputes arose between the bishop and the monks, and in 1199 Innocent III issued two Bulls, restoring the abbey in spirituals and temporals, and empowering the bishop to depose an abbot if within a certain time he did not obey.

Bobbio’s greatest bishops have been (1) Blessed Albert (1184), who was translated to the Patriarchal See of Jerusalem and died a martyr at Acre in 1214; (2) the learned canonist Giovanni de Mondani (1477–82), whose remains were found incorrupt in 1614; and (3) Venerable Antonio Gianelli (1838–46), whose cause has been introduced. St. Columban’s abbey and church were taken from the Benedictines by the French soldiers in 1803; what remains of the abbey is now used as a municipal school, and the church, where the relics of Sts. Columban, Attala, Bertulf, Cummian, and others repose, is now a parish church, served by secular priests. The altars and the sarcophagi in the crypt present beautiful specimens of the interlaced ornamentation which is characteristic of Irish art. In the Cathedral of Bobbio there is a beautiful tabernacle in the Ravenna style.

WARNEFRIED, De gestis Longobardorum in Mon. Germ. Hist. (Hanover, 1878), III; MIGNE, P.L., LXXVII, CLXXIX, CCXIV; JAFFÉ-EWALD, Regesta Rom. Pont. (Leipzig, 1885, 1886); POTTHAST, Regesta Rom. Pont. (Berlin, 1872); ID., Bibliotheca Hist. medii œvii (2d ed. Berlin, 1896); PRESSUTI, Regesta Honorii III (Rome, 1888–95); DUCHESNE, Liber Pontificalis (Paris, 1892), II; UGHELLI-COLETI, Italia Sacra (Venice), IV; MABILLON, Acta Sanctorum Ord. S. Ben. (2d ed., Venice, 1733), I; MURATORI, Antiquitates Italiœ (Milan, 1740), III; BELLESHEIM, Geschichte der katholischen Kirche in Irland (Mainz, 1890), I; GUÉRIN, Les petits Bollandistes (Paris, 1882—); MORAN, Essays on the Early Irish Church (Dublin, 1864); O’HANLON, Lives of Irish Saints (Dubli, 1875–1906); MARTIN, Saint Columban in Les Saints (Paris, 1905); ROSETTI (an Abbot of Bobbio), Bobbio Illustrato (1795); AMATI, Dixionario Corografio d’Italia (Milan, 1862); Corografia d’Italia (Milan, s. d.); HEALY, Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1890); STOKES, Six Months in the Apennines (Dublin, 1892); Historia Patriœ Monumenta (Turin, 1836–84); PEYRON, Prœfatio De Bibliothecâ Bobbiensi; M.T. Cic. Fragm., (Turin, 1824); VON GEBHARD, Ein Bücherfund in Bibbio; SEEBASS, Handschriften von Bobbio respectively in V and XIII of Centralblatt f. Bibliothekenwesen (Leipzig, 1888–96); OTTINO, 1codici Bobbieri (Turin, 1890; a facsimile edition from copies of the Turin MSS. is appearing at Milan since 1906); WERNER, Gerbert von Aurillac (Vienna, 1881); HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden u. Kongregationen der kath. Kirche (Paderborn, 1896, 1897); GAMS, Series episcoporum Ecclesias catholicœ (Ratisbon, 1873–88); EUBEL, Hierarchia Catholica medii œvi (Münster, 1898), I; SAVIO, Gli antichi vescovi d’Italia; Piemonte (Turin, 1899), I, 158–174.

REGINALD WALSH.

Boccaccino

BOCCACCIO BOCCACCINO

An eminent Italian painter, b. at Cremona, 1460, and d. probably in 1525 rather than in 1518, the date usually given. He studied, it is thought, with followers of Mantegna, at Ferrara, and was a pupil or fellow-student of Domenico Panetti. At Cremona he painted in Sant’ Agostino a series of frescoes. He had as an assistant Benvenuto Garofalo, who left him and went to Rome. The master followed and painted a “Coronation of the Virgin” in Santa Maria in Trastevere. This, however, was so ridiculed by the public, which had expected much of one who had had the hardihood to criticize Michael Angelo, that the disappointed artist returned to Cremona where, among his most appreciated works, is a ffrieze in the cathedral, showing the “Birth of the Virgin” and other subjects from the life of Our Lady. Lanzi who considered Boccaccino as the best modern among the ancients and the best ancient among the moderns, compares his work in these productions with that of Perugino, treating it as inferior in some qualities while superior in others.

The works of Boccaccino possess much charm, and a number of them greatly resemble those of Perugino. This is notably so in the ‘Marriage of the Virgin” and “The Madonna with St. Vincent and St. Anthony” in the church of San Vincenzo at Cremona, which have often been assumed to be the work of the greater paint er. Among Boccaccino’s works in the cathedral at Cremona, in addition to those already spoken of, are: “The Appearance of Angel to Joachim”; “The Meeting of Joachim and Anna”; “The Circumcision”; “Christ Reasoning with the Doctors”; and “Christ with the four Patron Saints of Cremona.” At the Academy in Venice is his much admired “Marriage of St. Catherine” and “Virgin and Child in a Landscape,” and in the church of San Giuliano, in the same city, is his “Virgin and Child with four Saints.” The Louvre possesses a “Holy Family”; the London National Gallery a “Procession to Calvary,” formerly in a Cremona church; and the Ferrara Pinacoteca a “Death of the Virgin.” Light grey eyes outlined with a dark rim are characteristic of the pictures of Boccaccino.

Camillo Boccaccino

A short-lived but brilliant painter, b. at Cremona, 1511; d. 1546. He was the son and pupil of Boccaccio Boccaccino, whom he surpassed, taking care, it is pointed out, to avoid the errors into which his father’s self -esteem had led him. He early showed both originality and strength, and his work has been considered to approach that of Correggio, notably his “Four Evangelists” in the niches of the cupola of San Sigismondo near Cremona, which are thoroughly in the correggio style and were painted when the artist was only twenty-six. Camillo Boccaccino is thought by Lanzi to be the greatest artist of the Cremonese school. Two of his works at Cremona are “The Raising of Lazarus” and the “Adultress before Christ,” surrounded by friezes showing many angels.

CHAMPLIN AND PERKINS, Cyclopedia of Painters and Painting (New York, 1886–88); BRYAN, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers (London and New York, 1903–05).

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Giovanni Boccaccio

Italian novelist, b. in Paris, 1313; d. in Certaldo, 21 December, 1375. His father, a merchant from Certaldo and a man of some prominence in Florence, had gone into business in Paris. Shortly afterwards the elder Boccaccio deserted Giannina, the mother of Giovanni, and brought the boy to Florence where he put him to school until he was ten years old, when he took him into business. In 1327 Giovanni was sent to Naples to study law. But he gave himself up almost entirely to literature, and became intimately acquainted with some of the most prominent men and women of the court of Anjou. It is supposed that it was in 1334 that he saw for the first time Maria d’Acquino, a married woman and natural daughter of King Robert. She was the inspiration of his earlier works, and the heroine of whom he tells under the name of Fiammetta. In 1340 we find him back in Florence; on the death of his father in 1348, he became the guardian of a younger brother. He held certain public offices in Florence and was entrusted with diplomatic missions to Padua, the Romagna, Avignon, and elsewhere. After 1350 began his friendship with Petrarch, which lasted until the latter’s death in 1374. In spite of his advanced age and the political dissensions in Florence which afflicted him sorely, he began, in 1373, his course of lectures in that city on the poems of Dante. He died two years later at his ancestral home in Certaldo.

The earliest, longest, and perhaps the weakest of Boccaccio’s works is the “Filocolo,” written between 1338 and 1340; it is a version of the story, widespread in the Middle Ages, of Floire and Blanchefleur, and contains a curious admixture of pagan myths and Christian legends. The “Ameto,” written in the two following years, is an allegorical novel, telling, among other love-adventures, the sad story of the life of Boccaccio’s mother. The “Amorosa Visione,” in praise of love, dates from about the year 1342, and consists of fifty cantos in terzine, and the initial letters of the verses form an acrostic of two sonnets and one ballata. The “Teseide,” probably of the year 1341, is the first artistic work in ottava rima. It contains many imitations of antiquity, and was widely read up to the sixteenth century. Tasso thought so highly of it that he annotated it. The subject is the story of Palemon and Arcite which Chaucer used for his “Knight’s Tale.”

The “Filostrato,” written in the same year and likewise in ottava rima, tells of the love of Troilus for Chryseis. The subject may have been suggested to Boccaccio by his adventure with Fiammetta. The “Ninfale Fiesolano,” a short poem in ottava rima, is the best, in style and invention, of the minor works of Boccaccio. The “Fiammetta” is one of the best written of his works, the most original and the most personal. Panfilo, the hero and lover of Fiammetta, is supposed to represent Boccaccio himself. The “Corbaccio” (1354) has had its admirers, but it is one of the most bitter and indecent satires ever written against woman. The “Vita di Dante” (about 1364), based chiefly on information furnished by contemporaries of Dante, remains one of the best lives of the poet. The “Commento sopra la Commedia,” the fruit of his public lectures on Dante, was planned to be a colossal work, but Boccaccio had commented only upon the first seventeen cantos when it was broken off by his death.

Boccaccio shares with Petrarch the honor of being the earliest humanist. In their time there were not a dozen men in Italy who could read the works of the Greek authors in the original. Boccaccio had to support at his house for three years a teacher of Greek, with whom he read the poems of Homer. Of Boccaccio’s Latin works the following are to be mentioned: “De genealogiis deorum gentilium” (between 1350 and 1360), but published first in 1373. This dictionary of classical mythology shows remarkably wide reading and a very good understanding of the works of the ancients and, in spite of errors which it could not but contain, it continued for several hundred years to be an authority for the student of classical antiquity. Two biographical works: “De claris mulieribus” and “De casibus virorum illustrium” (between 1357 and 1363) are of little interest, since they tell of men and women of ancient times and but rarely of the author’s contemporaries. There remain the Latin letters and eclogues, which are not of much worth, and eight or ten unimportant works which have been ascribed to Boccaccio.

The book with which Boccaccio’s name is inseparably linked is the “Decameron,” which was finished in 1353, but part of which had probably been written before the “Black Death” reached its height in 1348. The “Decameron” opens with a masterly description of the terrors of the pest, and we are then introduced to a gay company of seven ladies and three young men who have come together at a villa outside Naples to while away the time and to escape the epidemic. Each in turn presides for a day over the company and on each of the ten days each of the company tells a story, so that at the end one hundred stories have been told. It is difficult to say whether such a company as Boccaccio describes ever met. At all events, he says that he has taken pains to conceal the real names of the persons mentioned in the stories. There are reasons to believe, however, that Fiammetta is the same lady to whom Boccaccio has given that name in other works, while Dioneo may well represent Boccaccio himself.

The great charm of the “Decameron” lies in the wonderful richness and variety of the adventures which he relates, in the many types of character and the close analysis of all shades of feeling and passion, from the basest to the noblest. The style is now Ciceronian, now that of the everyday speech of Florence. The sentence-structure is, to be sure, often involved and inverted, and it often requires several readings to enjoy a full understanding of the phrase. Boccaccio found the germs of his novelle in other literatures, in historic events, and in tradition, but, like Shakespeare, whatever he borrowed he made his own and living, by placing the adventures in the lives of his contemporaries. The indecency which is the greatest blot on the “Decameron,” but to which it undoubtedly owes not a little of its celebrity, is no greater than is to be found elsewhere in medieval literature, and is due as much to the time and the circle in which the work was written as to the temperament of the author. He himself in his later years expressed deep repentance for the too free works of his youth; moreover, his jibes and anecdotes at the expense of clerics did not impair his belief in the teachings of the Church. Boccaccio’s character was by no means a despicable one. He was a steadfast friend, a son who felt tenderly for his mother and never forgave his father for having abandoned her. He speaks with affection of his daughters who had died in childhood; it is not known who their mother was. He was a scholar of the first rank for his time, a man of independent character, and a good patriot.

No autograph copy of the “Decameron” exists, but there are three manuscript copies dating from the fourteenth century. The first edition was not printed until 1470 in Venice, and since then numerous editions have appeared, but there is as yet no critical edition. Of the modern editions P. Fanfani’s is convenient (2 vols., reprinted Florence, 1890). An excellent school edition of selected novelle with notes is that of R. Fornaciari (Florence, 1890). The “Decameron” has been translated into nearly every European tongue; the first complete English edition dates from 1620.

The best edition of the Italian works of BOCCACCIO is MOUTIER, Opere volgari di Giovanni Boccaccio corrette su i testi a penna (Florence, 1827–34). For sources of the Decameron, LANDAU, Die Quellen des Dekameron (Stuttgart, 1884); for BOCCACCIO’S life and works in general, LANDAU, Giovanni Boccaccio, sein Leben u. seine Werke (Stuttgart, 1877); CRESCINI, Contributo agli studi sul Bocc. (Turin, 1887); see also FERRARI, Bibliografia Boccaccesca (Florence, 1888).

JOSEPH DUNN

Placidus Böcken

(BÖCKHN).

A German Benedictine, canonist, and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Salzburg, b. at Munich, in Bavaria, 13 July 1690, d. at Salzburg, 9 February, 1752. He entered the Order of St. Benedict at an early age, made his religious profession at the Abbey of St. Peter, Salzburg, in 1706, and was ordained to the priesthood in 1713. Having been made a Doctor of Canon and Civil Law (1715), he was sent to Rome and on his return was chosen, in 1721, to succeed the noted canonist Benedict Schmier, as professor of canon law at the Benedictine University of Salzburg, where he remained for a period of twenty years. He proved himself a brilliant jurist, and an exceptionally gifted teacher. In 1729 he was appointed vice-chancellor of the university. He was also attached to the theological faculties of Salzburg and Fulda, was secretary of the university, and a valued ecclesiastical councillor of four successive archbishops in the See of Salzburg and of the Prince-Abbot of Fulda. Eventually he appears to have incurred the displeasure of Archbishop Leopold of Salzburg, and in consequence of repeated friction resigned his position in 1741. He was then made pastor of Dornbach, a suburb of Vienna, and, two years later, superior of Maria-Plain near Salzburg, where he spent the last nine years of his life as confessor to the many pilgrims frequenting that famous shrine.

The “Commentarius in Jus Canonicum universum” which Bocken published at Salzburg (1735–39), and dedicated to his friend and patron the Prince-Abbot of Fulda, is his most important work. He had previously (1722–28) issued a number of separate treatises on the five books of the Decretals, all written with great learning and care; these, now thoroughly revised and supplemented, were incorporated in his larger work, to the third volume of which, in an appendix, he also added a lengthy disquisition “De praescriptionibus.” A reprint of the “Commentarius” appeared at Paris in 1776. Bocken’s work like that of the Salzburg canonists generally, is one of definite value. Bocken held rather extreme views on the subject of the veneration due the saints. He maintained that the special veneration and invocation of the saints, particularly of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is absolutely necessary for salvation. A sermon which he preached on this subject in 1740 precipitated an acrid discussion at the university between the members of the “Old School” and the “New School” of theology, between the Sycophantae and the Illuminati as they were called. The sermon appeared also in print, with annotations wherein Bocken characterized as erroneous the contrary opinion of Muratori.

Chronicon noviss. monasterii S. Petri, 674–677; SATTLER, Kollectaneenblatter (1890), 337 sqq.; SEDELMAYER, Hist. Univ. Salisburg., 405; ZIEGELBAUER, Hist. rei lit. O.S.B. (Augsburg, 1754), III, 484, 485.

THOMAS OESTREICH

Edward Bocking

(or BOKKYNG).

English Benedictine, b. of East Anglian parentage, end of fifteenth century; d. 20 April, 1534. He graduated B.D. at Oxford, in 1513, and D.D. in 1518, was for some time Warden of Canterbury College there, and became a monk at Canterbury 1526. When Elizabeth Barton, “The Holy Maid of Kent,” commenced her alleged Divine revelations, Bocking, with another monk, was sent to examine and report upon their authenticity, and he is said to have induced her to declare herself an inspired emissary for the overthrow of Protestantism and the prevention of the divorce of Queen Catherine. To further this scheme he had her removed to the Convent of St. Sepulchre at Canterbury. There is little doubt that he was her chief instigator in the continuance of her career of deception. His share in the affair, though it cannot be excused, must be ascribed to a mistaken zeal for the preservation of the ancient Faith. After the divorce of Queen Catherine and Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn in 1533, Cromwell had Elizabeth Barton arrested, together with Bocking and others. Bocking confessed the imposture and, with his accomplices, did public penance at Paul’s Cross. He and six others were hanged at Tyburn.

Documents from Cottonian MSS. in WRIGHT, Suppression of the Monasteries (London, 1843), 13 34; GAIRDNER, Letters and Papers of Henry Vlll for 1533–34 (London, 1882–83); SANDER, ed. LEWIS, Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism (London, 1877), III; BURNET, ed. POCOCK, Hist, of the Reformation (Oxford, 1865), I; STRYPE, Memorials (Oxford, 1882), I, i, 271; GASQUET, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries (London, 1899), I, iv; STEPHENS AND HUNT, History of the English Church (London, 1902), IV, 144.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Ven. John Bodey

Martyr, b. at Wells, Somerset: 1549; d. at Andover, Wilts., 2 November, 1583. He studied at Winchester and New College, Oxford, of which he became a Fellow in 1568. In June, 1576, he was deprived, with seven other Fellows, by the Visitor, Horne, Protestant Bishop of Winchester. Next year he went to Douay College to study civil law, returned to England in February, 1578, and probably married. Arrested in 1580, he was kept in iron shackles in Winchester gaol, and was condemned in April, 1583, together with John Slade, a schoolmaster, for maintaining the old religion and denying the Royal Supremacy. There was apparently a feeling that this sentence was unjust and illegal, and they were actually tried and condemned apin at Andover, 19 August, 1583, on the same indictment. Bodey had a controversy with Humphreys, Dean of Winchester, on the Nicene Council, and the martyr’s notes from Eusebius still exist. After his second trial, he wrote from prison to Dr. Humphrey Ely, “We consider that iron for this cause borne on earth shall surmount gold and, precious stones in Heaven. That is our mark, that is our desire. In the mean season we are threatened daily, and do look still when the hurdle shall be brought to the door. I beseech you, for God’s sake, that we want not the good prayers of you all for our strength, our joy, and our perseverance unto the end. . . . From our school of patience the 16th September, 1583.”

At his martyrdom, Bodey kissed the halter, saying, “O blessed chain, the sweetest chain and richest that ever came about any man’s neck,” and when told he died for treason, exclaimed, “You may make the hearing of a blessed Mass treason, or the saying of an Ave Maria treason . . . but I have committed no treason, although, indeed, I suffer the punishment due to treason.” He exhorted the people to obey Queen Elizabeth and died saying, “Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus.” His mother made a great feast upon the occasion of her son’s happy death, to which she invited her neighbours, rejoicing at his death as his marriage by which his soul was happily and eternally espoused to the Lamb.

Account of the trial and execution of John Slade, schoolmaster, and John Body, M.A., by R. B. (London, 1583); Challoner, Memoirs; Sanders, Anglican Schism, ed. Lewis (London, 1877); Pollen, Acts of English Martyrs (London, 1891); Wainewright, Two English Martyrs: Body and Munden (London, Cath. Truth Soc.); Knox, Douay Diaries (London, 1878); Allen, A true, sincere, and modest defence of English Catholiques (Reims, 1584).

BEDE CAMM.

Jean Bodin

Born at Angers, 1520, probably of Jewish origin: died at Laon, 1596. He studied and taught law at Toulouse, where in 1559 he pronounced his “Oratio de instituenda in republica juventute,” on the public instruction of youth. At the age of forty he went to Paris, his name being still obscure. By his “Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem” (1566) he laid the foundation of the philosophy of history, and set forth his theory of the effect of climate on society and government, likewise his theory of progress, both of which were later expanded in “La Republique.” In his “Réponse aux paradoxes de M. de Malestroit, touchant le fait des monnaies et l’eneherissement de toutes choses” (1568), he developed his thesis on the necessity of free trade. The “République” in six books (French, 1577; Latin, 1586) was written to defend the principle of authority and to describe the ideal commonwealth. Bodin represents a reaction against Machiavelli in the field of moral and political science. Unlike Cujas and the “Romanist” jurisconsults, who confined themselves to the observation of Greek and Roman antiquity, he drew upon the modern history of Germany, England, Spain, and Italy. His theory of the influence of climates foreshadows that of Montesquieu. Bodin collects carefully numerous small facts, definite and concrete information; daily experience and the observation of current events are the sources of his almost “scientific” researches concerning the laws of political life. It is somewhat surprising to note that as early as 1580 this thoughtful writer wrote a work (La Démonomanie des Sorciers) to demonstrate the existence of sorcerers and the legality of their condemnation, on the basis of “experience” and respect for res judicatae or the reliability of the courts. This belief in witchcraft rests on the same arguments as his theory of civil government.

In 1576 this somewhat puzzling man was chosen a deputy of the Third Estate (tiers état) to the States-General of Blois where he championed the cause of the Reformers, thereby incurring the royal displeasure. Fourteen years later (1590) as Attorney-General at Laon, he sided with the “Ligue,” persuaded the citizens to do likewise, and finally went over to Henry IV. This superstitious believer in sorcery left in manuscript a work known as “Colloquium Heptaplomeres” which propounds a certain rationalistic spiritualism. Though a civil magistrate and a partisan of the Ligue, his writings exhibit him as one of the earliest advocates of the theory of religious toleration. Brunetiere assigns Bodin a place in French literature beside Henri Estienne and Amyot; at a time when men looked to antiquity for guidance only in the domain of good taste, all three showed that from the same source could be drawn lessons in history, politics, and morality

Though Bodin never abandoned the Catholic religion, and was buried in the Franciscan Church at Laon, his writings often betray an un-Catholic temper, when they are not more or less openly hostile to the existing ecclesiastical order. In religion he inclines to an abstract theism. In keeping with the Gallican legists of France he champions the absolute supremacy of the State, though he bases it on the Divine will and the natural law; his ideal prince is not an impious and unjust ruler of the Machiavelli type. All the works of Bodin were placed on the Index in 1628; the edition of 1900 continues the prohibition of his “Universae naturae theatrum.” Catholic theologians’ like Possevin have noted and refuted in the “République” certain errors and anti-Christian subtleties. “To judge by his writings,” says Toussaint (Dict. de théol. cath., II, 918), “he was a bizarre, inconstant, and superficial” man.

BAUDRILLART, Jean Bodin et son temps (Paris), 1853); FRANCK, Reformateurs et publicistes de l’Europe (Paris, 1864); JANET, Histoire de la science politique (Paris, 1887); BRUNETIERE, Trois artisans de l’ideal classique in Revue des deux mondes (1 March, 1907); GRAMICH-WEINARD in Staatslexikon ) 2d ed., Freiburg, 1901), I, 946–952.

GEORGES GOYAU

Bodone

A titular see of Albania. The name is a dialectic form of Dodone, in Epirus, near Janina at the foot of Mount Tomaros, or Tmaros, the present Olitsika (C. Carapanos, Dodone et ses ruines, Paris, 1878). At an early date a Christian church was built here on the site of the temple of Zeus. Theodorus, a Bishop of Dodona, was present at Ephesus, in 431; Philotheus appeared at Chalcedon in 451; Uranius, in 458, signed the letter of the bishops of Epirus Vetus to Emperor Leo; Philippus in 516 subscribed a synodal report of the bishops of Epirus to Pope Hormisdas concerning the election of John to the See of Nicopolis, the metropolis of the province (Hierocles, Synecdemos, 651, 5). When Naupactus was substituted for Nicopolis about the end of the tenth century, Dodona was the first suffragan see; the “Nova Tactica” (Georgius Cyprius ed. Gelzer, 1661) has Mounditza, but this is an evident mistake for Bounditza, a form derived from Bodone (Parthey, Notit. episcop., App. 48). In fact the later “Notitiae” wrote only Bounditza (ibid., III, 524), or Bonditza (ibid., X, 616; XIII, 467). John, Bishop of Bonditza signed a synodal act in 1229 (P.G., CXIX, 797). The present name is Bonitza. When the Greek residential bishopric disappeared is unknown; the Roman curia used for a long time the forms Bodona and Bodonensis, and a decree of 1894 directed this see to be suppressed at the death of its titular.

LEQUIEN, Or. Christ., 1, 139; GAMS, Series episcop., 429; ARABANTINOS, Chronography of Epirus, Gr. (Athens, 1857), II, 34.

L. PETIT.

Hector Boece

(Also BOYCE and BOETHIUS)

Chronicler and one of the founders of the University of Aberdeen, b. at Dundee c. 1465; d. 1536. At Paris he was a student, then Bachelor of Divinity, and finally a professor at the College of Montaigu, whose course had been reorganized on the principles of monastic poverty and server routine by James Standone of Brabant, at one time rector of the university. At the college, Boece formed a lasting friendship with Erasmus. From about 1495, Boece was zealously aiding Wm. Elphinstone, the learned Bishop of Aberdeen, to carry out the provisions of a Bull of Alexander VI, obtained at the request of James IV, chartering a university with all faculties in the city of Aberdeen. Finally, in 1505, having received help from various sources, they founded the collegiate church of St. Mary of the Nativity, later known as King’s College, and regular teaching took the place of the occasional lectures of the canons. The organization was modelled upon that of the Universities of Paris and Orléans. The foundation was to support, on meagre stipends, four doctors in the respective faculties, two teaching masters, five student masters, thirteen poor scholars, eight chaplains, and four choristers. Boece was principal and read lectures on divinity and on medicine. History was not regularly taught, but both Elphinstone and Boece made collections of materials. In 1527, Boece received a pension of £50 Scots, and, from 1529 to 1534, a like amount, to be paid annually until he should obtain a benefice of 100 marks Scots. Besides his principalship, he held the offices of Canon of Aberdeen, and Rector of Tyrie.

Boece published at Paris, 1522, “Lives of the Bishops of Murthlack and Aberdeen,” about a third of which is devoted to Elphinstone (d. 1514). In 1527 appeared, also at Paris, his “Scotorum Historiæ” in seventeen books. Boece was preceded in the field of published Scottish history only by the learned work of Mair. The Scottish translation of this work by Bellenden, in 1536, was later used by Holinshed and thus indirectly by Shakespeare. As a historian, Boece has been praised for elegance, patriotism, and love of freedom; and most severely arraigned, even by contemporaries, for his credulity in the matter of historic origins. His literary honesty attacked in his own day, has more recently been defended. The impetus which he gave to historical studies at Aberdeen has been of lasting effect.

MACKAY in Dict. Nat. Biog.; HENDERSON, Scottish Vernacular Literature (London, 1898); MORLEY, English Writers, VII; Episcoporum Murthlacensium et Aberdonensium per Hectorem Boetium Vitæ (reprinted by Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh, 1825, and by New Spalding Club, 1895, with tr.); The History and Chronicle of Scotland, tr. BELLENDEN (1821).

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Petrus Boeri

(BOHIER)

A french benedictine canonist and bishop, b. during the first quarter of the fourteenth century at Laredorte, a department of Aude, canton of Peyriac Minervois; d. probably1388. Of his early life nothing is known. In 1350, when he is first mentioned, Boeri was Abbot of St. Chinian (St. Anianus, Hérault) in the small diocese of Saint-Pons de Tomièrs (Sancti Pontii Tomeriarum) which at that time formed a part of the Metropolitan Province of Narbonne. By his virtue and learning he attracted the favourable notice of Urban V, who appointed him Bishop of Orvieto, 16 Nov., 1364. A few years later (7 Oct., 1370) he was transferred by the same pontiff to the See of Vaison, near Avignon in France. But in 1371, shortly after Urban’s death, he returned to Orvieto and remained in possession of that see until 28 June, 1379, when he was deprived of his bishopric by Urban VI for having espoused the cause of the Antipope Robert of Geneva, then reigning at Avignon as Clement VII. Upon his subsequent withdrawal to France he served Charles V in the capacity of ambassador to the pontifical court at Avignon. (Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, II, 27–28.) However, 31 August 1387, Clement VII likewise deposed him from his episcopal office and entrusted the temporal and spiritual administration of Orvieto to Thomas de Jarente, Bishop of Grasse. Boeri died shortly afterwards. He was the author of two commentaries on the Rule of St. Benedict; in one, written when he was Abbot of St. Chinian, he deals with the Rule from the point of view of the canonist; in the other, written in the Sacro Speco at Subiaco when he was Bishop of Orvieto, he deals with it more from the point of view of the ascetic. He dedicated the later commentary to Charles V, King of France. He also wrote a commentary on the Constitution “Pastor bonus” of Benedict XII; “Speculum Monachorum”; “De Signis locutionum”; “Notæ in Damasi Pontificale” (an annotated copy of the “Liber Pontificalis,” likewise dedicated to Charles V); and began at Rouen in 1379 a treatise on the question of calling a general council with a view to ending the deplorable schism then distracting the Church. This treatise remained unfinished. With the exception of “In Regulam S.P. Benedicti Commentarium” (ed. Dom Leone Allodi, Subiaco, Rome) and “Notæ in Damasi Pontificale” Boeri’s works have never been printed.

EUBEL, Hierarchia cathol. Med. vi (Münster, 1808–1901), I, 537; FABRICIUS, Bibliotheca Lat. Medi et Infim Ætatis (Hamburg, 1734), I, 686, 687; V, 737; SCHULTE, Geschichte derl Quell, u. Litt. Des kanonischen Rechts (1875–80); II, 256; VALOIS, La France et le Grand Schisme (Paris 1896), I, 325, 326, 398; II, 129; ZIEGELBAUER, Hist. Rei literari Ord. S. Benedicti (Augsburg, 1754), I, 77; III, 613; IV, 581, 702.

THOMAS OESTREICH

Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius

Roman statesman and philosopher, often styled “the last of the Romans,” regarded by tradition as a Christian martyr, born at Rome in 480; died at Pavia in 524 or 525. Descended from a consular family, he was left an orphan at an early age and was educated by the pious and noble-minded Symmachus, whose daughter, Rusticana, he married. As early as 507 he was known as a learned man, and as such was entrusted by King Theodoric with several important missions. He enjoyed the confidence of the king, and as a patrician of Rome was looked up to by the representatives of the Roman nobility. When, however, his enemies accused him of disloyalty to the Ostrogothic king, alleging that he plotted to restore “Roman liberty,” and added the accusation of “sacrilege” (the practice of astrology), neither his noble birth nor his great popularity availed him. He was cast into prison, condemned unheard, and executed by order of Theodoric. During his imprisonment, he reflected on the instability of the favour of princes and the inconstancy of the devotion of his friends. These reflections suggested to him the theme of his best-known philosophical work, the “De Consolatione Philosophiae.”

Tradition began very early to represent Boethius as a martyr for the Christian Faith. It was believed that among the accusations brought against him was devotion to the Catholic cause, which at that time was championed by the Emperor Justin against the Arian Theodoric. In the eighth century this tradition had assumed definite shape, and in many places Boethius was honoured as a martyr, and his feast observed on the twenty-third of October. In recent times, critical scholarship has gone to the opposite extreme, and there have not been wanting critics who asserted that Boethius was not a Christian at all, or that, if he was, he abjured the Faith before his death. The foundation for this opinion is the fact that in the “Consolations of Philosophy” no mention is made of Christ or of the Christian religion. A saner view, which seems at the present time to be prevalent among scholars, is that Boethius was a Christian and remained a Christian to the end.

That he was a Christian is proved by his theological tracts, some of which, as we shall see, are undoubtedly genuine. That he remained a Christian is the obvious inference from the ascertained fact of his continued association with Symmachus; and if the “Consolations of Philosophy” bears no trace of Christian influence, the explanation is at hand in the fact that it is an entirely artificial exercise, a philosophical dialogue modelled on strictly pagan productions, a treatise in which, according to the ideas of method which prevailed at the time, Christian feeling and Christian thought had no proper place. Besides, even if we disregard certain allusions which some interpret in a Christian sense, there are passages in the treatise which seem plainly to hint that, after philosophy has poured out all her consolations for the benefit of the prisoner, there are more potent remedies (validiora remedia) to which he may have recourse. There can be no reasonable doubt, then, that Boethius died a Christian, though it is not easy to show from documentary sources that he died a martyr for the Catholic Faith. The absence of documentary evidence does not, however, prevent us from giving due value to the constant tradition on this point. The local cult of Boethius at Pavia was sanctioned when, in 1883, the Sacred Congregation of Rites confirmed the custom prevailing in that diocese of honouring St. Severinus Boethius, on the 23rd of October.

To the science of mathematics and the theory of music Boethius contributed the “De Institutione Arithmetic Libri II,” “De Institutione Music Libri V,” and “Geometria Euclidis a Boethio in Latinum translata.” The last-mentioned work is found in various MSS. of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. There is also found among the MSS. a work “De Geometri “, which, in its extant form, is considered to be a ninth- or tenth-century elaboration of a work of Boethius. How far the work is genuine, and to what extent interpolations have crept in, is a question of more than ordinary interest for the student of general history, for on the answer to this question depends the determination of the date of the first use of Arabic numerals in Western Europe. Boethius’ philosophical works include:

translations from the Greek, e.g. of Aristotle’s logical treatises (with commentaries) and of Porphyry’s “Isagogue” (with commentaries);

commentaries on Porphyry’s “Isagoge,” translated by Marius Victorinus and on Cicero’s “Topica”;

original logical treatises, “De Categoricis Syllogismis,” “Introductio ad Syllogismos Categoricos,” “De Divisione” (of doubtful authenticity), and “De Differentiis Topicis.”

These exercised very great influence on the development of medieval terminology, method, and doctrine, especially in logic. In fact, the schoolmen, down to the beginning of the twelfth century, depended entirely on Boethius for their knowledge of Aristotle’s doctrines. They adopted his definitions and made them current in the schools; for instance, the definitions of “person,” “eternity,” etc. The theological works of Boethius include “De Trinitate”; two short treatises (opuscula) addressed to John the Deacon (afterwards Pope John I); “Liber contra Eutychen et Nestorium”; and “De Fide Catholic” (generally regarded as spurious, although the only argument against its genuineness is the lack of manuscript authority). These were much studied in the early Middle Ages, as is testified by the number of glosses found in the manuscripts as far back as the ninth century (e.g. glosses by John Scotus Erigena and Remi of Auxerre). To the theologians of the Middle Ages generally they appealed as the genuine works of the Christian martyr, Boethius. In modern times, those who denied that Boethius was a Christian were, of course, obliged to reject the opuscula as spurious. However, the publication of the so-called “Anecdoton Holderi” (ed. by Usener, Leipzig, 1877) brought to light a new argument for their genuineness. For, as Cassiodorus ought certainly to have known which works of Boethius were genuine, when he wrote “[Boethius] scripsit librum de Sanct Trinitate et capita quaedam dogmatica et librum contra Nestorium,” he settled the question as far as four of the treatises are concerned.

Boethius’ best-known work is the “Consolations of Philosophy” written during his imprisonment—“by far the most interesting example of prison literature the world has ever seen.” It is a dialogue between Philosophy and Boethius, in which the Queen of Sciences strives to console the fallen statesman. The main argument of the discourse is the transitoriness and unreality of all earthly greatness and the superior desirability of the things of the mind. There are evident traces of the influence of the Neo-Platonists, especially of Proclus, and little, if anything, that can be said to reflect Christian influences. The recourse to Stoicism, especially to the doctrines of Seneca, was inevitable, considering the nature of the theme. It does astonish the modern reader, although, strange to say, it did not surprise the medieval student, that Boethius, a Christian, and, as everyone in the Middle Ages believed, a Christian martyr, should have failed, in his moment of trial and mental stress to refer to the obvious Christian sources of consolation. Perhaps the medieval student of Boethius understood better than we do that a strictly formal dialogue on the consolation of philosophy should adhere rigorously to the realm of “natural truth” and leave out of consideration the lesson to be derived from the moral maxims of Christianity—“supernatural truth.”

The work takes up many problems of metaphysics as well as of ethics. It treats of the Being and Nature of God, of providence and fate, of the origin of the universe, and of the freedom of the will. In medieval times, it became one of the most popular and influential philosophical books, a favourite study of statesmen, poets, and historians, as well as of philosophers and theologians. It was translated into Anglo-Saxon by King Alfred the Great, and into Old German by Notker Teutonicus; its influence may be traced in Beowulf and in Chaucer, in Anglo-Norman and Proven al popular poetry, in the first specimens of Italian verse, as well as in the “Divina Commedia.” The important part which it played in Dante’s mental struggle after the death of Beatrice is described in the “Convito,” where, strange to say, it is referred to as “a book not known to many.” Echoes of it and citations from it occur frequently in the “Divina Commedia.” For instance, the lines which Tennyson paraphrases by “a sorrow’s crown of sorrow” are themselves at least a haunting memory of Boethius’ “In omni adversitate fortunae infelicissimum genus est infortunii fuisse felicem” (De Consol. Phil., II, Pros. IV). That the “De Consolatione” was a favourite study of the theologians as well as of the poets is evidenced by the numerous imitations under the title “De Consolatione Theologiae” which were widely read during the later Middle Ages.

WILLIAM TURNER

Bogomili

Bogomili, a Neo-Manichaean sect, found in the later Middle Ages at Constantinople and in the Balkan States. Doctrinal Principles.—The admission of a twofold creative principle, one good, the other evil, formed the basis of the doctrinal system of the Bogomili, as of all Manichean sects. Originally, they seem to have claimed eternity far these two principles, but their teaching in its fuller development was less dualistic. God the Father, according to them, had a human appearance but was incorporeal. He had two sons, the first-born, Satanael, and the younger, Jesus Christ or Michael. Satanael, though seated at the right hand of the Father and endowed with creative power, rebelled and was, with some of the angels, his followers, cast out of heaven. He created a second heaven and a second earth, and formed man out of earth and water. Being unable to give him a living spirit, he besought the Father to bestow life on this new creation, which would be their common property. God consented and thus man is the production of two creators. Eve, created in a similar manner, was seduced by Satanael. In punishment of this sin, Satanael lost his creative power, but retained sway over his own creation and strove successfully for the ruin of man. To save mankind, God sent His second son, Jesus, who penetrated the right ear of Mary and took from her the semblance of a human body; indeed, everything material in Him was merely appearance. Jesus vanquished Satanael, who lost his divine name El, and was henceforth called Satan. His place in heaven was now occupied by his conqueror. The Holy Ghost was sent forth, but dwells only in the Bogomili. Both He and Jesus will ultimately be absorbed by the Father, the only surviving person in God. The sect rejected the Old Testament, except the Psalter and the Prophetical books. Instead of baptism by water, it admitted only a spiritual baptism; it denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist, condemned marriage, rejected images, and prohibited the eating of meat.

History.—The name of the Bogomili has been traced by some to Bog Milui (God have mercy), a formula of prayer believed to have been in frequent use among them; others have sought its origin in Bogomil (beloved of God), which is also said to have been the name of a prominent representative of their doctrine in the tenth century. Other names were also applied to the members of the sect by its adversaries; but they called themselves Christians. The Bogomili probably developed from the Euchites and, although they existed previously, came into prominence in the twelfth century. They are first mentioned by name in 1115 at Philippopolis (European Turkey). More definite knowledge regarding them was obtained when their leader Basil, monk and physician, who had surrounded himself with twelve apostles, became known at Constantinople to the emperor Alexius I, Comnenus (1081–1118). The latter cleverly obtained from Basil a frank exposition of the doctrine of the sect. Having received this information, he demanded from the leader and those of his followers who could be seized a retractation of their errors. Some complied with this demand and were released; others remained obstinate and died in prison. Basil alone was condemned to death (1118) and burned. Vigorous as the repression was, it did not suppress the heresy. A synod of Constantinople (1140) ordered the destruction of writings propagating the errors of the sect; in 1143, two bishops of Cappadocia were deposed for embracing its tenets; and the favor extended to one of its adherents, the monk Niphon, caused the deposition of Cosmas, Patriarch of Constantinople (1147). The Patriarch Germanus (1221–39) continued to combat the pernicious doctrines; new condemnations were issued by the synods of Constantinople in 1316 and 1325. The Bogomili, however, remained until the conquest of the Balkan States by the Mussulmans in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

N. A. WEBER

Archdiocese of Santa Fé de Bogotá

ARCHDIOCESE OF SANTA FÉ DE BOGOTÁ (BOGOTENSIS)

The city of Bogotá, capital of the republic of Colombia, is situated on a plateau 8700 feet above sea level, at the western base of the Guadalupe and Monserrat mountains, in the eastern cordillera of the Andes. High mountains surrounded this plateau on all sides except to the southwest, where the River Funcha cuts its way to Magdalena, forming, a few miles from the city, the falls of Tequendana 475 feet in height. Two other rivers, the S. Francisco and the S. Augustino, divide the city. Bogotá was settled by the Spaniards in 1538 and became, in 1598, the capital of Nueva Grenada, which was then a viceregal province, and in 1819, when Colombia became independent of Spain, Bogotá was made the capital of the new republic. Bogotá is a quaint city, its lack of easy communication with other foreign cities having perpetuated its ancient Spanish character. Though the capital of the republic, it has a population of only 100,000 inhabitants.

The Archdiocese of Bogotá, the primatial see of Colombia, was created by Pope Pius IV in 1564. At first it had six suffragans, but, on account of the tremendous growth of the population of the diocese, Pope Leo XII, in 1902, separated the Bishopric of Medellin from it, and erected it into a province. The actual suffragan sees of Bogotá are: Antioquia (Antioquiensis), which was erected a bishopric by Pius VII, 31 August, 1804, re-erected by Pope Leo XII, 19 January, 1829, suppressed in 1868, and re-established by Pius IX, 29 January, 1873. This bishopric contains 211,000 Catholics, 69 Protestants, 75 secular priests, and 80 churches and chapels. Ibagué (Ibaguensis), of which no accurate statistics can be given, as the diocese has only lately been created. It was formerly, with the bishopric of Gazan, suffragan to the see of Tolina, and at the extinction of this see was assigned to the Metropolitan of Bogotá. It has for its territory the two provinces of North and Central Colombia. Nueva Pamplona (Neo-Pampilonensis), erected into a bishopric by Gregory XVI, 25 September, 1835. It contains 250,000 Catholics, 8 secular priests, 7 regular priests, and 46 churches and chapels. Socorro (de Succursu), erected as a bishopric by Pope Leo XIII, 20 March, 1895, contains 230,000 Catholics, Tunja (Tunquensis), erected as a bishopric in July, 1880, by Pope Leo XIII, contains 350,000 Catholics, 10,000 pagans, 53 parishes, and 159 churches and chapels.

The religious orders of men represented in the Archdiocese of Bogotá are: Jesuits, Franciscans, Augustinians, Salesians, and the Brothers of the Christian Doctrine. Those for women are: Sisters of Charity, of the Visitation, of the Good Shepherd, Salesians, Dominicans, Carmelites, and the Little Sisters of the Poor. Most of these orders, especially those for men, have charge of the schools and colleges. There are in the archdiocese 1 seminary, 30 colleges and academics, 150 schools, and 14 hospitals.

Conversations-Lex. I, 1696; BATTANDIER, Annuaire pont. Cath.

M. DE MOREIRA

Bohemia

Bohemia (Germ. Böhmen, or formerly Böheim; Lat. Bohemia or Bojohemum), a cisleithan (i.e. west of the River Leitha) crown province of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, which until 1526 was an independent kingdom.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Bohemia has an area of 20,058 square miles. It is bounded on the northwest by Saxony, on the northeast by Prussian Silesia, on the southeast by Moravia and the Grand duchy of Lower Austria, on the south by the Grand duchy of Upper Austria, and on the southwest by Bavaria. It is enclosed on three sides by mountain ranges, namely: the Bohemian Forest (Böhmerwald), the Ore mountains (Erzgebirge), and the Sudetic mountains. The highest peaks of these ranges seldom rise above 4,593 feet. On the fourth, or southeastern, border Bohemia is separated from Moravia by a moderately high range called the Bohemian-Moravian highlands (about 1,968 feet high). The country resembles the flat bottom of a trough with a depression towards the north. The average height above sea-level is 1,460 feet. Bohemia is drained by the Elbe, which rises in the Isergebirge, a range of the Sudetic mountain system. After receiving the waters of the Moldau, a stream from the south, the Elbe, now greatly increased in size, passes out of Bohemia at Tetschen near the most northern point of the country. Besides the Moldau, which may be called the most important river of Bohemia, the chief tributaries of the Elbe are the Iser and the Eger.

Geologically the country forms the so-called Bohemian system of mountain ranges, the spurs of which run into Moravia and Silesia. The greater part consists of old crystalline rocks; in the south gneiss predominates, in the north the formation is chiefly cretaceous sandstone, with tertiary deposits due to the action of water from the south. This part of the country also shows volcanic action, as in the Bohemian mineral springs. The climate is moderate and, with the exception of the mountain districts, does not show great variations of temperature. The mean temperature of the year is about 46.41 Fahrenheit. Bohemia has much mineral wealth; it is especially rich in silver, tin, lead, semiprecious stones, such as Bohemian garnets, hard coal, and lignite.

POPULATION

According to the last census (31 December, 1900), Bohemia has a population of 6,318,697. It is one of the most thickly settled provinces of the monarchy, having 315 inhabitants to the square mile. The Czechs form 63 percent of the population, and the Germans 36 per cent. The Germans live chiefly near the boundaries of the country especially near the northern and northwestern boundaries.

NATIONAL HISTORY

Bohemia (home of the Boii) owes its name to the Boii, a Celtic people which occupied the country in prehistoric times. About 78 B.C. the land was occupied by a Suevic people, the Marcomanni, while the related tribe of the Quadi settled in Moravia and that part of Hungary adjoining Moravia. Some years after the birth of Christ, Marbod King of the Marcomanni, united the German tribes as far as the North Sea and the Baltic to form a great confederation which menaced the Roman Empire. When the Marcomanni and the Quadi left Bohemia and Moravia in the sixth century, there came in from the northeast a Slavonic people which was soon to appear in history under the general name of Cechen (Czechs). Before the close of the sixth century this Slavonic people came under the domination of the Avars of Hungary. But early in the seventh century they regained their freedom with the aid of the Frank, Samo, whom the Czechs elected as their king. In 706, Bohemia paid tribute to Charlemagne. Eighty years later Borziwoi, Grand Duke of the Cechen (Czechs), seems to have been tributary to Swatopluk, King of Great Moravia. In the confusion which followed the break-up of the Empire of Great Moravia Spitihnev I succeeded in uniting the various tribes of Czechs under his rule. From his time there is an unbroken succession of dukes of the Premysl line. One duke of this line, Wratislaw II, received the title of King for life from the German Emperor, Henry IV. After 1158 the title of King became hereditary. Ottokar I and Ottokar II were the most conspicuous rulers of the Premysl dynasty. After this line became extinct (1306) Bohemia came under the sway of John of Luxembourg (1310–46). The Bohemian rulers of the Luxembourg line, from Charles I, of Bohemia (the Emperor, Charles IV), until the extinction of the dynasty at the death of Sigismund (1437), were all German emperors. Bohemia reached the height of its prosperity under the Emperor Charles IV who conquered Silesia and also occupied for a time the Mark of Brandenburg and the Upper Palatinate. In 1348, Charles founded the University of Prague, the first university on German soil. By his Golden Bull, Charles IV gave Bohemia the highest secular electoral dignity of the Holy Roman Empire. After 1437, Bohemia was ruled by kings of various lines until the death of Ludwig II, of the Jagellon dynasty, who was King of Bohemia and Hungary. He fell in the battle of Mohácz (1526). Both Bohemia and Hungary after this battle came into the possession of Ferdinand I of Hapsburg who had married the sister of Ludwig II. (For the further history of Bohemia see Austro-Hungarian Monarchy).

INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY

Fritigil, Queen of the Marcomanni, in 396 applied to Ambrose of Milan for instruction in the doctrines of Christianity. In 846, fourteen princes of the Czechs were baptized at Ratisbon. Although the two brothers, Cyril and Methodius, the Apostles of the Slavs, never entered Bohemia, yet Methodius was able to win over the Bohemian Duke Borziwoi to Christianity when the latter was at the court of Swatopluk, Grand Duke of Moravia. In 878, Borziwoi was baptized by Methodius at Welehrad. Soon after this Borziwoi’s wife, Ludmilla, and most of his relations were also baptized. The grandson of Borziwoi and Ludmilla, St. Wenzel I (Wenceslaus), was murdered in 935 at Alt-Bunzlau by his brother and successor Boleslaw I. Religious and national motives prompted this act. Christianity made such progress in Bohemia that in the latter part of the tenth century (973) the German Emperor Otto I gave the country a bishop of its own with his see at Prague, the capital of the country. Bohemia had until then formed a part of the diocese of Ratisbon. In 1344, the Diocese of Leitomischl was founded, while Prague was made an archbishopric with the Diocese of Olmütz as suffragan. The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries may be called the golden age of Christianity in Bohemia. In 1384, 240 ecclesiastics were attached to the Cathedral of Prague. Bohemia contained at that time 1,914 parish priests with many assistants; there were one Hundred monasteries, and almost a third of the land belonged to the Church. But when John Hus was condemned by the Council of Constance for spreading the errors of Wyclif, and was burned at the stake in 1415 by secular authorities, the Hussite wars followed (1420–34), and the Church in Bohemia met with losses which it took centuries to repair.

The causes of this religious-national movement were the excessive numbers and wealth of the clergy, their moral decay, and, in addition, the national reaction against the disproportionate power of the Germans, and the weakness of the secular government. Notwithstanding the death of the leaders, Hus and Jerome of Prague, the fire of revolution broke out when the followers of Hus demanded the Lord’s Supper under both kinds (Utraquists). Those in revolt encamped with their leaders, Ziska, Procopius the Great, and Procopius the Less, upon Mount Tabor, and from 1419 to 1434 they made marauding expeditions from that point in all directions. The army of Sigismund, In the Fifth Crusade, accomplished nothing. An agreement was made finally with the moderate Utraquists (called Calixtines) in 1433. By this agreement, which is called “the Compactata of Basle” or “of Prague,” the cup was granted to the laity; at the same time the teaching of the Church as to the Real Presence of Christ under each form was insisted upon. From the descendants of the radical Taborites sprang later the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren.

A great number of parishes and other cures of souls had been obliterated during the Hussite wars; in those which still remained there, was a woeful lack of priests especially for the German population. It was, therefore, easy for Protestantism to make rapid advances, especially as it was looked on with favor by both the nobility and the people. Desertion of the Church was accompanied by treason against the hereditary dynasty part of the population took sides with the League of Smalkald, and in 1618 Bohemia was the starting point of the Thirty Years’ War which brought such terrible disasters upon the whole of Germany. During this war the population of Bohemia fell from three millions to eight hundred thousand. The Hapsburg dynasty finally gained the victory. The nobility were punished for their treason, either by execution or by banishment, with confiscation of property; the rebellious cities lost their freedom, the common people either emigrated or returned to the Catholic Faith. In 1655, the See of Leitmeritz was founded; in 1644 the Emperor Ferdinand IV erected a new bishopric at Königgrätz, to take the place of Leitomischl, which had disappeared during the Hussite wars. Finally, in 1784, the Emperor Joseph II made the new Bishopric of Budweis out of the southern part of the Archdiocese of Prague.

PRESENT STATE OF DIOCESES

Bohemia is divided ecclesiastically as follows: The Archdiocese of Prague includes the northwestern and central parts of the country, the Diocese of Leitmeritz embraces the northern part, the Diocese of Königgrätz takes in the eastern part, and the Diocese of Budweis the southern part of the country. In addition to its share of the territory of Bohemia, the Archdiocese of Prague also includes the countship (Grafschaft) of Glatz in Prussian Silesia.

RELIGIOUS ORDERS

There are in the archdiocese 14 orders of men, having 35 houses; the total number of the orders is 704, of these 416 are priests, 135 are clerics preparing for the priesthood, and 153 are lay brothers. Special mention should be made of the Benedictines at Emans, of the Jesuits at Prague, and of the Premonstratensians at Tepl. There are also 21 orders for women, with 1,517 members. The Diocese of Leitmeritz has 13 orders for men, with 31 houses. The members of these orders include 136 priests, 15 clerics preparing for the priesthood, and 49 lay brothers. The Cistercian Abbey of Osseg and the Jesuit college at Mariascheim are worthy of special mention. There are 10 orders for women, with 62 houses and 651 members. The Diocese of Königgrätz has 9 orders for men, with 88 priests; and 8 orders for women, with 442 members. The Diocese of Budweis has 13 orders for men, in 32 houses; these orders include 131 regular priests; the orders for women are 7, with 419 members. The Cistercian Monastery of Hohenfurt, founded in 1259, should be mentioned in connection with this diocese.

EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS

In the Archdiocese of Prague there are: 1 seminary for priests, 1 private gymnasium, 3 homes for university students preparing for the priesthood, 52 hospitals, homes for the poor, orphan asylums, etc., over 200 endowments for the aid of the poor, and 34 associations of St. Vincent de Paul. In the Diocese of Leitmeritz there are: 1 theological school, 1 high School for boys, 5 homes for university students preparing for the priesthood, 11 Catholic primary Schools, 2 grammar-schools, 8 boarding-schools, 18 industrial and advanced schools, 20 orphanages, 7 asylums for children, 14 kindergartens, 20 creches, and over 130 homes for the poor, hospitals, etc., as well as 13 Conferences of St. Vincent de Paul. In the Diocese of Königgrätz there are: 1 theological school, 1 seminary for priests, 1 boys’ seminary, 7 boarding-schools for girls, 2 training-schools for women teachers, 10 other schools for girls and young women, 21 institutions for the care of children, 67 orphanages, hospitals, etc., 8 conferences of St. Vincent de Paul, and numerous endowments for the aid of the poor. In the Diocese of Budweis, besides 1 theological school and 1 seminary for priests, there are under ecclesiastical control: 1 boys’ seminary, 1 home for university students preparing for the priesthood, 12 public and industrial schools 23 kindergartens, 7 boarding-schools, about 140 stipends for students, 99 hospitals, homes for the aged and the poor, and 8 conferences of St. Vincent de Paul.

RELATIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE

Since the last years of the reign of Maria Theresa, and especially since the time of Joseph II, the Catholic Church in Austria has suffered from state interference. According to existing laws, the State at present guarantees to the recognized denominations freedom from molestation in the management of their internal affairs. The State avoids every interference in matters of faith, of ritual, and of ecclesiastical discipline, but it also claims that the religious associations, like all other associations, are subject to the general state laws in their “outward legal relations.” The sore point in this condition of affairs is this: that the State assumes for itself the right to define the boundary between internal and external legal relations. At present state control shows itself in the appointment of ecclesiastical officials, in the cooperation of the State in determining and collecting church dues and taxes, in measures for the protection of the property of the Church, and in a certain supervision of the church press, which is hardly perceptible. The legal position of the Catholic Church in Austria rests on the Imperial Patent of 8 April, 1861, and the Law of 7 May, 1874.

INCORPORATION OF CHURCHES

In the Archdiocese of Prague there are 32 parishes incorporated with the Premonstratensian foundation at Tepl, the other orders in the diocese have 28 parishes incorporated with them; in the Diocese of Leitmeritz the Cistercians at Osseg control 11 parishes, the other orders for men, 12; in the Diocese of Königgrätz there are 10 parishes united with the Benedictine houses, and 6 with the Premonstratensian; in the Diocese of Budweis the Monastery of Hohenfurt controls 16 parishes, the other orders have 13 incorporated with their foundations.

TAXATION OF CHURCHES

Churches, public chapels, and cemeteries are exempt from the income tax, ground and dwelling-tax.

PRIVILEGES OF THE CLERGY

Theological students are exempt, both in war and in peace, from all forms of military service, from military training, exercise with weapons, and reserve service; but after they have been ordained they can be called upon to serve as army chaplains in case of the mobilization of the whole army. Parish priests are exempt from paying the direct and the local taxes, and from jury duty. Parish priests have the right to accept an election to community and district boards of commissioners. Regularly installed ecclesiastics have the right of legal residence in that community in which they live permanently. Without regard to the actual payment of taxes they are entitled to vote for the local boards, for the provincial diet and for the imperial parliament (Reichstag); as a rule they are included in the first class of the electoral body. Only one-third of the fees of a parish priest can be attached for debt; besides this, his income cannot be reduced below 1,600 kronen ($320), nor the income of a retired priest below 1,000 kronen ($200). According to the law of 1898, which was intended to equalize clerical salaries, the salary of a parish priest at Prague was set at 2400 kronen ($480); in the suburbs up to a distance of over nine miles from the capital, and in cities with over 5,000 inhabitants, at 1,800 kronen ($360); in other places at 1,600 kronen ($320) or 1,400 kronen ($280). In Prague the salary of an assist priest was set at 800 kronen ($160) or 700 kronen ($140).

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE

Marriage, for Catholics, rests on the Law of 25 May, 1868, with which the second main section of the civil code, treating of the law of marriage, came again into force. According to this anyone can enter into a marriage contract when there is no legal impediment. Apart from the impediments arising from the duties of certain positions and those due to the army laws, these impediments rest on: (1) lack of consent; (2) lack of ability for the married state, and (3) lack of the necessary formalities.

Under the first head are (a) impediments from inability to give consent, as mental disease (violent mania, lunacy, imbecility); minority, and control of guardians, or lack of free choice; (b) impediments resting on lack of actual consent, as compulsion through well-grounded fear, seduction, mistake in the identity of the future consort, pregnancy of the woman before marriage by another person.

Under (2) belong (a) the impediment of impotency and (b) impediment from the lack of moral ability, such as an unexpired sentence of imprisonment for felony; a still existing previous marriage; consecration to Holy orders, or a solemn vow of celibacy; difference in religion (e.g. the marriage of a Christian and a non-Christian); relationship in the ascending and descending line, or close family connection (as brothers and sisters, cousins, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew); degrees of affinity parallel to the forbidden degrees of consanguinity; adultery proved before the contracting of the new marriage; and murder or attempted murder of a consort.

In (3) are (a) the impediments arising from the lack of publication of the banns, and (b) those from lack of the prescribed formalities of a marriage contract. Lastly, there should also he mentioned the impediments, enacted by the Catholic Church (for Catholics), of participation in the cause of divorce, and the impediment caused by the lack of a certificate of birth. A temporary impediment exists for widows, who are not allowed, as a rule, to marry again before the expiration of six months after the death of the husband. Some of these ecclesiastical impediments to marriage can be set aside; others are irremovable. Among the latter are all those which would give an appearance of guilt to a marriage contracted under the existing circumstances. Dispensation from these impediments are granted by the civil authorities. Catholic married couples can be separated from bed and board. A dissolution of the bond of marriage does not take place; that is, no married Catholic, either husband or wife, can enter upon a new valid marriage before the death of the consort.

TESTAMENTARY LAWS

A secular cleric has the right to free disposal of his property both in life and at death. The bishop of a diocese has no testamentary control over those objects which belong to his office and which by law descend to his successor, such as mitres, vestments intended to be worn during Mass, etc. In consequence of the vow of poverty, members of religious orders are incapable of inheriting or disposing of property. Large legacies to a church, a religious or charitable foundation, or a public institution must be announced at once by the court to the governor or president of the province. A half-yearly list of smaller legacies must be sent to these authorities. Legacies for the benefit of the poor, those intended for religious or charitable foundations, for churches, schools, parishes, public institutions, or other religious and benevolent purposes must be paid over or secured before the Heirs can inherit the property.

BURIAL LAWS

Old graveyards are ordinarily regarded as dependencies of the parish church, and as such are considered, even by the Law of 30 April, 1870, as being ecclesiastical institutions. But in sanitary regards, as places of burial, they are controlled by the police regulations of the community. Denominational cemeteries can be enlarged or laid out anew. For this, however, the consent of the civil authorities and of the parties interested is necessary, although, if the parish community refuses to enlarge the cemetery, the responsibility for providing a proper burial-place falls on the civil community. But a parish community or a church vestry cannot be compelled by the authorities to enlarge or lay out a church cemetery. If in the same community both a town cemetery and a Catholic cemetery exist, the burial of the dead in the public cemetery is not obligatory, but every Catholic has the right to bury the members of his family in the Catholic cemetery. When a Catholic cemetery serves also for the burial of non-Catholics, a part of the cemetery is to be set apart for the exclusive use of the non-Catholic community. Where a part of a Catholic cemetery is used for non-Catholic burial without the formal separation of the parts, the non-Catholic clergyman must follow the regulations of the law; he may conduct the burial with prayer and benediction, but there can be no singing nor address.

SCHINDLER ed., Das soziale Wirken der katholischen Kirche in Oesterreich (9 vole.); LANDENBAUER, Die Diozese Budweis (Vienna, 1899); SCHINDLER Die Erzdiozese Prag (Vienna, 1902); ENDLER, Die Diozese Leitmeritz (Vienna, 1903); BENES, Die Diozese Königgrätz (Vienna, 1897); KIRCHHOFF ed., Schematismen der Diozesen Prag, Leitmeritz, Königgrätz, und Budweis in Landerkunde von Europa, Pt. I, 2d half; SUPAN, Oesterreich-Ungarn (Vienna and Prague, 1889); Die osterreich-ungarische Monarchie in Wort und Bild (1894–96): Bohmen (1894–96) 2 vols.; Mitteilungen des Vereines fur Geschichte der Deutschen in Bohmen, and the other publications of this society; FRIND, Kirchengeschichte Bohmens (Prague, 1866–78); ID., Geschichte der Bischofe und Erzbischofe von Prag (Prague, 1873); GINDELY, Geschichte des 30 jahrigen Krieges (Prague, 1882); ID., Geschichte der Gegenreformation.

KARL KLAAR.

Bohemian Brethren

(MORAVIAN BRETHREN, or UNITAS FRATRUM).

DEFINITION AND DOCTRINAL POSITION

“Bohemian Brethren” and “Moravian Brethren” are the current popular designation of the Unitas Fratrum founded in Bohemia in 1457, renewed by Count Zinzendorf in 1722, and still active in our own day. Placing life before creeds, the Moravian Church seeks “to exemplify the living Church of Christ constituted or regenerated men and women, while it affords a common meeting-point for Christians who apprehend dogmas variously.” Personal faith in the crucified Saviour constitutes the chief foundation for the fellowship thus established. Scripture is the only rule of faith, but “nothing is posited as to the mode of inspiration, for this partakes of the mysteries which it has not pleased God to reveal.” The Trinity, the Fall, Original Sin, and “Total Depravity” are admitted, but “discussion about them is shunned.” The Love of God manifested in Christ—without theories about the mode—is the centre of Moravian belief and practice. Justification by faith alone and the necessity of regeneration “are posited as facts of personal experience.” Sanctifying grace, the need of prayer, and other public means of grace, a complete ritual, a strict discipline, “the orders of the ministry with no conception of the functions of the episcopate,” i. e. bishops ordain, but the episcopal office implies no further ruling or administrative power (see infra in regard to Zinzendorf), Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the only sacraments, and the common Christian eschatology: Resurrection, Judgment, Heaven, Hell; such are the tenets from which Moravians are expected not to depart, whilst they are allowed to speculate about them on Scriptural lines with entire liberty.

HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT UNITAS FRATRUM (1457–1722)

The Bohemian Brethren are a link in a chain of sects beginning with Wyclif (1324–84) and coming down to the present day. The ideas of the Englishman found favour with Hus, and Bohemia proved a better soil for their growth than England. Both Wyclif and Hus were moved by a sincere desire to reform the Church of their times; both failed and, without intending it, became the fathers of new heretical bodies—the Lollards and the Hussites. The former were persecuted out of existence in England by Catholic rulers; the latter prospered in Bohemia, thanks to royal and national support. The burning of John Hus at the stake for his stubborn adherence to the condemed doctrines of Wyclif (at Constance, 6 July, 1415) was considered an insult to the faith of the Bohemian nation, which, since its first conversion to Christianity, had never swerved from the truth. The University of Prague came boldly forward to vindicate the man and his doctrines; the party which hitherto had worked at reforming the Church from within now rejected the Church’s authority and became the Hussite sect. Divisions at once arose amongst its members. Some completely set aside the authority of the Church and admitted no other rule than the Bible; others only demanded Communion under both kinds for the laity and free preaching of the Gospel, with some minor reforms. The former, who met for worship at “Mount Tabor,” were called Taborites; the latter received the name of Calixtines, i.e., the party of the Chalice. As long as they had a common enemy to fight they fought together under the leadership of that extraordinary man, John Trocznowski, known as Zizka (the one-eyed), and for fully fifteen years proved more than a match for the imperial armies and papal crusaders sent to crush them. Peace was at length obtained, not by force of arms, but by skilful negotiations which resulted in the “Compactata of Basle” (30 November, 1433). The compact was chiefly due to the concessions made by the Calixtine party; it found little or no favour with the Taborites. The discontent led to a feud which terminated at the Battle of Lippau (30 May, 1434) with the death of Procopius, the Taborite leader, and the almost total extinction of this party. The small remnant, too insignificant to play a role in politics, withdrew into private life, devoting all their energies to religion. In 1457 one section formed itself into a separate body under the name of the “Brethren’s Union” (Unitas Fratrum), which is now generally spoken of as the Bohemian Brethren. Their contemporaries coined for them several opprobrious designations, such as Jamnici (cave-dwellers) and Pivnicnici (beerhouse men), Bunzlau Brethren, Picards (corrupted to Pickarts), etc.

The originator of the new sect was a certain Gregory, a nephew of the leading Calixtine preacher, Rokyzana, whose mind was imbued with the conviction that the Roman Church was helplessly and hopelessly corrupt. Gregory therefore decided to found a new Church in accordance with his uncle’s and his own ideas of what a perfect Church should be. Through Rokyzana’s influence he obtained leave from the governor George von Podiebrad to organize a community in the village of Kunwald near Senftenberg. Michel, the parish priest of Senftenberg, and Matthias, a farmer of Kunwald, joined Gregory, and soon the community counted several thousand members. Their distinguishing tenets at this early period were rather vague: abolition of all distinctions of rank and fortune, the name of being the one all-sufficient dignity; abolition of oaths, of military service, etc. Governor von Podiebrad kept a vigilant eye on the growing community. In 1461 he had Gregory and several other persons arrested on suspicion of reviving the heresies of the Taborites. The accused admitted that they did not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, but had partaken of the bread and wine at their nocturnal meetings as common food. They were set free, but, to avoid further interference, Gregory and his companions fled into the Lordship of Reichenau, where they lived hidden in the mountains. There, in 1464, was held a secret assembly consisting of Brethren from Bohemia and Moravia, who accepted as basis of their creed the doctrine that justification is obtained through faith and charity and confers the hope of eternal salvation. The rich were requested to abandon their wealth and worldly pomp and to live in voluntary poverty. The Brethren were to give up private property for the benefit of the Brotherhood. Anyone not observing the brotherhood of faith and practice was to be separated from the community.

Meanwhile the persecution continued. The Utraquist (Calixtine) priests refused the Sacrament to the Brethren. These, therefore, were forced to constitute a priesthood of their own belief. A bishop and a number of priests were chosen by lot, and the separation from the Utraquists became an accomplished fact. The head of the Austrian Waldenses, who was believed to have received consecration from a real bishop, gave episcopal orders to the ex-parish priest, Michael, and Michael consecrated his friend, Matthias, bishop and ordained several priests. The new Bishop Matthias of Kunwald then reordained his consecrator, to make him a true priest of the Brotherhood. This happened in 1467 at the synod of Lhotka, near Reichenau, where also all those present were rebaptized. The breach with both Catholics and Utraquists was now completed, and the Brethren began to order their community on the model of “the primitive Church.” The governing power centred in a council presided over by a judge. Four seniors, or elders, held the episcopal power. The priests had no property and were encouraged to celibacy. The strictest morality and modesty were exacted from the faithful. All acts subservient to luxury were forbidden; oaths and military service were only permitted in very exceptional cases. Public sins had to be publicly confessed, and were punished with ecclesiastical penalties or expulsion. A committee of women watched with relentless severity over the behaviour of their sisters.

A new persecution quickly followed on the synod of Lhotka. The Brethren defended their cause in copious writings, but in 1468 many of them were imprisoned and tortured, one was burnt at the stake. The death of the governor George von Podiebrad in 1471 brought some relief. Brother Gregory died in 1473. From 1480 Lucas of Prague was the leading man. Thanks to him, and to toleration granted the Brethren by King Ladislaus II, the Brotherhood rapidly increased in numbers. By the end of the fifteenth century there were 400 communities. Pope Alexander VI’s endeavour to reconvert the Brethren (in 1499) proved futile. About this time an internal feud in the “Unity of Brethren” led to a renewal of persecution. The Amosites, so called from their leader, Brother Amos, accused their more moderate Brethren of fomenting violent opposition to the Government in imitation of their spiritual ancestors, the Taborites. King Ladislaus II thereupon issued a decree prohibiting the meetings of the Brethren under heavy penalties. In many places, however, the decree was left unheeded, and powerful landowners continued to protect the Brotherhood. Once more the king resorted to milder measures. In 1507 he invited the chiefs of the Brethren to meet the Utraquists in conference at Prague. The Brethren sent a few rude, unlettered fellows unable to give answer to the questions of the professors. The king regarded this as an insult and ordered all the meetings of the “Pickarts” to be suppressed, all their books to be burnt, and the recalcitrants to be imprisoned (1508).

The Brethren now began to look for foreign sympathy. Erasmus complimented them on their knowledge of truth, but refused to commit himself further. Luther objected to their doctrine on the Eucharist, to the celibacy of their clergy, to the practice of rebaptizing, and to the belief in seven sacraments. Brother Lucas answered in a sharp pamphlet and, having ascertained the low standard of church discipline among the Lutherans of Wittenberg, ceased all attempts at union. At the same time (1525) Lucas rejected the Zwinglian doctrines which some Brethren were trying to introduce. After the death of Lucas (1528) the government of the Brotherhood passed into the hands of men fond of innovations, among whom John Augusta is the most remarkable. Augusta reopened negotiations with Luther and so modified his creed that it gained the Reformer’s approbation, but the union of the two sects was again prevented by the less rigid morals of the Lutherans in Bohemia and Moravia. Augusta pleaded for stricter church discipline, but Luther dismissed him, saying: “Be you the apostle of the Bohemians, I will be the apostle of the Germans. Do as circumstances direct, we will do the same here” (1542). Soon afterwards the Bohemian Estates were requested to join Charles V in his war against the Smalkaldic league. Catholics and old Utraquists obeyed, but the Bohemian Protestants, having met in the house of Brother Kostka, established a kind of provisional government composed of eight members, four of whom belonged to the Brotherhood, and appointed a general to lead the armed rebels into Saxony against the emperor. Charles’s victory over the Smalkaldians at Muhlberg (1547) left the rebels no choice but to submit to their king, Ferdinand I. The Brethren, who had been the chief instigators of the rebellion, were now doomed to extinction. John Augusta and his associate, Jacob Bilek, were cast into prison; the Brethren’s meetings were interdicted throughout the whole kingdom; those who refused to submit were exiled. Many took refuge in Poland and Prussia (1578); those who remained in the country joined, at least pro forma, the Utraquist party. Owing to Maximilian II’s leniency and Protestant propensities, the Bohemian diet of 1575 could draw up the “Bohemian Confession of Faith” in which the principles of the Brethren find expression along with those of the Lutherans. Under Rudolph II (1584) persecution was again resorted to, and lasted with more or less intensity down to 1609, when Rudolph’s Charter granted the free exercise of their religion to all Protestants. No sooner, however, did external oppression relent than internal dissension broke out in the Protestant ranks. The Consistory, composed of Lutherans and Brethren, was unable to maintain peace and union between the two parties. Ferdinand II, after his victory over the rebellious Bohemians at the white Mountain near Prague (1620), offered them the choice between Catholicism and exile. Many Brethren emigrated to Hungary, but a greater number to northern Poland, where they settled in Lissa (now in Prussian Posen). Even to this day there are in that district seven communities calling themselves Brethren, although their confession of faith is the Helvetic. In Prussian Silesia there are also three communities of Brethren claiming descent from the Bohemian Brotherhood.

THE BOHEMIAN BRETHREN AND ENGLAND

During the reign of Maximillian II and Rudolph II the Bohemian Brethren enjoyed a period of prosperity which allowed them to establish relations with younger Protestant churches. They sent students to Heidelberg and one at least to Oxford. In 1583 “Bernardus, John, a Moravian,” was allowed to supply B.D. He had studied theology for ten years in German universities and was now going to the universities of Scotland. This Bernardus, however, has left no trace but the entry in the Register of Oxford just quoted. The man who brought the Brotherhood prominently before the Anglican Church was Johann Amos, of Comna, generally known as Comenius. As a scholar and educationist he was invited by his English friends to assist in improving the state and administration of the universities, then under consideration in Parliament. The outbreak of the Civil War brought all these plans to naught, and Comenius returned to Germany in 1642. His influence in England allowed him to set on foot several collections for his severely persecuted church in Poland: the first three were failures, but the fourth, authorized by Cromwell, produced £5,900, of which sum Cambridge University contributed £56. This was in 1658–59. Intercourse with the Anglican Church was kept up uninterruptedly until the remnants of the ancient Brotherhood had dwindled away and been swallowed up by other Evangelical confessions. When the renewed Brotherhood was established in England it benefited by the memory of former friendly relations.

HISTORY OF THE RENEWED BROTHERHOOD

Persecution from without and dissension within wellnigh brought about the total extinction of the Bohemian Brethren. The small but faithful remnant was, however, destined to blossom into a new and vigorous religious body under the name of Moravian Brethren. The founder and moulder of this second Unitas Fratrum was the pious and practical Count Zinzendorf (b. 1700, d. 1760). In 1722 the Lutheran Pastor Rothe, of Berthelsdorf in Upper Lusatia, introduced to the Count, from whom he held his living, a Moravian carpenter named Christian David. This man had been deputed by his co-religionists to look out for a concession of land where they could freely practise their religion. Zinzendorf was so far unacquainted with the history and the tenets of the Bohemian Brethren, but in his charity, he granted them the desired land, on the slopes of the Hutberg in the parish of Bertlesdorf. In a short time emigrants from Moravia founded there a colony, call Herrnhut. The colonists worshipped at the Lutheran parish church. Two years later, there arrived from Zauchenthal in Moravia five young men fully conscious of being true members of the old “Bohemian Brotherhood.” At once religious quarrels arose, to the annoyance of Count Zinzendorf and his friends. The count was not slow in perceiving that the colonists, all simple labourers and craftsmen, were more concerned with church discipline and Christian rules of life than with dogma. Accordingly he set about elaborating a constitution for a community of which religion should be the chief concern and bond of union. He left Dresden and, with the pastor’s leave, began to work as a lay catechist among the Brethren at Herrnhut. The community met for their religious services in their own hall where one of the Brethren, either chosen by lot or elected by the assembly, acted as minister. In 1731 they seceded from the parish church and added to their usual services the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. They were divided in “choirs” according to age, sex, and calling; each choir was ruled by elders (male and female), pastors, and administrators chosen among its members. The female choirs were distinguished by their dresses. Widows, unmarried young men, and young women formed separate choirs under the supervision of elders. Everything at Herrnhut was controlled by the College of Elders, even matrimony, subject to the sanction of the lot. Provision was made for the poor and the sick, for prayer meetings and so forth. Deacons, acting for the Elders, administered the property accruing to the community from donations. Great care was given to the education of the young, Zinzendorf being anxious to raise a generation that would perpetuate his work. The organization of the renewed Brotherhood was complete in 1731. It bore the stamp of the personality of its founder, a man deeply religious, nurtured in Spencer’s Pietism by the two noble ladies who brought him up, and well acquainted with Catholic life from his sojourn in Paris. As soon as the foundations were solidly laid at Herrnhut, Zinzendorf began to think of missionary work. His personal connection with the Danish Court led him to choose the Danish possessions in the West Indies and in Greenland for the field of his labours. His first missionaries were sent out in 1732 and 1733. Feeling, however that as a simple layman he could not well confer missionary powers, he took orders at Tubingen in 1734 and, moreover, received episcopal consecration from the Reformed court-preacher Jablonsky of Berlin, in whose family the Moravian episcopacy, originated in 1467 by a validly ordained Waldensian bishop, had been—or was said to have been—preserved. Persecution was not long in coming. The orthodox Lutherans became the Brethren’s bitterest enemies. The Imperial Government in Vienna strongly objected to their propaganda in Bohemia, which caused Austrian subjects to emigrate and sowed discontent in the country. Under imperial pressure the King of Saxony banished Zinzendorf “for ever.” The zealous count put his exile to good use. During the ten years (1737–47) of his absence from Saxony he founded congregations in Holland, England, Ireland, America; new ones also arose in Germany at Herrenhag, Neuwied, Gnadenfrei, Gnadenberg, and Neusatz. Zinzendorf showed a special predilection for the London establishment. In 1750 he fixed his residence in the English capital and from there ruled the whole “Unity of Brethren.” But in 1755 he returned to Herrnhut, which now became and remained the centre of the whole administration. To the present day the “Provincial Board of Elders for Germany” occupies Zinzendorf’s own house at Berthelsdorf. The finishing touch of the new church system is the liberty enjoyed by those who join it to retain the Lutheran, the Reformed, or the Moravian Confession to which they belonged, and to be placed under the rule of Elders of the same belief. This peculiar feature shows the founder’s disregard for dogma and the great value he attached to Christian practice and ecclesiastical discipline. He held that faith and justification could only be found by individuals who were, or became, members of a religious community. However much, in this and in other points, he copied the Catholic Church, yet he was to the end a faithful adherent of the Augsburg Confession and obtained from the Consistory in Dresden an official acknowledgment that the Moravian Brethren were followers of the same faith. He also succeeded after a long struggle in securing for the Brotherhood recognition by the Saxon government. When, regretted by all, he died in 1760, his work and his spirit lived on in the strongly organized body of the “Unity of Brethren.” No material changes have taken place since. In 1775 the Brethren, assembled in a synod at Barby, adopted the following statement of principles:

“The chief doctrine to which the Church of the Brethren adheres, and which we must preserve as an invaluable treasure committed unto us, is this: That by the sacrifice for sin made by Jesus Christ, and by that alone, grace and deliverance from sin are to be obtained for all mankind. We will, therefore, without lessening the importance of any other article of the Christian faith, steadfastly maintain the following five points: (1) The doctrine of the universal depravity of man: that there is no health in man, and that, since the Fall he has no power whatever left to help himself. (2) The doctrine of the Divinity of Christ: that God, the Creator of all things, was manifest in the flesh, and reconciled us to Himself; that He is before all things and that in Him all things exist. (3) The doctrine of the atonement and satisfaction made for us by Jesus Christ: that He was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification and that by His merits alone we receive freely the forgiveness of sin, faith in Jesus and sanctification in soul and body. (4) The doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the operation of His grace: that it is He who worketh in us conviction of sin, faith in Jesus, and pureness in heart. (5) The doctrine of the fruits of faith: that faith must evidence itself by willing obedience to the commandment of God, from love and gratitude.”

Faith in the Redemption and entire surrender of self to Christ (with Whom in 1741 a spiritual covenant was made) are held to be the very essence of religion. The will of Christ was ascertained by casting of lots as the final sanction in case of marriage (until 1820), in the election of superiors (until 1889), etc. Zinzendorf ruled as bishop over all the communities, both in Europe and America, but since his death the episcopal office has remained a mere title. In 1857 the British and American Unity became independent; the only bond of union being now the General Synod held once every ten years.

THE MORAVIANS IN ENGLAND

The beginnings of the Brethren’s Church in England are an interesting chapter in the commerce of thought between Germany and that country. The German dynasty on the English throne had attracted a strong colony of their countrymen; towards the middle of the eighteenth century London alone numbered from 4000 to 5000 Germans among its inhabitants. These would naturally be in sympathy with the Brethren. But the “Religious Societies” founded by Doctor Smithies, curate of St. Giles, and Dr. Horneck, of the Lower Palatinate, together with the writings of William Law-the father of the religious revival of the eighteenth century-had prepared the minds of many Englishmen for stronger spiritual food than that offered by the established religion. Horneck was a German Pietist, and William Law, in his “Serious Call,” sets up a standard of perfection little short of Catholic monasticism. John Wesley, who confesses that he was stimulated into activity by William Law, at first sought satisfaction of his spiritual cravings in the Moravian Brotherhod. He, with three other Oxford Methodists, met the Moravian Bishop Nitschmann and twenty Brethren at Gravesend, where they were waiting for the vessel that was to carry them all to Georgia (1736). The Englishmen were favourably impressed with the religious fervour of the Germans, and a fruitful friendship sprang up between them. As early as 1728 Zinzendorf had sent to England a deputation headed by the Moravian Johann Toltschig “to tell such as were not blinded by their lusts, but whose eyes God had opened, what God had wrought.” Countess Sophia von Schaumburg-Lippe, Lady-in-Waiting at the English Court, used her influence in their behalf, but was unable to counteract the opposition of the Lutheran court-chaplain Ziegenhagen. The embassy had little or no result. Other visits followed at intervals, most of them by missionaries and emigrants on their way to America. On the occasion of such a visit Zinzendorf himself induced some young people to form a society for the reading of the Bible, mutual edification, abstention from theological controversy, brotherly love, etc. It was the first step towards realizing his ideals in England. The next step was Peter Boehler’s zealous preaching to the “religious societies” and the working classes.

It was Boehler who founded the religious society in Fetter Lane of which John Wesley became a member, and for which he framed most of the rules; it seems also due to the influence of Boehler that John and Charles Wesley “found conversion” (June, 1738), yet not a conversion exactly of the Moravian type. A visit of John Wesley to the German centres made it clear that the Brotherhood had no room for two men like Zinzendorf and Wesley, both being born leaders of men, but having little else in common. Little by little Wesley became estranged from the Brethren, and his former friendship turned to open hostility (12 November, 1741), according to Wesley’s journal). At a meeting in Fetter Lane Wesley accused the Brethren of holding false doctrines and left the hall exclaiming: “Let those who agree with me follow me.” Some eighteen or nineteen of the members went out after him, the rest called upon the Brethren to be their leaders. Thus a religious society of the Church of England became a society of the Brethren. After their rupture with Wesley the Brethren began to work on their own account in England. Professor Spangenberg organized the young church with rare talent, and its activity spread far and wide in the provinces, even to Scotland and Ireland, but their success was greatest in Yorkshire. They also came in for some persecution from people who still confused them with the Methodists. The legal status of the Brotherhood was now to be determined. They did not wish to be classed as Dissenters, which would at once have severed them from the Anglican Church, and, on the other hand, the Anglican Church, disowned them because they neither had Anglican orders nor did they use the Book of Common Prayer. Archbishop Potter would grant them no more than the toleration accorded to foreign Protestants. To obtain a license from a Justice of the Peace they had to adopt a name, and Spangenberg decided on “Moravian Brethren, formerly of the Anglican Communion.” This name implied a new denomination and led to the immediate formation of the first congregation of Brethren of English nationality (1742). Zinzendorf greatly objected to the name of Moravians being given to his Brethren whom he considered as an ecclesiola in ecclesiâ, a select small church within a greater one, which might exist in almost any denomination. The proposed designation, “Old Lutheran Protestants,” was distasteful to English members. They resolutely clung to the names “United Brethren” and “Moravians” as their official and popular designations, and the “Bill for encouraging the people known by the name of Unitas Fratrum or United Brethren to settle in His Majesty’s colonies,” passed in 1749, gives official sanction to the old name, recognizes that the Brethren belonged to an “ancient protestant and episcopal Church,” and maintains their connection with Germany.

BEGINNINGS OF THE MORAVIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA

In 1734 Zinzendorf obtained for thirty families of banished Schwenkfelders (adherents of Kaspar von Schwenkfeld) a home in Georgia which had just been carved out of the Carolina grant “to serve as an asylum for insolvent debtors and for persons fleeing from religious persecution.” These exiles, however, found it preferable to join an older colony in Pennsylvania. The Brethren now conceived the plan of securing for themselves in Georgia a home of refuge in time of persecution. The governor general, Oglethorpe, granted them 500 acres, and Spangenberg, the negotiator, received a present of 50 acres for himself, a part of the site on which the city of Savannah now stands. The first eleven immigrants reached Savannah 17 April, 1734, led by Spangenberg. Bishop Nitschmann brought over another twenty, 7 February, 1736. The work of evangelizing and colonizing was at once vigorously taken in hand and carried on with more courage than success. The climate, wars, enmities from within and without, checked the growth and cramped the organization of the Brotherhood.

PRESENT CONDITION OF THE MORAVIAN BODY

The outcome of their faithful struggles during 175 years is shown in the subjoined statistics, and may be read in detail in the “Transactions of the Moravian Historical Society,” Vol. VI:

Statistics for America (from “The Moravian,” 13 March, 1907).- On the 1st of January, 1907, there were in the five northern districts of America 96 congregations with 13,859 communicants, 1,194 noncommunicants, and 5,316 children; a total membership of 20,369; an increase of 228 over the previous year. In Sunday schools there were 9,666 pupils under 1,156 officers and teachers, a total membership of 10,822, against 11,012 in the preceding year, implying a loss of 187. Receipts from all sources: 31 December, 1906, $145,517.67; a decrease of $8,006.19 on 1905. Expenses exactly balance receipts. In the Southern Province of America there were on the 1st of January, 1907, 3,703 communicants, 320 non-communicants, 1,819 children; total, 5,842. Sunday schools contained 3,883 pupils, 323 officers and teachers; total, 4,206.- Total membership in both provinces: 26,211 against 25,877 in 1906- an increase of 334.

In Great Britain and Ireland, the Moravian Church numbered on the 31st of December, 1906, 41 congregations, with a total membership of 6,343; an increase of 211 on 1905; 5,072 pupils attended Sunday schools, with 568 teachers; there were also 213 pupils, with 5 teachers, in 5 day schools, and 305 scholars, with 38 teachers, in 5 boarding schools.

The German Province, 31 December, 1905, had 25 congregations, with a total membership of 7,958, of whom 5,795 were communicants; 50 missionary centres ministered to about 70,000 (the “Diaspora”).

The Mission Fields of the Moravians: In North America, Labrador, begun 1771; Alaska, 1885; California, 1890.-In Central America, Mosquito Coast, 1849.-In South America, Surinam, 1735, Demerara, 1878.-In the West Indies, Jamaica, 1754; St. Thomas, 1732, St. Jan, 1754; St. Croix, 1740; Antigua, 1756; St. Kitts, 1777; Barbadoes, 1765; Tobago, 1790; Trinidad, 1890.-In Africa, Cape Colony, East and West, 1736; German East Africa, 1891.-In Asia, West Himalaya, 1853; Jerusalem, Leper House, 1867.-In Australia, Victoria, 1849; North Queensland, 1891. The work is carried on by 470 missionaries of whom 76 are natives. Bohemia and Moravia are also counted among the mission fields. The mission work there, like that of the foreign missions, is a joint undertaking of all the Provinces of the Church. In December, 1905, the total membership was 984; income (of which £111 was from the British Province), £1761, 16/4; outlay, £1,991, 10/9.

CAMERARIUS, Historica narratio de Fratrum orthodoxorum ecclesiis in Bohemia, Moravia, et Polonia (Frankfurt, 1625); BOROWY, s. v. Bruder, Bohmische in Kirchenlex., II; HAMILTON, A History of the Moravian Church, or the Unitas Fratrum (Bethlehem, Pa., 1900); WAUER, The Beginnings of the Brethren’s Church in England (Baildon, near Shipley, Yorks, 1901); The Moravian (official organ of the N. Prov. Of the Unitas Fratrum in America); The Moravian Messenger.- See also Bibliography prefixed to SCHWEINITZ, History of the Unitas Fratrum.

J. WILHELM

Bohemians of the United States

A traveler who has seen the natural beauties of Bohemia, its vast resources, and the thrift of its people, will, no doubt, be surprised at the comparatively great number of persons who have emigrated to the United States of America. The causes for this are political, religious, and economical.

Religious dissensions at the beginning of the seventeenth century induced many to leave their native country and even to cross the ocean. The religious revolution stirred up by the preachings and teachings of John Hus gave birth to several religious sects in Bohemia, the suppression of which, after the battle of White Mountain near Prague (1620), caused many to emigrate to other countries and several even as far as America. Of the latter Augustyn Herman (d. 1692) and Frederick Filip (d. 1702) are the most important from an historical standpoint. Herman must have been a man of good education, for Governor Stuyvesant, of New Amsterdam, entrusted him with many important missions. He made the first map of the State of Maryland, of which one copy is still preserved in the British Museum and another at Richmond, in the archives of the State of Virginia. Herman always publicly professed his nationality. The second of these Bohemian emigrants, Filip, or Philipps as he is commonly known, was likewise a man of prominence and his descendants played no small part in the development of New Amsterdam. He was buried in the cemetery of Sleepy Hollow, near Tarrytown, New York. Though historical proof is lacking, without doubt many other Bohemians of similar religious convictions, emigrated to this country at the same time. Their families either died out, or, as more probable, were entirely assimilated by the American people so that they have left no trace.

Of late years emigration from Bohemia has been chiefly caused by political conditions. Many Bohemian patriots, especially during the stormy year of 1848, sought refuge beyond the sea to evade the consequences of patriotic zeal, as the courts showed little mercy to those accused of political crimes. A similar state of affairs existed later on when the reins of the Austrian Government passed into the hands of the enemies of Bohemia, who punished every patriotic act as high treason to Austria. These political conditions, coupled with the Austro-Prussian war of 1866, in which Bohemia suffered great loss of life and property, forced many to seek their fortunes in the land of freedom. The greater number of emigrants, however, came to this country on account of poverty, brought on, for the most part, by the failure of the Government to interest itself in the welfare of certain parts of Bohemia, especially the southern and eastern parts, where, for lack of industry, the people were forced to depend for their livelihood almost exclusively, on the fruits of the fields. This poverty was increased by overtaxation and frequent failures of crops. It was precisely these parts of Bohemia that sent thousands of their best citizens to America about 1870, and are sending a still greater number at the present time.

It will be impossible to give the exact number of Bohemian immigrants to the United States, as the Immigration Bureau up to the year 1881 enrolled all immigrants that came from any province of Austria as Austrians, and even after 1881, many Bohemians were listed as Austrians. As later immigration reports in which Bohemians were entered separately show that one-third of all immigrants from Austria come from Bohemia, the total number of Bohemians who came to this country before 1881 may be estimated approximately. It must be stated, however, that after 1881 many immigrants from Moravia and Silesia, Austrian provinces in which the Bohemian language is spoken, were enrolled as Bohemians. Taking all these facts into consideration, it is safe to give the number of foreign born Bohemians in the United States as 222,000. The number of American-born Bohemians is about 310,000, making the total Bohemian population of, the United States about 522,000. It is worthy of note that these figures are almost equally divided between males and females, which shows that the Bohemian immigrants have come to this country to stay. Statistics prove that only a very small number of Bohemians return to their native country to live. In 1906, 12,958 Bohemian immigrants were received, eclipsing the record of all previous years. The latest report of the Commissioner of Immigration shows only two percent of Bohemian immigrants illiterate, as compared with four per cent of Germans and still higher proportions for other nations.

Of the larger cities Chicago has a Bohemian population of about 100,000; New York, 40,000; Cleveland, 40,000; Baltimore, 8,500; Omaha, 8,000; Milwaukee, 5,500; St. Paul, 6,000; and St. Louis, 8,000.

It is in the farming districts that the Bohemian immigrants have attained the greatest degree of success. It is here that we can best see the great share they had in building up the United States. Coming for the most part from rural districts, accustomed to hard labor, and ever willing to undergo the hardships of pioneer life, the Bohemians have attained an honorable place amongst the Western farmers. There is a saying amongst the Western farmers that if anyone can wrest crops from the soil, it is the Bohemian farmer. About half of the Bohemian immigrants have cast their lot with farming communities.

SOCIETIES

Amongst the great number of Bohemians in this country, there is no one organization uniting them into one national body. This may be explained by the fact that they are divided into two strongly antagonistic camps: Catholics and atheists or free-thinkers. The latter are chiefly those who have apostatized from the faith of their fathers. Only an insignificant percentage of Bohemians are adherents of Protestant sects, though Protestants have expended great labor and large sums in proselytizing amongst the Bohemians.

The two camps are entirely separate, each with its own fraternal organizations. The Catholics have the following fraternal or benevolent organizations: The First Bohemian Roman Catholic Central Union (Prvni Rimsko-Katolicka Ustredni Jednota), founded in 1877 at St. Louis, has a membership of 11,505; the Catholic Workman (Katolicky Delnik), founded in 1891, 3,225; the Bohemian Roman Catholic Central Union of the State of Wisconsin (Ceskd Rimsko-Katolicka Ustredni Jednota ve Statu Wisconsin) founded in 1888, 1,380; the Bohemian Catholic Union of the State of Texas (Katolicka Jednota Texaska), founded in 1889, 1,900; the Western Bohemian Catholic Union (Zapadni Cesko-Katolicka Jednota), founded in 1898, 3,000; the Bohemian Catholic Union of Cleveland (Cesko-Rimsko-Katolicka Jednota ve Cleveland, O.), founded in 1899, 1,800; the Bohemian Catholic Central Union of American Women (Ustredni Jednota Zen Americkych) established in 1880, 14,100; the Bohemian Catholic Union of Women of the State of Texas (Ceska Rimsko-Katolicka Jednota Zen ve Statu Texas) likewise a large membership. All these organizations are thoroughly Catholic in spirit, and not only practice benevolence and charity towards their members, but have been the right hand of the clergy in building Catholic churches and schools and in fostering the spirit of religion amongst their countrymen.

Opposed to these Catholic organizations are the fraternal organizations of the freethinking Bohemians. The strongest of these is the Bohemian Slavic Benevolent Society (Cesko-Slovanska Podporujici Spolecnost), established at St. Louis in 1854, which has a membership, of about 15,000. This organization is chiefly responsible for the loss of faith amongst many Bohemians of this country, having enticed thousands of well-meaning people to join its ranks under the pretext of strict neutrality in religious matters. By association with free-thinkers and under other evil influences, thousands grew lukewarm in the performance of their religious duties and finally lost their faith entirely. This organization is atheistic in spirit and propagates atheism amongst its members. A similar tendency is exercised by the gymnastic or athletic societies commonly called the Sokol (turners); by the Western Benevolent Society (Zapdni Ceska Bratrska Jednota), which has a membership of about 7,000; by the Society of Bohemian Ladies (Jednota Ceskych Dam), with a membership of about 15,000, as well as several minor organizations of the same type.

SCHOOLS

Wherever it is possible Bohemian Catholics endeavor to build a school. Love of their faith as well as love of their native tongue impels them to send their children to these schools, it being the desire of Bohemian parents that their children learn at least to read and write the language of their parents. Experience shows that without such schools children are soon estranged to the language and lose many of the good characteristics of their parents. The number of Bohemian Catholic parochial schools in this country is seventy-five, with a total attendance of about 14,000. There is also an institution of higher education, St. Procopius College at Lisle, Illinois, founded and conducted by the Bohemian Benedictine Order. The object of this institution is not only to train candidates for the priesthood, but to give young men in general such an education as to enable them to become leaders of their people in the various walks of life.

PRESS

The first, and for a long time the only, Bohemian Catholic newspaper published in the United States, was the “Hlas” (Voice) of St. Louis, published semi-weekly. After its establishment in 1873 it was edited and managed for many years by its venerable founder, Monsignor Joseph Hessoun, pastor of St. John’s Church, St. Louis, who gave it a special prestige among the Bohemian Catholics of the United States. In the year 1890 the “Pritel Ditek” (Friend of Children) was established in Chicago, a weekly periodical, and, as its name implies, intended chiefly for children. In the year 1892 the “Katolík” (The Catholic) was founded, published twice a week, and by far the best periodical in the Bohemian Language in this country. The “Katolík” was followed by the daily “Národ” (Nation) and the “Hospodárské Listy (Agricultural News), established in 1898, appears twice a month. All of these papers are published by the Bohemian Benedictine Order of Chicago. In addition, there are the following Bohemian papers: “Nový Domov” (The New Home), a weekly publication of Hallettsville, Texas; the “Vlastenec” (Patriot) published weekly at La Crosse, Wisconsin; the “Mesicni Vestnik,” published by the Redemptorist Fathers of New York once a month. All of these publications are doing inestimable service in the cause of religion.

The freethinking press is no less powerful. Four Bohemian dailies are ex professo hostile to religion, while two others, though posing as neutral and independent papers, are in reality anti-religious in their sympathies and tendencies. Three Bohemian dailies are published in Chicago, two in New York, and two in Cleveland. There are in addition four biweeklies, ten weeklies, and several smaller publications.

COMMUNITIES AND CHURCHES

There are three Bohemian religious communities in the United States. The first and oldest, the Bohemian Benedictine Order of Chicago was founded in 1887 by the Right Rev. Boniface Wimmer, O.S.B., first Abbot of St. Vincent’s, Beatty, Pennsylvania. This apostolic man, perceiving the great dearth of priests among the Bohemians in the United States, invited Bohemian young men to his abbey, educated them free of charge, and fitted them for exercising the ministry amongst their own countrymen. At his request the pope granted permission for the establishment of an independent or canonical Bohemian priory, in St. Procopius Priory of Chicago, which in 1894 was raised by His Holiness Leo XIII to the dignity of an abbey; the Right Rev. John Nepomuk Jaeger, O.S.B., was elected the first abbot. The Bohemian Benedictine Fathers have charge of three Bohemian and two Slovak congregations, in the city of Chicago, amongst them the congregation of St. Procopius, the largest Bohemian parish in the United States, with a membership of about 10,000. They have likewise a large modern printing plant in which four leading Bohemian Catholic newspapers are printed. The order has 13 priests, 3 clerics, 3 novices, and 10 lay-brothers. The second purely Bohemian religious community is that of the Bohemian Benedictine Sisters of the Sacred Heart at Chicago, established in 1894. These sisters are also in charge of St. Joseph’s Orphanage at Lisle, Illinois. A second Bohemian orphanage is to be established at St. Louis, in connection with St. John’s church, the oldest Bohemian parish in the United States. The Bohemian Benedictine Sisters have at present 27 sisters, 7 novices, and 1 candidate, and teach in several Bohemian schools. Besides these two exclusively Bohemian religious communities we have the Bohemian Redemptorist Fathers of New York and Baltimore, who do not, however, form independent communities, but are directly under the provincial who is at the head of all Redemptorist communities belonging to the Eastern province. They are in charge of the church of Mary Help, New York City, which has four Bohemian priests, and of St. Wenceslaus Church, Baltimore which has three.

There are in the United States 138 Bohemian Catholic churches with resident pastors and about 129 missions; many of the missions, however, are attended from churches of different nationalities. The number of Bohemian priests in the United States is 208; 35 minister to non-Bohemian parishes, 30 of them to Slovak congregations.

DISTINGUISHED REPRESENTATIVES

The name of the Very Rev. Monsignor Joseph Hessoun (b. 1830; d. 4 July, 1906), late pastor of the church of St. John Nepomuk, St. Louis, is held in grateful remembrance by the Bohemian Catholic people of the United States. Born at Vrcovic, Bohemia, he came to the United States in 1865, eleven years after his ordination, and up to his death worked with untiring zeal among his people. The fruits of his labors were felt by Bohemians throughout the country. He not only encouraged them to perseverance by his editorials in the “Hlas,” but he often sacrificed his last cent to assist in the building of Catholic churches. Furthermore, he did everything that lay in his power to procure priests for his people. Whenever necessity demanded he visited the Bohemian parishes without Bohemian priests. In his old age he was universally called nas taticek (our little father). Among other Bohemian priests who have labored with untiring zeal for the salvation of the Bohemians in this country must be mentioned the Very Rev. William Coka, Vicar-General of Omaha, b. at Cernovir, Moravia; d. 1902; the Rev. Father Sulák, S.J., of Chicago, the oldest Bohemian missionary; the Right Rev. John Nepomuk Jaeger, Abbot of the Bohemian Benedictine Order of Chicago; the Rev. Wenceslaus Kocarnik, O.S.B., of Chicago; the Rev. John Vranek of Omaha, a Bohemian poet of great ability and merit. Above all there is the noble pioneer of Bohemian priests on the soil of the new world, the saintly John Nepomuk Neuman, fourth Bishop of Philadelphia, b. at Prachatitz, Bohemia, 1811; d. 1860.

The Bohemians all over the world are renowned for their musical gifts. In Bohemian churches of this country church music has attained a high degree of excellence, especially noticeable by the congregational singing in the larger churches. Not a few Bohemia priests are finished musicians. The feasts of the national patrons, those of St. John Nepomuk and of St. Wenceslaus, the first Christian Prince of Bohemia, are celebrated with special pomp, according to the usages of Bohemia. Good Friday is likewise observed with a solemnity unusual in this country. The Resurrection of Our Lord is celebrated with great pomp in the evening of Holy Saturday, wherever possible in the open air.

Bureau of Statistics: Immigration into the U. S., 1820-1903 (Washington, 1903); Annual Reports of the Commissioner-General of Immigration (Washington); BALCH, Slav Immigration at Its Source in Charities (New York, 1906); HOUST, Kratke dejiny cesko-katol. osad ve Spoj. Statech (St. Louis, 1890); WAGNER. Cesti osadnici v Americe (Prague, 1887); HABENICHT, Dejiny Cechu Americkych (St. Louis, 1906); ROSICKY, Jak je v Americe? (Omaha, 1906); CAPEK, Pamatky ceskych emigrantu v Americe (Omaha 1907).

JOS. SINKMAJER.

Diocese of Boiano

Diocese in the province of Benevento, Italy, suffragan to the Archbishopric of Benevento. The city, situated at the foot of Monte Matese, occupies the site of the ancient Roman colony of Bovianum or Bobianum. Cappelletti has demonstrated the error of Ughelli (Italia Sacra, VIII, 241) who thought he recognized a bishop of this see in a certain Laurentius at the beginning of the sixth century. The see, however, is decidedly ancient. Its first recorded bishop is Adalberto (1071). Others worthy of note are: Poliziano (1215) who consecrated the cathedral; Giovanni (1226), who decorated the façade at his own expense, as recorded in an inscription; Silvio Pandoni (1489), who restored the work of Giovanni; Cardinals Franciotto Orsini (1519) and Carlo Carafa (1572), who adorned the cathedral with costly furnishings; Celestino Bruni (1653), a distinguished theologian and preacher. After the death of Bishop Nicolò Rosetti (elected in 1774), differences between the Holy See and the court of Naples prevented the appointment of a successor until 1836, when Giuseppe Riccardi was appointed. The most notable sacred edifice is the cathedral, dedicated to St. Bartholomew the Apostle. The diocese has a population of 90,300, with 33 parishes, 134 churches and chapels, 173 secular priest, 19 regulars, and 62 seminarians.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XIX, 191; BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (Paris, 1907).

U. BENIGNI

Matteo Maria Boiardo

An Italian poet, b. about 1434, at, or near, Scandiano (Reggio-Emilia); d. at Reggio, 20 December, 1494. The son of Giovanni di Feltrino and Lucia Strossi, he was of noble lineage, ranking as Count of Scandiano, with seigniorial power over Arceto, Casalgrande, Gesso, and Torricella. Boiardo was an ideal type of the gifted and accomplished courtier possessing at the same time, a manly heart and deep humanistic learning. Up to the year of his marriage to Taddea Gonzaga, gthe daughter of the Count of Novellara (1472), he had received many marks of favour from Borso d’Este, duke of Ferrara, having been sent to meet Frederick III (1469), and afterwards visiting Pope Paul II (1471), in the train of Borso. In 1473 he joined the retinue which escorted Eleonora of Aragon, the daughter of Ferdinand I, to meet her spouse, Ercole, at Ferrara. Five years later he was invested with the governorship of Reggio, an office which he filled with signal success till his death, except for an interval (1481–86) during which he was governor of Modena.

His great poem of chivalry and romance “L’Orlando innamorato” (Scandiano, 1495), cohnsisting of sixty-eight cantos and a half, was begun about his thirty-eighth year, interrupted for a time by the Venetian war, then resumed, to be left unfinished on account of the author’s death. To material largely quarried from the Carlovingian and Arthurian cycles the count of Scandiano added a gorgeous superstructure of his own. As the plot is not woven around a single pivotal action, the inextricable maze of most cunningly contrived episodes must be linked, first, with the quest of beautiful Angelica by love-smitten Orlando and the other enamoured knights, then with the defence of Albracca by Angelica’s father, the King of Cathay, against the beleaguering Tartars, and, finally, with the Moors’ siege of Paris and their struggle with Charlemagne’s army. The whole, in spite of a lack of finish and sundry rhythmical deficiencies, formed a magnificent work of art, echoing from every ottava the poet’s ardent devotion to Love and Loyalty, shedding warmth and sunshine wherever the lapse of ages had rendered the legends colourless and cold, and opening a path which Ariosto and Tasso were soon to tread. Still, the poem, after sixteen editions, was not to be republished for nearly three centuries. Francesco Berni’s rifacimento, or recasting of “L’Orlando” appeared in 1542, and from that date till 1830, when Panizzi revived it, Boi8ardo’s name was well-nigh forgotten. A similar fate had befallen the count’s “Rime” (Scandiano, 1499), which Panizzi’s edition (London, 1835), snatched from oblivion. In his youth Boiardo had been a successful imitator of Petrarca’s love strains. Evidence of his more sever attainments is furnished in an ‘Istoria Imperiale,” some versions from Nepos, Apuleius, Herodotus, Xenophon, etc., and by his Latin Eclogues. A comedy, ‘Il Timone” (1487?), adds little to his credit. See BERNI.

SOLERTI, Le Poesie volgari e latine di Matteo Maria Boiardo (Bologna, 1894); SOLERTI, Orlando Fujrioso di Ariosto, ed. ANTONIO PANIZZI (London, 1830); FERRARI, CAMPANINI, AND OTHERS, Studi su Matteo Maria Boiardo (Bologna, 1894); TAPPERT, Bilder und Vergleiche aus dem Orlando innamorato (Marburg, 1886); NEPPI, La pluralità degli amori cantati dal Boiardo nel canzoniere,, in Giornale storico di lett. Ital., XLII, 360–373; RAZZOLI, Per le fonti dell’ Orlando innamorato (Milan, 1901), UGO FOSCOLO’s views on the poet are found in Q. Rev., n. 62, 527; and LEIGH HUNT’S in Stories from the Italian Poets (London, 1846). ALSOP (New York, 1806) and ROSE (Edinburgh, 1823) have published fragmentary translations of Berni’s recast.

EDOARDO SAN GIOVANNI

Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux

French poet, b. at Paris, 1 November, 1636; d. there, 13 March, 1711. He was educated at the college of Beauvais and was at first destined to enter the Church, but soon abandoned the study of theology and, to please his father, prepared himself for the Bar. Though admitted as counsellor-at-law (December , 1656), he never practised and his father having died leaving him enough to satisfy his wants, he devoted himself entirely to poetry. He was then twenty-one years old. Four years later he published his first satirical poem: “Adieux d’un poète à la ville de Paris”; immediately after this he published six others: “Les embarrass de Paris,” “La satire à Molière,” “Le repas ridicule,” “La noblesse,” and two others of minor importance. In these satires not only did Boileau parody and attack such writers as Cotin, Chapelain, and Le Voyer, but he also developed the practical capabilities of the French language. Prose in the hands of such writers as Descartes and Pascal had proved itself a flexible instrument of expression, while with the exception of Malherbe, there had been no system in french versification.

Enfin Malherbe vint et, le premier en France,

Fit sentir dans les vers une juste cadence.

Above all, these satires inaugurate in France a systematic literary criticism for art’s sake, where previously criticism had been nothing but the expression of envy or anger. Indeed, in these imitations of Juvenal and Horace, one recognizes a judge of his own masters, who judged them by a higher standard than his personal tastes. In 1660 Boileau published the “Epistles,” more serious in tone and also more polished in style. In 1674 appeared ‘Le lutrin” which, lighter in tone, still deserves a certain degree of admiration. It furnished the model for the “Rape of the Lock,” but the English poem is superior in richness and imagination. His masterpiece, however, and that of the didactic school in French, was without doubt “L’art poétique.” This was also the first code of French versification. It comprises four books, the first and the last containing general precepts; the second treating of the pastoral, the elegy, the ode, the epigram, and the satire; and the third of tragic and epic poetry. His later publications were chiefly poems which he composed to defend himself against the numerous enemies his satires had raised up against him.

The end of Boileau’s life was sad. He suffered a great deal from an operation which he underwent while young, and which, together with deafness, obliged him to retire from public life and even from the society of his friends. The death of Racine, his very best friend (1699), affected him deeply and his thoughts turned strongly towards religion. He was preparing a new edition of his works when death called him away. He holds a well-defined place in French literature as the first to introduce a regular system into its method of versification.

DESMAISEAUX, La vie de Boileau-Despréaux (1712); ALEMBERT, Eloge de Despréaux (1779); CHAUFEPIE, Dictionnaire, s.v. Boileau; GARNIER, (Euvres complètes (1800); FABRE, Eloges de Boileau Despréaux (1805); PORTIEN, Essai sur Boileau Despréaux (1805).

M. DE MOREIRA

Diocese of Boise

Diocese of Boise (Xylopolitana)

Created by Leo XIII, 25 August, 1893, embraces the whole State of Idaho, U.S.A., an area of 84,290 square miles. In 1842 a mission was started among the Coeur d’Alène Indians (whom Father De Smet, S.J., had recently visited) by Father Nicholas Point, S.J., and Brother Charles Huet, S.J. Father Joset followed next. The first Catholic church in Idaho was built sixteen miles from Coeur d’Alène Lake by the Jesuit Fathers Gazzoli and Ravalli, aided by the red men. In its construction wooden pegs wee used instead of nails. In 1863, the pioneer secular priests, the Rev. Toussaint Mesplié, a Frenchman, and the Rev. A. Z. Poulin, a Canadian, were successively sent to the placer miners of Boisé Basin by Archbishop F. N. Blanchet, first administrator of Idaho Territory. Within six months they built the first churches erected for white people in Idaho City, Placerville, Centerville, and Pioneer; and later, a school at Idaho City, of which Sisters of the Holy Names, from Portland, Oregon, took charge. Father J. M. Cataldo, S.J., made unsuccessful advances to the Nez Percés in 1867. Recalled by them in 1872, he soon baptized three hundred of these fierce warriors. In 1876, Father Gazzoli drew many to the Faith by his remarkable medical skill. Interrupted by the Nez Percés war (1877), the work has since been successfully carried on, Archbishop Seghers’ visits in 1879–83 having given it a new impetus. The Holy See, 3 March, 1868, established Idaho as a vicariate Apostolic and placed it in charge of the Right Rev. Louis Lootens who was consecrated Titular Bishop of Castabala, at San Francisco, 9 August, 1868. Born in Bruges, Belgium, 17 March, 1827, he emigrated to Victoria in 1852, and spent nine years as a missionary in Vancouver Island and six in California. The new vicar Apostolic reached Idaho in January, 1869, and took up his abode at Granite Creek. In 1870 the first Catholic church was erected in the capital by Fathers Mesplé and Poulin, on a site donated by John A. O’Farrell, Col. A. St. Clair, commander of Fort Boisé, being the priests’ main helper in this laborious work. It was scarcely dedicated, however, when it was burned down. Bishop Lootens resigned 16 July 1875, and died 13 January, 1898. He was succeeded by the second vicar Apostolic, the Right Rev. Alphonsus Joseph Glorieux, consecrated at Baltimore, Maryland, titular Bishop of Apollonia, 19 April, 1885. He found in his territory about 2,500 Catholics with ten churches attended by two secular and several Jesuit priests. When Boise was made an episcopal see he was transferred thither as its first bishop, 26 August, 1893.

The diocese has fifty-four churches and chapels, 34 priests, 7 academies, and 5 parochial schools, with 950 pupils; 2 industrial and reform schools with 150 inmates; 3 hospitals and a Catholic population of 15,000, mostly of Irish and German racial affiliations, a sprinkling of Canadians, and 4,000 Indians. On 11 November, 1906, the corner-stone of a fine cathedral was laid near the new episcopal residence. Among the pioneer priests who did splendid missionary work here were Fathers L. Verhaag, E. Nattini, F. Hartleib, W. Hendrickx, and C. Van der Donckt, the last being the first priest ordained for Idaho in 1887, and stationed at Pocatello since June, 1888. The academies and parochial schools are conducted respectively by the Sisters of the Holy Cross, of St. Joseph of the Visitation, of Charity, of Providence, of St. Benedict, and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

VAN DER DONCKT, The founders of the Church in Idaho in the Eccles. Review. XXXII, Nos. 1, 2, 3; SHEA, Hist. Cath. Ch. In U.S. (New York, 1894); REUSS, Biographical Encycl. Of the Cath. Hierarchy (Milwaukee, Wisconsin).

C. VAN DER DONCKT.

Jean de Dieu-Raymond de Cucé de Boisgelin

French prelate and cardinal, b. of an ancient family at Rennes in Brittany, 27 February, 1732; d. 22 August, 1804. Destined from his early youth to the ecclesiastical state, he achieved remarkable success in his studies. The death of his elder brother made him the head of his family, but, giving up his birthright, he consecrated his life to the Church. First made Vicar-General of Pontoise, he was in 1765 raised to the Bishopric of Lavaur, and in 1770 to the archiepiscopal See of Aix in Provence. In this last position he won for himself the name of skillful administrator and princely benefactor. Provence owes to him the digging of a canal bearing his name, several works of public utility, such as a bridge at Lavaur and educational institutions for poor children. When in a time of scarcity and of political ferment, at the outset of the French Revolution, Aix was threatened with violence and famine, the archbishop by his firmness, great ascendancy, wisdom, and generosity, proved its savior. The mob had pillaged the public granaries, and had answered by insults the summons of authority; Boisgelin assembled the magistrates, chief citizens, and merchants, dispelled their fears, and prevailed upon these men to procure for Aix an abundant supply of grain, towards the payment of which he contributed one hundred thousand livres. He issued a pastoral letter to his clergy, asking them to urge the people to restore to the granaries the grain they had carried. away. Where law had failed, religion and piety triumphed. The people obeyed and, flocking to the cathedral, expressed in touching terms their gratitude to the archbishop who was so absolutely devoted to their welfare.

Boisgelin was elected to represent the higher clergy of his province at the States-General, 1789. In that famous assembly his practical political wisdom and moderation appeared on many occasions; he voted, in the name of the clergy, for the union of the three orders, the abolition of feudal rights, and offered 400,000 livres to the public treasury; but he opposed the abolition of tithes and the confiscation of church property. His political sagacity and eloquence made him the recognized leader and spokesman of thirty bishops, his colleagues in the assembly. He spoke the language of liberty and that of religion with equal eloquence; he would have every citizen share in the establishment and maintenance of the government, with his political rights as indestructible as his natural and civic rights. The majority of the assembly voted for the civil constitution, a constitution subversive of the government of the Church, and of its discipline, a constitution that denied the supreme jurisdiction of the pope, subjected ecclesiastics to the civil power, and decreed that all the members of the clergy, beginning with those in the assembly, should take the oath of allegiance to the constitution, under penalty of exile and the forfeiture of their salaries. This legislation placed the clergy between two evils, schism and dishonor on one side, dire poverty, exile, if not death, on the other. Boldly and firmly Boisgelin rose to champion the cause of the Church: “Let the law,” he exclaimed in the assembly, “leave us our honor and liberty; take back your salaries.” It was he who wrote the famous “Exposition of Principles,” signed by all except four of the bishops of France, condemning the Civil Constitution of the Clergy; it was he who in the name of his colleagues corresponded during two years with Rome, he who in a letter, dated 3 May, 1791, proposed to the bishops to lay their resignations at the feet of Pius VI; in 1801 he effectively made to Pius VII the sacrifice not accepted by Pius VI. When persecutions drove him out of France he went to England. In his answer to a letter from Edmund Burke in which the orator expressed his admiration for the spirit of disinterestedness and dignity of character of the French episcopacy, he complains that he is expelled from France in the name of that liberty he had in perfect faith contributed to establish, and under whose protection he hoped to end his days.

Boisgelin returned to France when Napoleon restored peace to the Church and to France by his Concordat, 15 July, 1801. In 1802, he was raised to the archiepiscopal See of Tours and soon after created cardinal. Boisgelin who had displayed administrative qualities of a high order at Aix, was no less remarkable for his literary and oratorical talents. Simplicity, grace, and pathos characterize his eloquence. In 1776 he was chosen member of the French Academy. His works include: “Collection de diverses pièces en vers” (1783); “L’art de juger d’après l’analogie des idées” (1789); “Considérations sur la paix publique adressées de la Révolution” (1791); “Exposition des principes sur la constitution du clergé” (1791); “Le Psalmiste, traduction des Psaumes en vers” (1799); “Traduction des Héroïdes d’Ovide” (1784). His complete works appeared in Paris, 1818.

DE BAUSSET, Notice historique sur Boisgelin in Biographie universelle (Paris, 1812); ROHRBACHER, Histoire universelle de l’église catholique (Paris, 1874); SICARD, L’ancien clergé de France, avant et pendant la Révolution (Paris, 1902); DE FELLER, Biographie universelle (Paris, 1847); GUÉRIN, Dictionnaire des dictionnaires (Paris, 1892).

F. M. L. DUMONT.

St. Boisil

Superior of Melrose Abbey, d. 664. Almost all that is known of St. Boisil is learnt from Bede (Eccles. Hist., IV, xxvii, and Vita Cuthberti). He derived his information from Sigfrid, a monk of Jarrow, who had previously been trained by Boisil at Melrose. St. Boisil’s fame is mainly due to his connection with his great pupil, St. Cuthbert, but it is plain that the master was worthy of the disciple. Contemporaries were deeply impressed with Boisil’s supernatural intuitions. When Cuthbert presented himself at Melrose, Boisil exclaimed “Behold a servant of the Lord,” and he obtained leave from Abbot Eata to receive him into the community at once. When in the great pestilence of 664 Cuthbert was stricken down, Boisil declared he would certainly recover. Somewhat later Boisil himself as he had foretold three years before, fell a victim to this terrible epidemic, but before the end came he predicted that Cuthbert would become a bishop and would effect great things for the Church. After his death Boisil appeared twice in a vision to his former disciple, Bishop Ecgberht. He is believed, on somewhat dubious authority, to have written certain theological works, but they have not been preserved. St. Boswell’s, Roxburghshire, commemorates his name. His relics, like those of St. Bede, were carried off to Durham in the eleventh century by the priest Ælfred. In the early Calendars his day is assigned to 23 February, but the Bollandists treat of him on 9 September.

Acta SS., January, II and March, III; Acta SS. Ben., Saec, II, p. 850; STUBBS in Dict. Christ. Biog.; HUNT in Dict. Nat. Biog.; PLUMMER in Bede’s Eccles. Hist. (Oxford, 1896); STANTON, Menology (London, 1892), 318.

HERBERT THURSTON

Diocese of Bois-le-Duc

The Diocese of Bois-le-Duc (Buscoducensis) lies within the Dutch province of Brabant, and is suffragan to Utrecht. The city of Bois-le-Duc (s’Hertogenbosch, or Hertzogenbusch—Sylva Ducis) was founded in 1184, but with the surrounding territory, was included in the Diocese of Liège until 12 March, 1561. At that time, and in order to check the spread of Protestantism, Pius IV raised it to the dignity of a see, and made it suffragan to Mechlin. The first bishop was the illustrious theologian Francis Sonnius (1562–69), afterwards transferred to the see of Antwerp. His successors suffered not a little amid the political disorders and the disastrous wars of the last quarter of the sixteenth century. When after a long siege the city was captured by Prince Frederick Henry (14 Sept., 1629) and held in the name of the States-General, the sixth bishop, Michael Ophorius, was obliged to abandon his see, which he did in a solemn procession, surrounded by his clergy, and bearing with him a famous miraculous statue of the Blessed Virgin which he placed in safety at Brussels.

Joseph de Bergaigne (1638–47) was really little more than bishop in name. He was unable to assert his right to the office, and lived an exile from the see to which he was deeply attached, but which he beheld in the power of Dutch Calvinists. By the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) the entire territory of Bois-le-Duc was recognized as a permanent conquest of the seventeen united provinces, and made directly subject to their jurisdiction, i.e. to the States-General. The exercise of the Catholic religion was forbidden by law, and the pertinent decrees were applied with all possible rigour in the hope of extirpating the ancient Faith. Catholic priests, however, continued secretly their ministry of preaching and their administration of the sacraments, while their flocks met with invincible patience the storm of persecution. The diocese became a simple mission, governed by a vicar-Apostolic, nearly always, however, a titular bishop.

Bois-le-Duc was administered in this fashion until 1853. Napoleon had tried (1810) to created another diocese under that name, inclusive of the territory known as the Bouches du Rhin, and had even obtained a titular for the new see in the person of the imperial courtier, Monsignor Van Camp, but the latter was despised by all good Catholics, and the arbitrary act of the emperor was doomed to failure. A similar failure awaited the attempt, authorized by the Concordat of 27 August, 1827, to divide all Holland into two large dioceses, Amsterdam and Bois-le-Duc. The ancient see was finally revived by Pius IX on the occasion of the restoration of the hierarchy in Holland, where, since 1848, the revised constitution has assured to Catholics full political and religious liberty. Together with three other Dutch sees, Bois-le-Duc was re-established by the pontifical Brief of 4 March, 1853, and with its former limits; all four sees were made suffragan to Utrecht. The Right Rev. Jan Zwÿsen, a native of the diocese and its most illustrious son, hitherto vicar-Apostolic, was the first bishop of the re-established see, though temporarily he was known as administrator-Apostolic, since he was already Archbishop of Utrecht, with which office he was to unite the government of Bois-le-Duc.

In 1865 the first provincial synod was held there, the decrees of which form the actual ecclesiastical discipline in all the diocese of Holland, and exhibit Archbishop Zwÿsen as the true organizer of the ecclesiastical order in that country. In 1868 he was allowed to resign the archiepiscopal See of Utrecht. Thenceforth, until his death in 1877, he devoted himself to the administration of his beloved See of Bois-le-Duc. He was succeeded by the Right Rev. Adrian Godschalk, who died in 1892, leaving the see to be filled by Bishop William van den Ven. The cathedral of Bois-le-Duc, dedicated to St. John the Evangelist, is the finest monument of medieval Gothic in the possession of the Catholics of Holland. Though it was almost entirely rebuilt after the conflagration of 1419, it had again suffered notable decay in succeeding centuries. A thorough restoration of the edifice, however, was later begun. Bois-le-Duc had a collegiate chapter as early as 1360, which was made a cathedral chapter in 1561. The above-mentioned miraculous statue of the Blessed Virgin has been restored to the cathedral and is once more the object of general devotion. There are two diocesan seminaries, one at St. Michiels-Gestel for preparatory studies and the other at Haaren for philosophy and theology. The diocese includes 451,670 Catholics, 260 parishes, 625 priests, 143 charitable institutions, and 476 free (Catholic) schools.

FOPPENS, Historia episcopatus Sylvoeducensis (Brussels, 1721),COPPENS, Nieuwe beschryving van het bisdom s’Hertogenbosch (Bois-le-Duc, 1840–44), i-iv; HEZENMANS, De St. Janskerk te s’Hertogenbosch en hare geschiedenis (Bois-le-Duc, 1866); ALBERS, Geschiedenis van het herstel der hierarchie in de Nederlanden (Nymegen, 1903–1904), i-ii; Neerlandia catholica (Utrecht, 1888).

GISBERT BROM

Osbern Bokenham

(BOKENAM)

English Augustinian friar and poet, b. 1393 (the year in which the most famous of English Augustinians, John Capgrave, was also born); d. probably, in 1447. The assertion of Horstmann, his German editor, that Bokenham was born at Bookham, Surrey, appears to be contradicted by the friar’s own statement that his birthplace was in the vicinity of a “pryory of blake [black] canons” which Mr. Sydney Lee (Dict. Nat. Biogr., V, 314) identifies with a famous house of Augustinian canons at Bokenham, now Old Buckenham, Norfolk. Bokenham may or may not have got some early schooling from these “blake canons,” but he certainly spent five year as a young man in Italy, chiefly at Venice, making frequent pilgrimages to the great Italian centres of devotional life, Rome, of course, among them. His long residence in Italy, in a generation to which the memory of Petrarch (d. 1374) was still recent, must have been in itself something of a liberal education. Bokenham is known to have read both Cicero and Ovid—classical accomplishments not by any means a matter-of-course with young Englishmen destined to the ecclesiastical state in those days. Lydgate (d. 1451?) was among his contemporaries; Gover (d. 1402) and Chaucer (d. 1400) had been living in England in his boyhood, and had demonstrated the splendid possibilities of a language which for more than three centuries had been a mere rustic vernacular. His admission to the Order of Hermit-Friars of St. Augustine, whatever the exact date, certainly fell within the period of the order’s greatest intellectual activity in England, when Dr. John Lowe (d., Bishop of Rochester, 1436) was making such valuable additions to the great Austin-Friars library in London. Bockenham finally became a professed religious in the Augustinian convent at Stoke Clare, Suffolk.

His writings were chiefly religious in theme and feeling. A “Dialogue” (printed in vol. VI of Dugdale’s “Monasticon”), on the genealogy of a great Suffolk family, is attributed to Bokenham on internal evidence. The “Lyvys of Seyntys” he compiled chiefly from the “Legenda aurea” of Jacobus à Voragine. Those are the lives of twelve female saints, with an account of the legendary “11,000 virgins.” Though valuable in a devotional sense, the “Lyvys of Seyntys” cannot be very seriously considered by modern hagiologists; but as illustrating the evolution of English literature, their historical value is inestimable. The language, described by its author as “of Suthfolke speche,” is forced into the exotic form of ottava rima. This work, preserved among the Arundel MSS, in the British Museum, was printed for the Roxburghe Club in 1835; but Horstmann’s edition (vol. I of Kölbing’s “Altenglische Bibliothek’) had appeared at Heilbronn two years earlier. Bokenham’s ideas of religious humility are curiously illustrated by his using the names of several contemporary ladies of high rank as noms de plume to cover his own authorship.

Dict of Nat. Biogr. (London and New York, 1886), V. s.v.; STEELE, Monasteries and Religious Houses (London, New York, etc., 1903). The two printed editions of Bokenham’s poem furnish material for critical study of his author.

E. MACPHERSON.

Conrad von Bolanden

(Joseph Bischoff)

A German novelist, son of a rich merchant, b. 9 August, 1828, at Niedergeilbach, a village of the Palatinate. He attended the Latin school at Blieskastel, the seminary at Speyer, and in 1849 entered the University of Munich to study theology. Ordained priest in 1852 he was appointed assistant pastor at the cathedral. Two years later he became pastor at Kirchheim Bolanden whence his pen name “Conrad von Bolanden.” The following year he was transferred to Börrstadt and three years later to Berghausen. During this time he wrote his first four works: “A Wedding Trip,” “Queen Bertha,” “Historical Tales of Frederick II,” and “Gustav Adolf.” In 1870 he resigned his parish to devote himself exclusively to literary work, and lived in strict retirement at Speyer. He published numerous novels of which the most noteworthy are: “Canossa,” “Trowel or Cross,” “Night of St. Batholomew,” “Savonarola,” “Crusades,” “Wambold,” “Charlemagne,” “Otto the Great,” “Pillar of Truth.”

His novels and romances, though not all of equal worth, are written for the people, brilliant in conception, simple in style. He fearlessly defends the Catholic standpoint and supports his position by frequent quotations from original sources. But in discussing questions of the day his criticisms are often severe and unjust. His works are widely read and have been translated into English and other European languages.

The Catholic World, xvii, 308; KEITER, Katholische Erzöhler, 131.

B. DIERINGER.

Giovanni Vincenzo Bolgeni

Theologian and controversialist, b. at Bergamo, Italy, 22 January, 1733; d. at Rome, 3 May, 1811. He entered the Society of Jesus, 31 October, 1747, taught theology and philosophy with marked success at Macerata, and was a member of the Society when it was suppressed by Clement XIV. Henceforth he devoted himself to controversy, and in recognition of his signal services against Jansenism and Josephinism, Pius IV appointed him Theologian-Penitentiary, an office of which he was deprived by Pius VII on account of the Jacobin principles he tolerated and advocated during the occupation of Rome by Napoleon I.

Of Bolgeni’s theological writings, the best known and at the same time the least fortunate was his “Della carità o amor di Dio” (Rome, 1788). In it he endeavored to refute the Dominican de Rubeis by demonstrating that the theological virtue of charity consists in loving God as he is good to us and not as he is absolute goodness. This position won for him misrepresentation at the hands of Teofilo Cristiani, fictitious author of “Lettera theologica-critica sull’ amor di Dio” (1791) and opposition from his former Jesuit comrades Mazzarelli (1790–91), Regono (1791), Cortes (1790–93), Chantre y Herrrera (1790–92) and Gentilini (1803). Against Cristiani he successfully disposed of the charge that he held purely servile fear a sufficient motive for attrition, but the arguments of his other adversaries he met at first with more subtlety than precision, and later with silence. He did not attempt to answer the searching criticism of his doctrine contained in Palestrina’s “Idea genuina della carità o amor di Dio” (1800). In addition to his original work he contributed to the controversy, “Schiarimenti in confermazione e difesa della sua dissertazione” (Rome, 1788, Foligno, 1790), and “Apologia dell’ amor di Dio detto di concupiscenza” (Foligno, 1792). Though practically defeated in this dispute Bolgeni’s presentation of his case demonstrated that he was endowed with controversial talents of no mean order, and these he used with telling effect in his writings on moral subject and on matters which may be classed as politico-theological. As Theologian-Penitentiary he edited a novel defense of probabilism under the caption “Il posesso, principio fondamentale per decidere i casi morali.” The second part of this work, “Dissertazione seconda fra le morali sopra gli atti umani” (Cremona, 1816; Orvieto, 1853), together with a treatise on usury, published under his name but probably not written by him, appeared after his death. The defense of probabilism aroused a storm of controversy, and among the noted anti-probabilists who engaged in the discussion may be mentioned the Bishop of Assisi (1798), Cajetan Maria de Fulgore (1798), Canon John Trinch of the Cathedral of Trivoli (1850), and Montbach (1857). Of these Trinch added to his “Il Bolgenismo Confuto” a “digression on the necessity of confessing all mortal sins, whether certain or doubtful, just as they are in conscience.”

The remaining productions of Bolgeni are chiefly devoted to attacks on Jansenism, Josephinism, and Jacobinism. Not long after the suppression of the Society of Jesus he entered the lists with the Society’s traditional enemy, Jansenism, by publishing “Esame della vera idea della Santa Sede” (Macerata, 1785; Foligno, 1791), a work undertaken in refutation of the Jansenistic doctrines contained in “La Vera Idea della Santa Sede” by Pietro Tamburini, a celebrated professor of the University of Paris. Several replies to the criticisms of Tamburini and to the censures of the Archpriest Guadagnini were published in rapid succession. In 1787, he wrote “Stato de’ bambini morti senza battesimo,” and in it scored the rigid doctrine of Guadagnini that infants dying without Baptism are doomed to the torments of Hell. This controversy over, he devoted his pen to defending the juridical powers of the hierarchy, cataloging the errors of the day, and combating the principles of Josephinism in Austria and of the Revolution in France. His publications at this period were: Fatti dommatici ossia dell’ infallibilità della chiesa nel decidere sulla dottrina buona, o cattiva de’ libri (Brescia, 1788); Specchio istorico da servive di preservatio contra gli errori correnti (1789); L’episcopato ossia della potesta di govenare la Chiesa (1789). These literary labors led to his appointment by Pius VI as Theologian-Penitentiary and in this capacity his issued a defense of “L’episcopato” (Rome, 1791) and “Dissertazione sulla giurisdizione ecclesiastica” (Rome, 1791), a refutation of George Sicard’s contention that the powers of orders and jurisdiction were identical. About the same time he renewed his attacks on Guadagnini and Tamburini, refuting the former’s state-deifying proclivities in “L’Economia della Fede Cristiana” (Brescia, 1790) and the latter’s anti-ecclesiasticism in “Problema si i Giansenisti siano Giacobini” (Rome, 1794). “L’Economia della Fede Cristiana” was of such merit that it was incorporated by Migne in his “Démonstrations Evangéliques,” vol. XVIII.

The last phase of Bolgeni’s life is to say the least a strange one. After Napoleon I had seized Rome, Bolgeni, with wellnigh unintelligible inconsistency, favored the anti-regal oath of alligience imposed by the conqueror. This change of front he defended vigorously and subtly, but vainly. He was obliged to make a retraction in the presence of the cardinals assembled at Vienna for the election of a pope; “Ritrattazione di Gio Vincenzo Bolgeni diretta a Monsignor Illmo. e Rmo. Vicegerente di Roma.” His writings during this unfortunate stage of his career were:

Parere sui giuramento civico (Rome, 1798);

Sentimenti de’ professori della universita del Collegio Romano sopra il giuramento prescritto dalla Republica Romana (Rome, an. VII);

Sentimenti sul giuramento civico (Rome, an. VII)

Metamorfosi del dott Gio. Marchetti, da penitenziere mutato in penitente (1800)

Parere . . . sull’ alienazione de’ beni ecclesiastici;

“Sciarimenti” to confirm the preceding.

After his death a work was edited, believed by some to be from his pen, “Dei limiti delle due potesta ecclesiatica e secolare” (Florence, 1849), and it was put on the index donec corrigatur. It is most probably unauthentic.

HURTER, Nomenclator, III, 530; DE BACKER, Bibl. des éscriv. de la c. de J. II, 70; BERNARD in Dict, de théol. cath., s. v.; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c. de J., I, 1611; Civiltà cattolica (1850), II, 3451; PALMIERI, De pænitentiâ, 234.

J. T. LANGAN.

Bolivia

A South American republic which lies between longitudes west of Greenwich 57 deg. 30’ and 74 deg., and latitudes 8 deg. and 22 deg. 50’ south. These figures are, however, still subject to treaty changes.

AREA, POPULATION, ETC.

The republic covers an area of 702,767 sq. miles (1,822,334 sq. kilometers) and ranks as third in size among the South American countries. In 1905 its population was estimated at 1,816,271, or a little more than five persons to every two square miles. Of these, 231,088 are reported as whites; 484,611 as mestizos, and 792,850 as Indians. Besides these, there were about 4,000 negroes, and the residue are of unascertained origin. The proportion of Catholics to non-Catholics is approximately as seventy-two to one. All these figures are taken with reserve, since the efforts at serious statistics are but very recent.

Since the close of the war with Chile in 1881, Bolivia has had no sea-coast. It is bounded on the west, north-west, and north by Peru; on the north-east and east by Brazil; on the south-east by Paraguay; on the south by the Argentine Republic, and on the south-west by Chile. Its communications with the outer world were still defective in 1905. A line of steamers on the Lake Titicaca then plied between the Peruvian port of Puno and the Bolivian of Huaqui, and stage lines, between La Paz and the Chilian frontier. On the east side of the Andes, in the Basin of the Amazon, rivers, which are often interrupt ed in their upper course by rapids (cachuelas) afford the only means of transit. Bolivia had two short railroad lines of its own, besides the Chilian line to Oruro, of which the terminus is upon Bolivian soil. The two Bolivian railroads were trunk-lines, with an aggregate length of sixty-five miles. Work was, however, progressing on several other newly begun lines.

Bolivia is divided into nine departments and a “National Territory of Colonies,” the area of which covers somewhat less than one-third of the whole surface of the republic, while its population is only one-sixtieth of the whole. Of the nine departments, La Paz is the most populous. Since 1899 the national capital has been La Paz de Ayacucho, with a population of 59,014 souls, situated in this department. Next to La Paz in importance is Cochabamba with 21,886 inhabitants. Sucre and Potosi are reported with 20,900 each, and Santa Cruz de la Sierra with 18,000, while the important mining centre of Oruro has a little over 15,000 inhabitants.

NATURAL FEATURES AND RESOURCES

The south-western third of the country lies at a great altitude above the Pacific Ocean. The Puna, or table-land comprised within the Departments of La Paz, Oruro, and Potosi, has an average elevation of nearly 13,000 feet. Two lofty mountain ranges form natural breastworks to Bolivia: in the west, the Coast Cordillera (Chilian frontier) and, in the East, the Bolivian chain, consisting of the Andes of Carabaya and Apolobamba towards the North, and the Royal cordillera or central Bolivian range, with its southern ramifications and prolongations to the Argentine lines. The mountainous section of Bolivia has no important rivers. Its drainage is in the North to Lake Titicaca, which itself empties to the South into the Lago (Lake) Poópó, which has no visible outlet. Towards the East mountain streams descend abruptly into the Basin of the Amazon. But the mountainous section has the two largest, and also most elevated lakes of South America: Titicaca, 12,500 feet above sea-level, 138 miles long from north-west to south-east, and of varying width, and Poópo, farther south. The eastern two-thirds of Bolivia, that section lying towards the Atlantic, is traversed by mighty streams (e.g. the Beni and Mamoré) and their affluents, all the which rise in the Central Bolivian chain. Bolivia has properly but two seasons: winter, corresponding in time to summer and part of fall and spring in the Northern Hemisphere, and summer embracing the rest of the year.

The mineral resources of this republic are known to be very important, but as yet they have been only superficially prospected. Difficulty of access to the country, unsettled political conditions in former times, and cumbersome, primitive transportation have been the main cause of this backwardness. The upper regions of the Amazonian Basin are known to contain coal, but there attention has been given chiefly to the vegetable resources, the India rubber tree having rendered possible the establishment of a highly important and growing industry. The same section, also, produces both coffee and sugar, and to-day the coca shrub is a staple, while calisaya bark is returning into favour. The highlands in the departments of La Paz, Oruro, Potosi, parts of Cochabamba and Tarija about in a variety of valuable orders. Gold is not generally distributed, and is extracted mainly by “point” mining, as for instance at Chuquiaguillo, near La Paz. In the first half of the nineteenth century the Tipuani district, so difficult to access, was productive of gold of great fineness, and in quantities very considerable for that time, and the Tipuani mines are even now far from exhausted. Quartz gold is worked at Araca. Silver is very plentiful, and is extensively extracted in places. Native copper is mined at Corocoro, where it crops out in veins of unusual richness and width, but other copper ores are found in abundance also. Of late it has been established that Bolivia is probably one of the countries in the world, where tin (casterite) is mot abundant, and the same may be said of bismuth. While on the eastern slope of the Andes the existence of gold and other mineral wealth has been proved, the attention of prospectors and miners has been turned chiefly towards the mountains themselves. The process of mining and treatment of the ores are still, in many places, rudimentary and primitive, but with the influx of foreign capital and the introduction of machinery, conditions are rapidly improving. On the shores of Lake Titicaca bituminous coal is found both east and west of that lake. Besides mining, the chief industry of the mountain region is agriculture. As this branch is almost entirely in the hands of the Indians, it will be treated in connection with the ethnography of Bolivia.

The Amazon Basin and its forests, as well as open spaces with high grass, are full of animal life. The large rivers, as everywhere in tropical south America teem with fish, crocodiles, snakes, and other amphibia, and the manatee also occurs. Aquatic birds, parrots, etc., are abundant. The fauna of the mountain districts is more in evidence, but much poorer in species and individuals, than in the adjacent countries. The llama and its congeners, the alpaca, vicuña and guanaco, belong to the Bolivian fauna. The llama and alpaca are domesticated by the Indian. Beasts of prey are not numerous and are found only within the limits of arboreal vegetation. Lower down the great ant-eater is occasionally seen, the puma and the bear (Ursus ornatus). In southern Bolivia, as well as in the eastern sections, the American ostrich occurs, and a tiny armadillo has its home in the cold, arid Puna, south of Lake Titicaca. Over the highest peaks soars the condor.

GOVERNMENT, THE CHURCH, AND EDUCATION

Bolivia, then the Spanish colony of Alto Peru, or Upper Peru, declared its intention to achieve political independence 16 July, 1809, and actually became an autonomous republic 6 August, 1825, taking its name in honour of Simon Bolivar, its founder. The Constitution under which the republic is now governed dates from 28 October, 1880, and aims at a “unitarian republican” polity. Under this Constitution the legislative power is vested in a Congress which comprises a Chamber of Deputies and a Senate, the former body consisting of 72 members elected by direct popular vote for terms of four years, the latter of 16 members also elected by direct popular vote, but for terms of six years. The executive power is vested in a president, elected by direct popular vote for a term of four years. The president, however, can exercise his authority only through his Cabinet, which consists of five Ministros de Estado, jointly responsible with him for all his official acts. Under this chief executive the civil government of the country is carried on by prefects of Departments, appointed by it and directly responsible to it, and they in turn have under their jurisdiction sub-prefects and Corregidores for the subdivisions of Departments. The revenue of the republic for 1905 was stated at 7,928,730 bolivianos (1 boliviano=$0.422 in United States currency).

By Article 2 of the Constitution of Bolivia, “The State recognizes and supports the Roman Apostolic Catholic religion, the public exercise of any other worship being prohibited, except in the colonies, where it is tolerated.” For the support of Catholic worship, in general the State pays the sum of 182,027 bolivianos ($76,815 U.S. currency), besides 14,000 bolivianos ($5,908) for missions to the aboriginal tribes. There is one archbishopric, Sucre, or Charcas, formerly La Plata, with 146 parishes, three colleges of the Propagation of the Faith, and five monasteries. The suffragan bishoprics are: la Paz, with 102 parishes, and 5 monasteries; Cochabamba, with 69 parishes and 4 convents, and Santa Cruz, divided into 73 parishes. Both La Paz and Santa Cruz were erected into bishoprics in 1605, the Archbishopric of Charcas was founded 1609, and the Diocese of Cochabamba in 1847. Efforts are kept up to gather the unsettled tribes of the Amazon Basin into permanent settlements (reductions), a very slow and difficult task.

The legal status of marriage is thus summed up in Art. 99 of the Civil code of Bolivia: “Matrimony being in the Republic elevated to the dignity of a sacrament, the formalities necessary for its celebration will be the same as those which the Council of Trent and the Church have designated.” Bolivian law, recognizes no divorce permitting re-marriage, and all questions arising between husband and wife can be decided only by the ecclesiastical tribunals.

ETHNOGRAPHY

The comparatively small proportion of whites among the Bolivian populations makes of the Indian the numerically preponderant stock. The mestizos, while not disclaiming their partly white origin, sometimes stand, in the country and among the lower classes in towns and cities, but slightly higher than the aborigines, being distinguished from the latter mostly by the fact that they wear European costume. Of the Indians several linguistic stocks inhabit the country. The roaming tribes of the Amazon lowlands are neither numerous nor important enough to deserve mention here. But in the mountains two powerful stocks, sedentary, agricultural, and pastoral ever since they have been known to the whites, form the working lower class of the people of Bolivia. These stocks are the Quichua and the Aymará. These two large tribes may, perhaps be about equally numerous. The Quichua occupy southern Bolivia and the Andean districts adjacent to Lake Titicaca on the East; the Aymará hold the upper valleys of the Andes, the West, and the centre. Physiologically, no great difference in type exists. They are, first of all, husbandmen, in fact they control agriculture. Nearly all agricultural lands being held by whit es or mestizos, who do not themselves cultivate, but prefer to live in settlements following some trade or commerce, the Indians, who are settled everywhere, take care of the fields. This they do, either in a kind of serfdom, living on the property and performing, also, some personal services for the proprietors, or, as Indian communities settled near the land, they have a tacit lease of it. The Indians organized in communities according to their primitive customs control the land, through their labour, virtually more than the owners, and thus remain a power in the republic, since they are the feeders of the people. Their serfdom is much more apparent than real, for the masters depend upon them for subsistence. Some alimentary plants in the high regions are potatoes, quinua, oca, etc., as well as maize in districts suitable for its growth, with coarse beans (habas) and barley, the last two being of European origin. The Indians raise cattle for themselves and sometimes for the landowners. All their farming is done in a primitive and very slovenly way. Next to agriculture, transportation and personal service in housework are also in the hands of the Indians. In fact their silent influence pervades the whole public and private life; their industrial methods are obsolete, and they resist improvement with the greatest tenacity.

As the Indian has maintained his primitive organization with few changes, he might form a State within the State, and thus become a grave danger to the whit es. But as he never had any conception of a State, being, moreover, divided into autonomous or independent tribes, that danger is much diminished. Neither the Aymará nor the Quichua could coalesce to form a homogeneous body. This they have shown ever since the Spanish occupation, and during the most alarming of their attempted uprisings, such as that of 1781. They would like to return to their primitive condition of barbarism, but feel that, despite their vast superiority of numbers, they are virtually powerless. In addition to these two principal Indian groups, the mountain districts still shelter the Uros, feeble remnants of a tribe dwelling among rushes and reeds, and comparatively little known. Of the white population of Bolivia little need be said that is not applicable generally to the whites in other South American countries. They differ of course from the inhabitants of less mountainous countries in that they have the general characteristics common to all mountaineers.

(For special information on the individual dioceses, aboriginal tribes, languages, etc., of Bolivia, see articles under separate headings.)

INTERNATIONAL BUREAU OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS, Bolivia (Washington, D.C., 1904); RENE MORENO, Biblioteca Boliviana (Santiago, Chile, 1879). Of the latter very full and very reliable book a supplement was issued by the author in 1899, and VALENTIN ABEICA published Adiciones, in 1902. These Chilian publications are not very easy to obtain; easier to access is Geografía de la República de Bolivia (La Paz, 1905). The colonial history of Bolivia is so intimately connected with that of Peru that the early sources touching the former are also those for the latter. Of general works from the sixteenth and seventeenth century, GOMARA ACOSTA, HERRERA, GARCIA are of course indispensable for consultation.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Bollandists

An association of ecclesiastical scholars engaged in editing the Acta Sanctorum. This work is a great hagiographical collection begun during the first years of the seventeenth century, and continued to our own day. The collaborators are called Bollandists, as being successors of Bolland, the editor of the first volume. The collection now numbers sixty-three volumes in folio, to which must be added a supplementary volume, published in 1875 by a French priest, and containing chiefly certain tables and directions facilitating research in the volumes. Although Bolland has given his name to the work, he is not to be regarded as its founder. The idea was first conceived by Heribert Rosweyde (b. at Utrecht, 1569; d. at Antwerp, 1629). He entered the Society of Jesus in 1588. An indefatigable worker and a fearless but judicious investigator, notwithstanding his duties as professor of philosophy in the Jesuit college at Douai during the last years of the sixteenth century, Rosweyde devoted the leisure of his vacations and holidays to explore the libraries of the numerous monasteries scattered through Hainault and French Flanders. He copied with his own hand a vast number of documents relating to church history in general, and to hagiography in particular, and found in the old texts contained in the manuscripts coming under his observation quite a different flavour from that of the revisions to which many editors, notably Lippomano and Surius, then the latest and most celebrated, had believed it necessary to subject them. Rosweyde thought it would be a useful work to publish the texts in their original form. His superiors, to whom he submitted his plan in 1603, gave it their hearty approval, and allowed him to prepare the projected edition, without, however, relieving him of any of the occupations on which he was expending his prodigious activity. So, for the time being, he was allowed merely the privilege of devoting his spare moments to the preparation of the work. Rosweyde did not cease to pursue his project, which he announced publicly in 1607, as well as the plan he proposed to follow. Under the title: “Fasti sanctorum quorum vitae in belgicis bibliothecis manuscriptiae,” he gave in a little volume in 16mo., published by the Plantin press at Antwerp, an alphabetical list of the names of the saints whose acts had been either found by him or called to his attention in old manuscript collections. This list filled fifty pages; the prefatory notice in which he indicates the character and arrangement of his work, as he had conceived it, takes up fourteen. Finally, the work contains an appendix of twenty-six pages containing the unpublished acts of the passion of the holy Cilician martyrs, Tharsacus, Probus, and Andronicus, which Rosweyde regarded—wrongly—as the authentic official report from the pen of a clerk of the court of the Roman tribunal. According to this programme the collection was to comprise sixteen volumes, besides two volumes of explanations and tables. The first volume was to present documents concerning the life of Jesus Christ and the feasts established in honour of the special events of His life; the second volume would be devoted to the life and the feasts of the Blessed Virgin, and the third to the feasts of the Saints honoured with a more special cult. The twelve succeeding volumes were to give the lives of the saints whose feasts are celebrated respectively in the twelve months of the year, one volume for each month. This calendar arrangement had been prescribed by his superiors, in preference to the chronological order Rosweyde himself favoured. But this presented, especially at that time, formidable difficulties. Lastly, the sixteenth volume was to set forth the succession of martyrologies which had been in use at different periods and in the various Churches of Christendom. The first of the two supplementary volumes was to contain notes and commentaries bearing on the lives divided into eight books treating respectively of the following subjects:

The authors of the lives;

the sufferings of the martyrs;

the images of the saints;

liturgical rites and customs mentioned in hagiographical documents;

profane customs to which allusions had been made;

questions of chronology;

names of places encountered in these same documents;

barbarous or obscure terms which might puzzle the readers.

The other supplement was to present a series of copious tables giving:

the names of the saints whose lives had been published in the preceding volumes;

the same names followed by notes indicating the place of the saint’s birth, his station in life, his title to sanctity, the time and place in which he had lived, and the author of his life;

the state of life of the various saints (religious, priest, virgin, widow, etc.);

their position in the Church (apostle, bishop, abbot, etc.);

the nomenclature of the saints according to the countries made illustrious by their birth, apostolate, sojourn, burial;

nomenclature of the places in which they are honoured with a special cult;

enumeration of the maladies for the cure of which they are especially invoked;

the professions placed under their patronage;

the proper names of persons and places encountered in the published lives;

the passages of Holy Scripture there explained;

points which may be of use in religious controversies;

those applicable in the teaching of Christian doctrine;

a general table of words and things in alphabetical order.

“And others still,” adds the author, “if anything of importance presents itself, of which our readers may give us an idea.” Cardinal Bellarmine, to whom Rosweyde sent a copy of his little volume, could not forbear exclaiming after he had read this programme: “This man counts, then, on living two hundred years longer!” He addressed to the author a letter, the original of which is preserved in the present library of the Bollandists, signed, but not written by the hand of Bellarmine, in which he intimates in polished but perfectly plain language that he regarded the plan as chimerical. Rosweyde was nowise disconcerted by this. From various other sources he received encouragement, enthusiastic praise, and valuable assistance. The new enterprise found an especial protector, as generous as he was zealous and enlightened, in Antoine de Wynghe, abbot of the celebrated monastery of Liessies in Hainault. Venerable Louis of Blois, whose third successor de Wynghe was, seemed to have bequeathed to him his affectionate devotion to the sons of St. Ignatius of Loyola. The large sympathy of this religious Maecenas manifested itself in every way; in letters of recommendation to the heads of the various houses of the great Benedictine Order which opened to Rosweyde and his associates monastic libraries; in loans and gifts of books, of manuscripts, and of copies of manuscripts; and in pecuniary assistance. Rosweyde quite counted on completing by his own efforts the monument of which he had dreamed, and on bringing it to a worthy end. As a matter of fact, he did not get beyond the first stages of the structure. His literary activity was expended on a multitude of historical works, both religious and polemical, some of which, it is true, would have later formed a part of the great hagiographical compilation. The majority, however, bear no relation whatever to the work. The writings which would have been available are: the edition of the Little Roman Martyrology, in which Rosweyde believed he recognized the collection mentioned by St. Gregory the Great in his letter to Eulogius of Alexandria; the edition of the martyrology of Ado of Vienne (1613); the ten books of the Lives of the Fathers of the Desert, which he first published in Latin (1615 in fol.), dedicating the work to the Abbot of Liessies, and later in Flemish (1617) in fol., with an inscription to Jeanne de Bailliencourt, Abbess of Messines. The rest, however, as for instance the Flemish edition of Ribadeneira’s “Flowers of the Saints” (1619, two folio volumes), the “General History of the Church” (1623), to which he added as an appendix the detailed history of the Church in the Netherlands, both in Flemish; the Flemish lives of St. Ignatius and St. Philip Neri; the Flemish translation of the first part of the “Treatise on Perfection,” drew his attention completely from what he should have regarded as his principal task. It is due to him, however, to say that for several years his superiors, without ceasing to encourage him in the pursuit of his project, were forced through the necessity of filling vacant offices, to lay upon him duties which did not leave him the absolutely indispensable leisure. He set this forth clearly himself in the memorandum addressed to them in 1611, in response to their inquiry as to how he was progressing with the preparation of his volumes. But it is not less true that nearly all his publications, the most important of which have been mentioned above, are of a later date than this, and undoubtedly Rosweyde himself was chiefly to blame for the delay, which, however, may be called a fortunate one, since it resulted in advantageous modifications of the plan of the work. At the time of Rosweyde’s death, then, which took place in Antwerp in 1629, not a page was ready for the printer. Moreover, the superiors of the order, on their part, hesitated to have the work carried on by another. For more than twenty years, however, Rosweyde had been extremely active; he had secured access to a quantity of manuscripts and had enlisted the co-operation of many learned men who had manifested the keenest interest in his undertaking; thanks to their assistance, he had collected many manuscripts and books relating to the lives of the saints; in a word, he had aroused an eager interest in his compilation, so great and so universal that it was necessary to satisfy it.

Father John van Bolland (b. at Julemont, in Limburg, 1596; d. at Antwerp, 12 September, 1665) was at this time prefect of studies in the college of Mechlin, and had charge of a congregation composed of the principal people of the city. It was called the “Latin Congregation,” because all the exercises, sermons included, were conducted in that language. His family either took their name from, or gave it to, the village of Bolland, near Julemont. Before making his theological studies he had taught belles-lettres with distinction in the three higher classes of the humanities at Ruremonde, Mechlin, Brussels, and Antwerp. The superior of the Belgian province of the Society of Jesus bade him examine the papers left by Rosweyde, and report to him his opinion as to what it was advisable to do with them. Bolland went to Antwerp, familiarized himself with the manuscripts, and, while admitting that the work was still merely a rough and faulty draft, gave reasons for believing that without an undue expenditure of labour it might be brought to a successful completion. He even showed himself disposed to take charge of the work, but only under two conditions: first, that he should be left free to modify the plan of Rosweyde as he understood it; second, that the copies, notes, and books which had been collected by Rosweyde should be removed from the library of the Professed House, where they were interspersed among the books in common use, and set apart in a place of their own for the exclusive use of the new director of the undertaking. The provincial, Jacques van Straten, accepted with alacrity both offer and conditions. Bolland was removed from the college of Mechlin and attached to the Professed House at Antwerp, to be director of the Latin Congregation and confessor in the church, and with the charge of preparing, in his leisure hours (horis subsecivis) the Acta Sanctorum for publication. Happily, he had not the least idea, any more than had the provincial, of all the undertaking involved. He fancied that he could finish it by his own unaided efforts, and that after the completion of the work proper and the preparation of historical, chronological, geographical, and other tables, as announced by Rosweyde, he could complete the publication by adding to it a comprehensive collection of notices of holy persons who flourished in the Church subsequent to the fifteenth century, but have not been honoured with a public cult. “And after all that is done,” he wrote in his general preface, at the beginning of the first volume of January, “if I still have any time to live, I shall lend a charm to the leisure hours of my old age by gathering the ascetical doctrine found in the teachings of the saints recorded in this work.” And nevertheless, he began by outlining a plan of quite another vastness from that of Rosweyde, whose programme had already appalled Bellarmine. Rosweyde had confined his quest of original texts to the libraries of Belgium and the neighbouring regions. He had not gone beyond Paris to the south, or Cologne and Trier to the east. Bolland made appeal to collaborators, either Jesuits or others, residing in all the different countries of Europe. Then Rosweyde had proposed to publish at first only the original texts, without commentaries or annotations, relegating to the last volumes the studies intended to enable one to appreciate their value and to throw light on their difficulties. Bolland recognized at once how defective this plan was. So he decided to give in connection with each saint and his cult all the information he had been able to find, from whatever sources; to preface each text with a preliminary study destined to determine its author and its historical value, and to append to each notes of explanation for the purpose of clearing away difficulties. The duties of the various offices filled by Bolland, added to the formidable correspondence imposed on him by his research into documents and other sources of information concerning the life and cult of the saints to be treated in the work, together with the answers to the numerous letters of consultation addressed to him from all parts, concerning matters of ecclesiastical learning, left him no leisure for the discharge of his duties as hagiographer. Thus, after five years at Antwerp, he was forced to admit that the work was almost where Rosweyde had left it, except that the mass of material which the latter had begun to classify was notably augmented; as a matter of fact it was more than quadrupled. Meanwhile, eager desire for the appearance of the hagiographical monument announced by Rosweyde almost thirty years previously grew apace in the learned and the religious world. There was nothing left for Bolland but to admit that the undertaking was beyond his individual strength and to ask for an assistant. The generous Abbot of Liessies, Antoine de Wynghe, effectually supported his demand by volunteering to defray the living expenses of the associate who should be assigned to Bolland, as the Professed House at Antwerp, which depended on the alms of the faithful for its support, could not pay a man to do work which was not strictly in the field of its ministrations.

The assistant chosen, doubtless at Bolland’s suggestion, for he had been one of his most brilliant pupils in the humanities, was Godfrey Henschen (b. at Venray in Limburg, 1601; d. 1681), who had entered the Society of Jesus in 1619. He was assigned to his former master in 1635 and laboured at the publication of the Acts Sanctorum up to the time of his death in 1681, forty-six years later. Twenty-four volumes had then appeared, of which the last was the seventh volume of May. He had, moreover, prepared a great amount of material and many commentaries for June. It may be safely said that the Bollandist work owes its final form to Henschen. When he arrived at Antwerp, Bolland had succeeded in putting into good order the documents relating to the saints of January, and had found a publisher in the person of John van Meurs. Doubtless for the purpose of trying Henschen, he bade him study the acts of the February saints, leaving him every latitude as to the choice of his first subjects and the manner of treating them. Bolland then gave himself entirely to the printing of the volumes for January. It was well under way when Henschen brought to Bolland the first fruits of his activity in the field of hagiography. They were studies for the history of St. Vaast and that of St. Amand, printed later in the first volume of February under date of February sixth. Bolland was absolutely astonished, and possibly somewhat abashed, by the great scope and solidity of the work which his disciple had to show him. He himself had not dared to dream of anything like it. His preliminary commentaries on the acts of the various saints of January were practically confined to designating the manuscript where the texts he was publishing had been found, to annotations, and a list of the variants in the various copies and the previous editions. The commentaries and annotations of Henschen solved, or at least tried to solve, every problem to which the text of the Acts could give rise, in the matter of chronology, geography, history, or philological interpretation, and all these questions were treated with an erudition and a method which could be called absolutely unknown hitherto. Modest and judicious savant that he was, Bolland at once admitted the superiority of the new method and desired Henschen, despite the reluctance occasioned by his humility and the profound respect in which he held his master, to review the copy already in press. He held it back for a considerable time to enable his colleague to make the additions and corrections he judged necessary or advantageous. The pages containing the material for the first six days of January had already come from the press; the pages which seemed most defective to Henschen were replaced by revises. His hand is more clearly apparent in the following pages, although he persisted in employing a reserve and watchfulness which sometimes seems to have cost him an effort, in order to avoid too marked a difference between Bolland’s commentaries and his own. Papebroch, in his notice on Henschen printed at the beginning of the seventh volume of May, points out as particularly his the toil expended on the acts of St. Wittikind, St. Canute, and St. Raymond of Pennafort on the seventh of January; of St. Atticus of Constantinople and Blessed Laurence Justinian on the eighth; of Sts. Julian and Basilissa on the ninth. “But from this day on,” he adds, “Bolland left to Henschen the Greek and Oriental saints, as well as the majority of those of France and of Italy, reserving for himself only those of Germany, Spain, Britain, and Ireland.” He still desired to associate the name of Henschen with his own on the title-page of the various volumes, but the humble religious would not allow it to appear except as his assistant and subordinate. Meanwhile Bolland, in his general preface to the first volume of January, did not fail to tell what he owed to his excellent collaborator. He then insisted that in the volumes of February and the following ones, Henschen’s name should be on the title-page as prominently as his own and, moreover, that in the course of these volumes all commentaries from the pen of Henschen should be signed with his initials, claiming, doubtless not without some foundation, that he received a great number of letters relating to articles written by his colleague, which caused him difficulty. The two volumes of January, containing respectively, if we take into account the various tables and preliminary articles, the first, 1,300 pages, the second, more than 1,250, appeared in the course of the same year, 1643. They aroused in the learned world positive enthusiasm, which is easily understood when we consider how far the new publication surpassed anything of the kind known up to that time—the Golden Legend, Guido Bernardus, Vincent of Beauvais, St. Antoninus of Florence, Peter de Natali, Mombritius, Lippomano, and Surius. There was another marked difference when, fifteen years later, in 1658, the three volumes for February were published, showing a notable improvement over those for January. Congratulations and warm encomiums came from every side to testify to Bolland and his companion the admiration aroused by their work. The encouragement was not only from Catholics. Learned Protestants of the foremost rank did not hesitate to praise highly the truly scientific spirit which marked the new collection. Among others who had been heard from even before the publication of the February volumes, was the celebrated Gerard Vossius. The editors had the satisfaction of seeing added to all these approbations that of Alexander VII, who publicly testified that there had never been undertaken a work more useful and glorious to the Church. The same pontiff and, at his suggestion, the General of the Society of Jesus, Goswin Nickel, immediately invited Bolland to Rome, promising him a rich harvest of materials. The invitation was equivalent to a command, though for that matter this literary journey was of too great advantage to the work in hand for Bolland to do anything but gladly accept it. Finding, however, that he was too much enfeebled by recent illness to stand the fatigues of the journey, and that, moreover, it was necessary for one of the editors to remain in Antwerp, the centre of correspondence, he easily obtained permission from the Father General to send in his place Henschen, who was already favourably known through his collaboration in volumes published.

At this time, the hagiographers were joined by a new companion, who was to accompany Henschen on his journey, and who later was to shed as glory on the work as had his two predecessors. This was Father Daniel von Papenbroeck, better known under the slightly altered form of Papebroch (b. Antwerp, 1628; d. 28 June, 1714). He entered the Society in 1646, after having been, like Henschen, a brilliant pupil of Bolland’s in the course of the humanities. He had just completed his thirty-first year when he was called on, in 1659, to give himself entirely to the work of hagiography, in which he was to have a remarkably long and fruitful career, for it lasted till his death, which occurred in the eighty-seventh year of his age, and the fifty-fifth of his work in this field. At the same time that they appointed Papebroch a collaborator to Bolland and Henschen, the superiors of the order, at the instance of important persons who wished the publication of the “Acta Sanctorum” hastened as much as possible, relieved the Fathers in charge of the work of every other regular occupation, in order that they might thenceforth devote their entire time to the hagiographical work. They were not obliged to fulfil any duties of the sacred ministry except for the distraction and rest that men of such great intellectual activity might find in a change of occupation. About the same time they were granted another favour. We have seen that Bolland, in accepting the succession to Rosweyde’s post, had obtained that a special place should be set apart for the manuscript copies and books collected by Rosweyde, which had hitherto been scattered among the books belonging to the general library of the Professed House. This embryo of the Bollandist Museum consisted of two small mansard rooms, lighted by dormer windows so narrow that in the corners it was impossible to clearly enough to read the titles of the books, even at noonday. Moreover, the walls were not fitted with shelves where the books could be arranged. They were merely piled one above the other without any attempt at order. It required Bolland’s wonderful local memory to find anything in this chaos. About 1660, he had the satisfaction of having a spacious hall on the first floor placed at his disposal, where books and manuscripts could be placed on shelves in methodical order. The library or the “Hagiographical Museum,” as it became customary to call it, had already received, and continued to receive daily, thanks to the gifts of generous benefactors and judicious purchases, many acquisitions, so that Henschen during the course of his literary journey was able to say that he found very few libraries, public or private, that could compare with the Hagiographical Museum” of Antwerp. This library was greatly enriched some years later when Papebroch, through the death of his father, a rich merchant of Antwerp, was enabled to apply to the work on which he was engaged his large inheritance.

Bolland’s two companions began their journey on the feast of St. Mary Magdalen, 22 July, 1660. Their old master accompanied them as far as Cologne, where they left him after a week’s stay. An almost daily correspondence kept up with him, and preserved nearly entire at Brussels, partly at the Royal Library and partly at the Library of the Bollandists, allows us to follow each step of the learned pilgrimage through Germany, Italy, and France. In Germany, they visited successively Coblenz, Mainz, Worms, Speyer, Frankfort, Aschaffenburg, Würzburg, Bamberg, Nuremberg, Eichstädt, Ingolstadt, Augsburg Munich, and Innsbruck. Everywhere the name of Bolland ensured them an enthusiastic welcome and opened every library to them; everywhere they found precious material to take with them for use in the succeeding volumes of the “Acta.” A reception no less friendly and a harvest even more abundant awaited the travellers in Italy, at Verona, Vicenza, Padua, Venice, Ferrara, Imola, Florence, Ravenna, Forlì, Rimini, Pesaro, Fano, Sinigaglia, Ancona, Osimo, Loreto, Assisi, Perugia, Foligno, and Spoleto. They arrived in Rome the day before the Vigil of Christmas, and remained there until 3 October of the following year, 1661. During all this time they were overwhelmed with attentions and favours by Alexander VII, who in person did the honours of his rich Chigi library and commanded by special Briefs that all libraries should be opened to them, and especially that they should be allowed access to the manuscripts of the Vatican. They were received with no less courtesy by the cardinals, the heads of the various orders, the savants Allatius, Aringhi, Ughelli, Ciampini, and others, then shining lights in the capital of the Christian world. The five or six copyists placed at their disposal were kept constantly busy during the nine months they were in Rome in transcribing manuscripts according to their directions, and this occupation was continued by them a long time after the Bollandists departure. As for the Bollandists themselves, their time was principally employed in collecting Greek manuscripts, in which they were diligently assisted by the celebrated Hellenist, Laurentius Porcius, and the abbot Francesco Albani, later cardinal, and pope under the name of Clement XI. The learned Maronite, Abraham of Eckel, who had just brought to Rome a great number of Syriac manuscripts, was willing to make extracts and translate for them the Acts of the Saints found therein. Ughelli gave them two volumes in folio of notes which he had collected for the completion of his “Italia Sacra.” The Oratorians put them in touch with the manuscripts of Baronius, and a large collection of lives of the saints which they had intended to publish themselves. On leaving Rome they visited Naples, Grotta-Ferrata, and Monte Casino, then Florence, where they remained for four months, and lastly Milan. Everywhere, as at Rome, they left behind them copyists who continued for years the work of transcribing which had been marked out for them. They then spent more than six months in travelling through France, where they halted successively at the Grande Chartreuse of Grenoble, at Lyons, at the monasteries of Cluny and Cîteaux, at Dijon, Auxerre, Sens, and lastly at Paris. They arrived in the great capital, 11 August, 1662, and were immediately put in touch with whatever distinguished savants Paris could then boast of. They found at their command, with unrestricted leave to copy whatever served their purpose, the wealth of hagiographical matter contained in the rich libraries of Saint-Germain-des-Prés and St. Victor, as well as those of the Celestines and Feuillants, of Wion d’Hérouval, de Thou, de Séguier, and lastly the Mazarine and the Royal Library. Their stay at Paris extended over three months, every moment of which time they spent in transcribing and collating, besides enlisting the services of several copyists during the entire time.

They left Paris 9 November and turned their steps toward Rouen, then went through Eu, Abbeville, and Arras, omitting, to their great regret, the city of Amiens, because of the impassable roads, and the impossibility of securing means of transportation. They reached Antwerp 21 December, 1662, after an absence of twenty-nine months. They not only brought back with them an enormous mass of documents transcribed by themselves and by the copyists they had been obliged to engage, but they found awaiting them at Antwerp a like number from the copyists they had employed in the principal cities they had visited (notably, Rome, Florence, Milan, and Paris) and who were still carrying on with the labour with which they had been charged. This long journey caused little delay in the progress of the work, for which, on the other hand, it was so productive of good results. Thanks to the incredible activity of the three eminent hagiographers, the three volumes for March were given to the public in 1668. They bore only the name of Henschen and Papebroch, as Bolland had passed to a better life, 12 September, 1665, thirty-six years after succeeding Rosweyde in the preparation of the “Acta Sanctorum.” Seven years later, in 1675, the three volumes for April appeared, preceded by preliminary treatises, the subjects of which were respective: in the first volume, the two most ancient collections of notices on the popes (catalogues of Liberius, and Felix) and the date of St. Ambrose’s death, both by Henschen; in the second, the attempt at a diplomatical treatise by Papebroch, “whose chief merit,” as the author himself was fond of saying with as much sincerity as modesty, “was that it inspired Mabillon to write his excellent work: “De re diplomatica”; in the third, a new revised edition of the new revised edition of the “Diatribi de tribus Dagobertis,” which had made the name of Henschen celebrated twenty years previously. The custom of having these “Parerga” was kept up in the succeeding volumes; there was even an entire volume, the “Propylaeum ad tomos Maii,” filled with notes of Papebroch on the chronology and history of the popes from St. Peter to Innocent XI. Another happy thought first carried out at that time was the publication of the Greek acts in their original text; previously, only Latin versions had been given. The Greek texts were still relegated to the end of the volumes in the form of appendices; it was only in the fourth volume of May that they were first printed in the body of the work. The first three volumes of May were published in 1688. Besides the names of Henschen and Papebroch, the title-page bore those of Conrad Janninck and François Baert, who had been appointed to the work, the former in 1679; the latter in 1681, at the same time as Father Daniel Cardon, who was carried off by a premature death the second year after his appointment.

Up to this time Bolland and his first two companions had met with nothing but encouragement. A severe storm was soon to burst on the one who was now head of the undertaking and on the work itself. In the first volume of April Papebroch had occasion to treat, under date of the eighth, the Acta of St. Albert Patriarch of Jerusalem, and author of the Carmelite rule. In his preliminary commentary he had combated, as insufficiently grounded, the tradition universally received by the Carmelites, that the origin of the order dated back to the prophet Elias, who was regarded as its founder. This was the signal for an outburst of wrath on the part of these religious. From 1681 to 1693 there appeared no less than twenty or thirty pamphlets filled with abusive language against the unfortunate critic, and adorned with titles often ludicrous through their very efforts at violence: “Novus Ismaël, cuius manus contra omnes et manus omnium contm eum, sive P. Daniel Papebrochius . . . ; Amyclae Jesuiticae, sive Papebrochius scriptis Carmeliticis convictus. . . . ; “Jesuiticum Nihil . . .”; “Hercules Commodianus Johannes Launoius redivivus in P Daniele Papebrochio . . .”; “R. P. Papebrochius Historicus Conjecturalis Bombardizans S.Lucam et Sanctos Patres,” etc. The series culminated in the large quarto volume signed with the name of Father Sebastian of St. Paul, provincial of the Flemish-Belgian province of the Carmelite Order, and entitled: “Exhibitio errorum quos P. Daniel Papebrochius Societatis Jesu suis in notis ad Acta Sanctorum commisit contra Christi Domini Paupertatem, Aetatem, etc. Summorum Pontificum Acta et Gesta, Bullas, Brevia et Decreta; Concilia; S. Scripturam; Ecclesiae Capitis Primatum et Unitatem; S. R. E. Cardinalium Dignitatem et authoritatem; Sanctos ipsos, eorum cultum, Reliquias, Acta et Scripta; Indulgentiarum Antiquitatem; Historias Sacras; Breviaria, Missalia, Maryrologia, Kalendaria, receptasque in Ecclesia traditiones ac revelationes, nec non alia quaevis antiqua Monumenta Regnorum, Regionum, Civitatum, ac omnium fere Ordinum; idque nonnisi ex meris conjecturis, argutiis negativis, insolentibus censuris, satyris ac sarcasmis, cum Aethnicis, Haeresiarchis, Haereticis aliisque Auctoribus ab Ecclesia damnatis. Oblata Sanctissimo Domino Nostro lnnocentio XII . . . Coloniae Agrippinae, 1693.” Papebroch, who was receiving at the same time from the most distinguished scholars lively protests against the attacks of which he was made the object, met them at first merely with a silence which perhaps seemed disdainful. But learning that active steps were being taken at Rome to obtain a condemnation of the collection of the Acta Sanctorum or of some of its volumes, he and his companions decided that the time for silence had passed. It was Father Janninck who entered the lists in an open letter to the author of the “Exhibitio Errorum,” followed soon afterwards by another in which he replied to a new little book published in support of the work of Father Sebastian of St. Paul. The two letters were printed in 1693. They were followed by a more extended apology for the “Acta,” published by the same Janninck in 1695; and lastly there appeared in 1696, 1697, and 1698 the three volumes of the “Responsio Danielis Papebrochii ad Exhibitionem Errorum,” in which the valiant hagiographer takes up one by one the charges hurled against him by Father Sebastian and confutes each with an answer as solid in argument as it was temperate in tone. The adversaries of Papebroch, fearing lest they should not be able to obtain from the Court of Rome the condemnation for which they were begging, addressed themselves, with the utmost secrecy, to the tribunal of the Spanish Inquisition, where they won over to their side the most powerful influences. Before the writers of Antwerp had any suspicion of what was being plotted against them, there was issued, in November, 1695, a decree of this tribunal condemning the fourteen volumes of the Acta Sanctorum published up to that time, under the most rigorous qualifications, even going so far as to brand the work with the mark of heresy. Papebroch was painfully and deeply moved by the blow. He could submit to all the other insults heaped upon him, but he was obliged to refute the charge of heresy. He made the most vehement entreaties and had all his friends in Spain on the alert to let him know which propositions the Holy Office of Spain had regarded as heretical, in order that he might retract them, if he was unable to furnish satisfactory explanations, or secure the correction of the sentence, if his explanations were acceptable. His efforts proved fruitless. Having fallen seriously ill in 1701, and believing himself at the point of death, immediately after receiving the last sacraments he had a notary-public draw up in his presence and before witnesses a solemn protest which shows how greatly he was affected by the condemnation levelled at his head by the Spanish Inquisition. “After forty two years of assiduous toil, devoted to the elucidation of the Acts of the Saints, hoping to go to the enjoyment of their society, I ask only one thing on earth, and it is that His Holiness Clement XI be immediately implored to grant me after death what in life I have sought in vain from Innocent XII. I have lived a Catholic, and I die a Catholic, by the grace of God. I have also the right of dying a Catholic in the eyes of men, which is not possible so long as the decree of the Spanish Inquisition shall appear justly issued and published, and so long as people read that I have taught in my books heretical propositions for which I have been condemned. Papebroch had accepted without appeal or murmur the decision of the Roman Congregation of 22 December, 1700, placing on the Index his chronological and historical Essay on the Popes, published in the “Propylaeum Maii,” a decree issued, as was expressly stated, on account of the sections bearing on certain conclaves and requiring merely the correction of the passages in question. But he did not cease working during the twelve years and a half that he still lived, both by his own efforts and those of his friends, not only to prevent the confirmation by Rome of the decree of the Spanish Inquisition, but also to secure the retraction of the decree. Father Janninck was even sent to Rome with this end in view and remained there for over two years and a half, from the end of October, 1697, till June, 1700. He was completely successful with respect to the first object of his mission, as in December, 1697, he received the assurance that no censure would be passed against the volumes condemned in Spain. The persecutors of Papebroch were compelled to sue for an injunction to silence for both parties, which was accorded them by a Brief of 25 November, 1698, gratefully accepted by Papebroch. More time was necessary, however, to bring about a final decision in the second matter. Whether it was judged prudent in Rome not to enter into conflict with the Spanish tribunal, or whether the latter prolonged the affair by passive resistance, the decree of condemnation made in 1695 was not revoked until 1715, the year following the death of Papebroch. As for the “Propylaeum Maii,” it was not withdrawn from the Index of Forbidden Books until the last edition (1900); but this did not prevent the French editor, Victor Palmé, from publishing it in his reprint of the Acta Sanctorum, which he undertook about 1860.

A grievous trial of another sort was visited on Papebroch during the last years of the seventeenth century. A cataract affecting both eyes reduced him for about five years to a state of total blindness, which compelled him to give up all literary composition. The sight of his left eye was restored in 1702 by a successful operation. He immediately took up his work again and continued the Acta Sanctorum as far as the fifth volume of June, the twenty-fourth of the whole collection, which appeared in 1709. The weight of age—he was then eighty-one—compelled him to abandon the more arduous work of the Bollandist museum. He lived for almost five years, which he devoted to editing the “Annales Antverpienses” from the foundation of Antwerp down to the year 1700. The manuscript of this work comprised eleven volumes in folio, seven of which are at the Royal Library of Brussels, the others probably having been lost. An edition of the volumes which have been preserved to us was published at Antwerp, 1845–48, in five volumes in octavo.

We shall not pursue further the history of the Bollandist work during the eighteenth century up to the suppression of the Society of Jesus, in 1773. The publication continued regularly, though with more or less unevenness as to the value of the commentaries, up to the third volume of October, which appeared in 1770. The suppression of the Society brought about a crisis in which the work nearly foundered. The Bollandists then in office were Cornelius De Bye, James De Bue, and Ignatius Hubens. The Fathers Jean Clé and Joseph Ghesquière had but recently been transferred from the work. The former, at the time of the suppression of the Society, was superior of the Flemish-Belgian province; the latter was in charge of the projected publication of the “Analecta Belgica,” a collection of documents relating to the history of Belgium, a work for which the funds of the Musée Bellarmine were appropriated. This Museum was established at Mechlin at the beginning of the eighteenth century, for the purpose of opposing the Jansenists, but was afterwards transferred to the Professed House at Antwerp. On 20 September, 1773, commissaries of the Government presented themselves at the residence of the professed Jesuit Fathers at Antwerp, and before the assembled community read the Bull of suppression of Clement XIV and the imperial letters patent empowering them to execute it. They then affixed seals to the entrances of the archives, libraries, and any rooms of the Fathers which contained money or objects of value. A like proceeding took place on the same day in all the houses of the Society then existing in Belgium. Nevertheless a special order was issued enjoining the members of the commission charged with executing the decree on the Professed House at Antwerp “to summon the ci-devant Jesuits employed in the publication of the ‘Acta Sanctorum’ and to announce to them that the government, satisfied with their labours, was disposed to exercise special consideration in their regard.” Father Ghesquière and his collaborators in the “Analecta Belgica” were included in this indulgence granted to the Bollandists. This favourable attitude of the Government resulted, after various tiresome conferences, in the removal, in 1778, of the Bollandists and the historiographers of Belgium, together with their libraries, to the abbey of Caudenberg, at Brussels. Each of the, Bollandists was to receive an annual pension of 800 florins, besides the 500 florins to be given to the community of Caudenberg in payment for their board and lodging. The same indulgence was accorded to Ghesquière in consideration of his office of historian. The results of the sale of the volumes were to be divided between the abbey and the editors on condition that the abbey should take charge of the matter on hand, and provide a copyist to make fair copies of manuscripts for the printers, as well as religious who should be trained under the direction or the elder Bollandists for the continuation of the work. The other half of the profits was to be divided in equal portions among the writers. The four hagiographers took up their residence at the Abbey of Caudenberg, and with the consent of the abbot adopted two young religious assistants. One of these soon left them to pursue his scientific studies, feeling that he had not the vocation for this work; the other was John-Baptist Fonson, at that time (1788) twenty-two years of age, whose name soon afterwards appeared on the title page as editor. Under this new condition of things there appeared in 1780 Volume IV of October under the names of Constantine Suyskens (d. 1771), Cornelius De Bye, John De Bue, Joseph Ghesquière, and Ignatius Hubens, all former Jesuits. In 1786, Volume V appeared, signed with the names of De Bye, De Bue, and Fonson. In the interval between these two volumes the corps of hagiographers had lost, in 1782, the youngest of the Antwerp members, Ignatius Hubens. He was replaced in October, 1784, by a French Benedictine, Dom Anselm Berthod, who voluntarily resigned the high positions he held in his order and those for which he was intended, so that he might devote himself to the learned work which the Imperial Government of Vienna requested him to take up. He was to be engaged upon it only a little more than three years, for he died at Brussels, in March, 1788.

Two new volumes were issued from the royal press of Brussels, to which had been sent all the equipments of the printing establishment which the Bollandists had founded at Antwerp exclusively for their work. The printing expenses as well an those of pensions and indemnities were largely made up to the public treasury by the confiscation of the capital through the sale of their volumes, the collective pension of 2,000 Brabant florins received from the government all through the eighteenth century up to the suppression of the Society, and the liberality of certain benefactors. This capital had grown by 1773 to the sum of 130,000 florins ($47,166) yielding an annual revenue of 9,133 florins and 18 sous to which were added the results of the sale of the Acta Sanctorum which averaged 2,400 florins yearly. The Empress Maria Theresa to the very last showed favour to the work of the Bollandists. The same benevolence was not experienced from her successor, Joseph II. The Bollandists now felt the consequences of one of the so-called reforms introduced into the ecclesiastical domain by this imperial philosopher. Among the religious houses suppressed as useless was the Abbey of Caudenberg. The decree of suppression was enforced in May, 1786. The Bollandists were not at first involved in the catastrophe, as they were assigned a dwelling-place and library in a part of the buildings formerly occupied by the college of the Society of Jesus, and were allowed to retain the pensions and privileges granted them in 1778. This was only a short postponement, however, of the complete destruction of the work. Already, in 1784, the Prince von Kaunitz, minister of Joseph II and his chief counselor in the matter of religious reform, had intimated that the Emperor was not content with slow progress of the undertaking, and that for the future he would expect to see the publication of at least a volume a year, so that the work might be entirely finished in ten years. The minister even went so far as to send word to the municipality of Brussels that “he attributed the lack of activity on the part of the Bollandists to their desire to keep up forever [èterniser] the profits accruing from the work, and that if they did not give satisfaction there was nothing to do but suppress the establishment.” The accused had no difficulty in justifying themselves. But the Court of Vienna had fully decided to hear no explanation, and in 1788 asked for a report from the Court of Accounts concern the expenses entailed by the work of the Bollandists. The conclusion deduced from this report was that the suppression of this work and that of the historiographers would result in an annual gain to the treasury of two to three thousand florins. The Chamber, moreover, took it on itself to say that there was no advantage to be gained by continuing it. The ecclesiastical commission and commission of studies (one and the same), consulted in its turn, gave a decision to the same effect (11 October, 1788). It said,

The work of the Bollandists is far from completion, and we cannot flatter ourselves at the end is yet in sight. This work has no merit but that of being an historical repertory, filled with an enormous quantity of details, which will always have but slight attraction for real savants. It is astonishing that at the time of the suppression of the Jesuit Order, they should have been successful in interesting the Government in such trash, and that it is such is proved by the scanty profit the Bollandists have derived from their labours. In business parlance. it is a very poor investment, and as it is not better, regarded from a scientific standpoint, it is quite time to put an end to it.

Strengthened by this advice, the “Government Council” notified the Court of Accounts by a despatch dated 16 October, 1788, that it had decided to put a stop to the work of the “Acta Sanctorum,” and that in consequence, beginning from that date, no more payments should be made to the Fathers De Bye, De Bue, Fonson, Ghesquière, and Cornelius Smet (a former Jesuit, associated first with Ghesquière in the publication of the “Analecta Belgica and later enrolled among the Bollandists) of the annual pension of 800 florins which had been assured them. It would be decided later what be done with the printing outfit and the other effects of the suppressed establishment. These spoils comprised the library of the Bollandists and the copies of the volumes already published which they had in stock. This involved no slight annoyance. Once the series was abandoned, it would be difficult to find a purchaser for these works, and they wished to realize as much money as possible from them. It was decided to ask the Bollandists themselves to undertake the sale of these effects for the benefit of the public treasury. The Bollandists willingly accepted the charge, hoping to keep intact the treasures of their library and thus to ensure, in a certain measure, the resumption of the work, if not at once, at least in the near future.

Cornelius De Bye, who had been especially commissioned to conduct the sale, turned first to Martin Gerbert, the learned abbot of the monastery of St. Blasius in the Black Forest. On behalf of the Government commissioners he named a purchase price for the library and such of the published volumes as remained unsold, and offered to come to St. Blasius for some months in order to train some of the young religious of the abbey for the work of publishing the Acta Sanctorum. His letter, dated 11 November, 1788, remained unanswered, whether as a result of dispositions little favourable to the Society of Jesus, such as had been more than once manifested by this famous abbot, or whether, already absorbed by many important works, he felt he could not think of undertaking yet another entirely new. About the same time, i.e. in November and December, 1788, the Congregation of Benedictines of Saint-Maur, in France, of its own accord made advances to the officials of the Imperial Government of Vienna for the acquisition of the Bollandist library, with a view to continuing the publication. This attempt was equally void of result. It was with the abbey of the Premonstratensians of Tongerloo that arrangements were finally concluded. By a contract signed 11 May, 1789, the Government transferred to the abbey the Bollandist library and the Bellarmine Museum, together with the furnishings appertaining to them, and the volumes already printed and the printing equipment. In return, the abbey was to pay the government for the libraries 12,000 Brabant florins ($4,353.84) and for the other things 18,000 florins. Half of the latter sum was turned over to the three hagiographers, De Bye, De Bue, and Fonson. Moreover, the abbey agreed to pay a yearly salary to these three as well as to Ghesuière and Smet. The Bollandists were scarcely established in their new home when the Brabantine Revolution broke out. Nevertheless, they continued their labours and in 1794 published the sixth volume of October, signed with the names of Cornelius De Bye and James De Bue, former Jesuits, John Baptist Fonson, ex-Canon of Caudenberg, Anselm Berthod the Benedictine, and Siard van Dyck, Cyprian van de Goor, and Matthias Stalz, Premonstratensian canons. The same year Belgium was invaded by French troops and reunited to the great Republic. Ecclesiastical goods were confiscated, priests and religious hunted like criminals, the Premonstratensians of Tongerloo and the Bollandists whom they harboured forced to disperse, and the work of the Bollandists actually suppressed. Part of the treasures of the library were concealed in the homes of neighbouring peasants, and the rest, hastily piled into wagons, were taken to Westphalia. When the storm of persecution had somewhat abated, an attempt was made to collect these scattered effects. Naturally many of them were lost or destroyed. The remainder were restored to the abbey of Tongerloo, where they were undisturbed until 1825. Then, as all hope of resuming the Bollandist work seemed lost, the canons of Tongerloo disposed of a great number of the books and manuscripts by public sale. Such as remained were given to the government of the Netherlands, which hastened to incorporate the volumes into the Royal Library of The Hague. The manuscripts seemed destined to a like fate, but as a result of earnest solicitations they were deposited in the Library of Bourgogne, Brussels, where they still remain. Nevertheless, the idea of resuming the publication of the Acta Sanctorum had never been entirely abandoned in Belgium. The prefect of the department of the Deux Nèthes (province of Antwerp), in 1801; the Institute of France, with the Minister of the Interior of the French Republic as a mediator, in 1802; and lastly, in 1810, the Baron de Tour du Pin, Prefect of the Department of the Dyle (Brussels), at the request of the incumbent of the same important office, then the Count de Montalivet, applied to such of the former Bollandists as were still living, to induce them to resume their task once more. But the attempts were futile.

Matters rested here until 1836. It was then learned that a hagiographical society had been formed in France under the patronage of several bishops and of M. Guizot, Minister of Public Instruction, and that it especially proposed to itself the resumption of the work of the Bollandists. The chief promoter of the enterprise, Abbé Théodore Perrin, of Laval, came to Belgium the same year, 1836, to solicit the support of the Government and the collaboration of Belgian savants. He did not meet with the reception he had hoped for. On the contrary, it aroused indignation in Belgium that a work which had come to be regarded as a national glory should pass into the hands of the French. The Abbé de Ram, Rector Magnificus of the University of Louvain and member of the Royal Commission of History, expressed this feeling in a letter addressed Count de Theux, Minister of the Interior, urgently imploring him to lose no time in securing for their native land of Belgium the honour of completing the great hagiographical collection, and engaged him to entrust the work to the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, by whom it had been begun and carried so far in the preceding centuries. The Minister immediately took the field, and conducted negotiations with such energy that by January, 1837, he received from Father van Lil, Provincial of the Society in Belgium, assurance of the appointment by the Society of new Bollandists, with their residence at the College of Saint-Michel at Brussels. These were Fathers Jean-Baptiste Boone, Joseph Van der Moere, and Prosper Coppens, to whom was added in the course of the same year, Father Joseph van Hecke. The provincial, in behalf of these Fathers, asked the privilege of taking home with them from the Library of Bourgogne and the Royal Library, such manuscripts and books as they would need for reference in the course of their work. Both requests were immediately granted. Moreover, an annual subsidy was promised, which was fixed in May, 1837, at 6,000 francs. This subsidy was continued from year to year under the different governments, both Catholic and Liberal, which succeeded to power, until the parliamentary session of 1868, in the course of which the Deputies cut it out of the budget. It has never been re-established.

The new hagiographers began by drawing up a list of the saints whose acts or notices remained to be published, that is to say, those who are honoured in the Catholic Church on the various days of October, November, and December, beginning from 15 October, the day at which the work of their predecessors had been brought to a halt. This list was published in the month of March, 1838, with an introduction containing a summary of the history of the Bollandist movement, the announcement of the resumption of the work, and an earnest appeal to all friends of religious learning, imploring their assistance in securing what was felt by the new workers as the most necessary thing for their success, namely, a hagiographical library. This was published under the title of “De prosecutione operis Bollandiani” (in octavo, 60 pp.). The appeal was heard. Most of the European governments, many societies of learned men, and several great publishers sent copies of the historical works undertaken by them; private individuals made generous donations of books, often precious and rare volumes that had adorned their libraries. Everywhere, also, on their literary journeys, the Bollandists were accorded the most enthusiastic and flattering receptions.

The first volume published after the resurrection of Bollandism, Volume VII of October, appeared in 1845, containing over 2,000 pages in folio. There followed successively Volumes VIII to XIII of October, and I and II of November, besides the “Propylaeum Novembris,” an edition of the Greek Synaxarion called “de Sirmond,” with the variants of sixty manuscripts scattered through the various public libraries of Europe.

The author of this article does not consider himself qualified to give an estimate of the work of these later Bollandists, having himself been a member of the body for too long a time. He is able, however, to cite the appreciations of the most distinguished and capable scholars in this field, who testify that the volumes published by the later Bollandists are in no wise inferior to those of their predecessors of the seventeenth an eighteenth centuries. The reservations made by certain critics in their commendation are generally due to the prolixity of the commentaries, which they think is often excessive, and to the timidity of certain conclusions, which do not seem to them to correspond with what the discussions had led them to expect. Another class of censors reproach the Bollandists for quite the reverse, accusing them of not showing sufficient respect towards what they call tradition, and of being too often hypercritical. The present members of the body are firmly resolved to be on their guard against these contrary excesses, something, indeed, which becomes easier to them as time passes, owing to the constant progress of good scientific methods. We may be permitted one word, in conclusion, as to what has been done during these latter years towards keeping the work up to the high level of contemporary historical erudition. It has been judged opportune, in the first place, to publish, besides the great volumes of the principal collection itself, which appear at undetermined intervals, a periodical review intended chiefly to make known to the learned public materials recently discovered by the Bollandists or their friends which go towards completing either the Acts published in the volumes already printed or the entire mass of the work. This review was begun under the title of “Analecta Bollandiana” in 1882. At the rate of one volume in octavo a year, it has reached in the present year (1907) the twenty-sixth volume. In volumes subsequent to the sixth there have been inserted, besides unedited documents, various notes bearing on hagiographical matters. Since the publication of the tenth volume, each quarterly issue has contained a “Bulletin des publications hagiogphiques” in which are announcements and summary appreciations of recent works and articles in reviews which concern matters of hagiography. Other auxiliary works have exacted long years of laborious preparation. They are the “Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca” and the “Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina,” in which are enumerated under the name of each saint, following the alphabetical order of their names, all documents relating to his or her life and cult written in Greek or in Latin before the beginning of the sixteenth century, together with the indication of all collections and books where they can be found. The first of these collections, which appeared in 1895, numbers 143 pages. (There is now in preparation a new edition notably enlarged.) The second, issued 1898–99, has 1,387 pages. It is hoped that a “Bibliotheca Hagiographica Orientalis” will soon be printed. Moreover, there is a third class of auxiliary works to which the Bollandists of the present generation are directing their activity, and that is the careful preparation of catalogues containing a systematic detailed description (if the Greek and Latin hagiographical manuscripts of various great libraries. A great many of these catalogues have been incorporated in the “Analecta.” Such are the catalogues of the Greek manuscripts in the Roman libraries of the Barberini, the Chigi, and the Vatican; the National Library of Naples; the library of the University of Messina, and that of St. Mark’s, in Venice; catalogues of the Latin manuscripts in the Royal Library of Brussels (2 vols. in octavo), in the libraries of the cities, or of the universities, of Bruges, Ghent, Liège, and Namur, in Belgium; of the municipal libraries of Chartres, Le Mans, Douai, and Rouen, in France; those of the Hague in Holland, and, in Italy, of Milan (the Ambrosian), as well as the various libraries of Rome; also in the private library of his Majesty the Emperor of Austria, at Vienna, and that of Alphonsus Wins at Nivelles; and lastly, of the Bollandist Library. Besides the “Analecta,” there have appeared the catalogue of the old (before 1500) Latin manuscripts in the National Library of Paris (three octavo volumes, also the tables) and a list of the Greek manuscripts in the same library (compiled in collaboration with M. H. Omont). All these publications, although certainly delaying somewhat the appearance of succeeding volumes of the Acta Sanctorum, have gained for the Bollandists warm words of encouragement and commendation from the greatest scholars.

There is a final detail which may not be without interest. The Bollandists had found themselves greatly hampered in the arrangement of their library at their residence in the Rue des Ursulines at Brussels which they had occupied since the resumption of the work in 1837. During the latter part of 1905 they were transferred to the new College of Saint-Michel on the Boulevard Militaire, where ample and convenient quarters for the library were assigned in the lofty buildings of the vast establishment. The 150,000 volumes contained in their literary museum are most suitably arranged here. A large space was also set apart for historical and philological reviews (about 600), nearly all of which are sent regularly by learned societies, either gratuitously or in exchange for the “Analecta Bollandiana.” To class these according to the place of publication and the language chiefly employed in their preparation: 228 are French (a certain number of which are published in Belgium, Switzerland, and other countries than France); 135, German; 88, Italian; 55, English (of which ten are American); 13, Russian; 11, Dutch; 7, Flemish; 7, Spanish; 7, Croatian; 4, Swedish; 3, Portuguese; 2, Irish; 2, Hungarian; 1, Czech; 1, Polish; 1, Rumanian; 1, Dalmatian; and 1, Norwegian. Moreover, there are 9 printed in Greek, 6 in Latin, 4 in Armenian and 1 in Arabic. Finally, a large hall near the library has been set apart, and after October, 1907, it will be thrown open to foreign students who may wish to consult original sources of information likely to assist them in their researches.

The quotations of the Acta Sanctorum refer to three different editions. The first, the original one, commonly called the Antwerp edition, has been sufficiently described in the above article. The volumes of the Antwerp collection were first reprinted at Venice from 1764 to 1770. They reached then to volume VI of September. The main difference between this reimpression and the Antwerp edition lies in the fact that the supplementary additions to sundry commentaries printed by the Bollandists at the end of the single volumes, or of a set of volumes are transposed in the Venetian edition and joined to the commentary to which they refer; hence the contents of each volume are not in close correspondence in the volumes similarly marked in both editions. Moreover, many of the parerga or preliminary treatises scattered through the Antwerp collection have been brought together in three separate volumes. But the whole printing teems with typographical blunders. Lastly another reprinting of the Antwerp publication was undertaken by the Parisian editor, Victor Palmé, from 1863 to 1869, and carried on to the tenth volume of October. This edition reproduces exactly, volume by volume, the original one, except for the months of January and June. The two big volumes of January have been divided into three, and in the volumes of June also some changes have been made in the disposition of matter, in order to render the use of them easier to readers. Besides, to each of the volumes of the first four months were added a few unpublished short notes (filling from one to six pages) of Daniel Papebroch, found in his papers and relating to the commentaries printed in the volume.

BOLLAND, Prœfatio generalis in Acta Sanctorum (at the beginning of vol. I for January); PAPEBROCH, De vitâ, virtutibus et operibus Joannis Bollandi (at the beginning of vol. I for March); PAPEBROCH, De vitâ . . . Godefridi Henschenii (at the beginning of vol. VII for May); J. PIEN, De Vitâ Danielis Papebrochii (at the beginning of vol. VI for June); J. VAN HECKE, De ratione universi operis [Bollandiani] (beginning of vol. VII for October).

CHARLES DE SMEDT

Johann Bollig

Distinguished Orientalist, born near Düren in Rhenish Prusia 23 August, 1821; died at Rome in 1895. He studied theology and Semitic languages at Rome, where he entered the Society of Jesus in 1853. In 1862–63 he sojourned in Syria as professor of theology for the native seminaries, at the same time pursuing his researches in Oriental literature. After his return to Rome, he was appointed professor of Arabic and Sanskrit at the Roman College (afterwards the Gregorian University) and at the Sapienza. he was a member of the commission appointed by Pius IX to arrange the details of the Vatican Council and acted as pontifical theologian during the Council for many years he was consultor of the Congregation of the Propaganda for Oriental affairs. In 1880, he was appointed Prefect of the Vatican Library, which office he held until his death. Among his published works are: “Brevis Chrestomathia arabica” (Rome, 1882); “Sti. Gregorii lib. carm. iambic.,” am ancient Syriac translation (Beruit, 1895). He left many unpublished writings on oriental philology.

Catalogue of the Rom. Prov. S.J.; HERDER, Konversationslex, I, s.v.

B. GULDNER

Archdiocese of Bologna

ARCHDIOCESE OF BOLOGNA

HISTORY

Bologna is the principal city in the province of the same name, Italy, and contains about 150,000 inhabitants. It was founded by the Etruscans, who called it Felsina. Later it fell into the hands of the Boii, a Gallic tribe, and from that time took the name of Bononia, whence the present form. The regions round about having been laid waste by the continual wars, in 189 B.C. the Romans established a colony thee, which was enlarged and beautified by Augustus. After Byzantium had broken the power of the Goths in Italy, Bologna belonged to the Exarchate of Ravenna (536). By the donation of Pepin Bologna was made part of the patrimony of the Holy See, but during the disturbances of the ninth century was wrested from the popes. At the beginning of the ninth century it was laid waste during the incursions of the Hungarians. Otto I did much to restore the city to its former condition giving it the privilege of enacting its own laws, and making it directly dependent on the imperial authority. Bologna was then governed by consuls. During the struggles between the empire and the popes, the city took the part of the latter and was enable to assert its independence, which was definitely recognized by Henry V in 1122. Bologna was among the first to join the Lombard League. From 1153 it was ruled by podestas, who were for most part foreigners. From the accession of Frederick II, Bologna was rent into the two factions of Guelphs and Ghibellines, the former being in the majority. On 26 May, 1249, the inhabitants of Bologna in the battle of Fossalto conquered the troops of Frederick II under the leadership of King Enzo (Ezzelino); Enzo himself was taken prisoner, and neither the threats nor the promises of Frederick availed to secure his liberty. He remained in captivity until his death, eleven years later, although for the rest he was always treated with the greatest consideration.

In 1276, in order more thoroughly to safeguard their communal liberty, the inhabitants of Bologna placed themselves under the protection of the Holy See, and Pope Nicholas III sent them as legate his nephew, Berotoldo Orsini, whom he also commissioned to reconcile the opposing factions. In the fourteenth century the preponderance of power was in the hands of the Pepoli family, but later passed to the Visconti of Milan, who alternated with the Bentivoglio family in holding the reins of power. At intervals the popes attempted to make their authority recognized, or else the city spontaneously recognized their sovereignty (1327–34; 1340–47; 1360–76, through the efforts of Cardinal Albornoz; 1377–1401; 1403–11, during the pontificate of John XXIII; 1412–16; 1420–28, under Cardinal Condulmer). In the beginning of the fifteenth century there were frequent popular uprisings against the nobility. From 1443 to 1506 three of the Bentivoglio family succeeded each other as masters of Bologna. In 1506 Julius II incorporated Romagna into the papal states, Bologna included; the city, however, retained a great degree of communal autonomy. The papal authority was vested in a legate te, who in the beginning was generally a cardinal, later, however, only a titular bishop. In 1796 Bologna was occupied by the French and made a part of the Cisalpine Republic, and afterwards of the Italian Kingdom. In 1814 it was seized by the Austrians, who in 1815 restored it to the pope. From the time of its restoration, Bologna was the scene of a series of deep-seated agitations and revolts against the papal rule. These uprisings were repressed by Austrian troops. Finally, in 1859 Romagna, together with the Marches and Umbria, was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy.

CHRISTIANITY IN BOLOGNA

The only sources for the history of the beginnings of Christianity in Bologna are legendary accounts, according to which St. Apollinaris, disciple of St. Peter and first Bishop of Ravenna, was the first to preach the Gospel in Bologna. The first bishop is said to have been St. Zama, who is supposed to have been ordained by Pope St. Dionysius (270). However, it may be maintained with certainty that Christianity, and likewise the episcopate, in Bologna dates back to a more remote period. During the persecution of Diocletian, Bologna was the scene of the martyrdoms of Sts. Vitalis and Agricola, whose bodies were interred in a Jewish cemetery and only discovered in the time of St. Ambrose, in 392, as related by him in a letter (Ep.lv), the authenticity of which, however, is questioned. The fact is referred to perhaps, by Paulinus in his life of the saint, when he speaks of Ambrose taking to Florence some relics of these martyrs. It was possibly the same persecution that the martyrdom of St. Proculus occurred. The episcopal See of Bologna was first subject to the Metropolitan of Milan, and later, probably after Milan had fallen into the hands of the Lombards, it recognized the authority of the Metropolitan of Ravenna. In 1106 it was placed immediately under the Holy See. Finally, in 1582 Gregory XIII raised the Bishop of Bologna to the dignity of a metropolitan, assigning him as suffragans the Sees of Imola, Cervia, Modena, Reggio, Parma, Piacenza and Crema; today, however, only Imola and Faenza are suffragan to Bologna.

Among the Bishops of Bologna worthy of note are Sts. Faustinianus, Basil and Eusebius, in the fourth century. About 400 there is record of St. Felix, succeeded about 430 by St. Petronius, who is extolled for having restored the church of Bologna, and who later became patron of the city. His relics are preserved in the church of San Stefano. A number of the Bishops of Bologna were later raised to the papal chair, as, for instance, John X, Cosimo Migliorati, who assumed the name of Innocent VII; Tomaso Parentuccelli, later Nicholas V; Giuliano della Rovere, who became Julius II; Alessandro Ludovisi, or Gregory XV; and Prospero Lambertini, or Benedict XIV. The last two mentioned were born in Bologna. Other celebrated bishops were: Cardinal Filippo Caraffa (1378–89); Cardinal Antonio Correr (1407–12); Blessed Nicoló, Cardinal Albergati (1417–34); Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggi, known for the many embassies on which he was sent to Germany and England, in connection with the Reformation and the marriage of Henry VIII (1523–25). After Bologna became an archiepiscopal see, almost all the metropolitans were cardinals, among whom may be mentioned: Gabriele Paleoti (1591–97), who left the cathedral as it exists to-day, built the episcopal palace, and endeavoured to put the Tridentine reforms into execution in Bologna; Vincenzo Malvessi (1754–75), to whom the cathedral and the seminary owed much; Carlo Opizzoni (1802–55); Michele Viale Prelâ (1855–60); Lucido Maria Parocchi (1877–82). Bologna was also the birthplace of the following popes, in addition to the two already mentioned: Honorius II (Lamberto Scannabecchi), Lucius II (Gherardo Caccianemici dell’ Orso), Alexander V (Pietro Filargo), Gregory XIII (Ugo Buoncompagni), and Innocent IX (Giannantonio Facchinetti).

CHURCHES

Chief among the sacred edifices of Bologna is the cathedral, dedicated to St. Peter and erected by the commune in 910 to replace the ancient cathedral which stood outside the city walls. Destroyed by fire in 1130, it was but rebuilt in 1165 in its present form it dates from 1605, according to plans drawn by the Magenta, a Barnabite. The façade however, was designed by Alf. Torreggiani, who also added the first two chapels to the church. The majority of the paintings are by famous masters, as, for instance, Ventura da Bologna, Ercole Graziani, Francesco Tadolini, Onofrio Zanotti, del Bagnacavallo (Bartolommeo Ramenghi), Ludovico Caracci, and others. There is also a lower church with five altars. Worthy of note is a crucifix of cedar wood dating from the time of the old cathedral. The church of San Petronio, dedicated to the patron of the city, was built by order of the Secento, at public expense, in 1390. A competition was announced for the plans, and among all the designs the preference was given those of Antonio Vincenzi, while the supervision of the work of erection was entrusted to Andrea Manfredi da Faenza. However, the original drawings, providing for an octagonal dome 500 feet high, were not adhered to. The façade still remains incomplete, only the lower part being covered with sculptures in marble. The ornamentation of the larger door is the work of Pietro della Fonte; many of the figures compare favourably with the works of an age in which the art was more highly developed. In the architrave is the Madonna and Child. The two naves are adorned with statues of Sts. Petronius and Ambrose. The carving of the doors was done by Sigismondo Bargelloso, aided by Andrea Magnani and Gabriele di Zeccaria. The two side doors are also adorned with magnificent carvings, the work of other artists. It is a three naved church, the twenty-three chapels being adorned with the masterpieces of distinguished artists of different ages. Worthy of note is the statue of St. Anthony of Padua by Sansovino. A sun-dial is to be found there, likewise two clocks, among the first to be made in Italy with pendulums. In Bologna is also the church of Corpus Domini, founded by St. Catherine de’ Vigri, commonly known as St. Catherine of Bologna, and adjoining it the monastery of the Poor Clares. In one of the chapels is preserved the mummified body of the saint, together with many objects used by her during life. There is also a beautiful church of St. Dominic, close by the Dominican convent in which the death of St. Dominic occurred. The tomb of the saint is in itself a veritable museum of works of art by the great masters. The casket was carved by Nicolò Pisano, and one of the angels was done by Michelangelo in his youth. The choir is beautifully inlaid with tinted wood, the work of Fra Damiano da Bergamo, a Dominican lay brother. The church is cruciform, and in one chapel of the cross is the tomb of King Ezzelino; in another that of Guido Reni.

Among the many other churches, all rich in monuments, mention will be made only of San Stefano, made up of a group of chapels once used by ancient monks from Egypt, who dwelt there before the time of St. Benedict. The site later passed into the hands of the Benedictines who erected there a monastery which in 1447 was reduced to the rank of an abbey to be held in commendam. In 1493 the Celstines took possession, and remained there until 1797. A tablet found there proves that this was once the site of a temple of Isis. Among the different chapels should be mentioned Calvary, or of the Holy Sepulchre; it is octagonal in form, and contains replica in marble of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem; here was probably situated the baptistery of the ancient cathedral, which was not far distant. The chapels of San Giacomo Maggiore, built in 1267; San Giovanni in Monte, said to have been erected by St. Petronius and renovated in 1221 and 1824; San Isaiah the most ancient; Santa Maria di Galliera; Santa Maria dei Servi; San Martino; San Paolo; and San Francesco, still incomplete—all rich in monuments of artistic and historic interest. Outside Bologna is situated the celebrated Certosa, built in 1334 and in 1802 converted into a community burying-ground. The church attached to the convent is dedicated to St. Jerome. On the Monte della Guardia is the shrine of the Madonna di San Luca, which is connected with the Saragossa Gate by a portico with 635 arches 11,483 feet (2.17 miles), in length, constructed between 1661 and 1739. The shrine takes its name from a painting of the Madonna attributed to St. Luke, which was brought here in 1160 by Euthymius, a monk of Constantinople. The present church dates from 1731.

With respect to profane architecture, the first thing to be remarked are the porticoes in which nearly all the roads terminate. Noteworthy also are the towers, particularly that of the Asinelli, 320 feet in height, erected between 1105 and 1109, and nearby, that of the Garisendi, built in 1110, the inclination of which, it seems, was due to a subsidence of the earth, in the fourteenth century, which carried away the uppermost part of the tower; it is 154 feet in height, and has an inclination of 7.77 feet. First among the palaces is that of the Podestà, a structure dating back to 1801, where the conclave for the nomination of John XXIII was held in 1410; next in importance are the communal palace, the civic museum, and the Archiginnasio, or ancient university.

The Archdiocese of Bologna contains 389 parishes, 1172 churches, chapels, and oratories, 837 secular priests, 119 regular, 311 seminarians, 48 lay brothers, 521 sisters, 10 schools for boys, 21 for girls, and a population of 565,489.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia. (Venice, 1844), III; SIGONII CAROLI, De episcopis Bononiensibus libri V. (Bologna, 1586), continued by RUBBI up to 1731; SAVIOLI, Annali Bolognesi (Bassano, 1784); TROMBA, Serie cronologica dei vescovi, etc. (Bologna, 1787).

U. BENIGNI

Giovanni da Bologna

Flemish Renaissance sculptor, b. at Douai, in Flanders, about 1524; d. at Florence in 1608. Vasari gives little information about this eminent sculptor. He calls him “a youth of great talent and of spirit” and says he was one of the competitors with Cellini for the colossal figure of Neptune in his chariot drawn by sea horses. The duke, who was to decide the competition, although assured that Giovanni’s model was superior to the others, did not confide the undertaking to him. We can judge of what he would have made of that commission from the bronze Neptune prepared for the fountain at Bologna.

Giovanni was called Il Fiammingo from the place of his birth. He studied in Rome and settled in Florence, having been adopted by the wealthy Bernardo Vecchietti, who treated him as his son. He was thoroughly Florentine in sentiment, and in Florence are preserved his two masterpieces, “Mercury” and the “Rape of the Sabines.” In the former, in the Bargello, he has come nearer to expressing swift, flashing motion and airy lightness than has any other artist of that or a later period. The figure of the youth with winged feet, holding the caduceus, and borne aloft upon a head of Æolus, is masterly in its expression of earnest purpose and light, easy movement. Hardly less important is the “Rape of the Sabines” in marble under the Loggia dei Lanzi, in which Count Ginori posed for the figure of the triumphant youth who carries away a struggling woman in the embrace. Other works are the group of “Hercules and Nessus,” the equestrian bronze figure of “Duke Cosimo I” in the Piazza Signoria and the bas-relief of the doorway of the Cathedral of Pisa. Besides these, he executed more than one crucifix, a figure of “Diana,” another of “Venus,” and four syrens similar to the larger ones on the Bologna fountain. Vasari mentions a bronze figure of “Bacchus” and a “Samson” in combat with two Philistines, both larger than life size. Giovanni’s work is marked by freedom and grace, while free from the fault of exaggeration which so injures much of the sculpture of the very late Renaissance.

DESJARDINS, La vie de Jean Boulogne (1883).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

University of Bologna

A tradition of the thirteenth century attributed the foundation of this university to Theodosius II (433); but this legend is now generally rejected. The authentic “Habita,” issued by Frederick Barbarossa in 1158, was at best only an implicit recognition of the existence of the school at Bologna, and the bull of Clement III (1189), though it speaks of “masters and scholars,” has no reference to a university organization. The university, in fact, developed out of the “Schools of the Liberal Arts” which flourished at Bologna early in the eleventh century. An important feature of the general education given in these schools was the Dictamen, or Art of composition which included rules for drawing up briefs and other legal documents. The study of grammar and rhetoric was closely connected with the study of law. At the same time, the political, commercial and intellectual growth of the Lombard cities created a demand for legal instruction. Ravenna, long the home of jurisprudence, lost is prestige through its conflict with the papacy, and Bologna was its successor. Towards the close of the eleventh century Pepo is mentioned in connection with the revived study of the “Digest”; but it was Irnerius who began the study of the entire “Corpus Juris Civillis” and organized the school of law as distinct from the arts school (1100–30). Along with this revival of the Civil Law came the epoch-making compilation of the Camaldolese (or Bendedictine) monk Gratian. The “Decretum Gratiani” (q.v.) published about 1140, became at once the recognized textbook of canon law. Bologna was thus in its origin, a “jurist” university. The work of Irnerius and Gratian was continued by such men as Odopedus (d. 1300), Joannes Andrea (1270–1348), St. Raymond of Pennafort (1175–1275), and Ricardus Angelicus, who later became Bishop of Chichester (about middle of thirteenth century).

The fame of its professors drew to Bologna students from all parts of Italy and from nearly every country of Europe. It is said that their number at the beginning of the thirteenth century was 10,000. Bologna was known as the “Mater studiorum,” and its motto, “Bononia docet,” was literally true. The foreign (non-Bolognese) students formed two “universities”; that of the Cismontanes and that of the Ultramontanes. The former comprised seventeen “Nations,” the latter, eighteen, including the English. The nations were organized on a plan similar to that of the guilds. Each framed its own statues, elected its own “Consiliari,” and held its own meetings. The rector was elected by the students. The masters, also, were grouped in guilds or colleges. In the examination of candidates for degrees, the authority of the masters was supreme; in other matters the students had full control. In the conflicts that often arose between them and the city, the students enforced their claims by emigrating to other towns—Vincenza (1204), Arezzo (1215), Padua (1222), Sienna (1321). Appeal was sometimes taken to the pope, who as a rule decided in favour of the university. Notable among these papal interventions was the Bull of Honorius III (1217).

Bologna in its earliest organization was a “student” university: professors were hired by the students to give instruction. The lectures were either “ordinary” or “extraordinary,” a distinction which corresponded with that between the more essential and the less essential of the law-texts (Rashdall). Ordinary lectures were reserved for the doctors; the extraordinary might be given by a student as part of his preparation for the baccalaureate. (See ARTS, BACHELOR OF.) This classification of teachers survives in the modern German university. At Bologna, no examination was required for the Bachelor’s degree; permission to lecture was granted the student after a five years’ course in law. For the Licentiate, the candidate was obliged to pass a private, and for the Doctorate a public, examination (Conventus, Inceptio). The examinations and the conferring of degrees belonged originally to the masters; but in 1219 Honorius III prescribed that no one should receive the Doctorate without the consent of the Archdeacon of Bologna. In 1292 Nicholas IV decreed that all who were licensed doctors by the Archdeacon of Bologna should have the right, without further examination or approbation, to teach everywhere. These enactments not only enhanced the value of the degree, but also affected the organization of the university. Functions hitherto exercised by private corporations passed into the hands of an official commissioned by public authority, and that authority was ecclesiastical. The degree system of Bologna was henceforth the same as that which had already been established at Paris; and these two schools became the models upon which the later universities were organized.

The development of the law schools at Bologna had as one result the reduction of the Liberal Arts to a position of secondary importance. On the other hand, two factors in the situation favoured the Arts and made possible a new growth in the university, namely, the restoration of the Aristotelean philosophy and the introduction of mathematics from the Arabian schools. The physics and physiology of Aristotle formed the basis of the study of medicine, while mathematics opened the way to astrology, and eventually to astronomy. Among the physicians of note in Bologna were a number of ecclesiastics, one of whom, Nicolaus de Farnham, became (1241) Bishop of Durham. Churchmen were forbidden to study medicine by Honorius III (1219). But there was no regularly organized school of medicine until Thaddeus of Florence began his teaching, about 1260. From that time onward the medical faculty grew in importance. Surgery received special attention; dissection was practised, and the foundations of modern anatomy were laid by Mundinus (1275–1326). Closely allied with the work in medicine was the study of astrology. A famous astrologist, Cecco d’Ascoli (d. 1327), declared that a physician without astrology would be like an eye without the power of vision. The scientific study of astronomy was founded by the investigations of Novara and his disciple Copernicus (1473–1543). Both medical and mathematical studies were influenced by Arabian scholarship, in particular by that of Avicenna and Averroes. As these were also philosophers, their theories came to be part of the scholasticism of Bologna, and their authority was scarcely inferior to that of Aristotle.

Theology had long been taught in the monastic schools; but the faculty of theology in the university was established by Innocent VI in 1360. Its chancellor was the Bishop of Bologna, and its doctors depended upon him rather than upon the student body. The faculty received many privileges from Urban V, Boniface IX, and their successors. The popes, in fact, favoured the university in every possible way. Gregory IX, and Boniface VIII sent it to the Decretals (q.v.); Benedict XIV, various bulls and encyclicals. Among the benefactors were Martin V, Eugene IV, Nicholas V, Paul II, Innocent VII, Paul III, Pius IV, Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Innocent X and Clement XII. Gregory XI founded (1372), in connection with the university, the Collegium Gregorianum for poor students of medicine and philospy. Other colleges with similar scope were established by laymen and ecclesiastics (see list in Moroni). One of the most important was the College of Spain (Casa Spagnuola, or Collegio Magiore), which owed its existence and endowment to Cardinal Albornoz (1364). The papal legates at Bologna took an active part in the direction of the university and eventually became the supreme authority. In the course of time, also the student body lost its control, and the various schools were consolidated in one university organization.

In the development of modern literature and science Bologna took an important part. The famous Cardinal Bessarion, a leader in the Renaisance movement, was legate from 1451 to 1455. Under his influence classical studies flourished in the university, and Humanists like Filelfo (1398–1481) and Guarino were among its professors. To these should be added, in more recent times, the great Messofanti (1774–1849). In the natural sciences, especially, Bologna points to a long list of distinguished men; the anatomists Achillini (1463–1512), Vesalius (1514–64), Varoli (1542–75), and Malpighi (1628–94), the botanist Aldrovandi (1522–1607), and the physicist Galvani (1737–98) are among the most illustrious. The number of women who taught at Bologna is also remarkable, including Novella, daughter of Joannes Andrea the jurist, Laura Bassi (1711–78), and Maria Agnesi (1718–99), mathematicians, and Clotilda Tambroni (1758–1817), professor of Greek.

During the Napoleonic wars, the university suffered considerably: chairs were suppressed, and the existence of the entire university was often endangered. The popes, in particular Leo XII came to its assistance, reorganized the faculties, and provided generously for the continuation of scientific work. Their control, however, ceased when the Papal States were merged in the present Kingdom of Italy.

The university now comprises the faculties of philosophy and letters, mathematics and science, law, and medicine, with schools of pharmacy, agriculture, and engineering. The professors and instructors number 190; the students 1800. The library founded in 1605 by Aldrovandi, contains 250,000 volumes. One of the most important institutes connected with the university is the Academy of Science, established in 1690 by the generous Count Marsigli, and reorganized by Pius VIII in 1829.

RASHDALL, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1895), I; KIRKPATRICK, The Octocentenary Festival of the University of Bologna (Edinburg, 1899); SAVIGNY, The University of Bologna in the Middle Ages in Amer. Jour. Of Education (1871); SARTI, De claris archigymnasi Bononiensis professoribus (Bologna, 1769); ID, new ed. By ALBICINIUS (ibid., 1888); CASSANI, Deli’ Antico Studio di Bologna e sua origine (ibid., 1888); MALAGOLA, Monografie Storiche sullo Studio Bolognese (ibid., 1888); FITTING, Die Anfange der Rechtsschule zu Bologna (Berlin and Leipzig, 1888); MORONI, Dizionario, LXXXIV; CHEVALIER, Topo-Bibliographie, s.v.

E.A. PACE

Jérôme-Hermès Bolsec

A theologian and physician, b. probably at Paris, date unknown; d. at Lyons c. 1584. He became a Carmelite monk at Paris. A sermon which he preached there aroused misgivings in ecclesiastical circles regarding the soundness of his ideas, and Bolsec left Paris. Having separated from the Catholic Church about 1545 he took refuge at the Court of Renée, duchess of Ferrara, who was favourably disposed towards persons holding Protestant views. Here he married, and began the study of medicine, about 1550 settling as a physician at Veigy, near Geneva. A theological controversy with Calvin, whose doctrine of predestination he deemed an absurdity, soon ensued. In 1551, at one of the religious conferences or public discussions, then held at Geneva every Friday, he interrupted the orator of the day, Jean de Saint André, who was speaking on predestination, and argued against him. As the triumph of his ideas would have meant the ruin of Calvin’s influence in the Swiss city, Bolsec was arrested, and through the influence of the reformer banished forever from Geneva (1551). In 1555 he was also driven from Thonon, in the Bernese territory, whither he had retired. He went to Paris and sought admission into the ministry of the Reformed Church. But his opinions were not found sufficiently orthodox, from a reformed point of view, for one wishing to hold such a position. He was asked for a declaration of faith, but refused. He went to Lausanne (c. 1563), but as the signing of the Confession of Bern was made a condition of his residence here, he preferred to return to France. Shortly after this, he recanted his errors, was reconciled with the Catholic Church, and published biographies of the two Genevan reformers, Calvin and Beza (1519–1605). These works are violent in tone, and find little favour with protestant writers. Their historical statements cannot always be relied on. They are “Histoire de la view, des moeurs . . . de Jean Calvin” (Lyons and Paris, 1577; published in Latin at Cologne in 1580; German tr. 1581); “Histoire de la vie et des m urs de Th. de Bèze” (Paris, 1582). The life of Calvin was edited by L.F. Chastel in 1875 with extracts from the life of Beza.

FRITZ in Kirchenlex.; SCHAFF, History of the Christian Church (New York, 1903), VII, 614–621; WALKER, John Calvin (New York, 1906), 116–119, 315–320.

N.A. WEBER

Edmund Bolton

Historian, antiquary, and poet, born c. 1575; died c. 1633. The genuine loyalty in the Catholic Faith which seems to have marked the career of this eccentric and unfortunate genius is indicated by the second name which appears in a signature of his preserved in Harleian MS. 6521 at the British Museum—“Edmundus Maria Boltonus.”

The same MS. furnishes us with a clue to sundry details of his life. He seems to have been born of Catholic parents in Leicestershire, and must have been of good family and position, for he claims to have continued “many years on his own charge a free commoner at Trinity Hall, Cambridge,” and after going to London to study law to have lived there “in the, best and choicest company of gentlemen.” There can be no doubt that there was a strong Catholic element among the lawyers of the Inner Temple (Richard Southwell, the father of the martyr, might be named as one example among many), and the tone of the drama and much of the lighter literature of the late Elizabethan and early Jacobean period shows that the Bohemian society into which Bolton and his fellows were thrown was often pronouncedly papist. But while many who for a while were Romanizers, like his friend Ben Jonson, ultimately fell away, Bolton, much to his credit, remained stanch to his principles. Of his ability and zeal in the pursuit of knowledge there can be no question. He was the friend of Cotton and Camden; whose antiquarian researches he shared, and as a writer of verses he was associated with Sidney, Spenser, Raleigh, and others in the publication of “England’s Helicon.” Many influential friends, including for example the Duke, then Marquess, of Buckingham, tried to help him in his pecuniary embarrassments, but there seems no doubt that his Catholicism stood in the way of his making a living by literature. For instance, a life of King Henry II which he had prepared for an edition of Speed’s “Chronicle’ then in course of publication, was rejected on account of the too favourable aspect in which he had depicted St. Thomas of Canterbury. It seems, however, that through Buckingham’s influence he obtained some small post about the court of James I, and in 1617 he proposed to the king some scheme for a royal academy or college of letters which was to be associated with the Order of the Garter, and which was destined in the mind of its designer to convert Windsor Castle into a sort of English Olympus. James I gave some encouragement to the scheme, but died before it was carried into execution. With the accession of Charles I, Bolton seems to have fallen on evil days. The last years of his life were mostly spent either in the fleet or in the Marshalsea as a prisoner for debt, to which no doubt the fines he incurred as a “recusant convict” largely contributed. The exact date of his death is unknown. Besides his contributions in English verse to “England’s Helicon” Bolton wrote a certain amount of Latin poetry. He is best remembered, however, as the author of “The elements of Armories,” a curious heraldic dialogue published anonymously in 1610, and of “Nero Cæsar, or Monarchie Depraved,” a book of Roman history dealing in part with the earliest notices of Britain. A translation of the “Histories” of Florus which he also published is signed “Philanactophil” (i.e. friend of the king’s friend). Bolton’s “Hypercritica,” a useful work of literary criticism, was published long after his death.

COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., V, 325; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Catholics, I, 257–259; Archæologia, xxxii, 132–149.

HERBERT THURSTON

Bernhard Bolzano

Austrian mathematician and philosopher, b. at Prague, 5 October, 1781; d. 18 December, 1848. As a student he devoted himself chiefly to mathematics with marked success. Against the wish of his father, he entered the ecclesiastical state and was ordained in 1805. In the same year he was appointed professor of the philosophy of religion in the University of Prague. His lectures and discourses were strongly tinged with rationalism, and it was not long before he was denounced to the ecclesiastical authorities. Through the personal intervention of the Prince-Archbishop Salm-Salm of Prague, he retained his professorship until 1820, when the long-threatened dismissal was suddenly put into effect in consequence of disorders that occurred in the seminary of Leitmeritz then under the direction of Dr. Fessl, who, as a disciple and friend of Bolzano, was strongly imbued with the latter’s rationalizing spirit. Bolzano spent the remainder of his life in studious retirement, first on the estate of his friend Johann Hoffmann, at Techobuz, near Prague, and later in the house of his brother at Prague. A small pension, and the generosity of Count Leo Thun, relieved him of all monetary care.

Bolzano was always a loyal son of the Catholic Church. There is, however, a strong rationalizing tendency in his writings on doctrinal subjects, and his refusal to retract several propositions taken from his printed works justified his dismissal from the University of Prague. Bolzano’s contributions to the science of mathematics are of the highest order. In 1804 he published a theory of parallel lines which anticipated Legendre’s well-known theory. He shares with Cauchy the honour of hiving developed the theory of functions of one real variable. He made notable additions to the theory of differentiation, to the concept of of infinity, and to the binomial theorem. As a philosopher, Bolzano had no sympathy for speculation as such. His mathematical bent made him a partisan of strict, methodic inquiry. His contributions to philosophy comprise a textbook on the “Science of Religion” (4 vols., Sulzbach, 1834), and one on the “Science of Knowledge” (4 vols., Sulzbach, 1837). Bolzano’s complete writings fill twenty-five volumes. The full list is found in the “Sitzungsberichte” of the Vienna Academy (1849).

FESSL, Bolzanos Autobiographie (Vienna, 1875); WISSHAUPT, Skizzen aus dem Leben Bolzanos (Leipzig, 1849); ERDMANN, History of Philosophy, tr. (London, 1890), II, 463–471.

MATTHIAS LEIMKUHLER

Archdiocese of Bombay

(BOMBAYENSIS)

The Archdiocese of Bombay comprises the Island of Bombay with several outlying churches in the neighbouring Island of Salsette, and a large portion of the Bombay Presidency stretching northwards from the river Nerbudda as far as Quetta, including the districts of Gujerat (Broach, Baroda, Ahmedabad), Kathiawar, Cutch, Sind and a portion of Beluchistan. Most of the archdiocese is thus separated from its centre in Bombay Island by a distance of about 200 miles, the intervening country being assigned to the Diocese of Damaun. The Catholic population under the archbishop is reckoned at about 18,000, of which about 8,000 are in Bombay Island; 3,500 in Salsette; 2,000 in Gujerat, Kathiawar and Cutch, and 4,500 in Sind and Beluchistan. The archdiocese is served by 50 fathers, 19 scholastics, and 16 lay brothers of the German province of the Society of Jesus, and 19 native secular priests, attending 24 churches and 25 chapels, besides Sisters of the Orders of Jesus and Mary and the Daughters of the Cross engaged in education and charitable work.

HISTORY

In 1534 the Portuguese began to settle in Bombay. They were accompanied by the Franciscans, who gradually covered the island with churches, monasteries, and communities of converts. When in 1665 the island was ceded to the English, the work was continued by the same order and by secular clergy from Goa. In 1720, on political grounds, the Goanese clergy were expelled by the Government, and the Vicar of the Great Mogul (formerly the Vicar of the Deccan) was invited to take charge of the Catholics. Although this was done with the approval of Rome, the Goanese clergy from time to time tried with the Government to recover their position, and in 1764 established a “double jurisdiction.” At first the vicariate extended indefinitely over the north of India; but in 1784 the northern portion was separated and given over to the Mission of Tibet. The vicariate then gradually began to be called the Vicariate of Bombay. It was under the care of the Carmelite fathers from 1720 to 1854. When they resigned their charge the vicariate was divided, the northern, or Bombay portion, being taken over by the Capuchins, while the southern, or Poona portion was given to the German Jesuits. A few years later the Capuchins also resigned, and hence in 1858 the whole of the Bombay-Poona Mission came into the hands of the German Jesuits. Meantime a distressing conflict over the rights of jurisdiction (often referred to in literature as the Goan or Indo-Portuguese schism) was raging between the Goanese clergy of the Portuguese “padroado” and the vicars Apostolic under Propaganda, which in spite of certain ineffectual negotiations, continued till 1886. In that year a concordat with Portugal was entered into by the Holy See, which brought the quarrel to a close and at the same time the whole of India was placed under a fully constituted hierarchy. The Archbishop of Bombay received territorial jurisdiction over Bombay Island and over the northern districts already described, with Poona as a suffragan diocese. Mangalore and Trichinopoly wee added as suffragan sees in 1893, in which year the First Provincial Council was held (Acta et Decreta, Bombay, 1898). The Island of Salsette and the coast country as far as the Nerbudda were placed under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Damaun who also received personal jurisdiction in Bombay Island over all who came from Goa, or from any other district under the Portuguese ecclesiastical regime. This arrangement is popularly known as the “double jurisdiction.”

SUCCESSION OF PRELATES

Vicars-Apostolic of the Carmelite order: Maurice of St. Teresa, 1718–26; Peter D’Alcantara of the Most Holy Trinity, 1728–45; Innocent of the Presentation, 1746–53; John Dominic of St. Clara, 1755–72; Charles of St. Conrad, 1775–85; Victor of St. Mary, 1787–93; Peter D’Alcantara of St. Antony, 1794–1840; Aloysius Mary Fortini, 1840–48; John F. Whelan, 1848–50. Capuchin:, Anastasius Hartmann, 1850–58. Jesuits: Alexis Canoz (administrator), 1858–61; Walter Steins, 1861–1867; Leo Meurin (a writer and lecturer of considerable merit), 1867–87; George Porter (first archbishop), 1896–89; Theodore Dalhoff, 1891–1906; Hermann Jurgens, appointed 28 May, consecrated, 14 July, 1907.

INSTITUTIONS

IN BOMBAY ISLAND

The High School of St. Xavier with 1,400 pupils; the College of St. Xavier with about 350 students preparing for Bombay University degrees. The majority of these pupils are non-Christians, whose admission, however, brings prestige, personal respect and esteem to the Catholic body, and enables the College to work on a financial basis, making it possible to provide a good education for Catholics. Further, St. Mary’s High School with 190 boarders and 310 day-scholars, mostly Europeans or Eurasians. The teaching staff of these three institutions consists of Jesuit father and scholastics, assisted by lay masters. For girls, High Schools at Clare road, Par el and the Fort, and a native school at Cavel, under the Nuns of Jesus and Mary. Other charitable institutions: St. Joseph’s foundling Home and St. Vincent’s Home for poor women and girls, under the Daughters of the Cross; St. Elizabeth’s Widows’ Home, under the Nuns of Jesus and Mary; The Allbless Leper Home, Trombay, and the Deaf and Dumb Institute under a European secular priest.

IN SALSETTE

St. Stanislaus’s Institution, Bandra, under the Jesuit fathers, with 240 native boarders and 450 day-scholars; St. Joseph’s Convent, Bandra, under the Daughters of the Cross, for native girls, with 330 boarders and 220 day-scholars.

IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICTS

St. Patrick’s High School, at Karachi, with 306 pupils; St. Joseph’s Convent School, Karachi, with 70 boarders and 300 day-scholars; St. Paul’s Orphanage belonging to the pagan mission at Anand in Gujerat with 100 orphans; St. Joseph’s convent, Ahmedabad, with 100 pupils; besides smaller establishments of all kinds scattered over the archdiocese. There is no diocesan seminary, the native secular clergy being trained at the Papal Seminary at Kandy in Ceylon. The finest buildings in the archdiocese are the Church of the Holy Name with the archbishop’s residence and Convent School, Bombay; The Bombay Cathedral, a large structure in the Portuguese style; St. Patrick’s church, Karachi; the collegiate buildings of St. Xavier’s and St. Mary’s, Bombay, to which latter St. Anne’s church is attached. Local publications include “The Examiner” (formerly called the “Bombay Catholic Examiner”) edited by a Jesuit father; established in 1849 it is published weekly at the Examiner Press which is the property of the archbishop; “The Bombay East Indian,” the weekly organ of the Native Christians of Bombay; a local “Supplement” to the English “Messenger”; a “Messenger of the Sacred Heart” in Marathi, besides a number of vernacular books in Marathi, Gujerati, etc., published according to need.

The Catholic Directory (Madras, 1907); Catalogues of the Bombay Mission; Diocesan Archives and Records (unpublished); The Examiner and The Pastoral Gazette (the latter ceased publication in 1904) files; Life of Dr. Hartmann (Calcutta, 1868); Monseigneur Alexis Canoz (Paris, 1891). No proper history of the Mission has yet been written, though materials are being collected for that purpose.

ERNEST R. HULL

Cornelius Richard Anton van Bommel

Bishop of Liège, born at Leyden, in Holland on 5 April, 1790; died 7 April 1852. He was educated at the college of Willingshegge near Münster, and later at the advanced school of Borght. Against strong opposition he entered the seminary of Münster and was ordained priest in 1816 by Bishop Gaspard Droste de Vischering. On his return to Holland he founded a college for young men at Hageveld, near Haarlem. The college was closed in 1825 in consequence of the royal decree that subjected all the educational institutions to State control. Kind William offered van Bommel the presidency of another college, but me with a firm refusal. The Catholics and Liberals joined forces in opposing the arbitrary policy of the Government, and van Bommel took a prominent part in the agitation that forced the king to promulgate the Concordat concluded with Leo XII. Under the provisions of the Concordat, van Bommel was nominated to the See of Liège and consecrated on 15 November, 1829. He took no active part in the revolution of 1830, but as Bishop of Liège he was forced to sever his connection with Holland. In a few years he remedied the evils which a vacancy of more than twenty years had occasioned in his diocese. He organized the seminary, revived Catholic elementary education, and gave the first impetus to the foundation of a Catholic university.

Bishop van Bommel was a zealous defender of the primacy of the Holy See, an aggressive opponent of Freemasonry, and an ardent advocate of religious education. At the reorganization of public instruction in 1842, his educational views were put in force in those gymnasia and technical schools which the State maintained wholly or in part. His writings comprise three volumes of “Pastoral Letters,” and a number of pamphlets on ecclesiastical and educational questions.

SMET, in Biographie Nationale (Brussels, 1868), II; CAPITAINE, Nécrologie liégoise pur 1853; JACQUEMOTTE, Eloge funèbre.

MATTHIAS LEIMKUHLER

Giovanni Bona

A distinguished cardinal and author, b. of an old French family at Mondovi, in Piedmont, 19 October, according to some 10 October, 1609; d. at Rome, 28 October, 1674. Although his father favoured a military career for him, after passing some years at a nearby Jesuit college he entered the Cistercian monastery at Pignerola, where, as also later at Rome, he pursued his studies with exceptional success. He laboured for fifteen years at Turin, then as prior at Asti and as abbot at Mondovi, and in 1651 was called to preside over the whole congregation. During his seven years of official life in Rome he modestly declined all further honours, at one time even refusing the Bishopric of Asti. He welcomed the expiration of his third term in the scholar’s hope that he would be allowed to enjoy a life of retirement and study, but his intimate friend, Pope Alexander VII, wishing to honour his learning and piety, made him Consultor to the Congregation of the Index and to the Holy Office. In 1669 he was created cardinal, and then the beauty of his character was fully revealed; there was no change in his extremely simple manner of life, and every year he donated his surplus revenue to the needy priests of the Missionary College at Rome.

His best known ascetical works are: “Via Compendii ad Deum” (1657); “Principia et documenta vitæ Christinæ (1673); “Manuductio at cælum” (1658); and “Horologium Asceticum” (Paris, 1676). The “Manuductio” is often compared to the “Imitation of Christ” on account of simplicity of the style in which the solid doctrine is taught. It has always been extremely popular. Besides passing through fourteen Latin editions in four decades, it has been translated into Italian, French, German, Armenian and Spanish. The latest translation is in English by Sir Robert L’Estrange (A Guide to Eternity, London 1900). Shortly after his ordination he collected together some of the most beautiful passages in the Fathers on the August Sacrifice of the Mass, and later published them in a booklet, which with certain additions grew into his “De Sacrificio Missæ,” a useful Mass book. In addition he composed several unpublished works, known as “Ascetici,” for the instruction of members of his own order.

But his fame does not rest solely on the devotional writings. He was a deep student of antiquity, and so successful in treating of the use of the Psalter in the Christian Church (De Divinâ Psalmodiâ, Paris, 1663) that Cardinal Pallavicini urged him to undertake the history of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Realizing the magnitude of the task he at first declined, but finally set to work and after more than seven years’ labour brought out his famous work familiar to all students of liturgy: “De Rebus Liturgicis” (Rome, 1671). It is a veritable encyclopedia of historic information on all subjects bearing on the Mass, such as rites, churches, vestments, etc. Not least remarkable about these volumes, besides the wealth of material gathered together, are the classic purity, the manly vigour, and the charming simplicity of the Latin style. The best edition of this work is by Robert Sala (Turin, 1747–53), who also in 1755 brought out a very interesting volume of Bona’s letters. The first of many editions of his complete works was published at Antwerp in 1677.

FABRONI, Vitæ Italorium doctrina excellentium, etc. (Pisa, 1778–1805), XII, 7; MAZZUCHELLI, Gli scrittori d’Italia (Brescia, 1753–63, II; Part III, 1515); BERTOLOTTI, Vita Joannis Bona (Asti, 1677); GOUJET, Vie du cardinal Bona in the French translation of De principiis vitæ Christianæ (Paris, 1728); DUPIN, Bibliothèque des auteurs ecclés, du XVIIe siècle (Paris, 1708), III, 56.

LEO F. O’NEIL.

Bonagratia of Bergamo

(Or PERGAMO)

Friar Minor, theologian, and canonist, date of birth unknown; d. at Munich, 1343. Before his entrance into religion, he was known as Boncortese, a name which was adopted at times by Clement V who used to call him dilectus filius Frater Boncortese, dictus Bonagratia de Pergamo. Though Bonagratia took an active and important part in the controversy with the so-called Spiritual Friars, especially with Ubertino of Casale, one of their leaders, his biography is interesting principally because of his connection with the famous dispute concerning the poverty of Christ. The contest began at Narbonne in 1321 between the Dominicans and Franciscans, and the main question at issue seems to have been whether it is heretical to assert that Christ and His Apostles possessed no property either in particular or in common. On account of the important bearing of the controversy on the rule of the Friars Minor, a general chapter of the order was convoked at Perugia, in June of the year 1322, and the minister general, together with the other members of the chapter, caused two letters or communications to be published in which the mind of the chapter regarding the controversy is set forth at considerable length, and with unmistakable distinctness; while Bonagratia was chosen to be the representative of the chapter before the papal Curia at Avignon. Displeased at the action of the chapter at Perugia, Pope John XXII published the Bull “Ad conditorem canonum” in which he renounces the dominion of all the goods of the Friars Minor hitherto assumed by the Roman pontiffs, and declares that the ownership of a thing cannot be separated from its actual use or consumption. At the public consistory held in January 1323, Bonagratia appeared in the presence of the pope and cardinals and with more zeal perhaps than discretion openly opposed the papal constitution. His boldness, however, was of little avail, for the Bull “Ad conditorem” was again promulgated in lengthier form, but bearing its previous date of 8 December, 1322, and the audacious Bonagratia himself was cast into prison. He was released after a year’s confinement, and in 1330 followed the Emperor Louis of Bavaria to Munich, together with the Ex-Minister General Michael of Cesena and William of Occam. Still under sentence of excommunication, Bonagratia died there and was buried in the Barfüsserkirche, where Michael of Cesena and William of Occam also found their last resting-place. Among the writings of Bonagratia may be mentioned his “Articuli probationum,” composed in confutation of the errors of Ubertino of Casale above mentioned.

WADDING, Annales Minorum, VI, 401–405, VII, 1–7; Bullarium Francisanum, V,233–246; HURTER, Nomenclator, IV, 483; Analecta Franciscana (Quaracchi, 1887), II, 81, 89, passim; OTHON DE PAVIE, L’Aquitaine Séraphique (Auch, 1900), XIX, 188, 190.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

François de Bonal

Bishop of Clermont, b. 1734 at the castle of Bonal, near Agen; d. at Munich, 1800. He had been Vicar-General of Agen and Diector of the Carmelite Nuns in france when he was made Bishop of Clermon, 1776. On the eve of the Revolution, as he was warning his diocesans against the license of the press, he foretold the visitations of God that were coming. He went as one of the deputies of the clergy to the Etats-Généraux of 1789, where he distinguished himself by his moderation and firmness. To Target who spoke of the “God of peace” he replied that the God of peace was also the God of order and justice. From his prison Louis XVI sent for his opinion as to whether he should receive Paschal Communion. The answer was full of sympathy, yet the unfortunate monarch was advised to abstain “for having sanctioned decrees destructive of religion.” Bonal was alluding chiefly to the civil constitution of the clergy. Having declined to take the constitutional oath, he was compelled to leave his diocese and country. He passed to Flanders and later to Holland, was captured and sentenced to deportation by the French, but succeeded in making his escape and spent the last years of his life in various cities of Germany. He is the author of a “Testament spirituel.”

FELLER, Biographie Universelle (Paris, 1866); DE GREVECOEUR, Journal d’Andrien Duquesnoy (Paris, 1804).

J.F. SOLLIER

Raymond Bonal

French theologian and founder of the Congregation of the Priests of St. Mary (Bonalists), b. at Villefrançhe in Rouergue, 15 August, 1600; d. at Agde, Hérault, France, c. 1653. He studied classics and philosophy with the Jesuits at Cahors; theology and canon and civil law at the University of Toulouse, where he received the degree of Doctor in Theology in 1628. In 1632, he conceived the idea of organizing a community of priests in whose life and labours should be exemplified the spirit of St. Francis de Sales. With two other ecclesiastics, he began to lead a community life in a house near the church of Our Lady of Pity, Villefranche. He was soon joined by others, and in 1639 the parish of Foix in the Diocese of Pamiers was entrusted to his community, which a few years later opened a seminary at Villefranche with Bonal as its director. In 1650 he organized a seminary and college at Toulouse and, having gone to Agde with a similar purpose, in 1653, fell a victim to an epidemic. The congregation founded by Bonal was approved in 1665 by Pope Alexander VII and in 1678 by King Louis XIV. For lack of subjects, however, the seminaries confided to the Bonalists languished and were successively handed over to the congregation of the Mission. After a littlemore than a hundred years of existence, the congregation itself was absorbed by the Lazarists.

Raymond Bonal published a “Cours de théologie morale” the 8th edition of which is dated, Paris 1685. This course, which was followed in the Sulpician seminaries at Toulouse, Valence, Thiers and elsewhere, was translated into Latin by Pierre Laur (Toulouse, 1674), under the title “Theologia Moralis R. Bonalis.” Another work of Raymond Bonal, “Explication litérale et mystique des rubriques” was published at Lyons in 1679.

MANGENOT in Dict. De théol. Cath.; FAILLON, Vie de M. Olier (Paris, 1873), X; MERCADIER, Les constitutions règlements et directoires de la congrégation des Prétres de Sainte Marie (Mende, 1689); BERTRAND, Bibliothèque Sulpicienne (Paris, 1900), I; Recueil des principales circulaires des supérieurs généraux de la congrégation de la mission (Paris, 1877), I; Archives nationales (Paris), S. 6705, 6715, 6716; Archives of the Congregation of the Mission (Paris), MS. 1101.

F.V. NUGENT

Louis-Gabriel-Ambroise, Vicomte de Bonald

French statesman, writer, and philosopher, b. at Monna, near Millau, in Rouergue (Aveyron) 2 October, 1754; d. at Paris, 23 November, 1840. He was educated by the Oratorians at the College of Juilly; joined the king’s musketeers, returned to his own province in 1776, was elected mayor of Millau in 1785, and in 1790 was chosen member of the departmental Assembly for Aveyron. He resigned in 1781, emigrated, became a soldier in the army of Condé, and, when the army was disbanded, retired to Heidelberg, where he took charge of the education of his two elder sons.

Bonald published at Constance, in 1797, his first work: “Théorie du pouvoir politique et religieux,” which was suppressed in France by order of the Directory. In 1797 Bonald returned to France under the name of Saint-Séverin, and published “Essai analytique sur les lois naturelles de l’ordre social” (1800); “Du divorce” (1801); and “La législation primitive” (1802). He also collaborated with Chateaubriand and others in the ‘Mercure de France,” contributing several articles which were published in book form with other studies in 1819 under the title “Mélanges littéraires, politiques, et philosophiques.” In 1808 he declined to be a member of the Council of the University, but finally accepted in 1810. He refused to take charge of the education of the son of Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland, and of the King of Rome, the son of Napoleon I.

A monarchist and royalist by nature and by principles, Bonald welcomed the restoration of the Bourbons. He was appointed a member of the Academy by royal decree in 1816. From 1815 to 1822 he served as deputy from Aveyron, and in 1823 became a peer of France. He then directed his efforts against all attempts at liberalism in religion and politics. The law against divorce was proposed by him in 1815 and passed in 1816. He took a prominent part in the law of 1822 which did away with the liberty of the press and established a committee of censure of which he was the president. In 1815 he published his “Réflexions sur l’intérêt général de l’Europe”; in 1817, “Pensées sur divers sujets” in 2 vols. 8 vo. (2d., Paris, 1887); in 1818 “Recherches philosophiques sur les premiers objets des connaisances morales”; in 1827, “Démonstration philosophique du principe constitutif des sociétés.” Meanwhile he collaborated with Chateaubriand, Lamennais, and Berryer, in the “Conservateur,” and later in the “Défenseur” founded by Lamennais. In 1830 he gave up his peerage and led a life of retirement in his native city.—“There is not to be found in the long career,” says Jules Simon, “one action which is not consistent with his principles, one expression which belies them.”

G.M. SAUVAGE

Louis-Jacques-Maurice de Bonald

Cardinal, b. at Millau, in Rouergue (now Aveyron), 30 October, 1787, d. at Lyons, 25 Feb., 1870. He was the fourth son of the Vicomte de Bonald, the celebrated statesman and philosopher. Destined for the Church, he studied at Saint-Sulpice and was ordained priest in 1811. He was first attached to the imperial chapel and after the Restoration went to Rome as secretary to Archbishop de Presigny, who was entrusted by Louis XVIII with the task of arranging for a new Concordat. Three years later Bishop Latil of Chartres made him his vicar-general. When the diocese of Puy was re-established (1823) Bonald became its first bishop and remained there for sixteen years, until his promotion to the primatial See of Lyons (1839), and in 1841 Gregory XVI made him cardinal. Cardinal de Bonald is one of the glories of French episcopate. His personal qualities, as well as the salient features of his episcopal career, are most easily found in the only work we have from his pen, that long series of “Mandements et lettres pastorales,” which show him to have been pious, sympathetic, eloquent, and full of zeal. His zeal seems to have embraced all vital interests. In point of doctrine, Bonald contributed a large share towards destroying all remnants of Gallicanism and Jansenism. The Jansenistic interpolations made by Montazet in the liturgical books of Lyons were, after a long struggle, finally suppressed. Dupin’s Gallican book, “Manuel de droit ecclésiastique,” was severely condemn ed by the primate, and when the Council of State declared him guilty of abuse (1845), Bonald replied that the censure had not even touched him because “when the Council of Sate has pronounced on questions of doctrine, the cause is not finished.” In matters of discipline Cardinal de Bonald corrected many abuses, and he crowned his work by convening a provincial synod (1850), whose statutes touched all the main points of church government. He always took great interest in social questions, and never was more eloquent than when appealing for help in behalf of misery, as for instance during the floods of 1840 and 1846 and the destitution of the Spanish refugees (1842). The closing of silk factories in Lyons gave him an opportunity of showing not only his liberality towards the needy, but also his broad sympathy for the toiling class in general.

The mainspring of Cardinal de Bonald’s life, however, was his love of the Church, which he desired first of all to have respected. In 1825 the royal court of Paris, in rendering a verdict, implied that the whole body of clergy was disloyal to the Crown; Bonald in a dignified letter of protest to the king replied: “Were the clergy less loyal, they would not be the object of such hatred.” He also desired the freedom of the Church, and his pastoral letter of 1846, “La liberté de l’Eglise,” remains one of his best efforts. Of all the privileges essential to the Church, that of teaching seemed to him first and foremost. On several occasions he wrote either to approve or to condemn the legislation concerning schools. The royal ordinance of 1824 placing the schools under the surveillance of the bishops met with his entire approval; but the ordinances of 1828 establishing a new mode of direction for primary schools and even interfering with ecclesiastical schools for secondary education, as well as the Villemain educational bill of 1844 and Salvandy’s project of 1847, he strongly opposed, thus preparing the way for the law of 1850. Having become, by the constitution of 1852, and by virtue of his dignity as cardinal, a member of the French Senate, Bonald showed once more his love of the Church by throwing the whole weight of his influence on the side of the roman pontiff and the independence of the Holy See.

The long episcopal career of Bonald covers many successive political regimes. Although by birth and education a stanch legitimist, yet, as a bishop, he looked above the changes of human government to the Church and her welfare. Because the Revolution of February, 1848, with its motto “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” seemed to him favourable to the best interests of the Church, he was one of the first bishops to welcome it. He wrote to his priests: “Give to the faithful the example of submission and obedience to the Republic. You have long cherished the hope of enjoying the liberty which makes our brethren of the United States so happy; the liberty you shall have.” The same broadness of view he evinced when he refused to side with the Abbé Gaume on the question of the classics: “We decline to believe that the study of pagan authors has for three centuries instilled paganism into the social body.”

FISQUET, La France pontificale, Métropole de Lyons (Paris); MIGNE, Orateurs sacrés (Paris) XIV; BEAUMONT, Vie du Cardinal de Bonald (Paris, 1870); L’episcopal francais depuis le Concordat jusqu’a la Séparation (Paris, 1907).

J.F. SOLLIER

Bona Mors Confraternity

(HAPPY DEATH)

The Bona Mors Confraternity was founded 2 October, 1648, in the Church of the Gesù, Rome, by Father Vincent Carrafa, seventh General of the Society of Jesus, and approved by the Sovereign Pontiffs Innocent X and Alexander VII. In 1729 it was raised to an archconfraternity and enriched with numerous indulgences by Benedict XIII. He authorized the Father General of the Society of Jesus, who in virtue of his office, was the director, to erect confraternities in all churches of his order. In 1827 Leo XII gave to the director general the power to erect and affiliate branch confraternities in churches not belonging to the Society of Jesus, and to give them a share in all the privileges and indulgences of the archconfraternity. The object of the association is to prepare its members by a well-regulated life to die in peace with God. The longer title: “Confraternity of Our Lord Jesus Christ dying on the Cross, and of the most Blessed Virgin Mary, His sorrowful Mother,” expresses the chief means to attain that end, devotion to the passion of Christ and to the sorrows of Mary. Besides this union of prayers and good works of the associates and the special instructions at the public meetings help powerfully to prepare for a happy death. The conditions for membership are to present oneself to the director; to express to him one’s desire to become a member; to receive from him an outward sign of acceptance, usually in the form of a certificate of admission; and to have one’s name registered in the local Bona Mors Register. Only “by an unusual and extraordinary exception,” says a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, “is it allowed to enroll those absent.” The director is authorized to decide what constitutes such an exceptional case. The practices of the association and the indulgences granted to the members are specified in the manual of the confraternity (New York, 1896).

JOHN J. WYNNE

Charles-Lucien-Jules-Laurent Bonaparte

Prince of Canino and Musignano, ornithologist, b. in Paris, 24 May, 1803; d. in the same city 29 July, 1857.

He was the eldest son of Lucien Bonaparte, the brother of Napoleon, and was educated in the universities of Italy. After his marriage to his cousin Zenaïde, daughter of Joseph Bonaparte, on 29 June, 1822, he came to the United States where his father-in-law was residing. While here he devoted himself to the study of natural science and particularly of ornithology. He undertook the completion of Wilson’s “Ornithology or History of the Birds of the United States” in four volumes (Philadelphia, 1825–33). In this work he describes more than one hundred new species discovered by himself. He also published “Observations on the Nomenclature of Wilson’s Ornithology” (in the Journal of the Philadelphia Academy); “Synopsis of the Birds of the United States” (in the Annals of the Lyceum of New York), etc. He returned to Europe in 1828 and took up his residence in Rome where he continued his scientific work. Upon the death of his father, Lucien, in 1840, he became Prince of Canino and Musignano and afterwards entered the political arena, associating himself with the anti-Austrian party. He did not, however, lose interest in his favourite studies for he organized and presided over several scientific congresses in Italy. He had been attached to Pius IX, but in 1848 he joined the radical party and in the following year was elected deputy of Viterbo and Vice-President of the Assembly. After the fall of the Republic he was obliged to leave Italy (July, 1849), but his cousin, Louis-Napoleon, refused to permit him to enter France until the following year when he settled in Paris. In 1854 he became director of the Jardin des Plantes.

Bonaparte had twelve children of whom eight survived him. Among them was Lucien-Louis-Joseph-Napoleon, who was ordained priest in 1853 and was made cardinal in 1868. Bonaparte became an honorary member of the Academy of Upsala in 1833, and of the Academy of Sciences of Berlin in 1843, and corresponding member of the “Institut” in 1844. Besides his published works already referred to may be mentioned: “Specchio comparativo delle ornithologie di Roma e di Filadelfia” (Paris, 1827); “Iconografia della Fauna Italica” (Rome, 1834–41). This is his principal work and is illustrated with fine coloured plates. “Geographical and Comparative List of Birds of Europe and North America” (London, 1838); “Catalogo metodico degli uccelli Europei” (Bologna, 1842); “Conspectus systematis ornitholo giæ” (Leyden, 1850); “Conspectus systematis ichthyologiæ” (Leyden, 1850); “Ornithologie fossile” (Paris, 1858).

DEBIDOUR in La grande encyc.; WOUTERS, Les Bonaparte depuis 1815; CANTÙ, Hist. de l’indépendance italienne, III; BALLYDIER, Hist. de la révolution de Rome de 1846–1850.

H. M. BROCK

St. Bonaventure

Doctor of the Church, Cardinal-Bishop of Albano, Minister General of the Friars Minor, born at Bagnorea in the vicinity of Viterbo in 1221; died at Lyons, 16 July, 1274.

Nothing is known of Bonaventure’s parents save their names: Giovanni di Fidanza and Maria Ritella. How his baptismal name of John came to be changed to that of Bonaventure is not clear. An attempt has been made to trace the latter name to the exclamation of St. Francis, O buona ventura, when Bonaventure was brought as an infant to him to be cured of a dangerous illness. This derivation is highly improbable; it seems based on a late fifteenth-century legend. Bonaventure himself tells us (Legenda S. Francisci Prolog.) that while yet a child he was preserved from death through the intercession of St. Francis, but there is no evidence that this cure took place during the lifetime of St. Francis or that the name Bonaventure originated in any prophetical words of St. Francis. It was certainly borne by others before the Seraphic Doctor. No details of Bonaventure’s youth have been preserved. He entered the Order of Friars Minor in 1238 or 1243; the exact year is uncertain. Wadding and the Bollandists bold for the later date, but the earlier one is supported by Sbaradea, Bonelli, Panfilo da Magliano, and Jeiler, and appears more probable. It is certain that Bonaventure was sent from the Roman Province, to which he belonged, to complete his studies at the University of Paris under Alexander of Hales, the great founder of the Franciscan School. The latter died in 1246, according to the opinion generally received, though not yet definitely established, and Bonaventure seems to have become his pupil about 1242. Be this as it may, Bonaventure received in 1248 the “licentiate” which gave him the right to teach publicly as Magister regens, and he continued to lecture at the university with great success until 1256, when he was compelled to discontinue, owing to the then violent outburst of opposition to the Mendicant orders on the part of the secular professors at the university. The latter, jealous, as it seems, of the academic successes of the Dominicans and Franciscans, sought to exclude them from teaching publicly. The smouldering elements of discord had been fanned into a flame in 1265, when Guillaume de Saint-Amour published a work entitled “The Perils of the Last Times,” in which he attacked the Friars with great bitterness. It was in connexion with this dispute that Bonaventure wrote his treatise, “De paupertate Christi.” It was not, however, Bonaventure, as some have erroneously stated, but Blessed John of Parma, who appeared before Alexander IV at Anagni to defend the Franciscans against their adversary. The Holy See having, as is well known, re-established the Mendicants in all their privileges, and Saint-Amour’s book having been formally condemned, the degree of Doctor was solemnly bestowed on St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas at the university, 23 October, 1267.

In the meantime Bonaventure, though not yet thirty-six years old, had on 2 February, 1257, been elected Minister General of the Friars Minor—an office of peculiar difficulty, owing to the fact that the order was distracted by internal dissensions between the two factions among the Friars designated respectively the Spirituales and the Relaxati. The former insisted upon the literal observance of the original Rule, especially in regard to poverty, while the latter wished to introduce innovations and mitigations. This lamentable controversy had moreover been aggravated by the enthusiasm with which many of the “Spiritual” Friars had adopted the doctrines connected with the name of Abbot Joachim of Floris and set forth in the so-called “Evangelium aeternum.” The introduction to this pernicious book, which proclaimed the approaching dispensation of the Spirit that was to replace the Law of Christ, was falsely attributed to Bl. John of Parma, who in 1267 had retired from the government of the order in favour of Bonaventure. The new general lost no time in striking vigorously at both extremes within the order. On the one hand, he proceeded against several of the Joachimite “Spirituals” as heretics before an ecclesiastical tribunal at Città della Pieve; two of their leaders were condemned to perpetual imprisonment, and John of Parma was only saved from a like fate through the personal intervention of Cardinal Ottoboni, afterwards Adrian V. On the other hand, Bonaventure had, in an encyclical letter issued immediately after his election, outlined a programme for the reformation of the Re1axati. These reforms he sought to enforce three years later at the General Chapter of Narbonne when the constitutions of the order which he had revised were promulgated anew. These so-called “Constitutiones Narbonenses” are distributed under twelve heads, corresponding to the twelve chapters of the Rule, of which they form an enlightened and prudent exposition, and are of capital importance in the history of Franciscan legislation. The chapter which issued this code of laws requested Bonaventure to write a “legend” or life of St. Francis which should supersede those then in circulation. This was in 1260. Three years later Bonaventure, having in the meantime visited a great part of the order, and having assisted at the dedication of the chapel on La Verna and at the translation of the remains of St. Clare and of St. Anthony, convoked a general chapter of the order of Pisa at which his newly composed life of St. Francis was officially approved as the standard biography of the saint to the exclusion of all others. At this chapter of 1263, Bonaventure fixed the limits of the different provinces of the order and, among other ordinances, prescribed that at nightfall a bell should be rung in honour of the Annunciation, a pious practice from which the Angelus seems to have originated. There are no grounds, however, for the assertion that Bonaventure in this chapter prescribed the celebration of the feast of the Immaculate Conception in the order. In 1264, at the earnest request of Cardinal Cajetan, Bonaventure consented to resume the direction of the Poor Clares which the Chapter of Pisa had entirely renounced the year before. He required the Clares, however, to acknowledge occasionally in writing that the favours tendered them by the Friars were voluntary acts of charity not arising from any obligation whatsoever. It is said that Pope Urban IV acted at Bonaventure’s suggestion in attempting to establish uniformity of observance throughout all the monasteries of Clares. About this time (1264) Bonaventure founded at Rome the Society of the Gonfalone in honour of the Blessed Virgin which, if not the first confraternity instituted in the Church, as some have claimed, was certainly one of the earliest. In 1265 Clement IV, by a Bull dated 23 November, nominated Bonaventure to the vacant Archbishopric of York, but the saint, in keeping with his singular humility, steadfastly refused this honour and the pope yielded.

In 1266 Bonaventure convened a general chapter in Paris at which, besides other enactments, it was decreed that all the “legends” of St. Francis written before that of Bonaventure should be forthwith destroyed, just as the Chapter of Narbonne had in 1260 ordered the destruction of all constitutions before those then enacted. This decree has excited much hostile criticism. Some would fain see in it a deliberate attempt on Bonaventure’s part to close the primitive sources of Franciscan history, to suppress the real Francis, and substitute a counterfeit in his stead. Others, however, regard the decree in question as a purely liturgical ordinance intended to secure uniformity in the choir “legends.” Between these two conflicting opinions the truth seems to be that this edict was nothing more than another heroic attempt to wipe out the old quarrels and start afresh. One cannot but regret the circumstances of this decree, but when it is recalled that the appeal of the contending parties was ever to the words and actions of St. Francis as recorded in the earlier “legends,” it would be unjust to accuse the chapter of “literary vandalism” in seeking to proscribe the latter. We have no details of Bonaventure’s life between 1266 and 1269. In the latter year he convoked his fourth general chapter at Assisi, in which it was enacted that a Mass be sung every Saturday throughout the order in honour of the Blessed Virgin, not, however, in honour of her Immaculate Conception as Wadding among others has erroneously stated. It was probably soon after this chapter that Bonaventure composed his “Apologia pauperum,” in which he silences Gerard of Abbeville who by means of an anonymous libel had revived the old university feud against the Friars. Two years later, Bonaventure was mainly instrumental in reconciling the differences among the cardinals assembled at Viterbo to elect a successor to Clement IV, who had died nearly three years before; it was on Bonaventure’s advice that, 1 September, 1271, they unanimously chose Theobald Visconti of Piacenza who took the title of Gregory X. That the cardinals seriously authorized Bonaventure to nominate himself, as some writers aver, is most improbable. Nor is there any truth in the popular story that Bonaventure on arriving at Viterbo advised the citizens to lock up the cardinals with a view to hastening the election. In 1272 Bonaventure for the second time convened a general chapter at Pisa in which, apart from general enactments to further regular observances new decrees were issued respecting the direction of the Poor Clares, and a solemn anniversary was instituted on 25 August in memory of St. Louis. This was the first step towards the canonization of the holy king, who had been a special friend of Bonaventure, and at whose request Bonaventure composed his “Office of the Passion.” On 23 June, 1273, Bonaventure, much against his will, was created Cardinal-Bishop of Albano, by Gregory X. It is said that the pope’s envoys who brought him the cardinal’s hat found the saint washing dishes outside a convent near Florence and were requested by him to hang it on a tree nearby until his hands were free to take it. Bonaventure continued to govern the Order of Friars Minor until 20 May, 1274, when at the General Chapter of Lyons, Jerome of Ascoli, afterwards Nicholas IV, was elected to succeed him. Meanwhile Bonaventure had been charged by Gregory X to prepare the questions to be discussed at the Fourteenth Oecumenical Council, which opened at Lyons 7 May, 1274.

The pope himself presided at the council, but he confided the direction of its deliberations to Bonaventure, especially charging him to confer with the Greeks on the points relating to the abjuration of their schism. It was largely due to Bonaventure’s efforts and to those of the Friars whom he had sent to Constantinople, that the Greeks accepted the union effected 6 July, 1274. Bonaventure twice addressed the assembled Fathers, on 18 May, during a session of the Council, when he preached on Baruch 5:5, and on 29 June, during pontifical Mass celebrated by the pope. While the council was still in session, Bonaventure died, Sunday, 15 July, 1274. The exact cause of his death is unknown, but if we may credit the chronicle of Peregrinus of Bologna, Bonaventure’s secretary, which has recently (1905) been recovered and edited, the saint was poisoned. He was buried on the evening following his death in the church of the Friars Minor at Lyons, being honoured with a splendid funeral which was attended by the pope, the King of Aragon, the cardinals, and the other members of the council. The funeral oration was delivered by Pietro di Tarantasia, O.P., Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, afterwards Innocent V, and on the following day during the fifth session of the council, Gregory X spoke of the irreparable loss the Church had sustained by the death of Bonaventure, and commanded all prelates and priests throughout the whole world to celebrate Mass for the repose of his soul.

Bonaventure enjoyed especial veneration even during his lifetime because of his stainless character and of the miracles attributed to him. It was Alexander of Hales who said that Bonaventure seemed to have escaped the curse of Adam’s sin. And the story of St. Thomas visiting Bonaventure’s cell while the latter was writing the life of St. Francis and finding him in an ecstasy is well known. “Let us leave a saint to work for a saint,” said the Angelic Doctor as he withdrew. When, in 1434, Bonaventure’s remains were translated to the new church erected at Lyons in honour of St. Francis, his head was found in a perfect state of preservation, the tongue being as red as in life. This miracle not only moved the people of Lyons to choose Bonaventure as their special patron, but also gave a great impetus to the process of his canonization. Dante, writing long before, had given expression to the popular mind by placing Bonaventure among the saints in his “Paradiso,” and no canonization was ever more ardently or universally desired than that of Bonaventure. That its inception was so long delayed was mainly due to the deplorable dissensions within the order after Bonaventure’s death. Finally on 14 April, 1482, Bonaventure was enrolled in the catalogue of the saints by Sixtus IV. In 1562 Bonaventure’s shrine was plundered by the Huguenots and the urn containing his body was burned in the public square. His head was preserved through the heroism of the superior, who hid it at the cost of his life but it disappeared during the French Revolution and every effort to discover it has been in vain. Bonaventure was inscribed among the principal Doctors of the Church by Sixtus V, 14 March, 1557. His feast is celebrated 14 July.

Bonaventure, as Hefele remarks, united in himself the two elements whence proceed whatever was noble and sublime, great and beautiful, in the Middle Ages, viz., tender piety and profound learning. These two qualities shine forth conspicuously in his writings. Bonaventure wrote on almost every subject treated by the Schoolmen, and his writings are very numerous. The greater number of them deal with philosophy and theology. No work of Bonaventure’s is exclusively philosophical, but in his “Commentary on the Sentences,” his “Breviloquium,” his “Itinerarium Mentis in Deum” and his “De reductione Artium ad Theologiam,” he deals with the most important and difficult questions of philosophy in such a way that these four works taken together contain the elements of a complete system of philosophy, and at the same time bear striking witness to the mutual interpenetration of philosophy and theology which is a distinguishing mark of the Scholastic period. The Commentary on the “Sentences” remains without doubt Bonaventure’s greatest work; all his other wntings are in some way subservient to it. It was written, superiorum praecepto (at the command of his superiors) when he was only twenty-seven and is a theological achievement of the first rank. It comprises more than four thousand pages in folio and treats extensively and profoundly of God and the Trinity, the Creation and Fall of Man, the Incarnation and Redemption, Grace, the Sacraments, and the Last Judgment, that is to say, traverses the entire field of Scholastic theology. Like the other medieval Summas, Bonaventure’s “Commentary” is divided into four books. In the first, second, and fourth Bonaventure can compete favourably with the best commentaries on the Sentences, but it is admitted that in the third book he surpasses all others. The “Breviloquium,” written before 1257, is, as its name implies, a shorter work. It is to some extent a summary of the “Commentary” containing as Scheeben says, the quintessence of the theology of the time, and is the most sublime compendium of dogma in our possession. It is perhaps the work which will best give a popular notion of Bonaventure’s theology; in it his powers are seen at their best. Whilst the “Breviloquium” derives all things from God, the “Itinerarium Mentis in Deum” proceeds in the opposite direction, bringing all things back to their Supreme End. The latter work, which formed the delight of Gerson for more than thirty years, and from which Bl. Henry Suso drew so largely, was written on Mount la Verna in 1259. The relation of the finite and infinite, the natural and supernatural, is again dealt with by Bonaventure, in his “De reductione Artium ad Theologiam,” a little work written to demonstrate the relation which philosophy and the arts bear to theology, and to prove that they are all absorbed in it as into a natural centre. It must not be inferred, however, that philosophy in Bonaventure’s view does not possess an existence of its own. The passages in Bonaventure’s works on which such an opinion might be founded only go to prove that he did not regard philosophy as the chief or last end of scientific research and speculation. Moreover, it is only when compared with theology that he considers philosophy of an inferior order. Considered in itself, philosophy is, according to Bonaventure, a true science, prior in point of time to theology. Again, Bonaventure’s pre-eminence as a mystic must not he suffered to overshadow his labours in the domain of philosophy, for he was undoubtedly one of the greatest philosophers of the Middle Ages.

Bonaventure’s philosophy, no less than his theology, manifests his profound respect for tradition. He regarded new opinions with disfavour and ever strove to follow those generally received in his time. Thus, between the two great influences which determined the trend of Scholasticism about the middle of the thirteenth century, there can he no doubt that Bonaventure ever remained a faithful disciple of Augustine and always defended the teaching of that Doctor; yet he by no means repudiated the teaching of Aristotle. While basing his doctrine on that of the old school, Bonaventure borrowed not a little from the new. Though he severely criticized the defects of Aristotle, he is said to have quoted more frequently from the latter than any former Scholastic had done. Perhaps he inclined more, on the whole, to some general views of Plato than to those of Aristotle, but he cannot therefore be called a Platonist. Although he adopted the hylomorphic theory of matter and form, Bonaventure, following Alexander of Hales, whose Summa he appears to have had before him in composing his own works, does not limit matter to corporeal beings, but holds that one and the same kind of matter is the substratum of spiritual and corporeal beings alike. According to Bonaventure, materia prima is not a mere indeterminatum quid, but contains the rationes seminales infused by the Creator at the beginning, and tends towards the acquisition of those special forms which it ultimately assumes. The substantial form is not in Bonaventure’s opinion, essentially, one, as St. Thomas taught. Another point in which Bonaventure, as representing the Franciscan school, is at variance with St. Thomas is that which concerns the possibility of creation from eternity. He declares that reason can demonstrate that the world was not created ab aeterno. In his system of ideology Bonaventure does not favour either the doctrine of Plato or that of the Ontologists. It is only by completely misunderstanding Bonaventure’s teaching that any ontologistic interpretation can he read into it. For he is most emphatic in rejecting any direct or immediate vision of God or of His Divine attributes in this life. For the rest, the psychology of Bonaventure differs in no essential point from the common teaching of the Schoolmen. The same is true, as a whole, of his theology.

Bonaventure’s theological writings may be classed under four heads: dogmatic, mystic, exegetical, and homiletic. His dogmatic teaching is found chiefly in his “Commentary on the Sentences” and in his “Breviloquium.” Treating of the Incarnation, Bonaventure does not differ substantially from St. Thomas. In answer to the question: “Would the Incarnation have taken place if Adam had not sinned?,” he answers in the negative. Again, notwithstanding his deep devotion to the Blessed Virgin, he favours the opinion which does not exempt her from original sin, quia magis consonat fidei pietati et sanctorum auctoritati. But Bonaventure’s treament of this question marked a distinct advance, and he did more perhaps than anyone before Scotus to clear the ground for its correct presentation. His treatise on the sacraments is largely practical and is characterized by a distinctly devotional element. This appears especially in is treatment of the Holy Eucharist. He rejects the doctrine of physical, and admits only a moral, efficacy in the sacraments. It is much to be regretted that Bonaventure’s views on this and other controverted questions should be so often misrepresented, even by recent writers. For example, at, least three of the latest and best known manuals of dogma in treating of such questions as “De angelorum natura,” “De scientia Christi,” “De natura distinctionis inter caritatem et gratiam sanctificantem,” “De causalitate sacramentorum,” “De statu parvulorum sine baptismo morientium,” gratuitously attribute opinions to Bonaventure which are entirely at variance with his real teaching. To be sure Bonaventure, like all the Scholastics, occasionally put forward opinions not strictly correct in regard to questions not yet defined or clearly settled, but even here his teaching represents the most profound and acceptable ideas of his age and marks a notable stage in the evolution of knowledge. Bonaventure’s authority has always been very great in the Church. Apart from his personal influence at Lyons (1274), his writings carried great weight at the subsequent councils at Vienna (1311), Constance (1417), Basle (1435), and Florence (1438). At Trent (1546) his writings, as Newman remarks (Apologia, ch. v) had a critical effect on some of the definitions of dogma, and at the Vatican Council (1870), sentences from them were embodied in the decrees concerning papal supremacy and infallibility.

Only a small part of Bonaventure’s writings is properly mystical. These are characterized by brevity and by a faithful adherence to the teaching of the Gospel. The perfecting of the soul by the uprooting of vice and the implanting of virtue is his chief concern. There is a degree of prayer in which ecstasy occurs. When it is attained, God is sincerely to be thanked. It must, however, be regarded only as incidental. It is by no means essential to the possession of perfection in the highest degree. Such is the general outline of Bonaventure’s mysticism which is largely a continuation and development of what the St. Victors had already laid down. The shortest and most complete summary of it is found in his “De Triplici Via,” often erroneously entitled the “Incendium Amoris,” in which he distinguishes the different stages or degrees of perfect charity. What the “Breviloquium” is to Scholasticism, the “De Triplici Via” is to mysticism: a perfect compendium of all that is best in it. Savonarola made a pious and learned commentary upon it. Perhaps the best known of Bonaventure’s other mystical and ascetical writings are the “Soliloquium,” a sort of dialogue containing a rich collection of passages from the Fathers on spiritual questions; the “Lignum vitae,” a series of forty-eight devout meditations on the life of Christ, the “De sex alis seraphim,” a precious opuscule on the virtues of superiors, which Father Claudius Acquaviva caused to be printed separately and circulated throughout the Society of Jesus; the “Vitis mystica,” a work on the Passion, which was for a long time erroneously ascribed to St. Bernard, and “De Perfectione vitae,” a treatise which depicts the virtues that make for religious perfection, and which appears to have been written for the use of Blessed Isabella of France, who had founded a monastery of Poor Clares at Longchamps.

Bonaventure’s exegetical works were highly esteemed in the Middle Ages and still remain a treasure house of thoughts and treatises. They include commentaries on the Books of Ecclesiastes and Wisdom and on the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John. In addition to his commentary on the Fourth Gospel, Bonaventure composed “Collationes in Joannem,” ninety-one conferences on subjects relating to it. His “Collationes in Hexameron” is a work of the same kind, but its title, which did not originate with Bonaventure, is somewhat misleading. It consists of an unfinished course of instructions delivered at Paris in 1273. Bonaventure did not intend in these twenty-one discourses to explain the work of the six days, but rather to draw some analogous instructions from the first chapter of Genesis, as a warning to his auditors against some errors of the day. It is an exaggeration to say that Bonaventure had regard only to the mystical sense of Scripture. In such of his writings as are properly exegetical he follows the text, though he also develops the practical conclusions deduced from it, for in the composition of these works he had the advantage of the preacher mainly in view. Bonaventure had conceived the most sublime idea of the ministry of preaching, and notwithstanding his manifold labours in other fields, this ministry ever held an especial place among his labours. He neglected no opportunity of preaching, whether to the clergy, the people, or his own Friars, and Bl. Francis of Fabriano (d. 1322), his contemporary and auditor, bears witness that Bonaventure’s renown as a preacher almost surpassed his fame as a teacher. He preached before popes and kings, in Spain and Germany, as well as in France and Italy. Nearly five hundred authentic sermons of Bonaventure have come down to us; the greater part of them were delivered in Paris before the university while Bonaventure was professor there, or after he had become minister general. Most of them were taken down by some of his auditors and thus preserved to posterity. In his sermons he follows the Scholastic method of putting forth the divisions of his subject and then expounding each division according to the different senses.

Besides his philosophical and theological writings, Bonaventure left a number of works referring to the religious life, but more especially to the Franciscan Order. Among the latter is his well-known explanation of the Rule of the Friars Minor; in this work, written at a time when the dissensions vithin the order as to the observance of the Rule were so painfully marked, he adopted a conciliatory attitude, approving neither the interpretation of the Zelanti nor that of the Relaxati. His aim was to promote harmony in essentials. With this end in view, he had chosen a middle course at the outset and firmly adhered to it during the seventeen years of his generalship. If anyone could have succeeded in uniting the order, it would have been Bonaventure; but the via media proved impracticable, and Bonaventure’s personality only served to hold in check the elements of discord, subsequently represented by the Conventuals and the Fraticelli. Following upon his explanation of the Rule comes Bonaventure’s important treatise embodying the Constitutions of Narbonne already referred to. There is also an answer by Bonaventure to some questions concerning the Rule, a treatise on the guidance of novices, and an opuscule in which Bonaventure states why the Friars Minor preach and hear confessions, besides a number of letters which give us a special insight into the saint’s character. These include official letters written by Bonaventure as general to the superiors of the order, as well as personal letters addressed like that “Ad innominatum magistrum” to private individuals. Bonaventure’s beautiful “Legend” or life of St. Francis completes the writings in which he strove to promote the spiritual welfare of his brethren. This well-known work is composed of two parts of very unequal value. In the first Bonaventure publishes the unedited facts that he had been able to gather at Assisi and elsewhere; in the other he merely abridges and repeats what others, and especially Celano, had already recorded. As a whole, it is essentially a legenda pacis, compiled mainly with a view to pacifying the unhappy discord still ravaging the order. St. Bonaventure’s aim was to present a general portrait of the holy founder which, by the omission of certain points that had given rise to controversy, should be acceptable to all parties. This aim was surely legitimate even though from a critical standpoint the work may not be a perfect biography. Of this “Legenda Major,” as it came to be called, Bonaventure made an abridgment arranged for use in choir and known as the “Legenda Minor.”

Bonaventure was the true heir and follower of Alexander of Hales and the continuator of the old Franciscan school founded by the Doctor Irrefragabilis, but he surpassed the latter in acumen, fertility of imagination, and originality of expression. His proper place is heside his friend St. Thomas, as they are the two greatest theologians of Scholasticism. If it be true that the system of St. Thomas is more finished than that of Bonaventure, it should be borne in mind that, whereas Thomas was free to give himself to study to the end of his days, Bonaventure had not yet received the Doctor’s degree when he was called to govern his order and overwhelmed with multifarious cares in consequence. The heavy responsibilities which he bore till within a few weeks of his death were almost incompatible with further study and even precluded his completing what he had begun before his thirty-sixth year. Again, in attempting to make a comparison between Bonaventure and St. Thomas, we should remember that the two saints were of a different bent of mind; each had qualities in which he excelled; one was in a sense the complement of the other; one supplied what the other lacked. Thus Thomas was analytical, Bonaventure synthetical; Thomas was the Christian Aristotle, Bonaventure the true disciple of Augustine; Thomas was the teacher of the schools, Bonaventure of practical life; Thomas enlightened the mind, Bonaventure inflamed the heart; Thomas extended the Kingdom of God by the love of theology, Bonaventure by the theology of love. Even those who hold that Bonaventure does not reach the level of St. Thomas in the sphere of Scholastic speculation concede that as a mystic he far surpasses the Angelic Doctor. In this particular realm of thelogy, Bonaventure equals, if he does not excel, St. Bernard himself. Leo XIII rightly calls Bonaventure the Prince of Mystics: “Having scaled the difficult heights of speculation in a most notable manner, he treated of mystical theology with such perfection that in the common opinion of the learned he is facile princeps in that field.” (Allocutio of 11 October, 1890.) It must not be concluded, however, that Bonaventure’s mystical writings constitute his chief title to fame. This conclusion, in so far as it seems to imply a deprecation of his labours in the field of Scholasticism, is opposed to the explicit utterances of several pontiffs and eminent scholars, is incompatible with Bonaventure’s acknowledged reputation in the Schools, and is excluded by an intelligent perusal of his works. As a matter of fact, the half of one volume of the ten comprising the Quaracchi edition suffices to contain Bonaventure’s ascetic and mystic writings. Although Bonaventure’s mystical works alone would suffice to place him in the foremost rank, yet he may justly be called a mystic rather than a Scholastic only in so far as every subject he treats of is made ultimately to converge upon God. This abiding sense of God’s presence which pervades all the writings of Bonaventure is perhaps their fundamental attribute. To it we may trace that all-pervading unction which is their peculiar characteristic. As Sixtus V aptly expresses it: “In writing he united to the highest erudition an equal amount of the most ardent piety; so that whilst enlightening his readers he also touched their hearts penetrating to the inmost recesses of their souls” (Bull, Triumphantis Jerusalem). St. Antoninus, Denis the Carthusian, Louis of Granada, and Father Claude de la Colombière, among others, have also noted this feature of Bonaventure’s writings. Invariably he aims at arousing devotion as well as imparting knowledge. He never divorces the one from the other, but treats learned subjects devoutly and devout subjects learnedly. Bonaventure, however, never sacrifices truth to devotion, but his tendency to prefer an opinion which arouses devotion to a dry and uncertain speculation may go far towards explaining not a little of the widespread popularity his writings enjoyed among his contemporaries and all succeeding ages. Again Bonaventure is distinguished from the other Scholastics not only by the greater warmth of his religious teaching, but also by its practical tendency as Trithemius notes (Scriptores Eccles.). Many purely speculative questions are passed over by Bonaventure; there is a directness about all he has written. No useful purpose, he declares, is achieved by mere controversy. He is ever tolerant and modest. Thus while he himself accepts the literal interpretations of the first chapter of Genesis, Bonaventure acknowledges the admissibility of a different one and refers with admiration to the figurative explanation propounded by St. Augustine. He never condemns the opinions of others and emphatically disclaims anything like finality for his own views. Indeed he asserts the littleness of his authority, renounces all claims to originality and calls himself a “poor compiler.” No doubt Bonaventure’s works betray some of the defects of the learning of his day, but there is nothing in them that savours of useless subtlety. “One does not find in his pages,” notes Gerson (De Examin. Doctrin.) “vain trifles or useless cavils, nor does he mix as do so many others, worldly digressions with serious theological discussions. “This,” he adds, “is the reason why St. Bonaventure has been abandoned by those Scholastics who are devoid of piety, of whom the number is alas! but too large.” It has been said that Bonaventure’s mystical spirit unfitted him for subtle analysis. Be this as it may, one of the greatest charms of Bonaventure’s writings is their simple clearness. Though he had necessarily to make use of the Scholastic method, he rose above dialectics, and though his argumentation may at times seem too cumbersome to find approval in our time, yet he writes with an ease and grace of style which one seeks in vain among the other Schoolmen. To the minds of his contemporaries impregnated with the mysticism of the Middle Ages, the spirit that breathed in Bonaventure’s writings seemed to find its parallel only in the lives of those that stand nearest to the Throne, and the title of “Seraphic Doctor” bestowed upon Bonaventure is an undeniable tribute to his all-absorbing love for God. This title seems to have been first given to him in 1333 in the Prologue of the “Pantheologia” by Raynor of Pisa, O.P. He had already received while teaching in Paris the name of Doctor Devotus.

The Franciscan Order has ever regarded Bonaventure as one of the greatest Doctors and from the beginning his teaching found many distinguished expositors within the order, among the earliest being his own pupils, John Peckham later Archbishop of Canterbury, Matthew of Aquasparta, and Alexander of Alexandria (d. 1314), both of whom became ministers general of the order. The last named wrote a “Summa quaestionum S. Bonaventura. Other well-known commentaries are by John of Erfurt (d. 1317), Verilongus (d. 1464), Brulifer (d. c. 1497), de Combes (d. 1570), Trigosus (d. 1616), Coriolano (d. 1625), Zamora (d. 1649), Bontemps (d. 1672), Hauzeur (d. 1676), Bonelli (d. 1773), etc. From the fourteenth to the sixteenth century the influence of Bonaventure was undoubtedly somewhat overshadowed by that of Duns Scotus, owing largely to the prominence of the latter as champion of the Immaculate Conception in the disputes between the Franciscans and Dominicans. Sixtus V, however, founded a special chair at Rome for the study of St. Bonaventure; such chairs also existed in several universities, notably at Ingolstadt, Salzburg, Valencia, and Osuna. It is worthy of note that the Capuchins forbade their Friars to follow Scotus and ordered them to return to the study of Bonaventure. The centenary celebrations of 1874 appear to have revived interest in the life and work of St. Bonaventure. Certain it is that since then the study of his writings has steadily increased.

Unfortunately not all of Bonaventure’s writings have come down to us. Some were lost before the invention of printing. On the other hand, several works have in the course of time been attributed to him which are not his. Such are the “Centiloquium,” the “Speculum Disciplinæ,” which is probably the work of Bernard of Besse, Bonaventure’s secretary; the rhythmical “Philomela,” which seems to be from the pen of John Peckham; the “Stimulus Amoris” and the “Speculum B.V.M.,” written respectively by James of Milan and Conrad of Saxony; “The Legend of St. Clare,” which is by Thomas of Celano; the “Meditationes vitae Christi” composed by a Friar Minor for a Poor Clare, and the “Biblia pauperum” of the Dominican Nicholas of Hanapis. Those familiar with the catalogues of European libraries are aware that no writer since the Middle Ages had been more widely read or copied than Bonaventure. The earliest catalogues of his works are those given by Salimbene (1282), Henry of Ghent (d. 1293), Ubertino of Casale (1305), Ptolemy of Lucca (1327) and the “Chronicle of the XXIV Generals” (1368). The fifteenth century saw no less than fifty editions of Bonaventure’s works. More celebrated than any preceding edition was that published at Rome (1588–96) by order of Sixtus V (7 vols. in fol.). It was reprinted with but slight emendations at Metz in 1609 and at Lyons in 1678. A fourth edition appeared at Venice (13 vols. in 4to) 1751, and was reprinted at Paris in 1864. All these editions were very imperfect in so far as they include spurious works and omit genuine ones. They have been completely superseded by the celebrated critical edition published by the Friars Minor at Quaracchi, near Florence. Any scientific study of Bonaventure must be based upon this edition, upon which not only Leo XIII (13 December, 1885) and Pius X (11 April, 1904), but scholars of all creeds have lavished the highest encomiums. Nothing seems to have been omitted which could make this edition perfect and complete. In its preparation the editors visited over 400 libraries and examined nearly 52,000 manuscripts, while the first volume alone contains 20,000 variant readings. It was commenced by Father Fidelis a Fanna (d. 1881) and completed by Father Ignatius Jeiler (d. 1904): “Doctoris Seraphici S. Bonaventuræ S. H. B. Episcopi Cardinalis Opera Omnia,—edita studio et cura P. P. Collegii S. Bonaventura in fol. ad Claras Aquas [Quaracchi] 1882–1902.” In this edition the works of the saint are distributed through the ten volumes as follows: the first four contain his great “Commentaries on the Book of Sentences”; the fifth comprises eight smaller scholastic works such as the “Breviloquium” and “Itinerarium”; the sixth and seventh are devoted to his commentaries on Scripture; the eighth contains his mystical and ascetic writings and works having special reference to the order; the ninth his sermons; whilst the tenth is taken up with the index and a short sketch of the saint’s life and writings by Father Ignatius Jeiler.

We do not possess any formal, contemporary biography of St. Bonaventure. That written by the Spanish Franciscan, Zamorra, who flourished before 1300, has not been preserved. The references to Bonaventure’s life contained in the works of Salimbene (1282), Bernard of Besse (c. 1380), Bl. Francis of Fabriano (d. 1322), Angelo Clareno (d. 1337), Ubertino of Casale (d. 1338), Bartholomew of Pisa (d. 1399) and the “Chronicle of the XXIV Generals” (c. 1368), are in vol. X of the Quaracchi Edition (pp. 39–72).

PASCHAL ROBINSON

Balthasar Boncompagni

Italian mathematician, b. at Rome, 10 May, 1821; d. 13 April, 1894. He was a member of the illustrious family to which had belonged Gregory XIII, the reformer of the calendar. He studied mathematics and physics under Santucci and became known as a prolific writer on mathematical and historical subjects. At an early age (1840) he contributed to the “Giornale Arcadico” biographical sketches of Father Joseph Calandrelli, director of the observatory of the Roman College after the suppression of the Society of Jesus, and his assistant Conti. These were followed by his “Recherches sur les intégrales définies,” which appeared in “Crelle’s Journal” (Berlin). In 1846 the “Giornale Arcadico” published his “Studi intorno ad alcuni avanzamenti della fisica in Italia nei secoli XVI e XVIII.” In 1847 he became a member of the Accademia dei Lincei and shortly after its librarian.

Boncompagni contributed much to the study of the history of mathematics by his “Bolletino,” which he founded in 1868 and conducted until 1887. To it he contributed numerous essays, biographies, reviews, etc. Among his essays published before the founding of the “Bolletino” may be mentioned, “Della vita e delle opere di Gherardo Cremonese traduttore del secolo XII” (1850); “Gherardo da Sabionetta, astronomo del secolo XIII” (1851); “Della vita e delle opere di Guido Bonatti” (1851); “Memoria sopra Leonardo” (1854); “Saggio intorno ad alcune opere di Leonardo” (1854); “Tre scritti inediti di Leonardo da un manoscritto dell’ Ambrosiana di Milano” (Florence, 1854); “Intorno ad una proprietà dei numeri” (in the “Annali delle scienze matematiche e fisiche” 1855); “Scritti inediti del P. D. Pietro Cossali” (1857); “Dissertazione intorno ad un trattato di aritmetica stampato nel 1478” (in the “Atti dei Nuovi Lincei” 1862–63). In 1857 Boncompagni also published the “Algoritmi de numero Indorum” which he had found in the Library of Cambridge University. It is supposed to be a translation of the famous treatise on arithmetic of Al-khwarizmi, the most illustrious of the Arabian mathematicians.

Nuova Enciclopedia Italiana, Suppl., 6th ed., Turin; BALL, Hist. of Mathematics (New York, 1888).

H. M. BROCK

Juan Pablo Bonet

A Spanish priest and one of the first to give attention to the education of the deaf and dumb, b. towards the end of the sixteenth century. He becamed secretary of the High Constable of Castile. The latter’s brother being a deaf-mute, Bonet took his education in hand. To make his pupil understand words and speak them he invented a system of visible signs and of gymnastics for pronunciation. This consisted in certain signs representing to the sense of sight the sounds of words, in exercises of breathing in the formation of sounds and to adapt the different organs of articulation, the lips, tongue, and teeth, to the proper pronunciation of each sound. He reduced his system to practice by means of a manual alphabet—a combination of signs made with the hands representing the various letters—and a description of the dispositions of the vocal organ necessary to the pronunciation of each letter. He succeeded fairly well with his pupil and explained the principles of his system in a book, “Reducción de las letras y arte para enseñar á hablar los mudos” (Madrid, 1620).

KENELM DIGBY, Of Bodies and of Man’s Soul (London, 1669); DE L’EPEE, Instruction des sourds-muets (Paris, 1776); DE GERANDO, De l’Education des sourds-muets (Paris, 1827).

G.M. SAUVAGE

Nicholas Bonet

Friar Minor, theologian, and missionary, date of birth uncertain; d. 1360. Probably a Frenchman by birth, he taught theology with great success at Paris, where he received the title of “Doctor Pacificus” (The Peaceful Doctor) on account of his suave and tranquil mode of lecturing. Bonet took an important part in the dispute concerning the beatific vision which was warmly discussed during the pontificate of John XXII and finally settled by the decree of his successor, Benedict XII, “Benedictus Deus.” As a member of the papal embassy sent by Benedict XII to Kublai Khan, grandson of the famous conqueror Genghis Khan, Bonet exchanged the comparative ease and comfort of the professor of theology for the arduous and perilous labours of the missionary. The Franciscan missions in Tatary were founded as early as the year 1245 by the zealous apostles of the Faith, Lorenzo da Portogallo and Giovanni da Pian Carpino; and in his desire to see the great work which was inaugurated by them and continued by the saintly Archbishop John of Monte Corvino kept up and extended, the great khan was induced to send an embassy to Benedict XII to petition for new labourers in the missions of Asia. The pope received the legates with every mark of honour and acceding to the wish of the Mongolian monarch, commissioned four religious of the order of Friars Minor as his legates, on whom he conferred all the Apostolic faculties and privileges necessary for their missionary labours. These were John of Florence, afterwards Bishop of Bisignano in Calabria, Nicholas Bonet, Nicolas da Molano, and Gregory of Hungary. The embassy bearing letters from the pope to the khan left Avignon towards the end of the year 1338, and after a long and arduous journey arrived at Peking in China, the residence of the Tatar emperor at the beginning of 1342. The missionaries were encouraged in their apostolic labours by the kindly attitude of Kublai Khan and succeeded in founding numerous Christian settlements throughout the vast Mongolian empire. About the year 1346 they set out again for Italy. Part of the homeward journey they made by sea and the remainder, from the Kingdom of Persia, by land, arriving in Avignon at the beginning of the year 1354. Shortly after the return of the missionaries, Bonet was consecrated titular Bishop of Mileve in Africa in recognition of his devoted services while on the mission of Mongolia. Among the writings of Nicholas Bonet, the “Tractatus de conceptione B. Mariæ Virginis jussu Clementis V scriptus,” the “Formalitates e Doctrinâ Scoti” and his “Commentarius in IV libros sententiarum” deserve special mention.

CUSACK, St. Francis and the Franciscans (New York, 1867), XIV, 470–472; SBARALEA, Suppl. et castig. ad script. ord. min., 552; DA CIVEZZA, Storia delle missioni Francescane (Rome, 1859), III, xv, 599–617; WADDING, Annales Minorum, VII, 213–219; DE GUBERNATIS, De missionibus antiquis (Rome, 1689), I, 399; Analecta Franciscana (Quaracchi, 1887), II, 178.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Jacques Bonfrère

Biblical scholar, born at Dinant, Belgium, 12 April, 1573; died at Tournai, 9 May, 1642. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1592. After having taught rhetoric, philosophy, and theology, he devoted himself to the Sacred Scriptures. He was long a professor of Scripture and Hebrew at Douai, where he was Superior of the Scots College. Sweert, in his “Athneae Belgicae,” speaks of him as a man of rare virtue; he praises his industry and prudence, as well as the penetration of his mind and the solidity of his judgment. His work in the department of Sacred Scriptures, into which, he tells us, he had been initiated by Cornelius à Lapide, has always been highly appreciated. His “Praeloquia” was, in 1839, selected by Migne as the most suitable treatise or general introduction with which to begin his “Sacrae Scripturae Cursus Completus” (I, cols. 5–242). In this work, Bonfrere deals with subjects pertaining to the Bible as a whole. He selection and treatment of topics was largely determined by the controversies of the time regarding the value of the Vulgate, the obscurity of Scripture, etc. But many of them still retain their interest; and they are all handled in a clear and interesting way. The historical methods now applied to the canon text, and hermeneutics of Sacred Scripture were not known in his time. He deals with inspiration in one chapter (ch. viii: De modo quo Deus cum hisce Scriptoribus hagiographis habuit). The views he sets forth here do not in all respects agree with the teachings of modern theologians. He holds, for instance, that approval of a writing by God, subsequent to its composition, would suffice to make it canonical. In point of fact, though, he assures us, no book of the Bible was so composed. He then expresses the opinion that when writing on what they knew without revelation, the sacred authors only had the assistance necessary to preserve them from error. He does not make a clear distinction between inspiration and revelation. (See Pesch, De Inspiratione,” Nos. 323 and 324).

The “Praeloquia” were published along with a commentary on the Pentateuch in a volume entitled: “Pentateuchis Mosis commentario illustatis, praemissis praeloquiis perutilibus (fol., Antwerp, 1625). This was followed by his commentary on Josue, Judges, and Ruth, to which he added a treatise on sacred geography, composed by Eusebius and translated by St. Jerome: Josue, Judices et Ruth commentario illustarti. Accessit Onomasticon” (fol. Paris, 1631). Bonfrere had undertaken to explain the Books of Kings before his work on the Pentateuch, he tells us in his preface to the latter; but he had felt the need of going back to the beginning of things. His “Libri Regnum et Paralipomenon commentariis illustrati,” was given to the press in Tournai, in 1643, after his death. But the printing-house was burned, and the work did not appear. Biographers have no reference even to the manuscripts. The learned professor is said to have left commentaries on nearly all the other books of the Bible. Bonfrere’s explanation of the text of scripture shows a very good knowledge of Hebrew, and pays special attention to the places mentioned. His erudition is extensive for his time. The soberness and judiciousness of his comments are generally admired.

ALEGAMBE, Bibl. Script. S.J., ANDRÉ, Bib. Belgica; SWEERT, Athenæ Belgicæ.

W.S. REILLY

St. Boniface

(WINFRID, WYNFRITH).

Apostle of Germany, date of birth unknown; martyred 5 June, 755 (754); emblems: the oak, axe, book, fox, scourge, fountain, raven, sword. He was a native of England, though some authorities have claimed him for Ireland or Scotland. The place of his birth is not known, though it was probably the south-western part of Wessex. Crediton (Kirton) in Devonshire is given by more modern authors. The same uncertainty exists in regard to the year of his birth. It seems, however, safe to say that he was not born before 672 or 675, or as late as 680. Descended from a noble family, from his earliest years he showed great ability and received a religious education. His parents intended him for secular pursuits, but, inspired with higher ideals by missionary monks who visited his home, Winfrid felt himself called to a religious state. After much difficulty he obtained his father’s permission and went to the monastery of Adescancastre on the site of the present city of Exeter, where, under the direction of Abbot Wolfhard, he was trained in piety and learning. About seven years later he went to the Abbey of Nhutscelle (Nutshalling) between Winchester and Southampton. Here, leading an austere and studious life under Abbot Winbert, he rapidly advanced in sanctity and knowledge, excelling especially in the profound understanding of scriptures, of which he gives evidence in his letters. He was also well educated in history, grammar, rhetoric, and poetry. He made his profession as a member of the Benedictine Order and was placed in charge of the monastic school. At the age of thirty he was ordained priest. Through his abbot the fame of Winfrid’s learning soon reached high civil and ecclesiastical circles. He also had great success as a preacher. With every prospect of a great career and the highest dignities in his own country, he had no desire for human glory, for the thought of bringing the light of the Gospel to his kindred, the Old Saxons, in Germany, had taken possession of his mind. After many requests Winfrid at last obtained the permission of his abbot.

In 716 he set out for the mission in Friesland. Since the Faith had already been preached there by Wigbert, Willibrord, and others, Winfrid expected to find a good soil for his missionary work, but political disturbances caused him to return temporarily to England. Towards the end of 717 Abbot Winbert died, and Winfrid was elected to succeed him, but declined and induced Daniel, Bishop of Winchester, to influence the monks to elect another. Winfrid was left free to follow out his intentions, but before going back to his apostolic work he wished to visit Rome and to obtain from the pope the apostolic mission and the necessary faculties. Bishop Daniel gave him an open letter of recommendation to kings, princes, bishops, abbots, and priests, and a private letter to the pope. On Winfrid s arrival in Rome, in the fall of 718, Pope Gregory II received him kindly, praised his resolutions, and having satisfied himself in various conferences as to the orthodoxy of Winfrid, his morals, and the purity of his motives, on 15 May, 719, he gave him full authority to preach the Gospel to the heathens in Germany to the right of the Rhine, ordering him at the same time to adhere to the Roman practice in the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism, and to consult with the Holy See in case of difficulties.

Having received instructions to make to make his first journey through the country, only a tour of inspection, he travelled through Bavaria and found the Church flourishing, with a number of churches and monasteries. In Alamannia, which he crossed on his way to Thuringia, he found similar conditions. Thuringia was considered by Rome as Christian, and the mission of Winfrid was supposed to be that of an authorized reformer. He found the country, however, in a bad condition, St. Kilian had laboured with energy, but without success. Duke Gotzbert and some years later his son, Hethan II, both converts of St. Kilian had been murdered, perhaps on account of their injudicious zeal in trying to spread Christianity. Great numbers of their rebellious subjects had lapsed into heathenism, or a mixture of Christianity and idolatry. Winfrid tried to enkindle a missionary spirit in the priests and to make the people live up to the pure precepts of the Christian religion. Though he converted some of the heathens, he did not meet with the success which he had anticipated. On his way to the court of Charles Martel, possibly to interest that prince in the matter, he received news of the death of the Frisian King Radbod, and went to Friesland. Here he spent three years under the aged St. Willibrord, travelling about with tireless energy and preaching fearlessly as he went. Multitudes of Christians who had fallen away during the persecution of Radbod were brought to repentance and thousands of pagans accepted the Faith. Many of the converts were brought together to lead a religious life under the Rule of St. Benedict. St. Willibrord, feeling the weight of his years, wished to make Winfrid his assistant and successor in the See of Utrecht. Winfrid refused, giving as his main reason that the pope had sent him for missionary work. He therefore left and followed in the wake of the army of Charles Martel as far as Trier. Near this city was the Abbey of Pfalzel (Palatiolum). From there he took with him as a disciple and companion Gregory, a boy of about fourteen or fifteen, afterwards abbot in Utrecht, and continued his journey to Thuringia, where he converted many. He then went into Hessia, where many more were brought into the fold of Christ. With the assistance of two chiefs whom he had converted he established a monastic cell at Amöneburg at the River Ohm (then called Amana) in Upper Hessia, as a kind of missionary centre in which native clergy were to be educated.

While Winfrid was under the jurisdiction of St. Willibrord he had no special reason for reporting to the Holy See, but, now working independently, he considered it his duty to do so. He therefore sent Bynnan, one of his disciples, with a letter to Gregory recounting his labours of the past years and asking for further directions. Bynnan promptly executed his commission and soon returned with the pope’s answer, expressing satisfaction with what had been done and a desire to confer with Winfrid personally. Winfrid accordingly set out for Rome, taking his course through France and Burgundy. He was warmly welcomed by the pope, who questioned him carefully, made him take the usual oath of allegiance, received from him a profession of faith, and on 30 November, 722 (723), consecrated him a regional bishop, with the name Boniface. Some say that Winfrid had taken this name at the time of his religious profession; others, that he received it on his first visit to Rome. The same discrepancy of opinion exists in derivation from bonum facere or bonum fatum; perhaps it is only an approximate Latinization of Wyn-frith. Pope Gregory then sent Boniface back with letters to his diocesans in Thuringia and Hessia demanding obedience for their new bishop. A letter was also addressed to Charles Martel asking his protection. Boniface himself had received a set of ecclesiastical canons for his guidance.

Boniface returned to Upper Hessia and repaired the losses which occurred during his absence, many having drifted back into paganism; he also administered everywhere the Sacrament of Confirmation. He continued his work in Lower Hessia. To show the heathens how utterly powerless were the gods in whom they placed their confidence, Boniface felled the oak sacred to the thunder-god Thor, at Geismar, near Fritzlar. He had a chapel built out of the wood and dedicated it to the prince of the Apostles. The heathens were astonished that no thunderbolt from the hand of Thor destroyed the offender, and many were converted. The fall of this oak marked the fall of heathenism. Tradition tells us that Boniface now passed on to the River Werra and there erected a Church of St. Vitus, around which sprang up a town which to the present day bears the name of Wannfried. At Eschwege he is said to have destroyed the statue of the idol Stuffo. Thence he went into Thuringia.

The difficulties that confronted him here were very great Christianity had indeed made great progress, but it had become mixed up with heretical tenets and pagan customs. This was due to a great extent to some Celtic missionaries, several of whom had never been ordained, while others had been raised to the priesthood by non-Catholic bishops, though all performed priestly functions. These taught doctrines and made use of ceremonies at variance with the teaching and use of the Roman Church, especially in regard to the celebration of Easter, the conferring of baptism, celibacy, the papal and episcopal authority. Besides, many were wanting in education, some scarcely able to read or write, and equally ready to hold services for the Christians and to offer sacrifices to the idols for the heathens. A neighbouring bishop (probably of Cologne) also gave trouble, by laying claim to a part of the district under Boniface’s jurisdiction and treating his authority as an intrusion, thereby indirectly strengthening the party of the heretics. All this caused him great anxiety and suffering as may be seen from his letters to England. He overcame all, thanks to his episcopal dignity and to his own personality, full of courage and zeal in the cause which he defended, and supported by the authority of the pope and of Charles Martel. His friends helped him not only by their prayers, but also by material aid. Many valuable books, ecclesiastical articles and the like were sent to him with words of encouragement. Numbers of men and women went to Germany at different times to be his helpers. Among them were Lullus, Denehard, Burchard, Wigbert, Sola, Witta (called also Wizo and Albinus), Wunibald, Willibald and the pious women Lioba, Chunihild, Chunitrude, Berthgit, Walburga, and Thecla. With these, and others recruited in Thuringia and elsewhere in Germany, he continued his labours. The number of the faithful increased wonderfully, including many of the nobility and the educated of the country. These assisted him in the building of churches and chapels. Boniface took care to have institutions in which religious life would be fostered. In Thuringia he built the first monastery Ohrdruf on the River Ohrn near Altenberga. He appointed Thecla Abbess of Kitzingen, Lioba of Bischofsheim, and Walburga of Heidenheim.

Pope Gregory II died 11 February, 731, and was succeeded on 18 March by Gregory III. Boniface hastened to send a delegation to the new pontiff, to pay his respects and to assure him of his fidelity. The answer to this seems to be lost. In 732 Boniface wrote again and stated among other things that the work was becoming too much for one man. Gregory III congratulated him on his success and praised his zeal, in recognition sending him the pallium, and making him an archbishop, but still without a fixed see. He gave him instructions to appoint bishops wherever he thought it necessary. Boniface now enlarged the monastery of Amöneburg and built a church, dedicating it to St. Michael. Another monastery he founded at Fritzlar near the River Eder, which was completed in 734. The church, a more magnificent structure, was not finished before 740. In 738 Boniface made his third journey to Rome, intending to resign his office and devote himself exclusively to the mission among the Saxons. He was accompanied by a number of his disciples, who were to see true Christian life in the centre of Christianity. Gregory III received him graciously and was rejoiced at the result of Boniface’s labour, but would not allow him to resign. Boniface remained in Rome for about a year and then returned to his mission invested with the authority of a legate of the Holy See. His first care on his return was the Church in Bavaria.

In 715 (716) Duke Theodo had come to Rome out of devotion, but probably also to secure ecclesiastical order in his provinces. Gregory II sent three ecclesiastics with instructions to do away with abuses. Their work, however, was rendered futile by the death of Theodo in 717 and the subsequent political quarrels. Boniface had twice passed through the country. Now with the help of Duke Odilo and of the nobles he began the work of reorganization acting entirely according to the instructions of Gregory II. He examined the orders of the clergy, deposed the obstinate, reordained those whose ordination he found invalid, provided they had erred through ignorance and were willing to submit to authority. He made a new circumscription of the dioceses and appointed bishops for the vacant sees, viz., the Abbot John to the See of Salzburg, vacant since the death of St. Rupert in 718; Erembert to Freising, vacant since the death of his brother, St. Corbinian, in 730; Gaubald for Ratisbon. Passau had been established and provided for by the pope himself through the nomination of Vivilo. About this time Boniface founded the new Diocese of Buraburg, and named Witta as its bishop. This diocese existed for only a short time, during the administration of two bishops, and was then joined to Augsburg. Somewhat later the dioceses of Eichstätt and Erfurt (Erphesfurt) were formed, and Willibald was consecrated bishop for the former about October, 741; for the latter Boniface appointed as first (and last) bishop Adalar, who, it seems, never received episcopal consecration, as he is continually spoken of as a priest. Burchard was chosen for Würzburg.

Charles Martel had died 22 October, 741, at Quiercy on the Oise and was succeeded by his sons Carloman and Pepin. In Rome Pope Gregory III died 28 November, 741, and was followed by Zachary. Carloman asked Boniface, his former preceptor, to a consultation. The result of this was a letter to the pope in which Boniface reported his actions in Bavaria and asked advice in various matters. He also stated the wish of Carloman that a synod be held. In answer Pope Zachary, 1 April, 742, confirmed the erection of the dioceses, sanctioned the holding of the synod, and gave the requested information. The synod, partly ecclesiastical and partly secular, was held 21 April, 742, but the place cannot be ascertained. The bishops appointed by Boniface were present and several others, but it was mainly the authority of Boniface and the power of Carloman that gave weight to the first German synod. Among its decrees the most noteworthy are those ordaining the subjection of the clergy to the bishop of the diocese and forbidding them to take any active part in wars, to carry arms, or to hunt. Very strict regulations were made against carnal sins on the part of priests and religious. The Rule of St. Benedict was made a norm for religious. Laws were also enacted concerning marriage within the forbidden degrees of kindred. A second national synod was held 1 March, 743, at Liptina in Hainault, and another at Soissons, 2 March, 744. In this synod a sentence of condemnation was passed against two heretics, Adalbert and Clement, the former a native of Gaul, the latter of Ireland. They were strain condemned in 745 and also at a synod held in Rome. Several other synods were held in Germany to strengthen faith and discipline. At the request of Carloman and Pepin the authority of Boniface over Bavaria was confirmed and extended over Gaul.

In 744 St. Willibrord, Bishop of Utrecht, died, and Boniface took the diocese under his charge, appointed an assistant or chor-episcopus. About the same time the See of Cologne became vacant through the death of Ragenfried, and it was the intention of Boniface as well as the wish of Pope Zachary to make this his archiepiscopal see, but the clergy opposed. Before the project could be carried out the Diocese of Mainz lost its bishop through the deposition of Gewilieb who led a very irregular life and had killed the slayer of his father, who was his predecessor in the episcopal office. Pope Zachary, 1 May, 748 (747), appointed Boniface Archbishop of Mainz and Primate of Germany. The new archdiocese comprised the dioceses of Tongem, Cologne, Worms, Speyer, Utrecht, and the dioceses erected by Boniface himself: Buraburg, Eichstätt, Erfurt, and Würzburg. Of Augsburg, Coire, and Constance the decree does not speak, but they are shortly afterwards mentioned as belonging to the province. After a few years Boniface was able to reconcile his enemies with the Holy See, so that the supremacy of the pope was acknowledged in Great Britain, Germany, and Gaul, as well as in Italy.

In 747 Carloman resigned his share of the government to his brother Pepin and left to spend the remainder of his days as a monk. He built a monastery in honour of St. Silvester at Soracte near Rome, and later retired to Monte Cassino. His motives for this are not known, but perhaps he was frightened at the severity of the measures he had felt himself obliged to use in order to obtain a union among the German tribes. Pepin, now the sole ruler, became the founder of the Carlovingian dynasty. That Boniface had anything to do with the dis-establishment of the old royal family and the introduction of a new one cannot be proved. He did not mingle in the politics of the country, except in this, that he did all in his power to convert the people to the true Faith, and to bring them into spiritual subjection to the Roman pontiff. It is generally stated that Boniface anointed and crowned Pepin by order of the pope, though this is denied by some.

The rest of his life Boniface spent in confirming what he had achieved in Germany. This he did by frequently holding synods and by enforcing the sacred canons. He did much for true religious life in the monasteries, especially at Fulda, which had been established under his supervision by St. Sturm, and into which Boniface returned yearly to train the monks and to spend some days in prayer and meditation. At his request Pope Zachary exempted the abbey from all episcopal jurisdiction and placed it under the immediate care of the Holy See. This was something new for Germany, though already known and practised in Italy and England. It seems that Boniface’s last act as Archbishop of Mainz was the repudiation of the claim of the Archbishop of Cologne to the diocese of Utrecht. The matter was laid before Pepin, who decided against Cologne. The same decision must have been given by Pope Stephen II (III) who had become the successor of Zachary, 26 March, 752, for after that time no further claim was made by Cologne. No change was made until the ninth century, when Cologne was made an archdiocese and Utrecht one of its suffragan sees. Boniface appointed Abbot Gregory as administrator of Utrecht, and Eoban, who had been assistant, he took as his companion.

When Boniface saw that all things had been properly taken care of, he took up the work he had dreamed of in early manhood, the conversion of the Frisians. With royal consent, and with that of the pope previously given, he in 754 resigned the Archdiocese of Mainz to his disciple Lullus, whom in 752 he had consecrated bishop, again commenced a missionary tour, and laboured with success to the East of the Zuider Zee. Returning in the following year, he ordered the new converts to assemble for confirmation at Dorkum on the River Borne. The heathens fell upon them and murdered Boniface and fifty-two companions (according to some, thirty-seven). Soon afterwards, the Christians, who had scattered at the approach of the heathens, returned and found the body of the martyr and beside him the bloodstained copy of St. Ambrose on the “Advantage of Death.” The body was taken to Utrecht, afterwards through the influence of Lullus removed to Mainz, and later, according to a wish expressed by the saint himself during his lifetime, to the Abbey of Fulda. Portions of his relics are at Louvain, Mechlin, Prague, Bruges, and Erfurt. A considerable portion of an arm is at Eichfeld. His grave soon became a sanctuary, to which the faithful came in crowds especially on his feast and during the Octave. England is supposed to have been the first place where his martyrdom was celebrated on a fixed day. Other countries followed. On 11 June, 1874, Pope Pius IX extended the celebration to the entire world. Brewers, tailors, and file-cutters have chosen St. Boniface as their patron, also various cities in Germany. The writings of St. Boniface which have been preserved are: “Collection of Letters”; “Poems and Riddles”; “Poenitentiale”; “Compendium of the Latin Language”; “Compendium of Latin Prosody”; “Sermons” (doubtful).

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Pope St. Boniface I

Boniface I, Saint, Pope; elected 28 December, 418; d. at Rome, 4 September, 422. Little is known of his life antecedent to his election. The “Liber Pontificalis” calls him a Roman, and the son of the presbyter Jocundus. He is believed to have been ordained by Pope Damasus I (366–384) and to have served as representative of Innocent I at Constantinople (c. 405).

At he death of Pope Zosimus, the Roman Church entered into the fifth of the schisms, resulting from double papal elections, which so disturbed her peace during the early centuries. Just after Zosimus’s obsequies, 27 December, 418, a faction of the Roman clergy consisting principally of deacons seized the Lateran basilica and elected as pope the Archdeacon Eulalius. The higher clergy tried to enter, but were violently repulsed by a mob of adherents of the Eulalian party. On the following day they met in the church of Theodora and elected as pope, much against his will, the aged Boniface, a priest highly esteemed for his charity, learning, and good character. On Sunday, 29 December, both were consecrated, Boniface in the Basilica of St. Marcellus, supported by nine provincial bishops and some seventy priests; Eulalius in the Lateran basilica in the presence of the deacons, a few priests and the Bishop of Ostia, who was summoned from his sickbed to assist at the ordination. Each claimant proceeded to act as pope, and Rome was thrown into tumultuous confusion by the clash of the rival factions. The Prefect of Rome, Symmachus, hostile to Boniface, reported the trouble to the Emperor Honorius at Ravenna, and secured the imperial confirmation of Eulalius’s election. Boniface was expelled from the city. His adherents, however, secured a hearing from the emperor who called a synod of Italian bishops at Ravenna to meet the rival popes and discuss the situation (February, March, 419). Unable to reach a decision, the synod made a few practical provisions pending a general council of Italian, Gaulish, and African bishops to be convened in May to settle the difficulty. It ordered both claimants to leave Rome until a decision was reached and forbade return under penalty of condemnation. As Easter, 30 March, was approaching , Achilleus, Bishop of Spoleto, was deputed to conduct the paschal services in the vacant Roman See. Boniface was sent, it seems, to the cemetery of St. Felicitas on the Via Salaria, and Eulalius to Antium. On 18 March, Eulalius boldly returned to Rome, gathered his partisans, stirred up strife anew, and spurning the prefect’s orders to leave the city, seized the Lateran basilica on Holy Saturday (29 March), determined to preside at the paschal ceremonies. The imperial troops were required to dispossess him and make it possible for Achilleus to conduct the services. The emperor was deeply indignant at these proceedings and refusing to consider again the claims of Eulalius, recognized Boniface as legitimate pope (3 April, 418). The latter re-entered Rome 10 April and was acclaimed by the people. Eulalius was madeBishop either of Nepi in Tuscany or of some Campanian see, according to the conflicting data of the sources of the “Liber Pontificalis.” The schism had lasted fifteen weeks. Early in 420, the pope’s critical illness encouraged the artisans of Eulalius to make another effort. On his recovery Boniface requested the emperor (1 July, 420) to make some provision against possible renewal of the schism in the event of his death. Honorius enacted a law providing that, in contested Papal elections, neither claimant should be recognized and a new election should be held.

Boniface’s reign was marked by great zeal and activity in disciplinary organization and control. He reversed his predecessor’s policy of endowing certain Western bishops with extraordinary papal vicariate powers. Zosimus had given to Patroclus, Bishop of Arles, extensive jurisdiction in the provinces of Vienna and Narbonne, and had made him an intermediary between these provinces and the Apostolic See. Boniface diminished these primatial rights and restored the metropolitan powers of the chief bishops of provinces. Thus he sustained Hilary, Archbishop of Narbonne, in his choice of a bishop of the vacant See of Lodeve, against Patroclus, who tried to intrude another (422). So, too, he insisted that Maximus, Bishop of Valence, should be tried for his alleged crimes, not by a primate, but by a synod of the bishops of Gaul, and promised to sustain their decision (419). Boniface succeeded to Zosimus’s difficulties with the African Church regarding appeals to Rome and, in particular, the case of Apiarius. The Council of Carthage, having heard the representations of Zosimus’s legates, sent to Boniface on 31 May, 419, a letter in reply to the commonitorium of his predecessor. It stated that the council had been unable to verify the canons which the legates had quoted as Nicene, but which were later found to be Sardican. It agreed, however, to observe them until verification could be established. This letter is often cited in illustration of the defiant attitude of the African Church to the Roman See. An unbiased study of it, however, must lead to no more extreme conclusion than that of Dom Chapman: “it was written in considerable irritation, yet in a studiously moderate tone” (Dublin Review. July, 1901, 109–119). The Africans were irritated at the insolence of Boniface’s legates and incensed at being urged to obey laws which they thought were not consistently enforced at Rome. This they told Boniface in no uncertain language; yet, far from repudiating his authority, they promised to obey the suspected laws, thus recognizing the pope’s office as guardian of the Church’s discipline. In 422 Boniface received the appeal of Anthony of Fussula who, through the efforts of St. Augustine, had been deposed by a provincial synod of Numidia, and decided that he should be restored if his innocence be established. Boniface ardently supported St. Augustine in combating Pelagianism. Having received two Pelagian letters calumniating Augustine, he sent them to him. In recognition of this solicitude Augustine dedicated to Boniface his rejoinder contained in “Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianoruin Libri quatuor.”

In the East he zealously maintained his jurisdiction over the ecclesiastical provinces of Illyricurn, of which the Patriarch of Constantinople was trying to secure control on account of their becoming a part of the Eastern empire. The Bishop of Thessalonica had been constituted papal vicar in this territory, exercising jurisdiction over the metropolitans and bishops. By letters to Rufus, the contemporary incumbent of the see, Boniface watched closely over the interests of the Illyrian church and insisted on obedience to Rome. In 421 dissatisfaction expressed by certain malcontents among the bishops, on account of the pope’s refusal to confirm the election of Perigines as Bishop of Corinth unless the candidate was recognized by Rufus, served as a pretext for the young emperor Theodosius II to grant the ecclesiastical dominion of Illyricurn to the Patriarch of Constantinople (14 July, 421). Boniface remonstrated with Honorius against the violation of the rights of his see, and prevailed upon him to urge Theodosius to rescind his enactment. The law was not enforced, but it remained in the Theodosian (439) and Justinian (534) codes and caused much trouble for succeeding popes. By a letter of 11 March, 422, Boniface forbade the consecration in Illyricum of any bishop whom Rufus would not recognize. Boniface renewed the legislation of Pope Soter, prohibiting women to touch the sacred linens or to minister at the burning of incense. He enforced the laws forbidding slaves to become clerics. He was buried in the cemetery of Maximus on the Via Salaria, near the tomb of his favorite, St. Felicitas, in whose honor and in gratitude for whose aid he had erected an oratory over the cemetery bearing her name. The Church keeps his feast on 25 October.

Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE (Paris, 1886), 1, pp. lxii, 227–229; JAME, Regesta Romanorum Pontificum (Leipzig, 1885), 1, 51–54; Acta SS., XIII, 62*; LIX, 605—616; Annales (Bar-le-Duc, 1866), VII, 152–231; TILLEMONT, Mémoires (Venice, 1732), XII, 385–407; 666–670; P.L., XVIII, 397–406; XX, 745–792; HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte and translation, §§ 120, 122; DUCHESNE, Fastes Episcopaux de l’Ancienne Gaul (Paris, 1894), I 84–109; Les Eglíses Séparées (Paris, 1905), 229–279; BUCHANAN in Dict. Christ. Biog., s.v.; GREGORIUS-HAMILTON, Hist. of Rome in the Middle Ages (London, 1894), I, 180–181.

JOHN B. PETERSON

Pope Boniface II

Elected 17 September, 530; died October, 532.

In calling him the son of Sigisbald, the “Liber Pontificalis” makes first mention of a pope’s Germanic ancestry. Boniface served the Roman Church from early youth. During the reign of Pope Felix IV, he was archdeacon and a personage of considerable influence with the ecclesiastical and civil authorities. His elevation to the papacy is remarkable as offering an unquestionable example of the nomination of a pope by his predecessor, without even the formality of an election. Felix IV apprehending death and fearing a contest for the papacy between Roman and Gothic factions, gathered about him several of his clergy and a number of Roman Senators and patricians who happened to be near. In their presence, he solemnly conferred on his aged archdeacon the pallium of papal sovereignty, proclaiming him his successor and menacing with excommunication those refusing to recognize and obey Boniface as validly chosen pope. On Felix’s death Boniface assumed succession, but nearly all of the Roman priests. Sixty out of perhaps about seventy, refused to accept him and elected Dioscorus. They feared the undue influence in papal affairs of the Ostrogothic King Athalaric, whose Grandfather, Theodoric I, had helped to elect Pope Felix IV, a circumstance rendering more odious the latter’s nomination of Boniface.

Both popes were consecrated 22 September, 530, Boniface in the Basilica of Julius, and Dioscorus in the Lateran. The Roman Church was thus involved in the seventh anti-papal schism. Fortunately it endured but twenty-two days, for Dioscorus died 14 October, leaving Boniface in possession. He soon convened a Roman synod and presented a decree anathematizing his late rival to which he secured the signatures of the priests who had been Dioscorus’s partisans (December, 530) Each of these expressed regret for their participation in the irregular election and pledged future obedience. Boniface reconciled many by his mild, conciliatory administration; but some resentment remained, for he seems not to have been tendered a formal election by those who, despite their submission, had impugned the validly of his nomination; and five years later a pope of their choice solemnly burned the anathema against Dioscorus. (See AGAPETUS I). In a second synod, held (531) in St. Peter’s, Boniface presented a constitution attributing to himself the right to appoint his successor. The Roman Clergy subscribed to it and promised obedience. Boniface proposed as his choice the deacon Vigilius and it was ratified by priests and. people. This enactment provoked bitter resentment and even imperial disfavor, for in third synod (631) it was rescinded. Boniface burned the constitution before the clergy and senate and nullified the appointment of Vigilius.

The reign of Boniface was marked by his active interest in diverse affairs of the Western and Eastern Church. Early in his pontificate he confirmed the acts of the Second Council of Orange, one of the most important of the sixth century, which effectually terminated the Semipelagian controversies. Its presiding officer, Caesarius, Archbishop of Arles, an intimate friend of Boniface, had, previous to the latter’s succession, sent the priest Armenius to Rome to ask Boniface to secure the pope’s confirmation of the council. Being himself pope when the messenger came, Boniface sent a letter of confirmation to Caesarius (25 January, 531) in which he condemned certain Semipelagian doctrines. He received an appeal from the African bishops, who were laboring at the reorganization of their church after the Vandal devastation, requesting him to confirm in primatial rights the Archbishop of Carthage, that the latter might be better able to profit by the help of the Roman See. In the east he asserted the rights of the pope to jurisdiction in Illyricum. (See BONIFACE I.) In 531, Epiphanius, Patriarch of Constantinople, declared irregular the election of Stephen to the Archbishopric of Larissa in Thessaly. Despite the severe pressures taken in Constantinople to thwart his purpose, Stephen appealed to Rome on the ground that Epiphanius was not competent to decide the case, maintaining his point in terms which reveal a clear conception of Roman Primacy. Boniface convened a fourth Roman synod 7–9 December 531, in which some twenty-five documents were adduced in support of Rome’s claim to jurisdiction in Illyricum. The outcome of the synod is not known. Boniface was esteemed for his charity, particularly towards the suffering poor of Rome during a year of famine. He was buried in St. Peter’s, 17 October, 532, where a fragment of his epitaph may yet be seen.

JOHN B. PETERSON

Pope Boniface III

Pope Boniface III, of Roman extraction and the son of John Cataadioce, was elected to succeed Sabinian after an interregnum of nearly a year; he was consecrated 19 February, 607; d. 12 November of the same year. He had been ordained a deacon of the Roman Church, and in 603 sent by Gregory the Great as apocrisiarius, or legate, to the court of Constantinople, where, by his tact and prudence, he appears to have gained the favourable regard of the Emperor Phocas. After his elevation to the See of Rome, Boniface obtained a decree from Phocas, against Cyriacus, Bishop of Constantinople, by which it was ordained, that “the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should be the head of all the Churches,” and that the title of “Universal Bishop” belonged exclusively to the Bishop of Rome-an acknowledgment somewhat similar to that made by Justinian eighty years before (Novell., 131, c. ii, tit. xiv). At Rome Boniface held a council, attended by seventy-two bishops and all the Roman clergy, wherein he enacted a decree forbidding anyone under pain of excommunication, during the lifetime of a pope or of a bishop, to treat of or to discuss the appointment of his successor, and setting forth that no steps were to be taken to provide for a successor until three days after the burial of the deceased. The acts of the council are lost, and it is not known what may have been the occasion for the decree. Pope Boniface was a man “of tried faith and character” (St. Greg., ep. xiii, 41). He died within a year of his elevation and was buried in St. Peter’s. His epitaph is found in the works of Duchesne and Mann.

Liber Pontificalis (ed. DUCHESNE), I, 316; JAFFÉ, Regesta RR. PP. (2nd ed.), I, 220; MANN, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1902), I, 259–267; GREGOROVIUS, Gesch. der Stadt Rom im M. A. (4th ed., Stuttgart, 1889), II, 104, also in Eng. trans.; GRISAR, Gesch. Roms und der Päpste im M. A. (Freiburg im Br., 1901), I, 273; HEFELE, Conciliengesch., 2nd ed., II, 737; HERGENRÖTHER, Photius (Ratisbon, 1867), I, 198; LANGEN, Gesch. der römischen Kirche von Leo I. bei Nikolaus I. (Bonn, 1885); JUNGMANN, Dissertationes, II, 388.

THOMAS OESTREICH

Pope St. Boniface IV

Son of John, a physician, a Marsian from the province and town of Valeria; he succeeded Boniface III after a vacancy of over nine months; consecrated 25 August, 608; d. 8 May, 615 (Duchesne); or, 15 September, 608–25 May, 615 (Jaffé). In the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great he was a deacon of the Roman Church and held the position of dispensator, i.e., the first official in connexion with the administration of the patrimonies. Boniface obtained leave from the Emperor Phocas to convert the Pantheon into a Christian Church, and on 13 May, 609 (?) the temple erected by Agrippa to Jupiter the Avenger, to Venus, and to Mars was consecrated by the pope to the Virgin Mary and all the Martyrs. (Hence the title S. Maria Rotunda.) It was the first instance at Rome of the transformation of a pagan temple into a place of Christian worship. Twenty-eight cartloads of sacred bones were said to have been removed from the Catacombs and placed in a porphyry basin beneath the high altar. During the pontificate of Boniface, Mellitus, the first Bishop of London, went to Rome “to consult the pope on important matters relative to the newly established English Church” (Bede, H. E., II, iv). Whilst in Rome he assisted at a council then being held concerning certain questions on “the life and monastic peace of monks,” and, on his departure, took with him to England the decree of the council together with letters from the pope to Lawrence, Archbishop of Canterbury, and to all the clergy, to King Ethelbert, and to all the English people “concerning what was to be observed by the Church of England.” The decrees of the council now extant are spurious. The letter to Ethelbert (in William of Malmesbury, De Gest. Pont., I, 1464, ed Migne) is considered spurious by Hefele (Conciliengeschichte, III, 66), questionable by Haddan and Stubbs (Councils, III, 65), and genuine by Jaffé [Regest. RR. PP., 1988 (1548)].

Between 612–615, St. Columban, then living at Bobbio in Italy, was persuaded by Agilulf, King of the Lombards, to address a letter on the condemnation of the “Three Chapters” to Boniface IV, which is remarkable at once for its expressions of exaggerated deference and its tone of excessive sharpness. In it he tells the pope that he is charged with heresy (for accepting the Fifth Council, i.e. Constantinople, 553), and exhorts him to summon a council and prove his orthodoxy. But the letter of the impetuous Celt, who failed to grasp the import of the theological problem involved in the “Three Chapters,” seems not to have disturbed in the least his relation with the Holy See, and it would be wrong to suppose that Columban regarded himself as independent of the pope’s authority. During the pontificate of Boniface there was much distress in Rome owing to famine, pestilence, and inundations. The pontiff died in monastic retirement (he had converted his own house into a monastery) and was buried in the portico of St. Peter’s. His remains were three times removed-in the tenth or eleventh century, at the close of the thirteenth under Boniface VIII, and to the new St. Peter’s on 21 October, 1603. For the earlier inscription on his tomb see Duchesne; for the later, Groisar, “Analecta Romana,” I, 193. Boniface IV is commemorated as a saint in the Roman Martyrology on 25 May.

Liber Pontificalis (ed. DUCHESNE), I, 317; JAFFÉ, Regesta RR. PP. (2nd ed.), I, 220; Acta et Epistolæ in MANSI, X, 501; PAUL THE DEACON, Hist. Longobard., IV, 36 (37); GASQUET, A Short History of the Catholic Church in England (London, 1903), 19; HUNT, A History of the English Church from its Formation to the Norman Conquest (London, 1901), 42; MANN, Lives of the Popes, I, 268–279; VON REUMONT, Gesch. der Stadt Rom (Berlin, 1867), II, 156, 165; GREGOROVIUS, II, 104; LANGEN, 501.

THOMAS OESTREICH

Pope Boniface V

A Neapolitan who succeeded Deusdedit after a vacancy of more than a year; consecrated 23 December, 619; d. 25 October, 625. Before his consecration Italy was disturbed by the rebellion of the eunuch Eleutherius, Exarch of Ravenna. The patrician pretender advanced towards Rome, but before before he could reach the city, he was slain by his own troops. The “Liber Pontificalis” records that Boniface made certain enactments relative to the rights of sanctuary, and that he ordered the ecclesiastical notaries to obey the laws of the empire on the subject of wills. He also prescribed that acolytes should not presume to translate the relics of martyrs, and that, in the Lateran Basilica, they should not take the place of deacons in administering baptism. Boniface completed and consecrated the cemetery of St. Nicomedes on the Via Nomentana. From the Venerable Bede we learn of the pope’s affectionate concern for the English Church. The “letters of exhortation” which he is said to have addressed to Mellitus, Archbishop of Canterbury, and to Justus, Bishop of Rochester, are no longer extant, but certain other letters of his have been preserved. One is written to Justus, after he had succeeded Mellitus as Archbishop of Canterbury (624), conferring the pallium upon him and directing him to “ordain bishops as occasion should require.” According to Bede, Pope Boniface also sent letters to Edwin, King of Northumbria (625), urging him to embrace the Christian Faith, and to the Christian Princess Ethelberga, Edwin’s spouse, exhorting her to use her best endeavours for the conversion of her consort (Bede, H. E., II, vii, viii, x, xi). In the “Liber Pontificalis” Boniface is described as “the mildest of men,” whose chief distinction was his great love for the clergy. He was buried in St. Peter’s, 25 October, 625. His epitaph is found in Duchesne.

Liber Pontificalis (ed. DUCHESNE), I, 321–322; JAFFÉ, Regesta RR. PP. (2nd ed.), I, 222; Letters in MANSI, X, 547–554, and in BEDE, Hist. Eccles. Gent. Angl.; MANN, Lives of the Popes, etc., I, 294–303; GASQUET, A Short History of the Catholic Church in England, 19; HUNT, A History of the English Church, etc., 49, 56, 58; GREGOROVIUS, II, 113; LANGEN, 506; JUNGMANN, Dissertationes, II, 389.

THOMAS OESTREICH

Pope Boniface VI

A Roman, elected in 896 by the Roman faction in a popular tumult, to succeed Formosus. He had twice incurred a sentence of deprivation of orders, as a subdeacon and as a priest. At the Council of Rome, held by John IX in 898, his election was pronounced null. After a pontificate of fifteen days, he is said by some to have died of the gout, by others to have been forcibly ejected to make way for Stephen VI, the candidate of the Spoletan party.

Liber Pontificalis (ed. DUCHESNE), II, 228; IDEM, Les premiers temps de l’état pontifical (2nd ed., Paris, 1904), 299; JAFFÉ, Regesta RR. PP., I, 439; JUNGMANN, Dissertationes, IV, 22.

THOMAS OESTREICH

Boniface VII (Antipope)

(Previously Boniface Franco)

A Roman and son of Ferrucius; was intruded into the Chair of St. Peter in 974; reinstalled 984; died July, 985. In June, 974, one year after the death of Emperor Otto I, Crescentius the son of Theodora and brother of John XIII, stirred up an insurrection at Rome, during which the Romans threw Benedict VI into the Castle of Sant’ Angelo, and elevated as his successor the Cardinal-Deacon Franco, who took the name of Boniface VII. The imprisoned pontiff was speedily put to death by the intruder. But in little more than a month the imperial representative, Count Sicco, had taken possession of the city, and Boniface, not being able to maintain himself, robbed the treasury of the Vatican Basilica and fled to Constantinople. After an exile of nine years at Byzantium, Franco, on the death of Otto II, 7 December, 983, quickly returned to Rome, overpowered John XIV (April, 984), thrust him into the dungeons of Sant’ Angelo, where the wretched man died four months later, and again assumed the government of the Church. The usurper had never ceased to look upon himself as the lawful pontiff, and reckoned the years of his reign from the deposition of Benedict VI in 974. For more than a year Rome endured this monster steeped in the blood of his predecessors. But the vengeance was terrible. After his sudden death in July, 985, due in all probability to violence, the body of Boniface was exposed to the insults of the populace, dragged through the streets of the city, and finally, naked and covered with wounds, flung under the statue of Marcus Aurelius, which at that time stood in the Lateran Palace. The following morning compassionate clerics removed the corpse and gave it Christian burial.

Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne), II, 257; Idem, Les premiers temps in l’état pontifical (2nd ed., Paris, 1904), 357, 358; JaffÉ Regest. RR. PP., I, 485; Watterich, Vita Rom. Pont., I, 66; Ferrucci, Investigazioni storico-critiche su la persona ed il pontificato di Bonifazio VII (Lugo, 1856); Hefele, Conciliengesch., IV, 632, 634; Jungmann, Dissertationes, IV, 86091; Floss, Die Papstwahl unter den Ottonen (Freiburg, 1858), 42; Gregorovius, III, 3163, 369, 381–383; Von Reumont, Gesch. der Stadt Rom, II, 293, 296.

THOMAS OESTREICH

Pope Boniface VIII

(BENEDETTO GAETANO)

Born at Anagni about 1235; died at Rome, 11 October, 1303. He was the son of Loffred, a descendant of a noble family originally Spanish, but long established in Italy—first at Gaeta and later at Anagni. Through his mother he was connected with the house of Segni, which had already given three illustrious sons to the Church, Innocent III, Gregory IX, and Alexander IV. Benedetto had studied at Todi and at Spoleto in Italy, perhaps also at Paris, had obtained the doctorate in canon and civil law, and been made a canon successively at Anagni, Todi, Paris, Lyons, and Rome. In 1265 he accompanied Cardinal Ottobuono Fieschi to England, whither that prelate had been sent to restore harmony between Henry III and the rebellious barons. It was not until about 1276 that Gaetani entered upon his career in the Curia, where he was, for some years, actively engaged as consistorial advocate and notary Apostolic, and soon acquired considerable influence. Under Martin IV, in 1281, he was created Cardinal-Deacon of the title of S. Nicolò in carcere Tulliano, and ten years later, under Nicholas IV, Cardinal-Priest of the title of SS. Silvestro e Martino ai Monti. As papal legate he served with conspicuous ability in France and in Sicily (H. Finke, Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII, Münster, 1902, 1 sqq., 9 sqq.).

On the 13th of December, 1294, the saintly but wholly incompetent hermit-pope Celestine V, who five months previously, as Pietro di Murrhone, had been taken from his obscure mountain cave in the wilds of the Abruzzi and raised to the highest dignity in Christendom, resigned the intolerable burden of the papacy. The act was unprecedented and has been frequently ascribed to the undue influence and pressure of the designing Cardinal Gaetani. That the elevation of the inexperienced and simple-minded recluse did not commend itself to a man of the stamp of Gaetani, reputed the greatest jurist of his age and well-skilled in all the arts of curial diplomacy, is highly probable. But Boniface himself declared through Ægidius Colonna, that he had at first dissuaded Celestine from taking the step. And it has now been almost certainly established that the idea of resigning the papacy first originated in the mind of the sorely perplexed Celestine himself, and that the part played by Gaetani was at most that of a counsellor, strongly advising the pontiff to issue a constitution, either before or simultaneously with his abdication, declaring the legality of a papal resignation and the competency of the College of Cardinals to accept it. [See especially H. Schulz, Peter von Murrhone—Papst Celestin V—in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, xvii (1897), 481 sqq.; also Finke, op. cit., 39 sqq.; and R. Scholz, Die Publizistik zur Zeit Philipps des Schönen und Bonifaz VIII, Stuttgart, 1903, 3.] Ten days after Celestine the Fifth’s gran rifuto the cardinals went into conclave in the Castel Nuovo at Naples, and on the 24th of December, 1294, by a majority of votes elected Cardinal Benedetto Gaetani, who took the name of Boniface VIII. (For details of the election see Finke, op. cit., 44–54.) With the approval of the cardinals, the new pope immediately revoked (27 December, 1294) all the extraordinary favours and privileges which “in the fullness of his simplicity” Celestine V had distributed with such reckless prodigality. Then, early in January of the following year, in spite of the rigour of the season, Boniface set out for Rome, determined to remove the papacy as soon as possible from the influence of the Neapolitan court. The ceremony of his consecration and coronation was performed at Rome, 23 January, 1295, amid scenes of unparalleled splendour and magnificence. King Charles II of Naples and his son Charles Martel, titular king and claimant of Hungary, held the reins of his gorgeously accoutred snow-white palfrey as he proceeded on his way to St. John Lateran, and later, with their crowns upon their heads, served the pope with the first few dishes at table before taking their places amongst the cardinals. On the following day the pontiff issued his first encyclical letter, in which, after announcing Celestine’s abdication and his own accession, he depicted in the most glowing terms the sublime and indefectible nature of the Church.

The unusual step taken by Celestine V had aroused much opposition, especially among the religious parties in Italy. In the hands of the Spirituals, or Fraticelli, and the Celestines—many of whom were not as guileless as their saintly founder—the former pontiff, if allowed to go free, might prove to be a dangerous instrument for the promotion of a schism in the Church. Boniface VIII, therefore, before leaving Naples, ordered Celestine V to be taken to Rome in the custody of the Abbot of Monte Cassino. On the way thither the saint escaped and returned to his hermitage near Sulmona. Apprehended again, he fled a second time, and after weary weeks of roaming through the woods of Apulia reached the sea and embarked on board a vessel about to sail for Dalmatia. But a storm cast the luckless fugitive ashore at Vieste in the Capitanata, where the authorities recognized and detained him. He was brought before Boniface in his palace at Anagni, kept in custody there for some time, and finally transferred to the strong Castle of Fumone at Ferentino. Here he remained until his death ten months later, 19 May, 1296. The detention of Celestine was a simple measure of prudence for which Boniface VIII deserves no censure; but the rigorous treatment to which the old man of over eighty years was subjected—whoever may have been responsible for it—will not be easily condoned. Of this treatment there can now no longer be any question. The place wherein Celestine was confined was so narrow “that the spot whereon the saint stood when saying Mass was the same as that whereon his head lay when he reclined” (quod, ubi tenebat pedes ille sanctus, dum missam diceret, ibi tenebat caput, quando quiescebat), and his two companions were frequently obliged to change places because the constraint and narrowness made them ill. (In this connexion see the very important and valuable paper “S. Pierre Célestin et ses premiers Biographes” in “Analecta Bolland.,” XVI, 365–487; cf. Finke, op. cit., 267.)

Thoroughly imbued with the principles of his great and heroic predecessors, Gregory VII and Innocent III, the successor of Celestine V entertained most exalted notions on the subject of papal supremacy in ecclesiastical as well as in civil matters, and was ever most pronounced in the assertion of his claims. By his profound knowledge of the canons of the Church, his keen political instincts, great practical experience of life, and high talent for the conduct of affairs, Boniface VIII seemed exceptionally well qualified to maintain inviolate the rights and privileges of the papacy as they had been handed down to him. But he failed either to recognize the altered temper of the times, or to gauge accurately the strength of the forces arrayed against him; and when he attempted to exercise his supreme authority in temporal affairs as in spiritual, over princes and people, he met almost everywhere with a determined resistance. His aims of universal peace and Christian coalition against the Turks were not realized; and during the nine years of his troubled reign he scarcely ever achieved a decisive triumph. Though certainly one of the most remarkable pontiffs that have ever occupied the papal throne, Boniface VIII was also one of the most unfortunate. His pontificate marks in history the decline of the medieval power and glory of the papacy.

Boniface first endeavoured to settle the affiars of Sicily, which had been in a very distracted condition since the time of the Sicilian Vespers (1282). Two rivals claimed the island, Charles II, King of Naples, in right of his father Charles of Anjou, who had received it from Clement IV, and James II, King of Aragon, who derived his claims from the Hohenstaufen, through his mother Constance, the daughter of Manfred. James II had been crowned King of Sicily at Palermo in 1286, and had thereby incurred the sentence of excommunication for daring to usurp a fief of the Holy See. On his succession to the throne of Aragon, after the death of his brother Alfonso III, in 1291, James agreed to surrender Sicily to Charles II on condition that he should receive the latter’s daughter, Blanche of Naples, in marriage, together with a dowry of 70,000 pounds of silver. Boniface VIII, as liege lord of the island, ratified this agreement 21 June, 1295, and further sought to reconcile the conflicting elements by restoring James II to peace with the Church, confirming him in his possession of Aragon, and granting him the islands of Sardinia and Corsica, which were fiefs of the Holy See, in compensation for the loss of Sicily. By these measures Boniface VIII merely adhered to the traditional policy of the papacy in dealing with Sicilian affairs; there is no evidence to show that, either before or shortly after his election, he had pledged himself in any way to recover Sicily for the House of Anjou. Sicily was not, however, pacified by this agreement between the pope and the kings of Aragon and Naples. Threatened with a renewal of the detested rule of the French, the inhabitants of that island asserted their independence, and offered the crown to Frederick, the younger brother of James II. In an interview with Frederick at Velletri, the pope sought to dissuade him from accepting the offer by holding out prospects of a succession to the throne of Constantinople and a marriage with Princess Catherine of Courtenay, granddaughter and heir of Baldwin II, the last Latin Emperor of the East. But the young prince would not be dissuaded. The papal legate was expelled from the island, and, against the protests of Boniface VIII, Frederick was crowned King of Sicily at Palermo, 25 March, 1296. He was at once excommunicated and the island placed under interdict. Neither the king nor his people paid any heed to the censures. At the instigation of the pope a war ensued, in which James of Aragon, as Captain-General of the Church, was compelled to take part against his own brother. The contest was brought to a close (1302) through the efforts of Prince Charles of Valois, whom the pope had called to his assistance in 1301. Frederick was to be absolved from the censures he had incurred, to marry Eleanora, younger daughter of Charles II, and to retain Sicily during his lifetime. After his death the island should revert to the King of Naples. Though frustrated in his hopes, Boniface VIII ratified the treaty 12 June, 1303, and agreed to recognize Frederick as vassal of the Holy See.

In the meantime Boniface VIII had directed his attention also to the north of Italy, where, during a period of forty years, the two rival republics of Venice and Genoa had been carrying on a bitter contest for commercial supremacy in the Levant. A crusade was wellnigh impossible without the active co-operation of these two powers. The pope, therfore, commanded a truce until 24 June, 1296, and ordered both the contestants to send ambassadors to Rome with a view to arrangeing terms of peace. The Venetians were inclined to accept his mediation; not so the Genoese, who were elated by their success. The war continued till 1299, when the two republics were obliged finally to conclude peace from sheer exhaustion, but even then the intervention of the pope was rejected.

The efforts made by Boniface VIII to restore order in Florence and Tuscany proved equally futile. During the closing years of the thirteenth century the great Guelph city was torn asunder by the violent dissensions of the Bianchi and the Neri. The Bianchi or Whites, of Ghibelline tendencies, represented the popular party and contained some of the most distinguished men in Florence—Dante Alighieri, Guido Cavalcanti, and Dino Compagni. The Neri or Blacks, professing the old Guelph principles, represented the nobles or aristocracy of the city. Each party as it gained the ascendancy sent its opponents into exile. After a vain attempt to reconcile the leaders of the two parties, Vieri dei Cerchi and Corso Donati, the pope sent Cardinal Matteo d’Acquasparta as papal legate to mediate and establish peace at Florence. The legate met with no success and soon returned to Rome leaving the city under an interdict. Towards the end of 1300, Boniface VIII summoned to his aid Charles of Valois, brother of Philip the Fair. Appointed Captain-General of Church and invested with the governorship of Tuscany (in consequence of the vacancy of the empire), the French prince was given full powers to effect the pacification of the city. Valois arrived at Florence on 1 November, 1301. But instead of acting as the official peacemaker of the pope, he conducted himself as a ruthless destroyer. After five months of his partisan administration, the Neri were supreme and many of the Bianchi exiled and ruined—among them Dante Alighieri. Beyond drawing on himself and the pope the bitter hatred of the Florentine people, Charles had accomplished nothing. (Levi, Bonifazio VIII e le sue relazioni col commune di Firenze, in Archiv. Soc. Rom. di Storia Patria, 1882, V, 365–474. Cf. Franchetti, Nuova Antologia, 1883, 23–38.) It may be noted here that many scholars of repute seriously question Dante’s famous embassy to Boniface VIII in the latter part of 1301. The only contemporary evidence to support the poet’s mission is a passage in Dino Compagni, and even that is looked upon by some as a later interpolation.

While thus endeavouring to promote peaceful relations between various states in Northern and Southern Italy, Boniface had himself become engaged in a desperate struggle at Rome with two rebellious members of the Sacred College, Jacopo Colonna and his nephew Pietro Colonna. The Colonna cardinals were Roman princes of the highest nobility and belonged to a powerful Italian family that had numerous palaces and strongholds in Rome and in the Campagna. The estrangement which took place between them and Boniface, early in 1297, was owing chiefly to two causes. Jacopo Colonna, upon whom the administration of the vast Colonna family possessions had been conferred, violated the rights of his brothers, Matteo, Ottone, and Landolfo, by appropriating the property rightfully belonging to them, and bestowing it on his nephews. To obtain redress they appealed to the pope, who decided in their favour, and repeatedlyl admonished the cardinal to deal justly with his brothers. But the cardinal and his nephews bitterly resented the pope’s intervention and obstinately refused to abide by his decision. Moreover, the Colonna cardinals had seriously compromised themselves by maintaining highly treasonable relations with the political enemies of the pope—first with James II of Aragon, and later with Frederick III of Sicily. Repeated warnings against this alliance having availed nothing, Boniface, in the interests of his own security, ordered the Colonna to receive papal garrisons in Palestrina—the ancestral home of the family—and in their fortresses Zagarolo and Colonaa. This they declined to do and forthwith broke off all relations with the pope. On the 4th of May, 1297, Boniface summoned the cardinals to his presence, and when, two days later (6 May), they appeared, he commanded them to do three things: to restore the consignment of gold and silver which their relative Stefano Colonna had seized and robbed from the pope’s nephew, Pietro Gaetani, as he was bringing it from Anagni to Rome; to deliver up Stefano as a prisoner to the pope; and to surrender Palestrina together with the fortresses Zagarolo and Colonna. They complied with the first of these demands, but rejected the other two. Thereupon Boniface on the 10th of May, 1297, issued a Bull “In excelso throno,” depriving the rebellious cardinals of their dignities, pronouncing sentence of excommunication against them, and ordering them, within a space of ten days, to make their submission under penalty of forfeiting their property. On the morning of the same day (10 May) the Colonna had attached to the doors of several Roman churches, and even laid upon the high altar of St. Peter’s, a manifesto, in which they declared the election of Boniface VIII invalid on the ground that the abdication of Celestine V was uncanonical, accused Boniface of circumventing his saintly predecessor, and appealed to a general council from whatever steps might be taken against them by the pope. This protest compiled at Longhezza, with the assistance of Fra Jacopone da Todi and of two other Spirituals, had somewhat anticipated the papal Bull, in answer to which, however, the Colonna issued the second manifesto (16 May) containing numerous charges against Boniface and appealing anew to a general council. The pope met this bold proceeding with increased severity. On the 23rd of May, 1297, a second Bull, “Lapis abscissus,” confirmed the previous excommunication, and extended it to the five nephews of Jacopo with their heirs, declared them schismatics, disgraced, their property forfeited, and threatened with the interdict all such places as received them. Boniface at the same time pointed out how the Colonna cardinals had themselves favoured his election (in the conclave they had voted for Gaetani from the first, as they had been among those who counselled Celestine’s abdication), had publicly acknowledged him as pope, attended his coronation, entertained him as their guest at Zagarolo, taken part in his consistories, signed all state documents with him, and had for nearly three years been his faithful ministers at the altar. The rebels replied with a third manifesto (15 June), and immediately set about preparing their fortresses for defense.

Boniface now withdrew from Rome to Orvieto, where, on the 4th of September, 1297, he declared war and entrusted the command of the pontifical troops to Landolfo Colonna, a brother of Jacopo. In December of the same year he even proclaimed a crusade against his enemies. The fortresses and castles of the Colonna were taken without much difficulty. Palestrina (Præneste), the best of their strongholds, alone held out for some time, but in September, 1298, it too was forced to surrender. Dante says it was got by treachery by “long promises and short performances” as Guido of Montefeltro counselled, but the tale of the implacable Ghibelline has long since been discredited. Clad in mourning, a cord around their necks, the two cardinals, with other members of the rebellious family, came to Rieti to cast themselves at the feet of the pontiff and implore his forgiveness. Boniface received the captives amid all the splendours of the papal court, granted them pardon and absolution, but refused to restore them to their dignities. Palestrina was razed to the ground, the plough driven through and salt strewn over its ruins. A new city—the Città Papale—later replaced it. When shortly afterwards the Colonna organized another revolt (which was however speedily suppressed), Boniface once more proscribed and excommunicated the turbulent clan. Their property was confiscated, and the greater part of it bestowed on Roman nobles, more especially on Landolfo Colonna, the Orsini, and on the relatives of the pope. The Colonna cardinals and the leading members of the family now withdrew from the States of the Church—some seeking shelter in France, others in Sicily. (Denifle, see below, and Petrine, Memorie Prænestine, Rome, 1795.)

Early in the reign of Boniface, Eric VIII of Denmark had unjustly imprisoned Jens Grand, Archbishop of Lund. Isarnus, Archpriest of Carcassonne, was commissioned (1295) by Boniface to threaten the king with spiritual penalties, unless the archbishop were freed, pending the investigation of the matter at Rome, whither the king was invited to send representatives. The latter were actually sent, but were met at Rome by Archbishop Grand, who had in the meanwhile escaped. Boniface decided for the archbishop, and, when the king refused to yield, excommunicated him and laid the kingdom under interdict (1298). In 1303 Eric yielded, though his adversary was transferred to Riga and his see given (1304) to the legate Isarnus. In Hungary Chambert or Canrobert of Naples claimed the vacant crown as descendant of St. Stephen on the distaff side, and was supported by the pope in his quality of traditional overlord and protector of Hungary. The nobles, however, elected Andrew III, and on his early demise (1301) chose Ladislaus, son of Wenceslaus II of Bohemia. They paid no heed to the interdict of the papal legate, and the arbitration of Boniface was finally declined by the envoys of Wenceslaus. The latter had accepted from the Polish nobles the Crown of Poland, vacant owing to the banishment (1300) of Ladislaus I. The solemn warning of the pope and his protest against the violation of his right as overlord of Poland were unheeded by Wenceslaus, who soon, moreover, allied himself with Philip the Fair.

In Germany, on the death of Rudolph of Hapsburg (1291), his son Albert, Duke of Austria, declared himself king. The electors, however, chose (1292) Count Adolph of Nassau, whereupon Albert submitted. Adolph’s government proving unsatisfactory, three of the electors deposed him at Mainz (23 June, 1298) and enthroned Albert. The rival kings appealed to arms; at Göllheim, near Worms, Adolph lost (2 July, 1298) both his life and crown. Albert was re-elected king by the Diet of Frankfort and crowned at Aachen (24 August, 1298). The electors had sought regularly from Boniface recognition of their choice and imperial consecration. He refused both on the plea that Albert was the murderer of his liege lord. Very soon Albert was at war with the three Rhenish archbishop-electors, and in 1301 the pope summoned him to Rome to answer various charges. Victorious in battle (1302), Albert sent agents to Boniface with letters in which he denied having slain King Adolph, nor had he sought the battle voluntarily, nor borne the royal title while Adolph lived, etc. Boniface eventually recognized his election (30 Apr., 1303). A little later (17 July) Albert renewed his father’s oath of fidelity to the Roman Church, recognized the papal authority in Germany as laid down by Boniface (May, 1300), and promised to send no imperial vicar to Tuscany or Lombardy within the next five years without the pope’s consent, and to defend the Roman Church against its enemies. In his attempt to preserve the independence of Scotland, Boniface was not successful. After the overthrow and imprisonment of John Baliol, and the defeat of Wallace (1298), the Scots Council of Regency sent envoys to the pope to protest against the feudal superiority of England. Boniface, they said, was the only judge whose jurisdiction extended over both kingdoms. Their realm belonged of right to the Roman See, and to none other. Boniface wrote to Edward I (27 June, 1299) reminding him, says Lingard, “almost in the very words of the Scottish memorial,” that Scotland had belonged from ancient times and did still belong to the Roman See; the king was to cease all unjust aggression, free his captives, and pursue at the court of Rome within six months any rights that he claimed to the whole or part of Scotland. This letter reached the king after much delay, through the hands of Robert of Winchelsea, Archbishop of Canterbury, and was laid by Edward before a parliament summoned to meet at Lincoln. In its reply (27 Sept., 1300) the latter denied, over the names of the 104 lay lords, the papal claim of suzerainty over Scotland, and asserted that a king of England had never pleaded before any judge, ecclesiastical or secular, respecting his rights in Scotland or any other temporal rights, nor would they permit him to do so, were he thus inclined (Lingard, II, ch. vii). The king, however (7 May, 1301), supplemented this act by a memoir in which he set forth his royal view of the historical relations of Scotland and England. In their reply to this plea the representatives of Scotland re-assert the immemorial suzerainty of the Roman Church over Scotland “the property, the peculiar allodium of the Holy See”; in all controversies, they said, between these equal and independent kingdoms it is to their equal superior, the Church of Rome, that recourse should be had. This somewhat academic conflict soon seemed hopeless at Rome, owing to the mutual violence and quarrels of the weaker party (Bellesheim, “Hist. of the Cath. Church of Scotland,” London, 1887, II, 9–11), and is of less importance than the strained relations between Boniface and Edward, apropos of the unjust taxation of the clergy.

In 1294, of his own authority, Edward I sequestered all moneys found in the treasuries of all churches and monasteries. Soon he demanded and obtained from the clergy one half their incomes, both from lay fees and benefices. In the following year he called for a third or a fourth, but they refused to pay more than a tenth. When, at the Convocation of Canterbury (November, 1296), the king demanded a fifth of their income, the archbishop, Robert of Winchelsea, in keeping with the new legislation of Boniface, offered to consult the pope, whereupon the king outlawed the clergy, secular and regular, and seized all their lay fees, goods, and chattels. The northern Province of York yielded; in the Province of Canterbury many resisted for a time, among them the courageous archbishop, who retired to a rural parish. Eventually he was reconciled with the king, and his goods were restored, but as Edward soon after demanded in his own right a third of all ecclesiastical revenues, his recognition of the Bull “Clericis laicos” was evanescent.

The memorable conflict with Philip the Fair of France began early in the pope’s reign and did not end even with the tragic close of his pontificate. The pope’s chief aim was a general European peace, in the interest of a crusade that would break forever, at what seemed a favourable moment, the power of Islam. The main immediate obstacle to such a peace lay in the war between France and England, caused by Philip’s unjust seizure of Gascony (1294). The chief combatants carried on the war at the expense of the Church, whose representatives they sorely taxed. Such taxation had often been permitted in the past by the popes, but only for the purpose (real or alleged) of a crusade; now it was applied in ordre to raise revenue from ecclesiastics for purely secular warfare. The legates sent by Boniface to both kings a few weeks after his elevation accomplished little; later efforts were rendered useless by the stubborn attitude of Philip. In the meantime numerous protests from the French clergy moved the pope to action, and with the approval of his cardinals he published (24 Feb., 1296) the Bull “Clericis laicos,” in which he forbade the laity to exact or receive, and the clergy to give up, ecclesiastical revenues or property, without permission of the Apostolic See; princes imposing such exactions and ecclesiastics submitting to them were declared excommunicated. Other popes of the thirteenth century, and the Third and Fourth Lateran Councils (1179, 1215), had legislated similarly against the oppressors of the clergy; apart, therefore, from the opening line of the Bull, that seemed offensive as reflecting on the laity in general (Clericis laicos infensos esse oppido tradit antiquitas, i. e., “All history shows clearly the enmity of the laity towards the clergy,”—in reality a byword in the schools and taken from earlier sources), there was nothing in its very general terms to rouse particularly the royal anger. Philip, however, was indignant, and soon retaliated by a royal ordinance (17 Aug.) forbidding the export of gold or silver, precious stones, weapons, and food from his kingdom. He also forbade foreign merchants to remain longer within its bounds. These measures affected immediately the Roman Church, for it drew much of its revenue from France, inclusive of crusdade moneys, whence the numerous papal collectors were henceforth banished. The king also caused to be prepared a proclamation (never promulgated) concerning the obligation of ecclesiastics to bear the public burden and the revocable character of ecclesiastical immunities. (For the generous contributions of the French clergy to the national burdens, see the exhaustive statistics of Bourgain in “Rev. des quest. hist.,” 1890, XLVIII, 62.) In the Bull “Ineffabilis Amor” (20 Sept.) Boniface protested vigorously against these royal acts, and explained that he had never meant to forbid voluntary gifts from the clergy or contributions necessary for the defence of the kingdom, of which necessity the king and his council were the judges. During 1297 the pope sought in various ways to appease the royal embitterment, notably by the Bull “Etsi de Statu” (31 July), above all by the canonization (11 Aug., 1297) of the king’s grandfather, Louis IX. The royal ordinance was withdrawn, and the painful incident seemed closed. In the meantime the truce which in 1296 Boniface had tried to impose on Philip and Edward was finally accepted by both kings early in 1298, for a space of two years. The disputed matters were referred to Boniface as arbiter, though Philip accepted him not as pope, but as a private person, as Benedetto Gaetano. The award, favourable to Philip, was issued (27 June) by Boniface in a public consistory.

In the Jubilee of 1300 the high spirit of Boniface might well recognize a compensation and a consolation for previous humiliations. This unique celebration, the apogee of the temporal splendour of the papacy (Zaccaria, De anno Jubilæi, Rome, 1775), was formally inaugurated by the pope on the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul (29 June). Giovanni Villani, an eyewitness, relates in his Florentine chronicle that about 200,000 pilgrims were constantly in the City. It was necessary to make an opening in the wall of the Leonine City, near the Tiber, so that the multitude might have a larger freedom of movement. Pilgrims came from every country in Europe and even from distant Asia. Ominously enough, if we except the elder son of the King of Naples, none of the kings or princes of Europe came to pay their respects to the Vicar of Christ. The second crown in the papal tiara, indicative of the temporal power, is said to date from the reign of Boniface, and may have been added at this time.

In the meantime Philip continued in a merciless way his fiscal oppression of the Church, and abused more than ever the so-called regalia, or royal privilege of collecting the revenues of a diocese during its vacancy. Since the middle of 1297 the exiled Colonna had found refuge and sympathy at the court of Philip, whence they spread calumnious charges against Boniface, and urged the calling of a general council for his deposition. The royal absolutism was now further incited by suggestions of a universal Christian dominion under the hegemony of France. The new state was to secure, besides the Holy Land, a universal peace. Both empires, the Byzantine and the German, were to be incorporated in it, and the papacy was to become a purely spiritual patriarchate, its temporalities administered by the French king, who would pay the pope an annual salary corresponding to his office. Such was the new Byzantinism outlined in a work on the recovery of the Holy Land (“De recuperatione terræ sanctæ,” in Bongars, “Gesta Dei per Francos,” II, 316–61, ed. Langlois, Paris, 1891), and though only the private work of Pierre Dubois, a civil servant of Philip, it probably reflected some fantastic plan of the king (Finke, Zur Charakteristik, 217–18).

In the first half of 1201 Boniface commissioned Bernard de Saisset, Bishop of Pamiers (Languedoc), as legate to Philip. He was to protest against the continued oppression of the clergy, and to urge the king to apply conscientiously to a crusade the ecclesiastical tithes collected by papal indults. For various reasons De Saisset was not a welcome envoy (Langlois, Hist. de France, ed. Lavisse, III, 2, 143). On his return to Pamiers he was accused of treasonable speech and incitement to insurrection, was brought to Paris (12 July, 1301), thence to Senlis, where he was found guilty in a trial directed by Pierre Flote, and known to modern historians (Von Reumont) as “a model of injustice and violence.” De Saisset in vain protested his innocence and denied the competency of the civil court; he was committed temporarily to the care of the Archbishop of Narbonne, while Pierre Flote and Guillaume de Nogaret went to Rome to secure from Boniface the degradation of his legate and his delivery to the secular authority. Boniface acted with decision. He demanded form the king the immediate liberation of De Saisset and wrote to the Archbishop of Narbonne to detain the latter no longer. By the Bull “Salvator Mundi” he withdrew the indults by which the French king collected canonically ecclesiastical revenue for the defence of the kingdom, i. e., he re-established in vigour the “Clericis laicos” and in the famous Bull “Ausculta Fili” (Listen, O Son) of 5 Dec., 1301, he stood forth as the mouthpiece of the medieval papacy, and as the genuine successor of the Gregories and the Innocents. In it he appeals to the king to listen to the Vicar of Christ, who is placed over kings and kingdoms (cf. Jer., i, 10). He is the keeper of the keys, the judge of the living and the dead, and sits on the throne of justice, with power to extirpate all iniquity. He is the head of the Church, which is one and stainless, and not a many-headed monster, and has full Divine authority to pluck out and tear down, to build up and plant. Let not the king imagine that he has no superior, is not subject to the highest authority in the Church. The pope is concerned for the welfare of all kings and princes, but particularly for the house of France. He then goes on to relate his many grievances against the king, the application of ecclesiastical goods to secular uses, despotic procedure in dragging ecclesiastics before civil courts, hindrance of episcopal authority, disrespect for papal provisions and benefices, and oppression of the clergy. He will no longer be responsible for the protection (custodia) of the monarch’s soul, but has decided, after consulting his cardinals, to call to Rome for 4 Nov., 1302, the French bishops and doctors of theology, principal abbots, etc., to “dispose what is suitable for the correction of abuses, and for the reformation of the king and the kingdom.” He invites the king to be present personally or through representatives, warns him against his evil counsellors, and finally reminds him eloquently of the royal neglect of a crusade. An impartial reader, says Von Reumont, will see that the document is only a repetition of previous papal utterances and resumes the teaching of the most esteemed medieval theologians on the nature and extension of papal authority. It was presented to the king (10 Feb., 1302) by Jacques de Normans, Archdeacon of Narbonne. The Comte d’Artois tore it from the Archdeacon’s hands and cast it into the fire; another copy destined for the French clergy was suppressed (Hefele, 2d ed., VI, 329). In the place of the “Ausculta Fili,” there was at once circulated a forged Bull, “Deum time” (Fear God), very probably the work of Pierrer Flote, and with equal probability approved by the king. Its five or six brief haughty lines were really drawn up to include the fateful phrase, Scire te volumnus quod in spiritualibus et temporalibus nobis subes (i. e., We wish thee to know that thou art our subject both in spiritual and in temporal matters). It was also added (an odious thing for the grandson of St. Louis) that whoever denied this was a heretic.

In vain did the pope and the cardinals protest against the forgery; in vain did the pope explain, a little later, that the subjection spoken of in the Bull was only ratione peccati, i. e., that the morality of every royal act, private or public, fell within the papal prerogative. The general tone of the “Ausculta Fili,” its personal admonitions couched in severe Scriptural language, its proposal to provide from Rome a good and prosperous administration of the French Kingdom, were not calculated to soothe at this juncture the minds of Frenchmen already agitated by the events of the preceeding years. It is also improbable that Boniface was personally very popular with the French secular clergy, whose petition (1290) against the encroachments of the regular orders he had rejected in his rough sarcastic manner, when legate at Paris (Finke in “Römische Quartalschrift,” 1895, IX, 171; “Journal des Savants,” 1895, 240). The national concern for the independence and honour of the French king was further heightened by a forged reply of the king to Boniface, known as “Sciat maxima tua fatuitas.” It begins: “Philip, by the grace of God King of the Franks, to Boniface who acts as Supreme Pontiff. Let thy very great fatuity know that in temporal things we are subject to no one. . . .” Such a document, though probably never officially presented at Rome (Hefele), certainly made its way thither. After forbidding the French clergy to go to Rome or to send thither any moneys, and setting a watch on all roads, ports, and passes leading to Italy, Philip forestalled the pope’s November council by a national assembly at Paris (10 April, 1301) in the Cathedral of Notre Dame. The forged Bull was read before the representatives of the three estates; the pope was violently denounced by Pierre Flote as aiming at temporal sovereignty in France; the king besought as their friend, and as their ruler commanded all present to aid him with their counsel. Nobles and burghers offered to shed their blood for the king; the clergy, confused and hesitating, sought delay, but finally yielded so far as to write to the pope quite in the sense of the king. The lay estate directed to the cardinals a defiant protest, in which they withheld the papal title from Boniface, recounted the services of France to the Roman Church, and re- echoed the usual royal complaints, above all the calling to Rome of the principal ecclesiastics of the nation. The letter of the bishops was directed to Boniface and begged him to maintain the former concord, to withdraw the call for the council, and suggtested prudence and moderation, since the laity was prepared to defy all papal censures. In the reply of the cardinals to the lay estates, they assert their complete harmony with the pope, denounce the aforesaid forgeries, and maintain that the pope never asserted a right of temporal sovereignty in France.

In his reply Boniface roundly scourged the bishops for their cowardice, human respect, and selfishness; at the same time he made use, after his fashion, of not a few expressions offensive to the pride of French ecclesiastics and poured sarcasm over the person of the powerful Pierre Flote (Hefele). Finally, in a public consistory (August, 1302) at which the envoys of the king were present, the Cardinal- Bishop of Porto formally denied that the pope had ever claimed any temporal sovereignty over France and asserted that the genuine Bull (Ausculta Fili) had been well weighed and was an act of love, despite the fatherly severity of certain expressions. He insisted that the king was no more free than any other Christian from the supreme ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the pope, and maintained the unity of ecclesiastical authority. The Apostolic See, he said, was not foreign territory, nor could its nominees be rightly called foreigners. For the rest, the pope had full authority in temporal matters ratione peccati, i. e., in as far as the morality of human acts was concerned. He went on, however, to say that in temporal jurisdiction one must distinguish the right (de jure) and its use and execution (usus et executio). The former belonged to the pope as Vicar of Christ and of Peter; to deny it was to deny an article of faith, i. e., that Christ judges the living and the dead. This claim, says Hefele (2d ed., VI, 346), “must have appeared to the French as quite destructive of the aforesaid limitation ratione peccati. Gregory IX had maintained (1232, 1236), in his conflict with the Greeks and with Frederick II, that Constantine the Great had given temporal power to the popes, and that emperors and kings were only his auxiliaries, bound to use the material sword at his direction (Conciliengesch., 2d ed., V, 102, 1044). This theory, however, had never yet been officially put forth against France, and was all the more likely to rouse opposition in that nation, since it was now a question not of a theory, but of a practical situation, i. e., of the investigation of Philip’s government and the menace of his deposition.” He refers to the closing words of the discourse with which Boniface supplemented that of the Cardinal-Bishop of Porto, viz., that his predecessors had deposed three French kings, and, though unequal to such popes, he would, however sorrowfully, depose King Philip, sicut unum garcionem (like a servant); he thinks it not impossible (Hergenröther, Kirche und Staat, 229; Hefele, IV, 344) that the present harsh conclusion of the discourse of Boniface is one of the numerous forgeries of Pierre Flote and Nogaret. In the first half of this discourse the pope insists on the great development of France under papal protection, the shameless forgeries of Pierre Flote, the exclusive ecclesiastical nature of the grant (collatio) of benefices, and the papal preference for doctors of theology as aginst lay nepotism in matters of benefices. He is wroth over the assertion that he claimed France as a papal fief. “We have been a doctor of both laws (civil and canon) these forty years, and who can believe that such folly [fatuitas] ever entered Our head?” Boniface also expressed his willingness to accept the mediation of the Duke of Burgundy or the Duke of Brittany; the efforts of the former, however, availed not, as the cardinals insisted on satisfaction for the burning of the papal Bull and the calumnious attacks on Boniface. The king replied by confiscating the goods of the ecclesiastics who had set out for the Roman Council, which met 30 Oct., 1302.

There were present four archbishops, thirty-five bishops, six abbots, and several doctors. Its acts have disappeared, probably during the process against the memory of Boniface (1309–11). Two Bulls, however, were issued as a result of its deliberations. One excommunicated whoever hindered, imprisoned, or otherwise ill-treated persons journeying to, or returning from, Rome. The other (18 Nov., 1302) is the famous “Unam Sanctam,” probably the composition of Ægidius Colonna, Archbishop of Bourges and a member of the council, and largely made up of passages from such famous theologians as St. Bernard, Hugo of St. Victor, St. Thomas Aquinas, and others. Its chief concepts are as follows (Hergenröther-Kirsch, 4th ed., II, 593): (1) There is but one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation; but one body of Christ with one head and not two. (2) That head is Christ and His representative, the Roman pope; whoever refuses the pastoral care of Peter belongs not to the flock of Christ. (3) There are two swords (i. e., powers), the spiritual and the temporal; the first borne by the Church, the second for the Church; the first by the hand of the priest, the second by that of the king, but under the direction of the priest (ad nutum et patientiam sacerdotis). (4) Since there must be a co- ordination of members from the lowest to the highest, it follows that the spiritual power is above the temporal and has the right to instruct (or establish—instituere) the latter regarding its highest end and to judge it when it does evil; whoever resists the highest power ordained of God resists God Himself. (5) It is necessary for salvation that all men should be subject to the Roman Pontiff—“Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanæ creaturæ declaramus, dicimus, definimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis.” (For a more detailed account of the Bull and several controversies concerning it see .)

Philip had a refutation of the Bull prepared by the Dominican Jean Quidort (Joannes Parisiensis) in his “Tractatus de potestate regiâ et papali” (Goldast, Monarchia, ii, 108 sq.), and the conflict passed at once from the domain of principle to the person of Boniface. The king now rejected the pope as arbiter in his disputes with England and Flanders, and gave a courteous but evasive answer to the Legate, Jean Lemoine, whom the pope sent (February, 1303) on a mission of peace, but with insistence, among other conditions, on recognition of the aforesaid rights of the papacy. Lemoine was further commissioned to declare to Philip that, in default of a more satisfactory reply to the twelve points of the papal letter, the pope would proceed spiritualiter et temporaliter against him, i. e., would excommunicate and depose him. Boniface also sent to Lemoine (13 Apr., 1303) two Briefs, in one of which he declared the king already excommunicated, and in the other ordered all French prelates to come to Rome within three months.

In the meantime there was brewing at Paris the storm in which the pontificate of Boniface was so disastrously to close. Philip concluded peace with England, temporized with the Flemings, and made concessions to his subjects. Boniface on his side acknowledged, as aforesaid, the election of Albert of Austria, and brought to an end his hopeless conflict with the Aragonese King of Sicily. Otherwise he seemed politally helpless, and could only trust, as he publicly stated, in his sense of right and duty. Later events showed that in his own household he could not count on loyalty. In an extraordinary session of the French Council of State (12 March, 1303) Guillaume de Nogaret appealed to Philip to protect the Holy Church against the intruder and false pope, Boniface, a simonist, robber, and heretic, maintaining that the king, moreover, ought to call an assembly of the prelates and peers of France, through whose efforts a general council might be convoked, before which he would prove his charges. Such an assembly was called for 13 June, and met at the Louvre in Paris. The papal messenger with the aforesaid Briefs for the legate was seized at Troyes and imprisoned; Lemoine himself, after protesting against such violence, fled. At this assembly, packed with friends or creatures of Philip, the knight Guillaume de Plaisians (Du Plessis) submitted a solemn accusation against the pope in twenty-nine points, offered to prove the same, and begged the king to provide for a general council. The Colonna furnished the material for these infamous charges, long since adjudged calumnious by grave historians (Hefele, Conciliengesch., 2nd ed., VI, 460–63; Giovanni Villani, a contemporary, says that the Council of Vienne, in 1312, formally absolved him from the charge of heresy. Cf. Muratori, “SS. Rer. Ital.,” XIV, 454; Raynaldus, ad an. 1312, 15–16). Scarcely any possible crime was omitted—infidelity, heresy, simony, gross and unnatural immorality, idolatry, magic, loss of the Holy Land, death of Celestine V, etc. The king asserted that it was only to satisfy his conscience and to protect the honour of the Holy See that he would co-operate in the calling of a general council, asked the help of the prelates, and appealed (against any possible action of Boniface) to the future council, the future pope, and to all to whom appeal could be made. Five archbishops, twenty-one bishops, and some abbots sided with the king. The resolutions of the assembly were read to the people, and several hundred adhesions were secured from chapters, monasteries, and provincial cities, mostly through violence and intimidation. The Abbot of Citeaux, Jean de Pontoise, protested, but was imprisoned. Royal letters were sent to the princes of Europe, also to the cardinals and bishops, setting forth the king’s new-found zeal for the welfare of Holy Church.

In a public consistory at Anagni (August, 1303) Boniface cleared himself on his solemn oath of the charges brought against him at Paris and proceeded at once to protect the Apostolic authority. Citations before the Holy See were declared valid by the mere fact of being affixed to the church doors at the seat of the Roman Curia, and he excommunicated all who hindered such citations. He suspended Archbishop Gerhard of Nicosia (Cyprus), the first signatory of the schismatical resolutions. Pending satisfaction to the pope, the University of Paris lost the right to confer degrees in theology and in canon and civil law. He suspended temporarily for France the right of election in all ecclesiastical bodies, reserved to the Holy See all vacant French benefices, repelled as blasphemies the calumnious charges of de Plaisians, saying “Who ever heard that We were a heretic?” (Raynaldus, ad an. 1311, 40), and denounced the appeal to a future general council which could be convoked by none other than himself, the legitimate pope. He declared that unless the king repented he would inflict on him the severest punishments of the Church. The Bull “Super Petri solio” was ready for promulgation on 8 September. It contained in traditional form the solemn excommunication of the king and the liberation of his subjects from their oath of fidelity. Philip, however, and his counsellors had taken measures to rob this step of all force, or rather to prevent it at a decisive moment. It had long been their plan to seize the person of Boniface and compel him to abdicate, or, in case of his refusal, to bring him before a general council in France for condemnation and deposition. Since April, Nogaret and Sciarra Colonna had been active in Tuscany for the formation, at Philip’s expense, of a band of mercenaries, some 2,000 strong, horse and foot. Very early on the morning of 7 September the band appeared suddenly before Anagni, under the lilies of France, shouting, “Long live the King of France and Colonna!” Fellow-conspirators in the town admitted them, and they at once attacked the palaces of the pope and his nephew. The ungrateful citizens fraternized with the besiegers of the pope, who in the meanwhile obtained a truce until three in the afternoon, when he rejected the conditions of Sciarra, viz., restoration of the Colonna, abdication, and delivery to Sciarra of the pope’s person. About six o’clock, however, the papal stronghold was penetrated through the adjoining cathedral. The soldiers, Sciarra at their head, sword in hand (for he had sworn to slay Boniface), at once filled the hall in which the pope awaited them with five of his cardinals, among them his beloved nephew Francesco, all of whom soon fled; only a Spaniard, the Cardinal of Santa Sabina, remained at his side to the end.

In the meantime the papal palace was thoroughly plundered; even the archives were destroyed. Dino Compagni, the Florentine chronicler, relates that when Boniface saw that further resistance was useless he exclaimed, “Since I am betrayed like the Saviour, and my end is nigh, at least I shall die as Pope.” Thereupon he ascended his throne, clad in the pontifical ornaments, the tiara on his head, the keys in one hand, a cross in the other, held close to his breast. Thus he confronted the angry men-at-arms. It is said that Nogaret prevented Sciarra Colonna from killing the pope. Nogaret himself made known to Boniface the Paris resolutions and threatened to take him in chains to Lyons, where he should be deposed. Boniface looked down at him, some say without a word, others that he replied: “Here is my head, here is my neck; I will patiently bear that I, a Catholic and lawful pontiff and vicar of Christ, be condemned and deposed by the Paterini [heretics, in reference to the parents of the Tolosan Nogaret]; I desire to die for Christ’s faith and His Church.” Von Reumont asserts that there is no evidence for the physical maltreatment of the pope by Sciarra or Nogaret. Dante (Purgatorio, XX, 86) lays more stress on the moral violence, though his words easily convey the notion of physical wrong: “I see the flower-de-luce Anagni enter, and Christ in his own Vicar captive made; I see him yet another time derided; I see renewed the vinegar and gall, and between living thieves I see him slain.” Boniface was held three days a close prisoner in the plundered papal palace. No one cared to bring him food or drink, while the banditti quarrelled over his person, as over a valuable asset. By early morning of 9 September the burghers of Anagni had changed their minds, wearied perhaps of the presence of the soldiers, and ashamed that a pope, their townsman, should perish within their walls at the hands of the hated Francesi. They expelled Nogaret and his band, and confided Boniface to the care of the two Orsini cardinals, who had come from Rome with four hundred horsemen; with them he returned to Rome. Before leaving Anagni he pardoned several of the marauders captured by the townsmen, excepting the plunderers of Church property, unless they returned it within three days. He reached Rome, 13 Sept., but only to fall under the close surveillance of the Orsini. No one will wonder that his bold spirit now gave way beneath the weight of grief and melancholy. He died of a violent fever, 11 October, in full possession of his senses and in the presence of eight cardinals and the chief members of the papal household, after receiving the sacraments and making the usual profession of faith. His life seemed destined to close in gloom, for, on account of an unusually violent storm, he was buried, says an old chronicler, with less decency than became a pope. His body lies in the crypt of St. Peter’s in a large marble sarcophagus, laconically inscribed BONIFACIUS PAPA VIII. When his tomb was opened (9 Oct., 1605) the body was found quite intact, especially the shapely hands, thus disproving another calumny, viz., that he had died in a frenzy, gnawing his hands, beating his brains out against the wall, and the like (Wiseman).

Boniface was a patron of the fine arts such as Rome had never yet seen among its popes, though, as Guiraud warns us (p. 6), it is not easy to separate what is owing to the pope’s own initiative from what we owe to his nephew and biographer, the art-loving Cardinal Stefaneschi. Modern historians of Renaissance art (Müntz, Guiraud) date its first efficient progress from him. The “iodolatry” accusation of the Colonna comes from the marble statues that grateful towns, like Anagni and Perugia, raised to him on public sites, “where there once were idols,” says a contemporary , an anti-Bonifacian libel (Guiraud, 4). The Anagni statue stands yet in the cathedral of that town, repaired by him. He also repaired and fortified the Gaetani palace in Anagni, and improved in a similar way neighbouring towns. At Rome the Palace of the Senator was enlarged, Castel Sant’ Anagelo fortified, and the Church of San Lorenzo in Panisperna built anew. He encouraged the work on the cathedral of Perugia, while that gem of ornamental Gothic, the cathedral of Orvieto (1290–1309), was largely finished during his pontificate. For the great Jubilee of 1300 he had the churches of Rome restored and decorated, notably St. John Lateran, St. Peter’s and St. Mary Major. He called Giotto to Rome and gave him constant occupation. A portrait of Boniface by Giotto is still to be seen in St. John Lateran; in our own day M. Müntz has restored the original concept, and in it is seen the noble balcony of Cassetta, whence, during the jubilee, the pontiff was wont to bestow upon the vast multitude the blessing of Christ’s vicar. In the time of Boniface the Cosimati continued and improved their work and under the influence of Giotto rose, like Cavallini, to higher concepts of art. The delicate French miniaturists were soon equalled by the pope’s Vatican scribes; two glorious missals of Oderisio da Gubbio, “Agubbio’s honour,” may yet be seen at the Vatican, where lived and worked his disciple, likewise immortalized by Dante (Purg., XI, 79), who speaks of “the laughing leaves touched by the brush of Franco Bolognese.” Finally, sculpture was honoured by Boniface in the person of Arnolfo di Cambio, who built for him the “Chapel of the Crib” in St. Mary Major, and executed (Müntz) the sarcophagus in which he was buried. Boniface was also a friend of the sciences. He founded (6 June, 1303) the University of Rome, known as the Sapienza, and in the same year the University of Fermo. Finally, it was Boniface who began anew the Vatican Library, whose treasures had been scattered, together with the papal archives, in 1227, when the Roman Frangipani passed over to the side of Frederick II and took with them the turris chartularia, i. e. the ancient repository of the documents of the Holy See. The thirty-three Greek manuscripts the Vatican Library contained in 1311 are pronounced by Fr. Ehrle the earliest known, and long the most important, medieval collection of Greek works in the West. Boniface honoured with increased solemnity (1298) the feasts of the four evangelists, twelve Apostles, and four Doctors of the Church (Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Gregory the Great, egregios ipsius doctores Ecclesiæ) by raising them to the rank of “double feasts.” He was one of the most distinguished canonists of his age, and as pope enriched the general ecclesiastical legislation by the promulgation (“Sacrosanctæ,” 1298) of a large number of his own constitutions and of those of his predecessors, since 1234, when Gregory IX promulgated his five books of Decretals. In reference to this the collection of Boniface was entitled “Liber Sextus,” i. e., Sixth Book of Pontifical Constitutions (Laurin, Introd. in Corp. Juris can., Freiburg, 1889), being constructed on the same lines. Few popes have aroused more diverse and contradictory appreciations. Protestant historians, generally, and even modern Catholic writers, wrote Cardinal Wiseman in 1844, class him among the wicked popes, as an ambitious, haughty, and unrelenting man, deceitful also and treacherous, his whole pontificate one record of evil. To dissipate this grossly exaggerated and even calumnious view, it is well to distinguish his utterances and deeds as pope from his personal character, that even in his lifetime seemed to many unsympathetic. Careful examination of the sources of his most famous public pronouncements has shown that they are largely a mosaic of teachings of earlier theologians, or solemn re- enforcements of the canons of the Church and well-known Bulls of his predecessors. His chief aims, the peace of Europe and the recovery of the Holy Land, were those of all preceding popes. He did no more than his duty in defending the unity of the Church and the supremacy of ecclesiastical authority when threatened by Philip the Fair. His politico-ecclesiastical dealings with the kings of Europe will naturally be blamed by Erastians and by those who ignore, on the one hand, the rapacity of an Edward and the wily vindictiveness and obtuse selfishness of a Philip, and on the other, the supreme fatherly office of the medieval pope as the respected head of one mighty family of peoples, whose civil institutions were only slowly coalescing amid the decay of feudalism and ancient barbarism (Gosselin, Von Reumont), and who were long conscious that in the past they owed to the Church alone (i. e., to the pope) sure and swift justice, equitable courts and procedure, and relief from a feudal absolutism justified as yet by no commensurate public service. “The loftiest, truest view of the character and conduct of the popes has often been overlooked,” says Cardinal Wiseman (op. cit.); “the divine instinct which animated them, the immortal destiny alloted to them, the heavenly cause confided to them, the superhuman aid which strengthened them could not be appreciated but by a Catholic mind, and are too generally excluded from Protestant historians, or are transformed into corresponding human capacities, or policies, or energies, or virtues.” He goes on to say that, after examination of several popular assertions affecting the moral and ecclesiastical conduct of Boniface, this pope appeared to him in a new light, “as a pontiff who began his reign with most glorious promise and closed it amid sad calamities; who devoted, through it all, the energies of a great mind, cultivated by profound learning and matured by long experience in the most delicate ecclesiastical affairs, to the attainment of a truly noble end; and who, throughout his career, displayed many great virtues, and could plead in extenuation of his faults the convulsed state of public affairs, the rudeness of his times, and the faithless, violent character of many among those with whom he had to deal. These circumstances, working upon a mind naturally upright and inflexible, led to a sternness of manner and a severity of conduct, which when viewed through the feelings of modern times, may appear extreme, and almost unjustifiable. But after searching through the pages of his most hostile historians, we are satisfied that this is the only point on which even a plausible charge can be brought against him.”

The memory of Boniface, curiously enough, has suffered most from two great poets, mouthpieces of an ultra-spiritual and impossible Catholicism, Fra Jacopone da Todi and Dante. The former was the “sublime fool” of spiritual love, author of the “Stabat Mater,” and chief singer of the “Spirituals,” or extreme Franciscans, kept in prison by Boniface, whom he therefore satirized in the popular and musical vernacular of the peninsula. The latter was a Ghibelline, i. e., a political antagonist of the Guelph pope, to whom, moreover, he attributed all his personal misfortunes, and whom he therefore pilloried before the bar of his own justice, but in quivering lines of immortal invective whose malignant beauty will always trouble the reader’s judgment. Catholic historians like Hergenröther-Kirsch (4th ed., II, 597–98) praise the uprightness of the pope’s motives and that courage of his convictions which almost on the eve of his death made him count as straws all earthly rulers, if only he had truth and justice on his side (op. cit., II, 597, note 4). They admit, however, the explosive violence and offensive phraseology of some of his public documents, and the occasional imprudence of his political measures; he walked in the footsteps of his immediate predecessors, but the new enemies were more fierce and logical than the extirpated Hohenstaufen, and were quicker to pervert and utilize the public opinion of young and proud nationalities. A contemporary and eyewitness, Giovanni Villani, has left in his Florentine chronicle (Muratori, XIII, 348 sqq.) a portrait of Boniface which the judicious Von Reumont seems to consider quite reliable. According to it Boniface, the most clever canonist of his time, was a great-hearted and generous man and a lover of magnificence, but also arrogant, proud, and stern in manner, more feared than loved, too worldly-minded for his high office and too fond of money both for the Church and for his family. His nepotism was open. He founded the Roman house of the Gaetani, and in the process of exalting his family drew down upon himself the effective hatred of the Colonna and their strong clansmen. Gröne, a German Catholic historian of the popes, says of Boniface (II, 164) that while his utterances equal in importance those of Gregory VII and Innocent III, the latter were always more ready to act, Boniface to discourse; they relied on the Divine strength of their office, Boniface on the cleverness of his canonical deductions. For the process against his memory see V.

Original materials.—The history of Boniface is best found in DIGARD, FAUCON, AND THOMAS, Les registres de Boniface VIII. (Paris, 1884, sqq.); DU PUY (Gallican), Hist. du différend du pape Boniface VIII. avec Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1655), with a very partial selection and arrangement of valuable, but badly edited, materials; BAILLET (violent Jansenist), Hist. des désmelez du pape Boniface VIII. avec Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1718). On the Roman side see: VIGOR, Historia eorum qua acta sunt inter Philippe, Pulcher, et Bonif. VIII. (Rome, 1639); RUBEUS, Boniface VIII et Familia Caietanorum (Rome, 1651). The earlier career and coronation of the pope are related (in verse) by CARDINAL STEPANESCHI (STEPHANESIUS) in Acta SS. (May, IV, 471). RAYNAULDUS, Ann. Eccl. (1294–1303), where many of the most important documents are given in full.

Contemporary Chroniclers.—VILLANI, Hist. Fiorentine, in Muratori SS. Rer. Ital., XIII, 348; DINO COMPAGNI, Chronica, ed. DE LONGO (Florence, 1879–87); the Italian chroniclers quoted in HERGENRÖTHER-KIRSCH (4th ed.) are in MURATORI, Scriptores. For the election of Boniface see HEFELE, Conciliengesch.; SOUCHON, Die Papstwahlen von Bonifaz VIII. bei Urban VI., etc. (Brunswick, 1888); FINKE, Aus den Tagen etc., 44- 76; Denifle, Das Denkschrift der Colonna gegen Bonifaz VIII., u. der Kardinäle gegen die Colonna, in Archiv für Litt. u. Kircheng. des M. A. (1892), V, 493. For the Anagni incident see: KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, in Rev. der quest. hist. (1872), XI, 411; DIGARD, ibid. (1888), XXIII, 557.

Catholic Biography.—Besides the general historians, FLEURY (Gallican), ROSENBACHER, CHRISTOPHER, see CHANTREL, Boniface VIII. (Paris, 1862), and the excellent work of TOSTI, Storia de Bonifazio VIII e de’ suoi tempi (Monte Cassino, 1846). The most important modern critical contributions to the life of Boniface are those of FINKE, op. cit. (Munich, 1902), the result of new discoveries in medieval archives, especially at Barcelona, among the papers of the reign of James II, King of Aragon and contemporary of Boniface (reports of the royal agents at Rome, etc.). Cf. Anal. Bolland. (1904), XXIII, 339; Rev. des quest. hist. (1903), XXVI, 122; Lit. Rundschau (1902), XXVIII, 315; and Canoniste Contemporain (1903), XXVI, 122. See also FINKE, Bonifaz VIII., in Hochland (1904), I; IDEM, Zur Charakteristik Philipps des Schönen in Mittheil. des Inst. f. æst. Geschichtsforschung (1905), XXIV, 201–14. An excellent apology is that of (CARDINAL) WISEMAN, Pope Boniface VIII, in Dublin Review (1844), reprinted in Historical Essays; HEMMER, in Dict. de théol cath., II, i, 982–1003 (good bibliography); and the thorough study of HEFELE, op. cit. (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1890), VI, 281 passim; JUNGMANN, Diss. selectæ in hist. eccl. (Ratisbon, 1886), VI. The (non-Catholic) work of DRUMANN, Geschichte Bonifaz VIII. (Königsberg, 1852), is learned but partisan.

Political Situation and Attitude of Medieval Popes.—See the solid work of GOSSELIN, The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages, tr. KELLY (London, 1883); the erudite work of HERGENRÖTHER, Kath. Kirche und christ. Staat (Freiburg, 1873); Eng. tr. London, 1876); BAUDRILLARD, Des idées qu’on se faisait au XIVe siècle sur le droit d’interven. du Souv. Pont. dans les affaires polit., in Revue d’hist. et de litt. relig. (Paris, 1898); PLANCK, Hist. de la const. de la soc. eccl. chrét. (1809), V, 12–154 (favourable).

The most notable of the modern French writers favourable to Philip are: LECLERCQ and RENAN, in Hist. Litt. de la France au XIVe siècle (Paris, 1865); [see RENAN, Etudes sur la polit. relig. du règne de Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1889)]; and LANGLOIS, Hist. de France, ed. LAVISSE (Paris, 1901), III, II, 127–73; cf. the equitable study of BOUTARIC, La France sous Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1861); also the fair narrative of VON REUMONT, Gesch. der Stadt Rom (Berlin, 1867), II, i, 614–71; GGEGOROVIUS (non-Catholic), Gesch. d. Stadt Rom (3d ed., Stuttgart, 1878), V, 501, tr. by Hamilton; HÖFLER, Rückblick auf Papst Bonifaz VIII., in Abhandl. d. bayrisch. Akad. d. Wiss. hist. Kl. (Munich, 1843), III, iii, 32 sqq.; ROCQUAIN, La Cour de Rome et l’esprit de réforme avant Luther (Paris, 1895), II, 258–512; LAURENT, L’Eglise et l’Etat, moyen âge et réforme (Paris, 1866), violent and unjust.

Pamphlet Literature.—For both sides, see SCHOLZ, Die Publizistik zur Zeit Ph. des Schönen und Bonif. VIII. (Stuttgart, 1903); also SCADUTO, Stato e Chiesa negli scriti politici, 1122–1347 (Florence, 1847); and RIEZLER, Die literarischen Widersacher der Päpste zur Zeit Ludwigs des Bayern (Munich, 1874). Important new monographs concerning chief figures in the conflict are those of HOLTZMANN, Wilhelm von Nogaret (Freiburg, 1898); and HUYSKINS, Kardinal Napoleon Orsini, ein Lebensbild, etc. (Marburg, 1902). Among the latest studies, based on the above-described researches of Dr. Finke, are: SCHOLZ, Zur Beurteilung Bonifaz VIII. und seines sittlich-religiosen Charakters, in Hist. Vierteljahrschrift (1906), IX, 470–506; WENCK, War Bonifaz VIII. ein Ketzer? in Hist. Zeitschrift (1905), 1–66 (maintaining that Boniface was an Averroist), and the good refutation by HOLTZMANN, Papst Bonifaz VIII., ein Ketzer? in Mittheil. d. Inst. f. æst. Gesch. f(1905), 488–98; cf. WENCK’s reply, ibid. (1906), 185–95.

The Bull “Unum Sanctam”: BERCHTOLD, Die Bulle Unam Sanctam, etc., und ihre wahre Bedeutung für Kirche und Staat (1887); cf. GRAVERT in Hist. Jahrbuch (1887). MUMET, in Rev. des quest. hist. (July, 1887), abandoned his (and DANBERGER’S thesis that this Bull was a forgery (ibid., 1879), 91–130. On the exact sense of the much-disputed instituere (instruct or establish?) in “Unam Sanctam,” see FUNK, Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen (Paderborn, 1897), I, 483- 89.

For the services of Boniface to the sciences and the fine arts, see EHRLE, Zur Gesch. des Schatzes, der Bibl. und des Archivs der Päpste in 14. Jahrh., in Archiv für Litt. u. Kircheng. des M. A. (1885), I, i, 228; IDEM, Hist. Biblioth. Avenionen. (Rome,—); MOLINIER, Inventaire du trésor du Saint-Siège sous Boniface VIII., in Bibl. de l’Ecole des Chartes (1882–85); the writings of the art-historian, MÜNTZ, and GUIRARD, L’Eglise et les Origines de la Renaissancea (Paris, 1904).

THOMAS OESTREICH

Pope Boniface IX

Elected at Rome, 2 November, 1389, as successor of the Roman Pope, Urban VI; d. there, 1 October, 1404. Piero (Perino, Pietro) Tomacelli came of an ancient but impoverished baronial family of Naples. He lacked good theological training and skill in the conduct of curial business, but was by nature tactful and prudent. His firm charater and mild manner did much to restore respect for the papacy in the countries of his own obedience (Germany, England, Hungary, Poland, and the greater part of Italy). The Avignon Pope, Clement VII, had just crowned (1 November, 1389) as King of Naples the French prince, Louis of Anjou. Boniface took up the cause of the youthful Ladislaus, heir of Charles III of Naples and Margaret of Durazzo, had him crowned King of Naples at Gaeta (29 May, 1390), and for the next decade aided him efficiently to expel the Angevin forces from Italy. In the course of his reign Boniface extinguished the municipal independence of Rome and established the supremacy of the pope. He secured the final adhesion of the Romans (1398) by fortifying anew the Castle of Sant’ Angelo, the bridges, and other points of vantage. He also took over the port of Ostia from its cardinal-bishop. In the Papal States Boniface gradually regained control of the chief strongholds and cities, and is the true founder of these States as they appear in the fifteenth century. Owing to the faithlessness and violence of the Romans he resided frequently at Perugia, Assisi, and elsewhere. Clement VII, the Avignon pope, died 16 September, 1394. Boniface had excommunicated him shortly after his own election, and in turn had been excommunicated by Clement. In 1392 Boniface attempted, but in vain, to enter into closer relations with Clement for the re-establishment of ecclesiastical unity, whereupon Boniface reasserted with vigour his own legitimacy. Clement was succeeded at Avignon, 28 September, 1394, by Cardinal Pedro de Luna, as Benedict XIII. Suffice it to say here that Boniface always claimed to be the true pope, and at all times rejected the proposal to abdicate even when it was supported by the principal members of his own obedience, e.g. Richard II of England (1396), the Diet of Frankfort (1397), and King Wenceslaus of Germany (Reims, 1398).

During the reign of Boniface two jubilees were celebrated at Rome. The first took place in 1396, in compliance with an ordinance of his predecessor Urban VI, and was largely frequented from Germany, Hungary, Poland, Bohemia, and England. Several cities of Germany obtained the privileges of the jubilee, but the preaching of the indulgences gave rise to abuses and to impositions on the part of unaccredited agents of the pope, so that he was obliged to proceed against them with severity. The jubilee of 1400 drew to Rome great crowds of pilgrims, particularly from France. In spite of a disastrous plague Boniface remained at his post. In the latter part of 1399 bands of penitents, known as the Bianchi, or Albati (White Penitents), arose, especially in Provence and Italy. They went in procession from city to city, clad in white garments, with faces hooded, only the eyes being left uncovered, and wearing on their backs a red cross. For a while their penitential enthusiasm had some good results. After they had satisfied their spiritual ardour at Rome, Boniface gradually discountenanced these wandering crowds, an easy prey of agitators and conspirators, and finally dissolved them. In England the anti-papal virulence of Wycliff increased the opposition of both Crown and clergy to the methods of Boniface in the granting of such English benefices as fell vacant in the Roman Curia through the death or promotion of the incumbent. The Parliament confirmed and extended more than once the statutes of Provisors and Præmunire, of Edward III. Boniface protested vigorously, particularly in 1391, but in the end found himself unable to execute his grants without the king’s consent and sanction. “Thus ended,” says Lingard (ad. an. 1393), “this long and angry controversy entirely to the advantage of the Crown.” Nevertheless, at the Synod of London (1396), the English Church condemned the anti-papal teachings of Wyclif, and in 1398 the University of Oxford, consulted by Richard II, issued in favour of Boniface an influential document, while in 1390 and again in 1393 the spiritual peers upheld the right of the pope to excommunicate even those who obeyed the statutes of Provisors. In Germany the electors had deposed at Rhense (20 August, 1400) the unworthy Wenceslaus, King of the Romans, and had chosen in his place Rupert, Duke of Bavaria and Rhenish Count Palatine. In 1403 Boniface abandoned his uncertain attitude towards both, approved the deposition of Wenceslaus as done by papal authority, and recognized the election of Rupert. In 1398 and 1399 Boniface appealed to Christian Europe in favour of Emperor Emmanuel, threatened at Constantinople by Sultan Bajazet. St. Bridget of Sweden was canonized by Boniface, 7 October, 1391. The universities of Ferrara (1391) and Fermo (1398) owe him their origin, and that of Erfurt its confirmation (1392). In 1404 Benedict XIII sent the last of his embassies to Boniface, who received the agents of Benedict 29 September, but the interview ended unfavourably. The pope, highly irritated, took to his bed with an attack of gravel, and died after an illness of two days.

Contemporary and later chroniclers praise the political virtues of Boniface, also the purity of his life, and the grandeur of his spirit. Some, like Dietrich of Niem, charge him with an inordinate love of money, dishonest traffic in benefices, the sale of dispensations, etc. But Dietrich is no impartial writer and is blamed by Reynaldus for being bitter and unjust (acertus et iniquis). In his gossipy pages one misses a proper appreciation of the difficulties that surrounded Boniface-local sources of revenue lost in the long absence of the papacy from Rome, foreign revenue diminished by the schism, extraordinary expenses for the restoration of papal Rome and the reconquest of the Papal States, the constant wars necessitated by French ambition, the inheritance of the financial methods of Avignon, and the obligation of conciliating supporters in and out of Italy. Boniface sought nothing for himself and died poor. He is also charged with nepotism and he certainly provided generously for his mother, brothers, and nephews. It may be said, however, that in the semi-anarchic conditions of the time good government depended upon such personal support as a temporal ruler could gather and retain, i. e. could reward, while fidelity was best secured by close domestic ties. Boniface was the first pope to introduce the form of revenue known as annates perpetuæ, or reservation of one-half the first year’s fruits of every benefice granted in the Roman Court, this in addition to other traditional expenses. It must be remembered that at this time the cardinals claimed a large part of these revenues, so that the Curia was perhaps more responsible than the pope for new financial methods destined in the next century to arouse bitter feelings against Rome, particularly in Germany.

DIETRICH (THEODERICUS) VON NIEM, De Scismate libri III, ed. ERLER (Leipzig, 1890); GOBELINUS PERSONA, Cosmidromius (Cosmodromium), ed. JANSEN (1904); RAYNALDUS, Ann. eccl. ad. ann. 1389–1404, containing many important documents; others are found in D’ACHÉRY, Spicilegium (Paris, 1655), MARTÊNE AND DURAND, Thesaur. nov. anecdotorum (Paris, f1717); Vet. Script. coll. ampliss. (Paris, 1724); Vita Bonifatii IX, in MURATORI, Rev. Ital. Script., III, ii, 830 sqq.; Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, II, 507, 530, 549; the histories of the city of Rome by GREGOROVIUS and by VON REUMONT; JUNGMANN, Dissert. Selecta (1886) VI, 272; CREIGHTON, A History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation (London, 1892), I, 98–161; PASTOR, History of the Papacy; LINGARD, History of England, III, c. iv; ERLER, Die historischen Schriften Dietrichs von Nieheim (Leipzig, 1887); HEFELE, Conciliengesch., VI, 812 sqq.; N. VALOIS, La France et le grand schisme d’Occident (Paris, 1896–1902); ROCQUAIN, La Cour de Rome et l’esprit de réforme avant Luther (Paris, 1897); M. JANSEN, Papst Bonifatius IX. und seine Beziehungen zur deutschen Kirche (Freiburg, 1904). For the Bulls of Boniface concerning Hungary see Mon. Vaticana hist. regni Hung. illustr. (Budapest, 1888), Ser. I, III, 1389–96; for Bohemia, KROFTA, Acta Urb. VI. et Bonif. IX, p. I, in Mon. Vaticana res gestas Bohemiæ illustrantia (Prague, 1903), V.

THOMAS OESTREICH.

Boniface Association

(BONIFATIUSVEREIN).

The Boniface Association, one of the most successful Catholic societies of Germany, owes its origin to a suggestion made by Döllinger at the Third Catholic Congress of Germany, held at Ratisbon in 1849. The object of the association is to maintain what the Catholic church possesses in those regions where Catholics are few in number, to found and support missions and schools, and to erect churches, parish-houses, and schools for Catholics in the Protestant parts of Germany. The territories which the association takes under its especial care are: the Diocese of Kulm; the Delegature of Brandenburg and Pomerania, belonging to the Prince-Bishopric of Breslau; the Vicariate Apostolic of Saxony; the Dioceses of Paderborn, Hildesheim, Osnabrück, and Fulda; the Northern Missions, etc. The association is managed by a general committee at Paderborn; the diocesan committees have entire control of the contributions they receive; after consultation with their respective diocesan councils, and under the approval of the general committee, the diocesan committees designate the objects to which the money shall be given. Since the association was founded about $9,250,000 has been collected and some 2,600 churches have been erected or aided.

Besides the diocesan committees another important branch is formed by the Boniface collecting societies. The first of these was founded in 1885 among the merchants of Paderborn by the Marist congregation; the aim of this branch of the association is, by the founding of orphan asylums and institutions where children are prepared for their first communion, to care for the religious training of Catholic children in non-Catholic communities. The funds are obtained by the collection and sale of objects of little value in themselves, such as, tin-foil, old postage stamps, clothing, leaden seals, old coins, books, cigar bands, cigar tips, and such trifles. More than $625,000 has been raised by this branch association since its foundation; it aids more than 120 institutions for first communicants and orphan asylums, besides contributing considerable sums to children in non-Catholic communities for railway tickets, school and living expenses.

Another branch is the Academic Boniface Association which has existed for forty years at the German universities, he first one of these societies being founded at Münster in 1867. In 1888 the various university branches met at Freiburg and united into a common organization; in 1907 they included thirty-six branches with a membership of 750. Their organ is the “Akademische Bonifatius-Korrespondenz.” Since 1860 the general association has had a printing office and since 1888 a bookstore for old and new publications, both at Paderborn. The popes have granted indulgences and privileges to priests connected with the association. The association issues the “Bonifatiusblatt,” founded in 1850; the “Schlesisches Bonifatiusblatt,” 1860; and the “St. Bonifatiusblatt” at Prague, founded in 1904.

KLEFFNER AND WOKER, Festschrift (Paderborn, 1899); ARNDT, Die dem Bonifatiusverein vom heiligen Stuhl verlischenen Gnaden (Paderborn, 1902); Der Bonifatius-Sammelverein (Paderborn, 1907); Financial statements of the managing committee, annual reports of the combined Boniface collecting societies, etc.

JOSEPH LINS

Boniface of Savoy

Forty-sixth Archbishop of Canterbury and son of Thomas, Count of Savoy, date of birth uncertain; d. in Savoy, 14 July, 1270. While yet a child he became a Carthusian. In 1234, as sub-deacon, he was elected Bishop of Belley in Burgundy: and, in 1241, administered the Diocese of Valence. His connection with the royal house of England secured his promotion to the primacy. The Queen of Henry III was Eleanor, daughter of Berengar, Count of Provence, and Beatrice of Savoy. This Beatrice was the sister of the future archbishop. When St. Edmund died, in 1241, the Queen’s uncle was elected. But Gregory IX and Celestine IV dying unexpectedly, it was not until the end of 1243 that the new Pope, Innocent IV, was able to confirm his election. In the following year Boniface went to England for the first time. He found his see in debt. The heavy taxation during the sequestration in St. Edmund’s primacy had severely burdened its already slender resources. Therefore his first act was to make every economy, abolishing all sinecures and unnecessary offices connected with the archbishopric. He ordered the tenants and clergy to contribute towards the liquidation of the debt.

In 1244 he set out for the Council of Lyons, where he was consecrated (15 January, 1245) by the pope. His brother Philip, afterwards Count of Savoy, although not consecrated, held the archbishopric of Lyons and was in command of the papal troops. During the sitting of the council Boniface held a commission under him. He obtained from the pope the grant of the first-fruits of all vacant benefices in the Province of Canterbury during seven years, and his claim to levy a contribution from the whole province to meet the debt of the metropolitan see was allowed. In 1249 he returned to England and was enthroned with great pomp at Canterbury on All Saints’ Day. The archbishop then began a personal visitation of his diocese, correcting abuses and levying fines. But, on extending his visitation to the dioceses of his suffragans, resistance was offered to him. In London the Dean and Canons of St. Paul’s protested that the Bishop of London was their visitor and appealed. They were promptly excommunicated. On the following day the archbishop visited the Priory of St. Bartholomew. He was met by the sub-prior and brethren, who welcomed him as a prelate but not as a visitor. Like the clergy of St. Paul’s they represented that they had their own bishop and would not submit to other jurisdiction without permission from him. The archbishop was so incensed that he felled the venerable sub-prior to the earth. This was more than the Londoners could stand from a foreigner, even were he their archbishop. They fell upon him, his vestments were torn in the struggle, and the coat of mail worn beneath them disclosed. He was rescued by his bodyguard and escaped by barge to Lambeth, where he proceeded to excommunicate the clergy of St. Bartholomew’s and the Bishop of London.

He then announced his intention of holding a visitation at St. Albans. The suffragans met and resolved to resist him. The clergy of the province levied a tax upon themselves in order to proceed against him at Rome. Learning of these things he promptly set out for the Roman court. The result was a compromise, the pope confirming the right of visitation, but restricting its use. Godwin says of him that Boniface did three worthy things: he paid off a debt of 22,000 marks; he built and endowed the hospital at Maidstone; and he finished the great hall of the archbishop’s palace.

Pope Gregory XVI, at the suit of Charles Albert of Savoy, King of Sardinia (1831–49), approved the cult of Boniface, Archbishop of Canterbury, as ab immemorabili.

STRICKLAND, Ricerche storiche sopra il b. Bonifacio di Savoia in Miscell. stor. Ital. (1895), I, 349–432; GODWIN, De Præsulibus Angliæ; GUICHERON, Histoire généalogique de la royale maison de Savoie; HOOK, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury; LUARD, Annales; RYMER, Fædera; MATTHEW PARIS, Letters of Grosseteste; Letters of Adam de Marisco.

FRANCIS AVELING

Boni Homines

(Or BONSHOMMES).

This name was popularly given to at least three religious orders in the Church:

I. THE ORDER OF GRANDMONT

The Order of Grandmont, founded by St. Stephen of Muret (b. 1046, d. 1124) for an austere order of eremitical friars professing the rule of St. Augustine (though they have sometimes been claimed also by the Benedictines). Towards the end of the twelfth century they possessed more than sixty housed, principally in Acquitaine, Anjou, and Normandy. The kings of England (then rules of Normandy) were great benefactors of these friars, who were known as the Bonshommes of Grandmont from the earliest times. The oldest house of the order was at Vincennes (founded by Louis VII, in 1164); and this more than four centuries later came into the possession of the Minims, who were hence known afterwards as Bonshommes. The observance of the order had become greatly relaxed when a general chapter was held at Grandmont (after an interval of more than a century) in 1643, with the object of re-establishing regular discipline. New statutes, modifying the original rigour of the rule, were drawn up and approved. The habit of the order was black, with a hood and a broad scapular. At the time when Hélyot wrote his great work on the religious orders (1714–21) there were in France also three houses of nuns of the Order of Grandmont; but both monasteries and convents were suppressed at the Revolution sixty years later. A reformed branch of the order was established in 1642 by Père Frémont, but the members of this institution do not seem to have been known by the old name of Bonshommes.

II. THE FRATRES SACCATI, OR BROTHERS OF PENITENCE

The Fratres Saccati were also known as Boni Homines, Bonshommes, or, as Leland calls them, Bones-homes. Their origin, as well as the date of their foundation is obscure, but they had a house at Saragossa in the time of Pope Innocent III (d. 1216) and one about the same time at Valenciennes. Their rule was founded on that of St. Augustine. They had one house in Paris, in a street called after them the rue de Sachettes, and in 1257 they were introduced into England. Matthew Paris records under this year that “a certain new and unknown order of friars appeared in London,” duly furnished with credentials from pope; and he mentions later that they were called from the style of their habit Fratres Saccati. We learn from Polydore Vergil that Edmund (son of Richard, Earl of Cornwall) founded a little later (according to Tanner, in 1283) a monastery at Ashridge, Herts, for a rector and twenty canons of “a new order not before seen in England, and called the Boni homines.” It was finished in 1285. The first rector was Richard, and the last Thomas Waterhouse (1529), who surrendered the house to Henry VIII. The suppressed college was granted first to the king’s sister Elizabeth, and afterwards to the Egertons, later created Earls and Dukes of Bridgewater. The church was destroyed under Elizabeth; but in 1800 the last duke was living in a portion of the old college. He sold the great hall piecemeal, and pulled down the cloisters. The estate and modern mansion now belong to Earl Brownlow. The only other English house of the Boni Homines was at Edington in Wilts. The former college there (consisting of a dean and prebendaries) was granted to them by desire of Edward the Black Prince, who (says Leland) “had a great favour to the Bones-homes beyond the Se.” The first rector (brought from Ashridge) was John de Aylesbury, the last John Ryve. Edward VI granted the property to Lord St. John; it now belongs to the Watson-Taylor family. The splendid church, one of the finest of its period, still remains. (Little, the Friars of the Sack, in Eng. Hist. Review, 1894, 33, 121.)

III. THE PORTUGUESE BONI HOMINES

The identity of the Fratres Saccati mentioned by Matthew Paris as, in 1257, a “new order in England,” with the “new order” (the Bonshommes) established a little later at Ashridge and Edington, seems to be generally admitted. An entirely separate institute, however, was that of the Portuguese Boni Homines, or Secular Canons of St. John the Evangelist, founded by John de Vicenza, afterwards Bishop of Lamego, in the fifteenth century. Living at first independently in a monastery granted to them by the Archbishop of Braga at Villar de Frades, they afterwards embraced the institute of Secular Canons of St. George in Alga (in Venice), and the Portuguese order was confirmed by Pope Martin V under the title of “Boni Homines of Villar de Frades.” They had fourteen houses in Portugal, and King John III gave them charge of all the royal hospitals in the kingdom, while many of the canons went out as missionaries to India and Ethiopia. Several members of the order won a high reputation as scholars and theologians.

LEVEQUE, Annal. Ord. Grandmont (1663); HELYOT, ed. MIGNE, Histoire des ordres monastiques religieuses et militaires, II, 412–424, 563–566; III, 421–425; POLYDORE VERGIL, Angl. Histor., lib. XVI (in ed. 1649, p. 402); DUGDALE, Monast. Angl., VI, 514, 535; GASQUET, English Monastic Life (1904), 249; FRANCISCO DE S. MARIA, Hist. Das sagradas Congregações dos conegos seculares de S. João Evang. Em. Portugal.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Bonizo of Sutri

(Or BONITHO).

Bishop of Sutri in Central Italy, in the eleventh century, an adherent of Gregory VII and advocate of the ideals of that pope; b. about 1045, probably in Cremona, Northern Italy; put to death 14 July, 1090. Early in his life he joined the party known as the Pataria, and when a subdeacon in Piacenza he came into conflict with Dionysius, bishop of that city. In 1074 he went to Rome, and won the favour of Pope Gregory, by whom he was soon appointed to the episcopal See of Sutri. Bonizo took part in several councils held in Rome; in 1078 he went to Cremona as papal legate and consecrated there the church of St. Thomas. In the struggle between Gregory VII and Henry IV he was ever on the side of the pope. He was seized by Henry in 1082 and entrusted to the custody of the antipope Clement III. About a year afterwards Bonizo made his escape, and lived for several years under the protection of Countess Mathilda of Tuscany. In 1086 he was present at the funeral of his friend, Anselm, Bishop of Lucca. He was, soon after, elected to the See of Piacenza by the Pataria, but owing to strong opposition was unable to take possession of it until the year 1088, when he was strongly supported by Pope Urban II. His enemies, however, contrived to bring about his death.

Bonizo wrote: (1) the “Paradisus,” or extracts from the writings of St. Augustine (still unpublished); (2) a short treatise on the sacraments (Muratori, “Antiquitates Italicae Med. Aevi” III, in Migne, P.L., CL; (3) the “Decretum” or “De Vitâ Christianâ,” a work in ten books on ecclesiastical law and moral theology written at the request of a certain priest Gregory (fragments of this work are in Mai’s Nova Bibliotheca, VII, iii, 1–76 (Rome, 1854); (4) “In Hugonem schismaticum,” now lost, probably against the schismatic Cardinal Hugo Candidus; (5) a description of the various classes of judges in the Roman Empire and in the Roman Church )ed. Blühme, in Mon. Ger. Hist. Leges, IV); (6) his most important work the “Liber ad amicum,” a history of the Church, in which the author relates events of his own times.

SAUR, Studien über Bonizo in Forsch. Zur deutsch. Gesch. (Göttingen, 1868), VIII, 397–464; MIRBT, Die Publizistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII (Leipzig, 1894); DUMMLER in preface to his edition of Liber ad amicum in Mon. Germ. Hist., Libelli de lite Imp. Et Pont., I, 568 sqq.; MARTENS in Tübing. Theol. Quartalschrift (1883), 457 sqq.; GISERBRECHT, Gesch. der deutsch. Kaiserzeit (Leipzig, 1885, 1890), II, III; WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen (6th ed., 1893), II, 223, 224; DALLER in Kirchelex., II, 1087 sqq; HERZOG, Realencyk. (Leipzig, 1897), III; DELARC, St. Gregoire VII et la reforme de l’eglise (Paris, 1889–90).

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

University of Bonn

(RHEINSCHE FRIEDRICH-WILHELMS-UNIVERSITÄT).

An academy was founded at Bonn in 1777by Max Friedrich, Prince-Archbishop of Cologne. To secure its support he ordered that every monastery and convent within the archdiocese should either provide two professors or contribute a certain sum of money. He also endeavoured to obtain the papal sanction, but failed. In 1784 Kaiser Joseph II raised the academy to the rank of a university, and the inauguration took place 20 November, 1786. In this first period the university suffered from Febronianism and Rationalism. The leaders were Hedderich (1744–1808), Dereser (1757–1827), and Schneider (1756–94). Pius VI in a Brief of 24 March, 1790, called the archbishop’s attention to the deplorable condition of the university, but without result. In 1794 the French invasion obliged the professors to suspend their courses, and in 1797 the university was closed. It was restored in 1818 by King Freidrich Wilhelm III. Among its professors of theology were George Hermes (1775–1831), Achterfeldt (1788–1879), and Braun (1801–63), originators of the movement known as Hermesianism. Some of their followers, e.g. Elverich (1796–1886), joined the “Old Catholics,” a party which also had as adherents Reusch (1825–1900) and several other members of the faculty. Their action led finally to their suspension and excommunication after having created a division among both professors and students of theology. The other departments of the university developed rapidly under the direction of Niebuhr (1776–1831) and Arndt (1769–1860) in history, A. W. Schlegel (1767–1845) in literature, Nasse (1778–1851) in medicine, Kekule (1829–96) and Mohr (1806–79) in chemistry, Clausius (1822–88) in physics, Von Rath (1830–88) in mineralogy, Preyer (1841–97) and Pfluger (1829-) in physiology. Since 1868 new buildings have been provided for the scientific departments either in Bonn or in Pappelsdorf. The university comprises at present the Catholic faculty of theology, the Protestant faculty of theology, and the faculties of law, medicine, and philosophy. There are 284 instructors and 3488 students. In 1905–06, the Catholic faculty of theology had 309 students, the Protestant 80. The library contains 350,000 volumes.

E.A. PACE

Ven. Jean Louis Bonnard

A French missionary and martyr, b. 1 March, 1824 at Saint-Christôt-en-Jarret (Diocese of Lyons); beheaded 30 April, 1852. After a collegiate course at Saint Jodard, he entered the seminary of Lyons, which he left at the age of twenty two, to complete his theological studies at the Seminary of the Foreign Missions in Paris. From Nantes, where he was ordained, he sailed for the missions of Western Tongking and reached there in May, 1850. In 1851 he was put in charge of two parishes there; but as early as 21 March, 1852, he was arrested and cast into prison. Sentence of death was pronounced against him and was executed immediately upon receipt of its confirmation by the king (30 April, 1852). His remains were thrown into the river, but recovered by Christians and sent by them to the Seminary of Foreign Missions. Bonnard has been declared Venerable by the Church.

LAUNAY, Les cinguante-deux serviteurs de Dieu (Paris, 1895), 355–373.

N.A. WEBER

Henri-Marie-Gaston Boisnormand de Bonnechose

Cardinal and senator, b. at Paris, 1800; d. 1883. Entering the magistracy, he became attorney-general for the district of Besançon in 1830, but having received sacred orders at Strasburg, under the episcopate of de Trevern, he was made professor of sacred eloquence in the school of higher studies founded at Besançon by Cardinal de Rohan. After the death of de Rohan, he went to Rome to settle the differences between Bishop de Trevern and himself, due to philosophical opinions found in his work, “Philosophy of Christianity,” for which Bonnechose had written an introduction. In 1844, he was named by Rome superior of the community of St. Louis; in 1847 he became Bishop of Carcassonne, was transferred, 4 November, 1854, to Evreux, and in 1854 raised to the archiepiscopal See of Rouen. Created cardinal in 1863, he became ex-officio senator of the empire. The cardinal showed himself a warm advocate of the temporal power of the popes, and firmly protested against the withdrawal of the French army from the Pontifical States. In 1870, at the urgent prayers of the citizens of Rouen, notwithstanding his advanced years, he went in the rigor of the season to Versailles, the headquarters of the German armies, to entreat King William of Prussia to reduce the war contribution imposed on the city of Rouen. Under the republican government he uniformly opposed the laws and measures passed against religious congregations and their schools, but endeavored to inspire his clergy with sentiments of deference and conciliation in their relations with the civil authorities. His best known work is “Introduction a la philosophie du Christianisme” (1835), two octavo volumes.

GUERIN, Dict. des dict. (Paris, 1892); LAROUSSE Dict. Univ. du XlX siecle (Paris 1867).

F. M. L. DUMONT

Abbey of Bonne-Espérance

Situated near Binche, province of Hainault, Diocese of Tournai, Belgium. It owes its foundation to the conversion of William, the only son and heir of Rainard, the Knight of Croix. William had been seduced by the heresies of Tanchelm, but through the persuasive exhortations of St. Norbert he had been brought back to the true Church, and his grateful parents, Rainard and Beatrix, had given land to St. Norbert for the foundation of an abbey at Ramignies, while William followed St. Norbert to Prémontré. Ramignies having been found unsuitable, Odo, the first abbot, led his young colony to another locality in the neighbourhood. The legend says that when Odo saw the spot he exclaimed: “Bonæ spei fecisti filios tuos” (Wis., xii, 19—O God, Thou hast made Thy children to be of good hope). Others say that the statue of Our Lady of Good Hope was venerated there. Whatever may have been the cause, Blessed Odo’s confidence was not misplaced. The abbey grew and prospered and has ever sent forth numbers of holy and learned priests. Blessed Odo was succeeded by Blessed Philip, surnamed the Almoner. Abbot Philip is the author of several books which have been published in Migne, P.L., CCIII. Blessed Oda, whose heroic act in defence of her virginity has been described by Abbot Philip, was a Norbertine nun in the convent of Rivreulle under the direction of the Abbot of Bonne-Espérance. The forty-sixth and last Abbot of Bonne-Espérance, Bonaventure Daublain, saw in 1792 and again in 1794 the abbey taken and pillaged and his religious dispersed by the French Republican army. At the time of its suppression the abbey counted sixty-seven inmates. Greatly though they wished to live in community, they were not allowed to do so during the French Republic nor after 1815 under William I, King of the Netherlands. The last surviving religious gave the abbey to the Bishop of Tournai for a diocesan seminary. The church is still Norbertine in its appearance, possessing as it does the body of St. Frédéric, which had been saved from the Protestants and brought from the Norbertine Abbey in Holland to the Abbey of Bonne-Espérance in Belgium. The church is still adorned with the statues of St. Norbert, of St. Frédéric, and of two Norbertine bishops, St. Evremonde and St. Isfrid. At the time of the suppression the miraculous statue of Our Lady of Good Hope was hidden; and when peace was restored, it was brought to the church of Vellereille of which one of the canons of Bonne-Espérance was the parish priest. In 1833 it was solemnly brought back to the abbey church, or, as it is now, the seminary church.

Annales premonst., The Life of St. Federic; DECLEVES, Notre Dame de Bonne-Espérance.

MARTIN GEUDENS.

Edmund Bonner

Bishop of London, b. about 1500; d. 1569. He was the son of Edmund Bonner, a sawyer of Potter’s Henley in Worcestershire, England, and Elizabeth Frodsham. Doubt was cast on his legitimacy by Bale and other opponents, who asserted that he was the natural son of a priest named Savage, but Strype and other Anglican writers, including the historian S. R. Maitland, have shown the groundless nature of these assertions. He was educated at Pembroke College, Oxford, then Broad~ate Hall, where he took his degree as Bachelor both of canon and of civil law in 1519, and was ordained priest about the same time. . In 1525 he became doctor of civil law and soon after entered the service of Cardinal Wolsey, which brought him to the notice of the king and Cromwell, and thus led to a diplomatic career. After the fall of Wolsey he remained faithful to him and was with him at the time of his arrest and death. When the question of the king’s divorce was raised, he was employed by the king as his agent at Rome, where he remained a whole year, 1532 33. During the following years he was much employed on important embassies in the king’s interests, first to the pope to appeal against the excommunication pronounced in July, 1533, afterwards to the emperor to dissuade him from attending the general council which the pope wished to summon at Vicenza, and again to the French Court to succeed Gardiner there as ambassador. In this capacity he proved capable and successful, though irritation was frequently caused by his overbearing and dictatorial manner. Meanwhile his services were rewarded by successive grants of the livings of Cherry Burton (Yorks), Ripple (Worcester), Blaydon (Durham), and East Dereham (Norfolk), and he was made Archdeacon of Leicester in 1535. Finally, while ambassador in France, he was elected Bishop of Hereford (27th November 1538) but owing to his absence he could neither be consecrated nor take possession of his see, and he was still abroad when he was translated to the Bishopric of London. Elected in November, 1539, he returned, and was consecrated 4th April, 1540. Almost his first duty was to try heretics under Henry’s Act of the Six Articles, and though his action seems to have been only official, accusations of excessive cruelty and bias against the accused were spread broadcast by his enemies, and from the first he seems to have been unpopular in London. During the years 1542–43 he was again abroad in Spain and Germany as ambassador to the emperor, at the end of which time he returned to London. The death of the king on 28th January 1547, proved the turning point in his career Hitherto he had shown himself entirely subservient to the sovereign, supporting him in the matter of the divorce, approving of the suppression of the religious houses, taking the oath of Supremacy which Fisher and More refused at the cost of life itself, and accepting schismatical consecration and institution. But while acting in this way, he had always resisted the innovations of the Reformers, and held to the doctrines of the old religion. Therefore from the first he put himself in opposition to the religious changes introduced by Protector Somerset and Archbishop Cranmer.

He opposed the “Visitors” appointed by the Council, and was committed to prison for so doing Though not long a prisoner, after two years of un satisfactory struggle he came again into conflict with the Protector owing to his omission to enforce the use of the new Prayer Book. When ordered to preach at St. Paul’s Cross he did so, but with such significant omissions in the matter which had been prescribed touching the king’s authority, that he was finally deprived of his see and sent as a prisoner to the Marshalsea. Here he remained till the accession of Mary in 1553. On 5th of August in that year he took possession of his diocese once more. In estimating Bishop Bonner’s conduct on his restoration to his see the difficulties of the position must be recalled. There was in London an extremely violent reforming element which opposed in every way the restoration of Catholic worship. For twenty years the authority of the Holy See had been set at naught and ridiculed in unsparing terms, and though the Parliament in 1554 welcomed Pole as Papal Legate and sought absolution and reconciliation from him with apparent unanimity, there was a real hostility to the whole proceeding among a considerable section of the populace. During 1554 Bonner carried out a visitation of his diocese, restoring the Mass and the manifold practices and emblems of Catholic life, but the work was carried out slowly and with difficulty. To help in the work, Bonner published a list of thirty-seven “Articles to be enquired of,” but these led to such disturbances that they were temporarily withdrawn. While many rejoiced to have the old worship restored, others exhibited the most implacable hostility. As Bonner sat at St. Paul’s Cross to hear Gilbert Bourne preach, when reference was made to the bishop’s sufferings under Edward VI a dagger was thrown at the preacher. At St. Margaret’s, West- minster, a murderous assault was made on the priest giving Holy Communion, the Blessed Sacrament itself was the object of profane outrages, and street brawls arising out of religious disputes were frequent. Meanwhile many of the Reformers attacked the Queen herself in terms that were clearly treasonable. Had these been proceeded against by the civil power much evil might have been averted, but unfortunately it was thought at the time that as the root of the evil lay in the religious question, the offenders would best be dealt with by the ecclesiastical tribunals, and on Bonner, as Bishop of London, fell the chief burden. Besides his judicial work in his own diocese, Bonner was appointed to carry out the painful task of degrading Cranmer at Oxford in February, 1556. The part he took in these affairs gave rise to intense hatred on the part of the Reformers, and by them he was represented as hounding men and women to death with merciless vindictiveness. Foxe in his “Book of Martyrs” summed up this view in two doggerel lines:

“This cannibal in three years space three hundred martyrs slew They were his food, he loved so blood, he spared none he knew.”

That this was an absolutely ungrounded charge is shown by the letter from the king and queen in Council, addressed to Bonner on the express ground that he was not proceeding with sufficient energy As to the number of his “victims” Foxe, whose un trustworthiness now needs no demonstration, has exaggerated according to his wont. The number of persons who were executed under the laws against heresy in his jurisdiction seems to have been about 120. As to these persons Mr. Gairdner writes “Over their ultimate fate it must be remembered he had no control, when once they were declared to be irreclaimable heretics and handed over to the secular power; but he always strove by gentle suasion first to reconcile them to the Church.” Throughout the “Book of Martyrs” Foxe is unsparing in his accusations of cruelty against the bishop; but his charges have been impartially examined at great length by Dr. Maitland, who comes to the same decision as the Catholic writers against Foxe, and sums it up by remarking that when anyone “calmly inquires what these tales so full of rage and fury really mean, when they mean anything, he finds the bloody wolf transformed . . . into something much more like a good tempered mastiff, who might safely be played with, and who, though he might be teased into barking and growling, had no disposition to bite and would not do it without orders.” (Essays, 422–424.) Another virulent opponent of Bonner was John Bale, formerly a friar and ex-Bishop of Ossory, who in 1554 published from his place of exile at Basle, an attack on the bishop, in which he speaks of him as “the bloody sheep-bite of London,” “bloody Bonner,” and still coarser epithets. Concerning this outburst Dr. Maitland quietly remarks, “when Bale wrote this book, little that could be called persecution had taken place. Not one martyr had suffered.” These attacks of Foxe and Bale are noteworthy as being the foundation on which the current traditional view of Bonner’s work and character has been based, a tradition that has only been broken down by the research of the past century. A man so regarded could expect small consideration when the death of Mary (17th November, 1558) placed Elizabeth on the throne, and the new queen’s attitude to the bishop was marked at their first interview, when she refused him her hand to kiss. From 24th June, 1559, the Mass was forbidden as well as all other services not in the Book of Common Prayer, but long before that date the Mass ceased in most London churches, though Bonner took care that in his cathedral at least it should still be celebrated. On 30th May, Il Schifanoya, envoy from the Court of Mantua, wrote: “The Council sent twice or thrice to summon the Bishop of London to give him orders to remove the service of the Mass and of the Divine Office in that Church, but he answered them intrepidly ‘I possess three things soul, body, and property. Of the two latter, you can dispose at your pleasure, but as to the soul, God alone can command me.’ He remained constant about body and property, and again to-day he has been called to the Council, but I do not yet know what they said to him.” (Phillips, op. cit. infra, 103.) As a matter of fact, they had ordered him to resign the bishopric, which he refused to do, adding that he preferred death. He was then deprived of the office and went for a time to Westminster Abbey. On 20th April, 1560, he was sent as a prisoner to the Marshalsea. During the next two years representatives of the reforming party frequently clamored for the execution of Bonner and the other imprisoned bishops. When the Parliament of 1563 met, a new Act was passed by which the first refusal of the oath of royal supremacy was praemunire, the second, high treason. The bishops had refused the oath once, so that by this Act, which became law on 10th April, their next refusal of the oath might be followed by their death. On 24th April, the Spanish Ambassador writes that Bonner and some others had been already called upon to take the oath. Partly owing to the intervention of the emperor and partly to an outbreak of the plague, no further steps seem to have been taken at the time. A year later, on 29th April, 1564 the oath was again tendered to Bonner by Horne, the Anglican Bishop of Winchester. This he firmly refused but the interference of the Spanish ambassador and his own readiness of resource saved immediate consequences. Being well skilled both in civil and canon law, he raised the point that Home, who offered him the oath, was not qualified to do so, as he had not been validly consecrated bishop. This challenged the new hierarchy as to the validity of their orders, and so strong was Bonner’s case that the Government evaded meeting it, and the proceedings commenced against him were adjourned time after time. Four times a year for three years he was forced to in the courts at Westminster only to be further remanded. The last of these appearances took place in the Michaelmas term of 1568, so that the last year of the bishop’s life was spent in the peace of his prison. His demeanor during his long imprisonment was remarkable for unfailing cheerfulness, and even Jewel describes him in a letter as “a most courteous man and gentlemanly both in his manners and appearance.” (Zurich Letters, I, 34). The end came on 5th September, 1569, when he died in the Marshalsea. The Anglican Bishop of London wrote to Cecil to say that he had been buried in St. George’s churchyard, Southwark, but if this was so the coffin was soon secretly removed to Copford, near Colchester, where it was buried under the north side of the altar. Sander, Bridgewater, and other contemporary writers attributed to Bonner and the other bishops who died in prison the honor of martyrdom: in vinculis obierunt martyres. On the walls of the English College, Rome, an inscription recording the death of the eleven bishops, but without naming them, found a place among the paintings of the martyrs. In a work quoted below the Catholic tradition with regard to these bishops has been ably set forth by Rev. George Phillips, avowedly for the purpose of promoting their beatification. Bishop Bonner differs from the others in this respect, that owing to the prominent part circumstances compelled him to play in the persecution, he was attacked during life with a hatred which has followed him even after death, so that in English history few names have been so execrated and vilified as his. Tardy justice is now being done to his memory by historians, Catholic and Protestant alike, yet there remains immense prejudice against his memory in the popular mind. Nor could this be otherwise in face of the calumnies that have been. repeated by tradition. The reckless charges of Bale and Foxe were repeated by Burnet Hume, and others, who join in representing him as an inhuman persecutor, “a man of profligate manners and of a brutal character, who seemed to rejoice in the torments of the unhappy sufferers” (Hume c. xxxvii). The first historian of note to challenge this verdict was the Catholic, Lingard, though even he wrote in a very tentative way and it was by an Anglican historian, S.R. Maitland, that anything like justice was first done to Bonner. This writer’s analysis remains the most discriminating summary of the bishop’s character. “Setting aside declamation and looking at the details of facts left by those who may be called, if people please, Bonner’s victims, and their friends, we find, very consistently maintained, the character of a man, straightforward and hearty, familiar and humorous, sometimes rough, perhaps coarse, naturally hot tempered, but obviously (by the testimony of his enemies) placable and easily intreated, capable of bearing most patiently much intemperate and insolent language, much reviling and low abuse directed against himself personally, against his order, and against those peculiar doctrines and practices of his church for maintaining which he had himself suffered the loss of all things, and borne long imprisonment. At the same time not incapable of being provoked into saying harsh and passionate things, but much more frequently meaning nothing by the threatenings and slaughter which he breathed out, than to intimidate those on whose ignorance and simplicity argument seemed to be thrown away-in short, we can scarcely read with attention any one of the cases detailed by those who were no friends of Bonner, without seeing in him a judge who (even if we grant that he was dispensing bad laws badly) was obviously desirous to save the prisoner’s life.” This verdict has been generally followed by later historians, and the last word has been added, for the present, in. the recently published volume on the Reformation, in the “Cambridge Modern History” planned by Lord Acton (1903) where the statement is expressly made: “It is now generally admitted that the part played by Bonner was not that attributed to him by Foxe, of a cruel bigot who exulted in sending his victims to the stake. The number of those put to death in his diocese of London was undoubtedly disproportionately large, but this would seem to have been more the result of the strength of the reforming element in the capital and in Essex than of the employment of exceptional rigor; while the evidence also shows that he himself patiently dealt with many of the Protestants, and did his best to induce them to renounce what he conscientiously believed to be their errors.”

Bonner’s writings include “Responsum et Exhortatio in laudem Sacerdotii” (1553); “Articles to be enquired of in the General Visitation of Edmund Bishop of London” (1554); “Homelies sette forth by Eddmune Byshop of London, . . . to be read within his diocese of London of all Parsons, vycars and curates, unto their parishioners upon Sondayes and holy days” (1555). There was also published under his name a catechism, probably written by his chaplains, Harpsfield and Pendleton, entitled “A profitable and necessary doctrine” (1554, 2d ed. 1555). He also wrote the preface to Bishop Gardiner’s “Book of Obedience” (1534).

State Papers of Henry VIII; DODD, Church History (London, 1737), Part III, Bk, II, art,3; MAITLAND, Essays on the Reformation in England (London, 1849), Essays III, XVII, XVIII, XX; GILLOW, Bib. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885), I, 260–265; GAIRDNER in Dict. Nat. Biog. (London, 1886), V, 356–360; BRIDGETT AND KNOX, Queen Eliz. and the Cath. Hierarchy (London, 1889); STONE, History of Mary I (London, 1901); PHILLIPS, Extinction of the Ancient Hierarchy London, 1905).

EDWIN BURTON

Augustin Bonnetty

A French writer, b. at Entrevaux (dept. of Basses-Alpes) 9 May, 1798, d. at Paris, 26 March, 1879. In 1815 he entered the seminary at Digne and studied for the priesthood. After completing his philosophical and theological studies, as he was too young to be ordained, he went to Marseilles as private tutor in an excellent family. He soon felt that his mission was to use science and philosophy in the defense of the Church and to remain a layman. In 1825 he went to Paris, and five years later founded the “Annales de philosophie chrétienne” (first number 31 July, 1830) which he edited until his death. His main object was to show the agreement of Science and religion, and to point out how the various sciences contributed to the demonstration of Christianity. In 1838 he also took up the direction of the “Université catholique” founded two years before by Gerbet, de Salinis, de Scorbiac, and de Montalembert. Having become the sole owner of this review in 1846, he suspended its publication, in 1855, in order to devote himself exclusively to the “Annales.” Among the main features of the “Annales” was the attempt to show the universality of a primitive revelation which is recognizable even in the myths and fables of all nations. But Bonnetty went farther, exag- gerating the necessity of this primitive revelation, and minimizing the value of reason in attaining truth. This tendency to the system known as “traditionalism” soon drew the attention of the ecclesiastical authorities. A report was sent to the Congregation of the Index by Archbishop Sibour of Paris, and two years later (1855) Bonnetty was asked to sign the following four propositions:

“(1) Although faith is superior to reason, yet no discord or disagreement can ever be found between them, since both proceed from one and the same unchangeable source of truth, God infinite in perfection, and thus are of mutual assistance. (Encyclical of Pius IX, 9 November, 1846.) (2) Reasoning can demonstrate with certainty the existence of God, the spirituality of the soul, and the freedom of man. Faith is posterior to revelation, and in consequence cannot consistently be adduced to prove the existence of God against an atheist, or the spirituality and freedom of the rational soul against an adherent of naturalism and fatalism. (Proposition subscribed to by Bautain, 8 September, 1840.) (3) The use of reason precedes faith, and, with the help of revelation and grace, leads man to faith. (Prop. subscribed to by Bautain, 8 September, 1840.) (4) The method used by St. Thomas, by St. Bonaventure, and, after them, by other scholastics, does not lead to rationalism, nor does it explain why, in modern schools, philosophy should fall into naturalism and pantheism. Hence these doctors and masters cannot be reproached for using that method, especially with the approval, at least tacit of the Church. (Prop. contradictory to propositions extracted from different passages of Bonnetty.)”

It must be noted that in the letter sent at the same time as these propositions by Father Modena, the secretary of the Congregation of the Index, to Monsignor Sacconi, the papal nuncio in Paris, it was stated that Bonnetty’s attachment to the Holy See and to Catholic doctrines was never suspected. The intention was not to pronounce any Judgment declaring his opinions “erroneous, suspicious, or dangerous,” but only “to prevent the possible consequences, proximate or remote, which others might deduce from them, especially in matters of faith.” Bonnetty, without any hesitation, gave his full assent to the above propositions. He declared that he had meant all along to defend these doctrines, and that he would hereafter endeavor to do so with greater accuracy. Bonnetty was a member of the “Société des études littéraires,” the “Association pour la défense de la religion catholique,” the “Société asiatique,” and the “Roman Academy of the Catholic Religion.” He was also a knight of the Order of St. Gregory the Great and of the Order of Pius IX. In addition to his numerous articles in the “Annales de philosophie chrétienne” and the “Université catholique,” he wrote the following works most of which, however, were first published as articles in the Annales: “Beautés de l’histoire de l’Eglise” (Paris, 1841) “Le christianisme et la philosophie” (Paris, 1845); “Table de tous les auteurs édités par le cardinal Mai” (Paris, 1850); “Documents historiques sur la religion des Romains” (Paris, 1867–78); “Dictionnaire raisonné de diplomatique,” based on that of Dom de Vaines (Paris, 1863–65); a translation of the Latin work by Father de Prémare, a Jesuit missionary in China (1666 1734), “Vestiges des principaux dogmes chrétiens tirés des anciens livres chinois” (1879).

Annales de philosophie chrétienne, passim; DEDOUE, Augustin Bonnetty, ibidem (1879, I), XCVI, 348–441; Polybiblion (1879), I, 454; DUBLANCHY in Dict. de theol. cath., II, 1019.

C.A. DUBRAY

Bonosus

Bishop of Sardica, a heretic in the latter part of the fourth century. Against the common teaching of the Church he held that, after Jesus, Mary had several other children. The Council of Capua (391), before which the matter was brought, did not pass any judgment on it, but referred it to the Metropolitan Anysius of Thessalonica and the other bishops of Illyria. They condemned Bonosus and tried to excIude him from his church. In a letter to the same bishops Pope Siricius approves the sentence and also condemns the opinion that Mary did not always preserve her virginity. Notwithstanding his condemnation, and the prudent advice of St. Ambrose to submit, Bonosus continued to exercise the episcopal functions, to consecrate bishops and ordain priests. According to two letters of Pope Innocent I, one to Martian of Naïssa (409), and the other to the bishops of Macedonia (414), those ordained by Bonosus before his condemnation were to be received in the Church without a new ordination, those ordained since Bonosus’s condemnation, especially if they had themselves sought to be ordained by him, were to be deprived of their dignity. As Innocent speaks of Bonosus as no longer living, we may infer that he died at the end of the fourth, or the beginning of the fifth century.

Whether, besides denying Mary’s perpetual virginity, Bonosus also denied Christ’s divinity cannot be determined with certainty. But it is certain that his followers, the Bonosians, to whom we find references in the councils and in ecclesiastical writers up to the seventh century, denied this dogma. On this point they were at one with the Photinians. As a consequence, they affirmed the purely adoptive divine filiation of Our Lord. However, they differed from the Adoptionists in rejecting all natural sonship, whereas the Adoptionists, distinguishing in Christ the God and the man, attributed to the former a natural, and to the latter an adoptive sonship. The baptism conferred by the Bonosians was by some declared valid and by others invalid.

Besides the collections of JAFFE, MANSI, MIGNE, CONSTANT, etc, see HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte (2 ed., Freiburg, 1873), II, III, V. WALCH, Dissertatio de Bonosio haeretico (Gottingen, 1754), ID., Entwurf einer vollstandigen Historie der Ketzereien, Spaltungen und Religionsstreitigkeiten (Leipzig, 1762–85), III, 598; TILLEMONT, Mémoires pour servir a l’histoire ecclesiastical (Paris, I701–12), X, 239–243; CEILLER, Histoire generale des auteura sacres (2 ed. Paris, 1860–1868), IV, 652; VI, 107; VII, 514; LE BACHELET in Dict. de theol. cath. II, 1027; Venables in Dict. Christ. Biog. 1, 330.

C.A. DUBRAY

Institute of Bon Secours (de Paris)

I. INSTITUTE OF BON SECOURS (DE PARIS)

The first of the congregations of nursing sisters, gardes malades, founded in France during the nineteenth century, whose object is to take care of both rich and poor patients in their own homes. This congregation was begun by Archbishop de Quélen of Paris in 1822 and was formally approved by Pope Pius IX in June, 1875. Its members nurse the poor gratuitously. Patients who can afford it pay for such service. The habit of the sisters is black; they wear a white cap with frilled border and a black veil. Besides the sixteen houses of the congregation in France, there are four in Ireland, one in England, two in the United states, and one in Belgium. The motherhouse is in Paris. The scope of the institute is expressed in the constitutions: “After the personal sanctification of its members, the principal aim of this pious society is the care of the sick in their own homes.” Although these sisters had governmental approbation and complied with the fiscal laws in France they have suffered heavily by the recent religious persecution. Four large schools which had been started in behalf of miners’ children and at the urgent request of the mining population of Northern France (Lille, Lens, etc.) were closed on the plea that they formed no part of the institute’s approved charter. And with the schools were also suppressed attendance by the sisters on sick or wounded miners and a very interesting work called “la goutte de lait,” or “the drop of milk,” a sort of dispensary wherein the sisters superintended the food of miners’ infants.

II. INSTITUTE OF BON SECOURS (DE TROVERS)

A congregation founded at Arcis-sur-Aube, Frnnce, in 1840, by the Very Reverend Paul-Sébastien Millet, canon of the Cathedral of Troyes. The motherhouse was moved to Troyes in 1843 and the name of that place was added to the title of the congregation in order to distinguish it from other sisterhoods whose object is also to nurse the sick in their own homes. The members of this congregation make no distinction because of the creed or financial condition of their patients. The poor are nursed free. Those who can afford to make some recompense do so, the sisters accept what is given them, but are not allowed to beg. The approbation of the constitutions of the congregation was not given to the Holy See until the novices go to the motherhouse in France for three years. Vows are renewed annually for five years, then made for five years, and finally perpetual vows are taken. The habit is black with a small cape, a black veil, and white guimpe. A crucifix suspended by a purple ribbon is worn around the neck. There are 120 houses of these sisters in various countries, most of them in France, outside of which territory there are three in Belgium, four in Italy, one in Spain, three in England, one in the United States, and 6 in Africa. The sisters number about 1000.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Alessandro Bonvicino

(Called Il Moretto, or Moretto da Brescia).

One of the finest North Italian painters of the sixteenth century, born at Brescia about 1498; died at the same place, 1555. It is said that he was a pupil of Titian, but it is considered more likely that he was but an earnest student of the works of this great master whose style he imitated so closely that many of his portraits bear well a comparison with those of the noted Venetian. It is known that he studied under his father, also a painter, and under Florianu Ferramola, and that G. Itomanino had much influence over him. He himself had as a pupil that superb portrait painter, Giambattista Moroni. Bonvicino’s manner is most natural and attractive; his feeling, where necessary, most devotional, his colour remarkable for its freshness and opulence, and his figures sympathetic and graceful. He was in his later life greatly influenced by Raphael. He assisted Ferramola in painting an altar screen for the old cathedral at Brescia and did similar work for Romanino in the church of San Giovanni Evangillesta in that city. It was here, also, that he produced his notable painting, the “Massacre of the Innocents”

Among his other church works at Brescia are the “Coronation of the Virgin,” and “Christ in Glory,” at Santi Nazzaro e Celso: “The Ascension of the Virgin,” “Five Virgin Martyrs,” and “St. Ursula,” in San Clemente “The Majesty of St. Margaret” in San Francesco; “The Enthronement of St. Anthony of Padua,” in Santa Maria delle Grazie, “The Virgin and St. Nicholas,” in Saint Maria de Miracoli; and “Christ in the House of Simon,” in Santa Maria Calchera. In the Brescia Gallery, among other works, is a “St. Nicholas of Bari,” in Venice at Santa Maria della Pietà is his “Feast in the House of Simon,” at Florence, are “The Descent of Christ into Hades,” “The Death of Adonis,” and a male portrait; at the Brea in Milan, “The Assumption,” “Virgin in Glory,” “Sts. Clara and Catherine,” and “St. Jerome and an Apostle”; at the Ambrosiana in the same city the “Death of Peter Martyr.” At the Louvre are “St. Bernardine and St. Louis of Toulouse” and “Sts. Bonaventure and Anthony”; and the National Gallery in London a “Virgin and Child with two Saints,” “St. Bernardine of Sienna,” and two portraits of Italian noblemen. In the Städel Institute at Frankfort is the “Enthroned Madonna” with four doctors of the Church below, and there are examples in many other European galleries.

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Book of Common Prayer

. HISTORY

On 21 January, 1549, the first Act of Uniformity was passed imposing upon the whole realm of England “The Book of the Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church after the Use of the Church of England.” Before this date (with some recent exceptions) the services had always been conducted in Latin; and though there were various “uses,” e.g. Salisbury, Hereford, Bagor, York, and Lincoln, these were all derived from, and for the most part identical with, the Roman liturgy. “Altogether some eighteen English uses are known. . . . Without exemption these English Missals are Roman—they have the Roman Canon to begin with; they have the Roman variables; in short, their structure is identical with that of the Roman Missal” (J. Wickham Legg, 27 February, from a correspondence in “The Guardian,” February and March, 1907). Though the motive for the introduction of the new liturgy is stated to be the desire for uniformity, simplicity, and the edification of the people, it is clear that this was merely a pretext. The real motive was the removal from the service books of the doctrines rejected by the Protestant Reformers. Lex orandi, Lex credendi. The old books clearly contained the Real Presence, the Sacrifice of the Mass, Invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, Prayer for the Dead, the Seven Sacraments, with Auricular Confession, and a Sacrificing Priesthood. The Act of Uniformity states that the king by the advice of Somerset and the rest of the Council, “appointed the archbishop of Canterbury and certain of the most learned and discreet bishops and other learned men of this realm” to draw up the new book. Who these were, besides Cranmer, cannot now be determined. No list is known earlier than that given in Fullers “Church History,” published 1657. However, “the history of the Prayerbook down to the end of Edward’s reign is the biography of Cranmer, for there can be no doubt that almost every line of it is his composition” (Mason, Thomas Cranmer, 139). With regard to the authority by which it was composed and issued, Abbot Gasquet and Mr. Bishop have carefully gone over the evidence (Edward VI and the Book of Common Prayer, ch. x), and they have come to the same conclusion as the Anglican Canon Dixon, who affirms that “the Convocation Of the clergy had nothing to do with the first Act of Uniformity of religion. Laymen made the first English Book of Common Prayer into a schedule of a penal statute. As little in the work itself which was then imposed upon the realm, had the clergy originally any share” (Hist. of the Ch. of England, III, 5). The instruction given by royal authority was that the framers of the book should “have as well eye and respect to the most sincere and pure Christian religion taught by scripture as to the usages in the primitive Church.” How this was carried out will appear when we come to examine the contents of the book. Meantime we may observe that the Communion Service cannot be classed with any of the old liturgies, but rather resembles the form drawn up by Luther in 1523 and 1526. Both agree in the elimination of anything denoting offertory or sacrifice in the true sense of the words, “Even if it were not an ascertained fact that during the year when it was in preparation, Cranmer was under the influence of his Lutheran friends, the testimony of the book itself would be sufficient to prove beyond doubt that it was conceived and drawn up after the Lutheran pattern” (Gasquet and Bishop, op. cit., 228; cf. ch. xiii). Though there were of course some who welcomed the new service, the imposition of it gave rise to strenuous opposition in most parts of the country. By the time, however, that the Book of 1549 appeared, Cranmer had already adopted views more advanced than those contained in it, and was preparing for further revision. Early in 1550 an act was passed approving of the new ordinal (see ANGLICAN ORDERS) and the altars were removed and tables substituted for them in many places. In the same year Gardiner, while still a prisoner in the Tower, made use of the words of the Prayer Book to refute Cramner’s own work on the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Savior. About the same time Bucer completed his elaborate “Censura” of the Prayer Book. Accordingly in 1552 a second Book of Common Prayer was published, in which everything in the First Book which had been fixed upon by Gardiner is evidence that the new liturgy did not reject the old beliefs and everything which Bucers had objected to was in the revision carefully swept away and altered. Before this book could come into general use the old Catholic services were restored by Mary. After her death the Second Book was imposed by Elizabeth in 1559 with some few, though important, changes. Further changes were made in 1604 and again in 1662, but the Prayer Book as a whole practically remains what it was in 1552. “The position which was deliberately abandoned in 1549 and still further departed from in 1552 has never been recovered. The measure of the distance traversed in these new liturgies by those who controlled the English reformation can only be duly estimated on an historical survey of the period in which the ground was lost” (Gasquet find Bishop, op. cit., 307).

II. CONTENTS

The Book of Common Prayer is really a combination of four of our liturgical books: the Breviary, Missal, Pontifical, and Ritual.

(1) The New Calendar

The old Sarum and other calendars in use before the Reformation contained the fast days and the feasts for most of the days in the year. Among these were the Purification, Annunciation, Visitation, Assumption, Nativity, and Conception of “the Blessed Mary,” a large number of purely Roman saints; and All Souls’ Day. Corpus Christi was kept on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday. The Calendar of the First Prayer Book omitted the fast days altogether and gave only twenty-two saints’ days, all being New Testament saints; the only feasts of the Blessed Virgin retained are the Purification and the Annunciation; All Souls’ Day is omitted, and there is no office for Corpus Christi. Hardly any change was made in this part in the Second Prayer Book, though the “dog Daies” are characteristically noted. The Calendar of the Third Prayer Book (1559–61) reintroduced the mention of the fast days and a goodly number of feasts; among the latter, the Visitation of the “Blessed Virgin Mary,” the Conception and the Nativity of “the Virgin Mary”; but no special offices were appointed for any of these feasts. “The reason why the names of these Saints-days and Holy-days were resumed into the calendar are various,” says Wheatly in “A Rational Illustration of the Book of Comm. Prayer” (Pt. II. Introd.), “some of them being retained upon account of our Courts of Justice. . . . Others are probably kept for the sake of such tradesmen as are wont to celebrate in the memory of their tutelar Saints. . . . And again, it has been the custom to have Wakes or Fairs kept upon these days; so that the people should be left out . . . For these reasons our second reformers under Queen Elizabeth. . . . though convenient to restore the names of them to the Calendar, though not with any regard of being kept holy by the Church.”

(2) The Brievary

The Sarum Breviary contained the canonical Hours, the Psalms distributed through the week, antiphons, versicles, and responses, and Little Chapters much the same as the modern breviary—of course without the modifications since introduced by St. Pius V and later pontiffs. But in 1535 there appeared a new breviary drawn up by Cardinal Quignonez, in which a complete break had been made with the old order of the Office. The canonical Hours had indeed been retained but the antiphons, versicles, responses, and Little Chapters had been omitted, the Psalms were distributed in such that three were said at each hour, and the same Psalms said every day of the week in the same order. A striking feature of this breviary was the great length of the Scriptures lessons which enabled the priest to read through in the course of the year almost the whole of the Old Testament and the whole of the New Testament with Epistles of St. Paul twice over. It was this book which Cranmer had before him when framing the office portion of the First Prayer Book. Indeed he copied word for word in his preface a considerable portion of Quignonez’s preface. (See Gasquet and Bishop, op. cit., App. III.) He reduced, however, the hours to two—Matins and Evensong (called Morning and Evening Prayer in the Second Book)—and arranged the Psalms for recital once a month instead of once a week. He also introduced two Scripture lessons, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament at both hours of prayer, and entirely omitted the lessons of the saints. In the Second Book he introduced “When the wicked man,” “Dearly beloved brethren, the Scripture moveth us,” the general confession (“Almighty and most merciful Father”), and the Absolution (“Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”), which have remained to the present day. When we remember that more than a hundred editions of Quignonez’s breviary were printed during the short space of twenty years, and that it was on the point of being adopted universally, we can see that this portion of the Book of Common Prayer has some justification. No doctrinal questions were at stake—unless it might be the omission of the intercession of the saints.

(3) The Missal

The Canon of the Mass in the Sarum Missal is taken almost word for word from the Roman Missal. In the First Prayer Book the Communion service is styled “‘The Supper of the Lord and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass”; in the Second, and also in the present book, “The Order for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, or the Holy Communion.” It is not possible within the limits of the present article to compare in detail the first Book with the Sarum on the one hand, and with the subsequent books on the other. (See Gasquet and Bishop, ch. xii and xvi). The word altar is used in the First Book, though with the alternative of “God’s board”; in the Second Book and subsequent Books “table” and “board” alone occur. As regards vestments the First Book directs that the priest shall wear “a white alb plain, with a vestment (chasuble?) or cope,” find the assisting clergy “albs with tunacles”; the Second Book “the minister at the time of the Communion find all other times in his ministration, shall use neither alb, vestment nor cope; but being archbishop or bishop, he shall have and wear a rochet, and being a priest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice only.” In the Third Book (1559) “it is to be noted that such ornaments of the church and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in the Church of England by the authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth.” As is well known, the meaning of this rubric has long been a matter of dispute. The First book directs the priest to stand “humbly before the midst of the altar”; the Second, to stand “at the north side of the table,” as is still the rule. No mention is made of incense, or lights, or holy water in any of the books. As to the service itself, the changes may be briefly summed up as follows: The First Book omitted all mention of any true sacrifice, but retained expressions capable of referring to the Real Presence; the Second Book excluded these; the Third and subsequent books re-admitted and combined expressions which might be taken in either sense. “On comparing and the first with the second Communion office what is obvious at first sight is, that whilst the former, in spite of the substantial change made in the ancient mass, manifested a general order and disposition of parts similar to the mass itself, the latter was changed beyond recognition” (Gasquet and Bishop, 288). It will be sufficient to note here that while the First retained something like the prepatory prayer of Consecration (“Vouchsafe to bl+ess and sanc+tify these thy gifts, and creatures of bread and wine that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ”), the Second and subsequent Books omitted this altogether; in the Second Book no directions were given as to the acts of the minister—he might recite the words of Consecration as a mere lesson; but in the later Books he was directed to take the paten and cup into his hands. Most significant, too, are the changes made in the form of administering the Holy Communion. In 1549:

When he deliverith the Sacrament of the Body of Christ, he shall say unto every one these words: “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.” And the Minister delivering the Sacrament of the Blood shall say “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.”

In 1552:

And when he deliverith the bread, he shall say: “Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee. and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.” And the Minister that deliverith the cup shall say: “Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.”

In 1559 and the present Book:

And when he delivereth the Bread to any one be shall say, “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this In remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.” And the Minister that delivereth the cup shall say: “The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.”

The First Book forbade “any elevation or showing the Sacrament to the people”; the Second Book added the so-called “Black Rubric” denying any “real and essential presence of Christ’s natural flesh and blood.” This was omitted in 1559, but was reintroduced in 1632, shortened and slightly altered, “corporal presence” being substituted for “real and essential.”

(4) THE RITUAL

The order of the administration of Baptism in the old Sarum Manuale (Ritual) was almost identical in words and ceremonies with that now in use among us. (For the differences see SARUM.) The principal changes in 1549 were the omission of the blessing of the font, of the giving of the blessed salt, and of the first anointing. New prayers were also introduced, but the general character of the old service was preserved, including the exorcisms, the giving of the white garment, and the second anointing. All of these met with Bucer’s disapproval, and were accordingly removed in 1552, and have never been restored. The present rite is exactly the same as that of 1552, with few verbal alterations.

As the Reformers did not recognize Confirmation as a sacrament, we are not surprised to find that the rite of administering it has undergone great changes. In 1549 the anointing with chrism was omitted, but the prayer that the Holy Ghost might come down upon those about to be confirmed was retained, and they were signed with the sign of the cross on their forehead. In 1552, owing again to Bucers influence, the first prayer was altered (“strengthen them with the Holy Ghost”); the signing with the cross was omitted; and a colourless form of words used. This latter rite is still in use; but in 1662 the renewal of baptismal vows was prefixed to it.

The “Form of Solemnization of Matrimony” comes next. As the essential part of the ceremony is the contracting of the parties, considerable latitude has existed in the Church with regard to the rest of the service. The First Book followed the old rite rather closely, but the blessing of the ring and the nuptial Mass were omitted. Of course the Reformers looked upon matrimony merely as a “state of life allowed in the Scriptures,” and not as a sacrament.

“The Order of the Visitation of the Sick” contains matters of grave importance. In the First Book and in all subsequent Books, the “sick person shall make a special confession, if he feels his conscience troubled with any weighty matter; after which the priest shall absolve him after this form [sort]. . . . I absolve thee from thy sins’“. The First Book alone adds: “and the same form of absolution shall be used in all private confessions.” Moreover the First Book alone contains the anointing of the sick: “If the sick person desire to be anointed, then shall the priest anoint him upon the forehead or breast only, making the sign of the cross,” and afterwards reciting a long prayer entirely different from the old forms, which were the same as the present Catholic ones. This ceremony was removed at Bucer’s suggestion. The First Book also has a rubric about reservation of the Blessed Sacrament: “If there be more sick persons to be visited the same day then shall the curate reserve so much of the sacrament of the body and blood as shall serve the other sick persons, and such as be appointed to communicate with them if there be any; and shall immediately carry it and minister it unto them.” Bucer does not seem to have objected to this; nevertheless no mention of reservation is made in any of the later Books.

The Sarum Office of the Dead included Vespers (Placebo), Matins (Dirige), Lauds, Mass (Requiem), the Absolution, and the Burial. As might be expected from the views of the Reformers on prayer for the dead, nothing was preserved in the new Books but the “Order for the Burial of the Dead.” The First Book, indeed, contains distinct prayers for the soul of the departed, but these were removed in 1552, and have never been restored. For the Thirty-nine Articles see the article under that heading.

In recent years attempts have been made to reform the prayer Book in two opposite directions. The Evangelicals have considered it as still containing too much of the old “popery,” while the High Church party have endeavoured to get back the portions omitted or altered since 1549. Various changes have actually been made in the Prayer Book as used by the Protestant churches of Scotland, Ireland and America.

It is only fair, in concluding, to note Cranmers “splendid command of the English language and his instinctive sense of what would suit average English minds. His genius for devotional composition in English is universally recognized, even by those who have least sympathy with his character and career” (Mason, Thomas Cranmer, 140). “I value the Prayer Book, as you cannot do,” says one of the Anglican characters in Newman’s “Loss and Gain” (ch. viii), “for I have known what it is to one in affliction. May it be long before you know it in a similar way; but if affliction comes on you, depend on it all these new fancies and fashions will vanish from you like the wind, and the good old Prayer Book alone will stand you in any stead.”

The best work on the subject is Gasquet and Bishop, Edward VI and the Book of Common Prayer; Frere, Revision of Proctors Book of Common Prayer; Weston, The Prayer Book on the Making (1907), a poor and prejudiced work; Wheatly, A Rational Illustration of the Book of Comm. Pr., being the substance of everything liturgical in Bishop Sparrow, Mr. L’Estrange, Dr. Comber Dr. Nichols, and all former ritualists, commentators, and others upon the same subject; Mason, Thomas Cranmer; and various other works treating of the Reformation in England, especially in the reign of Edward VI.

T. B. SCANNELL.

Foxe’s Book of Martyrs

John Foxe was born at Boston in Lincolnshire, England, in 1516, and was educated at Magdalen School and College, Oxford. He joined the more extreme Reformers early in life and under Edward VI acted as tutor to the children of the recently beheaded Earl Of Surrey. In Mary’s reign he fled to Germany and joined the exiles at Frankfort. In the controversy which arose there he took sides with Knox and the extremists and after the break up of the Frankfort colony he went to Basle where poverty compelled him to take service with the Protestant printer Oporinus. In 1539 he returned to England and entered the ministry, he was helped by his old pupil the Duke of Norfolk and was mainly occupied with his martyrology. He still belonged to the extremists and objected to the surplice. His opinions interfered with his prospects, but he was not an ambitious man. Though violent and dishonest in controversy, he was personally of a kind and charitable temper. Besides his “Acts and Monuments” he published a number of sermons, translations, and controversial attacks on Catholicism. He died in 1587.

Even before leaving England in 1554 Foxe had begun the story of the persecutions of the Reformers. The result was the publication of a little Latin work dealing mainly with Wyclifism. While at Basle he was supplied by Grindal with reports of the persecution in England and in 1559 he published a large Latin folio of of 740 pages which began with Wyclif and ended with Cranmer. After his return to England he began to translate this book and to add to it the results of fresh information. The “Acts and Monuments” were finally published in 1563 but came almost immediately to he known as the “Book of Martyrs.” The critism which the work called forth led to the publication of a “corrected” edition in 1570. Two more (1576 and 1583) came out during his life and five (1596, 1610, 1632, 1641, 1684) within the next hundred years. There have been two modern editions, both unsatisfactory; they are in eight volumes and were published in 1837–41 and 1877. The size may be gathered from the fact that in the edition of 1684 it consists of three folio volumes of 895, 682, and 863 pages respectively. Each page has two columns and over eighty lines. The first volume besides introductory matter contains the story of early Christian persecutions, a sketch of medieval church history and an account of the Wyclifite movement in England and on the continent. The second volume deals with the reigns Henry VII and Edward VI and the third with that of Mary. A large number of official documents such as injunctions, articles of accusation, letters, etc., have been included. The book is illustrated throughout by woodcuts, some of them symbolizing the triumph of the Reformation, most of them depicting the sufferings of the martyrs.

The Convocation of the English Church ordered in 1571 that copies of the “Book of Martyrs” should be kept for public inspection in all cathedrals and in the houses of church dignitaries. The book was also exposed in many parish churches. The passionate intensity of the style, the vivid and picturesque dialogues made it very popular among Puritan and Low Church families down to the nineteenth century. Even in the fantastically partisan church history of the earlier portion of the book, with its grotesque stories of popes and monks and its motley succession of witnesses to the truth (including the Albigenses, Grosseteste, Dante, and Savonarola) was accepted among simple folk and must have contributed much to anti-Catholic prejudices in England. When Foxe treats of his own times his work is of greater value as it contains many documents and is largely based on the reports of eyewitnesses; but he sometimes dishonestly mutilates his documents and is quite untrustworthy in his treatment of evidence. He was criticized in his own day by Catholics such as Harpsfield and Father Parsons and by practically all serious eccesiastical historians.

The most careful examination of his methods is to be found in Maitland, Essays on the Reformation in England (1849), and in Gairdner, History of the English Church from the ascension of Henry VIII to the Death of Mary (1903); Lee in Dict. of Nat. Biog. Gerard, John Foxe and His Book of Martyrs (Catholic Truth Society, London), includes the opinions of a number of Foxe’s critics.

F. F. URQUHART.

Archdiocese of Bordeaux (Burdigala)

(BURDIGALA).

Archdiocese; comprises the entire department of the Gironde and was established conformably to the Concordat of 1802 by combining the ancient Diocese of Bordeaux (diminished by the cession of Born to the Bishopric of Aire) with the greater part of the suppressed Diocese of Bazas. Constituted by the same Concordat metropolitan to the Bishoprics of Angoulême, Poitiers and La Rochelle, the See of Bordeaux received in 1822, as additional suffragans, those of Agen, withdrawn from the metropolitan jurisdiction of Toulouse, and the newly re-established Périgueux and Luçon, and still later, in 1850, the three colonial Bishoprics of Fort-de-France (Martinique), Basse-Terre (Guadaloupe), and Saint-Denis (Réunion).

THE OLD DIOCESE OF BORDEAUX

According to old Limousin legends which date back to the beginning of the eleventh century, Bordeaux was evangelized in the first century by St. Martial (Martialis), who replaced a temple to the unknown god, which he destroyed, with one dedicated to St. Stephen. The same legends represent St. Martial as having brought to the Soulac coast St. Veronica, who is still especially venerated in the church of Notre-Dame de Fin des Terres at Soulac; as having cured Sigebert, the paralytic husband of the pious Benedicta, and made him Bishop of Bordeaux; as addressing beautiful Latin letters to the people of Bordeaux, to which city he is said to have left the pastoral staff which has been treasured as a relic by the Chapter of Saint-Seurin (For this cycle of legends see LIMOGES).

The first Bishop of Bordeaux known to history, Orientalis, is mentioned at the Council of Arles, in 314. By the close of the fourth century Christianity had made such progress in Bordeaux that a synod was held there (385–386) for the purpose of adopting measures against the Priscillianists, whose heresy had caused popular disturbances. This was during the episcopate of Delphinus (380–404), who attended the Council of Saragossa in 380 and maintained correspondence with St. Ambrose and with St. Paulinus of Nola. At the beginning of the fifth century a mysterious personage who, according to St. Gregory of Tours, came from the East, appeared at Bordeaux. This was St. Seurin (or Severinus), in whose favour Bishop Amand abdicated the see from 410 to 420, resuming it after Seurin’s death and occupying it until 432. In the sixth century Bordeaux had an illustrious bishop in the person of Leontius II (542–564), a man of great influence who used his wealth in building churches and clearing lands and whom the poet Fortunatus calls patrioe caput. During this Merovingian period the cathedral church, founded in the fourth century, occupied the same site that it does today, back to back against the ramparts of the ancient city. The Faubourg Saint-Seurin outside the city was a great centre of popular devotion, with its three large basilicas of St. Stephen, St. Seurin, and St. Martin surrounding a large necropolis from which a certain number of sarcophagi are still preserved. This faubourg was like a holy city; and the cemetery of St. Seurin was full of tombs of the Merovingian period around which the popular imagination of later ages was to create legends. In the high noon of the Middle Ages it used to be told how Christ Himself had consecrated tbis cemetery and that Charlemagne, having fought the Saracens near Bordeaux, had visited it and laid Roland’s wonderful horn Olivant on the altar of Saint Seurin.

Dessus l’autel de Saint Seurin le baron, Il met l’oliphant plein d’or et de mangons

-says the “Chanson de Roland.” Many tombs passed for those of Charlemagne’s gallant knights, and others were honored as the resting-places of Veronica and Benedicta. At the other extremity of the city, the Benedictines filled in the marshes of L’Eau-Bourde and founded there the monastery of Sainte-Croix. While thus surrounded by evidences of Christian conquest, the academic Bordeaux of the Merovingian period continued to cherish the memory of its former school of eloquence, whose chief glories had been the poet Ausonius (310–395) and St. Paulinus (353–431), who had been a rhetorician at Bordeaux and died Bishop of Nola. The reigns of William VIII and William IX, Dukes of Aquitaine (1052–1127), were noted for the splendid development of Romanesque architecture in Bordeaux. Parts of the churches of Sainte-Croix and Saint-Seurin belong to that time, and the Cathedral of Saint-André was begun in 1096. In the Middle Ages, a struggle between the Sees of Bordeaux and Bourges was brought about by the claims of the latter to the primacy of Aquitaine. This question has been closely investigated by modern scholars, and it has been ascertained that a certain letter from Nicholas I to Rodolfus, which would date the existence of the primacy of Bourges from the ninth century, is not authentic. As ths capital of Aquitania prima, Bourges at an early date vaguely aspired to pre-eminence over the provinces of Aquitania secunda and tertia, and thence over Bordeaux. It was about 1073 that these aspirations were more formally asserted; between 1112 and 1126 the papacy acknowledged them, and in 1146 Eugenius III confirmed the primacy of Pierre de la Chatre, Archbishop of Bourges, over Bordeaux. In 1232, Gregory IX gave the Archbishop of Bourges, as patriarch, the right to visit the province of Aquitaine, imposed upon the Archbishop of Bordeaux the duty of assisting, at least once, at the councils held by his “brother” of Bourges, and decided that appeals might be made from the former to the latter. Occasionally, however, as in 1240 and 1284, the Archbishops of Bourges coming to Bordeaux, found the doors of the churches closed against them, and answered with excommunication the solemn protests which the Bordeaux clergy made against their visits. Aquitaine was lost to France by the annulment of that marriage between Louis VII and Eleanor of Aquitaine which was celebrated in the Cathedral of Bordeaux in the year 1137, and Bordeaux became the capital of the English possessions in France. Thereupon the struggle between the Sees of Bordeaux and Bourges assumed a political character, the King of France neccessarily upholding the claims of Bourges. Most of the archbishops were conspicuous as agents of English policy in Aquitaine, notable amongst them being Guillaume Amanieu (1207–26), on whom King Henry III of England conferred the title of seneschal and guardian of all his lands beyond the sea, and who took part in Spain in the wars against the Saracens, Gérard de Mallemort (1227–60), a generous founder of monasteries, who acted as mediator between St. Louis and Henry III, and defended Gascony against the tyranny of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester. During the episcopate of Gerard de Mallemort the old Romanesque church of Saint-André was transformed into a Gothic cathedral. Pope Clement V (1305–14) was unfavourable to the claims of Bourges. He was a native of Villandraut near Bazas, where he had built a beautiful collegiate church, was Archbishop of Bordeaux from 1300 to 1305, and political adviser to Philip the Fair. When he became pope, in spite of his French sympathies, his heart was set upon the formal emancipation of Bordeaux from Bourges. Blessed Pierre Berland, or Peyberland as tradition calls him (1430–57), was an Archbbishop of Bordeaux, illustrious for his intelligence and holiness, founder of the University of Bordeaux and of the College of St. Raphael for poor students, who, after helping the English to defend Bordeaux against the troops of Charles VII, received Dunois into his episcopal city and surrendered it to France. It was during his episcopate that the beautiful campanile known as the Pey Berland Tower was added to the cathedral.

The rich and powerful chapters of Saint-Andre and Saint-Seurin subsisted in the Middle Ages as a vestige of that duality which was already noticeable in Merovingian Bordeaux. Between the two there were frequent and very animated conflicts. The artistic feeling of the canons in the thirteenth century is attested by the Gothic portal of Saint-Seurin which is still extant. At the end of the fourteenth century Canon Vital de Carle established the great Hospital of Saint-André, which he placed under the protection of the municipality; and it was through the exertions of the chapter of Saint-André that the first city library of Bordeaux was founded towards the year 1402. During the Middle Ages Bordeaux was a great monastic city, with its Carmelite, Francisean, and Dominican convents, founded respectively in 1217, 1227, and 1230. In 1214 an important council was held in Bordeaux against usurers, highwaymen, and heretics. When, after the Hundred Years’ War, Bordeaux again became French, Louis XI flattered its citizens by joining the con- fraternity of Notre-Dame de Montuzet, a religious association formed of all the mariners of the Gironde by heaping favours on the ehureh of Saint-Michel, the tower of which, built in the period between 1473 and 1492, was higher than the Pey Berland, and by furthering the canonization of its former archbishop, Pierre Berland.

Among the Archbishops of Bordeaux, in the modern epoch, may be mentioned: Charles de Gramont (1530–44), who during its earliest years helped the College of Guyenne (founded in 1533) and introduced into Bordeaux the art of the Renaissance; François de Sourdis (1599–1628), who had great political influence during the minority of Louis XIII, caused the marshes in the neighbourhood of Bordeaux to be filled in, erected there a magnificent Carthusian monastery, welcomed to Bordeaux many congregations devoted to ecclesiastical reform, approved (1606) the teaching order of the Filles de Notre-Dame, founded by Blessed Jeanne de Lestonnac, and befriended the College of the Madeleine founded by the Jesuits in opposition to the College of Guyenne which, during the sixteenth century, was open to Protestant influences, Cardinal de Cheverus (1826–36), who during the cholera epidemic had the sign Maison de Secours (House of Refuge) put over his palace, of whom M. Jullian said that no prelate in the history of the diocese had come nearer the ideal of sanctity, and during whose episcopate Thérèse de Lamourus, the “Good Mother,” considered by Cardinal Cheverus a saint worthy of the early days of the Church, opened for repentant women the Maison de la Miséricorde; Cardinal Donnet (1837–82), who re-established the old provincial councils interrupted for 224 years.

THE OLD BISHOPRIC OF BACAS

According to Gregory of Tours, Bazas had a bishop at the time of the Vandal invasion in the fifth century. The dedication of the cathedral to St. John the Baptist is explained in an account given by the same historian that a lady of Bazas, whom certain hagiographers of the nineteenth century believe to have been St. Veronica, brought from Palestine a relic of St. John the Baptist at the time of that saint’s death. For two hundred and fifty years prior to 1057, the Bishop of Bazas bore the title of Bishop of Aire, Dax, Bayonne, Oloron, and Lescar. Urban II (1088–99) preached the crusade at Bazas.

PLACES OF ECCLESIASTICAL INTEREST IN THE ARCHDIOCESE

The town of La Réole (from Regula, rule) owes its origin, and even its name, to a Benedictine monastery founded in 777, destroyed bv the Northmen, and rebuilt in 977 by Sancho of Gascony and his brother, Bishop Gombald. It was there that Abbo, Abbot of Fleury, who came to reform the monastery in 1004, was assassinated. The town of Saint-Emilion is likewise indebted for its origin to the hermit of that name, a native of Vannes, who died in 767 after having founded in these parts an abbey which the Augustinians occupied after the year 1110. The Abbey of Saint-Romain at Blaye in which, it is said, the remains of Roland, nephew of Charlemagne, were once preserved, was founded on the spot where, in the fourth century, St. Romanus, the recluse, died in the arms of St. Martin. The Benedictine monastery of the Grande Sauve entre Deux Mers was founded in 1080 by St. Gerard of Corbie. The Abbey of Notre Dame at Guitres had for abbot, between 1624 and 1637, Peiresc the celebrated numismatist, one of the greatest scholars of the seventeenth century (1580–1637).

The most important pilgrimage is that of Notre Dame of Verdelais, founded in 1390 by Isabella, Countess of Foix, when her mule stumbled over a buried statue of the Blessed Virgin.

STATISTICS

In 1900 the religious orders for men were represented in the Archdiocese of Bordeaux as follows: Augustinians, Jesuits, Franciscans, Lazarists, Carmelites, and Fathers of the Holy Ghost at Bordeaux; Olivetans at Soulac; Dominicans at Arcaechon; Redemptorists at Coutras; Marists at Notre Dame de Verdelais and several houses of Marianists. In 1900 the congregations for women peculiar to the diocese were, in addition to those mentioned above: Sisters of Charity of the Holy Agony, a teaching and nursing order founded in 1849, with the motherhouse at Bordeaux; Sisters of the Christian Doctrine, founded in 1814, with the mother-house at Bordeaux; Sisters of the Holy Family, founded in 1820 by the Abbé Noailles. The last-named congregation has 200 houses, in different parts of the world. It includes the: Sisters of St. Joseph, who have charge of asylums for orphans and working women; Sisters of the Immaculate Coneeption and Ladies of the Immaculate Conception, who conduct boarding-schools; Agricultural Sisters (Soeurs Agricoles); Sisters of Hope, attendants on the sick; Contemplative Sisters (Soeurs Solitaires); Sisters of St. Martha, for domestic service. In 1899, the following charitable and educational institutions were to be found in the Archdiocese of Bordeaux: 1 foundling hospital, 11 infant asylums, 66 infant schools, 2 children’s infirmaries, 2 deaf-mute institutes for girls, 2 orphanages where farming is taught, 1 boys’ and girls’ orphanage, 34 girls’ orphanages, 1 servants’ guild, 2 guilds for penitent women, 10 charity kitchens, 12 hospitals or hospices, 8 communities for the care of the sick in their homes, 8 houses of retreat, 3 homes for incurables, 2 insane asylums, and 7 homes for the aged, all conducted by sisters; and 1 institute for deaf, dumb, and blind boys, and 1 orphanage where farming is taught, both conducted by brothers. At the close of the year 1905 the archdiocese contained 823,131 inhabitants, 79 parishes, 431 mission churches, and 70 curacies.

Gallia Christiana (nova), (1715) I, 1189–1222, instrumenta, 188–190; nova (1720), II, 785–858, instrumenta, 261–326; FISQUET, France pontificale (Bordeaux, 1868); CIROT DE LA VILLE, Origines chretiennes de Bordeaux, ou historie et description de l’eglise de Saint-Seurin (Bordeaux, 1867); JULLIAN, Histoire de Bordeaux depuis les origines jusqu’en 1895 (Bordeaux, 1895); LEROUX, La primatie de Bourges in Annales du Midi, VII, 1895; PARISET, L’etablissement de la primatie de Bourges in Annales du Midi, XIV, 1902; DUCHESNE, Fastes Episcopaux, II, 9–20, 58–62 and 101; CHEVALIER, Rep. des sources hist.-topobibl., 332 and 448–450.

GEORGES GOYAU

University of Bordeaux

The University of Bordeaux was founded during the English domination, under King Henry VI, in 1441, by a Bull of Pope Eugenius IV, at the demand of the archbishop’s officials, Pierre Berland being at the time archbishop, and of the Aquitanian councillors. It did not, however, receive official recognition from the king until the reign of Louis XI. According to the terms of the Bull, it was to be organized on the model of the studium of the University of Toulouse. The Archbishop of Bordeaux was the chancellor for life. It included all the different faculties; theology, canon law, civil law, arts, etc. On account of the constant lack of endowment, the University of Bordeaux, from the time of its foundation until the French Revolution, never had any remarkable standing. After the Revolution, when the universities were reorganized in France by the Government, Bordeaux was one of the cities chosen to be the seat of a university. During the nineteenth century it had a brilliant career, especially in the field of medicine, among its professors being such men as Azam, Pitres, and others who were famous on account of their pathological researches.

BARCKHAUSEN, Status et reglements de l’ancienne université de Bordeaux (Libourne and Bordeaux, 1886); GAULLIEUR, Histore du collège de Guyenne (Paris, 1874); DENIFLE, Universit. Des Mittelaltres (1885); FOURNIER, Les statuts et privilèges des universités françaises depuis leur fondation jusqu’en 1789 (Paris, 1890–92); Histoire de la science du droit en france (Paris, 1892); RASHDALL, Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1895), II, pt. I.

G.M. SAUVAGE

Cavaliere Paris Bordone

An eminent painter of the Venetian school, b. at Treviso, 1500 d. at Venice, 1570. A member of a noble family, he early showed an inclination for art and, after being given a good general education, was placed in the school of Titian with whom he studied for several years. He afterwards had Giorgione for his master. While feeling strongly the influence of both great painters, Bordone finally settled down to the style of Titian, whose manner he so successfully imitated that his works have sometimes been mistaken for Titian’s. In portraiture he was most successful, ceding to none but to Titian in excellence. In his early career he painted at Venice, Vicenza, and Treviso. At the last place his most important work was in the church of San Vicenzo, where he painted in the six compartments of the dome “The Annunciation,” “The Nativity,” “The Adoration of the Shepherds,” “The Crucifixion,” “The Ascension,” and “The Assumption of the Virgin.” Bordone was invited to visit France, some say by Francis I, and others by Francis II, by whom he was knighted. He remained, according to the latter authority, after the death of that king, for several years at the court of Charles IX, before returning to Italy. He painted the portraits of the royal family and the principal figures of their courts, working notably for the Duke of Guise and the Cardinal de Lorraine.

The most famous work of Bordone is the large painting in the Academy at Venice, representing with great brilliancy of colour and effect “The Fisherman Presenting the Ring of St. Mark to the Doge.” On his return to Venice from France, Bordone stopped at Augsburg, where he did some work in the Fugger Palace, and at Milan, where he painted in the chapel of St. Jerome. Among the principal works of Bordone in European galleries are: Louvre, “Vertumna and Pomona,” “Portrait of a Man,” and “Portraits (presumed) of Philip II, King of Spain, and his Preceptor”; National Gallery, London, “Daphnis and Chloe,” and “Portrait of a Genoese Lady”; Berlin Museum, “Madonna and Saints,” “The Chess Players,” and “Man in Black”; Dresden Gallery, “Holy Family with St. Jerome and St. Elizabeth,” and “Diana, Apollo and Marsyas”; Munich, Old Pinakotek, “Portrait of Man,” and “Man Counting Jewels”; Vienna Gallery, seven works including “Venus and Adonis in an Arbour,” and “A Young Lady at her Toilet,” St. Petersburg Hermitage, “Madonna and Saints”; Brera, Milan, “Baptism of Christ”; Venice, Academy, “Presenting the Ring,” and “The Tiburtine Sibyl”; Rome, Colonna Palace, “Holy Family”; Doria Palace, “Mars and Venus”; Padua Gallery, “Christ Taking Leave of His Mother”; Lovere, Tadini Collection, “Madonna and Two Saints”; Genoa, Brignole Palace, two portraits.

BRYAN, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers (London, and New York, 1903–5).

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Caspar Henry Borgess

Third Bishop of Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A., b. at Kloppenburg, Hanover, Germany, 1 August, 1824; d. at Kalamazoo Michigan, 3 May, 1890. He emigrated to the United States in boyhood and made his classical and theological studies at St. Xavier’s College, Cincinnati, and St. Charles’s Seminary, Philadelphia. He was ordained priest at Cincinnati, 8 December, 1847, after which he was stationed for ten years at Columbus.

In 1859 he was made rector of St. Peter’s Cathedral, Cincinnati, and remained there until he was consecrated titular Bishop of Calydon and administrator of Detroit, 24 April, 1870. The first Bishop of Detroit, the Right Rev. Frederick Rese, consecrated 6 October, 1833, the first German in the United States to be raised to the episcopal dignity, became demented four years after his consecration and was called to Rome. He never resigned his charge and lived until 30 December, 1871, when he died in an institution at Hildesheim, Germany. As a consequence, Detroit was ruled by an administrator for thirty years, Bishop Borgess assuming the title only in 1871. The see up to his appointment had been dominated by Belgian and French influences, and he gradually made the changes to the English speaking regime that the growth of the new population demanded. The Jesuits were introduced into the diocese by him. He resigned the see 16 April, 1888, and spent his last days in retirement, having received the titular see of Phacusites.

REUSS, Biog. Encyl. of the Cath. Hierarchy of the U.S. (Milwaukee, 1898); The Michigan Catholic (Detroit) contemporaneous files.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Stefano Borgia

Cardinal, born at Velletri, 3 December, 1731; died at Lyons, 1804; Italian theologian, antiquarian, and historian. He belonged to a well known family of Velletri, not to be confounded with the Spanish Borgias or Borjas. [Ed. Note: The cardinal was, in fact, distantly related to the Spanish Borjas, who had emigrated to Italy from Jativa, Spain, in the twelfth or thirteenth century.] His early education was controlled by his uncle Allessandro (1682–1764), Archbishop of Fermo. From his youth, Stefano Borgia manifested a great aptitude for historical research, but his dominant trait was his extraordinary taste for relics of ancient civilizations, a line in which he succeeded so well that, at the age of nineteen, he was received into the Academy of Cortona. He founded a museum in Velletri, in which, during his whole life, he gathered coins and manuscripts, especially Coptic, and which may be considered as his greatest undertaking and achievement. Such was his passion for antiquities that he is known to have sold his jewels and precious earthenware in order to secure the coveted treasures and have the description of them printed. In his scientific career Borgia showed great disinterestedness, placing his collection at the disposal of learned men, regardless of creed and country, and giving them all possible encouragement and support. His amiable temperment and broad-minded character attracted to him all those with whom he came in contact; Paolinoda S. Bartolomeo, Adler, Zoega, Heeren, and many others were among his enthusiastic friends.

Borgia was not left, however, entirely to his chosen field of activity, but was called to fill several important political positions. Benedict XIV appointed him Governor of Benevento, and Borgia showed there great administrative talent. In 1770 he was made secretary of the Congregation de Propaganda Fide, an office of which he naturally took advantage to acquire antiquities by the help of the missionaries—a help, be it said to their credit, which proved always forthcoming. He was made a cardinal in 1789. In the troubled period of the French invasion Borgia was given charge of Rome by Pius VI (1797–98). After the proclamation of the Republic, he was arrested (1798), but quickly released, whereupon he immediately resumed his studies and work of collecting; soon afterwards he joined Pius VI at Vallencia, and endeavoured to have this pontiff send to Asia and Africa a body of missionaries who would preach the Gospel and gather various monuments.

Cardinal Borgia was of the greatest service to Pope Pius VII in the reorganization of the Pontifical States. In 1801 he was made Rector of the Collegium Romanum, and he was in the retinue of Pius VII when this pontiff went to France to crown the new emperor Napoleon. Having arrived at Lyons, Cardinal Borgia was taken ill and died. After his death his collection of Coptic manuscripts was divided: the non-Biblical manuscripts were taken to Naples and placed in the Biblioteca Barbonica, now the Biblioteca Nazional; and the Biblical manuscripts, excepting a few which were taken to Naples by mistake, given to the Propaganda, together with the collection of coins and monuments forming the Museo Borgiano (Cf. Ciasca, Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica, I, p.xvii.) Only a few years ago the manuscripts of the Museo Borgiano were transferred to the Vatican Library, where they are to be found today. Before the partition of the manuscripts was made the eminent scholar and convert, Zoega, wrote a complete and accurate description of them in his pothumous work “Catologus Codicum Copticorum manu scriptorum qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur” (Rome, 1810). Besides the many services which Cardinal Borgia rendered to science and scientists, he published several works bearing especially on historical topics: “Monumento di papa Giovanni XVI” (Rome, 1750); “Breve istoria dell antica città di Benevento” (ibid., 1763–69);”Vaticana confessio B. Petri chronoligcis testimoniis illustrata” (ibid., 1776); “De Cruce Vaticanâ” (ibid., 1779); “De Cruce Veliternâ” (ibid., 1780; “Istoria del dominio temporale della Sede Apostolica nelle Due-Sicilie” (ibid., 1788).

Paolino da S. Bartolomeo, Vitae Synopsis Steph. Borgiae (Rome, 1805); Cancellieri, Elogio del Card. Stefano Borgia (Rome, 1806).

R. BUTIN

Ambrogio Borgognone

(Real name AMBROGIO STEFANI DA FOSSANO).

A distinguished Italian painter and architect, b. Milan, c. 1455, d. at Milan, 1523. The name Borgognone is variously accounted for. By some authorities it is attributed to some Flemish characteristics in his art, and by others to the fact that some of his ancestors had lived in Flanders then known to the Italians as Borgogna. It is supposed that he studied with Vincenzo Foppa, with Zenale, and with Buttinone, but there is little known of the details of his career. The earliest work credited to him is the façade of the Carthusian convent or Certosa near Pavia. The stalls and other woodwork in the choir were carved from the designs of Borgognone, who painted there, among other works, an altar piece of the Crucifixion. Great refinement and deep religious feeling mark his work, which is likewise notable for its beautiful celestial and mundane types. On his return to Milan he went to work in the church of San Satiro, and his productions appeared, among other churches, at Sant’ Ambrogio, San Simpliciano and Sant’ Agostino. At San Simpliciano he painted scenes, since lost, from the story of St. Sisinius. He worked also at Lodi in the church of the Incoronata and did an altar piece for San Satiro at Bergamo.

Borgognone painted in tempera and also in oil in the style of tempera and in fresco. His early work lacked freedom, but later he fell under the beneficent influence of Leonardo da Vinci. Among his works in public galleries are: National Gallery, London, “Marriage of St. Catherine of Alexandria”; a triptych with a “Virgin and Child Enthroned,” having at one side the “Agony in the Garden,” and on the other “Christ Bearing His Cross,” and two groups of family portraits; Louvre, “Presentation in the Temple,” and “St. Peter of Verona,” with a kneeling woman; Berlin Museum, “Madonna Enthroned,” and “Madonna with Saints”; Munich, Old Pinakotek, “Madonna in Adoration”; Dresden Gallery, “Madonna in Adoration”; Brera Gallery, Milan, “The Assumption of the Virgin”; and Pavia Academy, “Christ Bearing His Cross, followed by Carthusians.” In the Casa Borromeo at Milan is a portrait of Bishop Andrea Novelli. The Pavia picture is considered without an equal in art in simple pathos and deep religious meaning. Lanzi and other authors have treated Ambrogio da Fossano, the architect, and Ambrogio Borgognone, the painter, as two different persons, but the signatures he left show that this was not the case.

BRYAN, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers (London, and New York, 1903–05).

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Diocese of Borgo San-Donnino

Diocese in the province of Parma, Italy. The city takes its name from St. Domninus, who fled to that place during the persecution of Maximian (286–305) and suffered martyrdom. It did not become an episcopal see until 1601,under Clement VIII, having until then been governed ecclesiastically by a provost with full faculties, subject directly to the Holy See. The last provost, Papiro Picedi da Castel Vezzano, was the first Bishop of Borgo San-Donnino. The cathedral, dating from the twelfth century, is a beautiful monument of Romanesque architecture; its façade, however, is still unfinished. Among the notable occupants of this see have been: Alfonso Pozzi (1620), a learned and zealous man; Ranuccio Scoti (1626), several times papal nuncio under Urban VIII, particularly to Switzerland; Filippo Casoni (1650), who urged Ughelli to write his “Italia Sacra”; Alessandro Parravicini, a Benedictine (1660); Gaetano Garimberti (1675), who enlarged the episcopal residence and enriched the cathedral with gifts of sacred vessels and furnishings; Alessandro Roncovieri (1700), distinguished for his zeal and charity; Gerardo Giandemaria (1719), who held a diocesan synod the wise decrees of which are still in force; Girolamo Baiardi (1753), who restored the episcopal residence and founded a hospital; Alessandro Garimberti (1776) who was distinguished for his prudent conduct during the French invasion, and who left his library to the seminary. This diocese has a population of 60,400, with 54 parishes, 76 churches and chapels, 100 secular priests, 10 regulars, and 70 seminarians.

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (Paris, 1907).

U. BENIGNI

Diocese of Borgo San-Sepolcro

Diocese situated in the province of Arezzo, Tuscany, Italy. The city is believed by some to be the ancient Biturgia mentioned by Ptolemy, and is so designated in the usage of the Roman Curia. The foundation of the present city is attributed to two pilgrims of the tenth century, who halted in this neighbourhood on their return from Palestine, and built an oratory in which they placed the relics they had brought from the holy places. This oratory attracted many pilgrimages; gradually there grew up about it a settlement of considerable size known as Borgo San-Sepolcro. Later on, Camaldoli monks erected a monastery there, the abbot of which had temporal jurisdiction over the town. Guido Petramala, Bishop of Arezzo, fortified Borgo San-Sepolcro, and made it a Ghibelline strong-hold. At first subject to the Diocese of Castello, it was made an episcopal see by Leo X in 1515, the first bishop being Giovanni Ev. Galeotto Graziani. Among the bishops worthy of record are Nicolo Tornabuon (1560), a learned theologian, author of a treatise on the controversies between Catholics and Calvinists; Dionisio Bussotti (1638), likewise a skilled theologian; Gian Lorenzo Tilli (1704), founder of the seminary. The cathedral is a splendid three-nave Romanesque edifice, showing, however, a marked tendency towards the Gothic. A famous image of the Holy Face (Volto Santo) is venerated in the cathedral. It is a wooden crucifix of heroic size; the sacred Body is covered with a long tunic, and a crown rests on the head. It resembles the Volto Santo of Lucca, and has been in this cathedral since the tenth century; previously it was kept in the neighbouring castle of Bibbiona. Nothing certain is known as to its origen. However, the crucified Christ dressed in a long garment (colobium) indicates a great antiquity, perhaps the eighth or ninth century. Other beautiful churches are those of San Agostino and Santa Maria; the latter has a beautiful baptistery, brought thither from the ancient church of San Agostino. Noteworthy also is the church of San Nicola, built in 1258 by Franciscan, Fra Tommaso da Spello, and restored in the eighteenth century. This diocese has a population of 60,500 Catholics, with 135 parishes, 250 churches and chapels, 190 secular priests, 26 regulars, and 60 seminarists. There are 3 academies, one for girls, and 2 for boys. The male religious orders represented are: Minors Conventual, Servites, Capuchins; the female congregations are: Franciscans, Capuchins, Benedictines, Sisters of St. Anne, Sisters of Charity, Sisters of the Sacred Heart, Salesian Sisters, about 70 in all.

CAPPELETTI, Le chiese d’ltalia (Venice, 1844), XVII; Annuario Eccl. (Rome, 1907), 331–334.

U. BENIGNI

Pierre-Rose-Ursule-Dumoulin Borie

Bishop-elect of Acanthus, Vicar Apostolic of Western Tongking and Martyr; b. 20 February, 1808, at Beynat, Diocese of Tulle, France; beheaded 24 November, 1838. He studied successively at the colleges of Beaulieu and Servieres, and in 1826 entered the seminary of Tulle. Meanwhile the desire to devote his life to the evangelization of distant lands matured, and in 1829 he proceeded to Paris and spent thirteen months at the Seminary of the Foreign Missions. Too young for the priesthood, he was to have been ordained at Pondicherry, on his way to his missionary post. However, a dispensation from Rome permitted his immediate ordination, which took place at Bayeux (1830). He sailed from Havre, 1 December, 1830, and, after spending some time at Macao, in China, arrived in Tongking in the year 1832. His progress in the language of the country was rapid, but eight months after his installation an edict of persecution was issued (January, 1833). Borie had to remain almost continually concealed and to endure great privations. In 1834, failing health increased the acuteness of the sufferings of persecution. He regained his strength the following year and was enabled to visit even the least accessible Christian communities of the vast district of which he was in charge. He fell into the hands of the persecutors in 1838. During his captivity he received the news of his nomination to the Vicariate Apostolic of Western Tongking, with Acanthus as titular see. Shortly after this, on the 24th of November, 1838, the death sentence was pronounced on him and two native priests; the execution took place that same day. His remains were brought to France in 1843, and are religiously kept at the Seminary of the Foreign Missions, in Paris. The cause of his beatification has been introduced at Rome.

P.D.H. BORIE (brother of Monseigneur Borie, writing anonymously), Vie de Mgr. Borie, par un prêtre du diocèse de Tulle (Paris, 1844; 2d ed., 1846); LAUNAY, Les cinquante-deux serviteurs de Dieu (Paris, 1895), 133–162.

N.A. WEBER

Prefectures Apostolic of Borneo

I. DUTCH BORNEO

The former Vicariate of Bavaria was composed of Sumatra, Java, and the other Sundra Islands, including Borneo, under the control of Holland. The northern part of Borneo, now under British suzerainty, was separated from this immense vicariate, 27 August, 1855; that part of Borneo which is under Dutch rule was taken from the Vicariate Apostolic of Batavia, 11 February, 1905, and made into a separate prefecture under the care of the Capuchins. The missionaries for the new prefecture were selected from the Dutch province of this order and the first prefect Apostolic was appointed 10 April, 1905. Up to the time of the separation what is now the Prefecture of Dutch Borneo was administered by the Jesuits who had charge of the Vicariate of Batavia, and who visited the Catholics of Dutch Borneo twice a year. In 1875 the Jesuit Father de Vriez built a little church at Singkawang, a small town situated on the west coast of the island. In the neighbourhood of Singkawang there were nearly 200 Chinese Catholics and 118 soldiers. In 1890 Father Staal, afterwards Vicar Apostolic of Batavia founded a station in the interior at Smitau. The station was afterwards transferred to Sedjiram on the Penboeang in the region inhabited by the Dyaks. The mission at Sedjiram gave good promise of success and in 1897 included 400 baptized persons, but the missionaries were too few in number to give the station constant supervision, and it was consequently abandoned. Later the Holy See decided to erect a separate prefecture covering an area of 204,633 square miles. According to the “Statistics of the Capuchin Missions” for 1906, there were in Dutch Borneo at that date 8 Capuchin priests, 4 brothers, 396 Catholics, consisting of 210 Chinese, 100 Dyaks and 86 Europeans; 2 stations, Singkawang and Sedjiram; 3 chapels; 20 conversions were claimed. There had been 56 baptisms and 156 communions, the latter number referring to the Catholie laity as, outside of the Capuchins, there are no religious in the prefecture. The population included in the prefecture is 2,000,000. A report of 26 November, 1906 gave the founding of a third station at Samarinda on the east coast of Borneo, some two weeks’ sail from Singkawang, and of a fourth station at Pamangkat, which is seven hours from Singkawang.

II. BRITISH BORNEO (THE PREFECTURE OF NORTH BORNEO AND LABUAN)

In 1687 Father Ventimiglia, a Theatine, was commissioned by Pope Innocent XI to preach Christianity in Borneo. There are no memorials of this mission, which has left no traces in the island although the missionary declared that God had blessed his labours. The Propaganda, 27 August, 1855, decreed the erection of the northern part of the island of Borneo into an independent prefecture and entrusted it to the Rev. Charles Cuarteron, a Spaniard. Father Cuarteron was originally a sea-captain and had vowed, after escaping great peril, to devote himself to the evangelization of Borneo. He landed at Labuan in 1857, in company with several missionaries who deserted him in 1860. Although alone in the island of Labuan Father Cuarteron courageously continued his labours. At length, seeing that isolation made him powerless, he went to Rome in 1879 to request that the Propaganda place the mission in charge of an institute. From Rome Father Cuarteron went to Spain, where he soon died. The British had obtained the island of Labuan in 1846; they gradually extended their power over the petty rulers of the northern part of Borneo until, in 1888, the British Protectorate of North Borneo was formally acknowledged. English speaking missionaries being desired in the British part of Borneo, the Propaganda (19 Mareh, 1881) confided the mission of North Borneo and Labuan to the Soeiety for Foreign Missions of Mill-hill, England. The first prefect Apostolie appointed under the new administration was the Rev. Thomas Jackson. The society has since continued in charge of the mission.

The island of Labuan has an area of 30 square miles and contains 6,800 inhabitants; it is an important shipping station between Singapore and Hong-Kong. The prefect Anostolic lives at Labuan. The stations served are Labuan and Sarawak (Kuching), the two most important towns. Outside of these two places where the missionaries live there are ten stations which are visited: Sibu, Kanowit, Egan, Oya, Mukah, Baram, Papar, Jesselton, Patatan, and Sandakan. According to the “ Missions-Atlas “ of P. Streit, the statistics of the mission are: 19 regular priests, 2 lay brothers, 15 sisters; 8 churches; 20 chapels; 16 catechists; 14 schools with 740 pupils; 2,600 baptisms; about 1,000 catechumens.

I. Analecta Ord. Min. Cap. (September, 1805; April, 1907); STREIT, Atlas des missions cath.; BEMMELEN AND HOOPER, Guide to the Dutch East Indies (London, 1897); Statesman’s Year Book (1907), 1251.

II. WEBNER, Orbis terr. Cath. (Freiburg, 1890), BATTANDIER, Ann. Pont. Cath.(1907); Miseiones Catholicae (Rome, 1901); GUILLEMARD, Australiasia (London, 1894), II; BECCARI, In the great Forests of Borneo (London. 1904); NYOAK, The Religious Rites and Customs of the Ibau or Dyaks of Sarawak In Anthropos (Salzburg, 1906), I, 11 sqq.; British North Borneo Herald (Sandakan), files.

ALBERT BATTANDIER

Francisco Nicolás Borras

A distinguished Spanish painter, born at Cocentaina, 1530; died at Gandia, 1610. Going to Valencia at an early age to study under Vicente Joanes, he became that master’s most noteworthy pupil. His works in general resemble those of Joanes and some of them are good enough to have been taken for the master’s. Entering the priesthood, he was assigned to his native place, where he devoted all his spare moments to painting and acquired such skill that the authorities of the monastery, St. Jerome, at Gandia, employed him to paint the picture for the high altar of their church. He enjoyed his stay at the monastery so much, that taking a great liking to the brothers and their life he determined to ask for no other payment for his work than membership in the order. He received the habit in 1575, and took the final vows the following year. Three years thereafter, Fra Nicolás, in search, perhaps, of an even more austere life, spent some little time with the Capuchins at the Franciscan monastery of San Juan de la Riviera near Valencia. He was soon back, however, at Gandia where he passed the rest of his life painting in every part of the monastery, in the chuch, chief chapel, chapter house, oratories, refectories, and cloisters, leaving twelve altar pieces in the church alone. He also spent his own money in the employment of sculptors and builders for the embellishment of his beloved monastery.

Besides his great labours at Gandia Borras also did much work for churches and religious houses in Valencia, at the capital, and elsewhere. His paintings appeared at the cathedral at Valencia and at the Hieronymite monastery in the city of San Miguel de los Reyes where there was a “Christ at the Column,” and a picture of the painter in adoration of “The Holy Virgin.” Others were at his native place in the church of St. Stephen, in the Escorial at Aldaya, and at Ontiniente. In the Museum at Valencia there are some fifty paintings by Borras chiefly from Gandia and San Miguel. Among them are “The Last Supper,” “Christ Bearing His Cross,” “The Dead Saviour in the Arms of the Eternal Father,” and “The Archangel Michael Driving Souls into Purgatory and Hell.” In the last Borras is supposed to have pictured himself as a white robed monk kneeling on the brink.

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Andrea Borromeo

An Italian missionary, born on the first half of the seventeenth century, at or near Milan; died in 1683. He was the son of Count Giulio Cesare Borromeo, and was received into the religious order of Theatines in 1637. In 1652 he visited Mingrelea and Georgia (Russian Transcaucasia) as a missionary and laboured with success for eleven years, to convert the inhabitants. On his return to Rome he was elected procurator for these missions. He decline the offer of a bishopric. He left an account of the above mentioned missions of his order entitled: “relazione della Georgia, Mingrelai, e Missione de Padri Teatini in quelle parti” (Rome, 1704).

MAZZUCHELLI, Scrittori d’Italia (Brescia, 1762), II, iii, 1793.

N.A. WEBER

Federico Borromeo

Cardinal and Archbishop of Milan, cousin and successor of St. Charles Borromeo, born at Milan 16 August, 1564; died there, 22 September, 1631. He was the son of Giulio Cesare Borromeo and Margherita Trivulzio, members of the Milanese aristocracy. He studied successively at Bologna and Pavia, in which latter city he was the first pupil of the Borromeo College. Eater he went to Rome for higher studies and was there strongly influenced by St. Philip Neri, Cardinal Baronius, and Cardinal Bellarmine. In 1580 he began his ecclesiastical career under the guidance of St. Charles Borromeo. He was made cardinal at the age of twenty-three, in 1587, by Sixtus V; and, in 1595, Archbishop of Milan by Clement VII, who personally consecrated him to this high office. During thirty-six years he gave the world an example of episcopal virtue, zeal, and dignity. He was tireless in preaching and in instructing both clergy and people, was anapostle of religious education and persistent reformer of all abuses, both lay and ecclesiastical. An almost constant conflict with the local Spanish authorities, suspicious and haughty by nature, did not diminish his sweetness of temper nor his patience; the traditional immunities and authority of the ecclesiastical order were defended as an inheritance of his see that he dared not abandon. Von Reumont thinks that, though often right, he went at times too far, e.g. in the assertion of minute ceremonial rights; it may be said, however, that in all probability it was the principle and substance of customary ecclesiastical rights that the fearless pastor ever intended to preserve and hand down. His affection for the people of Milan was made evident during the great famine and pest of 1627–28,when he fed daily 2,000 poor at the gates of his residence, and was personally an example of such absolute heroism that nearly one hundred of hisclergy (sixty-two parish priests and thirty-three vicars) gave up their lives in attendance on the perishing multitudes. Allessandro Manzoni has immortalized this extraordinary devotion in his “I Promessi Sposi” (The Betrothed). If Cardinal Borromeo shared the current excessive credulity in witchcraft and magic, he was in every other way far in advance of his time as a friend of the people and a promoter of intellectual culture and social refinement based on a practical religious life. He is the founder of the famous Ambrosian Library opened by him in 1609, as a college of writers, a seminary of savants, a school of fine arts, and after theBobleian at Oxford the first genuinely public library in Europe. The cares of a thickly populated diocese did not prevent him from acquiring great ecclesiastical erudition or from composing some seventy-one printed andforty-six manuscript books written mostly in Latin that treat of variousecclesiastical sciences. The universal approbation of his own and later times is echoed in the following words from the above-mentioned work of Manzoni, engraved on the pedestal of the marble statue that the citizens of Milan erected in 1685 before the gates of the Ambrosiana Library; “He was one of those men rare in every age, who employed extraordinary intelligence, the resources of an opulent condition, the advantages of privileged station, and an unflinching will, in the search and practice of higher and better things.”

His life was first written by FRANCESCO RIVOLA (Milan, 1656), later by G. RIPAMONTI. CANTÚ, La Lombardia nel secolo XVII (Milan, 1882), which icludes a catalogue of his works; ROBERTI, Apologia del Card. Federigo Borromeo (Milan, 1870); VON REUMONT in Kirchenler., II, sqq.; BOUQUILLION in Catholic University Bulletin (Washington, 1895), I, 566–572.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Society of St. Charles Borromeo

(BORROMÄUSVEREIN).

A German Catholic association for the encouragement and diffusion of edifying, instructive, and entertaining literature. It was founded in Bonn, in 1845, by Franz Xavier Dieringer, one of the professors of the Catholic theological faculty at Bonn, August Reichensperger, and Freiherr Max von Loe. From the first the society placed itself under the protection of the episcopate. Cardinal Jobannes von Geissel, Cardinal Krementz, and Archbishop Simar did much to further its aims, and it gradually spread over the whole of Germany, so that by the middle of 1907 it had 145,250 members, who were grouped in 258 main societies and 3,247 branches. The administrative departmentand chief office are at Bonn. The society has 73 branches outside of Germany: in Belgium, 6; France, 2; Holland, 4; Italy, Luxembourg, 36; Austria, 6; Switzerland, 18. In 1906 its total income was $124,743, and its expenses, $123,174. In accordance with its by-laws the society seeks:

to send every year one book or several books as a gift to each of its members, the quantity of reading matter thus bestowed being dependent on the ability of the society and the amount of the annual subscription, as the dues vary from $1.50 to 75 or 38 cents a year;

to use the annual surplus in founding libraries (those thus founded numbered over 3,000 in 1904) and in the support of libraries;

to aid workingmen’s and people’s libraries and those of asylums, hospitals, and other charitable or social institutions.

Formerly the society was able to supply its members with a large number of books at a reduced price which was often not more than two-thirds of the ordinary cost of the volumes. The society’s catalogue for1906 contained over 10,000 titles of works which could be thus purchased. But since 1907 it has been obliged to abandon this branch of its activity on account of the position taken by the business union of the Germanbook-sellers. In the larger cities the society has opened free reading rooms for the use of the public in connection with its libraries. Since 1902 the society has issued a periodical; originally this publication was called “Borro-mäusblätter”; it now bears the name of “Die Bücherwelt.”

Die Gründung und Thätigkeit des Vereins vom hl. Karl Borromäus—Festschrift zum fünfzigjährigen Jubelfest des Vereins (Cologne, 1895); Jahresberichte der Zentralstelle.

JOSEPH LINS

Francesco Borromini

Architect and sculptor; born 25 September, 1599, at Bissone; died (by his own hand) 1 August, 1667, at Rome. He studied architecture under Carlo Maderna, a relative. On the death of Maderna, he was nominated as architect of St. Peter’s, under the direction of Bernini. His most extravagant effort was the church of San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane (1640–67), a good example of the fully developed baroque style in Rome. In the church and part of the College of Propaganda, Borromini’s fancies are wildest; the cupola and campanile of Sant’ Andrea delle Fratte are in better taste. The great nave of Saint John Lateran was modernized, as it now stands, by Borromini. His best work is the façade of Santa Agnese in the Piazza Navona. Borromini is generally considered the father of all modern abuses in architecture. He inverted the whole system of Greek and Roman architecture, without offering a substitute.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Christopher Borrus

(Borri, Burrus)

Missionary, mathematician, and astronomer, born at Milan in 1583; died at Rome, 24 May, 1632. His family was one of good standing in Milan. He became a member of the Society of Jesus, 16 September, 1601; in 1616 he was sent from Macao with Father Marquez, S.J., as one of the first missionaries to Cochin-China. Here he stayed until 1622, being known under the name of Bruno. After his return he taught mathematics at Coimbra; in 1632 he entered the Cistercian Order, taking the name of Father Onofrio, and died the same year. His most important work “Relatione della nuova missione delli P.P. della Compagnia di Gesù al Regno della Cocincina” appeared at Rome in 1631 and was translated into French (Rennes, 1631), Dutch (Louvain, 1632), Latin and German Vienna, 1633), and English (London, 1633). It was also inserted in Churchill’s “Collection of Voyages” (1704), II, 737–838, and in and Sprengel and Forster’s “Neue Beitrage zur Volkerund Länderkunde” Leipzig, 1793), II, 27–110. The work was considered one of the best sources of information concerning Cochin-China on account of its excellent description of the physical, political, and ecclesiastical conditions of the country. The observations of Borrus on the magnetic variation of the compass appear to be of more importance, but unfortunately they have not yet been published. According to Kireher he drew up the first chart for the Atlantic and Indian Oceans showing the spots where the magnetic needle makes the same angles with themeridian; in this he is to be regarded as the forerunner of Halley. Borrus gives the explanation to the chart in a manuscript that belongs to theRoyal Academy at Lisbon. In another manuscript, now at Evora, “Tratada da arte de navegar pelo Cristovao Bruno,” which bears on the same subject, he makes excellent suggestions, according to Allatius, as to a new method for determining the longitude at sea and also concerning improvements in sea-charts. Father Le Jeunehomme undertook a translation of the treatise into Latin. Philip of Spain, desiring to understand the nautical studies and inventions of Borrus, once summoned the latter from Coimbra to Madrid. Besides what has been already mentioned Borrus wrote, “Doctrina de Tribus Coelis, Aereo, Sydereo et Empeireo” (Lisbon, s. d.), which Pietro de Vale translated into Persian (Maius, Scriptor. vet, nova collect., IV, n. ix), and also some accounts of his travels for the Propaganda.

Allatius, Apes Urbanae (Rome, 1633), 66; Kircher, Magnes sive de arte magneticâ (Rome, 1641), 502; De Visch, Bibliotheteca scriptorum Sacr. Ord. Cisterciensis (Cologne, 1656) 71; Argelati, Biblioth. Scriptor. Mediolanesium (Milan, 1745), I, ii, 238; d’Avezac, Apercus historiques sur la boussole in Bullet. de la Soc. de Géogr. (Paris, 1860), XIX, 358; Carayon, Docum. inédits (Poitteirs, 1864), IV, 39; Von Humboltd, Kosmos (Stuttgart, 1869), IV, 171; Peschel-Ruge, Geschite der Erdkunde (2d ed., Munich, 1877) 726; Amat di S. Flillippo, Biographia dei viaggiatori italiani (2d ed., Rome, 1882), 375–377; Corvo, Roteiro de Lisbona a Goa por D. Joao de Castro (Lisbon, 1882), 393 sqq.; Backer-Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J. (1890), I, 1821–22; VII, 1878; Hellmann, ed., Neudrucke ron Schriften und Kartenuber Meteorologie und Erdmagnetismus (Berlin, 1895), No. IV, 18.

OTTO HARTIG

Diocese of Bosa

In the province of Cagliari, The city numbers about 35,000 inhabitants. St. Gregory the Great, in one of his letters, speaks of a Bishop of Bosa, without, however, mentioning the bishop’s name. In 1073 Constantino de Castro, Bishop of Bosa, who, according to an inscription,had built the cathedral dedicated to St. Peter, was appointed Metropolitan of Torres by St. Gregory VII. Among the most illustrious bishops of this see are numbered: the learned Cardinal Giovanni Casanova (1424), G. Freancesco Fara (1591), author of the first (but very innaccurate) historyof Sardinia; Serafino Esquirro, a learned theologian, who had been General of the Servites (1677). It is asserted by some that the see was originally at Calmedia, but was transferred to Bosa after the destruction of the former town; also, that the first bishop was St. Emilius, sent thither by St. Peter and martyred in 70—for this, however, there is no historical evidence. The diocese has a population of 40,200, with 21 parishes, 104 churches and chapels, 100 secular priests, and 40 seminarians.

CAPPELETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XIII; BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (Paris, 1907).

U. BENIGNI

Peter van der Bosch

Bollandist, born at Brussels, 19 October, 1686; died 14 November, 1736. After studying the humanities at the College of Brussels, 1698–1705, he entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus at Mechlin, 25 September, 1705. At the close of his novitiate he studied philosophy at Antwerp, 1707–09, and then spent a year in Italy to complete his literary training. Recalled to Antwerp in 1710, he spent six years in teachingand then went to Louvain, where he took a theological course, 1716–20. He was ordained priest at Louvain in 1719 and distinguished himself by thepublic defence of theses in March and September, 1719, and by his defence “De Universa Theologia” in 1720. In 1721, at the end of his third year of probation, he was made an assistant to the Boilandists and remained a member of this body during the rest of his life. His hagiographical writings are found in July, IV-VI, and August, I-III.

DOLMAUS, Elogium R. P. Petri Boschi hagiographi in Acta SS., III.

CH. DE SMEDT.

Ven. Giovanni Melchior Bosco

(Don Bosco.)

Founder of the Salesian Society. Born of poor parents in a little cabin at Becchi, a hill-side hamlet near Castelnuovo, Piedmont, Italy, 16 August, 1815; died 31 January 1888; declared Venerable by Pius X, 21 July, 1907. When he was little more than two years old his father died, leaving the support of three boys to the mother, Margaret Bosco. John’s early years were spent as a shepherd and he received his first instruction at the hands of the parish priest. He possessed a ready wit, a retentive memory, and as years passed his appetite for study grew stronger. Owing to the poverty of the home, however, he was often obliged to turn from his books to the field, but the desire of what he had to give up never left him. In 1835 he entered the seminary at Chieri and after six years of study was ordained priest on the eve of Trinity Sunday by Archbishop Franzoni of Turin.

Leaving the seminary, Don Bosco went to Turin where he entered zealously upon his priestly labours. It was here that an incident occurred which opened up to him the real field of effort of his afterlife. One of his duties was to accompany Don Cafasso upon his visits to the prisons of the city, and the condition of the children confined in these places, abandoned to the most evil influences, and with little before them but the gallows, made such a indelible impression upon his mind that he resolved to devote his life to the rescue of these unfortunate outcasts. On the eighth of December, 1841, the feast of the Immaculate Conception, while Don Bosco was vesting for Mass, the sacristan drove from the Church a ragged urchin because he refused to serve Mass. Don Bosco heard his cries and recalled him, and in the friendship which sprang up between the priest and Bartoloméo Garelli was sown the first seed of the “Oratory,” so called, no doubt, after the example of St. Philip Neri and because prayer was its prominent feature. Don Bosco entered eagerly upon the task of instructing this first pupil of the streets; companions soon joined Bartolomeo, all drawn by a kindness they had never known, and in February, 1842, the Oratory numbered twenty boys, in March of the same year, thirty, and in March, 1846, four hundred.

As the number of boys increased, the question of a suitable meeting-place presented itself. In good weather walks were taken on Sundays and holidays to spots in the country about Turin where lunch was eaten, and realizing the charm which music held for the untamed spirits of his disciples Don Bosco organized a band for which some old brass instruments were procured. In the autumn of 1844 he was appointed assistant chaplain to the Rifugio, where Don Borel entered enthusiastically into his work. With the approval of Archbishop Franzoni, two rooms were secured adjoining the Rifugio and converted into a chapel, which was dedicated to St. Francis de Sales. The members of the Oratory now gathered at the Rifugio, and numbers of boys from the surrounding district applied for admission. It was about this time (1845) that Don Bosco began his night schools and with the closing of the factories the boys flocked to his rooms where he and Don Borel instructed them in rudimentary branches.

The success of the Oratory at the Rifugio was not of long duration. To his great distress Don Bosco was obliged to give up his rooms and from this on he was subjected to petty annoyances and obstacles which, at times, seemed to spell the ruin of his undertaking. His perseverance in the face of all difficulties led many to the conclusion that he was insane, and an attempt was even made to confine him in an asylum. Complaints were lodged against him, declaring his community to be a nuisance, owing to the character of the boys he befriended. From the Rifugio the Oratory was moved to St. Martin’s, to St. Peter’s Churchyard, to three rooms in Via Cottolengo, where the night schools were resumed, to an open field, and finally to a rough shed upon the site of which grew up an Oratory that counted seven hundred members. Don Bosco took lodgings nearby, where he was joined by his mother. “Mama Margaret,” as Don Bosco’s mother came to be known, gave the last ten years of her life in devoted service to the little inmates of this first Salesian home. When she joined her son at the Oratory the outlook was not bright. But sacrificing what small means she had, even to parting with her home, its furnishings, and her jewelry, she brought all the solicitude and love of a mother to these children of the streets. The evening classes increased and gradually dormitories were provided for many who desired to live at the Oratory. Thus was founded the first Salesian Home which now houses about one thousand boys.

The municipal authorities by this time had come to recognize the importance of the work which Don Bosco was doing, and he began with much success a fund for the erection of technical schools and workshops. These were all completed without serious difficulty. In 1868 to meet the needs of the Valdocco quarter of Turin, Don Bosco resolved to build a church. Accordingly a plan was drawn in the form of a cross covering an area of 1,500 sq. yards. He experienced considerable difficulty in raising the necessary money, but the charity of some friends finally enabled him to complete it at a cost of more than a million francs (about 200,000). The church was consecrated 9 June, 1868, and placed under the patronage of Our Lady, Help of Christians. In the same year in which Don Bosco began the erection of the church fifty priests and teachers who had been assisting him formed a society under a common rule which Pius IX, provisionally in 1869, and finally in 1874, approved.

Character and Growth of the Oratory.—Any attempt to explain the popularity of the Oratory among the classes to which Don Bosco devoted his life would fail without an appreciation of his spirit which was its life. For his earliest intercourse with poor boys he had never failed to see under the dirt, the rags, and the uncouthness the spark which a little kindness and encouragement would fan into a flame. In his vision or dream which he is said to have had in his early boyhood, wherein it was disclosed to him what his life work would be, a voice said to him: “Not with blows, but with charity and gentleness must you draw these friends to the path of virtue.” And whether this be accounted as nothing more than a dream, that was in reality the spirit with which he animated his Oratory. In the earlier days when the number of his little disciples was slender he drew them about him by means of small presents and attractions, and by pleasant walks to favorite spots in the environs of Turin. These excursions occurring on Sunday, Don Bosco would say Mass in the village church and give a short instruction on the Gospel; breakfast would then be eaten, followed by games; and in the afternoon Vespers would be chanted, a lesson in Catechism given, and the Rosary recited. It was a familiar sight to see him in the field surrounded by kneeling boys preparing for confession.

Don Bosco’s method of study knew nothing of punishment. Observance of rules was obtained by instilling a true sense of duty, by removing assiduously all occasions for disobedience, and by allowing no effort towards virtue, how trivial soever it might be, to pass unappreciated. He held that the teacher should be father, adviser, and friend, and he was the first to adopt the preventive method. Of punishment he said: “As far as possible avoid punishing. . . . try to gain love before inspiring fear.” And in 1887 he wrote: “I do not remember to have used formal punishment; and with God’s grace I have always obtained, and from apparently hopeless children, not alone what duty exacted, but what my wish simply expressed.” In one of his books he has discussed the causes of weakness of character, and derives them largely from a misdirected kindness in the rearing of children. Parents make a parade of precocious talents: the child understands quickly, and his sensitiveness enraptures all who meet him, but the parents have only succeeded in producing an affectionate, perfected, intelligent animal. The chief object should be to form the will and to temper the character. In all his pupils Don Bosco tried to cultivate a taste for music, believing it to be a powerful and refining influence. “Instruction,” he said, “is but an accessory, like a game; knowledge never makes a man because it does not directly touch the heart. It gives more power in the exercise of good or evil; but alone it is an indifferent weapon, wanting guidance.” He always studied, too, the aptitudes and vocations of his pupils, and to an almost supernatural quickness and clearness of insight into the hearts of children must be ascribed to no small part of his success. In his rules he wrote: “Frequent Confession, frequent Communion, daily Mass: these are the pillars which should sustain the whole edifice of education.” Don Bosco was an indefatigable confessor, devoting days to the work among his children. He recognized that gentleness and persuasion alone were not enough to bring to the task of education. He thoroughly believed in play as a means of arousing childish curiosity—more than this, he places it among his first recommendations, and for the rest he adopted St. Philip Neri’s words: “Do as you wish, I do not care so long as you do not sin.”

Statistics.—At the time of Don Bosco’s death in 1888 there were 250 houses of the Salesian Society in all parts of the world, containing 130,000 children, and from which there annually went out 18,000 finished apprentices. In the motherhouse Don Bosco had selected the brightest of his pupils, taught them Italian, Latin, French, and mathematics, and this band formed a teaching corps for the new homes which quickly grew up in other places. Up to 1888 over six thousand priests had gone forth from Don Bosco’s institutions, 1,200 of whom had remained in the society. The schools begin with the child in his first instruction and lead, for those who choose it, to seminaries for the priesthood. The society also conducts Sunday schools, evening schools for adult workmen, schools for those who enter the priesthood late in life, technical schools, and printing establishments for the diffusion of good reading in different languages. Its members also have charge of hospitals and asylums, nurse the sick, and do prison work, especially in rural districts. The society has houses in the following countries: Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, England, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Palestine, and Algiers; in Central America, Mexico, in South America, Patagonia, Terra del Fuego, Ecuador, Brazil, Paraguay, The Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Uruguay, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, and Colombia. In the United States the Salesians have four churches: Sts. Peter and Paul and Corpus Christi in San Francisco, California; St. Josephs in Oakland, California; and the Transfiguration in New York City. Very Rev. Michael Borghino, Provincial for America, resides in San Francisco.

Don Bosco’s Apostolate and Other Sketches (Salesian Press, Turin, 1901); WEBER in Kirchenlex., X, 1558 sqq.; VILLEFRANCHE, Don Bosco, tr. MARTIN (London).

E.F. SAXTON

Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovich

A Dalmatian Jesuit and well-known mathematician, astronomer, and natural philosopher, b. at Ragusa, 18 May 1711; d. at Milan, 13 February, 1787. He was the youngest of six brothers and his education began at the Jesuit college of his native city. Being early impressed by the success achieved by his masters, he resolved to receive admission into their ranks, and on 31 October, 1725, at the youthful age of fourteen, he entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus in Rome. His unusual talents manifested themselves particularly during the years devoted to literary and philosophical studies at the Collegio Romano, the most celebrated of the colleges of the Society of Jesus. Thus, for example, young Boscovich discovered for himself the proof of the theorem of Pythagoras. His professor, especially Father Horatio Borgondi, professor of mathematics, knew how to cultivate talents, and he made such progress, especially in mathematics, that he was able to take the place of his former professor at the Roman College even before the completion of his theological studies. As soon as he had completed the ordinary studies of a young Jesuit, he was appointed regular professor of mathematical science at the same college. He performed the duties of this office with much distinction for a whole generation, as is evidenced by the numerous Latin dissertations which he published nearly every year, according to the custom of the time. These show Boscovich’s preference for astronomical problems. Among them may be mentioned:

The Sunspots (1736);

The Transit of Mercury (1737);

The Aurora Borealis (1738);

The Application of the Telescope in Astronomical Studies (1739);

The Figure of the Earth (1739);

The Motion of the heavenly Bodies in an unresisting Medium (1740);

The Various Effects of Gravity (1741);

The Aberration of the Fixed Stars (1742).

Problems in pure mathematics as well as philosophical speculations regarding the various theories on the constitution of matter also engaged his attention and he took an active part in all scientific discussions which agitated the learned world of his time. To these belong his The Deviation of the earth from the probable Spherical Shape; Researches on Unusual Gravitation; The Computation of a Comet’s Orbit from a Few Observations, etc. His able treatment of these and similar problems attracted the attention of foreign, as well as of Italian, Academies, several of which—among them Bologna, Paris, and London—admitted him to membership. At Paris he shared with the famous mathematician Euler the honor of having submitted the correction solution to a prize problem. Boscovich also showed much ability in dealing with practical problems. To him was due the project of the Observatory of the Collegio Romano, which afterwards became so well known. He first suggested using the massive dome-pillars of the college church of St. Ignatius as a foundation, on account of their great stability. (The church dome has not yet been completed, so the pillars still await the substructure planned by the architect.) The unfavorable circumstances of the time, and the storms brewing against the Jesuits, which ended, as is well known, in the suppression of the Society, prevented Boscovich’s plan from being carried out until 1850, when Father Secchi, his worthy successor, was able to bring it to completion. There is a close parallel, it may be observed, between these two coryphaei of the Roman College, and Boscovich may, without hesitation, be considered the intellectual forerunner of Secchi. Like Secchi, too, he was the advisor of the papal Government in all important technical questions. Thus, when in the middle of the eighteenth century the great dome of St. Peter’s began to show cracks and other signs of damage, causing consternation to the pope and to the Eternal City, Boscovich was consulted, and the excitement was not allayed until his plan to place large iron bands about the dome was carried out. His advice was sought when there was a question of rendering innocuous the Pontine marshes and he was also entrusted with the survey of the Papal States. Pope Benedict XIV commissioned him and his fellow Jesuit, Le Maire, to carry out several precise meridian arc measurements, and it seems to have been due chiefly to his influence that the same pope, in 1757, abrogated the obsolete decree of the Index against the Copernican system.

Many universities outside of Italy sought to number Boscovich among their professors. He himself was full of the spirit of enterprise, as was shown when King John V of Portugal petitioned the general of the Jesuits for ten Fathers to make an elaborate survey in Brazil. He voluntarily offered his services for the arduous task, hoping thus to be able to carry out an independent survey in Ecuador, and so obtain data of value for the final solution to the problem of the figure of the earth, which was then exciting much attention in England and France. His proposal lead to the initiation of similar surveys in the Papal States, the pope taking this means of retaining him in his own domain. A detailed account of the results of the work appeared in a large quarto volume (Rome, 1755) entitled: “De litterariâ expeditione per Pontificam ditionem ad dimetiendos duos meridiani gradus et corrigendam mappam geographicam.” A map of the Papal States made at the same time, which corrected many previous errors, proved to be likewise a wholesome contribution to the discussion regarding the more or less spherical form of the earth. Many of the triangulations were accomplished by no slight difficulties. The two base-lines employed in the survey—one on the Via Apia, the other in the neighborhood of Rimini—were measured with great care. The first was redetermined in 1854–55 by Father Secchi, as the mark indicating one end of the line measured by Boscovich and La Maire had been lost. (Cf. Secchi’s work: Misura della Base trigonometrica esequita sull via Appia per ordine del governo pontifico, Roma, 1858.) Besides his work in mathematical astronomy, we also find Boscovich speculating, upon scientific grounds, on the essence of matter and endeavoring to establish more widely Newton’s law of universal gravitation. As early as 1748 we meet essays from his pen in this field of thought, e. g. De materiae divisibilitate et du principiis corporum dissertatio (1748); De continuitatis lege et ejus consectariis pertinentibus ad prima materiae elementa eorumque vires (1754); De lege virium in natura existentium (1755); Philosophiae naturalis theoria redacta ad unicam legem virium in natura existentium (1758). Boscovich, according to the views expressed in these essays, held that bodies could not be composed of a continuous material substance, nor even of contiguous material particles, but of innumerable point-like structures whose individual components lack all extension and divisibility. A repulsion exists between them which is indeed infinitesimal but cannot vanish without compenetration taking place. This repulsion is due to certain forces with which these elements are endowed. It tends to become infinite when they are in very close proximity, whereas within certain limits it diminishes as the distance is increased and finally becomes an attractive force. This change is brought about by the diverse direction of the various forces. Boscovich divided his last-mentioned exhaustive work into three parts, first explaining and establishing his theory, and then pointing out his applications to mechanical problems, and finally showing how it may be employed in physics. His attempt to reduce the complicated laws of nature to a simple fundamental law aroused so much interest that in 1763 a third, and enlarged edition of his “Theoria philosphiae naturalis” (Venice, 1763) had become necessary. The publisher added as an appendix a catalogue of Boscovich’s previous works. There are no less than sixty-six treatises dating from 1736—a proof of his literary activity. Some have already been mentioned, and to these may be added his “Elementorum matheseos tomi tres,” in quarto (1752).

Boscovich attracted attention by his political writings as well as by his scientific achievements. His Latin verses in which he eulogized the Polish king, Stanislaus, Pope Benedict XIV, and various Venetian noblemen, were read before the Arcadian Academy of Rome. His “Carmen de Solis ac Lunae defectibus” (5 vols., London, 1760) was much admired. His services were also in demand in several cities and provinces. Thus, in 1757, he was sent by the city of Lucca to the Court of Vienna to urge the damming of the lakes which were threatening the city. He acquitted himself of this task which such skill that the Luccans made him an honorary citizen and rendered him generous assistance on his scientific journeys, both in Italy, France, and England. While in England he gave the impulse to the observations of the approaching transit of Venus, on 6 June, 1761, and it is not unlikely that his proposal to employ lenses composed of liquids, to avoid chromatic aberration, may have contributed to Dolland’s success in constructing achromatic telescopes. The citizens of Ragusa, his native town, besought him to settle a dispute in which they had become involved with the King of France—an affair which the pope himself deigned to adjust. Bascovich returned from England in company with the Venetian ambassador who took him by way of Poland as far as Constantinople. He availed himself of this opportunity to extend and complete his archeological studies in these countries , as may be gathered from his journal published at Bassano in 1784: “Giornale d’un viaggio da Constantinopli in Polnia con una relazione della rovine de Troja.” The hardships of this journey shattered his health, yet we find him shortly after (1762) employed at Rome in various practical works, such as the draining of the Pontine marshes. In 1764 he accepted the appointment of professor of mathematics at the University of Pavia (Ticinum). At the same time, Father Le Grange, the former assistant of father Pezenas of the Observatory of Marseilles, was invited by the Jesuits of Milan to erect an observatory at the large college of Brera. He was able to avail himself of the technical skill of Boscovich in carrying out his commission and it may be questioned to which of the two belongs the greater credit in the founding of this observatory which, even in our own time, with that of the Collegio Romano, is among the most prominent of Italy. It was Boscovich who selected the southeast corner of the college as a site for the observatory and worked out the complete plans, including the reinforcements and the necessary remodeling for the structure. Building operations were immediately begun, and in the following year, 1765, a large room for the mural quadrants and meridian instruments, another for the smaller instrument, and a broad terrace, with several revolving domes to contain the sextants and equitorials, were completed. Such was the stability of the observatory that the new 18-inch glass of Schiaparelli could be mounted in it although a cylindrical dome of 13 yards, 4 inches now takes the place of the octogonal hall of Boscovich.

The London Academy proposed to send Boscovich in charge of an expedition to California to observe the transit of Venus in 1769, but, unfortunately, the opposition manifested everywhere to the Society of Jesus and leading finally to its suppression, made this impossible. He continued, however, to give his services to the Milan Observatory for whose further development he was able to obtain no inconsiderable sums of money. In particular the adjustment of the instrument engaged his attention, a subject about which he left several papers. But as his elaborate plans received only partial support from his superiors and patrons, he thought seriously in 1772 of severing his connection with the observatory, and, in fact, in the same year, Father La Grange was placed in complete charge of the new institution. Boscovich was to become professor at the University of Pisa, but Louis XV gained his services and invited him to Paris, where a new office, Director of Optics for the Marine—d’optique au service de la Marine—with a salary of 8,000 francs, was created for him. He retained this position until 1783 when he returned to Italy to supervise the printing of his as yet unpublished works in five volumes, for it was not easy to find a suitable publisher in France for books written in Latin. In 1785 there appeared at Bassano, “Rogerii Josephi Boscovich opera pertinentia ad opticam et astronomiam . . . in quinque tomos distributa,” the last important work from the pen of this active man, who, after its completion, retired for a time to the monastery of the monks of Vallombrosa. He returned to Milan with new plans, but death shortly overtook him at the age of seventy-six, delivering him from a severe malady which was accompanied by temporary mental derangement. He was buried in the church of Santa Maria Podone.

Boscovich, by his rare endowments of mind and the active use which he made of his talents, was preeminent among the scholars of his time. His merits were recognized by learned societies and universities, and by popes and princes who honored him and bestowed favors upon him. He was recognized as a gifted teacher, an accomplished leader in scientific enterprises, an inventor of important instruments which are still employed (such as the ring-micrometer, etc.) and as a pioneer in developing new theories. All this, however, did not fail to excite envy against him, particularly in the later years of his life in France, where men like d’Alembert and Condorcet reluctantly saw the homage paid to the former Jesuit, and that, too, at a time when so many frivolous charges were being made against his lately suppressed order. This hostility was further increased by various controversies which resulted in differences of opinion, such as the contention between Boscovich and Rochon regarding priority in the invention of the rock crystal prismatic micrometer. (Cf. Delambre, Historie de l’Astronomie du XVIIIe siecle, p. 645.) The invention of the ring-micrometer, just mentioned, which Boscovich describes in his memoir “De novo telescopii usu ad objecta coelestia determinanda” (Rome, 1739), has been ascribed without reason by some to the Dutch natural philosopher Huygens. The chief advantage of the simple measuring instrument designed by Boscovich consists in its not requiring any artificial illumination of the field of the telescope. This makes it useful in observing faint objects, as its inventor expressly points out in connection with the comet of 1739. The novel views of Boscovich in the domain of natural philosophy have not, up to the present time, passed unchallenged, even on the part of Catholic scholars. Against his theory of the constitution of matter the objection has been raised that an inadmissible actio in distans is inevitable in the mutual actions of the elementary points of which material bodies are supposed to be composed. The theory therefore leads to Occasionalism. Acknowledgement must, however, must be made of the suggestiveness of Boscovich’s work in our own day, and the germs of many of the conclusions of modern physics may be found in it. His illustrious successor at the Observatory of the Collegio romano, Father Angelo Secchi, in his “Unita delle forze fisiche” has in many respects followed in his footsteps, and in fact the cosmological views held by many later natural philosophers furnish unequivocal proof of the influence of the theories maintained by Boscovich.

Among his many smaller works (for a full list, cf. Sommervogel, cited below), the following deserve special attention: De annuis stellarum fixarum aberrationibus (Rome, 1742); De orbitus cometarum determinandis ope trium observationem parum a se invicem remotarum (Paris, 1774); De recentibus compertis pertinentibus ad perficiendam dioptricam (1767). His chief works, however, are:

De litteraria expeditione per Pontificam ditionem (1755);

Theoria philosophiae naturalis (1758);

Opera pertinentia ad opticam at Astronomiam maxima ex parte nova et omnia hucusque inmedita (1785).

The second was published in Vienna 1758–59, in Venice, 1763, and again in Vienna in 1764. The last-named work was subjected to an exhaustive criticism by Delambre, by no means a friend of the Jesuits. He closes with these words: Boscovich in general manifests a preference for graphical methods in the use of which he gives evidence of great skill. in his whole work he shows himself a teacher who prefers to lecture rather than to lose himself in speculations.” The most extended biographical account of Boscovich may be found in Vitae Italorum, Auctorae Angelo Fabronio, Academiae Pisanae curatore (Pisa, 1789), XIV; cf. also Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J. (Brussels, 1890) I, col. 1828–50. For shorter accounts, cf. Zamagna (Ragusa, 1787); Lalande (Paris, 1792); Ricca (Milan, 1789); Bagamonti (Ragusa, 1789); Bizzaro (Venice, 1817);Galleria di ragusani illustri (Ragusa, 1841); Vaccolini in Giornale arcadico (1842), XCII, 174.

ADOLF MÜLLER.

Antonio Bosio

Known as “The Columbus of the Catacombs,” b. in the island of Malta about the year 1576; d. 1629. While still a boy he was sent to Rome and placed in charge of an uncle who represented the Knights of Malta in the Eternal City. In the Roman schools he studied literature, philosophy, and jurisprudence, but at the age of eighteen he gave up his legal studies and for the remaining thirty-six years of his life all his time was devoted to archaeological work in the Roman catacombs. The accidental discovery, in 1578, of an ancient subterranean cemetery on the Via Salaria had for the moment attracted general attention in Rome. Few, however, realized the importance of the discovery, and, with the exception of three foreign scholars, Ciacconio, De Winghe, and L’Heureux, no one seriously thought of pursuing further investigations. It was reserved for Bosio to begin the systematic exploration of subterranean Rome and thus to become the founder of the science of Christian archaeology. The young explorer from the beginning realized that in early Christian literature he would find an indispensable ally, and accordingly he began to study the Acts of the Martyrs and of the Councils, the writings of the Greek and the Latin Fathers, and in fact every species of document that might help to throw light on the obscurities of his subject. An idea of the vast scope of his reading may be obtained from the two great tomes of his manuscript notes in the Vallicelliana library at Rome, each of which contains about a thousand pages in folio.

The literary labours of Bosio account for only half of his time; the other half was consumed in systematic efforts to utilize the information derived from his reading for his particular object. Thus, for example, after he had collected all the data possible relative to the location of a catacomb on one of the great roads leading from Rome, Bosio would betake himself to the place indicated, and go over every inch of ground carefully in the hope of discovering a forgotten stairway, or luminarium, of a cemetery. If fortune crowned his investigations with success, he would then descend to the subterranean abode of the long-forgotten dead, and, sometimes at the imminent danger of being lost in the labyrinth of galleries, commence his explorations. The great work achieved by Bosio was almost unknown till the publication three years after his death of his “Roma Sotterranea.” The folio volume was brought out under the patronage of the Knights of Malta, by the Oratorian Severano, who had been entrusted with its editorship by Cardinal Francesco Barberini. Its full title is “Roma Sotterranea, opera postuma di Antonio Bosio Romano, antiquario ecclesiastico singolare de’ suoi tempi. Compita, disposta, et accresciuta dal M. R. P. Giovanni Severani da S. Severino” (Rome, 1632). The great merit of the new publication was at once recognized. A Latin translation was undertaken by Severano, but never published. Aringhi’s Latin translation appeared in 1651, but the liberties which this writer took with the original text were far from being improvements. Bosio’s “Roma Sotterranea” is entirely devoted to a description of the cemeteries explored by the great archaeologist. His leading thought was to ascertain all that was possible regarding the history of each cemetery, by what name it was known in antiquity, who were its founders, what martyrs and illustrious Christians were interred there. Many of his conclusions have in modern times been found to be erroneous, but on the other hand, recent research has shown, in one important instance, that a conjecture of Bosio’s, which de Rossi thought without foundation, was wholly correct. (See CHRISTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY.) Bosio’s method is acknowledged by all to have been scientific; his shortcomings were those of the age in which he lived. In view of the fact that numerous frescoes which existed in the early seventeenth century have since been destroyed, it is unfortunate that the copyists employed by Bosio were not equal to the task assigned to them. Wilpert states that the illustrations of “Roma Sotteranea” are of little use to the modern archaeologist.

NORTHCOTE AND BROWNLOW, Roma Sotterranea (London, 1878); WILPERT, Pitture delle Catacombe Romane (rome, 1903); MULLER in Realencyklopädie für prot. Theol., s.v. Koimeterien (Leipzig, 1901).

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina form the north-western corner of the Balkan Peninsula. Taking the two together as one territory, Bosnia-Herzegovina is bounded on the north by the Austrian provinces and titular kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia, on the east by the Kingdom of Servia, on the south by one of the nominal provinces of Turkey, the principality of Montenegro, and the titular kingdom and Austrian province of Dalmatia, and on the west by Dalmatia and Croatia. The Dinaric Alps and the Save and Drina Rivers form a large part of the boundary line of the country which in shape closely resembles an equilateral triangle. The joint territory has an area of about 19,702 square miles and belongs nominally to the Turkish Empire. Article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin, 13 July, 1878, granted Austria-Hungary the right to occupy and administer the two provinces. Since then they have been under the control of the Minister of Finance of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy as crown provinces. Bosnia and Herzegovina belong, with their alternating highlands and mountain chains, to the region of the Karst mountains. The Karst region forms a part of the spurs of the southern Alps. It is a mountainous limestone district of the mesozoic period with valleys of incomplete formation. The rocky, unfruitful character of the Karst region is more evident in the southern part of the territory than in the northern, for in the north the forest-covered ranges, running chiefly from south-east to north-west, enclose fertile valleys. The only flat country is the district called Posavina, lying on the Save. There is in general a terrace-like descent from the mountainous region towards the Adriatic and the Hungarian depression.

Bosnia may be regarded as a succession of great terraces, but Herzegovina, in which the mountain sides slope down towards the Narenta River, has more the shape of a basin. The former belongs to the region of the Black Sea, the latter to that of the Adriatic. The highest peaks, the Locike (6,913 feet), the Treskavica-Planina (6,851 feet), and the Bjelasnica-Planina (6,782 feet) lie near the border of Herzegovina, respectively west and south-west of Serajevo. The Save is the chief river of Bosnia and its tributaries are the Una, the Vrbas, the Ukina, the Bosna, and the Drina. Herzegovina is drained by the Narenta (Neretva) River. As Bosnia falls away towards the north until it descends into the low-lying region of the Save, it is easy of access from central Europe and was, consequently, exposed to incursions by the kings of Hungary. After crossing the Saxe the Hungarian armies could penetrate into the heart of the country without encountering any natural obstacles. Bosnia was also, in consequence of the physcal formationn of the land, frequently divided into two parts, the upper or mountainous Bosnia, which extended to where the rivers pass into the flat country of the Save, and the Bosnian plain along the Save. The Romans observed this narural line of division and made it the boundary between the provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia. Just as the political unity of Bosnia was made more difficult by its natural configuration, so on the other hand, the development, of a compact principality was favoured in Herzegovina (also called Hum) by basin-like shape.

PHYSICAL FORMATION

Mesozoic formations appear throughout this territory especially in the shape of Triassic rooks: where there are dislocations the underlying palaeozoic rocks frequently project. These latter are made of slate, sandstone, and limestone, as for example, the famous mountain range of slate rock called Kresevo, in the western part of the Serajevo district, and the range called Posara on the Save. Jurassic rock and chalk formations appear chiefly in Herzegovina and western Bosnia. Of far greater extent are the neogenic fresh water formations containing the great coal deposits of the two territories. There is also much volcanic rock of various The climate of Bosnia is in general the usual continental one of cold winters and hot summers, while in Herzegovina the nearness of the sea makes the climate almost semi-tropical. The average yearly temperature is from 48.2° to 50° Fahr. The average temperature of Travnik, situated at a height of 1,640 feet in about the centre of the country, is in January 28.4° Fahr., in April 50.5°, in July, 68.3°, and in October 50.3°. Since the time of the Romans Bosnia has yielded a large amount of iron; lignite or brown coal and salt are also obtained in a number of places. Mineral and hot springs abound; among these are the hot spring at Ilidze near Serajevo, the chalybeate spring at Kiseljak, and a spring impregnated with arsenic at Srebrenica. Bosnia contains a large amount of timber; 50 per cent of its area is covered with forests; 34 per cent is productive farming-land, and the remaining 16 per cent is in the rocky Karst region. The Bosnian forests are full of boars, bears, wolves, foxes, lynxes, and deer. Agriculture is of a primitive character and could be made far more productive. The chief agricultural products of the country are maize and wheat; oats, rye, barley, hemp, and buckwheat are also raised. In Herzegovina in addition to these staples wine and oil are produced and figs are cultivated.

POPULATION

According to the census of 22 April 1895, Bosnia has 1,361,868 inhabitants and Herzegovina 229,168, giving a total population of 1,591,036. The number of persons to the square mile is small (about 80), less than that in any of the other Austrian crown provinces excepting Salzburg (about 70). This average does not vary much in the six districts (five in Bosnia, one in Herzegovina). The number of persons to the square mile in these districts is as follows: Doljna Tuzla, 106; Banjaluka, 96; Bihac, 91; Serajevo, 73, Mostar (Herzegovina), 65, Travnik, 62. There are 5,388 settlements, of which only 11 have more than 5,000 inhabitants, while 4,689 contain less 500 persons. Excluding some 30,000 Albanians living in the south-east, the Jews who emigrated in earlier times from Spain, a few Osmanli Turks, the merchants, officials. and Austrian troops, the rest of the population (about 98 per cent) belong to the southern Slavonic people, the Serbs. Although one in race, the people form in religious beliefs three sharply separated divisions: the Mohammedans, about 550,000 persons (35 per cent), Greek Schismatics, about 674,000 persons (43 per cent), and Catholics, about 334,000 persons (21.3 per cent). The last mentioned are chiefly peasants. The Mohammedans form the mass of the population in the region called the Krajina in the north-west, in the district of Serajevo and in the south-eastern part of the territory; the Greek Schismatics preponderate in the district of Banjaluka. The Catholics of the Latin Rite exceed the other two denominations only in the district of Travnik and in northern Herzegovina. There are in addition 8,000 Jews and 4,000 Protestants. Divided according to occupation 85 per cent of the population are farmers or wine-cultivators (1,385,291). There are 5,833 large estates, the owners of which are chiefly Mohammedans, 88,970 cultivators of land not their own (kmeten), 88,867 free peasants who own the land they till, and 22,625 peasants who own farming-land and also cultivate the land of others. The population of the towns is small.

HISTORY

There are traces of human settlements in Bosnia dating from the Stone Age. The earliest inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina of whom there is any certainty are the Illyrians, an exceedingly rapacious pastoral people who were divided into various tribes. The best known of these are: a small tribe called the Liburnians living in the northwest, who were notorious pirates; the Ardiaeans living south of the Liburnians, and the Antiariats, who were neighbours of the Ardiaeans living still farther to the south. The migrations of the Celts in the third and fourth centuries before Christ drove various Illyrian tribes out of their former possessions. From the third century until 167 B.C., a powerful Illyrian kingdom existed, under rulers called Agron, Teuta, and Genius, in southern Dalmatia, and the adjoining Herzegovina and Montenegro. The Romans had a hard struggle before they succeeded finally in breaking the power of the Illyrians and in getting control of Bosnia and Herzegovina (6 B.C.-A.D. 9). The sagacious Romans saw that in order to control the line of the Danube and the east coast of Italy it was necessary to absorb the triangular shaped country of the Illyrians. No part of the peninsula contains so many traces of Roman civilization as Dalmatia and the adjoining Bosnia. The Romans built a road from Mitrovic or Mitrovitza (Sirmium) near the Save to Gradisca and continued it from Gradisea through what is now western Bosnia or Turkish Croatia as far as Salona; they constructed a second road through upper Bosnia across the present district of Serajevo to Domavia on the Drina, and from here to Mitrovie a third road went from Salona to Narona (near Dubrawa) and to Scodra (Scutari). The Romans named the province Dalmatia after the largest and bravest of the tribes living on the coast. They divided it into three administrative dioceses, the chief cities being, respectively, Salona, the capital of the whole province, Scardona and Narenta. The northernmost part of Bosnia, extending for some distance from the Save, was included in the province of Pannonia. The Illyrians who had been familiar only with war and cattle-raising now turned their attention, under the guidance of the Romans, to mining, placer-mining for gold and agriculture. They became largely Romanized and for hundreds of years their legions bravely defended the empire.

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire Dalmatia and Pannonia came into the possession of the Ostrogoths under King Theodoric. During the war that followed (535–554) between Justinian and the Ostrogoths, the Slavs made repeated incursions into the provinces. It may be that they were called in by the Ostrogoths. After the Slavs the Avars raided the territory and in 598 turned Dalmatia almost into a wilderness. After this the Slavs greatly desired the country and sueeeeded in taking possession during the first half of the seventh century. Among the tribes which now owned the land, the Hroati (later called Croats) lived on the Dalmatic coast and the Serbi in the interior. Up to the eighth century the influence of the Byzantine Empire was paramount. At the end of the ninth century when the power of the Carlovingian dynasty extended as far as the south-eastern Alpine provinces, the Croats eame under the influence of Western civilization and embraced Latin Christianity. The tribes of the interior retained the patriarchal form of government and the old pagan worship much longer than the dwellers on the coast, notwithstanding the connection which they had had for centuries with Constantinople. Bosnia seems to have belonged to Croatia as late as the beginning of the tenth century. A little later the Servian prince Ceslav (931–960) sueeeeded in freeing Servia from the suzerainty of Bulgaria and built up a confederation of which Bosnia formed a part. About 955 Ceslav was obliged to defend the dependent banat, or district, of Bosnia (originally merely the valley of the upper Bosna) from an incursion of the Magyars. After the death of Ceslav and the dissolution of his kingdom Bosnia was ruled by native bans or chiefs. In 968 however, Bosnia was conquered by the Croatian king Kresimir and in 1019 the whole north-western part of the Balkan Peninsula came under the sway of the Eastern Roman Emperor, Basil II. After Basil’s death Bosnia regained its independence and was ruled by native bans until it was united with the domain of Bela II, King of Hungary. In 1135 this ruler called himself for the first time King of Rama (Bosnia).

During the entire reign of the Emperor Manuel I Comnenus, (1143–80) a long and fierce struggle went on between the Byzantine Empire on the one side and Hungary and the southern Slavs on the other; in this Ban Boris, the first ruler of Bosnia known by name, remained faithful to Hungary. In 1163, however, Boris took sides against Stephen III in the quarrel over the succession to the Hungarian throne. He was defeated by Gottfried of Meissen who was sent with an army against him, and his family lost their power in Bosnia. The Banat of Boris extended from Livno and the valley of the Rama in the west to the Drina River in the east. Three years later Bosnia, Syrmia, Croatia, and Dalmatia became subject to the Byzantine Empire. After the death of Manuel I, Comnenus (1180) the new Ban, Kulin, was able to shake off the foreign yoke. But Bela III of Hungary, desiring to make Bosnia a dependency of his own kingdom, persuaded the pope to place the Bishopric of Bosnia and the Diocese of Ston in Herzegovina under the Archdiocese of Spalato, the territory of which belonged to Hungary. Before this Bosnia had been suffragan to Ragusa. In order to counteract this indirect Hungarian control Kulin, his family, and 10,000 Bosnians between the years 1190–99, became adherents of the Paterine heresy. When Pope Innocent III and King Emmerich of Hungary joined forces to exterminate the Paterines and to conquer Bosnia, Kulin preserved Bosnia’s independence of Hungarian control by returning in 1203 to the Catholic religion in the presence of the papal legate, Johannes de Casamaris. During the reign of his successor, Ban Stephen, the Paterines grew so powerful that they deposed Stephen and substituted one of their own adherents, the able Matthias Ninoslav (1232–50), who was probably related to Kulin. In 1233 Ninoslav returned to the Catholic Faith, but notwithstanding this the land was filled with the adherents of the Paterine belief, and in 1234–39 a crusade was preached against Bosnia but was not, however, carried out. Although Ninoslav maintained his position as Ban of Bosnia, he was not able to found a dynasty and after his death his principality gradually fell to pieces. The districts of Herzegovina near Ragusa aimed at individual independence, while the rest of the territory now included in Bosnia and Herzegovina gradually came into a more complete dependence on Hungary.

During the reign of Bela IV of Hungary (1235–70) upper Bosnia and the district of Posavina were formed into the Banat of Bosnia, the region in the west on the Usora into the Banat of Usora, and the region in the east on the Drina into the Banat of Soli or Tuzla, while the western part of the present territory of Herzegovina, the region of the Rama, and southern Bosnia were ruled by various powerful Croatian families. At this time a relative of Ninoslav named Pryezda lived on the upper part of the Bosna River. Pryezda’s son, Stephen Katroman (1322–53), was the first of the Katroman family from which for a century and a half came the bans and kings of Bosnia. Stephen was a vassal of the kings of Hungary, who were his relatives and members of the house of Anjou. Through this connection Stephen was able, after defeating the rulers of the present Herzegovina, to unite this territory to his domains. From the tenth century Herzegovina had formed a so-called buffer district between the Dalmatic coast and Bosnia on the one side and Servia on the other of the dismemberment of the great Servian empire of Dusan the Strong, Tvrtko, Stephen Katroman’s nephew and successor, with the help of King Louis I (the Great) of Hungary, became master of the district of the upper Drina, Trebinje, and Canale. Tvrtko now, with the consent of Louis, took the title of King of Bosnia. A few years later (1384) Bosnia and Herzegovina were laid waste for the first time by the Turks. After the death of Louis the Great (1382) Tvrtko threw off the suzerainty of Hungary and conquered the cities on the Dalmatie coast. During the reigns of his successors Stephen Dabischa (1391–95), Queen Helena (1395 98), Stephen Osoja (1398–1418), Stephen Ostojitsch (1418–21), Stephen Tvrtko II (1404–31) (the rival of the two last-named kings), Stephen Thomas (1443–61), and Stephen Thomaschewitz (1461–63) the kingdom rapidly declined in power so that these rulers were not able to maintain their authority over the conquered districts or to keep the insubordinate vassals and nobles in cheek. The nobles ruled their territories with little regard for the king; they had their own courts with state officials, granted pardons, had relations with foreign powers, and carried on bloody wars with one another.

The last king, who possessed only the land on the right bank of the Bosna, sought to strengthen his position by becoming a vassal of the pope. He hoped by this means to obtain the aid of the Christian countries of Western Europe in defending himself against the threatening power of the Turks. In 1462 he refused to pay tribute to the Sultan Mohammed II; but when in the following spring Mohammed invaded Bosnia with a powerful army, the young king found himself deserted. Deceit and treason, especially on the part of the Bogomili, completed his ruin. He was taken prisoner by the Turks and beheaded, by the order of the sultan, July, 1463, probably near Jajce (Jaitza). The campaign of the Turks ended in the overthrow of the Bosnian kingdom; only Herzegovina maintained its independence. One hundred thousand prisoners of both sexes were taken; 30,000 Bosnian youths were compelled to join the janizaries. The nobility, especially the Bogomili, became Mohammedans. A large part of the remaining population left the country. The following year King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary freed from the Turkish yoke a part of Bosnia, the Banats of Jajce and Srebrenica (Srebrenitza) which belonged to Hungary until the battle of Mohacs (1526). Herzegovina came under the dominion of the Turks twenty years after the fall of Bosnia (1483). The long period of Turkish oppression is lightened by the daring feat of Prince Eugene, who in the autumn of 1697 after the battle of Zenta, with 4,000 cavalry and 2,000 infantry advanced towards the capital of Bosnia; as the expected rising of the Christian population failed to take place, he retreated carrying with him 40,000 liberated Christians. By the Treaty of Passarowitz (1718) the northern part of Bosnia and Servia was given to Austria, but the Treaty of Belgrade restored this district to the Turks.

Among the many revolts in Bosnia against the bureaucratic rule of the Osmanli Turks that of 1830–31 under Hussein Aga deserves mention of the revolts in Herzegovina that of 1875. Article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin, 13 July, 1878, granted Austria the right to occupy and govern Bosnia and Herzegovina. The main column of the Austrian troops (thirteenth army corps), under the command of General of the Ordnance Joseph Freiherr von Philoppovich crossed the Save into Bosnia near Brod 29 July; two days later Major-General Jovanovic entered Herzegovina with a division. As the occupation took place with the consent of the Porte, it was thought that there would be no fighting. But the Mohammedan population, secretly incited by Servia, rose under the leadership of the adventurer, Hadschi Loja, against the “foreign conquerors.” They were joined by large bands of Arnauts from Albania and by the Turkish troops who had received no instructions The insurgents were defeated in bloody battles at Maglaj, Zepce, Jajce, Tuzla, and other places. On the evening of 18 August the Austrian troops stood before Serajevo which was taken by storm the next day. In order to hasten the end of the revolt three other Austrian army corps entered the contested district; by the end of September, 1878, both territories were subdued with the exception of a few points in the north-western part. In the sanjak (subdivision of a Turkish province) of Novibazar Austria holds some important military positions and controls the commercial routes; the Turks still retain the civil administration.

INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY

Christianity was introduced into both Bosnia and Herzegovina from Salona at a very early date. Many of the dioceses which were suffragans of the Archdiocese of Salona in the sixth century must be sought within the present limits of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is especially true of the Bishopric of Bistue (Bestoeensis ecclesia) which was situated in the heart of the upper part of the present Bosnia. When the Arian Ostrogoths came into possession of these districts they did not interfere with the organization of the Church nor did they persecute the Catholics. The acts of the two provincial synods of Dalmatia which were held at Salona in 530 and 532 have been preserved and these show that in the year 530 four dioceses existed in Bosnia-Herzegovina. At the second synod two new dioceses were founded, Ludricensis (Livno), and Sarsenterensis (Sarsitero), the last named lying north of Mostar. During the war that lasted twenty years between Justinian and the Ostrogoths, the latter changed their policy towards the Catholics and persecuted them. Only one of the dioceses just mentioned, Bistue, survived the Slavonic invasion. Until the middle of the eleventh century Bistue was suffragan to the Archdiocese of Spalato; in 1067 it was transferred to the Archdiocese of Dioclea-Antivari, and shortly after it was made suffragan to the Archdiocese of Ragusa. Disputes now arose between the two last mentioned archdioceses as to the administration of the Bosnian bishopric; the strife was unfortunate for it allowed the sect of the Bogomili to gain a firm footing in Bosnia.

The heresy of the Bogomili was started in the tenth century by Jeremiah, also called Bogomil, a Bulgarian priest. His followers called themselves Christians and considered their faith the only true one. In Bosnia they were named Paterines. The Paterines, or Bogomili, rejected marriage, forbade intercourse with those of other faiths, disbelieved in war, in any execution of human beings, in oaths, in seeking for wealth, and in subjection to secular authority. The Paterines greatly increased in number and influence in Bosnia after the accession to their faith of Ban Kulin, and gained numerous adherents in the neighboring districts of Croatia and Slavonia and in the cities of the Dalmatic coast. A similar sect, the Albigenses, appeared at the same time. At the beginning of the thirteenth century even the Bosnian bishop was an adherent of the Paterines; Pope Gregory IX, therefore, deposed him in 1233 and raised to the see Johannes, a German Dominican from Wildhausen in Westphalia. It is to the great credit of the Dominicans that they entered upon a successful spiritual campaign against the Paterines in Bosnia and Dalmatia. The Franciscans who had an intimate knowledge of the common people had even greater success. They not only brought back the population of the Dalmatic coast to the Church, but they also extended their spiritual activity to the interior of the country. Yet notwithstanding these efforts and those of the popes, in spite of two Bosnian crusades, and of the transfer of the Diocese of Bosnia to the Archdiocese of Kaloesa in Hungary, the sect was not suppressed. The formal return of the Bosnian nobles and monarchy to Catholicism was merely superficial.

The Turkish conquest of 1463 drove a large part of the Catholic population out of Bosnia. This led the courageous Franciscan monk, Angelus Zojezdovic, to go before the Sultan Mohammed II to call his attention to the fact that the Christian inhabitants were going out of Bosnia in all directions. The sultan, not wishing to have the newly conquered province depopulated, granted as a favor to the Franciscans that Christians should be allowed the free exercise of their religion. From that time until the present the Franciscan Order has been the only shield of the Christians in these two territories.

CHURCH STATISTICS

After the Turkish conquest the Bishopric of Bosnia had only a nominal existence. In 1735 the diocese was reorganized as the Vicariate Apostolic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its administration confided to the Franciscans. Since 1846 the country has been divided into two vicariates. Three years after the Austrian occupation Pope Leo XIII erected the Archdiocese of Serajevo with the suffragan dioceses of Banjaluka in the north-western part of Bosnia, Mostar-Duvno in the northern part of Herzegovina, and Markana-Trebinje in the southern part of the same province. The Diocese of Markana-Trebinje which was founded in 870 has no bishop of its own but is administered by the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno. The training of the secular priests in all four dioceses is in the hands of the Jesuits. The other male religious orders represented are: the Franciscans who possess 17 monasteries, and have almost entire charge of the work of the sacred ministry in the Archdiocese of Serajevo and the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno; and the Trappists, with 3 monasteries and 182 members. The female congregations are: the Sisters of Mercy, with 12 convents; the Daughters of Divine Love, 5 convents, the Sisters of the Precious Blood, 9 convents; the School Sisters, 1 convent.

The Austrian occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina since 1878 has not only done much for the material prosperity of these provinces, but has also been of great assistance to the Catholic religion. This is shown by a comparison with earlier years. In 1850 the two territories contained 150,000 Catholic inhabitants; in 1874, 185,503, in 1897, 334,142, or one-fourth of the whole population, and in 1907,334,000. About 1880 there were no Catholic families in the district between Gradisea and Banjaluka, now there are 10 monasteries in this region. Before the Austrian ocoupation there were only 7 Catholic families in Trebinje; Trebinje has now several parishes and churches. In Herzegovina 8 parishes, 25 priests, and 36,000 Catholics have increased to 45 parishes, 100 priests, and 110,000 Catholies. The many churches, monasteries, school-houses, etc., which have come into existence since 1878 are proofs of the advance in intelligence and religion. Both territories show how beneficent has been the action of Austria in the Balkan Peninsula. In the agreement made between Austria-Hungary and Turkey of 21 April, 1879, the former country bound itself to protect in Bosnia and Herzegovina the religious liberty of the inhabitants as well as of temporary residents. This agreement includes Catholics. The regulations in regard to marriage and divorce, as well as the exemption of the clergy from public services and military duty, are about the same as those in Austria. The cemeteries are still denominational institutions and are reserved even more exclusively than in Austria for the adherents of each faith.

VJEKOSLAV, Gesch. Bosniens von den dItesten Zeiten bis zum Verfalle des Konigreiches, Germ. tr. from the Croatian by VON BOJNICIC (Leipzig, 1885), SUPAN, Oesterreich-Ungarn in landerkunde von Europa (Vienna, Prague, and Leipzig, 1889), pt, 1, Div. II; Bosnia und Herzegovina in Die osterreich.-ungar. Monarchie in Wort und Bild (Vienna, 1901); SCRWEIGERLERCHENFELD, Bosnien, das Land und seine Bewohohner (Vienna, 1879); Die Occupation Bosniens und der Herzegovina durch k. k. Truppen, from the royal and imperial war-archives (6 pts. Vienna, 1879, 1880), T. VON ASBOTH, Bosnien und Herzegovina (4 pts., Vienna, 1888). Wissenschaftl. Mitteilungen aus Boanien und der Herzegovina, publication of the National Museum at Serajevo (13 vols., Vienna, 1893—1905); HORNES, Altertumer der Herzegovina und der sudl. Tei1e Bosnnens (Vienna, 1882); SCHNELLER, Die staatsrechtl. Stellung von Bosnien und der Herzegovina (Leipzig, 1892); Correspondence Respecting Affairs in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Eng. Foreign Office, 1876 ); MILLER, Travels and Politics in the Near East (London, 1899), Statesman’s Year Book, (London, 1907).

KARL KLAAR.

Boso

First Bishop of Merseburg, in the present Prussian Province of Saxony, and Apostle of the Wends, d. November, 970. He was a Benedictine monk of St. Emmeram in Ratisbon whence he was summoned to the court of Otto I. The emperor, considering the conversion of the lately subjugated Wends indispensable to the security of the German Empire, sent Boso to Christianize them. In the beginning Boso’s mission appeared useless, owing to the hate of the Wends for the Germans who had deprived them of their liberty. Boso, however being a true apostle, did not despair, but studied the language of the Wends in order to preach to them in their own tongue. They appreciated the unselfish devotion with which Boso worked for their temporal and spiritual welfare, and their hatred soon turned into love. In 968 Boso was able to provide for the creation of three new sees, Merseburg, Meissen, and Zeitz. Being given his choice he selected Merseburg as his bishopric; Hugo, another Benedictine monk, became Bishop of Zeitz, and Burehard, of Meissen. All three were consecrated on Christmas Day~ 968, by their metropolitan, Adalbert of Magdeburg. Boso continued his missionary labors, but died on a visit to his native Bavaria.

THIETMAR, Chronicon Mersel, urgense, ed. LAPPENBERG, in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., II, 750; HAUCK, Kirchengesch, Deutschlands (Leipzig, 1906), III, 95 sqq.

MICHAEL OTT

Boso (Breakspear)

Third English Cardinal, date of birth uncertain, d. at Rome, about 1181. He was a Benedictine monk of St. Albans Abbey and the nephew of Adrian IV. Though this relationship was on the maternal side, Cardella states that Boso as well as Adrian IV bore the surname of Breakspear. He had a reputation not only for piety, but also for learning, and was esteemed by contemporary writers as among the most eminent theologians of his age. He compiled or wrote the lives of several eleventh and twelfth century popes, among them the life of his uncle, and indulged in the lighter accomplishment of versifying, examples of his poetic powers still existing in the Cotton MSS. in the British Museum, in the form of metrical lives of saints. He followed his uncle to Rome; and on the latter’s elevation to the Papal Chair, was created by him Cardinal-Deacon of the title of Sts. Cosmas and Damian, in December, 1155, and was also appointed Camerlengo of the Holy See. Adrian sent Boso on a mission to Portugal; for what precise purpose does not transpire, but the fact is attested by the registers of Pope Innocent III. He also confided to him the governorship of the Castle of Sant’ Angelo, being somewhat suspicious of the fidelity of the Roman populace. When Adrian IV died in 1159, dissensions arose in the conclave as to the choice of his successor, the result of which was the creation of a schism lasting seventeen years. Four cardinals in the imperial interest voted for Cardinal Octavian, who assumed the name of Victor IV, but he was acknowledged only by the Germans. On the very day of Adrian’s burial in the Vatican basilica, 5 September, Cardinal Boso, who appears to have taken the lead, withdrew with the majority, twenty-three, of the cardinals within the fortress of Sant’ Angelo to escape the vengeance of the antipope, and straightway elected as pope, Cardinal Rolando (Bandinelli) of Siena, who was consecrated under the name of Alexander III. The new pope was not unmindful of his obligations to Boso, and soon (1163) promoted him Cardinal-Priest of the title of St. Pudentiana. When Alexander made his memorable journey to Venice to receive the submission and allegiance of the Emperor Frederick, and to ratify the “Peace of Venice” (24 June, 1177) which closed the schism, he was accompanied by Boso. Alexander also entrusted Boso with a mission to Tuscany, an event attested by the registers of Alexander IV. Boso’s name appears attached to many Bulls, both of Adrian IV and of Alexander III.

Dict. Nat. Biogr., V, 421; CARDELLA, Memorie Storiche de’ Cardinali: EGGS, Purpura docta (Munich,1714–29); DUCHESNE, Liber Pontif., II, xxxix xliii, 351 446; WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, 6th ed., II, 331; REUTER, Alexander III (1860–64) JAFFE, Regesta RR. PP., II, s. vv., Adrian 1V, Alexander III.

HENRY NORBERT BIRT

Jacques Le Bossu

French theologian and Doctor of the Sorbonne, born at Paris 1546; died at Rome 1626. He entered the Benedictine Order at the Royal Abbey of St. Denis, of which he became claustral prior. He was preceptor to the Cardinal de Guise and took a prominent part in the Catholic League and the disputes concerning the successor to Henry III, whose death he considered to be a just punishment. The accession of Henry IV, against whom he had written, and the execution of de Guise in 1587 necessitated hisleaving France in 1591, and he went to Rome, where he entered the service of the Curia. He was made a consultor of the Congregation de Auxiliis, established in 1599 to settle the controversy on grace between the Dominicans and the Jesuits. On its dissolution, in 1607, he desired to return to France, but the pope, Paul V, kept him in Rome. His chief work consisted of “Animadversiones” against twenty-five propositions of Molina, a Spanish Jesuit who had written a book on grace, defending the doctrines of Scotus against those of the Dominicans. The “Animadversiones”were published by Antonio Raynaldo, the Dominican, in 1644. Le Bossu’s “Diarium Congregationis de Auxiliis” has unfortunately perished.

Ziegelbauer, Hist. Lit. O.S.B. (Augsburg, 1754), III, 371; Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1892), I, 270.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

A celebrated French bishop and pulpit orator, born at Dijon, 27 September, 1627, died at Paris, 12 April, 1704. For more than a century his ancestors, both paternal and maternal, had occupied judicial functions. He was the fifth son of Beneigne Bossuet, a judge in the Parliament of Dijon, and Madeleine Mouchet. He began his classical studies in the Collège des Godrans, conducted by the Jesuits, in Dijon, and, on his father’s appointment to a seat in the Parliament of Metz, he was left in his native town, under the care of his uncle, Claude Bossuet d’Aiseray, a renowned scholar. His extraordinary ardour for study gave occasion to the schoolboy joke, deriving his name from Bos suetus aratro. In a very short time, he mastered the Greek and Latin classics. Homer and Virgil were his favourite authors, while the Bible soon became his livre de chevet. Speaking of the Scriptures, he used to say: “Certe, in his consenescere, in his immori, summa votorum est.” Early destined to the Church, he received the tonsure when he was only eight years old, and at the age of thirteen he obtained a canonicate in the cathedral of Metz. In 1642, he left Dijon and went to Paris to finish his classical studies and to take up philosophy and theology in the College de Navarre. A year later he was introduced by Arnauld at the Hotel de Rambouillet, where, one evening at eleven o’clock, he delivered an extempore sermon, which caused Voiture’s remark: “I never heard anybody preach so early nor so late.” A Master of Arts in 1643, he held his first thesis (tentativa) in theology, 25 January,1648, in the presence of the Prince de Condé. He was ordained sub-deacon the same year and deacon the following year, and preached his first sermons at Metz. He held his second thesis (sorbonica) 9 November, 1650. For two years, he lived in retirement, preparing himself for the priesthood under the direction of St. Vincent de Paul, and was ordained 18 March, 1652. A few weeks later, the degree of Doctor of Divinity was conferred uponhim. Appointed Archdeacon of Sarrebourg (January, 1652), he resided for seven years at Metz, devoting himself to the study of the Bible and the Fathers, preaching sermons, holdings controversies with Protestants, and yet finding time for the secular affairs for which he was responsible, as a member of the Assembly of Three Orders. In 1657 he was induced by St. Vincent de Paul to come to Paris and give himself entirely to preaching.

Though living in Paris, Bossuet did not sever his connection with the cathedral of Metz; he continued to hold his benefice, and was even appointed dean in 1664, when his father, a widower, had just received the priesthood and become a canon of the same cathedral. There are extant one hundred and thirty-seven sermons which were delivered by Bossuet between 1659 and1669, and it is estimated that more than one hundred have been lost. In 1669 he was appointed Bishop of Condom, without being obliged to reside in his diocese was consecrated i21 September, 1670, but, obeying scruplesof conscience, resigned his bishopric a year later, in which year, also,he was elected in the French Academy. Appointed preceptor to the Dauphin, 13 September, 1670, he threw himself with defatigable energy into his tutorial functions, composing all the books deemed necessary for his instruction, models of handwriting as well as manuals of philosophy, and himself giving all the lessons, three times a day. When his functions as preceptor ended (168I), he was appointed to the bishopric of Meaux. He took a prominent part in the Assembly of the French Clergy in 1682. Unlike the court bishops, Boussuet constantly resided in his diocese and busied himself with the details of its administration. . In that period he completed his long-interrupted works of historical controversy, wrote innumerable spiritual letters, took care of his religious communities (for whom he composed “Meditations on the Gospel” and “Uplifting of the Soul on the Mysteries”), and entered on endless polemics with Ellies du Pin, Caffaro, Fénelon, the Probabilists, Richard Simon and the Jansenists. From 1700, his health began to fail, which, however, did not prevent him from wrestling indefence of the Faith. Confined to his bed by illness, he dictated letters and polemical essays to his secretary. As Saint-Simon says, “he died fighting.”

A list and criticism of Bossuet’s chief works will be found in the following appreciation, by the late Ferdinand Brunetière. Out of one hundred and thirty works composed by Bossuet from 1653 to 1704, eighty were edited by himself, seven or eight by his nephew, the Abbé Bossuet, afterwards Bishop of Troyes; the remainder, about forty-two, not including the “Letters” and “Sermons,” appeared from 1741 to I789. The principal complete editions are: the Versailles edition 1815–19, 47 vols. in-8: Lachat (Vives), Paris, 1862–64, 31 vols. in-8; Guillame. Paris, 10 vols. in-4, No critical and chronological edition of Bossuet’s complete works has been made as yet, only the sermons having been edited (in a most scientific manner) bythe Abbé Lebarcq: “Œuvres oratoires; édition critique complete, avec introduction grammaticale, préface, notes, et choix de variantes,” Paris, 1890, 6 vols. in-8.

LITERARY AND THEOLOGICAL APPRECIATION OF BOSSUET

The life of this great man, perfectly simple as it was, and all of one piece with itself, may be divided into three epochs, to each of which as a matter of fact there are found to correspond, if not a new aspect of his genius, at least occupations or labours which are not altogether of the same nature and which consequently show him to us in a somewhat different light. At first, one perceives in him only the orator, the greatest, perhaps, who has ever appeared in the Christian pulpit—greater than Chrysostom and greater than Augustine; the only man whose name can he compared in eloquence with those of Cicero and of Demosthenes (1617–70).

Appointed preceptor to the Dauphin, son of Louis XIV, he devoted himself for more than ten years entirely to this onerous task (1670–81), appearedin the pulpit only at rare intervals, returned to the studies which he had somewhat neglected, and composed for his pupil works of which the “Discourse on Universal History” is still the most celebrated. Finally, in the last period of his life (1681-1704), having become bishop of Meaux, though he still preaches regularly to his own flock, and raises his eloquent voice on solemn occasions—to open the Assembly of the Clergy of France, in 1681, or to pronounce the funeral oration of the Prince de Condé, in 1687—yet it is above all the great controversialist that his contemporaries admire in him, the defender of tradition against all the novelties which sought to weaken it, the unwearying opponent of Jurieu, of Richard Simon, of Madame Guyon, and, incidentally, of Fénelon himself; he is thetheologian of Providence, and—startling contrast—on the eve of the Regency, he is “the last of the Fathers of the Church”

First Period (1627–70). He made his first studies with the Jesuits of his native city. completed them in Paris at the College of Navarre, and, ordained priest, entered into possession of the archdeaconry of Sarrebourg, in the Diocese of Metz, no matter in what part of the world, he would without doubt have been himself. In literary history, environment commonlyshows its effects only in the formation of mediocrities. But, as there existed at Metz a large Jewish community (and in some respects, the only one in France that was recognized by the State), and as the Protestants were numerous, and still fervent, in the neighboring province of Alsace, one may believe that Bossuet’s natural tendency to take religion on its controversial side was encouraged or strengthened by these circumstances. Proof of this if desired, may he found in the fact that the manuscript of one of his first sermons. “On the Law of God,” 1653, still bears this statement in his own handwriting: “Preached at Metz against the Jews”; and inthis other facet, that the first work he had printed was a “Refutation,”in 1655. of the catechism of Paul Ferry, a renowned Protestant pastor ofMetz. Be that as it may, as soon as the young archdeacon began to preachhis reputation quickly spread, add very soon the pulpits of Paris were vying with one another to secure him. It may therefore be said that from 1656 to 1670 he gave himself entirely to the ministry of preaching, and asa matter of fact, three-fourths of the two hundred, or more, “Sermons” which have reached us, either complete or in fragments, date from this period. They may be distinguished as “Sermons,” properly so called “Panegyrics of Saints”; and “Funeral Orations.” These last number ten in all. In some editions the “Sermons on Religious Professions” (Sermons de Virtue), of which the most celebrated is that for the profession of Madame de la Valliere, preached in 1674, and the “Sermons for the Feasts of the Virgin,” are classed by themselves.

What are the essential characteristics of Bossuet’s eloquence? In the first place, the force, or, to put it, perhaps, better, the energy, of speech, or of the word, and by this I mean, inclusively, exactitude and precision, the fitness of phrase, the neatness of turn, the impressiveness of the gesture implied in his words, and, generally all the qualities of thatFrench writer who, entertaining, with Pascal, a great horror of the artifices of rhetoric, for that very reason best understood the resources of French prose. There is nothing, in French, which surpasses a fine page of Bossuet.

The second characteristic of his eloquence is what Alexandre Vinet, though a Protestant, has not feared to call, in an essay on Bourdaloue, the depth and reach of its philosophy. He meant that while the illustrious Jesuit in his “Sermons” is always strictly and evidently Catholic, Bossuet, surely no less so, excels, besides, in demonstrating, even apart from Catholicism, the peremptory reasons in the depths of our nature and in the sequence of history why one should feel and think like a Catholic even if one were not a Catholic. Those who care to verify this opinion of Vinet may read Bossuet’s sermons on “Death,” “Ambition,” “Providence,” “The Honour of the World,” “Our Dispositions in Regard to the Necessities of Life,” “The Eminent Dignity of the Poor,” “Submission to the Law of God,” and also the sermons for the Feasts of the Blessed Virgin. The “Sermon for the Profession of Madame de la Valliere” is another beautiful example of this philosophic character of Bossuet’s eloquence.

Lastly, its third characteristic is its movement and lyric power. Bossuet—the Bossuet of the “Sermons” and of the “Funeral Orations”—is a poet, a great poet; and he is lyrical in his blending of personal and interior emotions with the expression of the truths which he unfolds. “The Uplifting of the Soul by the Divine Mysteries” and “Meditations on the Gospel” are titles of two of his most beautiful works, in which in his old age he,as it were, condensed the substance of his “Sermons” But it may be trulysaid that there is no sermon of his which is not either a “Meditation” or an “Uplifting of the Soul.” And is it, not strange that at the beginning of the nineteenth century these titles, “Uplifting of the Soul” and “Meditations,” were applied by Lamartine and Vigny to their own public works? Such are the essential characteristics of Bossuets eloquence, to which might easily be added a great many others, perhaps more slowly, but whichmay be found in other preachers, while those we have mentioned belong tohim alone.

Meanwhile, the reputation of the preacher was growing every day. Above all, his Lenten conferences before the Court in 1662 and in 1666 had brought him into prominence. particularly the second series, which had includedsome of his finest “Sermons.” The Protestants, on the other hand, although they had no adversary more moderate than he, had none formidable; and when some startling conversion, like that of Turenne, took place, the honour or the blame of it was laid upon the Abbé Bossuet. His little book, circulated in manuscript under the title of “Exposition of the Doctrine ofthe Catholic Church on Subjects of Controversy,” worried the Protestant divines more than had any folio in fifty years. The public voice marked him out for a bishopric. We know, too, that, though doubtless without his being aware of it, his name figured, after 1667, among the candidates forthe office of preceptor to the Dauphin, those names having been selected, by the king’s command, under the direction of Colbert. It is true that Louis XIV did not favour Bossuet’s appointment; he preferred the President De Périgny. In 1669, however, Bossuet was appointed Bishop of Condom. It was as Bishop of Condom that in September of that same year he pronounced the “Funeral Oration on Henerietta of France,” and was summoned to preach the Advent of 1669 at Court. When, soon after this, the daughter followed her mother to the grave, he was again summoned, in 1670, to pronounce the “Funeral Oration of the Duchess of Orleans” In the meanwhile, the President De Perigny died unexpectedly and this time the choice of Louis XIV went straight to Bossuet. He was named preceptor to the Dauphin, September, 1670, and a new period began in the history of his life.

Second Period (1670–81). In order to devote himself solely to his task, he gave up his Bishopric of Condom, which he never saw, and returned to the profane studies which he had been obliged to abandon. He himself laid down in his letter to Pope Innocent XI, the programme he made his royal pupil follow, a programme the intelligent liberality of which it is impossible not to admire. But, while giving the closest personal attention to the Dauphin’s education, his own genius completed, in a way, its process of ripening by contact with antiquity; his ideas collected themselves and gained in precision; he took conscious possession of what may be called his originality as a thinker, and made for himself his private domain, as it were, in the vast field of apologetics. And, as the other Fathers of the Church have been, in the history of Christian thought, one the theologian of the Incarnation, another, the theologian of Grace, so did Bossuet then become the theologian of Providence.

Here we may take a excellent example of what is today called the development, or evolution, of a dogmatic truth. The idea of Providence surely constituted the basis of Christian belief in all that touches the relations of man with God, and in this respect it may be said that the “Discourse on Universal History” is completely anticipated in the “City of God” of St. Augustine, or in the “The Gubernatione Dei” of Salvianus. We are perfectly willing to add that in this wide, and even slightly vague, sense it is found also in the Old Testament, and notably in the Book of Daniel.But that does not alter the fact that Bossuet in his turn appropriated this idea of Providence to himself, made it profoundly his own, and without any innovation—for every innovation in this field inspired him with horror—formed from it deductions which up to this time had never been perceived.

The idea of Providence, in Bossuets theology, appears to us as at once (a) the sanction of the moral law (b) the very law of history, and (c) thefoundations of apologetics.

(a) It is under the sanction of the moral law, in the first place, inasmuch as, being able to act only under the eyes of God, no act of ours is indifferent, since there is not one but is for us an occasion of, or, to put it better, a manner of acquiring, merit or demerit. It is under this aspect that the idea of Providence seems to have presented itself primarily to Bossuet, and that it is found in some sort scattered or diffused in his earliest “Sermons.” But, since, moreover, nothing happens to us which is not an effect of God’s Will, therefore we ought always to see in whatever happiness or unhappiness—according to the worlds judgment—may befall us only a chastisement, a trial, or a temptation, which it is for us to make a means either of salvation or of damnation. Here is the mystery of pain and the solution of the problem of evil. If we did not place entireconfidence in Providence, the existence of evil and the prosperity of the wicked would be for the human mind nothing but an occasion of scandal; and if he did not accept our sufferings as a design of God in our regard,we should fall into despair. A source of resignation, our trust in Providence is also a source of strength, and it governs, so to speak, the entire domain of moral action. If our actions are moral, it is by reason of their conformity with, or at least of their analogy to, the views of Providence, and thus the life of the Christian is only a perpetual realization of the Will of God. We merit, according to our endeavours to know it in order to carry it into effect; and, on the contrary, to demerit consists exactly in not taking account of God’s Will or warnings, whether the omission be through negligence, pride, or stubbornness.

(b) This is why the idea of Providence is at the same time the law of history. If the crash of empires “falling one upon another” does not in truth express some purpose of God regarding humanity, then history, or what is called by that name, is indeed no longer anything but a chaotic chronology, the meaning of which we should strive in vain to disentangle. In that case, Fortune, or rather Chance, would be the mistress of human affairs; the existence of humanity would be only a bad dream, or phantasmagoria, whose changing face would be inadequate to mask a void of nothingness. We should be fretting ourselves in that void without reason and almost without cause, our very actions would be but phantoms, and the only result of so many efforts accumulated through so many thousands of years would be the conviction, every day more clear, of their uselessness, which wouldbe another void of nothingness. And why, after all, were there Greeks and Romans? Of what use was Salamis? Actium? Poitiers? Lepando? Why was there a Caesar, and a Charlemagne? “Let us frankly own, then, that unlesssomething Divine circulates in history, there is no history. Nations like individuals, live only by maintaining uninterrupted communication with God, and it is precisely this condition of their existence which is called by the name of Providence. The hypothesis of Providence is the condition or the possibility of history, as the hypothesis of the stability of the laws of nature is the condition of the possibility of science.

(c) Having made Providence the sanction of morality, we are now led to make it the basis of apologetics. For if there be indeed more than one way which leads to God, or, in other words, many means of establishing the truth of the Christian religion, there is, in Bossuet’s view, none more convincing than that which is at once the highest expression and the summing-up of the history of humanity, that is to say, “the very sequence of religion,” or “the relation of the two Testaments,” and, in a more objectivemanner, the visible manifestation of Providence in the establishment of Christianity. It was Providence that made of the Jewish people a people apart, a unique people, the chosen people, charged with maintaining and defending the worship of the true God throughout the pagan centuries, against the prestige of an idolatry which essentially consisted in the deification of the energies of nature. It was Providence that, by means of Romanunity and of its extension throughout the known universe, rendered not only possible but easy and almost necessary, the conversion of the world to Christianity. It was Providence, again, that developed the features of the modern world out of the disorder of barbarous invasions and reconciled the two antiquities under the law of Christ. The full importance of these views of Bossuet—for we are only summarizing here the “Discourse on Universal History”—will be understood if we observe that, in our day, when the Strausses and Renans have sought to give us their own version of the origins of Christianity, they have found nothing more than this and nothing else; and all their ingenuity has issued in the conclusion that things have happened in the reality of history as if some mysterious will had from all eternity proportioned effects and causes. But the real truth is that Christianity, in propagating itself, has proved itself. If the action of Providence is manifest anywhere, it is in the sequence of the history of Christianity. And what is more natural under the circumstances than to make of its history the demonstration of its truth?

It was appropriate to insist here upon this idea of Providence, which is, in a manner. the masterpiece of Bossuet’s theology. Besides the “Discourse on Universal History,” he wrote other works for the education of the Dauphin; notably the “Treatise on the Knowledge of God and of Oneself” and the “Art of Governing, Drawn from the Words of Holy Scripture,” which appeared only after his death; the “Art of Governing,” in 1709, and the “Treatise on the Knowledge of God,” in 1722. To the “Treatise on Free Will” and the “Treatise on Concupiscence,” also posthumous, a like origin has been assigned; but this is certainly a mistake; these two works, which contain some of Bossuet’s most beautiful pages, were not written for his royal pupil, who certainly would not have understood them at all. Did he even understand the “Discourse on Universal History”? In this connection it has been questioned whether Bossuet in his quality of preceptor, did not fail in his first obligation, which was, as his critics assert, to adapt himself to his pupil’s intelligence. Here we can only reply, without goingto the bottom of the question, that the end which Bossuet intended was no ordinary education, but the education of a future King of France, the first obligation incumbent upon whose preceptor was to treat him as a King. Thus, for that matter, professors in our universities never seem to subordinate their teaching to the capacity of their pupils, but only to the exigencies of the science taught. And we will add, moreover, that as the Dauphin never reigned, no one can really say how much he did, or did not, profit by a preceptor such as Bossuet was.

The education of a prince ordinarily, and naturally, ended with his marriage. The functions of Bossuet as preceptor ceased, therefore, in 1681. Hehad not been appointed Bishop of Meaux; he was made Almoner to the Dauphin, quite in accordance with usage, and the King honoured him with the title of General Councillor (Conseiller en tous les conseils). We may be permitted to call attention to the fact that this was only an honorary title, and one need not therefore conclude, as seems to have been done sometimes, that Bossuet took his seat, or voted, in, for instance, the Conseil des dépêches, which was the Council of Foreign Affairs or in the Conseil du Roi, which busied itself with the internal affairs of the kingdom. Butduring his preceptorship, and independancy of of any participation in the councils, his authority had nevertheless become of considerable importance at Court, with Louis XIV personally. No member of the French clergy was thenceforth more in evidence than he; no preacher, no bishop. He had no reason, then, to fear that, having accomplished the education of the Dauphin, his activity would fail to find employment. In truth, the last epoch of his life was to be its fullest.

Third Period (1681–1704). This period was the most laborious, indeed the most painful; and the impassioned struggles in which he becomes engaged will now end only with his life. But why so many struggles at the time oflife when most men seek for rest? What circumstances occasioned them? And if we recall that up to this time his existence had not been disturbed by any agitation that could be called deep, whence this sudden combative ardour? It cannot be explained without a preliminary remark. The reconciliation of Protestantism and Catholicism had been an early dream of Bossuet; and, on the other hand, France in the seventeenth century had, in general, ill chosen her side in a division which she regarded as not only regrettable from the standpoint of religion, but destructive, and even dangerous to her political unity. This is why Bossuet was to work all his lifeand with all his strength for the reunion of the Churches, and to force himself to exert every effort for the attainment of those conditions which he believed necessary to that end. Abundant and instructive details on this point are to be found in M.A. Rébelliau’s charming work, “Bossuet, historien du Prostestantisme.” Being, moreover, too reasonable and too well-informed not to recognize the legitimate element which the Reformationmovement had had in its time, Bossuet was convinced that it was of the greatest moment not indeed to—in the phrase of our own day—“minimize” the demands of the Catholic verity, but at all events not to exaggerate those demands; and, therefore,

to make to Protestant opinion every concession which a rigorous orthodoxy would permit; and

not to add anything, on the other hand, to a creed more than one difficulty of which was already repelling the Protestants.

Thus may we explain his part in the Assembly of the French Clergy in 1682; the plan of his “History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches,” as well as the character of his polemics against the Protestants; his fundamental motive in the matter of Quietism and the true reason for his fierce animosity against Fénelon; his writings against Richard Simon, such as his “Defence of Tradition and of the Holy Fathers”; such steps as those which he took against the mystic reveries of Maria d’Agreda; and lastly, the approbation which, in 1682 and 1702, he so loudly expressed for the renewed censures of the Assemblies of the Clergy upon the relaxed morals of the day. However, it is little to our purpose to ascertain whether Bossuet, in the course of all these controversies, more than once allowed himself to be drawn on beyond the point which he intended, especially, as he has been reproached, in the questions of Gallicanism and Quietism. The celebrated Declaration of 1682 seems to have altogether exceeded the measure of what it was useful or necessary to say in order to defend the temporal power of the prince or the independence of nations against the Roman Curia. Quietism, too, was perhaps not so great a danger as he believed it to be; nor, above all, a danger of the kind to repel Protestants from Catholicism, since, after all, it is in a Protestant country that the works of Madame Guyon are still read in our day. But to properly explain these points we should have to write volumes; it suffices here to throw some light on Bossuet’s controversial work with this general remark: his essential purpose was to get rid of the reasons for resistance which Protestants drew from the substance or the form of Catholicism, in opposition to the reasons for reunion.

In this remark, also, is to be found the decisive answer to the question, often raised, and amply discussed for some years, of the Jansenism of Bossuet. Jansenism, indeed, involves two things: the “Five Propositions”—a doctrine, or a heresy, formally and solemnly condemned; and a general tendency, very much like that of Calvin, to rationalize Christian morality and even dogma. So far as Jansenism is a heresy, Bossuet was never a Jansenist,; but so far as it is a mere tendency, an intellectual disposition and a tendency to effect a mutual drawing together of reason and faith, it is scarcely possible to deny that he leaned towards Jansenism. Quite apart from the satisfaction which his own genius, naturally attracted to order and to clarity, found in this conciliation of reason and faith, he judged this the most propitious ground of all for the reconciliation of Protestantism with Catholicism. But to this it should be added at once that Bossuet, while not adding to the difficulties of faith, made it a condition that care must be taken not to trench upon faith, and this trait it is which completes the picture of Bossuet’s character. Tradition has never had a more eloquent or a more vigorous defender. Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; this was for Bossuet, in a manner, the absolute criterion of Catholic truth. He had not difficulty in deducing from it “the immutability of morality or of dogma”; and in this precisely, as is well known, consists his great argument against the Protestants. The “History of the Variations of the Protestant churches” is nothing more than a history of the alterations, if one may say so, to which the Protestant Churches have subjected dogma, and the adjustments or adaptations of dogma which they have pretended to make to circumstances that had nothing but what was transitory and contingent. But “the truth which comes from God possesses from the first its complete perfection,” and from that it follows that as many “variations” as there are, so many “errors” are there in faith, since they are so many contradictions or omissions of tradition.

This point has been reserved for the last in the present article, because no other trait of Bossuet’s genius seems to have gone further towards establishing the common conception of it. It is easy to see that that conception is not altogether false; but neither is it altogether true, nor, above all, fair when, as is often done, it is extended from the genius of the controversialist or theologian to the character of the man himself. Tradition, we repeat, has had no more eloquent or more implacable chamption; it has had none more sincere; but tradition such as he comprehended it is not all of the past, for so understood it would include even heresy and schism. Tradition, for Bossuet as for the Catholic Church, is only what has survived of the past. If Nestorian Christianities still exist today—and some do exist—they are as if they were not, and Nestorianism does not on that account constitute a part of the tradition of Free Thought. But for the Church, tradition is only what she has thought herself obliged to preserve out of those doctrines which have succeeded one another in the course of her development, among which she has made her choice in virtue of her magisterium, retaining some, rejecting others, without even being always obliged to condemn the latter. It can be proved, on the other hand, that, thus understood, tradition in the writings of Bossuet, and on his lips when he invokes it, does not exclude religious progress, even if, perhaps, the former does not postulate the latter as a condition. And already, doubtless, it is beginning to be half seen that the true Bossuet, even in theology, even in his long combats with the heretics, was not the unbending, irreconcilable man he is commonly painted.

This will be still better seen if we reflect that a great writer is not always the man of his style. In his sermons as in his writings, it would be impossible to deny that Bossuet has an imperious and authoritative style. He counsels nothing which he does not command, or which he does not impose; and to everything which he advances he communicates the character and force of a demonstration by his manner of expressing it. Not that many pages of a different tenor might not be cited from him, and some such will be found notably in his “Uplifting of the Soul,” his “Meditations,” or his “Sermons for Festivals of the Virgin.” But the habitual quality of his style, for all that, remains, as we have said, imperious and authoritative, because it is in harmony with the nature of his mind, which demands first and foremost clearness, certainty, and order. It may be said of him that, seeing all things in their relation to Providence, he expresses nothing except under the aspect of eternity. A great poet in later times has said: “Qu’est-ce que tout cela qui n’est pas éternel,” and, looked at in this light, there is a perfect agreement between the style and the thought of Bossuet. But as to his character the same thing cannot be said; here every testimony alike shows us in this writer, whose accent seems to brrok no contradiction, the most gentle, the most affable, and sometimes the most hesitating of men.

Such was the true Bossuet. In his life we cannot always find the daring of his eloquence, nor in his conduct the audacity of his reasoning. This great dominator of the ideas—one might even say of the intelligences—of his time suffered himself to be dominated more than once by the thoroughly human dread of being disagreeable and, above all, of giving offence. “He has no joints,” he himself said of one of the gentlemen of Port Royal who was somewhat lacking flexibility; to which the individual in question retorted: “And as for hi, you may tell him that he has no bones!” The strong, concise mot sums up all the reproaches that can be made against this great memory. Had his strength of character and his apostolic vigour equalled the force of his genius, he would have been a St. Augustine. Falling short of St. Augustine, a Catholic and a Frenchman may be permitted to believe that it is still something rare, something exalted among men to have been merely Jacques Bénigne Bossuet.

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

F. BRUNETTÈRE

Ven. John Boste

(Or JOHN BOAST.)

Priest and martyr, b. of good Catholic family at Dufton, in Westmoreland, about 1544; d. at Durham, 24 July, 1594. He studied at Queen’s College, Oxford, 1569–72, became a Fellow, and was received into the Church at Brome, in Suffolk, in 1576. Resigning his Fellowship in 1580, he went to Reims, where he was ordained priest, 4 March, 1581, and in April was sent to England. He landed at Hartlepool and became a most zealous missioner, so that the persecutors made extraordinary efforts to capture him. At last, after many narrow escapes, he was taken to Waterhouses, the house of William Claxton, near Durham, betrayed by one Eglesfield [or Ecclesfield], 5 July, 1593. The place is still visited by Catholics. From Durham he was conveyed to London, showing himself throughout “resolute, bold, joyful, and pleasant,” although terribly racked in the Tower. Sent back to Durham for the July Assizes, 1594, he behaved with undaunted courage and resolution, and induced his fellow-martyr, Bl. George Swalwell [or Swallowell], a convert minister, who had recanted through fear, to repent of his cowardice, absolving him publicly in court. He suffered at Dryburn, outside Durham. He recited the Angelus while mounting the ladder, and was executed with extraordinary brutality; for he was scarcely turned off the ladder when he was cut down, so that he stood on his feet, and in that posture was cruelly butchered alive. An account of his trial and execution was written by an eye-witness, Venerable Christopher Robinson, who suffered martyrdom shortly afterwards at Carlisle.

British Museum MS. Lansdowne, 75, f. 44; CHALLONER, Memoirs; SHARPE, Memorials of the Rebellion of 1569; FOLEY, Records, III; Catholic Record Society, Miscellanea (Christopher Robinson’s account), I; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog.; WAINEWRIGHT, Venerable John Boste (London, Cath. Truth Soc., 1907); GOLDIE, The Martyr of Waterhouses in Ushaw Magazine, 1902, 1903.

BEDE CAMM.

Archdiocese of Boston

Archdiocese; comprises Essex, Middlesex, Suffolk, Norfolk, and Plymouth counties in the State of Massachusetts, U.S.A., the towns of Mattapoisett, Marion, and Wareham excepted, embracing an area of 2,465 square miles.

The see was erected 8 April, 1808, and created an archbishopric in 1875. When the first Bishop of Boston was consecrated his jurisdiction extended over all New England and a mere handful of Catholics. There are now eight dioceses in the same territory with about 2,100,000 Catholics of whom 850,000 are within the limits of the Archdiocese of Boston where the first bishop found a scant hundred. The growth of the Church has been due mainly to the immigrants attracted by the advantages offered by the great and varied manufacturing interests of New England. The Irish came first, after them the French Canadians, the Italians, the Poles, the Portuguese, and representatives of nearly all the peoples of the globe.

EARLY HISTORY

Early Irish emigration to America took place in three distinct periods, from 1621 to 1653, from 1653 to 1718, and from 1718 to 1775. But the mistake must not be made, as it often is, that these immigrants were all Catholics. Many of them were not, and those who were had few inducements to settle in the Puritan colony where their Faith was held in detestation. Some who were sold to the Barbados in the time of Cromwell were afterwards found in the Massachusetts settlements. One of these, Ann Glover, and her daughter had lived in Boston before she fell a victim, in 1688, to Cotton Mather’s witchcraft mania. In his “Magnalia” he calls her “a scandalous old Irishwoman, very poor, a Roman Catholic and obstinate in idolatry.” Robert Calef, a Boston merchant who knew her, says “Goody Glover was a despised, crazy, poor old woman, an Irish Catholic who was tried for afflicting the Goodwin children. Her behaviour at her trial was like that of one distracted. They did her cruel. The proof against her was wholly deficient. The jury brought her guilty. She was hung. She died a Catholic.” (More Wonders of the Invisible World, London, 1700.) Other immigrants came as bond slaves or “redemptioners” and were not so steadfast in the Faith as Goody Glover. Their environment precluded any open manifestation of their religion or the training of their children in its precepts As an instance of many such may be cited the famous Governors Sullivan of Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Their grandfather was one of the “Wild Geese” who fled with Sarsfield from Limerick to France. His son married Margaret Brown, a fellow “redemptioner,” and with their six children all drifted into Protestantism. One of their sons General John Sullivan, of Revolutionary fame, writing on 5 September, 1774, of the “Quebec Act” that gave religious freedom to the Catholics of Canada under British rule, denounced these co-religionists of his grandfather as “determined to extirpate the race of Protestants from America to make way for their own cursed religion.”

Traces of the Church in New England begin with the arrival of the Jesuit missioner, Peter Biard among the Abenaki Indians of Maine in June, 1611. Others, notably Father Gabriel Druilletes (15 August, 1643), followed. About the same date, the ship of La Tour, the French commander of Canada, which visited Boston harbor had “two friars” on board but they did not land. In September, 1646, another French ship, commanded by D’Aulnay, also having two priests on board, was in port. The priests visited the governor, who entertained them at his residence. Four years later Father Druilletes visited Boston to confer with General Gibbons as to the details of a trading pact and alliance with the Canadian French against the Iroquois. The governor entertained him for two weeks at his home, which was on what is now Washington Street, near Adams Square (Memorial Hist. of Boston, II, p. xiv), and it is surmised that he said Mass in private there during that time. John Eliot, John Endicott and other noted men of the time were among those he met there and who united in urging him to prolong his visit though their efforts were unsuccessful. The “Andros Papers” (quoted in Memorial Hist. of Boston) declare that in 1689 there was not a single “Papist” in all New England. They began to drift in soon, however, for in the Boston “Weekly Rehearsal” of 20 March, 1732, is this statement: “We hear that Mass has been performed in town this winter by an Irish priest among some Catholics of his own nation of whom it is not doubted we have a considerable number among us.” During the war with France one hundred French Catholics were arrested in Boston in 1746 “to prevent any danger the town may be in” but the sheriff much to the disgust of their captors refused to hold them. In 1756 the exiled Acadians of whom nearly 2000 had landed in Massachusetts were denied the services of a priest because, as Governor Hutchinson declared, “the people would upon no terms have consented to the public exercise of religious worship by Roman Catholic priests” The Boston “Town Records” (1772, pp. 95–96) while admitting that toleration in religion was what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced” excluded “Roman Catholicks” because their belief was “subversive of society.”

With the Revolution, however, came the dawn of a better era, the upsetting of religious as well as political barriers, and the beginning of the slow but sure growth of the Church which has resulted in the wonderful change of the present. A favorite New England diversion was an annual procession, on 5 November, of the Pope and the Devil in celebration of the famous “Gunpowder Plot.” In Boston it was usually attended by riot and violence. In 1775 Washington, while at Boston, issued an order in which he could not “help expressing his surprise that there should be officers and soldiers in this army so void of Common sense” as to thus insult the religious feelings of the Canadians with whom friendship and an alliance was then being sought. The stay of the French fleet in New England waters and the settling of some of the allies there after the war had ended laid the foundations of the first Catholic parish in the heart of New England. There appeared in Boston, in 1788, a French priest who called himself Claudius Florent Bouchard de la Poterie, “Priest Doctor of Divinity, Clerk, and Apostolic Missionary.” He had faculties from the prefect Apostolic, Dr. Carroll, and announced his advent in a pompous “pastoral letter.” He secured the old French Huguenot church at what is now No. 18 School Street and opened there on All Saints’ Day, 1788, under the patronage of the Holy Cross, the first Catholic church in New England. The report of the celebration of the first Mass on that date can be read in the Boston “Independent Chronicle,” 6 November, 1788. To the aid of this church subscriptions were received from Canada, and the Archbishop of Paris, in answer to an appeal from the little French colony in Boston, sent a needed outfit of vestments and vessels for the altar. He also notified them that the Abbe de la Poterie was an unworthy priest (Campbell in U. S. Cath. Magazine, VIII, 102). His conduct in Boston proved this, and the prefect Apostolic, finding he had been imposed on, sent the Rev. William O’Brien, O. P., of New York to Boston to depose de la Poterie. A violent pamphlet printed in Philadelphia (1789) followed. It was dedicated “To the new Laurent Ricci in America the Rev. Fr. John Carroll, Superior of the Jesuits in the United States also to the friar-monk-inquisitor William O’Brien,” and represented de la Poterie as a victim to their wiles.

After his suspension de la Poterie went to Canada and was succeeded in Boston by the Rev. Louis Rousselet, who was in turn suspended and went to Guadeloupe, where he was killed in a revolution. In 1790 the Catholic colony numbered less than two hundred, and the Rev. John Thayer, a convert, was sent to take charge of the church which he found “dilapidated and deserted” after his predecessor’s departure. Thayer had been a Congregationalist minister, and chaplain to Governor Hancock. At the close of the Revolution, being in his twenty-sixth year, he went abroad, and became a convert in Rome 25 May, 1783. He determined to become a priest in order to labor for the conversion of New England to the Catholic Faith and was ordained at St. Sulpice in Paris, in 1787. He returned to Boston 4 January, 1790. The first of a genuine New England family to enter the priesthood, he retained much of his inherited Puritanical oppressiveness, and, as Bishop Carroll said of him, he lacked “amiable and conciliatory manners” and was not a success as an administrator. Rousselet, who did not leave Boston immediately, set up a rival church and divided the little congregation, the French element siding with him and the Irish with Thayer. In the spring of 1791 Bishop Carroll had to visit the parish to restore unity. He was received with courtesy by all citizens and was made the guest of honor at the annual dinner of the most important social and military organization there, the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company. Governor John Hancock attended Mass as a mark of respect for him. “It is wonderful,” the bishop wrote, “to tell what great civilities have been done to me in this town, where a few years ago a Popish priest was thought to be the greatest monster in the creation. . . . If all the Catholics here were united their number would be about one hundred and twenty” (U.S. Cath. Magazine, Baltimore, VIII, 149).

Father Thayer having failed as a pastor he was relieved by the Rev. Francis A. Matignon, one of the many French priests exiled by the Revolution, and to whom the Church in the United States owes so much. Born in Paris, in 1753, he was ordained priest in 1773 and taught theology in the College of Navarre. Having arrived in Boston, 20 August, 1792, he soon healed all the local dissensions and by his zeal, eloquence, piety, and winning courtesy made an immediate success of his pastorship. In 1796 he invited his old friend and associate, the Rev. John Louis de Cheverus, then an exile in England, to Boston to help him, and to his great joy the call was heeded. The Abbe de Cheverus arrived on the third of October of that year. He remained in Boston with Father Matignon until July, 1797, when he went at Bishop Carroll’s request to visit the Indian missions in Maine. On his way, he looked after the scattered Catholics between Boston and the Penobscot. According to a report then made to Bishop Carroll of the Easter Communions of 1798 there were 210 Catholics in Boston, 15 in Plymouth; 21 in Newburyport, and 3 in Salem. Outside Boston the only important Catholic colony was at Damariscotta Lincoln County, Maine, where Roger and Patrick Hanly, two Irishmen, had settled some time before, and their descendants and friends made up the com- munity. The leading merchants and shipbuilders of Newcastle, James Kavanagh (father of Edward Kavanagh, later Governor of Maine, the hero of Longfellow’s novel “Kavanagh,” and the first Catholic governor of a New England State) and Matthew Cottrill, built a chapel and later, in 1808, a brick structure, St. Patrick’s church, for the use of their fellow Catholics. This was the only church in New England outside Boston. Having put these missions in order Father Cheverus returned to Boston and with Father Matignon exhibited heroic courage and charity during the yellow fever epidemic of 1798. By this time the old church in School Street was no longer fit for Divine service and another site on Franklin Street near Devonshire Street, was secured for $2,500. Speaking at the centennial observance (29 September, 1903) of the dedication of this church, Archbishop Williams said: “We bought that land from the Boston Theatre. Remember the site of the old cathedral was in the most beautiful part of the town at the end of Franklin Square and the theatre owned both sides of the lower part of the street. The theatre people agreed to sell us that lot at one-half what they could get for it when we bought it. And remember in that street in those days were some of the principal families of the city. I remember the Bradleys, the Wigglesworths, the Amorys, and others who lived each side of the street, showing what a choice spot it was and one of the select streets of the city.” The Spanish consul-general, Don Juan Stoughton, father of the Don Tomas Stoughton, who had so much to do with the building of St. Peter’s, the first church in New York, lived opposite the site selected. At a meeting held 31 March, 1799, he and John Magner, Patrick Campbell, Michael Burns, Owen Callahan, John Duggan, and Edmund Connor were named the committee to take charge of the new project. From the congregation they collected $16,000. Members of the leading Protestant families headed by President John Adams added $11,000 to this, and from Catholics in other places and other sources $5 500 more was received. The famous architect Charles Bulfinch, also a Protestant, who designed the capitol at Washington and the State House in Boston, supplied the plans without charge for a brick building 80 feet long and 60 wide of Ionic style, severely simple but impressive. Ground was broken for it on St. Patrick’s Day 1800 and it was ready for dedication 29 September, 1803, having cost $20,000. Prominent among this first congregation, besides those already mentioned, were James Kavanagh, John Ward, David Fitzgerald, Stephen Roberts, John Driscoll, William Daly, Daniel English, Thomas Murphy, John Hanly, Abraham Fitton, Mary Lob, and representatives of the Duport, Dusseaucoir, Dumesnil, Lepouse, and Julien families Bishop Carroll went on from Baltimore to perform the ceremony of dedication. This visit of the bishop occasioned the greatest local satisfaction, and the two priests continued their zealous ministrations with such success that in 1805 their flock had increased to about 500. Soon Bishop Carroll saw the necessity of having a bishop in Boston and desired to nominate Father Matignon for the see, but the latter refused to allow his name to be considered. “The good accomplished here,” he wrote, “is almost exclusively the work of Mr. Cheverus; he it is who fills the pulpit who is most frequent in the confessional.” Bishop Carroll therefore sent the name of the Rev. John Louis Cheverus to Rome declaring him to be “in the prime of life, with health to undergo any necessary exertion, universally esteemed for his unwearied zeal and his remarkable facility and eloquence in announcing the word of God, virtuous, and with a charm of manner that recalled Catholics to their duties and disarmed Protestants of their prejudices.” Bishop Cheverus was appointed 8 April, 1808, but owing to the difficulties of communication the Bull did not reach him for nearly two years afterwards, when he was consecrated the first Bishop of Boston, in Baltimore, 1 November, 1810. He then went back to Boston to continue his simple, modest way of life. His old friend, Father Matignon, enjoyed honor and the esteem of all to the end of his long and useful career which came on the 18th of September, 1818.

BISHOPS

(1) JOHN LOUIS DE CHEVERUS

His many years of hard work at length began to tell on Bishop Cheverus and his physicians advised a return to his native land to escape repeated attacks of asthma. In 1823 King Louis XVIII of France nominated him to the vacant See of Montauban, and to the regret of all in the United States he embarked for Europe, 1 October 1823. He remained in charge at Montauban until 30 July, 1826, when he was promoted to the Archbishopric of Bordeaux. On 1 February he was created cardinal. He died at Bordeaux, 19 July 1836, in his sixty-ninth year. (See CHEVEROUS, JOHN LOUIS DE.) During the administration of Bishop Cheverus the Ursuline nuns were introduced into the Diocese of Boston through the zeal of the Rev. John Thayer, who, when on a visit to Limerick, Ireland, where he died in 1815, enlisted the sympathy of Mary and Catharine, daughters of James Ryan of that city, in the project of founding a convent in Boston. They emigrated to Boston in 1817 and by direction of the bishop went to the Ursuline Convent at Three Rivers, Canada. They made their profession, 4 October, 1819. They returned to Boston, and a convent was secured for them on Federal Street near the cathedral. Here they remained until 17 July, 1826, when their new convent, Mount Benedict, Charlestown, was opened. This was the institution sacked and burned by an anti-Catholic mob on the 11th of August, 1834. Assisting in the work at the old School Street and Franklin Street Churches at various times were the Rev. James Romagne, a West Indian priest, who also looked after the Indian missions in Maine, the Rev. J.S. Tisseraud, Fathers Matthew O’Brien and F.X. Brosius, an Alsatian, who opened a school near Harvard University and was the only teacher of German then in Boston, also the Revs. Gabriel Richard, John Grassi, S.J., Philip Lariscy, the Augustinian, and Paul McQuade. In twenty years the bishop had no regular assistant. In 1817 he ordained his first ecclesiastical student, Denis Ryan, a native of Kilkenny, Ireland. In 1820 he ordained the second of his pupils Patrick Byrne, also from Kilkenny. In December, 1822, Virgil Barber (see BARBER FAMILY) was raised to the priesthood, and to the school he opened at Claremont. New Hampshire, were sent as further recruits for the work of the diocese James Fitton, William Wiley, who later became successful and long-lived pastors, and William Tyler, first Bishop of Hartford. Churches were built in Salem, South Boston, and other places. A cemetery was purchased near Dorehester Heights, South Boston, and a memorial erected there to Father Matignon. The chapel was dedicated to St. Augustine in compliment to Father Larisey who collected most of the funds for the purchase of the ground. There were a number of converts through the zeal and instruction of Bishop Cheverus, notable among them being Thomas Walley, who had a private chapel at his residence in Brookline; Dr. Henry B.C. Greene, who was elected to the State legislature in 1841 and served for four terms, being the first Catholic office-holder in the State; Stephen Cleveland Blythe, the Rev. Calvin White, William Wiley, afterwards a priest, Mrs. John C. Sefton, Samuel Bishop, Captain Bela Chase, Nicholas Hazelborn, the Barber family, and General Ethan Allen’s daughter Frances, who was the first nun from New England.

(2) BENEDICT JOSEPH FENWICK

Second bishop, appointed 10 May, 1825. He was born 3 September, 1782, near Leonardstown, Maryland, Cuthbert Fenwick, the founder of the family in America, being one of the original Catholic settlers of Lord Baltimore’s colony in Maryland. He was sent with his brother Enoch to Georgetown College in 1793, and in 1805 entered the Sulpician Seminary at Baltimore to study for the priesthood. When the Society of Jesus was restored in the United States in 1806 he and his brother were among the first scholastics received. He was ordained priest 12 March, 1808. In the succeeding years he was pastor in New York, director of its first Catholic Collegiate school, administrator and vicar-general of the diocese, missionary in South Carolina, and twice president of Georgetown College. He was then named Bishop of Boston, was consecrated in Baltimore on 1 November, 1825, and took possession of his see, 3 December. There were then only two priests in the diocese, the Revs. P. Byrne in Boston and D. Ryan at New Castle, Maine; and besides the cathedral only three churches. The bishop at once started a seminary in his own house and, having prepared Fathers Fitton Wiley, Smith, Tyler, and Thomas J. O’Flaherty, ordained them. Other students were sent to study at Rome, Paris, Baltimore, and Montreal. The Rev. John Mahony was sent to take charge at Salem; C. D. Ffrench, a Dominican, to Maine in 1826, and Robert D. Woodley to look after the scattered congregations in Rhode Island and Connecticut. In 1828 Bishop Fenwick enlarged the cathedral and began a school in the basement, which was taught by his theological students, assisted by Patrick Haney, a mulatto from the West Indies. The erection of new churches, the providing of more priests for the increasing number of Catholics, the promotion of Catholic education, and the regulation of the general discipline of the Church took up the remaining years of his life, which ended on the eleventh of August, 1846. In 1844 he was given a coadjutor, the Right Rev. John Bernard Fitzpatrick. Bishop Fenwick began, on 8 September, 1829, for the defense of the Faith, the publication of “The Jesuit, or Catholic Sentinel,” one of the first Catholic papers printed in the United States. In 1843 he founded the College of the Holy Cross at Worcester and entrusted it to the Jesuits. In 1829 he attended the First Provincial Council of Baltimore. At his death Boston had about fifty churches with attendant priests, a college, an orphan asylum, and numerous schools, and a portion of its original territory the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island had been erected into the new Diocese of Hartford (28 November, 1843) Three Sisters of Charity from Emmitsburg, Maryland, opened the first orphan asylum in 1831. The first diocesan synod was held n 1842 and was attended by thirty priests. The clergy of this period were all men of broad, solid culture and knowledge. Among others not named above may be mentioned the Rev. Jeremiah O’Callaghan, a native of Cork, Ireland, whose strict views on the doctrine of usury brought him into conflict with the bishop of that place. He later became a tutor in the family of William Cobbett and came to New York in 1830 The mission of Burlington, Vermont, was given to his care, and there in 1834 he published a book under the title “Usury, Funds and Banking.” Dr. Thomas J. O’Flaherty, a physician from Kerry, Ireland, was ordained priest in 1829. He edited “The Jesuit” for the bishop and made a translation of Joseph de Maistre’s “Spanish Inquisition.” The Rev. C. E. Brasseur de Bourbourg was for a time in the diocese and two years after the bishop’s death went to Mexico where he devoted much time to decyphering the native picture writings. In 1845 it was estimated there were 53,000 Catholics in the State, an increase of more than 20,000 in ten years. (See FENWICK BENEDICT, JOSEPH.)

(3) JOHN BERNARD FITZPATRICK

Third bishop, was consecrated titular Bishop of Callipolis and coadjutor of Boston, 24 March, 1844. He was born in Boston, 1 November, 1812, his parents having emigrated from Ireland in 1805. His early education was received in the local grammar and Latin schools and in 1829 he went to the Sulpician college at Montreal. After eight years spent there as student and professor he entered the Seminary of St. Sulpice, Paris, to complete his ecclesiastical course and was ordained priest there 13 June, 1840. He then returned to Boston and after a year as assistant at the cathedral was made pastor of the church at East Cambridge. In 1844 he was appointed coadjutor to Bishop Fenwick. He took part in the Sixth Provincial Council of Baltimore in 1846 and attended the subsequent provincial councils and the first plenary council (1853), which further reduced the original limits of his jurisdiction by creating the dioceses of Burlington and Portland. During 1854 he paid his official visit to Rome after having suffered, together with his people the utmost indignities and persecution at the hands of bigots. In July of that year the churches at Dorchester, at Bath, and at Manchester, New Hampshire, were destroyed by mobs. In October, at Ellsworth, Maine, the Rev. John Bapst, S.J., was taken by a band of masked men, stripped, smeared with tar and feathers, and forced out of the place. The legislature of Massachusetts also appointed a special committee to investigate convents, and the members forced their way into several institutions. From the pope Bishop Fitzpatrick received conso- lation and encouragement and the message to his people to “persevere under afflictions.” The anti-Catholic sentiment in the community continued. On 14 March, 1859, a Catholic boy named Thomas J. Wall was whipped for refusing to read the Protestant Bible and recite Protestant prayers in one of the Boston public schools. Thereupon so strong a protest was made by the bishop against the injustice done to the Catholics of the community by the system and regulations then in operation that for the first time in the history of the city a priest and several Catholic laymen were named on the school committee. For many years the bishop was an invalid and a great sufferer, but he kept up his activities to the end and before his death on 13 February, 1866, saw the prosperity of the diocese increased nearly threefold. In 1860 Bishop Fitzpatrick, intending to build a new cathedral, sold the old church in Franklin Street For $115,000, the neighborhood having changed into a business centre. Among his prominent converts may be noted Josue Moody, afterwards Bishop of Erie, Fathers George J. Goodwin, H. Tucker, J. Coolidge Shaw, S.J., Edward H. Welch, S. . Orestes A. Brownson, the philosopher, Buckley Hastings, General Joseph W. Revere (Paul Revere’s grandson), and other members of old New England families. Chaplains in the regiments who volunteered in the Civil War were Fathers Thomas Scully, Charles L. Egan, Nicholas O’Brien, and Lawrence S. McMahon (afterwards Bishop of Hartford). Editors and writers were Fathers Joseph M. Finotti, John P. Roddan, and John Boyce.

(4) JOHN JOSEPH WILLIAMS

Fourth bishop, consecrated 11 March, 1866; created first archbishop 12 February, 1875. He was born in Boston of Irish parents 27 April, 1822, and died in Boston, 30 August, 1907. His boyhood and early manhood were spent under the spiritual direction of Bishop Fenwicl He attended the cathedral school and thence passed to the Sulpician college in Montreal and their seminary at Paris, where he was ordained priest in 1845. He was the special friend of Bishop Fitzpatrick who made him his vicar-general at an early age and rector of St. James’s church, where in 1842 he established the first Conferenoe of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in New England. Two other rectors of this church became bishops: the Rev James A. Healy, appointed Bishop of Portland in 1875, and M. A. Harkins Bishop of Providence in 1887. Shortly before his death Bishop Fitzpatrick sought to have Father Williams made his coadjutor, but he did not live to see him consecrated. Boston was made an archdiocese in 1875,.and Bishop Williams was promoted to be its metropolitan. He received as an auxilliary the Right Rev. John Brady, consecreted Titular Bishop of Alabanda, 5 August 1891, and a coadjutor with the right of succession in the Right Rev. William H. O’Connell of Portland, who was promoted to be Titular Archbishop of Tomi and coadjutor of Boston, 8 February, 1906. Archbishop Wiiliams also saw organized, within the limits of the Diocese of Boston as it was when he was born, the Dioceses of Springfield, 1870; Providence, 1872; Manchester, 1884; and Fall River, 1905, and among those immediately under his jurisdiction representatives of nearly every country and language of Europe. Prominent among the memorials of his long episcopate and priesthood were the new Cathedral of the Holy Cross, dedicated 8 December, 1875, and St. John’s Ecclesiastical Seminary at Brighton, erected in 1884, which is in charge of the Sulpicians. Boston College was opened by the Jesuits in 1863. In the same year the Carney Hospital was established through the generosity of Andrew Carney, who with his family has given it $75,000. The House of the Angel Guardian for boys, founded in 1849 by the Rev. G. F. Haskins, in 1876 was entrusted to the care of the Brothers of Charity from Montreal. St. Mary’s Infant Asylum was opened in 1872; the Home for the Aged by the Little Sisters of the Poor, in 1870; the House of the Good Shepherd in 1867, and the Daly Industrial School was made possible by the gift in 1899 of $50,000 from the Rev. Patrick J. Daly. The Home for Destitute children was opened in 1864; the Working Boys Home in 1883, and the Home for Girls in 1884. St. Elizabeth’s Hospital dates from 1868, the Free Home for Consumptives from 1891 the Holy Ghost Hospital for Incurables from 1893 The Sisters of St. Joseph made their first foundation in the diocese in 1873; the Franciscan Sisters, in 1884; the Religious of the Sacred Heart, in 1880; and the Carmelites from Baltimore, in 1890. The Redemptorists began a mission in the late sixties, and built their first church in the Roxbury District in 1871. In 1883 the Marist Fathers began their local work, and the Augustinians established themselves in Lawrence in 1861. French immigration from Canada, which had been going on since 1815, began to attract special attention about 1870. In 1868 the first distinctively French parish was organized in Lowell. Italian and Portuguese congregations date from 1872, the former in Boston and the latter in Gloucester. One congregation in Gloucester has a respectable section made up of Gaelic speaking Scotch from Cape Breton and Antigonish. There is one German Congregation in Boston, and one in Lawrence; that in Boston, the church of Holy Trinity, dates from 1836 and has the distinction of starting in 1844 one of the first parish schools in New England. There are also Polish, Lithuanian, and Syrian congregations in Boston. Archbishop Williams was a quiet, conservative prelate, known best as an administrator. He was one of the bishops who attended the Vatican Council and helped largely to establish the American College at Rome.

(5) WILLIAM HENRY O’CONNELL

Second archbishop, was born 8 December, 1859, at Lowell, Massachusetts, and received his early education in its local schools and at St. Charles’s College, Ellicott City, Maryland. He then graduated in 1881 at the Jesuit College in Boston and was sent to the American College, Rome, to make his studies for the priesthood. He was ordained there 8 January 1884, and returned to Boston in 1886. The following years he was stationed as an assistant at Medford, and at Boston until 1895 when he was appointed rector of the American College, Rome. He held this office five years, and was then appointed Bishop of Portland, Maine, being consecrated 19 May, 1901. In the fall of 1905 the pope sent him as a special envoy to Japan in the interests of the Church. He was decorated by the Mikado and on his return to Rome was warmly commended for the success of his efforts by the pope, who on 26 January, 1906, named him titular Archbishop of Tomi, and coadjutor of Boston. On the death of Archbishop Williams, he immediately took possession of the See of Boston.

The Right Rev. John Brady, auxiliary bishop, was born at Crosserlough, County Cavan, Ireland, 11 April, 1842. He made his first studies in the local diocesan schools and then completed his theological course at the Missionary College of All Hallows, where he was ordained priest for the Diocese of Boston, 4 December, 1864. He served as a curate in Boston and at Newburyport until 1868, when he was made pastor at Amesbury. He continued in this charge until he was nominated Titular Bishop of Alabanda and Auxiliary Bishop of Boston for which see he was consecrated 5 August, 1891.

SOCIAL PROGRESS

“The foundation of a Catholic Church in Boston could only be surpassed by devoting a chamber in the Vatican to a Protestant Chapel” said William Tudor, writing in his “Letters on the Eastern States” (Boston, 1819). The records show that the notable constructive Catholic social period of the diocese did not begin until after the Civil War. Though the Catholics formed a quarter of the population of Boston in 1844 and two-fifths in 1853, not a single one of that faith ever held an elective or appointive public office in the city of Boston. There were only three Catholic teachers in the public schools until 1860. The first Catholic Member of the Common Council, John H. Barry, was elected in 1857, the first alderman, Christopher A. Connor, in 1870, and the first Member of Congress, Patrick A. Collins, in 1882. The changed conditions are shown by the fact that for ten of the past twenty-three years Boston has been ruled by Catholic Mayors, and public memorials have been set up amid general approval to the soldier, Colonel Thomas Cass; the poet journalist, John Boyle O’Reilly; and the statesman, Patrick Andrew Collins. In justice it must be said that much of the progress thus made was owing to Patrick Donahoe, who after the failure of “The Jesuit” continued in “The Pilot” (begun 2 January, 1836) the illustrations of Catholic truth and the defense of Catholic rights. From his publication house issued for more than half a century a steady output of Catholic literature that aided materially the education of his fellow Catholics and won for the Faith a general popular appreciation. Other periodicals and publications in the archdiocese are the weeklies “The Republic” and the “Sacred Heart Review” (Boston), “The Catholic Citizen” (Chelsea); “The Sunday Register” (Lawrence); the monthlies “Donahoe’s Magazine” (Boston); “The Index” (Haverhill), the French weeklies “Le Defenseur,” “La Justice” (Holyoke); “L’Etoile,” daily and weekly (Lowell).

STATISTICS

Records of the Archdiocese of Boston for 1907 give these figures: 1 archbishop, 1 bishop, 598 priests (488 secular and 110 regular), 194 churches with resident priests, 54 missions with churches, 1 theological seminary with 86 students, 3 colleges for boys, 8 academies for girls, 76 parishes with schools and an attendance of 48,192 children; 6 orphan asylums with 650 inmates; 24 charitable institutions; the total number of children in Catholic institutions 48,740; 1 infant asylum, 538 inmates; industrial and reform schools 4, inmates 915; homes 7, inmates 826; brothers 140; religious women 1567; seminary for diocesan clergy 1, students 86; estimated Catholic population 850,000.

The following religious orders and congregations have foundations in the archdiocese: Communities of Men, Augustinians, 16; Franciscans (O.M.C.), 5; Jesuits, 32; Marists, 15; Oblates, 22; Congregation of St. Charles Borromeo, 4; Redemptorists, 16; Brothers of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, 25; Brothers of the Christian Schools, 11; Little Brothers of Mary, 19, Xaverian Brothers, 58. Communities of Women, Sisters of St. Ann, Sisters of the Assumption, Sisters of Charity (Madison, New Jersey), Sisters of Charity (Grey Nuns, Montreal), Sisters of Charity of Nazareth, Sisters of Charity (Emmitsburg), Sisters of Charity (Halifax, N. S.), Sisters of the Holy Union of the Sacred Hearts, Sisters of St. Dominic (Jersey City, N. J.), Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, Sisters of St. Dominic (Springfield, Kentucky), Sisters of St. Francis (Allegany, N. Y.), Sisters of St. Francis (Rome), Sisters of the Good Shepherd, Sisters Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Grey Nuns of the Cross (Ottawa Ontario), Religious of the Sacred Heart, Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart (Rome), Sisters of St. Joseph, Sisters of Mary, Sisters of Mercy (Manchester, New Hampshire), Sisters of Notre Dame, of Namur, since 1849, School Sisters of Notre Dame (Baltimore, Maryland), Little Sisters of the Poor, Sisters of Providence, Sisters of the Holy Union of the Sacred Hearts, Filles de Jesus, Franciscan Poor Clare nuns, Sisters of the Holy Childhood.

SHEA, History of the Cath. Ch. in U. S. (New York, 1886); IDEM, Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll (Ib., 1888); HAMON Vie du Cardinal de Cheverus (Paris, 1858, tr, WALSH, Philadelphia, 1839; tr. STEWART, Boston, 1839); FITTON, Sketches of the Establishment of the Church in New England (Boston, 1872), CREAGH, Laity’s Directory (New York, 1822); Catholic Observer (Boston 1847), files; Memoires de P. De Sales Laternere (Quebec, 1813), Gazette de Quebec (22 October 1789 suppIement); American Cath. Hist. Researches (January 1889; July, 1902) FINOTTI, Bibliographia Cath. Americana (New York, 1872); CLARKE, Lives of the Deceased Bishops (New York, 1872); The Pilot (Boston, 2 January, 1836-1907), files; REUSS, Biog. Cycl. of the Hierarchy of the U. S. (Milwaukee, 1879); U. S. Cath. Magazine (Baltimore), VIII, 102 sqq.; U, S. CATH. HIST. SOC., Hist. Records and Studies (New York, October, 1906), IV, parts I and II; SULLIVAN, Catholic Church of New England, Archdiocese of Boston (Boston and Portland, 1895); LEAHY in History of Catholic Church in the New England States (Boston, 1899), I; Memorial Volume, One Hundredth Anniversary Celebration of the Dedication of the Church of the Holy Cross, Boston (Boston, 1904); H. F. BROWNSON, Orestes A. Brownson’s Early Life; IDEM, Middle Life (Detroit, 1898–99).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Bostra

Titular see of Syria. Bostra, “The fortress,” is neither Bosor of Reuben and Moab (Deut., iv, 24; Jos., xx, 8), nor Bosrah of Edom (Gen., xxxvi, 33, Jer., xlix, 13, etc.), now Bouseira between Tafile and Shobaq. Perhaps it is the same as Bosor, or Bosora, taken by the Machabees (1 Mach., v, 26, 28, 36), an independent town in Peraea. It was included in the Nabatean Kingdom (M. de Vogue, La Syrie centrale, Inscriptions, 103) and last held by the Romans. When the kingdom was destroyed by Cornelius Palma (105 or 106), a general of Trajan, Bostra became the metropolis of Arabia and was known as Nova Trajana Bostra. There the Third Legio Cyrenaica held its garrison. In the same year began the era of Bostra, after which the numerous inscriptions in trans-Jordanic Palestine are reckoned. The city was already a very important one; it was there that the great Roman road began which ran to the Red Sea, as well as most of the other roads that crossed the country in every direction; the governor of the province had his residence there.

Under Alexander Severus (222–235) Bostra became a Roman colony. In the fourth century it is called “a great city,” by Ammianus Marcellinus (Res gestae, XIV, 8, 3), and from the extent of its ruins G. Rindfleisch has calculated that it must have had about 80,000 inhabitants (Zeitschrift des deutsehen Palastinavereins, xxi, 32). Remains of splendid monuments are yet visible, colonnades, triumphal arches, baths, a theatre, temples, churches, etc. Bostra, being an important trade centre for caravans, was visited by Mahomet; it was there that Bahira, a Nestorian monk, acknowledged him as a prophet. The Crusaders tried vainly to take it. Its decline was the result of earthquakes, chiefly that of 1151, when the city was left in ruins. Under its present name of Bosra Eski-Sham (Bostra Old Damascus), it has hardly 1000 wretched inhabitants and a little Turkish garrison.

The Christian religion, which soon penetrated the neighboring Arabia, was not long in reaching Bostra. As metropolis of the province of Arabia it had nineteen or twenty suffragan sees. Lequien (Or. Chr., II, 853–860) enumerates a list of sixteen bishops at Bostra; among the most celebrated are Beryllus, who fell into a Christologic heresy and was reclaimed by Origen at a council held between A.D. 218 and 244 (Euseb., H. E., vi, 33); Titus, who suffered much under Julian the Apostate, and who was an important writer, J. Siekenberger devoting a long essay to him (Titus von Bostra, Leipzig, 1901); St. Antipater, about 458; Stephen, at the beginning of the eighth century; and Arsenius, who lived in 1365 (Miklosich and Muller, Acta patriarch. C.P., I, 465). The diocese existed till 1715 (Chrysanthus, Synodicon, 70). Subsequent to that it was suppressed by the Greeks, and its 6000 faithful are subjects of the Diocese of Damascus. The Catholic Greeks, or Melchites, however, have always maintained this see, under the title of Bostra and Hauran. Their metropolitan resides usually at Damascus and goes to Bostra only two or three times a year; his diocese contains about 8000 Catholics, 12 priests, and 12 parishes. The Crusaders by a mistake ranked Bostra under the authority of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, instead of under that of Antioch.

PORTER, Five Years in Damascus (London, 1855), II, 142–169; The Giant Cities of Bashan (London, 1872), 64–73, REY, Voyage dans le Haouran (Paris, 1860), 179–199; WADDINGTON, Explication des inscriptions recueillies . . . en Syrie, 454–469, VAILHE, La province ecclesiastique d’Arabie in Echos d’Orient, II, 66–179.

S. VAILHÉ

Bothrys

A titular see situated in Phoenicia. Bothrys is the Greek name of a city founded by Ithobaal, King of Tyre and father of Jezabel (897–866 B.C.), on the seashore near Cape Lithoprosopon (Menander, in Josephus “Ant. Jud.,” VIII, 13, 2). It is mentioned by all the ancient geographers, Strabo, Pliny, Ptolemy, Stephanus Byzantius, Hierocles, etc. The city belonged to Phoenicia Prima, and became a suffragan of Tyre in the Patriarchate of Antioch. In 551 it was destroyed by an earthquake, on which occasion the cape cracked in the very middle so that quite a large harbor was opened (Malalas, Chronogr., XVIII, in P.G., XCVII, 704). Theophanes, relating the same event (ad an. 543), calls the city Bostrys, which form is also found elsewhere. Three Greek bishops are known: Porphyrius in 451, Elias about 512; and Stephen in 553 (Lequien, II, 827). According to a Greek “Notitia episcopatuum,” the see still existed in the tenth century and was then called Petrounion. Its present Arabic name is Batroun. There are 2,500 inhabitants (1,200 Maronites, 1,200 Greeks). It is the centre of a caza in the mutessariflik of Lebanon and the seat of a Maronite diocese suffragan to the Maronite patriarchate. There are 60,000 Catholics, 50 churches or chapels, 30 priests, 1 seminary, 64 elementary schools, and 12 monasteries of Baladites, Aleppines, and monks of St. Isaiah in this Diocese.

S. VAILHÉ

Sandro Botticelli

A famous Florentine painter. Born at Florence about 1447; died in the same city, 1510. Botticelli’s name is properly Allesandro di Mariano Filipepi, Mariano Filipepi being his father, but he is called after the Florentine painter and goldsmith, Botticelli, to whom he was first apprenticed. Later on he was a pupil of Fra Filippo Lippi and learned from this master to paint in the ideal manner of Fra Angelico. Through the influence of Verocchio and the brothers Pollajuoli this idealism was combined with the naturalness of Masaccio. These qualities explain Botticelli’s great influence over later painters. Botticelli’s life was a retired one passed largely in very modest circumstances. We know, however that he was in the employ of the Medici and other prominent Florentine families from about 1483 to 1500. Although never inclined to frivolity he was yet influence by the worldly spirit of the age until Savonarola’s powerful call to repentance aroused his moral nature and guided his powers, it now seems, into entirely new paths. He never knew how to take care of money and he died at last in need. Botticelli was too unassuming to sign and date his works in most instances, so that the order in time of his paintings has to be judged from the canvasses themselves.

1. MADONNAS

Botticelli enjoys, above all, a well-earned fame as a painter of the Madonna. In these pictures the fascination lies more in the expression of the Mother and Child and in the look on the faces of the half-grown boy-angels than in the unaffected simplicity of the pose and composition. Two of these pictures, circular in form (called tondo, round) have become very famous. Both are in Florence; one is the “Magnificat.” and in the other the Child is holding a pomegranate. A circular canvas at Berlin which depicts the Madonna enthroned and surrounded by angels carrying candles is characterized by deep religious feeling. A number of small pictures of the Madonna recall Fra Filippo; others more severe in tome seem to show the influence of Verrocchio. The Child’s expression is always sweet and winning, yet thoughtful as well, and at times the look is one of intense earnestness. The Mother in holy awe restrains her tenderness and seems to have a presentiment of future sorrow. This feeling of melancholy foreboding is also expressed in the attendant angels and saints. A painting of this enthroned Madonna with the two Johns is at Berlin; two canvases at Florence depict the same Madonna surrounded by numerous saints. It is plain that the look of melancholy on the face of the Mother of God had a strange attraction for the painter. His portrait of himself in the “Destruction of Core, Dathan, and Abiron” shows his natural inclination to intense earnestness, and in the “Outcasts” he has depicted the profoundest depths of grief.

2. BIBLICAL SUBJECTS

In 1481 Sixtus IV summoned Botticelli, along with other painters, to Rome to decorate the new Sistine Chapel. According to the biographer, Visari, he was even to superintend the entire work. In the chapel Botticelli painted three frescoes which represent events in the lives of Moses and Christ. No less than seven scenes are united in the “Life of the Youthful Moses,” so that the composition lacks unity. without doubt the artist laboured under a feeling of restraint The composition is animated in parts and is intended to arouse the feelings. The “Destruction of Core, Dathan, and Abiron” is represented in three scenes. The figure of Moses appears here in all the majesty which God had granted him for the punishment of rebels. There is an interesting connection between this picture and Perugino’s “Granting of the Keys to Peter” on the opposite wall. Moses in the fullness of his might is the counterpart of Peter to whom the keys of heaven are entrusted. Over against the fresco of the proving of the youthful Moses, Botticelli painted from the New Testament the “Temptation of Christ.” The pope has this picture before him when, seated upon his throne, he is present at the celebration of the Mass. Strange to say, the foreground of the painting represents the purification of a leper before a company of ecclesiastics and secular dignitaries and contains besides an allusion to the pope. The explanation of the scene is as follows: Moses had to undergo trials before he could become the leader of his people, so also the Savior had to suffer in order to heal mankind from the leprosy of sin, and so also the pope in order to carry out Christ’s missions. As an allegorical indication of this a hospital built by Sixtus IV is shown in the picture. It must be acknowledged that the painter executed the difficult task assigned to him in the chapel with striking skill. Feeling the importance of this work Botticelli carried out his designs almost entirely himself; the smallest details show the infinite pains he took. In these frescoes he has given a large amount of space to Roman architecture, thereby setting a good working example to the painters coming after him. Of Botticelli’s other Biblical pictures mention may be made of the “Birth of Christ,” which was intended to be a memorial of Savonarola. While a chorus of angels sing the praises of God above the manger, in this picture, three angels below lead Dominican monks towards the Savior, Christ, who had been proclaimed by Savanarola to be king of the city of Florence. We also have an “Adoration of the Magi” in four examples (Florence, London, and St. Petersburg). This canvas is full of figures and has a background composed of stately architecture and landscape. The copy at Florence is famous on account of the portraits of the Medici it contains, which were introduced in accordance with the custom of the time. About 1500 Botticelli produced the two examples of the “Lamentation of Christ” which are now at Munich and Milan. In this composition the expression of grief is deep but subdued.

3. PORTRAITS

Among the twenty-four portraits of popes in the Sistine chapel five are by Botticelli In the church of the Ognissanti at Florence there is a celebrated picture of St. Augustine by Botticelli opposite to a St. Jerome by Ghirlandajo. There are two portraits of Guiliano de Medici in existence and an excellent portrait of a woman at Frankfort.

4. OTHER SUBJECTS

In celebration of a wedding Botticelli painted in the villa of the Tornabuoni near Fiesole an allegorical scene representing the Seven Arts and the Virtues paying their homage to the newly married pair. Among his mythological pictures may be mentioned the “Venus” who sails upon a shell towards the island which she has chosen for her habitation. Another mythological subject is “Venus and Mars.” Botticelli contributed the enthroned “Fortitude” and “Spring” to the allegorical style of painting so popular in his day. The “Columny of Apelles,” which is realistic in execution, is essentially allegorical. Closely related to these works are the more than ninety illustrations to Dante’s “Divine Comedy,” that poem which from Giotto to Michaelangelo, has stimulated the imagination of so many painters. Four sheets executed in colour seem to indicate an intention to carry out the whole work in the same manner after the designs had once been made with the pen and pencil. Most of the pictures are not more than outlined or sketched. There is, however, much that is admirable in these designs, which formed one of the chief occupations of the last years of the painter. The fidelity to nature in the drawing of the human figure, the contemplative expression of the faces, the dramatic animation of the action, and the skillful arrangement of the perspective make these designs a last triumph for Botticelli.

Monographs by SUPINO (Florence, 1900); STEINMANN (Leipzig, 1897); DODSON, tr. (New York, 1901); BERENSON, The Florentine Painters of the Renaissance (New York and London, 1898); PLUNKETT, Sandro Botticelli (London, 1900).

G. GIETMANN

St. Botulph

(Or BOTOLPH.)

Abbot, date of birth unknown; died c. 680. St. Botulph, the saint whose name is perpetuated in that of the American city of Boston, Massachusetts, was certainly an historical personage, though the story of his life is very confused and unsatisfactory. What information we possess about him is mainly derived from a short biography by Folcard, monk of St. Bertin and Abbot of Thorney, who wrote in the eleventh century (Hardy, Catalogue of Brit. Hist., I, 373). According to him Botulph was born of noble Saxon parents who were Christians, and was sent with his brother Adulph to the Continent for the purpose of study. Adulph remained aborad, where he is stated to have become Bishop of Utrecht, though his name does not occur in any of the ancient lists. Botulph, returning to England, found favour with a certain Ethelmund, “King of the southern Angles,” whose sisters he had known in Germany, and was by him permitted to choose a tract of desolate land upon which to build a monastery. This place, surrounded by water and called Icanhoe (Ox-island), is commonly identified with the town of Boston in Lincolnshire, mainly on account of its name (Boston=Botulph’s town). There is, however, something to suggest that the true spot may be the village of Iken in Suffolk which of old was almost encircled by the little river Alde, and in which the church is also dedicated to St. Botulph. In favour of Lincolnshire must be reckoned the fact that St. Botulph was much honoured in the North and in Scotland. Thus his feast was entered in the York calendar but not in that of Sarum. Moreover, even Folcard speaks of the Scots as Botulph’s neighbours (vicini). In favour of Suffolk, on the other hand, may be quoted the tradition that St. Botulph, who is also called “bishop,” was first buried at Grundisburgh, a village near Woodbridge, and afterwards translated to Bury St. Edmunds. This, however, may be another person, since he is always closely associated with a certain St. Jurmin (Arnold, Memorials of Bury, I, 352). That Botulph really did build a monastery at Icanhoe is attested by an entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle under the year 654: Botulf ongan thoet mynster timbrian oet Yceanho, i.e. Botulph began to build the minster at Icanhoe. That the saint must have lived somewhere in the Eastern counties is proved by the indisputable evidence of the “Historia Abbatum” (Plummer’s Bede, I, 389), where we learn that Ceolfrid, Bede’s beloved master at Wearmouth, “journied to the East Angles in order that he might see the foundation of Abbot Botulphus, whom fame had proclaimed far and wide to be a man of remarkable life and learning, full of the grace of the Holy Spirit,” and the account goes on to say that Ceolfrid “having been abundantly instructed, so far as was possible in a short time, returned home so well equipped that no one could be found more learned than he either in ecclesiastical or monastic traditions.” Folcard represents St. Botulph as living and dying at Icanhoe in spite of the molestations of the evil spirits to which he was exposed at his first coming. Later accounts, e.g. the lessons of the Schleswig Breviary, suppose him to have changed his habitation more than once and to have built at one time a monastery upon the bank of the Thames in honour of St. Martin. His relics are said after the incursions of the Danes to have been recovered and divided by St. Aethelwold between Ely, Thorney Abbey, and King Edgar’s private chapel. What is more certain is that St. Botulph was honoured by many dedications of churches, over fifty in all, especially in East Anglia and in the North. His name is perpetuated not only by the little town of Boston in Lincolnshire with its American homonym, but also by Bossal in Yorkshire, Botesdale in Suffolk, Botolph Bridge in Huntingdonshire, and Botolph in Sussex. In England his feast was kept on 17 June, in Scotland on 25 June.

STANTON, Menology, 271; Acta SS., June, III, 402; MABILLON, Acta SS. Benedict., III, 1; STUBBS in Dict. Christ. Biog.; GRANT, in Dict. Nat. Biog.; FORBES, Calendars of Scottish Saints (Edinburgh, 1872), 283; and especially ARNOLD-FORSTER, Church Dedications (London, 1899), II, 52–56.

HERBERT THURSTON.

Lorenzo Boturini Benaducci

A native of Milan in Lombardy who went to Mexico in 1736 by permission of the Spanish government and remained there eight years, familiarizing himself with the Nahuatl or Mexican language. He gathered a number of Indian pictographs on tissue paper, etc., the first collection of the kind of importance. His frequent intercourse with the aborigines excited suspicion, as he was a foreigner, and the authorities, ever on the watch for intrigues against Spanish rule by strangers, deprived him of all his material, including prints, while he himself was sent to Spain under surveillance. There he succeeded in clearing himself of the accusations, but never obtained restitution of the precious collection, which afterwards was neglected and partly lost. Notwithstanding these drawbacks, Boturini, from such notes as he had saved, composed a treatise with the title of: “Idéa y ensayo de una historia general de la América setentrional” (Madrid, 1746). The most valuable part of this book relates to his former library and to other literary material. His text, especially concerning migrations of Indian tribes, is of less importance. Besides the “Idea,” he is credited with the authorship of the following writings: “Oratio ad Divinam Sapientiam” (Valencia, 1750), and “Oratio de lure natural) septentrionalium Indorum” (Valencia, 1751). The date and place of his death are unknown.

CLAVIGERO, Storia antica dell’ Messico (Cesena, 1780); BERISTAIN DE SOUZA, Biblioteca hispano-americana setentrional (Mexico, 1816).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Pierre Boucher

Born at Lagny, a village near Mortagne in the Perche, France, 1622, died at Boucherville, 1717. In 1634 he went to Canada with his father Gaspard Boucher, a simple joiner. At the age of eighteen he entered the service of the Jesuit Fathers and went to their Huron missions at Georgian Bay. On his return to Quebec in 1641 he served as a soldier in the garrison of that city. In 1645 he was interpreter of Indian languages at Three Rivers and in 1648 commissary-general of the trading station at that place. Elected captain of the militia in 1651, while in command of the place during an interim in 1653 he repelled an Iroquois attack. Owing to his efficient defence he was placed in charge of the city, and retained the position until 1658. In 1661 he was sent to France to represent the needs of the colonies and plead the cause of the inhabitants. On his return to Canada, in 1662, he was reappointed Governor of Three Rivers, an office which he only resigned in 1667 when he withdrew from public affairs to found the seigniorial parish called after his name Boucherville, situated opposite Montreal. He was succeeded in the governorship of Three Rivers by his son-in-law, René Gauthier de Varennes, forbear of the discoverer of Western Canada.

In 1664 Pierre Boucher had printed at Paris by the press of Florentin Lambert “L’histoire veritable et naturelle des moeurs et productions du pays de la Nouvelle-France, vulgairement dite le Canada.” This work was published in 1849 in “L’Album Canadien,” in 1882 at Montreal, and in 1896 in the “Mémoires de la Société Royale du Canada.” An English translation appeared in 1883. Pierre Boucher is considered the best type of a Canadian landed proprietor, filled with piety, rectitude, and honor. At his death he left a numerous posterity. The family is still in existence, and the highest stations are filled by members bearing the names Boucherville, Bruere, Niverville, Grosbois, and Montizambert. Pierre Boucher was the first Canadian colonist to be ennobled by King Louis XIV. His letters of nobility, dated 1661, were renewed in 1707.

Registres des insinuations du Conseil superieur de la Nouvelle-France, III, D, 46, DANIEL Grandes familles canadiennes; SULTE, Pierre Boucher et son livre in Royal Society of Canada, Transactions, new series, II, 99 148; LALANDE, La paroisse de Boucherville (1890); ROY, Histoire de la seigneurie de Louzon, I, II,

J. EDMOND ROY

Louis-Victor-Emile Bougaud

Bishop of Laval in France, b. at Dijon, 28 February 1823, d. at Laval 7 November, 1888. He received his classical education at Autun, where his professor of rhetoric was the Abbe, afterwards Cardinal, Pitra. He studied theology at Dijon and Paris, was ordained priest by Monseigneur Affre in 1846, was professor of church history at the Seminary of Dijon (1846–51), and then chaplain of the Convent of the Visitation in the same city (1851–61). In 1861 he accepted the position of Vicar-General to Bishop Dupanloup at Orléans. In 1886 he was appointed Bishop of Laval.

Besides the sermons which he delivered in Paris and other cities, Bishop Bougaud wrote numerous works. While chaplain of the Visitation Convent, he wrote “Histoire de Saint Bénigne, premier évêque de Dijon” and “Histoire de Sainte Chantal.” While Vicar-General of Orléans, he wrote “Histoire de Sainte Monique,” “Histoire de la bienheureuse Marguerite Marie,” “Le Christianisme et les temps présents” (his great apologetical work, in 5 vols.), “Le grand peril de l’Eglise de France au XIX siècle,” and “Histoire de Saint Vincent de Paul” (2 vols.). A volume of his discourses was published by his brother.

He was a preacher and writer of great influence, in consequence of his appreciation of all noble thoughts and deeds, his deep compassion for human suffering his great power of reflection, and his refined artistic taste. In his apologetics he evinces thorough sympathy with his own time and an unwavering hope for the triumph of the Church. His purpose was to adapt the explanations of the dogmas, precepts, and organization of the Church to the moral and intellectual aspirations of his contemporaries without any sacrifice of Catholic doctrine.

LAGRANGE, Notice historique sur Mgr. Bougaud in Discourse de Mgr. Bougaud (Paris, 1891); Semaine Religieuse de Laval (1888).

G.M. SAUVAGE

Guillaume-Hyacinthe Bougeant

Born at Quimper in Brittany, in 1690; died at Paris, 1743. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1706, taught the classics in the College of Caen and Nevers and lived for a number of years in Paris until his death. His “Amusement philosophique sue le language des bêtes,” published in 1737, became a cause of considerable annoyance to him, and of a brief exile from Paris. It was translated into English, Italian, and German. His historical works on the Thirty Years’ War, and on the treaty of Westphalia have been highly praised and have been regarded as among the best historical books written by Jesuits. They were translated into German. He is also the author of a theological treatise on the form of consecration of the Eucharist, and of a Catechism divided into three parts, historical, dogmatic, and practical. This cathechism, translated into Italian and German went through many editions and is still in use. In his three celebrated comedies, “Le Femme Docteur,” “Le Saint déniché,” and “Les Quakres français” he satirizes the Jansenists. The first of the three went through twenty-five editions in a few months, and was translated into Italian, Polish, Spanish, and Dutch. Between 1725 and 1737 he contributed many articles to the Mémoires de Trévoux.

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., I, 1873–85.

B. GULDNER

Dominique Bouhours

French Jesuit author, born at Paris, 15 May, 1632; died 27 May, 1702. Entering the Society of Jesus at sixteen, he taught grammar and rhetoric at Paris, Tours, and Rouen. A number of works which he composed against the Jansenists, notably “Lettre à un seigneur de la cour” and “Lettre a Messieurs de Port-Royal,” has a large circulation, and gained him a prominent place among the critics and littérateurs of the seventeenth century. He also translated the new Testament into French, and his translation has often been reprinted. He is best known to English readers, however, by his “Vie de S. Ignace” (Paris, 1679), “Vie de S. Francois-Xavier” (Paris, 1682). these two biographies were translated into English and published at London in 1686 and 1688 respectively. A new translation by a clergyman of the Diocese of Philadelphia was published at Philadelphia by E. Cummiskey in 1840, and for a number of years these two works of Bouhours’ were the most widely circulated biographies of the two saints. The only other of the author’s works done into English is “La manière de bien penser dans les oeurves d’esprit,” which appeared in London in 1705 under the title, “The Art of Criticism.”

Doncleux, Un jesuite homme de lettres au xviie siecle (Paris, 1886); Bibliotheque. de la c. de J., VII, 1886; Dutouquet in Dict. de theol. cath., II, 1091.

S.H. FRISBEE

Jacques Bouillart

A Benedictine monk of the Congregation of St.-Maur, b. in the Diocese of Chartres, 1669; professed at the Monastery of St. Faron de Meaux 1687, d. 11 December, 1726. He was the author of “Histoire de l’abbaye royale de Saint-Germain-des-Prés” (Paris, 1724). This valuable history of the celebrated Benedictine monastery contains biographies of the abbots that ruled over it, since its foundation by Childeric I in 543 and many important historical events relative to the famous abbey. Bouillart also edited a martyrology of Usuard. In this publication he attempts to establish the genuineness and authenticity of the manuscript preserved at Saint-Germain-des-Prés, against the Jesuit hagiographer Du Sollier, who in his revised edition of Usuard’s martyrology had paid no attention to this manuscript.

DE LAMA, Bibliotheque des ecrivains de la congregation de Saint-Maur (Munich and Paris, 1882), 128; ZIEGELBAUER, Hist. Rei lit. O. S. B. (Augsburg and Wurzburg, 1754), IV, 558); HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1893), II, 1201; LE CERF, Bibl. hist. et crit. des auteurs de la c.de St. Maur (The Hague 1726).

MICHAEL OTT

Emmanuel Théodore de la Tour d’Auvergne, Cardinal de Bouillon

(Emmanuel Thédore de la Tour d’Auvergne)

French prelate and diplomat, b. 24 August, 1643, at Turenne, d. 2 March, 1715, at Rome. The son of Frederick Maurice, Prince of Sedan, he was of the family of the great Marshal Turenne. In 1658, he was appointed a canon of Liège; doctor of the Sorbonne in 1667; created a cardinal in 1669, at the early age of twenty-four, and, finally, provided with several rich benefices and made chief almoner to Louis XIV. But Louvois, the powerful minister of Louis XIV, inspired by enmity to the house of Turenne, successfully opposed certain of his demands on the king for the benefit of members of his family, and the cardinal’s disappointment vented itself in a bitter satire on his royal master. This was used to effect Bouillon’s downfall at court. The cardinal then put forth great efforts to obtain the vacant Prince-Bishopric of Liège, but could not overcome the opposition of Louvois, who secured the dignity for Clement Joseph of Bavaria. Bouillon eventually regained the royal favour and was sent as ambassador to Rome. There, contrary to the wishes of his king, he championed the cause of Fénelon against that of Bossuet and did all he could to prevent the condemnation of Fénelon’s “Explication des maximes des Saints.” He was recalled to France, but alleging as a reason his duties as Dean of the Sacred College, he refused to obey the royal order. His property in France was then seized, whereupon he submitted and returned, but, on his arrival in France, was exiled to his Abbey of Tournus. While in his retirement, and under the influence of bitter ennui, the cardinal caused to be composed by Baluze his “Histoire généalogique de la maison d’Auvergne” (1708, 2 vols. in fol.). From his place of retreat, also, on the breaking out of the War of the Spanish Succession, he entered into correspondence with the English Duke of Marlborough, the Earls of Orrery and Galway, and others; and in 1710, after long and vainly soliciting his recall to court, he fled to the Low Countries. A warrant for his arrest was issued by the Royal Parliament, and his possessions again confiscated. But after some years spent abroad, during which the cardinal sent to the king numerous memoirs, endeavouring to justify his conduct, he at last succeeded in obtaining the restitution of his revenues and permission to take up his residence at Rome, where he spent in peace his last days.

DE FELLER-PÉRENNÈS, Biogr. Gener. (Paris, 1834), II, 470.

EDWARD A. GILLIGAN.

Marie Dominique Bouix

One of the best known and most distinguished of modern French canonists, b. 15 May, 1808, at Bagnères-de-Bigorre, in the diocese of Tarbes; d. at Montech, France, 26 December, 1870. In 1825, on the completion of his college course in an institution of his native town, he entered the Society of Jesus at Avignon, with his brother Marcel, and later taught the classics and occupied chairs of philosophy and theology in houses of the order. In 1842, when he was on the eve of his solemn profession, the precarious condition of his health rendered a continuance of the religious life impossible, and he obtained permission to retire from the society. This necessary withdrawal was a great disappointment to Bouix, who to the end of his life maintained the most cordial relations with his former brethren in religion, and received from them many evidences of a reciprocal regard. Father Roothan, General of the Jesuits, created him Doctor of Theology in 1851, in virtue of a power delegated by the Holy See to Jesuit generals; and Bouix’s work, “Du Concile Provincial,” published in 1850 was dedicated to members of the order with whom he had previously been associated in scholastic work. The first two years of his life as a secular priest were spend in a curacy at the church of Saint Vincent de Paul, in Paris. Here he interested himself especially in the soldiers garrisoned at the capital, and founded in their behalf the society of Saint Maurice, which later spread throughout France. In 1847 he was named to a chaplaincy, and became editor of the “Voix de la Verité,” to which he had already been a frequent contributor. In spite of the fact that all self-seeking was entirely foreign to his character, he now became a prominent figure in the political and ecclesiastical life of Paris and was a member of the educational commission with Montalembert and Monsignor Parisis. General Cavaignac, who aspired to the presidency of the republic, thought it wise to endeavour to enlist the sympathies of Bouix. It was at this time, in 1848, that his first book appeared, combating an heretical organization known as the Oeuvre de la Miséricorde. In 1849 his zeal impelled him to abandon for a time all other pursuits to minister to the victims of the cholera, which was then epidemic in Paris. Up to this time he had stood high in the favour of the ecclesiastical authorities of the diocese, but now an event occurred which was destined to affect seriously his ecclesiastical status and to give a new direction to his life work. Monsignor Fornari, the Nuncio at Paris desiring to further the restoration of provincial councils, held a conference with Bouix and the Bollandist Van Hecke, at which it was decided that the best means of influencing public opinion aright would be the preparation of a book explaining the law of the Church on provincial councils. Bouix was charged with this important work, and first published in the “Univers” four articles, setting forth the salient features of the question and preparing the public for the complete treatise, “Du Concile Provincial,” which appeared in 1850. A fifth article in the “Univers,” simply reaffirming the canon law on synods and combating therefore, in the judgment of some, the tendencies of Gallicanism, was followed immediately by the loss of this chaplaincy. This event determined him to devote his life to dispelling the prejudices and errors which he believed had largely infected the clergy of France in regard to matters of law and discipline. To equip himself for this work he turned his steps towards Rome, where, with no other means of support than the stipend of his daily Mass, he passed the next four years (1851–55) in study and in the preparation of the several works on canonical topics. In 1854, the degree of Doctor of Both Laws was conferred upon him by order of Pius IX. Returning to Paris in 1855, he continued his studies, and added to the series of treatises which established his fam4e as a canonist. To further the great purpose to which he had consecrated his life, he founded at Arras, in 1860, the “Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques,” of which he was for one year the editor, and in which during the next nine years many important articles appeared from his pen. In 1864, just as his anti-Gallican opinions were about to subject him to new rigours at the hands of Monseigneur Darboy, Bouix was named Vicar-General of the Diocese of Versailles, a sufficient commentary on the division of opinion in the French episcopate as to the character of his teaching. The next year, when the royal exequatur came up for discussion in the French Senate, and Archbishop Darboy advocated there the Gallican view, Bouix answered with a publication which contested the correctness of the archbishop’s contentions. The wonderful activity of his pen continued until 1870. Then, when he was broken by labour and disease and was really too weak to undertake a long journey, he went to the Vatican Council as theologian of the Bishop of Montauban, and was able to witness what appeared to him a signal triumph of the principles to which his life had been devoted. He returned with difficulty to France, where with undaunted spirit he endeavoured to complete a work on the church, which he had already planned. It was while engaged on this work that death overtook him at Montech, in a religious house of which his sister was superior. His life was a long battle with Gallicanism, but always remained singularly free from bitterness and discontent, in spite of the difficulties by which he was beset and the atmosphere of combat which his zeal forced him to breathe. As to his reputation as a canonist, while all must acknowledge his wonderful productivity and his high purpose, and while he has been justly called the restorer of the science of canon law in France, it must nevertheless be said that he falls short of being a great canonist; he is too often compiler rather than a genuine author, and he too frequently betrays a lack of that juridical sense which comes more from practice than from theory, and which begets the ability to pronounce justly on the lawfulness and unlawfulness of existing practices. However, the value of his works cannot be questioned, and is proved by the general favour which they still enjoy. Besides many articles, contributed to newspapers and reviews, especially to the “Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques,” we owe to the pen of Bouix the following works: “Du concile provincial” (published also in Latin translation, De Concilio Provinciali); “Tractatus de Principiis Juris Canonici”; “Tractatus de Capitulis”; “Tractatus de Jure Liturgico”; “Tractatus de Judiciis Ecclesiasticis,” 2 vols; “Tractatus de Parocho”; “Tractatus de Jure Regularium,” 2 vols. (An abridged translation of which appeared in German); “Tractatus de Episcopo,” 2 vols; “Tractatus de Curiâ Romanâ”; “Tractatus de Papa,” 3 vols.; “La verité sur l’assemblée de 1682”; “Le prétendu droit d’exequatur”; “La vérite sur la faculté de théologie de Paris, de 1663 à 1682”; “L’Oeuvre de la miséricorde”; “Méditations pour tous les jours de l’année,” 4 vols.; “Le solitaire des rochers”; “Histoire des vingt-six martyrs de Japon,” 2 vols. Several of his works were honoured with pontifical letters of commendation, and most of his canonical treatises have gone through three editions.

HURTER, Nomenclatur Literarius, III, 1424; SCHULTE, Geschichte der Quellen, III, 669; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium, I, 454; Revue des Sciences Ecclésiastiques, XXII, 193, XXIII, 129.

John T. Creagh.

Marcel, author, editor, and translator, brother of Marie Dominique Bouix, was born at Bagneres-de-Bigorre, France, June 25, 1806; d. at Paris, December 28, 1889. He entered the Society of Jesus at the age of nineteen and taught in the colleges of the Society in Spain and Switzerland. He spent some years of his life in the exercise of the sacred ministry, but the work to which he devoted himself for nearly forty years was the translation, revision, and publication of new editions of the great spiritual writers. These he enriched with introductions, commentaries, and historical notes of great value. His various editions of the life and works of St. Teresa, to the study and translation of which he gave sixteen years of his life, from 1848 to 1864, caused a remarkable revival of interest in the great Carmelite reformer. His “Vie de Sainte Therese, ecrite par elle-meme” (Paris, 1852), passed through twelve editions, and was translated into German and Dutch. His “Oeuvres de Sainte Therese,” in three volumes (Paris, 1852–54–56), reached a third edition in 1860. “Oeuvres spirituelles du Saint Pierre d’Alcantara” (Paris, 1862), Father Caraffa’s “School of Divine Love” (Lyons, 1863), and a new translation of “The Following of Christ” (Poitiers, 1864) are three of the eight works issued in two years. Revised editions of Father Mumford’s “Purgatory” (Paris, 1863), of St. Francis de Sales’ “Treatise on the Love of God” (Paris, 1864), and of “The Spiritual Works of St. Francis Borgia” (Paris, 1869) are valuable contributions to ascetic theology. “Saint Joseph d’apres les saints et les maltres de la vie spirituelle” (Paris, 1863) is Father Bouix’s own original contribution to religious literature. One of his most valuable services was the publication, for the first time, of the “Memoriale” of Pierre Lefevre, (Bl. Peter Faber) one of the first companions of St. Ignatius Loyola, in the original Latin and in a French translation (Paris, 1873). This work was translated into English by Father H. J. Coleridge, S.J. (London, 1873). Father Bouix translated into French the letters of St. Ignatius (Paris, 1870) and Father du Pont’s “Life of Father Alvarez” (Paris, 1873). He published the “Oeuvres spirituelles” of Father Jean-Joseph Surin in three volumes (Paris, 1879–82). The translation of Leonard Lessius’s “Les noms divins” (Paris, 1882) was one of the last works from the pen of this indefatigable writer, whose many years of labor enriched the literature of France with popular spiritual books of sound Catholic theology.

PATRICK H. KELLY.

Henri, Count of Boulainvilliers

Born at Saint-Saire (Seine-Inférieure) France, 11 October, 1658; died at Paris, 23 January, 1722. He was one of the first French historians to write the history of the institutions or fundamental laws of the nation and, although systematic and decidedly partial, was none the less a pioneer in this particular line of work. Until the death of his father in 1697, he followed a military career, but some complications concerning an estate obliged him to make a close investigation of his family, title and this it was that led to his becoming an historian. Like Saint-Simon, Boulainvilliers was saturated with ultra-aristocratic notions and was also an ardent adherent of the old feudal system, his books being a long, violent tirade against the French monarchy which, according to him, was responsible for the gradual ruin of the privileges of the nobility and the annihilation of feudalism.

The Franks, according to his doctrine, established themselves in Gaul by right of conquest; they divided its land among themselves and they exercise public authority. They constitute the French nation; they are Frenchmen. Every Frenchman is free and independent, is supreme in his domain, in his fee, where he administers justice to his subject. The kind is merely a civil magistrate chosen to settle the disputes of private individuals; he has no special power over the life, property, or liberty of other Frenchmen who are in no wise his subordinates. Frenchmen who belong to the nobility are all on an equality; they are the peers of the kind and of his relatives. Relationship with kings confers no rank even upon descendants in the male line. Such is the feudal system as claimed by Boulainvilliers to be the only one that is just, legitimate, and conformable to the reality of history.

Now, what caused Frenchmen or nobles to be dispossessed of their rights? First, the Crusades. To defray the expenses of these expeditions many noblemen either mortgaged or sold their fees and wealthy plebeians, who were not noble, but, according to Boulainvilliers, “ignoble,” thus became the owners of fees and, by introducing themselves into the nobility, corrupted it. Next came the ignorance of the lords or owners. The ignorance and negligence of the lords rendering them generally incompetent to discharge the functions that rightfully belonged to them, the principal of which was to dispense justice in their fees, they soon transferred all their judicial authority to clerks or jurists. Thanks to the dignity of their role, these clerks or jurists soon became as important as the lords and thus originated the noblesse de la robe (nobility of the long robe) which Boulainvilliers considers a monstrosity.

Finally came the policy of the Capetian Kings which Boulainvilliers regards as chiefly instrumental in ruining feudalism and therefore the French nation. This policy consisted in adding the great fees to the royal domain by reason of conquest, purchase, or marriage, with the result that the Kings of France assumed an importance theretofore unknown to them, and which soon became entirely disproportionate; while the lords, fascinated by the brilliancy of the royal courts, instead of remaining the peers of these kings, became their servants. The kings diminished the power of the French nobles still more by favouring the emancipation of the communes and raising to the ranks of the nobility plebeians whom they entrusted with high offices to which they had no right. Moreover, they admitted to seats in the States General, which should have been composed exclusively of representatives of the French, delegates from among the lower clergy and liberated serfs, and of course this arbitrary measure completed the overthrow of the nobility. Such then, is the teaching set forth in Boulainvilliers’s three most important works: ‘Histoire de l’ancien gouvernement de France,” “Lettres sur les parlements ou Etats-Généraux,” and “Essais sur la noblesse” which, taken as a whole, constitute an earnest plea for feudalism against monarchism. These works written by Boulainvillers for his grandchildren, did not appear until after his death. The “Histoire de l’ancien gouvernement de la France” with fourteen historical “Lettres sur les Parlements ou Etats-Généraux” were published in Amsterdam and the Hague in 1727, the “Essais sur la noblesse” (containing a dissertation by the late Count of Boulainvilliers on the origin and decline of the nobility) coming out in Amsterdam, 1732. It is only within the last twenty-five years that Boulainvilliers’ works have been duly appreciated and their conclusions taken up by the historic school of which Fustel de Coulanges was the chief representative.

RENÉ DOUMIC.

André de Boulanger

(PETIT-PÈRE ANDRÉ).

A French monk and preacher, b. at Paris in 1578; d. 27 September, 1657. He was the son of a President of the Parlement (High Court) of Paris. At an early age he entered the Augustinian Order and became a well-known preacher, being heard for over half a century in most of the great pulpits of France. Boulanger lived at a period when the jocose style of preaching, introduced by such men as Menot and Maillard, still lingered, and he made large use of the burlesque, notwithstanding its bad taste, in his own preaching. It is indeed this habit of jesting that has preserved his name. Boileau refers to Boulanger when, speaking of trivial plays on words and witticisms, he writes:

L’avocat au palais en hérissa son style,

Et le docteur en chaire en sema l’Evangile.

“The style of the advocate in court bristles with them and the doctor in the pulpit scatters them through the Gospel.” Father André’s style of preaching may be judged from the following example. In one of his passages he thus compared the four great Doctors of the Latin Church to the kings of the four suits of cards: St. Augustine to the King of Hearts, because of his large-heartedness; St. Ambrose to the King of Clubs (trèfle, clover), on account of his flowery eloquence; St. Jerome to the King of Spades (pique, lance), because of his biting style; St. Gregory the Great to the King of Diamonds (carreau, in the sense of “foot-stool”) on account of his lowliness of thought. However, this exaggeration of speech was but one side, and that the least important one, of Father André’s eloquence. Tallemant des Réaux said: “He was a good member of his order and had a large following of all sorts of people; some came to laugh, others came because he moved them.” The critic Guéret, who had head the facetious monk, represents him, in a dialogue of the dead, as saying in his own defence against his accuser Cardinal du Perron: “Joker as you take him to be, he has not always made those laugh who heard him; he has said truths which have sent bishops back into their dioceses. He has found the art of stinging while laughing.” The Regent Anne of Austria and the Prince of Condé enjoyed his sermons. Boulanger was several times provincial of his order and much occupied in other ways; consequently he was not able to attend to the printing of his works. The only one of his writing which has been published, “L’Oraison de Marie de Lorraine, abbesse de Chelles,” is mediocre.

GUERET, La guerre des auteurs anciens et modernes (Paris, 1671), 152; JACQUINET, Les prédicateurs du xviie siècle avant Bossuet (Paris, 1885).

A. FOURNET

César-Egasse du Boulay

(BULÆUS).

A French historian, b. in the beginning of the seventeenth century at Saint-Ellier (department of Mayenne); d. 16 October, 1678. After teaching humanities in the College of Navarre he occupied important positions in the University of Paris, especially those of rector and historian of the university. His main work is the “Historia Universitatis Parisiensis” covering the period from the supposed foundation of the university by Charlemagne (800) to 1600. The first three volumes published in 1665 were censured by the university. To justify himself the author wrote the “Notæ ad censuram . . .” (Paris, 1667). The censors appointed by the king found nothing blameworthy in the work, and the last three volumes were published in 1673. Du Boulay’s history is very important on account of the many original documents which it reproduces, but its value is lessened by the insufficient judgment and criticism of the author. Other writings of Du Boulay refer to the same topic of the university, its foundation, patrons, administration, and privileges; “De patronis quatuor nationum universitatis” (1662); “Carlomagnolia . . .” (1662); “De decanatu nationis Gallicanæ . . .” (1662); “Remarques sur la dignité, rang . . . du recteur” (1668); “Remarques sur l’election des officiers de l’Université” (1668); “Recueil des privilèges de l’Université . . .” (1674); “Fondation de l’Université par l’empereur Charlemagne . . .” (1675). In addition to these Du Boulay wrote “Speculum eloquentiæ (1658) and “Trésor des antiquités romaines” (1651).

FÉRET, La faculté de théologie de Paris et ses docteurs les plus célèbres. Epoque moderne (Paris, 1904), III, 435; HURTER, Nomenclator (2d ed., Innsbruck, 1893), II, 241; Biographie universelle (Paris, 1811–28), V, 326; DENIFLE, Die Enistchung der Universitäten des Mittelalters bis 1400 (Berlin, 1885).

C.A. DUBRAY

Etienne-Antoine Boulogne

French bishop, b. at Avignon, 26 December 1747; d. at Troyes, 13 March, 1825. He was the son of poor parents and obtained an education from the Christian Brothers of his native city. He exhibited talent and industry and was ordained in 1771. His oratorical gifts attracted general attention, and he soon became one of the most admired preachers in Paris. For a while the Archbishop of Paris interdicted him from preaching; but was eventually induced to withdraw his opposition when a eulogy composed by the Abbé Boulogne on the late Dauphin, the father of Louis XVI, obtained a prize. The Abbé’s reputation as a preacher now grew steadily. He preached the Lenten sermons aux Quinze-Vingts in 1786, and at the court of Versailles in 1787. In one of his sermons at court he clearly pointed out the fearful storm which was threatening society, brought on by the false philosophy and irreligion of the day. The storm advanced unchecked and broke over France sooner and with greater violence than had been foreseen, except by the keenest observers. Boulogne refused to take the oath of the civil constitution of the clergy demanded by the laws and was in consequence stripped of his titles and benefices. He also refused to leave his country in her need. He was arrested three times, but each time succeeded in recovering his liberty; condemned to deportation on another occasion for having defended Christianity against the attacks of Larevellière Lépeaux, he again evaded the unjust decree. The worst of the revolutionary storm had scarcely blown over when he reappeared, contending in the “Annales Catholiques,” of which he had become the sole editor, with unbelievers and those of the clergy who had taken the oath of the civil constitution. In spite of incessant and fierce opposition he published this magazine under one title or another until the year 1807. He also resumed his labours as preacher with greater authority and success than ever. Napoleon, always in search of men of talent who were capable of furthering his ambitious designs, first appointed the Abbé Boulogne his chaplain, then Bishop of Troyes. The Abbé foresaw clearly that his position would be one of great difficulty; but already schooled to adversity, he did not shrink from the new trails which awaited him.

In 1811 Napoleon had the bishops of France and Northern Italy summoned to a council to be held at Paris. Bishop Boulogne preached the opening sermon in the church of Notre Dame. “Whatever vicissitudes,” he said in conclusion, “the See of Peter may experience, whatever be the state and condition of his august successor, we shall firmly cling to him with bonds of filial respect and reverence; the See may be displaced, it cannot be destroyed; wherever that See may be, the others will take their stand around it; whithersoever that the See moves, thither all Catholics will follow; for there alone is the last link of true succession; there the centre of the Church’s government; there, the deposit of Apostolic tradition.” It is easy to see how distasteful these courageous words, which produced a profound impression on the assembly, must have been to Napoleon who, at this very time, was holding Pius VII in captivity away from Rome and was using his wonted violence and deception to extort from the assembled prelates a decision that would enable him to do without ecclesiastical investiture for the bishops of his choice. Yet this displeasure did not prevent the assembled bishops from choosing the preacher as secretary of the council and member of the committee on the reply to the imperial message. When this committee reported that there was no authority in France that could supply, even provisionally and for a case of necessity, the absence of the pope’s Bulls of episcopal investiture, Napoleon dissolved the council and that very night Bishop Boulogne was arrested and imprisoned. He was not restored to his flock before the events of 1814. During the first Bourbon Restoration, he was chosen to preach the funeral oration of Louis XVI, and, at the second, he preached, 6 January, 1816, his well-known sermon “La France veut son Dieu, la France veut son roi,” Louis XVIII made him peer of France and Leo XII granted him the title of archbishop bestowing on him the pallium. Up to the last he exercised the ministry of the word of God with remarkable zeal and talent. His writings, literary, historical, and apologetic, disclose unusual soundness and strength of mind.

Oeuvres de Mgr. Boulogne (Paris, 1826); ROHRBACHER, Histoire de l’eglise (Paris, 1825), XXVIII, 130–132.

CHARLES B. SCHRANTZ

Martin Bouquet

A learned Benedictine of the Congregation of St.-Maur, b. at Amiens, France, 6 August, 1685; d. at the monastery of Blancs-Manteaux, in Paris, 6 April, 1754. When a boy he resolved to enter the secular priesthood. Subsequently, however, not wishing to expose his soul to the dangers of the world, he determined to become a Benedictine. The Congregation of St.-Maur was then in its most flourishing condition. Bouquet joined this congregation and took vows at the monastery of St.-Faron, at Meaux, 16 August, 1706.

Shortly after his elevation to the priesthood his superiors appointed him librarian at the monastery of St.-Germain-des-Prés which at that time possessed a library of 60,000 books and 8,000 manuscripts. Being well versed in the Greek language, Bouquet was of great assistance to his confrère Bernard de Montfaucon, in his edition of the works of St. Chrysostom. He himself was preparing a new edition of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, and had already progressed far in his work when he heard that the Dutch writer, Sigebert Haverkamp, was engaged on a new edition of the same author. He at once sent all the material he had collected to Haverkamp, who embodied it in his edition. Bouquet’s greatest work, however, is his collection of the historians of Gaul and France, entitled: “Rerum Gallicarum et Francicarum Scriptores.”

Attempts to collect the sources of French history had been made at various times. Thus Pierre Pithou (d. 1596) had collected some material, and André Duchesne (d. 1640) had begun a work entitled “Historiæ Francorum Scriptores,” to be published in twenty-four volumes, but died before finishing the fifth volume. Colbert, the great French minister of finance, desired to have Duchesne’s work continued at the expense of the State, but he died in 1683 without finding a suitable historian to complete what Duchesne had begun. In 1717, D’Aguesseau, who was then chancellor, entrusted to the Benedictine Edmond Martène, the drawing up of a new plan for the work. The design was accepted and the Oratorian LeLong who had just finished his “Bibliothèque historique de la France” was entrusted with the task. He had scarcely begun when death put an end to his labours in 1721.

The Congregation of St.-Maur now undertook the publication of the work of Dionysius de Sainte-Marte, who was then superior-general of the congregation, placed Bouquet in charge of the undertaking. Because Duchene’s five volumes had become rare, Bouquet began an entirely new work and had the first two volumes ready for print in 1729, but their publication was delayed. Some monks of the Congregation of St.-Maur refused to submit to the Bull “Unigenitus” which was directed against Quesnel. Bouquet submitted after some hesitation. When, however, Cardinal De Bissy required the monks of St.-Germain-des-Prés to sign a formula of submission drawn up by himself, Bouquet and seven others refused their signature because De Bissy, being merely Abbot in commendam of St.-Germain-des-Prés, had no spiritual jurisdiction over the monks. Bouquet was banished to the monastery of St.-Jean, at Làon, but in 1735, D’Aguesseau and a few other influential persons succeeded in having him recalled to Argenteuil, and afterwards to Blancs-Manteaux, where he could more easily supervise the publication of his work. He brought out eight volumes between 1738 and 1752. The greater part of the material for the ninth volume was ready when Bouquet died (1754), after receiving the last rites of the Church.

The eight volumes published comprise the sources of the history of France from the earliest days of its existence to the year 987. The work was continued by other members of the Congregation of St.-Maur in the following order: vols. IX-X were published by the two brothers, John and Charles Haudiquier; vol. XI, by Housseau, Précieux, and Poirier; vols. XII-XIII, by Clément and Brial; vols. XIV-XVIII, by Brial. The remaining five volumes were published by the Académie des Inscriptions which completed the work in 1876. A new edition in twenty-five volumes, undertaken by Leopold Delisle, a member of the Académie des Inscriptions, has reached the twenty-fourth volume.

TASSIN, Histoire littéraire de la congr. de St. Maur (Brussels, 1770), s.v.; the same work in German, Gelchrtengeschichte der Congregation vol St. Maurus (Franfort and Leipzig, 1774); DE LAMA, Bibliothèque des écrivains de la congr. de St. Maur (Munich and Paris, 1882), s. v.; FRANÇOIS, Bibliothèque générale des écrivains de l’ordre de St. Benoit (Bouillon, 1777), I, 143; MEUSEL, Bibliotheca Historica (Leipzig, 1793), VI, Part II, 270 sqq.; ZIEGELBAUER, Historia Rei Literariæ O.S.B. (Augsburg and Würzburg, 1754), IV, 348; WEISS, Weltgeschichte (4th ed. Graz and Leipzig, 1898), XI, 396 sqq.

MICHAEL OTT

Thomas Bouquillon

Born at Warneton, Belgium, 16 May, 1840; died at Brussels, 5 November, 1902; a Belgian theologian, and at the time of his death professor of moral theology in the Catholic University of America. The second son among five children in a family of small landholders long established at Warneton near Ypres, he received his early education in local schools and in the College of St. Louis at Menin. His course in philosophy was made at Roulers; in theology, at the seminary of Bruges. Having entered the Georgian University in Rome, in 1863, he was ordained priest in 1865 and made doctor of theology in 1867. After ten years in the Bruges seminary (1867–77) and eight years in the Catholic University of Lille, France, as professor of moral theology, Dr. Bouquillon retired to the Benedictine monastery at Maredsous and devoted his energies to the preparation of the second edition of his treatise on fundamental moral theology, a work which fixes him permanently among the great men in the history of that science. He accepted the chair of moral theology in the Catholic University at Washington in 1889, where he remained until his death in 1902. He was one of the most eminent theologians of his time, a man of prodigious erudition in theology, history of theology, church history, canon law, and bibliography. Though never in robust health, he was a tireless student, marked by quiet, simple habits, deep faith, broad sympathies, and great concentration. When he entered the field of moral theology he found the science enjoying no prestige, dwindled to mere compilations of conclusions to the neglect of principles. It was out of touch, consequently, with the closely related dogmatic and advancing social sciences, and the methods employed in teaching it were far from perfect. In his whole career as professor and author he aimed to rescue moral theology from that condition and to restore to it its proper scientific method and dogmatic dignity. He emphasized strongly the historical and sociological aspects of principles and problems in the science, neglecting no results of modern research which contributed to clearness and solidity in his exposition of them. To him is due much credit for the improved methods seen in the recent history of moral theology. Possibly few theologians of his day were more widely consulted in Europe and America than Dr. Bouquillon. He enjoyed and retained the intimate confidence of Leo XIII and of many eminent churchmen, and showed throughout his life unyielding devotion to the ideals, teaching, and administration of the Church. His extraordinary grasp of current thought developed in him an open-mindedness and a sympathy with real progress which, combing with other traits, gave a peculiar fascination to his character. In 1891 he was induced to publish a pamphlet on education setting forth the abstract principles involved. His views met with considerable opposition. In all his published relies to critics he maintained his original positions without any modification whatever and ascribed the opposition to misunderstanding of his point of view and of his statement of principles. Dr. Bouquillon was active and influential in the organization of the Catholic Universities of Lille and Washington. In both he gained a name for great practical wisdom in questions of organization and law and for extraordinary power as a teacher.

He published: “Theologia Moralis Fundamentalis” (3d ed., Bruges, 1903), a masterpiece of erudition, analysis, and exposition; “De Virtutibus Theologicis” (2d ed. Bruges, 1890); “De Virtute Religionis” (2 vols., Bruges, 1880); “Education” (Baltimore, 1892); “Education, a Rejoinder to Critics” (Baltimore, 1892); “Education, a Rejoinder to the ‘Civilatà Cattolica’“ (Baltimore, 1892); the last three of which were translated into French. He published many critical studies in the “Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques,” of which he was at one time editor, in the “Nouvelle revue théologique,” the “Revue Bénédictine,” “The American Catholic Quarterly,” and “The Catholic University Bulletin.” He edited, with notes and comments, Stapleton, “De Magnitudine Ecclesiæ Romanæ” (Bruges, 1881); ‘Leonis XIII Allocutiones, Epistolæ aliaque acta” (2 vols., Bruges, 1887); Platelii, “Synopsis cursus Theologiæ” (Bruges); “Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini” (Tournai, 1890); “Dies Sacerdotalis” of Dirckinck (Tournai, 1888); Louis de Grenade, “L’Excellence de la très sainte Eucharistic” (Lille); Coret, “L’Année sainte” (1676) (Bruges, 1889).

ROMMEL, Thomas Bouqillon, Notice bio-bibliographique (Brussels, 1903); The Catholic University Bulletin (1903), IX, 152–163.

WILLIAM J. KERBY

Jean-Jacques Bourassé

Archæologist and historian, b. at Ste.-Maure (Indre-et-Loire), France, 22 December, 1813; d. at tours, 4 October, 1872. He made his preparatory studies for the priesthood in Paris. In 1835, he taught the natural sciences at the preparatory seminary of Tours, where he began a course of archæology that soon attracted attention. The results achieved by him in a field of research, then comparatively new, were such as to entitle him to be considered a veritable pioneer in France, of the science of Christian archæology. In 1884 he became professor at the grand séminaire and held the chair of dogmatic theology there for six years. He then discontinued teaching in order to devote himself entirely to the preparation of his various archæological works. Among the productions published by him the best known are: “Archéologie Chrétienne” (1841); “Les Cathédrales de France” (1843); “Les plus belles églises du monde” (1857); “Recherches hist. et archéol. sur les églises romaines en Touraine” (1869).

BUCHBERGER, Kirchliches-Handlexicon, I, 116: VIGOUROUX in Dict. de la Bible, I, 1894; CHEVALIER, L’abbé Bourassé in Bulletin de la Société archéologique de Touraine (1873), II 377–423.

M. J. WALDRON.

Thomas Bourchier

Born 1406; died 1486, Cardinal, was the third son of William Bourchier, Earl of Eu, and of Lady Anne Plantagenet, a daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, youngest son of Edward III. At an early age he entered the University of Oxford, and in due course, embracing a clerical career, was collated to the living of Colwich, Staffordshire, in the Diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, on 24 May, 1424. His next promotion was to the Deanery of St. Martin-le-Grand in London, 1 December, 1427, and he was likewise inducted to the prebend of West Thurrock; it was not till 24 September, 1429, that he was ordained acolyte and sub-deacon. This rapid promotion was doubtless due to his high birth, and though no evidence exists of any special attainments as a scholar, he was further appointed Chancellor of the University of Oxford in 1434, a post which he held for three years; in 1433, notwithstanding his youth, he was recommended for the then vacant See of Worcester. The pope had, however, already made another choice, but interest was exerted with the result that the previous nomination was cancelled, and Eugenius IV by a Bull dated 9 March, 1434 appointed Bourchier Bishop of Worcester, the temporalities of the see being restored to him on 15 April, and on 15 May he received episcopal consecration. Not long after, the Bishop of Ely died, and the Benedictine Cathedral Chapter desiring Bourchier for their pastor, sent to Rome to procure Bulls for his translation. These were expedited; but the King of England steadily refused to restore the temporalities to him, so Bourchier renounced the election. Ely was kept vacant till 1443, under the administration of Louis de Luxembourg, Archbishop of Rouen. This arrangement, sanctioned by the pope, had been made in order that Louis de Luxembourg might enjoy the revenues, a convenient form of reward employed by the English sovereigns at that time, since it proved no burden to the royal exchequer. On the death of the Archnbishop of Rouen, Bourchier, this time nominated by the king, was at once elected by the Chapter of Ely, the Bulls for the translation, dated 20 December, 1443, procured, and after the usual confirmation he received the temporalities on 27 February, 1443–44, but it seems that he was not enthroned till another two years had elapsed. Both as Bishop of Worcester and of Ely he was frequently called to the royal councils. The Archbishopric of Canterbury fell vacant early in 1454, and Bourchier was recommended for the primatial see. To this he was translated on 22 April, and was enthroned in February, 1454–55. On 5 March following he was appointed Lord Chancellor and received the Seals from Henry VI during that monarch’s temporary recovery from the inanity that was settling on him. The troubles between the rival factions of the Yorkists and Lancastrians were then fomenting, and it was hoped that Bourchier might possibly keep the balance even between them. When the Yorkists marched south, their leaders informed the chancellor that their objects were peaceable; but though Bourchier endeavoured to inform the king of their assurances, his communication never reached the sovereign, and the hostile forces met in battle at St. Albans, 22 May, 1455, when Henry VI was defeated and taken prisoner. This action marks the commencement of the Wars of the Roses. A Parliament was summoned for July, when the Duke of York received pardon. The meeting was then prorogued till November, but in the meanwhile Henry relapsed into imbecility, and the Duke of York was named Protector. Bourchier resigned the Great Seal in October, 1456, when Queen Margaret obtained possession of the king, and with him the chief power fell into her hands. Although the archbishop and Waynflete, as peacemakers, drew up terms of agreement between the parties, dissensions soon broke out again, and after hearing the Yorkists’ grievances, Bourchier undertook to accompany them to the king, then at Northampton, with a view to securing a settlement. The king refused them audience, and a battle was then fought at Northampton (July, 1460), when Henry found himself once more a prisoner. The Duke of York now claimed the throne, but a compromise was effected whereby he was to succeed Henry to the exclusion of the latter’s son, Edward. Bourchier seems to have accepted this solution; and when Queen Margaret again opened hostilities, he threw in his lot definitely with the Yorkists, and was one of the lords who agreed to accept Edward (IV) as rightful king. As archbishop, he crowned Edward on 28 June, 1461, after Edward’s marriage with Elizabeth Woodville, also crowned his consort (May, 1465). Edward besought Pope Paul II to bestow a cardinal’s hat on Bourchier in 1465; but delays occurred, and it was not till 1473 that Sixtus IV finally conferred that honour upon him. In 1475 Bourchier was employed as one of the arbitrators on the differences pending between England and France. Growing feeble, in 1480 he appointed as his coadjutor William Westkarre who had been consecrated in 1458 Bishop of Sidon. In 1483, on the death of Edward IV, he formed one of the deputation who persuaded the queen-dowager, then in sanctuary with her family at Westminster, to deliver her second son Richard to his uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester, to be with his brother the boy-kind Edward V. Bourchier had pledged his honour to the distrustful queen for the lad’s security; yet, three weeks later he was officiating at the coronation of the usurper, Richard III. He performed the like solemn office for Henry VII in 1485 after the death of Richard on the field of Bosworth; and, as a fitting close to the career of a man who was above all a peacemaker, he married Henry VII to Elizabeth of York on 18 January, 1485–86, thus uniting the factions of the Red and White roses. He died on 6 April, 1486, as Knowle, a mansion he had purchased for his see, and was buried in Canterbury cathedral. It fell to his lot as archbishop to preside in 1457 at the trial of Reginald Peacock, Bishop of Chichester, charged with unorthodoxy. Though the incriminated bishop withdrew his works condemned as unsound, he was kept in custody by Bourchier till the death two years later, although he had been compelled to resign his see.

GAIRDNER in Dict. Nat. Biogr.; DOYLE, Official Baronage; GODWIN, De Præsulibus; WHARTON, Anglia Sacra; HOOK, Lives of the Abps. Of Cant.; RYMER, Fædera; MORERI, Dictionaire; STUBBS, Episc. Succession; LINGARD, Hist. of England (London, 1878), passim.

HENRY NORBERT BIRT

Louis Bourdaloue

Born at Bourges, 20 August, 1632; died at Paris, 13 May, 1704. He is often described as the “king of preachers and the preacher of kings.” He entered the Society of Jesus at the age of fifteen years. His father, Etienne Bourdaloue, a distinguished legal official of Bourges, though opposing his choice for a time, in order to test his sincerity, willingly consented, having had similar aspirations himself in his youth. A genealogist of the seventeenth century named Hodeau has attempted to trace back the family to the time of the Crusades, but the learned and laborious Tausserat informs us that the first of the race was Mace Bourdaloue, an humble tanner of Vierzon, about 1450. During Bourdaloue’s lifetime, there were some titles of nobility in the family for military prowess, and although his father was conspicuous in his profession, yet they were by no means wealthy. One of his relatives married a shoemaker, and considerable difficulty was experienced in providing her with a modest dower. Attempts have been made to discover some descendants of the Bourdaloues in our own time, but though the name is common enough, the family is extinct.

When young Bourdaloue entered the society, he immediately attracted attention by his quick and penetrating intelligence, his tireless industry, and his strict observance of religious discipline. He was subsequently made professor of philosophy and moral theology, but certain sermons which he was called on to unexpectedly preach brought him into notice as an orator, and it was determined to devote him altogether to the work of preaching. He began in the Provinces in 1665, and was transferred to Paris in 1669, and for thirty-four consecutive years preached with a success that reached its climax only at the end of his career. He was the contemporary and friend of Bossuet, and though quite unlike each other in their methods, their eloquence gave to the French pulpit a glory which has perhaps never been equaled in modern times. They died within two months of each other, though Bossuet was famous long before Bourdaloue appeared. They followed different lines: Bossuet was distinguished for the subtlety and vast sweep of his conceptions, the marvelous conciseness, splendor, and grandeur of his language, as well as the magisterial and almost royal manner in which he grasped his subject and dominated his hearers. He often spoke with scant preparation, so that very few of his wonderful discourses were put on paper before being delivered. His glory as an orator is based mainly on his wonderful “Oraisons Funèbres.” Bourdaloue, on the contrary, was essentially a preacher. He wrote his discourses with extreme care, and though they were numerous enough to form editions of twelve and sixteen volumes, there is only one sermon that is incomplete. He has a pronounced dislike of the Oraisons Funèbres; he even objected to the name and called them eacute;loges. In the entire collection of discourses we find but two of that character, both of them panegyrics of the Condés, Henri and Louis, and both undertaken to pay a debt of gratitude which the Jesuits owed to that family. The first was prompted also by the purpose of gaining an influence over the Great Condé, in order to lead him to a better life. This was realized, for when only four years after the first discourse Conde’s corpse was borne to the same church where he had listened to the panegyric of his father, Bourdaloue was again the orator, and startled his audience by saying:

God gave me a presentiment of the Prince’s conversion. I had not only formed the wish but, as it were, anticipated it by a prayer which seemed then to contain something of a prediction. Whether it was an inspiration or a feeling of zeal, I was transported beyond myself, O Lord, and I was assured by Thee, that Thou wouldst not leave this great man, whose heart was so true as I knew it to be, in the way of perdition and corruption of the world. He heard my voice; he has heard Thine.

This apostolic motive never failed to reveal itself in all his utterances. Nevertheless, his funeral oration on Henri de Bourbon was considered at the time equal oratorically to any of Bousset’s. Mme. de Sévigné describes it as “the most beautiful that could be imagined. It is the finest and most Christian panegyric that has ever been pronounced.” Such indeed was the universal verdict at the time. Condé himself according to Chérot let it be known that he considered “the oration to be so noble, so eloquent, and so solid, that it would be difficult enough to surpass it, or perhaps even to imitate it.” He has Jouvency translate it immediately into Latin, and he himself supervised the work. Boileau, though somewhat a Jansenist, says that Bourdaloue was le plus grande orateur dont le siècle se vante. This appreciation, however, does not agree with that of some later critics, and Villemain, while acknowledging “numerous beauties of a superior order” declared that Bourdaloue was not well fitted for funeral orations, “on account of the richness and fecundity of imagination which they require.” On the other hand, Lord Brougham, himself an orator, says that “Bourdaloue displays a fertility of resources, and an exuberance of topics whether for observation or argument, not equaled by any other orator, sacred or profane.” He ranks him far beyond Bossuet, but for other reasons inferior to Massillion, about whom another writer remarks that whereas Bourdaloue preached to the men of a vigorous age, Massillion addressed those of a period remarkable for its effeminacy. Bourdaloue raised himself to the level of the great truths of religion; Massillion conformed himself to the weakness of the men with whom he lived. Nisard, in his “Historie de la littérature française,” says that “Bourdaloue’s success was the most brilliant and sustained that human speech has ever obtained.” Taine ranks him with Cicero, Livy, Bossuet, Burke, and Fox; Fénelon, however, is said to have deprecated him in the “Dialogues sur l’éloquence,” but according to the “Revue Bourdaloue,” the authenticity of the “Dialogues” is doubtful, and besides, Bourdaloue is not named; the description is assigned to him only by conjecture. As his object was exclusively the salvation of souls, Bourdaloue adapted himself to the audience which, in spite of its worldliness, frivolity, and vice, proved itself, and with reason, on its power of appreciating what was intellectual and scholarly, and though scandalously irreverential in the very temple of God, had an insatiable craving for religious discourses. To influence them, the preacher had to resort to reason; and consequently his discourse was constructed after a clearly defined and frankly enunciated plan, each part closely knit with, and evolved from, the preceding. The proposition is always distinctly stated; argument after argument is elaborated with irresistible logic; doctrines whose orthodoxy is without reproach are carefully and minutely explained, and moral principles are expounded, but never exaggerated or strained in the practical application which he never fails to make; sophistries are dispelled, objections answered, and errors refuted, the orator not fearing to return to a point for greater clearness; mysteries are discussed, though he purposely avoided what is too profound, even if by doing so he incurred the reproach of avoiding the sublime, for he is aiming at a moral deduction; the whole delivered with a style which Fénelon says “had, perhaps, arrived at the perfection of which our language is capable in that kind of eloquence,” and with a lucidity and clearness that amazed and captivated his hearers, and evoked applause, which he was powerless to prevent. There is never a diversion made merely to dazzle or delight, there is rarely an appeal to the emotions; but the vividness and splendor of the doctrine he was propounding, the startling truthfulness of the psychological picture he was placing before their eyes—even La Bruyère professed to be his disciple in this respect—entreated, or induced, or compelled his hearers to a reformation of life. He hurried on with an extraordinary rapidity of utterance, but with a distinctness of enunciation and a marvelous sweetness and power of voice that filled every part of the edifice in which he was speaking, and kept his audience spellbound to the end of his discourse. Places were secured at daybreak; princes and prelates crowded to hear him, and on one memorable occasion, several of the most distinguished members of the hierarchy, among them Bossuet himself, withdrew in anger because the seats they claimed were not granted. Bossuet himself, however, remained in a gallery apart to listen to the discourse.

Although covering such a vast field in every one of his sermons, Bourdaloue never exhausted his subject, and we find two and even three of the same theme, not only without any repetition, but each one improving on what preceded, so that Louis XIV said that he would rather “hear Bourdaloue’s repetitions than what was novel from anyone else.” He appeared at the court on ten different occasions for courses of sermons, and each time his welcome was more enthusiastic than before. He was a court preacher but did not flatter, and one of his sermons is made use of by modern Socialists in support of their teaching. A few years ago, considerable controversy was evoked by it, and Jules Lamaitre finds in it a condemnation of contemporary egoism. He was preaching on “Riches,” and used the phrase of St. Jerome: “Every rich man is an unjust man, or the heir of one.” “If you go to the source of riches,” he said, “even in houses or families that are proud of their origin, nay even those who are distinguished for their probity and religion, you will discover things that will make you tremble.” In the twelve-volume edition, there is one number containing sermons for Advent, three others for Lenten discourses, three more for Sundays of the year, two on the Mysteries, while the last two books contain sixteen panegyrics, six sermons for religious investitures, and the two funeral orations. Considerable ingenuity has been exercised by his editors in fixing the time when the various discourses were pronounced; they are all undated. When they were given is largely a matter of conjecture. The sermons of least merit are those on the Mysteries, but it is explained that he purposely avoided any sublime or profound considerations on those topics and restricted himself to what could be easily stated so as to have the opportunity of deducing a moral lesson.”Everything was practical” says Joubert, “in the judicious Bourdaloue.” Someone has said that “the Jesuits answered Pascal’s attacks about their moral teaching by making Bourdaloue preach.” As regards his literary style, Sainte-Beuve says “He was a good orator; he is a good writer.” He is free from the turgid, pedantic, and ridiculous phraseology which was rampant at that time in forensic as well as sacred eloquence—though there are some examples of it. His compliments to the exalted personages in the audience are not so much examples of bad literary taste as a mark of the servitude to which the court preachers of that day had to submit. About his correctness of language, however, the “Revue Bourdaloue” (1 April, 1904) admits that authentic manuscripts no longer exist, and that it is impossible to make out how much his editor, Bretonneau, has tampered with the text.

If not the originator, Bourdaloue is largely the model, of French pulpit orator in the arrangement of sermons. The method he adopted is condemned by Fénelon as never having been used before, and as being poorly adapted to arouse the feelings of the audience. Its use by Bourdaloue is explained by the fact that he was combating Protestant Rationalism which was at that time making inroads against Catholic thought, and also because the use of clever and convincing reasoning was the vogue of the day. A reaction had set in from the silly idealism of a short time before. Bourdaloue took his hearers as he found them, and Voltaire, referring to the form of his discourses, says “he was the first one to make reason speak, and always eloquently.” Possibly the inaptness of the instrument he employed only shows more clearly his greatness as an orator. Only such a man as he could use it. For most readers the printed text of his discourses is wearisome in spite of the wealth of instruction it contains. It needs the voice and action of the orator to give it power. The vogue which his method has obtained is sometimes considered a mistake, if not a misfortune for French pulpit eloquence. It supposes a Bourdaloue, as well as conditions which have long since ceased. Chérot, who has made an exhaustive study of Bourdaloue, dismisses with contempt the story that the orator spoke with his eyes shut. For a court preacher who had to distribute compliments to the dignitaries present, and who angered them if he did not do it skillfully, or omitted anyone who expected it (as happened in the case of Mme de Guise), it would have been a difficult or rather impossible task to perform that duty if he did not use his eyes. The picture that so represents him was taken after his death. Similarly, to suppose that he would dare to say to Louis XIV in the sermon on “Adultery:” tu es ille vir, like Nathan to David, is to be ignorant of the conditions that prevailed in that servile court. The alleged sermon, moreover, is nowhere to be found. It is said to have been burnt. More likely it was never written. Mme. Sevigne speaks of a sermon on “Impurity” in which Bourdaloue was merciless, but had that reproach been addressed to the king, she, above all writers, would have told it. Besides, that sermon was preached in the Jesuit church, and there is no assurance that it was repeated at Versailles. Again, some of his biographers, in speaking of his sermon on “The Magdalene,” insinuate that it was directed at Mmes. de Montespan and de Fontanges, the king’s mistresses who sat before him. It is not certain that “The Magdalene” sermon was ever preached before the court. Moreover, Bourdaloue was too prudent to irritate uselessly.

Considerable discussion has been raised with regard to his attitude in the quarrel between the pope and the king about the Four Gallican Articles. It is admitted that in the panegyric of St. Louis, pronounced in the presence of Louis XIV, the preacher referred to “the rights of the Crown” and “the new attempts of the Court of Rome,” and also the manner in which St. Louis defended those rights. He added, however, that “while Louis in his quality of king recognized no superior on earth” (all of which has a Gallican tinge), yet the monarch should remember that he was, at the same time, the eldest son of the Church. His defenders maintain that we have no right to infer from this phrase that he was a Gallican or stood side by side with Bossuet. Another point which has called for inquiry was his “abstention” from the subject of the infallibility of the pope; he never spoke of it. Not only that, but when asked about it by Father Alleaume, he said that he had a sermon on the “Infallibility of the Church” that he had never preached. Beyond that, we have no means of knowing his theological views on the question of the pope. However, papal infallibility was not then a matter of discussion. His sermon on the “Infallibility of the Church” is not to be found, under that heading, at least; but in the second sermon on the feast of St. Peter, on “Obedience to the Church,” he speaks explicitly of the Church’s infallibility.

Bourdaloue seems to have written but very few letters. The collator, Monsiegneur Blampignon, found only eighteen; five more have been discovered since then—none of them letters of friendship. Some of them are requests for interviews, which would suggest a preference for information by the medium of conversation. One of these letters is noteworthy as it is a congratulation to his intimate friend, the Due de Noailles, on the appointment to the See of Paris of the duke’s brother. Bourdaloue “thanks God for having inspired the king to appoint such a worthy and holy bishop.” The prelate became afterwards very unfriendly to the Jesuits. In this communication he speaks of himself as one of the ancient servitors of the house of Noailles, a phrase which intimates who was at the back of Bourdaloue’s mission to the Protestants of Languedoc after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. In the fulfillment of that mission Protestants and Catholics came in throngs to hear him, and his gentleness and prudence won all hearts. There is a very elaborate letter, or rather disquisition, in the collection, addressed to Mme. de Maintenon who was bring alienated from the Jesuits. Bourdaloue was remarkable as a director of souls. While paying proper respect to the great, he was the devoted friend of the poor, and assiduous in the confessional. He was of a gentle and amiable disposition and exerted a wonderful power at the death-bed, especially of hardened sinners. Towards the end of his life he desired to quit Paris, and live in seclusion at La Flèche, and though he had received the permission of the general, the provincial thwarted the plan. It only increased his zeal, and he continued to preach, hear confessions, and visit the poor until the end of his life. After a sickness of two days he died at the age of seventy-two.

Griselle, Bourdaloue (Paris, 1901); Castets, Bourdaloue (Paris, 1901); etudes, LXXV, 83–84; Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J.(Brussels, 1892); Bretonneau, Pref. des serm. de Bourdaloue (Paris, 1723); Brougham, Edinb. Review (December, 1826); Revue Bourdaloue; Lauras, Bourdaloue (Paris, 1880), 2 vols.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Hélie de Bourdeilles

Archbishop of Tours and Cardinal, b., probably, towards 1423, at the castle of Bourdeilles (Périgord); d. 5 July, 1484, at Artannes near Tours. He was the son of the viscount Arnaud de Bourdeilles. Having entered the Franciscan Order at an early age, he was only twenty-four when, at the request of Charles VII, he was appointed to the See of Périgueux (1447). During the wars between France and England he was held prisoner for several years by the English, in consequence of his defence of ecclesiastical immunity. In 1468 he was appointed to the Archiepiscopal See of Tours, and in 1483 he was raised to the cardinalate by Sixtus IV. Bourdeilles continued, during his episcopate, to practise religious poverty and was intimate friend of St. Francis of Paula. He is mentioned among the Blessed in the Franciscan Martyrology for the 5th day of July. A stanch defender of the rights of the Church against the encroachments of the State, Bourdeilles advocated the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, as may be seen from his treatise, “Pro Pragmaticæ Sanctionis Abrogatione” (Rome, 1486). He also wrote “Libellus in Pragmaticam Sanctionem Gallorum” (Rome, 1484); and a Latin defence of Jeanne d’Arc which is attached in manuscript to the process of her rehabilitation.

HURTER, Nomenclator (3d ed., Innsbruck, 1906), II, 1067–69. For full text of his tretise on Jeanne d’Arc see LANERY DE L’ARC in his documentary Livre d’or de Jeanne d’Arc (Paris, 1894).

N.A. WEBER

Jean Bourdon

Born at Rouen, France, 1612; died at Quebec, 1668. In 1634 he went to Canada and became the first engineer-in-chief and land-surveyor in the colony of New France, and the first attorney-general of the Conseil Superieur, established in 1663. It was Bourdon who surveyed and laid out all the domains and land grants assigned in this territory under the supervision of land companies. He laid out the first streets of Quebec, and drew up the plans and supervised the construction of the first château, Saint-Louis, at the order of Montmagny. He left a chart of the Beaupré shore and vicinity (1641) and two plans of Quebec (1660–64). He also traced a map of the territory through which he travelled in 1646 when he was dispatched with Father Isaac Jogues, S.J., to Albany, to make a treaty of peace with the Iroquois; this, however, has been lost. Well-informed, reliable, and conscientious, Bourdon was the confidential agent of the governors, who employed him on several missions with success. In 1657 he embarked for Hudson’s Bay, but driven back by the savages, and his way blocked by ice, he was forced to return to Quebec, after having reached 55 degrees N. lat. Jean Bourdon colonized the manorial estate of Point-aux-Trembles at a distance of twenty miles from the capital, and at a later date a fief, called after him Saint-Jean, still preserved in one of the principal suburbs of Quebec.

MARCEL, Cartographie de la Nouvelle-France (Paris, 1885); ROY, Bourdon et la Baie d’Hudson (Quebec, 1896); GOSSELIN, Jean Bourdon et son ami l’abbe de Saint-Sauveur (1904); The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, XI, 277.

J. EDMOND ROY.

François Bourgade

A French missionary and philosopher, b. 7 July, 1806, at Gaujan, department of Gers; d. 21 May, 1866, at Paris. He pursued his theological studies at the seminary of Auch and was ordained priest in 1832. His immediate request to be authorized to work among the infidels of Africa was granted only in 1838. He proceeded to Algeria and, after ministering for some time in the hospitals of this colony, passed over to the regency of Tunis, where he founded a hospital and several schools. He was put in charge of the chapel which Louis Phlippe (1830–48) had erected on the spot where St. Louis died, and he received several decorations, among them the Legion of Honour. The chief object of his literary productions was to spread the knowledge of Christianity among the Mohammedans. He published “Soirées de Carthage” (1847); “La clef du Coran” (1852); “Passage du Coran à l’Evangile” (1855); the important philological work, “La toison d’or de la langue phénicienne” (1852, 1856); a refutation of Renan’s “Life of Jesus,” under the title, “Lettre à M. E. Renan” (1864).

VAPEREAU, Dict. Univer. des contemporains, s. v. in the first four editions; HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1895), III, 989, 990.

N.A. WEBER

Archdiocese of Bourges (Bituricæ)

BOURGES (BITURICÆ), ARCHDIOCESE OF,

Coextensive with the departments of Cher and Indre. After the Concordat of 1802 it became the metropolitan of the Sees of Clermont, Saint-Flour, and Limoges, and in 1822 received as new suffragans the Sees of Tulle and Le Puy. As Gregory of Tours assigns a date subsequent to the “mission of the twelve bishops,” that is, to the year 250, for the foundation of the Church at Bourges; and as Leo, who occupied the See of Bourges in 453, was its twelfth bishop; Duchesne, after most careful calculation, places the episcopate of St. Ursinus, founder of the see, near the close of the third century. He explains that the legend which makes Ursinus one of the seventy-two disciples seems to be of the later origin than that of St. Martial, being met with for the first time in an eleventh-century manuscript. Fifteen saints figured among Leo’s successors up to the end of the ninth century: Sevitianus, Ætherius, Thecretus, Marcellus (all prior to 337); Palladius (377–384); Simplicius (472–480); Desideratus (549–550); Probianus, Felix, Remedius, and the first Sulpicius (all in the second half of the sixth century); Austregisilus (612–624); the second Sulpicius (624–644), after whom the celebrated church of St.-Sulpice in Paris was named; David (793–802); and Agilulfus (c. 820–840). Among later bishops are: St. Guillaume de Donjeon (1200–09); the celebrated theologian, Ægidius a Columnis (1298–1316); and Jean Coeur and during whose episcopate the University of Bourges was founded.

The claims of the See of Bourges to the primacy in Aquitaine are treated at length in the article on Bordeaux. Pope Clement V (1305–14) opposed these claims; nevertheless the See of Bourges always prided itself upon a sort of platonic supremacy and when, in 1678, the Bishop of Albi became Archbishop, he recognized explicitly the claims of Bourges. Even to-day the Archbishop of Bourges retains the title of Primate of Aquitaine; in this way, the name of Aquitaine which, after the thirteenth century, disappeared from political geography (being replaced by that of Guyenne) has been perpetuated in the terminology of the Church. In 1107 Pascal II, and in 1163 Alexander III, visited the diocese of Bourges. Many councils were held at Bourges, the principal among them being those of 1225 and 1226 which dealt with the Albigenses; that of 1438, after which Charles VII promulgated the Pragmatic Sanction whereby the decrees of were ratified in France, and the organization of a Gallican Church was attempted; and the council of 1528 which combated the Protestant encroachments favoured at Bourges on the one side by the university in which Calvin and Theodore Beza studied, and on the other by the court of Margaret of Valois.

The following great abbeys were located within the diocese: the Benedictine Abbey of Déols near Châteauroux, founded in the tenth century, where St. Lusorius, son of the senator Leocadius, was interred; the Abbey of St.-Satur near Sancerre, founded in 463; and that of Chezal-Benoît founded in 1098 by André of Vallombrosa, and mother-house of the great Benedictine congregation which included the Parisian Abbey of St.-Germain-des-Prés and was later merged into the Congregation of St.-Maur. St. Leman, Archbishop of Seville, who fled the persecutions of Totila, suffered martyrdom at Vatan in the middle of the sixth century. Louis VII (1120–80) was crowned in the Cathedral of Bourges, and Louis XI (1423–83) and the great Condé (1621–86) were baptized at Bourges. Labbe, author of the “Collection of Councils” (1607–67) and Bourdaloue, the illustrious preacher (1632–1704), both Jesuits, were born at Bourges. The Cathedral of Bourges (thirteenth century) has beautiful windows and its sacristy (fifteenth century) was built at the expense of Jacques Coeur.

The places of pilgrimages in the diocese are: (1) Notre Dame of Déols near Châteauroux, a pilgrimage begun in the tenth century by Ebbo. The church was consecrated by Pascal II. Pope Alexander III when in exile lived there and received Henry II of England; Pope Honorius III visited it. (2) Notre Dame du Bien Mourir at Fontgombault. (3) The pilgrimage of Ste.-Solange, patron saint of the County of Berry. Ste.-Solange was born at Villemont, three leagues from Bourges, and suffered death to preserve her virginity. (4) Notre Dame du Sacré Coeur at Issoudun. (5) Notre Dame de Pellevoisin, famous for the visions that date back to 1876 and concerning which ecclesiastical authority is still silent.

In 1899, the following institutions were found in the archdiocese: 36 infant schools in Cher and 29 in Indre, conducted by sisters, 3 girls’ orphanages in Cher and 2 in Indre, 1 house of refuge for young women in Cher, 2 patronages for girls in Cher, 20 hospitals or hospices in Cher and 14 in Indre, 5 communities for the care of the sick in their homes in Cher and 4 in Indre, 1 insane asylum in Cher, 6 homes for the aged in Cher and 2 in Indre, 1 orphanage for deaf-mute and blind girls in Indre, and 1 home for incurables in Indre, all conducted by nuns.

In 1900 the religious orders of men in the diocese were: Jesuits and Franciscans at Bourges; Trappists at Fontgombault. The societies peculiar to the diocese were: Men: Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, founded in 1854 with the mother-house at Issoudun. This house is the centre of the universal Archconfraternity of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart which has vicariates Apostolic in Oceanica. Women: (1) Benedictines of the Holy Sacrament or of St. Laurence, a congregation said to date back to the time of Charlemagne. They are Sisters of the perpetual Adoration and teachers. (2) Sisters of Charity and of the Holy Sacrament, called de Montoire, with the mother-house at Bourges. This congregation, founded in 1662 by Antoine Moreau, devotes itself to teaching and hospital nursing. It has 150 houses of which 106 are in the Diocese of Bourges. (3) Religious of the Immaculate Mary, hospital nurses and teachers, with the mother-house at Bourges. After the Revolution, the congregation took the place of the lay confraternity of the Immaculate Mary, and, subsequent to 1857 had charge of the general hospital. (4) Daughters of the Sacred Heart of Issoudun with houses in Belgium and Australia. At the close of 1905 the Archdiocese of Bourges had 652,681 inhabitants, 65 pastorates 430 succursal parishes (mission churches), and 28 curacies.

Gallia Christiana (1720), II, 1–115; instrumenta, 1–72; LEROUX, La primatie de Bourges (Annales du Midi) (1895), VII; PARISET, L’établissement de la primatie de Bourges in Annales du Midi (1902), XIV; DE GIRARDOT AND DURANT, La Cathédrale de Bourges (Moulins, 1849); DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux, II; VALOIS, Hist. de la pragmatique Sanction de Bourges sous Charles VII (Paris, 1906); CHEVALIER, Topobibl., 465–466.

GEORGES GOYAU

Ignace Bourget

First Bishop of Montreal, P.Q., Canada, and titular Archbishop of Martianopolis, b. at Point Lévis, Province of Quebec, 30 October, 1799; d. at Sault-au-Recollet, near Montreal 8 June, 1885. Remarkable for his piety and learning, he played throughout sixty years a potent part in the religious, and even in the civil, life of Canada. Monseigneur Bourget was the eleventh of thirteen children born to Pierre Bourget and Thérèse Paradis. Sixty-two years of his life were spent in the priesthood, almost fifty in the episcopate, and for nearly thirty-six years he administered the then extensive Diocese of Montreal. He received his elementary instruction at home and at the Point Lévis school and afterwards took the regular course of studies at the Seminary of Quebec, where he was distinguished for his strength of character and brilliant intellect. Here, also, he studied theology for two years, subsequently entering Nicollet College, where he received the sub-diaconate, 21 May, 1821, being chosen that same year by Archbishop Plessis of Quebec to act as secretary to Bishop Lartigue of Montreal. Thus, even before receiving Holy orders, Ignace Bourget was launched upon an active life. On 23 November, 1821, he was made deacon and on 30 November, 1822, was ordained priest in the chapel of the Hôtel-Dieu where he said his first Mass. The young priest soon won the entire confidence of his bishop, who, in 1836, named him vicar-general of the diocese. On 10 March, 1837, Pope Gregory XVI appointed him coadjutor to Bishop Lartigue, and on 25 July of the same year he was consecrated titular Bishop of Telemessa in Lycia. He took possession, on 23 April, 1840, of the See of Montreal, made vacant some two weeks previously by the death of Bishop Lartigue.

Bishop Bourget inaugurated a retreat for the clergy of his diocese, 4 August, 1840; in the same year he carried out the desire of his predecessor by creating a chapter of canons, the installation taking place 31 January, 1841. In December, 1841, after his return from France and Rome, where he had visited many religious communities, he brought the Oblate Fathers to Montreal and in January, 1842, founded the Petit Séminaire de Sainte-Thérèse and canonically established the Temperance Society. The community of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, now flourishing in Canada and the United States, was founded under his patronage in 1843, and about the same time the Sisters of Providence. The Providence Asylum was established 29 March, 1844. On 11 July, 1844, Bishop Bourget installed the Sisters of the Good Shepherd from Angers. In a pastoral letter, June, 1845, he commended the work of the Jesuit Fathers whose first establishment he blessed 31 July, 1851. On his return from Rome in 1847, he introduced the Fathers of the Congregation of Holy Cross, the Clerics of St. Viator, and the Sisters of the Holy Cross, and, a little later, placed the orphans under the care of the Dames de Charité. In 1848 he installed the Sisters of Miséricorde; and on 30 August, 1850, was begun an institute for deaf-mutes known as the Hospice of the Holy Child Jesus. In the same year he founded the teaching order of the Sisters of Sainte Anne who have now several missions in the United States, one even in Alaska. All these religious orders have since attained notable proportions.

After the fire of 1852 which destroyed the cathedral, the episcopal palace, and one of the most beautiful sections of Montreal, Bishop Bourget made his home in the Hospice Stain-Joseph until 31 August, 1855, when he removed to Mont Saint-Joseph, the episcopal residence. In 1854 he went to Rome on the invitation of the Holy Father to assist at the proclamation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and in 1857 he instituted the Forty Hours’ Devotion in his diocese, and organized the Conférences Ecclésiastiques. He returned to Rome in 1862 to represent the Province of Quebec at the canonization of the Japanese martyrs and was made a Roman Count and Assistant at the Papal Throne. During the same year he established the Third Order of St. Francis, and on 15 October organized the confraternity for perpetual devotion to St. Joseph. In 1864 he entrusted the deaf-mutes to the care of the Sisters of Providence. Believing that the people would benefit by the division of the parish of Montreal, he began the change in 1866–67, and after a lapse of forty years the increase to more than forty new parishes shows the wisdom of the step. In 1869 Bishop Bourget went to Rome to attend the Vatican Council. In 1870 he laid the foundation-stone of the Montreal Cathedral and in 1872 celebrated his golden jubilee. He tendered his resignation as Bishop of Montreal in 1876, was named titular Archbishop of Martianopolis, and withdrew to the St. Janvier residence at Sault-au Recollet. In 1879, at the age of eighty, he made his last journey to Rome; five years later he heroically set out upon a tour of his former diocese with a view to re-establishing its badly compromised finance.

The remains of Bishop Lartigue and those of Archbishop Bourget were interred together in a vault under one of the pillars (the south-west) that support the dome of the cathedral. After the services held at Notre Dame at which the Very Rev. Father Collin, Superior of St. Sulpice, delivered the funeral oration over the body of Archbishop Bourget, another service was conducted at the pro-cathedral for the two deceased prelates whose eulogy was pronounced by Archbishop Taché of St. Boniface. In June, 1903, a handsome monument was dedicated to the memory of Archbishop Bourget. This work of art, by the sculptor Hébert, stands in front of the cathedral. It was erected by both clergy and faithful, who contributed $25,000, and is testimony of affection to a great bishop who was at the same time a great citizen. The published works of Archbishop Bourget comprise eight volumes of pastoral letters.

DE BRUMATH, Mgr. Bourget, archevêque de Martianopolis, ancien évêque de Montréal; Archives of the Archdiocese of Montreal; Semaine Religieuse files (Montreal), V, XLI.

PAUL BRUCHÉSI

François Bourgoing

Third Superior general of the Congregation of the Oratory in France and one of the en early companions of Cardinal de Bérulle, the founder of the French Oratorians, b. at Paris, 1585; d. in 1662. Bourgoing came from a family of which many members had been magistrates. Before joining the Oratorians he was curé of Clichy and resigned this position in favour of St. Vincent de Paul, who was also a disciple and friend of de Bérulle. After entering the congregation he was soon occupied in founding and directing new houses of the Oratorians, being called in all directions by the bishops of France and Flanders. In 1631 he was made assistant to the Superior General, Père de Condren, and in 1641, upon the death of the latter, he was appointed to the vacant office. As superior general he toiled with unceasing zeal in organizing and developing the congregation. He was also an energetic opponent of the Jansenist heresy. After his death Bossuet delivered the funeral oration. Father Bourgoing was a wrier of the first rank of asceticism, as Bossuet testifies. His principal work, “Vérités et excellences de Jésus Christ notre Sauveur,” has been issued more than thirty times, including an edition in 1906, and has been translated into several languages. Equally remarkable is his work, “Exercices de retraites,” of which he published four series.

CLOYSEAULT, Recueil de vies de quelques prétres de l’Oratoire (Paris, 1882), II, 1: INGOLD, Essai de bibliographie oratorienne (Paris, 1880), 21; BETTEREL, Mémoires, II, 285.

A. M. P. INGOLD.

Gilbert Bourne

Last Catholic Bishop of Bath and Wells, England, son of Philip Bourne of Worcestershire, date of birth unknown; d. 10 Sept., 1569, at Silverton in Devonshire. Entering Oxford University in 1524, he became Fellow of All Souls College in 1531, proceeded in Arts in 1532, and was admitted B. D. in 1543, having in 1541 been named prebendary of Worcester on the suppression of the old monastic chapter. Removing to London in 1545 he became a prebendary of St. Paul’s, and in 1549 Archdeacon of Bedford with the living of High Ongar in Essex. At the time in question the holding of such preferments involved at least some acceptance of the religious changes effected under Henry VIII and his successor. However, like many others who then externally submitted, Bourne seems to have always been a Catholic at heart, and the sincerity of his return to the old religion under Mary was proved later by his unalterable firmness under persecution. Soon after her accession, whilst preaching at St. Paul’s Cross, he narrowly escaped a dagger which a fanatic hurled on hearing him allude to Bishop Bonner’s recent sufferings under the late regime. On being appointed to the Bishopric of Bath and Wells, Bourne received absolution from Cardinal Pole, the papal legate, by letters dated Pais, 17 March, 1554, from all censures incurred in the time of schism, and on 1 April was consecrated with five others by Bishop Bonner, assisted by Bishops Gardiner and Tunstall. During his brief episcopate he laboured zealously for the restoration of the Catholic religion, although towards heretics, as even Godwin, a Protestant, admits, he always used kindness rather than severity, nor do any seem to have been executed in his diocese. Queen Mary showed her high esteem for him by naming him Lord President of the Council of Wales. Elizabeth, however, whilst expressing herself contented with his service, relieved him quickly of that office in pursuance of her policy to remove Catholics from such posts of trust.

At the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign Bourne was kept away from London by illness and official duties, and he is only mentioned once as present in the Parliament. For this reason he was one of the last bishops to be deposed, and he was even named amongst those first commissioned to consecrate Parker, appointed primate of the queen’s new hierarchy. On his refusal, and on his rejection of the Supremacy Oath, which four Somersetshire justices were commissioned on 18 October, 1559, to administer, his deprivation followed. For a little time he still was left in Somerset, apparently a prisoner on parole; but on 31 May, 1560, he received a summons to appear within twelve days before Parker and the Commissioners in London. He set out, as his reply to Parker shows, well knowing what to expect, and was committed on 18 June a close prisoner to the Tower, where already five of his brother prelates were immured. There in solitary confinement, for the most part, he remained three years, when an outbreak of the plague in September, 1563, caused him and his companions to be for a time transferred into the perhaps equally objectionable keeping of certain of their Protestant successors; Bourne himself being committed to that apparently of Bullingham of Lincoln.

Thus began that continual “tossing and shifting” of the deposed prelates “from one keeper to another, from one prison to another,” which Cardinal Allen, who had every means of knowing, describes as one part of their “martyrdom.” Accordingly we find the Council, in June, 1565, sending them all back to the Tower, although a little later in a letter of Parker (January 1566), Bullingham is mentioned as though again for a time Bishop Bourne’s actual or intended keeper, whilst all the captive prelates continue during the next two years to be referred to as then in the public prisons. After nearly ten years of this suffering existence Bishop Bourne expired 10 September, 1569, at Silverton in Devonshire, having been there committed (apparently not long) to the custody of Carew, Archdeacon of Exeter and Dean of Windsor. There he was buried in the church, though no monument marks the spot.

The oft repeated story of the kindly treatment shown by Elizabeth to the prelates she deposed proves to rest solely on Lord Burghley’s interested statement (Execution of Justice, 1583) which his own acts and papers contradict, but which was eagerly adopted and enlarged by the prejudiced defenders of Elizabeth, Andrewes (Totrura Torti, 1609), Camden (Annales, 1615), Strype, and others. On the other hand, Cardinal Allen describes the bishops, in his reply to Burghley, as having been “vexed, spoiled, tormented, and slain; . . . whose martyrdom” he says, “is before God as glorious, as if they had by a speedy violent death been despatched.” The same in fact is affirmed by the other Catholic writers of the time. In all the lists of sufferers, drawn up by these, Bishop Bourne is named amongst those dead for the Faith in prison, whilst Bridgewater says expressly that “he died in chains a martyr.” Moreover, he is one of those “Eleven Bishops,” a picture of whose prison was allowed by Gregory XIII to be erected in the English College church at Rome, amongst pictures of the English Saints and Martyrs, with an inscription declaring that they “died for their confession of the Roman See and Catholic faith, worn out by the miseries of their long imprisonment.”

BRIDGETT, Queen Elizabeth and the Catholic Hierarchy (London, 1889); PHILLIPS, Extinction of the Ancient Hierarchy (London, 1905); GAIRDNER, English Historical Review (April, 1906) 377; ALLEN, Defence of Catholics (Ingolstadt, 1584); SANDERS, Report to Card. Morone, 1561 (Cath. Record society, 1905), I; SANDERS, De visibili Monarchia (Louvain, 1571); RISHTON-SANDERS, Rise of Anglican Schism Continued, tr. LEWIS (London, 1877); BRIDGEWATER, Concertatio (August, Trev. 1588); GODWIN, Catalogus Episcoporum Bathon. Et Wellen, (1594), in MS. Trin. Coll. Camb.

G.E. PHILLIPS

Charles de Bouvens

French pulpit orator, b. at Bourg in 1750; d. in 1830. At an early age he embraced the ecclesiastical state and became vicar general to his fellow-townsman, Monseigneur de Conzié, Archbishop of Tours. When the Revolution broke out, he refused to take the required oaths, and followed his archbishop to Germany. The latter having died in the vicinity of Frankfort, de Bouvens went to London, where the Bishop of Arras, brother of Archbishop Conzié was minister to the Comte d’Artois, later Charles X. Here he delivered, either in the church of St. Patrick or in the chapel built by the Sulpician Bourret in King Street, several funeral orations in the presence of Louis XVIII and the Comte d’Artois. The best known of these orations are: the one on Marie-Josephine-Louise of Savoy, wife of Louis XVIII; that on the Duc d’Enghien (1804), and the one on the Abbé Henry Allen Edgeworth de Firmont, confessor of Louis XVI. These eulogies were printed at Paris for the first time in 1814, being issued separately. A complete edition in one volume appeared at Paris in 1824 under the title: “Oraisons funèbres.” The volume contains, besides the addresses mentioned above, a funeral oration on Louis XVIII. At the time of the Restoration (1815), he returned to France and was named chaplain to Louis XVIII. In 1828 the infirmities of age forced him to resign, but he retained the title of Honorary Chaplain. The Revolution of 1830 drove him from Paris, and he died shortly afterwards.

QUÉRARD, La France littéraire (Paris, 1827), I; MICHAUD, Biog. Univ., s.v.

A. FOURNET

Joachim Bouvet

Jesuit missionary, born at Le Mans, France (date unknown), died at Peking, China, 28 June, 1732. He was one of the first Jesuits selected by Louis XIV for the mission in China. Before setting out for their destination, he and his associates were admitted to the Academie des Sciences and were commissioned by that learned body to carry on astronomical observations, to determine the geographical positions of the various places they were to visit, and to collect various scientific data. The little band, after being provided by order of the King with all necessary scientific instruments, sailed from Brest, 3 March 1685, with Father Fontaney as Superior. After spending some time in Siam, they finally arrived in Peking, 7 February, 1688. They were favorably received by the emperor the famous Khang-hi, who retained Father Bouvet, together with Father Gerbillion, near his person and made them his instructors in mathematics. While engaged in this work, the two Fathers wrote several mathematical treatises in the Tartar language which the emperor caused to be translated into Chinese, adding the prefaces himself. So far did they win his esteem and confidence that he gave a site within the palace enclosure for a church and residence which were finally completed in 1702. In 1679 he sent Father Bouvet back to France to obtain new missionaries and made him the bearer of a gift of forty-nine volumes in Chinese for the king. These were deposited in the Royal Library, and Louis XIV, in turn, commissioned Father Bouvet to present to the emperor a magnificiemntly bound collection of engravings.

In 1699 Father Bouvet arrived a second time in China, accompanied by ten missionaries, among them men of great ability, such as Fathers de Premare, Régis, and Parrenin. Khang-hi honored him further with the title of interpreter to his son, the heir-apparent. In 1700, with four of his fellow missionaries, he presented a memorial to the emperor, asking for a decision as to the meaning attached to the various ceremonies of the Chinese in honor of Confucius and their ancestors. The emperor, who had taken a keen interest in the controversy regarding the ceremonies, replied that they were simply civil usages, having no religious significance whatsoever. The memorial, together with the emperors reply, was published in the “Gazette de Pekin” but failed to allay the excitement then raging in Europe over the question. From 1708 to 1715 Father Bouvet was engaged in a survey of the empire and the preparation of maps of the various provinces. He was a man of great energy and ability, and of simple, unselfish piety. For nearly fifty years he shared all the labors of the missionaries and was engaged from time to time in various scientific works. During this long period, chiefly on account of his services to the emperor and the favor he enjoyed with him, he did much to advance the interest of Christianity and to facilitate the entrance and the labors of his fellow-missionaries. His Chinese name was Petsin. Besides his works on mathematics, Father Bouvet was the author of “Etat présent de la Chine, en figures gravées par P. Giffart sur les dessins apportés au roi par le P. J. Bouvet” (Paris, 1697); “Portrait histoique de l’empereur de la Chine” (Paris, 1697). The library at Le Mans contains a collection of his manuscripts including a Chinese dictionary.

De Backer, Bibliotheque de escrivains de la c. de Jesus (Paris, 1869), I; Michaud, Biographie Universelle, V.

HENRY M. BROCK

Jean-Baptiste Bouvier

Bishop of Le Mans, theologian, b. At St. Charles-la-Forêt, Mayenne, 16 January, 1783; d. at Rome, 28 December, 1854. Having received merely an elementary education, he learned his father’s trade of carpentry, but he gave his spare time to the study of the classics under the direction of the parish priest. In 1805 he entered the seminary of Angers, where he made rapid progress. He was ordained priest in 1808 and appointed professor of philosophy at the College of Château Gonthier. In 1811 he was transferred to the seminary of Le Mans, where he taught philosophy and moral theology. In 1819 he was made superior of that institution and vicar-general of the diocese, a position which he held until 1834, when he was raised to the episcopal see of Le Mans. The influence exerted by his “Institutiones Theologicæ” (in fifteen editions), which was in use in almost all the seminaries of France, as well as in the United States and Canada, gives Bishop Bouvier a unique and honourable position in the history of theology during the nineteenth century. His compendium had the distinction of being the first manual, and for many years the only one well adapted to that period of transition (1830–70), marked on the one hand by the death struggles of Gallicanism and Jansenism, and on the other by the work of reform undertaken by all departments of ecclesiastical learning.

At first, Bishop Bouvier published separate theological treatises, which formed a collection of thirteen volumes (1818–33), reduced in 1834 to six, and published in that form until 1852. The author endeavoured to improve his work in the successive editions, but his failure to remove from it all traces of Gallicanism provoked criticism. A Gallican, through prejudices derived from his early training rather than from personal conviction, Bouvier readily consented to submit his work to the corrections of the theologians appointed by Pius IX. Their revision resulted in the eighth edition (1853). After the death of Bouvier, the professors of the seminary of Le Mans eliminated many imperfections which had been overlooked by the revisers of 1853. The manual was shortly afterwards adopted in more than sixty seminaries. Bouvier’s treatment of moral theology is remarkable; he took a decided stand against Jansenism and adopted the doctrines of St. Alphonsus; though even this reaction against rigorism did not bring his work up to the standard of the manuals of theology of the present time.

Some critics condemned much of the information in the “Institutiones” as a crude and confused mass, irrelevant, and only indirectly connected with moral theology. It must be recalled, however, that Bishop Bouvier did not enjoy the advantages of the present day, when the various branches of clerical study are classified, and each given its proper place. Notwithstanding the incompleteness of preparatory studies eighty years ago, the scarcity of vocations, the urgent need of priests, and limited pecuniary resources made it necessary to limit the clerical course to three years and, at the same time, to include in the curriculum all the studies necessary for the exercise of the sacred ministry in parishes. Under such circumstances it was impossible to observe nice distinctions in the classification of ecclesiastical science. However, in spite of defects, the “Institutiones Theologicæ” will stand as a signal achievement on the morrow of the Revolution. The Bishop gradually brought the education of the clergy out of the errors and lethargy of the preceding chaotic age, and prepared for the reforms of the latter part of the nineteenth century. Like Cardinal Gousset he must be regarded as one of the foremost reformers of moral theology. Pius IX conceived the highest esteem for him and invited him to be present at the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

GUÉRIN, Dict. des dict. (Paris, 1886), II, 302; DESHAYES in Dict. de théol. Cath., XIII, 1118; HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1886); BALLERINI, Opus Theologicum (2d ed., Prato, 1891), VII, 421; LEHMKUHL, Theologia Moralis (Freisburg, 1886), II, 796.

P. DISSER

Diocese of Bova

DIOCESE OF BOVA.

Situated in the civil province of Reggio,in Calabria, Italy, suffragan to the Archdiocese of Reggio. Luminosus, who attended the Lateran Council (649), under Pope Martin I, is believed by some to have been the firt Bishop of Bova; in reality he was Bishop of Bologna. The city of Bova (and consequently the see) is of much later origin than the pontificate of Martin I; it was peopled about 1477 by Albanian refugees fleeting from the Turkish invasions that followed upon the death of Scanderbeg. In their new home these Albanians retained the Greek rite, which remained in use until the reign of Pope Gregory XIII. One of the most distinguished Bishops of Bova was Achille Brancia (1549), a member of the council of Trent. The diocese contains about 20,000 souls, 14 parishes, 34 churches and chapels, 34 secular priests, and 25 seminarians.

CAPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XXI; BATTANDIER, Ann. Pont. Cth. (Paris, 1907).

U. BENIGNI

Diocese of Bovino

Diocese in the province of Foggia, Italy, suffragan to the Archdiocese of Benevento. The city, built on a gentle slope, has a population of over 30,000. The first bishop of Bovino known to history is a certain Joannes mentioned in a deed of Landulplhus I, Archbishop of Beneventum, dated 971. Among other bishops are Ugo (1099), whose services and bounty to the Church are eulogized on two tablets, one preserved in the episcopal residence, the other in the cathedral; Giso (1100), commemorated on the façade of the church of San Pietro; Roberto (1190), who built the shrine of San Michele; Pietro, who erected a new cathedral to replace the ruinous old one; Bartolomeo della Porta (1404), a distinguished jurisconsult; Cardinals Benedetto Accolti (1530) and Gabriele Marini (1535); Gian Domenico Annio, successor to his brother, Gian Ferdinando (1565), and the greatest canonist of his time; Paolo Tolosa (1601), founder of the seminary and later Archbishop of Chieti; Angelo Ceraso (1685), a man of great sanctity, who always made the visitation of his diocese on foot.

On account of political entanglements consequent upon difficulties which had arisen between the pope and the court of Naples, this see remained vacant from the death of Bishop Nicolò Molinari, in 1792, until 1818. There exists to the present day in this diocese a famous shrine of Our Lady (Santa Maria in Valverde) erected in 1244 by Bishop Giambattista. The little town of Castelluccio in the diocese is inhabited almost entirely by descendants of Greeks who took refuge in Italy in the fifteenth century. They have a clergy and a liturgy of their own rite. The diocese contains 32,710 Catholics, 10 parishes, 76 churches and chapels, 80 secular priests, and 13 seminarians.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844); BATTANDIER, Ann. Pont. Cath. (Paris, 1907).

U. BENIGNI

Sir George Bowyer

Baronet, an eminent English writer on jurisprudence, as well as a prominent defender of the Holy See and of Catholic interests in general, both by voice and pen, was born at Radley House, in Berkshire, 8 October, 1811; d. in London, 7 June, 1883. His family, traceable much farther back, settled, early in the seventeenth century, at Denham Court, Buckinghamshire, and in 1660 the head of the house was made a baronet. His grandfather was a naval officer of high distinction who took part in Howe’s famous victory off Ushant, 1 June, 1794. George Bowyer was at first intended for the army, and so for a while he was a cadet at Woolwich. His bent, however, was towards the law; accordingly, in 1836, he was admitted a student at the Middle Temple, his call to the English Bar regularly ensuing in 1839. Five days after his call to the Bar, partly, perhaps, because of two learned works published by him in the foregoing year, and partly, perhaps, by reason of his family’s neighbourhood at Radley, the University of Oxford created him an honorary M.A., Mr. Bowyer forthwith began practice as an equity draughtsman and conveyancer, without ceasing to devote himself to congenial literary work. In 1841 he published “The English Constitution, a Popular Commentary on the Constitutional Laws of England,” which in 1844 was followed by “Commentaries of the Civil Law.” So valuable were these works that at midsummer of the latter year the University of Oxford bestowed on him the highest honour in its gift by creating him a D.C.L. In 1849 he endeavoured to get into Parliament as a representative of Reading Borough in his native Berkshire, but his hour of parliamentary life was not yet.

Next year, 1850, there happened the gravest and most far-reaching event in Bowyer’s career: his conversion from Anglican Protestantism to the Catholic religion. That same year Pope Pius IX set up in England a new Catholic episcopal hierarchy. At this proceeding, vulgarly styled “the Papal Aggression,” English Protestantism went wild with rage and resentment for the space of several months. To Bowyer this popular mania offered a golden opportunity to stand forth boldly in the Holy Father’s defence. His pamphlet, “The Cardinal Arch-bishop of Westminster and the New Hierarchy,” ran through four editions and was followed at intervals by several more publications on the same theme. From this beginning to the end of his days he was the foremost lay champion in England of the Catholic Church and her early head. His letters addressed to the newspapers, principally to the “Times,” were many, vigorous and unanswerable and in those days he was practically the only competent Catholic whose controversial lettters were admitted into the English Protestant press. At the same time he zealously prosecuted his legal studies and writings. His “Commentaries on the Universal Public Law” came out in 1854 and is commonly considered his greatest literary achievement; “Introduction to the Study and Use of the Civil Law,” his last publication, appeared in 1874.

To go back to 1850, period of his conversion, Mr. Bowyer was that year appointed Reader in Law at the Middle Temple. In 1852 he at last found his desired seat in Parliament, as member of the Irish borough of Dundalk, whose representative he continued to be for the next sixteen years. During that stirring period there came the Italian Unity movement and the despoiling of the Roman Pontiff of the greater part of his temporal dominions, to be followed some years later by the seizure of the remainder. Then it was that Sir Geoge Bowyer (who, on the death of his father, in 1860 had succeeded to baronetcy), in company with John Pope Hennessy, John Francis Maguire, and others took every occasion to denounce in Parliament the Italian revolutionaries, especially for the robbery and virtual captivity of the Roman Pontiff, the atrocities committed by King Victor Emmanuel’s soldiery in the lately annexed Neapolitan realm. For all these misdeeds the member for Dundalk continually called to account Lord Palmerston, Lord John (afterwards Earl) Russel, Mr. Gladstone, and other English governmental abettors of the Italian Revolution, who could answer only by parading principles at once subversive and immoral. In 1868 he lost his seat for Dundalk, and for the next six years remained out of the Parliament, until 1874, when, as a Home Ruler, he was chosen a representative of the Irish County of Wexford, retaining that seat untiI 1880. Meanwhile, as his principles and attitude with regard to the Italian question, to say nothing of other matters, were nowise to the taste of the British Liberal party, he was, in 1876, turned out of the London Reform Club.

On the 7th of June, 1883, Sir George Bowyer was found dead in bed at his London chambers, N0.13, King’s Bench Walk, in the Temple. His obsequies took place in the Catholic church ol St. John of Jerusalem, which, alongside of the Hospital ot Sts. John and Elizabeth, in Great Ormond Street, he had built at his own cost. And here it may be remarked that in architecture Sir George Bowyer had a strong leaning for the Palladian, or Italian, style, as against the Gothic, especially for public buildings, and his principles he put into practice in the aforesaid church, which is a little Palladian gem. The church has now been removed bodily to St John’s Wood, there to serve transferred and new-built hospital. Sir George Bowyer was a Knight Commander of the Order of Pius IX, and a Papal Chamberlain; Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St. Gregory the Great, Knight of Justice of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem (or of Malta), etc. At home he was a Justice of the Peace and Deputy Lieutenant of Berkshire. He never married, and was succeeded in the baronetcy by his young brother.

Dict. Nat. Biog. (London, 1886); Annual Register, 1883, 152, 153; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of Eng. Cath., I, 282–284; Times, Tablet, and other London newspapers for June, 1883.

C. T. BOOTHMAN.

Boy-Bishop

The custom of electing a boy-bishop on the feast of St. Nicholas dates from very early times, and was in vogue in most Catholic countries, but chiefly in England, where it prevailed certainly in all the larger monastic and scholastic establishments, and also in many country parishes besides, with the full approbation of authority, ecclesiastical and civil. The boy-bishop was chosen from among the children of the monastery school, the cathedral choir, or pupils of the grammar-school. Elected on St. Nicholas’s day (6 December), he was dressed in pontifical vestments and, followed by his companions in priest’s robes, went in procession round the parish, blessing the people. He then took possession of the church, where he presided at all the ceremonies and offices until Holy Innocents’ day (28 December). At Salisbury he is said to have had the power of disposing of any benefices that fell vacant during his reign, and if he died in office the funeral honours of a bishop were granted to him. A monument to such a boy-prelate still exists there, though its genuineness has been questioned, and at Lulworth Castle another is preserved, which came from Bindon Abbey. The custom was abolished by Henry VIII in 1512, restored by Queen Mary and again abolished by Elizabeth, though here and there it lingered on for some time longer. On the Continent it was suppressed by the Council of Basle in 1431, but was revived in some places from time to time, even as late as the eighteenth century.

ROCK, Church of our Fathers (London, 1853), III, xii; LEE, Glossary of Liturgical and Ecclesiastical Terms (London, 1877); GASQUET, Parish Life in Medieval England (London, 1906); Camden Society, Machyn’s Diary (London, 1848); DU CANGE, Glossarium, ed. HENSCHEL (London, 1884), s. vv. Episcopus Innocentium and Episcopus Puerorum; HAMSON, Medii Ævi Kalendarium, Dates, Charters and Customs of the Middle Ages (London, 1841), 61, 78, 82.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

John Boyce

Novelist, lecturer, and priest, well known under the assumed name of “Paul Peppergrass,” born in Donegal, Ireland, in 1810, died in Worcester, Massachusetts, 2 January, 1864. His father was respectable and wealthy citizen, proprietor of the principal hotel in the town and a magistrate of of the county. John early manifested a taste for literary pursuits, and with the desire of studying for the priesthood, entered the preparatory seminary at Navan, County, Meath, and was graduated with the highest honours in rhetoric and philosophy. He completed his studies at the Royal College of Maynooth and was ordained priest in 1837. For eight years he laboured on the Irish mission, but in 1845 he resolved to share the lot of his countrymen in America. From Eastport Maine, the scene of his first missionary labours, he was transferred 14 November, 1847, to St. John’s Church, Worcester, where he remained until his death. Father Boyce was an eloquent lecturer and gifted writer. His published works are: “Shanty Maguire, or Tricks upon Travellers” (New York, 1848), which was dramatized by “J. Pilgrim”; “The Spaewife, or the Queen’s Secret” (Baltimore, 1853), “Mary Lee or the Yankee in Ireland” (1859), first published serially in the “Metropolitan Magazine” of Baltimore. These novels do not reveal the varied gifts and ripe scholarship of the man, though they illustrate the strong powers of a kneen observer, and the humour and pathos of a graceful and insructive writer. Besides these books he contributed to the editorial columns of the Boston “Pilot,” wrote many sketches and criticisms which appeared in print, and a lecture on “The Satisfying Influence of Catholicity on the Intellect and Senses,” deliverd before the Catholic Institute in New York in 1851.

Biographical sketch by J. FAIRFAX MCLAUGHLIN in later editions of The Spæwife, Golden Jubilee Souvenir of St. John’s Parish (Worcester); Messenger (Worcester, Mass.), 3 December, 1898; Pilot (Boston, Mass.) files 16 January, 1864.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Boyle Abbey

A celebrated Cistercian house situated on the River Boyle, nine miles northwest of Elphin, in the present County of Roscommon, Ireland. It was founded by Maurice O’Duffy in the year 1161, and was in close connection with Mellifont, the parent house of the Cistercian Order in Ireland. In the year 1218 (Annals of Ireland) the church of Boyle Abbey was solemnly consecrated. A great number of the Abbots of Boyle were appointed bishops in the Province of Connaught during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and more especially in the Dioceses of Elphin and Achonry. In 1235, the English forces under the joint command of Maurice Fitzgerald and McWilliam forcibly took possession of the abbey, seized all the goods, vestments, and chalices belonging to the monastery and stripped the monks of their habits in their cloister. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth the abbey was suppressed and its lands and possessions handed over (1569) to Patrick Cusack of Gerrardston, County Meath. From the list of its lands then made it clear that Boyle must have been one of the most richly endowed religious houses in Ireland. In 1589, a lease of the abbey was granted to William Ussher. During the reign of King James I several inquisitions were held in connection with the lands of Boyle Abbey, and in 1603 a lease of it was granted to Sir John King.

Perhaps the most eminent of the Abbots of Boyle was Donchad O’Daly who died in 1250, and who was recognized as a poet of very special merit. He is spoken of as the Ovid of Ireland. Many of the princes of Connaught retired to Boyle before their death and more especially the princes of the family of McDermot of Moylurg. The Abbey of Boyle is now in ruins, but from the remains still to be seen near the present town of Boyle it was evidently a place of great importance and of some architectural pretensions.

ARCHDALL, Monasticon Hibernicon (601-606); ALEMAND, Histoire Monastique de l’Ireland (Paris, 1690), 191; MURPHY, Our Martyrs, 115; RUSHE, A Second Thebaid (Dublin, 1905), 130; O’FLAHERTY, West Connaught, 355–379.

JAMES MACCAFFREY

Thomas Bracken

Poet, journalist, politician, b. in Ireland 21 December, 1843; d. at Dunedin, New Zealand, 16 February, 1898. Having lost his parents he emigrated in his twelfth year to Victoria, Australia. He went to Otago, New Zealand, as a shearer in 1869, and published there a small volume of verse, “Flights among the Flax,” which brought him into some notice. In Dunedin, he was associated with the commercial staffs of “The New Zealand Tablet,””The Otago Guardian,” and the “Morning Herald,” and was founder and part proprietor of the “Saturday Advertiser,” which was a literary and commercial success only so long as he directly controlled it. He was twice returned to Parliament (in 1884 and 1886) for Dunedin in the Liberal interest. He died in the Dunedin hospital. He is best known in New Zealand and Australia for his verse. His poetic publications in book form, in addition to the one already mentioned, are: “Flowers of the Freeland”; “Behind the Tomb and Other Poems”; “The Land of the Maori and the Moa”; and “Musings in Maoriland” (Dunedin, 1890), his last and fullest collection. Bracken’s themes are mostly local and colonial. He is not a world-poet, but takes honourable rank among the pioneers of Australian poetry. In his best verse, much true and tender poetic feeling finds skilled and picturesque expression.

MENNELL, Australasian Biography (London, 1892); The Otago Daily Times, files (17 February, 1898); The Evening Star (Dunedin), files (17 February, 1898); The New Zealand Tablet, files (25 February, 1898).

HENRY W. CLEARY

Henry de Bracton

Also called HENRY OF BRACTON.

A famous English juridical writer, the Blackstone of the thirteenth century, b. probably in King John’s reign and died about four years before the close of that of Henry III. His lifetime therefore comprised and almost coincided with the momentous period between the grant of Magna Charta and the defeat and death of Simon of Montfort, Earl of Leicester, at the battle of Evesham. By birth, property, and ecclesiastical preferment he appears to have been a man of Devon, in which shire there are two parishes of the name of Bratton, viz., Bratton-Clovelly and Bratton-Fleming, one or the other of these parishes being almost certainly his birthplace, for he claim of Minehead parish in Somerset, may be dismissed as untenable. Hence it may be gathered that the correct form of this great jurist’s name is hardly Bracton, but rather Bratton, by which appellation, as well as by the occasional variant of Bretton (most likely then sounded much like Bratton) he was almost invariably described in his own day, not to add that, in point of etymology, “Bradtone” (broad town) seems likelier than “Bractone” to have been the earlier form of the name. To come to his laborious and distinguished career, it is said that Bratton in his youth was a student at the University of Oxford, where he is further alleged to have taken the degree of doctor of civil and canon law but this, though indeed possible, is altogether lacking of proof. Certain it is that he was taken into the service of King Henry III. By this time the kings curia had grown distinct from King’s Council and a race of professional judges had sprung into existence. Of these professional judges Henry Bratton became one. It is in 1245 that we first find him acting in a judicial capacity, and from that year onward we continually meet with him either as a justice in Eyre (especially in his native Devon and other neighbouring counties) or as holding please before the king himself, until the end of the year 1267. Thus he was undoubtedly a regular permanent judge, though he never appears as holding placito de banco, in other words, as sitting on the Bench at Westminster. Meanwhile more than one special mark of royal favour towards him is upon record. Yet in the civil broils of his time he was neither side’s partisan and was respected and trusted alike by king and barons. Of his great and epoch-making literary work, “De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliæ,” Professor Paul Vinogradoff (the Athenæum, 19 July, 1884) writes that it is a treatise which “testifies to the influence of Roman jurisprudence and of its medieval exponents, but at the same time remains a statement of genuine English law, a statement so detailed and accurate that there is nothing to match it in the whole legal literature of the Middle Ages.” The number of decided cases therein referred to (for Bratton’s law is naturally case-law) amounts o four hundred and fifty. Like all or almost all of the professional judges of his time, Bratton was an ecclesiastic. His known church preferments are Barnstaple archdeaconry, conferred upon him in 1264, but which the same year he quitted for the chancellorship of Exeter cathedral, retaining this latter dignity until his death in 1268. At his decease he enjoyed like wise a cononry, and prebend as well, in Exeter cathedral church, as in the collegiate church of Bosham. All these benefices were of the Bishop of Exeter’s gift. At the same time as the king’s clerk engaged in the kings business, Bracton could seldom or never have kept residence. His body was buried in Exeter cathedral, before an altar at which he had founded a perpetual chantry for his soul. Of Bratton’s great and comprehensive treatise “De Legibus,” etc., written before 1259, the first printed edition was published in 1569 in folio, and reprinted in quarto in 1640. A recension and translation of the whole work in six volumes, by Sir Travers Twiss, was issued in London (Rolls publications) from 1878 to 1883.

FOSS, Biographical Dictionary of the Judges of England (London, 1886), VI; MAITLAND, Bracton’s Note Book (London, 1887), for biography see introd. pp. 13–25.

C. T. BOOTHMAN.

Denis Mary Bradley

First Bishop of Manchester, New Hampshire, U.S.A., b. 25 February, 1846, at Castle-island, County Kerry, Ireland; d. at Manchester 13 December, 1903. Shortly after his father’s death his mother, with a family of five, emigrated to the United States and settled at Manchester. He was then eight years old. After attending the local schools, he was sent to Holy Cross College, Worcester, Massachusetts, in 1863, and closed his academic career there in June, 1867. He was then enrolled as an ecclesiastical student at St. Joseph’s Seminary, Troy, New York, where he was ordained priest 3 June, 1871. Shortly after this he was located at Portland, Maine, under Bishop Bacon, and subsequently under Bishop Healy, by whom he was appointed rector of the cathedral and chancellor of the diocese. In June, 1881, he was made pastor of St. Joseph’s, Manchester, which became his cathedral when he was consecrated first Bishop of the new See of Manchester, 11 June, 1884. He had the honour of being the first alumnus of St. Joseph’s Seminary of Troy, New York, to be raised to the episcopacy.

In the rural sections of New Hampshire thee were many scattered Catholics who up to that time had few facilities for practising their faith, and his first and earnest efforts were directed towards providing for them, and with the most gratifying results. He held the first synod of the diocese 24 October, 1886, and under the energizing influence of his zeal and enthusiasm there was a general upbuiliding of Catholicism throughout the State. The silver jubilee of his ordination was made the occasion of a striking demonstration of his great personal popularity, and this had another manifestation when every non-Catholic pulpit in Manchester bore sincere testimony to the loss his death had occasioned to the city and to the State.

Catholic News files (New York, December, 1903); Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, 1904); REUSS, Biog. Encyl. Of the Cath. Hierarchy (Milwaukee, 1898); GABRIELS, History of St. Joseph’s Seminary, Troy (New York, 1906).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Edward Bradshaigh

An English Carmelite friar known in religion as Elias à Jesu; b. in Lancashire, England, early in the seventeenth century; d. at Benfold, 25 September, 1652. He was the fourth son of Roger Bradshaigh, of Haigh hall, near Wigan, England, a member of one of the oldest families in Lancashire; of his immediate family three of the brothers were Jesuits, and one brother was a secular priest. While yet young he was sent to the Cassinese Benedictines to be educated. In 1619 he joined the Discalced Carmelites in Belgium. In 1626 he was sent to England, where he laboured zealously until he was arrested and brought before the Archbishop of Canterbury, charged with being a Catholic priest. He was thrown into prison and suffered great hardships, but at length, at the intercession of powerful friends, including the King of Spain, he was liberated, and banished to France. In Paris he filled the office of reader in the Carmelite monastery until 1632, when by order of his superior he returned to England took up his residence with the family at Haigh Hall. There he visited the poor, performed his priestly duties, and made many converts. Towards the close of his life he devoted his time chiefly to the study of English antiquities. Bradshaigh was the author of two works on British antiquities, “De antiquis Monachis Insularum Britanniæ, sub primitiva Ecclesiâ viventibus,” and “Angliæ Sanctæ et Catholicæ,” both of which were lost in MS. A volume of poems, entitled “Virginalia, or Spiritual Sonnets in praise of the most glorious Virgin Marie,” published in 1632, is attributed to him.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 286.

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE

Henry Bradshaw

English Benedictine and poet, b. in the City of Chester, England, date unknown; d. 1513. From very early years his life was spent at St. Werburgh’s monastery, with the exception of a period during which he was pursuing a course in theology at Gloucester College, Oxford. His writing are “De Antiquitate et magnificentiâ Urbis Cestriæ,” and “Chronicon and a Life of St. Werburgh.” This second work, in English verse, includes the “Foundation of the City of Chester” and the “Chronicle of the Kings”; it fixes the year of Bradshaw’s death by a poem addressed to him, was printed by Pinson in 1521, and re-edited by E. Hawkins for the Chetham Society, 1848. The poet followed mainly a Latin work then in the library of St. Werburgh, called “The True or Third Passionary,” by an author whose name was unknown to Bradshaw. His work, written not for the learned, but for the ruder classes, has been variously appraised by critics.

HUNT in Dict. Nat. Biog.; WARTON, History of English Poetry

J. VINCENT CROWNE.

William Maziere Brady

Ecclesiastical writer, b. in Dublin, 8 January, 1825; d. in Rome, 19 March, 1894. He was nephew of Sir Maziere Brady, Bart., Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and youngest son of Sir Nicholas W. Brady who, whilst Lord Mayor of Dublin, was knighted by George IV during his visit to that city. William Maziere Brady entered Trinity college, Dublin, in 1842, received the Degree of B.A. in 1848, B. D. in 1858, and D. D. in 1863. In 1848 he was appointed Anglican curate of Maynooth and in 1849, curate of Kilkeedy, Limerick. In 1851 he became curate of St. Dolough’s, Dublin, and in the same year Rector of Farrahy, County Cork. In this year, also, he married a lineal descendant, on the maternal side, of the famous Protestant divine, Jeremy Taylor, Bishop of Down and Connor. Dr. Brady acted as chaplain to several successive viceroys, and in 1681 became Vicar of Clonfert, County Cork. While here he published in three volumes the “Clerical and Parochial Records of Cork, Cloyne and Ross” (Dublin, 1863), which he compiled from diocesan and parish registries and manuscripts in the principal libraries and public offices of Oxford, Dublin, and London, and from private and family papers. These “Records” are mainly those of the Protestant Diocese of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross, but will no doubt be of great service to the future Catholic historians of these dioceses.

Dr. Brady published several works in favour of the disestablishment of the Irish Protestant Church, such as: “Remarks on the Irish Church Temporalities” (1865); “Facts or Fiction; The alleged Conversion of the Irish Bishops to the Reformed Religion at the Accession of Queen Elizabeth and the Assumed Descent of the Present Established Hierarchy from the Ancient Irish Church Disproved” (1866), which went through five editions; “State Papers concerning the Irish Church in the time of Queen Elizabeth” (1868); “Some Remarks on the Irish Church Bill” (1869); and “Essays on the English State Church in Ireland” (1869). On the Irish Church question he also contributed numerous letters to the newspaper press, and articles to “Fraser’s” and “The Contemporary,” many of which were subsequently reprinted in pamphlet or book form. Some interesting articles from his pen appeared in the “Catholic World” on “Ireland’s Mission” (May, 1870); “The Ancient Irish Churches” (July, 1870), written while yet a Protestant, and “Pius IX and Mr. Gladstone’s Misrepresentations” (May, 1875). His only work of a purely secular character is “The McGillicuddy Papers; a Selection from the Family Archives of the McGillicuddy of the Reeks, with an Introductory Memoir” (1867).

When the Church Disestablishment act was passed, Dr. Brady went to Rome, where he examined the Vatican archives for information touching the ecclesiastical affairs of England, Ireland, and Scotland. He shortly resigned his benefices as Vicar of Donoughpatrick, and Rector of Kilbery, Meath, to which he had been promoted from Cork, and in May, 1873, was received into the Catholic Church by Monsignor, afterwards Archbishop, Kirby, Rector of the Irish College at Rome. His Vatican researches led to the publication of two volumes on “Episcopal Succession in England, Scotland, and Ireland, A.D. 1400 to 1875, with Appointments to Monasteries, and Extracts from Manuscripts in Public and Private Libraries in Rome, Florence, Bologna, Vienna, and Paris” (Rome, 1876–77). He also brought out, “Annals of the Catholic Hierarchy in England and Scotland, A.D. 1585–1876, with a Dissertation on Anglican Orders” (Rome, 1877; London, 1883). During his stay in Rome, Dr. Brady acted for a long time as correspondent of the London “Tablet,” and issued a pamphlet on “The Pope’s Anti-Parnellite Circular” (London, 1883). The last of his works was the “Anglo-Roman Papers,” published in 1890. He had a large share in the political controversies of the day and corresponded much with Gladstone and other eminent statesmen. He died of apoplexy and was buried in the Campo Verrano Cemetery in Rome. His grave is marked with an Irish Cross on white marble, bearing the inscription, “In memory of William Maziere Brady, Cavalier of the Order of Pius IX, and Private Chamberlain to his Holiness Pius IX and his Holiness Leo XIII. Born in Dublin, January 8, 1825, died in Rome, March 19, 1894.”

Irish Celts (Detroit, 1884); Journal of the Cork Archæological Society, 2nd series, vol. IX, No. 59 (July-September, 1903), s. v. Seven Clerical Worthies; ALLIBONE, Dict. of Authors, Suppl., I.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Archdiocese of Braga

(Bracara Augusta, Civitas Bracarensis).

Braga is situated in a flat fertile tract of land between the rivers Este and Cavado, in the province of Minho, in the Kingdom of Portugal. The name was derived from the costume worn by the ancient native inhabitants, which reached from the waist to the knee, unlike the tunics worn by the Romans; for this reason the latter called these bragas (bracas) a barbarous costume, and those who wore them—Persians, Scythians, and the Celtic inhabitants of Gaul—barbarians. The city of Braga is very ancient as the etymology of the name implies. Some, like St. Isidore, believe it is derived from the Greek Brachys, short, others from hrachos, thorn-bush; others again, like Diodorus Siculus, say that it is of Celtic origin. In the fifth book of his “Historical Library,” speaking of the Gauls he says, quas bracas illi nominant. Braga, the metropolis of Galicia, was one of the principal cities of Lusitania (Portugal), until the Emperor Augustus, having brought his wars to a close, made a new division of the provinces and united it to Hispania Tarraconensis, giving it the name of Augusta, and making it one of the three judicial divisions into which the provinces of Galicia was divided. It was one of the first cities of Spain to receive the light of the Gospel. The tradition that St. Peter de Rates, a disciple of St. James, preached here, is handed down in the ancient Breviary of Braga (Breviarium Bracarense) and in that of Evora; but this, as the Bollandists tell us, is purely traditional. Paternus was certainly bishop of the see about 390.

Some have denied that Braga was a metropolitan see; others have attempted without sufficient evidence, however, to claim two metropolitan sees for Galicia before the sixth century. The real facts in the case are that after the destruction of Astorga (433) by the Visigoths Braga was elevated to the dignity of a metropolitan see in the time of St. Leo I (440–461). Balconius was then its bishop and Agrestius, Bishop of Lugo, was the metropolitan. At the latter’s death the right of metropolitan rank was restored to the oldest bishop of the province, who was the bishop of Braga. From this time, until the Mohammedans invaded Spain (711) he retained the supremacy over all the sees of the province. In 1110 Pope Paschal II restored Braga to its former metropolitan rank. When Portugal separated from Spain, Braga assumed even greater importance. It contested with Toledo the primacy over all the Spanish sees, but the popes decided in favour of the latter city. At present it has for suffragans the dioceses of Porto, Coimbra, Visco, Bragança-Miranda, Aveiro, and Pinhel. There have been many very famous bishops and writers in this diocese. Among its earlier bishops, besides the traditional St. Peter already mentioned, the most famous is St. Martin of Braga who died in 580, noted for his wisdom and holiness. St. Gregory of Tours says of him (Hist. France, V, xxxvii) that he was born in Pannonia, visited the Holy Land, and became the foremost scholar of his time. St. Isidore of Seville (“De Viris illustribus,” c. xxxv) tells us that he “was abbot of the monastery of Dumio near Braga, came to Galicia from the East, converted the Suevic inhabitants from the errors of Arianism, taught them Catholic doctrine and discipline, strengthened their ecclesiastical organization , and founded monasteries. He also left a number of letters in which he recommended a reform of manners, a life of faith and prayer, and giving of alms, the constant practice of all virtues and the love of God.” For his writings, see Bardenhewer, “Patrologie” (2nd ed., 1901), 579–581. Braga having been destroyed by the Saracens, and restored in 1071, a succession of illustrious bishops occupied the see. Among these were Mauricio Burdinho (1111–14), sent as legate to the Emperor Henry V (1118), and by him created antipope with the title of Gregory VIII; Pedro Juliano, Archdeacon of Lisbon, elected Bishop of Braga in 1274, created cardinal by Gregory X in 1276, and finally elected pope under the name of John XXI; Blessed Bartholomew a Martyribus (1559–67), a Dominican, who in 1566, together with Father Luis de Sotomayor, Francisco Foreiro, and others, assisted at the Council of Trent; the Agustín de Castro, an Augustinian (1589–1609), who consecrated the cathedral, 28 July 1592. Alejo de Meneses, also an Augustinian, was transferred to Braga from the archiepiscopal see of Goa. He had been an apostle to the Nestorians of the Malabar Coast in Farther India and had converted them to Catholicism with the help of missionaries of the various religious orders. Under him was held the Council of Diamper (1599), for the establishment of the Church on the Malabar Coast. He died at Madrid in 1617 in his fifty-eighth year. in the odour of sanctity, being then President of the Council of Castile. Three other bishops of note were Roderico de Cunha (1627–35), historian of the Church in Portugal; Roderico de Moura (1704–28), who restored the cathedral, and Cayetano Brandão, who was reputed a saint among the faithful.

In its early period the Diocese of Braga produced the famous writer Paulus Orosius (fi.418) also Avitus of Braga. At the beginning of the eighteenth century a contest was waged over the birthplace of Orosius, some claiming him for Braga and others for Tarragona. The Marquis of Mondejar, with all the evidence in his favour, supported the claim of Braga; Dalmas, the chronicler of Catalonia, that of Tarragona. Avitus of Braga, another writer of some importance, was a priest who went to the East to consult with St. Augustine at the same time that Orosius, who had been sent by St. Augustine, returned from consulting St. Jerome. It was through him that the priest, Lucian of Caphar Gamala near Jerusalem, made known to the West the discovery of the body of St. Stephen (December, 415). The Greek encyclical letter of Lucian was translated into Latin by Avitus and sent to Braga with another for the bishop, Balconius, his clergy, and people, together with a relic of St. Stephen. Avitus also attended the Council of Jerusalem against Pelagius (415). There were two others of the same name, men of note, who, however, wrought incalculable harm by introducing into these provinces the doctrines of Origen and Victorinus.

In 1390 Braga was divided to make the Archdiocese of Lisbon, and in 1540 its territory was again divided to create the Archdiocese of Evora. There are some fine edifices in the diocese, among them the Cathedral of the Assumption, very large and architecturally perfect; the archbishop’s palace; the seminary, and the Institute of Charity. The sanctuary of do Senhor Jesus do Monte is the object of great devotion to which many pilgrimages are made every year.

Flórez, España Sagrada (Madrid, 1754—), IV, 234–240; XV. 82–364, and passim; Aguirre, Collectio maxima conciliorum Hispaniæ (Rome, 1693); Thomas ab Incarnatione, Hist. Eccl. Lusitanæ (Coimbra, 1759–63); Tejada y Ramiro, Canones de la Iglesia de España (Madrid, 1859); Gams, Kircheng. Spaniens (1862–79). For the local historians: Argote, Cunha, Corréa, et al., see Chevalier, Topo-bib. (Paris, 1894–99), 497; ibid., Lisbon and Evora.

TIRSO LÓPEZ

Diocese of Bragança-Miranda

(Brigantiensis.)

This diocese is situated in the northeastern part of the Kingdom of Portugal, in the civil province of Tras-os-Montes, and lies between 2° and 3° 3’ of longitude west of the meridian of Madrid, 41° 20’ and 42° of north latitude. It is bounded on the north by the Dioceses of Astorga and Orense, on the east by those of Salamanca and Zamora, on the south by that of Lamego, and on the west by the Archdiocese of Braga. The civil province is bounded on the north and east by the frontier of Spain comprising portions of the Provinces of Salamanca, Zamora, Leon, and Orense. The greater part of the territory of this diocese is undulating and mountainous and is traversed by several rivers, which, rising in the Sierras de Sanabria and the Sierra Seca y Segundera, flow from north to south, emptying finally into the river Duero. The climate in general is cold especially in the mountainous region. The southern part and the banks of some rivers and the level tracts of land, such as the one in which Bragança is situated are fertile, but the rest is unproductive of cereals, although there are broad tracts of land that pasture large herds of cattle which supply a great part of Portugal and Spain with meat.

This see is comparatively modern. It was erected by Pope Paul III in the town of Miranda bordering on Spain, its territory being taken from the Archdiocese of Braga, but Clement XIV in 1770 transferred it to Bragança, from which the name Bragança-Miranda is derived. The diocese is a suffragan of Braga. The city of Bragança, which is the capital of the province of Tras-os-Montes, is situated in a delightful valley near the confluence of the rivers Pervenza and Sabor. The cathedral, dedicated to the Annunciation, is one of the prominent buildings of the city. It has a very large chapter composed of the dean, nine canons, including the theologian, six beneficed clergy, eight chaplains, and six clerics. The episcopal household receives 1,166 florins from the Government for its support. The episcopal palace and the diocesan seminary for the education of students for the priesthood are large and spacious. Besides the cathedral there is another church which has collegiate rank, and throughout the diocese there are schools and classes for instruction in Christian doctrine. There is a hospital and a Monte de piedad, and before the secularization there were three religious communities, one of men and two of women. The city of Bragança is fortified, having a citadel or small fortress for its defence. The reigning house of Portugal is descended from the Dukes of Bragança and has occupied the throne of Portugal since the separation of Spain and Portugal in the time of Philip IV.

Moreri, Le grand dict. hist.

TIRSO LÓPEZ

Brahminism

By Brahminism is meant the complex religion and social system which grew out of the polytheistic nature-worship of the ancient Aryan conquerors of northern India, and came, with the spread of their dominion, to be extended over the whole country, maintaining itself, not without profound modifications, down to the present day. In its intricate modern phases it is generally known as Hinduism.

I. BRAHMIN TEXTS

Our knowledge of Brahminism in its earlier stages is derived from its primitive sacred books, originally oral compositions, belonging to the period between 1500–400 B.C. First of all, there are four Vedas (veda means wisdom) dating from 1500 to 800 B.C., and consisting (1) of a collection of ancient hymns (riks),the so-called Rig-Veda, in praise of the many gods; (2) of the Sama-veda, compiled from parts of the Rig-Veda as a song-service for the soma-sacrifice; (3) of the Yajur-Veda, a liturgy composed partly of ancient hymns and partly of other prayers and benedictions to be used in the various forms of sacrifice; and (4) of the Atharva-Veda, a collection of popular exorcisms and magical incantations largely inherited from primitive Aryan days.

Next in order are the Brahmanas (about 1000–600 B.C.). They are a series of verbose and miscellaneous explanations of the texts, rites, and customs found in each of the four Vedas, composed expressly for the use of the Brahmins, or priests. They are followed (800–500 B.C.) by the so-called Upanishads, concerned chiefly with pantheistic speculations on the nature of deity and the end of man; and lastly, by the Sutras (600–400 B.C.), which are compendious guides to the proper observance of the rites and customs. The most important are the Grhya-Sutras, or house-guides, treating of domestic rites, and the Dharma-sutras, or law-guides, which were manuals of religious and social customs. Being meant for layman as well as priest, they reflect the popular, practical side of Brahminism, whereas the Brahmanas and Upanishads show us the religion on its priestly, speculative side. Closely related to the law-guides is the justly famed metrical treatise, Manava-Dharma-Sastra, known in English as the Laws of Manu. It belongs probably to the fifth century B.C. These, together with the two sacred epics of a later age, the “Ramayana,” and the “Mahabharata,” embrace what is most important in sacred Brahmin literature.

II. EARLY BRAHMINISM OR VEDISM.

The religion of the Vedic period proper was comparatively simple. It consisted in the worship of many deities, great and small, the personified forces of nature. Prominent among these were Varuna, the all-embracing heaven, maker and lord of all things and upholder of the moral law; the sun-god, variously known as Surya, the enemy of darkness and bringer of blessings; as Pushan the nourisher; as Mitra, the omniscient friends of the good, and the avenger of deceit; as Savitar the enlightener, arousing men to daily activity, and as Vishnu, said to have measured the earth in three great strides and to have given the rich pastures to mortals; the god of the air, Indra, like Mars, also, the mighty god of war, who set free from the cloud-serpent Ahi (or Vritra), the quickening rain; Rudra, later known as Siva, the blessed one, the god of the destructive thunderstorm, an object of dread to evil-doers, but a friend to the good; Agni, the fire-god, the friend and benefactor of man, dwelling on their hearths, and bearing to the gods their prayers and sacrificial offerings; Soma, the god of that mysterious plant whose inebriating juice was so dear to the gods and to man, warding off disease, imparting strength and securing immortality.

There were no temples in this early period. On a small mound of earth or of stones the offering was made to the gods, often by the head of the family, but in the more important and complicated sacrifices by the priest, or Brahmin, in union with the householder. The object of every sacrifice was to supply strengthening food to the gods and to secure blessings in return. Human victims, though rare, were not wholly unknown, but animal victims were at this period in daily use. First in importance was the horse, then the ox or cow, the sheep, and the goat. Offerings of clarified butter, rice, wheat, and other kinds of grain were also very common. But dearer to the gods than any of these gifts, and rivaling the horse-sacrifice in solemnity, was the offering of the inebriating juice of the Soma-plant, the so-called Soma-sacrifice. Hymns of praise and petitions, chiefly for the good things of life, children, health, wealth, and success in undertakings, accompanied these sacrificial offerings. But the higher needs of the soul were not forgotten. In hymns of Varuna, Mitra, and the other gods there are striking texts expressing a sense of guilt and asking for forgiveness. At a time when the earlier Hebrew scriptures were silent as to the rewards and punishments awaiting man in the future life, we find the ancient rik-bards giving repeated expression to their belief in a heaven of endless bliss for the just, and in an abyss of darkness for the wicked.

Devotion to the Pitris (Fathers), or dead relatives, was also a prominent element in their religion. Although the Pitris mounted to the heavenly abode of bliss, their happiness was not altogether independent of the acts of devotion shown them by the living. It could be greatly increased by offerings of Soma, rice, and water; for like the gods they were thought to have bodies of air-like texture, and to enjoy the subtile essence of food. Hence, the surviving children felt it a sacred duty to make feast-offerings, called Sraddhas, at stated times to their departed Pitris. In return for these acts of filial piety, the grateful Pitris protected them from harm and promoted their welfare. Lower forms of nature-worship also obtained. The cow was held in reverence. Worship was given to trees and serpents. Formulae abounded for healing the diseased, driving off demons, and averting evil omens. Witchcraft was dreaded, and recourse to ordeals was common for the detection of guilt.

III. POPULAR BRAHMINISM.

In the period that saw the production of the Brahmanas and the Upanishads, the Vedic religion underwent a twofold change. On the practical side there was an exuberant growth of religious rites and of social restrictions and duties, while on the theoretical side, Vedic belief in the efficacy of personal deities was subordinated to a pantheistic scheme of salvation. Thus the earlier religion developed on the one hand into popular, exoteric Brahminism, and on the other hand into priestly, esoteric Brahminism. The former is reflected in the Brahmanas and the Sutras; the latter in the Upanishads.

The transformation to popular Brahminism was largely due to the influence of the Brahmins, or priests. Owing to their excessive fondness for symbolic words and forms, the details of ritual became more and more intricate, some assuming so elaborate a character as to require the services of sixteen priests. The sacrifice partook of the nature of a sacramental rite, the due performance of which was sure to produce the desired end, and thus became an all-important center around which the visible and invisible world revolved. Hence it merited liberal fees to the officiating priests. Still it was not a mere perfunctory rite, for if performed by an unworthy priest it was accounted as both useless and sacrilegious. In keeping with this complicated liturgy was the multitude of prayers and rites which entered into the daily life of both priest and layman. The daily recitation of parts of the Vedas, now venerated as divine revelation, was of first importance, especially for the Brahmins. It was a sacred duty for every individual to recite, morning and evening, the Savitri, a short prayer in honor of the vivifying sun. A scrupulous regard for ceremonial purity, surpassing even that of the Jewish Pharisee, gave rise to an endless succession of purifactory rites, such as baths, sprinkling with water, smearing with ashes or cow-dung, sippings of water, suppressions of breath—all sacramental in character and efficacious for the remission of sin. There is reason to believe that the consciousness of guilt for sin committed was keen and vivid, and that in the performance of these rites, so liable to abuse, a penitential disposition of soul was largely cultivated.

In popular Brahminism of this period the idea of retribution for sin was made to embrace the most rigorous and far-reaching consequences, from which, save by timely penance, there was no escape. As every good action was certain of future recompense, so every evil one was destined to bear its fruit of misery in time to come. This was the doctrine of karma (action) with which the new idea of rebirth was closely connected. While the lasting bliss of heaven was still held out to the just, different fates after death were reserved for the wicked, varying, according to the nature and amount of guilt, from long periods of torture in a graded series of hells, to a more or less extensive series of rebirths in the forms of plants, animals, and men. From the grade to which the culprit was condemned, he had to pass by slow transition through the rest of the ascending scale till his rebirth as a man of honorable estate was attained.

This doctrine gave rise to restrictive rules of conduct that bordered on the absurd. Insects, however repulsive and noxious, might not be killed; water might not be drunk till it was first strained, lest minute forms of life be destroyed; carpentry, basket-making, working in leather, and other similar occupations were held in disrepute, because they could not be carried on without a certain loss of animal and plant life. Some zealots went so far as to question the blamelessness of tilling the ground on account of the unavoidable injury done to worms and insects. But on the other hand, the Brahmin ethical teaching in the legitimate sphere of right conduct is remarkably high. Truthfulness, obedience to parents and superiors, temperance, chastity, and almsgiving were strongly inculcated. Though allowing, like other religions of antiquity, polygamy and divorce, it strongly forbade adultery and all forms of unchastity. It also reprobated suicide, abortion, perjury, slander, drunkenness, gambling, oppressive usury, and wanton cruelty to animals. Its Christianlike aim to soften the hard side of human nature is seen in its many lessons of mildness, charity towards the sick, feeble, and aged, and in its insistence on the duty of forgiving injuries and returning good for evil. Nor did this high standard of right conduct apply simply to external acts. The threefold division of good and bad acts into thought, words, and deeds finds frequent expression in Brahminic teaching.

Intimately bound up in the religious teaching of Brahminism was the division of society into rigidly defined castes. In the earlier, Vedic period there had been class distinctions according to which the warrior class (Kshatriyas, or Rajanas) stood first in dignity and importance, next the priestly class (Brahmins), then the farmer class (Vaisyas), and last of all, the servile class of conquered natives (Sudras). With the development of Brahminism, these four divisions of society became stereotyped into exclusive castes, the highest place of dignity being usurped by the Brahmins. As teachers of the sacred Vedas, and as priests of the all-important sacrifices, they professed to be the very representatives of the gods and the peerage of the human race. No honor was too great for them, and to lay hands on them was a sacrilege. One of their chief sources of power and influence lay in their exclusive privilege to teach the youth of the three upper castes, for education then consisted largely in the acquisition of Vedic lore, which only priests could teach. Thus the three upper castes alone had the right to know the Vedas and to take part in the sacrifices, and Brahminism, far from being a religion open to all, was exclusively a privilege of birth, from which the despised caste of Sudras was excluded.

The rite of initiation into Brahminism was conferred on male children only, when they began their studies under a Brahmin teacher, which took place generally in the eighth year of the Brahmin, and in the eleventh and twelfth years for the Kshatriya and the Vaisya respectively. It consisted in the investiture of the sacred cord, a string of white cotton yarn tired together at the ends, and worn like a deacon’s stole, suspended on the left shoulder. The investiture was a sort of sacrament in virtue of which the youth was freed from guilt contracted from his parents and became Dvi-ja, twice-born, with the right to learn the sacred Vedic texts and to take part in the sacrifices. The period of studentship was not long for members of the warrior and farmer castes, but for the young Brahmin, who had to learn all the Vedas by heart, it consumed nine years or more. During this period, the student was subjected to severe moral discipline. He had to rise before the sun, and was not allow to recline until after sunset. He was denied rich and dainty foods, and what he ate at his two daily meals he had to beg. He was expected to observe the strictest chastity. He was bound to avoid music, dancing, gambling, falsehood, disrespect to superiors and to the aged, covetousness, anger, and injury to animals.

Marriage was held to be a religious duty for every twice-born. It was generally entered upon early in life, not long after the completion of the time of studentship. Like the initiation rite, it was a solemn sacramental ceremony. It was an imperative law that the bride and groom should be of the same caste in the principal marriage; for, as polygamy was tolerated, a man might take one or more secondary wives from the lower castes. For certain grave reasons, the household might repudiate his wife and marry another, but a wife on her part had no corresponding right of divorce. If her husband died, she was expected to remain for the rest of her life in chaste widowhood, if she would be honored on earth, and happy with him in heaven. The later Hindu practice known as the Suttee, in which the bereaved wife threw herself on the funeral pyre of her husband, seems at this period to have been unknown. All knowledge of the Vedic texts was withheld from woman, but she had the right to participate with her husband in the sacrifices performed for him by some officiating priest. One important sacrifice remained in his own hands—the morning and evening offering of hot milk, butter, and grain to the fire on the hearth, which was sacred to Agni, and was kept always burning.

A strong tendency to asceticism asserted itself in the Brahminism of this period. It found expression in the fasts preceding the great sacrifices, in the severe penances prescribed for various kinds of sin, in the austere life exacted of the student, in the conjugal abstinence to be observed for the first three days following marriage and on certain specified days of the month, but, above all, in the rigorous life of retirement and privation to which not a few devoted their declining years. An ever increasing number of householders, chiefly Brahmins, when their sons had grown to man’s estate, abandoned their homes and spent the rest of their lives as ascetics, living apart from the villages in rude huts, or under the shelter of trees, eating only the simplest kinds of food, which they obtained by begging, and subjecting themselves to extraordinary fasts and mortifications. They were known as Sannyasis, or Yogis, and their severity of life was not so much a penitential life for past offenses as a means of acquiring abundant religious merits and superhuman powers. Coupled with these mortifications was the practice of Yogi (union). They would sit motionless with legs crossed, and, fixing their gaze intently on an object before them, would concentrate their thought on some abstract subject until they lapsed into a trance. In this state they fancied they were united with the deity, and the fruit of these contemplations was the pantheistic view of religion which found expression in the Upanishads, and left a permanent impress on the Brahmin mind.

IV. PANTHEISTIC BRAHMINISM

The marked monotheistic tendency in the later Vedic hymns had made itself more and more keenly felt in the higher Brahmin circles till it gave rise to a new deity, a creation of Brahmin priests. This was Prabjapati, lord of creatures, omnipotent and supreme, later known as Brahmā, the personal creator of all things. But in thus looking up to a supreme lord and creator, they were far removed from Christian monotheism. The gods of the ancient pantheon were not repudiated, but were worshipped still as the various manifestations of Brahmā. It was an axiom then, as it has been ever since with the Hindu mind, that creation out of nothing is impossible. Another Brahmin principle is that every form of conscious individuality, whether human or Divine, implies a union of spirit and matter. And so, outside the small school of thinkers who held matter to be eternal, those who stood for the supreme personal god explained the world of visible things and invisible gods as the emanations of Brahmā. They arrived at a personal pantheism. But speculation did not end here. To the prevailing school of dreamy Brahmin ascetics, whose teachings are found in the Upanishads, the ultimate source of all things was not the personal Brahmā, but the formless, characterless, unconscious spirit known at Atman (self), or, more commonly Brahmă. (Brahmā is neuter, whereas Brahmá, personal god, is masculine.) The heavens and the earth, men and gods, even the personal deity, Brahmā, were but transitory emanations of Brahmă, destined in time to lose their individuality and be absorbed into the great, all-pervading, impersonal spirit. The manifold external world thus had no real existence. It was Maya, illusion. Brahmă alone existed. It alone was eternal, imperishable.

This impersonal pantheism of the Brahmin ascetics led to a new conception of the end of man and of the way of salvation. The old way was to escape rebirths and their attendant misery by storing up merits of good deeds so as to obtain an eternal life of conscious bliss in heaven. This was a mistake. For so long as man was ignorant of his identity with Brahmă and did not see that his true end consisted in being absorbed into the impersonal all-god from which he sprang; so long as he set his heart on a merely personal existence, no amount of good works would secure his freedom from rebirth. By virtue of his good deeds he would, indeed, mount to heaven, perhaps win a place among the gods. but after a while his store of merits would give out like oil in a lamp, and he would have to return once more to life to taste in a new birth the bitterness of earthly existence. The only way to escape this misery was through the saving recognition of one’s identity with Brahmă. As so as one could say from conviction, “I am Brahmă,” the bonds were broken that held him fast to the illusion of personal immortality and consequently to rebirth. Thus, cultivating, by a mortified life, freedom form all desires, man spent his years in peaceful contemplation till death put an end to the seeming duality and he was absorbed in Brahmâ like a raindrop in the ocean.

V. EARLY HINDUISM

The pantheistic scheme of salvation just described, generally known as the Vedanta teaching, found great favor with the Brahmins and has been maintained as orthodox Brahmin doctrine down to the present day. But it made little progress outside the Brahmin caste. The mass of the people had little interest in an impersonal Brahmă who was incapable of hearing their prayers, nor had they any relish for a final end which meant the loss forever of conscious existence. And so, while the priestly ascetic was chiefly concerned with meditation on his identity with Brahmă, and with the practice of mortification to secure freedom from all desires, the popular mind was still bent on prayer, sacrifices, and other good works in honor of the Vedic deities. But at the same time, their faith in the efficacy of these traditional gods could not be but weakened by the Brahmin teaching that freedom from rebirth was not to be obtained by acts of worship to personal deities who were powerless to secure even for themselves eternal conscious bliss. The result was popular development of special cults of two of the old gods, now raised to the position of supreme deity, and credited with the power to secure a lasting life of happiness in heaven.

It was in the priestly conception of the supreme personal Brahmă that the popular mind found its model for its new deities. Brahmă was not a traditional god, and seems never to have been a favorite object of cult with the people. Even today, there are but two temples to Brahmā in all India. His subordination to the great impersonal all-god did not help to recommend him to the popular mind. Instead we find two of the traditional gods honored with special cults, which seem to have taken rise independently in two different parts of the country and, after acquiring a local celebrity, to have spread in rivalry over the whole land. One of these gods was the ancient storm-god Rudra, destructive in tempest and lightning, renewing life in the showers of rain, sweeping in lonely solitude over mountain and barren waste. As the destroyer, the reproducer, and the type of the lonely ascetic, this deity rapidly rose in popular esteem under the name of Siva, the blessed. The other was Vishnu, originally one of the forms of the son-god, a mild beneficent deity, whose genial rays brought gladness and growth to living creatures. His solar origin was lost sight of as he was raised to the position of supreme deity, but one of his symbols, the discus, points to his earlier character.

These two rival cults seem to have arisen in the fourth or fifth century B.C. As in the case of the personal god Brahmă, neither the worship of Siva nor of Vishnu did away with the honoring of the traditional gods and goddesses, spirits, heroes, sacred rivers and mountains and trees, serpents, earth, heaven, sun, moon, and stars. The pantheism in which the Hindu mind is inevitably cast saw in all these things emanations of the supreme deity, Siva or Vishnu. In worshiping any or all, he was but honoring his supreme god. Each deity was credited with a special heaven, where his devotees would find after death an unending life of conscious happiness. The rapid rise in popular esteem of these cults, tending more and more to thrust Brahminism proper in to the background, was viewed by the priestly caste with no little concern. To quench these cults was out of the question; and so, in order to hold them in at least nominal allegiance to Brahminism, the supreme god Brahmă was associated with Vishnu and Siva as a triad of equal and more or less interchangeable deities in which Brahmă held the office of creator, or rather evolver, Vishnu of preserver, and Siva of dissolver. This is the so-called Tri-murti (tri-form), or trinity, altogether different from the Christian concept of three eternally distinct persons in one Godhead, and hence offering no legitimate ground for suggesting a Hindu origin for the Christian doctrine.

More remarkable was the intimate association of other new deities—the creations of the religious fancies of the common people—with the gods Siva and Vishnu. With Siva two popular gods came to be associated as sons. One was Ganesha, lord of troops and mischievous imps, who has remained ever since a favorite object of worship and is invoked at the beginning of every undertaking to ensure success. The other was Scanda, who seems in great measure to have replaced Indra as the god of battle. Beyond the doubtful derivation of the name Scanda from Alexander, there is nothing to indicate that either of these reputed sons of Siva had ever lived the lives of men. Not so the gods that enlarged the sphere of Vishnu’s influence. In keeping with Vishnu’s position as god of the people, two of the legendary heroes of the remote past, Rama and Krishna, whom popular enthusiasm had raised to the rank of gods, came to be associated with him not as sons, but as his very incarnations. The incarnation of a god descending from heaven to assume a human of animal form as a sort of savior, and to achieve some signal benefit for mankind, is known as an avatar. The idea antedates Buddhism and, while applied to Brahmă and other gods, became above all a characteristic of Vishnu. Popular fancy loved to dwell on his avatar as a fish to save Manu from the devastating flood, as a tortoise to recover from the depths of the sea precious possessions for gods and men, as a boar to raise the submerged earth above the surface of the waters, but most of all as the god-men Rama and Krishna, each of whom delivered the people from the yoke of a tyrant. So popular became the cults of Rama and Krishna that Vishnu himself was largely lost sight of. In time the Vishnuites became divided into two rival schisms:the Ramaites, who worshipped Rama as supreme deity, and the Krishnaites, who gave this honor rather to Krishna, a division that has persisted down to the present day.

The evidence of the early existence of these innovations on Brahmin belief is to be found in the two great epics known as the “Ramayana” and the “Mahabharata.” Both are revered by Brahmins, Sivaites and Vishnuites alike, particularly the latter poem, which is held to be directly revealed. In the “Ramayana,” which belongs to the period 400–300 B.C., the legendary tales of the trials and the triumphs of the hero Rama and his faithful wife Sita were worked into a highly artificial romanbtic poem, largely in the interests of Vishnu worship. The “Mahabharata,” the work of many hands, was begun about the fifth century B.C. under Brahmin influence, and in the folowing centuries received additions and modifications, in the interests now of Vishnuism now of Sivaism, till it assumed its final shape in the sixth century of the Christian Era. It is a huge conglomeration of stirring adventure, popular legend, myth, and religious speculation. The myth centers chiefly around the many-sided struggle for supremacy between the evil tyrants of the land and the hero Arjuna, aided by his four brothers. The role that Krishna plays is not an integral part of the story and seems to have been interpolated after the substance of the epic had been written. He is the charioteer of Arjuna and at the same time acts as his religious advisor. Of his numerous religious instructions, the most important is his metrical treatise known as the “Bhagavad-gita,” the Song of the Blessed One, a writing that has exercised a profound influence on religious thought in India. It dates from the second or third century of the Christian era, being a poetic version of a late Upanishad, with its pantheistic doctrine so modified as to pass for a personal revelation of Krishna. While embodying the noblest features of Brahmin ethics, and insisting on the faithful performance of caste-duties, it proclaims Krishna to be the superior personal all-god who, by the bestowal of special grace helps on his votaries to the attainment of eternal bliss. As an important means to this end, it inculcates the virtue of Bhakti, that is a loving devotion to the deity, analogous to the Christian virtue of charity.

Unhappily for the later development of Vishnuism, the Krishna of the “Bhagavad-gita” was not the popular conception. Like most legendary heroes of folk-lore, his character was in keeping with the crude morals of the primitive age that first sounded his praises. The narrative portions of the epic show him to have been sly and unscrupulous, guilty in word and deed of acts which the higher Brahmin conscience would reprove. But it is in the fuller legendary story of his life as given in the so-called “Hari-vansa,” a later supplement to the epic, and also in some of the Puranas of the ninth and tenth centuries of our era, that the character of the popular Krishna appears in its true light. Here we learn that Krishna was one of eight sons of noble birth, whom a Herod-like tyrant was bent on destroying. The infant god was saved from the wicked designs of the king by being secretly substituted for a herdsman’s babe. Krishna grew up among the simple country-people, performing prodigies of valor, and engaging in many amorous adventures with the Gopis, the wives and daughters of the herdsmen. Eight of these were his favorites, but one he loved best of all, Radha. Krishna finally succeeded in killing the king, and brought peace to the kingdom.

Between this deified Hindu Hercules and Our Divine Lord, there is no ground for comparison, one only for contrast. That the idea of incarnate deity should be found in pre-Christian Hindu thought is not so remarkable when we consider that it answers to the yearning of the human heart for union with God. But what is at first sight astonishing is to find in the religious writings subsequent to the “Mahabharata” legendary tales of Krishna that are almost identical with the stories of Christ in the canonical and apocryphal Gospels. From the birth of Krishna in a stable, and his adoration by shepherds and magi, the leader is led on through a series of events the exact counterparts of those related of Our Divine Lord. Writers hostile to Christianity seized on this chain or resemblances, too close to be mere coincidence, in order to convict the Gospel writers of plagiarism from Hindu originals. But the very opposite resulted. All Indianists of authority are agreed that these Krishna legends are not earlier than the seventh century of the Christian Era, and must have been borrowed from Christian sources.

VI. LATER, OR SECTARIAN HINDUISM

The steady weakening of Brahmin influence, in consequence of the successive waves of foreign conquest, made it possible for the religious preferences of the huge, heterogeneous population of India to assert themselves more strongly. Both Sivaism and Vishnuism departed more and more strongly from tradition Brahminism, and assumed a decidedly sectarian character towards the older religion and also towards each other. With this weakening of Brahmin influence they absorbed the grosser elements of low-grade popular worship, and became abused by the accretion of immoral rites and groveling superstitions. While, on the one hand, the practice of asceticism was pushed to its utmost extremes of fanaticism, on the other the doctrine of bhakti was perverted into a system of gross sexual indulgence, for which the amours of Krishna and the Gopis served as the model and sanction. The Brahmin-caste distinctions were broken down, and an equality of all men and women was asserted, at least during the ceremonies of public worship. The Brahmin rites were in great measure replaced by others particular to each cult and held to be all-sufficient for salvation. Everywhere splendid temples arose to Siva, Vishnu, and his two human avatars; idols and phallic symbols innumerable filled the land; and each rival cult lauded its own special deity as supreme, subordinating all others to it, and looking down with more or less contempt on forms of worship other than its own. One factor which contributed strongly to the degradation of these sectarian forms of religion was the veneration of the Sakti, or female side, of these deities. Popular theology would not rest until each deity was supplemented with a wife, in whom the active nature of the god was personified. With Brahmă was associated an ancient river-goddess, Sarasvati, honored as the patroness of letters. Vishnu’s Sakti was Sri, or Lakshmi, patroness of good fortune. With Siva the destroyer there was associated the terrible, blood-thirsty, magical goddess Durga, or Kali, formerly delighting in human victims, now appeased with sacrifices of goats and buffaloes. Rama had his consort, Sita, and Krishna his favorite Gopi, Radha. The worship of these Saktis, particularly Siva’s consort Durga-Kali, degenerated into shocking orgies of drunkenness and sexual immorality, which even today are the crying scandal of Hinduism.

Such were the sectarian developments of post-epic times. They found expression in the inferior, quasi-historic Puranas, of the seventh and following centuries, and in the Tantras, which are more modern still, and teach the symbolic magic of Sakti-worship. Neither of these classes of writings is regarded by orthodox Brahmin as canonical.

Of the two hundred million adherents of Hinduism to-day, only a few hundred thousand can be called orthodox Brahmin worshipers. Sivaism and Vishnuism have overshadowed the older religion like a rank growth of poisonous weeds. In their main outlines, these two great sects have retained the characteristics of the Purana period, but differences of view on minor points have lead to a multiplication of schismatic divisions, especially among Vishnu-worshipers. Both sects, which today are fairly tolerant of each other, have a number of devotional and liturgical practices that are alike in kind, though marked by differences in sectarian belief. Both Sivaite and Vishnuite lay great stress on the frequent recital of the numerous names of their respective supreme gods, and to facilitate this piety, each carries with him, often about his neck, a rosary, varying in material and the number of beads according as it is dedicated to Siva or Vishnu. Each sect has an initiation rites, which is conferred upon the young at the age of reason and in which the officiating guru puts a rosary around the neck of the applicant and whispers into his ear the mantra, or sacred motto, the recital of which serves as a profession of faith and is of daily obligation. Another rite common to both is that in which the presiding officer brands on the body of the worshiper with hot metal stamps the sacred symbols of his sect, the trident and the linga of Siva, or the discus and conch-shell (or lotus) of Vishnu.

But in their highest act of ceremonial worship the two sects differ radically. The Sivaite takes his white stone pebble, the conventional phallic emblem which he always carries with him, and while muttering his mantra, sprinkles it with water and applies to it cooling Bilva leaves. Owing to its simplicity and cheapness, this rite is much in vogue with the ignorant lower classes. The Vishnu rite is less degrading but more childish. It consists of an elaborate and costly worship of the temple image of Vishnu, or more often of Rama, or Krishna. The image is daily awakened, undressed, bathed, decked with rich robes and adorned with necklaces, bracelets, crowns of gold and precious stones, fed with choice kinds of food, honored with flowers, lights, an incense, and then entertained with vocal and instrumental music, and with dancing by the temple girls of doubtful virtue, consecrated to this service. As Krishna is generally worshipped in the form of a child-image, his diversion consists largely in the swinging of his image, the spinning of tops, and other games dear to the heart of the child.

Siva, too, has his temples, vying in magnificence with those of Vishnu, but in all these, the holy place is the linga-shrine, and the temple worship consists in the application of water and Bilva leaves to the stone symbol. The interior walls of these, and of Vishnu temples as well, are covered with shocking representations of sexual passion. and yet, strange to say, these forms of religion, while giving a sanction to the indulgence of the lowest passions, at the same time inspire other devotees to the practice of the severest asceticism. They wander about in lonely silence, naked and filthy, their hair matted from long neglect, their bodies reduced to mere skin and bones by dint of incredible fasts. They will stand motionless for hours under the blazing son, with their emaciated arms uplifted toward heaven. Some go about with face ever turned upwards. Some are known to have kept their fists tightly clenched until their growing nails protruded through the backs of their hands.

VII. REFORM MOVEMENTS

Enlightened Hindus of modern times have made attempts to institute a reform in Hinduism by rejecting all idolatrous and immoral rites, and by setting up a purely monotheistic form of worship. Of these, the earliest and most noted was the so-called Brahmā Samaj (Congregation of Brahmā), founded in Calcutta in 1828, by the learned Rammohun Roy. He tried to combine a Unitarian form of Christianity with the Brahmin conception of the supreme personal God. After his death in 1833, differences of view as to the nature of God, the authority of the Vedas, and the obligation of caste-customs caused the society to split up into a number of small congregations. At present there are more than a hundred independent theistic congregations in India. Some, like the Arya Samaj, rest on the sole authority of the Vedas. Others are eclectic, even to the extent of choosing for devotional reading in their public services passages from the Avesta, Koran, and Bible. Few of them are altogether free from the taint of pantheism, and, being more like clubs for intellectual and moral improvement than for ritualistic forms of worship, they make but little progress in the way of conversion.

In short, Brahminism cannot succeed in reforming itself. Its earlier sacred books are steeped in the polytheism out of which it grew, and the pantheistic view of the world, to which it was afterwards committed, has been like a dead weight dragging it hopelessly into the stagnant pool of superstition, pessimism, and immorality. In virtue of its pantheistic attitude, there is no form of religion, high or low, that cannot be tolerated and incorporated into its capacious system. The indifference of Brahminism to the gross buses of Hinduism is, after all, but a reflex of the indifference of its supreme god. Sin loses most of its hideousness when it can be traced ultimately to the great impersonal Brahmâ. There is but one form of religion that has any prospect of reforming the religious life of India, and that is the Roman Catholic. For the shadow, pantheistic deity it can set form the One, Eternal, Personal Spirit and creator; for the crude Tri-murti, the sublime Trinity; and for the coarse and degrading avatars of Vishnu, the incarnation of the Son of God. It can replace the idolatrous and immoral Hindu rites with its own imposing liturgy, and substitute the Cross for the abominable linga.

Brahminism, being a natural religion and a privilege of Hindu birth, has never made any concerted attempt at proselytizing in foreign lands. But some years ago steps were taken by a few individuals of England to foist upon English-speaking people a new religious system embodying the pantheistic belief and magical superstition of the Vedanta school of Brahminism. This new system, known as Theosophy, was to embrace within its fold members of every form of religion, reconciling all differences of creed in the pantheistic view that all deities, high and low, are but transitory emanations of the supreme, incomprehensible Reality, devotion to which was the highest religion. This quasi-cult, which also made pretensions to the exercise of magical powers, soon met the ridicule and obloquy it deserved. It is practically obsolete at the present day.

Texts.—MUIR, Original Sanskrit Texts, 5 vols. (London, 1868–70); MÜLLER, Vedic Hymns in Sacred Books of the East, XXXII; OLDENBERG, Vedic Hymns, op. cit. XLVI; BLOOMFIELD, The Atharva Veda, op. cit., XLII; EGGELING, The Satapatha Brahmana. op. cit., XII, XXVI, XLI; MÜLLER, The Upanishads, op. cit., XV; OLDENBERG AND MÜLLER, The Grihya-Sutras, op. cit., XXIX, XXX; BÜHLER, The Sacred Laws of the Aryas, op. cit., II, XIV; IDEM, The Laws of Manu, op. cit., XXV; THIBAUT, The Vedanta-Sutra, op. cit. XXXIV, XXXVIII; TELANG, The Bhagavad-Gita, op. cit VIII; BURNOUF-ROUSSEL, Le Bhagavata Purana, 5 vols. (Paris, 1898).

General Treatises.—BARTH, The religions of India (London, 1882); MONIER-WILLIAMS, Brahminism and Hinduism, or Religious Thought and Life in India (London, 1891); IDEM, Hinduism (London, 1897); IDEM, Indian Wisdom (London, 1876); HOPKINS, The Religions of India (Boston, 1895); DUBOIS, Hindu Manners, Customs, and Ceremonies (Oxford, 1897); GOUGH, The Philosophy of the Upanishads and Ancient Indian Metaphysics (London, 1882); DEUSSEN, Das System des Vedanta (Leipzig, 1883); IDEM, Der Philosophie der Upanishads (Leipzig, 1899); KÆGI, The Rig-Veda (Boston, 1886); OLDENBERG, Die religion des Veda (Berlin, 1894); COLEBROOK, Miscellaneous Essays, 2 vols. (London, 1873); WEBER, The History of Indian Literature (London, 1892); DAHLMAN, Das Mahabharata (Berlin, 1895); SCHOEBEL, Las Ramayana in Annales du musee Guimet (Paris, 1888), XIII; DE LA SAUSSAYE, Lehb. der Religionsgesch. (Freiburg, 1905), II.

CHARLES F. AIKEN

Louis Braille

French educator and inventor, born 4 January 1809, at Coupvray, Seine-et-Marne, France; died 6 January, 1852. He became blind when three years of age, and at the age of thirteen was sent to the Institution for the Blind at Paris. There he showed a talent for intellectual studies and for music; when his instruction had been completed he was appointed professor in that institution. It was then that he invented his system of writing in raised or relief points for the blind. Before him, Valentin Haüy, the founder of the Institution for the Blind, had invented the method of printing in raised letters which allowed the blind to read by touch; Charles Barbier had invented a sonographic point system as distinguished from Haüy’s line or letter system and had devised a simple instrument by which the blind could emboss the words or print them in relief. But this system of writing, based on the sounds of the French language, was too conventional and did not furnish the signs necessary for punctuation and ciphers. Braille, keeping to Barbier’s point system and the principle of relief writing, found the means of representing, by the various combinations of six dots, not of the sounds but the alphabetical letters and all the signs of punctuation, and even of music. This invention, being alphabetic instead of sonographic, was a great advance in the education of the blind, and though it has been modified, at times, as to the combinations of dots (American, English, and English revised systems), the system is still, in most countries, the basis of methods for the education of the blind. The inventor set forth the principles of his system in his work: “Procédé pour écrire les paroles, la musique, et la plein-chant, à l’usage des aveugles,” printed in raised letters in 1829. Though this system cannot be said to be the definitive method of education and writing for the blind, the name of Braille will always remain associated with one of the greatest and most beneficent devices ever invented.

G.M. SAUVAGE

Nicolas de Bralion

French Oratorian and ecclesiastical writer, born at Chars-en-Vexin, France, c. 1600; died at Paris, 11 May 1672. He joined the Paris Oratory in 1619, and, in 1625, went to Rome, where he remained fifteen years at San Luigi dei Francesi, then an Oratorian establishment, devoting his time to research and literary work. There he published an Italian translation of Cardinal de Bérulle’s “Elévation” (1640) and of a portion of Ribadeniera’s “Saintly Lives.” He returned to Paris about 1640 and spent the rest of his life at the Church of St Honoré. Among other works he published “Vie de St. Nicholas, archeveque de Myre” (1646); “Pallium Archiepisopale” (1648—the first serious study published in France on the significance, tradition, and use of that vestment); “Histoire chretienne” (1656); “La curiosité de l’une et l’autre Rome” (1655- 59); “Caeremoniale Canoncorum” (1657—a practical guide on Roman lines); “Histoire de la sainte chapelle de Lorette” (1665).

JOHN B. PETERSON.

Donato Bramante

(Also called D’AGNOLO after his father Angelo)

Italian architect and painter, b. about 1444 at Monte Asdrualdo (hence, sometimes ASDRUALDINO); d. in Rome, 11 March, 1514. Nothing is known of his early youth. His early artistic development also, about which Vasari has made so many erroneous statements, is mostly a matter of conjecture. To-day, however, it seems fairly certain that Laurana, the architect of the ducal palace at Urbino, showed him the way to the impressive style of the High Renaissance. Bramante’s artistic activity is divided into two periods of which the first was spent in Milan and the other in Rome. His work in Milan is characterized by a pronounced picturesque, decorative style. In Rome, on the other hand, we find a style which is more proper to the High Renaissance, exemplified in works that are, as far as possible, free from all external decoration, impressive by reason of their proportions, and recalling the antique by their grandeur and power. In 1476 Bramante became the court architect of Lodovico Sforza (Il Moro), having been in Milan, as has been abundantly shown, from 1474. At first he seems to have been engaged principally as a painter, following the vigorous manner of Mantegna and Melozzo da Forlí. It is true that only scanty remains of his work at this time have been found. Such are the recently discovered fresco fragments, transported from the Casa Prinetti to the Brera (single figures of warriors, philosophers, poets, and singers); the more poorly preserved decorative paintings of the Casa Fontana, and among panel pictures undoubtedly the Scourging of Christ (Badia Chiaravalle near Milan). Bartolomeo Suardi, called Bramantino [cf. Suida in Jahrbuch der Kunstsammlungen des allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses (1905), 1 sqq.], was his assistant and rather weak imitator in the field of painting, but not his teacher as was thought by Vassari (ed. Milanesi-Sansoni, IV, 175). If Bramante occasionally devoted himself to Gothic, as he unquestionably did in some designs for the Milan cathedral, he exhibits from the start an excellent style, which, as Stile Bramantesco, became typical for the Renaissance architecture of Lombardy. It is characterized by ambitious proportions, internal concentration, a greater organic relation of parts, and by rich and fresh decorative forms.

His first great achievement in this line is the choir of the church of Santa Maria presso S. Satiro, begun in 1476. The choir has a flat end and a false apse, rendered in relieved perspective. The adjoining sacristy, octagonal in plan and surmounted by a dome, is charming on account of the richness of the interior articulation and most effective space-development. Its two interior stories are separated by a splendid terra-cotta frieze overlaid with bronze. The church came to have the same significance in Northern Italy as the Pazzi Chapel or the Sacristy of Santo Spirito in Florence. Still richer in ornament are the transept and choir of Santa Maria delle Grazie (1492–99), by which the superiority of the imposing new style over the Gothic can best be shown. In addition to these great churches, the Canonica, or canons’ residence, of San Ambrogio (1492, only half completed) and the remodelled court of the Ospedale Maggiore are the only examples of Bramante’s genius in Milan. A further development of this somewhat more decorative style to the larger, simpler proportions of the Roman period is suggested by the church of the Barnabites, Santa Maria di Capenuova in Pavia (1492), and also by the churches of Busto Arsizio and Santa Maria in Legnano. The magnificent articulation of the façade of Abbiategrasso shows in full development the powerful boldness of the Roman style whose growth, in Rome, was influenced not only by the antique, but also by the use of a more intractable material (travertine) which made small, detail treatment an impossibility. The date of this church is probably 1497 instead of 1477, as Geymüller read it. Other ecclesiastical structures of Lombardy upon which the influence or imitation of Bramante is perceptible, are the Cathedral of Como (south portal), the Pilgrimage Church at Cremona, and the Incoronata at Lodi.

Even greater is the number of structures indirectly influenced by Bramante in Northern and Middle Italy after the downfall of the Sforza in Milan (1499). Bramante at the end of the same year moved to Rome where he found in Alexander VI and still more in Julius II magnanimous patrons. Here, too, very little is known of his early work. It is still disputed whether or not the cloister of Santa Maria della Pace and the façade of the Church of the Anima can be ascribed to him. This is also true of the immense palace of Cardinal Raffaello Riario (the present Cancelleria) with the adjoining church of San Lorenzo in Damaso. On account of the inscribed dates (1489 and 1495) Gnoli ascribes them not to Bramante but to a Tuscan master, whereas Geymüller more correctly persists in ascribing them to Bramante, basing his view on considerations of style and on Bramante’s relation with the Sforzas and the Riarios; this would also explain Bramante’s working in Rome prior to 1492 [cf. Gnoli in Arch. stor. dell’ arte (1892), IV, 176 sqq.; Riv. d’Italia (1898); and Geymüller in Rassegna d’arte (October and December, 1901), I]. The Palace Giraud Torlonia is a structure similar to the Cancellaria in its beautiful rhythmic articulation, its simplicity, and its monumental character. Undoubtedly Bramante is the designer of the pretty little circular temple in the court of San Pietro in Montorio (completed in 1502). It is planned quite after the manner of an antique temple and is the first structure consciously designed and executed in the classic spirit, embodying the purest and simplest forms and the most agreeable proportions. A peristyle, never carried out, was intended to complete the building. Other works of Bramante’s first Roman period are the choir of Santa Maria del Popolo, the plan for the reconstruction of the Vatican, the extension of the Belvedere court, etc. The most majestic creation, not only of Bramante and of the High Renaissance, but in fact of Christian art, is the new St. Peter’s. According to Vasari, this was intended originally to enclose the magnificent tomb of Julius II, begun by Michaelangelo. But on account of the hopelessly ruinous condition of the old St. Peter’s, its rebuilding became an immediate necessity and, indeed, was determined upon shortly after the accession of Julius II, probably in connexion with the reconstruction of the Vatican. As early as 18 April, 1506, the cornerstone of the pier of St. Helena was laid, and a year later those of the other three piers at the transept were in position. The ways and means employed by Bramante in dealing with the old building brought him many reproaches for his lack of sentiment, and earned for him the nickname of Ruinante. Nevertheless, the incomparable significance of this creation must not be overlooked because of such romantic sentiments, nor must it be forgotten that the pope had Bramante’s plan carried out in spite of all remonstrances and of the enormous cost.

The artistic aims of the structure, or more especially of the original plans, are revealed by the numerous drawings, executed partly by the master himself, and partly by his assistants. Their critical examination and æsthetic appreciation are among Geymüller’s chief achievements. According to him this brilliant plan passed through three stages: in the first, only a small chapel for the tomb of Julius II was contemplated; in the second, the continuation of the erection of the new buildings undertaken during the reigns of Nicholas V and Paul II; only in the third stage was an entirely independent new building decided upon. For it Bramante had in view, from the first, a building of centralized plan, more particularly the plan of a Greek cross. In this he saw the architectonic ideal which combined the greatest harmony, the most serviceable space-relations, as well as a tendency to the monumentally sublime. It was only as an alternative, so far as can be judged from extant sketches, that the master seems to have reserved for himself the possibility of using the Latin cross, being evidently compelled to make concessions to the liturgical needs of the Church. According to the oldest drawings and a memorial medal of Caradosos, dated 1506, the original ground plan was a pure Greek cross, the termination of whose arms was apsidal on the interior, rectangular on the exterior. An immense dome was carried over the crossing. The predominant form of the interior was rotunda- like. For the four corners immense chapels were planned, which again repeated the Greek cross; they were crowned by smaller domes, and each was flanked on the exterior by a tower. Between the apses of the cross-arms and these corner-towers lay large vestibules for the chapels of the flanking domes. In a second design the cross-arms are rounded and enclosed by immense ambulatory halls. The main dome is encircled by an arcaded colonnade. The piers of the domes were enriched by niches emphasizing the dominant idea of the interior. In Milan, San Lorenzo, a church of centralized plan (see ), evidently served as a model for this design. The principal ideas, however, were taken from the Pantheon and the Temple of Peace. The master was permitted to see only the initial steps towards the execution of his plan. He was able, nevertheless, to establish firmly its main lines for the architects who followed, inasmuch as the dome-supports with their arches, the southern transept, and the side domes were carried out under his direction. After his death in 1514 the continuation of the work was entrusted to the aged Fra Giocondo, and soon after (on a recommendation made by Bramante during his lifetime) to Raphael. Later on, San Gallo and Peruzzi were placed in charge. Bramante’s plans suffered many changes and encroachments under the various directors until Michaelangelo returned to the fundamental ideas of the brilliant creator, and by the completion of the dome substantially carried the work to a conclusion. The curvature of the dome is not quite as bold and effective as that planned by Bramante; on the other hand it offers in its greater rise, a much more elegant and vigorous silhouette.

Under Julius II the influence of Bramante was predominant. Not only were the most daring works of architecture entrusted to him, but all other important building operations, and, in general, all artistic undertakings depended on his initiative and approbation, as the painting of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and of the loggie and the stanze, or halls, of the Vatican. In this way Raphael, his younger townsman, received the greatest possible aid and favour, whilst Bramante’s intrigues against Michaelangelo were positively spiteful according to Vasari. Through envy of Michaelangelo’s mighty genius, he assigned to this great master only unsuitable and unpleasant commissions. Though these tragically strained relations between the two great artists at the court of the Rovere pope seem to be a psychological puzzle, the key is to be found in the hard and self-torturing character of the Florentine. Bramante, on the contrary, was a man who enjoyed life in a happy and liberal way, and who knew how to live up to the dignity of his prominent position. The manifold character of his interests and activities is yet visible in his poems which have come down to us. With Michaelangelo, Raphael, and Leonardo, he is one of the great intellects of the High Renaissance; he resembles them also in the fact that only a small part of his plans was completed.

PUNGILEONI, Memorie interno alla vita di Bramante (Rome, 1836); VON GEYMÜLLER, Les projets primitifs de la basilique de S. Pierre (Paris, 1875); SEMPER in DORME, Kunst u. Künstler (Leipzig, 1879), III, nos. 56–57; RICCI, Gli affreschi di Bramante (Milan, 1902); CAROTTI, Leonardo, Bramante, e Raffaello (Milan, 1905).

JOSEPH SAUER

Brancaccio

An ancient and illustrious Neapolitan family, from which the “Brancas” of France were descended. The family founded the celebrated Brancacciana Library at Naples, gave prominent officials to the State and from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century, seven cardinals to the Church. It is represented today by two branches, the “Principi di Ruffano” and the “Principi Brancaccio.” The seven cardinals were as follows: (1) LANDOLFO, b. at Naples; d. at Avignon, 1312. He was created cardinal in 1294 by Celestine V, entrusted with difficult negotiations under Boniface VIII and Clement V, and attended the General Council of Vienne (1311–12). (2) LUIGI, a learned canonist, d. 1411. He was appointed by Innocent VII Nuncio to Naples, and made Archbishop of Taranto and cardinal (1408) by Gregory XII. (3) NICOLÒ, d. at Florence, 1412. He was made Archbishop of Cosenza in 1376; he sided with the antipopes Clement VII and Benedict XIII, and was created cardinal by the former in 1378. (4) RINALDO, d. at Rome, 1427. He was raised to the cardinalate by Urban VI in 1384, was present at the Council of Constance (1414–18), and filled several important missions. (5) TOMMASO, d. in Rome, 1427. He was created cardinal in 1411 by his uncle, John XXIII, and was present at the Council of Constance. His private life is said to have been far from exemplary. (6) FRANCESCO MARIA, b. about 1591; d. 1675. He became Bishop of Capacio, Viterbo, and Porto, and was created cardinal in 1634 by Urban VIII. Among other writings, he has left a dissertation on the question whether chocolate breaks the fast or not. (7) STEFANO, nephew of Francesco Maria, b. at Naples, 1618; d. 1682. He was nuncio at Florence and Venice, Bishop of Viterbo in 1670, and cardinal in 1681.

VAST in La grande encyc., VIII, 985.

N.A. WEBER

Francesco Brancati

Born in Sicily in 1607; he entered the Society of Jesus in 1624 and went to the Chinese Missions in 1637. For nearly thirty years he labored with admirable zeal and success in the province of Kiang-nan, building, it is said, more than ninety churches and forty-five chapels. In 1665, he was exiled from Peking to Canton, where he died in 1671 (according to Sommervogel, at Shanghai). He wrote and published numerous books in Chinese, most of which, being of great merit, were reprinted by the Jesuit missionaries in the nineteenth century. Among these are a treatise on the Eucharist, instructions on the Decalogue and on the Commandments of the Church, a refutation of divinations, and particularly a Catechism, entitled in Chinese, “Conversations of the Angels.” The Russian Archemandrite, who was at the head of the Orthodox mission at Peking, published in the second decade of the nineteenth century an extract of this catechism, adapted to the Greek Rite, in which he omitted everything that disagreed with the Russian schismatic teaching. Brancati also composed in Chinese several volumes of sermons and homilies for the Sundays and feats days of the ecclesiastical year. His work on the Chinese rites was published in two volumes at Paris in 1700. It bears the title “De Sinensium Ritibus politicis Acta,” etc.

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., II, 81–83; Michaud, Biog. univ., s.v.

B. GULDNER

Francesco Lorenzo Brancati di Lauria

Cardinal, Minor conventual, and theologian, b. at Lauria in the then Kingdom of Naples, 10 April, 1612; d. in Rome, 30 November, 1693. Stricken at the age of seventeen with a dangerous illness, he made a vow that in the event of his recovery he would enter the order of Minor Conventuals. In July, 1630, he received the religious habit at Lecce in Apulia, and shortly after the completion of his novitiate was called to Rome. He subsequently visited several of the most noted convents of his order in Italy, in which he taught philosophy and theology with marked success. In 1647, he was again recalled to Rome and was shortly afterwards made guardian of the convent attached to the Conventual Church of the Twelve Apostles, where the minister general of the order resides. In 1653, he was appointed to the chair of dogmatic theology in the Roman University, and was later made Consultor of the Congregation of the Holy Office by Alexander VII who used to call him “The right arm of the Apostolic See.” He was made chief librarian of the Vatican library by Clement X, and in recognition of his devoted services to the Church was raised to the cardinalatial dignity by Innocent XI in 1681. As cardinal he was actively connected with at least ten of the Roman Congregations. Brancati would in all probability have succeeded Innocent XI in the chair of St. Peter, had not the Spanish Government used its right of veto. As it was he received fifteen votes, the successful candidate being Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni who took the name of Alexander VIII. Brancati was a man of vast learning, singular piety, and unbounded liberality towards the poor. During the twelve years he was cardinal, he continued to keep faithfully to the observance of his obligations as a religious, remaining with his brethren in the Convent of the Twelve Apostles, the church of which he caused to be completed and adorned. He prepared himself for death in a most edifying manner, and had his tomb constructed with the inscription over it: “Ossa Fratris Laurentii Brancati de Lauria.” He died in the eighty-first year of his age.

Brancati is the author of several important works on theology and asceticism. Perhaps the most noted of these is the commentary on the third and fourth books of the “Sentences” of Duns Scotus which appeared at Rome in eight folio volumes between the years 1653 and 1682. In this work he treats exhaustively wellnigh all the subjects that pertain to special dogmatic theology. In his “Opuscula tria de Deo,” published at Rome in 1687, and at Rouen in 1705, he defends the gratuitousness of predestination which he endeavours to show was taught by St. Augustine, though reliable authorities are not agreed as to whether St. Augustine was explicit on this point. Brancati’s “Epitome Canonum,” which went through two editions at Rome, four at Venice, and two at Cologne, contains a complete list of all the canons to be found in the general and provincial councils, in the Decretals of Gratian and of Gregory IX, and in the encyclical letters and constitutions of the Roman Pontiffs up to the time of Alexander VII. Among his ascetical works may be mentioned the “Opuscula octo de oratione Christiana,” published at Rome in 1685, a work in which the author exhibits his profound knowledge of the spiritual life of which he became a master more perhaps by his own holy living than by the abstract study of asceticism. The life of Brancati, written in Italian by Gabriele Baba, was published in Rome in 1699.

Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1893), II, 346; Grammer in Kirchenlex, II, 1192.

STEPHEN DONOVAN

Branch Sunday

One of the medieval English names for Palm Sunday. The difficulty of procuring palms for that day’s ceremonies led to the substitution of boughs of yew, willow, or other native trees. The Sunday was often designated by the names of these trees, as “Yew Sunday” or by the general term “Branch Sunday.”

FEASY, “Ancient English Holy Week Ceremonial” (London, 1897), 53.sqq.; THURSTON, “Holy Week” (London, 1904), 225–229.

JOHN B. PETERSON.

Brandenburg

Formerly an electoral principality (the Mark of Brandenburg), and a diocese in the heart of the present Kingdom of Prussia, now a Province of Prussia and in ecclesiastical order an Apostolic Delegature.

I. HISTORY

The lands extending eastward from the Elbe to the Vistula, once inhabited by Germans, were invaded by Slavic tribes who, during the sixth century of the Christian era, pushed their way as far as the Elbe and the Saale in Thuringia. Charlemagne was the first to check their advance; later, Henry I attacked them, captured Brennabor, the stronghold of the Lusatians, and to safeguard his conquests established the North Mark. In 939 Otto I brought the country of the Hevelli under his power, placed the Slavic races as far as the Oder under tribute, and to further the work of their conversion founded the dioceses of Havelberg and Brandenburg (948), which in 968 were placed under the recently founded Archdiocese of Magdeburg. Nevertheless, Christianity made slow progress. The hate of the subdued for their German conquerors, far from abating, burst forth in a great uprising (983). The Slavs pressed on as far as the Elbe, conquered Brandenburg and Havelberg, and destroyed the seeds of Christian civilization that had been planted there. Emperors Henry II and Conrad II, it is true, again brought the Lusatians under the power of the German Empire, but the real evangelization of the country was not resumed until the time of Count Albert of Ballenstadt, founder of the Ascanian line, who had been made Margrave of the North Mark by Emperor Lothair II (1134). Albert entered into friendly relations with the Wendish prince, Pribislav, at that time the ruler of Brandenburg, was chosen by him as his heir, and in 1150 took possession of the land, assuming at the same time the title of Margrave of Brandenburg. He brought colonists from the Lower Rhine and Utrecht, who by the methods learned in their old homes reclaimed the swamp lands of the Mark for agricultural purposes; the cities were peopled anew; the Dioceses of Brandenburg and Havelberg re-established; churches and monasteries erected; and the Wendish population soon won over to Christianity and the German Empire. The most active part in the conversion of the country was taken by the Premonstratensians and Cistercians. Even before the death of their founder, St. Norbert, Bishop of Magdeburg (1126–34), the Premonstratensians founded the monastery of Gottesgnaden (1131) and later that of Leitzkau, near Magdeburg (1149), as well as monasteries at Jerichow (1144), the city of Brandenburg (1165), Gramzow in the Uckermark (c. 1180), and elsewhere. The bishoprics of Brandenburg and Havelberg and the seats in their respective cathedral chapters were held by members of this order. The Premonstratensians were equalled in zeal, particularly during the thirteenth century, by the Cistercians, who had been introduced into the country by Albert’s son and successor. Their foundations at Zinna (1170), Lehnin (1183), Chorin (1272), Jüterbog (1282), Himmelpforte (c. 1290), etc., were centres for the work of colonization, which was conducted on a large scale.

When the Ascanian line had become extinct, Emperor Louis the Bavarian annexed the Mark to his own territories (1320), but as early as 1373 the House of Wittelsbach was forced to relinquish Brandenburg, which in 1356 had been raised to the rank of an electorate, to Emperor Charles IV, who made it a dependency of the Bohemian Crown. Charles restored discipline, put an end to the extortion of the nobles, established the cathedral chapter of Tangermunde, and raised the Mark to renewed prosperity. The Dioceses of Brandenburg and Havelberg, however, ceased to be direct fiefs of the empire. Charles’s son, Sigismund, mortgaged the Mark (1388–1411) and in 1411 appointed as Statthalter (Governor) Burgrave Frederick of Nuremberg, who took possession in 1412, and, having overcome the opposition of the nobles, was solemnly invested with the Mark of Brandenburg as an elector of the German Empire (1417). In this way Brandenburg passed into the possession of the Hohenzollerns, who have since held it without interruption. While Frederick I occupied himself almost exclusively with matters connected with the empire, his son, Frederick II (1440–70), concentrated his attention on the government of his territory. Distinguished form his youth for great piety, he promoted the religious life of his subjects, worked for the reform of the clergy and monasteries, made the cathedral chapters of Brandenburg and Havelberg centres of religious and secular culture, founded the Order of the Swan for nobles, and received from Pope Nicholas V (1447) the right of appointment for the dioceses of the Mark. His grandson John, surnamed Cicero (1486–99), took the initiative in the establishment of the University of Frankfort on the Oder, opened in 1506, and destined to be for a time a stronghold of Catholicism in the religious wars stirred up by Luther.

Dissensions between bishops and people had cooperated with other unfortunate circumstances in the Mark of Brandenburg, to create conditions amid which the new teachings took rapid root. Elector Joachim I (1499–1535), whose younger brother, Albert, was made Archbishop of Magdeburg and Bishop of Halberstadt in 1513, and in 1514 Archbishop and Elector of Mainz and Archchancellor of the German Empire, was extremely hostile towards the religious innovations, and endeavoured to have the edict formally condemning Luther passed by the Reichstag, at Worms. He forbade the circulation of Luther’s translation of the Bible and the preaching of the new doctrines within his territory, and he prohibited his subjects from attending the University of Wittenberg.

Through the efforts of wandering preachers, nevertheless, Luther’s teachings soon gained a large following, not only in various parts of the Mark, but in the very family of the elector, counting among its adherents his cousin Albert, Grand Master of the German Order, his son-in-law, John of Anhalt, and even his wife, Elizabeth. Before his death, Joachim made his two sons, coheirs of his lands, solemnly promise fidelity to the Catholic Church. In spite of this, the younger, John of Kustrin, as early as 1538, became a Protestant and was followed by his subjects. The elder, Elector Joachim II (1535–70), influenced by his wife, daughter of the Polish king, Sigismund, at first held fast to the old Faith, though allowing Protestant clergymen to minister to several parishes in his territory; finally, at Spandau in 1539, he received the sacrament under both forms at the hands of Matthias von Jagow, Bishop of Brandenburg, likewise a partisan of the new doctrines. His defection was imitated by the majority of the cities in the Mark, Berlin at their head, and by the nobles almost as a body. The Bishops of Havelberg and Lebus alone offered steady resistance. In 1540 the electoral prince, by virtue of this authority as national bishop, issued a new church ordinance which was based on Luther’s doctrine of justification, though preserving many Catholic institutions, such as the episcopal system of organization, and many Catholic ceremonies and customs, even to the Latin Mass, feasts of the Blessed Virgin, processions, etc., that the common people might not realize how the Catholic Faith was being gradually withdrawn from them. Between 1540 and 1542 an ecclesiastical visitation of the whole Mark was undertaken; the secular and regular clergy who had withstood the innovations of the elector were mercilessly expelled; the foundation of religious orders of men were suppressed; convents were converted into asylums for noble maidens; much church property and many endowment funds were confiscated and mortgaged to nobles or cities; and church plate and valuables were melted down. In 15443, the Consistory was constituted the highest spiritual authority. The elector took advantage of the rights obtained through the Religious Peace of Augsburg (1555) to complete the work of the Reformation in his principality. After the death of the last of the bishops who held fast to the Church—those of Lebus (1555) and Havelberg (1561)—he succeeded in having his eldest grandson, later Prince Elector Joachim Frederick, appointed bishop, thus preparing for the future secularization of the bishoprics. The administration of the Diocese of Brandenburg he confided to his son, John George. This gave the Reformation a complete victory; whatever savoured of Catholic teaching was gradually eliminated, and by the beginning of the seventeenth century, Catholic services were absolutely prohibited. Not until the establishment of the Kingdom of Prussia were Catholics again allowed to hold public worship. (For the later history of the Mark of Brandenburg, see PRUSSIA.)

THE DIOCESE OF BRANDENBURG

The Diocese of Brandenburg, founded 1 October, 948, by Otto the Great, was bounded on the east by the Oder, on the west and south by the Elbe and the Black Elster, and on the north by the Uckermark. The first bishop was Thietmar or Ditmar (d. before 968); his successor, Dodilo, was murdered in 980. The succeeding bishops, after the heathen Wends again conquered Brandenburg (983), lived for the most part as coadjutors to other prelates in various places in Germany. Bishop Wigger, the fifteenth in line of succession (1138–60), was the first who was able to return to his diocese. Like his successors, as late as the middle of the fifteenth century, Bishop Wigger belonged to the Order of Premonstratensians, and formed his cathedral chapter form members of his order. Among the bishops of the fifteenth century, Stephen Bodeker (1421–59) distinguished himself by unusual activity along the lines of education and reform. Matthias von Jagow (1527–44), the forty-fourth bishop, was one of the most zealous promoters of the so-called Reformation; although in 1528 he bound himself by oath to the pope and to Elector Joachim I to withstand the Lutheran innovations, he installed a Lutheran preacher in the city of Brandenburg in the same year, released his priests from their vow of celibacy (1535), and introduced the administration of Communion under both forms. After the resignation of his successor, Joachim, Duke of Münsterberg Prince Elector John George was appointed administrator of the diocese, which by that very act was secularized. The cathedral chapter was preserved in name, and consists to the present day of one cathedral dean, one senior and seven cathedral capitulars; these positions are bestowed as sinecures on Prussian statesmen, generals, theologians, etc.

II. STATISTICS

Ecclesiastically, the former Mark of Brandenburg, with the city of Berlin and the greater part of the province of Pomerania, forms the “Apostolic Delegature for the Mark Brandenburg and Pomerania,” which is administered by the Prince-Bishop of Breslau as Apostolic Delegate, indirectly through the Dean of St. Hedwig’s in Berlin as delegate of the prince-bishop. According to the census of 1 December, 1900, the number of Catholics was 314,287; in 1907 it had reached 443,100. For the work of the ministry, the delegature is divided into 7 archipresbyterates with 82 spiritual charges, 6 curateships, etc. Catholic churches and chapels number 128. The clergy of the delegature include (in addition to the delegate of the prince-bishop, the army bishop for the Prussian troops, and the secretary of the delegation) 160 priests, viz.: 72 priests having charges, 54 chaplains and curates, 19 priests having other appointments, 15 living in community. The following orders of men have foundation (1907): Dominicans 1, with 10 priests and 7 lay brothers; Alexians 1, with 22 brothers; Poor Brothers of St. Francis 1, with 17 brothers, Orders and congregations of women have 42 foundations, with 733 sisters: Ursulines 1, with 24 choir sisters, 1 choir novice, and 12 lay sisters; the Sisters of the Good Shepherd 2, with 135 sisters; Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo 6, with 132 sisters; Dominicans of St. Catherine of Sienna 11, with 152 sisters; the Grey Nuns of St. Elizabeth 17, with 219 sisters; the Sisters of May 4, with 58 sisters; the Sisters of St. Joseph 1, with 13 sisters. The orders of women devote themselves almost exclusively to the care of the sick and the poor, and the education of young girls.

The Catholics of the delegature have but one private high school for boys; there are 4 Catholic high schools for girls, one of which is conducted by the Ursulines. There are 30 Catholic primary schools in Berlin and outside of Berlin 52; elsewhere Catholic children are given religious instruction by clergy and secular teachers, in some places in non-Catholic schools (140), elsewhere in churches and chapels, or in private houses. Religious orders of women conduct 15 protectorates for small children, and 9 schools of domestic economy and manual training.

The Catholic charitable institutions of the delegature are almost exclusively under the control of religious congregations of women. There are 10 hospitals and sanatoria, 5 homes for convalescents and those in need of rest, 1 institution for the mentally deranged, 1 maternity home, 29 institutions for visiting nurses, 7 homes for invalids, 6 for the care of small children, 8 creches and homes for children, 3 hospices for men, 9 refuges and boarding-houses for women, 8 homes for girls out of work, 15 institutions for the care of orphans and the instruction of first-communicants, and 4 homes for the shelter and reclamation of girls. It should be noted that in many cases several of these institutions form one establishment and are under the same management.

The organization of Catholics in the delegature has reached a high stage of development. There are about 300 religious associations. Among the confraternities and rosary unions are: 30 societies of the Holy Family, 50 societies of St. Charles Borromeo, 35 associations of young men and societies of St. Aloysius, 25 congregations of Mary and societies of young women. Among charitable associations, mention may be made of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, with about 40 conferences of men and women, and the Charitable Association (Charitasverband) for Berlin and other centres of charitable work. Among Catholic trade unions are Catholic labour unions, about 60; local societies of Christian workmen, 32; Catholic Gesellenvereine, 8; masters’ unions, 3; apprentices’ unions, 4; mercantile unions, 5; associations of teachers, 5; corporations of students, 10; national bureaus (Volksverein für das katholische Deutschland) and the Windthorst leagues. Catholic social organizations are numerous: societies of men, civic associations, choral unions and the like. (For politico-ecclesiastical relations see PRUSSIA.)

Gercken, Ausfuhrliche Stiftshistorie von Brandenburg (Wolfenbuttel, 1766); Raumer, Ueber die alteste Geschichte und Verfassung der Churmark Brandenburg (Zerbst, 1830); Riedel, Die Mark Brandenburg im Jahre 1250 (Berlin, 1831–32); Raumer, Regesta historiae Brandenburgensis (Berlin, 1836); Riedel, Codex diplomaticus Brandenburgensis (Berlin, 1838–69); Spieker, Kirchen- und Reformationsgeschichte der Mark Brandenburg (Berlin, 1839); Bassewitz, Die Kurmark Brandenburg (Leipzig, 1847–61); Winter, Die Pramonstratenser des 12. Jahrhunderts (Gotha, 1865); Idem, Die Cisterstienser des nordostlichen Deutschlands (Gotha, 1867); Brosien, Brandenburg im Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1887); Heidemann, Geschicite der Reformation in der Mark Brandenburg (Berlin, 1889); Steinmuller, Die Reformation in der Kurmark Brandenburg (Halle, 1903); Curschmann, Die Diozese Brandenburg (Leipzig, 1906); Amtlicher Fuhrer durch die furstbischofliche Delegatur (Berlin, 1906); Markische Forschungen (Berlin, 1841–87); Forschungen zur brandenburgischen und preussischen Geschichte (Berlin, 1888-); Markisches Kirchenblatt (Berlin, 1857-).

JOSEPH LINS

Edouard Branly

French physicist and inventor of the coherer employed in wireless telegraphy, born at Amiens, 23 October, 1846. After receiving his early education at the Lycée of St. Quentin, his scientific studies were begun at the Lycée Henri IV at Paris, and in 1865 he entered the Ecole Normale Superieure. In 1868 he became Licentiate in mathematics and physical science, and also agrégé in physical and natural science. After occupying a professor’s chair at the Lycée of Bourges, he was appointed chef des travaux in 1869 and four years later he was made director of the Laboratory of Instruction in the Departrnent of physics at the Sorbonne. In the same year (1873) he won the doctorate in science with a thesis entitled “Electrostatic phenomena in Voltaic Cells.” In 1876 he resigned his post at the Sorbonne to become professor of physics at the Catholic University in Paris. He then took up the study of medicine, obtaining his degree in 1882, and thereafter divided his time between the practice of medicine, especially of physiotherapy and electrotherapy, and his researches in physics at the Catholic University.

Dr. Branly is best known by his researches concerning radio-conductors, and particularly by his so-called coherer. He began his studies in this field in 1890, being led to undertake them by observing the anomalous change in the resistance of thin metallic films when exposed to electric sparks. Platinum deposited upon glass was first employed. The effect was at first attributed to the influence of the ultraviolet light of the spark. The variations in the resistance of metals in a finely divided state were even more striking, and they were shown by Dr. Branly to be due to the action of the electrical, or Hertzain, waves of which the spark was the source. The further experiment led to the coherer, which is simply a glass or ebonite tube containing metallic filings which connect the two ends of a wire conductor entering the tube. When the tube is made part of a battery circuit, the filings ordinarily offer a very great resistance to the passage of a current. But if a spark be produced in the neighbourhood between the terminals of an induction coil, or by the discharge of a Leyden Jar, the resistance of the filings is diminished, being no longer measured in millions but in hundreds of ohms. Upon tapping the tube the filings regain their normal resistance. This simple device was employed by Lodge in his researches and formed an important part of Marconi’s successful system of wireless telegraphy. In fact the coherer first made wireless telegraphy possible. It serves as receiver being placed in series with a relay actuating a Morse sounder.

When electrical waves, sent out at a distant station according to an established code, impinge upon it, its resistence diminishes sufficiently to enable the relay to act and this in turn reproduces the signals in the sounder. A tapper automatically restores the resistance of the filings. Dr. Branly has given the name of radio-conductors to bodies which, like filings, can be made conductors or non-conductors at will. A number of other forms have since been devised, and he hirnself has found that the tripod coherer, composed of a metal disk making contact with a polished steel plate by means of three steel legs, is more sensitive and uniform in its action than the tube coherer. He has also applied his radio-conductors to “telemechanics without wires,” i. e. to the production of divers mechanical effects at a distance by means of electrical waves. Among Dr. Branly’s other researches have been those relating to the effect of ultra violet light upon positively and negatively charged bodies (1890–93), electrical radio-conductivity of gases (1894), etc. It may be noted germ of the “antennae,” employed particularly in long distance telegraphy, may be found in his papers published in 1891.

Dr. Branly became Commander of the Order of St. Gregory the Great in 1899 and was nominated Chevalier of the Legion of Honour in 1900 for “having discovered the principle of wireless telegraphy.” He received the grand prix at the Paris Exposition, 1900, for his radio-conductors, and the prix Osiris, in 1903, from the Syndicate of the Press. He was also made a titular member of the Pontifical Academy dei Nuovi Lincei. Besides his papers published chiefly in the “Comptes Rendus,” Dr. Branly is the author of a “Cours élémentaire de physique” (5th ed., 1905); and “Traite élémentaire de physique” (3d ed., 1906). For various types of coherer and other apparatus employed in wireless telegraphy, cf. Collins, “Wireless Telegraphy” (New York; 1905).

H.M. BROCK

Sebastian Brant

A German humanist and poet, born at Stasburg in 1457 or 1458; died at the same place, 1521. He attended the University of Basle where he at first studied philosophy, but soon after abandoned this for law, obtaining in 1489 the degree of Doctor of Canon and Civil Law. Prior to this, from 1484, Brant had begun to lecture at the university, practising his profession at the same time. He wrote a number of poems in Latin and German in which he set forth his religious and political ideals. The election of Maximilian as emperor had filled him and many other patriots with high hope. To see the emperor the supreme temporal ruler of Christian nations, and the Church the supreme spiritual ruler on earth was his one great desire and henceforth coloured all his poems. Especially did he hope for the restoration of imperial power in Germany and the strengthening of the realm. But he was doomed to disappointment. In 1499 Basle was separated from the empire and became a member of the Swiss confederacy. Brant’s position here now became untenable, and he decided to change his residence. 1494 he had published his poem “The Ship of Fools,” which had won him great popularity. Geiler von Kaisersberg, the famous Strasburg preacher, had made it the basis of a series of sermons, and he now recommended the appointment of Brant to the vacant position of city-syndic in Strasburg. The poet accepted the offer, and in 1501 he returned to his native city, where two years later he was appointed town-clerk and soon rose to considerable prominence. The remainder of his life was uneventful. Towards the great religious movement of his time, the Reformation, he maintained an attitude of passive indifference. Repeatly he served his city in an official capacity, the last time in 1520, as spokeman of an embassy sent to the newly elected Emperor, Charles V, to obtain for Strasburg the usual confirmation of its ancient privileges.

The work to which Brant owes his fame is the “Narrenschiff” (Ship of Fools), a long didactic, allegorical poem, in which the follies and vices of the time are satirized. All the fools are loaded in a ship bound for Narragonia, the land of fools. But this plan is by no means carried out systematically, many descriptions being introduced which have no connection with the main idea. The resulting lack of unity, however, has its advantage; for it enables the poet to discuss all kinds of social, political, and religious conditions. Not only follies in the usual sense of the word are satirized, but also crimes and vices, which are conceived of as follies in accordance with the medieval way of thinking. Hence among the fools appear such people as usurers, gamblers, and adulterers. A chapter is devoted to each kind of folly and there are one hundred and twelve chapters in which one hundred and ten kinds of fools pass muster. As a work of art the poem does not rank high, though its tone is serious and earnest, especially where the poet pleads for his ideals, as in chapter xcix, entitled “Von abgang des glouben” (on the decline of faith). Knowledge of self is praised as the height of wisdom. The “Narrenschiff” enjoyed a tremendous popularity in Germany, which is attested by the numerous editions that appeared in rapid succession. But its fame was not confined to Germany. It was translated into Latin by Jacob Locher in 1497 (Stultifera Navis), into French by Paul Riviere in 1497 and by Jehan Droyn in 1498. An English verse translation by Alexander Barclay appeared in London in 1509, and again in 1570; one in prose by Henry Watson in London, 1509; and again 1517. It was also rendered into Dutch and Low German.

Besides the “Narrenschiff” Brant wrote religious and political poems in Latin and Gerrnan. He also edited and translated a number of legal and theological treatises. The most complete edition of the “Narrenschiff” is that of Father Zarncke (Leipzig, 1854 ) which contains also selections from Brant’s other works. Other editions are by Karl Goedeke (Leipzig, 1872) and F. Bobertag (in Kurschner’s Deutsche National Litteratur, XVI). A modern German translation was made by Karl Simroek (Berlin, 1972). A clear edition of the English translation of Barclay, by T. M. Jamieson, appeared at Edinburgh in 1874 in 2 vols.

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Pierre de Bourdeille, Seigneur de Brantôme

One of the most famous of French writers of memoirs, b. in 1539, or a little later; d. 15 July, 1614. He was the son of a nobleman of Perigord and spent his childhood at the court of the Queen of Navarre. He studied at the College of France, at Paris, and at the University of Poitiers. When his education was completed he returned to court at a date not later than 1556, for he saw Mary Stuart “at the age of thirteen or fourteen, in the presence-chamber of the Louvre, publicly recite a Latin oration which she had composed, before King Henry, the queen and all the court.” In 1557 Bourdeille was granted the Abbey of Brantôme, the name of which he took.

Brantôme’s life explains his writings, for it is the life of a traveler, a soldier, and a courtier. He himself in a few lines thus sums up its characteristics: “From the time when I began to outgrow subjection to father, and mother, and school, besides the journeys I made to the wars and the courts in France, I have made seven, when there was peace, outside of France to find adventure by war, or by seeing the world, I was in Italy, Scotland, England, Spain, Portugal-then in Italy again, at Malta for the siege, at La Goulette in Africa, in Greece, and other foreign places, which I have liked a hundred times better for sojourn than my own country, having the disposition of wandering musicians who love the houses of others better than their own.” In 1558 he went for the first time to Italy. He returned to France only to leave it again in the suite of Mary Stuart who went to Scotland to take possession of her kingdom. Brantôme has left a touching account of this journey of the unfortunate queen. In 1562 he took part in the first civil war between the Catholics and Protestants of France and was present at the battle of Dreux, his first engagement. Then he began again to travel, going to Portugal, Spain, and to Malta; at this last place he spent three months and a half, the active and adventurous life of the Knights pleasing him so greatly that he thought for a moment of entering the order. On his return to France he took part in the second and third civil wars, was present at the battles of Meaux and St.-Denis, at the engagement at Jarnae, and the siege of La Rochelle. His military career came to an end in 1574 after the campaign in Périgord. The office of gentleman of the bed-chamber kept him near King Henry III, and his journeys now were merely to follow the court, where all that interested him seems to have been the love intrigues, the duels, the rivalries, and the assassinations.

Notwithstanding the services he had rendered, his bravery, and the amusement which his Gascon animation afforded the king, Brantôme never obtained an important post, but remained among “the minor attendants.” This made him indignant and he contemplated going into the Spanish service when an accident-a fall from his horse-put an end to his active life. An invalid for four years, he retired to his chateau Richemond and resolved, in order to pass the time, to take up his pen and recount his past life. This was the occasion and the beginning of his career as a writer. But for this fortunate accident posterity would not have had the precious “Mémoirs” of Brantôme and would have lost in them an unequaled source of instruction concerning the men and affairs of the sixteenth century. The works of Brantôme include: “Vies des capitaines étrangers et francais”; “Vies des dames illustres”; “Vies des dames galantes.” His manner of writing is between the style of a biography and that of a personal memoir. At times he himself appears in his recital and most often he relates what he has personally seen. He has the most important qualification for a writer of memoirs: curiosity. Wherever he went, and he traveled in countries of all kinds, he observed, he listened, he asked questions, he informed himself. But he has no power of criticism; he is a doubtful witness. He has moreover, no sense of morality, in the modern meaning of the word. He admires but one thing in men and that is bravery; that this courage may be of a criminal character is of little consequence to him. He is not the man to bear malice towards others under pretext that they have “some little trifle of murder” on their conscience. In like manner he has few scruples either as to a choice of means or as to the sources of profit and ways of making gain. He writes in one place: “Nothing is so delightful, so sweet and attractive as spoils of any kind, whether gained by land or by sea.” And he is strongly suspected of having plundered his benefice. In truth, when he talks of “honesty” and “virtue” he means what the Italians of that age called virtu, that is, personal courage, force, and elegance. Above all other spots Brantôme enjoyed the chamber and antechamber of the queen. He was never perfectly happy except when surrounded by the ladies who formed the real ornament of the court. This court of Catherine de Medici and its “flying squadron” of three hundred ladies made his paradise on earth. “Never since the world was made has its equal been seen.” He made himself the historiographer of these dames of the Renaissance, both of the famous and of the notorious. Among his numerous portraits mention should be made of those of his favorites, Marguerite of Navarre and Mary Stuart. Light and frivolous, Brantôme passes over without mention some of the occurrences of his time of the greatest importance and most fraught with consequences. But we owe to him all sorts of small details, fingerposts to uses of the times. This brilliant and corrupt society, stamped with the characteristics of the sixteenth century, lives again in his “Mémoirs.”

Brantôme is an uneven, incorrect, and rambling writer, but his works contain clever witticisms, imagination, and unexpected turns. He took more pains with his style than one would be apt to think, and sought renown as a man of letters. He directed his heirs to have the writings printed which he had made and composed “by his understanding and imagination, all very carefully corrected with much pains and time . . . I wish that the said impression be in beautiful and large type and in a stately volume in order to appear better. Otherwise I should lose my trouble and the glory that is due me.” His desires, however, were not granted at once. His works did not appear for the first time until 1655, and then in a very imperfect and incorrect edition. It was not until the eighteenth century that his reputation, one of not very high order, was established. His writings are regarded, above all, as a collection of dubious anecdotes. From him the chroniclers of scandalous stories, the Tallemants des Réaux and the Bussy-Rabutins, are descended.

BRANTÔME, (Euvres, ed. by LALANNE in publications of the Societe de l’Histoire de France (11 vols., Svo); LALANNE, Brantôme, sa vie et ses ecrits; DOUMIC, Brantôme in Eltudes sur la litterature francaisse, II.

RENÉ DOUMIC

Memorial Brasses

Just when memorial brasses first came into use is not known; the earliest existing dated examples are of the thirteenth century. They apparently originated from a desire to produce memorials of greater durability than the incised stone and marble slabs then in use, and their lasting value has been proved by the fact that they are incomparably in better condition than contemporary incised slabs of the hardest stone. The material of which they were made was principally manufactured at Cologne and thence exported to all parts of Christendom; it is called laton, an alloy of copper, zinc, lead, and tin, beaten into thick plates of various sizes. England was the largest consumer, and in spite of the rapacious plunderers of the Reformation, Puritanic violence, and neglect, between three and four thousand brasses of the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries have survived. The persons commemorated were as a rule represented upon the plates usually life size, by deeply incised lines with very little attempt at shading, surrounded by architectural and heraldic accessories and inscriptions. In some cases the incisions were emphasized by black and red enamels, while in others the brasses were further embellished by the introduction of many-colored Limoges enamels. These memorials attained their greatest artistic excellency in the fourteenth century, and then slowly deteriorated, becoming very much debased during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I, reaching their lowest type in the eighteenth century, when they ceased to be employed until the Gothic revival brought them again into use. A great deal of time has been given by archaeological investigators to the study of monumental brasses, and many finely illustrated works on the subject have been published; almost every county in England has one or more books upon those with in its borders. Haines’s “Manual of Monumental Brasses,” with its 200 illustrations, is invaluable to the student; while the magnificent folio volume of colored plates issued in 1864 by J. G. and L.A. B. Waller covers the ground of English brasses, and that of W. F. Creeny (London, 1884), fully describes those on the Continent. Military brasses can be studied in the transactions of the Yorkshire Architectural Society for 1885, and a history of the destruction of all kinds of brasses during the progress of the Reformation in Weever’s “Ancient Funeral Monuments” (London, 1731).

CARYL COLEMAN

Charles Etienne, Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg

Born at Bourbourg (Département du Nord), France, 1814; died at Nice in January, 1874. He left France for Canada in 1845 and was for a short time professor of ecclesiastical history at Quebec. In 1846 he was at Boston as vicar-general of that diocese, and then returned to Europe where he spent two winters at Rome, searching archives for documents relative to Spanish America. In 1848 he went to Mexico and became chaplain of the French Legation at that city. In 1851 he returned to Paris until 1854, when he sailed for New York and from there to the Isthmus and Central America, visiting Nicaragua, San Salvador, and Guatemala. He arrived in the latter City 1 February, 1855, and was made ecclesiastical administrator of the district of Rabinal in Vera Paz which position he occupied for a year. In 1857 he was again in France. In the years 1859 and 1860 he visited the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and Chiapas, also parts of Guatemala. In 1864 he became attached to the French scientific mission to Mexico, but political events in that republic drove him back to Guatemala in 1865, whence he returned to Europe. Exhausted by his long arduous, and often dangerous labors, he died at Nice at the age of sixty. While an ecclesiastic worthy of high respect, and a teacher who has left a good record in the short period he devoted himself to instruction, Brasseur de Bourbourg was, above all, an indefatigable student of the American Indian of his past and present. Hence the many and protracted journeys in Mexico and Central America his permanent stay among aboriginal tribes, and his frequent visits to Europe were often made for the purpose of delving into archives for ethnographic linguistic, and historic material from the past. He collected a large number of manuscripts and prints dating from early times in Central America, and improved his apostolic labors among the Indians for ethnographic purposes. His publications embrace the period from 1857 to 1871, and the value of these publications, if not unimpeachable, is still great. His defects were, at the outset, too great an enthusiasm and too vivid a fancy, and his intercourse with Prescott, whom he personally knew, was not calculated to lessen these failings. Later on, he was led to tread a very dangerous field, that of tracing relationships between American peoples and Eastern civilization and, as he advanced in years, the connection between the Old World and the New in pre-Columbian times, while not impossible, assumed m his mind the form of a fact absolutely certain. His main works are: “Histoire des Nations civilisees du Mexique et de l’Amérique centrale” (Paris 1857–59, 4 vols.); “Voyage sur l’Isthme de Tehuantepec dans l’état de Chiapas et la République de Guatémala, 1859 et 1860” (Paris, 1861); “Popol Vuh, le Livre sacré des Quichés, &c.” (Paris 1861) “Grammaire Quich:ée et le drame de Rabinal Achí” (Paris, 1862); “Quatre Lettres sur le Mexique” (Paris, 1868); “Cartas para servir de Introducción á la Historia primitiva de las Naciones civilizadas de la América setentrional” (Mexico, 1851); “Relation des choses du Yucatan” (Paris, 1864). In this work, which is a translation of the manuscript by Bishop Landa, the so-called Maya characters are given. Their value and significance are not yet fully established; “Monuments aneiens du Mexique” (Palenque, etc., Paris, 1866), “Manuscrit Troano” (Paris, 1869–70); “Bibliothèque mexico-guatémalienne” (Paris, 1871).

With exception of short notices in some encyclopedias, there exists, apparently, no printed record of the life of Brasseur de Bourbourg. His own works, chiefly the Introduction to the Histoire des nations civilisees etc., furnished the chief data for the above sketch.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Johann Alexander Brassicanus

A German humanist, born probably at Cannstatt, 1500; died at Vienna, 25 November, 1539. He was a member of an ancient family of Constance, named Köl or Köll, latinized, Brassicanus, his father being Johannes Brassicanus, the Wurtemberg humanist who taught in the Latin school at Urach up to 1508, and later in the pedagogium at Tubingen, but was chiefly known as a leader in the movement for the promotion of the humanities and as the author of a grammar then widely used, “Institutiones grammatiae,” thirteen editions of which were issued between 1508 and 1519. From his father, who died at Wildaad in 1514, Johann Alexander received an excellent education, which brought his intellectual powers to at early maturity, enabling him to matriculate at the University of Tubingen 13 January, 1514 and take his degree as Master of Arts in 1517. About this time he first gave evidence of his fertile Poetic powers, and in 1518 he received the title of Poeta et orator laureatus. His coronation as poet must have taken place early in 1518, emperor Maximilian at the same time granting him a coat of arms. The greatest humanists of the time kept in correspondence with Brassicanus and are loud in praise of intellectual powers. He lectured for a short time before the Faculty of Arts on the on the Latin poets; he also edited the eclogues of Calpurnius and Nemesianus which he had discovered. When, after Bebel’s death (1516) a reaction once more set in against humanism, he availed himself of the first opportunity to absent himself temporarily from the scene of his former labours. In 1519 he attached himself to the suite of the royal orator Maximilian von Bergen, who was sent on various diplomatic missions by the king. After a sojourn in the Netherlands (1520) Brassicanus returned to Tabingen (1621) to pursue his study of law in connection with his work as a teacher. In this way he was brought into intimate relations with lngolstadt, he received there the degree of Doctor of Laws, also succeeding Reuchlin in the important chair of philology (1522). His position in this stronghold of Catholicity, however, soon became untenable, as he, like so many orthodox minds of the time who openly sympathized with the reforming activities of Luther, was suspected of being a confirmed Lutheran. At this juncture he found friends ready to assist him, in Johann Faber and Johann Camers, who worked zealously for his appointment to the University of Vienna, and whose influence helped to give a more orthodox tone to his opinions on religious questions. In 1524 he was called to the University of Vienna as professor of rhetoric, next receiving the professorship of the laws of the Empire, and not till 1528 the coveted chair of Greek literature, in addition to which he still retained that of jurisprudence. His disapproval of the Lutheran movement was now; most pronounced, partially as a result of a more profound study of the Church Fathers; he was particularly exercised over the disastrous influence of Lutheranism on educational activities. On the appearance of the Turks before Vienna (1529) he fled his native city, where he remained for a considerable period of time. The succeeding years are marked by his editions of the Fathers and the classics. Often in poor health, he died at the prime of life, leaving only a very extensive library, as his material resources had at all times been meagre. His writings give no clear conception of his intellectual importance which his contemporaries found so noteworthy. Among his works of independent authorship are “Oratio ad principes post obitum Maximiliani” (1519); “Caesar” (1519); “In divum Carolum electum Romanorum regem” (1519); and other occasional poems and addresses. These do not rise above the average level of the occasional literature of humanism. No subtler meaning and no original or striking thoughts are concealed under the mediocre forms of expression. For the history of the University of Vienna, on the contrary, Brassicanus is of great importance, being numbered among the most vigorous representatives of the humanist movement.

Among the editions issued by Brassicanus, the following are particularly well known: “Luciani Samosatensis Traegoediae” (1527); Salviani, “De vero judicio et providentiâ” (Basle, 1530); Gennadius “De sinceritate christianae fidei dialogus seu de via salutis humanae” (Vienna, 1530); “Enchiridion de christianarum rerum memoria sive epitome historiae ecclesiasticae per Eusebium descriptae auctore Haymone” (Hagenau, 1531); “Salonii Dialogi duo” (ibid., 1532); Pothonis, “De statu domus Dei” and “De magna domo sapientiae” (ibid., 1532).

JOSEPH SAUER

St. Braulio

Bishop of Saragossa, date of birth unknown, d. at Saragossa c. 651. In 631 he succeeded his brother John, whose archdeacon he had been, in the episcopal See of Saragossa. His influence extended not only to the bishops, but also to the Kings of Spain. In one of his letters (no. xxxvii) he urged King Chindaswinth to appoint a co-regent in the person of his son Receswinth. To his insistence with his friend Isidore of Seville, is due the inception and completion of the latter’s “Libri Etymologiarum.” Braulio was present at the synods held in Toledo in 633, 636, and 638. The members of the last-mentioned council selected him to write an answer to Pope Honorius I, who had reproached the Spanish bishops with negligence in the performance of their pastoral duties. Braulio in his letter (no. xxi) cleverly and fearlessly defended the conduct of the Spanish episcopate. Towards the end of his life, he complained bitterly of the loss of his eyesight. He was buried in the church of Nuestra Senora Merced del Pilar, where his tomb was discovered in 1290. His feast is celebrated in Spain on 18 March, while the Roman Martyrology has it on the 26th.

Braulio is the author (1) of a life of St. Emilian (Æmilianus Cucullatus, or San Millan de la Cogolla), a priest of the Diocese of Turiasso, now Tarazona, and the writer of a hymn in honour of the same saint. (2) A collection of forty-four letters, of which there is no mention in antiquity, was discovered in the eighteenth century in the Spanish city of Leon. They form a valuable addition to our knowledge of the history of Spain under the Visigoths and were first published in the “Espana Sagrada” of Florez (XXX, 1775). (3) The division and titles of the “Etymologiarum Libri 20” of St. Isidore and a eulogistic notice of the latter’s life, together with an enumeration of his writings, are also Braulio’s work. This notice and catalogue he added to the “De Viris Illustribus” of Isidore. It is found printed in Migne, P.L. (LXXXI, 15–17). (4) Braulio’s authorship of the “Acts of the Martyrs of Saragossa” is usually admitted. He may also have written the “Passio S. Leocadiae.” His works are accessible in P.L., LXXX, 639–720.

Gams, Kirchengesch. von Span (Ratisbon, 1862–79), I, 320–329, 344; II, ii, 145–149, 224–227; Venables in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v.; CHEVALIER, Rep. bio-bib. (Paris, 1905), I, 692; Anal. Boll. (1905), XXIV, 153.

N.A. WEBER

Placidus Braun

A Bavarian historian, b. at Peiting near Schongau in Upper Bavaria, 11 February, 1756; d. at Augsburg, 23 October, 1829. At thirteen he went as a choir-boy of the Benedictine Abbey of Saints Ulrich and Afra in Augsburg and was a pupil for six years in the Jesuit gymnasium of the same city. He entered the Abbey of Saints Ulrich and Afra as a novice, 13 May, 1775, and was ordained priest, 18 September, 1779. In 1785 he was made head librarian of the abbey. He arranged and catalogued the library and made known to scholars the rarities it contained through the fine descriptions he gave of its early printed books and manuscripts in two works which he published while librarian. These publications were: “Notitia historico-litteraria de libris ab artis typographiae inventione usque ad annum 1479 impressis, in bibliotheca monasterii ad SS. Udalricum et Afram Augustae extantibus. Pars I: Augs. Vindel. 1788. Pars II: Notitia . . . libros complectens ab anno usque ad annum 1500 inclusive impressos. Ibidem, 1789” and “Notitia Historico-litteraria de codicibus manuscriptis in blbliotheca liberi ac imperialis monasterii O. S. Benedicti ad SS. Udalricum et Afram extantibus. Aug. Vindel., 6 partes 1791–1796.” After the abbey was dissolved, and its building converted into a barrack in 1806, Braun lived with a number of fellow-members of the order in a house near the church of St. Ulrich.

In these new surroundings he endeavoured to observe the rules of the order as far as possible, gave assistance in pastoral work, and devoted himself to the study of the history of the Diocese of Augsburg and its suppressed monastic foundations. He was made a foreign member of the Academy of Sciences of Munich, 3 August, 1808, which honour he accepted, but he declined to settle in Munich. Among his historical writings the following are still valuable: “Geschichte der Bischöfe von Augsburg, chronologisch und diplomatisch verfasst (4 vols, Augsburg, 1813–15); “Codex diplomaticus monasterii S. Udalrici et Afrae notis illustratus” issued as volumes XXII and XXIII of the “Monumenta Boica,” (Munich, 1814–15); “Geschichte der Kirche und des Stiftes der hll. Ulrich und Afra in Augsburg” (Augsburg, 1817); “Historisch-topographische Beschreibung, der Diocese Augsburg,” 2 vols. (Augsburg, 1823); “Die Domkirche zu Augsburg und der hohere und niedere Klerus an derselben” (Augsburg, 1829). Braun bequeathed his manuscripts, which were concerned chiefly with the history of the religious foundations and monastic houses of the Diocese of Augsburg, to the diocesan archives.

JOSEPH LINS

Francisco Bravo

As far as known, author of the first book on medicine printed in America. His “Opera Medicinalia etc. (Authore Francisco Brauo Orsunensi doctore Mexicano medico)” was published at Mexico, 1570. Three years before, Dr. Pedrarias de Benavides had published his “Secretos de Chirurgia,” at Valladolid in Spain, and while the latter work is invaluable for the knowledge of Indian medicinal practices, and is the earliest book on these topics known to have been published, the work of Dr. Bravo has the merit of being the first medical treatise printed in America. The first regular physician who came to Mexico appears to have been a Dr. Olivarez, although surgeon-barbers and other “healers and curers” are mentioned as having already practiced with Cortez. Strict medical regulations were established by the municipal council of the city of Mexico in 1527, and extended to the apothecaries in 1529. Although the faculty of medicine at the University of Mexico was not founded until 1578, two “Doctors in Medicine” were received at that institution as earty 1553. Dr. Benavides was a native of Toro in Spain and came to Honduras about the year 1550. Thence he went to Mexico and returned to Spain, after having directed for eight years the hospital “del Amor de Dios” in the city of Mexico. Of Dr. Bravo it is only known that he was a native of Ossuna, and began to practice at Sevilla in 1553. He carme to Mexico between that year and 1570. The date and place of his death are not known

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Brazil

(THE UNITED STATES OF BRAZIL)

A vast republic of central South America covering an area larger than that of the United States of America (if Alaska and the Philippines are not included). It extends from 5° N. to 33° 41’ S. latitude, and from 35° to 73° W. longitude. Its greatest length is 2,500 miles, its greatest breadth 2,600 miles, and it has an area of 3,218,130 square miles. It borders every other country on the continent of South American except Chile, being bounded on the north by Venezuela, British, Dutch, and French Guiana, and the Atlantic Ocean, on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the south by Uruguay and the Argentine Republic, and on the west by Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador.

Brazil lies entirely east of the Andean mountain system. The basin of the Amazon occupies the northern and western portion of the country, and nearly the whole of this section is a vast plain, called the Selvas, which is, for the most part, less than 500 feet above sea level, and never exceeds 1,000 feet. The southern and eastern parts are plateaux, rising to heights of from 2,000 to 4,000 feet. Upon these plateaux are situated many mountain ranges. (This is said to be geologically the oldest part of the continent.) The mountain ranges of Brazil may be grouped into three systems, the most important of which is the Serra do Mar, which begins immediately north of the bay of Rio Janeiro, where the Organ mountains rise to 7,500 feet. This forms the southeastern slope of the plateau to the narrow strip of coast along the Atlantic. In this system, to the west of Rio de Janeiro, is the highest peak in Brazil, Itatiaia, which has a height of nearly 10,000 feet. Connecting with this range near Rio de Janeiro, and stretching northward, is the Serra Central, while a third system stretches northwestwards, separating the headwaters of the Sao Francisco and Tocantins Rivers from those of the Parana.

The Atlantic coast line of the republic is about 4,000 miles long. North of Cape St. Roque it is low, and the slope towards the sea is gradual, but to the south of this cape the coast line is more elevated, the slope to the sea is steeper, and in the extreme south it becomes abrupt. The northern coast is but little broken, thus having few good harbours and not many islands, but along the southern coast there are many fine harbours. The system of rivers is perhaps unequalled for their number and the length of their courses in any part of the world. They are especially important in the north of Brazil, where they constitute the chief means of travel through a region rich in natural resources. Owing to the copious rainfall, most Brazilian rivers are navigable throughout the year. The principal ones are the Amazon, which is 2500 miles long and is navigable throughout almost its whole length, the Tocantins, and the Sao Francisco.

CLIMATE

Covering so large an extent of territory, Brazil naturally has variations of climate. In the lowlands of the north, which are within the tropics, there is great heat, and the year is divided between the rainy and dry seasons of tropical regions. The rainy season begins in December or January and lasts until May or June. The rest of the year is generally dry. However, dry periods frequently occur during the rainy season, and rainy periods during the dry season. In the highlands of the central and southern portions there are four fairly well marked seasons. The vast Amazon basin is remarkable for its small seasonal variation of temperature; the thermometer rarely rises above 90° or falls below 75°. In the two southernmost States, Rio Grande do Sul and Sao Paulo, the temperature at times goes to the freezing point, especially in the highlands. The prevailing winds are the trade winds from the east. These are the strongest in the valley of the Amazon from July to November, and thus the heat of the dry season is somewhat mitigated. The country is generally healthful, with the exception of the marshy banks of some of the rivers, the swamps, and regions where drainage is poor; in these places intermittent fevers are very common. Yellow fever has appeared at times, but has always been confined to the coast.

AGRICULTURE

Brazil has extensive tracts of fertile land, especially along the Amazon and in the south-eastern portion; but the greater part of the plateaux is fit only for grazing. By far the most important product is coffee, of which Brazil produces more than any other country in the world. The principal coffee regions are Sao Paulo, Minas Geraes, Espirito Santo, and Rio de Janeiro. Sugar, the next product in importance, is extensively produced in Pernambuco, Bahia, and Ceara, tobacco in Bahia, and cocoa in the lower Amazon. Maize, beans, rice, and tropical fruits and vegetables are grown, but more for home consumption than for export.

MINERAL RESOURCES

In mineral resources Brazil is probably the richest country in the world, but scarcity of population and capital have retarded its progress. It is rich in gold and diamonds, especially the State of Minas Geraes, which is to Brazil more than California and Pennsylvania together are to the United States. Gold-mining is carried on to a limited extent in Minas Geraes and Bahia, chiefly with British capital. These same two states were at one time the world’s chief producers of diamonds, but the discovery of the South African mines has great depreciated the Brazilian product, which amounts to about 40,000 carats per year, and it is estimated that since the discovery of diamonds in Brazil (1723) the total yield has been 12,000,000 carats, valued at $100,000,000. Besides gold and diamonds, Brazil is rich in iron, lead, copper, zinc, manganese, and quicksilver, but the mining of these is impeded by the lack of cheap fuel and labour.

MANUFACTURES

These are generally on a comparatively small scale. The most important is the production of cotton goods, especially in the northern cities. In 1899 there were 134 cotton factories within the republic. Boots, shoes, cord, twine, hempen cloths for coffee sacks, furniture, saddles, and hats are also manufactured.

RAILROADS AND TRANSPORTATION

Railway enterprise has made some little progress. In 1899 there were 8723 miles of railroad in operation, 4992 miles in course of construction, and 8440 miles projected. The most complete railroad systems are in the coffee regions of Sao Paulo, Minas Geraes, and Rio de Janeiro. A considerable proportion of these roads was built with a government guarantee of interest on the outlay. The rivers have steam navigation through many miles of their courses, and there are several Brazilian lines of coasting steamers.

COMMERCE

The foreign commerce of Brazil is quite large and is increasing yearly. Coffee is the staple article of commerce, constituting about sixty per cent of the total exports. Most of it finds a market in the United States. Sugar is second in importance, and then come rubber, cotton, hides, tobacco, dye and cabinet woods, gold, and diamonds. The imports consist of all kinds of manufactured goods, cotton and woollen clothing, machinery, ironware, coal, petroleum, and foodstuffs. Great Britain controls about forty per cent of the import trade. Germany and France are next in importance, and the United States is next.

POPULATION

The population of Brazil, according to the official returns of 1890, was 14,333,915. A later census, taken in 1900, was rejected by the legislature as inaccurate. The population in 1903 according to an unofficial estimate was 19,500,000. According to the official figures of 1890, there were 14,179,615 Catholics; 143,743 Protestants; 3300 of other creeds; and 7257 who professed no religion. It will thus be seen that the country is overwhelmingly Catholic. The population is composed of: (1) people of pure Portuguese blood, who form a large percentage of the total; (2) full negroes; (3) native Indians; (4) people of mixed race (the most numerous of all); and (5) a few European immigrants. The Portuguese portion of the population, as they constitute the wealthy and educated class, have made Portuguese the national language. Most of the semi-civilized Indians, particularly in the eastern States, speak the lingua geral, a language adapted by the Jesuit missionaries form the original language of the Tupinambaras, one of the largest of the eastern tribes. There are many different tribes, among which the chief are the Tupi, the Guarany, and the Amagua.

GOVERNMENT

Brazil is a federal republic of twenty States, with a Federal District. The constitution is modelled upon that of the United States. The legislative power is vested in the president of the republic and a national congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The Senate consists of 63 members, three from each State and the Federal District, elected directly by the people for a period of nine years. The House of Representatives consists of a number of members elected by the people for a term of three years, one representative for each 70,000 inhabitants, but with a minimum membership of four for any State. All who are legally citizens of the republic exercise the right to vote, except beggars, illiterates, soldiers receiving pay, and those who for any reason may have lost their rights as citizens. The executive authority is exercised by the president, or in his absence or disability, a vice-president. The president is elected by popular vote for a term of four years, and he cannot serve for two successive terms. He is assisted by a cabinet, the members of which he appoints or removes at will. The cabinet ministers preside over the following six departments: (1) finance; (2) war; (3) industry, railways, and public works; (4) interior and justice; (5) Navy; (6) foreign affairs. The president, by virtue of his office, is in supreme command of the Army and Navy. He possesses the veto power over legislation, but his veto may be overruled by a two-thirds vote of both Houses. The judicial power is vested in a federal supreme court consisting of fifteen members who are appointed for life by the president with the approval of the Senate. The States enjoy a greater measure of autonomy than those of the United States of North America. They are governed by their own legislatures and governors and have their own judicial systems. Each State is divided into municipalities; each municipality controlled by a council and a prefect.

RELIGION

Under the Empire the Catholic was the only recognized Church, and it was supported by the States. Other religions were tolerated, but the Catholic was the official church. After the revolution of 1889, however, the separation of Church and State was decreed. The Provisional Government issued, 7 January, 1890, a decree proclaiming the separation of Church and State, guaranteeing freedom of worship, and declaring that no church thereafter should be subsidized by the government, nor in any way receive support either from the federal government or from those of the individual States. By the terms of this decree public officers were forbidden to interfere in any way with the formation of religious societies, and it was declared to be unlawful to stir up religious dissension among the people. Every religious body was at liberty to worship according to its own rites, while each individual could live according to his belief, and unite in societies with others, and build churches if he chose The salaries of those in the service of the Church were ordered to be discontinued at the expiration of a year. The existing churchyards were secularized, and the question of the establishment of new cemeteries was left in the hands of individual communities. Religious bodies, however, could choose separate burial places, though always subject to the laws. The existing religious holidays, except Sunday, were abolished by another decree, and nine new ones established commemorating secular events. Later, a civil marriage law was passed, somewhat resembling those of the United States and France, and also a divorce law. This latter, however, bore the stamp of the religious training of the people, for by its terms, neither party was permitted to marry again during the life of the other.

The conversion of Brazil, beginning about the middle of the sixteenth century, was brought about by the Jesuits, after whom came the Franciscans, and these were followed by the Benedictines. The country today is almost entirely Catholic. Of the nineteen and a half millions, over eighteen millions are of the Catholic faith. There are 5127 churches and chapels, 2067 secular and 559 regular clergy; 2083 nuns engaged in hospitals and educational institutions; 524 schools, 12 large and 17 small seminaries.

ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATION

The entire republic is divided into the two ecclesiastical provinces of Sao Salvador da Bahia and Sao Sabastiao (Rio de Janeiro). Each province containing nine suffragan dioceses, as follows: Province of Sao Salvador da Bahia (diocese created 1552, archdiocese 1676); suffragan dioceses of Olinda (1676); Sao Luis do Maranhao (1676); Belem do Para (1719); Goyaz (1826); Fortaleza, or Ceara (1854); Manaos (1893); Parahyba, (1893); Alagoas (1901); Piauhy (1902). Province of Sao Sebastiao (diocese created 1675, archdiocese 1893); suffragan dioceses of Cuyaba (1745); Marianna (1745); Sao Paulo (1745); Sao Pedro do Rio Grande do Sul (1848); Diamantina (1854); Curityba do Parana (1893); Petropolis (1893); Espirito Santo (1896); Porto Alegre (1900). Brazil has received a great honour at the hands of the present pope, that of having the first South American cardinal ever nominated chosen amongst its clergy.

EDUCATION

During the three centuries of colonial rule, Brazil made very little progress in the education of its people. There were few schools except the Jesuit colleges, and whatever libraries there were belonged to private individuals. The wealthy classes sent their children to Portugal to study, while those who could not bear this expense remained ignorant. After the declaration of independence, in 1822, conditions were somewhat improved, but the educational system was so crude that little progress was made until 1854, when the whole school system was reorganized. Since then there has been good progress in education, literature, and science, especially in the large cities. In the interior education is in a backward state, owing to the isolation of the inhabitants, and to lack of facilities of communication. For this reason the percentage of illiteracy for the entire country remains high (above 84%). At the present time Brazil has a system of elementary, secondary, and higher education. Congress has the sole power to create institutions of higher instruction and secondary, and secondary, or high-school, education throughout the country, as well as of primary education in the Federal District. The Constitution provides that instruction given in public institutions shall be secular, and that primary education be free and at the expense of the States and municipalities. In most of the States primary education is compulsory. The schools are generally well equipped with libraries, laboratories, and appliances and furniture of different kinds. The primary schools are divided into first- and second-grade schools. Secondary education is also organized on a good basis. At the head of these secondary schools stands the Gymnasio Nacional at Rio de Janeiro, which was formerly Pedro II College. The national institutions devoted to the higher, or university, education are: two law schools at Pernambuco and Sao Paulo; two medical schools at Rio de Janeiro and Bahia; a polytechnic school at Rio de Janeiro; a mining school at Ouro Preto, in the State of Minas Geraes; a school of fine art at Rio de Janeiro. There are some excellent public libraries throughout the country, the largest being the National Library at Rio de Janeiro, which contains 235,000 printed volumes, 182,000 manuscripts, and 100,000 iconographical pieces. This institution was begun with the historical library which King John VI brought from Portugal and presented to Brazil, and it was greatly augmented by the collection of the great Portuguese wrier Barbosa Machado.

HISTORY

Brazil was discovered on the 26th of January, 1500, by Vicente Yanez Pinzon, a Spaniard who had been a companion of Columbus. Two months later Dom Manoel, King of Portugal, fitted out a squadron for a voyage around the southern end of Africa to the East Indies under command of Pedro Alvares de Cabral. Contrary winds, however, drove him far out of his course, and after drifting about for some time he came upon an unknown land. He cast anchor in a haven which he called Porto Seguro, on Good Friday, 24 April, 1500. On Easter Sunday an altar was erected, Mass was celebrated, and Cabral formally took possession of the country in the name of Portugal. He then continued on his way to India, but first dispatching one of his ships to Portugal to report his discovery. Cabral named the newly discovered land Vera Cruz (the land of the True Cross), but the king in notifying the sovereigns called it Santa Cruz (Holy Cross). Very shortly thereafter it began to be called Brazil, from the name of a wood which grew in that region, and the name ha been retained ever since.

Although the country had been discovered by a Spaniard, Spain could make no claim. According to the Bull of Alexander VI (4 May, 1493), the dividing line between Spanish and Portuguese possessions had been fixed at a meridian 100 leagues west of Cape Verde. All discoveries east of this line were to belong to Portugal; those west of it to Spain. But in the year following, by the Treaty of Tordesillas, the dividing line was extended to 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands, and Spain was thus barred from the eastern portion of South America. In order to encourage colonization, grants, or “captaincies,” were given to prominent Portuguese who were willing to settle in the country. The grants comprised not less than fifty leagues of sea coast, wit feudal powers and the privilege of extending their possessions as far inland as the grantees desired. Thus nearly the entire Brazilian coast was before long dotted with Portuguese settlements more or less skilfully administered. The first of these was established in 1532, at S. Vicente, within the present State of S. Paulo, by Marinho Affonso de Souza, and the others at intervals thereafter. Cattle and sugarcane were imported from Madeira, and the systematic cultivation of the latter began.

But these early settlers had great troubles—with the Spaniards, who sought to gain a foothold east of the line of demarcation; with the French, who were trying to establish themselves on the coast; with the natives who were antagonistic to all Europeans. So that, for their common protection, it was deemed expedient that the “captains” should forego some of their prerogatives, and concentrate all the Portuguese power into the hands of a Governor General appointed by the Crown. The first Governor General was Thome de Sousa, who came over in 1547 and placed his capital at Bahia. The College of Sao Paulo was established in Piratininga soon after the arrival of the first Bishop of Brazil, in 1552, and of a number of the Jesuits in 1553. These first missionaries became friendly with the natives, and their college soon became a centre of influence. In 1555 Nicolas Durand de Villegaignon, aided by Coligny, the French Huguenot leader, settled with a few Frenchmen on a little island in the bay of Rio de Janeiro. But these French settlers were driven away by the Portuguese in 1560, and France was ever after unable to gain a foothold in Brazil. The settlement, however, was made permanent by the Portuguese who gave it the name of Sao Sebastiao, and to this day Rio de Janeiro is officially called Sao Sebastiao do Rio de Janeiro.

From 1580 to 1640, Brazil, as a dependency of Portugal, was in the hands of Spain, and during the latter part of this period Holland, being at war with Spain, seized a good portion of the country. A long struggle between Portugal and Holland for the possession of the country followed later, lasting until 1654, when the Dutch surrendered the places they held, and the Portuguese were rid of all European rivals In 1763 the capital was changed to Rio de Janeiro, and the Governor was given the title of Viceroy of Portugal.

In 1807 Napoleon’s troops invaded Portugal, with the intention of seizing the royal family. The prince regent, Dom Joao, fled, with the royal family, and under an English escort set sail for Brazil, where he was enthusiastically received. Here Dom Joao instituted several reforms, notable among which were the opening of all Brazilian ports to the commerce of the world and the decree of 16 January, 1815, declaring Brazil to be no longer a colony, but an integral part of the Kingdom of Portugal. Soon after this, the prince regent succeeded to the throne as Dom Joao VI. Revolutionary troubles in Portugal, in 1820, making it necessary for Dom Joao to return thither, he appointed his son Dom Pedro, a young man of twenty-three, “Lieutenant to the King” and set sail for Portugal in 1821. From that time the Portuguese Cortes began to regard Brazil with anxiety; Dom Pedro was considered as more Brazilian than Portuguese. Revolutionary disturbances, moreover, had broken out in several of the provinces, notably in Pernambuco and Bahia. To check the growing power of Brazil, measures were passed detrimental to her interests, and tending to a revival of colonial conditions. As the Brazilian members of the Cortes were greatly in the minority, their resistance could not be effective. Matters came to a crisis when the Cortes finally ordered Dom Pedro to return to Portugal. The Brazilians rallied and besought him to ignore the order. Realizing his opportunity Dom Pedro struck the first blow for independence, his decision being received with the greatest enthusiasm. The few Portuguese troops stationed in the country made but a half-hearted resistance, and on the 12th of October, 1822, Dom Pedro was proclaimed Emperor and Perpetual Defender of Brazil.

A popular assembly was convened in May, 1823, and a message from the emperor was read proposing many liberal ideas to be embodied in the forthcoming constitution. But discontented spirits raised such bitter opposition in the assembly that the emperor dissolved it. He later appointed a committee of ten to draft the constitution, and it was finally adopted 24 March, 1825. Dom Pedro’s popularity, however, soon began to wane. He produced the impression of not being truly Brazilian at heart, by his employment of a foreign force, by his continual interference in the affairs of Portugal, and especially by his appointment of Portuguese to the highest offices, to the exclusion of the natives. The Brazilians became disgusted at seeing their government conducted by foreigners, and soon they were in open rebellion. After vain attempts to suppress the revolution, the emperor abdicated (7 April, 1831) in favour of his six-year-old son, Dom Pedro de Alcantara, and sailed away to Portugal.

The government was now placed in the hands of a regency, consisting at first of three members and later of a single individual. In 1840, when the young emperor had reached the age of fifteen, it was proposed by those who had become disgusted at the abuses of the regency, that the minority of Dom Pedro II be declared expired, in spite of the fact that the constitution had fixed the minority of the emperor at eighteen years. After a heated and acrimonious debate, the regency was abolished, and the young emperor placed in full possession of the throne (23 July, 1840). The new government had trouble at intervals with the Republican party, notably in 1848; but these risings were easily suppressed. In 1851 Brazil took an active part in thwarting the designs of the Argentine dictator, Rosas, who sought to seize Uruguay and Paraguay. Rosas was driven from the country and had to take refuge in England. In 1853 a decree was issued forbidding the importation of slaves. Yellow fever, until then unknown in Brazil, had made its appearance a short time before, and it was thought that the disease had been brought into the country by the slaves. In 1855 a fleet was sent to settle a dispute with Paraguay, concerning Brazil’s right of way upon the Parana River, the claim of Brazil being based upon the fact that the river has its origin within her boundaries. The expedition was unsuccessful, and for ten years thereafter Brazil was hampered by many restrictions. In 1864 an outrage against Brazil on the part of Senor Lopez, the dictator of Paraguay, precipitated a conflict between Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay on one side and Paraguay on the other. A bitter struggle now ensued, Paraguay offering a stubborn resistance which ended only with the death of Lopez in battle in 1870. Brazil, bearing the brunt of the war on her side, lost many thousands of men and a vast amount of money.

In 1871 the death-blow was given to slavery in Brazil by a decree providing that every child thereafter born of slave parents should be free. Slavery had been greatly checked since the decree of 1853 prohibiting the importation of slaves, so that, with this new law in force, it was not long before slavery came to an end in the country. On 1 May, 1886, the Princess Isabelle, regent of Brazil while the emperor was in Europe, proclaimed the abolition of slavery.

The fact that Dom Pedro reigned for nearly fifty years would indicate that he was liberal-minded, progressive, and enlightened, and that he was well liked by the people. But the work of freemasonry and the loss the planters suffered by the emancipation of their slaves created a spirit of disaffection. The outcome was that, after a bloodless revolution (15 November, 1889), Dom Pedro was deposed, and a Republic was proclaimed, with General Deodoro da Fonseca as head of the provisional government. A decree was issued continuing the imperial civil list and granting Dom Pedro a subsidy of $2,500,000, both of which offers were refused by him. On the following day (16 November) Dom Pedro and his family set sail for Portugal. The new Constitution, modelled upon that of the United States, was promulgated 23 June, 1890, and in February of the following year General Fonseca was elected president of the new republic. But before the end of that year his arbitrary methods precipitated a revolutionary movement in Rio de Janeiro, and he was compelled to resign. He was succeeded by the vice-president, General Peixoto. In 1893, a revolt, headed by Admirals Da Gama and Mello, was started; but it was of short duration. Rio de Janeiro was blockaded by the rebels, but the revolution collapsed soon after. In 1894 Peixoto was succeeded by Dr. Prudente de Moraes, who was called upon to face still another uprising, in 1897, under the leadership of Antonio Conseilheiro. After a few months this trouble also was crushed. In 1898 Dr. Campos Salles, who had been active in republican politics, succeeded to the presidential chair; Dr. Francisco Rodrigues Alves succeeded him 15 November, 1902, and Affonso Penna assumed office 15 November, 1906.

Kidder and Fletcher, Brazil and the Brazilians (1857); Agassiz, Journey in Brazil (1868); Levasseur, Le Bresil (1889); Koster, Travels in Brazil (1817); Hartt, Geology ad Physical Geography of Brazil (1870); United States Bureau of American Republics, Bulletin No. 7 (1901); Southey, History of Brazil (1810–19); Varnhagen, Historia Geral do Brazil (1855); Da Silva, Historia do fundacao do imperio brazileiro (5 vols., 1864–82); Galanti, Compendio de Historia do Brazil (4 vols., 1896); Giron y Aracas, La Situacion Juridica de la Iglesia Catolica en los Diversos Estados de Europa y America (1905); Widder in Buchberger, Kirchlieches Handlexikon (1907); Konversations Lexikon (1903); Schlitz in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (Freiburg im Br., 1906), LXX, No. 5.

VENTURA FUENTES

Liturgical Use of Bread

In the Christian liturgy bread is used principally as one of the elements of the Eucharistic sacrifice. Our Divine Lord consecrated bread and wine at the Last Supper, and commanded His disciples to do the same in commemoration of Him, and thus ever since bread made of beaten flour has been offered at the altar for the officiating priest to consecrate into the Body of the Lord. It is a debated question whether Christ used leavened or unleavened bread at the institution of the Holy Eucharist, since different conclusions may be drawn, on the one hand, from the gospel of St. John and the synoptic Gospels on the other. History does not establish conclusively what the practice of the Apostles and their successors was, but it may be asserted with some probability that they made use of whatever bread was at hand, whether azymous or fermented. Different customs gradually began to grow up in different localities and then became tradition and fixed. The Eastern Churches for the most part made use of leavened bread as they still do, while the western Churches declared their preference for unleavened bread. At the time of the schism this difference of practice gave rise to much discussion of the value of their respective claims in following the example of Christ, and formented bitter controversy even in recent years. Either kind of bread is, of course, valid matter for the sacrifice, so the difference of usage should be of little dogmatic importance. (See AZYMES).

In the primitive Church the bread and wine for the sacrifice were brought to the altar by the faithful, each contributing his share. A relic of this practice may now be seen in the rite of consecration of a bishop, for at the Offertory the newly consecrated bishop presents to the consecrator, among other gifts, two loaves of bread, one of which is gilded the other silvered, both oramented with the coat of arms of the consecrator and the bishop. A similar usage is found in the ceremony of the solemn canonization of saints, where at the offertory one of the cardinal-priests makes an offering to the pope of two loathes of bread, one gilded and the other silvered. Although in the beginning bread which served for cornmon use was offered at the altar still, growing reverence for Holy Eucharist soon effected in change, so that the altar-breads were specially prepared, assigning a round form of moderate thickness, and were stamped with a cross or some other significant religious emblem having special reference to Our Lord in the Eucharist. These hosts became smaller and tinner on the Western Church until they assumed the light, wafer-like form now so common

In the Holy Eucharist, bread thus serves for the offering of the sacrifice, and after the consecration for the Communion of the celebrant, the clergy, the laity, as well as for reservation in order that Communion may be brought to the absent, or that the Blessed Sacrament may be adored in the tabernacle or in the monstrance. In Rome at one time it was the custom of the pope to send a part of the consecrated bread to the priests in the titular churches that all might be united in offering the same sacrifice so that this fermentum, as it was called, might in spiritual sense leaven the whole mass of the faithful, make them one with the pope in faith and worship. Bishops also were once accustomed to send the Eucharistic Bread to their priests for the same purpose and also to each other to signify that they admitted one another into ecclesiastical communion. To prevent abuses and profanation to the Sacrament, this custom was early prohibited and soon disappeared. The usage then began of sending blessed bread instead of the Holy Eucharist to those who did not communicate at the Mass, and to those who might wish to receive this gift as a pledge of communion of faith. These who did not communicate received bread offered at the Offertory of the Mass but not consecrated. It appears to have received no other blessing than that of the Offertory prayer, and was considered blessed because it formed part of the oblation. This bread is called eulogia, because it is blessed and because a blessing accompanies its use; it is also called antidoron, because it is a substitute for the doron, the real gift, which is the Holy Eucharist. The eulogia is prescribed in the liturgies of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom, but now it is distributed to all, both communicants and non-communicants. It existed also in the West, and is mentioned by St. Gregory of Tours, the Council of Nantes, and Leo IV, in terms which would make it appear a somewhat universal custom.

The little loaves or cakes of bread which received a special benediction and were then sent by bishops and priests to others, as gifts in sign of fraternal affection and ecclesiastical communion were also called eulogiae. Persons to whom the eulogia was refused were considered outside the communion of the faithful, and thus bishops sometimes sent it to an excommunicated person to indicate that the censure had been removed. Later, when the faithful no longer furnished the altar-bread, a custom arose of bringing bread to the church for the special purpose of having it blessed and distributed among those present as token of mutual love and union, and this custom still exists in the Western Church, especially in France. This blessed bread was called panis benedictus, panis lustratus, panis lustralis, and is now known in France as pain bénit. It differs from the eulogia mentioned above, because it is not a part of the oblation from which the particle to be consecrated in the Mass is selected, but rather is common bread which receives a special benediction. In many places it is the custom for each family in turn to present the bread on Sundays and feast days, while in other places only the wealthier families furnish it. Generally the bread is presented with some solemnity at the Offertory of the parochial Mass, and the priest blesses it before the Oblation of the Host and Chalice, but different customs exist in different dioceses. The prayer ordinarily used for the blessing is the first or second: benedictio panis printed in the Roman missal and ritual. The faithful were exhorted to partake of it in the church, but frequently it was carried home. This blessed bread is a sacramental, which should excite Christians to practice especially the virtues of charity, and unity of spirit, and which brings blessings to those who partake of it with due devotion. The Church, when blessing it, prays that those who eat it may receive health both of soul and body: “ut omnes ex eo gustantes inde corporis et animae percipant sanitatem”; “ut sit omnibus sumentibus salus mentis et corporis.” In some instances the pain bénit was used not only with superstitious intent, and its virtues exaggerated beyond measure, but also for profane purposes. This usage was brought from France to Canada, and was practised chiefly in the province of Quebec. There the pain bénit had blessed immediately after the Asperges, and then distributed to those who assisted at high Mass. The parishioners furnished it in turn, and vied with one another in presenting as rich and fine a pain bénit as possible, until finally the bishops, seeing that it entailed too much expense upon the poor circumstances, prohibited it. Within the last twenty-five and thirty years the custon has almost entirely disappeared.

In the present Roman ritual there are six blessings for bread. Two of these are entitled simply benedictio panis, and as mentioned above, are often used for blessing the panis benit. The third entitled benedictio panis et placentarum (blessing of bread and cakes), is found in the appendix among the blessings which are not reserved. The other three are approved for particular localities, and are special blessings given under the invocation of certain saints, usually on their feast days, in order to gain special favours through their intercession. The first, approved for the Archdiocese of Cologne, is a blessing of bread, water, and salt given under the invocation of St. Hubert; the second, approved for the Diocese of Bois-le-Duc, is a blessing of bread and water under the invocation of St. Machutus, and the third, for the Diocese of Urgel, is a blessing of bread, wine, water, and fruit to be used on the feast of St. Blasius. Some other places have local of blessing bread on certain feast days, as for instance on the feasts of St. Genevieve, of St. Nicholas of Tolentino and others.

Bread is also used in the rite of ordination of priests, as a Host is placed upon the paten which the candidates touch, in order to signify that power is given to them to consecrate bread into the Body of Christ. It is also sometimes prescribed in the rubrics that the bishop, after using the Holy Oils, as for example at confirmation and ordination, shall cleanse his fingers with crumbs of bread. Such, in the Christian liturgy, are the more important and general uses of bread, which, it will be seen, are confined principally to the Holy Eucharist. With the exception of some few blessings of bread for special purposes, most of these customs are closely connected with the Eucharistic sacrifice, and generally derive their origin from ceremonies practised with the Eucharistic bread. (See ANTIDORON, AZYMES, EUCHARIST, EULOGIA.)

J.F. GOGGIN

Striking of the Breast

Striking of the breast as a liturgical act is prescribed in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass during the Confiteor at the phrase “Through my fault” (three times), at the Nobis Quoque Peccatoribus (once), at the Agnus Dei (three times), and at the Domine, Non Sum Dignus (three times). With bowed head, except at the Nobis Quoque Peccatoribus, moderately and without noise, the celebrant strikes his breast with the right hand, the fingers being held closely together and curved or fully extended, as the rubrics are silent on this point; after the consecration, however, with the last three fingers only, since the thumb and index finger, which are joined, must not come in contact with the chasuble. At the Agnus Dei in requiem Masses the striking of the breast is omitted, to show that the celebrant is thinking of the departed more than of himself. The faithful are accustomed to this practice as well as the priest.

The early Christians were familiar with the practice, as St. Augustine and St. Jerome testify. “No sooner have you heard the word ‘Confiteor’“, says the former, “than you strike your breast. What does this mean except that you wish to bring to light what is concealed in the breast, and by this act to cleanse your hidden sins?” (Sermo de verbis Domini, 13). We strike our breast,” declares St. Jerome, “because the breast is the seat of evil thoughts: we wish to dispel these thoughts, we wish to purify our hearts” (In Ezechiel, c. xviii). A warrant for these statements is found in the Psalmist: A contrite and humbled heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise (Ps,1.,19). The petitioner at the Throne of Mercy would chasten his heart and offer it as a sacrifice to God who healeth the broken of heart and bindeth up their wounds (Ps. cxlvi, 3). The ancient Christians were accustomed to strike the breast when they heard mention made or sensual sins; at the “Forgive us our trespasses” of the Pater Noster; and in detestation of the crime of the Jews, at the words of the Gospel, “Thou hast a devil,” applied to Christ.

ANDREW B. MEEHAN

Jean de Brébeuf

Jesuit missionary, born at Condé-sur-Vire in Normandy, 25 March, 1593; died in Canada, near Georgian Bay, 16 March, 1649. His desire was to become a lay brother, but he finally entered the Society of Jesus as a scholastic, 8 November, 1617. According to Ragueneau it was 5 October. Though of unusual physical strength, his health gave way completely when he was twenty-eight, which interfered with his studies and permitted only what was strictly necessary, so that he never acquired any extensive theological knowledge. On 19 June, 1625, he arrived in Quebec, with the Recollect, Joseph de la Roche d’ Aillon, and in spite of the threat which the Calvinist captain of the ship made to carry him back to France, he remained in the colony. He overcame the dislike of the colonists for Jesuits and secured a site for a residence on the St. Charles, the exact location of a former landing of Jacques Cartier. He immediately took up his abode in the Indian wigwams, and has left us an account of his five months’ experience there in the dead of winter. In the spring he set out with the Indians on a journey to Lake Huron in a canoe, during the course of which his life was in constant danger. With him was Father de Noüe, and they established their first mission near Georgian Bay, at Ihonatiria, but after a short time his companion was recalled, and he was left alone.

Brébeuf met with no success. He was summoned to Quebec because of the danger of extinction to which the entire colony was then exposed, and arrived there after an absence of two years, 17 July, 1628. On 19 July, 1629, Champlain surrendered to the English, and the missionaries returned to France. Four years afterwards the colony was restored to France, and on 23 March, 1633, Brébeuf again set out for Canada. While in France he had pronounced his solemn vows as spiritual coadjutor. As soon as he arrived, viz., May, 1633, he attempted to return to Lake Huron. The Indians refused to take him, but during the following year he succeeded in reaching his old mission along with Father Daniel. It meant a journey of thirty days and constant danger of death. The next sixteen years of uninterrupted labours among these savages were a continual series of privations and sufferings which he used to say were only roses in comparison with what the end was to be. The details may be found in the “Jesuit Relations.”

In 1640 he set out with Father Chaumonot to evangelize the Neutres, a tribe that lived north of Lake Erie, but after a winter of incredible hardship the missionaries returned unsuccessful. In 1642 he was sent down to Quebec, where he was given the care of the Indians in the Reservation at Sillery. About the time the war was at its height between the Hurons and the Iroquois, Jogues and Bressani had been captured in an effort to reach the Huron country, and Brébeuf was appointed to make a third attempt. He succeeded. With him on this journey were Chabanel and Garreau, both of whom were afterwards murdered. They reached St. Mary’s on the Wye, which was the central station of the Huron Mission. By 1647 the Iroquois had made peace with the French, but kept up their war with the Hurons, and in 1648 fresh disasters befell the work of the missionaries—their establishments were burned and the missionaries slaughtered. On 16 March, 1649, the enemy attacked St. Louis and seized Brébeuf and Lallemant, who could have escaped but rejected the offer made to them and remained with their flock. The two priests were dragged to St. Ignace, which the Iroquois had already captured.

On entering the village, they were met with a shower of stones, cruelly beaten with clubs, and then tied to posts to be burned to death. Brébeuf is said to have kissed the stake to which he was bound. The fire was lighted under them, and their bodies slashed with knives. Brébeuf had scalding water poured on his head in mockery of baptism, a collar of red-hot tomahawk-heads placed around his neck, a red-hot iron thrust down his throat, and when he expired his heart was cut out and eaten. Through all the torture he never uttered a groan. The Iroquois withdrew when they had finished their work. The remains of the victims were gathered up subsequently, and the head of Brébeuf is still kept as a relic at the Hôtel-Dieu, Quebec.

His memory is cherished in Canada more than that of all the other early missionaries. Although their names appear with his in letters of gold on the grand staircase of the public buildings, there is a vacant niche on the façade, with his name under it, awaiting his statue. His heroic virtues, manifested in such a remarkable degree at every stage of his missionary career, his almost incomprehensible endurance of privations and suffering, and the conviction that the reason of his death was not his association with the Hurons, but hatred of Christianity, has set on foot a movement for his canonization as a saint and martyr. An ecclesiastical court sat in 1904 for an entire year to examine his life and virtues and the cause of his death, and the result of the inquiry was forwarded to Rome.

T.J. CAMPELL

Diocese of Breda

(BREDANA)

Diocese situated in the Dutch province of Brabant and suffragan of Utrecht. The city was founded in the twelfth century and with the surrounding territory formed the Barony of Breda, an imperial fief hereditary in the house of Nassau to which Queen Wilhelmina belongs. This barony was formerly within the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the See of Liège, but became subject to Antwerp when Pius IV made that city (1561) the seat of a new diocese. Breda suffered much during the political disorders of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in consequence of which the free exercise of the Catholic religion was more or less restricted. The iconoclasts in their outbreak of 22 August, 1566, left some sad traces yet visible at Breda. In the years immediately following, the city and its district were alternately held by Spanish troops and by those of the States-General, though the latter were destined to be its eventual masters. It passed finally into their hands 10 October, 1637, when it surrendered to the Stadtholder, Prince Frederick Henry.

Thenceforth, as was their custom, the Dutch Protestants prohibited strictly the exercise of the Catholic religion. At the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 the Barony of Breda was made directly subject to the States-General and lost thereby the last remnants of its ancient liberty. The “reformed” religion was alone allowed, and rigorous measures were used to prevent the exercise of the Catholic religion. However, as elsewhere in the Dutch provinces it was kept alive secretly by good priests whose exemplary zeal was imitated by their flocks, in whom the love of the ancient Faith was purified and intensified by persecution. This unhappy situation lasted until the beginning of the nineteenth century. A little earlier the Batavian Republic had proclaimed (1796) liberty of religious worship, and in this Catholics saw a presage of better days. The constitution of the new Kingdom of the Netherlands (1815) guaranteed this boon more effectively.

When the Diocese of Antwerp was abolished by the Concordat of 15 July, 1801, Pius VII created by his Brief of 22 March, 1803, the Vicariate Apostolic of Breda and allotted to it the northern part of the former Diocese of Antwerp, then within the limits of the Batavian Republic. He also added thereto a part of the former Diocese of Ghent, situated in the province of Zeeland and known as Staats Vlaanderen. The Right Rev. Adriaan van Dongen (1803–26) was the first vicar Apostolic, and he established the diocesan (theological) seminary at Hoeven. By the terms of the Concordat, signed 17 August, 1827 between the Holy See and King William I, the Vicariate Apostolic of Breda was incorporated with the new See of Bois-le-Duc, whereby the ecclesiastical independence of the former was seriously threatened. Indeed, this arrangement was already becoming effective when the Belgian Revolution of 1830 broke out. The final separation of Belgium from Holland (1831) now made it impossible to execute the Concordat of 1827. The ecclesiastical situation, therefore, remained unchanged, except that the vicar Apostolic of Breda was made temporarily administrator Apostolic. When Pius IX re-established the hierarchy in Holland by his Brief, “Ex quâ die” (4 March, 1853), the Vicariate Apostolic of Breda was made one of the four suffragans of the new Archdiocese of Utrecht.

The first bishop of the new See of Breda was its vicar Apostolic, the Right Rev. Jan van Hooydonk, Apostolic administrator since 1826, and titular Bishop of Dardania since 1842. He died in 1867 and was succeeded first by the Right Rev. Jan van Genk who held two diocesan synods (1868, 1869) and died in 1874; later by the Right Rev. Hendrik van Beek, a celebrated Hellenist, who died in 1884; and then by the Right Rev. Peter Leyten. Besides the above-mentioned theological seminary at Hoeven there is a preparatory ecclesiastical seminary at Oudenbosch, known as De Ypelaar and founded in 1839. The new cathedral (1875) is dedicated to St. Barbara and is a masterpiece of the famous Dutch architect Cuypers. The finest of the churches of Breda is the superb Gothic edifice of Notre Dame, built in the fifteenth century. It has long been held by the Protestant community. In it may still be seen several sepulchral monuments of the house of Orange-Nassau. According to the most recent statistics there are in the Diocese of Breda 198,000 Catholics, 100 parishes, 245 priests in actual service, 23 charitable institutions, and 59 free (Catholic) schools.

KRUGER, Kerkelijke geschiedenis van het bisdom van Breda (Bergen-op-Zoom, 1875), i-iv; ALBERS, Geschiedenis van het herstel der hierarchie in de Nederlanden (Nimwegen, 1903–1904), i-ii; Neerlandia catholica (Utrecht, 1888).

GISBERT BROM

Jean Bréhal

A French Dominican theologian of the convent of Evreux; died c. 1479. He was made Doctor of Theology at the University of Caen, 1443; Prior of St.-Jacques, Paris, 1455; and Inquisitor General of France, 1452, which office he held until 1474. At the instance of Charles VII, he was delegated to revise the acts and proceedings of the trial of Joan of Arc, and on 7 July, 1466, he solemnly declared her condemnation to have been iniquitous and unjust. His review of the case and his investigations, which are exhaustive, are given at length by the Dominican Fathers Belon and Balme in “Jean Bréhal, Grand Inquisiteur de France et la réhabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc” (Paris, 1893), and by the Jesuit Father Ayroles in “La vraie Jeanne d’Arc” (1790). Bréhal resigned his office in 1474 and retired to his convent of Evreux, where he spent the rest of his days in study, a model of conventual observance and discipline. He wrote: “De liberâ auctoritate audiendi confessiones religiosis mendicantibus concessâ,” first edition, date and place of publication not given; later, 1479; and Paris, 1507.

QUÉTIF-ECHARD, Scriptores Ord. Præd. (Paris, 1719), I, 815; MANDONNET in Dict. de théol. cath. (Paris, 1903), 1127; HURTER, Nomenclator, II, 1059; Civiltà Cattol. (1894), IX, 463–467; MICHAEL in Zeitschrift f. kath. Theol. (1895), XIX, 136–140.

JOHN R. VOLZ.

Brehon Laws

Brehon law is the usual term for Irish native law, as administered in Ireland down to almost the middle of the seventeenth century, and in fact amongst the native Irish until the final consummation of the English conquest. It derives its name from the Irish word Breitheamh (genitive Breitheamhan, pronounced Brehoon or Brehon) which means a judge.

That we have ample means for becoming acquainted with some of the principal provisions of the Brehon code is entirely owing to the labours of two men, O’Curry and O’Donovan, who were the first Irish scholars since the death of the great hereditary Irish antiquarian, Duald Mac Firbis (murdered by an English settler in 1670), to penetrate and understand the difficult and highly technical language of the ancient law tracts. After much laborious work in the libraries of Trinity College Dublin, in the Royal Irish Academy, in the British Museum, and in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, O’Curry transcribed eight volumes full of the so-called Brehon Laws containing 2,906 pages, and O’Donovan nine more volumes containing 2,491 pages. Nor was their labour by any means exhaustive. There are many more valuable Brehon documents still untranscribed in the library of Trinity College, in the British Museum, and in the Bodleian, and possibly some fragments in the Royal Irish Academy and other repositories. From the labours of O’Donovan and O’Curry the Government published in the Master of the Rolls series five great tomes and a sixth containing a glossary. But these five large volumes do not by any means contain the whole of Irish law literature, which, in its widest sense, that is, including such pieces as the “Book of Rights,” would probably fill at least ten such volumes.

CONTENTS OF THE BREHON LAW BOOKS

The first two volumes of the Brehon Law, as published, contain the Seanchus Mór (Shanahus More) or “Great Immemorial Custom” which includes a preface to the text, in which we are told the occasion of its being first put together and “purified,” and the Law of Distress, a process which always had much influence in Irish legislation. The second volume contains the Law of Hostage Sureties, also a very important item in ancient Irish life, the law of fosterage, of tenure of stock, and of social connections. The third volume contains the important document known as the “Book of Acaill” which is chiefly taken up with the law of torts and injuries. This book professes to be a compilation of the various dicta and judgments of King Cormac Mac Airt who lived in the third century, and of Cennfaeladh, a famous warrior who fought in the Battle of Moyrath (c. 634), and afterwards became a renowned jurist, who lived in the seventh. The fourth and fifth volumes consist of isolated law tracts, on taking possession, on tenancy, right of water, divisions of land, social ranks, the laws relating to poets and their verse, the laws relating to the Church, chiefs, husbandmen, pledges, renewals of covenants, etc.

Although all these tracts go commonly under the generic name of the Brehon Laws, they are not really codes of law at all, or at least not essentially so. They are rather the digests or compilations of generations of learned lawyers. The text of the Seanchus Mór, for instance, which is contained in the first two volumes, is comparatively brief. That part of it relating to the law of immediate seizure must, according to M. d’Arbois de Jubainville, have been written before the year 600, but not before the introduction of Christianity into Ireland, which probably took place in the third century. The rest of the Seanchus is not so old. The year 438 is that given by the Irish annalists themselves for the redaction of the Seanchus Mór which according to its own commentary was the joint effort of three kings, of two clerics, of Ross a doctor of the Bérla Féine or legal dialect, of Dubhthach a doctor of literature, of Fergus a doctor of poetry, and of St. Patrick himself, who struck out of it all that “clashed with the law of God.” It is impossible to say how far certain parts of the law may have reached back into antiquity and become stereotyped by usage before they became stereotyped in writing. The text of the Seanchus Mór itself is not extensive. It is the great amount of commentaries written by generations of lawyers upon the text, and then the additional annotations written upon these commentaries by other lawyers, which swells the whole to such a size.

IRISH SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

We are able to gather fairly well from these books the remains only of what must once have been an immense law literature, the social organization of a pure Aryan people, closely cognate with the ancestors of the modern Gauls, Spaniards, and Britons; and from what we learn of the ancestors of the present Irish people we may deduce a good deal that is probably no less applicable to the other Aryan Celts.

Broadly speaking, the country was governed by a ruling class called “Kings,” of different grades, the highest being the King of Ireland, and next to these were the nobles or princes called in Irish Flaith (pronounced like flah or floih). In all there were, including kings and flaiths, nominally at least, seven different kinds of aires (arras), or nobles, and provision was carefully made that a wealthy farmer, or peasant grown rich through cattle, could, if he possessed twice the wealth of the lowest of the seven, and had held it for certain generations, become an aire, or noble, of the seventh, or lowest degree. Thus wealth and descent were carefully balanced over against each other. “He is an inferior chief whose father is not a chief,” says the law. But it took care at the same time not to close to anyone the avenues to chieftainship. Under ancient Irish law the land did not belong to the king or the chief or the landlord, but to the tribe, and the lowest of the free-tribesmen had as much an inalienable right to his share as had the chief himself. In process of time parts of the tribal territory appear to have become alienated to subtribes or families, and the chief, who always exercised certain administrative duties with respect to the land, appears to have had certain specific portions of the tribal land allotted to himself for his own use, and for the maintenance of his household and relatives. He was in no sense, however, what is now known as a landlord, although the whole tendency of later times was to increase his power at the expense of his tribe and vassals.

FREE-TRIBESMEN

The great bulk of the ancient Irish cultivators were the Féine (Faina) or free-tribesmen from whom the Brehon law is called in Irish Féineachas, or the” Law of the Free-tribesmen.” In process of time many of these in hours of distress naturally found themselves involved in something like pecuniary transactions with their head-chiefs, and, owing to poverty, or for some other reason, were driven to borrow or accept cattle from them, either for milk or tillage. These tribesmen then became the chieftain’s céiles (kailas) or vassals. They were known as Saer-stock and Daer-stock Céiles. The Saer-stock tenant—saer means free in the Irish language—accepted only a limited amount of stock; and retained his tribal rights, always most carefully guarded by the Brehon law, in their integrity. But the Daer-stock—daer means unfree—tenant, who took stock from his chief, became liable for heavier but still carefully defined duties. For instance for every three heifers deposited with him by his chief, he became liable to pay his chief the “proportionate stock of a calf of the value of a sack with its accompaniments,” and refections for three persons in the summer, and work for three days. The tribesman, it will be observed, by accepting stock from his chief parted to some extent with his freedom, but his interests were carefully looked after by law, and it was provided that after food-rent and service had been rendered for seven years, if the chief should die, the tenant should become entitled to the stock deposited with him. If, on the other hand, the tenant died, his heirs were partly relieved from their obligation. It will be observed that while this to some extent resembles the well-known Metayer system, so common on the continent of Europe, where the landlord supplies the stock and the land, and the tenant the labour and the skill, it differs from it in this, namely that in Ireland the saer- and daer-stock farmer did not supply the land, which was theirs by right of their free tribesmanship. In this way, namely, by accepting stock from their overlords, a rent-paying class grew up in Ireland, to which undoubtedly in time a large proportion of the ancient Irish came to belong, but the rent was paid not for the land but for the chief’s property deposited with the tenant.

But outside of the Free-tribesman (the Féine and Céile) there grew up gradually a class of tenants who were not free, who in fact must have been in something very like a state of servitude. These were known by the name of fuidirs or bothachs, i.e. cottiers. They appear to have been principally composed of broken men, outcasts from foreign tribes, fugitives from justice, and the like, who, driven out of or forsaking their own tribes, sought refuge under some other chief. These men must have been natural objects of suspicion if not of detestation to the free tribesmen, and, being themselves absolutely helpless, and having no tribal rights of their own, they became entirely dependent upon their chief, who settled them down upon the outlying or waste lands of the tribe, or possibly at times upon his own separate land which as chief he held in severalty, and imposed upon them far heavier tolls or rents than the law permitted to be exacted from any other members of the tribe. As Ireland became more troubled by Northmen, Normans, and English, this class of tenant increased in numbers, so many tribes were broken or destroyed, and the survivors dispersed to find refuge in other tribes and under other chiefs. In this way there grew up gradually, even under Irish law, a body of tenants to whom their chiefs must have stood in the light of something like English landlords.

THE IRISH FAMILY OR FINE

A curious Irish social unit was the fine (finna), consisting of one group of five persons and three groups of four, all males. The head of the family, called the ceann-fine (Kan-finna), and four members made up the first group, called geil-fine, the other three groups of four each were called deirbh-fine (true family), iar-fine (after family), and inn-fine (end family). On the birth of a new male member in the geil-fine the eldest member of the group was moved up into the next four (the deirbh-fine), and one out of that four into the next four, and one out of the last four was moved out of the fine altogether, into the clan, or sept, this last male thereby ceasing to be a member of the family, or fine. The sept, to use the English term, sprang from the family, or the family after some generations grew into the sept and then into the clan, contracting a greater share of artificiality in proportion to its enlargement. Because, while all the members of the sept could actually point to a common descent, the descent from a single ancestor in the case of the whole tribe was more or less founded upon fiction. The portion of territory ruled over by a sub-king was called tuath (too-a) and contained within it, at all events in later times, members of different descents. The chief, both of the tuath and the sept, was elected by the tribe or clansmen. The law of primogeniture did not obtain in Ireland, and the selection was made of the man who being of the chieftain’s near blood could best defend the tribe and lead it in both war and peace. “The head of every tribe,” says the Brehon Law tract the Cain Aigillne, “should be the man of the tribe who is the most experienced, the most notable, the most wealthy, the most learned, the most truly popular, the most powerful to oppose, the most steadfast to sue for profits and to be sued for losses.” As early as the third century, in a well-known piece of Irish literature, Cairbre, afterwards King of Ireland, is depicted as asking his father Cormac Mac Airt the question: “For what qualifications is a king elected over countries and tribes of people?” And Cormac in his answer embodied the views of practically every clan in Ireland down to the beginning of the seventeenth century. “He is chosen,” said the king, “from the goodness of his shape and family, from his experience and wisdom, from his prudence and magnanimity, from his eloquence and bravery in battle, and from the number of his friends.” He was, however, always chosen from the near kindred of the reigning chieftain.

IRISH CRIMINAL LAW

There seems to have been no hard and fast line drawn between civil and criminal offences in the Brehon law. They were both sued for in the same way before a Brehon, who heard the case argued, and either acquitted or else found guilty and assessed the fine. In the case of a crime committed by an individual all the sept were liable. If the offence were one against the person, and the criminal happened to die, then the liability of the sept was wiped out, for, according to the maxim, “the crime dies with the criminal “. If, however, the offence had been one causing damage to property or causing material loss, then the sept remained still liable for it, even after the death of the criminal. This regulation resulted in every member of the sept having a direct interest in suppressing crime.

There was always a fine inflicted for manslaughter, even unpremeditated, which was called an eric. If the manslaughter was premeditated, or what we would call murder, the eric was doubled, and it was distributed to the relatives of the slain in the proportion to which they were entitled to inherit his property. If the eric were not paid, then the injured person or family had a right to put the criminal to death. This acceptance of a blood-fine or eric for murder was a great source of scandal to the English, but, as Keating points out in the preface to his history of Ireland written in Irish, it was really a beneficent and logical institution, made necessary by the number of tribes into which Ireland was divided. Nor was the punishment, though short of the capital one, by any means light, and it at least insured compensation to the murdered man’s relatives, a compensation amounting to the entire “honour-price” of the murderer. For every man, from king to fuidir (the lowest class of tenant), had what was in Irish law termed his eineachlan, or honour-price, and this was forfeited in part or in whole, according to well-defined rules for various crimes. It was always forfeited for taking human life. Clergy we find more heavily punished than laymen. A man of high rank was always fined more than one of low rank for the same misdemeanour. An assault on a person of rank was more severely punished than one on an ordinary man. Fines for crimes against the person were particularly heavy; two cows, for instance, was the fine for a blow which raised a lump but did not draw the blood. The punishments awarded by the Brehons were of a most humane character. There is no trace of torture or of ordeal in ancient Irish law.

From the earliest times in which the English invaders made the acquaintance of the Brehon law system they denounced it with the most unsparing invective. But all the Norman chiefs who ruled over Irish tribal lands governed their territories by it in preference to English law, and in Elizabeth’s reign the great Shane O’Neill pointed out with bitter irony that if his Irish laws were so barbarous as the queen’s ministers alleged, it was passing strange that three hundred families had migrated from the English pale and the beneficent operations of English law to take refuge in his dominions. As early as 1367 an English Statute of Kilkenny denounced Brehon laws “wicked and damnable.” “Lewd” and “unreasonable” are the epithets applied to it by Sir John Davies. “In many things repugning quite both to God’s law and man’s” is how the poet Edmund Spenser characterized it.

The student, however, who views these laws dispassionately today, and merely from a juridical point of view, will find in them, to use the words of the great English jurist Sir Henry Maine, “a very remarkable body of archaic law unusually pure from its origin.” It is, in fact, a body of law that reflects for us early Aryan custom in its purity, almost perfectly untainted or uninfluenced by that Roman law which overran so much of the rest of Europe. It is true that Brehon law does bear certain resemblances to Roman law, but they are of the slightest, and not even so strong as its resemblance to the Hindoo codes. It has in truth certain relations to all known bodies of Aryan law from the Tiber to the Ganges, some to the Roman laws of earliest times, some to the Scandinavian, some to the Slavonic, and some particularly strong ones to the Hindoo laws, and quite enough to old Germanic law of all kinds “to render valueless,” to use the words of Sir Henry Maine, “the comparison which the English observers so constantly institute with the laws of England.” “Much of it,” says Maine, “is (now) worthless save for historical purposes, but on some points it really does come close to the most advanced legal doctrines of our day.” “There is a singularly close approach,” he remarks in another place, “to modern doctrines on the subject of contributory negligence, and I have found it possible to extract from the quaint texts of the ‘Book of Acaill’ some extremely sensible rulings on the difficult subject of the measure of damages, for which it would he in vain to study the writings of Lord Coke though these last are relatively of much later date.” But he points out how heavily the Brehon Law pays in other respects for this striking anticipation of the modern legal spirit by its too frequent air of fancifulness and unreality and indulgence of imagination. In the “Book of Acaill,” for instance, which, as mentioned before, is chiefly concerned with the law of torts, we find four long pages concerned solely with the injuries received from dogs in dogfights—Ireland was famous for its hounds, and dog-fights figure more than once in old Irish literature—setting forth in the most elaborate way all the qualifications of the governing rule required in the case of owners, in the case of spectators, in the case of the “impartial interposer,” in the case of the “half-interposer,” that is the man who tries to separate the dogs with a bias in favour of one of them, in the case of an accidental onlooker, in the case of a youth under age, and in the case of an idiot. The Brehons, in fact, appear to have never hesitated about inventing or imagining facts upon which to base their theoretical judgments. They endeavour to deal with all cases and all varieties of circumstances, and they have special rules for almost every relation of life and every detail of the social economy. A great number of the cases which come under discussion in the law books appear to be rather problematical than real, cases propounded by a teacher to his pupils to be argued on according to general principles, rather than actual subject for legal discussion.

ORIGIN AND GRADUAL GROWTH

Ancient Irish law was not produced by a process resembling legislation, but grew up gradually round the dicta and judgments of the most famous Brehons. These Brehons may very well have been in old times the Irish equivalents of the Gaulish Druids. There were only four periods in the entire history of Ireland when special laws were said to have been enacted by legislative authority: first during the reign of that Cormac Mac Airt already mentioned, in the third century; second, when St. Patrick came; third, by Cormac mac Culinan, the King-Bishop of Cashel, who died in 908; and lastly by Brian Boru, about a century later. But the great mass of the Brehon code appears to have been traditional or to have grown with the slow growth of custom. The very first paragraph of the Law of Distress takes us back to a case which happened in the reign of Conn of the Hundred Battles in the second century, and this passage was already so antique at the close of the ninth century that it required a gloss, for Cormac mac Culinan (who died in 908) alludes in his glossary to the gloss upon this passage. There are many allusions in this glossary to the Seanchus Mór, always referring to the glossed text, which must consequently have been in existence before the year 900. The text of the Seanchus Mor relies upon the judgments of famous Brehons such as Sencha in the first century, but there is no allusion in its text to any books or treatises. The gloss, however, is full of such allusions. Fourteen different books of civil law are alluded to in it. Cormac in his glossary alludes to five. Only one of the five alluded to by Cormac is among the fourteen mentioned in the Seanchus Mor. This shows that the number of books upon law must in old times have been legion. They perished, with so much of the rest of Irish literature, under the horrors of the English invasion and the penal laws, when an Irish manuscripts was a source of danger to the possessor.

The essential idea of modern law is entirely absent from the Brehons, if by law is meant a command, given by some one possessing authority, to do or to forbear doing a certain thing under pains and penalties. There is no sanction laid down in the Brehon laws against those who violated them, nor did the State provide any such sanction. This was the great inherent weakness of Irish jurisprudence, that it lacked the controlling hand of a strong central government to enforce its decisions. It is a weakness inseparable from a tribal organization in which the idea of the State, which had begun to emerge under the early Irish kings, had been repressed. When a Brehon had heard a case and delivered his judgment, there was no machinery of law set in motion to force the litigant to accept it. The only executive authority in ancient Ireland which lay behind the decision of the judge was the traditional obedience and good sense of the people, and it does not appear that this was ever found wanting. The Brehons never appear to have had any trouble in getting their decisions accepted by the common people. The public appear to have seen to it that the Brehon’s decision was always carried out. This was indeed the very essence of democratic government, with no executive authority behind it but the will of the people. There can be no doubt whatever that the system trained an intelligent and law-abiding public. Even Sir John Davies, the Elizabethan jurist, confesses “there is no nation or people under the Sunne that doth love equall and indifferent justice better than the Irish; or will rest better satisfied with the execution thereof although it be against themselves, so that they may have the protection and benefit of the law when upon just cause they do desire it.”

INFLUENCE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH UPON BREHON LAW

With regard to the influence of the Catholic Church upon Irish law as administered by the Brehons it is difficult to say much that is positive. Its influence was probably greatest in a negative direction. We have seen that the Brehons claimed the sanction of St. Patrick for the laws contained in the Seanchus Mór. We may also take it for granted that it was owing to the introduction of Christianity that Irish law began to be written down. The Gauls, as Caesar tells us, had a superstition about committing their sacred things, which of course included their law, to writing, and if the Irish had the same, as is very probable, it did not survive the introduction of the Christian religion. Then the eric-fine for homicide, although it probably did not owe its origin to Christianity, yet supported itself “as a middle course between forgiveness and retaliation” by the case of one Nuada who had murdered St. Patrick’s charioteer, being put to death for his crime and Patrick obtaining heaven for him. “At this day,” says the text, “we keep between forgiveness an retaliation, for as at present no one has the power of bestowing heaven, as Patrick had at that day, so no one is put to death for his intentional crimes so long as eric-fine is obtained, and whenever eric-fine is not obtained he is put to death for his intentional crimes, and exposed on the sea for his unintentional crimes.” Sir Henry Maine seems to think that the conception of a Will was grafted upon the Brehon Law by the Church, but if this were so, one would have expected that the law terms relating to it would have been derived from Latin sources; this, however, is not so, the terms being of purely native origin. In another most important matter, however, the Law of Contract, the Church may have exercised a greater influence; the sacredness of bequests and of promises being equally important to it as the donee of pious gifts. It is also likely that much of the law relating to the alienation of land, all the land belonging originally to the tribe, was influenced by the Church, and indeed the Church seems to have been the grantee primarily contemplated in these regulations. There is a great mass of jurisdiction relating to its territorial rights, and no doubt this must have affected the outside body of law as well. But all bodies of law are exceedingly unmalleable, and tend to resist the absorption of foreign elements; and Sir Henry Maine’s conclusion is that “there has certainly been nothing like an intimate interpenetration of ancient Irish law by Christian principle.” Still the effect of Christian principles must certainly have been great, but they were probably powerful as a negative rather than as a positive factor.

EXTINGUISHED BY THE ENGLISH

The Brehon law code was ultimately extinguished by the English in every part of Ireland. So soon as they conquered a territory they stamped it out, banished or slew the Brehons, and governed the land by English law. It would have been a very inconvenient doctrine for them that the tribe owned the land or that the people had rights as apart from the chief. Whenever a chief made his submission he was recognized as owner and landlord of the territory of the tribe, and the territory was adjudged to descend by primogeniture to his eldest son. In this way the hereditary rights of the mass of the people of Ireland were taken from them, and they were reduced to the rank of ordinary tenants, and, the native nobility being soon exterminated, they mostly fell into the hands of English landlords, and were finally subjected to those rack rents which have made the name of Irish tenant an object of commiseration for so many generations. The Brehon laws remained in force in every part of Ireland where the Irish held sway until the final conquest of the country. It has been shown that the system of land-tenure which the Fitzgeralds found obtaining in Munster in 1170 was left unchanged by them, and the land burdened with no additional charges until their subjugation in 1586. Duald Mac Firbis, the celebrated antiquary, who died in 1670, mentions that even in his own day he had known Irish chieftains who governed their clans according to “the words of Fithal and the Royal Precepts,” that is according to the books of the Brehon Law. Amongst the many bitter injustices inflicted upon Ireland and the Irish by the English conquest none has had more cruel or more far-reaching effects than the abrogation of the Brehon law relating to land-tenure and division of property.

Brehon Laws (Master of the Rolls Series) 1, (1865); II (1869); III (1873); lV (1879); V and VI (1901); D’Arbois de JUBAINVILLE, Etudes sur le droit Celtique, avec la collobaration de Paul Collinet (2 vols. Paris, 1893); vol. I forms tome VII of M. D’Arbois’ Cours de literature Celtique; MAINE, Early History of Institutions (London, 1875); GINNELL, The Brehon Laws, a legal handbook (London, 1894); HYDE, A Literary History of Ireland (London, 1903), xlii; Memorandum on Land tenure, appended to Third Report of the Commission on Congestion in Ireland, Government Blue Book (1907), 358, containing a brief but valuable summary of the secure and comfortable position of the masses in Ireland under the Brehon law system at the time of the confiscation of Munster, towards the close of the sixteenth century, and of the rack rents which followed the substitution of English law, by MRS. STOPFORD GREEN; JOYCE, A Social History of Ancient Ireland (Dublin, 1903); MEYER, Kultur der Gegenwart (Berlin, 1907), s.v. Keltische Literoturen.

DOUGLAS HYDE.

Bremen

Formerly the seat of an archdiocese situated in the north-western part of the present German Empire. After Charlemagne’s conquest of the Saxons, Christianity was preached in the region about the lower Elbe and the lower Weser by St. Willehad; in 787 Willehad was consecrated bishop, and that part of Saxony and Friesland about the mouth of the Weser assigned him for his diocese. He chose as his see the city of Bremen, which is mentioned for the first time in documents of 782, and built there a cathedral, praised for its beauty by St. Anschar; it was dedicated in 789. The Diocese of Bremen, however, was erected only under St. Willehad’s successor, St. Willerich (804 or 805–838). After the death of the third bishop, Leuderich (d. 845), by an act of synod of Mainz (848), Bremen was united with the Archdiocese of Hamburg, which, since its foundation, in 831, had been under St. Anschar, who was appointed first archbishop of the new archdiocese (848–865). Hamburg had been destroyed by the Vikings in 845, and in 1072, after a second destruction of the city, the archiepiscopal see was definitely transferred to Bremen, though the title was not formally transferred until 1223. Until the secularization of 1803 Hamburg had its own cathedral chapter. Before it was united with Hamburg, the Diocese of Bremen had belonged to the Province of Cologne. Despite the protests of the Archbishop of Cologne against the separation of Bremen, Pope Nicholas I, in 864, confirmed the new foundation, which fell heir to the task of evangelizing the pagan North.

Rembert, (865–888), the successor of St. Anschar, summoned the Benedictines from Corvei and became a member of the order; his companion and successor, St. Adalgar (888–909), was likewise a Benedictine. Both performed great services in the conversion of the North to Christianity. When the Archbishop of Cologne renewed his claims to Bremen, Pope Formosus, in 892, gave the decision that the Archbishop of Bremen was to be independent of the Metropolitan of Cologne, but should take part in the diocesan synods of Cologne. Under St. Hoger (909–916), a Benedictine of Corvei, and Reginward (917–918), the Hungarians laid waste the diocese and even burned the city of Bremen. The ninth bishop, St. Unni, died at Birka (936), while on a missionary journey to Scandinavia. Through the efforts of Archbishop Adaldag (937–988) Bremen received the privileges of a market town, and in 967 the same archbishop obtained the jurisdiction of a count over the city, as well as various crown-lands from Otto I, thus laying the foundation for the temporal possessions of the archbishops of Bremen. At the instance of Adaldag three dioceses were erected in Danish territory and in Schleswig, and made suffragans of Bremen. There was a considerable accession of territory to the archdiocese under Archbishop Unwan (1013–29). The foundation, however, of the later highly developed temporal power of Bremen was laid by Adalbert, the guardian and influential counsellor of Henry IV; during his long episcopate (1043–72) he brought nearly all the countships (Grafschaften) within the limits of the archdiocese under the jurisdiction of the Church of Bremen. His dream of raising the archdiocese to the dignity of a northern patriarchate, however, was never realized. During his episcopate the Obotrites were converted to Christianity, and three dioceses, Oldenburg, Mecklenburg, and Ratzeburg, were erected as suffragans of Bremen. The Northern churches, however, were separated from Bremen, and later placed under the Bishop of Lund, who was raised to the rank of a metropolitan in 1103. Like Adalbert, his immediate successors took the side of the emperors against the popes. At the Council of the Lateran the nominal metropolitan jurisdiction over the churches of Scandinavia was restored to Adalbert II (1123–48), but in reality they remained independent of Bremen. During the episcopate of Adalbert Vizelin succeeded in his task of evangelizing the Slavs of Holstein and Mecklenburg. Hartwich I (1148–68), Count of Stade, brought the countship of Stade under the jurisdiction of the Church of Bremen. His struggle with Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony, entailed great suffering to the archdiocese; in 1155 the city of Bremen was captured and plundered, and the countship of Stade seized and held by Henry. After the fall of Henry, Archbishop Siegfried (1178–84) was the first to regain possession of the countship. Hartwich II (1184–1207) founded several monasteries and promoted the civilization of his people; his administration of temporal affairs, however, was unfortunate and involved the archdiocese in serious difficulties with Emperor Henry VI, resulting in revolt on the part of the bishop’s subjects.

Dissensions over the choice of an archbishop and the claims of Palatine Count Henry, son-in-law of Henry the Lion, to the countship of Stade, left the Church of Bremen in sore straits at the beginning of the thirteenth century. After lengthy struggles, Archbishop Gerhard II (1219- 57) finally received the undisputed possession of the countship, by which the territorial extent of the archdiocese was substantially fixed, covering, at that time, the land between the lower Weser and the lower Elbe, including also a part of the territory to the right of the mouth of the Elbe. Repeated difficulties over the choice of an archbishop, the growth of the city of Bremen, the continual disposal of diocesan privileges by archbishops under stress of financial embarrassment, misrule on the part of some archbishops, and other circumstances as well, contributed towards the decline of the power and splendour of the archdiocese which took place in the course of the fourteenth century. Among the more capable bishops of this period were: Johann Grant (1307–27), previously Archbishop of Lund, Burchard Grelle (1327–44), who held a synod in 1328 and redeemed several castles of the archdiocese, which had been given as security; Johann II Slamstorff (1406–21); Boldewin von Wenden (1435–41), who was also Abbot of St. Michael in Lüneburg; Gerhard III (1441–63), and others. Less fortunate was the episcopate of Heinrich von Schwarzburg (1463–96), who also became Bishop of Münster in 1466; the city of Bremen took advantage of the almost uninterrupted absence of the last-named archbishop to shake off the episcopal authority almost entirely. Several estates or castles were given in pledge or fell in ruins, and the dissatisfaction of the people under the ecclesiastical rule increased, preparing the soil for the Reformation.

The successor of Heinrich von Schwarzburg, Johann III Rohde (1497–1511), cleared the archdiocese of debt, and introduced many reforms. In spite of the fact that he came of the middle class, he sought to increase his prestige in the diocese by taking as coadjutor Prince Christopher of Brunswick (1500). The latter succeeded in 1511, but being at the same time Bishop of Verden, resided chiefly in Verden, and so was unable to devote the necessary attention to his Diocese of Bremen. The Reformation won its first victory in the city of Bremen; the Catholic clergy who opposed the new teaching were expelled, monasteries suppressed, the cathedral chapter banished from the city in 1533, and allowed to return only under the condition that no Mass be said or choir service held. From the city as a centre the new teaching spread through the surrounding territory and though the archbishop himself and some monasteries for a long time offered vigorous opposition, by the help of the Smalkaldic League, which Bremen had joined, the Reformation was introduced throughout the archdiocese, in some cases by force. After the death of Christopher (1558), the cathedral chapter, which was almost entirely Protestant by this time, chose as his successor his brother George (1558–66), who was already Bishop of Verden and Minden; during his episcopate, the archdiocese, with the exception of the cathedral and some country parishes, accepted the teaching of Calvin. George was succeeded by four Protestant archbishops, the last (1634) being Frederick, Prince of Denmark, later King of Denmark under the name of Frederick III. During the Thirty Years War, by the edict of restitution of Emperor Ferdinand II (1625), the archdiocese was restored to the Catholics, Catholic worship re-established, monasteries given back to the monks, and a college at Stade placed in charge of the Jesuits (1629–32). When, however, in 1632, the imperial troops were forced to evacuate the territory before the Swedes, Catholicism was once more rooted out. In 1644 the archdiocese was captured by the Swedes, and in 1648 secularized by the Peace of Westphalia, and ceded as a duchy to Sweden, and the cathedral chapter at Bremen suppressed. In 1712 the territory became a possession of Denmark, and in 1715 was purchased by the electoral Prince George of Hanover. The city of Bremen with the surrounding territory was in 1731 recognized as a free city of the empire, and in 1803 received an increase of territory; in 1815 it entered the German Confederation, in 1866 the North German Confederation, and in 1871 the German Empire. The greater part of the present duchy was ceded to Prussia with the Kingdom of Hanover (1866). Ecclesiastically, the territory of the former Archdiocese of Bremen is divided among several dioceses: the city of Bremen and the vicinity, with about 13,000 Catholics, is subject to the Vicariate Apostolic of the Northern Missions, the remaining territory to the Dioceses of Hildesheim, Osnabrück, and Münster.

A complete bibliography of the older literature on Bremen in DEHIO, Gesch. des Erzbistums Bremen-Hamburg bis zum Ausgang der Mission (2 vols., Berlin, 1877). Cf. also ADAMUS BREMENSIS, Gesta Hamenburgensis eccles pontificum (Hanover, 1846; 2nd ed., 1876), German tr. LAURENT, Adams von Bremen Hamburgische Kirchengesch. (Berlin, 1850), 2nd ed. WATTENBACH (Leipzig, 1888); LAPPENBERG, Geschichtsquellen des Erzstifts Bremen (Bremen, 1841); WIEDEMANN, Das Herzogtum Bremen (2 vols., 1866); VON HODENBERG, Bremer Geschichtsquellen (3 parts, Celle, 1856–58); Bremer, Urkundenbuch, ed. EHMCK AND BIPPEN (5 vols., Bremen, 1873–1902); Bremischen Jahrbücher (21 vols., Bremen, 1684–1906); VON BIPPEN, Geschichte der Stadt Bremen (3 vols., Bremen and Halle, 1894–1904); BUCHENAU, Die freie Hansestadt Bremen und ihr Gebiet (3d ed., Bremen, 1900); VON SCHUBERT, Hamburg, die Missionsmetropole des Nordens (Bremen, 1904).

JOSEPH LINS

St. Brenach

An Irish missionary in Wales, a contemporary of St. Patrick, and among the earliest of the Irish saints who laboured among the Celts of that country. About the year 418 he travelled to Rome and Brittany, and thence to Milford Haven. He erected various oratories near the rivers Cleddau, Gwain, and Caman, and at the foot of Carn Engyli, or “Mountain of the Angels,” which was his most famous foundation. Among his converts was Brecan (an Irish chief), the ruler of South Wales, about the year 425, and this Brecan is reckoned by the “Triads” as a saint, who founded numerous churches in Brecknockshire, Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire, Denbighshire, and Angelesey. From the Welsh “Lives” we learn that St. Brenach died 7 April, on which day his feast is celebrated. His church, overhanging the Severn, is a lasting memorial of the Irish pilgrim who was the instrument under God for the conversion of a great part of Wales.

REES, Lives of the Cambro-British Saints (Llandovery, 1853); Id., Essay on the Welsh Saints (1836); WILLIAMS, Ecclesiastical Antiquities of the Cymry; Id., The Welsh Triads; MORAN, Irish Saints in Great Britain (1903), new edition; FENTON, Pembrokeshire; Acta SS., I, April; Martyrologium Anglicanum; O’HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints, IV, 7 April.

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

Michael John Brenan

An ecclesiastical historian, born in Kilkenny, Ireland, in 1780; died at Dublin, February, 1847. He was the son of a stonemason and after his ordination to the priesthood, speedily obtained reputation as a preacher, but, owing to his vanity and pride, came into collision with his bishop, and was suspended. He then left the Church, became a Protestant, and was taken up by the Priests’ Protection Society under whose auspices he was announced to preach in St. George’s Church, Dublin. In the meantime he reconsidered his position and repented of his folly. He resolved to make public reparation for his fault, and on the Sunday in 1809, when he was announced to commence his campaign against the Church, he ascended the pulpit of St. George’s, began by blessing himself most reverently, and then to the relief of his audience took up the Bible, and said “This is the Word of God.” After a brief pause, he added deliberately and earnestly, “And I swear by its contents that every word I have uttered against the Catholic Church is a lie,” and at once left the building. He went to a neighbouring Capuchin friary, explained what had happened, and begged to be admitted into the order. After some time, his prayers were granted, and he became a Franciscan at Wexford where in later years he wrote (as a penance, it is said) his valuable “Ecclesiastical History of Ireland” (2 vols., Dublin, 1840, revised ed., 1864).

HOGAN, History of Kilkenny (pulpit incident reproduced in Ossory Archoelogical Society Journal, 1879), 423–425; Mirror files (Waterford, 7 November, 1809).

D. J. O’DONOGHUE

St. Brendan

St. Brendan of Ardfert and Clonfert, known also as Brendan the Voyager, was born in Ciarraighe Luachra, near the present city of Tralee, County Kerry, Ireland, in 484; he died at Enachduin, now Annaghdown, in 577. He was baptized at Tubrid, near Ardfert, by Bishop Erc. For five years he was educated under St. Ita, “the Brigid of Munster,” and he completed his studies under St. Erc, who ordained him priest in 512. Between the years 512 and 530 St. Brendan built monastic cells at Ardfert, and at Shanakeel or Baalynevinoorach, at the foot of Brandon Hill. It was from here that he set out on his famous voyage for the Land of Delight. The old Irish Calendars assigned a special feast for the “Egressio familiae S. Brendani,” on 22 March; and St Aengus the Culdee, in his Litany, at the close of the eighth century, invokes “the sixty who accompanied St. Brendan in his quest of the Land of Promise.” Naturally, the story of the seven years’ voyage was carried about, and, soon, crowds of pilgrims and students flocked to Ardfert. Thus, in a few years, many religious houses were formed at Gallerus, Kilmalchedor, Brandon Hill, and the Blasquet Islands, in order to meet the wants of those who came for spiritual guidance to St. Brendan.

Having established the See of Ardfert, St. Brendan proceeded to Thomond, and founded a monastery at Inis-da-druim (now Coney Island, County Clare), in the present parish of Killadysert, about the year 550. He then journeyed to Wales, and thence to Iona, and left traces of his apostolic zeal at Kilbrandon (near Oban) and Kilbrennan Sound. After a three years’ mission in Britain he returned to Ireland, and did much good work in various parts of Leinster, especially at Dysart (Co. Kilkenny), Killiney (Tubberboe), and Brandon Hill. He founded the Sees of Ardfert, and of Annaghdown, and established churches at Inchiquin, County Galway, and at Inishglora, County Mayo. His most celebrated foundation was Clonfert, in 557, over which he appointed St. Moinenn as Prior and Head Master. St. Brendan was interred in Clonfert, and his feast is kept on 16 May.

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

VOYAGE OF SAINT BRENDAN

St. Brendan belongs to that glorious period in the history of Ireland when the island in the first glow of its conversion to Christianity sent forth its earliest messengers of the Faith to the continent and to the regions of the sea. It is, therefore, perhaps possible that the legends, current in the ninth and committed to writing in the eleventh century, have for foundation an actual sea-voyage the destination of which cannot however be determined. These adventures were called the “Navigatio Brendani,” the Voyage or Wandering of St. Brendan, but there is no historical proof of this journey. Brendan is said to have sailed in search of a fabled Paradise with a company of monks, the number of which is variously stated as from 18 to 150. After a long voyage of seven years they reached the “Terra Repromissionis,” or Paradise, a most beautiful land with luxuriant vegetation. The narrative offers a wide range for the interpretation of the geographical position of this land and with it of the scene of the legend of St. Brendan. On the Catalonian chart (1375) it is placed not very far west of the southern part of Ireland. On other charts, however, it is identified with the “Fortunate Isles” of the ancients and is placed towards the south. Thus it is put among the Canary Islands on the Herford chart of the world (beginning of the fourteenth century); it is substituted for the island of Madeira on the chart of the Pizzigani (1367), on the Weimar chart (1424), and on the chart of Beccario (1435). As the increase in knowledge of this region proved the former belief to be false the island was pushed further out into the ocean. It is found 60 degrees west of the first meridian and very near the equator on Martin Behaim’s globe. The inhabitants of Ferro, Gomera, Madeira, and the Azores positively declared to Columbus that they had often seen the island and continued to make the assertion up to a far later period. At the end of the sixteenth century the failure to find the island led the cartographers Apianus and Ortelius to place it once more in the ocean west of Ireland; finally, in the early part of the nineteenth century belief in the existence of the island was completely abandoned. But soon a new theory arose, maintained by thos scholars who claim for the Irish the glory of discovering America, namely, MacCarthy, Rafn, Beamish, O’Hanlon, Beauvois, Gafarel, etc. They rest this claim on the account of the Northmen who found a region south of Vinland and the Chesapeake Bay called “Hvitramamaland” (Land of the White Men) or “Irland ed mikla” (Greater Ireland), and on the tradition of the Shawano (Shawnee) Indians that in earlier times Florida was inhabited by a white tribe which had iron implements. In regard to Brendan himself the point is made that he could only have gained a knowledge of foreign animals and plants, such as are described in the legend, by visiting the western continent. On the other hand, doubt was very early expressed as to the value of the narrative for the history of discovery. Honorius of Augsburg declared that the island had vanished; Vincent of Beauvais denied the authenticity of the entire pilgrimage, and the Bollandists do not recognize it. Among the geographers, Alexander von Humboldt, Peschel, Ruge, and Kretschmer, place the story among geographical legends, which are of interest for the history of civilization but which can lay no claim to serious consideration from the point of view of geography. The oldest account of the legend is in Latin, “Navigatio Sancti Brendani,” and belongs to the tenth or eleventh century; the first French translation dates from 1125; since the thirteenth century the legend has appeared in the literatures of the Netherlands, Germany, and England. A list of the numerous manuscripts is given by Hardy, “Descriptive Catalogue of Materials Relating to the History of Great Britain and Ireland” (London, 1862), I, 159 sqq. Editions have been issued by: Jubinal, “La Legende latine de S. Brandaines avec une traduction inedite en prose et en poésie romanes” (Paris, 1836); Wright, “St. Brandan, a Medieval Legend of the Sea, in English Verse, and Prose” (London, 1844); C. Schroder, “Sanct Brandan, ein latinischer und drei deutsche Texte” (Erlangen, 1871); Brill, “Van Sinte Brandane” (Gronningen, 1871); Francisque Michel, “Les Voyages merveilleux de Saint Brandan a la recherche du paradis terrestre” (Paris, 1878); Fr. Novati, “La Navigatio Sancti Brandani in antico Veneziano” (Bergamo, 1892); E. Bonebakker, “Van Sente Brandane” (Amsterdam, 1894); Carl Wahland gives a list of the rich literature on the subject and the old French prose translation of Brendan’s voyage (Upsala, 1900), XXXVI-XC.

Beamish, The Discovery of America (1881), 210–211; O’Hanlon, Lives of the Irish Saints (Dublin, 1875), V, 389; Peschel, Abhandlungen zur Erd- und Volkerkunde (Leipzig, 1877), I, 20–28; Gaffarel, Les Votages de Saint Brandan et des Papœ dans l’Atlantique au moyen age in Bulletin de la Societé de Géographie de Rochefort (1880–1881), II, 5; Ruge, Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen (Leipzig, 1881); Schirmer, Zur Brendanus Legende (Leipzig, 1888); Zimmer, Keltische Beiträge in Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Litteratur (1888–89), 33; Idem, Die frühesten Berührungen der Iren mit den Nordgermanen in Berichte der Akademie der Wissenschaft (Berlin, 1891); Kretschmer, Die Entdeckung Amerikas (Berlin, 1892, Calmund, 1902), 186–195; Brittain, The History of North America (Philadelphia, 1907), I, 10; Rafn, Ant. Amer., XXXVII, and 447–450; Avezac, Les Iles fantastiques de l’océan occidental in Nouv. An. des voyages et de science geogr., (1845), I, 293; MacCarthy, The voyage of St. Brendan, in Dublin University Magazine (Jan. 1848), 89 sqq.

OTTO HARTIG.

Klemens Maria Brentano

A German poet, one of the most prominent members of the Romantic School. He was born at Thal-Ehrenbreitstein 8 September, 1778; d. 28 July, 1842. After a futile attempt to become a merchant, he entered the University of Jena in 1797, where he remained with occasional interruptions until 1803. Here he made the acquaintance of the brothers August Wilhelm and Friedrich Schlegel and of Ludwig Tieck, the founders and leaders of the Romantic School, to which Brentano also attached himself. In 1803 he married Sophie Mereau, the divorced wife of Professor Mereau, and the following year moved to Heidelberg, where with Achim von Arnim, who later became his brother-in-law, and Joseph Gorres he was soon the leading spirit of the so-called younger Romantic School. It was during this period that he published jointly with Arnim the famous collection of old folksongs known as “Des Knaben Wunderhorn,” which appeared in three volumes between the years 1805 and 1808. This collection established once for all the position of the Volkslied in German literature and had a powerful effect on the lyric poetry not only of Germany, but also of other nations. Longfellow testifies that it had “the most wild and magic influence” on his imagination. It was of course not be expected that the text of these poems should be philologically accurate, but this is no way diminishes the importance of the service which the editors rendered to German literature. In 1806 Brentano’s wife died and he then led a wild, unsettled life, drifting to various places, Halle, Weimer, Kassel, Vienna, and Berlin. A second matrimonial venture proved disastrous; his wife was a woman of unbridled temper and habits, and he soon separated from her. Finally he drifted to Berlin restless and discontented. There he met the accomplished Luise Hensel, who later on achieved fame as a poetess. His ardent love for her was unrequited. Luise Hensel declined all offers of marriage. A great change now came over the poet. His previous indifference to the Catholic Faith, in which he had been born, was changed to the most fervid devotion. He left Berlin and in 1818 went to the secluded Westphalian town of Dulmen, attracted by the fame of the stigmatic nun, Katharina Emmerich. For six years he remained near her, making a record of her visions and revelations. The publication of this record occupied the greater part of the remaining years of his life. After her death in 1824 he again wandered, settling at last in 1833 in Munich, where with Gorres he was the centre of a circle of distinguished Catholic scholars and men of letters. He died in 1842 while visiting his brother Christian in Aschaffenburg.

Brentano is chiefly known as the editor of “Des Knaben Wunderhorn,” but he also has written a great deal of original matter. Among his earlier writings “Godwi” deserves notice, as a wild, formless romance in which some fine lyrics are interspersed, including he song of the “Lore Lay,” later incorporated in the “Wunderhorn.” This song inspired Heine’s famous ballad on the same subject. “Die Romanzen vom Rosenkranz” (Romances of the Rosary) is an unfinished narrative allegorical poem containing a fanciful mixture of biographical, historical, and legendary traits, which was published in 1852 after the author’s death. Especially noteworthy are the stories, or Märchen, such as the “Geschichte vom braven Kasperl und dem schonen Annerl” (1817), a tragic story of village life; and “Gockel, Hinkel und Gackeleia” (1838). A fantastic, whimsical humour pervades nearly all of Brentano’s work; his style is marred by frequent and disagreeable eccentricities. When he wishes to be naïve, he often becomes merely childish. His poetic gifts, however, are undeniably of a high order; some of his lyric poems (e.g. “Lied der Spinnerin,” “An eine Kranke”) are among the best of their kind. But he lacked self-control and dissipated his great literary talents. His collected writings, edited by his brother Christian, appeared at Frankfort in nine volumes (1851–55).

Selections with biographical and critical introduction edited by Max Koch in Kurschner, Deutsche National Litterature, vol. CXLVI, and by Diel (Freiburg im Br., 1873, 2 vols.); Guido Gorres (ed.), Marchen (2 vols., Stuttgart and Tubingen, 1846); Diel, Clemens Brentano, Ein Lebensbild, suppl. and ed. By Kreiten (2 vols. Freiburg im Br., 1877); Johnson in The Catholic World Magazine (New York, 1899) L, 61–71.

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Diocese of Brescia

The Diocese of Brescia takes its name from the principal city in the province of the same name in Lombardy, between the Mella and the Naviglio. The city of Brescia contains 60,000 inhabitants and is of great commercial importance. It was founded by the Gauls, and in 197 B.C. was captured by the Romans, who called in Brixia. When, in 312, Constantine advanced against Maxentius, an engagement took place at Brescia in which the enemy was forced to retreat as far as Verona. During the invasion of the Huns under Attila, the city was besieged. In 774 Charlemagne captured it from the Lombards.

The Bishops of Brescia received the title of Count from Louis II, and in consequence became civil rulers of the city and the countship. Many struggles followed, however, in particular after Arduin Lord Marcher of Ivrea, who had proclaimed himself King of Italy (1002), had slain the bishop of this city of holding allegiance to Emperor Henry II. Henry, to ensure the fidelity of the citizens of Brescia, was obliged to confirm the civil liberty granted them by Arduin, which is the origin of the commune of Brescia. In the successive struggles between the Lombard cities and the emperors, Brescia was implicated in some of the leagues and in all of the uprisings against them. Memorable in the history of these conflicts is the siege laid to Brescia by Frederick II in 1238 on account of the part taken by this city in the battle of Cortenova (27 November, 1237). Brescia came through this assault victorious. After the fall of the imperial house of Swabia republican institutions declined at Brescia, as well as in the other free cities and the leadership was contested between several powerful families, chief among them the Maggi and the Brusati, the latter of the Ghibelline party. In 1311 Henry VII laid siege to Brescia for six months, losing three-fourths of his army. Later the Scaligeri of Verona, aided by the exiled Ghibellines, sought to place Brescia under subjection. The citizens of Brescia then had recourse to John of Luxemburg; Mastino II della Scala, however, expelled the governor appointed by him. His mastery, in turn, was soon contested by the Visconti of Milan, but not even their rule was undisputed, as Pandolfo Malatesta in 1406 took possession of the city, but in 1416 bartered it to Filippo Visconti, who in 1426 sold it to the Venetians. The Milanese nobles, however, forced Filippo to resume hostilities against the Venetians, and thus to attempt the recovery of this city, but he was defeated in the battle of Maclodio (1427), near Brescia. In 1439 Brescia was once more besieged by Francesco Sforza, captain of the Venetians, who conquered Piccinino, Filippo’s condottiere. Thenceforward Brescia acknowledged the authority of Venice, with the exception of the years between 1512 and 1520, when it was occupied by the French armies. From 1796 it shared the fortunes of the republic.

The Bishop of Brescia is suffragan to the Archbishop of Milan. Legend traces the beginnings of Christianity in Brescia to St. Barnabas, who is said to have made St. Anatolus bishop. However, Milan also claims Anatolus as its first bishop, consecrated by St. Barnabas. In any case, the Faith was probably brought to Brescia by way of Milan. During the reign of Hadrian, Brescia was the scene of the martyrdom of Sts. Faustinus and Jovita (cf. Acta SS., 15 February). From the time of the persecutions tradition mentions the names of several bishops, but nothing authentic is known concerning them. In the fourth century there was the celebrated St. Philastrius, a most zealous champion of orthodoxy against heresy, of whom it is related that he converted many pagans. He was succeeded by St. Gaudentius, consecrated by St. Ambrose (c. 387), who erected outside the city walls the church Ad Concilia Sanctorum, in which the holy matron Silvia was buried later. A great number of the bishops who ruled this diocese form the fourth to the seventh centuries are inscribed on the rolls of the saints, e.g. St. Paul, St. Theophilis, St. Silvinus, St. Gaudiosus, St. Ottapianus, St. Vigilius, St. Hercalanus, St. Poterius, St. Anastasius (610), who built the church of San Pietro, and made it the cathedral, and St. Dominic (613), who with the many gifts he received from Queen Theodolinda, erected the church called the Rotonda. Bishop Ramperto brought to Brescia the Benedictines, who constructed a church to which they transferred the relics of Sts. Faustinus and Jovita; he also took part in the Council of Mantua of 827. Notingus (844) was the first bishop who bore the title of Count. Landolfo II (1007) built the church of Santa Eufemia outside the walls.

During the episcopate of Manfredo Lucciaga (1133), Arnold of Brescia disseminated his teachings, with the result that the governors of the city all but confiscated the property of the churches of Brescia. Alberto Rezzato (1213) had the Paterines to contend against; he also brought many relics from the Holy Land. Blessed Gualla Ronio (1229), of the Friars Preachers, was distinguished for his virtue. Berardo Maggi (1275), a Guelph, was made Duke and Count of the city, and constructed among other works two canals diverting the waters of the Rivers Chiese and Mella, in order to furnish the motive force for many factories. Tommaso Visconti (1388) did much for the maintenance of discipline among the clergy. Under Bishop Francesco de’ Mareri (1418), the preaching of St. Bernardine of Siena wrought a great moral reform in the city of Brescia. Pietro dal Monte (1442) adorned the episcopal palace, erected a hospital, and wrote various works. Paolo Zane (1481) built the shrine of Santa Maria delle Grazie and established the hospital for incurables. In the sixteenth century three cardinals succeeded each other: Francesco Cornaro (1532), Andrea Cornaro (1543), and Durante de’ Duranti (1551). Domenico Bollani (1559) convened a diocesan synod (1574) in conformity with the decree of the Council of Trent, and founded the seminary. Giovanni Dolfin (1579) seconded St. Charles Borromeo in his work of reform, and that saint by his own desire celebrated the obsequies of Bishop Dolfin. Bishop Pietro Ottoboni (1654) was later elevated to the chair of St. Peter under the name of Alexander VIII. Cardinal Alb. Badoaro (1706) was a very zealous pastor, combating in an especial manner the Quietism which had infected his diocese. Cardinal Angelo M. Quirini (1727) was a man of great learning; he founded the library of the commune, which took its name from him, and did much towards the restoration of the cathedral. During the episcopate of Giovanni Nani (1773) the French invasion took place, with the attendant pillaging of churches and convents.

The most important churches of the city have been mentioned in connexion with the bishops. There is still to be noted that of San Francesco, Romanesque in style, with a beautiful façade. Noteworthy, also, is the cemetery of Brescia, dating from the beginning of the nineteenth century, containing a large watch tower.

The diocese contains 79 rural deaneries, 389 parishes, 774 churches, chapels, and oratories, 997 secular priests, 77 regular clergy, 398 seminarists, 283 members of female religious orders, 4 schools for boys, and 8 for girls, and a population of 527,475.

Cappelletti, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XI; Annuario eccl. (1907).

U. BENIGNI

Prince-Bishopric of Breslau

Breslau, the PRINCE-BISHOPRIC OF, is seated at Breslau, on the River Oder in the Prussian Province of Silesia.

HISTORY

Christianity was first introduced into Silesia by missionaries from Moravia and Bohemia. After the conversion of the Polish Duke Misiko (later Mieczyslaus) the work of bringing the people to the new faith went on more rapidly. Up to about the year 1000 Silesia had no bishop of its own, but was united to neighbouring dioceses. In this way arose the first connection of Silesia with Germany. The upper part of the River Oder formed the boundary of the Kingdom of Poland; all the territory which is now Silesia lying on the right-hand bank of the Oder belonged, therefore, to the Diocese of Posen, which was suffragan to the Metropolitan See of Magdeburg. This part of Silesia was thus under the jurisdiction of that Jordan who was, in 968, appointed first Bishop Posen. The part of Silesia lying on the left bank of the Oder belonged to the territory then included in Bohemia, and was consequently within the diocesan jurisdiction of Prague. The See of Prague, founded probably in 973, was suffragan to the Archdiocese of Mainz. The Polish ruler, Boleslaw Chrobry, the son of Misiko, obtained the Bohemian part of Silesia during his wars of conquest, and a change in the ecclesiastical dependence of the province followed. By a patent of Otto III, in 995, Silesia was attached to the See of Meissen, which, like Posen, was suffragan to the Archdiocese of Magdeburg. Soon after this the Emperor Otto III and Duke Boleslaw Chrobry, who was then the ruler of the whole of Silesia, founded the Diocese of Breslau, and Breslau, together with the Dioceses of Cracow and Colberg, was placed under the Archdiocese of Gnesen, which was founded by Otto in the year 1000. The first Bishop of Breslau is said to have been named Johannes, but nothing more than this is known of him, nor is there extant any official document giving the boundaries of the diocese at the time of its erection. However, they are defined in the Bulls of approval and protection issued by Pope Adrian IV, 23 April, 1155, and by Pope Innocent IV, 9 August, 1245.

The powerful Polish ruler, Boleslaw Chrobry, was succeeded by his son Misiko II, who had but a short reign. After his death a revolt against Christianity and the reigning family broke out, the new Church organization of Poland disappeared from view, and the names of the Bishops of Breslau for the next half century are unknown. Casimir, the son of Misiko, and his mother were driven out of the country, but through German aid they returned, and the affairs of the Church were brought into better order. A Bishop of Breslau from probably 1051 to 1062 was Hieronymus, said by later tradition to have been a Roman nobleman. He was followed by Johannes I (1062–72), who was succeeded by Petrus I (1071–1111). During the episcopate of Petrus, Count Peter Wlast entered upon that work of founding churches and monasteries which has preserved his name. Petrus was followed by: Zyroslaus I (1112–20); Heimo (1120–26), who welcomed St. Otto of Bamberg to Breslau in May, 1124, when the saint was on his missionary journey to Pomerania; Robert I (1127–42), who was Bishop of Cracow; Robert II (1142–46); and Johannes II (1146–49), who became Archbishop of Gnesen. With the episcopate of Bishop Walter (1149–69) the history of the Diocese of Breslau begins to grow clearer. At Walter’s request Pope Adrian IV, in 1155, took the bishopric under his protection and confirmed to it the territorial possessions of which a list had been submitted to him. Among the rights which the pope then confirmed was that of jurisdiction over the lands belonging to the castle of Ottmachau which had been regarded as the patrimony of the diocese from its foundation. During Walter’s episcopate the Polish Duke Ladislaus and his family were driven from home and took refuge in Germany; in 1163 the sons of Ladislaus returned and, through the intervention of Frederick Barbarossa, received as an independent duchy the part of Silesia which was included at that date in the See of Breslau. Bishop Walter built a new, massively constructed cathedral, in which he was buried. Zyroslaus II (1170–98) encouraged the founding of the Cistercian monastery of Leubus by Duke Boleslaw the Long. In 1180 Zyroslaus took part in the national assembly at Lenczyc at which laws for the protection of the Church and its property were promulgated. Jaroslaus (1198–1201), the oldest son of Duke Boleslaw, and Duke of Oppeln, was the first prince to become Bishop of Breslau. Cyprian (1201–7) was originally Abbot of the Premonstratensian monastery of St. Vincent near Breslau, then Bishop of Lebus, and afterwards Bishop of Breslau. During Cyprian’s episcopate Duke Heinrich I and his wife, St. Hedwig, founded the Cistercian convent at Trebnitz. The episcopate of Bishop Lorenz (1207–32) was marked by his efforts to bring colonies of Germans into the church territories, to effect the cultivation of waste lands. This introduction of German settlers by the bishop was in accordance with the example set by Heinrich I and St. Hedwig. The monasteries of the Augustinian Canons, Premonstratensians, and Cistercians took an active part in carrying out the schemes of the rulers by placing great numbers of Germans, especially Thuringians and Franconians, on the large estates that had been granted them.

One of the most noted bishops of the diocese was Thomas I (1232–68); he continued the work of German colonization with so much energy that even the marauding incursions of the Mongols (1241) made but a temporary break in the process. His defence of the rights of the Church involved him in bitter conflicts with Duke Boleslaw of Liegnitz. Thomas began the construction of the present cathedral, the chancel being the first part erected. St. Hedwig died during his episcopate; and he lived until the process of her canonization was completed, but died before the final solemnity of her elevation to the altars of the Catholic Church. After Thomas I, Ladislaus, a grandson of St. Hedwig, and Archbishop of Salzburg, was Administrator of the Diocese of Breslau until his death in 1270. He was followed by Thomas II (1270–92), who was involved for years in a violent dispute with Duke Henry IV as to the prerogatives of the Church in Silesia. In 1287 a reconciliation was effected between them at Ratisbon, and in 1288 the duke founded the collegiate church of the Holy Cross at Breslau. Before his death, on the Eve of St. John in 1290, the duke confirmed the rights of the Church to sovereignty over the territories of Neisse and Ottmachau. Thomas II consecrated the high altar of the cathedral; he was present at the cumenical Council of Lyons (1274) and in 1279 held a diocesan synod. Johann III, Romka (1292–1301), belonged to the Polish party in the cathedral chapter. His maintenance of the prerogatives of the Church brought him, also, into conflict with the temporal rulers of Silesia; in 1296 he called a synod for the defence of these rights. In the election of Heinrich I, of Würben (1302–19), the German party in the cathedral chapter won, but this victory cost the new bishop the enmity of the opposing faction. He was made guardian of the youthful Dukes of Breslau, and this appointment, together with the factional disputes, led to the bringing of grave accusations against him. The researches of more recent times have proved the groundlessness of these attacks. He was kept in Avignon a number of years by a suit before the Curia which was finally settled in his favour. Notwithstanding the troubles of his life he was energetic in the performance of his duties. He carried on the construction of the cathedral, and in 1305 and 1316 held diocesan synods. The office of Auxiliary Bishop of Breslau dates from his episcopate. After his death a divided vote led to a vacancy of the see. The two candidates, Weit and Lutold, elected by the opposing factions, finally resigned, and Pope John XXII transferred Nanker, Bishop of Cracow, to Breslau (1326–41).

The constant division and subdivision of Silesian territory into small principalities for the members of the ruling families resulted in a condition of weakness that necessitated dependence on a stronger neighbour, and Silesia thus came, from the year 1327, under the control of Bohemia. A quarrel broke out between Bishop Nanker and the suzerain of Silesia, King John of Bohemia, when the king seized the castle of Militsch which belonged to the cathedral chapter. The bishop excommunicated the king and those members of the Council of Breslau who sided with him. On account of this he was obliged to flee from Breslau and take refuge in Neisse, where he died. Preczlaus of Pogarell (1341–1376) was elected bishop while pursuing his studies at Bologna, and was consecrated bishop at Avignon. Through his friendship with Carl, the son of King John, he was soon able to settle the discord that had arisen under his predecessor. The diocese prospered greatly under his rule. He bought the Duchy of Grottkau from Duke Boleslaw of Brieg and added it to the episcopal territory of Neisse. The Bishops of Breslau had, therefore, after this the titles of Prince of Neisse and Duke of Grottkau, and took precedence of the other Silesian rulers who held principalities in xxx. Carl IV, the emperor at this date, wished to separate Breslau from the Archdiocese of Gnesen and to take make it a suffragan of the newly erected Archbishopric of Prague, but the plan failed, owing to the opposition of the Archbishop of Gnesen. Preczlaus added to the cathedral the beautiful Lady Chapel, in which he was buried and where his tomb still exists. Dietrich, dean of the cathedral, who was elected as successor to Preczlaus, could not obtain the papal confirmation, and the Bishop Olmütz, who was chosen in his place, soon died. After a long contest with the Bohemian King and German Emperor Wenzel, Bishop Wenzel of Lebus, Duke of Liegnitz, was transferred to Breslau (1382–1417). The new bishop devoted himself to repairing the damage inflicted on the Church in Silesia by the despotic procedure of the Emperor Wenzel. He held two synods, in 1410 and 1415, with the object of securing a higher standard of ecclesiastical discipline; and he settled the right of inheritance in the territory under his dominion by promulgating the church decree called “Wenzel’s law.” Resigning his bishopric in 1417, Wenzel died in 1419. The episcopate of Conrad, Duke of Oels, the next bishop (1417–47), fell in the trying time for Silesia of the Hussite wars. Conrad was placed at the head of the Silesian confederation which was formed to defend the country against hostile incursions. In 1435 the bishop issued a decree of which the chief intent was to close the prebends in the Diocese of Breslau to foreigners, and thus prevent the Poles from obtaining these offices. The effort to shut out the Polish element and to loosen the connection with Gnesen was not a momentary one; it continued, and led gradually to a virtual separation from the Polish archdiocese some time before the formal separation took place. The troubles of the times brought the bishop and the diocese into serious pecuniary difficulties, and in 1444 Conrad resigned, but his resignation was not accepted, and he resumed his office. In 1446 he held a diocesan synod and died in the following year. Conrad’s successor was the provest of the cathedral of Breslau, Peter Novak (1447–56). By wise economy Bishop Peter succeeded in bringing the diocesan finances into a better condition and was able to redeem the greater part of the church lands which his predecessor had been obliged to mortgage. At the diocesan synod of 1454 he endeavoured to suppress the abuses that had arisen in the diocese.

Jodokus of Rosenberg (1456–67) was a Bohemian nobleman and Grand Prior of the Knights of St. John. His love of peace made his position a very difficult one during the fierce ecclesiastico-political contention that raged between the Hussite King of Bohemia, George of Podiebrad, and the people of Breslau, who had taken sides with the German party. Jodokus was followed by a bishop from the region of the Rhine, Rudolf von Rüdesheim (1468–82). As papal legate, Rudolf had become popular in Breslau through his energetic opposition to George of Podiebrad; for this reason the cathedral chapter requested his transfer from the small Diocese of Lavant in Carinthia, after he had confirmed their privileges. From this time these privileges were called “the Rudolfian statutes.” Under his leadership the party opposed to Podiebrad obtained the victory, and Rudolf proceeded at once to repair the damage which had been occasioned to the Church during this strife; mortgaged church lands were redeemed; in 1473 and 1475 diocesan synods were held, at which the bishop took active measures in regard to church discipline. As coadjutor, he had selected a Swabian, Johann IV, Roth, Bishop of Lavant, a man of humanistic training. Urged by King Matthias of Hungary, to whom Silesia was then subject, the cathedral chapter, somewhat unwillingly, chose the coadjutor as bishop (1482–1506). His episcopate was marked by violent quarrels with the cathedral chapter. But at the same time he was a promoter of art and learning, and strict in his conception of church rights and duties. He endeavoured to improve the spiritual life of the diocese by holding a number of synods. Before he died the famous worker in bronze, Peter Vischer of Nuremberg, cast his monument, the most beautiful bishop’s tomb in Silesia. His coadjutor with right of succession was Johann V (1506–20), a member of the noble Hungarian family of Turzo. Johann V took an active part in the intellectual life of the time and sought at the diocesan synods to promote learning and church discipline, and to improve the schools. On the ruins of the old stronghold of Fauernig he built the castle called Johannisberg, now the summer residence of the Prince-Bishop of Breslau.

The religious disturbances of the sixteenth century began to be conspicuously apparent during this episcopate, and soon after Johann’s death Protestantism began to spread in Silesia, which country had, since 1526, belonged to Austria. Princes, nobles, and town councils were zealous promoters of the new belief; even in the episcopal principality of Neisse-Grottkau Protestant doctrines found approval and acceptance. The successors of Johann V were partly responsible for this condition of affairs. Jacob von Salza (1520–39) was personally a stanch adherent of the Church; yet the gentleness of his disposition caused him to shrink from carrying on a war against the powerful religious movement that had arisen. To an even greater degree than Jacob von Salza his successor, Balthasar von Promnitz (1539–63), avoided coming into conflict with Protestantism. He was more friendly in his attitude to the new doctrine than any other Bishop of Breslau. Casper von Logau (1562–74) showed at first greater energy than his predecessor in endeavouring to compose the troubles of his distracted diocese, but later in his episcopate his attitude towards Lutheranism and his slackness in defending church rights gave great offence to those who had remained true to the Faith. These circumstances make the advance of Protestantism easy to understand. At the same time it must be remembered that the bishops, although also secular rulers, had a difficult position in regard to spiritual matters. At the assemblies of the nobles, and at the meetings of the diet, the bishops and the deputies of the cathedral chapter were, as a rule, the only Catholics against a large and powerful majority on the side of Protestantism. The Austrian suzerains, who lived far from Silesia, and who were constantly preoccupied by the danger of a Turkish invasion, were not in a position to enforce the edicts which they issued for the protection of the Church.

The Silesian clergy had in great measure lost their high concept of the priestly office, although there were honourable exceptions. Among those faithful were the majority of the canons of the cathedral of Breslau; they distinguished themselves not only by their learning, but also by their religious zeal. It was in the main due to them that the diocese did not fall into spiritual ruin. The chapter was the willing assistant of the bishops in the reform of the diocese. Martin von Gerstmann (1574–85) began the renovation of the diocese, and the special means by which he hoped to attain the desired end were: the founding of a seminary for clerics, visitations of the diocese, diocesan synods, and the introduction of the Jesuits. His successor, Andreas von Jerin (1585–96), a Swabian who had educated at the German College at Rome, followed in his footsteps. At the diocesan synod of 1592 he endeavoured to improve church discipline. Besides his zeal in elevating the life of the Church, he was also a promoter of the arts and learning. The silver altar with which he adorned his cathedral still exists, and he brought the schools in the principality of Neisse into a flourishing condition. The bishop also rendered important services to the emperor, as legate, at various times. Bonaventura Hahn, elected in 1596, as the successor of Andreas von Jerin, was not recognized by the emperor and was obliged to resign his position. The candidate of the emperor, Paul Albert (1599–1600), occupied the see only one year. Johann VI (1600–8), a member of a noble family of Silesia named von Sitsch, took more severe measures than his predecessors against Protestantism, in the hope of checking it, especially in the episcopal principality of Neisse-Grottkau.

Bishop Carl (1608–24), Archduke of Austria, had greater success than his predecessor after the first period of the Thirty Years War had taken a turn favourable to Austria and the Catholic party. The battle of the White Mountain (1620) broke not only the revolt in Bohemia, but also the opposition of the allied Protestants of Silesia. Bishop Carl began the restoration of the principality of Neisse to the Catholic Faith. The work was completed by his successor, Carl Ferdinand, Prince of Poland (1625–55). Carl Ferdinand spent most of his time in his own country, but appointed excellent administrators for the diocese, such as the Coadjutor-Bishop Liesch von Hornau, and Archdeacon Gebauer. Imperial commissioners gave back to the Catholic Church those church buildings in the chief places of the principalities which had become the property of the sovereign through the extinction of xxx. According to the the terms of the Treaty of Westphalia, the remaining churches, 693 in number, of such territories were secularized in the years 1653, 1654, and 1668. This led to a complete reorganization of the diocese. The person who effected it was Sebastian of Rostock, a man of humble birth who was vicar-general and administrator of the diocese under the bishops Archduke Leopold Wilhelm (1656–62) and Archduke Carl Joseph (1663–64), neither of whom lived in the territory of Breslau. After Sebastian of Rostock became bishop (1664–71) he carried on the work of reorganization with still greater success than before. Friedrich, Landgrave of Hesse, Cardinal, and Grand Prior of the Order of St. John, was the next Bishop of Breslau (1671–82). The new bishop was of Protestant origin and had become a Catholic at Rome. Under his administration the rehabilitation of the diocese went on. He beautified the cathedral and elaborated its services. For the red cap and violet almutium of the canons he substituted the red mozetta. He was buried in a beautiful chapel which he had added to the cathedral in honour of his ancestress, St. Elizabeth of Thuringia. After his death the chapter presented Carl von Liechtenstein, Bishop of Olmütz, for confirmation. Their choice was opposed by the emperor, whose candidate was the Count Palatine Wolfgang of the ruling family of Pfalz-Neuburg. Count Wolfgang died, and his brother Franz Ludwig (1683–1732) was made bishop. The new ruler of the diocese was at the same time Bishop of Worms, Grand Master of the German Knights, Provost of Ellwangen, and Elector of Trier, and later, he was made Elector of Mainz. He separated the ecclesiastical administation and that of the civil tribunals, and obtained the definition, in the Pragmatic Sanction of 1699, of the extent of the jurisdiction of the vicariate-general and the consistory. In 1675, upon the death of the last reigning duke, the Silesian Duchy of Liegnitz-Brieg-Wohlau lapsed to the emperor, and a new secularization of the churches begun. But when Charles XII of Sweden secured for the Protestants the right to their former possessions in these territories, by the treaty of Altranstädt, in 1707, the secularization came to an end, and the churches had to be returned. The Emperor Joseph I endeavoured to repair the loss of these buildings to the Catholic Faith by founding the so-called Josephine vicarships.

The next bishop, Philip, Count von Sinzendorf, Cardinal and Bishop of Raab (1732–47), owed his elevation to the favour of the emperor. During his episcopate the greater part of the diocese was added to the territory of Prussia. King Frederick II of Prussia (Frederick the Great) desired to erect a “Catholic Vicarite” at Berlin, which should be the highest spiritual authority for the Catholics of Prussia. This would have been in reality a separation from Rome, and the project failed through the opposition of the Holy See. Bishop Sinzendorf had neither the acuteness to perceive the inimical intent of the king’s scheme, nor sufficient decision of character to withstand it. The king desired to secure a successor to Sinzendorf who would be under royal influence. In utter disregard of the principles of the Church, and heedless of the protests of the cathedral chapter, he presented Count Philip Gotthard von Schaffgotsch as coadjutor-bishop. After the death of Cardinal Sinzendorf the king succeeded in overcoming the scruples of the Holy Father, and Schaffgotsch became Bishop of Breslau (1748–95). Although the method of his elevation caused the new bishop to be regarded with suspicion by many strict Catholics, yet he was zealous in the fulfilment of his duties. During the Seven Years War he fell into discredit with Fredrick on account of his firm maintenance of the rights of the Church, and the return of peace did not fully restore him to favour. In 1766 he fled to the Austrian part of his diocese in order to avoid confinement in Oppeln which the king had decreed against him. After this Frederick made it impossible for him to rule the Prussian part of his diocese, and until the death of the bishop this territory was ruled by vicars Apostolic.

The former coadjutor of von Schaffgotsch, Joseph Christian, Prince von Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Bartenstein (1795–1817), succeeded him as bishop. During this episcopate the temporal power of the Bishops of Breslau came to an end through the secularization, in 1810, of the church estates in Silesia. Only the estates in Austria remained to the see. The cathedral foundation, eight collegiate foundations, and over eighty monasteries were suppressed, and their property confiscated. Only those monastic institutions which were occupied with teaching or nursing were allowed to exist. Bishop Joseph Christian was succeeded by his coadjutor, Emmanuel von Schimonsky. The affairs of the Church in Prussia had been brought into order by the Bull “De salute animarum,” issued in 1821. Under its provisions the cathedral chapter elected Schimonsky, who had been administrator of the diocese, as the first Exempt Bishop of Breslau (1824–32). The bishop received for himself and his successors the title of prince as partial compensation for the loss of the secularized principality of Neisse. He combated the rationalistic tendencies which were rife among his clergy in regard to celibacy and the use of Latin in the church services and ceremonies. During the episcopate of his predecessor the Government had promulgated a law which was a source of much trouble to Schimonsky and his immediate successors; this was that in those places where Catholics were few in number, the parish should be declared extinct, and the church buildings given to the Protestants. In spite of the protests of the episcopal authorities, over one hundred church buildings were lost in this way. King Frederick William put an end to this injustice, and sought to make good the injuries inflicted. For several years after Schimonsky’s death the see remained vacant. It was eventually filled by the election, through Government influence, of Count Leopold von Sedlnitzki (1836–40). Bishop von Sedlnitzki was neither clear nor firm in his maintenance of the doctrines of the Church; on the question of mixed marriages, which had become one of great importance, he took an undecided position. At last, upon the demand of Pope Gregory XVI, he resigned his see. He went afterwards to Berlin, where he was made a privy-councillor, and where he later became a Protestant. The dean of the cathedral, Dr. Ritter, administered the diocese for several years until the election of the Grand Dean of the countship of Glatz, Joseph Knauer (1843–44). The new bishop, who was seventy-nine years old, lived only a year after his appointment.

His successor was Melchior, Freiherr von Diepenbrock (1845–53). This episcopate was the beginning of a new religious and ecclesiastical life in the diocese. During the revolutionary period the bishop not only maintained order in his see, which was in a state of ferment, but was also a supporter of the Government. He received unusual honours from the king and was made a cardinal by the pope. He died 20 January, 1853, at the castle of Johannisberg and was buried in the cathedral. His successor, Heinrich Förster (1853–81) carried on his work and completed it. Bishop Förster gave generous aid to the founding of churches, monastic institutions, and schools. The strife that arose between the Church and the State brought his labours in the Prussian part of his diocese to an end. He was deposed by the State and was obliged to leave Breslau and retire to the castle of Johannisberg. Here he died, 20 October, 1881. He was buried in the cathedral at Breslau. Leo XIII appointed as his successor in the disordered diocese Robert Herzog (1882–86), who had been delegate of the prince-bishop and provost of St. Hedwig’s at Berlin. Bishop Herzog made every endeavour to bring order out of the confusion into which the quarrel with the State during the immediately preceding years had thrown the affairs of the diocese. Unfortunately, his episcopate was but short duration; he died after a long illness, 26 December, 1886. The Holy See appointed as his successor a man who had done much to allay the strife between Church and State, the Bishop of Fulda, George Kopp. Bishop Kopp was born, 25 July, 1837, at Duderstädt in the Diocese of Hildesheim; he was ordained to the priesthood, 29 August, 1862; consecrated and installed Bishop of Fulda, 27 December, 1881; transferred to Breslau, 9 August, 1887, installed 20 October, 1887; created a cardinal, 16 January, 1893.

EXTENT AND STATISTICS OF THE DIOCESE

The Diocese of Breslau includes the whole Prussian Province of Silesia with the exception of a part of the districts of Ratibor and Leobschütz, which belong to the Archdiocese of Olmütz, and the Countship (Grafschaft) of Glatz, also in Prussian Silesia, which is subject to the Archbishop of Prague. In Austrian Silesia the Diocese of Breslau includes the Principality of Teschen and the Austrian part of the Principality of Neisee. In the Province of Brandenburg the diocese still includes the districts of Schwiebus-Züllichau and Krossen, as well as the part formerly called Nieder-Lausitz. With the exception of the districts of Bütow and Lauenburg, the rest of Brandenburg and the Province of Pomerania have, since 1821, been supervised by delegation from the Prince-Bishop of Breslau. (See BERLIN, BRANDENBURG.)

Including the district governed by delegation the diocese contains, according to the last census (1 December, 1905), 3,342,221 Catholics; 8,737,746 Protestants; and 204,749 Jews. There are actively employed in the diocese 1,632 secular, and 121 regular, priests. The cathedral chapter includes the two offices of provost and dean, and has 10 regular, and 6 honorary, canons. The prince-bishopric is divided into 11 commissariates and 99 archpresbyterates, in which there are 992 cures of various kinds (parishes, curacies, and stations), with 935 parish churches and 633 dependent and mother-churches. Besides the theological faculty of the University of Breslau, the diocese possesses, as episcopal institutions for the training of the clergy, 5 preparatory seminaries for boys, 1 home (recently much enlarged) for theological students attending the university, and 1 seminary for priests. The statistics of the houses of the religious orders in the dioceses are as follows: Benedictines, 1 house; Dominicans, 1; Franciscans, 8; Jesuits, 3; Piarists, 1; Brothers of Mercy, 8; Order of St. Camillus of Lellis, 1; Redemptorists, 1; Congregation of the Society of the Divine Word, 1; Alexian Brothers, 1; Poor Brothers of St. Francis, 2; Sisters of St. Elizabeth, 6; Magdalen Sisters, 1; Ursulines, 6; Sisters of the Good Shepherd, 4; Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo, (a) from the mother-house at Trebnitz, 181, (b) from the mother-house at Trier, 5; Servants of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, 2; Sisters of Poor Handmaids of Christ, 3; Sister-Servants of Mary, 27; German Dominican Sisters of St. Catharine of Siena, 11; Sisters of St. Francis, 9; Grey Sisters of St. Elizabeth, 169; Sisters of St. Hedwig, 9; Sisters of Mary, 27; Poor School-Sisters of Notre Dame, 15; Vincentian Sisters, 7; Sisters of the Holy Cross, 1; Sisters of St. Joseph, 1. In the above-mentioned monastic houses for men there are 512 religious; in those for women, 5,208 religious.

UNIVERSITY OF BRESLAU

The founding of a university at Breslau was first debated in 1409, when the Czech made it impossible for the Germans to continue their studies at the University of Prague and virtually drove them from it. But Leipzig and not Breslau obtained the new seat of learning. About a century later, under the quickening impulse of Humanism, the project was again taken up by the city of Breslau in conjuction with the bishop, Johann Roth, and his coadjutor, Johann Turzo, and a “generale literarum gymnasium” to contain all four faculties was planned. The charter of this institution had been signed at Ofen, 20 July, 1505, by King Ladislaus of Hungary, to which Silesia then belonged, when the University of Cracow, fearing competition, succeeded in bringing the scheme to naught. The efforts made in 1527 by the Protestants to found a Silesian University at Liegnitz and in 1616 at Beuthen also failed. The Catholics sought to establish a theological school for the education of the diocesan clergy, and the endeavour led to the founding at Breslau, in 1565, of a theological seminary which was transferred in 1575 to Neisse. In 1623 the Bishop of Breslau, Archduke Carl of Austria, founded at Neisse a Jesuit college to which he gave a large endowment. The bishop intended to unite with this college a university having departments of jurisprudence and medicine, but his death soon after the founding of the school prevented the carrying out of these plans.

A school founded by the Jesuits at Breslau in 1659 was more fortunate in its development. The Society conducted in the imperial citadel a gymnasium, the higher classes of which corresponded to those in the philosophical department of a university. Theological studies were introduced in 1666. These two courses were carried on as in a university, but the school had no power to confer degrees. In order to obtain the charter necessary for the conferring of degrees and for the development of the institution, the Jesuit Father Wolf sought, from 1694 on, to obtain the consent of Emperor Leopold I to the erection of the school into a university. Father Wolf was also active in the negotiations between the courts of Berlin and Vienna concerning the concession of the title of King to the Elector Frederick III of Brandenburg. The plans Father Wolf sought to carry out were far-reaching. He held it a misfortune that Silesians were obliged to go to universities outside of Silesia, where Catholics often had no opportunity for the exercise of their religion. His scheme was a national Silesian university, endowed with all the academic privileges, which should be open to students irrespective of their religious beliefs. This project encountered the opposition of Protestant prejudice against the Jesuits, and the town council of Breslau prevented the imperial confirmation of the plan for eight years. However, Leopold I signed at Vienna, 21 October, 1702, the charter raising the school to the rank of a university and obtained the papal confirmation for the decree.

The new university, called after the emperor, Leopoldina, was opened 15 November, 1702, but the change in status did not alter the internal organization. The buildings of the old citadel had long been too cramped for the needs of the institution, and it was resolved to erect a large new edifice, the cornerstone of which was laid 6 April, 1728. On account of the war with Frederick the Great of Prussia, and his conquest of Silesia, the plans for the new structure could not be carried out in their entirety. Although efforts were made to open departments of law and medicine, nothing more was attained than unofficial lectures by instructors in these branches. The number of scholars during the first decade of the life of the university continually increased. In 1740, 1,300 students attended the university and gymnasium; the number declined during the first Silesian war then rose again, until the Seven Years War once more reduced the attendance at lectures. During this latter conflict the building was used as a hospital and prison, and professors and students were obliged to go elsewhere. Only after the Peace of 1763 was the building restored to its original use. The attendance increased rapidly during the next ten years, but fell off greatly after the suppression of the Society of Jesus. In 1803, when the Leopoldina was made a secular institution, the number of students was about 500.

After the suppression of the Jesuits the king established a Catholic-Schools Institute which included the Jesuits living in Silesia, and in which the candidates for the secular priesthood were to receive their training. The former independence disappeared and the institute and university were made dependent on the Silesian minister. The new institution maintained with difficulty what was already in existence; it was ruled by a spirit of narrow conservatism, and made no attempt to develop its courses or to enter new fields. Besides this, the teaching force was not well kept up even in the usual branches of learning. During the last decade of its existence the Leopoldina was carried on under the royal ordinance issued 26 July, 1800, in regard to the University of Breslau and the gymnasia connected with it. The Catholic school system, especially the gymnasia, underwent a reform at this epoch which led to the separation of the gymnasium from the university and the reorganization of the philosophical faculty. These two changes were carried out in 1811.

The founding of the University of Berlin in 1810 made uncertain the future existence of the Protestant university at Frankfort on the Oder, not far from Berlin. There was also a strong desire in Silesia for a university embracing all faculties, and King Frederick William III gave his consent, 3 August, 1811, to a “plan for uniting the University of Frankfort with the University of Breslau.” The two universities were to be made one institution in regard to constitution, teaching staff, endowments, property, and income; the philosophical faculties were to form one body. “To satisfy the wishes of Catholic subjects” two professors of philosophy proper were appointed, one Protestant and one Catholic. The promise of the erection of a Catholic professorship of history was not carried out until 1855, in the reign of Frederick William IV. Outside of these positions religious belief was not to be taken into consideration in appointments to the faculties of philosphy, law, and medicine. Instruction from both Catholic and Protestant professors of theology in the same university was until then unheard of. The plan of union ordained by the king decreed “that the theological department of the combined university should be divided into two faculties, a Protestant theological faculty and a Catholic theological one. These two faculties, of equal rank in other respects, were to alternate in precedence from year to year in the matter of lecture-announcements, on academic occasions, and in affixing signatures. The public opening of the new university took place 19 October, 1811, the lectures began 21 October. In the second year of the new school patriotism led the great majority of the students to take part in the war against Napoleon called “the War of Liberation,” and many of them died for their country. After peace was concluded the usual life of the university was resumed. In August, 1861, the semi-centennial of the university was celebrated with much pomp. The schools of learning shared in the great development of Germany after the wars of 1866 and 1870, 1871, and the University of Breslau received, through the increase of prosperity, many improvements in equipment. The departments of medicine and natural science deserve special mention.

The increase in the number of students has kept pace with the increase in the number of instructors. When the university was opened, in 1811, there were 35 regular professors, 4 assistant professors, 4 docents, and 8 lecturers and technical teachers; in 1861, at the time of the semi-centennial celebration, there were 41 regular professors, 11 assistant professors, 33 docents, and 12 lecturers and technical teachers; in 1906 there were 73 regular professors, 31 assistant professors, 66 docents, and 15 lecturers and technical teachers. In the first year of the institution there were 298 students; in the fifieth, 775; and in 1906 the number reached 1,961. Of this last number, 241 attended the lectures of the Protestant theological faculty; 565 attended the law course; 271, the medical course; 807, the philosophical course. The German students numbered 1,884; foreign students, 77. Besides matriculated students, permission to attened the lectures was granted to 285 other persons of whom 179 were women.

STENZEL, Urkunden zur Geschichte des Bistums Breslau im Mittelalter (Breslau, 1845); KASTNER, Archiv für die Geschichte des Bistums Breslau (3 vols., Neisee, 1858); JUNGNITZ, Veröffentlichungen aus dem fürstbischöflichen Diöcezesenarchive zu Breslau (3vols., Breslau, 1903); HEYNE, Dokumentierte Geschichte des Bistums Breslau (3 vols. Breslau, 1860); SOFFNER, Geschichte der Reformation in Schlesien (Breslau, 1887); Scriptores rerum Silesiacarum (17 vols., Breslau, 1835); Codex diplomaticus Silesi (23 vols., Breslau, 1857); Acta publica (8 vols., Breslau, 1865); Zeitschrift für Geschichte Schlesiens (40 vols., Breslau, 1855); GRüNHAGEN, Geschichte Schlesiens (2 vols., Gotha, 1884); IDEM, Schlesien unter Friedrich dem Grossen (2 vols., Breslau, 1890). NüRNBERGER, Zum zweihundertjährigen Bestehen der katholischen Theologen-Fakulät an der Universität Breslau (Breslau, 1903); ROPELL, Die Geschichte der Stiftung der königlichen Universität Breslau (Breslau, 1861); REINKENS, Die Universität zu Breslau vor der Vereingung der Frankfurter Viadrina mit der Leopoldina (Breslau, 1861).

JOSEPH JUNGNITZ

Francesco Giuseppe Bressani

An Indian missionary, born in Rome, 6 May, 1612; died at Florence, 9 September, 1672. He entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus, 15 August, 1626 and studied at Rome and Clermont, teaching before his ordination at Sezza, Tivoli, and Paris. On his arrival in America he was assigned to the spiritual care of the French at Quebec, but the following year was sent to the Algonquins at Three Rivers. In April, 1644, on the way to the Huron Mission, he was captured by the Iroquois and cruelly tortured by them, at intervals, for over two months. He was at length ransomed by the Dutch at Fort Orange, and sent to France, where he arrived in November, 1644. In the following year he was again in Canada and labored zealously on the Huron Mission until its destruction by the Iroquois four years later. He continued, however, to minister to the scattered and fugitive Hurons. He was also stationed for a time at Quebec, where he occasionally officiated at the church. In November 1650, Bressani’s failing health and the meager resources of the mission obliged him to return to Italy, where he spent many years as a preacher and missionary, dying at Florence. Bressani wrote the “Breve Relatione d’alcune Missioni . . . nella Nuova Francia” (Macerata, 1653) which was translated into French by Father Martin, S.J. (Montreal, 1852).

Thwaites, Jesuit Relations (Cleveland, 1897), XXIII, 326, 327; Michaud, Biog. Univ., V; Sommervogel, II.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Brethren of the Lord

A group of persons closely connected with the Saviour appears repeatedly in the New Testament under the designation “his brethren” or “the brethren of the Lord” (Matt 12:46, 13:55; Mark 3:31–32, 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3–5; Acts 1:14; I Cor 9:5). Four such “brethren” are mentioned by name in the parallel texts of Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 (where “sisters” are also referred to), namely, James (also mentioned Galatians 1:19), Joseph, or Joses, Simon, and Jude; the incidental manner in which these names are given, shows, however, that the list lays no claim to completeness.

Two questions in connexion with these “brethren” of the Lord have long been, and are still now more than ever, the subject of controversy: (1) The identity of James, Jude, and Simon; (2) the exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his “brethren.”

(1) The identity of James, Jude and Simon. James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9–12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the Less (Mark 15:40) and the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18), although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Galatians 1:19: “But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord,” St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes it clear that the “apostles” is to be taken strictly to designate the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that the clause “saving James” be understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another Apostle, “James the brother of the Lord” (cf. Acts 9:27). Besides, the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles (Acts 15:13; Galatians 2:9; in the latter text he is even named before Cephas) could have belonged only to one of their number. Now there were only two Apostles named James: James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). The former is out of the question, since he was dead at the time of the events to which Acts 15:6 ssq., and Galatians 2:9–12 refer (cf. Acts 12:2). James “the brother of the Lord” is therefore one with James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with James the Less, the identity of these two being generally conceded. Again, on comparing John 19:25 with Matt 27:56, and Mark 15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47; 16:1), we find that Mary of Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas (Klopas), the sister of Mary the Mother of Christ, is the same as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, or Joses. As married women are not distinguished by the addition of their father’s name, Mary of Clopas must be the wife of Clopas, and not his daughter, as has been maintained. Moreover, the names of her sons and the order in which they are given, no doubt the order of seniority, warrant us in identifying these sons with James and Joseph, or Joses, the “brethren” of the Lord. The existence among the early followers of Christ of two sets of brothers having the same names in the order of age, is not likely, and cannot be assumed without proof. Once this identity is conceded, the conclusion cannot well be avoided that Clopas and Alpheus are one person, even if the two names are quite distinct. It is, however, highly probable, and commonly admitted, that Clopas and Alpheus are merely different transcriptions of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and Joseph the “brethren” of the Lord are thus the sons of Alpheus.

Of Joseph nothing further is known. Jude is the writer of the last of the Catholic Epistles (Jude 1). He is with good reason identified by Catholic commentators with the “Judas Jacobi” (“Jude the brother of James” in the Douay Version) of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, otherwise known as Thaddeus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18). It is quite in accordance with Greek custom for a man to be distinguished by the addition of his brother’s name instead of his father’s, when the brother was better known. That such was the case with Jude is inferred from the title “the brother of James,” by which he designates himself in his Epistle. About Simon nothing certain can be stated. He is identified by most commentators with the Symeon, or Simon, who, according to Hegesippus, was a son of Clopas, and succeeded James as Bishop of Jerusalem. Some identify him with the Apostle Simon the Cananean (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:18) or the Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The grouping together of James, Jude or Thaddeus, and Simon, after the other Apostles, Judas Iscariot excepted, in the lists of the Apostles, (Matt 10:4–5; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) lends some probability to this view, as it seems to indicate some sort of connexion between the three. Be this as it may, it is certain that at least two of the “brethren” of Christ were among the Apostles. This is clearly implied in 1 Cor 9:5: “Have we not the power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” The mention of Cephas at the end indicates that St. Paul, after speaking of the Apostles in general, calls special attention to the more prominent ones, the “brethren” of the Lord and Cephas. The objection that no “brethren” of the Lord could have been members of the Apostolic college, because six months before Christ’s death they did not believe in Him (John 7:3–5), rests on a misunderstanding of the text. His “brethren” believed in his miraculous power, and urged him to manifest it to the world. Their unbelief was therefore relative. It was not a want of belief in His Messiahship, but a false conception of it. They had not yet rid themselves of the Jewish idea of a Messiah who would be a temporal ruler. We meet with this idea among the Apostles as late as the day of the Ascension (Acts 1:6). In any case the expression “his brethren” does not necessarily include each and every “brother,” whenever it occurs. This last remark also sufficiently answers the difficulty in Acts 1:13–14, where, it is said, a clear distinction is made between the Apostles and the “brethren” of the Lord.

(2) The exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his “brethren.” The texts cited at the beginning of this article show beyond a doubt that there existed a real and near kinship between Jesus and His “brethren.” But as “brethren” (or “brother”) is applied to step-brothers as well as to brothers by blood, and in Scriptural, and Semitic use generally, is often loosely extended to all near, or even distant, relatives (Gen 13:8, 14:14–16; Lev 10:4; 1 Par 15:5–10, 23:21–22), the word furnishes no certain indication of the exact nature of the relationship. Some ancient heretics, like Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites, maintained that the “brethren” of Jesus were His uterine brothers the sons of Joseph and Mary. This opinion has been revived in modern times, and is now adopted by most of the Protestant exegetes. On the orthodox side two views have long been current. The majority of the Greek Fathers and Greek writers, influenced, it seems, by the legendary tales of apocryphal gospels, considered the “brethren” of the Lord as sons of St. Joseph by a first marriage. The Latins, on the contrary, with few exceptions (St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours among the Fathers), hold that they were the Lord’s cousins. That they were not the sons of Joseph and Mary is proved by the following reasons, leaving out of consideration the great antiquity of the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is highly significant that throughout the New Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matt 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14). Again, Mary’s annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matt 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her? A further proof is the fact that at His death Jesus recommended His mother to St. John. Is not His solicitude for her in His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons? Since there was no estrangement between Him and His “brethren,” or between them and Mary, no plausible argument is confirmed by the words with which he recommends her: ide ho uios sou, with the article before uios (son); had there been others sons, ide uios sou, without the article, would have been the proper expression.

The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these “brethren” are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the “brethren” of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter’s cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father’s or mother’s side, whether cousins by blood or merely by marriage, cannot be determined with certainty. Mary of Clopas is indeed called the “sister” of the Blessed Virgin (John 19:25), but it is uncertain whether “sister” here means a true sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favour the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in the MSS. of the Peshitta version, that Joseph and Clopas married sisters. The relationship of the other “brethren” may have been more distant than that of the above named four.

The chief objection against the Catholic position is taken from Matt 1:25: “He [Joseph] knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son”; and from Luke 2:7: “And she brought forth her firstborn son.” Hence, it is argued, Mary must have born other children. “Firstborn” (prototokos), however, does not necessarily connote that other children were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke 2:23, and Ex 13:2–12 (cf. Greek text) to which Luke refers. “Opening the womb” is there given as the equivalent of “firstborn” (prototokos). An only child was thus no less “firstborn” than the first of many. Neither do the words “he knew her not till she brought forth” imply, as St. Jerome proves conclusively against Helvidius from parallel examples, that he knew her afterwards. The meaning of both expressions becomes clear, if they are considered in connexion with the virginal birth related by the two Evangelists.

For the Cousin Theory: ST. JEROME, Adv. Helvid. in P.L., XXIII; MILL, Pantheistic Principles, 220–316; VIGOUROUX, Les Livres saints et la critique, V, 397–420; CORLUY, Les frères de N.S.J. C. in Etudes (1878), I, 5, 145; MEINERTZ, Der Jacobusbrief und sein Verfasser (Freiburg im Br., 1905), 6–54; CORNELY, Introductio (Paris, 1897), III, 592 sqq.; SCHEGG, Jacobus der Br¨der des Herrn (Munich, 1883); LAGRANGE in Rev. Bibl. (1906), 504, 505. For the Step-Brother Theory: LIGHTFOOT, Comm. on Gal., 252–291. For the Helvidian View: HASTINGS, Dict. Bib., I, 320; ZAHN, Forschungen, VI, Brueder und Vettern Jesu (Leipzig, 1900).

F. BECHTEL

Raymond Breton

Breton, Raymond, a noted French missionary among the Caribbean Indians, b. at Baune, 3 September, 1609; d. at Caen, 8 January, 1679. He entered the Order of St. Dominic at the age of seventeen and was sent (1627) to the famous priory of St. Jacques, at Paris, to finish his classical education and make his course of philosophy and theology. Having obtained his degree in theology, he sailed with three other Dominicans for the French West Indies (1635). Nearly twenty years were devoted to the Antilles missions. During twelve of these he was on the Island of San Domingo, practically alone with the Indians. The other eight years he spent going from island to island, teaching and evangelizing the natives in their own tongue, becoming an adept in the various Carib languages. Returning to France in 1654, he devoted much of his time to preparing young priests for the West Indian missions. To this end he wrote: A Catechism of the Christian Doctrine in Carib (Auxerre, 1664); a French-Carib and Carib-French Dictionary, with copious notes, historical and explanatory, on the Carib language (ibid., 1665); a Carib grammar (ibid., 1667). At the request of the general of the order, he also wrote a valued history of the first years of the French Dominicans’ missionary labours among the Caribbean Indians: “Relatio Gestorum a primis Praedicatorum missionariis in insulis Americanis ditionis gallicae praesertim apud Indos indigenas quos Caribes vulgo dicunt ab anno 1634 ad annum 1643” (MSS). This is considered of great historical importance, and has been used by several writers.

Quetif and Echard, Script. Ord. Praed., II.

VICTOR F. O’DANIEL

Breviary

I. DEFINITION

This word breviary (Lat. Breviarium), signifies in its primary acceptation an abridgment, or a compendium. It is often employed in this sense by Christian authors, e.g. Breviarium fidei, Breviarium in psalmos, Breviarium canonum, Breviarium regularum. In litugical language Breviary has a special meaning, indicating a book furnishing the regulations for the celebration of Mass or the canonical Office, and may be met with under the titles Breviarium Ecclesiastici Ordinis, or Breviarium Ecclesiæ Rominsæ (Romanæ). In the ninth century Alcuin uses the word to designate an office abridged or simplified for the use of the laity. Prudentius of Troyes, about the same period, composed a Breviarium Psalterii (v. inf. V. HISTORY). In an ancient inventory occurs Breviarium Antiphonarii, meaning “Extracts from the Antiphonary.” In the “Vita Aldrici” occurs “sicut in plenariis et breviariis Ecclesiæ ejusdem continentur.” Again, in the inventories in the catalogues, such notes as these may be met with: “Sunt et duo cursinarii et tres benedictionales Libri; ex his unus habet obsequium mortuorum et unus Breviarius,” or, “Præter Breviarium quoddam quod usque ad festivitatem S. Joannis Baptistæ retinebunt,” etc. Monte Cassino about A.D. 1100 obtained a book entitled “Incipit Breviarium sive Ordo Officiorum per totam anni decursionem”

From such references, and from others of a like nature, Quesnel gathers that by the word Breviarium was at first designated a book furnishing the rubrics, a sort of Ordo. The title Breviary, as we employ it—that is, a book containing the entire canonical office—appears to date from the eleventh century.

St. Gregory VII having, indeed, abridged the order of prayers, and having simplified the Liturgy as performed at the Roman Court, this abridgment received the name of Breviary, which was suitable, since, according to the etymology of the word, it was an abridgment. The name has been extended to books which contain in one volume, or at least in one work, liturgical books of different kinds, such as the Psalter, the Antiphonary, the Responsoriary, the Lectionary, etc. In this connection it may be pointed out that in this sense the word, as it is used nowadays, is illogical; it should be named a Plenarium rather than a Breviarium, since, liturgically speaking, the word Plenarium exactly designates such books as contain several different compilations united under one cover. This is pointed out, however, simply to make still clearer the meaning and origin of the word; and section V will furnish a more detailed explanation of the formation of the Breviary.

II. CONTENTS

The Roman Breviary, which with rare exceptions (certain religious orders, the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites, etc.) is used at this day throughout the Latin Church, is divided into four parts according to the seasons of the year: Winter, Spring, Summer, and Autumn. It is constructed of the following elements: (a) the Psalter; (b) the Proper of the Season; (c) Proper of the Saints; (d) the Common; (e) certain special Offices.

(A) THE PSALTER

The Psalter is the most ancient and the most venerable portion of the Breviary. It consists of 150 psalms, divided in a particular way, to be described later. These psalms formed the groundwork of the Liturgy of the Jews for twelve centuries before Christ, and He certainly made use of these formularies for His prayers, and quoted them on several occasions. The Apostles followed His example, and handed down to the Christian Churches the inheritance of the Psalter as the chief form of Christian prayer. The Church has carefully preserved them during the lapse of centuries and has never sought to replace them by any other formularies. Attempts have been made from time to time to compose Christian psalms, such as the Gloria in excelsis, the Te Deum, the Lumen Hilare, the Te Decet Laus, and a few others; but those which the Church has retained and adopted are singularly few in number. The rhythmic hymns date from a period later than the fourth and fifth centuries, and at best hold a purely secondary place in the scheme of the Office. Thus the Book of Psalms forms the groundwork of Catholic prayer; the lessons which fill so important a place in this prayer are not, after all, prayer properly so called; and the antiphons, responsories, versicles, etc., are but psalms utilized in a particular manner.

In the Breviary, however, the Psalter is divided according to a special plan. In the earliest period the use of the Book of Psalms in the Office was doubtless exactly similar to that which prevailed amongst the Jews. The president of the choir chose a particular psalm at his own will. Some psalms, such as xxi, seem specially appropriate to the Passion. Another was adapted to the Resurrection, a third suited the Ascension, while others again are specially referable to the Office of the Dead. Some psalms provide morning prayers, others those for night. But the choice was left in the hands of the bishop or president of the choir. Later, probably from the fourth century, certain psalms began to be grouped together, to respond to the divers requirements of the Liturgy.

Another cause led to these groupings and arrangements of the Psalter. Some monks were in the habit of reciting daily the whole of the 150 psalms. But this form of devotion, apart from lessons and other formularies, occupied so much time that they began to spread the recitation of the entire Psalter over a whole week. By this method each day was divided into hours, and each hour had its own portion of the Psalter. From this arrangement arose the idea of dividing the Psalter according to specially devised rules. St. Benedict was one of the earliest to set himself to this task, in the sixth century. In his Rule he gives minute directions how, at that period, the psalms were to be distributed at the disposition of the abbot; and he himself drew up such an arangement. Certain psalms were set apart for the night offices, others for Lauds, others for Prime, Terce, Sext, and None, others for Vespers and Compline.

It is a subject of discussion amongst liturgists whether this Benedictine division of the psalms is anterior or posterior to the Roman Psalter. Although it may not be possible to prove the point definitely, still it would seem that the Roman arrangement is the older of the two, because that drawn up by St. Benedict shows more skill, and would thus seem to be in the nature of a reform of the Roman division. In any case, the Roman arrangement of the Psalter reaches back to a hoary antiquity, at least to the seventh or eight century, since when it has not undergone any alteration. The following is its disposition. Psalms i-cviii are recited at Matins, twelve a day; but Sunday Matins have six more psalms divided between the three nocturns. Thus:

Sunday—Psalms i, ii, iii, vi-xiv; xv, xvi, xvii; xviii, xix, xx.

Monday—Psalms xxvi-xxxvii.

Tuesday—Psalms xxxviii-xli, xliii-xlix, li.

Wednesday—Psalms lii, liv-lxi, lxiii, lxv, lxvii.

Thursday—Psalms lxviii-lxxix.

Friday—Psalms lxxx-lxxxviii, xciii, xcv, xcvi.

Saturday—Psalms xcvii-cviii.

The psalms omitted in this series, namely, iv, v, xxi-xxv, xlii, 1, liii, lxii, lxiv, lxvi, lxxix-xcii, and xciv, are, on account of their special aptitude, reserved for Lauds, Prime, and Compline. The series, from Ps. cix to Ps. Cxlvii inclusively, are used at Vespers, five each day, except Psalms cxvii, cxviii, and cxlii, reserved for other hours. The last three, cxlviii, cxlix, and cl, which are specially called the psalms of praise (Laudes), because of the word Laudate which forms their leitmotiv, are always used in the morning Office, which thus gets its name of Lauds.

A glance at the above tables will show that, broadly speaking, the Roman Church did not attempt to make any skilful selection of the psalms for daily recitation. She took them in order as they came, except a very few set apart for Lauds, Prime, and Compline, and selected Ps. cxviii for the day hours. Other Liturgies, as the Ambrosian, the Mozarabic, and the Benedictine, or monastic, have Psalters drawn up on wholly different lines; but the respective merits of these systems need not be here discussed. The order of the ferial Psalter is not followed for the festivals of the year or for the feasts of saints; but the psalms are selected according to their suitableness to the various occasions.

The history of the text of this Psalter is interesting. The most ancient Psalter used in Rome and in Italy was the “Psalterium Vetus,” of the Itala version, which seems to have been introduced into the Liturgy by Pope St. Damasus (d. 384). He it was who first ordered the revision of the Itala by St. Jerome, in A. D. 383. On this account it has been called the “Psalterium Romanum,” and it was used in Italy and elsewhere till the ninth century and later. It is still in use in St. Peter’s at Rome, and many of the texts of our Breviary and Missal still show some variants (Invitatory an Ps. xciv, the antiphons of the Psalter and the responsories of the Proper of the Season, Introits, Graduals, Offertories, and Communions). The Roman Psalter also influences the Mozarabic Liturgy, and was used in England in the eighth century. But in Gaul and in other countries north of the Alps, another recension entered into competition with the “Psalterium Romanum” under the somewhat misleading title of the “Psalterium Gallicanum”; for this text contained nothing distinctively Gallican, being simply a later correction of the Psalter made by St. Jerome in Palestine, in A. D. 392. This recension diverged more completely than the earlier one form the Itala; and in preparing it St. Jerome had laid Origen’s Hexapla under contribution. It would seem that St. Gregory of Tours, in the sixth century, introduced this translation into Gaul, or at any rate he was specially instrumental in spreading its use; for it was this Psalter that was employed in the Divine psalmody celebrated at the much honoured and frequented tomb of St. Martin of Tours. From that time this text commenced its “triumphal march across Europe.” Walafrid Starbo states that the churches of Germany were using it in the eighth century:—“Galli et Germanorum aliqui secundum emendationem quam Hieronymus pater de LXX composuit Psalterium cantant.” About the same time England gave up the “Psalterium Romanum” for the “Gallicanum.” The Anglo-Saxon Psalter already referred to was corected and altered in the ninth and tenth century, to make it accord with the “Gallicanum.” Ireland seems to have followed the Gallican version since the seventh century, as may be gathered from the famous Antiphonary of Bangor. It even penetrated into Italy after the ninth century, thanks to the Frankish influence, and there enjoyed a considerable vogue. After the Council of Trent, St. Pius V extended the use of the “Psalterium Gallicanum” to the whole Church, St. Peter’s in Rome alone still keeping to the ancient Roman Psalter. The Ambrosian Church of Milan has also its own recension of the Psalter, a version founded, in the middle of the fourth century, on the Greek.

(B) THE PROPER OF SEASON

This portion of the Breviary contains the Office of the different liturgical seasons. As is well known, these periods are now thus arranged: Advent, Christmastide, Septuagesima, Lent, Holy Week, paschal time, and the time after Pentecost. But ony by slow degrees did this division of the liturgical year develop its present form. It must be traced through its various stages. It may indeed be said that originally there was no such thing as a liturgical year. Sunday, the day above all of the Eucharistic celebration, is at once the commemoration of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ; men spoke of the “Pasch of the Crucifixion,” of the “Pasch of the Ressurection”—pascha staurosimon; pascha anastasimon; every Sunday was a renewal of the paschal festival. It was only natural that on the actual anniversary the feast should be kept with peculiar solemnity, for it was the foremost Christian feast, and the centre of the liturgical year. Easter drew in it is train Pentecost, which was fixed as the fiftieth day after the Resurrection; it was the festival commemorating the Descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles. These fifty days made up an unbroken festival, a Jubilee, a time of joy during which there was no fasting and when penitential exercises were suspended. These two feasts thus linked together are mentioned by ecclesiastical writers from the second century onwards.

Just as Easter was followed by fifty days of rejoicing, so it had its period of preparation by prayer and fasting, from which arose the season of Lent, which, after various changes, commenced finally forty days before Easter, whence its name of Quadragesima. The other rallying-point of the liturgical year is the feast of Christmas, the earliest observance of which is of very remote antiquity (the third century at least). Like Easter, Christmas had its time of preparation, called Advent. Lasting nowadays four weeks. The remainder of the year had to fit in between these two feasts. From Christmas to Lent two currents may be observed: into one fell the feasts of the Epiphany and the Purification, and six Sundays after the Epiphany, constituting Christmastide. The remaining weeks after these Sundays fall under the influence of Lent and, under the name of Septuagesima, create a sort of introduction to it, since these three weeks, Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima, really belong to Lent by reason of their character of preparation and penance.

The long period between Pentecost and Advent, from May to December, still remains to be dealt with. A certain number of Sundays cluster round special great festivals, as those of St. John the Baptist (24 June), the holy Apostles Peter and Paul (29 June), St. Lawrence (10 August), and St. Michael (29 September). At later date these days, which did not fit very conveniently into the general scheme, tended to disappear, and were absorbed into the common time after Pentecost, made up of twenty-four Sundays, thereby uniting Pentecost with Advent; and thus the cycle of the liturgical year is completed.

The Proper of the Season contains, therefore, the Office of all the Sundays and festivals belonging to it, with special lessons, extracts from the Gospels, and frequently also proper antiphons, responsories, and psalms, adapted to the peculiar character of these different periods. It is in the composition of this Liturgy that the Roman Church has displayed her gifts of critical judgment, liturgical taste, and theological acumen. The difference in the character of these periods may be studied in such works as Dom Guéranger’s “Liturgical Year.”

(C) PROPER OF THE SAINTS

Following on the Proper of the Season comes in the Breviary the Proper of the Saints, that is to say, that part which contains the lessons, psalms, antiphons, and other liturgical formularies for the feasts of the saints. In reality this Proper commemorates a very large number of saints who find mention in the ecclesiastical Calendar; this, however, meed not be given here, as it can easily be consulted. But it may be noted that the greater number of the days of the year—at least nine-tenths—are appropriated to special feasts; and the question has therefore been seriously debated, every time a movement for the reform of the Breviary has arisen, as to how to save the Divine Office from being overwhelmed by these feasts, and as to how to restore to the ferial Office its rightful ascendancy. This is not the place for the discussion of such a problem; but it may be said that this invasion of the Proper of the Season has reached such proportions imperceptilbly. It was not always thus; in the beginning, up to the seventh, and even up to ninth, century, the feasts of saints observed in the Breviary were not numerous, as may be proved by comparing modern Calendars with such ancient ones as may be seen in “An Ancient Syrian Martyrology,” “Le calendrier de Philocalus,” “Martyrologium Hieronymianum,” “Kalendarium Carthaginense.” These Calendars contain little more than the following list, beyond the great festivals of the Church:

Exaltation of Holy Cross—14 September.

Presentation of Jesus, or Purification of B.V.M.—2 or 15 February.

Dormitio, or Assumption, B.V.M.—15 August.

St. Michael, Archangel—29 September.

Sts. Macchabees—1 August.

St. John Baptist—24 June.

St. Stephen, Protomartyr—26 December.

Sts. Peter and Paul—29 June.

Chair of St. Peter (at Antioch)—22 February.

St. Andrew, Ap.—30 November.

Sts. James the Greater and John, App.—27 or 28 December.

Sts. Philip and James the Less, App.—1 May.

Holy Innocents—23 or 28 December.

St. Sixtus II, Pope—1 or 16 August.

Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas, MM.—7 March.

St. Flavian or Fabian—15 May.

St. Lawrence, M.—10 August.

St. Hippolytus, M.—13 August.

St. Cyprian, M.—14 September.

St. Sebastian, M.—20 January.

St. Agnes. V. & M.—23 January.

St. Timothy, M.—22 August.

St. Vincent, M.—22 February.

St. Felicitas, M.—23 November.

St. Ignatius, M.—17 October, or 20 December, or 29 January, or 1 February.

St. Polycarp. M.—26 February.

Seven Holy Sleepers—variable.

St. Pantaleon—variable.

(D) THE COMMON

Under this designation come all the lessons, Gospels, antiphons, responsories, and versicles which are not reserved to a special occasion, but may be employed for a whole group of saints. These Commons are those of Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors Pontiffs, Confessors non-Pontiffs, Abbots, Virgins, and Holy Women. To these may be added the Offices of the Dedication of the Churches, and of the Blessed Virgin. The Office of the Dead occupies a place apart. It is most difficult to fix the origin of these Offices. The most ancient seem to belong to the ninth, the eighth, and even the seventh century, and through special formularies may even date still further back. To give one example, the antiphons of the Common of Martyrs in paschal time, “Sancti tui, Domine, florebunt sicut lilium, et sicut odor balsami erunt ante te,” “Lux perpetua lucebit sanctis tuis, Domine et Aeternitas temporum,” are taken from the Fourth Book of Esdras (apocryphal), which was rejected almost everywhere about the end of the fourth century; these verses, therefore, must probably have been borrowed at a period anterior to that date. Probably, also, in the very beginning, the most ancient of these Common Offices were Proper Offices, and in some of them special features supporting this supposition may be noticed. Thus, the Common of Apostles is apparently referable to the Office of Sts. Peter and Paul and must bave been adapted later for all the Apostles. Such versicles as the following in the Common of Martyrs: “Volo, Pater, ut ubi ego sum, illic sit et minister meus,” “Si quis mihi ministraverit, honorificabit illum Pater meus,” seem to point to a martyr-deacon (diakonos, minister), and may perhaps specially refer to St. Lawrence, on account of the allusion to the words of his Acts: “Quo, sacerdos sancte, sine ministro properas?” Also, the numerous allusions to a crown or a palm in these same antiphons refer without doubt to the holy martyrs, Stephen, Lawrence, and Vincent, whose names are synonyms for the crown and laurel of victory. The details necessary for th proof of this hypothesis could only be given in a fuller treatise than this; suffice it to say that from the literary standpoint, as from that of archæology or liturgy, these Offices of the Common contain gems of great artistic beauty, and are of very great interest.

(E) SPECIAL OFFICES

The Office of the Blessed Virgin, also very ancient in some of its parts, is of great dogmatic importance; but students of this subject are referred to the Rev. E. L. Taunton’s “The Little Office of Our Lady.”

The Office of Dead is, without a shadow of doubt, one of the most venerable and ancient portions of the Breviary, and deserves a lengthy study to itself. The Breviaries also contain Offices proper to each diocese, and certain special Offices of modern origin, which, consequently, need not here detain us.

III. THE HOURS

The prayer of the Breviary is meant to be used daily; each day has its own Office; in fact it would be correct to say that each hour of the day has its own office, for, liturgically, the day is divided into hours founded on the ancient Roman divisions of the day, of three hours apiece—Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and Vespers, and the night Vigils. In conformity with this arrangement, the Office is portioned out into the prayers of the night vigils, that is to say Matins and Lauds. Matins itself is subdivided into three nocturns, to correspond with the three watches of the night: nine o’clock at night, midnight, and three o’clock in the morning. The office of Lauds was supposed to be recited at dawn. The day offices corresponded more or less to the following hours: Prime to 6 A.M., Terce to 9 A.M., Sext to midday, None to 3 p.m., Vespers to 6 p.m. It is necessary to note the words more or less, for these hours were regulated by the solar system, and therefore the length of the periods varied with the season.

The office of Compline, which falls somewhat outside the above division, and whose origin dates later than the general arrangement, was recited at nightfall. Nor does this division of the hours go back to the first Christian period. So far as can be ascertained, there was no other public or official prayer in the earliest days, outside the Eucharistic service, except the night watches, or vigils, which consisted of the chanting of psalms and of readings from Holy Scripture, the Law, and the Prophets, the Gospels and Epistles, and a homily. The offices of Matins and Lauds thus represent, most probably, these watches. It would seem that beyond this there was nothing but private prayer; and at the dawn of Christianity the prayers were said in the Temple, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles. The hours equivalent to Terce, Sext, None, and Vespers were already known to the Jews as times of prayer and were merely adopted by the Christians. At first meant for private prayer, they became in time the hours of public prayer, especially when the Church was enriched with ascetics, virgins, and monks, by their vocation consecrated to prayer. From that time, i.e. from the end of the third century, the monastic idea exercised a preponderant influence on the arrangement and formation of the canonical Office. It is possible to give a fairly exact account of the establishment of these Offices in the second half of th fourth century by means of a document of surpassing importance for the history we are now considering: the “Peregrinatio ad Loca Sancta,” written about A. D. 388, by Etheria, a Spanish abbess. This narrative is specifically a description of the Liturgy followed in the Church of Jerusalem at that date.

The Offices of Prime and Compline were devised later, Prime at the end of the fourth century, while Compline is usually attributed to St. Benedict in the sixth century; but it must be acknowledged that, although he may have given it its special form for the West, there existed before his time a prayer for the close of the day corresponding to it.

IV. COMPONENT PARTS OF THE OFFICE

Each of the hours of the Office in the Roman Liturgy is composed of the same elements: psalms (and now and then canticles), antiphons, responsories, hymns, lessons, versicles, little chapters, and collects (prayers).

A few words must be said about each of these elements from the particular point of view of the Breviary.

(A) PSALMS AND CANTICLES

Nothing need here be added to what has already been said in section II concerning the psalms, except that they are used in the Breviary sometimes in order of sequence, as in the ferial Offices of Matins and Vespers, sometimes by special selection, independently of the order of the Psalter, as in Lauds, Prime, Compline, and, in general, in the Offices of the Saints and other feasts. Another point of notice in the composition of the Roman Office is that it allows of the inclusion of a certain number of canticles, or songs, drawn from other portions of Holy Writ than the Psalter, but put on the same footing as the psalms. These are: the Canticle of Moses after the passage of the Red Sea (Exodus, xv); the Canticle of Moses before his death (Deut., xxxii); the Prayer of Anne the mother of Samuel (I Kings, ii); the Prayer of Jonas (Jon., ii); the Canticle of Habacuc (Habacuc, iii); the Canticle of Ezechias (Is., xxxviii); The Benedicite (Dan., iii, lii); lastly, the three canticles drawn from the New Testament: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, and the Nunc dimittis.

This list of canticles coincides more or less with those used in the Greek church. St. Benedict admits these canticles into his Psalter, specifically stating that he borrows them from the Church of Rome, and thus providing a further argument for the priority of the Roman Office over the monastic.

(B) ANTIPHONS

The antiphons which are read nowadays in the Breviary are abridged formularies which almost always serve to introduce a psalm or canticle. They consist sometimes of a verse taken from a psalm, sometimes of a sentence selected from the Gospels or Holy Scripture, e.g. “Euge, serve bone, in modico fidelis, intra in gaudium Domini tui”; occasionally they consist of phrases not culled from the Bible, but modelled on its style, i.e. they are the invention of a liturgical author, for example: “Veni, Sponsa Christi,accipe coronam, quam tibi Dominus præparavit in æternum.” Originally, the meaning of the word, and the function fulfilled by the antiphon, was not what it is now. Although it is difficult to determine precisely the origin and purport of the term, it seems that it is derived from antiphona (antiphone) or from the adjective antiphonos, and that it signified a chant by alternate choirs. The singers or the faithful were divided into two choirs; the first choir intoned the first verse of a psalm, the second continued with the second verse, the first followed with the third verse, and so on to the end of the psalm. The antiphoned chant is thus recitation by two choirs alternately. This term has given rise to technical discussions which cannot here be entered into.

(C) RESPONSORY

Responsory, whose composition is almost the same as that of the antiphon—verse of a psalm, sentence out of Holy Scripture or of ecclesiastical authorship—nevertheless differs from it entirely as to the nature of its use in recitation or chant. The precentor sang or recited a psalm; the choir or the faithful replied, or repeated either one of the verses or simply the last words of the precentor. This form, like the antiphon, had already been in use amongst the Jews, and appears even in the construction of certain psalms, as in cxxxv, “Laudate Dominum quoniam bonus,” where the refrain, “Quoniam in æternum misericordia ejus,” which recurs in each verse, certainly corresponds to a responsory.

(D) HYMNS

The term hymn has a less definite meaning than those of antiphon or responsory, and in the primitive liturgies its use is somewhat uncertain. In the Roman Breviary, at each hour either of the day or of the night there is a little poem in verses of different measures, usually very short. This is the hymn. These compositions were originally very numerous. Traces of hymns may be discerned in the New Testament, e.g., in St. Paul’s Epistles. In the fourth and fifth centuries hymnology received a great impetus. Prudentius, Synesius, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Hilary, and St. Ambrose composed a great many. But it was above all in the Middle Ages that this style of composition most developed, and collections of them were made, filling several volumes. The Roman Breviary contains but a moderate number of hymns, forming a real anthology. Some of them are masterpieces of art. It was at a comparatively late date (about the twelfth century) that the Roman Liturgy admitted hymns into its Breviary. In its primitive austerity it had hitherto rejected them, without, however, condemning their employment in other liturgies.

(E) LESSONS

By this term is meant the choice of readings or of extracts in the Breviary, taken either from Holy Writ or from the Acts of the Saints, or from the Fathers of the Church. Their use is in accordance with the ancient Jewish custom, which, in the services of the Synagogues, enjoined that after the chanting of psalms, the Law and the Prophets should be read. The primitive Church partly adopted this service of the Synagogue, and thus brought into being the service of the night watches. But the course of readings was altered; after a lesson from the Old Testament, the Epistles of the Apostles or their Acts or the Gospels were read. Some Churches somewhat extended this usage; for it is certain that the letters of St. Clement of Rome, of St. Ignatius, and of Barnabas, and the “Pastor” of Hermas were read. Some Churches, indeed, less well instructed, allowed books not wholly orthodox, like the Gospel of Peter, to be read. In time lists were made out to fix what books might be read. Muratori’s “Canon” and, still better, the “Decrees of Gelasius” may be studied from this point of view with profit. Later on men were not content to confine themselves to the reading of the holy books; certain Churches wished to read the Acts of the Martyrs. The Church of Africa, which possessed Acts of great value, signalized itself in this respect. Others followed its example. When the Divine Office was more developed, probably under monastic influence, it became customary to read, after Holy Writ, the commentaries of the Fathers and of other ecclesiastical writers on the passage of the Bible just previously heard. This innovation, which probably began in the sixth, or even in the fifth, century, brought into the Divine Office the works of St. Augustine, St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, Origen, and others. To these, later, were added those of St. Isidore, St. Gregory the Great, the Venerable Bede, and so on. This new development of the Office gave rise to the compilation of special books. In primitive times the Book of Psalms and the books of the Old Testament sufficed for the Office. Later, books were compiled giving extracts from the Old and New Testaments (Lectionary, Gospel, and Epistle Books) for each day and each feast. Then followed books of homilies (Homiliaries)—collections of sermons or of commentaries of the Fathers for use in the Office. All these books should be studied, for they form the constituent elements which later combined into the Breviary.

Further, as regards these lessons, it is well to notice that, as in the case of the psalmody, two lines of selection were followed. The first, that of the order of ferial Offices, ensures the reading of the Scripture, from Genesis to the Apocalypse, in sequence; the second, that of the order for feasts of the saints and festivals, breaks in upon this orderly series of readings and substitutes for them a chapter or a portion of a chapter specially applicable to the feast which is being celebrated.

The following is the table of lessons from the Bible. In its essential features, it goes back to a very venerable antiquity:

Advent—Isaias, and St. Paul’s Epistles.

Christmas, Epiphany—St. Paul, following this very ancient order: Epp. To Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews.

Septuagesima and Lent—Genesis and the other books of the Pentateuch.

Passiontide—Jeremias.

Easter and Paschal Time—Acts of the App., Apocalypse, Epp. Of St. James, St. Peter, St. John.

Time after Pentecost—Books of Kings.

Month of August—Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus.

Month of September—Job, Tobias, Judith, Esther.

Month of October—Machabees.

Month of November—Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets.

(F) VERSICLES AND LITTLE CHAPTERS

The Capitulum, or Little Chapter, is really a very short lesson which takes the place of lessons in those hours which have to special ones assigned to them. These are: Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline. By reason of their brevity and of their unimportance, they are much less complicated than the longer ones, and no more need here be said about them. The Versicles belong to the psalmody, like responsories and antiphons; usually they are taken from a psalm, and belong to the category of liturgical acclamations or shouts of joy. They are usually employed after lessons and little chapters, and often take the place of responsories; they are, in fact, brief responsories. The ferial Preces and the Litanies probably belong to the category of versicles.

(G) COLLECTS

Collects, also called prayers, are not psalmodic prayers; they are of a completely different character. Their place in the Breviary changes little; they come towards the end of the Office, after the psalmody, the lessons, little chapters, and versicles, but preceded by the Dominus vobiscum, and they gather up in a compendious form the supplications of the faithful. Their historical origin is as follows: During the earliest period, the president of the assembly, usually the bishop, was entrusted with the task of pronouncing, after the psalmody, chants, and litanies, a prayer in the name of all the faithful; he therefore addressed himself directly to God. At first this prayer was an improvisation. The oldest examples are to be found in the Didache ton Apostolon and in the Epistle of St. Clement of Rome, and in certain Epistles of St. Cyprian. In time, towards the fourth century, collections of prayers were made for those who were not adepts in the art of improvisation; these were the earliest forerunners of Sacramentaries and Orationals, which later occupied so important a place in the history of the Liturgy. The Leonine, Gelasian, and Gregorian Sacramentaries form the chief sources whence are drawn the collects of our Breviary. It may be observed that they are of great theological importance, and usually sum up the main idea dominating a feast; hence, in them the significance of a festival is to be sought.

V. HISTORY OF THE BREVIARY

In the preceding paragraphs, a certain portion of the history of the Breviary, as a choir book at least, has been given. At first, there was no choir book, properly so called; the Bible alone sufficed for all needs, for therein were the psalms for recitation and the books which furnished the various lessons. It is of course most probable that the Psalter is the most ancient choir book; it was published apart to fulfil this special function, but with divisions—marks to indicate the portions to be read; and at the end were copied out the canticles recited in the Office like the psalms, and sometimes, following each psalm, came one or more prayers. A study of manuscript Psalters, which has not as yet been methodically undertaken, would be extremely useful for the Liturgy. Then, little by little, as the canonical Office was evolved, books were drawn up to meet the wants of the day—Antiphonaries, Collectaria, etc. In the twelfth century John Beleth, a liturgical author, enumerates the books needed for the due performance of the canonical Office, namely:—the Antiphonary, the Old and New Testaments, the Passionary (Acts of the Martyrs), the Legendary (Legends of the Saints), the Homiliary, or collection of homilies on the Gospels, the Sermologus, or collection of sermons, and the treatises of the Fathers. In addition to these should be mentioned the Psalterium, Collectarium for the prayers, the Martyrology, etc. Thus, for the recitation of the canonical Office, quite a library was required. Some simplification became imperative, and the pressure of circumstances brought about a condensation of these various books into one. This is the origin of the Breviary. The word and the thing it represents appeared—confusedly, it might be—at the end of the eighth century. Alcuin is the author of an abridgment of the Office for the laity—a few psalms for each day with a prayer after each psalm, on an ancient plan, and some other prayers; but without including lessons or homilies. It might rather be called a Euchology than a Breviary. About the same time Prudentius, Bishop of Troyes, inspired by a similar motive, drew up a Breviarium Psalterii. But we must come down to the eleventh century to meet with a Breviary properly so called. The most ancient manuscript known as containing within one volume the whole of the canonical Office dates from the year 1099; it comes from Monte Cassino, and at the present time belongs to the Mazarin Library. It contains, in addition to other matter which does not concern the present inquiry, the Psalter, canticles, litanies, hymnary, collects, blessings for the lessons, little chapters, antiphons, responsories, and lessons for certain Offices. Another manuscript, contemporary with the preceding, and also coming from Monte Cassino, contains Propers of the Season and of the Saints, thus serving to complete the first-mentioned one. Other examples of the Breviary exist dating from the twelfth century, still rare and all Benedictine. The history of these origins of the Breviary is still somewhat obscure; and the efforts at research must continue tentatively till a critical study of these manuscript Breviaries has been made on the lines of such workers as Delisle, Ebner, or Ehrensperger, on the Sacramentaries and Missals.

It was under Innocent III (1198–1216) that the use of Breviaries began to spread outside Benedictine circles. At Rome, no longer solely for the Roman Basilicas, but still for the Roman Court alone, Breviaria were drawn up, which, from their source, are called Breviaria de Camerâ, or Breviaria secundum usum Romanæ Curiæ. Texts of this period (beginning of thirteenth century) speak of “Missalia, Breviaria, cæterosque libros in quibus Officium Ecclesiasticum continetur,” and Raoul de Tongres specifically refers to this Roman Breviary. But this use of the Breviary was still limited, and wa a kind of privilege reserved for the Roman Court. A special cause was needed to give the use of this Breviary a greater extension. The Order of Friars Minor, or Franciscans, lately founded, undertook the task of popularizing it. It was not a sedentary order vowed to stability, like those of the Benedictines or Cistercians, or like the Regular Canons, but was an active, missionary, preaching order. It therefore needed an abridged Office, convenient to handle and contained in a single volume small enough to be carried about by the Friars on their journeys. This order adopted the Breviarium Curiæ with certain modifications which really constitute, as it were, a second edition of this Breviary. It is sometimes called the Breviary of Gregory IX because it was authorized by that pontiff. One of the chief modifications effected by the Friars Minor was the substitution of the Gallican version of the Psalter for the Roman. The cause was won; this eminently popular and active order spread the use of this Breviary everywhere. Antiphonaries, Psalters, Legendaries, and Responsoraries disappeared by degrees before the advance of the single book which replaced them all. Still more, by a kind of jus postliminii—a right of resumption—the Church of Rome, under Nicholas III (1277—80), adopted the Breviary of the Friars not merely for the Curia, but also for the Basilicas; and, as an inevitable consequence, this Breviary was bound, sooner or later, to become that of the Universal Church.

VI. REFORMS OF THE BREVIARY

In the preceding sections, the history of the ecclesiatical Office has been unfolded from its inception. If this history could be put into few words, though neccesarily forming an incomplete statement, it might be said that from the first to the fifth century it was in formation; from the fifth to the eleventh century it was in process of development and expansion; and during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Breviary properly so called was emerging into being. From then till now (that is, from the fourteenth century onwards) might be termed the period of reform. The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries represent for the Liturgy, as for the greater number of other ecclesiastical institutions, a period of decline, for it is the time of schisms, and in that one word everything harmful is summed up. The few documents that are available for the liturgical history of that time attest this, as, for example, the “Gesta Benedicti XIII” and the “XV Ordo Romanus.” Disorder and abuses crept into the Liturgy as into everything else.

Dom Bäumer, in his “Histoire du bréviaire,” repeatedly points out that it is impossible to separate the history of the Liturgy from the occurrences that make up the general history of the Church, and that the phases through which the general history takes us are reflected in the evolution of the Liturgy. It is not surprising, therefore, that the sojourn of the popes at Avignon and the Great Schism have exerted their baneful influence on the history of the Liturgy. And the reaction is still being felt. Raoul de Tongres, who died early in the fifteenth century, was even at that early period a critic and a reformer; in his famous work “De observantiâ Canonum” he agitated for some settlement of liturgical rules. The “XV Ordo Romanus” already referred to, the work of Amelius, sacristan to Urban V and librarian to Gregory XI, breathes the same idea. The abuses pointed out by the different authors of the time may be reduced to the following:

The almost complete suppression of the Offices of Sundays and ferias, so that it became impossible that the whole Psalter should be recited every week, and certain psalms were never recited at all.

An accumulation of Offices on the same day, tending to the destruction of their solemnity and also to the elimination of the Offices of the Season.

Substitution for the lessons from Holy Scripture of legends and apocryphal histories and of texts of doubtful value for antiphons, hymns, and responsories. On this subject the “Consultatio” presented by John de Arzo to the Council of Trent should be studied.

The introduction of superstitious usages, strange formularies of prayers, and feasts bordering in character on the grotesque.

The Humanism of the Renaissance, which had its ardent champions even in the Church—as Bembo, Sadoletus, etc., to say nothing of certain popes—caused the idea of a special reform of the Breviary, in the direction of greater literary purity and prefection, to be entertained in certain quarters. Strange schemes were propounded, little in consonance with the spirit of the Church. A Florentine canon, Marsiglio Ficino, and Peter Pomponatius, for instance, suggested that the clergy should read the classical authors instead of the Breviary. Others, though not going so far as this, thought the diction of the Breviary barbaric, and wanted to translate it into Ciceronian Latin. The corrections suggested included such astounding phrases as the following: the forgiveness of sins becomes “superosque manesque placare”; the Begetting of the Word was to be “Minerva Jovis capite orta”; the Holy Ghost was “Aura Zephyri coelestis,” etc. These attempts failed; nevertheless, at a later date, under Urban VIII, similar Humanist tendencies came again to the surface and this time asserted their power by an emendation of the hymns. Amongst such attempts may be mentioned that of Ferreri. He was the Bishop of Guarda Alfieri in the Kingdom of Naples, a Humanist, and wrote under the auspices and patronage of Leo X. He began with the hymns. His work, which has been preserved, is interesting and contains some very beautiful pieces, polished in style. A good number of them have, unfortunately, nothing more of the spirit of poetry in them than harmony and rhythm; they are wanting in inspiration and above all in the warmth of piety; nearly all are strewn with Pagan names and allusions, representing Christian verities, as “Triforme Numen Olympi” for the Trinity, “Natus Eumolpho Lyricenque Sappho . . . Thracius Orpheus,” referring to the Blessed Virgin, etc. Ferreri also busied himself with a revision of the Breviary, but nothing was published, and now no trace of the materials he collected is forthcoming.

Another attempt at reform, much better known, and having results of far-reaching importance, was that of Quignonez, Cardinal of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, who wa entrusted by Clement VII with the task of completing the work begun by Ferreri. He was a Franciscan, and had been successfully employed on various commissions. His revision was the most original that has ever been attempted, and liturgical experts, like Guéranger, Edmund Bishop, and Bäumer, have studied his labours in detail. Only the principal points of his scheme can be mentioned here. Considered theoretically, it cannot be denied that his Breviary is drawn up on easy, convenient, and logical lines, and, on the whole is felicitously arranged. But in the light of tradition and of liturgical principles the only possible verdict in that Quignonez’ Breviary, being constructed on a priori principles, violating most of the liturgical rules, must be codemned. The author starts with the theory, contrary to all tradition, that an essential difference exists between the public celebration of the Office and its private recitation. For private recitation, therfore, all such portions as antiphons, responsories, versicles, little chapters, even hymns may be eliminated, as, according to Quignonez, these are meant solely for choir use. According to his arrangement, the entire Psalter was to be recited once a week—an excellent idea, in consonance with primitive practice; but it was applied too rigidly and narrowly, for no attention was paid to the suitability of certain psalms to special feasts. Feasts were never to change the order of the psalms, which were to be recited successively from i to cl.

Every hour had three psalms; and in consequence of this severe regularity, there disappeared the deep and historical motive which gave to each hour its own characteristics. The legends of the saints and the hymns underwent drastic, but designed, revision. Another principle, which would be deserving of all praise had it not been applied too rigorously, was that the entire Scriptures should be read through every year. Quignonez’ Breviary, as might be expected, met both with enthusiastic approval and with determined opposition. Its success may be judged from the number of editions through which it passed. The Sorbonne criticized it severely, and other experts declared against Quignonez and attacked his work mercilessly. In the end, opposition proved the stronger, and even popes rejected it. Moreover, it was supplanted by other revisions made on more orthodox liturgical lines, less ambitious in scope, and more in accordance with tradition. The newly founded Congregation of Theatines applied itself to this task with energy and enthusiasm. Caraffa, one of its founders, took a share in the work, and when he became pope under the name of Paul IV (1555–59), he continued his labours, but died before seeing their completion, and it was thus reserved to others to bring them to a successful issue.

The Council of Trent, which effected reforms in so many directions, also took up the idea of revising the Breviary; a commission was appointed concerning whose deliberations we have not much information, but it began to make definite inquiries about the subject entrusted to it. The council separated before these preliminaries could be concluded; so it was decided to leave the task of editing a new Breviary in the pope’s own hands. The commission appointed by the council was not dissolved, and continued its investigations. St. Pius V, at the beginning of his pontificate (1566), appointed new members to it and otherwise stimulated its activity, with the result that a Breviary appeared in 1568, prefaced by the famous Bull, “Quod a nobis.” The commission had adopted wise and reasonable principles: not to invent a new Breviary and a new Liturgy; to stand by tradition; to keep all that was worth keeping, but at the same time to correct the multitude of errors which had crept into the Breviaries and to weigh just demands and complaints. Following these lines, they corrected the lessons, or legends, of the saints and revised the Calendar; and while respecting ancient liturgical formularies such as the collects, they introduced needful changes in certain details. More intimate accounts of this revision should be studied at length in the approved authorities on the history of the Breviary. Here it will be enough to give a short sketch of the chief points affecting this Breviary, as it is substantially the same as that used at this date. The celebrated Bull of approval, “Quod a nobis” (9 July, 1568), which prefaced it, explains the reasons which had weighed with Rome in putting forth an official text of public prayer, and gives an account of the labours which had been undertaken to ensure its correction; it withdrew the papal approbation from all Breviaries which could not show a prescriptive right of at least two centuries of existence. Any Church which had not such an ancient Breviary was bound to adopt that of Rome. The new Calendar was freed from a large number of feasts, so that the ferial Office was once more accorded a chance of occupying a less obscure position than of late it had. At the same time the real foundation of the Breviary—the Psalter—was respected, the principal alterations made being in the lessons. The legnends of the saints were carefully revised, as also the homilies. The work was one not only of critical revision, but also of discriminating conservatism, and was received with general approval. The greater number of the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, England, and, generally, all the Catholic States, accepted this Breviary, saving only certain districts, as Milan and Toledo, where ancient Rites were retained.

This Pian Breviary (Breviarium Pianum), while still remaining the official prayer book of the Universal Church, has undergone certain slight alterations in the course of time, and these must here be noted, but without reference to the new feasts of saints which have been added to the Calendar century by century, even though they occupy a not inconsiderable space in the ecclesiastical disposition of the year. The chiefest and most important changes were made under Sixtus V. At first the text of the versions of the Bible used in the Liturgy was altered. As soon as the revision of the Vulgate undertaken during this pontificate was completed, the new text replaced the old one in all official books, particularly in the Breviary and the Missal. Sixtus V instituted a new Congregation—that of Rites—1588, charging it with a study of the reforms contemplated in the Pian Breviary, which had then been in use more than twenty years. To him is due the honour of this revision of the Breviary, although till lately it had been ascribed to Clement VII (1592–1605). Although the first suggestion came from Sixtus V, nevertheless it was only under Clement VII that the work was really vigorously pushed forward and brought to a conclusion. The revising committee had as its members such men as Baronius, Bellarmine, and Gavanti. The first-named especially played a most important part in this revision, and the report which he drew up has recently been published. The emendations bore especially on the rubrics: to the Common of Saints was added that of Holy Women not Virgins; the rite of certain feasts was altered; and some new feasts were added. The Bull of Clement VII, “Cum in Ecclesiâ,” enjoining the observance of these alterations, is dated 10 May, 1602.

Further changes were made by Urban VIII (1623–44). The commission appointed by him was content to correct the lessons and some of the homilies, in the sense of making the text correspond more closely with the oldest manuscripts. There would therefore be no call to treat of this revision under Urban VIII at greater length but for the fact that, outside the work of this commission, he effected a still more important reform, over which even now discussion has not ceased to make itself heard. It affected the hymns. Urban VIII, being himself Humanist, and no mean poet, as witness the hymns of St. Martin and of St. Elizabeth of Portugal, which are of his own composition, desired that the Breviary hymns which it must be admitted are sometimes trivial in style and irregular in their prosody, should be corrected according to grammatical rules and put into true metre. To this end he called in the aid of certain Jesuits of distinguished literary attainments. The corrections made by these purists were so numerous—952 in all—as to make a profound alteration in the character of some of the hymns. Although some of them without doubt gained in literary style, nevertheless, to the regret of many, they also lost something of their old charm of simplicity and fervour.

At the present date [1907], this revision is condemned, out of respect for ancient texts; and surprise may be expressed at the temerity that dared to meddle with the Latinity of a Prudentius, a Sedulius, a Sidonius Apollinaris, a Venantius Fortunatus, an Ambrose, a Paulinus of Aquileia, which, though perhaps lacking the purity of the Golden Age, has, nevertheless, its own peculiar charm. Even the more barbarous Latinity of a Rhabanus Maurus is not without its archaic interest and value. Moreover, the revisers were ill-advised inasmuch as they adopted a via media; they stopped half-way. If, as it is freely admitted, the Roman Breviary contains many hymns of inferior poetic worth, and whose sentiment is perhaps commonplace, then there is no reason why they should not be eliminated altogether, and replaced by new ones. Many of the older ones, however, were worthy of being preserved just as they stood; and, in the light of the progress made in philology, it is certain that some of the corrections in prosody made under Urban VIII convict their authors of ignorance of certain rhythmic rules, whose existence, it is only right to say, came to be known later. However it may be, these corrections have been retained till the present time. A comparison of the older with the modern text of the hymns may be consulted in Daniel, “Thesaurus Hymnologicus,” (Halle, 1841).

Nothing further was done under the successors of Urban VIII, except that new Offices were added from time to time, and that thus the ferial Office began again to lose ground. We must come down to the pontificate of Benedict XIV, in the second half of the eighteenth century, to meet with another attempt at reform; but before doing so, reference must be made to efforts inaugurated in France during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, whose history has been learnedly elucidated in detail by Dom Guéranger in vol. II of his “Institutions liturgiques,” devoted in great part to an account of this struggle. The Roman Breviary, revised by Pius IV, had been received in France without opposition. Under Louis XIV, however, attempts at revision were made, inspired by a spirit of resistance and antagonism to the Roman Court. They took form amongst the two parties which made open profession of Gallicanism and Jansenism. The supporters of this reform, several of whom were men of learning and culture, were aided by the historical and critical works which at that time were being poured forth in France, so that in these projects for the reform of the Breviary, side by side with rash suggestions, there were many which were both useful and well judged. One of the first schemes was that of the Paris Breviary, mooted in 1670 and pursued under the patronage of Archbishops Hardouin de Péréfixe and de Harlay. The Breviary called after de Harlay appeared in 1680. The corrections it embodied affected in particular the legends of the saints and the homilies, but numerous other parts were also touched. The details and the examination of them may best be studied in Dom Guéranger’s pages. Although it might have seemed that the Breviary had by then been sufficiently emended, in the following century another Archbishop of Paris, Monseigneur de Vintimille, had another Breviary drawn up, which was published in 1736, and remained in use till the middle of last century. It partly embodied what is called the “liturgical Utopia of Quignonez.” Its source, however, was not above suspicion, for some of those who had laboured at its production were Jansenists. This reform, while not wanting in sound ideals, was carried out, however, regardless of liturgical traditions.

What had been going on in Paris had its counterpart in other dioceses of France, where new Breviaries were were introduced, for the most part inspired by the ideas which had dominated those of de Harlay and of Vintimille. A reaction against these broke out in France between 1830 and 1840, having for its leader a Benedictine monk, Dom Guéranger, Abbot of Solesmes and an eminent liturgist, who, in his “Institutions liturgiques,” arraigned the new Breviaries, exposed the mistakes underlying their construction, and proved that their authors had acted without warrant. His onslaught met with immediate success for in twenty years the greater number of the dioceses gave up their Gallican Breviaries and adopted once more the Roman Liturgy. The exact figures are as follows: in 1791 eighty dioceses had rejected the Roman Liturgy and had fashioned special liturgies for themselves; in 1875 Orléans, the last French diocese which had retained its own liturgy re-entered Roman liturgical unity.

While France, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was letting herself be carried away in the reform of her Breviaries by Gallican and Jansenist leanings, other countries were following in her wake. In Italy, Scipio Ricci, Bishop of Pistoia, an ardent Jansenist, drew up a new Breviary, and certain districts of Germany adopted the same course, with the result that Breviaries modelled on those of France appeared at Trier, Cologne, Aachen, Mnnster, and Mainz; and it was long before Germany returned to liturgical unity.

While the Jansenists and Gallicans were creating a new Liturgy, Prosper Lambertini, one of the most learned men in Rome, who became pope under the name of Benedict XIV, determined to copy the example of some of his predecessors, and to carry out a further reform of the Breviary. A congregation was instituted for the special purpose; its papers, for long unedited, have of late years been gone through by MM. Roskovány and Chaillot, each of whom has published considerable portions of them. The first meeting of the congregation was in 1741, and the discussions which took place then and later are of interest from the liturgist’s point of view, but need not detain us. Although this project of reform came to nothing, nevertheless the work accomplished by the congregation was of real value and reflects credit on its members, some of whom, like Giorgi, were eminent liturgists. Future workers in this department of learning will have to take account of their collections. After the death of Benedict XIV (4 May, 1758) the labours of this congregation were suspended and were never again seriously resumed. Since Benedict XIV’s time changes in the Breviary have been very few, and of minor importance, and can be outlined in a few words. Under Pius VI the question of a reform of the Breviary was brought up once more. By that pontiff’s orders a scheme was drawn up and presented to the Congregation of Rites, but it was found impossible to overcome the difficulties which surrounded an undertaking of this kind. In 1856 Pius IX appointed a commission to examine the question: is the reform of the Breviary opportune? But again only preliminary matters engaged their attention. Amongst the Acts of the Vatican Council a series of propositions are to be found, whose object was the simplification or correction of the Breviary, but the inquiry never got beyond that stage. Finally, under Leo XIII, a commission was appointed, at the close of 1902, whose duties were a study of historico-liturgical questions. Its province is a wider one, comprising not only the Breviary, but also the Missal, the Pontifical, and the Ritual. It has, further, to supervise future liturgical edittions, and thus to see that they conform as closely as possible with historical data. This commission, though attached to the Congregation of Rites, is nevertheless autonomous. It consisted at first of five members under the presidency of Monsignor Duchesne, namely: Mgr. Wilpert, Father Ehrle, S.J., Father Roberti, Mgr. Umberto Benigni, Mgr. Mercati, and a few consultors. What the results of their labours may be is not yet known.

This sketch of the reforms of the Breviary proves, however, the desire of the Church to eliminate the blemishes which disfigure this book. All these efforts have not been sterile; some of these revisions mark real progress; and it may be hoped that the present commission will effect certain improvements which the progress of historical studies and criticism have made the more needful.

On the different Breviaries: Breviary of Cluny; Brigittine Breviary; Breviary of St. Bernard; Durham Breviary; Hereford Breviary; Mozarabic Breviary; Breviary of Rouen; Sarum Breviary; etc., CABROL, Introduction aux études liturgiques, s. v. Bréviaire, Breviarium, Breviary. On the Milan Breviary, Mozarabic Breviary, and Eastern Breviaries, PROBST, in Kirchenlex, (1883), II. s. v. Brevier; B-UMER, Geschichte des Breviers (Freiburg, 1895), the most important and most complete work on the subject, Fr. tr., with additions and corrections by BIRON, as Histoire du bréviaire (Paris, 1905). ID., Breviarii Romani editio nova Tornacensis, 1882, collata Vaticanæ Urbano Papâ VIII evulgatæ, 1632 (1882); BATIFFOL, L’Histoire du bréviaire Romain (Paris, 1893; tr. London); BAUDOT, Le breviaire romain (Paris, 1727; Lat. tr., Venice, 1734); ROSKOVÁNT, De Célibatu et Breviario (1861, 1877, 1881, 1888); PROBST, Brevier und Breviergebet (Tnbingen, 1868); PIMONT, Les hymnes du bréviaire romain (Paris, 1874–84); PLEITHNER, Ælteste Geschichte des Breviergebetes (Kempten, 1887); NILLES, Kalendarium Manuale utriusque Ecclesiâ Orientalis et Occidentalis (Innsbruck, 1896); Article Brevier, Realencyklopédie, IV; GUÉRARD, Polyptique de l’abbaye de St. Rémy de Reims (Paris, 1853); BECKER, Catalogi Bibliothecarum antiqui (Rome, 1885); DUCANGE, Glossarium: Micrologus de ecclesiasticis observationibus in Bibl. Vet. Patr. (Lyons), XVIII; GUÉRANGER, Instit. Liturg. (2nd ed.), I; GERBERT, Vet. Liturg., II; Katholik. (1890), II, 511; KAULEN, Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift; Geschichte der Vulgata (Mainz, 1868); THOMASI, Opera, ed., VEZZOSI (Rome, 1747), II; BERGER, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siécles du Moyen Age (Paris, 1893); Anglo-Saxon Psalter (1843); WALAFRID STRABO, De rebus ecclesiasticis in P.L., CXIV, 957; MURATORI, Anecdota Ambrosiana, IV. P. L., LXXII, 580 sqq.; WARREN, The Antiphonary of Bangor (London, 1893); CABROL, Le Livre de la Prióre Antique (Paris, 1900); CABROL, Dict. D’archéologie et de liturgie; TAUNTON, The Little Office of Our Lady (London, 1903); Peregrinatio Etheriâ, tr., Holy Week in Jerusalem in the Fourth Century, reprinted from DUCHESNE, Christian Worship (London, 1905); Rev. d’histoire et de littérature religieuses (Paris, 1898); PROBST, Lehre und Gebet in den drei ersten Jahrh.; PITRA, Hymnographie de l’Eglise Grecque (Paris, 1867); MONE, Lateinische Hymnen des Mittelaters (Freiburg im Br., 1853–55); DANIEL, Thesaurus Hymnologicus (Halle, 1841); CHEVALIER, Topo-bibliographie, s. v. Hymnes; LECLERCQ, Actes des Martyrs in Dict. d’archæol., I. 379; BRAMBACH, Psalterium. Bibliographischer versuch nber die liturgischen Bncher des christl. Abendlandes (Berlin, 1887); BELETH, Rationale Divinorum Officiorum; MOLINIER, Catalogue des mss. De la biblioth. Mazarine; RADULPHUS TONGRENSIS, De Canonum observantiæ in Max. Biblioth. Vet. Patrum., XXVI; Rassegna Gregor., September-October, 1903, 397 sqq.; WICKHAM LEGG. Some Local Reforms (London, 1901); SCHMID, Studien nber die Reform des Römischen Breviers in Theol. Quartalsch. (Tnbingen, 1884); BERGEL, Die Emendation des Römischen Breviers in Zeitsch. f. kathol. Theol. (Innsbruck, 1884); KIRCH, Die Liturgie der Erzdiöcese Köln (Cologne, 1868); ROSKOVÁNY, Breviarium, V; CHAILLOT, Analecta Juris Pont. (1885). XXIV; MARTIN, Omn. Conc. Vatic. Documentorum Collecto (2nd ed., Paderborn, 1873); Acta et Decreta in Collectio Lacensis (Freiburg im Br., 1890). VII; LECLERCQ; Les Martyrs (Paris, 1905), IV.

FERNAND CABROL.

Aberdeen Breviary

Breviary, Aberdeen, The.—This breviary may be described as the Sarum Office in a Scottish form. The use of the ancient Church of Salisbury was generally adopted in Scotland and Ireland during the Middle Ages, both for the Liturgy (or Mass) and for the canonical hours. Its introduction into Scotland has been sometimes incorrectly attributed to Edward I, King of England, and assigned to the year 1292; but there is evidence to show that the date of its introduction was considerably earlier. For example, Herbert, Bishop of Glasgow from 1147 to 1164, certainly adopted the Sarum Use for his church, and received the papal sanction for so doing. Father Innes, who died in Paris in 1744, asserts that “all the Scots missals or breviaries I ever saw are secundum usum Sarum, local saints being written in.” According to the “Registrum Moraviense,” the bishop, dean and chapter of Moray received and duly approved the Ordo of the Church of Salisbury in the year 1242. The Diocese of Moray was contiguous with that of Aberdeen. The preference shown by the Scots for the Sarum Rite was evidently the outcome of the strong feeling, of which we find constant evidence in the history of the Scottish Church, against anything which seemed like admitting the claim to jurisdiction over her so often put forward by the Church of York. There might, it was no doubt thought, have been some apparent justification for this claim, had the Scottish Church adopted and maintained the Use of York in her liturgy and office.

The Breviary of Aberdeen was mainly the work of the learned and pious William Elphinstone, Bishop of Aberdeen from 1483 to his death in 1514. Not only did he bring together the materials, but in some instances, notably in that of the Scottish saints, he himself composed the lessons. A peculiar feature of this breviary, and one in which it differs from nearly every other, is that in some of the festivals of saints the whole of the nine lessons at Matins are concerned with their lives. These legends of the saints of Scotland are of singular interest and considerable historical value, and they have been extensively drawn upon by the Bollandists and the later Scottish martyrologists. The accuracy of the quotations and references occurring in the book have been tested and admitted by many modern historians. Although the breviary is in its structure and essentials entirely in uniformity with that of Sarum, it is nevertheless exclusively proper to Scotland, and it was, as we know, intended to supersede all service-books issued in connection with the famous Church of Salisbury. This fact is quite clear from the royal mandate dated 15 September, 1501, wherein the Aberdeen book is set forth as the “Breviary for general use within the realm of Scotland.”

The work was produced from the printing-press which Walter Chapman and Andrew Myllar had set up in Edinburgh, in the year 1507. Four copies of the original breviary (in black-letter) are known to exist; one in Edinburgh University library; a second in the Library of the Faculty of Advocates, Edinburgh; a third in the private library of the Earl of Strathmore; and a fourth (an imperfect copy) in the library of King’s College, Aberdeen. The reprinting of the volume was undertaken in 1854, under the supervision of the Rev. William Blew, M.A., and it was subsequently published by Mr. G.J. Toovey, for private circulation among the members of the Bannatyne Club. The originally printed copies are of small octavo size, and bear the dates of 1509 and 1510. As a printed Office-book its actual use was but of short duration, only about half a century elapsing between its issue and the overthrow of the ancient Church of Scotland (1560). There is no positive proof that it was ever generally adopted throughout the dioceses of Scotland; indeed the probabilities are against its ever having become anything like universal at the time of the Reformation. It must be remembered, in connection with this, that the injunction for its adoption was civil rather than ecclesiastical, and there is some reason to suppose that on this account it was not considered strictly binding by the church authorities of the kingdom. It is interesting to note that in the new Scottish Proprium, which in 1903 was formally sanctioned and adopted for use in the Scottish dioceses forming the Province of St. Andrews (the cultus of the ancient Scottish saints having been approved by the Holy See several years previously), many collects, antiphons, etc. are found which have been borrowed from the offices in the Aberdeen Breviary.

Miscellany of the Spalding Club, II, 364–366, and Preface, p. cxx (Aberdeen, 1842); Kalendars of Scottish Saints (ed. FORBES, Edinburgh, 1862); Registrum Episcopatus Moaviensis (ed. Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh, 1837); Breviarium Aberdonense (London, 1854), Pref. By LAING; VIAN in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. Elphinstone, William.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Heinrich Brewer

Brewer, Heinrich, a German historian, born at Puffendorf in Germany, 6 September, 1640; died at the same place about 1713. He was educated at the Gymnasium Tricoronatum in Cologne and was ordained priest in I664. After this he was for a time a private tutor at Cologne, then curate of the cathedral at Bonn. He continued his studies while filling these positions and in 1667 was made lecturer on theology at the University of Cologne. From 1669 to 1682 he was rector of a convent of nuns at Cologne, a position which gave him the leisure to carry on his historical studies. In 1682 he became parish priest of the church of St. Jacob at Aachen. After twenty-nine years of fruitful labour he resigned his pastorate in 1712 and returned to his quiet native town. During his residence at Bonn he published, in 1668, a poem of slight poetic value entitled: “Crinitum poli Sidus.” His most important work is: “Historica rerum notabiliorum ubique paene terrarum gestarum enarratio breviter et succinete pro historiae universalis Brachelio-Thuldenanae continuatione adornata” (Cologne, 1672–75, two volumes). Shortly after this he published a revised edition of the “Historia Universalis Brachelio-Thuldenanae” in eight volumes. Brewer now received the title of Imperial Historiographer. The honour was fitly bestowed, for Brewer was one of the few historians who seek out original sources and make full use of them. He added to each volume copies of important official documents, besides making skilful use of pictures and maps. A much discussed question of the time was the identity of the author of the “Imitation of Christ.” Brewer made an independent investigation and tried to prove that Thomas à Kempis was the author in a work entitled: “Thomae à Kempis biographia (Cologne, I681). Even from the modern point of view this work is a very creditable one. A publication of less importance and one which is at times strongly marked by local feeling is that entitled: “Der in der Reliquienverehrung rechtschaffen catholisch und wahraftig grosser Kayser Karl bey gewohnlicher Eroffnung der Aachischen Schatzkammer Heyligthumbs” (Aachen, 1685).

HARTZHEIM, BIBLIOTECUS COLONIENSIS, 114.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Joseph Olivier Briand

Seventh Bishop of Quebec, b. in 1715 at Plérin, Brittany; d. 25 June, 1794. He studied at the Seminary of St. Brieuc, and was ordained in 1739, but left home secretly to follow Bishop Pontbriand to Canada. Briand was a strenuous worker, self-possessed, tactful, and devoted. During the siege of Quebec (1759), he, as vicar-general, directed the diocesan affairs in the absence of the bishop. He ministered to the dying at the battle of St. Foy (1760), and after the bishop’s death was appointed administrator of the diocese which then included Acadia, Louisiana, and Illinois. During the crisis in New France, when many colonists abandoned the country, Briand foresaw that a change of allegiance was inevitable, and realized the benefit which would accrue to the people of Canada.

When the Treaty of Paris (1763) was signed he ordered a Te Deum for the cessation of the Seven Years’ War and praised General Murray for his humanity towards the conquered. In the midst of the fanaticism which attempted to violate the treaty and hamper religious freedom, Briand appealed to London to maintain the rights of the Church. The British Crown finally gave ear to his demand, and he was consecrated in Paris (1766).

Hailed as the second founder of the Church in Canada, Briand was joyfully received by the people and the British governor. The pope also expressed his pleasure and approved Bishop Briand’s past attitude, thereby removing the charges that he had acted with timidity towards Murray and Dorchester (see Brasseur and Faillon). Despite his poverty, he declined a gift of the clergy and a plan for his support, and took up his residence at the Seminary of Quebec. Briand’s purpose in reconciling the claims of Rome and London was to insure the permanence of the episcopacy. He demanded two bishops simultaneously, so that the survivor, Rome permitting, might consecrate his successor. This request was finally granted. Through his influence and tact, further plans for perverting the faithful were thwarted. The Test Oath was modified so as to be acceptable to the Holy See, and the passage of the Quebec Act (1774), admitting Catholics to public functions and confirming religious freedom, and of the Habeas Corpus Act, granting Catholics the rights and privileges of British subjects, was also partly due to Briand’s efforts.

After the expulsion of the Jesuits from Louisiana and Illinois, Bishop Briand appointed Father Meurin vicar-general in the latter section of the country. When the forces of the Continental army invaded Canada in 1775, he issued a pastoral letter in which he enjoined fidelity to the king. The Continental Congress in an address to the king and people of England had protested against the Quebec Act, while in its appeal to the Canadians there were no features which were objectionable to Catholics. Briand denounced this duplicity and drew attention to the actions of the Colonists twenty years previous both in their cruelty towards the Acadians and their laws against missionaries. Upon Montgomery’s defeat he ordered a Te Deum, and in 1776 he issued another energetic letter in which he urged to repentance those Canadians who had aided the invading troops, whom he characterized as enemies of the Faith. This, together with the drastic measure of refusing the sacraments to all Canadian sympathizers with the Colonial cause, preserved Canada to the British Crown. Later, Briand, who was invited by Cardinal Castelli, the Prefect of the Propaganda, to administer confirmation in Pennsylvania and Maryland, abandoned the plan upon the protest of Father Ferdinand Steinmeyer, S.J. (popularly known as Father Farmer), who drew attention to the Anti-Catholic feeling which was then prevalent in the Colonies.

In 1765, Briand published a “Catechism,” the first book printed in Canada. He resigned his see in 1784, and was the consecrator of his two successors: the Rt. Rev. Louis Philippe Marianchau d’Esglis, 29 Nov. 1784, who died 4 June, 1788; and the Rt. Rev Jean François Hubert, 19 Nov., 1786. Briand died after fifty-five years in the priesthood and twenty-eight in the episcopate.

TÊTU, Les évêques de Québec (Quebec, 1889); BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG, Histoire du Canada (Paris, 1852); FAILLON, Hist. de la colonie française en Canada (Villemarie, 1865).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Bribery

The payment or the promise of money or other lucrative consideration to induce another, while under the obligation of acting without any view to private emolument, to act as the briber shall prescribe. Only the moral aspect of bribery will be touched upon here; the historical aspect of the question will be dealt with in the articles on the nations and countries.

The word is ordinarily used with reference to payments or other lucrative consideration illicitly made in favor of persons whose duty to the commonwealth binds them to act for the common good. Thus judges are bound, as servants of the commonwealth, to administer justice without fear or favor, and they are forbidden to take bribes from litigants or others. Similarly, regard for the public good should be the motive which influences those who appoint to public offices, or who have the placing of contracts for public works or institutions, or who are entrusted with the execution of the laws, or who elect representatives to seats in the legislature. They should appoint only worthy candidates who will serve the public well. If they neglect the common good, and seek private advantage from the exercise of the trust committed to them, they violate their duty to the commonwealth, and they make themselves accomplices in all the evil that results from the incompetence or the roguery of those whom they elect. The general principle is obvious enough, but in the matter of details difficulties are encountered which cannot all be solved in the same way. An elector may say that as a rule there is very little to choose between the candidates for some public position or office, and that even if there were a difference in their moral character and capacity to serve the public, it is difficult for the ordinary voter to detect it. Why should he not make a little money by promising to vote for the candidate who is ready to pay the highest price?

It may be that in this hypothesis no injustice is done by taking a bribe and that there is no obligation incurred of making restitution. Still the action is immoral, and rightly forbidden by law. A person who has a vote in the appointment to offices or in the election of representatives is under a serious responsibility to use his power to the best of his ability. If he takes a bribe he renders himself practically incapable of exercising a discriminating judgment. He is bound to do what he can to make sure that the person for whom he votes is worthy of the post; but if he takes a bribe this blinds him, blunts his judgment, and makes him incapable of doing his duty. Besides, in questions of this kind, we must look at the general result of the action whose moral quality we are studying; the general result of the willingness of voters to sell their vote for money is that power and office are put in the hands of that portion of the moneyed class which is least worthy and most selfish.

Those who hold public offices to which patronage or power of any sort is attached are specially bound to use their power for the common good. They accepted office under the express or tacit condition that they would use their influence for the public benefit, not merely for their private emolument. If they sell the posts, offices or favors of any kind, in their gift, for money or any lucrative consideration, they violate the express or tacit pledge that they gave on their assumption of office. There is more malice in such actions than in that of the venal elector who sells his vote for money. They also produce more direct and more immediate evils in the commonwealth. A man who has bought an office, or a post, or a contract for money will as a rule try to recoup himself at the expense of the public. It is not likely that he will be an honorable or even an honest servant, and the disastrous consequences of his appointment begin to show themselves at once. The evils are perhaps less, but they do not cease, if offices or favors are bestowed in consideration of money contributed to the funds of the political party. Power, influence and even an external respectability are sometimes given to unscrupulous men whose only recommendation is the possession of wealth.

Moralists have devoted special attention to the question of bribery in connection with the administration of justice. The judge on his assumption of office undertakes to administer justice to all who come before him, and in most countries binds himself by a special oath to do his duty. He receives a salary for his services. If he accepts bribes from suitors or criminals he makes himself practically incapable of exercising an unbiased judgment, fails in the execution of his duty, and violates his oath. If he takes money for giving a sentence that is just, he commits a sin against justice and is bound to restore the bribe to him who gave it. For the judge is bound in justice to pronounce a just sentence apart from the bribe, and his action affords him no title to take payment for what is due in justice without payment. If he takes a bribe for giving a sentence that is unjust, he will of course sin against justice on account of the sentence, and will be bound to make reparation to the injured party for the wrong that he has suffered. Some moralists, however, refuse to impose on him the obligation of restoring the bribe, on the ground that something was given for it which indeed the judge had no right to give, but which, for all that, was worth the money to him who paid the bribe. The same principles are applicable to jurymen, arbitrators and referees, who have obligations similar to those of judges. Bribery under all the above aspects is in most countries forbidden by positive law and punished by severe penalties.

LUGO, De justitiâ et jure (Paris 1869), disp. xxxiv, disp. xxxvii, n. 123f., LEHMKUHL, Theologia Moralis (Freiburg, 1898), I, 809, 810.

T. SLATER.

Briçonnet

(1) GUILLAUME BRIÇONNET

A French cardinal, b. at Tours, date of birth unknown; d. at Narbonne, 14 December, 1514. He was a younger son of Jean Briçonnet, Lord of Varennes, in Touraine, Secretary to the king and collector-general of Customs. Appointed Superintendent of Finances for the Province of Languedoc under Louis XI, Guillaume Briçonnet discharged the duties of his office with such integrity and efficiency, and showed himself so devoted to the interests of Louis that that monarch recommended him to his successor. Charles VIII made him Secretary of the Treasury, raised him to the first place in the Council of State, and, according to the historian Gicciardini, would undertake nothing in the government of his kingdom without the advice of Briçonnet. Ludovico Sforza, called the Moor, wishing to dispossess his nephew of the Duchy of Milan, and finding himself opposed by Ferdinand, King of Naples, sent an embassy under the Count of Belgiojoso to Charles to induce the French king to assert his claims to the Kingdom of Naples as heir to the house of Anjou. Sforza promised to place all his troops at the king’s service. Briçonnet having shortly before this lost his wife, Raoulette de Beaune, by whom he had three sons, had entered the ecclesiastical state and been named Bishop of St.-Malo. To flatter his ambition the Milanese ambassadors assured him that the king’s influence would raise him to the cardinalate. Briçonnet, thus won over to the Sforza interest, adroitly encouraged the warlike dispositions of his sovereign, triumphed over the opposition of the royal council, of the Duke of Bourbon, and of Anne of France, the Duke’s wife, influenced Charles to sign a secret treaty with Sforza, and assured the king of his ability to raise the funds necessary to carry on the war both on land and sea.

Pope Alexander VI, alarmed at the apparent danger threatening Italy, promised the cardinal’s hat to Briçonnet if he could prevail upon Charles to abandon his enterprise; but Briçonnet, realizing that he could not govern without flattering the king’s passion for conquest, urged him on, and, notwithstanding the dilapidated state of the treasury, succeeded in meeting the expenses of the war. Accompanying Charles on his expedition, he provoked a mutiny in the French army, by his treachery in sacrificing the Pisans, allies of France, to their enemies, the Florentines, and had he not hidden himself form the fury of the soldiers they would have taken his life. Upon this occasion, as upon others, Briçonnet’s ambition led him into conduct at variance with his motto: Ditat servata fides. Charles had entered Rome as a conqueror, greatly irritated against Alexander VI who had stirred up opposition against him; but the adroit Briçonnet reconciled his royal master with the pope, and for reward received the cardinal’s hat. This honour was conferred in a special consistory held in the king’s presence, 16 January, 1495, the new cardinal taking the title of Cardinal of St.-Malo, from his episcopal see.

Briçonnet soon had cause to repent the advice he had given to invade Italy. A formidable league was formed for the purpose of cutting off the French retreat, and neither the diplomacy nor the entreaties of the French cardinal had any effect on the hostile generals. The prowess of Charles and the invincible valour of his troops alone saved the French from a humiliating defeat. With 8,000 men the king defeated, at Tornovo, an army of 40,000, and opened a road to France. Soon after this Briçonnet, induced by a tempting promise of preferment for one of his sons, tried to persuade Charles to break off the peace negotiations and support with an army the Duke of Orleans’ claims to the Duchy of Milan. Charles, however, preferred the counsels of Philippe de Comines and sacrificed the interests of the duke, and the king’s premature death put an end to the influence of Briçonnet, Louis XII giving his confidence to the Cardinal d’Amboise. But whilst serving his king and the State, the Cardinal of St.-Malo had not overlooked his own interests; he had obtained form Alexander VI the Bishopric of Nimes. His title being disputed by the nominee of the chapter, there arose a litigation which lasted until the year 1507, when Briçonnet was awarded the title. In 1497 he had received in commendam the Bishopric of Toulon, and in the same year succeeded his brother in the archiepiscopal See of Reims. On the 27th of May, 1498, he crowned Louis XII in his cathedral and followed the king to Paris. As a peer of France, he assisted at the session of the Council of State at which the marriage of Louis with Jeanne, the daughter of Louis XI, was annulled.

When he had ceased to be a minister of State, Briçonnet retired to Rome for two years. Louis then made use of his talents to check what he called the arrogance of the warrior pope, Julius II. By his king’s direction Briçonnet took steps to assemble at Pisa a council of cardinals opposed to the policy of Julius, and bent on the reformation of the head and hierarchy of the Church. He left Rome suddenly and secretly with a group of cardinals whom he had won over, and opened his council at Pisa, but soon transferred it to Milan, and thence to Lyons. He was, however, summoned to appear before the pope, was deprived of the Roman purple and excommunicated. Louis, on his side, bestowed upon him in commendam the rich Abbey of St.-Germain-des-Pres and the government of Languedoc. At the death of Julius II Briçonnet was absolved from all censures and excommunication, and restored by Leo X to the Sacred College. He then retired to end his days at Narbonne, for which see he had exchanged Reims. He was buried in a superb mausoleum which he had built for himself in the church of Our Lady.

Whilst in power, Briçonnet showed himself a patron of men of letters; they dedicated their works to him and became his panegyrists. He was called oraculum regis and regni columna. His life was in fact swayed by ambition and occupied by intrigues. He composed a manual of Latin prayers, dedicated to Charles VIII. At Saint-Malo he issued several synodal instructions.

(2) Guillaume Briçonnet

Bishop of Meaux, France, b. at Tours in 1472; d. at the chateau of Esmant near Montereau, 24 January, 1534. He was a son of Cardinal Briçonnet (see above), and before entering the ecclesiastical state was known as the Count de Montbrun. In 1489 he was named Bishop of Lodeve. Distinguished by remarkable judgment, great learning, and a love of study, he received from Louis XII several preferments, and was named as chaplain to the Queen. In 1507 he succeeded his father as Abbot of St.-Germain-des-Pres. The king entrusted him with delicate and difficult missions, and sent him, the same year that Guillaume became abbot, to Rome as extraordinary ambassador for the purpose of justifying the conduct of his prince against the accusations of the Emperor Maximilian. In an eloquent Latin speech pronounced in the presence of the pope and of the Sacred College, the bishop fully vindicated Louis. Guillaume enjoyed equally the confidence of Francis I, who transferred him to the See of Meaux, and sent him as ambassador to Leo X to Rome, where he resided for two years. As Abbot of St.-Germain, he displayed a great zeal for the reform of abuses, put an end to disorders, and revived monastic regularity, spirit, and fervour. As Bishop of Meaux, he held a number of synods, and made wise regulations against the depravity of morals and the relaxation of ecclesiastical discipline, and promoted among his clergy a taste for learning, to bring back to the Catholic Faith the disciples of the new doctrine, who were already numerous in his diocese. He was no less zealous in opposing the encroachments of the religious and in directing them back to the spirit of their state. The Cordeliers, a branch of the Franciscan Order, accused the bishop of heresy, basing their accusation on the protection given by him to the partisans of Humanism. The bishop defended himself and was declared innocent. His love of letters caused him to increase considerably the library of the Abbey of St.-Germain. He translated into French the “Contemplatines Idiotae de amore divino.”

(3) Robert Briçonnet

Archbishop of Reims, France, fifth son of Jean Briçonnet, an elder brother of the Cardinal [see (1)]. Date of birth uncertain; d. at Moulins, 3 June, 1497. He owed to the credit which Guillaume had with Charles VIII his rapid elevation to public offices and dignities. He was named Canon of St.-Aignan at Orleans, Abbot of the rich Abbey of St.-Vaast at Arras, and in 1493 he was raised to the archiepiscopal See of Reims, four years before the Cardinal was appointed to that see. Charles appointed him President of the Superior Tribunal of Finances, and Chancellor of France. He enjoyed this new dignity for only twenty-two months before his death. He showed himself, as did his brothers and nephews, a patron of men of letters.

Fisquet, La France pontificale (Paris); Biographie universelle, ancienne et moderne (Paris, 1812); Feller, Biographie universelle (Paris, 1847); Guerin, Dictionnaire des dictionnaires (Paris, 1892).

F. M. L. DUMONT.

Jacques Bridaine

Preacher, b. at Chusclan, France, 21 March, 1701; d. at Roquemaure, 22 December, 1767. Having completed his studies at the Jesuit college of Avignon he entered the Seminary of the Royal Missions of St. Charles of the Cross. His oratorical ability announced itself before his ordination to the priesthood by the remarkable talent he brought into play in awakening interest and exciting emotion even in the catechetical instructions which he was deputed to give. When only in minor orders, he was assigned as Lenten preacher in the Church of Aigues-Mortes. It was there he first made use of his peculiar methods. His extreme youth provoked the derision of the people and when Ash Wednesday arrived, the church was empty. Undismayed, he put on his surplice and went out in the principal streets, ringing a bell, and inviting the people to hear him. He succeeded in bringing an immense multitude to the church who came out of curiosity but when he began in a most unusual fashion by singing a canticle about death the congregation burst out in loud laughter; whereupon he opened upon them with such fierceness of denunciation that silence and amazement took possession of all. He was characteristically sensational. He wrote little and gave way to the inspiration of the moment and as a consequence his utterances present at times an incoherent jumble of incongruous figures and ideas, which clash with each other and are often even grotesque. It was Cardinal Maury who called attention to his exordium in the sermon on Eternity which was said to be improvised. Father Cahour, S.J., inserts it in his “Chefs-d’Oeuvre d’éloquence,” and Maury who wrote it from memory declares that it was not unworthy of Bossuet or Demosthenes. It was pronounced at St. Sulpice, before an audience in which there were many bishops, a vast crowd of ecclesiastics and men of distinction in civil and military life. Bridaine assures them that in spite of their worldly greatness he is not abashed by their presence, and in the most impassioned language denounces them as sinners, and bids them, haughty and disdainful as they are, to tremble before him. “Today I hold your condemnation in my hand.” Opinions are divided about its excellence as an example of oratory; some finding a self-consciousness in it which is unapostolic.

His voice was so sonorous and penetrating that he could easily be heard by an audience of ten thousand people. To his natural oratorical gifts he added, in order to produce the impression he was aiming at, all the effect that could be obtained by the most gorgeous and elaborate church ceremonial, as well as whatever excitement could be produced by singing, by splendid processions, by unusual prayers, and by novel situations which were all skillfully arranged so as to captivate the eye or ear, or to fix or startle the imagination. A supreme instance of these “methods” as he called them, and which he always insisted upon being carried out, is narrated by Madame Necker in the “Nouveaux Mélanges” (I, 138). He had just delivered a stirring discourse when addressing himself to the great procession which had followed him he said: “I am now going to bring you home” and he led them to the grave-yard. Sensational as he was he wrought many astounding conversions. In the course of his life he preached two hundred and fifty-six missions, traveling to almost every town of France in the performance of his work. Pope Benedict XIV gave him permission to preach anywhere in Christendom. Medals were struck in his honor, and the most distinguished prelates showed him the greatest reverence and affection. He was of a sweet, modest, simple disposition, of lively faith and deep piety. His “Cantiques Spirituels” passed through forty-seven editions. He has also left five volumes of sermons. The Protestants of France are said to have been particularly friendly to him, because of the many good offices he performed in their regard. For fourteen years he followed the spiritual guidance of a missionary like himself named Mahistre. In 1742 Cardinal Fleury proposed to establish a missionary congregation for all France under the direction of Bridaine, but the death of the cardinal caused the project to fall through.

France was wild with excitement about him. His appeals were so powerful that in a mission which he preached at Chalon-sur-Saône in 1745 there were restitutions to the amount of 100,000 francs. His reputation as an orator was so great that even Massillon was unwilling to preach in his presence. In the course of his missions he established what he called “peace tribunals,” courts composed of some of his associate missionaries, a number of irreproachable laymen, and the parish priest. To these courts all disputes were submitted and the decisions were accepted as final. His life was written by the Abbe Carron. The book was frequently translated into English, but the last edition was published as far back as 1831.

CAHOUR, Chefs-d’(Euvrs d’(Eloquence (Paris, I854); GOSCHLER, Dict. encyc. de theol. cath. (Paris, 1869).

T.J. CAMPBELL

The Bridge-Building Brotherhood

During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, we hear of the existence of various religious associations founded for the purpose of building bridges. This work, which tended greatly to the relief of travelers and particularly of pilgrims, was regarded as a work of piety quite as much as of public utility. Even where no religious organization was formed it was customary for the bishops to grant indulgences to those who, by money or labor, contributed to the construction of a bridge. Of this the register of Archbishop Grey of York, for instance, in the thirteenth century, affords many examples. But in the South of France, regular associations were commonly formed for the purpose, and these it has been the custom to regard as religious orders living under vows. Upon more accurate investigation, however, this idea has proved to be erroneous. The brotherhoods in question seem rather to have been of the nature of guilds or confraternities, or, at most, to have been organized in something the same way as a “third Order,” wearing a habit with a distinctive badge, but not being bound by perpetual vows.

In many cases, these associations were constituted of three branches: knights, who contributed most of the funds and were sometimes called donati; clergy who might be in the strict sense monks, and artisans who performed the actual work of building. We also hear sometimes of “sisters” belonging to the same association. Besides the construction of bridges, the lodging and entertainment of travelers, as well as the quête, or collection of alms commonly entered into the scope of the brotherhoods. The origin of these institutions is wrapped in much obscurity. The brotherhood known in particular as the Fratres Pontifices (Ponti-fices = bridge-builders) or Frères Pontifes, is commonly said to have been founded by St. Bénézet (a Provençal variant of the name Benedict), a youth who, according to the legend, was Divinely inspired to build the bridge across the Rhone at Avignon. Although the Bull supposed to have been addressed to the Fratres Pontifices, in 1191, by Clement III may not be authentic, it is certain that a number of bridges were built about this time in that part of France; also that the old bridge at Avignon, some arches of which still remain, dates from the end of the twelfth century, and it is certain that St. Bénézet was a historical personage. The Fratres Pontifices were certainly very active, and if they did not construct the Avignon bridge they built others at Bonpas, Lourmarin, Mallemort, Mirabeau, etc. . On the other hand, the famous bridge over the Rhone at Saint-esprit was certainly constructed by a separate association. Many of the official documents connected with it are still preserved.

FALK in Historisch-Politische Blatter (1881), LXXXVII; IDEM in Kirchenlex, II, 1331. These contributions of Dr. Falk must be read with some caution. LENTHERIC in Memoires de l’Academie de Nimes (1889–90), 72–91; HELYOT-BADICHE, Dictionnaire des ordres religieux., III, 237–245; BRUGUIER-ROURE, Les constructeurs de ponts au moyen age (Paris, 1875); GREGOIRE, Recherches historiques sur les congregations de freres pontifes (Paris, 1806); LEFORT in Travaux de l’Academie de Reims, LXXI, 372–399 and LXXVI, 206–227; JUSSERAND, English Wayfaring Life, tr. (London, 1889), 33–89; ENLART, Manuel d’archeologie francaise (Paris, 1904), II, 264–272.

HERBERT THURSTON.

St. Bridget of Sweden

(Also Birgitta). The most celebrated saint of the Northern kingdoms, born about 1303; died 23 July, 1373. She was the daughter of Birger Persson, governor and provincial judge (Lagman) of Uppland, and of Ingeborg Bengtsdotter. Her father was one of the wealthiest landholders of the country, and, like her mother, distinguished by deep piety. St. Ingrid, whose death had occurred about twenty years before Bridget’s birth, was a near relative of the family. Birger’s daughter received a careful religious training, and from her seventh year showed signs of extraordinary religious impressions and illuminations. To her education, and particularly to the influence of an aunt who took the place of Bridget’s mother after the latter’s death (c. 1315), she owed that unswerving strength of will which later distinguished her. In 1316, at the age of thirteen, she was united in marriage to Ulf Gudmarsson, who was then eighteen. She acquired great influence over her noble and pious husband, and the happy marriage was blessed with eight children, among them St. Catherine of Sweden. The saintly life and the great charity of Bridget soon made her name known far and wide. She was acquainted with several learned and pious theologians, among them Nicolaus Hermanni, later Bishop of Linköping, Matthias, canon of Linköping, her confessor, Peter, Prior of Alvastrâ, and Peter Magister, her confessor after Matthias. She was later at the court of King Magnus Eriksson, over whom she gradually acquired great influence. Early in the forties (1341–43) in company with her husband she made a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostella. On the return journey her husband was stricken with an attack of illness, but recovered sufficiently to finish the journey. Shortly afterwards, however, he died (1344) in the Cistercian monastery of Alvastrâ in East Gothland. Bridget now devoted herself entirely to practices of religion and asceticism, and to religious undertakings. The visions which she believed herself to have had from her early childhood now became more frequent and definite. She believed that Christ Himself appeared to her, and she wrote down the revelations she then received, which were in great repute during the Middle Ages. They were translated into Latin by Matthias Magister and Prior Peter. St. Bridget now founded a new religious congregation, the Brigittines, or Order of St. Saviour, whose chief monastery, at Vadstena, was richly endowed by King Magnus and his queen (1346). To obtain confirmation for her institute, and at the same time to seek a larger sphere of activity for her mission, which was the moral uplifting of the period, she journeyed to Rome in 1349, and remained there until her death, except while absent on pilgrimages, among them one to the Holy Land in 1373. In August, 1370, Pope Urban V confirmed the Rule of her congregation. Bridget made earnest representations to Pope Urban, urging the removal of the Holy See from Avignon back to Rome. She accomplished the greatest good in Rome, however, by her pious and charitable life, and her earnest admonitions to others to adopt a better life, following out the excellent precedents she had set in her native land. The year following her death her remains were conveyed to the monastery at Vadstena. She was canonized, 7 October, 1391, by Boniface IX.

Vita S. Birgittœ, complied by her confessors PETER OF VADSTENA, and PETER OF ALVASTRÂ in 1373, ANNERSTEDT ed. in Script. rerum Svecicarum medii avi (Upeala, 1871–76), III, Pt. II, 188 sqq.; Vita S. Birgittœ auctore Birgero, archiep. Upsalensi in Acta SS., Oct., IV, 485 sqq.; Vita auctore Bartholdo de Roma (Rome) 495 sqq.; SCHÜCK, Svensk Literatur-historia (Stockholm, 1890), 129 sqq.; HAMMERICH, Den hellige Birgitta og Kirken i Norden (Copenhagen, 1863), German tr. MICHELSEN (Gotha, 1872); BINDER, Die hl. Birgitta von Schweden und ihr Klosterorden (Munich, 1891); RINGSEIS, Leben der hl. Birgitta (Ratisbon, 1890); FLAVIGNY, Ste. Birgitta de Suede (Paris, 1892); JOANN. DE TURRECREMATA, Liber revelationum celestium S. Birgitte de regno Swecie (Rome, 1488, and often reprinted), with notes by GUNDISALVI DURANTI (Rome, 1606); HEUSER (ed.), Revelationes selectœ (Cologne, 1851); KLEMMING (ed.), H. Birgittas uppenbarelser (4 vols., Sotckholm, 1857–62); Certayne reuelacyons of St. Birgitte, with an epistle of St. Bernard (London, s.d.); MEGERLE tr., Birgittæ von Schweden himmlische Offenbarungen (2 vols., Cologne, 1664).

J.P. HIRSCH

Thomas Edward Bridgett

Priest and author, b at Derby, England, 20 January, 1829, of Protestant parents; d. at St. Mary’s Clapham, 17 February, 1899. His father was a silk manufacturer, and sent his son first to Mill Hill, a Congregationalist College near London, then to Tonbridge, a Church of England public school, where he was baptized at the age of sixteen, and finally, in October, 1847, to St John’s College, Cambridge, the home of Blessed John Fisher whose life Father Bridgett afterwards wrote. In 1850, while an undergraduate, he left the university being unable to accept the oath of Royal Supremacy which was then required before taking a degree. Shortly afterwards, having attended Dr. Newman’s lectures on “Anglican Difficulties” at the London Oratory, he was received into the Catholic Church by the Oratorian, Father Stanton, 12 June, 1850, and on 15 October of the next year made his religious profession in the Redemptorist novitiate of St. Trond, Belgium. He pursued his theological studies at Wittem in Holland and was ordained priest in August, 1856. After being five years minister and consultor to the vice-provincial in Clapham, the London house of his Congregation, he went to Limerick for nine years, where as rector he founded, in 1868, the celebrated Confraternity of the Holy Family for men. This soon consisted of over 5,000 active members, the largest association of its kind in any one locality, in the Church. In 1871, he returned to Clapham as rector, where he spent the greater part of his remaining years.

Father Bridgett was a missionary like all the members of his Congregation, but with advancing years he devoted himself to giving retreats, particularly to the clergy. It was not till 1867 that he turned his thoughts to writing a sermon on ritual developing into his first book, “In Spirit and in Truth.” This work was called in later editions “The Ritual of the New Testament.” It was followed in 1875 by “Our Lady’s Dowry,” showing by many illustrations from history and literature the devotion of medieval England to the Mother of God. In this and in “The History of the Holy Eucharist in Great Britain,” a work on the same plan published in 1881, the author shows a learning which is truly encyclopedic. The “Life of Blessed John Fisher,” which led to a correspondence with Mr. Gladstone, followed in 1888; “The True Story of the Catholic Hierarchy deposed by Queen Elizabeth,” a work written in conjunction with Father Knox of the Oratory, came out in 1889; “Blunders and Forgeries,” a very fine piece of cross-examination, in 1890; and the “Life of Blessed Thomas More,” his most popular work, in 1891. Father Bridgett also published devotional verse of considerable merit, both in a collection which he edited called “Lyre Hieratica,” and in “Sonnets and Epigrams,” an entirely original work. He died after a long and painful illness and was buried in the Catholic cemetery at Mortlake, near London.

RYDER, Life of Thomas Edward Bridgett (London, 1906); The Messenger (New York, June, 1907); The Tablet, files (London, Feb. 1899).

HAROLD CASTLE

John Bridgewater

Known also as AQUAPONTANUS, historian of the Catholic Confessors under Queen Elizabeth, b. in Yorkshire about 1532; d. probably at Trier, about 1596. He proceeded M. A at Oxford in 1556, was ordained priest, and in 1563 became Rector of Lincoln College in that university. He also held several other important preferments all of which he resigned in 1574, when with several of his students he crossed over to Douai, preferring “the old form of religion” to the novelties of those whom he styled “Calvinopapists and Puritans.” He probably never returned to England but lived at various places on the Continent (Reims, Paris, Rome, Trier); in 1588 and 1594 he resided at Trier. Ribadaneira, followed by Father Southwell and Brother Foley, accounts him a member of the Society of Jesus, though there is no proof of the fact (Records of English Catholics, I, 408). He refuted (Trier 1589) a Protestant work on the pope as Antichrist and wrote also an “Account of the Six Articles usually Proposed to the Missioners that Suffered in England,” and against which he voted in 1562

Bridgewater is best known as the earliest martyrologist of Catholic England. His work, conceived in the spirit of Eusebius as a triumphant apology for Catholicism, is entitled “Concertatio Ecclesliae Catholicae in Angliâ adversus Calvinopapistas et Puritanos sub Elizabethâ Reginâ quorundam hominum doctrina et sanctitate illustrium renovata et recognita, etc.,” i.e. The Battle of the Catholic Faith in England under Queen Elizabeth, renewed in the lives of certain men illustrious for learning and sanctity, among them more than one hundred martyrs, and a very great number of others distinguished for their (religious) deeds and sufferings; confirmed also by the retractations of apostates, by new edicts of the persecutors, and by the writings of very learned Catholics against the Anglican, or rather female, pontificate, and in defense of the authority of the Roman pontiff over Christian princes (Trier, 1588, about 850 pp. in 8vo). Another edition was brought out (ibid.) by Cardinal Allen in 1594; it served thenceforth as an original record of English Catholic sufferings for the Faith and Dodd, Challoner, and Lingard used extensively its reliable biographical and historical data. Its rather miscellaneous contents are described in the Chetham Society’s Remains (XLVIII, 47–50).

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of Eng. Cath., I, 294–295; COOPER in Dict. of Nat. Biogr., s.v.; Douay Diaries, 99, 119, and passim; Life and Letters of Cardinal Allen, 77; DODD, Ch. Hist. of Eng., I, 510; II, 60; WOOD, Athenae Oxon., ed. BLISS, I, 625; FOLEY, Records, IV, 481–482, 485; VII, 299.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Bridgewater Treatises

These publications derive their origin and their title from the Rev. Francis Henry Egerton, eighth and last Earl of Bridgewater who, dying in the year 1829, directed certain trustees named in his will to invest in the public funds the sum of £8,000, which sum with the accruing dividends was to be held at the disposal of the president for the time being, of the Royal Society of London to be paid to the person or persons nominated by him. It was further directed that those so selected should be appointed to write, print, and publish one thousand copies of a work: “On the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God as manifested in the Creation illustrating such work by all reasonable arguments as, for instance, the variety and formation of God’s creatures, in the animal, vegetable and mineral kingdoms; the effect of digestion and thereby of conversion; the construction of the hand of man and an infinite variety of other arguments; as also by discoveries ancient and modern in arts, sciences, and the whole extent of modern literature.”

The President of the Royal Society was then Davies Gilbert, who with the advice of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, and a nobleman who had been intimate with the testator determined that the money should be assigned to eight several persons for as many distinct treatises. The works produced in consequence were the following: (1) “The Adaptation of External Nature to the Moral and Intellectual Constitution of Man,” by Thomas Chalmers (1833); (2) “Chemistry, Meteorology, and Digestion,” by William Prout, M. D (1834); (3) “History, Habits, and Instincts of Animals,” by William Kirby (1835); (4) “The Hand, as Evincing Design,” by Sir Charles Bell (1837); (5) “Geology and Mineralogy,” by Dean Buckland (1837); (6) “The Adaptation of External Nature to the Physical Condition of Man,” by J. Kidd, M. D (1837); (7) “Astronomy and General Physics,” by Dr. William Whewell (1839), (8) “Animal and Vegetable Physiology,” by P. M. Roget, M. D. (1840). The nature of the Treatises is clearly indicated by Lord Bridgewater’s instructions, and by their several titles.

The selection of writers was somewhat severely criticized at the time, and the treatises are undoubtedly of unequal merit, but several of them took a high rank in apologetic literature, the best known being probably those by Buckland, Bell, and Whewell. At the present day, however, they are wellnigh forgotten and their value for the purpose they were designed to serve is very small. This is partly because the marvelous advances of recent years have made much of their science antiquated and out of date, but still more because of the almost total abandonment of the point of view on which their authors founded arguments to demonstrate the existence of design in nature. It is now generally felt to be an unsatisfactory, or, at least, less satisfactory method, to argue from particular examples in which analogy can be traced between the mechanism found in nature and that contrived by man, as, for instance to take one specially mentioned by Darwin, in the hinge of a bivalve shell, as though it were in such cases alone that the operation of Mind manifested itself. The best modern apologists insist rather on the note of law and order stamped everywhere upon the universe, inorganic no less than organic, upon the reality and ubiquity of which the validity of all scientific methods wholly depends, while the progress of scientific discovery does but immensely enhance the weight of the argument based upon it. At the same time, it cannot be admitted that the old-fashioned natural theology of the Treatises is so devoid of value as many modern critics pretend. The marvelous contrivances which we meet everywhere in organic nature remain wholly inexplicable by natural selection or other non-intelligent agents in which purpose is not included, and to the ordinary unsophisticated mind they bring home, as what may be deemed more philosophical arguments can not, the truth that here we have direct evidence of a Supreme Artificer.

JOHN GERARD.

St. Brieuc

(Briocus, Brioc, or Bru).

A Celtic saint of Brittany who received his education in Ireland and then studied under St. Germanus said to be the famous St. Germanus of Auxerre. Much of what we read concerning his early years must be received with caution; indeed, Ussher asserts that he was of Irish birth, but it is tolerably certain that he returned to France early in 431, bringing with him St Iltud. Even before his ordination to the priesthood, St. Brieuc worked several miracles duly chronicled in his “Acts” (edited by F. Godefrid Herschenn), and after a short period spent with his parents, he entered on his missionary career. In 480, he settled in Armorica, and founded a monastery at Landebaeron. Thence he proceeded to Upper Brittany where he established an oratory at a place ever since known as St. Brieuc-des-Vaux, between St. Malo and Land Triguier, of which he was named first bishop. Numerous miracles are cited in the “Acts,” especially his cure of Count Riguel, who gave the saint his own Palace of Champ-du-Rouvre as also the whole manorial estates. Authorities differ as to date of St. Brieuc’s death, but it was probably in 502, or in the early years of the sixth century. He died in his own monastery at St. Brieuc-des-Vaux and was interred in his cathedral church, dedicated to St. Stephen. Baring-Gould says that St. Brieuc is represented as “treading on a dragon,” or else “with a column of fire” as seen at his ordination. His relics were translated to the Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus of Angers in 865, and again, in a more solemn manner, on 31 July, 1166. However, in 1210, a portion of the relics was restored to St. Brieuc Cathedral, where the saint’s ring is also preserved. The festival of St. Brieuc is celebrated on 1st May, but, since 1804, the feast is transferred to the second Sunday after Easter. Churches in England, Ireland, and Scotland are dedicated to this early Celtic saint.

Acta SS. (1 May), I; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints (1 May); LOBINEAU, Vies des Saints de Bretagne, TRESVAUD ed. (1836); BARING-GOULD, Lives of the Saints (1 May), V; BAILLET, Vies des Saints; LE BARD, Histoire de Bretagne; CRESSY, Church History of Brittany; LE GRAND, De Vitis Sanctorum Britanniœ Armoricæ; O’HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints (1 May), V; LELAND, Itinerary, III; GODESCARD, Les Vies des Pères et des Martyrs (1 May); Tractarian Lives of the English Saints, IX; LANIGAN, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland, I; PALLISER, Brittany and its Byways (1869).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

St. Brigid of Ireland

(Incorrectly known as BRIDGET). Born in 451 or 452 of princely ancestors at Faughart, near Dundalk, County Louth; d. 1 February, 525, at Kildare. Refusing many good offers of marriage, she became a nun and received the veil from St. Macaille. With seven other virgins she settled for a time at the foot of Croghan Hill, but removed thence to Druin Criadh, in the plains of Magh Life, where under a large oak tree she erected her subsequently famous Convent of Cill-Dara, that is, “the church of the oak” (now Kildare), in the present county of that name. It is exceedingly difficult to reconcile the statements of St. Brigid’s biographers, but the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Lives of the saint are at one in assigning her a slave mother in the court of her father Dubhthach, and Irish chieftain of Leinster. Probably the most ancient life of St. Brigid is that by St. Broccan Cloen, who is said to have died 17 September, 650. It is metrical, as may be seen from the following specimen:

Ni bu Sanct Brigid suanach

Ni bu húarach im sheire Dé,

Sech ni chiuir ni cossena

Ind nóeb dibad bethath che.

Saint Brigid was not given to sleep,

Nor was she intermittent about God’s love;

Not merely that she did not buy, she did not seek for

The wealth of this world below, the holy one.

Cogitosus, a monk of Kildare in the eighth century, expounded the metrical life of St. Brigid, and versified it in good Latin. This is what is known as the “Second Life,” and is an excellent example of Irish scholarship in the mid-eighth century. Perhaps the most interesting feature of Cogitosus’s work is the description of the Cathedral of Kildare in his day: “Solo spatioso et in altum minaci proceritate porruta ac decorata pictis tabulis, tria intrinsecus habens oratoria ampla, et divisa parietibus tabulatis.” The rood-screen was formed of wooden boards, lavishly decorated, and with beautifully decorated curtains. Probably the famous Round Tower of Kildare dates from the sixth century. Although St. Brigid was “veiled” or received by St. Macaille, at Croghan, yet, it is tolerably certain that she was professed by St. Mel of Ardagh, who also conferred on her abbatial powers. From Ardagh St. Macaille and St. Brigid followed St. Mel into the country of Teffia in Meath, including portions of Westmeath and Longford. This occurred about the year 468. St. Brigid’s small oratory at Cill Dara became the centre of religion and learning, and developed into a cathedral city. She founded two monastic institutions, one for men, and the other for women, and appointed St. Conleth as spiritual pastor of them. It has been frequently stated that she gave canonical jurisdiction to St. Conleth, Bishop of Kildare, but, as Archbishop Healy points out, she simply “selected the person to whom the Church gave this jurisdiction,” and her biographer tells us distinctly that she chose St. Conleth “to govern the church along with herself.” Thus, for centuries, Kildare was ruled by a double line of abbot-bishops and of abbesses, the Abbess of Kildare being regarded as superioress general of the convents in Ireland.

Not alone was St. Bridget a patroness of students, but she also founded a school of art, including metal work and illumination, over which St. Conleth presided. From the Kildare scriptorium came the wondrous book of the Gospels, which elicited unbounded praise from Giraldus Cambrensis, but which has disappeared since the Reformation. According to this twelfth- century ecclesiastic, nothing that he had ever seen was at all comparable to the “Book of Kildare,” every page of which was gorgeously illuminated, and he concludes a most laudatory notice by saying that the interlaced work and the harmony of the colours left the impression that “all this is the work of angelic, and not human skill.” Small wonder that Gerald Barry assumed the book to have been written night after night as St. Bridget prayed, “an angel furnishing the designs, the scribe copying.” Even allowing for the exaggerated stories told of St. Brigid by her numerous biographers, it is certain that she ranks as one of the most remarkable Irishwomen of the fifth century and as the Patroness of Ireland. She is lovingly called the “Queen of the South: the Mary of the Gael” by a writer in the “Leabhar Breac.” St. Brigid died leaving a cathedral city and school that became famous all over Europe. In her honour St. Ultan wrote a hymn commencing:

Christus in nostrâ insulâ

Que vocatur Hibernia

Ostensus est hominibus

Maximis mirabilibus

Que perfecit per felicem

Celestis vite virginem

Precellentem pro merito

Magno in mundi circulo.

(In our island of Hibernia Christ was made known to man by the very great miracles which he performed through the happy virgin of celestial life, famous for her merits through the whole world.)

The sixth Life of the saint printed by Colgan is attributed to Coelan, an Irish monk of the eighth century, and it derives a peculiar importance from the fact that it is prefaced by a foreword from the pen of St. Donatus, also an Irish monk, who became Bishop of Fiesole in 824. St. Donatus refers to previous lives by St. Ultan and St. Aileran. When dying, St. Brigid was attended by St. Ninnidh, who was ever afterwards known as “Ninnidh of the Clean Hand” because he had his right hand encased with a metal covering to prevent its ever being defiled, after being he medium of administering the viaticum to Ireland’s Patroness. She was interred at the right of the high altar of Kildare Cathedral, and a costly tomb was erected over her. In after years her shrine was an object of veneration for pilgrims, especially on her feast day, 1 February, as Cogitosus related. About the year 878, owing to the Scandinavian raids, the relics of St. Brigid were taken to Downpatrick, where they were interred in the tomb of St. Patrick and St. Columba. The relics of the three saints were discovered in 1185, and on 9 June of the following year were solemnly translated to a suitable resting place in Downpatrick Cathedral, in presence of Cardinal Vivian, fifteen bishops, and numerous abbots and ecclesiastics. Various Continental breviaries of the pre- Reformation period commemorate St. Brigid, and her name is included in a litany in the Stowe Missal. In Ireland to-day, after 1500 years, the memory of “the Mary of the Gael” is as dear as ever to the Irish heart, and, as is well known, Brigid preponderates as a female Christian name. Moreover, hundreds of place-names in her honour are to be found all over the country, e.g. Kilbride, Brideswell, Tubberbride, Templebride, etc. The hand of St. Brigid is preserved at Lumiar near Lisbon, Portugal, since 1587, and another relic is at St. Martin’s Cologne.

Viewing the biography of St. Brigid from a critical standpoint we must allow a large margin for the vivid Celtic imagination and the glosses of medieval writers, but still the personality of the founder of Kildare stands out clearly, and we can with tolerable accuracy trace the leading events in her life, by a careful study of the old “Lives” as found in Colgan. It seems certain that Faughart, associated with memories of Queen Meave (Medhbh), was the scene of her birth; and Faughart Church was founded by St. Morienna in honour of St. Brigid. The old well of St. Brigid’s adjoining the ruined church is of the most venerable antiquity, and still attracts pilgrims; in the immediate vicinity is the ancient mote of Faughart. As to St. Brigid’s stay in Connacht, especially in the County Roscommon, there is ample evidence in the “Trias Thaumaturga,” as also in the many churches founded by her in the Diocese of Elphim. Her friendship with St. Patrick is attested by the following paragraph from the “Book of Armagh,” a precious manuscript of the eighth century, the authenticity of which is beyond question: “inter sanctum Patricium Brigitanque Hibernesium columpnas amicitia caritatis inerat tanta, ut unum cor consiliumque haberent unum. Christus per illum illamque virtutes multas peregit.” (Between St. Patrick and St. Brigid, the columns of the Irish, there was so great a friendship of charity that they had but one heart and one mind. Through him and through her Christ performed many miracles.) At Armagh there was a “Templum Brigidis”; namely the little abbey church known as “Regles Brigid,” which contained some relics of the saint, destroyed in 1179, by William Fitz Aldelm. It may be added that the original manuscript of Cogitosus’s “Life of Brigid,” or the “Second Life,” dating from the closing years of the eighth century, is now in the Dominican friary at Eichstätt in Bavaria.

Acta SS.; Acta Sanct. Hib. ex Cod. Salmant.; COLGAN, Trias Thaumaturga (Louvain, 1647); STOKES, Lives of the Saints from the Book of Lismore; ID., Three Middle Irish Homilies; O’HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints (1 February), II; TODD, Liber Hymnorum; Stowe Missal; Leabhar Breac; MESSINGHAM, Florilegium; ATKINSON, St. Brigid in Essays (Dublin, 1892); HEALY, Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars; STOKES, Early Christian Art in Ireland; HYDE, Literary History of Ireland (1900); KNOWLES, Life of St. Brigid (1907). Cf. CHEVALIER, Bio-bibliogr. (Paris, 1905, 2nd ed.), s.v.

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

Brigittines

The Brigittine Order (also, ORDER OF ST. SAVIOUR) was founded in 1346 by St. Brigit, or Bridget, of Sweden at Vadstena in the Diocese of Linköping. The saint, who was canonized twenty years after her death, was a Swedish princess renowned for her piety from her childhood; she was given in marriage to Ulf, Prince of Mercia, by whom she had a large family. Ulf died in 1344, and two years later tradition relates that St. Bridget had revealed to her the rule of the new order she was to found at Vadstena. Here with the help of King Magnus she established on her own estate the first monastery for men and women, of which Katherine, her daughter, became the first Abbess soon after her death in 1375. At this time double monasteries were not unusual: the monks and nuns used the same chapel, but lived in separate wings of the monastery, the confessor alone having access to the nuns. In Brigittine monasteries the nuns, who were strictly enclosed, attended to the cooking, washing, and making and mending of clothes for the monks as well as for themselves, but everything was passed through a turnstile from one wing to the other. This arrangement, unsuitable to modern times, has long ceased.

In the new order the abbess, who was called the “Sovereign,” was supreme in all things temporal for both houses; all deeds were in her name, all charters were addressed to her; but in spiritual things the abbess was not allowed to interfere with the monks who were priests, and the nuns were under the direction of the superior of the monks who was appointed confessor-general. The order was founded principally for women, and for this reason the supreme government was vested in the abbess; the monks were founded to give the nuns the spiritual help they needed. The special interior devotion of the order is to the Passion of Our Lord and to His Blessed Mother.

RULE OF ST. BRIDGET

The Rule enacts “that the number of choir nuns shall not exceed sixty, with four lay sisters; the priests shall be thirteen, according to the number of the thirteen Apostles, of whom Paul the thirteenth was not the least in toil; then there must be four deacons, who also may be priests if they will, and they are the figure of the four principal Doctors, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory and Jerome, then eight lay brothers, who with their labours shall minister necessaries to the clerics, therefore counting three-score sisters, thirteen priests, four deacons, and the eight servitors, the number of persons will be the same as the thirteen Apostles and the seventy-two disciples.” (The Rule of St Bridget.) The nuns were not to be professed before they were eighteen and the monks not before they were twenty-five years of age. The counsel of holy poverty is strictly enjoined by the Rule on all the members of the order, who are forbidden to possess anything, though at the same time they may expect the abbess to supply them with all necessaries; one luxury is allowed them, they may have as many books as they like for study. All the cast-off clothing and the surplus of their yearly income, after all has been provided for, are to be given to the poor, and the Rule strictly forbids the abbess to make larger buildings than are necessary.

The Constitutions were first approved by Pope Urban V, afterwards by Urban VI, and finally by Martin V. In 1603 Pope Clement VIII made certain changes for double monasteries in Flanders, and in 1622 Gregory XV changed certain articles in the Constitutions which refer only to double convents for the Monastery of Ste. Marie de Foi, in the Diocese of Ypres. These new Constitutions ordained that manual work should be done during certain hours of the day by the members of the order, that a red cross should be worn on the mantle, that the nuns might be professed at the age of sixteen, and that the monks should say the Divine Office according to the Roman Breviary. Those who followed these Constitutions took the name of Brigittines Novissimi of the Order of St. Saviour, to distinguish them from those who lived in double convents.

FOUNDATIONS

The order spread into France, Italy, Germany, Bavaria, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Portugal and Russia. Four foundations were made in France at Lille, Valenciennes, Arras, and Douai, but all were destroyed in the Revolution. In Belgium several houses were founded, but except that of Dendermonde they did not last very long, and all have now disappeared. The first Italian house was founded in 1394, when the Monastery of Paradiso was opened at the gates of Florence, and about this time some of the monks of the order took up their abode in Rome, in the house in which St. Bridget died. In 1426 a monastery was opened at Genoa, and that same year the order was introduced into Bavaria, where several foundations were made, one of which still remains. This is the celebrated old Benedictine Monastery of Mary Altomünster, between Munich and Augsburg, of which the Brigittines took possession in 1497 establishing a double convent there. This monastery was twice plundered and partially destroyed by fire, and the monks and nuns who were dispersed at the Reformation twice returned to it. In 1803 it was suppressed, and it is only Since 1844 that a community of Brigittine nuns again lives there. The monastery of Revel in Russia was burnt by schismatics in 1575, but in Poland most of the monasteries were preserved till the middle of the sixteenth century, and three new foundations were made. Holland still possesses two Brigittine houses, both of which now take pupils.

At the Reformation most of the double monasteries had to be given up, and the rule as to numbers could no longer be observed, while many of the houses were suppressed altogether. The nuns at Vadstena endured much persecution at this time; the Protestants threatened to tear them to pieces and expelled them from their monastery, but in 1588, King John III became their protector, and restored their monastery to them. In England the Brigittine Order is the only pre-Reformation order in existence. The celebrated Brigittine Monastery of Syon House was founded in 1415, when Henry V himself laid the foundation-stone on part of the royal manor of Isleworth on the Thames. It is supposed that the cause of the extension of the order in England was due to the fact that Henry’s sister Philippa was the wife of Eric XIII, King of Sweden. King Henry endowed the monastery richly and transferred the property of certain houses dependent on French monasteries to Syon. At the dissolution of monasteries under Henry VIII, who in the earlier years of his reign had himself been a benefactor of the abbey, the nuns were dispersed and took refuge in a convent of their order at Dendermonde in Flanders. Here they were visited by Cardinal Pole, and through his influence were re-established at Syon under Queen Mary, but they were driven into exile again when Elizabeth came to the throne, and returned to Dendermonde. After several attempts to settle in different parts of Belgium, they went to Rouen where they remained fourteen years, and finally in 1594, they moved to Lisbon where they remained for 267 years. In 1809 an attempt was made to return to England, but it was not till 1861 that the nuns found a home at Spettisbury in Dorsetshire, whence they moved to Chudleigh in Devonshire in 1887, where they are still living.

BRIGITTINES OF THE RECOLLECTION

The Brigittines of the Recollection were founded at Valladolid in the seventeenth century by Venerable Marina de Escobar, formerly a Carmelite nun, who modified the Rule to suit the Spanish nation and the age in which she lived. The Constitutions were approved by Pope Urban VIII. Like St. Bridget she neither took the habit herself nor did she live to see the first monastery of the order erected. This congregation which has five houses was founded for nuns only, the habit and the office differ slightly from those of the Brigittines.

In all houses of the Brigittine Order prayers are constantly offered for the restoration of the Monastery of Vadstena. This was formerly the great centre and stronghold of Catholicism in Sweden, a place where kings and queens frequently visited, sometimes took refuge, and were occasionally imprisoned, but which was suppressed and the religious dispersed under Gustavus Vasa. Nine Brigittine monasteries are now in existence: Syon Abbey, Chudleigh in Devonshire, Altomunster in Bavaria, Uden and Weert in Holland; and the five Spanish houses of the Brigittines of the Recollection: Valladolid founded in 1651, Vittoria founded in 1653, Lasarte and Parades de Nava in 1671, and Ascoytia in 1690.

FLAVLAVIGNY, Ste. Bridgitte de Suède; BURNS, Syon Abbey; MS. copy of the Rule of St. Bridget; History of the English Brigittine Nuns (Plymouth, 1887); BILDT, Swedish Memories and Traces in Rome; HÉLYOT, Histoire des ordres monastiques, IV, 25–49; HEIMBUCHER, Ord. u. Kongr. der kath. Kirche.

FRANCESCA M. STEELE.

John Brignon

Born at St. Malo in 1629; died at Paris, 12 June, 1712. He was a member of the Society of Jesus and occupied during the sixty-five years of his religious life chiefly in the translation of works of piety into French. Among these are the works of De Ponte and Nieremberg, the “Spiritual Combat,” the “Imitation of Christ” and the short treatises of Bellarmine. All these translations have passed through a number of editions. He also edited and revised “The Devout Life” of St. Francis De Sales and the “Fondements” of Père Surin, S.J. The only English works he translated into French are the “Decem Rationes” of Blessed Edmund Campion and the “Tractatus de Misericordiâ fidelibus defunctis exhibendâ” by Father Mumford, S.J.

Bibl. de la c. de Jésus, XI, col. 166; Dict. de théol. cath., I, col. 1131.

S.H. FRISBEE

Paulus Bril

A brilliant Flemish painter and engraver, born at Antwerp, 1556; died in Rome, 7 October, 1626. He first studied with Damiaen Oertelmans, a member of the guild of St. Luke in his native city. Fired by the news of the success of his brother Matthys, in Rome, he left his parents secretly and started for that city. He was detained at Lyons by lack of funds, and worked there in order to be able to continue his journey. At Rome he studied with his brother, but found his best inspiration later in the copies he made of the landscapes of Titian. With these as a basis he developed a vigorous and individual style of his own, the manifestations of which are said to have led greatly to the development of landscape art by their influence on Rubens, Annibale Carracci, and Claude Lorraine. He assisted his brother in his works at the Vatican, and on the death of the latter (b. about 1548, d. 1584) he continued his labours. Pope Gregory XIII gave him his brother’s pension, and confided to him the work which they had jointly undertaken.

Bril’s principal production in the Vatican is a landscape in fresco sixty-eight feet long, ordered by Pope Clement VIII for the Sala Clementina, in which appears St. Clement, with an anchor fastened to his neck, being cast into the sea. Bril worked in the Sistine Chapel, in Santa Maria Maggiore, and in the chapel of the Scala Santa in St. John Lateran. He introduced figures in the landscapes with much success, but in some of them appear compositions of Annibale Carracci. His “Duck Hunt,” “Diana and Nymphs,” “Fishermen,” “Pan and Syrinx,” “St. Jerome in Prayer” and three other landscapes are in the Louvre. His “Prodigal Son” is in the Antwerp Museum, and his “St. Paul in the Desert,” “Boar Hunt” and “Triumph of Psyche” in the Uffizi at Florence. His works appear in number in all the principal European galleries.

LÜRKE, History of Art (tr. New York, 1881).

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Peter Michael Brillmacher

Born at Cologne in 1542, died at Mainz, 25 August, 1595. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1558, and studied under Maldonatus, in Paris. Later he returned to Cologne, where, by his diplomatic skill, he rendered invaluable aid to the German princes in affairs of state. His eloquence attracted multitudes, thwarted the efforts of the so-called reformers, and made such deep inroads in their ranks that they determined upon his death. Inviting him to a banquet on pretense of debating disputed doctrines, they mingled poison with his food thus accomplishing his end.

Brillmacher took an active part in the controversies so frequent in his day and was fearless in his attacks upon heresy. An instance of his alertness in the detection of heresy is that of the cure of Notre Dame of Cologne, Stephen Isaac, a converted Jew, who, in 1589, preaching on the Holy Eucharist, advanced arguments which tended to compromise rather than substantiate the doctrine. Brillmacher immediately published his “Controversiarum de Eucharistia Dialogi,” in which he advanced all the arguments which had been brought for and against the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, etc. In the third of these dialogues he so clearly exposed the duplicity of Isaac that the latter was forced openly to avow his apostasy to Calvinism. In a public letter to John of Munster, Isaac vilified the Jesuit and called forth the latter’s second work, “Detectio Erroris Joannis a Munster,” followed shortly by another “Exceptio Prodromi Calviniana” (1592, in Latin and German) and still later (1593) by “Epistola ad Amicum.” The widespread publication and popularity of these overwhelmed his adversaries and won back to the Faith many who had been deceived by the specious arguments of the heretics. Brillmacher’s “Catechismus” first published in 1586, ran through various editions (Latin, German, and Flemish), and was the foundation of many similar works. He also wrote: “Serta Honoris” (various editions in Latin and German, 1565 to 1713) and two early publications “De Communione sub altera Specie” and “Commentarium in Aristotelis Logica.”

DE BACKER, I, 886 888; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque, II,182–186.

T.J. YOUNG

Ven. Edmund Brindholm

(OR BRYNDEHOLME.)

Martyr and parish priest of Our Lady’s Church at Calais, accused of being concerned in a plot to betray Calais to the French. It was said that Sir Gregory Botolf, chaplain to Lord Lisle, Governor of Calais, had been to Rome on this business, and had requested the pope to grant a living in the English Hospital of St. Thomas to Brindholm, who was about to go to Rome when he was arrested. There seems, however, no evidence that he was really concerned in any plot. He was examined 11 April, 1540, and was attained in the Parliament of that year, together with “Clement Philpott late of Calais, gentleman, who have adhered to the King’s enemy, the Bishop of Rome, and assisted Raynold Poole [Cardinal Pole], an abominable and arrogant traitor, compassing the surprise of the town of Calais.” He suffered, together with Philpott, the Blessed William Horne, a Carthusian lay brother, and others, at Tyburn, 4 August, 1540.

Letters and Papers Henry VIII (1540), XV, No. 495, sqq.; HOLINSHED, Chronicle, III, 952.

BEDE CAMM.

Diocese of Brindisi

Brindisi-called by the Romans Brundusium or Brundisium, by the Greeks Brentesion-is a city of in the province of Lecce, in Apulia, on a rocky peninsula which extends into the Adriatic.

In ancient times it was very important as a seaport, being accessible in all winds. In 245 B.C. the Romans captured Brindisi without striking a blow and established a Roman colony there. This city was one terminal of the Via Appia. In the civil wars between Caesar and Pompey, Brindisi was the base of naval operations. Brindisi was the birthplace of the poet Pacuvius; here also Virgil died in 19 B.C., on his return from Greece.

During the invasions of the barbarians it was taken and destroyed several times, but was always rebuilt within a short space of time, so that as late as the twelfth century it had a population of 60,000, which has since dwindled to about 20,000. The harbor gradually filled up, which hindered navigation. The Italian Government made great attempts to remedy this, but on account of an error of judgment the beneficial results anticipated were not permanent.

According to a local legend, the first Bishop of Brindisi was St. Leucius, about 165, who later underwent martyrdom. However, taking into consideration the geographical position of this city, the beginnings of Christianity in Brindisi must date back to the first century. There is no historical proof for this except the account given by Arnobius of the fall of Simon Magus, who according to him withdrew to Brindisi and cast himself from a high rock into the sea.

The Diocese of Brindisi at first embraced the territory comprised within the present Diocese of Oria. In the tenth century, after Brindisi had been destroyed by the Saracens, the bishops took up their abode at Oria, on account of its greater security. In 1591, after the death of Bishop Bernardino di Figueroa, Oria was made the seat of a new diocese. In the reorganization of the dioceses of the Kingdom of Naples in 1818 Brindisi was combined with the Diocese of Ostuni, formerly its suffragan. Brindisi has been an archiepiscopal see since the tenth century. The ancient cathedral was located outside the city, but in 1140 Roger II, King of Sicily and Naples, built the present cathedral in the centre of the city.

The bishops of Brindisi worthy of mention are:

St. Aproculus (Proculus), who died in 352 at Ardea, when returning from Rome, and was buried at Anzio;

St. Cyprian, who died in 364;

Andrea, murdered by the Saracens in 979;

Eustachio (1060), the first to bear the title of archbishop;

Guglielmo (1173), author of a life of St. Leucius;

Girolamo Aleandro (1524), a learned humanist, and papal nuncio in Germany in connection with Luther’s Reformation, and later Cardinal;

Pietro Caraffa, Bishop of Chieti, and afterwards Pope Paul IV, for some time the Apostolic administrator of this diocese;

Franceseo Aleandro (1542);

G. Bovio, from Bologna, who translated the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa, and was prominent in the Council of Trent;

Paolo de Vilanaperlas (1716), founder of the seminary;

Andrea Maddalena (1724), who restored the cathedral after it had been damaged by the earthquake of 1743.

In this diocese is the shrine of Mater Domini, near Mesagne. A beautiful church was erected there in 1605 to replace the ancient rustic chapel. The diocese has a population of 119,907, with 23 parishes, 89 churches and chapels, 181 secular and 15 regular clergy, and 64 seminarians.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XXI, 113–122; GUERRIERI, Sui vescovi della chiesa metropolitana di Brindisi (Naples, 1846); Annuario Eccl. (Rome, 1907), 346–348.

U. BENIGNI

Stephen Brinkley

Confessor of the Faith, imprisoned and tortured as manager of a secret press for the publication of devotional and controversial works in the reign of Queen Elizabeth; b. about 1550, and lost to view after 1585. He was a member of a Catholic association of unmarried gentlemen of property, organised by George Gilbert, and solemnly blessed by Gregory XIII, 1580. Their purpose was to raise funds for the support of priests, to prepare Protestants for the Faith, and, at a time when priests travelled in disguise, without papers of identification, to arrange for introductions which would guard both priests and laity against betrayal. The members undertook to content themselves with the bare necessaries of their state of life, to spend the remainder of their goods in the cause of the Church, and to devote themselves wholly to the salvation of souls and the conversion of heretics. At this time the Jesuit Fathers Robert Parsons and (Blessed) Edmund Campion were preparing for a vigorous propaganda through the press. With the assistance of several of the old Marian priests and of one Brooks, Parsons procured from the elder Brooks, owner of a large house called Greenstreet, at East Ham in Essex, five miles from London, permission for certain gentleman to lodge there. To this house, chiefly with the assistance of Brinkley, Parsons conveyed a printing press and materials. Brinkley’s seven workman appeared in public with fine clothes and horses, to avert suspicion. The parson and churchwardens urged the newly arrived gentlemen to attend services; an incautious purchase of paper almost gave a clue to the discovery of the press, and a servant of Brinkley’s was caught and racked.

Their first book, however, which was very probably a work of devotion or of encouragement to Catholics, was successfully issued. Brinkley then moved the press to Henry Park, to the house of Francis Browne, brother of Viscount Montague. Parsons issued, 1581, “A brief Censure upon two Books written in answer to M. Edmund Campion’s Offer of Disputation.” Campion’s challenge was then circulating in manuscript. Extreme caution was required in the management of Brinkley’s Press. Government experts, like Norton, reported that the Brinkley books, in spite of the Douai imprint, had been produced in England; the landlord Brooks was suspicious; information as to the press was also asked of Father Briant upon the rack. After a second removal, Brinkley printed, at a lodge belonging to Dame Cecilia Stonor’s house, near Henley, Campion’s “Decem Rationes.” At Oxford, on Commemoration Day, 27 June, 1581, the benches of St. Mary’s Church were found strewn with copies of this ringing challenge to the universities. The capture of Campion near Oxford Sunday evening, 16 July, was followed in a few weeks by that of Brinkley and his printers. Brinkley, though tortured in the Tower, escaped the fate of his fellow prisoner, William Carter, a Catholic printer, who was executed at Tyburn. Brinkley was discharged in June, 1583. He accompanied Father Parsons first to Rome, where we find his name in the Pilgrim Book of the English College in the following September, and thence in the following year to Rouen. Here, with George Flinton, Brinkley printed a second edition of a work which Flinton had brought out in 1581, “The Christian Directory.” After Flinton’s death about 1585, Brinkley continued to issue Catholic books. The date of his death is unknown. Gillow mentions a work translated from the Italian (Paris, 1579), entitled “The Exercise of a Christian Life . . . newly perused and corrected by the translatour” (James Sancer). Sancer, or Sanker, is known to have been the pseudonym of Brinkley. This work, perhaps, is one of the early issues of Brinkley’s own press.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of English Catholics; MORRIS, Troubles of Our Catholic Forefathers, second series; SIMPSON, Life of Edmund Campion (London, 1867); LAw, Historical Sketch of the Jesuits and Seculars in the Reign of Elizabeth (London, 1900).

J. VINCENT CROWNE

Jacques-Charles de Brisacier

Orator and ecclesiastical writer, b. at Bourges in 1641, d. at Paris, 23 March, 1736. At the age of twenty-five he entered the Society of the Foreign Missions at Paris, and devoted seventy years of his life to this great work. The scion of a rich and distinguished family, son of the collector-general for the Province of Berry, endowed with a remarkable talent for preaching, chaplain in ordinary to Queen Marie-Thérèse, wife of Louis XIV, he might have aspired to high ecclesiastical honors. Many bishoprics were offered to him. He refused them all, however, in order to remain in the Society of the Foreign Missions of which he was elected superior in 1681. He filled this office for eight terms, but as the rule of the Society is that no one shall be elected superior for more than three consecutive years, he filled this charge alternately with Louis Tiberge. He was also one of eight of its members who in 1698 composed the rules for its government which are still in force.

Madame de Maintenon asked him to become the associate of Bourdeloue and Fénelon, in compiling the regulations for the school of Saint Cyr, which she had just founded. So pleased was she with his wisdom and judgment that she asked him again, in connection with Bourdeloue and M. Fronson, superior of Saint Sulpice, to give his opinion on the books of Madame Guyon and upon Quietism. On this point, however, the director of the Society of the Foreign Missions did not agree with the views of Fénelon. He took a very prominent part in the discussion on Chinese ceremonies. After having asked the advice of Fénelon and Bossuet on this question, Brisacier did not hesitate to declare himself of an opinion different from that of the Jesuits. The Bishop of Meaux wrote him three letters on this subject (30 August, 1701; 8 and 12 September, 1701). Brisacier, however, did not wait for these letters to declare himself. On 20 April, 1700, he published a pamphlet entitled “ Lettre de MM. des Missions étrangères au Pape, sur les idolatries et les superstitions chinoises, avec une addition à la dite lettre, par MM. Louis Tiberge and Jacques Charles de Brisacier.” Brisacier pronounced the funeral orations of the Duchesse d’Aiguillon and also of Mlle de Bouillon, both benefactresses of the Foreign Missions.

LAUNAY, Histoire generale de la societe des Missions etrangeres (Paris, 1894); Histoire de Fénelon, XI, 293.

A. FOURNET

Jean de Brisacier

Controversialist, b. at Blois, France, 9 June, 1592; entered the Society of Jesus in 1619, d. at Blois, 10 September, 1668. On the completion of his studies, he gave himself to preaching for many years, with great zeal and success. Afterwards he was in turn Rector of the colleges of Aix, Blois, and Rouen, Visitor to the province of Portugal, Procurator of the Society for Foreign Missions and Superior of the Professed House in Paris. His love for missionary work was such that shortly before his death, he remarked that he counted as nothing all the years he had not spent in it. Brisacier was an ardent opponent of Jansenism, and never lost an opportunity of attacking it. In a sermon preached at Blois, in 1651, he denounced the deceit practiced by the Jansenists, particularly in the district around his native town, where the curé of Cour-Cheverny, M. L’Abbé Callaghan, was very active in promoting the heresy. This gave rise to a spirited controversy, in which Brisacier displayed activity and courage. In reply to the Jansenists’ answer to his sermon, he repeated his indictment, and offered proof of it, in a publication entitled “Le jansénisme confondu dans l’advocat du sieur Callaghan, par le P. Brisacier, avec la deffense de son sermon fait à Blois, le 29 Mars, 1651, contre la response du Port Royal.” This work was quickly condemned by Jean François de Gondi, Archbishop of Paris, because of its personal attacks directed especially against the Jansenistic religious of Port Royal. After this censure the dispute continued for some time, and called forth a long series of pamphlets. As late as 1862, the controversy was kept up by Abbé Pletteau and G. Bordillon.

SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c, de J., II, 186; BRUCKER in Dict. de theol. Cath., s.v.; HURTER, Nomenclator, II, 70.

R. H. TIERNEY.

Archdiocese of Brisbane

Comprises that part of the State of Queensland, Australia, which lies south of the 24th parallel of south latitude. The area is about 200,000 square miles. Brisbane, the cathedral city, is the capital of Queensland. The population at the census of 1901 (metropolitan area) was 119,907.

HISTORY

Queensland (known till 1859 as the Moreton Bay District of New South Wales) was first settled in 1825 as a convict station, was visited by Father Therry and abandoned after three years. Permanent colonization began when it was thrown open to free settlers in 1842. In 1843, four Passionist Fathers established a mission for aboriginals on Stradbroke Island, but abandoned it for lack of provisions and other causes in 1846. The work of evangelizing the Queensland blacks was afterwards carried on by other missionaries, the most successful of whom were Father Luckie and the later and still more noted apostle of the aborigines, Father Duncan McNab. Missionary work among the blacks was, however, hampered to an almost hopeless degree by the bad example, the brutalities, and the communicated vices and diseases of degraded whites. In 1843, a rude shanty, hastily constructed during Dr. Polding’s visit to Brisbane in that year, was the only building in the Moreton Bay District that stood for a church. There was no school, and the white population of the whole District was only 2,257 souls. Fathers McGinnety and Hanly arrived there in December, 1843. They were, says Cardinal Moran, “the first priests stationed for ordinary missionary work in the Moreton Bay territory.” In 1859, the year in which the Moreton Bay District became a separate colony under the name of Queensland, it was erected into the Diocese of Brisbane. Its first bishop was the Right Rev. James O’Quinn, who was consecrated in Dublin on the 29th of June, 1859. In 1860 there were only two priests, two churches, two small schools, and 7,676 Catholics, out of a total population of 28,056, in his vast diocese of 668,497 square miles. He arrived in Brisbane, with five priests and six sisters, in 1861, and launched forthwith into the work of organization, carrying on for years long and exhausting visitations, in which the bare earth was often his only bed, and sardines and “damper” his principal food. With the sanction of the Government, he organized the Queensland Immigration Society, which brought settlers (chiefly Irish Catholics) to the colony. Considerable numbers of these were placed on land granted for the purpose by the Government. Racial and sectarian passions took alarm. A clamour arose that the colony was being inundated with Irish Catholics, and that it would soon deserve to be called, not “Queensland,” but “Quinn’s Land.” The Immigration Society bent before the storm and dissolved in 1865, after having enriched Queensland with ten shiploads of picked colonists.

Dr. O’Quinn was a man of ripe intellectual culture and of much foresight and administrative wisdom. He established a Catholic paper, “The Australian,” funded two orphanages and an industrial school, wrought strenuously in the matter of church- and school-extension, erected the handsome cathedral of St. Stephen, and created and conserved rich educational and other endowments. State aid was finally withdrawn from all denominational schools with the close of the year 1880; but at his death, 18th August, 1881, there were 52 Catholic primary schools in the diocese, attended by 6,510 children. The Provicariate of North Queensland was formed out of the Diocese of Brisbane in 1876, and that of Rockhampton in 1882. On the 18th of June, 1882, the Right Reverend Robert Dunne was consecrated Bishop of Brisbane in succession to Dr. O’Quinn. By his solid scholarship and his ability as a writer Dr. Dunne rendered important services as secretary to the Plenary Council of Australasia held in Sydney in 1885. At the request of that council, Queensland was in 1887 created a separate ecclesiastical province, with Brisbane as its metropolitan see; and the Provicariate of North Queensland was erected into the Vicariate-Apostolic of Cooktown. The present stately archiepiscopal residence in Brisbane was built during Dr. Dunne’s visit ad limina in 1890, and presented to him on his return. His episcopate has been fruitful in church- and school-extension, and general progress.

RELIGIOUS STATISTICS (1907)

Parochial districts, 31; churches, 91; secular clergy, 56; religious brothers, 25; nuns, 186; lay teachers in Catholic schools, 126; seminary 1; boarding schools for girls, 12; for boys, 4; high schools, 6; primary schools, 41; children in Catholic schools, 6,713; industrial school for boys (with printing office), 1; for girls, 1; orphanage, 1; Magdalen asylum, 1; servants’ home, 1; total population, about 240,000; Catholic population, about 60,000.

MORAN, History of the Catholic Church in Australasia (Sydney, s. d.); The Australian Handbook (Sydney, 1906); JOSÉ, History of Australasia (Sydney, 1901); Australasian Catholic Directory for 1907 (Sydney, 1907).

HENRY W. CLEARY

Johann Nepomucene Brischar

Church historian, born at Horb in Würtemberg in 1819, studied theology at the University of Tubingen, was appointed parish priest of Buhl near Rottenburg in 1853, where he died in 1897. His principal work is the continuation of Count Leopold Stolberg’s “History of the Religion of Jesus Christ” of which he wrote volumes forty-five to fifty-four. His share of the work does not reach the high standard of his great predecessor. He is also the author of a work in two volumes on the controversies between Paolo Sarpi and Pallavicini, and of a monograph on Pope Innocent III. His “Catholic Pulpit Orators of Germany” in five volumes was published in Schaffhausen, in the years 1866–71. He contributed many articles to Herder’s “Kirchenlexicon.”

Kathol. Litteraturkalendar (Ratisbon, 1897), s.v.; Herder, Conversationslex., II, s.v.

B. GULDNER

Ancient Diocese of Bristol

(BRISTOLIA, BRISTOLIENSIS).

This English diocese, which takes its very origin from measures directed against the Church, has a very brief Catholic history, for it only had one bishop acknowledged by the Holy See. It was one of the six bishoprics which Henry VIII, acting as head of the Church, attempted to found by Act of Parliament out of the spoils of the suppressed monasteries. This was in 1542, the bishoprics in question being those of Bristol, Oxford Westminster, Gloucester, Peterborough, and Chester. The fact that the city was then one of the leading towns in England and the chief seaport, explains why it was selected as one of the new sees. Like the others, it possessed an important religious house, the buildings of which might serve the new purposes. As it was, the new diocese nearly lost its cathedral, for the abbey church of the Augustinian Canons, which had been plundered at the time of the suppression of that house in 1539, was already in process of demolition, when the king’s order came arresting the devastation. This house of Augustinians had been founded four hundred years before its dissolution by one Robert Fitzharding who began to build “the abbeye at Bristowe, that of Saint Austin is” in 1133. The abbey church destined to serve hereafter as a cathedral, was of different dates: the old Norman nave built by Fitzharding seems to have stood till the suppression, but the chancel, which still exists, was early fourteenth century, and the transepts late fifteenth. The building as a whole was well worthy to serve as a cathedral. Yet at first Bristol does not seem to have been thought of as a bishopric, for it is not included in the list of projected sees now among the Cottonian MSS. in the British Museum.

It has been suggested that its ultimate selection for this honor was due to Cranmer, who visited Bristol shortly before his election as Archbishop of Canterbury, and busied himself in ecclesiastical affairs there. The first bishop to be appointed when the king’s charter of 1542 founded the new see, was Paul Bush, formerly master of the Bonshommes at Edyngton in Wiltshire, who, it is needless to say neither sought nor obtained recognition by the pope. Himself an Augustinian and a man of some repute both as scholar and poet, he held fast to many of the old doctrines, and opposed Cranmer with regard to transubstantiation and Masses for the dead. Yet he followed the new opinions so far as the marriage of the clergy was concerned, and took as a wife one Edith Ashley. This fact caused him to be proceeded against as a married cleric in Queen Mary’s reign. In 1554 a commission passed sentence of deprivation against him, which he anticipated by a voluntary resignation. This was the opportunity for placing the irregularly constituted diocese on a proper canonical footing, and Pope Paul IV empowered Cardinal Pole to re-found the See of Bristol. The first and, as it proved the only Catholic bishop was John Holyman, a Benedictine monk of great reputation for learning and sanctity who had been the friend and subject of the martyred Abbot of Reading, Blessed Hugh Cook.

As bishop, Dr. Holyman gave general satisfaction, and, though he took part in the trial of Hooper, and served on a commission to try Ridley and Latimer, he took no active part in the proceedings on the score of heresy. He died in the summer or autumn of 1538, and was thus spared the troublous times that began with the accession of Elizabeth in the following November. He was succeeded in the bishopric by the Anglican, Dr. Richard Cheney (1562–79), who, though a schismatic, was yet suspected of Catholic leanings, and was the early friend of Blessed Edmund Campion. But the history of Bristol as a Catholic see ends with the death of Bishop Holyman. The diocese was formed by taking the county and archdeaconry of Dorset from Salisbury, and several parishes from the Dioceses of Gloucester and Worcester, with three churches in Bristol, which had belonged to Bath and Wells. The arms of the see were sable, three ducal crowns in pale or. The dedication was changed at the dissolution from St. Augustine to the Holy Trinity.

HEYLYN, Catalogue of the Bishops (1709 ed.); HYETT AND BAZELEY, Bibliographer’s Manual of Gloucestershire Literature (1895–97); MASSE, The Cathedral Church of Bristol and a Brief Hlstory of the Episcopal See (1901); PRYCE, History of Bristol (1861); NICHOLLS AND TAYLOR, Bristol Past and present (1881–82); EVANS, History of Bristol (1824).

EDWIN BURTON

Richard Bristow

Born at Worcester, 1538, died at Harrow-on the-Hill, 1581. He went to the University of Oxford in 1555, probably as a member of Exeter College, though Wood doubts this. In 1559 he took his Bachelor’s degree and proceeded to the degree of Master of Arts as a member of Christ Church in 1562. He was exceptionally brilliant and eloquent and so esteemed as an orator that, with the celebrated Edmund Campion, he was chosen to hold a public disputation before Queen Elizabeth in 1566. Shortly afterwards, having applied himself to theology and acquired a wide reputation for his learning he was made a Fellow of Exeter College (1567) by the interest of Sir William Petre, who had founded several fellowships there. His great ability would probably have won further promotion for him had not his religious opinions undergone a change, an indication of which was given in his argument with the Regius Professor of Divinity, whom he confuted. Two years after his appointment to the fellowship he left Oxford and proceeded to Louvain, where he met William (afterwards Cardinal) Allen. . Recognizing his marked talent Allen secured him for his new college at Douai and appointed him its first prefect of studies. He was Allen’s “right hand upon all occasions,” acting as rector when he was absent and when the college was transferred (1578) to Reims.

Bristow is best known, however, as an earnest student, a powerful controversial writer, and, with Allen, as one of the revisers of the Douay Bible. His intense labours, while they earned for him the lasting gratitude of Catholics, told upon a constitution naturally weak, and he was obliged to relinquish his work in 1581. In May of the same year he went to Spa, but having obtained no advantage there he was advised, after two months, to return to England. This he did in September, staying until his death (18 October) with Mr. Jerome Bellamy, a Catholic of means, at Harrow-on-the-Hill . By his death the Catholic cause lost a zealous champion and a learned advocate. The Douai records speak of him in the highest terms as rivalling Allen in prudence, Stapleton in acumen, Campion in eloquence, Wright in theology, and Martin in languages. He wrote: (1) “A Briefe Treatise of diuerse and sure wayes to finde out the truthe in this doubtful and dangerous time of Heresie: conteyning sundry worthy Motives vnto the Catholic faith, or considerations to moue a man to beleue the Catholikes and not the Heretikes” (Third edition entitled “Motives inducing to the Catholike Faith”), (2) “Tabula in Summam Theologicam S. Thomae Aquinatis”; (3) “A Reply to Will. Fulke”; (4) “Demandes to be proponed of Catholikes to the Heretikes”; (5) “A Defence of the Bull of Pope Pius V”; (6) “Annotations on the Rheims translation of the New Testament”; (7) “Carmina Diversa”; (8) “Motiva Omnibus Catholicae Doctrinae Orthodoxis Cultoribus pernecessaria,” the last two being in manuscript.

WORTHINGTON, Compendium Vitae Auctoris (prefixed to Motiva); Records of the English Catholics, I, II; DODD, Church History of England, ed. TIERNEY (London, 1843); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.; WOOD, Athenae Oxonienses; PITS, De Angliae Scriptoribus.

FRANCIS AVELING

British Columbia

British Columbia is the westernmost province of the Dominion of Canada. Territorially, it is also the largest, being 357,600 square miles in extent. It is composed of the mainland and islands. Prominent among the latter are Vancouver and Queen Charlotte Islands. The mainland is bounded on the south by the States of Washington and Idaho, on the east by the summits of the Rocky Mountain as far as a point where they meet the line of 120th degree of longitude, thence by that line to the 60th degree of latitude, the northern limit of the province. On the west it extends as far as the Pacific Ocean, except north of Portland Canal, where a narrow strip of coast land and a group of important islands form a part of Alaska.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

British Columbia has been called a sea of mountains, and this designation is fairly accurate, save perhaps for some forty miles on either side of the Chilcotin River, where are to be found rolling or tolerably level plateaux at least 3,000 feet above the sea and covered with excellent bunch grass. They are more or less open and the remainder of the province might be described as a continuous forest of conifers, interspersed here and there with deciduous trees and dotted at long intervals with natural prairies. The mountains are too numerous for enumeration. The principal ranges are the Lillooet mountains in the south-west, the Cariboo and the Babine mountains in the north-eastern and north-western interiors respectively, north of which numberless sierras connect the Rockies with the Cascade or Coast range, a chain of steep and rugged mounts that run parallel to the former. Between these many evidences of ancient physical upheavals lie either fertile valleys or deep, long, and narrow lakes. The latter are to be found especially in the northern interior. Prominent among them are lakes Babine, which covers an area of some 196,000 acres; Tatla, 152,000, Morice, 148,000; Stuart, 142,000 French; 140,000; Chilco, 109,760, and many others almost as large. In the south are lakes Kootenay, with an estimated area of 141,120 acres, Okanagan, 86,240, and Harrison, 78,400. Most of these sheets of water give rise to, or are drained by, rivers which in the spring assume generally the nature of torrents. The chief watercourses of the province are the Fraser River, with the Nechaco, the Quesnel, and the Thompson as tributaries, the Skeena, the Nass, and the Stickine in the north-west; the Finlay and its continuation, the Peace, with their tributary, the Parsnip, in the north-east, while the south-eastern corner is drained by the upper Columbia.

RESOURCES

These streams, especially the Fraser and Skeena, are yearly ascended by immense shoals of salmon of the genus oncorhynchus, which are a great source of revenue, while the vast forests of the coast and southern interior, composed mostly of red cedar (thuya gigantea), fir (pseudotsuga Douglassii) and various species of spruce, are likewise the objects of remunerative industries. The country’s most valuable treasures are, however, under ground, being found in the shape of minerals of which the following represents the production for 1906: copper, $8,288,565; gold, $5,579,039; lead, $2,667,578; silver, $1,897,320; other materials, $1,000 000. For the same period of time Vancouver Island and parts of the mainland yielded coal and coke to the value of $5,548,044, though it is well known that vast deposits of the same exist on the mainland, which only awaits capital to become productive. As to agriculture, it takes a rather secondary place in British Columbia; yet it is by no means neglected. In the valley of the lower Fraser and in the districts of Okanagan, Kamloops, Lillooet, etc., fruit-raising is considered more remunerative. Apples and pears of all kinds, peaches, tomatoes, and smaller fruit grow to perfection. From a climatological standpoint, extremes are to be found within the broad limits of the province. The coast enjoys an almost constantly mild, though wet, climate, and roses are grown in the open throughout the winter in Vancouver and Victoria. Beyond the Cascades is the dry belt, where irrigation becomes a necessity, while north of the 52d parallel the winters become more and more severe in proportion to the latitude and the altitude.

POPULATION

The latest official census (1901) gave the population of the province as 178,657, of whom 33,081 were Catholic. The entire population can not now be less than 260,000 with perhaps 48,000 Catholics. The capital is Victoria, in the southern extremity of Vancouver Island; population in 1901, 20,816, estimated now at 30,000 including 6,000 Orientals. The commercial metropolis is Vancouver, at the terminus of the Canadian Pacific Railway on Burrard Inlet. Founded practically, in 1886, it had already 26,103 inhabitants in 1901. At the present time it claims a population of 71,150, some 4,500 of whom are Chinese and 1,800 Japanese. Next in importance are, on the mainland, New Westminster (about 10,000 inhabitants), Nelson (8,000), Rossland (7,150), and, on Vancouver Island, Nanaimo, a famous coal centre (6,230).

The figures for the total population of the province include 25,593 Indians divided into six very distinct stocks; (1) the Kootenays in the south-eastern corner; (2) the Salish, who are the aborigines of the southern portion of the mainland and the south-eastern coast of Vancouver Island; (3) the Kwakwiutl or Wakashans immediately north of the latter on the coast of the mainland and the northern and western parts of Vancouver Island; (4) the Haidas on Queen Charlotte Islands; (5) the Tsimpsians along the lower course of the Skeena and on the littoral of the mainland as far north as Alaska, and (6) the Dénés who range over the entire extent of the northern half of the province east of the Kwakwiutl and the Tsimpsians. The Kootenays number but 587, all Catholics as well as the 2,500 Dénés of the north, but the Salish are fully 12,000, of whom about one-tenth are Protestants, the remainder Catholics. The Tsimpsians are partly heathen and partly Protestants, while the Wakashans and the Haidas, the former especially, have mostly retained their aboriginal faith in shamanistic practices, to the exclusion of any of the sects

SECULAR HISTORY

Navigators of various nationalities were the first representatives of our civilization to come in contact with these aborigines. In 1774 it was the Spanish Juan Perez; in 1778 the English Captain Cook, the French Lapérouse came in 1785; Captain Meares in 1787, Marchand, a Frenchman, in 1791; the American Gray in 1789, and the famous George Vancouver in 1792. But no settlement resulted from the visits of these mariners, who confined their operations to geographical work and fur trading with the natives. In 1793 Alexander Mackenzie crossed the Rocky Mountains from the east and reached the Pacific overland. The first white settlements were established in the northern interior by members of the Northwest Fur Trading Company: Fort McLeod in 1805; Forts St. James and Fraser in 1806, and Fort George, at the confluence of the Nechaco with the Great River the following year. The latter stream was explored to its mouth in 1808 by Simon Fraser, and is now known under his name. Shortly afterwards, other posts were founded and a brisk trade carried on in the northern interior, which was long called New Caledonia, and comprised at one time the basin of the Thompson, discovered in 1808 by the astronomer-geographer David Thompson.

The headquarters for the Pacific of the corporation (the Hudson’s Bay Company since its absorption of the Northwest Company in 1821) which operated throughout the land were at Fort Vancouver, on the lower Columbia. When it became evident that this would be found to be in American territory, the authorities established (1843) another general depot at the southern end of Vancouver Island, which was at first called Fort Camosun, and then Victoria. Later on, the rich deposits of gold on the Fraser, and throughout the district of Cariboo, brought in large numbers of miners to the new post, round which a city of tents and shacks grew (1858) as if by magic. James Douglas (afterwards Sir), a prominent fur trader, was named governor of Vancouver Island as early as 1851. The gold mines and consequent influx of immigrants made it a necessity to erect the mainland into another colony, with him at its head (1858). A year later a capital for the new territory was chosen at a point on the mainland facing the apex of the Fraser delta, resulting in the founding of what is now New Westminster. Finally, after various vicissitudes, chief among which was the Chilcotin massacre of 1864, the colonies of British Columbia and Vancouver Island, already united in 1866 under one government at Victoria, were admitted into the Canadian Confederation on the 20th of July, 1871. Under the new regime, the province is governed by a lieutenant governor appointed and paid ($9,000 per annum) by Ottawa, with the help of responsible ministers and a Legislative Assembly composed of thirty-four members elected by the people.

RELIGIOUS HISTORY

From a religious standpoint, the visits of the early navigators made little impression on the native mind. Some missionaries have wrongly supposed that the mantles worn on ceremonial occasions by the coast Indians originated in the copes of the priests that accompanied the Spanish and other ships. These are aboriginal with the natives. However, it is on record that, immediately prior to the advent of the white settlers, the old people among the Kwakwiutl tribe had a clear recollection of strangers “clad in black and having a crown of hair round the head, who had come to see the Indians” (Rapp, Sur les Missions de Quebec, March, 1855, p. 113). The very first resident of what is now British Columbia (Lamalice, at Fort McLeod) was a Catholic, and so were the great explorer Simon Fraser, J. M. Quesnel, one of his two lieutenants and all his French Canadian companions. These and the numerous servants of the trading posts, who were also Canadians, gave the aborigines their first ideas of Christianity. Later on, Father de Smet, S.J. visited the Kootenays, and in 1843 Father J. B. Z. Bolduc accompanied Douglas to Vancouver Island, where he ministered to crowds of wondering Indians. In 1842 Father M. Demers had made an extended trip through the inland tribes, visiting in turn the Okanagans, the Shushwaps (both of the Salish stock) and the Carriers, a Dene tribe in the north. Four years later, a Jesuit priest, Father Nobili, walked in his footsteps and even went as far as Fort Babine, on the lake of the same name, instead of retracing his steps at Fort St. James, as his predecessors had done. The year thereafter (1847), Father Demers became the first bishop of the newly founded see of Vancouver Island, now the Archbishopric of Victoria. One of his first cares was to call for the help of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate already working in Oregon, one of whom, Father L. J. D’Herbomez, was consecrated Bishop of Miletopolis (9 October, 1864) and appointed to the Vicariate Apostolic of British Columbia, which on 2 September, 1890, became the Diocese of New Westminster, on the mainland.

CATHOLIC STATUS

The chief Catholic institutions of Victoria are a hospital at the capital, together with an academy for girls, a college for boys, and a kindergarten, all, except the college, in charge of the Sisters of St. Ann. A protectory which was started at the same place is now at Quamichan; Nanaimo possesses, in addition to the Catholic school, an orphanage which originated in Victoria. There are schools for Indian boys and girls at Kuper Island and among the Songhees of Victoria, and the Benedictine Fathers and Sisters conduct Indian schools on the west coast of the Island. On the mainland, identical institutions are to be found at St. Mary’s Mission, North Vancouver, Sechelt, Kamloops, William’s Lake, and Kootenay. These schools for the natives are supported, not always adequately, by the Federal Government of Canada. New Westminster, Vancouver, Cranbrook, and Greenwood each boast of a well equipped hospital; New Westminster is the seat of St Louis College, and Vancouver, in addition to a flourishing academy conducted by the Sisters of St. Ann, has a House of Refuge under the care of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd.

The public schools are on the American model and aiding religious institutions through grants or general exemption from taxes is prohibited. By virtue of an Act passed by Parliament after a signal public service rendered by the Sisters of St Ann, the latter’s Academy at Victoria enjoys freedom from such an encumbrance, and Church property may also be more or less favored in this respect by special legislation on the part of the city councils. The clergy cannot be drafted into a jury or coerced into military service, though they may be allowed to serve if they so wish. Attending the provincial penitentiary and asylum for the insane, there are Catholic and Protestant chaplains paid by the federal authorities. Churches can be incorporated, and are then recognized as eligible for bequests and to acquire and possess property. While divorce in Canada is generally granted only by the Dominion Senate, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has jurisdiction over that issue, because at the time this province entered the Confederation, it was left free to enjoy the privileges it then possessed.

Hist. Of B.C. (San Francisco, 1890); BIGG, Hist. of B.C. (Toronto, 1894); MORICE, Au pays de l’ours noir (Paris, 1897); La Colombie brittannique in Les missions catholiques francaises au XIXe siecle (Paris, 1903); The Hist. of the Northern Interior of B.C. (Toronto, 1904); GOSNELL, The Year Book of B.C. (Victoria, 1903); WADE, The Thompson Country (Kamloops, 1907).

A. G. MORICE.

Francis Britius

An orientalist, and a monk of Rennes in Brittany; date of birth and death unknown. He entered the Capuchin Order and spent the earlier years of his religious life in missionary work in the Levant, where he devoted himself with special zeal to the study of Oriental languages. His proficiency in these tongues soon came to the notice of his superiors, and, being summoned to Rome, he was employed by the Congregation of the Propaganda in the translation of several important works into Arabic. The first great fruit of his labours in this field was the translation of “L’Abrégé des annales ecclesiastiques de Baronius,” continued by Sponde to the year 1646. The work was published at Rome in three volumes quarto, the first of which appeared in 1653, the second in 1655, and the third in 1671. Britius had also much to do with a translation of the Bible into Arabic giving the Vulgate text in parallel columns, which was published by Mazari, at Rome, in 1671 (3 vols. fol.)

The works of Britius are now exceedingly rare, as practically the entire edition of both translations was sent to the East for use in the work of the missions.

Biogr. Univ., V, 629.

J. J. GEOGHAN.

Thomas Lewis Brittain

Born near Chester, England, 1744; died at Hartpury Court, 1827. His parents were Protestants, but at the age of sixteen Thomas became a Catholic. Shortly after his conversion he went to Picardy to pursue his studies, and later joined the Dominicans at Bornheim, where he made his profession 22 October, 1767. His studies were continued at Louvain, and subsequently he taught with marked success at Bornheim, where he was made regent of studies. In 1790 the doctor’s cap, with title of Master of Sacred Theology, was conferred on him. The same year he was transferred to Brussels where he became director of the exiled English Dominican nuns, an office he held for thirty-seven years. In 1794, when the French army was expected at Brussels Father Brittain conducted the sisters to Bornheim whence, joined by eighteen Dominican fathers, they were conducted by an American captain to England. Father Brittain secured a foundation for the sisters at Hartpury Court near Gloucester. On 3 May, 1814, he was elected provincial of the Dominicans, and during his four Years of office gained the respect and confidence of his brethren. He is the author of the following works: “Rudiments of English Grammar” (London, 1790), considered authoritative in its day and highly recommended by Walker, the lexicographer; “Principles of the Christian religion and Catholic Faith Investigated” (London, 1790); “Collection of Poems Occasionally Written” (Cheltenham, 1822); “The Divinity of Jesus Christ and beauties of His Gospels” (London, 1822); some unpublished manuscripts are the archives of the English province.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of Eng. Cath., s.v.; PALMER, The Life of Cardinal Howard (London, 1867).

JOHN T. MCNICHOLAS

Ven. John Britton

(Or Bretton).

A layman and martyr, of an ancient family of Bretton near Barnsley in Yorkshire. An ardent Catholic, he was often separated from his wife and family, owing to constant persecution which he suffered for his faith. When advanced in years, he was maliciously and falsely accused of traitorous speeches against the queen and condemned to death. Refusing to renounce his faith he was executed at York, as in cases of high treason, 1 April, 1598. He was probably the father of Dr. Matthew Britton, prefect and professor at Douai in 1599.

CHALLONER, Memoirs; KNOX, Douay Diaries; PEACOCK, List of Roman Catholics of Yorkshire (London, 1872); FOLEY, Records; Roman Diary (London, 1880); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885).

BEDE CAMM.

Diocese of Brixen

A Prince-Bishopric of Austria, suffragan of Salzburg, embracing the greater part of Northern Tyrol (with the exception of the part east of the Zillerbach, which belongs to Salzburg), as well as all Vorarlberg, and containing c. 6,705 square miles, and over 440,000 inhabitants.

I. HISTORY

The Diocese of Brixen is the continuation of that of Saben (Sabiona), which, according to legend, was founded by St. Cassian. As early as the third century Christianity penetrated Sabiona, at that time a Roman custom station of considerable commercial importance. The first Bishop of Saben vouched for by history is Ingenuin, mentioned about 580, who appears as suffragan of the Patriarch of Aquileia. The tribes who pushed into the territory of the present Diocese of Brixen, during the great migratory movements, especially the Bajuvari and Langobardi, accepted Christianity at an early date; only the Slavs of the Puster valley (Pustertal) persisted in paganism until the eighth century. In the second half of the tenth century Bishop Rihpert (appointed 967) or Bishop Albuin I (967–1005) had the seat of the diocese, which since 798 has been under the Metropolitan of Salzburg, transferred to Brixen, Bishop Hartwig (1020–39) raised Brixen to the rank of a city, and surrounded it with fortifications. The diocese received many grants from the German emperors: thus from Conrad II in 1027 the Norital, from Henry IV in 1091 the Pustertal. In 1179 Frederick I conferred on the bishop the title and dignity of a prince of the German Empire. This accounts for the fact that during the difficulties between the papacy and the empire, the Bishops of Brixen generally took the part of the emperors; particularly notorious is the case of Altwin, during whose episcopate (1049–91) the ill-famed pseudo-synod of 1080 was held in Brixen, at which thirty bishops, partisans of the emperor, declared Pope Gregory VII deposed, and set up as antipope the Bishop of Ravenna.

The temporal power of the diocese soon suffered a marked diminution through the action of the bishops themselves who bestowed large sections of their territory in fief on temporal lords, as for example, in the eleventh century courtships in the Inntal and the Eisacktal granted to the Counts of Tyrol, and in 1165 territory in the Inntal and the Pustertal to the Counts of Andechs-Meran. The Counts of Tyrol, in particular, who had fallen heir in large part to the territories of the Count of Meran, constantly grew in power; Bishop Bruno (1249–88) had difficulty in asserting his authority over a section of his territory against the claims of Count Meinhard of Tyrol. Likewise Duke Frederick IV, who was called the Penniless, compelled the Bishops of Brixen to acknowledge his authority. The dissensions between Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1450–64), appointed by Pope Nicholas V Bishop of Brixen, and Archduke Sigmund were also unfortunate; the cardinal was made a prisoner, and although the pope placed the diocese under an interdict, Sigmund came out victor in the struggle.

The Reformation was proclaimed in the Diocese of Brixen during the episcopate of Christoph I von Schrofenstein (1509–21) by German emissaries, like Strauss, Urban Regius, and others. In 1525, under Bishop Georg III of Austria (1525–39), a peasants’ uprising broke out in the vicinity of Brixen, and several monasteries and strongholds were destroyed. The promise of King Ferdinand I, civil ruler of Tyrol, to redress the grievances of the peasants restored tranquility, and at a diet held at Innsbruck, the most important demands of the peasants were acceded to. Although in 1532 these promises were withdrawn, peace remained undisturbed. Ferdinand I and his son Archduke Ferdinand II, in particular, as civil rulers took active measures against the adherents of the new teachings, chiefly the Anabaptists, who had been secretly propagating their sect; thus they preserved religious unity in the district of Tyrol and the Diocese of Brixen. At this time important services were rendered in safeguarding the Catholic Faith by the Jesuits, Capuchins, Franciscans, and Servites. Chief among the bishops of the period were: Cardinal Andreas of Austria (1591–1600), and Christoph IV von Spaur (1601–13), who in 1607 founded a seminary for theological students; enlarged the cathedral school, and distinguished himself as a great benefactor of the poor and sick. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw a great reawakening of religious life in the Diocese of Brixen; many monasteries were founded, new missions for the cure of souls established, and the religious instruction of the people greatly promoted; in 1677 the University of Innsbruck was founded. The most prominent bishops of this period were: Kaspar Ignaz, Count von Kunigl (1702–47), who founded many benefices for the care of souls, made diocesan visitations, kept a strict watch over the discipline and moral purity of his clergy, introduced missions under Jesuit Fathers, etc.; Leopold, Count von Spaur (1747–78), who rebuilt the seminary, completed and consecrated the cathedral, and enjoyed the high esteem of Empress Maria Theresa; Joseph Philipp, Count von Spaur (1780–91), a friend of learning, who, however, in his ecclesiastical policy, leaned towards Josephinism. The Government of Emperor Joseph dealt roughly with church interests; about twenty monasteries of the diocese were suppressed, a general seminary was opened at Innsbruck, and pilgrimages and processions were forbidden.

It was Bishop Franz Karl, Count von Lodron (1791–1828), who was to see the collapse of the temporal power of the diocese. In 1803 the principality was secularized, and annexed to Austria, and the cathedral chapter dissolved. During the brief rule of Bavaria the greatest despotism was exercised towards the Church; the restoration of Austrian supremacy (1814) improved conditions for the diocese. By the papal Bull “Ex imposito” (2 May, 1818) a new circumscription was given to the diocese which in this way received a considerable increase in territory; Vorarlberg, in particular, which had previously been divided among the three dioceses of Chur, Constance, and Augsburg, was added to the Diocese of Brixen. Vorarlberg was, as a matter of fact, to form a separate diocese, with Feldkirch as see, but this plan has never been put into execution; Vorarlberg is now administered by a vicar-general residing at Feldkirch, who, as a rule, is the auxiliary bishop of Brixen. In 1825 the cathedral chapter was reestablished. All during the nineteenth century the episcopal see was occupied by distinguished men who safeguarded the unity of the Faith in the diocese, as is instanced in the enforced removal in 1830 of the Protestant families of the Zillertal, who actively championed the rights and privileges of the Church, and by missions and diocesan visitations, and by the introduction of religious orders endeavored, with success, to raise the religious life of their diocese to a higher level. Karl Franz was succeeded by Bernhard Galura (1828–56), Vincenz Gasser (1856–79), Johann IX von Leiss, Laimburg (1879–84), Simon Aichner (1884–1904), who resigned 5 March, 1904, and Joseph Altenweisel (1904).

II. STATISTICS

According to the figures for 1907 the Diocese of Brixen includes at the present time 438,448 Catholics in 501 spiritual charges. There are 28 deaneries, 6 in Vorarlberg, 380 parishes, 75 stations (Exposituren), 215 benefices and chaplaincies, and 725 primary schools with 1,333 classes. The cure of souls is exercised by 879 secular priests, and 580 regulars, 14 members of religious orders being at present outside the diocese. The cathedral chapter consists of 3 dignities (1 mitred provost, 1 dean, and 1 scholasticus), 4 capitular and 6 honorary canons. The prince-bishop as well as the members of the chapter, with the exception of the provost, are appointed by the emperor. In addition to the cathedral chapter there is a collegiate chapter of six canons at Innichen, a provost at Ehrenburg, and one at St. Gerold. Of the spiritual charges, 180 are subject to the free collation of the bishop, in 97 the municipality has the right of patronage, in 47 the right of patronage belongs to private individuals, in 87 to the Government or exchequer, in 15 to the religious fund, in 76 to religious corporations and monasteries. For the training of theologians there is a theological faculty at the University of Innsbruck with 17 professors, members of the Society of Jesus, and 352 theological students (many of them from the United States). There is a diocesan theological school in Brixen, with 8 professors; a seminary at Brixen, with 113 candidates for Holy orders (30 of them from other dioceses); the Seminarium Vincentinum (a diocesan preparatory seminary and gymnasium) with 21 professors; and the Cassianeum, with 3 professors and 51 students. Moreover, there are religious professors in the civil Higher Gymnasium at Brixen, and six other intermediate schools for boys conducted by the State.

Religious congregations of men possess 44 houses, and in 1907 numbered about 1,213 members, including 594 priests, 185 clerics, 348 lay brothers, 86 novices. There are two houses of Augustinian canons (at Neustift and Wilton), with 97 Fathers, 8 clerics, 3 lay brothers, and 4 novices; 2 Cistercian foundations (at Stams and Mehreran), with 84 Fathers 9 clerics, 25 lay brothers, and 16 novices; 3 Benedictine foundations (at Fiecht, Marienberg, and Bregenz), with 48 fathers, 5 clerics, 25 lay brothers, and 5 novices; 1 Benedictine priory (at Innsbruck), with 3 branch houses, 8 Fathers, 7 clerics, 61 lay brothers, and 19 novices, 3 Jesuit colleges (at Innsbruck, Feldkirch, and Tisis), with 100 priests, 59 clerics, 66 lay brothers, and 17 novices; 2 Redemptorist colleges, with 19 Fathers, 13 brothers, and 1 novice; 3 Servite monasteries, with 18 Fathers, 16 clerics, 10 brothers, and 4 novices; 8 Franciscan monasteries, with 100 Fathers, 23 clerics, 69 brothers, and 3 novices; 13 Capuchin monasteries with 100 Fathers and 59 brothers, 1 foundation of the Society of the Divine Word (Salvatorians), with 9 priests and 8 brothers, 1 mission house of St. Joseph at Brixen (with a branch at Mill Hill), with 6 priests and 11 clerics; 1 house of the Congregation of the Sons of the Most Holy Heart of Jesus, with 5 Fathers, 13 clerics 9 lay brothers and 17 novices; 1 foundation of the School Brothers, with 11 clerics. Besides the houses of theological studies for the members of the different orders, among the orders already mentioned, the Benedictines conduct in Fiecht a Konvikt (house of studies) for boys, and a school, the Cistercians in Mehreran a Konvikt for boys, the Jesuits a boarding school and gymnasium at Feldkirch (the celebrated institution known as the Stella Matutina), the School Brothers a seminary for teachers and a trade school, the Salvatorians a college, the Sons of the Most Holy Heart of Jesus an Apostolic school, and the Franciscans a Higher Gymnasium at Halle.

Religious congregations of women have established 234 religious houses with branches, about 2,644 sisters being within the limits of the diocese; these include 490 choir sisters, 1,884 lay sisters, and 270 novices. The various houses are divided as follows: the Poor Clares, 2 with 65 sisters; the Dominicans, 4 with 173 sisters; the Dominicans of the Third Order 2 with 38 sisters; the Redemptorist sisters, 1 with 18 members; the Ursulines, 2 with 136 sisters; the Carmelites 1 with 18 sisters; the Salesian Sisters, 1 with 54 members; the Cistercians, 1 with 39 members; the Sisters of Divine Adoration, 1 with 51 members; the English Ladies, 1 institute with 79 members; the Tertiary Sisters, 6 houses and 13 branches, with 158 sisters; the Ladies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, 1 with 99 sisters; the Poor-School Sisters of Notre Dame, 2 with 27 members; the Benedictines, 1 monastery with 5 sisters; the Sisters of the High German Order, 1 house with 3 sisters. The Sisters of Mercy have a mother-house in Innsbruck with 92 branch houses and 931 sisters, and one at Zams with 72 branches and 608 sisters. The Sisters of Mercy of the Holy Cross have 1 provincial house at Innsbruck with 26 branches and 131 sisters. The orders and congregations of women are engaged almost exclusively in the training of girls, and the care of the sick, children, and the aged, etc. The above-named congregations have charge of 8 educational institutions, 1 lyceum for girls, 12 industrial schools, 82 schools for girls, 41 schools for boys and girls, 46 creches, 3 hospitals, 7 orphan asylums, 23 asylums, 3 sanatoria, 56 homes for the poor, 2 public insane asylums, 2 houses for lepers, 1 institution for the deaf and dumb, 4 homes for servants, 1 asylum for priests in ill health, and about 25 other charitable institutions. The cathedral of the Diocese of Brixen dates, in its present form, from the eighteenth century, having been built between 1745 and 1758. The only remains of the earlier Gothic building is the cloister, which contains frescoes and monuments dating from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century. Other prominent ecclesiastical buildings of the diocese are: the Court or Franciscan church at Innsbruck, in which is the celebrated monument to Emperor Maximilian I; the Jesuit church at Innsbruck, built between 1620 and 1640 in barocco style; the Gothic cathedral at Feldkirch, built in 1478; the Cistercian church at Mehreran; the fifteenth century parish church of Schwaz, built in Gothic style, and others. Among the places of pilgrimage are: Absam, St. Georgenberg near Feubach, Maria Waldrast near Deutsch-Matrei, the pilgrimage church on the Frauenberg near Rankweil, that on the Gebhardsberg near Bregenz, and others.

RESCH, Annales ecclesiae Sabionensis nunc Brixinensis (3 vols., Augsburg, 1755–67), SINNACHER, Biographien von Bischofen im Bistum Brixen (Brixen, 1814), IDEM, Beitrage zur Geschichte der bischoftichen Kirchen Stiben und Brizen tn Tirol (9 vols., Brixen 1824–36), TINKHAUSER, Topographisch—historisch-statistische Beschreibung der Diocese Brixen (2 vols., Brixen, 1854–79), continued by RAPP (3 vols., 1880–91); REDLICH, Die Traditionsbucher des Hochstifts Brixen (Innsbruck, 1886); RAPP, Topographisch-historische Beschreibung des Generalvikariates Vorarlberg (4 vols, Brixen, 1892–1902). Cf. also bibliography to TYROL.

JOSEPH LINS

St. Brogan

Flourished in the sixth or seventh century. Several persons in repute for holiness seem to have borne this name, which is variously written Brogan, Broccan, Bracan, and even Bearchan and Bearchanus. Of these, two are commemorated in the Irish Martyrologium of Aengus, the early date of which (c. 800) is now generally admitted. There, under 8 July, we read: “Brocan, the scribe, gained a noble triumph without any fall”; and under 17 September: “Brocan of Ross Tuirc thou shouldst declare.” Colgan (Trias Thaumat., p. 518) speaks as if he were inclined to identify both these persons with the author of an early Irish hymn upon St. Brigid. The glosses upon Aengus and the Martyrology of Gorman, while seemingly treating them as distinct, prove that the matter admits of no certainty. Some modern hagiographers incline to regard the St. Brogan of 8 July as the amanuensis and possibly the nephew of St. Patrick. They style him bishop and locate him at Maethail-Brogain, now Mothil in Waterford; but this is admittedly quite doubtful. St. Brogan of Rosstuirc, on the other hand, is identified with the author of the hymn to St. Brigid, and is believed to be the Abbot Brochanus referred to in the Life of St. Abban, preserved in the “Codex Salmanticensis.” Rosstuirc is generally assigned to the Diocese of Ossory, and may be Rossmore in Queen’s County.

Other Brochans are mentioned in the Martyrology of Gorman under 1 January, 9 April, 27 June, and 25 August.

O’HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints (Dublin, 1892–1902), July Vol., 170; September Vol., 435–440; Acta SS. 17 September, Vol. V; CARRIGAN, History of the Diocese of Ossory (Dublin, 1905), II, 28 and 175; III, 334 and 441; IV, 174; ARCHDALL, Monasticon Hibernicum; FORBES in Dict. Christ. Biog., I, 339; cf. 314; DE SMEDT, Acta Sanctorum Hibern. ex Codice Salmanticensi, 505–540.

HERBERT THURSTON

Auguste-Théodore-Paul de Broglie

Abbé, professor of apologetics at the Institut Catholique at Paris, and writer on apologetic subjects, b. at Auteuil, 18 May, 1834; d. 11 May, 1895. He was the son of Achille-Victor, Duc de Broglie, and his wife, Albertine de Staël, a Protestant and the daughter of Madame de Staël. After the death of the mother, who died young, he was brought up by the Baroness Auguste de Staël, née Vernet; this aunt, although also a Protestant, exerted herself “to make a large-minded Christian of him in the Church to which she did not belong” (Monseigneur d’Hulst in “Le Correspondant,” 25 May, 1895). Entering the Navy young, Broglie was appointed Ensign in 1857 and soon after Lieutenant. While thus occupied he felt himself called to the ecclesiastical state. After taking the preparatory studies he was ordained priest, 18 October, 1870. In his numerous publications the Abbé de Broglie was always a faithful defender of Catholic dogma. At the time of his death, which resulted from the violence of an insane person, he was preparing a book on the agreement of reason and faith. His most important work is “L’histoire des religions.” Of his other writings, some of which were pamphlets and some articles in reviews, the following may be mentioned: “Le positivisme et la science expérimentale”; “Religion de Zoroastre et religion védique”; “Le bouddhisme”; “Religions neo-brahmaniques de l’Inde”; “L’islamisme”; “La vraie définition de la religion”; “La transcendence du christianisme”; L’histoire religieuse d’Israël”; “Les prophètes et les prophéties, d’après les travaux de Kuenen’; “L’idée de Dieu dans l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament”; “Le présent et l’avenir du catholicisme en France.” Two posthumous publications, “Questions bibliques” and “Religion et critique” were edited by the Abbé Piat.

PIAT, L’apologetique de l’abbe de Broglie (Paris, 1896).

CLODIUS PIAT.

Jacques-Victor-Albert, Duc de Broglie

French statesman and historian, b. at Paris, 13 June, 1821; d. there 19 January, 1901. After a brief diplomatic career he resigned his post to devote himself to literature. His work, “L’Eglise et l’Empire romain au IVe siècle” (6 vols., 1856), won for him Lacordaire’s seat in the French Academy (1862). In 1871 he was appointed ambassador to England, but was recalled in 1872 and, taking his seat in the Assembly, soon became the leading spirit of the opposition to the Republic and M. Thiers. Twice President of the Council (1873 and 1877), the Duke de Broglie was finally defeated in his own district and withdrew from public life.

Besides editing the “souvenirs” of his father (1886), the “Mémoires” of Talleyrand (1871), and the letters of the Duchesse Albertine de Broglie, he published a series of works on the diplomacy of Louis XV, which placed their author in the first rank of historians.

HANOTAUX, Contemporary France, tr. TARNER (New York, 1903–05); art. in Dublin Review (1874), Vol. XXIII; MEAUX, Souvenirs politiques in Le Correspondant (1903), 211; E. DAUDET, Souvenirs de la presidence du Marechal de MacMahon (Paris, 1880).

JEAN LE BARS

Maurice-Jean de Broglie

Born in Paris, 5 September, 1766; d. there, 20 June, 1821. He was the son of the Field-Marshal, Victor-Francois, Duc de Broglie, created, by Emperor Francis I, Prince of the Holy Roman Empire, a title which was to be hereditary in the family. Called to the ecclesiastical state, Maurice pursued his studies at St.-Sulpice. During the Reign of Terror, when persecution drove both his father and him out of France, they went to Berlin. King Frederick William received the duke with marked distinction and granted to the young prince a provostship in the cathedral chapter of Posen. Maurice returned to France in 1803, and the steps he took to recover some family property not yet sold, brought him to the attention of Napoleon, who invited him to his court and named him his almoner. Recognizing in the emperor the restorer and support of order and religion, de Broglie became a devoted follower of the monarch and eulogized him in a pastoral letter issued on the occasion of the victory of Austerlitz. In 1805 Napoleon nominated him to the See of Acqui, Italy, and in 1807 to Ghent, Belgium When it became evident, however, to de Broglie that the pope and clergy were to be mere tools of the despot, and religion the instrument of his ambitious designs, he showed determined opposition to Napoleon. In 1809 the minister of worship wrote in a letter that the sovereign was highly displeased with the bishop because of his lack of devotion to the royal person; in 1810 the bishop refused the Cross of the Legion of Honor, sent to him by the emperor, judging that he could not accept such a distinction at the time when the Papal States had been seized, and he explained his refusal in a memoir, a model of moderation, sent to the minister.

By order of Napoleon, a council was assembled in Paris, 17 June, 1811, under the presidency of Cardinal Fesch, uncle of the emperor and Archbishop of Lyons. The object of Napoleon was to oblige the pope to grant the Bulls of institution to the priests nominated by him to bishoprics; this Pius VII had firmly refused. Napoleon wished, furthermore, to make an arrangement that would force the pope in the future to issue the Bulls within six months, and should His Holiness fail to do so in that time, the metropolitan or the oldest bishop of the ecclesiastical province would then confirm the nominee, the sovereign pontiff’s silence being considered as assent. The fathers of the council solemnly assembled in the metropolitan church, there being present six cardinals, nine archbishops, and eighty bishops; this was the first and the last general session. After six preliminary particular sessions, a decree in compliance with the will of Napoleon was proposed to the bishops. At first only two, d’Aviau, Archbishop of Bordeaux, and de Broglie, Bishop of Ghent, rejected it; but subsequently, only four members were for the pure and simple acceptance of the decree. The pope had privately declared that such encroachments on his spiritual power were contrary to the laws of the Church and ecclesiastical discipline, destructive of the authority of the Holy See and of the principles on which depended the lawful mission of bishops.

The anger of Napoleon, provoked by such firm and general opposition, led him to prorogue the council and visit with severe punishments the bishops who had been most prominent in their opposition. Arrested on 12 July, 1811, de Broglie was cast into the dungeon at Vincennes and kept in close confinement for more than four months, without outside communication, and without books or writing materials. He was next sent as an exile to Beaune. On the mere suspicion that he had intercourse with his clergy, he was deported to the island of Ste.-Marguerite on the coast of Provence. De Broglie while in prison signed, under compulsion, his resignation as Bishop of Ghent. Although it was not accepted by the pope and was consequently null, Napoleon named a successor to the see. As the great majority, however, of the clergy and people refused to acknowledge him, they were subjected to vexations and persecution. The fall of Napoleon restored peace, and de Broglie, returning to his diocese, was received amid the rejoicings of his clergy and flock.

The bishop was not to enjoy a long rest. The allied sovereigns of Europe after the overthrow of Napoleon had formed Holland and Belgium, or the Low Countries, into a kingdom and appointed William of Nassau to rule over them. The plenipotentiaries of the powers, assembled in London, 1814, made the Dutch Constitution the fundamental law of Belgium, with a proviso that it should be modified according to circumstances. The generality of Belgians are Catholics. On 18 July, 1815, William proposed the Dutch Constitution to the Belgians, and the representatives summoned to vote upon it rejected it by 796 to 527. (See BELGIUM.) The king, disregarding the vote, imposed upon the Belgians a constitution that deprived the Catholics of all their rights. Joseph II by his petty persecutions had lost the Netherlands for Austria; Napoleon, following in the footsteps of the “emperor sexton,” lost them for France; William, his imitator, brought about the secession of Belgium from Holland and its independence in 1830. De Broglie with the Bishops of Namur and Tournai, and the Vicars-General of Mechlin and Liege took up the defence of the Catholic cause, and issued a pastoral instruction and, later on, a doctrinal judgment on the required oath to the Constitution.

De Broglie also appealed to Pius VII, and the pontiff, on 16 May, 1816, sent an official note to the minister of the Low Countries residing in Rome, stating that the Belgian Constitution contained statements contrary to the Catholic Faith, that the opposition of the bishops could not in justice be reproved, and that no oath opposed to conscience should be imposed. New difficulties then arose, first when the bishop refused to offer public prayers for the king, and again when at the erection of new universities, de Broglie addressed a representation to the king in which he pointed out the introduction of dangerous books into public institutions, and strongly expressed his fears for the fate of the episcopal seminaries. Cited before the tribunal, he took refuge in France, and the court of Brussels by a judgment, 8 November, 1817, condemned him to deportation. The sentence was posted by the public executioner between the sentences of two public malefactors. The bishop’s health broke down under the weight of so many severe trials; succumbing to a short illness, he died in Paris, venerated by all for his sterling qualities and austerity of life. In 1819, de Broglie printed a protest concerning the state of religious affairs in Belgium, which was addressed to the Emperors of Austria and Russia and to the King of Prussia.

ROHRBACHER, Histoire universelle de l’eglise catholique (Paris, 1874); LAROUSSE, Dictionnaire universel du XIXe siecle (Paris, 1867); DE FELLER, Biographie universelle (Paris, 1847).

F. M. L. DUMONT.

Jean-Allarmet de Brogny

(Or JEAN-ALOUZIER).

A French Cardinal, b. in 1342 at Brogny, in Savoy; d. at Rome, 1426. Biographers are not agreed as to his parentage and real name. According to some, he belonged to a peasant family of Broguy, called Allarmet; others say he was descended from the d’Alouzier, a noble house in Comtat-Venaissin. It is certain, however, that the future cardinal was a swineherd, when two monks, struck by his open disposition and thoughtful answers, took him with them to Geneva, and procured for him an education which was completed at the University of Avignon. Despite the friendship and the inducement of Marcossay, Bishop of Geneva, young Allarmet retired to the Chartreuse of Dijon, where his merits soon became widely known. When Robert of Geneva was elected pope by the faction hostile to Urban VI, Allarmet joined him at Avignon, either having been sent by the Duke of Burgundy or called by Robert himself.

At Avignon favors were bestowed upon him in quick succession by the so-called Clement VII; the Bishopric of Viviers, in 1380, the dignity of Cardinal, in 1385, and shortly after, the exalted office of Chancellor of the Holy See. Robert’s successor, Peter of Luna, who called himself Benedict XIII, sanctioned all these preferments and even promoted Allarmet from Viviers to Ostia-Velletri, one of the suburbican dioceses. There is no doubt that at that time Cardinal de Brogny, like St. Peter of Luxemburg and St. Vincent Ferrer, considered the French obedience as legitimate. However, his thorough orthodoxy soon caused him to change his views. As early as 1398 he had left Avignon as a silent protest against the unapostolic spirit of that court. The elusive tactics of Gregory XII and Benedict XIII were met by him with more than a silent protest. He inaugurated the neutral party and brought about the Council of Pisa which resulted in the election of Alexander V (1409).

The new pope confirmed de Brogny in his double dignity of Bishop of Ostia and Chancellor of the Church. In the latter capacity he presided over Alexander’s funeral and also over the concIave which elected John XXIII (1410). John held de Brogny in the highest esteem. The Metropolitan See of Arles having become vacant, he disregarded the candidate elected by the Arlesian chapter and appointed Cardinal de Brogny perpetual administrator of that see. This appointment was intended as a means of recovering the rights of the Church of Arles usurped by the Counts of Provence during the confusion consequent on the schism. The new metropolitan did not disappoint his patron. With the might of right he fought the usurpers till the last claim of the venerable see was secured. Cardinal de Brogny then left his diocese in care of the two Fabri and proceeded on a still more delicate mission. Owing to the obstinacy of the contestants, the Council of Pisa had really left the Church with three popes instead of one. Moreover, to the evils of schism John Hus was adding that of heresy. The Council of Constance was convened to meet this double difficulty, and after the withdrawal of John XXIII, de Brogny, in virtue of his title of Chancellor, presided over the sessions of the Council and evinced sterling qualities.

In behalf of unity, he did not hesitate to vote for the deposition of the three popes, two of whom had been his personal friends. No doubt he could have secured the election for himself, had he so desired; but he threw the weight of his influence in favor of Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. If John Hus remained contumacious and was condemned, it was not de Brogny’s fault. The Protestant Senebier writes in his “Histoire litteraire de Geneve”: “In the letters of John Hus we find a conversation with the prelate [de Brogny] who endeavored to conquer him by such arguments as compassion, meekness, and Christian charity suggested “.

In his old age de Brogny asked to be translated from Ostia to Geneva, but only his remains reached the beloved place of his youth; they were laid to rest in the chapel of the Machabees which had been added to the old cathedral by the cardinal himself. De Brogny is variously known in history as Cardinal of Viviers, Cardinal of Ostia, sometimes Cardinal of Arles, and Cardinal de Saluces. He founded the Dominican convents of Tivoli and Annecy; the maladrerie or lepers’ hospital, of Brogny; part of the Celestines’ monastery of Avignon; and, above all the College of St. Nicholas, affiliated to the University of Avignon, and endowed with twenty scholarships for destitute students. Soulavie, president of St. Nicholas College, published (Paris, 1774) a “Histoire de Jean d’Alouzier de Brogny” of which only fifty copies were printed.

FISQUET, La France pontificale, metropole d’Aix (Paris, 1867); MIGNE, Dict. des cardineaux (Paris, 1857).

J.H. SOLLIER

John Bromyard

Theologian, d. about 1390. He takes his name from his birthplace in Herefordshire, England. He entered the Dominican order and was sent to Oxford where he distinguished himself in theology and jurisprudence. It is probable that he lectured on theology at Oxford while it is certain that he laboured in the same Faculty at Cambridge. He was one of the most pronounced opponents of the doctrines of Wyclif. Though his name is not mentioned in the acts of the London Synod of 1382 held by William de Courtenay, Archbishop of Canterbury, where the doctrines of Wyclif were condemned as heretical, it is admitted by all that he took a leading part in drawing up the decree of condemnation. He was also a much-prized writer as the many editions of his “Summa Praedicantium” attest. Excerpts were made from this work and published separately as brochures and widely circulated among the people. In his “Opus Trivium” he arranges for the convenience of preachers various topics drawn from theology, civil and canon laws. This work was later on edited by Philip Bromyard, and hence some maintain, but without reason, that he was the real author.

Quetif and Echard, SS. O. P., I, 700; Leland, Commentarium de Scriptoribus Britannicis, 356; Schulte, Geschichte der Quellen und Litteratur des canonischen Rechts, II, 880, 561; Miller in Dict. Nat. Biog., VI, 405.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

John Baptist Brondel

First Bishop of Helena, Montana, U.S.A., b. at Bruges, Belgium, 23 February, 1842; d. at Helena, 3 November 1903. He was educated at the American College of the University of Louvain and ordained priest at Mechlin, Belgium, by Cardinal Engelbert Stercks (17 December, 1864). Two years later he volunteered for the missions in the United States and was made rector of the church at Heilacoon, Washington Territory, early in 1867. Here he remained for nearly ten years and was then transferred to Walla Walla, but returned to his old charge the following year.

On 14 December, 1879, he was consecrated at Victoria, as third Bishop of Vancouver, British Columbia, in succession to Bishop Seghers, who had been made coadjutor to the Archbishop of Oregon City. Bishop Brondel retained this charge until by a Bull of 7 April, 1883, he was appointed Administrator of the Vicariate of Montana, When the Diocese of Helena was formed he was transferred to that see, 7 March, 1884, as its first bishop. During all his long and active career in this northwest section, he was particularly successful in his dealings with the many Indians under his charge. They looked up to him as a father and protector, and his great popularity among the various tribes was not only of benefit to the Church, but was utilized on numerous occasions by the United States Government to further the political, material, and moral welfare of the Indians. His death was regarded as a great loss to the work of the evangelization and civilization of the Indians. He was buried 7 November, 1903, in a vault under the catherdral in Helena.

Catholic News files (New York, Nov., 1903); REUSS, Biog. Encycl. Cath. Hierarchy (Milwaukee, 1898); Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, 1904).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Anthony Brookby

(Or Brorbey).

Friar Minor and English martyr, died 19 July 1537. Brookby was lecturer in divinity in Magdalen College, Oxford was well versed in Greek and Hebrew, and enjoyed the reputation of being an eloquent preacher. At the command of King Henry VIII who took offense at a sermon of Brookby’s in which he attacked the king’s actions and mode of living, he was apprehended, put to the rack, and tortured in the most cruel manner in order to make him retract what he had said but all to no purpose. Having been rendered wellnigh helpless as a result of his tortures, Brookby was charitably cared for by a pious woman for a fortnight until, by the command of the king, an executioner strangled him to death with the Franciscan cord which he wore around his waist.

STONE, Faithful unto Death (London, 1892), iv, 76; PARKINSON, Coll. Anglo-Minor. (London, 1726), 239; THADDEUS, The Franciscans in England (London, 1898), III, 17; DANIELLE, Martirio e Morte d’alcuni Frati di San Francesco, III, 16.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

James Brookes

Last Catholic Bishop of Gloucester, England, b. May, 1512, in Hampshire, d. 1560. Proceeding to Oxford in 1528, he became Fellow of Corpus Christi in 1531, Doctor of Divinity, 1546, and Master of Balliol, 1547. Brookes was widely known as an eloquent preacher, and, on the deposition of Bishop Hooper, was elevated by Queen Mary to the See of Gloucester. He was consecrated 1 April, 1554. In 1555 he was one of the papal sub-delegates in the royal commission for the trial of Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley. He refused to degrade Ridley, probably on the ground that Ridley’s consecration (1547) had been according to the invalid form which was established by law very soon after that date. If, as Foxe asserts, he refused to degrade Latimer, his position may have been based upon the fact that Latimer had lived for several years as a simple clergyman. It is hardly possible that Brookes, a man of learning and integrity, would have been actuated in this trial by the selfish considerations hinted at by some Protestant historians. After the accession of Elizabeth he refused to take the oath of supremacy, and died in prison. He was buried in Gloucester Cathedral. Two of his orations in the Cranmer case are given in Foxe, “Acts and Monuments.” One of his sermons was printed by Robert Coly, or Caly, in 1553 and 1554.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.; DODD-TIERNEY, Church History of England (London, 1846); LINGARD, History of England; STONE, Reign of Queen Mary (London, 1901); POLLARD, Thomas Cranmer (1903); PHILLIPS, The Extinction of the Ancient Hierarchy (London, 1905).

J. VINCENT CROWNE.

Diocese of Brooklyn

Comprises the counties of Kings, Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk, or all of Long Island, in the State of New York, U.S.A., an area of 1,007 square miles. The population of Long Island is about 2,000,000, according to the State census of 1905, and of this, 600,000 are Catholics. The Catholics are mostly of Irish, German, and Italian birth or race, but as a matter of fact, in this island see there is now every week a perpetual Pentecost, for the Gospel is preached to the faithful in twelve languages. Polish, French, Italian, German, Slav, Syrian, Greek, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Scandinavian, Bohemian, as well as English speaking Catholics, have special ministrations for their respective nationalities.

Long Island was known to the early Spanish explorer Gomez and to Gordillo, a lieutenant of Vasquez de Ay116n, who in 1524–25 reached this latitude and on the 29th of June noted this island which they named “Isle de los Apostoles” (Island of the Apostles) in honor of the feast day of the Apostles Peter and Paul. It is so styled in the Spanish maps of Ribero, made in 1529. Settled later under the auspices of the Dutch West India Company (1636), there is scarcely a trace of Catholicism to be found during the period of the sway of that corporation. It would be strange indeed were Catholics attracted to a community that refused to enclose their cemeteries because such were “relics of superstitious observances,” or to erect tombstones because in doing so they might give the “appearance of according to the ceremonies and requirements of Prelacy and Papacy.” In April, 1657 there is record made of the fining of one “Nicholas the Frenchman” in the sum of twelve guilders, or $4.80 because, as the sheriff’s report has it, on the “frivolous excuse” that he was a Catholic, Nicholas refused to pay his share of the tax levied for the salary of the Dutch Reformed minister who preached for the colony then located within the present limits of the Borough of Brooklyn. In addition to the Dutch there were a number of Walloons and Huguenots settled in this locality. Some of the unfortunate Acadian exiles were scattered through Long Island during 1756; and on the muster-rolls of the militia from the same section serving in the army of Sir William Johnson, in 1775, we find such names as Reilly, Shea, Burke, Power, Welsh, Doolly, Barry, Sullivan, Cassidy, Lynch, Ryan, Larkin, Moloney, Fagan, Blake, Donnelly, Shields, Kinsella, and Downey. There are no records to show what became of them or their children. But an occasional curiously twisted patronymic among the old non-Catholic families of the interior districts of the island gives a clue to the reason of this. We have no positive evidence that any considerable body of Catholics became a component part of Brooklyn’s local life till after the dawn of the nineteenth century and especially after the location there of the Navy Yard in 1801.

This government station at once gave employment to many mechanics in the various trades connected with the ship-building industry, and soon a number of Irish immigrants, mostly from the Catholic sections of the North, especially from Derry and Donegal, sturdy confessors of the faith in their native land, settled in Brooklyn. Among these were the parents of the first American cardinal, John McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, and of his namesake, the first Rector of the American College at Rome, William George McCloskey, afterwards Bishop of Louisville, Kentucky. Until 1822 these Catholics had to cross the East River to New York to hear Mass and attend to their spiritual necessities, as the scarcity of priests and their own poverty brought about this inconvenient situation. Occasionally a priest would go over from New York to say Mass and preach in private houses, or wherever suitable accommodation could be obtained. The pioneer in this was the Augustinian missionary Father Philip Larissy, who said the first Mass in the house of William Purcell, at the north-east corner of York and Gold Streets, on a date now unknown. The little colony, constantly growing in numbers and influence, desired a church of its own, and hence a meeting was held on the 7th of January, 1822, at the house of William Purcell, at which a committee of five was named to wait on Bishop Connolly of New York and ask his advice and consent for the organization of a congregation. It is notable that in the circular calling this meeting the reasons stated are: “In the first place we want our children instructed in the principles of our holy religion; we want more convenience of hearing the word of God ourselves. In fact, we want a church, a pastor, and a place for interment.” Those prominent in the pioneer work of the congregation were Peter Turner, George S. Wise, then a purser in the United States navy, William Purcell, John Kenney, Nicholas Stafford, Denis Cosgrove, Jeremiah Mahoney, James Rose, George McCloskey, James and Patrick Freel, Dr. Andrew B. Cook, also of the United States navy, James Furey, Thomas Young, Hugh and James McLaughlin, Andrew Parmentier, James Harper, Quintin M. Sullivan, and Daniel Dempsey.

As a result of this meeting eight lots were purchased on Jay Street, and St. James’s, the first Catholic church on Long Island was built and dedicated to Divine worship by Bishop Connolly, 28 August, 1823. The lots about the church were used as a graveyard until 1849, when Holy Cross Cemetery, Flatbush, was opened. The original church building stood until 1903, when its walls were enclosed in a new structure built on the same site for a pro-cathedral. The Reverend Dr. John Power of St. Peter’s New York, was the early and stanch friend of the new congregation. He used to cross the river frequently to minister to them. Other priests of the pioneer days were the Reverends Patrick Bulger, James McKenna, and James Doherty; the last two died in the service of the parish, and were buried in front of the church. The first regular pastor was the Reverend John Farnan, who was appointed in April 1825. The second church in Brooklyn, St. Paul’s dedicated 21 January, 1838, was built on land given by Cornelius Heeney. He first offered the site for a seminary, but could not agree with Bishop Dubois as to the manner in which the title should be held, the old and troublesome idea of lay trusteeship proving an obstacle. It is notable that although the organization of the first congregation in Brooklyn was due mainly to lay effort there was never any of the subsequent difficulty over trustee authority and rights that made so much scandal elsewhere during this era. The Reverend Nicholas O’Donnell, O.S.A. (1840–7); was the second pastor of St. Paul’s, and after him the Reverend Joseph Schneller, until his death in 1860, had charge there. Father Schneller was one of the most active priests in the New York controversies of the early years of the nineteenth century. His name, with those of the Reverend Dr. Power, Fathers Felix Varela and Thomas C. Levins, is to be found in most of the bitter public contests waged with non-Catholic assailants of the Church. He helped to found and edited for some time the “New York Weekly Register and Catholic Diary,” established in 1833. Cornelius Heeney did not limit his generosity to the site for St. Paul’s Church and the Girls’ Industrial School that adjoins it. During his life his income was mainly devoted to charity and 10 May, 1845, three years before his death, he had his estate legally incorporated as the Brooklyn Benevolent Society, and its officials directed to expend its yearly income for the benefit of the poor and orphans. This amounts now to about $25,000 annually, and the total expended by this charity since Mr. Heeney’s death is more than a million dollars.

In 1841 another famous priest, the Very Reverend John Raffeiner, a native of the Austrian Tyrol, bought with his own money property on which was erected the church of the Most Holy Trinity and began there to minister to a colony of German Catholics. His efforts in this direction were extended to similar congregations in New York, Boston, and New Jersey. He labored thus for more than twenty years and held the office of vicar-general when he died, in 1861. St. Charles Borromeo’s parish was founded in 1849 by the Reverend Dr. Charles Constantine Pise, also one of the strong writers and publicists of that time. Before going to Brooklyn he had been stationed at St. Peter’s, New York, and previous to that, in 1832, while officiating in Washington, he was, on motion of Senator Henry Clay, appointed Chaplain to the Congress of the United States and served during a session, the only instance on record of such an honor being given to a Catholic. Other priests whose earnest work in its formative period contributed to the building up of the Church in Long Island were the Reverends John Walsh, James McDonough, Richard Waters, James O’Donnell, David W. Bacon, afterwards the first Bishop of Portland, Maine, the Reverends Michael Curran, William Keegan, for many years Vicar-General of the diocese, and his associate in that office, the Right Reverend Mgr. Michael May, the Reverends Nicholas Balleis, O.S.B., Eugene Cassidy, Sylvester Malone, Peter McLoughlin, John Shanahan, Edward Corcoran, Hugh McGuire, Jeremiah Crowley, James McEnroe, Joseph Fransioli, Martin Carroll, T. O’Farrell, Anthony Arnold, John McCarthy, James O’Beirne, Joseph Brunneman, Anthony Farley, John McKenna, Patrick O’Neil, and James H. Mitchell. Father Mitchell was much interested in the work of societies for young men, and his administration as head of the national organization was specially successful.

When, in July, 1841, Father Raffeiner began the great German parish of the Most Holy Trinity on a part of the farm of the old Dutch Meserole family, this was known as the Bushwick section of the then town of Williamsburg, which was subsequently annexed to Brooklyn. The first German Catholic Church in the city of Brooklyn was the quaint little St. Francis’-in-the-Fields, which Father Raffeiner opened in 1850, at Putnam and Bedford avenues. Its title indicates its rural environment, and Father Maurus Ramsauer, a Benedictine just arrived from Germany, was made its first pastor. In 1855, under Father Bonaventure Keller, the original design of Father Raffeiner was carried out, and a sort of preparatory seminary for German ecclesiastical students was begun and lasted there for two years. When Father Raffeiner died, in 1861, he left St. Francis,’ which was still surrounded by a garden, for the benefit of the orphans of the Holy Trinity parish. The little church was then closed, owing to changes in the neighborhood, and was not reopened until 1866, when the Rev. Nicholas Balleis, a Benedictine took charge and remained there until his death 13 December, 1891. The old building was again closed and remained so until the property was purchased by the Sisters of the Precious Blood in 1892, when the structure was torn down, and the convent of that order built on the site.

Peter Turner (d. 31 December, 1863), who was the leader in organizing Brooklyn’s pioneer parish, lived to see his son John ordained a priest, pastor of St. James’s Church and first Vicar-General of the Diocese of Brooklyn. In 1895 the Brooklyn Catholic Historical Society, regarding Peter Turner as the typical layman of the pioneer period, erected a handsome bronze portrait bust as a memorial to him in St. James’s churchyard. The inscription on the pedestal says: “To the memory of Peter Turner, who on January 1, 1822, organized his seventy fellow Catholics for the purchase of this ground on which the first Catholic Church of Long Island was erected. Thousands of Catholic children have helped to erect this monument as a grateful tribute to the man who made Catholic education the first reason for the establishment of a church in Brooklyn.” Cardinal McCloskey’s early years were spent in Brooklyn, where he attended his first school, which was taught by a retired English actress, Mrs. Charlotte Melmoth, a convert, who was a popular stage favorite in London and New York during the last years of the eighteenth century. Cornelius Heeney was also his patron and guardian after the family moved across the river to New York in 1820. Mr. Heeney’s fortune was amassed as a fur-dealer, and for some time he was a partner in this business with John Jacob Astor.

BISHOPS OF THE SEE

(1) The Right Reverend John Loughlin, consecrated 30 October, 1853. He was born in the County Down, Ireland, 20 December 1817. As a boy of six he emigrated with his parents to the United States and settled in Albany, New York. His early school days were spent with the distinguished classical scholar, Dr. Peter Bullions, at the Albany Academy, and when fourteen he was sent to the college at Chambly, near Montreal, Canada, where he remained three years. He then entered Mount St. Mary’s Seminary at Emmitsburg, Maryland, and after the usual theological course was ordained for the Diocese of New York, 18 October, 1840. His first assignment was on the mission at Utica and from there he was called to be an assistant to Bishop Hughes at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York City. In 1850 the bishop made him his vicar-general and when the new Diocese of Brooklyn was formed he was consecrated its first bishop, 30 October, 1853, the officiating prelate being Archbishop Cajetan Bedini, a pro-nuncio on his way back to Rome from a diplomatic mission to Brazil. There were then but twelve churches on all Long Island and about 15,000 Catholics. During the thirty-eight years Bishop Loughlin ruled the see he built 125 churches and chapels, 93 schools, 2 colleges, 19 select schools and academies, 10 orphan asylums, 5 hospitals, 2 homes for the aged, a home for destitute boys, and the diocesan seminary. In the same time the Catholic population increased to nearly 400,000. Bishop Loughlin led a life of unostentatious routine, entirely devoted to his ecclesiastical duties. The only time he is recorded as having identified himself with any civic movement was in April, 1861, when he wrote a letter of sympathy and approval to the great mass-meeting of citizens that committed Brooklyn to the cause of the Union. In October 1, 1890, the golden jubilee of his ordination was celebrated by a three days’ festival in which the whole city joined. He assisted at each of the Plenary Councils of Baltimore and visited Rome four times, once to be present at the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. He was then made an assistant at the Papal throne. He died at his residence in Brooklyn 29 December, 1891. That one man should have founded a diocese and in the course of his administration brought it to a position of such pronounced influence and efficiency, is one of the most remarkable facts in the history of the Church’s progress in the United States.

The Sisters of Charity were the first religious to establish themselves in Brooklyn (1834), and they were followed by the Christian Brothers in 1851 and the Sisters of St. Dominic in 1852. To these Bishop Loughlin added the Sisters of the Visitation and the Sisters of Mercy in 1855; the Sisters of St. Joseph 1856; the Franciscan Brothers, 1858; the Sisters of the Poor of St. Francis, 1866; the Congregation of the Mission, and the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, 1868; the Little Sisters of the Poor their first foundation in the United States 1869; the Fathers of Mercy 1871; the Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Mary, 1877; the Fathers of the Pious Society of Missions, 1884; and the Sisters of the Precious Blood, 1889.

Bishop Loughlin began the construction of a new cathedral of large dimensions in 1868, the work on which he carried on up to the first story and then stopped to give his attention to the promotion of the charitable institutions of the diocese. The chapel of St. John, at one end of the proposed Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, was all that was ever finished and used; the extensive foundation walls of the main building remain in their incomplete state. The Catholic Benevolent Legion, a fraternal insurance association, was organized during Bishop Loughlin’s life, September, 1881, and he was its first spiritual director. The St. Vincent de Paul Society received from him special encouragement (1855) and the formation of the third Particular Council in the United States was a result.

(2) The Right Reverend Charles Edward McDonnell, consecrated 25 April, 1892. Born in New York City, 1 February, 1854, his early education was received in the parochial schools and the De La Salle Academy. In 1868 he entered St. Francis Xavier’s College, where he remained until he left, in 1872, to study for the priesthood at the American College, Rome. He was ordained in Rome, 19 May, 1878, and subsequently received the degree of Doctor of Divinity. Returning to New York, he was, after five years spent in parish work, made Secretary to Cardinal McCloskey. After the cardinal’s death, Archbishop Corrigan left him in this position and appointed him chancellor as well. He was also made a private chamberlain by the pope, and was serving in these offices when Bishop Loughlin died. Named by the pope to succeed him, Mgr. McDonnell was consecrated the second Bishop of Brooklyn in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York, 25 April, 1892, and took possession of his see on the 2d of May. The new bishop, finding the material interests of the diocese so well administered by his predecessor, continued the good work thus begun and developed it also along its spiritual lines. The increase in population and the changes in the country districts necessitated the starting of many new parishes and the inception of new means and methods of meeting the polyglot needs of the representatives of the various nationalities that had settled in the diocese. For this Bishop McDonnell adopted the policy of securing members of some order for each of the races and languages in his jurisdiction. At his invitation foundations were made by the Redemptorists in 1892; the Benedictines, 1896; the Franciscans (Minor Conventuals), 1896; the Capuchins, 1897; the Fathers of the Congregation of Mary 1903; the Franciscans (Italian), 1906; the Jesuits, 1907; the Sisters of the Holy Family of Nazareth, 1892; the Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart 1892; the Daughters of Wisdom, 1904; the Sisters of the Infant Jesus (nursing Sisters of the Sick Poor) 1906. Up to 1907 Bishop McDonnell had started and dedicated fifty new parishes and churches. He presided over the Third Diocesan Synod in December, 1894, at which the full number of canonical diocesan officials were for the first time selected; and over the Fourth Synod, held in 1898. A unique spiritual event was a simultaneous mission under his inspiration held throughout the diocese to mark the close of the nineteenth century. He led three diocesan pilgrimages to Rome, the first for the General Jubilee of 1900; the second for the Silver Jubilee of Pope Leo XIII in 1902; and the third for the Jubilee of the Immaculate Conception in 1904. To the institutions of the diocese Bishop McDonnell added two hospitals and largely increased the capacity of one of those already established; the Ozanam Home for Friendless Women; the new St. Vincent’s Home for Friendless Boys; two seaside recreation places for children and a trade school farm for orphans.

NOTABLE BENEFACTORS AND WORKERS

Some of those distinguished for their zeal for religion and generosity to the Church in addition to those already mentioned have been: Judge Alexander McCue, Charles A. Hoyt, E. Louis Lowe (formerly Governor of Maryland), Hugh McLaughlin, Patrick C. Keeley (architect of many Catholic churches in various parts of the country, who began his career here), James A. McMaster, for many years editor of “The Freeman’s Journal,” Patrick Vincent Hickey, editor of the “Catholic Review,” Laurence Kehoe, Manager of the Catholic Publication Society, John George Gottsberger, John Campbell, Andrew Dougherty, Kieran Egan, John O’Mahony, John D Kieley, Jr., Jacob Zimmer, William W. Swayne, James Rorke, Edward Rorke, William H. Murtha, Anton Shirnmel. Thomas Carroll, Joseph W. Carroll, John Loughran, Dr. Dominick G. Bodkin, John Good, Peter McGoldrick, M. F. McGoldrick, Thomas W. Hynes, William R. Grace, William Bourke Cockran, Morgan J. O’Brien, Mrs. Grace Masury, Mrs. A. E. Walsh, Charles O’Conor Sloane, James McMahon, Bernard Earl, Michael Hennessy, Joseph Eppig, Edward Feeney, and Dr. John Byrne.

STATISTICS

Diocesan priests 308; priests of religious orders 54; total 362. Churches with resident priests 162, missions 10, stations 11, chapels 13; seminary 1, with 60 students; colleges 3, with 570 students; academies and select schools for young women 15, with 1017 pupils; parishes with schools 68, pupils enrolled 41,750; orphan asylums 11, inmates 3691; infant asylums 4, inmates 455, industrial sch0011, pupils 143; young people under Catholic care 40,040; hospitals 6, treating more than 18,000 patients yearly; homes for aged 3, inmates 540, Catholic population estimated 600,000.

MITCHELL, Golden Jubilee of Bishop Laughlin (Brooklyn, 1891); STILES, History of Brooklyn (Brooklyn, 1867, 1870); The Eagle and Brooklyn, 1893); U. S. Catholic Hist. Soc. Hist. Records (New York, 1900), II, pt. I; SHEA, Hist. Cath.Ch. in U. S. (New York, 1894); MULRENAN, A Brief Hist. Sketch of the Cath. Ch. on Long Island (New York, 1871); O’CALLAGHAN, History of New Netherlands (New York, 1846–1848); Long Island Star files, (Brooklyn, 1822, 1823, 1825).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Jean-Baptiste de la Brosse

A Jesuit missionary, born 1724 at Magnac, Angoumois, France; died 1782. He studied classics at the Jesuit College of St. Louis at Angoulême, and entered the novitiate of the society at Bordeaux, in 1740. After a full course of philosophy and theology in the latter city, he was ordained in 1753 and sent to Canada the following year. He first laboured on the Abenaki mission, held different positions in the College of Quebec, and finally succeeded, in the Montagnais mission, Father Coquart, who died in 1765 at Chicoutimi. De la Brosse was the twenty-first of his order to fill that post. Fixing his headquarters at Tadousac, at the mouth of the Saguenay, a rendezvous for the Montagnais and for the traders of the lower St. Lawrence, his apostolate radiated from that point along the Labrador coast, to the French settlements on the south shore of the great river, to the Micmacs of Restigouche, and as far east as Isle Saint-Jean (Prince Edward Island). Besides Christian doctrine, he taught the Montagnais reading, writing, and plainsong, creating and developing in their souls the taste for elementary instruction which is to be found to this day in each family of the tribe. The zealous and practical missionary had 3000 copies of the Montagnais alphabet, and 2000 copies of a catechism and prayer book in the same tongue printed at Quebec in 1767.

The latter is one of the first books issued from the press in Canada. It bears the author’s name in Montagnais (Tshitstiisahigan), which signifies a broom or brush, in allusion to his family name. He also compiled a dictionary in the same language being moreover familiar with the Abenaki and Micmac dialects. His inland mission-field embraced all the region watered by the Saguenay and Lake St. John. He braved the stubborn ferocity of the Naskapi Indians, who had so far resisted every attempt to convert them. A forest fire, whose ravages he is said to have miraculously stopped, was the occasion of their consenting to hear the Gospel. Father de la Brosse left a reputation of holiness which still endures. His remains lie in the old mission-chapel of Tadousac.

ROY, Voyage au pays de Tadousac (Quebec, 1889); ROCHEMONTEIX, Les Jésuites et la Nouvelle-France au xviiie siècle (Paris, 1906).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Brothers Hospitallers of St. John of God

St. John of God, the founder of this religious institution, was born 8 March, 1495, at Montemor Novo, in Portugal. In his fortieth year he was drawn strongly to God’s service and began a wonderful life of prayer, penance, and charity towards his neighbour. Pressed by the love of God, and of Christ’s suffering members, he founded his first hospital at Granada in Spain, where he tenderly served the sick and afflicted. It is related in his life that one day the Lord appeared to him and told him that He was much pleased with his work, and for that reason He wished him to be called John of God. After ten years spent in the exercise of heroic charity, he died 8 March, 1550. He was canonized by Pope Alexander VIII in 1690; and was declared heavenly patron of the dying and of all the hospitals by Pope Leo XIII, in 1898.

The charity of St. John of God was destined to be perpetuated among his brethren, whom he had formed by his lessons and example. His first companion Antoni Martin was chosen to succeed him as superior of the order. Thanks to the generosity of King Philip II, a hospital was founded at Madrid, another at Cordova, and several others in various Spanish towns. St. Pius V approved the Order of the Brothers Hospitallers in 1572 under the rule of St. Augustine. The order spread rapidly into the other countries of Europe, and even into the distant colonies. In 1584 Pope Gregory XIII called some of the Brothers to Rome and gave them the Hospital of St. John Calybita, which then became the mother-house of the whole order: Brother Pietro Soriano was appointed first superior. Brother Sebastiano Arias founded the hospital of Our Lady at Naples and the famous hospital of Milan. At that time a holy servant of God and of the poor joined the brotherhood and shed great lustre upon the order by his burning charity and profound humility: Blessed John Grande, who was beatified by Pius IX in 1852.

The first hospital of the order in France was founded in Paris, in 1601, by Queen Marie de’ Medici. In the stormy days of the French Revolution the Brothers were expelled from the forty hospitals where they were caring for 4125 patients. But since then some large new hospitals have been established. The order is governed by a prior general, who resides in Rome; it is now divided into eleven provinces, with 102 hospitals, 1536 Brothers, and 12,978 beds, distributed as in the following table:

Province

Number of Hospitals

Locations

Number of Beds

Number of Religious

Rome

13

Rome, Perugia, Velletri, Corneto, Florence, Rieti, Tivoli, Jesi, Narni, Amelia, Frascati.

1,100

132

Milan

8

Milan, Brescia, Venice, Padua, Marano.

996

60

Naples

3

Naples, Taranto, Fogia.

318

9

France

11

Paris, Lyons, Marseilles, Dinan, Lille, Cannes, Croisic.

3,540

350

Austria

15

Feldsberg, Vienna, Prague, Göritz, Texhen, Prossnitz, Kukus, Brünn, Lettowitz, Husseldorf, Lintz, Wisowitz, Zebrzidowitz, Cracow, Neustadt.

1,070

221

Styria

5

Graz, Algersdorf, St. Vitus, St. Remo.

458

81

Hungary

13

Pressburg, Erlau, Szepes, Ternesvar, Papa, Einsenstadt, Grosswardein, Waes, Pecs, Szakoles, Agram, Buda, Szathmar.

1,152

197

Bavaria

13

Neuburg, Straubing, Kaisheim, Schweinspeint, Heilbronn, Algasing, Burglengensfeld, Attel.

1,645

213

Prussia

7

Breslau, Neustadt, Pilchowitz, Frankenstein, Stemen, Bugutschuctz.

699

125

Spain

14

Madrid, Seville, Manila, Barcelona, and other places.

2,000

248

Total

102

12,978

1,536

In addition to these a hospice of the order has been established at Nazareth. In 1882 a home for demented patients (male) was founded at Stillorgan near Dublin, Ireland. The house at Scorton, near Darlington, Yorkshire, was founded in 1880 for the reception of male patients suffering from chronic infirmities, paralysis, or old age. It is supported by charitable contributions and payments for inmates. It is pleasantly situated in a very healthy country district.

The Brothers undergo a special course of training in order to fit them for carrying out their various works of charity, to which they devote their life. In some provinces some of them are even graduates in medicine, surgery, and chemistry. The members are not in Holy orders, but priests wishing to devote their sacred ministry to the Brothers and patients are received. After the example of their founder, they seek their own sanctification and their patients’ spiritual and corporal welfare. To the three solemn vows of religion they add a fourth, of serving the sick for life in their hospitals. They also perform the usual duties and pious exercises of the religious life. They assist daily at Holy Mass, meditation, the recital in choir of the office of Our Lady, and spiritual reading. Young men of good disposition, sound health and possessing aptitude for the order, and resolved to serve God generously in the religious life are received from the age of fifteen to thirty-five. The religious habit is usually given to postulants after three months. The time of novitiate is two years, after which the novice pronounces the vows which, although simple, are perpetual. Three years later, he can be admitted to solemn profession.

LOUIS GAUDET

Richard Broughton

(alias Rouse)

Born about 1558 at Great Stukeley, Huntingdonshire; died according to a Wood, 15 Kal. Feb. (i.e. 18 January, 1634); Catholic priest and antiquary, claiming descent form the Broughtons of Lancashire. He was ordained at Reims, 4 May, 1593, and soon after returned to England. John Pitts, a contemporary, says that he “gathered a most abundant harvest of souls into the granary of Christ” and eulogizes his attainments in being “no less familiar with literature than learned in Greek and Hebrew.” Broughton became an assistant to the archpriest, a canon of the chapter, and vicar-general to Bishop Smith of Chalcedon. He also claims recognition for his influence on the study of antiquity; having earned, partly by his positive work and partly through controversy, the right to honourable mention with Spelman, Reyner, Dugdale, and other well-known antiquarians.

Broughton’s chief works are: (1) “An Apologicall Epistle, serving as preface to a Resolution of Religion,” signed R. B. Antwerp, 1601); (2) “The first part of the Resolution of Religion By R. B.” (Antwerp, 1603), often mistaken for Persons’ “Resolution”; (3) “A New Manuall of old Christian Catholick Meditations” (1617), dedicated to Anne of Denmark; (4) “The Judgment of the Apostles” (Douai, 1632), dedicated to Queen Henrietta Maria and directed against Rogers on the Thirty-nine Articles; (5) “Ecclesiasticall Historie of Great Britaine” (Douai, 1633), dedicated to the Duchess of Buckingham and the Countess of Rutland; (6) “A True Memorial” (London, 1650), published by G. S. P(riest) after Broughton’s death. The 1654 edition is entitled “Monasticon Britannicum.” (7) Broughton also wrote on the antiquity of the world Sterlingorum (Hearne, II, 318, 381); (8) on the alleged conversion (1621) of John King, Bishop of London; and (9) “A Relation of the Martyrdom of Nicholas Garlick.”

Wood, Fasti, ed. Bliss (London, 1815), I, 428; Dodd, Church History, ed. Tierney (Brussels, 1742), III, 87; Pitts, De Rebus Anglicis, 815; Foley, Records (London, 1880), VI, 181; Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1871), I, 657; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885), I, 318; Groves in Dict. Nat. Biog., VI, 462.

PATRICK RYAN

Christoph Brouwer

(Browerius).

A historian, born 12 March, 1559, at Arnheim, Holland; died in 1617, at Trier, Germany. In 1580 he entered the Society of Jesus, and after a thorough humanistic training, devoted himself especially to the study of church history. His attainment in other branches of learning are shown by his appointment as professor of philosophy at Trier; later he was appointed rector first at Fulda, and then at Trier. His chief work was entitled: “Antiquitates et annales Trevirenses et episcoporum Treverensis ecclesiae suffragorum.” The work extends to the year 1600 and was prepared at the request if two archbishops, Johann VII of Schoenenberg and Lothar of Mitternich, with the intent to disprove the partisan publication of Hermann (Kyriander), Syndic of Trier. Hermann’s work was published in 1576 and was written to support the claims of the city against the rights of the archbishop. Brouwer devoted the greater part of his life to the preparation of his book and, according to the testimony of the historian, Hontheim, he is deserving of undying honor for his contribution to the history of the Archbishopric of Trier. Unfortunately, he did not live to complete his task. Brouwer’s unflinching love of truth and his true historical method were not agreeable to the councillors of the archbishop; so, although the publication of his work had been sanctioned by the authorities of his order, it could not be issued. It was not until 1626 that the work of printing his manuscript at Cologne could be undertaken, and then only after important alterations had been made in the text. New difficulties arose when the eighteenth book was in press. The completion of the printing was forbidden and all the sheets already struck off were suppressed as much as possible, so that only a few copies have come down to us.

Brouwer’s labors were continued from 1600 to 1652 by Father Jacob Masenius, S.J., who issued the whole work in revised form in 1670 in two folio volumes at Liege. Brouwer was unable to complete his other great work, which was entitled “Metropolis Ecclesiae Trevericae.” It was intended to contain a description of all the cities, churches, and cloisters in the Archdiocese of Trier. This work did not appear until 1855–56 when it was issued at Coblenz in two volumes by Christian vom Stramberg. The edition does not meet fully the demands of our time, nevertheless it contains much that is useful. Brouwer’s history of the Diocese of Fulda is also worthy of praise. It is entitled: “Fuldensium antiquitatum libri 4” (Antwerp, 1612). Of less importance is the work issued at Mainz in 1616, entitled: “Sidera illustrium et sanctorum virorum, qui Germaniam ornarunt.” Among the results of his humanistic studies is the edition of the works of Bishop Venantius Fortunatus, which was issued at Mainz in 1603, together with a life of St. Martin. A second edition appeared in 1617 augmented by the annotated poems of Archbishop Rhabanus Maurus.

Reiffenberg, Historia Societatis Jesu (Cologne, 1764), 534; Metropolis Ecclesiae Trevericae, ed. von Stramberg.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

William Brown

A naval officer of the Republic of Argentina, b. 1777, in the County Mayo, Ireland; d. 3 May, 1857, in Buenos Aires. His family emigrating to America in 1786, Brown shipped as a cabin boy on a vessel sailing from Philadelphia. During the war between France and England his ship, an English merchantman, was captured by a French privateer and he was made prisoner of war. He escaped to England, where, in 1809, he married a lady of good family and education. He re-entered the ocean trade with a ship of his own, which was wrecked on the coast of South America. Here he established the first regular packet service between Buenos Aires and Montevideo. In the revolt of Buenos Aires against Spain the insurgents appointed Brown, February, 1814, to the command of a squadron of seven ships. With these he achieved wonders. On St. Patrick’s Day he captured the fort of Martin Garcia, called “The Gibraltar of the La Plata,” compelling nine Spanish men-of-war under Admiral Romerate to retire. Later, at Montevideo, which capitulated 20 June, he captured several Spanish men-of-war. These he took to Buenos Aires, and received the rank of admiral. In 1816 Admiral Brown sailed round the Horn to succor the new republics on the western coast, but his expedition was only partly successful. Ten years later, when war ensued between the new republic and Brazil, Admiral Brown greatly distinguished himself against tremendous odds in the blockade of Buenos Aires, which he succeeded in breaking. Taking the offensive he scoured the coast as far as Rio de Janeiro. His most brilliant victory was the battle of Juncal, 24 February, 1827, when, with seven ships and eight one-gun launches, he destroyed a fleet of seventeen war-vessels under Admiral Pereira. He acted as Argentine Commissioner when, at the close of the war, the liberty of Buenos Aires was guaranteed by the treaty of Montevideo 4 October, 1827.

After a visit to his native land, Admiral Brown spent his last years in the republic in the founding of which he had been such a powerful factor. He died in Buenos Aires 3 May, 1867, and in the Recolta cemetery a lofty column marks his resting-place.

MULHALL, The English in South America (Buenos Aires, 1878).

P.G. SMYTH

Charles Farrar Browne

(ARTEMUS WARD).

Humorist, b. at Waterford, Oxford County, Maine, U.S.A., 26 April, 1834; d. in Southampton, England, 6 March, 1867. He went to school in his native town and at the age of fourteen was apprenticed in the printing office of “The Skowhegan Clarion.” A year later he was employed in a like capacity on “The Carpet-Bag” of Boston, edited by B.P. Shillaber (Mrs. Partington), and to which Charles G. Halpine (Miles O’Reilly) and John G. Saxe were at that time contributors. In this journal appeared his first humorous article, a burlesque description of a Fourth of July celebration in Skowhegan. After his Boston experience, Browne traveled the Eastern States as a journeyman printer, sojourning for a while in the town of Tiffin, Ohio, where as reporter and compositor he received in wages four dollars a week. Going thence to Toledo, he contributed to the columns of “The Commercial” of that city. Already his reputation was gaining ground. Though vigorously assailed in a series of articles in “The Toledo Blade,” he treated his opponents with unfailing courtesy and humor.

In 1858, at the age of twenty-four, his reputation first assumed a national character as a reporter of “The Cleveland Plaindealer”under the sobriquet of “Artemus Ward.” His best work at this period consisted in burlesque descriptions of prize-fights, races, spiritualistic seances, and political meetings. Towards the close of 1860, he accepted an engagement in New York with “Vanity Fair,” a comic paper edited after the manner of the London “Punch” and ere long succeeded the editor Charles G. Leland (Hans Breitmann) as editor. In this paper some of his best contributions were given to the public. It was, however, as a lecturer that “Artemus Ward” acquired both fame and fortune. His first appearance on the lecture platform in New York was in a travesty called “Babes in the Woods.” His next hit was in a lecture on “Sixty Minutes in Africa,” given in Music Fund Hall, Philadelphia. In 1866 he sailed for England where success far beyond his expectations awaited him. His stay in London is spoken of as “an ovation to the genius of American wit.” He became at once a great favorite with the “Literary Club” of London and his letters in “Punch” recalled the days of “Yellowplush.” But sickness brought his brilliant career to an unexpected close in the seventh week of his engagement at Egyptian Hall in London, and his death occurred a few months later. When he felt the end was near, he asked his friend Arthur Sketchly to procure him the ministrations of a priest. “So Sketchly,” Clement Scott informs us, “took steps to carry out his friend’s instructions.” His remains were brought to his native land and laid to rest beside his father and brother in the little cemetery at Waterford, Maine.

Artemus Ward was a consummate humorist and represented a type distinctively American. His fun was a fountain that always bubbled, ministering naturally to the happiness of himself and others. In leading up to the joke whatever art was employed was carefully concealed, and the joke itself when it came was always a surprise but never an awkward or unwholesome one. The depth and strength of his character are revealed as well in the interest excited by his lectures and sayings as in the friendships he formed and retained to the end.

KNIGHT, Artemus Ward and his Humor with SWINBURNE’S poem, Putnam’s Monthly, February, 1907; LANDON (Eli Perkins), The Complete Works of Artemus Ward, with a Biographical Sketch (New York, 1898); CLEMENT SCOTT, The Drama of Yesterday and Today (New York, 1899), I, 325.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Orestes Augustus Brownson

Brownson, Orestes Augustus, philosopher, essayist, reviewer, b. at Stockbridge, Vermont, U.S.A., 16 September, 1803; d. at Detroit, Michigan, 17 April, 1876.

His childhood was passed on a small farm with plain country people, honest and upright Congregationalists, who treated him with kindness and affection, taught him the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Assembly’s Catechism; to be honest and industrious, truthful in all circumstances, and never to let the sun go down on his wrath. With no young companions, his fondness for reading grew rapidly, though he had access to few books, and those of a grave or religious nature. At the age of nineteen he had a fair knowledge of grammar and arithmetic and could translate Virgil’s poetry. In October, 1822, he joined the Presbyterian Church, dreamed of becoming a missionary, but very soon felt repelled by Presbyterian discipline, and still more by the doctrines of unconditional election and reprobation, and that God foreordains the wicked to sin necessarily, that He may damn them justly. Rather than sacrifice his belief in justice and humanity on the altar of a religion confessedly of human origin and fallible in its teachings, Brownson rejected Calvinism for so-called liberal Christianity, and early in 1824, at the age of twenty, avowed himself a Universalist. In June, 1826, he was ordained, and from that time until near the end of 1829, he preached and wrote as a Universalist minister, calling himself a Christian; but at last denying all Divine revelation, the Divinity of Christ, and a future judgment, he abandoned the ministry and became associated with Robert Dale Owen and Fanny Wright in their war on marriage, property, and religion, carried on in the “Free Enquirer” of New York, of which Brownson, then at Auburn, became corresponding editor. At the same time he established a journal in western New York in the interest of the Workingmen’s Party, which they wished to use for securing the adoption of their system of education. But, besides this motive, Brownson’s sympathy was always with the labouring class, and he entered with ardour on the work of elevating labour, making it respected and as well rewarded in its manual or servile, as in its mercantile or liberal, phases, and the end he aimed at was moral and social amelioration and equality, rather than political. The introduction of large industries carried on by means of vast outlays of capital or credit had reduced operatives to the condition of virtual slavery; but Brownson soon became satisfied that the remedy was not to be secured by arraying labour against capital by a political organization, but by inducing all classes to co-operate in the efforts to procure the improvement of the workingman’s condition. He found, too, that he could not advance a single step in this direction without religion. An unbeliever in Christianity, he embraced the religion of Humanity, severed his connexion with the Workingmen’s Party and with “The Free Enquirer,” and on the first Sunday in February, 1831, began preaching in Ithaca, New York, as an independent minister. As a Universalist, he had edited their organ, “The Gospel Advocate”; he now edited and published his own organ, “The Philanthropist.”

Finding, from Dr. W. E. Channing’s printed sermons, that Unitarians believed no more of Christianity than he did, he became associated with that denomination, and so remained for the next twelve years. In 1832 he was settled as pastor of the Unitarian Church at Walpole, New Hampshire; in 1834 he was installed pastor of the First Congregational Church at Canton, Massachusetts; and in 1836 he organized in Boston “The Society for Christian Union and Progress,” to which he preached in the Old Masonic Temple, in Tremont Street. After conducting various periodicals, and contributing to others, the most important of which was “The Christian Examiner,” he started a publication of his own called “The Boston Quarterly Review,” the first number of which was dated January, 1838. Most of the articles of this review were written by him; but some were contributed by A. H. Everett, George Bancroft, George Ripley, A. Bronson Alcott, Sarah Margaret Fuller, Anne Charlotte Lynch, and other friends. Besides his articles on literary and philosophical subjects, his political essays in this review attracted attention throughout the country and brought him into close relations with the leaders of the Democratic Party. Although a steadfast Democrat, he disliked the name Democrat, and denounced pure democracy, called popular sovereignty, or the rule of the will of the majority, maintaining that government by the will, whether that of one man or that of many, was mere arbitrary government, and therefore tyranny, despotism, absolutism. Constitutions, if not too easily alterable, he thought a wholesome bridle on popular caprice, and he objected to legislation for the especial benefit of any individual or class; privileges i. e. private laws; exemption of stockholders in corporations from liability for debts of their corporation; tariffs to enrich the moneyed class at the expense of mechanics, agriculturists, and members of the liberal professions. He demanded equality of rights, not that men should be all equal, but that all should be on the same footing, and no man should make himself taller by standing on another’s shoulders.

In his “Review” for July, 1840, he carried the democratic principles to their extreme logical conclusions, and urged the abolition of Christianity; meaning, of course, the only Christianity he was acquainted with, if, indeed, it be Christianity; denounced the penal code, as bearing with peculiar severity on the poor, and the expense to the poor in civil cases; and, accepting the doctrine of Locke, Jefferson, Mirabeau, Portalis, Kent, and Blackstone, that the right to devise or bequeath property is based on statute, not on natural, law, he objected to the testamentary and hereditary descent of property; and, what gave more offence than all the rest, he condemned the modern industrial system, especially the system of labour at wages. In all this he only carried out the doctrine of European Socialists and the Saint-Simonians. Democrats were horrified by the article; Whigs paraded it as what Democrats were aiming at; and Van Buren, who was a candidate for a second term as President, blamed it as the main cause of his defeat. The manner in which he was assailed aroused Brownson’s indignation, and he defended his essay with vigour in the following number of his “Review,” and silenced the clamours against him, more than regaining the ground he had lost, so that he never commanded more attention, or had a more promising career open before him, than when, in 1844, he turned his back on honours and popularity to become a Catholic. At the end of 1842 the “Boston Quarterly Review” was merged in the “U.S. Democratic Review,” of New York, a monthly publication, to each number of which Brownson contributed, and in which he set forth the principles of “Synthetic Philosophy” and a series of essays on the “Origin and Constitution of Government,” which more than twenty years later he rewrote and published with the title of “The American Republic.” The doctrine of these essays provoked such repeated complaints from the editor of the “Democratic Review,” that Brownson severed his connexion with that monthly and resumed the publication of his own review, changing the title from “Boston” to “Brownson’s Quarterly Review.” The first number was issued in January, 1844, and the last in October, 1875. From January, 1865, to October, 1872, he suspended its publication.

The printed works of Brownson, other than contributions to his own and other journals, from the commencement of his preaching to the establishment of this review consisted of his sermons, orations, and other public addresses; his “New Views of Christianity, Society, and the Church” (Boston, 1836), in which he objected to Protestantism that it is pure materialism, to Catholicism, that it is mere spiritualism, and exalts his “Church of the Future” as the synthesis of both; “Charles Elwood” (Boston, 1840), in which the infidel hero becomes a convert to what the author calls Christianity and makes as little removed as possible from bald deism; and “The Mediatorial Life of Jesus” (Boston, 1842), which is almost Catholic, and contains a doctrine of life which leads to the door of the Catholic Church. He soon after applied to the Bishop of Boston for admission, and in October, 1844, was received by the Coadjutor Bishop, John B. Fitzpatrick.

The Catholic body in the United States was at that time largely composed of men and women of the labouring class, who had emigrated from a country in which they and their forefathers had suffered centuries of persecution for the Faith, and had too long felt themselves a down-trodden people to be able to lift their countenances with the fearless independence of Americans; or, if they were better-to-do, feared to make their religion prominent and extended to those of other faiths the liberal treatment they hoped for in return. It was Brownson’s first labour to change all this. He engaged at once in controversy with the organs of the various Protestant sects on one hand, and against liberalism, latitudinarianism, and political atheism of Catholics, on the other. The American people, prejudiced against Catholicity, and opposed to Catholics, were rendered more prejudiced and opposed by their tame and apologetic tone in setting forth and defending their Faith, and were delighted to find Catholics labouring to soften the severities and to throw off whatever appeared exclusive or rigorous in their doctrine. But Brownson resolved to stand erect; let his tone be firm and manly, his voice clear and distinct, his speech strong and decided. So well did he carry out this resolution, and so able and intrepid an advocate did he prove in defence of the Faith, that he merited a letter of approbation and encouragement from the Bishops of the United States assembled in Plenary Council at Baltimore, in May, 1849, and from Pope Pius IX, in April, 1854. In October, 1855, Brownson changed his residence to New York, and his “Review” was ever after published there-although, after 1857, he made his home in Elizabeth, New Jersey, till 1875, when he went to live in Detroit, where he died in the following April. A little over a year before moving to New York, he wrote, “The Spirit Rapper” (Boston, 1854), a book in the form of a novel and a biography, showing the connexion of spiritism with modern philanthropy, visionary reforms, socialism, revolutionism; with the aim of recalling the age to faith in the Gospel. His next book, written in New York, was “The Convert; or, Leaves from my Experience” (New York, 1857), tracing with fidelity his entire religious life down to his admission to the bosom of the Catholic Church.

Brownson had not been many years in New York before the influence of those Catholics with whom he mainly associated was perceptible in the tone of his writings, in the milder and almost conciliatory attitude towards those not of the Faith, which led many of his old admirers to fear he was becoming a “liberal Catholic.” At the same time, the War of the Rebellion having broken out, he was most earnest in denouncing Secession and urging its suppression, and as a means to this, the abolition of slavery. This alienated all his Southern and many of his Northern supporters. Domestic affliction was added by the death of his two sons in the summer of 1864. In these circumstances, he felt unable to go on with his “Review,” and in October of that year announced its discontinuance. But he did not sit idle. During the eight years that followed, he wrote “The American Republic; Its Constitution, Tendencies, and Destiny” (New York, 1865); leading articles in the New York “Tablet,” continued till within a few months of his death; several series of articles in “The Ave Maria”; generally one or two articles a month in “The Catholic World”; and, instructed by the “Syllabus of Errors” condemned by Pope Pius IX, “Conversations on Liberalism and the Church” (New York, 1869), a small book which shows that if for a short period of his Catholic life, he parleyed with Liberalism, he had too much horror of it to embrace it. In January, 1873, “Brownson’s Quarterly Review” appeared again and regularly thereafter till the end of 1875. His last article was contributed to the “American Catholic Quarterly Review,” for January, 1876. Brownson always disclaimed having originated any system of philosophy and acknowledged freely whatever he borrowed from others; but he had worked out and arrived at substantially the philosophy of his later writings before he ever heard of Gioberti, from whom he obtained the formula ens creat existentias, which Gioberti expressed in the formula ens creat existens, to indicate the ideal or intelligible object of thought. By the analysis of thought he finds that it is composed of three inseparable elements, subject, object, and their relation, simultaneously given. Analysis of the object shows that it is likewise composed of three elements simultaneously given, the ideal, the empirical, and their relation. He distinguished the ideal intuition, in which the activity is in the object presenting or offering itself, and empirical intuition or cognition, in which the subject as well as the object acts. Ideal intuition presents the object, reflection takes it as represented sensibly; that is, in case of the ideal, as represented in language. Identifying ideas with the categories of the philosophers, he reduced them to these three: Being, Existences, and their Relations. The necessary is Being; the contingent, Existences; and their relation, the creative act of Being. Being is God, personal because He has intelligence and will. From Him, as First Cause, proceed the physical laws; and as Final Cause, the moral law, commanding to worship Him, naturally or supernaturally, in the way and manner He prescribes.

ORESTES A. BROWNSON, The Convert (New York, 1857); HENRY F. BROWNSON, Brownson’s Early, Middle and Latter Life (Detroit, 1898–1900); IDEM, ed., Brownson’s Works (Detroit, 1883–87).

Sarah M., daughter of Orestes A. Brownson, b. at Chelsea, Massachusetts, 7 June, 1839; married William J. Tenney, of Elizabeth, New Jersey, 26 November, 1873; died at Elizabeth, 30 October, 1876. She wrote some literary criticisms for her father’s “Review,” and many articles, stories, and poems which appeared mainly in Catholic magazines. Her other works were: “Marian Elwood, or How Girls Live” (New York, 1863); “At Anchor; a story of the American Civil War” (New York, 1865); “Heremore Brandon; or the Fortunes of a Newsboy” (in “The Catholic World,” 1869); and “Life of Demetrius Augustine Gallitzin, Prince and Priest” (New York, 1873). Her novels are interesting, genuine, and original, and all that she published is stamped with her distinguishing traits of character, and shows that she thought for herself, expressed herself freely, with good sense and judgment, without undue bitterness, and with great benevolence towards the poor; and she scatters over her pages many excellent reflections. The life of Gallitzin is her principal production, for which she spared no pains to collect such materials as remained. She more than once visited the scenes of the missionary’s labours, and formed the acquaintance of priests and others who had known him, collecting such facts and anecdotes of him as they remembered. It is a sincere and conscientious tribute to the rare virtues and worth of an extraordinary man, devoted priest, and humble missionary.

HENRY F. BROWNSON

Vicariate Apostolic of Brownsville

Vicariate Apostolic, erected 1874. Previous to this date the entire State of Texas was under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Galveston. It was then divided into two dioceses: Galveston, comprising all that part of the State north and north-west of the Colorado River; San Antonio, comprising all the territory south of the Colorado River and north of the Nueces River, with the exception of Bee, San Patricio, Refugio, Goliad, and Aransas Counties and the Vicariate Apostolic of Brownsville comprising Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, and Webb Counties, bordering on the Rio Grande; Encinal, Duval, and Nueces, situated north of these counties; the part of La Salle, McMullen, and Live Oak, south of the Nueces River, and finally San Patricio, Bee, Refugio, Goliad, and Aransas Counties, north of the Nueces River, a territory comprising 22,391 square miles.

Its principal cities and towns are:

Laredo (Texas side), with 12,000 inhabitants;

Brownsville, near the mouth of the Rio Grande, with 8,000;

Corpus Christi, on the Corpus Christi Bay, with 7,000;

San Diego, in Duval County, with 2,000;

Alice, in Nueces County, with 1,000;

Rockport, on Aransas Bay, with 1,000;

Goliad and Refugio with about the same population;

Beeville, in Bee County, with 2,000.

There are other towns with less population, Skidmore in Bee County, Kingsville in Nueces County, Falfurrias, Benavides, Realitos, Hebbronville, Edinburgh, Hidalgo, Carrizo (or Zapata), Minas, Rio Grande City, each with a population of 1,500. The Catholic population is estimated at 79,000, mostly Mexicans; there are about 3,000 English-speaking Catholics. The total population is about 110,000.

This southern part of Texas was inhabited by Indians less than sixty years ago. Corpus Christi had for its first settler Capt. Kenny, who had a store several times visited by hostile Indians. Brownsville owes its beginning to Major Brown, who came there at the time of the Mexican War. The church there was begun in 1852. San Patricio and Refugio were settled by Irish colonists under the Mexican Government. La Bahia is the most ancient settlement; it was built by the Spaniards to oppose the encroachments of the French under La Salle. After La Bahia the oldest place is Laredo, built at the end of the eighteenth century. In 1866 there was not a fence nor a railroad to be seen from San Antonio to Brownsville; now the whole country is fenced in, and there are six railroad lines in operation.

The Oblate Fathers, whose missions extend from San Ignacio to the mouth of the Rio Grande, located in Texas in 1852, their first superior being Father Verdet. Within a week he was drowned in the Gulf on his way from Brownsville to New Orleans. The mission of Rio Grande City was begun in 1872, the one at Roma in 1864, the San Diego mission in 1866. Laredo was in charge of Mexican priests until Father Girandon came in 1855. San Patricio was under the care of Irish priests. Father O’Reilly built in 1856 the first Catholic church of Corpus Christi. Brownsville, Laredo, Corpus Christi, Refugio, and Beeville have large and well decorated churches. There are twelve churches with resident pastors: Brownsville, Rio Grande City, Roma, Laredo, San Diego, Corpus Christi, Rockport, Goliad, Refugio, Beeville, and San Patricio. There are also forty chapels where regular monthly services are held. The vicariate has two hospitals, one in Laredo under the care of the Sisters of Mercy, and a new one in Corpus Christi, under the care of the Sisters of the Incarnate Word, of San Antonio.

There are four academies, namely, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Laredo, and Rio Grande City, with about 60 boarders in all, and about 200 scholars. Besides, there are nine parochial schools, with about 500 pupils, under the care of 52 teaching sisters, assisted by 20 lay sisters. There are, in addition to these, 12 hospital sisters, and 6 engaged in teaching non-Catholic public schools. There is but one college (in Brownsville, under the care of the Oblate Fathers), with about 100 pupils.

The Reverend Dominic Manucy, then rector of St. Peter’s church, Montgomery, Alabama, was appointed first Vicar Apostolic of Brownsville, and consecrated Titular Bishop of Dulma, 8 December, 1878. He was born 20 December, 1823, and ordained priest, at Mobile, 15 August, 1850. He took possession at Brownsville, 11 February, 1875, and remained there until he was transferred to the Diocese of Mobile upon the death of Bishop Quinlan, 9 March, 1883. He resigned the See of Mobile the following year and was reappointed to Brownsville, with the Titular See of Maronia. He died at Mobile, 4 December, 1885. Bishop Neraz of San Antonio, Texas, was then appointed administrator of Brownsville, and directed its affairs until 1890, when the Rev. Pedro Verdaguer, pastor of the church of Our Lady of Angels, Los Angeles, California, was appointed to Brownsville by a Brief, dated 3 July. He was consecrated 9 November, 1890, at Barcelona, Spain, titular Bishop of Aulon, and was installed at Brownsville, 21 May, 1891. He was born 10 December, 1835, at San Pedro de Torello, Cataluna, Spain, and ordained priest, 12 December, 1862, at San Francisco, California, U.S.A.

SHEA, Hist. Cath. Ch. in U.S. (New York, 1904); REUSS, Biog. Cycl. of the Cath. Hierarchy (Milwaukee, 1898); The Catholic Directory (1907).

C. JAILLET

Heinrich Brück

Ecclesiastical historian and bishop, born at Bingen, 25 October, 1831; died 4 November, 1903. He followed for some time the cooper’s trade. After a course of studies under of a distinguished ecclesiastic, Dr. Joseph Hirschel, he entered the seminary at Mainz. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1855, exercised for some time the sacred ministry, made a postgraduate course at Munich under Döllinger, and at Rome, and in 1867 was appointed to the chair of ecclesiastical history in the seminary of Mainz. He continued to teach until his elevation to the episcopate, with the exception of the years from 1878 to 1887, when seminary was closed by the order of the Government. In 1889 he became a canon of the cathedral; he received also several positions of trust in the administration of the diocese. In 1899 he was chosen Bishop of Mainz; as such he directed the diocese with zeal and intelligence. The merit of Brück consists chiefly in his literary activity. Perhaps his best known work is his manual of church history, from “Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte” (Mainz, 1874; 8th ed., 1902). It has been translated into English, French, and Italian, all of which translations passed through second editions before 1899, an evidence that its excellent qualities were widely appreciated. The author shows himself possessed of extensive knowledge not only in history, but also in theology and canon law. A more special work is his “Geschichte der katholischen Kirche in Deutschland im neunzehnten Jahrhundert”—History of the catholic Church in Germany in the Nineteenth Century,” in five volumes (1887–1905). It contains a rich store of information, arranged with thoroughness and sound critical judgment, and was received with universal approval by Catholic scholars. He was also the author of an account of rationalistic movements in Catholic Germany (1865), a life of Dean Lennig (1870), and a work on secret societies in Spain (1881).

SCHAEFER, Dr. Heinrich Brück, Bischof von Mainz in Der Katholik (December, 1903; in pamphlet form, Mainz, 1904); Dr. Heinrich Brück, Bischof von Mainz in Deutscher Hausschats (1904), XXX; Dr. Heinrich Brück, Bischof von Mainz, ein Gedenkblatt (Mainz, 1903).

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Joachim Bruel

(Brulius).

A theologian and historian, born early in the seventeenth century at Vorst, a village of the province of Brabant, Belgium, died 29 June, 1653. After entering the order to assist in the establishment of Augustinians he was sent to Bourges, France, to finish his studies in philosophy and theology. At Bourges he received the degree of Master in Sacred Theology. In 1638 he was chosen prior of the convent of his order at Cologne. Twice afterwards (1640 and 1649) he filled the office of prior provincial. He is of special interest to the student of Peruvian and Chinese missions.

Among his published works are: (1) “Historiae Peruanae Ordinis Eremitarum S.P. Augustini: Libri octodecim.” This work follows the Spanish “Cronica moralizada del Orden de San Augustin en el Peru,” published by Fra Antonio de la Calancha, Barcelona, 1638; continued by Fra Diego de Cordova, and printed at Lima, 1653. Bruel’s Latin version was printed at Antwerp, 1651. (2) He made also a Latin translation of Mendoza’s monumental history of China, “Rerum Morumque in Regno Chinensi” etc.

FRANCIS E. TOURSCHER

David-Augustin de Brueys

A French theologian and dramatic author, born at Aix in 1640; died 25 November, 1723, at Montpellier. His family was Protestant, and he was brought up a Calvinist. After devoting some time to the study of law, he applied himself to theology with so much success that he was made a member of the consistory of Montpellier. In 1691, he published an answer to Bossuet’s “Exposition of Catholic Doctrine,” entitled “Réponse au livre de M. de Condom intitute Exposition de la doctrine catholique” (Geneva, 1681). He was soon, however, converted by Bossuet himself, abjured Protestantism in 1682, and, after his wife’s death, became a priest. Before his conversion he wrote, besides the “Réponse,” the “Suite du Preservatif (de Jurieu) contre le changement de religion” (1682).

His principal works, written after his conversion, are: “Examen des raisons qui ont donné lieu à la séparation des protestants” (Paris, 1683), in which he explains the reasons of his conversion; “Traité de la sainte messe” (Paris, 1683); “Défense du culte extérieur de l’Eglise catholique” (Paris, 1686); “Response aux plaintes des protestants contre les moyens que l’on emploie en France pour les réunir à l’Eglise” (Paris, 1686); “Traité de l’Eglise” (Paris, 1686); “Traité de l’Eucharistie” (Paris, 1686); “Histoire du fanaticisme de notre temps” (I, 1692; II, 1709; III and IV, 1713); “Traité de l’obéissance des chrétiens aux puissances temporelles” (Paris, 1710); “Traité du légitime usage de la raison principalement sur les objets de la foi” (Paris, 1717).

In collaboration with Palaprat, Brueys also wrote several comic plays and a few tragedies, most of which were produced with great success. They were published in two volumes in 1712, under the title of “Œvres dramatiques.” A new edition to three volumes appeared in 1755, with the author’s life by De Launay; again in 1755 (5 vols.), under the title of “Œuvres de Brueys et Palaprat”; and finally in 1812 (2 vols.) as “Œuvres choisies.”

DE LAUNAY, Life of Brueys in the first volume of his dramatic works (ed. 1735); HAAG, La France protestant (Paris, 1846–59), III, 41–44; RÄSS, Die Convertiten seit der Reformation (Freiburg, 1866–80), VIII, 232–240.

C.A. DUBRAY

Louis-Frédéric Brugère

Professor of apologetics and church history, born at Orléans, 8 October 1823; died at Issy, 11 April, 1888. He studied with the Christian Brothers at St. Euverte, and at the Petit Séminaire of Orléans. His poem of 300 lines describing an inundation of the Rhone and composed in 1841, was printed and sold for the benefit of the flood victims at Lyons. He entered the Grand seminaire of Orléans in 1841 and the Paris seminaire 1845, where he received the degrees of Bachelor of Licentiate, and Doctor. From 1846 to 1861 with the exception of two years spent as assistant in the parish of St. Aignan, Brugère taught the classics and philosophy in the Orléans diocesan college of La Chapelle-saint-Mesmin. In 1862 he entered the society of Saint-Sulpice and was appointed professor of apologetics in the seminary of Paris where, in 1868, he occupied the chair of of church history in addition to his other labours.

Brugère’s teaching was characterized by rare tact and discernment. It was his conviction that, in order to assist in the establishment of communication between the naturally darkened mind and the radiance of revealed truth, the Christian apologist must consider the individual mental attitude of those whom he would direct. Thus he was a strong advocate of the methodus ascendens ab intrinseco, which was introduced towards the end of the fifteenth century, and which holds that the apologist should first arouse interest by setting forth the needy condition of the human soul, with its problems unsolved and its cravings unsatisfied; then gradually suggest the unchanging organization which offers satisfaction and peace. Curiosity and interest thus intensified, and the admirable adjustment of Christianity to the needs of the soul once recognized, fairmindedness urging further research, the honest inquirer will learn how moral certitude, though differing from metaphysical and physical certitude, is nevertheless true certitude, excluding all reasonable fear of error, and is not to be confounded with probability, however great. Thus, only when prepared to recognize in the genuine miracle the credentials of the Divinity, may this inquirer be conducted back through history, from fulfilment to prediction, in the hope of discovering, by well authenticated miracles, that the Almighty has stamped as His own the Christianity preserved, defended, and explained by His one true Church.

Such, in brief outline, is the method advocated in “De Verâ Religione” and “De Ecclesia,” two treatises which Brugère published in 1873, and which, from their adaptability to the needs of the day, merited the approval of competent judges. In addition to these treatises, Brugère published “Tableau de l’histoire et de la littérature de l’Eglise.” But it is chiefly as a professor that Brugère is remembered. Gitfted with a remarkable memory, his mind was a storehouse of exact information which he freely imparted, embellishing it with anecdote and illustration, so that students gladly sought him out for pleasure and profit

BERTRAND, Bibl. Sulpit., II, 459, 461, 600; AUBERT, Ann. relig. du dioc. d’Orléans (1888), June, July, August; ICARD, Circulaire (1888); Bulletin des anciens élèves de St. Sulpice (1904); PACAUD, L’Œuvre d’apol. de M. Brugère; Revue pratique d’apol. (1906).

DANIEL P. DUFFY.

Bruges

The chief town of the Province of West Flanders in the Kingdom of Belgium. Pope Nicholas I in 863 effected a reconciliation between Charles the Bald, King of the West Franks, and his vassal Baldwin “Bras-de-Fer”; by it the latter’s abduction of his daughter Judith was forgiven and the union legalized. The Frankish king further invested his son-in-law with sovereign power over the northern marches enclosed by the North Sea, the Scheldt, and the River Canche, later known as Royal Flanders, of which he thus became the first count. On the ruins of an old burg, said to have dated from 366, Baldwin built himself a new stronghold, with a chapel for the relics of St. Donatian, the gift of Ebbo, Archbishop of Reims, the metropolitan see at that time of most of the Belgian dioceses, and by his valour and untiring energy speedily checked the inroads of the ravaging Northmen. The security he was thus able to afford his subjects caused merchants and artisans to gather round the new settlement, which rapidly grew in size and in wealth. Such was the origin of Bruges. But it was under the rule of the third count, Arnulph the Great (918–989), that the Church attained the full measure of its vitality in Flanders. This prince not only founded and richly endowed the famed Chapter of St. Donatian, but he established collegiate churches in the neighbouring towns of Aardenburg and Thorholt, and built or restored eighteen great monasteries, besides a number of minor foundations; and such was his prestige that it was to him St. Dunstan turned for shelter in the hour of danger, much as St. Thomas of Canterbury at a later epoch (1164) besought the protection of his successor, Thierry of Alsace, against the wrath of Henry II. Under the fostering care of the monastery learning and the arts speedily revived, while commerce and agriculture made equally rapid strides under the patronage of the court. The great charter of liberties conferred by Baldwin IV (988–1036) provided a new incentive to business, which increased by leaps and bounds, and the town so outgrew its boundaries that his successor was compelled in 1039 to rebuild and extend its walls. The epoch of the Crusades (1096–1270) contributed in no small measure to the fame and prosperity of Bruges. Count Robert II from the first of these great undertakings brought back from Caesarea in Cappadocia the relics of St. Basil; Thierry of Alsace returned from the second with the relic of the Holy Blood presented to him by his cousin Baldwin, King of Jerusalem, as the reward of his great services; while Baldwin IX, who took part in the fourth, was raised to the imperial throne on the founding of the Latin Empire after the fall of Constantinople, 9 April, 1204. From 7 April, 1150, the day on which Thierry of Alsace returned to his capital with the precious relic, it has played no small part in the religious life of the city. The solemn Procession of the Holy Blood, instituted in 1303 to commemorate the deliverance of the city, by the national heroes Breidel and De Coninck, from French tyranny in May of the previous year and which takes place annually on the Monday following the first Sunday in May, is to this day one of the great religious celebrations in Belgium, to which thousands congregate from all parts. By the close of the thirteenth century Bruges had attained the height of its prosperity: it boasted a population of 150,000, a seaport with 60,000 inhabitants at Damme at the end of the Zwijn, three miles away, an important harbour at Sluus at the mouth of the Zwijn, seven miles further, besides several subordinate townships, and was one of the three wealthiest cities of Northern Europe. In 1296 the staple of wool was fixed at Bruges, in 1300 it became a member of the Hanseatic League, and by 1356 it was the chief emporium of the cities of the League.

With the removal of Baldwin IX the long line of purely Flemish counts came to an end, and Flanders passed under French domination. This period of foreign rule, which lasted the best part of a century, was a time of almost continual warfare between the suzerain power and the vassal people, complicated by internecine strife with the rival town of Ghent; and though humiliating disasters alternated with glorious victories, this the heroic epoch of Flemish history closed without the commercial prosperity of Bruges having suffered any very serious check. With the advent of the House of Burgundy in 1384, Flanders unhappily became involved in the religious troubles which were then agitating Europe. The new prince, Philip “le Hardi” (1384–1404), who favoured the pretensions of the antipope, soon proceeded from aimless sympathy to open proselytism, but the edict by which he forbade obedience to the Pope of Rome was utterly disregarded by his turbulent subjects, the clergy, almost to a man, and the great mass of the people acknowledging Urban VI. The Clementine Bishop of Tournai, whose spiritual administration embraced Bruges, came hither to ordain schismatic priests, but the people refused their ministrations, and a period of persecution followed during which public worship was entirely suspended. Ghent, however, had purchased the right to liberty of conscience, and so in 1394 the strange spectacle was witnessed of a whole town’s population on pilgrimage from Bruges to Ghent to fulfil their Easter duties. Philip’s successors, John the Fearless (1404–19) and Philip “l’Asseuré” (1419–67), pursued this policy of subjugation, until in 1440, the year of “the Great Humiliation,” the burghers of Bruges were completely at the mercy of their prince. The next quarter of a century was a period of pomp and pageantry, a feverish succession of gorgeous tournaments, public banquets, and triumphal entries, and a display of opulence out of all proportion to the true productive forces of the commonwealth. Like a true Duke of Burgundy Philip revelled in the splendour of his court. It was he who on 10 January, 1429, founded at Bruges the Order of the Golden Fleece. Munificent in all things, he gathered about him all the great luminaries of his day. It is also on record that within the twenty-four hours of one day about 1450, no less than one hundred and fifty foreign vessels entered the basin and canals of Bruges under the auspices of the resident consuls of seventeen kingdoms, several of whom were established there in sumptuous palaces. Industry at the time boasted no less than fifty-four incorporated associations or guilds, fifty thousand of whose members found constant employment within the city’s walls. The days of Charles the Bold (1467–77) saw the culmination of all this splendour. And then suddenly the blow fell. The great haven of the Zwijn was found to be fast silting up; before the close of the century no vessel of any considerable draught could enter the port of Damme, and by the middle of the sixteenth century Bruges was entirely cut off from the sea.

By the marriage of the daughter of Charles the Bold to Archduke Maximilian Flanders passed under the rule of the House of Austria (1477), and from 1485 the decay of the old Flemish city steadily set in. A period of continual disturbances, ruthlessly repressed by a government destitute of stability, produced a feeling of uneasiness in the commercial world. Antwerp at the time was already proving a dangerous rival, and gradually the merchant princes, enticed by the greater security offered and the many advantages held out to them, removed to the city of the Scheldt. The religious disturbances of the last quarter of the sixteenth century hastened the exodus, even to the removal of the last of the foreign consuls. The severities of the Emperor Charles V (1519–56) and the harsher rule of Philip II (1556–98) and the Duke of Alva led to the capture of Bruges by the Calvinists in March, 1578, when for six years Catholic worship was entirely proscribed. The clergy were exiled or murdered, the churches pillaged and desecrated, some even levelled to the ground, and when peace returned in 1584 the population scarcely numbered 30,000. A period of utter misery followed, in which was developed among the wealthy, under the guidance of the Church—Bruges had been created an episcopal see in 1558—that great spirit of charity which led to the founding of innumerable Godshuizen (God’s houses) which exist to this day for the relief of an impoverished community. Flanders then became the cockpit of Europe: there was the unsuccessful bombardment of Bruges by the Dutch in 1704, the surrender to the Allies in 1706, its surprise-capture by the French in 1708, its capture by Marlborough in 1712, its surrender to the French again in 1745, and eventually its return to the rule of Austria in 1748; in 1792 the French again took it, were expelled, and retook it in 1794, when it became the chief town of the department of the Lys; by the Treaty of Vienna (1815) it was incorporated in the new Kingdom of the Netherlands, eventually, as a result of the Revolution of 1830, becoming the chief town of the Province of West Flanders in the then constituted Kingdom of Belgium. In 1877 the idea of recreating the canal with an outer harbour abreast of Heyst was first mooted, thus reviving an old scheme of the painter and engineer Lancelot Blondeel (1496–1561), discovered in the local archives. Eventually the project, despite the determined opposition of Antwerp, received the sanction of the legislature on 11 September, 1895, the cost of the undertaking being fixed at 38,969,075 francs. Seven years was the limit allowed for the completion of the work, but it was not until 29 May, 1905, that the informal opening of the canal to navigation took place, the official inauguration being celebrated in July of 1907. The result has been a large increase in population (which stood at 56,587 in 1906), the establishment of considerable industries, and a corresponding decrease in the chronic poverty of the city; so that it is not surprising if its good folk are already indulging dreams of a revival of its medieval grandeur and prosperity.

It were difficult to exaggerate the importance attaching to Bruges from the point of view of art. Singularly ill-favoured as West Flanders was in respect of building material, the only local stone available (veld steen) being of a description little adapted to weather the centuries, Bruges presents no examples of stone architecture of the early period; and later, when suitable stone came to be imported from Tournai and from France, the master masons employed in its use and treatment were likewise of foreign origin. In respect of civic and domestic brick architecture, however, Bruges stands unrivalled, both for number and variety of design. Her school of sculpture was early held in high esteem, eliciting a large foreign demand for stalls and other descriptions of church and domestic furniture in oak, and the revival of the art during the past half-century has been attended with marked success. In equally high esteem stood her wrought-iron work, and in even greater her engraved monumental brasses, which, prior to the Calvinist outbreak in the sixteenth century, were exceedingly numerous throughout Flanders, and examples of which are of frequent occurrence in England, Germany, Scandinavia, and Spain, from which countries there was a constant influx of orders. In the department of embroidery and lace work Bruges likewise enjoyed a high reputation, especially in respect of ecclesiastical vestments, in the production of which, as of lace, a large number of hands are employed to this day. But above all, Bruges, since the second quarter of the fifteenth century, has been celebrated for her paintings. Owing to the greater peace and security enjoyed within her walls many master painters from the valley of the Maas, from Holland, and from Brabant were attracted thither at that period. These, however, had all learned their art elsewhere. John van Eyck, who worked there from 1431 to 1441, exercised a considerable influence, and the scheme of his altar-piece in the Town Museum was imitated by the Brabanter Peter Christus, the Rhenish Hans Memlinc, and the Hollander Gerard David. The Town Museum and the Hospital of St. John are treasure houses of paintings from the brush of these great artists. Gerard David was the first to form a school, whose traditions were carried on until the seventeenth century; and he with his pupils and followers produced an immense number of paintings, scattered all over Europe. Later on Peter Pourbus of Gouda and the Claeissens adhered to the old traditions, which held the field in Bruges longer than anywhere else. In the matter of illuminated books and miniatures it also enjoyed considerable celebrity, and examples of both are to be found in almost every library of importance.

In 1558 Pope Paul IV, at the request of Philip II, raised Bruges to a separate bishopric. The diocese at the present day comprises the entire province of West Flanders, an area of 1,249 square miles with 828,152 inhabitants, almost exclusively Catholics. Twenty-two bishops have so far administered the see. For the purposes of administration the diocese is divided into the archpresbytery of Bruges and 14 rural deaneries, the former being subdivided into 8 parishes ministered to by 31 priests, and the latter into 286 parishes served by 642 priests. The cathedral chapter consists of 10 titular and 19 honorary canons, with 6 chaplains. The diocesan seminary at Bruges has more than a hundred students, advanced from the preparatory seminary at Roulers. For the purposes of general education there is an episcopal college at Bruges and eight similar colleges at the larger centres of the diocese in which all the humanities are taught, besides four others at minor centres were the studies are not so advanced; for technical education there is a normal school at Bruges and four in other parts of the diocese, all these institutions being almost entirely taught by ecclesiastics. Most of the religious orders, both male and female, have houses in the diocese, besides hospitals and asylums for the aged and the poor.

Bruges returns 2 members to the Senate and 4 members to the House of Representatives, while other portions of the Province elect a total of 7 senators and 16 representatives, the Provincial Council further electing 3 senators. Under the law of proportional representation, which first came into operation in 1900, Bruges returns 1 Catholic and 1 Liberal to the Senate, and 3 Catholics and 1 Liberal to the House of Representatives; other portions of the Province return 5 Catholics and 2 Liberals to the Senate, and 12 Catholics, 3 Liberals, and 1 Socialist to the House of Representatives; the 3 members returned to the Senate by the Provincial Council belong to the Catholic party; the result is that West Flanders (otherwise the Diocese of Bruges) is represented in the Senate by 9 Catholics and 3 Liberals (in addition to the Count of Flanders, who is a member by virtue of his title), and in the House of Representatives by 15 Catholics, 4 Liberals, and 1 Socialist. The government of the province is entirely in the hands of the Catholics, the governor and the great majority of the Provincial Council belonging to that party. As much may be said of the local administration of Bruges, the Communal Council (which consists of the burgomaster, 5 aldermen, and 24 councillors) with the exception of 6 councillors (five of whom are Liberals and one a Christian Democrat) being in the hands of the Catholic party.

MIRAEUS, Rerum Belgicarum Annales (Brussels, 1625); GILLIODTS, Inventaire des Archives de la ville de Bruges, avec une introduction: tables and glossary by EDW. GILLIARD (Bruges, 1878–85); GILLIAT-SMITH, The Story of Bruges (London, 1901); ROBINSON, Bruges: an Historical Sketch (Bruges, 1899); VERSCHELDE, De Kathedrale van Sint Salvator te Brugge: Geschiedkundige Beschryving (Bruges, 1863); Les anciennes Maisons de Bruges (Bruges, 1875); W. H. JAMES WEALE, Hans Memlinc: Biography; Pictures at Bruges (Bruges, 1901); Gerard David, Painter and Illuminator (London, 1895); VON BODENHAUSEN, Gerard David und seine Schule (Munich, 1905); FRANCES C. WEALE, Hubert and John van Eyck (London, 1903).

J. CYRIL M. WEALE

Pierre Brugière

A French priest, Jansenist, and Juror, born at Thiers, 3 October, 1730; died at Paris, 7 November, 1803. He was chaplain of the Ursulines and canon in his native place when his refusal to sign the formula of the acceptation of the Bull “Unigenitus” forced him to leave. He went to Paris where for twelve years he remained with the community of St. Roch. A strongly Jansenistic book which he wrote, “Instructions catholiques sur la dévotion au Sacre-Coeur” (Paris, 1777), brought this connection to an end. When the Revolution broke out he welcomed it with enthusiasm. He rushed headlong into the fray with two books calling loudly for reform: “Doléances des églisiers” and “Relation sommaire et véritable de ce qui s’est passé dans l’Assemblée du clergé” (1789).

Brugière not only took the Constitutional Oath on the day fixed, 9 Jan., 1791, but he became as it were the heart and soul of the Constitutional Church. Elected curé of St. Paul’s he defended the civil constitution of the clergy against episcopal and papal censures in his “Discours patriotique au sujet des brefs du pape” and “ La lanterne sourde” (aimed at Bonal, Bishop of Clermont). It is to his credit, however, that he energetically condemned the marriage of priests which the Constitution was doing its utmost to encourage. Against this practice he wrote his “Réflexions d’un curé,” and “Lettre d’un curé” (1791), and together with several other constitutionals he denounced its advocates without mercy in “Le nouveau disciple de Luther” (1792). This brochure was aimed at Aubert, a married priest appointed by Gobel curé of St. Augustin. Brugière’s fearless preaching placed him in the hands of the revolutionary tribunal, and it was while he was imprisoned he wrote to his followers the “Lettre d’un cure du fond de sa prison à ses paroissiens” (1793). Set at liberty, he continued his pastoral ministrations in spite of the charge of treasonable conduct, a dangerous thing in those days. But his ministrations were of a novel kind. Mass was said and the sacraments were administered by him in French, and in support of that singularity an appeal was made to the people, “ Appel au peuple francais” (1798)

Brugière had rebuked the bishops who condemned the oath. He had likewise rebuked the priests who married. Now he was no less violent against the Jurors who began to retract. He attended the two councils of 1797 and 1801 which were trying hard to sustain the ebbing life of the Constitutional Church, and he founded a society for its protection: “Société de philosophie chrétienne.” Even after the promulgation of the Concordat of 1801 he clung to the then dead Constitutional Church. Besides the works already mentioned, Brugière wrote a number of pamphlets and left many sermons which were published after his death: “Instructions choisies” (Paris,1804). Two contemporaries, the Abbé Massy and the Christian Brother Renaud, wrote his life under the title: “Mémoire apologétique de Pierre Brugière” (Paris, 1804).

FELLER in Biographie universelle (Paris, 1866); CONSTANTIN in Dict. de théol. cath.

J.F. SOLLIER

John Brugman

A renowned Franciscan preacher of the fifteenth century, b. at Kempen in the Diocese of Cologne, towards the end of the preceding century; d. at Nimwegen, Netherlands, 19 sept., 1473. He became lector of theology, vicar-provincial and one of the founders Cologne Province of the Friars of the Minor Observance. For twenty years his name was celebrated as the most illustrious preacher of the Low Countries. Being the friend of Denis the Carthusian, it was due to his suggestion that he latter wrote his work: “De doctrinâ et regulis vitae Christianæ,” dedicating it to Father Brugman. He also espoused the cause of the Brothers of the Common Life, which congregation, successfully devoted to the interests of education, had been established by two priests, Gerhard Groote and Florentius Radewiyns. He addressed them in the two letters which are still extant to strengthen them in the persecution to which they were subjected. He died in the odour of sanctity and is commemorated in the “Martyrologium Minoritico-Belgicum” on the 19th of September. Father Brugman wrote two lives of St. Lidwina, the first of which, printed at Cologne in 1433, was reprinted anonymously at Louvain in 1448, and later epitomized by Thomas à Kempis at Cologne. The second life appeared at Schiedam in 1498; both have been embodied by the Bollandists in the Acta SS., 2 April. He also wrote a devout “Life of Jesus.” Father Brugman ranked among the best poets of his day. Two of his poems “O Ewich is so lanc!” and “The Zielejacht” are included by Hoffmann von Fallersleben in his “Horae Belgicae” (II, 36, 41.) His life was written by Dr. Mohl under the title “Joannes Brugman en bet Godsdlenstegen Leven Onzer Vaderen in de Vijftiende eeuw,” and published at Amsterdam in 1854. It consists of two volumes, second containing Brugman’s unedited works.

ANDREW EGAN.

Constantino Brumidi

An Italian-American historical painter, celebrated for his fresco work in the Capitol at Washington, b. at Rome, 1805; d. at Washington, 19 February, 1880. His father was a native of Greece and his mother a Roman. He showed his talent for fresco painting at an early age and painted in several Roman palaces, among them being that of Prince Torlonia. Under Gregory XVI he worked for three years in the Vatican. The occupation of Rome by the French in 1849 apparently decided Brumidi to emigrate, and he sailed for the United States, where he became naturalized in 1852. Taking up his residence in New York City the artist painted a number of portraits. Subsequently he undertook more important works, the principal being a fresco of the Crucifixion in St. Stephen’s Church, for which he also executed a “Martyrdom of St. Stephen” and an “Assumption of the Virgin.” In 1854 Brumidi went to the city of Mexico, where he painted in the cathedral as allegorical representation of the Holy Trinity. On his way back to New York he stopped at Washington and visited the Capitol. Impressed with the opportunity for decoration presented by its vast interior wall spaces, he offered his services for that purpose to Quartermaster-General Meigs. This offer was accepted, and about the same time he was commissioned as a captain of cavalry. His first art work in the Capitol was in the room of the House Cornmittee on Agriculture. At first he received eight dollars a day, which Jefferson Davis, then Secretary of War of the United States, caused to be increased to ten dollars. His work attracting much favourable attention, he was given further commisssons, and gradually settled into the position of a Government painter. His chief work in Washington was done in the rotunda of the Capitol and included the apotheosis of Washington in the dome, as well as other allegories, and scenes from American history. His work in the rotunda was left unfinished at his death, but he had decorated many other of the building. In the Catholic Cathedral of Philadelphia he pictured St. Peter and St. Paul. Brumidi was a capable, if conventional painter, and his black and white modelling in the work at Washington, in imitation of bas-relief, is strikingly effective.

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Pierre Brumoy

Born at Rouen in Normandy, 1688; entered the Society of Jesus in 1704; died in Paris, 1742. Brumoy belonged to that distinguished group of humanists who shed lustre upon the Society of Jesus shortly before its suppression in France. Between the years 1722 and 1739 he contributed many articles to the celebrated “Journal de Trevoux” of which he was for some time the editor. Of the “History of the Gallican Church,” which had been begun by Fathers Longueval and Fontenay, he wrote volumes XI and XII (1226–1320). He also composed several college tragedies on sacred subjects and many poems and discourses in Latin and in French. His Latin didactic poem “De motibus animi” (on the passions) was highly esteemed by his contemporaries. His most important work, “Le theatre des Grecs,” which was first published in 1730 in three volumes, has often been reprinted. It contains translations and analyses of the Greek tragedies, supplemented by keen critical and aesthetic observations. An English translation was made by Mrs. Charlotte Lennox with the assistance of the Earl of Cork and Dr. Samuel Johnson, and first published in London in 1759.

SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliothèque de la c. de. J., II, col. 243–251; DE ROCHEMONTEIX, Un collège de Jésuites au XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, III, 96 sqq.; BAUMGARTNER, Geschichte der Weltliteratur, IV, 634; V, 421, 422.

B. GULDNER

Filippo Brunellesco

(Or Brunelleschi)

An architect and sculptor, born at Florence, 1377; died there 16 April, 1446. As an architect Brunellesco was one of the chief leaders in the early period of the Renaissance movement. Though rather unprepossessing in appearance, he was of a cheerful and congenial disposition, of active and inventive mind, and withal somewhat quick-tempered. Even in his childish games he evinced a decided inclination towards the mechanical. Beginning as a goldsmith, and later turning to sculpture, he finally applied himself exclusively to architecture without, however, neglecting his general culture. He read the Bible and Dante to feed his fancy, but devoted himself with decided preference to the study of perspective which he was the first to apply to art in accordance with definitely formulated rules. The correlated studies of mathematics and geometry also received his attention. He was considerably influenced by the lifelong friendship of the mathematician Paolo del Pozzo Toscanelli, by his joint studies with his younger friend Donatello, by the the artists and art-works of his native Florence, particularly by the monuments of Rome, to the study of which he devoted many years. Classical antiquity was already, at this period, well known and highly appreciated.

SCULPTURE

The Duomo of Pistoia contains several examples of niello-work and two silver statues of prophets said to be the earliest works of Brunellesco. A wooden Magdalen in the church of Santo Spirito at Florence was destroyed by fire in 1471. His wooden crucifix in Santa Maria Novella is true to nature and beautiful, while that by his friend Donatello, in Santa Croce, deserved the criticism ascribed to Brunellesco: “This is a rustic hanging on the cross.” Two of his perspectives created a great sensation in Florence. Seventy years later they are described at length by his first anonymous biographer. Masaccio learned perspective from Brunellesco and according to Vasari, the architect’s second biographer, it was also applied to intarsia. Brunellesco entered into competition with Ghiberti and other masters in 1401, when models for the reliefs of the second bronze door of the Baptistery at Florence were called for. The designs of both are exhibited side by side in the National Museum at Florence. We may agree with the verdict of the commission which awarded the first prize to Ghiberti and the second to Brunellesco. Ghiberti’s relief is noteworthy for its agreeable dignity, while that of Brunellesco looks restless and laboured. Soon after Brunellesco went to Rome and for many years explored its ancient ruins, alone and with Donatello. The remains of the classic buildings so enraptured him that he decided to make architecture his lifework, instead of, as heretofore, and to a greater degree in Santo Spirito, a occasional occupation. In the meantime the much discussed problem of the completion of the Duomo (Santa Maria del Fiore) of Florence seems to have awakened in him the ambition to attain in this way undisputed supremacy in one of plastic arts.

ARCHITECTURE

At the end of the thirteenth century Arnolfo di Cambio had begun the construction of Santa Maria del Fiore substantially a Gothic cathedral, and carried it as far as the dome whose span of forty metres ( one hundred and thirty eight and one-half feet), nearly equal to that of the Pantheon, had deterred from its completion all contemporary architects. In 1417 a conference of experts failed to arrive at a solution. Brunellesco, who was present, did not fully declared himself, but instead visited Rome again, manifestly for the purpose of coming forward with greater assurance. The following year (March, 1419) a meeting of the most noted architects took place, and in the discussion relative to the cathedral dome Brunellesco with full confidence purposed to complete it without centering, since it was impossible to construct scaffolding for such a height. At first, he was regarded as a fool, but later was actually commissioned to execute the work, with two other artists as associates. Whether to harmonize it with the pointed arches of the rest of the design or to relieve the substructure of the greater thrust, Brunellesco built the dome not on spherical, but on pointed octagonal, clustered-arches. He then braced it not only by means of the octagonal drum, previously agreed on, but also borrowed from Baptistery, besides its lantern, the idea of a protective roof, not an ordinary roof, but a second and lighter dome. This novel concept of a dome of two shells greatly relieved the weight of the structure, gave to the exterior an agreeable rounded finish, and in the space between the shells furnished room for ribbing passageways, and stairs. In technical or constructive skill the dome of St. Peter’s marked no advance on the work of Brunellesco; it is superior only in formal beauty. The crowning lantern, statically important weight, adds sixteen metres to the height of the dome which is ninety-one metres; it is inadequate, however, to the lighting of the edifice. Brunellesco’s work remained in its essential features, a model for succeeding ages. The lantern was not completed until five years after the death of the master.

Inspired by classical art he executed other domical structures and basilicas, in all of which the essential characteristics of the new style appear. For the sacristy of San Lorenzo at Florence he built its polygonal dome, without a drum, on a square plan, by means of pendentives (projecting spherical triangles). As a central feature for Santa Maria degli Angeli in Florence, he designed a dome resting on a substructure, octagonal on the interior and sixteen-sided on the exterior. On a freestanding centralized plan he built a still more charming structure, the Pazzi Chapel. Over the middle portion of the rectangular hall a dome with radial ribbings is carried on arches and flanked on two sides by barrel vaults. The square sanctuary rises on the long side of this rectangular hall and is covered with a dome. The corresponding square on the entrance side is also domed; he added to it an antique colonnade covered in by a barrel vault, thus forming a loggia that extends the entire width of the building. The interior wall surfaces are decorated with Corinthian pilasters. The straight entablature, the rounded windows, the coffered ceiling, the medallions, complete on a small scale an ideal Renaissance edifice. It is probable that the cruciform and domical church of Badia di Fiesole was built from Brunellesco’s design. In all these works he treated antique classical principles rather freely. In larger churches his practical mind induced him to return to the basilica plan. In San Lorenzo, it is true, he found the cruciform plan already fixed; he added, however, a wooden ceiling for the nave, spherical vaults for the side aisles, and rectangular chapels with barrel vaults along the outer walls; lateral aisles also surround the transept. The external cornice is carried out in a straight line; the height of the nave is double its width, the Corinthian columes bear the classical triple entablature but the arches springing therefrom; to increase the height these arches bear another broad triple entablature. We are frequently reminded in this edifice of the ancient Christan and Romanesque basilicas. Its dome was completed by Monetti, who allowed himself here, and to a greater degree in San Spirito, a certain liberty in dealing with the designs of Brunellesco. The plan of the latter church is in the main the same as that of San Lorenzo; the interior niches are rounded, though their exterior walls are rectangular. These niches follow the lateral aisles around the transepts and the apse. Over the meeting of the great nave and apse rises a low drum supporting a ribbed dome; it is finished with around windows and a lantern. Brunellesco executed also no little domestic architecture. He supervised the construction of the Foundling Hospital (Spedale degli Innocenti) and drew the model of a magnificent palace for Cosimo de’ Medici which the latter failed to carry out through fear of envy. Finally he built a part of the Pitti Palace, and in this work left to posterity a model method of the use of quarry-faced stone blocks for the first story. In recognition of his merits this epoch-making architect, no less distinguished in the decorative than sacred precincts of the cathedral.

G. GIETMANN

Ferdinand Brunetière

A French critic and professor, born at Toulon, 19 July, 1849; died at Paris, 9 December, 1906. After finishing his studies at the Lycée Louis-le-Grand, he took the entrance examination of the Ecole Normale, a higher training-school for teachers, but failed on account of deficiency in Greek. When the Franco-German war broke out, he enlisted in the heavy-armed infantry. After the war he returned to Paris and led a very precarious life as a teacher in private schools. In 1874, he began to write for the “Revue des Deux Mondes,” then edited by Charles Buloz, whose principal associate he soon became. From the first he was an opponent of the Naturalist School, which in retaliation feigned to ignore him and declared that the name of Brunetière was the pseudonym of some writer of no account. His mastery of criticism and his immense and minute learning, which were combined with a keen and cutting style, soon proved his intellectual power. The editor-ship in chief of the “Revue des Deux Mondes” was tendered to him in 1893. Although he had not attained the higher academic degrees, he was appointed professor of the French language and literature in the Ecole Normale in 1886, a position he held up to 1905, when the school was reorganized. On account of his conversion to Catholicism he was dropped from the list of professors. He was elected to the French Academy in 1893.

In 1897, M. Brunetière lectured in the United States, under the auspices of the Alliance Française. After delivering nine lectures on French poetry in the annual course of the Percy Turnbull lectures on poetry, at the Johns Hopkins University, he travelled through the country speaking to enthusiastic audiences on classical and contemporary literature. He met with a success that no French lecturer before him had ever attained. In New York more than three thousand persons gathered to hear him. His most famous lecture was on Zola, whose so-called lifelike pictures of the French bourgeois, of a workman, soldier, and peasant, he described as gloomy, pessimistic, and calumnious caricatures.

Brunetière was a French critic of the last twenty years of the nineteenth century. His articles in the “Revue des Deux Mondes” resemble a strongly framed building, without frivolous ornament, majestic in proportion, impressive through solidity. They have been published in about fifteen volumes bearing various titles, as: “Etudes critiques sur l’histoire de la littérature française”; “Questions de critique”; “Essais sur la littérature contemporaine,” etc. Brunetière was a dogmatist, judging literay works not by the impression they made upon him, but according to certain principles he had laid down as criteria. According to his dogmatic system, literary work derives its value from the general ideas it contains, and the originality of a writer consists only in setting his own stamp upon a universal design. A good survey of his ideas may be had from the “Manuel de la littérature française” (tr. New York). This form of criticism was more or less borrowed from Désiré Nisard. About the year 1889, M. Brunetière changed his method and applied to literature the theories of evolution, explaining the formation, growth, and decay of various literary genres in their development from a common origin, by the same principles as those by which Darwin explained the development of the animal species. (L’évolution des genres; L’évolution de la poésie lyrique au XIXe siècle.) However weak the basis of such a system may be, all the details are interesting. In 1892 M. Brunetière showed himself a orator of the highest rank. His lectures at the Odéon théâtre on “Les époques du Theatre Francais” proved very successful. In 1893 he delivered a course of public lectures at the Sorbonne on “L’évolution des genres,” and in 1894 on “Les sermons de Bossuet.” When he was deprived of his professorship at the Ecole Normale, in 1905, he became ordinary lecturer to the Société des Conférences. M. Brunetière was master of the difficult art of convincing a large audience. He had all the qualities of a true orator: clearness of exposition, strength and logic of reasoning, an unusual command of general ideas, a fine and penetrating voice, and above all, a certain strange power of conviction which won the immediate sympathy of the most prejudiced hearers.

M. Brunetière became a convert to Catholicism, in consequence of long and thorough study of Bossuet’s sermons, and, strange to say, by a logical process of deductions which had been suggested to him by Auguste Comte’s philosophy. (See Discours de combat, 2d series, p. 3.) In giving up his materialistic opinions to adopt the Catholic Faith he was prompted by a deep conviction, and there was no emotional element in this radical change. The article he wrote in 1895, “Après une visite au Vatican,” augured his conversion to catholicism. In this article, M. Brunetière showed that science, in spite of its solemn promises, had failed to give happiness to mankind, and that faith alone was able to achieve that result. Soon after, M. Brunetière publicly adhered to Catholicism and for ten years he made numerous speeches in all parts of France, to defend his new faith against the free-thinkers. Among these addresses may be mentioned: “Le besoin de croire,” Besancon, 1898; “Les raisons actuelles de croire,” Lille, 1899; “L’idée de solidarité,” Toulouse, 1900; “L’action catholique,” Tours, 1901; “Les motifs d’esperer,” Lyons, 1901, etc. He devoted himself to this task with the greatest energy, for he was naturally a man of will and a fighter. The most interesting feature of his apology is his attempt to show how much the positivism of Auguste Comte was akin to Catholicism. He endeavoured to prove that modern thought contained in itself, without suspecting it, the seed of Catholicism. (see “Sur les chemins de la croyance. Primiere etape, L’utilisation du positivisme.”) On one occasion, in the course of a discussion with a Socialist, he went so far as to infer the identity of the social aspirations of Catholicism and the aspirations of the Socialists for a general reform of the world.

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Ugolino Brunforte

Friar Minor and chronicler, born c. 1262; died c. 1348. His father Rinaldo, Lord of Sarnano in the Marches, belonged to an ancient and noble family of French origin, from which sprang the famous Countess Matilda. Ugolino entered the Order of Friars Minor at the age of sixteen and served his novitiate at the convent of Roccabruna, but passed most of his life at the convent of Santa Maria in Monte Giorgio, whence he is often called Ugolino of Monte Giorgio. In 1295 he was chosen Bishop of Abruzzi (Teramo) under Celestine V, but before his consecration the pope had resigned and Boniface VIII who suspected Ugolino as belonging to the Zelanti annulled the appointment (see Bull “In Supremae Dignitatis Specula” in “Bullarium Francis,” IV, 376. Nearly fifty years later he was elected provincial of Macerata. Most scholars are now agreed on fixing upon Ugolino as the author of the “Fioretti” or “Little Flowers of St. Francis” in their original form. For recent research has revealed that this classic collection of narratives, which forms one of the most delightful productions of the Middle Ages, or rather the fifty-three chapters which form the true text of the “Fioretti” (for the four appendixes are additions of later compilers) were translated into Italian by an unknown fourteenth-century friar from a larger Latin work attributed to Ugolino. Although this Latin original has not come down to us, we have in the “Actus B. Francisci et Sociorum Ejus,” edited by Paul Sabatier in “Collection d’Etudes” (Paris, 1902, IV), an approximation to it which may be considered on the whole as representing the original of the “Fioretti.” That Ugolino was the principal compiler of the “Actus” seems certain; how far he may be considered the sole author of the “Fioretti” of the primitive “Actus Fioretti” is not so clear. His labour which consisted chiefly in gathering the flowers for his bouquet from written and oral local tradition appears to have been completed before 1328.

WADDING, Script. ord. Min. (1650), 179; SBARALEA, Supplementum (8106), addenda 727; LUIGI DA FABRIANO, Disquisizione istorica intorno all’ autore dei Fioretti (Fabriano, 1883); Cenni cronologico-biografici dell’ osservante Provincia Picena (Quaracchi, 1886), 232 sqq.; MANZONI, Fioretti (2nd ed., Rome, 1902), prefazione; SABATIER, Fioretum S. Francisci (Paris, 1902), preface; MARIOTTI, Primordi Gloriosi dell’ ordine Minoritico nelle Marche (Castelplanio, 1903), VI; ARNOLD, The Authorship of the Fioretti (London, 1904); PACE, L’autore del Floretum in Rivista Abruzzese, ann. XIX, fasc. II; VAN ORTROY in Annal. Bolland., XXI, 443 sqq.

PASCHAL ROBINSON

Leonardo Bruni

An eminent Italian humanist, b. of poor and humble parents at Arezzo, the birthplace of Petrarch, in 1369; d. at Florence, 9 March, 1444. He is also called Aretino from the city of his birth. Beginning at first the study of law, he later, under the patronage of Salutato and the influence of the Greek scholar Chrysoloras, turned his attention to the study of the classics. In 1405 he obtained through his friend Poggio the post of Apostolic secretary under Pope Innocent VII. He remained at Rome for several years, continuing as secretary under Popes Gregory XII and Alexander V. In 1410 he was elected Chancellor of the Republic of Florence, but resigned the office after a few months, returning to the papal court as secretary under John XXIII, whom he afterwards accompanied to the Council of Constance. On the deposition of that pope in 1415, Bruni returned to Florence, where he spent the remaining years of his life.

Here he wrote his chief work, a Latin history of Florence, “Historiarium Florentinarum Libri XII” (Strasburg, 1610). In recognition of this great work the State conferred upon him the rights of citizenship and exempted the author and his children from taxation. In 1427 through the favour of the Medici he was again appointed state chancellor, a post which he held until his death. During these seventeen years he performed many valuable services to the State. Bruni contributed greatly to the revival of Greek and Latin learning in Italy in the fifteenth century and was foremost among the scholars of the Christian Renaissance. He, more than any other man, made the treasures of the Hellenic world accessible to the Latin scholar through his literal translations into Latin of the works of Greek authors. Among these may be mentioned his translations of Aristotle, Plato, Plutarch, Demosthenes, and Æschines. These were considered models of pure Latinity.

His original works include: “Commentarius Rerum Suo Tempore Gestarum”; “De Romae Origine”; “De Bello Italico adversus Gothos”; and ten volumes of letters, “Epistolae Familiares,” which, written in elegant Latin, are very valuable for the literary history of the fifteenth century. He was also the author of biographies in Italian of Dante and Petrarch and wrote in Latin the lives of Cicero and Aristotle. So widespread was the admiration for Bruni’s talents that foreigners came from all parts to see him. The great esteem in which he was held by the Florentines was shown by the extraordinary public honors accorded him at his death. His corpse was clad in dark silk, and on his breast was laid a copy of his “History of Florence.” In the presence of many foreign ambassadors and the court of Pope Eugenius, Manetti pronounced the funeral oration and placed the crown of laurel upon his head. He was then buried at the expense of the State in the cemetery of Santa Croce, where his resting-place is marked by a monument executed by Rossellino.

Symonds, Renaissance in Italy (New York, 1900), II; The Revival of Learning; Voight, Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Altherthums (Berlin, 1893); the most complete ed. of Bruni’s works is that of Mehus (Florence, 1731).

EDMUND BURKE

Diocese of Brünn

Suffragan diocese of the Archdiocese of Olmutz, embracing the south-western part of Moravia, an area of 3825 sq. m., and containing, according to the “Catalogus cleri Dioceseos Brunensis 1907,” about 1,051,654 inhabitants, 1,000,607 of whom are Catholics.

I. HISTORY

The erection of the Diocese of Brünn was due to Empress Maria Theresa. The territory comprised in this diocese belonged from a very early period to the Diocese of Olmutz. To obviate the difficulties arising from the administration of such a vast territory, Maria Theresa in 1773 entered into negotiations with Pope Clement XIV. Olmutz was to be raised to the rank of an archbishopric and two newly created bishoprics—Brünn and Troppau—assigned it as suffragans. Eventually, however, only one was created. By a papal Bull of Pius VI, dated 5 December, 1777, Olmutz was made an archbishopric and Brünn erected into an episcopal see. The collegiate chapter of the provostship of Sts. Peter and Paul which had been in existence in Brünn since 1296 was constituted the cathedral chapter, and the provost-church was made the cathedral. Matthias Franz, Count von Chorinsky, mitred provost of the chapter was appointed by the empress first bishop. He was succeeded by Johann Baptist Lachenbauer (1787–99), Vincenz Joseph von Schrattenbach (1800–16), Wenzel Urban Ritter von Stuffler (1817–31), Franz Anton von Gindl (1832–41), Anton Ernst, Count von Schaffgotsche (1842–70), Karl Nöttig (1871–82), Franz Sales Bauer (1882–1904), since 1904 Archbishop of Olmutz, and Paulus, Count von Huyn, b. at Brünn, 1868, appointed bishop 17 April, 1904, and consecrated 26 June, 1904.

II. STATISTICS

For the cure of souls the diocese is divided into 7 archipresbyterates and 37 deaneries with 429 parishes and the same number of parish churches, 30 simple benefices, 545 mission churches (Filialkirchen) and oratories. In 1907 the number of secular clergy was 751,612 engaged in the care of souls, 102 in other offices (professors, military chaplains, etc.), and 47 retired from active duty; regulars, 101, of whom 54 are engaged in the active ministry. The cathedral chapter consists of a dean, an archdeacon, 4 canons capitular, 6 honorary canons, and 1 canon extra statum; the consistory is composed of 15 members. In Nikolsburg there is a collegiate chapter with 6 canons and 4 honorary canons. The bishop and the 4 capitulars are appointed by the emperor, the dean by the cathedral chapter, and the archdeacon by the bishop. Among the benefices, 26 are by free collation, 106 subject to appointment by administrators of the religious fund, 8 by administrators of the fund for students, 23 by ecclesiastical patrons, 250 by lay families, 22 are incorporated with monasteries, and 2 of mixed patronage. For the training of the clergy there is a seminary, in connection with which is a theological school with 11 ecclesiastical professors, also an episcopal preparatory school for boys. In the intermediate schools of the diocese 67 priests are engaged in teaching religion, in the primary schools and intermediate schools for girls 79 priests.

The following religious congregations have establishments in the diocese: Men: Premonstratensians 1 abbey (Neureisch) with 12 priests; Benedictines 1 abbey in raigern (from which is issued the well-known periodical “Studien u. Mitteilungen aus dem Benediktiner-und Cistercienserorden”), with 20 fathers and 2 clerics; the Hermits of St. Augustine 1 foundation in Brünn, with 16 priests and 5 clerics; the Piarists 1 college at Nikolsburg with 2 fathers and 3 lay brothers; the Dominicans 1 monastery with 7 fathers and 7 brothers; the Franciscans 2 convents with 7 fathers and 5 brothers; the Minorites 1 monastery with 2 priests and 2 lay brothers; the Capuchins 3 monasteries with 9 fathers and 8 brothers; the Brothers of Mercy, 2 foundations with 3 priests and 15 brothers. Women: 32 foundations and 379 sisters engaged in the education of girls and the care of the sick: 1 Cistercian abbey (Tischnowitz)with 25 religious; 1 Ursuline convent with 21 sisters; 1 Elizabethan convent with 19 sisters; 3 foundations of the Sisters of Mercy of St. Vincent de Paul, with 34 sisters; 9 houses of the Sisters of Mercy of St. Charles Borromeo, with 71 sisters; 2 houses of the Daughters of the Divine Saviour with 26 sisters; 6 convents of the Poor Sisters of Notre Dame with 35 sisters; 1 house of Daughters of Divine Love, with 24 sisters; 1 mother-house and 5 branches of the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, with 108 sisters, and 1 foundation of the Order of St. Hedwig, with 4 sisters. The above named congregations of women conduct 4 boarding schools for girls, 21 schools for girls, 6 hospitals, 4 orphan asylums, 13 creches, 5 hospital stations, 2 asylums for aged women, 2 homes for the aged, 1 institution for the blind, and 1 home for servant girls. Among the associations to be found in the diocese may be mentioned: the Catholic Journeymen’s Union (Gesellenverein), 7; the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, 9 conferences; the Association of Christian Social Workers, the Apostolate of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, the St. Joseph’s Verein for men and young men.

Chief among the churches of the diocese is the Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul at Brünn; built between the thirteenth and fifteenth century in Gothic style, it was destroyed in 1645, rebuilt as a Renaissance structure (1743–80), remodeled in 1906 and two towers added. The stateliest and most beautiful Gothic church of the diocese is the church of St. James at Brünn, begun as early as the thirteenth century but completed only in 1511. Other prominent ecclesiastical buildings are the church of St. James at Iglau, erected 1230–43, with three naves, a spacious choir, and a Roman portico; the Jesuit church at Brünn, erected in 1582 in the Barocco style.

WOLNÝ, Kirchliche Topographie von Mähren (4 vols. Brünn, 1857–61), Division II; WEINBRENNER, Mähren u. das Bistum Brünn (1877); PROKOP, Mähren in kunstgeschichtlicher Beziehung (4 vols., Vienna, 1904); TRAUTENBERGER, Chronik der Landeshauptstadt Brünn (5 vols., Brünn, 1893–97); Die katholische Kirche in Wort u. Bild (2nd ed., Munich, 1907), II.

JOSEPH LINS

Francis de Sales Brunner

The founder of the Swiss-American congregation of the Benedictines, b. 10 January, 1795, at Muemliswil, Switzerland; d. at the Convent of Schellenberg, Duchy of Lichtenstein, 29 December, 1859. He received in baptism the name of Nicolaus Joseph. After the death of his father he entered, 11July, 1812, the Benedictine monastery near his residence in Maria Stein. He made his vows two years later and studied for the priesthood under the direction of the pious Abbot Pfluger. Ten years after his ordination (1819) he felt a vocation for a stricter life and joined the Trappists of Oehlemberg, also near his home. This convent being suppressed, he offered his services for foreign missions to Gregory XVI, and was to have gone as Apostolic missionary to China, but shortly before the time set for his departure the order was recalled. Next he founded a school for poor boys in the castle of Löwenberg, which he had purchased from the Count de Montfort. In 1833 with his mother he made a pilgrimage to Rome, where they were both enrolled in the Archconfraternity of the Most Precious Blood. Returned to Lowenberg, his mother gathered around her pious virgins to “hold a perpetual (day and night) adoration and dedicate their lives to the education of orphans and the furnishing of vestments for poor churches.”

Thus began the Sisters of the Most Precious Blood; their foundress died in 1836, and the community was brought to America under the second mother superior, Sister Clara, who died in 1876 at Grunewald, Ohio. Meanwhile, in 1838, Father Brunner had made a second visit to Rome, and had entered the Congregation of the Most Precious Blood at Albano. After his novitiate he returned, continued the work he had previously begun, and also began educating boys for the priesthood, so as to inaugurate a German province of the congregation. The Government interfering more and more with his school, he accepted the invitation of Archbishop Purcell of Cincinnati, brought to him by Monsignor Henni, to establish his community in America. Accompanied by eight priests, he landed, 21 December, 1843, at New Orleans and, ascending the Ohio River, arrived at Cincinnati on New year’s Day. From Cincinnati they proceeded to St. Alphonsus, near Norwalk, Ohio, where the first station was erected. Their missionary circuit included all the Germans within a radius of 100 miles; they began to erect convents and parishes and entrusted the schools to the Sisters of the most Precious Blood, who had followed them on the 22nd of July, 1844. After this Father Brunner made several trips to Europe in the interest of his institution, and it was during the last of these that he died. He was an indefatigable missionary and a very prolific writer on religious subjects. Many of his writings, all of which in German, still await publication.

Leben und Wirken des P.F.S. Brunner (Carthagena, 1882); Nuntius Aulæ, I-X.

U. F. MÜLLER.

Sebastian Brunner

A versatile and voluminous writer, b. in Vienna, 10 December, 1814; d. there, 27 November, 1893. He received his college education from the Benedictines of his native city, his philosophical and theological training at the Vienna University, was ordained priest in 1838, and was for some years professor in the philosophical faculty of the Vienna University. The University of Freiburg honored him with the degree of Doctor of Theology. In the revolutionary year, 1848, he founded the “Wienver Kirchenzeitung,” which he edited until 1865, and in which he scourged with incisive satire the Josephinist bondage of the Church. It is mainly owing to his fearless championship, which more than once brought him into conflict with the authorities, that the Church in Austria to-day breathes more freely. He wrote some ascetical books and many volumes of sermons, also a biography of Clemens Hofbauer, the apostle of Vienna. His books of travel dealing with Germany, France, England, Switzerland, and especially Italy, are distinguished by keen observations on men and manners, art and culture, and most of all on religion, and are thus connected closely with his apologetic and controversial writings. Among the latter may be mentioned his book on “The Atheist Renan and his Gospel.” Brunner’s voluminous historical works are very valuale, particularly those on the history of the Church in Austria. It is, however, as a humorist that Brunner takes a permanent place in the history of literature, for he counts among the best modern German humorous writers. His works of this class were composed partly in verse, which at times reminds the reader of Hudibras, and partly in the form of prose stories. One of the best of the former is “Der Nebeljungen Lied”; of the latter, “Die Prinzenschule zu Möpselglück.” These works, conceived with a high and noble purpose, are marked by brilliant satire, inexhaustible wit, and genuine humour, combined with great depth of feeling. A collection of his stories in prose and verse was published in eighteen volumes at Ratisbon in 1864. It is not surprising, though it is regrettable, that an author whose literary output was so vast and varied, often shows signs of haste and a lack of artistic finish. In his later years he turned his satirical pen against the undiscriminating worship of modern German literary celebrities.

Selbstiographie (Autobiography (Ratisbon, 1890–91)1 Scheicher, Sebastian Brunner (Wurzburg and Vienna, 1890); Lindemann, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur (Freiburg im Br., 1898), 938, 939; Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, XLVII (Supplement, 1903), s.v.

B. GULDNER

St. Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne

In 940, Bruno began to exercise the functions of imperial chancellor (Mon. Germ. Dipl., I, 120 nr. 35). After he had received deacon’s orders in 941 or 942, the emperor appointed him, dispite his youth, Abbot of the monasteries of Lorsch, near Worms, and of Corvei on the Weser. In both communities he soon restored the strict observance of St. Benedict’s Rule. He was ordained priest about 950 and in 951 became archchancellor (Mon. Germ. Dipl., I, 218, nr. 138 sq.); even from the year 940 on, all Otto’s state papers were prepared by Bruno’s hand. As the executive administration of affairs was conducted chiefly through the royal chancery, Bruno’s influence no extended to all parts of the empire. Relations between Germany and France were by his good offices greatly improved. He took part in the Synod of Verdun, in 947, and assisted in the adjustment of the quarrel, of such consequence to the Kingdom of France, about the Archbishopric of Reims. In 951 he accompanied the Emperor Otto to Italy. In the troublous times which soon followed during the revolt of Ludolf, Otto’s eldest son and heir-apparent, and Conrad, Duke of Lorraine, Bruno proved his loyalty and devotion to his brother. For this service, after the death (9 July, 953) of Wicfrid, Archbishop of Cologne, the emperor caused Bruno to be elected his successor in that see, and likewise entrusted to him the administration of the Duchy of Lorraine. On the 21st of September, the nobility of that province swore allegiance to Bruno at Aachen, and on the 25th he was consecrated and enthroned at Cologne. Through Bruno’s mediation Ludolf was reconciled with his father, and the rebellion of Conrad effectually quelled. In the struggle between the last of the Carlovingians and the rising house of Capet, Bruno’s prestige enabled him to act, in the name of his imperial brother, as a supreme arbitrator in French affairs, countless disputes being satisfactorily settled by his prudence and tact.

In Bruno’s personality as prince-bishop, was represented the perfect union of Church and State which was the corner-stone of the policy of Otto the Great; for Bruno, despite his tireless temporal activities, was a great bishop and zealous pastor. He ruled by personal piety and singular holiness of life. With scrupulous care he watched over the moral discipline of his diocese, improved the higher education of the clergy and lavished his resources on monastic and ecclesiastical institutions throughout the realm. The monastery of St. Pantaleon at Cologne, begun in 956, was his foundation. The literary distinction to which Lorraine, before other parts of the kingdom, early attained may be accounted not the least remarkable result of his work. Bruno’s favourite abode was Bonn.

When Otto set out a second time for Italy in 961, to be crowned emperor at Rome, the government of the realm and the guardianship of Otto II was confided to Bruno and to William, Archbishop of Mainz. Soon after the kaiser’s return, Bruno was summoned again on a mission of peace to France; it was while on this journey that he died, at Reims. His body, at his own request, was carried back and buried in the monastic church of St. Pantaleon at Cologne. From time immemorial the Diocese of Tournay has had a special office for St. Bruno on June the 18th, and as the day of his death was always celebrated at St. Pantaleon as the anniversary of a saint, the feast of Bruno, Confessor, is now observed throughout the Diocese of Cologne as a double on the 11th day of October.

RUOTGER, Vita Brunonis in Acta SS., Oct., V, 698, also found in Mon. Germ. Hist., IV, 252, and in P. L., CXXXIV, 938; Altera Vita Brunonis (a later life, written in the 12th century at St. Pantaleon), in Mon. Germ. Hist., IV, 275; P. L., CXXXIV, 978; VON HEFELE, S.V. in Kirchenlex., II; HAUCK, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (Leipzig, 1896), III, 40; ID. in HERZOGHAUCK Real-Encyk. für prot. Theol. und Kirche (Leipzig, 1897); PIELER, Bruno I (Arnsberg, 1851); MEYER, De Brunone I (Berlin, 1870); PFEIFFER, Hist.-krit. Beiträge zur Geschichte Bruns I (Cologne, 1870); STREBITZKI, Quellenkr. Untersuch. (Neustadt in Westpreussen, 1875); GIESEBRECHT, Kaiserzeit (3d ed., Brunswick, 1863), I, 321; KÖPKE AND DÜMMLER, Kaiser Otto d. Gr. (Leipzig, 1876), passim; GIESEBRECHT, Allgemaeine Deutsche Biographie, III, 424; MITTAG, Die Arbeitsweise Ruotgers in der Vita Brunonis (Berlin, 1896); Analecta Bollandiana, XVI, 202 and XVIII, 57; WATTENBACH, Gesch.-Quellen (6th ed., Berlin, 1893), I, 321; KLEINERMANNS, Die Heiligen auf dem bischöflichen bezw. erzbischöflichen Stuhle von Köln (Cologne, 1895–98).

GEORGE H. DERRY.

St. Bruno (1)

Bishop of Segni, in Italy, born at Solero, Piedmont, about 1048; died 1123. He received his preliminary education in a Benedictine monastery of his native town. After completing his studies at Bologna and receiving ordination, he was made a canon of Sienna. In appreciation of his great learning and eminent piety, he was called to Rome, where, as an able and prudent counsellor, his advice was sought by four successive popes. At a synod held in Rome in 1079 he obliged Berengarius of Tours, who denied the real presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist to retract his heresy. He enjoyed the personal friendship of Gregory VII, and was consecrated Bishop of Segni by him in the Campagna of Rome, in 1080. His humility caused him to decline the cardinalate. He is called “the brilliant defender of the church” because of the invincible courage he evinced in aiding Gregory VII and the succeeding popes in their efforts for ecclesiastical reform, and especially in denouncing lay investiture, which he even declared to be heretical.

He accompanied Pope Urban II in 1095, to the Council of Clermont in which the First Crusade was inaugurated. In 1102 he became a monk of Monte Casino and was elected abbot in 1107, without, however, resigning his episcopal charge. With many bishops of Italy and France, Bruno rejected the treaty known in history as the “Privilegium,” which Henry V of Germany had extorted from Pope Paschal II during his imprisonment. In a letter addressed to the pope he very frankly censured him for concluding a convention which conceded to the German king in part the inadmissible claim to the right of investiture of ring and crosier upon bishops and abbots, and demanded that the treaty should be annulled. Irritated by his opposition, Paschal II commanded Bruno to give up his abbey and to return to his episcopal see. With untiring zeal he continued to labour for the welfare of his flock, as well as for the common interest of the Church at large, till his death. He was canonized by Pope Lucius III in 1183. His feast is celebrated on the 18th of July. St. Bruno was the author of numerous works, chiefly Scriptural. Of these are to be mentioned his commentaries on the Pentateuch, the Book of Job, the Psalms, the four Gospels, and the Apocalypse.

HEFELE, Hist. of the Councils, tr., V, 281, 299; JUNGMANN, Diss. Hist. Eccl., IV, D, 23, 30; Chevalier, Bio. bibliogr. (Paris, 1905, 2nd ed.) s.v.

J. A. BIRKHAEUSER.

St. Bruno (2)

Confessor, ecclesiastical writer, and founder of the Carthusian Order. He was born at Cologne about the year 1030; died 6 October, 1101. He is usually represented with a death’s head in his hands, a book and a cross, or crowned with seven stars; or with a roll bearing the device O Bonitas. His feast is kept on the 6th of October. According to tradition, St. Bruno belonged to the family of Hartenfaust, or Hardebüst, one of the principal families of the city, and it is in remembrance of this origin that different members of the family of Hartenfaust have received from the Carthusians either some special prayers for the dead, as in the case of Peter Bruno Hartenfaust in 1714, and Louis Alexander Hartenfaust, Baron of Laach, in 1740; or a personal affiliation with the order, as with Louis Bruno of Hardevüst, Baron of Laach and Burgomaster of the town of Bergues-S. Winnoc, in the Diocese of Cambrai, with whom the Hardevüst family in the male line became extinct on 22 March, 1784.

We have little information about the childhood and youth of St. Bruno. Born at Cologne, he would have studied at the city college, or collegial of St. Cunibert. While still quite young (a pueris) he went to complete his education at Reims, attracted by the reputation of the episcopal school and of its director, Heriman. There he finished his classical studies and perfected himself in the sacred sciences which at that time consisted principally of the study of Holy Scriptures and of the Fathers. He became there, according to the testimony of his contemporaries, learned both in human and in Divine science. His education completed, St. Bruno returned to Cologne, where he was provided with a canonry at St. Cunibert’s, and, according to the most probable opinion, was elevated to the priestly dignity. This was about the year 1055. In 1056 Bishop Gervais recalled him to Reims, to aid his former master Heriman in the direction of the school. The latter was already turning his attention towards a more perfect form of life, and when he at last left the world to enter the religious life, in 1057, St. Bruno found himself head of the episcopal school, or écolâtre, a post difficult as it was elevated, for it then included the direction of the public schools and the oversight of all the educational establishments of the diocese. For about twenty years, from 1057 to 1075, he maintained the prestige which the school of Reims has attained under its former masters, Remi of Auxerre, Hucbald of St. Amand, Gerbert, and lastly Heriman. Of the excellence of his teaching we have a proof in the funereal titles composed in his honour, which celebrate his eloquence, his poetic, philosophical, and above all his exegetical and theological, talents; and also in the merits of his pupils, amongst whom were Eudes of Châtillon, afterwards Urban II, Rangier, Cardinal and Bishop of Reggio, Robert, Bishop of Langres, and a large number of prelates and abbots.

In 1075 St. Bruno was appointed chancellor of the church of Reims, and had then to give himself especially to the administration of the diocese. Meanwhile the pious Bishop Gervais, friend of St. Bruno, had been succeeded by Manasses de Gournai, who quickly became odious for his impiety and violence. The chancellor and two other canons were commissioned to bear to the papal legate, Hugh of Die, the complaints of the indignant clergy, and at the Council of Autun, 1077, they obtained the suspension of the unworthy prelate. The latter’s reply was to raze the houses of his accusers, confiscate their goods, sell their benefices, and appeal to the pope. Bruno then absented himself from Reims for a while, and went probably to Rome to defend the justice of his cause. It was only in 1080 that a definite sentence, confirmed by a rising of the people, compelled Manasses to withdraw and take refuge with the Emperor Henry IV. Free then to choose another bishop, the clergy were on the point of uniting their vote upon the chancellor. He, however, had far different designs in view. According to a tradition preserved in the Carthusian Order, Bruno was persuaded to abandon the world by the sight of a celebrated prodigy, popularized by the brush of Lesueur—the triple resurrection of the Parisian doctor, Raymond Diocres. To this tradition may be opposed the silence of contemporaries, and of the first biographers of the saint; the silence of Bruno himself in his letter to Raoul le Vert, Provost of Reims; and the impossibility of proving that he ever visited Paris. He had no need of such an extraordinary argument to cause him to leave the world. Some time before, when in conversation with two of his friends, Raoul and Fulcius, canons of Reims like himself, they had been so enkindled with the love of God and the desire of eternal goods that they had made a vow to abandon the world and to embrace the religious life. This vow, uttered in 1077, could not be put into execution until 1080, owing to various circumstances.

The first idea of St. Bruno on leaving Reims seems to have been to place himself and his companions under the direction of an eminent solitary, St. Robert, who had recently (1075) settled at Molesme in the Diocese of Langres, together with a band of other solitaries who were later on (1098) to form the Cistercian Order. But he soon found that this was not his vocation, and after a short sojourn at Sèche-Fontaine near Molesme, he left two of his companions, Peter and Lambert, and betook himself with six others to Hugh of Châteauneuf, Bishop of Grenoble, and, according to some authors, one of his pupils. The bishop, to whom God had shown these men in a dream, under the image of seven stars, conducted and installed them himself (1084) in a wild spot on the Alps of Dauphiné named Chartreuse, about four leagues from Grenoble, in the midst of precipitous rocks and mountains almost always covered with snow. With St. Bruno were Landuin, the two Stephens of Bourg and Die, canons of St. Rufus, and Hugh the Chaplain, “all, the most learned men of their time,” and two laymen, Andrew and Guerin, who afterwards became the first lay brothers. They built a little monastery where they lived in deep retreat and poverty, entirely occupied in prayer and study, and frequently honoured by the visits of St. Hugh who became like one of themselves. Their manner of life has been recorded by a contemporary, Guibert of Nogent, who visited them in their solitude. (De Vitâ suâ, I, ii.)

Meanwhile, another pupil of St. Bruno, Eudes of Châtillon, had become pope under the name of Urban II (1088). Resolved to continue the work of reform commenced by Gregory VII, and being obliged to struggle against the antipope, Guibert of Ravenna, and the Emperor Henry IV, he sought to surround himself with devoted allies and called his ancient master ad Sedis Apostolicae servitium. Thus the solitary found himself obliged to leave the spot where he had spent more than six years in retreat, followed by a part of his community, who could not make up their minds to live separated from him (1090). It is difficult to assign the place which he then occupied at the pontifical court, or his influence in contemporary events, which was entirely hidden and confidential. Lodged in the palace of the pope himself and admitted to his councils, and charged, moreover, with other collaborators, in preparing matters for the numerous councils of this period, we must give him some credit for their results. But he took care always to keep himself in the background, and although he seems to have assisted at the Council of Benevento (March, 1091), we find no evidence of his having been present at the Councils of Troja (March, 1093), of Piacenza (March, 1095), or of Clermont (November, 1095). His part in history is effaced. All that we can say with certainty is that he seconded with all his power the sovereign pontiff in his efforts for the reform of the clergy, efforts inaugurated at the Council of Melfi (1089) and continued at that of Benevento. A short time after the arrival of St. Bruno, the pope had been obliged to abandon Rome before the victorious forces of the emperor and the antipope. He withdrew with all his court to the south of Italy.

During the voyage, the former professor of Reims attracted the attention of the clergy of Reggio in further Calabria, which had just lost its archbishop Arnulph (1090), and their votes were given to him. The pope and the Norman prince, Roger, Duke of Apulia, strongly approved of the election and pressed St. Bruno to accept it. In a similar juncture at Reims he had escaped by flight; this time he again escaped by causing Rangier, one of his former pupils, to be elected, who was fortunately near by at the Benedictine Abbey of La Cava near Salerno. But he feared that such attempts would be renewed; moreover he was weary of the agitated life imposed upon him, and solitude ever invited him. He begged, therefore, and after much trouble obtained, the pope’s permission to return again to his solitary life. His intention was to rejoin his brethren in Dauphiné, as a letter addressed to them makes clear. But the will of Urban II kept him in Italy, near the papal court, to which he could be called at need. The place chosen for his new retreat by St. Bruno and some followers who had joined him was in the Diocese of Squillace, on the eastern slope of the great chain which crosses Calabria from north to south, and in a high valley three miles long and two in width, covered with forest. The new solitaries constructed a little chapel of planks for their pious reunions and, in the depths of the woods, cabins covered with mud for their habitations. A legend says that St. Bruno whilst at prayer was discovered by the hounds of Roger, Great Count of Sicily and Calabria and uncle of the Duke of Apulia, who was then hunting in the neighbourhood, and who thus learnt to know and venerate him; but the count had no need to wait for that occasion to know him, for it was probably upon his invitation that the new solitaries settled upon his domains. That same year (1091) he visited them, made them a grant of the lands they occupied, and a close friendship was formed between them. More than once St. Bruno went to Mileto to take part in the joys and sorrows of the noble family, to visit the count when sick (1098 and 1101), and to baptize his son Roger (1097), the future Kind of Sicily. But more often it was Roger who went into the desert to visit his friends, and when, through his generosity, the monastery of St. Stephen was built, in 1095, near the hermitage of St. Mary, there was erected adjoining it a little country house at which he loved to pass the time left free from governing his State.

Meanwhile the friends of St. Bruno died one after the other: Urban II in 1099; Landuin, the prior of the Grand Chartreuse, his first companion, in 1100; Count Roger in 1101. His own time was near at hand. Before his death he gathered for the last time his brethren round him and made in their presence a profession of the Catholic Faith, the words of which have been preserved. He affirms with special emphasis his faith in the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and in the real presence of Our Saviour in the Holy Eucharist—a protestation against the two heresies which had troubled that century, the tritheism of Roscelin, and the impanation of Berengarius. After his death, the Carthusians of Calabria, following a frequent custom of the Middle Ages by which the Christian world was associated with the death of its saints, dispatched a rolliger, a servant of the convent laden with a long roll of parchment, hung round his neck, who passed through Italy, France, Germany, and England. He stopped at the principal churches and communities to announce the death, and in return, the churches, communities, or chapters inscribed upon his roll, in prose or verse, the expression of their regrets, with promises of prayers. Many of these rolls have been preserved, but few are so extensive or so full of praise as that about St. Bruno. A hundred and seventy-eight witnesses, of whom many had known the deceased, celebrated the extent of his knowledge and the fruitfulness of his instruction. Strangers to him were above all struck by his great knowledge and talents. But his disciples praised his three chief virtues—his great spirit of prayer, an extreme mortification, and a filial devotion to the Blessed Virgin. Both the churches built by him in the desert were dedicated to the Blessed Virgin: Our Lady of Casalibus in Dauphiné, Our Lady Della Torre in Calabria; and, faithful to his inspirations, the Carthusian Statutes proclaim the Mother of God the first and chief patron of all the houses of the order, whoever may be their particular patron.

St. Bruno was buried in the little cemetery of the hermitage of St. Mary, and many miracles were worked at his tomb. He had never been formally canonized. His cult, authorized for the Carthusian Order by Leo X in 1514, was extended to the whole church by Gregory XV, 17 February, 1623, as a semi-double feast, and elevated to the class of doubles by Clement X, 14 March, 1674. St. Bruno is the popular saint of Calabria; every year a great multitude resort to the Charterhouse of St. Stephen, on the Monday and Tuesday of Pentecost, when his relics are borne in procession to the hermitage of St. Mary, where he lived, and the people visit the spots sanctified by his presence. An immense number of medals are struck in his honour and distributed to the crowd, and the little Carthusian habits, which so many children of the neighbourhood wear, are blessed. He is especially invoked, and successfully, for the deliverance of those possessed.

As a writer and founder of an order, St. Bruno occupies an important place in the history of the eleventh century. He composed commentaries on the Psalms and on the Epistles of St. Paul, the former written probably during his professorship at Reims, the latter during his stay at the Grande Chartreuse if we may believe an old manuscript seen by Mabillon—“Explicit glosarius Brunonis heremitae super Epistolas B. Pauli.” Two letters of his still remain, also his profession of faith, and a short elegy on contempt for the world which shows that he cultivated poetry. The “Commentaries” disclose to us a man of learning; he knows a little Hebrew and Greek and uses it to explain, or if need be, rectify the Vulgate; he is familiar with the Fathers, especially St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, his favourites. “His style,” says Dom Rivet, “is concise, clear, nervous and simple, and his Latin as good as could be expected of that century: it would be difficult to find a composition of this kind at once more solid and more luminous, more concise and more clear.” His writings have been published several times: at Paris, 1509–24; Cologne, 1611–40; Migne, Latin Patrology, CLII, CLIII, Montreuil-sur-Mer, 1891. The Paris edition of 1524 and those of Cologne include also some sermons and homilies which may be more justly attributed to St. Bruno, Bishop of Segni. The Preface of the Blessed Virgin has also been wrongly ascribed to him; it is long anterior, though he may have contributed to introduce it into the liturgy.

St. Bruno’s distinction as the founder of an order was that he introduced into the religious life the mixed form, or union of the eremitical and cenobite modes of monasticism, a medium between the Camaldolese Rule and that of St. Benedict. He wrote no rule, but he left behind him two institutions which had little connection with each other—that of Dauphiné and that of Calabria. The foundation of Calabria, somewhat like the Camaldolese, comprised two classes of religious: hermits, who had the direction of the order, and cenobites who did not feel called to the solitary life; it only lasted a century, did not rise to more than five houses, and finally, in 1191, united with the Cistercian Order. The foundation of Grenoble, more like the rule of St. Benedict, comprised only one kind of religious, subject to a uniform discipline, and the greater part of whose life was spent in solitude, without, however, the complete exclusion of the conventual life. This life spread throughout Europe, numbered 250 monasteries, and in spite of many trials continues to this day.

The great figure of St. Bruno has been often sketched by artists and has inspired more than one masterpiece: in sculpture, for example, the famous statue by Houdon, at St. Mary of the Angels in Rome, “which would speak if his rule did not compel him to silence”; in painting, the fine picture by Zurbaran, in the Seville museum, representing Urban II and St. Bruno in conference; the Apparition of the Blessed Virgin to St. Bruno, by Guercino at Bologna; and above all the twenty-two pictures forming the gallery of St. Bruno in the museum of the Louvre, “a masterpiece of Le Sueur and of the French school.”

LE COUTEULX, Annales Ord. Cart., I; TROMBY, Storia del Sto Patriarea S. Brunone, I, II; Acta SS., 6 October; ZANOTTI, Storia di S. Brunone (Bologna, 1741); LEFEBVRE, Saint Bruno et L’Ordres des Chartreux (Paris, 1883); Vie de Saint Bruno, par un religieux de la Grand Chartreuse (Montreuil-sur-Mer, 1898); TAPPERT, Der heilige Bruno (Luxemburg, 1872); LÖBBEL, Der Stifter des Carthäuser Ordens (Münster, 1899); La Grande Chartreuse par un Chartreux (1896).

AMBROSE MOUGEL

Giordano Bruno

Italian philosopher, b. at Nola in Campania, in the Kingdom of Naples, in 1548; d. at Rome, 1600. At the age of eleven he went to Naples, to study “humanity, logic, and dialectic,” and, four years later, he entered the Order of St. Dominic, giving up his worldly name of Filippo and taking that of Giordano. He made his novitiate at Naples and continued to study there. In 1572 he was ordained a priest.

It seems, however, that, even as a novice, he attracted attention by the originality of his views and by his outspoken criticism of accepted theological doctrines. After his ordination things reached such a pass that, in 1576, formal accusation of heresy was brought against him. Thereupon he went to Rome, but, apparently, did not mend his manner of speaking of the mysteries of faith; for the accusations were renewed against him at the convent of the Minerva. Within a few months of his arrival he fled the city and cast off all allegiance to his order.

From this point on, his life-story is the tale of his wanderings from one country to another and of his failure to find peace anywhere. He tarried awhile in several Italian cities, and in 1579 went to Geneva, where he seems to have adopted the Calvinist faith, although afterwards, before the ecclesiastical tribunal at Venice, he steadfastly denied that he had ever joined the Reformed Church. This much at least is certain; he was excommunicated by the Calvinist Council on account of his disrespectful attitude towards the heads of that Church and was obliged to leave the city. Thence he went to Toulouse, Lyons, and (in 1581) to Paris.

At Lyons he completed his “Clavis Magna,” or “Great Key” to the art of remembering. In Paris he published several works which further developed his art of memory-training and revealed the two-fold influence of Raymond Lully and the neo-Platonists. In 1582 he published a characteristic work, “Il candelaio,” or “The Torchbearer,” a satire in which he exhibits in a marked degree the false taste then in vogue among the humanists, many of whom mistook obscenity for humour. While at Paris he lectured publicly on philosophy, under the auspices, as it seems, of the College of Cambrai, the forerunner of the College of France.

In 1583 he crossed over to England, and, for a time at least, enjoyed the favour of Queen Elizabeth and the friendship of Sir Philip Sidney. To the latter he dedicated the most bitter of his attacks on the Catholic Church, “Il spaccio della bestia trionfante,” “The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast,” published in 1584. He visited Oxford, and, on being refused the privilege of lecturing there, he published (1584) his “Cena delle ceneri,” or “Ash-Wednesday Supper,” in which he attacked the Oxford professors, saying that they knew more about beer than about Greek. In 1585 he returned to France, and during the year which he spent in Paris at this time made several attempts to become reconciled to the Catholic Church, all of which failed because of his refusal to accept the condition imposed, namely, that he should return to his order.

In Germany, whither he went in 1587, he showed the same spirit of insolent self-assertion as at Oxford. In Helmstadt he was excommunicated by the Lutherans. After some time spent in literary activity at Frankfort, he went, in 1591, to Venice at the invitation of Mocenigo, who professed to be interested in his system of memory-training. Failing to obtain from Bruno the secret of his “natural magic,” Mocenigo denounced him to the Inquisition. Bruno was arrested, and in his trial before the Venetian inquisitors first took refuge in the principle of “two-fold truth,” saying that the errors imputed to him were held by him “as a philosopher, and not as an honest Christian”; later, however, he solemnly abjured all his errors and doubts in the matter of Catholic doctrine and practice (Berti, Docum., XII, 22 and XIII, 45). At this point the Roman Inquisition intervened and requested his extradition. After some hesitation the Venetian authorities agreed, and in February, 1593, Bruno was sent to Rome, and for six years was kept in the prison of the Inquisition. Historians have striven in vain to discover the explanation of this long delay on the part of the Roman authorities. In the spring of 1599, the trial was begun before a commission of the Roman Inquisition, and, after the accused had been granted several terms of respite in which to retract his errors, he was finally condemned (January, 1600), handed over to the secular power (8 February), and burned at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome (17 February). Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.

To the works of Bruno already mentioned the following are to be added: “Della causa, principio ed uno”; “Dell’ infinito universo e dei mondi”; “De Compendiosâ Architecturâ”; “De Triplici Minimo”; “De Monade, Numero et Figurâ.” In these “the Nolan” expounds a system of philosophy in which the principal elements are neo-Platonism, materialistic monism, rational mysticism (after the manner of Raymond Lully), and the naturalistic concept of the unity of the material world (inspired by the Copernican astronomy). His attitude towards Aristotle is best illustrated by his reiterated assertion that the natural philosophy of the Stagirite is vitiated by the predominance of the dialectical over the mathematical mode of conceiving natural phenomena. Towards the Scholastics in general his feeling was one of undisguised contempt; he excepted, however, Albert the Great and St. Thomas, for whom he always maintained a high degree of respect. He wished to reform the Aristotelean philosophy, and yet he was bitterly opposed to his contemporaries, Ramus and Patrizzi, whose efforts were directed towards the same obect. He was acquainted, though only in a superficial way, with the writings of the pre-Socratic philosophers of Greece, and with the works of the neo-Platonists, especially with the books falsely attributed to Iamblichus and Plotinus. From the neo-Platonists he derived the tendency of his thought towards monism. From the pre-Socratic philosophers he borrowed the materialistic interpretation of the One. From the Copernican doctrine, which was attracting so much attention in the century in which he lived, he learned to identify the material One with the visible, infinite, heliocentric universe.

Thus, his system of thought is an incoherent materialistic pantheism. God and the world are one; matter and spirit, body and soul, are two phases of the same substance; the universe is infinite; beyond the visible world there is an infinity of other worlds, each of which is inhabited; this terrestrial globe has a soul; in fact, each and every part of it, mineral as well as plant and animal, is animated; all matter is made up of the same elements (no distinction between terrestrial and celestial matter); all souls are akin (transmigration is, therefore, not impossible). This unitary point of view is Bruno’s justification of “natural magic.” No doubt, the attempt to establish a scientific continuity among all the phenomena of nature is an important manifestation of the modern spirit, and interesting, especially on account of its appearance at the moment when the medieval point of view was being abandoned. And one can readily understand how Bruno’s effort to establish a unitary concept of nature commanded the admiration of such men as Spinoza, Jacobi, and Hegel. On the other hand, the exaggerations, the limitations, and the positive errors of his scientific system; his intolerance of even those who were working for the reforms to which he was devoted; the false analogies, fantastic allegories, and sophistical reasonings into which his emotional fervour often betrayed him have justified, in the eyes of many, Bayle’s characterization of him as “the knight-errant of philosophy.” His attitude of mind towards religious truth was that of a rationalist. Personally, he failed to feel any of the vital significance of Christianity as a religious system. It was not a Roman Inquisitor, but a Protestant divine, who said of him that he was “a man of great capacity, with infinite knowledge, but not a trace of religion.”

The latest edition of Bruno’s works is by Tocco, Opere latine di G. B. (Florence, 1889); Opere inedite (Naples, 1891); (Leipzig, 1829, 1830). See also: McIntyre, Giordano Bruno (London and New York, 1903); Frith, Life of G. B. (London and Boston, 1887); Adamson in Development of Modern Philosophy (London, 1903), II, 23–44; Höffding, Hist. of Modern Philosophy, tr. Meyer (London, 1900), I, 110 sqq.; Stöckl, Gesch. der Phil. des Mittelalters (Mainz, 1866), III, 106 sqq.; Turner, Hist. of Phil. (Boston, 1903), 429 sqq.

WILLIAM TURNER

St. Bruno of Querfurt

(Also called BRUN and BONIFACE).

Second Apostle of the Prussians and martyr, born about 970; died 14 February, 1009. He is generally represented with a hand cut off, and is commemorated on 15 October. Bruno was a member of the noble family of Querfurt and is commonly said to have been a relative of the Emperor Otto III, although Hefele (in Kirchenlex., II, s.v. Bruno) emphatically denies this. When hardly six years old he was sent to Archbishop Adalbert of Magdeburg to be educated and had the learned Geddo as his teacher in the cathedral school. He was a well-behaved, industrious scholar, while still a lad he was made a canon of the cathedral. The fifteen year-old Otto III became attached to Bruno, made him one of his court, and took him to Rome when the young emperor went there in 996 to be crowned. At Rome Bruno became acquainted with St. Adalbert Archbishop of Prague, who was murdered a year later by the pagan Prussians to whom he had gone as a missionary. After Adalbert’s death Bruno was tied with an intense desire for martyrdom. He spent much of has time in the monastery on the Aventine where Adalbert had become a monk, and where Abbot Johannes Canaparius wrote a life of Adalbert. Bruno, however, did not enter the monastic life here, but in the monastery of Pereum, an island in the swamps near Ravenna.

Pereum was under the rule of the founder of the Camaldoli reform, St. Romuald, a saint who had great influence over the Emperor Otto III. Under the guidance of St. Romuald Bruno underwent a severe ascetic training; it included manual work, fasting all week except Sunday and Thursday, night vigils, and scourging on the bare back; in addition Bruno suffered greatly from fever. He found much pleasure in the friendship of a brother of the same age as himself, Benedict of Benevento, who shared his cell and who was one with him in mind and spirit. The Emperor Otto III desired to convert the lands; between the EIbe and the Oder, which were occupied by Slavs, to Christianity, and to plant colonies there. He hoped to attain these ends through the aid of a monastery to be founded in this region by some of the most zealous of Romuald’s pupils. In 1001, therefore, Benedict another brother of the same monastery, Joannes, went, laden with gifts from the emperor, to Poland, where they were well received by the Christian Duke Boleslas, who taught them the language of the people. During this time Bruno studied the language of Italy, where he remained with Otto and awaited the Apostolic appointment by the pope. Sylvester II made him archbishop over the heathen and gave him the pallium, but left the consecration to the Archbishop of Magdeburg, who had the supervision of the mission to the Slavs. Quiting Rome in 1003, Bruno was consecrated in February, 1004, by Archbishop Tagino of Magdeburg and gave his property for the founding of a monastery. As war has broken out between Emperor Henry II and the Polish Duke, Bruno was not able to go at once to Poland; so, starting from Ratisbon on the Danube, he went into Hungary, where St. Alalbert had also laboured. Here he finished his life of St. Adalbert, a literary memorial of much worth.

Bruno sought to convert the Hungarian ruler Achtum and his principality of “Black-Hungary,” but he met with so much opposition, including that of the Greek monks, that success was impossible. In December, 1007, he went to Russia. Here the Grand duke Vladimir entertained him for a month and then gave him a territory extending to the possessions of the Petschenegen, who lived on the Black Sea between the Danube and the Don. This was considered the fiercest and most cruel of the heathen tribes. Bruno spent five months among them, baptized some thirty adults, aided in bringing about a treaty of peace with Russia, and left in that country one of his companions whom he had consecrated bishop. About the middle of the year 1008 he returned to Poland and there consecrated a bishop for Sweden. While in Poland he heard that his friend Benedict and four companions had been killed by robbers on 11 May, 1003. Making use of the accounts of eyewitnesses, he wrote the touching history of the lives and death of the so-called Polish brothers. Towards the end of 1008 he wrote a memorable, but ineffectual, letter to the Emperor Henry II, exhorting him to show clemency and to conclude a peace with Boleslas of Poland. Near the close of this same year, accompanied by eighteen companions, he went to found a mission among the Prussians, but the soil was not fruitful, and Bruno and his companions travelled towards the borders of Russia, preaching courageously as they went. On the borders of Russia they were attacked by the heathen, the whole company were murdered, Bruno with great composure meeting death by decapitation. Duke Boleslas bought the bodies of the slain and had them brought to Poland. It is said that the city of Braunsberg is named after St. Bruno.

Soon after the time of their death St. Bruno and his companions were reverenced as martyrs. Little value is to be attached to a legendary account of the martyrdom by a certain Wipert. Bruno’s fellow-pupil, Dithmar, or Thietmar, Bishop of Merseburg, gives a brief account of him in his Chronicle. VI, 58.

The writings, already referred to, of BRUNO himself; Acta SS., 14 February; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 19 June; GIESEBRECHT, Deutsche Kaiserzeit, II; Histor. Jahrbuch (1892), XIII; KOLBERG, Der hl. Bruno von Querfurt (Braunsberg, 1884); Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (Freiburg im Br., 1897), LIII.

GABRIEL MEIER.

Bruno the Saxon

(SAXONICUS.)

A German chronicler of the eleventh Century and author of the “Historia de Bello Saxonico.” Little is known of his life. He was apparently a Saxon monk belonging to the household of Archbishop Werner, of Magdeburg, who was a vigorous opponent of Henry IV and one of the leaders of the Saxon uprising against the emperor. After the death of the archbishop in 1078 at the hands of peasants, Bruno attached himself to Werner, Bishop of Merseburg, to whom, in 1082, he dedicated the work, “De Bello Saxonico” by which he is chiefly known. As its name indicates, it is a record of the struggles of the Saxons with the Emperor Henry IV. The author begins with an account of the youth of Henry and the evil influence exerted over him by Adalbert of Bremen after he had passed from the stern tutelage of Anno, Archbishop of Cologne. He then traces the relations of the emperor with the Saxons and narrates at length the causes and events of the rebellion, ending with the election of Hermann of Luxemburg as king in 1081.

There has been a difference of opinion regarding the historical value of Bruno’s work. It was written during the contentions between Henry and Gregory VII, and the author has been classed with those partisans who, either through ignorance or malice, endeavoured to lower Henry in the esteem of his subjects (Stenzel). Bruno indeed supported the pope’s cause, and his Saxon sympathies manifest themselves at times in his writings, but of his sincerity and his expressed purpose to narrate the truth there can be no doubt. He made the most of his sources of information and, in spite of occasional omissions, gives a vivid picture of the times from the point of view of an interested contemporary. The letters of Saxon bishops and other original documents which he includes in his history give an added value to the work. The text of the “De Bello Saxonico” is given in the “Monum. Germ. Hist.” (Pertz, Hanover, 1848), V. 327–384. A German translation, with an introduction, was published by W. Wattenbach (Berlin, 1853). For an extended, though not unbiased, history of the time, cf. Stenzel, “Geschichte Deutschlands unter den frankischen Kaisen,” (Leipzig, 1827).

WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen (6th ed., Berlin, 1893), II, 86–88.

HENRY M. BROCK

Brunswick (Braunschweig)

A duchy situated in the mountainous central part of Northern Germany, comprising the region of the Harz mountains. Territorially, the duchy is not a unit, but parcelled into three large, and six smaller, sections. Both in extent of territory and in population it ranks tenth among the confederated states of the German Empire. The inhabitants are of the Lower Saxon race. The census of 1900 enumerated 464,333 inhabitants. Of these 432,570 were Lutherans, 4406 Reformed, 24,175 Catholics, and 1824 Jews. The Government is a constitutional monarchy, hereditary in the male line of the House of Brunswick-Luneberg. The elder line having become extinct in 1884 by the death of Duke Wilhelm, the younger line, represented by the Duke of Cumberland, should have succeeded to the throne. For political reasons, however, Prussia objected to his taking possession, and by decree of the Bundesrat he was excluded. The present regent, chosen by the legislature, is Duke Johann Albrecht of Mecklenberg. Agriculture, industries, and commerce are highly developed in the duchy. It is stated that the first potatoes raised in Germany were planted in Brunswick from five of the tubers brought to Europe by Francis Drake. The town Brunswick (Brunonis vicus, Bruno’s village), which has given its name to the duchy, was founded in the second half of the ninth century. The country was part of the allodial lands of Henry the Lion. After his defeat and exile in 1180, he lost all his possessions. Brunswick, however, was restored to his grandson Otto, who was made first Duke of Brunswick by Frederick II. In the fourteenth century the town became a centre of the Hanseatic League, as well as of the confederation of the Lower Saxon towns.

Christianity dates from Charlemagne’s conquest of the Saxon country of which Brunswick is a part. Charlemagne found and destroyed an ancient German idol in the place where now Brunswick stands. At Kissenbruck many of the conquered Saxons were baptized. During the Middle Ages the country was partly under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Halberstadt, partly under that of Hildesheim. At the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century St. Ludger laboured in the neighbourhood of Helmstedt, where he founded a monastery. The pious Duke of Eastphalia and his devout wife founded, in 852, the monastery of Brunshausen, near Gandersheim, for Benedictine nuns, where his daughter Hathumod was first abbess. It was her brother Bruno who some years later founded the town of Brunswick. When, in 881, the church and monastery of Gandersheim were completed, the community was transferred thither, under the abbess Gerberga, sister of Hathumod. This monastery reached its highest point of prosperity in the tenth century, as is shown by the life of Hrotswitha, the celebrated “nun of Gandersheim,” who sang the praises of Otto the Great and wrote Latin comedies after the manner of Terence. Other Benedictine monasteries founded in the eleventh and twelfth centuries were Steterburg, Lutter, and Clus. The great Cistercian Order also flourished in Brunswick. The three monasteries of Amelungsborn, Marienthal, and Riddaghausen were founded in the twelfth century. The Augustinians also had a monastery for men and one for women at Helmstedt.

In the town of Brunswick religion flourished from an early period. Among the older monasteries should be mentioned St. Blasius and St. Cyriacus, also the Benedictine monastery built in honour of St. Autor, whose relics were brought from Trier, and who became the patron saint of the town. In the twelfth century Henry the Lion did much for his town of Brunswick. He rebuilt some monasteries and erected several churches. The Franciscans made a foundation in the town in the thirteenth, the Dominicans, early in the fourteenth, century. The town also possessed several hospitals and Beguinages. Mention must here be made of the great reform of monasteries which was wrought in North Germany in the fifteenth century. The celebrated reformer of monasteries, Johannes Busch, canon regular of Windesheim, extended his beneficent labours to Brunswick. The Benedictine Congregation of Bursfeld, which at the end of the fifteenth century counted 142 monasteries, may be said to have sprung from the monastery of Clus near Gandersheim. (See Bursfeld.)

With regard to the religious revolution of the sixteenth century it will be necessary to consider the town of Brunswick separately. It was a proud and rich town and had long sought to make itself independent of the authority of its dukes. Hence the revolutionary doctrines of the Reformers were readily accepted by the townsmen. Lutheranism was introduced as early as 1521, and firmly established by Burgenhagen in 1528, not without ruthless fanaticism. In the country, however, Duke Henry’s authority prevailed, and the Reformers gained no foothold until 1542, when, owing to the victory of the Smalkaldic League, the duke fell into captivity, Bugenhagen was recalled, and the external observance of the new religion was forced upon the people with much violence and cruelty. When Henry recovered his duchy, in 1547, he re-established the Catholic religion. His son and successor made the whole district Lutheran, and it has since remained a Protestant stronghold. Duke Julius did not destroy all the monasteries, but allowed many of them to persist as so-called Protestant convents. Among these was the once celebrated Gandersheim which was only suppressed during the general spoliation and secularization of 1802. Prominent among the Dukes of Brunswick in post-Reformation times is Anton Ulrich, said to have been the most learned prince of his time, a patron of the arts and sciences, himself a poet, and a student of the early Fathers. He took a lively interest in the movement for the reconciliation of the Protestant sects with the Church, the same movement with which Leibniz was identified. Early in 1710 the duke abjured Protestantism and a few months later published his “Fifty Reasons Why the Catholic Church is Preferable to Protestantism.” (See Räss, Convertiten, IX.) Two of his daughters followed him into the Catholic Church. The only result of his conversion so far as the duchy was concerned was his erection of two Catholic churches, one in Brunswick, the other in Wolfenbuttel, to which according to his desire Franciscans were appointed.

Pope Gregory XVI placed the Catholics of the Duchy of Brunswick under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Hildesheim. They are merely tolerated in the duchy. The Constitution of 1832, it is true, granted liberty of conscience and the rights of public worship, but subjected all churches to the “supervision of the Government,” that is to say, of the Lutheran church authorities. The law of 1848 brought little relief to the Catholics. No ecclesiastical ordinance or pontifical constitution may be published without the government’s placet; all Catholic congregations were incorporated in Protestant parishes. The last intolerable law was abolished in 1867 for three Catholic parishes, henceforth recognized as such by the State, viz., Brunswick, Wolfenbuttel, and Helmstedt, all the others remaining parts of Protestant parishes. Catholic priests (with the three aforesaid exceptions) may not perform baptisms, marriages, or hold funeral services without giving previous notice to the Protestant pastor and obtaining his leave. And no priest, unless duly recognized by the State, may perform any ecclesiastical function without falling under the penalty of the law. Non-recognized priests are even fined for conferring baptism in the case of necessity, and for administering the last sacraments. The same intolerance prevails with regard to schools and the education of children of mixed marriages. The State contributes nothing towards the support of Catholic worship. In the year 1864 a law was passed abolishing Stolgebühren, i.e., all perquisites and fees received by the priest for certain ecclesiastical functions, such as marriages and funerals, which had previously to be handed over to the Protestant pastor. The general statement, therefore, in the “Kirchenlexicon,” that the law of 1867 has rendered the condition of the Catholics in the Duchy of Brunswick “wholly satisfactory,” needs recension; it must be restricted to the three above-named parishes; in the rest of the duchy the condition of Catholics is far from satisfactory. It is for this reason that the Centre Party in the Reichstag has brought in the Toleration Bill, which, if carried, would sweep away all Catholic disabilities throughout the empire, in Brunswick as well as in Mecklenburg, and in the Kingdom of Saxony.

DANIEL, Handbuch der Geographie (5th ed., Leipzig), IV, 568–82; BRÜCK, Geschichte der kath. Kirche in Deutschland im 19. Jahrh. (Mainz and Kirchheim), III; WOKER, in Kirchenlex., s.v.; JANSSEN-PASTOR, Gesch. des deutsch. Volkes (18th ed., Freiburg), III, Bk. II, xvii; IV, Bk. II, viii, Bk. III, xi; Staatslexikon (2nd ed.), I, s.v. Konversations-Lex. (3rd ed., Freiburg), s.v.

B. GULDNER

Anton Brus

Archbishop of Prague, b. at. Muglitz in Moravia, 13 February, 1518; d. 28 August, 1580. After receiving his education at Prague he joined the Knights of the Cross with the Red Star, an ecclesiastical order established in Bohemia in the thirteenth century. After his ordination to the priesthood Emperor Ferdinand appointed him chaplain of the Austrian army, in which capacity he served during the Turkish war (1542–45). He was elected Grand Master General of his order in 1552, when he was only 34 years of age. In 1558 he became Bishop of Vienna; in 1561 the emperor made him Archbishop of Prague, a see which had remained vacant since 1421 when Archbishop Conrad abandoned his flock and entered the Hussite camp. During the intervening years the archdiocese was governed by administrators elected by the cathedral chapter. Before Archbishop Brus took possession of his see, Emperor Ferdinand I, who was also King of Bohemia, sent him as Bohemian legate to the Council of Trent (1562). Besides other ecclesiastical reforms, he urged the archbishop to advocate the expediency of permitting the Utraquists, or Calixtines, of Bohemia and adjoining countries to receive the Holy Eucharist under both species; he hoped that after this concession many of the Utraquists would return to the Catholic Church. The archbishop was ably assisted in his endeavours by the imperial delegate from Hungary, Bishop George Draskovich of Funfkirchen (Pécs), and by Baumgärtner, the delegate of Duke Albrecht V of Bavaria. Brus could not be present at the twenty-first and the twenty-second sessions of the Council, during which this petition of the emperor was discussed. The majority of the fathers of Trent considered it beyond their power to grant the privilege of lay communion under both kinds and referred the matter to Pope Pius IV, who, in a Brief dated 16 April, 1564, granted the petition, with certain restrictions, to the subjects of the emperor and of Duke Albrecht of Bavaria. The Archbishop of Prague was to empower certain priests to administer the Holy Eucharist in both kinds to such of the laity as desired it. The faithful who wished to take advantage of this privilege were obliged to profess their belief in the Real Presence of the whole Christ in each species, while the priest at the administration of each species pronounced the formula: “Corpus et sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiant animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen.” instead of the customary formula: “Corpus Domini nostri,” etc.

The emperor and the archbishop expected great results from this papal concession. Thinking that the Utraquist consistory at Prague would at once accept all Catholic doctrine, the emperor put it under the jurisdiction of the archbishop. Both, however, were soon undeceived. The Utraquist consistory was ready to present its sacerdotal candidates to the archbishop for ordination, but there his authority was to end. They refused to permit their candidates for the priesthood to undergo examination on Catholic theology or to give proof of their orthodoxy, and complained to the emperor that the archbishop was infringing upon their rights.

Had Ferdinand not died at this critical moment, the papal concession would perhaps have produced some salutary effects, but under the weak rule of his son Maximilian, who became emperor in 1564, the gulf that separated the Catholics from the Utraquists was continually widening. In order to publish and put into execution the decrees of the Council of Trent, the archbishop intended to convene a provincial synod at Prague; but Maximilian, fearing to offend the Bohemian nobility of whom the majority were Protestants, withheld his consent. Hampered on all sides, the archbishop and the small body of Catholic nobles, despite their almost superhuman efforts, could only postpone the impending crisis. The Utraquists no longer heeded the archbishop’s commands, continued to administer the Holy Eucharist to infants, disregarded many decrees of the Council of Trent, neglected sacramental confession—in a word, were steering straight towards Protestantism. After 1572, the archbishop refused to ordain Utraquist candidates, despite the expostulations of Emperor Maximilian. The death of Maximilian (12 October, 1576) brought no relief to the archbishop and his ever-decreasing flock of Catholics. His successor, Emperor Rudolph II, though a good Catholic at heart, was as weak as his predecessor. After the death of Brus the Catholics of Bohemia continued on their downward course until the victory of Ferdinand II over the Winterkönig Frederick V at the White Mountain near Prague (8 November, 1620).

FRIND, Geschichte der Bischofe und Erzebischofe von Prag (Prague, 1873), 182–189; BORWY in Kirchenlex., s.v.; biography in Oesterreichische Vierteljahrschrift fur kath. Theologie (Vienna, 1874).

MICHAEL OTT

Brusa

A titular see of Bithynia in Asia Minor. According to Strabo, XII, iv, the city was founded by King Prusias, who carried on war with Croesus; according to Stephenus Byzantius, by another Prusias, contemporary of Cyrus, so that it would have been founded in the sixth century B.C. It is more probable that it was founded by, and was named after, Prusias, King of Bithynia and Hannibal’s friend, 237–192 B.C. Situated in a beautiful, well-watered fertile plain at the foot of Mount Olympus, it became one of the chief cities of Roman Bithynia and received at an early date the Christian teaching. At least three of its bishops, Sts. Alexander, Patritius, and Timothy, suffered martyrdom during the persecutions (Lequien, I, 615–620, numbers only twenty-two bishops to 1721, but this list might be increased easily). The see was first subject to Nicomedia, metropolis of Bithynia Prima; later, as early at least as the thirteenth century, it became an exempt archbishopric. In the veighbouring country and at the foot of Mount Olympus stood many monasteries; from the eighth to the fourteenth centuries it shared with Mount Athos the honour of being a principal centre of Greek monachism. In 1327 it was taken by Sultan Orkhan after a siege of ten years and remained the capitol of the Ottoman Empire till 1453. Brusa is to-day the chief town of the Vilayet of Khodavendighiar. It is celebrated for its numerous and beautiful mosques and tombs of the Sultans. Its mineral and thermal waters are still renowned. The silk worm is cultivated throughout the neighbouring territory; there are in the town more than fifty silk-mills. Brusa has about 80,000 inhabitants, of whom 6,000 are Greeks, 9,000 are Gregorian Armenians, 2,500 Jews, 800 Catholic Armenians, 200 Latins, and a few Protestants. The Assumptionists conduct the Latin parish and a college. The Sisters of Charity have a hospital, an orphan’s institute, and a school. Brusa is still a metropolis for the Greeks. It is also a bishopric for Gregorian and Catholic Armenians; the latter number about 4,000.

S. VAILHÉ

Brussels

(From Bruk Sel, marsh-castle; Flem. Brussel, Ger. Brussel, Fr. Bruxelles). Capital of the Kingdom of Belgium. Its population at the end of 1905 (including the eight distinct communes that make up its faubourgs or suburbs) was 612,041. The city grew up on the banks of the little River Senne, one of the affluents of the Scheldt, whose course through the old town is now arched over and covered by the inner boulevards. The medieval city gained steadily in importance, owing to its position on the main inland commercial highway between the chief commercial centres of the Low Countries and Cologne. It is now connected with the Sambre by the Charleroi Canal, and with the Scheldt by the Willebroek Canal which has been considerably enlarged since 1901 and is destined to justify the title of “seaport” that Brussels has borne since 1895.

HISTORY

The earliest settlement of Brussels is attributed by tradition to S. Géry (Gaugericus), Bishop of Cambrai at the end of the sixth century; he is said to have built a village on an island in the Senne (Place Saint-Géry), also a small chapel (“Analecta Bollandiana” 1888, VII, 387–398; L. Van der Essen, “Les ‘Vitae’ des saints mérovingiens,” Louvain, 1907; R. Flahault, “Notes et documents relatifs au culte de S. Géry,” Dunkerque, 1890). From the eighth century it was one of the villas or temporary residences of the Frankish kings, but is first mentioned in history towards the end of the ninth century as Brosella (dwelling on the marsh). It was later a part of the dower of Gerberga, sister of Emperor Otto the Great (936–973) on her marriage to Giselbert of Lorraine. Duke Charles of Lorraine, the last but one of the direct descendants of Charlemagne, is said to have been born at Brussels. He certainly made it his chief place of abode, and brought thither from the Abbey of Mortzelle, which had fallen into the hands of a robber chief, the bones of his kinswoman, St. Gudule (979), who has ever since been regarded as the patron saint of the town.

Upon the death of Charles’ only son Otto (1004), without direct heirs, the castles of Brussels, Vilvord, Louvain, and all the adjoining estates, the nucleus of the territory which later on formed the Duchy of Brabant, fell to his brother-in-law Lambert Balderic, who sometimes in his charters styles himself Count of Brussels and sometimes Count of Louvain, the man to whom the Dukes of Brabant traced their descent. There remain of the Brussels of this period the nave and aisles of the old parish church of St. Nicholas, the chapel of the Holy Cross in the church of Notre-Dame de La Chapelle, some fragments of the fortifications with which Lambert Balderic surrounded the city in 1040 and, most important of all, the subterranean church of St. Guy at Anderlecht which remains to-day as the builder planned it.

From the twelfth century the Dukes of Lower Lorraine and Brabant, and later the Counts of Louvain, made Brussels their residence and though it suffered, like most medieval cities, from pestilence, fire, and pillage, it grew to be a populous centre of life and commerce and followed all the vicissitudes of medieval Brabant, with which it fell to the Dukes of Burgundy, and on the death of Charles the Bold (1477), to his heirs, the Austrian Hapsburgs. In the fifteenth century the Dukes of Burgundy, heirs of both Brabant and Flanders, held court at Brussels, and being French in speech and habits and surrounded by French knights, courtiers, and civil servants, gradually introduced at Brussels and elsewhere the French language until it became the speech of the local nobility and the upper classes, much to the detriment of the native Flemish. The latter, however, held its own among the common people and the burghers, and remains yet the speech of the majority of the citizens. Charles V made Brussels the capital of the Low Countries, but under Philip II, it was always a centre of patriotic opposition to Spanish rule. In 1577 was signed the peace known as the “Brussels Union” between the Spanish authority and the rebellious Belgians; in 1585 the city was beseiged and captured by the Spanish general Alessandro Farnese.

In 1695 it was almost entirely consumed by fire on occasion of the siege by Marechal Villeroi. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries it was under Austrian rule, with brief exceptions. From 1794 to 1814 it was incorporated with France by Napoleon, as head of the department of the Dyle. In the latter year it became with The Hague a capital of the new Kingdom of the Netherlands. In 1830 it was the seat of the Belgian Revolution against Dutch misrule, and in the same year was made the capital of the new Kingdom of Belgium. (See BELGIUM.)

GOVERNMENT

The municipal organization of Brussels was at first of a very simple character. It consisted of an unpaid magistracy, a College of Aldermen appointed by the sovereign for life from among the chief freeholders of the city, of which they were held to be representatives. It was presided over by a paid officer who bore the title of Amman, was the direct delegate of the sovereigh and in all things the representative of his authority. Alongside the College of Aldermen was the Merchants’ Guild. Probably this corporation had legal existence before the institution of the magistracy; it is certain that by the end of the twelfth century it was firmly established. It exercised from the first much influence on public affairs, and contributed in great measure to the full expansion of municipal self-rule. With the increase of the population, the old machinery no longer sufficed for the maintenance of public peace and the regulation of trade, and the burghers, united as they were in the powerful organization of their guild, were strong enough to take the matter into their own hands. Hence was formed the Council of Jurors, a subsidiary body annually elected by the people for policing the city and managing municipal affairs. The members also participated with the College of Aldermen in the administration of justice. Though there is no record of the Council of Jurors before 1229, it is almost certain that it dates from a much earlier period. Its existence, however, as a body distinct from the higher magistracy, was not of long duration. It disappeared at a very early period. From the first the relations between the two corporations had been strained, as they were the embodiment of hostile ideals, oligarchy, and popular rule.

For a long period after the municipal organization of Brussels had been definitely determined, all administration and legislative power was in the hands of a narrow oligarchy of capitalists, headed by the patrician families which from time immemorial had furnished the members of the magistracy. The source of their title to distinction was the ownership of land. Together they formed a class apart, distinct alike from the feudal nobility and from the general body of townsmen. They were divided into seven groups, or Lignages, but it is certain that many patricians were not the direct lineal descendants of the houses whose names and arms they bore. Admission to the aristocracy and to different lignages was to be obtained in various ways. Indeed, the lignages of Brussels were to a certain extent voluntary associations of aristocratic families banded together for the sake of mutual protection, and with a view to securing the election of their own nominees to the magistracy. What the trade companies were to the plebeians, the lignages were to the patricians.

The patricians were not all rich men, but the wealth of the patrician body was being constantly augmented by the new members who gained admission into its ranks, and with the increasing prosperity of the town land was becoming daily more valuable for building purposes. Many were thus able to live in luxury on the rents produced by their property; others increased their revenues by farming the state taxes; others were engaged in banking operations; others again in commerce, in which case they became members of the Merchants’ Guild, the members of which were constantly being enrolled in the lignages. Thus the Guild was growing daily more aristocratic, until at last nearly all its members were patricians by birth or by adoption. Embracing as it did at first traders of every kind, it now became an exceedingly close corporation and admitted to its membership only the sellers of cloth and the sellers of wool, the cream of the commercial world. Such were the men who owned the soil of Brussels, who had endowed the city, often at their own cost, with magnificent public buildings, who had won for themselves free institutions, and who for the best part of 200 years tyrannized over everyone else. They wrested from religious houses their right of appointment to city livings; they withdrew the management of schools from the clergy and placed them under municipal control. By a special privilege of the Holy See no new monastery could be founded in Brussels without the authorization of the municipality. The tyranny aroused discontent.

The people first attempted to obtain a share in the government during the troublous times which followed the death of Duke Henry III (1260), and it seems to have been for the moment successful, for the Council of Jurors was re-established, only however to be suppressed again a few years later, and that was doubtless the cause of the rising which took place in 1302. It was not a very serious affair, and the ruling class with the aid of the sovereign had little difficulty in suppressing it. The riot which occurred on the eve of Candlemas, 1306, during the absence of Duke John II, though it rose out of a small matter, became a revolution. The party which triumphed showed singular moderation; it was decided that the magistracy should consist as heretofore of seven members, but that henceforth the people should name them; that two financial assessors should be added to the city council, and that the Council of Jurors should be re-established; the new aldermen were all members of the old ruling class chosen from among the little band of patricians whose sympathies were sure to be with the popular cause. The new constitution did not, however, last six months. Duke John II on his return to Brussels refused to ratify it, and in spite of the energetic resistance of the craftsmen, the old order of things was re-established. The duke, however, gave discretionary powers to the College of Aldermen to admit individual craftsmen to the freedom of the city, no doubt to purchase the good will of leading plebeians. Fifty years later Duke Wenceslaus, to reward the plebeians for driving the Flemings out of Brussels, and to mark his displeasure at the conduct of the patricians who had welcomed them with open arms, granted to the trade companies by charter an equal share with the lignages in the government of the city. But the ink of the new charter was hardly dry when he revoked it. It is not known why, but as Duke Wenceslaus throughout his reign was always in financial straits and considering his shifty conduct in his dealings with the opposing factions at Louvain, it is not unlikely that he had been purchased by the patricians. The riot which followed was suppressed without much difficulty.

Though the College of Aldermen was annually renewed for more than 100 years, there had been no election, the outgoing aldermen having obtained a prescriptive right to name their successors; the magistracy was notoriously corrup and the city was honeycombed with debt, the outcome of so many years of extravagance and thieving. In addition to this, the plebeian triumph at Louvain had inflamed the people with an unquenchable thirst for liberty, and they were only awaiting a favourable moment to try their luck again. It was not, however, till 1368, when Brussels was on the verge of revolution, that the patricians made up their minds to set their house in order. They were not yet prepared to give the people any voice in the magistracy, but they were determined that when their work was done, no man should be able to say that Brussels was ill governed. By the advice of a committee composed of four patricians and four plebeians stringent measures were taken to ensure the even administration of justice; a permanent board was appointed for the administration of finance, on which several seats were allotted to the representatives of the trade companies. This measure proved so successful that the following year revenue covered expenditure and the interest on the debt; the year after that payments were made on the principal, and by 1386, the whole debt was wiped out. In 1368 the Guild was thoroughly reorganized on popular lines, and about the same time it became customary to bestow a certain number of government appointments on burghers of the middle class; lastly, in 1375, the old system of electing the magistracy was revived. The franchise was restricted to patricians of twenty-seven years and upwards, and if any man failed to take part in the election, he thereby lost all civil rights and privileges. The method of election was exceedingly long and complicated. Thanks to this important measure and to the other reforms which had preceded it, Brussels was now honestly and capably governed and for something like fifty years patricians and plebeians lived, if not on terms of affection, at all events without quarrelling. No doubt the greater material prosperity which the city at this time enjoyed, was conducive in no small measure to the maintenance of peace. Brussels was not dependent on cloth to anything like the same extent as most of the other great towns of the Netherlands, and the loss which she had sustained on this head from English competition was probably made good by the profit arising from trade which formerly went to Louvain, but which was now, owing to the disturbed state of that city, directed to the markets of Brussels. For the same reason Brussels had now become the seat of the court, and she devoted her attention to the manufacture of articles of luxury. Thanks to these new industries the diminution, if any, of her cloth trade was a matter of little concern to the people.

Headed by Count Philip of St. Pol, brother of the duke, the best members of the three estates of Brabant had joined hands against Duke John IV, who had been led astray by evil counsellors. When all seemed lost, when Brussels was filled with foreign mercenaries, the craftsmen had saved the situation, and received as guerdon an equal share with the patricians in the government and administration of their city. The articles of the new charter were agreed upon in a great assembly of barons and of deputies of the towns of Brussels, Antwerp, and Louvain, 6 February, 1421. The charter itself was signed and sealed by Count Philip who had been appointed regent and its provisions were immediately put into execution. The constitution of 1421 continued to be the legal constitution of the city of Brussels until the close of the eighteenth century. The great struggle between the patricians and the craftsmen was never again to be renewed. The former disassociated themselves more and more from trade and from municipal affairs, and were gradually absorbed in the ranks of the old feudal aristocracy. The dissensions in the centuries which followed were not the outcome of class hatred, but of difference of opinion in religious matters, and of the impolitic measures taken to restore religious unity by alien rulers, who had no sympathy with the customs and traditions of the Netherlands.

CHIEF BUILDINGS

There is probably no city in Europe which contains grander medieval municipal buildings than those of Brussels, and the greatest of them were built after the craftsmen obtained emancipation. The foundation stone of the town hall was laid at the beginning of the fifteenth century, but very little progress was made till after 1421, and it was not completed till 1486; the beautiful Hall of the Bakers opposite, now called La Maison du Roi, dated from the following century; the grand old church of Notre-Dame du Sablon, where most of the trade companies had their chapels, was built in the course of the fourteenth century, the greater portion of it probably after 1421. The church of St. Gudule, dedicated to St. Michael, the grandest church in Brussels, is rather a monument of the Dukes of Brabant, than of the burghers. The foundation stone was probably laid toward the close of the twelfth century, but it was not completed till 1653. Its stained glass (sixteenth to nineteenth century) is famous, especially that in the Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament, donated (1540–47) by several Catholic kings and queens in honour of the Miraculous Hosts preserved in St. Gudule since 1370 when (on Good Friday) several Jews stole from the tabernacle of the church of St. Catherine a number of consecrated Hosts and sacrilegiously transfixed them in their synagogue. The Hosts, it is said, bled miraculously; eventually some of them were deposited in the church of St. Gudule, while others were kept at Notre-Dame de La Chapelle, whence they disappeared in 1579. But the guilty parties were discovered, some were burned alive, and others were banished from Brabant forever. An annual procession on the Sunday after 15 July, perpetuates the memory of this event, and on this occasion the identical Hosts are exposed in St. Gudule for the veneration of the faithful (Corblet, “Hist. de l’Eucharistie,” Paris, 1885, II, 485–486; Balleydie, “Hist. de Ste-Gudule et du St-Sacrement de Miracle,” Brussels, 1859; Matagne, “Précis historiques,” Paris, 1870). Other noteworthy churches are: the Chapelle de l’Expiation built in 1436 on the site of the above-mentioned synagogue, in expiation of the sacrilege; Notre-Dame de La Chapelle (1216–1485), a Gothic and Romanesque building, after St. Gudule the finest of the medieval churches of Brussels; Notre-Dame-des-Victoires or du Sablon, Flemish Gothic, founded in 1304 by the Guild of Crossbowmen; the barocco church of the Beguines (1657–76). The other churches of the city proper are: St. Catherine, Sts. Jean et Etienne, Notre-Dame du Finistère, St. Jacques sur Caudenberg, St. Nicholas, Riches-Claires, Notre-Dame de Bon Secours, St. Josse-ten-Noode (Bruyn, Trésor artistique des églises de Bruxelles, Louvain, 1882). The famous guild houses in the market place, of which there are no less than seventeen, were not erected until after the bombardment of 1695, when the old guild houses were all destroyed, which proves, that at the close of the seventeenth century the masons of Brussels were still cunning workers.

Brussels is noted for its magnificent system of boulevards. The Place Royale is one of the noblest squares in modern Europe, while the Grand Place in the heart of the old town is equally remarkable as a medieval square. Around it are gathered the Hotel de Ville, said to be the noblest piece of civil architecture in Europe, the Maison du Roi, or former government-house, and the seventeen famous guild houses or halls of the industrial corporations (butchers, brewers, tailors, carpenters, painters, etc.). These guild houses were erected after the bombardment of 1695, when the old buildings were destroyed. The modern Palais de Justice is the largest architectural work of the nineteenth century; it rises on a massive basis that measures 590 by 560 feet, and recalls by its imposing bulk some vast Egyptian or Assyrian structure.

RELIGIOUS LIFE

There are three episcopal educational institutes, among them the Institut Saint-Louis (about 100 teachers), with departments of philosophy, letters, natural sciences, and a commercial school. The city is divided into four deaneries, St. Gudule and three in the faubourgs. There are 37 parishes in the city and faubourgs, and in the city proper 72 prieses, 11 parishes, and 16 churches. The religious orders are numerous, among them Dominicans, Capuchins, Minor Conventuals, Jesuits, Redemptorists, Carmelites, Servites, Barnabites, Alexians, etc. There are also several communities of teaching brothers, principally Christian Brothers. The religious houses of women in 1906 numbered about 80, divided among many orders and congregations, and devoted to various educational and charitable works. The Hospital Saint-Jean (1900) has 600 beds, that of Saint-Pierre 635. There are 11 hospices and refuges for the aged, poor, and insane, and 27 other institutions for the care of the sick and needy.

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRUSSELS

The University of Brussels, known as the Université libre (Free University), was founded in 1834 by the Belgian Liberals as a rival of the Catholic University of Louvain. It occupies the former palaces of Cardinal Granvelle. In 1904 it numbered 1054 students. It has faculties of philosophy, the exact sciences, jurisprudence, and medicine. The last faculty, located in the picturesque Parc Léopold, possesses there a Physiological Institute founded in 1895, an Institute of Hygiene, Bacteriology, and Therapeutics, an Institute of Anatomy founded 1896–97, and a Commercial Institute (1904). Close by is the valuable Musée d’Histoire Naturelle; connected with it is the Ecole Polytechnique (1873) or school of applied sciences, with six departments: mining, metallurgy, practical chemistry, civil and mechanical engineering, and architecture. Similarly related to the university are the School of Political and Social Sciences and the School of Commerce founded by Ernest Solvay; also the Instituts Solvay (Physiology, 1894; Sociology, 1901). Since 1901 several universities for the people have been founded in the faubourgs. There are in addition the important museums of Brussels, military, ethnographic, commercial, pedagogic, natural history, decorative arts, communal, Wiertz (at Ixelles), etc. The Palais des Beaux Arts houses a unique and valuable collection of Old Flemish Masters. The Bibliothèque Royale contains a collection of some 500,000 volumes, and has also inherited the famous Bibliothèque de Bourgogne, (27,000 manuscripts) founded by Philippe le Bon, Duke of Burgundy (1419–67) and one of the largest and most important collections of its kind in Europe (De la Serna, Mém. hist. sur la bibliothèque dite de Bourgogne, Brussels, 1809; Namur, His. des bibliothèques publiques de Bruxelles, ibid., 1840).

Among the learned bodies of Brussels are the Académie Royale des Sciences (1772), Académie de Medecine (1772), Académie des Beaux Arts, with a school, the Société Scientifique (1876), an important and unique International Institute of Bibliography (1895). In 1905 the Conservatory of Music (1899) numbered 1229 pupils. The Jesuit College of Saint-Michel at Brussels is the actual seat of the famous publication known as the “Acta Sanctorum” (see ), and here are now kept the library and the archives of this enterprise, originally begun and long conducted at Antwerp.

Henne and Wauters, Histoire de Bruxelles (Brussels, 1845); Wauters, Bruxelles et ses environs (ibid., 1852–56); Pirienne, Histoire de la Belgique (Brussels, 1907); Gilliat-Smith, The Story of Brussels.

ERNEST GILLIAT-SMITH.

Simon William Gabriel Bruté de Rémur

First Bishop of Vincennes, Indiana, U.S.A. (now Indianapolis), b. at Rennes, France, 20 March 1779; d. at Vincennes, 26 June, 1839. His father was Simon-Guillaume-Gabriel Bruté de Remur, of an ancient and respectable family, and Superintendent of the Royal Domains in Brittany; and his mother, Jeanne-Renee Le Saulnier de Vauhelle Vater, widow of Francis Vater, printer to the King and Parliament at Rennes. Young Bruté had attended the schools of his native city several years when the Revolution interrupted his studies. He then learned and practised the business of a compositor in the printing establishment of his mother, where she placed him to avoid his enrolment in a regiment of children who took part in the fusillades of the Reign of Terror. This did not prevent his witnessing many horrible and exciting scenes, and in his diary he mentions having been present at the trial and precipitate execution of priests and nobles in the cause of their religion. He frequented the prisons and made friends of the guards, who admitted him to the cells, where he received and delivered letters for the clergy incarcerated there. More than once he bore in his bosom to these suffering heroes the Blessed Sacrament.

In 1796 Bruté began the study of medicine, and in spite of the avowed infidelity then prevalent in the schools, he remained proof against sophistry and ridicule. He was graduated in 1803, but did not practice medicine, as he immediately entered upon the ecclesiastical studies, which he pursued for four years at the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice, Paris. Ordained priest on the 11th of June, 1808, he joined the Society of Saint-Sulpice and, after teaching theology for two years, he sailed for the United States with Bishop-elect Flaget (1810). At St. Mary’s Seminary, Baltimore, he taught philosophy for two years and then was sent for a short time to the Eastern Shore of Maryland. He was transferred thence to Mt. St. Mary’s Emmitsburg, where he taught and at the same time performed the duties of pastor for the Catholics of that vicinity with such devotion that he became known as the “Angel of the Mount.” During this period he became the spiritual director of Mother Seton, foundress of the Sisters of Charity in the United States, with whom he maintained a lifelong friendship.

In 1815 he was appointed President of St. Mary’s College, Baltimore, but after three years (1818) he returned to Emmitsburg. In 1826, Mt. St. Mary’s College being no longer dependent upon the Fathers of Saint-Sulpice, its founders, Father Bruté ceased to belong to that society, but continued his duties at the “Mountain” until 1834, when he was appointed to the newly created See of Vincennes. He was consecrated in St. Louis, October the 28th, 1834, by the Right Rev. Benedict J. Flaget, Bishops Rosati and Purcell assisting. After travelling over his vast diocese, comprising the whole State of Indiana and eastern Illinois, Bishop Bruté visited France, where he secured priests and funds for the erection of churches and schools in his needy diocese.

Bishop Bruté left no published work except some ephemeral contributions, which, over the pseudonym “Vincennes,” appeared in various journals, notably the Cincinnati “Catholic Telegraph.” It is to be regretted that he did not write an autobiography, for which his Memoranda, notes, and Diary seem a preparation. They teem with interest, and show him to have been the friend of famous men in France. Conspicuous among the number was de Lamennais, whom he tried to reconcile with the Church both by his letters from this country, as well as by conferring with him personally during one of his visits to France, but without success.

Bayley, Momoirs of Bishop Bruté (New York, 1865); White, Life of Mother Seton (Baltimore, 1879), VIII, 314; O’Gorman, American Church History (New York, 1895), IX, xxiv, 394; Shea, History of the Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1890), III, xv, 640; Alerding, History of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Vincennes (Indianapolis, 1888), 124; Bruté de Remur, Vie de Mgr. Bruté de Remur, premier eveque de Vincennes (Rennes, 1887).

MICHAEL F. DINNEEN.

Jacques Bruyas

Born at Lyons, France, 13 July, 1635; died at Sault St. Louis, Canada, 15 June 1712. He entered the Society of Jesus, 11 November, 1651, joined the mission of Canada in 1666, and labored there for 46 years among the Iroquois. From 1693 to 1698 Bruyas was Superior General of the Canadian missions, and in 1700, 1701, [sic] actively helped to secure for the French a general peace with the Iroquois tribes. Besides writing a catechism, prayers for the sick, and similar works, he is the author of the oldest known Iroquois grammar. It was published from the original manuscript by the Regents of the University of the State of New York in their Sixteenth Annual Report of the State Cabinet of Natural History (Albany, 1863). Father Bruyas is considered to be the author of the “Iroquois Dictionary” preserved in the Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal of Paris.

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., I, 317; Jesuit Relations (Cleveland, 1899), I, 323.

JOSEPH M. WOODS

John Delavau Bryant

Physician, poet, author, and editor, b. in Philadelphia, U.S.A., 1811; d. 1877. He was the son of an Episcopalian minister, the Rev. Wm. Bryant. His mother, was a daughter of John Delavau, a shipbuilder of Philadelphia. His early education was under his father and in the Episcopalian Academy. He received the degree of A.B. in 1839, and A.M. in 1842 from the University of Pennsylvania, and entered the General Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in New York in 1839. After one year he left the seminary to travel in Europe. On his return he was received into the Catholic Church at St. John’s Church, Philadelphia, 12 February, 1842. He graduated in medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in 1848. In 1855, during the yellow fever epidemic in Portsmouth and Norfolk, Virginia, he volunteered for duty and returned only after the epidemic had subsided. In 1857, he married Miss. Mary Harriet Riston, daughter of George Riston.

For two years in the early sixties he was editor of the “Catholic Herald.” His principal work, published in 1859 by subscription, is an epic poem entitled “The Redemption,” apparently inspired by a visit to Jerusalem. It is founded on the Bible and Catholic tradition, and, when it was first published, attracted some attention and received many favourable reviews. He also published, about 1852, a controversial novel entitled “Pauline Seward” which had considerable vogue at the time, especially among Catholics, and ran through ten editions. In 1855 he published “The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God,” an exposition of the dogma recently promulgated. All of his works are now out of print and can be found practically only in reference libraries.

Records of the Amer. Catholic Hist. Soc., September, 1904.

JOSEPH WALSH

Bubastis

A titular see of Lower Egypt, on the right bank of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, near the modern Zagâzig, where its ruins are shown under the name of Tell Bastah. Its true name was Bast owing to the name of the local goddess Bastet; it became in Old Egyptian Per-bastet (Coptic Boubasti, Hebrew Pi-beseth, Greek Boubastis or more commonly Boubastos, i.e. House of Bastet). It was a place of importance under the twenty-third dynasty about 950–750 B.C. When the eastern part of Lower Egypt was divided into Augustamnica Prima in the north and Augustamnica Secunda in the south, Bubastis was included in the latter, whose capital was Leontopolis (Hierocles, Synecdemos, 728, 4), as the chief town of the Bubastites nomos and like every Egyptian nomos was the seat of a bishopric. Its bishop, Harpocration, was mentioned at Nicaea by Meletius among his well-wishers (Athan. Apol.c. Arianos, 71). About 340 the see was occupied by Hermon (Acta SS., May, III, 61). Julianus was present at the Latrocinium of Ephesus, 449. The see is mentioned in Georgius Cyprius (ed. Gelzer, 705). In the Middle Ages its fate is blended with that of Khandek, a Jacobite see near Cairo, to which it had been united. Thus in 1078 Gabriel, ep. Basta, quoe et Khandek, interfered in the election of the Patriarch Cyrillus (Renaudot, Hist. patriarch Alexandr. 450, 458, 465), and in 1102 John took a share in the consecration of the Patriarch Macarius II (ibid., 482). Under the Patriarch Cyrillus III (1235–43), the see is often mentioned, but without the name of its titular.

Lequien, Or. Christ., II, 559–562: Gams, Series episcop., 461.

L. PETIT.

Gabriel Bucelin

(Buzlin).

A Benedictine historical writer, born at Diessenhofen in Thurgau, 29 December, 1599, died at Weingarten, 9 June, 1681. A scion of the distinguished line of Bucellini counts, Gabriel, at the age of thirteen, entered the Benedictine monastery at Weingarten. After a course in Philosophy and theology at Dillingen he was ordained priest 23 April, 1624, and in the same year sent, as master of novices, to restore the primitive fervour and raise the standard of studies in the monastery of St. Trudpert in the Black Forest. Having filled the position of master of novices at Weingarten and professor of humanities at Feldkirch (1635), whence on the approach of the Swedish army he was forced to flee to Admont (1646), he was appointed prior of St. John’s monastery, Feldkirch (1651), where he remained until a few months before his death. Bucelin was a very prolific writer, being the author of some fifty-three works, a large number of which are still in manuscript in the royal library at Stuttgart. His chief claim to the gratitude of posterity lies in the fact that he was, if not the very first, at least among the first authors to deal with the ecclesiastical history of Germany. Of his published works the most important are: “Germania sacra” (Augsburg, 1655), containing accounts of the principal ecclesiastics, archbishops, abbots, etc., as well as a list of the most important monasteries of Germany; “Germaniae topo-chrono-stemmatographia sacra et profana” (1665–78), treating, as its name implies, of the genealogy of the most distinguished members of the clergy and the nobility; “Constantia sacra et profana” (Frankfort, 1667), “Rhaetia etrusca, romana, gallica, germanica” (Augsburg, 1661); “Nucleus historicae universalis” (Ulm, 1650, 1654; carried from 1650 to 1735 by Schmier, “Apparatum ad theologiam scholastico-polemico-practicam”), of great importance to Scholars interested in ancient charts, bulls, diplomata, etc. Bucelin was also the author of many works on the Benedictine Order and its most illustrious members, among them “Aquila imperii benedictina” (Venice, 1651); “Menologium benedictinum” (Feldkirch, 1655).

ZIEGELBAUER, Hist. rei lit. O.S.B. (Augsburg, 1754), IV; LINDNER, Stud. u. Mittheil. aus dem Benedictiner-Orden, VII, 84 sqq.; WOLFSBRUBER in Kirchenlex.; HURTER, Nomenclator; BERGMANN, Der Genealog Bucelin in Sitzungsberichte der Weiner Akadamie, XXXVIII, 47 sqq.

F.M. RUDGE

Martin Bucer

(Also called BUTZER.)

One of the leaders in the South German Reformation movement, b. 11 November, 1491, at Schlettstadt, Alsace; d. 28 February, 1551, at Cambridge, England. He received his early education at the Latin School of his native place, where at the age of fifteen (1506) he also entered the Order of St. Dominic. Later he was sent to the University of Heidelberg to prosecute his studies, and matriculated, 31 January, 1517. He became an ardent admirer of Erasmus, and soon an enthusiastic disciple of Luther. He heard the Saxon monk at a public disputation, held at Heidelberg in 1518, on the occasion of a meeting of the Augustinian order, became personally acquainted with him, and was immediately won over to his ideas. Having openly adopted the new doctrine he withdrew from the Dominican order, in 1521, became court chaplain of Frederick the Elector Palatine, and laboured as secular priest at Landstuhl, in the Palatinate (1522), and as a member of the household of Count Sickengen and at Weissenburg, Lower Alsace (1522–23). During his incumbency at Landstuhl he married Elizabeth Silbereisen, a former nun. When, in 1523, his position became untenable at Weissenburg, he proceeded to Strasburg. Here his activity was soon exercised over a large field; he became the chief reformer of the city and was connected with many important religio-political events of the period. His doctrinal views on points controverted between Luther and Zwingli at first harmonized completely with the ideas of the Swiss Reformer. Subsequently he sought to mediate between Lutherans and Zwinglians. The highly questionable methods to which he resorted in the interest of peace drew upon him the denunciation of both parties. In spite of the efforts of Bucer, the Conference of Marburg (1529), at which the divergent views of Luther and Zwingli, especially the doctrine regarding the Eucharist, were discussed, failed to bring about a reconciliation. At the Diet of Augsburg, in the following year, he drew up with Capito the “Confessio Tetrapolitana,” or Confession of the Four Cities (Strasburg, Constance, Memmingen, and Lindau). Later on, moved by political considerations, he abandoned this for the Augsburg Confession. In 1536, he brought about the more nominal than real “Concordia of Wittenberg” among German Protestants. He gave his own, and obtained Luther’s and Melanchthon’s approbation for the bigamy of the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, attended in 1540 the religious conference between Catholics and Protestants at Hagenau, Lower Alsace, and in 1541 the Diet of Ratisbon. The combined attempt of Bucer and Melanchthon to introduce the Reformation into the Archdiocese of Cologne ended in failure (1542). Political troubles and the resistance of Bucer to the agreement arrived at by Catholics and Protestants in 1548, and known as the “Augsburg Interim,” made his stay in Strasburg impossible. At the invitation of Archbishop Cranmer, he proceeded to England in 1549. After a short stay in London, during which he was received by King Edward VI (1547–53), he was called to Cambridge as Regius Professor of Divinity. His opinion was frequently asked by Cranmer on church matters, notably on the controversy regarding ecclesiastical vestments. But his sojourn was to be of short duration, as he died in February, 1551. Under the reign of Queen Mary (1553–58) his remains were exhumed and burned, and his tomb was demolished (1556), but was reconstructed in 1560 by Queen Elizabeth (1558–1603).

Bucer was, after Luther and Melanchthon, the most influential of German Reformers. For a clear statement of doctrine he was ever ready to substitute vague formulas in the interest of unity, which even his able efforts could not establish among the Reformers. He forms a connecting link between the German and the English Reformation. Of the thirteen children he had by his first marriage, only one, a weak-minded son, survived. Wibrandis Rosenblatt, the successive wife of several Reformers (Cellarius, Oecolampadius, Capito, and Bucer), whom he married after his first wife died from the plague in 1541, bore him three children, of whom a daughter survived. Only one of the ten folio volumes in which his works were to appear was published (Basle, 1577). It is known as “Tomas Anglicanus” because its contents were mostly written in England.

BAUM, Capito und Butzer (Elberfeld, 1860); MENTZ AND ERICHSON, Zur 400 jahrigen Geburtsfeier Martin Butzers (Strasburg, 1891); STERN, Martin Butzer (Strasburg, 1891); PAULUS, Die Strasburger Reformatoren (Freiburg, 1895); SCHAFF, History of the Christian Church (New York, 1904), VI, 571–573 and passim; WARD in Dict. of Nat. Biog., VII, 172–177.

N.A. WEBER

Victor de Buck

Bollandist, born at Oudenarde, Flanders, 21 April, 1817; died 28 June, 1876. His family was one of the most distinguished in the city of Oudenarde. After a brilliant course in the humanities, at the municipal College of Soignies and the petit seminaire of Roulers and completed in 1835 at the college of the Society of Jesus at Alost, he entered this Society on 11 October of the same year. After two years in the novitiate, then at Nivelles, and a year at Tronchiennes reviewing and finishing his literary studies, he went to Namur in September, 1838, to study philosophy and the natural sciences, closing these courses with a public defence of these bearing on these subjects.

The work of the Bollandists (q.v.) had just been revived and, in spite of his youth, Victor De Buck was summoned to act as assistant to the hagiographers. He remained at this work in Brussels from September, 1840, to September, 1845. After devoting four years to theological studies at Louvain where he was ordained priest in 1848, and making his third year of probation in the Society of Jesus he was permanently assigned to the Bollandist work in 1850, and way engaged upon it until the time of his death. He had already published in part second of Vol. VII of the October “Acta Sanctorum,” which appeared in 1845, sixteen commentaries or notices that are easily distinguishable because they are without a signature, unlike those written by the Bollandists. Moreover, during the course of his theological studies which suffered thereby no interruption, and before becoming a priest, he composed, in collaboration with Antoine Tinnebroeck who, like himself was a scholastic, an able refutatoin of a book published by the professor of canon law at the University of Louvain, in which the rights of the regular clergy were assailed and repudiated. This refutation which fills an octavo volume of 640 pages, abounding in learned dissertations, was ready for publication within four months. It was to have been supplemented by a second volume that was almost completed but could not be published because of the political disturbances of the year which were but the prelude to the revolutions of 1848, and the work was never resumed.

Father De Buck’s literary activity was extraordinary. Besides the numerous commentaries in Vols. IX, X, XI, XII, and XIII of the October “Acta Sanctorum,” which won the praise of those best qualified to judge, he published in Latin, French, and Flemish, a large number of little works of piety and dissertations on devotion to the saints, church history, and Christian archaeology, the partial emumeration of which fills two folio columns of his eulogy, in the fore part of vol. II of the November “Acta.” Because of his extensive learning and investigating turn of mind he was naturally bent upon probing abstruse and perplexing questions; naturally, also, his work was often the result of most urgent requests. Hence it was that, in 1862, he was led to publish in the form of a letter to his brother Remi, then professor of church history at the theological college of Louvain and soon afterwards his colleague on the Bollandist work, a Latin dissertation “De solemnitate praecipue paupertatis religiosae,” which was followed in 1863 and 1864 by two treatises in French, one under the title: “Solution aimable de la question des couvents” and the other “De l’etat religieux,” treating of the religious life in Belgium in the nineteenth century.

At the solicitation chiefly of prelates and distinguised Catholic savants, he undertook the study of a particularly delicate question on order to satisfy the many requests made to Rome by churches and religious communities for the relics of saints, it had become customary to take from the Roman catacombs the bodies of unknown personages believed to have been honoured as martyrs in the early Church. The sign by which they were to be recognized was a glass vial sealed up in the plaster outside the loculus that contained the body, and bearing traces of a red substance that had been enclosed and was supposed to have been blood. Doubts had arisen as to the correctness of this interpretation and, after careful study, Father De Buck felt convinced that it was false and that what had been taken for blood was probably the sediment of consecrated wine vhich, owing to misguised piety held and had been placed in the tomb near the bodies of the dead. The conclusion, together with its premises, was set forth in a dissertation published in 1885 under the title “De phialis rubricatis quibus martyrum romanorum sepulcra dignosci dicuntur.” Naturally it raised lively protestations, particularly on the part of those who were responsible for distributing the bodies of the saints, the more so, as after the discussions on the vials of blood, the cardinal vicar in 1861 strictly forbade any further transportation of these relics. The author of the dissertation, “De phialis rubricatis,” had but a few copies of his work struck off, these being intended for the cardinals and prelates particularly Interested in the question and as none were put on the market, it was rumoured that De Buck’s superiors had suppressed the publication of the book and that all the copies printed, save five or six, had been destroyed. This, of course. was untrue; not one copy had been destroyed and his superiors had laid no blame upon the author. Then, in 1863, a decree was obtained from the Congregation of Rites, renewing an older decree, thereby it was declared that a vial of blood placed outside of a sepulchral niche in the catacombs was an unmistakable sign by which the tomb of a martyr might be known, and it was proclaimed that Victor De Buck’s opinion was formally disapproved and condemned by Rome. This too was false, as Father De Buck had never intimated that the placing of the vial of blood did not indicate the resting-place of a martyr, when it could be proved that the vial contained genuine blood, such as was supposed by the decree of the congregation. Finally, there appeared in Paris in 1897 a large quarto volume written by the Roman prelate, Monsignor Sconamiglio, “Reliquiarum custode.” It was filled with caustic criticisms of the author of “De phialis rubricatis” and relegated him to the rank of notorious heretics who had combated devotion to the saints and the veneration of their relics. Father De Buck seemed all but insensible to the attacks and contented himself with opposing to Monsignor Sconamiglio’s book a protest in which he rectified the more or less unconscious error of his enemies by proving that neither the decree of 1863 nor any other decision emanating from ecclesiastical authority had affected his thesis.

However, another attack made about the same time touched him more deeply. The gravest and most direct accusations were made against him and reported to the Sovereign Pontiff himself, he was even credited with opinions which, if not formally heretical, at least openly defied the ideas that are universally accepted and held in veneration by Catholics devoted to the Holy See. In a Latin letter addressed to Cardinal Patrizzi, and intended to come to the notice of the Supreme Pontiff, Father De Buck repudiated the calumnies in a manner that betrayed how deeply he had been affected, his pretest being supported by the testimony of four of his principal superiors, former provincials, and rectors who eagerly vouched for the sincerely of his declarations and the genuineness of his religious spirit. With the full consent of his superiors he published this letter in order to communicate with those of his friends who might have been disturbed by an echo of these accusations.

What might have invested these accusations with some semblance of truth and what certainly gave rise to them, were the amicable relations established, principally through correspondence, between Father De Buck and such men as Alexander Forbes, the learned Anglican bishop the celebrated Edward Pusey in England, Montalembert, and Bishop Dupanloup in France and a number of others whose names were distasteful to many ardent Catholics. These relations were brought about by the reputation for deep learning, integrity, and scientific independence that De Buck’s works had rapidly earned tor him, by his readiness to oblige those who addressed themselves to him in their perplexities, and by his remarkable earnestness and skill in elucidating the most difficult questions. Moreover, he was equipped with all the information that incessant study and a only great rounds groping outside of the true Faith or weakened by harassing doubts who thus appealed to his knowledge. The different papal nuncios who succeeded one another in Belgium during the course of his career as Bollandist, bishops, political men, mernbers of learned bodies and journalists ceased not to importune this gracious scholar whose answers often formed important memoranda which, although the result of several days and sometimes several nights of uninterrupted labour, were read only those who called them forth or else appeared anonymously in some Belgian or foreign periodical.

Although Father De Buck had an unusually robust constitution and enjoyed exceptionally good health, constant and excessive work at length told upon him and he was greatly fatigued when Father Beckx, Father General of the Society, summoned him to Rome to act as official theologian at the Vatican Council. Father Victor assumed these new duties with his accustomed ardour and, upon his return, showed the first symptoms of the malady arterio-sclerosis that finally carried him off. He struggled for some years longer against a series of painful attacks each of which left him decidedly weaker, until a final attack that lasted almost interruptedly for nearly four years, caused his death.

Elogium P. Victoris De Buck in Acta SS., November, II.

CH. DE SMEDT.

Buckfast Abbey

The date of the foundation of the monastery of Our Lady of Buckfast, two miles from Ashburton, England, in a beautiful Devonshire valley watered by the Dart, is unknown; but it was certainly long before the Norman Conquest. The eartiest authentic document is a grant by King Canute (1015–1035), to the monks of Buckfast of the manor of Sele, now called Zeal Monachorum. The best authorities assign the foundation to the middle of the tenth century. Early in the twelfth century it was incorporated into the Benedictine Congregation of savigny, founded in Normandy in 1112. In 1148, five years before the death of St. Bernard, the thirty Savigny houses, including Buckfast (of which Eustace was then abbot) were affiliated to Clairvaux, thus becoming a part of the great Cistercian Order. Buckfast now developed into one of the most important monasteries in the great Diocese of Exeter. It flourished both materially and spiritually originating the celebrated woollen trade of the district encouraging other industries, and preserving unimpaired its discipline and the fervour of its observance. The latter, however, became relaxed (as in other Cistercian houses) in the fourteenth century, one result being the rapid diminution in the community. The reputation, however, of the monks for learning was sustained until the dissolution, and they seem to have been generally beloved in the district for their piety, kindliness, and benevolence.

The last legitimately elected Abbot of Buckfast was John Rede, who died about 1535, the year of the Visitation ordered by Henry VIII, which resulted in the intrusion of Gabriel Donne into the vacant chair. Donne surrendered the house to the King in 1538, receiving for himself ample compensation. The buildings were immediately sold, the lead stripped from the roof, and the monastery and church left to decay. In 1882, about three centuries and a half after the suppression of the Cistercian Abbey, the ruined building came again into the possession of Benedictine monks, belonging to the French province of the Cassinese Congregation of the Primitive Observance. Mass was again said and the Divine Office chanted at Buckfast on 29 October, 1882, and eight months later the Abbey was legally conveyed to the monks.

The plan of the buildings at Buckfast followed the conventional Cistercian arrangement, with the cloister south of the church, and grouped round it the chapter-house, calefactory, refectory, and other loca regularia. The church was 220 feet long, with short transcripts, each with a small eastern chapel. The Benedictines now in possession have built a temporary church, and are proceeding with the work of rebuilding the former one, and the rest of the monastic buildings, on the ancient foundations. The tower which still remains was been carefully restored, and the southern wing of the monastery has been rebuilt in simple twelfth-century style, and was opened in April, 1886. The third abbot since the return of the monks in 1882, Dom Anscher Vouier, formerly one of the professors at the Benedictine University of St. Anselm in Rome, was solemnly blessed by the Bishop of Plymouth in October, 1906.

OLIVER, Monast. Diocæs. Exon. (1846), 371, 379; WORTHY, Devonshire Parishes (1889), II, 207; DUGDALE, Monast. Anglican., V. 384; ROWE, Cistercian Houses of Devon; HAMILTON, Buckfast Abbey (1892); MABILLION, Chronologia Cisterciensis.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Sir Patrick Alphonsus Buckley

A soldier, lawyer, stateman, judge, born near Castletownsend, County Cork, Ireland, in 1841; died at Lower Hutt, New Zealand, 18 May, 1896. He was educated at the Mansion House School, Cork; St. Colman’s College, Paris; the Irish College, Paris; and the Catholic University, Louvain. He was in Louvain when the Piedmontese invaded the States of the Church in 1860, and at the request of Count Carlo MacDonnell, Private Chamberlain to Pius IX, conducted the recruits of the Irish Papal Brigade from Ostend to Vienna, where they were placed in charge of representatives of the Holy See. He served under General Lamoriciere, received a prisoner at Ancona. After the war he returned to Ireland. Thence he emigrated to Queensland, where he completed his legal studies and was admitted to the Bar. After a short residence in Queensland he settled in New Zealand, and commenced the practice of his profession in Wellington. Soon after his arrival in New Zealand, he became a member of the Wellington Provincial Council, and was Provincial Solicitor in the Executive when the Provincial Parliaments were abolished in 1875. He was called to the Legislative Council in 1878; was Colonial Secretary and leader of the Upper House in the Stout-Vogel Ministry (1884–87), and Attorney-GeneraL, Colonial Secretary, and leader of an overwhelmingly Opposition Upper House under the Ballance Administration from 1891 till 1895, when he accepted the position of Judge of the Supreme Court. He was created Knight Commander of St. Michael and St. George in 1892.

MENNELL,Dictionary of Australasian Biography (London, 1892); The New Zealand Tablet, 22 May, 1896; The Otago Daily Times, 19 May, 1896.

HENRY W. CLEARY

Buddhism

The religious, monastic system, founded c. 500 B.C. on the basis of pantheistic Brahminism. The speculations of the Vedanta school of religious thought, in the eighth and following centuries, B.C., gave rise to several rival schemes of salvation. These movements started with the same morbid view that conscious life is a burden and not worth the living, and that true happiness is to be had only in a state like dreamless sleep free from all desires, free from conscious action. They took for granted the Upanishad doctrine of the endless chain of births, but they differed from pantheistic Brahminism both in their attitude towards the Vedas and in their plan for securing freedom from rebirth and from conscious existence. In their absolute rejection of Vedic rites, they stamped themselves as heresies. Of these the one destined to win greatest renown was Buddhism.

I. THE FOUNDER

Of Buddha, the founder of this great movement, legendary tradition has much to say, but very little of historical worth is known. His father seems to have been a petty raja, ruling over a small community on the southern border of the district now known as Nepal. Buddha’s family name was Gotama (Sanskrit Gautama), and it was probably by this name that he was known in life. In all likelihood it was after his death that his disciples bestowed on him a number of laudatory names, the most common being Buddha, i.e. “the enlightened.” Like the newborn youths of his day, he must have spent some time in the study of the sacred Vedas. After the immemorial custom of the East, he married at an early age, and, if tradition may be trusted, exercised a prince’s privilege of maintaining a harem. His principal wife bore him a son. His heart was not at rest. The pleasures of the world soon palled upon him, and abandoning his home he retired to the forest, where as a hermit he spent several years in austere self-discipline, studying doubtless, the way of salvaion as taught in the Upanishads. Even this did not bring peace to his mind. He gave up the rigorous fasts and mortifications, which nearly cost him his life, and devoted himself in his own way to long and earnest meditation, the fruit of which was his firm belief that he had discovered the only true method of escaping from the misery of rebirth and of attaining to Nirvana. He then set out to preach his gospel of deliverance, beginning at Benares. His magnetic personality and his earnest, impressive eloquence soon won over to his cause a number of the warrior caste. Brahmins, too, felt the persuasiveness of his words, and it was not long before he was surrounded by a band of enthusiastic disciples, in whose company he went from place to place, by making converts by his preaching. These soon became very numerous and were formed into a great brotherhood of monks. Such was the work to which Buddha gave himself with unsparing zeal for over forty years. At length, worn out by his long life of activity, he fell sick after a meal of dried boar’s flesh, and died in the eightieth year of his age. The approximate date of his death is 480 B.C. It is noteworthy that Buddha was a contemporary of two other famous religious philosophers, Pythagoras and Confucius.

In the sacred books of later times Buddha is depicted as a character without flaw, adorned with every grace of mind and heart. There may be some hesitation in taking the highly coloured portrait of Buddhist tradition as the exact representation of the original, but Buddha may be credited with the qualities of a great and good man. The records depict him moving about from place to place, regardless of personal comfort, calm and fearless, mild and compassionate, considerate towards poor and rich alike, absorbed with the one idea of freeing all men from the bonds of misery, and irresistible in his manner of setting forth the way of deliverance. In his mildness, his readiness to overlook insults, his zeal, chastity, and simplicity of life, he reminds one not a little of St. Francis of Assisi. In all pagan antiquity no character has been depicted as so noble and attractive.

II. BUDDHIST TEXTS

The chief sources for early Buddhism are the sacred books comprised in the first two divisions of the Ti-pitaka (triple-basket), the threefold Bible of the Southern School of Buddhists. In India, today, the Buddhists are found only in the North, in Nepal, and in the extreme South, in the island of Ceylon. They represent two different schools of thought, the Northern worshipping Buddha as supreme personal deity though at the same time adopting most of the degrading superstitions of Hinduism, the Southern adhering in great measure to the original teachings of Buddha. Each school has a canon of sacred books. The Northern canon is in Sanskrit, the Southern in Pali, a softer tongue, into which Sanskrit was transformed by the people of the South. The Southern canon, Ti-pitaka, which reflects more faithfully the teachings of Buddha and his early disciples, embraces

the Vinaya-pitaka, a collection of books on the disciplinary rules of the order,

the Sutta-pitaka, didactic tracts consisting in part of alleged discourses of Buddha; and

the Abhidhamma-pitaka, comprising more detailed treatises on doctrinal subjects.

Most of the Vinavas and some of the Suttas have been made accessible to English readers in the “Sacred Books of the East.” The Ti-pitaka seems to date back to the second and third centuries B.C., but a few additions were made even after it was committed to writing in the early part of the first century of the Christian Era. While there may be doctrinal and disciplinary parts from the time of Buddha none of the twenty-nine books comprised in the Ti-pitaka can be proved to be older than 300 B.C. These books stripped of their tiresome repetitions, would be about equal in size to the Bible, though on the whole they are vastly inferior to the Sacred Scripture in spirituality, depth of thought, variety of subject, and richness of expression. There are also a few extra-canonical books, likewise in Pali on which the Southern Buddhists set great value, the Dipavansa and Mahavansa, which give an uncritical history of Buddhism down to about A.D. 300, the “Commentaries of Buddhagosa,” and the Milinda Panha, ably translated by Rhys Davids under the title “The Questions of King Milinda.” These works belong to the fourth and following centuries of our era. In the Tri-pitaka of the Northern School are included the well-known Saddharma-pundarika (Lotus of the True Law), and the legendary biographies of Buddha, the Buddha Charita, and the Lalita Vistara (Book of Exploits), which are generally assigned to the last quarter of the first century A.D. Besides the Tri-pitaka, the Northern Buddhists reckon as canonical several writings of more recent times adapted from the abominable Hindu Tantras.

III. PRIMITIVE BUDDHISM

Buddhism was by no means entirely original. It had much in common with the pantheistic Vedanta teaching, from which it sprang belief in karma, whereby the character of the present life is the net product of the good and evil acts of a previous existence; belief in a constant series of rebirths for all who set their heart on preserving their individual existence; the pessimistic view that life at its best is misery and not worth living. And so the great end for which Buddha toiled was the very one which gave colour to the pantheistic scheme of salvation propounded by the Brahmin ascetics, namely, the liberation of men from misery by setting them free from attachment to conscious existence. It was in their conception of the final state of the saved, and of the method by which it was to be attained that they differed. The pantheistic Brahmin said:

Recognize your identity with the great impersonal god, Brahma, you thereby cease to be a creature of desires; you are no longer held fast in the chain of rebirths; at death you lose your individuality, your conscious existence, to become absorbed in the all-god Brahma.

In Buddha’s system, the all-god Brahma was entirely ignored. Buddha put abstruse speculation in the background, and, while not ignoring the value of right knowledge, insisted on the saving part of the will as the one thing needful. To obtain deliverance from birth, all forms of desire must be absolutely quenched, not only very wicked craving, but also the desire of such pleasures and comforts as are deemed innocent and lawful, the desire even to preserve one’s conscious existence. It was through this extinction of every desire that cessation of misery was to be obtained. This state of absence of desire and pain was known as Nirvana (Nibbana). This word was not coined by Buddha, but in his teaching, it assumed a new shade of meaning. Nirvana means primarily a “blowing out,” and hence the extinction of the fire of desire, ill-will, delusion, of all, in short, that binds the individual to rebirth and misery. It was in the living Buddhist saint a state of calm repose, of indifference to life and death, to pleasure and pain, a state of imperturbable tranquility, where the sense of freedom from the bonds of rebirth caused the discomforts as well as the joys of life to sink into insignance. But it was not till after death that Nirvana was realized in its completeness. Some scholars have so thought. And, indeed, if the psychological speculations found in the sacred books are part of Buddha’s personal teaching, it is hard to see how he could have held anything else as the final end of man. But logical consistency is not to be looked for in an Indian mystic. If we may trust the sacred books, he expressly refused on several occasions to pronounce either on the existence or the non-existence of those who had entered into Nirvana, on the ground that it was irrelevant, not conducive to peace and enlightenment. His intimate disciples held the same view. A monk who interpreted Nirvana to mean annihilation was taken to task by an older monk, and convinced that he had no right to hold such an opinion, since the subject was wrapped in impenetrable mystery. The learned nun Khema gave a similar answer to the King of Kosala, who asked if the deceased Buddha was still in existence. Whether the Perfect One exists after death, whether he does not exist after death, whether he exists and at the same time does not exist after death, whether he neither exists nor does not exist after death, has not been revealed by Buddha. Since, then, the nature of Nirvana was too mysterious to be grasped by the Hindu mind, too subtle to be expressed in terms either of existence or of non-existence, it would be idle to attempt a positive solution of the question. It suffices to know that it meant a state of unconscious repose, an eternal sleep which knew no awakening. In this respect it was practically one with the ideal of the pantheistic Brahmin. In the Buddhist conception of Nirvana no account was taken of the all-god Brahma. And as prayers and offerings to the traditional gods were held to be of no avail for the attainment of this negative state of bliss, Buddha, with greater consistency than was shown in pantheistic Brahminism, rejected both the Vedas and the Vedic rites. It was this attitude which stamped Buddhism as a heresy. For this reason, too, Buddha has been set down by some as an atheist. Buddha, however, was not an atheist in the sense that he denied the existence of the gods. To him the gods were living realities. In his alleged sayings, as in the Buddhist scriptures generally, the gods are often mentioned, and always with respect. But like the pantheistic Brahmin, Buddha did not acknowledge his dependence on them. They were like men, subject to decay and rebirth. The god of today might be reborn in the future in some inferior condition, while a man of great virtue might succeed in raising himself in his next birth to the rank of a god in heaven. The very gods, then, no less than men, had need of that perfect wisdom that leads to Nirvana, and hence it was idle to pray or sacrifice to them in the hope of obtaining the boon which they themselves did not possess. They were inferior to Buddha, since he had already attained to Nirvana. In like manner, they who followed Buddha’s footsteps had no need of worshipping the gods by prayers and offerings. Worship of the gods was tolerated, however, in the Buddhist layman who still clung to the delusion of individual existence, and preferred the household to the homeless state. Moreover, Buddha’s system conveniently provided for those who accepted in theory the teaching that Nirvana alone was the true end of man but who still lacked the courage to quench all desires. The various heavens of Brahminic theology, with their positive, even sensual, delights were retained as the reward of virtuous souls not yet ripe for Nirvana. To aspire after such rewards was permitted to the lukewarm monk; it was commended to the layman. Hence the frequent reference, even in the earliest Buddhist writings to heaven and its positive delights as an encouragement to right conduct. Sufficient prominence is not generally given to this more popular side of Buddha’s teaching, without which his followers would have been limited to an insignificant and short-lived band of heroic souls. It was this element, so prominent in the inscriptions of Asoka, that tempered the severity of Buddha’s doctrine of Nirvana and made his system acceptable to the masses.

In order to secure that extinction of desire which alone could lead to Nirvana, Buddha prescribed for his followers a life of detachment from the comforts, pleasures, and occupations of the common run of men. To secure this end, he adopted for himself and his disciples the quiet, secluded, contemplative life of the Brahmin ascetics. It was foreign to his plan that his followers should engage in any form of industrial pursuits, lest they might thereby be entangled in worldly cares and desires. Their means of subsistence was alms; hence the name commonly applied to Buddhist monks was bhikkus, beggars. Detachment from family life was absolutely necessary. Married life was to be avoided as a pit of hot coals, for it was incompatible with the quenching of desire and the extinction of individual existence. In like manner, worldly possessions and worldly power had to be renounced-everything that might minister to pride, greed, or self-indulgence. Yet in exacting of his followers a life of severe simplicity, Buddha did not go to the extremes of fanaticism that characterized so many of the Brahmin ascetics. He chose the middle path of moderate asceticism which he compared to a lute, which gives forth the proper tones only when the strings are neither too tight nor too slack. Each member was allowed but one set of garments, of yellowish colour and of cheap quality. These, together with his sleeping mat, razor, needle, water-strainer, and alms bowl, constituted the sum of his earthly possessions. His single meal, which had to be taken before noon, consisted chiefly of bread, rice, and curry, which he gathered daily in his alms-bowl by begging. Water or rice-milk was his customary drink, wine and other intoxicants being rigorously forbidden, even as medicine. Meat, fish, and delicacies were rarely eaten except in sickness or when the monk dined by invitation with some patron. The use of perfumes, flowers, ointments, and participation in worldly amusements fell also into the class of things prohibited. In theory, the moral code of Buddhism was little more than a copy of that of Brahminism. Like the latter, it extended to thoughts and desires, no less than to words and deeds. Unchastity in all its forms, drunkenness, lying, stealing, envy, pride, harshness are fittingly condemned. But what, perhaps, brings Buddhism most strikingly in contact with Christianity is its spirit of gentleness and forgiveness of injuries. To cultivate benevolence towards men of all classes, to avoid anger and physical violence, to be patient under insult, to return good for evil-all this was inculated in Buddhism and helped to make it one of the gentlest of religions. To such an extent was this carried that the Buddhist monk, like the Brahmin ascetic, had to avoid with the greatest care the destruction of any form of animal life.

In course of time, Buddha extended his monastic system to include women. Communities of nuns while living near the monks, were entirely secluded from them. They had to conform to the same rule of life, to subsist on alms, and spend their days in retirement and contemplation. They were never as numerous as the monks, and later became a very insignificant factor in Buddhism. In thus opening up to his fellow men and women what he felt to be the true path of salvation, Buddha made no discrimination in social condition. Herein lay one of the most striking contrasts between the old religion and the new. Brahminism was inextricably intertwined with caste-distinctions. It was a privilege of birth, from which the Sudras and members of still lower classes were absolutely excluded. Buddha, on the contrary, welcomed men of low as well as high birth and station. Virtue, not blood, was declared to be the test of superiority. In the brotherhood which he built around him, all caste-distinctions were put aside. The despised Sudra stood on a footing of equality with the high-born Brahmin. In this religious democracy of Buddhism lay, doubtless, one of its strongest influences for conversion among the masses. But in thus putting his followers on a plane of equal consideration, Buddha had no intention of acting the part of a social reformer. Not a few scholars have attributed to him the purpose of breaking down caste-distinctions in society and of introducing more democratic conditions. Buddha had no more intention of abolishing caste than he had of abolishing marriage. It was only within the limits of his own order that he insisted on social equality just as he did on celibacy. Wherever Buddhism has prevailed, the caste-system has remained untouched.

Strictly speaking, Buddha’s order was composed only of those who renounced the world to live a life of contemplation as monks and nuns. The very character of their life, however, made them dependent on the charity of men and women who preferred to live in the world and to enjoy the comforts of the household state. Those who thus sympathized with the order and contributed to its support, formed the lay element in Buddhism. Through this friendly association with the order, they could look to a happy reward after death, not Nirvana but the temporary de!ights of heaven, with the additional prospect of being able at some future birth to attain to Nirvana, if they so desired. The majority, however, did not share the enthusiasm of the Buddhist Arhat or saint for Nirvana, being quite content to hope for a life of positive, though impermanent, bliss in heaven.

IV. LATER DEVELOPMENTS AND SPREAD OF BUDDHISM

The lack of all religious rites in Buddhism was not keenly felt during the lifetime of its founder. Personal devotion to him took the place of religious fervour. But he was not long dead when this very devotion to him began to assume the form of religious worship. His reputed relics, consisting of his bones, teeth, alms-bowl, cremation-vessel, and ashes from his funeral pyre, were enclosed in dome-shaped mounds called Dagobas, or Topes, or Stupas, and were honoured with offerings of lights, flowers, and incense. Pictures and statues of Buddha were multiplied on every side, and similarly honoured, being carried about on festal days in solemn procession. The places, too, associated with his birth, enlightenment, first preaching, and death were accounted especially sacred, and became the objects of pilgrimage and the occasion of recurring festivals. But as Buddha had entered into Nirvana and could not be sensible of these religious honours, the need was felt of a living personality to whom the people could pray. The later speculations of Buddhist monks brought such a personality to light in Metteyya (Maitreya), the loving one, now happily reigning in heaven as a bodhisattva, a divine being destined in the remote future to become a Buddha, again to set in motion the wheel of the law. To this Metteyya the Buddhists turned as the living object of worship of which they had so long felt the need, and they paid him religious homage as the future saviour of the world.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE NORTHERN SCHOOL

Such was the character of the religious worship observed by those who departed the least from Buddha’s teachings. It is what is found today in the so-called Southern Buddhism, held by the inhabitants of Ceylon, Burma, and Siam. Towards the end of first century A.D., however, a far more radical change took place in the religious views of the great mass of Buddhists in Northern India. Owing, doubtless, to the ever growing popularity of the cults of Vishnu and Siva, Buddhism was so modified as to allow the worship of an eternal, supreme deity, Adi-Buddha, of whom the historic Buddha was declared to have been an incarnation, an avatar. Around this supreme Buddha dwelling in highest heaven, were grouped a countless number of bodhisattvas, destined in future ages to become human Buddhas for the sake of erring man. To raise oneself to the rank of bodhisattva by meritorious works was the ideal now held out to pious souls. In place of Nirvana, Sukhavati became the object of pious longing, the heaven of sensuous pleasures, where Amitabha, an emanation of the eternal Buddha, reigned. For the attainment of Sukhavati, the necessity of virtuous conduct was not altogether forgotten, but an extravagant importance was attached to the worship of relics and statues, pilgrimages, and, above all, to the reciting of sacred names and magic formulas. Many other gross forms of Hindu superstition were also adopted. This innovation, completely subversive of the teaching of Buddha, supplanted the older system in the North. It was known as the Mahayana, or Great Vehicle, in distinction to the other and earlier form of Buddhism contemptuously styled the Hinayana or Little Vehicle, which held its own in the South. It is only by the few millions of Southern Buddhists that the teachings of Buddha have been substantially preserved.

Buddha’s order seems to have grown rapidly, and through the good will of rulers, whose inferior origin debarred them from Brahmin privileges, to have become in the next two centuries a formidable rival of the older religion. The interesting rock-edicts of Asoka-a royal convert to Buddhism who in the second quarter of the third century B.C. held dominion over the greater part of India-give evidence that Buddhism was in a most flourishing condition, while a tolerant and kindly spirit was displayed towards other forms of religion. Under his auspices missionaries were sent to evangelize Ceylon in the South, and in the North, Kashmer, Kandahar, and the so-called Yavana country, identified by most scholars with the Greek settlements in the Kabul valley and vicinity, and later known as Bactria. In all these places Buddhism quickly took root and flourished, though in the Northern countries the religion became later on corrupted and transformed into the Mahayana form of worship.

BUDDHISM IN CHINA

In the first century of the Christian Era, the knowledge of Buddha made its way to China. At the invitation of the Emperor Ming-ti, Buddhist monks came in A.D. 67 with sacred books, pictures, and relics. Conversions multiplied, and during the next few centuries the religious communications between the two countries were very close. Not only did Buddhist missionaries from India labour in China, but many Chinese monks showed their zeal for the newly adopted religion by making pilgrimages to the holy places in India. A few of them wrote interesting accounts, still extant, of what they saw and heard in their travels. Of these pilgrims the most noted are Fahien, who travelled in India and Ceylon in the years A.D. 399–414, and Hiouen-Tsang who made extensive travels in India two centuries later (A.D. 629–645). The supplanting of the earlier form of Buddhism in the northern countries of India in the second century led to a corresponding change in the Buddhism of China. The later missionaries, being mostly from the North of India, brought with them the new doctrine, and in a short time the Mahayana or Northern Buddhism prevailed. Two of the bodhisattvas of Mahayana theology became the favourite objects of worship with the Chinese-Amitabha, lord of the Sukhavati paradise, and Avalokitesvara, extravagantly praised in the “Lotus of the True Law” as ready to extricate from every sort of danger those who think of him or cherish his name. The latter, known as Fousa Kwanyin, is worshipped, now as a male deity, again as the goddess of mercy, who comes to the relief of the faithful. Amitabha goes by the Chinese name Amita, or Mito. Offerings of flowers and incense made before his statues and the frequent repetition, of his name are believed to ensure a future life of bliss in his distant Western paradise. An excessive devotion to statues and relics, the employment of magic arts to keep off evil spirits, and the observance of many of the gross superstitions of Taoism, complete the picture of Buddhism in China, a sorry representation of what Buddha made known to men. Chinese Buddhism was introduced into Korea in the fourth century, and from there taken to Japan two centuries later. The Buddhism of these countries is in the main like that of China, with the addition of a number of local superstitions. Annam was also evangelized by Chinese Buddhists at an early period.

TIBETAN BUDDHIISM (LAMAISM)

Buddhism was first introduced into Tibet in the latter part of the seventh century, but it did not begin to thrive till the ninth century. In 1260, the Buddhist conqueror of Tibet, Kublai Khan, raised the head lama, a monk of the great Sakja monastery, to the position of spiritual and temporal ruler. His modern successors have the title of Dalai Lama. Lamaism is based on the Northern Buddhism of India, after it had become saturated with the disgusting elements of Siva worship. Its deities are innumerable, its idolatry unlimited. It is also much given to the use of magic formulas and to the endless repetition of sacred names. Its favourite formula is, Om mani padme hum (O jewel in the lotus, Amen), which, written on streamers exposed to the wind, and multiplied on paper slips turned by hand or wind or water, in the so-called prayer-wheels, is thought to secure for the agent unspeakable merit. The Dalai Lama, residing in the great monastery at Lhasa, passes for the incarnation of Amitabha, the Buddha of the Sukhavati paradise. Nine months after his death, a newly born babe is selected by divination as the reincarnate Buddha.

Catholic missionaries to Tibet in the early part of the last century were struck by the outward resemblances to Catholic liturgy and discipline that were presented by Lamaism-its infallible head, grades of clergy corresponding to bishop and priest, the cross, mitre, dalmatic, cope, censer, holy water, etc. At once voices were raised proclaiming the Lamaistic origin of Catholic rites and practices. Unfortunately for this shallow theory, the Catholic Church was shown to have possessed these features in common with the Christian Oriental churches long before Lamaism was in existence. The wide propagation of Nestorianism over Central and Eastern Asia as early as A.D. 635 offers a natural explanation for such resemblances as are accretions on Indian Buddhism. The missionary zeal of Tibetan lamas led to the extension of their religion to Tatary in the twelfth and following centuries. While Northern Buddhism was thus exerting a widespread influence over Central and Eastern Asia, the earlier form of Buddhism was making peaceful conquests of the countries and islands in the South. In the fifth century missionaries from Ceylon evangelized Burma. Within the next two centuries, it spread to Siam, Cambodia, Java, and adjacent islands.

STATISTICS

The number of Buddhists throughout the world is commonly estimated at about four hundred and fifty millions, that is, about one-third of the human race. But on this estimate the error is made of classing an the Chinese and Japanese as Buddhists. Professor Legge, whose years of experience in China give special weight to his judgment, declares that the Buddhists in the whole world are not more than, one hundred millions, being far outnumbered not only by Christians, but also by the adherents of Confucianism and Hinduism. Professor Monier Williams holds the same views. Even if Buddhism, however, outranked Christianity in the number of adherents, it would be a mistake to attribute to the religion of Buddha, as some do, a more successful propagandism than to the religion of Christ. The latter has made its immense conquests, not by compromising with error and superstition, but by winning souls to the exclusive acceptance of its saving truths. Wherever it has spread, it has maintained its individuality. On the other hand, the vast majority of the adherents of Buddhism cling to forms of creed and worship that Buddha, if alive, would reprobate. Northern Buddhism became the very opposite of what Buddha taught to men, and in spreading to foreign lands accommodated itself to the degrading superstitions of the peoples it sought to win. It is only the Southern Buddhists of Ceylon, Burma, and Siam who deserve to be identified with the order founded by Buddha. They number at most but thirty millions of souls.

V. BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY

Between Buddhism and Christianity there are a number of resemblances, at first sight striking.

The Buddhist order of monks and nuns offers points of similarity with Christian monastic systems, particularly the mendicant orders.

There are moral aphorisms ascribed to Buddha that are not unlike some of the sayings of Christ.

Most of all, in the legendary life of Buddha, which in its complete form is the outcome of many centuries of accretion, there are many parallelisms, some more, some less striking, to the Gospel stories of Christ.

A few third-rate scholars taking for granted that all these resemblances are pre-Christian, and led by the fallacious principle that resemblance always implies dependence, have vainly tried to show that Christian monasticism is of Buddhist origin, and that Buddhist thought and legend have been freely incorporated into the Gospels. To give greater speciousness to their theory, they have not scrupled to press into service, besides the few bona fide resemblances many others that were either grossly exaggerated, or fictitious, or drawn from Buddhist sources less ancient than the Gospels. If, from this vast array of alleged Buddhist infiltrations, all these exaggerations, fictions, and anachronisms are eliminated, the points of resemblance that remain are, with perhaps one exception, such as may be explained on the ground of independent origin.

The exception is the story of Buddha’s conversion from the worldly life of a prince to the life of an ascetic, which was transformed by some Oriental Christian of the seventh century into the popular medieval tale of “Barlaam and Josaphat.” Here is historic evidence of the turning of a Buddhist into a Christian legend just as, on the other hand, the fifth-century sculptures of Gospel scenes on the ruined Buddhist monasteries of Jamalgiri, in Northern Panjab, described in the scholarly work of Fergusson and Burgess, “The Cave Temples of India,” offer reliable evidence that the Buddhists of that time did not scruple to embellish the Buddha legend with adaptations from Christian sources.

But is there any historical basis for the assertion that Buddhist influence was a factor in the formation of Christianity and of the Christian Gospels? The advocates of this theory pretend that the rock-inscriptions of Asoka bear witness to the spread of Buddhism over the Greek-speaking world as early as the third century B.C., since they mention the flourishing existence of Buddhism among the Yavanas, i.e. Greeks within the dominion of Antiochus. But in the unanimous judgment of first-rate scholars, the Yavanas here mentioned mean simply and solely the Greek-speaking peoples on the extreme frontier next to India, namely, Bactria and the Kabul valley. Again the statement in the late Buddhist chronicle, Mahavansa, that among the Buddhists who came to the dedication of a great Stupa in Ceylon in the second century B.C., “were over thirty thousand monks from the vicinity of Alassada, the capital of the Yona country” is taken to prove that long before the time of Christ, Alexandria in Egypt was the centre of flourishing Buddhist communities. It is true that Alassada is the Pali for Alexandria; but the best scholars are agreed that the city here meant is not the ancient capital of Egypt, but as the text indicates, the chief city of the Yona country, the Yavana country of the rock-inscriptions, namely, Bactria and vicinity. And so, the city referred to is most likely Alexandria ad Caucasum.

In short, there is nothing in Buddhist records that may be taken as reliable evidence for the spread of Buddhism westward to the Greek world as early as the foundation of the Christian religion. That Buddhist institutions were at that time unknown in the West may be safely inferred from the fact that Buddhism is absolutely ignored in the literary and archaeological remains of Palestine, Egypt, and Greece. There is not a single remains of Buddhist monastery or stupa in any of these countries; not a single Greek translation of a Buddhist book; not a single reference in all Greek literature to the existence of a Buddhist community in the Greek world. The very name of Buddha is mentioned for the first time only in the writings of Clement of Alexandria (second century). To explain the resemblances in Christianity to a number of pre-Christian features of Buddhism, there is no need of resorting to the hypothesis that they were borrowed. Nothing is more common in the study of comparative ethnology and religion than to find similar social and religious customs practised by peoples too remote to have had any communication with one another. How easily the principle of ascetic detachment from the world may lead to a community life in which celibacy as observed, may be seen in the monastic systems that have prevailed not only among Buddhists, Essenes, and Christians, but also among the early Aztecs and Incas in the New World. Nor is this so strange when it is recalled that men everywhere have, to a large extent, the same daily experiences, the same feelings, the desires. As the laws of human thought are every here the same, it lies in the very nature of things that men, in so far as they have the same experiences, or face the same religious needs, will think the same thoughts, and give expression to them in sayings and customs that strike the unreflecting old server by their similarity. It is only by losing sight of this fundamental truth that one can unwittingly fall into the error of assuming that resemblance always implies dependence.

It is chiefly the legendary features of Buddha’s life, many of which are found for the first time only in works of later date than the Gospels, that furnish the most striking resemblances to certain incidents related of Christ in the Gospels, resemblances which might with greater show of reason be traced to a common historic origin. If there has been any borrowing here, it is plainly on the side of Buddhism. That Christianity made its way to Northern India in the first two centuries is not only a matter of respectable tradition, but is supported by weighty archaeological evidence. Scholars of recognized ability beyond the suspicion of undue bias in favour of Christianity-Weber, Goblet d’Alviella, and others-think it very likely that the Gospel stories of Christ circulated by these early Christian communities in India were used by the Buddhists to enrich the Buddha legend, just as the Vishnuites built up the legend of Krishna on many striking incidents in the life of Christ.

The fundamental tenets of Buddhism are marked by grave defects that not only betray its inadequacy to become a religion of enlightened humanity, but also bring into bold relief its inferiority to the religion of Jesus Christ. In the first place, the very foundation on which Buddhism rests-the doctrine of karma with its implied transmigrations-is gratuitous and false. This pretended law of nature, by which the myriads of gods, demons, men, and animals are but the transient forms of rational beings essentially the same, but forced to this diversity in consequence of varying degrees of merit and demerit in former lives, is a huge superstition in flat contradiction to the recognized laws of nature, and hence ignored by men of science. Another basic defect in primitive Buddhism is its failure to recognize man’s dependence on a supreme God. By ignoring God and by making salvation rest solely on personal effort, Buddha substituted for the Brahmin religion a cold and colourless system of philosophy. It is entirely lacking in those powerful motives to right conduct, particularly the motive of love, that spring from the consecration of religious men and women to the dependence on a personal all-loving God. Hence it is that Buddhist morality is in the last analysis a selfish utilitarianism. There is no sense of duty, as in the religion of Christ, prompted by reverence for a supreme Lawgiver, by love for a merciful Father, by personal allegiance to a Redeemer. Karma, the basis of Buddhist morality, is like any other law of nature, the observance of which is prompted by prudential considerations. Not infrequently one meets the assertion that Buddha surpassed Jesus in holding out to struggling humanity an end utterly unselfish. This is a mistake. Not to speak of the popular Swarga, or heaven, with its positive, even sensual delights the fact that Nirvana is a negative ideal of bliss does not make it the less an object of interested desire. Far from being an unselfish end, Nirvana is based wholly on the motive of self-love. It thus stands on a much lower level than the Christian ideal, which, being primarily and essentially a union of friendship with God in heaven, appeals to motives of disinterested as well as interested love.

Another fatal defect of Buddhism is its false pessimism. A strong and healthy mind revolts against the morbid view that life is not worth living, that every form of conscious existence is an evil. Buddhism stands condemned by the voice of nature the dominant tone of which is hope and joy. It is a protest against nature for possessing the perfection of rational life. The highest ambition of Buddhism is to destroy that perfection by bringing all living beings to the unconscious repose of Nirvana. Buddhism is thus guilty of a capital crime against nature, and in consequence does injustice to the individual. All legitimate desires must be repressed. Innocent recreations are condemned. The cultivation of music is forbidden. Researches in natural science are discountenanced. The development of the mind is limited to the memorizing of Buddhist texts and the study of Buddhist metaphysics, only a minimum of which is of any value. The Buddhist ideal on earth is a state of passive indifference to everything. How different is the teaching of Him who came that men might have life and have it more abundantly. Again Buddhist pessimism is unjust to the family. Marriage is held in contempt and even abhorrence as leading to the procreation of life. In thus branding marriage as a state unworthy of man, Buddhism betrays its inferiority to Christianity, which recommends virginity but at the same time teaches that marriage is a sacred union and a source of sanctification. Buddhist pessimism likewise does injustice to society. It has set the seal of approval on the Brahmin prejudice against manual labor. Since life is not worth living, to labour for the comforts and refinements of civilized life is a delusion. The perfect man is to subsist not by the labour of his hands but on the alms of inferior men. In the religion of Christ, “the carpenter’s son,” a healthier view prevails. The dignity of labour is upheld, and every form of industry is encouraged that tends to promote man’s welfare.

Buddhism has accomplished but little for the uplifting of humanity in comparison with Christianity. One of its most attractive features, which, unfortunately, has become wellnigh obsolete, was its practice of benevolence towards the sick and needy. Between Buddhists and Brahmins there was a commendable rivalry in maintaining dispensaries of food and medicine. But this charity did not, like the Christian form, extend to the prolonged nursing of unfortunates stricken with contagious and incurable diseases, to the protection of foundlings, to the bringing up of orphans, to the rescue of fallen women, to the care of the aged and insane. Asylums and hospitals in this sense are unknown to Buddhism. The consecration of religious men and women to the lifelong service of afflicted humanity is foreign to dreamy Buddhist monasticism. Again, the wonderful efficacy displayed by the religion of Christ in purifying the morals of pagan Europe has no parallel in Buddhist annals. Wherever the religion of Buddha has prevailed, it has proved singularly inefficient to lift society to a high standard of morality. It has not weaned the people of Tibet and Mongolia from the custom of abandoning the aged, nor the Chinese from the practice of infanticide. Outside the establishment of the order of nuns, it has done next to nothing to raise woman from her state of degradation in Oriental lands. It has shown itself utterly helpless to cope with the moral plagues of humanity. The consentient testimony of witnesses above the suspicion of prejudice establishes the fact that at the present day Buddhist monks are everywhere strikingly deficient in that moral earnestness and exemplary conduct which distinguished the early followers of Buddha. In short, Buddhism is all but dead. In its huge organism the faint pulsations of life are still discernible, but its power of activity is gone. The spread of European civilization over the East will inevitably bring about its extinction.

CHARLES F. AIKEN

Guillaume Budé

(Budaeus).

A French Hellenist, born at Paris, 1467; died there 22 August, 1540. He studied at Paris and Orleans but with little success or application. Subsequently, however, he seemed to acquire a sudden passion for learning. After taking lessons in Greek from Hermonymus, and profiting by the advice of Joannes Lascaris, he attained great proficiency in that language. He studied at the same time, philosophy, theology, law, and medicine, in all of which he made rapid progress. Budé’s abilities were recognized by Louis XII, whose secretary he became after his return from a successful embassy on occasion of the coronation of Pope Julius II. He was sent to Rome again on a mission to Pope Leo X (1515), but was recalled at his own request and accompanied Francis I in his travels. It was then that he suggested to the king the creation of a college for the study of the three languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Latin), afterwards the “College de France.” Empowered to ask Erasmus to take charge of it (1517–18), he failed in his mission, and the college was not founded until 1530. At his suggestion, also, Francis declined to prohibit printing, as the Sorbonne had advised (1533). Literary France owes to Budé’s efforts the foundation of the “Bibliothèque de Fontainebleau,” which was the origin of the “Bibliothèque Nationale.” His letters to Erasmus, Thomas More, Sadolet, Rabelais, and others written in Greek, Latin, or French, were the delight of scholars of the time. Budé was suspected of leanings towards Calvinism, and certain parts of his correspondence with Erasmus seemed to countenance this suspicion. However, it was disproved after his death. Having already translated into Latin many of Plutarch’s Lives (1502–05), he pubIished his “Annotationes in XXIV libros Pandectarum” (Paris, 1508), in which, by applying philology and history to the Roman law, he revolutionized the study of jurisprudence. Budé’s treatise on Roman coins and weights, “De asse et partibus ejus” (Venice, 1522), was the best book on the subject written up to that time. In 1520 he published a philosophical and moral dissertation, “De contemptu rerum fortuitarum”; in 1527, “De studio litterarum,” in which he urges youth not to neglect their literary studies. Greek, however, was his favourite study and we have from him, “Commentarii linguae graecae” (Paris, 1529), which greatly advanced the study of Greek literature in France, “De transitu helenismi ad Christianismum” (Paris, 1534), and various other works of similar scope though of minor importance. His compIete works were published at Bâsle in 1557.

LE ROY, Vita G. Budæi (Paris, 1540); NICÉRON, Histoire de la vie et des ouvrages de Budé in Mém., VIII, 371–89 (1727–45); E. DE BUPÉ, Vie de Guillaume Budé (Paris, 1884).

M. DE MOREIRA

Diocese of Budweis

(Czech, BUDEJOVICE; Lat. BUDOVICIUM; BOHEMO-BUDVICENSIS).

A diocese situated in Southern Bohemia, suffragan to the Archdiocese of Prague. Although projected since 1630, the diocese was not erected until the reign of Emperor Joseph II, by a papal Bull of 20 September, 1785. By the provisions of this Bull, the civil districts of Budweis, Tabor, Prachatitz, and Klattau were separated from the Archdiocese of Prague and erected into the new Diocese of Budweis, thus giving it an area of 5600 sq. miles with a population of 660,000. The church of St. Nicholas at Budweis was made cathedral, and the Archbishop of Prague contributed 3300 Rhenish marks (present value 10,080 kronen or $2,016) towards its endowment.

The following bishops have occupied the See of Budweis: (1) Johann Prokop, Count von Schaffgotsche (1785–1813), formerly rector of the Generalseminar at Brunn, and canon at Olmütz; (2) Ernst Konstantin Ruzicka (1815–45); (3) Joseph Andreas Lindauer (1845–50); (4) Johann Valerian Jirsik (1851–83), especially noteworthy for the part he took in the development of the diocese; (5) Franz, Count Schonborn (1883–85), later Cardinal and Archbishop of Prague, d. 1899; (6) Martin Joseph Riha (7 July, 1885–6 February, 1907), the first diocesan ecclesiastic to be appointed Bishop of Budweis. The present administrator (1907) is the Vicar Capitular, J. Hulka. In conformity with the decree of the provincial council of Prague (1860) three diocesan synods have been held (1870, 1872, 1875).

STATISTICS

According to the organization of 1857 the Diocese of Budweis is divided into the Vicariate-General of Budweis on which depend the archdeaconry of Krummau, the provostship of Neuhaus, and 8 archipresbyterates: Budweis, Klattau, Krummau, Neuhaus, Taus, and Winterberg, with 4 vicariates each, and Strakonitz and Tabor with 5 vicariates each, making a total of 34 vicariates. Among the 432 ecclesiastical divisions for the cure of souls, there are two archdeaconries, 57 deaneries, 366 parishes, 5 expositures, and 1 administrature, with a total population (1907) of 1,123,113. This number is divided as follows: 1,106,729 Roman Catholics (an average of 98.1 per cent, in many vicariates 99.92 percent of the whole population); 1589 members of the Augsburg Evangelical Church; 2302 members of the Helvetic Evangelical Church; 12,447 Jews; and 46 of no religious persuasion. The population of 282 of the ecclesiastical divisions (68.9 per cent), 761,568 is almost entirely Czech; that of 110 (15.34 per cent), 181,790, purely German; that of 25 (10.66 per cent), 119,830, predominantly Czech; and of 15 (5.1 per cent), 59,925, prevailingly German. The average population of a parish is 2000, the population of the largest, Budweis, being 45,528, and of the smallest, Korkushatten, 414.

The clergy actively engaged in the ministry number 849 secular and 136 regular priests. The latter are thus divided: 59 Cistercians from Hohenfurth, with 4 professed clerics; 18 Brothers of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, a congregation founded at Budweis in 1888, with 5 clerics, 18 lay brothers, and 11 novices; 11 Premonstratensians; 11 Knights of Malta; 3 Minorites; 4 Reformed Franciscans, with 5 lay brothers; 3 Calced and 4 Discalced Augustinians, with 4 lay brothers; 6 Redemptorists, with 4 lay brothers; 6 Servites with 4 lay brothers; 4 Capuchins, with 4 lay brothers; 3 Piarists. Twenty-nine parishes are attended by members of religious orders; 2 are granted by free collation, i.e. bestowed by the metropolitan; and the rest are subject to patronage, 88 to ecclesiastical patronage. The cathedral chapter consists of a provost, a dean, who is also the urban dean of Budweis, a cantor, and 3 capitular canons to which are added 4 honorary canons; the consistory has 9 members. Young men are trained for the priesthood in the theological seminary at Budweis, which provides for those speaking the different languages found in the diocese; it has 6 professors and 103 students, 3 in the Bohemian College in Rome. There is also in Budweis an episcopal school for boys (petit séminaire) without a special gymnasium attached (founded 1853).

FEMALE RELIGIOUS ORDERS, SHRINES, CHURCHES, ETC.

In the diocese there are 7 orders of women, with 362 sisters, 90 novices and lay sisters, and 40 houses; 216 Poor School Sisters of Notre Dame (since 1849); 129 Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo (1842); 93 Sisters of the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar (founded at Budweis in 1887); 2 Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul; 3 Sisters of the Holy Cross; 3 Servites; and 2 Franciscans. The great mass of the people are engaged in agricultural pursuits and are in general religiously inclined. Popular missions (Volksmissionen) are frequent, 450 of them being held between 1850 and 1897 in 228 parishes, 334 by Redemptorists and 112 by Jesuits. The chief confraternities are: the Confraternity of the Rosary, in 230 parishes, with 30,000 members; the Confraternity for the Adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament and the Adornment of Poor Churches, founded in 1859, in 238 parishes, which has 15,000 members and disburses yearly 5,000 kronen ($1,000); the Confraternity of St. Michael in 265 parishes, with 5,000 members, who contribute annually 4,000 kronen ($800) toward Peter’s-pence.

The principal places of pilgrimage are: Brunn, founded in 1715, visited yearly by 300 processions; Rimau, built at the end of the seventeenth century, with 100 annual processions; Gojau mentioned as early as 1469; and Kremeschnik, built in 1632. Here, as in the rest of Bohemia, ecclesiastical edifices of earlier centuries were greatly damaged during the religious wars of the fifteenth to the seventeenth century. The prevailing architectural style is baroque. Mention should be made of the Romanesque church of Muhlhausen, built between 1184 and 1250, formerly a Premonstratensian church; the Cistercian abbey-churches of Goldenkron (1263–1300), and Hohenfurth (1259–1350), built in Gothic style; the two-naved church of St. Ægidius in Muhlhausen, originally Romanesque (in the twelfth century), in 1407 rebuilt in the Gothic style; the cathedral at Budweis (1642–49) and the parish church at Prestitz (1748–73) are examples of the baroque style, the latter designed by Kilian Dienzenhofer. Popular Catholic associations are not at present very numerous. There are but two Catholic weekly papers in the diocese. It is only within recent years that any serious attempts have been made to organize the Catholics of the diocese, both on political and non-partisan lines. These efforts have so far met with scant success; in the past, therefore, the territory of the diocese has been represented in the Austrian Parliament by Liberal deputies.

Trajer, Historisch-statistische Beschreibung der Diozese Budweis (Budweis, 1862); Mardetschlager-Trajer, Geschichte des Bistums Budweis (ibid., 1885); Ladenbauer, Das soziale Wirken der kathol. Kirche in Oesterriech: Diozese Budweis (Vienna, 1899); Catalogus Cleri dioec. Budvicen, 1907 (Budweis, 1907).

KARL HILGENREINER.

Buenos Aires

The federal capital of the Argentine Republic, and the second city of the Latin races in the world (having a population of 1,100,000), as well as the first in commercial importance among the cities of South America, is situated in latitude 34°35’30”S., and longitude 58°22’20”W., on the right bank of the Río de la Plata, at an elevation of about 65 feet. The Río de la Plata (Plate, or Silver, River), the estuary of which has a maximum width of more than 108 miles, is about 43 miles wide at Buenos Aires.

With a mean annual death-rate of 14 per thousand, the city takes rank in respect of sanitation with the most advanced cities of the world. The mean temperature is 62°6’F., snow never falls, and hail only rarely, and the thermometer ranges from 59°F. to 82°4’F., at times, however, reaching 95°. The north wind, humid and warm, and in summer even suffocating, charges the atmosphere with electricity, causing general debility and nervous troubles; but this wind never lasts for more than three days, and generally changes to a south-east wind, bringing rain or storm, upon which there follows the cold, dry south-west wind called the Pampero, which clears the sky. The vicissitudes of weather are extremely abrupt, with changes of temperature amounting sometimes to as much as 36°, with violent winds. The Pampero, highly charged with ozone, exercises a disinfecting influence and serves to purify the vitiated atmosphere of the thickly populated sections of the city. The healthiness of Buenos Aires (in English, literally, Good Airs) arises from two other most important causes; the supply of running water and the drainage system—as to both of which something will be said later on. The mean annual rainfall recorded in the five years from 1899 to 1903 was a little more than 43.164 inches. The barometer ordinarily ranges from 29.825 inches to 30.03 inches.

At the time of its founding in 1580 this settlement had 300 inhabitants; in 1744 the population was 11,118; 40,000 in 1801 (estimated); 62,228 in 1822; 177,787 in 1869; 404,000 in 1887; 663,854 in 1895; 950,891 in 1904; 1,084,280 in December, 1906; 1,109,202 (estimated) in July, 1907. All of these amounts, except the third and the last, are taken from the official census. Of the total annual increase in population (46.3 per thousand), 19 to 20 per thousand is due to excess of birth-rate over death-rate; the rest being the effect of immigration. In the 950,981 inhabitants reported in the census of 18 September, 1904, the Argentines numbered 523,041; the foreigners, 427,850 (228,556 of the latter number being Italians, and 105,206 Spaniards). Classified by religious beliefs the figures were: 823,926 Catholics; 24,996 Protestants; 6,065 Jews; 8,054 of various other creeds; 13,335 professing no religious belief, and 74,515 unspecified.

The municipality of Buenos Aires is a federal district of 73 3/8 square miles (19,006 hectares). The governing authority of this district, vested in the president of the republic, is exercised through a minister of the interior and a chief of police, for the maintenance of public order, and in a superintendent (intendiente de la capital) and a municipal council, for the construction and management of public works. The police force carry modern firearms. Both the municipal council and the superintendent have been since 1901 appointed by the president with the assent of the senate, though the question of reverting to the former system of popular election was, in 1907, under discussion by the Legislature. The municipal revenue in 1904, was $5,571,840 (5,804,000 pesos oro). In the older portions of Buenos Aires the streets are from 30 to 40 feet wide; the few avenues as yet in existence have a width, generally, of about 57 feet, though the Avenida de Mayo, nearly a mile in length, is 99 feet wide. The paving of the city, formerly defective, has gone on improving from year to year until the present time, when 70 per cent of the public thoroughfares is paved with granite over a bed of cement or sand, 15 per cent with macadam, asphalt, or carob block, and the remainder with cobblestone. There are upwards of 300 miles of street railway, mostly electric, the traffic on which for the year 1903 was registered at 133,719,218 passengers.

Since the cholera epidemic of 1867–68, and the yellow fever of 1872, two public engineering achievements have most powerfully co-operated towards the healthfulness of the city: the waterworks and the drainage system. The supply of drinking water is derived from the Río de la Plata by means of a great pumping tower whence the water passes, through a tunnel three and two-thirds miles in length, to the reservoirs, to be filtered, clarified, and then raised by powerful pumps to the monumental structure known as the Depósito de las aguas corrientes. In this building twelve iron tanks, each 134 1/2 feet square and 13 feet deep, are arranged in three tiers of four each, at different levels. These twelve tanks have an aggregate capacity of 72,000 tons of water. The drainage system includes an installation in every house, connected scientifically with the cloaca máxima, or main sewer of the city, which runs a distance of 19 miles and 7 furlongs (32 km.) and discharges into the Río de la Plata opposite Berasategui. The rain-drainage pipes are connected with the main system in such a manner that in case of a heavy downpour, the excess of water is turned aside to a special rain-drainage conduit, having a capacity of 1419 cubic feet per second, which, after running a distance of nearly two and three-quarter miles, discharges its contents at a point north of Dársena Norte. The establishment of these two great systems of sanitary works has lowered the death-rate from 30 per thousand, in 1887, to 14 per thousand, in 1904.

Other municipal institutions worthy of mention are the great abattoirs of Liniers, which cover an area of more than 61 acres, and from which 700,000 carcasses of beef and 900,000 of mutton, ready for the market, are annually turned out, and the produce-market, an immense depository where the wheat, wool, leather, etc., produced in the country are collected for exportation. The state university of the republic, with faculties of law, medicine, engineering, philosophy, and literature, established in separate buildings, is situated at Buenos Aires; also many institutions of secondary and primary education, both public and private.

From very early times Buenos Aires has been generally known throughout South America by the colloquial name of El Puerto, and to this day the natives of the city are called Portenos, rather than Bonarenses, or Buenos-Aireans. Nevertheless, until 1885, and even later, El Puerto, being only a river port, and as the bottom of the river had gone on rising with the deposits of mud brought down by the stream, the river front could not offer a sufficient depth of water for vessels of even moderate draught; which were, therefore, obliged to anchor many miles away from the bank. The improvements of Puerto Madero, however, effected between 1890 and 1899, have now attracted ocean steamers of the highest tonnage. Vessels of lower tonnage anchor at the little port of Boca del Riachuelo, the mouth of a comparatively small stream which empties into the Plata south of the city. Both these ports are subject to the necessity of constant dredging to counteract the silting-up of the bottom by the action of the stream. The number of entries and clearings at these two ports amounts to 6000 in the year, aggregating more than 28,000,000 tons. The commerce of Buenos Aires is 849 per thousand of the imports, and 515 per thousand of exports of the whole republic.

The first foundation of Buenos Aires took place in the beginning of the year 1536, under Don Pedro de Mendoza, Gentleman of the Bedchamber to the Emperor Charles V and Adelantado of the Río de la Plata. In 1541 it was deliberately depopulated by Don Domingo Martínez de Irala, the governor, its inhabitants being transferred to Asunción, in Paraguay. The second founding took place 11 June, 1580, under Juan de Garay, Lieutenant-Governor and Captain-General for the Adelantado Juan Ortiz de Zarate. Since its first foundation the place had been called the Port of Santa María de Buenos Aires, and the city was called Santísima Trinidad, taking its name from the day (Trinity Sunday, 29 May, 1580) on which Garay arrived there with his followers, and erected the Royal Standard in anticipation of the formalities of the founding proper. Hence the name usual in ancient documents: Ciudad de la Santísima Trinidad, Puerto de Buenos Aires. Santísima Trinidad is still an alternative title of the archdiocese. Buenos Aires in 1617 was made the capital of the province of Río de la Plata, which was created a vice-royalty in 1776. In 1593 the city was threatened by the expedition under Hawkins sent against the Spanish possessions in South America by Queen Elizabeth of England; in 1627 by the Dutch who had taken possession of Brazil; in 1657 by the French expedition of Timoleon Osmat, a soldier of fortune; in 1698 by another French squadron; in 1700 by a Danish. But on none of these occasions was the city actually attacked. A British expedition under Popham obtained a footing in Buenos Aires (27 June, 1806), but the place was recovered by conquest on the 12th of the following August, and defended against a new and formidable expedition commanded by Whitelock (2–5 July, 1807) by the country people organized as a militia force, who, on the former occasion, made prisoners of the invading force and, on the latter, forced a definitive evacuation of the territory. From 1810 to 1824 the city was a principal centre of the uprising which led to the separation of the Spanish-American colonies from the mother country.

ARCHDIOCESE OF BUENOS AIRES

(BONAERENSIS; SANTISIMA TRINIDAD)

The Diocese of Buenos Aires was formed upon the dismemberment of the original Diocese of Asunción, in Paraguay, by a Bull of Paul III in 1620. Its first bishop was Pedro Carranza, a Carmelite, who was succeeded by a series of nineteen bishops, ending in 1855, when a Bull of Pius IX created Buenos Aires as archdiocese. This archdiocese comprises, besides the federal district with its 1,100,000 inhabitants, the territories of Río Negro, Chubut, and Santa Cruz, commonly known as Patagonia, or Tierra del Fuego, and containing altogether a population of 41,964. The city itself is divided into 22 parishes and 2 mission (succursal) parishes, each with its church. Besides these parish churches there are 50 churches and public chapels, also 80 other chapels, many of them semi-public, connected with religious and charitable institutions. (For some account of particular churches see ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.) The archbishop is assisted by an auxiliary bishop and two vicars-general. The metropolitan chapter consists of a dean, five other dignitaries, and five canons (a theologian, a penitentiary, a canon of the first class, a canon of the second class, and a secretary). There are in the archdiocese 254 secular priests. The seminary, situated at Villa Devoto, is a fine edifice with a public chapel dedicated to the Immaculate Conception. It is expected that this establishment will be converted into the central seminary of the republic and a Pontifical university of sacred sciences. there are 54 religious communities. Pious associations for seculars, women as well as men, are numerous, particularly those devoted to works of charity, upon which the people of Buenos Aires spend immense sums. Catholic colleges for primary and secondary instruction are numerous. Among those conducted by religious are San Jose, under the Bayonne Fathers; Salvador, under the Fathers of the Society of Jesus; the Dominican college of Lacordaire; that of the Escolapios, and that of the Brothers of the Christian Doctrine. Active efforts are being made to establish a Catholic university. Among the various periodicals the “Revista Eclesiástica del Arzobispado” and the daily “El Pueblo” deserve special mention. The workingmen have organized themselves into Catholic clubs, the membership of which now exceeds 40,000.

It is to be remarked that the Catholics of this city, like those of the whole republic, whether failing to realize exactly the existing social conditions, or because they have been too much occupied with political contentions, have restricted their efforts to the formation of charitable associations, doing nothing, until very recently, in the direction of socio-political organization. A sectarian persecution which arose during the years 1884–88 aroused the dormant zeal of the faithful, and a Catholic congress was held which produced copious results. A congress of Franciscan tertiaries was held in 1906, and a second congress of Catholics in general has been convoked for the year 1907, through the initiative of the Congregation of the Immaculate Conception and Saint Aloysius Gonzaga in the College of San Salvador.

PAGE, La Plata, The Argentine Confederation and Paraguay (New York, 1859); PARISH, Buenos Ayres and the Provinces of Río de la Plata (London, 1839); SALVADORES, Guía eclesiástica del Arsobispado de Buenos Aires (Buenos Aires, 1907); Boletín demográfico argention, publicación oficial (Buenos Aires, 1906–07); MARTÍNEZ, L’Argentine au XXe siècle (Paris, 1906); MARTÍNEZ, Estudio topográfico é historia demográfica de Buenos Aires (Buenos Aires, 1899); MARTÍNEZ,Anuario estadístíco de Buenos Aires (Buenos Aires, 1899–1903); MARTÍNEZ, Censo general de voblación, edificación, comercio, é industrias de la ciudad de Buenos Aires levaniado en los días 11 y 18 de Septiembre de 1904 (Buenos Aires, 1906); HERNAEZ, Colección de Bulas, Breves, y otros deocumentos relativos á la Igelesia de América (Brussels, 1879); LARROUY, Orígenes de Buenos Aires (Buenos Aires, 1905); Rasón y Fe (Madrid, 1908), VI, 364; GAMSÓN, Manual de instrucción cívica (Buenos Aires, 1906).

PABLO HERNANDEZ

Diocese of Buffalo

Diocese established 23 April, 1847, now comprises the counties of Erie, Niagara, Genesee, Orleans, Chautauqua, Wyoming, Cattaraugus, and Allegany, in the State of New York, U.S.A., an area of 6,357 square miles. It was set apart from the great Diocese of New York and the see located at Buffalo on Lake Erie, the territory comprising nearly one-third of the State of New York. In 1868 the Diocese of Rochester was formed from the eastern counties of this territory; and in 1896, after Bishop Ryan’s death, four more counties, Steuben, Schuyler, Chemung, and Tioga, were taken from the Diocese of Buffalo and added to the Rochester jurisdiction.

INDIAN MISSIONS

Two of the nations of the Iroquois League, the Senecas and the Cayugas, dwelt in this region before the advent of the white men. The Senecas had villages in the valley of the Genesee about twenty miles from Lake Ontario, and the Cayugas erected their cabins near the lake which still bears their name. The Seneca was the most populous and warlike nation of the League. In their frequent raids into the country of the Hurons of Northern Canada, they carried off many captives who had been instructed in Christianity by the French missionaries from Quebec. So numerous were these Huron Christian captives that they formed an entire village, which was called St. Michael’s, in memory of their old Huron home. Jesuit missionaries visited these towns in 1656, and cheered the Christian captives who had lost all hope of ever again beholding a “Black Robe.” In 1669 this village was located in the north-east part of the present town of East Bloomfield. The Rev. Father Fremin, a Jesuit, established his residence in this town in the fall of 1668, built a chapel, and said the first Mass there, 3 November, 1668. Three years later the Rev. James Pierron became the resident missionary at Gannagaro, or St. James, a Seneca town situated on Boughton Hill, south of the present village of Victor. The principal village of the Cayugas was situated about three and one-half miles south of Union Springs, near Great Gully Brook. This was called St. Joseph’s by the Jesuits. Father Carheil built a chapel there in November, 1668, and immediately began his work of instructing. There was another town of the Cayugas at the northern extremity of Seneca Lake. Another chapel was built in the large Seneca town of Gandachioragon, or Totiakton, which was called the Immaculate Conception by the Jesuits. This was situated near Lima, about ten miles west of St. James.

The Jesuits had four or five prosperous missions within the territory of the original Diocese of Buffalo, in which they laboured successfully for ten years until English intrigue and subsequent wars with the French forced them from the field. During those years they baptized nearly all the dying; they imparted a general knowledge of Christianity to the two western nations of the League; they strengthened the old Huron Christians in their faith, and added several hundred Iroquois converts to the Church. Many of the Iroquois chiefs sided with the English, in the war of the latter against the French, and the French missionaries were forced from the field of their labours. Many of the Christian Indians had already abandoned their homes in the Iroquois country for the new settlements on the St. Lawrence, under the protection of the French; and many more accompanied the Fathers in their flight, and settled on the St. Regis, or at Caughnawaga, where they still practise the Faith they acquired in their Iroquois homes. In the summer of 1669 the explorer, La Salle, with two Sulpicians and a party of twenty-five men, started to explore the region of the Great Lakes in search of a north-west passage to India. They skirted along the southern shore of Lake Ontario, crossing the mouth of Niagara River, until they reached Burlington Bay, where the party disbanded. La Salle went again in 1678, with Father Hennepin, in a large vessel which entered the Niagara River on 6th December, to the strains of the Te Deum. The next day a party with Father Hennepin ascended the river in a canoe, and landed on the northern shore, near the present suspension bridge on the Canada side. On 11 December, 1678, they landed on the other side of the river where Father Hennepin said Mass. This was probably the first Mass celebrated within the present limits of the Diocese of Buffalo. A little fort was built there as a protection against Indian assault. Then they proceeded up the river, about five miles about the Falls, where the “Griffon” was built. Father Hennepin remained there all winter, holding service for the men in a little chapel until the vessel was towed up the river to the present harbour of Black Rock, where it anchored until it was in readiness to sail as the first vessel on the lakes.

CATHOLIC SETTLERS

After Denonville had destroyed the Seneca towns in 1687, he sent a detachment of his army to establish a fort at the mouth of the Niagara River. A garrison of one hundred men was left there with a chaplain. Many died the following winter, and the fort was abandoned. It was reoccupied in 1726, and from that date regular services were held in the chapel until 1759, when the fort capitulated to the English. Soon after the Revolutionary War the Government began building military roads, and the State legislature made appropriations for building highways, and these offered intending settlers better facilities for proceeding farther inland. There was a highway through the State before 1820, reaching to Lake Erie. Buffalo and Erie County offered advantages to intending settlers, and about 1820 many Alsatians located in the vicinity. Many of these were Catholics, but they had no priest, and they could only keep alive the religious spirit by family devotions. The Rev. Patrick Kelly, ordained by Bishop Connolly of New York in 1821, was sent to minister to the Catholics of the western part of the State. He visited Buffalo the same year, and held one public service in a little frame building on Pearl Street. The Rev. Stephen Badin was the first priest to remain any length of time in Buffalo. His field of labour was Kentucky, but sickness compelled him to seek rest. He visited Buffalo for six weeks as the guest of Louis Le Couteulx, who then lived at the corner of Main and Exchange Streets. Here he said Mass for the Catholics of the town; and he urged them to organize and form a congregation. Mr. Le Couteulx started the good work by donating a site for church, cemetery, and priest’s residence, at the corner of Main and Edward Streets. The deed was sent to Bishop Dubois as a New Year’s gift in January, 1829. Bishop Dubois visited Buffalo the same year and concluded that the number of Catholics in the vicinity required the attention of a resident priest, so the Rev. John Nicholas Mertz was sent as the first pastor of Buffalo. On this occasion Bishop Dubois sang a solemn high Mass in the court-house; and in the afternoon a procession composed of different nationalities marched from the court-house to the site for the new church where the ground was blessed by the bishop. father Mertz rented a little frame building on Pearl Street, back of the old Eagle tavern; and here he held services until the “Lamb of God,” a rough timber church, was erected on the property at Main and Edward Streets. The corner stone of this first church of the diocese was laid 8 July, 1831, but the church was not opened for services until the following year. In the next five years congregations were formed at Lancaster, Williamsville, Nor Bush, East Eden, and Lockport. Father Mertz, with his assistant, the Rev. Alexander Pax, looked after the spiritual interests of the Catholics of the first four places, and the Rev. Bernard O’Reilly of Rochester attended the Catholics of Lockport.

Buffalo grew quickly after becoming a city. The church on Main Street was too small for the rapidly increasing numbers. The English-speaking members withdrew from the church in 1837 and formed a separate congregation, renting the second floor of a building at the corner of Main Street and the Terrace; where the Rev. Charles Smith said Mass for them once a month. Father Smith was employed on the other Sundays at Java, or in looking after the spiritual well-being of the Catholics employed in the construction of the Genesee Valley Canal. Soon afterwards property was bought at the corner of Ellicott and Batavia Streets, for a church for the English-speaking Catholics of the city. The Rev. John N. Neumann, who was afterwards Bishop of Philadelphia, and who has been proposed for canonization went to Buffalo in July, 1836, and laboured zealously for four years in the missions of the Erie County and vicinity. The missionary then had few of the comforts and conveniences of the present day and Father Neumann was often compelled to tramp many miles over rough roads, or through the forest, carrying his vestments on his back, to say Mass or to administer to the sick. The Rev. Bernard O’Reilly of Rochester, who was afterwards Bishop of Hartford, also did effective work among those engaged in building the Erie Canal and in constructing the locks at Lockport. The Rev. Thomas McEvoy of Java attended to the spiritual wants of the Catholics of three or four counties. He resided at Java, and from this place he frequently visited clusters of Catholics in Allegany, Wyoming, Steuben, and Chautauqua counties. Among the lay people Louis Le Couteulx was the greatest benefactor of the incipient church in Buffalo. He located at Buffalo in 1803, and it was at his house, corner of Main and Exchange Streets, that the Catholics were first assembled and were urged to form a congregation. Besides donating the site for the first church, he also gave the land for the Deaf Mute Institute, the Infant Asylum, the Immaculate Conception church, and the Buffalo Orphan asylum. Other lay people of that period and later prominent in church work were: Patrick Milton, Maurice Vaughn, Patrick Cannon, John Connolly, Mrs. O’Rourke, Mrs. Rowen, Mrs. Kimmit, and Messrs. Ambrose, Feldman, Fisher, Steffan, Dingens, Lautz, Paul, Diebold, Gittere, Pfohl, Wechter, Doll, Smith, Miller, Hager, Guinther, Vogt, Davis, John Straus, Gerhard Lang, and their families.

The Very Rev. John Timon, a Visitor General of the Congregation of the Mission (Vincentians) was consecrated first Bishop of Buffalo in the cathedral in New York, 17 October, 1847, by Bishop Hughes. The new bishop appointed the Rev. Bernard O’Reilly, pastor of St. Patrick’s church, Rochester, his vicar-general, and began a retreat for his priests; then he gave missions for his people in the sixteen churches of the diocese. Many of these were plain frame structures, without architectural ornament, and many of them had no altar except a table or some rough timber fitted up for the purpose. In many cases services were held in rented buildings, especially where public works attracted large numbers of men but gave no promise of permanent settlement. Such was the case along the Erie Canal and the Genesee Valley Canal, where services were held in the largest workmen’s shanty, or in the nearest town hall. Men engaged in these public works were attracted by the fertility of the soil or the advantages of localities, and sent for their families and friends, and established homes in the western part of the State along the lines of public traffic. Thus little Catholic settlements were formed, and incipient congregations were organized. The first Catholic congregations were made up of settlers from the East or immigrants from Europe.

SCARCITY OF PRIESTS

The growth of the Church, before the advent of the bishop to the western part of the State, was entirely from immigration. Many were lost to the Church during this period because they had settled in remote localities, and priests were scarce. Nearly all the priests who laboured in Western New York during this period were from Europe, and some were not permanently attached to the diocese. The small number of priests could not visit regularly the many small settlements in that extensive territory, and many Catholics would not see a priest for months, or even years. Under such conditions it was but natural that some should fall away. Before there was a resident priest at Buffalo people journeyed all the way to Albany to have their children baptized, others took their children to Monroe, Michigan, where there was a resident priest. When young people decided to get married, two or three of the respectable old people of the community were called in as witnesses; troth was plighted, and the couple became man and wife, with the understanding that as soon as a priest came the blessing of the Church would be invoked upon the marriage. A journey to Albany in those days was a difficult undertaking. It meant many days travel through the forest, on horseback, by stage-coach, or rough wagons. When the Erie Canal was built, part of the journey could be made by packet boat; but as a rule people postponed the reception of the sacraments until some priest went through this region on his way to the Catholic settlements of the West, or in transit between the East and Montreal or Quebec. Priests were scarce for some years after Buffalo was made a diocese; and one of bishop Timon’s first labours was directed to the establishment of colleges and seminaries for the education of youth. He induced the Oblates, the Franciscans, and the Jesuits to send communities to found colleges, and to assist in the formation of parishes. The Oblate Fathers in August, 1851, started a seminary and college in a brick building, which was located on the site of the present cathedral rectory. This institution was later transferred to Prospect Hill, on the site of the present Holy Angels church property. The Franciscans in 1855 located at Ellicottville, but shortly after moved to Allegany. The Jesuits started the present St. Michael’s Church and Canisius College (1851). After the advent of Bishop Timon fallen-away Catholics began to return to the Church, and many non-Catholics embraced the Faith. His missions and his lectures in all the towns of the diocese awakened an interest in Catholic teaching and practice; and from three to five hundred new members were added to the Church each year through the conversion of non-Catholics. Much of the prejudice also, which existed in some localities, was dispelled by the diffusion of knowledge of the Church.

BISHOPS OF THE SEE

(1) Bishop Timon died 16 April, 1867. He was born 12 February, 1797, at Conewago, Pennsylvania, and ordained at St. Louis, Missouri, in June, 1825. For a long time he was a missionary in Texas and in April, 1840, was named Prefect Apostolic there but refused the office.

(2) The Very Rev. Stephen Vincent Ryan who, like his predecessor, was a Visitor General of the Congregation of the Mission, was appointed to succeed him as Bishop of Buffalo and was consecrated 8 November, 1868. Bishop Ryan was born 1 January, 1825, at Almonte, Ontario, Upper Canada. Distinguished for his piety, zeal, and learning, he continued the great work of Bishop Timon. He died 10 April, 1896.

(3) The Rev. James E. Quigley, D.D., his successor, was consecrated 24 February, 1897. Bishop Quigley’s condemnation of the attempt of the Socialists to identify their doctrines with the principles of labour unionism, and thus wean men from their allegiance to the Church, gained for him a national reputation. He was promoted to the vacant archbishopric of Chicago, 19 February, 1903.

(4) The Rev. Charles H. Colton of New York, was next appointed to the see and consecrated in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York, 24 August, 1903.

STATISTICS

There are 264 priests in the diocese; 168 secular, 96 of religious orders; 142 churches with resident priests, 32 mission churches, and 16 chapels; 54 Brothers and 1,085 Sisters of religious orders, teaching 94 parochial schools, with 27,787 pupils. There is one university, Niagara, under the Lazarist Fathers; five colleges for boys with 952 students; and two seminaries for secular clergy, and one for religious, with 181 students. The seminary at Niagara is conducted by the Lazarists; that at Allegany, by the Franciscans. The preparatory seminaries are the college departments at Niagara and at Allegany, and the colleges of Canisius, Holy Angels, and the Christian Brothers. The Oblates have a seminary in Buffalo for candidates for their order, and the Passionists have one in Dunkirk for their students. There are 159 students in the large seminaries, 81 in the preparatory, and 200 students in the university. There are eight academies for young ladies, with 1,200 students. St. John’s Protectory for homeless, or wayward boys, founded in 1861, accommodates about 600 boys, who are taught some trade, along with the elementary branches of education. A Deaf Mute Institute, started in Buffalo in 1856, is now an important institution, under the charge of the Sisters of St. Joseph, with 166 pupils. In 1861 Bishop Timon secured the sisters of St. Francis to care for the aged; these sisters now have three houses: one in Buffalo, one in Gardenville and one in Williamsville, with 600 inmates. The Sisters of the Good Shepherd in 1855 started a refuge for wayward girls and fallen women. They care for 150 inmates and 75 children. In 1888 the Rev. Daniel Walsh established the Working Boys Home, in which 80 boys and young men now find a comfortable home. In 1906 Bishop Colton established the St. Charles’s Home for Working Girls, under the Sisters of Mercy. Bishop Quigley founded two mission houses for poor children, the Angel Guardian Mission and the St. James’s Mission. In June, 1848, Bishop Timon secured a community of Sisters of Charity and placed them in the orphan asylum, which now has 250 orphans, and a large number of young girls employed in a technical school. There is a German orphan asylum in Buffalo, incorporated in 1874, in which there are 370 orphans, under the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis. The Polish orphan asylum at Doyle, under the care of the Felician Sisters of St. Francis, has 186 inmates. The Sisters of St. Joseph have the Orphan Asylum at Dunkirk with 88 orphans; and the Sisters of Charity direct an infant asylum in Buffalo, where 185 infant children can be accommodated, with 60 patients in the maternity hospital. The Sisters of Charity hospital accommodates 250 patients. Their emergency hospital treats 1,200 patients a year. The sisters of Mercy at the Mercy Hospital accommodate about 40 patients. Estimated Catholic population 200,000.

BAYLEY, History of the Church in New York (New York, 1870); TIMON, Missions in Western New York (Buffalo, 1862); DONOHUE, History of the Catholic Church in Western New York (Buffalo, 1904); ID., The Iroquois and the Jesuits (Buffalo, 1985); Relations des Jésuites (Quebec, 1858); MARGRY, Découvertes (Paris, 1893); HENNEPIN, Nouvelle Découverte (Utrecht, 1678); CRONIN, Life and Times of Bishop Ryan (Buffalo, 1893); The Historical Writings of the late Orsamus H. Marshall (Albany, 1887); The Sentinel, files (Buffalo); Maps by GENERAL JAMES CLARKE (Auburn); Bishop Timon’s diary and unpublished letters.

THOMAS DONOHUE

Claude Buffier

A philosopher, and author, born in Poland, of French parents, 25 May, 1661; died in Paris, 17 May, 1737. He received his early education at the Jesuit College in Rouen and entered the Society of Jesus in 1679. After teaching literature in Paris, he returned to Rouen to take a chair of theology. Mgr. Colbert, archbishop of that city issued a pastoral recommending to his clergy certain books of Gallican and Jansenistic tendencies. Buffier attacked the pastoral in a pamphlet and having refused to make a retractation journeyed, with the leave of his superiors, to Rome to lay his case before the congregations. Where he easily justified himself and returning to Paris was connected from 1701 to 1731, with the “Journal de Trévoux.” He published works on history, asceticism, biography, education, literature, and especially on philosophy. He was not, as is often asserted, a disciple of Descartes, for he rejects altogether methodic doubt and follows in general the scholastics. The Encyclopedists, according to Tabaraud, inserted in their publications, without due credit, entire pages from his books, and Reid, the Scottish metaphysician, acknowledges his great indebtedness to Buffier. His chief works are: a Life of Count Louis de Sales, brother of the saint (Paris, 1708); “Pratique de la mémoire artificielle” (Paris, 1701) often reprinted; Grammaire française sur un plan nouveau (Paris, 1732), in many editions and translations; “Exposition des preuves les plus sensibles de la Vraie Religion” (Paris, 1732); and “Cours des sciences” (Paris, 1722).

BERNARD in Dict. de théol. cath., s.v.; HURTER, Nomenclator, II, 1050; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la. c. de. J., II, 340–359.

WALTER DWIGHT

Louis Buglio

A celebrated missionary in China, mathematician, and theologian, born at Mineo, Sicily, 26 January, 1606; died at Peking, 7 October, 1682. He entered the Society of Jesus, 29 January, 1622, and, after a brilliant career as a professor of the humanities and rhetoric in the Roman College, asked to be sent to the Chinese mission. With great zeal and success Father Buglio preached the Gospel in the provinces of Su-Tchuen, Fu-kien, and Kiang-si. He suffered severely for the faith in the persecution which was carried on during the minority of the Emperor Kang-hi. Taken prisoner by one of the victorious Tartar chiefs, he was brought to Peking in 1648. Here, after a short captivity, he was left free to exercise his ministry. Father Buglio collaborated with Fathers Adam Schall, Verbiest, and Magalhaens in reforming the Chinese calendar, and shared with them the confidence and esteem of the emperor. At his death he was given a state funeral.

Thoroughly acquainted with the Chinese language, Father Buglio both spoke and wrote it fluently. A list of his works in Chinese, more than eighty volumes, written for the most part to explain and defend the Christian religion, is given in Sommervogel. Besides Parts I and III of the “Summa” of St. Thomas, he translated into Chinese the Roman Missal (Peking, 1670) the Breviary and the Ritual (ibid, 1674 and 1675). These translations require a special notice, as they were part of a project which, from the beginning of their apostolate in China, the Jesuit missionaries were anxious to carry out. Their purpose was not merely to form a native clergy, but, in order to accomplish this more easily, to introduce a special liturgy in the Chinese tongue, for the use at least of native priests. This plan was approved by Paul V, who, 26 March 1615, granted to regularly ordained Chinese priests the faculty of using their own language in the liturgy and administrations of the sacraments. This faculty was never used. Father Philip Couplet, in 1681, tried to obtain a renewal of it from Rome, but was not successful.

Acta SS., XIII, 123. Diss. xlviii; Sommervogel, Biblotheque de la c. de J., II, 363; Cordier, Bibliotheca Sinica (Paris, 1881), I, 514; Menologe S.J.: Assistance d’Italie

JOSEPH M. WOODS

Bernardo Buil

(Also Boil or Boyl.)

A Friar Minor. The fact that there were two religious of the name of Bernardo Boil living in Spain at the same time has given rise to much confusion and even to the opinion that they were not two distinct persons, but that the same individual was at one time a member of the Franciscan order, and later became a Benedictine. It seems however, more probable to assert that Bernardo Boil, the Franciscan, was a different person from Bernardo Boyl, the Benedictine. It was to the former that Alexander Vl addressed his Bull dated 25 June, 1493, appointing him first vicar Apostolic of the New World. This appears to be certain, first of all from the opening words “Dilecto filio Bernardo Boil, fratri Ordinis Minorum,” etc. of the Bull itself, a part of which is reproduced in the first volume of THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. In the second place, the concluding words of the Bull, where reference is made to the prohibition of Boniface VIII concerning members of mendicant orders taking new domiciles without permission from the Holy See, seem clearly to indicate that the papal rescript was intended for Boil, the Franciscan, and not for his namesake the Benedictine. It is a matter of fact, however, that Bernardo Boyl, O.S.B., became first vicar Apostolic of the New World. This was due to the intrigues of King Ferdinand of Spain who employed Boyl, the Benedictine, to great advantage in several important diplomatic negotiations and had sought his appointment as vicar Apostolic in America. When the papal Bull arrived in Spain, ignoring the king’s choice, and nominating a Franciscan of the same name with the trifling difference of the i and y, which letters were pronounced alike, the only exception being in the order to which the respective priests belonged, it became convenient to conclude that a mistake had been made in Rome—which interpretation Ferdinand found expedient to favour his own ends and views. A false copy of the Bull was therefore made with the necessary changes and delivered to Boyl, the Benedictine, while appointing Boil, the Franciscan. In time this latter document disappeared so completely that no trace of it could be found in the Spanish archives. A copy, however, was carefully preserved in the Vatican library and was brought to light by the researches of the historian Roselly. Bernardo Boil, O.F.M., never knew of the high dignity which Alexander VI had conferred upon him. It is certain he did not leave Spain; yet he was de jure the true, legitimate, and first vicar Apostolic of the New World. As regards Bernardo Boyl, O.S.B., it is a matter of history that his labours were without fruit, and the only record of his official action in America is the fulmination of censures.

ROSELLY DE LORGUES, Christophe Coloumb; Histoire de sa vie et de ses voyages (Paris, 1856); I, 506–513, tr., BARRY (Boston, 1870); TARDUCCI, Vita di Cristoforo Colombo (Milan, 1885), I, xxxi, 613–615; GAMS, Kirchen, Spaniens, III, 96–100; HEUSER in Records of American Catholic Historical Society (Philadelphia, 1896), VII, 141–154; see also WADDING, Annales Minorum, XV, 28–31, where reference is made to a curious work of fiction describing the imaginary labours of the Benedictine Boyl in West Indies.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Ecclesiastical Buildings

This term comprehends all constructions erected for the celebration of liturgical acts, whatever be the name given to them:—church, chapel, oratory, basilica, etc. The subject will be treated under the following heads:

I. History

II. Division

III. Erection

IV. Repair and Maintenance

V. Consecration and Blessing

VI. Immunity

VII. Church Fabric

I. HISTORY

In the earliest days of the Christian religion, there were no buildings specially consecrated to Eucharistic worship; the assemblies for liturgical service were held in private houses (Acts, ii, 46; Rom., xvi, 5; I Cor., xvi, 15; Col., iv, 15; Philemon, 2). The assemblies which the first Christians held in the Temple of Jerusalem, in the synagogues or even in hired halls, were assemblies for instruction or for prayer (Acts, v, 12–13; xvii, 1–2; xix, 9). At the end of the second century and even later, during the period of persecution, assemblies for Christian worship were still held in private houses. During this epoch, however, we begin to hear of the domus ecclesiae (the house of the Church), an edifice used for all the services of the Christian community, in which one apartment was specially set apart for Divine worship. At an early date this apartment took on a special importance. During the third century the other parts of the building were detached from it and the domus ecclesiae became the Domus Dei (the house of God) known also as the Dominicum or the kyriakon oikon (Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien, 399–400, Paris, 1902; Wieland, Mensa und Confessio: Studien uber den Altar der altchristlichen Liturgie, Munich, 1906, I, 27–35, 68–73). All such churches were situated in towns, and the inhabitants of the rural districts came thither on the Lord’s Day, in order to assist at the Eucharistic Sacrifice; in large cities, like Rome, Alexandria, and Carthage, there are several churches, but they did not constitute separate parishes (Duchesne, 400; Wieland, 73–76). They depended upon the cathedral church, in which was established the see (sedes), or the chair (cathedra) of the bishop. There were, however, since the second century, outside the cities, mortuary churches attached to the Christian cemeteries. Here were celebrated the funeral rites, also the anniversary commemorations of the departed, but not the ordinary offices of Divine worship. Sanctuaries were also erected over the sepulchres of the martyrs, and popular devotion brought thither a large concourse of people, not only for the celebration of the anniversary, but at other times as well. The necessity of providing accommodation for these gatherings, as well as the desire to honour the saint, led to the construction of buildings, sometimes large and richly adorned. These churches multiplied when the people began to accord to any relic whatever, to a piece of cloth stained with his blood, to a phial of oil drawn from the lamp that burned constantly before his sepulchre, etc., the veneration at first given only to his burial place. These were the churches of “relics.” They prevailed finally to such an extent that today every church must have relics in each of its altars (Duchesne, 402–403). It is almost universally recognized at the present day that only on exceptional occasions did the catacombs serve for ordinary worship even during the times of persecution. They were used solely for funeral services and for the celebration of the festivals of martyrs (Wieland, 81–100).

That churches existed in rural districts as early as the fourth century is undeniable. Priests went thither periodically to administer the sacraments. In the fifth century, however, on account of the increase in the number of the faithful, it became necessary to station resident priests in such districts. This was the origin of parish churches, which were established by the bishops in the most populous districts, the vici, and were known as ecclesiae rusticanae, parochitanae, diocesanae, diocesis, parochia, ecclesiae baptismates, because in these churches only could the Sacrament of Baptism be administered; they were also termed tituli majores to distinguish them from the private churches, or tituli minores (Imbart de la Tour, Les paroisses rurales du IVe au XIIe siècle, Paris, 1900). In addition to these churches of the vici, the owners of the villae or great estates founded churches for their own use and for that of the persons connected with their establishments. Such churches could not be used for Divine worship without the consent of the local bishop, who was wont to exact from the proprietor a renunciation of all rights of possession. The ecclesiastical authority, however, was not long able to resist the proprietors, who from the seventh and eighth centuries retained the proprietary right over the churches they had built. These were called oratoria, basilicae, martyria, or tituli minores, and were in no respect parish churches, because in them baptism could not be administered; moreover, on certain solemn days, the faithful were obliged to assist at Mass in the parish church. Neither did these churches receive any tithes. From the Carlovingian period, however, such private churches gradually became parish-churches. Some authors contend that from that epoch all churches became the private property of the laity, or of convents, or bishops. The ecclesiastical reforms of the eleventh and twelfth centuries brought this condition of things to all end. The Second Lateran Council (1139) commanded all laymen, under pain of excommunication, to resign to the bishops the churches in their possession. (Mansi, “Coll. Conc.” XXI, 529–532; Stutz, “Geschichte des kirchl. Benefizialwesens,” Berlin, 1895, I; Hinschius, “System des kath. Kirchenrechts,” Berlin, 1878, II, 262–269, 277- 281; Imbart de la Tour, op. cit.) Even within the parishes, for the benefit of the faithful, there were established at various times, chapels which did not enjoy the prerogatives of parish churches, and were more or less dependent upon the latter (Von Scherer, Handbuch des Kirehenrechtes, Graz, 1898, II, 627). In addition to churches specially intended for the use of the faithful, others known as oratories were erected in the monasteries; they acquired a greater importance when the majority of the monks were ordained priests, still more when the exclusive privileges of the parish churches suffered diminution. Such oratories were also common in beneficent and charitable institutions. The medieval corporations (guilds) which were also religious confraternities, had sometimes their own special chapels (Viollet, Histoire des institutions politiques de la France, Paris, 1903, III,143–176).

II. DIVISION

Ecclesiastical buildings are usually divided into four classes:

churches properly so called,

public oratories,

private oratories, and

semi-public oratories.

This division was confirmed by the Congregation of Rites, 23 January, 1899 (Decreta authent. Congreg sacr. Rit. no. 4007, Rome, 1900). Churches are edifices set apart in perpetuity for the public exercise of Divine worship; such are basilicas, primatial, metropolitan, cathedral, collegiate and parish churches, and lastly the conventual churches of regulars, properly so called. Public oratories are buildings of less importance, definitely given over to Divine worship, and accessible to the public, whether the entrance itself be upon the public road or upon a passage-way leading to the latter. A private oratory is one established in favour of a particular family or even of a single individual. Finally, a semi-public oratory is established for the benefit of a number of people; such is the chapel of a seminary, a college, a congregation of simple vows, a hospital, a prison, etc. With these may be classed the chapels of cardinals and of bishops.

III. ERECTION

Basilicas, cathedrals, collegiate churches, and private oratories, may be erected only with the consent of the Holy See; other churches or oratories with the consent of the bishop. Nevertheless the authorization given by a bishop to a religious order of solemn vows to establish a monastery in his diocese involves, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary, the right to construct a monastic church. On the other hand all provincial superiors of religious orders have the power to open semi-public oratories for the use of their religious, and that without the authorization of the bishop (Bull of Gregory XIII, “Decet Romanum,” 3 May, 1575, granted to the Society of Jesus and applicable likewise to all religious orders in virtue of the communication of privileges. Cf. Vermeersch, De religiosis institutis et personis, Bruges, 1902, I, 316). For the erection of a private oratory, even by religious, the authorization of the pope is necessary (C.S.R.,10 November, 1906; “Canoniste Contemporain,” 1907, XXX, 109, 110). Congregations of simple vows may have but one semi-public or public oratory, with the authorization of the bishop. If they wish to erect several for the convenience of priests or of the infirm, it is necessary to obtain the consent of the Holy see (C.S.R. 8 March, 1879, Decreta, no. 3484).

The erection of every church on the other hand must be justified by its necessity, or by its use; it must not in any way prejudice the rights of churches already established (c. iii, “De ecclesiis aedificandis vel reparandis,” X, III, xlviii, c. i, ii, iv, “De novi operis nuntiatione,” X, V, xxxii; Friedberg, “Corpus juris canonici,” Leipzig, 1881, II, 652, 843). The church should also be sufficiently endowed (c. viii, “De consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris,” X, III, xl; Friedberg, II, 634). Practically it is sufficient that the church have at its disposal, e.g. through the gifts of the faithful, the revenues necessary for the maintenance of the building, the celebration of Divine service, and the support of its ministers (Bargilliat, Praelect. jur. can., Paris, 1900, II, 331). In certain countries the consent of the civil power is also needed. The building of a church cannot be begun before the bishop or his delegate has approved of the site, placed a cross there, and blessed the first stone (Pontificate Romanum, Pars II, De benedict. et imposit. prim. lapid. pro eccl. aedif.). The bishop can also reserve to himself the approval of the plans and conditions according to which the church is to be constructed (Wernz, Jus Decretal., Rome, 1901, III, 432, 433. To avoid useless expenditure and to prevent the parish priest from improvidently contracting debts, the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore enacted as a preliminary condition for the construction of a church, the consent of the bishop in writing (Acta et decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis, III, no. 279). The bishop has power to apply to the construction of his cathedral a part of the revenues, which in certain countries are annually assigned to him from the revenues of the different churches; the cathedral church being the ecclesia matrix, or mother-church of all those of the diocese, its construction is a work which interests the whole diocese (the Eighth Provincial, the Second Plenary, Councils of Baltimore, 1855 and 1866, and the Second Provincial Council of Australia, 1869; “Collectio Lacensis,” Freiburg, 1875, III, 162, 429, 1078; also 200–202, 242, 1085). The bishop can even levy a subsidium charitativum for this purpose, i.e a moderate tax upon the revenues of the churches and on those priests who enjoy ecclesiastical benefices. In default of other resources the usual means is to collect money for this object, or to ask the priests of the diocese for voluntary contributions.

IV. REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE

Originally the repairs of the churches were incumbent upon the bishops, as administrators of all ecclesiastical goods. When, according to ancient custom, these goods were divided into four parts, one part was assigined to the Fabrica (see below) i.e. to the church building and its maintenance. Later, each church had its own patrimony, and one part of its goods was assigned to its maintenance. This charge was also incumbent upon the holders of the goods and revenues of the church. The Decretals sanctioned this obligation, at the same time they urged the people to help defray the expenses (c. i. iv, “De ecclesii aedificandis,” X, II, xlviii; Friedberg, II. 652, 653). Finally the Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, De ref. c. vii) located more exactly the obligation to repair the parish churches (Permander, Die kirchliche Baulast, Munich, 1890, 1–18). By present ecclesiastical legislation the repairs of the church belong especially to the fabric, which must use the funds appropriated for that special purpose and if need be, its superfluous revenues (c. vi, “De ecclesiis aedificandis”; Friedberg, II, 654; Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, De ref. c. vii). These resources failing, the persons who possess the right of patronage over the church intervene if they wish to preserve their privileges (Canones et decreta conc. Trid. ed. Schulte and Richter, Leipzig, 1853, 121, no. 4). This obligation rests also on all persons who enjoy part of the revenues of the church the tithe-owners, whether laymen or ecclesiastics, seculars or regulars, the parish priest, and all those who enjoy a benefice from the church. The parishioners themselves are bound to provide for the maintenance of the church, each according to his means. In practice collections should be made for this object. These same principles apply to cathedral churches; in case the revenues of the church are insufficient, the bishop, the chapter, the clergy of the cathedral, and the inhabitants of the diocese ought to contribute for its support (Sägmüller, Lehrbuch des kathol. Kirchenrechts, Freiburg, 1900–04, 798, 799). For the support of his cathedral, as for its erection, the bishop can ask from his clergy a special aid or subsidium charitativum. Wherever these rules have been abrogated by other customs, the latter should be followed. In case of fire, the insurance might cover the damage. Hence special laws may make obligatory the insurance of churches (Acta et Decreta Concilii Baltimorensis III, no. 283). Chapels or churches belonging to congregations of regulars or to particular establishments, ought to be maintained at the expense of these establishments. It sometimes happens that the civil power contributes to the support of churches, as well as to their construction. In reality such co-operation is often only a restitution of ecclesiastical property or revenues misappropriated by the civil government.

V. CONSECRATION AND BLESSING

Churches and oratories cannot be used for liturgical functions, without having first been consecrated or at least blessed. Cathedral and parish churches ought to be consecrated. However, in case of necessity they may be provisionally blessed (Rit. Rom., tit. viii, c. xxvii). Public oratories and other churches may be consecrated, though this is not necessary. They ought, however, to receive a solemn benediction. Private oratories, on the other hand, cannot receive such benediction; it is fitting, however, that the benedictio loci be given to them (op. cit. c. vi.) Some hold that semi-public oratories which in exterior appearance resemble churches or chapels, and which are definitely destined for Divine worship, may be solemnly consecrated (C.S.R., 7 August, 1875, 5 June, 1899; Decreta, nos. 3364, 4025). The custom of dedicating churches to the worship of God by a solemn ceremony is very ancient. In his Ecclesiastical History (X, iii, iv) Eusebius describes the dedication, in 314, of the church erected by Constantine at Tyre, at which time, however, there was no special rite for that purpose. At Rome in the sixth century, the dedication consisted in the public celebration of a solemn Mass, and if it was a church which was to contain relics, these latter were brought to the church in solemn procession. It seems that at the same period, there existed a special rite of consecration in Gaul. In their brief outlines, the present ceremonies are derived from a combination of the rites used in France and in Rome, a combination which had already been made before the beginning of the eighth century (Duchesne, op. cit., 403–418). The consecration or dedication is performed according to the rite prescribed in the “Pontificale Romanum” (De ecclesiae dedicatione seu consecratione) by the bishop, or by a priest delegated for that office by the Holy See. The essential rite of this dedication consisting in the anointing of the twelve crosses upon the walls with holy chrism, and the recitation of the words Sanctificetur, etc. (Wernz, III, 437). It is not permitted to consecrate a church without at the same time consecrating the high altar, or, if this has already been consecrating another fixed altar. If all the altars have been consecrated, it will be necessary to ask the authorization of the Holy See. Without the consecration, however, of an altar, the consecration of the church will not be invalid (C.S.R., 12 August, 1854; 3 March, 1866, 19 May 1896, Decreta, nos. 3025, 3142, 3907). When the public authorities forbid the performance of the prescribed ceremonies outside the church, a pontifical indult must be obtained, except in case of necessity; such ceremonies must then be performed in the sacristy or some other dependency of the church (C.S.R., 22 February, 1888; Decreta, no. 3687). A church built of wood cannot be consecrated (C. S. R., 11 April, 1902; “Canoniste contemporain,” 1902, XXV, 495). The vigil of the day of consecration is a fast-day of obligation for the bishop and for those who have asked for the consecration of the church (C.S.R., 29 July, 1780, 12 September, 1840; Decreta nos. 2519, 2821; Reply of the Holy Office, 14 December, 1898; “Acta Sanctae Sedis,” 1898–99, XXXI, 533). The feast of the dedication must be celebrated every year on the anniversary day of the consecration. The Bishop may, if he chooses, fix another day; but this he should on the very day on which he consecrates the church (C.S.R. 19 September, 1665, 23 May, 1834; Decreta, nos 1321, 2719). While this feast should be celebrated by all the clergy connected with the consecrated church, the anniversary of the dedication of the cathedral ought to be celebrated by all the secular clergy of the diocese, and by all the regulars all the episcopal city (C.S.R., 12 September 1884, 9 July, 1895; Decreta, nos. 3622, 3863). If the exact date of the anniversary is unknown, the most probable date should be chosen until such time as the date can be determined with certainty (C.S.R. 14 June, 1608, 13 March, 1649; Decreta, nos. 261, 920). The bishop may fix a day if the right one be completely unknown (C.S.R., 18 August, 1629; 3 March, 1674; 27 November, 1706; 12 March, 1735; Decreta, nos. 511, 1498, 2174, 2313). The Holy See sometimes permits the celebration of the anniversary of the dedication of the cathedral church and of all the churches of the diocese on the same day. All the clergy of the diocese are then bound to celebrate this festival (C.S.R., 29 November, 1878; Decreta, no. 3469).

The solemn benediction is a rite inferior to consecration. It is performed by a priest delegated by the bishop for that purpose (Rit. Rom. tit. viii, c. xxvii). It consists in the sprinkling of the upper and lower parts of the walls of the church with holy water, and in the prayers which accompany this action (Wernz, III, 437). A new consecration or benediction of a church or oratory ought to be made in the case of execration or desecration, that is to say, when the building has lost its consecration or benediction. This is the case when eccleciastical buildings have been definitely put to profane uses (Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, De ref. c. vii.); similarly, in accordance with modern discipline, if almost the entire church or a large portion of the walls have been destroyed or renewed (C.S.R., 14 September, 1875; Decreta, no. 3372). Successive alterations and repairs, however, even though considerable, as also the renewal of the roof, are not to be regarded as execration (C.S.R., 31 August, 1872, Decreta, no. 3269). The consecration affects the entire building, but especially the walls; the removal, therefore, of the anointed crosses or even of the interior plastering (intonaco) of the walls, does not necessitate a new consecration (C.S.R., 13 July, 1883; 19 May, 1896; Decreta, nos. 3584, 3907). The same principles are applicable to churches that have been solemnly blessed this benediction affects the walls rather than the pavement of the church. If, however, the belief was that the benediction attached itself to the pavement the mere destruction of the walls would not have the effect of producing the execration of the church (Wernz, III, 441 442).

Widely different from desecration is the pollutio of a church. This is a defilement of the church which prevents the celebration of the Divine offices until the church has been reconciled or purified. The priest is bound to interrupt the celebration of Mass, if the church in which he is celebrating is polluted before he has commenced the Canon (Missale Romanum, De defectibus in celebratione missarum occurrentibus, X). A church is polluted by every kind of homicide even by a case of capital punishment, or by voluntary suicide committed in the church, but the wound must have been inflicted within the church and, according to some authors, death must have taken place there. A church is likewise polluted when a considerable quantity of blood has been wilfully and culpably spilled within it, or when the effusio seminis humani has taken place, wilfully and in a seriously culpable manner (c. iv, x, De consecratione ecclesiae, X, III xi; Fridberg, II, 634- 635). In like manner also a church is polluted by the burial within it of an infidel, or of a person who has been excommunicated (excommunicatus vitandus) (c. vii, loc. cit.; Bargilliat, II, 343–344), not, however, by the burial of catechumens, and perhaps not by that of unbaptized infants born of baptized parents (C.S.R., 23 April, 1875; Decreta, no 3344).

It is important to remark that the reconciliation must be performed only when the pollution has been public. A church that has been solemnly blessed can be reconciled by a priest, according to the ceremonies prescribed in the “Rituale Romanum” (tit. viii, c. xxviii). Many authors, however, affirm that the priest should be delegated by the bishop and the Congregation of Rites has given a decision to the same effect (8 July, 1904, Canoniste Contemporain, 1904, XXIV, 683). A church that has been consecrated can be reconciled only by the bishop, or by a priest delegated by the Holy See, and with water blessed by the bishop. This privilege as has been granted to exempt religious (Bull of Leo X, “Religionis,” 3 February, 1514). The Propaganda grants to bishops in missionary countries the power to delegate to priests the right to reconcile a consecrated church, but the water employed must be blessed by the bishop or, in case of necessity, by a priest (Bargilliat, II, 345, Putzer-Konings, “Commentarium in facultates apostolicas,” New York, 1898, 215–217). Sometimes the reconciliation is performed ad cautelam as for instance when a church has been occupied by soldiers for two days (C.S.R., 27 February, 1847; Decreta, no. 2908). This legislation does not refer to oratories which have received only the benedictio loci.

VI. IMMUNITY

Churches enjoy by ecclesiastical law the same immunity from secular burdens and as all ecclesiastical property. The state may not burden them with taxes (Council of Trent, Sess XXV, De ref. c. xx; Syllabus nos. 30, 32). In many states the law recognize this privilege for parish and cathedral churches. Such immunity is very ancient and dates from the Christian emperors of the fourth century (O. Grashof, in Archiv f. kath Kirchenrecht, 1876, XXXV, 3 sqq., 193 sqq.) On the other hand, every irreverence within a church or public oratory is a sacrilege, such as the theft of an article even though it does not belong to the church or an article that has been consecrated (Decretum Gratiani P. II, c xvii, q. 4, c. xxi; Friedberg, I, 820). Such also are the sins of the flesh (Lehmkuhl, Theologia moralis, Freiburg, 1898, I, 238, 239). The reverence due to the holy place forbids all profane actions. Therefore, the following actions are forbidden in a church: trials not falling within ecclesiastical jurisdiction, trading; games, plays and secular songs; banquets; the making of a dwelling either above or below the church; etc. In this category may be included the introduction of draperies and banners which have not been blessed by the Church (Wernz, III, 446). It belongs to the office of the bishop to specify what actions are forbidden in the churches, and to settle the controversies which may arise. The bishop is also empowered to provide for the maintenance of order and may also commit this care to a delegate, for instance, to the parish priest. In connection with this see RIGHT OF ASYLUM.

VII. THE CHURCH FABRIC

By the term Fabrica ecclesiae are to be understood not only the goods belonging to the Church but also the administrators of these goods. Ever since the thirteenth century the laity have been allowed to participate in this administration, and the Council of Trent did not reprove their intervention (Sess. XXII, De ref. ch. ix). The civil power also intervenes in order to regulate the administration of the property of cathedral and parish churches. The following are examples of how the fabrics are organized in certain countries.

In France, Napoleon recognized fabrics of the churches, and entrusted the administration of the property of parish churches to five or nine elected members, to the parish priest, and mayor. These formed the conseil de fabrique. The elective members holding office for six years and eligible for re-election, were chosen by the council itself. These vestrymen had in hand the administration of the temporal property of the church elected from amongst their number a bureau des Marguilliers composed of three members and the parish priest, charged with the ordinary administration and execution of the decisions of the council. The bishop had the right of control over the management of the vestrymen. His approbation as well as that of the State was required for their most important undertakings. The communal authority could control the budgets and the accounts when the fabric asked the former for the necessary funds to defray the expenses of Divine worship, and for the maintenance of ecclesiastical buildings.

The French Municipal Law of 5 May, 1884, ordered that the budgets and accounts should be submitted to the communal council, and freed the commune from the obligation of making up a deficit in the resources of the fabric for ordinary expenses of divine worship. The bishop had the power to organize the fabric of the cathedral church himself, but the administration of its goods was still under the control of the Government (De Champeaux, “Recueil général de droit civil eccelésiastique francais,” Paris, 1860; Bargilliat, II, 110–159). This organization, modified, however, by the Constitution of 1831 and by the law of 4 March, 1874, still continues in force in Belgium (De Corswarem, Des Fabriques d’églises, Hasselt, 1904). The Law of 11 December 1905, suppressed the fabrics in France and replaced them by associations cultuelles which Pius X forbade by his Encyclical, “Gravissimo officii” (10 August, 1906; Canoniste contemporain, 1906, XXIX, 572). This law by handing over to seven, fifteen, or twenty-five persons the administration of church property, without making any mention whatever of ecclesiastical control, increases the State’s power of interference in the administration of these associations and give it full power to suppress them (Jenouvrier, Expose de la situation légale de l’Eglise de France, d’apres la loi du 11 décembre, 1905, Paris, 1906).

In Prussia the fabrics of the churches were organized by the law of 20 June, 1875, enacted during the Kulturkampf. In each parish (Kirchegemeinde) ecclesiastical goods are administered by a body of churchwardens termed Kirchenvorstand under the control of a parish board or Gemeindevertretung. This assembly is not, however, everywhere obligatory. The members of these assemblies are elected by all the male parishioners, who are of age and have resided for at least one year in the parish, pay the ecclesiastical tax, and have their own homes, conduct a business concern, or fill a public office. All electors over thirty years of age are eligible for office with the exception of ecclesiastics and the servants or employees of the church. No man can hold office in both these assemblies. The Kirchenvorstand is composed of members varying in number from four to ten, according to the total number of the population. Since the law of 21 May, 1886 the parish priest (Pfarrer) is the president ex officio of this assembly, except in those places in which, before the law of 1875, the presidency was given to a layman. This assembly administers the temporal concerns of the church. The Gemeindevertretung includes three times as many members as the Kirchenvorstand. It is necessary that they should give their consent to the most important acts of the administration of the Kirchenvorstand: the alienations, the acquisitions, the loans, the most important works, taxes (Kirchensteuer), etc, and approve the budgets and accounts. The president of the Kirchenvorsiand, or his delegate, assists as a consultor at their meetings. All mandates remain in force for six years. The State and the ecclesiastical authority exercise supreme control over the most important actions of these fabrics (Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht, 1875 XXXIV, I67, 1876, XXXV, 161, 1886, LVI, 196, 1887, LVII, 153.

In the French-speaking portion of the Dominion of Canada (Province of Quebec) fabrics also exist. Their organization still corresponds, in its main outlines, to the ancient organization of the parishes in France before the Revolution of 1789, as described by Jousse in his “Traité du gouvernement spirituel et temporel des paroisses” (Paris, 1769). There is, first of all, the Parochial Assembly (Vestry) comprising all the Francs-tenanciers of the parish; no alienation, no loan, can be concluded without their intervention. In case a subscription is necessary they raise it by assessment. The churchwardens actually in office, called marguilliers du Banc, and the former churchwardens, must pay the ordinary expenses. This is the bureau ordinaire of the ancient French law. Finally, ordinary matters of administration are attended to by a commission composed of three members chosen for three years by the old and the newly elected churchwardens. Each one of the three churchwardens is in charge for a year i.e., he performs the functions of treasurer and must render an account to the assembly. The parish priest is president of the fabric and represents the bishop. All the important accounts must be approved of by the latter (Beaudry, “Code des curés, marguilliers, et paroissiens,” Montreal, 1870, Gignac, “Compendium juris canonici ad usum cleri Canadensis,” Quebec, 1901; Migneault, “Droit paroissial,” Montreal (1891)

For other countries, see Sägmüller, “Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts” (782, 795). In English speaking countries fabrics properly so called do not exist. In England ecclesiastical property is given in trust to reliable men. The bishops themselves regulate the administration of these goods. In Ireland the trustees are the bishop, the vicar-general, the parish priest and sometimes other reliable persons (First and Second Synod of Westminster, XIV, 4, and VIII,1–21; Provincial Synod of Maynooth, 1875, tit. xxix, nos. 270–277; Collectio Lacensis, III, 926, 980)). In the United States property is often given in trust to the bishop, and in cases where the parishes are civilly incorporated, sometimes the bishop forms the corporation sole; sometimes the administration of the property belongs to a board of trustees composed of the bishop, his vicar-general, the pastor of the church, and two lay trustees (Taunton, The Law of the Church, London, 1906, 310–317). In accordance with the Third Council of Baltimore (nos. 284–287) the bishop of each diocese judges whether or not it is wise to establish councilmen or a board of trustees; he fixes their number and the mode of their election. They are subject to the authority of the parish priest and the bishop. The relations of the State to church property, especially in English-speaking countries, will be treated in the articles: ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY; INCORPORATION; TRUSTEE SYSTEM.

VAN DE BURGT, De ecclesiis (Utrecht, 1874); VAN GAMEREN, De oratoriis domesticis (Louvain, 1861); MANY, Pærlectiones de locis sacris (Paris, 1904); GALANTE, La Condizione giuridica delle cose sacre (Rome, 1903); IMB. DE LA TOUR, De ecclesiis rusticanis ætate Carolingica (Bordeaux, 1890); THOMAS, Le droit de propriété des laiques sur les églises (Paris, 1906); KÜNSTLE, Die deutsche Pfarren und ihr Recht zu Ausgang des M. A. (Stuttgart, 1905); THOMASSINUS, Vet. et nov. eccl. discip. (Paris, 1691), Pars. III, lib. II, ch. xxxvi; CLÉMENT, Recherches sur la paroisse et les fabriques du commencement, du XIIIe siècle in Mélanges d’arch. et d’hist. de l’Ecole française de Rome (1895), XVI, 387–418; VON SCHERER, Handbuch des Kirchenrechtes (Gras, 1898), II, 624–648 (bibliography); LESÊTRE, La paroisse (Paris, 1906); VERING, Lehrbuch des kathol. oriental. und prot. Kirchenrechts (3d ed., Freiburg, 1893), 778 sqq.; 803 sqq.; PERMANEDER, Die kirchl. Baulast (1838); new ed. by RIEDLE, (1890).

A. VAN HOVE

Archdiocese of Bukarest

(BUCARESTIENSIS; Rumanian, Bucaresci “City of enjoyment”)

Comprises the Kingdom of Rumania, of which Bukarest is the capital, excluding Moldavia, and contains, according to the archdiocesan year-book for 1907, about 56,000 Catholics of the Latin Rite, 4,000 to 5,000 Uniat Rumanians, chiefly immigrants from Transylvania, Banat, and Bukowina, and a few hundred Uniat Armenians. In the city of Bukarest which in 1905 had 285,445 inhabitants there are about 202,000 Orthodox Greeks and 43,000 Jews. The city is situated in a swampy plain on both sides of the Dimbobitza which is here crossed by about a dozen bridges. It is noted for many stately edifices, and the semi-Oriental appearance of its older quarters is heightened by the numerous gardens and the bright domes of its Greek churches. The Catholic cathedral chapter consists at present of 4 canons, 1 honorary canon, and 4 honorary canons outside the diocese. There are in the archdiocese 40 priests (in addition to the archbishop), including 2 Passionists, 1 Benedictine, and 1 Dominican; 24 parishes, one of the Greek-Rumanian Rite; 45 churches including 23 parish churches. The training of the clergy is provided for in the archiepiscopal seminary at Bukarest, which has four professors and nineteen seminarists; six seminarists are being trained outside the diocese. The opposition of the Rumanian Government has hitherto rendered the establishment of a Catholic college impossible. Catholic primary schools exist in all parishes. In the city of Bukarest are twenty-six Brothers of the Christian Schools who conduct three schools, with an attendance of 1,028. The English Ladies, numbering about 252, have two houses in Bukarest, one each in Braïla, Craiova, and Turnu Severin, and conduct five boarding schools with 705 pupils, eight primary schools for girls with an attendance of 1,493, and one orphanage with 20 children. The Dames de Sion have one foundation in Bukarest, with thirty-seven sisters and conduct a boarding school with an attendance of 133; the Sisters of Mercy one foundation with four sisters. The Hungarians have established nine Catholic schools (two in Bukarest), attended by about 945 children. In addition to the above-mentioned orders, the Passionists have one house with four members. The most important churches are: the cathedral, dedicated to St. Joseph, a three-naved Gothic edifice, the largest Catholic church in the country, which was completed in 1884; and the Baratsia, an early church of the Franciscans, destroyed by fire in 1848 and since rebuilt.

HISTORY

For the history of the Catholic Church in the territory now comprised within the Archdiocese of Bukarest see RUMANIA. The present archdiocese was erected by Pope Leo XIII, 27 April, 1883. Bukarest, however, had previously been the residence of Catholic bishops, viz., the Bishops of Nicopolis, Bulgaria, who were also Administrators Apostolic of Wallachia, and had resided at Rustchuk. Bishop Paulus Davanlia (1777–1804) left Rustchuk and lived at the Franciscan monastery at Bukarest (1792–93), where he also died. His successor, Franciscus Ferreri transferred his residence to Cioplea, a village near Bukarest founded in 1812 by Bulgarian refugees, but he was prevented from entering Bukarest by the opposition of the Greek orthodox bishop. Only in 1847 was Bishop Josephus Molajoni able to establish his residence in Bukarest. His successor, Angelus Parsi, restored the episcopal palace, which had been destroyed by fire in 1847, and in 1852 brought to Bukarest the English Ladies, and in 1861 the Brothers of the Christian Schools. In 1863 Bishop Parsi was succeeded by Josephus Pluym, since 1869 Patriarchal Vicar of Constantinople, who in turn was followed by Ignatius Paoli. After the establishment of Rumania as a kingdom, a movement was set on foot by the Government to release the Catholic subjects from dependence on a foreign bishop, and negotiations were begun with Rome. In 1883 Pope Leo XIII erected two dioceses in Rumania immediately subject to the Holy See, the Archdiocese of Bukarest and the Diocese of Jassy. The first archbishop was Ignatius Paoli, succeeded in turn by Paulus Josephus Palma (1885–92); Otto Zardetti (1894–95), who was the second Bishop of St. Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A. (1889–94), when he was transferred to Bukarest. He resigned this last office in 1895 and died in Rome, on 9 May, 1902; Xaverius Hornstein (1896–1905), who built a new episcopal residence and for the second time called the Brothers of the Christian Schools to Bukarest; Raymundus Netzhammer, O.S.B., born at Erzingen, Baden, 19 January, 1862, professed in the Benedictine monastery at Einsiedeln, 1881, and consecrated Archbishop of Bukarest 16 September, 1905.

Schematismus Archidiœcesis Latinœ Bucarestiensis (Bucharest, 1907); it contains also a history of the archdiocese with a bibliography and other items of interest.

JOSEPH LINS

Bulgaria

A European kingdom in the northeastern part of the Balkan Peninsula, bounded by the Black Sea, the Rhodope Mountains, Servia, and the Danube; it embraces an area of 37,200 sq. m. The population according to the census of 1900 numbers 3,744,283, divided according to religion into 3,019,296 Greek Orthodox, 28,579 Catholics of the Latin Rite and Uniat Greeks, 4524 Protestants, 13,809 Gregorian Armenians, 33,663 Jews, 643,300 Mohammedans, and 1112 of other creeds; according to nationality into 2,887,860 Bulgarians, 539,656 Turks, 89,549 Gypsies, 75,223 Rumanians, 70,887 Greeks, 32,753 Jews, 18,856 Tatars, 13,926 Armenians, and 15,741 of other nationalities. The number of inhabitants in 1905 was 4,028,239.

HISTORY

At the beginning of the Christian Era, what is now Bulgaria constituted the Roman provinces of Moesia and Thrace, a territory in which Christianity was preached at a very early period, as proved by the Council of Sardica in 343. During the migratory period Slavic races pushed forward into this region. Some time after the middle of the seventh century, the Bulgars, a people of Hunnic and Finnic stock, who had been driven from their habitations on the Volga as far as the Lower Danube, began to make incursions into Moesia and Thrace. Completing their conquest of the country in a war with the Byzantine Empire, they founded an independent kingdom about 680. The Bulgars gradually became amalgamated with the former inhabitants, adopting the nationality and language of the latter, but giving their own name to the ethnographic mixture. The new State often came into conflict with the neighbouring Byzantine Empire, to which, however, in 718, it lent its support against the Arabs. Prince Boris, or Bogoris (844–845 or 852–888), d. 907), accepted Christianity for political reasons and was baptized in 864 or the beginning of 865; he first negotiated with Pope Nicholas I for the creation of a Bulgarian hierarchy, but in the end joined the Byzantine Church. During the reign of his younger son Symeon (893–927) the ancient Bulgarian State reached the zenith of its prosperity; its territories extended from the Danube to the Rhodope Mountains and from the Black Sea to the Ionian Sea. In 917 Symeon assumed the title of Tsar, and in 924 compelled Byzantium to recognize the Bulgarian Church as an autocephalous patriarchate, with its seat at Ochrida or Achrida. Under his son Peter (927–969) the kingdom began to decline; during the reign of Shishman I the western part proclaimed its independence; two years after Peter’s death the eastern section was pledged to the Eastern Empire. The western part, not able to preserve its autonomy, went to pieces in 1018 under the repeated attacks of the Emperor Basil II, surnamed Bulgaroktonos (the slayer of the Bulgarians). Though Basil left the Bulgarian Church its autonomy, the Metropolitans of Achrida were no longer styled Patriarchs, but Archbishops, and after 1025 were chosen from the Greek clergy, instead of the Bulgarian.

After several futile uprisings against the oppressive Byzantine rule, a fresh Bulgarian insurrection took place about 1185. Two brothers, Peter and Ivan Asen, assumed the leadership, threw off the Byzantine yoke and re-established Symeon’s empire. On their death (1197) their youngest brother Kaloyan, or Ivanitza, ruled alone until 1207; he entered into negotiations with the Holy See, promised to recognize the spiritual supremacy of the pope, and in November, 1204, was crowned with the royal diadem by Cardinal Leo, legate of Pope Innocent III. At the same time Archbishop Basil of Tirnovo was consecrated Primate of Bulgaria. This new Bulgarian Church embraced eight dioceses, Tirnovo being the primatial see, but the union with Rome was not of long duration. The new empire soon came into conflict with the recently founded Latin Empire (1204) of Constantinople; the Greeks fanned the dissensions in order to gain the Bulgarians over to their side. King Ivan Asen II (1218–41) formed an alliance with Emperor Vatatzes against the Latin Empire (1234), and again joined the Greek Church, which thereupon solemnly recognized the autonomy of the Church of Tirnovo (1235). Since that time, with the exception of brief intervals, the Bulgarian Church has persisted in schism. In 1236 Pope Gregory IX pronounced sentence of excommunication on Asen II, and in 1238 had a Crusade preached against Bulgaria. The history of the following period shows a succession of struggles with the Greeks, the Servians, and the Hungarians, of internal wars for the possession of the throne, and of religious disturbances, as, for instance, those consequent on the spread of the Bogomili and the Hesychasts, all of which weakened the State.

During the fourteenth century, the Turks, flushed with victory, invaded the Balkan Peninsula, and under Amurath I overthrew the Servian kingdom in the battle of Kossovo (Field of Blackbirds, 1389), captured Tirnovo, and imprisoned Ivan III Shishman, the last Bulgarian Tsar, thus destroying the Bulgarian hegemony. The Church shared the fate of the State, and the last Bulgarian patriarch, Euthymius (1375–93), was driven into exile. Only the Patriarchate of Achrida continued as a Graeco-Bulgarian metropolitan see, with Greek or helenized occupants, until it was suppressed by the Porte in 1767 in consequence of the intrigues of the oecumenical patriarchs. The Greek language prevailed everywhere in schools and churches, and the remains of ancient Bulgarian literature were destroyed to a large extent by the Greeks. For almost five centuries the Bulgarian people groaned under the political yoke of the Turks and the ecclesiastical domination of the Greeks, yet continuous persecution did not avail to obliterate the memory of the nation’s former greatness. The nineteenth century was destined to bring liberty to the Bulgarians, as well as to other Christian peoples of the Balkan Peninsula. The self-sacrificing generosity of wealthy Bulgarians made it possible to establish Bulgarian schools (the first at Gabrovo, 1835) and printing presses (at Saloniki, 1839, Smyrna, 1840, Constantinope., 1843), by which the national culture and patriotic sentiment were elevated. The reawakened national feeling first manifested itself in the ecclesiastical order.

In 1860 a representative body of the Bulgarian nation requested the Greek patriarch at Constantinople to recognize their national church, to accord them freedom in the selection of their bishops, and to appoint Bulgarian, rather than Greek prelates to Bulgarian sees. The Patriarch of Constantinople refused these concessions. This act inflamed the national feeling and was followed by the expulsion of the Greek bishops and finally insurrections against Turkish authority. To ensure its supremacy, the Porte sought to mediate between the parties, but fresh negotiations were productive of no further result, and the Sultan by a firman of 11 March, 1870, granted the Bulgarians an exarchate of their own, independent of the Greek patriarchate. In 1872, the first Bulgarian exarch was chosen by an assembly of Bulgarian bishops and laymen. In a council at which only twenty-nine orthodox bishops assisted the oecumenical patriarch solemnly excommunicated the Bulgarian Church and declared it schismatical.

National autonomy followed close upon ecclesical independence. On May, 1876, the Turkish Government perpetrated unspeakable atrocities in the suppression of a Bulgarian insurrection. These horrors might never have touched the conscience of the civilized world had it not been for the courage and enterprise of Januarius Aloysius MacGahan, an American Catholic (b. in Perry County, Ohio, 12 June, 1844, d. at Constantinople, 9 June, 1878). As correspondent of the London “Daily News “, and accompanied by Eugene Schuyler, Commissioner of the United States Government, MacGahan was the only journalist to visit the devastated districts; he obtained the evidence of eyewitnesses and, supplementing this with his own observation, published a mass of facts which enabled Mr. Gladstone to arouse among the English-speaking peoples a lively sympathy for the Bulgarian Christians. A conference of the European powers demanded of Turkey the erection of an autonomous Bulgarian province. The Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78, however, and the Peace of San Stefano created an autonomous Bulgarian principality, tributary to the Porte. The Berlin Congress of 1878 abrogated some of the provisions of the Peace of San Stefano and divided Greater Bulgaria into an autonomous Bulgarian principality and a province of Eastern Rumelia under a Christian governor-general, to be appointed by the Porte every five years, but subject to the approval of the Powers. On 22 February, 1879, the first Bulgarian assembly of notables convened in the principality; on 28 April the new constitution was signed; and on 29 April Prince Alexander of Battenberg was chosen as sovereign by the first national assembly. In Eastern Rumelia, from the very first the trend of events pointed to union with the Bulgarian principality. In September, 1885, an insurrection broke out, and a provisional regency proclaimed the union with Bulgaria. In September, Alexander announced from Philippopolis the union of the two countries and, after repelling a Servian invasion, received recognition as Governor-General of Eastern Rumelia (5 April, 1886). The unexpected independence which Alexander had shown in the face of Russia, brought him into disfavour with that power, and a military conspiracy, secretly supported by Russia, was successful in having him transported across the frontier (20 August, 1886). He was recalled, it is true, by the popular voice, after ten days, but, not wishing to rule without Russia’s favour, which Bulgaria found indispensable, and yet not being able to gain the Tsar’s friendship., he abdicated, 7 September, 1886. A regency, under Stambuloff , administered the national affairs until a new sovereign was elected by the National Assembly. The choice fell on the Catholic prince, Ferdinand of Saxe-Koburg-Kohary, 7 July, 1887. As Ferdinand at first left the national policy in the hands of Russia’s enemy, Stambuloff, Russia, as well as the Porte, refused to recognize the new king. Only after the assassination of Stambuloff (1895) was a reconciliation with Russia effected. The Sultan then recognized Ferdinand as prince and governor-general, in view of the fact that Ferdinand had his son Boris, heir to the throne, baptized in the Greek orthodox faith (1896). The economic and intellectual progress of the country is retarded by financial complications, by partisanship in politics, and by the unrest incident to the so-called Macedonian question.

STATISTICS

(A) CATHOLICS, LATIN RITE

The Catholics of Bulgaria are for the most part descendants of the Bogomili or Paulicians converted by the Franciscans during the sixteenth century, and are directly subject to the Diocese of Nicopolis with its seat at Rustchuk, and the Vicariate Apostolic of Sofia and Philippopolis, with the seat at Philippopolis. The Diocese of Nicopolis (Diocecesis Nicopolitana) contains, according to the Missiones Cattolicae (Rome, 1907), about 13,000 Latin Catholics, 14 parishes, 3 stations, 5 secular and 18 regular priests, a great seminary in Rustchuk, 3 parish schools for boys and 3 for girls, 3 notaries of male religious orders (Passionists, Marists, and Assumptionists); there are also houses of the Sisters of the Assumption, with a boarding school at Varna; Dames de Sion, with day school at Rustchuk, and Dominican Sisters from Cette, France. The Vicariate Apostolic of Sofia a Philippopolis (Sofiae et Philippolis), established in 1759, contains 11,880 Latin Catholics, 1000 Greek Catholics, 13 parishes, 23 secular and 27 regular priests, 31 Capuchin Fathers, almost all engaged in parochial work; 20 Assumptionists, Fathers and lay brothers, with 4 foundations, one a college at Philippopolis, the only Catholic college in Bulgaria; 2 Resurrectionists, 10 Brothers of the Christian Schools, with a boarding and a day school at Sofia; 40 French sisters of St. Joseph de l’Apparition, with 6 houses, a boarding school, orphan asylum and hospital at Sofia; a boarding school and day school at Philippopolis, and a boarding school and a day school at Burgas; 13 Austrian Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul, with a hospital at Philippopolis; 22 Bulgarian Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis; and 7 Sisters of the Assumption. There are also 2 colleges for boys, 3 for girls, 2 hospitals, 3 orphanages and 3 asylums for girls.

(B) EASTERN CATHOLICS

While the Bulgarians were contending with the Greek patriarchate for ecclesiastical autonomy, and the patriarch refused to make any concession, a movement was set on foot among the Bulgarians which pointed towards union with Rome. On 30 December, 1860, 120 deputies of the people petitioned the Apostolic Delegate to receive them into the Roman Church on condition of the recognition of their language and liturgy, and the appointment of a bishop of their own nationality; almost 60,000 of their fellow-countrymen joined in the request. Pius IX himself, 21 January, 1861, consecrated a priest named Solkolski its first Vicar Apostolic of Uniat Bulgaria. This movement, however, did not win the support of Catholic Europe, while the greatest obstacles were placed in its way by Russia and the patriarchate of Constantntinople. Sokolski lapsed back into schism in June, 1861, and embarked for Odessa on a Russian vessel; the majority of the Bulgarian priests and laymen attached themselves to the recently founded national exarchate. Only about 13,000 Bulgarians remained true to the Roman Church, and they live for the most part outside of Bulgaria in the Turkish provinces of Macedonia and Thrace. For these, two Vicariates Apostolic have been erected. The Vicariate Apostolic of Thrace, with seat at Adrianople, contains 3,000 Catholics, 14 parishes and stations, 20 churches and chapels, 16 native secular priests, 25 Resturrectionists in 3 houses and 10 Assumptionists in 3 houses, 36 Sisters of the Assumption, with a boarding school, 3 Sisters of the Resurrection, 2 colleges, one in Kara-Agasch near Adrianopolis under the Assumptionists and the other at Adrianople under the Resurrectionists. The Vicariate Apostolic of Macedonia, with its see at Saloniki, contains 5,950 Graeco-Bulgarian Catholics, 21 churches, 33 Bulgarian priests of the Slavonic Rite, a seminary at Zeitenlink near Saloniki, 17 schools for boys and 10 for girls, 4 houses of the Congregation of the Mission, with 15 priests, 6 houses of the Sisters of Mercy, 4 of the Eucharistines, 3 orphan asylums.

(C) OTHER ORIENTAL CHURCHES

The Greek Orthodox church of Bulgaria is divided into 5 eparchies or provinces. The Bulgarians under the exarch (or supreme lead of the Bulgarian National Church) are divided into 11 eparchies, 3 in Eastern Rumelia, with 2123 parishes, 78 monasteries for men, 15 for women, 1800 churches and 1906 clergy.

VAILHE in “Dict. de theol. Cath., II, 1174–1236, containing an extensive bibliography; MIKLOSICH, “Monumenta Serbica” (Vienna, 1858); HILFERDING, “Geschichte der Serben un Bulgaren, tr. From Russian (2 parts, Bautzen, 1856, 1864); D’AVRIL, “La Bulgarie chretienne (Paris, 1861); L. DUCHESNE, “Les eglises separees” (Paris, 1869); DUMONT, “Les Bulgares” (2nd ed., Paris, 1872); JIRECEK, “Geschichte der Bulgaren” (Germ. Tr., Prague, 1876); KANITZ, “Donau-Bulgarien und der Balkan” (2nd ed., 3 vols., Leipzig, 1882); BALAN, Delle relazioni fra la chiesa Catolica e gli Slavi” (Rome, 1880); FERMENDZIN, “Acta Bulgariae ecclesiastica ab anno 1565 usque ad annum 1799” (Agram, 1887); JIRECZEK in “Kirchenlexikon,” II, 1459–67; SAMUELSON, “Bulgaria, Past and Present” (London, 1888); DICEY, “The Peasant State: an account of Bulgaria in 1894” (London, 1894); JIRECEK, “Das Furstentum Bulgarien” (Prague, 1891); LAMOUCHE, “La Bulgarie dans le passe et le present” (Paris, 1892), with bibliography; RATTINGER, “Die Bulgaren und die griech. schismat. Kirchen,” in “Stimmen aus Maria Laach” (1873), IV, 45–57, 252–655; DRANDAR, “Les evenements politiques en Bulgarie depuis 1876 jusqu’a nos jours” (Paris, 1896); MARKOVICH, “Gli Slavi ed i papa” (Agram, 1897); STRAUSS, “Die Bulgaren” (Leipzig, 1898); DURASTEL, “Annuaire international de la Bulgarie” (Sofia, 1898—); FALKENEGG, “Aus Bulgariens Vergangenheit und Gegenwart” (Berlin, 1900); GELZER, “Der Patriarchat von Achrida” (Leipzig, 1902); BOJAN, “Les Bulgares et le patriarche oecumenique” (Paris, 1905); VON MACH, “Der Machtbereich des bulgarischen Exarchats in der Turkei” (Leipzig and Neuchatel, 1906); “Echos d’Orient” (Paris, 1898—), I-X, passim; HERBERT, “By-Paths in the Balkans” (London, (1906); MACGAHAN, “Turkish Atrocities in Bulgaria” (London, 1876).

JOSEPH LINS

Bulla Aurea

(Golden Bull).

A fundamental law of the Holy Roman Empire; probably the best known of all the many ordinances of the imperial diet. It takes its name from the golden case in which the seal attached to the document proclaiming the decree was placed.

The law was signed by the Emperor Charles IV, January, 1356, during the Diet of Nuremberg, and was revised at the Diet of Metz in November of the same year. The contents of the Bulla Aurea were of constitutional importance for the empire. It ordained that each emperor should be chosen by election, the right of voting being vested in electoral princes, the number of whom was fixed at seven. As electors the edict appointed, on the one side, the three ecclesiastical princes most closely connected with the history of the empire i.e. the Archbishops of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne. On the other side, the law settled the question, as far as it was still in dispute, as to whether the electoral vote pertained to certain secular principalities or to certain ruling families. It ordained that the right belonged to Bohemia, the Rhenish Palatinate, Saxony (Sachsen-Wittenberg), and the Mark of Brandenburg; this made the secular electors the King of Bohemia, the Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Saxony, and Margrave of Brandenburg. The Bull also defined the powers given by the imperial constitution to the electors, taken as a body, and to certain individual electors separately, both during a vacancy of the throne and during an imperial reign. Thus the document granted to the electors in their character as rulers of principalities certain privileges which had been originally reserved to the German king and emperor and were the signs of his sovereignty. The transfer of these rights to subordinate rulers would, necessarily, gradually make them independent of the head of the empire. The Bull also provided for the preservation of peace in the empire and enacted measures for holding in check the increasing political importance of the rising free cities. In the main the law was intended to confirm rights which had already had a historical development and to settle disputed details of these rights. Constitutional law in the Holy Roman Empire reached its full growth between the years 1220 and 1555. As to the position of the “Golden Bull” in connection with this development, see GERMANY.

BRYCE, The Holy Roman Empire (New York, 1904), 234 and passim; HAHN, Ursprung u. Bedeutung d. Goldenen Bulle (Breslau, 1903); Mittheil. des Instituts f. oesterreich. Gesch. (1884), V, 96–120.

MARTIN SPAHN

Ven. Thomas Bullaker

(Also John Baptist).

A Friar Minor and English martyr, born at Chichester about the year 1604; died at Tyburn, 12 October,1642. He was the only son ot a pious as well-to-do physician of Chichester. His parents were both fervent Catholics, and, following their example, Bullaker grew up in the ways of innocence and piety. At an early age he was sent to the English College at St-Omer, and from there he went to Valladolid in Spain to complete his studies. Convinced of his vocation to the Franciscan Order, after much anxious deliberation, he received the habit at Abrojo, and a few years later, in 1628, was ordained priest. Having left Spain to labour on the English mission, he landed at Plymouth, but was immediately seized and cast into prison. Liberated after two weeks from the loathsome dungeon where he had suffered the most untoward hardships, Bullaker by order of Father Thomas of St. Francis, then Provincial in England, laboured for nearly twelve years with much zeal and devotedness among the poor Catholics of London. On the 11th of September, 1642, Bullaker was seized while celebrating the Holy Sacrifice in the house of the pious benefactress. He has left a partial and but touching account of his apprehension and trial. He was condemned to be drawn on a hurdle to Tyburn and there hanged, cut down alive, quartered and beheaded. It is related that as he was going out of prison he met Ven. Arthur Bell, a religious of his own order, who said to him: “Brother, I was professed before you. Why do you take precedence of me?” Bullaker answered: “It is the will of God. But you will follow me.” Bell remembered the prophetic words of the pious Bullaker when his own day of martydom was at hand. The cause of the beautification of Bullaker was introduced in Rome in 1900.

THADDEUS, The Franciscans in England (London, 1898), ix, 62, 63, 67,; xv, 205, 206; STONE, Faithful unto Death (London, 1892), vii, 132–150; MASON (ANGELUS A S. FRANCISCO), Certamen Seraphicum (2d ed., Quaracchi, 1885), 35–68; ORTOLANI, De causis beatorum et servorum Dei ord. min. (Quaracchi, 1905), 14.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Bullarium

Bullarium is a term commonly applied to a collection of bulls and other analogous papal documents, whether the scope of the collection be general in character, or whether it be limited to the bulls connected to any particular order, or institution, or locality. The name bullarium seems to have been invented by the canonist Laertius Cherobini who in 1586 published under the title “Bullarium, sive Collectio diversarum Constitutionum multorum Pontificum” a large folio volume of 1404 pages containing 922 papal constitutions from Gregory VII down to Sixtus V, the pope then reigning. With regard to this and all subsequent collections, three things have carefully to be borne in mind. First, whatever may have been the intrinsic importance or binding force of any of the bulls so published, the selection itself was a matter that depended entirely upon the arbitrary choice of the various editors. As a collection the publication had no official character. The only recognized exception to this assertion is the first volume of a collection of his own bulls which was sent by Benedict XIV in 1746 to the University of Bologna to serve as a fons iuris, or source of legal principles. Secondly, it was never seriously maintained, despite some pretentious title pages, that these collections were in any sense complete, or that they even contained all the constitutions of more general interest. Thirdly, it was the intention of the editors, at least at first, rather to exclude than to include the papal pronouncements which had already been incorporated into the text of canon law. The avowed object of the early collections was to render assistance to canonists by bringing within their reach papal enactments which either had been overlooked by the compilers of the “corpus” or which had been issued subsequently to the latest decrees included in it.

We may disregard in the present notice various collections of relatively recent papal constitutions which were published in the early part of the sixteenth century. A typical specimen of such booklets is supplied by a rare little volume of sixty-two pages printed at Rome per Stephanum Guillereti in regione Parionis 1509, a copy of which is in the British Museum Library. A contribution of more substantial volume appears to have been a volume edited by Mazzutellus in 1579 which contained 723 documents. But it is to Laertius Cherubini that the credit is usually given of creating the bullarium in substance as well as in name. In the preface to the volume of which the title has already been given, the editor refers to his experiences in the ecclesiatical courts of Rome. In these courts I have noticed (he says) that certain advocates and judges went completely astray because they had not at hand the text of those apostolic constitutions a knowledge of which is most necessary in treating and pronouncing upon causes, seeing that in such constitutions is embodied the whole of the most recent pontifical law. After this explanation it is not surprising to find that out of Cherubini’s 922 documents more than 800 were of recent date, that is to say they belonged to the hundred years immediately preceding the appearance of the volume. Of this collection, a second edition in three volumes, was printed at Rome in 1617, and a third edition in four volumes extending in this case from Leo I to Urban VIII, was prepared by the editor’s son, Angelo Cherubini, in 1638, with a supplement added in 1659. Other editions followed, always somewhat enlarged. The fifth in six volumes was brought out by two Franciscans at Rome, 1669–72.

THE LUXEMBURG BULLARIUM

Moreover, a fuller but not more accurate reprint with supplementary volumes appeared in the eighteenth century, nominally at Luxemburg, although the actual place of impression is said to have been Geneva. Of this edition, which is one of the most commonly met with in libraries, the first eight volumes coming down to Benedict XVIII all bear the date 1727, while a ninth and tenth volume, supplementing the earlier portion, appeared in 1730. Other supplements followed at intervals. Four volumes were published in 1741 covering respectively the periods 1670–89, 1689–1721, 1721–30, 1730–40. In the same series, and still later, we have the following volumes: XV (1748), extending over 1734–40; XVI (1752) 1740–45; XVII (1753), 1746–49; XVIII (1754), 1748–52; XIX (1758), 1752–57. The last four volumes are entirely taken up with the Bulls of Benedict XIV. Although this is not the most important bullarium, it seemed worthwhile to indicate the arrangement of this Luxemburg edition as it appears to have been in part the source of the great confusion which is to be found in many accounts of the subject, notably in the recent article “Bullaire” in the “Dictionnaire de theologie catholique.” It is not quite true, as has sometimes been supposed, that the “Luxemburg” editors contributed nothing of their own to the collection. For example, in Vol. IX (1730) we have two bulls of the English pope, Adrian IV, printed from the originals at Geneva with engraved facsimiles of the rota and the leaden bulla, and in fact the whole of the content of Vols. IX and X represent a large measure of independent research. The later volumes of the series, however, have simply been copied from the Roman edition next to be mentioned.

MAINARDI’S ROMAN BULLARIUM

This Roman edition of the bullarium, which still remains the most accurate and practically useful, bears on the title pages of its thirty-two volumes, the name of the publisher, Girolamo Mainardi, while the dedications to the cardinals prefixed to the different volumes and extending from 1733 to 1762 are also signed by him. The arrangement of the volumes, however, is peculiar, and the neglect to indicate these peculiarities has made the accounts given to this edition in most bibliographies almost unintelligible. Mainardi began with the idea of printing a supplement to the latest Roman edition of Cherubini’s bullarium. As this was six volumes and stopped short at the pontificate of Clement X (1670–76), Mainardi called his first published volume Tome VII, and reprinted the bulls of Clement X from the beginning of his pontificate to his death. Moreover, an engraved frontispiece prefixed to this volume, printed in 1733, bears the words “Bullarium Romanum Tom. VII.” The book further contains a promise that the six volumes of Cherubini’s bullarium should in the course of time be reprinted in a corrected and enlarged form, with the aid of the documents contained in the secret archives of the Holy See. Seven other volumes followed in sequence to this first. They were printed from 1734 to 1744 and brought the collection from Clement X in 1670 to the accession of Benedict XIV in 1740. Meanwhile, the publisher had engaged an able scholar, Charles Cocquelines, to re-edit the six volumes of Cherubini’s bullarium from Leo I to Clement X. In his hands an immense mass of material accumulated. The first volume was printed in 1739 and it bore a slightly different title from that of the installment which Mainardi had already published, beginning at “Tom VII.” Cocquelines’ section was headed “Bullarium privilegarium ac diplomatum Romanorum Pontificum amplissima collectio” and in comparison with Cherubini’s meager gleanings from antiquity the epithet amplissima was fully deserved. This series, like all good work, advanced very slowly. A tabular arrangement will best show the details. The editor had to make his numbering correspond with Cherubini’s six volumes and consequently some of the nominal tomi of the new edition were divided into several parts:

Vols

Called

Period Covered

Year of Publication

I

Tom. I

450–1061

1739

II

Tom. II

1061–1181

1740

II-V

Tom. III (in 3 parts)

1181–1521

1740–1743

VI-IX

Tom. IV (in 4 parts)

1521–1588

1745–1747

X-XIV

Tom. V (in 5 parts)

1588–1626

1751–1756

XV-XX

Tom. VI (in 6 parts)

1626–1669

1758–1762

Some time before the compilation of this series, Cocquelines had died, and the last five volumes to appear did not bear his name. Simultaneously with this amplified edition of Cherubini, Mainardi had also been publishing, in folio, but somewhat smaller, the four volumes of the bullarium of Benedict XIV, the first of which, as already noted, appeared with that pontiff’s own authentication. In sum, the whole collection which issued from Mainardi’s press amounted to thirty-two folio volumes and extended from Leo I in 450 to the death of Benedict XIV, 1758. As this in time grew antiquated, Andrew Barberi began in 1835 the publication of the Bulls of Pope Clement XIII and his successors “Bullarii Romani Continuato” (19 volumes, fol.), Rome, 1835–57. These came down to the fourth year of Gregory XVI, i.e. to 1834. There is also another series of the same kind which appeared as a continuation of the Bullarium of Benedict XIV at Prato in 1843–67 (10 vols., folio).

THE TURIN BULLARIUM

Finally, a large quarto edition of the bullarium was begun at Turin under the auspices of Cardinal Gaudi in 1857, edited by Tomasetti. It claims to be more comprehensive, better printed, and better arranged than the work of Cocqueline, but the additions made are insignificant and the typographical errors are numerous. Moreover, among the documents added, especially in Appendix I (1867), are included some whose authenticity is more than doubtful. At Turin, twenty-two volumes were printed (1857–72) down to Clement XII and five more, continuing the work to the end of Benedict XIV, were added at Naples (1867–85).

PARTICULAR BULLARIA

Besides the general Bullaria of which we have so far spoken, various particular bullaria have been compiled at different times collecting the papal documents relating to this or that religious order or institution or locality. For example, eight volumes have recently been published by R. de Martinis under the title “Jus Pontificium de Propaganda Fide” (Rome, 1888–98). This is in substance the bullarium of the Congregation of Propaganda brought up to date. Similarly, an exhaustive collection or rather calendar of early papal documents concerning the churches of Italy has been undertaken by P.F. Kehr under the title “Italia Pontificia” (Berlin 1906). The expense is defrayed by the Gottinger Academy. Of the more important religious orders nearly all have at some time or other collected their privileges in print. Among the most extensive of such compilations, which formerly often went by the name “Mare Magnum” (the Great Ocean) may be mentioned the Bullarium of the Dominicans, edited by Ripoli and Bremond (eight vols., Rome, 1729–40); that of the Franciscans, edited by Sbaralea (4 vols., Rome, 1758–80), with a more modern continuation by Eubel, (3 vols., Rome, 1897–1904); that of the Capuchins (7 vols., Rome, 1740–52); that of the Benedictines of Monte Cassino (2 vols., Venice, 1650). All the volumes mentioned here were folios, mostly of considerable bulk.

Historically speaking, the most interesting papal volumes are often those contained in the “Regesta” (see BULLS and BRIEFS) which have never been included in the general Bullarium. Since the archives of the Vatican were thrown open to students by Leo XIII in 1883, immense labor has been spent upon the copying and publication of the Bulls contained in the “Regesta.” but even before this date, facilities for research were not infrequently accorded. Many hundreds of copies of documents relating to Great Britain were made for the British Government by Marino de Marinis in the early part of the nineteenth century and are now preserved in the British Museum. In 1873 the Reverend Joseph Stevenson was sent to Rome for a similar purpose and the large collection of transcripts made by him during four years’ residence may be consulted at the Record Office, London. Since then, Messrs, Bliss and Tenlow have been engaged in the same task and have published at the expense of the British Government seven volumes of a “Calendar of Entries in the Papal Register illustrating the History of Great Britain and Ireland.” These are primarily papal letters, and they extend from the beginning of the thirteenth to the middle of the fifteenth century. The members of the Ecole Française de Rome have been equally active and it is mainly to them that we owe the publication of detailed calendars of the entire content of the “regesta” of various pontificates mostly of the thirteenth century. Those of Honorius IV (1285–87), Nicolaus IV (1288–92), Benedict XI (1304–04) have been published and are complete. Those of Innocent IV (1243–54), Urban IV (1261–64), Clement VI (1265–68) are all but complete; while great progress has been made with those of Gregory X and John XXI (1271–77), Nicolaus III (1271–80), Martin IV (1281–85), Boniface VIII (1291–03), Gregory IX (1227–41), and Alexander IV (1254–61). Besides these, the “Regesta” of Clement V (1305–1314) have been published by the Benedictines in nine volumes folio at the cost of Leo XIII, and those of John XXII (1316–34), as far as they relate to France, are being printed by A. Coulon, while those of the other Avignon popes are also in hand. The “Regesta” of Innocent III and his successor Honorius III have long been printed, and they are among the last volumes printed in the Patrology of Migne. Finally among local bullaria we may mentioned the considerable collections published some time ago by Augustine Theiner for various countries under the general heading of “Vetera Monumenta.”

With regard to the early centuries, where no originals of official copies exist to which we can make appeal, the task of distinguishing genuine from spurious papal letters becomes exceedingly delicate. The collection of Dom Coustant, “Epistolae Romanorum Pontificorum” (Paris, 1721), is of the highest value, but the compiler only lived to carry his work down to the year 440, and A. Thiele, who continued it, brought it no further than 553. Some further help has been provided by Hampe, regarding the papal letters to Charlemagne and to Louis the Pious, and by Herth-Gerenth for Sergius II. For practical purposes the chief court of appeal for an opinion on all papal documents is the “Regesta Pontificorum Romanorum” of Jaffe,’ much improved in its second edition by its editors, Wattenbach, Ewald, Kalterbrunner, and Löwenfeld. In this a brief synopsis of given of all existing papal documents known to be in existence, from the time of Peter to that of Innocent III (1198), with indications of the collections in which they have been printed and with an appendix dealing with spurious documents. This most useful work has been continued by Potthast to the year 1304 (2 vols., Berlin).

It may be added that compendiums have also been published of the “Bullarium Romanum” as printed in the eighteenth century. Of these the most valuable is probably that of Guerra “Pontificarium Constitutionem in Bullario Magno contentarum Epitome” (4 vols., Venice, 1772), which possesses a very complete and useful index. Commentaries on the bullarium or on large portions of it have been published by the Jesuit J. B. Scortia (Lyons, 1625), by the Dominican, M. de Gregorio (Naples, 1648), and by Cardinal Vincent Petra (Rome, 1705–26). Finally, attention may be called to the important bulls contained in a useful little volume recently edited by Galante “Fontes Juris Canonici” (Innsbruck, 1906).

No long bibliography is needed for an article which is itself bibliographical. ORTOLAN in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1243–55, with fuller details regarding monastic and other bullaria. See remark, p. 49 col. 2 under subtitle The Luxemburg Bullarium. GRISBAR in Kirchenlex., II, 1479–82; PITRA, Annalecta Solesmensia Novissima (Frascati, 1885); PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht (Ratisbon, 1845), IV, 483 sqq.; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1905), I, 379.

HERBERT THURSTON

Spanish Bull-Fight

Neither the English term nor the German (Stiergefecht) used to designate this popular diversion of the Spaniards, can be said to express adequately the essential idea of the Spanish corrida de toros.

Great has been the discussion as to the origin of this spectacle. Some attribute it to the Roman Circus, where men contended with wild beasts, among them wild bulls; others-Doñ Nicolás de Moratin, for example-to the customs of the ancient Celtiberians. As Spain was infested by wild bulls, first necessity and afterwards sport led to this personal combat. In this opinion, indeed, is to be found what might be called the philosophic origin of the bull-fight. Man, surrounded by wild natural conditions, saw himself obliged to struggle with wild beasts in order to protect himself from them; and as the peoples naturally acclaimed as heroes those who slew in single combat these ferocious animals, so, when the necessity of protecting life had ceased, brave men still sought glory in these struggles. (In this connection the killing of the Calydonian boar by the Ætolians, as related by Homer, the legend of Hercules and the Nemean lion, the Catalonian legend of Wilfrid slaying the Tarasque, and the Swiss legend preserved by Schiller in his “William Tell,” with many others of a like nature, suggest themselves as examples.) But if, putting aside these a priori considerations, we turn our attention to historical facts, we shall find that the Spanish bull-fight originated in a Moorish custom.

To understand this better it will be necessary to distinguish between three kinds of bull-fights: (1) caballerescas, (2) populares, and (3) gladiatorias.

(1) CORRIDAS CABALLERESCAS

The corridas caballerescas had their origin, without a doubt, in the usages of the Arabo-Spanish jinetes (cavaliers or mounted men-at-arms) who, to accustom themselves to the activities of war, occupied themselves in time of peace with exercises in the use of arms, among which exercises were fights with wild bulls; the Moorish cavaliers fought on horseback, killing the bulls with spears, thus combining courage with knightly address. From historical sources we know that the Cid Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar was the first Christian to vie with the Arab knights in the sport of killing fierce bulls, spearing several from his horse in the year 1040, to the enthusiastic admiration of Ferdinand I of Castile. The lawyer Francisco de Cepeda, in his “Resumpta Historial de España,” assures us that in 1100 there were bull-fights for the public, and that in Leon there was a bull-fight on the occasion of the marriage of Doña Urraca, daughter of Alfonso VIII, to the King Doñ Garcia of Navarre. These corridas caballerescas reached the highest degree of splendour in the reign of John II, when plazas began to be built, as we see by a story of the Marques de Villena. The marriage of John II to Doña María de Aragon (20 October, 1418) was celebrated by corridas in Medina del Campo. In the last epoch of the reconquest, the intercourse, frequent in times of peace, between the Spaniards and the Moors of Granada-where bull-fights were held until the time of Boabdil-resulted in an increase of valour among the Christian cavaliers, and a desire to demonstrate it in this dangerous sport.

(2) CORRIDAS POPULARES

From this time the bull-fight developed into a popular amusement, and became so rooted in the affections of the Spanish people that neither Isabella the Catholic, who wished to suppress it, nor Philip II, nor Charles III, dared issue an order that would prohibit it absolutely. The Emperor Charles V, although he had not been educated in Spain, killed a bull during the festivities held in Valladolid to celebrate the birth of his son Philip. The first Bourbons were educated in France and naturally did not display much fondness for the popular corridas de toros. The corridas populares, heritage of the Mohammedan population, more especially in Valencia and Andalusia, differ from the caballerescas in their democratic character. Bulls not quite so ferocious are selected and are fought on foot, sometimes in an enclosure formed of wagons and planks, sometimes through the streets, in which case the bull is generally tied to a long rope. In these corridas populares the bull is not killed, but after the populace has amused itself with the bull, provoking him, and then fleeing from his attack, a tame cow is let loose and the bull follows her quietly to the pen. Generally the bull is taken to the slaughter-house and the meat used for the feasts that follow.

(3) CORRIDAS GLADIATORIAS

The corridas gladiatorias are those in which the participants are professionals, and these are the ones which have given rise among foreigners to so much criticism of this popular diversion of the Spaniards. Francisco Romero, a native of Ronda, about the middle of the eighteenth century, sets forth in the “Arte Taurino” (Tauromaquia) the rules which are the guiding principle of these contests. Romero invented the muleta, a scarlet cloth laid over a stick, used to attract the attention of the bull, and he was the first to kill a bull on foot and face to face. His skill was inherited by his son Juan, and his grandsons, Pedro, José, and Antonio. After this the different skilful manoeuvres (suertes) that give variety to the bull-fight were evolved. Juan Romero was the first to organize a cuadrilla de toreros (band, or company, of bullfighters).

THE MODERN BULL-FIGHT

The modern bull-fight begins with the entrance of the toreros into the plaza (ring), marching to music, and dressed in richest satin, embroidered in silk or gold thread. The costume consists of tight-fitting satin knee-breeches, a short open Andalusian coat and vest, silk hose, and shoes without heels. The shoulders are decorated with handsome shoulder knots which in reality serve as protection in case of falls, as also the moña, a pad which is worn on the head, and which is covered with a rich cloth cap ornamented with tassels on each side. From the shoulders a short cape of embroidered satin is suspended.

In the centre of the ring they ceremoniously salute the presiding official-the governor, sometimes the king himself-and receive from him the key of the bull pen (toril). Then each one takes his place. At the four equi-distant points of the circumference of the ring the picadores are situated. These are men mounted on old or otherwise incapacitated horses, with cow-boy saddles, very large iron stirrups, and one leg protected against the bull’s horns by the espinillera, an apparatus of iron.

The bugle now gives the signal, the door of the pen opens, and the first bull is released. The capeadores attract the bull’s attention with their scarlet capes, leading him towards the picadores who ride into the middle of the ring to meet him, and parry his attacks with their spears. If the bull happens to unhorse one of the picadores, or kill his horse, the capeadores rush to the rescue, attracting the bull once more with their scarlet capes, and carrying him off to another part of the ring.

When the picadores have had their turn with the bull, the bugle sounds for banderillas. These are tiny steel points to which are attached many coloured ribbons or papers, which are stuck in the fleshy portion of the bull’s neck by the banderilleros, who await his coming in the centre of the ring, facing him with arms extended.

These, and many other tricks, such as el salto de la garrocha, etc., besides giving incident and variety to the spectacle, have as their object to weaken the enormous strength of the bull, so as to render possible and less dangerous the work of the matador-not, as many imagine, to infuriate the bull still more. When the presiding officer gives the signal for the death of the bull, the matador draws near the bull with the muleta in his left hand and the sword in his right hand; he calls the bull to him, or throws himself upon him, and plunges the sword into the neck of the bull. If he strikes him in the nape of the neck, killing him instantly, it is called descabellar, but if the bull is simply wounded the puntillero puts an end to his life with a dagger. The music now strikes up, while two little mules, richly caparisoned, drag out the bull and the dead horses. This is repeated again and again, the number of bulls being usually eight for each corrida.

THE MORALITY OF THE BULLFIGHT

Bull-fights have occasioned many accusations of barbarity against the Spaniards.

The reason for this is, first, an utter ignorance of a game in which man with his reason and dexterity overcomes the brutal strength and ferocity of the bull. Foreigners as a rule think that the Spanish populace go to the bull-fight to witness the shedding of human blood. This is false. Generally there are no casualties; and when an accident does occur, no one derives pleasure from it; on the contrary, all deplore it.

Second, the misconception implies a lack of comparison with other spectacles. The risks taken by acrobats, tight-rope dancers, and tamers of wild beasts are no less barbarous than those of the bull-fight, although the performances themselves are less diverting. And prize-fighting is surely much more brutal, seeing that the vanquished is a human being and not a brute.

Lastly, the modern theatre is frequently more evil in its effects than bull-fighting, which, whatever else may be said of it, arouses no immoral or anti-social passions.

The authorities of the Catholic Church have often condemned bull-fighting. St. Pius V (1 November, 1567, Const. “De salute”) prohibited this form of amusement everywhere, threatening with many penalties the princes who countenanced it, as well as the performers and spectators, especially clergymen and religious. But in Spain to-day these prohibitions are not in force. Gregory XIII (23 August, 1575, “Exponi”) moderated the constitution of St. Pius V for Spanish laymen, and Clement VIII (Bull “Suscepti muneris,” 12 January, 1597) reduced it to a jus commune, limiting the prohibition to holidays and to the clergy.

Moralists as a rule are of the opinion that bull-fighting as practised in Spain is not forbidden by the natural law, since the skill and dexterity of the athletes precludes immediate danger of death or of serious injury (cf. P.V, Casus conscientiae, Vromant, Brussels, 1895, 3d ed., I, 353, 354; Gury-Ferreres, Comp. Th. mor., Barcelona, 1906, I, n. 45). Even in Spain and Spanish America they have been forbidden to clergymen and religious, by Pius V, as well as by the Plenary Council for Spanish America (n. 650; cf. also C. prov., Vallisol., I, p. 5, tit. 1, n. 11). The Bishop of Ciudad Rodrigo received the same answer from the Penitentiaria (19 September, 1893).

It is false to say that the Spanish clergy encourage these spectacles. Although public festivals are celebrated with religious ceremonies as well as bull-fights, the clergy is in no-wise responsible for this. If both are announced on the same bill poster, the authorities, or particular associations, are responsible for the printing of this, not the clergy.

It is worthy of note that foreigners who have been present at bull-fights are not so harsh in their judgments as those who have formed an opinion from what they have heard about them from the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals.

RAMÓN RUIZ AMADO

Angélique Bullion

Born in Paris, at commencement of the seventeenth century, her parents being Guichard Favre and Madeleine Brulart de Sillery. Claude de Bullion, her husband, was Keeper of the Seals and Superintendent of Finances under Louis XIII; Cardinal Richelieu annually rewarded his intelligent and disinterested administration by a bonus of 100,000 livres. After his death (1640), her four children being well provided for, she followed the advice of the Recollet Father Rapin, and contributed in 1641–42, 60,000 livres to the foundation of Ville-Marie, now the city of Montreal, Canada. She founded and endowed (1643) a Hotel-Dieu in honour of St. Joseph, begun at Ville-Marie (1642) by Mademoiselle Mance, and confided in 1657–59 to the care of the Sisters of St. Joseph, an order instituted at La Flèche by a pious layman, Royer de la Dauversière, one of the joint founders of Montreal. She likewise contributed more than 20,000 livres for the defence of the settlement against the Iroquois Indians, thereby helping to solve the whole colony of New France from destruction. She always insisted on being mentioned in the deeds ratifying her donations as “An unknown benefactress.” Her identity was revealed only after her death.

FAILLON, Vie de Mademoiselle Mance (Villemarie, 1854).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Bulls and Briefs

A bulla was originally a circular plate or boss of metal, so called from its resemblance in form to a bubble floating upon water (Lat. bullire, to boil). In the course of time the term came to be applied to the leaden seals with which papal and royal documents were authenticated in the early Middle Ages, and by a further development, the name, from designating the seal, was eventually attached to the document itself. This did not happen before the thirteenth century and the name bull was only a popular term used almost promiscuously for all kinds of instruments which issued from the papal chancery. A much more precise acceptance has prevailed since the fifteenth century, and a bull has long stood in sharp contrast with certain other forms of papal documents. For practical purposes a bull may be conveniently defined to be “an Apostolic letter with a leaden seal,” to which one may add that in its superscription the pope invariably takes the title of episcopus, servus servorum Dei.

In official language papal documents have at all times been called by various names, more or less descriptive of their character. For example, there are “constitutions,” i.e., decisions addressed to all the faithful and determining some matter of faith or discipline; “encyclicals,” which are letters sent to all the bishops of Christendom, or at least to all those in one particular country, and intended to guide them in their relations with their flocks; “decrees,” pronouncements on points affecting the general welfare of the Church; “decretals” (epistolae decretales), which are papal replies to some particular difficulty submitted to the Holy See, but having the force of precedents to rule on all analogous cases. “Rescript,” again, is a form applicable to almost any form of Apostolic letter which has been elicited by some previous appeal, while the nature of a “privilege” speaks for itself. But all these, down to the fifteenth century, seem to have been expedited by the papal chancery in the shape of bulls authenticated with leaden seals, and it is common enough to apply the term bull even to those very early papal letters of which we know little more than the substance, independently of the forms under which they were issued.

It will probably be most convenient to divide the subject into periods, noting the more characteristic features of papal documents in each age.

I. EARLIEST TIMES TO ADRIAN I (772)

There can be no doubt that the formation of a chancery or bureau for drafting and expediting of official papers was a work of time. Unfortunately, the earliest papal documents known to us are only preserved in copies or abstracts from which it is difficult to draw any safe conclusions as to the forms observed in issuing the originals. For all that, it is practically certain that no uniform rules can have been followed as to superscription, formula of salutation, conclusion, or signature. It was only when some sort of registry was organized, and copies of earlier official correspondence became available, that a tradition gradually grew up of certain customary forms that ought not to be departed from. Except for the unsatisfactory mention of a body of notaries charged with keeping a record of the Acts of the Martyrs, c. 235 (Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, I, pp. c-c1), we meet with no clear reference to the papal archives until the time of Julius I (337–353), though in the pontificate of Damascus, before the end of the same century, there is mention of a building appropriate to this special purpose. Here, in the scrinium, or archivium sanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ, the documents must have been registered and kept in a definite order, for extracts and copies still in existence preserve traces of their numbering. These collections or regesta went back to the time of Pope Gelasius (492–496) and probably earlier. In the correspondence of Pope Hormisdas (514–525) there are indications of some official endorsement recording the date at which letters addressed to him were received, and for the time of St. Gregory the Great (590–604) Ewald has been at least partially successful in reconstructing the books which contained the copies of the pope’s epistles. There can be little doubt that the Pontifical chancery of which we thus infer the existence was modeled upon that of the imperial court. The scrinium, the regionary notaries, the higher officials such as the primicerius and the secundarius, the arrangement of the Regesta by indictions, etc., are all probably imitations of the practice of the later empire. Hence we may infer that the code of recognized forms soon established itself, analogous to that observed by the imperial notaries. One formulary of this description is probably still preserved to us in the book called “Liber Diurnus,” the bulk of which seems to be inspired by the official correspondence of Pope Gregory the Great. In the earlier papal letters, however, there are as yet but few signs of the observance of traditional forms. Sometimes the document names the pope first, sometimes the addressee. For the most part the pope bears no title except Sixtus episcopus or Leo episcopus catholicae ecclesiæ, sometimes, but more rarely he is called Papa. Under Gregory the Great, (servant of the servants of God) was often added after episcopus—Gregory, it is said, having selected this designation as a protest against the arrogance of the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, who called himself “Ecumenical Bishop.” But though several of St. Gregory’s successors followed him in this preference, it was not until the ninth century that the phrase came to be used invariably in documents of moment. Before Pope Adeodatus (elected 672) few salutations were found, but he used the form “salutatem a Deo et benedictionem nostram.” The now consecrated phrase “salutatem et apostolicam benedictionem” hardly ever occurs before the tenth century. The Benedictine authors of “Nouveau traité de diplomatique” in ascribing a much earlier date to this formula were misled by a forged bull purporting to be addressed to the monastery at St. Benignus at Dijon. Again, in these early letters the pope often addressed his correspondent, more especially when he was a king or a person of high dignity, by the plural Vos. As ages went on, this became rarer, and by the second half of the twelfth century, it had completely disappeared. On the other hand, it may be noticed incidentally that persons of all ranks, in writing to the pope, invariably addressed him as Vos. Sometimes a salutation was introduced by the pope at the end of his letter just before the date—for example, “Deus te incolumem custodiat” or “Bene vale frater carissime.” This final salutation was a matter of importance, and it is held by high authorities (Bresslau, “Papyrus und Pergament, 21; Ewald in Neues Archiv,” III, 548) that it was added in the pope’s own hand, and that it was the equivalent of his signature. The fact that in classical times the Romans authenticated their letters not by signing their names, but by a word of farewell, lends probability to this view. In the earliest original Bulls preserved to us BENE VALETE is written at full length in capitals. Moreover, we have at least some contemporary evidence of the practice before the time of Pope Adrian. The text of a letter of Pope Gregory the Great is preserved in a marble inscription at the basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls. As the letter directs that the document itself is to be returned to the papal archives (Scrinium), we may assume that the copy on stone accurately represents the original. It is addressed to Felix the subdeacon and concludes with the formula BENE VALE. Dat. VIII Kalend. Februarius imp. du. n. Phoca PP. anno secundo, et consultatus eius anno primo, indict. 7. This suggests that such letters were fully dated and indeed we find traces of dating even in extant copies as early as the time of Pope Siricius (384–398). We have also some bullæ or leaden seals preserved apart from the documents to which they were once attached. One of these dates back perhaps to the pontificate of John III (560–573) and another certainly belongs to Deusdedit (615–618). The earliest specimens simply bear the pope’s name on one side and the word papæ on the other.

II. SECOND PERIOD (772–1048)

In the time of Pope Adrian the support of Pepin and Charlemagne had converted the patrimony of the Holy See into a sort of principality. This no doubt paved the way for changes in the forms observed in the chancery. The pope now takes the first place in the superscription of letters unless they are addressed to sovereigns. We also find the leaden seal used more uniformly. But especially we must attribute to the time of Adrian the introduction of the “double date” endorsed at the foot of the bull. The first date began with the word Scriptum and after a chronological entry, which mentioned only the month and the indiction, added the name of the functionary who drafted or engrossed the document. The other, beginning with Data (in later ages Datum), indicated, with a new and more detailed specification of year and day, the name of the dignitary who issued the bull after it had received its final stamp of authenticity by the addition of the seal. The pope still wrote the words BENE VALETE in capitals with a cross before and after, and in certain bulls of Pope Sylvester II we find some few words added in shorthand or “Tyronian notes.” In other cases the BENE VALETE is followed by certain dots and by a big comma, by a S S (subscripsi), or by a flourish, all of which no doubt served as a personal authentication. To this period belong the earliest extant bulls preserved to us in their original shape. They are all written upon very large sheets of papyrus in a peculiar handwriting of the Lombard type, called sometimes littera romana. The annexed copy of a facsimile in Mabillion’s “De re diplomaticâ” reproducing part of a bull of Pope Nicolaus I (863), with the editor’s interlinear decipherment, will serve to give an idea of the style of writing. As these characters were even then not easily read outside of Italy it seems to have been customary in some cases to issue at the same time a copy upon parchment in ordinary minuscule. A French writer of the tenth century speaking of a privilege obtained from Pope Benedict VII (975–984) says that the petitioner going to Rome obtained a decree duly expedited and ratified by apostolic authority, two copies of which, one in our own character (nostra littera) on parchment, the other in the Roman character on papyrus, he deposited on his return in our archives. (Migne, P. L., CXXXVII, 817) Papyrus seems to have been used almost uniformly as the material for these official documents until the early years of the eleventh century, after which it was rapidly superseded by a rough kind of parchment. Apart from a small fragment of a bull from Adrian I (22 January, 788) preserved in the national library at Paris, the earliest original bull that remains to us is one of Pope Paschal I (11 July, 819). It is still to be found in the capitular archives of Ravenna, to which church it was originally addressed. The total number of papyrus bulls at present known to be in existence is twenty-three, the latest being one issued by Benedict VIII (1012–24) for the monastery of Hildesheim. All these documents at one time had leaden seals appended to them, though in most cases these have disappeared. The seal was attached with laces of hemp and it still bore only the name of the pontiff and the word papæ on the other. After the year 885, the letters of the pope’s name were usually stamped round the seal in a circle with a cross in the middle.

The details specified in the “double dates” of these early bulls afford a certain amount of indirect information about the personnel of the papal chancery. The phrase scriptum per manum is vague and leaves uncertain whether the person mentioned was the official who drafted or merely engrossed the bull, but we hear in this connection of persons described as notarius, scriniarius (archivist), proto scrinarius sanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ, cancellarius, ypocancellarius, and after 1057 of camerarius, or later still notarius S. palatii. On the other hand, the datarius, the official mentioned under the heading data, who presumably delivered the instrument to the parties, after having superintended the subscriptions and the apposition of the seal, seems to have been an official of still higher consequence. In earlier documents he bears the titles primicerius sanctæ sedis apostolicae, senior et consiliarius, etc., but as early as the ninth century we have the well-known phrase bibliothecarius sanctæ sedis apostolicæ, and later cancellarius and bibliothecarius, as a combined title borne by a cardinal, or perhaps by more than one cardinal at once. Somewhat later still (under Innocent III), the cancellarius seemed to have threatened to develop into a functionary who was dangerously powerful, and the office was suppressed. A vice-chancellor remained, but this dignity also was abolished before 1352. But this of course was much later than the period we have now reached.

III. THIRD PERIOD (1048–1198)

The accession of Leo IX, in 1048, seems to have inaugurated a new era in the procedure of the chancery. A definite tradition had by this time been created, and though there is still much development we find uniformity of usage in documents of the same nature. It is at this point that we begin to have clear distinctions between two classes of bulls of greater and less solemnity. The Benedictine authors of “Nouveau traité de diplomatique” call them great and little bulls. Despite a protest in modern times from M. Léopold Delisle, who would prefer to describe the former class as “privileges” and the latter as “letters,” this nomenclature has been found sufficiently convenient, and it corresponds, at any rate, to a very marked distinction observable in the papal documents of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries. The most characteristic features of the “great bulls” are the following:

(1) In the superscription the words servus servorum Dei are followed by a clause of perpetuity, e.g., in perpetuam memoriam (abbreviated into IN PP. M) or ad perpetuam rei memoriam. In contrast to this the little bulls usually have salutatem et apostolicam benedictionem, but those words also appear in some great bulls after the clause of perpetuity.

(2) After the second quarter of the twelfth century, the great bulls were always subscribed by the pope and a certain number of cardinals (bishops, priests, and deacons). The names of the cardinal-bishops are written in the center, under that of the pope; those of cardinal-priests on the left, and those of cardinal-deacons on the right, while an occasional blank shows that space has been left for the name of a cardinal who accidentally failed to be present. The pope has no cross before his name; the cardinals have. Earlier than this, even the great bulls were subscribed by the pope alone, unless they embodied conciliar or consistorial decrees, in which case the names of cardinals and bishops were also appended.

(3) At the foot of the document to the left of the signature of the pope is placed the rota or wheel. In this the outer portion of the wheel is formed by two concentric circles and within the space between these circles is written the pope’s signum or motto, generally a brief text of scripture chosen by the new pontiff at the beginning of his reign. Thus Leo IX’s motto was “Miseracordia domini plena est terra,” Adrian IV’s “Oculi mei semper ad dominum.” Before the words of the motto a cross is always marked, and this is believed to have been traced by the hand of the pope himself. Not only in the case of the pope, but even in the case of the cardinals, the signatures appear not to have been their own actual handwriting. In the center of the rota we have the names of Sts. Peter and Paul, above and beneath them the name of the reigning pope.

(4) To the right of the signature opposite the rota stands monogram which stands for Bene Valete. From the time of Leo IX, and possibly somewhat earlier, the words are never written in full, but as a sort of grotesque. It seems clear that the Bene Valete is no longer to be regarded as the equivalent of the pope’s signature or authentification. It is simply an interesting survival of an earlier form of salutation.

(5) As regards the body of the document, the pope’s letter, in the case of great bulls always ends with certain imprecatory and prohibitory clauses, Decernimus ergo, etc., Siqua igitur, etc. On the other hand, Cunctis autem, etc., is a formula of blessing. These and the like clauses are generally absent from the “little bulls,” but when they appear—and this happens sometimes—the wording used is somewhat different.

(6) In the eleventh century it was usual to write Amen at the end of the text of a bull and to repeat it as many time as necessary to fill up the line.

(7) In appending the date, or more precisely, in adding the clause which begins the datum, the custom was to enter the place, the name of the datarius, the day of the month (expressed according to the Roman method) the indiction, the year of Our Lord’s Incarnation, and the regnal year of the pontiff, who is mentioned by his name. An example from a bull of Adrian IV will make the matter clear: “Datum Laterani per manu Rolandi sanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ presbyteri cardinalis et cancellarii, XII Kl. Junii, indic. Vo, anno dominicae incar. MCLVIIo pontificatus vero domini Adriani papæ quarti anno tertio.”

Before this period it was also usual to insert the first dating clause, “Scriptum,” and there was sometimes an interval of a few days between the “Scriptum” and the “Datum.” The use of the double date, however, soon came to be neglected even in “great bulls” and before 1124 it had gone out of fashion. This was probably a result of the general employment of “little bulls,” the more distinctive features of which may now be specified.

(1) Although great and little bulls alike begin with the pope’s name—Urbanius, let us say, or Leo, “episcopus, servus servorum Dei”—in the little bulls we have no clause of perpetuity, but instead of it there follows immediately “salutatem et apostolicam benedictionem.”

(2) The formulae of imprecation, etc., at the end only occur by exception, and they are in any case more precise than those of the great bulls.

(3) The little bulls have no rota, no Bene Valete monogram and no subscription of pope and cardinals.

The purpose served by this distinction between the great and little bulls becomes tolerably clear when we look more narrowly into the nature of their contents and the procedure followed in expediting them. Excepting those which are concerned with purposes of great solemnity or public interest, the majority of the “great bulls” now in existence are in the nature of confirmations of property or charters of protection accorded to monasteries and religious institutions. At an epoch when there was much fabrication of such documents, those who procured bulls from Rome wished at any cost to secure that the authenticity of their bulls should be above suspicion. A papal confirmation, under certain conditions, could be pleaded as itself constituting sufficient evidence of title in cases where the original deed had been lost or destroyed. Now the “great bulls” on account of their many formalities and the number of hands they passed through, were much more secure from fraud of all kinds, and the parties interested were probably willing to defray the additional expenditure that might be entailed by this form of instrument. On the other hand, by reason of the same multiplication of formalities, the drafting, signing, stamping, and delivery of a great bull was necessarily a matter of considerable time and labor. The little bulls were much more expeditious. Hence we are confronted by the curious anomaly that during the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, when both forms of document were in use, the contents of the little bulls are, from an historical point of view immensely more interesting and important than those of the bulls in solemn form. Of course the little bulls may themselves be divided into various categories. The distinction between litteræ communes and curiales seems rather to have belonged to a later period, and to have rather concerned the manner of entry in the official “Regesta,” the communes being copies into the general collection, the curiales into a special volume in which documents were preserved which by reason of their form or their contents stood apart from the rest. We may note, however, the distinction between tituli and mandamenta. The tituli were letters of a gracious character—donations, favors, or confirmations constituting a “title.” They were indeed little bulls and lacked the subscriptions of cardinals, the rota etc., but on the other hand, they preserved certain features of solemnity. Brief imprecatory clauses, like Nulli ergo, Si quis autem, are usually included, the pope’s name at the beginning is written in large letters, and the initial is an ornamental capital, while the leaden seal is attached with silken laces of red and yellow. As contrasted with the tituli, the mandamenta, which were the “orders,” or instructions, of the popes, observe fewer formalities, but are more business-like and expeditious. They have no imprecatory clauses, the pope’s name is written with an ordinary capital letter, and the leaden seal is attached with hemp. But it was by means of these little bulls, or litteræ, and notably of the mandamenta, that the whole papal administration, both political and religious, was conducted. In particular, the decretals, on which the whole science of Canon Law is built up, invariably took this form.

IV. FOURTH PERIOD (1198–1431)

Under Innocent III, there again took place what was practically a reorganization of the papal chancery. But even apart from this, we might find sufficient reason for beginning a new epoch at this date in the fact that the almost complete series of Regesta preserved in the Vatican archives go back to this pontificate. It must not, of course, be supposed that all the genuine bulls issued at Rome were copied into the Regesta before they were transmitted to their destination. There are many perfectly authentic bulls which are not found there, but the existence of this series of documents places the study of papal administration from this time forward on a new footing. Moreover, with their aid it is possible to make out an almost complete itinerary of the medieval popes, and this alone is a matter of considerable importance. In light of the Regesta were are able to understand more clearly the working of the papal chancery. There were, it seems, four principals bureaus or offices. At the office of the “Minutes” certain clerks (clerici), in those days really clerics, and known then or later as abbreviatores, drew up in precise form the draft (litera notata) of the document to be issued in the pope’s name. Then this draft, after being revised by a higher official (either one of the notaries or the vice-chancellor) passed to the “Engrossing” office, where other clerks, called grossatores or scriptores, transcribed in a large official hand (in grossam literam) the copy or copies to be sent to the parties. At the “Registration” office again it was the duty of the clerks to copy such documents into the books, known as Regesta, specially kept for the purpose. Why only some were copied and others not, is still uncertain, though it seems probable that in any cases this was done at the request of the parties interested, who were made to pay for the privilege which was regarded as an additional security. Lastly, at the office of “Bulls,” the seal, which now bore the heads of the two apostles on one side, and the name of the pope on the other, was affixed by the officials called bullatores or bullarii. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, the great bulls, or privilegia, as they were then usually called, with their complex forms and multiple signatures became notably more rare, and when the papal court was transferred to Avignon in 1309 they fell practically into disuse save for a few extraordinary occasions. The lesser bulls (litteræ) were divided, as we have seen, into tituli and mandamenta, which became more and more clearly distinguished from each other not only in their contents and formulæ but in the matter of writing. Moreover, the rule of authenticating the letter with a leaden seal began in certain cases to be broken through, in favor of a seal of wax bearing the impression of the “ring of the fisherman.” The earliest mention of the new practice seems to occur in a letter of Pope Clement IV to his nephew (7 March, 1265). We do not write [he says] to thee or to our intimates under a [leaden] bull, but under the signet of the fisherman which the Roman pontiffs use in their private affairs. (Potthast, Regesta, no, 19,051) Other examples are forthcoming belonging to the same century. The earliest impression of this seal now preserved seems to be one lately discovered in the treasury of the Sancta Sanctorum at the Lateran, and belonging to the time of Nicholas III (1277–80). It represents St. Peter fishing with a rod and line and not as at present drawing his net.

V. FIFTH PERIOD (1431–1878)

The introduction of briefs, which occurred at the beginning of the pontificate of Eugenius IV, was clearly prompted for the same desire for greater simplicity and expedition which had already been responsible for the disappearance of the greater bulls and the general adoption of the less cumbersome mandamenta. A brief (breve, i.e., “short”) was a compendious papal letter which dispensed with some of the formalities previously insisted on. It was written on vellum, generally closed, i.e., folded, and sealed in red wax with the ring of the fisherman. The pope’s name stands first, at the top, normally written in capital letters thus: PIUS PP III; and instead of the formal salutation in the third person used in bulls, the brief at once adopts a direct form of address, e.g., Dilecte fili—Carissime in Christo fili, the phrase being adapted to the rank and character of the addressee. The letter begins by way of preamble with a statement of the case and cause of writing and this is followed by certain instructions without minatory clauses or other formulæ. At the end the date is expressed by the day of the month and year with a mention of the seal—for example in this form: Datum Romae apud Sanctum Petrum, sub annulo Piscatoris die V Marii, MDLXXXXI, pont. nostri anno primo. The year here specified, which is used in dating briefs, is probably to be understood in any particular case as the year of the Nativity, beginning 25 December. Still this is not an absolute rule, and the sweeping statements sometimes made in this matter are not to be trusted, for it is certain that in some instances the years meant are ordinary years, beginning with the first of January. (See Giry, “Manuel de diplomatique,” pp. 126, 696, 700.) A similar want of uniformity is observed in the dating of bulls though, speaking generally, from the middle of the eleventh century to the end of the eighteenth, bulls are dated by the years of the incarnation, counted from 25 March. After the institution of briefs by Pope Eugenius IV, the use of even lesser bulls, in the form of mandamenta, became notably less frequent. Still, for many purposes, bulls continued to be employed—for example in canonizations (in which case special forms are observed, the pope by exception signing his own name, under which is added a stamp imitating the rota as well as the signatures of several cardinals), as also in the nomination of bishops, promotion to certain benefices, some particular marriage dispensations, etc. But the choice of the precise form of instrument was often quite arbitrary. For example, in granting the dispensation which enabled Henry VIII to marry his brother’s widow, Catherine of Aragon, two forms of dispensation were issued by Julius II, one a brief, seemingly expedited in great haste, and the other a bull which was sent on afterwards. Similarly we may notice that, while the English Catholic hierarchy was restored in 1850 by a brief, Leo XIII in the first year of his reign used a bull to establish the Catholic episcopate of Scotland. So also the Society of Jesus, suppressed by a brief in 1773, was restored by a bull in 1818. A very interesting account of the formalities which had to be observed in procuring bulls in Rome at the end of the fifteenth century in contained in the “Practica” recently published by Schmitz-Kalemberg.

VI. SIXTH PERIOD: SINCE 1878

Ever since the sixteenth century the briefs have been written in a clear Roman hand upon a sheet of vellum of convenient size, while even the wax with its guard of silk and the impression of the fisherman’s ring was replaced in 1842 by a stamp which affixed the same devices in red ink. The bulls, on the other hand, down to the death of Pope Pius IX retained many medieval features apart from their great size, leaden seal, and Roman fashion of dating. In particular, although from about 1050 to the reformation the writing employed in the papal chancery did not noticeably differ from the ordinary book-hand familiar throughout Christendom, the engrossers of papal bulls, even after the sixteenth century, went on using an archaic and very artificial type of writing known as scrittura bollatica, with manifold contractions and an absence of all punctuation, which was practically undecipherable by ordinary readers. It was in fact the custom in issuing a bull to accompany it with a transsumption, or copy, in ordinary handwriting. This condition of things was put an end to by a motu proprio issued by Leo XIII shortly after his election. Bulls are now written in the same clear Roman script that is used for briefs, and in view of the difficulties arising from transmission by post, the old leaden seal is replaced in many cases by a simple stamp bearing the same device in red ink. In spite, however, of these simplifications, and although the pontifical chancery is now as an establishment much reduced in numbers, the conditions under which bulls are prepared are still very intricate. There are still four different “roads” which a bull may follow in its making. The via di cancellaria, in which the document is prepared by the abbreviatori of the chancery, is the ordinary way but it is, and especially was, so beset with formalities and consequential delays (see Schmitz-Kalemberg, Practica) that Paul III instituted the via di camera (see APOSTOLIC CAMERA) to evade them, in the hope of making the procedure more expeditious. But if the process was more expeditious, it was not less costly, so St. Pius V, in 1570, arranged for the gratuitous issue of certain bulls by the via segreta; and to these was added, in 1735, the via di curia, intended to meet exceptional cases of less formal and more personal interest. In the three former processes, the Cardinal Vice-Chancellor, who is at the same time “Sommista,” is the functionary now theoretically responsible. In the last case it is the Cardinal “Pro-Datario,” and he is assisted in this charge by the “Cardinal Secretary of Briefs.” As the mention of this last office suggests, the minutanti employed in the preparation of briefs form a separate department under the presidency of a Cardinal Secretary and a prelate his substitute.

SPURIOUS BULLS

There can be no doubt that during a great part of the Middle Ages papal and other documents were fabricated in a very unscrupulous fashion. A considerable portion of the early entries in chartularies of almost every class are not only open to grave suspicion, but are often plainly spurious. It is probable, however, that the motive for their forgeries was not criminal. They were prompted by the desire of protecting monastic property against tyrannical oppressors who, when title deeds were lost or illegible, persecuted the holders and extorted large sums as the price of charters of confirmation. No doubt, less creditable motives—e.g., an ambitious desire to exalt consideration of their own house—were also operative, and while lax principles in this matter prevailed almost universally it is often difficult to distinguish the purpose for which a papal bull was forged. A famous early example of such forgery is supplied by two papyrus bulls which profess to have been addressed to the Abbey of St. Benignus at Dijon by Popes John V (685) and Sergius I (697), and which were accepted as genuine by Mabillion and his confrères. M. Delisle has, however, proved they are fabrications made out of later bull addressed by John XV in 995 to Abbot William, one side of which was blank. The document was cut in half by the forger and furnished him with sufficient papyrus for two not unsuccessful fabrications. Though deceived in this one instance, Mabillion and his successors, Dom Toustain and Dom Tassin, have supplied the most valuable criteria by the aid of which to detect similar fabrications, and their work has been ably carried on in modern times by scholars like Jaffé, Wattenbach, Ewald, and many more. In particular a new test has been furnished by the more careful study of the cursus, or rhythmical cadence of sentences, which were most carefully observed in the authentic bulls of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. It would be impossible to go into details here, but it may be said that M. Noæl Valois, who first investigated the matter, seems to have touched upon the points of primary importance. Apart from this, forged bulls are now generally detected by blunders in the dating clauses and other formalities. In the Middle Ages one of the principal tests of the genuineness of bulls seems to have been supplied by counting the number of points in the circular outline of the leaden seal or in the figure of St. Peter depicted on it. The bullatores apparently followed some definite rule in engraving their dies. Finally, regarding these same seals, it may be noted that when a bull was issued by a newly elected pope before his consecration, only the heads of the Apostles were stamped on the bulla, without the pope’s name. These are called bullæ dimidiatæ. The use of golden bullæ (bullæ aureæ), though adopted seemingly from the thirteenth century (Giry, 634) for occasions of exceptional solemnity, is too rare to call for special remark. One noteworthy instance in which a golden seal was used was that of the bull by which Leo X conferred upon King Henry VIII the title of Fidei Defensor.

ORTOLAN in Dict. de théol, cath., II, 1255–63—see remark, page 49, col. 2; GRISAR in Kirchenlex., II, 1482–95; GIRY, Manuel de diplomatique (Paris, 1894), 661–704—an excellent summary of the whole subject; PFLUGK-HARTTUNG, Die Bullen der Papste (Gotha, 1901)—mainly concerned with the period before Innocent III; MELAMPO in Miscellanea di Storia e Cultura Ecclesiastica (1905–07), a valuable series of articles not too technical in character, by a Custodian of the Vatican Archives; MAS-LATRIE, Les élementes de diplomatique pontificale in Revue des questions historiques (Paris, 1886–87), XXXIX and XLI; DE KAMP, Zum päpstlichen Urkundenwesen in Mittheilungen des Inst. f. Oesterr. Geschichtesforschung (Vienna, 1882–83), III and IV, and in Historiches Jahrbuch, 1883, 1883, IV; DELISLE, Des régitres d’Innocent III in Bibliothèque de l’écoles des chartes (Paris, 1853–54), with many other articles; BRESSLAU, Handbuch der Urkundenlehre (Leipzig, 1889), I, 120–258; DE ROSSI, Preface to Codices Palatini Latin Bib. Vat. (Rome, 1886); BERGER, preface to Les régistres d’Innocent IV (Paris, 1884); KEHR AND BRACKMANN, Päpsturkunden in various numbers of the Göttinger Nachrichten (Phil. Hist. Cl., 1902–04); KEHR, Scrinium und Palatium in the Austrian Mittheilungen, Ergänzungsband, VI; PITRA, Analecta Novissima Solesmensia (Tusculum, 1885), I; SCHMITZ-KALEMBERG, Practica (1904). Among earlier works mention may be made of MABILLION, De Re Diplomaticâ (Paris, 1709), and the Nouveau traité de diplomatique by the Benedictines of Saint-Maur (Paris, 1765, VI volumes).

EARLY BULLS—BRESSLAU, Papyrus und Pergament in der päpstlichen Kanzlei in the Mittheilungen der Instituts für Oest. Geschichtsforschung (Innsbruck, 1888), IX; OMONT, Bulles pontificales sur papyrus in Bibl. les l’école des chartes (Paris, 1904), XLV; EWALD, Zur Diplomatik Silvesters II in Neues Archiv (Hanover, 1884), IX; KEHR, Scrinium und Palatium in the Austrian Mittheilungen, Ergänzungsband, (Innsbruck, 1901) VI; KEHR, Verschollene Papyrusbullen in Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven (Rome, 1907), X, 216–224; RODOLICO, Note paleografiche e diplomatiche (Bologna, 1900).

For facsimiles both of early bulls and their seals, the great collection of PFLUGK-HARTTUNG, Specimina Selecta Chartarum Pontificum Romanorum (3 vols., Stuttgart, 1887) is of primary importance but isolated facsimiles are to be found elsewhere.

On the cursus it will be sufficient to mention the article of NOĒL VALOIS, Etudes sur le rythme des bulles pontificales in Bibl de l’école des chartes (1881), XLII, and DE SANTI, Il Cursus nella storia litter. e nella liturgia (Rome, 1903).

HERBERT THURSTON

Sir Richard Bulstrode

A soldier, diplomatist, and author, born 1610; died 1711, was the second son of Edward Bulstrode by Margaret, daughter of Richard Ashtey, chamberlain of the queen’s household and member of the Inner Temple. He was educated at Pembroke College, Cambridge, and while at the university was the author of a poem on the birth of the Duke of York. At twenty-three years of age he entered the Inner Temple and in 1649, at his father’s request and through his interest, was made a bencher. During the Civil War he was loyal to the king, serving in the Prince of Wales’s regiment and holding at times the post of adjutant. He was later promoted to the rank of Adjutant-General of Horse, and still later to be Quartermaster-General. He was appointed to take charge of the funeral of Lord Strafford and became responsible for the expenses attending it; on being pressed by his creditors he fled to Bruges. He subsequently underwent a short term of imprisonment, which was terminated by the payment of the debt by Charles II. On his return he was appointed auditor of a Scotch regiment then serving in the Netherlands and in 1673 was appointed agent at the court of Bruges. He was temporarily recalled two years later, and on 1675 was knighted and again sent to Brussels, this time as resident, where he remained until the accession of James II when he was made envoy. When the revolution of 1688 compelled James to leave England, Bulstrode accompanied him to the court of Saint-Germain, where he remained until his death. Among his writings are: “Original Letters written to Earl of Arlinton, with an account of the Author’s Life and Family,” “Life of James II,” “Memoirs and Reflections on the Reign and Government of Charles I and Charles II” and a large number of elegies and epigrams.

HENDERSON in Dict. Nat. Biog., VII, 259; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 340.

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE.

Joannes Bunderius

(VAN DEN BUNDERE).

A Flemish theologian and controversialist, born of distinguished parents at Ghent in 1482; died there 8 January, 1557. He entered the Dominican Order in his native city about 1500, and after having made his religious profession was sent to Louvain to pursue his studies in philosophy and theology. He obtained the degree of Lector in Sacred Theology, and in 1517 returned to Ghent, where, until near the close of his life, he taught philosophy and theology. While occupied in teaching he filled the office of prior of the convent of Ghent three times (1529–35; 1550–53), and discharged the duties of General Inquisitor of the Diocese of Tournai. As inquisitor he was untiring in his efforts to check the spread of the errors that were being disseminated by Lutherans, Calvinists, and Mennonites; but always used prudence in his dealings with heretics. Long training in the schools and the experience he had gained as the professor of theology fitted him especially well to explain and defend Catholic doctrine, and to detect and expose the errors of heretical teaching. While prior of the convent of Ghent for the first time, he formed a federation of religious orders in that city for the safeguarding of the faith of the people and of the preservation of the rights of the Church and the privileges of the orders. In recognition of his ability as a preacher and as a reward for his long labours in the pulpit a general chapter of his order conferred upon him the degree of Preacher General. Of his writings, which are nearly all of a polemical character, the most worthy of note are:

“Compendium dissidii quorundam hereticorum” (Paris, 1540–43, 1545);

“Compendium concertationis hujus saeculi sapientium et theologorum” (Paris, 1549, Venice, 1553, etc). After the author’s death, this work was frequently published under the title: “Compendium rerum theologarum, quae hodie in controversia agitantur”;

“Detectio nugarum Lutheri cum declaratione veritatis Catholicae (Louvain, 1551);

“De Vero Christi baptismo contra Mennonem Anabaptistarum principe” (Louvain, 1553).

DE JONGHE, Belgium Dominicanum (Brussels, 1719), 72; ECHARD, Script. Ord. Præd., II, 160; PAQUOT, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire des Pays-Bas (Louvain, 1765), I, 391.

A.L. MCMAHON

Michelangelo Buonarroti

Italian sculptor, painter, and architect, b. at Caprese in the valley of the upper Arno, 6 March, 1475; d. at Rome, 18 February, 1564. Michelangelo, one of the greatest artists of all times, came from a noble Florentine family of small means, and in 1488 was apprenticed to Domenico Ghirlandajo. While apprentice, he excited the admiration of his master by the life-like animation of this drawings, and upon Ghirlandajo’s recommendation, and a the wish of Lorenzo the Magnificent, he received further training (1489–92) in the palace of the Medici, at the school of sculpture then under the direction of Bertoldo, one of Donatello’s pupils. As student and resident of the palace, Michelangelo lived with Lorenzo’s sons in the most distinguished society of Florence, and at this time was introduced by the poet Politian into the circle of the scholars of the Academy and to their learned pursuits. Meanwhile, Michelangelo was studying with marked success the frescoes in the Branacci chapel. After Lorenzo’s death he passed his time partly at home, partly at the monastery of Santo Spirito, where he busied himself with anatomical studies, and partly in the house of Pietro de’ Medici, who, however, was banished in 1494. About the same time Michelangelo left Florence for Bologna. He returned in 1495, and began to work as a sculptor, taking as his model the works of his predecessors and the masterpieces of classical antiquity, without, however, sacrificing his individuality. In 1496 he went to Rome, whither his fame had preceded him, and remained there working as a sculptor until 1501. Returning to Florence, he occupied himself with his painting and sculpture until 1505, when Pope Julius II called him to enter his service. After this, Michelangelo was employed alternately in Rome and Florence by Julius and his successors, Leo X, Clement VII, and Paul III being his special patrons. In 1534, shortly after the death of his father, Michelangelo left Florence never to return. The further events of his life are closely connected with his artistic labours. Some weeks after his death his body was brought back to Florence and a few months later a stately memorial service was held in the church of San Lorenzo. His nephew, Leonardo Buonarroti, erected a monument over his tomb in Santa Croce, for which Vasari, his well known pupil and biographer, furnished the design, and Duke Cosimo de’ Medici the marble. The three arts are represented as mourning over the sarcophagus, above which is a niche containing a bust of Michelangelo. A monument was erected in his memory in the church of the Santi Apostoli, at Rome, representing him as an artist in working garb, with an inscription: Tanto nomini nullum par elogium. (No praise is sufficient for so great a man.)

Michelangelo was a man of many-sided character, independent and persistent in his views and his endeavours. His most striking characteristic was a sturdy determination, guided by a lofty ideal. Untiring, he worked until far advanced in years, at the cost of great personal sacrifices. He was not, however, unyielding to the point of obstinancy. His productions in all departments of art show the great fertility of his mind. In literature he was a devoted student and admirer of Dante. A copy of the “Divine Comedy,” ornamented by him with marginal drawings, has unfortunately been lost. Imitating the style of Dante and Petrarch, he wrote verses, “canzoni,” and especially sonnets, which are not without value, and excite surprise by their warmth of feeling. Some of his poems give expression to an ideally pure affection. He never married. A stern earnestness is characteristic of the sculptor, but the tenderness of his heart is shown in his touching love and solicitude for his father and brothers. Although seemingly absorbed in his art, and often straitened in circumstances, he was ever ready to aid them by word and deed. “I will send you what you demand of me,” he wrote, “even if I have to sell myself as a slave.” After the death of his father he conceived a deep affection for a young Roman, Tommaso de’ Cavalieri, and also entered into intimate friendship with the noble-minded poetess, Vittoria Colonna, then past her youth. With his pupils, Vasari and Condivi, he was on the most cordial terms, and a servant who was twenty-six years in his employ experienced his bounty. The biographies we have from the pupils just mentiond and the letters of Michelangelo himself testify to the gentler traits of his character. He gave younger artists generous aid by suggestions, sketches, and designs, among others to Sebastiano del Poimbo, Daniele da Volterra, and Jacopo da Pontormo. Michelangelo had few personal wants and was unusually self-denying in dress and diet. Savonarola’s sermons, which he recalled even in his old age, probably influenced him in some degree to adopt this austerity of life. Moreover, the seriousness of his own mind caused him to realize the vanity of earthly ideals. His spirit was always absorbed in a struggle to attain perfection. Yet with all this he was not haughty; many of his sayings that have come down to us show him to have been unusually unassuming. The explanation of his unwillingness to have the aid of assistants must be sought in the peculiarity of his artistic methods. Michelangelo’s life was one of incessant trials, yet in spite of an imperious temper and many bodily infirmities he showed remarkable composure and forbearance. No matter how much trouble was caused him by his distinguished patrons he seldom failed in loyalty to them. He was equally faithful to his native city, Florence, although the political confusion which reigned there wrung from him many complaints. It obliged him to spend half of his life elsewhere, yet he wished to lie after death in Florentine earth; nor could the most enticing offers induce him to leave Italy. A contemporary bestows praise which seems merited, when he says that Michelangelo in all the ninety years of his life never gave any grounds for suspecting the integrity of his moral virtue.

SCULPTURE

FIRST PERIOD

If the years before 1505, that is, before the summons by Julius II, be taken as Michelangelo’s youth, it may be said that, even when a pupil in Bertoldo’s school, he attracted attention not only by his work in clay and by the head of a faun in marble after a classical model, but especially by two marble bas-reliefs of his own design. The “Madonna Seated on a Step,” pressing the Child to her breast under her mantle, shows, it is true, but little individuality, grace, and tenderness, though perhaps for this very reason all the more dignity. Michelangelo’s later style is more easily recognized in the “Battle of the Centaurs,” which represents a large group of figures, anatomically well drawn, engaged in a passionate struggle. It is said that in after years the artist, in referring to this group, expressed regret that he had not devoted himself exclusively to sculpture. He appears to have taken the conception for this work from a bronze relief of Bertoldo and to have imitated the style of Donatello. Michelangelo’s work certainly recalls Donatello in the drapery of the Madonna above mentioned and in the realistic way in which the sentiment of this composition is expressed. After Lorenzo’s death Michelangelo produced a marble Hercules of heroic size that was taken to Fontainebleau and has since disappeared. Thode, however, appears to have found the Crucifix which Michelangelo carved for the church of Santo Spirito. The body in this is almost entirely free from the cross; there is no intense pain expressed on the youthful face, and the hands and hair are not completely worked out. The “St. John in the Wilderness,” with the honeycomb, now at Berlin, is probably the San Giovannino that Michelangelo executed in Florence in 1495. The realistic modelling of the head and the beautiful lines of the body show a study of both classic and modern models. Shortly after this Michelangelo completed several figures for the shrine of St. Dominic which Niccolo dell’ Arca had left unfinished. A figure of a pagan deity was the occasion of Michelangelo’s first visit to Rome, and a statue of Bacchus carved by him on that occasion is extant at Florence. This work, which is the result of study of the antique, is merely a beautiful and somewhat intoxicated youth.

Far more important is the Pieta executed in 1499 for the French chapel in St. Peter’s. A calm, peaceful expression of grief rests on all the figures of the group. The face of the mother has youthful beauty; the head is bowed but slightly, yet expressive of holy sorrow. Her drapery lies in magnificent folds under the body of the Saviour. The latter is not yet stiff and reveals but slight traces of the suffering endured, especially the noble countenance so full of Divine peace. Not the lips but the hand shows the intensity of the grief into which the mother’s soul is plunged. When sixty years old Michelangelo desired to execute a Pieta, or, more properly, a “Lamentation of Christ” for his own tomb. The unfinished group is now in the Cathedral of Florence, and is throughout less ideally conceived than the Pieta just mentioned. The body of Christ is too limp, and Nicodemus and Mary Magdalen are somewhat hard in modelling. This Pieta was broken into pieces by the master, but was afterwards put together by other hands. Two circular reliefs of the “Virgin and Child,” one now in London and one in Florence, belong to the sculptor’s youthful period. In the Florentine relief, especially, intensity of feeling is combined with a graceful charm. Mother and Child are evidently pondering a passage in Scripture which fills them with sorrow; the arms and head of the Boy rest on the book. A life-sized group of about the same date in the church of Our Lady (Eglise Notre-Dame) at Bruges shows the Madonna again, full of dignity and with lofty seriousness of mien, while the Child, somewhat larger than the one just mentioned, is absorbed in intense thought. In contrast to Raphael, Michelangelo sought to express Divine greatness and exalted grief rather than human charm. He worked entirely according to his own ideals. His creations recall classical antiquity by a certain coldness, as well as by the strain of superhuman power that characterizes them.

SECOND PERIOD

To Michelangelo’s second creative period (beginning 1505) belongs the statue of Christ which he carved for the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva. It was sent to Rome in 1521 in charge of an assistant who was to add some last touches to the statue when it was put in position. The Saviour, a life-sized marble figure, holds the cross, sponge, and rod of hyssop. The face, earnest, almost hard, is turned to the left, as if saying: “My people, what have ye done to Me?” Properly however, the figure is not that of the suffering Saviour, but of the risen Saviour and therefore nude, according to the desire of the patron who have the commission. The age of the Renaissance, in its ardour for the nude, paid no regard to decorum. At a later date a bronze loin cloth, unfortunately too long, was placed on the statue. In conformity with the spirit in which the whole composition is conceived, the figure of Christ is not stiff and severe like the statue of an antique god, but expresses a resigned humanity. A youthful Apollo produced at about the same time has also little of the classic in its design. A dying Adonis comes nearer to classic models in its conception. But the gigantic David, the embodiment of fresh young daring, in reality a representation of a noble boy, resembles an antique god or hero. It can hardly be said that the colossal size, over twelve and a half feet, is suitable for a youth; however, the deed for which David is preparing, or more probably, the action which he has just completed, is a deed of courage. The right hand is half closed, the left hand with the sling seems to be going back to the shoulder, while the gaze follows the stone. The figure resembles that of an ancient athlete. The body is nude, and the full beauty of the lines of the human form is strikingly brought out. In 1508 Michelangelo agreed to carve the twelve Apostles in heroic size (about nine and a half feet high) for the church of Santa Maria del Fiore, but of the whole number only the figure of St. Matthew, a great and daring design, was hewn in the rough. Similarly, he executed but four of the saints which were to decorate the memorial chapel to Pius II and left the rest of the work unfinished. A bronze statue of David with the head of Goliath under his feet was sent to France and has since disappeared. A pen-and-ink sketch of this statue is still in the Louvre.

His powers fully matured, Michelangelo now entered the service of the popes and was entrusted with the carrying out of two great undertakings. In 1505 Julius II called him to Rome to design and erect for the pope a stately sepulchral monument. The monument was to be a four-sided marble structure in two curses, decorated with some forty figures of heroic size. Michelangelo spent eight months in Carrara superintending the sending of the marble to Rome. He hoped in carrying out this commission to execute a work worthy of classic times, one containing figures that would bear comparison with the then newly discovered Lacoon. His plans, however, were brought to nought by a sudden change of mind on the part of Julius, who now began to consider the rebuilding of St. Peter’s after the designs of Bramante. Julius may be said to have driven Michelangelo from the Roman court. Fearful of the malice of enemies, Buonarroti fled in despair to Florence and, turning a deaf ear to the pope’s entreaties to return to Rome, offered to go on with the work for the monument at Florence. To this, however, Julius would not listen. In his exasperation Michelangelo was on the point of going to Constantinople. However, at the invitation of the pope, in the latter part of 1506, he went to Bologna, where, amid the greatest difficulties and in straitened circumstances, he cast a bronze statue of Julius II, of heroic size. This effigy was destroyed during a revolt against Julius in 1511. Once more in Rome, he was obliged for the time being to abandon the scheme for the monument to Julius and, against his will, to decorate the Sistine Chapel with frescoes. Julius II lived only long enough after the completion of the frescoes to arrange for his monument in his will. After his death in 1513 a formal contract was made for the construction of the memorial. According to this new agreement the monument was no longer to be an independent structure, but was to be placed against the church wall in the form of a chapel. The plan for the structure was even more magnificent than the original design, but was in the end abandoned, both on account of its size and of other circumstances which arose. The new pope, Leo X, of the Medici family, was a friend of Michelangelo’s youth and looked on him with much favour, but had new designs in reference to him. After Michelangelo had laboured for two years on the monument to Julius, Pope Leo, during a visit to Florence, commanded him, to construct a stately new facade for the church of San Lorenzo, the family burial place of the Medici. With tears in his eyes, Michelangelo agreed to this interruption of his great design. The building of the new facade was abandoned in 1520, but the sculptor returned to his former work for a time only. The short reign of Adrian VI was followed by the election to the papal throne of another early friend of Michelangelo, Giulio de’ Medici, who took the name of Clement VII. Since 1520 Giulio de’ Medici had desired to erect a family mortuary chapel in San Lorenzo. When be became pope he obliged Michelangelo to take up this task. The new commission was not unworthy of the sculptor’s powers, yet an evil fate prevented this undertaking also from reaching its full completion. Michelangelo suffered unspeakably from the constant alteration of his plans; he was, moreover, beset by many detractors; the political disorders in his native city filled him with grief, and the years brought with them constantly increasing infirmities.

In 1545 the designs, some of which still exist, for the monument of Julius II were carried out on a much reduced scale. The monument is in the church of San Pietro in Vincoli; in the centre of the lower course of the monument between two smaller figures is placed the gigantic statue of Moses, which was originally intended for the upper course, where it would have made a much more powerful impression. When seen close by, the criticism may be made that the expression is too violent, there is no sufficient reason for the swollen veins in the left arm, the shoulders are too massive in comparison with the neck, the chin, and the forehead; that even the folds of the robe are unnatural. Yet, seen from a distance, it is precisely these features that produce the desired effect. The great statue, which is double life size, was intended to express the painfully restrained and mighty wrath of the leader of a stiff-necked people. It is plain that an allusion to the warlike prowess of Julius II was intended and that the sculptor here, as in many of his other undertakings, has embodied his own tremendous conception of force. The way in which the Tables of the Law are grasped, the bare arm and right knee, the heavy beard and the “horns” heighten the effect that is aimed at. The flanking figures of Rachel and Leah, symbols respectively of contemplative and active life, were carved by Michelangelo himself, but they are not as satisfactory as the Moses. The monument itself and the figures on the upper course were not executed by the great master, though they were worked out according to his suggestions. On the other hand, two shackled figures out of the series planned by the sculptor are in the Louvre, though incomplete. The “Slaves” were intended to typify the power of the pope in the domains of war and art, and were to stand in front of the hermae pillars, where the inverted consoles now are. In the “Slaves” in the Louvre the antithesis between resistance to the fetters and submission to the inevitable is expressed with remarkable skill. There are also in Florence some unfinished figures belonging to this monument, namely a victor kneeling on a fallen foe, and four other figures, which are merely blocked out. About the time of the completion of this monument Michelangelo carved a striking bust of Brutus as the hero of liberty. Michelangelo regarded the freedom of his native city as lost after the second return of the Medici from exile and the assumption of the control of affairs by Alessandro and Cosmo de’ Medici. The sorrow this caused him suggested the bust of Brutus, and cast a shadow on the tombs of Giuliano and Lorenzo de’ Medici in the chapel spoken of above. The greater part of the work in the chapel, however, had been done before this time, and so the expression of embittered sorrow must be explained by the general depression of the artist not less than by his failure to realize his highest ideal, which also accounts for the gloom characteristic of his other creations.

Twelve figures included in the original design for the sepulchral monument of the Medici were never carved. According to Vasari’s arrangement in 1563, a seated figure of Giuliano is placed in an upper niche of one of the monuments, while symbolical figures representing Day and Night recline on a sarcophagus below. If Michelangelo’s words have been rightly understood, these symbolical figures are to be regarded as mourning for the untimely death of the duke, and as grieving that life for him had not been worth the living. “Not to see, nor to hear must be happiness for me,” are the words attributed to Night, which is represented as a giantess sunk in heavy and uneasy slumber, and symbolized by a mask, an owl, and a bunch of poppy-heads. The other allegorical figure, Day, a man, is represented as having no desire to rouse himself to action. The plan of the second monument is similar to that of the one just described; the figures of Evening and Dawn make the same impression as those of Night and Day. The two Medicean dukes are ideally treated as ancient warriors, rather than portrayed as in life. In the statue of Giuliano it is the superb modelling of the different parts that delights the eye; in the statue of Lorenzo the charm lies in the pose and the way in which the face is shadowed by the helmet. This figure of Lorenzo bears the name of Il Penseroso (the Meditative). Against the wall of the chapel stands the unfinished and really unsuccessful Madonna and Child; the pose of the Madonna is unique.

PAINTINGS

Michelangelo once said that he was no painter; on another occasion he declared he was no architect, but in reality he was both. About 1503 he painted a Holy Family, now in Florence in which the Madonna holds the Child over her shoulder to St. Joseph who stands behind. In this canvas Michelangelo departs from the traditional representation of the Holy Family, by the quaint grouping of nude figures in the background even more than by the entirely new pose of the Mother and Child. An “Entombment of Christ:, now in London, is unfinished. Like Leonardo da Vinci, the greatest painter of that period, Michelangelo made a large number of sketches. He also entered into competition with that famous artist by undertaking (1504) a battle-piece which was to adorn the wall opposite Leonardo’s “Battle of Anghiari” in the great council chamber of the palace of the Signory, called the Palazzo del Priori, and now the Town-hall of Florence. As Michelangelo just at this date entered the service of the popes, the cartoon he prepared was never carried out and is now lost. After years of disagreement with Julius II the painting of the Sistine Chapel was begun in 1508, and in 1512 the ceiling was uncovered. Michelangelo, who was not a fesco-painter, exerted all his powers of mind and body, abandoning his preference for the effects of sculpture in order to express without assistance and in defiance of the envious, the full ideal of his conceptions in this unwonted medium. Creation, the Fall, and the preparation for the coming of the Redeemer form the subject of the fresco. The painter first divided and enclosed the ceiling with painted architecture which formed a fame for the frescoes; the cornice for this frame on the broad side of the chapel is adorned with the figures of naked youths. The nine fields of the smooth vault contain the history of the sinful human race as far as Noe. Around the dome, between the lunettes, are vaulted triangular spaces or pendentives; in these are placed prophets and sibyls, together with boy-angels, all pointing to the approaching redemption. In the lunettes over the windows and in the vaulted triangular spaces over the lunettes are represented the ancestors of Christ. The subject, arrangement, and technical excellence of these frescoes have always excited the greatest admiration. The Divine, the prophetic, and the human are here most happily expressed; the conception of the first is original; the prophets and sibyls have wonderful individuality, and great skill is shown in handling the drapery, while human beings are represented in animated action. The architect created the beautiful division of the space and the exact proportions, the sculptor produced the anatomically correct figures, and the painter knew how to blend forms and colours into perfect harmony. After the completion of the work Michelangelo could no longer regret that it had been forced upon him against his will. Equally famous is the great fresco of the “Last Judgment” which he painted upon the altar-wall of the chapel (1535–41). In this fresco, however, the nudity of the figures aroused objection, and they have been painted over by various hands. The “Last Judgment” has been more blackened and disfigured by time than the painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

ARCHITECTURE

The commission given by Leo X for the rebuilding of the facade of the church of San Lorenzo, which has been already mentioned, ended in a bitter disappointment for Michelangelo. He produced very rapidly a fine design for the front and made the first preparations for the work. After four years (in 1520) the contract was rescinded without anything having been accomplished. However, the commission that Michelangelo received from Giulio de’ Medidi, afterwards Clement VII, for a mortuary chapel for the Medici family was not revoked, and the chapel was completed in 1524. It is a simple building surmounted by a dome. Its only purpose is to hold the monuments. Michelangelos design for the enlargement of San Giovanni de’ Fiorentini at Rome was never used. He also produced designs for the Piazza of the Campidoglio (Capitol) and the Porta Pia. It is a remarkable fact that the citizens of Florence in 1529 appointed him engineer-in-chief of the fortifications of the city. Of more importance was his appointment as chief architect for the reconstruction of St. Peter’s by Pope Paul III, after the death of Sangallo (1546). He held this position seventeen years. Michelangelo carried out, with some changes, Bramante’s plans for the new building and rejected those of Sangallo. His own work is notably the magnificent dome. He completed the drum, but not, however the upper dome. The clay model made by his own hands is still to be seen at the Vatican.

Death brought to an end a life filled with fame and success, but also replete with suffering and sorrow; a life on which a great genius made demands which could not be satisfied. The ambitions of Michelangelo were insatiable, not so much owing to his desire for renown, as to his almost gigantic striving after the absolute ideal of art. For this reason Michelangelo’s creations bear the stamp of his subjectivity and of his restless efforts to attain the loftiest ideals by new methods. He accomplished much that was extraordinary in three or four departments of art, but at the same time broke through many limitations prescribed by the laws of beauty in all arts, wilfully disregarding, at times, in his modelling of the human figure, even that fidelity to nature which he esteemed so highly. The way he pointed was dangerous, inasmuch as it led directly to extravagance, which, though perhaps endurable in Michelangelo obscured even the fame of Raphael; he swayed not only his own age, but succeeding generations.

Monographs by SUTHERLAND-GOWER , HOLYROD, STRUTT (London, 1903); THODE, “Michelangelo und das Ende der Renaissance” (1903, 1904); ROLLAND, “Michelange” (1905).

G. GIETMANN

Burchard of Basle

(Also of HASENBURG or ASUEL, from his ancestral castle in Western Berne, Switzerland).

Bishop of Basle in the eleventh century and a warm partisan of Henry IV (1056–1106). He belonged to the family of the counts of Neuenburg, or Neuchatel, was b. towards the middle of the eleventh century, and d. 12 April, 1107. Having entered the ecclesiastical state he was made Bishop of Basle (1072) by Henry IV; in recognition of this favour he was ever loyal to the king, and became one of his foremost advisers. In Henry’s first difficulties with the Saxons (1073–75) Burchard rendered him all possible assistance. When the conflict between the king and Pope Gregory VII (1073–85) broke out, Burchard was among the bishops who assembled at Worms (January, 1076), proclaimed the deposition of the pope, and wrote him an insulting letter. Together with Bishop Huzmann of Speyer he also went to Northern Italy for the purpose of inducing the Lombard bishops to take similar action with regard to the pope. In this he was successful; a synod was assembled at Piacenza, and the Lombard bishops renounced obedience to Gregory. For these rebellious acts Burchard was excommunicated and deposed by the pope in the Lenten synod of 1076; a similar sentence was inflicted on other bishops and on Burchard’s royal master. King Henry obtained absolution at Canossa in January, 1077; and Burchard, who accompanied him on the penitential pilgrimage, was reinstated in office.

During the civil war in 1077 and the following years, between Henry and his rival, Duke Rudolf of Suabia, raised to the throne by many princes, Burchard stood on the side of Henry, in whose interest he fought repeatedly, both against Rudolf and his supporter, Berthold of Zahringen. In 1078 Burchard and his friend suffered a crushing defeat, and he barely saved his life by precipitate flight. But the fortunes of war turned; Burchard and his partisans ravaged the country of Alemannia, or Suabia, the home of Rudolf and Berthold, and many cruelties were committed. Churches, sanctuaries, and perhaps monasteries as well were destroyed by the reckless and savage soldiery. But it all helped the cause of Henry and weakened that of his rival, who was finally vanquished and killed in 1080. Burchard was rewarded for his services with grants of land from Henry. It is not certain that he was present in the synod held at Brixen (Tyrol) in June, 1080, where the partisans of Henry again deposed Gregory VII and elected in his stead Wibert, Archbishop of Ravenna. He was with Henry, however, when the schismatic king took possession of Rome, 21 March, 1084, and it may be taken for granted that he assisted at the installation of the antipope Clement III (1084–1100) and at the imperial coronation of Henry, which events occurred on the 24th and 31st of March respectively. Shortly afterwards Burchard returned to Germany with his royal master.

Two synods were held there during the year 1085, in which Burchard, though not present, was directly concerned. The first, in the latter part of April, was held at Quedlinburg by the partisans of Gregory VII; it condemned all adversaries of the pope, including Bishop Burchard. Henry’s faction held its synod at Mainz in the early part of May; Pope Gregory and all the bishops loyal to him were deposed. For the next twenty years Burchard was less active in the cause of Henry, but he remained to the end loyal to his king. When Henry was hard pressed in Italy by his son Conrad, in rebellion since 1093, and other enemies, Burchard was one of the very few bishops of Germany, who brought him any comfort. In 1095 he appeared at the king’s court at Padua, and after Henry’s return to Germany he paid several other visits to the royal court. How much Henry counted on the loyalty of Burchard was made evident in a letter which the monarch wrote to the princes of the empire from Liege in the early part of the year 1106, shortly before his death. Henry besought the princes to accord him sufficient time to consult with the princes and bishops about the matters relating to his abdication or reconciliation with his rebellious son Henry V (1106–25), and among the bishops faithful to him he mentioned the name of Burchard of Basle.

Burchard, however, did not always remain an uncompromising adversary of the popes. After the death of Gregory VII, particularly after the election of Urban II (1088–99), his sentiments underwent a change. He sought a reconciliation with the Holy See; and in order to prove his interest in purely ecclesiastical and spiritual matters he became instrumental in the erection of several monasteries or other religious institutions. Among those founded by him may be mentioned the monastery of St. Alban in Basle, and chapterhouse of Grandis Vallis to the south of Basle, and the monastery of St. John, erected partly by his brother and partly by himself at Erlach in the neighbourhood of his ancestral castle. In spite of his attachment to Henry IV he died fully reconciled with the pope.

TROUILLAT, Monuments de l’histoire de l’ancien évéché de Bâle (Porrentruy, 1852); BLÖSCH, Zwei bernische Bischöfe in Berner Taschenbuch (Bern, 1881); GIESEBRECHT, Gesch. der deutschen Kaiserzeit (Leipzig, 1890), III; FIALA in Kirchenlex., II, 1514–19.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Burchard of Worms

Bishop of that see, b. of noble parents in Hesse, Germany, after the middle of the tenth century; d. 20 August, 1025. He received his education in Coblenz and other places, and ultimately entered the service of Archbishop Willigis of Mainz (975–1011), by whom he was ordained deacon. He rose gradually in ecclesiastical rank and was finally appointed by Willigis first chamberlain, and primate or judge of the city. In these offices he showed so much discretion and impartiality, that his reputation reached Emperor Otto III. During a personal interview with his imperial master (1000) he was appointed to the vacant Bishopric of Worms; a few days later he was advanced to the priesthood and the episcopal dignity by Willigis at Heiligenstadt. Thenceforth he laboured unceasingly for the temporal and spiritual welfare of his subjects. He rebuilt the walls of Worms and with the approval of Henry II tore down the stronghold of a certain Duke Otto, which served as a place of refuge to criminals and malefactors. Between 1023 and 1025 he promulgated a celebrated body of laws, the “Leges et Statuta familiae S. Petri Wormatiensis,” with the purpose of insuring the impartial administration of justice. (Boos, in Urkundenbuch der Stadt Worms, I, 1886; Weiland, in Mon. Ger. Hist.: Leges, IV, 1.) Many monasteries and churches were erected by him. On the site of the aforesaid Otto’s castle he built a monastery in honour of St. Paul; his sister Mathilda was placed in charge of a community of religious women, whose home was practically rebuilt; the cathedral of St. Peter at Worms was reconstructed and dedicated in 1016. He also devoted himself to the formation of ecclesiastical students in his cathedral school and to the instruction of ecclesiastics generally. To stimulate their zeal he would at times answer difficult questions submitted to him. The prevalent evils he tried to reform through visitations and synods.

For the sake of uniformity in all church matters he drew up a manual for the instruction and guidance of young ecclesiastics, this is his well-known “Collectarium canonum” or “Decretum” in twenty books, a compilation of ecclesiastical law and moral theology, drawn from previous similar collections, the penitential books, the writings of the Fathers, the decrees of councils and popes, and the Sacred Scriptures. For more than a century, until the publication of the “Decretum” of Gratian (c. 1150), this was a widely used practical guide of the clergy, often quoted as “Brocardus.” The nineteenth book, known as “Corrector, seu medicus,” was circulated frequently as a separate work and was esteemed as a practical confessor’s guide. (Von Scherer, Kirchenrecht, I, 238.) The work was undertaken at the suggestion of Brunicho, the provost of the Worms Cathedral, and was executed with the help of Bishop Walter of Speyer and Abbot Olbert of Gembloux (ed. Foucher, Paris, 1549; Migne, P.L., CXL, Paris, 1853). Burchard enjoyed the special esteem of his imperial masters. With Otto III he was on the most intimate terms; Henry II and Conrad II made visits to him in 1009 and 1025 respectively. Personally Burchard was a saintly man. His biographer, probably an ecclesiastic, praises his devotion to prayer, his mortification, his fairness and charity towards others.

Vita Burchardi Episcopi in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., IV; also in P.L. (Paris, 1853), CXL; GROSCH, Burchard I Bischof zu Worms (Jena, 1890); HAUCK, Kirchengesch. Deutschlands (Leipzig, 1896), III; VON SCHERER in Kirchenlex., II; HAUCK in HERZOG, Realencyc. (Leipzig, 1897); GIETL, Hist. Jahrb. (1895), XVI, 116–119; WATTENBACH, Deutschl. Geschichtsquellen (6th ed., 1893), I, 392; CONRAT, Gesch. d. Quellen des rom. Rechts im M. A., 1, 261.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

St. Burchard of Würzburg

First bishop of Würzburg, b. in England of Anglo-Saxon parents, date unknown; d. in Germany most probably in 754. After the death of his father and mother he left home to go as a missionary to Germany, being drawn to this life by the great reputation of his countryman, St. Boniface, to whom he offered himself as an assistant. As Boniface was at this time an archbishop it must have been after the year 732 that Burchard began missionary work on German soil. He soon showed himself a competent and zealous messenger of the Faith and was consecrated Bishop of the new See of Würzurg by St. Boniface when the latter erected the ecclesiastical hierarchy in the mission territory of Thuringia. The date is probably 741, for on 22 October, 741, Burchard and Witta of Buraburg took part as bishops in the consecration of St. Willibald as Bishop of Eichstatt. In a letter to St. Boniface, 1 April, 743, Pope Zachary confirmed the founding of the new diocese. But a year before this (April, 742) Burchard had been a member of the first German synod. He now devoted himself to spreading and confirming Christianity in the new bishopric. In the spring of 748 he went to Rome to make a report on the condition of the Church in Franconia and to submit various questions for decision. Burchard was held in high esteem by Pepin the Short. When the latter, in 749, appointed an embassy to lay before Pope Zachary the question who should be King of the Franks, he placed Burchard and Abbot Fulrad of St. Denis at its head. After his return from Rome Burchard was not able to continue his apostolic activity for any great space of time and died before St. Boniface. One of his successors, Hugo (984–990), had Burchard’s remains dug up and solemnly buried on 14 October. This day has remained the feast-day of the saint.

Vita S. Burchardi in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XV, 47–50 (unreliable account of ninth and tenth centuries); Vita S. Burchardi, in Acta S. S., Oct., IV, 575 sqq. (account of twelfth century); NURNBERGER, Aus der litterar. Hinterlassenschaft des hl. Bonifatius und des hl. Burchardus (Neisse, 1888); ULRICH, Der hl. Burchardus, erster Bischof von Würzburg (Würzburg, 1877); HAUCK, Kirchengesch. (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1898–1900), I, II, passim.

J.P. KIRSCH

Hans Burckmair

(Or Burgkmair).

A painter of the Swabian school, b. at Augsburg in 1473; d. in 1531. He was the son of Toman, or Thomas Burckmair, and received his first lessons in are from his father, then went, it appears, to Schongauer in Alsace, and afterwards to Italy. In company with the elder Holbein he painted, between the years 1501 and 1504, the seven great churches of Rome on panels in the monastery if St. Catherine of Augsburg. To Burckmair belong, among these, the basilica of St. Peter, the basilica of the Lateran, and the church of Santa Croce. The building itself is represented in the main compartment of each picture; above are, respectively, Christ’s prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, the Scourging, and the Crucifixion. Following the titles of the churches there are, in the first picture, St. Peter, enthroned and accompanied by the Fourteen Holy Martyrs; in the second, the legend of St. John the Evangelist, and in the third, the martyrdom of the Eleven Thousand Virgins. Several fine figures in the paintings show Italian influence. Not much later in date is the painting of Christ and the Blessed Virgin, the latter wearing a crown; most charming figures of angels and three groups of saints are depicted on the wings as surrounding the central personages. The pictures just mentioned are in Augsburg. Among the Madonnas at Nuremburg, the Madonna with the bunch of grapes is especially admired. An attractive genre picture with a background of harmonious tone that brings out the effect is the Holy Family in the Berlin Museum.

The best of Burckmair’s later panel pictures are: the Crucifixion, with St. George and the Emperor Heinrich on the wings, painted in 1519 and now at Augsburg; St. John in Patmos, and Esther before Assuerus, painted in 1528 (these two at Munich). Several portraits still exist which Burckmair painted in the later years of his life. Among these is one of the artist himself and his wife, painted in 1529, now at Vienna. In this picture his wife holds a mirror in her hand in which two skulls are reflected.

A woodcut of earlier date (1510) resembles a picture from a Dance of Death. In this engraving Death stops a pair of lovers, throws the youth down, and strangles him; at the same time he seizes with his teeth the dress of the young woman, who is fleeing. The woodcuts that Burckmair produced in the middle part of his career (1510–19), at the command of Emperor Maximilian, possess unusual merit. Only one of them, or, at most, very few were inserted in the emperor’s Prayer Book. For the other books concerned with Maximilian or his ancestors Burckmair’s work was as follows: for the “Osterreichische Heiligen” (Austrian Saints) Burckmair made 124 engravings on wood; for “Teuerdank” 12; for “The Triumph” over 60; for the “Weiszkunig” more than 200; he finally completed the “Genealogie” with some 70 illustrations. As an example of his decorative work may be mentioned the adornments, which are full of imaginative power, in the so-called “Damenhof” of the house of the Fugger family at Augsburg. Under the influence of Italian art Burckmair modified the old realistic method of treating a subject, gradually replaced Gothic architecture in his work by that of the Renaissance, substituted colour for gold in painting, and developed the use of landscape as a background.

JANITSCHEK, Geschichte der deutschen Malerai (Berlin, 1890); HUBER in Zeitschrift des hist. Vereins für Schwaben, I, Parts II, III; MUTHER in Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, XIX; IDEM in Repertorium für Kunstwissenshaft, IX.

G. GEITMANN

Edward Ambrose Burgis

A Dominican historian and theologian, b. in England c. 1673; d. in Brussels, 27 April, 1747. When a young man he left the Church of England, of which his father was a minister, and became a Catholic, joining the Dominican Order at Rome, where he passed his noviceship in the convent of Sts. John and Paul on the Coelian Hill, then occupied by the English Dominicans. After his religious profession (1696) he was sent to Naples to the Dominican school of St. Thomas, where he displayed unusual mental ability. Upon the completion of his studies he was sent to Louvain, where for nearly thirty years he taught philosophy, theology, Sacred Scripture, and church history in the College of St. Thomas, established in 1697 for the Dominicans of England through the bequest of Cardinal Thomas Howard, O.P. He was the rector of the college from 1715 to 1720 and again from 1724 to 1730. In the latter year he was elected to the office of provincial; in 1741 he became Prior of the English Dominican convent at Bornhem, and in 1746 he was appointed Vicar-General of the English Dominicans in Belgium. He published a number of pamphlets of considerable merit containing theses written in Latin on Scriptural, theological, and historical subjects. But it was as a writer of English that he excelled, especially along historical lines; his style is easy and pleasing, and he is accurate in his statements. In 1712 he published in London “The Annals of the Church,” a volume embracing the period from A.D. 34 to 300. As stated in the preface it was his intention to bring the annals down to his own time in a work of nine volumes, but he abandoned this plan, rewrote the first period and published “The Annals of the Church from the Death of Christ,” in five octavo volumes (London, 1738), the first work of the kind written in English by Catholic or Protestant. The book entitles “An Introduction to the Catholic Faith,” by Father Thomas Worthington, O.P. (London, 1709), was completed by Father Burgis, although his name does not appear in connection with it.

Palmer, Obituary Notices O.S.D. (London, 1884); Olliver, Collections.

A.L. MCMAHON

Francisco Burgoa

Born at Oaxaca about 1600; d. at Teopozotlan in 1681. He entered the Dominican Order 2 August, 1629, and soon became master in theology. The voluminous books written by him on the past of his native Mexican State, Oaxaca, are very rare. They are valuable, though not absolutely reliable on several topics. He was curate of several Indian parishes and his knowledge of the Indian languages, the Zapotec and Mixteco, is stated to have been very thorough. In 1649 he became Provincial of the Province of San Hipólito and took part in the chapter general of his order at Rome, 1656. Returning to Mexico with the title of vicar-general, a member of the Inquisition of Spain, and Commissary and Inspector of Libraries of New Spain (Mexico), he again became Provincial of Oaxaca in 1662. He was interested in several ecclesiastical foundations and improvements, and highly respected at the time of his death. The two historical and geographical works through which he is best known are the “Palestra histórica, ó Historia de la Provincia de San Hipólito de Oaxaca, de la Orden de Predicadores” (Mexico, 1670), and the “Descripción geográfica de la Am´rica setentrional” etc. (Mexico, 1674). He published a number of sermons and also wrote “Itinerario de Oaxaca á Roma y de Roma a Oaxaca,” which is still in manuscript.

Pinelo, Epitome de la biblioteca oriental y occidental (Madrid, 1737); Antonio, Bibliotheca hispana nova (Madrid, 1733–38); Eguiara, Biblioteca mexicana (Mexico, 1755); Beristain, Biblioteca hispano-americana etc. (Amecameca, 1883); Brasseur de Bourbourg, Bibl. mexico-guatemalienne (Paris, 1871).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Archdiocese of Burgos

(BURGENSIS)

The Archdiocese of Burgos (from burgi, burgorum, signifying a consolidation of districts or small villages) has been since the tenth century an episcopal see of Spain, to which in the eleventh century the ancient Sees of Oca and Valpuesta were transferred. In 1574 Gregory XIII raised it to metropolitan rank, at the request of Philip II. The archdiocese now (Concordat of 1851) comprises almost the entire province of Burgos. Its suffragans are: Calahorra (Logroño), El Burgo de Osma, Palencia, Santander, Leon, and Vitoria. Its area is approximately 8694 square miles, with a population of 340,000. The diocese is divided into 1220 parishes, which form forty-seven vicariates.

PHYSICAL FEATURES

The northern and eastern portion of the diocese is mountainous, thickly wooded, and traversed by rivers, among which is the Ebro, which rises in the mountains and serves as the eastern boundary for Miranda. The Arlanza which crosses the diocese from east to west flows by Salas de los Infantes, near the famous monastery of Silos, and through the centre of the well-known town of Lerma. The mountainous region is unproductive of cereals, but fruits grow in abundance, and fine pasture-lands sustain great herds of cows and sheep, which furnish excellent meat and milk. Delicate cheeses which take their name from the city and are famous throughout Spain, are made in this section. Minerals are abundant, especially sulphate of soda, common salt, iron, and hard coal. The southern part of the diocese, especially the valley and plains, is fertile and produces abundantly vegetables, cereals, and quite a quantity of wind. The climate, cold but healthy, is damp towards the north. Although this section has few industries, the transportation of its fruit and minerals is greatly facilitated by the numerous highways and by the railroad between Madrid and France which crosses the eastern side of the diocese from south to north. There are also some secondary railway lines for the operation of the mines.

RELIGIOUS EDIFICES

Burgos possesses more religious monuments than any other Spanish diocese, not even excepting Toledo—evidences of the piety of the counts and kings of Castile and Leon. In addition to the collegiate churches of Lerma, Villadiego, Plampiega, Palenzuela, Cobarrubias, and others, there are in Burgos alone many magnificent buildings. The cathedral, which its chapel of the Condestable, the monastery of Las Huelgas, and the Carthusian monastery of Miraflores, are museums of really permanent value.

THE CATHEDRAL

As an architectural monument this structure displays the best features of the art of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. It was commenced by Bishop Mauritius in 1221, in the reign of Ferdinand III and Beatrice of Swabia, and is Gothic in style. the principal façade, Santa María la Mayor, faces west, and on either side rise two towers about 262 feet in height, terminating in octagonal spires covered with open stonework traceries. The façade is composed of three stories, or sections. The first, or ground story has three ogival entrances with rectangular openings; the second has a gallery enclosed by a pinnacled balustrade and a rose window as delicately carved as a piece of lace, which admits some light into the church. In the upper-most story there are two double-arched windows of ogival style, with eight intercolumnar spaces, in each of which there is a statue on a pedestal. The whole is finished with a balustrade of letters carved in stone and forming the inscription: Pulchra es et decora (Thou art beautiful and graceful), in the centre of which is a statue of the Blessed Virgin. In the lateral sections (the towers) the windows are enclosed by stone balustrades, and the top is surmounted by balconies of stone surrounded by balustrades formed of Gothic letters in various inscriptions; needle-pointed pinnacles finish the four corners. The spires, as already said, are octagonal in shape; a gallery runs around the eight sides near the top, upon which rest the graceful points of the conical finial.

The north portal is known as the portada de la Coronería. In the lower portion of this are statues of the Twelve Apostles, the windows in the central section being of the primitive ogival style, and in the upper story there are three double-arched windows with statues joined to the shafts of the columns; two small spires, conical in shape like the main ones and decorated with balustrades, rise on either side of this façade. From the portal of the Coronería one can descend to that of the Pellerjería, which faces east and is of the Renaissance style known as the Plateresque. It is divided into three sections, the two end ones being alike, with the centre different in style and dimensions. The former are composed of pilasters minutely carved, between which four statues are placed. The middle section, which serves for an entrance, has three alabaster pilasters, the intercolumnar spaces bearing panel-pictures representing the martyrdom of saints. The façade as a whole gives the impression of a gorgeous picture, and the ornate and fantastic devices sculptured all over its magnificent surface are simply innumerable.

The octagonal chapel of the Condestable, of florid Gothic and very pure in design, is the best of the many chapels of the cathedral. Its roof if finished with balustraded turrets, needle-pointed pinnacles, statues, and countless other sculptural devices. In the lower portion coats of arms, shields, and crouching lions have been worked into the ensemble. The exterior of the sacristy is decorated with carved traceries, figures of angels and armoured knights. The tabernacle is of extraordinary magnificence and is composed of two octagonal sections in Corinthian style.

LAS HUELGAS

Next to the cathedral in magnificence is the famous Monasterio de las Huelgas on the outskirts of the city. It dates from the year 1180, and architecturally belongs to the transition period from Byzantine to Gothic, although in the course of time almost every style has been introduced into it. This convent has two remarkable cloisters, one a very fine example of the earlier period and of the use of semi-circular arches and delicate and varied columns; the other of the ogival style of the transition period. The interior of the church is in the style of the latter, enormous columns supporting its magnificent vault; the entrance is modern. This convent is celebrated for the extraordinary privileges granted to its abbess by kings and popes.

MIRAFLORES

The Carthusian monastery of Miraflores, celebrated for the strict observance of its rule, is situated about one mile from the city. A very beautiful and life-like statue of St. Bruno carved in wood is one of the treasures of the monastery; the stalls in the church also display exquisite workmanship. The mausoleum of King John II and of his wife Isabel, in this monastery, is constructed of the finest marble and so delicately carved that portions seem to be sculptured in wax rather than stone. Around the top are beautiful statues of angels in miniature, which might be the work of Phidias. The French soldiers in the War of Independence (1814) mutilated this beautiful work, cutting off some of the heads and carrying them away to France.

CELEBRATED CHURCHES

Burgos has other important churches. That of Santa Agueda, commonly called Santa Gadea, is chiefly celebrated for its antiquity and for the historic fact that it was in this church that Alfonso VI, in the presence of the famous Cid Campeador (Rodrigo Díaz del Vivar), swore that he had taken no part in the death of his brother the king, Don Sancho, assassinated in the Cerco de Zamora. without this oath he never would have been allowed to succeed to the royal crown of Castile. In this church also the Augustinian friar, St. Juan de Sahagun, was wont to preach, hear confessions, and give missions, after he had renounced the canonry and other ecclesiastical benefices which he held in that diocese. Among the other notable churches are: San Esteban, San Gil (Sancti Aegidii), San Pedro, San Cosme y San Damian, Santiago (Sancti Jacobi), San Lorenzo, and San Lesmes (Adelelmi). The Convento de la Merced, occupied by the Jesuits, and the Hospital del Rey are also worthy of mention. In the walls of the city are the famous gateway of Santa María, erected for the first entrance of the Emperor Charles V, and the arch of Fernán González. The diocese has two fine ecclesiastical seminaries. There are also many institutions for secular education. Schools are maintained in every diocese, the Instituto Provincial, and many colleges are conducted by private individuals, religious orders, and nuns both cloistered and uncloistered.

HISTORY OF BURGOS

When the Romans took possession of what is now the province of Burgos it was inhabited by the Morgobos, Turmodigos, Berones, and perhaps also the Pelendones, the last inhabitants of the northern part of the Celtiberian province. the principal cities, according to Ptolemy, were: Brabum, Sisara, Deobrigula, Ambisna Segiasamon, Verovesca (briviesca), and others. In the time of the Romans it belonged to Hither Spain (Hispania Citerior) and afterwards to the Tarragonese province. The Arabs occupied all of Castile, though only for a brief period, and left no trace of their occupation. Alfonso (III) the Great reconquered it about the middle of the ninth century, and built many castles for the defence of the Christians, then extending their dominion and reconquering the lost territory. In this way the region came to be known as Castilla (Lat. castella), i.e. “land of castles.” Don Diego, Count of Porcelos, was entrusted with the government of this territory, and commanded to promote the increase of the Christian population. with this end in view he gathered the inhabitants of the surrounding country into one village, which took the name of Burgos, or burgi. The city thus bounded began to be called Caput Castellae. The territory (condado), subject to the Kings of Leon, continued to be governed by counts and was gradually extended by victories over the Moors, until the time of Fernán González, the greatest of these rulers, when it became independent; it later on took the name of the Kingdom of Castile, being sometimes united with Navarre and sometimes with Leon. In the reign of St. Ferdinand III (c. 1200–52), Leon and Castile were definitely united, but they continued to be called respectively the Kingdom of Leon and the Kingdom of Castile until the nineteenth century. This district has been the scene of many and varied events: the wars with the Arabs, the struggles between Leon and Navarre, and between Castile and Aragon, the War of Independence against France, and the civil wars of the Spanish succession.

COUNCILS

Some important councils have been held in Burgos. A national council took place there in 1078, although opinions differ as to date (the “Boletín de la Academia de la Historia de Madrid,” 1906, XLIX, 337, says 1080). This was presided over by the papal delegate, Cardinal Roberto and attended by Alfonso VI, and was convoked for the purpose of introducing into Spain the Roman Breviary and Missal instead of the Gothic, or Mozarabic, then in use. Another national council, presided over by Cardinal Boso (d. 1181), also papal delegate, settled questions of discipline and established diocesan rights and limits. The proceedings of this council remained unpublished until quite recently, when they were made known in the Boletín already mentioned (XLVIII) 395). In 1898 a provincial council was called by Archbishop (no Cardinal) Don Fr. Gregorio Aguirre, in which the obligations of the clergy and the faithful were most minutely set forth.

SAINTS OF BURGOS

St. Julian, Bishop of Cuenca, called the Almoner, because of his great charity to the poor, was born in Burgos; also St. Amaro the Pilgrim, who has always had a special cult paid to him in Burgos, though not found in the Roman Martyrology. St. Iñigo (Enecus or Ignatius), abbot of Oña, while not born in Burgos, laboured there for many years; also St. Domingo de Silos, abbot and reformer of the famous convent of Silos, and St. Juan de Sahagún, a native of that town in the province of Leon. Among its saints may also be mentioned the martyrs of Cardeña, a religious of the convent of the same name, who in the tenth century were put to death for the Faith by the Arab soldiers of the Emir of Cordova in one of their numerous invasions of Castile; and St. Casilda, daughter of one of the Moorish kings of Toledo. She was converted near Burgos whither she had gone with her father’s consent to drink the water of some medicinal springs. She built a hermitage and died a saintly death.

FAMOUS BISHOPS AND CITIZENS

In the long line of bishops and archbishops the following deserve special mention: Pablo de Santa María (1396–1456), a converted rabbi, preceptor and counsellor of John II; his son and successor (1435–56) Alfonso (de Cartagena), one of the most learned members of the Council of Basle and to whom is owing the erection of the Chapel del Condestable by Juan de Colonia, a German architect who accompanied him to Spain; Cardinal Inigo López de Mendoza y Zuniga, brother of the Count of Peñaranda, Duke of Miranda, who in 1535 convoked a synod; the Cardinal Archbishop de Pacheco, in whose time Burgos was raised to the dignity of an archiepiscopal see; and Archbishop Don Fr. Gregorio Aguirre, also administrator of the See of Calahorra.

Among the famous laymen, the name of Rodrigo Díaz del Vivar (d. 1099), the Cid Campeador, naturally stands pre-eminent. He was the hero of his time, and the man most feared by the Mohammedans, whom he defeated in innumerable encounters. He is buried in Burgos, in the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña. Don Ramón Bonifaz was according to some authorities a native of Burgos, but in any event he lived there. St. Ferdinand entrusted to him the task of forming the Spanish squadron with which he established and maintained communication with the troops who were besieging Seville, and prevented the Moors from communicating with the city. One of his fleets destroyed the bridge by which the Moors had access to the outside world and received provisions; this brought about the surrender (1248) of the city of Seville to the Christians, led by St. Ferdinand himself.

Burgos has produced many men of letters. The bibliography, published (1889) by Don Manuel Martínez Añibarro under the title “Diccionario Biográfico y Bibliográfico de Burgos,” forms a small folio volume of 570 pages. Among the most distinguished writers are Archbishop Pablo de Santa María who wrote “Scrutinium Scripturarum” (Mantua, 1474) against the Jews. the aforesaid Don Alonso de Cartagena, his son, author of various works; the learned Augustinian friar Enrique Flórez, author of the famous works, “La España Sagrada” (1743–75, 29 vols., continued by others to 1886, 51 vols.), “Memorias de las Reynas” (1762), “Medallas Antiguas” (1757–73), and many others. His statue was erected in his native town of Villadiego by popular subscription.

Among the several newspapers published at Burgos “El Castellano” and “El Boletín Eclesiástico” are under the direction of the archbishop.

FLÓREZ, La España Sagrada (1743–1886); GIL DÁVILA, Teatro de las Iglesias de España; VENERO, Historia de la Ciudad de Burgos; CANTÓN, Memorias para la Historia de Burgos; CUADRADO, Descripciones de España; SALVA, Burgos á Vuela Pluma; STREET, Gothic Architecture in Spain.

TIRSO LÓPEZ

Burgundy

(Lat. Burgundia, Ger. Burgund, Fr. Bourgogne).

In medieval times respectively a kingdom and a duchy, later a province of France (to 1789), and now represented mostly by the departments of Ain, Saône-et-Loire, Côte-d’Or, and Yonne. It has nearly 2,000,000 inhabitants, and is famous for its diversified scenery, its rich wines, its rivers and canals, varied industries, mineral wealth, and many prosperous cities. In the fifth century a Germanic tribe, the Burgundi or Burgundiones, conquered from the Romans the fertile basins of the Rhone, the Saône, and the Loire, but were unable to maintain their sovereignty (Lyons, Geneva, Vienne) which in the next century they lost (534) to the Frankish successors of Clovis [Binding, “Das burgundisch-romanische Königreich von 443–532,” Leipzig, 1868; Drapeyron, “Du rôle de la Bourgogne sous les Mérovingiens” in “Mém. lus à la Sorbonne,” 1866, 29–42; B. Hauréau, “L’Eglise et l’Etat sous les premiers rois de Bourgogne” in “Mém. de l’Acad. des inscriptions et belles-lettres,” Paris, 1867, XXVI (1), 137–172]. In the latter quarter of the ninth century this territory again acquired independence, first as the short-lived Kingdom of Arles, and then as the dual Kingdom of North and South (or Lesser) Burgundy, the latter including Provence or the lands between Lyons and the sea, while the former took in, roughly speaking, the territory north of Lyons, now divided between France and Switzerland. These kingdoms, known as Transjurane and Cisjurane Burgundy, were reunited (935) under Rudolf II. The independence of this “middle kingdom,” the medieval counterpart of modern Switzerland, was short-lived, for in 1038 Emperor Conrad II obtained the crown of Burgundy for his son (later Emperor) Henry III. For two centuries German influence was uppermost in the counsels of the Burgundian rulers, but little by little the growing prestige and power of neighbouring France asserted themselves, beginning with the annexation of Lyons by Philip the Fair in 1310 and ending with that of Savoy and Nice in 1860. During this time, in language, laws, and institutions Burgundy became regularly more closely assimilated to France, and finally an integral part of that nation when, on the death of Charles the Bold (1477), Louis XI incorporated with France the Duchy of Burgundy and extinguished thereby, in favour of the royal prerogative, one of the most important fiefs of the French Crown (G. Hüffer, “Das Verhältniss des Königreichs Burgund zu Kaiser und Reich, besonders unter Friedrich I,” Paderborn, 1874; Reese, “Die staatsrechtliche Stellung der Bischöfe Burgunds und Italiens under Kaiser Friedrich I,” Göttingen, 1885; cf. André Du Chesne, “Hist. des rois, ducs, et comtes de Bourgogne et d’Arles,” Paris, 1619; de Camps, “De la souveraineté de la couronne de France sur les royaumes de Bourgogne Transjurane et d’Arles,” in “Mercure de France,” April, 1723; von Bertouch, “Burgund als Scheidewand zwischen Deutschland und Frankreich, eine historisch-politische Frage,” Wiesbaden, 1885).

The medieval political vicissitudes of the Kingdom of Burgundy are accurately outlined in E. Freeman, “Historical Geography of Europe” (ed. Bury, London, 1903), passim. The following passage from that work (pp. 258–259) exhibits in a brief but philosophic way the political vicissitudes and rôle of medieval Burgundy:

The Burgundian Kingdom, which was united with those of Germany and Italy after the death of its last separate king, Rudolf the Third [1032], has had a fate unlike that of any other part of Europe. Its memory, as a separate state, has gradually died out. The greater part of its territory has been swallowed up, bit by bit, by a neighbouring power, and the small part which has escaped that fate has long lost all trace of its original name or its original political relations. By a long series of annexations, spreading over more than five hundred years, the greater part of the kingdom has gradually been incorporated with France. Of what remains, a small corner forms part of the modern Kingdom of Italy, while the rest still keeps its independence in the form of the commonwealths which make up the western cantons of Switzerland. These cantons, in fact, are the truest modern representatives of the Burgundian Kingdom. And it is on the confederation of which they form a part, interposed as it is between France, Italy, the new German Empire, and the modern Austrian Monarchy, as a central state with a guaranteed neutrality, that some trace of the old function of Burgundy, as the middle kingdom, is thrown. This function it shares with the Lotharingian lands at the other end of the empire, which now form part of the equally neutral Kingdom of Belgium, lands which, oddly enough, themselves became Burgundian in another sense.

The present article deals chiefly with Northern Burgundy since the middle of the fourteenth century, and may serve as an introduction to the articles on BELGIUM and the NETHERLANDS.

STATES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGUNDY

The formation of the Burgundian State from which sprang the two kingdoms of Belgium and the Netherlands, is an historical phenomenon of intense interest. The Duchy of Burgundy was one of the fiefs of the French Crown. Made vacant in 1361 by the death of Philippe de Rouvre, the last of the older line of dukes, it was presented by John II, King of France, to his son Philip the Bold who, at the age of fourteen, had fought so valiantly at his father’s side in the battle of Poitiers. In 1369, as the result of the negotiations with his brother, King Charles V, Philip married Marguerite de Male, widow of his predecessor and sole heir to the countship of Flanders, thereby acquiring that magnificent domain including the cities of Antwerp and Mechlin and the countships of Nevers and Rathel, not to mention the countships of Artois and Burgundy to be inherited from his wife’s grandmother. He thus became the most powerful feudary of the Kingdom of France. To be sure he had to conquer Flanders by dint of arms, as the people of Ghent, who had rebelled against the late count, Louis de Male, had no intention of submitting to his heir. But Philip had the armies of his nephew, King Charles VI, march against them and they lost the battle of Roosebeke (1382); then, after continuing the struggle for two years longer, they were finally obliged to submit in 1385. The Peace of Tournai put Philip in possession of his countship, yet he was not satisfied and, through adroit negotiations, he succeeded in securing foothold for his family in most of the other Netherland territories. By the marriage of his daughter Margaret with Count William of Hainault, proprietor of the countships of Hainault, Holland, and Zealand, Philip provided for the annexation of these three domains. Moreover, he obtained for his wife, Margaret, the inheritance of her widowed and childless aunt, Jane, Duchess of Brabant and Limburg, and gave it to Anthony, his youngest son, whilst the eldest, John the Fearless, was made heir to his other states (1404). But John the Fearless did nothing great for the Netherlands, being better known for his ardent participation in the troubles that disturbed the Kingdom of France during the reign of the deranged King Charles VI. After assassinating Louis of Orleans, the king’s brother, John himself perished at the Bridge of Montereau during his famous interview with the Dauphin, being dispatched by the latter’s followers (1414). The first two Dukes of Burgundy who reigned in the Netherlands were pre-eminently French princes and bent upon preserving and augmenting the prestige they enjoyed in France as princes of the blood royal. On the other hand, their two successors were essentially Belgian princes whose chief aim was the extension of their domains and whose policy was distinctly anti-French. Of course the assassination at Montereau, by setting them at variance with the French Crown, had helped to bring this change about, but it would have taken place in any event. To avenge his father, Philip the Good allied himself with the English to whom he rendered valuable services, especially by delivering to them Joan of Arc, made prisoner by his troops at Compiègne. When, in 1435, he at length became reconciled to the king by the treaty of Arras, it was on condition of being dispensed from all vassalage and of receiving the cities along the River Somme. At this price he agreed to help the king against his own former allies and participated in the unsuccessful siege of Calais (1436).

EFFECTS OF PHILIP’S RULE

The chief work of Philip the Good was to reunite under his authority most of the Netherland provinces. In 1421 he purchased the countship of Namur from John III, its last incumbent. In 1430 he became Duke of Brabant and Limburg as heir of his first cousin, Philip of Saint-Pol, son of Duke Anthony; in 1428 he constrained his cousin Jacqueline of Bavaria, Countess of Hainault, Holland, and Zealand, and Lady of Friesland, to recognize him as her heir, and even during her lifetime, in 1433, he obliged her to relinquish this inheritance. Finally, in 1444, he purchased the claims of Elizabeth of Gorlitz to the Duchy of Luxemburg, thus owning all of modern Belgium except the principality of Liège, all the western provinces of the present Kingdom of the Netherlands, and several French provinces. However, this did not suffice and he managed to place his bastards in the episcopal Sees of Cambrai and Utrecht and his nephew in that of Liège. Victorious over all his enemies, among whom was the King of France, in 1437 he held out against the Emperor Sigismund who tried in vain to re-establish the dependency of the Netherlands upon the empire. On two different occasions in 1447 and 1463, he importuned the Emperor Frederick III to give him the title of king, but the attempts failed. Nevertheless, under the title of “Grand Duke of the West” he won the admiration of his contemporaries and was the richest and most powerful sovereign in Europe. It was he whom Pope Nicholas V wished to place at the head of the new crusade he was planning, and during a sumptuous feast at which he made the celebrated voeu du faisan, Philip promised to take the cross. But the crusade did not take place. Being master of so many provinces, Philip wished to unite them under a central government, but this was not easy of accomplishment. Each of them considered itself a self-governing State, independent of all the others and living its own life; moreover, the large cities of Flanders also claimed to be separate commonwealths and tried to escape centralization. Despite his entreaties, Ghent forsook the duke at the siege of Calais in 1436; in 1438 Bruges was the scene of a revolt where he was nearly made prisoner; and in 1451 Ghent revolted. But the duke overcame all these obstacles to his ambition and, through his victory of Gavre in 1453; obtained possession of the commune of Ghent, the most intractable of all. The people of Liège were now the only ones who resisted him, but in 1465 he conquered them at Montenaeken and imposed upon them very severe conditions. A twelvemonth later he destroyed the city of Dinant. During his last years Philip’s faculties became impaired and Louis XI of France not only made trouble between him and his son but even influenced the duke into giving up the cities of the Somme. However, in 1465 Philip became reconciled to his son, Charles, and confided to him the administration of affairs, dying 15 June, 1467. A shrewd man and cunning politician, Philip was likewise ostentatious, irascible, and licentious. The splendour of his court was unequalled, and the founding of the Order of the Golden Fleece at Bruges in 1430, on the occasion of his third marriage, this time with Isabella of Portugal, marks, to some extent, the culmination of the luxury of the time.

CHARLES THE BOLD

Inheriting neither the astuteness nor the vices of his father, Charles the Bold was industrious, eager for justice, and irreproachable in his private life; but his boldness amounted to rashness and his ability was not at all commensurate with his unbounded ambition. In his earlier years all was well. During his father’s lifetime he placed himself at the head of the “League of the Public Weal” which gathered about him the French lords who were unfavourably disposed toward Louis XI. Charles was victorious over Louis at Montlhéry, after which triumph the Peace of Conflans (1465) gave him the cities of the Somme. He humbled the cities of Ghent and Mechlin for having dared to oppose him, fought the people of Liège at Brusthem, and deprived them of their freedom. King Louis XI, who strove to combat the duke by dint of intrigue, was destined to become the victim of his own trickery. While he was visiting Charles in Peronne, the latter sovereign learned that the people of Liège were again in revolt, having been excited thereto by the king’s agents. Furious at this intelligence, he kept Louis prisoner and forced him to accompany him to Liège where the wretched monarch witnessed the total destruction of the unfortunate city to which he had promised assistance (1468). Although the conqueror of all his enemies Charles still entertained mighty projects, and in 1469 he obtained the possession of the landgraviate of Alsace and the county of Ferrette (Pfirt) as security for a loan made to Sigismund. He prevailed upon Duke Arnoul to sell him the Duchy of Guelderland, the duke being at war with his son Adolphus (1472). He then marched against the King of France, but was stopped before the walls of Beauvais by the heroic resistance of its citizens (1472) and made to sign the truce of Senlis. Nor was he any more successful in his attempt to obtain a king’s crown from the Emperor Frederick III, to whose son, Maximilian, he had promised the hand of his own daughter, Mary. Later, however, the emperor and the duke met at Trier for the approaching coronation, when the emperor, whom the agents of Louis XI had succeeded in alarming, hastily disappeared. At the same time Louis stirred up further hostilities against Charles on the Upper Rhine where a confederacy, including the Alsatian villages and Swiss cantons was already plotting against him. Meanwhile Charles had been wasting his troops on the tedious, fruitless siege of the little city of Neuss on the Rhine, and was therefore in no condition to rejoin his ally, Edward IV of England, who had just landed in France. In order to have full sway along the Rhine he signed the truce of Soluvre (1475) with Louis XI and profited by it to take possession of Lorraine, which till then had separated his Burgundian domains from those of the Netherlands (provinces de par deça). He then advanced upon the Swiss who defeated him most mercilessly at Granson and Morat and fairly annihilated his army. René, the young Duke of Lorraine, recovered his country and when Charles afterwards laid siege to Nancy, its capital city, he lost courage, and betrayed by one of his own hirelings, was defeated and killed in a sortie. The next day his frozen corpse was found in a pond, having been half devoured by wolves (5 January, 1477).

MARY AND THE “GREAT PRIVILEGE”

This catastrophe left the Burgundian estates in a most critical condition. The sole heir to all these provinces, Mary of Burgundy, who was then barely twenty years old, beheld storms gathering both within and without. The King of France seized the Duchy of Burgundy as a male fief of the Crown and also the cities of the Somme and held up the other provinces to tempt the cupidity of neighbouring princes. The large cities of Flanders roused by Louis’ confederates, grew restless and the States-General, convened in February, 1477, obliged the young duchess to grant the “Great Privilege.” This famous act was a violent reaction not only against the despotical tendencies of the preceding governments, but also against all their work of unification; it destroyed central institutions and reduced the Burgundian States to nothing but a sort of federation of provinces combined under the regime of personal union. Not content with this, the people of Ghent brought to the scaffold Hugonet and d’Humbercourt, Mary’s two faithful counsellors, whom they looked upon as representatives of the deceased duke’s absolutist regime. Satisfied that the country was sufficiently weakened and disorganized, Louis XI threw off the mask and ordered his army into Artois and Hainault. The imminence of danger seemed to revive a spirit of loyalty in the Burgundian provinces and the marriage of Mary and Maximilian of Habsburg, son of Frederick III, was hastened. This marriage saved the inheritance of the young princess but, as we shall see, it resulted in thereafter making the Netherlands dependent upon foreign dynasties. Meanwhile Maximilian vigorously repulsed the French in the battle of Guinegate (1479). Unfortunately Mary of Burgundy died in 1482 from injuries sustained in a fall from her horse, and Maximilian’s claim to the right of governing the provinces in the capacity of regent during the minority of his son Philip, roused the indignation of the States-General, which were led by the three large Flemish cities of Ghent, Bruges, and Ypres. Duped by Louis XI they concluded with him the second Peace of Arras (1482) which gave the hand of their Princess Margaret to the Dauphin, with Artois and Burgundy for her dower, and Maximilian was deprived of his children who were provided with a regency council. This was the origin of a desparate struggle between himself and the States-General during which he was made prisoner by the people of Bruges, and it was with the greatest difficulty that he obtained his freedom. Immediately upon his release he began again to contend with the States, which eventually were obliged to submit to his power (1492), and the treaty of Senlis with France restored Artois to Maximilian with his daughter Margaret (1493). In this same year Maximilian became emperor and liberated his son Philip who assumed the government of the Netherlands.

PHILIP THE HANDSOME

The reign of Philip the Handsome, which lasted thirteen years, promised Belgium an era of self-government and independence, but his marriage with Joanna of Castile only paved the way for its dependence on a foreign sovereign as, on the death of the son of Ferdinand the Catholic and Isabella, it was Philip who, in the name of his wife, became King of Castile. However, he died in 1506 and as his father-in-law, Ferdinand, soon followed him to the tomb, it was Charles, son of Philip the Handsome, who inherited all the great Spanish monarchy “on which the sun never set,” the Netherlands being thenceforth only a dependency of his chief kingdom. But at first this was not noticeable. Charles, who was also the emperor (with the title of Charles V), travelled much and paid frequent visits to the Netherlands, showing a special predilection for his Flemish fellow-countrymen and knowing how to make himself popular among them. He confided their country to the care of his aunt, Margaret of Austria, and later to that of his sister, Mary of Hungary (1531–55), both talented women and of great service to him. Charles’ reign represents the maximum of political and commercial prosperity in the Netherlands to which he annexed the city of Tournai (1521), the provinces of Friesland (1523), Utrecht and Overyssel (1528), Groningen and Drenthe (1536), and the Duchy of Guelderland (1543). Thus the patrimony was definitively settled and known thereafter as the Seventeen Provinces. By his Pragmatic Sanction of 1549 Charles V declared this domain an indivisible whole and nothing contributed more to the formation of national unity. He sundered the ties of vassalage that bound Flanders to the Kingdom of France, and although emperor, permitted the authority of the empire to come to naught in the provinces west of the Scheldt. Beginning with 1548 they in truth formed the “Circle of Burgundy,” a title which implied little or no duty toward the empire. In the interior Charles V organized a central government by creating three councils, called collateral, and established with a view to simplifying matters for the female ruler; they were the council of state for general affairs, the privy council for administrative purposes, and the council of finance. He introduced the Inquisition, issued extremely severe “placards” prohibiting heresy, and harshly suppressed Ghent, his native city, which had refused to vote certain subsidies and had given itself up to acts of violence (1540). It was deprived of all its freedoms and at this time communal government may be said to have received its death-blow in the Netherlands.

PHILIP II

However, Charles V was sincerely regretted when, during a solemn session held at Brussels before representatives of the States, 25 October, 1555, he renounced the government of the Netherlands in favour of his son, Philip II. Strictly speaking, with Charles V ended the Burgundian era in this country which was subsequently known as the Spanish Netherlands. But as yet these states had no national name, the dukes generally alluding to them as their provinces de par deça in contradistinction to the Duchy and Countship of Burgundy which were territorially separated from them. Nevertheless, although this duchy and countship had been conquered by France, from the fifteenth century it had been customary to call them Burgundy, and their inhabitants Burgundians. Even the French spoken at the ducal court was called Burgundian. In spite of the efforts made at bringing about unification, the spirit of particularism prevailed in the various provinces in matters of legislation, each according political rights to its own inhabitants exclusively and opposing central institutions as much as possible. From the time of Philip the Good the Netherlands had been the centre of a luxurious and brilliant civilization, and Antwerp, which had replaced Bruges, whose harbour had become sand-filled, was recognized as the chief commercial city of Europe. Nothing could equal the sumptuousness of the court which was the rendezvous of many literary men and artists, and it was during the reign of Philip the Good that the Bruges school of painting sprang up and prospered, boasting of such famous members as the brothers John and Hubert Van Eyck, Hans Memling, and Gerard David, whilst Brussels, Ghent, Louvain, and Antwerp gloried in artists like Roger Van den Weyden, Hugo Van der Goes, Thierry Bouts, Quentin Metsys, and in the great sculptor Claus Sluter. Although literature did not flourish to the same extent as the arts, the historians Philippe de Comines, Molinet, Chastelain, and Olivier de la Marche are certainly deserving of mention and were far superior to the French historians of the same epoch.

For the public ecclesiastical history of Burgundy see articles BESANÇON, DIJON, LYONS, MÂCON. Also Antoine Mille, “Abrégé chronologique de l’histoire ecclésiastique civile et littéraire de Bourgogne, depuis l’établissement des Bourguignons dans las Gaules jusqu’à l’année 1772” (Dijon, 1771–73); and the histories of various religious orders established in Burgundy, e. g. J. Foderé, “Narration historique et topographique des couvents de l’ordre de St-François et de Ste-Claire érigés en la province anciennement appelée de Bourgogne,” etc. (Lyon, 1619); Lavirotte, “Mémoire statistique sur les établissements des Templiers et des Hospitaliers de St-Jean de Jérusalem en Bourgogne” (Paris, 1853); “Pèlerinages en Bourgogne” in “Congrès scient. France” (Autun, 1876–78), II, 90; Quantin, “Mémoire sur l’influence des monastères des ordres de St-Benoît et de Cîteaux en Bourgogne,” in same collection (Auxerre, 1858059), II, 390; J. Simonnet, “Le clergé en Bourgogne” (XIV, XV siècles) in “Mém. de l’Acad. de Dijon” (1866), XIII, 21–143; C. Seignobos, “Le régime féodal en Bourgogne jusqu’en 1360, étude sur la société et les institutions d’une province française au moyen-âge,” etc. (Paris, 1881).

KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, Chroniques relatives a l’histoire de Belgique sous la domination des ducs de Bourgogne (Brussels, 1870–76); CHASTELAIN, Chronique, ed. KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE (Brussels, 1863–66); DE LA MARCHE, Memoires, ed. BEAUNE AND D’ARBAUMONT (Paris, 1883–88); MOLINET, Chronique, ed. BUCHON (Paris, 1827–28); PHIIPPE DE COMINES Memoires, ed. DE MANDROT (Paris, 1901–03); DE BARANTE, Hist. des ducs de Bourgogne de la maison de Valois (Paris, 1824–26), republished several times in Belgium, FREDERICQ, Essai sur le role politique et social des ducs de Bourgogne dans les Pays-Bas (Ghent, 1875); PIRIENNE, Hist. de Belgique (1907), III; VON LOHER, Jakobaa von Bayern und ihre Zeit (1869); KIRK, History of Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy (1863–68); TOUTEY, Charles le Temeraire et la ligue de Constance (1902).

GODEFROID KURTH

Christian Burial

The interment of a deceased person with ecclesiastical rites in consecrated ground. The Jews and most of the nations of antiquity buried their dead. Amongst the Greeks and Romans both cremation and interment were practised indifferently. That the early Christians from the beginning used only burial seems certain. This conclusion may be inferred not only from negative arguments but from the direct testimony of Tertullian, “De Corona” (P.L., II, 92, 795; cf. Minucius Felix, “Octavius,” xi in P.L., III, 266), and from the stress laid upon the analogy between the resurrection of the body and the Resurrection of Christ (I Cor., xv, 42; cf. Tertullian, “De Animâ,” lv; Augustine, “De civitate Dei,” I, xiii). In the light of this same dogma of the resurrection of the body as well as of Jewish tradition (cf. Tob., i, 21; xii, 12; Ecclus., xxxviii, 16; II Mach., xii, 39), it is easy to understand how the interment of the mortal remains of the Christian dead has always been regarded as an act of religious import and has been surrounded at all times with some measure of religious ceremonial. The motives of Christian burial will be more fully treated in the article Cremation. As to the latter practice, it will be sufficient to say here that, while involving no necessary contradiction of any article of faith, it is opposed alike to the law of the Church and to the usages of antiquity. In defense of the Church’s recent prohibitions, it may be urged that the revival of cremation in modern times has in practice been prompted less by considerations of improved hygiene or psychological sentiment than by avowed materialism and opposition to Catholic teaching.

THE LAW OF THE CHURCH REGARDING BURIAL

According to the canon law every man is free to choose for himself the burial ground in which he wishes to be interred. It is not necessary that this choice should be formally registered in his will. Any reasonable legal proof is sufficient as evidence of his wishes in the matter, and it has been decided that the testimony of one witness, for example his confessor, may be accepted, if there be no suspicion of interested motives. (S.C. Concilii, 24 march, 1871, Lex, 189.) Where no wish has been expressed it will be assumed that the interment is to take place in any vault or burial place which may have belonged to the deceased or his family, and failing this the remains should be buried in the cemetery of the parish in which the deceased had his domicile or quasi-domicile. Certain exceptions, however, are recognized in the case of cardinals, bishops, canons, etc. Formerly monastic and other churches claimed and enjoyed under certain conditions the privilege of interring notable benefactors within their precincts. It may be said that no such privilege is now recognized as a matter of right to the detriment of the claim of the parish. If a man die in a parish which is not his own, the canon law prescribes that the body should be conveyed to his own parish for interment if this is reasonably possible, but the parish priest of the place where he died may claim the right of attending the corpse to the place of burial. In fine, the principle is recognized that it belongs to the parish priest to bury his own parishioners. The canon law recognizes for regular orders the right to be buried in the cemetery of their own monastery (Sägmäller, 453;1. Wagner in “Archiv f. kath. Kirchenrecht,” 1873, xxxix, 385; Kohn, ibid., xl, 329).

Originally, as burial was a spiritual function, it was laid down that no fee could be exacted for this without simony (Decretum Gratiani, xiii, q. ii; c. viii, ix; Extrav. de sim., V, 3). But the custom of making gifts to the Church, partly as an acknowledgment of the trouble taken by the clergy, partly for the benefit of the soul of the departed, gradually became general, and such offerings were recognized in time as jura stoloe which went to the personal support of the parish priest or his curates. It was, however, distinctly insisted upon that the carrying out of the rites of the Church should not be made conditional upon the payment of the fee being made beforehand, though the parish priest could recover such fee afterwards by process of law in case it were withheld. Moreover in the case of the very poor he is bound to bury them gratuitously. If a parishioner elected to be buried outside his own parish, a certain proportion, generally a fourth part, of the fee paid or the gifts that might be made in behalf of the deceased on occasion of the burial was to go to the priest of his own parish. Where an old custom existed, the continuance of the payment of this fourth part under certain conditions was recognized by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, De ref., c. xiii). Nowadays the principle is still maintained, but generally the payment to the proprius parochus takes the form of the fourth part of a definite burial-fee which is determined according to some fixed tariff (S. C. Ep. et Reg., 19 January, 1866; S.C. Conc., 16 February, 1889), and which may be exacted by the parish priest for every burial which takes place in his district. He has, however, no right to any compensation if a non-parishioner dies and is taken back to his own parish for burial, nor again when one of his own parishioners dies away from home and has to be buried in the place of his demise.

Only baptized persons have a claim to Christian burial and the rites of the Church cannot lawfully be performed over those who are not baptized. Moreover no strict claim can be allowed in the case of those persons who have not lived in communion with the Church according to the maxim which comes down from the time of Pope Leo the Great (448) “quibus viventibus non communicavimus mortuis communicare non possumus” (i.e. we cannot hold communion in death with those who in life were not in communion with us). It has further been recognized as a principle that the last rites of the Church constitute a mark of respect which is not to be shown to those who in their lives have proved themselves unworthy of it. In this way various classes of persons are excluded from Christian burial—pagans, Jews, infidels, heretics, and their adherents (Rit. Rom., VI, c. ii) schismatics, apostates, and persons who have been excommunicated by name or placed under an interdict. If an excommunicated person be buried in a church or in a consecrated cemetery the place is thereby desecrated, and, wherever possible, the remains must be exhumed and buried elsewhere. Further, Christian burial is to be refused to suicides (this prohibition is as old as the fourth century; cf. Cassian in P.L., XL, 573) except in case that the act was committed when they were of unsound mind or unless they showed signs of repentance before death occurred. It is also withheld from those who have been killed in a duel, even though they should give signs of repentance before death. Other persons similarly debarred are notorious sinners who die without repentance, those who have openly held the sacraments in contempt (for example by staying away from Communion at Easter time to the public scandal) and who showed no signs of sorrow, monks and nuns who are found to have died in the possession of money or valuables which they had kept for their own, and finally those who have directed that their bodies should be cremated after death. In all such cases, however, the general practice of the Church at the present day has been to interpret these prohibitions as mildly as possible. Ordinarily the parish priest is directed to refer doubtful cases to the bishop, and the bishop, if any favourable construction can be found, allows the burial to proceed.

Many complications are caused in the administration of the canon law by the political conditions under which the Church exists in modern times in most countries of the world. For instance, the question may often arise whether a non-Catholic can be buried in a consecrated cemetery belonging, not to the civil administration, but to the Church, and perhaps adjoining the sacred building itself; or again in such a case whether non-Catholic worshippers can perform their own rites at the interment. As it often happened that a Catholic graveyard was the only available place of burial in a large district, it has been decided as a matter of necessity that in such cases it was possible to allow Protestants to be buried in a consecrated graveyard (S. C. Inquis., 23 July, 1609). In some instances a special portion of ground has been set aside for the purpose and non-Catholic ritual is permitted to be used there. In cases of necessity the Catholic parish priest may preside at such an interment, but he must not use any ritual or prayers that would be recognized as distinctively Catholic. It hardly needs saying that at the present day in almost every part of the world the prescriptions of the canon law regarding burial are in conflict with secular legislation in more than one particular. In such cases the Church is often compelled to waive her right, in order to prevent greater evils. On the other hand, we may notice that the Church’s claim to exercise control over the burial of her members dates back to an age anterior even to the freedom given to Christianity under Constantine. From the beginning the principle seems to have been insisted upon that the faithful should be buried apart from the pagans. Thus St. Cyprian of Carthage makes it a matter of reproach against a Spanish bishop Martial that he had not sufficiently attended to this, and that he had tolerated “filios exterarum gentium more apud profana sepulchra depositos et alienigenis consepultos” (Cyprian, Ep. lxvii, 6). In the same way St. Hilary, a century later, considers that Our Saviour warned His disciples against a similar profanation “Admonuit non admisceri memoriis sanctorum mortuos infideles” (Hilary, in S. Matt., vii). So also the Donatists when they gained the upper hand were so deeply imbued with this principle of exclusive sepulture that they would not allow the Catholics to be buried in the cemeteries they had seized upon. “Ad hoc basilicas invadere voluistis ut vobis solis coemeteria vindicetis, non permittentes sepeliri corpora Catholica” (Optatus, VI, vii). With regard to the exclusion of suicides from the consecrated burial grounds it would appear that some similar practice was familiar to the pagans even before Christianity had spread throughout the empire. Thus there is a well-known pagan inscription of Lanuvium of the year 133: “Quisquis ex quâcunque causâ mortem sibi asciverit eius ratio funeris non habebitur.” Probably this was not so much a protest of outraged morality as a warning that in the matter of burial no man had a right to make himself prematurely a charge upon the community. The time of burial is, generally speaking, between sunrise and sunset; any other hour requires the permission of the bishop (Ferraris, s.v., 216, 274, 279). For the rest the diocesan statutes, regulations of the local ecclesiastical authority, and custom are to be considered, also the civil law and the public sanitary regulations.

THE RITUAL OF BURIAL

Speaking first of the usages of the Catholic Church at the present day it will probably be convenient to divide the various religious observances with which the Church surrounds the mortal remains of her faithful children after death into three different stages. The prayers and blessings which are provided by the “Rituale” for use before death will best be considered under the heading Death, Preparation for, but in the rites observed after death we may distinguish first what takes place in the house of the deceased and in bringing the body to the church, secondly the function in the church and thirdly the ceremony by the grave side. In practice, it is the exception for the whole of the Church’s ritual to be performed, especially in the case of the burial of the laity in a large parish; but in religious houses and where the facilities are at hand the service is generally carried out completely.

With regard to the observances prescribed before the body is conveyed to the church it may be noted that according to the rubrics prefixed to the title “De exsequiis” in the “Rituale Romanum” a proper interval (debitum temporis intervallum) ought to elapse between the moment of death and the burial, especially where death has occurred unexpectedly, in order that no doubt may remain that life is really extinct. In southern climates it is not unusual to celebrate the funeral the day after the decease or even upon the day itself, but the practice both in pagan and Christian times has varied greatly. Among the ancient Romans it would seem that the bodies of persons of distinction were commonly kept for seven days, while the poor were interred the day after death. In these matters the Church has generally been content to adopt the usages which were already in possession. The washing of the corpse is so frequently spoken of both in secular and monastic rituals as to wear almost the aspect of a religious ceremony, but no special prayers are assigned to it. Minute directions are given as to the clothing of the dead in the case of all clergy. They are to be attired in ordinary ecclesiastical costume and over this they are to wear the vestments distinctive of their order. Thus the priest or bishop must be clad in amice, alb, girdle, maniple, stole and chasuble. His biretta should be placed upon his head and the tonsure should be renewed. The deacon similarly wears his dalmatic and stole, the subdeacon his tunicle, and the cleric his surplice. In practice it is usual in the case of a priest to place upon the coffin lid a chalice and paten at one end with the biretta at the other; but this is not ordered in the rubrics of the “Rituale.” For the laity it is directed that the body should be decently laid out, that a light should be kept burning, that a small cross should, if possible, be placed in the hands, failing which the hands are to be arranged in the form of a cross, and that the body should occasionally be sprinkled with holy water. The burning of more than one candle beside the body is not directly enjoined for all, but it is mentioned in the “Caeremoniale” in the case of a bishop and is of general observance. On the other hand, it is mentioned that the debita lumina, the candles which according to ancient custom are carried in the procession, ought to be provided by the parish gratuitously in the case of the very poor, and it is very distinctly enjoined that in exacting such fees as custom prescribes on these occasions the clergy ought sedulously to avoid all appearance of avarice. It is also laid down that the laity, even in the case of crowned heads, are never to be carried to the grave by the hands of the clergy—a prescription which can be traced back to a synod of Seville in 1512 and is probably much older. But in the Early Church this does not seem to have been observed, for we have several recorded instances in which ladies who died in repute of sanctity, as for example St. Paula or St. Macrina, were carried to the grave by bishops.

The first stage in the obsequies of a deceased person according to the rite now in use is the conveyance of the body to the church. At an appointed hour the clergy are directed to assemble in the church, a signal being given by the tolling of a bell. The parish priest in surplice and black stole, or if he prefer it wearing a black cope as well, goes to the house of the deceased with the rest of the company, one cleric carrying the cross and another a stoup of holy water. Before the coffin is removed from the house it is sprinkled with holy water, the priest with his assistants saying beside it the psalm De Profundis with the antiphon Si iniquitates. Then the procession sets out for the church. The cross-bearer goes first, religious confraternities, if such there be, and members of the clergy follow, carrying lighted candles, the priest walks immediately before the coffin and the friends of the deceased and others walk behind. As they leave the house the priest intones the antiphon Exsultabunt Domino, and then the psalm Miserere is recited or chanted in alternate verses by the cantors and clergy. On reaching the church the antiphon Exsultabunt is repeated, and as the body is borne to its place “in the middle of the church” the responsory Subvenite (Come to his assistance ye Saints of God, come to meet him ye Angels of the Lord, etc.) is recited. The present rubric directs that if the corpse be that of a layman the feet are to be turned towards the altar; if on the other hand the corpse be that of a priest, then the position is reversed, the head being towards the altar. Whether this exceptional treatment of priests as regards position is of early date in the West is open to considerable doubt. No earlier example seems so far to have been quoted than the reference to it in Burchard’s “Diary” noted by Catalani. Burchard was the master of ceremonies to Innocent VIII and Alexander VI, and he may himself have introduced the practice, but his speaking of it as the customary arrangement does not suggest this. On the other hand, the medieval liturgists apparently know no exception to their rule that both before the altar and in the grave the feet of all Christians should be pointed to the East. This custom we find alluded to by Bishop Hildebert at the beginning of the twelfth century (P.L., CLXXI, 896), and its symbolism is discussed by Durandus. “A man ought so to be buried,” he says, “that while his head lies to the West his feet are turned to the East, for thus he prays as it were by his very position and suggests that he is ready to hasten from the West to the East” (Ration. Div. Off., VII, 35). But if Roman medieval practice seems to offer no foundation for the distinction now made between the priest and the layman, it is noteworthy that in the Greek Church very pronounced differences have been recognized from an early date. In the “Ecclesiastical Hierarchy” of Pseudo-Dionysius, which belong to the fifth century, we learn that a priest or bishop was placed before the altar (epiprosthen tou seiou thysiasteriou), while a monk or layman lay outside the holy gates or in the vestibule. A similar practice is observed to the present day. The corpse of a layman during the singing of the “Panychis” (the equivalent of the “Vigiliae Mortuorum” or Vigil of the Dead) is usually deposited in the narthex, that of a priest or monk in the middle of the church, while in the case of a bishop he is laid during a certain portion of the service in different positions within the sanctuary, the body at one point being placed behind the altar exactly in front of the bishop’s throne and the head towards the throne (Maltzew, Begrabniss-Ritus, 278) It is possible that some imitation of this practice in Dalmatia or in Southern Italy may have indirectly led to the introduction of our present rubric. The idea of both seems to be that the bishop (or priest) in death should occupy the same position in the church as during life, i.e. facing his people whom he taught and blessed in Christ’s name.

Supposing the body to have been brought to the church in the afternoon or evening, the second portion of the obsequies, that carried out in the church, may begin with the recital of the Vespers for the Dead. This, however, is not prescribed in the “Rituale Romanum,” which speaks only of Matins and Lauds, though Vespers are mentioned in the “Caeremoniale Episcoporum” in the case of a bishop. If the Vespers for the Dead are said they begin with the antiphon Placebo, and the Office of Matins, if we exclude the invitatory, begins with the antiphon Dirige. For this reason the “Placebo and Dirige,” of which we so constantly find mention in medieval English writers, mean simply the Vespers and Matins for the Dead. It is from the latter of these two words that the English term dirge is derived. Candles are lighted round the coffin and they should be allowed to burn at least during the continuance of the Office, Mass, and Absolutions. Throughout the Office for the Dead each psalm ends with Requiem aeternam (Eternal rest give unto them, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them) in the place of the Gloria Patri. It is interesting perhaps to note here that the liturgist, Mr. Edmund Bishop, after minute investigation has come to the conclusion that in this familiar formula, Requiem oeternam dona eis, Domine; et lux perpetua luceat eis, we have a blending of two distinct liturgical currents’ “the second member of the phrase expresses the aspiration of the mind and soul of the Roman, the first the aspiration of the mind and soul of the Goth” (Kuypers, Book of Cerne, 275). It is true that it has been maintained that the words are borrowed from a passage in IV Esdras (Apocrypha), ii, 34–35, but we may doubt if the resemblance is more than accidental.

With regard to the Office and Mass which form the second portion of the Exsequioe, the Matins after a preliminary invitatorium: “Regem cui omnia vivunt, venite adoremus,” consist of nine psalms divided as usual into three nocturns by three sets of lessons and responsories. The first nocturn, as already noted, begins with the antiphon “Dirige, Domine Deus meus, in conspectu tuo vitam meam,” and is made up of the three psalms, Verba mea, Ps. v, Domine ne in furore, Ps. vi, and Domine Deus meus, Ps. vii, each having its own antiphon, which is duplicated. The lessons both in this and in the following nocturns are all taken from the Book of Job, chapters vii, x, xiii, xiv, xvii, and xix, in which the sufferer expresses the misery of man’s lot, but above all his unalterable trust in God. The lessons are read without the usual absolution and blessing, but each is followed by a responsory, and some of these responsories in their picturesque conciseness deserve to be reckoned among the most striking portions of the liturgy. We may quote for example the last responsory of the third nocturn which occurs again before the absolution. It is this translated in the Roman Breviary of the late Marquess of Bute:

Deliver me, O Lord, from eternal death in that awful day when the heavens and earth shall be shaken, and Thou shalt come to judge the world by fire.

Verse. Quaking and dread take hold upon me, when I look for the coming of the trial and the wrath to come.

Answer. When the heavens and the earth shall be shaken.

Verse. That day is a day of wrath, of wasteness and desolation, a great day and exceeding bitter.

Answer. When Thou shalt come to judge the world by fire.

Verse. O Lord, grant them eternal rest, and let everlasting light shine upon them.

Answer. Deliver me, O Lord, from eternal death in that awful day, when the heavens and the earth shall be shaken and Thou shalt come to judge the world by fire.

There seems reason to believe that this responsory is not of Roman origin (Batiffol, Roman Breviary, 198) but it is of considerable antiquity. At present, if the whole three nocturns (the second of which consists of Pss. xxii, xxiv, xxvi; and the third of Pss. xxxix, xl, and xli) are not said owing to lack of time or for any other cause, then another responsory, Libera me de viis inferni, is sung in place of that just quoted. Lauds follow immediately, in which the psalms Miserere and Te decet hymnus replace those usually said at the beginning and the Canticle of Ezechias is sung instead of the Benedicite. The Benedictus is recited with a special antiphon from John, xi, 25–26. This is familiar to many as having been retained in the burial service of the Church of England, “I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die.” Finally after certain preces follows the impressive collect Absolve, which is also said in the Mass, “Absolve, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the soul of thy servant N. that being dead to this world he may live to Thee, and whatever sins he may have committed in this life through human frailty, do Thou of Thy most merciful goodness forgive; through our Lord Jesus Christ,” etc. The “Rituale” directs that if all three nocturns of the office cannot be said, it would be desirable to say at least the first. But it is even more emphatic in urging that Mass should not be omitted except on certain privileged festivals of the highest class which exclude a Mass for the dead proesente cadavere, i.e. even when the body is present. These days include the feasts of Christmas, the Epiphany, Easter, the Ascension, Whitsunday, Corpus Christi, The Annunciation, Assumption and Immaculate Conception, Nativity of St. John Baptist, St. Joseph, Sts. Peter and Paul, All Saints, the last three days of Holy Week, the Quarant’ Ore, or Forty Hours, and certain patronal feasts. On all other days, roughly speaking, the Church not only permits but greatly desires that the Holy Sacrifice should be offered for the deceased as the most solemn part of the rite of interment. To secure this the severer regulations of earlier centuries have in many respects been greatly relaxed in recent times. For example it is not now of obligation that the Mass should be sung with music. In the case of poor people who cannot defray the expenses incident to a Mass celebrated with solemnity, a simple low Mass of Requiem is permitted even on Sundays and other prohibited days, provided that the parochial Mass of the Sunday be also said at another hour. Moreover this one Missa in die obitus seu depositionis may still be offered in such cases, even when on account of contagious disease or other serious reason the body cannot be brought to the church. As in the case of the Office, the Mass for the Dead is chiefly distinguished from ordinary Masses by certain omissions. Some of these, for example that of the Psalm Judica and of the blessings, may be due to the fact that the Missa de Requie was formerly regarded as supplementary to the Mass of the day. In other cases, for instance in the absence of hymns from the Office for the Dead, we may perhaps suspect that these funeral rites have preserved the tradition of a more primitive age. On the other hand, the suppression of the Gloria in excelsis, etc., as of the Gloria Patri seems to point to a sense of the incongruity of joyful themes in the presence of God’s searching and inscrutable judgments. Thus a tractate of the eighth or ninth century printed by Muratori (Lit. Rom. Vet., II, 391) already directs that in the Vigils for the Dead “Psalms and lessons with the Responsories and Antiphons belonging to Matins are to be sung without Alleluia. In the Masses also neither Gloria in exelsis Deo nor Alleluia shall be sung.” (Cf. Ceriani, Circa obligationem Officii Defunctorum, 9.)

In the early Christian ages, however, it would seem that the Alleluia, especially in the East, was regarded as specially appropriate to funerals. Another omission from the ordinary ritual of high Mass is that of the kiss of peace. This ceremony was always associated in idea with Holy Communion, and as Communion was not formerly distributed to the faithful at Masses for the Dead, the kiss of peace was not retained. A conspicuous feature of the Requiem Mass is the singing of the sequence, or hymn, “Dies irae.” This masterpiece of medieval hymnology is of late introduction, as it was probably composed by the Franciscan Thomas of Celano in the thirteenth century. It was not designed for its present liturgical use but for private devotion—note the singular number throughout voca me cum benedictis, quid sum miser tunc dicturus, etc., as also the awkwardness of the added pie Jesu Domine dona eis requiem, but the hymn appears printed in the “Missale Romanum” of 1485, though apparently not in the earlier edition of 1474. However the use of the “Dies irae” in connection with the exsequioe mortuorum is much more ancient, and Dr. Ebner has found it, musically noted as at present, in a Franciscan Missal of the thirteenth century. (Ebner, Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Missale Romanum, 120). During the Mass it is customary, though not a matter of precept, to distribute tapers of unbleached wax to the congregation or at least to those assisting within the sanctuary. These are to be lighted during the Gospel, during the latter part of the Holy Sacrifice from the Elevation to the Communion, and during the absolution which follows the Mass. As already remarked the association of lights with Christian obsequies is very ancient, and liturgists here recognize a symbolical reference to baptism (the illumination, photismos) whereby Christians are made the children of Light, as well as a concrete reminder of the oft repeated prayer et lux perpetua luceat eis. (Cf. Thalhofer, Liturgik, II, 529.)

After Mass follows the absolution or Absoute, to use the convenient term by which the French designate these special prayers for pardon over the corpse before it is laid in the grave. These prayers of the Absoute, like those said by the grave side, ought never to be omitted. The subdeacon bearing the processional cross, and accompanied by the acolytes, places himself at the head of the coffin (i.e. facing the altar in the case of a layman, but between the coffin and the altar in the case of a priest), while the celebrant, exchanging his black chasuble for a cope of the same colour, stands opposite at the foot. The assisting clergy are grouped around and the celebrant without preamble begins at once to read the prayer Non intres in judicium cum servo tuo, praying that the deceased “may deserve to escape the avenging judgment, who, whilst he lived, was marked with the seal of the holy Trinity.” This is followed by the responsory “Libera me Domine,” which, as occurring in the Matins for the Dead, has already been quoted above. Then after the Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison the priest says aloud the Pater Noster and while this is repeated in silence by all, he makes the round of the coffin, sprinkling it with holy water and bowing profoundly before the cross when he passes it. After which, taking the thurible, he incenses the coffin in like manner; where we may note that the use of incense at funerals is derived from the earliest Christian centuries, though no doubt our manner of waving the censer towards persons and objects is relatively modern. Moreover it is possible that the incense was originally employed on such occasions for sanitary reasons. Finally after finishing the Pater Noster and repeating one or two short versicles to which answer is made by the clergy, the celebrant pronounces the prayer of absolution, most commonly in the following form:

O God, Whose attribute it is always to have mercy and to spare, we humbly present our prayers to Thee for the soul of Thy servant N. which Thou has this day called out of this world, beseeching Thee not to deliver it into the hands of the enemy, nor to forget it for ever, but to command Thy holy angels to receive it, and to bear it into paradise; that as it has believed and hoped in Thee it may be delivered from the pains of hell and inherit eternal life through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Although this prayer in its entirety cannot be surely traced to an earlier date than the ninth century, it contains several elements that recall the phraseology of primitive times. It is to be found in most of our existing manuscripts of the Gregorian Sacramentary. At the burial of bishops, cardinals, sovereigns, etc., not one but five absolutions are pronounced according to the forms provided in the “Pontificale Romanum.” These are spoken by five bishops or other “prelates,” each absolution being preceded by a separate responsory. In these solemn functions the prayer just quoted is not said, but most of the responsories and prayers used are borrowed from the Office for the Dead or from the Masses in the Roman Missal. It may be noted that all these absolutions are not in the declaratory but in the deprecatory form, i.e. they are prayers imploring God’s mercy upon the deceased. After the absolution the body is carried to the grave and as the procession moves along the antiphon “In paradisum” is chanted by the clergy or the choir. It runs thus: “May the angels escort thee to paradise, may the martyrs receive thee at thy coming and bring thee into the holy city Jerusalem. May the choir of angels receive thee, and with Lazarus, who once was poor, mayst thou have eternal rest.” According to the rubric “the tomb (sepulchrum) is then blessed if it has not been blessed previously”; which has been ruled to mean that a grave newly dug in an already consecrated cemetery is accounted blessed, and requires no further consecration, but a mausoleum erected above ground or even a brick chamber beneath the surface is regarded as needing blessing when used for the first time. This blessing is short and consists only of a single prayer after which the body is again sprinkled with holy water and incensed. Apart from this the service at the grave side is very brief. The priest intones the antiphon: “I am the Resurrection and the Life,” after which the coffin is lowered into the grave and the Canticle Benedictus is meanwhile recited or sung. Then the antiphon is repeated entire, the Pater Noster is said secretly, while the coffin is again sprinkled with holy water, and finally after one or two brief responses the following ancient prayer is said: “Grant this mercy, O Lord, we beseech Thee, to Thy servant departed, that he may not receive in punishment the requital of his deeds who in desire did keep Thy will, and as the true faith here united him to the company of the faithful, so may Thy mercy unite him above to the choirs of angels. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”

Then with the final petition: “May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace,” the little procession of cross-bearer, surpliced clerics, and priest return to the sacristy reciting the De Profundis as they go. In some places the custom prevails that the officiating priest before retiring should offer the holy-water sprinkler to the relatives of the deceased who are present, in order that they may cast holy water upon the coffin in the grave. In others it is usual for the priest himself and for all present to throw down upon the coffin a handful of earth. This custom symbolical no doubt of “dust to dust” is certainly ancient and even in the “Rituale Romanum” a rubric is to be found prescribing that “in obsequies which have of necessity to be performed only in private and at the house of the deceased, blessed earth is put into the coffin while the Canticle Benedictus is being said.” This no doubt is to be regarded as the nearest available equivalent to interment in a consecrated grave. In other localities, more particularly in Germany, it i[s] customary for the priest to deliver a short discourse (Leichenrede) before leaving the cemetery. This is the more appropriate because nearly everywhere in Germany the civil law forbids the corpse to be taken to the church except in the case of bishops and other exalted personages. The result is that Mass and Office are performed with a catafalque only, and seem even in those rare cases in which they are retained to have nothing to do with the burial, instead of forming, as they should do, its most essential feature. On the other hand the service at the grave side is apt to appear strangely brief and perfunctory unless impressiveness be given to it by the discourse of the officiating priest. It may be noted that many local customs are still allowed to continue without interference in the ritual observed by the grave side. Before the Reformation there was an extraordinary variety of prayers and responsories commonly recited over the grave especially in Germany. The extreme simplicity of the “Rituale Romanum” represents no doubt a reaction against what threatened to become an abuse. Of the peculiar rites which so long survived locally, the Ritual of Brixen may be taken as an illustration. In this when the priest blesses the corpse with holy water, he is directed to say: “Rore coelesti perfundat et perficiat animam tuam Deus.” As the body is lowered into the ground he says: “Sume terrâ quod tuum est, sumat Deus quod suum est, corpus de terrâ formatum, spiritus de coelo inspiratus est.” Then the priest scatters earth upon the body with a shovel three times, saying, “Memento homo quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris.” After this the Magnificat is recited and the psalm Lauda anima mea Dominum, with various prayers, and then with a wooden cross the priest signs the grave in three places, at the head, in the middle, and at the feet, with the words; “Signum Salvatoris Domini nostri Jesu Christi super te, qui in hac imagine redemit te, nec permittat introire, [and here he plants the wooden cross at the head of the grave] angelum percutientem in aeternum.” It is interesting to note that after once more blessing the grave with holy water he recites a prayer over the people in the vernacular. The clergy and all others present also sprinkle holy water on the grave before they depart.

THE BURIAL OF LITTLE CHILDREN

The “Rituale Romanum” provides a separate form of burial for infants and children who have died before they have reached years of discretion. It directs that a special portion of the cemetery should be set aside for them and that either the bells should not be tolled or that they should be rung in a joyous peal. Further, custom prescribes that white and not black should be used in token of mourning. The priest is bidden to wear a white stole over his surplice and a crown of flowers or sweet foliage is to be laid upon the child’s brow. The processional cross is carried, but without its staff. The body may be borne to and deposited temporarily in the church, but this is not prescribed as the normal arrangement and in any case no provision is made for either Office or Mass. One or two psalms of joyous import, e.g. the Laudate pueri Dominum (Ps. cxii), are appointed to be said while the body is borne to the church or to the cemetery, and holy water and incense are used to bless the remains before they are laid in the ground. Two special prayers are included in the ritual, one for use in the church, the other by the grave side. The former, which is certainly ancient, runs as follows: “Almighty and most compassionate God, Who upon all little children that have been born again in the fountain of Baptism, when they leave this world without any merits of their own, straightway bestowest everlasting life, as we believe that Thou has this day done to the soul of this little one, grant we beseech Thee, O Lord, by the intercession of Blessed Mary ever Virgin and of all Thy saints, that we also may serve Thee with pure hearts here below and may consort eternally with these blessed little ones in paradise, Through Christ our Lord, Amen.” On the way back to the church the Canticle Benedicite is recited, and the prayer “Deus qui miro ordine angelorum ministeria hominumque dispensas,” which is the collect used in the Mass of St. Michael’s day, is said at the foot of the altar. The cross without the handle which is carried in the procession is considered to be symbolical of an incomplete life. Many other peculiarities are prevalent locally. Thus in Rome in the eighteenth century, as we learn from Catalani, the dead child was generally clothed in the habit known as St. Philip Neri’s. This is black in colour but sprinkled all over with gold and silver stars. A tiny biretta is placed upon the child’s head and a little cross of white wax in its hands. Miniature habits of the different religious orders are also commonly used for the same purpose.

HISTORY OF OUR PRESENT RITUAL

With regard to the burial of the dead in the early Christian centuries we know very little. No doubt the first Christians followed the national customs of those peoples amongst whom they lived, in so far as they were not directly idolatrous. The final kiss of farewell, the use of crowns of flowers, the intervals appointed for recurring funeral celebrations, the manner of laying out the body and bearing it to the grave, etc., show nothing that is distinctive of the Christian Faith, even though later ages found a pious symbolism in many of these things. Moreover the use of holy water and incense (the latter originally as a sort of disinfectant) was also no doubt suggested by similar customs among the pagans around them. Perhaps we should add that the funeral banquets of the pagans were in some sense imitated by the agapoe or love-feasts of the Christians which it seems to have been usual to celebrate in early times (see Marucchi, Eléments d’archéologie chrétienne, I, 129), also that the anniversary Masses and “months minds” of the Church undoubtedly replaced a corresponding pagan usage of sacrifices. (See Dublin Review, July, 1907, p. 118.) But of the existence of some distinctively religious service we have good evidence at an early date. Tertullian refers incidentally to the corpse of a woman after death being laid out cum oratione presbyteri. St. Jerome in his account of the death of St. Paul the Hermit speaks of the singing of hymns and psalms while the body is carried to the grave as an observance belonging to ancient Christian tradition. Again St. Gregory of Nyssa in his detailed description of the funeral of St. Macrina, St. Augustine in his references to his mother St. Monica, and many other documents like the Apostolical Constitutions (Bk. VII) and the “Celestial Hierarchy” of Pseudo-Dionysius make it abundantly clear that in the fourth and fifth centuries the offering of the Holy Sacrifice was the most essential feature in the last solemn rites, as it remains to this day. Probably the earliest detailed account of funeral ceremonial which has been preserved to us is to be found in the Spanish Ordinals lately published by Dom Ferotin. It seems to be satisfactorily established that the ritual here described represents in substance the Spanish practice of the latter part of the seventh century. We may accordingly quote in some detail from “the Order of what the clerics of any city ought to do when their bishop falls into a mortal sickness.” After a reference to Canon iii of the seventh Council of Toledo (646) enjoining that a neighbouring bishop should if possible be summoned, the directions proceed:

At what hour soever the bishop shall die whether by day or night the bell (Signum) shall at once be rung publicly in the cathedral (ecclesia seniore) and at the same time the bell shall ring in every church within a distance of two miles. Then while some of the clergy in turn recite or chant the psalms earnestly and devoutly, the body of the bishop deceased is stripped by priests or deacons. After washing the body . . . it is clothed with his usual vestments according to custom, i.e. his tunic, his breeches, and his stockings, and after this with cap (capello) and face-cloth (sudario). Thereupon is put upon him an alb, and also a stole (orarium) about his neck and before his breast as when a priest is wont to say Mass. Also a cruet is placed in his hand. Then the thumbs of his hands are tied with bands, that is with strips of linen or bandages. His feet are also fastened in the same way. After all this he is robed in a white chasuble (casulla). Then after spreading beneath a very clean white sheet, the body is laid upon the bier and all the while the priests, deacons and all the clergy keep continually reciting or chanting and incense is always burned. And in this wise he is laid in the choir of the church over which he ruled, lights going before and following behind and then a complete text of the gospels is laid upon his breast without anything to cover it, but the gospel itself rests upon a cloth of lambswool (super pallium agnavum—this can hardly be the archiepiscopal pallium in its technical sense) which is placed over his heart. And so it must be that whether he die by night or day the recitation of prayers or chanting of psalms shall be kept up continuously beside him until at the fitting hour of the day Sacrifice may be offered to God at the principal altar for his repose. Then the body is lifted up by deacons, with the gospel book still lying on his breast, and he is carried to the grave, lights going before and following after, while all who are of the clergy sing the antiphons and responsories which are consecrated to the dead (quoe solent de mortuis decantare).

After this when Mass has again been celebrated in that church in which he is to be buried, salt which has been exorcised is scattered in the tomb by deacons, while all other religious persons present sing the antiphon, In sinu Abrahae amici tui conloca eum Domine. And then when incense has a second time been offered over his body, the bishop who has come to bury him advances and opening the dead man’s mouth he puts chrism into it, addressing him thus: ‘Hoc pietatis sacramentum sit tibi in participatione omnium beatorum.’ And then by the same bishop is intoned the antiphon: In pace in idipsum dormiam et requiescam. And this one verse is said, “Expectans, expectavi Dominum et respexit me’; and the chanting is so arranged that the verses are said one by one while the first is repeated after each. When Gloria has been said the antiphon is repeated but not a second time.

Two impressive collects are then said and another prayer which is headed “Benedictio.” After which “the tomb is closed according to custom and it is fastened with a seal.” Probably this rather elaborate ceremony was a type of the funerals celebrated throughout Spain at this epoch even in the case of the lower clergy and the laity. Of the final prayer we are expressly told that in may also be used for the obsequies of a priest. Further it is mentioned that when the priest is laid out he should be clothed just as he was wont to celebrate Mass, in tunic, shoes, breeches, alb, and chasuble.

The rite of putting chrism into the bishop’s mouth, as mentioned above, does not seem to be known else-where, but on the other hand, the anointing the breast of a dead person with chrism was formerly general in the Greek Church, and it seems to have been adopted at Rome at an early date. Thus in certain directions for burial and for Masses for the dead contained in the Penitential of Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury (c. 680) we meet the following: “(1) According to the Church of Rome, it is the custom, in the case of monks or religious men, to carry them after their death to the church, to anoint their breasts with chrism, and there to celebrate Masses for them; then to bear them to the grave with chanting, and when they have been laid in the tomb, prayer is offered for them; afterwards they are covered in with earth or with a slab. (2) On the first, the third, the ninth, and also the thirtieth day, let Mass be celebrated for them, and furthermore, let this be observed after a year has passed, if it be wished.”

It seems natural to conjecture that the Spanish custom of putting the chrism into the mouth of the dead may have been meant to replace the practice which certainly prevailed for a while in Rome of administering the Blessed Eucharist either at the very moment of death or of leaving it with the corpse even when life was extinct. A clear example of this is forthcoming in the “Dialogues of St. Gregory the Great” (II, xxiv,) and see the Appendix on the subject in Cardinal Rampolla’s “Santa Melania Giuniore” (p. 254). There is some reason to believe that the inscription Christus hic est (Christ is here), or its equivalent, occasionally found on tomb-stones (see Leblant, Nouveau Recueil, 3) bears reference to the Blessed Eucharist placed on the tongue of the deceased. But this practice was soon forbidden.

The custom of watching by the dead (the wake) is apparently very ancient. In its origin it was either a Christian observance which was attended with the chanting of psalms, or if in a measure adopted from paganism the singing of psalms was introduced to Christianize it. In the Middle Ages among the monastic orders the custom no doubt was pious and salutary. By appointing relays of monks to succeed one another orderly provision was made that the corpse should never be left without prayer. But among secular persons these nocturnal meetings were always and everywhere an occasion of grave abuses, especially in the matter of eating and drinking. Thus to take a single example we read among the Anglo-Saxon canons of Ælfric, addressed to the clergy: “Ye shall not rejoice on account of men deceased nor attend on the corpse unless ye be thereto invited. When ye are thereto invited then forbid ye the heathen songs (haethenan sangas) of the laymen and their loud cachinnations; nor eat ye nor drink where the corpse lieth therein, lest ye be imitators of the heathenism which they there commit” (Thorpe, Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, 448). We may reasonably suppose that the Office for the Dead, which consists only of Vespers, Matins, and Lauds, without Day-hours, originally developed out of the practice of passing the night in psalmody beside the corpse. In the tenth Ordo Romanus which supplies a description of the obsequies of the Roman clergy in the twelfth century we find the Office said early in the morning, but there is no mention of praying beside the corpse all night. In its general features this Roman Ordo agrees with the ritual now practised, but there are a good many minor divergences. For example the Mass is said while the Office is being chanted; the Absoute at the close is an elaborate function in which four prelates officiate, recalling what is now observed in the obsequies of a bishop, and the service by the grave side is much more lengthy than that which now prevails. In the earliest Ambrosian ritual (eighth or ninth century) which Magistretti (Manuale Ambrosianum, Milan, 1905, I, 67 sqq.) pronounces to be certainly derived from Rome we have the same breaking up of the obsequies into stages, i.e. at the house of the deceased, on the way to the church, at the church, from the church to the grave, and at the grave side, with which we are still familiar. But it is also clear that there was originally something of the nature of a wake (vigilioe) consisting in the chanting of the whole Psalter beside the dead man at his home (Magistretti, ib., I, 70).

A curious development of the Absoute, with its reiterated prayers for pardon, is to be found in the practice (which seems to have become very general in the second half of the eleventh century) of laying a form of absolution upon the breast of the deceased. This is clearly enjoined in the monastic constitutions of Archbishop Lanfranc and we have sundry historical examples of it. (Cf. Thurston, Life of St. Hugh of Lincoln, 219.) Sometimes a rude leaden cross with a few words scratched thereupon was used for the purpose and many such have been recovered in opening tombs belonging to this period. In one remarkable example, that of Bishop Godfrey of Chichester (1088), the whole formula of absolution may be found in the same indicative form which meets us again in the so-called “Pontifical of Egbert.” It is noteworthy that in the Greek Church to this day a long paper of absolution, now usually a printed form, is first read over the deceased and then put into his hand and left with him in the grave.

The only other point among the many peculiar features of medieval ritual which seems to claim special notice here is the elaborate development given to the offertory in the funeral of illustrious personages. Not only on such occasions were very generous offerings made in money and in kind, with a view, it would seem, of benefiting the soul of the deceased by exceptional generosity, but it was usual to lead his war-horse up the church fully accoutred and to present it to the priest at the altar rails, no doubt to be afterwards redeemed by a money payment. The accounts of solemn obsequies in early times are full of such details and in particular of the vast numbers of candles burned upon the hearse; this word hearse in fact came into use precisely from the resemblance which the elaborate framework erected over the bier and bristling with candles bore to a harrow (hirpex, hirpicem). Of the varying and protracted services by the grave side, which at the close of the Middle Ages were common in many parts of Germany and which in some cases lasted on until a much later period, something has already been said.

RITUAL OF THE GREEK CHURCH

The full burial service of the Greek Church is very long and it will be sufficient here briefly to call attention to one or two points in which it bears a close resemblance to the Latin Rite. With the Greeks as with the Latins we find a general use of lighted candles held by all present in their hands, as also holy water, incense and the tolling of bells. With the Greeks as in the Western Communion, after a relatively short service at the house of the deceased, the corpse is borne in procession to the church, and deposited there while the Pannychis, a mournful service of psalmody, is recited or sung. In the burial of a bishop the Holy Sacrifice or divine liturgy is offered up, and there is in any case a solemn absolution pronounced over the body before it is borne to the grave. Black vestments are usually worn by the clergy, and again, as with us, the dead man, if an ecclesiastic, is robed as he would have been robed in life in assisting at the altar. There are, however, a good many features peculiar to the Eastern Church. A crown, in practice a paper band which represents it, is placed upon the dead layman’s head. The priest is anointed with oil and his face is covered with the aer, the veil with which the sacred species are covered during the Holy Sacrifice. Also the open Gospel is laid upon his breast as in the early Spanish ordinal. The Alleluia is sung as part of the service and a symbolical farewell is taken of the deceased by a last kiss. Upon the altar stands a dish with a cake made of wheat and honey, emblematic of the grain which falling to the ground dies and bringeth forth much fruit. Moreover many difference are made in the service according as the dead person is layman, monk, priest, or bishop, and also according to the ecclesiastical season, for during paschal time white vestments are worn and another set of prayers are said. The burial rite of the Greeks may be seen in Goar, “Euchologium Graecorum” (Paris, 1647), 423 sqq.; also in the new Russian edition by Al. Dmitrieoski (Kiev, 1895–1901). For the law of the Church of England concerning burial, see Blunt-Phillimore “The Book of Church Law” (London, 1899), 177–87, and 512–17, text of Burial Laws Amendment Act of 1880.

BURIAL CONFRATERNITIES

It would take us too far to go into this subject at length. Even from the period of the catacombs such associations seem to have existed among the Christians and they no doubt imitated to some extent in their organization the pagan collegia for the same purpose. Through-out the Middle Ages it may be said that the guilds to a very large extent were primarily burial confraternities; at any rate the seemly carrying out of the funeral rites at the death of any of their members together with a provision of Masses for his soul form an almost invariable feature in the constitutions of such guilds. But still more directly to the purpose we find certain organizations formed to carry out the burial of the dead and friendless as a work of charity. The most celebrated of these was the “Misericordia” of Florence, believed to have been instituted in 1244 by Pier Bossi, and surviving to the present day. It is an organization which associates in this work of mercy the members of all ranks of society. Their self-imposed task is not limited to escorting the dead to their last resting-place, but they discharge the functions of an ambulance corps, dealing with accidents as they occur and carrying the sick to the hospitals. When on duty the members wear a dress which completely envelops and disguises them Even the face is hidden by a covering in which only two holes are left for eyes. See Cemetery; Cremation; Requiem.

CATALANI, Commentarius in Rituale Romanum (1756); THALHOFER, Liturgik, II, Pt. II; IDEM, in Kirchenlex., s.v.; BINTERIM, Denkwürdigkeiten (Mainz, 1838), VI, Pt. III, 362–514; MARTÈNE, De antiquis Ecclesiæ ritibus, II and IV; RULAND, Geschichte der kirchlichen Leichenfeier (Ratisbon, 1902); ALBERTI, De sepultura ecclesiasticâ (1901); PROCÈS, La sépulture dans l’eglise catholique, in Précis historiques (Brussels, 1882); MURCIER, La sépulture chrétienne en France (Paris, 1855); PROBST, Die Exsequien (Mainz, 1856); MARUCCHI, Eléments d’ archéologie chrét. (Rome, 1899), I, 129–131; PÉTRIDÈS, in Dict. d’arch. et lit. s.v. Absoute.—On the Canon Law of burial, see especially Lex, Das kirchliche Begräbnissrecht (Ratisbon, 1904); also SĀGMÜLLER, Kirchenrecht (Freiburg, 1904), Pt. III; FERRARIS, Bibliotheca, s.v. sepultura; VON SCHERER, Kirchenrecht, II, 601.—On Burial in the Greek Church: MALTZEW, Begräbniss-Ritus (Berlin, 1896).—On Absolution Crosses: CHEVREUX, in Bulletin archéol. (Paris, 1904), 391–408; COCHET, La Normandie souterraine; IDEM, Sépultures gauloises (Paris, 1855 and 1857), 71 sqq.; KRAUS, Kunst und Alterthum in Lothringen (Strasburg, 1889), 604–612. See also the bibliography of the article CEMETERY.

HERBERT THURSTON

Jean Buridan

French scholastic philosopher of the fourteenth century, b. at Béthune, in the district of Atois towards the end of the thirteenth century; date of death unknown. He studied at the University of Paris under the Nominalist William of Occam, became professor in the faculty of arts, procurator of the Picardy “Nation,” and (in 1327) rector of the university. In 1345, he was one of the ambassadors sent by the university to the papal court at Avignon. He is also said to have assisted in founding the University of Vienna. It is probable, however, that Buridan never went to Vienna, for it is certain that he was in Paris in 1358, and Father Denifle has shown (Chartul. Univ., Paris, II, 646) that the University of Vienna was not founded until 1365, when Buridan was so old that he could hardly have undertaken such a journey. His principal works are “Compendium Logicae,” “Summa de Dialecticâ,” and “Commentaries” on the works of Aristotle, the most important of the last being on the “Politics.” A complete edition was published by Dullard, Paris, 1500, and has frequently been reprinted, e.g. Oxford, 1637, London, 1641.

Buridan was not a theologian. In philosophy he belonged to the Nominalist, or Terminist school of Occam, to which he adhered in spite of reiterated condemnation. He adhered, also, to that peculiar form of scepticism which appeared in Scholastic philosophy at that time, and which arose from the growing sense of the inadequacy of reason to solve the highest problems of thought. In his “Compendium Logicae” he developed at length the art of finding the middle term of a demonstration, and this, in the course of time (it is first mentioned in 1514), came to be known as “The Bridge of Asses,” i.e. the bridge by which stupid scholars were enabled to pass from the minor or major, to the middle, term of syllogism. . Still better known is the phrase “Buridan’s Ass,” which refers to the “case” of a hungry donkey placed between two loads of hay, equal as to quantity and quality and equally distant. The animal so placed, argued the dialectician, could never decide to which load of hay he should turn, and, in consequencs, would die of hunger. The “case” is not found in Buridan’s writings (though the problem it proposes is to be found in Aristotle), and may well have been invented by an opponent to show the absurdity of Buridan’s doctrine.

That doctrine began by denying the distinction between the different faculties of the soul. Will and intellect, said Buridan, are the same. Hence, to say that the will is free in any sense except that in which the intellect also is free, is to say that the will is freer than itself. The freedom of the will is the freedom of the whole soul. Human freedom consists, then, in the power of choosing between two or more desirable alternatives (libertas oppositionis). When the intellect presents one alternative as better (higher) than the other, the will must choose the former. When the will presents two alternatives as equally desirable, there can be no choice. (Here, probably, the opponent introduced the example of the ass, to ridicule Buridan’s position.) The will, however, has still an expedient. It can postpone its decision, direct the intellect to consider one alternative only, and when the other alternative, even though it be better (higher), has dropped out of consciousness, the will can come to a decision and choose, if, indeed, its act can now be called a choice at all. Buridan, therefore, maintains that in a conflict of motives the stronger motive always prevails-the will is “determined” by the strongest motive. He is not a voluntarist. The will, he says, is inferior to the intellect, because the former presupposes the action of the latter, and depends on it. And it is by means of the intellect, and not by means of the will, that man lays hold of supreme happiness.

STÖCKL, Gesch. der Phil. des Mittelalters (Mainz, 1865), II, 1023 sqq.; ID., Lehrb. der Gesch. der Phil. (Mainz, 1888), I, 478; tr. FINLAY (Dublin, 1903), 427; TURNER, Hist. of Phil. (Boston, 1903), 408; UEBERWEG, Gesch. der Phil. (Berlin, 1905), II, 347; tr. MORRIS(New York, 1890), I, 465.

WILLIAM TURNER

Jean Lévesque de Burigny

Historian, b. at Reims, 1692; d. at Paris, 1785. In 1713, with his brothers, Champeaux and Lévesque de Pouilly, he began to compile a dictionary of universal knowledge, a kind of encyclopedia, which comprised twelve large manuscript folios, and afforded Burigny ample material for his subsequent works. In 1718, at The Hague, he worked with Saint- Hyacinthe on “L’Europe savante,” in twelve volumes, of which he contributed at least one-half. On his return to Paris, he devoted his time to historical research and published several works which stamped him as a conscientious scholar. Burigny, although sharing the ideas of the philosophers of his time, was by no means an extremist. He was a modest, peace-loving man, whose only ambition was to be a scholar, and his works show a great amount of learning; some, for instance his lives of Grotius and Erasmus, give very interesting data not elsewhere found. Among his works are: “Traité de l’autorité du pape” (Paris, 1782) which reduces papal authority to a primacy of honour, “Théologie païenne” (Paris, 1754); “Histoire générale de Sicile” (The Hague, 1745); “Histoire des róvolutions de l’empire de Constantinople” (The Hague, 1750); “Traité de Porphyre touchant l’abstinence de la chair, avec la vie de Plotin” (tr. from Greek; Paris, 1740); “Vie de Bossuet” (Paris, 1761); “Vie du cardinal Duperron” (Paris, 1768).

DACIER, Eloge de Burigny (Paris, 1786); WALCKENAER, Recueil de notices historiques (Paris, 1850); CONSTANTIN, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1264–65.

PIERRE J. MARIQUE.

Franz Burkard

The name of two celebrated German jurists. One died suddenly at Rain, 9 December 1539. He began to teach canon law at the University of Ingoldstadt in 1519, where he stoutly opposed every endeavor to introduce Lutheranism. In the trial which sentenced Andreas Seehofer, who had taught the new doctrine, to retire to a monastery, Franz and his brother Peter, a professor at the same institution, were the chief prosecutors. As this action was resented by the Lutherans, he defended himself before the university with John Eck and Hauer. The other d. at Bonn, 6 August, 1584. For many years he served the Bavarian chancellor, August Loesch of Petersdorf, as legal advisor. Later the Elector of Cologne, Ernest of Bavaria, made him his private counsellor and chancellor. His stanch defence of Catholicity merited the praise of Blessed Peter Canisius. To quell the religious war resulting from the declaration of tolerance for Protestant worship, a volume over his name, “De Autonomiâ,” appeared at Munich in 1586. Its real author, the private secretary of the king, Andreas Erstenberger, in order to save his name, position, and family, was induced by William V of Bavaria to conceal his identity behind the name of the deceased Burkard, as Rudolph II would not countenance any opposition to the Protestants. The book was bitterly assailed by Protestants, but its main positions have not been refuted.

PRANTL, Geschichte der Universität in Ingoldstadt, etc., I, passim; SCHREIBER, Geschichte Bayerns, II, 587; JANNSEN, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, V, 421–428.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Edmund Burke

First Vicar Apostolic of Nova Scotia, b. in the parish of Maryborough, County Kildare, Ireland, in 1753; d. at Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1820. He was compelled by existing political conditions in Ireland to pursue his studies in Paris, where his talents and character gave promise of his future career. Ordained priest, he returned to his native diocese. Here trouble had just arisen over the appointment of a vicar-general, and Father Burke was blamed by some partisans for espousing the cause of his superior. The unpleasant conditions led young Burke to follow the advice of Dr. Carpenter, Archbishop of Dublin, and go to Canada. He arrived in Quebec in the summer of 1786, and in September of that year was made professor of philosophy and mathematics in the seminary of Quebec. His work in the seminary led to his appointment as a director of that institution, but he craved for missionary work north and west of the Great Lakes, where, in scattered villages, there were many Catholics who had not seen a missionary since the conquest (1759). In 1794 he gained his object and was sent into the missionary field with the title of Vicar-General and Superior of the Missions of Upper Canada. For seven years he laboured faithfully, enduring all the hardships of a pioneer missionary priest; and he suffered, too, from lack of sympathy and support in his work. He saw clearly and made known to his ecclesiastical superiors the loss to religion resulting from race prejudices and misunderstandings. His plain statements made in the cause of religion and truth brought him enemies and many accusations. He met them fearlessly and these trials but prepared him for his important work of the future as Vicar-General of Nova Scotia, i.e. the ecclesiastical direction of most of the English-speaking population of Canada. He went to Halifax, Nova Scotia, as Vicar-General of Quebec in 1801, was made Vicar-General of Nova Scotia in 1815, and consecrated Bishop of Zion in 1818. The work done by this prelate for religion, for education, and for the State in Nova Scotia, during the first twenty years of the nineteenth century are fully treated in the work (quoted below) of one of his successors. The Protestant historian Campbell thus closes his biographical sketch of Bishop Burke: “The Dominion of Canada in its wide extent has seen few, if any, of its prelates who died more respected and regretted by all classes; more beloved and idolized by his own flock; and whose memory as a great, enlightened, and liberal-minded prelate is looked up to with so much veneration.” His most important writings are “The First Principles of Christianity” and “The Ministry of the Church” (Dublin, 1817).

O’BRIEN (Archbishop of Halifax), Memoirs of Bishop Burke (Ottawa, 1894); CASGRAIN, Mémoire sur les Missions de la Nouvelle-Ecosse, du Cap Breton et de l’ile du Prince Edouard de 1760 à 1820: Réponse aux “Memoirs of Bishop Burke” par Mgr. O’Brien (Quebec, 1895); MURDOCK, History of Nova Scotia (Halifax, 1867), 219, 421, 461; CAMPBELL, Nova Scotia in its Historical Mercantile, and Industrial Relations (Montreal, 1873); BOURINOT, Builders of Nova Scotia.

ALEXANDER MCNEIL

Thomas Burke

(THOMAS DE BURGO)

Bishop of Ossory, b. at Dublin, Ireland, about 1709; d. at Kilkenny, 25 September, 1776. He went to Rome in 1723 and there was placed under the care of his namesake and kinsman, a Dominican, Father Thomas Burke, who prepared him for admission into the order. A dispensation was obtained from the Sacred Congregation, and on 14 June, 1724, he was clothed with the Dominican habit before he had attained his fifteenth year. Young Burke showed special aptitude for study and with the permission of the master general was allowed to begin his course during his novitiate. Two years were given to philosophy and five to theology. So marked was his progress in studies and letters that he was singled out, even though yet a novice, by special marks of affection from Benedict XIII. During the reconstruction of St. Sixtus’ in 1727 and 1728, the pontiff visited the Irish Dominicans once a week, taking part in their community exercises, becoming familiar with the friars and especially with Burke. He was gradually promoted to the highest theological honours of the order, being charged successively with all the official duties in a regular Dominican studium. He held the office of regent of studies for six years. In 1742 the Master General, Thomas Ripoll, personally conferred on him the degree of Master of Theology. The following year he returned to Dublin where he took up the work of the ministry. A general chapter of the order held at Bologna in 1748 passed an ordinance that in all the immediately following provincial chapters a historiographer should be appointed in every province. This order did not reach Ireland from Rome in time for the provincial chapter which was convened the following year at Dublin, and to which assembly Father Burke had been elected by his brethren as Definitor. At the subsequent chapter, however, of 1753 he was appointed historian of his province. The same honour of Definitor was conferred again in 1757.

Father Burke while in Rome was commissioned by the Irish clergy, through Bishop MacDonough of Kilmore, to obtain from the Holy See ten new offices of Irish saints. After his return to Ireland, he was entrusted with a similar commission by the Archbishop of Dublin, the Most Rev. John Linegar, and the Bishops of Ireland for fourteen other feasts of the Irish saints. The decrees were given respectively 8 July, 1741 and 1 July, 1747. Both original documents are preserved in the archives of St. Clement’s, Rome. Father Burke was promoted by Clement XIII in 1759, to the See of Ossory which he governed for seventeen years. His talents, learning, culture, and piety fitted him for the pastoral office, united with his noble and fearless character. An accurate portrait of Bishop Burke is possessed by the Dominican nuns of Drogheda, Ireland. He is known to posterity more on account of his learned work “Hibernia Dominicana,” than by any other claim. The work was nominally published at Cologne, but in reality it came from the press of Edmund Finn of Kilkenny, in 1762. The author gave to it four years of incessant labour, and in 1772 he added a “Supplementum” which was a vindication of Rinuccini, the nuncio of Pope Innocent X, of the charges brought against him by the supreme council of Confederate Catholics during his residence in Ireland. Question of the oath of allegiance and fear of subverting “that fidelity and submission which we acknowledge ourselves to owe from duty and from gratitude to his Majesty King George III” caused seven of the Irish Bishops to condemn the “Hibernia Dominicana” and “Supplementum.” (For defense of Bishop Burke see Coleman, Ir. Eccl. Record.) “Promptuarium dogmatico canonico morale,” a work of the celebrated Spanish Dominican Larrago, enlarged and accommodated to its day by Father Burke, was about to be published in 1753 when his appointment as historian interrupted it.

BURKE, Hibernia Dominicana (Cologne, 1762), I; WEBB, A Compendium of Irish Biography (Dublin, 1878); Anthropologia Hibernica, February I (4 vols., 1793–94); COLEMAN, Thomas de Burgo in Ir. Eccl. Record, 1892; MORAN Spicilegium Ossoriense (Dublin, 1884), gives the MSS. collected by Bishop Burke for a second edition of the Hibernia Dominicana.

JOHN T. MCNICHOLAS

Thomas Nicholas Burke

A celebrated Dominican orator, b. 8 September, 1830, in Galway; d. 2 July, 1882, at Tallaght, Ireland. His parents, though in moderate circumstances, gave him a good education. He was placed at first under the care of the Patrician Brothers, and was afterwards sent to a private school. An attack of typhoid fever when he was fourteen years old, and the harrowing scenes of the famine year (1847), had a sobering effect on the quick-witted and studious lad, and turned his thoughts into more serious channels. Toward the end of that year he asked to be received into the Order of Preachers, and was sent to Perugia in Italy, to make his novitiate. On 29 December, he was clothed there in the habit of St. Dominic and received the name of Thomas. Shortly afterward he was sent to Rome to begin his studies in the Convent of the Minerva. He passed thence to the Roman convent of Santa Sabina, where he won such esteem by his fervour, regularity, and cheerfulness, that his superiors sent him, while yet a student, as novice-master to Woodchester, the novitiate of the resuscitated English Province. He was ordained priest 26 March, 1853, and on 3 August, 1854, defended publicly the theses in universâ theologiâ, and took him Dominican degree of Lector. Early in the following year Father Burke was recalled to Ireland to found the novitiate of the Irish Province at Tallaght, near Dublin. In 1859 he preached his first notable sermon on “Church Music”; it immediately lifted him into fame. Elected Prior of Tallaght in 1863, he went to Rome the following year as Rector of the Dominican Convent of San Clemente, and attracted great attention in the Eternal City by his preaching. He returned to Ireland in 1867, and delivered his oration on O’Connell at Glasnevin before fifty thousand people. Bishop Leahy took him as his theologian to the Vatican Council in 1870, and the following year he was sent as Visitor to the Dominican convents in America. His fame had preceded him, and he was besieged with invitations to preach and lecture. The seats were filled hours before he appeared, and his audiences overflowed the churches and halls in which he lectured. In New York he delivered the discourses in refutation of the English historian Froude. In eighteen months he gave four hundred lectures, exclusive of sermons, the proceeds amounting to nearly $400,000. His mission was a triumph, but the triumph was dearly won, and when he arrived in Ireland on 7 March, 1873, he was spent and broken. Yet during the next ten years we find him preaching continually in Ireland, England, and Scotland. He began the erection of the church in Tallaght in 1882, and the following May preached a series of sermons in the new Dominican church, London. In June he returned to Tallaght in a dying condition, and preached his last sermon in the Jesuit church, Dublin, in aid of the starving children of Donegal. A few days afterwards he breathed forth his soul to God, in Whose service he had laboured so valiantly. Father Burke possessed all the qualities of a great orator; a rich, flexible, harmonious voice, great dramatic power, and a vivid imagination. He is buried in the church of Tallaght, now a memorial to him. Many of his lectures and sermons were collected and published in various editions in New York, as were also the four lectures in reply to Froude (1872) the latter with the title “The Case of Ireland Stated.”

FITZPATRICK, Life of Fr. Tom Burke (London, 1885); Inner Life of Fr. Burke, by a Friar Preacher, and Father Burke, in the Publications of the English and Irish Catholic Truth Societies.

STANISLAUS HOGAN

Walter Burleigh

Or Burley (Burlæus).

Friar Minor and medieval philosopher, b. in 1275 and d. in 1337. It is impossible to determine with certainty the Beuleigh was a Franciscan, as some say that he was an Augustinian; and Franciscans “can do no less than lay a claim to him,” as Parkinson remarks, “leaving the matter to be disputed by such as are disposed to contend.” He was preceptor to Edward, Prince of Wales, who afterward ascended the throne as Edward III in 1327. At Oxford he was the school-fellow of William of Occam, both being disciples of Duns Scotus. He taught at Paris for some time and was known as the Plain and Perspicuous Doctor (Doctor planus et perspicuus). Burleigh figured prominently in the dispute concerning the nature of universals. Following the doctrine of Scotus in this regard, he became, on the one hand, the adversary of William of Occam, the father of nominalism-that is, the doctrine that holds that universals are empty words, or nomina, having no real existence whatever; and on the other, the opponent of the extreme realists who taught the universal, as such, has actual or formal existence outside the mind. In this connection it should be remembered that, as in the question of universals, so in others of greater importance in philosophy, Scotus can be understood and interpreted only by one who has mastered by diligent and well-directed study the peculiar terminology of the Subtle Doctor and grasped his sometimes abstruse concepts of metaphysical principles.

Scotus was undoubtedly a moderate realist, that is, he taught that the universale in actu, to use his own words, non est nisi in intellectu, though having a foundation in extra-mental reality; and Burleigh followed his master. But when the disciples of Scotus endeavoured to construct on his principles a doctrine of exaggerated realism, burleigh’s opposition to this mistaken interpretation of Scotus’doctrine was vigorous and uncomprimising. He then, at least in this point, was the adversary of the Scotists rather than of Scotus himself. Burleigh’s only work on theology is a commentary “in Magistrum Sententiarum.” His philosophical writings include (1) “De intentione et remissione formarum”; (2) “Exposito in libros Ethicorum Aristotelis”; (3) “De vitis et moribus philosophorum”; (4) “De potentiis animae”; (5) “Summa totius logicae”; (6) “Commentaria in libros Posteriorum Aristotelis”; (7) “Tractatus de materia et forma et relativis”; (8) “De fluxu et refluxu maris anglicani.”

PARKINSON, Collectanea Anglo-Minoritica, ad. an. 1337 (London, 1726), 151; HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1893, IV, 425; JEILER, in Kirchenlex., II, 1542.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Diocese of Burlington

(Burlingtonensis).

Diocese established 14 July, 1853; comprises the whole State of Vermont, U.S.A., an area of 9135 square miles. The territory now making up the State of Vermont was not only discovered but first settled by Catholics. Champlain bestowed on the State in 1609 the name it bears and the first Mass said within its boundaries was offered up in 1666 by a Sulpician priest from Montreal, in the chapel of the little fort of St. Anne on Isle Lamothe -now the site of a shrine of pilgrimage-where a few soldiers upheld the authority of the King of France. In 1668 Bishop Laval of Quebec went there and thus gave to Vermont the honour of the first episcopal visitation and ministration in New England and probably in the United States. During the years that followed, Jesuit and other missionaries traversed the State and left the evidences of their zeal in the converted Indians and the Catholic settlers in many villages. In 1734 there were fourteen Catholic families grouped about a chapel at Alburgh. After Canada had been ceded to the English in 1760 many New England emigrants went to Vermont, but the Bishops of Quebec still continued to look after the Catholics there. When the Diocese of Boston was created in 1810 the State of Vermont was included within its jurisdiction, and the venerable Father Matignon of Boston visited Burlington in 1815 and found about one hundred Catholics Canadians there without a priest or church. Father Migneault of Chambly, Canada was a frequent visitor for a number of years, ministering to the scattered families along the border. Father James Fitton of Boston was another pioneer priest. The first resident priest in Vermont was Rev. Jeremiah O’Callaghan, a native of Cork, Ireland, whose eccentric notions on the question of usury got him into difficulty with the bishop of his native diocese; he was sent to Burlington in 1830 by Bishop Fenwick and remained there until 1854, his influence and pastoral zeal radiating far and wide. He built St. Peter’s church, Burlington in 1832. He died at Holyoke, Massachusetts, 23, February, 1861. In 1837 the Rev. John D. Daly, another eccentric but learned man, commenced to care for the missions in the southern part of the State and laboured until 1854, when he retired to New York where he died in 1870. Notable also among the priests ministering in the State during this early period were Fathers William Ivers, George Hamilton, Edward McGowan, James Walsh, M. Petithomme, P. Drolet, and M. Chevailier. In 1843, the Catholics of the State numbered 4940, but the building of railroads and the establishment of numerous public works soon brought a steady increase.

In 1853 on the petition of the bishops of the Provence of New York, the pope erected Vermont into a diocese with Burlington as the titular city. The Very Rev. Louis De Goesbriand, then Vicar-General of the Diocese of Cleveland, Ohio, was named the first bishop and consecrated in New York by Archbishop Bedini, 30 October, 1853. He was born 4 August, 1816, at Saint-Urbain, Finistère, France. He studied at Asint-Sulpice, Paris, and was ordained priest at St. Louis, U.S.A., 30 July, 1840. He found on his arrival in Vermont five priests, ten churches, and about 20,000 Catholics. In January, 1855, he went to Europe to secure priests in Ireland and France and with the aid of those who answered his appeal for volunteers, new parishes were organized, churches built, schools opened, and the work of evangelizing went on vigorously. The first diocesan synod was held in Burlington, 4 and 5 October, 1855, at which nine priests attended. On 17 July, 1890, Bishop De Goesbriand celebrated the golden jubilee of his ordination and in 1892 he asked for a coadjutor. The choice fell on the Rev. John Stephen Michaud, then pastor at Bennington, the son of an Irish mother and Canadian father and born at Burlington, 24 Novenber, 1843. He made his studies at St. Joseph’s Seminary, Troy, New York, and was ordained priest, 7 June, 1873. He was consecrated titular Bishop of Modra and coadjutor of Burlington, 29 June, 1892. Bishop De Goesbriand retired to live in the Orphan Asylum at Burlington and died 3 November, 1899, the dean of the American hierarchy. Bishop Michaud immediately succeeded to the see. Bishop De Goesbriand was one of the prelates who attended the Vatican Council in 1869.

The religious communities now represented in the diocese are the Fathers of St. Edmond (C.S.E.), the Brothers of St. Gabriel, Sisters of Charity of Providence, Sisters of the Holy Cross and of the Seven Dolours, Sisters of the Holy Ghost, Ladies of St. Joseph, Sisters of St. Joseph, Hospital Sisters of St. Joseph, Sisters of Mercy, Sisters of the Congregation of Notre Dame,, of the Presentation, of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and of the Assumption. There are in the diocese 99 priests, 88 secular, 11 regular; 95 churches, 70 with resident pastors, and 27 missions with churches; 20 stations; 275 women in religious communities; 15 ecclesiastical students in the diocesan seminary; 3 academies for boys, 9 for girls; 21 parish schools with 6096 pupils; 2 orphanage schools with 260 pupils, 220 orphans in the diocesan asylum; 2 colleges for boys; 2 hospitals; Catholic population estimated 75,953; children under Catholic care 6175. The hospital at Winooski Park is named after Fanny Allen, daughter of General Ethan Allen of Revolutionary fame, and the first woman of New England birth to become a nun.

DE GOESBRIAND, Catholic Memoirs of Vermont and New Hampshire (Burlington, 1886); MICHAUD in History of the Cath. Ch. in the New England States (Boston, 1899), II; SHEA, Hist. of the Cath. Ch. in U.S. (New York, 1904); REUSS, Biog. Cycl. of the Cath. Hierarchy of U.S. (Milwaukee, 1898); Catholic Directory, 1907.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Burma

Before its annexation by the British Burma consisted of the kingdoms of Ava and Pegu. In 1548 St. Francis Xavier petitioned Father Rodriguez for missionaries to go to Pegu, but nothing is known as to the outcome of his request. In 1699 the Vicar Apostolic of Siam and the Bishop of Meliapur had a dispute concerning the jurisdiction over Pegu, and Cardinal de Tournon, Legatus a latere, decided against the vicar Apostolic. The actual work of evangelizing Ava and Pegu did not begin until the pontificate of Innocent XIII who in 1722, sent Father Sigismond de Calchi a Barnabite, and Father Vittoni, of the same order, to Burma. After many trials and tribulations they succeeded in obtaining permission to preach with full liberty the Gospel of Christ. In 1741 Benedict XIV definitely established the mission, appointing Father Galizia vicar Apostolic, and placing the Barnabites in charge of the work; but in the wars which distracted those regions during the eighteenth century the last two members of the order who had remained in the country were killed. The Barnabites having given up the mission, Pius VIII sent Monsignor Frederic Cao, a member of the Congregation of Pious Schools, and titular Bishop of Zama (18 June, 1830), Gregory XVI placed the mission under the Oblates of Pinerolo, Italy, by appointing (5 July, 1842) Monsignor Giovanni Ceretti, a member of this institute, and titular Bishop of Adrianople, as first vicar Apostolic. About this date (1845) the Catholics of the two kingdoms numbered 2500. In 1848 Monsignor John Balma succeeded as vicar Apostolic (5 September, 1848), but the war with the British rendered his labours ineffectual, and the mission was abandoned about 1852.

The British had in reality begun to assume control of Burma in 1824, but it was not until 20 December, 1852, that the East India Company, after a bloody war, annexed the entire kingdom of Pegu, a territory as large as England. Many years later the kingdom of Ava was also taken by the British, and with conquest of Rangoon the whole of Burma came into the possession of Great Britain. The Oblates of Pinerolo having withdrawn from the mission, the vicariate was placed, in 1855, under the control of the Vicar Apostolic of Siam. At this date the kingdom of Ava and Pegu contained 11 priests and 5320 Catholics.

Burma is bounded on the east by China and Siam, on the West by Assam and Bengal. Its area is approximately 171,430 square rniles, while that of Great Britain and Ireland is 120,947 square miles. Notwithstanding this large extent of territory, Burma has a population of only 8, 000,000 inhabitants. For some ten years the mission remained under the administration of the vicar Apostolic of Siam; but such a condition could not be indefinitely prolonged without compromising its future. A decree of Propaganda (27 November, 1806) accordingly divided Burma into three vicariates, named respectively, with references to their geographical positions, Northern, Southern, and Eastern Burma. The boundaries then fixed were abrogated (28 June, 1870) by another decree of Propaganda, which constituted these three vicariates as they now are.

NORTHERN BURMA

This vicariate, which has been entrusted to the Missions Etrangères of Paris, is bounded on the north by the Chinese province of Yun-nan, on the east by the River Salwen, on the south by Karenni and Lower Burma, and on the west by Manipur, the Garo Hills, and the independent territories of Tipperah and Assam. In a population of 3,500,000 there are 7248 Catholics, whose spiritual needs are served by 22 European clergy of the Missions Etrangères of Paris and 3 native priests with 47 churches or chapels. The vicariate also possesses 18 schools with 754 children, a seminary with 22 students, 2 boarding-schools with 160 pupils and 6 orphanages with 315 orphans. This is the most dense of the vicar Apostolic is at Mandalay. The stations having one chapel and a resident missionary are Pyinmana, Yamèthin, Magyidaw, Chanthagon, Myokine, Chaung-u, Nabet, Shwebo, Chanthaywa, Monhla, Bhano, and Maymyo. At Mandalay there are, besides the cathedral, the Tamil church of St. Xavier, a Chinese church, and that of St. John’s Asylum. The language commonly used in this vicariate is Burmese, but residents ordinarily employ their respective native tongues, which amounts for the Chinese church at Mandalay. This city of 188,000 inhabitants is a busting centre of traffic between Lower Burma and the Province of Yun-nan; hence the large Chinese element in the population.

EASTERN BURMA

The vicariate is entrusted to the Milan Seminary of Foreign Missions. Its boundaries, determined by decree of 26 August, 1889, are: on the north the Chinese Province of Yun-nan; on the east, the Mekong, the subsequent course of which bounds Cambodia and Annam; on the south, Karenni and Shan; on the west, the River Salween and part of the course of the Sittang. The vicariate is made up of two quite distinct portions connected almost at right angles by a somewhat narrow strip of territory. The first of these portions comprises Toungoo and the regions Iying between the Sittang and the Salween as far as 20 north latitude; from this parallel of latitude the second portion stretches north to the Tropic of Cancer, bordered on the east and south by China, Annam, and Siam, and on the west by the River Salween.

The beginnings of the mission go back to 1868 when the Milan Seminary of Foreign Missions sent thither Monsignor Biffi as prefect Apostolic, accompanied by Sebastian Carbode, Conti, and Rocco Tornatori. The last named of these is the present vicar Apostolic, and has resided forty years in the vicariate. There are 10, 300 Catholics in this vicariate, the population of which is not exactly known, but amounts to something like 2,000 000. The vicar Apostolic resides in the Leitko HiIls and visits 130 villages in the Karenni district, where there are 10,000 Catholics—almost the whole Catholic population of the vicariate. There is a school, with 65 children, a convent of the Sisters of Nazareth of Milan, with 40 girls, and, in some of the villages, the beginnings of schools with a few pupils. Toungoo, in the south of the vicariate, with 300 Catholics, has an English school of 130 children of various races, a Native school of 100 children, and a convent of the Sisters of the Reparation of Nazareth of Milan with 70 girls. There are 10 priests. In I902 there were 140 conversions from Paganisms and 6 from Protestantism. The stations provided with are, besides the residence of the vicar Apostolic, Toungoo, Northern Karenni, Yedashe, and Karenni.

SOUTHERN BURMA

This vicariate, entrusted to the Missions Etrangères of Paris, comprises all the territory included in British (Lower) Burma before the annexation of Upper Burma, with the exception, however, of the province of Arakan (attached in 1879 to the Diocese of Dacca) and the Toungoo district (assigned to the Vicariate of Eastern Burma). It is, therefore, bounded on the east by the Diocese of Dacca, on the north by Eastern Burma, on the west by Siam, and on the south by the sea. It extends from the nineteenth to the tenth parallel of north latitude, and, beginning from Moulmein, forms a long and rather narrow strip of land shut in between Siam on the one side and the sea on the other.

In a population estimated at 4,000,000 as many as 45,.579 Catholics are found distributed among 23 stations, the most important of which in respect of Catholic population are: Rangoon, with 2336 Catholics; Moulmein, 1400; Bassein, 1040; Myaung-mya, 4000; Kanaztogon, 4482; Mittagon, 3000; Maryland, 2412; Gyobingauk Tharrawady, 2200. The seat of vicariate Apostolic is at Rangoon. The clergy number 49 European priests, and the vicariate has 231 churches and chapels. The schools are conducted by the Brothers of the Christian Schools, the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, of St. Joseph of the Apparition, and of St. Francis Xavior, those known under this last name being natives. The vicariate supports 12 Anglo-native schools with 4501 children, and 65 Burman or Tamil schools which give instruction to 2200 pupils. The Little Sisters of the Poor, 9 in number, take care of 55 old people at Rangoon, and the Missionaries of Mary have an asylum sheltering 100 children, besides which there are 21 orphanages, containing 790 children, under the care of the above mentioned religious communities. This vicariate, therefore, is in further advanced in Christianity than the other two, a condition due to its greater accessibility and the British influence, which is more fully developed in these regions. In 1845, as has been seen, there were only 2500 Catholics in Burma, sixty years later there are 59,127—a proof of the activity of the missionaries and a pledge for the future.

Monsignor Alexander Cardot, Bishop of Limyra, Vicar Apostolic of Southern Burma, was born at Fresse, Haute-Saône, France, 9 January, 1859, and educated in the seminaries of Luneil and Vesoul and of the Missions Etrangères. Monsignor Cardot began his labours in the mission field in 1879, and in 1893 was appointed coadjutor to Bishop Bigandet, his predecessor in the vicariate, who consecrated him at Rangoon (24 June, 1893). He succeeded to the vicariate on the death of Bishop Bigandet, 19 March, 1894.

STREIT, Atlas des Missions (Steyl, 1906); Madras Catholic Directory (1907); Missiones Catholicœ (Rome, 1907), 232–237.

ALBERT BATTANDIER

Peter Hardeman Burnett

First American Governor of California, U.S.A., b. in Nashville, Tennessee, 15 Nov., 1807, of Virginian ancestry; d. at San Francisco, California, 16 May, 1895. At an early age he was taken by his father to Missouri, where amid primitive conditions of life he succeeded in obtaining an elementary education. At the age of nineteen he returned to Tennessee, and soon after married Harriet W. Rogers, to whom he attributed much of the success of his later career. After his marriage he started in business for himself, studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1839. He also edited “The Far West,” a weekly paper published at Liberty, Missouri. About this time he became a member of the Church of the Disciples, or Campbellites, founded by Alexander Campbell, a seceder from the Baptists. In 1843, removing with his family to Oregon, he took a prominent part in the formation of the territorial government and was a member of the legislature from 1844 to 1848. During this period the published debate between Campbell and Bishop Purcell of Cincinatti fell into his hands, and though after reading it he still remained a Protestant, his confidence in Protestantism was considerably shaken. He then began a systematic investigation of the true religion, became convinced of the truth of the Catholic claims, and in June, 1846, was received into the church at Oregon city by Father De vos.

In the year 1848 Burnett went to California, where he was elected a member of the Legislative Assembly and took a leading part in its Proceedings. He was appointed judge of the superior tribunal in August, 1849 and did good work in the framing of the State Constitution. In September he was chosen chief justice, and on the thirteenth of November of the same year he was elected the first American Governor of California, though California was not admitted as a State into the Union till September, 1850. He resigned the governorship in 1851 and resumed the practice of law until his appointment in 1857 as a Justice of the Supreme Court of California by Gov. J. Neeley Johnson. His term expired in October 1858. He was also President of the Pacific Bank from 1863 to 1880, after which he retired from active business. In 1860 Judge Burnett wrote his famous book “The Path which led a Protestant Lawyer to the Catholic Church” (New York, 1860), wherein he bases his conversion on clear-cut logical principles. With regard to this work Dr. Brownson says “In writing his book, Judge Burnett has rendered a noble homage to his new faith. . . . Through him California has made a more glorious contribution to the Union than all the gold of her mines, for truth is more precious than gold, yea, than fine gold” (Brownson’s Review, April, 1860). This was followed by his work on “The American Theory of Government, Considered with Referenee to the Present Crisis” (2d ed., New York, 1861). During the period of his retirement he published “Recollections and Opinions of an Old Pioneer” (New York, 1860), which “is especially valuable in connection with the early political and constitutional history of the Pacific coast” (Nation, XXX, 389), and “Reasons Why We Should Believe in God, Love God and Obey God” (New York, 1884).

The Ave Maria (Notre Dame, 1–29., 1898); Catholic News, files (New York, 5 June, 1895); The Pilot, files (Boston, 1 June, 1895); Brownson’s Review, April, 1863).

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

James Burns

Publisher and author, b. near Montrose, Forfarshire, Scotland, 1808; d. in London, 11 April, 1871. During the last half of the nineteenth century his work in the cause of Catholic literature and Catholic church music contributed much to the rapid advancement of the Church in Great Britain and to the many conversions that were made throughout that period. His father was a Presbyterian minister and sent him to a college in Glasgow with the idea that he should follow the same calling. But feeling no inclination for it, he left the school in 1832 and went to London where he found employment with a publishing firm. He acquired a thorough knowledge of this trade and then set up for himself in a modest way. He soon won success and the ministers of the Established Church adopted him as an active auxiliary in their literary campaign of tracts and polemic publications. He then became a “Puseyite,” or high-churchman. From his press were issued many interesting and instructive books of a high literary tone in the series he called “The Englishman’s Library” and “The Fireside Library.” The Oxford Movement under Newman of course drew him within its range, with the result that, in spite of the great worldly sacrifice it meant, he followed the example of many of his friends and became a convert in 1847.

The change was one of the sensations of the time and involved for him the making of a new business life and fortune. The Anglican publications of the old house were sold off and he set to work, and succeeded, in a comparatively brief time, in building up an equally enviable reputation as an enterprising and prolific publisher of good and wholesome Catholic literature. To his “Popular Library” Cardinal Wiseman contributed “Fabiola” and Cardinal Newman, “Callista.” Other volumes from a host of well-known writers, prayer books, and books of devotion soon made the name of the firm of burns & Oates a household word throughout the English-speaking world. Mr. Burns also wrote constantly on church music and edited and republished many compositions of the best masters. He continued his busy life in spite of a painful internal malady which ended in cancer, from which he died. His widow, who was also a convert, survived him twenty-two years, dying a member of the Ursuline community at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., January, 1893. Of his five daughters, four entered the Ursuline Order and the other became a Sister of Charity. His only son was ordained a priest, serving for a long time as chaplain at Nazareth House, Hammersmith, London.

Catholic Family Annual (New York, 1884); London Tablet and Weekly Register, files (15 April, 1871).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Burse

(Bursa, “hide,” “skin”; whence “bag” or “purse”).

A receptacle in which, for reasons of convenience and reverence, the folded corporal is carried to and from the altar. In Roman form the burse is ordinarily made of two juxtaposed pieces of cardboard about twenty-five centimetres (or ten inches) square, bound together at three edges, leaving the fourth open to receive the corporal. One outer side of the burse is of the same material and colour as the vestments with which it is used; the rest is lined with linen or silk. The use of the burse is relatively recent. When the corporal reached its present small dimensions, it was carried to the altar, sometimes in the missal, sometimes in a special receptacle, a box or bag, which finally took the present form of burse. Just when this custom began cannot be determined. “Chronicon vetus rerum Moguntinarum” (1140–1251) mentions a precious corporal-case; this may have been, however, only a box for the continual safe-keeping of the corporal. St. Charles Borromeo describes a sacculus corporalis distinct from the case in which corporals were preserved (Acta Mediolan., 1683, I, 524). From the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries the use of the burse spread, and in 1692 it was universally illicit to celebrate Mass without one (Decreta S.R.C., 1866, 2m).

GIHR, The Sacrifice of the Mass (St. Louis, 1902), 264, 265 GAVANTUS-MERATI, Thesaurus sac. rituum (Venice, 1762), I, 90.

JOHN B. PETERSON.

Abbey of Bursfeld

In the Middle Ages on of the most celebrated Benedictine monasteries in Germany was the Abbey of Bursfeld, situated directly west of Göttingen, on the River Weser, in what is now the Prussian Provence of Hanover. It was founded in 1093 by Duke Henry of Nordheim and his wife Gertrude, who richly endowed it. Henry IV of Germany granted it numerous privileges and immunities. Its first abbot, Almericus, came from the neighbouring Abbey of Corvey, bringing thence a band of monks. Following the Benedictine tradition, Almericus opened a school in connection with the abbey, which soon became famous, and under the next four abbots its fame continued to increase. But in 1331, under the worthless Abbot Henry Lasar, monastic discipline began to relax; the school was neglected, and the rich possessions were dissipated. From 1331 to 1424 no records of the abbey were kept. When, in 1424, the aged Albert of Bodenstein became Abbot of Bursfeld, church and school had fallen almost into ruins, the monastery itself was in a dilapidated condition, and but one old monk remained there. Albert would gladly have restored Bursfeld to its former splendour, but was too old to undertake the gigantic task. He resigned the abbacy in 1430.

During the fifteenth century a strong desire for monastic and other ecclesiastical reforms made itself felt throughout the Catholic world. One of the first Benedictine reformers was the pious and zealous John Dederoth, of Münden of Nordheim. Having effected notable reforms at Clus, where he had been abbot since 1430, Dederoth was induced by Duke Otto of Brunswick, in 1433, to undertake the reform of Bursfeld. Obtaining four exemplary religious from the monastery of St. Matthias, he assigned two of them to the monastery at Clus, to maintain his reformed discipline there, while the other two went with him to Bursfeld. Being still Abbot of Clus, he was able to recruit from that community for Bursfeld. Dederoth succeeded beyond expectations in the restoration of Bursfeld and began the reform of Reinhausen, near Göttingen, but died 6 February, 1439, before his efforts in that quarter had borne fruit.

THE BURSFELD UNION

Although the monasteries reformed by him never united into a congregation, still Dederoth’s reforms may be looked upon as the foundation of the renowned Bursfeld Union, or Congregation. Dederoth, indeed, intended to unite the reformed Benedictine monasteries of Northern Germany by a stricter uniformity of discipline, but the execution of his plan was left to his successor, the celebrated John of Hagen (not to be confounded with the Carthusian John of Hagen, otherwise called Johannes de Indagine). In 1445 John of Hagen obtained permission from the Council of Basle to restore the Divine Office to the original form of the old Benedictine Breviary and to introduce liturgical and disciplinary uniformity in the monasteries that followed the reform of Bursfeld. A year later (11 March, 1446) Louis d’Allemand, as Cardinal Legate authorized by the Council of Basle, approved the Bursfeld Union, which then consisted of the six abbeys: Bursfeld, Clus, Reinhausen, Cismar in Schleswig-Holstein, St. Jacob near Mainz, and Huysburg near Magdeburg. The cardinal likewise decreed that the Abbot of Bursfeld should always ex officio be one of the three presidents of the congregation, and that he should have power to convoke annual chapters. The first annual chapter of the Bursfeld congregation convened in the monastery of Sts. Peter and Paul at Erfurt in 1446. In 1451, while on his journey of reform through Germany, the Cardinal Legate, Nicholas of Cusa, met John of Hagen at Würzburg, where the Benedictine monasteries of the Mainz-Bamberg province held their triennial provincial chapter. The legate appointed the Abbot of Bursfeld visitor for this province, and in a bull, dated 7 June, 1451, the Bursfeld Congregation was approved, and favoured with new privileges. Finally, on 6 March, 1458, Pope Pius II approved the statutes of the congregation and gave it all the privileges which Eugene IV had given to the Italian Benedictine Congregation of St. Justina since the year 1431. In 1461 this approbation was reiterated, and various new privileges granted to the congregation. Favoured by bishops, cardinals, and popes, as well as by temporal rulers, especially the Dukes of Brunswick, the Bursfeld Congregation exercised a wholesome influence to promote true reform in the Benedictine monasteries of Germany during the second half of the fifteenth, and the first half of the sixteenth, century. At the death of Abbot John of Hagen thirty-six monasteries had already joined the Bursfeld Congregation, and new ones were being added every year. During its most flourishing period, shortly before the Protestant revolt, at least 136 abbeys, scattered through all parts of Germany, belonged to the Bursfeld Union.

The religious revolution, and especially the consequent risings of the peasants in Germany, greatly retarded the progress of the Bursfeld Reform. In 1579, Andrew Lüderitz, the last Abbot of Bursfeld, was driven from the monastery by the Lutheran Duke Julius of Brunswick, and, after an existence of almost five hundred years, Bursfeld ceased to be a Catholic monastery. The possessions of the abbey were confiscated, and the abbot was replaced by an adherent of Luther. About forty other Benedictine abbeys belonging to the Bursfeld Congregation were wrested from the Church, their possessions confiscated by Lutheran princes, and their churches demolished or turned to Protestant uses. Though greatly impeded in its work of reform, the Bursfeld Congregation continued to exist until the compulsory secularization of all its monasteries at the end of the eighteenth, and the beginning of the nineteenth, century. Its last president was Bernard Bierbaum, Abbot of Werden inthe Rhine Province, who died in 1798. Bursfeld (Bursfelde) is at present a small village with about 200 inhabitants, for whom a Lutheran minister holds services in the old abbey church.

TRITREMIUS, Chronicon Hirsaugiense (St. Gall, 1690), II, 350; LEUCKFELD, Antiquitates Bursfeldenses (Leipzig and Wolfenbüttel, 1703); EVELT, Die Anfänge der Bursfelder Benedictiner-Congregation (Münster, 1865); BIEDENFELD, Mönchs- und Klosterfrauen-Orden (Weimer, 1837), I, 281; BROCKHOFF, Die Klöster der hl. kath. Kirche (Oberhausen); HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1896), I, 141; LINNEBORN, Die Reformation der westfälischen Benedictinerklöster im 15. Jahrh. durch die Bursfelder Congregation in Studien u. Mittheilungen aus dem Benedictiner-Orden, XX-XXII; BERLIÈRE, Les origines de la congrégation de Bursfeld in Revue Bénédictine, XVI.

MICHAEL OTT

Abbey of Bury St. Edmund’s

The first religious foundation there was established by Sigebert, King of the East Angles, who resigned his crown to found a monastery about 537. It became celebrated when the relics of the martyred King Edmund were brought there in 903, after which time the town, till then called Boedericsworth, became known as St. Edmund’s Town or St. Edmund’s Bury. During the reign of Canute (1016–35) the secular canons were replaced by Benedictines. In 1095 there was a solemn translation of the saint’s relics to the new church built by Abbot Baldwin. The shrine grew in fame, wealth, and magnificence till the monastery was considered second only to Glastonbury, but in 1465 a terrible fire caused irreparable loss to the church, from which it never recovered. The abbot had a seat in Parliament and possessed full jurisdiction over the town and neighbourhood. There was accomodation for eighty monks, but more than two hundred persons resided in the Abbey. At the dissolution, the revenues were valued at £2,366, equivalent to more than £20,000 in present money. It was in the abbey church that the memorable meeting of barons took place in the year 1214, when Cardinal Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, standing at the high altar, read out the proposed Charter of Liberties, which in the form of Magna Charta was signed by King John in 1215. The abbey was finally dissolved by Henry VIII in 1539, when the abbey church and the monastic buildings were in large measure destroyed, the gateway, an ancient bridge, and other scattered ruins alone now remaining. The fate of the saint’s relics has never been decided. According to one tradition, they were abstracted by Prince Louis of France in 1217. Relics purporting to be those of the saint were long preserved at Toulouse, until in 1901, Cardinal Vaughan, Archbishop of Westminster, obtained leave to translate them to England. Doubts having been thrown on the authenticity of the relics, a commission of investigation was appointed by the Holy See, but no report has been published. Among the famous monks of the Abbey were Abbot Sampson and his chronicler Jocelin of Brakelond (d. 1211); John Boston de Bury, author and bibliographer (d. 1430); John Lydgate, poet (d. 1446), and Byfield who was burnt for heresy in 1530.

THOMPSON, Records of St. Edmund’s; DUGDALE, Monasticism (London, 1821), III, 98–176; JOCELINI DE BRAKELONDA, De rebus gestis Samsonis Abbatis (Camden Society, 1840); TYMMS, Handbook of Bury St. Edmunds (8th ed., 1905). See also CARLYLE, Past and Present (1843).

EDWIN BURTON

Ven. César de Bus

A priest and founder of two religious congregations, b. 3 February, 1544, at Cavaillon, Comtat Venaissin (now France); d. 15 April, 1607, at Avignon. At eighteen he joined the king’s army and took part in the war against the Huguenots. After the war he devoted some time to poetry and painting, but soon made up his mind to join the fleet which was then besieging La Rochelle. Owing to a serious sickness this design could not be carried out. Up to this time de Bus had led a pious and virtuous life, which, however during a sojourn of three years in Paris was changed for one of pleasure and dissipation. From Paris he went back to Cavaillon. Upon the death of his brother, a canon of Salon, he succeeded in obtaining the vacated benefice, which he sought for the gratification of his worldly ambitions. Shortly after this, however, he returned to a better life, resumed his studies, and in 1582 was ordained to the priesthood. He distinguished himself by his works of charity and his zeal in preaching and catechizing, and conceived the idea of instituting a congregation of priests who should devote themselves to the preaching of Christian Doctrine. In 1592, the “Prêtres séculiers de la doctrine chrétienne,” or “Doctrinaires,” were founded in the town of L’Isle and in the following year came to Avignon. This congregation was approved by Pope Clement VIII, 23 December, 1597. Besides the Doctrinaires, de Bus founded an order of women called “Filles de la doctrine chrétienne” and later the Ursulines. Pope Pius VII declared him Venerable in 1821. Five volumes of his “Instructions familières” were published (Paris, 1666).

DE BEAUVAIS, Vie du P. César de Bus (Paris, 1645); DUMAS, Vie du P. de Bus (Paris, 1703); HELYOT, Histoire des ordres religieux, revised ed. by BADICHE in MIGNE, Encyclopédie théologique (Paris, 1848), XXI; BRISCHAR in Kirchenlex., III, 1873, s.v. Doctrinarier; BAILLET, Les vies des saints (Paris, 1739), III, 617; HEIMBUCHER, Die orden und Kongregationen der kathol. Kirche (Paderborn, 1897), II, 338.

C.A. DUBRAY

Pierre Busée

(Busæus or Buys).

A Jesuit theologian, born at Nimwegen in 1540; died at Vienna in 1587. When twenty-two years old he entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus at Cologne where, six years later (1567) he became master of novices. In addition to this office he was appointed to give religious instruction to the higher classes in the Jesuit college at Cologne. He then undertook to complete the large catechism of Canisius by adding to it the full text of the Scriptural and patristic references cited by the author. St. Peter Canisius himself encouraged this undertaking. The first volume appeared at Cologne in 1569, under the title Authoritates sacræ Scripturæ et sanctorum Patrum, quæ in summa doctrinæ christianæ doctoris Petri Canisii citantur. The following year, 1570, the work was completed, and was received at once with much favor. It consists of four volumes; for some unknown reason the last volume is lacking in the fine edition of the catechism, with notes by Busée, which was issued in 1571 by the celebrated house of Manutius of Venice, the descendants of Aldus Manutius. In 1577, a new edition, revised and augmented by another Jesuit, Jean Hase, was published at Cologne in one folio volume, under another title: Opus catechisticum . . . D. Petri Canisii theologi S. J. præclaris divinæ Scripturæ testimoniis, sanctorumque Patrum sententiis sedulo illustratum operâ D. Petri Busæi Noviomagni, ejusd. Soc. theologi, nunc vero primum accessione novâ locupletatem atque restitutum. Six years before this Father Busée had left Cologne and gone to Vienna, where he lectured on the Holy scriptures in the university and taught Hebrew at the college of the Jesuits. In 1584 Busée went to Rome at the command of the General of the Society, Father Acquaviva, who had appointed him a member of a commission to draw up a system or plan of studies (Ratio Studiorum) for the entire Society. On his return to Vienna, Busée was made Rector of the College of Nobles and died while holding this position.

DE BACKER AND SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliothéque. de la c. de J., II, col. 439–442; BRAUNSBERGER, Entstehung und erste Entwicklung der Katechismen des S. Petrus Canisius (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1893); BRUCKER in Dict. de théol. cath., II, col. 1265, 1266.

A. FOURNET

Hermann Busembaum

Moral theologian, born at Notteln, Westphalia, 1600; died at Münster, 31 January, 1668. He entered the Society of Jesus in his nineteenth year. After completing his studies, he taught the classics, philosophy, and moral and dogmatic theology, in various houses of the order. He was rector of the colleges of Hildesheim and Münster, socius to the provincial, and again rector at Münster when he died. His prudence, keenness of intellect, firmness of will, large-heartedness and tack combined to form a rare character. These natural gifts were heightened by a singular innocence of life and constant communion with God. Hence we are not surprised to learn that he was eminently successful as a director of souls. He was chosen by Christoph Bernard von Galen, the Prince-Bishop of Münster, as his confessor, and became his most trusted advisor; and much of the growth and enduring spiritual activity of that diocese is due to these two men. Towards the end of his life Busembaum was attacked by a lingering and extremely painful sickness. He died peacefully and with sentiments of great piety. He was a holy man; but it was as a great theologian that he is especially remembered. In 1645 as Southwell says, or according to De Backer in 1650, appeared his principal work: Medulla theologiæ moralis facili ac perspicua methodo resolvens causa conscientiæ ex variis probatisque auctoribus concinnata. This work is a classic; its conciseness, clearness, method, depth, vastness of theological lore comprised into so small a volume, sanity of judgment, and practical utility proclaimed its author to be a man gifted in a superlative degree with the moral instinct and the powers of a great teacher. Busembaum’s name became in a short while one of the important ones in moral theology. In his preface to the first edition, he acknowledges his indebtedness to two Jesuits, Hermann Nünning and Friedrich Spe, whose manuscripts he had before him while composing his own work, and he claims for them a share in whatever good his “Medulla” was to effect. The author lived to see the fortieth edition of his little book. Up to the year 1845 over two hundred editions had appeared, which gives us an average of more than one edition for every year of its existence. The book was printed in all the great centres of the Catholic world, Münster, Cologne, Frankfort, Ingolstadt, Lisbon, Lyon, Venice, Padua, and Rome; it was used as a textbook in numberless seminaries for over two centuries. This success was certainly phenomenal. Nor was Busembaum less fortunate in his commentators. Three of the greatest moralists of their respective periods, La Croix, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, and, in our own days, Ballerini, took the “Medulla” as their text and commented on it in their masterly volumes. St. Alphonsus wished to put into the hands of the students of his congregation the book that would help them most to master in a limited time and with order the difficult science of moral theology. During several years, he had read very many authors, but his choice finally fell on Busembaum.

The foregoing statements give full assurance of Busembaum’s orthodoxy and authority. For it is incredible that the Church would have tolerated in the schools in which her future priests were being trained for the sacred ministry a book that taught a morality which was not her own. The attacks made on Busembaum have been singularly futile. He was accused of teaching doctrine that was subversive of authority and of the security of kings. This charge was founded on the following proposition:

Ad defensionem vitæ et integretatis membrorum licet filio et religioso et subdito se tueri, si opus sit, cum occisione, contra ipsum parentem, abbatem, principem, nisi forte propter mortem hujus secutura essent nimis magna incommoda, ut bella. (Lib. III, Pt. I, tr. iv, dub. 3, “De homocidio”)

Busembaum lays down this principle: according to natural law it is permitted to repel by force an unjust aggressor, and if it be necessary for the saving of one’s life, to kill him. In such cases, however, the person attacked should have the intention of defending himself and should not inflict greater harm or use more force than is necessary for self-defense. Then according to his method, Busembaum applies the principle to various cases; and among them is the one to which the adversaries object. So that the proposition that caused the trouble is merely an application of a principle of the natural law to an individual case. This proposition is taken almost verbatim from St. Antoninus. It is essentially the same as the doctrine of St. Thomas, who says:

And therefore as it is permitted to resist robbers so also it is permitted to resist evil rulers in similar circumstances, unless perchance to avoid scandal, should it be feared that any serious disturbance might result. (II-II:69:4)

St. Alphonsus refers to this proposition of Busembaum in a letter to his editor, Redmondini, 10 March, 1758, and remarks “the proposition is not at all condemnable.” The truth of the matter is that our author is here following in the footsteps of very eminent theologians, and the doctrine is not singular. Another objection is that Busembaum defends the principle, the end sanctions the means; the sense of the objection being that when the end is lawful, means in themselves unlawful are justified; that is, if the end is good, one may do something that is against the natural law to attain that end. Now the truth is that Busembaum teaches the opposite: Præceptum naturale negativum, prohibens rem intrinsece malum no licet violare ne quid ob metum mortis. (A negative precept of natural law which prohibits a thing intrinsically evil can never be lawfully transgressed not even under the influence of the fear of death, Lib. I, tr. ii, c. iv, dub. 2, n. 1) So that it is not lawful to do a thinG which is wrong in itself, even to escape death. The incriminated passage occurs under the question which Busembaum puts: Quid liceat reo circa fugam poenæ (Lib. IV, c. iii, d. 7, a. 2). He answers:

It is lawful for the accused even when really guilty to escape before and after the sentence of death or of some punishment equal to death, v.g. life imprisonment, has been passed. The reason is because man’s right to the preservation of his life is so great that no human power can oblige him not to preserve it, if there be well-grounded hope of his doing so; unless indeed the public weal demand otherwise. Hence the accused may escape . . . unless indeed charity urge him not to do so, when the harm to the guards is greater than that which would come to himself. 1) Much more so may he flee so as not to be captured . . . but he must use no violence by wounding or striking the ministers of justice. 2) He may also, at least before the tribunal of conscience, deceive the guards—excluding violence and injury—by giving them for instance food or drink to induce sleep, or by bringing it about that they will be absent; he may snap his chains, or break open the prison; because when the end is lawful, the means are also lawful.

Here therefore we have the explicit exclusion of unlawful means, and the sense of the phrase is only this: when the end is lawful, then is the use of means in themselves indifferent, i. e., not unlawful, permitted. We must here remark that there is in the “Medulla” a very small number of solutions taken from and defended by other authors, which were afterward rejected by Alexander VII and Innocent XI. But these solutions are not peculiar to Busembaum. nor should we be surprised that an author who solves almost numberless practical cases should err at times in his application of laws and principles to particular, intricate instances. The real wonder is that the mistaken applications of Busembaum’s great work are so very few.

HURTER, Nomenclatur, II, 259; THOELEN, Menologium, (Roermond, 1901), 73; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c. de J. (Paris, 1891), II, 445; FRITZ in Kirchenlex. s. v. Busembaum; DUHR, Jesuitenfabeln (Freiburg im Br., 1899), 432, 524; REICHMANN, Der Zweck heiligt die Mittel (Freiburg im Br., 1903), 13, 22, 121; Letters of St. Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri(New York, 1896), Pt. II, Special Correspondence, I, let. xxxvi.

TIMOTHY B. BARRETT.

Busiris

A titular see taking its title from one of the many Egyptian cities of the same name. This particular Busiris was situated in the middle of the Delta, on the Pathmitish, or Damietta Branch of the Nile. The ancient Egyptian name, Pa-osiri means “House of Osiris,” the god being supposed to be buried there; hence the Coptic Pousiri, Greek Pousiris and Bouseiris, Arabic Abusir. It now exists as a village under the last of these names and is to be distinguished from another similarly named town on the coast of Lydia. Busiris was the chief town of the Busirite nomos (Hierocles, Synecdemos 725,7) and became a see of Ægyptus Secunda. Its bishop, Hermæon, is mentioned at Nicæa (325) by Meletius, as one of his partisans. About this time there was united to the title of Busiris that of Kynos, from the important city of Lower Kynos (Athanas., “Apol. c. Arianos,” lxxviii, in P.G. ., XXV, 376). Its bishop, Athanasius, defended Dioscorus at the Latroecinium of Ephesus in 449, but apologized publicy at Chalcedon (Liberatus, Breviarium, xiv). From the seventh century on, the see is mentioned in the lists of the Greek patriarchate (Georgius Cyprius, 736), though its titulars belong really to the Jacobite patriarchate. Thus, in 742, its bishop, James, takes a part in the election of the Patriarch Michael I (Renaudot, “Hist. Patriarch. Alexandrin.,” 207); a little later, under the same patriarch, its bishop, Peter, is mentioned (ibid., 227); we hear also of Severus, under Philotheus (979–1003) and of Chail, or Michael, and Mohna in the thirteenth century (ibid., 458, 569).

LEQUIEN, Or. Christ., II, 569,570; GAMS, Series episcop., 461. For the ruins at Abusir, see NAVILLE in the Seventh Mem. of the Egyptian Exploration Fund (London, 1890), 27.

L. PETIT.

Buskins

(Caligæ).

Ceremonial stockings of silk, sometimes interwoven with gold threads, and even heavily embroidered, worn by the celebrant of a pontifical Mass. Originally worn by priests, they were reserved about the eighth century for the exclusive use of bishops, a privilege recently extended to lesser prelates. In colour they correspond to the chasuble, but are never worn with black.

CATALANI, Cærem. Episcop. Comm. Illus. (Paris, 1860), I, 197–199; BERNARD, Le Pontifical (Paris, 1902), I, 17–18; MACALISTER, Ecclesiastical Vestments (London, 1896). 104–105.

JOHN B. PETERSON.

Franz Joseph, Ritter von Buss

Jurist, b. 23 March, 1803 at Zell in Baden; d. 31 January, 1878, at Freiburg im Breisgau. He studied at the University of Freiburg where he took the doctor’s degree in philosophy, law, and medicine. After a short stay at the Universities of Bonn and Göttingen he returned to Freiburg, passed a brilliant examination and was appointed attorney for that city. He became ordinary professor at the university in 1836, where he soon obtained a large following among the students, because in the face of strong opposition he treated fearlessly vexed social and ecclesiastical problems. To meet his many opponents Buss often lectured four, even five, times a day. Throughout his life he warmly advocated the interests of the people, whom he habitually reached through the press and his public discourses. Besides a modern language club of which he was the founder and president, he gave much of his time to creating at Freiburg a centre for the comparative study of European legislation and jurisprudence. A large collection of valuable material was already in his hands, and his extensive knowledge of law and of the principal languages of Europe seemed to promise success. He soon found, however, that the means of international correspondence were inadequate to the enterprise. Some of the material collected appeared in book form (1835–46), the sole fruit of his great scheme.

In 1837 Buss was elected to the Lower House of Baden and addressed himself at once to such subjects as the social question, the liberty of the Church, a uniform customs system, and closer commercial union between the States of Germany. Unfortunately, Buss met from the beginning a hostile majority, deaf to all his propositions and bent on his defeat. He was reproached in open Parliament with the errors and false steps into which the liberalism and restless activity of his youth had betrayed him. Unable to make the least impression on the assembly he resigned his seat. Elected again in 1846, Buss opposed vigorously the “Deutschkatholicismus” of Ronge. This brought out his opponents in full force. Extensive petitions in his favor compelled the Government to dissolve the Parliament; but the new election brought no improvement. Buss was still the only champion of the Church in the Lower House, whilst in the upper the whole weight of the opposition fell on Baron von Andlau and his colleague Hirscher.

Buss now directed his impressible activities to more profitable work. The “Methodology of Canon Law” (1842), the “Influence of Christianity on Law and State” (1844), the “Difference between Catholic and Protestant Universities in Germany” (1846), the “German Union and the Love of Prussia,” the “Re-establishment of Canon Law,” and the “Defence of the Jesuits” (1853) appeared in rapid succession, each to do the work of the hour. But these publications did not absorb all his energy. He introduced the Sisters of Charity into the Grand Duchy of Baden; transformed his own house into an ecclesiastical college; during the famine of the winter of 1846 he fed thousands of starving people in the Black Forest; and he organized the Catholics politically and formed them into societies. In 1848 Buss had the honor of presiding over the first general assembly of the German Catholic associations in Mainz. He represented Ahaus-Steinfurt in the German Parliament at Frankfort. There, as in the Erfurt Union Parliament, where he was the leader of the Greater-Germany Party, he favoured Austria as against Prussia. When the opposition to the Church in Baden developed into open hostility, Buss was at the side of the archbishop, Herman von Vicari. He now very opportunely published (1855) he “Life of St. Thomas of Canterbury,” and dedicated it to the persecuted archbishop. He was elected for the third time to the Baden Landtag when the Concordat between Baden and the Holy See was in jeopardy. He at once organized a popular deputation to the sovereign, comprising representatives from all the parishes of Baden. But the old opposition prevented the demonstration, invalidated his election, and ejected him from the Landtag, and finally, at the next election, his constituents forsook him. Buss, now, more than ever, turned his face toward Austria. During the Austro-Italian was he was so active and successful at the head of an association for the relief of the German prisoners that in acknowledgment of his services the emperor conferred on him the Order of the Iron Crown. He also organized at Vienna a great manifestation in favor of the temporal power of the pope, for which he was decorated by Pius IX with the Order of Gregory the Great.

Under the strain of excessive work and some bitter disappointments, Buss broke down completely in 1866. A grave attack of melancholy unbalanced his mind. After long treatment he recovered, but events had meanwhile advanced so rapidly that he no longer recognized the old Fatherland. His long cherished hopes for the hegemony of Austria were blasted. He rejoiced at the victories of the German armies in the Franco-Prussian war, but remained averse to the new German Empire. Elected a fourth time to the Lower House of Baden, Buss maintained his former reputation. In 1874 he was sent to the Reichstag by a very large vote and took his seat with the Centre Party. In 1877, after the death of his youngest child, he withdrew from public life and died soon after. In spite of failures Buss achieved a great success in keeping Catholics alive to current events and their bearing on the Church. He set Catholic Germany a stimulating example by organizing and binding together no less than four hundred Catholic associations, while to the Catholics of Baden he gave what they most needed, a consciousness of their strength, and the determination to fight for their civic and religious rights.

GOYAU, L’Allemagne religieuse (Paris, 1905), II, 269 sqq.; HÄGELE in Kirchenlex., II, 1556–61.

CHARLES B. SCHRANTZ.

Carlos María Bustamante

Mexican statesman and historian, b. at Oaxaca, Mexico, 4 November, 1774; d. in Mexico, 29 September, 1848. Although constantly concerned in the politics of Mexico, and occupying several very responsible positions during the most trying times of the Mexican Republic until the close of the war with the United States, Bustamante found time and leisure to secure a prominent position in the historical literature of his country. In 1796 he took up the study of law, participated in the attempts to secure independence from Spain, and, when that was finally achieved, opposed the designs of Iturbide to transform the newborn republic into a hereditary monarchy. Repeatedly imprisoned and banished, he was nevertheless appointed to important positions in the Government. The American war was a source of deep grief to him, and he felt so keenly the disastrous results of it for his country that he survived its close only about one year. His historical sketch of that war is a sad record of the decay and disintegration which afflicted Mexico at the time. He writes with the greatest frankness, and unsparingly, about the conduct of the was on the Mexican side. His autobiography, published in 1833, is also valuable as a fragment of contemporary history.

Bustamante distinguished himself by publishing historical works on colonial times, till then in manuscript, and partly forgotten. Above all, his publication of “Historia general de las cosas de Nueva España,” by Fray Bernardino de Sahagún of the second half of the Sixteenth century, was a service to historical research. It is open to grave criticism, being defective and sometimes slovenly, but it should not be forgotten that it is the first, of its kind and was published during the most troubled period of the editors life. It must be condemned as unreliable in many respects, and yet it has opened the road to more exhaustive, and hence more valuable investigations. In addition to the work of Sahagún, Bustamante printed the chronicle of Gomara, the work of Veytia on Tezcuco, the dissertations of Gama on two large Mexican sculptures, and others. To the history by Sahagún he added one of the relaciones if Ixtilxochitl, selected by him for the passionate spirit which it displays against the Spaniards. Bustamante’s anti-Spanish feelings influence even his scientific publications and detract from their value.

Any modern history of Mexico touches on the life and writings of Bustamante. In addition to the autobiography mentioned (Lo que se dice, y lo que se hace, 1833), and the light shed by his other works, the “Diccionario universal de Historia y Geografia”{Mexico, 1853), contains an exhaustive account of the man. Alamán has written about him in terms of great eulogy, putting in relief especially his private character and the virtues of his domestic life.

ALAMÁN, Historia de México (Mexico, 1848); IDEM, Disertaciones sobre la Historia de la República Mexicana (Mexico, 1848); Diccionario hispano-americano.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Thomas Stephen Buston

(or Busten)

A Jesuit missionary and author, born 1549, in the Diocese of Salisbury, England; died at Goa, 1619. He entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus on 11 October, 1576, and in the following year sailed for India, landing at Goa on 24 October, 1578. He settled in the island of Salsette, on the west coast of the peninsula, and in 1584 he became superior of the Jesuits in that district, retaining the office until his death thirty-five years later. Buston wrote several works to further the instruction and conversion to Christianity of the natives; his writings are the earliest known to have been printed in Hindustan. Buston’s published works are: “Arte da lingoa cararina,” a grammar of the language spoken in Canara, a district on the Malabar coast. It is written in Portuguese, the language used by Europeans on that coast. Father Diogo de Ribeiro had the work printed, with his own additions, at Goa, in 1640. “Doutrina christã em lingua bramana” (1632); “Discurso sobre a vida de Jesus Christo” (Rachol, 1649); “Purana,” a collection of poems written in the Indian language, illustrating the chief mysteries of Christianity. Buston, at the time of his death, was held in general repute as an apostle and a saint.

SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliographie des écrivains de la compagnie de Jésus, II, 409, 470; JÖCHER, Allgemeines Gelehrten-Lexicon, I.

D. O. HUNTER-BLAIR

John Patrick Crichton-Stuart, Third Marquess of Bute

Born at Mountstuart, Bute, 12 September, 1847; d. at Dumfries House, Ayrshire, 9 October, 1900, was the only child of the second Marquess by his second wife, Lady Sophia Hastings, and succeeded to the family honours when only six months old. His mother died in 1859, and after some disputes between his guardians he was sent to Harrow and subsequently to Christ Church, Oxford. Here he came under the influence of the advanced section of the Anglican Church, whose tenets his keen and logical intellect quickly saw to be inconsistent with non-communion with the Catholic Church. Bute’s letters to one of his very few intimate friends during his Oxford career show with what conscientious care he worked out the religious question for himself. On the 8th of December, 1868, he was received into the Church by Monsignor Capel at a convent in Southwark, and a little later was confirmed by Pius IX, in Rome. He was present in Rome during part of the sittings of the Vatican Council, travelled afterwards in the East, and then returned home to settle down on his extensive estates in Scotland and Wales.

In April, 1872, he married the Hon. Gwendolen Howard, eldest daughter of the first Lord Howard of Glossup, and had by her three sons and a daughter. A scholar and somewhat of a recluse by temperament, Bute had a high sense of public duty, and admirably fulfilled his functions as a great landowner and employer of labour. The first peer of modern times to undertake municipal office, he served both as Mayor of Cardiff and (twice) as Provost of Rothesay, in his titular island. His munificence was in proportion to his vast wealth (derived chiefly from his property in Cardiff), and innumerable poor Catholic missions throughout Britain, as well as private individuals, could testify to his lavish, though not indiscriminate generosity. A patron of learning throughout his career, he expended large sums in the assistance of impecunious scholars and in the publication of costly and erudite works. He was for several years Lord Rector of St. Andrews University, to which, as well as to Glasgow University, he was a munificent benefactor. Bute was a Knight of the Thistle, and also a Knight Grand Cross of St. Gregory and of the Holy Sepulchre. His personal habits were simple; but as a lover of art, with means to gratify his taste, he surrounded himself in his various splendid homes with much that was artistic and beautiful. His last years were clouded by a long and trying illness, patiently borne; and he died as he had lived, a devout and humble Catholic, a few weeks after his fifty-third birthday.

Bute’s chief published works are: “The Roman Breviary translated into English” (2 vols., 1879); “Ancient Language of the Natives of Teneriffe” (1891); “The Alleged Haunting of B——House” (1899); “The Altus of St. Columba” (1882); “Early Days of Sir William Wallace” (1876); “David, Duke of Rothesay” (1894); “Form of Prayers, Christmas Services, etc.” (1875, 1896); many articles in the “Scottish Review”; “Address at St. Andrews University” (published in Knight’s “Rectorial Addresses”).

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Jacques Buteux

French missionary in Canada. Born at Abbeville, in Picardy, 11 April, 1600; slain by the Iroquois savages, 10 May, 1652. He entered the Society of Jesus in October, 1620, studied at La Flèche (1622–25), was an instructor at Caen (1625–29), and after his course of theology in la Flèche (1629–33) became prefect at the College of Clermont. In 1634 he went to Canada and was sent to the new settlement of Three Rivers, where he remained for eighteen years, ministering with extraordinary zeal to the Montagnais and the Algonquin tribes. though of frail and delicate physique, his soul was fired with an ardent desire for suffering, which nothing could satisfy. It was this trait in his character which most distinguished him from the other heroic men who had devoted their lives to the same work. In truth, no peril, however great, ever blanched his cheek or stayed his hand when there was a question of serving God or saving a soul. He was endowed with a very special grace for instilling sentiments of piety into the hearts of the Indians, and those under his care were recognized by a tenderness of devotion and a spirit of faith which were lasting and altogether remarkable. Buteux himself has drawn a vivid picture of one of his apostolic journeys through a Canadian wilderness at the end of winter, of traversing almost pathless forests, crossing mountains, lakes, and rivers, wading knee deep in melting snow, and being unable on account of all these difficulties to carry enough food for more than “warding off death, rather than supporting life.” his death occurred on one of his journeys to the Attikamègues, a Montagnais tribe dwelling on the upper St. Maurice River. A troop of Iroquois lying in ambush riddled his upper right arm and breast with bullets, while the blows of their tomahawks completed the sacrifice. Mother Mary of the Incarnation writes that “his death was an incredible loss to the mission.” Father Buteux has left, besides other documents, an interesting account of the captivity of Father Isaac Jogues.

ROCHEMONTEIX, Les Jesuites et la Nouvelle-France au XVIIe siècle (Paris, 1896), I, 294, 265; THWAITES, Jesuit Relations, VI, 326. IX, 307; XXXVII, 9, 19–67; LXXII, 114–115; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliographie des éscrevains de la compagnie de Jésus, II, 471; VII, 1953.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Alban Butler

Historian, b. 10 October, 1710, at Appletree, Northamptonshire, England; d. at St-Omer, France, 15 May, 1773. He shares with the venerable Bishop Challoner the reputation of being one of the two most prominent Catholic students during the first half of the dreary eighteenth century, when the prospects of English Catholics were at their lowest. After the death of his father in 1712, he was sent to the celebrated “Dame Alice’s School,” at Fernyhalgh, in Lancashire. From thence while still young he was transferred to the English College at Douai, where he went through the full course, and was ordained priest in 1735. He had already gained a reputation for extraordinary diligence and regularity, and was asked to remain at the college as professor, first of philosophy, later on of theology. During his years at Douai, he devoted himself to what became the great work of his life, “The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs and Other Principal Saints.” His mastery of ancient and modern languages fitted him specially for a task which involved such wide reading, while his unremitting industry and steady perseverance enabled him to overcome all obstacles. He also assisted Dr. Challoner, by preparing matter for the latter’s “Memoirs of Missionary Priests,” the standard work on the martyrs of the reign of Elizabeth and later. Butler’s notes are still preserved at Oscott College.

In 1745 Alban Butler was chosen to accompany the Earl of Shrewsbury and his two brothers, James and Thomas Talbot, both afterwards bishops, on a tour through Europe. On his return he acted as mission priest in various parts of the Midland District, to which he belonged by origin. Though ever seeking leisure for study, we are told that he was precise in the discharge of all his duties, and his time was always at the disposal of the poor or others who had a claim upon him. We next find him acting as chaplain to the Duke of Norfolk, whose nephew (and heir presumptive), the Hon. Edward Howard, he accompanied to Paris as tutor. During his residence there, Butler at length completed his work on the “Lives of the Saints,” on which he had been engaged nearly thirty years. It contains biographies of more than 1,600 saints arranged in order of date; and is a monument of work and research. It was published anonymously, in London, in 1756–59, nominally in four, really in seven octavo volumes. This was the only edition which appeared during the author’s lifetime; but there have been many others since, and the work has been translated into Italian and French.

In 1766 the presidency of the English College at St-Omer, in France, falling vacant by the elevation of Thomas Talbot to the episcopate, Alban Butler was appointed to succeed his former pupil, no doubt that he might be placed where he would have greater facilities for study. The college had formerly belonged to the Jesuits, but had been handed over to the secular clergy by the French Government when the Society of Jesus was banished from France. The Douai authorities accepted the college in order to save it from being confiscated, with the intention of restoring it to its owners should circumstances ever permit. The Jesuits, however, resented their action, and under these circumstances, Alban Butler hesitated about accepting the postion offered him; but we are told by his nephew and biographer, Charles Butler, that having taken counsel of the Bishops of Amiens and Boulogne, he was advised that he could accept the post with a safe conscience. A few years later the general suppression of the Society of Jesus throughout the world put an end to any doubt on the matter. Butler found, however, that his hopes of leading a studious life were doomed to disappointment, for his reputation by this time was such that no less than four bishops of neighbouring dioceses, Arras, Boulogne, St-Omer, and Ypres, continually sought his advice, and invested him with faculties as vicar-general. Thus during the concluding years of his life he had to devote himself to active work more than at any previous time. He was buried in the parish church of St-Denis almost opposite to the English College at St- Omer. Since the Revolution, all traces of his tomb have disappeared. His works include: “Letters to a Gentleman on Bower’s Lives of the Popes” (1754); “Lives of the Saints” (1756–59; many times republished); “Life of Mary of the Holy Cross” (1767). After his death Bishop Challoner published “The Movable Feasts and Fasts”; and Charles Butler edited: “Travels” (1791), “Meditations” (1791) and, “Life of Sir Tobie Matthews” (1795).

BUTLER, Life; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog.; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.; KIRK, Biog. Collections, MS.

BERNARD WARD

Charles Butler

One of the most prominent figures among the English Catholics of his day, b. in London, 1750, d. 2 June, 1832.

He belonged to an ancient Northamptonshire family, and was a nephew of the Rev. Alban Butler, the author of “The Lives of the Saints.” After spending two or three years at a private school at Hammersrnith, he was sent to the preparatory house at Equerchin, dependent on the English College at Douai, then to the college itself, where he went through the full course. On his return to England he gave himself to the study of law. Owing to his religion, he was unable to become a barrister; so he followed the example of a large class of Catholics of that day, who became conveyancers and practised in chambers. He studied successively under Mr. Duane and Mr. Maire, both conveyancers of eminence, and Catholics. In 1775 he began to practise, and continued for over forty years. From the first he was very successful, and for more than half the period named he was acknowledged as the first conveyancer of the day. Among his pupils were some distinguished men, notably Sir Thomas Denman, afterwards attorney-general. Butler was not, however, content with his position. The fact that he could not be called to the Bar was a continual mortification to him, and it was chiefly this which led him to take an active part in the efforts of Catholics to obtain the repeal of the Penal Laws. He was elected secretary to the committee of laymen appointed for this end, and he put his heart and soul into the work. This brought him into the dissensions which unhappily existed at that time between laymen and the bishops. From the first Butler sided with the former, and the “Blue Books” which were the official publications of the committee, were almost entirely written by him. Notwithstanding the internal dissensions among the Catholic body, the bill for their partial relief was passed through Parliament in 1791, and Butler the first to profit by the enactment, was called to the Bar that year. The disputes connected with the Catholic Committee brought under direct conflict with Milner, then a simple priest. Early in the nineteenth century, when the Veto Question arose, Milner, by this time a bishop, became the strong opponent of Butler, against whom he wrote and spoke for many years. In the end, by the aid of O’Connell, Catholic Emancipation was passed in 1829, without the concession of any kind of veto.

With such an active life both professional and political, we may wonder how Charles Butler could have found time for any literary pursuits; but by a habit of early rising, a systematic division of his time, and unceasing industry, he contrived, as he himself tells us, to provide himself with an abundance of literary hours. His writings were many, and their variety indicate an extraordinary versatility of talent. He could write with facility on such different subjects as law, history, music, social questions, and Holy Scripture. Among his own profession his work on Coke-Littleton, on which he collaborated with Mr. Hargrave, is best known; among the general Catholic public his “Historical Memoirs of English, Scottish and Irish Catholics” was most read. This work brought him again into conflict with Bishop Milner, who replied with his “Supplementary Memoirs.”

Charles Butler was married in 1776 to Mary, daughter of John Eystom, of Hendred, Berks, by whom he had one son, who died young, and two daughters. In private life he was a devout Catholic; even Milner admitted that he might with truth be called an ascetic. Every Catholic work of importance numbered him among its chief subscribers. He survived his opponent, Dr. Milner, and lived to see Catholic emancipation. One of the consolations of his declining years was his elevation to the dignity of King’s Counsel after the passing of the Act, an occasion on which he received a special message of congratulation from the king.

There are two miniatures of him in possession of his grandson, Judge Stonor, one of which is the original of the engraving in the first edition of the “Historical Memoirs”; there is also an oil painting of him as a boy at Douai, and a bust at Lincoln’s Inn.

His chief works are: “Hargrave’s Coke on Littleton” (eight editions, 1775–1831); “On Impressing Seamen” (1777); “Horae Biblicae” (1797–1802); “Life of Alban Butler” (1800); “Horae Juridicae Subsecivae” (1804); Lives of Fenelon (1811) and Bossuet (1812); “Trappist Abbots and Thomas à Kempis” (1814); “Symbols of Faith of the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant Churches” (1816); “The French Church (1817); “Church Music” (1818); “Historical Memoirs of English, Scottish, and Irish Catholics” (three editions, 1819–22); “Reminiscences” (1822); “Continuation of Alban Butler’s Saints’ Lives” (1823); “Life of Erasmus” (1825); “Book of the Roman Catholic Church” (1825); vindication of preceding (1826); appendix to same (1826); “Life of Grotius” (1826); “The Coronation Oath” (1827); “Reply to Answers” to same (1828); “Memoirs of d’Aguesseau and Account of Roman and Canon Law” (1830).

BUTLER, Reminiscences; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog.; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.; AMHERST, Cath. Emancipation; MILNER, Supplem. Memoirs; HUSENBETH, Life of Milner; WARD, Catholic London a Century Ago; Cath. Magazine (1832); STONOR in Law Review (1836).

BERNARD WARD

Mary Joseph Butler

First Irish Abbess of the Irish Benedictine Abbey of Our Lady of Grace, at Ypres, Flanders, b. at Callan, County Kilkenny, Ireland, in Dec., 1641; d. at Ypres, 22 Dec., 1723. Sent to be educated under the care of her aunt, Lady Abbess Knatchbull of the English Benedictine Dames at Ghent, she petitioned, when twelve years old, to be received into the order, a request granted two years later. She made her religious profession 4 Nov., 1657 at the English Benedictine convent at Boulogne, at the age of sixteen. In 1665 the mother-house of Ghent made another foundation, at Ypres, with Dame Beaumont as abbess, but as the house did not thrive under her auspices, it was decided, upon her death in 1682, to convert the house at Ypres into a national foundation for the Irish Benedictine nuns of the various houses founded from Ghent. Dame Butler accordingly was sent to Ypres in 1683, and, on the death of the second abbess, in 1686, was elected Abbess of the Irish Dames of Ypres, 29 August. Soon after her election she was called upon to take a leading part in a new Benedictine foundation in Dublin, set on foot by King James II. By letters-patent or charter, which is dated in the sixth year of his reign, and still preserved in the convent of Ypres, King James confers upon this his “first and chief Royal Monastery of Gratia Dei,” an annuity of one hundred pounds sterling to be paid forever out of his exchequer, and appoints his “well-beloved Dame Mary Butler” first abbess. Her brother was King James’s Chief Cupbearer for Ireland, a title hereditary in the Butler family, as their name implies. Having overcome many difficulties Abbess Butler set out for Dublin in the year 1688, and in passing through London was presented with her nuns in the Benedictine habit to the Queen at Whitehall. Towards the end of the year she arrived in the Irish capital, and took up her abode in a house in Great Ship Street. Here the Divine Office and regular observance were at once begun and a school opened. About thirty young girls of the first families were entrusted to the nuns for their education and no less than eighteen of them expressed a wish to become religious. But the good work was rudely interrupted by the entry of the usurper William’s forces into Dublin, after the battle of the Boyne (1 or 11 July, 1690). The convent was sacked by his soldiery, and the nuns forced to seek refuge in a neighbouring house, but the church plate and other treasures were saved by the presence of mind of a lay sister, Placida Holmes, who disguised herself in secular clothes, and mingled with the plunderers. On the closing of the Dublin convent, the Duke of Ormonde assured his cousin, Abbess Butler, of his special protection, should she consent to remain in Ireland, but she decided to return to Ypres, upon which the duke procured for her, from the Prince of Orange, a passport (still preserved at Ypres) permitting her and her nuns to leave the country without molestation.

On her arrival at Ypres she resumed conventual life in extreme poverty with only a few lay sisters to assist her. So great indeed was their destitution that the bishop strongly urged her to sell the house and retire whithersoever she pleased, but she would not abandon the work, and her faith was rewarded, for at length in the year 1700, she had the happiness of professing several new subjects (among them two Irish ladies from the French Court) who assisted her in keeping up the choir and regular observance. She continued to govern her flock with much wisdom and discretion until the year 1723, when she died in the sixty-sixth year of her religious profession, and the thirty-sixth year of her abbatial dignity. King James II, and more especially his Queen, Mary of Modena, were great benefactors and friends of Abbess Butler, and of the Irish convent of Ypres, which she saved from extinction and which has survived ever since. It enjoys the distinction of being the only religious house in all the Low Countries which remained standing during the storms of the French Revolution and of being the only Irish Abbey of the Benedictine Order.

NOLAN, Hist. of Royal Irish Abbey of Ypres (from MSS. in Convent archives).

PATRICK NOLAN

Buttress

A pilaster, pier, or body of masonry projecting beyond the main face of the wall and intended to strengthen the wall at particular points and also to counterbalance the thrust of a roof or its vaulting. The term “counterfort” is used when the projection is on the inside. A flying buttress is an arch, resting at one end on a detached pier and it carries the thrust of the nave vault over the aisles or cloister.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Ven. Christopher Buxton

Priest and martyr, b. in Derbyshire; d. at Canterbury, 1 October, 1588. He was a scholar of Ven. Nicholas Garlick at the Grammar-School, Tideswell, in the Peak District, studied for the priesthood at Reims and Rome, and was ordained in 1586. He left Rome the next year, and soon after his arrival in England was apprehended and condemned to death for his priesthood. He suffered at Oaten Hill, Canterbury, together with Venerables Robert Wilcox and Edward Campion. Being so young, it was thought that his constancy might be shaken by the sight of the barbarous butchery of his companions, and his life was offered him if he would conform to the new religion, but he courageously answered that he would not purchase a corruptible life at such a price, and that if he had a hundred lives he would willingly surrender them all in defence of his faith. While in the Marshalsea Prison he wrote a “Rituale,” the manuscript of which is now preserved as a relic at Olney, Bucks. He sent this manuscript to a priest, as a last token of his friendship, the day before he was taken from the prison to suffer martyrdom.

CHALLONER, Memoirs; FOLEY, Records; Roman Diary (London, 1880); MORRIS, Catholics of York.

BEDE CAMM

Byblos

A titular see of Phoenicia. Byblos is the Greek name of Gebal “The Mountain,” one of the oldest cities in Phoenicia Prima, quoted in an Egyptian inscription as early as 1550 B.C. Its inhabitants were skilled in stone and wood-carving (III Kings, v, 18) and in shipbuilding (Ezech., xxvii, 9). It was governed by kings, the last of whom was dethroned by Pompey. It is celebrated chiefly for its temple of Adonis, or Thammouz, whose voluptuous worship spread thence over Greece and Italy. It was the native place of Philo, a Greek historian and grammarian. As a Christian see it was suffragan to Tyre and according to one tradition, its first bishop was John Mark, the companion of St. Paul and St. Barnabas. Five other bishops are known before 553 (Lequien, Or. Chr., II, 821). The city was destroyed by an earthquake in 551 (Malalas, Chronogr., XVIII, P.G., XCVII, 704) and was in ruins as late as 570 (Pseudo-Antoninus, ed. Geyer, 159). The Crusaders took it in 1104; it then had a Greek bishop, but he was obliged to yield his see to a Latin successor, and from 1130 to 1500 about twenty Latin bishops are known (Lequien, Or. Chr., III, 1177; Eubel, Hier. Cath., I, 139; II, 119). Many Latin bishops are mentioned in “Revue Bénédictine,” 1904, 98, sqq.; 1907, 63, sq. The modern Arabic name is Gebail. It is a mere village with about 1,000 inhabitants, almost all Christians (650 Maronites). There are thirteen churches; three of them are very beautiful and trace their origin to the Crusades. There is also at Byblos a castle of the same time, likewise some ruins of temples of Adonis and Isis. Gebail is yet a diocese for the Orthodox Greeks. For the Catholic or Melkite Greeks, the title of Byblos is united with Beirut, and for the Maronites with that of Batroun (Botrys).

RENAN, Mission de Phenicie (Paris, 1864), 153–218; Le Mois litteraire et pittoresque (Paris, July, 1906); REY, Etude sur les monuments de l’architecture des Croises en Syrie (Paris, 1871), 217–219; ROUVIER, La necropole de Gebal- Byblos in Revue biblique, VIII, 553–565.

S. VAILHÉ

Bye-Altar

An altar that is subordinate to the central or high altar. The term is generally applied to altars that are situated in the bay or bays of the nave, transepts, etc.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Byllis

A titular see of Epirus Nova (Albania), whose title is often added to that of Apollonia among the suffragans of Dyrrachium (Durazzo). It was situated west of Avlona, on the coast, near the modern village Gradica, or Gradiste, a Slav name substituted in later episcopal “Notitiae” for the old Illyrian name Byllis (Not. episc. III, 620; X, 702). Hierocles (653, 4) knows only of Byllis. Felix, Bishop of Apollonia and Byllis, was present at the Council of Ephesus, in 431. At Chalcedon in 451, Eusebius subscribes simply as Bishop of Apollonia; on the other hand, Philocharis subscribes as Bishop of Byllis only in the letter of the bishops of Epirus Nova to the Emperor Leo (458).

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ., II, 248; FARLATI, Illyricum sacrum, VII, 395; GAMS, Series episcop., 394.

L. PETIT.

William Byrd

English composer, born in London in 1542 or 1543; died 4 July, 1623. He was the son of a musician, and studied music principally under Thomas Tallis. He became organist at Lincoln Cathedral in 1563, chorister in the Chapel Royal in 1570, and in 1575 received the title of Organist of the Chapel Royal without being obliged to perform the functions of that office. Byrd was the most distinguished contrapuntist and the most prolific composer of his time in England. Fétis calls him the English Palestrina. He was the first Englishman to write madrigals, a form which originated in Italy in the thirteenth century, and received its highest development in the sixteenth century at the hands of Arcadelt and other masters. An organist and performer of the first order upon the virginals, Byrd wrote for the latter instrument an enormous number of compositions, many of which are played today. His chief significance lies, however, in his compositions for the Church, of which he produced a great many. In 1607 he published a collection of gradualia for the whole ecclesiastical year, among which is to be found a three-part setting of the words of the multitude in the Passion according to St. John. A modern edition of this setting was published in 1899. In 1611 “Psalms, Songs and Sonnets, Some Solemn, Others Joyful, Framed to the Life of the Words, Fit for Voyces or Viols, etc.” appeared. Probably in the same year was issued “Parthenia,” a collection of virginal music, in which Byrd collaborated with J. Bull and Orlando Gibbons. Three masses—for three, four, and five voices, respectively—belong to the composer’s best period. The one for five voices was reprinted by the Musical Antiquarian Society in 1841, and in 1899 the same work was issued by Breitkopf and Hartel. Two of his motets, “Domine, ne irascaris” and “Civitas sancti tui,” with English texts, are in the repertoire of most Anglican cathedrals. In spite of the harrowing religious conditions under which he lived, in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James I, Byrd remained faithful to his principles and duties as a Catholic, as is shown in his life and by his works. In his last will and testament he prays “that he may live and dye a true and perfect member of the Holy Catholike Churche withoute which I beleeve there is noe salvacon for me.”

The Music Story Series: English Music, 1604 to 1904 (London and New York, 1906); RITTER, Music in England (New York, 1833); GROVE, Dictionary of Music.

JOSEPH OTTEN

Andrew Byrne

Bishop of Little Rock, Arkansas, U.S.A., b. at Navan, Co. Meath, Ireland, 5 December, 1802; d. at Helena, Arkansas, 10 June, 1862. He was an ecclesiastical student when, in 1820, Bishop England sought volunteers for the mission of the newly created Diocese of Charleston (South Carolina), and he accompanied the bishop to the United States. He was ordained at Charleston, 11 November, 1827, and after active missionary work in South and North Carolina was for several years vicar-general of the diocese. In 1836 he removed to New York City, where he served at St. Patrick’s, St. James’s and the church of the Nativity, and finally altered, in 1843, the famous Carroll Hall, which might be termed the cradle of the public school system of New York, into St. Andrew’s church. While pastor there in 1844, the new Diocese of Little Rock, comprising the State of Arkansas and all of the Indian Territory, was created, and Father Byrne was named its first bishop. He was consecrated in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York City, 10 March, 1844, at the same time that the Rev. John McCloskey (afterwards Cardinal) was consecrated coadjutor of New York, and the Rev. William Quarter, Bishop of Chicago. There were then in Arkansas only about 700 Catholics, with one priest and two churches. Shortly before Bishop Byrne died, he claimed that the number of Catholics had increased largely, with nine or more priests, eleven churches, thirty stations, and twelve schools and academies. He visited Ireland several times to obtain colabourers and assistants in the cause of religion and education. He introduced the Sisters of Mercy from Dublin and at the time of his death had almost completed arrangements for the starting of a college at Fort Smith by the Christian Brothers. He was one of the prelates attending the Sixth Provincial Council of Baltimore in May, 1846, and the First Provincial Council of New Orleans in 1856. At the Second Baltimore Council, in 1833, he acted as Bishop England’s theologian.

Catholic Almanac (Baltimore, 1864); SHEA, The Catholic Church in N. Y. City (New York, 1878); CLARKE, Lives of the Deceased Bishops (New York, 1872); BAYLEY, Brief Sketch of the Early History of the Catholic Church on the Island of New York (New York, 1870).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Richard Byrne

Brevet brigadier general, United States Army, b. in Co. Cavan, Ireland, 1832; d. at Washington, 10 June, 1864. He emigrated from his native land to New York in 1844 and five years later enlisted in the regular army of the United States, joining the Second Cavalry, a regiment then commanded by Colonel E. V. Sumner. In this regiment young Byrne distinguished himself in the Indian campaigns in Florida and Oregon. At the breaking out of the Civil War he was, on the recommendation of his old commander, Colonel Sumner, commissioned First Lieutenant in the Fifth Cavalry, one of the new regiments authorized by Congress. During the campaigns of 1861 and 1862 he remained with the regiment of regulars and was then appointed by Governor Andrew, Colonel of the Twenty-Eighth Massachusetts Volunteers, an Irish regiment of which he took command, 18 October, 1862. In the November following, this regiment was attached to the famous Meagher’s Irish Brigade and with it participated with special gallantry in all the fierce conflicts in which the Army of the Potomac was subsequently engaged. At its head Colonel Byrne charged up the fatal slope of Marye’s Heights at Fredericksburg, and after it, like the other regiments of the brigade, had been almost wiped out in the sanguinary conflicts at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, he was sent back to Massachusetts to recruit its ranks during the winter and spring of 1863 and 1864. When the campaign reopened in May he returned to the front and as the senior officer took command of the Irish Brigade. Two weeks after assuming command, on 3 June, 1864, he fell, mortally wounded, while leading the brigade at the attack on the entrenchments at Cold Harbor, Virginia. He lived long enough to be conveyed to Washington, where his wife reached him before he died. His commission as brigadier general had just been made out by President Lincoln, but he was dead before it could be officially presented to him. His remains were sent to New York and buried in Calvary Cemetery.

CONYNGHAM, The Irish Brigade and its Campaigns (Boston, 1869); The Emerald, files (New York, 8 January, 1870).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

William Byrne

Missionary and educator, born in County Wicklow, Ireland, in 1780; died at Bardstown, Kentucky, U.S.A., 5 June, 1833. He was one of a large family for whom he was obliged by the death of his father to become breadwinner. He desired to be a priest, but circumstances denied him more than a common elementary education, imparted to him by a pious uncle. Many of his relatives were among the ill-starred patriots of the rebellion of 1798, and the cruel and bloody scenes of that year enacted near his home made a vivid impression on his youthful mind. In his twenty-fifth year came his opportunity to emigrate to the United States, where, shortly after his arrival he went to Georgetown College and applied for admission into the Society of Jesus. His advanced age and lack of classical education, however, convinced him, after some months’ stay there, that he could not reasonably hope to obtain in the Society, for many years at least, his ambition for ordination to the priesthood. He therefore left Georgetown, and by advice of Archbishop Carroll went to Mount St. Mary’s College, Emmitsburg. Here the Rev. John Dubois, the president, received him with sympathy, pointed out a course of study, and finding him an excellent disciplinarian, made him prefect of the institution. He was nearly thirty years of age when he began to study Latin, but his zeal and perseverance conquered all obstacles.

In order to advance more rapidly in his studies, he entered St. Mary’s Seminary, Baltimore, but the surroundings were not congenial, and he remained there only a short time. He had been ordained a subdeacon, and Bishop Flaget accepted his offer of service for the Diocese of Bardstown, Kentucky. He made further studies at St. Thomas’s Seminary there, and was then ordained priest by Bishop David, 18 September, 1819, with his friend George A. M. Elder, whom he had met at Emmitsburg. They were the first priests ordained at Bardstown, and by Bishop David, who was consecrated 15 August, 1819. Shortly after his ordination, Father Byrne was appointed to the care of St. Mary’s and St. Charles’s missions, visiting also the small congregation of Louisville, sixty miles distant, and labouring at all times with most indefagitable industry. The ignorance of the people and the necessity of establishing some institution for elementary instruction appealed to him strongly, and in the spring of 1821 he opened St. Mary’s College, near Bardstown, in an old stone building that stood on a farm he had purchased with money begged from those who sympathized with his project. He had about fifty boys to begin with, one of them being Martin John Spaulding, later the famous Archbishop of Baltimore, who even then was so precious in the display of his abilities that at the age of fifteen he was appointed to teach mathematics to his fellow students. Father Bryne, with indomitable energy, at first filled every office in the school and attended to his missionary duties as well. His college had become very popular in Kentucky when it was destroyed by fire. This set-back seemed only to give him new energy, and he soon had the college rebuilt. A second fire ruined a large part of the new structure, but nothing daunted, he went on and again placed the institution on a firm foundation.

It is estimated that from 1821 to 1833, during the time St. Mary’s College was under his immediate direction, at least twelve hundred students received instruction there, and carried the benefits of their education to all parts of Kentucky, some of them establishing private schools on their return to their respective neighbourhoods. Father Bryne, after twelve year’s management of the college, made a gift of it to the Society of Jesus, believing that, having established its success, his old friends, the Jesuits, were better qualified than he was to conduct the school. He thought of funding a new school at Nashville, where one was much needed, and in spite of his advanced years he wrote to Bishop Flaget that all that he required in leaving St. Mary’s to embark on this new enterprise was his horse and ten dollars to pay his travelling expenses. Before he could carry out the plan, however, he fell a martyr to charity. An epidemic of cholera had broken out in the neighbourhood, and having gone to administer the last sacraments to a poor negro woman who lay dying of the disease, he became infected himself, and died the following day among the Fathers of the Society of Jesus with whom at Georgetown he had begun his remarkable religious life.

SPALDING, Miscellanea (Baltimore, 1866), 729–35; WEBB, Centenary of Catholicity in Kentucky (Louisville, 1884); SHEA, History of the Catholic Church in the U. S. (New York, 1892), IV, 600; Messenger of the Sacred Heart Magazine (New York, December, 1891); Irish Celts (Detroit, 1884).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Byzantine Architecture

A mixed style, i.e. a style composed of Graeco-Roman and Oriental elements which, in earlier centuries, cannot be clearly separated. The form of the church used most in the west, a nave supported on columns and an atrium (see Basilica), appears in many examples of the fifth century in Byzantium as well as in Rome; the sixth century saw such churches erected in other regions outside Rome, at Ravenna, in Istria, and in Africa. In the West this style of building occasionally presents (in S. Lorenzo and S. Agnes at Rome) peculiarities which are ascribed by some authorities to Oriental origin—galleries over the side aisles, spirally channelled columns, and imposts between capitals and arches. Vaulted basilicas are to be found at an early date in Asia Minor, Syria, Africa and also at Constantinople. But the early Etruscans and Romans were skilful in the art of constructing vaults, even before that time; for instance, the basilica of Constantine. The domical style, with barrel-vaulted side aisles and transepts is a favourite with the Orientals; many of the oldest basilicas in Asia Minor, as well as the Church of St. Irene, Constantinople (eighth century), carried one or more domes. This type leads naturally to the structure in a centralized—circular, octagonal, cruciform—plan. That the Orient had, and still has, a peculiar preference for such a type is well known; nevertheless, Italy also possessed ecclesiastical buildings so planned, of which the oldest examples belong to the fourth and fifth centuries (Sta. Costanza, a circular building; and the baptistery of the Lateran, an octagonal building). In ancient Roman times tombs and baths had this sort of plan. The essential type of all these buildings cannot, therefore, be regarded as purely Oriental, or even specifically Byzantine. There are similar objections in the case of subordinate architectural details. Thus the apse, sometimes three-sided, sometimes polygonal, the narthex (a narrow antechamber, or vestibule, instead of the large rectangular atrium, the invariable facing of the church to the east, the sharp-cut acanthus leaf of the capitals, and similar characteristics of the Eastern churches cannot be definitely ascribed to the East alone or even to Byzantium, nor do they form a new architectural style. Some authorities, it is true, not only go so far as to characterize the architecture of Ravenna (exemplified in the two churches S. Apollinare and S. Vitale) as Byzantine, but even include, without further consideration, examples which in other respects recall the favourite Eastern style, viz. the central portions of S. Lorenzo at Milan and of the round church of S. Stefano Rotondo at Rome. Only this much is certain: that in those early centuries local diversities are found everywhere; and that, even although Italy may have received the most manifold influences from the East, and particularly from Byzantium, still, on the other hand, the language, laws, and customs of Rome prevailed in Byzantium, or at least were strongly represented there.

In the church, now the mosque, of St. Sophia (Hagia Sophia—“Divine Wisdom”), built by Justinian, all the principal forms of the early Christian churches are represented. A rotunda is enclosed in a square, and covered with a dome which is supported in the direction of the long axis of the building by half-domes over semicircular apses. In this manner a basilica, 236 feet long and 98 feet wide, and provided with domes, is developed out of a great central chamber. This basilica is still more extended by the addition of smaller apses penetrating the larger apses. Then the domical church is developed to the form of a long rectangle by means of two side aisles, which, however, are deprived of their significance by the intrusion of massive piers. In front of all this, on the entrance side, are placed a wide atrium with colonnaded passages and two vestibules (the exonarthex is practically obliterated). The stupendous main dome, which is hemispherical on the interior, flatter, or saucer-shaped, on the exterior, and pierced with forty large windows over the cornice at its spring, has its lateral thrust taken up by these half domes and, north and south, by arched buttresses; the vertical thrust is received by four piers 75 feet high. The ancient system of column and entablature has here only a subordinate significance, supporting the galleries which open upon the nave. Light flows in through the numerous windows of the upper and lower stories and of the domes. But above all, the dome, with its great span carried on piers, arches, and pendentives, constitutes one of the greatest achievements of architecture. (These pendentives are the triangular surfaces by means of which a circular dome can be supported on the summits of four arches arranged on a square plan.) In other respects the baptistery of Sta. Costanza at Rome, for example, with its cylindrical drum under the dome, has the advantage that the windows are placed in the drum instead of the dome.

The architects of St. Sophia were Asiatics: Anthemius of Tralles and Isodorus of Miletus. In other great basilicas, as here, local influences had great power in determining the character of the architecture, e. g. the churches of the Nativity, of the Holy Sepulchre, and of the Ascension, built in Palestine after the time of Constantine. This is still more evident in the costly decorations of these churches. The Oriental love of splendour is shown in the piling up of domes and still more in facing the walls with slabs of marble, in mosaics (either opus sectile, small pieces, or opus Alexandrinum, large slabs cut in suitable shapes), in gold and colour decorations, and in the many-coloured marbles of the columns and other architectural details. Nothing, however, seems to betray the essentially Oriental character of Byzantine architecture so much as the absence of work in the higher forms of sculpture, and the transformation of high into low decoration by means of interwoven traceries, in which the chiselled ornaments became flatter, more linear, and lacelike. Besides the vestibules which originally surrounded St. Sophia, the columns with their capitals recall the antique. These columns almost invariably supported arches instead of the architrave and were, for that reason, reinforced by a block of stone (impost block) placed on top and shaped to conform to the arch, as may frequently be seen at Ravenna. Gradually, however, the capital itself was cut to the broader form of a truncated square pyramid, as in St. Sophia. The capitals are at times quite bare, when they serve at the same time as imposts or intermediate supporting blocks, at other times they are marked with monograms or covered with a network of carving, the latter transforming them into basketlike capitals. Flat ornamentations of flowers and animals are also found, or leaves arbitrarily arranged. Much of this reminds one of the Romanesque style, but the details are done more carefully. The fortresslike character of the church buildings, the sharp expression of the constructive forms, the squatty appearance of the domes, the bare grouping of many parts instead of their organic connexion—these are all more in accordance with the coarser work of the later period than with the elegance of the Greek. Two other types of Justinian’s time are presented by the renovated church of the Apostles and the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus. Both churches are in the capital. The latter somewhat resembles S. Vitale in Ravenna. It is a dome-crowned octagon with an exterior aisle. The former church (now destroyed) was built on the plan of a Greek Cross (with four equal arms) with a dome over the crossing and one over each arm.

During the period of the Macedonian emperors, Basil I (867–886) and Leo VI (886–912), an upward trend in politics, literature, and art set in. The Greek basilica, which is a lengthened structure, barrel-vaulted and provided with one or more domes, is also widely represented in this period, while the western form of basilica, with the wooden ceiling, is completely discarded. A type appearing more frequently is the domical church plan or the Greek-cross plan. The Koimesis, or Dormitio, in Nicaea (ninth century) has a clear basilica plan. This is also true of the church of the Holy Mother of God (Hagia Theotokos) at Constantinople, dating from the tenth century, and of the churches of Mt. Athos. The church at Skripu in Boeotia, of the same period, has indeed three naves each ending in an apse, but the dome crowns the middle of the building as in the Greek- cross type. The exteriors of these churches, which are usually rather small, are treated with greater care and are artistically elaborated with alternations of stone and brick, smaller domes over the vestibules, a decidedly richer system of domes, and the elevation of these domes by means of drums. The interiors are decorated most gorgeously. It seems that they could not do enough in this respect. This can still be seen in the church of St. Luke in Phocis, at Daphni, in the Nea Moni at Chio, and others. In this period the perfected art of the capital becomes the model for the empire as well as for regions beyond its borders: Syria, Armenia, Russia, Venice, Middle and Southern Italy, and Sicily. For the West, it is only necessary to mention the church of St. Mark at Venice (978–1096).

After its occupation by the Crusaders (1204), Constantinople partly lost its character and at the same time the far-reaching influence of its intercourse with Western nations. There still remained four centres of Byzantine art: the capital itself, Mt. Athos, Hellas, and Trebizond. The architecture of Mt. Athos presents the most faithful reflection of the Byzantine style. The model of the church of the monastery of Laura, belonging to the previous period, is more or less faithfully reproduced. A dome, supported on four sides by barrel vaults, stands directly over the middle of the transept, which is terminated at either end by a round apse. A narthex, or rather two lead into the lengthened main hall. The real architectural ornaments are forced into the background by the frescoes which take the place of the costly mosaics and which practically cover all available wall surface. The architecture of this period remained stationary. It continued unchanged in the countries of the Greek Rite after the fall of Constantinople (1453).

For the bibliography of Byzantine architecture and Byzantine art see KRUMBACHER, History of Byzantine Literature (2nd ed., Munich, 1897), in the appendix; MILLET, L’art byzantin in MICHEL, Hist. de l’art (Paris, 1905), I; TEXIER AND PULLAN, Byzantine Architecture (1843–44); FROTHINGHAM, Byzantine Artists in Italy in Am. Journal of Archæology (1894); STRYGOWSKI, Orient und Rom (Leipzig, 1901), ID., Kleinasien (Leipzig, 1903); Bréhier, Eglises byzantines (Paris, 1906).

G. GIETMANN

Byzantine Art

The art of the Eastern Roman Empire and of its capital Byzantium, or Constantinople. The term denotes more especially those qualities which distinguish this art from that of other countries, or which have caused it to exert an influence upon the art of regions outside of the Eastern Empire. Christian art was dependent for the representation of its new conceptions upon the forms which the time and place of its origin happened to offer. In the beginning, whether at Rome, Ravenna, or Byzantium (Constantinople), it was equally influenced by classical art and by Eastern inclination to allegory. It is a distinguishing characteristic of Constantinople, however, that it was able to maintain a more uniform classical tradition in the face of manifold Oriental influences. These two elements, from the time of Constantine, developed in the Byzantine art more and more of an individual character, though account must also be taken of the friendly intercourse with Western Europe during several hundred years. Beginning with the seventh century, the contrast between the art of the Eastern Empire and that of the Western grew more marked, and Byzantine art underwent a change. It rose to great splendour under the Macedonian emperors (867–1056), then declined up to 1453, and has since existed in the East in a petrified form, so to speak, up to the present time.

THE BYZANTINE QUESTION

In regard to the first period of Byzantine art, which closed either before the reign of Justinian or at the end of the sixth century, scholars differ greatly. Some date Byzantine art proper from the time of Constantine’s establishment of his capital. They base this opinion upon certain differences between the art remains of the first period of the Eastern Roman Empire and those of the Western Roman Empire, which differences they maintain are essential. Other scholars hold these peculiarities to be unessential, since they find them here and there in Western countries as well, a fact which the former critics ascribe to Oriental influence. Still other scholars disagree with both views, and distinguish between Oriental art and that specifically Byzantine; that is, between the art of Byzantium, or Constantinople, and that of her dependent provinces, Asia Minor, Syria, Persia, and Egypt. This is a fairly good solution of the “Byzantine question.” But as it is difficult to distinguish in detail the combinations of old classic and Christian with Oriental art, we can only group together the principal characteristics of the new style and its materials, with a few examples.

CHARACTERISTICS

The introduction of Eastern court ceremonial by Constantine was accompanied in the domain of art by the appearances of extraordinary gorgeousness and pomp, expressed, however, with stiffness and formality. The power and pride of the new empire offered the means for great undertakings and gave the impulse to them. The Proconnesian marble, found in the vicinity of the capital, and the stone obtained from other rich quarries provided the material, and, long before this era, the art of working in stone had reached a high state of development, especially in Asia Minor. Moreover, the East had been from ancient times the home of the minor arts. In Constantinople there flourished, along with the art of decorative sculpture, the arts of stone-carving, of working in metal and ivory, of ornamental bronze work, of enamelling, of weaving, and the art of miniature-painting. From classical and ancient Christian art Byzantine genius derived a correct combination of the ideal with truth to nature, harmonious unity along with precision in details, as well as the fondness for mosaics, frescoes, and pictures on panels, in opposition to the dislike of non-Christian and sectarian Orientals to pictorial representation. The iconoclasm of the eighth and ninth centuries wrought great destruction in the domain of art, but these outbreaks were successfully suppressed.

EXAMPLES

In regard to the influence of the Byzantine style on architecture see BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE. As to the other arts a few examples may here be given. The church of St. Sophia was adorned in the sixth century with a splendour worthy of Solomon. The interior was sumptuously decorated with mosaics upon a golden background. These mosaics, it is true, with the exception of an “Adoration of Christ by the Emperor,” were destroyed, but they were replaced later by others. Some of the walls were ornamented with designs of grape-vines with golden leaves. Pictures of animals decorated the walls of the portico. A silver choir-screen rose above pillars, in the capitals of which medallions of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, saints, and prophets were carved. This is the so-called iconostasis. The altar was of gold inlaid with precious stones; the altar-cloth was of brocaded silk in which were woven pictures of Christ, the prophets and the apostles. The ambo, according to description, was brilliant with gold, silver, precious stones, and ivory. At Parenzo, in Istria, and at Bauit, in Egypt, superb mosaic pictorial ornamentation dating from the sixth century is still preserved. A gold cross decorated with pictures in hammered work was presented by Justin II to the church of St. Peter and is still preserved at the Vatican. A number of ivory book- covers are also still in existence. The illuminated manuscripts of Rossano and Sinope date from the sixth century.

INFLUENCE

As regards the influence exerted by Byzantine art in the sixth century there can be no doubt that the architecture of Ravenna, though affected by other Eastern influences, strongly reminds us, in its splendid mosaics, of Constantinople. The Proconnesian capitals and other products of decorative art spread even more easily. Like Ravenna, Southern Italy and Gaul came under the influence of the East and Constantinople. Even more specifically Byzantine is African art. In Rome the races of Byzantine art are more difficult to discover than other Oriental influences. In the East itself pictorial art met with opposition, and decorative art came to the forefront. In general, however, after the rise of the Macedonian dynasty the Byzantine style gained the supremacy in all branches of art as well as in architecture. The Byzantine style spread in the East as well as in Northern Italy and Sicily. The numerous mosaic pictures, which are to be found everywhere, still strove to imitate classical models; their symbolism reminds us of the general symbolic tendency of early Christianity, and their form gradually becomes more stiff and fixed. (Painter’s Book of Mount Athos.) Purely Oriental, however, was the dislike constantly increasing for sculpture in the round, and the preference for the flat ornamentation in architecture. To the same Oriental influence may be attributed the taste for costly and many-coloured stones and woven fabrics, for goldsmith-work, and enamel. For example, in the treasury of San Marco may be seen Byzantine reliquaries, ivory triptychs, chalices, costly fabrics, and specimens of pictorial art. Some are large and some small, but taken altogether they show how a church of the eleventh century was transformed into a veritable treasure-house. The same taste and the same characteristics of the art of Byzantium (Constantinople) have ever since maintained their supremacy in the East. For further bibliography see BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE.

KONDAKOFF, Hist. de l’art byzantin considéré principalement dans les miniatures (tr. Paris, 1886–91); IDEM,Les émaux byzantins (Paris, 1892); MOLINIER, Hist. des arts appliqués à l’industrie, I, s.vv. Les ivoires; L’orfèvrerie; TEXIER-PULLAN, Byzantine Architecture (London, 1843–64); LETHABY-SWAINSON, The Church of St. Sophia (London, New York, 1894); FROTHINGHAM, Byzantine Artists in Italy in Am. Journal of Archæology (1894–95); MACPHERSON, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Eng. Hist. Rev. (1892), VII; WESTWOOD,Fictile Ivories in the South Kensington Museum (London, 1886); SCHULTZ-BARNSLEY, Phocis and the Dependent Monastery of St. Nicolas-in-the-fields near Skripou (London, 1901); VELUDO, La pala d’oro di S. Marco, Eng. and Fr. trs. (Venice, 1887); CAHIER AND MARTIN, Mélanges d’archéologie (Paris, 1847–56).

G. GIETMANN

Byzantine Empire

The ancient Roman Empire having been divided into two parts, an Eastern and a Western, the Eastern remained subject to successors of Constantine, whose capital was at Byzantium or Constantinople. The term Byzantine is therefore employed to designate this Eastern survival of the ancient Roman Empire. The subject will be here treated under the following divisions: I. Byzantine Civilization; II. Dynastic History. The latter division of the article will be subdivided into six heads in chronological order.

I. BYZANTINE CIVILIZATION

At the distance of many centuries and thousands of miles, the civilization of the Byzantine Empire presents an appearance of unity. Examined at closer range, however, firstly the geographical content of the empire resolves itself into various local and national divisions, and secondly the growth of the people in civilization reveals several clearly distinguishable periods. Taking root on Eastern soil, flanked on all sides by the most widely dissimilar peoples—Orientals, Finnic-Ugrians and Slavs—some of them dangerous neighbours just beyond the border, others settled on Byzantine territory, the empire was loosely connected on the west with the other half of the old Roman Empire. And so the development of Byzantine civilization resulted from three influences: the first Alexandrian-Hellenic, a native product, the second Roman, the third Oriental. The first period of the empire, which embraces the dynasties of Theodosius, Leo I, Justinian, and Tiberius, is politically still under Roman influence. In the second period the dynasty of Heraclius in conflict with Islam, succeeds in creating a distinctively Byzantine State. The third period, that of the Syrian (Isaurian) emperors and of Iconoclasm, is marked by the attempt to avoid the struggle with Islam by completely orientalizing the land. The fourth period exhibits a happy equilibrium. The Armenian dynasty, which was Macedonian by origin, was able to extend its sway east and west, and there were indications that the zenith of Byzantine power was close at hand. In the fifth period the centrifugal forces, which had long been at work, produced their inevitable effect, the aristocracy of birth, which had been forming in all parts of the empire, and gaining political influence, at last achieved its firm establishment on the throne with the dynasties of the Comneni and Angeli. The sixth period is that of decline; the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders had disrupted the empire into several new political units; even after the restoration, the empire of the Palaeologi is only one member of this group of states. The expansion of the power of the Osmanli Turks prepares the annihilation of the Byzantine Empire.

Geographically and ethnographically, the Roman Empire was never a unit. In the western section comprising Italy and the adjacent islands, Spain, and Africa, the Latin language and Latin culture were predominant. Of these territories, only Africa, Sicily, and certain parts of Italy were ever under Byzantine control for any length of time. To the southeast, the Coptic and Syriac and, if the name is permitted, the Palestinian nation assumed growing importance and finally, under the leadership of the Arabs, broke the bonds that held it to the empire. In the East proper (Asia Minor and Armenia) lay the heart of the empire. In the southeast of Asia Minor and on the southern spurs of the Armenian mountains the population was Syrian. The Armenian settlements extended from their native mountains far into Asia Minor, and even into Europe. Armenian colonies are found on Mount Ida in Asia Minor, in Thrace, and Macedonia. The coast lands of Asia Minor are thoroughly Greek. The European part of the empire was the scene of an ethnographic evolution. From ancient times the mountains of Epirus and Illyria had been inhabited by Albanians, from the beginning of the fifteenth century they spread over what is now Greece, down towards southern Italy and Sicily. Since the days of the Roman power, the Rumanians (or Wallachians) had established themselves on both sides as well of the Balkan as of the Pindus mountains. This people was divided into two parts by the invasion of the Finnic-Ugrian Bulgars, and the expansion of the Slavs. They lived as wandering shepherds, in summer on the mountains, in winter on the plains. In the fifth century the Slavs began to spread over the Balkan Peninsula. At the beginning of the eighth century Cynuria in the eastern part of the Peloponnesus, was called a “Slavic land.” A reaction, however, which set in towards the end of the eighth century, resulted in the total extermination of the Slavs in southern Thessaly and central Greece, and left but few in the Peloponnesus. On the other hand, the northern part of the Balkan Peninsula remained open to Slavic inroads. Here the Bulgars gradually became incorporated with the Slavs, and spread from Haemus far to the west, and into southern Macedonia. The valleys of the Vardar and the Morava offered the Serbs tempting means of access to the Byzantine Empire. After the Greeks and Armenians, the Slavs have exercised most influence on the inner configuration of the empire. The Greeks of the islands best preserved their national characteristics. Moreover, they settled in compact groups in the capital of the empire, and on all the coast lands even to those of the Black Sea. They gained ground by hellenizing the Slavs, and by emigrating to Sicily and lower Italy.

In point of civilization, the Greeks were the predominant race in the empire. From the second half of the sixth century, Latin had ceased to be the language of the Government. The legislation eventually became thoroughly Greek, both in language and spirit. Beside the Greeks, only the Armenians had developed a civilization of their own. The Slavs, it is true, had acquired a significant influence over the internal and external affairs of the empire, but had not established a Slavic civilization on Byzantine soil, and the dream of a Roman Empire under Slavic rule remained a mere fantasy.

In the breaking of the empire on ethnographic lines of cleavage, it was an important feat that at least the Greeks were more solidly united than in former centuries. The dialects of ancient Greece had for the most part disappeared, and the Koiné of the Hellenic period formed a point of departure for new dialects, as well as the basis of a literary language which was preserved with incredible tenacity and gained the ascendancy in literature as well as in official usage. Another movement, in the sixth century, was directed towards a general and literary revival of the language, and, this having gradually spent itself without any lasting results, the dialects unfortunately, became the occasion of a further split in the nation. As the later literary language, with its classic tendencies, was stiff and unwieldy, as well as unsuited to meet all the exigencies of a colloquial language, it perforce helped to widen the breach between the literary and the humbler classes the latter having already begun to use the new dialects. The social schism which had rent the nation, since the establishment of a distinctively Byzantine landed interest and the rise of a provincial nobility, was aggravated by the prevalence of the literary language among the governing classes, civil and ecclesiastical. Even the western invasion could not close this breach; on the contrary, while it confirmed the influence of the popular tongue as such, it left the social structure of the nation untouched. The linguistic division of the Greek nation thus begun has persisted down to the present time.

The Middle Ages never created a great centralized economic system. The lack of a highly organized apparatus of transportation for goods in large quantities made each district a separate economic unit. This difficulty was not overcome even by a coastline naturally favourable for navigation, since the earring capacity of medieval vessels was too small to make them important factors in the problem of freight-transportation as we now apprehend it. Even less effectual were the means of conveyance employed on the roads of the empire. These roads, it is true, were a splendid legacy from the old Roman Empire, and were not yet in the dilapidated state to which they were later reduced under the Turkish domination. Even today, for example, there are remains of the Via Egnatia, connecting Constantinople with the Adriatic Sea through Thessalonica, and of the great military roads through Asia Minor, from Chalcedon past Nicomedia, Ancyra and Caesarea, to Armenia, as well as of that from Nicaea through Dorylaeum and Iconium to Tarsus and Antioch. These roads were of supreme importance for the transportation of troops and the conveyance of dispatches; but for the interchange of goods of any bulk, they were out of the question. The inland commerce of Byzantium, like most medieval commerce was confined generally to such commodities, of not excessive weight, as could be packed into a small space, and would represent great values, both intrinsically and on account of their importation from a distance—such as gems, jewelry, rich textiles and furs, aromatic spices, and drugs. But food stuffs, such as cereals, fresh vegetables, wine oil, dried meat, as well as dried fish and fruits, could be conveyed any distance only by water. Indeed, a grave problem presented itself in the provisioning of the capital, the population of which approached probably, that of a great modern city. It is now known that Alexandria at first supplied Constantinople with grain, under State supervision. After the loss of Egypt, Thrace and the lands of Pontus were drawn upon for supplies. Of the establishment of an economic centre however for all parts of the empire, of a centralized system of trade routes radiating from Constantinople, there was no conception. Moreover, Byzantine commerce strange to say, shows a marked tendency to develop in a sense opposite to this ideal. At first there was great commercial activity; the Byzantines offered to India Persia, and Central and Eastern Asia a channel of communication with the West. Various districts of the empire strove to promote the export of industrial articles, Syria and Egypt, in particular, upholding their ancient positions as industrial sections of importance, their activity expressing itself chiefly in weaving and dyeing and the manufacture of metals and glass. The Slavonic invasion, moreover, had not entirely extinguished the industrial talents of the Greeks. In the tenth and eleventh centuries weaving, embroidery, and the fabrication of carpets were of considerable importance at Thebes and Patrae. In the capital itself, with government aid in the form of a monopoly, a new industrial enterprise was organized which confined itself chiefly to shipbuilding and the manufacture of arms in the imperial arsenals but also took up the preparation of silk fabrics. The Byzantines themselves, in the earlier periods, carried these wares to the West. There they enjoyed a commercial supremacy for which their only rivals were the Arabs and which is most clearly evidenced by the universal currency of the Byzantine gold solidus. Gradually, however, a change came about: the empire lost its maritime character and at last became almost exclusively territorial, as appears in the decline of the imperial navy. At the time of the Arabian conflicts it was the navy that did the best work, at a later period, however, it was counted inferior to the land forces. Similarly there was a transformation in the mental attitude and the occupations of the people. The Greek merchant allowed himself to be crowded out in his own country by his Italian rival. The population even of an island so well adapted for maritime pursuits as Crete seemed, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, veritably afraid of the water. What wrought this change is still an unsolved problem. Here too, possibly, the provincial aristocracy showed its effects, through the extension of its power over the inhabitants of the country districts and its increasing influence on the imperial Government.

The decline of the Byzantine Empire is strikingly exhibited in the depreciation of currency during the reigns of the Comneni. At that period the gold solidus lost its high currency value and its commercial pre-eminence It is noteworthy that at the same time we perceive the beginnings of large finance (Geldwirtschaft). For at an earlier period the Byzantine Empire, like the states of Western Europe, appears to have followed the system of barter, or exchange of commodities in kind. Nevertheless, as ground-rents were already paid in money during the Comneni period, some uncertainty remains as to whether the beginnings of finance and of capital as a distinct power in the civilized world, should be sought in Byzantium or rather in the highly developed fiscal system of the Roman Curia and the mercantile activity of Italian seaports.

It will be seen from all this that the development of the Byzantine Empire was by no means uniform in point either of time or of place. Why is it then that the word Byzantine conveys a definite and self consistent idea? Was there not something which through all those centuries remained characteristic of Byzantines in contrast with the neighbouring peoples? To this it must be replied that such was certainly the ease, and that the difference lay, first of all, in the more advanced civilization of Byzantium. Many small but significant details are recorded—as early as the sixth century Constantinople had a system of street-lighting; sports, equestrian games or polo-playing, and above all races in the circus attained a high national and political importance; Byzantine princesses married to Venetians introduced the use of table forks in the West. More striking are the facts that as early as the eighth and ninth centuries, the Byzantines, in their wars with the Arabs, used gunpowder—the so-called Greek fire—and that a German emperor like Otto III preferred to be a Roman of Byzantium rather than a German. This Byzantine civilization, it is true suffered from a serious and incurable disease, a worm gnawing at its core—the utter absence of originality. But here again, we should beware of unwarranted generalization. A change in this respect is to be noted from age to age, in the first centuries, before the complete severing of the political and ecclesiastical ties uniting them with the Eastern nations the Greek mind still retained its gift of receptivity, and ancient Greek art traditions, in combination with Persian, Syrian, and other Oriental motives, produced the original plan of the true Byzantine church—a type which left its impression on architecture, sculpture painting, and the minor arts. And yet so complete was the isolation of the empire, separated from other nations by the character of its government, the strictness of its court etiquette, the refinement of its material civilization, and, not least, by the peculiar development of the national Church, that a kind of numbness crept over both the language and the intellectual life of the people. The nations of the West were indeed barbarians in comparison with the cultured Byzantines, but the West had something for the lack of which no learning, no technical skill could compensate—the creative force of an imagination in harmony with the laws of nature.

As to the share which Byzantine ecclesiastical development had in this isolation, it must be conceded that the constitution of the Eastern Church was rather imperial than universal. Its administration was seriously influenced by the polities of the empire the boundaries of the empire bounded the Church’s aspirations and activities. In the West, the obliteration of those boundaries by the Germanic peoples and the outburst of vigorous missionary activity on all sides furthered very notably the idea of a universal Church, embracing all nations, and unfettered by political or territorial limits. In the East the development was quite different. Here, indeed, missionary work met with considerable success. From the Syrian and Egyptian Church sprang the Ethiopian, the Indian, the Mesopotamian, and the Armenian Churches. Constantinople sent apostles to the Slavonic and Finnic-Ugrian races. Still, these Oriental Churches show, from the very beginning, a peculiar national structure. Whether this was a legacy from the ancient Eastern religions, or whether it was the reaction against Greek civilization which had been imposed upon the people of the Orient from the time of Alexander the Great, the adoption of Christianity went hand in hand with nationalism. Opposed to this nationalism in many important respects was the Greek imperial Church. Precisely because it was only an imperial Church, it had not yet grasped the concept of a universal Church. As the imperial Church, constituting a department of the state-administration, its opposition to the national Churches among the Oriental peoples was always very emphatic. Thus it is that the dogmatic disputes of these Churches are above all, expressions of politico-national struggles. In the course of these contests Egypt, and Syria, and finally Armenia also were lost to the Greek Church. The Byzantine imperial Church at last found itself almost exclusively confined to the Greek nation and its subjects. In the end it became, in its own turn, a national Church, and definitively severed all bonds of rite and dogma linking it with the West. The schism between the Eastern and Western Churches thus reveals a fundamental opposition of viewpoints: the mutually antagonistic ideas of the universal Church and of independent national churches—an antagonism which both caused the schism and constitutes the insurmountable impediment to reunion.

II. DYNASTIC HISTORY

1A. Roman Period: Dynasties of Theodocius and Leo I (A.D. 395–518)

A glance at the above genealogies shows that the law governing the succession in the Roman Empire persisted in the Byzantine. On one hand, a certain law of descent is observed: the fact of belonging to the reigning house, whether by birth or marriage, gives a strong claim to the throne. On the other hand, the people is not entirely excluded as a political factor. The popular co-operation in the government was not regulated by set forms. The high civil and military officials took part in the enthronement of a new monarch, often by means of a palace or military revolution. Legally, the people participated in the government only through the Church. From the time of Marcianus, the Byzantine emperors were crowned by the Patriarchs of Constantinople.

Of the emperors of this period, Arcadius (395–408) and Theodosius II (408–50) received the throne by right of inheritance. The old senator Marcanius (450–57) came to the throne through his marriage with the sister of Theodosius II, Pulcheria who for years previously had been an inmate of a convent. The Thracian Leo I the Great (457–74), owed his power to Aspar the Alan, Magister Militum per Orientem, who, as an Arian, was debarred from the imperial dignity, and who therefore installed the orthodox Leo. Leo, it is true, soon became refractory, and in 471 Aspar was executed by imperial command. On Leo’s death the throne was transmitted through his daughter Ariadne, who had been united in marriage to the leader of the Isaurian bodyguard, and had a son by him, Leo II. The sudden death of Leo, however, after he had raised his father to the rank of coregent placed the reins of power in the hands of Zeno (474–91), who was obliged to defend his authority against repeated insurrections. All these movements were instigated by his mother-in-law, Verina, who first proclaimed her brother Basiliscus emperor, and later Leontius, the leader of the Thraecian army. Victory, however, rested with Zeno, at whose death Ariadne once more decided the succession by bestowing her hand on Anastasius Silentiarius (491–518) who had risen through the grades of the civil service.

This brief résumé shows the important part played by women in the imperial history of Byzantium. Nor was female influence restricted to the imperial family. The development of Roman law exhibits a growing realization of woman’s importance in the family and society. Theodora, whose greatness is not eclipsed by that of her celebrated consort, Justinian, is a typical example of the solicitude of a woman of high station for the interests of the lowliest and the most unworthy of her sisters—from whose ranks perhaps she herself had risen. Byzantine civilization produced a succession of typical women of middle class who are a proof, first, of the high esteem in which women were held in social life and, secondly, of the sacredness of family life, which even now distinguishes the Greek people. To this same tendency is probably to be ascribed the suppression by Anastasius of the bloody exhibitions of the circus called venationes. We must not forget, however, that under the successor of Anastasius, Justin, the so-called circus factions kept bears for spectacles in the circus, and the Empress Theodora was the daughter of a bear-baiter. Still the fact remains that cultured circles at that time began to deplore this gruesome amusement, and that the venationes, and with them the political significance of the circus, disappeared in the course of Byzantine history.

One may be amazed at the assertion that the Byzantine was humane, and refined in feeling, even to the point of sensitiveness. Too many bloody crimes stain the pages of Byzantine history—not as extraordinary occurrences but as regularly established institutions. Blinding, mutilation, and death by torture had their place in the Byzantine penal system. In the Middle Ages such horrors were not, it is true, unknown in Western Europe, and yet the fierce crusaders thought the Byzantines exquisitely cruel. In reading the history of this people, one has to accustom oneself to a Janus-like national character—genuine Christian self-sacrifice, unworldliness, and spirituality, side by side with avarice, cunning, and the refinement of cruelty. It is, indeed, easy to detect this idiosyncrasy in both the ancient and the modern Greeks. Greek cruelty, however, may have been aggravated by the circumstances that savage races not only remained as foes on the frontier, but often became incorporated in the body politic, only veiling their barbaric origin under a thin cloak of Hellenism. The whole of Byzantine history is the record of struggles between a civilized state and wild, or half-civilized, neighbouring tribes. Again and again was the Byzantine Empire de facto reduced to the limits of the capital city, which Anastasius had transformed into an unrivaled fortress; and often, too, was the victory over its foes gained by troops before whose ferocity its own citizens trembled.

Twice in the period just considered, Byzantium was on the point of falling into the hands of the Goths: first, when, under the Emperor Arcadius, shortly after Alaric the Visigoth had pillaged Greece, the German Gainas, being in control of Constantinople simultaneously stirred up the East Goths and the Gruthungi, who had settled in Phrygia; a second time, when the East Goths, before their withdrawal to Italy, threatened Constantinople. These deliverances may not have been entirely fortunate. There are differences in natural endowments among races; the history of the Goths in Spain, Southern France and Italy shows that they should not be classed with the savage Huns and Isaurians, and a strong admixture of Germanic blood would perhaps have so benefited the Greek nation as to have averted its moral and political paralysis. But this was not to be expected of the Hunnic and Isaurian races, the latter including, probably, tribes of Kurds in the Taurus ranges in the southeast of Asia Minor. It can only be considered fortunate that success so long crowned the efforts to ward off the Huns, who, from 412 to 451, when their power was broken at Châlons, had been a serious menace to the imperial frontiers. More dangerous still were the Isaurians, inhabitants of imperial territory, and the principal source from which the guards of the capital were recruited. The Emperor Zeno was an Isaurian, as was likewise his adversary, Illus, Magister Officiorum who, in league with Verina mother of the empress, plotted his downfall; and while these intrigues were in progress the citizens of Constantinople were already taking sides against the Isaurian bodyguard, having recourse even to a general massacre to free themselves from their hated oppressors. But it was the Emperor Anastasius who first succeeded in removing these praetorians from the capital, and in subjugating the inhabitants of the Isaurian mountains (493) after a six years’ war.

The same period is marked by the beginning of the Slavic and Bulgar migrations. The fact has already been mentioned that these races gradually possessed themselves of the whole Balkan Peninsula the Slavs meanwhile absorbing the Finnic-Ugrian Bulgars. The admixture of Greek blood, which was denied the Germanic races, was reserved for the Slavs. To how great a degree this mingling of races took place, will never be exactly ascertained. On the other hand, the extent of Slavic influence on the interior developments of the Byzantine Empire, especially on that of the landed interests, is one of the great unsolved questions of Byzantine history.

In all these struggles, the Byzantine polity shows itself the genuine heir of the ancient Roman Empire. The same is true of the contest over the eastern boundary, the centuries of strife with the Persians. In this contest the Byzantine Greeks now found allies. The Persians had never given up their native fire-worship, Mazdeism. Whenever a border nation was converted to Christianity, it joined the Byzantine alliance. The Persians, realizing this, sought to neutralize the Greek influence by favouring the various sects in turn. To this motive is to be attributed the favour they showed to the Nestorians who at last became the recognized representatives of Christianity in the Persian Empire. To meet this policy of their adversaries, the Greeks for a long time favoured the Syrian Monophysites, bitter enemies of the Nestorians. Upon this motive, the Emperor Zeno closed the Nestorian school at Edessa, in 489 and it was a part of the same policy that induced the successors of Constantine the Great to support the leaders of the Christian clerical party, the Mamikonians, in opposition to the Mazdeistic nobility. Theodosius II resumed this policy after his grandfather, Theodosius the Great, had, by a treaty with Persia (387), sacrificed the greater part of Armenia. Only Karin in the valley of the Western Euphrates, thence forth called Theodosiopolis, then remained a Roman possession. Theodosius II initiated a different policy. He encouraged, as far as lay in his power, the diffusion of Christianity in Armenia, invited Mesrob and Sahak, the founders of Armenian Christian literature into Roman territory, and gave them pecuniary assistance for the prosecution of the work they had undertaken, of translating Holy Scripture into Armenian. Anastasius followed the same shrewd policy. On the one hand, he carried on a relentless war with the Persians (502–06) and, on the other hand, lost no opportunity of encouraging the Monophysite sect which was then predominant in Egypt, Syria and Armenia. It is true that he met with great difficulties from the irreconcilable factions, as had those of his predecessors who had followed the policy of religious indifference in dealing with the sects. The Eastern Churches in these centuries were torn by theological controversies so fierce as to have been with good reason compared with the sixteenth century disputes of Western Christendom. All the warring elements of the period—national, local, economic, social, even personal—group themselves around the prevalent theological questions, so that it is practically impossible to say, in any given case, whether the dominant motives of the parties to the quarrel were spiritual or temporal. In all this hurlyburly of beliefs and parties three historical points have to be kept clearly before the mind, in order to understand the further development of the empire: first, the decline of Alexandrian power, secondly, the determination of the mutual relations of Rome and Constantinople; thirdly, the triumph of the civil over the ecclesiastical authority.

Theodosius I was called the Great because he was the first emperor to act against heathenism, and also because he contributed to the victory of the followers of Athanasius over the Arians. This victory redounded to the advantage of the Patriarch of Alexandria. Strange as it seems at the present day, everything pointed to the supremacy of the orthodox Patriarch of Egypt, whose proud title (Papa et patriarcha Alexandriae, etc.) is now the only reminder that its bearer was once in a fair way to become the spiritual rival of Constantinople. Such, however, was the case, and the common object of preventing this formed a bond between Rome and Constantinople. It was some time, it is true, before the two powers recognized this community of interests. St. John Chrysostom, as Patriarch of Constantinople had already felt the superior power of his Alexandrian colleague. At the Synod of the Oak held on the Asiatic shore opposite the capital, Chrysostom was deposed—through the collusion of the palace with the intrigues of Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria although the people soon compelled his recall to the patriarchal see, and it was only as the result of fresh complications that he was permanently removed (404). Nestorius, one of his successors, fared even worse. At that time Alexandria was ruled by Cyril, nephew of Theophilus, and the equal of his uncle and predecessor both in intellectual and in political talents. Nestorius had declared himself against the new and, as he asserted, idolatrous expression “Mother of God” (Theotokos), thereby opposing the sentiments and wishes of the humbler people. Cyril determined to use this opportunity to promote the further exaltation of Alexandria at the expense of Constantinople. At the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431), Cyril received the hearty support of Pope Celestine’s representatives. Moreover, the Syrians, who were opponents of Alexandria, did not champion Nestorius energetically. The Patriarch of Constantinople proved the weaker and ended his life in exile. It now seemed as though Alexandria had gained her object. At the Second Council of Ephesus (the “Robber Council” of 449) Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, had already been hailed by a bishop of Asia Minor as “Ecumenical Archbishop,” when the energetic policy of Pope Leo I, the Great, and the death of the Emperor Theodosius II brought about a change in the trend of affairs. Marcian, the new emperor, came to an understanding with Leo; a reconciliation had already been effected with Rome through the drawing up of a confession of faith, which was presented to the Synod of Chalcedon, the so-called Fourth Ecumenical Council (451). Viewed from the standpoint of Old Rome the result was most successful Dioscorus of Alexandria was deposed and exiled, and the danger of an all-powerful Alexandrian patriarch was averted. The Patriarch of New Rome—Constantinople—could also be satisfied. The solution of the question was less advantageous to the Byzantine Empire. When the Greeks entered into communion with the Western Church, the reaction of the Egyptians, Syrians, and other Oriental peoples was all the more pronounced. “Anti-Chalcedonians” was the term appropriated by everyone in Asia who took sides against the Greek imperial Church, and the outcome of the whole affair demonstrated once more the impossibility of a compromise between the ideal of a universal, and that of a national Church.

The second point, the rivalry between Constantinople and Rome, can be discussed more briefly. Naturally, Rome had the advantage in every respect. But for the division of the empire the whole question would never have arisen. But Theodosius I, as early as the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381), had the decision made that New Rome should take precedence immediately after old Rome. This was the first expression of the theory that Constantinople should be supreme among the Churches of the East. The first to attempt to translate this thought into action was John. As he undertook the campaign against Alexandria, so he was also able to bring the still independent Church of Asia Minor under the authority of Constantinople. On a missionary journey he made the See of Ephesus, founded by St. John the Apostle, a suffragan of his patriarchate. We can now understand why the war against the Alexandrians was prosecuted with such bitterness. The defeat of Alexandria at the Council of Chalcedon established the supremacy of Constantinople. To be sure, this supremacy was only theoretical, as it is a matter of history that from this time forward the Oriental Churches assumed a hostile attitude towards the Byzantine imperial Church. As for Rome, protests had already been made at Chalcedon against the twenty-first canon of the Eighth General Council which set forth the spiritual precedence of Constantinople. This protest was maintained until the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders put an end to the pretensions of the Greek Church. Pope Innocent III (1215) confirmed the grant to the Patriarch of Constantinople of the place of honour after Rome.

We now come to the third point: the contest between ecclesiastical and civil authority. In this particular, also, the defeat of Alexandria was signal. Since the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon it had been decided that in the East (it was otherwise in the West) the old Roman custom, by which the emperor had the final decision in ecclesiastical matters, should continue. That was the end of the matter at Byzantium, and we need not be surprised to find that before long dogmatic disputes were decided by arbitrary imperial decrees, that laymen princes, and men who had held high state offices were promoted to ecclesiastical offices, and that spiritual affairs were treated as a department of the Government. But it must not be supposed that the Byzantine Church was therefore silenced. The popular will found a means of asserting itself most emphatically, concurrently with the official administration of ecclesiastical affairs. The monks in particular showed the greatest fearlessness in opposing their ecclesiastical superiors as well as the civil authority.

1B. Dynasties of Justinian and Tiberius (518–610).

This period saw the reigns of two renowned and influential Byzantine empresses. As the world once held its breath at the quarrel between Eudoxia, the wanton wife of the Emperor Arcadius, and the great patriarch, John Chrysostom, and at the rivalry of the sisters-in-law, Pulcheria and Athenais-Eudocia, the latter the daughter of an Athenian philosopher, so Theodora, the dancer of the Byzantine circus, and her niece Sophia succeeded in obtaining extraordinary influence by reason of their genius, wit, and political cleverness. Theodora died of cancer (548), seventeen years before her husband. No serious discord ever marred this singular union, from which, however, there was no issue. The death of this remarkable woman proved an irreparable loss to her consort, who grieved profoundly for her during the remainder of his life. Her niece, Sophia, who approached her in ambition and political cunning, though not in intellect, had a less fortunate ending. Her life was darkened by a bitter disappointment. With the help of Tiberius commander of the palace guard, a Thracian famed for his personal attractions, she placed on the throne her husband, Justin II (565–78), who suffered from temporary attacks of insanity. Soon Sophia and Tiberius became the real rulers of the empire. In 574 the empress succeeded in inducing her husband to adopt Tiberius as Caesar and coregent. The death of Justin (578), however, did not bring about the hoped-for consummation of her relations with Tiberius. Tiberius II (578–82) had a wife in his native village, and now for the first time presented her in the capital. After his accession to the throne, he revered the Empress Sophia as a mother, and even when the disappointed woman began to place obstacles in his path, he was forbearing, and treated her with respect while keeping her a prisoner.

The dynasty of Justin originated in Illyria. At the death of the Emperor Anastasius, Justin I (518–27), like his successor Tiberius, commander of the palace guard, by shrewdly availing himself of his opportunities succeeded in seizing the reins of power. Even during the reign of Justin, Justinian, his nephew, and heir-presumptive to the throne, played an important role in affairs. He was by nature peculiar and slow. Unlike his uncle, he had received an excellent education. He might justly be called a scholar; at the same time he was a man of boundless activity. As absolute monarch, like Philip II of Spain, he developed an almost incredible capacity for work. He endeavoured to master all the departments of civil life, to gather in his hands all the reins of government. The number of rescripts drawn up by Justinian is enormous. They deal with all subjects, though towards the end by preference with dogmatic questions, as the emperor fancied that he could put an end to religious quarrels by means of bureaucratic regulations. He certainly took his vocation seriously. On sleepless nights he was frequently seen pacing his apartments absorbed in thought. His whole concept of life was serious to the point of being pedantic. We might therefore wonder that such a man should choose as his consort a woman of the demi monde. No doubt Procopius, “a chamberlain removed from the atmosphere of the court, unheeded and venomous in his sullen old age,” is not veracious in all his statements concerning the previous life of Theodora. It is certain, however, that a daughter was born to her before she became acquainted with the crown prince, and it is equally certain that before she married the pedantic monarch, she had led a dissolute life. However she filled her new role admirably. Her subsequent faultless, her influence great, but not obtrusive. Her extravagance and vindictiveness—for she had enemies, among them John the Cappadocian the great financial minister so indispensable to Justinian—may well have cost the emperor many an uneasy hour, but there was never any lasting breach.

Theodora, after captivating the Crown-Prince Justinian by her genius and witty conversation, proved herself worthy of her position at the critical moment. It was in the year 532, five years after Justinian’s accession. Once more the people of Constantinople, through its circus factions, sought to oppose the despotic rule then beginning. It resulted in the frightful uprising which had taken its name from the well-known watchword of the circus parties: Nika “Conquer.” In the palace everything was given up for lost, and himself, the heroic chief of the mercenaries, advised flight. At this crisis Theodora saved the empire for her husband by her words: “The purple is a good winding-sheet.” The Government was firm; the opposing party weakened, the circus factions were shorn of their political influence and the despotic government of Justinian remained assured for the future.

It is well known what the reign of Justinian (527–65) meant for the external and internal development of the empire. The boundaries of the empire were extended, Africa was reconquered for a century and a half, all Italy for some decades. The Byzantine power was established, for a time, even in some cities of the Spanish coast. Less successful were his Eastern wars. Under Justin and the aged Kavadh, war with Persia had again broken out. On the accession of the great Chosroes I, Nushirvan (531–79), in spite of the peace of 532, which Justinian hoped would secure for him liberty of action in the West, Chosroes allowed him no respite. Syria suffered terribly from pillaging incursions, Lazistan (the ancient Colchis) was taken by the Persians and a road thereby opened to the Black Sea. Only after the Greeks resumed the war more vigorously (549) did they succeed in recapturing Lazistan, and in 562 peace was concluded.

Nevertheless the Persian War was transmitted as an unwelcome legacy to the successors of Justinian. In 571 strife broke out anew in Christian Armenia owing to the activity of the Mazdeistic Persians. While the Romans gained many brilliant victories their opponents also obtained a few important successes. Suddenly affairs took an unexpected turn. Hormizdas, the son and successor of Chosroes I (579–90), lost both life and crown in an uprising. His son, Chosroes II, Parvez (590–628), took refuge with the Romans. Mauritius, who was then emperor (582–602) received the fugitive and by the campaign of 591 reestablished him on the throne of his fathers. Thus the relations of the empire with the Persians seemed at last peaceful. Soon, however Mauritius himself was deposed and murdered on the occasion of a military sedition. The centurion Phocas (602–10) seized the helm of the Byzantine state. Chosroes, ostensibly to avenge his friend, the murdered emperor, forthwith resumed the offensive. The administration of Phocas proved thoroughly inefficient. The empire seemed to swerve out of its old grooves, the energetic action of some patriots, however, under the leadership of nobles high in the Government, and the call of Heraclius, saved the situation, and after a fearful conflict with the powers of the East, lasting over a hundred years, Byzantium rose again to renewed splendour.

It is a noteworthy feet that Lombard and Syrian chroniclers call the Emperor Mauritius the first “Greek” emperor. The transformation of the Roman State, with Latin as the official language, into a Greek State had become manifest. During the reign of Mauritius the rest of Justinian’s conquests in Italy and Africa were placed under the civil administration of military governors or exarchs. This is symptomatic. The separation of civil and military power, which had been inaugurated in the happier and more peaceful days at the end of the third century, had outlived its usefulness. During the period of the Arabian conflicts under the Heraclean dynasty, the old Roman system of combining civil and military power was established in a new form. The commander of a thema (regiment) was charged with the supervision of the civil authorities in his military district. The old diocesan and provincial divisions disappeared, and military departments became administrative districts.

It is manifest that Justinian’s policy of restoration ended in a miserable failure. The time for a Roman Empire in the old sense of the term, with the old administrative system, was past. It is unfortunate that the rivers of blood which brought destruction upon two Germanic states, the robber Vandals and the noble East Goths, and the enormous financial sacrifice of the eastern half of the empire had no better outcome. If despite all this, the name of Justinian is inscribed in brilliant letters in the annals of the world’s history, it is owing to other achievements: his codification of the laws and his enterprise as a builder. It was the fortune of this emperor to be contemporary with the artistic movement which, rising in Persia, gained the ascendancy in Syria and spread over Asia Minor and thence to Constantinople and the West. It was the merit of Justinian that he furnished the pecuniary means, often enormous for the realization of these artistic aspirations. His fame will endure so long as Saint Sophia at Constantinople endures, and so long as hundreds of pilgrims annually visit the churches of Ravenna. This is not the place to enumerate the architectural achievements of Justinian, ecclesiastical and secular, bridges, forts, and palaces. Nor shall we dwell upon his measures against the last vestiges of heathenism, or his suppression of the University of Athens (529). On the other hand, there is one phase of his activity as a ruler to which reference must be made here, and which was the necessary counterpart of his policy of conquest in the West and issued in as great a failure. The Emperors Zeno and Anastasius had sought remedies for the difficulties raised by the Council of Chalcedon. It was Zeno who commissioned Acacius the great Patriarch of Constantinople—the first, perhaps, who took the title of Ecumenical Patriarch—to draft the formula of union known as the “Henoticon” (482). This formula cleverly evaded the Chalcedon decisions, and made it possible for the Monophysites to return to the imperial Church. But the gain on one side proved a loss on the other. Under existing conditions, it did not matter much that Rome protested, and again and again demanded the erasure of the name of Acacius from the diptychs. It was much more important that the capital and Europe as well as the chief Greek cities, showed hostility to the Henoticon. The Greeks, moreover, were attached to their national Church, and they regarded the decrees of Chalcedon as an expression of their national creed. The Emperor Anastasius was a Monophysite by conviction and his religious policy irritated the West. At last, when he installed in the patriarchal See of Constantinople Timotheus, an uncompromising Monophysite, and at the Synod of Tyre had the decrees of Chalcedon condemned, and the Henoticon solemnly confirmed, a tumult arose at the capital, and later in the Danubian provinces, headed by Vitalian, a Moesian Anastasius died (518), and, under Justin I, Vitalian, who had received from Anastasius the appointment as magister militum per Thraciam, remained all-powerful. He acted throughout as the enemy of the Monophysites and the champion of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. He urged the union with Rome, which must render the breach with the Eastern Churches final. This union was consummated in 519; the conditions were the removal of the name of Acacius from the diptychs, and the banishment of over fifty bishops of Asia Minor and Syria who were opposed to the Chalcedonian decrees. A year later the government of Justin rid itself of the too powerful Vitalian by having him assassinated. The union with Rome, however, was not disturbed. When, in the year 525, Pope John I appeared in Constantinople on a mission from the Ostrogoth King Theodoric, he celebrated High Mass in Latin and took precedence before the ecumenical patriarch. We know that at the time Justinian was the actual ruler; it may be conjectured what motive inspired him to allow this. His plan for the conquest of the West made it desirable for him to win the papacy over to his side, and consummate the ecclesiastical union with the Latins. These views he held throughout his reign. Theodora, however, thought otherwise. She became the protectress of the Monophysites. Egypt owed to her its years of respite; under her protection Syria ventured to reestablish its Anti-Chalcedonian Church she encouraged the Monophysite missions in Arabia Nubia, and Abyssinia. The empress did not even hesitate to receive the heads of the Monophysite opposition party in her palace, and when, in 536 Anthimus, Patriarch of Constantinople, was, at the instance of Pope Agapetus, deposed for his Asiatic propensities, she received the fugitive into the women’s apartments, where he was discovered at the death of the empress (548). He had spent twelve years within the walls of the imperial palace under the protection of the Augusta. There are reasons to suspect that Justinian did not altogether disapprove of his consort’s policy. It was but a half-way attempt to win over the Monophysites. Could they indeed, ever be won over?—The spectacle of this emperor wearing out his life in the vain effort to restore the unity of the empire, in faith, law, and custom is like the development of a tragedy; his endeavours only tended to widen the breach between those nations which most needed each other’s support—those of the Balkan Peninsula and of Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt. With all his dogmatic experiments the emperor did not succeed in reconciling the parties or devising a feasible method of bringing the parts of the empire to co-operate with one another. His successors had no better success Even the conciliatory measures of John the Faster, Patriarch of the capital (582–95), were of no avail. The conquest of the East by the Arabs, in the seventh century brought a cessation of this movement towards the differentiation of the East into separate nations—a cessation which, to be sure, involved for most of the Syrian and Egyptian Christians the loss of their faith.

2. Founding of the Real Byzantine State (610–717)

Salvation from the Arab peril came through the energetic dynasty of Heraclius, which flourished for five generations. Three of the rulers were characterized by extraordinary will power and striking intellectual ability: Heraclius (610–41), Constans (642–68), and Constantine, called Pogonatus, or the Bearded (668–85). The year 685 marks the beginning of the dynastic decline. Justinian II (685–95, and 705–11) had inherited the excellent qualities of his ancestors but grotesquely distorted; he had the instincts of a sultan, with a touch of Caesarian madness. Whence it came about that in 695 he was deposed. His nose was cut off—whence the name Rhinotmetus—and he was banished to Cherson. There he formed an alliance with the Khan of the Khazars, whose son-in-law he became, and fled in a fishing boat over the Black Sea to the mouths of the Danube. The Bulgarians had dwelt in this region since about 679. In 705, aided by an army of Slavs and Bulgarians, Rhinotmetus returned to Constantinople, and the Bulgarian prince received the name of Caesar as a reward for the help he had rendered. For the next six years the emperor’s vengeance was wreaked on all who had been his adversaries. At last, while hastening to Cherson, where Philippicus Bardanes, an Armenian officer, had been proclaimed emperor, Rhinotmetus was slain near Damatrys in Asia Minor.

The first dethronement of Justinian, in 695, had been accomplished by an officer named Leontius who reigned from then until 698, and it was in this period that the Arabs succeeded in gaining possession of almost all Roman Africa, including Carthage. The Byzantine fleet which had been sent to oppose this invasion revolted, while off the coast of Crete, and raised the admiral, Apsimarus, to the purple under the title of Tiberius III (698–705). The reign of Tiberius was not unsuccessful but in 705 Justinian returned, and both Tiberius and Leontius (who had meantime been living in a monastery) were beheaded. Philippicus the Armenian, following upon the second reign of Rhinotmetus, favoured the religious principles of his Armenian countrymen, and the people of Byzantium raised to the throne in his stead Anastasius II (713–15), an able civilian official who restored the orthodox faith. But when he attempted to check the insubordination of the army, which had made three emperors since 695, the troops of the Opsikion thema (from the territory of the Troad as far as Nicaea) proclaimed as emperor the unwilling Theodosius (715–17), an obscure official of one of the provinces. At the same time the Caliph Suleiman was equipping a vast armament to ravage the frontier provinces. Thus the empire which the army, under the great military emperors, Heraclius Constans, and Constantine, had saved from the threatened invasion of the Arabs, seemed fated to be brought to destruction by the selfsame army. But the army was better than the events of the preceding twenty-two years might seem to indicate. Leo and Artavasdus, commanders, respectively, of the two most important themata, the Anatolic and the Armenian, combined forces. Theodosius voluntarily abdicated and again the throne of Constantine was occupied by a great Byzantine ruler, fitted by nature for his position, Leo of Germanicia (now Marash) in Northern Syria.

This brief review of the various rulers suffices to show that the diseased mentality of Justinian II brought to an end the prosperous period of the Heraclean dynasty. The attempt has been made to prove that this prince inherited an unsound mind, and to discover corresponding symptoms of insanity in his ancestors. This much is certain: that a strength of will carried at times to the point of foolhardiness and incorrigible obstinacy and a propensity to the despotic exercise of power distinguish the whole dynasty. Even Heraclius, by a personal inclination to which he clung in defiance of reason and against the remonstrances of his well-wishers, placed the peace of the State and the perpetuation of his dynasty in serious peril. This was his passion for his niece Martina, whom he married after the death of his first wife in defiance of all the warnings of the great Patriarch Sergius. Martina is the only woman of any political importance during these warlike times. Her character distinguished by a consuming ambition, and her influence may have increased when, after the loss of Syria to the Arabs, Heraclius, becoming afflicted with an internal disease, fell into a state of lethargy. On the death of her husband (641) she sought to obtain the supreme power for her own son Heracleonas to the prejudice of her step-son Constantine. The army recognized both princes as sovereign, a state of things which contained the germ of further complications. Fortunately Constantine who had long been ailing, died a few weeks after his father, and the army, ignoring Martina and Heracleonas, placed Constans, the son of Constantine, on the throne. Thus it was that the almost uninterrupted succession of the three emperors, Heraclius, Constans, and Constantine IV, Pogonatus came about.

As has been repeatedly observed, the activity of these rulers was concentrated on the Herculean task of defending the empire against the foreign foes that were bearing down on it from all sides. Fortunately the Avars, who from the time of Justinian had been bought off with an annual tribute, but who as lately as 623 and 626 had besieged Constantinople, were gradually hemmed in by the onrushing Slavs and Bulgarians upon the Hungarian lowlands, and thereby removed from immediate contact with the Byzantine Empire. All the more persistent, however, were the attacks of the Slavic races. During the time of Heraclius the Croats and Serbs established themselves in their present homes. The Roman cities of Dalmatia had difficulty in defending themselves. Presently the Slavs took to the sea, and by 623 they had pushed their way as far as Crete. Still their visits were only occasional they made no permanent settlements on the islands, and on the mainland the larger cities escaped subjection to Slavic influence was attacked again and again most seriously in 675, but was saved each time by the heroism of her citizens. The Slavs, fortunately, were still split into different tribes, so that they could be held in check by timely expeditions, such as that which Constans had made near Thessalonica. It was otherwise with the Bulgarians. In 635 Heraclius concluded an alliance with their prince, Kuvrat, so as to use them in opposing the Avars and Slavs. However, there soon arose in the territory between the Danube and the Balkan Peninsula, under the leadership of the Bulgarians a state composed of Slavonic and Finnic-Ugrian elements. Their organization differed widely from that of the Serbs and Croats, who were held together by no political bond. In 679 the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus suffered a serious defeat at the hands of the Bulgarians; by 695 things had come to such a pass that Justinian II reconquered Constantinople through Bulgarian assistance. In later centuries the Bulgarian State became Byzantium’s most dangerous European foe.

But at this period its most formidable enemies were its neighbours, the Persians. It will be recalled how Anastasius and Justinian I had fought with this nation, and how, in the peace of 562, Lazistan at least had been held as a guarantee of Byzantine supremacy over the trade routes to Central Asia. The twenty years’ war (571–91) brought many vicissitudes. At last the Emperor Mauritius obtained possession of Dara and Martyropolis, in Syria, as well as the greater part of Armenia. Nisibis, however, remained Persian. So far, an important advantage had been gained for Byzantium. But the assassination of Mauritius effected a marked change. Chosroes II, Parvez, commenced war against the usurper Phocas which he continued against his successor, Heraclius. In 606 Dara fell, and in 608 the Persians appeared for the first time before Chalcedon. In 611 they captured Antioch and the eastern part of Asia Minor in 613 Damascus, and in 614 Jerusalem. The True Cross fell into their hands and was carried off to Persia. In 615 a Persian army stood before Chalcedon for the second time. In 619 they conquered Ancyra in Asia Minor, and even Egypt. Heraclius saved himself splendidly from this terrible situation. In three daring campaigns (622–28) he freed Armenia from her oppressors By the peace of 628 Armenia and Syria were recovered. On 14 September, 629, the True Cross, restored by the Persians, was again set up in Jerusalem, and in 629 Egypt likewise was wrested from the Persians. Then came the fearful reverses consequent on the Arab rising; in 635 Damascus fell; in 637 Jerusalem was surrendered by the Patriarch Sophronius, after a siege of two years. At first (634) Heraclius himself came to Antioch to organize the campaign, then followed the lethargy due to his sickness, and he supinely allowed the Arabs to advance. At his death (641) Egypt was virtually lost; on 29 September, 643, Amru entered Alexandria, in 647 the province of Africa, and in 697 its capital, Carthage, fell into the hands of the Arabs. Meanwhile the Arabs had built a navy, and soon the war raged on all sides. They had taken Cyprus in 648; in 655 they first thought of attacking Constantinople. Fortunately their fleet was vanquished off the Lycian coast. Later they established themselves in Cyzicus, and from 673 to 677 menaced the capital. At the same time they conquered Armenia (654) and ravaged Asia Minor. In 668 they pushed on to Chalcedon. During all these losses, the Greeks could show only one step gained—or rather one successful to safeguard their power. Many Christian families emigrated from Asia Minor and Syria to Sicily Lower Italy, and Rome, thus strengthening the Byzantine power in the West, and the Emperor Constans could use Sicily as a base for the reconquest of Africa (662). He is thought to have intended making Rome once more the capital of the empire. In 668, however, he was murdered in Syracuse during a military uprising, and with him these vast plans came to an end. His son, Constantine IV was very young at the time of his accession; still he was not only able to assert his authority in the face of an unruly army, but soon like his father and great grandfather, proved himself a brave warrior and displayed consummate generalship against the Arabs, the Slavs, and the Bulgarians.

The splendid prowess of Byzantium is still brilliantly apparent, in spite of these losses. This was due, in the first place, to its excellent military equipment. The period of the Arab peril, a peril which at a later date in the West, during the time of Charles Martel, saw the introduction of cavalry wearing defensive armour in place of the Roman and Germanic infantry, marked a like innovation in the East, at an earlier period. The Byzantine cuirassiers, or cataphracti probably originated at this time. Moreover, the State was now thoroughly organized on military lines. The system of themata, after the model of the exarchate of Ravenna and Africa, found acceptance in Asia Minor, and gradually spread through the whole empire. The thema of the Cibyrrhaeots, in southern Asia Minor, belonged to the districts which during the Roman Republic had produced the most notorious pirates. In the Saracen wars the fleet played a very important part; the Byzantine victory, therefore, showed that the Byzantine fleet was not only equal to that of the Arabs in point of men and solidity of construction but had an important technical advantage. During the great leaguer of Constantinople, from April to September, 673, Callinicus a Syrian, is said to have taught the Greeks the use of gunpowder, or “Greek fire.”

It remains to discuss the ecclesiastical disputes of the seventh century. At first everything seemed to point towards a compromise. The Persian invasions, which had swept over the Christian peoples of the Orient since 606, probably strengthened a feeling of kinship among Christian nations. Even during his Armenian campaign, Heraclius began to prepare the way for the union with the Oriental Churches. He was supported in his efforts by Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Pope Honorius I. As a basis of dogmatic unity, Heraclius proclaimed as a formula of faith the “union of the two Natures of the God-Man through the Divine-human energy.” Everything seemed propitious, the only opponent of the movement being Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was afterwards forced to surrender the city to the Arabs. His antagonism lent the opposition movement stability and permanence in his effort to conciliate the Monophysites, in his “Ecthesis” of 638 emphasized still more emphatically the union of the two natures by one will (Monothelitism). Immediately the West—and particularly Africa, the scene of St. Maximus’s labours—set up the standard of opposition. It was of no avail that Emperor Constans II in his “Typus” (648) forbade all contention over the number of wills and energies, and that he caused Pope Martin I, as well as St. Maximus, to be apprehended and banished to Cherson. The West was temporarily defeated, though destined finally to conquer. After Syria, Egypt, and Africa had been lost to the Arabs, there was no further object in trying to establish Monothelitism. At the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680–81) orthodoxy was reestablished by the Emperor Constantine IV. That this move was in harmony with the desire of the Greek people, was evident during the reign of Philippicus, the Armenian. His attempt to restore Monothelitism in the Rome of the East resulted in his dethronement. Once more the Greeks had cut themselves loose from the Armenians, whether to the advantage of the empire is a question which receives various answers.

3. Iconoclasm (717–867)

During this period two dynasties occupied the throne, each lasting for several generations. Both were of Eastern origin, the one from Northern Syria, the other from Phrygia. Leo V (813–20) also was of Oriental extraction. On the other hand, Nicephorus I (802–11) and his son-in-law Michael I, Rhangabe (811–13), were Greeks. In other words, the government of the empire became orientalized. This racial antagonism must be borne in mind in order to grasp the bitterness of the religious contentions of the period. The same period shows a second dynastic anomaly: for the first and last time there is an empress on the throne not as regent, but with the full title Basileus. This is Irene, perhaps the most disagreeable character of all the great Byzantine women. Like Athenais, she was an Athenian, but in the charm of the Muses she was totally lacking. Two passions possessed her soul: ambition and religious fanaticism, but her piety was of a strange kind. She persisted in her devotion to her party with the unswerving conviction that her opinion was right, and she did not hesitate to commit the most atrocious crimes of which a woman could be guilty in order to ruin her son morally and physically. Not without reason has Irene been compared to Catherine de’ Medici. On the death of her husband, Leo IV (775–80), in her desire for power she strove to keep her son as a minor as long as possible, and finally to set him aside altogether. Of her own authority she canceled the betrothal of Constantine VI (780–97) to Rotrud, the daughter of Charlemagne, and forced him to marry Maria, an Armenian, a woman wholly distasteful to him. When the seventeen-year-old emperor showed a disposition to escape her power, she had him scourged with rods. She finally lent her sanction to his marriage with a woman of the court, Theodota, a union regarded by the Church as bigamous. In this way she thought to make his accession to power impossible. The worst, however, was still to come. Irene took advantage of an uprising to rid herself of her son permanently. Constantine VI, blinded at the command of his mother, ended his life in an obscure apartment of the imperial palace, where Theodota bore him a son. His mother now ruled alone (797–802) until the elevation of the grand treasurer, Nicephorus put an end to her power, and she spent her remaining years on the island of Lesbos in sickness and poverty.

Irene is honoured as a saint in the Greek Church because at the Seventh General Synod of Nicaea (787), she obtained important concessions in the matter of the veneration of images. Though the adoration of images, as well as other abusive practices of veneration, which had already been condemned as idolatrous, were again wholly forbidden, prostrate veneration, incense, and candles were permitted. Theodora achieved a similar prominence. After the fall of Irene, the Iconoclasts again gained the upper hand, and the brief reign of Michael I, who supplanted his brother-in-law Stauracius (811), was powerless to change this. The Emperor Theophilus (829–42) in the vigour of his religious persecution approached the energetic Constantine V (741–75), known to the opposite party, and later to historians, by the insulting epithet of Copronymus. When Theodora became regent, through the early death of her husband, she introduced milder measures. A compromise was effected between the parties. At the synod of 843 permission was given for the veneration of images, and at the same time the anathema was removed from the name of the Emperor Theophilus. In order to remove it, Theodora, it is said, was guilty of a pious fraud and the false declaration that the emperor, before his death, had been converted to the veneration of images. Of more importance, however, is the feet that the members of the ecclesiastical party by removing the anathema against the emperor yielded to state authority, and while victorious in the dogmatic controversy acknowledged that they were vanquished in the ecclesiastico-political.

The questions of this time seem to have concerned matters of far-reaching importance, problems which, despite their strange dress, appear fundamentally quite modern and familiar. The dogmatical side of these contests was not connected with the old controversy about the two natures of Christ, but with the heretical views of different Oriental sects, influenced by Judaism and Mohammedanism. The eastern frontier of the empire in Asia Minor was the home of these multifarious sects, which guaranteed the separate existence of the tribes which belonged to them and regarded themselves as the “faithful” in opposition to the state Church. Leo III, the Syrian (717–41), who saved Byzantium from the Arabian peril, repulsed the last serious attack of the Arabs on the capital (September, 717, to August, 718), by his reforms made the empire superior to its foes, and brought the views of these sectaries into the policy of the Byzantine empire. In the celebrated edict of 726 he condemned the veneration of images, a decree which he considered part of his reforming activity. Probably he hoped by this means to bring the people of the empire closer to Islam, to lessen the differences between the two religions. This may be regarded as another attempt to orientalize the empire, such as the dynasty of Heraclius and others before had previously made. The Greek nation answered by promptly repudiating the attempt, all the more emphatically because here again dogmatic and national antagonisms were connected with the struggle between Church and State.

It is unjust to attribute unworthy motives to the party who called themselves image-worshipers and rallied around such men as Plato, abbot of the monastery of Saccudion, and his nephew Theodore, afterwards Abbot of Studium. The fact is that the whole movement was based on a deeply religious spirit which led to detachment from the world and indeed to complete insensibility towards all earthly ties, even the most legitimate. The ideal of these men is not the Christian ideal of today; their rigorous stand might not always meet with our approval. But it was a party that exerted a powerful influence on the people, which could only be intensified by persecution. In this movement it seems possible to discern the forerunner of the great reform movement of the West during the tenth and eleventh centuries—a movement which tended to intensify religious life and which stood for the liberation of the Church from the control of the State.

The Iconoclasts, on the other hand, represented a principle which we know to have been forced into the Greek-Byzantine world as something foreign. It encountered sentiments and views, however, with which it could combine. In spite of the Christianization of Byzantium, there remained there a residue of ancient pagan Roman ideas. The Byzantines of this school often appear so modern to us precisely because they were permeated with rationalistic anti-ecclesiastical sentiments. Such men were found most frequently among the cultured classes, the high dignitaries of Church and State. This is why Iconoclasm which was sympathetic to this rationalistic tendency, could develop into a general movement and why it reminds us in so many ways of the rationalistic movement of the eighteenth century; it also explains why the Iconoclastic emperors always found supporters in the higher ranks of the clergy. Thus it was that Leo III conducted his attack against the protesting popes through the Patriarch Anastasius. When Pope Gregory II refused to recognize the edict of 726, the emperor withdrew from his jurisdiction Sicily, Lower Italy, and Illyria, and placed them under the Patriarch of Constantinople. Constantine Copronymus had similar support. Upheld by prelates in favour of a national Church, he once more, through the council of 754, prohibited the veneration of images. We know of the numerous martyrdoms caused by the execution of the decree, and how the Empress Irene, herself a friend of the “image-worshipers,” finally yielded. There soon followed the reaction of the Icon under Leo V the Armenian, and the Phrygian dynasty, and at last the legal restoration of image-worship by Theodora. We have already seen that this victory of the orthodox party, viewed from an ecclesiastico-political standpoint, was not complete. The reason of this partial defeat lay not in the existence of a party among the higher clergy favouring a national Church, but in the fact that the orthodox party gradually lost their hold on the people. We know how the antagonism of the Greeks to the Latins had gradually grown more intense. It was regarded as unpatriotic when Theodore of Studium and his friends so openly declared for Rome. The strength of this National Church movement came into most perfect evidence with the advent of the great Photius. His rise and the fall of the Patriarch Ignatius were connected with a shabby court intrigue, the Patriarch Ignatius having ventured to oppose the all-powerful Bardas during the reign of Michael III (842–67). At first the proceedings of Photius differed in no respect from those of a common office-seeker. But by opposing the claims of Old Rome to Bulgarian obedience he suddenly gained immense popularity, and thus paved the way for the ultimate separation of the Greek and Latin Churches.

It was Boris (852–88), the Bulgarian Tsar, who stirred up the entire question. With the help of St. Clement, a disciple of Methodius, the Apostle of the Slavs, he had introduced Christianity among his people, on the occasion of his own baptism, the Emperor Michael III was sponsor. Soon afterwards Boris tried to withdraw from the influence of East Rome, and enter into closer relations with Old Rome. At the same time the Holy See renewed its claims to the Illyrian obedience. Photius’s answer was the egkuklios epistole (circular letter) of 867, by which he sought to establish the separation from Old Rome both in ritual and in dogma. In spite of the many vacillations of Byzantine polities between the partisans of Ignatius and those of Photius during the next decades, this was the first decisive step towards the schism of 1054.

During this whole period the Bulgarians had given great trouble to the Byzantine Empire. The Emperor Nicephorus I fell in battle against them, and his successors warded them off only with the greatest difficulty. Equally violent were the wars against the Saracens and the Slavs. There was no second investment of the capital by the Syrian Arabs, it is true, though on the other hand, in 860 the city was hard pressed by the Varangian Ros, but all the more danger was to be apprehended from the Arabs who had been expelled from Spain and had settled in Egypt in 815. In 826 they conquered Crete, and about the same time the Arabs of Northern Africa began to settle in Sicily, a migratory movement which finally resulted in the complete loss of the island to the Byzantines. As once they had come from Syria and Asia Minor so now many Greek families migrated to Lower Italy and the Peloponnesus. The Christianization and hellenization of the Slavs was now begun, and soon produced rich fruits. It is difficult, as we have already said, to determine how great an admixture of Slavic blood flows in the veins of the Greeks of today, on the other hand, it is certain that the Slavs have left many traces of their laws and customs. The agrarian law dating, possibly, from the time of the Emperor Leo III, shows the strength of the Slavic influence on the development of the Byzantine agrarian system.

It remains to touch on the relations between the Byzantine Empire and the West during this period. In the West, the Frankish nation had gradually taken the lead of all other Germanic peoples. As we know, the relations of Byzantium with these nations were always somewhat unstable. One thing only had remained unchanged: the Byzantine rulers, as legitimate successors of the Roman emperors, had always maintained their claim to sovereignty over the Germanic peoples. For the most part this had been unconditionally admitted, as is evident from the coinage. At the time of the Empress Irene, however, a great change set in. The restoration of the Roman Empire of the West by Charlemagne (800) was the signal for a complete break with all previous traditions. The West stood now on the same footing as the East. As we know, this important step had been taken in full accord with the papacy. Historically, it is thus a part of the controversies which began with the withdrawal of Illyrian obedience, and culminated in the egkuklios epistole of Photius. The idea of a national imperial Church seemed to prevail in both East and West; to be sure this was only seemingly so, for the popes did not give up their universal supremacy, but soon began again to utilize politically their advantageous location midway between East and West.

4. Period of Political Balance (867–1057)

The period of the highest development of Byzantine power was not dynastically the most fortunate. Seldom has there been such an accumulation of moral filth as in the family of Basil the Macedonian (867–86). The founder of the house, a handsome hostler of Armenian extraction, from the vicinity of Adrianople, attracted the notice of a high official by his powerful build and his athletic strength and later gained the favour of the dissolute emperor Michael III, the last of the Phrygian emperors. Basil was also a favourite with women. His relations with the elderly Danielis of Patras, whom he had met whilst in the retinue of his master, were most scandalous. The gifts of this extremely wealthy woman laid the foundations of Basil’s fortune. The depth of his baseness, however, is best seen in his marriage to the emperor’s mistress, Eutocia Ingerina. Michael III stipulated that Eutocia should remain his mistress, so that it is impossible to say who was the father of Leo VI, the Wise (886–912). His physical frailty and taste for learned pursuits during his reign the Code of the Basilica was prepared in sixty books—as also the mutual aversion between Basil and Leo are no evidence for the paternity of the Macedonian. If this view be correct Basil’s line was soon extinct; as his real son, Alexander, reigned only one year (912–13). Constantine VII, Porphyrogenitus (913–59), the long wished-for heir, by the fourth marriage of Leo the Wise, inherited the learned tastes of his father, but was not completely deficient in energy. It is true he left the government at first to his father-in-law, Romanus I, Lacapenus (919–44), and later to his wife Helena, still, when Romanus had become too overbearing, Constantine VII showed himself possessed of enough initiative to enlist the aid of Stephen and Constantine, sons of Romanus, in overthrowing the power of their father, and, later, to set aside his brothers-in-law (945). In Romanus II (959–63) the dissolute nature of his great-grandfather Michael III reappeared. His reign, fortunately, lasted only a few years, and then Theophano, his widow, the daughter of an innkeeper, took into her hands the reins of government, for her minor sons. Circumstances compelled her marriage with Knifers II, Phocas (963–69), an old and fanatically religious warrior. He is the first of that series of great military leaders who occupied the Byzantine throne, and who soon raised the empire to undreamed of heights of power. As in the dynasty of Heraclius three of these reigned in succession Nicephorus II, John Zimisces, and Basil II. John I, Zimisces (969–76), was the nephew of Nicephorus, but very unlike him. The younger man was as joyous and life-loving in disposition as the older was grim and unlovable. Theophano, therefore, did not hesitate to introduce into the palace the murderer of her morose husband. But like Sophia, niece of the great Theodora, she saw her hopes dashed to the ground. The new emperor confined her in a convent and, to legitimize his power married Theodora, sister of Basil and Constantine, the two young emperors. Like his uncle, John Zimisces was only coregent but he showed great force in his administration of affairs. At his death the elder of the young emperors was competent to take charge of the State. Luckily, Basil II (976–1025) proved as capable a military leader as his two predecessors. It was under his brother, Constantine VIII (1026–28), that the reaction set in. In opposition to the great imperial generals who had brought the empire to an unhoped for pinnacle of power, a civilian party had grown up which had for its aim the curtailment of military power. This party was successful during the reigns of Constantine and his successors Constantine VIII left two daughters, Zoe and Theodora. Zoe (1028–50) was forty-eight years of age at the death of her father, but even after that married three times, and by her amours and her jealousy brought many trials upon her younger sister. Zoe’s three husbands Romanus III, Argyrus (1028–34), Michael IV (1034–41), and Constantine IX, Monomachus (1042–54) all came from the higher bureaucratic circles Thus the civil party had gained its end. This explains why neither Zoe nor the nephew of her second husband, whom she had adopted, and who proved so ungrateful, Michael V (1041–42—termed the Caulker because his father was a naval engineer) could uphold the glory attained by the State during the times of the great military emperors. Even generals as great as Georgius Maniaces and Harold Hardrada—the latter, chief of the North-German (Varangian) bodyguard which was coming more and more into prominence—were powerless to stem the tide of the decline. The general discontent was most manifest when Theodora, on the death of her sister and her last surviving brother-in-law, assumed the reins of power, and not unsuccessfully (1054–56). On her deathbed she transferred the purple to the aged senator Michael VI, Stratioticus (1056–57. This was the signal for the military power to protest. The holders of great landed estates in Asia Minor gave the power instead to one of their own faction. Isaac I, Comnenus, inaugurates a new era.

During the period of its greatest power, i.e. under the military emperors, the Byzantine State was able to expand equally in all directions. It had its share of reverses, it is true. The most important was the final loss of Sicily to the Saracens in 878 Syracuse fell, and in 902 Tauromenium (Taormina), the last Byzantine stronghold on the island, was taken by the Arabs. Two years later Thessalonica was subjected to an appalling pillage. As compensation for the loss of Sicily, however, the Byzantines had Lower Italy, where, since the conquest of Bari (875) the Lombard thema had been established. This led to the renewal of relations with the Western powers, especially with the recently founded Saxon line. The Byzantines were still able to hold their own with these, as formerly with the Carlovingians. Conspicuous the success of the campaigns against the Arabs in the East: the fall of the Caliphate of Bagdad rendered it possible to push forward the frontier towards Syria, Melitene (928), Nisibis (942–43) Tarsus and Cyprus (965), and Antioch (968–69) were captured in turn. About the same time (961) Crete was wrested back from the Arabs. These were the battlefields on which the great generals of the empire, chiefly Armenian, Paphlagonian, and Cappadocian by race, won distinction. Under Romanus I it was the great Armenian Kurkuas, and later the Cappadocian Nicephorus Phocas who achieved these victories. Nicephorus, as husband of Theophano ascended the throne, and as emperor he achieved his victorious campaign against the Arabs. His assassination brought to the throne his nephew John Zimisces, an Armenian, and fortunately a warrior as great as his uncle.

John made preparations for the subjugation of the Bulgarians. It will be recalled how Tsar Boris introduced Christianity into Bulgaria and, even at that period, thought, by ingratiating himself with Rome, to escape from Byzantine influence Tsar Symeon (893–927) devised another way of attaining independence. He raised his archbishop to the rank of patriarch, thereby proclaiming the ecclesiastical autonomy of Bulgaria. His ultimate aim became evident when he assumed the title of Tsar of the Bulgarians and Autocrat of the Romans. This dream, however, was not to be realized. Though Symeon had extended the boundaries of his dominions as far as the Adriatic Sea, though he held Adrianople for a time, and in 917 inflicted a crushing defeat on the Greeks, still, under his successor Peter (927–69), Macedonia and Illyria shook off the Bulgarian yoke and established a West Bulgarian State under the usurper Shishman and his successors. Even under these trying circumstances the policy of Byzantium was skillful: it recognized the Bulgarian patriarchate—thus widening the breach with Rome—but on the other hand lost no time in inciting the neighbouring peoples, the Magyars, Petchenegs, Cumani, and Croatians, against the Bulgarians. The Russians, also, who in 941 threatened Constantinople for the second and last time, were stirred up against the Bulgarians. But soon it was recognized that the devil had been expelled with the help of Beelzebub. The grand Duke Svjatoslav of Kiev settled south of the Danube, and in 969 seized the old Bulgarian capital of Preslav for his residence. The Emperor John Zimisces now interfered. In 971 he captured Preslav and Silistria, but did not reestablish the Bulgarian State. Tsar Boris II was taken to Constantinople and received as compensation the title of Magister; the Bulgarian patriarchate was suppressed. There now remained only the West Bulgarian State under Shishman.

The work begun by John Zimisces was completed by Basil II, “Slayer of Bulgarians.” In three great campaigns the Bulgarians were subjugated with monstrous cruelty. The work, however, was accomplished. When, in 1014, the emperor celebrated his victory with imposing ceremonies in the church of Panagia at Athens (the old Parthenon), the Greek Empire stood on a height it was never again to reach. Basil II was succeeded by his brother Constantine VIII, who never distinguished himself, and by the daughters of the latter, Zoe and Theodora. The government passed from the hands of the military party into those of high civilian officials, and soon defeat followed on defeat. Under heroes like Georgius Maniaces, and Harold Hardrada, it is true, headway was made against the most various foes. But after 1021 Armenia, which had reached a high state of prosperity under the rule of the Bagratides, and had been annexed to Byzantine territory by Basil II and Constantine IX, gradually passed under the sway of the Seljuk Turks, and after 1041 Lower Italy was conquered by the Normans. This is the first appearance of the two foes who were slowly but surely to bring about the destruction of the empire, and the worst feature of their case was that the Greeks themselves prepared the way for their future destroyers. As formerly Blessed Theodora and her successors had persecuted the heterodox Paulicians, who were the brave protectors of the frontier of Asia Minor, and whom John Zimisces later established near Philippopolis, so now the Greek clergy were treating the Bulgarians and Armenians most harshly. The Western Church also at times wounded national feelings and sometimes provoked the hostility of individual nations by financial exactions. It would be difficult, however, to point out in the history of Rome such complete disregard of the obligations of the universal Church as was shown by the Patriarchs of Constantinople. It is not a matter for surprise, then, that the oppressed nations became more and more alienated from Byzantium and finally welcomed hostile invasions as a sort of relief, though of course ultimately they found out their error. This turned out to be the ease not only in Bulgaria, but also in North Syria, Armenia, and the eastern part of Asia Minor which contained a large Armenian population.

There was another circumstance that caused the Seljuk Turks to appear as liberators. In the course of the preceding centuries, a body of provincial nobility had been in process of formation in all parts of the empire. In Asia Minor—for conditions were not the same in all parts of the empire—this nobility acquired its predominance from its large landed possessions. And this, indeed, is reason for believing that no monetary system of economies existed in the older Byzantine Empire, and that the power of capitalism did not originate on its soil. Rich families invested their wealth in landed possessions, and the poorer population had to make way for them. This decline of the peasantry was a grave menace to the empire, the military strength of which declined with the decline of popular independence. Moreover, this monopolization of the land tended to undermine a miltary institution—that of feudal tenures. It is not known when this institution originated, possibly it was an inheritance from the Roman Empire, developed afresh, during the struggles with the Arabs in the form of cavalry fiefs on the frontiers of Asia Minor and Syria, and as naval fiefs in the Cibyrrhaeot thema. But in any case, the danger to this institution was recognized at court, and attempts were made to meet it. Romanus I, Lacapenus, descended from an Armenian family of archons, seems to have been the first to devise legislation against the further extension of the landed interests Other measures date from Constantine VII, Porphyrogenitus, Romanus II, and Nicephorus II, Phocas. Nicephorus II, also, was descended from a Cappadocian family of great landed proprietors, but this did not prevent him from vigorously continuing the policy of Romanus I. His stern piety—for the old warrior, after the death of his wife and his only son always wore a hair shirt, never ate meat, and slept on the bare floor—did not prevent his opposing the further extension of ecclesiastical property. For ecclesiastical, particularly monastic, holdings had gradually begun to absorb the estates of smaller land-holders. These measures against the Church were one of the causes of the fall of old Nicephorus and of the elevation of light-hearted young John Zimisces to the throne. Still, even under John Zimisces and Basil II, the struggle of the great landed interests continued. It was only the reaction after the death of Basil that gave the aristocratic party the final victory. It gained strength under the regime of the civilian emperors. Ultimately this party was strong enough to decide the succession to the imperial crown.

5. Period of Centrifugal Tendencies (1057–1203)

The powerful body of landed proprietors were of advantage to the empire in one particular. Since the decline of the old military organization they upheld the military prestige of the empire. This was all the more significant because, unfortunately, since the revival of learning an antagonism had arisen between the civil officials, who had studied in the schools of the rhetoricians, and the officers of the imperial army. We have already noted that during the last years of the so-called Macedonian dynasty, under the empresses Zoe and Theodora, the influence of the civil-service party was all-powerful. For that very reason a council of the landed proprietors of Asia Minor raised Isaac Comnenus (1057–59), much against his will, to the throne. Isaac regarded the crown as a burden. Weary of strife with the senatorial aristocracy, he soon gave up the sceptre and retired to the monastery of Studium. He considered himself defeated and accordingly designated as his successor not his capable brother John, and his sons, but an official high in the civil service, Constantine X, Ducas (1059–67), a man who during Isaac’s brief reign had greatly assisted the emperor, who was wholly unversed in affairs of administration. This meant a fresh victory for the civil bureaucracy, who signalized their accession to power by setting aside army interests, and even the most pressing requirements for the defense of the empire. This naturally led to a severe retribution, and as a consequence popular sympathy reverted to the military party. At the death of Constantine, the widowed Empress Eutocia took a step decisive for the fate of the empire by recognizing the need and choosing as her husband Romanus IV, Diogenes (1067–71), an able officer and one of the heroic figures of Byzantine history. Romanus was pursued by misfortune, and after four years the government again fell into the hands of the civil party. Michael VII, Parapinaces (1071–78), the pupil of Psellus, was raised to the throne. Soon the crisis became so serious that another military emperor was placed on the throne Nicephorus III, Botaniates (1078–81). The old man however, was unable to bring order out of the universal chaos. The Comneni were recalled. Alexius I, Comnenus (1081–1118), who had been excluded from the succession by his uncle, took the reins of government and founded the last of the great dynasties, which was to give the empire three more brilliant rulers, Alexius I, John II, and Manuel.

The splendour of the Comneni was the splendour of the setting sun. It was a period of restoration. Men hoped again to raise literature to the standard of the classic authors and to revive the ancient language and thus they hoped to restore the glory of the Roman Empire. Only too often it was merely a jugglery with high sounding words. Never were the titles of state officials more imposing than during the period of the Comenni; and never, on the other hand, was the empire in a more precarious position, despite all its outward splendour. The old Byzantine army was demoralized, foreign mercenaries had replaced the native troops. Saddest of all was the decay of the fleet. Things had come to such a pass that no shame was felt at being dependent on the allied Italian seaports. Still, not a little was achieved. Clever diplomacy replaced actual power, and Succeeded in preserving for some time the semblance of Byzantine Supremacy. Moreover, the Greeks seem to have learned the art of husbanding their resources better than they had, and this was due largely to the co-operation of the Western nations. We know for a certainty that during the time of the Comneni ground-rents were levied in coin. This income was increased by the heavy receipts from custom duties. In a word, the economic administration of both Public and private business was admirable during this period. It was most unfortunate that this splendour should be darkened by the deep shadows of official corruption the depreciation of currency and a total disregard of the Byzantine national, or rather civic, conscience.

Abroad, the Byzantine State was menaced, as of old, on three sides: on the East by the Seljuk Turks, who had supplanted the Arabs; on the West by the Normans, who had sodded the Arabs in that quarter; on the North by the Slavs, Bulgarians, and Finnic-Ugrian (Magyars, Petchenegs, and Cumani). All three perils were bravely met, though at the cost of heavy losses. In 1064 the Seljuk Turk Alp-Arslan destroyed Ani, the centre of Armenian civilization whereupon many Armenians emigrated to Little Armenia in the Cilician Taurus. In 1071 the brave Romanus IV was made a prisoner by the Seljuks near Mantzikert. Having been released by the chivalrous Alp-Arslan, he was put to death in the most barbarous manner in his own country, during the frightful revolution which placed Michael VII on the throne. In the same year (1071) Bari was lost to the Normans, and in 1085 Antioch was captured by the Turks. This period also marked the beginning of the Norman raids on the Balkan Peninsula. Between 1081 and 1085 Albania and Thessaly were threatened by Robert Guiscard and his son Bohemund, who were twice defeated in naval encounters by the Byzantines in league with the Venetians. On land, however, they proved their superiority in several places, until the death of the elder Guiscard put an end to their projects and gave the Byzantine State half-a-century of peace in that direction. After that period, however, the raids were renewed. In 1147 Thebes and Corinth were taken by King Roger, on which occasion many silk-weavers were deported to Sicily. In 1185, at the command of King William II of Sicily Thessalonica was reduced to ashes. To the north, the outlook was no brighter. The Byzantine State was successful it is true, in keeping the Serbs in nominal subjection, and in entering into diplomatic and family relations with the royal family of Hungary, but the Bulgarians finally broke loose from Byzantine control. In 1186 they established their new kingdom at Tirnovo, with an autocephalous archbishopric Soon after this they began once more to push farther to the west and thus laid the foundation of their present ethnographic homes in Thrace and Macedonia.

These heavy reverses, however, were counterbalanced by successes at the same time it was of great moment that this period marked the beginning of that great movement of the West towards the East the Crusades. The Byzantine Empire derived great advantage from this, and in some respects fully realized the fact. Even the First Crusade brought about two important results: the victory of the crusaders at Dorylaeum (1097) brought the western part of Asia Minor directly under Byzantine control, and Antioch indirectly, through the oath of fealty exacted of Bohemund (1108); the Second Crusade, during which the Emperor Manuel allied himself with the Emperor Conrad III (1149), neutralized the power of the Italian Normans. Manuel now conceived far-reaching plans. He avenged King Roger’s incursion into central Greece (1147) by the recapture of Corfu (1149) and the occupation of Ancona (1151), in this way becoming a factor in Italo-German complications. He actually dreamed, as Justinian and Constans II had, of reestablishing the Roman Empire of the West. These ambitious demands found no favour with the popes, with whom since the quarrel about the Norman possessions in South Italy, under the Patriarch Michael Cerularius (1054), a final rupture had taken place. Thus the undertaking resulted in failure. Great offence had been given to the emperor Frederick Barbarossa, which became manifest when he allied himself with the Seljuk Turks and the Sultan of Egypt.

Byzantium also reaped great advantage from the establishment of the principalities of the crusaders in Syria. The invasion of the East by the crusaders also brought new dangers, which grew constantly more menacing. Even before this the constant and manifold intercourse between the empire and the Italian maritime states as well as the settlement of the Amalfians, Pisans, Genoese and Venetians in Byzantine cities, had involved many inconveniences. It is true that the victory over the Normans in the campaign of 1081–85 was gained with the aid of the Venetians, but by 1126 war was in progress with Venice. The commercial republics of Italy grew constantly more arrogant, demanding trading privileges as payment for aid rendered by them, and retaliating for any slights by hostile invasions. It was only the rivalries of the Italian cities that enabled the Byzantines to maintain their supremacy in their own country. As a matter of fact, the Italians had long regarded the empire merely as their prey, and so it was inevitable that the hatred of the Greek nation should be slowly gathering strength. Even the spirit of the administration had long since become Western—the Emperor Manuel lived like a Western knight and twice married European princesses—when it became evident that the pent-up hatred must soon break forth. The crisis came after the death of Manuel, during the regency of his second wife Maria of Antioch, and with frightful results. At the head of the movement was a man wholly devoid of principle, but of great personal charm and magnetism. This was Adronicus the Liberator (1183–85), at that time about sixty-seven years of age. The movement began (1182) with the appalling slaughter of the Latins; Andronicus was placed on the throne (1183), and in 1184 the young Emperor Alexius was assassinated. The Latins, however, took a terrible vengeance. In 1185 Dyrrachium and soon afterwards Thessalonica were captured amid frightful cruelties. These disasters reacted on the capital. The Byzantines were no longer able to uphold their independence, and a counter-revolution was inaugurated. The aged Andronicus was beheaded, and the first of the Angeli, Isaac II (1185–95, and again 1203–04), ascended the throne. We know how the difficulties between Isaac and his elder brother Alexius III (1195–1203) resulted in an appeal by the dethroned emperor to his brother-in-law, Philip of Swabia, and how, owing to various circumstances the Fourth Crusade was turned against Constantinople. The Fourth Crusade ended this period of Byzantine history; the empire was in ruins, out of which, however, deft hands contrived to build up a new Byzantine State, and a feeble reproduction of the former magnificence.

6. The Decline (1203–1453)

The fact that there had been no regular order of succession made the Byzantine throne the focus of numerous dissensions. It is undeniable, however, that this often redounded to the advantage of the State, inasmuch as military and palace revolutions frequently brought the most capable men to the head of affairs at a decisive moment. The sentiment in favour of dynastic succession however, had been gaining ground under the so-called Macedonian dynasty. The views of Constantine Porphyrogenitus furnish clear evidence of this, a proof even stronger is the touching devotion exhibited by the people towards Zoe and Theodora, the last representatives of that dynasty. Still the last period of Byzantine history thrice witnessed the accession of men outside the regular line of succession. John III, Vatatzes (1222–54), set aside his brother-in-law, Constantine, thus becoming the immediate successor of Theodore Lascaris. A military revolution placed Michael VIII, Palaeologus (1259–82), at the head of the State, in place of the child John IV, Lascaris (1258–59). John VI, Cantacuzene (1341–55), contrived to obtain possession of the sovereign power under similar circumstances. It may be said of John Vatatzes and Michael Palaeologus that events alone justified the interruption of the order of succession. But the elevation of John Cantacuzene must be counted, like the family dissensions of the Palaeologi, as among the most unfortunate occurrences of the empire. It is a sorry spectacle to see Andronicus II (1282–1328) dethroned by his grandson Andronicus III (1328–41) and immured in a monastery, and John V (1341–76 and 1379–91) superseded first by Cantacuzene then by his own son Andronicus IV (1376–79), and finally by his grandson John VII (1390). It is true that the neighbouring states, the Turkish Empire in particular, were rent with similar dissensions. The house of the Palaeologi, moreover, produced some capable rulers, such as Michael VIII, Manuel II (1391–1425), Constantine XI (1448–53). Still, the contests for the throne, at a period when the imperial glory was manifestly on the wane, could not but be ruinous to the best interests of the empire, and contribute mightily to its dissolution.

At first it seemed as though such capable rulers as Theodore I, Lascaris (1204–22), John III, Vatatzes (1222–54), and Theodore II, Lascaris (1254–58), must bring back prosperous times to the empire. It was no small achievement, to be sure, that the Greeks were able not only to make a brave stand against the Franks, but to expel them again from Constantinople, a task which was all the more difficult because at that time the Greek nation had undergone a dismemberment from which it never recovered. The Empire of Trebizond, under the Comneni, survived the fall of the capital on the Bosphorus (1453) for some years. The task of reabsorbing into the body of the empire the state, or rather the states, of the Angeli in Thessalonica, Thessaly, and Epirus was accomplished slowly and with difficulty. It was impossible to drive the Franks from Byzantine soil. Split up into various minor principalities after the fall of Thessalonica (1222) and Constantinople (1261), they settled in the central part of Greece and in the Peloponnesus, in Crete, Euboea, Rhodes, and the smaller islands. Moreover, during the course of the fourteenth century, the Serbs rose to unexpected heights of power. During the reigns of Stephen Urosh II, Milutin (1281–1320), and Stephen Dushan (1321–55), it seemed as though the Serbs were about to realize the old dream of the Bulgars, of a Byzantine Empire under Slavonian rule. This dream, however, was shattered by the Turkish victory on the Field of Blackbirds (1389). It was not easy for the Greeks to maintain themselves against so many enemies for two and a half centuries, and it often appeared as though the end had come. The Frankish Emperor of Constantinople, Henry (1206–16), had come very near to destroying Greek independence, and would probably have succeeded had he not been snatched away by an early death. A second crisis came during the minority of the Latin Emperor Baldwin II (1228–61), when the Frankish princes were considering the appointment of the Bulgarian Tsar John II, Asén, as guardian of the young emperor, and regent of the empire. The plan failed of execution only because of the stubborn opposition of the Latin clergy, and the final choice fell on the old King of Jerusalem, John of Brienne (1229–37). Thus the danger was temporarily averted, and the Emperor John Vatatzes was wise enough to gain the favour of the Bulgarian powers by prudent deference to their wishes, as, for instance, by recognizing the Archbishop of Tirnovo as autocephalous patriarch.

The Latin Empire became dangerous for the third and last time when the Franks began, in the year 1236, to renew their heroic attempts to regain their conquests. John Vatatzes, however, succeeded in parrying the blow by forming an alliance with the Emperor Frederick II, whose daughter Anne he espoused. Even after the fall of the capital (1261), the fugitive Frankish emperor became a source of danger, inasmuch as he ceded to the Angevins his right as Lord Paramount of Achaia. As early as the year 1259 there had been serious complications with the principality of Achaia. At that time Michael VIII, by the conquest of Pelagonia had succeeded in withstanding a coalition formed by William of Villehardouin, Prince of Achaia, Michael II, Despot of Epirus, and Manfred of Sicily. When Charles of Anjou replaced Manfred the situation became more serious. In 1267 Charles captured Corfu and in 1272 Dyrrachium, soon afterwards he received at Foggia John IV, Lascaris, who had been overthrown and blinded by Michael VIII, Palaeologus. In this crisis Palaeologus knew of no other resource than to call upon the pope for assistance. At the Council of Lyons, his representative Georgius Acropolites, accepted the confession of faith containing the “Filioque,” and recognized the primacy of the pope, thus securing the political support of the papacy against Anjou. Only the Sicilian Vespers gave him permanent immunity from danger from this source (1282). After this the Byzantine Empire was no longer menaced directly by the Norman peril which had reappeared in the Angevins. The Byzantines were gradually entering into a new relationship with the West They assumed the role of coreligionists seeking protection. But of course the reunion of the churches was a condition of this aid, which, as at an earlier period, was vehemently opposed by the people. The national party had already taken a vigorous stand against the negotiations of the Council of Lyons, which had found an excellent advocate in the patriarch, John Beccus. This opposition was made manifest whenever there was any question of union with Rome from political motives, and it explains the attitude of the different factions in the last religious controversy of importance that convulsed the Byzantine world: the Hesychast movement. This movement had its inception at Athos and involved a form of Christian mysticism which reminds us strongly of certain Oriental prototypes. By motionless meditation, the eyes fixed firmly on the navel (whence their name, Omphalopsychites), the devotees pretended to attain to a contemplation of the Divinity, and thereby absolute quietude of soul (hesychia, whence Hesychasts). The key to this movement is found in the needs of the time, and it was not confined to the Greek world. Many Eastern princes of this period assumed the “angel’s garb,” and sought peace behind monastery walls. The sect, however, did not fail to encounter opposition In the ensuing controversy, Barlaam, a monk of Calabria, constituted himself in a special manner the adversary of Hesychasm. It is significant that Barlaam’s coming from Southern Italy, which was in union with Rome, and his having been under the influence of the Scholasticism of the West did not commend him to the good graces of the people, but rather contributed to the victory of his adversaries.

Thus the great mass of the people remained as before, thoroughly averse to all attempts to bring about the union. The Byzantine rulers, however, in their dire need, were obliged as a last resource to clutch at this hope of salvation, and accordingly had to face the deepest humiliations. When the unfortunate Emperor John V, after hastening to the papal court at Avignon to obtain assistance for Constantinople, was on his homeward journey, he was detained at Venice by creditors who had furnished the money for the journey. His son, Andronicus IV who acted as regent at Constantinople, refused to advance the requisite amount. At last the younger son Manuel II, then regent of Thessalonica, collected sufficient money to redeem his father (1370). Considering the wretched state of Byzantine affairs and the unfriendly spirit of the people, it was certainly generous that the West twice sent a considerable body of reinforcements to the Byzantines. Both expeditions, unfortunately, proved unsuccessful. In 1396 the Western Christians were defeated near Nicopolis by the Sultan Bayazid, and it was only the vigorous action of Marechal Boucicaut, who had been sent by the French, that saved Constantinople from Conquest by the Turks. The final catastrophe was temporarily averted by an almost fortuitous event, the victory of Timur-Leng over the Turks near Angora (1402). This storm quickly passed over; but soon Constantinople was again on the verge of capture (1422). The Emperor John VIII (1423–48) once more attempted to effect a union. At Florence (1439) it was consummated, so far, at least, as the Florentine formula of union later served as a basis for the union with the Orthodox Ruthenians, Rumanians, and others.

Close upon the union followed another attempt to succor Constantinople. After some preliminary victories, however, defeat ensued near Varna, 1444. The quarrels of various pretenders to the throne and the lack of unity among those in power within the city precipitated the final catastrophe. On 29 May, 1453, the Turks captured Constantinople, and seven years later (1460) the last remnant of the empire, the principalities on the Peloponnesus. Constantine XI, the last emperor, by his heroic death shed lustre on the last hours of the empire. Even the Western Christian may reflect with sadness on the downfall of this Christian empire, once so mighty. He will also trust in the ultimate victory of the Cross over the Crescent. But where is the strong hand capable of bringing so many nations and religions into ecclesiastical and political unity, which is the first requisite for cultural and industrial prosperity?

BURY, Appendixes to Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (London, 1896–1900), KRUMBACHER, Gesch. der byzantinischen Litteratur (Munich, 1897), GELZER, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie (Leipzig, 1898); HIRSCH, Byzantinische Studien (Leipzig, 1876); POTTHAST, Bibliotheca historica medii oevi (Berlin, 1895–97); MARC, Plan eines Corpus der griechischen Urkunden (Munich, 1903); FINLAY, ed. TOZER, A History of Greece from its Conquest by the Romans to the Present Time (Oxford, 1877); OMAN, The Byzantine Empire (London, 1892);. LE BEAU, ed. SAINT-MARTIN, Histoire du gas-Empire (Paris, 1824–36), HOPF, Gesch. Griechenlands vom Beginn des Mittelalters bis auf unsere Zeit in ERSCH AND GRUBER, Encyclopadie (Leipzig, 1867–68) Sec, I Vols. LXXXV, 1XXXVI; HERTZBERG, Gesch. Griechenlands seit dem Absterben des antiken Lebens bis zur Gegenwart (Gotha, 1876–78) IDEM, Gesch. der Byzantiner und des 8 osmanischen Reiches bis gegen Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts (Belin, 1883); PAPARREGOPOULOS, Historia tou Ellenikou ethnous (Athens, 1887–88); Historia tou Ellenikou ethnous (Athens, 1888); GELZER, Abriss der byzantinischen Kaisergesch. in KRUMBACHER, Gesch. der byzantinischen Litteratur, 911–1067; VON SCALA, Byzanz in HELMOLT, Weltgesch. (Leipzig, 1904), V; ROTH, Gesch. des byzantinischen Reiches in Sammlang Göschen (Leipzig, 1904); TORGA, The Byzantine Empire in The Temple Cyclopoedic Primers (London, 1907); HESSELING, Essai sur la civilisation byzantine (Paris, 1907); HIRSCH, Byzantinisches Reich in Jahresberichte der Geschichtswissenschaft (Berlin, 1878); Byzantinische Zeitschrift (Leipsig, 1892); Vizantiiskij Vremennik (St, Petersburg, 1894); LAMPROS ed., Nios (Athens, 1904).

ERNST GERLAND.

Byzantine Literature

To grasp correctly the essential characteristics of Byzantine literature, it is necessary first to analyze the elements of civilization that find expression in it, and the sources whence they spring. If Byzantine literature is the expression of the intellectual life of the Greek race of the Eastern Roman Empire during the Christian Middle Ages, it is evident that there is question here of an organism not simple but multiform; a combination of Greek and Christian civilization on the common foundation of the Roman political system, set in the intellectual and ethnographic atmosphere of the Near East. In Byzantine literature, therefore, four different cultural elements are to be reckoned with: the Greek, the Christian, the Roman, and the Oriental. Their reciprocal relations may be indicated by three intersecting circles all enclosed within a fourth and larger circle representing the Orient. Thus in each of the three smaller circles we shall have to determine the influence of the Orient.

The oldest of these three civilizations is the Greek. Its centre, however, is not Athens but Alexandria; the circle accordingly represents not the Attic but the Hellenistic civilization. Alexandria itself, however, in the history of civilization, is not a unit, but rather a double quantity; it is the centre at once of Atticizing scholarship and of Graeco-Judaic racial life. It looks towards Athens as well as towards Jerusalem. Herein lies the germ of the intellectual dualism which thoroughly permeates the Byzantine and partly also the modern Greek civilization, the dualism between the culture of scholars and that of the people. Even the literature of the Hellenistic age suffers from this dualism; we distinguish in it two tendencies, one rationalistic and scholarly, the other romantic and popular. The former originated in the schools of the Alexandrian sophists and culminated in the rhetorical romance, its chief representatives being Lucian, Achilles Tatius, Heliodorus, and Longus, the latter had its root in the idyllic tendency of Theocritus, and culminated in the idyllic novel of Callimachus, Musaeus, Quintus of Smyrna, and others. Both tendencies persisted in Byzantium, but the first, as the one officially recognized, retained predominance and was not driven from the field until the fall of the empire. The first tendency, strong as it was, received additional support from the reactionary linguistic movement known as Atticism. Represented at its height by rhetoricians like Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and grammarians like Herodian and Phrynicus at Alexandria, this tendency prevailed from the second century B.C. onward, and with the force of an ecclesiastical dogma controlled all subsequent Greek culture, even so that the living form of the Greek language, even then being transformed into modern Greek, was quite obscured and only occasionally found expression, chiefly in private documents, though also in popular literature.

While Alexandria, as an important central and conservative factor, was thus influential in confining, and during the Byzantine period, directing, the literary and linguistic life of the later Greek world, a second conservative factor is found in the influence of the Roman culture-circle on the political and judicial life of the Eastern Empire. Alexandria, the centre of intellectual refinement, is balanced by Rome, the centre of government. It is as a Roman Umpire that the Byzantine State enters into history; its citizens are known as Romans (Hromaioi), its capital city as New Rome. Its laws were Roman; so were its government, its army, and its official class, and at first also its language and its private and public life. In short, the whole organization of the State was that of the Roman imperial period, with its hierarchy and bureaucracy entire and destined yet to play an important part. To these two ancient forces, Hellenistic intellectual culture and Roman governmental organization, are now to be added as important expressions of the new environment, the emotional life of Christianity and the world of Oriental imagination, the last enveloping all the other three.

It was in Alexandria also that Graeco-Oriental Christianity had its birth. There the Septuagint translation had been made; it was there that that fusion of Greek philosophy and Jewish religion took place which found in Philo its most important representative; there flourished the mystic speculative neo-Platonism associated with the names of Plotinus and Porphyry. At Alexandria the great Greek ecclesiastical writers pursued their studies with pagan rhetoricians and philosophers; in fact several of them were born here, e.g. Origen, Athanasius, and his opponent Arius, also Cyril and Synesius. Not indeed in the city of Alexandria, but yet upon Egyptian soil, grew up that ascetic concept of life which attained such great importations as Byzantine monasticism. After Alexandria, Syria was important as a home of Christianity, its centre being Antioch, where a school of Christian commentators flourished under St. John Chrysostom and where later arose the Christian universal chronicles. In Syria, also, we find the germs of Greek ecclesiastical poetry, while from neighbouring Palestine came St. John of Damascus, the last of the Greek Fathers.

It is evident that Greek Christianity had of necessary a pronounced Oriental character; Egypt and Syria are the real birthplaces of the Graeco-Oriental church, and indeed of Graeco-Oriental ( i.e. Byzantine) civilization in general. Egypt and Syria, with Asia Minor, became for the autochthonous Greek civilization a sort of America, where hundreds of flourishing cities sprang into existence, and where energies confined or crippled in the impoverished home-land found an unlimited opportunity to display themselves; not only did these cities surpass in material wealth the mother country, but soon also cultivated the highest goods of the intellect (Krumbacher). Under such circumstances it is not strange that about nine-tenths of all the Byzantine authors of the first eight centuries were natives of Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor. After this brief characterization of the various elements of Byzantine civilization, it is to be inquired in what relation they stood to each other, how they mingled, and what was the product of their combination. It is extremely instructive to notice how the two fundamental elements of Byzantinism, the Roman and the Hellenistic, are connected, both with each other and with the culture of the East—what each one gains and what it loses, and what influence it has upon the other. The Roman supremacy in governmental life did not disappear in Byzantium. It was even amplified, through the union of Roman Caesarism with Oriental despotism. Moreover the subjection of the Church to the power of the State led to that governmental ecclesiasticism always irreconcilably opposed to the Roman Church, which had triumphed over the secular power. On the other hand, the intellectual superiority of the Greek element was shown by its victory over the Latin tongue as the official language of the Government. Its last Latin monument is the “Novellae” of Justinian. As early as the seventh century the Greek language made great progress, and by the eleventh the supremacy of Greek was secure, although it was never able to absorb the numerous other languages of the empire. Moreover, while the Greek world might artificially preserve the classic form of its ancient literature, the same cannot be said of the poetical feeling and the imagination. It was precisely in aesthetic culture that the Byzantine Greek broke completely with the ancient traditions; in literature and in the plastic arts the spirit of the Orient was everywhere victorious. On the one hand, some ancient literary types e.g., lyric verse and the drama became quite extinct, while only in the minor departments of literature was any great degree of skill attained; on the other hand, the ancient sense of proportion the feeling for beauty, and the creative power in poetry were wholly lost, and were replaced by a delight in the grotesque and the disproportioned on the one hand, and in ornamental trifles on the other. This injury, affecting literature and its free development, was a result of social conditions which contrast markedly with those of ancient Athens and ancient Rome, while they fit in perfectly with the masterful ways of the Orient. There is no trace of a body of free and educated citizens, which is in keeping with the Roman policy of close centralization, and consequently slight development of municipal life. Constantinople was the city, and no rivals were permitted. Literature was, therefore, wholly a concern of the high official and priestly classes; it was aristocratic or theological, not representative of the interests of the citizens. Thus classical standards could be imitated because only the upper classes concerned themselves with literature. For the same reason it lacked genuine spontaneity, having no roots in the life of the people. The Church alone—and here we come to its influence on Byzantine civilization—for some time infused fresh life into literature. Put even this life was an Oriental growth, for Greek hymnology is of Syrian origin. In Byzantium therefore, ecclesiastical and Oriental influences coincide. The Oriental influence is especially apparent in Byzantine plastic art. Here the ancient sources of inspiration are even more completely obscured than in the domain of literature, and we notice the same principles: complete absence of feeling for architectonic proportion of members, transference of the artistic centre of gravity to the interior, i.e. to the wall-surfaces, and there the replacing of form by colour, of the plastic effect by the picturesque; not, however, by broadly drawn fresco treatment but by the more artisanlike work in mosaic, with its predominance of ornamental motives. Wall-decoration and minor ornament are thus combined in a fashion analogous to the Byzantine treatment of annalistic and epigrammatic poetry. And while Byzantine art, like its poetry goes back to the Alexandrian, yet it is greatly aItered and modified by influences from Syria, Persia, and Asia Minor, so that it approaches the Oriental.

The next point to be discussed is the influence of the Orient upon Church and State. Here we must distinguish between direct and indirect forces. Chief among the former is the office of Emperor. In so far as the emperor unites in himself both secular and spiritual power, there falls upon him a glamour of Oriental theocracy; his person is regarded as sacred; he is a representative of God, indeed the very image of God, and all must prostrate themselves before him; everything that serves for his use is sacred, even the red ink with which he underlines his signature. The Oriental character of the Byzantine Church appears in its tenacious dogmatic spirit the establishment of Christian doctrines by councils, the asceticism which affected monastic life so far as to hinder the formation of regular orders with community life, and also the mad fanaticism against the Roman West and the Church, which in the eleventh century finally led to an open breach. The Oriental character of Church and State is still more pronounced considered in its effect upon civic life. The lack of a vigorous citizen-body, owing to the lack of large cities, has already been mentioned. The landed nobility, offcials, and priests controlled political, social, and religious life. Hence the aristocratic, exclusive and non-popular character of the language and literature, and the one-sided development of both, down to the twelfth century. The Church, too, kept in subjection by the State, though failing to ennoble the inner religious life of the citizens, sought all the more zealously to fashion their external life upon an ecclesiastical model. The church edifice even served as a model for secular building; every house had its altar, and the family life followed ecclesiastical forms. On the other hand, we do not find the rich and fruitful interaction between spiritual and secular affairs that we do in western countries. The religious devotion to Mary gave rise to no chivalric devotion to woman, and from the oratories there came no religious drama. Theological and dogmatic interests outweighed the religious and ethical; the individualistic sentiment was stronger than the social. Such, appoximately was the result of the mingling of the diverse elements in the body of Byzantine culture. What then were the cultural effects emanating from this complex organism?

The most momentous effect of the establishment of the Eastern Roman Empire on European civilization was the division of the latter into two parts: one Romance and Germanic, the other Greek and Slavic. Ethnographically, linguistically, ecclesiastically, and historically, both cultures are sharply distinct from each other, as is evident from a comparison of alphabets and calendars. The former division is the more progressive; the latter is the more conservative, and very to adapt itself to the West. Byzantium exerted a decided and effective influence only in the eastern half of the empire. Russia, the Balkan countries, and Turkey are the modern offshoots of Byzantine civilization; the first two particularly in ecclesiastical, political, and cultural respects (through the translation and adaptation of sacred, historical, and popular literature); the third in respect to civil government.

For the European West the Byzantine Empire and its culture are significant in a twofold way Indirectly, this Empire affected the West in forming a strong bulwark against the frequent advances of the Asiatic races and protecting Europe for centuries from the burdens of war. Byzantium was also the store-house of the greatest literature of the ancients, the Greek. During the Middle Ages, until the capture of the Constantinople, the West was acquainted only with Roman literature. Greek antiquity was first unlocked for it by the treasures which fugitive Greek humanists carried to Italy. Byzantine culture had a direct influence especially upon Southern and Central Europe, that is to say on Italy, in church music and church poetry though this was only in the very early period (until the seventh century); it had a permanent and wider influence in ecclesiastical architecture, through the development of the so-called Romanesque style (in the tenth and eleventh centuries), the Oriental and Byzantine origin of which has been more clearly recognized of late. This influence was transmitted through the Frankish and Salic emperors, primarily Charlemagne, whose relations with Byzantium are well known. Probably it was also in this way that Byzantine titles and ceremonial were introduced into Central Europe, and that Central and Eastern European official life assumed its hierarchical and bureaucratical character. Finally, though not very numerous, the effects of Byzantine culture upon the countries of the Near East, expecially upon the Armenians, the Persians, and the Arabs, must not be underestimated. Even if Byzantium received from these nations more than it imparted, still the Byzantines gave a strong intellectual impulse to the Orient, particularly by enriching its scholarly literature, though even in this they served chiefly as intermediaries.

In the following account Byzantine literature is classified in five groups. The first three include representatives of those kinds of literature which continued the ancient traditions: historians (including also the chroniclers), encyclopedists, and essayists, and writers of secular poetry. The remaining two groups include the new literary species, ecclesiastical and theological literature, and popular poetry.

I. HISTORIANS AND ANNALISTS

The two groups of secular prose literature show clearly the dual character of Byzantine intellectual life in its social, religious, and linguistic aspects. From this point of view historical and annalistic literature supplement each other; the former is aristocratic, the latter is secular, the latter ecclesiastical and monastic; the former is classical, the latter popular. The works of the historians belong to scholarly literature, those of the annalists (or chroniclers) to the literature of the people. The former are carefully elaborated, the latter give only raw material, the former confine themselves to the description of the present and the most recent past, and thus have rather the character of contemporary records; the latter cover the whole history of the world as known to the Middle Ages. The former are therefore the more valuable for political history; the latter for the history of civilization. The following detailed account will bring to light still further differences.

A. HISTORIANS

Classical literary tradition set the standard for Byzantine historians in their grasp of the aims of history, the manner of handling their subjects, and in style of composition. Their works are thoroughly concrete and objective in character, without passion, and even without enthusiasm. Ardent patriotism and personal convictions are rarely evident. They are diplomatic historians, expert in the use of historical sources and in the polished tact called for by their social position; they are not cIoset-scholars, ignorant of the world, but men who stood out in public life: jurists like Procopius, Agathias, Evagrius, Michael Attaliates, statesmen like Joannes Cinnamus, Nicetas Acominatus, Georgius Pachymeres, Laonicus Chalcondyles; generals and diplomats like Nicephorus Bryennius, Georgius Acropolites, Georgius Phrantzes; and even crowned heads, like Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Anna Comnena, John VI Cantacuzene, and others. The Byzantine historians thus represent not only the social but also the intellectual flower of their time, resembing in this their Greek predecessors, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Polybius, who became their guides and models. In some cases a Byzantine chooses one or another classic writer to imitate in method and style. The majority, however, took as models several authors, a custom which gave rise to a peculiar mosaic style, quite characteristic of the Byzantines. This was not always due to mere caprice, but often resulted from a real community of feeling, effectually preventing, however, any development of an individual style. For the continuity of historical style it would surely have been desirable for an historian of such great influence on posterity as Procopius to have chosen as his model Polybius rather than Thucydides. That such was not the case, however, is not the fault of the Byzantines but of the “Atticists” who had checked the natural course of the development. Nevertheless, within the limit of this development, it is certainly no accident that military characters like Nicephorus Bryennius (eleventh and twelfth centuries) and Joannes Cinnamus (twelfth century) emanated Xenophon in the precision of their diction, and that a philosophic character like Nicephorus Gregoras (thirteenth century) took Plato as his model. On the other hand, it is doubtless due to chance that writers trained in theology like Leo Diaconus and Georgius Pachymeres chose to ornament their pages with Homeric turns. On the whole it is in the later historians that the dualism of Byzantine civilization ecclesiastico-political matter in classical form—becomes most apparent.

Although the Byzantine historians are thus for the most part dependent on foreign models, and while, to outward appearances, they form a continuous series in which each begins where his predecessor stopped, yet they do not blend into a uniform whole, distinguishable only under the light cast on them from classic literature. There are, on the contrary, clearly marked groups within which individual personalities stand out with distinctness. Most of the historians come in either the period embracing the sixth and seventh centuries, or that extending from the eleventh to the fifteenth century, i.e. either during the reigns of the East-Roman emperors or those of the Comneni and the Palaeologi. At the time of its zenith under the Macedonian emperors (the ninth and tenth centuries) the Byzantine world produced great heros, but no great historians, if we except the solitary and therfore more conspicuous, figure of the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus.

The first period is dominated by Procopius, not so much because of his personal character, as on account of his share in historical events of universal interest and his literary importance. As a man he was typically Byzantine, as is evident from a comparison of two of his works, in one of which his depreciation of the Emperor Justinian is as emphatic as his unqualified apotheosis of him in the other. In literature, and as a historian, however, he still has one foot on the soil of antiquity, as is evident in the precision and lucidity of his narrative acquired from Thucydides, and in the reliability of his information qualities of special merit in the historian. Significantly enough, Procopius and to a great degree his continuator, Agathias remain the models of descriptive style, even as late as the eleventh century. Procopius is the first representative of the over-laden, over-ornamented Byzantine style in literature and in this is surpassed only by Theophylaktos Simokattes in the seventh century, while others continued to imitate the historian of the Gothic War. In spite of their unclassical form, however, they approach the ancients in their freedom from ecclesiastical and dogmatic tendencies.

Between the historical writings of the first period, in form and content half antique, and those of the second, characterized by reverence for an artificial classicism, there is an isolated series of works which in matter and form offer a strong contrast to both the aforesaid groups. These are the works current under the name of the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (tenth century), dealing respectively with the administration of the empire, its political division, and the ceremonial of the Byzantine Court. They treat of the internals conditions of the empire, and the first and third are distinguished by their use of a popular tongue. Their content also is of great value; the first is an important source of information for the ethnological conditions of the empire, while the last is an interesting contribution to the history of civilization in the Byzantine Orient.

The second group of historians present very different characteristics. In their works a classical eclecticism veils theological fanaticism quite foreign to the classic spirit and an arrogant chauvinism. Revelling in classical forms the historians of the period of the Commeni and Palaeologi were absolutely devoid of the classical spirit; there are among them however—and this goes far to palliate their faults—much stronger and more sympathetic personalities than in the first period. It seems as if, amid all the weakening of civil and imperial power, a few great individual personalities stood out, all the more striking because of the general decay. Indeed, the individuality of each is so vigorous that it impairs the objectivity of his work. This is particularly true of those historians who belonged to an imperial family or were closely related to one. Most of these writers produced partian works. Such are the “Alexiad,” the pedantic work of the Princess Anna Comnena (a glorification of her father Alexius, and of the reorganization of the empire set afoot by him), the historical work of her husband, Nicephorus Bryennius (eleventh and twelfth centuries; a description of the internal conflicts that accompanied the rise of the Commeni, done in the form of a family chronicle), and lastly the self-complacent narrative of his own achievements by one of the Palaeologi, John VI Cantacuzene (fourteenth century). The historical writers of this period exhibit also very striking antitheses both personal and objective. Beside Cinnamus, who honestly hinted everything Western, stand the broad-minded Nicetas Acominatus (twelfth century) and the conciliatory but dignified Georgius Acropolites (thirteenth century); beside the theological polemist, Pachymeres (thirteenth century), stands the man of the world, Nicephorus Gregoras (fourteenth century), well versed in philosophy and the classics. While these and other similar writers are less objective than is desirable in their presentation of internal Byzantine history, they are all the more trustworthy in their accounts of external events, being especially important sources for the first appearance of the Slavs and Turks on the borders of the Empire.

B. CHRONICLERS

Unlike the historical works, Byzantine chronicles were intended for the general public; hence the difference in their origin, development and diffusion, as well as in their character, the method in which materials are handled, and their style of composition. The beginnings of the Byzantine chronicle have not yet been satisfactorily traced. That they are not very remote seems certain from their comparatively late appearance, as compared with historical literature (sixth (century), and from their total lack of contact with hellenistic (pagan) tradition. In point of locality, also, the chronicle literature is originally foreign to Greek civilization, its first important product having been composed in Syria, by all uneducated Syrian. Its presumable prototype, moreover, the “Chronography” of Hextus Julius Africanus, points to an Oriental Christian source. Accordingly, the origins and development of the chronicle literature are combined to a much narrower circle; it has no connection with persons of distinction and is not in touch with the great world; its models are bound almost exclusively within its own narrow sphere. The high-water mark of the Byzantine chronicle was reached in the ninth century, precisely at a time when there is a gap in historical literature. Afterwards it falls off rather abruptly; the lesser chroniclers, met with as late as the twelfth century, draws partly from contemporary and partly, though at rare intervals, from the earlier historians. In the Palaeologi period there are, significantly enough, no chroniclers of any note.

The importance of Byzantine chronicles lies not in their historical and literary value, but in their relation to civilization. They are not only an important source for the history of Byzantine civilization, but themselves contributed to the spread of that civilization. The most important chronicles, through numerous redactions and translations, passed over to Slavic and Oriental peoples and in this way became one of their earliest sources of civilization. Their influence was chiefly due to their popular tone and bias. They depict only what lies within the popular world of consciousness, events wonderful and dreadful painted in glaring colours, and interpreted in a Christian sense. The method of handling materials is extremely primitive. Beneath each section of a chronicle lies some older source usually but slightly modified, so that the whole story resembles a crude collection of material rather than ingenious mosaic like the narratives of the historians. The diction corresponds with the low level of education in both author and reader, and is naturally that of the popular tongue in its original purity, therefore these chronicles are a rich treasure-house for the comparative study of languages.

Representative Byzantine chronicles, typical also of the different stages in the development of the chronicle, are the three of Joannes Malalas, Theophanes Confessor, and Joannes Zonaras respectively. The first is the earliest Christian Byzantine monastic chronicle, and was composed in the Antioch in the sixth century by a hellenized Syrian (consequently Monophysite ) theologian. Originally a chronicle of the city, it was later expanded into a world-chronicle. It is a popular historical work, full of the gravest historical and chronological errors, and the first monument of a purely popular hellenistic civilization. It is the chief source for most of the later chroniclers, as well as for a few church historians; it is also the earliest popular history, which was translated into Old-Bulgarian, about the end of the ninth or the beginning of the tenth century. Superior in substance and form, and more properly historical, is the Chronicle of Theophanes, a monk of Asia Minor, written in the ninth century, and in its turn a model for later chronicles. It contains much valuable information from lost sources, and its importance for the Western world is due to the fact that by the end of the ninth century it had to be translated into Latin. A third guide-post in the history of Byzantine chronicles is the twelfth-century Universal Chronicle of Zonaras. There is already apparent in it something of the atmosphere of the renaissance that occurred under the Comneni; not only is the narrative better than that of Theophanes, but in it many passages from ancient writers are worked into the text. It is not to be wondered at therefore, that this chronicle was translated not only into Slavic and Latin, but also, in the sixteenth century, into Italian and French.

II. ENCYCLOPEDISTS AND ESSAYISTS

The spirit of antiquarian scholarship awoke in Byzantium earlier than in the West, though it proved less productive. It is extremely significant, however, that the study of antiquity at Byzantium was begun not by Iaymen, but lay theologians. For this reason it always had a certain scholastic flavour; the Byzantine humanistic spirit savoured alike of antiquity and the Middle Ages; neither ever really gained the upper hand. A pronounced interest in the literature of Greek antiquity was first manifested at Constantinople in the second half of the ninth century. It was primarily directed to the systematic collection and sifting of manuscripts. With the twelfth century begins the period of original productions in imitation of antique models, a revival of the Alexandrian essay and rhetorical literature, a number of writers showing vigorous originality. Quite isolated between the two periods stands Michael Psellus, a universal genius of the eleventh century who bridges over the periods. While the humanism of the ninth and tenth centuries retained throughout a strong theological colouring and maintained a hostile attitude towards the West, that of the twelfth to the fourteenth century developed several writers who consciously or unconsciously sought to break away from orthodox classicism, and to attain a true humanism, and so became the earliest forerunners of the Italian Renaissance. The new spirit first found expression in an academy founded for classical studies at Constantinople in 863. About the same time the broadly trained and energetic Photius, patriarch of the city and the greatest stateman of the Greek Church (820–897), exhibited much enthusiasm in the collection of forgotten manuscripts and an intuitive genius for the revival of forgotten works of antiquity and the discovery of works hitherto unknown, in which his attention, however, was chiefly directed to the prose writers, a fact indicative of his sound practical sense. Photius made selections or excerpts from all the works he discovered, and were the beginning of his celebrated “Biblitheca” (Library), which , despite its dry and schematic character, is the most valuable literary compendium of the Middle Ages, containing, as it does, trustworthy summaries of many ancient works that have since been lost, together with which many good characterizations and analyses are given, e.g. those of Lucian and Heliodorus. Strangely enough the same Photius, who thus laid a foundation for the renewed study of antiquity, also prepared the way for the Greek Schism, that momentous break of the Greek world from the West and its civilization. Even within his own Church, however, he appears greater as an ecclesiastical statesman than as a theologian. The encyclopedic activity in Byzantium which had been begun by Photius was more assiduously pursued in the tenth century, particularly in the systematic collecting of materials, which is usually associated with the name of the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913–959). Scholars did not confine themselves solely to collecting materials, but formed great compilations, arranged according to subjects, on the basis of older sources. Among them was an encyclopedia of political science which contained extracts from the classical, Alexandrian, and Roman Byzantine periods; it is preserved, however, only in a few fragments. If we take account also of the fact that in the same century originated the collection of ancient epigrams known as the “Anthologia Palatina,” as well as the scientific dictionary which goes under the name of Suidas, we may rightly designate the tenth century as that of the encyclopedias.

A typical representative of the period appears in the following century in the person of the greatest encyclopedist of Byzantine literature, Michael Psellus. Like Bacon, he stands between the Middle Ages and modern times. He is not, like Photius, a theologian, but a jurist and a man of the world; his mind is not only receptive but productive; he not only does not undervalue the old philosophers, as does Photius, who was more concerned with points of philosophy and grammar, but is himself of a philosophic temperament. He was the first of his intellectual circle to raise the philosophy of Plato above that of Aristotle and to teach philosophy as a professor. Though surpassing Photius in intellect and wit, he lacks that scholar’s dignity and solidity of character. A certain restless brilliancy characterized the course of his life, as well as his literary activity. At first a lawyer, he then became a professor of philosophy, was for a time a monk, then a court official, and ended his career as prime minister. He was equally adroit and many-sided in his literary work, in this respect resembling Leibniz. In harmony with the polished, pliant nature of the courtier is his elegant Platonic style, as it is exhibited most distinctly in his letters and speeches. His extensive correspondence furnishes endless material for an understanding of his personal and literary character. In his speeches, especially in his funeral orations, we recognize clearly the ennobling influence of his Attic models, that delivered on the death of his mother shows deep sensibility. Compared with Photius Psellus had something of a poetic temperament, as several of his poems show, though indeed they owe their origin more to satirical fancy or to external occasions than to deep poetic feeling. Though Psellus exhibits more formal skill than original, creative talent, his endowments proved most valuable for his time, which was particularly backward in the direction of aesthetic culture. The intellectual freedom of the great scholars (polyhistores), ecclesiastical and secular of the twelfth to the fourteenth century would be inconceivable without the activity of Psellus, the first great victor over Byzantine scholasticism who cleared the way for his successors.

In one point indeed, and that important in passing any judgment on him, Psellus was surpassed by most of his intellectual posterity, i.e. in character. It is true there are also among his successors many morally corrupt and hollow natures, like Nicephorus Blemmydes, and Hyrtakenos; the majority, however, are admirable for their rectitude of intention and sincerity of feeling, and their beneficently broad culture. Among these great intellects and strong characters of the twelfth century several theologians are especially conspicuous, e.g. Eustathius, of Thessalonica, Michael Italicus, and Michael Acominatus; in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries several secular scholars, like Maximus Planudes, Theodorus Metochites, and above all, Nicephorus Geogoras. The three theologians first named are best judged by their letters and minor occasional writings. Eustathius seems to be the most important among them, not only because of his learned of his learned commentary on Homer and Pindar, but particulaly because of his own original writings. Therein he reveals a candid character, courageously holding up every evil to the light and intent upon its correction, not shrinking from sharp controversy. In one of his works he attacks the corruption of the monastic life of that day and its intellectual stagnation; in another, one of the best of the Byzantine polemical writings, he assails the hypocrisy and sham holiness of his time; in a third he denounces the conceit and arrogance of the Byzantine priests, who were ashamed of their popular designation, “pope.” For a rhetorician like Michael Italicus, later a bishop, it is extremely significant that he should attack the chief weakness of Byzantine literature, external imitation; this he did on receiving a work by a patriarch, which was simply a disorderly collection of fragments from other writers, so poorly put together that the sources were immediately recognizable.

Noteworthy also is the noble figure of the pupil and friend of Eustathius, Michael Acominatus (twelfth and thirteenth centuries) Archbishop of Athens and brother of the historian Nicetas Acominatus. His inaugural address, delivered on the Acropolis, compared by Gregorovius with Gregory the Great’s sermon to the Romans in St. Peter’s, exhibits both profound classical scholarship and high enthusiasm; the latter, however, is somewhat out of place in view of the material and spiritual wretchedness of his times. These pitiful conditions moved him to compose an elegy, famous because unique, on the decay of Athens, a sort of poetical and antiquarian apostrophe to fallen greatness. Gregorovius compares this also with a Latin counterpart, the lament of Bishop Hildebert of Tours on the demolition of Rome by the Normans (1106). More wordy and rhetorical are the funeral orations over his teacher, Eustathius (1195), and over his brother Nicetas, both of them, nevertheless, fine evidences of a noble disposition and deep feeling. In spite of his humanism, Michael, like his brother, remained a fanatical opponent of the Latins, whom he called “barbarians.” They had driven him into exile at Ceos, whence he addressed many letters to his friends which are of great value for the understanding of his character. In his style he is strongly influenced by Eustathius; hence the ecclesiastical note in his otherwise classical diction.

With Theodorus Metochites and Maximus Planudes we come to the universal scholars (polyhistores) of the time of the Palaeologi. The former gives evidence of his humanistic zeal in his frequent use of the hexameter, the latter in his knowledge of the Latin, both being otherwise unknown in Byzantium and acquaintance with them foreboding a new and broader grasp of antiquity. Both men show an unusually fine grasp of poetry, especially of the poetry of nature. Metochites composed meditations on the beauty of the sea; Planudes was the author of a long poetic idyll, a kind of literature otherwise little cultivated by Byzantine scholars. On the whole, Metochites was a thinker and poet, Planudes chiefly all imitator and compiler. Metochites was of the more speculative disposition, as his collection of philosophical and historical miscellanies show. Planudes was more precise, as his preference for mathematics proves. It is worth noting, as an evidence of comtemporary progress in philosophy, that Metochites openly attacks Aristotle. He also deals more frankly with political questions, as is shown, for instance, in his comparison of democracy, aritocracy, and monarchy. In spite of this breadth of interest his culture rests wholly on a Greek basis, while Planudes, by his translations from the Latin (Cato, Ovid, Cicero, Caesar, and Boethius), vastly encharged the Eastern intellectual horizon.

This inclination toward the West is most noticeable in Nicephorus Gregoras, the great pupil of Metochites. His project for a reform of the calendar alone suffices to rank him among the modern and superior intellects of his time, as he will surely be admitted to have been if ever his numerous and varied works in every domain of Byzantine intellectual activity are brought to light. His letters, especially, promise a rich harvest. His method of exposition is based on that of Plato, when he also imitated in his ecclesiastico-political discussions, e.g. in his dialogue “Florentius, or Concerning Wisdom.” These disputations with his opponent, Balaam, dealt with the question of church union, in which Gregoras stood on the side of the Unionists. This attitude, which places him outside the sphere of strictly Byzantine culture, brought upon him bitter hostility and the loss of the privilege of teaching; he had been occupied chiefly with the exact sciences, whereby he held already earned the hatred of orthodox Byzantines.

While, therefore, the Byzantine essayists and encyclopedists stood, externally, wholly under the influence of ancient rhetoric and its rules and while they did not, like Bacon, create an entirety new form of the essay, yet they embodied in the traditional form their own characteristic knowledge, and thereby lent it a new charm.

III. SECULAR POETRY

As the prose literature, both historical and philosophical, followed one or more ancient models—the former Thucydides in particular, the latter Plato—so poetry likewise had its prototypes; each of its principal classes had, so to speak, an ancient progenitor to whom it traced back its origins. Unlike the prose literature, however, these new kinds of poetical Byzantine literature and their models are not to be traced back to the classical Attic period. The Byzantines write neither Iyrics nor dramas and imitate neither Pindar nor Sophocles. They irritate the literature of the post-classic or Alexandrian period, and write romances, panegyrics, epigrams, satires, and didactic and hortatory poetry. The chief Alexandrian representative or these species of literature are the models for the Byzantines, in particular Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius, Asclepiades and Posidippus, Lucian and Longus. For didactic poetry it is necessary to go back to an earlier prototype, a work ascribed to Isocrates, by whom, however, it was not actually written. The poetic temperament of the Byzantines is thus akin to that of the Alexandrian, not of the Attic, writers. This statement is of great importance for the understanding of the poetry of Byzantium. Only one new poetic type was evolved independently by the Byzantines—the begging-poem. The five ancient types and the the new one just mentioned are not contemporaneous in the Byzantine period, the epigram and the panegyric developed first (in the sixth and seventh centuries), and then only, at long intervals, the others, i.e. satire, didactic and begging poetry, finally the romance. All of these appear side by side only after the twelfth century, that is to say in the period of decay, they themselves marking a decadence in literature.

The epigram was the artistic form of later antiquity which best suited the Byzantine taste for the ornamental and for intellectual ingenuity. It corresponded exactly to the concept of the minor arts, which in the Byzantine period attained such high development. It made no lofty demands on the imagination of the author; the chief difficulty lay rather in the technique and the attainment of the utmost possible pregnancy of phrase. Two groups may be distinguished among the Byzantine epigrammatists: one pagan and humanistic in tendency, the other Christian. The former is represented chiefly by Agathias (sixth century) and Christophorus of Mitylene (eleventh century), the latter by the ecclesiastics, Georgius Pisides (seventh century) and Theodort Studites (ninth century). Between the two groups, in point of time as well as in character, stands Joannes Geometres (tenth century). The chief phases in the development of the Byzantine epigram are most evident in the works of these three. Agathias, who has already been mentioned among the historians, as an epigrammatist, has the peculiarities of the school of the semi-Byzantine Egyptian Nonnus (about A, D. 400). He wrote in an affected and turgid style, in the classical form of the hexameter; he abounds, however, in brilliant ideas, and in his skilful imitation of the ancients, particularly in his erotic pieces, he surpasses most of the epigrammatists of the imperial period. Agathias also prepared a collection of epigrams, partly his own and partly by other writers, some of which afterwards passed into the “Anthologia palatina” and have thus been preserved. The abbot Theodorus Studites is in every respect the opposite of Agathias, a man of deep earnestness and simple piety, with a fine power of observation in nature and life, full of sentiment and warmth and simplicity of expression, his writings are free from servile imitation of the ancients, though he occasionally betrays the influence of Nonnus. Of his epigrams, which touch on the most varied things and situations, those treating of the life and personnel of his monastery offer especial interest for the history of civilization. Joannes Geometres is in a way a combination of the two preceding writers. During the course of his life he filled both secular and ecclesiastical offices; his poetry also was of a universal character; of a deeply religious temper, he was still fully appreciative of the greatness of the ancient Greeks. Alongside of epigrams on ancient poets, philosophers, rhetoricians and historians are others on famous Church Fathers, poets, and saints. In point of poetic treatment, the epigrams on contemporary and secular topics are superior to those on religious and classic subjects. He is at his best when depicting historical events and situations that have come within his own experience, and reflect his own spiritual moods (Krumbacher).

Less agreeable than the epigrams are the official panegyrics on emperors and their achievements, which unfortunately even the best writers often could not escape composing. Typical of this kind of literature are the commemorative poem of Paulus Silentiarius on the dedication of the church of St. Sophia, and that of Georgius Pisides on the victory of these great events, but the glory of the prince. Unfavourable conclusions must not the drawn, however, as to the character of these poets, when it is borne in mind that such eulogies were composed of only by courtiers like Psellus and Manuel Holobolos (thirteenth century ), but also by dignified and independent characters like Eustathius and Michael Acominatus. In fact this species of literature had become traditional, and had been handed down from imperial Rome to Byzantium as a part of ancient rhetoric with all the extravagance of a thoroughly decadent literature (F. Gregorovius). it was a sort of necessary concession to despotism; popular taste was not in general offended by it.

As previously stated, the chief kinds of poetry during the period of the decline (eleventh to thirteenth century) were satire and parody, didactic and hortatory poetry, the begging -poem, erotic romance. In form this literature is characterized by its extensive use of the popular forms of speech and verse, the latter being the “political” verse, a trochaic verse of fifteen syllables, still the standard verse of modern Greek popular poetry. rhetoric with all the extravagance of a thoroughly decadent literature (F. Gregorovius). It was a sort of necessary concession to despotism; popular taste was not in general offended by it. As previously stated, the chief kinds of poetry during the period of the decline (eleventh to thirteenth century) were satire and parody, didactic and hortatory poetry, the begging-poem, and the erotic romance. In form this literature is characterized by its extensive use of the popular forms of speech and verse, the latter being the “political” verse, a trochiac verse of fifteen syllables, still the standard verse of modern Greek popular poetry. In content, however, all this literature continues to bear the imprint of Byzantine erudition. The father of Byzantine satire is Lucian. His celebrated “Dialogues of the Dead” furnished the model for two works, one of which the “Timarion” (twelfth century is marked by more rude humour, the other, “Mazaris” (fifteenth century), by keen satire. Each describes a journey to the underworld and conversations with dead contemporaries, in the former their defects are lashed with good-natured raillery; in the latter, however, under the masks of dead men, living persons and contemporary conditions, especially at the Byzantine Court, are sharply stigmatized, thus the former is more of a literary satire, the latter a political pamphlet, with keen personal thursts and without literary value, but with all the greater interest for the history of civilization; the former is in a genuinely popular tone, the latter in vulgar and crude [Cf. Tozer in “The Journal of Hellenic Studies” (1881), II, 233–270; Krumbacher, op. cit., 198–211.] Two popular offshoots of the “Timarion,” the “Apokopos” and the “Piccatoros” will be discussed later. Another group of satires takes the form of dialogues between animals, manifestly a development from the Christian popular book known as the “Physiologus.” Such satires describe assemblages of quadrupeds, birds, and fishes, and recite their lampooming remarks upon the clergy, the bureaucracy, the foreign nations in the Byzantine Empire, etc. (Krumbacher, 385–390). Here belong also the parodies in the form of church poems which are mentioned below, and in which the clergy themselves took part, e.g. Bishop Nicetas of Serrae (eleventh century). One of the worst examples of this sacrilegious literature, which is not yet, however, fully understood, is the “Mockery of a Beardless Man” in the liturgical form of Mass-chants. This is one of the most obscene products of Byzantine literature (fourteenth century). (Krumbacher, 337.)

As the Byzantine satire had its prototype in Lucian, the didactic poetry found its model in the dialogue “To Demonikos,” erroneously ascribed to Isocrates. The greatest example of this type of literature in Byzantium is the “Spaneas” (twelfth century), a hortatory poem addressed by an emperor to his nephew, a sort “Mirror for Princes.” Some few offshots from this are found in the popular literature of Crete in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, handed down under the names of Sachlikis and Depharanus. Here also belong the ranting theological exhortations resembling those of the Capuchin in Schiller’s “Wallenstein.” Such, for instance, are that of Geogillas after the great plague of Rhodes (1498) and the oracular prophecies on the end of the Byzantine empire currrent under the name of Emperor Leo (886–911). (Krumbacher, 332, 336, 343, 352, 366.)

A late Byzantine variety of the laudatory poem is the begging-poem, the poetical lament of hungry authors and the parasites of the court. Its chief still more contemptible Manuel Philes, the former of whom lived under the Comment (twelfth century), the latter under the Palaeologi (thirteenth century). For the history of civilization such poetical wails of distress as Prodromus addressed to the emperor are of value because they give interesting pictures of street and business life in the capital. (Cf. Krumbacher, 324, 333.)

The Alexandrian erotic romance was imitated by three late writers of the twelfth century: Eustathius Makrembolites, Theodorus Prodromus, and Nicetas Eugenianus. E. Rhode’s criticism of the last is true of all three: “Nothing original is found anywhere; on the contrary, Nicetas unhesitatingly steals his flowers of speech and gallant turns from everywhere, from the Anacreontics, from the bucolic poets, from Musaeus, from the epigrammatists of the Anthology, even from Heliodorus and Longus, and especially from Achilles Tatius.” The tone of these romances is characterized by a combination of sickening affectation of style and a crude coarseness of material. (Cf. Krumbacher, 313, 318, 319; Rohde, Der griechische Roman, Leipzig, 1876, 522 sqq.)

The epigram was thus the only form of secular poetry which had an independent revival in Byzantine literature, and this at the very time when ecclesiastical poetry also reached its highest perfection, in the sixth and seventh centuries. This age is therefore the most flourishing period of Byzantine scholarly poetry; its decline in the twelfth century is contemporary with the rise of popular poetry.

IV. ECCLESIASTICAL AND THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE

While the most flourishing period of the secular literature of Byzantium runs from the ninth to the twelfth century, as already seen in the amount of its three principal groups, its religious literature developed much earlier. Christianity entered the world as a slew force, with all the vigour of youth, between antiquity and the Byzantine Middle Ages; indeed, it first gave to those Middle Ages their distinctive characteristic, that theological element which permeates all Byzantine culture. From the Eastern provinces Asia Minor and Palestine, came the first great ecciesiastical writers of the fourth century: Athanasius from Alexandria, Eusebius from Palestine, Cyril from Jerusalem, Synesius from Cyrene, and above all, the three great Fathers from Cappadocia, Basil and the two Gregories (of Nyssa and of Nazianzus). The contribution of these districts to Eastern Christianity was twofold: the rhetorical and speculative spirit of Hellenistic thought as it had developed in Alexandria and in Asia Minor, the old home of Greek culture; and the ascetic and dogmatic spirit peculiar to the Orient. The two blended in Byzantine Christianity into a new and peculiar unity which, however was from the beginning strangely opposed to the Christian ideal of the Western world, and which finally separated from the latter. Because of the excessive emphasis it laid on asceticism the Eastern Church lost moral influence on practical life, and through its preferenee for the pagan ideal of ornate discourse, traditional indeed, but in forms no longer generally understood, that church estranged itself from the great masses of the people. “No Greek Father of the Church” says Krumbacher, “rose to the level of the golden sentence of Augustine: ‘Let the grammarians find fault with us, if only the people understand us’“. Thus even the ecclesiastical literature of Byzantium, precisely at the period of its first florescence, is Hellenistic in form and Oriental in spirit. This period falls in the fourth century and is closely associated with the names of the ecclesiastical writers already mentioned. Their works, which cover the whole field of ecclesiastical prose literature dogma, exegesis, and homiletics, became typical, even canonical, for the whole Byzantine period, which can therefore show no independent work in this field; on the contrary, scientific theology fell into decay as early as the sixth century; the last important work is the ecclesiastical history of Evagrius. Everything later consists, if we except the controversial writings against sectaries and the Iconoclasts, of mechanical compilations and commentaries, in the form of the so-called Catenae; even the “Fountain of Knowledge” of John of Damascus (eighth century), the fundamental manual of Greek theology, though systematically worked out by a learned and keen intellect is merely a gigantic collection of materials. Even the homily clings to a pseudo-classical, rhetorical foundation, and tends more and more to mere external breadth, not to inwardness and depth.

Only three kinds of ecclesiastical literature, which were as yet undeveloped in the fourth century, exhibit later an independent growth. These were the ecclesiastical poetry of the sixth century, popular lives of the saints of the seventh, and the mystic writings of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The history of Greek ecclesiastical poetry proves irrefutably how completely ancient poetry had exhausted itself in content and form, and how insufficient were its forms to express new and living thoughts. In ecclesiastical prose literature it was still possible to attempt to preserve ancient forms artificially, but even here we sometimes meet with foreign principles of literary art, which presuppose a new sense of poetry. It has been noticed that in several collections of early Christian correspondence it is not the rhythmic laws of Greek rhetoricaI style which govern the composition, but those of Semitic (Syriac) prose. This fact would be in perfect harmony with the other relations existing between late-Greek and Semitic culture and the hypothesis of Cardinal Pitra, that the rhythmical poetry of the Byzantines has its origin in the Jewish Psalms of the Septuagint, receives therefrom a new support. As this rhythmic principle accords with the linguistic character of the later Greek, which had no musical, but only a stress, accent, and as it had already been developed in Syriac poetry, we need not wonder that Romanos, the first great ecclesiastical poet of the Greeks to adopt this principle, was a Syrian Jew, who had become a Christian at an early age.

About his life as little is known as about that of his contemporary and fellow-countryman, the chronicler Malalas, who also made a vigorous attempt to reform the language. What Malalas is to prose, Romanos is to the Christian poetry of the Greek Middle Ages. If he did not go so far as Malalas, yet he strongly modified the language of poetry and released it from the fetters of the ancient metric laws; he brought it into harmony with the latest idea of poetical form prevailing in his native country as well as with the character of the Greek language. Romanos, in fact, did not remain in Syria, but soon went to Constantinople, where he became a deacon of the church of St. Sophia, and where he is said to have first developed his gift for hymn-writing.

Romanos borrowed not only the form of his poems, but also their material and many of their themes, partly from the Old and New Testaments, partly from the (metrical) homilies of the Syrian Father Ephrem (fourth century). He wrote hymns on the Passion of the Lord, on the betrayal by Judas, Peter’s denial, Mary before the Cross, the Ascension, the Ten Virgins, the last Judgement, whilst among his Old Testament themes mention may be made of the history of Joseph and that of the three young men in the fiery furnace. In giving poetical form to this matter he is said to have composed about a thousand hymns, of which, however, only eighty have come down to us, evidently because in the ninth century the hymns of Romanos were crowded out of the Greek Liturgy by the so-called canones, linguistically and metrically more artistic in form. Thenceforth his hymns held their own in only a few of the remoter monasteries. Characteristic of the technical treatment of his material by Romanos is the great length of his hymns, which are regularly composed of from twenty to thirty stanzas of from twelve to twenty-one verses each, very finely wrought and varied in metrical structure, and in construction transparent and verse. To appreciate rightly the great length of the hymns we must compare them, not with the more concise Latin hymns, but with the modern oratorios. This resemblance is emphasized by their antiphonal rendering by alternative choirs. This also explains the dramatic character of many hymns, with their inserted dialogues and choric songs, as in “Peter’s Denial,” a little drama of human boastfulness and weakness, and the last part of the “History of Joseph,” the “Psalm of the Apostles,” and the “Birth of Jesus.” Other pieces, like the hymn on the last judgment, are purely descriptive in character, though even in them the rhetorical and dogmatic elements seriously impair the artistic effect.

With regard to an aesthetic judgment of Romanos, it does not seem that the last word has been said. Some, like Bouvy and Krumbacher, place him among the greatest hymn-wriers of all times; others, like Cardinal Pitra, are more conservative. For a final judgment a complete edition of the hymns is needed. Even now, however, it is certain that Romanos is not to be placed on the same level with the great Latin church poets like Ambrose and Prudentius. Two faults are especially obvious: his abundant use of rhetorical devices and his fondness for digressions into dogmatic theology. In both respects he is essentially Byzantine. He is fond of symbolic pictures and figures of speech, antitheses, assonances, especially witty jeux d’esprit, which are in strange contrast with his characteristic simplicity of diction and construction, and by their graceless embellishments destroy the smooth flow of his lines. Not only the form but also the sequence of thought in his hymns is often beclouded by the dragging in of dogmatic questions, e.g. in the celebrated Christmas hymn the question of the miraculous birth of Jesus is discussed no less than four times, and that too with a comfortable amplitude which betrays the theologian and for the time thrusts the poet cornpletely aside. The theologian is also too evident in his allusions to the Old Testament when dealing with New Testament incidents; Mary at the birth of Jesus compares her destiny to that of Sarah, the Magi liken the star which went before the Israelites in the wilderness, and so on. The frequent citation of passages from the prophets also greatly weakens the poetic impression as well as the effect of the religious fervour of the poet, many passages seeming more like unimpassioned paraphrases than like inspired poetry. In fact Romanos does not control the abundant and highly-coloured imagery of the earliest Greek church poets, nor their fine grasp of nature. The reader also gathers the impression that the height of the poet’s imagination is not in proportion with the depth of his piety; on the contrary, ther often appears in him something naive, almost homely, as when Mary expresses her pleasure in the Magi and calls attention to their utility for the impending Flight into Egypt. There are passages, however, in which devout fervour carries the imagination along with it and elevates the poetical tone, as in the jubilant invitation to the dance (in the Easter-song), in which thoughts of spring and of the Resurrection are harmoniously blended:

Why thus faint-hearted?

Why veil ye your faces?

Lift up your hearts!

Christ is arisen!

Join in the dances,

And with us proclaim it:

The Lord is ascended,

Gleaming and gloried,

He who was born

Of the giver of light.

Cease then your mourning,

Rejoice in blessedness:

Springtime has come.

So bloom now, ye lilies,

Bloom and be fruitful!

Naught bringeth destruction.

Clap we our hands

And shout: Risen is He

Who helpeth the fallen ones

To rise again.

Ecclesiastical poetry, like eccelesiastico-historical literature, did not long remain on the high level to which Romanos had raised it. The “Hymnus Acathistus” (of unknown authorship) of the seventh century, a sort of Te Deum in praise of the Mother of God, is the last great monument of Greek church poetry, comparable to the hymns of Romanos, which it has even outlived in fame. It has had numerous imitators and as late as the seventeenth century was translated into Latin. As early as the seventh century the period of Andrew of Crete, begins the rapid decline of Greek hymnology. The delicate flower of religious sentiment was overgrown and choked by a classical fomalism which stifled all vitality, as had happened in the case of contemporary secular poetry. The overvaluation of technique in details destroyed the sense of proportion in the whole. This seems to be the only explanation for the monstrosities called canones first found in the collection of Andrew of Crete. A canon is a combination of a number of hymns or chants (generally nine) of three or four strophes each. The “Great Canon” of Andrew actually numbers 250 strophes. Such length could only result in poverty of thought, as a “single idea is spun out into serpentine arabesques.”

Pseudo-classical artificiality found an even more advanced representative in John of Damascus, in the opinion of the Byzantines the foremost writer of canones, who took as a model Gregory of Nazianzus, even reintroducing the principle of quantity into ecclesiastical poetry. If it be true that the sublimity of religious poetry is in this way reduced to mere trifling, this is, strictly speaking, the case here. For in the eleventh century, which witnessed the decline of Greek hymnology and the revival of pagan humanlsm, are found for the first time the parodies of church hymns afterwards so popular. Their author was none other than Michael Psellus. Didactic poems took this form without being regarded as blasphemous. Another evidence of the few religious needs of the Byzantines is the absence of any religious drama such as developed among the people of the West during the Middle Ages. The only example the “Suffering of Christ” (Christus Patiens), written in the eleventh or twelfth century, and even now frequently valued too highly in theological circles, can hardly be called a religious drama, it is the offspring of a pagan, rather than a Christian, spirit; of its 2,640 verses, about one-third are borrowed from ancient dramas, chiefly from those of Euripides, and Mary, the chief character, sometimes recites verses from the “Medea” of Euripides, again from the “Electra” of Sophocles, or the “Prometheus” of Aeschylus. In her action, also, Mary impresses the reader as but feebly Christian. The composition is evidently a poor production of a theologian trained in the classics, but without the slightest idea of dramatic art. It is made up chiefly of lamentations and reports of messengers. Even the most effective scenes, those which precede the Crucifixion, are described by messengers; almost two-thirds of the text are given to the descent from the Cross, the lament of Mary, and the apparition of Christ. (Cf. Van Cleef, “The Pseudo-Gregorian Drama Christos paschon in its relation to the text of Euripides” in “Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences,” VIII, 363–378; Krumbacher, 312.)

Between ecclesiastical poetry and ecclesiastical prose stands the theologico-didactic poem, a favourite species of ancient Christian literature. One of its best examples is the “Hexaemeron” of Geogius Pisides, a spirited hymn on the universe and its marvels, i.e. all living creatures. Taken as a whole, it is somewhat conventional; only in the description of the minor forms of life, especially of the animals, are revealed the skill of the epigrammatist and nature-lover’s gift of affectionate observation.

Besides sacred poetry, hagiography flourished from the sixth to the eleventh century. This species of literature developed from the old martyrologies, and became the favourite form of popular literature. The most flourishing period extended from the eight to the eleventh century, and was concerned principally with monastic life. Unfortunately, the rhetorical language was in violent contrast with the simple nature of the contents, so that the chief value of this literature is historical.

More popular in style are the biographers of saints of the sixth and seventh centuries. The oldest and most important of them is Cyril of Scythopolis (in Palestine), whose biographies of saints and monks are distinguished for the reliability of their facts and dates of great interest also for their contributions to the history of culture and of ethics, and for their genuinely popular language are the writings of Leontius, Archbishop of Cyprus (seventh century), especially his life of the Patriarch John (surnamed The Merciful), Eleemosynarius of Alexandria. (Cf. Gelzer, Kleine Schriften, Leipzig, 1907.) This life describes for us a man who inspite of his pecuriarities honestly tried “to realize a pure Biblical Christianity of self-sacrificing love,” and whose life brings before us in a fascinating way the the customs and ideas of the lower classes of the people of Alexandria. Still another popular of Byzantine origin ranks among those that have won for themselves a place in universal literature; it is the romance of Balaam and Joasaph, the “Song of Songs” of Christian asceticism, illustrated by the experience of the Indian prince Joasaph, who is led by the hermit Barlaam to abandon the joys of life, and as a true Christian to renounce the world. The material of the story is originally Indian, indeed Buddhistic, for the origin of Joasaph was Buddha. The Greek version originated in the Sabbas monastery in Palestine about the middle of the seventh century. It did not circulate widely until the eleventh century, when it became known to all Western Europe through the medium of a Latin translation [Cf. Conybeare, The Barlaam and Josaphat legend, in Folk-Iove (1896), VII, 101 sqq.]

The ascetic conception of life was deeply imbedded in the Byzantine characters and was strengthened by the high development of monastic institutions. The latter in turn brought forth an abundant ascetic literature though it sheds little if any advance on the asceticism of the Fathers of the Church, especially that of its great exponent, St. Basil. Less extensively cultivated, but excelling in quality, are Byzantine mystical writings. The true founder of Byzantine mysticism was Maximus Confessor (seventh century), who first stripped it of its neo-Platonic character and harmonized it with orthodox doctrine. Later and more important representatives were Symeon and Nicetas Stethatos in the eleventh, and Nikolaos Kavasilas in the fourteenth century. The Byzantine mystical writers differ from those of Western Europe chiefly in their attitude to ecclesiastical ceremonial, to which they adhered implicitly seeing in it not a tendency to replace the spiritual life of the church by external pomp, but rather a profound symbol of this life. Accordingly Symeon strictly observed the ceremonial rules of the church, regarding them, however, only as a means to the attainment of ethical perfection. His principal work (publised only in Latin) is a collection of prose pieces and hymns on communion with God. He is akin to the chief German mystics in his tendency towards pantheism. Of Symeon’s equally distinguished pupil, Nicetas Stethatos, we need only say that he cast off his teacher’s pantheistic tendencies. The last great mystic Kavasilas, Archbishop of Saloniki, revived the teaching of Dionysius the pseudo-Areopagite, but in the plan of his principal work, “Life in Christ,” exhibits a complete independence of all other worlds and is without a parallel in Byzantine asceticism.

V. POPULAR POETRY

The capture of Constantinople by the Latins in the year 1204 released popular literature from the aristocratic fetters of official Byzantium. The emotional and imaginative life long latent, awoke again in the Byzantine world; in response to new influences from the Roman West the withered roots of popular literature showed signs of new life. They needed only assiduous care to put forth fresh shoots, being as deeply imbedded in popular consciousness as those of literary poetry. As the latter springs from the rationalistico-classical atmosphere of the Hellenistic period, even so the popular poetry, or folk-song is an outgrowth of the idyllic or romantic literature of the same period. The artificial literature had its prototypes in Lucian, Heliodorus, Achilles Tatius, and Nonnus; on the other hand, the popular literature of medieval Byzantium imitated Apollonius of Rhodes, Callimachus, Theocritus, and Musaeus. The chief characteristic of folk-song throughout the Greek Middle Ages is its Iyric note, which constantly finds expression in emotional turns. In Byzantine literature, on the other hand, the refinement of erotic poetry was due to the influence of the love-poetry of chivalry introduced by Frankish knights in the thirteenth century and later. These westerners also brought with them in abundance romantic and legendary materials that the Byzantine soon imitated and adapted. Lastly, Italian influences led to the revival of the drama. That celebration of the achievements of Greek heroes in popular literature was the result of the conflicts which the Greeks sustained during the Middle Ages with the border nations to the east of the empire. There were, in addition, popular books relating the deeds of ancient heroes, which had long been current, and were widespread through the East; these revived heroic poetry, to which a deep romantic tinge was imparted. The result was a complete upheaval of popular ideals and a broadening of the popular horizon, both to the East and West; the oppressive power of ancient standards was gradually replaced by the beneficial influence of modern ideals.

There was, consequently, a complete reconstruction of the literary types of Byzantium. Of all the varieties of artistic poetry there survived only the romance, though this became more serious in its aims, and its province expanded Of metrical forms there remained only the political (fifteen-syllable) verse. From these simple materials there sprang forth an abundance of new poetic types. Alongside of the narrative romance of heroism and love there sprang up popular love lyrics, and even the beginnings of the modern drama.

The only genuine heroic epic of the Byzantines is the “Digenis Akritas,” a popular poetic crystallization of the conflicts between the Byzantine wardens of the marches (akritai) and the Saracens in Eastern Asia Minor, during the tenth and eleventh centuries. The nucleus of this epic goes back to the twelfth or thirteenth century, its final literary form to the fifteenth. The original poems have suffered much in the final redaction from the mutilations of the schoolmen. An approximate idea of the original poem may be gathered from the numerous echoes of it extant in popular poetry. The existing versions exhibit a blending of several cycles, quite after the manner of the Homeric poems. Its principal subjects are love, adventures, battles, and a patriarchal, idyllic enjoyment of life; it is a mixture of the Iliad and the Odyssey, the majority of the material being drawn from the latter, while the atmosphere is Christian. With an intimate sympathy with nature are combined genuine piety and a strong family feeling. In an artistic sense the work can certainly not be compared with either the Greek or the Germanic epics. It lacks their dramatic quality and the variety of their characters. It must be compared with the Slavic and Oriental heroic songs, among which it properly belongs.

The love-romance of the Greek Middle Ages is the result of the fusion of the sophistical Alexandro-Byzantine romance and the medieval French popular romance, on the basis of an Hellenistic view of life and nature. This is proved by its three chief creations, composed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. “Kallimachos and Chrysorrhoe,” “Belthandros and Chrysantza,” “Lybistros and Rhodamne.” While the first and the last of these are yet markedly under the influence of the Byzantine romance, both in thought and in manner of treatment, the second begins to show the aesthetic and ethical influence of the Old-French romance; indeed, its story often recalls the Tristan legend. The style is clearer and more transparent, the action more dramatic, than in the extant versions of the Digenis legend. The ethical idea is the romantic idea of knighthood—the winning of the loved one by valour and daring, not by blind chance as in the Byzantine literary romances. Along with these independent adaptations of French material, are direct translations from “Flore et Blanchefleur,” “Pierre et Maguelonne,” and others, which have passed into the domain of universal literature.

To the period of Frankish conquest belongs aIso the metrical Chronicle of Morea (fourteenth century) It was composed by a Frank brought up in Greece, though a foe of the Greeks, and its literary value for the history of civilization is all the greater. Its object was, amid the constantly progressing hellenization of the Western conquerors, to remind them of the spirit of their ancestors. It is Greek, therefore, only in language; in literary form and spirit it is wholly Frankish. The author “describes minutely the feudal customs which had been transplanted to the soil of Greece, and this perhaps is his chief merit; the deliberations of the High Court are given with the greatest accuracy, and he is quite familiar with the practice of feudal law” (J. Schmitt). As early as the fourteenth century the Chronicle was translated into Spanish and in the fifteenth into French and Italian.

About the same time and in the same locality the small islands off the coast of Asia Minor, appeared the earliest collection of neo-Greek love songs, known as the “Rhodian Love-Songs.” Besides songs of various sorts and origins, they contain a complete romance, told in the form of a play on numbers, a youth being obliged to compose in honour of the maiden whom he worships a hundred verses, corresponding to the numbers one to one hundred, before she returns his love.

Between the days of the French influence in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and those of Italian in the sixteenth and seventeenth, there was a short romantic and popular revival of the ancient legendary material. It is true that for this revival, there was neither much need nor much appreciation, and as a consequence but few of the ancient heroes and their heroic deeds are adequately treated. The best of these works is a romance based on the story of Alexander the Great, a revised version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes of the Ptolemaic period, which is also the source of the western versions of the Alexander romance. The “Achilleis,” on the other hand, though written in the popular verse and not without taste, is wholly devoid of antique local colour, and is rather a romance of French chivalry than a history of Achilles. Lastly, of two compositions on the Trojan War, one is wholly crude and barbarous, the other, though better, is a literal translation of the old French poem of Benoît de Ste.-More.

To these products of the fourteenth century maybe added two of the sixteenth, both describing a descent into the lower world, evidently popular offshoots of the Timarion and Mazaris already mentioned. To the former corresponds the “Apokopos,” a satire of the dead on the livings to the latter the “Piccatores,” a metrical piece decidedly lengthy but rather unpoetic, while the former has many poetical passages (e.g. the procession of the dead) and betrays the influence of Italian literature. In fact Italian literature impressed its popular character on the Greek popular poetry of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as French literature had done in the thirteenth and fourteenth. As a rich popular poetry sprang up during the last-mentioned period on the islands off the coast of Asia Minor, so now a similar literature developed on the Island of Crete. Its most important creations are the romantic epic “Erotokritos” and the dramas “Erophile” and “The Sacrifice of Abraham,” with a few minor pictures of customs and manners. These works fall chronologically outside the limits of Byzantine literature; nevertheless, as a necessary complement and continuation of the preceding period, they should be discussed here. The “Erotokritos” is a long romantic poem of chivalry, Iyric in characters and didactic in purpose, the work of Cornaro, a hellenized Venetian of the sixteenth century. It abounds in themes and ideas drawn from the folk-poetry of the time. In the story of Erotokritos and Arethusa the poet glorifies love and friendship, chivalric courage, constancy, and self-sacrifice. Although foreign influences do not obtrude themselves, and the poem, as a whole, has a national Greek flavour, it reveals the various cultural elements, Byzantine, Romance, and Oriental, without giving, however, the character of a composite. The Iyrical love tragedy “Erophlle” is more of a mosaic, being a combination of two Italian tragedies, with the addition of lyrical intermezzos from Tasso’s “Jerusalem Delivered,” and choral songs from his “Aminta.” Nevertheless, the materials are handled with independence, and more harmoniously arranged than in the original; the father who has killed his daughter’s lover is slain not by his daughter’s hand, but by the ladies of his palace, thus giving a less offensive impression. Owing to the lyric undertone of the works some parts of it have survived in popular tradition until the present time. The mystery-play of “The Sacrifice of Abraham” is a little psychological masterpiece, apparently an independent work. The familiar and trite Biblical incidents are reset in the patriarchal environment of Greek family life. The poet emphasizes the mental struggles of Sarah, the resignation of Abraham to the Divine will, the anxious forebodings of Isaac, and the affectionate sympathy of the servants, in other words, a psychological analysis of the characters. The mainspring of the action is Sarah’s fore-knowledge of what is to happen, evidently the invention of the poet to display the power of maternal love. The diction is distinguished by high poetic beauty and by a thorough mastery of versification. Other products of Cretan literature are a few adaptations of Italian pastorals, a few erotic and idyllic poems, like the so-called “Seduction Tale” (an echo of the Rhodian Love-Songs), and the lovely, but ultra-sentimental, pastoral idyll of the “Beautiful Shepherdess.”

GENERAL: A central medium for the investigation of all branches of Byzantine culture is Die byzantinische Zeitschrift, ed. KRUMBACHER (Leipzig, 1892—); it is especially rich in bibliography; DIEHL, Etudes byzantines (Paris, 1900); SYMONDS, Studies of the Greek Poets (3d ed., London, 1902), II, c. xxii sqq.; ROHDE, Der griechische Roman (3d ed., Leipzig, 1900); WENDLAND, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum (Tübingen, 1907); THUMB, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (Strasburg, 1901); STRZYGOWSKI, Orient oder Rom (Leipzig, 1900); LETHABY, Mediæval Art from 312 to 1350 (London, 1906).

I. A. HISTORIANS.—KRUMBACHER, Gesch. der byzant. Literatur (2nd ed., Munich, 1896), 219–319; DAHN, Prokopius von Cäsarea (Berlin, 1865); SEGER, Nikephoros Bryennios (Munich, 1888); GIBBON, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. BURY (London, 1898), V-VI; NEUMANN, Griechische Geschichtsschreiber und Geschichtsquellen im 12 Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1888); BURY, Roman Emperors from Basil II to Isaac Komnenos in The Eng. Histor. Rev. (1889), IV, 41–64, 251–285; IDEM, The Treatise De Admin. Imperio in Byzant. Zeitschrift, XV, 517 sqq.; SAINTE-BEUVE, Causeries du lundi (Nicetas Acominatus) (Paris, 1854), IX, 305–340; PARISOT, Cantacuzène, homme d’état et historien (Paris, 1845).

I. B. CHRONICLERS.—KRUMBACHER, Gesch. der byzant. Literatur (2nd ed.), 319–408; HIRSCH, Byzantinische Studien (Leipzig, 1878); GIBBON, op. cit., V.

II. ENCYCLOPEDISTS AND ESSAYISTS.—HERGENRÖTHER, Photios, Patriarch vom Konstantinopel, sein Leben, seine Scheiften, und das griechische Schisma (3 vols., Ratisbon, 1867–69); RAMBAUD, L’empire grec au dixième siècle (Constantin VII), 137–164; GREGOROVIUS, Gesch. der Stadt Athen im M. A. (Stuttgart, 1889), I, 176 sqq. and C; NEUMANN, Die Weltstellung des byzant. Reiches vor der Kreuzzügen (Leipzig, 1894), 81–93 (M. Psellos); ELLISSEN, Michael Akominatos (Göttingen, 1846); GREGOROVIUS, op. cit., I, 204–349; FABRICIUS, Bibl. gr., ed. HARL., II, 682 sqq. (Maximus Planudes); SATHAS, Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη (1872), I, προλ., 119–135 (Theodorus Melochites); PARISOT, op. cit. (Nicephorus Gregoras); KRUMBACHER, op. cit., 216 (Photius), 108 (Constantine VII, Porphyrog.), 184 (Psellus), 221 (Eustathius), 197 (Michael Italicus), 199 (Michael Acominatus), 223 (Maximus Planudes), 226 (Theodorus Melochites), 128 (Nicephorus Gregoras).

III. SECULAR POETRY, The Epigram: PAULY, Realenzyklopädie (new ed., 1894), I, 2380–91; KRUMBACHER, op. cit., 100, 292, 293, 295, 304, 306–308.

IV. ECCLESIASTICAL AND THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.—On homiletics cf. EHRHARD in KRUMBACHER, op. cit., 160–176. On the influence of syriac literature on old Christian literature: WEHOFER, Untersuchungen zur altchristlichen Epistolographie in Weiner Sitzungsber., phil.-hist. Cl., CXLIII (1901). For ecclesiastical poetry, cf. STEVENSON, L’hymnographie de l’église grecque in Revue des questions histor. (1876), II, 481–543; MEYER, Anfang und Ursprung der lateinischen und griechischen rythmischen Dichtung in Abhandl. bayr. Akad. (1885), XVII, ii, 270–450; BOUVY, Etude sur les origines du rythme tonique dans l’hymnographie de l’église grecque (Nimes, 1886); KRUMBACHER, op. cit., 635–705.

On Romanos, cf. BOUVAY, op. cit., 367–375; KRUMBACHER, 272; IDEM, Studien zu Romanos in Sitzungsber. bayr. Akad., phil. hist. Cl. (1898), II, No. 1. On hagiography cf. EHRHARD in KRUMBACHER, op. cit., 176–205. On ascetic and mystical writing, cf. EHRHARD, ibid., 139–160.

V. POPULAR POETRY.—KRUMBACHER, 328–384; DIETERICH, Gesch. der byzantin. und neugriech. Litt. (Leipzig, 1902); SCHMITT, ed. BURY, The Chronicle of Morea, ed. in two parallel texts. . . . with introduction, critical notes, and indices, in Byzantine Texts (London, 1904).

KARL DIETERICH

C

ARTICLES

C

Fernán Caballero

Raimundo Diosdado Caballero

Juan Caballero y Ocio

Cabasa

Jean Cabassut

Miguel Cabello de Balboa

Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca

John & Sebastian Cabot

Francisco Cabral

Pedralvarez Cabral

Estévan (Juan) Cabrillo

Cadalous

Caddo Indians

Cades

Antoine de Lamothe, Sieur de Cadillac

Diocese of Cadiz

St. Caedmon

University of Caen

Cæremoniale Episcoporum

Caesarea

Caesarea Mauretaniae

Caesarea Palaestinae

Caesarea Philippi

St. Caesarius of Arles

Caesarius of Heisterbach

St. Caesarius of Nazianzus

Caesarius of Prüm

Caesar of Speyer

Caesaropolis

Archdiocese of Cagliari

Diocese of Cagli e Pergola

Charles Cahier

Daniel William Cahill

Diocese of Cahors

Diocese of Caiazzo

Armand-Benjamin Caillau

Cain

Cainites

Joseph Caiphas

Caius

John Caius

Popes Sts. Caius and Soter

St. Cajetan

Constantino Cajetan

Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan

Diocese of Calabozo

Diocese of Calahorra and La Calzada

Calama

Fray Antonio de la Calancha

Calas Case

Mario di Calasio

Pedro de Calatayud

Military Order of Calatrava

Archdiocese of Calcutta

Polidoro (da Caravaggio) Caldara

Domingos Caldas-Barbosa

Pedro Calderon de la Barca

Caleb

Christian Calendar

Jewish Calendar

Reform of the Calendar

Ambrogio Calepino

Paolo Caliari

California

Vicariate Apostolic of Lower California

California Missions

Louis-Hector de Callières

Callinicus

Callipolis

Pope Callistus I

Pope Callistus II

Pope Callistus III

Jacques Callot

Pierre Cally

Dom Augustin Calmet

Caloe

Diocese of Caltagirone

Diocese of Caltanisetta

Calumny

Dionysius Calvaert

Congregation of Our Lady of Calvary

Mount Calvary

Calvert

Diocese of Calvi and Teano

John Calvin

Calvinism

Justus Baronius Calvinus

Calynda

Camachus

Camaldolese

Diego Muñoz Camargo

Luca Cambiaso

Archdiocese of Cambrai

University of Cambridge

Cambysopolis

George Joseph Camel

Diocese of Camerino

Camerlengo

St. Camillus de Lellis

Camisards

Luis Vaz de Camões

Girolamo Campagna

Domenico Campagnola

Jeanne-Louise-Henriette Campan

Pedro Campaña

Tommaso Campanella

Giuseppe Campani

Diocese of Campeche

Lorenzo Campeggio

Bernardino Campi

Galeazzo Campi

Giulio Campi

Campo Santo de’ Tedeschi

Jean-Pierre Camus de Pont-Carré

Cana

Canada

José de la Canal

Canary Islands

Canatha

Luis Cancer de Barbastro

Candace

Diocese of Candia

Candidus

Candlemas

Candles

Candlesticks

Canea

Vicariate Apostolic of Canelos and Macas

Vincent Canes

St. Canice

Henricus Canisius

Theodorich Canisius

Alonso Cano

Melchior Cano

Canon

Canon (2)

Canoness

Canon of the Mass

Canon of the Holy Scriptures

Apostolic Canons

Collections of Ancient Canons

Ecclesiastical Canons

Canons and Canonesses Regular

Canons Regular of the Immaculate Conception

Canopus

Canopy

Canossa

Antonio Canova

Cantate Sunday

Ancient Diocese of Canterbury

Canticle

Canticle of Canticles

Cantor

Cesare Cantù

Canute

St. Canute IV

Diocese of Capaccio and Vallo

Baptiste-Honoré-Raymond Capefigue

Pietro Caperolo

John Capgrave

Diocese of Cap Haïtien

Capharnaum

Capitolias

Capitularies

Episcopal and Pontifical Capitulations

Count Gino Capponi

Domenico Capranica

Giovanni Battista Caprara

John Capreolus

Capsa

Captain (In the Bible)

Captivities of the Israelites

Archdiocese of Capua

Capuchinesses

Capuchin Friars Minor

Capuciati

Apostolic Prefecture of Caquetá

José de Carabantes

Caracalla

Archdiocese of Caracas

Vincent Caraffa

Caraites

Juan Caramuel y Lobkowitz

Auguste Carayon

James Joseph Carbery

Carbonari

Ignatius Carbonnelle

Diocese of Carcassonne (Carcassum)

Girolamo Cardan

Juan Cardenas

Cardica

Cardinal

Cardinal Protector

Cardinal Vicar

Cardinal Virtues

Bartolommeo and Vincenzo Carducci

Carem

Mathew Carey

Etienne de Carheil

Diocese of Cariati (Paternum)

Caribs

Giacomo Carissimi

Dionigi Carli da Piacenza

Ancient Diocese of Carlisle

Carlovingian Schools

Carmel

Mount Carmel

Carmelite Order

Melchior Carneiro

Jean-Baptiste Carnoy

Horacio Carochi

Caroline Books (Libri Carolini)

Caroline Islands

Raymond Caron

René-Edouard Caron

Vittore Carpaccio

Carpasia

Diocese of Carpi

Carracci

Bartolomé Carranza

Diego Carranza

Juan Carreno de Miranda

Rafael Carrera

Carrhae

Joseph Carrière

Louis de Carrières

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Daniel Carroll

John Carroll

Archdiocese of Cartagena

Diocese of Cartagena

St. Carthage

Archdiocese of Carthage

Carthusian Order

Georges-Etienne Cartier

Jacques Cartier

Bernardino Lopez de Carvajal

Gaspar de Carvajal

Juan Carvajal (Carvagial)

Luis de Carvajal

Luisa de Carvajal

Thomas Carve

John Caryll

Carystus

Diocese of Casale Monferrato (Casalensis)

Giovanni Battista Casali

Vicariate Apostolic of Casanare

Girolamo Casanata

Bartolomé de las Casas

Diocese of Caserta

John Casey

Henri Raymond Casgrain

Cashel

St. Casimir

Casium

Jean-Jacques Casot

George Cassander

Joseph Cassani

Diocese of Cassano all’ Ionio

Patrick S. Casserly

John Cassian

William Cassidy

Giovanni Domenico Cassini

Cassiodorus

François Dollier de Casson

Diocese of Cassovia

Castabala

Andrea Castagno

Diocese of Castellammare di Stabia

Diocese of Castellaneta (Castania)

Juan de Castellanos

Benedetto Castelli

Pietro Castelli

Giovanni Battista Castello

Baldassare Castiglione

Count Carlo Ottavio Castiglione

Giovanni Benedetto Castiglione

Castile and Aragon

Cristóbal de Castillejo

Caspar Castner

Castoria

Francesco Castracane degli Antelminelli

Alphonsus de Castro

Fernando Castro Palao

Guillen de Castro y Bellvis

Casuistry

Edward Caswall

Roman Catacombs

Catafalque

Giuseppe Catalani

Catalonia

Archdiocese of Catania (Catanensis)

Diocese of Catanzaro

Catechumen

Categorical Imperative

Category

Catenæ

Cathari

Cathedra

Cathedral

Cathedraticum

Ven. Edmund Catherick

Monastery of St. Catherine

Catherine de’ Medici

St. Catherine de’ Ricci

St. Catherine of Alexandria

St. Catherine of Bologna

St. Catherine of Genoa

St. Catherine of Siena

St. Catherine of Sweden

Catholic

Catholic Benevolent Legion

The Catholic Club of New York

Catholic Epistle

Catholic Knights of America

Catholic Missionary Union

Catholicos

Catholic University of America

François Catrou

Diocese of Cattaro (Catharum)

Augustin-Louis Cauchy

Caughnawaga

François-Etienne Caulet

Caunus

Cause

Nicolas Caussin

Diocese of Cava and Sarno

Felice Cavagnis

Bonaventura Cavalieri

James Cavanagh

Giovanni Antonio Cavazzi

Celestino Cavedoni

Andres Cavo

William Caxton

Diocese of Cayes

Comte de Caylus

Charles-Félix Cazeau

St. Ceadda

Diocese of Cebú

St. Cecilia

Cedar (1)

Cedar (2)

St. Cedd

Cedes

Brook of Cedron

Diocese of Cefalù

Rémi Ceillier

Celebret

Celenderis

Pope St. Celestine I

Pope Celestine II

Pope Celestine III

Pope Celestine IV

Pope St. Celestine V

Celibacy of the Clergy

Cella

Elizabeth Cellier

Benvenuto Cellini

Celsus the Platonist

Conrad Celtes

The Celtic Rite

Cemetery

Religious of the Cenacle

Robert Cenalis

Diocese of Ceneda

Censer

Censorship of Books

Ecclesiastical Censures

Theological Censures

Census

German Roman Catholic Central Verein of North America

Centuriators of Magdeburg

Centurion

St. Ceolfrid

Ceolwulf

Francisco Cepeda

Ceramus

Cerasus

Ceremonial

Ceremony

Cerinthus

Certitude

Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra

Salazar Francisco Cervantes

Diocese of Cervia

Andrea Cesalpino

Giuliano Cesarini

Diocese of Cesena

St. Ceslaus

Cestra

Ceylon

Noel Chabanel

Diocese of Chachapoyas

James Chadwick

Pierre Chaignon

Chair of Peter

Chalcedon

Council of Chalcedon

Chalcis

Chaldean Christians

Chalice

Richard Challoner

Diocese of Châlons-sur-Marne

Cham, Chamites

Archdiocese of Chambéry (Camberium)

Samuel de Champlain

Anthony Champney

Jean-François Champollion

Etienne Agard de Champs

Chanaan, Chanaanites

Diego Alvarez Chanca

Chancel

Bl. Pierre-Louis-Marie Chanel

Vicariate Apostolic of Changanacherry

Claude Chantelou

Chantry

Jean Chapeauville

Chapel

Placide-Louis Chapelle

Chaplain

Jean-Antoine Chaptal

Chapter

Chapter House

Character

Character (in Catholic Theology)

Charadrus

Jean-Baptiste Chardon

Mathias Chardon

Chariopolis

Charismata

Civil Law Concerning Charitable Bequests

Charity and Charities

Congregation of the Brothers of Charity

Sisters of Charity

Charlemagne

St. Charles Borromeo

Emperor Charles V

Charles Martel

Diocese of Charleston

François-Xavier Charlevoix

Diocese of Charlottetown

François-Philippe Charpentier

Pierre Charron

Charterhouse

Alain Chartier

Diocese of Chartres

La Grande Chartreuse

Chartulary

Georges Chastellain

Pierre Chastellain

Chastity

Chasuble

François-René de Chateaubriand

Diocese of Chatham

Geoffrey Chaucer

Pierre-Joseph Chaumonot

Maurice Chauncy

Pierre-Joseph-Octave Chauveau

Chelm and Belz

Timoléon Cheminais de Montaigu

Cherokee Indians

Chersonesus

Cherubim

Maria Luigi Carlo Zenobio Salvatore Cherubini

Ancient Diocese of Chester (Cestrensis)

Jean-Louis Lefebvre de Cheverus

Michel-Eugène Chevreul

Diocese of Cheyenne

Antoine-Léonard de Chézy

Gabriello Chiabrera

Diocese of Chiapas

Diocese of Chiavari

Chibchas

Archdiocese of Chicago

Henry Chichele

Ancient Catholic Diocese of Chichester (Cicestrensis)

Diocese of Chicoutimi

Francesco Chieregati

Archdiocese of Chieti

Diocese of Chihuahua

Diocese of Chilapa

Children of Mary

Children of Mary of the Sacred Heart

Chile

Domingo (San Anton y Muñon) Chimalpain

China

Chinooks

Diocese of Chioggia (Chiozza)

Chios

Chippewa Indians

Diocese of Chiusi-Pienza

Chivalry

Choctaw Indians

Choir (1)

Choir (2)

Etienne-François, Duc de Choiseul

Gilbert Choiseul du Plessis-Praslin

Pierre Cholonec

Alexandre-Etienne Choron

Chrism

Chrismal, Chrismatory

Chrismarium

Order of the Knights of Christ

Diocese of Christchurch

Christendom

Christian

Christian Archæology

Christian Art

Christian Brothers of Ireland

Sisters of Christian Charity

Confraternity of Christian Doctrine

Brothers of Christian Instruction

Christianity

Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge

Congregation of Christian Retreat

Christina Alexandra

Christine de Pisan

Bl. Christine of Stommeln

Christmas

St. Christopher

Pope Christopher

St. Chrodegang

St. Chromatius

Chronicon Paschale

Biblical Chronology

General Chronology

Sts. Chrysanthus and Daria

St. Chrysogonus

Chrysopolis

Chur

Church

Churching of Women

Church Maintenance

Chusai

Chytri

Giovanni Giustino Ciampini

Agostino Ciasca

Ciborium

Pierre-Martial Cibot

Robert Ciboule

Cibyra

Andrea Ciccione

Count Leopoldo Cicognara

El Cid

Cidyessus

Diocese of Cienfuegos

Carlo Cignani

Cenni di Pepo Cimabue

Giovanni Battista Cima da Conegliano

Prefecture Apostolic of Cimbebasia (Upper)

Archdiocese of Cincinnati

Cincture

Cinites

Cinna

Circesium

Circumcision

Feast of the Circumcision

Cisalpine Club

Cisamus

Cistercians

Citation

Abbey of Cîteaux

Citharizum

Diocese of Città della Pieve

Diocese of Città di Castello

Ciudad Real

Diocese of Ciudad Rodrigo

Cius

Civil Allegiance

Diocese of Cività Castellana, Orte, and Gallese

Diocese of Civitavecchia and Corneto

Abbey of Clairvaux

Clandestinity (in Canon Law)

St. Clare of Assisi

St. Clare of Montefalco

Bl. Clare of Rimini

William Clark

Claudia

Claudianus Mamertus

Claudiopolis (1)

Claudiopolis (2)

Francisco Saverio Clavigero

Christopher Clavius

Claudius Clavus

James Clayton

Clazomenae

Clean and Unclean

Jan van Cleef

Joost van Cleef

Martin Van Cleef

Mathieu-Nicolas Poillevillain de Clémanges

Charles Clémencet

Franz Jacob Clemens

Clemens non Papa

Pope St. Clement I

Pope Clement II

Pope Clement III

Pope Clement IV

Pope Clement V

Pope Clement VI

Pope Clement VII

Pope Clement VIII

Pope Clement IX

Pope Clement X

Pope Clement XI

Pope Clement XII

Pope Clement XIII

Pope Clement XIV

Cæsar Clement

François Clément

John Clement

Clementines

Bl. Clement Mary Hofbauer

Clement of Alexandria

St. Clement of Ireland

Maurice Clenock

Cleophas

Clerestory

Cleric

Giovanni Clericato

Clericis Laicos

John Clerk

Agnes Mary Clerke

Clerks Regular

Clerks Regular of Our Saviour

Clerks Regular of the Mother of God of Lucca

Diocese of Clermont

Pope St. Cletus

Diocese of Cleveland

Josse Clichtove

William Clifford

Diocese of Clifton

José Climent

Ven. Margaret Clitherow

Diocese of Clogher

Cloister

School of Clonard

Diocese of Clonfert

Abbey and School of Clonmacnoise

St. Clotilda

Clouet

Councils of Clovesho

Giorgio Clovio

Clovis

Diocese of Cloyne

Congregation of Cluny

John Clynn

Bernabé Cobo

Viatora Coccaleo

Diocese of Cochabamba

Martin of Cochem

Diocese of Cochin

Jacques-Denis Cochin

Pierre-Suzanne-Augustin Cochin

Johann Cochlæus

Co-consecrators

Cocussus

Codex

Codex Alexandrinus

Codex Amiatinus

Codex Bezae

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus

Codex Sinaiticus

Codex Vaticanus

Thomas Codrington

Co-education

Nicolas Coeffeteau

Coelchu

Theodore Coelde

St. Coemgen

Coenred

Coeur d’Alêne Indians

Edward Coffin

Robert Aston Coffin

Cogitosus

Diego López de Cogolludo

Hermann Cohen

Diocese of Coimbatore

Diocese of Coimbra

Jean-Baptiste Colbert

Henry Cole

Edward Coleman

Henry James Coleridge

John Colet

Nicola Coleti

St. Colette

John Colgan

Diocese of Colima

Frédéric-Louis Colin

Jean-Claude-Marie Colin

Coliseum

Diego Collado

Collect

Collectarium

Collections

Collectivism

Diocese of Colle di Val d’Elsa

College

College (in Canon Law)

Apostolic College

Collège de France

Collegiate

St. Colman

Walter Colman

Joseph Ludwig Colmar

Cologne

University of Cologne

Bl. Colomba of Rieti

Republic of Colombia

Archdiocese of Colombo

Matteo Realdo Colombo

Colonia (1)

Colonna

Egidio Colonna

Giovanni Paolo Colonna

Vittoria Colonna

Colonnade

Colophon

Colorado

Colossæ

Epistle to the Colossians

Liturgical Colours

Columba of Terryglass

St. Columba

St. Columba, Abbot of Iona

St. Columbanus

Christopher Columbus

Diocese of Columbus

Column

Diocese of Comacchio

Comana

Diocese of Comayagua

François Combefis

Daniel Comboni

St. Comgall

Commandments of God

Commandments of the Church

Commemoration (in Liturgy)

Commendatory Abbot

Giovanni Francesco Commendone

Commentaries on the Bible

Philippe de Commines

Commissariat of the Holy Land

Commissary Apostolic

Ecclesiastical Commissions

Commodianus

Commodus

Brethren of the Common Life

Philosophy of Common Sense

Martyrs of the Paris Commune

Communicatio Idiomatum

Communion-Antiphon

Communion-Bench

Communion of Children

The Communion of Saints

Communion of the Sick

Communion under Both Kinds

Communism

Diocese of Como

Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement

Compensation

Occult Compensation

Privilege of Competency

Complin

Compostela

Compromise (in Canon Law)

St. Conal

St. Conan

Concelebration

Diocese of Concepción

Conceptionists

Industrial Conciliation

Daniello Concina

Conclave

Concordances of the Bible

Concordat

The French Concordat of 1801

Diocese of Concordia (Concordia Veneta)

Diocese of Concordia (Corcondiensis in America)

Concubinage

Concupiscence

Concursus

Charles-Marie de la Condamine

Etienne Bonnot de Condillac

Condition

Thomas Conecte

Ecclesiastical Conferences

Confession

Confessor

Confirmation

Confiteor

Confraternity (Sodality)

Confucianism

Congo Independent State and Congo Missions

Congregatio de Auxiliis

Congregationalism

Congregational Singing

Catholic Congresses

Congrua

Congruism

Conimbricenses

Giles de Coninck

Connecticut

John Connolly

Pope Conon

Conradin of Bornada

Bl. Conrad of Ascoli

Conrad of Hochstadt

Conrad of Leonberg

Conrad of Marburg

Bl. Conrad of Offida

St. Conrad of Piacenza

Conrad of Saxony

Conrad of Urach

Conrad of Utrecht

Florence Conry

Ercole Consalvi

Consanguinity (in Canon Law)

Conscience

Hendrik Conscience

Consciousness

Consecration

Consent (in Canon Law)

Consentius

Conservator

Papal Consistory

Cuthbert Constable

John Constable

Constance

Council of Constance

Constantia

Pope Constantine

Diocese of Constantine (Cirta)

Constantine Africanus

Constantine the Great

Constantinople

Councils of Constantinople

Rite of Constantinople

Ecclesiastical Constitutions

Papal Constitutions

Consubstantiation

Diocesan Consultors

Philippe du Contant de la Molette

Gasparo Contarini

Giovanni Contarini

Contemplation

Contemplative Life

Vincent Contenson

Continence

Contingent

Contract

The Social Contract

Contrition

Contumacy (in Canon Law)

Adam Contzen

Convent

Convent Schools (Great Britain)

Order of Friars Minor Conventuals

Diocese of Conversano

Conversi

Conversion

Convocation of the English Clergy

Henry Conwell

Archdiocese of Conza

Vicariate Apostolic of Cooktown

William Henry Coombes

Copacavana

Cope

University of Copenhagen

Nicolaus Copernicus

François Edouard Joachim Coppée

Coptos

Claude-Godefroi Coquart

Coracesium

Ambrose Corbie

Monastery of Corbie

St. Corbinian

James Andrew Corcoran

Michael Corcoran

Confraternities of the Cord

Giulio Cesare Cordara

Charles Cordell

Balthasar Cordier

Diocese of Cordova (Cordubensis)

Diocese of Cordova (Cordubensis in America)

Juan de Cordova

Core, Dathan, and Abiron

Vicariate Apostolic of Corea

Archdiocese of Corfu

Diocese of Coria

Corinth

Epistles to the Corinthians

Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis

Diocese of Cork

School of Cork

Maurus Corker

Cormac MacCuilenan

Elena Lucrezia Piscopia Cornaro

Jean-Baptiste Corneille

Michel Corneille (the Younger)

Michel Corneille (the Elder)

Pierre Corneille

Jacob Cornelisz

Cornelius

Pope Cornelius

Peter Cornelius

Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide

Karl Josef Rudolph Cornely

Nicolas Cornet

Cornice

Abbey of Cornillon

Giovanni Maria Cornoldi

Francisco Vasquez de Coronado

Coronation

Gregorio Nuñez Coronel

Juan Coronel

Corporal

Corporation

Corporation Act of 1661

Feast of Corpus Christi

Corpus Juris Canonici

Fraternal Correction

Correctories

Michael Augustine Corrigan

Sir Dominic Corrigan

Corsica

Hernando Cortés

Giovanni Andrea Cortese

Diocese of Cortona

Abbey of Corvey

Corycus

Corydallus

Juan de la Cosa

Archdiocese of Cosenza

Henry Cosgrove

Edmund Cosin

Cosmas

Sts. Cosmas and Damian

Cosmas Indicopleustes

Cosmas of Prague

Cosmati Mosaic

Cosmogony

Cosmology

Francesco Cossa

Lorenzo Costa

Giovanni Domenico Costadoni

Republic of Costa Rica

Francis Coster

Clerical Costume

Maria Cosway

Jean-Baptiste Cotelier

Cotenna

Cotiæum

Pierre Coton

Diocese of Cotrone

Robert de Coucy

Frederic René Coudert

General Councils

Evangelical Counsels

Counterpoint

The Counter-Reformation

Court (in Scripture)

William Courtenay

Ecclesiastical Courts

Jean Cousin

Charles-Edmond-Henride Coussemaker

Pierre Coustant

Nicolas Coustou

Diocese of Coutances

Louis-Charles Couturier

Diego Covarruvias

Covenanters

Covetousness

Diocese of Covington

Cowl

Michiel Coxcie

Charles-Antoine Coysevox

Lorenzo Cozza

Giuseppe Cozza-Luzi

Cracow

Pearl Mary Teresa Craigie

Richard Crashaw

Jean Crasset

Mrs. Augustus Craven

Gaspar de Crayer

Richard Creagh

Creation

Creationism

Credence

Lorenzo di Credi

Cree

Creed

Liturgical Use of Creeds

Creeks

Creighton University

Henri-Joseph Crelier

Diocese of Crema

Cremation

Diocese of Cremona

François de Crépieul

Crescens

Crescentius

Giovanni Mario Crescimbeni

Cresconius

Hugh Paulinus Serenus Cressy

Joseph Creswell

Joseph Crétin

Jacques Crétineau-Joly

Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur

Crib

Impediment of Crime

Diocese of Crisium

St. Crispina

Sts. Crispin and Crispinian

Bl. Crispin of Viterbo

Biblical Criticism

Historical Criticism

Carlo Crivelli

Croagh Patrick

Croatia

Giovanni Croce

Croia

Jean Croiset

Thomas William Croke

William Crolly

Cronan

Crosier

The Crosiers

Cross and Crucifix

Cross-Bearer

Brothers of the Cross of Jesus

Johann Crotus

Franciscan Crown

Crown of Thorns

Abbey of Croyland

Cruelty to Animals

Cruet

Bull of the Crusade

Crusades

Crutched Friars

Ramón de la Cruz

Crypt

Diocese of Csanád

Cuba

Diocese of Cuenca (Conca in Indiis)

Diocese of Cuenca (Conca)

Diocese of Cuernavaca

Juan de la Cueva

Culdees

Paul Cullen

Diocese of Culm

Jeremiah Williams Cummings

Martyrs of Cuncolim

Bl. Cunegundes

Diocese of Cuneo

André-Jean Cuoq

Cupola

Vicariate Apostolic of Curaçao

Curate

Curator

Cure of Souls

Diocese of Curityba do Parana

Curium

James Curley

Joseph Curr

John Curry

Cursing

Cursores Apostolici

Cursor Mundi

Curubis

Cusæ

Cush

Johannes Cuspinian

Custom (in Canon Law)

Custos

St. Cuthbert

Cuthbert

Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury

Diocese of Cuyabá

Diocese of Cuzco

Cybistra

Cyclades

Cydonia

Cyme

Cynewulf

Cynic School of Philosophy

St. Cyprian

Sts. Cyprian and Justina

St. Cyprian of Carthage

Cyprus

Cyrenaic School of Philosophy

Cyrene

Sts. Cyril and Methodius

St. Cyril of Alexandria

St. Cyril of Constantinople

St. Cyril of Jerusalem

Cyrrhus

Sts. Cyrus and John

Cyrus of Alexandria

Cyzicus

Czech Literature

Fernán Caballero

Nom de plume of Cecilia Böhl von Faber, a noted Spanish novelist; born at Morges, a small town in Switzerland, 25 December, 1796; died at Seville, 7 April, 1877. Her father was Nicolas Böhl von Faber, a German who had settled in Spain and enjoyed some reputation there as an author, and her mother was a native of Spain. She spent her early years in Germany and Italy, and came to Spain with her parents in 1813, settling at Cadiz. She was three times married and widowed, her first husband being Captain Planelles, who she married when she was barely seventeen. Having lost her husband shortly after her marriage, she became in 1822 the wife of the Marqués de Arco Hermoso, who died in 1835. Two years later she married Antonio Arrön de Ayala, a lawyer, and for a time Spanish Consul in Australia. After the death of her third husband, in 1863, she retired to the royal palace at Seville, where she was enabled to reside through the friendship and influence of her neighbour, the Duc de Montpensier. Fernán Caballero, who was much better known by her pseudonym than by her own name, was also a journalist, and at one time was a contributor to “LA Ilustraciön Española ya Americana.” But it was as a novelist that she made her reputation, her descriptive powers, in particular, being compared to those of Scott and Cooper. In 1849 she published her first novel, “La Gaviota,” which appeared originally in serial form in a newspaper. This work has been translated into several languages, the English version appearing in 1868 under the title of “The Sea Gull,” and it has probably been more widely read by foreigners than any Spanish book of the century. Following “La Gaviota” there appeared from her pen many novels and short stories in which she describes, with much charm, grace, and exactness, the types and customs of the different classes of Spanish society, especially in Andalusia. Under the general title “Cuadros Sociales” were published, with others “La Gaviota,” “Clemencia,” “La Familia de Albareda,” and “Elía.” Her complete works were published at Madrid (1860–61) in thirteen volumes.

VENTURA FUENTES

Raimundo Diosdado Caballero

Miscellaneous writer, chiefly ecclesiastical, born at Palma, in the island of Majorca, 19 June 1740; died at Rome, either 16 January 1830, or 28 April 1829. He entered the Society of Jesus 15 November, 1752, held the chair of literature in the Jesuit College at Madrid for several years, and was deported with the other Jesuits to Italy when the Society was suppressed in the Spanish dominions. In his new home father Caballero developed a varied literary activity. The following are the most important of his works:

“De Primá typographiae hispanicae aetate specimen” (Rome, 1793);

“Commentariola critica, primum de discipliná arcani, secundum de linguá evangelicá” (Rome, 1798). The author corrects in this work what he considers to be the mistakes of Schelstrate and Hardouin, and proves that the native tongue of Christ and the Apostles was Syriac, not Greek, as Dominicus Diodati (d. 1801) had maintained in his “De Christo loquente exercitatio” (Naples, 1767).

“Bibliothecae Scriptorum Societatis Jesu supplementa. Supplementum primum” (Rome, 1814), “Supplementum primum” (Rome, 1814), “Supplementum alterum” (Rome, 1816);

Father Caballero shows his Scriptural knowledge in his “Tetraglotton D. Marei Evangelium, et Marcologia critica”; “El Evangelio de S. Marcos escrito en latin, griego y hebreo, con los tres alfabetos.”

Not to mention several historical works, we may add here his writings on American subjects: “Observaciones americanas, y supplemento critico á la historia de México”; “Medios para estrechar más la union entre espanoles americanos y europeos”; “Consideraciones americanas.”

SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c. de J., II, 481 sqq. (Brussels, 1891); HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1895), III. 874.

A.J. MAAS

Juan Caballero y Ocio

Born at Querétaro, Mexico, 4 May, 1644; died there 11 April, 1707. A priest remarkable for lavish gifts to the Church and for charity. While still a layman he was a mayor of his native city. After taking Holy Orders he held several high offices. He gave large sums of money to several churches, and founded and endowed in his native city the church and college of the Jesuits, enlarged the Franciscan hurch, built the Dminican church and convent, constructed the Chapel of Our Lady of Loretto, to which he gave all his family jewels, founded the convent of Capuchin nuns, and built a hospital or infirmary in St. Francis’ convent. He gave dowries to more than two hundred girls, and left large sums of money for daily charities. In the city of Mexiico he rebuilt the church of Santa Clara and contributed generously to the construction of the churches of Sts. Philip Neri and Belen. In Guadalajara he finished the church of St. Dominic, and for the missions of the newly discovered California he gave $150,000. Some years before his death he bequethed his property for charitable purposes. He was remarkable for his humility and piety. He refused two bishoprics which were offered to him at different times, and the title of Adelantado (governor) of California, which the King of Spain sent him, after his generous donation to those missions. Every year he used to make a spiritual retreat, drawing at the same time his last will, and becoming the executor of his pious bequests until he renewed them the following year. Almighty God seemed to bless his charity, and the sums he left for charitable purposes were wonderfully preserved and increased for a century and a half, until the general spoliation of the Church of Mexico.

SIGUENZA Y GONGORA, Glorias de Queretaro (Mexico, 1690); OROZCO Y BERRA, Apendice al Diccionario Universal (Mexico, 1856).

MONTES DE OCA Y OBREGÓN

Cabasa

A titular see of Egypt. About seven and one-half miles north of Sais (ruins at Ssa el-Haggar) stands a little village called Shabas-Sounkour, or Shabas as-Shoada. It has been rightly identified with the see that figures in a Coptic-Arabian episcopal list of the seventh century under the names Shabas-Sanhoul and Gabaseos-tivari-Khevasen. Ptolemy (IV, v, 48) calls it Kabasa, and says it is the capital of the fifth nomos (Kabasites). The city is also known by its coins. It is mentioned by Pliny (V, ix, 9), Georgius Cyprius (ed. Gelzer, 730), and Hierocles (724,5). Parthey (ed.), “Notitia Prima,” about 840, gives it as the metropolis of Aegyptus Secunda. Two of its bishops are known: Theopemptus, present at Ephesus in 431 and 449, and Macarius, an opponent of Dioscorus at Chalcedon in 451.

DE ROUGE, Geographie ancienne de la Basse-Egypte (Paris, 1891), 24, 152; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geog. (London, 1878), I, 462.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Jean Cabassut

(CABASSUTIUS.)

French theologian and priest of the Oratory, born at Aix in 1604, died there, 1685. He excelled equally in learning and holiness of life. He entered the Oratory at the age of twenty-one and thought devoted to his labour he was always ready to interrupt even his most favourite study to assist the needy. He had taught canon law at Avignon for some time, when Cardinal Grimaldi, Archbishop of Aix, took him as companion to Rome, where Father Cabassut remained about eighteen months. Returning to Aix, he became a distinguished writer on questions of ecclesiastical history, canon law, and moral theology. St. Alphonsus considers him classical. He was a probabiliorist in his moral solutions. The folowing of his works are worthy of note: “Notitia Conciliorum” (Lyons, 1668). Cardinal Grimaldi induced the writer to enlarge this work and publish it under the title, “Notitia ecclesiastica historiarum, conciliorum et canonum invicem collatorum,” etc. (Lyons, 1680, and other dates; Munich, 1758; Tournai, 1851, 3 vols.). Often modified and enlarged, it was once, under the title “Cabassutius,” an authority for the history of councils. A compendium of the “Notitia” appeared at Louvain, 1776. “Theoria et Praxis Juris Canonici” etc. (Lyons, 1660, and other dates; Rouen, 1703; Venice, 1757).

HURTER, Nomenclator, II, 501; PUNKES in Kirchenlex., II, 1641; BATTEREL, Mem. pour servir a Phist. de l’Orat. (Paris, 1903), III, 396–412.

A.J. MAAS

Miguel Cabello de Balboa

A secular priest, born at Archidona in Spain, dates of birth and death unknown. In 1566 he emigrated to Peru in South America; from here he went to Quito, Ecuador, where he began to write the “Miscelánea Antárctica,” finishing it at Lima in 1586. Nothing else is known of him except that, in the years 1602–1603, he wrote a letter giving valuable details concerning the regions of Pelechuco and Apolobamba in eastern Bolivia, between the Andes and the Beni River. In this letter he does not explicitly state that he visited those districts, but the information imparted is such as to imply this. The letter is taken from a book written by Father Cabello of which nothing else is known.

The “Miscelánea Antárctica,” however, is an important source. Unfortunately, most of it remains in manuscript. Only the third part has been published in French by Ternaux Compans. The original was (1853) in possession of the celebrated historiographer Don Joaquin Garcia Ycazbalceta at Mexico. A complete copy also exists at the Lenox Branch of the New York Public Library. It contains Indian traditional records of the coming to South America of white men who are said to have preached the Gospel to the aborigines; also a theory that the Indians of Patagonia and Chile are the descendants of pirates of Macassar. The legendary history of the Inca tribe is expounded at length, and the origin of the Inca given in a manner somewhat at variance with the accounts of other Spanish authors.

TERNAUX COMPANS, Histoire du Pérou (tr. of part of CABELLO’S book) furnishes a few biographical data. More is told in the Diccionario universal de Historia (Mexico, 1853); LEóN Y PINELO, Epítome (1737–1738), has a short notice of the work.

On the missions to the Bolivian Andes and Apolobamba, see the letter by CABELLO in Relaciones geográficas de Indias (Madrid, 1885), II; MENDIBURú, Diccionario etc. (Lima, 1876), II, gives only meagre information.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca

Born at Jerez de la Frontera in Andalusia, Spain; dates of birth and death uncertain.

The family were originally peasants and called themselves Alhaja until after the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (11 July, 1212), when they were ennobled for service that contributed to the important victory which the kings of Castile, Aragon, and Navarre achieved over the Moors. One of the Alhajas informed the Christians of a mountain pass by which the position of the Arabs could be turned, and indicated the entrance by placing the skull of a cow near it. Hence the change of name and the coat of arms.

Alvar Nuñez joined the expedition of Pámfilo de Narvaez to Florida in 1526 as treasurer. With two other Spaniards and an Arab Moor, he was the only survivor who remained on the mainland. For eight years they roamed along the coasts of Louisiana and Texas under the greatest of hardships, their position among the Indians being wellnigh intolerable. In utter despair, Cabeza de Vaca at last tried his scanty knowledge of medicine and, his cures proving successful, he became a renowned medicine man among the natives, his companions following the example. The treatment to which they resorted partook of the nature of a faith-cure. He declares the sign of the cross to be a seldom-failing remedy. The belief of the outcasts in miracles was sincere, while acknowledging that they also employed indigenous Indian remedies with simple Christian religious ceremonials. After nine years they reached the Pacific coast in Sonora, Mexico, thus being the first Europeans to travel across the North American continent. Cabeza de Vaca arrived at the city of Mexico in 1536. He was also the first European who saw and described the American bison or buffalo. But the wanderers did not, as had been supposed, see the New Mexican pueblos. They only heard of them.

Returning to Spain in 1537, he obtained the post of Governor of the La Plata regions (Argentina), whither he went in 1541. Cabeza de Vaca was a trustworthy subaltern, but not fit for independent command. His men rebelled against him in 1543, took him prisoner, and sent him to Spain, where for eight years he was kept in mild captivity. The date of his death is not known, but it is stated that he ended his days at Seville, where he occupied an honourable and modestly lucrative position in connection with the American trade.

He wrote two works. One is the story of his first trials in America as a member of the expedition of Narvaez, which was published at Zamora in 1542, and is known under the title of Naufragios (reprinted 1555 and several times translated into English); the other is on his career in South America (published 1555) and called Comentarios. Both are valuable for the history of Spanish colonization, the former also for the customs and manners of North American Indians.

There is hardly a work on the history of North America extant that does not allude, more or less correctly, to Cabeza de Vaca, and the same may be stated in regard to histories of Argentina and Paraguay. The earliest publications are of course those written by himself, his La Relacion que dio Aluar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca de lo acaescido en las Indians en la armada donde yua por gouernador Pamphilo de Narbaez etc. (Zamora, 1542), only two copies of which are known to exist, and La Relacion y comentarios del gouernador Aluar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca (Valladolid, 1555).

OVIEDO, Hist. general y natural (Madrid, 1850), gives the text of the above with some modifications, adding a communication written while on the way to Europe. In Documentos inéditos de Indias, there are a few more documents; RAMUSIO, Delle Navigazioni e Viaggi (Venice, 1556), an Italian version. There is a French translation by TERNAUX COMPANS, both of the Naufrages and the Commentaires. English translations: PURCHAS, His Pilgramage (London 1625–26, title, Relation of the Fleet in India, whereof Pamphilus Naruaez was Governor); SMITH, tr. (Washington, 1851): reprinted by John Gilmary Shea (New York, 1871). A paraphrase of the work has been given by KINGSLEY, Tales of Old Travels (London, 1869). FANNY BANDELIER has published the journey of Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca (New York, 1905), a translation of the 1542 edition of the Naufragios.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

John & Sebastian Cabot

JOHN CABOT

(Giovanni Cabota of Gabota.)

A celebrated navigator and the discoverer of the American mainland, born in the first half of the fifteenth century at Genoa; date of death unknown. In 1461 he went to Venice and, after living there fifteen years, the prescribed residence for obtaining citizenship, was naturalized, 28 March, 1476. For this reason he is generally called a Venetian. On his commercial journeys, which took him to the shores of Arabia, he heard of the countries rich in spices which lay to the far East. This may have led him to conceive the plan of a great voyage of discovery. About 1490 he went to England with his three sons, Ludovico, Sebastiano, and Sancto, and settled there as an experienced seaman. he may have inspired the expedition that sailed from Bristol in 1491 to find the fabulous isles of the West. When the success of Christopher Columbus became known, Cabot acquainted himself most carefully with the theories and opinions of his countryman, and finally offered to do for England what Columbus had done for Spain. By letters patent of 5 March, 1496, King Henry VII granted Cabot and his three sons the right to seek islands and countries of the heathen towards the west, east, and north, with five ships under the English flag. Cabot began his preparations for the voyage at once and sailed from Bristol early in May, 1497, on the ship Matthew, with eighteen men, among whom may have been his son Sebastian. After sailing for fifty days, mainly in a westerly direction, they reache the American mainland, 24 June, 1497, that is, before Columbus. According to the chart of Sebastian Cabot (1544), the land was in the vincinity of Cape Breton Island. Some investigators, however, assert that this entry of the younger Cabot is a falsification to support the English claim to possession, and they place the spot where the landing was made in Labrador. On 26 June Cabot began his return voyage; towards the end of July or the first week of August he reached England, where he received a warm welcome. Letters patent of 3 February, 1498, empowered him to undertake a second expedition. This was made up of five ships and three hundred men, and set sail some time before 25 July, 1498. They first went north, apparently as far as 67° N. lat.; drifting ice forced them to turn, and they sailed along the east coast of America past Newfoundland, which Cabot named Bacallaos, as far as the latitude of Cape Hatteras, as is learned from the chart of Juan de la Cosa (1500). No furthur information has been preserved of Cabot, even as to his return from this expedition. Nevertheless, existing data, although scanty, suffice to assure John Cabot a place among the greatest discoverers.

Sebastian

Son of John Cabot. Born probably in Venice c. 1474; died 1557, or soon after. As already stated, he may have taken part in the first expedition of his father. In 1512 he was in the employ of Henry VIII of England as cartographer; in the same year he accompanied Willoughby to Spain, where he received the rank of Captain from King Ferdinand V. After Ferdinand’s death he returned to England, where, in 1517, he tried in vain to win the favour of Vice-Admiral Perte for a new expedition. In 1522, although once more in the employ of Spain and holding the rank of pilot-major, he secretly offered his services to Venice, undertaking to find the north-west passage to China. Finally he received the rank of captain general from Spain, and was entrusted, 4 March, 1525, with the command of a fleet which was to find Tarshish, Ophir, and the far eastern country of Cathay, and also to discover the way to the Moluccas. The expedition consisted of three ships with 150 men, and set sail from Cadiz, 5 April, 1526, but only went as far as the mouth of the Rio de la Plata. Cabot here went ashore and left behind his companions, Francisco de Rojas, Martin Mendez, and Miguel de Rodas, with whom he had quarrelled; he explored the Parana River as far as its junction with the Paraguay and built two forts. In August, 1530, he returned to Spain, where he was at once indicted for his conduct towards his fellow commanders and his lack of success, and was condemned, 1 February, 1532, to a banishment of two years to Oran in Africa. After a year he was pardoned and went to Seville; he remained pilot-major of Spain until 1547, when without losing either the title or the pension, he left Spain and returned to England, where he received a salary with the title of great pilot. In the year 1553 Charles V made unsuccessful attempts to win him back. In the meantime Cabot had reopened negotiations with Venice, but he reached no agreement with that city. After this he aided both with information and advice the expedition of Willoughby and Chancellor, was made life-governor of the “Company of Merchant Adventurers,” and equipped (1557) the expedition of Borough. After this, nothing more is heard of him; he probably died soon afterwards.

The account of his journeys written by himself has been lost. All that remains of his personal work is a map of the world drawn in 1544; one copy of this was found in Bavaria, and is still preserved in the National Library at Paris. This map is especially important for the light it throws on the first journey of his father. The character of Sebastian Cabot does not leave a favourable impression; restless and unscrupulous, he busied himself with the most varied projects, and was ready to enter into relations with any country from which he might hope to gain the realization of his schemes. The country most indebted to him is England, where he roused enthusiasm for great undertakings; with his father he laid the foundation of the English supremacy at sea.

The accounts of the journeys of John and Sebastian Cabot were collected by Richard Hakluyt in his work “The Principle Navigations, Voyages” etc., and have been recently published in an extra series of the Hakluyt Society (Glasgow, 1904), VII, 141–158. In the same series appears “Ordinances, Instructions, and Advertisements of and for the Direction of the intended Voyage for Cathay, compiled, made and delivered by. . . . Sebastian Cabota” (Glasgow, 1903), II, 195–205. Cabot’s picture, apparently by Holbein, appears on page 240 of this latter volume.

WINSHIP, Cabot Bibliography (London, 1900), gives a list of the extensive bibliography on the subject in 579 titles; BIDDLE, Memoir of Sebastian Cabot (London, 1831); D’AVEZAC, Les navigateurs terre-neuviens Jean et Sébastien Cabot (Paris, 1869); NICHOLLS, Life, Adventures, and Discoveries of Sebastian Cabot (London, 1869); HARRISSE, Jean et Sébastien Cabot (Paris, 1882); IDEM, The Discovery of North America (Paris, 1892); MARKHAM, ed. and tr., The Journal of Christopher Columbus and Documents Relating to the Voyages of John Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real (London, 1893), No. 86 of the publications of the Hakluyt Society; BEAZLEY, John and Sebastian Cabot (London, 1898); The Voyages of Columbus and of J. Cabot, ed. BOURNE (New York, 1906).

OTTO HARTIG

Francisco Cabral

Portugese missionary in Japan, born in the castle of Govillou, Diocese of Guarda, Portugal, 1529; died at Goa, 1609. In 1554 he entered the Society of Jesus, and after his studies went to Japan, where he laboured strenuously to propogate the Christian religion. There he enjoyed the friendship of princes and kings, many of whom, together with their subjects, were won over to the Faith by his zealous labours. He filled very important places in the government of his order, being superior of Japan for twelve years, master of novices, and rector of the College of San Pablo of Goa, and finally visitor to India. He died at the age of eighty-one with a great repute for prudence and holiness.

Varones Ilustres de la Compañía de Jesús (2nd ed., Bilbao, 1887), I, 655–63.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Pedralvarez Cabral

(Pedro Alvarez.)

A celebrated Portugese navigator, generally called the discoverer of Brazil, born probably around 1460; date of death uncertain. Very little is known concerning the life of Cabral. He was the third son of Fernao Cabral, Governor of Beira and Belmonte, and Isabel de Gouvea, and married Isabel de Castro, the daughter of the distinguished Fernando de Noronha. He must have had an exellent training ini navigation and large experience as a seaman, for King Emmanuel of Portugal considered him competent to continue the work of Vasco da Gama, and in the year 1500 placed him in command of a fleet which was to set sail for India. His commision was to establish permanent commercial relations and to introduce Christianity wherever he went, using force of arms when necessary to gain his point. The nature of the undertaking led rich Florentine merchants to contribute to the equipment of the ships, and priests to join the expedition. Among the captains of the fleet, which consisted of thirteen ships with 1,200 men, were Bartolomeu Diaz, Pero Vaz de Caminha, and Nicolao Coelho, the latter the companion of da Gama. Da Gama himself gave the directions necessary for the course of the voyage.

The fleet left Lisbon, 9 March, 1500, and following the course laid down, sought to avoid the calms of the coast of Guinea. On leaving the Cape Verde Islands, where Luis Pirez was forced by a storm to return to Lisbon, they sailed in a decidedly southwesterly direction. On 22 April a mountain was visible, to which the name of “Mt. Paschoal” was given; on the 23rd Coelho landed on the coast of Brazil, and on the 25th the entire fleet sailed into the harbor called “Porto Seguro.” Cabral perceived that the new country lay east of the line of demarcation made by Alexander VI, and at once sent Andreas Gonçalvez (according to other authorities Gaspar de Lemos) to Portugal with the important tidings. Believing the island to be an island he gave it the name of “Island of Vera Cruz” and took possession of it by erecting a cross and holding a religious service. The service was celebrated by the Franciscan, Father Henrique, afterwards Bishop of Ceuta, on the island called Coroa Vermelha in the bay of Cabralia. Cabral resumed his voyage 3 May; by the end of the month the fleet approached the Cape of Good Hope, where it was struck by a storm in which four vessels, including that of Bartolomeu Diaz, were lost. With the ships now reduced to one-half of the original number, Cabral reached Sofala, 16 July, and Mozambique, 20 July; in the latter place he received a cordial greeting. On 26 July he came to Kilwa where he was unable to make an agreement with the ruler; on 2 August he reached Melinde; here he had a friendly welcome and obtained a pilot to take him to India. At Calicut, where he arrived 13 September, he met with many obstacles, so that he was obliged to bombard the town for two days; in Cochin and Kananur, however, he succeeded in making advantageous treaties. Cabral started on the return voyage, 16 January, 1501, and arrived at Lisbon, 31 July, or, as is sometiimes given, 23 June. On the way home he met Pero Diaz whom he had dispatched, during his voyage, to Magadoxo, and in September the last of his ships, in command of Sancho de Toar whom he had sent to Sofala, returned to Lisbon. Of his later life nothing is known.

The authorities for the voyage of discovery of Cabral are contained in the reports of eyewitnesses, especially in the letter of VAZ DE CAMINHA to King Emmanuel, of which the original was discovered in 1790. This letter was first published by CAZAL in his Corografía brazilica (1817), I, 12–34; the best edition is in the Revista do Instituto Historico Geographico do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro, 1877), XL, Pt. II, 12–37. Another narrative is that of a pilot, published by RAMUSIO in his Delle Navig. e Viaggi (Venice, 1563), I, 1221–127. There is also a description of the voyage in BARROS, Asia (Lisbon, 1552), Dec. I, lib. V, i-x; in FARIO Y SOUSA, Asia Port., I, 1, v, 45–49, and in the writings of other historians. VARNHAGEN, Historia geral do Brazil (Rio de Janeiro, 1854), I; Materials for a Biography in Revista do Instituto Histor. Geog. do Brasil (1843), V, 496–98; BALDAQUE DA SILVA, O Descobrimento do Brazil por Pedro Alvarez Cabral (Lisbon, 1892).

OTTO HARTIG

Estévan (Juan) Cabrillo

A Portugese in the naval service of Spain, date and place of birth unknown; died on the island of San Bernardo, 3 Jan., 1543. In 1541 Pedro de Alvarado gathered a fleet of twelve vessels on the coast of Western Mexico (Navidad) for an expedition to the Moluccas. Alvarado was soon after killed in the assault on the rock of Nochiztlan (Jalisco), defended by hostile Indians. The Viceroy Mendoza then sent most of the squadron under the command of Villalobos to the Moluccas, and two of the largest vessels to the north along the coast, appointing Cabrillo as commander. The latter sailed from Navidad in 1542, coasting slowly upwards owing to contrary winds. In the course of his voyage he discovered Santa Catalina, the Santa Barbara channel, Monterey, Cape Mendocino, and the Oregon coast as far as latitude 43°, thus being the discoverer of Oregon and of the entire California coast. Scurvy having broken out among the crew to a violent degree, Cabrillo could make but a short stay on the shores of Oregon and Northern California, and had to turn back.

His character was distinguished by many honourable features, and his treatment of the aborigines on the voyage was particularly kind and generous. Nothing else is known of him, except that he was brought up a Catholic and remained in the Faith to the time of his death. The report of Cabrillo has been printed in the “Colección de documentos para la historia de de España.” To that collection and to the “Colección de documentos de Indias” (both printed at Madrid, and very volumnious) the reader must be referred for collateral information. The map of Cabrillo was published by Archbishop Lorenzana (1770). His voyage is mentioned more or less extensively in every work of importance on the early history of North America.

H.H. BANCROFT, History of the Pacific States; CLINCH, California and Its Missions (San Francisco, 1904); BERISTAIN DE SOUZA, Biblioteca hispano-americana septentrional (Amecameca, 1883).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Cadalous

Bishop of Parma and antipope, born in the territory of Verona of noble parentage; died at Parma, 1072. After the death of Nicholas II, 1061, the cardinals, under the direction of Hildebrand, met in legal form and without any reference to the German Court, elected (30 Sept.) Alexander II, who as Anselm, Bishop of Lucca, had been one of the leaders of the reform party. Twenty-eight days after Alexander’s election an assembly of bishops and notables (enemies of reform), convoked at Basle by the Empress Agnes as regent for her son Henry IV, and presided over by the Imperial Chancellor Wilbert, chose as antipope the ambitious prelate of Parma, Cadalous, who assumed the name of Honorius II (Oct. 28). In the spring of 1062 Cadalous with his troops marched towards Rome, whither the imperial agent, Benzo, Bishop of Alba, a clever but unscrupulous man, had been sent in advance to prepare the way. On 14 April a brief but sanguinary conflict took place, in which the forces of Alexander were worsted and Cadalous got possession of the precincts of St. Peter’s. The arrival, however, of Godfrey, Duke of Tuscany, in May, forced the antipope to withdraw to Parma, Alexander II at the same time engaging to return to his see in Lucca, there to await the result of Godfrey’s mediation with the German Court.

In Germany, meanwhile, a revolution had taken place. Anno, the powerful Archbishop of Cologne, had seized the regency, and the Empress Agnes retired to the convent at Fructuaria in Piedmont. Having declared himself against Cadalous, the new regent at the Council of Augsburg, Oct., 1062, secured the appointment of an envoy to be sent to Rome for the purpose of investigating Alexander’s election. The envoy, Burchard, Bishop of Halberstadt (Anno’s nephew), having pronounced favourably upon the election, Alexander II was recognized as the lawful pontiff, and his rival, Cadalous, excommunicated (1063). The antipope did not, however, abandon his claims. At a counter-synod held at Parma he hurled back the ban and having gathered about him an armed force, once more proceeded to Rome, where he established himself in the Castle of Sant’ Angelo and for more than a year defied the power of Alexander at the Lateran. His cause at length becoming hopeless he fled to his Bishopric of Parma. The Council of Mantua, Pentecost, 1064, practically ended the schism by anathematizing Cadalous and formally declaring Alexander II to be the legitimate successor of St. Peter. Cadalous, however, maintained his pretensions to the day of his death.

JAFFÉ, Regesta PP. Rom. (2nd ed.), I, 593 sq.; WILL, Benzos Panegyrikus auf Heinrich IV (Marburg, 1856); HEFELE, Conciliengesch. (2d ed.), IV, 850–882; FETZER, Voruntersuchungen zu einer Gesch. des Pontifikats Alexanders II (Strasburg, 1887); MUNERATI, Sulle origini dell’ antipapa Cadalo (Honorius II) vescovo di Parma in Rivista delle scienze storiche (Pavia, 1906).

THOMAS OESTREICH

Caddo Indians

An important group of closely cognate and usually allied tribes formerly holding a considerable territory in Western Louisiana and Eastern Texas, entering upon the Red, Sabine, and Neches Rivers. In the earlier period they were commonly known to the Spaniards as Tejas, whence the name of the State, and to the French as Cenis or Assinais. Of some twenty small tribes, the principal were the Nashitosh (Natchitoches), Yatasi, and Adai (Adayes), in Louisiana, and the Kodohadacho (Caddodaquio or Caddo proper), Hainai or Hasinai (Assinai), Nakohodotsi (Nacogdoches), Nadako (Anadarko), and Hai-ish (Alliche), in Texas. The Caddo were a semi-sedentary and agricultural people, living in large, conical, communal, grass-thatched houses, and cultivating abundant crops of corn, beans, and pumpkins. Their men were brave, but not aggressive, while their women were expert potters and mat weavers. In general culture they were on a plane with the Choctaw, Creeks, and other tribes of the Gulf States, and far superior to the moving tribes of the Plains, or the fish-eaters of the Texas Coast. They had a fully developed clan system with ten clans, in which descent followed the female line. All but one of these (The Sun) were named from animals, and no Caddo would dare to kill the animal from which his clan derived its name. The eagle also was held sacred and might be killed, for its feathers, only by the regularly appointed priest and after certain propitiatory ceremonies. Their religion savoured of the bloody rites of the Natchez and Aztecs, including cannibalism.

The French officer, La Harpe, describes one of these savage ceremonies which he witnessed while sojourning in their villages in 1712. A large war-party had arrived from an expedition against a western tribe, bringing with them two prisoners, all that remained of six unfortunates, the others having been eaten on the way. The prisoners were closely guarded in the open air, as, according to tribal custom, a captive who had once entered a Caddo house was therefore free and safe from harm. Two frames were quickly prepared by planting two pairs of stout uprights in the earth about four feet apart, with cross-pieces about one foot and nine feet from the ground. To these frames the doomed men were then fastened, with their outstretched arms bound to the cross-pieces above their heads, and with their whole weight hanging upon the cords. AFter hanging thus for about half an hour, facing the rising sun, they were taken down and compelled to dance for their persecutors. At evening, having been all day without food, they were again tied up in the same way, facing the setting sun. The next morning they were again suspended from the frames, this time with their faces looking for the last time upon the rising sun, while the whole tribe gathered around forthe final tragedy. Fires were lighted by each family and large earthen pots filled with water were placed over the blaze. Two old men, each bearing in one hand a knife and in the other an earthen bowl, then advanced upon the helpless victims and stabbedthem repeatedly ntil the blood gushed out in streams and was caught in the bowls held below. This was then poured into a pot and cooked until clotted, when it was eaten by the priests. The bodies were then dismembered and a portion given to each family, by whom it was at once cooked and eaten. The cannibal orgy concluded with a dance. Such was the savagery which the missionaries challenged.

Cabeza de Vaca may have met some of the Caddo in his aimless wanderings in Texas before 1536. De Soto’s expedition entered their territory in 1541–2, and about the middle of the next century another Spanish expedition reached their country from Santa Fe. In 1687 the French explorers La Salle and Joutel came into friendly contact with their principal tribes. In May of 1690 the first mission among the Tejas was established under the name of San Francisco de los Tejas, on Trinity River, Texas, by a party of Franciscans under Father Damian Masanet. At this time the total population of the allied Caddo tribes must have been close to 10,000 souls, but in the winter of the same year a terrible epidemic, possibly of white origin, reduced their number by 3,000, or perhaps one-third, which, with other causes, led to the abandonment of the mission effort in 1693, after three stations had been established. Although the missionaries were thus temporarily withdrawn, the cattle which they had introduced among the Indians were left behind to increase, and thus augment their food resources and foster habits of industry. In 1716, the Indians having expressed a wish for the return of their teachers, Captain Diego Ramon, with an escort of troops and a party of twelve Franciscan priests and two lay brothers, came up from the Rio Grande, and after a friendly meeting with the chiefs concluded with them a treaty of peace on behalf of Spain. Four missions were at once established—San Francisco, Purisima Concepción, Guadalupe, and San Jose, among the Nakohodotsi, Hasinai, Neches, and Nasoni respectively—all within easy reach of Nacogdoches, where a small garrison was established. Later in the year the missions of Dolores and San Miguel de Cuellar were founded among the Hai-ish (Aes) and Adai, the last-named being within the present Louisiana, making six Caddo missions in all.

French hostility accomplished the abandonment and destruction of the missions the next year, but in 1721 five of them were re-established, with a strong Spanish post on their eastern frontier to keep out the French. The Indian population thus brought within mission influence was estimated at nearly 5,000, not including the bands on Red River. The missions reached their highest prosperity about the year 1760, when the Indian population attached to all the missions of Texas numbered about 15,000 souls. Then began a period of decline, brought about by the weakening of Spanish power, the increasing hostility of wild tribes, and the wasting of the Indians under new diseases, which led to the final abandonment of the Caddo missions in 1773. Five years later the whole region was swept by small-pox, by which more than one-half the population was destroyed in a few months. In 1801 another visitation reduced the Caddo to about 1,400. In 1835 those within Louisiana joined their kindred in Texas, then a separate government. Later difficulties with the Texans led to their removal, in 1859, to a reservation in Western Oklahoma. Here they still reside, being now legal citizens, upon individual allotments. They numbered 550 in 1906.

BANCROFT, History of the North American States and Texas (2 vols., San Francisco, 1886 and 1889); Annual Reports of Commissioner of Indian Affairs (Washington, 1831–1907); LA HARPE, Journal Historique de l’etablissement des Francais, etc. (6 vols., Paris, 1876–1886): narratives of JOUTEL, LA HARPE, LA SALLE, SAINT DENIS; MOONEY, The Messiah Religion and the Ghost Dance in Fourteenth Annual Rep. of Bureau of Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1896), part II; SIBLEY, Historical Sketches of the Several Indian Tribes in Louisiana (Washington, 1806).

JAMES MOONEY

Cades

The name, according to the Vulgate and the Septuagent, of three, or probably four cities mentioned in Scripture.

(1) Cades, or Cadesbarne [Heb. Qadesh “Holy,” and Q. Barnea; the meaning of Barnea is uncertain], a city on the extreme southern border of Palestine (Num., xx, 16; xxxiv, 4; Jos., xv, 3). In Psalms xxviii (xxix), 8 the name is extended to the surrounding desert. That Cades and Cadesbarne are one place is seen by comparing Num., xiii, 27, with Num., xxxii, 8, Deut., i, 19, etc. In Gen., xiv, 7, it is called En Mishpat (Vulg., fontem Misphat), “fountain of decision,” or “judgment,” which probably was its earlier name. The two names seem to indicated that a sanctuary with an oracle existed at the place in pre-Israelitic times. Cades, after Sinai, holds the most important place in the history of the forty years’ wandering of the Israelites in the desert. They came from Horeb (Sinai) through the desert of Pharan, after eleven days’ journey (Deut., i, 2, 19), with the intention of invading Chanaan from the south (Ib., i, 20 sq.). From here spies were sent to explore the country, and here, on their return, forty days after, the discouraging reports of all but Caleb and Josue provoked a mutiny which changed the course of events. In punishment the people were condemned to wander thirty-eight years more, and all who had reached manhood, except Caleb and Josue, were to die in the desert. To escape this fate the mass of the people, instead of obeying the command to return towards the Red Sea, left Moses at Cades and pushed northward with the purpose of penetrating into the Promised Land, but met with disastrous defeat near Horma (Num., xiii, 2—xiv, 45; Deut., i, 22–44). During the stay at Cades occured the death of Mary, the sister of Moses, and the second miraculous flow of water, on which latter occasion Moses and Aaron were excluded from the Land of Promise for their want of trust in God (Num., xx, 1–13). Cades was probably also the scene of the rebellion of Core, Dathan, and Abiron (Num., xvi). Lastly, it was from Cades that Moses, when about to begin the march to the table-land of Moab and the Jordan, sent to the King of Edom to obtain permission to pass this territory. The permission being refused, the Israelites were forced to turn aside from Edom, passing probably through Wady el-Ithm, at the southern end of the valley of the Arabah (Num., xx, 14 sqq.; Deut., ii, 1 sqq.).

Opinions differ about the length of the stay at Cades. Many hold that the command to retrace their steps towards the Red Sea was carried out after the defeat of the Israelites near Horma, and that they came to Cades a second time at the beginning of the fortieth year of wandering. The second stay is said to be indicated by Num., xx, 1 sqq. In this opinion the stations (seats of headquarters and of the tabernacle) in Num., xxxiii, 19–35, i.e. from Remmomphares to Asiongaber, belong to the years of wandering between the first and the second visit to Cades. It is more probable, however, that the headquarters and the tabernacle remained at Cades all these years, while the people roamed about in accordance with Deut., i, 40, ii, 1 sqq. In this case the stations up to Hesmona (Num., xxxiii, 29) would belong to the journey from Sinai to Cades; those following Hesmona, to the march towards Moab. The insertion of verses 36–40 after verse 29 would then seem necessary, but the change would clear up this part of the itinerary.

A good deal of controversy has existed concerning the site of Cades, no less than eighteen places having been proposed. This may now be considered as settled in favour of ‘Ain Qadis or Gadis, discovered by J. Rowlands in 1842, fifty miles south of Bersabee. Its only serious rival, ‘Ain el-Weibeh, on the western edge of the Arabah, forty-five miles farther east, which was advocated by Robinson and others, is now generally abandoned. ‘Ain Qadis (“Holy Well”) preserves the name Cades both in meaning and etymology, and best satisfies the scriptural data. These place Cades to the south of, and close to, the Negeb, the “south” (Num., xiii, 30), or “south country” (Gen., xx, 1) of our English version (Cf. Gen., xx, 1; Num., xiii, 23, 30; xiv, 43 sq.; Deut., i, 19, 20), in the Desert of Sin, which was north-east of the desert of Pharan (Cf. Num., xx, 1; xxvii, 14; xxxiii, 36; Deut., xxxii, 51), near the middle of the southern frontier of the land assigned to Israel (Num., xxxiv, 4; Jos., xv, 3). It must therefore be sought in the north of the barren plateau Badiet et-Tih, “the desert of wandering,” about midway between the Arabah and the Mediterranean, that is in the region in which ‘Ain Qadis is situated. Moreover, the position of ‘Ain Qadis, at a short distance from the junction of the main roads leading north, and its abundant supply of good water, a rare thing in the desert, are advantages which must have made it an important point, and which would be most likely to attract the Israelites. Num., xx, 2 sqq., is no objection to the identification. Cades, wherever situated, must have been near a supply of water. The miracle in all likelihood occurred at a distance from the town. Still, it is quite possible that the springs (there are several) may for some reason have temporarily run dry, and the cliff from underneath which issue the waters of ‘Ain Qadis may well be the rock struck by Moses’ rod. In the Vulgate text of Ecclus., xxiv, mention is made of the palms of Cades. But the readings, en Eggadois, en Gaddi, en Gaddois, found in some manuscripts, seem to show that Engaddi, where palms were abundant, was referred to the sacred writer. The Sixtine ed. of the Septuagent has en aiggialois, “on the seashore.”

(2) CADES [Heb. Qédésh “sanctuary”], a city of the Negeb or “south country” (Jos., xv, 23). It is sometimes identified with Cadesbarne, but is more probably distinct from it.

(3) CADES (or CEDES) OF THE HETHITES (HITITES), a city which critical conjecture substitutes for Hodsi II Kings, xxiv, 6. It is identified with Qodshu of Egyptian monuments, and is generally placed on the Lake of Homs (Emesa), Syria, at the point where the Orontes issues from it. (See also the article CEDES.)

(1)PALMER, the desert of the Exodus (New York, 1872), 236, 282, sq., 420 sq.; TRUMBULL, Kadesh Barnea (New York, 1884); HULL, Mt. Seir (London, 1889), 188; HOLLAND in Pal. Expl. Fund., Qu. St. (1879), 60; (1884) 9; ROBINSON in Biblic. World, XVII, 327 sq.; LAGRANGE in Rev. Bib. (1896), 440 sq.; (1899), 373; (1900), 273 sq.; GUTHE in Zeitschr. d. D. Pal. Ver. (1885), 182–232; LEGENDRE in Dict. de la Bible, II, 16–20.

(3) SAYCE, The Hitites (London, 1888), 100; TOMPKINS in Pal. Expl. Fund Qu. St. (1882), 47; CONDEN, ibid. (1881), 163–173; TOMPKINS in Transact. Bibl. Archoeol. (1882), 395, 401; LIPSIUS, Denkmaler, III, 158, 159, 164; VIGOUROUX in Dict. de la Bib., II, 367; ID., Melanges bibl. (2nd ed.), 340 sq., 351 sq.; HUMMELAUER, Com. in Lib. Sam., 448.

F. BECHTEL

Antoine de Lamothe, Sieur de Cadillac

Born at Toulouse in 1657; died at Castelsarrasin, 16 October, 1730. He was the son of a parliamentary councillor, and entered the army at the age of sixteen. Sent to Acadia in 1683 he served in the Port Royal garrison, studied the conditions of the English colonies, and in 1689 proposed the conquest of New York and Boston. He took part in the unsuccessful Caffinière expedition during which the English destroyed an establishment that he had just begun on Mt. Desert Island, given him in 1688 by Governor de Denonville, together with an estate at the mouth of the Union River on the coast of Maine. Despite his adventerous marriage at Quebec (1687) with Thérèse Guyon, the daughter of a wealthy merchant, he returned to France in financial straits. The king took him under his protection, and in 1691 sent him out to Frontenac, Governor of New France. The latter, meditating an attack on the coast of New England, used all the information he could obtain from the crafty and resourceful young officer, who prepared several memoirs for this special purpose. Under these influential patrons Cadillac advanced, and was successively made captain of an infantry, naval ensign, and, in 1694, commandant of Michillimakinac. In this last office he distinguished himself by his skill in controlling the savages of the West who threatened to unite with the Iriquois; but he likewise took advantage of his position to carry on illegal traffic, and quarraled with the Jesuits who endeavoured to prevent his abuses in the brandy traffic. Returning to Quebec in 1697 he wrote an interesting account of Michillimakinac, and was sent to France by Frontenac for the purpose of making known the latter’s views. Falling seriously ill, he promised to erect a chapel in the Franciscan church at Quebec, which promise he fulfilled in 1699. He then proposed to the Court to build a fortified post at the head of Lake Erie, thus to secure the line of fortifications from the West and prevent the Indians of the interior from trading with the English.

In June, 1701, Cadillac founded the city of Detroit, which he called Pont Chartrain in honour of his protector. Here he erected a church and a fort, attracted colonists, parceled out land, gathered the Indians, proposing to civilize them by having them intermarry with the French, and, in 1705, obtained a monopoly of the trade of this post, at first given to a special company. He next aimed at making Detroit “the Paris of New France,” suggested the cutting of a canal between Lakes Erie and Huron, and asked that the settlement be made a marquisat in his favour. Having become absolute master of Detroit, with the promise of being appointed its first governor, his ambition eventually led to his undoing. The merchants of Montreal complained that he was depriving their city of trade, Governor Vaudreuil objected to the power that he was arrogating to himself, and the Jesuits protested against abuses in his transactions with the Indians. Recalled to France in 1710, Cadillac subsequentially made Governor of Louisiana, where he arrived in 1712. Entering into partnership with Crozat, he devoted himself chiefly to mining and to trading with the Spaniards. However, in 1716 he was deposed, tried, and sentenced to the Bastille, whence he emerged in 1718, and was restored to favour. In 1722 he obtained a decree whereby he regained possession of his Detroit property and he was later made Governor of Castelsarrasin, department of Tarn and Garonne, where he died. His body was interred in the old Carmels church, since transformed into a prison. Cadillac was shrewd and far-seeing, and would have been capable of great things had not his career been blighted by a caustic temperament and an insatiable desire for gain.

Archives coloniales de France, series C., II; Acadie, II, carton 10; Canada, series C., II, XI-XXXI, series B., XIX-LXIII; Archives des affaires étrangères, Canada, IV; MARGE, Découv. et Etablis., V, 133–346; ROCHEMONTEIX, Jésuits et Nouv. France au 18e siècle, I, 59–74, 242; SULTE, Hist. Can. Franc., VI, viii; RAMEAU, Notes historiques sur la colonie canadienne du Détroit (1861); VERREAU, Quelques notes sur Antoine Lamothe de Cadillac in Revue Canadienne (1883); BURTON, A Sketch of the Life of Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac (Detroit, 1895); IDEM, In the Footsteps of Cadillac (1899).

J. EDMOND ROY

Diocese of Cadiz

(Gaditana et Septensis.)

Suffragan of Seville. Its jurisdiction covers nearly all the civil province of Cadiz; only a few places, like Sanlucar, belong to the Diocese of Seville, or, like Grazalema, to that of Malaga. Cadiz (369,382) is the residence of the bishop, and is situated on the Isle of Leon, separated from the mainland by a narrow and torturous channel; very high and thick walls surrounded the city, which from the sea presents a very picturesque appearance. The greater part of the old town was consumed in the conflagration of 1569. The city was retaken in 1262 from the Moors, and raised by Urban IV to episcopal rank in 1263 at the request of Alfonso X. Its first bishop was Fray Juan Martinez. After the Christians had won from the Moors the Plaza (stronghold) de Algeciras, the ordinaries of Cadiz bore the title of Bishop of Cadiz and Algeciras, granted by Clement VI in 1352. This see counted amongst its prelates in 1441 Cardinal Fray Juan de Torquemada, an eminent Dominican theologian jurisconsult, who took a leading part in the Councils of Basle and Florence, and defended in his “Summe de Ecclesiâ” the direct power of the pope in temporal matters. By the Concordat of 1851 the Diocese of Ceuta, also suffragen of Seville, was suppressed and incorporated with that of Cadiz, whose bishop is regularly Apostolic Administrator of Ceuta. There are in Cadiz 32 parishes and 110 priests; in Ceuta, 22 parishes, 26 priests, and 11,700 inhabitants.

CASTRO, Historia de Cadiz y su provincia (Cadiz, 1858), 207–8, 222, 248; LA FUENTE, Hist. ec. ca de Espana (Madrid, 1873–75), IV, 290; URRUTIA, Descripcion historico-artistico de la catedral de Cadiz (Cadiz, 1843).

EDUARDO DE HINOJOSA

St. Caedmon

Author of Biblical Poems in Anglo-Saxon, date of birth unknown; died between 670 and 680. While Caedmon’s part in the authorship of the so-called Caedmonian poems has been steadily narrowed by modern scholarship, the events in the life of this gifted religious poet are definitively established by the painstaking Bede, who lived in the nearby monastery of Wearmouth in the following generation (see BEDE). Bede tells us (Hist. Eccles., Bk. IV, ch. xxiv) that Caedmon, whose name is perhaps Celtic (Bradley), or a Hebrew or Chaldaic pseudonym (Palgrave, Cook), was at first attached as a labourer to the double monastery of Whitby (Streoneshalh), founded in 657 by St. Hilda, a friend of St. Aidan. (See AIDAN.) One night, when the servants of the monastery were gathered about the table for good-fellowship, and the harp was passed from hand to hand, Caedmon, knowing nothing of poetry, left the company for shame, as he had often done, and retired to the stable, as he was assigned that night to the care of the draught cattle. As he slept, there stood by him in vision one who called him by name, and bade him sing. “I cannot sing, and therefore I left the feast.” “Sing to me, however, sing of Creation.” Thereupon Caedmon began to sing in praise of God verses which he had never heard before. Of these verses, called Caedmon’s hymn, Bede gives the Latin equivalent, the Alfredian translation of Bede gives a West-Saxon poetic version, and one manuscript of Bede appends a Northumbrian poetic version, perhaps the very words of Caedmon. In the morning Caedmon recited his story and his verses to Hilda and the learned men of the monastery, and all agreed that he had received a Divine gift. Caedmon, having further shown his gift by turning into excellent verse some sacred stories recited to him, yielded to the exhortation of Hilda that he take the monsastic habit. He was taught the whole series of sacred history, and then, like a clean animal ruminating, turned it into sweet verse. His poems treated of Genesis, Exodus, and stories from other books of the Old Testament, the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension, the Descent of the Holy Ghost, the teaching of the Apostles, the Last Judgment, Hell and Heaven. Bede ends his narrative with an account of Caedmon’s holy death. According to William of Malmesbury, writing 1125, he was probably buried at Whithy, and his sanctity was attested by many miracles. His canonization was probably popular rather than formal.

The Caedmonian poems, found in a unique tenth-century manuscript, now in the Bodleian Library, were first published and ascried to Caedmon in 1655 by Francis Junius (du Jon), a friend of Milton, and librarian to the Earl of Arundel. The manuscript consists of poems on Genesis, Exodus, Daniel, and a group of poems in a different hand, now called collectively “Christ and Satan,” and containing the Fall of the Angels, the Descent into Hell, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the Last Judgment, and the Temptation in the Wilderness. The tendency among Anglo-Saxon scholars has been to deny the Caedmonian authorship of most of these poems, except part of the “Genesis,” called A, and parts of the “Christ and Satan.” In 1875 Professor Sievers advanced the theory, on grounds of metre, language, and style, that the part of the “Genesis” called B,11. 235–370, and11. 421–851, an evident interpolation, was merely a translation and recension of a lost Old Saxon “Genesis” poem of the ninth century, whose extant New Testament part is known as the “Heliand.” Old Saxon is the Old Low German dialect of the continental Saxons, who were converted in part from England. The Sievers theory, whose history is one of the brilliant episodes of modern philology, was established in 1894 by the discovery of fragments of an Old Saxon “Genesis.” (Parallel passages in Cook and Tinker.)

Bede tells us that many English writers of sacred verse had imitated Caedmon, but that none had equalled him. The literary value of parts of the Caedmonian poems is undoubtedly of a high order. The Bible stories are not merely paraphrased, but have been brooded upon by the poet until developed into a vivid picture, with touches drawn from the English life and landscape about him. The story of the flight of Israel resounds with the tread of armies and the excitement of camp and battle. The “Genesis” and the “Christ and Satan” have the glow of dramatic life, and the character of Satan is sharply delineated. The poems, whether we say they are Caedmon’s or of the school of Caedmon, mark a worthy beginning of the long and noble line of English sacred poetry.

BROOKE, Early English Literature (London, 1892); MORLEY, English Writers (London, 1888), I; KER, Dark Ages (New York, 1904); HAZLITT-WARTON, History of English Poetry (London, 1873); AZARIAS, Old English Thought (New York, 1879); LINGARD, Anglo-Saxon Church (London, 1852); TURNER, History of the Anglo-Saxons (London, 1803); TEN BRINK, English Literature (New York, 1882), I; IDEM, Geschichte der enlgischen Litteratur (Strasburg, 1899), 98 and app.; KÖRTING, Grundriss der englischen Litteratur (Münster, 1905); WöLCKER, Grundriss zur Geschichte der angelsächsischen Litt.; IDEM, Caedmon u. Milton, Anglia, IV, 40; MONTALEMBERT, Monks of the West (Edinburgh, 1861); Acta Sanctorum, 11 Feb.; SIEVERS, Der Heliand und die angelsächsische Genesis (Halle, 1875); PLUMMER, Hist. Eccl. Gentis Anglor. Bedae (Oxford, 1896); GREIN-WöLCKER, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Poesie (Kassel, 1894); MILLER, O. E. Version of Bede, with tr. (London, 1890), 95, 96; THORPE, Caedmon’s Metrical Paraphrase, etc., with Eng. Tr. (London, 1832); COOK AND TINKER, Translations from Old English (Boston, 1902); PALGRAVE in Archaeologia, XXIV, 341; COOK, Publications Modern Language Association, VI, 9; STEVENS in The Acadamy, 21 Oct., 1876; GURTEEN, Caedmon, Dante, and Milton (New York, 1896); ZANGMEISTER AND BRAUNE, Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher (1894), IV, 205; HOLTHAUSEN, Altsächsisches Elementarbuch (Heidelberg, May, 1900).

J. VINCENT CROWNE.

University of Caen

Founded in 1432 by Henry VI of England, who was then master of Paris and of a large part of France. In the beginning it included only faculties of canon and civil law. To these were added, in 1437, a faculty theology and a faculty of arts, and, in 1438, a faculty of medicine. The English having been repulsed from Paris, the purpose of these additions and of the many priviliges granted by Henry VI was to give the students the same advantages they would have found in Paris, and thus prevent their going to the university of the capital. On the petition of the Estates of Normandy, Pope Eugenius IV granted a Bull of erection to the university and appointed the Bishop of Bayeux as chancellor (30 May, 1437). All those admitted to degrees were required to take an oath of fidelity to the Roman Pontiff, and to pledge themselves never to attempt anything against the interests of the church. The ceremony of the solemn inauguration took place in 1439, the first rector being an Englishman, Michael of Tregury, afterwards Archbishop of Dublin. From the beginning the University of Paris opposed very strongly the founding of a university at Caen. In 1433 protests were sent to the chancellor of the kingdom and to the Parlement of Paris. The same year the delegates of the university to the council of Basle were instructed to ask for the suppression of the university at Caen. Later a petition was also sent to Eugenius IV. Notwithstanding this opposition, the university of Caen developed. In 1445 Henry VI declared it the only university in France enjoying the royal privileges. When Caen was conquered by the French in 1450, King Charles allowed the university to continue as before. It was, however, a mere toleration until the king should reach a final decision. This was given on 30 October, 1452, when Charles VII created anew the university of Caen and gave it a new charter, ignoring altogether its former charter and privileges, and granting the same privileges enjoyed by French universities. Like the other universities in France, the University of Caen disappeared at the time of the French Revolution. The present university, founded in 1894, was fifty instructors and 750 students.

RASHDALL, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1895), II, Pt. I, 194; FOURNIER, Les Statutes et privilèges des universités françaises (Paris, 1892), III, Pt. I, 145; DE BOURMONT, La foundation de l’université de Caen in Bulletin de la societé des antiquaires de Normandy (Caen, 1894), XII; CHEVALIER, Topo-bibliogr., 541.

C.A. DUBRAY

Cæremoniale Episcoporum

A book containing the rites and ceremonies to be observed at Mass, Vespers, and other functions, by bishops and prelates of inferior rank, in metropolitan, cathedral, and collegiate churches. It treats also of the manner of precedence among ecclesiastics and official lay persons. From the earliest centuries of the Church there were many books which contained the rites and ceremonies to be observed in the performance of ecclesiastical functions. Shortly after Sixtus V had instituted (1587) the Congregation of Sacred Rites and Ceremonies, Clement VIII appointed a commission of learned prelates to correct the “Cæremoniale Episcoporum,” which he promulgated by the Apostolic Letter “Cum novissime,” 14 July, 1600. When in course of time errors crept into this, Innocent X had it revised by a commission of cardinals, and by his Constitution “Etsi alias” (30 July, 1650) ordered it to be observed everywhere. A revised edition became necessary during the pontificate of Benedict XIII, which was promulgated by the Bull “Licet alias” (7 March, 1727). Benedict XIV caused an amended and augmented edition to be published, the observance of which he made obligatory by Apostolic Briefs (15 May, 1741; 25 March, 1752). Finally a typical edition was published under the auspices of the Congregation of Sacred Rites to which all other editions were to conform (S.R.C., 17 Aug., 1886).

The “Cæremoniale Episcoporum” is divided into three books. The first portion concerns what a, bishop must do after his election and immediately upon entrance into the diocese, regarding his ordinary dress, his duties and privileges, as indicated, when a legate, cardinal, nuncio, or other prelate is present (cc. i-iv); the duties of the master of ceremonies, sacristan, assistant priest, and other ministers of the bishop (cc.v-xi); the ornaments of the church and of the bishop’s throne (cc. xii-xiv); the ecclesiastical dress of the bishop and canons, and the manner of entering and leaving the church (c. xv); the pallium, mitre, and crosier (cc. xvi-xvii); reverences, genuflexions, and other ceremonies, and sernons during Mass and at funerals (cc. xviii-xxv); the manner of supplying the places of canons and other ministers at solemn services (c. xxvi); the orations and their chant, the organ and organist (cc. xxvii-xxviii); the low Mass of the bishop or low Mass celebrated in his presence (cc. xxix-xxx); the rites and ceremonies to be observed at synods. The second book treats of the Divine Office and of Mass throughout the year celebrated (a) by the bishop; (b) in his presence; (c) in cathedrals and collegiate churches when the bishop is absent (cc. i-xxxiv); the anniversary of the election and of the consecration of the bishop (c. xxxv); the anniversary of the death of his predecessor and of all the bishops and canons of the cathedral (cc. xxxvi-xxxvii); the last illness and death of the bishop and the prayers to be said for the election of his successor (c. xxxviii); the chant of the Confiteor, the form of publishing an indulgence, and the blessing given by the bishop after the sermon (c. xxxix). The third book treats of the formalities to be observed by provincial presidents, prelatic governors, and vice-legates in their respective provinces and cities (cc. i-xi).

The “Cæremoniale Episcoporum” is obligatory not only in cathedrals and collegiate churches, but also in smaller churches, as far as it is applicable to the liturgical functions performed therein (S.R.C., 17 Aug., 1894), not only when a bishop pontificates, but also when a priest performs the ceremony. In this manner it explains and makes up the deficiencies in the rubrics of the Breviary and Missal. That the “C remoniale Episcoporum” obliges in conscience is evident from the words of Benedict XIII, who, speaking of the rubrics contained in the official liturgical books of the Church, says: “Ritus. . . . qui in minimis etiam, sine peccato negligi, omitti vel mutari haud possunt” (Conc. Prov. Roman., 1725, tit. xv, cap. i). Although the Congregation of Sacred Rites (19 Aug., 1651) decreed:”Nihil addi, minui vel immutari posse, sed omnia in eodem Missali et Cæremoniali pr scripta ad unguem servanda esse,” yet ceremonials peculiar to individual churches may be retained, provided they do not conflict with the “Cæremoniale Episcoporum” (Sixtus V in his Bull “Cum novissime” found at the beginning of the “Cærem. Episc.”).

CATALANI, Cæremoniale Episcoporum . . . commentariis illustratum (Paris, 1860); DE HERDT, Praxis Pontificalis (Louvain, 1904); MENGHINI. Elementa juris liturgici (Rome, 1906); Cérémonial des évêques commenté et expliqué. Par un évêques suffragant de la province Ecclésiastique de Québec (Paris, 1856).

A.J. SCHULTE

Caesarea

A Latin titular see, and the seat of a residential Armenian bishopric, in Cappadocia (Asia Minor). The native name of this city was Mazaka, after Mosoch, the legendary Cappadocian hero. It was also called Eusebeia after King Ariarathes Eusebius, and took its new name, Caesarea, from Tiberius in A.D. 17, when Cappadocia became a Roman province. When Valens divided this province, Caesarea remained the metropolis of Cappadocia Prima. At all times it has been, and still is the first metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Lequien (I, 367) enumerates fifty bishops from the first to the eighteenth century. We may mention Primianus, the centurion who stood by the Cross on Calvary according to St. Gregory of Nyssa; Firmilian, a correspondent of St. Cyprian of Carthage; St. Basil the Great; Andrew and Arethas, two commentators of the apocalypse; Soterichus, a famous Monophysite, and some others who became patriarchs of Constantinople. Among the principal saints are all the members of St. Basil’s family; the martyrs St. Mamas, or Mammes, St. Gordius, and St. Julitta, whose panegyrics were pronounced by St. Basil. The illustrious monk St. Sabas, who founded the great monastery still existing near Jerusalem, was born in the diocese of Caesarea. At the time of St. Basil this diocese had fifty chorepiscopi or country bishops, which supposes a dense population. Councils were held at Caesarea in 314, 358, 371, etc. As for the Latin bishops, four are known in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (Lequien, III, 1877).

Caesarea, under the Turkish name Kaisarieh, is to-day the chief town of a sanjak in the vilayet of Angora. The ruins of the old city are still visible about a quarter of a mile to the west of the modern town at Eski Kaisarieh (Old Caesarea). The present (1908) city seems to have been established in the early days of the Mussulman occupation. It is situated on the Kizil Yirmak (Halys), at an altitude of 3281 feet, at the foot of Mount Argaeus (9996 feet), and has about 72,000 inhabitants: 45,000 Mussulmans, 9000 Gregorian Armenians, 1200 Protestant Armenians, 800 Catholic Armenians, and 15,000 Greeks (few Catholic Greeks). Kaisarieh, besides the Greek metropolitan see, is a diocese for the Gregorian, and a diocese for the Catholic, Armenians. The last-named see has only 2000 faithful with 2 parishes, 4 churches, and 3 priests. A flourishing school is conducted by the Jesuits, a school and an orphanage by Sisters of St. Joseph de l’Apparition. An Assumptionist of the Greek Rite takes care of the Catholic Greeks. The bazaars are remarkable. The city has a trade in pasterma (preserved beef), woollens, cotton stuffs, and very beautiful objects. There are at Kaisarieh ruins of a Seljuk fortress, a mosque of Houen (founder of an order of dervishes in the fourteenth century), and also old tombs. In the neighbourhood are ruins of churches dedicated to St. Basil, St. Mercurius, etc.

BELLEY in Mém de l’Acad. des inscript. et belles-lettres (1780), XL, I, 124–48; KINNEIR, Journey through Asia Minor, 98 sqq.; TEXIER, Description de l’Asie Mineure, II, 53 sqq.; CUINET, Turquie d’Asie, I, 304–15; CHANTRE, Mission en Cappadoce, 119–21; PIOLET, Les missions cath. françaises au XIXe siècle, I, 156 sqq.; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geog. (London, 1878), I, 469.

S. VAILHÉ

Caesarea Mauretaniae

A titular see of North Africa. There was on the coast of Mauretania a town called Iol, where the famous Bocchus resided, that belonged occasionally to the Numidian kings. Juba II, when he had obtained Mauretania from Augustus, made it his capital and named it Caesarea. After the deposition of his son Ptolemy, the city became the capital of the province named after it, Mauretania Caesarea. Under Claudius it became a Roman colony, Colonia Claudia Caesarea. At the end of the fourth century it was burned by the Moors, and in 533 it was besieged by the troops of Justinian, but the whole province was soon lost by the Byzantines. Captured by the French in 1840, it is now Cherchel, the chief town of an arrondissement in the department of Algiers (Algeria), and has 9100 inhabitants. There are in the vicinity ruins of Roman monuments. Cherchel boasts of marble and plaster quarries, iron mines, and a trade in oil, tobacco, and earthenware. The port, important in Roman times, has been partly filled up by alluvial deposits and by earthquakes. As to the religious history of Caesarea, we know the names of four Catholic titulars of the see and one Donatist, from 314 to 484.

MORCELLI, Africa christiana (Rome, 1816); GAMS, Series ep., 464; MAS-LATRIE, Trésor de chronologie, 1872; DIEHL, L’Afrique byzantine, 260; WAILLE in Comptes rendus de l’Acad. des inscript. et belles-lettres (1887–1888), D, XV, 53; XVI, 35, 241; De Caesareae monumentis (Algiers, 1891); GAUCKLER, Musée de Cherchel (Paris, 1895); SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geog. (London, 1878), II, 59.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Caesarea Palaestinae

(Caesarea Maritima.) A titular see of Palestine. In Greek antiquity the city was called Pyrgos Stratonos (Straton’s Tower), after a Greek adventurer or a Sidonian King; under this name it antedates, perhaps, Alexander the Great. King Herod named it Caesarea in honour of Augustus, and built there temples, palaces, a theatre, an amphitheatre, a port, and numerous monuments, with colonnades and colossal statues. The civil life of the new city began in 13 B.C., from which time Caesarea was the civil and military capital of Judaea, and as such was the official residence of the Roman procurators, e.g. Pilate and Felix. Vespasian and Titus made it a Roman colony, Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta Caesarea. Under Alexander Severus it became the civil metropolis of Palestine, and later, when Palestine had been divided into three provinces, it remained the metropolis of Palaestina Prima. St. Peter established the church there when he baptized the centurion Cornelius (Acts, x, xi); St. Paul often sojourned there (ix, 30, xviii, 22, xxi, 8), and was imprisoned there for two years before being taken to Rome (xxiii, 23, xxv, 1–13). However, there is no record of any bishops of Caesarea until the second century. At the end of this century a council was held there to regulate the celebration of Easter. In the third century Origen took refuge at Caesarea, and wrote there many of his exegetic and theological works, among others the famous “Hexapla,” the manuscript of which was for a long time preserved in the episcopal library of that city. Through Origen and the scholarly priest, St. Pamphilus, the theological school of Caesarea won a universal reputation. St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker, St. Basil the Great, and others came from afar to study there. its ecclesiastical library passed for the richest in antiquity; it was there that St. Jerome performed much of his Scriptural labours. The library was probably destroyed either in 614 by the Persians, or about 637 by the Saracens. As ecclesiastical metropolis of Palaestina Prima, subject to the Patriarchate of Antioch, Caesarea had the Bishop of Jerusalem among its suffragens till 451, when Juvenalis succeeded in establishing the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Caesarea had then thirty-two suffragen sees (Revue de l’Orient chrét., 1899, 56). Lequien (III, 533–74) mentions thirty-two Greek bishops of Caesarea, but his list is very incomplete. Among the more celebrated are Theotecnus, a disciple of Origen; the famous church historian Eusebius, a disciple of St. Pamphilus; Acacius, the leader of an Arian group; the historian Gelasius of Cyzicus; St. John the Khozibite in the sixth century; and Anastasius, a writer of the eleventh century. During the persecution of Diocletian, Caesarea had many martyrs to whom Eusebius has consecrated an entire work (De martyribus Palaestinae). Among them were St. Hadrian, whose church has just been discovered; Sts. Valens, Paul, Prophyrius, and others. Another illustrious personage of Caesarea is the sixth-century Byzantine historian Procopius. When King Baldwin I took the city in 1101, it was still very rich. There was found the famous chalice known as the Holy Grail, believed to have been used at the Last Supper, preserved now at Paris, and often mentioned in medieval poems. The city was rebuilt by the crusaders, but on a smaller scale. A list of thirty-six Latin bishops, from 1101 to 1496; is given by Lequien (III, 1285–1290) and Eubel (I, 159; II, 126). During the Frankish occupation the Latin metropolis had ten suffragen sees. The metropolitan See of Caesarea is still preserved by the Greeks of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, as it is by the Latins merely as a titular see. The present name of the city is Kaisariyeh. Since 1884 a colony of Mussulman Bosnians has occupied the medieval city, which covers a space of about 1800 feet, north to south, and 7500 feet, east to west. The ancient walls, bastions, and ditches are well preserved. The ruins of the Roman city extend to a distance of about four miles; they are the largest in Palestine, and are used as a stone-quarry for Jaffa and Gaza, and even for Jerusalem. One sees there, crowded together, the haven of Herod, restored by the crusaders, the amphitheatre large enough to contain 20,000 spectators, remains of canals and aqueducts, a hippodrome with a splended obelisk of rose granite, colonnades, ruins of temples and of at least two churches, and other stupendous relics of past greatness.

WILSON, Lands of the Bible, II, 250–53; Discoveries of Caesarea in Palestine Expoloration Fund, Quart. Statement (1888), 134 sq.; The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, II, 13–19; GU=90RIN, Samarie, II, 321–39.

S. VAILHÉ

Caesarea Philippi

A Greek Catholic residential see, and a Latin titular see, in Syria. The native name is unknown; under Antiochus the Great it bore already the Greek name Panion owing to a grotto concecrated to Pan’s worship. It was given (20 B.C.) by Augustus to Herod, who built there a magnificent temple in honour of the emperor. Soon after, the tetrach Philip embellished it and dedicated it to his imperial protector Tiberius, whench its new name Caesarea Philippi or Caesarea Paneas. Near this city took place the confession of St. Peter (Matt., xvi, 13–20). There lived the Haemorrhoïssa (Matt., ix, 20); according to Eusebius she set up before her house a bronze monument representing her cure by Jesus; in this group Julian the Apostate substituted his own statue for that of Christ.

Caesarea was at an early date a suffragan of Tyre in Phoenicia Prima. Five bishops (to 451) are mentioned by Lequien (II, 831), the first of whom, St. Erastus (Rom., svi, 23), is obviously legendary. After the town’s capture by the crusaders (about 1132) a Latin see was established there; four titulars are mentioned in Lequien (II, 1337); they must not be confounded with those of Panium, another see in Thracia. The modern name is Banias, a little village on a pleasing site, 990 feet above the level of the sea, at the foot of Mount Hermon, and forty-five miles south-west of Damascus, capital of the vilayet. The landscape is splendid, and the country very fertile, owing to the abundance of water. One of the main sources of the Jordan rises in the grotto of Pan, now partly blocked up and serving as a cattle shed. Among the rooms are many columns, capitals, sarcophagi, and a gate. The ancient church of St. George serves as a mosque. The citadel is partly preserved and is considered the most beautiful medieval ruin in Syria. Since 1886 Banias has been the see of a Greek Catholic (Melchite) bishop, with about 4000 faithful and 20 priests. Its first titular, Monseigneur Géraïgiry, built a number of churches and 26 schools; the residence of the bishop is near Banias at Gedaïdat-Margyoum.

WILSON, Lands of the Bible, II, 175 sq.; THOMSON, The Land and the Book, 228 sq.; GUÉRIN, La Galilee, II, 308 sq.

S. VAILHÉ

St. Caesarius of Arles

Bishop, administrator, preacher, theologian, born at Châlons in Burgundy, 470–71, died at Arles, 27 August, 543, according to Malnory. He entered the monastery of Lérins when quite young, but his health giving way the abbot sent him to Arles in order to recuperate. Here he won the affection and esteem of the bishop, Æonus, who had him ordained deacon and priest. On the death of ths bishop Caesarius was unanimously chosen his successor (502 or 503). He ruled the See of Arles for forty years with apostolic courage and prudence, and stands out in the history of that unhappy period as the foremost bishop of Gaul. His episcopal city, near the mouth of the Rhone and close to Marseilles, retained yet its ancient importance in the social, commercial, and industrial life of Gaul, and the Mediterranean world generally; as a political centre, moreover, it was subject to all the vicissitudes that in the early decades of the sixth century fell to the lot of Visigoth and Ostrogoth, Burgundian and Frank. Eventually (538) the latter, under King Childebert, obtained full away in ancient Gaul. During the long conflict, however, Caesarius was more than once the object of barbarian suspicion. Under Alaric II he was accused of a treasonable intention to deliver the ity to the Burgundians, and without examination or trial was exiled to Bordeaux. Soon, however, the Visigoth king relented, and left Caesarius free to summon the important Council of Agde (506), while in harmonious co-operation with the Catholic hierarchy and clergy he himself published the famous adaptation of the Roman Law known as the “Breviarium Alarici,” which eventually became the civil code of Gaul. Again in 508, after the siege of Arles, the victorious Ostrogoths suspected Caesarius of having plotted to deliver the city to the besieging Franks and Burgundians, and caused him to be temporarily deported. Finally, in 513, he was compelled to appear at Ravenna before King Theodoric, who was, however, profoundly impressed by Caesarius, exculpated him, and treated the holy bishop with much distinction. The latter profited by the occasion to visit Pope Symmachus at Rome. The pope conferred on him the pallium, said to be the first location on which it was granted to any Western bishop. He also granted to the clergy of Arles the use of the dalmatic, peculiar to the Roman clergy, confirmed him as metropolitan, and renewed for him personally (11 June, 514) the dignity of Vicar of Apostolic See in Gaul, more or less regularly held by his predecessors (see VICAR APOSTOLIC; THESSALONICA; VIENNE), whereby the Apostolic See obtained in Southern Gaul, still Roman in language, temper, law, and social organization, an intelligent and devoted co-operator who did much to confirm the pontifical authority, not alone in his own province, but also throughout the rest of Gaul. He utilized his office of vicar to convoke the importance theories of councils forever connected with his name, presided over by him, and whose decress are, in part or entirely, his own composition. These are five in number: Arles (524), Carpentras (527), Orange (II) and Vaison (529), and Marscilles (533), the latter called to judge a bishop, Contumeliosis of Riez, a self-confessed adulterer, but who managed later to obtain a repreive through Pope Agapetus, on the plea of irregular procedure, the final outcome of the case being unknown. The other councils, whose text may be read in Clark’s translation of Hefele’s “History of the Councils” (Edinburgh, 1876–96), are of primary importance for the future religious and ecclesiastical life of the new barbarian kingdoms of the West. Not a few important provisions were later incorporated into the traditional or written law of the Western Church, e.g. concerning the nature and security of ecclesiastical property, the certainty of support for the parochial clergy, the education of ecclesiastics, simple and frequent preaching of the Word of God, especially in country parishes, etc. Caesarius had already drawn up a famous resume of earlier canonical collections known to historians of canon law as the “Statua Ecclesiae Antiqua,” by the inadvertence of medieval copyist wrongly attributed to the Fourth Council of Carthage (418), but by Malnory (below, 53–62, 291–93) proved to be the compilation of Caesarius, after the Ballerini brothers had located them in the fifth century, and Maassen had pointed out Arles as the place of compilation. The rich archives of the Church of Arles, long before this a centre of imperial administration in the West and a papal direction, permitted him to put together, on the borderline of the old and the new, this valuable summary, or speculum, of ancient Christian life in the Roman West, in its own way a counterpart of the Apostolic Constitutions (q. v.) and the Apostolic Canons (see CANONS APOSTOLIC) for the Christian Orient. If we add to these councils his own above-mentioned council of Agde, those of Gerone, Saragossa, Valencia and Lerida in Spain (516–524), and these of Epaone (517) and Orléans (538, 541) in Gaul (influenced by Caesarius, Malnory, 115, 117), we have a contemporary documentary portrait of a great Gallo-Roman ecclesiastical legislator and reformer whose Christian code aimed at and obtained two things, a firm but merciful and humane discipline of clergy and people, and stability and decency of ecclesiastical life both clerical and monastic. To a Catholic mind the above-mentioned Second Council of Orange reflects special credit on Caesarius, for in it was condemned the false doctrine concerning grace known as Semipelagianism (g. v.); there is good reason for believing that the council’s decrees (Hefele, ad. an. 529; P. L., XXXIX, 1142–52) represent the work (otherwise lost) “De gratiâ et libero arbitrio” that Gennadius (De vir. ill., c. 86) attributes to Caesarius, and which he says was approved and widely circulated by Felix IV (526–530). It is noteworthy that in the preface to the acts of the council, the Fathers say that they are assembled at the suggestion and by the authority of the Apostolic See, from which they have received certain propositions or decrees (capitula), gathered by the ancient Fathers from the Scriptures concerning the matter in hand; as a matter of fact the decrees of the council are taken almost word for word, says de la Bigne (op. cit., 1145–46), from St. Augustine. Finally the confirmation of the council’s doctrinal decrees by Boniface II (25 Jan., 531) made them authoritative in the Universal Church.

Caesarius, however, was best known in his own day, and is still best remembered, as a popular preacher, the first great Volksprediger of the Christians whose sermons have come down to us. A certain number of these discourses, forty more or less, deal with Old Testament subjects, and follow the prevalent typology made popular by St. Augustine; they seek everywhere a mystic sense, but avoid all rhetorical pomp and subtleties, and draw much from the admirable psalm-commentary, “Enarrationes in Psalmos,” of St. Augustine. Like the moral discourses, “Admonitiones,” they are quite brief (his usual limit was fifteen minutes), clear and simple in language, abounding in images and allusions drawn from the daily life of the townsman or the peasant, the sea, the market, the vineyard, the sheepfold, the soil, and reflecting in a hundred ways the yet vigorous Roman life of Southern Gaul, where Greek was still spoken in Arles and Asiatic merchants still haunted the delta of the Rhone. The sermon of Caesarius opens usually with an easy and familiar introduction, offers a few plain truths set forth in an agreeable and practical way, and closes with a recapitulation. Most of the sermons deal with the principles of Christian morality, the Divine sanctions: hell and purgatory (for the latter see Malnory, 185–86), the various classes of sinners, and the principal vices of his day and surroundings: public vice, adultery and concubinage, drunkenness, neglect of Mass, love of (landed) wealth, the numerous survivals of a paganism that was only newly overcome. In them the popular life of the Provincia is reproduced, often with photographic accuracy, and frequently with naive good-nature. These sermons are a valuable thesaurus for historical students, whether of canon law, history of dogma, discipline, or liturgy.

Many of these sermons were frequently copied in with works of St. Augustine, whose text, as stated, they often reproduced. The editio princeps is that of Gilbertus Cognatus Nozarenus (Basle, 1558), and includes forty sermons, of which, according to Arnold (see below, 492), only about twenty-four were surely genuine. The great Maurists, Constant and Blancpain, made clear his title to 103, which they printed in the appendix to the fifth volume of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine (P. L., LXVII, 1041–90, 1121–25). Casimir Oudin, the ex-Premonstratensian and familiar in his Catholic period with the aforesaid Maurists, intended (1722) to bring out a special edition of the sermons and the writings of Caesarius, the former of which he calculated as one hundred and fifty-eight in number. The Benedictine editors of the “Histoire Littéraire de la France” (III, 200–217) put down as surely genuine one hundred and twenty-two or one hundred and twenty-three. Joseph Fessler, Bishop of St. Pölten, had planned an addition of St. Caesarius, but death (1872) surprised him, and his materials passed to the Benedictines of Maredsous in Belgium, who have confided this very important task to Dom Germain Morin. In the “Revue Bénédictine” (Feb., 1893) he made known the principles and the method of his new edition. Several other essays from the same pen and in the same place represent the choicest modern learning on the subject.

In the history of monastic life and reforms in Gaul, Caesarius occupies an honourable place between St. Martin of Tours and St. Honoratus of Lérins on the one hand, and St. Columbanus on the other, while he is a contemporary of St. Benedict, and in fact survived him but a few months. He composed two rules, one for men (“Ad Monachos”), the other for women (“Ad Virgines”), both in Migne, P. L., LXVII, 1099 sqq., 1103 sqq., reprinted from Holstein-Brockie, “Codex regularum monasticarum” (Augsburg, 1759). The rule for monks is based on that of Lérins, as handed down by oral tradition, but adds the important element of stability of profession (ut usque ad mortem suam ibi perseveret, c. i), a legal renunciation of one’s property, and a more perfect community of goods. This rule soon gave way to the Rule of Columbanus, and with the latter, eventually to the Rule of St. Benedict. The rule for nuns, however, had a different fate. “It was the work of his whole life,” says Malnory (257) and into it he poured all his prudence, tenderness, experience, and foresight. It borrows much from the famous Epistle ccxi of St. Augustine and from John Cassian; nevertheless it was the first rule drawn up for women living in perfect community, and has remained the model of all such. Even to-day, says Malnory (263), “it unites all the conditions requisite for a cloistered nunnery of strict observance.” His own sister, St. Caesaria, was placed at the head of the monastery (first built in the famous Aliscamps, outside the walls of Arles, afterwards removed within the city), which at the death of the holy founder counted two hundred nuns. It astonished his contemporaries, who looked upon it as an ark of salvation for women in those stormy times, and drew from Pope Hormisdas a cry of admiration, preserved for us in the letter by which, at the request of Caesarius, he approved and confirmed this new work (super clericorum et monasteriorum excubias consuetas puellarum quoque Dei choros noviter instituisse te, P.L., LXVII, 1285).

The pope also confirmed the full exemption of the abbess and her nuns from all episcopal authority; future bishops could only visit them occasionally, in the exercise of their pastoral duties, or in case of grave violation of the rule. Elections, constitution, internal administration, even the choice of the Mass-priest, were confided exclusively to the community in keeping with the rule that Caesarius did not cease to perfect at all times; in the “Recapitulatio” which he finally added (and in his Testament) he insists again on the quasi-complete exemption of the monastery, as though this freedom from all external control or interference seemed to him indispensable. The nuns on entering made a solemn promise to remain until death; moreover, at his request, Pope Symmachus invalidated the marriage of any professional nun (Malnory, 264). The convent furniture was of the simplest and no paintings were allowed (a provision afterwards distorted in favour of Iconoclasm). Spinning of wool, the manufacture of their own garments, the care of the monastery, were their chief occupations, apart from prayer and meditation. It is to be noted, however, that the bishop provided for the copying of the Scriptures (inter psalmos et jejunia, vigilias quoque ac lectiones libros divinos pulchre scriptitent virgines Christi) under the direction of Caesaria. In the course of the sixth century the rule of the nuns was elsewhere in Gaul adapted to monasteries of men, while numerous monasteries of women adopted it outright, e.g. the famous Abbey of the Holy Cross at Poitiers founded by St. Radegundis. Its extension was also favoured by the fact that not a few of his disciples became bishops and abbots, and as such naturally introduced the ideal of religious life created by their venerated master. When his end drew near, he made his will (Testamentum), with all the formalism of Roman law, in favour of his beloved nuns (P. L., LXVII, 1139–40; Baronius, Ann. Eccl., ad an. 308, no. 25), commending them and their rule to the affection of his successor, and leaving to his sister Caesaria, as a special memento, a large cloak she had made for him (mantum majorem quem de cannabe fecit). The genuinity of this curious and valuable document has been called in question, but without sufficient reason. It is accepted by Malnory, and has been re-edited by Dom Morin (Revue Bénédictine, 1896, XVI, 433–43, 486). Caesarius was a perfect monk in the episcopal chair, and as such his contemporaries revered him (ordine et officio clericus; humilitate, charitate, obedientia, cruce monachus permanet—Vita Caesarii, I, 5). He was a pious and a peaceful shepherd amid barbarism and war, generous and charitable to a fault, yet a great benefactor of his Church, mindful of the helpless, tactful in dealing with the powerful and rich, in all his life a model of Catholic speech and action.

We may add that he was the first to introduce in his cathedral the Hourse of Terce, Sext, and None; he also enriched with hymns the psalmody of every Hour.

MORIN in Revue Bénédictine (Maredsous, 1891–1908), passim; LEJAY, St. Césaire d’Arles in Revue du Clergé français (Paris, 1895), IV, 97, 487, and Revue biblique (Paris, 1895), IV, 593; MALNORY, St. Césaire Evêque d’Arles (Paris, 1894), bibliography; ARNOLD (non-Catholic), Caesarius von Arelate und die gallische Kirche seiner Zeit (Leipzig, 1894). For the long conflict concerning the primacy of Gaul, between the churches of Arles and Vienne, see GUNDLACH, Der Streit der Bisthümer Arles und Vienne um den Primatus Galliarum in Neues Archiv (1888–90), XIV, 251, XIV, 9, 233; DUCHESNE, La primatie d’Arles, in Mém. de la Soc. des Antiquaires de France (1891–92), II, 155; SCHMITZ, Der Vikariat von Arles in Hist. Jahrbuch (1891), XII, 11, 245. For the general history of the Church of Arles at this period, see DU PORT, Histoire de l’Eglise d’Arles, tirée des meilleurs auteurs (Paris, 1690); SAXIUS, Pontificium Arelatense (Aix-en-Provence, 1629); TRICHAUD, Hist. de la sainte église d’Arles (N’mes-Paris, 1856); and for the political and social life of the period, FAURIEL, Hist. de la Gaule méridionale sous les conquérants germains (Paris, 1856); DAHN, Könige der Germanen (Leipzig, 1885).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Caesarius of Heisterbach

A pious and learned monk of the Cistercian manastery of Heisterbach near Bonn, born about 1170 at or near Cologne where he had Ensfried, Daen of St. Andrew, as teacher. He also heard at the Cathedral School the lectures of the learned Rudolph, who had previously been a professor at the University of Paris. Under these two competent teachers Caesarius studied the theology of St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Gregory the Great; the philosophy of Boethius, and the literary masterpieces of Virgil, Ovid, Senca, and Claudian. He was a gifted and diligent scholar and upon the completion of his studies was thoroughly conversant with the writings of the Fathers of the Church and master of a refined and fluent Latin style. Like most German educators of his time, he was a theologian rather than a philosopher and looked with suspicion upon the rationalistic tendencies of scholastic philosophy, as it was taught in many schools of France. Acting on the advice of Gevard, Abbot of Heisterbach, Caesarius entered that monastery in 1199 and after some time was appointed to the responsible office of master of novices. It was his duty to imbue the candidates with the spirit of austere asceticism which then animated the Cistercian Order, and to instruct them in the necessary knowledge of theology. His fame as teacher soon spread far beyond the walls of his monastery and, yielding to requests from various quarters, Abbot Henry, Gevard’s successor, asked Caesarius to write an abstract of his teachings. This occasioned the famous “Dialog.” In 1228 Caesarius was made prior of his monastery and thenceforth accompanied the abbot on many official visits in Germany and Friesland.

Caesarius was one of the most popular writers of the thirteenth century. The numerous manuscripts, still extant, of many of his works show how greedily they were read by his contemporaries. About the year 1238 he wrote the so-called “Epistola Catalogica,” a list of thirty-six works which he had published up to that date. By far the best known and most important work, however, of Caesarius is his “Dialoge of Visions and Miracles” in twelve books (Dialogus magnus visionum atque miraculorum, Libri XII). It struck the fancy of his thirteenth-century readers to such an extent that it became probably the most popular book in Germany at that time. The people that day of the later Crusades, owing greatly to the many fabulous stories brought from the Orient by returning crusaders, had an irresistible liking for the strange and marvelous. Like a true child of his times, Caesarius related in all seriousness the most incredible stories of saints and demons, but scrupulously avoids whatever may endanger the principles of true piety and sane morality. His purpose was not to relate facts of history, but to entertain and edify his readers. He accomplished this purpose most successfully. Though his “Dialogue” is merely a collection of ascetical romances, it has become one of the most important sources for the history of civilization during the thirteenth century. It presents to our view a living panorama of all that the student of the history of civilization cares to know. Popes and emperors, priests and monks, rich and poor, learned and illiterate, good and bad, all sorts and conditions of men, pass before our vision as if we were living among them. More than fifty manuscripts of the “Dialogue” are extant, and seven printed editions are known. The latest, in two volumes, was prepared by Strange (Cologne, 1851); an index to the same (Coblenz, 1857). Another work of Caesarius identical in historical value with the preceding is his “Eight Books of Miracles” (Volumen diversarum visionum seu miraculorum, Libri VIII). Of this work only a fragment of three books is known; it was carefully edited with valuable critical notes by Meister (Rome, 1901). Though not in the form of a dialogue, it has the same scope as the preceding work. Because, despite diligent researches, no other fragments of the work could be found, Meister suspects that Caesarius never completed it.

The principal historical work of Caesarius is the life of the murdered St. Engelbert, Archbishop of Cologne (1216–25), entitled “Actus, pasio et miracula domini Engelberte.” It is composed of three books, the first of which is devoted to an impartial estimate of the character of the great archbishop; the second narrates with graphic vividness and tender pathos the circumstances of the sad catastrophe, while the third book, which was added ten years later (1237), recounts the miracles wrought through the relics of the archbishop after his death. Since the biography was begun immediately after the death of Engelbert, the auther did not fully comprehend what fatal effects the murder of the best and most trusted advisor of the young King Henry was to have upon the future history of Germany; but in depicting the character of his hero, and in narrating the particulars of the foul deed, Caesarius shows himself a master. There is scarcely another biography of the Middle Ages so artistically executed and so thoroughly reliable. It was printed by Surius in the “Acta Sanctorum,” 7 November (1st ed. 1574; 2d ed., Cologne, 1617); by Gelenius (Cologne, 1633); finally, with the omission of the third book, by Bohmer in his “Fontes Rerum Germanicarum” (Stuttgart, 1843–68), II, 294–329. A good German translation was brought out by Bethany (Elberfeld, 1898). Caesarius also wrote a biography (the oldest extant) of St. Elizabeth of Hungary, which, however, has never been printed, with the exception of a few fragments published by Montalembert, in “Sainte Elisabeth” (Paris, 1903), and by Borner, in “Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fur altere deutsche Geschichtskunde” (Hanover, 1888), 503–506. It is merely a recasting of the “Libellus de dictis quatuor ancillarum,” a list of the Archbishops of Cologne between the years 94–1238, with important biographical data and cincise but valuable reflections on the history of the times. Up to the accession of Philip of Heimsberg (1167) it is based on an older chronicle, but the rest is an original work of Caesarius. It was published by Bohmer, op. cit., II, 271–282, and by Cardauns in “Mon. Germ. Hist: Script.,” XXIV, 332–47. When still quite young, Caesarius began to write sermons, most of which have been collected by Coppenstein: “Homiliae sive fasciculus moralitatum” (Cologne, 1615). These sermons, though inferior in thought and style to the oratorical masterpieces of his great Franciscan contemporary, Berthold of Regensburg, were highly esteemed on account of their practical character and their suitability to the conditions of his hearers.

KAUFMANN, Caesarius von Heisterbach (2d ed., Cologne, 1862); SCHONBACH in Sitzungsberichte der k. Akademie der Wissenschaften, No. 144 (Vienna, 1902); MEISTER, Die Fragmente der Libri VIII miraculorum des Caesarius von Heisterbach in 13. Supplement-Heft zur Römischen Quartalschrift (Rome, 1901); PONCELET, Note sur les Libri VIII miraculorum in Analecta Bollandiana (Brussels, 1902); HAUCK, Kirchengesch. Deutschlands (Leipzig, 1903), IV, 454 sqq.; WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen (Stuttgart, 1904); CARDAUNS in Allg. d. Biogr., s. v. (Leipzig, 1875); UNKEL in Annalen des hist. Vereins fur den Niederrhein, No. 34 (Cologne, 1879), 1–67; HOFER, ibid., No. 65 (Cologne, 1898), 237 sqq.; KESSEL in Kirchenlex., s.v.

MICHAEL OTT

St. Caesarius of Nazianzus

Physician, younger and only brother of Gregory of Nazianzus, born probably c. 330 at Arianzus, near Nazianzus; died at the end of 368 or the beginning of 369. He received a careful training from his saintly mother Nonna and his father Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus. He studied probably at Caesarea in Cappadocia, and then at the celebrated schools of Alexandria. Here his favourite studies were geometry, astronomy, and especially medicine. In the last-named science he surpassed all his fellow students. About 355 he came to Constantinople, and had already acquired a great reputation for his medical skill, when his brother Gregory, homeward bound from Athens, appeared there about 358. Caesarius sacrificed a remunerative and honourable post and returned to his parents with Gregory. The capital, however, soon proved to be too great an attraction for him; we find him occupying an exalted position as physician at the court of Constantine and, much to the regret of his family, at that of Julian the Apostate. Julian failed in his efforts to win him over to Paganism. Caesarius, more appreciative of his faith than of imperial favour, ultimately left the court, but returned to Constantinople after Julian’s death. Under the Emperor Valens he became quaestor of Bithynia. His remarkable escape from the earthquake which shook Nicaea (11 October, 368) induced him to heed the insistent appeals of his brother and St. Basil, who urged him to leave the world. He was suddenly seized with a fatal illness, shorty after having received baptism, which he, like many others at the period, had deferred until late in life. He as unmarried, and directed that all his goods should be distributed to the poor, an injunction which his servants abused in their own interests. His remains were interred at Nazianzus, where his brother pronounced the funeral oration in the presence of his parents.

The admission of the identity of this Caesarius with his namesake, the Prefect of Constantinople, who, in 365, was thrown into the prison by Procopius, rests on an assumption of James Godefroy, the editor of the Theodosian Code (Lyons, 1665), and not on any solid historical ground. The four “Dialogues” of one hundred and ninety-seven questions and answers which go under his name, and are to be found in Migne, P.G., XXXVIII, 851–1190, can hardly be from his pen, owing to their nature, contents, and anachronisms. Today they are generally looked upon as spurious.

Greg. Naz. in P. G., XXXV. 751–88; BIRKS and CAZENOVE in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v.; BARDENHEWER, Patrologie (Freiburg, 1901), 257; VERSCHAFFEL in Dict. de théol. cath. (Paris, 1905), II, 2185–86.

N.A. WEBER

Caesarius of Prüm

Abbot of the Benedictine monastery, near Trier, afterwards a Cistercian monk at Heisterbach near Bonn, born of the noble family of Milendonk, and lived in the latter half of the twelfth and in the first half of the thirteenth century. At the beginning of the thirteenth century he entered the monastery of Prüm, where in 1212 he was elected abbot, to succeed Gerard of Vianden. Prüm was then one of the richest monasteries in Europe, with large estates scattered over Germany, France, and the Netherlands. Many of the monks were noblemen who had entered the monastery in order to live a life of comfort. Their example began to undermine the monastic simplicity and discipline, without which no monastery can prosper for any length of time. After ruling five years Caesarius, probably because he desired to lead a more perfect life than he could as abbot of a rich and undisciplined monastery, resigned his abbatial dignity and became a hungle monk at the flourishing Cistercian monastery of Heisterbach. Upon the request of Abbot Kuno of Prüm he wrote, in 1222, a commentary on the “Registrum Bonorum” or “Register of the Estates of Prüm,” which had been drawn up by an unknown monk in 893. This commentary has become an important source for the history of law and civilization during the thirteenth century. The “Register,” together with the commentary of Caesarius, was published by Leibniz in his “Collectanea Etymologica” (Hanover, 1717), II, 409 sqq., and by Hontheim in his “Historia Trevirensis” (Augsburg, 1750), I, 661 sqq. The latest and best edition, made from the original manuscript of Caesarius, which is preserved in the royal archives at Berlin, was brought out by Heinrich Beyer in “Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der mittelrheinischen Territorien” (Coblenz, 1860), I, 142–201. Schönbach in “Sitzungsberichte der k. Akademie der Wissenschaften” (Vienna, 1902) after careful researches ascribes to Caesarius of Milendonk the important historical work “De Abbatibus Prumiensibus,” which heretofore was believed to have been written by Caesarius of Heisterbach.

ZEIGELBAUER, Hist. Litt. O.S.B. (Augsburg and Würzburg, 1754), III, 170; LAMPRECHT, Deutsches Wirtschaftsleben im Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1886), II, 60.

MICHAEL OTT

Caesar of Speyer

Friar Minor, first minister provincial of the order in Germany, and leader of the Caesarines, born towards the close of the twelfth century; died in 1239. He became renowned as a preacher, and the number of Albigenses who abandoned their errors as the result of his zealous efforts so enraged the heretics against him that he was obliged to leave his native city. In 1212 he went to Paris, where he studied theology under Conrad of Speyer, the famous crusade-preacher. While in the Holy Land in 1217, Caesar of Speyer was received into the Franciscan Order by Brother Elias of Cortona, the first provincial of Syria; early in 1221 he returned to Italy with St. Francis and Peter of Catania. It is interesting to note that the Rule of 1223 was probably written by Caesar of Speyer at the dictation of St. Francis, and it is very likely that St. Francis refers to him in the words of his “Testament”: “et ego paucis verbis et simplicibus feci scribi et dominus Papa confermavit mihi.” At the chapter of Pentecost held at Assisi in 1221, Caesar, together with twenty-five companions, was chosen to go to Germany, and after three months’ preparation in the valley of Spoleto, the missionaries set out on their journey northward. They were welcomed by both clergy and people at Trent, Brixen, and other cities, and in October of the same year the first provincial chapter of the order in Germany was convoked by Caesar at Strausburg. The famous Tatr missionary, John of Piancarpino, and the chronicler, Jordan of Giano were both present at this chapter; on its conclusion the friars dispersed throughout the different provinces of Germany, according to Caesar’s instructions, to meet again the following year.

In 1223 Caesar, accompanied by Thomas of Celano, returned to Assisi to be present at the general chapter of Pentecost, and at his own request was relieved of the office of provincial minister of St. Francis. Of the remaining fifteen years of Caesar’s life little is known. He was probably in Italy, with Bernard of Quintavalle, Blessed Giles, and the other companions of St. Francis, encouraging the friars by word and work to remain faithful to their rule and life, and warning them against the innovations of the Relaxati. Jordan of Giano says of Caesar at this time: “He was a man wholly given to contemplation, most zealous for evangelica poverty and so commended by the other friars that he was esteemed the most saintly after St. Francis.” Owing to his opposition towards the Relaxati Caesar was imprisoned by order of the minister general, Brother Elias; he finally met a violent death at the hands of the lay brother who had been appointed to guard him. There seems, however, no warrant for the opinion expressed by some that he was murdered by order of Elias, and the slight colouring which Angelo Clareno and Ubertino of Casale give to their accounts of his tragic end is due to the bias and bitterness against Elias’s party which characterize all the writings of the Spirituals.

WADDING, Ann. Min., I, an. 1220, xxxiii; II, an. 1221, ivix passim; Analecta Franciscana (Quaracchi, 1885), I, 1–19; EHRLE, Archiv f. Litt. u. Kirchengesch. des M. A. (Berlin, 1886), II, 353, 416; III, 409, 552; GOLUBOVITCH, Bibl. Bio-bibliogr. della Terra Santa (Quaracchi, 1906), I, 15, 37, 38, 40, 99, 100, 109, 117–19; ROBINSON, A Short Introduction in Franciscan Literature (New York, 1907), 9, 16–18.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Caesaropolis

titular see of Macedonia, the early name and the site of which have not yet been identified. It is mentioned in Gelzer’s “Nova Tactica” (1717) and in Parthey’s “Notitiae episcopatuum,” III (c. 1170–1179) and X (twelfth or thirteenth century) as a suffragan of Philippi in Macedonia. Lequien (II, 65) speaks of the see, but mentions no bishop. Manuscript notes give the names of two titulars, Meletius, who was alive in April, 1329, and Gabriel, in November, 1378.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Archdiocese of Cagliari

(Calaritana)

Cagliari, called by the ancient Caralis, is the principal city and capital of the Island of Sardinia, and an important port on the Gulf of Cagliari. It was founded by the Carthaginians, and after the War of the Mercenaries fell into the hands of the Romans, but in the fifth century A.D. was seized by the Vandals, and in the eighth, like the whole of Sardinia became subject to the Saracens. In 1022 the Saracens were expelled with the help of the Pisans, and from that time Cagliari was governed by a “Judge.” In 1324 Jaime of Aragon captured Cagliari and with it the rest of the island, which remained under Spanish domination until 1714, when for a short time it acknowledged the authority of Emperor Charles VI; in 1717 it was placed under the Duke of Savoy, thenceforth known as the King of Sardinia. According to a legend, evidently false, the gospel was preached in Cagliari by Bonifatius, a disciple of Christ. Historians give a long list of bishops of Cagliari, said to have suffered for the faith during the persecutions, and St. Athanasius in his second letter to Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari, speaks of his predecessors as martyrs. It is certain that St. Juvenal, during the reign of Diocletian, escaped death by flight. Quintasius, who attended the Council of Arles (314), is possibly identical with the Bishop of Cagliari, present at the Council of Sardica (343). The best known of the early bishops is Lucifer (354–71), the champion of orthodoxy against Arianism and a friend of St. Athanasius. One of his contemporaries praises his unworldliness, his constancy in the Faith, and his knowledge of sacred literature. Towards the end of his life, however, he became the author of a schism, which persisted after his death. For this reason, considerable controversy arose in the seventeenth century as to the veneration of Lucifer. In 1615, the foundations of his church were discovered outside of the city, not far from the church of St. Saturninus, and in 1633 his relics were found in a marble urn, with two inscriptions. During the persecution of the Vandals, Sardinia, more especially Cagliari, offered a refuge to many Catholic bishops from North Africa, among them Sts. Eugenius and Fulgentius, who found there the freedom of worship denied them in their own country. Primasius was an important contemporary of these saints. St. Gregory the Great mentions in his correspondence two bishops of Cagliari, Thomas and Januarius. Deusdedit came twice to Rome during the reigns of Honorius I and Martin I. Citonatus assisted at the Second Council of Constantinople (681), was accused of treason, and proved his innocence. The acts of that council exhibit Cagliari at this early date as a metropolitan see. In 787, Bishop Thomas sent as representative to the Second Council of Nicea the deacon Epiphanius. In 1075, Gregory VII reproached (Epp., VIII, x) the Bishop of Cagliari for wearing a beard, a fashion which had been introduced into Sardinia at an earlier date; the pope asked the “Judge” of Cagliari to oblige the clergy to abandon this custom. The same bishop and his colleages were blamed by Victor III (1087) for neglect of their churches. Under this pope, the Archbishop of Cagliari became known as the Primate of Sardinia. Archbishop Peter restored many churches, among them that of the martyr St. Antiochus. In 1158, the title of Primate of Sardinia and Corsica was given to the Archbishop of Pisa, but in 1409 it was reassumed by the Archbishop of Cagliari, whence arose a controversy between those sees, which has not yet been settled. Other famous bishops of Cagliari were: Ildefonso Lasso Sedeno (1597), commisioned by Clement VIII to reform the convents of Sardinia; Ambrogio Machini, General of the Macedonians, historian of Cagliari and advocate of the canonization of Lucifer. In time several other sees were united to Cagliari: Doglia (the ancient Bona Dola), incorporated with Cagliari by Julius II; Forum Trajani, which in the fifth century had its own bishop, and is believed to be the present Tortoli; Fasiana (Phausania), mentioned by St. Gregory the Great; Suello (Susaleo), which in the ninth century had its own bishop, and was united to Cagliari by Martin V (1427). The cathedral was built by the Pisans, but has undergone many restorations of the barocco style. The archdiocese has 143,000 inhabitants, 81 parishes, 118 churches and chapels, 162 secular, and 38 regular priests, and contains 7 religious communities of men and 2 of women. The suffragans are Galtelli-Nuoro, Iglesias, Ogliastra.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XIII; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907).

U. BENIGNI.

Diocese of Cagli e Pergola

(Calliensis Et Pergulensis)

Situated in Umbria (Italy), in the province of Pesaro, suffragan of Urbino. Cagli is the old Roman colony of Callium. The first known bishop was Gratianus who, in 359, assisted at the Council of Rimini; in 500 we meet the name of Viticanus, present at the council of Rome, held on account of Pope Symmachus; in 751 Anastasius attended the council of Rome held against the Iconoclasts. In 1045 Bishop Luitulphus resigned his see and devoted himself entirely to works of piety. St. Ranieri, a Benedictine, governed Cagli from 1156 to 1175, and was then transferred to Spalato (Dalmatia), where he was killed by some Slavs (1180) for having claimed for the church lands occupied unjustly by them. Bishop Egidio (1243–59) had many controversies with the municipality of Gubbio. Under his successor the Ghibellines revolted against the papal power. After the death of Bishop Jacopo (1276), the Ghibelline canons wished to elect a noble, Berardo Berardi, while the Guelphs elected Rinaldo Sicardi, Abbot of San Pietro di Massa. As a result the see remained vacant for some years. Finally Berardo was made bishop of Osimo, and Sicardi died, whereupon a certain Guglielmo was elected bishop (1285). Civil discords, however, did not cease, and after a terrible massacre, Cagli was burned by its own citizens. It was afterwards rebuilt on the plain of St. Angelo, and Nicholas IV named it St. Angelo of the Pope (S. Angelo papale). Later on, however, the original name of Cagli was substituted. In 1297 the first stone of the cathedral was laid by the Bishop Lituardo Cervati, and in 1398 Niccoló Marciari brought the building to completion. In 1503 the partisans of Caesar Borgia killed the Franciscan bishop Gasparo Golfi. His successor, a Spanish Dominican, Ludovico di Lagoria, was nearly killed by the people. Giovanni Taleoni (1565) introduced the Tridentine reforms; Filippo Bigli (1610) restored the episcopal palace and governed with great wisdom; Bishop Bertozzi (1754) built the seminary. Mention should also be made of the pious and zealous Alfonso Cingari (1807–17). In 1817 Pergola which had been in the Diocese of Urbino was raised to the rank of an episcopal city and united to the See of Cagli. The diocese contains 30,000 Catholics, with 51 parishes, 102 churches and chapels, 102 secular, and 8 regular priests. It has 9 religious houses, among them the celebrated Camaldolese Abbey of Fonte Avellana. At an earlier period the Benedictine monasteries of San Geronzio, founded about 700, and San Pietro della Massa, founded in 850, were very famous.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844); Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 351–52.

U. BENIGNI

Charles Cahier

Antiquarian, born at Paris, 26 February, 1807; died there 26 February, 1882. He made his preparatory studies at the College of Saint-Acheul, and entered the Society of Jesus 7 September, 1824. For some years he tought successively in its colleges at Paris, Brieg in the Swiss Canton of Wallis, at Turin, and at Brugalette in Belgium. The greater part of his life, however, was devoted to the collection, classification, and interpretation of the countless treasures of medieval art surviving in France, Belgium, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe. They interested him not only as relics of its artistic skill, but chiefly as evidences of its Catholic fath. As early as 1840 he began his collaboration with his Jesuit confrére, Father Arthur Martin, an excellent draughtsman, and chief collector of the mass of artistic material that Father Cahier classified and interpreted in the light of Catholic faith and theology. Their first important work was a folio on the thirteenth-century stained glass of the cathedral of Bourges, “Monographie de la cathédrale de Bourges, première partie. Vitraux du XIIIe siècle” (Paris, 1841–44); the substance of it is in Migne (Guinebaut), “Dict. d’Iconographie” (Paris, 1858), 921–38. Their most characteristic work is found in the valuable “Mélanges d’archéologie, d’histoire, et de littérature” etc. (Paris, 1848–59), four quarto volumes of illustrated dissertations on gold and silver church-plate, enamelled ware, carved ivories, tapestries, bas-reliefs, and paintings belonging to the Carlovingian and Romanesque periods (ninth to twelfth century). This important contribution to the history of medieval art was followed later by four more volumes: “Noveaux mélanges d’archéologie, d’histoire, et de littérature sur le moyen-âge” etc. (Paris, 1874–77), in the first volume of which is to be found a memoir of Father Martin by his collaborator. In the meantime Father Cahier had published a monograph in two folio volumes on the saints as grasped by the popular imagination, “Caractéristiques des saints dans l’art populaire” (Paris, 1867). In spite of his numerous digressions and parentheses, says Father Brucker (Vacant, II, 1304), and a somewhat neglected style, Fathe Cahier is never wearisome; a vein of kindly but caustic humor runs through his pages, in which about pungent words and phrases, dictated, however, by candour and the love of truth. He was deeply versed in all kinds of curious medieval lore, and particularly in the “people’s calendar” or every-day usages and customs connected with the liturgical life of the Church. Specimens of his uncommon erudition in this respect may be seen in his studies on Christmas and on Epiphany in “Amide la religion” (Paris, 1848–1849), and in his “Calendrier populaire du temps passé” in “Revue de l’art chrétien” (Paris, 1878).

For his life and writings see Polybiblion (Paris, 1882), I, 264–65; DE BACKER AND SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c. de J., I, 264–65; DANIEL, Etudes religieuses (Paris, 1868), 353–77, 729–50.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Daniel William Cahill

Lecturer and controversialist, born at Ashfield, Queens County, Ireland 28 November, 1796; died at Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 28 October, 1864. The third son of Daniel Cahill, a civil engineer, he was sent to Carlow College, and in 1816 entered Maynooth, where he became proficient in natural philosophy and languages. He was ordained a priest after he had passed through the Dunboyne establishment, and in 1825 was appointed professor of natural philosophy at Carlow College where he taught for some years. He then opened a school at Seapoint, Williamstown, which he conducted from 1835 to 1841. Meanwhile he wrote largely for the press, and for a time edited the Dublin “Telegraph.” He became a distinguished preacher and lecturer, and his vigorous attacks on the government and the Established Church of Ireland extended his reputation in all directions. In December, 1859, he visited the United States and lectured on Astronomy and other scientific subjects, and preached in many American and Canadian cities. As he generally gave his services for religious and charitable purposes, large sums of money were raised by him for Catholic objects. He was of commanding presence, being six feet five inches in height, and extremely handsome. He was buried in Boston, but his body was exumed in 1885 and taken to Ireland, where it was buried in Glasnevin Cemetary, Dublin. His writings consist chiefly of lectures and addresses, with some letters to prominent Protestants. The most important of them were collected and published in Dublin in 1886 under the title “Life, Letters, and Lectures of Rev. Dr. Cahill.”

The Lamp (London, 7 June, 1851); COMERFORD, Collections (1883), 198–200; BOASE, Modern English Biography, I; ALLIBONE, Dictionary (Supp. vol. I).

D.J. O’DONOGHUE

Diocese of Cahors

(Cadurcensis.)

Comprising the entire department of Lot, in France. In the beginning it was a suffragan of Bourges and later, from 1676 to the time of the Revolution, of Albi. From 1802 to 1822 Cahors was under the Archbishop of Toulouse, and combined the former Diocese of Rodez with a great part of the former Dioceses of Vabres and Montauban. However, in 1822 it was restored almost to its pristine limits and again made suffragan to Albi. According to a tradition connected with the legend of St. Martial (see LIMOGES), this saint, deputed by St. Peter, came to Cahors in the first century and there dedicated a church to St. Stephen, while his disciple, St. Amadour (Amator), the Zaccheus of the Gospel and husband of St. Veronica (see BORDEAUX), evangelized the diocese. In the seventeenth centuy these traditions were closely examined by the Abbé de Fouillac, a friend of Fénelon, and, according to him, the bones discovered at Rocamadour in 1166, and looked upon as the relics of Zaccheus, were in reality the bones of St. Amator, Bishop of Auxerre. A legend written about the year 1000 by the monks of Saint-Genou (in the Diocese of Bourges) relates that Genitus and his son Genulfus were sent to Gaul by Pope Sixtus II (257–59), and that Genulfus (Genou) was the first Bishop of Cahors. But Abbé Duchesne repudiates this tardy legend. The first historically known Bishop of Cahors is St. Florentius, correspondent of St. Paulinus of Nola (end of the fourth century). The Diocese of Cahors counted among its bishops: St. Alithus (fifth century); St. Maurilio and St. Ursinicus (sixth century); St. Rusticus, who was assassinated, his brother, St. Desiderius (Didier), the steward of King Dagobert, and St. Capuanus (seventh century); St. Ambrosius (eighth century); St. Gausbert (end of tenth century); Guillaume de Cavaillon (1208–34), who took part in the Albigensian crusade; Hugues Géraud (1312–16), implicated in the conspiracy against John XXII and sentenced to be burned alive; Bertrand de Cardaillac (1324–64) and Bégon de Castelnau (1366–87), both of whom contributed so powerfully to free Quercy from English rule; Alessandro Farnese (1554–57), nephew of Pope Paul III; the Venerable Alain de Solminihac (1636–59), one of the most active reformers of the clergy in the seventeenth century, and Louis-Antoine de Noailles (1679–80), subsequently Archbishop of Paris. The city of Cahors, visited by Pope Callistus II (1119–24), was the birthplace of Jacques d’Euse (1244–1334), who became pope in 1316 under the title of John XXII, and the tower of whose palace is still to be seen in Cahors. He built a university there, its law faculty being so celebrated as to boast at times of 1200 pupils. Fénelon studied at this institution, which, in 1751, was annexed to the University of Toulouse. In the sixteenth century the Diocese of Cahors was severely tried by religious wars, and the Pélegry College, which gratuitously sheltered a certain number of university students, became noted for the admirable way in which these young men defended Cahors against the Huguenots. The cathedral of Cahors, built at the end of the eleventh and restored in the fourteenth century, has a beautiful Gothic cloister. When, in the Middle Ages, the bishops officiated in this church they had the privilege, as barons and counts of Cahors, of depositing their sword and armour on the altar. In the diocese special homage is paid to St. Sacerdos, Bishop of Limoges, and his mother, Mundana (seventh century); Esperie (Speria), virgin and martyr (eighth century); St. Géraud, Count of Aurillac (beginning of the eleventh century); Blessed Christopher, companion of St. Francis of Assisi and founder of a Franciscan convent at Cahors in 1216, and Blessed Jean-Gabriel Perboyre, born in the village of Mongesty, 1802, and martyred in China, 1840. The city of Figeac owed its origin to a Benedictine abbey founded by Pepin in 755. The principal places of pilgrimage are: Notre-Dame de Rocamadour, visited by St. Louis (1245), Charles the Fair (1324), and Louis XI (1463), its bell being said to have rung miraculously several times to announce the deliverance of shipwrecked sufferers who had commended themselves to the Blessed Virgin; Notre-Dame de Félines and Notre-Dame de Verdale, both dating back to the eleventh century; Saint-Hilaire Lalbenque, where some highly-prized relics of St. Benedict Joseph Labre are preserved. Prior to the enforcement of the Law of 1901 there were both Capuchins and Lazarists in the Diocese of Cahors. The schools are in charge of four important local orders of nuns: the Daughters of Jesus, numbering 800 (founded in 1820, with mother-house at Vaylats); the Sisters of Mercy, having a membership of 200 (founded in 1814, with mother-house at Monteng); the Sisters of Our Lady of Calvary, 1000 in number (founded in 1833, with mother-house at Gramat); and the Sisters of Saint-Joseph, numbering 150 (mother house at Sainte-Colombe). A society composed of 8 diocesan missionaries is stationed at Rocamadour. The “Revue Catholique des Eglises” has recently begun an investigation of all the dioceses of France, and although little has yet been done, this investigation has been completed in the Diocese of Cahors, and shows that, out of 85,000 men and 90,000 women, 60,000 men and over 80,000 women make their Easter duty; and here we would incidentally remark that, despite this favourable condition, the deputies and senators elected by the department vote for all anti-religious laws. In 1900 the Diocese of Cahors had the following religious institutions: 16 infant schools, 1 boys’ orphanage, 6 girls’ orphanages, 4 industrial schools, 1 house of shelter, 10 hospitals and asylums, 1 insane asylum, and 12 houses for religious nurses. In 1905 (at the close of the period under the Concordat) the population was 226,720, with 33 pastorates, 448 succursal parishes (mission churches), and 55 curacies supported by the State.

Gallia christiana (nova) (1751), I, 115–58, 1327; Instrumenta, 28–49, 203; PERIE, Histoire politique, religieuse et littéraire du Quercy (Cahors, 1861); GUILHOU, Les évêques de Cahors (Cahors, 1865); LACARRIERRE, Histoire des évêques de Cahors, des saints, des monastéres et des principaux événements du Quercy (Cahors, 1876); LONGNON, Pouillé du diocèse de Cahors (Paris, 1874); DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux, II, 44–47, 126–28; CALVET in Revue catholique des églises, 25 Feb., 1905; CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl., 543–44.

GEORGES GOYAU

Diocese of Caiazzo

(Caiacensis.)

Situated in the province of Caserta, Italy, amid the mountains of Tifati near the river Volturno. During a Roman period it was known as Calatia, and was important, especially during the wars of the Samnites and of Hannibal. According to legend, Christianity was introduced by St. Priscus, first Bishop of Capua, of which see Caiazzo is suffragan. The first known bishop of Caiazzo was Arigisus, the exact time of whose episcopate is uncertain; however, as the name indicates, it could not have been before the beginning of the seventh century, when the Lombards settled in that region. Other bishops known to history were: Stefano, who had been Abbot of S. Salvatore in Capue (died 1025), and his successor Ferdinando; Jacopo (died 1253), exiled by Frederick II for his fidelity to the Holy See; Giuliano Frangipane, a man of great wisdom, elected in 1472; Vincio Maffa, elected in 1507, theologian at the Lateran Council (1512); Fabio Mirto, electeed in 1537, who took part in the Council of Trent, and was Apostolic nuncio to Paris at the time of his death (1587); Ottavio Mirto Frangipane, elected in 1572; Orazio Acquaviva, who was captured by the Turks at the battle of Lepanto, and who on regaining Taddeo, elected in 1641, distinguished for his learning. The Diocese of Caiazzo contains a population of 25,000, with 72 churches and chapels, 35 secular priests, and 3 religious institutes.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844); Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 353.

U. BENIGNI

Armand-Benjamin Caillau

Priest and writer, born at Paris, 22 October, 1794, died there, 1850. Ordained in 1818, successively a member of the Missions de France, rector of Sainte-Geneviève and chaplain of the Infirmerie Marie-Thérèse, he joined, in 1834, the Fathers of Mercy, newly re-organized by Father Rauzan. His love of missionary life made him decline episcopal honours and a chair at the Sorbonne, but was no obstacle to his literary pursuits. Besides many contributions to the “Bibliographic Catholique,” Caillau wrote “Instructions sur l’oraison mentale” (Paris, 1833), a French translation of Tertullian’s “De Spectaculis” (Paris, 1835), several monographs on Our Lady’s Sanctuaries: “Roc-Amadour” (1834), “Loretto” (1843), “N.D. de Puy” (1846), “Litanies du St. Nom de Jesus” (Paris, 1845), “Les nouveaux illuminés” (Michel Vintras) (Orléans, 1849), etc. He is best known, however, by the following works: “Thesaurus Patrum” (Paris, 1823–5), a patristic digest modelled on Merz’s “Thesaurus biblicus,” with an introduction to petrology; “Collectio selecta Patrum” (Paris 1829–1842), 133 octavo volumes, undertaken in collaboration with Mgr. Guillon and suspended at the announcement of Migne’s “Patrology.” The insertion of new sermons under the name of St. Augustine (P.L., XLVII) brought about a controversy between the two editors. “Histoire de la Vie des Saints” (Paris 1835–1840), four octavo volumes, and also (Paris 1863) five octavo volumes, written in collaboration with Abbé Juste; “S. Gregorii Nazianzeni opera” (Paris, 1842), two folio volumes (also P.G., XXVII and XXVIII), a splendid edition, partly from the manuscript notes of D. Clémencet, reviewed by Villemain in the “Journal des Savants” (1845 and 1847) “Rhetorica Patrum” (Paris, 1838), three volumes never completed. A similar project of a “ Bibliotheca Mariana” resulted only in the publication of a few opuscula of St. Ephrem, St. Bonaventure, Idiota (Jordan), and the Marial monographs noticed above. Caillau also re-edited Merz’s “Thesaurus biblicus” (1822), “L’Année sainte” (1826), vols. III and IV of D. Ceillier’s “ Histoire des auteurs sacrés “ (1838–9); and “Lettres de Scheffmacher” (1839).

DELAPORTE. Vie du P. Rauzan (Paris, 1857); Bibliographie catholique, X; MANGENOT in Dict. de theol. cath., s.v. See also index of CEILLIER, Hiotoire des auteurs sacrés (Paris, 1868).

J.F. SOLLIER

Cain

The first-born of Adam and Eve. His name is derived, according to Genesis 4:1, from the root kanah, to possess, being given to him in consequence of the words of his mother at his birth: “I have possessed a man by the favour of the Lord.” No very serious objection can be urged against this derivation. The Book of Genesis, interested in this section in the origin of the different occupations of men, tells us that Cain became a husbandman while his brother Abel tended flocks. They both offered to the Lord a sacrifice, acknowledging, in a manner analogous to that later prescribed in the law, the sovereign power of the Creator. Cain offered of the fruits of the earth; Abel of the “firstlings of his flock and of their fat.” By some means not indicated in the sacred text, perhaps, as has been thought, by some such sign as the fire which consumed the offering of Gideon (Judges, vi, 21) or that of Elias (III, Kings, xviii, 38), God manifested to the brothers that Abel and his sacrifice were acceptable to Him; that, on the contrary, he rejected Cain and his offering. We are not told the reason of this preference. Among the conjectures on the subject one that has found most favour among commentators is that which is incorporated in the Septuagent version of the words of God to Cain in verse vii: “If thou didst offer well but divide badly, hast thou not committed sin?” This implies that Cain committed the fault of presenting to God imperfect gifts, reserving to himself the better part of the produce of the land. However, St. Augustine, who was under the influence of the Septuagint, understood the division in another way. Cain, he tells us, gave God a part of his goods, but he did not give Him his heart (De Civitate Dei, XV, vii). This is in keeping with the cause more generally assigned for God’s preference. The sequel of the story shows us the evil disposition of Cain’s heart. St. John says that Cain slew Abel because his works were evil, while those of his brother were just (I John, iii, 12), and we read in Hebrews that “by faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain” (Heb., xi, 4).

Cain is angered by the Divine rejection. In verses 6 and 7 of chapter iv of Genesis we have God’s rebuke and warning: “Why art thou wroth, and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou dost well, is not thy countenance raised up? If thou dost not well, sin crouches at the door. Its desire is towards thee, but thou rule over it.” Sin here is represented under the figure of a wild beast crouching at the door of the heart ready to pounce upon its victim. Cain is able to resist temptation. But he does not, and the Bible story goes on to relate the terrible crime born of his anger and jealousy. He slays Abel. Questioned by the Lord as to the whereabouts of his brother, he answers defiantly that he knows not. To avenge the blood of Abel, God pronounces a curse against the first homicide. The Hebrew text of the curse may be translated either: “Cursed be thou by the earth which has opened its mouth and drunk the blood of thy brother” etc., or “Cursed be thou from the earth” etc. The former translation refers the sentence to the words which follow: “When thou shalt till it, it shall not give thee its strength” i.e. its produce; the latter, to the banishment related afterwards. This banishment from the country where his parents lived and where, as we learn from such passages from the present one, God continued to manifest his presence in some special way, is spoken of as “going out from the face of Jehovah” (verse 16). The country of Cain’s banishment, where he was to lead a wandering, vagrant life, is called, in the Hebrew, the land of Nod, and is said to be east of Eden. As we do not know where Eden was, the location of Nod cannot be determined. The punishment seemed to Cain greater than he could bear; in answer to his words expressing fear that he might be killed, God gave him a promise of special protection for his life, and put upon him a sign. No indication as regards the nature of this sign is given us. The only event of the subsequent life of Cain spoken of in the Bible is the founding of a city, called Henoch after a son of that name. A good many authors find that this tradition, which makes of Cain the first city builder, is not compatible with the story just related, which they say is best understood as a popular account of the origin of the wandering desert tribes. If we do not put into the history of the author of Genesis elements of which he seems to have been altogether unconscious, there is no reason to suppose he was wrong in regarding the words of the curse as consistent with the “building” of a city by Cain. Conservative commentators are probably right in their judgment that this “city” of Cain was not of notable extent or importance.

W.S. REILLY

Cainites

A name used for (1) the descendants of Cain, (2) a sect of Gnostics and Antinomians.

(1) THE DESCENDANTS OF CAIN

The Bible (Gen., iv, 17–22) mentions nine of Cain’s descendants in the direct line: Henoch, Irad, Maviael, Mathusael, and Lamech, who had four children: Jabel and Jubal by his wife Ada, and Tubalcain with his sister Noemi by his second wife Sella. The etymology of several of these name is obscure because it is uncertain whether they are Hebrew, Babylonian, or Sumerian. The derivation of Mathusael, however, is obvious, mutusha-ilu being the Babylonian for “vassal of God.” Maviael, if the Septuagint reading is right, would mean “God is my life-giver”; but according to the Hebrew text Mehujael would mean “wiped out by God.” Most likely, however, the word is Babylonian and connected with amel ilu, “man of God.” Lamech is perhaps connected with lamga, the Sumerian for “servant” (of God). Cain “built a city and called the name thereof by the name of his son Henoch.” To some scholars this has suggested “dedication” as the Hebrew derivation of Henoch; but others see in it the name of the famous Sumerian city, Unug (later Uruk, Erech, Warka). For Irad no satisfactory etymology has been found; it means, perhaps, “scion” from arada, “to sprout.” It is remarkable that amongst the Sechites four names occur similar to those of Cainites: Cainan, Mahalael, Jared, and Mathusala, and two, Henoch and Lamech, are identical in both pedigrees. Ada probably means “dawn,” Sella, “shade,” Jabel, “shepherd,” Jubal, “musician.” Noemi means “beautiful.” The Septuagint omits Cain after Jubal, thereby suggesting connection with a tribe of Asia Minor (Gen., x, 2, Ez., xxvii, 13) called Tabalu by Assyrians and Tybarenoi by Herodotus. But the Massoretic Tubalcain is certainly correct if it be connected with Balgin, the Sumerian Vulcan, as recently suggested. If we substitute English equivalents for proper names, Gen., iv, 19–22 would read: “God’s servant took two wives, the name of the one was Dawn and the name of the other Shade. And Dawn brought forth Shepherd, the father of dwellers in tents and herdsmen and his brother’s name was Musician, the father of harp- and pipe-players. But Shade brought forth Blacksmith, the forger of brass and iron, and Blacksmith’s sister’s name was Beautiful.” This has led some to believe that the inspired narrative merely records under a figure of speech the introduction of polygamy and the spread of civilization.

A similar description existed amongst Phoenicians. As the most recent research has shown that iron was used in Egypt 3500 B.C., no argument for lateness of narrative can be drawn from the mention of iron. As for the six lines of Hebrew poetry (verses 23–24) put into the mouth of Lemach, though their origin and occasion will probably remain forever obscure, their general meaning is clear: Cain had committed deliberate murder, fratricide, yet he was not handed over to the lawless private vengeance of man. How much less was Lamech, in self-defence, i.e. slain a man for wounding him, or, in Hebrew parallelism, for bruising him. In Num., xxiv, 22, Jud., iv, 11, I Par., ii, 55, Cinites are mentioned as neighbours to Israel. The Hebrew consonants would allow the reading Cainites, which some scholars have adopted against the Massora and Septuagint; but this is at present mere conjecture.

(2) SECT OF GNOSTICS AND ANTINOMIANS

A Gnostic Sect of the second century was called Cainites or Caianites. They regarded all characters held up to retrobation in the Old Testament as worthy of veneration, as having suffered at the hands of the cruel God of the Jews; hence Cain, as the first man cursed by Hysteraa, the Demiurg, claimed their special admiration. This sect of Antinomians never found many adherents, and Hippolytus at the beginning of the third century dismisses them with the bare mention of their name. (See GNOSTICISM.)

DRIVER, Genesis (London, 1906), 70–74; HAUPT, Polychrome Bible: Genesis, notes on Hebrew text in loco; BAREILLE in Dict. de théol. catholique (Paris, 1904), s. v.

J.P. ARENDZEN

Joseph Caiphas

According to Josephus (Antiquitates, XVIII, iv, 3), Caiphas was appointed High-Priest of the Jews by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus, the predecessor of Pontius Pilate, about A.D. 18 (Ant., XVIII, ii, 2), and removed from that office by the procurator Vitellius, shortly after he took charge of affairs in Palestine, A.D. 36 (Ant., XVIII, iv, 3). During this period the famous Annas, father-in-law of Caiphas (John 18:13), who had been high-priest from A.D. 6 to 15, continued to exercise a controlling influence over Jewish affairs, as he did when his own sons held the position. This explains the rather puzzling expression of Luke 3:2, epi archiereos Anna kai Kaiapha (under the high-priest Annas and Caiphas; cf. Acts 4:6). Caiphas was certainly the only official high-priest at the time St. Luke refers to, at the beginning of the public life of Christ; but Annas still had his former title and a good deal of his former authority. The role assigned him in the trial of Christ, in John 18, points to the same continued influence. In the measures taken by the Jewish authorities to do away with Jesus, Caiphas certainly had the most discreditable part. After the raising of Lazarus, the priests and Pharisees held council to determine what was to be done in view of the manifest signs of the Prophet of Nazarus and what they were pleased to consider the danger resulting to the country. The words of Caiphas, the high-priest of that year, are reported by St. John: “You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient to you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (11:49–50). They show a disdain for others, and a determination to get rid of this man who was displeasing to him, without any consideration of the justice of his cause. But while we may see in the declaration of Caiphas the manifestation of very unworthy sentiments, we are warned by St. John that it was prophetical. The high-priest expressed in a striking way the meaning of the sufferings of the Man-God (John 11:51–52), though he could not have realized the full import of those mysterious words. The death of Jesus being resolved upon, the most unscrupulous means were employed in order to bring it about, and Caiphas is chiefly to blame. The meeting determined upon by the princes of the priests and the elders of the people, “that by subtilty they might apprehend Jesus,” was held in the house of Caiphas (Matthew 26:3–5). The hill south of Jerusalem where this house is said by tradition to have stood is called the “Hill of Evil Counsel.” As high-priest, Caiphas was the official head of the Sanhedrin, and consequently responsible for the travesty of a trial to which Christ was submitted by the Jewish authorities, before they handed Him over to Pilate and stirred up the people to demand his death.

After the death of Jesus, Caiphas continued to persecute his followers. When Peter and John were brought before the Council after the cure of the lame man at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Acts 4:6 sqq.), Caiphas was still high-priest, since he was removed A.D. 36 or 37. We can say with almost equal certainty that he was the high-priest before whom St. Stephen appeared (Acts 7:1), and that it is from him that Saul obtained letters authorizing him to bring the Christians of Damascus to Jerusalem (Acts 9:1–2). At a time when high-priests were made and unmade by officials of Rome, and when the principal quality required seems to have been subserviency, it is no credit to the character of Caiphas to have enjoyed their favour so long. Josephus mentions his rule in connection with a series of acts of Vitellius which were agreeable to the Jews. We are not told what became of him after his deposition.

W.S. REILLY

Caius

A Christian author who lived about the beginning of the third century. Little is known about his personal history. Eusebius mentions him several times and tells us (Hist. Eccl., VI, xx) that he held a disputation with Proclus a Montanist leader at Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (199–217), and calls him a learned man and an ecclesiastic. This latter designation need not imply that he was a priest. Several extracts from the dialogue against Proclus are given by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, xxv; III, xxxi; VI, xx). Caius is also mentioned by Jerome (de Vir. Ill., 59), Theodoret (Haer. Fab., II, iii), and Nicephorus Callistus (Hist. Eccl., IV, xii-xx), all of whom derived their information from Eusebius. Photius (Bibl. Cod., 48) gives some additional data drawn from a marginal note in a manuscript copy of the work on the “Nature of the Universe” in which Caius is said to have been a presbyter of the Roman Church and to have been elected “Bishop of the Gentiles.” These indications, resting as they do on a confusion of the Anti-Montanist Caius with Hippolytus, are absolutely valueless. Additional light has been thrown on the character of Caius’s dialogue against Proclus by Gwynne’s publication of some fragments from the work of Hippolytus “Contra Caium” (Hermathena, VI, p. 397 sq.); from these it seems clear that Caius maintained that the Apocalypse of John was a work of the Gnostic Cerinthus.

We owe to Caius a very valuable evidence of the death of Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome, and the public veneration of their remains at Rome about the year 200. It is taken from the above-mentioned disputation with Proclus, and reads as follows (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., II, 25): “But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.” By “trophies” is of course understood the memorial chapel that preserved in each case the body of the Apostle (cf. Barnes, St. Peter in Rome, London, 1900, p 145).

The fragments of Caius are printed in ROUTH, Reliquiae Sacrae (Oxford, 1846), II, 125–58, and in P.G., X, 25–36. Cf. ZAHN, Geschichte des neutestamentl. Kanons, II, 985–991; HARNACK, Chronologie, II, 206, 223, 226; BARDENHEWER, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur (Freiburg, 1901), I, 525.

PATRICK J. HEALY

John Caius

(Also Kay, Key.)

Physician and scholar, born at Norwich, 6 October, 1510; died at London, 29 July, 1573. He entered the University of Cambridge in 1529, received the degree M.A. in 1535, and studied medicine under Montanus and Vesalius at Padua, where he received (1541) the degree of Doctor of Medicine. After a tour through Italy, France, and Germany, during which he met the most eminent scholars of the age, he returned to England in 1544, and for twenty years lectured on anatomy in London. He published “A Boke or Conseille against the Disease commonly called the Sweate or Sweatyng Sicknesse” (London, 1552), which is considered the best account of that epidemic. He also wrote translations of, and commentaries on, the works of Galen and Hippocrates (Basle, 1544). With the means acquired from his mecical practice he refounded (1558) his college (Gonville) at Cambridge, which has since been known as Gonville and Caius College. Under Edward VI he became royal physician, a position which he retained under Elizabeth until he was dismissed (1568) on account of his adherence to the Catholic Faith. He was elected nine times president of the College of Physicians, an account of which—“Annales collegii medicorum 1520–1565”—he left in manuscripts. He was accused of atheism and of keeping secretly a collection of ornaments and vestments for Catholic use. The latter were found and burned in the College court. His last literary production was the history of Cambridge University—“Historia Cantabrigiensis Acadimae” (London, 1574)

MULLINGER, The University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1884); IDEM in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; CLARK, Cambridge (London, 1908).

E.A. PACE

Popes Sts. Caius and Soter

They have their feast together on 22 April, on which day they appear in most of the martyrologies, though Notker and a few others give Soter on the 21st and Caius on the 19th or 21st.

Soter was pope for eight years, c. 167 to 175 (Harnack prefers 166–174). We possess a fragment of an interesting letter addressed to him by St. Dionysius of Corinth, who writes: “From the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in many ways, and to send alms to many churches in every city, refreshing the poverty of those who sent requests, or giving aid to the brethren in the mines, by the alms which you have had the habit of giving from old, Romans keeping up the traditional custom of the Romans; which your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but has even increased, by providing the abundance which he has sent to the saints, and by further consoling with blessed words with brethren who came to him, as a loving father his children.” “Today, therefore, we have kept the holy Lord’s day, on which we have read your letter, which we shall always have to read and be admonished, even as the former letter which was written to us by the ministry of Clement.” (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., IV, xxiv.) The letter which Soter had written in the name of his church is lost, though Harnack and others have attempted to identify it with the so-called “Second Epistle of Clement” (see CLEMENT OF ROME). The reverence for the pope’s paternal letter is to be noticed. The traditional generosity of the Roman Church is again referred to by St. Dionysius of Alexandria to Pope Dionysius in the middle of the third century, and Eusebius says it still continued in his time. Nothing further is known of this pope.

Caius was pope for twelve years, four months, and seven days, from 17 December, 283, to 22 April, 296, according to the Liberian catalogue (Harnack, Chronol., I, 155, after Lipsius and Lightfoot); Eusebius is wrong in giving him fifteen years. He is mentioned in the fourth-century “Depositio Episcoporum” (therefore not as a martyr): X kl maii Caii in Callisti. He was buried in the chapel of the popes in that cemetary. Nothing whatever is known of his life. He lived in the time of peace before the last great persecution.

Soter is said by the fifth-century writer known as PRÆDESTINATUS (c. xxvi) to have written a book against the Montanists; he adds that Tertullian wrote against Pope Soter and Apollonius. As we know (JEROME, De Vir. ill., xl) that Tertullian wrote against Apollonius in his lost De Ecstasi, this may be true; see HARNACK, Gesch. der altchristlich. Lit., I, 589; ZAHN, Forschungen (1893), V, 49. On Caius in later Acts of Saints see TILLEMONT, IV; Acta SS., 14 April; BECILLUS, Acta S. Caii P. et M. (Rome, 1628). The false decretals attributed to these two popes will be found in the collections of councils, in COUSTANT, MIGNE, HINSCHIUS, etc. On a lette attributed to Caius by the Malabar Christians, see ROUTH, Reliq. Sacrae, II, 158, and HARNACK, op. cit., 777.

JOHN CHAPMAN.

St. Cajetan

(GAETANO.)

Founder of the Theatines, born October, 1480 at Vicenza in Venetian territory; died at Naples in 1547. Under the care of a pious mother he passed a studious and exemplary youth, and took his degree as doctor utriusque juris at Padua in his twenty-fourth year. In 1506 he became at Rome a prothonotary Apostolic in the court of Julius II, and took an important share in reconciling the Republic of Venice with that pontiff. On the death of Julius in 1523 he withdrew from the court, and is credited with founding, shortly after, an association of pious priests and prelates called the Oratory of Divine Love, which spread to other Italian towns. Though remarkable for his intense love of God, he did not advance to the priesthood till 1516. Recalled to Vicenza in the following year by the death of his mother, he founded there a hospital for incurables, thus giving proof of the active charity that filled his whole life. But his zeal was more deeply moved by the spiritual diseases that, in those days of political disorder, infected the clergy of all ranks, and, like St. Augustine in earlier times, he strove to reform them by instituting a body of regular clergy, who should combine the spirit of monasticism with the exercises of the active ministry.

Returning to Rome in 1523 he laid the foundations of his new congregation, which was canonically erected by Clement VII in 1524. One of his four companions was Giovanni Pietro Caraffa, Bishop of Chieti (in Latin Theate), afterwards Paul IV, who was elected first superior, and from whose title arose the name Theatines. The order grew but slowly. During the sack of Rome in 1527 the Theatines, then twelve in number, escaped to Venice after enduring many outrages from the heretic invaders. There Cajetan met St. Hieronymus Æmiliani (see SOMASCHI), whom he assisted in the establishment of his Congregation of Clerks Regular. In 1533 Cajetan founded a house in Naples, where he was able to check the advances of Lutheranism. In 1540 he was again at Venice, whence he extended his work to Verona and Vicenza. He passed the last four years of his life, a sort of seraphic existence, at Naples where he died finally of grief at the discords of the city, suffering in his last moments a kind of mystical crucifixion. He was beatified by Urban VIII in 1629, and canonized by Clement X in 1671. His feast is kept on the 7th of August.

JOSEPH KEATING.

Constantino Cajetan

A Benedictine savant, born at Syracuse, Sicily, in 1560; died at Rome, 17 September, 1650. While his brothers, Ottavio and Alfonso, joined the Society of Jesus, Constantino became a Benedictine (29 October, 1586) at San Nicolò d’Arena in Catania, and was soon called to Rome by Clement VIII, who confided to the promising young scholar an edition of the works of St. Peter Damian, which he executed in four folio volumes (Rome, 1606 et saep.). His constant and successful reasearches in Roman archives won him the friendship of Cardinal Baronius, through whom he was made titular Abbot of San Baronzio in the Diocese of Pistoia, and Custodian of the Vatican Library; the latter important office he held under four popes until his death. Baronius was much indebted to him in the composition of his “Annales Ecclesiastici,” and more than once praises Cajetan’s thorough knowledge of the Roman arhives (e.g. ad an. 1002, n. 10). He was a tireless worker in the field of ecclesiastical history; the long list of his writings may be seen in Ziegelbauer, “Hist. rei lit. O. S. B.” (Augsburg, 1754, III, 360 sqq.). Among them are a life of the liturgist, St. Amalarius of Trier (Rome, 1612), annotated lives of St. Isadore of Seville, St. Ildephoses of Toledo, Cardinal Gregory of Ostia, notes on the life of St. Anselm, an annotated edition of the “Vita Gelasii II” by Pandolfo of Pisa (Murat., Script. Rer. It., III, 367), treatises on the primacy and the Roman episcopate of St. Peter (Roccaberti, Bibl. max. pontif., VII). He was persuaded that St. Gregory the Great was a genuine disciple of St. Benedict, and wrote in defiance of this thesis “De S. Gregorii monachatu benedictino libri duo” (Salzburg, 1620). The authorship of the “Imitation of Christ” interested him also, and he several times broke a lance for the Benedictine Jean Gersen [Joannes Gersen, De Imit. Xti, acced. Defensio pro Gersen et methodo practicâ IV librorum” (Rome, 1616); “Concertatio, Apologetica responsio” (Rome, 1618); “Libellus apologeticus pro Gersen” (Rome, 1644), the latter two against Rosweyde]. His ardour for the glory of the Benedictine Order troubled his judgment occasionally, says Father Hurter, e.g. when he claimed for it such persons as St. Columbanus of Bobbio, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Ignatius Loyola. He inaugurated the controversy concerning the authorship of the work known as the “Spiritual Excercises of St. Ignatius” by his book “De religiosâ S. Ignatii, sive S. Enneconis fundatoris soc. Jesu per Benedictinos institutione, deque libello exercitiorum ejusdem ab Exercitatorio Cisnerii desumpto” (Venice, 1641), in which he claimed priority for the “Exercitatorium Spirituale” of Garcias de Cisneros, Benedictine Abbot of Montferrat (1455–1510). (See SPIRITUAL EXCERCISES.) Both this work and the “Achates, or reply of Giovanni Rho, S.J., were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1646. Cajetan was an intelligent and munificent collector of books, and at his death left his fortune to the “Bibliotheca Aniciana,” founded by him in honour of the family of St. Gregory the Great (Gens Anicia); the books have since been divided between the Propoganda Library and that of the Sapienza, or Roman University. To many his chief title to fame will seem to rest on his claim to be considered the first promoter, if not the founder, of the Propoganda College at Rome. He had long hoped to found at Rome a Collegium Gregorianum de propogandâ fide, in which young Benedictines might be trained for foreign missions, after the spirit and teachings of St. Gregory the Great, Apostle of the Anglo-Saxons. He really opened a house of studies for this purpose in the monastery of San Benedetto in Piscinula at Rome, and this may be looked on as historically the germ of Propaganda. (Cf. his “De erectione collegii Gregoriani in Urbe epistola encyclica,” Rome, 1622.) His idea was taken up seriously by Gregory XV (1621–23), and by him enlarged and modified until it took shape as the “Collegium [later Urbanum] de propagandâ fide.” However, the enlightened zeal and pioneer labours of Dom Cajetan received due recognition by his nomination of first consultor of the new college. (See PROPAGANDA, COLLEGE OF).

HURTER, Nomenclator, I, 459: WOLFSGRUBER, in Kirchenlex., s. v.; BUCHBERGER, Kirchl. Handlex. (Munich, 1906), s. v.; HEURTEBIZE, in Dict. de théol. cath., s.v.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan

(Baptized GIACOMO.)

Dominican cardinal, philosopher, theologian, and exegete; born 20 February, 1469 at Gaeta, Italy; died 9 August, 1534 at Rome. He came of noble stock, and in early boyhood was devout and fond of study. Against the will of his parents he entered the Dominican Order before the age of sixteen. As a student of Naples, Bologna, and Padua he was the wonder of his fellow-students and preceptors. As bachelor of theology (19 March, 1492), and afterwards master of students, he began to attract attention by his lectures and writings. Promoted to the chair of metaphysics at the University of Padua, he made a close study of the prevailing Humanism and Philosophism. Besides engaging in controversy with the Scotist Trombetta, he took a stand against the Averroistic tendencies or teachings of such men as Vernias, Pompanazzi, and Niphus, directing against them his celebrated work, “De Ente et Essentiâ,” counted the most subtle and abstruse of his productions. At a general chapter of the order (Ferrara, 1494) Cajetan was selected to conduct the customary defence of theses in presence of the assembled dignitaries. He had to face Pico della Mirandola among others, and such was his success that the students bore him in triumph on their shoulders to receive the felicitations of the master general. He was immediately made master of sacred theology, and for several years expounded the “Summa” of St. Thomas, principally at Brescia and Pavia, to which latter chair he had been called by the Duke of Milan, Ludovico Sforza. After two years he resigned and repaired to Milan, whence in 1500 Cardinal Oliviero Caraffa procured his transfer to Rome. In 1501 he was made procurator general of his order and appointed to the chairs of philosophy and exegesis at the Sapienza. On the death of the master general, John Clérée, 1507, Cajetan was named vicar-general of the order, and the next year he was elected to the generalship. With foresight and ability, he devoted his energies to the promotion of religious discipline, emphasizing the study of sacred science as the chief means of attaining the end of the order. His encyclical letters and the acts of chapters promulgated during his term of office bear witness to his lofty ideals and to his unceasing efforts to realize them. He was wont to say that he could hardly excuse from grevious sin a brother Dominican who failed to devote at least four hours a day to study. “Let others rejoice in their prerogatives,” he once wrote, “but the work of our Order is at an end unless sacred doctrine be our commendation.” He was himself a model of diligence, and it was said of him that he could quote almost the entire “Summa” from memory. About the fourth year of his generalship, Cajetan rendered important service to the Holy See by appearing before the Pseudo-Council of Pisa (1511), where he denounced the disobedience of the participating cardinals and bishops and overwhelmed them with his arguments. This was the occasion of his defence of the power and monarchical supremacy of the pope. It is chiefly to his endeavors that is ascribed the failure of this schismatical movement, abetted by Louis XII of France. He was one of the first to counsel Pope Julius II to convoke a real ecumenical council, i.e. the Fifth Lateran. In this council Cajetan was deputed by the principal religious orders to defend their common interests. Under the same pontiff he was instrumental in granting to Ferdinand of Spain the first Dominican missionaries who devoted organized effort to the conversion of the natives of America.

On 1 July, 1517, Cajetan was created cardinal by Pope Leo X. He was also appointed Archbishop of Palermo, but opposition on the part of the Sicilian senate prevented his taking possession and he resigned 8 February, 1518. On taking the demand of Charles V, however, he was later made Bishop of Gaeta, but this was after he had been sent in 1518 as Apostolic legate to Germany, bringing the insignia of the cardinalate to Albert of Brandenburg, and a sword blessed by the pope to Emperor Maximilian. On this occasion he was empowered to confer with the latter and with the King of Denmark on the terms of an alliance against the Turks. He also represented the pope at the Diet of Frankfort (1519), and took an active part in the election of Charles V (1519), thereby winning that emperor’s friendship and gratitude. While executing these missions, the more serious duty of meeting Luther, then started on his career of rebellion, was assigned to him. Cajetan’s theological learning and humane disposition seemed to fit him for the task of successfully treating with the proud and obstinate monk, and Protestants have admitted that in all his relations with the latter Cajetan exhibited a spirit of moderation, that did honour to his lofty character. But neither pleading, learning, nor conciliatory words availed to secure the desired submission. Luther parleyed and temporized as he had done with the Holy See itself, and finally showed the insincerity of his earlier protestations by spurning the pope and his representative alike. Some have blamed Cajetan for his failure to avert Luther’s defection, but others like Hefele and Hergenröther exonerate him. In 1523 he was sent by Adrian VI as legate to King Louis of Hungary to encourage the Christians in their resistance to the Turks. Recalled the following year by Clement VII, he became one of the pope’s chief advisors. During the sack of Rome by the imperialist army (1527) Cajetan, like other principal persons, was seized, and obtained the release of himself and household only on payment of five thousand Roman crowns of gold, a sum which he had to borrow and which he later made up by strictest economy in the affairs of his diocese. He was one of the nineteen cardinals who, in a solemn consistory held by Clement VII (23 March, 1534), pronounced definitively for the validity of the marriage of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. This was about the last public act of his life, for he died the same year and was buried, as he requested, in an humble tomb in the vestibule of the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva. It was the common opinion of his contemporaries that had he lived, he would have succeeded Clement VII on the papal throne. Much interest attaches to a portrait of Cajetan, the only one known, recently discovered by Père Berthier, O.P. in a collection of notables of the Reformation, owned by Count Krasinski of Warsaw, Poland (see bibliography).

Cajetan has been described as small in bodily stature but gigantic in intellect. In all his varied and laborious offices he never omitted his daily study and writing, nor failed in the practices of the religious life. He faced the trying issues of his times calmly and fearlessly, and endeavored by learning, tact, and charity to pacify hostile minds, to lead back the erring, to stem the tide of heresy, and to prevent schism. His written solutions of living moral problems cover a wide field. His circumstances and position often required him to take part in polemical discussions, yet he is said never to have given personal offence in his writings. His style, purely scientific and unrhetorical, is the more noteworthy for having attained its directness and simplicity in the golden age of Humanism. More than any other philosopher and theologian of his epoch, he ministered to actual intellectual needs of the Church. With penetration and sagacity he ranged beyond the confines of contemporary thought, and in his tentative solutions of grave problems, still open and unsettled, displayed judgment and frankness. It is not strange that he developed tendencies which surprised the more conservative, and essayed opinions which in some instances were, and have remained, unusual and occasionally erroneous. He found numerous critics, even in his own order, who were as censorious of him as his friends were zealous in upholding his merits. Among his opponents, the learned Dominican Bartholomew Spina (died 1542) was conspicuous. His persistent antagonism began, strangely enough, after he had written a laudatory preface to Cajetan’s commentary on the “Secunda Secundae” (second section of the second part of the “Summa”) of St. Thomas, whose publication he supervised for the author in 1517. The next year, in his refutation of Pompanazzi, Spina appears to have considered Cajetan as falling party within the scope of his strictures because of certain alleged concessions to the prevalent Averroistic rationalism in a commentary on the “De Animâ” of Aristotle. Cajetan held that Averroes had correctly exhibited the Stagirite as a believer in monopsychism, or the doctrine of the unity of one intellectual soul for humanity and the mortality of individual souls. Whilst working for, and concurring in the council’s condemnation of this doctrine in 1513, Cajetan had not favoured the requirement that in their public lectures professors of philosophy should bring up no teachings in conflict of Christian faith without refuting them; this, he contended, was the proper office of theologians. Elsewhere Cajetan had also intimated that reason left to itself could not adequately and conclusively demonstrate the soul’s immortality. From these beginnings, Spina, who during his later years was Master of the Sacred Palace, relentlessly pursued Cajetan living and dead. On these slender grounds some writers, including Renan (Averroés et l’Averro=8Bsme, Paris, 1867, 351) and Botta (Ueberweg, History of Philosophy, tr. Morris, New York, 1903, II, Appendix II), have misrepresented Cajetan as “boldly asserting the eternity of the universe and the destruction of personality at death,” and have classed him with the very men against whom he wrote, as an initiator of a new period in the development of anti-Scholastic philosophy.

In theology Cajetan is justly ranked as one of the foremost defenders and exponents of the Thomistic school. His commentaries on the “Summa Theologica,” the first in that extensive field, begun in 1507 and finished in 1522, are his greatest work and were speedily recognized as a classic in Scholastic literature. The work is primarily a defence of St. Thomas against the attacks of Scotus. In the third part it reviews the aberrations of the Reformers, especially Luther. The important relation between Cajetan and the Angelic Doctor was emphasized by Leo XIII, when by his Pontifical Letters of 15 October, 1879, he ordered the former’s commentaries and those of Ferrariensis to be incorporated with the text of the “Summa” in the official Leonine edition of the complete works of St. Thomas, the first volume of which appeared at Rome in 1882. This edition has restored a number of passages which St. Pius V desired to have expunged from the texts, the publication of which he ordered in 1570. The suppressed parts, now for the most part inoffensive, were largely in the nature of personal views and had no direct bearing on Thomistic doctrine as a system. In his exegetical work, begun in 1523 and continued to the time of his death, Cajetan sought to counteract the Biblical extravagances of the Humanists and to defeat the Lutheran movement on the ground from which it had chosen to reject the authority of the Church and of tradition. Chiefly with rabbinical assistance, it is said, being himself unversed in Hebrew, and with the aid of current Greek versions he prepared a literal translation of the Bible, including the Old Testament as far as the end of the third chapter of Isaias, and all the New Testament except the Apocalypse, which on account of its difficulties he was unwilling to undertake. It was his object, he declared in a dedicatory letter to Clement VII published in his edition of the Gospels, to ascertain the true literal sense of the Scriptures, and he did not hesitate to adopt new renderings, provided they did not conflict with the Sacred Word and with the teachings of the Church. This position, much criticized in his time, is now quite in line with the common method of Catholic exegetics. Though closely following St. Jerome on the authenticity of the Biblical texts and utilizing the New Testament version and notes of Erasmus, with whom he was on friendly terms, he produced a work whose importance was not overlooked, but whose freedom and wide departure from the Fathers and the theological schools created distrust and alarm. In his critical interpretation, for instance, he ventured an allegorical explaination of the first chapters of Genesis, and he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude, the genuineness of the passage of the three witnesses of (I John, v, 7), etc. In this field also he was bitterly assailed, especially by Ambrose Catharinus, an extraordinary but erratic genius, who had abandoned the law to enter the Dominican Order, and had become a bishop. Cajetan’s accompanying theological observations, however, are important, and many scholars have profitably studied them in conjunction with his commentaries on the “Summa.”

It has been significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even by his enemies. Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly. To Clement VII he was the “lamp of the Church,” and everywhere in his career, as the theological light of Italy, he was heard with respect and pleasure by cardinals, universities, the clergy, nobility, and people. The works of Cajetan aggregate about 115 titles. The commentaries on the several parts of the “Summa” exist in many editions. Of complete editions, sometimes including the text of the “Summa” and sometimes without it, the following are noteworthy: 10 vols. fol., Lyons, 1540; edition of Pius V in complete works of St. Thomas, Rome, 1570; 7 vols. 8vo with commentaries of Javelli and Caponi, Venice, 1596; 10 vols. fol., Rome, 1773; Leonine edition of St. Thomas (Summa) Rome, 1888. Other works of Cajetan are:

“Opuscula omnia tribus tomis distincta” (fol., Lyons, 1558; Venice, 1558; Antwerp, 1612), a collection of fifty nine treatises;

“Commentaria super tractatum de ente et essentiâ Thomae de Aquino; super libros posteriorum Aristotelis et praedicamenta,” etc. (fol., Venice, 1506);

“In praedicabilia Porphyrii praedicamenta et libros posteriorum analyticorum Aristotelis castigatissima commentaria” (8vo, Venice, 1587, 1599);

“Super libros Aristotelis de Animâ,” etc. (Rome, 1512; Venice, 1514; Paris, 1539);

“Summula de peccatis” (Rome, 1525, and in many other corrected and augmented editions);

“Jentacula N.T., expositio literalis sexaginta quatuor notabilium sententiarum Novi Test.,” etc. (Rome, 1525);

“In quinque libros Mosis juxta sensum lit. commentarii” (Rome, 1531, fol.; Paris, 1539);

“In libros Jehosuae, Judicum, Ruth, Regum, Paralipomenon, Hezrae, Nechemiae et Esther” (Rome, 1533; Paris, 1546);

“In librum Job” (Rome, 1535);

“In psalmos” (Venice, 1530; Paris, 1532);

“In parabolas Salomonis, in Ecclesiasten, in Esaiae tria priora capita” (Rome, 1542; Lyons, 1545; Paris, 1587);

“In Evangelia Matt., Marci, Lucae, Joannis” (Venice, 1530);

“In Acta Apostolorum” [Venice, 1530; Paris (with Gospels), 1536];

“In Epistolas Pauli” (Paris, 1532);

“Opera omnia quotquot in sacrae Scripturae expositionem reperiuntur, curâ atque industriâ insignis collegii S. Thomae Complutensis, O.P.” (5 vols. fol., Lyons, 1639).

FONSECA, Biographical notice of Cajetan in introduction to Commentary on Pentateuch (Paris, 1539); QUÉTIF-ECHARD, Script. Ord. Praed. (Paris, 1719), II, 14; CIACCONIUS, Vitae et res gestae pontificum Romanorum et cardinalium (Rome, 1675), III, 392; TOURON, Hist. des hommes illus. (Paris, 1743), IV, 1–76; LIMBOURG, Kardinal Cajetan in Zetschr. f. kath. Theol. (Innsbruck, 1880), IV, 139–179; HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1903), II, 1201; COSSIO, Il Cardinale Gaetano e la Riforma (Cividale, 1902); MANDONNET in Dict. de théol. cath. (Paris, 1904); BERTHIER, Il Ritratto del Gaetano in Il Rosario (Rome, Aug., Sep., 1907), ser. II, vol. IX, No. 476–477.

JOHN R. VOLZ.

Diocese of Calabozo

(Calaboso)

Calabozo is a town in the State of Miranda, Venezuela, on the River Guárico, 120 miles south-southwest of Caracas. Originally an Indian village, it was founded as a town in 1730 by the Compania Guipuzcoana. The city is situated on low ground, and in the rainy season the surrounding lands are inundated. In its vicinity are thermal springs. It is well built, has a college and public schools, and enjoys a considerable trade. The principal occupation of its inhabitants is cattle-raising. The Diocese of Calabozo was created 7 March, 1863, by Pius IX, and its first bishop was consecrated 30 October, 1881. It embraces the section of Guárico and portions of the sections of Apure, Zamora, Portuguesa, Cojedes, and Guzman Blanco. It has 310,000 Catholics, 38 priests, and 70 churches and chapels at the time of this writing. Calabozo is a suffragan of Caracas (Santiago de Venezuela)

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (Paris, 1908); HERDER, Konversations-Lex. (St. Louis, 1903), s. v.; WERNER, Orbis Terrarum Catholicus (Frerburg, 1890); STREIT, Katholischer Missionsatlas (Steyl, 1906).

LEO A. KELLY

Diocese of Calahorra and La Calzada

(Calaguritana et Calceatensis.)

Suffragan of Burgos, comprising almost all the province of Logroño and part of the provinces of Navarre and Soria. Calahorra, the episcopal city, has 9475 inhabitants; it is the centre of a judicial district, and possesses a collegiate church and a chapter. It has been asserted, but without a historical foundation, that St. Paul preached at Calahorra and ordained as its first bishop one of his disciples, Felix. According to Prudentius, a Christian poet of the fourth century, the brothers Emeterius and Celedonius, soldiers of the Legio VII Gemina, suffered for the Faith at Calahorra, but the exact date of their martyrdom is unknown. In the fourth century pilgrims from distant lands came to pray at the tomb of these saints, whose relics are yet preserved in the cathedral of Calahorra. The first known bishop of this see is Silvanus. About 465 the bishops of the province of Tarragona denounced to Pope Hilary the conduct of this prelate, who had consecrated two bishops in violation of the sacred canons. During the rule of the Visigoths (415–711) the bishops of Calahorra took part in several councils of Toledo. From 792 to 871 it is certain that the see was occupied by Mozarabic bishops, among them Theodemir at the end of the eighth and Recared in the ninth century. Calahorra was reconquered from the Moors by King García of Navarre, and in 1045 the see was restored; its first bishop, Sancho, also Bishop of Nájera, adopted then the title of Bishop op Calahorra and Nájera. In 1236 the see was transferred to Santo Domingo de la Calzada, a city in the same province of Logroño, where it remained for some time. Hence the existence of a cathedral and a chapter in each town and the double title of the bishop, who is chosen alternately by the chapter of each cathedral (Battandier). Among the bishops worthy of mention is Rodríguez Sánchez de Arévalo (died 1470), afterwards commander of the Castle of Sant’ Angelo in Rome, author of numerous theological and historical works and a vigorous champion of papal authority. The Catholic population of the united dioceses is 65,000; there are 363 parishes, 600 priests, 393 churches, and 268 chapels.

RISCO, Las antiqüedades civiles y eclesiásticas de Calahorra, in España Sagrada, XXXIII, 113–222, 271–330; LA FUENTE, Hist. ec.ca de España (Madrid, 1873–75), II, 81–83, 421–22; BATTANDIER Ann. pont. cath. (Paris, 1907), 217.

EDUARDO DE HINOJOSA

Calama

A titular see of Africa. Calama appears to be the Roman name of Suthul, a city in Numidia, besieged by Postumius 110 B.C. (Sallust, Bel. Jugurth., xxxvii). It became a Roman municipium as early as Hadrian, and a colony a little later. In the time of Diocletian it was included in Proconsular Africa, but its bishops were subject to Numidia. The city was captured by the Vandals on their arrival in Africa (429). Count Bonifacius was defeated near the city in 431. A great many inscriptions found at Guelma have proved that it is the modern substitute for Calama. Guelma, occupied by the French in 1836, is to-day the chief town of a district, or arrondissement, in the department of Constantine, Algeria; it is situated near the River Seybouse and the Djebel Mahonna, about 81 miles east of Constantine. It has 7300 inhabitants (1500 French), and is an important cattle market. Among its ruins are a Byzantine citadel and walls built by the Patricius Solomon during the Byzantine reoccupation. Four bishops are known: Donatus, 305; Megalius, who consecrated St. Augustine in 395 and died in 397; St. Possidius, elected in 397; Quodvultdeus in 484. Possidius was a disciple of St. Augustine in the monastic life; at Calama he suffered a grievous persecution from heathens and Donatists, and was obliged to leave his city for some time. The contemporary Donatist bishop was Crispinus; among the heathens we know a certain Nectarius, a correspondent of St. Augustine. Possidius disarmed his enemies by his charity. After the sack of Calama by the Vandals, he retired to Hippo and attended St. Augustine on his death-bed. He also wrote the life and a catalogue of the works of his master.

MORCELLI, Africa christiana, I, 115; GAMS, Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae Cath. (Ratisbon, 1873), I, 464; RAVOISIÉ, Exploration scientif. de l’Afrique, II; GSELL, Monuments antiques de l’Algérie (Paris, 1901); REBOUD, Recueil de not. et mém. de la soc. de Constantine (1882–1883), C, I, 24–51.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Fray Antonio de la Calancha

An erudite Augustinian monk, born 1584 at Chiquisaca (now Sucre) in Bolivia; died 1 March, 1654. Both his parents were of Spanish descent. He studied at Lima, where he entered the Order of St. Augustine, and was successively definitor, secretary of the province, and rector of the College of San Ildefonso. During the earthquake that made great ravages in Truxillo, 14 February, 1619, he was at the head of the convent of that city and afterwards became prior at Lima. His most important work is the “Corónica moralizada de la orden de N.S.P.S. Agustín en el Peru,” the first volume of which appeared in 1638 and the second in 1653. Both have become very rare. They are bulky tomes written in a ponderous style, but replete with valuable information on the Indians of Peru and Bolivia. In regard to the natives of the Peruvian coast, it must be said that, while Calancha had ample opportunity to gather information on the spot, he still prefers to rest mostly on the authority of the Jesuits Arriaga and Terhuel, and in regard to the Lake Titicaca region he follows almost exlusively the Augustinian Ramos Gavilán. On primitive conditions Calancha discourses extensively, but not always in a critical spirit, following therein the conditions and tendencies of the age in which he lived. The book is indispensable for the study of the aborigines and antiquities of South America. His book was also published in Latin by Brullius in 1651. Of the other works of his, only two, one on the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and the other on beavers (probably seals), were printed, the former in 1629, the latter in 1642.

ANTONIO, Bibliotheca hispana nova (Madrid, 1733–38); MENDIBURU, Dic. hist. biog. (Lima, 1876), II; LEóN Y PINELO, Epítome etca (1737–38); JIMÉNEZ DE LA ESPADA, Tres Relaciones peruanas (Madrid, 1880).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Calas Case

Jean Calas was a French Calvinist, born 19 March, 1698, at La Caparède near Castres, in the department of Tarn; executed 10 March, 1762, at Toulouse. At the time of the events which made his name famous, he was a prominent merchant of Toulouse, where he had resided for some forty years. In 1731 he married Anne-Rose Cabibel, and had six children: four sons, Marc-Antoine, Louis, Pierre, and Donat, and two daughters, Rose and Anne. One of the sons, Louis, was converted to Catholicity about 1760. His brother Marc-Antoine, also manifested an inclination to alter his faith, but, possibly owing to opposition on the part of the family, never took the final step. On 13 October, 1761, a number of people, attracted by the excitement, gathered around the house of Jean Calas. Marc-Antoine had been found hanged in his father’s warehouse. The news spread rapidly; the capitouls, or highest civil magistrates, hurried to the scene. One of the multitude cried out that Antoine had been murdered by his father to prevent him from abjuring Protestantism. The crowd immediately took up the idea, and the members of the family were arrested. The dead son was looked upon as a martyr by the Catholic population, and his obsequies were celebrated with great ceremony. In the interrogatory the accused involved themselves in contradictions, and, on 9 March, 1762, the Parliament of Toulouse, by a vote of 8 to 5, pronounced sentence against Jean Calas. He was condemned to the torture, ordinary and extraordinary, was then broken upon the wheel, and finally burnt. The sentence was executed the following day. Calas suffered with admirable courage and, until his last breath, never ceased to protest his innocence. The property of the family was confiscated. Madame Calas was liberated; but her two daughters, who were absent from home at the time of their brother’s death, were forced into a convent of the Visitation. Pierre and Donat escaped to Geneva. Voltaire, then living at Ferney, made the acquaintance of the family and employed his all-powerful influence to have the dead father’s innocence officially proclaimed, at the same time using the latter’s condemnation as a welcome source of new attacks upon the hated Catholic Church. In letters and pamphlets he defended the cause of Calas, and interested his many powerful friends in the case, which now began to attract world-wide attention. On 9 March, 1765, a Parisian tribunal unanimously pronounced Calas innocent. The Parliament of Toulouse was ordered to revoke the death sentence, but never obeyed the injunction. The remnant of the property was restored to the family, which, by a subscription and by gifts of money from King Louis XV, was enabled to live in moderate circumstances. The Calas Case was not without its effect on contemporary art and literature. Over a hundred publications relating to it are in existence. It forms the subject of many plays by F.-L. Laya (produced for the first time in Paris in 1790), Lemierre d’Argy (Paris, 1790), Marie-Joseph Chénier (Paris, 1791), and Victor Du Cange (Paris, 1819). Madame Calas and her daughters were living in Paris, when several of these were presented on the stage. Some historians, carried away perhaps by too great a desire to bring the innocence of Jean Calas to the fore, assert that Marc-Antoine committed suicide. But there are weighty reasons to doubt the father’s innocence (Barthélemy). Voltaire cannot be considered an impartial historian of the case, owing to his preconceived desire to present a strong indictment against the Catholic Church, rather than to state the facts in their true light. The responsibility of the condemnation in no way rested with the ecclesiastical authorities, and the penalty was inflicted not for a mere religious offence, but for murder alleged to have been committed for a religious motive.

COQUEREL, Jean Calas et sa famille (Paris, 1869); BARTHÉLEMY, Erreurs et mensonges historiques (Paris, 1886), 2d series, 1–73; KREITEN, Voltaire (1884), 413 sqq.; TALLENTYRE, Life of Voltaire (London, 1893), II, 150–69 passim; MAYNARD, Voltaire (Paris, 1868), II, 429–42.

N.A. WEBER

Mario di Calasio

Friar Minor and lexicographer, born at Calasio in the Kingdom of Naples about 1550; died at Rome, 1 February, 1620. Having entered the Franciscan Order, he devoted himself to the study of Hebrew with such success that the pope called him to Rome, where he taught Hebrew in the Franciscan convents of Ara Coeli and San Pietro in Montorio. Calasio enjoyed the special favour of Paul V who made him his confessor and bestowed upon him all the titles and privileges generally accorded to doctors of theology. When he was dying he caused the Passion to be read to him and expired while chanting the Psalms of David in Hebrew. Calasio’s reputation as a scholar in the Semitic languages rests mainly upon his “Concordantiae Sacrorum Bibliorum Hebraicorum” which was published at Rome in 1622, two years after his death. Another, though inferior, edition of the same work appeared at London in 1747. Besides this work Calasio wrote a “Dictionarium Hebraicorum” and “Canones Generales linguae sanctae.”

APOLLINAIRE in Vig., Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1899), II, 54–55.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Pedro de Calatayud

Jesuit missionary, born in Navarre, 1 August, 1689; died in Bologna, 27 February, 1773. He joined the Society of Jesus, 21 October, 1710. In the Academy of Madrid there is an account of one of his missions in Bilbao which is described as “portentosa.” He had the title of Master in Theology, and has left a number of pious and theological works. Among them are: “The Flame of Holy Love for the Sacred Heart”; “Various Sentences from the Scriptures for the Use of Missionaries”; “Practice of a Sweet and Reasonable Christian Life”; “Regrets of a Contrite Heart”; “Practical Doctrines for Explaination on the Missions,” a book which seems to have been particularly famous; “Doctrinal Compendium,” which was an extended edition of Pinamonti’s work: “Practical Catechism”; “Spiritual Exercises for Priests and Ordinandi”—one proposition of which (Doctrine IV, p. 111), about restitution by a negligent priest, was made a subject of criticism; “Practical and Doctrinal Methods for Religious.” He published a great number of pamphlets and brochures. He was living at the time of the suppression of the Society of Jesus and was expelled from Spain. He died shortly afterwards.

BOERO, Menologio, II, 503; SOMMERVOGEL, Bib. des écr. de la c. de J.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Military Order of Calatrava

Founded in Castile, in the twelfth century, as a military branch of the great Cistercian family.

In the Cistercian Order, then only recently formed (1098), there had been a large number of knights or sons of knights. In Calatrava, on the contrary, those who had been monks became knights. Monastic life has been called “a warfare,” and it would be a mistake to suppose those rough medieval warriors sought in the cloister only a comfortable asylum after a troublous career. In both lives there was an heroic struggle to sustain, whether against one’s passions or against the Moslems, and the austerities of an ascetic life could not have been more dreadful to them than the privations of camp life and the wounds of battle. These impetuous natures, who did nothing by halves, were eager to take Heaven, as they took earthly strongholds, by storm (Matt., xi, 12). However, the Order of Calatrava owes its origin not to any deliberately prepared plan, but to fortuitous circumstances, the recital of which would seem to be mere romance if the teller, Rodrigo of Toledo, did not add that he himself had known in his youth the hero of the story. It runs as follows:

Calatrava is the Arabic name of a castle recovered from the Moslems, in 1147, by the King of Castile, Alfonso VII, called el Emperador. Situated on the extreme southern borders of Castile, this conquest was more difficult to keep than to make, at a time when neither standing armies nor garrisons were known. It was this deficiency that the military orders, and first of all the Knights Templars, intended to supply by fulfilling their vow of perpetual war against the Moslem. To the Templars the king had recourse, but after a vain attempt to defend Calatrava they abandoned it, and the king was looking in vain for another defender when Raymond, Abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Fitero, offered himself. This step is said to have been suggested to the abbot by Diego Valasquez, a simple monk, but one who had been a knight, was well acquainted with military matters, and was inspired with the idea of employing the lay brothers of the abbey to defend Calatrava. These Cistercian lay brothers—at that time a recent innovation in religious life—not being in Holy orders, were variously employed as herdsmen, as labourers, as husbandmen, and so on; Diego employed them as soldiers of the Cross. They laid down the hammer and the shepherd’s crook, and took up the sword. Thus a new order was created, which received the name of Calatrava from the castle given up by the king (1157).

Once provided with arms, these brethren, filled with warlike enthusiasm, were eager to take the offensive against the Moors. With this end in view, they chose, when the Abbot Raymond died (1163), a certain Don García to lead them in battle as their first grand master. At the same time, the choir monks, not without protest, left Calatrava to live under an abbot whom they had chosen, in the monastery of Cirvelos. Only Velasquez and a few other clerics, to act as chaplains, remained in Calatrava with the knights, Velasquez becoming prior of the whole community. This somewhat revolutionary arrangement was approved by the general chapter at Cîteaux, and by Pope Alexander III (1164). A general chapter held at Cîteaux in 1187 gave to the Knights of Calatrava their definitive rule, which was approved in the same year by Pope Gregory VIII. This rule, modeled upon the cistercian customs for lay brothers, imposed upon the knights, besides the obligations of the three religious vows, the rules of silence in the refectory, dormitory, and oratory; of abstinence on four days a week, besides several fast days during the year; they were also obliged to recite a fixed number of paternosters for each day Hour of the Office; to sleep in their armour; to wear, as their full dress, the Cistercian white mantle with the scarlet cross fleurdelisée. Calatrava was subject not to Cîteaux, but to Morimond in Burgundy, the mother-house of Fitero, from which Calatrava had sprung. Consequently, the Abbot of Morimond possessed the right of visiting the houses and of reforming the statutes of Calatrava, while the highest ecclesiastical dignity of the order, that of grand prior, could be held only by a monk of Morimond.

The first military services of the Knights of Calatrava had been brilliant, and in return for the great services they had rendered they received from the King of Castile new grants of land, which formed their first commanderies. They had already been called into the neighbouring Kingdom of Aragon, and been rewarded by a new encomienda (landed estate), that of Alcañiz (1179). But these successes were followed by a series of misfortunes, due in the first instance to the unfortunate partition which Alfonso had made of his possessions, and the consequent rivalry which ensued between the Castilian and Leonese branches of his dynasty. On the other hand, the Moors of Spain, wishing to recover their lost dominions, called to their aid the Moors of Africa, thus bringing on the new and formidable invasion of the Almohades. The first encounter resulted in a defeat for Spain. In the disasterous battle of Alarcos, the knights were overpowered and, in spite of splendid heroism, were obliged to leave their bulwark of Calatrava iin the power of the Moslem (1195). Velasquez lived just long enough to be the sorrowful witness of the failure of his daring scheme. He died the next year in the monastery of Gumiel (1196). It seemed as if the order was ruined in Castile, and this opinion so far prevailed that the branch of Aragon regarded itself as having succeeded the other. The Knights of Alcañiz actually proceeded to elect a new grand master, but the grand master still living in Castile claimed his right. Finally, by a compromise, the master of Alcañiz was recognized as second in dignity, with the title of Grand Commander for Aragon.

The scattered remains of Calatrava had meanwhile found a common shelter in the Cistercian monastery of Cirvelos, and there they began to repair their losses by a large accession of new knights. They soon felt themselves strong enough to erect a new bulwark against the Moslems at Salvatierra, where they took the name, which they kept for fourteen years, of Knights of Salvatierra (1198). But in the course of a fresh invasion of the Almohades, Salvatierra, in spite of a desperate defence, shared the fate of Calatrava (1209). Upon the fall of this Castilian stronghold dismay spread from Spain throughout Western Europe. Summoned by the voice of the great Pope Innocent III, foreign crusaders hatened from all sides to help the Spanish Christians. The first event in this holy war, now a European one, was the reconquest of Calatrava (1212), which was given back to its former masters. In the same year the famous victory of Las Navas de Tolosa marked the incipient decline of Moslem domination in Western Europe. Having thus recovered possession of the stronghold, and resumed the title of Calatrava (1216), the order nevertheless removed to more secure quarters of Calatrava la Nueva, eight miles from old Calatrava (1218). From his centre their influence spread to the remotest parts of the Peninsula; new orders sprang up—Alcántara (q.v.) in the Kingdon of Leon, Avis (q.v.) in Portugal, both begun under Calatrava’s protection and the visitation of its grand master. This spirit of generous emulation, spreading among all classes of society, marks the climax of Spanish chivalry: it was then that King Ferdinand the Saint, after the definitive coalition of Castile and Leon (1229) dealt a mortal blow to the Moslem power in the conquest (1235) of their capital city, Cordova, soon followed by the surrender of Murcia, Jaen, and Seville. The European crusade seemed at an end. Encouraged by these victories, Ferdinand’s successor, Alfonso X, the Wise, planned a crusade in the East and contemplated marching, with his Spanish chivalry, to restore the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (1272). But the Moors still held out in their little Kingdom of Grenada, which was to remain for two centuries longer an open door, exposing Western Europe to the constant danger of African invasion. For the perpetuation of this menace, Christendom had to thank its own dissentions—not only international, but personal and dynastic. Into these factious quarrels the Knights of Calatrava, like other knights of the Cross, were unhappily drawn.

Calatrava, with its abundant resources of men and wealth, had by this time become a power in the State. It had lands and castles scattered along the borders of Castile. It excercised feudal lordship over thousands of peasants and vassals. Thus, more than once, we see the order bringing to the field, as its individual contributions, 1200 to 2000 knights, a considerable force in the Middle Ages. Moreover, it enjoyed autonomy, being by its constitutions independent in temporal matters and acknowledging only spiritual superiors—the Abbot of Morimond and, in appeal, the pope. These authorities interfered, in consequence of a schism which first broke out in 1296 through the simultaneous election of two grand masters, García Lopez and Gautier Perez. Lopez, dispossessed a first time by a delegate of Morimond, appealed to Pope Boniface VIII, who quashed the sentence and referred the case to the general chapter at Cîteaux, where Lopez was re-established in his dignity (1302). Dispossessed a second time, in consequence of a quarrel with his lieutenant, Juan Nuñez, Lopez voluntarily resigned in favour of Nuñez, who had taken his place (1328), on condition that he should keep the commandery of Zurita; as this condition was violated, Lopez again, for the third time, took the title of Grand Master in Aragon, where he died in 1336.—These facts sufficiently prove that after the fourteenth century the rigorous discipline and fervent observance of the order’s earlier times had, under the relaxing influence of prosperity, given place to a spirit of intrigue and ambition.

With the accession of Pedro the Cruel began a conflict between the Crown and the order. That prince caused three grand masters in succession to be put to death, as having incurred his suspicion: the first of these was beheaded (1355) on a charge of having entered into a league with the King of Aragon; the second Estevañez, having competed for the grand mastership with the king’s candidate, García de Padilla, was murdered in the royal palace, by the king’s own treacherous hand; lastly García de Padilla himself, a brother of the royal mistress, fell into disgrace, upon deserting the king’s party for that of his half brother, Henry the Bastard, and died in prison (1369). Amid all these troubles the war against the Moslem, which was the very reason of the order’s existence, was reduced to a mere episode in its history. The greater part of its activities were employed in purely political conflicts, and its arms, consecrated to the defence of the Faith, were turned against Christians. An even more pitiable spectacle was that of the knights divided among themselves into rival and mutually hostile factions. At the same time began the encroachments of royal authority in the election of the grand master, whose power was a check upon that of the king. For instance, in 1404, Henry of Villena was elected 24th grand master merely through the favour of Henry III of Castile, although Villena was married, a stranger to the order, and by papal dispensation entered upon his high functions without even the preliminary of a novitiate. A schism in the order ensued and was healed only after the king’s death, in 1414, when a general chapter, held at Cîteaux, cancelled the election of Villena and acknowledged his competitor, Luis Guzman, as the only legitimate master. After the death of Guzman, a new encroachment of King John II of Castile gave rise to a new schism. He had succeeded in forcing upon the electors his own candidate, Alfonso, a bastard, of the royal stock of Aragon (1443); but Alfonso having joined a party formed against him, the king sought to have him deposed by the chapter of the order. This time the electors divided, and a double election issued in not fewer than three grand masters: Pedro Giron, who took possession of Calatrava; Ramirez de Guzman, who occupied the castles of Andalusia; and the bastard Alfonso of Aragon, who continued to be recognized by the knights of the Aragonese branch. At last, through the withdrawl of his rivals one after the other, Pedro Giron remained the only grand master (1457). Giron belonged to an eminent Castilian family; an ambitious intriguer, more anxious about his family interests than about those of his order, he played an important part as a leader in the factions which disturbed the wretched reigns of John II and Henry IV, the last two lamentably weak descendants of St. Ferdinand of Castile.

By turns, Giron sustained first Henry IV, in a war against his father, John II, then Alfonso, who pretended to the throne, against Henry IV. Such was Giron’s importance that Henry IV, in order to attach him to his cause, offered him the hand of his own sister, the famous Isabella of Castile. Giron had already had his vow of celibacy annulled by the pope, and as on his way to the court, when he died, thus saving the future Queen of Castile from an unworthy consort (1466). The same pope, Pius II, granted to Pedro Giron the extravagant privilege of resigning his high dignity in favour of his bastard, Rodrigo Telles Giron, a child eight years old. Thus the grand mastership fell into the hands of guardians—an unheard of event. The Abbot of Morimond was called upon to devise a temporary administration, untill Telles should reach his majority. The administration was entrusted to four knights elected by the chapter, and from this period date the definitive statutes of the order known as “Rules of Abbot William III” (1467). These statutes recognized in the order seven high dignitaries: the grand master; the clavero (guardian of the castle and lieutenant of the grand master); two grand comendadores, one for Castile and the other for Aragon; the grand prior, representing the Abbot of Morimond in the spiritual government; the sacrista (guardian of the relics); the obrero (supervisor of buildings).

The order, having reached its apogee of prosperity, now held sway over fifty-six commanderies and sixteen priories, or cures, distributed between the Diocese of Jaen and the Vicariate of Ciudad Real. Its lordships included sixty-four villages, with a population of 200,000 souls, and produced an annual income which may be estimated at 50,000 ducats. The kings whose fortune the mismanagement of the late reigns had depleted could not but covet these riches, while such formidable military power filled with distrust the monarchs who were obliged to tolerate the autonomous existence of the order. During the struggle between Alfonso V of Portugal and Ferdinand of Aragon for the right of succession to Henry IV of Castile, the last male of his house (1474), much depended upon the attitude of Calatrava. The knights were divided. While the grand master, Rodrigo Giron, supported Portugal, his lieutenant, Lopez de Padilla, stood by Aragon. The battle of Toro (1479), where the pretensions of Portugal were annihilated, ended this schism, the last in the history of the order. The grand master, reconciled with Ferdinand of Aragon, fell, during the war against the Moors, at the seige of Loja (1482). His lieutenant, Lopez de Padilla, succeeded him and, as the last of the twenty-seven independent grand masters of Calatrava, revived for a season the heroic virtues of his order’s better days. A mortified monk in his cell, a fearless warrior on the battlefield, the glory of Padilla shed its last rays in the war of the conquest of Grenada, which he did not live to see completed. At his death (1487), Ferdinand of Aragon exhibited to the chapter, assembled for the election of a new grand master, a Bull of Innocent VIII which invested him with authority to administer the order, and to this decree he compelled the electors to submit. Thus ended the political autonomy of the Order of Calatrava. The reason of its being—the struggle against the Moors—seemed, indeed, to end with the fall of Grenada (1492).

The canonical bond between Calatrava and Morimond had been relaxing more and more. The King of Spain was too jealous of his authority to tolerate any foreign—especially French—intervention in the affairs of his kingdom. The canonical visits of the Abbot of Morimond ceased; difficulties were raised when the grand prior came from Morimond to take possession of his dignity. The last French prior was Nicholas of Avesnes, who died in 1552. After a long contest, a compromise was effected in 1630, leaving to Morimond its right of electing the grand prior, but limiting its choice to Spanish Cistercians. Moreover, the knights of the order were virtually secularized: Pope Paul III commuted their vow of celibacy to one of conjugal fidelity (1540). As members of the order were allowed to found families, and were authorized by Julius III (1551) to make free use of their personal property, the vow of poverty also passed into virtual desuetude. In 1652, under Philip IV, the three Spanish orders took a new vow: that of defending the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This was the last manifestation of any religious spirit in the orders. The military spirit, too, had long since disappeared. The orders had, in fact, fallen into a state of utter inactivity. The commanderies were but so many pensions at the king’s free disposal, and granted by him rather to the high-born than to the deserving. In 1628 the Order of Calatrava was declared to be inaccessible not only to tradesmen, but even to sons of tradesment. The last attempt to employ the knights of the three orders for a military purpose was that of Philip IV, in quelling the rebellion of the Catalans (1640–50), but the orders restricted their efforts to the complete equipment of one regiment, which has since been known in the Spanish army as “The Regiment of the Orders.”

When the Bourbon dynasty occupied the throne, Charles III, having founded the personal order of his name, levied upon the old orders a contribution of a million reals to pension 200 knights of the new order (1775). Their revenues being the only remaining raison d’être of the order, confiscation necessarily led to dissolution. Confiscated by King Joseph (1808), re-established by Ferdinand VII at the Restoration (1814), the possessions of Calatrava were finally dissipated in the general secularization of 1838. (See ALCÁNTARA; MILITARY ORDERS.)

Definiciones de la Orden y Cavallería de Calatrava (Valladolid, 1600); MANRIQUE, Series praefectorum militiae Calatravae, in his Annales, III, Appendix; JONGELINUS, Origines equestrium militarium ordinis cisterciensis (Cologne, 1640); ZAPATER, Cister militante (Saragossa, 1662); DUBOIS, Histoire de l’abbaye de Morimond avec les principaux ordres militaires d’Espagne et de Portugal (Paris, 1851).

CH. MOELLER

Archdiocese of Calcutta

THE ECCLESIASTICAL PROVINCE OF CALCUTTA

The Ecclesiastical province of Calcutta comprises practically the old Indian province of Bengal, where the Catholic Faith was introduced very early. About the middle of the sixteenth century Portughese merchants were trading with the ports of Bengal. But they did not stay in the country, their ships came to Bengal with the monsoon at the end of May, and went back to Cochin in October. About 1571 they obtained from Akbar, the great Mogul emperor then residing in Agra, very important concessions: they were allowed to build a town in Hugli, to erect churches, send for priests and baptize the natives who might wish to become Christians. Portuguese merchants and settlers soon flocked to Hugli, many natives became christians, so that in 1598 the number of Catholics in Hugli was five thousand, of Portuguese, native, or mixed origin.

Quite different were the origin and the character of the other Catholic communities which sprang up all over Bengal at the end of sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century. Native rulers whose states were continually exposed to the raids of their enemies, appealed for protection to the Portuguese adventurers then numerous in India and famous for the undaunted bravery. They settled in bandels, generally situated on the bank of a river, and received for their military services lands, a monthly pay, and a share of the booty. Their numbers increased rapidly, for they married native women, and many native converts came to them for protection and security. These converts were called topassees, because they wore a hat, like the Portuguese (topa means hat). In 1598 there were on the coast of Chittagong and Arracan 2500 Catholics of Portuguese or mixed origin, besides the native Christians. All the Catholic communities of Bengal were under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Cochin, erected in 1557. But no regular provision had been made for the supply of priests and the building of churches. Hugli alone had a church and a parish priest. Elsewhere Catholics depended for spiritual ministrations on any priest who happened to be travelling through the country. On 9 January, 1606, the Diocese of San Thomé de Meliapur was erected, and Bengal was put under its jurisdiction.

Two Jesuits had gone to Bengal temporarily in 1579, and two others were sent there from Cochin in 1598 to report on the hopes and prospects of a Catholic mission. They erected in Hugli a school and hospital, in Chittagong two churches and residences; two churches were contemplated or begun in Siripur and Bacala. The native rulers were very favourable, and even generously endowed the new missions. But political disturbances ruined these happy beginnings; churches and residences were destroyed in 1603, and the four Jesuits then in Bengal were recalled by thelr superiors. In the meantime a permanent provision had been made for the Catholics of Bengal by the Bishop of Cochin, Don Fray André, a Franciscan. He had entrusted Bengal to the Augustinians of Goa, and is said to have conferred upon them the exclusive right to the parishes of the country. In 1599 five Augustinians landed in Hugli, built a convent of St. Nicholas of Tolentino, and took possession of the church or churches existing in the town. A few years afterwards we find them established in Angelim (Hidgelee), Tambolim (Tumlook), Pipli; about 1612 in Dacca, Noricul, Siripur, Katrabo in 1621 in Chittagong; and after 1640 in Balasore, Ossumpoor, and Rangamati.

Chittagong deserves a special notice. The Moguls of Bengal were continually trying to wrest Chittagong from the dominion of the Emperor of Arracan. Twice they almost succeeded in taking it in surprise, and from that time this potentate always kept a large body of Portughese in his service at Dianga, near Chittagong. Instead of waiting for the attacks of the Moguls, these Portughese found it easier and more effective to carry the war into the enemy’s territory, and they began to make periodical raids on the coast of Bengal, carrying away whole populations of Hindu and Mohammedan villages. Thus between 1621 and 1634 they brought back with them to Chittagong 42,000 slaves, of whom the Augustians baptized 28,000. They converted besides five thousand natives of the country, called Mugs or Mogos.

This barbarous warfare of the Portuguese of Chittagong brought about, amongst other causes, the ruin of Hugli in 1632. Shah Jehan, the Mogul emperor ordered Khasim Khan, Nawab of Bengal, to destroy Hugli. After a siege of three months, the town was stormed; four priests and many Christians were sent prisoners to Agra. However, the Portuguese were restored to favour the next year (1633). Either by the exertions of the Jesuits of Agra and Lahore, the intervention of a Mogul prince called Assofokhan or the negotiations of the Viceroy of Goa Christians were allowed to settle, not in Hugli itseif, but on a spot outside the town, called to this day Bandel. They erected there in 1660 a church and an Augustinian convent, still existing. The prior of the convent was the captain of the bandel, with power to try minor but not capital offences. There also was erected a convent of Augustinian nuns, which has been the occasion of the accusations levelled by travellers against the morality of Bandel. The canonical standing of this convent seems to have been rather undefined. In 1666 Aurangzeb succeeded in taking Chittagong, and the Portughese colony was transferred to Felinghee Bazar, near Dacca.

The Jesuits went back to Bengal about 1612. Their ministry was hampered by the rivalry of the Augustinians who strongly maintained their exclusive privilege. The former soon confined their exertions to their church and college of St. Paul in Hugli. These were built in 1621, destroyed or damaged in 1632, and reappear in 1655. For many years only one Jesuit priest was stationed there, till, in 1746, church and college were given up. In 1688 the French started a factory in Chandernagore, a few miles from Hugli. The Augustinians of Bandel claimed the right to be the parish priests of the new town, but, yielding to the representations of the French authorities, the Bishop of Meliapur created there on 10 of April, 1696, a special parish entrusted to the French Jesuits. In 1753 there were in Chandernagore 102,000 inhabitants and only 4000 Catholics. The Capuchins had settled there and built a church in 1726.

In 1690 Charnock founded Calcutta. Portuguese from Hugli settled in the new town. They built a chapel and were attended by Augustinian priests. In 1799 the chapel was replaced by the beautiful church dedicated to Our Blessed Lady of the Rosary, which is used today as the cathedral. The Augustinians of Bengal have been severely criticized by Protestant travellers, and, it must be granted, not without foundation. It can cause no surprise if in some cases the conduct of half-trained priests who were sent to outstations, far from any spiritual help or control, should not always have been exemplary. Besides, they were living in the midst of Pagan, Mohammedan, and Christian corruption. The defect lay in the way they were recruited. The Augustinians of Goa refused all candidates of native or mixed origin, and were therefore compelled to accept all European candidates, however unfit. As the supply was not equal to the demand, the training was necessarily short. Even so, Catholic communities had to remain without a priest for many years. The Augustinian superiors of Lisbon did not approve of such a policy; they pointed out that it was much better to select at the best of the native candidates than to accept indiscriminately the young adventurers whom their families had sent to India to get rid of them. These superiors and the King of Portugal himself, in virtue of his right of patronage, threatened more than once to recall the Augustinians from Bengal. The bishops of Meliapur insisted on better organization and discipline. All was useless; the best regulations, the most stringent orders could not be enforced at such a distance and on Mogul territory. Francis Laynez. S.J., Bishop of Meliapur, visited all the stations of Bengal in 1712 , but his efforts were fruitless. In all questions of reform clergy and people were against him. They even went so far as to appeal to the Mogul authorities to stop the exercise of his episcopal jurisdiction.

At the end of the eighteenth century there were Augustinians in Calcutta and Bandel only; elsewhere the Catholics were attended by clerics from Goa. The condition of the 25,000 Catholics then living in the eleven parishes of Bengal may he summed up in two words: ignorance and corruption. They were an easy prey for Kiernander, called the “first Protestant missionary in Bengal,” who went to Calcutta in 1758. But what did more for the perversion of Catholics was the erection, at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century, of a number of well-endowed Protestant Schools. There was no Catholic school in Bengal before 1830. About 1829 division set in among the Catholics of Calcutta. One party, with the parish priest of the principal church at its head, wrote to Rome to obtain a British vicar Apostolic and British priests. On 18 April, 1834, the pope created the Vicariate Apostolic of Bengal, and entrusted it to the Jesuits of England. Robert St. Leger, an Irish Jesuit, was nominated first Vicar Apostolic of Bengal, and landed in Calcutta with five companions in October, 1834. The parish priest of the principal church received him in his church. The companions of St. Leger started a little college of St. Francis Xavier, which increased slowly. Most of the Catholics accepted the authority of the Vicar Apostolic; only a few sided with the Goanese priests of the Boytakhana church, which was interdicted. St. Leger was recalled in 1838, and Mgr. Taberd, titular bishop of Isauropolis and Vicar Apostolic of Cochin China, then living in Bengal, was appointed Vicar Apostolic of Bengal ad interim. He earnestly promoted Catholic education and endeared himself to all, but died suddenly 31 July, 1840. Division set in again amongst the Catholics of Calcutta. Dr. Carew who had just succeeded Dr. O’ Connor as Vicar Apostolic of Madras, was appointed Vicar Apostolic of Bengal, 20 November, 1840. He built in Calcutta the church of St. Thomas, founded Schools, orphanages, asylums, and the little college of St. John. Difficulties arose between him and the Jesuits. The latter were recalled by their superior and their flourishing college of St. Francis Xavier was closed in 1846.

In 1850 Eastern Bengal and Arracan were constituted a separate vicariate, which became in 1886 the Diocese of Dacca. Dr. Oliffe, coadjutor of Dr. Carew, consecrated in October, 1843, was appointed Vicar Apostolic of Eastern Bengal. In 1852 the districts of Bengal south of the Mahanadi River were entrusted by Dr. Carew to Bishop Neyret, Vicar Apostolic of Vizigapatam. In 1853 the Foreign Missions of Paris consented to take over Assam, which has since become a prefecture Apostolic. In 1855 Dr. Carew made over to the Foreign Missions of Milan the districts of Central Bengal, which became in 1870 a prefecture Apostolic, and in 1886 the Diocese of Khrishmagur. Dr. Carew remained Vicar Apostolic of Western Bengal, and died 2 November, 1855.

THE ARCHDIOCESE OF CALCUTTA

The Archdiocese of Calcutta extends along the sea-coast from the Khabadak to the Mahanundi River. After the death of Dr. Carew, Dr. Oliffe, the Vicar Apostolic of Eastern Benga! took possession of the Vicariate of Western Bengal. This vicariate, increased by the addition of the districts of Hazaribagh in 1871, Kurseong in 1881. Purneah, Santhal Pargannahs, Darjeeling in 1887, is today the Archdiocese of Calcutta, with two suffragan dioceses, Dacca and Krishnagur, and the Prefecture Apostolic of Assam. Taught by experience, Dr. Oliffe entrusted at once with the approval of the Propaganda, his former vicariate to the Fathers of the Holy Cross. Three years afterwards he also obtained permission to put the Jesuits in charge of his Vicariate of Western Bengal. The British Jesuits being unable to undertake the work on account of their small number, the pope entrusted the Bengal Mission to the Belgian Jesuits. Dr. Oliffe died at Naples in May, 1858. On 28 November, 1859, four Belgian and two English Jesuits with a lay brother, landed in Calcutta and started at once, in the old St. John’s College, the new College of St. Francis Xavier. In 1842 their predecessors estimated the Catholic population of Calcutta at 8000. Carew’s estimate was 15,000, which seems much too high, for the Belgian Jesuits found only 6000 Catholics in Calcutta in 1859. A few hundreds were spread over Western Bengal. As the new mission was still in its experimental stage, no vicar Apostolic was appointed till 9 September, 1864, when Father Augustus Van Heule, S.J., was nominated Vicar Apostolic of Western Bengal. Unfortunately he had been only four months in Calcutta when he died suddenly 9 June, 1865.

On 11 January, 1867, the Very Rev. Walter Steins S.J., Vicar Apostolic of Bombay, was transferred to the Vicariate Apostolic of Western Bengal. He had accompanied in 1859 the first Belgian Jesuits to Calcutta to help them with his experience, and had been appointed in 1861 Vicar Apostolic of Bombay. He left Calcutta in 1877 for Australia, where he was appointed Bishop of Auckland. He died there 1 September, 1881. On 31 December 1877, Father Paul Goethals, S. J., was nominated titular Archbishop of Hierapolis and Vicar Apostolic of Western Bengal On 23 June, 1886, a new concordat was concluded between Pope Leo XIII and the King of Portugal. A concordat had already been signed between Pope Pius IX and the King of Portugal in 1857, but the difficulties caused by the double jurisdiction had subsisted in Bengal, though in a lesser degree than elsewhere. The new concordat established a permanent peace. On 1 September, 1886, the Bull “Humanae Salutis Auctor” erected the Catholic hierarchy in India. Leo XIII sent to India Mgr. Agliardi as Apostolic Delegate, to carry out the dispositions of the Bull and settle minor points connected with the padroado or Portuguese patronage. On 25 November, 1886, Dr. Goethals was appointed Archbishop of Calcutta, and ecclesiastical province of Calcutta was constituted above explained. In the archdiocese two churches remain under the Portuguese jurisdiction: the church of Boytakhana in Calcutta and the church of Bandel with its annexed chapel of Chinsurah. The Augustinians having given up Bengal in 1867, these churches are attended by secular priests of the Diocese of Meliapur. Their juridiction is personal over all those who were adhering to the Portughese priests at the time of the Concordat of 1857 and all those who go to Calcutta, Bandel, or Chinsurah from a territory belonging to the Diocese of Maliapur.

On 9 January, 1894, the first council of the province of Calcutta opened. His Excellency Mgr. Ladislas Zaleski, titular Archbishop of Thebes and Delegate Apostolic, presided, and there were present, Archbishop Goethals of Calcutta, Bishop Francis Pozzi of Khrishnagur, Bishop Augustine Louage of Dacca, and the Very Rev. Angelus Wuenzloher, S.D.S., Prefect Apostolic of Assam. The Constitutions of this council, revised at Rome, were promulgated 25 July, 1905. Archbishop Goethals’s health had for some time been declining, and he died, July, 1901, at the age of sixty. Father Brice Meuleman, S.J., Superior of the Bengal Mission, was nominated Archbishop of Calcutta, 21 March, 1902, and consecrated in the cathedral 25 June following.

The area of the Archdiocese of Calcutta is about one hundred thousand square miles inhabited by a population of about twenty-seven millions. Of these, according to the statistics of 1906, 126, 529 were Catholics; 81, 000 were baptized, and 44, 759 were catechumens. The number increased during 1906–1907 by about 25,000 new catechumens. There are besides in Calcutta and Bandel about 1200 natives belonging to the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Meliapur.

One hundred and ninety-three Jesuits, most of them Belgians, of whom 107 are priests, are working in the mission. Besides there are two secular priests. In Calcutta there are about 13,000 Catholics under the jurisdiction of the archbishop. They are mostly of mixed blood, called Eurasians, and many are very poor. The town is divided into eight parishes attached to the following churches: the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Rosary, St. John’s, St. Xavier’s, St. Thomas’s, St. Theresa’s, St. Patrick’s (Fort-William), St. Joseph’s (for the Madrassees), and the church of the Sacred Heart.

EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE WORK

To give an exact idea of the Calcutta Mission it will be best to consider the educational and charitable work carried on exclusively by religious communities, the railway and military chaplains, and the native missions. The Jesuits have built for the training of their junior members a house of theological studies (St. Mary’s), in Kurseong and a house of probation (Manresa House), in Ranchi. They have opened two colleges for boys, St. Xavier’s in Calcutta with about 800 boys and St. Joseph’s in Darjeeling with about 200 boarders. In 1847 Dr. Carew had begun in Calcutta a little congregation of Brothers, which Goethals succeeded in affiliating to the Irish Christian Brothers in 1890. In Calcutta they have charge of the Male Orphanage with 300 boys and St. Joseph’s High School with 800; in Howrah, of St Aloysius’ School with 70; in Assansol, of St. Patrick’s High School with 240, in Kurseong, of the Goethals Memorial Orphanage with 150. Thirty-five Brothers are working in the arch-diocese. The Loreto nuns from Rathfarnam, Ireland, went to Calcutta in 1842. They have charge, in Calcutta, of the Chowringhee, Bowbazar, Dhurrumtollah, and Sealdah schools and the Entally orphanage, with about 1500 pupils; in Assansol, of a school with 140 girls; in Darjeeling, of a boarding school with 160, and in Morapai, of 160 native Bengali girls. There are ninety nuns of this order. The Daughters of the Cross of Liege, Belgiunn, located in Calcutta on 22 December, 1868. They have charge in Calcutta of St. Vincent’s Home with 252 inmates in Howrah, of a school with 120 girls; in Chaybassa, of a native school and orphanage with 70 girls, in Kurseollg, of St. Helen’s High School with 220 pupils. There are forty-five nuns. The Ursulines of Thildonck, Belgium, went to Bengal in January, 1903. They have twelve nuns in charge of the native girls’ schools in the Chotanagpore Mission, and convents in Ranchi, Khunti, Tongo, Rengarih. The Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny have had charge since 1903 of the native girls’ orphanage in Balasore, where five nuns take care of 80 inmates. The Daughters of St. Anne are a native congregation begun five or six years ago. The Bengali branch is under the direction of the Loreto nuns in Morapai, the Chotanagpore branch under the direction of the Ursulines in Ranchi.

RAILWAY AND MILITARY CHAPLAINS

For British Catholic soldiers in Bengal there are four military chaplains stationed at Darjeeling, Dumdum, Calcutta (Fort-Willlarn). They are paid by the Government. The priest at Serampore attends to the soldiers stationed at Barrackpore. Railway employees are attended to by seven railway chaplains stationed at Sealdah, Assansol, Khargpur, Purneah, Kurseong. All these chaplains attend also to the Catholic population not belonging to the railway or the army.

NATIVE MISSLONS

One of the great difficulties met with in the conversion of the natives is the thirty-five languages spoken in the archdiocese. The Mohammedans seem to give no hope of conversion, the Hindus little more. But the Catholic Faith has made great progress among the aborigines during the last twenty-five years. There are small native missions in Kurseong, Darjeeling, Purneah, Jhargram, each with a few hundred catholics. During the famine of 1866 Father Sapart gathered at Balasore a number of native orphans. Later on the station of Khrishnochondropur was founded in the native state of Morbhunj. The number of Ouryia converts is about 1800. There are two priests, one church in Balasore, 6 native chapels, a schools with about 220 children. The Sunderbunds missions were started in 1868 among the 1868 Bengalis who cultivate the marshy swamps of the Gangetic Delta, south of Calcutta. There are two central stations with two priests each, Morapai and Raghabpur; 3200 Bengali converts are spread over a great many villages. There are 2 churches, 22 native chapels, 7 schools with 450 children. In the Chotanagpore missions, west of Calcutta, the population is mostly of Dravidian (Ouraons) or Mogul (Mundas) origin with a few minor tribes. They believe in one Supreme God who, however, they say, is so good that they need not trouble about him; they worship the devil who can do them harm, and to him they offer sacrifices. At the end of 1868 a priest started a mission in Chaybassa without great success. In February, 1876, another priest was sent to Ranchi to take care of 200 Madrassee soldiers stationed there, and opened a native mission in Buruma, in the direction of Chaybassa. The priest of Chaybassa started then a mission in Burudi, in the direction of Ranchi.

It was only in 1885, when Father Lievens, the real founder of the Chotanagpore mission, appeared on the scene, that the mission began to make great progress. His policy, followed by his successors, was to help the natives in every way, to protect them against the tyranny of their landlords and the native police, and to feed them in times of scarcity. In return he wanted them to send their children to his schools, where they were trained as good Christians. The Lutherans of the Gossner Mission had been working for more than fifty years in Chotanagpore, and had met till then with great success. But they opposed in vain Father Lievens’s generous efforts. He never spared himself, and within six years broke down in health. He returned to Belgium in September, 1982, and died at Louvain in November, 1893, of consumption. But he had started the work on permanent lines, did not die with him. Today there are in Chatanagpore more than 100,000 converts, baptized or catechumens; in the year 1906–1907 more than 25,000 catechumens joined the Catholic Church. The difficulty is to cope with such a number spread over an immense country. There are fifteen stations with thirty priests. In all these stations there are central schools; in villages more important a catechist and a school. The four convents built by Ursulines in Ranchi , Khunti, Tongo, and Rengarrih exercise a great influence for good in the family life of these neophytes. Ranchi is the headquarters of the mission, and has a central boys’ school for select pupils from the districts, an Apostolic school to train catechists and help vocations to the priesthood, and a central girls’ school, where the native Daughters of St. Ann are trained under the Ursulines nuns. The need of this mission may be summed up in these two words: men and money. More men and more money would allow the mission to extend in definitely the field of operations westwards, so as to create a zone of Catholic country across the whole of India from Calcutta to Bombay. This mission has 8 churches, 281 native chapels, 85 schools, with more than 3000 pupils.

LEOPOLD DELAUNOIT

Polidoro (da Caravaggio) Caldara

An Italian painter, born at Caravaggio, 1492 (or 1495); died at Messina, 1543. He passed his boyhood in poverty and misery, leaving Caravaggio when he was eighteen years old to seek work. Going to Rome, he was employed to carry mortar for the artists in the Vatican who were painting frescoes for Leo X. He watched them copying Raphael’s designs, and soon emulated them so successfully that he attracted Raphael’s attention and became his pupil. Maturino and Udine, for whom he prepared plaster, were his first instructors. He studied the antique, and the friezes and other ornaments he made for Raphael’s pictures are noted for their appropriateness and Athenian purity. Caldara was the first of the Roman masters to employ chiaroscuro, probably from his profound study of the antique; and colour was a secondary consideration with him. He decorated the exterior of many Roman palaces in sgraffito, a form of painting where, over a dark background, often stucco, a lighter-coloured layer was painted, and designs, scratched through the light layer, only showed dark on light (en camaïeu).

These designs are known today only from reproductive etchings and engravings from the hands of Alberti and Goltzius. When Rome was sacked in 1527, Caldara went to Naples, where he was helped by Andrea de Salerna. He started a school and received many commissions for frescoes. He left Naples for Sicily and in Messina attained great success. He painted the triumphal arches erected on the return of Charles V from Tunis, and in 1534 produced his masterpiece, “Christ Bearing the Cross.” This oil is grand in conception and composition, and is treated in a far more naturalistic style than any of his other paintings. Some of his noteworthy works are: friezes in the Vatican; “Psyche received into Olympus,” in the Louvre, Paris; “Passage of the Red Sea,” in the Brera, Milan.

LIPPMAN, Engraving and Etching, tr. HARDIE (New York, 1906); LöBKE, Geschichte der italienischen Malerei (Stuttgart, 1878); MUTHER, History of Painting, tr. KRIEHN; WORNUM, Epochs of Painting Characterized (London, 1847).

LEIGH HUNT

Domingos Caldas-Barbosa

A Brazilian poet, born of a white father and a negro mother at Rio Janeiro in 1740; died in Lisbon, 9 November, 1800. Trained at the Jesuit college in Rio Janeiro, he developed a power of literary improvisation which he indulged at the expense of the Portugese whites and thereby stirred them up against him. His enemies had him forcibly enrolled in a body of troops setting forth for the colony of Sacramento, where he remained until 1762. Returning to Rio Janeiro he soon embarked for Portugal, and there obtained the patronage of two nobles of the Vasconcellos family, the Conde de Pombeiro and the Marquez de Castello Melhor. Taking minor orders he received a religious benefice, being attached as chaplain to the Casa da Supplicaçáo.

Although he was a mulatto, he obtained entrance into high society in the Portugese capital, chiefly because he was a clever entertainer who could improvise cantigas and play his own accompaniment on the viol. Hence the somewhat humiliating sobriquet of cantor de viola which was given to him. Well aware that his social status was an uncertain one, he retained his self possession even in the face of the insulting attitude of the poet Bocage and others. With most of the Portugese poets of the time he had pleasant relations, consorting with them in one or another literary academy. His cantigas acquired great popularity, and it is sometimes difficult to single out his compositions from the mass of those claimed by the people as their own. Yet he was not a great genius; he was rather a minor poet of a facile vein, able to express himself simply, and to avoid the bombast and the sensuality so common in his age. His poetical definition of the characteristically Portugese quality of saudades remains famous.

See edition of his poems published under his academic name of LERENO, Viola de Lereno: collecçao das suas cantigas, etc. (Lisbon, 1825); DE VARNHAGEN, Florilegio da poesia brazileira (Lisbon, 1850), I, II, III (Madrid, 1853); WOLF, Le Brésil littéraire (Berlin, 1863); SYLVIO ROMERO, Hist. da litt. brazileira (Rio de Janeiro, 1902).

J. D. M. FORD

Pedro Calderon de la Barca

Calderon de la Barca, Pedro, b. 1600; d. 1681; a Spanish dramatist whose activity marks the second half of the golden age of Spanish literature. His time was one of social and political decay under the rule of Phillip III and Phillip IV, when all things indicated the irretrievable loss of the mighty foreign empire which Spain had acquired during previous reigns; yet, even in this melancholy period Spain produced a poet of lasting national significance in the person of Calderon. Undoubtedly the value of Calderon has been overrated, in so far as the modern world has allowed him to outshine Lope de Vega, for it should be remembered that Calderon inherited the scenic traditions of the sixteenth century, to which Lope had given a magnificent development. Yet Calderon must be credited with giving to those traditions an interpretation which clearly captivated his contemporaries as it did the more recent race of the Romantics in Germany. By giving full expression in his theatre to purely national qualities he endeared himself to his own people in a way that will always safeguard his repute wherever Spanish is spoken and the past glory of Spain is revered. Like Lope de Vega, he came of a northern (Asturian) stock, although he was born in Madrid. After a preliminary training in the capital, he went to the University of Salamanca at a time when that institution was at the acme of its glory, and there he spent six years. The few facts ascertainable for the years ensuing upon his residence at Salamanca show him figuring in the Spanish campaigns in Italy and in the Netherlands, and then returning to Madrid to undertake the management of the theatre of the Buen Retiro. The reigning monarch, Philip IV, was exceedingly attached to him and showed him favour in various ways, as by bestowing a pension on him, by urging him to constant dramatic composition, and by providing funds for the expenses involved in splendid and costly performances of his plays. In 1637 he was appointed to membership in the Order of Santiago, and three years later he served with his order in the campaign against the rebellious Catalans. Like Lope, he turned to Holy orders when his prime was passing, for in 1651 he was ordained to the priesthood; but, quite unlike Lope, he was an exemplary minister of the ministry. Honours came to him in his new vocation; thus, in 1663 he was appointed an honorary chaplain to the sovereign, and in 1666 he was made superior of the congregation of St. Peter. His dramatic labours were carried on unabated after his ordination and continued down to the year of his death. Of less varied genius than his predecessor, Lope de Vega, Calderon gave expression to himself in his dramas only; for his non-dramatic prose works are of very minor value—a treatise on painting is perhaps the most notable—and his lyrics, although many in number, are to be sought in his plays and not in any considerable separate collections. It is to be observed, none the less, that he is a great lyric poet, and that his lyrism saturates his dramatic compositions from first to last. With the collected editions of his plays published during his lifetime, Calderon was not concerned at all, except that he superinteded the preparation of the edition of his autos (sacred allegorical dramas) which appeared in 1676. On the basis of a list of his pieces which he prepared in 1681, his biographer, Vera Tasis, published after his death a nine-volume edition of them. This was made up somewhat ad libitum, as the critic Menéndez y Pelayo has pointed out; yet, in default of a better edition, it still remains authoritative, in spite of the fact that it was put forth by one of the most culteranistic disciples of the poet. We should be glad to believe, as some scholars are inclined to do, that the offensive Gongorism of many passages in Calderon’s best pieces, their obscurity and extravagant bombast, should be charged to the account of a meddlesome collector and editor, that is, to Vera Tasis, and not to Calderon. The extant works of Calderon embrace some 120 comedias, including individual works and those written in collaboration with others, and, furthermore, some 70 or 80 autos sacramentales (sacred allegorical dramas on the Eucharist). In so far as regards the comedias, the modern editions reproduce the text of Vera Tasis; he did not print the autos in his collection. The fullest modern edition of all Calderon’s plays is that of J.G. Keil (4 vols., Leipzig, 1827–30); the most accessible is, as yet, that in the “Biblioteca de autores españoles,” vols. VII, IX, XII, and XIV, which also has some of the autos in vol. LVIII. The best edition of the autos continues to be that of J. Fernandez de Apontes (1759–60). Vera Tasis stated in his “Fama póstuma de Calderón” that the poet had written a great number of entremeses and sainetes (interludes and short farces); as a matter of fact, not more than a score of such briefer pieces, interludes and the like, can now be found. Were one to contrast Shakespear with Lope de Vega, he would discover that, while Shakespear belongs to all men and all time, Lope is the particular property of Spain, and is bounded by national limitations. The character of Calderon is even more limited still; he is not only Spanish rather than universal, but, as a Spaniard, he typifies the sentiments and ideals of a narrowly restricted period, the seventeenth century. It may be added that in his theatre and in his daily life he was a model of the truly Christian and knightly poet of his period. The ideas most distinctive of his age which we see reflected in Calderon’s dramatic works are:

intense devotion to the Catholic Faith;

absolute and unquestioning loyalty to the Spanish sovereign; and

a highly developed, even much exaggerated, feeling of honour (the pundonor).

His religious fervour is exemplified in his comedias devotas (sacred dramas not allegorical) as, for instance, in his “Príncipe constante” and his “Purgatorio de San Patricio,” the latter being one of the most famous of the literary treatments of the legend of St. Patrick’s Purgatory, and especially in his autos sacramentales. These little pieces (see AUTOS SACRAMENTALES) deal only with the Eucharistic Mystery, which is set forth through the medium of allegorical characters. In the production of them Calderon has never been surpassed. For while “his set pieces,” in the opinion of Fitzmaurice-Kelly, who is a competent judge, “are disfigured by want of humour and by over-refinement,” these faults “turn to virtues in the autos, where abstractions are wedded to the noblest poetry, where the Beyond is brought down to earth, and where doctrinal subtleties are embellished.” Typical autos are “Los encantos de la culpa,” which D.F. MacCarthy translated so skillfully under the title of “The Sorceries of Sin,” “La viña del Señor,” “La siembra del Siñor,” and “La semilla y la cizaña.” In his strictly secular pieces Calderon has succeeded rather by virtue of his lyrism, which is undoubtedly of transcedent quality, than because of any considerable dramatic ingenuity of his own. In fact, fertility of conception as to plot and incident was strikingly lacking in him, he was not in the least loath to borrow ideas from his predecessors and contemporaries, and sometimes he went so far as to appropriate whole sections of their dramas. In the creation and development of character he achieved any high degree of success only occasionally. There is, on the whole, so much of a sameness about his personages and their behaviour as to justify the charge of monotony brought against him. To the national principle of blind and unreasoning fealty to the monarch he gives expression in a number of his most read plays, among which are the “El Príncipe constante,” “La banda y la flor,” and “Guárdate de agua mansa.” The point of honour, often carried to morbid extremes, provides the motif in such characteristic pieces as the “Alcade de Zalamea,” the “Pintor de su deshonra,” the “Médico de su honra,” and “A secreto agravio secreta venganza.” The actuating principle in these works can hardly appeal to us; we can feel little sympathy with a personage who methodically and in cold blood slays the one by whom his honour has been affronted. For us such an action is a perversion of the ideals of chivalry. That Calderono could, when he chose to exert himself, attain to some depth of philosphic thought is proved by “La vida es sueño,” in which there is a wealth of fancy that charms us even despite the occasional bombast and obscurity of the style. A noteworthy piece because of its relation to a philosophic question agitated by Goethe and Marlowe is the “Mágico prodigioso,” wherein we have a Spanish treatment of the Faust legend. In conclusion, there may be set down the final judgment upon Calderon by Fitzmaurice-Kelly, a critic not at all too favourable and yet disposed to do justice to his subject. He says that “Calderon takes rank among the greatest authors of the Spanish theatre in that he is the greatest Spanish poet who has had his recourse in the dramatic form. His race, his faith, his temperament, his especial environment prevented him from becoming a universal poet; his majesty, his devout lyrism, his decorative fancy suffice to put him in the first rank of national poets.”

FITZMAURICE-KELLY, History of Spanish Literature (London and New York, 1907); TRENCH, Calderon (London, 1880), still useful, although a little antiquated; MACCOLL, Selected Plays of Calderon (London, 1888); MACCARTHY, Love the Greatest Enchantment, etc. (London, 1861); KRENKEL, Klassische Bühnendichtungen der Spanier (annotated edition of three leading plays, Leipzig, 1881–87); MENÉNDEZ Y PELAYO, ed., Teatro selecto de Calderón (4 vols., Madrid, 1881); ROUANET, Drames religieux de Calderon (Paris, 1888); Poesías inéditas de Calderon (Madrid, 1881); MOREL-FATIO, Calderon in Revue critique des travaux d’érudition (Paris, 1881); GöNTHER, Calderon und seine Werke (2 vols., Freiburg im Br., 1888).

J. D. M. FORD

Caleb

(1) Caleb, Son of Jephone, The Cenezite.—The representative of the tribe of Juda among the spies sent from Cades to explore Chanaan. On their return he and Josue combated the exaggerated reports of the other spies and endeavored to reassure the people, but without success, and in the mutiny which broke out they nearly fell victims to the popular fury. In reward for thier conduct they were exempted from the decree condemning the adult population to die in the desert (Num, xiii, xiv; Deut., i, 19–36). Caleb was appointed one of the commissioners to divide the Promised Land among the tribes (Num., xxxiv, 19). On the strength of the Divine promise made to him at Cades at the time of the mutiny (Num., xiv, 24), he asked and obtained as his portion the district of Hebron (Jos., xiv, 6 sq.); the city itself was, however, assigned to the priests (Jos., xxi, 11–13). Though he was then in his eighty-fifth year, he still possessed the full vigour of manhood, and took the field to conquer the territory alloted to him (Jos., xiv, 7 sq.; xv, 13 sq.). We last hear of him in connection with the marriage of his daughter Axa to his brother Othoniel (Jos., xv, 16–19; Judges, i, 12–15). It may be remarked that probably neither “brother” nor “daughter” is to be taken in the strict sense. Caleb is praised by the son of Sirach with the great men of Israel (Ecclus., xlvi, 9 sq.), and Mathathias numbers him among the Israelites distinguished for their zeal and faith (I Mach., ii, 56). Although a prominent figure in Hebrew history, Caleb seems not to have been an Israelite by birth, but to have become a member of the Chosen People by adoption into the Tribe of Juda. This is intimated by Jos., xv, 13, where Caleb is distinguished from the sons of Juda, by the designation Cenezite (háqqenizzi), which is a gentilitial form, and by the absence of Cenez and Jephone from the genealogical lists of Juda in I Par., ii. A Cenez appears among the grandchildren of Esau (Gen., xxxvi, 11, 15, 42), and a tribe of Cenezites, no doubt descendants of this Cenez, is mentioned in Gen., xv, 19. Caleb probably was connected with this tribe. Admission to full tribal membership of strangers who embraced the Hebrew religion and customs was not foreign to Hebrew practice, and the Edomites, children of Abraham and Isaac, would be readily received because of their racial affinity. (Cf. Deut., xxiii, 7–8, where, however, admission is restricted to the third generation.)

(2) Caleb, Son of Hesron.—A descendant of Juda (I Par., ii, 18, 42 sq.), also called Calubi [Heb., Kelûbái (ib., ii, 9)]. He is only mentioned in the genealogical tables of I Par., ii, where his descendants by different wives are enumerated. Many identify this Caleb with the son of Jephone, who, in the view stated above, would be merely the legal son of Hesron through adoption into his family. The reason for this identification is that both had a daughter named Achsa (written Axa in the Vulgate, Jos., xv, 16, 17; Judges, i, 12, 13). But, to touch only one difficulty, the son of Jephone could not have been the great-grandfather of Beseleel, who was a skilled artificer when Caleb was barely forty years old (cf. Jos., xiv, 7). To get rid of the difficulty, as Hummelauer does (Com. in Num., 202), by making Uri and Beseleel adopted sons of Hur, or by rejecting I, Par., ii, 20, is too arbitrary a solution to commend itself.

(3) A man of Juda, the brother of Sua and father of Mahir, whose name according to the Hebrew text is Kelûb (I Par., iv, 11).

(4) The name of a clan of the tribe of Juda, derived from Caleb, the son of Jephone, and his Cenezite followers—the Celebites. As said above [under (1)], they were not of Israelitic origin. They settled in the territory around Hebron (Jos., xiv, 12–14), chiefly to the south, it would seem. They must have reached as far south as the Negeb (the “south” or “south country” in D. V.), since Caleb gave land in the Negeb to his daughter Axa for dowry (Jos., xv, 19; Jud., i, 15; cf. Heb. text), and a district of the Negeb was called the Negeb of Caleb (“south of Caleb,” D. V., I Kings, xxx, 14). In David’s time we find the Calebite Nabal, the husband of Abigail, dwelling in Maon and having possessions in Carmel, now el-Kurmul, ten miles south of Hebron. The statement that Caleb is a totem name, derived from the tribe’s totem, the dog, and therefore equivalent to “dog-tribe,” rests on no better foundation than the questionable etymological connection of Caleb with Kéléb, “dog.”

(5) The Negeb of Caleb (I Kings 30:14).—One of the districts of the Negeb, or “south country,” a region extending from the “mountain” or “hill country” of Juda to the Desert of Sin. The Negeb of Caleb is said to be the district in which lay Ziph, Maon, Carmel (el-Kurmul), and Jota; in Jos., xv, 55, however, these cities are included in “the mountain.” [See Palmer, Desert of the Exodus (New York, 1872), 238, 358 sq.]

(6) Caleb-Ephrata.—The name of a place, according to the Masoretic text (I Par., ii, 24); but there is little or no doubt that, with the Vulgate and Septuagint, we should read “Caleb went in to Ephrata” (his wife), instead of “in Caleb-Ephrata.”

F. BECHTEL

Christian Calendar

GENERALITIES

FOUNDATIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN CALENDAR

The Easter Cycle

The Nativity of Christ

Saints’ Days

OUR EARLIEST CALENDARS

FEASTS OF OUR LADY

THE APOSTLES AND OTHER NEW TESTAMENT SAINTS

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

VARIOUS PECULIARITIES OF CALENDARS

THE MODERN CALENDAR IMPOSED BY AUTHORITY

THE CHURCHES OF THE EAST

All civilized peoples and even those which seem to be only just emerging from utter barbarism keep some kind of record of the flight of time and are prone to recognize certain days, recurring at regular intervals, as days of special rejoicing or mourning, or occasions for the propitiation of the powers of the unseen world. In ancient Egypt and Babylonia, in China and Hindostan, and again on the American Continent, among the Aztecs or the ancient Peruvians, definite traces have been found of a more or less elaborate calculation of seasons serving as a basis for religious observances. In 1897, a remarkable discovery was made at Coligny in the department of Ain, France, when certain inscribed stone slabs were brought to light in which all are agreed in recognizing an ancient Celtic calendar, probably pre-Christian, though the precise interpretation of the details still remains a matter of lively controversy. Again, both Greece and Rome possessed highly developed calendars, and the Fasti of Ovid, for example, preserve a detailed description in verse of the chief celebrations of the Roman year.

What more nearly concerns us here is the Jewish calendar, outlined in Leviticus 23. The computation of time among the Jews was based primarily upon the lunar month. The year consisted normally of twelve such months, alternately of 29 and 30 days each; such a year, however, contains only 354 days, which by no means agrees with the number of days in the mean solar year. Moreover, the exact length of the mean lunar month is not exactly 29 1/2 days as the above arrangement would suggest. To compensate for the irregularity two corrections were introduced. First, a day was added to the month Hesvan (Heshwan) or subtracted from the month Kislev (Kislew), as need arose, in order to keep the months in agreement with the moon; secondly, eight years out of every nineteen were made “embolismic,” i.e. an intercalary month seems to have been introduced when necessary, at this point, in order to prevent the 14th day of Nisan from arriving too early. On that day (Leviticus 23:5, 10) the firstfruits of corn in the ear had to be brought to the priests and the paschal lamb sacrificed. This made it necessary to delay the Pasch (14 Nisan) until the corn was in ear and the lambs were ready, and the rule was accordingly established that 14 Nisan must fall when the sun had passed the equinox and was in the constellation of Aries (en krio tou heliou kathestotos—Josephus, Ant., I, i, 3). Down to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, it would seem that in the insertion of this intercalary month the Jews followed no fixed rule based on astronomical principles, but that the Sanhedrin decided each time whether the year should be embolismic or not, being influenced in their decision not by astronomical considerations alone, but also, in some measure, by the forwardness or backwardness of the season. It was the difficulty created by such a system and by the impossibility of accommodating it to the Julian chronology, adopted throughout the greater part of the Roman Empire, which led to those troubles about the determination of Easter (the Paschal controversy) that played so important a part in the history of the early Church. Besides the Pasch and the week of the unleavened bread (or azymes), of which the Pasch formed the first day, the Jewish calendar, of course, included many other feasts. That of Pentecost, or, “of the weeks,” 50 days after the Pasch, is of importance because it also found a place in the Christian Dispensation. The other great celebrations of the Jewish year occurred in autumn, in the month Tishri. The Day of Atonement fell on 10 Tishri and the Feast of Tabernacles extended from the 14th to the 21st, with a sort of octave day on the 22nd, but these had no direct bearing on the calendar of the Christian Church. The same may be said of the minor Jewish festivals, e.g. the Encoenia mentioned in the Gospel of St. John, which were, for the most part, of later institution.

It might almost be laid down as a general law that in the ancient world holy days were also holidays. In the Jewish system, besides the weekly sabbath, rest from work was enjoined on seven other days of the year, to wit: the first and last day of the Azymes, the feast of Pentecost, the Neomenia of the Seventh month, the day of Propitiation, the first day of Tabernacles, and 22 Tishri which immediately followed. It is not wonderful that this principle was recognized later in the Christian Church, for it had pagan example also in its favour. “The Greeks and barbarians,” says Strabo (X, 39), “have this in common that they accompany their sacred rites by a festal remission of labour.” So without seeking to derive the Jewish sabbath from any Babylonian institution, for which there is certainly no warrant, we may note that the new moon and the 7th, 15th, and 22nd seem to have been regarded among the Babylonians as times for propitiating the gods and unlucky; the result being that on these days no new work was begun and affairs of importance were suspended. In the Christian system the day of rest has been transferred from the Sabbath to the Sunday. Constantine made provision that his Christian soldiers should be free to attend service on the Sunday (Euseb., Vita Const., IV, 19, 20), and he also forbade the courts of justice to sit on that day (Sozom., I, 8). Theodosius II in 425 decreed that games in the circus and theatrical representations should also be prohibited on the day of rest, and these and similar edicts were frequently repeated.

In the Roman chronological system of the Augustan age the week as a division of time was practically unknown, though the twelve calendar months existed as we have them now. In the course of the first and second century after Christ, the hebdomadal or seven-day period became universally familiar, though not immediately through Jewish or Christian influence. The arrangement seems to have been astrological in origin and to have come to Rome from Egypt. The seven planets, as then conceived of—Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon, thus arranged in the order of their periodic times (Saturn taking the longest and the Moon the shortest time to complete the round of the heavens by their proper motion)—were supposed to preside over each hour successively, and the day was designated by that planet which presided over its first hour. Beginning on the first day with the planets in order, the first hour would be Saturn’s, the second Jupiter’s, the seventh the Moon’s, the eighth Saturn’s again, and so on. Continuing thus, the twenty-fifth hour, i.e. the first hour of the second day, and consequently the second day itself, would belong to the Sun; and the forty-ninth hour, and consequently the third day, to the Moon. Following always the same plan the seventy-third hour and the fourth day would fall to Mars, the fifth day to Mercury, the sixth to Jupiter, the seventh to Venus, and the eighth again to Saturn. Hence, apparently, were derived the Latin names for the days of the week, which are still retained (except Samedi and Dimanche) in modern French and other Romance tongues. These names from an early date were often used by the Christians themselves, and we find them already in Justin Martyr. The special honour which the faithful paid to the Sunday (dies solis), coupled perhaps with the celebration of Christmas on the day designated the natalis invicti [solis], may have helped, later on, to produce the impression that the Christians had much in common with the worshippers of Mithras.

THE EASTER CYCLE

The starting-point of the Christian system of feasts was of course the commemoration of the Resurrection of Christ on Easter day. The fact that for a long time Jews must have formed the vast majority of the members of the infant Church, rendered it impossible for them to forget that each returning Passover celebrated by their countrymen brought with it the anniversary of their Redeemer’s Passion and of His glorious Resurrection from the dead. Moreover, as they had all their lives been accustomed to observe a weekly day of rest and prayer, it must have been almost inevitable that they should wish so to modify this holiday that it might serve as a weekly commemoration of the source of all their new hopes. Probably at first they did not wholly withdraw from the Synagogue, and the Sunday must have seemed rather a prolongation of, than a substitution for, the old familiar Sabbath. But it was not long before the observance of the first day of the week became distinctive of Christian worship. St. Paul (Coloss. 2:16) evidently considered that the converts from paganism were not bound to the observance of the Jewish festivals or of the Sabbath proper. On the other hand, the name “the Lord’s day” (dies dominica, he kuriake) meets us in the Apocalypse 1:10, and was no doubt familiar at a much earlier date (cf. I Cor. 16:2). From the beginning the Sunday seems to have been frankly recognized among Christians for what it was, viz. the weekly commemoration of Christ’s Resurrection. (Cf. The Epistle of Barnabas, 15.) It was presumably marked by the celebration of the liturgy, for St. Luke writes in the Acts: “And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread” (Acts 20:7); and we may infer from somewhat later ordinances that it was always regarded as joyful in character, a day when fasting was out of place, and when the faithful were instructed to pray standing, not kneeling. “Die dominico,” says Tertullian, “jejunium nefas dicimus vel de geniculis adorare” (De orat. 14). In fact this upright position in prayer was, according to Pseudo (?) Irenæus, typical of the Resurrection (Irenæus, Frag., 7). But for a fuller account of this first element of the Christian calendar the reader must be referred to the article SUNDAY.

That the early Christians kept with especial honour the anniversary of the Resurrection itself is more a matter of inference than of positive knowledge. No writer before Justin Martyr seems to mention such a celebration, but the fact that in the latter half of the second century the controversy about the time of keeping Easter almost rent the Church in twain may be taken as an indication of the importance attached to the feast. Moreover the paschal fast of preparation, though its primitive duration was probably not forty days (Cf. Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen, I, 242 sq.), was constantly referred to by the Early Church as a matter of ancient and even Apostolic institution. In any case, all our earliest liturgical monuments both of East and West, for example the “Apostolical Constitutions” and the “Apostolic Canons,” which are a still earlier document according to Funk and Harnack, are agreed in giving to Easter the place of honour among the feasts of the year. It is as the Roman Martyrologium describes it, festum festorum and solemnitas solemnitatum. With it have naturally always been associated the commemoration of the events of Christ’s Passion, the Last Supper on the Thursday, the Crucifixion on the Friday, and on the eve itself that great vigil or night watch when the paschal candle and the fonts were blessed and the catechumens, after long weeks of preparation, were at last admitted to the Sacrament of Baptism. Data are lacking concerning these separate elements in the great paschal celebration as it was observed in the earliest times. It may, however, be noted that in Tertullian the word pascha clearly designates not the Sunday alone but rather a period, and in particular. the day of the Parasceve, or as we now call it, Good Friday; while in Origen a definite distinction is drawn between two kindred terms: pascha anastasimon (the Resurrection Pasch on Easter Sunday), and pascha staurosimon (the Crucifixion Pasch, i.e. Good Friday); but both were equally memorable as celebrations.

Closely dependent upon Easter and gradually developing in number as time went on were other observances also belonging to the cycle of what we now call the movable feasts. Whitsunday (see PENTECOST), the anniversary of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, was probably regarded as next in importance to Easter itself, and as Easter was determined by the Jewish Pasch, there can be little doubt, seeing that Whitsunday stood in the same close relation to the Jewish feast of Pentecost, that the Jewish converts observed both a Christian Pasch and a Christian Pentecost from the very beginning. Ascension day, though determined in position by the fact that it was forty days after Easter (Acts 1:3) and ten before Whitsuntide, was not superimposed on any Jewish feast. We do not, consequently, find it attested by any writer earlier than Eusebius (De sol. pasch., Migne, P.G. xxiv, 679). Lent, which all admit to have been known as a forty days’ fast in the early years of the fourth century (cf. the various Festal Letters of St. Athanasius), had of course a fixed terminus ad quem in Easter itself, but its terminus a quo seems to have varied considerably in different parts of the world. In some places the understanding seemed to be that Lent was a season of forty days in which there was much fasting but not necessarily a daily fast—the Sundays in any case, and in the East Saturdays also, were always exempt. Elsewhere it was held that Lent must necessarily include forty actual fasting-days. Again there were places where the fasting in Holy Week was regarded as something independent, which had to be superadded to the forty days of Lent. The times therefore, of commencing the Lenten fast varied considerably, just as there was considerable diversity in the severity with which the fast was kept. (For these details see LENT.) All that we need notice here is that this penitential season, which at a considerably later period was thrown back to the Sunday known as Septuagesima (strictly the Sunday within the period of seventy days before Easter), began earlier or later according to the day on which Easter Sunday fell, while the later additions at the other end—such as Trinity Sunday, Corpus Christi, and in still more recent times, the Feast of the Sacred Heart—all equally formed part of the same festal cycle.

There can be little doubt that the early Christians felt as we do the inconvenience of this movable element in the otherwise stable framework of the Julian calendar. But we have to remember that the movable element was established there by right of prior occupation. Since the Jewish Christians, as explained above, had never known any other computation of time than that based on the lunar month, the only way which could have occurred to them of fixing the anniversary of Our Saviour’s Resurrection was by referring it to the Jewish Pasch. But while accepting this situation, they also showed a certain independence. It seems to have been decided that the occurrence of the Resurrection feast on the first day of the week, the day which followed the Sabbath was an essential feature. Hence, instead of determining that the second day after the Jewish Pasch (17 Nisan) should always he counted as the anniversary of the Resurrection, independently of the day of the week upon which it might fall, the Apostles appear to have settled, though in this we have very little positive evidence, that that Sunday was to be kept as the Christian Pasch which fell within the Azymes, or days of the unleavened bread, whether it occurred at the beginning, middle, or end of the term. This arrangement had the drawback that it made the Christian feast dependent upon the computation of the Jewish calendar. When the destruction of Jerusalem practically deprived the Jews of the dispersion of any norm or standard of uniformity, they probably fell into erroneous or divergent reckonings, and this in turn entailed a difference of opinion among the Christians. If it had been possible to ascertain in terms of the Julian chronology the day of the month on which Christ actually suffered, it would probably have been simplest for Christians all over the Roman world to celebrate their Easter, as later on they celebrated Christmas or St. Peter’s day, upon a fixed anniversary. Yet this, be it noticed, would have interfered with the established position of “the Lord’s day” as the weekly memorial of the great Sunday par excellence, for Easter, as a fixed feast, would of course have fallen upon all the days of the week in turn. However, though Tertullian declares without misgiving that Christ suffered upon 25 March, a tradition perpetuated in numberless calendars throughout the Middle Ages, this date was certainly wrong. Moreover it was probably quite impossible at that period, owing to the arbitrary manner in which the Jewish embolismic years had been intercalated, to calculate back to the true date. For the various phases of the disputes which first broke out in the second century and were renewed long afterwards in the British Isles we must refer the reader to the article EASTER CONTROVERSY. It will suffice here to say that a decision seems to have been arrived at in the Council of Nicæa, which, though it is strangely absent from the canons of the council as now preserved to us (Turner, Monumenta Nicæna, 152), is believed to have determined that Easter was to be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon which follows the spring equinox. According to this rule, which has ever since been accepted, the earliest day upon which Easter can now fall is 22 March, and the latest 25 April.

A second element which fundamentally influences the Christian calendar and which, though less primitive than the Easter celebrations, is also of early date, may be described as the Nativity Cycle. Of the origin and history of the feast of Christmas, dealt with in a separate article, little need now be said. We may take it as certain that the feast of Christ’s Nativity was kept in Rome on 25 December before the year 354. It was introduced by St. John Chrysostom into Constantinople and definitively adopted in 395. On the other hand, the Epiphany feast on 6 January, which also in the beginning seems to have commemorated the birth of Jesus Christ, is referred to as of partial observance in that character by Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, 21), though a recently discovered discourse of Hippolytus for this day (eis ta hagia theophaneia) is entirely devoted to the theme of Christ’s baptism. This last, in fact, is and has long been the primary aspect of the feast in the Oriental churches. But the feast of the Nativity is of importance in the calendar not only for itself, as one of the greatest celebrations of the year, but also for the other days which depend upon it. These are mostly of later date in point of origin, but are ecclesiastically of high rank. Thus on this supposition, however questionable as a fact of history, that the exact date of Christ’s nativity was 25 December, we have first the Circumcision on 1 January, the eighth day, a festival greatly utilized in the attempt to divert the newly converted peoples from the superstitious and often idolatrous pagan practices which immemorial custom associated with the beginning of the year. The Mass for this day in the Missals is often headed Ad prohibendum ab idolis, and its contents correspond with that designation. At the same time other service books preserve conspicuous traces of a time when this day was treated as a festival of the Blessed Virgin. On the other hand, the eighth day before Christmas (18 December) is kept as the feast of the Expectation of Our Lady, which was only added to the Roman calendar as lately as the seventeenth century, but represents an old Spanish feast of the Blessed Virgin. It was not, however, known in ancient times by its present designation of Expectatio partus.

Again, forty days after Christmas, following, as in the case of the Circumcision, the data of the Jewish law, we have the Presentation in the Temple. This, under its Greek name of Hypapante (hupapante, “the meeting”), was originally treated as a feast of Our Saviour rather than of His Blessed Mother. It is older than any other Marian feast—being mentioned c. 380 in the Pilgrimage of “Sylvia,” i.e. the Spanish lady Etheria—though in Jerusalem at that date it was kept forty days after the feast which is known to us as the Epiphany (6 Jan.), but which, as we have seen, then commemorated the Birth as well as the Baptism of Christ. For some reason, of which no adequate explanation seems to be forthcoming, the solemn benediction of candles and the procession were attached at an early period to this feast. It was long known in England as Candlemas Day and in France as la Chandeleur. The Annunciation, or, as it was some times anciently called, the Conception of Our Lord, seems to be heard of in the East in the sixth century and to have been transported thence to Western Europe not long afterwards. Its connection with the Nativity is obvious, and it is even possible, as Duchesne and others have suggested, that the Incarnation of Our Saviour was assigned to the 25th of March because this day, as early as Tertullian, was believed to be the date of His Passion. If this were true, the 25th of December would have been determined by the 25th of March and not vice versa. But certainly the Annunciation as a feast is heard of considerably later than the Nativity. Still later in the year another early feast, already familiar in the time of St. Augustine (Serm., 307–308), meets us in the Nativity of St. John the Baptist. On 25 March, the Fathers calculated, St. Elizabeth had already been six months with child; its birth accordingly would have taken place exactly three months later. Neither does the 24th of June (instead of 25th) assigned to the Nativity of the Baptist present any difficulty, for in the Roman way of counting both 25 March and 24 June are equally octavo kalendas, the eighth day before the kalends of the next month. Yet another feast, the Conception of the Baptist, found in the Greek Church and in certain Carlovingian calendars on 24 September, hardly needs mention. It is chiefly interesting to us as paving the way for the feast of the Conception of Our Lady and hence for that also of her Immaculate Conception.

SAINTS’ DAYS

Another, and that the most substantial, element in the formation of the calendar is the record of the birthdays of the saints. It must be remembered that this word birthday (genethlios, natalis) had come to mean little more than commemoration. Already, before the Christian Era, various royal personages who were deified after death commonly had their “birthdays” kept as festivals; but it is very doubtful whether these really represented the day upon which they were born into this world (see Rohde, Psyche, 3d ed., I, 235). Hence we are not so surprised at a later period to meet in Christian liturgical books such phrases as natalis calicis as a designation for the feast of Maunday Thursday, or natalis episcopi, which seems to mean the day of a bishop’s consecration. Anyhow, there can be no doubt that the same word was used, and that from a very early period, to describe the day upon which a martyr suffered death. It is commonly explained as meaning the birthday which introduced him into a new and glorious life in heaven, but we cannot, perhaps, be quite certain that those who first used the term of a Christian martyr had this interpretation consciously present to their minds. We are fortunate, however, in possessing in the contemporary account written from Smyrna of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp (about A.D. 145) a clear statement that the Jews and pagans fully anticipated that the Christians would try to recover the martyr’s body as a precious treasure to which they might pay cultus, and would institute a birth-feast (genethlios), his honour. Here, then, we have the most conclusive evidence that the Christians already in the first half of the second century were accustomed to celebrate the feasts of the martyrs. Probably for a long time these celebrations remained almost entirely local. They were confined to the place where the martyr suffered or where a considerable portion of his remains were preserved over which the Holy Sacrifice would be offered. But in the course of time the practice of moving such relics freely from place to place enlarged the circle of the martyr’s clients. All the churches that possessed these relics felt entitled to keep his “birthday” with some degree of solemnity, and thus we soon find martyrs from Africa, for example, obtaining recognition in Rome and eventually being honoured by all the Church. This seems to be, in brief, the history of the inclusion of saints’ days in the calendar. At first the number of such days was very small, depending generally upon some special local tie, and rigorously limited to those who had shed their blood for Christ. But before very long the names of confessors also began to find a place in the lists, for confessors and bishops were already written in the diptychs and in those days the line between praying to a departed servant of God and praying for him was by no means so clearly defined as it is with us now. This was the process which was already being inaugurated in the fourth century and which has continued ever since.

As feasts and Saints’ days multiplied, it became desirable that some sort of record should be kept of them. We may divide the documents of this kind, roughly speaking, into two categories: Calendars and Martyrologia, both officially recognized by the Church. A calendar in its ecclesiastical sense is simply a list of the feasts kept in any particular church, diocese, or country, arranged in order under their proper dates. A martyrologium was originally, as its name implies, a record of mar- tyrs, but it soon assumed a more general character, extending to all classes of saints and embracing all parts of the world. The entries which are included in a martyrologium are independent of the fact of actual liturgical cultus in any particular place. They follow the same orderly arrangement by months and days which we observe in a calendar, but under each day not one but many names of saints are given, while certain topographical and biographical details are often added. It will, however, be readily understood that it is not always easy to draw a hard and fast line between calendars and martyrologia. They naturally shade into one another. Thus the ancient Irish poem commonly known as the “Calendar of Aengus” is more properly a martyrologium, for a number of names of saints are assigned to each day quite independently of any idea of liturgical cultus. On the other hand, we sometimes find true calendars in the blank spaces of which the names of saints or deceased persons have been inserted whom there was no intention of commemorating in the liturgy. They have thus been partly converted into martyrologies or necrologies. Of early lists of feasts, the most famous and the most important is the information which it preserves, the so called “Philocalian Calendar,” hardly deserves to be called by this name. It is, in fact, no more than the commonplace book of a certain Furius Dionysius Philocalus, who seems to have been a Christian interested in all kinds of chronological information and to have compiled this book in A. D. 354. There is indeed a calendar in his volume, but this is a table of purely secular and pagan celebrations containing no Christian references of any kind. The value of Philocalus’ manuscript to modern scholars lies in two lists headed Depositio Martyrum and Depositio Episcoporum, together with other casual notices. We thus learn that a considerable number of martyrs, including among them Sts. Peter and Paul and several Popes, were honoured in Rome on their own proper days in the middle of the fourth century, while three African martyrs, Sts. Cyprian, Perpetua, and Felicitas, also found a place on the list. The only other fixed feasts which are mentioned are the Nativity of Christ and the feast of St. Peter’s Chair (22 Feb.).

Not far removed from the Philocalian document in the witness which it bears to the still present influence of paganism is the “Calendar of Polemius Sylvius” of 448. This presents a medley not unlike a modern almanac. The days are indicated when the Senate sat and when the games were celebrated in the Circus, as also the times of those pagan festivals like the Lupercalia, the Terminalia, etc., which had become in a sense national holidays throughout the empire. But side by side with these we have the mention of certain Christian feasts—Christmas Day, the Epiphany, 22 February (strangely characterized as depositio Petri et Pauli), and four or five other saints’ days. Very curious, also, is it to notice in such company the natales of Virgil and of Cicero. Next to this comes a document of the North African Church which is commonly described as the “Calendar of Carthage,” and which belongs to the closing years of the sixth century. It presents a considerable array of martyrs, mostly African, but including also some of the more famous of those of Rome, e.g. St. Sixtus, St. Lawrence, St. Clement, St. Agnes, etc., with Sts. Gervasius and Protasius from Milan, St. Agatha from Sicily, St. Vincent from Spain, and St. Felix from Nola in Campania. We also find days assigned to some of the Apostles and to St. John the Baptist, but as yet no feast of Our Lady. Earlier in point of time (c. 410), is a compilation preserved to us in Syriac, of Oriental and Arian origin. It was first published by the English Orientalist, William Wright, and has since been edited by Duchesne and De Rossi in their edition of the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” (Acta Sanctorum, Nov., vol. II). The Syriac document is chiefly important as witnessing to one of the main sources, direct or indirect, of that famous martyrologium, but it also shows how even in the East a calendar was being formed in the fourth century which took notice of the martyrs of Nicomedia, Antioch, and Alexandria, with even a few Western entries like Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas (7 March), and probably Xystus. Sts. Peter and Paul are commemorated on 28 December, which may be a mere error, Sts. John and James on 27 December, St. Stephen on 26 December, which is still his proper day. The month of December is partly lacking, or we should probably have found the Nativity on 25 December. The Epiphany is mentioned on 6 January.

Closely connected in certain of its aspects with this memorial of the Eastern Church is the so-called “Martyrologium Hieronymianum “already mentioned. This work, which in spite of its name owes nothing directly to St. Jerome, was probably first compiled in Southern Gaul (Duchesne says Auxerre, Bruno Krusch, Autun) between the years 592 and 600, i.e. at the same period that St. Augustine was preaching the Gospel to our Anglo-Saxon forefathers. As a martyrologium it is the type of a class. It contains long lists of obscure names for each day mingled with topographical data, but as contrasted with the later martyrologia of Bede, Ado, Usuard, etc., out of which our modern “Martyrologium Romanum” has developed, the “Hieronymian” includes few biographical details regarding the subject of its notices. The fuller discussion of this document, however, belongs to the article MARTYROLOGY (q.v.). It is sufficient here to notice that in its primitive form the “Hieronymian” includes no proper feast of Our Lady; even the Purification, on 2 February, is only indirectly alluded to.

And here it may be convenient to observe that the principal festivals of the Blessed Virgin, the Assumption, Annunciation, and Nativity, were undoubtedly first celebrated in the East. There seems very good reason to believe, from certain apocryphal Syriac narratives of the “Falling asleep of Mary the Mother of the Lord,” that some celebration of her Assumption into Heaven was already observed in Syria in the fifth century on a day corresponding to our 15 August (cf. Wright, in Journal of Sacred Literature, N.S., VII, 157). The Annunciation again is said to be commemorated in an authentic sermon of Proclus of Constantinople, who died in 446, while the agreement of the Armenian and Æthiopic Christians in keeping similar festivals seems to throw back the period of their first introduction to a time earlier than that at which these schismatical churches broke away from unity. In the West, however, we have no definite details as to the earliest occurrence of these Marian feasts. We only know that they were kept at Rome with solemnity in the time of Pope Sergius I (687–701). In Spain, if we may safely follow Dom G. Morin in assigning the “Lectionary of Silos” to about 650, there is definite mention of a feast of Our Lady in Advent, which may be earlier than those just referred to; and in Gaul the statutes of Bishop Sonnatius of Reims (614–631) apparently prescribe the observance of the Annunciation, Assumption, and Nativity, though the Purification strange to say, is not mentioned.

Although the mention is a departure from the natural chronological order, a word may also be said here about the feast of the Immaculate Conception. In the East we find it known to John of Euboea towards the close of the eighth century. It was then kept, as it still is in the Greek Church, on 9 December, but it is described by him as being only of partial observance. Nevertheless, about the year 1000, we find it included in the calendar of the Emperor Basil Porphyrogenitus, and it seems by that time to have become universally recognized in the East. The West, however, did not long lag behind. A curious trace may be found in the Irish “Calendar of Aengus” (c. 804), where the Conception of Our Lady is assigned to 3 May (see The Month, May, 1904, pp. 449–465). This probably had no liturgical significance, but Mr. Edmund Bishop has shown that in some Anglo-Saxon monasteries a real feast of the Conception was already kept upon 8 December before the year 1050 (Downside Review, 1886, pp. 107–119). At Naples, under Byzantine influence, the feast had long been known, and it appears in the famous Neapolitan marble calendar of the ninth century under the form Conceptio S. Annæ, being assigned, as among the Greeks, to 9 December. The general recognition of the feast in the West seems, however, to have been largely due to the influence of a certain tractate, “De Conceptione B. Mariæ,” long attributed to St. Anselm, but really written by Eadmer, his disciple. At first only the Conception of Our Lady was spoken of, the question of the Immaculate Conception was raised somewhat later. For the feast of the Presentation of Our Lady (21 November), an early Eastern origin has also been claimed dating back to the Year 700 (see Vailhé, in (“Echos d’Orient,” V, 193–201, etc.), but this cannot be accepted without fuller verification. For the other Marian festivals, e.g. the Visitation, the Rosary, etc., the reader must be referred to these separate articles. All are comparatively modern additions to the calendar.

From the mention of Sts. Peter and Paul conjointly on 29 June in the “Depositio Martyrum” of the “Philocalian Calendar,” it is probable that the two Apostles both suffered on that day. In the time of St. Leo (Sermon 84) the feast seems to have been celebrated in Rome with an octave, while the Syriac martyrologium in the East and Polemius Silvius in Gaul equally manifest a tendency to do honour to the Principes Apostolorum, though in the former the commemoration is attached to 28 December, and in the latter to 22 February. This latter day was, generally, given to the celebration of the Cathedra Petri, also belonging to very early times, while a feast in honour of St. Paul’s conversion was kept 25 January. Of the other Apostles, Sts. John and James appear together in the Syriac martyrologium on 27 December, and St. John still retains that day in the West. With regard to St. Andrew we probably have a reliable tradition as to the day on which he suffered, for apart from an explicit reference in the relatively early “Acta” (cf. Analecta Bollandiana, XIII, 373–378), his feast has been kept on 30 November, both in the East and in the West, from an early period. The other Apostles nearly all appear in some form in the “Hieronymian Martyrologium,” and their festivals gradually came to be celebrated liturgically before the eighth or ninth century.

The fixing of the precise days was probably much influenced by a certain “Breviarius” which was widely circulated in somewhat varying forms, and which professed to give a brief account of the circumstances of the death of each of the Twelve. As an indication that some of these feasts must have been adopted at a more remote date than is attested in existing calendars, it may be noted that Bede has a homily upon the feast of St. Matthew, which the arrangement of the collection shows to have been kept by him in the latter part of September, as we keep it at present. St. John the Baptist, as already noted, had also more than one festival in early times. Besides the Nativity on 24 June, two of St. Augustine’s sermons (nos. cccvii, cccviii) are consecrated to the celebration of his martyrdom (Passio or Decollatio). Similar honours were paid to St. Stephen, the first martyr, more particularly in the East. St. Gregory of Nyssa, in his funeral oration over St. Basil, delivered at Cæsarea in Cappadocia in 379, attests this, and lets us know that the feast was kept then as it is now, the day after Christmas. On the other hand, St. Joseph’s name does not occur in the calendar until comparatively late. Curiously enough the earliest definite assignment which the writer has been able to find of a special day consecrated to his memory occurs in the “Calendar of Aengus” (c. 804) under its existing date, 19 March. There we read of “Joseph, name that is noble, Jesus’ pleasant fosterer.” But despite an invocation of St. Joseph in the old Irish hymn “Sen De,” ascribed to St. Colman Ua Cluasaigh (c. 622), we cannot regard this entry as indicative of any proper cultus. It seems probable, from the nature of some of the apocryphal literature of the early centuries, that honour was of old paid to St. Joseph in Syria, Egypt, and the East generally, but reliable data as to his feast are at present wanting.

During the Merovingian and Carlovingian period the number of festivals which won practical recognition gradually increased. Perhaps the safest indications of this development are to be gathered from the early service-books—sacramentaries, antiphonaries, and lectionaries—but these are often difficult to date. Somewhat more compendious and definite are one or two other lists of feasts which have accidentally been preserved to us, and which it will be interesting to quote. A certain Perpetuus, Bishop of Tours (461–491), sets down the Principal feasts celebrated in his day with a vigil as the following:

“Natalis Domini; Epiphania; Natalis S. Ioannis (June 24th); Natalis S. Petri episcopatus (February 22d); Sext. Cal. Apr. Resurrectio Domini nostri I. Chr.; Pascha; Dies Ascensionis; Passio S. Ioannis; Natalis SS. apostolorum Petri et Pauli; Natalis S. Martini; Natalis S. Symphoriani (July 22d); Natalis S. Litorii (September 13th); Natalis S. Martini (November 11th); Natalis S. Bricii (November 13th); Natalis S. Hilarii (January 13th).” (Mon. Germ. SS. Meroving., I, 445.)

Similarly Bishop Sonnatius of Reims (614–631) makes the following list of festivals which were to be kept as holidays absque omni opere forensi:

Nativitas Domini, Circumcisio, Epiphania, Annuntiatio beatæ Marie, Resurrectio Domini cum die sequenti, Ascensio Domini, dies Pentecostes, Nativitas beati Ioannis Baptistæ, Nativitas apostolorum Petri et Pauli, Assumptio beatæ Mariæ, eiusdem Nativitas, Nativitas Andreæ apostoli, et omnes dies dominicales.

In the course of the eighth and ninth centuries various German synods drew up lists of the ecclesiastical holidays which were to be celebrated with rest from work. In an early constitution, ascribed to St. Boniface, we find nineteen such days in each year besides the ordinary Sundays, three free days after the feast itself being appointed both at Christmas and Easter. A council at Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen) in 809 fixed twenty-one holidays. This included a week at Easter and such feasts as St. Martin and St. Andrew. At Basle in 827 the list was further extended, and it now comprised all the feasts of the Apostles. In England the days honoured in this way seem not to have been quite so numerous, at any rate not at first; but before the end of the tenth century many additions were made, while the ordinances of the synods were enforced by the royal authority. The list comprised the four chief festivals of Our Lady and the commemoration of St. Gregory the Great. The observance of St. Dunstan’s feast was imposed a little later during the reign of Cnut. As regards existing documents, perhaps the oldest ecclesiastical calendar, in the proper sense of the word, which still survives, is the one which was in the possession of the Englishman St. Willibrord, Apostle of the Frisians, who has left in it an autograph note of the date of his consecration as bishop (A. D. 695). The calendar was probably written in England between 702 and 706. As it has never been printed it may be interesting to give here the entries made in the original hand, omitting the interpolations made by others at a slightly later date. The manuscript which contains it is the well-known “Codex Epternacensis,” now Latin manuscript 10837, in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.

JANUARY

1 Circumcision

3 St. Genevieve of Paris

6 Epiphany

13 St. Hilary

14 St. Felix of Nola

17 St. Anthony, Hermit

18 St. Peter’s Chair at Rome and the Assumption of Holy Mary

20 St. Sebastian

21 St. Agnes (Virgin)

24 St. Babilas, Bishop and Martyr

25 Conversion of St. Paul at Damascus

29 St. Valerius, Bishop, and St. Lucy (Virgin) at Treves

FEBRUARY

1 St. Denis, St. Polycarp and St. Brigid (Virgin)

2 St. Symeon, Patriarch

5 St. Agatha

6 St. Amandus

16 St. Juliana

22 The Chair of Peter at Antioch

MARCH

1 Donatus

7 Perpetua and Felicitas

12 St. Gregory at Rome

17 St. Patrick, Bishop in Ireland

20 St. Cuthbert, Bishop

21 St. Benedict, Abbot

25 The Lord was crucified and St. James the brother of Our Lord

27 The Resurrection of Our Lord

APRIL

4 St. Ambrose

22 Philip, Apostle

MAY

1 St. Philip, Apostle

5 The Ascension of the Lord

7 The Invention of the Holy Cross

11 Pancratius, Martyr

14 Earliest date for Pentecost

31 St. Maximinius at Treves

JUNE

2 Erasmus, Martyr

8 Barnabas, Apostle

9 St. Columkill

22 James the son of Alpheus

24 Nativity of John the Baptist

29 Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome

JULY

15 St. James of Nisibis

26 St. James, Apostle, Brother of John

26 St. Symeon, Monk in Syria

29 St. Lupus

AUGUST

1 The Machabees, seven brothers with their mother

5 St. Oswald, King

6 St. Syxtus, Bishop

10 St. Laurence, Deacon

13 Hippolitus, Martyr

16 (Sic) [erasure] St. Mary

25 St. Bartholomew, Apostle

28 Augustine and Faustinus, Bishops

29 Martyrdom of St. John the Baptist

31 St. Paulinus, Bishop at Trier

SEPTEMBER

7 Sergius, Pope at Rome

9 (Sic) Nativity of St. Mary at Jerusalem

13 Cornelius and Cyprian

15 St. Euphemia, Martyr

19 Januarius. Martyr

21 Matthew, Apostle

22 Passion of St. Maurice

24 Conception of St. John the Baptist

27 Cosmas and Damian at Jerusalem

29 St. Michael, Archangel

OCTOBER

1 Remedius and Germanus

4 Sts. Heuwald and Hewald, Martyrs

14 Paulinus, Bishop in Canterbury

18 Luke, Evangelist

28 Simon and Jude, Apostles

31 St. Quintinus, Martyr

NOVEMBER

10 St. Leo, Pope

11 St. Martin, Bishop at Tours

22 St. Cecilia

23 Clement at Rome

24 Crisogonus

30 St. Andrew, Apostle

DECEMBER

10 St. Eulalia and seventy-five others

20 St. Ignatius, Bishop and Martyr

21 St. Thomas, Apostle in India

25 Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ

26 St. Stephen, Martyr

27 John, Apostle, and James, his brother

28 The Innocents

31 St. Silvester, Bishop

This list very well illustrates the arbitrary choice of saints to be commemorated, which is observable in most early calendars. The mention of the Nativity of our Lady on 9 September instead of 8 September is interesting in view of the Eastern practice, attested by the Naples marble calendar, of celebrating the Conception of Our Lady on 9 December. The appearance of St. Januarius (19 September) is also noteworthy. The link between England and Southern Italy in the matter of the commemoration of saints has often been noticed without ever being quite adequately explained. (See Morin, Liber Comicus, Appendix, etc.) The occurrence of the Invention of the Cross on 7 May, as in the Greek Church, is also remarkable. It is further curious to note the partial erasure of the Assumption feast on 16 August (sic), and its appearance upon 18 January. The later Anglo-Saxon calendars, of which a fair number have been printed by Hampson and Piper, offer fewer points of interest than the above; but a word should be said of one or two which are especially noteworthy. The metrical Latin calendar printed among the works of Bede is shown not to be his by the reference to the second Wilfrid of York, who died after his time, but it offers some useful points of comparison with Bede’s genuine martyrologium, which, thanks to the patient labour of Dom Quentin, has at last been recovered for us (see Les Martyrologes Historiques, Paris, 1908, pp. 17–119). Not less interesting is the ancient English martyrology edited for the Early English Text Society by G. Herzfeld. This document, though not a calendar, and though including later interpolations, probably reflects the arrangement of a calendar which may be even older than the time of Bede. It is especially noteworthy for brief references to certain Capuan and South Italian saints, which it professes to derive from the “old Mass Books,” probably missals of that Gelasian type for which the Gregorian Sacramentary was afterwards substituted. Another early calendar which must possess an interest for all English-speaking students is the “Anglo-Saxon Menologium,” a short but rather ornate poem of the tenth century, describing the principal feasts of each month and probably intended for popular use (see Imelmann, Das altenglische Menologium, p. 40). The writer’s main purpose is indicated by his concluding words:

Nû ge findan magon

Hâligra tiid, the man healdan sceal,

Swa bebûgeth gebod geond Brytenricu

Sexna kyninges on thâs sylfan tiid.

(Now ye may find the holy tides which men should observe as the command goeth through Britain of the king of the Saxons at this same time.) The use of metrical calendars, however, was by no means peculiar to England. The Irish “Calendar of Aengus,” already referred to, was written in verse, and some of the versified Latin calendars printed by Hampson have been shown by Dr. Whitley Stokes to present clear signs of Irish influences. So on the Continent, to take but one example, we have an elaborate calendar or rather martyrologium composed about 848 in Latin hexameters by Wandelbert of Prüm.

The history of the more detailed martyrologia, which has been worked out with such thoroughness by Dom Quentin, may serve to show how far-reaching is the principle that nature abhors a vacuum. Almost all the writers, such as Florus, Ado, and Usuard, who undertook the task of supplementing the martyrologium of Bede, worked with the avowed object of filling up the days which he had left blank. We may fairly infer that the same spirit will have affected the calendar as well. The mere sight of a vacant space, no doubt, in many cases tempted scribes and correctors to fill it up, if their erudition sufficed for the purpose; and though for a long time these entries remained mere paper-commemorations, they will certainly in the long run have reacted upon the liturgy. We may say that much the same influence was at work when Alcuin took in hand the task of supplying the lacunæ in the “Gregorian Sacramentary,” more particularly when he provided a complete set of different masses for the Sundays after Pentecost. But besides this we have, of course, to consider the potent factor of new devotional interests, creating such feasts as those of All Saints, All Souls, the Blessed Trinity, the various festivals of the Angels, and notably St. Michael, and, in more modern times, Corpus Christi, the Sacred Heart, the Five Wounds, the commemoration of the various instruments of the Passion, the many different invocations under which Our Lady is honoured, and the duplications of feasts provided by translations, dedications, and miraculous events, such as the stigmata of St. Francis of Assisi or the “Transverberation” of the heart of St. Teresa. Necessarily also, among the countless holy men who lived in the practice of heroic virtue, some in a more pronounced way caught the imagination of their contemporaries. The piety of the faithful who had been the witness of their virtues during life, or who, after their death, benefited by the power of their intercession with God, clamoured for some adequate means of manifesting devotion and gratitude.

At first this recognition of sanctity was in a measure local, informal, and popular, with the result that it was not always very discerning. Later the authority of the Holy See was invoked to pronounce after full inquiry a formal decree of canonization. But if this system, on the one hand, tended to limit the number of recognized saints, it also helped to extend more widely the fame of those whose history or whose miracles were more remarkable. Thus, in the end, we find that the cultus of such a saint as St. Thomas of Canterbury, to take an English example, was not limited to his own diocese or to his own province, but within a period of ten years after his death his name found a place in the calendars of almost every country of Europe. To these causes we must add the growth of literary culture among the people, especially after the invention of printing, and last, but by no means least, the cosmopolitan character of so many of the religious orders. Wherever the Cistercians had settled the name of St. Bernard was necessarily held in honour. If, again, there was no part of Christendom in which the friars had not laboured, so were there hardly any of the faithful who had not heard of St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Clare, St. Catharine of Siena, and many more. It is no wonder, then, if at an early date the calendar grew crowded, and if in our own times hardly any vacant days are left in which some festival does not take precedence and exclude the ferial office. To enter into detail regarding this great variety of feasts would be impossible in an article like the present. All the more important celebrations will be found treated separately in their proper place, e.g. ALL SAINTS, ALL SOULS, CANDLEMAS, CORPUS CHRISTI, etc.

From the ninth century onwards a calendar was a common adjunct to most of the different classes of service-books, e.g. sacramentaries, psalters, antiphonaries, and even pontificals. At a later date, and especially after such books came to be printed, it was hardly ever omitted before missals, breviaries, and horæ. In the printed liturgical calendars with which we are now more familiar, we find little but the bare catalogue of ecclesiastical feasts. In the calendars of early date there is a much greater variety of information. We have, for example, a number of astronomical data referring to the times of equinox and solstice, the sun’s entry into the various signs of the Zodiac, the dog days, the beginning of the four seasons, etc., and these are often emphasized by verses written above or below the entries for each month, e.g. Procedunt duplices in martis tempore pisces, referring to the fact that at the beginning of March the sun is in the constellation Pisces. Sometimes, also, the verses thus prefixed bear an astrological import, e.g. Jani prima dies et septima fine timetur, which is meant to convey that the first day of the month of January and the seventh from the end are unlucky. It must be confessed that the traces of pagan, or at least secular, influences in many of our surviving early calendars are numerous. A very curious feature in many Anglo-Saxon documents of this class is the acquaintance which they manifest with Oriental and especially Coptic usages. For instance in the Jumièges Missal, at the head of each month we have a line giving the Oriental names for the corresponding period; e.g. in the case of April: “Hebr. Nisan; Ægypti Farmuthi; Græc. Kanthicos; Lat. Apr; Sax. Eastermonath;” and further against 26 April we find the entry “IX Ægyptior. mensis paschæ.” [i.e. Pashons]. As a rule, the information given about the Coptic arrangement of months is at least approximately correct. In other specimens again the so-called dies ægyptiaci which were reputed to be unlucky (see Chabas, “Le Calendrier des jours fastes et néfastes de l’année égyptienne,” pp. 22, 119 sq.) are carefully noted.

As regards ornament, early calendars are sometimes inserted in a sort of arcading, two pillars forming the sides of each column of writing, and an arch crowning the whole; while in the later Middle Ages we often find beautifully drawn vignettes, sometimes broadly or delicately humorous, illustrating with much play of the imagination the different seasons of the year. One feature which comes down from the earliest times, but which survives even in the printed calendars of our existing Breviary and Missal, is the insertion against each day of the “Epact” and the “Dominical Letter.” These have reference to a highly artificial method of computation and are meant to supply, ready to hand, the means for ascertaining the day of the week in any assigned year, and more particularly the age of the moon. The age of the moon, ascertained by these methods, is read out before the martyrologium every day during the public recitation of the Office of Prime. When the calendar was reformed under Gregory XIII, it was considered advisable to retain in a corrected form the old apparatus and names to which people were accustomed. As this system of computation is intricate and has little but an antiquarian interest to recommend it, we may refer the reader to the article EPACT, or to the explanations given along with the calendar in every copy of the Roman Breviary and Missal.

Besides the calendars for ecclesiastical use which were written in the service-books, a practice grew up towards the close of the Middle Ages of compiling calendars for the use of the laity. These correspond rather to what we should now call almanacs, and in them the astrological element plays a much more prominent part than in the missals or horæ. One of the most famous of these compilations was that known as the “Calendrier des Bergers,” or the “Shepherds’ Calendar.” It was several times most sumptuously printed at Paris before the end of the fifteenth century, and it afterwards spread to England and Germany. The religious tone is very pronounced, but we find at the same time the most elaborate astrological directions as to lucky and unlucky days for certain medical operations, particularly bleeding, as well as for agricultural pursuits, such as sowing, reaping, ploughing, sheep-shearing, and the like. It is a remarkable illustration of the conservatism of the rustic mind that editions of the “Shepherds’ Calendar” were published in London until past the middle of the seventeenth century, the essentially Catholic tone of the book being easily recognizable under the very thinnest of disguises (see Ecclesiastical Review, July, 1902, pp. 1–21).

It will have been inferred from what has been said above that considerable divergence prevailed among the calendars in use at the close of the Middle Ages. This lack of uniformity degenerated into an abuse, and was a fertile source of confusion. Hence the new Roman Breviary and Missal, which in accordance with a decree of the Council of Trent eventually saw the light in 1568 and 1570 respectively, contained a new calendar. Like other portions of the new liturgical code, the observance of the new calendar was made obligatory upon all churches which could not prove a prescription of two hundred years in the enjoyment of their own distinctive customs. This law, which is still in force, has not, of course, prevented successive sovereign pontiffs from adding very many new festivals; neither does it preclude different dioceses, or even churches, from adopting various local celebrations, where the permission of the pope or of the Congregation of Rites has been sought and obtained. But though local saints may be added, the feasts prescribed in the Roman calendar must also be kept. In point of fact a considerable license is conceded in such matters. There is hardly any diocese in which the calendar, owing to these additions, does not differ considerably from those of neighbouring dioceses or provinces. Even the introduction of a single new feast, owing to the transferences thus necessitated, may effect a considerable disturbance. In the British Isles, England, Ireland, and Scotland all celebrate a number of national saints independently of each other, but these are merely additions to the general Roman calendar which all observe in common. Moreover, this universal calendar during three centuries, and especially during the last thirty years, has undergone very notable modifications, partly in consequence of new saints’ days that have been introduced, partly in consequence of changes made in the grade of feasts already admitted. A tabular arrangement will help to make this clear. What the original meaning of the term double may have been is not entirely certain. Some think that the greater festivals were thus styled because the antiphons before and after the psalms were “duplicated,” i.e. twice repeated entire on these days. Others, with more probability, point to the fact that before the ninth century in certain places, for example at Rome, it was customary on the greater feasts to recite two sets of Matins, the one of the feria or week-day, the other of the festival. Hence such days were known as “doubles.” However this may be, the primitive division into doubles and simples has given place to a much more elaborate classification. At present we have six grades, to wit: doubles of the first class; doubles of the second class; greater doubles; doubles; semi-doubles; simples. Now from the various official revisions of the Breviary, made in 1568, 1662, 1631, 1882, the following data [on feasts entered in the Breviary] may be gleaned. For purposes of comparison we may add the figures for 1907:

Pius V (1508): 19 Doubles of the First Class—17 Doubles of the Second Class—53 Doubles—60 Semidoubles—149 Total

Clement VIII (1602): 19 Doubles of the First Class—18 Doubles of the Second Class—16 Greater Doubles—43 Doubles—68 Semidoubles—164 Total

Urban VIII (1631): 19 Doubles of the First Class—18 Doubles of the Second Class—16 Greater Doubles—45 Doubles—78 Semidoubles—176 Total

Leo XIII (1882): 21 Doubles of the First Class—18 Doubles of the Second Class—24 Greater Doubles—128 Doubles—74 Semidoubles—275 Total

Pius X (1907): 23 Doubles of the First Class—27 Doubles of the Second Class—25 Greater Doubles—133 Doubles—72 Semidoubles—280 Total

These figures (which include not merely the fixed but also the movable feasts, as well as octave days, etc.) will suffice to illustrate the crowding of the calendar which has taken place of recent years. Moreover, it must be remembered that, practically speaking, it never happens that feasts of the higher grade are “simplified,” i.e. reduced to the level of bare commemorations. If a greater double chances to fall on a day already occupied, it is “transferred,” and a free day has to be found for it later on in the year. On the other hand, while there has been a great increase of doubles of the first and second class, etc. (festa chori), the holidays of obligation (festa chori et fori), owing largely to the difficulties created by the civil rulers of the various European countries, have grown steadily fewer. Pre-Reformation England, with its forty or more holidays of precept, did not go beyond the rest of the world. To take almost the first example which comes to hand, in the Diocese of Liège, in 1287 (Mansi, Concilia, XXIV, 909), there were, besides the Sundays, forty-two festivals on which the people were bidden to rest from servile work. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the excessive number of these feast-days was included in 1523 among the Centum Gravamina, the Hundred Grievances, of the German nation, nor that Pope Urban VIII in 1642, deprived bishops of the right to institute new ecclesiastical holidays without the permission of the Holy See, and limited the number of those of general obligation to thirty-four. In the eighteenth century, under pressure from various temporal rulers, this list in certain countries was further curtailed. Many of those festivals which had hitherto been holidays of precept were reduced to the status of feasts of devotion, i.e. the obligation of hearing Mass and resting from servile work was abolished, while at the same time their vigils ceased to be observed as fast-days. But even after the concessions which Clement XIV, in 1772, made to the Empress Maria Theresa, eighteen holidays (festa chori et fori) still remained obligatory in the Austrian dominions. In France, under the Napoleonic regime, the pope was forced to consent to the reduction of the holidays of obligation to four only, Christmas Day, the Ascension, the Assumption, and All Saints. For the rest of Christendom other concessions were made by Leo XII, and still later by his successors. At the present day Rome numbers eighteen holidays of obligation (always, of course, exclusive of Sundays), but only nine of these are recognized as legal holidays by the Government of Italy. The French rule of four festa præcepti prevails also in Belgium and parts of Holland. In Spain, in Austria, and throughout the greater portion of the German Empire, some fifteen days are observed, though both the total number and the particular feasts selected vary greatly in the different provinces. In England the holidays of obligation are the Circumcision, the Epiphany, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, Sts. Peter and Paul, the Assumption, All Saints, and Christmas Day. To these two other days are added in Ireland, the Annunciation and the feast of St. Patrick, and in Scotland one day, the feast of St. Andrew. In the United States six festivals are kept as of precept—Christmas, the New Year, the Ascension, the Assumption, All Saints, and the Immaculate Conception.

For English-speaking Catholics in past centuries, while living under the penal laws, the situation must often have been a difficult one. Down to 1781, as the rare copies of the old “Laity’s Directory” still bear witness, our forefathers were bound to keep every Friday of the year (except during Paschal time) as a fast-day. Besides this there was abstinence upon all Saturdays and a fair number of fasting vigils, for which last, in 1771, the Wednesdays and Fridays of Advent were substituted. The holidays of obligation amounted to thirty-four, but in 1778 these were reduced to eleven, the rest for the most part being treated as feasts of devotion. On the other hand the calendar grew by the restoration to full liturgical cultus of many of the old English saints. The first permission was given by Benedict XIV in 1749 at the request of His Royal Highness the Cardinal of York. This was limited to half a dozen saints, including St. Augustine of England and St. George, both to be kept as doubles of the first class; but in 1774 ampler concessions were made by Clement XIV. Again in 1884 the list was still further extended, and in 1887 the beatification of the English martyrs became the occasion for approving several other new offices and masses.

With regard to the calendars of the various Eastern Churches it would be impossible here to enter into detail. For the most part they are subject, like that of the Western Church, to the complications caused by a system of feasts which are partly fixed and partly movable. Most of the more important festivals of the Roman calendar—for example the Circumcision, the Epiphany, the Purification, the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, St. Peter and Paul, the Assumption, the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, St. Andrew, and the Nativity of Our Lord—are kept on the days corresponding to those observed in Western Christendom. But the correspondence, though recognizable in some few cases, is not quite exact. For example, the Greeks keep the feast of the Immaculate Conception, under the title he sullepsis tes theoprometoros Annes (conceptio Annæ aviæ Dei), upon 9 December, not 8 December; and while the Invention of the Cross is celebrated by us on 3 May, the Greeks and Syrians have their corresponding feast on 7 May. Again, among Oriental Christians the octaves of festivals are not kept in the same uniform way as by the Latins. Their celebrations, indeed, in many cases continue after the day of the feast, but not for exactly a week; and it is peculiar to these rites that on the day following the feast a sort of commemoration is made of the personages who are most closely connected with it. Thus on 3 February, the day after the feast of the Purification, the Greeks pay special honour to Holy Simeon and Anna, while on 9 September, the day after Our Lady’s Nativity, St. Joachim and St. Anne are more particularly mentioned. Many other exceptional features, some of them decidedly extravagant, are presented by the Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic Rites. It may be sufficient here, however, to call attention to the practice in the last-named Church of assigning a day each month for the special cultus of Our Blessed Lady.

As regards the movable feasts, the chief interest centres in the beginning of Lent. With the Greek and some of the other rites, the Lenten season may be said to begin the week before our Septuagesima, though this is only a time of preparation. Sexagesima Sunday is known as he kuriake tes apokreo (the Sunday of abstinence from flesh), not that they are forbidden meat on that day, but because it is the last day on which meat is allowed. Similarly, the next Sunday (Quinquagesima) is known as he kuriake tes turines (cheese Sunday), because this is the last day upon which cheese and eggs can be eaten. The movable feasts of the Greek Church, moreover, include other festivals besides those strictly belonging to the Easter cycle. The most noteworthy example is the feast of All Saints (ton hagion panton), which is kept upon the Sunday which follows Pentecost, or in other words upon our Trinity Sunday.

HERBERT THURSTON

Jewish Calendar

DAYS

From the remotest time to the present the Israelites have computed the day (yôm) from sunset to sunset, or rather from sunset to the appearance of the first three stars which marked the beginning of a new day [Cf. Lev. 23:32; II Esd. (Nehem.) 4:21; etc.]. Before the Babylonian Exile the time between sunrise and sunset was divided into “morning,” “midday,” and “evening” (Ps. 54:18; Heb. 55:17); but during the stay in Babylon the Hebrews adopted the division into twelve hours (Cf. John 11:9), whose duration varied with the length of the day. On an average, the first hour corresponded to about 6 A.M.; the third hour to 9 A.M.; the end of the sixth to noon; while at the eleventh the day was near its close. Earlier than this division of the day by hours was that of the night into three watches: the first till midnight; the second or middle watch (cock-crow) till 3 A.M.; and the third or morning watch till about 6 A.M.

WEEKS

Seven consecutive days form the week, or second element of the Jewish calendar. As in our ecclesiastical calendar, the days of the Jewish week are numbered, not named. They are called the first day, the second day, the third day, and so on to the seventh, which last is also called “sabbath” (shábbath) a name likewise used to designate the week itself. The sixth day, our Friday, is also known in the New Testament, in Josephus, and in Rabbinical writings as “the eve of the sabbath,” or as “the day of the preparation,” the paraskeué, a term still employed by the Latin Church in connection with Good Fridays (Cf. Mark 15:42; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XVI, vi, 2; Talmud of Jerusalem, Treatise Pesahîm, chap. iv, I).

MONTHS

The third and most important element in the Jewish arrangement of time is the month. The two Hebrew words for month are yéráh, and hodésh, whose primitive meaning, “moon,” “new moon,” points to the dependence of the Jewish month on the phases of the moon. As a matter of fact, the Hebrew months have always been lunar, and extended from one new moon to another. The beginning of the month with the appearance of the new moon was—as it is still—of great practical importance among the Hebrews, inasmuch as the first of every month was to be observed as New Moon’s Day, and certain feasts were affixed to the 10th, 14th, or other days of the month. The earliest appearance of the new moon was long ascertained by direct observation, and authoritatively settled by a commission of the Sanhedrin, and the intelligence then made known to the Jews at large, first by means of fire signals, and later on through special messengers. In the present day, and for many centuries, this very primitive manner of fixing the beginning of the month has given way to a systematic calculation of the latter’s duration, and the Jewish calendar is now constructed on the basis of a mean lunation of 29 days, 12 hours, 44 min., and 30 sec. Besides being indicated by means of numerals, the first month, the second month, etc., the Hebrew months have been designated in the course of Jewish history by two sets of names. Of the former set—going back probably to Chanaanite times—only four names have survived in the Hebrew Bible. These are: Abhîbh (A.V. Ex. 13:4, 23:15; Deut. 16:1), subsequently the first month; Zíw (III K. 6:1), subsequently the second month; Ethanîm (III K. 8:2), subsequently the seventh month; and Bûl (III K. 6:38), subsequently the eighth month. The latter set of names, certainly of Babylonian origin, began to be used after the Exile. Of its twelve names now found in the Jewish calendar only seven occur in the Hebrew text, but the whole twelve appear as the main divisions of the Megillath Ta’anith (Scroll of Fasting), which in its original form is referred to a date before the Christian Era. These twelve names are as follows:

Nîsan (Nehem. 2:1; Esth. 3:7)

‘Iyyar (not named in Scripture)

Sîwan (Esth. 8:9; Baruch 1:8)

Támmûz (Cf. A.V. Ezek. 8:14)

‘Abh (not named in Scripture)

‘Elûl (Nehem. 6:15; I Mach. 14:27)

Tíshrî (not named in Scripture)

Márhéshwan, or simply Héshwan (not named in Scripture)

Kíslew (Zach. 7:1; Nehem. 1:1)

Tebeth (Esth. 2:16)

Shebhat (Zach. 1:7, I Mach. 16:14)

‘Adar (I Esdras 6:15; Esth. 3:7, 8:12, etc.)

YEARS

The twelve months thus named made up the ordinary year (shanah), or next important element in the Jewish calendar. As they were lunar months they formed a mean year of 354 days, a year consequently shorter than the solar year by ten or eleven days. This difference, as can be readily seen, would have, in the course of time, completely disordered the months in relation to the seasons of the year; thus the first month, or Nîsan, (corresponding to the end of March or the beginning of April), in the middle of which the first ripe barley was to be presented to Yahweh in connection with the paschal feast (Ex. 12:1 sqq., 13:3 sqq; Lev. 23:10–12), might have fallen in the middle of winter; and some other festivals depending likewise on the products of the seasons would also have been materially interfered with. Hence it was soon felt—how soon cannot now be ascertained—that the difference between the lunar and the solar years should be equalized by the intercalation of a month. The year in which such an intercalation should be made was for a while determined by an authoritative decision of the Sanhedrin, and ultimately fixed in a permanent manner by astronomical calculation. In a cycle of nineteen years the third, sixth, eighth, eleventh, fourteenth, seventeenth, and nineteenth are made leap-years with an average length of 384 days, by the addition of a month following the twelfth ( ‘Adar), and usually called We-’Adar (Second Adar). It is plain, therefore, that the Jewish year has long been, and still is, a luni-solar year. The Hebrew year thus far described is one constituted in harmony with ritual requirements, and hence it is called the sacred Jewish year. Together with it the Jews have had from time immemorial what may be called a common or civil year commencing in the month of Tíshrî (corresponding generally to part of September and part of October), on or immediately after the new moon following the autumnal equinox. The beginning of the Hebrew civil year practically coincides with that of seed time in Palestine, while the beginning of the sacred year corresponds to that of the harvest season in the same country.

ERAS

There now remains to consider the era, or last element of the Jewish calendar. As might well be expected in connection with a people whose history has been so checkered, the Hebrews have adopted various points of time from which to reckon the succession of years. Their principal ancient eras have been: the one which was dated from the deliverance from Egypt; the regnal era, or computation of time from the year of accession of the Jewish kings to the throne; the Seleucid era, introduced after the Babylonian Exile, beginning 312 B.C., and used by the Jews probably till the twelfth century. For centuries they have employed their present method of counting by anno mundi (A.M.). (See the table below for the yearly arrangement of the principal festival days.)

According to the current Jewish reckoning the calendar is dated from the Creation of the World, which is considered to have taken place 3760 years and 3 months before the commencement of the Christian Era. To find the number of the Hebrew year, beginning in the autumn of a given year of our common era, we have to add 3761 to the number of the latter. Thus the Jewish year beginning September, 1908, is 5669 A.M.

THE JEWISH CALENDAR

Hebrew

Month

Sacred

Year

Civil

Year

Ordinary

Year

Leap

Year

During 20th c

first of month

occurs between

Principal Feasts

Nîsan

1

7

30 (days)

30

March 13—April 11

1. New Moon

14. Paschal lamb killed

15–21. Paschal Feast

(Firstfruits of barley offered)

‘Iyyar

2

8

29

29

April 12—May 11

1. New Moon

14. Second Passover

Sîwan

3

9

30

30

May 11—June 9

1. New Moon

6. Pentecost (Firstfruits of wheat harvest)

Támmûz

4

10

29

29

June 10—July 9

1. New Moon

7. Fast. Taking of Jerusalem by Titus

‘Abh

5

11

30

30

July 9—Aug. 7

1. New Moon

7. Fast. Destruction of the Temple

‘Elûl

6

12

29

29

Aug. 8—Sept. 6

1. New Moon

Tíshrî

7

1

30

30

Sept. 6—Oct. 5

1–2. New Year’s Feast

10. Day of Atonement

15–21. Feast of Tabernacles. (Firstfruits of wine and oil)

Márhéshwan

(Héshwan)

8

2

29+

29+

Oct. 6—Nov. 4

1. New Moon

Kíslew

9

3

30-

30-

Nov.4—Dec. 3

1. New Moon

25. Feast of the Dedication of the Temple

Tebheth

10

4

29

29

Dec. 4—Jan. 2

1. New Moon

7. Fast. Siege of Jerusalem

Shebbat

11

5

30

30

Jan.2—Jan. 31

1. New Moon

‘Âdar

12

6

29

29

Feb. 1—March 2

1. New Moon

14, 15. Feast of Purim

[We-’Âdar]

(Inter—calary)

(Inter—calary)

( . . . )

(29)

March 3—March 13

1. New Moon

14, 15. Feast of Purim

-——354

-——384

FRANCIS GIGOT

Reform of the Calendar

For the measurement of time the most important units furnished by natural phenomena are the Day and the Year. In regard of both, it is convenient and usual to speak of the apparent movements of the sun and stars as if they were real, and not occasioned by the rotation and revolution of the earth.

The Day is the interval between two successive passages of the sun across the meridian of any place. It is commonly computed from the midnight passage across the inferior meridian on the opposite side of the globe; but by astronomers from the passage at the noon following. The Civil Day is thus twelve hours in advance of the Astronomical.

The Solar Day, which is what we always mean by this term day, is longer by about four minutes of time than the Sidereal, or the successive passages of a fixed star across the same meridian; for, owing to the revolution of the earth in its orbit from west to east, the sun appears to travel annually in a path (the ecliptic), likewise from west to east, among the stars round the entire heavens. The belt of constellations through which it appears to proceed is styled the zodiac. During half the year (March to September) the ecliptic lies to the north of the celestial equator; during the other half (September to March) to the south. The points where ecliptic and equator intersect are called the equinoxes. In the northern hemisphere the March equinox (or “first point of Aries”) is called the vernal equinox; the September equinox (“first point of Libra”), the autumnal.

The Year (Tropical Year) is the period in which the sun makes a complete circuit of the heavens and returns to the point in the zodiac whence it started, and the problem to be solved by those who construct calendars is to find the exact measure of this yearly period in terms of days, for the number of these occupied by the sun’s annual journey is not exact. Taking the vernal equinox as a convenient starting-point, it is found that before the sun arrives there again, 365 days and something more have passed. These are, of course, solar days; of sidereal days, each shorter by four minutes, there are 366. The first attempt to find a practical solution of this problem was made by Julius Cæsar, who introduced the Julian Calendar. With the assistance of the astronomers of Alexandria, he determined the true length of the year to be 365 days and 6 hours, or a quarter of a day. From this it followed that the reckoning of the civil year began too soon, i.e. six hours before the sun had reached the point whence it started its annual cycle. In four years, therefore, the year would begin an entire day too soon. To remedy this Cæsar instituted leap-years, a 366th day being introduced in every fourth year, to cover the fractional portions of a day thus accumulated. This extra day was assigned to February, the 24th and 25th day of which were styled in leap-year the sixth before the calends (or first) of March. Hence the name Bissextile given to these years.

Cæsar’s reform, which was introduced in the year 46 B.C., would have been perfect had the calculation on which it was based been accurate. In reality, however, the portion of a day to be dealt with, over and above the complete 365, is not quite six hours, but 11 minutes and 14 seconds less. To add a day every fourth year was, therefore, almost three quarters of an hour too much, the following new year commencing 44 minutes and 52 seconds after the sun had passed the equinox. At the end of a century these accumulated errors amounted to about three-quarters of a day, and at the end of four centuries to three entire days. The practical inconveniences of this defect in the system were not slow in making themselves felt, the more so as, Cæsar being murdered soon after (44 B.C.), leap-year, by a misunderstanding of his play, occurred every third year, instead of every fourth. At the time of the Julian reform the sun passed the vernal equinox on 25 March, but by the time of the Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325) this had been changed For the 21st, which was then fixed upon as the proper date of the equinox—a date of great importance for the calculation of Easter, and therefore of all the moveable feasts throughout the year.

But the error, of course, continued to operate and disturb such arrangements. In the thirteenth century the year was seven days behind the Nicæan computation. By the sixteenth it was ten days in arrear, so that the vernal equinox fell on 11 March, and the autumnal on 11 September; the shortest day was 11 December, and the longest 11 June, the feast of St. Barnabas, whence-the old rhyme:

Barnaby bright, the longest day and the shortest night.

Such alterations were too obvious to be ignored, and throughout the Middle Ages many observers both pointed them out and endeavoured to devise a remedy. For this purpose it was necessary, however, not only to determine with accuracy the exact amount of the Julian error, but also to discover a practical means of correcting it. It was this latter problem that chiefly stood in the way of reform, for the amount of error was ascertained almost exactly as early as the thirteenth century. The necessity of a reform was continually urged, especially by Church authorities, who felt the need in connexion with the ecclesiastical calendar. It was accordingly strongly pressed upon the attention of the pope by the councils of Constance, Basle, Lateran (A.D. 1511), and finally by Trent, in its last session (A.D. 1563).

Nineteen years later the work was accomplished by Pope Gregory XIII (from whom the Gregorian reform takes its name) with the aid chiefly of Lilius, Clavius, and Chacon or Chaconius. There were two main objects to be attained: first, the error of ten days, already mentioned, which had crept in, had to be got rid of; second, its recurrence had to be prevented for the future. The first was attained by the omission from the calendar of the ten superfluous days, so as to bring things back to their proper position. To obviate the recurrence of the same convenience, it was decided to omit three leap years in every four centuries, and thus eliminate the three superfluous days, which, as we have seen, would be introduced in that period under the Julian system. To effect this, only those Centurial years were retained as leap years the first two figures of which are exact multiples of 4—as 1600, 2000, 2400—other centurial years 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, etc.—becoming common years of 365 days each. By this comparatively simple device an approximation to perfect accuracy was effected, which for all practical purposes is amply sufficient; for, although the length of the Gregorian year exceeds the true astronomical measurement by twenty-six seconds, it will be about thirty-five centuries before the result will be an error of a day, and, as Lord Grimthorpe truly says, before that time arrives mankind will have abundant time to devise a mode of correction. For the actual introduction of the Gregorian Calendar or New Style, throughout Christendom, see CHRONOLOGY.

JOHN GERARD.

Ambrogio Calepino

An Italian lexicographer, born about 1440 at Calepio (province of Bergamo); died 1510 or 1511. He entered the Augustinian Order in 1458. His Latin dictionary, under the title of “Cornucopiæ,” appeared first in 1502 at Reggio. It was reprinted many times during the sixteenth century, the Aldi alone giving no less than eighteen editions from 1542 to 1592. Later editions were considerably enlarged. To the Latin of the original were added equivalents in other languages. Thus we have the Basle edition (1590) which contains eleven languages: “Ambrosii Calepini dictionarium undecim linguarum: respondent autem latinis vocabulis hebraica, græca, gallica, italica, germanica, belgica, hispanica, polonica, ungarica, angelica.” The edition in seven languages by Facciolati (Pavia, 1718) was reprinted many times. Calepinus became a common name, a synonym of dictionary or lexicon, and we find titles like the following: “Septem linguarum calepinus, hoc est, lexicon latinum.” Calepino also wrote the life of St. John the Hermit which is found in the “Acta Sanctorum” for the 22nd of October (Oct. IX, 748–767).

TIRABOSCHI, Storia della letteratura italiana (Florence, 1812), VII, IV, 1552–1554; Nuova enciclopedia italiana (Turin, 1875—), IV, 636.

C.A. DUBRAY

Paolo Caliari

(Also Paolo Veronese.)

An eminent painter of the Venetian school; born at Verona, 1528; died at Venice, 19 April, 1588. He was the son of a sculptor, Gabriele Caliari, and was at first educated in his father’s craft, but his taste was towards painting; and he entered the studio of Antonio Badile, a Veronese painter of some repute. His first works were executed at Verona, and at Mantua, and at Castelfranco. In the last-named place he decorated the Villa Soranzo with large frescoes. He was summoned to Venice in 1555 and commissioned to decorate the ceiling of San Sebastiano, his work giving such satisfaction that he was further employed to paint an altar-piece and smaller works in the same church. In 1561 the historical paintings he executed in a castle near Vicenza were brought under the notice of Titian, who selected him to carry out part of the decoration of the great hall of the Library of Saint Mark, and his three medallions were successful in winning for him the gold chain offered for the best painting in the library. In 1562 he painted his great picture, the “Marriage at Cana” (now in the Louvre), for the Convent of San Giorgio Maggiore, following it by several other great banqueting scenes. In the next year he was again in the church of San Sebastiano, painting two superb pieces of wall-decoration depicting the martyrdom of St. Sebastian and the execution of Saints Marcellus and Marcellinus. In this same year he decorated in masterly style the Palladian Villa Masiera, not far from Treviso. Soon after 1566, Veronese went to Rome in the suite of the ambassador of the Republic of Venice, Guniani, and carefully studied the works of Michelangelo and Raphael; but he was speedily back in his native districts; the remainder of his life was spent in the service of the Republic of Venice, and he was buried in the church of San Sebastiano. He married the daughter of Antonio Badile and had a large family, two of his sons, Gabriele (born 1568) and Carletto (born 1570), adopting their father’s profession.

He is declared to have been a man of sweet character, amiable and generous, very affectionate towards his family, and greatly esteemed by all who knew him. He was a painter of prodigious facility and of untiring energy, and his paintings are exceedingly decorative, glowing with gorgeous colour, and splendidly composed. His paintings are all frankly anachronistic, and he makes no pretension to depict religious scenes in the surroundings which should belong to them. There is no trace of religious feeling about them, and no attempt to produce such an emotion. The subjects were treated by the painter purely as offering good possibilities for pictorial representation, and he introduced historical characters into his gorgeous scenes quite irrespective of historic unity, merely with a view to decorative charm. His aim was magnificence, and the church of San Sebastiano is a splendid monument of his masterly skill in decoration. It glows with his sumptuous colour. His “Vision of St. Helena,” in the National Gallery, London, shows us, however, that he had deep poetic feeling, such as is not always apparent in his better-known banqueting scenes. One of the peculiarities of his great scenes is his habit of introducing irreverent details, such as dwarfs, Swiss guards, dogs, cats, monkeys, and other animals, into his Scriptural subjects, and for so doing he was twice summoned before the Inquisition and severely reprimanded. The inquisitors were particularly scandalized at the introduction of the Swiss guards, as they were presumed to be Protestants, and at the figure of a disciple who is depicted in the act of picking his teeth with a fork.

The full-length family groups which this artist painted must be alluded to. In “The Family of Darius before Alexander,” every noble quality of the painter is seen to perfection. The colouring is superb, the touch sparkling and crisp, the composition unrivaled, while the stately male figures and beautiful women are worthy of all praise. He was exceedingly fond of gigantic compositions, and Tintoretto was the only painter who surpassed him in the use of huge canvases. Doubtless he was influenced by Carotto, Brusasorci, and other Veronese painters, and the effect of his early training in Verona can be seen in all his works, but in splendid pomp of colour and in the presentation of a noble race of human beings in full enjoyment of all the delights of life he is a true follower of the school of the great republic. It has been well said that the beauty of his figures is more addressed to the senses than to the soul, but it must be borne in mind that his pictures have a feeling for grace and a splendour of life which had entirely departed from the other schools of the period. Venice contains numerous works by Paolo Veronese, and there are many of his paintings in Florence, Milan, Dresden, Munich, Vienna, London, Paris, and Castelfranco, while more than a dozen works by him are to be seen in Madrid. His decorative fresco work can be studied only in the district round about Venice, in the Villas Fanzolo, Tiene, Masiera, and Magnadole.

There is a detailed description of his decoration in the Villa Masiera by BLANC in La Gazette des Beaux-Arts. See also SIRET; KöGLER; BRYAN, Dictionary.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

California

California, the largest and most important of the Pacific Coast States, is the second State of the United States in point of area, and the twenty-first in point of population. It is bounded on the north by the State of Oregon; on the east by the State of Nevada and, for a comparatively short distance, by the Territory of Arizona; on the south by the Peninsula of Lower California (Mexico); and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. It lies entirely between 42° and 32° N. lat., and between 12°5 and 11°3 W. long. It is 800 miles long, running in a north-westerly and south-easterly direction, and has an average width of 200 miles. According to the official returns of the United States Census of 1900, its total area is 158,360 square miles. Of this number 2,188 square miles constitute the water area; the total land area, therefore, is 156,172 square miles. The capital of the State is Sacramento, with a population (1900) of 29,000. San Francisco, built on San Francisco Bay, is the metropolis, with a population (1900) of 342,000. The other chief cities, with a population according to the United States Census of 1900, are Los Angeles, 102,000; Oakland, 66,000; San José, 21,000; San Diego, 17,000; Stockton, 17,000; Alameda, 17,000; Berkeley and Fresno, 12,000. These figures have been enormously increased since 1900. The estimated population of the three largest cities in January, 1907, was as follows: San Francisco, 400,000; Oakland, 276,000; and Los Angeles, 245,000.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS.

The State presents two systems of mountains which converge at Mount Shasta, in the north, and Tehachapi, in the south. The outer, or western, range is called the Coast Range, and is close to the sea, in some places coming down precipitately to the water’s edge; the eastern range is called the Sierra Nevada. The latter is considerably higher than the former, and in several peaks reaches a height of more than 14,000 feet. The Sierra Nevadas extend along the eastern border of the State for about 450 miles; they are but a portion, physically, of the Cascade Range, which traverses also the States of Oregon and Washington. The Sierra Nevada Range is practically unbroken throughout the entire length of the State of California, the Coast Range is broken by the magnificent harbour of San Francisco. Both of these ranges follow the general contour of the coast line. Between them lies a great valley which is drained by the Sacramento River in the north and the San Joaquin River in the south. These two rivers, navigable by steamers for about 100 miles from their mouth in San Francisco Bay, constitute a great parent water-system of California, and both empty into the harbour of San Francisco, which is situated approximately midway between the northern and southern extremities of the State. The Sierra Nevada Mountains form the great watershed from which are fed most of the rivers and streams of California. The combined valleys of the Sacramento and the San Joaquin rivers are approximately 500 miles long, and have an average width of 50 miles. This area, the surface of which is quite level, is one of the most fertile regions in the world.

In addition to those already mentioned, the divisions of the mountain ranges form numerous smaller valleys. The principal of these are Sonoma, Napa, Ukiah, Vaca, Contra Costa, and Alameda valleys in the north; and Santa Clara, Pajaro, and Salinas valleys in the south. South of the Tehachapi Range, in Southern California, is another low-lying stretch of country which has become the centre of the citrus industry and the home of a large variety of semi-tropical fruits. In the south-eastern part of the State and east of the mountains is the low-lying desert region consisting of the Mojave Desert and Death Valley. Owing to the great height of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and their comparative proximity to the sea, the numerous streams, fed from their glaciers and perpetual snows, afford abundant water-power throughout their steep descent to the sea. This power is utilized for generating light and operating mills and factories.

California has one of the finest harbours in the world, San Francisco Bay, capable of accommodating the combined navies of the world. There are five other bays forming good harbours, San Diego, San Pedro, Humboldt, Santa Barbara, and Monterey bays. The 800 miles of California’s length from north to south are equal to the combined length of ten States on the Atlantic seaboard; the northern line of California is on the same latitude as Boston, and the southern line is that of Savannah, Georgia. The entire state is subject to the beneficent influence of the Japan Current. The climate is equable; except in the high mountains, snow and the extremes of cold, experienced in the same latitudes on the Atlantic Coast, are unknown. There are, in reality, but two seasons: the wet and the dry. the wet or rainy season lasts from about September to April, during which the rains are occasional, alternating with clear weather. During the entire summer the winds from the west and south-west blow over the coast, keeping the weather cool, and not infrequently bringing in cold fogs towards evening. But it is chiefly in the balminess of its winters that the climate of California excels. It is never too cold to work outdoors, and the citrus fruits, semi-tropical as they are, grow to perfection throughout the valleys of California. The records of the climate left by early Franciscan missionaries who evangelized California are duplicated by those of the Government Weather Bureau of today.

POPULATION.

The population of California, according to the United States Census of 1900, is 1,485,053, or 9.5 per square mile. This figure constitutes an increase of 22.7 percent upon the population of 1890. The following table, taken from the United States Census of 1900, exhibits the population of California in each census year since its admission into the Federal Union, its rank among the States in point of population, and the percentage of increase in its population during the period of ten years between each census:

[Missing table]

The census of 1900 also presents the following details of population: (a) White, 1,402, 727; African, 11,045; Indian, 15,377; Chinese, 45,753; Japanese, 10,151. (b) Native-born, 1,117,813; Foreign-born, 367,240; (c) Males, 820,531; Females, 664,522. The estimated population of California (January, 1907) is 2,217, 897, an increase of 732,844, or 49.3 per cent since the census of 1900.

RESOURCES.

Agriculture.—The soil of the State of California is rich and highly productive. It consists for the most part of alluvial deposits. This is especially true of the delta lands of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. Much of the so-called desert land consists of a rich subsoil covered with but a thin crust of sand. The value of irrigation in making this desert land productive, as well as in enriching the soil by bearing to it the washed-out life-principles from the uplands, is almost incalculable. The soil readily responds to the plough, and there is no hard, tough subsoil to be turned and mellowed. California has approximately 40,000,000 acres of arable land. To this must be added fully 10,000,000 acres of its so-called desert land, which needs but the touch of water from its irrigation systems to make it as productive as the valley or farm lands. The remaining 50,000,000 acres of California’s domain, the mountainous and desert acreage, afford pasturage for millions of cattle and sheep. The chief products of the soil of California are hay, grain, fruits, wines, lumber, dairy produce, and live stock. It may be safely said that, in the combined value of these products, California is the richest of the United States. Ships loaded with her grain at San Francisco Bay carry their precious cargoes to every port in the world; her fruits, packed in special cars and shipped by fast freight, are the first choice in Chicago and New York, and find a ready market in London; her wines have given a standard of excellence to American wines, and “American wines” means “California wines” the world over.

The total value of all California’s agricultural products, according to the census of 1900, was $131,690,606. The value of the output in 1906 reached the total of $213,000,000. The following table presents the total output of agricultural products in detail for the year 1906:

[Missing table]

The total annual output of fruit from California farms is $40,000,000, and this is made up of all known fruits that grow in temperate and semi-tropical climates. In the year 1906 there were 30,000,000 fruit trees in California; this figure does not include nuts, figs, olives, or berries. Six million of these fruit trees belong to Santa Clara Valley alone. The principal fruit trees are as follows: apple trees, 4,000,000; apricot trees, 3,500,000; cherry trees, 1,000,000; peach trees, 4,500,000; pear trees, 2,000,000; orange trees, 6,000,000; lemon trees 2,000,000. There are 272,500 acres of land devoted to the cultivation of grapes: 250,000 for wine, and 22,500 for table grapes.

Industries and Manufactures.—The total value of the output in manufactures in 1900, according to the census, was $302,874,761. In 1906 it amounted to $400,000,000. The chief elements contributing to California’s success in manufactures are an abundance of raw material from her soil, cheap fuel from her forests, and cheap power from her streams. The heaviest items of manufacture are sugar, lumber and timber products, flour, machinery, and leather goods. During 1906 the total output of sugar was 62,110 tons. The discovery of rich deposits of petroleum has given an impetus to manufactures that is already far-reaching in its results. In 1900 there were 12,582 manufacturing plants in California, representing a total investment of $205,395,025, and giving employment to 98,931 persons; the sum paid out for labor was $55,786,776, and for materials, $188,125,602.

Mining.—Mining is still one of the most important industries of California, notwithstanding that the flood of population first lured to her mountains by the discovery of gold has long ago been turned to agriculture and commerce. There are some forty-seven mineral substances now being mined in the State. The value of the total output in 1900 was $28,870,405. In 1906 it was over $54,000,000. Gold, petroleum, and copper are now the most valuable items of this output. In the same year there were 1,107 producing mines in the State. The value of the gold output was $19,700,000; silver, $2,460,000; copper, $3,750,000; quicksilver, $904,000; petroleum, $10,000,000. It is estimated that in the petroleum industry alone the total investment is more than $20,000,000; 35,000,000 barrels of oil were produced in 1906. There are also large and valuable deposits of brick and pottery clays, lime, asphaltum, bitumen, and iron ore.

Lumber.—Twenty-two per cent of the area of the State is forest-clad, and the importance of the lumber industry in California increases each year as the mountains of the east and the north are denuded of their trees. California is the home of the redwood (Sequoia). These remarkable trees attain a height of three hundred feet in the famous groves of Big Trees in Mariposa and Calaveras Counties. Redwood and pine are the two principal woods. It is estimated that, without the growth of another tree, the forests of California can not be exhausted for two hundred years. San Francisco alone sends 400,000,000 feet of lumber to the world each year. The total output of the State for 1906 was 900,000,000 feet. There are $16,000,000 invested in the industry, 250 mills, and the value of the total output, together with the by-products of the forests, is $17,000,000 the lumber itself amounting to $8,500,000.

Commerce.—Through the splendid harbor of San Francisco passes by far the greatest part of the ocean commerce of California, as well as of the entire Pacific Coast. The harbors of the State now carry on an ocean commerce of about $100,000,000 per year, the precise figure for 1906 being: imports $49,193,303; exports $45,479,422. The total foreign commerce of the State for 1900 was $119,212,911, and in 1906 San Francisco was fourth among the cities of the United States in point of customs receipts. Besides the ocean commerce of California with every port of the world which passes through her harbors, she has direct communication by rail with every quarter of the United States. Four great transcontinental railroads carry her goods and passengers to and from her cities, and a fifth is now (1907) nearing completion. In 1900 the total railroad mileage of the State was 5,532.

EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.

The educational system of the State commences with primary schools and continues through grammar schools and high schools, culminating in the State University. These are all public schools, being supported by the State and counties, and affording free education to all. The State Constitution creates the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction; it also provides for a superintendent of schools for each of the fifty-seven counties in the State. It makes provision for the maintenance of the public school system, and directs that the proceeds of all public lands and of all escheated estates shall be appropriated to the support of the common schools. The State University is situated at Berkeley on the Bay of San Francisco. It was created by act of the legislature on March 23, 1868, and this act is confirmed by the present constitution (that of 1879), making the organization and government of the university perpetual. The university is designed for the education of male and female students alike, and in fact the principle of co-education is recognized and put in practice in nearly all state educational institutions.

The total number of professors, including the various officers of instruction and research, in the University of California, for the year ending June 30, 1906, was 318, as follows: academic, 252; art, 9; Lick Astronomical Observatory, 9; law, 6; medicine, 34; pharmacy, 8. The total number of students for the same period was 3,338, of whom 2,007 were men, and 1,331 women, the women being nearly 40 per cent of the total enrolment. This percentage is far higher in the Colleges of Letters, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences, in which, as an average, the women outnumber the men more than two to one. The College of Agriculture, as well as several other technological colleges, including the College of Mechanics, the College of Mining, the College of Commerce, the College of Civil Engineering, and the College of Chemistry, are designed to afford a complete technical training in their respective branches. The Affiliated Colleges of the University, being the schools of Law, Medicine, Pharmacy, and Dentistry, are situated in San Francisco; there are several experiment stations for which the university receives $15,000 annually from the Federal Government; and there is a State University Farm of 780 acres at Davisville. The university has been the recipient of munificent endowments both from the State and from private persons. In addition to these, and to the proceeds of public land already mentioned, a direct tax of two cents on every $100 of taxable property in the State is levied, and applied to the support of the university. But four of the fifty-seven counties of the State have no high school, and some counties have several. There are also five normal schools, situated respectively at San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Jose, San Diego, and Chico. In addition to these there are night schools, technical schools, and commercial schools in all the large cities of the State.

The public school system of the State was founded in the constitutional convention at Monterey, in September, 1849. The 500,000 acres of land granted by Congress to new States for the purpose of internal improvement were appropriated to constitute a perpetual school fund. It was also provided that a school should be kept in each district at least three months each year to secure any share of the State school funds. In the school year ending June 30, 1906, there were 3,227 primary and grammar schools in the State, and 117 high schools. The total number of teachers in the public schools was 9,371; the total number of pupils, 321,870. The total number of pupils in private schools was 43,080. California has been more than lavish in her provision for her public school system. The total income of her public schools during the scholastic year 1905–06 was $11,494,670.29. The total value of public school property for the same year was $23,860,341. This does not include the State University. The total income of the State University for the same period was $1,564,190. The Leland Stanford Junior University is situated at Palo Alto. It was founded by Mr. and Mrs. Leland Stanford as a memorial to their only child. The total value of the endowments given to the university by its founders reaches the astonishing figure of $26,000,000. Like the University of California, it is co-educational, but the number of women students is limited to 500. The university was opened to students in 1891.

The work of religious education in California is confined almost exclusively to institutions under Catholic auspices. In California the Catholic Church, notwithstanding that she receives no financial aid from the State, and that the support of her schools and colleges must be derived entirely from the contributions of the faithful, has done great things in the cause of Christian education. The great pioneers of Catholic education in California were the Jesuits. In 1851 Santa Clara College was founded by the venerable Father John Nobili, S.J. This was followed, four years later, by the establishment of St. Ignatius College in San Francisco under the leadership of the Rev. Anthony Maraschi, S.J. From the days of these small beginnings the zeal of those charged with the education of Catholic youth has been untiring, progress has been steady, and the results already achieved have more than compensated for the sacrifices and expenditures which the work entailed. The following figures for the year 1907 will give some idea of the importance of Catholic education in California: 1 archdiocesan seminary, 5 seminaries of religious orders, 1 normal school, 11 colleges, academies and high schools for boys, 47 academies for girls, 73 parochial schools, 31,814 young people under Catholic care. Besides the institutions just mentioned there are numerous orphan asylums, industrial schools, infant asylums, day homes and a protectory for boys to which is attached a boys’ industrial farm at Rutherford. In addition to the colleges in charge of the Jesuits already mentioned, the Christian Brothers conduct Sacred Heart College in San Francisco, and St. Mary’s College in Oakland. St. Vincent’s College, in Los Angeles, is under the care of the Vincentian Fathers. There are several other universities and colleges, as well as numerous grammar, primary and secondary schools and kindergartens, under private management.

HISTORY.

The origin of the name California has been the subject of some conjecture; but certain it is that by the end of the sixteenth century it was applied to all the territory claimed by the Spanish Crown, bordering on the Pacific Ocean and lying north of Cape San Lucas. In a much later day it came to designate, under the familiar phrase, “The Two Californias,” the territory now included in the State of California, and the Peninsula of Lower California. After Florida, California is the oldest name of any of the United States. The land was discovered by the Spaniards—Lower California by Cortez, who visited the peninsula in 1533; and Alta or Upper California by Cabrillo, in 1542. Lower California had been evangelized by the Jesuits who had established eighteen missions between 1697 and 1767. Upon the expulsion of the Jesuits in the latter year, the care of the missions and the conversion of the Indians in the Spanish settlements were entrusted to the Franciscans. To them therefore belongs the honor of founding the great mission system of California proper. The leader of this gigantic work was the renowned Father Junipero Serra, and his first settlement in California was the mission of San Diego, which he established in July, 1769. San Francisco was founded in 1776. For fifteen years the saintly man labored in California with apostolic zeal, and at the time of his death in 1784, he had established nine missions between San Diego and San Francisco. The total number of missions founded in California by the Franciscans was twenty-one, and they extended from Sonoma in the north to San Diego in the south. Prominent among them were Santa Clara, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and San Juan Capistrano. The missions were all established under the sovereignty of the King of Spain; each mission had its church, a residence for the Fathers, a presidio, or military guard, and shops and workrooms for the Indians, who, besides receiving instruction in the Faith, were taught the useful arts of civilization. (See California Missions.) Each mission was established in conjunction with a Spanish settlement under a civil governor, and during this period, the immigration was almost exclusively Spanish and Mexican. In 1822 California ceased to be a Spanish colony and became part of the territory of Mexico. From that date begins the decline of the missions; the policy of the government became one of annoyance, interference, and aggression. Finally, in 1834, began the secularization of the missions, which was in fact their downright confiscation. The Fathers were deprived of their lands and buildings; and the Indians freed from the benevolent government of the friars.

The results were disastrous. The Indians were scattered and dispersed, and many of them lapsed into barbarism. The missions themselves were destroyed. This confiscation forms one of the saddest injustices of history. The temporal wrongs done at this time were partially righted in 1902 by the award of the International Tribunal of Arbitration at The Hague, in the case of the Pious Fund, which adjudged the payment by Mexico to the United States for the Catholic Church in California, of the accrued interest of the. Fund. When taken over by President Santa Anna in 1842, the total value of the Pious Fund estates was estimated at $1,700,000. In 1826 the first emigrant train of Americans entered the present territory of California. From that year onward there was a gradual influx of Americans, most of whom engaged in trading, hunting, prospecting, cattle raising, and farming. As the American population increased there were frequent misunderstandings and clashes with the Mexican authorities, some of them not altogether creditable to the Americans. Commodore Jones made an unauthorized seizure of Monterey in 1842. The United States Government subsequently disavowed his acts and made apologies to Mexico.

In 1846 a party of Americans seized Sonoma, captured the commandant, and proclaimed the independence of the Republic of California. The young republic chose the Bear Flag as its emblem. In a few weeks news was received of the outbreak of hostilities between the United States and Mexico; the Bear Flag gave place to the American Flag; and Monterey, San Francisco, Sonoma, and Sutter’s Fort were soon in the hands of the Americans. California was finally ceded to the United States, on the conclusion of the war with Mexico, by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, proclaimed July 4, 1848. In January, 1848, gold was discovered by James W. Marshall at Coloma, on the American River. The news spread like wild-fire, and by the early part of 1849 a mighty tide of immigration had set in. The goldseekers came from every section of the United States, and from Europe. In that year more than 80,000 men arrived in California. These men were afterwards called the “Forty-niners.” Some of them came from Australia; some, from New York and Europe by way of Cape Horn; some crossed the Isthmus of Panama; while a large number came across the plains in caravans, on horseback, and even on foot. Fortune awaited thousands of these pioneers in the rich placer mines, and California became the richest gold-producing state in the United States. But thousands of those who were unsuccessful in their quest for gold, found even greater and more lasting wealth in tilling the rich soil and engaging in commerce. After the excitement caused by the discovery of gold had subsided, a steady stream of immigration began, and continues to the present time. The foreign immigrants have been chiefly Irish, German, English, Canadian, Italian, and French, though there are also considerable numbers of Portuguese and Swedes. As shown in the tables already presented, more than seventy-five per cent of the total population in 1900 was native-born.

So rapid was the growth of population after the discovery of gold, that in 1849 a constitution was adopted by the convention at Monterey, and California was admitted into the Union of States by Act of Congress on September 9, 1850. That day has ever since been a legal holiday, and is generally celebrated and referred to as Admission Day. Peter H. Burnett was elected first governor of the new State and served during 1851 and 1852. All sorts of men found their way to the new El Dorado, as it was called. Most of them were hardy, industrious, and honest—these were the true pioneers. But there was a considerable admixture of the reckless and dare-devil element, criminals and desperadoes, who sought fortune and adventure in the new gold diggings. In 1851 there was a veritable carnival of crime in San Francisco which the lawfully constituted authorities were unable to suppress. The citizens of the city organized themselves into a Vigilance Committee and punished crimes and criminals in summary fashion. The members of the committee were known as “Vigilantes,” and were for the most part honest and reputable men, who resorted to these measures only from motives of necessity and duty in the disturbed condition of the government. A similar condition arose again in 1856 and was met by the same remedy. It must be said that the trials of the Vigilance Committee, while informal, were in the main fair, and the punishments inflicted richly deserved.

Large numbers of Chinese coolies had emigrated to California ever since 1850; the influx was greatest during the building of the Central Pacific Railroad which was completed in 1869. A strong anti-Chinese sentiment developed, due chiefly to three principal objections made against them: they worked for wages much lower than white men; they spent little of their earnings; they rarely established homes, but lived together in large numbers and in unclean surroundings. The agitation grew to tremendous proportions, provoked serious riots, and finally resulted in the so-called Chinese exclusion acts which have been enacted to the Supreme Bench. Joseph McKenna, another periodically by Congress since 1882. There were at one time over 100,000 Chinese in California. In 1900 the number had decreased to 45,753; and it is now (1907) much smaller. In 1891 the Australian Ballot was introduced at State elections. Among other important political events of the last twenty-five years was the prohibition of hydraulic mining, which had destroyed immense areas for agriculture and had choked up river beds with the accumulation of detritus; also the passage of numerous beneficial laws for the promotion of irrigation, for the fumigation of fruit trees, and for the importation of predatory insects for the purpose of destroying insect pests. The present constitution of California was adopted in 1879. During the Spanish-American War and the subsequent American occupation of the Philippines, San Francisco has been the chief depot for the transportation of troops and supplies. On April 18, 1906, one of the greatest earthquakes recorded in history visited the coast of California; it was most severe in San Francisco. Fire started simultaneously in a dozen quarters and burned incessantly for three days. All but the western and southern parts of the city were consumed. The city, as a city, was destroyed. The loss of life is estimated at 500, and of property at $500,000,000. More than 300,000 people left the city after the fire. Over 200,000 of these have returned, and incredible strides have been made in rehabilitating the city. Nearly $200,000,000 have been expended (December, 1907) on improvements in the 497 city blocks that were destroyed.

RELIGION.

Dioceses.—The territory of the State of California is divided, ecclesiastically, into the Archdiocese of San Francisco, the Diocese of Monterey and Los Angeles, and the Diocese of Sacramento. The first includes the city of San Francisco and the central and more westerly counties of the State. The second includes all of Southern California. The third embraces the entire northern part of the State, as well as nearly half of the State of Nevada. With the exception of the Diocese of Sacramento, their boundaries are conterminous with those of the State. The Diocese of Salt Lake, in Utah, and the Dioceses of Sacramento and of Monterey and Los Angeles are suffragan to the Archdiocese of San Francisco. The Catholic population of California is estimated at 344,000 (1906), made up as follows: Archiocese of San Francisco, 227,000; Diocese of Sacramento, 42,000; Diocese of Monterey and Los Angeles, 75,000. By far the greater portion of these are white, the total of blacks, Indians, and Chinese being less than five per cent.

Catholic Immigration.—From 1769, the year which saw the foundation of San Diego, until the second expedition of Fremont (1846), the settlers and immigrants were chiefly Catholic, being natives of Spain and Mexico. The discovery of gold in 1848 was immediately followed by an inrush of thousands of immigrants. These gold-seekers were mostly Americans, but there was also a large proportion of foreigners. From that time until the present, the immigration has been steadily on the increase, the Catholic part of it being chiefly Irish, Irish-American, Italian, French, and German.

Catholics Distinguished in Public Life.—The first Governor of California, (q.v.), was a convert to the Catholic Faith. Stephen M. White, who represented California in the Senate of the United States, was one of the first graduates of the Jesuit college at Santa Clara. He was an astute lawyer, a brilliant orator, and a tireless worker. E. W. McKinstry, like Judge Burnett, was a convert to the Faith; and like him, also, was a member of the Supreme Bench. Judge McKinstry was a man of deep erudition, a fine constitutional lawyer, and an exemplary Catholic. W. G. Lorigan, a Catholic, was also chosen to the Supreme Bench. Joseph McKenna, another California Catholic, became a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1898), and James F. Smith, General in the United States Army, Member of the Philippine Commission, and Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, is another alumnus of Santa Clara College. Garret W. McEnerney, one of the leaders of the California Bar, who won international fame by his masterful presentation of the claims of the Catholic Church in California to the Pious Fund (q.v.) before the Tribunal of Arbitration at The Hague in 1902, graduated at St. Mary’s College.

Principal Religious Denominations.—The following statistics of the Catholic Church in California are taken from the Catholic Directory for 1907: archbishop, 1; bishops, 2; total priests, 488; secular, 321; religious, 167; total churches, 366; churches with resident . priests, 209; missions with churches, 157; stations, 119; seminary, 1; seminaries of religious orders, 5; colleges and academies for boys, 11; academies for young ladies, 47; parishes with parochial schools, 73; orphan asylums, 12; total young people under Catholic care, 31,814; Catholic population, 344,000. There are houses or monasteries of Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, Paulists, Marists, Salesians, Christian Brothers, and Brothers of Mary. The Catholic sisterhoods are almost all represented.

The following statistics of the religious denominations of California given below were presented by the United States Census of 1890, published in 1894.

The total number of churches was 1505; total value of church property, $11,961,914; total number of communicants, 280,619. Of course, these figures have been greatly increased since that time. Catholics do not recognize any such enumeration as “communicants”; the total for this head therefore underestimates the Catholic population.

[Missing table]

Matters Directly Affecting Religion.—The constitutional provision safeguarding religious freedom is ample and specific. It reads as follows: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall be forever guaranteed in this State; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness or juror on account of his opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.” The Constitution prohibits the appropriation of money from the State treasury for the use or benefit of any corporation, association, asylum, hospital, or any other institution not under the exclusive management and control of the State as a State institution. But there is, nevertheless, a proviso authorizing the granting of State aid to institutions conducted for the support and maintenance of “minor orphans, or half orphans, or abandoned children, or aged persons in indigent circumstances.” The Constitution also expressly prohibits the appropriation of money in support of any sectarian creed, church, or school. The policy of the State is to afford the fullest measure of religious liberty to all, to discriminate in favor of, or against, no one on account of religious belief, and not to permit the power or resources of the State to be used for the propagation of any form of religion or for the benefit of any religious institution. Every Sunday is by express legislative enactment a legal holiday (Civil Code, §7); on that day all courts are closed, and business is universally suspended. Any act required by law or contract to be done or performed on a particular day which happens to fall on a Sunday, may be done or performed on the next day with full legal effect. But there is no law compelling the religious observance of Sunday, and contracts, deeds, wills, notes, etc. executed on Sunday are just as valid as if executed on any other day. But, while there is no Sunday Law, properly so-called, there is an act of the legislature passed February 27, 1893, securing to all employees one day’s rest in seven, and making it a misdemeanor to violate the provisions of the act.

The Code of Civil Procedure provides that “every court, every judge or clerk of any court, every justice and every notary public, and every officer or person authorized to take testimony in any action or proceeding, or to decide upon evidence, has power to administer oaths or affirmations.” Any person who desires it may, at his option, instead of taking an oath, make his affirmation. The Bible is not used in administering oaths; in judicial proceedings the witness raises his right hand and the clerk or judge swears him “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.” To make a willfully false statement after having taken an oath or affirmation, before an officer authorized to administer it, to testify to the truth, is perjury, a felony punishable by imprisonment in the State’s prison for from one to fourteen years. The Penal Code makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $200 or by imprisonment for ninety days, to utter profane language in the presence or hearing of women or children (Penal Code, §415). The Supreme Court of the State, in the case of Delaney ex parte, California Reports, Vol. XLIII, page 478, has held it to be within the power of a municipal corporation empowered by its charter to prohibit practices which are against good morals, to prohibit and punish the utterance of profane language. The entire matter of profane language is generally left to the control of the local authorities, and most of the counties and cities have ordinances prohibiting and punishing it. It is customary to open the sessions of the legislature with prayer, though there is no provision of law either requiring or prohibiting the practice. There is no recognition of any religious holidays, by name, except Sunday. New Year’s Day and Christmas are both holidays, but they are described in the Civil Code merely as “the first day of January and the twenty-fifth day of December.” It must be said that the same rule is observed in the Code in referring to the other legal holidays. Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, etc. are simply the twenty-second day of February, the thirtieth day of May, the fourth day of July, etc. The seal of confession has the full sanction and protection of the law. It occupies the same position in the eyes of the law as communications made to attorneys and physicians in their professional capacities. It is the policy of the law to encourage these confidential or privileged communications, as they are called, and to keep them inviolate. Section 1881 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a priest cannot be examined as to any confession made to him, as such, by a penitent.

Matters Affecting Religious Work.—The laws governing the incorporation of churches and religious societies and providing for the protection and management of church property are both beneficent and effective. The Civil Code (section 602) provides that any bishop, chief priest, or presiding elder, may become a sole corporation by complying with certain simple legal formalities. Thereafter, the usual attributes of corporations aggregate attach, mutatis mutandis, to the corporation sole. Under this statute all Catholic Church property in the Archdiocese of San Francisco is held in the name of “The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco,” a corporation sole. Upon the death of the incumbent, his successor, properly appointed and qualified, takes the place of his predecessor, and no probate or other proceedings are required to vest the title to the church property which, in contemplation of law, remains always in the corporation sole, regardless of who may be, for the time being, the incumbent. In addition to the laws governing corporations sole, there are very liberal statutes authorizing the incorporation of single churches, as well as of religious, charitable, and educational associations, and the holding of property by such corporations; also authorizing the consolidation of two or more churches or parishes into one corporation. Under the law of California, therefore, the property interests of the Church are jealously safeguarded, and she is free to hold her church property in either of the methods above pointed out. Prior to the year 1900, California stood alone among the States of the Union in taxing church property in the same manner and at the same rate as business or residence property. On November 6, 1900, the people of the State adopted an amendment to the Constitution, providing that “all buildings, and so much of the real property on which they are situated as may be required for the convenient use and occupation of said buildings, when the same are used solely and exclusively for religious worship, shall be free from taxation.” The residences of the clergy, the hospitals, orphanages, refuges, asylums, and all other institutions which are devoted to charitable or eleemosynary objects, but which are not used “solely and exclusively for religious worship,” are still subject to taxation as before. The law exempts “ministers of religion” from military duty; and “a minister of the gospel, or a priest of any denomination following his profession” is exempt from jury duty.

Marriage and Divorce.—The Civil Code defines marriage as “a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which the consent of parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone will not constitute marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization authorized by this code” 055). This section of the code formerly permitted “a mutual assumption of marital rights, duties or obligations” to take the place of a solemnization. In other words, the so-called common-law marriages were permitted, and their validity upheld, by the laws of the State. But the difficulty of determining just what constituted “a mutual assumption of marital rights, duties or obligations,” and the numerous and scandalous cases of intrigue, temporary or illicit relations, hasty, ill-advised, and clandestine unions, with their consequent perplexing questions of legitimacy, succession, property rights, and the status of the parties themselves, convinced the leading minds of California that the position of the Catholic Church on the necessity of the public safeguards with which she protects the marriage ceremony, is the only wise and safe one. Accordingly, in 1895, the legislature amended the law, and made it necessary that the consent of the parties to the marriage be evidenced by a solemnization of the marriage. No particular form of solemnization is required, but the parties must declare in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage that they take each other as husband and wife. Marriages may be solemnized by a priest, or minister of any denomination, or by a justice or judge of any court. A licence must first be obtained, and the person solemnizing the marriage must attach his written certificate to the licence, certifying to the fact, the time, and the place of, and the names and residences of the parties and the witnesses to, the marriage. The licence and certificate must then be recorded with the County Recorder. Under these stringent rules little or no difficulty is found in proving a marriage; and all relations between the sexes are simply meretricious unless the parties avail themselves of the legal requirements of solemnization of marriage. There is a charitable provision of the law, designed for the benefit of innocent offspring, to the effect that all children of a marriage void in law or dissolved by divorce are legitimate. The age of consent to marriage is eighteen in males, and fifteen in females; but if the male be under the age of twenty-one, or the female under the age of eighteen, the consent of parents or guardian must first be obtained. The law of the State forbids and makes absolutely void marriages (I) between whites and negroes, mongolians, or mulattoes; (2) between ancestors and descendants, brothers and sisters, uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews (marriages between cousins are permitted); (3) if either party be already married, for one year after the entry of an interlocutory decree of divorce. The annulment of marriages is provided for in certain cases; such marriages are considered voidable and may be annulled for any of the following causes: (I) if, at the time of the marriage, either party be under the age of consent, and the consent of parents or guardian be not obtained; (2) if either party be of unsound mind at the time of the marriage; (3) if consent to the marriage be obtained by fraud; or (4) by force, or (5) if either party be physically incapable of entering into the marriage state. The annulment of marriage must be carefully distinguished from divorce. The latter implies the existence of a perfectly valid marriage. The former affords relief to the injured party, who may either ratify the marriage, and thus make it valid from the beginning, or have it set aside and declared void from the beginning.

The principle of divorce is recognized by the law of California, which assigns six grounds of divorce: adultery, extreme cruelty, willful desertion, willful neglect (failure to provide), habitual intemperance, and conviction of a felony. Notwithstanding that a cause for divorce be proved to exist, the divorce must be denied upon proof of any of the following: connivance, collusion, condonation, recrimination (proof of a cause of divorce against the plaintiff), or lapse of time. To prevent fraudulent and secret divorces, as well as the promiscuous granting of divorces, the law requires a bona fide residence by the plaintiff for one year in the State, and for three months in the county, before filing suit. Upon dissolution of the marriage by divorce, the Superior Court has jurisdiction to award the care and custody of the children to the innocent party, or to make such other provision for their care and custody as the best interests of the children, both moral and material, may require; and this disposition may be altered from time to time in the discretion of the Court.

In 1903 the law on the subject of divorce was amended. Since that year, upon proof by the plaintiff of a cause of divorce, an interlocutory decree of divorce is granted. This decree entitles the successful party to a final decree of divorce upon the expiration of one year after the entry of the interlocutory decree. This change in the law prevents the remarriage of either of the parties until the expiration of one year from the entry of the interlocutory decree.

Education.—As previously explained, the Church receives no financial aid from the State towards the religious education of her children, and here, as elsewhere, Catholics are taxed for the support of public schools, as well as charged with the duty of maintaining schools of their own. Here also, as elsewhere, the effects of the public school system of non-religious education emphasize the necessity of providing for Catholic youth a complete system of education that includes, with the best profane scholarship, a sound moral and religious training. This need is especially felt in the university courses, whose systems of philosophy, if not positively anti-Christian, are certainly not calculated to foster belief in a personal God, or to strengthen faith in a Divine revelation. There are liberal statutes in force, permitting and encouraging the foundation and maintenance of private institutions of learning, and the only interference permitted the State authorities concerns the supervision of sanitary arrangements, and the prescribing of such standards of scholarship as will entitle graduates to admission to the State University without examination.

There are also liberal statutes authorizing the incorporation of religious, social, benevolent, or charitable organizations. Such corporations may make and enforce rules for the government of themselves and their institutions, and may purchase and hold such real property as may be necessary for the objects of the association, not exceeding six whole lots in any city or town, or fifty acres in the country, and the annual profit or income of such land must not exceed $50,000. Orphan asylums, however, maintaining at least 100 orphans are permitted to purchase and hold 160 acres of land, of a net annual value of not more than $50,000. These provisions, it must be remembered, do not limit the power of purely religious corporations, whether sole or aggregate, to purchase and hold such lands as may be necessary for their churches, hospitals, schools, colleges, orphan asylums, and parsonages, under statutes previously discussed. The State Constitution prohibits the appropriating of public money “for the support of any sectarian or denominational school, or any school not under the exclusive control of the officers of the public schools”; it also provides that no “sectarian or denominational doctrine be taught, or instruction thereon be permitted, directly or indirectly, in any of the common schools of the State.” Under another constitutional provision already discussed, the legislature passed a law in 1880 appropriating annually to every institution maintaining orphans the sum of $100 for each orphan, and $75 for each half orphan. In 1903 the legislature created a State Board of Charities and Correction, consisting of six members appointed by the governor. This board has a supervisory jurisdiction over all charitable, correctional, and penal institutions, including hospitals for the insane.

Sale of Liquor.—There is no State law forbidding the sale of liquor to citizens generally. But it is forbidden: to bring intoxicating liquor to a prison, jail, or reformatory; or to sell, give, or expose it for sale within half a mile of a state prison, or within 1,900 feet of a reformatory, or within one mile of the University of California at Berkeley, or within one and one-half miles of any veterans’ home, or within the State Capitol, or on the grounds adjacent thereto; or at a camp meeting; or to a common or habitual drunkard; or to an Indian; or to a minor under the age of eighteen years; or within one mile of an insane asylum. It is forbidden to permit a minor under the age of eighteen years to enter a saloon; and it is also forbidden to give or sell intoxicating liquor to anyone on an election day. Beyond these provisions, the general law leaves the control of the sale of liquor entirely to local authority. Each county, city, and town is free to regulate the liquor traffic to suit the wishes of its citizens.

Prisons and Reformatories.—There are two State prisons, situated respectively at San Quentin and Folsom. These prisons, under the Constitution, are subject to the direct control of the State Board of Prison Directors, consisting of five members appointed by the governor. The prisoners are kept at work, in the rock-crushing plant, in making grain bags, in building roads, etc. Priests and ministers are free to visit the prisoners and conduct religious services for their benefit. There are two State reformatories for juvenile offenders—the Preston School of Industry at Ione City, and the Whittier State School, at Whittier. Each is governed by its own board of trustees, and is entirely independent of the Board of Prison Directors. There is also a juvenile court charged with the control and punishment of juvenile dependents and delinquents. A large discretion is vested with the judge of this court and much good has been accomplished since its creation in keeping children of Catholic parentage under the care and influence of conscientious Catholic officers.

Wills and Testaments.—In California every person of sound mind who has reached the age of eighteen years may dispose of his entire estate by will, subject to the payment of his debts and expenses of administration. Such part of a decedents estate as is not disposed of by will is distributed according to the statutes of succession. The estates of such persons as die without wills and without heirs escheat to the State. The phrase “expenses of administration” includes funeral expenses of the deceased, expenses of his last illness, and provision for the support of his family, including the homestead, family allowance, and setting apart property exempt from execution.

Charitable Bequests.—No person is permitted to dispose by will of more than one-third of the value of his estate to charitable uses. A will attempting to dispose of a greater proportion to charity would not be absolutely void, but all the charitable bequests and devises would be reduced proportionately so that their total value would not exceed one-third. Moreover, every charitable bequest and devise is absolutely void unless it be made at least thirty days prior to the testator’s death. A bequest or devise to a church as such, or to a college, orphan asylum, missionary society, hospital, or home for the aged would be for a charitable use under this provision. But not so a devise or bequest to a priest or bishop by name, and in his individual capacity. It has also been held that a bequest to a priest for Masses to be offered for the repose of the soul of the deceased, is not a charitable bequest.

Cemeteries.—Cemeteries may be purchased, held, and owned under the liberal statutes for the owner-ship of church property, already explained. Or, they may be purchased, held, and owned by cemetery corporations formed under a general law, by which their land holdings are limited to 320 acres situated in the county in which their articles of incorporation are filed, or in an adjoining county. The law provides for the survey and subdivision of such lands into lots or plots, avenues or walks, and for the government of such corporations, as well as the sale and tenure of burial plots.

GEORGE A. CONNOLLY

Vicariate Apostolic of Lower California

Includes the territory of that name in Mexico (Sp. Baja or Vieja California), a peninsula 770 miles long by 30 to 120 broad. It is traversed longitudinally by mountain chains; on the gulf side the descent is abrupt, but on the western side more gradual. Running water is very scarce amid these granitic and volcanic hills, hence irrigation is dependent on showers which, though short, are often violent and flood the country. The climate is hot and dry in the north, more temperate in the south. In some places cereals and vegetables abound, also excellent grapes and many kinds of fruit. There are gold and silver mines, also deposits of copper, lead, and coal, while the seacoast abounds with many varieties of fish. This vicariate was created 20 January, 1874, and confided to the Bishop of Sonora; it is now directly subject to Propaganda, which since 8 November, 1895, has entrusted it to the Missionary College of Sts. Peter and Paul, founded by Pius IX at Rome. The boundaries of the vicariate are, on the north, the Diocese of Monterey and Los Angeles; on the south and west, the Pacific Ocean; on the east, the Gulf of California. It had in 1900 a Spanish-speaking population of about 47,000, nearly all Catholics. There are six churches with resident, and ten without resident, priests, twenty chapels, and as many stations. The chief town, and residence of the vicar Apostolic, is La Paz, in the south-eastern extremity of the peninsula; other centres of population are Encenada de Todos Santos, San José del Cabo, and Santa Rosalía. A number of islands (several with good ports) belong to this vicariate. Civilly this territory is dependent upon the Federal Government at Mexico. (For earlier missions in the peninsula, see CALIFORNIA MISSIONS.)

Missiones Catholicæ (Rome, 1907), 657; Lippincott’s Gazeteer (Philadelphia, 1907), 18–19; Statesman’s Year Book (London, 1907), 1203.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

California Missions

I. LOWER CALIFORNIA

California became known to the world through Hernando Cortés, the conqueror of Mexico, who probably first applied the name. It is divided into Lower or Old California and Upper California. The first Missionaries were the Franciscans, who, under the leadership of Martin de la Coruna, one of the so-called “Twelve Apostles of Mexico,” on the 3d of May, 1535, landed with Cortés at Santa Cruz Bay, near what is now La Paz on the lower eastern coast of the peninsula. After a year of extreme privations, due to the sterility of the soil, the undertaking, which had cost the famous conqueror $300,000, had to be abandoned. The Friars Minor made another effort to establish missions among the natives, when in 1596 Sebastian Vizcaino set out to found a colony in California. The missionaries were Diego de Perdomo, Bernardino de Zamudio, Antonio Tello, Nicolás de Arabia, and a lay brother, Cristóbal López. Hunger and hostility of the savages, who proved to be on the lowest plane of humanity, put an end to the venture before the close of the year.

In 1683, the Jesuit Fathers Eusebius Kuehn, better known as Kino, and Pedro Matias Goni, with Fray José Guijosa, of the Order of St. John of God, accompanying Admiral Isidro Otondo y Antillon, landed somewhat north of La Paz for the purpose of converting the natives and establishing a Spanish colony. After two years and six months as many as four hundred Indians attended the catechetical instructions. Owing to the precarious state of the enterprise, the missionaries administered baptism only to those neophytes who were found in danger of death. For want of supplies, and after an expenditure of $225,000 on the part of the Government, the Spaniards once more withdrew, in September 1685, despite the protests of the religious, and the sorrow of the catechumens.

Anxious to secure a foothold in the territory lest a foreign power take possession, but having learned from experience that the military could not succeed, the Spanish Government, through the viceroy, invited the Society of Jesus to establish to undertake the conquest and the settlement of the country. Urged by Fathers Kino and Salvatierra the Superiors of the Society at length accepted the charge. Thereupon, the Viceroy Moctezuma, on the 5th of February, 1697, formally authorized the Society of Jesus to establish missions in California on the condition that the royal treasury not be expected to pay any expenses incurred without order of the king, and that possession of the territory be taken in the name of the King of Spain. In turn the Jesuits were to enjoy the privilege of enlisting soldiers to act as guards for the missions at the expense of the Society, and at time of war these soldiers were to be considered on the same footing with those of the regular army. The Jesuits were to have absolute authority on the peninsula in temporal as well as spiritual affairs, and were empowered to choose men suitable for the administration of justice. Father Juan Maria Salvatierra was appointed superior of the California missions. He at once began to collect funds to place the undertaking on a firm basis. It would require ten thousand dollars, he thought, to furnish a revenue of five hundred dollars a year to maintain one priest at each mission. The Rev. Juan Caballero of Querétaro donated twenty thousand dollars for two missions, and the Confraternity of Our Lady of Sorrows in the city of Mexico supplied ten thousand dollars for the founding and maintaining of a third establishment. This was the beginning of the celebrated Pius Fund of California. Other benefactors in the course of time provided necessary capital for additional missions until the fund, which was judiciously invested in Mexican real estate, with its accumulations amount to half a million dollars by the year 1767. A Jesuit, the Rev. Juan de Ugarte, was appointed to manage the fund and act as procurator for the missionaries. After collecting minor donations and goods to the value of fifteen thousand dollars, and having enlisted five trustworthy guards under the command of Captain Luis Tortolero y Torres, Father Salvatierra crossed the Gulf of California and landed at San Dionisio Bay on the 19th of October, 1697.

The first and the principal mission of Lower California was established a league from the shore and placed under the patronage of Our Lady of Loreto. The necessary buildings were hastily constructed, and the zealous Jesuit assembled the neighbouring Indians. He first endeavored to learn their language, and meanwhile through signs tried to make them understand his object and the most necessary truths of religion. Father Francisco Maria Piccolo soon joined him, and assisted especially in teaching the little ones. Father Juan de Ugarte, who had resigned the procuratorship, followed in 1700. Next to Salvatierra this religious is the most noted of the early California missionaries. It was he who introduced agriculture and stock-raising at the second mission of San Francisco Xavier, for the purpose of making the missions self-supporting. He succeeded to some extent, but the barrenness of the soil, and the lack of water, except at two or three other establishments, prevented the system from becoming general on the peninsula. Indeed the scarcity of water and arable land brought the mission establishments to the verge of abandonment several times, even before the death of Salvatierra, which occurred at Guadalajara in 1717. It was also the energetic Ugarte who built the first large ship in California, of native timber, and made a voyage of exploration to the mouth of the Colorado River in 1712. Though the missionaries devoted themselves heart and soul to their task, the work of conversion proved truly disheartening, inasmuch as polygamy, sorcery, and the vilest habits prevailed among the lower Californians to a degree not known elsewhere. If we add to this the total indifference of the natives, who possessed no religious ideas whatever, the frequent epidemics and almost constant wars which destroyed the labours of years and caused the desertions of several missions, it becomes plain that only the most zealous and ascetic men could have succeeded as well as these missionaries did. Pagan hatred frequently attacked the isolated religious, and in October, 1734, brought about the violent death of two priests. These were Father Lorrenzo Carranzo of Mission Santiago, and Nicolás Tamaral of Mission San José del Cabo, of the southern part of the peninsula, both of whom were killed with arrows and clubs, after which the bodies were frightfully mutilated. Two other religious, warned in time, barely escaped with their lives. Notwithstanding all these drawbacks and obstacles, to which must be added the animosity of the pearl-fishers and their friends in Mexico, besides the want of every convenience of life, the Jesuits in time established a chain of mission which extended from Cape San Lucas to the thirty-first degree of latitude. These missions and the year of their establishment, beginning from south to north, were:

San José de Cabo (1730);

Santiago de las Coras (1721);

San Juan de Ligni (1705);

Nuestra Señora de los Dolores del Sur (1721);

Santa Rosa or Todos Santos (1733);

San Luis Gonzaga (1737);

San Francisco Xavier (1699);

Nuestra Señora de Loreto (1697);

San José de Comund£ (1708);

Purisima Concepción de Cadegomó (1718);

Santa Rosalía de Mulegé (1705);

Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe (1720);

San Ignacio (1728);

Santa Gertrudis (1728);

San Francisco de Borja (1729); and

Santa Maria de los Angeles (1766).

Only fourteen of these missions existed in 1767; epidemics had carried off the neophytes of the other establishments so that they had to be abandoned. No statistics exist from which the success of the Jesuit missionary labours can be estimated, because no such minute reports were required by the Government as were demanded at subsequent periods. Some of the missionaries were rather enthusiastic in describing the reception given to the Gospel by the natives in their respective localities, but owing to the unfavorable conditions, according to the Jesuit, Father John Jacob Baegert (q. v.) who had toiled for seventeen years at one of the missions, the religious and moral impression was nowhere very deep or lasting. Like other Jesuit historians, he describes the Indians as indolent to the last degree, dull, cruel, treacherous, indifferent, and addicted to the lowest vices, from which it was exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to wean them, on account of the little control which the missionaries could exercise over the neophytes. Owing to the sterility of the soil and the lack of water for irrigation, it was impossible, except in a few places, to feed and clothe a large number of people at the missions and thus keep them under the watchful eye of the missionaries. After a course of instruction more or less long, during which period they were fed at the missionary establishments, the neophytes were permitted to return to their haunts in order to search for food in the mountains, as had been their custom from time immemorial. A chief and a catechist would, indeed, exercise some kind of supervision over the concerts and report grievous transgressions to the missionary; but the neophytes were necessarily left to themselves, save when the turn came for each particular village to repair for a week to the mission for examination in the catechism and for further instruction, during which week the Fathers had to maintain them. Nevertheless, the missionaries succeeded in opening the gates of heaven to many thousands of souls who, but for the unselfish efforts of the religious, would not have learned even of the existence of God.

During the sixty years that the Jesuits were permitted to labour among the natives of California, fifty-six members of the Society of Jesus came to the peninsula, of whom sixteen, two as martyrs, died at their posts. Fifteen priests and one lay brother survived the hardships, only to be subjected to enforcement of the brutal decree launched against the Society of Jesus by King Carlos III of Spain. The Jesuits of lower California were placed on board a ship in February, 1768, and brought to Mexico whence, with the Mexican religious, those who outlived the cruelties inflicted on the way thither were shipped to Europe. The missions meanwhile were left in charge of military officers called comisionados, who for a year mismanaged the temporalities regardless of the rights of the Indians.

Immediately after the decree of expulsion had been published at the capital in Mexico (July, 1767). Viceroy De Croiz requested the Franciscans of the Apostolic Missionary College of San Fernando in the city of Mexico to accept the missions of California. Their superiors acquiesced reluctantly, for they were not in a position to furnish the requisite number of missionaries. To be able to comply with the demand, five flourishing Indian missions in the Sierra Gorda were surrendered to the Archbishop of Mexico. Fifteen volunteer friars, led by the famous Junipero Serra, finally arrived at Loreto on Good Friday, the 1st of April, 1768, and were at once assigned to deserted missions. They were given charge of the spiritual affairs only, to the amazement of the Indians who had been accustomed to receive food, clothing, and presents as well as religious instruction from their spiritual guides. When, however, the inspector-general, Don José Galvez, arrived in July, 1768, with almost unlimited power to remedy the irregularities brought on by the sudden change, and discovered from personal observation how the comisionados had squandered the mission property, he at once turned it over to the Franciscans who, thereafter, could manage the missions as freely as the Jesuits had done. The friars continued the system of their predecessors and sought, though in vain at various places, to repair the damage wrought during the misrule of the secular officials. A year after their arrival another mission as founded to the north of Santa María at Velicatá under the patronage of San Fernando. The fathers were about to establish five additional missions in obedience to the orders of the viceroy, who had already named the patron saints, when the hostility of Governor Barri frustrated the plan. From a report, the only general one we have concerning Lower California during the mission period, which Father Francisco Palou, then superior, or presidente, of the missions, sent to Mexico, we learn that the Franciscans, from April, 1768, to September, 1771, baptized 1731 persons, nearly all Indians. During the same period they blessed 787 marriages and buried 2165 dead.

As early as 1768, the Dominican vicar-general, Father Juan Pedro de Iriarte, sought permission from the king to found missions in Lower California, and succeeded in obtaining a royal decree to that effect on the 8th of April, 1770; but the Franciscan College of San Fernando, deeming the territory too sparsely populated for two different missionary bands, offered to cede the whole peninsula to the Dominican Order. An agreement between Father Raphael Verger, the guardian of the college, and Father Juan Pedro de Iriarte, the vicar-general of the Dominicans, was accordingly drawn up on the 7th of April, 1772, and approved by the viceroy Bucareli on the twelfth of May, 1772. Nine Dominicans Fathers and one lay brother landed at Loreto on the 14th of October, 1772, but refused to accept control of the missions until their superior, Father Iriarte, should arrive. The latter some time after suffered shipwreck and was drowned in the Gulf of California. Father Vincente Mora was then appointed superior or presidente, whereupon Father Francisco Palou began the formal transfer at Loreto in May, 1773, and repeated the ceremony at each mission as he travelled north on his way to Upper California. Thirty-nine friars Minor had been active on the peninsula during the five years and five months of Franciscan rule. Four of them died, ten were transferred to Upper California, where Father Junipero Serra had begun to open a much larger field for his brethren, and the remainder returned to the mother-house.

During their long incumbency, which lasted to about the year 1840, the Dominicans established the following new missions between San Fernando de Velicatá and San Diego:

Rosario (1774);

Santo Domingo (1775);

San Vincente Ferrar (1780);

San Miguel (1787);

Santo Tomás (1791);

San Pedro Mártir (1794); and

Santa Catarina Mártir (1797).

Little is on record about the activities of these friars. As far as known, down to the year 1800, seventy Dominicans came to the peninsula. How many died at their missions, or how many died after that year, it is impossible to say. The missions were finally secularized by the Mexican government in 1834. The management of the land, stock, and other temporalities was taken from the missionaries and turned over to hired comisionados, with the same result that was experienced after the departure of the Jesuits. The Indians gradually disappeared, and the missions decayed, so much so that a government report in 1856 declared the missions to be in ruins, and gave the Indian population of the whole of the peninsula as only 1938 souls.

II. UPPER CALIFORNIA

Don José de Galvez, the inspector-general, was sent to Lower California not merely for the purposes of correcting abuses; he had been directed to secure for the crown of Spain the whole northwest coast as far as it had been discovered and explored by Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo in 1542, and by Sebastian Vizcaino in 1602–1603. The Russians had often visited that territory with a view, Spain believed, of taking possession, which would have endangered the lucrative Philippine trade. To prevent any foreign power from acquiring the country, which Spain claimed by right of discovery, the Spanish king resolved to found missions among the natives and to erect forts or presidios for their protection. Galvez consulted Father Junipero Serra, then superior of the peninsula missions, who enthusiastically agreed to the plan, as it gave to his insatiable desire for a wider sphere. Two ships, the San Carlos and the San Antonio, were equipped and weighted with provisions, agricultural implements, and church-goods. The San Carlos sailed for the port of San Diego from La Paz in January, 1769; the San Antonio departed from Cape San Lucas in February. The latter ship, having on board a Franciscan friar, reached the port on the 11th of April; the San Carlos, also bringing a friar, and with a crew suffering from scurvy, arrived on the 29th of April.

Meanwhile Galvez also sent out two land expeditions for the same port. The first under Captain Rivera arrived at San Diego on the 14th of May; the other, under Governor Portolá with Father Juniper Serra, came up 1 July, 1769. By order of the inspector-general, all the missions along the routes contributed church-goods, provisions, and livestock according to their means for the benefit of the new establishments in the north. San Diego had been discovered by Cabrillo and named San Miguel for the archangel; the appellation San Diego was given by Vizcaino, who also named a bay farther north Monterey. It was at this bay that the presidio or fort was to be located. Governor Portolá therefore set out by land to find it, but failed and instead discovered the present San Francisco Bay, 1 November, 1769. Meanwhile, Father Junipero founded, 16 July 1769, the first in the chain of missions which extended from San Diego to Sonoma, a distance of about six hundred miles.

A second expedition by land, and another by sea, at last reached the port of Monterey in May, 1770; thereafter it was the headquarters for the governor as well as the presidente of the missions. The conditions in Upper California were much more favourable to the system under which it was intended to convert and civilize the natives, and the latter were found less dull and brutish than those of the peninsula. The Indians about San Diego, however, stubbornly resisted the Gospel, even by force of arms, so that prior to April, 1779, a full year after the appearance of the first missionary, Father Serra and his companions, with all their kindness, persuasiveness and presents, did not succeed in gaining a single soul, a fact which makes the historian Bancroft exclaim: “In all the missionary annals of the northwest there is no other instance where paganism remained stubborn so long.”

When a sufficient number of religious had arrived, Father Serra, in compliance with the rules of his apostolic college, which forbade a friar to live alone, placed two fathers at each mission. To these the governor assigned a guard of five or six soldiers under a corporal. The latter generally acted as steward of the mission temporalities subject to the missionaries. For the erection of the temporary church and other structures at each mission, and for the purchase of agricultural implements and church-goods, the Government, out of the revenues of the Pious Fund, paid to the procurator of the Franciscan college in Mexico the sum of one thousand dollars. Each missionary was allowed an annual stipend of four hundred dollars. The money was likewise paid to the procurator who would purchase the articles designated by the missionaries. Money was never sent to the missionaries in California. When a site had been selected for a mission, the temporary buildings were constructed. As soon as practical, permanent structures took their place, and were built of adobe or sunburnt brick, or in a few cases of stone, generally in the form of a square. The church was located usually in one corner, and adjoining this stood the quarters of the missionaries to which women or girls had no admittance. Then followed the rooms of the attendants and cooks, who were Indian youths selected from among the converts. The sides and rear of the mission square, enclosing a courtyard called the patio, contained the shops, storerooms, granary, stables, and apartments for the young women. This last-named part of the mission was called the monjério or nunnery, and the inmates went by the name of nuns, though of course they were not nuns in reality. The monjério was an important and necessary institution of the mission system and due to the carnal propensities of the Indians. According to this arrangement girls twelve years of age and more, and younger girls who had lost both parents, made their home at the mission in the charge of a trustworthy matron, where they lived pretty much like the girls at an orphanage or boarding school. During the day, when not occupied at work in their shops, they were permitted to visit their parents in the neophyte village, but at night they had to rest in the mission building under the eyes of the matron. Young men too, though not kept so strictly, had their quarters in another section of the mission buildings in the charge of the missionary. When a young man wished to marry he approached the missionary, who would direct him to make the selection, and if the girl consented the pair were married with solemn ceremonies at Mass after the banns had been published. A hut in the village was then assigned where they lived, subject to the regulations of the community.

Besides this, through extreme kindness, the natives were won by means of presents in the shape of food, clothing, and trinkets of which the Indians were very fond. The principal points of the Christian Faith were explained in the simplest manner possible, through interpreters, at first, and later on in their own and the Spanish languages by the missionary. Inasmuch as the Indians in every mission had a different language, and frequently several dialects were spoken among the neophytes of a single mission, it was an exceedingly burdensome task for the missionary to make himself understood by all in the native idiom. Nonetheless, some of the Fathers became expert linguists, and some of them composed vocabularies which are still extent. To insure regular attendance and to prevent backsliding the Indians were induced to leave their desert or mountain hovels and make their homes with the missionaries. For those that came separate huts were erected in more or less regular order. Once baptized, the neophytes were not permitted to leave the mission for the purpose of going back to their pagan homes for any length of time without permission of the missionary. The license would extend over two and three weeks for the men only. In the mission village under the shadow of the church, the neophyte families dwelt with their children, except for the marriageable girls who had to take up their quarters at the mission proper. Morning and evening prayers were said in common at the church, and all attended Mass after which there was breakfast, followed by a few hours of labour. The noonday meal was again taken together, whereupon in the hot season there would be a rest more or less followed by work until the Angelus, when supper was taken. The evening was devoted to all kinds of amusements consisting of music and play; the Spanish dance was general. Every mission had its band. Thus the inventory of 1835 enumerates the following musical instruments in use at Mission Santa Barbara which was typical of all:

four flutes,

three clarinets,

two horns or trumpets,

two bass violas,

one chinesco,

one bass drum,

two kettle drums,

sixteen violins,

four new violins, and

three triangles.

There were uniforms for all the members of the band. The Indians also did the singing at the high Mass and at other occasions. While the missionaries exercised independent control, which was the case to the end of 1834, the neophyte community was like one great family, at the head of which stood the padre, under which title the missionary was universally known. To him the Indians looked for everything concerning their bodies as well as their souls. He was their guide and protector; nor would they ever have suffered had not the beneficent Spanish laws been replaced by the selfishness and cupidity of the Mexican and Californian politicians, who did away with the mission system, which the well-known non-Catholic writer, Charles F. Lummis, declares “was the most just, humane, and equitable system ever devised for the treatment of an aboriginal people.” Peace and contentment reigned to such a degree that the Protestant historian, Alexander Forbes, who lived in California at the time, testifies that the best and most unequivocal proof of the good conduct of the Fathers is to be found in the unbounded affection and emotion invariably shown towards them by their Indian subjects. They venerate them not merely as friends and fathers, but with a degree of devotion approaching adoration. (“California,” London, 1839.) Each great mission family was comprised of many hundred, sometimes two or three thousand natives, good, bad, and indifferent. Excesses were necessarily to be expected, especially in the neighbourhood of white people. To prevent disorders, the missionaries, with the approval of the viceregal government, drew up what may be called police regulations, for the transgressions of which various punishments were meted out, of a kind which would impress the dull and rude nature of the Indians. The missionary dictated the punishment which was ever tempered with mercy. When simple reproof availed nothing, the whip was applied. This was the only correction, besides fasting, which affected the lower class natives of the Pacific Coast. This manner of punishment had been introduced by the Jesuit founder of the Lower California missions, Father Juan María Salvatierra, about seventy years before, as the only means to make the rude creatures grasp the wickedness of a deed. The number of lashes to be administered was governed by law, and might never exceed twenty-five for one offense, nor more than once a day. The chastisement was not applied by the missionary, but by an Indian chief or other native official, nor was it so readily inflicted as malevolent and ignorant writers would have the world believe. The stories of cruelty prevalent among closet historians were either manufactured or exaggerated out of all resemblance to the truth by the enemies of the friars, because the latter stood between white cupidity and Indian helplessness. At times the culprit would be locked up, but that was a penalty he courted, as it relieved him from work, for which the Indian had an innate aversion. If the offense was of a serious nature, or a crime against the natural or the civil laws, the delinquent had to be turned over to the military authorities. Inasmuch as the missionary considered himself, as regards the neophytes, in loco parentis, and was so recognized by Spanish law, he acted in that capacity. It was this fatherly treatment which gained for him the veneration of the converts which “approached adoration.”

Throughout the mission period, the missionaries aimed at making their establishment self-supporting, with a view to independence of government assistance, and to wean the natives from insolence, so that they might adopt civilized ways and learn to maintain themselves by the fruit of their labour. The friars succeeded so well that from the year 1811, when all government aid ceased, as well for the missions as for the soldiers, on account of the revolutionary situation in Mexico, the California establishments maintained not only themselves , but also the whole military and civil government on the coast down to the end of 1834, when the Franciscans were deprived of control. From the beginning of a mission the Fathers insisted that all should work according to their capacity, either on the farm or at the workshops, during six or seven hours a day. The product was stored in the granaries or warerooms for the benefit of the community. It was their endeavour to raise or manufacture everything consumed or used by the Indians. For this reason much of the meagre allowance of the friars was invested in agricultural implements or mechanical tools, and it was for that reason, too, that the missions were located where there was sufficient arable land and enough water to irrigate the soil. In this way, notwithstanding the primitiveness of the implements of those days, and the frequent droughts, thousands of acres of land were brought under cultivation by the natives directed by the missionaries, who themselves, for the sake of example, never disdained to labour like the Indians. The official records show that in the twenty-one missions of Upper California from the year 1770 to the end of 1831, when the general reports cease, there were harvested in round numbers 2,200,000 bushels of wheat, 600,000 bushels of barley, 850,000 bushels of corn, 160,000 bushels of beans, and 100,000 bushels of peas and lentils, not to mention garden vegetables, grapes, olives, and various fruits, for which no reports were required. It must be remembered that before the arrival of the Franciscans, the natives raised absolutely nothing, but subsisted on whatever the earth provided spontaneously, e. g., acorns, seeds, berries in their season, fish near the coast, or, when there was nothing else, anything that crept above the surface of the land. All the grains now raised, and all the fruits, such as apples, oranges, peaches, pears, plums, prunes, lemons, grapes, pomegranates, olives, nuts, etc., were introduced by the missionaries. To irrigate the land, long ditches had often to be constructed, some of which were of solid masonry. The one which brought the water down to Mission San Diego was of stone and cement and ran along the river side over a distance of six miles, beginning at a dam made of brick and stone.

Much livestock was raised, not only for the purpose of obtaining meat, but also for wool, leather, and tallow, and for cultivating the land. Thus the missions in the height of their prosperity owned altogether:

232,000 head of cattle,

268,000 sheep,

34,000 horses,

3500 mules or burros,

8300 goats, and

3400 swine.

These figures are official, though quite different from those encountered in the works of writers on California. All these various kinds of animals were brought up from Mexico. It required a great many Indians to guard the herds and flocks, and this occupation created a class of horsemen scarecely surpassed anywhere. In addition, as almost everything was raised or manufactured at the missions except sugar and chocolate, which then served as the common beverage in place of coffee or tea, most of the trades were practiced among the Indians under the direction of the friars. A special United States report from 1852 tells us, what is evident from the annual mission accounts, that the Franciscans had turned the naked savages into masons, carpenters, plasterers, soapmakers, tanners, shoemakers, blacksmiths, millers, bakers, cooks, brickmakers, carters and cart makers, weavers and spinners, saddlers, shepherds, agriculturalists, herdsmen, vintagers, in a word they filled all the laborious occupations known to civilized society. Nor was the secular education, so called, altogether neglected; but as the Indians were averse to book-learning, and school-books and writing material had to be brought from Mexico on the backs of mules, causing them to be very expensive, and inasmuch as competent schoolmasters were scarce, the missionaries had to devote their spare time to teaching reading, writing, and a little arithmetic to those boys who evinced any inclination for these branches. Some of the men who later on became most prominent in California politics acquired these necessary arts of civilization from the friars. It was Mexican independence of Spain that put an end to the prosperity of the missions and the happiness of their inmates. With the advent of Echeandia, the first governor under the Mexican flag, began the decay of those homes of peace for nearly thirty thousand neophytes. In 1835 secularization completed the ruin. According to the intent of the Spanish laws, which always recognized the Indian’s right to his land, secularization meant nothing more than the turning over of the spiritual affairs of the mission from the respective religious order to the bishop of the diocese, while the Indians retained control of the temporalities in severalty or as a whole. To this manner of secularization the friars made no objection. Secularization as practiced by the Mexicans and Californians was the turning over of the mission or Indian property to the control of hired commissioners appointed by the governor without regard to the wishes of the rightful owners, the Indians, placing the missionary on a level with the secular priest, and leaving it optional to the Indians whether they would practice their religion or not. This kind of secularization, which was disguised confiscation, encountered the fierce opposition of the Franciscans, because the friars insisted that the land and all it produced, along with the live stock and buildings, belonged to the Indians and must be held sacred to the rightful owners; that the neophytes were incapable of managing their property and therefore it should be left in charge of those who, with the aid of the natives, had accumulated its wealth without salary or compensation for the benefit of those same Indians, inasmuch as the hired officials were both incompetent and unworthy of the trust, because they were not looking to the welfare of the rightful owners, but only aimed at enriching themselves. As no court existed to which appeal could be made, the friars were powerless to secure the rights of their wards. The result was similar to that experienced in lower California. The Indians gradually disappeared; the mission property was squandered; the mission buildings given over to destruction; the missionaries one by one died amid the few faithful who shared the poverty of the beloved padre, and the land once cultivated by the neophytes passed into the hands of the avaricious.

Notwithstanding the many drawbacks, the opposition, and the scandalous example among the military and the white settlers, the missionaries met with extraordinary spiritual success. Down to the year 1845, when but few friars and Indians survived, the Fathers had baptized, according to the records, 99,000 persons, of whom possibly nine thousand were not Indians; they had blessed 28,000 marriages, of which possibly 1,000 were not Indians, and they had buried 74,000 dead, four thousand of whom were probably not Indians. The largest number of neophytes harboured, fed, clothed, and instructed at all the missions at one time was nearly thirty thousand.

One hundred and forty-six Friars Minor, all priests and mostly Spaniards by birth, laboured in California from 1769 to 1845. Sixty-seven died at their posts, two as martyrs, and the remainder retired to their mother-houses on account of illness, or the expiration of their ten years of service. The missions from south to north, with the date of founding, were:

San Diego (16 July, 1769);

San Luis Rey (13 July, 1798);

San Juan Capistrano (1 November, 1776);

San Gabriel (8 September, 1771);

San Fernando (8 September, 1797);

San Buenaventura (31 March, 1782);

Santa Barbara (4 Dec., 1786);

Santa Inez (17 Sept., 1804);

Purísima Concepción (8 Dec., 1787);

San Luis Obispo (1 Sept., 1772);

San Miguel (25 July, 1797);

San Antonio de Padua (14 July, 1771);

Soledad (9 Oct., 1791);

San Carlos or Carmelo (3 June, 1770);

Santa Cruz (29 Sept., 1791);

San Juan Bautista (24 June, 1797);

Santa Clara (12 January, 1777);

San José (11 June, 1797);

San Francisco (9 Oct., 1776);

San Raphael (14 Dec., 1817);

San Francisco Solano (4 July, 1823).

For Lower California: Torquemada, Monarchia Indiana (Madrid, 1723), 3 vols; Díaz, Historia Verdadera (Madrid, 1632); Vetancurt, Crónica (Mexico, 1697); Mendieta, Historia Ec.ca Indiana (Mexico, 1870); Tello, Crónica (Guadalajara, 1891); Venegas, Noticia de la California (Madrid, 1757) 3 vols.; Clavijero, Historia de la California (Mexico, 1852); Baegert, Nachrichten (Mannheim, 1772); Alegre, Historia (Mexico, 1841), 3 vols; Palou, Noticias de la Nueva California (San Francisco, 1874), 4 vols.; Palou, Relación Histórica, Vida de la P. Serra (Mexico, 1787); California Archives (U.S. Land Office, San Francisco), 300 vols. In addition, for Upper California, cf. Santa Barbara Mission Archives, 2000 documents; Archives of the Archbishopric of San Francisco, 8 vols.; H.H. Bancroft, History of California (San Francisco, 1886), 7 vols.; Englehardt, The Missions and Missionaries of California (San Francisco, 1908).

ZEPHYRIN ENGELHARDT.

Louis-Hector de Callières

Thirteenth Governor of New France; born at Cherbourg, France, 1646; died 26 May, 1705. He was the son of Jacques de Callières and Madeleine Potier de Courey. He ranked as captain in the regiment of Navarre. He came to Canada in 1684, and was appointed Governor of Montreal at the demand of the Sulpicians who were Seigneurs of the island. The situation of the colony at that time was most critical, owing to Frontenac’s departure, the weakness of Governor de la Barre, and the woeful error of the French government in sending to the galleys in France some Iroquois chiefs captured at Cataracoui (Kingston). In 1689 Callières proposed to Louis XIV to invade New England by land and sea, and obtained the reappointment of Frontenac as governor. In 1690 he marched to the defense of Quebec, when it was besieged by Phipps. A valiant and experienced soldier, he aided Frontenac in saving New France from the Iroquois and in raising the prestige of the French flag. He was one of the first to receive the Cross of St. Louis (1694). Having succeeded Frontenac in 1698, he devoted all his skill and energy to the pacification of the Indians. The treaty of Montreal (1701), agreed to by representatives of all the tribes, was the crowning result of all his efforts. This treaty is considered as Callières’ chief title to fame. That same year he sent Lamothe-Cadillac to found Detroit. One of the most conspicuous figures in Canadian history, he left a reputation of disinterestedness, honour, and probity.

GARNEAU, Histoire du Canada (Montreal, 1882); FERLAND, Cours d’histoire du Canada (Quebec, 1882); SULTE, La Famille de Callières (Montreal, 1890).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Callinicus

A titular see in Asia Minor. The city was founded by Alexander the Great under the name of Nicephorium, and restored by Seleucus Callinicus, King of Syria (246–225 B.C.), who gave his name to it. In the fifth century of our era it was refortified by Emperor Leo I, after which it was commonly known to Byzantine geographers as Callinicus or Leontopolis, being mentioned by Hierocles and Georgius Cyprius among others. Two famous battles were fought on the broad surrounding plain, one in 531 between Belisarius and the Persians, the other in 583 between the Persians and Mauritius. Callinicus was a suffragan of Edessa, the metropolis of Osrhoene. Four bishops are mentioned by Lequien (II, 696); Paul, deposed in 519 as a Monophysite, translated into Syriac so many Greek works that he is called by the Jacobites “the interpreter of books.” The patriarch Michael the Syrian mentions twenty Jacobite bishops of Callinicus from the eighth to the thirteenth century (Revue de l’Orient chrétien, VI, 1901, 193). Eubel (I, 333, note 2) mentions a Latin titular in 1369. Callinicus is to-day Raqqah (Rakka), nine miles west of the confluence of the rivers Belik (Bilichus) and Euphrates, the centre of a caza in the vilayet of Aleppo, the population consisting chiefly of wandering tribes. It contains about 2000 tents. On its rich plain are pastured many camels and Arab thoroughbred horses, but the vicinity is not very safe.

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geography (London, 1878), s.v. Nicephorium, II, 424.

S. VAILHÉ

Callipolis

A titular see of Thrace, now called Gallipoli (Turkish, Guelibolou), is a city in the southern part of the Thracian Chersonese, on the right shore, and at the entrance of the Dardanelles. Justinian fortified it and established there important military warehouses for corn and wine. In 1304 it became the centre of that strange dominion created by the Almugavares, or Catalonian routiers, who burned it in 1307, before retiring to Cassandria. It was taken by the Turks as early as 1357, being their first possession in Europe. Callipolis was a bishopric depending on Heracleia. Lequien (I, 1123) mentions only six Greek bishops, the first as being present at Ephesus in 431, when the see was united to that of Coela (Coelia or Coele), the last about 1500. His list could easily be increased, for the Greek see still exists; it was raised in 1904 to the rank of a metropolis, without suffragans, after the manner of most Greek metropolitan sees. Lequien (III, 971) also gives the names of eight Latin bishops, from 1208 to 1518. (See Eubel, I, 269, note.) Gallipoli is today the chief town of a Kaïmakamlik in the vilayet of Adrianople, with about 30,000 inhabitants, Greeks, Turks, Armenians and Jews. There are numerous schools and a small museum; a large cemetery is the resting place of many French soldiers who died of disease (chiefly cholera) during the Crimean War. The port is bad and trade unimportant, for want of roads. A Catholic mission is conducted there by Assumpionist Fathers; there are also a number of Armenian and Greek Catholics, with priests of their respective rites.

DRAKOS, Thrakika (Athens, 1892, with a list of the Greek bishops), 93–116.

S. PÉTRIDES

Pope Callistus I

(Written by most Latins, Augustine, Optatus, etc. CALLIXTUS or CALIXTUS). Martyr, died c. 223. His contemporary, Julius Africanus, gives the date of his accession as the first (or second?) year of Elagabalus, i.e., 218 or 219. Eusebius and the Liberian catalogue agree in giving him five years of episcopate. His Acts are spurious, but he is the earliest pope found the fourth-century “Depositio Martirum,” and this is good evidence that he was really a martyr, although he lived in a time of peace under Alexander Severus, whose mother was a Christian. We learn from the “Historiae Augustae” that a spot on which he had built an oratory was claimed by the tavern-keepers, popinarii, but the emperor decided that the worship of any god was better than a tavern. This is said to have been the origin of Sta. Maria in Trastevere, which was built, according to the Liberian catalogue, by Pope Julius, juxta Callistum. In fact the Church of St. Callistus is close by, containing a well into which legend says his body was thrown, and this is probably the church he built, rather than the more famous basilica. He was buried in the cemetery of Calepodius on the Aurelian Way, and his anniversary is given by the “Depositio Martirum” (Callisti in viâ Aureliâ miliario III) and by the subsequent martyrologies on 14 October, on which day his feast is still kept. His relics were translated in the ninth century to Sta. Maria in Trastevere. Our chief knowledge of this pope is from his bitter enemies, Tertullian and the antipope who wrote the “Philosophumena,” no doubt Hippolytus. Their calumnies are probably based on facts. According to the “Philosophumena” (c. ix) Callistus was the slave of Carpophorus, a Christian of the household of Caesar. His master entrusted large sums of money to Callistus, with which he started a bank in which brethren and widows lodged money, all of which Callistus lost. He took to flight. Carpophorus followed him to Portus, where Callistus had embarked on a ship. Seeing his master approach in a boat, the slave jumped into the sea, but was prevented from drowning himself, dragged ashore, and consigned to the punishment reserved for slaves, the pistrinum, or hand-mill. The brethren, believing that he still had money in his name, begged that he might be released. But he had nothing, so he again courted death by insulting the Jews at their synagogue. The Jews haled him before the prefect Fuscianus. Carpophorus declared that Callistus was not to be looked upon as a Christian, but he was thought to be trying to save his slave, and Callistus was sent to the mines in Sardinia. Some time after this, Marcia, the mistress of Commodus, sent for Pope Victor and asked if there were any martyrs in Sardinia. He gave her the list, without including Callistus. Marcia sent a eunuch who was a priest (or “old man”) to release the prisoners. Callistus fell at his feet, and persuaded him to take him also. Victor was annoyed; but being a compassionate man, he kept silence. However, he sent Callistus to Antium with a monthly allowance. When Zephyrinus became pope, Callistus was recalled and set over the cemetery belonging to the Church, not a private catacomb; it has ever since borne Callistus’s name. He obtained great influence over the ignorant, illiterate, and grasping Zephyrinus by bribes. We are not told how it came about that the runaway slave (now free by Roman law from his master, who had lost his rights when Callistus was condemned to penal servitude to the State) became archdeacon and then pope. Döllinger and De Rossi have demolished this contemporary scandal. To begin with, Hippolytus does not say that Callistus by his own fault lost the money deposited with him. He evidently jumped from the vessel rather to escape than to commit suicide. That Carpophorus, a Christian, should commit a Christian slave to the horrible punishment of the pistrinum does not speak well for the master’s character. The intercession of the Christians for Callistus is in his favour. It is absurd to suppose that he courted death by attacking a synagogue; it is clear that he asked the Jewish money-lenders to repay what they owed him, and at some risk to himself. The declaration of Carpophorus that Callistus was no Christian was scandalous and untrue. Hippolytus himself shows that it was as a Christian that Callistus was sent to the mines, and therefore as a confessor, and that it was as a Christian that he was released. If Pope Victor granted Callistus a monthly pension, he need not suppose that he regretted his release. It is unlikely that Zephyrinus was ignorant and base. Callistus could hardly have raised himself so high without considerable talents, and the vindictive spirit exhibited by Hippolytus and his defective theology explain why Zephyrinus placed his confidence rather in Callistus than in the learned disciple of Irenaeus. The orthodoxy of Callistus is challenged by both Hippolytus and Tertullian on the ground that in a famous edict he granted Communion after due penance to those who had committed adultery and fornication. It is clear that Callistus based his decree on the power of binding and loosing granted to Peter, to his successors, and to all in communion with them: “As to thy decision,” cries the Montanist Tertullian, “I ask, whence dost thou usurp this right of the Church? If it is because the Lord said to Peter: Upon this rock I will build My Church, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ or whatsoever though bindest or loosest on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven,’ that thou presumest that this power of binding and loosing has been handed down to thee also, that is to every Church in communion with Peter’s (ad omnem ecclesiam Petri propinquam, i.e. Petri ecclesiae propinquam), who art thou that destroyest and alterest the manifest intention of the Lord, who conferred this on Peter personally and alone?” (De Pudicitia, xxi.) The edict was an order to the whole Church (ib., i): “I hear that an edict has been published, and a peremptory one; the bishop of bishops, which means the Pontifex Maximus, proclaims: I remit the crimes of adultery and fornication to those who have done penance.” Doubtless Hippolytus and Tertullian were upholding a supposed custom of earlier times, and the pope in decreeing a relaxation was regarded as enacting a new law. On this point it is unnecessary to justify Callistus. Other complaints of Hippolytus are that Callistus did not put converts from heresy to public penance for sins committed outside the Church (this mildness was customary in St. Augustine’s time); that he had received into his “school” (i.e. The Catholic Church) those whom Hippolytus had excommunicated from “The Church” (i.e., his own sect); that he declared that a mortal sin was not (“always,” we may supply) a sufficient reason for deposing a bishop. Tertullian (De Exhort. Castitatis, vii) speaks with reprobation of bishops who had been married more than once, and Hippolytus charges Callistus with being the first to allow this, against St. Paul’s rule. But in the East marriages before baptism were not counted, and in any case the law is one from which the pope can dispense if necessity arise. Again Callistus allowed the lower clergy to marry, and permitted noble ladies to marry low persons and slaves, which by the Roman law was forbidden; he had thus given occasion for infanticide. Here again Callistus was rightly insisting on the distinction between the ecclesiastical law of marriage and the civil law, which later ages have always taught. . Hippolytus also declared that rebaptizing (of heretics) was performed first in Callistus’s day, but he does not state that Callistus was answerable for this. On the whole, then, it is clear that the Catholic church sides with Callistus against the schismatic Hippolytus and the heretic Tertullian. Not a word is said against the character of Callistus since his promotion, nor against the validity of his election. Hippolytus, however, regards Callistus as a heretic. Now Hippolytus’s own Christology is most imperfect, and he tells us that Callistus accused him of Ditheism. It is not to be wondered at, then, if he calls Callistus the inventor of a kind of modified Sabellianism. In reality it is certain that Zephyrinus and Callistus condemned various Monarchians and Sabellius himself, as well as the opposite error of Hippolytus. This is enough to suggest that Callistus held the Catholic Faith. And in fact it cannot be denied that the Church of Rome must have held a Trinitarian doctrine not far from that taught by Callistus’s elder contemporary Tertullian and by his much younger contemporary Novatian—a doctrine which was not so explicitly taught in the greater part of the East for a long period afterwards. The accusations of Hippolytus speak for the sure tradition of the Roman Church and for its perfect orthodoxy and moderation. If we knew more of St. Callistus from Catholic sources, he would probably appear as one of the greatest of the popes. The Acts of St. Callistus were uncritically defended in the Acta SS., 14 Oct.; and by MORETTI, De S. Callisto P. et M. (Rome, 1752). The Philosophumena were first published in 1851. On the story of Callistus BUNSEN, Hippolytus and his Age (London, 1852), and CH. WORDSWORTH, St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome (London, 1853) are worthless. DOLLINGER’S great work Hippolytus und Kallistus (Ratisbon, 1853), tr. PLUMMER (Edinburgh, 1876) is still the chief authority. See also DE ROSSI, Bulletino di Arch. Crist., IV (1886); NORTHCOTE AND BROWNLOW, Roma Sotterranea (London, 1879), I, 497–505. De Rossi observes that the Liber Pontificalis calls Callistus the son of Domitius, and he found Callistus Domitiorum stamped on some titles of the beginning of the second century. Further there is extant an inscription of a Carpophorus, a freedman of M. Aurelius. The edict of Callistus on penance has been restored with too much assurance by ROLFFS, Das Indulgenz-Edikt des römischen Bischofs Kallist (Leipzig, 1893), Harnack thinks that Callistus also issued a decree about fasting, and that other writings of his may have been known to Pseudo-Isidore, who attributed two letters to him (which will be found in the Councils, in HINSCHIUS, etc.); one of these seems to connect itself with the decision attributed to Callistus by Hippolytus; see HARNACK, Chronol., II, 207–8. On the Catacomb of St. Callistus see DE ROSSI, Roma Sotterranea (Rome, 1864–77); NORTHCOTE AND BROWNLOW, Roma Sotterranea (London, 1879).

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Pope Callistus II

Date of birth unknown; died 13 December, 1124. His reign, beginning 1 February, 1119, is signalized by the termination of the Investiture controversy which, begun in the time of Gregory VII, had raged with almost unabated bitterness during the last quarter of the eleventh century and the opening years of the twelfth. Guido, as he was called before his elevation to the papacy, was the son of Count William of Burgundy, and both by his father’s and mother’s side was closely connected with nearly all the royal houses of Europe. His brother Hugh had been appointed Archbishop of Besancon, and he himself was named Archbishop of Vienne (1088), and afterwards appointed papal legate in France by Paschal II. During Guido’s tenure in this office, Paschal II, yielding to the threats of Henry V, was induced to issue the “Privilegium” (1111) by which he yielded up much of what had been claimed by Gregory VII, but these concessions were received with violent opposition and nowhere more so than in France, where the opposition was led by Guido, the papal legate. The latter was present at the Lateran Synod (1112), and on his return to France convoked an assembly of the French and Burgundian bishops at Vienne (1112), where the investiture of the clergy was denounced as heretical, and sentence of excommunication pronounced against Henry V because he had dared to extort from the pope by violence an agreement opposed to the interests of the Church. These decrees were sent to Paschal II with a request for confirmation, which they received in general terms, 20 October, 1112 (Hardouin, VI, 2, 1916).

Guido was later, apparently, created cardinal by Pope Paschal, though the latter does not seem to have been quite pleased with his zeal in his attacks upon Henry V. On the death of Paschal II (21 Jan., 1118), Gelasius II was elected pope, but he was immediately seized by the Italian allies of Henry V, and on his liberation by the populace fled to Gaeta, where he was solemnly crowned. Henry V demanded the confirmation of the “Privilegium,” but, receiving no satisfactory reply, set up as antipope under the name of Gregory VIII, the Archbishop of Braga, Burdinus, who had already been deposed and excommunicated for having crowned Henry at Rome with the imperial crown (1117). Gelasius promptly excommunicated both the antipope and the emperor, but was himself obliged to flee, and took refuge in the monastery of Cluny, where he died (January, 1119). On the fourth day after the death of Gelasius (1 February), owing mainly to the exertions of Cardinal Cuno, Guido was elected pope, and assumed the title of Callistus II. He was crowned at Vienne (9 February, 1119).

His election was everywhere received with approbation. On account of his close connection with the royal families of Germany, France, England, and Denmark, it was hoped that he would be able to effect a favourable settlement of the controversy which had so long distracted the Church. Even Henry V received the papal embassy at Strasburg, and showed clearly that he was not unwilling to sue for peace, and at the same time he withdrew his support from the antipope. It was even agreed that pope and emperor should meet at Mousson. In 1119 (8 June) Callistus held a synod at Toulouse mainly to promote disciplinary reforms in the French Church, and in October of the same year he opened the council at Reims which had been contemplated in the preliminary arrangements made between the emperor and the papal ambassadors at Strasburg. Louis VI and most of the barons of France attended the council, which was composed of more than four hundred bishops and abbots. It had been arranged that during the council the pope and emperor were to have a personal conference at Mousson, and in compliance with this agreement Henry V arrived at Mousson, not alone, as had been anticipated, but with an army of over thirty thousand men. Callistus II left Reims to attend the conference at Mousson, but on learning of the warlike preparations made by the emperor, and fearing that force was likely to be used to extract from him prejudicial concessions, he hastily returned to Reims. Here the council busied itself mainly with disciplinary regulations, especially with decrees against investiture, simony, and concubinage of the clergy. In the end, as there was no hope of a favourable compromise with Henry, it was determined that the emperor and the antipope should be solemnly excommunicated in the presence of the assembled fathers and the representatives of the secular authority (30 October, 1119). Before leaving France Callistus tried to effect a settlement between Henry I of England and his brother Robert, but his efforts in this direction were without result.

Callistus determined to visit Italy and Rome. In the latter city Gregory VIII, supported by the German forces and the Italian allies of the emperor, had taken up his residence, but on the approach of Callistus, who was everywhere received with demonstrations of welcome, the antipope was obliged to flee to the fortress of Sutri, and Callistus entered Rome amid the universal rejoicings of the populace. He went south to secure the aid of the Normans of Southern Italy in his struggle against Henry V and Gregory VIII. The negotiations were entirely satisfactory. Gregory was taken prisoner and escorted to Rome (1121), where he was with difficulty saved from the wrath of the people, and lodged in a prison near Salerno and afterwards in the fortress of Fumo. By the aid of the princes of Southern Italy Callistus broke the power of the Italian allies of the emperor in Italy, notably of Cencio Frangipani, who had already given so much trouble to Gelasius II and to Callistus himself (1121).

Having thus established his power in Italy, he once more resolved to open negotiations with Henry V on the question of investiture. The latter had already shown that he was anxious to put an end to a controversy which had alienated from him his best friends, and which threatened to endanger the peace of the empire. An embassy consisting of three cardinals was sent by Callistus to Germany, and negotiations for a permanent settlement of the investiture struggle were begun at Wurzburg (October, 1121). Here it was agreed that a general truce should be proclaimed between the emperor and his rebellious subjects; that the Church should have free use of her possessions; that the lands of those in rebellion should be restored, and peace with the Church permanently established with the least possible delay. These decrees were communicated to Callistus II, who despatched Cardinal Lambert of Ostia as his legate to assist at the synod that had been convoked at Worms. The synod began at Worms, 8 September, 1122, and 23 September the concordat known as the Concordat of Worms (or Pactum Calixtinum) between the pope and the emperor was concluded. On his side the emperor abandoned his claim to investiture with ring and crosier and granted freedom of election to episcopal sees; on the other hand, it was conceded that the bishops should receive investiture with the sceptre, that the episcopal elections should be held in the presence of the emperor or his representatives, that in case of disputed elections the emperor should, after the decision of the metropolitan and the suffragan bishops, confirm the rightfully elected candidate, and lastly, that the imperial investiture of the temporalities of the sees should take place in Germany before the consecration, in Burgundy and in Italy after this ceremony, while in the Papal States the pope alone had the right of investiture, without any interference on the part of the emperor. As a result of this Concordat, the emperor still retained in his hands the controlling influence in the election of the bishops in Germany, though he had abandoned much in regard to episcopal elections in Italy and Burgundy.

To secure the confirmation of this Concordat of Worms, Calistus II convoked the First Lateran Council (18 March, 1123). The council was most representative, nearly three hundred bishops and six hundred abbots from every part of Catholic Europe being present. The council solemnly confirmed the agreement that had been arrived at with Henry V with regard to episcopal elections, and passed several disciplinary decrees directed against existing abuses, such as simony and concubinage among the clergy. Decrees were also passed against violators of the Truce of God, church-robbers, and forgers of ecclesiastical documents. The indulgences already granted to the crusaders were renewed, and the jurisdiction of the bishops over the clergy, both secular and regular, was more clearly defined.

In the last few years of his life, Callistus II endeavoured to secure for the Church the restoration in its entirety of the Patrimony of St. Peter, which had been greatly diminished by the constant wars and rebellions; to break the power of the nobles in the Campagna, and restore peace and order to the city of Rome itself, which had suffered much since the time of Gregory VII. He also devoted much of his time to the interests of the Church of France and to combating the errors and abuses which made their appearance in that country in his time. In the Synod of Toulouse (1119) he condemned the teaching of Peter de Bruis and his followers (Hardouin, VI, 2, 1977–84). He established the Church of Vienne as the metropolitan church of the adjoining ecclesiastical provinces (1120), thereby ending in favour of the former (that he still held as pope) the ancient controversy between Vienne and Arles. For the privileges in favour of Vienne forged during the reign of Guido, see Gundlach, “Streit der Bisthumer Arles und Vienne” (1890). Duchesne maintains (“Fastes Eccl.,” I, 145 sqq.) that only the more recent of them date from the time of Guido (cf. Robert, “Calixte II,” Paris, 1891). He settled several disputes between bishops and abbots in France, dispatched Gerard of Angouleme as papal legate to Brittany, and finally confirmed the primatial rights of Lyons over the Church of Sens. He demanded of Henry I of England the release of his brother, Robert of Normandy, as well as the acknowldgment of Thurstan, whom he himself had consecrated at Reims, as Archbishop of York. Henry at first refused, but on the threat of excommunication he consented to admit Thurstan as Archbishop of York, and to acknowledge the latter see’s independence of Canterbury. In Spain he transferred the metropolitan rights from the old see of Merida (Emerita) to Santiago de Compostella, to the patron saint of which Callistus seems to have had a special devotion. He showed his attention to Germany by the canonization of Conrad of Constance at the Lateran Synod (1123) and by dispatching Otto of Bamberg as papal legate to regulate the Churches of Pomerania. In Rome he devoted much attention to beautifying and improving the city, but especially the church of St. Peter. He suppressed the suburban See of Santa Rufina by uniting this diocese with Porto, so that thenceforth there were only six cardinal-bishops instead of seven as had formerly been the case.

Callistus died in 1124, and after some dipute Honorius II was selected as his successor. As to the great influence of the reign of Callistus II on the policy of the Church there can be no dispute. Owing mainly to him the concessions so weakly made by Paschal II were recalled, and on his own accession to the papal throne, his firmness and strength of character secured a settlement of the controversy between Church and State which, though not entirely satisfactory, was at least sufficient to assure a much needed peace. Through his exertions he put an end to the wholesale bestowal of ecclesiastical offices by laymen; he re-established the freedom of canonical elections and secured recognition of the principle that ecclesiastical jurisdiction can come only from the Church, while on the other hand he conceded to the secular authorities the influence to which they were rightly entitled in the election of prelates who were at the same time the most powerful and richest subjects of the State. On the other hand, he was blamed at the time, principally by Archbishop Conrad of Salzburg, for not insisting upon the withdrawal of the oath of homage which every bishop was required to make to the emperor or his feudal lord, but it should be remembered that Callistus II well understood that unless something were conceded peace was impossible, and that the oath of homage, however improper the ceremony might seem, was not an unnatural demand on the part of the emperor in regard to subjects who wielded such an enormous political power as did the bishops of the German Empire.

Callistus II was not very remarkable for his literary productions; yet a few works have come down to us which are ascribed to his pen. They are: “De Miraculis Sancti Jacobi Apostoli,” “De obitu et Vita Sanctorum,” “Vita Caroli Magni Imperatoris.” Many letters attributed to him are preserved. These, together with his other writings, may be found in Migne, P.L., CLXIII (1073–1383). Besides this edition, thirty-six of his letters are contained in Hardouin’s “Concilia” (VI, 2, 1949–1976). These same letters, with two additional, are published by Mansi (XXI, 190–218); some others are given by D’Achery [Spicilegium (Paris, 1723), II, 964; III, 478, 479]; some additional ones are to be found in “Magn. Bull. Rom. Continuat.,” III, ed. Luxembourg, 1730, 12. See INVESTITURES; VIENNE.

Biographies of Callistus II have been written by PANDULPHUS ALETRINUS, ARAGONIUS, and BERNARDUS GUIDONIS (MURATORI, Script. Rer. Ital., III, 1, 418). Cf. WATTERICH, Vitae Rom. Pontif., II, 115; MIGNE, P.L., CLXIII, 1071; ROBERT, Bullaire du pape Calixte II (Paris, 1891); MAURER, Papst Calixtus II, in 2 parts (Munich, 1886, 1889). For the Synod of Vienne, see MANSI, XXI, 175, and HARDOUIN, VI, 2, 1752. For the Synod of Reims, MANSI, XXI, 187, and HEFELE, Conciliengesch., V, 344; HALLER, Die Verhandlungen zu Mouzon (1119), etc. in Heidelberger Jahrbucher, 1892. For Concordat of Worms, see MANSI, XXI, 273, 287, and JAFFE, Bibl. Rer. Germ., V, 383, also MUNCH, Vollstandige Sammlung aller Concordate, I (Leipzig, 1830), and NUSSI, Conventiones de Rebus Eccles. (Mainz, 1870); BERNHEIM, Zur Geschichte des Wormser Konkordates (Leipzig, 1878); BRESLAU, Die kaiserliche Ausfertigung des Wormser Konkordates in Mitteil. des Instituts fur Oesterreich. Gesch., 1885.

JAMES MACCAFFREY.

Pope Callistus III

Born near Valencia in Spain, 31 December, 1378; died at Rome, 6 August, 1458. Alfonso de Borja (Ital. Borgia), as he was known before he became pope, came of a noble family, and having finished his studies espoused the cause of the antipope Benedict XIII, and received from the latter the title of canon. When Alfonso V of Aragon resolved to withdraw from the Schism and place himself and his kingdom under the jurisdiction of Martin V, Alfonso Borgia acted the part of mediator with Benedict’s successor, Clement VIII, and induced the latter to submit to the lawful pope. Martin V appointed Borgia Bishop of Valencia (1429), and in 1444 Eugene IV made him cardinal. In both offices he was remarkable for his mortified life, his firmness of purpose, and his prudence in face of serious difficulties. Already popular opinion had marked him as a candidate for the papacy.

On the 25th of March, 1455, Nicholas V died, and Alfonso Borgia was elected (8 April) and assumed the name of Callistus III. As pope he was chiefly concerned with the organization of Christian Europe against the invasion of the Turks. Constantinople had been captured by Mohammed II (1453), and though Pope Nicholas V had made every effort nothing had been done to stay the victorious march of the forces of Islam. Already, as cardinal, Callistus had manifested a special interest in this work, and on his election he set himself to carry out the programme which he had already planned. Nuncios were dispatched to all the countries of Europe to beseech the princes to forget for a time their national jealousies and to join once more in a final effort to check the danger of a Turkish invasion. Missionaries were sent to England, France, Germany, Hungary, Portugal, and Aragon to preach the Crusade, to secure volunteers for active service in the wars, to collect the taxes necessary for the support of those in the field, and to engage the prayers of the faithful for the success of the enterprise. It was by order of Callistus III that the bells were rung at midday to remind the faithful that they should pray for the welfare of the crusaders.

But the princes of Europe were slow in responding to the call of the pope. In Germany, Frederick III, through hatred of Ladislaus of Hungary, was unwilling to join a movement from which Hungary was certain to derive an immediate advantage, while the bishops and electors were opposed to the collection of the papal tax imposed in favour of the crusaders. England and France were at war and refused to allow their forces to be weakened by participation in the plans of Callistus III. Genoa did organize a fleet and dispatch it against the Turks, but only to lay herself open to attack by Aragon, while Portugal, disheartened by lack of success, withdrew the fleet that it had already dispatched. Fortunately for Europe, the efforts of the pope were not entirely in vain. The crusading forces led by Hunyady, and inspired by the zeal and courage of the papal legate Carvajal and St. John Capistran, met the Turks at Belgrade (22 July, 1456) and inflicted upon them one of the worst defeats they underwent during their long conflict with Christian Europe. The pope had longed for such a success in the hope that it might encourage the princes of Europe to respond to his call for assistance. The news of the victory was duly announced to the courts by special messengers of the pope, but warm congratulations were the only reply. Unfortunately, too, shortly after his victory over Mohammed II at Belgrade, Hunyady himself died of a fever, and it seemed as if no Christian general could be found equal to the task of saving Europe.

In the next year of this pontificate renewed efforts were made to enlist the co-operation of Germany. The pope endeavoured to make peace between Frederick III and Ladislaus of Hungary, but during the negotiations Ladislaus died (1457), after a reign of seven years, and his death was the occasion of renewed disputes between the three great representatives of the House of Hapsburg, Frederick III, Albrecht VI, and Sigismund of Tyrol. In Albania alone was found a leader, Scanderbeg, who had steadily resisted the invasion of the Turks, and against whom all the powers of Mohammed were unavailing. Callistus III summoned (1457) another assembly of the princes of Europe to devise measures against the inroads of Mohammed. But again his efforts were unavailing. In France, the Dauphin was in favour of the proposals of Callistus, but the king refused to join in the enterprise, and the clergy were so discontented with the levy of the crusading tax that in many provinces they refused to pay, and appealed to a general council. Similar sentiments of distrust and resentment were felt by the clergy and the prince-electors of the German Empire. England, on account of the war against the allied powers, France and Scotland, was unwilling to embark in any new expedition. The war between Aragon and Genoa continued, while, as usual, Venice was more anxious to promote her own commerce than to take part in the destruction of the Turkish fleet. In Bohemia disputes raged about the succession to the throne, and even when an assembly of the nobles declared in favour of George Von Podiebrad, he was too much concerned in trying to reconcile his Catholic and Utraquist subjects, and to secure an understanding with Frederick III, to permit himself to join in the Crusade. Hungary, too, was distracted by the disputes between the rival claimants to the throne. William of Saxony and Casimir of Poland, in the names of their wives, put forward pretensions, but found little or no support from the people of Hungary. A national assembly held at Pesth chose as king Matthias Hunyady, a son of the conqueror of Belgrade, but the rival parties refused to submit to this choice. At last (1459) they proceeded to the election of Frederick III. The result of so many disputes was that the countries most closely affected by the Turkish danger were unable to do anything, and though the younger Hunyady was anxious to follow in the footsteps of his father, and to join in the imperial plans for a general crusade, he was too much occupied with provisions against internal disorder and the pretensions of Frederick III to be able to lend any real assistance. Scanderbeg was still in the field, but with the small forces at his command he could at most hope to defend his country, Albania, against attack. The pope was involved in new disputes after the death of Alfonso V of Aragon. According to the arrangements made, the latter’s brother was to succeed him in Aragon and Sicily, while his son Ferdinand, previously recognized as legitimate by Callistus III, was to have Naples. But the pope refused to acknowledge Ferdinand’s claim to Naples and, as feudal lord of the territory, asserted for himself the power of disposing of it as he wished. This dispute prevented him from continuing the work of organizing the Crusade and alienated from the cause the powerful family of Aragon.

Moreover, it injured the reputation of Callistus III, as it gave more colour to the charges of nepotism which were even then freely levelled against him. He had already raised to the cardinalate two of his nephews, one of whom, the youthful Rodrigo, was later to become Pope Alexander VI; he bestowed upon a third the governorship of the Castle of Sant’ Angelo and the title of Duke of Spoleto. Many asserted that his opposition to Ferdinand of Aragon was due to his desire of securing Naples for the worthless Duke of Spoleto. In this way the early part of 1458 was spent, and during the last few months of his life even Callistus himself had begun to clearly realize that the work to which he had devoted his pontificate had proved a failure, and that on other shoulders must devolve the task of driving back the Turk.

His reign is also remarkable for the revision of the trial of Joan of Arc, which was carried out by direction of the pope, and according to which the sentence of the first court was quashed, and the innocence of the Maid of Orléans proclaimed. He also had the honour of placing the name of Osmund, Bishop of Salisbury, on the list of canonized saints. The energies of Callistus were too much directed towards the campaign against the Turks to permit him to devote so much attention to the literary revival of the time as did some of his predecessors, especially Nicholas V, and this neglect of the Humanists made some of them his enemies; yet he seems to have spent a considerable sum of money in securing some valuable additions to the treasures of the Vatican.

Callistus III must ever be regarded as a man of lofty ideals, of boundless courage, energy, and perseverance. He realized the dangers which then confronted Europe, and made every effort to unite its Christian princes for the defence of their own countries; if he failed, the blame must fall not on the pope, but on those who refused to hearken to his counsels. It is unfortunate that a character, otherwise straightforward and unsullied, should have been damaged by contemporary charges of nepotism and avarice. He left, at his death, a rather remarkable sum of money. His letters are to be found in Raynaldus, “Annales Eccl.” from 1455 to 1458; see also Harduin, “Concilia,” IX, 1375–78, D’Achéry, “Spicilegium,” III (Paris ed. 796–804), and “Magn. Bullar. Rom.” (Lyons, 1692), I, 279–82.

HARDUIN, Concilia, IX, 1375; PASTOR, tr. ANTROBUS, History of the Popes (London, 1894), III; CREIGHTON, History of the Papacy during the Reformation, III, IV; BLUME, Iter Italicum, III; REUMONT, Geschichte der Stadt Rom (Berlin, 1858), III; 126 sq; HEFELE, Concilieng., VIII, 74 sqq.

JAMES MACCAFFREY.

Jacques Callot

A French etcher, engraver, and painter, b. at Nancy, France, 1592; d. in the same city, 28 March, 1635. His father was Jean Callot, a noble, the herald-at-arms for Lorraine, who desired that his son should become a soldier or a priest. But the boy’s inclinations for art were so intense, and he was so precocious that parental wishes were of no avail. His work even as a schoolboy showed a grasp of human character, and the bizarre and humerous, particularly in people of the lower orders, attracted him. Before he was twelve years old he had studied design, wherein he was so soon to become a master, and had received aid from Henriet Israel, son of the Lorraine court-painter, and from Dumange Crocq, the royal engraver.

In 1604 he ran away to Italy in the company of a band of gypsies, hoping to reach the goal of his ambition, Rome. He stopped in Florence and studied engraving under the celebrated Remigio Gallina, and copied the work of the masters, thus tempering his love for the grotesque. The young runaway was soon sent home, to the joy of his parents, but his father finally consented to his accompanying the envoy of Duke Henry II to the Papal Court. In Rome he practised engraving and etching and invented a hard varnish for grounding copper-plates. When he left Italy (1621 or 1622) his fame was already great, and it soon became world-wide. He engraved for the Infanta Eugenia in Brussels and for Louis XIII in Paris. It is said that when the French monarch in 1633 commanded Callot to engrave a plate commemorative of the fall of Nancy the artist cried that he “would rather cut off his right hand than use it on such a work.”

If little is known of his intimate life and traits, his 1600 plates afford full information concerning the artistic side of his career. Callot was often ugly in his realism, but he was a master of the art of design, clear in drawing, fertile in invention, precise in line, and varied in his style. The freedom and naïveté in his small figures, the lifelike manner in which he treated them, and the certainty with which he arranged complicated groups made him the pioneer of methods followed by Rembrandt and his forerunners. The Macaberesque note in medieval art is dominant in his work, and there is a piquancy and newness given to the slightest details. A peculiarity in nearly all his figures is the smallness of the heads in proportion to the bodies. His landscapes are inferior to his figure-pieces and architectural plates, though the latter are of great historical and topographical interest (“La Tour de Nesle” with “the Old Louvre”). No authentic finished painting by Callot exists among the great collections, and it is very doubtful if he ever completed a work in oil. The master of the grotesque and humerous was the father of etching in France, and his fame comes from his etchings, which are better than his engravings. He frequently spoiled his splendid point-work with the burin, and his reputation as an aquafortist depends, therefore, more on what he did than on how he did it. Notable among his works are eighteen plates entitled “TheMiseries of War”; twenty-five plates of beggers; “The Holy Family”; “Cosmo III, Grand Duke of Tuscany”; “Charles III of Lorraine.” His last years were spent industriously in Nancy, where he died. He was buried in the church of the Franciscans (Cordeliers). He was noted for his loyalty and courage as a subject of Lorraine, and for his generosity, probity, and kindness of heart as a citizen.

Meaume, Recherches sur la vie et les ouvrages de Jacques Callot (Paris, 1860); Dictionnaire général des artistes de l’école française, s.v. (Paris, 1882).

LEIGH HUNT

Pierre Cally

Philosopher and theologian, b. at Mesnil-Hubert, department of Orne, France, date of birth uncertain; d. 31 December, 1709. In 1660 he was appointed professor of philosophy and eloquence in the University of Caen, and in 1675, president of the Collège des Arts in the same city. In 1684 he assumed charge of the parish of Saint-Martin. He wrote a course of philosophy, “Universæ philosophiæ institutiones” (Caen, 1695), in which the theories of Descartes are explained and defended. He worked with great zeal for the conversion of Protestants, and gave conferences in which he endeavoured to solve their difficulties. For the same purpose he composed a book on the Eucharist, “Durand commenté, ou accord de la philosophie avec la théolog ie touchant la transsubstantiation de l’eucharistie” (Caen, 1700). In it he denies the existence of absolute accidents and, instead of transubstantiation, admits a transformation. Before and after the consecration the matter of the bread remains the same; by the consecration the matter of the bread becomes the matter of the body of Christ. A publisher in Caen was asked to print sixty copies of the work to be sent to competent judges before making it public. In fact, eight hundred copies were printed immediately and sold. At once the book became the subject of many discussions, and was bitterly denounced. On 30 March, 1701, Bishop de Nesmond of Bayeux condemned seventeen propositions taken from Cally’s work as “false, rash, erroneous, scandalous, injurious, to the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, c. iv and canon ii), destructive of the real presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist, and leading to heresy concerning transubstantiation.” Cally made a public retraction on 21 April of the same year. In addition to the works already mentioned he wrote “Doctrine hérétique et schismatique touchant la primauté du pape enseignée par les jésuites dans leur collége de Caen” (1644); “Discours en forme d’homélies sur les mystères, sur les miracles et sur les paroles de Notre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ qui sont dans l’évangile” (Caen, 1703), and published a new edition with commentaries of Boethius’s work, “De consolatione philosophiæ” (Caen, 1695).

Picot, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire eclésiastique pendant le 18e siècle (3d ed., Paris, 1853), I, 229; Werner, Der Heilige Thomas von Aquino (Ratisbon, 1889), III, 555; Mangenot in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1368.

C.A. DUBRAY

Dom Augustin Calmet

Celebrated exegetist; b. at Ménil-la-Horgne, near Commercy, Lorraine, France, 26 Feb., 1672; d. at the abbey of Senones, near Saint-Dié, 25 Oct., 1757. He was educated at the Benedictine priory of Breuil, and in 1688 joined the same order in the Abbey of St-Mansuy at Toul, where he was admitted to profession 23 Oct. of the following year. After his ordination, 17 March, 1696, he was appointed to teach philosophy and theology at the Abbey of Moyen-Moutier. Here with the help of his brethren he began to gather the material for his commentary of the Bible, which he completed at Münster in Alsace where he was sent in 1704 as sub-prior and professor of exegesis. The first volume appeared in Paris in 1707 with the title “Commentaire littéral sur tous les livres de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testament”; the last of the twenty-three quarto volumes, owing to various delays, was published only in 1716. To satisfy the demand for the work a second edition in twenty-six volumes quarto was issued 1714–1720, and a third, enlarged, edition in nine volumes folio 1724–1726. A Latin translation by Mansi was published at Lucca, 1730–1738, in nine folio volumes, with new editions at Augsburg (1756, eight volumes folio) and Würzburg (1789, nineteen volumes quarto); another Latin translation by F. Vecelli appeared at Venice and Frankfort (1730, six volumes folio). This shows how much the commentary was esteemed. But while it was received with high praise, even by Protestants, critics were not wanting, among whom may be mentioned the Oratorian Richard Simon. It cannot be denied that in spite of its merits and great erudition it is in some respects open to criticism. Difficult passages are often passed over lightly, and too frequently different explanations of a text are set down without a hint to the reader as to which is the right or preferable one.

The work inaugurated a new method of Biblical exegesis, inasmuch as its author very sensibly departed from the general custom of giving an allegorical (mystical) and tropological (moral) interpretation besides the literal, and confined himself to the latter. The most valuable part of the commentary were the introductory prefaces to the several books and 114 learned dissertations on special topics. These he published separately with nineteen new ones in three volumes, under the title “Dissertations qui peuvent servir de prolégomènes à l’Ecriture Sainte” (Paris, 1720). The collection met with such success that two editions were printed at Amsterdam in 1722, the title being changed to “Trésors d’antiquités sacrées et profanes.” It was translated into English (Oxford, 1726), Latin (by Mansi, Lucca, 1729), Dutch (Rotterdam, 1728), German (Bremen, 1738,1744, and 1747) and Italian. In the meanwhile he had prepared two other works closely connected with Biblical exegesis: (1) “Histoire de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testament et des Juifs” (Paris, 1718), which went through several editions, and was translated into English (London, 1740), German (Augsburg, 1759) and Latin (ib., 1788); (2) “Dictionnaire historique, critique, chronologique, géographiqu e et littéral de la Bible” (Paris, 1720, two vols. folio), a supplement (also folio) was added in 1728. An improved and enlarged edition in four folio volumes was published in 1730, which has several times been reprinted, the last time in Migne, “Encyclopédie théologique,” I-IV. It, too, was translated into Latin and the principal European languages. The English translation by D’Oyley and Colson (1732), revised and with additions by Taylor (1795), went through many editions in a larger and compendious form. In his later years Calmet published some further Biblical dissertations in the “Bible de Vence” (1742). Among his other published works may be mentioned: (1) “Histoire universelle sacrée et profane, depuis le commencement du monde jusqu’à nos jours” (Strasburg, 1735, quarto), in which he follows the ideas enunciated in Bossuet’s “Discours sur l’histoire universelle”; (2) “Histoire ecclésiastique et civile de la Lorraine” (Nancy, 1728), of great value for the history of that province; (3) “Bibliothèque Lorraine” (Nancy, 1751), containing his autobiography (pp. 209–217); (4) “Commentaire littéral historique et moral sur la règle de S. Benoît” (Paris, 1734). Calmet was a pious religious as well as a learned man. In recognition of these qualities he was elected prior of Lay-Saint-Christophe in 1715, abbot of St-Léopold at Nancy in 1719, and of Senones in 1729; he was also twice entrusted with the office of president or superior general of the congregation. Benedict XIII wished to confer episcopal dignity upon him, but his humility could not be brought to accept the honour.

Fangé, Vie du R. P. D. Aug. Calmet (Senones, 1762); Maggiolo, Eloge historique de D. A. Calmet (Nancy, 1839); Digot, Notice biographique et littéraire sur D. Augustin Calmet (Nancy, 1860); Bazelaire, Dom Calmet et la Congr. de Saint-Vanne in Le Correspondant (1845), 703–727, 846–874; Hurter, Nomenclator; Magenot in Vig., Dict. de la Bible, II, 72 sq.

F. BECHTEL

Caloe

A titular see of Asia Minor, mentioned as Kaloe, and Keloue in inscriptions of the third century, Kalose in Hierocles’ “Synecdemos” (660); as Kalloe, Kaloe, and even Kolone in Parthey’s “Notitiæ episcopatuum,” where it figures from the sixth to the twelfth or thirteenth century. Caloe must be identified with the modern village of Kilis, Keles, Kelas, a nahié in the vilayet of Smyrna, to the southwest of Ala-Shehir (ancient Philadelphia), in the upper valley of the Kutchuk-Mendérès (Caÿstrus). There was in Lydia a Lake Koloe, near which the tombs of Lydian kings and the temple of Artemis Koloene stood. According to Lequien, the titular see took its name from this locality; but Loquien’s view is inconsistent with the position assigned to Caloe by the “Notitiæ episcopatuum” as a suffragan see of Ephesus.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Diocese of Caltagirone

(Calata Hieronis; Calatayeronensis).

Caltagirone is a city in the province of Catania, Sicily, built on two eminences about 2000 feet above sea-level, connected by a bridge. It is supposed by some to be the ancient Hybla Minor, by others the ancient Gela. In the Middle Ages it became a Saracen stronghold. The first two syllables of its name are of Arabic origin (kalaat, castle). The Genoese tried unsuccessfully to expel the Arabs from Caltagirone, which later, however, with the rest of Sicily fell into the hands of the Normans. It belonged at one time to the Diocese of Syracuse, but when the latter was made the seat of a metropolitan, Caltagirone was erected into a suffragan see. The first bishop was Gaetano Maria Trigona, afterwards transferred to Palermo. The diocese contains a population of 115,500 with 25 parishes, 112 churches and chapels, 199 secular and 48 regular priests, 5 religious houses for men, and 5 for women.

Cappelletti, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XXI, 628; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 354–55.

U. BENIGNI

Diocese of Caltanisetta

(Calathanisium; Calathanisiadensis).

The city is situated in a fertile plain of Sicily, on the River Salso, in the vicinity of the most extensive sulphur mines in the world. The name is Arabic in origin. The immense cavern of Caltabillotta is famous on account of the legend of a great dragon, driven thence by the holy hermit Peregrinus when he chose that spot for a life of penance. This city formerly belonged to the Diocese of Girgenti, but was created an episcopal see by Gregory XVI in 1844, and is a suffragan of Monreale. The first bishop was Antonio Stromillo. The churches of the city worthy of notice are: Santa Maria Nuova, the cathedral, and Santa Maria Vecchia, whose Saracen-Norman portal is an exquisite work of art. Caltanisetta has 17 parishes, 182 churches and chapels, 225 secular priests, 145,000 Catholics, 4 religious houses for men and 16 for women.

Cappelletti, La chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XXI, 609; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 355–56.

U. BENIGNI

Calumny

(Lat. calvor, to use artifice, to deceive)

Etymologically any form of ruse or fraud employed to deceive another, particularly in judicial proceedings. In its more commonly accepted signification it means the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty. The sin thus committed is in a general sense mortal, just as is detraction. It is hardly necessary, however, to observe that as in other breaches of the law the sin may be venial, either because of the trivial character of the subject-matter involved or because of insufficient deliberation in the making of the accusation. Objectively, a calumny is a mortal sin when it is calculated to do serious harm to the person so traduced. Just as in the instance of wrongful damage to person or estate, so the calumniator is bound to adequate reparation for the injury perpetrated by the blackening of another’s good name. He is obliged (1) to retract his false statements, and that even though his own reputation may necessarily as a consequence suffer. (2) He must also make good whatever other losses have been sustained by the innocent party as a result of his libellous utterances, provided these same have been in some measure (in confuso) foreseen by him. In canon law the phrase juramentum calumniae is employed to indicate the oath taken by the parties to a litigation, by which they averred that the action was brought and the defence offered in good faith.

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Dionysius Calvaert

An eminent painter, usually known as “The Fleming” and called Denis, a native of Antwerp and a student at Bologna, born about the year 1640; died 1619. The Antwerp “Record of Artists” or “Liggeren” (1556–57), gives his name as Caluwaert. He first studied under Christiaen van Queecborne, but early left his olden country for Bologna, becoming a pupil first with Prospero Fontana, in 1570, and afterwards with Lorenzo Sabbatini, whom he accompanied to Rome in 1572 and remained there for two years assisting his master in his paintings in the Vatican. On his return to Bologna he settled there permanently, establishing a celebrated school from which sprang among other notable artists, Albani, Guido, and Domenichino. The rival school in Bologna was that of the Carracci, but Calvaert was so respected in the city that on his decease Ludovico Carracci attended his funeral in the Servite church and brought with him all his pupils.

Calvaert was a profound student of architecture, anatomy, and history, exceedingly accurate in perspective and graceful in design. His colouring is full and rich, his execution suave and accurate and, although there is something of an awkward stillness in the movements of his figures and an academic mannerism in his grouping, yet in composition he was far ahead of his rivals and in colouring undoubtedly their superior. As an instructor few excelled him. His principal works are to be seen at Bologna, Florence, St. Petersburg, Parma, and Caen, and many of his pictures have been engraved. His life was one of great devotion to his art and his faith, and he was greatly respected in Bologna.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Congregation of Our Lady of Calvary

A congregation founded at Poitiers, in 1617, by Antoinette of Orléans-Longueville, assisted by the famous Capuchin Father Joseph Le Clerc du Tremblay. Antoinette was left a widow in 1596, and entered the convent of Feuillantines at Toulouse in 1599. After her profession she was commanded by the pope to act as coadjutrix to the Abbess of Fontevrault, and assist her in reforming her convent. Here Antoinette met Father Joseph, who became her director: he had just reformed the monastery of l’Encloître, and when Paul V ordered Antoinette to found a seminary for training religious, this convent was chosen for that purpose, and was soon filled with novices. In 1614 Antoinette founded and built a new convent at Poitiers, dedicated to Our Lady of Calvary, which became the cradle of the congregation. By permission of the pope, she left Fontevrault to enter this monastery, and took with her those nuns who wished to follow the Benedictine rule in all its strictness. The Abbess of Fontevrault at first consented to this, but afterwards objected, and it was not until Antoinette’s death that Father Joseph established the new congregation, gave them constitutions, and got Gregory XV to issue a Bull erecting them into an independent congregation under the title of Our Lady of Calvary. They were finally approved by the Holy See, 17 January, 1827. The congregation succumbed to the French Revolution, but was restored afterwards and in 1860 had twenty houses in France, of which seven still exist. The mother-house is at Orléans, three convents are in Vendôme, Angers, and La Capelle Marival, and in 1897 an orphanage and boarding-school were opened for girls of the Greek Rite on the Mount of Olives at Jerusalem. The life is mixed. Father Joseph ordered that there should always be a nun meditating before the crucifix day and night. The nuns have boarding-schools and take charge of deaf and dumb girls, and the old and infirm. The habit is brown with a black scapular.

Heimbucher, Die Orden und Congregationen der katholischen Kirche (Paderborn, 1907). Braunmüller in Kirchenlex., II, 358; Hélyot, Dict. des Ordres Religieux (Paris, 1860); de Feller, Biographie Universelle (Besançon, 1848), VI; Constitutions des Bénédictines de la congrégation du Calvaire (Paris, 1635).

FRANCESCA M. STEELE.

Mount Calvary

The place of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

NAME

ETYMOLOGY AND USE

The word Calvary (Lat. Calvaria) means “a skull.” Calvaria and the Gr. Kranion are equivalents for the original Golgotha. The ingenious conjecture that Golgotha may be a contraction for Gol Goatha and may accordingly have signified “mount of execution,” and been related to Goatha in Jer., xxi, 39, has found scarcely any supporters. The diminutive monticulus (little mount) was coupled with the name A.D. 333 by the “Pilgrim of Bordeaux.”

Towards the beginning of the fifth century Rufinus spoke of “the rock of Golgotha.” Since the sixth century the usage has been to designate Calvary as a mountain. The Gospel styles it merely a “place,” (Matt. xxvii, 33; Mark xv, 22; Luke, xxiii, 33; John, xix, 17).

ORIGIN OF THE NAME

The following theories have been advanced:

Calvary may have been a place of public execution, and so named from the skulls strewn over it. The victims were perhaps abandoned to become a prey to birds and beasts, as Jezabel and Pharao’s baker had been (IV K., ix, 35; Gen., xl, 19, 22).

Its name may have been derived from a cemetery that may have stood near. There is no reason for believing that Joseph’s tomb, in which the body of Christ was laid, was an isolated one, especially since it was located in the district later on described by Josephus as containing the monument of the high-priest John. This hypothesis has the further advantage of explaining the thinness of the population in this quarter at so late a period as that of the siege of Jerusalem (Jos., Bell. jud., V, vi, 2). Moreover, each of the rival Calvaries of to-day is near a group of ancient Jewish tombs.

The name may have been occasioned by the physical contour of the place. St. Luke (loc. cit.) seems to this by saying it was the place called “a skull” (kranion). Moreover, Golgotha (from a Hebrew root meaning “to roll”), which borrows its signification from the rounded or rolling form of the skull, might also have been applied to a skull-shaped hillock.

There was a tradition current among the Jews that the skull of Adam, after having been confided by Noah to his son Shem, and by the latter to Melchisedech, was finally deposited at the place called, for that reason, Golgotha. The Talmudists and the Fathers of the Church were aware of this tradition, and it survives in the skulls and bones placed at the foot of the crucifix. The Evangelists are not opposed to it, inasmuch as they speak of one and not of many skulls. (Luke, Mark, John, loc. cit.)

The curious origins of many Biblical names, the twofold and sometimes disagreeing explanations offered for them by the Sacred Writers (Gen., passim) should make us pause before accepting any of the above theories as correct. Each of them has its weak points: The first seems to be opposed to the Jewish law, which prescribed that the crucified should be buried before sundown (Deut., xxi, 23). Josephus intimates that this enactment was scrupulously observed (Bell. jud., IV, v, 2). The executions cited in support of the opinion are too few, too remote, and too isolated to have the force of proof. Moreover, in this supposition Calvary wold have been called more correctly a place “of skulls” but the Evangelists nowhere use the plural. In the first tow theories no sufficient reason is assigned for selecting the skull in reference to any other member of the body, or the corpse itself, as a name-giver. The third theory is plausible and more popular. Yet it may not be urged a priori, as indicating a requisite for a Calvary otherwise unauthenticated. The Evangelists seem to have been more intent upon giving an intelligible equivalent for the obscure name, Golgotha, than upon vouching for its origin. The fourth theory has been characterized as too absurd, though it has many serious adherents. It was not absurd to the uncritical Jew. It would not seem absurd to untaught Christians. Yet it is among the untaught that names arise spontaneously. Indeed Christians embellished the legend, as we shall see.

DESCRIPTIVE DATA

THE NEW TESTAMENT

The only explicit notices are that the Crucifixion took place outside the city (Heb., xiii, 12), but close to it; a newly-hewn tomb stood in a garden not far away (John, xix, 20, 41); the spot was probably near a frequented road, thus permitting the passers-by to revile the supposed criminal. That the Cyrenian was coming from the country when he was forced into service seems to exclude only two of the roads entering Jerusalem, the one leading from Bethlehem and the one from Siloe (Matt., xxvii, 30; Mark, xv, 24, 29; Luke, xxiii, 26). Any other road entering Jerusalem might fulfil the condition. The incidents recorded along the sorrowful journey are so few that the distance from the praetorium is left a matter of conjecture.

EARLY MEDIEVAL NARRATIVES

After the Apostolic Age no more is heard of Calvary until the fourth century. Under pagan rule an idol had been place there, and had been later embraced within the same enclosure as the crypt of the Resurrection (Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., II, 1, 2). Eustachius, Constantine’s architect, separated it from the latter by hewing away a great mass of stone. It was St. Melania the Younger who first adorned Mount Calvary with a chapel (436).

The place is described as a “knoll of scanty size” (deficiens loci tumor—Eucherius, 427–440), apparently natural, and in the sixth century approached by steps. It was fifteen paces from the Holy Sepulchre. It was encircled with silver railings and contained a cell in which the Cross was kept, and a great altar (Theodosius, 530). Two years after the ravages of the Persians (614), a large church replaced the ruined chapel (Arculfus, 680). From its roof a brazen wheel adorned with lamps was suspended over a silver cross that stood in the socket of Our Saviour’s gibbet. This Church was destroyed in 1010, but was restored in 1048. The rock beneath is spoken of by Soewulf (1102) as being “much cracked near the fosse of the Cross.” In the traditions, Adam’s burial and Abraham’s sacrifice are repeatedly located there.

By 1149 the Calvary chapel had been united by the crusaders with the surrounding oratories into a vast basilica. The part of the rock believed to have held the Cross is said to have been removed and lost in a shipwreck on the coast of Syria while being transported to Constantinople (1809). Another fragment is shown in the chapel of Longinus, one of many in the basilica.

CONTEMPORARY SOURCES

Wilson, Warren, Fraas, and other eminent topographers engaged in the interests of the English Ordinance Survey (1864–5), declare that the lower part of this traditional Calvary is natural, and that the upper part “may very likely be so.” The knoll is of soft white limestone (nummulitic) containing nodules, and occupies a position normally required for such a bed in Palestine, viz. above the Missae and Malaki strata respectively. These last beds are seen on lower levels in the basilica. The direction taken by the rent in the rock, 96 degrees east of north, is practically the same as that of the veining of the rocks roundabout. Other points of similarity have been observed. The fissure broadens eastwards. The rock has been cut away on the side of the Holy Sepulchre, thus bearing out the architectural datum afforded by the period of Constantine. Calvary is 140 feet south- east of the Holy Sepulchre and 13 feet above it. The early traditions mentioned at the beginning of this article still cling to it. The chapel of Adam beneath that of Calvary stands for the first. A picture in it represents the raising of Adam to life by the Precious Blood trickling down upon his skull. An altar is there dedicated to Melchisedech. A vestige of the second tradition subsists in a scraggy olive tree a few yards away, religiously guarded, which the Abyssinians still claim to have been the bush in which the ram’s horns were caught when the angel stayed the hand of Abraham.

CALVARY CHAPEL

The small, low, poorly lighted oratory, built upon the traditional Calvary, is divided into two sections by a pair of massive pillars. The chapel of the Exaltation of the Cross comprises the section on the north and belongs to the Orthodox Greeks. That of the Crucifixion on the south is in possession of the Latins. At the eastern end, behind a thickly-set row of sanctuary lamps kept constantly burning, there are three altars of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth stations of the Way of the Cross. That of the twelfth station is in the Greek chapel, and marks the position of Our Saviour’s Cross. It is near the rent made in the rock by the earthquake. Two black marble discs at its sides indicate the presumed positions of the malefactors’ crosses. Behind it, among numerous icons, stands a large painted image of the Crucified Saviour.

The altars of the Crucifixion and Mater Dolorosa (eleventh and thirteenth stations) belong to the Latins. The image on the latter, or middle, altar is screened, and incased with a profusion of votive offerings. The floor of the chapel, which is on a level with the top of the rock, is covered with coarse mosaics. A round stone in the pavement on the Latin side, near the eleventh station, marks the place of the tenth. In the roof, there is a mosaic representation of Christ. Entrance to the chapel is obtained by the stairways. The two most frequently used are at the west end. The eighteen steps in each stairway, which are narrow, steep and much worn, are mostly of pink Santa Croce marble commonly quarried in Palestine.

AUTHENTICITY

It is beyond doubt that the Calvary we have been considering is the same as that of the Middle Ages, but is it correct to identify it with that of the Gospels? It has long been far within the city walls. But did the city wall which has enclosed it for so many centuries enclose it when Christ was crucified? That is, did the present city wall exist when the Saviour was put to death? If so, this could not have been the place of the crucifixion; for Christ was crucified outside the walls (Heb., xiii, 12), St. Willibald (eighth century), Soewulf (twelfth century), and many others asked themselves this question. But it was not until two centuries ago that an affirmative answer was ventured by Korte, a German bookseller (see below). Not, however, until the last century did the new opinion obtain supporters. Then a school sprang up which first rejected the old side and eventually set about seeking new ones. Catholics, as a class, with many leading Anglicans support the traditional claims.

The authenticity of Calvary is intimately bound up with that of the Holy Sepulchre. Relative to the authenticity of the sites of both, the ecclesiastical writers who are the first to break silence after the Evangelists seem to leave no room for doubt. Now it is not easy to see how these, the chief representatives of an apologetical age, could have overlooked the above difficulty advanced by modern writers, especially since simple pilgrims are known to have advanced it. The spirit of investigation had awakened in the Church long years previous to them; and the accredited custodians of the tradition, the Jerusalem community, had been ruled by a continuous succession of bishops since Apostolic times. Under these circumstances, our first available witnesses tell us that a remembrance of the site had actually been transmitted. As a telling testimony to the confidence they merit herein, it need only be remarked that of sixteen modern charts of the Holy City collated by Zimmermann (Basle, 1876) only four place Golgotha within the second or outermost wall in the time of Christ. Moreover, Dr. Schick, the author of one of these, accepted the traditional view before his death. Dr. Reiss, in his “Bibel-Atlas” (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1895), also agrees with the majority. (See JERUSALEM; HOLY SEPULCHRE.)

MODERN CALVARIES

The most popular of several sites proposed is that of Otto Thenius (1849), better known as Gordon’s Calvary, and styled by the latter, “Skull Hill,” because of its shape. Conder is the chief supporter of this view. This site is the elevation over Jeremiah’s Grotto, not far from the Damascus Gate. In default of an historic basis, and owing to the insufficiency of the Gospel data—which may be verified equally well on any side of the city—the upholders of the new theories usually take for granted one or other of the following statements, viz: that Christ should have been immolated north of the altar, like the typical victims (Lev., i, 10, 11); that Calvary was a place of public execution; that the place reserved for crucifixion, if there was one, was identical with a presumed stoning-place; that a modern Jewish tradition as to a fixed stoning-place could be substantiated in the time of Christ; and that the violent mob to which Christ was delivered would have conformed to whatever custom prescribed for the occasion. These affirmations all bear the mark of fitness; but until documents are produced to confirm them, they must inevitably fall short as proof of facts.

For Fathers, see article, HOLY SEPULCHRE.

Pilgrims.-GLYER, Itinera Hierosolymilana; TOBLER, Descriptions Terrae Sanctae (1874).

General Treatment.-Dictionaries of the Bible; Quarterly statement P.E.F. (passim, especially 1902–1903); WARREN, Ordinance Survey of Jerusalem in Notes (London, 1865); WARREN and CONDER in Jerusalem (1881).

Controversial (authors marked with an asterisk * oppose the traditional view):- BREEN*, Harm. Expos. of the Four Gospels (Rochester, New York), IV; FERGUSSON*, Essay on Ancient Topography of Jerusalem (London, 1847); FINDLAY, On the Site of the Holy Sepulchre (London, 1847); LEWIN, Siege of Jerusalem (London, 1863); REILLY, Authenticity, etc. in Ecclesiastical Review (Philadelphia), NXXVI, nn. 6 sqq; ROBINSON*, Biblical Researches (Boston, 1840), I; SANDAY, Sacred Sites of the Gospels (Oxford, 1903); THRUPE, Ancient Jerusalem (Cambridge, 855); WILLIAMS, The Holy City (London, 1845); CHATEAUBRIAND, Itineraire de Paris a Jerusalem (Paris, 1811), II;p KORTE*, Reise nach dem gelolden Laude Aeg. Syr. tr. Mea (Halle, 1751); KRAFFT, Die Topographie Jerusalems (Bonn, 1846); TOBLER*, Topographic von Jerusalem a. Seinen Ungebungen (Berlin, 1853), I.

THOMAS À K. REILLY

Calvert

Calvert, George, first Lord Baltimore, statesman and colonizer. Born at Kiplin, Yorkshire, England, c. 1580; died in London, England, 15 April, 1632. He graduated from Oxford in 1597. In 1605 he married a daughter of John Mayne, a lady of distinguished family, who died in 1622. He spent some time on the continent, where he met Robert Cecil, the secretary of state. After his return, Calvert was made private secretary to Lord Cecil. He was soon appointed by the king a Clerk of the Crown for the Province of Connaught and the County Clare of Ireland. In 1609 he was sent to Parliament from Bossiney. He was sent on a mission to the French Court in 1610 on the occasion of the accession of Louis XIII. Upon the death of Lord Cecil in 1613, Calvert was made clerk of the Privy Council. Afterwards he was sent by the king to Ireland to report on the success of the policy of bringing the Irish people into conformity with the Church of England. There was a great deal of discontent among the Irish, and several commissions were appointed to hear and report on the grievances. Calvert served on two of these commissions. He became a favorite of King James I. He translated into Latin the argument of the king against the Dutch theologian, Vorstius. In 1617 the order of knighthood was conferred on him and two years later he was appointed principal secretary of state. Spain and France were rivals for English favor. Calvert, believing Spain would be the better friend or more formidable foe, favored the proposed marriage of Charles, Prince of Wales, with the Infanta Maria, daughter of Philip III, although the majority in Parliament were opposed to this union. In the year 1620 the king made Calvert one of the commissioners for the office of treasurer. In 1621 he served in Parliament as a representative from Yorkshire, and in 1624 from Oxford. He was one of the minority that favored the Spanish Court policy. He also tried to be a conciliator between the king and the country party. As a reward for faithful service the king granted him (in 1621) a manor of 2300 acres, in the county of Longford, Ireland, on the condition that all settlers “should be conformable in point of religion.” Calvert, becoming a Catholic, in 1624, surrendered this manor, but received it again, with the religious clause omitted. On becoming a Catholic he resigned his secretaryship. The king retained him in his Privy Council and in 1625, elevated him to the Irish Peerage as Baron Baltimore of Baltimore in County Longford. After the death of James, Charles offered to dispense with the oath of religious supremacy, if Calvert would remain in the council, but Calvert declined.

Lord Baltimore purchased a plantation in Newfoundland in 1620, which he called Avalon, and quasi-royal authority was given him. He went to Avalon in 1627 to observe conditions in the province and to establish a colony where all might enjoy freedom in worshipping God. He landed at Fairyland, the settlement of the province, in 1627 and remained till fall. When he returned next spring he brought with him his family, including Lady Baltimore, his second wife, and about forty colonists. On his first visit to Avalon he brought two priests, and on his second visit one priest. After Lord Baltimore’s second visit to Avalon, a Protestant minister, Mr. Stourton, went back to England and complained to the Privy Council that his patron was having Mass said in the province, and that he favored the Catholics. No attention, however, was paid to Stourton’s complaints. In the war with France French cruisers attacked the English fisheries, and Lord Baltimore’s interests suffered heavily.

About 1628 Lord Baltimore requested a new grant in a better climate. In the following year, before word came before the king, he went to Virginia and being a Catholic, was received with various indignities. He returned to England and at first received from Charles a grant of land south of the James River. Meeting opposition from some of the Virginia company, he sought another grant north and east of the Potomac, which he obtained. Before the charter was granted, however, he died. It is claimed that he dictated its provisions. Baltimore’s works are “Carmen Funebre in D. Hen. Untonum.” in a collection of verses on Sir Henry Unton’s death, 1596; “The Answer to Tom Tell-troth: The Practice of Princes and the Lamentations of the Kirk,” (1642), a justification of the policy of King James in refusing to support the claim of the Elector Palatine to the crown of Bohemia; various letters and papers of value.

Cecilius, second Lord Baltimore, founder of Maryland, born 1606, died 1675. At the age of thirteen, he entered Trinity College, Oxford, where he was educated. In 1629 he married Anne Arundell, of Wardour. When his father died, in 1632, the charter of Maryland was granted to Cecilius, who was made a palatine, and “Absolute Lord of Maryland and Avalon.” It was Lord Baltimore’s intention, at first to come to America with the colonists, but as there were many enemies of his colonial project at home, he concluded to send his brothers, Leonard and George, at the head of the expedition. The former was appointed governor. The enemies of the charter, chiefly members of the London Company, did everything in their power to defeat the objects of the proprietor. It was claimed that the charter interfered with the grant of land of the Virginia Company and that, owing to its liberality, it would attract people from other colonies and depopulate them. The arguments of the enemies of the charter were of no avail, and finally the colonists, numbering twenty gentlemen and about three hundred labourers, embarked on the Ark and the Dove, in the harbour of Cowes, Nov., 1633. Before sailing, Leonard received instructions for the government of the colonists. Religious toleration was the keynote of Baltimore’s policy throughout his long career. In spite of the fact that the Catholics were persecuted when Calvert’s government was overthrown, every time his authority was restored persecution ceased and every faith had equal rights. When the Puritans were persecuted in Massachusetts, Baltimore offered them a refuge in Maryland, with freedom of worship.

Lord Baltimore paid for the expedition, which cost him in the first two years forty thousand pounds in transportation, provisions, and stores. He provided them not only with the necessity but also many of the conveniences adapted to a new country. So well were they equipped for the founding of a colony that it was said they as much progress in six months as Virginia made in many years. Unable to go with the first settlers he believed that he could soon follow them to Maryland. The privilege was forever denied him, as the enemies of his charter kept him at home fighting fore his rights. His absence from the colony produced a peculiar condition, the absence of laws. The charter gave the proprietor the right to make laws with the advice and consent of the freemen. The latter met in 1634–35 and passed “wholesome laws and ordinances.” Feeling that this act had infringed on his rights, in his commission to the governor, April, 1637, the proprietor expressed his disapproval of all laws passed by the colonists. For the endorsement of the assembly of 1637–38, he sent a body of laws with his secretary, John Lewger. These laws were rejected by the assembly, as they were considered unsuited to the colony. A few laws not differing materially from those sent by Baltimore were agreed to and sent to the proprietor for his consent. At first his approval was withheld, and the colony was without laws. Later, however, his sanction was given to the laws in a commission to the governor, authorizing him to give his assent to the laws made by the freemen, which would make the laws binding until they were either approved or rejected by the proprietor. With this commission the privilege of initiative in matters of legislation was conceded to the colonists, the proprietor retaining the right of absolute veto. As this power was never used by Baltimore except in extreme cases, the colonists practically enjoyed freedom in self-government.

The difficulties between Baltimore and the Jesuits were very difficult for the welfare of the colony. Jesuit priests were on the first expedition. From the Indians they received grants of large tracts of land. Baltimore objected to this, believing that any other grants than those coming from the proprietor were illegal. The Jesuits believed that they, their domestic servants, and half their planting servants should be exempted from taxation and military service; that they and their adherents should not be tried by the civil authority in temporal matters; and that they should have the same privileges here that were enjoyed by religious orders in Catholic countries. On each of these points, their views clashed with those of the proprietor. Baltimore applied to the Propaganda in Rome “to appoint a prefect and send secular priests to take charge of the Maryland Mission.” Dom Rosetti, titular Archbishop of Tarsus, was appointed prefect, and two secular priests were sent to the colony. To this the Jesuits objected, claiming that they were the first on the ground, and had endured great hardships in the interests of the colony. Finally an agreement was entered into between the provincial, acting for the Jesuits, and Baltimore which, if not satisfactory to both parties, closed the matter. The whole affair seems even to this day somewhat cloudy, as good authorities take opposing points of view. Cecilius Calvert ruled over the colony for nearly forty years. Although he never interfered with the administration of details, he ruled at every turn with an iron hand.

Charles, third Baron of Baltimore and second Proprietary Governor of Maryland. Born in London, 1629; died at Epsom, Surrey, England, 20 February, 1715. He was the son of Cecilius Calvert, second Lord Baltimore, and Anne Arundel (Calvert). He was Proprietary Governor of Maryland from 1661 to 1684, and Lord Proprietor from 1675 to 1691. He married Jane, widow of Henry Sewell of Matapaney on the Patuxent, Maryland. During his administration, boundary disputes with Virginia, the Swedes of Delaware, and William Penn came up and were settled. He became proprietor upon the death of his father, 1675. At this time an effort was made by the Protestants to make the Church of England the established Church of Maryland, but he succeeded in maintaining religious freedom. In 1676 the assembly was called together and important changes were made in the laws. At this time the colony was growing rapidly, the population having increased from 1200 to 2000 between the years 1660 and 1675. He went to England in 1676 and returned in 1680. In 1682 he, with his uncle Philip Calvert, met William Penn to settle the boundary dispute between Maryland and Pennsylvania. At this time dissensions were frequent in the colony and Protestant bigotry was rising in England. Calvert left for the mother country in 1684 to look after the interests of the colony. After the Protestant revolution in 1688, which placed William and Mary on the throne of England, Baltimore was deprived of his proprietary rights in 1691. In 1711 he petitioned the crown to have the government of the province restored to him, but this was refused on account of his Catholicism. Although he never visited Ireland, he was outlawed there for high treason on account of his religion but this outlawry was reversed by the king in 1691.

Leonard, Proprietary Governor of Maryland, 1634–1647, born in England, 1607; died in Maryland, 9 June, 1647. He was the second son of George Calvert, first Lord Baltimore. In 1629 he was sent to Newfoundland in charge of a vessel to protect the colony of Avalon against the depredations of French cruisers. In 1633, his brother, the second Lord Baltimore, appointed him Governor of Maryland and sent him in charge of an expedition to make a settlement. Two vessels, the Ark and Dove, carrying over 300 settlers sailed from the harbour of Cowes, 22 November, 1633, arriving at point Comfort, Virginia, 24 February, 1634. On 27 March they landed at what is now St. Mary’s, then the site of an Indian village, and they began the work of establishing a settlement. The Indians received them kindly and sold them the land. Clayborne of the Virginia colony had established a trading post on Kent Island, which was in the domain of Maryland. After the settlement at St. Mary’s this trade was continued. Trouble arose and Clayborne went to England to lay is claims before the king, but was informed that the island belonged to Lord Baltimore. The governor at once took possession of the island and established a settlement there.

The troubles in England following 1640 were responsible for disturbances in Maryland. In 1643 Governor Calvert went to England to discuss policies with the proprietor, leaving the affairs of the colony in charge of acting Governor Brent. At the close of 1643 Captain Ingle appeared at St. Mary’s with a vessel commissioned by Parliament. The ship was captured and the oath against Parliament was tendered the crew. Ingle escaped. When Governor Calvert returned he found the colony distracted by factions. Ingle returned the following year, and, with the assistance of the Protestants and Clayborne, the Catholics, including Governor Calvert, were driven into Virginia. An oath of submission was tendered but not one Catholic took it. The Jesuit priests were sent to England. A state of anarchy prevailed for two years. Calvert returned in 1646 and captured St. Mary’s, and in the following year Kent island. he favored the right of initiative in legislation by the colonists and won for them this privilege. In the difficulty between the proprietor and the Jesuits, he sympathized with the latter and prevented a rupture between them. In 1890 the state of Maryland erected a monument to him and his wife at St. Mary’s.

Philip, Proprietary Governor of Maryland, 1660 to 1661, son of George Calvert, first Lord Baltimore and his second wife, Arabella. He came to Maryland on the first expedition under Leonard Calvert. In 1656 he was made secretary of the province and one of its councillors. After the treason and overthrow of governor Fendall, Calvert became governor in 1660, and displayed clemency in pardoning Fendall. In 1661 Charles Calvert, son of the proprietor, was made governor, and Philip was appointed deputy-lieutenant and councillor of the province. After this he negotiated a treaty with the Dutch in which they agreed to abandon the disputed territory on the Delaware River. He was one of a committee which negotiated a treaty with the Indians, and of another commission which settled with the Virginia authorities a boundary line between Maryland and Virginia.

Browne, George and Cecilius Calvert (New York, 1880); Idem, Maryland; Hughes, History of the Society of Jesus in North America, Federal and Colonial (Cleveland, 1970); Hart, American History Told by Contemporaries; Chalmers, Political Annals of the present United Colonies from their Settlement to the Peace of 1763; Bancroft, History of the United States; Russell, Maryland, the Land of the Sanctuary (Baltimore, 1907).

J. E. HAGERTY.

Diocese of Calvi and Teano

(Calvensis et Theanensis).

The city of Calvi is the ancient Cales or Calenum in the Campagna, not far from Capua. Towards the end of the fifth century it was certainly a bishopric, since Valerius, Bishop of Calenum, was present at the Roman Council held by Pope Symmachus in 499. Destroyed in the ninth century by the Saracens, it was rebuilt by Atenulfo, Count of Capua, at which time, most probably, the see was re-established. It certainly had a bishop at the end of the eleventh century. Remarkable among the bishops were: Odoardo, who assisted at the Council of Lyons (1245) and vigorously opposed Frederick II, his sovereign, who, on his return, had him slain; Bernardo Spada (1543); the monk Gennaro Filomarino (1623). In 1818 Calvi was united with the See of Teano, a small city of the same province and a former fief of the Gaetani. Its first bishop was St. Paris, ordained by Sylvester I; according to tradition, St. Urbanus and St. Amasius were bishops of that city in the fourth century.

U. BENIGNI

John Calvin

This man, undoubtedly the greatest of Protestant divines, and perhaps, after St. Augustine, the most perseveringly followed by his disciples of any Western writer on theology, was born at Noyon in Picardy, France, 10 July, 1509, and died at Geneva, 27 May, 1564.

A generation divided him from Luther, whom he never met. By birth, education, and temper these two protagonists of the reforming movement were strongly contrasted. Luther was a Saxon peasant, his father a miner; Calvin sprang from the French middle-class, and his father, an attorney, had purchased the freedom of the City of Noyon, where he practised civil and canon law. Luther entered the Order of Augustinian Hermits, took a monk’s vows, was made a priest and incurred much odium by marrying a nun. Calvin never was ordained in the Catholic Church; his training was chiefly in law and the humanities; he took no vows. Luther’s eloquence made him popular by its force, humour, rudeness, and vulgar style. Calvin spoke to the learned at all times, even when preaching before multitudes. His manner is classical; he reasons on system; he has little humour; instead of striking with a cudgel he uses the weapons of a deadly logic and persuades by a teacher’s authority, not by a demagogue’s calling of names. He writes French as well as Luther writes German, and like him has been reckoned a pioneer in the modern development of his native tongue. Lastly, if we term the doctor of Wittenberg a mystic, we may sum up Calvin as a scholastic; he gives articulate expression to the principles which Luther had stormily thrown out upon the world in his vehement pamphleteering; and the “Institutes” as they were left by their author have remained ever since the standard of orthodox Protestant belief in all the Churches known as “Reformed.” His French disciples called their sect “the religion”; such it has proved to be outside the Roman world.

The family name, spelt in many ways, was Cauvin latinized according to the custom of the age as Calvinus. For some unknown reason the Reformer is commonly called Maître Jean C. His mother, Jeanne Le Franc, born in the Diocese of Cambrai, is mentioned as “beautiful and devout”; she took her little son to various shrines and brought him up a good Catholic. On the father’s side, his ancestors were seafaring men. His grandfather settled at Pont l’Evêque near Paris, and had two sons who became locksmiths; the third was Gerard, who turned procurator at Noyon, and there his four sons and two daughters saw the light. He lived in the Place au Blé (Cornmarket). Noyon, a bishop’s see, had long been a fief of the powerful old family of Hangest, who treated it as their personal property. But an everlasting quarrel, in which the city took part, went on between the bishop and the chapter. Charles de Hangest, nephew of the too well-known Georges d’Amboise, Archbishop of Rouen, surrendered the bishopric in 1525 to his own nephew John, becoming his vicar-general. John kept up the battle with his canons until the Parliament of Paris intervened, upon which he went to Rome, and at last died in Paris in 1577. This prelate had Protestant kinsfolk; he is charged with having fostered heresy which in those years was beginning to raise its head among the French. Clerical dissensions, at all events, allowed the new doctrines a promising field; and the Calvins were more or less infected by them before 1530.

Gerard’s four sons were made clerics and held benefices at a tender age. The Reformer was given one when a boy of twelve, he became Curé of Saint-Martin de Marteville in the Vermandois in 1527, and of Pont l’Eveque in 1529. Three of the boys attended the local Collège des Capettes, and there John proved himself an apt scholar. But his people were intimate with greater folk, the de Montmor, a branch of the line of Hangest, which led to his accompanying some of their children to Paris in 1523, when his mother was probably dead and his father had married again. The latter died in 1531, under excommunication from the chapter for not sending in his accounts. The old man’s illness, not his lack of honesty, was, we are told, the cause. Yet his son Charles, nettled by the censure, drew towards the Protestant doctrines. He was accused in 1534 of denying the Catholic dogma of the Eucharist, and died out of the Church in 1536; his body was publicly gibbeted as that of a recusant.

Meanwhile, young John was going through his own trials at the University of Paris, the dean or syndic of which, Noel Bédier, had stood up against Erasmus and bore hard upon Le Fèvre d’Etaples (Stapulensis), celebrated for his translation of the Bible into French. Calvin, a “martinet,” or oppidan, in the Collèege de la Marche, made this man’s acquaintance (he was from Picardy) and may have glanced into his Latin commentary on St. Paul, dated 1512, which Doumergue considers the first Protestant book emanating from a French pen. Another influence tending the same way was that of Corderius, Calvin’s tutor, to whom he dedicated afterwards his annotation of I Thessalonians, remarking, “if there be any good thing in what I have published, I owe it to you.” Corderius had an excellent Latin style, his life was austere, and his “Colloquies” earned him enduring fame. But he fell under suspicion of heresy, and by Calvin’s aid took refuge in Geneva, where he died September 1564. A third herald of the “New Learning” was George Cop, physician to Francis I, in whose house Calvin found a welcome and gave ear to the religious discussions which Cop favoured. And a fourth was Pierre-Robert d’Olivet of Noyon, who also translated the Scriptures, our youthful man of letters, his nephew, writing (in 1535) a Latin preface to the Old Testament and a French one—his first appearance as a native author—to the New Testament.

By 1527, when no more than eighteen, Calvin’s educatlon was complete in its main lines. He had learned to be a humanist and a reformer. The “sudden conversion” to a spiritual life in 1529, of which he speaks, must not be taken quite literally. He had never been an ardent Catholic; but the stories told at one time of his ill-regulated conduct have no foundation; and by a very natural process he went over to the side on which his family were taking their stand. In 1528 he inscribed himself at Orléans as a law student, made friends with Francis Daniel, and then went for a year to Bourges, where he began preaching in private. Margaret d’Angoulême, sister of Francis I, and Duchess of Berry, was living there with many heterodox Germans about her.

He is found again at Paris in 1531. Wolmar had taught him Greek at Bourges; from Vatable he learned Hebrew; and he entertained some relations with the erudite Budaeus. About this date he printed a commentary on Seneca’s “De Clementiâ.” It was merely an exercise in scholarship, having no political significance. Francis I was, indeed, handling Protestants severely, and Calvin, now Doctor of Law at Orléans, composed, so the story runs, an oration on Christian philosophy which Nicholas Cop delivered on All Saints’ Day, 1532, both writer and speaker having to take instant flight from pursuit by the royal inquisitors. This legend has been rejected by modern critics. Calvin spent some time, however, with Canon du Tillet at Angoulême under a feigned designation. In May, 1534, he went to Noyon, gave up his benefice, and, it is said, was imprisoned. But he got away to Nerac in Bearn, the residence of the Duchess Margaret, and there again encountered Le Fèvre, whose French Bible had been condemned by the Sorbonne to the flames. His next visit to Paris fell out during a violent campaign of the Lutherans against the Mass, which brought on reprisals, Etienne de la Forge and others were burnt in the Place de Grève; and Calvin accompanied by du Tillet, escaped—though not without adventures—to Metz and Strasburg. In the latter city Bucer reigned supreme. The leading reformers dictated laws from the pulpit to their adherents, and this journey proved a decisive one for the French humanist, who, though by nature timid and shy, committed himself to a war on paper with his own sovereign. The famous letter to Francis I is dated 23 August, 1535. It served as a prologue to the “Institutes,” of which the first edition came out in March, 1536, not in French but in Latin. Calvin’s apology for lecturing the king was, that placards denouncing the Protestants as rebels had been posted up all over the realm. Francis I did not read these pages, but if he had done so he would have discovered in them a plea, not for toleration, which the Reformer utterly scorned, but for doing away with Catholicism in favour of the new gospel. There could be only one true Church, said the young theologian, therefore kings ought to make an utter end of popery. (For an account of the “Institutes” see ) The second edition belongs to 1539, the first French translation to 1541; the final Latin, as revised by its author, is of 1559; but that in common use, dated 1560, has additions by his disciples. “It was more God’s work than mine,” said Calvin, who took for his motto “Omnia ad Dei gloriam,” and in allusion to the change he had undergone in 1529 assumed for his device a hand stretched out from a burning heart.

A much disputed chapter in Calvin’s biography is the visit which he was long thought to have paid at Ferraro to the Protestant Duchess Renée, daughter of Louis XII. Many stories clustered about his journey, now given up by the best-informed writers. All we know for certain is that the Reformer, after settling his family affairs and bringing over two of his brothers and sisters to the views he had adopted undertook, in consequence of the war between Charles V and Francis I, to reach Bale by way of Geneva, in July, 1536. At Geneva the Swiss preacher Fare, then looking for help in his propaganda, besought him with such vehemence to stay and teach theology that, as Calvin himself relates, he was terrified into submission. We are not accustomed to fancy the austere prophet so easily frightened. But as a student and recluse new to public responsibilities, he may well have hesitated before plunging into the troubled waters of Geneva, then at their stormiest period. No portrait of him belonging to this time is extant. Later he is represented as of middle height, with bent shoulders, piercing eyes, and a large forehead; his hair was of an auburn tinge. Study and fasting occasioned the severe headaches from which he suffered continually. In private life he was cheerful but sensitive, not to say overbearing, his friends treated him with delicate consideration. His habits were simple; he cared nothing for wealth, and he never allowed himself a holiday. His correspondence, of which 4271 letters remain, turns chiefly on doctrinal subjects. Yet his strong, reserved character told on all with whom he came in contact; Geneva submitted to his theocratic rule, and the Reformed Churches accepted his teaching as though it were infallible.

Such was the stranger whom Farel recommended to his fellow Protestants, “this Frenchman,” chosen to lecture on the Bible in a city divided against itself. Geneva had about 15,000 inhabitants. Its bishop had long been its prince limited, however, by popular privileges. The vidomne, or mayor, was the Count of Savoy, and to his family the bishopric seemed a property which, from 1450, they bestowed on their younger children. John of Savoy, illegitimate son of the previous bishop, sold his rights to the duke, who was head of the clan, and died in 1519 at Pignerol. Jean de la Baume, last of its ecclesiastical princes, abandoned the city, which received Protestant teachers from Berne in 1519 and from Fribourg in 1526. In 1527 the arms of Savoy were torn down; in 1530 the Catholic party underwent defeat, and Geneva became independent. It had two councils, but the final verdict on public measures rested with the people. These appointed Farel, a convert of Le Fevre, as their preacher in 1534. A discussion between the two Churches from 30 May to 24 June, 1535 ended in victory for the Protestants. The altars were desecrated, the sacred images broken, the Mass done away with. Bernese troops entered and “the Gospel” was accepted, 21 May, 1536. This implied persecution of Catholics by the councils which acted both as Church and State. Priests were thrown into prison; citizens were fined for not attending sermons. At Zürich, Basle, and Berne the same laws were established. Toleration did not enter into the ideas of the time.

But though Calvin had not introduced this legislation, it was mainly by his influence that in January, 1537 the “articles” were voted which insisted on communion four times a year, set spies on delinquents, established a moral censorship, and punished the unruly with excommunication. There was to be a children’s catechism, which he drew up; it ranks among his best writings. The city now broke into “jurants” and “nonjurors” for many would not swear to the “articles”; indeed, they never were completely accepted. Questions had arisen with Berne touching points that Calvin judged to be indifferent. He made a figure in the debates at Lausanne defending the freedom of Geneva. But disorders ensued at home, where recusancy was yet rife; in 1538 the council exiled Farel, Calvin, and the blind evangelist, Couraud. The Reformer went to Strasburg, became the guest of Capito and Bucer, and in 1539 was explaining the New Testament to French refugees at fifty two florins a year. Cardinal Sadolet had addressed an open letter to the Genevans, which their exile now answered. Sadolet urged that schism was a crime; Calvin replied that the Roman Church was corrupt. He gained applause by his keen debating powers at Hagenau, Worms, and Ratisbon. But he complains of his poverty and ill-health, which did not prevent him from marrying at this time Idelette de Bure, the widow of an Anabaptist whom he had converted. Nothing more is known of this lady, except that she brought him a son who died almost at birth in 1542, and that her own death took place in 1549.

After some negotiation Ami Perrin, commissioner for Geneva, persuaded Calvin to return. He did so, not very willingly, on 13 September, 1541. His entry was modest enough. The church constitution now recognized “pastors, doctors, elders, deacons” but supreme power was given to the magistrate. Ministers had the spiritual weapon of God’s word; the consistory never, as such, wielded the secular arm Preachers, led by Calvin, and the councils, instigated by his opponents, came frequently into collision. Yet the ordinances of 1541 were maintained; the clergy, assisted by lay elders, governed despotically and in detail the actions of every citizen. A presbyterian Sparta might be seen at Geneva; it set an example to later Puritans, who did all in their power to imitate its discipline. The pattern held up was that of the Old Testament, although Christians were supposed to enjoy Gospel liberty. In November, 1552, the Council declared that Calvin’s “Institutes” were a “holy doctrine which no man might speak against.” Thus the State issued dogmatic decrees, the force of which had been anticipated earlier, as when Jacques Gouet was imprisoned on charges of impiety in June, 1547, and after severe torture was beheaded in July. Some of the accusations brought against the unhappy young man were frivolous, others doubtful. What share, if any, Calvin took in this judgment is not easy to ascertain. The execution of however must be laid at his door; it has given greater offence by far than the banishment of Castellio or the penalties inflicted on Bolsec—moderate men opposed to extreme views in discipline and doctrine, who fell under suspicion as reactionary. The Reformer did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva. The iron yoke could not be shaken off. In 1555, under Ami Perrin, a sort of revolt was attempted. No blood was shed, but Perrin lost the day, and Calvin’s theocracy triumphed.

“I am more deeply scandalized,” wrote Gibbon “at the single execution of Servetus than at the hecatombs which have blazed in the autos-da-fé of Spain and Portugal.” He ascribes the enmity of Calvin to personal malice and perhaps envy. The facts of the case are pretty well ascertained. Born in 1511, perhaps at Tudela, Michael Served y Reves studied at Toulouse and was present in Bologna at the coronation of Charles V. He travelled in Germany and brought out in 1531 at Hagenau his treatise “De Trinitatis Erroribus,” a strong Unitarian work which made much commotion among the more orthodox Reformers. He met Calvin and disputed with him at Paris in 1534, became corrector of the press at Lyons; gave attention to medicine, discovered the lesser circulation of the blood, and entered into a fatal correspondence with the dictator of Geneva touching a new volume “Christianismi Restitutio,” which he intended to publish. In 1546 the exchange of letters ceased. The Reformer called Servetus arrogant (he had dared to criticize the “Institutes” in marginal glosses), and uttered the significant menace, “If he comes here and I have any authority, I will never let him leave the place alive.” The “Restitutio” appeared in 1553. Calvin at once had its author delated to the Dominican inquisitor Ory at Lyons, sending on to him the man’s letters of 1545–46 and these glosses. Hereupon the Spaniard was imprisoned at Vienne, but he escaped by friendly connivance, and was burnt there only in effigy. Some extraordinary fascination drew him to Geneva, from which he intended to pass the Alps. He arrived on 13 August, 1553. The next day Calvin, who had remarked him at the sermon, got his critic arrested, the preacher’s own secretary coming forward to accuse him. Calvin drew up forty articles of charge under three heads, concerning the nature of God, infant baptism, and the attack which Servetus had ventured on his own teaching. The council hesitated before taking a deadly decision, but the dictator, reinforced by Farel, drove them on. In prison the culprit suffered much and loudly complained. The Bernese and other Swiss voted for some indefinite penalty. But to Calvin his power in Geneva seemed lost, while the stigma of heresy; as he insisted, would cling to all Protestants if this innovator were not put to death. “Let the world see” Bullinger counselled him, “that Geneva wills the glory of Christ.”

Accordingly, sentence was pronounced 26 October, 1553, of burning at the stake. “Tomorrow he dies,” wrote Calvin to Farel. When the deed was done, the Reformer alleged that he had been anxious to mitigate the punishment, but of this fact no record appears in the documents. He disputed with Servetus on the day of execution and saw the end. A defence and apology next year received the adhesion of the Genevan ministers. Melanchthon, who had taken deep umbrage at the blasphemies of the Spanish Unitarian, strongly approved in well-known words. But a group that included Castellio published at Basle in 1554 a pamphlet with the title, “Should heretics be persecuted?” It is considered the first plea for toleration in modern times. Beza replied by an argument for the affirmative, couched in violent terms; and Calvin, whose favorite disciple he was, translated it into French in 1559. The dialogue, “Vaticanus,” written against the “Pope of Geneva” by Castellio, did not get into print until 1612. Freedom of opinion, as Gibbon remarks, “was the consequence rather than the design of the Reformation.”

Another victim to his fiery zeal was Gentile, one of an Italian sect in Geneva, which also numbered among its adherents Alciati and Gribaldo. As more or less Unitarian in their views, they were required to sign a confession drawn up by Calvin in 1558. Gentile subscribed it reluctantly, but in the upshot he was condemned and imprisoned as a perjurer. He escaped only to be twice incarcerated at Berne, where in 1566, he was beheaded. Calvin’s impassioned polemic against these Italians betrays fear of the Socinianism which was to lay waste his vineyard. Politically he leaned on the French refugees, now abounding in the city, and more than equal in energy—if not in numbers—to the older native factions. Opposition died out. His continual preaching, represented by 2300 sermons extant in the manuscripts and a vast correspondence, gave to the Reformer an influence without example in his closing years. He wrote to Edward VI, helped in revising the Book of Common Prayer, and intervened between the rival English parties abroad during the Marian period. In the Huguenot troubles he sided with the more moderate. His censure of the conspiracy of Amboise in 1560 does him honour. One great literary institution founded by him, the College, afterwards the University, of Geneva, flourished exceedingly. The students were mostly French. When Beza was rector it had nearly 1500 students of various grades.

Geneva now sent out pastors to the French congregations and was looked upon as the Protestant Rome. Through Knox, “the Scottish champion of the Swiss Reformation,” who had been preacher to the exiles in that city, his native land accepted the discipline of the Presbytery and the doctrine of predestination as expounded in Calvin’s “Institutes.” The Puritans in England were also descendants of the French theologian. His dislike of theatres, dancing and the amenities of society was fully shared by them. The town on Lake Leman was described as without crime and destitute of amusements. Calvin declaimed against the “Libertines,” but there is no evidence that any such people had a footing inside its walls The cold, hard, but upright disposition characteristic of the Reformed Churches, less genial than that derived from Luther, is due entirely to their founder himself. Its essence is a concentrated pride, a love of disputation, a scorn of opponents. The only art that it tolerates is music, and that not instrumental. It will have no Christian feasts in its calendar, and it is austere to the verge of Manichaean hatred of the body. When dogma fails the Calvinist, he becomes, as in the instance of Carlyle, almost a pure Stoic. “At Geneva, as for a time in Scotland,” says J. A. Froude, “moral sins were treated as crimes to be punished by the magistrate.” The Bible was a code of law, administered by the clergy. Down to his dying day Calvin preached and taught. By no means an aged man, he was worn out in these frequent controversies. On 25 April, 1564, he made his will, leaving 225 French crowns, of which he bequeathed ten to his college, ten to the poor, and the remainder to his nephews and nieces. His last letter was addressed to Farel. He was buried without pomp, in a spot which is not now ascertainable. In the year 1900 a monument of expiation was erected to Servetus in the Place Champel. Geneva has long since ceased to be the head of Calvinism. It is a rallying point for Free Thought, Socialist propaganda, and Nihilist conspiracies. But in history it stands out as the Sparta of the Reformed churches, and Calvin is its Lycurgus.

WILLIAM BARRY

Calvinism

No better account of this remarkable (though now largely obsolete) system has been drawn out than Möhler’s in his “Symbolism or Doctrinal Differences.” The “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” in which Calvin depicted his own mind, were never superseded by creed or formulary, though the writer subscribed, in 1540, at Worms to the Confession of Augsburg, i.e. the second revised edition. To take his bearings in theology we must remember that he succeeded Luther in point of time and was committed to a struggle with Zwingli’s disciples at Zurich and elsewhere, known as Sacramentarians, but who tended more and more towards a Christianity without mysteries. In 1549 he and Farel entered with Bullinger into a moderate view as regarded the Eucharist, the “Consensus Tigurinus,” or compact of Zurich, which Bucer also accepted. Another compact, of the “pastors of Geneva “ strengthened his hands, in 1552, on the subjects of predestination, against Jerome Bolsec, whom he refuted and cast into prison. Bolsec finally returned to the Catholic Church. In 1553 a controversy between the German Lutherans about the Lord’s Supper led Calvin to declare his agreement with Melanchthon (the Philippists), but Melanchthon kept silence. Further complications ensued when Beza, softening the real doctrine of Geneva, drew nearer still to the Lutheran belief on this head. Bullinger and Peter Martyr cried down Beza’s unauthorized glosses; but Calvin supported his favourite. Nevertheless, that “declaration” was dropped by Beza when, in company with Farel, he put together a “Confession of the French Church,” and fell back on the creed of Augsburg issued in 1530, while not assenting to its 10th article. The Eucharist was to be more than a sign; Christ was truly present in it, and was received by Faith (compare the English Prayer Book, which reproduces his conception). Beyond these, on the whole, abortive efforts toward a common understanding, Calvin never went. His individual genius demanded its own expression; and he is always like himself, unlike any other. The many creeds fell into olivion; but the “Institutes” were recognized more and more as the sum of Reformed Theology. It was said after 1560, by the Jesuit St. Peter Canisius, that Calvin appeared to be taking Luther’s place even among Germans. Three currents have ever since held their course in this development of Protestantism:

the mystic, derived from Wittenberg;

the logical-orthodox, from Geneva; and

the heterodox-rationalist, from Zurich (Zwingli), this last being greatly increased, thanks to the Unitarians of Italy, Ochino, Fausto, and Lelio Socino.

To the modern world, however, Calvin stands peculiarly for the Reformation, his doctrine is supposed to contain the essence of the Gospel; and multitudes who reject Christianity mean merely the creed of Geneva. Why does this happen? Because, we answer, Calvin gave himself out as following closely in the steps of St. Paul and St. Augustine. The Catholic teaching at Trent he judged to be Semi-Pelagian, a stigma which his disciples fix especially on the Jesuit schools, above all, on Molina. Hence the curious situation arises, that, while the Catholic consent of the East and West finds little or no acknowledgement as an historical fact among assailants of religion, the views which a single Reformer enunciated are taken as though representing the New Testament. In other words, a highly refined individual system, not traceable as a whole to any previous age, supplants the public teaching of centuries. Calvin, who hated Scholasticism, comes before us, as Luther had already done, in the shape of a Scholastic. His “pure doctrine” is gained by appealing, not to tradition, the “deposit” of faith, but to argument in abstract terms exercised upon Scripture. He is neither a critic nor a historian; he takes the Bible as something given; and he manipulates the Apostles’ Creed in accordance with his own ideas. The “Institutes” are not a history of dogma, but a treatise, only not to be called an essay because of its peremptory tone. Calvin annihilates the entire space, with all its developments, which lies between the death of St. John and the sixteenth century. He does, indeed, quote St. Augustine, but he leaves out all that Catholic foundation on which the Doctor of Grace built.

The “Institutes of the Christian Religion” are divided into four books and exhibit a commentary on the Apostles’ Creed.

Book I considers God the Creator, the Trinity, revelation, man’s first estate and original righteousness.

Book II describes the Fall of Adam, and treats of Christ the Redeemer.

Book III enlarges on justifying faith, election, and reprobation.

Book IV gives the Presbyterian idea of the Church.

In form the work differs from the “Summa” of St. Thomas Aquinas by using exposition where the Angelic Doctor syllogizes; but the style is close, the language good Latin of the Renaissance, and the tone elevated, though often bitter. Arguments employed are always ostensibly grounded on Scripture, the authority of which rests not upon fallible human reasoning, but on the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit. Yet Calvin is embarrassed at the outset by “unsteady men” who declare themselves enlightened of the same spirit and in no want of Scripture. He endeavours to refute them by the instance of St. Paul and other “primitive believers,” i.e. after all, by Catholic tradition. It will be obvious, moreover, that where the “Institutes” affirm orthodox tenets they follow the Councils and the Fathers, while professing reliance on the Bible alone. Thus we need not rehearse those chapters which deal with the Nicene and Chalcedonian formulas. We shall best apprehend Calvin’s master-thought if we liken it to modern systems of the Unconscious, or of physical predetermination, wherein all effects lie folded up, as it were, in one First Cause, and their development in time is necessitated. Effects are thus mere manifestations, not fresh acts, or in any way due to free will choosing its own course. Nature, grace, revelation, Heaven, and Hell do but show us different aspects of the eternal energy which works in all things. There is no free will outside the Supreme. Zwingli argued that, since God was infinite being, He alone existed—there could be no other being, and secondary or created causes were but instruments moved entirely by Divine power. Calvin did not go to this length. But he denies freedom to creatures, fallen or unfallen, except it be libertas a coactione; in other words, God does not compel man to act by brute force, yet he determines irresistibly all we do, whether good or evil. The Supreme is indeed self-conscious—not a blind Fate or Stoic destiny; it is by “decree” of the sovereign Lawgiver that events come to pass. But for such decrees no reason can be rendered. There is not any cause of the Divine will save Itself. If we ask why has the Almighty acted thus and thus, we are told, “Quia ipse voluit”—it is His good pleasure. Beyond this, an explanation would be impossible, and to demand one is impiety. From the human angle of sight, therefore God works as though without a reason. And here we come upon the primal mystery to which in his argument Calvin recurs again and again. This Supreme Will fixes an absolute order, physical, ethical, religious, never to be modified by anything we can attempt. For we cannot act upon God, else He would cease to be the First Cause. Holding this clue, it is comparatively simple to trace Calvin’s footsteps along the paths of history and revelation.

Luther had written that man’s will is enslaved either to God or to Satan, but it is never free. Melanchthon declaimed against the “impious dogma of Free Will,” adding that since all things happen by necessity according to Divine predestination, no room was left for it. This was truly the article by which the Reformation should stand or fall. God is sole agent. Therefore creation, redemption, election, reprobation are in such sense His acts that man becomes merely their vehicle and himself does nothing. Luther, contending with Erasmus, declares that “God by an unchangeable, eternal, infallible will, foresees purposes and effects all things. By this thunderbolt Free Will is utterly destroyed.” Calvin shared Luther’s doctrine of necessity to the full; but he embroiled the language by admitting in unfallen Adam a liberty of choice. He was likewise at pains to distinguish between his own teaching and the “nature bound fast in Fate” of the Stoics. He meant by liberty, however, the absence of constraint; and the Divine wisdom which he invoked could never be made intelligible to our understanding. What he rejected was the Catholic notion of the self-determining second cause. Neither would he allow the doctrine laid down by the Fathers of Trent (Sess. VI Canon 16), that God permits evil deeds, but is not their author. The condemnation struck expressly at Melanchthon, who asserted that the betrayal by Judas was not less properly God’s act than the vocation of St. Paul. But by parity of reasoning it falls upon Calvinism. For the “Institutes” affirm that “man by the righteous impulsion of God does that which is unlawful ,” and that “man falls, the Providence of God so ordaining” (IV, 18, 2; III, 23, 8). Yet elsewhere Calvin denied this impulse as not in accordance with the known will of the Almighty. Both he and Luther found a way of escape from the moral dilemma inflicted on them by distinguishing two wills in the Divine Nature, one public or apparent, which commanded good and forbade evil as the Scripture teaches, the other just, but secret and unsearchable, predetermining that Adam and all the reprobate should fall into sin and perish. At no time did Calvin grant that Adam’s transgression was due to his own free will. Beza traces it to a spontaneous, i.e. a natural and necessary, movement of the spirit, in which evil could not fail to spring up. He justifies the means—sin and its consequences—by the holy purpose of the Creator who, if there were no one to punish, would be incapable of showing that he is a righteously vindictive God. As, however, man’s intent was evil, he becomes a sinner while his Creator remains holy. The Reformed confessions will not allow that God is the author of sin—and Calvin shows deep indignation when charged with “this disgraceful falsehood.” He distinguishes, like Beza, the various intentions concurring to the same act on the part of different agents- but the difficulty cannot well be got over, that, in his view, the First Cause alone is a real agent, and the rest mere instruments. It was objected to him that he gave no convincing reasons for the position thus taken up, and that his followers were swayed by their master’s authority rather than by the force of his logic. Even an admirer, J. A. Froude, tells us:

To represent man as sent into the world under a curse, as incurably wicked-wicked by the constitution of his nature and wicked by eternal decree-as doomed, unless exempted by special grace which he cannot merit, or by any effort of his own obtain, to live in sin while he remains on earth, and to be eternally miserable when he leaves it-to represent him as born unable to keep the commandments, yet as justly liable to everlasting punishment for breaking them, is alike repugnant to reason and conscience, and turns existence into a hideous nightmare. (Short Studies, II, 3.)

Another way to define the Reformed theology would be to contrast its view of God’s eternal decrees with that taken in the Catholic Church, notably by Jesuit authors such as Molina. To Calvin the ordinances of Deity seemed absolute, i.e. not in any way regardful of the creature’s acts, which they predetermined either right or wrong; and thus reprobation—the supreme issue between all parties—followed upon God’s unconditioned fiat, no account being had in the decree itself of man’s merits or demerits. For God chose some to glory and others to shame everlasting as He willed, not upon foreknowledge how they would act. The Jesuit school made foreknowledge of “future contingencies” or of what creatures would do in any possible juncture, the term of Divine vision “scientia media” which was logically antecedent (as a condition not a cause) to the scheme of salvation. Grace, said Catholic dogma, was offered to all men; none were excluded from it. Adam need not have transgressed, neither was his fall pre-ordained. Christ died for the whole human race; and every one had such help from on high that the reprobate could never charge their ruin upon their Maker, since he permitted it only, without an absolute decree. Grace, then, was given freely; but eternal life came to the saints by merit, founded on correspondence to the Holy Spirit’s impulse. All these statements Calvin rejected as Pelagian, except that he would maintain, though unable to justify, the- imputation of the sinner’s lapse to human nature by itself.

To be consistent, this doctrine requires that no prevision of Adam’s Fall should affect the eternal choice which discriminates between the elect and the lost. A genuine Calvinist ought to be a supralapsarian; in other terms, the Fall was decreed as means to an end; it did not first appear in God’s sight to be the sufficient cause why, if He chose, He might select some from the “massa damnata,” leaving others to their decreed doom. To this subject St. Augustine frequently returns in his anti-Pelagian treatises, and he lays great emphasis on the consequences to mankind as regards their final state, of God’s dealing with them in fallen Adam. But his language, unlike that of Calvin, never implies absolute rejection divorced from foreknowledge of man’s guilt. Thus even to the African Father, whose views in his latter works became increasingly severe (see “On the Predestination of the Saints” and “On Correction and Grace”) there was always an element of scientia media, i.e. prevision in the relation of God with His creatures. But, to the Reformer who explained Redemption and its opposite by sheer omnipotence doing as it would, the idea that man could, even as a term of knowledge, by his free acts be considered in the Everlasting Will was not conceivable. As the Arian said, “How can the Eternal be begotten?” and straightway denied the generation of the Word, in like manner Calvin, “How can the contingent affect the First Cause on which it utterly depends?” In the old dilemma, “either God is not omnipotent or man is not self determined,” the “Institutes” accept the conclusion adverse to liberty. But it was, said Catholics, equally adverse to morals; and the system has always been criticised on that ground. In a word, it seemed to be antinomian.

With Augustine the Geneva author professed to be at one. “If they have all been taken from a corrupt mass,” he argued, “no marvel that they are subject to condemnation.” But, his critics replied, “were they not antecedently predestined to that corruption?” And “is not God unjust in treating His creatures with such cruel mystery?” To this Calvin answers, “I confess that all descendants of Adam fell by the Divine will,” and that “we must return at last to God’s sovereign determination, the cause of which is hidden” (Institutes, III, 23, 4). “Therefore,” he concludes, “some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that His name may be glorified in their destruction.” And the reason why such necessity is laid upon them? “Because,” says Calvin “life and death are acts of God’s will rather than of his foreknowledge,” and “He foresees further events only in consequence of his decree that they shall happen.” Finally, “it is an awful decree, I confess [horribile decretum, fateor], but none can deny that God foreknew the future final fate of man before He created him—and that He did foreknow it because it was appointed by His own ordinance.” Calvin, then, is a supralapsarian; the Fall was necessary; and our first parents, like ourselves, could not have avoided sinning.

So far, the scheme presents a cast-iron logic at whatever expense to justice and morality. When it comes to consider human nature, its terms sound more uncertain, it veers to each extreme in succession of Pelagius and Luther. In St. Augustine, that nature is almost always viewed historically, not in the abstract hence as possessed by unfallen Adam it was endowed with supernatural gifts, while in his fallen children it bears the burden of concupiscence and sin. But the French Reformer, not conceding a possible state of pure nature, attributes to the first man, with Luther (in Gen., iii), such perfection as would render God’s actual grace unnecessary, thus tending to make Adam self-sufficient, as the Pelagians held all men to be. On the other hand, when original sin took them once captive the image of God was entirety blotted out. This article of “total depravity” also came from Luther, who expressed it in language of appalling power. And so the “Institutes” announce that “in man all which bears reference to the blessed life of the soul is extinct.” And if it was “natural” in Adam to love God and do justice, or a part of his very essence, then by lapsing from grace he would have been plunged into an abyss below nature, where his true moral and religious being was altogether dissolved. So, at any rate, the German Protestants believed in their earlier period, nor was Calvin reluctant to echo them.

Catholics distinguish two kinds of beatitude: one corresponding to our nature as a rational species and to be acquired by virtuous acts; the other beyond all that man may do or seek when left to his own faculties, and in such wise God’s free gift that it is due only to acts performed under the influence of a strictly supernatural movement. The confusion of grace with nature in Adam’s essence was common to all the Reformed schools; it is Peculiarly manifest in Jansenius, who strove to deduce it from St. Augustine. And, granting the Fall, it leads by direct inference to man’s utter corruption as the unregenerate child of Adam. He is evil in all that he thinks, or wills, or does. Yet Calvin allows him reason and choice, though not true liberty. The heart was poisoned by sin, but something remained of grace to hinder its worst excesses, or to justify God’s vengeance on the reprobate (over and above their original fault inherited). On the whole, it must be said that the “Institutes” which now and then allow that God’s image was not quite effaced in us, deny to mankind, so far as redemption has not touched them, any moral and religious powers whatsoever. With Calvin as with his predecessor of Wittenberg, heathen virtue is but apparent, and that of the non-Christian merely “political,” or secular. Civilization, founded on our common nature, is in such a view external only, and its justice or benevolence may claim no intrinsic value. That it has no supernatural value Catholics have always asserted; but the Church condemns those who say, with Baius, “All the works of unbelievers are sinful and the virtues of the philosophers are vices.” Propositions equivalent to these are as follows: “Free Will not aided by God’s grace, avails only to commit sin,” and “God could not have created man at the beginning such as he is now born” (Props. 25, 27, 55, censured by St. Pius V, Oct., 1567, and by Urban VIII, March, 1641). Catholic theology admits a twofold goodness and righteousness—the one natural, as Aristotle defines it in his “Ethics,” the other supernatural inspired by the Holy Ghost. Calvin throws aside every middle term between justifying faith and corrupt desire. The integrity of Adam’s nature once violated, he falls under the dominion of lust, which reigns in him without hindrance, save by the external grace now and again preventing a deeper degradation. But whatever he is or does savours of the Evil One. Accordingly the system maintained that faith (which here signifies trust in the Lutheran sense) was the first interior grace given and source of all others, as likewise that outside the Church no grace is ever bestowed.

We come on these lines to the famous distinction which separates the true Church that of the predestined, from the seeming or visible, where all baptized persons meet. This falls in with Calvin’s whole theory, but is never to be mistaken for the view held by Roman authorities, that some may pertain to the soul of the Church who are not members of its body. Always pursuing his idea, the absolute predestinarian finds among Christians, all of whom have heard the Gospel and received the sacraments, only a few entitled to life everlasting. These obtain the grace which is in words offered to every one; the rest fill up the measure of their condemnation. To the reprobate, Gospel ordinances serve as a means to compass the ruin intended for them. Hereby, also, an answer is made possible when Catholics demand where the Reformed Church was prior to the Reformation. Calvin replies that in every age the elect constituted the flock of Christ, and all besides were strangers, though invested with dignity and offices in the visible communion. The reprobate have only apparent faith. Yet they may feel as do the elect, experience similar fervours, and to the best of their judgment be accounted saints. All that is mere delusion; they are hypocrites “into whose minds God insinuates Himself, so that, not having the adoption of sons, they may yet taste the goodness of the Spirit.” Thus Calvin explained how in the Gospel many are called believers who did not persevere; and so the visible Church is made up of saints that can never lose their crown, and sinners that by no effort could attain to salvation.

Faith, which means assurance of election, grace, and glory, is then the heritage of none but the predestined. But, since no real secondary cause exists man remains passive throughout the temporal series of events by which he is shown to be an adopted son of God. He neither acts nor, in the Catholic sense co-operates with his Redeemer. A difference in the method of conversion between Luther and Calvin may here be noted. The German mystic begins, as his own experience taught him, with the terrors of the law. The French divine who had never gone through that stage, gives the first place to the Gospel; and repentance, instead of preceding faith, comes after it. He argued that by so disposing of the process, faith appeared manifestly alone, unaccompanied by repentance, which, otherwise, might claim some share of merit. The Lutherans, moreover, did not allow absolute predestination. And their confidence in being themselves justified, i.e. saved, was unequal to Calvin’s requirements. For he made assurance inevitable as was its object to the chosen soul. Nevertheless, he fancied that between himself and the sounder medieval scholastics no quarrel need arise touching the principle of justification—namely, that “the sinner being delivered gratuitously from his doom becomes righteous.” Calvin overlooked in these statements the vital difference which accounts for his aberration from the ancient system. Catholics held that fallen man kept in some degree his moral and religious faculties, though much impaired, and did not lose his free will. But the newer doctrine affirmed man’s total incompetence, he could neither freely consent nor ever resist, when grace was given, if he happened to be predestinate. If not, justification lay beyond his grasp. However, the language of the “Institutes” is not so uncompromising as Luther’s had been. God first heals the corrupt will, and the will follows His guidance; or, we may say, cooperates.

The one final position of Calvin is that omnipotent grace of itself substitutes a good for an evil will in the elect, who do nothing towards their own conversion but when converted are accounted just. In all the original theology of the Reformation righteousness is something imputed, not indwelling in the soul. It is a legal fiction when compared with what the Catholic Church believes, namely, that justice or sanctification involves a real gift, a quality bestowed on the spirit and inherent, whereby it becomes the thing it is called. Hence the Council of Trent declares (Sess. VI) that Christ died for all men, it condemns (Canon XVII) the main propositions of Geneva, that “the grace of justification comes only to the predestinate,” and that “the others who are called receive an invitation but no grace, being doomed by the Divine power to evil.” So Innocent X proscribed in Jansenius the statement: “It is Semipelagian to affirm that Christ died for all men, or shed His blood in their behalf.” In like manner Trent rejected the definition of faith as “confidence in being justified without merit”; grace was not “the feeling of love,” nor was justification the “forgiveness of sin,” and apart from a special revelation no man could be infallibly sure that he was saved. According to Calvin the saint was made such by his faith, and the sinner by want of it stood condemned, but the Fathers of Trent distinguished a dead faith, which could never justify, from faith animated by charity—and they attributed merit to all good works done through Divine inspiration. But in the Genevese doctrine faith itself is not holy. This appears very singular; and no explanation has ever been vouchsafed of the power ascribed to an act or mean, itself destitute of intrinsic qualities, neither morally good nor in any way meritorious, the presence or absence of which nevertheless fixes our eternal destiny

But since Christ alone is our righteousness, Luther concluded that the just man is never just in himself; that concupiscence, though resisted, makes him sin damnably in all he does, and that he remains a sinner until his last breath. Thus even the “Solid Declaration” teaches, though in many respects toning down the Reformer’s truculence. Such guilt, however, God overlooks where faith is found—the one unpardonable sin is want of faith. “Pecca fortiter sed crede fortius”—this Lutheran epigram, “Sin as you like provided you believe,” expresses in a paradox the contrast between corrupt human nature, filthy still in the very highest saints, and the shadow of Christ, as, falling upon them, it hides their shame before God. Here again the Catholic refuses to consider man responsible except where his will consents; the Protestant regards impulse and enticement as constituting all the will that we have. These observations apply to Calvin—but he avoids extravagant speech while not differing from Luther in fact. He grants that St. Augustine would not term involuntary desires sin; then he adds, “We, on the contrary, deem it to be sin whenever a man feels any desires forbidden by Divine law—and we assert the depravity to be sin which produces them” (Institutes, III, 2, 10). On the hypothesis of determinism, held by every school of the Reformers, this logic is unimpeachable. But it leads to strange consequences. The sinner commits actions which the saint may also indulge in; but one is saved the other is lost; and so the entire moral contents of Christianity are emptied out. Luther denominated the saint’s liberty freedom from the law. And Calvin, “The question is not how we can be righteous, but how, though unworthy and unrighteous, we may be considered righteous.” The law may instruct and exhort, but “it has no place in the conscience before God’s tribunal.” And if Christians advert to the law, “they see that every work they attempt or meditate is accursed” (Institutes, III, 19, 2, 4). Leo X had condemned Luther’s thesis, “In every good work the just man sins.” Baius fell under censure for asserting (Props. 74, 75) that “concupiscence in the baptized is a sin, though not imputed.” And, viewing the whole theory, Catholics have asked whether a sinfulness which exists quite independent of the will is not something substantial, like the darkness of the Manichaeans, or essential to us who are finite beings.

At all events Calvin seems entangled in perplexities on the subject, for he declares expressly that the regenerate are “liable every moment at God’s judgment-seat to sentence of death” (Instit., III, 2, 11); yet elsewhere he tempers his language with a “so to speak,” and explains it as meaning that all human virtue is imperfect. He would certainly have subscribed to the “Solid Declaration,” that the good works of the pious are not necessary to salvation. With Luther, he affirms the least transgression to be a mortal sin, even involuntary concupiscence—and as this abides in every man while he lives, all that we do is worthy of punishment (Instit., II, 8, 68, 59). And again, “There never yet was any work of a religious man which, examined by God’s severe standard would not be condemnable” (Ibid., III, 14,11). The Council of Trent had already censured these axioms by asserting that God does not command impossibilities, and that His children keep His word. Innocent X did the like when he proscribed as heretical the fifth proposition of Jansenius, “Some commandments of God are impossible to the just who will and endeavour; nor is the grace by which they should become possible given to them.”

Two important practical consequences may be drawn from this entire view: first, that conversion takes place in a moment—and so all evangelical Protestants believe; and, second, that baptism ought not to be administered to infants, seeing they cannot have the faith which justifies. This latter inference produced the sect of Anabaptists against whom Calvin thunders as he does, against other “frenzied” persons, in vehement tones. Infant baptism was admitted, but its value, as that of every ordinance, varied with the predestination to life or to death of the recipient. To Calvinists the Church system was an outward life beneath which the Holy Spirit might be present or absent, not according to the dispositions brought by the faithful, but as grace was decreed. For good works could not prepare a man to receive the sacraments worthily any more than to be justified in the beginning. If so, the Quakers might well ask, what is the use of sacraments when we have the Spirit? And especially did this reasoning affect the Eucharist. Calvin employs the most painful terms in disowning the sacrifice of the Mass. No longer channels of grace, to Melanchthon the sacraments are “Memorials of the exercise of faith,” or badges to be used by Christians. From this point of view, Christ’s real presence was superfluous, and the acute mind of Zwingli leaped at once to that conclusion, which has ever since prevailed among ordinary Protestants. But Luther’s adherence to the words of the Scripture forbade him to give up the reality, though he dealt with it in his peculiar fashion. Bucer held an obscure doctrine, which attempted the middle way between Rome and Wittenberg. To Luther the sacraments serve as tokens of God’s love; Zwingli degrades them to covenants between the faithful. Calvin gives the old scholastic definition and agrees with Luther in commending their use, but he separates the visible element proffered to all from the grace which none save the elect may enjoy. He admits only two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Even these neither contain nor confer spiritual graces; they are signs, but not efficacious as regards that which is denoted by them. For inward gifts, we must remember, do not belong to the system, whereas Catholics believe in ordinances as acts of the Man-God, producing the effects within the soul which He has promised, “He that eateth Me shall live by Me.”

When the Church’s tradition was thrown aside, differences touching the Holy Eucharist sprang up immediately among the Reformers which have never found a reconciliation. To narrate their history would occupy a volume. It is notable, however, that Calvin succeeded where Bucer had failed, in a sort of compromise, and the agreement of Zurich which he inspired was taken up by the Swiss Protestants. Elsewhere it led to quarrels, particularly among the Lutherans, who charged him with yielding too much. He taught that the Body of Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, and that the believer partakes of it that the elements are unchanged, and that the Catholic Mass was idolatry. Yet his precise meaning is open to question. That he did not hold a real objective presence seems clear from his arguing against Luther, as the “black rubric” of the Common Prayer Book argues—Christ’s body, he says, is in heaven. Therefore, it cannot be on earth. The reception was a spiritual one; and this perfectly orthodox phrase might be interpreted as denying a true corporal presence. The Augsburg Confession, revised by its author Melanchthon, favoured ambiguous views—at last he declared boldly for Calvin, which amounted to an acknowledgment that Luther’s more decided language overshot the mark. The “Formula of Concord” was an attempt to rescue German Churches from this concession to the so-called Sacramentarians; it pronounced, as Calvin never would have done, that the unworthy communicant receives Our Lord’s Body; and it met his objection by the strange device of “ubiquity”—namely, that the glorified Christ was everywhere. But these quarrels lie outside our immediate scope.

As Calvin would not grant the Mass to be a sacrifice, nor the ministers of the Lord’s Supper to be priests, that conception of the Church which history traces back to the earliest Apostolic times underwent a corresponding change. The clergy were now “Ministers of the Word,” and the Word was not a tradition, comprising Scripture in its treasury, but the printed Bible, declared all-sufficient to the mind which the Spirit was guiding. Justification by faith alone, the Bible, and the Bible only, as the rule of faith—such were the cardinal principles of the Reformation. They worked at first destructively, by abolishing the Mass and setting up private judgment in opposition to pope and bishops. Then the Anabaptists arose. If God’s word sufficed, what need of a clergy? The Reformers felt that they must restore creeds and enforce the power of the Church over dissidents. Calvin, who possessed great constructive talent, built his presbytery on a democratic foundation—the people were to choose, but the ministers chosen were to rule. Christian freedom consisted in throwing off the yoke of the Papacy, it did not allow the individual to stand aloof from the congregation. He must sign formulas, submit to discipline, be governed by a committee of elders. A new sort of Catholic Church came into view, professing that the Bible was its teacher and judge, but never letting its members think otherwise than the articles drawn up should enjoin. None were allowed in the pulpit who were not publicly called, and ordination, which Calvin regarded almost as a sacrament, was conferred by the presbytery.

In his Fourth Book the great iconoclast, to whom in good logic only the Church invisible should have signified anything, makes the visible Church supreme over Christians, assigns to it the prerogatives claimed by Rome, enlarges on the guilt of schism, and upholds the principle, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. He will not allow that corrupt morals in the clergy, or a passing eclipse of doctrine by superstition, can excuse those who, on pretence of a purer Gospel, leave it. The Church is described in equivalent terms as indefectible and infallible. All are bound to hear and obey what it teaches. Luther had spoken of it with contempt almost everywhere in his first writings; to him the individual guided by the Holy Spirit was autonomous. But Calvin taught his followers so imposing a conception of the body in which they were united as to bring back a hierarchy in effect if not in name. “Where the ministry of Word and Sacraments is preserved,” he concludes, “no moral delinquencies can take away the Church’s title.” He had nevertheless, broken with the communion in which he was born. The Anabaptists retorted that they did not owe to his new-fashioned presbytery the allegiance he had cast away—the Quakers, who held with him by the Inward Light, more consistently refused all jurisdiction to the visible Church.

One sweeping consequence of the Reformation is yet to be noticed. As it denied the merit of good works even in the regenerate, all those Catholic beliefs and ordinances which implied a Communion of Saints actively helping each other by prayer and self-sacrifice were flung aside. Thus Purgatory, Masses for the dead, invocation of the blessed in Heaven, and their intercession for us are scouted by Calvin as “Satan’s devices.” A single argument gets rid of them all: do they not make void the Cross of Christ our only Redeemer? (Instit., III, 5, 6). Beza declared that “prayer to the saints destroys the unity of God.” The Dutch Calvinists affirmed of them, as the Epicureans of their deities, that they knew nothing about what passes on earth. Wherever the Reformers triumphed, a wholesale destruction of shrines and relics took place. Monasticism, being an ordered system of mortification on Catholic principles, offended all who thought such works needless or even dangerous—it fell, and great was the fall thereof, in Protestant Europe. The Calendar had been framed as a yearly ritual, commemorating Our Lord’s life and sufferings, with saints’ days filling it up. Calvin would tolerate the Swiss of Berne who desired to keep the Gospel festivals; but his Puritan followers left the year blank, observing only the Sabbath, in a spirit of Jewish legalism. After such a fashion the Church was divorced from the political order—the living Christian ceased to have any distinct relation with his departed friends; the saints became mere memories, or were suspected of Popery; the churches served as houses of preaching, where the pulpit had abolished the altar; and Christian art was a thing of the past.

The Reformers, including Calvin, appealed so confidently to St. Augustine’s volumes that it seems only fair to note the real difference which exists between his doctrine and theirs. Cardinal Newman sums it up as follows:

The main point is whether the Moral Law can in its substance be obeyed and kept by the regenerate. Augustine says, that whereas we are by nature condemned by the Law, we are enabled by the grace of God to perform it unto our justification; Luther [and Calvin equally] that, whereas we are condemned by the law, Christ has Himself performed it unto our justification—Augustine, that our righteousness is active; Luther, that it is passive; Augustine, that it is imparted, Luther that it is only imputed; Augustine, that it consists in a change of heart; Luther, in a change of state. Luther maintains that God’s commandments are impossible to man Augustine adds, impossible without His grace; Luther that the Gospel consists of promises only Augustine, that it is also a law, Luther, that our highest wisdom is not to know the Law, Augustine says instead, to know and keep it—Luther says, that the Law and Christ cannot dwell together in the heart. Augustine says that the Law is Christ; Luther denies and Augustine maintains that obedience is a matter of conscience. Luther says that a man is made a Christian not by working but by hearing; Augustine excludes those works only which are done before grace is given; Luther, that our best deeds are sins; Augustine, that they are really pleasing to God (Lectures on Justification, ch. ii, 58).

As, unlike the Lutheran, those Churches which looked up to Calvin as their teacher did not accept one uniform standard, they fell into particular groups and had each their formulary. The three Helvetic Confessions, the Tetrapolitan, that of Basle, and that composed by Bullinger belong respectively to 1530, 1532, 1536. The Anglican 42 Articles of 1553, composed by Cranmer and Ridley, were reduced to 39 under Elizabeth in 1562. They bear evident tokens of their Calvinistic origin, but are designedly ambiguous in terms and meaning. The French Protestants, in a Synod at Paris, 1559, framed their own articles. In 1562 those of the Netherlands accepted a profession drawn up by Guy de Bres and Saravia in French, which the Synod of Dort (1574) approved. A much more celebrated meeting was held at this place 1618–19, to adjudicate between the High Calvinists, or Supralapsarians, who held unflinchingly to the doctrine of the “Institutes” touching predestination and the Remonstrants who opposed them. Gomar led the former party; Arminius, though he died before the synod, in 1609, had communicated his milder views to Uytenbogart and Episcopius, hence called Arminians. They objected to the doctrine of election before merit, that it made the work of Christ superfluous and inexplicable. The Five Articles which contained their theology turned on election, adoption, justification, sanctification, and sealing by the Spirit, all which Divine acts presuppose that man has been called, has obeyed, and is converted. Redemption is universal, reprobation due to the sinner’s fault and not to God’s absolute decree. In these and the like particulars, we find the Arminians coming close to Tridentine formulas. The “Remonstrance” of 1610 embodied their protest against the Manichaean errors, as they said, which Calvin had taken under his patronage. But the Gomarists renewed his dogmas; and their belief met a favourable reception among the Dutch, French, and Swiss. In England the dispute underwent many vicissitudes. The Puritans, as afterwards their Nonconformist descendants, generally sided with Gomar; the High Church party became Arminian. Wesley abandoned the severe views of Calvin; Whitefield adopted them as a revelation. The Westminster Assembly (1643–47) made an attempt to unite the Churches of Great Britain on a basis of Calvinism, but in vain. Their Catechism—the Larger and the Smaller—enjoyed authority by Act of Parliament. John Knox had, in 1560 edited the “First Book of Discipline,” which follows Geneva, but includes a permissive ritual. The “Second Book of Discipline” was sent out by a congregation under Andrew Melville’s influence in 1572, and in 1592 the whole system received Parliamentary sanction. But James I rejected the doctrines of Dort. In Germany the strange idea was prevalent that civil rulers ought to fix the creed of their subjects, Cujus regio, ejus religio. Hence an alternation and confusion of formulas ensued down to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Frederick III, Count Palatine, put forward, in 1562, the Heidelberg Catechism, which is of Calvin’s inspiration. John George of Anhalt-Dessau laid down the same doctrine in 20 Articles (1597). Maurice of Hesse-Cassel patronized the Synod of Dort; and John Sigismund of Brandenburg, exchanging the Lutheran tenets for the Genevese, imposed on his Prussians the “Confession of the Marches.” In general, the reformed Protestants allowed dogmatic force to the revised Confession of Augsburg (1540) which Calvin himself had signed.

WILLIAM BARRY

Justus Baronius Calvinus

A convert and apologist, b. at Kanthen, Germany, c. 1570; d. after 1606. He was born of Calvinist parents and educated at Heidelberg where he took a course in theology. His study of the Fathers inclined him towards Catholicism and finally led him to Rome where he was kindly received by Cardinals Bellarmin and Baronius and by Pope Clement VIII. The writings of Bellarmin strengthened his conviction regarding the Church, and his gratitude to Baronius caused him to add that cardinal’s name to his own. On his return to Germany he became a Catholic (1601) and a staunch defender of the Faith. In his “Apologia” (Mainz, 1601) he gives the reasons for his conversion and in his “Praescriptionum adversus haereticos . . . Tractatus” (ibid. 1602, 1756) he appeals to the Fathers in support of the truth of Catholicism.

E.A. PACE

Calynda

A titular see of Asia Minor. It was probably situated at the boundary of Lycia and Caria (on the river Indos?), for it is placed in the former territory by Ptolemy (xxxi, 16), in the latter by Stephanus Byzantius (s.v.). Stephanus gives also another form of the name, Karynda. Calynda must be carefully distinguished from Kalydna, Kalydnos, Karyanda, and Kadyanda. Its king, Damasithemos, was an ally of Queen Artemisia (Herod., VIII, lxxxvii; Pliny, V, xxvii, who writes its name Calydna). It is mentioned among the cities that struck coins in the Roman period. Its Christian history is very short, for it is not mentioned in the “Notitiæ episcopatuum.” We know only that it was at a certain time a suffragan of Myra, the metropolis of Lycia. Bishop Leontius of Calynda is mentioned in 458 (Mansi, Concil., VII, 580) in the letter of the Lycian bishops to the Emperor Leo.

Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geog. (London, 1878), I, 485.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Camachus

A titular see in Armenia. This city does not appear in ecclesiastical history before the seventh century of our era. The true primitive name seems to have been Camacha. Camachus or Camache are later forms. When the “Pseudo- Ecthesis” of St. Epiphanius was drawn up (about 640), it was not yet a see. In 681 George, “Bishop of Daranalis or Camachus,” was present at the Council of Constantinople and subscribed its acts as “bishop of the clima of Daranalis”; a third name of the see, Analibla, is given by the old Latin version. The same prelate subscribed (692) the acts of the Trullan Council. About the end of the ninth century, Camachus, until then a suffragan of Sebaste (metropolis of Armenia Prima), was made a metropolitan see by Leo the Philosopher; it had five, and at one time eight, suffragan sees. Bishop Sisinnius is mentioned in 1028 (Lequien, I, 435). The Assumptionist manuscript lists contain many other names. By the fifteenth century the see had disappeared. Three Latin titulars are mentioned by Lequien (III, 1109). Camachus is to-day Kemakh, the chief town of a caza in the vilayet of Erzeroum; the whole district has about 20,000 inhabitants (5000 Christians, mostly Armenians). It is a village of the western Euphrates (Kara-Sou), half way between Sivas and Erzeroum, about 135 miles from both towns, and carries on a trade in gloves and carpets. In the neighbourhood are many old Byzantine or Turkish castles, and turbés (Mussulman tombs).

Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geog., (London, 1878), I, 486.

S. VAILHÉ

Camaldolese

(CAMALDOLITES, CAMALDULENSIANS).

A joint order of hermits and cenobites, founded by St. Romuald at the beginning of the eleventh century. About 1012, after having founded or reformed nearly a hundred unconnected monasteries and hermitages, St. Romuald arrived in the Diocese of Arezzo seeking place for a new hermitage. It was here, according to the legend, that he was met by a certain count called Maldolus. This man, after describing his vision of monks in white habits ascending a ladder to heaven (while he had slept in one of his fields in the mountains), offered this spot to the saint. The field, which was held by Maldolus in fief of the Bishop of Arezzo, was readily accepted by St. Romuald, who built there the famous hermitage afterwards known as Campus Maldoli or Camaldoli. In the same year he received from the count a villa at the foot of the mountains, about two miles below Camaldoli, of which he made the monastery of Fonte Buono. This latter house was intended to serve as infirmary, guest-house, and bursary to the hermitage, in order that the hermits might not be distracted by any worldly business.

Camaldoli and Fonte Buono may be considered as the beginning of the Camaldolese Order; the former foreshadowing the eremitical, the latter the cenobitical, branches. It is true that this opinion has been gravely contested. The Camaldolese writers are naturally inclined to place the date of the foundation of their order as early as possible, and their judgment is further influenced by their views on the birth-date of St. Romuald. But they differ considerably among themselves, their estimates varying from the year 940, chosen by Blessed Paolo Giustiniani, to the year 974, that commends itself to Hastiville. They point out that St. Romuald founded many monasteries and hermitages, and was many times surrounded by disciples before he came to Camaldoli; and they argue that in founding Camaldoli he did not intend to begin the order, but merely a new hermitage; that the order was called the Romualdine until the later years of the eleventh century, and then received the name Camaldolese, not from its origin at Camaldoli, but from the fact that the Holy Hermitage had always retained its first fervour and had been an exemplar to all other houses. It seems probable, however, that St. Romuald before 1012 was rather a reformer of Benedictine houses and a founder of isolated monasteries and hermitages, than the originator of a new order. Indeed it is doubtful if he had ever any intention of founding an order, in the modern sense, at all. But at Camaldoli the Rule, which later appeared in modified form as the “Constitutions of the Blessed Rudolph,” is first heard of; at Camaldoli the distinctive white habit first appears; at Camaldoli are first found in combination the two cenobite and hermit branches that are afterwards so marked a feature of the order. Strictly, perhaps, the order did not come into existence till the Bull “Nulli fidelium,” of Alexander II, in 1072. But, as all its distinctive features are first found together at Camaldoli in 1012, it may not be unwarranted to asign the foundation of the Camaldolese Order to that date.

THE FIVE CAMALDOLESE CONGREGATIONS

For six centuries the order grew steadily as one body, recognizing the Holy Hermitage as its head. But in process of time it became divided into five separate congregations, viz.: (i) The Holy Hermitage, (ii) San Michele di Murano, (iii) Monte Corona, (iv) The Congregation of Turin (San Salvatore di Turino), (v) Notre-Dame de Consolation. The history of these congregations had better be considered separately, after which something will be said of the Camaldolese Nuns.

(i) The Congregation of the Holy Hermitage

Little need be said here of this great congregation, for throughout the centuries it has changed but little, and its history is mostly to be found in its relations with the congregations to which it gave birth. Before the separation of San Michele di Murano, the Holy Hermitage had given four cardinals and many bishops to the church, and was famous throughout Europe for the sanctity and austerity of its members. Gratian, the great canonist; Guido d’Arezzo, the founder of modern music; Lorenzo Monaco, the painter; Niccola Malermi, the first translator of the Bible into Italian, are all claimed as sons of this great congregation. To the present day, in spite of persecution and spoliation, the hermits of Camaldoli and the cenobites of Fonte Buono remain examples of austerity and monastic fervour.

(ii) The Congregation of Murano

In the year 1212 the Venetian Republic, anxious that a hermitage should be founded within its borders, sent a request to this effect to Guido, Prior of Camaldoli. By him were sent Albert and John, hermits, and two lay brothers. To these was made over the little church of San Michele, on an island (now known as the Cemetery Island) between Venice and Murano, where tradition asserts St. Romuald to have lived with Marinus. The church was partly under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Castello, partly under that of the Bishop of Torcello. It was, however, at once released from the jurisdiction of both and handed over to Albert as representing the Prior of Camaldoli. At first a hermitage was started; but soon, on account of the rapid influx of novices, it was found necessary to adopt the cenobitical manner of life. The church was rebuilt and was consecrated by Cardinal Ugolino, and by 1227 the house is included by Gregory IX in his enumeration of the monasteries subject to Camaldoli. In 1243 another attempt to found a hermitage near Venice was made, John and Gerard, hermits of Camaldoli, being sent by Guido, the prior-general, to take possession of the house and church of San Mattia in Murano, which had formerly been a nunnery and had been given to Camaldoli by the Bishop of Torcello. This hermitage prospered greatly, and, six years after its foundation, was granted a much-mitigated form of the rule by Martin III, prior general of Camaldoli. Within twenty years this hermitage already possessed a subject house, and by the middle of the fourteenth century we find the Prior of San Mattia making a visitation of his suffragan monasteries, and the hermitage itself adopting the cenobitical life.

Meanwhile, about the end of the thirteenth century, the Priory of San Michele had developed into an abbey, and in 1407 its monks were allowed to elect their own abbot, subject only to the confirmation of the Prior of Camaoldoli. Two years later Paolo Venerio, Abbot of San Michele, was appointed by the pope one of the visitors and reformers of monasteries in Venice. In 1434 Camaldoli asserted its authority, when Ambrogio Traversari, the prior general, suddenly made a visitation of San Mattia di Murano and deposed the prior for contumacy. At the same time he exempted San Michele from the jurisdiction of the vicar, and subjected it immediately to the prior-general. But in another ten years came a further impulse towards independence, when Pope Eugenius IV suggested that the Camaldolese abbeys should form a congregation similar to that of Santa Giustina di Padova. The times, however, were not opportune, and though a union of nine abbeys was attempted in 1446 (called the Union of the Nine Places) it was soon abandoned, and for twenty years the matter rested. But in 1462 Pius II granted to Mariotti, prior general, and to his successors the right of appointing all superiors under his jurisdiction ad nutum. At once the question of separation became again important, and twelve years later it was solved. The Abbeys of Santa Maria dei Carreri, at Padua, and of San Michele di Murano and the Priory of San Mattia di Murano formed a new congregation. To escape the danger of commendam it was arranged that the superiors of these houses should be elected for only three years at a time, and a semblance of connexion with Camaldoli was maintained by requiring confirmation of their election by the prior general. The new congregation was confirmed by Sixtus IV, and soon showed signs of vigour. In 1475 the two great abbeys of Sant’ Apollinaire and of San Severo at Classe were united to it; and in 1487 Innocent VIII confirmed and extended the privileges granted by his predecessor. By 1513, however, the life tenure of office by the prior general was found to be inconvenient by others as well as by the new congregation, and a general chapter of the whole order was held at Florence. It was decided to form a new united congregation “of the Holy Hermitage and of San Michele di Murano,” with a prior general elected annually (afterwards triennially), and alternately from the hermits and the “regular” cenobites. The “conventuals” were expressly excluded from the generalship and were forbidded to take novices. This congregation was confirmed and was granted extraordinary privileges by the Bull “Etsi a summo” of Leo X. The reunion lasted, in spite of many disputes between the hermits and the cenobites, for more than a century. In 1558 the conventuals were separated from all privileges of the order, and eleven years later (1569) were finally suppressed by Pius V.

In the same year the congregation was much strengthened by the suppression of the hermit order of Fonte Avellana, which, with all its possessions, was united to the Camaldolese Order. Four years later, in 1573, the great Abbey of San Gregorio on the Cœlian Hill in Rome was united to the congregation. The whole order was, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, at the summit of its fortunes. In 1513 there had been seventeen “groups of monasteries” and four nunneries in the order, and since then had been added Fonte Avellana with its dependencies, the congregations of Monte Corona and of Turin, and several great historic abbeys. But the disruptive tendencies in the order were fatal to its continued prosperity. In 1616 the differences between the hermits and the cenobites of the great Congregation of the Holy Hermitage and San Michele resulted in their separation again into two congregations, and in spite of an attempt at reunion in 1626 this separation was final. The Congregation of San Michele di Murano had its own general, styled “the general of all the Camaldolese monks and hermits.” It possessed at one time about thirty-five monasteries (including Sant’ Apollinaire at Ravenna, San Michele and San Mattia at Murano, Santa Croce at Fonte Avellana, Santi Angeli at Florence, and San Gregorio at Rome), as well as eight nunneries. The houses subject to the congregation were divided into the four provinces of Venice, Tuscany, Romagna, and The Marches and Umbria, each with its “house of profession,” whose abbot was the vicar of the province. At each of the quinquennial chapters, the four great offices of the general, the two visitors, and the procurator general were distributed in turn among the four provinces, so that each province every twenty years had possessed all these dignities. Under this organization the congregation attracted many devout and intelligent subjects, and its reputation both for learning and for strictness was widespread. Romano Merighi (1658–1737), one of the founders of the Accademia degli Arcadi; Guido Grandi (1670–1742), historian of the order and famous mathematician, friend and correspondent of Newton; the two brothers Collina; Angelo Calogerà (1699- 1768), the historian of letters; Claude Frommond (1705–65), physician and chemist; Benedetto Mittarelli (1708–77) and Anselmo Costadoni (1714–85), authors of the “Annales Camaldulenses”; Mauro Sarti (1709–66), historian; Isidore Bianchi (1733–1807) and Clemente Biagi (1740–1804), archæologists; Ambrogio Soldani (1736–1808), naturalist-these are but a few of the illustrious names that adorn the congregation. It has also produced four cardinals: Andrea Giovannetti (1722–1800), for twenty-three years Archbishop of Bologna; Placido Zuria (1769- 1834), Vicar of Rome under three popes; Mauro Cappellari (1765- 1846), who in 1831 was elected pope and assumed the name of Gregory XVI; and Ambrogio Bianchi, who was also general of the order till his death in 1856. It was Mauro Cappellari to whom the Camaldolese Order is indebted for its survival. The great catastrophe of the French Revolution resulted in 1810 in the general suppression of religious orders in Italy. Fonte Avellana was spared in recognition of the scientific attainments of the titular abbot, Dom Albertino Bellenghi. But the Venetian houses were involved in the general ruin. S. Mattia was deserted and ultimately demolished. But Mauro Cappellari, who was at that time Abbot of S. Michele di Murano, succeeded in retaining house and community, by clothing the latter in the habits of secular priests, and by turning the former into a college for noble youths. The magnificent library was confiscated, and, after its chief treasures had been placed in public libraries, the remaining 18,000 volumes were sold by public auction. In 1813, after the blockade of Venice by the Austrians, the Commune made a public cemetery of the island of San Michele, thus destroying the vineyards of the abbey. In 1829 the same body gave the monastery and island into the custody of the Friars Minor Observant, who still possess them. Meanwhile, in 1825, Cappellari had been created cardinal by Leo XII, and it was owing to the strenuous opposition of the former and of Cardinal Zuria that that pope relinquished his intention to suppress the now enfeebled order. And when Cappellari mounted the pontifical throne as Gregory XVI, he not only materially assisted the finances of the order, but in every way furthered its attempts to regain something of its former prosperity. At his death, in 1846, it had recovered several of its historic houses and had hopes of regaining all. But these hopes have not been realized.

(iii) The Congregation of Monte Corona

If we except Camaldoli itself, all the houses of the order may be said to have abandoned, by the end of the fifteenth century, the eremetical mode of life so dear to St. Romuald. The establishment of hermitages in the neighbourhood of towns had rendered the solitary life of the hermit almost impossible, and the munificent benefactions which at various times had been made to the order had caused it to lose not a little of its primitive spirit and to abandon many of its stricter observances. It was reserve to Paolo Giustiniani, a member of the illustrious Venetican family of that name, to restore to the order the observance of St. Romuald’s ideal of a life of silence and solitude. At an early age he left Venice, where he had been born in 1476, to study philosophy and theology in the famous schools of Padua, and at the end of a brilliant career there he went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. On his return to Italy he entered religion at the age of thirty-four, becoming a hermit at Camaldoli. His promotion to high offices in the order was rapid. Shortly after his profession he was sent on an embassy to the court of Leo X to obtain papal protection against a certain abbot of S. Felice at Florence, who seems to have been lavishly spending the revenues of Camaldoli, and whom the prior of Camaldoli, general of the order, was unable himself to deal with. The result of the embassy was a Bull from the pope ordering restitution to be made to Camaldoli and forbidding to the Abbot of S. Felice any further interference. On Giustiniani’s return from Rome, the general of the order, Pietro Delphino, invited his co-operation in the difficult task of suppressing the abuses which had grown up. All authority in the order, which by right belonged to the prior of Camaldoli, was now possessed by the superiors of the regulars and conventuals. The discipline and observance of the former seem to have been strict, but the case of the conventuals left a great deal to be desired. Their superiors were perpetual, and apparently independent of one another. Recourse was had to Leo X, who, in 1513, ordered a general chapter to assemble. The results of its deliberations have been given above in the history of San Michele di Murano.

In 1516 Paolo Giustiniani was elected Prior of Camaldoli, and on the expiration of the three years of office, he again journeyed to Rome on business concerning the order. After the lapse of another three years spent in seclusion at Camaldoli, he was re-elected to the office of prior and once again approached the court of Leo X, to obtain permission from that pontiff to attempt an extension of the order. Leo, who appears to have had a great respect for Giustiniani, not only encouraged him in his project, but allowed the foundation of an entirely new congregation, exempt from the jurisdiction of the general and possessing its own peculiar constitutions. Returning from Rome to Camaldoli, he read the Brief from Leo to the assembled hermits and monks, and proceeded to resign the office of prior. Accompanied by a single companion he travelled on foot to Perugia to seek advice and spiritual direction from a solitary (of the Third Order of St. Francis) who dwelt at Monte Calvo. With this latter and a member of the Order of St. Dominic, he betook himself to a retreat in the Apennines-a dismal and solitary rock known as Pascia Lupo. A ruined chapel appears to have been the sole shelter for the three wanderers, and their right to possess even this was disputed by the priest of the neighbouring village so vigorously that it required papal authority to settle the question. Paolo was soon forsaken by his Dominican and Franciscan companions, who were aggrieved at the idea of adopting St. Romuald’s rule, he himself remaining at Pascia Lupo with the companion whom he had brought from Camaldoli and two others who had joined him. He was not destined, however, to remain long in this lonely spot, for, acceding to an earnest request from the hermits of Camaldoli to live near them, he came, with his original companion, to a place near Massaccio, and was there joined by some of the religious from Camaldoli. Such were the first beginnings fo the congregation founded by Paolo Giustiniani. Soon it was increased by the addition of two famous monasteries, viz. that of St. Leonard, situated on the summit of Monte Volubrio, in the Diocese of Fermo, and that of St. Benedict, near Ancona. The former was given to the order by its commendatory abbot, Gabrielli, nephew of the Cardinal of Urbino. Massaccio was given over entirely to the new congregation by Camaldoli in 1522. In the same year Giustiniani drew up his constitutions. No important additions to previous legislation seem to have been made. The rule of life was to be kept with the greatest rigour, as in St. Romuald’s time. The hermits’ food was rarely to consist of anything better than dry bread, and wine was very seldom allowed. The form of the monastic habit was considerably altered: the tunic and scapular were so shortened as to come only a few inches below the knee, and in place of the cowl the new hermits were given a capuce with a hood attached to it, and a short cloak fastened with a piece of wool at the throat.

There were now in all four hermitages belonging to the congregation, and in January of the year 1524 the first general chapter was held in the monastery of St. Benedict near Ancona. In this chapter Paolo Giustiniani was elected general of the congregation, priors were chosen for the different monasteries, and the constitutions were confirmed. In the same year Cardinal Giulio dei Medici, the friend and helper of Giustiniani, succeeded to the papacy as Clement VII. Giustiniani immediately repaired to Rome to obtain from the new pontiff confirmation of the acts of Leo X and full possession of the monasteries which Gabrielli, holding in commendam, had given over to the congregation when he joined it. Clement readily gave the necessary confirmation and at the same time granted the congregation certain dispensations from canon law.

This confirmation of Gabrielli’s gift did not imply that the monasteries would remain in the possession of the congregation after Gabrielli’s death. Giustiniani, anxious that the gift should be made perpetual, once more set out for Rome, accompanied this time by Gabrielli. It was the month of May, 1527, the very time at which the soldiers of the Emperor Charles V were occupying Rome. Giustiniani and his companion on their arrival were made prisoners, but, having nothing in their possession, were released, and travelled first to Venice and then to Massaccio. In 1528 Giustiniani went to Rome for the last time. He saw Clement in the Castle of S. Angelo and obtained the confirmation he had sought in the preceding year. Besides this he received confirmation of a gift previously made by the Abbot of St. Paul’s, of the monastery of San Silvestro on Monte Soracte. On his way to this monastery, which was about twenty miles distant from Rome, he was seized by his last illness, and died at his newly acquired monastery on the 28th of June, 1528.

On the death of the founder, a new general was chosen for the congregation in the person of Agostino di Basciano, who died shortly after. His place was taken by Giustiniano di Bergamo, formerly a Benedictine monk. He summoned a general chapter to decide which of the then existing houses was to be considered as the chief of the congregation. Many preferred Massaccio, as being the first-founded, but precedence was finally given to the monastery of Monte Corona.

In 1540, reunion was effected between the Congregations of Monte Corona and Camaldoli, with the prior of Camaldoli as general. It was arranged that a general chapter was to be held yearly at Camaldoli, at which the prior was to be chosen. This state of things only lasted for a year; the congregations were again separated and remained so till the year 1634, when they were again united by Pope Urban VIII. This union lasted till 1667, when they were finally separated by a Bull of Clement IX.

(iv) The Congregation of Turin

The Congregation of Turin owes its foundation to Alessandro Ceva, a member of a noble Piedmontese family. Born in 1538, he went to Rome in 1560 to study for the priesthood, and there placed himself under the spiritual direction of St. Philip Neri. Eight years later, with the saint’s advice, he determined to join the Camaldolese, and we find him becoming prior general of the order in 1587. From 1589 to 1595 he was in perpetual dispute with the order concerning the reformation of the Breviary ordered by Popes Pius V and Clement VIII. In 1596 he was sent to Turin as prior of the Camaldolese monastery of Puteo Strata, with authority to found hermitages of the order in Piedmont. Two years later a terrible plague visited Turin, during which the Camaldolese monks undertook the care of the sick, which the secular clergy, whose numbers had been terribly reduced by the pestilence, were scarcely able to perform. Alessandro Ceva, in the midst of his ministrations in the afflicted city, was called away to assume the priorship of the monastery of San Vito at Milan, and we find him writing from this place in 1599 to the Archbishop of Turin, begging him to ask Charles Emmanuel, Duke of Savoy, to make a solemn vow to God to found a Camaldolese hermitage, that the plague might be arrested. The vow was made publicly by the Duke of Savoy and the people of Turin, and the foundation of the new hermitage after much delay was laid in July, 1602, at a lonely spot between Turin and Peceto. The church of this new hermitage was finished in 1606, and endowed by the Duke of Savoy as the chapel of the Order of the Knights of the Annunciation (see ), of which order the hermits were to be regarded as chaplains. Little is known about this congregation, which seems to have been reabsorbed into the congregation of Monte Corona in the eighteenth century.

(v) The Congregation of Notre-Dame de Consolation.

In the year 1626 there entered the Congregation of Turin Boniface d’Antoine, a French priest belonging to the Diocese of Lyons. Almost immediately he was sent to France by the general of the congregation, to solicit from Louis XIII authorization for the founding of Camaldolese hermitages in France. His first monastery was in his native Diocese of Lyons, near a town named Bothéon. It was dedicated to Our Lady of Consolation and was founded and endowed by Balthassar de Gudaigne de Hostun, Marquis do Baume, in 1631. His second foundation was at Mont Peuchant in Le Forez, thanks to the help and munificence of the Archbishop of Lyons, Cardinal de Marque Mont. The Archbishop of Vienne, Pierre de Villars, was also friendly to the new order, authorizing the foundation of the hermitage of Notre Dame de Grâce at Sapet: and testifying at the same time to the sanctity and austerity of d’Antoine. Another foundation in the Diocese of Lyons was made in 1633, when Père Vital de Saint-Paul, an Oratorian, and his sister presented the two churches of St.-Roch and Val-Jésus, situated in the parish of Chambre, to d’Antoine. In the following year Louis XIII gave his formal consent by letters patent to the establishment of the Camaldolese in his dominions, on the condition that their general should always be French. He also prevailed upon the reigning pontiff, Urban VIII, to form the French Camaldolese into a separate congregation, with the title of “Notre-Dame de Consolation,” which was effected by a Bull dated 8 October, 1634. They were to observe the constitutions of Monte Corona, to which congregation they were affiliated. The new order seems to have been popular in France. In 1642 Charles de Valois, almoner of the Duc d’Angoulême, founded a hermitage at La Flotte, in Vendôme, and in 1659 the order was presented with another house in Vendôme, at La Gavalerie, in the parish of Bessé. A foundation was made in 1674 by the Comte de Guénégaud and his wife, Elizabeth de Choiseul, on their estate at Rogat, in the parish of Congard, in Brittany. In 1671 the new congregation took possession of the hermitage of Mont-Valérien, near Paris, whither they had been invited two years previously by a lay religious community. This foundation, however, was abandoned two years later. In 1679 a Camaldolese community was introduced into the old Benedictine abbey at Ile Chauvet, in Lower Poitou. This abbey had been held in commendam by various persons, some of whom had been laymen. In 1654 Henri de Maupas, Abbot of St.-Denis at Reims and afterwards Bishop successively of Le Puy and Evreux, became commendatory abbot, and fifteen years later introduced the Camaldolese, with the consent of the Bishop of Luçon, in whose diocese the abbey was situated. This was the only foundation of any importance made in France after the death of Boniface d’Antoine in 1673. Henceforth the history of this congregation is closly connected with the history of Jansenism. Throughout the congregation there were many obstinate adherents of the new heresy, and in 1728 a pamphlet, entitled “Le Témoignage,” defending their position, appeared in answer to the punitive measures taken against them by the General Chapter of 1727. No amount of repression could remove all traces of this persistent heresy, and the whole Congregation was suppressed in 1770.

The first house of Camaldolese Nuns, San Pietro di Luco in Mugello, near Florence, was founded by Blessed Rudolph, in the year 1086. It is true that St. Romuald himself had founded houses for nuns in 1006 and 1023; but there is no evidence that they followed the Camaldolese rule, and the Camaldolese writers almost unanimously assign the beginning of the houses for women to Blessed Rudolph. By 1616, when the congregation of San Michele di Murano was finally separated, there were eight houses subject to that congregation, besides many others under the jurisdiction of the bishops in whose dioceses they were situated. The nuns follow the rule of Camaldoli. They wear a white habit, veil, scapular, and girdle, to which the choir nuns add a black veil. In choir the choir nuns wear a white cowl, but the lay sisters a white cloak.

RULE AND CONSTITUTIONS

St. Romuald has left no written rule; the austere manner of life led by his hermits was transmitted by oral tradition. His great ideal was to introduce into the West the eremitical life led by the Eastern monks and the Fathers of the Desert. In the words of St. Peter Damian, his endeavour was “to turn the whole world into a hermitage, and make all the multitude of the people associates of the monastic order” (totum mundum in eremum convertere, et monachico ordini omnem populi multitudinem sociare). He introduced into Western monasticism a system hitherto unknown, and attempted a blending of the cenobitical life of the West with the eremitical life of the East. The rule was of the utmost severity. The brethren lived each in their separate cells, in the midst of which stood the oratory or chapel, where they met for the Hours of the Divine Office, the whole Psalter being recited daily. There were two Lents during the year, one in preparation for Christmas, the other for Easter. During both these periods every day of the week except Sunday was an abstinence day, that is to say, really a fast of the most rigorous kind on bread and water. During the remainder of the year this abstinence was to be kept on all days except Thursdays and Sundays, when fruit and vegetables might be eaten. The ideal of St. Romuald was one of absolute asceticism, and there was little room in his system for the “nothing harsh, nothing burdensome” (nihil asperum, nihil grave) which is so striking a feature in the Rule of St. Benedict, with its broad comprehensiveness and wise power of dispensation. This rule of life remained unrelaxed at Camaldoli till the year 1080, when the fourth prior, Blessed Rudolph I, gave the first written constitutions to the order. Besides a mitigation of austerity, there had become necessary a definite written code which everyone who joined would be bound to follow. The abstinence on bread and water, which had hitherto been observed on all days except Sundays during the two Lents, was now dispensed on Thursday as well, and also on the feasts of St. Andrew, St. Gregory, St. Benedict, the Annunciation, Palm Sunday, and Maundy Thursday. On these days fish and wine were to be allowed. On feasts of twelve lessons, if these were not days of abstinence, the hermits were allowed to take their meals together in a common refectory. The observance of silence which was continual under St. Romuald, was slightly relaxed in Rudolph’s constitutions. It was to be observed throughout both Lents and on all abstinence days. At other times it was to be observed from Vespers till after the conventual Mass. An important change in the character of the order was made by Rudolph’s extension of the cenobitical life. Fonte Buono, from being merely an adjunct of Camaldoli, now became a separate monastery, and henceforth the Camaldolese Order is distinguished by this twofold character. In his legislation for cenobites Rudolph built carefully on St. Benedict’s Rule. The interpretation which adhered closely to the letter and rigour of this rule, without consideration of circumstances of time, place, and national characteristics, was that which naturally appealed most strongly to the monastic reformer, and it was this aspect of the rule, if anything, intensified, which Rudolph chose for his monks, who were regarded by their contemporaries, and have ever since been regarded, as forming one of the many branches of the great Benedictine tree. In 1085 and 1188 further constitutions were given, more mititgated than those given in 1080; and as time went on the tendency was ever towards greater relaxation. In 1249 and 1253 Blessed Martin III gave his constitutions, and others again were promulgated in 1328. When the hermits of Camaldoli were united with the monks of the Congregation of San Michele di Murano, in 1513, special constitutions were drawn up, and when the first union was made between the Congregations of Camaldoli and of Monte Corona, in 1540, separate constitutions were given to the former.

With regard to the rule observed at Camaldoli to-day, it may be said with truth to retain some of the early rigour and austerity. Meat is never allowed except to the sick, and the severe abstinence on bread and water has to be observed on every Friday throughout the year. Meals are always taken in the seclusion of the cell, except on the great feasts, and even then in silence. The two Lents are still observed, and during these periods eggs, milk, butter, and cheese are strictly forbidden. All the Hours of the Divine Office are said in common in the hermitage church, a building which practically consists of one long and spacious choir. The hermits rise all the year round at half an hour after midnight for Matins, Lauds, and Meditation, which last for an hour and a half. A rest is then allowed till sunrise, when they betake themselves again to the church for the Office of Prime, and then return to their separate oratories to celebrate Mass. A slight collation is then taken, and the time between that and Tierce is spent in spiritual reading. Tierce is sung at nine, followed immediately by the conventual Mass and Sext. The remainder of the morning till the Office of None, at eleven, is passed daily in study and manual labour, each hermit having his own little garden and workship. Dinner is taken at half-past eleven and is followed by recreation, during which the hermits are allowed in summer to take a siesta. Vespers are sung at sunset, and a slight collation is taken later on. The day is closed by Complin, Meditation, and the Rosary. Twice a week in winter, and three times a week in summer, talking is allowed during recreation time, and walks may be taken through the woods surrounding the hermitage. The monks at Fonte Buono live a life somewhat similar, though, of course, without the solitude of the hermits’ life, and a walk beyond the monastic enclosure is allowed daily. Their hospice is now an hotel, and their forests have been appropriated by the Government. Speaking generally, the Camaldolese cenobites to-day may be said to follow the Benedictine rule in its ordinary interpretation.

The habit of the Camaldolese is now but little changed from that worn in the earliest days of the order. A white tunic reaching to the ankles, with scapular, girdle, and hood of the same colour. The cowl, worn only during the Divine Office, is also white, and of the same shape as the ample cowl of the Benedictines. A cloak is worn when walking abroad in cold weather, and the hermits also have another very ample cloak in which the whole body can be wrapped when hurrying to the midnight Office from their cells in severe weather.-Camaldoli, it should be remembered, stands on a range of the Tuscan Apennines at an altitude of 3680 feet above the sea.

An aspirant to the solitary or to the cenobitical life at Camaldoli has to undergo a long and severe probation. He is at first regarded as a guest for some days, and is then summoned before the community, assembled in chapter, and formally received. Placed immediately in the novitiate, he continues to wear his secular dress for forty days, after which period he is clothed in the novice’s habit and begins a novitiate of two years. If he should persevere he is admitted to simple vows, which may, if necessary, be dispensed during the three following years. During these three years the young religious does part of his ecclesiastical studies, and then, unless his superiors think a longer period necessary, he is admitted to solemn or final vows and to Holy orders. A lay brother’s probation is different. He remains one year in the novitiate, and then becomes an “oblate” for seven years; another year’s novitiate is then gone through, at the end of which he is called conversus, and his simple vows are taken for three years. If all is satisfactory, at the end of this period he is allowed to take solemn vows.

PRESENT STATE OF THE ORDER

There are at the present date (1907) three congregations in the Camaldolese order: the Congregation of Cenobites, which possesses four monasteries, with about fifty subjects; the Congregation of Hermits of Etruria, which possesses two hermitages and three monasteries, with nearly sixty subjects; the Congregation of Hermits of Monte Corona, which possesses ten houses, with about one hundred and thirty subjects. All these houses are in Italy, except the monastery of Bielany in Poland, belonging to the Congregation of Cenobites, and the hermitage of Nuova Camaldoli, near Caxias in Brazil, belonging to the Congregation of Hermits of Etruria. This last was founded from Camaldoli in 1899, by Dom Ambrogio Pierattelli and Dom Michele Evangelisti, and one lay brother, Ermindo Dindelli. In 1900 these were joined by three more hermits and two more lay brothers from Camaldoli. Dom Ambrogio was elected prior in 1903, and the first Camaldolese hermitage in the New World shows many signs of rapid and fruitful growth.

There are also five houses of nuns in existence, with about 150 inmates. These are all in Italy.

Augustinus Fortunius, Historia Camaldolensium (Venice, 1575, 1579); Beaunier, Receuil historique des Archevêchés, Evêchés, Abbayes et Prierurés de France (Ligurgé, 1906), introduction; Camaldoli ed i Camaldolesi, brevi note di un sacerdote secolare ad un giovane (Rome, 1905); Carmichael, In Tuscany (London, 1901), 245–264; Campbell, Guida storica illustrata di Camaldoli (Udine, 1906); Grandi, Dissertationes Camaldolenses (Lucca, 1707); Hastivillius, Romualdina seu Eremetica Camaldulensis Ordinis Historiaf (Paris, 1631); Heimbucher, Die Orden und Kongregationen der catholischen Kirche (Paderborn, 1907), I, 401–408; Helyot, Histoire des ordres monastiques (Paris, 1718), V, 236–79; Herzog and Hauck, Realencyclopädie für protestantischle Theologie und Kirche (Leipzig, 1897), III, 683–87; Mabillon, Acta Sanctorum O. S. B. (Venice, 1733–1740), Sæc. VI, i, 246–78; Idem, Annales Ordinis S. Benedicti (Paris, 1707), IV, 1261–3, 275, 289, 339; Mattabelli and Costadoni, Annales Camaldulenses O. S. B. (9 vols., Venice, 1755–73); Moroni, Diz. (Venice, 1840–58), V, 290, 308; XCI, 519–53, 561—62; S. Petrus Damianus, Vita Sancti Romualdi (Florence, 1513); Razzi, Regola della vita eremitica data dal b. Romualdo (Florence, 1575); Razzi, Vite dei santi e beati del ordine di Camaldoli (Florence, 1600); Thomas de Minis, Catalogue Sanctorum et Beatorum totius ordinis Camaldulensis (Florence, 1605); Ziegelbauer, Centifolium Camaldlulense (Venice, 1750); Regola di S. Benedetto e Constitutioni della Congregazione degli Eremiti Camaldolesi di Monte Corona (Rome, 1670); Regolamento giornaliero pei novici degli Eremiti Camaldolesi di Monte Corona (Frascatri, 1906);; Le Messager des Fidèles, Revue Bénédictine (Maredsous, 1887), IV, 356–63; Revista Storica Benedictina (Rome, 1906–7), I, 288–9, 470–5; II, 371–383, 600–4.

R. URBAN BUTLER.

LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE.

Diego Muñoz Camargo

(According to Beristain de Souza, Muñoz should be the surname).

Born of a Spanish father and Indian mother soon after 1521; died at a very advanced age, the exact date unknown. He acquired the knowledge of letters and rudimentary acquaintance with other branches of learning from the Franciscans at Mexico in the first half of the sixteenth century, and diligently inquired into the traditions and antiquities of the Nahuatl Indians, chiefly of the tribe of Tlaxcala, in which investigations he was encouraged and sustained by the clergy and the higher Spanish officials. For many years he acted as official interpreter. He wrote the “historia de Tlaxcala,” first published in a French translation in the “Annales des voyages” and but lately in the Spanish original. It is the only chronicle specially devoted to the past of the tribe Tlaxcala thus far accessible in print, except one, printed 1870, and which yet prove to be a fragment of Camargo’s work. Torquemada’s “Monarquia” is largely based on Camargo, and the history is of course partial, as all tribal chronicles are, extolling the Indians of Tlaxcala, and placing them above all others of Nahuatl stock. This does not, however, detract from its value. It presents a view differing from that of other Indian writers, and furnishes elements of useful criticism.

Torquemada, Monarquia Indiana (Madrid, 1613, and 1723); Boturini-Benaducci, Idea de una nueva Historia general de la América Setentrional (Madrid, 1746); Clavigero, Storia del Messico (Cesna, 1780); Beristain de Souza, Biblioteca hispano-americana setentrioonal (Amacameca, 1883); Brinton, Aboriginal Authors.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Luca Cambiaso

(Also known as Luchetto da Genova, and as Luchino).

Genoese painter, b. at Moneglia near Genoa, in 1527; d. in the Escorial, Madrid, 1585. He received his first instruction from his father, Giovanni Cambiaso, who is believed to have been the author of the method adopted in designing whereby the human body is divided into small squares in order to give correct proportions in foreshortening. Luca exhibited considerable talent, and was enabled by the assistance of a friend to visit Florence and Rome, where he carefully studied the works of Michelangelo. His early paintings are somewhat extravagant and grotesque, but later in life he checked his impetuosity, and his paintings were distinguished by exquisitely transparent colour and by grace in pose and composition. He was an exceedingly rapid painter, using both hands at once, and passionately fond of glowing colour and the sumptuous architectural backgrounds. In 1583 he was invited to visit Spain, where he was employed by Philip II in the Escorial, and painted the ceiling of the choir and several alter-pieces. His wife, to whom he was deeply attached, died in Genoa, and being unable to obtain a dispensation to marry her sister, he gave way to severe disappointment, and allowed it to prey upon his mind until it produced melancholia, from which he died. He had one son, Orazio, who accompanied his father to Spain and who worked for Philip II after his father’s decease.

Cambiaso was a man of little historical knowledge, but as an artist was distinguished by accurate drawing, clever composition, and admirable colouring. The women in his pictures are modest, the men impassioned, and he was fond of introducing horses into his scenes and painted them with beauty and spirit. His best works are in Madrid, Munich, and Florence.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Archdiocese of Cambrai

(CAMERACENSIS.)

Comprises the entire Département du Nord of France. Prior to 1559 Cambrai was only a bishopric, but its jurisdiction was immense and included even Brussels and Antwerp. The creation of the new metropolitan See of Malines in 1559 and of eleven other dioceses was at the request of Philip II of Spain in order to facilitate the struggle against the Reformation. The change greatly restricted the limits of the Diocese of Cambrai which, when thus dismembered, was made by way of compensation an archiepiscopal see with St. Omer, Tournai and Namur as suffragans. By the Concordat of 1802 Cambrai was again reduced to a simple bishopric, suffragan to Paris, and included remnants of the former dioceses of Tournai, Ypres, and St. Omer. In 1817 both the pope and the king were eager for the erection of a see at Lille, but Bishop Belmas (1757–1841), a former constitutional bishop, vigorously opposed it. Immediately upon his death, in 1841, Cambrai once more became an archbishopric with Arras as suffragan.

For the first bishops of Arras and Cambrai, who resided at the former place, see ARRAS. On the death of St. Vedulphus (545–580) the episcopal residence was transferred from Arras to Cambrai. Among his successors were: St. Gaugericus (580–619); St. Berthoaldus (about 625); St. Aubert (d. 667); St. Vindicianus (667–693), who brought King Thierri to account for the murder of St. Léger of Autun; St. Hadulfus (d. 728); Alberic and Hildoard, contemporaries of Charlemagne, and who gave to the diocese a sacramentary and important canons; Halitgarius (817–831), an ecclesiastical writer and apostle of the Danes; St. John (866–879); St. Rothadus (879–886); Wiboldus (965–966), author of the ludus secularis which furnished amusement to clerkly persons; Gerard the Great (1013–1051), formerly chaplain to St. Henry II, Emperor of Germany, and helpful to the latter in his negotiations with Robert the Pious, King of France; (Gerard also converted by persuasion the Gondulphian heretics, who denied the Blessed Eucharist); St. Lietbertus (1057–1076), who defended Cambrai against Robert the Frisian; Blessed Odo (1105–1113), celebrated as a professor and director of the school of Tournai, also as a writer and founder of the monastery of St. Martin near Tournai; Burchard (1115–1131), who sent St. Norbert and the Premonstratensians to Antwerp to combat the heresy of Tanquelin’s disciples concerning the Blessed Eucharist; Robert II of Geneva (1368–1371), antipope in 1378 under the name of Clement VIII; Jean IV T’serclaes (1378–1389), during whose episcopate John the Fearless, son of the Duke of Burgundy, married Margaret of Bavaria at Cambrai (1385); the illustrious Pierre d’Ailly (1396–1411); the celebrated Fénelon (1695–1715); and Cardinal Dubois (1720–1723), minister to Louis XV.

In the Middle Ages the Diocese of Cambrai was included in that part of Lorraine which, after various vicissitudes, passed under German rule in 940, and in 941 the Emperor Otto the Great ratified all the privileges that had been accorded the Bishop of Cambrai by the Frankish kings. Later, in 1007, St. Henry II invested him with authority over the countship of Cambrésis; the Bishop of Cambrai was thus the overlord of the twelve “peers of Cambresis.” Under Louis XIV (1678) the Bishopric of Cambrai once more became French. The councils of Leptines, at which St. Boniface played an important role, were held in what was then the Belgian part of the former Diocese of Cambrai. Under the old regime the Archdiocese of Cambrai had forty-one abbeys, eighteen of which belonged to the Benedictines. Chief among them were the Abbey of St. Géry, founded near Cambrai about the year 600 in honour of St. Médard by St. Géry (580–619), deacon of the church of Treves, and who built a chapel on the bank of the Senne, on the site of the future city of Brussels; the Abbey of Hautmont, founded in the seventh century by St. Vincent, the husband of St. Wandru, who was foundress of the chapter at Mons; the Abbey of Soignies, founded by the same St. Vincent, and having for abbots his son Landri and , in the eleventh century, St. Richard; the Abbey of Maubeuge, founded in 661 by St. Aldegonde the sister of St. Wandru and a descendant of Clovis and the kings of Thuringia, among whose successors as abbesses were her niece, St. Aldetrude (d. 696) and another niece, St. Amalberte (d. 705), herself the mother of two saints, one of whom, St. Gudule, was a nun at Nivennes and became patroness of Brussels, and the other, St. Raynalde, a martyr; the Abbey of Lobbes which, in the seventh and eighth centuries, had as abbots St. Landelin, St. Ursmar, St. Ermin, and St. Theodulph, and in the tenth century, Heriger, the ecclesiastical writer; the Abbey of Crespin, founded in the seventh century by St. Landelin, who was succeeded by St. Adelin; the Abbey of Maroilles (seventh century), which St. Humbert I, who died in 682, was abbot; the Abbey of Elnon, founded in the seventh century by St. Amandus and endowed by Dagobert; the Abbey of St. Ghislain, founded in the seventh century by the Athenian philosopher, St. Ghislain, and having as abbots St. Gerard (tenth century) and St. Poppo (eleventh century); the Abbey of Marchiennes, founded by St. Rictrudes (end of the seventh century); the Abbey of Liessies (eighth century) which, in the sixteenth century, had for abbot Ven. Louis de Blois (1506–1566), author of numerous spiritual writings (see BLOSIUS); the Abbey of St. Sauve de Valenciennes (ninth century), founded in honour of the itinerant bishop St. Sauve (Salvius), martyred in Hainault at the end of the eighth century; and the Abbey of Cysoing, founded about 854 by St. Evrard, Count of Flanders and son-in-law of Louis the Debonair.

The list of the saints of the Diocese of Cambrai is very extensive, and their biographies, although short, take up no less than four volumes of the work by Canon Destombes. Exclusive of those saints whose history would be of interest only in connection with the Belgian territory formerly belonging to the diocese, mention may be made of St. Eubertus, an itinerant bishop, martyred at Lille (third century); St. Chrysole, martyr, patron of Comines, and St. Piat, martyr, patron of Tournai and Seclin (end of third century); St. Pherailde, patron of Bruay near Valenciennes (eighth century); the Irish missionaries Fursy, Caidac, Fricor, and Ultan (seventh and eighth centuries); St. Winnoc, Abbot of Bergues (end of seventh century); Blessed Evermore, disciple of St. Norbert and Bishop of Ratzburg in Germany (twelfth century); Blessed Charles le Bon, Count of Flanders, son of King Canute of Denmark and assassinated at Bruges in 1127; and Blessed Beatrice of Lens, a recluse (thirteenth century). The Jesuits Cortyl and du Béron, first apostles of the Pelew (Caroline) Islands, were martyred in 1701, and Chomé (1696–1767), who was prominent in the Missions of Paraguay, and the Oratorian Gratry (1805–1872), philosopher and member of the French Academy, were natives of the Diocese of Cambrai. The English college of Douai, founded by William Allen in 1568, gave in subsequent centuries a certain number of apostles and martyrs to Catholic England. Since the promulgation of the law of 1875 on higher education, Lille has been the seat of important Catholic faculties. (See BAUNARD; LILLE.)

The principal places of pilgrimage are: Notre-Dame de la Treille at Lille, a church dedicated in 1066 by Baldwin V, Count of Flanders, visited by St. Thomas of Canterbury, St. Bernard, and Pope Innocent III, and where, on 14 June, 1254, fifty-three cripples were suddenly cured; Notre-Dame de Grâce at Cambrai, containing a picture ascribed to St. Luke; Notre-Dame des Dunes at Dunkerque, where the special object of interest is a statue which, in the beginning of the fifteenth century, was discovered near the castle of Dunkerque; the feast associated with this, 8 September, 1793, coincided with the raising of the siege of this city by the Duke of York; Notre-Dame des Miracles at Bourbourg, made famous by a miracle wrought in 1383, an account of which was given by the chronicler Froissart, who was an eyewitness. A Benedictine abbey formerly extant here was converted by Marie Antoinette into a house of noble canonesses. Until a comparatively recent date, the great religious solemnities in the diocese often gave rise to ducasses, sumptuous processions in which giants, huge fishes, devils, and representations of heaven and hell figured prominently. Before the law of 1901 was enforced there were in the diocese Augustinians, English Benedictines, Jesuits, Marists, Dominicans, Franciscans, Lazarists, Redemptorists, Camillians, Brothers of St. Vincent de Paul, and Trappists; the last-named still remain. Numerous local congregations of women are engaged in the schools and among the sick, as, for instance: the Augustinian Nuns (founded in the sixth century, mother-house at Cambrai); the Bernardines of Our Lady of Flines (founded in the thirteenth century); the Daughters of the Infant Jesus (founded in 1824, mother-house at Lille); the Bernardines of Esquernes (founded in 1827); the Sisters of Providence, or of St. Thérèse (mother-house at Avesnes); the Sisters of Our Lady of Treille (mother-house at Lille), and the Religious of the Holy Union of the Sacred Hearts (mother-house at Douai).

In 1900 the religious institutions of the archdiocese included 7 foundling asylums, 260 infant schools, 4 infirmaries for sick children, 2 schools for the blind, 2 schools for deaf-mutes, 19 boys’ orphanages, 57 girls’ orphanages, 20 industrial schools, 1 trades’ school, 3 schools of domestic economy, 5 reformatories, 89 hospitals and hospices, 32 houses of religious nurses, 7 houses of retreat, 2 insane asylums, and 177 conferences of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. The development of charitable establishments, to which should be added many institutions founded by Catholic employers for their workmen, may be accounted for by the immense labouring class in the Archdiocese of Cambrai. The retreats of Notre-Dame de Hautmont are well patronized by the working Catholics of the district. Statistics for the end of 1905 (close of the Concordat period) show a population of 1,866,994 with 67 pastorates, 599 succursales, or second-class parishes, and 157 curacies then remunerated by the State.

Gallia Christiana, ed. nova (1725), III, 1–7 and 206, and instrumenta, 1–44; FISQUET, Metropole de Cambrai (Paris, 1869); BLIN, Histoire des eveques et archeveques de Cambrai (Tournai, 1876); DESTOMBES, Les vies des Saints et des personnes d’une eminente piete de Cambrai et d’Arras (Lille, 1890); CHEVALIER, Topo-bibliographie, 554–558.

GEORGES GOYAU

University of Cambridge

I. ORIGIN AND HISTORY

The obscurity which surrounds the ancient history of Cambridge makes it impossible to fix with any certainty the date of the foundation of the great seat of learning now known as the university. In the days of Queen Elizabeth the most extraordinary legends were current, propounded by learned men at Oxford and Cambridge, regarding the respective antiquity of these two universities. The Oxford schools, it was claimed, had been founded by certain Greek professors who came to England with Brutus of Troy “about the time when Eli was judge in Israel”; while Cambridge traced her origin to “Cantaber a Spanish prince,” who arrived in Britain in the year of the world 3588. No more trustworthy is the statement of the chronicler known as Peter de Blois, who assigns 1110 as the date of certain learned monks coming to Cambridge from the great Abbey of Croyland, in the fen country, lecturing there, and assembling round them a nucleus of scholars. All that is certain is that long (though how long is not known) before the establishment of the first college in Cambridge, a body of students was in residence in the town, lodging at first in the houses of the townspeople, but gathered later into “hostels,” houses licensed by the university authorities, who appointed principals to each, responsible for the order, good discipline, and comfort of the inmates. These hostels, of which Fuller enumerates thirty-four, continued to exist up to, and after, the foundation of the first colleges, which were originally composed only of the master, fellows, and poor scholars, or sizars, who paid for their education by performing menial work. To the Benedictine Order belongs the honour of having established the first college within the university, St. Peter’s, better known as Peterhouse. It was founded in 1284 by Hugh de Balsham, monk and sometime prior of the Abbey of Ely, and Bishop of Ely from 1257 to 1286; and its constitution and statutes were modelled on those of Merton College, Oxford, founded twelve years previously by Walter de Merton, Bishop of Rochester.

Bishop de Balsham obtained leave from Edward I to place his scholars in the buildings of St. John’s Hospital, in the place of the religious brethren of that foundation, and a few years later acquired possession of a neighbouring monastery belonging to a suppressed order of friars. He and his successor at Ely, Bishop Simon Montacute, drew up an admirable code of statutes providing for the maintenance of a master and fourteen fellows, who were to be “studiously engaged in literature,” and withal “honourable, chaste, peaceable, humble and modest.” The scholars who attended the college lectures (prototypes of the “pensioner” of today) were still accommodated in the hostels, but the statutes provided for the maintenance of a few “indigent scholars well grounded in Latin,” who came later to be known as sizars. Monks and friars were explicitly excluded from the benefits of the foundation, but clerical students were evidently expected to be in the majority, and indeed the clerical dress and tonsure is specially enjoined on the master and all the scholars of Peterhouse. In the statutes of the second college founded, that of Michaelhouse (afterwards absorbed in Trinity), the religious provisions are particularly prominent. All the fellows were to be in Holy orders and students of theology, and the provisions for Divine service are elaborate and minute. In Cambridge, as at Oxford, the earliest colleges made use of the nearest parish church as their place of worship, and Pembroke, which dates from 1347, was the first which had from the beginning a chapel for its members within its own precincts. Thirteen of the existing colleges are pre-Reformation foundations, and three more were established in the sixteenth century. The three hundred subsequent years of Protestantism have produced but a single benefactor to emulate the pious achievements of Catholic times; and Downing college, founded in 1800, is the only one which has had its rise in the seventeenth, eighteenth, or nineteenth centuries. The modern revival of hostels has not been markedly successful, two out of three founded having been closed in recent years; nor has the institution of the non-collegiate system (introduced in 1869) attracted a great number of students, in spite of the advantages it offers of a considerably more economical university career.

Many of the features of the collegiate discipline and internal government as originally instituted are due to the fact of their earlier colleges having been largely modelled on the monasteries. Magdalene (like Gloucester, now Worcester, College, Oxford) was actually established for students belonging to the Benedictine Order, the young monks resorting thither from Croyland, Ely, Ramsey, and other East Anglian abbeys; while Emmanuel was built in 1584 on the site of a former Dominican house, becoming afterwards, curiously enough, the favourite resort of Puritan students. To the semi-monastic origin of the colleges must be traced such rules as those enjoining on the fellows celibacy and the clerical status, which were in force until almost the close of the nineteenth century. The final abolition of the restrictions as to marriage and clerical orders was brought about only in 1881, when new statutes were issued by the Cambridge commissioners in conformity with an act of Parliament passed four years previously. All religious tests have been abolished within the same period, except for degrees in divinity, examinations and degrees in the other faculties being now thrown open to students of every creed. The Anglican element is still strongly represented in the governing body, more than half the heads of houses, for example, being (1907) clergymen of the established church.

Looking back on the past three centuries of the history of the university, one is struck by the long succession of eminent men whom Cambridge has produced, notwithstanding the narrow and cramping influence of a system which, during a great part of that time, rigidly excluded non-members of the Church of England from every position of influence and emolument, and even from the benefits of a degree. A list by no means exhaustive includes, among philosophers and men of science, Bacon, Newton, Herschel, Adams, Darwin, Rayleigh, and Kelvin; among statesmen, Burleigh, Strafford, Cromwell, Pitt, Palmerston, Devonshire, and Balfour; among scholars and men of letters, Erasmus, Bentley, Porson, Paley, Stern, Ben Johnson, Lytton, Macaulay, and Thackeray; among lawyers, Coke, Littleton, Ellenborough, and Lyndhurst; among historians, Hume and Acton; and (last, not least) among the galaxy of poets, who are perhaps the brightest gems in Cambridge’s crown of famous men, Spenser, Milton, Herbert, Dryden, Cowley, Otway, Prior, Gray, Coleridge, Byron, Wordsworth, and Tennyson. Apart from the unbroken chronicle of the intellectual achievements of her sons, the university as such has never during the six centuries and more of her existence figured prominently in history. Her part in politics has been on the whole unimportant, and her tendency, in matters both of Church and State, has ever been towards moderation and an avoidance of extremes. Her relations with kings and rulers have been friendly, if not always cordial; during the troubles of the Civil War she was loyal, but not with the exuberant loyalty of Oxford, to Charles I; her colleges sent him their plate, but they came later easily into the obedience of the Commonwealth. So in religious matters she has never been in the forefront of the great religious movements which have originated at Oxford and have shaken England to its centre. She has bred eminent divines both high and low in their ecclesiastical views; but her chief glory has been, and is, in that stamp of churchmen who form the broad, or liberal, section of the Anglican body. Ellicott and Alford, Vaughan and Kingsley, Lightfoot and Maurice, are names as typical of Cambridge as those of Newman and Pusey, Wilberforce and Liddon and Bright, are characteristic of Oxford. It remains to add that the corporate existence of Cambridge University dates from the thirteenth year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, when it was incorporated under the designation of “The Chancellors, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.” The endowment of the first professorships dates from an earlier period of the same century, the Lady Margaret professorship of divinity having been founded in 1502 by Margaret, mother of Henry VII. Henry VIII established in 1540 the five regius professorships of divinity, civil law, physics, Hebrew, and Greek. Thirty-nine professorships have since been founded, making a total of forty-five, in addition to assistants, demonstrators, and readers.

II. CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT

(A) THE UNIVERSITY

Nothing is more difficult to foreigners than to understand the constitution of such a university as that of Cambridge, complicated as it is by the dual and simultaneous existence of the central governing body with its complete organization and staff of officials, and of the separate colleges, each an autonomous corporation, with its own officers, its own property, and its own statutes, and yet all constituting an essential part of the university as a whole. The combined university and college system of Cambridge and Oxford is in fact unique, and is in as marked contrast with the pure university system prevailing in Germany, France, and Scotland, as well as of the most recently founded universities in England, as it is with the pure college system of some universities in the United States. The supreme legislative and governing power of the whole body (for the statutes of the several colleges are subject to the paramount authority of the university laws) is vested in the senate, whose place of meeting is called the senate-house. The constituent members of the senate are the chancellor, vice-chancellor, doctors of the six several faculties, bachelors of divinity, and all masters of arts, law, surgery, and music, who have their names on the university register. The matters to which the jurisdiction of the senate extends, include the management of the finances and property of the university (as distinguished from that belonging to the individual colleges), the general conduct of the studies and examinations, and the regulations affecting morals and discipline. It is, however, to be noted that nothing whatever can be proposed for enactment or confirmation by the senate except with the sanction of the council, a body established by the authority of Parliament about 1857. The council is really a committee of the whole senate, consisting of the chancellor, vice-chancellor, four heads of colleges, four university professors, and eight other members of the senate elected by the whole body. Meetings of the senate, styled congregations, and presided over by the vice-chancellor or his deputy, are held about once a fortnight during term for the transaction of university business. The executive power of the governing body is vested in the following officials: the Chancellor, elected for life, who is head of the university, and has power to adjudicate in all matters affecting members of the university, excepting cases of felony; the Vice-Chancellor, elected annually, who exercises the full powers of the chancellor in his absence or in case of a vacancy in the office; the High Steward, who has special powers to try scholars, within the limits of the university, even in cases of felony, and appoints a resident deputy; the Sex Viri, elected by the senate every two years, with power to hold a court for the trial of all senior members of the university charged with offences against the statutes; the Court of Discipline, consisting of the chancellor and six elected heads of colleges, for the trial of scholars in statu pupillari; the Public Orator, who voices the senate on public occasions, writes letters when required, in the name of the university, and presents to all honorary degrees with an appropriate oration; the Registrary, who keeps the record of all university proceedings, and the roll of members of the university, and is the custodian of all important documents; the two Proctors (with their Pro-Proctors), who are responsible for the morals and discipline of the younger members of the university, and assist the vice-chancellor in the discharge of his duties. Other university officials are the two members elected by the senate to represent the university in the imperial parliament, the Counsel to the university, appointed by the senate; the Solicitor, nominated by the vice-chancellor; the General Board of Studies, consisting of the vice-chancellor, and various elected members of the senate, and of special boards; the Financial Board, for the care and management of the property of the university, consisting of the vice-chancellor and eight members of the senate, half elected by the colleges and half nominated by the vice-chancellor. The university property consists chiefly of a small amount of landed estate, the fees charged for matriculations, examinations, and graduating, the quarterly due or tax paid by every member of the university whose name is on the register, the profits of the university printing-press, contributions from the various colleges, as provided by the statutes, and various minor sources of income of a fluctuating kind.

(B) The Colleges

The order of the members of the several colleges, which number seventeen in all, is as follows: (1) The head, who is usually, but not necessarily or always, a doctor in his own faculty. The head of King’s College is styled provost; of Queen’s, president; of all the other colleges, master. (2) The fellows, numbering altogether about 400, and as a rule graduates (usually masters) in some faculty. (3) Doctors in the several faculties, bachelors in divinity, masters of arts, law, and surgery, who are not on the foundation of the college. (4) Bachelors in the four faculties last-named. (5) Fellow-commoners, generally men of rank and fortune, who are entitled to dine at the fellows’ table (hence their name) and enjoy other privileges. (6) Scholars, foundation-members of the several colleges and enjoying certain emoluments and advantages accordingly. They are as a rule elected by direct competitive examination prior to the commencement of their residence. (7) Pensioners (corresponding to “commoners” at Oxford), the great body of undergraduate students, who pay for their board and their lodging either within or without the college precincts. (8) Sizars, students of limited means who receive, as a rule, their rooms and commons free.

The following is a list of the colleges at Cambridge, in chronological order, with the date of the foundation of each: St. Peter’s or Peterhouse (1257), Clare (1326), Pembroke (1347), Gonville and Caius (1348), Trinity Hall (1350), Corpus Christi (1352), King’s (1441), Queen’s (1448), St. Catherine’s (1473), Jesus (1496), Christ’s (1505), St. John’s (1511), Magdalene (1519), Trinity (1546), Emmanuel (1584), Sidney Sussex (1595), Downing (1800). There is also one public hostel, Selwyn College, founded in 1882, and restricted to members of the Church of England, and a body of non-collegiate students (under a censor) who under a statute of 1869 are admitted into the university without becoming members of any college or hostel. The total number of members of the university having their names on the register was, in July, 1907, 14,053, including 7220 members of the senate and 3463 undergraduates. Of these many more were on the books of Trinity than of any other college, namely 3675, the next in order being St. John’s, with 1475. The total number of matriculations (of new members) in the academical year 1906–1907 was 1083, the highest in the history of the university. The government of each college is by its own master (or other head) and fellows, or else by the master and council, a select committee of the fellows. Each college has its visitor, either the Sovereign, the Lord Chancellor or the Chancellor of the University, or some bishop or other high dignitary, to whom reference is made when questions arise as to the interpretation of the college statutes; but no college statute is binding unless in harmony with the general code of statutes for the university approved by Queen Victoria in Council in 1882.

III. STUDIES AND DISCIPLINE

(A) STUDIES

The Cambridge University system may be defined as one which subjects all candidates for degrees, and for all university and college distinctions, to the test of competitive examinations, held at fixed intervals, and which allows the preparation and study for these examinations to be held whenever, and in whatever way, the individual thinks proper. Professors and readers, lecturers, demonstrators, and tutors, public and private, in every subject of the university curriculum, are provided in abundance by the university itself, by the various colleges, and by private enterprise. But the test, and practically the sole test (apart from certain disciplinary regulations) of the fitness of an undergraduate to receive the degree, whatever it be, which is the object of his university career, is not regular attendance at lectures, still less proficiency or perseverance in his course of private study, but his success in passing the various examinations, whether with or without “honours,” which are the only avenue to the baccalaureate. For the ordinary degree of B.A., which may be taken in the ninth term of residence (that is, there being three terms in each academical year, in two years and eight months after coming into residence), the ordinary “passman,” who does not aspire to honours, has to pass (1) the “previous examination,” or “little go,” in Greek, Latin, and mathematics (all of a pretty elementary kind), and Paley’s “Evidences of Christianity.” The Gospel, which is one of the Greek books set, and Paley can if desired be replaced by a classic and logic. Oriental students may take Arabic, Chinese, or Sanskrit instead of Greek or Latin, under certain conditions. (2) The General Examination, somewhat more advanced classics and mathematics and (optional) English literature. (3) A Special Examination, in one of the following subjects: theology, political economy, law, history, chemistry, physics, modern languages, mathematics, classics, mechanics and applied science, music.

Candidates for honours have to pass in certain additional subjects in their “little go,” being then exempt from further examination until the final, or “tripos”—a word sometimes derived from the three-legged stool on which candidates formerly sat, but now referring to the three classes into which successful candidates are divided. Honours may be taken in any of the following triposes: mathematics, classics, theology, law, history, medieval and modern languages, Oriental languages, moral sciences, natural sciences, mechanical sciences, and economics. Nearly all these tripos examinations are divided into two parts, with an interval between them; and only those who have obtained honours in the first part may proceed to the second. The three classes into which the successful candidates in the mathematical tripos are divided are called respectively wranglers, senior and junior optimes. The names in each class are placed in alphabetical order, the distinction of “senior wrangler,” long the blue ribbon of Cambridge scholarship, having been abolished in 1907. The prominence formerly assigned to mathematics at Cambridge is shown by the fact that up to 1851 no candidate could obtain classical honours without previously gaining a place in the mathematical tripos. Although this rule no longer exists, the Cambridge theory remains on the whole the same, that mathematical studies form the most perfect course of intellectual training. Cambridge scholarship is sometimes said to derive its accuracy from mathematics; but the complete course of mathematics at Cambridge demands different and higher qualities than mere accuracy, namely breadth of reasoning, readiness to generalize, perception of analogies, quickness in the assimilation of new ideas, a keen sense of beauty and order, and, above all, inventive powers of the highest kind. This is the spirit of the typical Cambridge scholar, and it has produced and fostered some of the keenest intellects and brightest geniuses in the world of science, using that word in its widest and most general sense.

The instruction in preparation for the manifold examinations, which are the gates to degrees in arts and other faculties, is derived from three sources: the university professors, the college tutors, and private instructors, usually known as “coaches.” Least important, strangely enough, are the lectures given by the five-and-forty highly-paid professors, some of whom lecture very infrequently, while others may be themselves sound and even brilliant scholars, without being competent to impart the knowledge which they possess. The provision made by each college for the instruction of those residing within its walls consists of a system of lectures given by the college tutors, and annual or terminal examinations of all its own members. These lectures include every subject comprised in the university examinations, both pass and honour; attendance at them is compulsory on the students, and they are often of high excellence. Nevertheless the main work of tuition of serious and most successful students is done by the entirely extra-official private tutors, who are in no way publicly recognized as part of the university staff, but who undertake the greater part of the strenuous task of preparing their pupils for the various examinations. The position of these tutors is, in fact, in entire consonance with the general university system, the object of which is to ascertain, at stated intervals, and in the most thorough and searching manner, what a young man knows, without seeking to inquire how he knows it, or from what source, public or private, official or unofficial, his knowledge is derived. Under recent statutes, “advanced students,” over twenty-one years of age, may be admitted as members of the university (their name being placed on the books of some college or hostel), may enter in their third term for certain honour examinations, and after six terms’ residence proceed to the B.A. degree. They may be students either of the arts course or of law, or may pursue a course of research, and present a dissertation embodying the results of such research, as a qualification for their degree. These students can afterwards proceed to the degree of M.A., or to other degrees, under the usual conditions.

(B) Discipline

The general discipline of the university, for which the senate is responsible, is in the hands of the proctors, two members of their body nominated annually by the different colleges in turn. The disciplinary powers of these officials, which formerly extended to the townsmen as well as to the students, have become decidedly restricted in recent years, and would be difficult accurately to define; but they may be said to be generally responsible for the good order and morals of the younger members of the university outside the college walls, and have authority to punish in various ways public breaches of discipline or of the university statutes. Within the college the discipline is in the hands of the tutors and the dean. Every undergraduate on his arrival is assigned to a particular tutor, who is supposed to stand in loco parentis to him, and exercises more or less control over every department of his undergraduate career. Both deans and tutors have punitive powers of different kinds, including pecuniary fines, admonitions, varying in seriousness, “gating,” or confining within college or lodgings at an earlier hour than usual, and (as a last resource) “rustication,” i.e. sending down for one or more terms, or even for good. In serious matters there is of course an appeal to the head, whose authority is absolute within his own college walls. On the whole, the system, though certainly framed for the control of youths considerably younger than the average undergraduate of to-day, works satisfactorily; and though minor breaches of discipline are numerous, grave delinquencies are happily rare.

IV. UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE BUILDINGS

It is a commonplace remark that Cambridge as a town contrasts unfavourably with Oxford, and an acute American writer, himself an alumnus of Trinity College, has gone so far as to describe it as, of all English provincial towns, the most insignificant, the dullest, and the ugliest. Certainly there is nothing at Cambridge comparable to the unrivalled High Street of Oxford. The street architecture is mean, dingy yellow brick being the chief material of the houses, and the site, on the edge of the chalk and fen country, is as dreary and uninteresting as anything in England. But the glory of Cambridge is of course its group of colleges, whose varied beauty is rivalled only by Oxford; and the Cantab will not easily allow that anything at Oxford, even Magdalen itself, is finer than Trinity, King’s, or the FitzWilliam Museum. Of the university buildings, the last-named, founded by Viscount FitzWilliam, who died in 1816, is one of the noblest classical buildings in England, and contains valuable books, paintings, prints, and sculpture. The Senate-house, opened in 1730, is a building of admirable proportions, with a richly-decorated interior. Near it are the schools and the University Library, containing about 400,000 books and MSS., and entitled (like three or four other libraries) to a copy of every book published in the United Kingdom. Other buildings are the Pitt Press, conspicuous with its lofty tower, erected in 1831 in memory of William Pitt; the Geological Museum, containing the Woodward collection, and the excellently equipped Observatory, about a mile outside the town. Among the colleges, Trinity holds the premier place as the largest in any English university. Its great court covers more than two acres of ground; the splendid library was designed by Christopher Wren; the hall, 100 feet long, contains many interesting pictures; and the chapel, dating from Queen Mary’s reign, has within the last generation been restored and elaborately decorated. King’s College, founded by Henry VI, in connection with his famous school at Eton, is celebrated for its chapel, unquestionably the finest building in Cambridge. It was finished in 1536, and ranks with St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, among the most perfect existing specimens of perpendicular architecture. The other buildings of the college are of little interest. Third in architectural importance is St. John’s, with its four courts, one of the most notable modern additions to any college in Cambridge. The picturesque buildings are mostly Tudor or Jacobean, while Gilbert Scott’s magnificent chapel, opened in 1869, is Early Decorated. In size and wealth, St. John’s ranks next to Trinity, and it has produced many famous scholars.

Taking the remaining colleges in alphabetical order, we have first St. Catherine’s, its red brick buildings dating from the end of the seventeenth century, and its court, planted with elms, opening to the street. Many noted ecclesiastics and theologians have been educated here. Christ’s College, founded (like St. John’s) by the mother of Henry VII, is associated with Milton, and the mulberry-tree said to have been planted by him is still shown. The ancient buildings were all modernized in the eighteenth century. Clare is the second oldest college in the university, but the present structure is entirely of the seventeenth century, and is a very pleasing example of the Palladian style. Corpus Christi, founded in 1352 by the guilds of Corpus Christi and of the Blessed Virgin, came early to be known as Benet College, from the neighbouring church of St. Benedict, and its proper name was, curiously enough, revived only in the nineteenth century. The modern buildings are imposing from their size, and the library contains a most valuable collection of books brought together by Archbishop Parker from the dissolved monasteries. Downing, the only modern college in Cambridge (founded 1800), has large grounds, but there is nothing noteworthy about its buildings. Emmanuel, on the site of a Dominican monastery, and the chosen home of the Puritans for a hundred years, has a chapel and picture-gallery designed by Wren. The founder of Harvard College, U. S. A., was a member of Emmanuel. Gonville and Caius (usually known as Caius, pronounced “Keys”) has some valuable medical studentships, and is the chief medical college. The stained glass in the chapel depicts the miracles of healing. The college buildings have been greatly altered and enlarged, but the three famous old gates (of Humility, of Virtue, and of Honour) are still preserved. Jesus (dear to Catholics as the college of the martyred Bishop Fisher of Rochester) occupies the site of a Benedictine convent, of which the fifteenth-century chapel still remains, and has been restored by Pugin. It is the only college with a complete range of cloisters. Magdalene, the only college on the north side of the river Cam, was a Benedictine foundation. Not much remains of the ancient buildings, the finest part of the college being the Pepysian library, containing the books of the famous diarist, and many black letter volumes. Pembroke, the college of Spenser, Gray, and Pitt, has a chapel built by Wren, but has little architectural interest. It has been a noted nursery of Anglican prelates. St. Peter’s or Peterhouse, the oldest college in Cambridge (founded 1257), preserves some of its ancient buildings, has pretty gardens and a small deer-park, and a library rich in medieval theology. The chapel is Laudian Gothic, dating from 1633. Queen’s College, founded by the consorts of Henry VI and Edward IV (the only college which has a president, not a master), is charmingly picturesque, its ancient buildings having suffered less than most from restoration. It boasts Erasmus, whose study is still shown, as its most famous alumnus; but the college has hardly kept up its ancient reputation for learning. Sidney Sussex, with its pretty gardens, is the college of Oliver Cromwell, and possesses the best extant portrait of him. It occupies the site of a Franciscan monastery, but almost all that was old or interesting in the buildings was destroyed by Wyattville’s “restorations” about 1830. Trinity Hall, also with charming gardens, has mostly been rebuilt since a fire in 1851. It has always been more or less the legal college, as Caius, the medical, and has also turned out many famous boating men. Selwyn College, the hostel founded in 1882 in memory of a well-known Anglican prelate, aims at economy, and is exclusively Anglican by its foundation charter. Girton and Newnham, the two colleges for female students at Cambridge, are in no sense part of the university. Apart from the beauty and interest possessed by the individual colleges, a peculiar charm common to nearly all is their picturesque position on the bank of the little river Cam, the buildings and gardens of the larger colleges extending on either side of the river, which is spanned by nine bridges. This unique combination of river, meadow, avenue, garden, and collegiate buildings is known collectively as the “backs,” and it would be difficult to exaggerate its charm, especially on a fresh morning in the early summer.

V. CAMBRIDGE AND ENGLISH CATHOLICS

Up till about the middle of the nineteenth century, although no religious test, or subscription to the Anglican Articles was (as at Oxford) required on matriculation into the University of Cambridge, it was impossible to proceed to the bachelor’s (or of course to any higher) degree without first signing the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and declaring oneself a bona fide member of the Church of England. It was not until nearly thirty years after these disabilities and restrictions were removed that Catholics began once again to frequent the universities in any numbers; not, in fact, until, in response to a petition addressed to the Congregation of Propaganda, through the English Bishops, by a representative body of English Catholics (including many Peers and university graduates), permission was formally granted by the Holy See, under certain conditions and with certain safeguards, for the Catholic youth of Great Britain to attend the national universities. During the ten years from 1897 to 1907, considerable advantage has been taken of this concession, Catholics coming in gradually increasing numbers both from the principal English Catholic schools, and from other parts of the British Empire, as well as from the Continent of Europe and from the United States, to avail themselves of the peculiar advantages of English university education. At the beginning of the academical year 1907–1908 there were (at Cambridge) seventy-six Catholics in residence at the university, including six members of the senate, two bachelors of arts, and sixty-eight undergraduates. About two-fifths of the Catholic students were from English Catholic schools (Beaumont, Downside, the Oratory, Stonyhurst, Ushaw, etc); two-fifths had been educated at non-Catholic public schools (Eton, Harrow, Wellington, St. Paul’s, etc.); while the remaining fifth were foreigners, many of them young Austrians or Hungarian nobles, and others from Germany, France, Spain, or Italy, and a few from India and the United States. The largest number, as was to be expected, were members of Trinity College, the others being pretty well distributed over the other colleges. The Catholic students, small as is their number in comparison with the great mass of the undergraduates, have earned a good reputation both for steadiness and industry, and a large majority of them are, as a rule, reading for honours. There is always a fair percentage of Catholics who hold college scholarships, gained in open competition.

St. Edmund’s House, an institution for students preparing for the (secular) priesthood, occupies a house formerly known as Ayerst’s Hostel, but later purchased for the Catholic body by the Duke of Norfolk. It is not corporately recognized by the university, as an attempt, soon after its foundation, to have it erected into a regular hostel was defeated in the senate, although the university authorities were not opposed to the idea. The members of the house are, however, all affiliated either to some college or to the non-collegiate body, permission being granted to them to live together under their own head or rector. Besides the seminarists, who belong to various English dioceses, there are generally one or two members of the secular or regular clergy living and studying at St. Edmund’s.

St. Benet’s House, a small house of studies for members of the Benedictine Order, was founded in 1896 by the community of Downside, near Bath, Dom Cuthbert Butler (afterwards abbot) being the first head of it. The members of this house belong (like the members of St. Edmund’s) to one or other of the colleges, with leave from the authorities to live together in community and enjoy certain exemptions from the ordinary collegiate rule. All the Benedictines who have passed through St. Benet’s have graduated with honours, except two who entered as “advanced students” and have taken research degrees.

A final word may be said as to the annual expense of living at Cambridge for an undergraduate. It must be remembered that the regular university terms last little more than half the year, although an extra, or subsidiary, term may now be kept during the long vacation, and many men, especially those reading for honours, are therefore in residence for about eight months out of the twelve. It would probably be fairly accurate to estimate the average income of an undergraduate at Cambridge, available for the period of his residence, to be about two hundred pounds a year. A large number of men, especially those belonging to the smaller colleges, undoubtedly spend less than this annual sum, but on the other hand there is a considerable number whose income is much higher. The acute American observer (himself a Cantab) already cited concludes that an undergraduate with an allowance of two hundred and fifty pounds per annum could live surrounded by comforts, and what to an American student would be luxuries, but that he could not live on much less without great care and a certain amount of self-sacrifice. The estimate is perhaps unduly high; but so much depends on a young man’s antecedents, training, disposition, and tastes, that it is impossible to give more than an approximate idea of the total cost of an undergraduate’s academic career. Scholars of the various colleges receive an annual emolument varying from fifty pounds to one hundred pounds, for a period of residence of three to five years, and enjoy other advantages and allowances which reduce their necessary annual expenditure to a very moderate figure. Many clever boys also come up to Cambridge with scholarships or exhibitions gained at the public schools where they have been educated, and their expenses at the university are of course reduced in proportion.

Cambridge University Calendar (1907–1908); COOPER, Athenae Cantabrigienses (1856–61); LE KEUX, Memorials of Cambridge (1880); MULLINGER, The University of Cambridge (1873); WORDSWORTH, Scholae Academiae (1877); WILLIS AND CLARK, Architectural History of the University of Cambridge (1886); EVERETT, On the Cam (1866); HUBER, The English Universities (1843); RASHDALL, Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (1895); WALSH, Historical Account of the University of Cambridge (1837); CAMBRIDGE, Report of the Universities’ Commission (1874); CLARKE, Cambridge (London, 1908).

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Cambysopolis

A titular see of Asia Minor. The name is owing to a mistake of some medieval geographer. After his victory at Issus (333 B.C.) Alexander the Great built, near the ancient town of Myriandros, a city called after him Alexandria Minor (or ad Issum, more frequently Scabiosa, i.e. mountainous). It became a suffragan of Anazarbus, metropolis of Cilicia Secunda. Lequien (II, 903) mentions a dozen bishops; among them St. Helenus, St. Aristion, and St. Theodore, martyrs, and Paulus, a Monophysite (E.W. Brooks, The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, II, 98). In an Antiochene “Notitiae episcopatuum” of the tenth century [A.P. Kerameus, Maurocordatos’ Library (Greek), Constantinople, 1884, p. 66], instead of Alexandria Scabiosa, we read the strange form Alexandroukambousou, in one word. A little later, and surely in the twelfth century, this corrupt form was mistaken for two names and thus arose Alexandrou and Kambysou (polis). Hence came two episcopal titles connected with one city, and the name Cambysopolis passed into all the Greek and Latin “Notitiae episcopatuum.” The Roman Curia today preserves only the title Cambysopolis; the only correct name, Alexandria Scabiosa, exists no more. The city is now called Alexandretta (by the Turks, Iskanderoun); it is situated on the bay of the same name in the vilayet of Aleppo, and is united to the latter city by a carriage-road. It has about 7000 inhabitants (3000 Greeks, 500 Catholics of Latin and Eastern Rites). The Catholic parish is conducted by Carmelites, and there are attached to it Sisters of St. Joseph.

CUINET, Turquie d’Asie, II, 201–208; ALISHAN, Sissouan (Venice, 1899), 499–502.

S. VAILHÉ

George Joseph Camel

(Kamel).

Botanist, born at Brunn, in Moravia, 21 April 1661, died in Manila, 2 May, 1706. He entered the Society of Jesus as a lay brother in 1682. Although sometimes spoken of as “Father Camellus” it is not sure that he was ever a priest. He was sent as a missionary to the Philippine Islands six years later. There he took up the study of the plants and the natural history of the Islands and sent the results of his investigations to Europe where they were published in the “ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society” (London). In his honour, Linnaeus gave the name Camellia to a genus of evergreen shrubs remarkable for the beauty of their flowers, among them being the well-known Japan rose (Camellia Japonica). The mere enumeration of Camel’s contributions to the pages of the “Philosophical Transactions” is ample evidence of the industry of this simple missionary and his orderly method of investigation. Besides many treatises on the plants and animals of the islands, Camel left two bulky volumes on the “ Medicinal Plants of the Philippine Islands,” which were published in part in the “Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society” (London) and in the “Historia Plantarum” of Ray. In the library of the Jesuits at Louvain there is a manuscript collection of his drawings, representing 360 varieties of plants and herbs of the Island of Luzon. Ray published the text of the work, but omitted the drawings. Camel established a pharmacy in Manila where the poor were supplied with remedies gratis.

E.P. SPILLANE

Diocese of Camerino

(Camerinum, Camerinensis).

Camerino is a city situated in the Italian province of Macerata in the Apennines, about 40 miles from Ancona. When the Exarchate of Ravenna was donated to the Holy See, it became subject to the Roman pontiff. It suffered much under Frederick II on account of its loyalty to the pope; Manfred besieged it (1262?), but happily Camerino was saved by Gentile Varano, under whom it became a papal fief. In the sixteenth century it became a fief of the Farnesi. During the persecution of Decius (249), the priest Porphyrius, master of the youthful martyr Venantius, and the Bishop Leontius suffered martyrdom at Camerino. Gerontius appears at the Council of Rome in 464. Other bishops were St. Ansovinus (816); Alberto degli Alberti (1437), prominent at the Council of Florence, where he was made cardinal and sent as legate by Eugenius IV to Alfonso of Aragon and René of Anjou, between whom he brought about a peace; Agapito Rufo (1465), of whom Pius II said “that it was doubtful if there ever was a more joyous poet or a more illustrious orator”—he was also a prudent and zealous pastor; Berardo Buongiovanni (1537), legate in Poland and present at the Council of Trent, where he gave proof of great erudition; Alfonso Binarino (1547) and Girolamo Bobo (1580), who distinguished themselves by their zeal for reform; Innocenzo del Bufalo (1601), legate to Henry II of France. In the last century the local university was widely known. Camerino was the cradle of the Capuchin Order. The famous medieval Abbey of Fiastra is now abandoned. The diocese contains 182 parishes, 45,900 inhabitants, 13 religious orders of men and 13 of women.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), IV, 231; TURCHI, De Ecclesiae Camerinensis pontificibus (Rome, 1762).

U. BENIGNI

Camerlengo

(Latin camerarius).

The title of certain papal officials. The Low Latin word camera (chamber) means the treasure of the prince, monastery, etc.; also in general the royal treasury (fiscus), the temporal administration of a monastery. The term camerarius was, therefore, very frequently equivalent to civil treasurer, and in the case of monasteries meant the monk charged with the administration of the monastic property. This is also the sense of the Italian term camerlengo, still borne at Rome by three ecclesiastics, (1) The Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, (2) the Camerlengo of the Sacred College (of Cardinals), and (3) the Camerlengo of the Roman Clergy. The Roman confraternities have also an officer similarly entitled.

(1) THE CAMERLENGO OF THE HOLY ROMAN CHURCH

The Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church is the administrator of the property and the revenues of the Holy See, and as such is successor both of the Archdeacon of Rome and of the Vicedominus, the former of whom administered the property of the entire Roman Church, i.e. the Diocese of Rome, while the latter was especially charged with the administration of the mensa of the pope and the entire personnel of the patriarchium Lateranense (St. John Lateran).

This latter official was the same as the syncellus at Constantinople. The office of Archdeacon of Rome was suppressed by Gregory VII, himself its last incumbent under Alexander II; owing to its numerous ancient privileges and rights it had come to be a frequent hindrance to independent papal action. When these were lopped off, the (Roman) office of arch-deacon shrank to its original proportions. Thereafter the cardinal to whom was committed the supervision of the Camera Apostolica (a term even then customary for the administration of the temporalities of the Holy See) was known as Camerarius or, in popular language, Camerlengo. The subordinates of this official are known as clerks (chierici) of the Camera; chief among them are the treasurer and the auditor di Camera. Their body is known as Reverenda Camera Apostolica (see APOSTOLIC CAMERA). When the cardinal-camerlengo happened to be absent on some pontifical business, a vice-camerlengo was chosen in his place. The office of camerlengo included not only the supervision of the immediate properties of the Holy See, but also the fiscal administration of the Pontifical States, the Patrimonium Petri.

The following were its chief attributions:

the collection of the taxæ, or dues paid for the delivery of the Bulls of appointment to dioceses and abbeys (see CHANCERY, APOSTOLIC);

the registry of the oblations or gifts of the faithful;

charge of the papal coinage (Moneta);

jurisdiction, civil and criminal, over officials of the Camera (chierici di Camera).

Under the Avignon popes and their successors the office of camerlengo received more definite organization; at the same time its rights and jurisdiction were increased. When Boniface VIII founded the Roman University (Sapienza) he decreed that the cardinal-camerlengo should be always its archchancellor. Briefly the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church was, for the Papal States, Minister of Finance, Public Works, and Commerce. From the sixteenth century the office was purchasable from the Papal Government. Cardinal Cibo bought it in 1521 for 35,000 scudi; Cardinal Vitellozzo, under Pius IV, for 70,000 scudi, and under Pius V Cardinal Cornaro paid as much for the place; the revenue thus gained served to keep up the wars against the Turks, etc. By the Constitution “Post Diuturnos” Pius VII restricted greatly the authority of the camerlengo, in keeping with the thorough reorganization of the Papal Government undertaken by him. Between the death of the pope and the election of his successor (sede vacante) the cardinal-camerlengo is the head of the Sacred College. It is his duty to verify the death of the pope (see POPE), to direct the preparations for the conclave, and to take charge of the same.

(2) THE CAMERLENGO OF THE SACRED COLLEGE

The Camerlengo of the Sacred College (of Cardinals) does not antedate Leo X (1513–21). He administers all fees and revenues belonging to the College of Cardinals, pontificates at the requiem Mass for a deceased cardinal, and is charged with the registry of the “Acta Consistoralia” (see PAPAL CONSISTORY).

(3) THE CAMERLENGO OF THE ROMAN CLERGY

The Camerlengo of the Roman Clergy is elected by the canons and parish priests of Rome; he has an honorary place in the great processions, presides over the ecclesiastical conferences of the parochial clergy, acts as arbiter in all questions of precedence, and administers the “oath of free estate” (juramentum de statu libero), obligatory on persons desirous of marrying.

BOUIX, De Curia romana (Pari, 1880); BANGEN, Die römische Curie (Münster, 1854); HUMPHREY, Urbs et Orbis (London, 1899), 359–60.

U. BENIGNI

St. Camillus de Lellis

Born at Bacchianico, Naples, 1550; died at Rome, 14 July, 1614.

He was the son of an officer who had served both in the Neapolitan and French armies. His mother died when he was a child, and he grew up absolutely neglected. When still a youth he became a soldier in the service of Venice and afterwards of Naples, until 1574, when his regiment was disbanded. While in the service he became a confirmed gambler, and in consequence of his losses at play was at times reduced to a condition of destitution. The kindness of a Franciscan friar induced him to apply for admission to that order, but he was refused. He then betook himself to Rome, where he obtained employment in the Hospital for Incurables. He was prompted to go there chiefly by the hope of a cure of abscesses in both his feet from which he had been long suffering. He was dismissed from the hospital on account of his quarrelsome disposition and his passion for gambling. He again became a Venetian soldier, and took part in the campaign against the Turks in 1569. After the war he was employed by the Capuchins at Manfredonia on a new building which they were erecting. His old gambling habit still pursued him, until a discourse of the guardian of the convent so startled him that he determined to reform. He was admitted to the order as a lay brother, but was soon dismissed on account of his infirmity. He betook himself again to Rome, where he entered the hospital in which he had previously been, and after a temporary cure of his ailment became a nurse, and winning the admiration of the institution by his piety and prudence, he was appointed director of the hospital.

While in this office, he attempted to found an order of lay infirmarians, but the scheme was opposed, and on the advice of his friends, among whom was his spiritual guide, St. Philip Neri, he determined to become a priest. He was then thirty-two years of age and began the study of Latin at the Jesuit College in Rome. He afterwards established his order, the Fathers of a Good Death (1584), and bound the members by vow to devote themselves to the plague-stricken; their work was not restricted to the hospitals, but included the care of the sick in their homes. Pope Sixtus V confirmed the congregation in 1586, and ordained that there should be an election of a general superior every three years. Camillus was naturally the first, and was succeeded by an Englishman, named Roger. Two years afterwards a house was established in Naples, and there two of the community won the glory of being the first martyrs of charity of the congregation, by dying in the fleet which had been quarantined off the harbour, and which they had visited to nurse the sick. In 1591 Gregory XIV erected the congregation into a religious order, with all the privileges of the mendicants. It was again confirmed as such by Clement VIII, in 1592. The infirmity which had prevented his entrance among the Capuchins continued to afflict Camillus for forty-six years, and his other ailments contributed to make his life one of uninterrupted suffering, but he would permit no one to wait on him, and when scarcely able to stand would crawl out of his bed to visit the sick. He resigned the generalship of the order, in 1607, in order to have more leisure for the sick and poor. Meantime he had established many houses in various cities of Italy. He is said to have had the gift of miracles and prophecy. He died at the age of sixty-four while pronouncing a moving appeal to his religious brethren. He was buried near the high altar of the church of St. Mary Magdalen, at Rome, and, when the miracles which were attributed to him were officially approved, his body was placed under the altar itself. He was beatified in 1742, and in 1746 was canonized by Benedict XIV.

[Note: In 1930, Pope Pius XI named St. Camillus de Lellis, together with St. John of God, principal Co-Patron of nurses and of nurses’ associations.]

BUTLER, Lives of the Saints (Derby, 1845); Bullar. Roman,, XVI, 83; CICATELLO, Life of St. Camillus (Rome, 1749); GOSCHLER, Dict. de theol. cath. (Paris, 1869), III.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Camisards

(Probably from camise, a black blouse worn as a uniform).

A sect of French fanatics who terrorized Dauphiné, Vivarais, and chiefly the Cévennes in the beginning of the eighteenth century. Their origin was due to various causes; the Albigensian spirit which had not completely died out in that region, and which caused Pope Clement XI to style the Camisards “that execrable race of ancient Albigenses”; the apocalyptic preaching and literature of the French Calvinists, such as Jurieu’s “Accomplissement des propheties,” on which they were nourished; and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), along with the singular methods of conversion employed by the agents of Louis XIV. If the Camisards withstood the armies of Louis for wellnigh two decades, the reason is to be found in the desultory manner of warfare which the latter adopted, in the failure of Louis’ generals, de Broglie, Montrevel, Villars, etc., properly to realize the danger of the situation, and also, to a very great extent, in the support given them by the Protestant house of Nassau, then in control of Holland and England. The insurrection began in the Cévennes. Du Serre, an old Calvinist of Dieulefit in Dauphiné, became suddenly “inspired,” and his religious hysteria spread rapidly. The murder of the Abbé de Chaila, inspector of the missions in Cévennes, in 1702, was tantamount to a declaration of war. Armed bands led by Séguier, Laporte, Castanet, Ravenel, Cavalier, and others carried on a sort of guerilla warfare till about 1705, when they either surrendered or were destroyed. In 1709 Cavalier, who had sought refuge in England, tried, though without much success, to rekindle the revolt in Vivarais. There were a few more disturbances as late as 1711, when a treaty of peace with England deprived the Camisards of a powerful support. On the 8th of March, 1715, by medals and a proclamation, Louis XIV announced the entire extinction of the sect.

Much has been written on the “prophets” of the Camisard uprising. Fléchier and Brueys believed in a school of prophets, wherein Du Serre gave a systematic training, chiefly to young recruits. The prophetic inspiration, of which there four degrees, avertissement, souffle, propheties, dons, was communicated by breathing upon subjects who had gone through severe macerations, memorized long Biblical texts and formulae of imprecation, learned to perform the strangest contortions, and generally wrought themselves into a sort of trance. On the other hand, Court and Arnault, themselves Calvinists, deny the very existence of such a school. They cast aside as obviously fraudulent a number of so-called spiritual manifestations. The rest they trace to an overheated imagination, pietism, excessive fasts, the reading of the Prophets and Jurieu’s pastoral letters, and also to the peculiar temperament of those Southern mountaineers. If such is the case, there is no need of admitting with Görres, Mirville, and H. Blanc supernatural influences—diabolical, of course—to account for the Camisards’ antics.

Though Calvinists, the Camisards should not be too closely identified with Calvinism. Many Calvinists condemned their cruelties and despised their visions. The Synod of Nîmes, 1715, enacted two statutes, evidently aimed at the Camisards: that women and unauthorized persons be debarred from preaching; and that Holy Scripture be adopted as the sole rule of faith and source of preaching. Fourteen years after that synod Court had organized in Languedoc a strong Calvinist community, in which no traces of the Camisard spirit could be discerned. It is true that those who had fled to England did try to propagate their “mystical phalanx” in London, and published in 1707, in the British capital, a mass of Camisard literature: “Le théâtre sacré des Cévennes”; “A cry from the desert”; etc.; but the Consistory of the French Church in the Savoy pronounced their ecstasies to be assumed habits. Voltaire (Siècle de Louis XIV, xxxvi) relates that Elie Marion, one of the refugees, became unpopular, both on account of his writings (avertissements prophetiques) and false miracles, and was at last compelled to leave England. Catholics, too, organized under the name of White Camisards, or Cadets of the Cross, the better to check the black Camisards, but they soon fell into atrocities similar to those they sought to punish, and were disowned by Montrevel.

FLECHIER, Recit fidele in Lettres choisies (Lyons, 1715); BRUEYS, Hist. du fanatisme de notre temps (Montpellier, 1713); CAVALIER, Mem. of the Wars of the Cevennes (London, 1726); COURT, Hist. des troubles des Cevennes (Alais, 1819); BLANC, De l’inspir. des Camisards (Paris, 1859); DUBOIS, Sur les prophetes Cevenols (Stasburg, 1861); ARNAULD, Hist. des protestants de Dauphine (Paris, 1876; LEGRELLE, La revolte des Camisards (Braine-le-Comte, 1897); See also ROSBACH in Hist. gen. du Languedoc, XIII; MONIN in La grande encyl., s.v.; VERNET in Dict. de theol. cath., s. v.

J.F. SOLLIER

Luis Vaz de Camões

(OR CAMOENS)

Born in 1524 or 1525; died 10 June, 1580. The most sublime figure in the history of Portuguese literature, Camões owes his lasting fame to his epic poem “Os Lusiadas,” (The Lusiads); he is remarkable also for the degree of art attained in his lyrics, less noteworthy for his dramas. A wretched exile during a large part of his lifetime, he has, like Dante, enjoyed an abundance of fame since his death; his followers have been legion, and his memory has begot many fabulous legends. Actual facts regarding his career are not easily obtained. There are but few documentary sources of information regarding him, and these are concerned simply (1) with the trifling pension which King Sebastian bestowed upon him and which Philip II continued in favour of his mother, who survived him; (2) with his imprisonment as a result of an assault made by him upon a public official; and (3) with the publication of “The Lusiads.” Personal references contained in various letters and in his literary works, all of a certain autobiographical value, provide further data.

Camões came of a reduced noble family. The place of his birth has been the subject of contention, but in all probability he was born at Coimbra. He belonged to the same stock as the noted explorer, Vasco da Gama, who is so important in “The Lusiads.” His father was a sea-captain who died at Goa in India as the result of a shipwreck, soon after the birth of Luiz. It seems likely that the poet received his training at the University of Coimbra, where his uncle, Bento de Camões, was chancellor for several years. Some early love lyrics, Platonic of inspiration and Petrarchian in form, date back to his college days. Passing to the court at Lisbon, he there fell in love with Catherina de Athaide, a lady of the queen’s suite. Catherina, the Natercia (anagram of Caterina) of his lyrics, responded to his suit, but those in authority opposed it, and Camões, meeting their resistance with words of wrath and violent deeds, was ere long banished from the court. For two or three years, that is between 1546 and 1549, he fought in the campaign in Africa and there lost one of his eyes, which was struck by a splinter from a cannon. Back once again in Lisbon, he found himself utterly neglected, and in his despair he proceeded to lead a disorderly life. Wounding an officer of the royal court, he was incarcerated for some months and was released in March of 1553 only on condition that he go to India as a soldier. Forthwith he departed, a private in the ranks, on his way to the region which his great kinsman had made known to the Occident. In the East his career was full of the greatest vicissitudes. At one time fighting valiantly against the natives, he was again languishing in jail on a charge of malfeasance in office while occupying a governmental post in Macao; he entered into a new love affair with a native, either before or soon after the death of Catherina (1556); now rolling in wealth, he was again overwhelmed with debt, and he was always gaining more enemies by his too ready pen and tongue; seldom stationary anywhere for long, he engaged in long journeys which took him as far as Malacca and the Moluccas, and upon one occasion he escaped death by shipwreck only through his powers as a swimmer. Finally, in 1567, he began the return trip to Portugal. Stopping at Mozambique in his course, he there spent two years, a prey to disease and dire poverty. With the help of generous friends he continued his journey and reached Lisbon in 1570, after an absence of sixteen years. there was no welcome for Portugal’s greatest bard in a capital that had just been visited by plague, and was governed by that visionary and heedless young monarch, Dom Sebastian; but Camões, publishing his epic, dedicated it to the king and was rewarded with a meagre royal pension. His last gloomy years were spent near his aged mother, and he died, heart-broken at the misfortune that had come to his beloved land with the great disaster of Alcacer-Kebir, where Sebastian and the flower of the Portuguese nobility went to their doom.

It is possible that Camões had conceived the purpose of writing an epic poem as early as his student days, and there are reasons for supposing that he had composed some passages of “The Lusiads” before 1544; but in all likelihood the idea of making Vasco da Gama’s voyage of discovery the central point of his work occurred first to him during the voyage to India in 1553. During that trip and on the return, with the delay at Mozambique, he could acquire that familiarity with the ocean and with the coast of Africa which is clear in some of his most striking octaves; but it was during the long sojourn in India that he gave shape to the major part of the epic. Adapting a metrical form-the octave-of which the Italian Ariosto had proved the pliancy, and modelling his epic style on that of Vergil, Camões set up as his hero the whole Lusitanian people, the sons of Lusus, whence the title, “Os Lusiadas.” His purpose was a serious one; he desired to abide by the sober reality of his country’s history, which, in poetic speech, is related in a long series of stanzas by Vasco da Gama himself. From first to last the ten cantos of the work glow with patriotic fervour inspired by the genuine achievements of the poet’s compatriots. But, side by side with chronicled fact, there appears also a somewhat complicated mythological machinery. Venus, the friend of the wandering Portuguese; Bacchus, their enemy; Mars, Jupiter, deities of the sea, and a number of symbolical figures play a large part in the fortunes of Vasco da Gama’s nautical expedition, and at times the union of Christian belief and pagan fable is carried to absurd extremes, as when Bacchus is made to assume the form of a Christian priest and offer a feigned worship to the Christian God. For the introduction of pagan mythology into a Christian and historical epic Camões has been harshly censured by many; yet it must be admitted that much of the charm of the poem is to be found in just those parts in which the mythological elements abound. It is interesting, furthermore, to note that the ecclesiastical authorities, as represented by the Dominican Ferreira, who examined the manuscript and gave the necessary permission to print the book, found nothing contrary to faith or morals in it; the mythology was regarded as a mere poetic fiction. The action of the poem is not of great extent, yielding often to passages of narration and description; of course it is developed in accord with the events of Vasco da Gama’s voyage along the African coast to Mombaca and Melinde, on to Calicut in India, and back again over the ocean to Portugal. The chief edition of “The Lusiads” is that of 1572, prepared by the poet himself; the modern editions still leave much to be desired in the way of critical apparatus.

It has been the lot of Camões, the epic bard, to be more talked of and written about by foreigners than he is read by them. Hence the uncertainty of opinion regarding his proper rank among modern poets. There is, however, no need of depreciating Ariosto, or Tasso, or any others who have essayed the epic, in order to render to Camões his just deserts. In artistic feeling and accomplishments he is doubtless not the equal of several among them; as the exponent of patriotic pride in national endeavour and sturdy enterprise, and as the greatest master of Portuguese poetic style and diction, he will ever command the admiration of his countrymen and of all who love what is best in literature. The mass of lyrics still attributed to Camões requires much deliberate sifting; fully a fifth part of it is probably not his work. The poems that may with certainty be ascribed to him follow, as has been said, the Petrarchian model. They comprise sonnets, odes, elegies, eclogues, canções, redondilhas, and the like, and in sentiment reflect the moods and passions of the poet’s mind and heart throughout the periods of his varied and ill-starred life. He produced three comedies in verse, which are of decided merit as compared with the pieces hitherto written in Portuguese, but yet show no transcendent powers as a dramatist on his part. One of them, the “Filodemo,” gives scenic setting to the plot of a medieval story of love and adventurous travel; another, the “Rei Seleuco,” takes up a love episode in the life of the Syrian King Seleucus and his son Antiochus, which had been narrated by Plutarch and treated by Petrarch and many other poets; the third and best of all, the “Enfatriões” (or “Amphitryões”), is a free and attractive rendering of the “Amphitruo” of Plautus.

J.D.M. FORD

Girolamo Campagna

Born in Verona, 1552; died about 1623 or 1625. He was an able, but not strikingly individual sculptor of Northern Italy. He studied under Jacopo Sansovino and Danese Cattaneo, and completed many of the latter’s works. To him we owe the figure of Doge Leonardo Loredano on the tomb which Cattaneo made at SS. Giovanni e Paolo, Venice. After his master’s death, Campagna went to Padua where he secured the commission intended for Cattaneo in the church of St. Anthony. This was his masterpiece, a bas-relief of the saint bringing back to life a man who had been murdered. Some years later Campagna made another trip to Padua and wrought the bronze tabernacle for the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament. The greater part of his life was spent in Venice, and there we have the majority of his works: the statues of St. Francis and St. Clare bearing the ostensorium at Santa Maria de’Miracoli; that of St. Giustina over the door of the Arsenal, commemorating the battle of Lepanto, which occurred on her feast-day (7 October, 1571), during Campagna’s lifetime; the colossal St. Sebastian at the Zecca; the figures of Our Lady, the Archangel Gabriel and patron saints of Venice, in relief on the Ponte di Rialto; the group in bronze of Christ on a globe, supported by the Four Evangelists at San Giorgio Maggiore. In Verona there is a good Annunciation over the portal of the old Palazzo del Consiglio and a Madonna at the Collegio dei Mercatanti.

Perekins, Italian Sculptors (London and New York); Idem, Historical Handbook of Italian Sculpture (New York, 1883).

M. L. HANDLEY.

Domenico Campagnola

Painter of the Venetian school, b. at Padua in 1482; date of death unascertained. This excellent artist was one of the cleverest pupils of the School of Titian, and was so proficient that he is said to have aroused the jealousy of his master. He was also an expert engraver, and is known to have executed etchings and woodcuts. His fresco paintings are to be seen in the Scuola del Santo at Padua and in Venice. They are marked by fresh animated colour, strong poetic sympathy, and easy brilliant technic. He is said to have been even more daring than Titian in the manner in which he drew the nude figure. A fine panel picture by him representing Adam and Eve is in the Pitti Palace, Florence. He was also a painter of landscapes which so closely resemble the works of Titian that they are often attributed to that artist. Many of these landscapes have been engraved by Corneille. His etchings, ten of which are known, almost all bear the same date, 1517. On some his name appears in full, on others abbreviated Do.Cap. or Do.Camp.

For his early work as an engraver, see Ottley, Inquiry into the Origin and Early History of Engraving; Passavant, Peintre-Graveur; Galichon, Life of Giulio Campagnola (1862); For his paintings, see Lanzi, Storia pittorica dell’ Italia; Ridolfi, Le Maraviglie dell’ arte.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Jeanne-Louise-Henriette Campan

(Née Genest; known as Madam Campan).

A French educator, born 6 November, 1752, at Paris; died in 1822, at Mantes. She was carefully educated under the direction of her father, a head-clerk in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in whose house she met such distinguished men of letters as Duclos, Marmontel, and Thomas. At the age of fifteen she spoke English and Italian, and read so well that she was appointed reader to the young princesses, Victoire, Sophie, and Louise, the daughters of Louis XV. Soon afterwards she married M. Campan, whose father was secretary to the queen’s cabinet. On that occasion Louis XV gave her an annual income of 5000 livres ($1000) as dowry. She then entered the service of Marie Antoinette, as first lady of the bed-chamber (1770), and retained that position till 20 June, 1792. When the unfortunate queen was sent to prison, Mme Campan courageously asked to be allowed to share her sad lot. Her request was denied, and she retired to Coubertin, a small village in the Chevreuse valley. She found herself in straitened circumstances, having to provide for her young son and for her husband who was heavily in debt and in poor health. With a nun as associate, she established a boarding-school for girls at Saint-Germain, which soon achieved success and counted among its pupils Hortense de Beauharnais, the daughter of Joséphine. Napoleon was so much pleased with the order, elegance, and distinction of the school that he appointed Mme Campan superintendent of the Imperial Academy of Ecouen, founded for the education of the daughters of members of the Legion of Honour (Dec., 1807). She adopted the programme of the old Saint-Cyr house, modifying it to suit the new conditions. Her chief aim was to train girls to be useful women and good mothers. In 1814 the school was abolished and Mme Campan bitterly denounced as a traitor by the Royalists, because she accepted the favours of the “usurper.” She retired to Mantes and spent her time in writing didactic and historical essays. Mme Campan’s principal works are: “Mémoires sur la vie de Marie-Antoinette, suivis de souvenirs et anecdotes sur le règne de Louis XIV et de Louis XV” (3 vols., Paris, 1823); “Lettres de deux jeunes filles” (1811); L’éducation des femmes” (1823); “Conversations d’une mère avec ses filles” (1804); “Nouvelles et comédies à l’usage de la jeunesse” (1823). These four books have been published under the title of “uves complètes de Mme Campan sur l’éducation” (Paris, 1823).

Journal anecdotique de Mme Campan, ou sounenirs recueillis de ses entretiens, ed. Maigne (1823); Barrère, Notice sur Madame Campan in the first volume of her memoirs; D’Aubier, Observations sur les mémoires de Mme Campan (Paris, 1823).

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Pedro Campaña

Flemish painter, known in France as Pierre de Champagne, and in Brussels as Pieter de Kempeneer (his actual name), or, as translated in Flemish, Van de Velde, b. at Brussels in 1503; d. there in 1580, after spending the greater part of his life in Spain. He is said to have been a pupil of Raphael, but it is exceedingly doubtful whether this was the case. In the early days he spent some time in Italy, especially in Venice, Rome, and Bologna, and studied very closely the paintings of Raphael. In 1530 he decorated the triumphal arch eerected at Bologna for the coronation of Charles V. Under the protection of Cardinal Grimani he went to Spain, sojourned in Seville between 1537 and 1552, and there established a school of painting in conjunction with Louis de Vergas and the Italian sculptor Torrigiano. The school eventually became an academy and numbered among its pupils the illustrious Morales. Campaña’s masterpiece is the “Descent from the Cross,” painted in 1548 for the church of Santa Cruz and removed to the Seville cathedral when the former church was destroyed. This painting was enthusiastically admired by Murillo, who highly appreciated its life-like qualities and desired to be buried below the picture. There are two other paintings by Campaña in the same cathedral and important works works at Carmoña and Triana. Campaña returned to Brussels about 1564.

His pictures were all painted on panel, and are irreproachable in accurate draftmanship, admirable in composition, and vigorous in execution. The luminous quality of their colour-scheme recalls the best Italian work, and the finest paintings are dignified and life-like, full of strength and power. Theere are five of his best pictures in the churches of Seville, and his work can be studied in Berlin and Paris.

Bryan; Dict. of Painters and engravers (London-New York, 1903); Conway, Flemish Painters; Bermudez, Diccionario Histórico (Madrid, 1800); Blanc, Histoire des Peintres (Paris, 1854); Gestoso, Diccionario de Artistas (Madrid, s. d.); Hartley, Spanish Painting (London, 1904).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Tommaso Campanella

(Baptized GIOVANNI DOMENICO)

Dominican philosopher and writer, b. 5 Sept. 1568 at Stilo in the province of Calabria, Italy; d. at Paris, 21 May, 1659. He was a facile writer of prose and verse at the age of thirteen, and when not yet fifteen entered the Dominican Order, attracted by the fame of Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas. With a predilection for philosophical inquiry, he was sent to different convents to hear the best masters. Campanella wrote his first work, “Philosophia sensibus demonstrata” (Naples, 1590) in defence of the naturalistic philosopher Bernardino Telesio. He next went to Rome and afterwards to the University of Padua, from Oct., 1592, to the end of 1594. An ardent and somewhat captious temperament led him into the expression of views offensive to many of the older and newer schools alike. He was especially vigorous in his opposition to the authority of Aristotle, and was cited before the Holy Office at Rome, where he was detained till 1597. Some accounts speak of his having been accused of magic and of his fleeing to Florence, Venice, Padua, and Bologna, thence back to Naples and Stilo. Continuing to lecture and write, however, he retained favour in certain circles. At length, in Sept., 1599, he was seized as head of a conspiracy against the Spanish rule. In the trial at Naples, involving many persons, lay and ecclesiastical, he was charged with divers heresies and with aiming to set up a communistic commonwealth. Arraigned before an ecclesiastical tribunal, he was at the same time harassed and put to torture by a political court. On 8 Jan., 1603, he was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment. Among several who sought to obtain his liberation was Pope Paul V. In the meantime the viceroy, Giron, who used to visit Campanella in prison, seeking his counsel about matters of state, became involved in trouble. In his endeavours to extricate himself he laid the blame largely on Campanella, who was again subjected to many indignities. Through Pope Urban VIII, who applied directly to Philip IV of Spain, the unfortunate prisoner was at last released from his Neapolitan captivity, 15 May, 1626, an event which was commemorated by Gabriel Naude in his “Panegyricus” (Paris, 1644). He was taken to Rome and held for a time by the Holy Office, but was restored to full liberty, 6 April, 1629. In 1634 another Calabrian conspiracy under one of Campanella’s followers threatened fresh complications. With the aid of Cardinal Barberini and the French ambassador, De Noailles, Campanella, disguised as a Minim, withdrew to France. Louis XIII and Richelieu received him with marked favour, the latter granting him a liberal pension. He spent the rest of his days, enjoying papal favour, in the Dominican convent of St-Honore at Paris.

Of the life and character of Campanella, conflicting estimates are given. He was well thought of by Popes Clement VIII, Paul V, and Urban VIII. Cardinal Pallavicini declared him a “man who had read all things and who remembered all things; of mighty but indomitable character.” In faith and theological allegiance he was held above suspicion by Juan De Lugo, afterwards cardinal; Theophile Raynaud considered him heretical. Vincent Baron, O.P., who knew him well, gave a careful eulogy of him as skilled in mathematics, astrology, medicine, and other sciences; more famous, perhaps, than he deserved to be, but still a man of extraordinary gifts. John Addington Symonds, who translated a book of his sonnets (Sonnets of Michael Angelo Buonarotti and Tommaso Campanella, London, 1878), refers to him as the “audacious Titan of the modern age, possessing essentially a combative intellect; a poet and philosopher militant, who stood alone making war upon the authority of Aristotle in science, of Machiavelli in statecraft, and of Petrarch in art.” His nunquam tacebo is evidenced in almost every act and utterance of his strange career. Campanella’s work is critical and composite rather than constructive and original. It exhibits an almost encyclopedic acquaintance with all the known sciences of his day. His doctrine does not form a system, but discloses a syncretic adaptation of certain fundamental principles of St. Thomas Aquinas and Albert the Great, modified by original opinions and fused with ideas, often unsound and bizarre, borrowed from Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Empedocles, the Christian mystics, and the Jewish and Arabic schools of thought. He aimed to reconstruct scholastic philosophy, but, lacking grasp and depth, his judgment was often obscured by an untempered imagination, and his writings, of widest scope, abound in the inequalities of undisciplined genius. With the fondness of the Renaissance for disputation and innovation, he was also singularly swayed by the popular pseudo-science of judicial astrology. Unlike Bruno, however, he remained loyal to his order and to the Church. In his theologico-cosmological theory, being, both created and Divine, is invested with three primordial properties: power, wisdom, and love. Non-being is characterized by impotence, darkness, and odium or metaphysical aversion. In God, Who is pure being, simple and infinite, the three properties of being exist and subsist in simplest unity to the absolute exclusion of non-being and its attributes. Creatures participate in God’s wisdom, power, and love; but, because derived from nothingness, their essence is a mixture of being and non-being. The Divine, impressed upon, immanent in, and shared by, finite natures, is the principle, the sufficient reason, and the measure of their relative perfection and of their development in time and space. The universe is vivified, directed, and governed by a universal soul of sense and intelligence. The world is as a living statue of God. The sun and the earth are its principal parts and the common source of animal life and movement, and of the sensation which is also found in all material things, light, air, metals, and wood. Prior to Descartes, to whom he was otherwise superior in erudition, Campanella demonstrated the absurdity of scepticism and undertook to establish by psychologico-ontological argument the existence of God against Atheism. In the field of natural science Campanella preceded Bacon in insisting on the direct observation and experimental study of nature. It is noteworthy that whilst Bacon rejected the astronomical theory of Galileo, Campanella favoured it, and wrote a brilliant defence of its author. In his treatise, “De Monarchia Hispanica” [“A Discourse touching the Spanish Monarchy,” tr. by Edmund Chilmead (London, 1654) and again by Wm. Prynne (ibid., 1660)], Campanella evinces, among ideas singularly strange and erroneous, considerable practical knowledge of civil government. To extend Spanish rule in Europe he advised intermarriage of the Spaniards with other nationalities, urged the establishment of schools of astronomy, mathematics, mechanics, etc., and the immediate opening of naval colleges to develop the resources of the New World and further the interests of its inhabitants. In general he advocated natural honesty and justice and the universal love of god and man in place of the utilitarian principles and egoism of Machiavelli.

Because of its political character, his “Civitas Solis” (City of the Sun), is the most celebrated of his works. It appears in “Ideal Commonwealths” (New York, 1901) and in “Ideal Empires and Republics” (Washington and London, 1901). It was probably intended by Campanella as a philosophical fiction, like Plato’s “Republic” and More’s “Utopia,” for its essentially communistic delineation, and advocacy, of goods, education, women, labour, and all necessaries in common could hardly represent the true mind of an author who, after all, was faithful to at least the spirit of Christianity, and who vehemently resisted the rationalistic trend of his contemporaries. Various lists, some furnished by Campanella himself, show him to have been the author of about eighty-eight works. The more important are: “Prodromus Philosophiae instaurandae” (Frankfort, 1617); “Philosophiae rationalis partes quinque” (Paris, 1638); “Realis philosophiae epilogisticae partes quatour” (which contains the “Civitas Solis,” Frankfort, 1623); “Medicinalium juxta propria principia libri VII” (Lyons, 1635); “Astrologicorum libri VI” (Lyons, 1629); “Apologia pro Galileo mathematico” (Frankfort, 1622); “Atheismus triumphatus” (Rome, 1631); “De praedestinatione, electione, reprobatione et auxiliis divinae gratiae, cento thomisticus” (Paris, 1636). Numerous unpublished MSS. are preserved in the archives of the Dominican Order at Rome.

JOHN R. VOLZ.

Giuseppe Campani

An Italian optician and astronomer who lived in Rome during the latter half of the seventeenth century. His brother, Matteo Campani-Alimensis, and he weere experts in grinding and polishing lenses, especially those of great focal length and slight curvature. These lenses were used in long telescopes of considerable power. The astronomer Cassini made his discoveries with these lenses. Campani also made many observations himself. Cassini called his attention to the spots on Jupiter, and he disputed with Eustachio Divini, an Italian optician, the priority of their discovery. His astronomical observations and his descriptions of his telescopes are detailed in the following papers: “Ragguaglio di due nuovi osservazioni, una celeste in ordine alla stella di Saturno, e terrestre l’altra in ordine agl’ instrumenti” (Rome, 1664, and again in 1665); “Lettere di G. C. al sig. Giovanni Domenico Cassini intorno alle ombre delle stelle Medicee nel volto di Giove, ed altri nuovi fenomeni celesti scoperti co’ suoi occhiali” (Rome, 1666).

His brother, mentioned above, is also noted as a mechanician for his work on clocks. He was a priest in charge of a parish in Rome. Louis XIV of France ordered several long-focus lenses (86, 100, 136 feet respectively) for Cassini, who discovered with their aid additional satellites of Saturn.

Jöcher (Adelung), Allgem. Gelehrten-Lexicon: Auzout, Lettre à l’abbé Charles.

WILLIAM FOX

Diocese of Campeche

Diocese in the State of Campeche, Republic of Mexico, suffragan of the Archdiocese of Yucatan (see Yucatan). It was created 24 March, 1895, by division of the Diocese of Yucatan. Its territory includes the western portion of the Peninsula of Yucatan, and in the north is mainly a plain, from which rise the heights of Sierra Alta. Broad savannahs and dense forests abound. The southern part is abundantly watered by running streams. The Spanish captain, Hernández de Córdova, and the pilot, Anton de Alaminos, discovered (20 March, 1517) a seaside village inhabited by Maya Indians, and known to the natives as Ah Kin Pech, which the Spaniards translated Campeche, often, anglicized as Campeachy. In 1540 Captain Montejo, with thirty Spaniards, founded on this site a seaport town. A church was at once begun (Santa Maria de la Concepción, the present cathedral); the first priest was Francisco Hernández, Montejo’s chaplain. Later on a storm drove upon the Campeche coast the vessel in which Fray Bartolomé de las Casas, Bishop of Chiapas, was returning to his diocese; this illustrious man was therefore the first bishop to visit Campeche. Its first missionaries were Franciscans; in 1715 the Jesuits came to Campeche, but were expelled 12 June, 1767.

The diocese is bounded on the north by the Diocese of Yucatan; on the south by the Archdiocese of Guatemala and the Vicariate Apostolic of Belize; on the south-east and west by the Dioceses of Chiapas and Tabasco, and by the Gulf of Mexico. It has a population of about 100,000, with twenty-three parishes. The third bishop, Don Francisco Mendoza y Herrera, who was appointed 17 January, 1905, opened a diocesan seminary and three colleges, and built an episcopal residence. Since 1901 there has been in the Diocese of Campeche a small group of non-Catholics. The episcopal city, Campeche, situated on the bay of that name, about ninety miles south-west of Mérida, has about 16,000 inhabitants, two parishes, and twelve churches. The chief exports are maze, sugar, sisle-hemp, salt, wax, logwood, and mahogany. Ship-carpentry is the principal local industry, the harbour, though shallow, being quite capacious.

Gerarchia Cattolica (Rome, 1907); Battendier, Ann. pont. cath. (Paris, 1907), 217; Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, 1907, Foreign, 187.

ALBERTO MARCILLA

Lorenzo Campeggio

Cardinal, an eminent canonist, ecclesiastical diplomat, and reformer, b. 1472 (1474) at Bologna, the son of Giovanni Campeggio, a famous civil lawyer; d. at Rome, 25 July, 1539. He studied civil law under his father at Padua and Bologna, and in due course married and had a family of five children. After the death of his wife (1509), he entered the ecclesiastical state. In 1512 he was appointed to the Bishopric of Feltre by Julius II, and was made auditor of the Rota, at that time the supreme court of justice in the Church, and the universal court of appeal. Thenceforth till his death he took a leading part as papal representative in some of the greatest events of the Reformation, especially in Southern Germany and England. In 1513 he was sent by Leo X as Nuncio to Maximilian I, to bring about peace among the Christian princes and unite them in a crusade against the Turks. While still in Germany he was nominated cardinal (1 July, 1517), at first of the Title of San Tommaso in Parione, afterwards of Sant’ Anastasia, and finally of Santa Maria in Trastevere. Returning to Rome, he was sent as cardinal legate to England for the purpose of engaging Henry VIII in the crusade. He set out on his journey in the middle of April, 1518, but was not allowed to enter England until the end of July. The delay arose from Henry’s objection to the presence of a foreign legate within his dominions. The pope agreed that Campeggio should share the legatine powers with Wolsey, who was his senior in the Sacred College. Accordingly the two cardinals worked together, though Wolsey managed to secure the precedence. The main object of Campeggio’s mission was not accomplished; instead of a universal league against the Turk, Wolsey arranged an alliance between France and England. He also contrived to obtain an extension of his legatine powers for three years and afterwards for life. Campeggio made a favourable impression on Henry, who bestowed upon him the Bishopric of Salisbury (which he held until 1534) and the Roman residence now known as the Giraud-Torlonia palace, then recently built from Bramante’s designs.

On his return to Rome (28 November, 1519), Campeggio was appointed to the Segnatura, at that time a post of the highest dignity and power. When Adrian VI was elected pope (1522), many plans for reform of the abuses in the Church were submitted to him. One of the best and most thorough-going of these was that of Campeggio. He boldly declared that the chief source of all the evils was the Roman Curia, of which, as has been stated, he was himself a most influential member. He recommended that the powers of the Dataria, whose officials he styled “blood-suckers,” should be greatly curtailed; that benefices should not be combined, or reserved, or held in commendam; and that none but able and virtuous men should be appointed to them. He bewailed the fact that the Holy See had, by means of concordats, surrendered the rights of the Church to the secular powers. He spoke strongly against the reckless granting of indulgences: especially against those of the Franciscans, and those connected with the contributions towards the building of St. Peter’s in Rome. As one who had held high diplomatic posts, he urged the importance of peace between the Emperor Charles V and Francis I of France, so that these two great monarchs might join hands against the common enemy, the Turk. He also pleaded strongly for the extirpation of the Lutheran errors by the enforcement of the Edict of Worms. Adrian’s pontificate was too short to enable him to carry out any of the proposed reforms. His successor, Clement VII, appointed Campeggio to the See of Bologna and sent him to Germany as cardinal legate (8 January, 1524).

Campeggio soon had reason to note the vast changes which had taken place since his former visit. At Augsburg he was grossly insulted by the populace; at Nuremberg he was obliged to dispense with the ceremonies of a public entry. He adopted a conciliatory attitude at the diet which was being held at the latter city, but he insisted that the Edict of Worms should be carried out. The members of the diet demanded that a national council should be held at Speyer, but he induced the emperor to veto this, on condition that a general council should be summoned at Trent. Moreover he obtained from Charles a promise that the Edict of Worms should be enforced. Campeggio, however, saw clearly that the spread of the Lutheran errors could be checked only by a reform of the German clergy. For this purpose he held an assembly of twelve bishops, with the Archduke Ferdinand and the Bavarian dukes. The outbreak of the Peasants’ War (November, 1524) destroyed all hope of a peaceful solution of the difficulties with the Reformers. Campeggio was recalled because his efforts had not met with the success which the pope had expected, and also because he was said to be on too friendly terms with the emperor. He was back in Rome 20 October, 1525, and was made a member of the papal commission on the affairs of the Teutonic Knights. During the sack of Rome by the imperial troops (1527), he remained with Clement in Castel Sant’ Angelo, and after the escape of the pontiff was left behind as legate.

The next year (1528), at Wolsey’s request, he was sent to England to form, jointly with Wolsey, a court to try the so-called divorce suit of Henry VIII. (For a complete account of the case see article VIII.) Here we need only refer to Campeggio’s conduct in it. He did his best to escape the responsibility which the pope thrust upon him, for he knew well the difficulties both of law and fact connected with the case; and he thoroughly realized, from his intimate acquaintance with Henry and Charles (Catherine’s nephew), that, whichever way it was decided, a great nation would be lost to the Church. His instructions were to proceed with extreme slowness and caution; to bring about if possible the reconciliation of Henry with Catherine; and under no circumstances to come to a final decision. In spite of all Wolsey’s wiles and the bribes held out to him by the king, he refused to express any opinion and adhered strictly to the orders which he had received. He did, indeed, try his best to induce Catherine to enter a convent, but when she with much spirit declined to do so, he praised her conduct. In the trial (June-July, 1529), it should be noted, Campeggio treated Wolsey as a subordinate and as the king’s advocate rather than as a judge. On the last day (23 July), when everyone expected the final decision, he boldly adjourned the court. Some days later the news arrived that Catherine’s appeal had already been received in Rome and that the case was reserved to the Holy See. On his way back to Italy Campeggio was detained at Dover, while his baggage was searched by the king’s officials in the hope of finding the decretal Bull defining the law of the divorce. But the prudent legate had already destroyed the document, and the search only proved that he left the country poorer than when he had entered it.

We next find Campeggio at Bologna, his episcopal city, present at the coronation of Charles V by the pope (24 February, 1530), and afterwards accompanying the emperor to the Diet of Augsburg as legate. His influence was now greater than ever. He wrote triumphantly to Clement, assuring him that all would soon be made right in Germany. He opposed the holding of a council, because he did not believe in the good faith of the Protestants, and relied chiefly on the exercise of the imperial authority to put down Protestantism, if necessary by force. After Clement’s death (25 September, 1534), Campeggio returned to Rome and took part in the conclave in which Paul III was elected. By him he was appointed to the suburbicarian See of Praeneste (Palestrina), and was sent to Vicenza for the opening of the council. His death took place, as above stated, at Rome, and he was buried at Bologna.

T. B. SCANNELL.

Bernardino Campi

An Italian painter of the Lombard School, b. at Cremona, 1522; d. at Reggio, about 1590. His father, Pietro Campi, was his first teacher and instructed the boy in his own art, the goldsmith’s; but whenBernardino saw Titian’s drawings, and prints, and designs for tapestries, the youth at once abandoned plastic art to study painting. Giulio Campi was his teacher at Cremona; later at Mantua, he was Ippolito Corta’s pupil. He commenced painting when nineteen years old, and soon excelled his masters. Deeplyimpressed by the works of Correggio, Titian, Raphael, and Romano, he endeavoured-as did his teacher Giulio-to unite all their merits into a “style” and extablish a standard of excellence. Finally, however, Bernardino acquired a vigorous style of his own, painted excellent portraits, and decorated many of the Lombardy churches. When he added a Cæsar to the eleven Cæsars of Titian it was difficult to distinguish his picture from those of the great Venetian. His masterpiece is at Cremona in the cupola of S. Sigismondo. Here are depicted the multitude of saints and the blessed, with their symbols. This prodigious composition, exhibiting great invention, variety, and harmony, he finished in seven months; and so successfully did he manage the drawing and perspective that the figures seem to be natural size, whereas they are ten feet high. In 1580 or 1584 he published at Cremona a quarto, “Parere sopra la pittura,” a book full of valuable information for the artist. Bernardino had many pupils, and his influence on Italian art in the sixteenth century was the most healthful and invigorating. He was buried in San Prospero, at Reggio, a church he was engaged in decorating with frescoes when he died. Noteworthy among his works are the “Descent from the Cross” in the Brera gallery at Milan, “Mater Delorosa” in the Louvre at Paris, and the frescoes in the cupola of S. Sigismondo at Cremona.

Crowe and Cavalcaselle, History of Painting in North Italy, II; Burckhardt, Art Guide to Painting in Italy (London, 1883); Jameson, Sacred and Legendary Art (London, 1850); Blanc, Histoire des peintres de toutes les écoles: Ecole Lombarde (Paris, 1877).

LEIGH HUNT

Galeazzo Campi

An Italian painter, b. at Cremona, 1475; d. 1536. He commenced his studies, according to Vasari, with the noted Boccaccino; but Lanzi doubts this, because Galeazzo’s style was so different from that of Boccaccino’s. Galeazzo did not possess great talent, most of his work being but a weak imitation of Perugino’s. His best production is a portrait of hinself (1528) which was accorded a place in the Uffizi gallery at Florence. The most celebrated and the most interesting of his paintings, however, is the quaintly curious “Raising of Lazarus,” painted in 1515 and owned (1903) by Canon Bignami. A “Virgin and Child” at Cremona is also worthy of mention. He left three sons, all painters. It is not determined definitively whether Bernardino Campi was of his family or not.

Lanzi, History of Painting in Italy, tr. Roscoe (London); Vasari, Lives of the Painters, tr. Foster (London, 1878); see, also Campi, Bernardino.

LEIGH HUNT

Giulio Campi

An Italian painter and architect, b. at Cremona about 1500; died there, 1572. He was the eldest son of Galeazzo Campi, who was his first teacher. In 1522, in Mantua, he studied painting, architecture, and modelling under the great Romano. He visited Rome, became an ardent student of the antique, and like Bernardino-who may have been related to him-he come so strongly under the influence of Raphael’s and Correggio’s paintings, that he endeavoured to combine the best in them into a composite style; indeed, Guilio and the other members of the Campi family were pioneers in the movement to rid painting of its empty mannerisms and to instill into it a healthy vitality. Giulio is called the “Ludovico Carracci of Cremona” although he preceded the founder of the “Eclectics.” When but twenty-seven Giulio executed for the church of Sant’ Abbondio his masterpiece, a “Virgin and Child with SS. Celsus and Nazarus,” a decoration masterly in the freedom of its drawing and in the splendour of its colour. His numerous paintings are grandly and reverently conceived, freely drawn, vigorously coloured, lofty in style, and broadly handled. He was a real founder of a school, and was animated in all his work by a deep piety. The churches of Cremona, Mantua, and Milan are filled with his frescoes; and Saint Margaret’s, in his native town, is a giulio Campi gallery. Among his chief works are the “Descent from the Cross” (S. Sigismondo) at Cremona, and the frescoes in the dome of S. Girolamo at Mantua. An alter-piece in S. Sigismondo and his “Labours of Hercules” were engraved by the celebrated Ghiso, “il Mantovano.”

For bibliography see article Campi, Bernardino.

LEIGH HUNT

Campo Santo de’ Tedeschi

(Holy Field of the Germans)

A cemetery, church, and hospice for Germans on the south side of St. Peter’s, Rome, which covers part of the ancient Circus Vaticanus, where great numbers of Christians suffered death by the order of Nero. After the Emperor Constantine built his great basilica over the graves of the Apostles Peter and Paul, the faithful sought to be buried in the vicinity of these holy sepulchres. On account of local conditions the graves were dug chiefly on the south side of the basilica, in the earth with which Nero’s circus was filled during the construction of St. Peter’s. Whether St. Helena covered this burial place with earth from Mount Calvary, or whether, at the time when Pisa obtained earth from Jerusalem for its cemetery, the basilica of the Vatican also obtained sacred soil for this cemetery, is uncertain, but it is a fact, that since the fifteenth century the soil of this cemetery has been held to be sacred earth from Jerusalem, and as such it has been asked for and obtained, under papal sanction, by many localities when new cemeteries were to be laid out. This tradition, in connection with the immediate vicinity of the graves of the Apostles and with the memory of the first martyrs under Nero, fully justifies the name of campus sanctus, “holy field.”

In 796 Charlemagne, by permission of Pope Leo III, founded on ground adjoining this spot a hospice for pilgrims, which was intended for the people of his empire. In connection with the hospice was a church dedicated to the Saviour and a graveyard for the burial of the subjects of Charlemagne who died in Rome. From the beginning this foundation was placed under the care of the ecclesiastical authorities of St. Peter’s. The decline, soon after this period, of the Carlovingian empire, brought the hospice, the Schola Francorum, entirely under the jurisdiction of the basilica; at the same time the original intent of a place for pilgrims and the poor was preserved. In the complete ruin which overtook Rome during the residence of the popes at Avignon (1309–1378), and during the following period of the Schism, the ecclesiastical foundations in the vicinity of St. Peter’s sank into decay. After the return of the popes new life sprang up, and the enthusiasm for building and endowing foundations in this part of the Eternal City was rekindled under Popes Martin V, Eugenius IV, and Nicholas V. The remembrance of Charlemagne and his hospice revived in the mind of the large and influential German colony then residing at Rome, and during the reign of Martin V (1417–1431) the enlarged cemetery was surrounded with a wall built by Fredericus Alemannus, who also erected a house for its guardians. Johannis Assonensis, a German confessor attached to St. Peter’s and later Coadjutor Bishop of Wurzburg, assembled his countrymen there during the pest of 1448 and founded among them a brotherhood, the object of which was to provide suitable burial for all poor Germans dying in Rome. This brotherhood built a church, a new hospice for German pilgrims on the adjoining land, and developed the Campo Santo into a German national institution.

In the fifteenth, sixteenth, and even in the nineteenth century the German nation was represented at Rome by numerous officials at the papal court and by guilds of German bakers, shoemakers, and weavers; in these ages Germans were to be found in every industry of ordinary life, and German bankers and inn-keepers were especially numerous. Nevertheless the steadily decreasing German population of Rome during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries caused the Campo Santo, as a national foundation, and the brotherhood to sink more and more into neglect. Pius IX, who thoroughly understood the change of conditions and the demands of modern times, in 1876 sanctioned a new foundation in a college for priests in which archaeological studies and church history were to be pursued. Friends of the undertaking in Germany endowed five free scholarships and made possible the acceptance of resident students. The library contains 6000 volumes and embraces large collections of works on Christian antiquities and modern church history. The museum includes sarcophagi, carvings, inscriptions, a large number of early Christian lamps, textile fabrics of the sixth century from Egypt, and many small articles of various kinds. In 1887, a periodical was established under the name of “Romische Quartalschrift fur shristliche Altertumskunde und fur Kirchengeschichte,” and in 1901 another periodical entitled “Oriens Christianus.” These publications afford the members of the college the opportunity to publish at once the results of their studies and researches. The college gives the German people a new institution for the cultivation and development of ecclesiastical science. Its students have already furnished a large number of university professors and church dignitaries of high rank. The church of the foundation has been restored and adorned with stained-glass windows and the building greatly enlarged and newly furnished; furthermore, it has received a large number of sacred utensils and vestments.

The tombstones in the adjoining cemetery bear many distinguished names, among them those of Cardinal Hohenlohe, Archbishop de Merode, Bishop von Anzer, Monsignor Schapman, and other church dignitaries. The names of many artists also occur, as those of Koch, von Rhoden, Ahlborn, Achtermann; among the diplomats and scholars buried here are Theiner, Platner, Diekamp; other tombs are those of the queen-mother Carlotta of Denmark, Princess Caroline Wittgenstein, Princess Sophie Hohenlohe, and other women of high rank. Some of the monuments are of artistic value. Formerly the Campo Santo was seldom visited by the Germans in Rome and was scarcely known in Germany. Now, especially on the great church festivals, they gather for service and prayer in the church of the Campo Santo and in the cemetery. The priests of the college often guide German travellers through the catacombs and accompany them on visits to the other objects of interest in the Eternal City. The Campo Santo is a national foundation for the Catholics of the former German Confederation, that is, it is intended both for Austrians and Germans. The secular protector is the Emperor of Austria, while the spiritual protectorate is exercised by a cardinal in the name of the pope. The cardinal protector has, in conjunction with the archbishops of Salzburg, Munich, and Cologne, the right to name the rector.

ANTON DE WAAL.

Jean-Pierre Camus de Pont-Carré

French bishop, b. 3 November, 1584, at Paris; d. there 25 April, 1652. A Burgundian of good birth, he was ordained priest, immediately won a reputation for eloquence, and by a special dispensation of Paul V was made Bishop of Belley at the age of twenty-six, being consecrated by St. Francis of Sales, bishop of Geneva. From that event (1609) dates the close friendship which ever united the two prelates. The episcopal administration of Camus was marked by an ardent, though somewhat inconsiderate, zeal. In 1614 he went as delegate of the clergy to the Etats-Généraux, and there stoutly defended the rights of the Church. Love of study and contemplation tempted him to resign his see, but, in deference to the counsels of St. Francis of Sales, Camus remained at his post until the death of that saint in 1629, when he left Belley and retired to the Abbey of Aulnay, near Caen. The coveted retirement, however, was of brief duration. François de Harlay, Archbishop of Rouen, being incapacitated by illness, claimed the services of Camus as auxiliary. This connection with the archiepiscopal see lasted until the resignation of Harlay in 1651, when Camus retired to the Hospice des Incurables, at Paris, less to be a patient than to be a sympathizer with patients. Louis XIV pressed the Bishopric of Arras upon him, but Camus, having at length reluctantly accepted the charge, died before the arrival of the papal confirmation. His remains were laid to rest in the nave of the hospice chapel, where, until 1904, an epitaph told the tale of his disinterestedness and charity: Qui sibi pauper—Pauperibus dives—Inter pauperes—Vivere, mori et humari voluit (Poor for himself, rich for the poor, he wished to live, die, and be buried among the poor).

Richelieu said of Camus that his acrimony against the mendicant orders was the only flaw in his character. Owing, doubtless, to this well-known antipathy, verging on hatred, some strange charges have been made against him: Voltaire makes him the author of a vile book, “Apocalpyse de Meliton,” which was really written by Claude Pitois, an apostate monk, in 1668. Sauvage (Réalité du projet de Bourg-Fontaine) accuses him of joining the Jansenists in a plot against the Church, basing his accusation on the fact that, in the alleged plot, the work of defaming the religious orders had been assigned to one “P.C.” (Pierre Camus). Sainte-Beuve (Port-Royal, I, 241) probably comes nearer the truth when he describes Camus as naively eager for public notice, and led by this foible to consort with the Jansenists of Port-Royal, though he did not escape their ridicule. His literary activity was prodigious. Leclerc and Nicéron enumerate over two hundred books written by him. His sermons and religious novels have been completely forgotten, in spite of the efforts of H. Rigault (preface to his edition of “Palombe,” 1853) and St.-Marc-Girardin (Cours de littérature, IV) to rescue them from oblivion. Of his theological and controversial works, such as “Introduction à la théologie” (1645); “Du chef de l’églisé” (1630); “De la Primaute” (1630); “Enseignements catéchétiques” (1642); “Correspondance de l’écriture sacrée et de la sainte église” (1683); “Antithèses protestantes” (1638), only one survives, “L’avoisinement des protestants vers l’église romaine” (Paris, 1640, re-edited by Richard Simon (1703), and translated into Latin by Zaccaria, in Migne, “Theol. cursus compl.,” V. On the other hand, his ascetical books, e.g. “L’usage de la pénitence et communion” (1644), “Du rare ou fréquent usage de l’Eucharistie” (1644), “Partique de la communion fréquente” (1644), have had a great influence. One of them, “L’esprit de Saint François de Sales” (Paris, 1641), a minute and loving portrayal of the saint, has gone through many editions (Collot, Paris, 1727; Depéry, Paris, 1840), and two English translations of it have appeared, that of Sidney Lear (London, s.d.) and O’Shea (New York, 1869). To the same class of writings, at least in the mind of Camus, belong several pamphlets against the mendicants: “Le voyageur inconnu” (1630); “Le directeur spirituel” (1631); “L’antimoine” (1632); “Pauvreté évangélique” (1634); “Rabat-joie du triomphe monacal” (1634), and so on—sometimes quoted under the general head, “Des moines.” Of these it may be said that they only detract from the otherwise good fame of their author. The Spanish translation by Cabillas of a treatise by Camus on the love of God has been on the Spanish Index since 1747.

J.F. SOLLIER

Cana

A city of Galilee, Palestine, famous throughout all ages as the scene of Our Lord’s first miracle, when He turned water into wine at the Marriage Feast (John, ii). It is mentioned by the same Evangelist in two other passages, once (iv, 46) in connection with another miracle, when He cured the ruler’s son at a distance, and once (xxi, 2) as the birthplace of Nathaniel, or St. Bartholomew. No direct indication can be gathered of its locality, except that it was not far from either Nazareth or Capharnaum, and higher than the latter city, as indeed all the land west of the Plain of Genesareth is; and that an ordinary traveler from Jerusalem to Nazareth would pass through or near it. It is not mentioned by either of the Synoptists, nor indeed anywhere else in the Scriptures. An old tradition identifies the site of Cana with modern Kefr’ Kenna, a village of about 600 inhabitants. This lies some four or five miles northeast of Nazareth, on the road from thence to Tiberias, at the foot of a short, steep hill. The tradition dates back at least to the eighth century, and probably a good deal earlier, while the site fulfills all the requisite conditions mentioned above. At the time of the Crusades, or before, there was a church which was believed to be on the spot where the miracle of Our Lord was worked. This site is now in the hands of the Franciscans, who have built a large new church. In recent years some interesting excavations have been carried out within its walls, discovering parts of the old church beneath. The Greeks also have a church close by, inside which are two large jars, said to be the original “water pots of stone” in which the water was turned into wine; but the probability of their being genuine is not great. The fountain still existing in the village, however, must have been the actual source from which the water was drawn. The inhabitants of the village are very rough and uncivilized. About one-third of them are Christians, the majority belonging to the Greek Church.

Towards the far end of the town, there is a church dedicated to St. Bartholomew, said to be on the site of his house, though this tradition cannot be traced back very far. A curious light is thrown on the ease with which such traditions used to originate by the existence of a similar church on the supposed site of the house of Simon the Cananean. The name Cananean must have deceived some, who consequently sought for the site of his house, and the demand created the supply. In reality, however, the Chanaanites were a strict national sect among the Jews, and the name is wholly unconnected with Cana. The site of Kefr’ Kenna held almost undisputed possession for many centuries. It is only in recent years that its authenticity has been seriously questioned. There are now two other claimants for the site. One of these, Kenet-el-Jalil, is some six miles further north, on the slope of a hill. There is nothing there now but ruins. Some remains of cisterns have been discovered but there is no fount or spring. It se ems to have been known in quite early times as possibly the site of Cana, and has in its favor that the name is said to be a closer equivalent than that of Kefr’ Kenna. Recently as third site has been put forward by Dr. Robinson, Ain Kana, which is somewhat nearer to Nazareth. The site is accepted by Dr. Condor; although the name is said to be still closer etymologically than either of the other two, there is no tradition whatever to support this hypothesis.

The miracle which has made Cana forever famous was worked by Christ before His public life had fully commenced. This is usually taken to be the meaning of the words “My hour is not yet come.” He had however, already five disciples—Sts. Peter, Andrew, John, Phillip, and Bartholomew (Nathaniel). They had followed Him from the banks of the Jordan, but had received as yet no permanent call, such as is recorded later on in the other Gospels. Our Lord was on His way back to Nazareth when He passed by Cana. From the language of the Gospel we should infer that the marriage which was taking place was that of a close relative of the Blessed Virgin, for it is said without comment that she was there; and it was no doubt in her honor that Christ was invited. Again, the cause of the shortage of wine is not explained by St. John; but it has been inferred that it may have been due to the presence of Our Lord and the five Disciples that accompanied Him, who would have made a substantial increase in a small and modest party. If this was so, it would explain the confidence with which Our Lady appealed to Him when she noticed it. The answer of Christ, which has been variously rendered, has given rise to long discussion, and cannot be said to be even yet properly understood. The Greek ti emoi kai soi, gynai; is translated in the Vulgate, “Quid mihi et tibi est mulier?” In most English Catholic Bibles this is rendered “Woman, what is it to me and to thee?” The translation adopted in the Authorized and Revised Versions, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?,” even if better idiomatically conveys a wrong impression, for it gives the idea of a rebuke which is totally against the context. Father Rickaby, S.J., in his short commentary on St. John suggests as a fair English equivalent, “Leave me alone, Lady.” At any rate, she at once told the waiters to take orders from Our Lord. They filled the jars with water, which Jesus converted into wine. Taking the narrative as it stands, we have one of the best authenticated of Our Lord’s miracles; for, unlike the case of the cure of bodily ailments, the waiters were comparatively disinterested parties, and yet they bore witness that the water had become wine and was even the best wine of the feast. Not only the miracle but also the whole incident of Christ’s attendance at the marriage feast has always been taken as setting His seal on the sanctity of marriage, and on the propriety of humble rejoicing on such occasions. And if the bride or bridegroom was, as is believed, a relative of Our Lady, we may take it as an example of the sympathy which family ties should bring in the ordinary joys, no less than in the sorrows of life.

Ewing in Hast., Dict. of the Bible, s.v.; Thompson, The Land and the Book (1876), 425; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine; Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospel.

BERNARD WARD

Canada

(See also )

Canada, or to be more exact, the Dominion of Canada, comprises all that part of North America north of the United States, with the exception of Newfoundland, Labrador, and Alaska. The distance from the Atlantic Ocean on the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west is 3000 miles, and from the borders of the United States to the farthest point in the Arctic Ocean at least 1500 miles. With its 3,745,574 square miles, Canada exceeds in size both the united States and Australasia, and is almost as large as Europe.

PHYSICAL FEATURES

The physical aspect of the land shows a wide central plain lying between two mountainous regions, the Columbian on the west and the Laurentian plateau on the east. The most important mountain system is that of the west, which consists of the northern end of the Cordilleran region. The great parallel chains enclose British Columbia and Yukon, then decreasing in height turn towards the west, finally ending on the shores of Alaska. The most prominent of these ranges is the eastern, known as the Rocky Mountains. From an average height of 5000 to 10,000 feet, they rise at times to 13,000 and 14,000 feet, like Mounts Brown, Columbia, Hooker, etc. Mounts Purcell, Selkirk, and the Gold Range, which rise west of the Rocky Mountains in successive and parallel lines, are not as high but are very picturesque, bordering on the plateau of British Columbia. Of an average height of 2000 or 3000 feet and more than 100 miles wide, this plateau is crossed by the rivers Fraser and Columbia, which flow through wide basins interrupted here and there by rapids and waterfalls. It extends towards west as far as the Coast Range, which lies parallel to the Pacific Ocean, where it suddenly rises to a great height, cut by innumerable fiords reaching as far as the borders of Alaska. The highest peak in Canada is Mount Logan (19,539 feet). Finally, there is a range partly submerged, which forms the islands of Vancouver and Queen Charlotte; it attains a height of 6840 feet in the Victoria Peak in Vancouver. The mountains in the east of Canada, which are far less important, are called the Laurentians because they rise on the left shore of the St. Lawrence River. From Labrador to Hudson Bay, whose basin it outlines, as it also does that of the St. Lawrence, this range is at least 3000 miles in length. The average elevation is 1500 feet, but a few peaks in the northern part reach a height of 3000 to 4000 feet. Studded with innumerable lakes and crossed here and there by rivers, these mountains of granite, quartz, gneiss, and mica are extremely picturesque. South of the St. Lawrence, the Alleghanies or Appalachian Mountains, leaving their course from south to north, turn towards the east and form the peninsulas of Gaspé and Nova Scotia.

The immense central plain which stretches as far as the frozen north is simply the continuation of the Missouri and Mississippi valley in the United States. In the valley of the Mackenzie the altitude varies between 500 and 1000 feet, and from the border of Lake Winnipeg to the Arctic Ocean the width is from 100 to 300 miles. Between the two the ground rises to a maximum height of 2000 feet, the highest parts being near the Rocky Mountains. In Alberta and the southern part of Saskatchewan the elevation varies between 2000 and 5000 feet. This vast plain contains many lakes, pools, and ponds, which have no doubt taken the place of glaciers. Besides the great lakes to the south of Canada which form the boundary and belong, with the exception of Lake Michigan, partly to the United States and partly to Canada, there are also many sheets of water such as Great Slave Lake, Great Bear Lake, Lake Athabasca, Reindeer, Manitoba, Winnipeg, and Winnipegosis Lakes. The lakes of Canada cover an area of 77,391,304 acres, distributed as follows: British Columbia 1,560,830; Manitoba 6,019,200; Maritime Provinces 277,332; Ontario 25,701,944; Quebec 3,507, 318; Alberta and Saskatchewan 8,665,620; Mackenzie 18,910,080; Keewatin 8,588,260; Ungava 3,745,440; Yukon 415,280. These immense bodies of water drain into the oceans through large rivers which empty into four basins: the Pacific basin with an area of 387,800 sq. m. into which empty the Frazer, Columbia, Stikine, and Yukon; the Hudson bay basin, area 1,486,000 sq. m., principal rivers Nelson, Red River, Saskatchewan, Churchill, Albany, Dubawnt, Assiniboine, Winnipeg, Moose, Nottaway, Big, and Koksoak; the Atlantic basin, area 554,000 sq. m., principal rives the St. Lawrence, with its tributaries Ottawa, St. Maurice and Saguenay; and the Arctic basin, area 1,290,000 sq. m., principal rivers the Mackenzie, Peace, Athabasca, and Liard.

FIELD PRODUCTS

The vegetable products are diverse, owing to the varied climates. There are three principal zones. The southern zone close to the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence is known for its fruit, especially apple, trees, its grain, and its prairies. In the central zone, which extends somewhat beyond 60 N. lat., grain is also grown, but this region is better known for its forests, north of 50°. In the great northern region, beyond 60°, where winter reigns during the greater part of the year, there is northing to the west but sparsely grown forests and stunted trees, and to the east barren lands covered during the summer with moss and lichens. Agriculture is the source of Canada’s greatest wealth. The census of 1901 valued at $363,126,384 the annual farm production of Canada, and the value of farms, including live stock, was appraised at $1,787,102,630. There is no doubt that these figures have increased since then. In the five years, 1901–06, the production of wheat was doubled. In 1901 it was 55,572,368 bushels, in 1906, 119,011,136. Farm products occupy a conspicuous place among the exports.

The farm products of Canada are quoted in the exports of 1906 at $120,518,297, that is more than half the total value of the exports for that year. It is evident also that the progress of agriculture has been very rapid during the last decade, exceeding that of the lumber industry.

FORESTS

Throughout Canada there are vast forests. It is estimated that 1,326,258 square miles are covered with timber, this being more than a third of the total area of Canada. Outside of the Maritime Provinces, which have altogether more than 8000 square miles of forests, there are three distinct wooded zones. That of British Columbia is 770 miles long by 200 to 300 miles wide, where grow the red or Oregon pine, the red and the yellow cedar, the fir tree, and the western oak. Owing to the mildness of the climate these trees attain an enormous size. The northern zone runs from the banks of the Mackenzie to the border of Labrador, a length of 3000 miles, with a width of about 200 miles, and contains the largest forest of fir trees in the world. The southern zone is between 45° and 50° N. Lat. in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario and stretches towards the west, taking in the northern part of Saskatchewan and Alberta as far as the Peace River. The chief resource of this region is the white pine. The figures of exportation do not show the entire value of the wood, which serves many purposes. It is used not only for building purposes but is also ground to pulp and converted into paper, in consequence of which a great many paper mills have been erected. In 1904 they employed nearly 55,000 men, and the income from this industry is estimated at $51,082,605, distributed as follows: Quebec, $18,969,716; Ontario, $21,351,898; Nova Scotia, $3,409,528; New Brunswick, $2,998,038; British Columbia, $2,634,157; Manitoba, $950,057; the Territories, $484,263; Prince Edward Island, $285,038.

The Dominion Government has kept under its control 742,798 square miles of land, of which 506,220 square miles are managed by the Provincial Governments, which concede the right of exploitation within certain limits. For some years now the Federal Government has retained immense territories under the name of parks or reservations, where game and furred animals are protected. This example has been followed by the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The best known are Yoho Park in the Rocky Mountains, Algonkin Park of more than 200,000 acres, in Ontario, and Victoria Park near Niagara Falls. Quebec also has a reservation in the northern part of the province, covering 1,620,000 acres.

FISHERIES

This industry has always employed many hands and still on the increase. In 1881 there were 59,056 fishermen; in 1886, 62000; in 1891, 65,575; in 1900, 78,290; in 1903, 79,134. Fishing, which in 1881 yielded an income of $15,817,162, in 1891 brought $18,977,878; in 1901, $25,737,154; in 1903, $23,101,878. Nova Scotia, British Columbia, New Brunswick, and the Province of Quebec rank highest. The value of the boats, nets, and fishing tackle has been estimated at $12,241,454. Cod, lobster, salmon, herring, and mackerel form the principal catch. The salmon fisheries of Columbia are known all over the world. In 1901 their value of $7,221,387 headed the list, but in 1903 they fell to third place, with a valuation of $3,521,158. The chief exports go to Great Britain (in 1903, $3,904,793); the United Stat es ($3,760,266); the West Indies ($938,721), France, and the Antilles.

MINES

Though there are many mines in Canada, they are far from being all in operation. Coal is found in large quantities on Vancouver Island and in Nova Scotia and even in Manitoba and Saskatchewan; pit-coal in Nova Scotia north of Lake Superior and in the Province of Quebec. Nickel is found at Sudbury, Ontario and in British Columbia; asbestos in the Province of Quebec and mica in Ontario. Besides the rich placers of the Klondike, there is gold in the Province of Quebec and in Saskatchewan. The mineral products, which in 1886 amounted to $10,221,255, reached $19,931,158 in 1894; $49,584,027 in 1899, $60,343,165 in 1904, and $80,000,048 in 1906. From 1899 the gold production is included in the sum total. Columbia holds first rank in the output of minerals. Ontario comes next, with its silver mines at Cobalt.

MANUFACTURES

Canadian factories employ a large number of labourers. The census of 1900 gave the number of employees as 313,344 and the capital invested $446,916,487. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec stand first. In 1900 Ontario produced $241,533,486, and Quebec $158,287,994 of the total value of manufactured articles.

COMMERCE

Of the $273,173,877, the value of exports in 1907, all but $28,992,955 represented the natural products of the country. The most important commerce is with Great Britain and the United States, as is evident from the following figures. In 1907 the value of exports to England reached $134,469,420, to the United Stat es $109,772,944, to other countries $217,964,242. The total value of imports for 1906 reached $340,374,745; imports from England $83,229,256, from the United Stat es $208,741,601, other countries $45,304,148; the custom receipts $46,671,101. The total commerce for 1907 reached $612,581,351.

POPULATION

A census of Canada is taken every tenth year. That of 1901 gives the population as 5,371,315, which has, however, greatly increased since. In 1906 it was estimated by the Department of the Interior as 6,440,000. The increase is chiefly the result of immigration and has taken place principally in the Provinces of the West, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. During the nineteenth century the increase in population was 5,000,000. The population is for every 10,000 inhabitants, 5,123 men to 4,877 women. 87 per cent are natives of Canada and 94 per cent are British subjects. The yearly increase in immigration has swelled these figures and altered this proportion, as is evident from statistics of immigration to Canada between 1 January, 1897, and 31 March, 1907.

During the decade ending 1907, 35 per cent of the immigrants were of British origin, 33 per cent from the United States, and 32 per cent of other nationalities. During the first nine months of the fiscal year 1906—07, 90,008 immigrants received at the various ports were classed according to occupation: 18,191 agriculturists, 26,807 general labourers, 24,414 mechanics, 6,686 clerks, 2,878 miners, 4,583 female servants, 6,449 unclassified. Of these the Maritime Provinces received 6,491, Quebec 18,063, Ontario 32, 265, Manitoba 17,036, Saskatchewan 4,257, Alberta 3,474, British Columbia 8,406, and Yukon 16. These figures do not include the 34,659 arrivals from the United States.

THE INDIANS

In all parts of Canada there are still to be found descendants of the aborigines whom the white men met on landing three hundred years ago. But their condition now is very different. Deprived of all they possessed, they are dependent on the nation which despoiled them. They are divided into four large families: (1) The Huron-Iroquois; (2) the Innuit or Eskimo; (3) the Tinneh; and (4) the Algonquins. The first three named belong to the Turanian race and are allied to the Mongolians and the Turks; the fourth belong to the Polynesian Malays of the Pacific Islands. Their language, physique, and disposition indicate two different races. The Iroquois loves the land, the Algonquin the water; the former is fond of war and all manly sports, the latter although aggressive is lazy; the Algonquin is taciturn and nomadic, the Iroquois is garrulous and sedentary in his habits. The Eskimo (consumers of raw flesh) live on the shores of the Arctic Ocean from Labrador to Alaska. They speak the same language and form but one tribe. The Tinneh or Déné Dindejies are found in the valleys of the Athabasca and Peace Rivers, in the regions of the Great Bear Lake and on the slopes of the rocky Mountains south of British Columbia, on Vancouver and Queen charlotte Islands. They are divided into nineteen tribes. The Algonquins are scattered from the Atlantic Ocean to the Rockies and comprise eleven tribes. To the east are the Micmac, Malecite, Abnaki, Nascapi, and the Montagnais of Labrador; west of Quebec are the Missisauga and the Ojibwa Confederacy; and in the southern part of the north-west the Saulteurs, Wood Cree, Plain Cree, the Blackfeet, the Mixed-bloods , and the Piegans. The home of the Iroquois is in the valley of the St. Lawrence, at Lorette near Quebec; Caughnawaga; Lake of the Two Mountains; Saint Regis; between Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie; and near the Rocky Mountains where they are known as Assiniboin and Sioux.

The first Indian census was taken in 1871. They then numbered 102,358, as follows: Eskimo 4028; Tinneh 42,000; Algonquins 46,000; Huron-Iroquois 10,330. Their division according to provinces is: Prince Edward Island 323; Nova Scotia 1666; New Brunswick 1403; Quebec 6988; Ontario 12,978; Manitoba 500; British Columbia 23,000; Rupert’s Land 33,000; Labrador and the Arctic regions 22,000. The census of 1901 shows a decrease of 8904 in thirty years, if the given figures (93,454) are correct. In 1905, the superintendent of the Indian bureau gave the total number of Indians as 107,637. Of this number 22,084 lived outside the reservations. The 85,553 who were in the reservations in 1905 owned 44,195 acres of cultivated land and had 44,972 head of cattle and 33,119 horses. They had at that time 302 schools with an attendance of 10,113 pupils. 104 of these schools were under Catholic clergy, 86 under the Anglicans, 49 under the Methodists, 16 under Presbyterians, and 47 were nonsectarian. The same census gave 35,060 Catholic Indians, 15,079 Anglicans, 11,791 Methodists, 1489 Presbyterians, 1103 Baptists, 646 other Christians, and 10,906 pagans.

FREEDOM OF WORSHIP

Freedom of worship and the equality of all creeds before the law forms the basis of the political constitution of Canada. When Canada became a British dependency, the Catholic Church ceased to be the State Church. Governmental favour was now transferred to Anglicanism, which strove to acquire on Canadian soil the position it occupied in Great Britain. This gave rise to a constant friction between the two religions, intensified by the differences of nationality (English and French) and the relative positions of conquerors and conquered. Protected by British colonial rights, by the terms of surrender of Quebec and Montreal, and by the Treaty of Paris (1763), the Catholic religion was free and independent, in spite of the systematic persecutions organized against it in England. It was the Legislature of Lower Canada that first gave expression to this principle of freedom of worship now recognized throughout the Dominion. It stated in 1851 that “the equality before the law of all religious denominations is a recognized principle of the colonial legislation and that in the state and condition of this province (Quebec) to which it is particularly applicable, it is desirable that the principle receive the direct sanction of the Legislative Assembly, which recognizes and declares that it is the fundamental principle of our social policy.” Then it was proclaimed by statute “that the free exercise and enjoyment of profession and religious worship without distinction or preference, but in such manner as not to serve as an excuse for outrageous acts, nor as a justification for practices at variance with the peace and safety of the province, be allowed by the constitution of this province to all her Majesty’s subjects living therein” (14 and 15 Victoria, Ch. 175). This liberty, so clearly formulated in 1851, had by degrees entered into public legislation.

INCORPORATION OF BISHOPRICS

The Catholics of Upper Canada who were in the minority had already benefited by this. In 1843 the Legislative Assembly drafted a bill allowing all denominations the right of corporation; in this it was declared that the Catholic bishops of Upper Canada, those occupying the present bishoprics then in existence as well as bishoprics to be erected in the future, would each form a corporation sole. The Legislative Council rejected this bill. But in 1845 a special act, embodying the same idea, was adopted by Parliament and a;;roved by the Crown, at the request of Bishop Power of Toronto and Bishop Phelan, coadjutor of Kingston. This act constitutes each bishop a perpetual corporation, with the right of owning real estate in mortmain without restrictions as to extent or revenue. It further states that all church goods, buildings, chapels, cemeteries, rectories and immovable property of any kind, be declared and recognized as belonging exclusively to the bishop of the diocese. All this was to apply equally to churches, chapels, etc. which should bed erected in the diocese at any future time. Any one holding immovable property in trust for the Catholic Church was to transfer titles to such property to the bishop, who thereby becomes sole proprietor of church goods. He alone can transfer them with the consent of the coadjutor and vicar-general, or in their absence, in the presence of two priests chosen by him. These provisions applied to any bishopric which might be established in Upper Canada in the future. They are still in force in the diocese where no parishes are canonically erected though still having churchwardens (marguilliers), and a board of trustees (conseil de fabrique) responsible for the administration of church property.

Therefore, outside of the Province of Quebec ecclesiastical property is directly under the episcopal corporation, though the management of it is in the hands of the parish or resident priest, sometimes assisted by a committee of laymen chosen by himself; within that Province its administration rests with the board of trustees of each parish. This board, like any ecclesiastical body, exercises its administration according to laws laid down by a higher authority. The civil law also in clear terms recognizes these holdings as “things sacred by their very nature as well as their purpose, inalienable and imprescriptible so long as they serve their original purpose” (Cod. Civ., art. 1486, 2217). Church goods comprise in addition to the immovable property mentioned above (1) the pew rents; (2) the due connected with certain ecclesiastical functions; (3) funds from which is derived the income necessary for the support of Divine worship and the maintenance of the parish priest; and (4) pious endowments for educational purposes or the celebration of Masses; these are res ecclesiæ proindeque sub potestate et jurisdicione ecclesiæ constitut, as expressed in the Eleventh Provincial Council of Quebec. The parish priest is at the head of the marguilliers, and by right the president of the board of trustees, which cannot convene without him.

TAXATION

Throughout the Dominion, places of worship and adjacent land used for religious purposes are exempt from taxation. The same may be said of colleges, schools, universities, and educational institutions with their yards and gardens, also any immovable property and land set apart for charitable purposes. The religious communities in the Province of Quebec enjoy the same immunity from taxes. The laws governing asylums, hospitals, and other charitable institutions are left to the provincial governments which support them in whole or in part as the case may be. Sometimes the districts or cities in which these institutions are established maintain them entirely or obtain a grant for that purpose from the provincial government. Generally, these grants are in the form of a fixed sum and an allowance per capita for the inmates, though the methods are also used separately. The Federal Government also allows a certain sum for each alien received in these institutions. These grants, however, would rarely be sufficient for the support of such houses, hospitals, hospices, homes, crèches, and shelters, were it not for previous endowments or the ingenuity and labour of the religious in charge. Many have formed committees of patronesses who by means of entertainments and personal contributions strive to provide these charities with the necessary funds. Similarly, institutions in charge of men have formed committees of patrons.

WILLS AND TESTAMENTS

The greatest liberty in the matter of wills exists in Canada. A man may dispose of all his goods in any manner he chooses, without any restriction of law. A father may leave everything to one of his children to the exclusion of the rest. He may even exclude them all and leave his property to a stranger. There is the same liberty in the choice of testamentary executors. A priest, even the testator’s confessor, may be legally chosen for the office. However the lawful heirs who have been dispossessed may contest the document in court and have it declared null and void, if it is proved that undue influence was used to coerce the will of the testator. These testaments are generally in one of three forms: (1) written entirely by hand by the one making the will and signed by himself, when it is called holographic; (2) written in the presence of two proper witnesses, who may be women, and signed by the testator after it has been read to him, and countersigned by the witnesses; this is the form derived “from English law”; (3) it may be written before a notary and two witnesses or, as it is generally done to-day, before two notaries; or written by one in the presence of the other at the dictation of the testator, and the two notaries or the notary witness; this is the “public” or “authentic” will. In case the testator cannot sign his name, mention is made of this fact at the end of the will and the reason stated.

MARRIAGE

The North American Act has left to the Federal Government the question of marriage and divorce. (See DIVORCE, sub-title II. In Civil Jurisprudence.) The solemnization of marriage and everything pertaining thereto is left by the same Act to the provincial legislatures. In the Province of Quebec the civil law had adopted the legislation of the Church on this point; in other words there is no such thing as civil marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony and the law recognizes the impediments and conforms to the dispensations of the Church. When two persons have decided to be married the banns are published in the presence of the assembled faithful three successive Sundays before the solemnization; a dispensation may be obtained from one or two publications, but not from all. If there is no impediment the marriage takes place before the parish priest, generally the bride’s pastor, and two witnesses, after which an entry is made in a special register. It is read aloud, and signed by the priest, the witnesses, the bride and bridegroom, and all those present who wish to do so. The same entry with the same signatures is made in a second register which the parish priest returns to the city or country record office at the end of each year. The Church is strongly opposed to all mixed marriages, viz. of Catholics with Protestants or schismatics. In cases where consent is given ad duritiam cordis to such unions, promise must be given not to go before a clergyman, Protestant or otherwise, and to rear the children in the Catholic Faith after having baptized.

EXEMPTION FOR PRIESTS

As military duty is voluntary in the Dominion, a priest is not compelled to serve. He is also exempt from jury duty both in criminal and civil cases. He cannot belong to the municipal council in his own parish or any other. But there is no law to prevent his becoming a member of Parliament or taking an active part in the agricultural development of his country. In point of fact it is the colonizing priests who give much needed help in directing the work of colonization and in applying progressive methods to the cultivation of the land.

PRIMARY EDUCATION

Education in Canada is a provincial and not a federal matter. Each province has its own system. Ontario and British Columbia have a minister and a general superintendent of education. In the Province of Quebec, education is under the control of the superintendent of public instruction, assisted by a council of 35 member divided into two committees, one in charge of Catholic, the other of Protestant schools. In Manitoba, New Brunswick, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, the schools are left in control of the executive, who names a superintendent and other competent persons to take charge; in Nova Scotia educational matters are under the executive and a superintendent, in Prince Edward Island under a committee and superintendent.

Public schools are divided, on a religious basis, in Quebec and part of Ontario. In those two provinces there are separate schools for Catholics and for Protestants, and it is left to the parents to decide which schools their children shall attend. In the other provinces the educational laws do not recognize any such distinctions. In fact, Catholics, who are in the minority in other provinces, strive, as far as their means and the tolerance of the civil authorities will permit, to maintain separate schools, which more aptly, perhaps should be named minority schools.

Atlas of Canada, published by the Department of the Interior (Ottawa, 1906); Le Canada, son histoire, ses productions et ses ressources naturelles, published by the Minister of Agriculture of Canada (Ottawa, 1906); Annual Report of the Department of the Interior (1907); PAGNUELO, La liberté religieuse en Canada (Montreal, 1872); MIGNAULT, Droit civil canadien (Montreal, 1895–98); IDEM, Droit civil canadien (Quebec); Report of the department of Trade and Commerce (Ottawa, 1907).

A. FOURNET

José de la Canal

Ecclesiastical historian, b. of poor parents, at Ucieda, a village in the province of Santander, 11 Jan., 1768; d. at Madrid, 17 April 1845. Under the care of an uncle, an Augustinian friar, he studied in the Dominican and Augustinian convents of Burgos; at Burgos, in 1785, he was formally received into the Augustinian Order. Subsequently he became professor of philosophy, first at the convent of his order at Salamanca, and then at Burgos. Returning from the latter place to Salamanca he was librarian of the university, from 1789 to 1800. After passing four years at Toledo, he came to Madrid, where he taught philosophy in the College of San Isidro. On account of certain articles in a paper of liberal tendencies called “El Universal” he was, on the return to Spain of King Ferdinand VII, confined for one year in a convent near Avila. At the end of this period he returned to Madrid and with his brother Augustinian, Fr. Antolin Merino, was appointed by the King to continue the monumental “España Sagrada” (Holy Spain), begun in 1743 by the Augustinians Henrique Flórez and Manuel Risco. This valuable collection of documents and researches relating to Spanish ecclesiastical history had already reached its forty-second volume. The work embraces an account of the foundation and vicissitudes of all Spanish dioceses, the succession of the Spanish hierarchy, the most important monasteries, and other matters of interest to the Spanish Church studied in their original sources and by the most severe critical methods. From the time of his appointment Canal devoted himself with ardour and perseverance to his task. In order to collect material for the publication, he undertook two journeys into Catalonia, making his headquarters at Barcelona and Gerona, and working assiduously in the archives of these cities. In conjunction with Father Merino he published vols. XLIII-XLIV of the “España Sagrada” at Madrid in 1819; vols. XLV-XLVI (Madrid, 1826–32) were due to Father Canal alone. These volumes treat of the churches and monasteries of the diocese of Gerona, and are remarkable for the number and importance of hitherto unpublished documents, and for the critical accuracy of the investigations. To his collaborator Father Canal dedicated an interesting biographical study in his “Ensayo histórico de la vida literaria del Maestro Fr. Antolin Merino” (Madrid, 1830); he also published a second edition, greatly enlarged by himself, of the “Clave historial” (Key to History) by Father Flórez (Madrid, 1817) and a “Manual del Santo Sacrificio de la Misa” (Madrid, 1817, 1819). He translated from the French various theological and historical works, and was successively corresponding member, treasurer, censor, and director of the Royal Academy of History. He belonged to the Academy of Natural Science of Madrid, to the Academy of Belles-Lettres of Barcelona, and to the Antiquarian Society of Normandy. Father Canal was an exemplary ecclesiastic, distinguished for charity to the poor. He refused the See of Gerona in 1836 notwithstanding the entreaties of Queen Isabella II, excusing himself on the score of age and ill health, and declaring he believed he could better serve God and his country if he continued to devote the remainder of his life to historical research.

EDUARDO DE HINOJOSA

Canary Islands

The Canary Islands form an archipelago in the North Atlantic Ocean facing the western coast of Africa, between the parallels of 27°4’ and 29°3’N. lat., and the meridians of 13°3’ and 18°2’W. long. They consist of seven important islands and some islets. From east to west the first encountered are Lanzarote and Fuerteventura, the nearest to the African continent; then come Tenerife and Gran Canaria, while farther westward are Palma, Gomera, and Hierro (or Ferro). The total area of the islands is about 3256 square miles; their population, according to the census of 1900, was 358,564. The country in general is mountainous and volcanic; in Tenerife the Pico de Teyde, or Peak of Tenerife, reaches the height of 12,200 feet, and towers above the other mountains which extend throughout the islands, generally from north-east to south-west. Natural caverns abound, some of them very extensive. There is no great river, but there are numerous springs and torrents. The fauna differs little from that of Europe, with the exception of the dromedary and the thistle-finch, or canary-bird. There are extensive forests of pine and laurel, and some stems reach a gigantic height. The climate of the islands is mild and salubrious; hence they are much frequented as winter resorts. The Canary Islands are essentially agricultural. Their soil, usually fertile, though subject to frequent droughts, produces an abundance of fruits, sugar-cane, and tobacco. The wines are exquisite, and together with the fruits, tobacco, and fish, which is good and plentiful, form the principal articles of commerce for export. Much cochineal, also, is manufactured in the islands. The most important centres of population are: Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Orotava, and La Laguna in the island of Tenerife; Las Palmas and Arracife in Gran Canaria; Santa Cruz de la Palma in the island of Palma; Quia and Valverde in that of Hierro.

CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL DIVISIONS

The Canary Islands constitute a civil province, a judicial district (audiencia), with its seat at Palmas, for the administration of justice, and a military governorship (captaincy-general). Ecclesiastically they are divided into two dioceses, suffragan of Seville, that of Tenerife, with episcopal residence at Santa Cruz, and that of Canaries, with residence at Las Palmas. In 1906 the Diocese of Tenerife, which comprises the islands of Tenerife, Gomera, Palma, and Hierro, had a Catholic population of 171,045, with 62 parishes, 86 priests, 60 churches, and 167 chapels; while the Diocese of Canaries had a Catholic population of 83,378, 50 Protestants, 42 parishes, 103 priests, 42 churches, and 113 chapels, and comprises the Grand Canary, Fuerteventura, and Lanzarote. The courts are held at Santa Cruz de Tenerife. All ports are free, i.e. merchandise entering them is exempt from duty. The inhabitants satisfy the obligation of military service, not in the ranks of the peninsular army, but in the local territorial militia.

HISTORY

The primitive populations of the Canary Islands were the Guanches, a white race, vigorous, of high stature, fair-haired and blue-eyed, and leading mostly a pastoral life. At the time of their conquest by the Europeans they used weapons and utensils of wood and stone, were clothed in skins of animals, and lived in the numerous natural grottos. Their ornaments were of bone, sea-shells, and baked clay. They were hospitable and deeply attached to their independence. Each island was divided into separate states, ruled over by kings, who were assisted by the chiefs of the noble families and the most esteemed priests or soothsayers. They held their meetings in the open air in places specially intended for this purpose. They were monotheists and made offerings of domestic animals, milk, and fruit to the Supreme Being. At some early date Old World peoples from Africa and Asia reached these islands and founded there permanent colonies, blending with the aboriginal stock. Their invasions are attested by archaeological remains and inscriptions; certain Numidian inscriptions on the rocks of Gran Canaria and Hierro are similar to those discovered in Africa. An Aragonese fleet explored the islands in 1330. Another Castilian coasting expedition, sent forth by merchants of Seville and Biscay, disembarked, in 1385, in Lanzarote and vanquished the aborigines, but did not found any lasting settlement. This was not accomplished until the expedition of Jean de Béthencourt, a French nobleman, who in virtue of a mission confided to him by the King of Castile, Henry III, conquered, from 1402 to 1405, the islands of Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gomera, and Hierro. The conquest of Gran Canaria, Palma, and Tenerife was effected during the reign of the Catholic sovereigns, from 1478 to 1495, by Diego Garcia de Herrera, Pedro de Vera, and Alonso Fernandez de Lugo, but not without heroic resistance on the part of the Guanches.

Combined action on the part of Church and State helped to Christianize and civilize the Guanches, and gave excellent results. The people abandoned their heathen practices and willingly embraced Christianity. The Catholic priest was always a brave protector of the natives against the vexations to which, in the early days of the conquest, they were occasionally exposed at the hands of their conquerors. Among the most deserving ecclesiastics in this respect is Don Juan de Frias, Bishop of Gran Canaria at the close of the fifteenth century. The Catholic sovereigns dictated wise provisional measures in order to protect the lives and farms of the aborigines, and after the conclusion of the war gave them the right to participate in the government of the islands. Owing to frequent marriages between Spaniards and Guanches, the fusion of both races was finally accomplished, and this community of affection and interest became a powerful factor in the economic prosperity of the islands.

EDUARDO DE HINOJOSA.

Canatha

A titular see of Arabia. According to inscriptions on coins and geographical documents, its name was Kanatha, Kanotha, or even Kenetha. The city had its own era and inscriptions found in Algeria have made known the existence of a cohors prima Flavia Canathenorum (Renier, Inscript. Alger., 1534, 1535). It is surely distinct from Kanata, another city that struck coins and is now the little village of Kerak, north-east of Edraï or Derat, also in Arabia. Moreover, it is not Maximianopolis, because Severus, bishop of that see, and Theodosius, Bishop of Kenatha, were together present at Chalcedon in 451. Finally, it is not certain that it can be identified with Canath (Num., xxxii, 42; I Par., ii, 23), which stood, probably, farther south. The city is first mentioned by Josephus (Bel. jud., I, xix, 2; Ant. jud., XV, v, 1) apropos of a defeat of Herod by the Arabs. Pline and Ptolemy rank it among the towns of Decapolis; Eusebius of Caesarea and Stephanus Byzantius say it was near Bostra. It figures in older “Notitiae episcopatuum” as a suffragan of Bostra; one bishop is known, Theodosius, 449–458 (Lequien, II, 867). Canatha is to-day El-Qanawat; this village, north-east of Bostra, in the vilayet of Syria, stands at a height of about 4100 feet, near a river and surrounded by woods. The magnificent ruins are 4800 feet in length and 2400 in breadth. Among them are a Roman bridge and a rock-hewn theatre, with nine tiers of seats and an orchestra fifty-seven feet in diameter, also a nymphaeum, an aqueduct, a large prostyle temple with portico and colonnades, and a peripteral temple preceded by a double colonnade. The monument known as Es-Serai dates from the fourth century and was originally a temple, afterwards a Christian basilica. It is seventy-two feet long, and was preceded by an outside portico and an atrium with eighteen columns.

S. VAILHé

Luis Cancer de Barbastro

One of the first Dominicans who followed Las Casas to Guatemala, born in Aragon, Spain, date uncertain; died at Tampa Bay, Florida, U.S.A., c. 1549. He worked as a missionary among the Indians of Vera Paz with great zeal and fortitude and composed in the Zapotecan idiom the “Varias Canciones en verso zapoteco sobre los Misterios de la Religion para uso de los Neófitos de la Vera Paz,” a manuscript not now accessible. He was an ardent adherent of Las Casas and sided with him at the gathering of prelates and theologians convoked by the visitor Tello de Sandoval at Mexico in 1546. Anxious to prove the efficacy of the methods proposed by Las Casas, he went to Spain and obtained there the direction of the conversion of the Indians of Florida. Upon his return to Mexico he sailed for Florida from Vera Cruz in 1549 with two other Dominicans. Their interpreter was an Indian woman called Magdalen who had embraced Christianity. Upon reaching the shores of Florida, however, this woman betrayed them, and the three priests were killed by the Indians.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Candace

The name of the Ethiopian queen whose eunuch was baptized by St. Philip (Acts, viii, 27 sqq.). The name occurs in a ruined pyramid near ancient Meroe (Lipsius. Denkmaler, V, 47). Another queen of the same name is mentioned by Strabo (XVII, i, 54), and after him by Dion Cassius (Hist. Rom., LIV, v ); she revolted and waged war against the Romans and was overpowered by Petronius in her capital of Napata, 22 B.C. Pliny (Hist. Nat., VI, 35) informs us that at the time when Nero’s explorers passed through Nubia, a Queen Candace was reigning over the island of Meroe, and adds that this name was a title common to all the queens of that country. “ . . . quod nomen multis Jam annis ad reginas transiit.” The Ethiopia over which Candace reigned, according to Hebrew usage and our authorities, was not the present Abyssinia, as is often claimed, but is to be looked for in the region called by the ancients the island of Meroe at the confluence of the Nile and the Taccasi. The Queen Candace of the Acts may be, and probably is, the same as the one mentioned by Pliny, but we have no direct evidence to assert it as a fact. (See ETHIOPIA.)

R. BUTIN

Diocese of Candia

(DIOCESE OF CANDIA)

On the north shore of Crete was an ancient city called Heracleion. Lequien (II, 269) mentions among those present at the Seventh General Council (Nicaea, 787) Theodorus, Bishop of Heracleiopolis, by which he understands Heracleion; the latter title, however, does not figure in the Greek “Notitiae episcopatuum.” The Greeks still give the name of Heracleion to a city built by the Arabs in 825 near the site of the ancient city; the Arabian name was Khandak, whence the Italian name Candia is used also for the whole island. In 960 Candia was taken by Nicephorus Phocas. In 1204 it passed to the Venetians and in 1669 to the Turks. It has now about 25,000 inhabitants (8000 Greeks, 100 Latins). There are remains of its ancient walls and aqueduct, also a museum of antiquities. Under the Venetian occupation Crete was divided into eleven Latin sees, Candia being the seat of an archbishopric. Lequien (III, 907–916) cites twenty-seven archbishops, from 1213 to 1645; Eubel (I, 223, II, 156) has thirty, from the thirteenth century to 1493. Among the latter are the famous Carmelite, St. Peter Thomas (1363), and Blessed Francis Quirini (1364). The hierarchy disappeared with the Turkish conquest. In 1874 Pius IX re-established the See of Candia, as a suffragan of Smyrna; the bishop has until now resided at Canea. The diocese has only about 300 Catholics. The Capuchins have parishes at Candia (Megalokastro), Canea (Khania), Retimo, and a station at Sitia; 4 schools for boys and 2 for girls (Sisters of St. Joseph de l’Apparition). Candia is the residence of the Greek Metropolitan of Crete, who has seven suffragan sees, Khania, Kisamos, Rethymnon (Retimo), Sitia, Lampa, Arkadia, and Chersonesos.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Candidus

The name of two scholars of the Carlovingian revival of letters in the ninth century.

(1) The Benedictine Candidus Bruun of Fulda received his first instruction from the learned Aegil (Abbot of Fulda, 817–822); Abbot Ratger (802–817) sent the gifted scholar to Einhard at the court of Charlemagne, where he most probably learned the art he employed later in decorating with pictures the apse to which, in 819, the remains of St. Boniface were transferred. When Rabanus Maurus was made abbot (822) Candidus succeeded him as head of the monastic school of Fulda. As a philosopher Candidus is known by his “Dicta de imagine mundi” or “Dei” (the question of authorship is decided by the Cod. Wirciburg.), twelve aphoristic sayings strung together without logical sequence. The doctrine is taken from the works of St. Augustine, but the frequent use of the syllogism marks the border of the age of scholasticism. In his last saying Candidus makes somewhat timidly the first attempt in the Middle Ages at a proof of God’s existence. This has a striking similarity to the ontological argument of St. Anselm (q.v.—Man, by intellect a better and more powerful being that the rest, is not almighty; therefore a superior and almighty being—God—must exist). The third saying, which denies that bodies are true, since truth is a quality of immortal beings only, is based on that excessive realism which led his contemporary, Fredegisus, to invest even nothingness with being. The other sayings deal with God’s image in man’s soul, the concepts of existence, substance, time, etc. The philosophy of Candidus marks a progress over Alcuin and gives him rank with Fredegisus, from whom he differs by rarely referring to the Bible in philosophical questions, thus keeping apart the domains of theology and philosophy. The only complete edition of the “Dicta Candidi” is in Hauréau (p. 134–137); a more critical edition of part in Richter (p. 34 sq.). Candidus also wrote an “Exposition Passionis D.N.J. Chr.” (in Pez, Thes. anec., Augsburg, 1721, I, 241 sq.); a “life” of his teacher Aegil in prose and in verse (Brouwer, “Sidera ill. vir.,” Mainz, 1616, p. 19–44, Dummler, “Poetae lat. aevi caroling.,” Berlin, 1884, II, 94–117); and a “Life” of Abbot Baugolf of Fulda (d. 802).

(2) Candidus, name given to the Anglo-Saxon Wizo by Alcuin, whose scholar he was and with whom he went in 782 to Gaul. At the palace school he was tutor to Gisla, the sister, and Rodtruda, the daughter of Charlemagne. When Alcuin went to Tours (796), Candidus was his successor as master of the palace school. Alcuin’s esteem for Candidus is shown by his dedicating his commentary on Ecclesiastes to his friends Onias, Fredegisus, and Candidus.

JOHN M. LENHART.

Candlemas

Also called: Purification of the Blessed Virgin (Greek Hypapante), Feast of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple. Observed 2 February in the Latin Rite.

According to the Mosaic law a mother who had given birth to a man-child was considered unclean for seven days; moreover she was to remain three and thirty days “in the blood of her purification”; for a maid-child the time which excluded the mother from sanctuary was even doubled. When the time (forty or eighty days) was over the mother was to “bring to the temple a lamb for a holocaust and a young pigeon or turtle dove for sin”; if she was not able to offer a lamb, she was to take two turtle doves or two pigeons; the priest prayed for her and so she was cleansed. (Leviticus 12:2–8)

Forty days after the birth of Christ Mary complied with this precept of the law, she redeemed her first-born from the temple (Numbers 18:15), and was purified by the prayer of Simeon the just, in the presence of Anna the prophetess (Luke 2:22 sqq.). No doubt this event, the first solemn introduction of Christ into the house of God, was in the earliest times celebrated in the Church of Jerusalem. We find it attested for the first half of the fourth century by the pilgrim of Bordeaux, Egeria or Silvia. The day (14 February) was solemnly kept by a procession to the Constantinian basilica of the Resurrection, a homily on Luke 2:22 sqq., and the Holy Sacrifice. But the feast then had no proper name; it was simply called the fortieth day after Epiphany. This latter circumstance proves that in Jerusalem Epiphany was then the feast of Christ’s birth.

From Jerusalem the feast of the fortieth day spread over the entire Church, and later on was kept on the 2nd of February, since within the last twenty-five years of the fourth century the Roman feast of Christ’s nativity (25 December) was introduced. In Antioch it is attested in 526 (Cedrenue); in the entire Eastern Empire it was introduced by the Emperor Justinian I (542) in thanksgiving for the cessation of the great pestilence which had depopulated the city of Constantinople. In the Greek Church it was called Hypapante tou Kyriou, the meeting (occursus) of the Lord and His mother with Simeon and Anna. The Armenians call it: “The Coming of the Son of God into the Temple” and still keep it on the 14th of February (Tondini di Quaracchi, Calendrier de la Nation Arménienne, 1906, 48); the Copts term it “presentation of the Lord in the Temple” (Nilles, Kal. man., II 571, 643). Perhaps the decree of Justinian gave occasion also to the Roman Church (to Gregory I?) to introduce this feast, but definite information is wanting on this point. The feast appears in the Gelasianum (manuscript tradition of the seventh century) under the new title of Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The precession is not mentioned. Pope Sergius I (687–701) introduced a procession for this day. The Gregorianum (tradition of the eighth century) does not speak of this procession, which fact proves that the procession of Sergius was the ordinary “station,” not the liturgical act of today. The feast was certainly not introduced by Pope Gelasius to suppress the excesses of the Lupercalia (Migne, Missale Gothicum, 691), and it spread slowly in the West; it is not found in the “Lectionary” of Silos (650) nor in the “Calendar” (731–741) of Sainte-Genevieve of Paris. In the East it was celebrated as a feast of the Lord; in the West as a feast of Mary; although the “Invitatorium” (Gaude et lætare, Jerusalem, occurrens Deo tuo), the antiphons and responsories remind us of its original conception as a feast of the Lord. The blessing of the candles did not enter into common use before the eleventh century; it has nothing in common with the procession of the Pupercalia. In the Latin Church this feast (Purificatio B.M.V.) is a double of the second class. In the Middle Ages it had an octave in the larger number of dioceses; also today the religious orders whose special object is the veneration of the Mother of God (Carmelites, Servites) and many dioceses (Loreto, the Province of Siena, etc.) celebrate the octave.

BLESSING OF CANDLES AND PROCESSION

According to the Roman Missal the celebrant after Terce, in stole and cope of purple colour, standing at the epistle side of the altar, blesses the candles (which must be of beeswax). Having sung or recited the five orations prescribed, he sprinkles and incenses the candles. Then he distributes them to the clergy and laity, whilst the choir sings the canticle of Simeon, “Nunc dimittis.” The antiphon “Lumen ad revelationem gentium et gloriam plebis tuæ Israel” is repeated after every verse, according to the medieval custom of singing the antiphons. During the procession which now follows, and at which all the partakers carry lighted candles in their hands, the choir sings the antiphon “Adorna thalamum tuum, Sion,” composed by St. John of Damascus, one of the few pieces which, text and music, have been borrowed by the Roman Church from the Greeks. The other antiphons are of Roman origin. The solemn procession represents the entry of Christ, who is the Light of the World, into the Temple of Jerusalem. It forms an essential part of the liturgical services of the day, and must be held in every parochial church where the required ministers can be had. The procession is always kept on 2 February even when the office and Mass of the feast is transferred to 3 February. Before the reform of the Latin liturgy by St. Pius V (1568), in the churches north and west of the Alps this ceremony was more solemn. After the fifth oration a preface was sung. The “Adorna” was preceded by the antiphon “Ave Maria.” While now the procession in held inside the church, during the Middle Ages the clergy left the church and visited the cemetery surrounding it. Upon the return of the procession a priest, carrying an image of the Holy Child, met it at the door and entered the church with the clergy, who sang the canticle of Zachary, “Benedictus Dominus Deus Israel.” At the conclusion, entering the sanctuary, the choir sang the responsory, “Gaude Maria Virgo” or the prose, “Inviolata” or some other antiphon in honour of the Blessed Virgin.

FREDERICK G. HOLWECK

Candles

The word candle (candela, from candeo, to burn) was introduced into the English language as an ecclesiastical term, probably as early as the eighth century. It was known in classical times and dennoted any kind of taper in which a wick, not uncommonly made of a strip of papyrus, was encased in wax or animal fat. We need not shrink from admitting that candles, like incense and lustral water, were commonly employed in pagan worship and in the rites paid to the dead. But the Church from a very early period took them into her service, just as she adopted many other things indifferent in themselves, which seemed proper to enhance the splendour of religious ceremonial. We must not forget that most of these adjuncts to worship, like music, lights, perfumes, ablutions, floral decorations, canopies, fans, screens, bells, vestments, etc. were not identified with any idolatrous cult in particular; they were common to almost all cults. They are, in fact, part of the natural language of mystical expression, and such things belong quite as much to secular ceremonial as they do to religion. The salute of an assigned number of guns, a tribute which is paid by a warship to the flag of a foreign power, is just as much or as little worthy to be described as superstitious as the display of an assigned number of candles upon the altar at high Mass. The carrying of tapers figures among the marks of respect prescribed to be shown to the highest dignitaries of the Roman Empire in the “Notitia Dignitatum Imperii.” It is highly probable that the candles which were borne from a very early period before the pope or the bishop when he went in procession to the sanctuary, or which attended the transport of the book of the Gospels to the ambo or pulpit from which the deacon read, were nothing more than an adaptation of this secular practice.

The use of a multitude of candles and lamps was undoubtedly a prominent feature of the celebration of the Easter vigil, dating, we may believe, almost from Apostolic times. Eusebius (Vita Constant., IV, xxii) speaks of the “pillars of wax” with which Constantine transformed night into day, and Prudentius and other authors have left eloquent descriptions of the brilliance withing the churches. Neither was the use of candles in the basilicas confined to those hours at which artificial light was necessary. Not to speak of the decree of the Spanish council at Elvira (c.300), which seems to condemn as an abuse some superstitious burning of candles during the daytime in cemeteries, we know that the heretic Vigilantius towards the close of the same century made it a reproach against the orthodox that while the sun was still shining they lighted great piles of candles (moles cereorum accendi faciunt), and St. Jerome in answer declared that the candles were lighted when the Gospel was read, not indeed to put darkness to flight, but as a sign of joy. (Migne, P.L., XXIII, 345.) This remark and the close association of lighted candles with the baptismal ceremony, which took place on Easter Eve and which no doubt occasioned the description of that sacrament as photismos (illumination), shows that the Christian symbolism of blessed candles was already making itself felt at that early date. This conclusion is further confirmed by the language of the Exultet, still used in our day on Holy Saturday (q.v.) for the blessing of the paschal candle. It is highly probable that St. Jerome himself composed such a praeconium paschale (see Morin in Revue Bénédictine, Jan., 1891), and in this the idea of the supposed virginity of bees is insisted on, and the wax is therefore regarded as typifying in a most appropriate way the flesh of Jesus Christ born of a virgin mother. From this has sprung the further conception that the wick symbolizes more particularly the soul of Jesus Christ and the flame the Divinity which absorbs and dominates both. Thus the great paschal candle represents Christ, “the true light,” and the smaller candles are typical of each individual Christian who strives to reproduce Christ in his life. This symbolism we may say is still accepted in the Church at large.

Besides the use at baptism and at funerals (St. Cyprian in 258 was buried praelucentibus cereis), we learn from the so-called Fourth Council of Carthage, really a synod held in Southern Gaul (c.514), that in conferring the minor order of acolyte (q.v.) The candidate had delivered to him “a candlestick with a candle.” The usage is observed to the present day. Such candles as these when carried by acolytes, as we learn from he Gregorian Sacramentary and the “Ordines Romani,” were constantly used in the Roman Ceremonial from the seventh century and probably still earlier. These candles were placed upon the pavement of the sanctuary and not until much later upon the altars. Still the practice of setting candles upon the table of the altar itself seems to be somewhat older than the twelfth century. As the Roman pontiff, according to the “Ordines,” was preceded by seven acolytes carrying candles, and as these candles at a later period were placed upon the altar and no longer upon the pavement, it is a tempting hypothesis to identify the six altar-candlesticks of an ordinary high Mass (there are seven when the bishop of the diocese pontificates) with the acolytes’ candlesticks of the Roman “Ordines.” But on this, see Edmund Bishop in the “Downside Review,” 1906. The lighting of six candles upon the altar is now enjoined for every high Mass, four at every Missa Cantata, or for the private Mass of a bishop on festivals, and two for all other Masses. Still a certain freedom is left of lighting more candles on occasions of solemnity. Six candles should also be lighted at Vespers and Lauds when the Office is sung on great feasts, but on less solemn occasions two or four suffice. The rubrics also prescribe that two acolytes with candles should walk at the head of the procession to the sanctuary, and these two candles are also carried to do honour to the chanting of the Gospel at high Mass, as well as to the singing of the little chapter and the collects at Vespers, etc. Similarly the bishop when he makes his entry into a church is received and escorted by the acolytes with their candles. Again a bishop when taking part in any ecclesiastical function in the sanctuary has a little candlestick of his own, known as the bugia, which is held beside him by a chaplain or cleric. Candles are also used in excommunications, the reconciling of penitents, and other exceptional functions. They play a conspicuous part in the rite of the dedication of a church and the blessing of cemeteries, and an offering of candles is also made at the Offertory of an ordination mass by those who have just been ordained. In the conferring of all the sacraments except that of penance, it is enjoined that candles should be lighted. At a baptism a burning candle is put into the hand of the catechumen or of the godfather as representing the infant. It is not lawful to say Mass without lighted candles, and if the candles are in danger of being blown out by the wind they must be protected by lanterns. The rubrics of the “Roman Missal” direct that at the Sanctus, even of any private Mass, an additional candle should be lighted and should burn until after the Communion of the priest. This rubric however is much neglected in practice even in Rome itself.

As regards material, the candles used for liturgical purposes should be of beeswax. This is adhered to on account probably of its symbolic reference to the flesh of Christ, as already explained. In the case of the paschal candle and the two candles which are of obligation at Mass, a recent decree of the Congregation of Rites (14 Dec., 1904) has decided that they must be of beeswax in maxima parte, which commentators have interpreted as meaning not less than 75 per cent. For other purposes the candles placed upon the altar, e.g. at Benediction, ought to be made of wax, “in great part.” Of such candles a minimum of twelve is prescribed for any public exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, though six will suffice in a poor church or for a private exposition. As a rule the colour of candles should be white, though gilded and painted candles are permitted under certain restrictions. In Masses for the dead however and in Holy Week yellow or unbleached wax is used. It is also fitting that the candles for liturgical purposes should be blessed, but this is not prescribed as of obligation. An elaborate blessing for candles is provided on the feast of the Purification on 2 Feb., otherwise known as Candlemas Day, and this is followed by a distribution of candles and a procession. In former ages this function was performed by the sovereign pontiff wherever he was resident; and of the candles so blessed some were scattered among the crowd and others sent as presents to persons of note. A less elaborate form of blessing for candles on ordinary occasions is given in the Missal as well as in the Ritual.

Candles were, and are, commonly used to burn before shrines towards which the faithful wish to show special devotion. The candle burning its life out before a statue is no doubt felt in some ill-defined way to be symbolical of prayer and sacrifice. A curious medieval practice was that of offering at any favoured shrine a candle or a number of candes equalling in measurement the height of the persons for whom some favour was asked. This was called “measuring to” such or such a saint. The practice can be traced back to the time of St. Radegund (d.587) and later right through the Middle Ages. It was especially common in England and the North of France in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. For many other uses of candles, e.g. in the service of Tenebrae, in the hands of the dying, at First Communion, etc., the reader must be referred to the respective articles. (See ALTAR, subtitle Altar-Candles.)

BAUMER in the Kirchenlexikon, s.v. Kerze, Vol. VII, 395–402; see also MUHLBAUER, Geschichte und Bedeutung der Wachalichter bei den kirchlichen Funktionen (Augsburg, 1874), a most satisfactory monograph; THALHOFER, Liturgik (Freiburg, 1893), I, 666–82; MARTIN AND CAHIER, Melanges d’Archeologie (Paris, 1853), III, 1–51; Bishop, Of six candles on the Altar in the Downside Review, July, 1906, 188–203. For recent decisions see S.L.T., The Furniture of the Altar in The Ecclesiastical Review (July, 1904), 60–64; VAN DE STAPPEN, Sacra Liturgia (Mechlin, 1902), III, 74–85; Callationes Brugenses (Bruges, 1905),X, 398–400; Ephemerides Liturgicae, XV, 379–88.

HERBERT THURSTON

Candlesticks

Of the earliest form of candlesticks used in Christian churches we know but little. Such records as we possess of the magnificent presents made by Constantine to the basilica of the Lateran and to St. Peter’s seem from the descriptions to refer principally to the stands and the hanging chandeliers destined for lamps. We hear also of two sets of seven bronze candelabra, each ten feet high, placed before the altars, but we cannot assume that these candelabra aurichalca were necessarily used for wax tapers (Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, I, 173–176). Some of these great fari must have been magnificent pieces of metal-work, being made of gold and silver with fifty, eighty, or one hundred and twenty “dolphins,” i. e. little branches wrought in this form and supporting each of them one or more lamps. This extraordinary profusion of lights, indirectly corroborated by Prudentius (Migne, P. L. LIX, 820, 829) and St. Paulinus of Nola (Migne, P. L. LXI, 467 and 535), was such that Rohault de Fleury (La Messe, VI, 5) estimates at 8730 the number of lights which Constantine destined for the Lateran basilica. This practice of providing immense hanging coronœ to be lighted on the great festivals seems to have lasted throughout the Middle Ages and to have extended to every part of Christendom, both East and West. (Cf. e. g. Venantius Fortunatus, Migne, LXXXVIII, 127.) We, in these days of brilliant artificial light, cannot easily realize what unwonted splendour such displays imparted to worship in a comparatively rude and barbarous age. To these magnificent chandeliers various names are given in the Liber Pontificalis, e. g. cantharus, corona, stantareum, pharus, cicindele, etc. Such works of art were often presented by emperors or royal personages to the basilicas of Rome, and though no specimens of any great size survive from this early period, various smaller objects have been found, one a bronze chandelier representing a basilica and providing accommodation for a dozen lights (Leclercq, Manuel d’archéologie, II, 561), which give a sufficient idea of their construction.

Besides these, simple candlesticks (cereostata) were also undoubtedly in use from a very early date. The reference in the Apocalypse to the seven candlesticks of the Churches of Asia (i, 12 sq.) was probably derived from some feature already familiar in Christian worship. Of the lights carried before certain Roman officials, and of the acolyte’s candlestick and candle referred to in the so-called Fourth Council of Carthage, mention is made in the article CANDLES (q. v.). The well-known medal of Gaudentianus of the fifth or sixth century seemingly shows candles burning upon a ciborium over an altar. Less open to dispute are the candlesticks seen in various mosaics and carved sarcophagi of the same period. The long shafts are evidently made of alternating spindles and knobs, and they are supported on a three-clawed base of simple form. There was a pricket at the top upon which the candle was stuck, and so St. Paulinus speaks of the candlesticks “which carry painted candles on their protruding spikes” (Depictas exstante gerunt quœ cuspide ceras). Of the Merovingian and Carolingian candelabra we have no trustworthy surviving examples, but we read of the exquisite workmanship lavished upon such objects in the time of Benedict of Aniane (750–821), who presented a set of seven to the church over which he ruled. A remarkable candlestick of bronze is still preserved at Kremsmünster, and is believed by some to be coeval with the chalice of Tassilo, c. 810, belonging to the same treasury; but other authorities assign the candlestick to a date at least two centuries later. The design shows a good deal of boldness and grace, but the execution of the metal work is not of a very high order. Of the eleventh and early twelfth centuries sundry candlesticks are preserved to us of a Byzantine type, squat and grotesque in form, which, if destined for ecclesiastical purposes at all, seem rather to have been intended to stand upon the surface of the altar than to be carried by acolytes or placed upon the ground. There are also other reasons, derived in part from the miniatures of manuscripts, which suggest that the use of lighted candles upon the altar itself is to be traced to this period. Much more remarkable, however, are the remains of some magnificent metalwork on a more vast scale. The great candelabrum of Reims was preserved until the French Revolution. It was constructed by instruction of the treasurer Wido between 1070 and 1097, and was no doubt meant to stand before the high altar in imitation of the great seven-branch candlestick of the temple of Jerusalem. Its height was over eighteen feet and its width fifteen. At present we have to judge of its workmanship from a small portion of the pedestal, which has alone escaped destruction and is now preserved in the public library of Reims.

Not less wonderful and happily still entire is the great candelabrum of Milan commonly known as “the Virgin’s Tree.” This chef-d’œuvre of twelfth-century art is also a seven-branch candlestick, and over elghteen feet in height. If the general effect, owing to the nature of the subject, is rather gaunt and straggling, the beauty of detail in the sculptured base and the bosses which adorn the stem can hardly be exceeded. With such great standing candelabra as those of Reims and Milan, neither of which could be described as precisely liturgical in purpose, we may associate certain large chandeliers still preserved from the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries. Those of Reims and Toul perished in the French Revolution. But at Hildesheim we have a circular corona of gilt copper suspended from the roof, and dating from about 1050, twenty feet in circumference and bearing seventy-two candles. That at Aix-la-Chapelle, the gift of Frederick Barbarossa, whose name is inscribed upon it, is still larger and still more remarkable for the artistic beauty of its details, especially the medallions depicting scenes in the life of Christ, engraved upon copper and painted. More strictly destined for the service of the altar are a few surviving specimens of twelfth-century candlesticks, the most famous of which (here reproduced) is now in the South Kensington Museum, London, and, as the following inscription shows, was originally made for Gloucester Abbey in the time of Abbot Peter (1104–12):

Abbatis Petri gregis et devotio mitis

Me dedit Ecclesie Sci Petri Gloecestre.

The grace and elaboration of the interlacing grotesques are very characteristic of the period. Nearly a century older, but less artistic, are the two candlesticks of Bernward now at Hildesheim; while as a specimen of later medieval work it will be sufficient to mention two very beautiful candlesticks, about five feet in height, preserved at present in the Cathedral of Ghent, but believed to have belonged before the Reformation to St. Paul’s Cathedral, London.

The practice of retaining six great candlesticks permanently upon the high altar seems only to date from the sixteenth century. At a somewhat earlier period we occasionally read of five, seven, or nine, according to the grade of the feast. However, since the publication of the “Cæremoniale Episcoporum” in 1600, the presence of three such candlesticks on either side of the central crucifix is a matter of rubrical law. The” Cæremoniale” further directs that they should correspond to the crucifix in pattern and should be of graduated heights, the tallest next to the crucifix. This last direction, however, may be considered to have fallen into abeyance. (See CANDLES; ALTAR, under Altar Candlesticks.)

Besides the works already mentioned in the article Candles and the archæological manuals of OTTE, BERGNER, and REUSENS, the reader may consult D’ALLEMAGNE, Histoire du luminaire (Paris, 1891); DIDRON, Annales archéologiques, especially vols. XII. XIII, and XXI; CORBLET, Les chandeliers de l’église au moyenâge, in Revue de l’art chrétien, III; BARBIER DE MONTAULT, traité pratique de l’ameublement des églises, I, bk. III, and II, bk. XII; MARTIN AND CAHER, Mélanges d’archéologie (Paris, 1856), I, 93–104; III, 1–62; IV, 276–281; and more particularly ROHAULT DE FLEURY, La Messe, VI, 1–56, and corresponding plates, which last supply the best available pictorial illustration of the subject.

HERBERT THURSTON.

Canea

Formerly a titular see of Crete, suppressed by a decree of 1894. Canea is the Italian name of Cydonia. Both names, however, were used simultaneously as separate titles. (See CYDONIA.)

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Vicariate Apostolic of Canelos and Macas

Vicariate Apostolic in Ecuador, South America, separated in 1886 from the Vicariate Apostolic of Napo, until then administered by the Jesuits, and since 3 Feb., 1893, one of the four missionary vicariates created by the concordat of Leo XIII with Ecuador (Battandier). This vicariate is now in charge of the Dominicans, who sent thither the first missionaries shortly after the Spanish conquest; it is not subject to Propaganda, but to the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. The vicariate is bounded on the west by the province of Chimborazo and the River Morona, on the south by the Amazon (Marañon), on the east by the Tigre, and on the north by the Curaray; the entire territory is divided lengthwise by the Pastaza. The city of Canelos is situated in the foothills of the Andes, not far from the sources of the Bobonaza, and takes its name (identical with that of a very ferocious tribe of Indians) from the cinnamon plant which grows very abundantly in these regions. It dates from the first period of the Spanish conquest, but was often destroyed by the savages. The city of Macas lies farther south on the Upano, and was once a centre of great wealth, owing to the neighbouring gold mines; it was known as Sevilla del Oro, or “Golden Seville.” Owing to the attacks of the savages it became necessary to abandon these mines, whereupon Macas fell into decay. The Indians who dwell in this vast vicariate are partly Christians (a remnant of the converts made by the earlier missionaries) and partly pagan. Robust and intelligent, but passionately devoted to their freedom, they are very widely scattered, and the tribes are frequently at war with one another. The missionaries gather the orphans of the Indians killed in these wars and instruct them in various trades and industries; in this way they have established a fairly large number of Christian settlements. Other important cities of the vicariate are Mendoza and Gualaquiza. Canelos is also the name of the river that flows through the territory of the Canelos Indians.

Gerarchia Cattolica (Rome, 1907), 327; BATTANDIER, Ann. Pont. Cath. (Paris, 1907), 341; STREIT, Kathol. Missionsatlas (Steyl, 1906), 27 and map 28.

U. BENIGNI

Vincent Canes

(JOHN BAPTIST)

Friar Minor and controversialist, born on the borders of Nottingham and Leicestershire, date uncertain; died in London, June, 1672. Though brought up a Protestant, he embraced the Catholic Faith at the age of twenty, and shortly afterwards went from England to Douai. Here he was received into the Franciscan Order and became lector of philosophy and later professor of theology in the convent of the Friars Minor. Having returned to England, he laboured strenuously for the spread of the Catholic Faith and was chosen by the Catholics to defend their cause against Dr. Stillingfleet. Canes’ well-known ability as a controversialist was strengthened by the absence of bitterness or animosity towards his opponents, while his elegant and graceful style made his writings effective. His works are:

(1) “The Reclaimed Papist: or a Dialogue between a Popish Knight, a Protestant Lady, a Parson and his Wife” (1655);

(2) “Fiat Lux: or a General conduct to a right understanding and charity in the great Combustions and Broils about Religion here in England, betwixt Papist and Protestant, Presbyterian and Independent. To the end that Moderation and Quietness may at length happily ensue after so serious Tumults in the Kingdom’ (1662). This work was dedicated to Elizabeth, Countess of Arundel and Surrey, the mother of Cardinal Howard, and is admirably calculated to inspire sentiments of moderation and peace;

(3) “Infallibility” (1665), an appendix to the preceding work;

(4) “An Epistle to the Author of Animadversion on Fiat Lux” (1664);

(5) “Diaphanta, or Three Attendants on Fiat Lux, wherein Catholik Religion is further excused against the opposition of several Adversaries” (1665);

(6) “Three Letters declaring the strange, odd Proceedings of Protestant Divines when they write against Catholics,” etc. (1671);

(7) “To Katholiko Stillingfleeto; being an account given to a Catholik friend of Dr. Stillingfleet’s late book against the Church of Rome” (1672).

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of Eng. Cath. (London, 1885), I, 392–93; HURTER, Nomenclator, II, 96–97; THADDEUS, The Franciscans in England (London, 1898), xiii, 109–10.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

St. Canice

(Or KENNY).

Commemorated on 11 October, born in 515 or 516, at Glengiven, in what is now County Derry, Ireland; died at Aghaboe in 600. He was descended from Ui-Dalainn, a Waterford tribe which dwelt on an island now identified as Inis-Doimhle in the Suir. The father of the saint was a distinguished bard who found his way to the North and settled at Glengiven in Cinachta under its chief. His mother was called Maul; her name is commemorated in the church of Thomplamaul, Kilkenny, dedicated to God under her invocation. The early years of Canice were spent in watching his chieftain’s flocks, but, God calling him to higher aims, we find him in 543 at Clonard, under St. Finian, where he was a fellow-pupil of St. Columba. In 544 he was studying in the school of Glasnevin, with St. Kieran of Clonmacnoise and St. Comgall of Bangor, under the tuition of St. Mobhi. He was ordained priest in 545 in the monastery of Llancarvan in Glamorganshire, and set out for Rome to obtain the blessing of the reigning pontiff. In 550 we find him again at Glengiven, where he converted his foster-brother, Geal-Breagach, who afterwards assisted him in founding Drumachose. In 565 he passed over to Scotland, where his name is recalled in the ruins of an ancient church, Kil-Chainnech on Tiree Island, and in a burial ground, Kil-Chainnech, in Iona. He built cells on the island of Ibdon and Eninis, an oratory called Lagan-Kenny on the shores of Lough Lagan, and a monastery in Fifeshire on the banks of the Eden. He is known in Scotland as St. Kenneth, was closely associated with St. Columba in the latter’s missionary work, and, next to him and St. Bridget, is the favourite Irish saint in Scotland (Eammack). See Reeve’s “Adamnàn” (Dublin, 1857, xxvi, xxxi); also the ancient lives in the “Codex Solmanticensis” edited by De Smedt and Backer (see below), and the “Liber Kilkenniensis” in Marsh’s Library, Dublin. His Irish foundations were Drumachose, two miles southeast of Limavady, Kilkenny West, in County Westmeath, and the great Abbey of Aghaboe in Ossory, Queens County. Tradition asserts that he founded a monastery in Kilkenny by the round tower and cathedral which bears his name. A man of great eloquence and learning, he wrote a commentary on the Gospels, known for centuries as Glas-Chainnigh.

MICHAEL M. O’KANE.

Henricus Canisius

(DE HONDT), canonist and historian, born at Nymwegen in Geldern and belonged to the same distinguished family as Saint Peter Canisius, who was his uncle; died 2 September, 1610, at Ingolstadt. He studied at the university of Louvain, and in 1590 was appointed professor of canon law at Ingolstadt. He was the author of “Summa Juris Canonici” (Ingolstadt, 1594); “Praelectiones Academicae” (ib., 1609); “Comment. in lib. III decretalium” (ib., 1629); “De Sponsalibus et Matrimonio” (ib., 1613). A complete edition of his canonical writings appeared at Louvain in 1649 and at Cologne in 1662. The fruits of his labours in the historical field appeared in a work entitled, “Antiquae Lectiones, seu antiqua monumenta ad historiam mediae aetatis illustrandam” (6 vols., Ingolstadt, 1601–1604). In 1608 a seventh volume, a “Promptuarium Ecclesiasticum” was added by way of supplement. The work lacked systematic arrangement, and included much matter of minor value. It was afterwards entirely recast and critically sifted by Basnage, under the title “Thesaurus Monumentorum ecclesiasticorum et historicorum” (7 vols., Antwerp, 1725). Canisius edited for the first time the “Chronica Victoris Episcop. Tunnunensis et Joannis Episcop. Biclariensis,” and the “Legatio Luitprandi” (Ingolstadt, 1600). We are likewise indebted to him for an edition of the “Historiae miscellae Pauli Diaconi” (ib., 1603).

THOMAS OESTREICH

Theodorich Canisius

Born at Nimwegen, Holland, 1532; died 27 September, 1606, at Ingolstadt. He was a half-brother on his mother’s side to St. Peter Canisius. After winning, at the age of twenty-two, the highest academic distinction at Louvain, he decided to follow his stepbrother and enter the Society of Jesus, and was sent to St. Ignatius in Rome, who received him into the Society. On the completion of his novitiate, Theodorich was appointed professor of theology in Vienna, but was soon after appointed rector of the Jesuit College at Munich. Here, in 1562, one of the first productions in Germany of the morality play “Homulus” (Everyman) was given in Latin by the students under his direction. From Munich, where he was succeeded in 1565 by the celebrated Paul Hoffaeus, he was transferred to Dillingen, where for twenty years he presided over the college and the academy and laboured with zeal and success for the improvement of studies and for the religious training of the students. From 1565 to 1582 he held the office of chancellor of the university. In company with his distinguished brother, he attended the first provincial congregation of the Society of Jesus in Upper Germany, and furthered important reforms in the teaching of philosophy. In 1585 he was made rector of the college of Ingolstadt, and in this capacity became a member of the German commission which tested in practice the first draft of the Ratio Studiorum. At length, having spent thirty years at the head of three of the foremost colleges of Germany, he was sent to Lucerne in Switzerland to enjoy a period of rest; but soon again, at the age of sixty-three, he had to undertake the government of the college of Ingolstadt. Two years later, on the advice of his physician, he was relieved of the burden and allowed to return to Lucerne. A fortnight after his arrival the death of St. Peter Canisius was announced. the shock deprived Theodorich of memory and speech, an affliction which he bore with exemplary patience for seven years. For his amiable disposition and spotless purity of life he deservedly received the surname of Angelus. In 1604, he was transferred again to Ingolstadt, where he died, and was laid to rest in the church of the Holy Cross.

GEORGE H. DERRY

Alonso Cano

(Or ALEXIS)

A Spanish painter, architect, and sculptor, b. at Granada, 19 March, 1601; d. there 3 or 5 October, 1667. He received his first lessons in art from his father, Miguel Cano, an architect. Later he studied sculpture under Juan Montanes, and painting under Pacheco and Juan del Castillo. In 1625, when Herrera, the sculptor, was his teacher, he attained great fame by producing three coloured statues, now in the church at Lebrija: “The Virgin and Child,” “St. Peter,” and “St. Paul.” They are all superb pieces of statuary, but the first is a masterpiece, conceived and executed in a noble, classical, simple style that rightly earned for Cano the title of the “Michelangelo of Spain.” Besides his single figures in marble, he chiselled many beautiful retables, or monumental altar-pieces.

Cano went to Madrid in 1637, and through the influence of the Duke of Olivarez and of Velasques, but chiefly because of his own merit, was made Master of the Royal Works, Painter to the King, and first in rank among the instructors of Don Balthasar Carlos. In Madrid he contributed plans for several palaces, city gates, and a triumphal arch for the entrance of Maria Anna of Austria, wife of Philip IV. In 1650 he became architect of the cathedral of Toledo. Cano was suspected of having murdered his wife, and was unjustly condemned and ordered to leave Madrid. He took refuge in Valencia, attained marked success there, painted a “Nativity,” and a “St. John” for the city’s great church, and entered the Carthusian convent, so as to be able to devote himself wholly to painting, which henceforth occupied him to the exclusion of sculpture. Tardy justice was done him when he returned to Madrid. He was restored to royal favour, but Cano felt that his only surety was in the Church; therefore he took orders and became a resident of Granada. In 1652 Philip IV appointed him a canon in the cathedral of Granada. To the churches of Granada and Malaga he presented many pictures and statues. A councillor of the former city, having ordered a statue of St. Anthony of Padua from Cano, was charged one hundred doubloons, whereat he demurred, saying that the artist was demanding four pistoles per day for twenty-five days’ work, which was more than he, Cano’s superior, could earn. “It has taken fifty years of study to produce this!” cried Cano, hurling the statue to the pavement. For this indignity to a saint he was suspended by the Chapter of Granada. In 1658 the king restored Cano, and required him to complete a crucifix which the queen had ordered.

Cano was a greater sculptor than painter, but he would have attained fame as a painter even had he never worked in marble. His earlier work in colour was tentative, eclectic, and of little originality, but his later pictures, which fill the churches of Granada and Malaga, are splendid in drawing, brilliant in a colouring that vividly recalls Van Dyck’s, full of imagination, and bold in design. His flesh tints are pure, the pose of his figures is statuesque, the lines are sharp, vigorous, and classical, and he had a profound knowledge of chiaroscuro. Cano led an exemplary life, his great fault being his ungovernable temper; he was industrious, studious, and very generous. It is related of him that, often, when he had no money for alms he would make a drawing for the beggar to sell. His abnormal antipathy to Jews was exemplified on his death-bed when he refused the Sacrament from a priest who had given it to converted Jews. Among his works mention may be made of: “St. Agnes” (Berlin); “The Dead Christ” (Madrid); “Virgin and Child” (St. Petersburg); “St. Anthony of Padua” (Munich); “Madonna and Child,” sculpture, in the church of Lebrija (the ancient city of Nebrissa).

LEIGH HUNT

Melchior Cano

Dominican bishop and theologian, b. 1 Jan., 1509, at Tarancón, Province of Cuenca, Spain; d. 30 Sept., 1560, at Toledo.

His father, Ferdinand Cano, a learned jurist, sent him at an early age to the University of Salamanca. There in 1523 he entered the Dominican Order, and was professed at St. Stephen’s convent, 12 Aug., 1524. Francis de Victoria, who held the first chair of theology, was his professor from 1527 to 1531. Cano was then sent to St. Gregory’s College at Valladolid, where, with Louis of Granada among others, he heard the lectures of Bartholomew of Carranza. After teaching philosophy for a time he became master of students, 1534, and was promoted to the second chair of theology, 1536. The same year the baccalaureate was conferred upon him by a general chapter of the order at Rome. In 1542, while attending another general chapter, he was made master of sacred theology, and on his return to Spain obtained the first chair at Alcalá. After the death of Victoria, 17 Aug., 1546 Cano was a successful competitor for his chair at Salamanca, and he held the title until 1552. Early in 1551 he was sent by the emperor to the Council of Trent. He was accompanied by Dominic Soto, and, like other members of the order, was enabled by his historical erudition and his mastery of scholastic and positive theology to render important service in the deliberations and achievements of the council. Tho following year Charles V presented him for the bishopric of the Canary Islands; but a month after he was preconized he resigned. In 1553 he returned to St. Gregory’s College at Valladolid as rector, but was not charged with active professorial duties. In 1557, after being elected prior of St. Stephen’s at Salamanca, he was made provincial. This election was contested, and among those who opposed Cano was Carranza, who had become Archbishop of Toledo and Primate of Spain. Another provincial chapter renewed and confirmed the proceedings of the former but the re-election was annulled by Pope Paul IV, who regarded Cano with disfavour for supporting the Spanish Court in some of its disagreements with the Holy See. On this pontiff’s death Cano personally repaired to Rome, and obtained the approbation of his election from the new pope Pius IV. He returned to Toledo in the spring of 1560, and died there the same year.

The character of Cano has been assailed by some writers, who represent him as a man of immoderate zeal and sometimes of intemperate action. He is charged among other things with having been a party to the misfortunes of Don Carlos and to the persecutions of Carranza. Against these accusations he is ably defended by Father Touron, the learned Dominican historian and biographer. Cano undoubtedly displayed great energy, vehemence, and determination in the pursuit of his aims. Early in his career at Valladolid he became involved in scholastic controversy with Carranza, and their continuous disputes, besides placing them at the head of rival schools of thought, cast a shadow over all their subsequent relations. Cano is also said to have for some time defeated the wish of the Jesuits to establish themselves in Salamanca. His strictures, which made a great stir were published about the time of the suppression of the Society, but were withdrawn from publication in 1777. They were republished in “Crisis de la Compañía de Jesús” (Barcelona, 1900), 152–159. Cano’s advice in important affairs of Church and State was often sought. Though possessing the full confidence of Philip II, he declined in 1554 the position of confessor to the king.

In whatever light his personal traits may appear Cano made an imperishable name for himself in his work, “De Locis Theologicis” (Salamanca, 1563), which in classic elegance and purity of style approaches the great didactic treatises of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintillian. It certainly ranks with the most lauded productions of the Renaissance not only on account of its fluency and freedom but also for its lucid judgment and profound erudition. In the estimation of some critics this work marking a new epoch in the history of theology has made its author worthy of a place next to St. Thomas Aquinas. The “De Locis” was the outcome of a movement inaugurated by Francis de Victoria to restore the best patristic learning and to give to theological science a purer diction and an improved literary form. Cano took up the work of his master, and after years of labour gave out the production that was worthy of their united aspirations and endeavours. It was Cano’s idea to establish scientifically the foundations of theological science, and therefore the “De Locis” is a treatise on theological method. After elucidating the distinction between arguments based on authority and arguments from reason, the author enumerates ten loci, or sources of theology, each the subject of a book. With admirable precision and clearness he treats successively the authority of Holy Writ, oral tradition, the Catholic Church, the Councils, the Fathers the Roman Church, the Scholastic theologians, the value of natural reason as manifested in science, the authority of philosophers, and the authority of history. The twelfth and last book treats of the use and application of these loci, or sources, in scholastic debate or theological polemics. Two further books on the loci as applicable to Scriptural exposition and as employed against various classes of adversaries of the Catholic Church were contemplated by Cano, but he was overtaken by death before he completed his work. A standard quarto edition of the “De Locis Theologicis” (Padua, 1714) was edited by Hyacinth Serry, with a “Prologus Galeatus” defending Cano against his critics. This is followed by most of the subsequent editions, some twenty in all. Two other treatises, “De Sacramentis” and “De Poenitentiâ,” are not so well known, but they show the same character of solidity and clearness of method, and the same elegant Latinity.

QUÉTIF-ECHARD, Scriptores Ord. Praed., II, 176; MANDONNET in VACANT, Dict. de théologie catholique (Paris, 1904), col. 1537; TOURON, Hist. des hommes illust. de l’ordre de S. Dominique, IV; CABALLERO, Conquenses illustres, II: Mechior Cano (1871); WERNER, Gesch. d. apolog. u. polem. Litterateur (1889), IV.

JOHN R. VOLZ.

Canon

An ecclesiastical person (Lat. Canonicus), a member of a chapter or body of clerics living according to rule and presided over by one of their number.

Whether the title as applied to persons is derived from canon (Gk. kanón), a rule, or from the same term meaning a list of those who served a particular church, is much discussed. As however there are various kinds of chapters, each having its own specific rule, rights, and privileges, the most accurate definition of a canon is “a member of a chapter.” Some writers have derived the title from the canon or rule of community life that was followed by certain clerics and which distinguished them from others who did not live in community. “A canon is so called from the canon, that is from the regularity of the life which he leads” (Scarfantoni, ed. Lucca, 1723, I, 5). Opposed to this is the opinion that canons were so called form the fact that their names were inscribed on the lists of those who served particular churches for which they were ordained. (For the medieval use of the term see Ducange, Glossar. med et infimæ Latinitatis, s. v. Canonicus.) The latter appears to be the more logical derivation and is in accord with the arguments of Thomassinus and most other writers, who agree that our present cathedral chapters are the modern form of the ancient bodies of presbyters who in each particular church formed with the bishop the senate of that church [Thomassinus, “Vetus ac nova disciplina,” pt. I, bk. III, cc. vii-xi, and lxiii-lxx; Binterim, “Denkwürdigkeiten” (1826), III (2), 317–84].

HISTORICAL ORIGIN

It is not possible to say exactly when canons first had recognition as a body distinct from the rest of the clergy (cf. Amort, Vetus disciplina canonicorum regularium et sæcularium, Venice, 1747). In the very first ages of Christianity there is evidence that many churches had their own proper bodies of clergy, although it is not so clear that these clerics kept to any common rule of life (see ). At the same time there were many clerics who did live in common, e.g. the cenobites, and the term canon was applied to them as early as the fourth century; but it must not be inferred from this fact that the office of canon has its origin in those who followed the cenobitical Rule of St. Augustine (see ). So far as the Western Church is concerned the first certain evidence is contained in the famous ecclesiastical constitution or ordinance of the Benedictine monk Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz (763). His “Regula vitæ communis” (rule of common life) was at once a restoration and an adaptation of the Rule of St. Augustine, and its chief provisions were that the ecclesiastics who adopted it had to live in common under the episcopal roof, recite common prayers, perform a certain amount of manual labour, keep silence at certain times, and go to confession twice a year. They did not take the vow of poverty and they could hold a life interest in property. For the text of the Rule of Chrodegang see Mansi, “Coll. Conc.,” XIV, 313; also Walter, “Fontes Jur. eccl.,” n. 6, and the edition of W. Schmitz (Hanover, 1891); cf. Ebner, in “Röm. Quartalschrift” (1891) v, 81–86. Twice a day they met to hear a chapter from the rule of their founder (see “Vita Chrodegangi,” in “Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.,” X, 552), hence the meeting itself was soon called chapter (capitulum) and the member capitularies (capitulares). The canons then as now formed the council of the bishop and assisted him in the ruling of his diocese. Those attached to the cathedral churches, being regularly models of the vita canonica, were soon known as canonici par excellence, and in time formed a special corporation, with all the rights proper to such bodies. From this period dates the daily recitation by the canons of the Divine Office or canonical hours (see ). The Councils of Aachen (789) and Mainz (813) contain provisions regarding canons, and in 816 the Council of Aachen drew up a rule of 147 articles for the whole body of canons (Hergenröther-Kirsch, “Kirchengesch.,” 4th ed., Freiburg, 1904, II, 170–74; Heimbucher, “Orden und Kongregationen,” 2d ed., Freiburg, 1907, 3–21). In the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, laxity crept in; community life was no longer strictly observed; the sources of revenue were divided, and the portions allocated to the individual canons. This soon led to differences of income, consequently to avarice, covetousness, and the partial destruction of the canonical life (vita canonica). Various reforms were instituted by Nicholas II (1059) and Alexander II (1063). There were also reforms by Innocent II and the Council of Lateran (1139), and by Benedict XII (1339). [On the ruin of the earlier vita canonica see the complaints of Anselm of Havelberg (d. 1155), in P. L., CLXXXVIII, 1083, and of Gerhoh of Reichersberg (d. 169), in the fifth volume of Baluze’s “Miscellanea,” ed. Mansi (Lucca, 1761).] The development of the Church and the increase in the number of the faithful had rendered the one church of the bishop and his canons insufficient for the needs of the people; accordingly, side by side with those who followed the community life there were other clergy who served the filial churches and fulfilled the ordinary parochial duties. The bishops gradually derived greater assistance from these parochial clergy in the management of their dioceses, and such secular coadjutors were formally constituted as canons by the Council of Trent. (See “Analecta Jur. Pontif.,” 1863, VI, pp. 1657, 1795, 1978; “Les chapîtres des cathédrales dans le Concile de Trente.”) The legislation of the Council of Trent (Sess. V, XXII, XXIV) brought into uniformity the varying customs regarding the appointment, tenure, duties, etc., of canons; it also regulated their relations to the bishop in diocesan administration, and wherever the Catholic Church is now in full vigour the Tridentine constitutions are observed. In countries like England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and the United States, ecclesiastical government does not conform strictly to the disciplinary decrees of the Council of Trent; hence, though in such countries canons may be appointed, they have not the canonical rights or status that belongs to a canon in the full sense of the word. In England before the Reformation, many of the chapters were composed of Benedictine monks or of canons regular, but these were all secularized at the Reformation. At present the Protestant canons in the Church of England have little to do with the ruling of the diocese, and their chief obligation is that of residence.

As canons regular became separated into different congregations they took their names from the locality in which they lived, or from the distinctive habit they wore, or from the one who led the way in remodelling their lives. Hence we have the White Canons of Prémontré; the White Canons of St. John Lateran; the Black Canons of St. Augustine; the Canons of St. Victor at Paris and also at Marseilles (Muratori, “Diss. de Canonicis,” in “Antiq. Ital. medii ævi,” V, 163; G. Pennoti, “Gen. hist. totius s. ord. clericor. canonicorum,” Rome, 1624; Ginzel, “Die canonische Lebensweise der Geistlichen,” Ratisbon, 1851).

KINDS OF CANONS

Canons are divided in the following manner: (1) Cathedral canons, who, attached to the cathedral church, form the senate or council of the bishop; collegiate canons, who perform the canonical office in the church to which they are attached, but are not connected by reason of their office with the government of the diocese. (2) Prebendary canons, who have a prebend or fixed income attached to the canonry; simple canons, who have no prebend. (3) Canons de numero, i. e. those of a church the number of whose canons can neither be diminished nor increased; (4) supernumerary canons, who are assistants to the canons de numero. The supernumerary canons are subdivided into three classes, viz. (a) those whom the Holy Father appoints and who will receive the first vacant prebend (expectant canons); (b) honorary canons (for these see the Constitution of Leo XIII “Illud est proprium,” 21 Jan., 1894, and the recent decree of the Congr. of Rites, 14 Nov., 1902), and (c) canons who are added on the founding of a new prebend. Formerly the chief distinction was that made between the secular and regular canons. Regular canons, as forming the council of the bishop, are now almost obsolete, and the special regulations by which they are bound, their rights, privileges, and duties, are treated fully in works on canon law. The special status of canons in English-speaking countries will be considered later.

MANNER OF APPOINTMENT

As only the Holy Father can erect a chapter, so also he alone has power to appoint the individual members of a chapter. This power may be, and in fact is delegated, and hence canons are appointed sometimes by the pope, sometimes by the bishop or the capitular body, sometimes by others to whom the right has been given. By the rules of the Roman Chancery all prebends which become vacant in curia (i. e. when one who holds a benefice dies in Rome) are reserved to the Holy See, also the appointment to a vacant prebend the former holder of which has been deprived of it by an act of the Holy See, the appointment of the first dignitary of each chapter, and to all other prebends which become vacant during the months of January, February, April, May, July, August, October, and November. Beyond this the law does not expressly state in whom resides the power to collate to cathedral canonries and prebends, but the general opinion is that the right is invested simultaneously in the bishop and chapter; therefore for a valid election the majority of the canons must agree with the bishop when a new appointment is made. Exceptions are made in the following cases: if from the foundation of the church or benefice the appointment belongs to a particular person; if there is an immemorial custom to the contrary; the appointment of the canon theologian and the canon penitentiary; the canons in France (Deshayes, Memento Juris Eccl., 3d ed., Paris, 1903). Appointment is practically always made by letter, and possession of a canonry cannot be obtained until the nominee presents his letter of appointment. The Council of Trent orders that on the day of taking possession, or at least within two months, the new canon is to make his profession of faith and also obedience to the bishop. This profession of faith is made to the bishop himself or, if he be absent, to the vicar-general or another delegated for this purpose. The profession of faith must be made in presence of the chapter, otherwise the new canon may be deprived of possession and the prebendal fruits and daily distributions.

QUALIFICATIONS

The Council of Trent says (Sess. XXIII, XXIV) that since the dignitaries of the cathedral were instituted to preserve and increase ecclesiastical discipline it is necessary that those who are appointed should excel in piety and be an example to others; likewise, as they are to assist the bishop in his office and work, only those should be appointed who are able to fulfil the canonical duties. The requisite qualifications are: legitimate birth, proper age, Sacred orders, fitting education, skill in Gregorian chant, known good character and repute. Moreover the council lays down that without these qualifications the appointment is of no effect. Before the candidate is admitted to his canonry not only the one who appoints but also the chapter has the right to examine and inquire whether the necessary qualities are present in the candidate.

DUTIES

The canon as a member of the chapter owes the bishop reverence in three ways: by conceding him the first place; by giving him assistance; by affording him escort. Conceding the bishop the first place has reference to chapter choir-processions and other public acts. The bishop also has the right to the assistance of two canons in the government of his diocese, and all canons are bound to be present when he celebrates pontifically in the cathedral church; on such occasions they must meet him at an appointed place, not, however, more than 160 yards from the church; and after the service they must conduct him to the church door. The obligation of a canon with regard to choir service consists in the public recitation of the Divine Office and being present at the Chapter Masses unless legitimately excused. There is the further obligation of residence by which no canon may be absent from his choir duties for more than three months in any year. As mentioned above, the canon must make his profession of faith within two months of his appointment; he is likewise bound, and may be compelled by penalties, to attend the regular meetings of the chapter, and, finally, he must attend the Advent and Lenten sermons under penalty of losing his distributions or that portion of his revenues dependent on his personal presence at the church offices.

RIGHTS (GENERAL)

The rights of the canons independently of the bishops are mainly concerned with matters that have reference to the administration of the chapter itself, e.g., the way in which the daily stipend is to be distributed; the order in which the canons are to be summoned to choir and chapter, etc., but they can do nothing to the disadvantage of the cathedral church or in contravention of ancient customs without the consent of the bishop. They could not, e.g., allow a canon more than three months’ non-residence, or exercise ownership over the property of the cathedral, or receive foundation Masses. There are, however, some things which, according to the canon law, the bishop cannot do without the consent of the chapter, and other things which he cannot do without the counsel of the canons. Consent means the approval by the major et sanior pars (a majority, provided it be made up of the more prudent members). Counsel means consultation with the chapter before action, to prevent precipitation on the part of the bishop. When this consultation is necessary (i. e. provided for by the law), the act would be invalid without it, but the bishop is not bound to follow the counsel of the chapter. The consent of the chapter is required in the following cases: for the alienation of immovable property of value belonging to the cathedral, the chapter, or the mensa of the bishop, i. e. his endowment; for conferring benefices the collation of which belongs to the bishop and chapter conjointly; for the suppression of canonries and the uniting of simple benefices on account of the smallness of the prebends; for uniting benefices for any other reason; for the increase or decrease of the number of the canons; for any proceedings seriously prejudicial to the canons or their successors; for the ordering of a special feast; for the surrogation of examiners or similar officers outside the time of synod. The counsel of the canons is required: when the bishop has to make pecuniary provision out of the income of the diocese in order to provide lectures in Scripture, theology, or grammar for the clergy; for dividing the prebends of the canons into subdiaconal, diaconal, and sacerdotal prebends; for decreeing processions; in making synodal decrees. It may be noted that lawful custom makes the bishop independent of the advice of his canons in the matter of synodal decrees (‘Ferraris, Bibl. Prompta, s. v. Capitulum., art. 2, n. 9). The special rights of canons are chiefly concerned with the government of the diocese on the death or translation of the bishop. As soon as the see becomes vacant all the ordinary episcopal jurisdiction passes to the chapter, and also all that by custom belongs to the bishop. The real privileges belong to the canons, but not the personal privileges. They also succeed to those powers which have been perpetually delegated. If the chapter be reduced to one, that one can elect a vicar capitular; but he cannot elect himself. While the see is vacant the canons cannot make any innovations, but within eight days of the vacancy they must meet for the purpose of electing one who is to rule the diocese in the name of the chapter. The election is secret and a bare majority suffices.

INSIGNIA

Canons when present in choir for the Divine Office must wear the canonical dress. The choir or canonical dress consists of a black cassock (without train) and the cotta or surplice. Additional articles of dress, e.g. the cappa or hooded cape and a cassock of different colour, e.g. purple, are not to be worn unless specially granted by the Holy See. If the canon be a bishop he should wear the rochet and mantelletta over his purple cassock. Special privileges of dress have been granted to many chapters by the Holy See either when the chapter was erected or afterwards by particular indult. In all cases the terms of the indult must be carefully observed. It is to be noted that canons are never allowed to wear over the cassock the rochet only. Generally speaking, the canonical dress may be worn at functions for which the surplice is not prescribed, but only in the cathedral church or when in another church the canons are present as a body (capitulariter), three canons being sufficient to represent the chapter in this way. Consequently the canons may not wear the choral dress in a diocese other than their own, nor may an individual canon wear his habit in a church which he is serving either permanently or for a time. The pileolus (skull cap) and biretta are not, strictly speaking, part of choir dress.

PRECEDENCE

If, as in many instances is the case, the prebends are distinct, the order of precedence is: dignitaries, canons of sacerdotal order, canons of diaconal order, and canons of subdiaconal order. The dignitaries take precedence among themselves according to statutes or well-established custom. If the remainder of the prebends are all of the sacerdotal order and all the holders are priests, they take precedence according to priority of taking possession of their canonries. The offices of canon theologian, canon penitentiary, etc., do not entitle the holders to any precedence. The precedence given to a vicar- general, if a canon, only belongs to him when wearing the dress proper to his office.

STATUS OF CANONS IN ENGLAND

The following is a summary of the legislation of the synods of Westminster. The chapter consists of ten canons and one dignitary who is called the provost. (In some dioceses the number of canons has been increased.) A canon theologian and a canon penitentiary must be appointed, by concursus, for each chapter, but there is no distinction into sacerdotal, diaconal, and subdiaconal canons. The pope appoints the provost, and he also nominates to canonries becoming vacant in January and the alternate months of the year. In February and the other alternate months the appointments belong in turn to the bishop and the chapter. The canons do not actually make the appointment, but they send in to the bishop a list of three names and the bishop may choose one of three. By a recent decree of Propaganda (2 April, 1903) three honorary canons are allowed to each diocese, and in certain dioceses special indults have been granted with regard to the choir dress and the times when it may be worn. The canons meet once a month, and their choir obligations are limited to a portion of the Office on the day of meeting. Regarding the election to a vacant bishopric, the canons in England have only the right to make a recommendation of three candidates whom they deem to be suitable (cf. decrees of Cong. of Propaganda, 5 Apr., 1851; 21 Apr. 1852; 21 Jan., 1855, and “Collect. S. Cong. de Prop. Fide,” Rome, 1906). In Ireland, as in Scotland and other countries where the law of the Church is not in full vigour, the powers and duties of canons are much restricted, in fact their status is mainly honorific, although in some isolated dioceses a near approach is made to the legislation which governs canons in England. For the status of canons in the ecclesiastical province of Quebec, see Gignac, “Compendium juris. eccl. ad usum cleri Canadensis” (Quebec, 1901), De Personis, Nos. 493–94.

In addition to the special members of a chapter already mentioned there are usually appointed the following, in order to secure well-ordered services: precentor, sacristan, cancellor, succentor, punctator, hebdomadarian. All these are not necessarily included in every chapter; the actual arrangement is a matter for local convenience and custom. (See , , .)

The Synods of Westminster (1852, 56, 59, 73; cf. Coll. Lacensis, III, 895); Taunton, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), s. v. Chapter; Barbosa, De canonicis et dignitatibus (Lyons, 1700); De Herdt, Praxis capitularis (Louvain, 1895); Bouix, De capitulis (Paris, 1862); Fagnani, Jus canonicum (Rome, 1659); Ferraris, Prompta Biblioth. (Paris, 1884), s. v. Capitulum; Idem, Theoria et praxis regiminis diœcesani, præsertim sede vacante (Paris, 1876); Van Espen, Jus eccl. univ., Pt. I, tit. vii-xii, De instituto et off. canonicorum (Cologne, 1748), II, 103–60; Reiffenstül, Jus canonicum universum (Munich, 1702); Zitelli, Apparatus juris ecclesiastici (Rome, 1903); Schneider, Die bischöflichen Domkapitel, ihre Entwicklung und rechtliche Stellung im Organismus der Kirche (Mainz, 1885); Hergenröther-Hollweck, Lehrbuch d. can. Rechts (Freiburg, 1905), 323 sqq.; Laurentius, Inst. jur. eccl. (ibid, 1903), 145 sqq.

DAVID DUNFORD.

Canon (2)

(Gr. κανών, rule, law, guide).

In music, the strictest of all contrapuntal forms. It consists in the imitation or repetition of a given melody or theme in its exact melodic progression and in thy same rhythmical form by one or more voices, not simultaneously, but one after another, at a half, whole, or two, measure distance, on any of its intervals. The word canon was originally applied to the law according to which the various voices were expected to imitate the typical melody (proposta, guida), these imitations not being written out in notes. It was during the great period of the Netherlands School (1450–1550) that the canon so a contrapuntal art-form received its greatest development and perfection, but it remained for the Roman, or Palestrina, School to give it its most complete application—to make it the vehicle for the highest ideals. On account of the placidity and repose resulting from extreme regularity, this form was employed by predilection in the finales of compositions for the Ordinary of the Mass. There are also instances, however, where the canon form is rnade use of throughout all the five numbers of the mass. Examples of this will be found in Palestrina’s mass, “Ad caenam Agni providi” (Complete Works, X), and in the same master’s five-part mass, “Repleatur os meum laude” (op. cit., XVII, 17, p. 105).

JOSEPH OTTEN

Canoness

The assistance of women in the work of the Church goes back to the earliest time, and their uniting together for community exercises was a natural development of religious worship (Paulowski, De diaconissis comment., Ratisbon, 1866; J. Réville, Le rôle des veuves dans les communautés chrét. primitives, in Bibl. de l’Ecole des hautes études: Sciences relig. I, 231–51, Paris, 1899; Goltz, Der Dienst der Frau in den ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten, Leipzig, 1905). Rules were laid down for their guidance, but it was left for St. Augustine of Hippo to draw up the first general rule for such communities of women. It was written in the year 423 and was addressed to Felicitas, Superioress of the Monastery of Hippo, and to Rusticus, the priest whom St. Augustine had appointed to have charge of the nuns (Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 958- 65). Towards the close of the eighth century the title of canoness is found for the first time, and it was given to these communities of women who, while they professed a common life, yet did not carry out to its full extent the original Rule of St. Augustine (sanctimoniales quæ se canonicas vocant, Council of Châlons, 813, can. 53; see the second book of De Institutione sanctimonialium, Council of Aachen, 816 or 817, and Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, IV, 17 sqq.). These canonesses were practically an imitation of the chapters of canons regular which had then recently been received through the introduction of the “Regula vitæ communis” of St. Chrodegang of Metz. The canonesses took but two vows, chastity and obedience. Their superiors were known as abbesses, often held princely rank and had feudal jurisdiction. The occupations of the canonesses consisted in the recitation of the Divine Office, the care of the church vestments, and the education of the young, particularly the daughters of the nobility. The number of these communities multiplied very rapidly; but as all who entered did not do so from a spirit that was entirely religious, there soon came differences in the observance of the rule, whence the distinction between regular canonesses and secular canonesses. (See Ducange, Glossarium med. et infimæ Latinitatis, s. v. Canonicæ; Jacques de Vitry, Hist. Occid. II, 31; Bonif. VIII, in Lib. Sext. C. 43, § 5 de elect. I, 6; Extrav. Comm. III, 9 de relig. dom.) Some abbeys of these latter still exist, a few Catholic and several Protestant establishments (in Hanover alone there are seventeen), and many of them hold large properties. This is explained by the fact that the secular canonesses were mainly recruited from noble families, particularly in Germany, and, when the Reformation passed over the land, gave up the Catholic Faith. The regular canonesses, for the most part, follow the Rule of St. Augustine, but local circumstances have been the means of introducing various changes in details. Formerly all houses of a particular observance were united under and governed by one head. At the present day each convent is governed by a distinct superioress. The canonesses regular best known in English speaking countries are the Canonesses Regular of St. Augustine and the Canonesses Regular of the Holy Sepulchre. They are strictly enclosed, take the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and are bound to the daily choral recitation of the Divine Office.

Constitutions of the Regular Canonesses of the Order of St. Augustine (London, 1879); Dom Hamilton, Chronicle of the English Augustinian Canonesses Regular (London, 1904); Ducas, Les chapitres nobles de dames, recherches historiques généal., hérald., etc., sur les chanoinesses régulières et séculières dans les chapitres nobles de France et des Pays Bas (Paris, 1843); Helyot, Dict. des ordres religieux (Paris, 1847) I, 789–90; Heuser, in Kirchenlex., II 1842–45; Van Espen, Jus eccl. I, tit. 33, c. ii; Thomassin, Vetus ac nova ecc. disciplina, I (iii), c. li.

DAVID DUNFORD.

Canon of the Mass

This article will be divided into four sections: (I) Name and place of the Canon; (II) History of the Canon; (III) The text and rubrics of the Canon; (IV) Mystical interpretations.

I. NAME AND PLACE OF THE CANON

Canon (Canon Missæ, Canon Actionis) is the name used in the Roman Missal for the fundamental part of the Mass that comes after the Offertory and before the Communion. The old distinction, in all liturgies, is between the Mass of the Catechumens (the litanies, lessons from the Bible, and collects) and the Mass of the Faithful (the Offertory of the gifts to be consecrated, Consecration prayer, Communion, and dismissal). Our Canon is the Consecration prayer, the great Eucharistic prayer in the Mass of the Faithful. The name Canon (kanon) means a norm or rule; and it is used for various objects, such as the Canon of Holy Scripture, canons of Councils, the official list of saints’ names (whence “canonisation”), and the canon or list of clerks who serve a certain church, from which they themselves are called canons (canonici). Liturgically it occurs in three senses:

The kanon in the Byzantine Rite is the arrangement of the nine odes according to the order in which they are to be sung (Nilles, Kalendarium Manuale, 2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1896, I, LVIII).

Like the word Mass it has occasionally been used as a general name for the canonical Hours, or Divine Office (St. Benedict’s Rule, cap. xvii; Cassian, II, 13).

Chiefly, and now universally in the West, it is the name for the Eucharistic prayer in the Holy Liturgy. In this sense it occurs in the letters of St. Gregory I (Epp., Lib. VII, lxiv, Lib. XI, lix); the Gelasian Sacramentary puts the heading “Incipit Canon Actionis” before the Sursum Corda (ed. Wilson, 234), the word occurs several times in the first Roman Ordo (“quando inchoat canonem,” “finito vero canone,” ed. Atchley, 138, etc.); since the seventh century it has been the usual name for this part of the Mass.

One can only conjecture the original reason for its use. Walafrid Strabo says: “This action is called the Canon because it is the lawful and regular confection of the Sacrament” (De reb. eccl., xxii); Benedict XIV says: “Canon is the same word as rule, the Church uses this name to mean that the Canon of the Mass is the firm rule according to which the Sacrifice of the New Testament is to be celebrated” (De SS. Missæ Sacr., Lib. II, xii). It has been suggested that our present Canon was a compromise between the older Greek Anaphoras and variable Latin Eucharistic prayers formerly used in Rome, and that it was ordered in the fourth century, possibly by Pope Damasus (366–84). The name Canon would then mean a fixed standard to which all must henceforth conform, as opposed to the different and changeable prayers used before (E. Burbridge in Atchley, “Ordo Rom. Primus,” 96). In any case it is noticeable that whereas the lessons, collects and Preface of the Mass constantly vary, the Canon is almost unchangeable in every Mass. Another name for the Canon is Actio. Agere, like the Greek dran, is often used as meaning to sacrifice. Leo I, in writing to Dioscurus of Alexandria, uses the expression “in qua [sc. basilica] agitur,” meaning “in which Mass is said.” Other names are Legitimum, Prex, Agenda, Regula, Secretum Missæ. The rubrics of our present Missal leave no doubt as to the limits of the Canon in modern times. It begins at the “Te Igitur” and ends with the Amen before the Embolism of the Pater Noster (omnis honor et gloria, per omnia sæcula sæculorum, Amen). The Missal has the title “Canon Missæ” printed after the Sanctus, and the Rubrics say: “After the Preface the Canon of the Mass begins secretly” (Rubr. Gen., XII, 6). The ninth title of the “Ritus cel. Missam” is headed: “Of the Canon from the Consecration to the Lord’s Prayer.” The next title is: “Of the Lord’s Prayer and the rest to the Communion.” Neither of these limits, however, was always so fixed. The whole Canon is essentially one long prayer, the Eucharistic prayer that the Eastern rites call the Anaphora. And the Preface is part of this prayer. Introduced in Rome as everywhere by the little dialogue “Sursum corda” and so on, it begins with the words “Vere dignum et justum est.” Interrupted for a moment by the people, who take up the angels’ words: “Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus,” etc., the priest goes on with the same prayer, obviously joining the next part to the beginning by the word igitur. It is not then surprising that we find in the oldest sacramentary that contains a Canon, the Gelasian, the heading “Incipit Canon Actionis” placed before the Sursum Corda; so that the preface was then still looked upon as part of the Canon. However, by the seventh century or so the Canon was considered as beginning with the secret prayers after the Sanctus (Ord. Rom. I: “When they have finished the Sanctus the pontiff rises alone and enters into the Canon,” ed. Atchley, 138). The point at which it may be considered as ending was equally uncertain at one time. There has never been any sort of point or indication in the text of the Missal to close the period begun by the heading “Canon Missæ,” so that from looking at the text we should conclude that the Canon goes on to the end of the Mass. Even as late as Benedict XIV there were “those who think that the Lord’s Prayer makes up part of the Canon” (De SS. Miss Sacr., ed. cit., 228). On the other hand the “Ordo Rom. I” (ed. cit. infra, p. 138) implies that it ends before the Pater Noster. The two views are reconciled by the distinction between the “Canon Consecrationis” and the “Canon Communionis” that occurs constantly in the Middle Ages (Gihr, Das heilige Messopfer, 540). The “Canon Communionis” then would begin with the Pater Noster and go on to the end of the people’s Communion. The Post-Communion to the Blessing, or now to the end of the last Gospel, forms the last division of the Mass, the thanksgiving and dismissal. It must then be added that in modern times by Canon we mean only the “Canon Consecrationis.” The Canon, together with the rest of the “Ordo Missæ,” is now printed in the middle of the Missal, between the propers for Holy Saturday and Easter Day. Till about the ninth century it stood towards the end of the sacramentary, among the “Missæ quotidianæ” and after the Proper Masses (so in the Gelasian book). Thence it moved to the very beginning. From the eleventh century it was constantly placed in the middle, where it is now, and since the use of complete Missals “according to the use of the Roman Curia” (from the thirteenth century) that has been its place invariably. It is the part of the book that is used far more than any other, so it is obviously convenient that it should occur where a book lies open best—in the middle. No doubt a symbolic reason, the connection between the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the mysteries of Holy Week, helped to make this place seem the most suitable one. The same reason of practical use that gave it this place led to the common custom of printing the Canon on vellum, even when the rest of the Missal was on paper—vellum stands wear much better than paper.

II. HISTORY OF THE CANON

Since the seventh century our Canon has remained unchanged. It is to St. Gregory I (590–604) the great organiser of all the Roman Liturgy, that tradition ascribes its final revision and arrangement. His reign then makes the best division in its history.

BEFORE ST. GREGORY I (TO 590)

St. Gregory certainly found the Canon that has been already discussed, arranged in the same order, and in possession for centuries. When was it put together? It is certainly not the work of one man, nor was it all composed at one time. Gregory himself thought that the Canon had been composed by “a certain Scholasticus (Epp., lib. VII, no. lxiv, or lib. IX, no. xii), and Benedict XIV discusses whether he meant some person so named or merely “a certain learned man” (De SS. Missæ sacr., 157). But our Canon represents rather the last stage of a development that had been going on gradually ever since the first days when the Roman Christians met together to obey Christ’s command and celebrate the Eucharist in memory of Him. Here a distinction must be made between the prayers of the Canon itself and the order in which they are now found. The prayers, or at least some of them, can be traced back to a very early date from occasional references in letters of Fathers. From this it does not follow that they always stood in the same order as now. Their arrangement in our present Missal presents certain difficulties and has long been a much-disputed point. It is very possible that at some unknown period—perhaps in the fifth century—the Canon went through a complete alteration in its order and that its component prayers, without being changed in themselves, were turned round and re-arranged. This theory, as will be seen, would account for many difficulties. In difficulties.

In the first century, as known, the Church of Rome, like all other Christian Churches, celebrated the Holy Eucharist by obeying Christ’s direction and doing as He had done the night before He died. There were the bread and wine brought up at the Offertory and consecrated by the words of Institution and by an invocation of the Holy Ghost; the bread was broken and Communion was given to the faithful. Undoubtedly, too, before the service lessons were read from the Bible, litanies and prayers were said. It is also known that this Mass was said in Greek. Hellenistic Greek was the common tongue of Christians, at any rate outside Palestine, and it was spoken by them in Rome as well as everywhere else, at the time when it was understood and used as a sort of international language throughout the empire. This is shown by the facts that the inscriptions in the catacombs are in Greek, and that Christian writers at Rome (I Ep. Clem., etc.) use that language (cf. de Rossi, Roma sott., II, 237). Of the liturgical formulas of this first period little is known. The First Epistle of St. Clement contains a prayer that is generally considered liturgical (lix-lxi), though it contains no reference to the Eucharist, also the statement that “the Lord commanded offerings and holy offices to be made carefully, not rashly nor without order, but at fixed times and hours.” It says further: “The high-priest [i.e. bishop] has his duties, a special place is appointed to the priests, and the Levites have their ministry” (xi). From this it is evident that at Rome the liturgy was celebrated according to fixed rules and definite order. Chap. xxxiv tells us that the Romans “gathered together in concord, and as it were with one mouth,” said the Sanctus from Is., vi, 3, as we do. St. Justin Martyr (died c. 167) spent part of his life at Rome and died there. It is possible that his “First Apology” was written in that city (Bardenhewer, Altkirchl. Litt., I, 206), and that the liturgy he describes in it (lxv-lxvi) was that which he frequented at Rome. From this we learn that the Christians first prayed for themselves and for all manner of persons. Then follows the kiss of peace, and “he who presides over the brethren” is given bread and a cup of wine and water, having received which he gives thanks to God, celebrates the Eucharist, and all the people answer “Amen.” The deacons then give out Holy Communion (loc. cit.). Here is found the outline of our liturgy: the Preface (giving thanks), to which may be added from I Clem. the Sanctus, a celebration of the Eucharist, not described, but which contains the words of Institution (c. lxvi, “by His prayer”), and which corresponds to our Canon, and the final Amen that still keeps its place at the end of the Eucharistic prayer. Perhaps a likeness may be seen between the Roman use and those of the Eastern Churches in the fact that when St. Polycarp came to Rome in 155, Pope Anicetus allowed him to celebrate, just like one of his own bishops (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., V, xxiv). The canons of Hippolytus of Rome (in the beginning of the third century, if they are genuine; cf. Bardenhewer, op. cit., I, 541–3) allude to a Eucharistic celebration that follows the order of St. Justin, and they add the universal introduction to the Preface, “Sursum corda,” etc.

The first great turning point in the history of the Roman Canon is the exclusive use of the Latin language. Latin had been used side by side with Greek, apparently for some time. It occurs first as a Christian language, not in Rome, but in Africa. Pope Victor I (190–202), an African, seems to have been the first Roman bishop who used it (supposing that the Ps.-Cyprian, “De Aleatoribus,” is by him; Harnack, “Der Ps.-Cypr. Tractat. de Aleatoribus,” Leipzig. 1888). After this time it soon becomes the only language used by popes; Cornelius (251–53) and Stephen (254–57) write in Latin. Greek seems to have disappeared at Rome as a liturgical language in the second half of the third century (Kattenbusch, Symbolik, II, 331), though parts of the Liturgy were left in Greek. The Creed was sometimes said in Greek down to Byzantine times (Duchesne, Origines, 290). The “Ordo Rom. I” says that certain psalms were still said in Greek (Mabillon. Mus. Ital., II, 37–40); and of this liturgical use of Greek there are still remnants in our Kyrie Eleison and the “Agios o Theos.,” etc., on Good Friday. Very soon after the acceptance of Latin as the only liturgical language we find allusions to parts of the Eucharistic prayer, that are the same as parts of our present Canon. In the time of Pope Damasus (366–84) a Roman writer who was guilty of the surprising error of identifying Melchisedech with the Holy Ghost writes, “The Holy Ghost being a bishop is called Priest of the most high God, but not high priest” (Sacerdos appellatus est excelsi Dei, non summus) “as our people presume to say in the Oblation” (“Quæstiones V et N. Test.” in P.L. XXXV, 2329; Duchesne, op. cit., 169). These words evidently allude to the form “thy high priest Melchisedech” (summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech) in the Canon. Pseudo-Ambrose in “De Sacramentis” (probably about 400 or later; cf. Bardenhewer, “Patrologie,” 407) quotes the prayers said by the priest in the Canon:

Fac nos hanc oblationem adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod figura est coporis et sanguinis Iesu Christi. Qui pridie quam pateretur, in sanctis manibus suis accepit panem, respexit in cælum ad te, sancte Pater omnipotens, æterne Deus, gratias agens, benedixit, fregit fractumque apostolis suis et discipulis suis tradidit dicens: Accipite et edite ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim corpus meum quod pro multis confringetur. Similiter etiam calicem, postquam cænatum est, pridie quam pateretur accepit, respexit in cælum ad te, sancte Pater omnipotens, æterne Deus, gratias agens, benedixit, apostolis suis et discipulis suis tradidit dicens; Accipite et bibite ex hoc omnes: hic est enim sanguis meus.

“And the priest says,” continues the author, “Ergo memores gloriosissimæ eius passionis et ab inferis resurrectionis et in cælum adscensionis, offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam, hanc panem sanctum et calicem vitæ æternæ; et petimus et precamur, ut hanc oblationem suscipias in sublimi altari tuo per manus angelorum tuorum, sicut suscipere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti Abel et sacrificium patriarchæ nostri Abrahæ et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos Melchisedech” (quoted by Duchesne, op. cit., 170; P.L. XVI, 443). It will be seen that the whole of this prayer, but for a few unimportant modifications, is that of our Canon. Pope Damasus has been considered one of the chief compilers of the Roman Liturgy. Probst thinks that he ordained the changes in the Mass that occur because of the calendar of seasons and feasts, and attributes to him the oldest part of the Leonine Sacramentary (Lit. des IV. Jahrhunderts und deren Reform, 455 sqq.). Funk in the “Tübinger Quartalschrift” (1894, 683) denies this. One liturgical change made by this pope is certain. He introduced the word Alleluia at Rome (Greg. I, Epp. IX, xii, in P.L., LXXVII, 956). Innocent I (401–17) refers to the Canon as being a matter he ought not to describe—an apparent survival of the idea of the Disciplina arcani—and says it is ended with the kiss of peace (Ep. ad Decentium in P.L., XX, 553): “After all the things that I may not reveal the Peace is given, by which it is shown that the people have consented to all that was done in the holy mysteries and was celebrated in the church.” He also says that at Rome the names of persons for whom the celebrant prays are read in the Canon: “first the offertory should be made, and after that the names of the givers read out, so that they should be named during the holy mysteries, not during the parts that precede” (ib.). That is all that can be known for certain about our Canon before Gregory I. The earliest books that contain its text were written after his time and show it as approved by him. A question that can only be answered by conjecture is that of the relation between the Roman Canon and any of the other ancient liturgical Anaphoras. There are undoubtedly very striking parallels between it and both of the original Eastern rites, those of Alexandria and Antioch. Mgr. Duchesne is inclined to connect the Roman use with that of Alexandria, and the other great Western liturgy, the Gallican Rite, with that of Antioch (Origines, 54). But the Roman Canon shows perhaps more likeness to that of Antioch in its formulæ. These parallel passages have been collected and printed side by side by Dr. Drews in his “Entstehungsgeschichte des Kanons in der römischen Messe,” in order to prove a thesis which will be referred to later. Meanwhile, whatever may be thought of Drew’s theory, the likeness of the prayers cannot be denied. For instance, the Intercession in the Syrian Liturgy of St. James begins with the prayer (Brightman, East. Lit., 89–90):

Wherefore we offer unto Thee, O Lord, this same fearful and unbloody sacrifice for the holy places. . . . and especially for holy Sion. . . . and for thy holy church which is in all the world. . . . Remember also, O Lord, our pious bishops . . . especially the fathers, our Patriarch Mar N. and our Bishop [“and all the bishops throughout the world who preach the word of thy truth in Orthodoxy,” Greek Lit. of St. James].

The whole of this prayer suggests our “Imprimis quæ tibi offerimus,” etc., and certain words exactly correspond to “toto orbe terrarum” and “orthodoxis,” as does “especially” to “imprimis,” and so on. Again the Syrian Anaphora continues:

Remember also, O Lord, those who have offered the offerings at thine holy altar and those for whom each has offered [cf. “pro quibus tibi offerimus vel qui tibi offerunt”]. . . . Remember, O Lord, all those whom we have mentioned and those whom we have not mentioned [ib., p. 92]. Again vouchsafe to remember those who stand with us and pray with us [“et omnium circumstantium,” ib., 92]; Remembering. . . . especially our all-holy, unspotted, most glorious lady, Mother of God and ever Virgin, Mary, St. John the illustrious prophet, forerunner and baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, Andrew. . . . [the names of the Apostles follow]. . . . and of all thy Saints for ever. . . . that we may receive thy help [“ut in omnibus protectionis tuæ muniamur auxilio,” Greek St. James, ib. 56–57].

The words of Institution occur in a form that is almost identical with our “Pridie quam pateretur” (ib., 86–87). The Anamnesis (p. 89) begins: “Commemorating therefore [“unde et memores”] O Lord, thy death and resurrection on the third day from the tomb and thy ascension into heaven. . . . we offer thee this dread and unbloody sacrifice [“offerimus. . . . hostiam puram,” etc.]. It is true that these general ideas occur in all the old liturgies; but in this case a remarkable identity is found even in the words. Some allusions to what were probably older forms in our Canon make the similarity still more striking. Thus Optatus of Mileve says that Mass is offered “pro ecclesiâ, quæ una est et toto orbe terrarum diffusa” (Adv. Parm., III, xii). This represents exactly a Latin version of the “holy Church which is in all the world” that we have seen in the Syrian Anaphora above. The Syrian use adds a prayer for “our religious kings and queens” after that for the patriarch and bishop. So our Missal long contained the words “et pro rege nostro N.”after “et Antistite nostro N.” (see below). It has a prayer for the celebrant himself (Brightman, 90), where our Missal once contained just such a prayer (below). The treatise “De Sacramentis” gives the words on Institution for the Chalice as “Hic est sanguis meus,” just as does the Syrian Liturgy. There are other striking resemblances that may be seen in Drews. But the other Eastern liturgy, the Alexandrine use, also shows very striking parallels. The prayer for the celebrant, of which the form was “Mihi quoque indignissimo famulo tuo propitius esse digneris, et ab omnibus me peccatorum offensionibus emundare” (Ebner, Miss. Rom., 401), is an exact translation of the corresponding Alexandrine text: “Remember me also, O Lord, thy humble and unworthy servant, and forgive my sins” (Brightman, 130). The author of “De Sacr.” quotes the Roman Canon as saying “quod est figura corporis et sanguinis domini nostri Iesu Christi,” and the Egyptian Prayer Book of Serapion uses exactly the same expression, “the figure of the body and blood” (Texte u. Unt., II, 3, p. 5). In the West the words “our God” are not often applied to Christ in liturgies. In the Gelasian Sacramentary they occur (“ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat dilectissimi filii tui Domini Dei nostri Iesu Christi,” ed. Wilson, 235), just where they come in the same context in St. Mark’s Liturgy (Brightman, 126). Our Mass refers to the oblation as “thy gifts and favours” (de tuis donis ac datis); so does St. Mark (ib., 133). But the most striking parallel between Rome and Alexandria is in the order of the Canon. The Antiochene Liturgy puts the whole of the Intercession after the words of Institution and the Epiklesis; in Alexandria it comes before. And in our Canon the greater part of this intercession (“imprimis quæ tibi offerimus,” “Commemoratio pro vivis,” “Communicantes”) also comes before the Consecration, leaving only as a curious anomaly the “Commemoratio pro defunctis” and the “Nobis quoque peccatoribus” to follow after the Anamnesis (Unde et momores).

Although, then, it is impossible to establish any sort of mutual dependence, it is evident that the Roman Canon contains likenesses to the two Eastern rites too exact to be accidental; in its forms it most resembles the Antiochene Anaphora, but in its arrangement it follows, or guides, Alexandria. Before coming to the final definition of the Canon at about the time of St. Gregory, it will be convenient here to consider what is a very important question, namely that of the order of the different prayers. It has been seen that the prayers themselves can be traced back a very long way. Is their arrangement among themselves as old as they are, or is our present Canon a re-arrangement of parts that once stood in another order? Every one who has studied its text has noticed certain grave difficulties in this arrangement. The division of the Intercession, to which reference has been made, is unique among liturgies and is difficult to account for. Again, one little word, the second word in the Canon, has caused much questioning; and many not very successful attempts have been made to account for it. The Canon begins “Te igitur.” To what does that “igitur” refer? From the sense of the whole passage it should follow some reference to the sacrifice. One would expect some prayer that God may accept our offering, perhaps some reference such as is found in the Eastern liturgies to the sacrifices of Abraham, Melchisedech, etc. It should then be natural to continue: “And therefore we humbly pray thee, most merciful Father,” etc. But there is no hint of such an allusion in what goes before. No preface has any word to which the “igitur” could naturally refer. Probst suggests that some such clause may have dropped out of the Preface (Lit. der drei ersten Jahrhunderten, 349). At any rate they is no trace of it, either in our preface or in any of the other rites. Thalhofer (Kath. Liturgik, II, 199) tries to explain the “igitur” by a very forced connection of ideas with the Sanctus. Gihr (Das heilige Messopfer, 550) hardly considers the difficulty, and is content with a vague allusion to the close connextion between Preface and Canon. Other difficulties are the reduplications between the ideas of the “Hanc igitur” and the “Nobis quoque peccatoribus.” Various allusions to older forms of the Canon increase the number of these difficulties. Dr. Drews has suggested as the solution the following theory. He thinks that the Canon, while consisting of much the same prayers, was originally arranged in a different order, namely, in the same way as the Syrian Anaphora which it so closely resembles, and that in the fifth century, shortly before it became stereotyped in the time of St. Gregory the Great, its order was partly reversed, so as to make it correspond more to the Alexandrine Rite (Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Kanons in der römischen Messe). The original order suggested by him is this:

“Quam oblationem. . . .”;

“Qui pridie quam pateretur. . . .”;

“Unde et memores” (Anamnesis);

“Supplices te rogamus” (Epiklesis);

“Te igitur”;

“Commemoratio Defunctorum,” the last three forming the Intercession.

The reasons for this suggestion are, first that in this way the logical connection is much clearer; as well as the resemblance to the Syrian Anaphora. As in Syria, the great prayer of Intercession, with the diptychs for living and dead and the memory of the saints, would all come together after the Consecration. Moreover, the igitur would then refer naturally to the ideas of the “Supplices te rogamus” just before it. The “Quam oblationem” would form the short link between the Sanctus and the words of Institution, as in both Eastern rites, and would fill the place occupied by an exactly similar prayer in Serapion’s prayer Book (13). Moreover, the Greek translation of the Roman Canon called the “Liturgy of St. Peter,” edited by William de Linden, Bishop of Ghent, in 1589 from a Rossano manuscript (and published by Swainson in “The Greek Liturgies,” Cambridge, 1884, 191–203) contains some variations that point in this direction. For instance, it gives a version of our “Supplices te rogamus,” and then goes on: “Aloud. First remember, O Lord, the Archbishop. He then commemorates the living. And to us sinners,” etc. This puts the Intercession after the “Supplices” prayer, and exactly corresponds to the order suggested above. Lastly, in 1557 Matthias Flacius published an “Ordo Missæ” (printed in Martène, “De antiquis eccl. ritibus,” 1763, I, 176 sqq.) in which there are still traces of the old order of the prayers. It begins with the “Unde et memores” and the “Epiklesis; then come the “Te igitur,” prayer for the pope, “Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum,” and eventually “Nobis quoque peccatoribus,” in short, the whole Intercession after the Consecration. But this reconstruction would not leave the text entirely unchanged. The prayer “Hanc igitur” has some difficulties. The Greek version (Swainson, 197) adds a rubric before it: “Here he names the dead.” What can the “Hanc igitur” have to do with the dead? Yet the Antiochene Liturgy, in which several parallel passages to our Canon have already been noticed, has a parallel to the second half of this prayer too, and that parallel occurs in its commemoration of the dead. There, following a prayer that the dead may rest “in the land of the living, in thy kingdom . . . in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” etc., is found this continuation: “And keep for us in peace, O Lord, a Christian, well-pleasing and sinless end to our lives, gathering us under the feet of thy Elect, when Thou willest and as Thou willest, only without shame and offence; through thy only begotten Son our Lord and God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.” (Brightman, 57.) We notice here the reference to the elect (in electorum tuorum grege), the prayer that we may be kept “in peace” (in tuâ pace disponas], the allusion to the “end of our lives” (diesque nostros) and the unusual “Per Christum Dominum nostrum,” making a break in the middle of the Eucharistic prayer. The Syrian form with its plain reference to death (“the end of our lives”) seems more clearly to be a continuation of a prayer for the faithful departed. But in the Roman from too is found such a reference in the words about hell (ab æterna damnatione) and heaven (in electorum tuorum grege). Drews then proposes to divide the “Hanc igitur” into two separate parts. The second half, beginning at the words “diesque nostros,” would have originally been the end of the Commemoration of the Dead and would form a reduplication of the “Nobis quoque peccatoribus,” where the same idea occurs (“partem aliquam et societatem donare digneris cum tuis sanctis Apostolis er Martyribus” being an echo of “in electorum tuorum iubeas grege numerari”). This second half, then, would belong to the Intercession after the Consecration, and would originally fall together with the “Nobis quoque.” In any case, even in the present arrangement of the Canon the “Nobis quoque” following the “Commemoratio pro defunctis” shows that at Rome as in other liturgies the idea of adding a prayer for ourselves, that we too may find a peaceful and blessed death followed by a share in the company of the saints, after our prayer for the faithful departed was accepted as natural. The first half of the “Hanc igitur” must now be accounted for down to “placatus accipias.” This first half is a reduplication of the prayer “Quam oblationem.” Both contain exactly the same idea that God may graciously accept our offering. “Hanc oblationem” and “Quam oblationem” differ only in the relative construction of the second form. We know that the relative construction is not the original one. In the “De Sacramentis,” to which reference has several times been made, the “Quam oblationem” occurs as an absolute sentence: “Fac nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam, rationabilem acceptabilemque, quod est figura corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi” (IV, v). We also know that the “Igitur” in “Hanc igitur” is not original. The parallel passages in Serapion and St. Mark’s Liturgy have simply tauter ten thysian (Drews, 16). Moreover, the place and object of this prayer have varied very much. It has been applied to all sorts of purposes, and it is significant that it occurs specially often in connection with the dead (Ebner, Miss. Rom., 412). This would be a natural result, if we suppose it to be a compilation of two separate parts, both of which have lost their natural place in the Canon. Drews then proposes to supply the first words of the “Quam oblationem” that we have put in the first place of his reconstructed Canon (see above), by the first half of the “Hanc igitur,” so that (leaving out the igitur) the Canon would once have begun: “Hanc oblationem servitutis nostræ, sed et cunctæ familiæ tuæ, quæsumus Domine, ut placatus accipias ut in omnibus benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilemque facere digneris, ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Iesu Christi” (Drews, 30), and so on, according to the order suggested above. One word, “ut,” has been added to this compilation, to connect our “Hanc igitur” with the continuation of “Quam oblationem.” This word is vouched for by the Greek version, which has ina here (Swainson, 197). Drews fruther notes that such a change in the arrangement of the Canon is not inconceivable. Popes have modified its order on other occasions. Joannes Diaconus, the biographer of St. Gregory I, tells us that he re-arranged a few parts of the Canon (“pauca convertens,” Vita Greg., II, xvii).

When then may this change be supposed to have been made? It was not made in the time of Innocent I (401–417); it had already occurred when the Gelasian Sacramentary was written (seventh century); it may be taken for certain that in the time of St. Gregory I (590–604) the Canon already stood as it does now. The reason for believing that Innocent I still knew only the old arrangement is that in his letter to Decentius of Eugubium (P. L., XX, 553–554) he implies that the Intercession comes after the Consecration. He says that the people for whom we pray “should be named in the middle of the holy mysteries, not during the things that go before, that by the very mysteries we should open the way for the prayers that follow.” If the diptychs are read after the way has been opened by the holy mysteries, the Roman Canon must follow the same order as the Church of Antioch, and at any rate place the “Commemoratio vivorum” after the Consecration. Supposing, then, that this re-arrangement really did take place, it must have been made in the course of the fifth century. Drews thinks that we can go farther and ascribe the change to Pope Gelasius I (492–96). A very old tradition connects his name with at any rate, some important work about the Canon. The second oldest Roman sacramentary known, although it is really later than St. Gregory, has been called the “Sacramentarium Gelasianum” since the ninth century (Duchesne, Origines, 120). Gennadius says that he composed a sacramentary (De. vir. ill., c. xciv). Moreover, the “Liber Pontificalis” refers to his liturgical work (Origines, 122) and the Stowe Missal (seventh century) puts at the head of our Canon the title: “Canon dominicus Papæ Gelasi” (ed. Warren, 234). Baumer has collected all the evidences for Gelasius’s authorship of some important sacramentary (Histor. Jahrb., 1893, 244 sqq.). It is known that Gelasius did not compose the text of the Canon. Its component parts have been traced back to a far earlier date. But would not so vital a change in its arrangement best explain the tradition that persistently connects our present Canon with the name of Gelasius? There is even a further suggestion that Drews has noticed. Why was the reversal of the order made? Evidently to bring the Intercession before the Consecration. This means to change from the same order as Antioch to that of Alexandria. Is it too much to suppose that we have here a case of Alexandrine influence at Rome? Now it is noticeable that Gelasius personally had a great reverence for the venerable “second See” founded by St. Mark, and that since 482 Bishop John Talaia of Alexandria, being expelled from his own Church by the Monophysites, sought and found refuge in Rome. He would have celebrated his own liturgy in the pope’s city, and was certainly greatly honoured as a confessor and exile for the Faith. May we then even go so far as to suggest that we owe the present certainly unusual order of our Canon to Gelasius and the influence of John Talaia? So far Drews (p.38). His theory has not been unopposed. An argument against it may be found in the very treatise “De Sacramentis” from which he gathers some of his arguments. For this treatise says: “In all other things that are said praise is given to God, prayers are said for the people, for kings, for others, but when he comes to consecrate the holy Sacrament the priest no longer uses his own words, but takes those of Christ” (IV, iv). According to this author, then, the Intercession comes before the Consecration. On the other hand it will be noticed that the treatise is late. That it is not by St. Ambrose himself has long been admitted by every one. It is apparently an imitation of his work “De Mysteriis,” and may have been composed in the fifth or sixth century (Bardenhewer, Patrologie, 407). Dom G. Morin thinks that Nicetas, Bishop of Romatiana in Dacia (d. 485), wrote it (Rev. Benéd., 1890, 151–59). In any case it may be urged that whatever reasons there are for ascribing it to an early date, they show equally conclusively that, in spite of its claim to describe “the form of the Roman Church” (III, 1) it is Milanese. The very assurance is a proof that it was not composed at Rome, since in that case such a declaration would have been superfluous. An allusion occurring in a Milanese work is but a very doubtful guide for the Roman use. And its late date makes it worthless as a witness for our point. When it was written probably the change had already been made at Rome; so we are not much concerned by the question of how far it describes Roman or Milanese offices. So far the theory proposed by Drews, which seems in any case to deserve attention.

FROM THE TIME OF ST. GREGORY I (590–604)

Certainly when St. Gregory became pope our Canon was already fixed in its present order. There are scarcely any changes to note in its history since then. “No pope has added to or changed the Canon since St. Gregory” says Benedict XIV (De SS. Missæ Sacr., 162). We learn from Joannes Diaconus that St. Gregory “collected the Sacramentary of Gelasius in one book, leaving out much, changing little adding something for the exposition of the Gospels” (II, xvii). These modifications seem to concern chiefly the parts of the Mass outside the Canon. We are told that Gregory added to the “Hanc igitur” the continuation “diesque nostros in tuâ pace disponas” etc. (ib.). We have already noticed that this second part was originally a fragment of a prayer for the dead. St. Gregory’s addition may then very well mean, not that he composed it, but that he joined it to the “Hanc igitur,” having removed it from its original place. From the time of Gregory the most important event in the history of the Roman Canon is, not any sort of change in it, but the rapid way in which it spread all over the West, displacing the Gallican Liturgy. Charlemagne (768–814) applied to Pope Adrian I (772–95) for a copy of the Roman Liturgy, that he might introduce it throughout the Frankish Kingdom. The text sent by the pope is the basis of what is called the “Sacramentarium Gregorianum,” which therefore represents the Roman Rite at the end of the eighth century. But it is practically unchanged since St. Gregory’s time. The Gelasian book, which is earlier than the so-called Gregorian one, is itself later than St. Gregory. It contains the same Canon (except that there are a few more saints’ names in the “Communicantes”) and has the continuation “diesque nostros in tuâ, pace disponas,” etc., joined to the “Hanc igitur,” just as in our present Missal. The Stowe Missal, now in Dublin (a sixth or early seventh century manuscript), is no longer a sacramentary, but contains already the complete text of a “Missa quotidiana,” with collects for three other Masses, thus forming what we call a Missal. From this time convenience led more and more to writing out the whole text of the Mass in one book. By the tenth century the Missal, containing whole Masses and including Epistles and Gospels, takes the place of the separate books (“Sacramentarium” for the celebrant, “Lectionarium” for the deacon and subdeacon, and “Antiphonarium Missæ” for the choir). After the ninth century the Roman Mass, now quite fixed in all its essential parts (though the Proper Masses for various feasts constantly change), quickly became the universal use throughout the Western patriarchate. Except for three small exceptions, the Ambrosian Rite at Milan, the Mozarabic Rite at Toledo, and the Byzantine Rite among the Italo-Greeks in Calabria and Sicily, this has been the case ever since. The local medieval rites of which we hear, such as those of Lyons, Paris, Rouen, Salisbury, York, etc., are in no sense different liturgies. They are all simply the Roman use with slight local variations—variations, moreover, that hardly ever affect the Canon. The Sarum Rite, for instance, which Anglicans have sometimes tried to set up as a sort of rival to the Roman Rite, does not contain in its Canon a single word that differs from the parent-rite as still used by us. But some changes were made in medieval times, changes that have since been removed by the conservative tendency of Roman legislation.

From the tenth century people took all manner of liberties with the text of the Missal. It was the time of farced Kyries and Glorias, of dramatic and even theatrical ritual, of endlessly varying and lengthy prefaces, into which interminable accounts of stories from Bible history and lives of saints were introduced. This tendency did not even spare the Canon; although the specially sacred character of this part tended to prevent people from tampering with it as recklessly as they did with other parts of the Missal. There were, however, additions made to the “Communicantes” so as to introduce special allusions on certain feasts; the two lists of saints, in the “Communicantes” and “Nobis quoque peccatoribus,” were enlarged so as to include various local people, and even the “Hanc igitur” and the “Qui pridie” were modified on certain days. The Council of Trent (1545–63) restrained this tendency and ordered that “the holy Canon composed many centuries ago” should be kept pure and unchanged; it also condemned those who say that the “Canon of the Mass contains errors and should be abolished” (Sess. XXII., cap. iv. can. vi; Denzinger, 819, 830). Pope Pius V (1566–72) published an authentic edition of the Roman Missal in 1570, and accompanied it with a Bull forbidding anyone to either add, or in any way change any part of it. This Missal is to be the only one used in the West and everyone is to conform to it, except that local uses which can be proved to have existed for more than 200 years are to be kept. This exception saved the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Byzantine Rites, as well as a few ancient modified forms of the Roman Rite, such as the Dominican, Carmelite, and Carthusian Missals. The differences in these Missals, however, hardly affect the Canon, except in one or two unimportant rubrics. Since Pius V our Canon, then, has been brought back to its original simplicity and remains unchanged throughout the year, except that on a few of the very greatest feasts slight additions are made to the “Communicantes” and the “Hanc igitur,” and on one day to the “Qui pridie quam pateretur” (see below). Clement VIII (1592–1605), Urban VIII (1623–44), and Leo XIII (1878–1903) have, each in his own time, re-edited the Missal, and a great number of additional Masses for new feasts or for local calendars have been added to it. But none of these changes have affected the part now under consideration. The Canon that we say is always the one finally restored by Pius V, that remains as it was in the days of Gregory I, and that goes back far behind his time till its origin is lost in the mists that hang over the first centuries when the Roman Christians met together to “do the things the Lord commanded at appointed times” (I Clem., xl). Through all the modifications and additions that, in recent years especially, have caused our Missal to grow in size, among all the later collects, lessons and antiphons, the Canon stands out firm and unchanging in the midst of an ever-developing rite, the centre and nucleus of the whole liturgy, stretching back with its strange and archaic formulæ through all the centuries of church history, to the days when the great Roman Cæsar was lord of the world and the little community of Christians stood around their bishop while they “sang a hymn to Christ as to a God before day-break” (Pliny, Epp., X, xcvii). Then the bishop lifted up his hands over the bread and wine, “gave thanks and glory to the Father of all through his Son and the Holy Ghost, and made the Eucharist” (Just., Apol., III, lxv). So that of all liturgical prayers in the Christian world no one is more ancient nor more venerable than the Canon of the Roman Mass.

III. THE TEXT AND RUBRICS OF THE CANON

Following the order of our present text, some remarks will be added about its expression and the ceremonies that accompany it. The whole Canon is now said silently. The priest should just hear his own voice (this is especially important in the case of the words of Consecration, since the form of every sacrament must be sensible), but should not be heard by the bystanders. This law began with the reduplication of the parts of the celebrant and choir. For many centuries the celebrant has not waited till the choir have finished their part, but goes on at once with his prayers—except in the cases of the Gloria and Creed, where he has to sing aloud as soon as they have done. Mabillon quotes from the older Roman ordines that originally “the priest did not begin the Canon until the singing of the Sanctus was over” (In ord. Rom. comm., XXI). The singing of the Sanctus and Benedictus then made it necessary for the priest at the altar to speak the Canon in a low voice. How little this was ever considered really essential is shown by the fact that at an ordination, almost the only case of concelebration left in the West, all the concelebrants say the Canon together aloud. There are also mystic reasons for the silent prayers of the Canon. They are thus shown to be purely sacerdotal, belonging only to the priest, the silence increases our reverence at the most sacred moment of the Mass, removes the Consecration from ordinary vulgar use, and is a symbol of our Lord’s silent prayer in the Garden and silence during his Passion (Suarez, disp. lxxxiii, I, 25). The celebrant lifts up his hands, joins them, also lifting up his eyes, and then bows deeply before the altar, resting his joined hands on it. This ceremony should come before the “Te igitur,” so that he does not begin the prayer till he is bowing before the altar. It is an obvious gesture, a sort of mute invocation as the beginning of the Consecration prayer. The first three prayers are always noted as belonging together and making three parts of one prayer (“Te igitur,” “Memento Domine,” “Communicantes”), which is closed for itself by the “Per Christum Dominum nostrum, Amen.” It is now a law that a picture of the Crucifixion should be placed at the beginning of the Canon. Innocent III (1198–1216) notes that in his time this was already the custom. The crucifix grew out of the adornment of the letter T with which the Canon begins. Innocent thinks that the presence of the T at that place is a special work of Divine Providence (Inn. III, De Sacro altaris myst., I, 3, c. ii, P.L., CCXVII).

TE IGITUR

We have already considered the “igitur.” Unless some such theory as that of Drews be admitted, its presence will always be a difficulty. Gihr (Messopfer, 550), as we have said, thinks that it implies merely a general connection with the Preface: “Because we have praised Thee and glorified Thee, therefore we now pray Thee to accept these gifts.” The kiss of the altar after “petimus” is not mentioned by the earlier writers. It is noted by Sicardus (d.1215, Mitrale, III, 6, P.L., CCXIII). At one time the celebrant kissed both the altar and the crucifix in the Missal at the beginning of the Canon (Ordo Rom. XIV, 53, fourteenth century). After kissing the altar the celebrant makes three signs of the cross over the bread and wine. It is the first of the many blessings of the gifts in the Canon and is joined to the kiss as one ceremony. He then stands erect and lifts up his hands, as at the collects (now they may not be lifted above the shoulders, Ritus cel., V, 1). This is the traditional attitude of prayer that may be seen in the pictures of Orantes in the catacombs. It is observed throughout the Canon. The priest prays first for the Church, then for the pope and diocesan ordinary by name. Antistes, from antisto (proistemi), is one of the many older words for “bishop.” At the pope’s name a slight inclination is made. When the Roman See is vacant, the mention of the pope is left out. In Rome the bishop’s name is left out; the pope is local bishop there. The bishop must be canonically appointed and confirmed, otherwise he is not mentioned. But he need not yet be consecrated. It is always the ordinary of the diocese, even in the case of regulars who are exempt. A diocesan bishop in saying Mass changes the form “et Antistite nostro N.” into “et me indigno servo tuo.” The pope naturally uses these words instead of “una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N.,” and omits the clause about the bishop. The mention of the pope always occurs at this place. Otherwise in the Middle Ages there was a great variety in the names. A very old custom was to name the sovereign after the bishop (“et pro rege nostro N.” or “Imperatore nostro N.”). Pope Celestine I (422–32) refers to it in a letter to Theodosius II. Boniface I (418–22) writes to Emperor Honorius: “Behold in the very mysteries, among the prayers which the bishop offers for your Empire . . .” (Drews, Entstehungsgesch., 7). So also the “De Sacramentis” says: “Prayer is offered for the people, for the king, for the others” (IV, iv). Throughout the Middle Ages the sovereign was always named. Pius V removed the clause from the Missal. In the case of Catholic princes a privilege is given by which they are put in. In Austria the clause “et pro Imperatore nostro Francisco Josepho” is always added by the celebrant, and in Hungary it becomes of course “pro rege nostro.” At one time the priest went on to pray for himself at this place (Bona, Rerum liturg., II, 11). Ebner quotes as the commonest form: “Mihi quoque indignissimo famulo tuo propitius esse digneris et ab omnibus me peccatorum offensionibus emundare” (Miss. Rom., 401). We have already noted this as being almost exactly a version of the Alexandrine form. The word “orthodoxi” that follows is very rare in the West. It is a link between our Canon and the Antiochene Anaphora.

COMMEMORATIO PRO VIVIS

The celebrant does not now name anyone aloud at the “N et N.” After “tuarum” he joins his hands and prays silently for anyone he likes. This is the place where the diptychs for the living were read. A diptych (diptychos, from dis and ptysso, twice-folded) was a table folding in two like a book, on which names were written and then read out. Some authorities admit and some deny that the priest in his silent prayer may name people who are outside the Church. As this prayer is a private one (as shown by the folding of the hands) there is no law to forbid him from so doing. He goes on to mention the bystanders, who are thus always specially prayed for at Mass. “Pro quibus tibi offerimus, vel qui tibi offerunt” is a reduplication. The first half (“pro quibus tibi offerimus”) is missing in all early sacramentaries, also in the Greek version (Swainson, 196). It occurs, however, in the parallel text of the Syrian Liturgy. Both parts refer to the same persons, for whom the priests and his assistants offer the Sacrifice and who themselves also join in the offering by their presence. “Sacrifice of praise” (Ps. xlix, 23), “For the forgiveness of their sins” and “For the hope of their safety and health,” are three expressions connoting the threefold character of the Mass as praise, atonement, and petition.

COMMUNICANTES

This prayer is headed by the rubric “Infra Actionem.” Why is it put here? The “Communicantes” has a small addition on the five chief days of the year, Christmas, the Epiphany, Easter, Ascension Day, and Whitsunday, referring to the feast. The beginning of the text with these additions is placed among the prefaces, after the corresponding proper preface for each feast. Placed there, the rubric that heads it is obvious. For each feast there is the special preface and, moreover, “Infra Actionem,” that is, “Within the Canon,” a further change is made. From its place among the prefaces as a natural heading to the “Communicantes” this rubric has found its way into the Canon, when people had begun to look upon it as the title of that prayer. The Gelasian Sacramentary has it, when the “Communicantes” occurs with an addition among the Propers (e.g. Wilson, 80), but it has not yet found its way into the Ordinary (ib., 234). These five additions to the “Communicantes,” all of them very beautiful and very ancient (they are all, with slight variations, in the Gelasian book), are the only ones left by Pius V, where at one time many more feasts had sometimes long references. “Communicantes” means simply “in union with.” The participles here have given rise to much discussion; no finite verb follows, nor does any go before to which they can suitably refer. It is simply a case of late Latin that is not strictly grammatical. It must be understood as standing for a finite verb, as if it were “Communicamus cum eis et memoriam veneramus eorum.” There are parallel examples in the Vulgate of a participle standing for a finite verb (e.g. Rom., ix, 6 sqq., where the Greek has the same anomaly). In the lists of saints that follows, Our Lady of course always holds the first place. She is here named very solemnly with her title of “Mother of God,” as in the corresponding Eastern Anaphoras. It is strange that St. John the Baptist, who should come next, has been left out here. He is named in both the Eastern liturgies at this place (Brightman, 93 and 169), and finds his right place at the head of our other list (in the “Nobis quoque”). After Our Lady follow twelve Apostles and twelve martyrs. The Apostles are not arranged in quite the same order as in any of the Gospels. St. Paul at the head, with St. Peter, makes up the number for Judas. St. Matthias is not named here, but in the “Nobis quoque.” The twelve martyrs are evidently arranged to balance the Apostles. First come five popes, then a bishop (St. Cyprian), and a deacon (St. Lawrence), then five laymen. All these saints, except St. Cyprian, are local Roman saints, as is natural in what was originally the local Roman Liturgy. It is noticeable that St. Cyprian (d. 258), who had a serious misunderstanding with a Roman pope, is the only foreigner honoured by the Roman Church by being named among her own martyrs. The fact has been quoted to show how completely his disagreement with Pope Stephen was forgotten, and how Stephen’s successors remembered him only as one of the chief and most glorious martyrs of the West. The cult of saints was at first the cult of martyrs; all those in both lists in the Canon died for the Faith. Gregory III (731–41) added to the Vatican basilica a chapel containing a great number of relics and dedicated to All Saints. He ordered the monks who served this chapel to add to the “Communicantes” after the words “et omnium Sanctorum tuorum” the further clause: “quorum solemnitas hodie in conspectu tuo celebratur, Domine Deus noster, in toto orbe terrarum.” The text is found in some medieval Missals. A certain number of Missals also contained additions about special patrons to be used on their feasts (Benedict XIV, De SS. Missæ sacr., 162). All these clauses disappeared at Pius V’s reform, except that in some French churches the names of St. Hilary and St. Martin are still added to the list (Duchesne, Origines, 172). This first complex of prayers forms the chief part of the great Intercession that occurs in all liturgies. We notice again the strange fact that at Rome it is divided in two by the Consecration.

HANC IGITUR

This prayer has already been considered, the most remarkable of all in the Canon. Here it need only be added that the “Hanc igitur” receives an addition (after the words “familiæ tuæ) on four occasions only, on Maundy Thursday, Easter, Whitsunday, and in the Mass at a bishop’s consecration. The additions will be found on the feasts in the Missal, and in the Consecration service in the Pontifical. On Maundy Thursday an allusion is made to “the day on which our Lord Jesus gave the mysteries of his Body and Blood to his disciples to be consecrated”; Easter and Whitsunday have an identical form (a prayer for the newly baptised), and the Consecration Mass has a clause “which we offer to Thee also for this Thy servant [the new bishop says: “for me Thy servant] whom Thou hast deigned to promote to the order of Episcopacy.” The Gelasian Sacramentary has as many as thirty-eight special forms to be intercalated at this place, in which allusions are made to all kinds of special intentions. For instance, in a requiem Mass, “which we offer to Thee for the repose of the soul of thy servant N.” (Wilson, 307); for a wedding, “This oblation of thy servants N. and N., which they offer to Thee for thy handmaid N., we beg Thee mercifully to accept, that as Thou hast allowed her to come to the fitting age for marriage, so Thou mayest allow her, being joined to her husband by thy grace, to rejoice in the offspring she desires and mayest mercifully bring her with her spouse to the desired length of years; and dispose our days in thy peace,” etc. (ib., 265). During the “Hanc igitur” the priest, who has joined his hands at the preceding “Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen,” spreads them over the offerings. This is a late ceremony. It occurs first in the fifteenth century. Formerly the celebrant lifted up his hands as before, but made a profound inclination (Durandus, VI, 39). This older rite is still used by the Dominicans and Carmelites. The imposition of hands seems to have been introduced merely as a way of practically touching the sacrifice at this point, at which it is so definitely named in the prayer. At the “Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen” following, the priest again (as always at these words) folds his hands. The “Hanc igitur,” with the two following prayers, may be considered as forming a second member of the Canon, threefold like the first.

QUAM OBLATIONEM

This prayer has been noticed, as well as its echo of “Hanc oblationem.” The offering is accompanied by five epithets. The “De Sacramentis” has only three, “adscriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque” (IV, v). The word “rationabilis” occurs in Rom., xii, 1. “In omnibus” means “thoroughly.” There follows naturally a petition that the offering may “become to us the Body and Blood of thy beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.” “De Sacramentis” has: “which is a figure of the Body and Blood,” as in Serapion’s Prayer and in Tertullian, “Adv. Marc.,” III, xix and IV, xl. During this prayer the sign of the cross is made five times over the offering—a further blessing of the bread and wine about to be consecrated.

QUI PRIDIE

Such a form is in all liturgies the connecting link between an allusion to Christ that has gone before and the words of Institution that follow immediately (Brightman, Antioch, 51, Alexandria, 132). The short form, “Who, the day before he died, took bread,” is in other rites sometimes expanded into a longer account of the Passion (ib., 20, 87, 176, etc.).

GRATIAS AGENS

The word Thanksgiving (Eucharist) always occurs here. Benedict XIV notices that we do not read in the Gospels that Christ lifted up his eyes at the Last Supper, and he says it is a tradition that Christ did so, as He did at the miracle of the loaves and fishes (De SS. Missæ sacr., 160). The words of Institution for the bread are the same in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt., xxvi, 26, Mark, xiv, 22, Luke, xxii, 19) and in I Cor., xi, 23. The Church has added to this form (Hoc est corpus meum) the word enim, and she leaves out the continuation “which is given for you,” that occurs in St. Luke and I Cor. The “enim” seems to have found its way here through analogy with the consecration of the chalice, where it occurs in St. Matthew. This prayer admits of one addition in the year; on Maundy Thursday the form is used: “Who the day before He suffered for our salvation and for that of all men, that is today, He took bread,” etc. At the beginning of the “Qui pridie” the celebrant takes the bread (only the host that he himself will receive in Communion) between the forefingers and thumbs of both hands. These fingers are then not separated again, unless when he touches the Blessed Sacrament, till they have been washed at the last ablutions (Rit. cel., VIII, 5). The reason of this is, of course, lest any crumb may have remained between them. He lifts up his eyes at the words “elevatis oculis,” and makes a sign of the cross over the host at the word “benedixit.” If other hosts are to be consecrated they stay on the corporal. The ciborium (if there is one) is opened before the words: “Qui pridie.” The words of Institution are said “secretly, plainly, and attentively” over the host and over all, if several are to be consecrated. The Catholic Church has always believed that the words of Institution are those that consecrate. Immediately therefore follows the ceremony of the Elevation. The priest genuflects on one knee, still holding the Blessed Sacrament, rises, lifts it up above his head to show it to the people, replaces it on the corporal and genuflects again. An adoration of the Blessed Sacrament at this point is an old rite. The first Roman Ordo, which does not give the words of Consecration, says that during the Canon “the bishops, deacons, subdeacons, and priests stay in the presbytery bowing down” (“inclinati,” ed. Atchley, 138). On account of the heresy of Berengarius (1088), the Elevation was introduced in France in the twelfth, and then throughout the West in the thirteenth, century. Gregory X (1271–76) ordered it to be used throughout the West in his Ceremonial (Ordo Rom. XIII). At first only the Host, not the Chalice, was elevated. The priest’s genuflexions were not introduced till later. In the fourteenth century he still only bowed his head (Ordo Rom. XIV, 53). Meanwhile the assistants kneel and bow low. Durandus says “they prostrate themselves reverently on the ground,” so also the XIII Roman Ordo. However, since the only object of the Elevation is to show the Blessed Sacrament to the people, this does not mean that they should not look up at it. At each genuflexion, and between them at the elevation, the bell is rung. This ceremony also begins in the fourteenth century. Durandus notices it (IV, 41). The bell should be sounded three times at each elevation, or continuously from the first to the second genuflexion (Rit. cel., VIII, 6). This is the first sounding of the bell ordered by the rubrics after the Sanctus. The common practice of ringing at the “Hanc igitur” has no authority. The server also lifts up the chasuble with his left hand at the elevation, not at the genuflexion (Rubr. gen., VIII, 6). This is to keep back the vestment (which the rubrics always suppose to cover the arms) while the priest elevates. With a modern Roman-shaped chasuble it is a mere form, and a memory of better days. As soon as the celebrant rises from the second genuflexion he continues the Consecration prayer.

SIMILI MODO

So all liturgies (hosautos at Antioch, Brightman, 52, and at Alexandria, ib., 133). “Postquam coenatum est”; the Canon supposes that the cup our Lord consecrated was the last of the Hillelcups. “Hunc præclarum calicem,” a dramatic identification of the Mass with the Last Supper. The Consecration-form for the chalice is put together from the four accounts of the Last Supper quoted above. It is mainly from St. Matthew (xxvi, 26); “Calix Sanguinis mei” is adapted from St. Luke and St. Paul, “pro vobis” from St. Luke, “pro multis” from St. Matthew; and the last clause, “Hæc quotiescumque feceritis,” etc., is again slightly modified from St. Paul. Moreover, two additions have been made to it that are not in the New Testament at all, “et æterni” and “mysterium fidei.” This last clause especially has been much discussed (Gihr, 599). It seems that it was originally a warning spoken by the deacon. The catechumens have been sent away before the Offertory; at the Consecration he again warns the people that it is not for catechumens, it is a “mystery of Faith,” that is a mystery for the faithful (the baptised) only. The ceremonies at this Consecration are the same as those for the preceding one, except that the deacon (at low Mass here, as always, the celebrant must supply the deacon’s part himself) takes the pall from the chalice before the words of Consecration and replaces it as soon as the chalice is put down after its Elevation. The words “Haec quotiescumque,” etc., are now generally said during the first genuflexion. In the Middle Ages they were often said after the Elevation (Ordo Rom. XIV, 53). At high Mass a certain amount of very natural ritual has been added to both elevations. At least two torches are lit or brought in by the acolytes, which are removed after the elevation (on fast days and for requiem Masses they stay till the end of the Communion). The thurifer puts incense into his thurible, and incenses the Blessed Sacrament thrice at each elevation (Ritus cel., VIII, 8).

UNDE ET MEMORES

A solemn memory of Christ’s life, death and resurrection (the Anamnesis), naturally following the words “as often as you shall do these things, do them in memory of me,” comes immediately after the words of Institution in all liturgies (Apost. Const. Brightman, 20, St. James, ib., 52, St Mark, 133). The five signs of the cross made over the Blessed Sacrament during this prayer have often been discussed. Before the Consecration such signs are obviously blessings of the offering. How can blessings be given to what is now consecrated and has become the Real Presence? St. Thomas says the blessings refer to the “terminus a quo,” the bread and wine, not to the “terminus ad quem,” the Body and Blood of Christ (III:83:5 ad 3). People have seen in them symbols representing our offering to God, memories of the Crucifixion, blessings for the future communicants (Bossuet, Médit. sur l’Evang., I, 63), or merely a way of pointing to the Blessed Sacrament. It seems that really here again is one more case of what is very common in all our rites, namely, a dramatic representation that does not consider at what moment the effect of a Sacrament is really produced. Such effects must really all happen at one instant, the moment the matter and form are complete. But the Church cannot with words express everything in one instant; moreover before scholastic days people did not ask very closely about the actual moment. So we continually have such dramatic divisions of one simple act, and continually in her prayers the Church goes on asking for something that really must already have been granted. So in our baptism service the devil is driven out before, and the white robe and candle given after the actual baptism. The truth of these symbols presumably occurs at one instant. Our ordination service is a still more striking instance. Long after the subject is ordained priest, after he has concelebrated, the bishop gives him the power of forgiving sins which is certainly involved in the priesthood he has already received. So these blessings after the Consecration need be only such dramatic forms as our expression, “Receive . . . this spotless Host,” said at the Offertory long before. The question is important because of the Epiklesis.

SUPRA QUAE

This prayer, too, with its memory of sacrifices in the Old Testament (Abel, Abraham, Melchisedech), is common to other liturgies. St. Mark’s Rite mentions the offerings of Abel, Abraham, Zachary’s incense, the alms of Cornelius and the widow’s mite (Brightman, 129; cf. the Coptic form, 171). The words sanctum sacrificium immaculatam Hostiam are said to have been added by St. Leo I (440–61; Ben. XIV, “De SS. Missæ Sacr., II, xii, p. 161). They do not occur in the text as given in “De Sacramentis.” Grammatically they must refer to Melchisedech’s sacrifice.

SUPPLICES TE ROGAMUS

This prayer is commonly believed to be the remnant of the Roman Epiklesis (Duchesne joins the preceding “Supra quæ” to it as making up the Invocation, “Origines,” 173). It seems certain that our liturgy, like all the others, once had an Epiklesis, and this would be its natural place. Even as late as the time of Pope Gelasius I (492–96) there seems to have still been one. He writes: “How shall the Heavenly Spirit, when He is invoked to consecrate the divine mystery, come, if the priest and he who prays Him to come is guilty of bad actions?” (Ep., vii; Thiel, Ep. Rom. Pont., I, 486: “si sacerdos, et qui eum adesse deprecatur.” By striking out the “et” we have a much plainer sentence: “If the priest who prays Him to come.”) Watterich (Konsekrationsmoment, 166), and Drews (Entstehungsgesch., 28) think that several of the Secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary (which does not contain the Canon) are really Epikleses, For instance: “Send, we pray Thee O Lord, thy Holy Spirit, who shall make these our present gifts into thy Sacrament for us,” etc. (ed. Feltoe, p. 74; XXX Mass for July). The chief reason for considering our prayer “Supplices te rogamus” as the fragment of an Epiklesis is its place in the Canon, which corresponds exactly to that of the Epiklesis (following the Anamnesis) in the Syrian Rite (Brightman, 54). But its form is hardly that of an Epiklesis. The first words of the preceding prayer, “Supra quæ propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris,” suggest the beginning of the Alexandrine Epiklesis: “Look down upon us and upon this bread and this wine” (Brightman, 134), and the last part (Sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus et Sanguinem) have perhaps a vague resemblance; but certainly the chief thing, the Invocation of the Holy Ghost to change this bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is wanting. Moreover there is a prayer in the Alexandrine Liturgy which corresponds singularly to these two prayers (“Supra quæ” and “Supplices”): “the Sacrifices . . . of them that offer honour and glory to thy holy name receive upon thy reasonable altar in heaven . . . through the ministry of thy holy angels and archangels; like as Thou didst accept the gifts of righteous Abel and the sacrifice of our father Abraham,” etc. (Brightman, I, 170, 171; the Greek form, 129). And this is not an Epiklesis but an Offertory prayer, coming in the middle of the Intercession that with them fills up what we should call the Preface. On the other hand the end of the “Supplices te rogamus” (from “ut quotquot”) corresponds very closely to the end of both Eastern Epikleses. Antioch has here: “that it may become to all who partake of it” (quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione) “for a forgiveness of sins and for life everlasting” etc. (Brightman, 54); and at Alexandria the form is: “that it may become to all of us who partake of it (a source of) Faith,” etc. (ib., 134). It seems, then, that this prayer in our Canon is a combination of the second part of an Invocation (with the essential clause left out) and an old Offertory prayer. It has been suggested that the angel mentioned here is the Holy Ghost—an attempt to bring it more into line with the proper form of an Invocation. There is however no foundation for this assertion. We have seen that the Alexandrine form has the plural “thy holy angels”; so has the Latin form in “De Sacramentis”; “per manus angelorum tuorum” (IV, v). The reference is simply to an angel or to angels who assist at the throne of God and carry our prayers to Him (Tob., xii, 12, etc.). We have already seen that the order and arrangement of our Canon presents difficulties; this is a further case in point. As for the vanished Invocation itself, it will probably always remain a mystery what has become of it. Watterich (op. cit., p. 142) thinks that it was Gelasius himself who removed it from this place and put it before the words of Institution. And indeed the prayer “Quam oblationem” has a curious suggestion of an Invocation in its terms. On the other hand an Epiklesis before the words of Institution would be an anomaly unparalleled in any rite in the world. To come back to the rubrics, the celebrant has resumed the normal attitude of standing with uplifted hands after the “Unde et memores,” except that now the forefingers and thumbs remain joined; at the “Supplices te rogamus” he bows deeply over the altar—a ceremony obviously in accordance with the nature of its first words—resting his joined hands on it; and he stays so to the words” ex hac altaris participatione” at which he kisses the altar, rises, joins his hands, and makes the sign of the cross over the Host at “Corpus,” over the chalice at “Sanguinem,” and on himself at “omni benedictione” (while he crosses himself, the left hand is, as always in this case, laid on the breast). He joins his hands for “Per eumdem,” etc., and lifts them up for the next prayer. The next two prayers complete the Intercession, of which we have the greater part before the Consecration.

COMMEMORATIO PRO DEFUNCTIS

The place of this prayer has often been changed (Ebner. Miss. Rom., 420). If we accept Drews’ theory that an original memory of the faithful departed was once joined to what is now the second half of the “Hanc igitur,” it would follow that this prayer must be a later one, introduced after the “Hanc igitur” had changed its meaning. This is confirmed by the fact that it is absent from the Canon in the Gelasian Sacramentary (ed. Wilson, 235). Why “Memento etiam”? This would seem to refer to a commemoration of some one else, that should come just before. If we arrange the Canon as above, this prayer comes naturally just after the Commemoration of the Living and the “Communicantes” (we have seen that such is the order of the Eastern liturgies), and then this “etiam” refers quite naturally to the parallel commemoration of the living. In any case it must always be a mystery that these two last prayers, obviously forming the conclusion of the Intercession, should stand out here by themselves. Gihr finds a mystic reason for this, because the living offer with the priest, but the dead do not (Messopfer, 626). The ritual is the same as for the other Memento. The celebrant may not now say any names at the place marked “N. et N.”; passing on, he reads “Famularumque tuarum, qui nos præcesserunt,” etc., and after “in somno pacis,” folding his hands, he silently prays for anyone he likes. The diptychs of the dead of course once were read here. Now no names are ever read out at either Commemoration. Benedict XIV quotes a case in which names were read out at the “N. et N.” in the sixteenth century (De SS. Missæ Sacr., 220). At the final clause “Per eumdem,” etc., the priest not only folds his hands but bows the head—a unique case in the Roman Rite, for which there has not been found any satisfactory explanation. Benedict XIV quotes from Cavalieri a mystic reason—because Christ bowed His head when He died, and we here think of the dead (p. 219). The rubric occurs in Pius V’s Missal.

NOBIS QUOQUE PECCATORIBUS

A prayer for ourselves that naturally follows that for the faithful departed, although the Commemoration for the Living has gone before. So the Eastern liturgies (St. James, Brightman, 57; St. Mark, ib., 129). The parallel between this prayer and the latter half of the “Hanc igitur” has already been noticed. It is a petition that we too may find a good death and be admitted to the glorious company of the saints. The names of saints that follow are arranged rhythmically, as in “Communicantes.” Like the others they are all martyrs. First comes St. John the Baptist, as Our Lady before, then seven men and seven women. After the first martyr, St. Stephen, St. Matthias finds here the place he has not been given among the Apostles in the other list. The Peter here is a Roman exorcist martyred at Silva Candida (now part of the Diocese of Porto, near Rome). His feast with St. Marcellinus is on 2 June. The female saints are all well known. Benedict XIV quotes from Adalbert, “De Virginitate,” that St. Gregory I, having noticed that no female saints occur in the Canon, added these seven here (p. 162). This list of saints, like the other one, was subject to local additions in the Middle Ages (ib., 223). The celebrant strikes his breast and slightly raises his voice at the words: “Nobis quoque peccatoribus.” This rite (the only case of part of the Canon being spoken aloud, if we except the “Per omnia sæcula sæculorum” that closes it) is a reminder to the assistants that he has come to the prayer for all of those now present, in which prayer they may join. There is no Amen after the “Per Christum Dominum nostrum,” since now the following words, “Per quem,” follow it at once Nevertheless after it comes a noticeable break in the Canon.

PER QUEM HÆC OMNIA

Again, a difficult text. It has no connection with what goes before; the words “hæc omnia” refer to nothing in the former prayer. Moreover, the prayer itself is not easily explained. God is said to “sanctify, enliven, bless and give to us these good things.” What good things? Such a form as applied to what is already the Blessed Sacrament is very strange. Duchesne notes that at this point fruits of the earth and various kinds of foods were brought up and blessed by the celebrant; thus the milk and honey once given to the newly baptised at Easter and Whitsunday, beans on Ascension day, grapes on the feast of St. Sixtus (6 August). And even yet at this point the Holy Oils are blessed on Maundy Thursday (Origines, 174–75). He sees in this prayer, then, an old blessing of such fruits; the “hæc omnia bona” were once the good things of the earth. Now the form must be taken as again a dramatic representation like the sign of the cross after the Consecration. Finally this prayer and the whole Canon ends with a stately doxology. The “Per omnis sæcula sæculorum” is said aloud, or sung at high Mass. The answer, “Amen,” of the people, closes the Canon. Signs of the cross are made at the three words: “Sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis,” and the doxology has a special ritual. The celebrant uncovers the chalice and genuflects, makes three signs of the cross with the Host over the chalice at the three forms: “per ipsum et cum ipso et in ipso,” two more signs over the altar in front of the chalice at “Patri omnipotenti” and “Spiritus Sancti,” and finally at “omnis honor and gloria” he slightly elevates the chalice with the left hand, holding the Host above it with the right. He then replaces both, covers the chalice (at high Mass the deacon always uncovers and covers the chalice), genuflects and with joined hands says: “Per omnia sæcula sæculorum.” So he goes on to the Embolism of the Our Father. This ceremony went through slight changes in the Middle Ages [St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) notices it, II, Q. lxxxiii, a. 5, ad 3]; the essence of it is the Elevation, made to show the people the Blessed Sacrament. The reason why these crosses are formed with the Host is that it is just about to be elevated. The priest has already taken it up to elevate it (Gihr, 650, n. 2). This corresponds more or less to the point at which the Eastern Churches elevate (Antioch, Brightman, 61; Alexandria, 138). It is the original Elevation of the Roman use, and till the heresy of Berengarius it was the only one. We note finally that at and after the Consecration the Host, chalice, ciborium, and all other Hosts that may be consecrated, must always be placed on the altarstone, if it is a movable altar, and on the corporal. Also the celebrant, whenever he lays his hand on the altar before the Consecration, does so outside the corporal; after the Consecration he lays it on the corporal.

IV. MYSTICAL INTERPRETATIONS

It is obvious that in the great days of mystic theology so venerably and sacred a text as the Canon of the Mass should have received elaborate mystical explanations. Indeed, after the Bible it was chiefly to the Canon that these pious writers turned their attention. Equally obvious is it that such interpretations never have any sort of regard to the historical development of the text. By the time they began the Canon had reigned unquestioned and unchanged for centuries, as the expression of the most sacred rite of the Church. The interpreters simply took this holy text as it stood, and conceived mystic and allegorical reasons for its divisions, expressions, rites, even—as has been seen—for the letter T, with which in their time it began. No one who is accustomed to the subtle conceptions of medieval mysticism will be surprised to see that these interpretations all disagree among themselves and contradict each other in every point. The system leads to such contradictions inevitably. You divide the Canon where you like, trying, of course, as far as possible to divide by a holy number—three, or seven, or twelve—and you then try somehow to show that each of these divisions corresponds to some epoch of our Lord’s life, or to one of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, or—if you can make eight divisions somewhere—to one of the Beatitudes. The arrangements are extremely ingenious. Indeed, perhaps the strongest impression one receives from such mystical divisions and explanations is how extraordinarily well their inventors do it. Nor does the utterly artificial nature of the whole proceeding prevent many of the interpretations from being quite edifying, often very poetic and beautiful. To give even a slight account of the endless varieties of these mystic commentaries would take up very much space. Various examples will be found in the books quoted below. William Durandus (Duranti) the Elder, Bishop of Mende (d. 1296), in his “Rationale divinorum officiorum,” set the classic example of these interpretations. His work is important chiefly because incidentally we get from it a very exact account of the prayers and ceremonies of the thirteenth century. Very many theologians followed in his footsteps. Perhaps Benedict XIV and Cardinal Bona are the most important. Gihr has collected all the chief mystical explanations in his book on the Mass. One or two of the more interesting or curious examples may be added here. A favourite idea is that the Ordinary to the Sanctus, with its lessons, represents Christ’s public life and teaching; the Canon is a type of the Passion and death—hence it is said in silence. Christ taught plainly, but did not open his mouth when he was accused and suffered. From Durandus comes the idea of dividing the Mass according to the four kinds of prayer mentioned in I Tim., ii, 1. It is an Obsecratio (supplication) to the Secret, an Oratio (prayer) to the Pater Noster, a Postulatio (intercession) to the Communion, and a Gratiarum Actio (thanksgiving) to the end. Benedict XIV and many others divide the Canon into four sets of threefold prayers:

“Te igitur,” “Memento vivorum,” “Communicantes”;

“Hanc igitur,” “Quam oblationem,” “Qui pridie”;

“Unde et memores,” “Supra quæ,” “Supplices te rogamus”;

“Memento defunctorum,” “Nobis quoque,” “Per quem hæc omnia.”

This gives the mystic numbers four, three, and twelve. So again each separate expression finds a mystic meaning. Why do we say “rogamus ac petimus” in the “Te igitur”? “Rogamus” shows humility, “petimus” confidence (Odo Cameracensis; “Exp. in Can. Missæ,” dist. iii). Why do we distinguish “hæc dona” and “hæc munera”? “Dona” because God gives them to us, “munera” because we offer them back to Him (Gihr, 552, n. 5). Why is there no Amen after the “Nobis quoque peccatoribus”? Because the angels say it at that place (Albertus Magnus, “Summa de off. Missæ,” III, c. ix). “Per ipsum et cum ipso et in ipso est tibi . . . omnis honor et gloria” signifies in its triple form that our Lord suffered three kinds of indignities in His Passion—in His body, soul, and honour (Ben. XIV, 227). See also the explanations of the twenty-five crosses made by the priest in the Cannon suggested by various commentators (Gihr, 550). Historically, when these prayers were first composed, such reduplications and repetitions were really made for the sake of the rhythm which we observe in all liturgical texts. The medieval explanations are interesting as showing with what reverence people studied the text of the Canon and how, when every one had forgotten the original reasons for its forms, they still kept the conviction that the Mass is full of venerable mysteries and that all its clauses mean more than common expressions. And in this conviction the sometimes naive medieval interpreters were eminently right.

I. TEXTS.—MURATORI, “Liturgia vetus tria sacramentaria complectens” (2 vols. in fol., Venice, 1748), contains the texts of the Leonine, Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries. The Gregorian Sacramentary is edited in PAMELIUS, “op. cit. infra,” 178–387 in “P.L.,”LXXVIII, 25,sqq. The Leonine Book was first edited by BIANCHINI, “Anastasius Bibliothecarius” (1735), IV, xii-lvii; also in ASSEMANI, “Codex liturgicus ecclesiæ universæ,” VI, 1–180; and among St. LEO’S works in “P.L.,” LV, 21–156. FELTOE, “Sacramentarium Leonianum” (Cambridge, 1896). First edition of the Gelasian book, THOMASIUS, “Codices Sacramentorum” (Rome, 1680); also ASSEMANI, “op. cit.,” IV. 1–126; “P.L.,” LXXIV, 1055 sqq. WILSON, “The Gelasian Sacramentary” (Oxford, 1894), and SWAINSON, “The Greek Liturgies,” (Cambridge, 1884), 191–203, contain the Greek version of the Roman Mass referred to above. PAMELIUS, “Liturgica Latinorum” (2 vols., Cologne, 1571 and 1675); GAVANTI, “Thesaurus sacrorum rituum” (Rome, 1630); MABILLON, “Museum italicum,” (2 vols., 2nd ed., Paris, 1724); Vol. II, reprinted in “P.L.,” LXXVIII, contains eleven of the Roman “Ordines.” DUCHESNE, “Origines du culte chretien” (2nd. ed., Paris, 1898), App.I, pp. 440–63, and App.II, pp. 464–68, gives the text of two more “ordines,” that of the “Saint -Amand MS.” (c. 800), and a fragment from Einsiedeln of about the same date. ATCHLEY, “Ordo Romanus primus” (London, 1905) in “Library of Liturgiology and Ecclesiology for English Readers,” VI, contains dissertations on the first Ordo; the text in Latin from Mabillon with a translation and a version of the “Saint -Amand Ordo” from DUCHESNE are given in the appendix. For editions of the greater number of medieval local Missals see the excellent little book of CABROL, “Introduction aux etudes liturgiques” (Paris, 1907), and the “British Museum Catalogue,” XLV, “Latin Rite, Hours, Missals”; also the index to the “Liturgical Catalogue” (3 vols. London, 1899). WILSON, “A classified Index to the Leonine, Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries” (Cambridge, 1892); WEALE, “Bibliographia Liturgica; Catalogus Missalium ritus Latini” (London, 1886).

II.- MEDIEVAL COMMENTARIES ON THE CANON.—ST. ISIDORE OF SEVILLE (d. 636), “De ecclesiæ officiis,” II in “P.L.” LXXXIII, 738, sqq.; AMALARIUS OF METZ (d. c. 850) “De ecclesiæ officiis,” IV in “P.L.” CV, 986, sqq.; WALAFRID STRABO (d. 879), “De exordiis et incrementis rerum eccl.” in “P.L. “CXIV, 919, sqq.; BERNO OF REICHENAU (11th cent.), “Libellus de quibusdam rebus ad missæ officium pertinentibus” in “P.L.,” CXLII, 1055, sqq.; MICROLOGUS, “De ecclesiasticis observationibus” in “P.L.,” CLI, 974, sqq. [probably written by BERNOLD OF CONSTANCE (eleventh century)]; BELETHUS, “Rationale divinorum officiorum” in “P.L.,” CCII, 14 sqq.; HILDEBERT OF TOURS (d. 1134), “Expositio Missæ “in “P.L.,” CLXXI. 1158 sqq.; IONNES ABRINCENSIS, “Liber de officiis ecclesiasticis” in “P.L.,” CXLVII, 15 sqq.; ROBERTUS PULLUS (d. 1153), “De Cærimoniis, sacramentis et officiis eccl.” in “P.L.”, CLXXVII, 381, sqq.; SICARDUS OF CREMONA, “Mitrale sive de officiis ecclesiasticis summa” in “P.L.” CCXIII, 13 sqq.; INNOCENT III (d. 1216), “De Sacrificio Missæ” in “ P.L.”, CCXVII, 763, sqq.; DURANDUS, “Rationale divinorum Officiorum” (Lyons, 1561; Naples, 1859), VIII; ALBERTUS MAGNUS, “Summa de officio Missæ.”

III. LATER WRITERS.—HITTORPIUS, “De divinis Cathol. Eccl. officiis” (Cologne, 1568; Rome 1591), a collection of medieval interpreters: HUGO, “Expositio Missæ” (Nuremberg, 1507); BECHOFFEN, “Quadruplex Missalis expositio” (Basle, 1515); DURANTI, “De ritibus ecclesiæ” (Cologne, 1592), III; BALDASSARI, “La sacra liturgia” (Venice, 1715); BENEDICT XIV (d. 1758), “De Sacrosancto Sacrificio Missæ,” Latin version by GIACOMELLI, ed. SCHNEIDER (Mainz, 1879), lib. III; BONA, “Rerum Liturgicarum” (Turin, 1763), lib. II; IDEM, “De Sacrificio Missæ” (Paris, 1846); MURATORI, “De rebus liturgicis dissertatio”: QUARTI, “Rubricæ Missalis Romani commentariis illustratæ” (Venice, 1727).

IV. MODERN WORKS.—PROBST. “Liturgie der drei ersten christl. Jahrhunderten” (Tübingen, 1870); IDEM, “Liturgie des IV. Jahrhunderts und deren Reform” (Munster, 1893); IDEM, “Die abendl, Messe vom V. bis zum VIII, Jahrhdt” (Munster, 1896); DUCHESNE, “Origines” (Paris, 1898); MAGANI, “L’antica liturgia romana” (3 vols., Milan, 1897); CABROL, “Origines liturgiques” (Paris, 1906); IDEM, “Le livre de la priere antique” (Paris, 1900), introduction; EBNER, “Quellen und Forschungen zur Gesch, und Kunstgesch des Missale Romanum im Mittelalter” (Freiburg im Br., 1896); EISENRING, “Das heilige Messopfer” (Einsiedeln, 1880); KNEIP, “Erklarung des heiligen Messopfers” (Ratisbon, 1876); SAUTER, “Das heilige Messopfer “(Paderborn, 1894); WALTER, “Die heilige Messe” (Brixen, 1881); WEICKUM, “Das heilige Messopfer” (Schaffhausen, 1865); LAMPRECHT, “De SS. Missæ Sacrificio” (Louvain, 1875); LEBRUN, “Explication . . . des prieres et des ceremonies de la Messe” (Lyons, 1860); COCHEM, “Erklarung des heiligen Messopfers” (Cologne, 1870); GIHR, “Das heilige Messopfer, dogmatisch liturgisch und ascetisch erklart” (6th ed., Freiburg im Br., 1897); KOSSING, “Liturgische Erklarung der heiligen Messe” (Ratisbon, 1869); VAN DER BURG, “Brevis elucidatio totius Missæ” (Tournai, 1860); HAZE, “De sensu cærimoniarum Missæ brevis expositio” (Brussels, 1869); BOURBON , “Introduction aux ceremonies Romaines” (Luçon, 1864); NOEL, “Instructions sur la Liturgie” (5 vols., Paris 1861); PATRONI, “Lezioni di s. Liturgia” (Naples, 1881); FLUCK, “Katholische Liturgik” (Ratisbon, 1853); DE HERDT, “Sacræ Liturgiæ Praxis “(7th ed., 3 vols., Louvain, 1883); DREWS, “Zur Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons in der rumischen Messe” (Tübingen and Leipzig, 1902); DRURY, “Elevation in the Eucharist”: its History and Rationale” (Cambridge, 1907), of no great value; BERNARD, “Cours de liturgie romaine” (Paris, 1884).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Canon of the Holy Scriptures

Canon of the Holy Scriptures

The word canon as applied to the Scriptures has long had a special and consecrated meaning. In its fullest comprehension it signifies the authoritative list or closed number of the writings composed under Divine inspiration, and destined for the well-being of the Church, using the latter word in the wide sense of the theocratic society which began with God’s revelation of Himself to the people of Israel, and which finds its ripe development and completion in the Catholic organism. The whole Biblical Canon therefore consists of the canons of the Old and New Testaments. The Greek kanon means primarily a reed, or measuring-rod; by a natural figure it was employed by ancient writers both profane and religious to denote a rule or standard. We find the substantive first applied to the Sacred Scriptures in the fourth century, by St. Athanasius; for its derivatives, the Council of Laodicea of the same period speaks of the kanonika biblia and Athanasius of the biblia kanonizomena. The latter phrase proves that the passive sense of canon, viz., that of a regulated and defined collection, was already in use, and this has remained the prevailing connotation of the word in ecclesiastical literature.

The terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical, of frequent usage among Catholic theologians and exegetes, require a word of caution. They are not felicitous, and it would be wrong to infer from them that the Church successively possessed two distinct Biblical Canons. Only in a partial and restricted way may we speak of a first and second Canon. Protocanonical (protos, “first”) is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews and the O. T. as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the O. T. are classed by Protestants as the “Apocrypha.” These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel. Some portions of the New Testament whose canonicity was formerly contested are sometimes styled the deuterocanonicals of the N. T. These are the. Epistle to the Hebrews, those of St. James and Jude, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of John, that of St. Jude, and the Apocalypse; also a few portions of books. The origin and history of the doubts concerning these writings will be considered in their place. Protocanonical and deuterocanonical are modern terms, not having been used before the sixteenth century. As they are of cumbersome length, the latter (being frequently used in this article) will be often found in the abbreviated form deutero.

The scope of an article on the sacred Canon may now be seen to be properly limited to an examination of (1) what may be ascertained regarding the process of the collection of the sacred writings into bodies or groups which from their very inception were the objects of a greater or less degree of veneration; (2) the circumstances and manner in which these collections were definitely canonized, or adjudged to have a uniquely Divine and authoritative quality; (3) the vicissitudes which certain compositions underwent in the opinions of individuals and localities before their Scriptural character was universally established. It is thus seen that canonicity is a correlative of inspiration, being the extrinsic dignity belonging to writings which have been officially declared as of sacred origin and authority. It is antecedently very probable that according as a book was written early or late it entered into a sacred collection and attained a canonical standing. Hence the views of traditionalist and critic (not implying that the tradionalist may not also be critical) on the Canon parallel, and are largely influenced by, their respective hypotheses on the origin of its component members.

I. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AMONG THE JEWS

It has already been intimated that there is a smaller, or incomplete, and a larger, or complete, Old Testament. Both of these were handed down by the Jews; the former by the Palestinian, the latter by the Alexandrian, or Hellenist, Jews; in consequence, this large topic must be subdivided:

(1) The Canon among the Palestinian Jews (Protocanonical Books)

The Jewish Bible of today is composed of three divisions, whose titles combined form the current Hebrew name for the complete Scriptures of Judaism: Hat-Torah, Nebiim, wa-Krthubim, i. e. The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. This triplication is ancient; it is supposed as long-established in the Mishnah, the Jewish code of unwritten sacred laws, reduced to writing c. A.D. 200. A grouping closely akin to it occurs in the N. T. in Christ’s own words, Luke, xxiv, 44: “All things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me.” Going back to the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, prefixed to it about 132 B.C., we find mentioned “the Law, and the Prophets, and others that have followed them.” The Torah, or Law, consists of the five Mosaic books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. The Prophets were subdivided by the Jews into the Former Prophets U. e. the prophetico-historical books: Josue, Judges, Samuel (I and II Kings), and Kings (III and IV Kings)] and the Latter Prophets (Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, and the twelve minor Prophets, counted by the He-brews as one book). The Writings, more generally known by a title borrowed from the Greek Fathers, Hagiographa (holy writings), embrace all the remaining books of the Hebrew Bible. Named in the order in which they stand in the current Hebrew text, these are: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticle of Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Esdras, Nehemias, or II Esdras, Paralipomenon.

(a) Traditional view of the Canon of the Palestinian Jews, or Proto-Canon.—In opposition to scholars of more recent views, conservatives do not admit that the Prophets and the Hagiographa represent two successive stages in the formation of the Palestinian Canon. According to this older school, the principle which dictated the separation between the Prophets and the Hagiographa was not of a chronological kind, but one found in the very nature of the respective sacred compositions. That literature was grouped under the Kethubim, or Hagiographa, which neither was the direct product of the prophetical order, namely, that comprised in the Latter Prophets, nor contained the history of Israel as interpreted by the same prophetic teachers—narratives classed as the Former Prophets. The Book of Daniel was relegated to the Hagiographa as a work of the prophetic gift indeed, but not of the permanent prophetic office. These same conservative students of the Canon—now scarcely represented outside the Church—maintain, for the reception of the documents composing these groups into the sacred literature of the Israelites, dates which are in general much earlier than those admitted by critics. They place the practical, if not formal, completion of the Palestinian Canon in the era of Esdras (Ezra) and Nehemias, about the middle of the fifth century B.C., while, true to their adhesion to a Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, they insist that the canonization of the five books followed soon after their composition.

Since the traditionalists infer the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch from other sources, they can rely for proof of an early collection of these books chiefly on Deuteronomy, xxxi, 9–13, 24–26, where there is question of a book of the law, delivered by Moses to the priests with the command to keep it in the ark and read it to the people on the feast of Tabernacles. But the effort to identify this book with the entire Pentateuch is not convincing to the opponents of Mosaic authorship.

The Remaining Books.—The Completion of the Palestinian-Jewish Canon.—Without being positive on the subject, the advocates of the older views regard it as highly probable that several additions were made to the sacred repertory between the canonization of the Mosaic Torah above described and the Exile (598 B.C.). They cite especially Isaias, xxxiv, 16; II Paralipomenon, xxix, 30; Proverbs, xxv, 1; Daniel, ix, 2. For the period following the Babylonian Exile the conservative argument takes a more confident tone. This was an era of construction, a turning-point in the history of Israel. The completion of the Jewish Canon, by the addition of the Prophets and Hagiographa as bodies to the Law, is attributed by conservatives to Esdras, the priest-scribe and religious leader of the period, abetted by Nehemias, the civil governor; or at least to a school of scribes founded by the former. (Cf. II Esdras, viii—x; II Machabees, ii, 13, in the Greek original.) Far more arresting in favor of an Esdrine formulation of the Hebrew Bible is the much-discussed passage from Josephus, “Contra Apionem,” I, viii, in which the Jewish historian, writing about A.D. 100, registers his conviction and that of his coreligionists—a conviction presumably based on tradition—that the Scriptures of the Palestinian Hebrews formed a closed and sacred collection from the days of the Persian king, Artaxerxes Longimanus (465–25 B.C.), a contemporary of Esdras. Josephus is the earliest writer who numbers the books of the Jewish Bible. In its present arrangement this contains 40; Josephus arrived at 22 artificially, in order to match the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, by means of collocations and combinations borrowed in part from the Septuagint. The conservative exegetes find a confirmatory argument in a statement of the apocryphal Fourth Book of Esdras (xiv, 18–47), under whose legendary envelope they see an historical truth, and a further one in a reference in the Baba Bathra tract of the Babylonian Talmud to hagiographic activity on the part of “the men of the Great Synagogue,” and Esdras and Nehemias.

But the Catholic Scripturists who admit an Esdrine Canon are far from allowing that Esdras and his colleagues intended to so close up the sacred library as to bar any possible future accessions. The Spirit of God might and did breathe into later writings, and the presence of the deuterocanonical books in the Church’s Canon at once forestalls and answers those Protestant theologians of a preceding generation who claimed that Esdras was a Divine agent for an inviolable fixing and sealing of the O. T. To this extent at least, Catholic writers on the subject dissent from the drift of the Josephus testimony. And while there is what may be called a consensus of Catholic exegetes of the conservative type on an Esdrine or quasi-Esdrine formulation of the canon so far as the existing material permitted it, this agreement is not absolute; Kaulen and Danko, favoring a later completion, are the notable exceptions among the above-mentioned scholars.

(b) Critical views of the formation of the Palestinian Canon.—Its three constituent bodies, the Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa, represent a growth and correspond to three periods more or less extended. The reason for the isolation of the Hagiographa from the Prophets was therefore mainly chronological. The only division marked off clearly by intrinsic features is the legal element of the O. T., viz., the Pentateuch.

The Torah, or Law.—Until the reign of King Josias, and the epoch-making discovery of “the book of the law” in the Temple (621 B.C.), say the critical exegetes, there was in Israel no written code of laws, or other work, universally acknowledged as of supreme and Divine authority. This “book of the law” was practically identical with Deuteronomy, and its recognition or canonization consisted in the solemn pact entered into by Josias and the people of Juda, described in IV Kings, xxiii. That a written sacred Torah was previously unknown among the Israelites, is demonstrated by the negative evidence of the earlier prophets, by the absence of any such factor from the religious reform undertaken by Ezechias (Hezekiah), while it was the mainspring of that carried out by Josias, and lastly by the plain surprise and consternation of the latter ruler at the finding of such a work. This argument, in fact, is the pivot of the current system of Pentateuchal criticism, and will be developed more at length in the article on the Pentateuch, as also the thesis attacking the Mosaic authorship and promulgation of the latter as a whole. The actual publication of the entire Mosaic code, according to the dominant hypothesis, did not occur until the days of Esdras, and is narrated in chapters viii—x of the second book bearing that name. In this connection must be mentioned the argument from the Samaritan Pentateuch to establish that the Esdrine Canon took in nothing beyond the Hexateuch, i.e. the Pentateuch plus Josue. (See Pentateuch; Samaritans.)

The Nebiim, or Prophets.—There is no direct light upon the time or manner in which the second stratum of the Hebrew Canon was finished. The creation of the above-mentioned Samaritan Canon (c. 432 B.C.) may furnish a terminus a quo; perhaps a better one is the date of the expiration of prophecy about the close of the fifth century before Christ. For the other terminus the lowest possible date is that of the prologue to Ecclesiasticus (c. 132 B.C.), which speaks of “the Law, and the Prophets, and the others that have followed them.” But compare Ecclesiasticus itself, chapters xlvi—xlix, for an earlier one.

The Kethubim, or Hagiographa Completion of the Jewish Canon.—Critical opinion as to date ranges from c. 165 B.C. to the middle of the second century of our era (Wildeboer). The Catholic scholars Jahn, Movers, Nickes, Danko, Haneberg, Aicher, without sharing all the views of the advanced exegetes, regard the Hebrew Hagiographa as not definitely settled till after Christ. It is an incontestable fact that the sacredness of certain parts of the Palestinian Bible (Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles) was disputed by some rabbis as late as the second century of the Christian Era (Mishna, Yadaim, III, 5; Babylonian Talmud, Megilla, fol. 7). However differing as to dates, the critics are assured that the distinction between the Hagiographa and the Prophetic Canon was one essentially chronological. It was because the Prophets already formed a sealed collection that Ruth, Lamentations, and Daniel, though naturally belonging to it, could not gain entrance, but had to take their place with the last-formed division, the Kethubim.

The Protocanonical Books and the New Testament.—The absence of any citations from Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles may be reasonably explained by their unsuitability for N. T. purposes, and is further discounted by the non-citation of the two books of Esdras. Abdias, Nahum, and Sophonias, while not directly honored, are included in the quotations from the other minor Prophets by virtue of the traditional unity of that collection. On the one hand, such frequent terms as “the Scripture,” the “Scriptures,” “the holy Scriptures,” applied in the N. T. to the older sacred writings, would lead us to believe that the latter already formed a definite fixed collection; but, on the other, the reference in St. Luke to “the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms,” while demonstrating the fixity of the Torah and the Prophets as sacred groups, does not warrant us in ascribing the same fixity to the third division, the Palestinian-Jewish Hagiographa. If, as seems certain, the exact content of the broader catalogue of the O. T. Scriptures (that comprising the deutero books) cannot be established from the N. T., a fortiori there is no reason to expect that it should reflect the precise extension of the narrower and Judaistic Canon. We are sure, of course, that all the Hagiographa were eventually, before the death of the last Apostle, divinely committed to the Church as Holy Scriptures, but we know this as a truth of faith, and by theological deduction, not from documentary evidence in the N. T. The latter fact has a bearing against the Protestant claim that Jesus approved and transmitted en bloc an already defined Bible of the Palestinian Synagogue.

Authors and Standards of Canonicity among the Jews: Though the O. T. reveals no formal notion of inspiration, the later Jews at least must have possessed the idea (cf. II Timothy, iii, 16; II Peter, i, 21). There is an instance of a Talmudic doctor distinguishing between a composition “given by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit” and one supposed to be the product of merely human wisdom. But as to our distinct concept of canonicity, it is a modern idea, and even the Talmud gives no evidence of it. To characterize a book which held an acknowledged place in the divine library, the rabbis spoke of it as “defiling the hands,” a curious technical expression due probably to the desire to prevent any profane touching of the sacred roll. But though the formal idea of canonicity was wanting among the Jews the fact existed. Regarding the sources of canonicity among the Hebrew ancients, we are left to surmise an analogy. There are both psychological and historical reasons against the supposition that the O. T. Canon grew spontaneously by a kind of instinctive public recognition of inspired books. True, it is quite reasonable to assume that the prophetic office in Israel carried its own credentials, which in a large measure extended to its written compositions. But there were many pseudo-prophets in the nation, and so some authority was necessary to draw the line between the true and the false prophetical writings. And an ultimate tribunal was also needed to set its seal upon the miscellaneous and in some cases mystifying literature embraced in the Hagiographa. Jewish tradition, as illustrated by the already cited Josephus, Baba Bathra, and pseudo-Esdras data, points to authority as the final arbiter of what was Scriptural and what not. The so-called Council of Jamnia (c. A.D. 90) has reasonably been taken as having terminated the disputes between rival rabbinic schools concerning the canonicity of Canticles. So while the intuitive sense and increasingly reverent consciousness of the faithful element of Israel could, and presumably did, give a general impulse and direction to authority, we must conclude that it was the word of official authority which actually fixed the limits of the Hebrew Canon, and here, broadly speaking, the advanced and conservative exegetes meet on common ground. However the case may have been for the Prophets, the preponderance of evidence favors a late period as that in which the Hagiographa were closed, a period when the general body of Scribes dominated Judaism, sitting “in the chair of Moses,” and alone having the authority and prestige for such action. The term general body of Scribes has been used advisedly; contemporary scholars gravely suspect, when they do not entirely reject, the “Great Synagogue” of rabbinic tradition, and the matter lay outside the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin. As a touchstone by which uncanonical and canonical works were discriminated, an important influence was that of the Pentateuchal Law. This was always the Canon par excellence of the Israelites. To the Jews of the Middle Ages the Torah was the inner sanctuary, or Holy of Holies, while the Prophets were the Holy Place, and the Kethubim only the outer court of the Biblical temple, and this medieval conception finds ample basis in the preeminence allowed to the Law by the rabbis of the Talmudic age. Indeed, from Esdras downwards the Law, as the oldest portion of the Canon, and the formal expression of God’s commands, received the highest reverence. The Cabbalists of the second century after Christ, and later schools, regarded the other section of the O. T. as merely the expansion and interpretation of the Pentateuch. We may be sure, then, that the chief test of canonicity, at least for the Hagiographa, was conformity with the Canon par excellence, the Pentateuch. It is evident, in addition, that no book was admitted which had not been composed in Hebrew, and did not possess the antiquity and prestige of a classic age, or name at least. These criteria are negative and exclusive rather than directive. The impulse of religious feeling or liturgical usage must have been the prevailing positive factors in the decision. But the negative tests were in part arbitrary, and an intuitive sense cannot give the assurance of Divine certification. Only later was the infallible Voice to come, and then it was to declare that the Canon of the Synagogue, though unadulterated indeed, was incomplete.

(2) The Canon among the Alexandrian Jews (Deutero-canonical Books)

The most striking difference between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles is the presence in the former of a number of writings which are wanting in the latter and also in the Hebrew Bible, which became the O. T. of Protestantism. These number seven books: Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I and II Machabees, and three documents added to protocanonical books, viz., the supplement to Esther, from x, 4, to the end, the Canticle of the Three Youths (Song of the Three Children) in Daniel, iii, and the stories of Susanna and the Elders and Bel and the Dragon, forming the closing chapters of the Catholic version of that book. Of these works, Tobias and Judith were written originally in Aramaic, perhaps in Hebrew; Baruch and I Machabees in Hebrew, while Wisdom and II Machabees were certainly composed in Greek. The probabilities favor Hebrew as the original language of the addition to Esther, and Greek for the enlargements of Daniel.

The ancient Greek Old Testament known as the Septuagint was the vehicle which conveyed these additional Scriptures into the Catholic Church. The Septuagint version was the Bible of the Greek-speaking, or Hellenist, Jews, whose intellectual and literary center was Alexandria (see Septuagint Version). The oldest extant copies date from the fourth and fifth centuries of our era, and were therefore made by Christian hands; nevertheless scholars generally admit that these faithfully represent the O. T. as it was current among the Hellenist or Alexandrian Jews in the age immediately preceding Christ. These venerable MSS. of the Septuagint vary somewhat in their content outside the Palestinian Canon, showing that in Alexandrian-Jewish circles the number of admissible extra books was not sharply determined either by tradition or by authority. However, aside from the absence of Machabees from the Codex Vaticanus (the very oldest copy of the Greek O. T.), all the entire MSS. contain all the deutero writings; where the manuscript Septuagints differ from one another, with the exception noted, it is in a certain excess above the deuterocanonical books. It is a significant fact that in all these Alexandrian Bibles the traditional Hebrew order is broken up by the interspersion of the additional literature among the other books, outside the Law, thus asserting for the extra writings a substantial equality of rank and privilege.

It is pertinent to ask the motives which impelled the Hellenist Jews to thus, virtually at least, canonize this considerable section of literature, some of it very recent, and depart so radically from the Palestinian tradition. Some would have it that not the Alexandrian, but the Palestinian, Jews departed from the Biblical tradition. The Catholic writers Nickes, Movers, Danko, and more recently Kaulen and Mullen, have advocated the view that originally the Palestinian Canon must have included all the deuterocanonicals, and so stood down to the time of the Apostles (Kaulen, c. 100 B.C.), when, moved by the fact that the Septuagint had become the O. T. of the Church, it was put under ban by the Jerusalem Scribes, who were actuated moreover (thus especially Kaulen) by hostility to the Hellenistic largeness of spirit and Greek composition of our deuterocanonical books. . These exegetes place much reliance on St. Justin Martyr’s statement that the Jews had mutilated Holy Writ, a statement that rests on no positive evidence. They adduce’ the fact that certain deutero books were quoted with veneration, and even in a few cases as Scripture, by Palestinian or Babylonian doctors; but the private utterances of a few rabbis cannot outweigh the consistent Hebrew tradition of the canon, attested by Josephus—although he himself was inclined to Hellenism—and even by the Alexandrian-Jewish author of IV Esdras. We are therefore forced to admit that the leaders of Alexandrian Judaism showed a notable independence of Jerusalem tradition and authority in permitting the sacred boundaries of the Canon, which certainly had been fixed for the Prophets, to be broken by the insertion of an enlarged Daniel and the Epistle of Baruch. On the assumption that the limits of the Palestinian Hagiographa remained undefined until a relatively late date, there was less bold innovation in the addition of the other books, but the wiping out of the lines of the triple division reveals that the Hellenists were ready to extend the Hebrew Canon, if not establish a new official one of their own.

On their human side these innovations are to be accounted for by the free spirit of the Hellenist Jews. Under the influence of Greek thought they had conceived a broader view of Divine inspiration than that of their Palestinian brethren, and refused to restrict the literary manifestations of the Holy Ghost to a certain terminus of time and the Hebrew form of language. The Book of Wisdom, emphatically Hellenist in character, presents to us Divine wisdom as flowing on from generation to generation and making holy souls and prophets (vii, 27, in the Greek). Philo, a typical Alexandrian-Jewish thinker, has even an exaggerated notion of the diffusion of inspiration (Quis rerum divinarum hmres, 52; ed. Lips., iii, 57; De migratione Abrahae, 11,299; ed. Lips. ii, 334). But even Philo, while indicating acquaintance with the deutero literature, nowhere cites it in his voluminous writings. True; he does not employ several books of the Hebrew Canon; but there is a natural presumption that if he had regarded the additional works as being quite on the same plane as the others, he would not have failed to quote so stimulating and congenial a production as the Book of Wisdom. Moreover, as has been pointed out Loy several authorities, the independent spirit of the Hellenists could not have gone so far as to setup a different official Canon from that of Jerusalem, without having left historical traces of such a rupture. So, from the available data we may justly infer that, while the deuterocanonicals were admitted as sacred by the Alexandrian Jews, they possessed a lower degree of sanctity and authority than the longer accepted books, i.e. the Palestinian Hagiographa and the Prophets, themselves inferior to the Law.

II. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the O. T. its catalogue reads as follows: “The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.” The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is that of the Septuagint. The divergence of titles from those found in the Protestant versions is due to the fact that the official Latin Vulgate retained the forms of the Septuagint.

(1) The O. T. Canon (including the deuteros) in the N. T.

The Tridentine decree from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. Being dogmatic in its purport, it implies that the Apostles bequeathed the same Canon to the Church, as a part of the depositum fidei. But this was not done by way of any formal decision; we should search the pages of the N. T. in vain for any trace of such action. The larger Canon of the O. T. passed through the Apostles’ hands to the Church tacitly, by way of their usage and whole attitude toward its components; an attitude which, for most of the sacred writings of the Old Testament, reveals itself in the New, and for the rest, must have exhibited itself in oral utterances, or at least in tacit approval of the special reverence of the faithful. Reasoning backward from the status in which we find the deutero books in the earliest ages of post-Apostolic Christianity, we rightly affirm that such a status points to Apostolic sanction, which in turn must have rested on revelation either by Christ or the Holy Spirit. For the deuterocanonicals at least, we needs must have recourse to this legitimate prescriptive argument, owing to the complexity and inadequacy of the N. T. data.

All the books of the Hebrew Old Testament are cited in the New except those which have been aptly called the Antilegomena of the O. T., viz., Esther Ecclesiastes, and Canticles; moreover Esdras and Nehemias are not employed. The admitted absence of any explicit citation of the deutero writings does not therefore prove that they were regarded as inferior to the above-mentioned works in the eyes of N. T. personages and authors. The deutero literature was in general unsuited to their purposes, and some consideration should be given to the fact that even at its Alexandrian home it was not quoted by Jewish writers, as we saw in the case of Philo. The negative argument drawn from the non-citation of the deuterocanonicals in the N. T. is especially minimized by the indirect use made of them by the same Testament. This takes the form of allusions and reminiscences, and shows unquestionably that the Apostles and Evangelists were acquainted with the Alexandrian increment, regarded its books as at least respectable sources, and wrote more or less under its influence. A comparison of Hebrews, xi and II Machabees, vi and vii reveals unmistakable references in the former to the heroism of the martyrs glorified in the latter. There are close affinities of thought, and in some cases also of language, between I Peter, i, 6, 7, and Wisdom, iii, 5, 6; Hebrews, i, 3, and Wisdom, vii, 26, 27; I Corinthians, x, 9, 10, and Judith, viii, 24–25; I Corinthians, vi, 13, and Ecclesiasticus, xxxvi, 20.

Yet the force of the direct and indirect employment of O. T. writings by the New is slightly impaired by the disconcerting truth that at least one of the N. T. authors, St. Jude, quotes explicitly from the “Book of Henoch,” long universally recognized as apocryphal, see verse 14, while in verse 9 he borrows from another apocryphal narrative, the “Assumption of Moses.” Concerning the use of apocrypha in the N. T. cf. Wildeboer, “Origin of the Canon of the O. T., Par. 5.” The N. T. quotations from the Old are in general characterized by a freedom and elasticity regarding manner and source which further tend to diminish their weight as proofs of canonicity. But so far as concerns the great majority of the Palestinian Hagiographa—a fortiori, the Pentateuch and Prophets—whatever want of conclusiveness there may be in the N. T., evidence of their canonical standing is abundantly supplemented from Jewish sources alone, in the series of witnesses beginning with the Mishnah and running back through Josephus and Philo to the translation of the above books for the Hellenist Greeks. But for the deuterocanonical literature, only the last testimony speaks as a Jewish confirmation. However, there are signs that the Greek version was not deemed by its readers as a closed Bible of definite sacredness in all its parts, but that its somewhat variable contents shaded off in the eyes of the Hellenists from the eminently sacred Law down to works of questionable divinity, such as III Machabees.

This factor should be considered in weighing a certain argument. A large number of Catholic authorities see a canonization of the deuteros in a supposed wholesale adoption and approval, by the Apostles, of the Greek, and therefore larger, O. T. The argument is not without a certain force; the N. T. undoubtedly shows a preference for’ the Septuagint; out of about 350 texts from the O. T., 300 favor the language of the Greek version rather than that of the Hebrew. But there are considerations which bid us hesitate to admit an Apostolic adoption of the Septuagint en bloc. As remarked above, there are cogent reasons for believing that it was not a fixed quantity at the time. The existing oldest representative MSS. are not entirely identical in the books they contain. Moreover, it should be remembered that at the beginning of our era, and for some time later, complete sets of any such voluminous collection as the Septuagint in manuscript would be extremely rare; the version must have been current in separate books or groups of books, a condition favorable to a certain variability of compass. So neither a fluctuating Septuagint nor an inexplicit N. T. conveys to us the exact extension of the pre-Christian Bible transmitted by the Apostles to the Primitive Church. It is more tenable to conclude to a selective process under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and a process completed so late in Apostolic times that the N. T. fails to reflect its mature result regarding either the number or note of sanctity of the extra-Palestinian books admitted. To historically learn the Apostolic Canon of the O. T. we must interrogate less sacred but later documents, expressing more explicitly the belief of the first ages of Christianity.

(2) The Canon of the O. T. in the Church of the first three centuries

The sub-Apostolic writings of Clement, Polycarp, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, of the pseudo-Clementine homilies, and the “Shepherd” of Hermas, contain implicit quotations from, or allusions to, all the deuterocanonicals except Baruch (which anciently was often united with Jeremias) and I Machabees and the additions to Daniel. No unfavorable argument can be drawn from the loose, implicit character of these citations, since these Apostolic Fathers quote the protocanonical Scriptures in precisely the same manner. For details of these testimonies see Loisy, “Canon de l’Ancien Testament,” pp. 71–72.

Coming down to the next age, that of the apologists, we find Baruch cited by Athenagoras as a prophet. St. Justin Martyr is the first to note that the Church has a set of O. T. Scriptures different from the Jews, and also the earliest to intimate the principle proclaimed by later writers, namely, the self-sufficiency of the Church in establishing the Canon; its independence of the Synagogue in this respect. The full realization of this truth came slowly, at least in the Orient, where there are indications that in certain quarters the spell of Palestinian-Jewish tradition was not fully cast off for some time. St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the O. T. While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito’s Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther. It should be noticed, however, that the document to which this catalogue was prefixed is capable of being understood as having an anti-Jewish polemical purpose, in which case Melito’s restricted canon is explicable on another ground (see Comely, Introductio, I, 75 sqq.). St. Irenaeus, always a witness of the first rank, on account of his broad acquaintance with ecclesiastical tradition, vouches that Baruch was deemed on the same footing as Jeremias, and that the narratives of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon were ascribed to Daniel. The Alexandrian tradition is represented by the weighty authority of Origen. Influenced, doubtless, by the Alexandrian-Jewish usage of acknowledging in practice the extra writings as sacred while theoretically holding to the narrower Canon of Palestine, his catalogue of the O. T. Scriptures contains only the protocanonical books, though it follows the order of the Septuagint. Nevertheless Origen employs all the deuterocanonicals as Divine Scriptures, and in his letter to Julius Africanus defends the sacredness of Tobias, Judith, and the fragments of Daniel; at the same time implicitly asserting the autonomy of the Church in fixing the Canon (see references in Comely): In his Hexapiar edition of the O. T. all the deuteros find a place. The sixth-century Biblical MS. known as the “Codex Claromontanus” contains a catalogue to which both Harnack and Zahn assign an Alexandrian origin, about contemporary with Origen. At any rate it dates from the period under examination and comprises all the deuterocanonical books, with IV Machabees besides. St. Hippolytus (d. 236) may fairly be considered as representing the primitive Roman tradition. He comments on the Susanna chapter, often quotes Wisdom as the work of Solomon, and employs as Sacred Scripture Baruch and the Machabees. For the West African Church the larger canon has two strong witnesses in Tertullian and St. Cyprian. All the deuteros except Tobias, Judith, and the addition to Esther, are Biblically used in the works of these Fathers. (With regard to the employment of apocryphal writings in this age see under Apocrypha.)

(3) The Canon of the O. T. during the fourth, and first half of the fifth, century

In this period the position of the deuterocanonical literature is no longer as secure as in the primitive age. The doubts which arose should be attributed largely to a reaction against the apocryphal or pseudo-Biblical writings with which the East especially had been flooded by heretical and other writers. Negatively, the situation became possible through the absence of any Apostolic or ecclesiastical definition of the Canon. The definite and inalterable determination of the sacred sources, like that of all Catholic doctrines, was in the Divine economy left to gradually work itself out under the, stimulus of questionings and opposition. Alexandria, with its elastic Scriptures, had from the beginning been a congenial field for apocryphal literature, and St. Athanasius, the vigilant pastor of that flock, to protect it against the pernicious influence, drew up a catalogue of books with the values to be attached to each. First, the strict canon and authoritative source of truth is the Jewish O. T., Esther excepted. Besides, there are certain books which the Fathers had appointed to be read to catechumens for edification and instruction; these are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Esther, Judith, Tobias, the Didache, or Doctrine of the Apostles, the Shepherd of Herman. All others are apocrypha and the inventions of heretics (Festal Epistle for 367). Following the precedent of Origen and the Alexandrian tradition, the saintly doctor recognized no other formal canon of the O. T. than the Hebrew one; but also, faithful to the same tradition, he practically admitted the deutero books to a Scriptural dignity, as is evident from his general usage. At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavorable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favorable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek MSS. of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases certain apocrypha.

The influence of Origen’s and Athanasius’s restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them “ecclesiastical” books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavorable to the disputed books. In appreciating his attitude we must remember that Jerome lived long in Palestine, in an environment where everything outside the Jewish Canon was suspect, and that, moreover, he had an excessive veneration for the Hebrew text, the Hebraica veritas as he called it. In his famous “Prologus Galeatus,” or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith are not on the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine. An analysis of Jerome’s expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their reading in public worship. Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the “confirmation of the doctrine of the Church,” to borrow Jerome’s phrase.

But while eminent scholars and theorists were thus depreciating the additional writings, the official attitude of the Latin Church, always favorable to them, kept the majestic tenor of its way. Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius,” de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. The African Church, always a stanch supporter of the contested books, found itself in entire accord with Rome on this question. Its ancient version, the Vetus Latina (less correctly the Itala), had admitted all the O. T. Scriptures. St. Augustine seems to theoretically recognize ‘degrees of inspiration; in practice he employs protos and deuteros without any discrimination whatsoever. Moreover in his “De Doctrina Christiana” he enumerates the components of the complete O. T. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded. These councils base their canon on tradition and liturgical usage. For the Spanish Church valuable testimony is found in the work of the heretic Priscillian, “Liber de Fide et Apocryphis”; it supposes a sharp line existing between canonical and uncanonical works, and that the Canon takes in all the deuteron:

(4) The Canon of the O. T. from the middle of the fifth to the close of the seventh century

This period exhibits a curious exchange of opinions between the West and the East, while ecclesiastical usage remained unchanged, at least in the Latin Church. During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the O. T. (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity. On the other hand, the Oriental Church imported a Western authority which had canonized the disputed books, viz., the decree of Carthage, and from this time there is an increasing tendency among the Greeks to place the deuteros on the same level with the others—a tendency, however, due more to forgetfulness of the old distinctions than to deference to the Council of Carthage.

(5) The Canon of the O. T. during the Middle Ages

(a) In the Greek Church

The result of this tendency among the Greeks was that about the beginning of the twelfth century they possessed a canon identical with that of the Latins, except that it took in the apocryphal III Machabees. That all the deuteros were liturgically recognized in the Greek Church at the era of the schism in the ninth century, is indicated by the “Syntagma Canonum” of Photius.

(b) In the Latin Church

All through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavorable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among these we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologue. The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred Iearning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. And yet these doubts must be regarded as more or less academic. The countless MS. copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete O. T. Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the O. T. There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom. As to Roman authority, the catalogue of Innocent I appears in the collection of ecclesiastical canons sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne, and adopted in 802 as the law of the Church in the Frankish Empire; Nicholas I, writing in 865 to the bishops of France, appeals to the same decree of Innocent as the ground on which all the sacred books are to be received.

(6) The Canon of the O. T. and the general councils

(a) In the Council of Florence

In 1442, during the life, and with the approval, of this Council, Eugenius IV issued several Bulls, or decrees, with a view to restore the Oriental schismatic bodies to communion with Rome, and according to the common teaching of theologians these documents are infallible statements of doctrine. The “Decretum pro Jacobitis” contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their eanonicity.

(b) In the Council of Trent; Definition of the Canon, 1546

It was the exigencies of controversy that first led Luther to draw a sharp line between the books of the Hebrew Canon and the Alexandrian writings. In his disputation with Eck at Leipzig, in 1519, when his opponent urged the well-known text from II Machabees in proof of the doctrine of purgatory, Luther replied that the passage had no binding authority since the book was outside the Canon. In the first edition of Luther’s Bible, 1534, the deuteros were relegated, as apocrypha, to a separate place between the two Testaments. To meet this radical departure of the Protestants, and as well define clearly the inspired sources from which the Catholic Faith draws its defense, the Council of Trent among its first acts solemnly declared as “sacred and canonical” all the books of the Old and New Testaments “with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the churches, and as found in the ancient vulgate edition.” During the deliberations of the Council there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scriptures. Neither—and this is remarkable—in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod. The Council of Trent did not enter into an examination of the fluctuations in the history of the Canon. Neither did it trouble itself about questions of authorship or character of contents. True to the practical genius of the Latin Church, it based its decision on immemorial tradition as manifested in the decrees of previous councils and popes, and liturgical reading, relying on traditional teaching and usage to determine a question of tradition. The Tridentine catalogue has been given above.—(c) In the Vatican Council, 1870.—The great constructive Synod of Trent had put the sacredness and canonicity of the whole traditional Bible forever beyond the permissibility of doubt on the part of Catholics. By implication it had defined that Bible’s plenary inspiration also. The Vatican Council took occasion of a recent error on inspiration to remove any lingering shadow of uncertainty on this head; it formally ratified the action of Trent and explicitly defined the Divine inspiration of all the books with their parts.

III. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

(1) Among Oriental Schismatics

The Greek Orthodox Church preserved its ancient Canon in practice as well as theory until recent times, when, under the dominant influence of its Russian offshoot, it is shifting its attitude towards the deuterocanonical Scriptures. The rejection of these books by the Russian theologians and authorities is a lapse which began early in the eighteenth century (cf. “Revue biblique,” April, 1901). The Monophysites, Nestorians, Jacobites, Armenians, and Copts, while concerning themselves little with the Canon, admit the complete catalogue and several apocrypha besides.

(2) Among Protestants

The Protestant Churches have continued to exclude the deutero writings from their canons, classifying them as “Apocrypha.” Presbyterians and Calvinists in general, especially since the Westminster Synod of 1648, have been the most uncompromising enemies of any recognition, and owing to their influence the British and Foreign Bible Society decided in 1826 to refuse to distribute Bibles containing the Apocrypha. Since that time the publication of the deuterocanonicals as an appendix to Protestant Bibles has almost entirely ceased in English-speaking countries. The books still supply lessons for the liturgy of the Church of England, but the number has been lessened by the hostile agitation. There is an Apocrypha appendix to the British Revised Version, in a separate volume. The deuteros are still appended to the German Bibles printed under the auspices of the orthodox Lutherans.

IV. THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Catholic N. T., as defined by the Council of Trent, does not differ, as regards the books contained, from that of all Christian bodies at present. Like the O. T., the New has its deuterocanonical books and portions of books, their canonicity having formerly been a subject of some controversy in the Church. These are for the entire books: the Epistle to the Hebrews that of James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of John, Jude, and Apocalypse; giving seven in all as the number of the N. T. contested books. The formerly disputed passages are three: the closing section of St. Mark’s Gospel, xvi, 9–20 about the apparitions of Christ after the Resurrection; the verses in Luke about the bloody sweat of Jesus, xxii, 43, 44; the Pericope Adulterae, or narrative of the woman taken in adultery, St. John, vii, 53 to viii, 11. Since the Council of Trent it is not permitted for a Catholic to question the inspiration of these passages.

(1) The formation of the New Testament Canon; c. A.D. 100–220

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the N. T. existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.

(a) The witness of the N. T. to itself: The first collections.—Those writings which possessed the unmistakable stamp and guarantee of Apostolic origin must from the very first have been specially prized and venerated, and their copies eagerly sought by local Churches and individual Christians of means, in preference to the narratives and Logia, or Sayings of Christ, coming from less authorized sources. Already in the N. T. itself there is some evidence of a certain diffusion of canonical books: II Peter, iii, 15, 16, supposes its readers to be acquainted with some of St. Paul’s Epistles; St. John’s Gospel implicitly presupposes the existence of the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). There are no indications in the N. T. of a systematic plan for the distribution of the Apostolic compositions, any more than there is of a definite new Canon bequeathed by the Apostles to the Church, or of a strong self-witness to Divine inspiration. Nearly all the N. T. writings were evoked by particular occasions, or addressed to particular destinations. But we may well presume that each of the leading Churches—Antioch, Thessalonica, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome—sought by exchanging with other Christian communities to add to its special treasure, and have publicly read in its religious assemblies all Apostolic writings which came under its knowledge. It was doubtless in this way that the collections grew, and reached completeness within certain limits, but a considerable number of years must have elapsed (and that counting from the composition of the latest book) before all the widely separated Churches of early Christendom possessed the new sacred literature in full. And this want of an organized distribution, secondarily to the absence of an early fixation of the Canon, left room for variations and doubts which lasted far into the centuries. But evidence will presently be given that from days touching on those of the last Apostles there were two well defined bodies of sacred writings of the N. T., which constituted the firm, irreducible, universal minimum, and the nucleus of its complete Canon: these were the Four Gospels, as the Church now has them, and thirteen Epistles of St. Paul—the Evangelium and the Apostolicum.

(b) The principle of canonicity.—Before entering into the historical proof for this primitive emergence of a compact, nucleative Canon, it is pertinent to briefly examine this problem: During the formative period what principle operated in the selection of the N. T. writings and their recognition as Divine?—Theologians are divided on this point. The view that Apostolicity was the test of the inspiration during the building up of the N. T. Canon, is favored by the many instances where the early Fathers base the authority of a book on its Apostolic origin, and by the truth that the definitive placing of the contested books on the N. T. catalogue coincided with their general acceptance as of Apostolic authorship. Moreover, the advocates of this hypothesis point out that the Apostles’ office corresponded with that of the Prophets of the Old Law, inferring that as inspiration was attached to the munus propheticum so the Apostles were aided by Divine inspiration whenever in the exercise of their calling they either spoke or wrote. Positive arguments are deduced from the N. T. to establish that a permanent prophetical charisma (see Charismata) was enjoyed by the Apostles through. a special indwelling of the Holy Ghost, beginning with Pentecost: Matth., x, 19, 20; Acts, xv, 28; I Cor., ii, 13; II Cor., xiii, 3; I Thess., ii, 13, are cited. The opponents of this theory allege against it that the Gospels of Mark and of Luke and Acts were not the work of Apostles (however, tradition connects the Second Gospel with St. Peter’s preaching and St. Luke’s with St. Paul’s); that books current under an Apostle’s name in the Early Church, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of St. Peter, were nevertheless excluded from canonical rank, while on the other hand Origen and St. Dionysius of Alexandria in the case of Apocalypse, and St. Jerome in the case of II and III John, although questioning the Apostolic authorship of these works, unhesitatingly received them as Sacred Scriptures. An objection of a speculative kind is derived from the very nature of inspiration ad scribendum, which seems to demand a specific impulse from the Holy Ghost in each case, and preclude the theory that it could be possessed as a permanent gift, or charisma. The weight of Catholic theological opinion is deservedly against mere Apostolicity as a sufficient criterion of inspiration. This adverse view has been taken by Franzelin (De Divina, Traditione et Scripture, 1882), Schmid (De Inspirations Bibliorum Vi et Ratione, 1885), Crets (De Divine, Bibliorum Inspiration, 1886), Leitner (Die prophetische Inspiration, 1895—a monograph), Pesch (De Inspiratione Sacrie Scriptures, 1906). These authors (some of whom treat the matter more speculatively than historically) admit that Apostolicity is a positive and partial touchstone of inspiration, but emphatically deny that it was exclusive, in the sense that all non-Apostolic works were by that very fact barred from the sacred Canon of the N. T. They hold to doctrinal tradition as the true criterion.

Catholic champions of Apostolicity as a criterion are: Ubaldi (Introductio in Sacram Scripturam, II, 1876); Schanz (in Theologische Quartalschrift, 1885, pp. 666 sqq., and A Christian Apology, II, tr. 1891); Szekely (Hermeneutica Biblica, 1902). Recently Professor Batiffol, while rejecting the claims of these latter advocates, has enunciated a theory regarding the principle that presided over the formation of the N. T. Canon which challenges attention and perhaps marks a new stage in the controversy. According to Monsignor Batiffol, the Gospel (i.e. the words and acommandments of Jesus Christ) bore with it its own sacredness and authority from the very beginning. This Gospel was announced to the world at large by the Apostles and Apostolic disciples of Christ, and this message, whether spoken or written, whether taking the form of an evangelic narrative or epistle, was holy and supreme by the fact of containing the Word of Our Lord. Accordingly, for the primitive Church, evangelical character was the test of Scriptural sacredness. But to guarantee this character it was necessary that a book should be known as composed by the official witnesses and organs of the Evangel; hence the need to certify the Apostolic authorship, or at least sanction, of a work purporting to contain the Gospel of Christ. In Batiffol’s view the Judaic notion of inspiration did not at first enter into the selection of the Christian Scriptures. In fact, for the earliest Christians the Gospel of Christ, in the wide sense above noted, was not to be classified with, because transcending, the O. T. It was not until about the middle of the second century that under the rubric of Scripture the New Testament writings were assimilated to the Old; the authority of the N. T. as the Word preceded and produced its authority as a new Scripture. (Revue Biblique, 1903, 226 sqq.) Monsignor Batiffol’s hypothesis has this in common with the views of other recent students of the N. T. Canon, that the idea of a new body of sacred writings became clearer in the Early Church as the faithful advanced in a knowledge of the Faith. But it should be remembered that the inspired character of the N. T. is a Catholic dogma, and must therefore in some way have been revealed to, and taught by, Apostles.—Assuming that Apostolic authorship is a positive criterion of inspiration, two inspired Epistles of St. Paul have been lost. This pears from I Cor., v, 9 sqq.; II Cor., ii, 4, 5.

(c) The formation of the Tetramorph, or Fourfold Gospel.—Irenseus, in his work “Against Heresies” (A., D. 182–88), testifies to the existence of a Tetra-morph, or Quadriform Gospel, given by the Word and unified by one Spirit; to repudiate this Gospel or any part of it, as did the Alogi and Marcionites, was to sin against revelation and the Spirit of God. The saintly Doctor of Lyons explicitly states the names of the four Elements of this Gospel, and repeatedly cites all the Evangelists in a manner parallel to his citations from the O. T. From the testimony of St. Irenaeus alone there can be no reasonable doubt that the Canon of the Gospel was inalterably fixed in the Catholic Church by the last quarter of the second century. Proofs might be multiplied that our canonical Gospels were then universally recognized in the Church, to the exclusion of any pretended Evangels. The magisterial statement of Irenseus may be corroborated by the very ancient catalogue known as the Muratorian Canon, and St. Hippolytus, representing Roman tradition; by Tertullian in Africa, by Clement in Alexandria; the works of the Gnostic Valentinus, and the Syrian Tatian’s Diatessaron, a blending together of the Evangelists’ writings, presuppose the authority enjoyed by the fourfold Gospel towards the middle of the second century. To this period or a little earlier belongs the pseudo-Clementine epistle in which we find, for the fist time after II Peter, iii, 16, the word Scripture applied to a N. T. book. But it is needless in the present article to array the full force of these and other witnesses, since even rationalistic scholars like Harnack admit the canonicity of the quadriform Gospel between the years 140–175.

But against Harnack we are able to trace the Tetra-morph as a sacred collection back to a more remote period. The apocryphal Gospel of St. Peter, dating from about 150, is based on our canonical Evangelists. So with the very ancient Gospel of the Hebrews and Egyptians (see Apocrypha). St. Justin Martyr (130–63) in his Apology refers to certain “memoirs of the Apostles, which are called gospels,” and which “are read in Christian assemblies together with the writings of the Prophets.” The identity of these “memoirs” with our Gospels is established by the certain traces of three, if not all, of them scattered through St. Justin’s works; it was not yet the age of explicit quotations. Marcion, the heretic refuted by Justin in a lost polemic, as we know from Tertullian, instituted a criticism of Gospels bearing the names of Apostles and disciples of the Apostles, and a little earlier (c. 120) Basilides, the Alexandrian leader of a Gnostic sect, wrote a commentary on “the Gospel” which is known by the allusions to it in the Fathers to have comprised the writings of the Four Evangelists.

In our backward search we have come to the sub-Apostolic age, and its important witnesses are divided into Asian, Alexandrian, and Roman: (a) St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, and St. Polycarp, of Smyrna, had been disciples of Apostles; they wrote their epistles in the first decade of the second century (100–110). They employ Matthew, Luke, and John. In St. Ignatius we find the first instance of the consecrated term “it is written” applied to a Gospel (Ad Philad., viii, 2). Both these Fathers show not only a personal acquaintance with “the Gospel” and the thirteen Pauline Epistles, but they suppose that their readers are so familiar with them that it would be superfluous to name them. Papias, Bishop of Phrygian Hierapolis, according to Irenaeus a disciple of St. John, wrote about A.D. 125. Describing the origin of St. Mark’s Gospel, he speaks of Hebrew (Aramaic) Logia, or Sayings of Christ, composed by St. Matthew, which there is reason to believe formed the basis of the canonical Gospel of that name, though the greater part of Catholic writers identify them with the Gospel. As we have only a few fragments of Papias, preserved by Eusebius, it cannot be alleged that he is silent about other parts of the N. T. (b) The so-called Epistle of Barnabas, of uncertain origin, but of highest antiquity (see Epistle of Barnabas), cites a passage from the First Gospel under the formula “it is written.” The Didache, or Teaching of the Apostles, an uncanonical work dating from c. 110, implies that “the Gospel” was already a well-known and definite collection. (c) St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, and disciple of St. Paul, addressed his Letter to the Corinthian Church c. A.D. 97, and, although it cites no Evangelist explicitly, this epistle contains combinations of texts taken from the three synoptic Gospels, especially from St. Matthew. That Clement does not allude to the Fourth Gospel is quite natural, as it was not composed till about that time.

Thus the patristic testimonies have brought us step by step to a Divine inviolable fourfold Gospel existing in the closing years of the Apostolic Era. Just how the Tetramorph was welded into unity and given to the Church, is a matter of conjecture. But, as Zahn observes, there is good reason to believe that the tradition handed down by Papias, of the approval of St. Mark’s Gospel by St. John the Evangelist, reveals that either the latter himself or a college of his disciples added the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptics, and made the group into the compact and unalterable “Gospel,” the one in four, whose existence and authority left their clear impress upon all subsequent ecclesiastical literature, and find their conscious formulation in the language of St. Irenseus.

(d) The Pauline Epistles.—Parallel to the chain of evidence we have traced for the canonical standing of the Gospels extends one for the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, forming the other half of the irreducible kernel of the complete N. T. Canon. All the authorities cited for the Gospel Canon show acquaintance with, and recognize, the sacred quality of these letters. St. Irenseus, as acknowledged by the Harnackian critics, employs all the Pauline writings, except the short Philemon, as sacred and canonical. The Muratorian Canon, contemporary with Irenseus, gives the complete list of the thirteen, which, it should be remembered, does not include Hebrews. The heretical Basilides and his disciples quote from this Pauline group in general. The copious extracts from Marcion’s works scattered through Iremeus and Tertullian show that he was acquainted with the thirteen as in ecclesiastical use, and selected his Apostolikon of six from them. The testimony of Polycarp and Ignatius is again capital in this case. Eight of St. Paul’s writings are cited by Polycarp; St. Ignatius of Antioch ranked the Apostles above the Prophets, and must therefore have allowed the written compositions of the former at least an equal rank with those of the latter (“Ad Philadelphios,” v). St. Clement of Rome refers to Corinthians as at the head “of the Evangel”; the Muratorian Canon gives the same honor to I Corinthians, so that we may rightfully draw the inference, with Dr. Zahn, that as early as Clement’s day St. Paul’s Epistles had been collected and formed into a group with a fixed order. Zahn has pointed out confirmatory signs of this in the manner in which Sts. Ignatius and Polycarp employ these Epistles. The tendency of the evidence is to establish the hypothesis that the important Church of Corinth, was the first to form a complete collection of St. Paul’s writings.

The remaining Books.—In this formative period the Epistle to the Hebrews did not obtain a firm footing in the Canon of the Universal Church. At Rome it was not yet recognized as canonical, as shown by the Muratorian catalogue of Roman origin; Irenaeus probably cites it, but makes no reference to a Pauline origin. Yet it was known at Rome as early as St. Clement, as the latter’s epistle attests. The Alexandrian Church admitted it as the work of St. Paul, and canonical. The Montanists favored it, and the aptness with which vi, 4–8, lent itself to Montanist and Novatianist rigour was doubtless one reason why it was suspect in the West. Also during this period the excess over the minimal Canon composed of the Gospels and thirteen epistles varied. The seven “Catholic” Epistles (James, Jude, I and II Peter, and the three of John) had not yet been brought into a special group, and, with the possible exception of the three of St. John, remained isolated units, depending for their canonical strength on variable circumstances. But towards the end of the second century the canonical minimum was enlarged and, besides the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, unalterably embraced Acts, I Peter, I John (to which II and III John were probably attached), and Apocalypse. Thus Hebrews, James, Jude, and II Peter remained hovering outside the precincts of universal canonicity, and the controversy about them and the subsequently disputed Apocalypse form the larger part of the remaining history of the Canon of the N. T. However, at the beginning of the third century the N. T. was formed in the sense that the content of its main divisions, what may be called its essence, was sharply defined and universally received, while all the secondary books were recognized in some Churches. A singular exception to the universality of the above-described substance of the N. T. was the Canon of the primitive East Syrian Church, which did not contain any of the Catholic Epistles or Apocalypse.

The idea of a New Testament: The question of the principle that dominated the practical canonization of the N. T. Scriptures has already been discussed under (b). The faithful must have had from the beginning some realization that in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists they had acquired a new body of Divine Scriptures, a New written Testament destined to stand side by side with the Old.

That the Gospel and Epistles were the written Word of God, was fully realized as soon as the fixed collections were formed; but to seize the relation of this new treasure to the old was possible only when the faithful acquired a better knowledge of the faith. In this connection Zahn observes with much truth that the rise of Montanism, with its false prophets, who claimed for their written productions—the self-styled Testament of the Paraclete—the authority of revelation, aroused the Christian Church to a fuller sense that the age of revelation had expired with the last of the Apostles, and that the circle of sacred Scripture is not extensible beyond the legacy of the Apostolic Era. Montanism began in 156; a generation later, in the works of Irenaeus, we discover the firmly-rooted idea of two Testaments, with the same Spirit operating in both. For Tertullian (c. 200) the body of the new Scriptures is an instrumentum on at least an equal footing and in the same specific class as the instrumentum formed by the Law and the Prophets. Clement of Alexandria was the first to apply the word “Testament” to the sacred library of the New Dispensation. A kindred external influence is to be added to Montanism: the need of setting up a barrier, between the genuine inspired literature and the flood of pseudo-Apostolic apocrypha, gave an additional impulse to the idea of a N. T. Canon, and later contributed not a little to the demarcation of its fixed limits.

(2) The period of discussion; c. A.D. 220–367

In this stage of the historical development of the Canon of the N. T. we encounter for the first time a consciousness, reflected in certain ecclesiastical writers, of the differences between the sacred collections in divers sections of Christendom. This variation is witnessed to, and the discussion stimulated by, two of the most learned men of Christian antiquity, Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea, the ecclesiastical historian. A glance at the Canon as exhibited in the authorities of the African, or Carthaginian, Church, will complete our brief survey of this period of diversity and discussion:

Origen and his school.—Origen’s travels gave him exceptional opportunities to know the traditions of widely separated portions of the Church and made him very conversant with the discrepant attitudes toward certain parts of the N. T. He divided books with Biblical claims into three classes: (a) those universally received; (b) those whose Apostolicity was questioned; (c) apocryphal works. In the first class, the Homologoumena, stood the Gospels, the thirteen Pauline Epistles, Acts, Apocalypse, I Peter, and I John. The contested writings were Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John, James, Jude, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Herman, the Didache, and probably the Gospel of the Hebrews. Personally, Origen accepted all of these as Divinely inspired, though viewing contrary opinions with toleration. Origen’s authority seems to have given to Hebrews and the disputed Catholic Epistles a firm place in the Alexandrian Canon, their tenure there having been previously insecure, judging from the exegetical work of Clement, and the list in the Codex Claromontanus, which is assigned by competent scholars to an early Alexandrian origin.

Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, was one of Origen’s most eminent disciples, a man of wide erudition. In imitation of his master he divided religious literature into three classes: (a) Homologoumena, or compositions universally received as sacred, the Four Gospels, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, Hebrews, Acts, I Peter, I John, and Apocalypse. There is some inconsistency in his classification; for instance, though ranking Hebrews with the books of universal reception, he elsewhere admits it is disputed. (b) The second category is composed of the Antilegomena, or contested writings; these in turn are of the superior and inferior sort. The better ones are the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, II Peter, II and III John; these, like Origen, Eusebius wished to be admitted to the Canon, but was forced to record their uncertain status; the Antilegomena of the inferior sort were Barnabas, the Didache, Gospel of the Hebrews, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter. (c) All the rest are spurious (notha).

Eusebius diverged from his Alexandrian master in personally rejecting Apocalypse as un-Biblical, though compelled to acknowledge its almost universal acceptance. Whence came this unfavorable view of the closing volume of the Christian Testament?—Zahn attributes it to the influence of Lucian of Samosata, one of the founders of the Antioch school of exegesis, and with whose disciples Eusebius had been associated. Lucian himself had acquired his education at Edessa, the metropolis of Eastern Syria, which had, as already remarked, a singularly curtailed Canon. Lucian is known to have edited the Scriptures at Antioch,’ and is supposed to have introduced there the shorter N. T. which later St. John Chrysostom and his followers employed—one in which Apocalypse, II Peter, II and III John, and Jude had no place. It is known that Theodore of Mopsuestia rejected all the Catholic Epistles. In St. John Chrysostom’s ample expositions of the Scriptures there is not a single clear trace of the Apocalypse, while he seems to implicitly exclude the four smaller Epistles—II Peter, II and III John, and Jude—from the number of the canonical books. Lucian, then, according to Zahn, would have compromised between the Syriac Canon and the Canon of Origen by admitting the three longer Catholic Epistles and keeping out Apocalypse. But after allowing fully for the prestige of the founder of the Antioch school, it is difficult to grant that his personal authority could have sufficed to strike such an important work as Apocalypse from the Canon of a notable Church, where it had previously been received. It is more probable that a reaction against the abuse of the Johannine Apocalypse by the Montanists and Chiliasts—Asia Minor being the nursery of both these errors—led to the elimination of a book whose authority had perhaps been previously suspected. Indeed it is quite reasonable to suppose that its early exclusion from the East Syrian Church was an outer wave of the extreme reactionist movement of the Aloges—also of Asia Minor—who branded Apocalypse and all the Johannine writings as the work of the heretic Cerinthus. Whatever may have been all the influences ruling the personal Canon of Eusebius, he chose Lucian’s text for the fifty copies of the Bible which he furnished to the Church of Constantinople at the order of his imperial patron Constantine; and he incorporated all the Catholic Epistles, but excluded Apocalypse. The latter remained for more than a century banished from the sacred collections as cur-rent in Antioch and Constantinople. However, this book kept a minority of Asiatic suffrages, and, as both Lucian and Eusebius had been tainted with Arianism, the approbation of Apocalypse, opposed by them, finally came to be looked upon as a sign of orthodoxy. Eusebius was the first to call attention to important variations in the text of the Gospels, viz., the presence in some copies and the absence in others of the final paragraph of Mark, the passage of the Adulterous Woman, and the Bloody Sweat.

(c) The African Church.—St. Cyprian, whose Scriptural Canon certainly reflects the content of the first Latin Bible, received all the books of the N. T. except Hebrews, II Peter, James, and Jude; however, there was already a strong inclination in his environment to admit II Peter as authentic. Jude had been recognized by Tertullian, but, strangely, it had lost its position in the African Church, probably owing to its citation of the apocryphal Henoch. Cyprian’s testimony to the non-canonicity of Hebrews and James is confirmed by Commodian, another African writer of the period. A very important witness is the document known as Mommsen’s Canon, a MS. of the tenth century, but whose original has been ascertained to date from West Africa about the year 360. It is a formal catalogue of the sacred books, unmutilated in the N. T. portion, and proves that at its time the books universally acknowledged in the influential Church of Carthage were almost identical with those received by Cyprian a century before. Hebrews, James, and Jude are entirely wanting. The three Epistles of St. John and II Peter appear, but after each stands the note una sola, added by an almost contemporary hand, and evidently in protest against the reception of these Antilegomena, which; presumably, had found a place in the official list recently, but whose right to be there was seriously questioned.

(3) The period of fixation: c. a.d. 367–405

(a) St. Athanasius

While the influence of Athanasius on the Canon of the O. T. was negative and exclusive (see supra), in that of the N. T. it was trenchantly constructive. In his “Epistola Festalis” (A.D. 367) the illustrious Bishop of Alexandria ranks all of Origen’s N. T. Antilegomena, which are identical with the deuteros, boldly inside the Canon, without noticing any of the scruples about them. Thence-forward they were formally and firmly fixed in the Alexandrian Canon. And it is significant of the general trend of ecclesiastical authority that not only were works which formerly enjoyed high standing at broadminded Alexandria—the Apocalypse of Peter and the Acts of Paul—involved by Athanasius with the apocrypha, but even some that Origen had regarded as inspired—Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache—were ruthlessly shut out under the same damnatory title.

(b) The Roman Church: The Synod under Damasus: St. Jerome

The Muratorian Canon or Fragment, composed in the Roman Church in the last quarter of the second century, is silent about He-brews, James, II Peter; I Peter, indeed, is not mentioned, but must have been omitted by an oversight, since it was universally received at the time. There is evidence that this restricted Canon obtained not only in the African Church, with slight modifications, as we have seen, but also at Rome and in the West generally until the close of the fourth century. The same ancient authority witnesses to the very favorable and perhaps canonical standing enjoyed at Rome by the Apocalypse of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas. In the middle decades of the fourth century the increased intercourse and exchange of views between the Orient and the Occident led to a better mutual acquaintance regarding Biblical canons and the correction of the catalogue of the Latin Church. It is a singular fact that while the East, mainly through St. Jerome’s pen, exerted a disturbing and negative influence on Western opinion regarding the O. T., the same influence, through probably the same chief intermediary, made for the completeness and integrity of the N. T. Canon. The West began to realize that the ancient Apostolic Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch, indeed the whole Orient, for more than two centuries had acknowledged Hebrews and James as inspired writings of Apostles, while the venerable Alexandrian Church, supported by the prestige of Athanasius, and the powerful Patriarchate of Constantinople, with the scholarship of Eusebius behind its judgment, had canonized all the disputed Epistles. St. Jerome, a rising light in the Church, though but a simple priest, was summoned by Pope Damasus from the East, where he was pursuing sacred lore, to assist at an eclectic, but not ecumenical, synod at Rome in the year 382. Neither the general council at Constantinople of the preceding year nor that of Nice (365) had considered the question of the Canon. This Roman synod must have devoted itself specially to the matter. The result of its deliberations, presided over, no doubt, by the energetic Damasus himself, has been preserved in the document called “Decretum Gelasii de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris,” a compilation partly of the sixth century (Turner, in “Journal of Theological Studies,” I, 1900), but containing much material dating from the two preceding ones. The Damasan catalogue presents the complete and perfect Canon which has been that of the Church Universal ever since. The N. T. portion bears the marks of Jerome’s views (cf. Zahn, “Grundriss der Geschichte d. neutest. Kanons,” in loco). St. Jerome, always prepossessed in favor of Oriental positions in matters Biblical, exerted then a happy influence in regard to the N. T.; if he attempted to place any Eastern restriction upon the Canon of the O. T. his effort failed of any effect. The title of the decree—“Nunc vero de scripturis divinis agendum est quid universalis Catholica recipiat ecclesia, et quid vitare debeat”—proves that the council drew up a list of apocryphal as well as authentic Scriptures. The Shepherd and the false Apocalypse of Peter now received their final blow. “Rome had spoken, and the nations of the West had heard” (Zahn). The works of the Latin Fathers of the period—Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Sardinia, Philaster of Brescia—manifest the changed attitude toward Hebrews, James, Jude, II Peter, and III John.

(c) Fixation in the African and Gallican Churches

It was some little time before the African Church perfectly adjusted its N. T. to the Damasan Canon. Optatus of Mileve (370–85) does not’ use Hebrews. St. Augustine, while himself receiving the integral Canon, acknowledged that many contested this Epistle. But in the Synod of Hippo (393) the great Doctor’s view prevailed, and the correct Canon was adopted. However, it is evident that it found many opponents in Africa, since three councils there at brief intervals—Hippo, Carthage, in 393; Third of Carthage in 397; Carthage in 419—found it necessary to formulate catalogues. The introduction of Hebrews was an especial crux, and a reflection of this is found in the first Carthage list, where the much vexed Epistle, though styled of St. Paul, is still numbered separately from the time-consecrated group of thirteen. The catalogues of Hippo and Carthage are identical with the Catholic Canon of the present. In Gaul some doubts lingered for a time, as we find Pope Innocent I, in 405, sending a list of the Sacred Books to one of its bishops, Exsuperius of Toulouse.

So at the close of the first decade of the fifth century the entire Western Church was in possession of the full Canon of the N. T. In the East, where, with the exception of the Edessene Syrian Church, approximate completeness had long obtained without the aid of formal enactments, opinions were still somewhat divided on the Apocalypse. But for the Catholic Church as a whole the content of the N. T. was definitely fixed, and the discussion closed.

The final process of this Canon’s development had been twofold: positive, in the permanent consecration of several writings which had long hovered on the line between canonical and apocryphal; and negative, by the definite elimination of certain privileged apocrypha that had enjoyed here and there a canonical or quasi-canonical standing. In the reception of the disputed books a growing conviction of Apostolic authorship had much to do, but the ultimate criterion had been their recognition as inspired by a great and ancient division of the Catholic Church. Thus, like Origen, St. Jerome adduces the testimony of the ancients and ecclesiastical usage in pleading the cause of the Epistle to the Hebrews (De Viris Illustribus, lix) . There is no sign that the Western Church ever positively repudiated any of the N. T. deuteros; not admitted from the beginning, these had slowly advanced towards a complete acceptance there. On the other hand, the apparently formal exclusion of Apocalypse from the sacred catalogue of certain Greek Churches was a transient phase, and supposes its primitive reception. Greek Christianity everywhere, from about the beginning of the sixth century, practically had a complete and pure N. T. Canon. (See Epistle to the Hebrews; Epistles of Saint Peter. Epistle of Saint James. Epistle of Saint Jude. Epistles of Saint John; Apocalypse.)

(4) Subsequent history of the N. T. Canon

(a) To the Protestant Reformation

The N. T. in its canonical aspect has little history between the first years of the fifth and the early part of the sixteenth century. As was natural m ages when ecclesiastical authority had not reached its modern centralization, there were sporadic divergences from the common teaching and tradition. There was no diffused contestation of any book, but here and there attempts by individuals to add something to the received collection. In several ancient Latin MSS. the spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans is found among the canonical letters, and, in a few instances, the apocryphal III Corinthians. The last trace of any Western contradiction within the Church to the Canon of the N. T. reveals a curious transplantation of Oriental doubts concerning the Apocalypse. An act of the Synod of Toledo, held in 633, states that many contest the authority of that book, and orders it to be read in the churches under pain of excommunication. This opposition in all probability came from the Visigoths, who had recently been converted from Arianism. The Gothic Bible had been made under Oriental auspices at a time when there was still much hostility to Apocalypse in the East.

(b) The New Testament and the Council of Trent (1546)

This ecumenical synod had to defend the integrity of the New Testament as well as the Old against the attacks of the pseudo-Reformers. Luther, basing his action on dogmatic reasons and the judgment of antiquity, had discarded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse as altogether uncanonical. Zwingli could not see in Apocalypse a Biblical book. Ecolampadius placed James, Jude, II Peter, II and III John in an inferior rank. Even a few Catholic scholars of the Renaissance type, notably Erasmus and Cajetan, had thrown some doubts on the canonicity of the above-mentioned Antilegomena. As to whole books, the Protestant doubts were the only ones the Fathers of Trent took cognizance of; there was not the slightest hesitation regarding the authority of any entire document. But the deuterocanonical parts gave the council some concern, viz., the last twelve verses of Mark, the passage about the Bloody Sweat in Luke, and the Pericope Adulterae in John. Cardinal Cajetan had approvingly quoted an unfavorable comment of St. Jerome regarding Mark, xvi, 9–20; Erasmus had rejected the section on the Adulterous Woman as unauthentic. Still, even concerning these no doubt of authenticity was expressed at Trent; the only question was as to the manner of their reception. In the end these portions were received, like the deuterocanonical books, without the slightest distinction. And the clause “cum omnibus Buis partibus” regards especially these portions.—For an account of the action of Trent on the Canon, the reader is referred back to the respective section of this article: II. The Canon of the Old Testament in the Catholic Church.

The Tridentine decree defining the Canon affirms the authenticity of the books to which proper names are attached, without however including this in the definition. The order of books follows that of the Bull of Eugenius IV (Council of Florence), except that Acts was moved from a place before Apocalypse to its present position, and Hebrews put at the end of St. Paul’s Epistles. The Tridentine order has been retained in the official Vulgate and vernacular Catholic Bibles. The same is to be said of the titles, which as a rule are traditional ones, taken from the Canons of Florence and Carthage.—For the bearing of the Vatican Council on the N. T. see II. The Canon of the Old Testament in the Catholic Church.

(5) The New Testament Canon outside the Church

(a) The Orthodox

Russian and other branches of the schismatic Greek Church have a N. T. identical with the Catholic. In Syria the Nestorians possess a Canon almost identical with the final one of the ancient East Syrians; they exclude the four smaller Catholic Epistles and Apocalypse. The Monophysites receive all the books. The Armenians have one apocryphal letter to the Corinthians and two from the same. The Coptic-Arabic Church includes with the canonical Scriptures the Apostolic Constitutions and the Clementine Epistles. The Ethiopic N. T. also contains the so-called “Apostolic Constitutions.”

(b) Protestantism

As for Protestantism, the Anglicans and Calvinists always kept the entire N. T. But for over a century the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse, and even went further than their master by rejecting the three remaining deuterocanonicals, II Peter, II and III John. The trend of the seventeenth century Lutheran theologians was to class all these writings as of doubtful, or at least inferior, authority. But gradually the German Protestants familiarized themselves with the idea that the difference between the contested books of the N. T. and the rest was one of degree of certainty as to origin rather than of intrinsic character. The full recognition of these books by the Calvinists and Anglicans made it much more difficult for the Lutherans to exclude the N. T. deuteros than those of the Old. One of their writers of the seventeenth century allowed only a theoretic difference between the two classes, and in 1700 Bossuet could say that all Catholics and Protestants agreed on the N. T. Canon. The only trace of opposition now remaining in German Protestant Bibles is in the order, Hebrews, coming with James, Jude, and Apocalypse at the end; the first not being included with the Pauline writings, while James and Jude are not ranked with the Catholic Epistles.

(6) The criterion of inspiration (less correctly known as the criterion of canonicity)

Even those Catholic theologians who defend Apostolicity as a test for the inspiration of the N. T. (see above) admit that it is not exclusive of another criterion, viz., Catholic tradition as manifested in the universal reception of compositions as Divinely inspired, or the ordinary teaching of the Church, or the infallible pronouncements of ecumenical councils. This external guarantee is the sufficient, universal, and ordinary proof of inspiration. The unique quality of the Sacred Books is a revealed dogma. Moreover, by its very nature inspiration eludes human observation and is not self-evident, being essentially superphysical and supernatural. Its sole absolute criterion, therefore, is the Holy inspiring Spirit, witnessing decisively to Itself, not in the subjective experience of individual souls, as Calvin maintained, neither in the doctrinal and spiritual tenor of Holy Writ itself, according to Luther, but through the constituted organ and custodian of Its revelations, the Church. All other evidences fall short of the certainty and finality necessary to compel the absolute assent of faith. (See Franzelin, “De Divina, Traditione et Scripture”; Wiseman, “Lectures on Christian Doctrine,” Lecture ii; also Inspiration of the Bible.)

GEORGE J. REID.

Apostolic Canons

A collection of ancient ecclesiastical decrees (eighty-five in the Eastern, fifty in the Western Church) concerning the government and discipline of the Christian Church, incorporated with the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, 47).

They deal mostly with the office and duties of a Christian bishop, the qualifications and conduct of the clergy, the religious life of the Christian flock (abstinence, fasting), its external administration (excommunucation, synods, relations with pagans and Jews), the sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, Marriage); in a word, they are a handy summary of the statutory legislation of the primative Church. The last of these decrees contains a very important list or canon of the Holy Scriptures (see CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES under sub-title Canon of the New Testament). In the original Greek text they claim to be the very legislation of the Apostles themselves, at least as promulgated by their great disciple, Clement. Nevertheless, though a venerable mirror of ancient Christian life and blameless in doctrine, their claim to genuine Apostolic origin is quite false and untenable. Some, like Beveridge and Hefele, believe that they were originally drawn up about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. Most modern critics agree that they could not have been composed before the Council of Antioch (341), some twenty of whose canons they quote; nor even before the latter end of the fourth century, since they are certainly posterior to the Apostolic Constitutions. Von Funk, admittedly a foremost authority on the latter and all similar early canonical texts, locates the composition of the Apostolic Canons in the fifth century, near the year 400. Thereby he approaches the opinion of his scholarly predecessor, Drey, the first among modern writers to study profoundly these ancient canons; he distinguished two editions of them, a shorter one (fifty) about the middle of the fifth century, and a longer one (eighty-five) early in the sixth century. Von Funk admits but one edition. They were certainly current in the Eastern Church in the first quarter of the sixth century, for about 520 Severus of Antioch quotes canons 21–23 [E. W. Brooks, “Select Letters of Severus of Antioch,” London, 1904 (Syriac text), I, 463–64. For various opinions concerning the date of composition see F. Nau, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1607–8, and the new Fr. tr. of Hefele’s “History of the Councils,” Paris, 1907, 1206–11]. The home of the author seems to be Syria. He makes use of the Syro-Macedonian calendar (can. 26), borrows very largely from a Syrian council (Antioch, 341), and according to Von Funk is identical with the compiler or interpolator of the Apostolic Constitutions, who was certainly a Syrian (Die apostol. Konstitutionen, 204–5).

As just indicated the number of these canons has given rise to no little controversy. In the Apostolic Constitutions (loc. cit.) they are eighty-five (occasionally eighty-four, a variant in the Manuscripts that arises from the occasional counting of two canons as one). In the latter half of the sixth century, John of Antioch (Joannes Scholasticus), Patriarch of Constantinople from 565 to 577, published a collection of synodal decrees in which he included these eighty-five canons (see Justel-Voellus, Bibliotheca Juris Canonici veteris, Paris, 1661, II, 501), and this number was finally consecrated for the Greek Church by the Trullan or Quinisext Council (692), which also confined the current Greek tradition of their Apostolic origin. On the other hand the Latin Church, throughout the Middle Ages, recognized but fifty canons of the Apostles. This was the number finally adopted by Dionysius Exiguus, who first translated these canons into Latin about 500. It is not very clear why he omitted canons 51–85; he seems to have been acquainted with them and to have used the Apostolic Constitutions. In reality Dionysius made three versions of the Apostolic Canons (the oldest of them first edited by C. H. Turner, Ecclesiæ Occidentalis monumenta juris antiquissima, Oxford, 1899, fasc. I, 1–32); it is the second of these versions which obtained general European currency by its incorporation as the opening text of his famous Latin collection of canons (both synodal decrees and papal decretals) known as the “Dionysiana Collectio” (P. L., LXVII, 9 sqq.), made public in the first decade of the sixth century. Later collections of canons (Italy, Spain, France, Germany, etc.) borrowed from him; the text passed into Pseudo-Isidore, and eventually Gratian Included (c. 1140) some excerpts from these canons in his “Decretum,” whereby a universal recognition and use were gained for them in the law schools. At a much earlier date Justinian (in his Sixth Novel) had recognized them as the work of the Apostles and confirmed them as ecclesiastical law. (For the Western references in the early Middle Ages see Von Funk, “Didascalia” etc. quoted below, II, 40–50, and for their insertion in the early Western collections of canons, Maassen, “Gesch. der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande, Gratz, 1872, 438–40.) Nevertheless, from their first appearance in the West they aroused suspicion. Canon 46 for example, that rejected all heretical baptism, was notoriously opposed to Roman and Western practice. In the so-called “Decretum” of Pope Gelasius (429–96) they are denounced as an apocryphal book, i. e. not recognized by the Church (Thiel, epistolæ Rom. pontificum genuinæ, 1867, I, 53–58, 454–71; Von Funk, op. cit., II, 40), though this note of censure was probably not in the original “Decretum,” but with others was added under Pope Hormisdas (514–23). Consequently in a second edition (lost, except preface) of his “Collectio canonum,” prepared under the latter pope, Dionysius Exiguus omitted them; even in the first edition he admitted that very many in the West were loath to acknowledge them (quamplurimi quidem assensum non prœbuere facilem). Hincmar of Reims (died 882) declared that they were not written by the Apostles, and as late as the middle of the eleventh century, Western theologians (Cardinal Humbert, 1054) distinguished between the eighty-five Greek canons that they declared apocryphal, and the fifty Latin canons recognized as “orthodox rules” by antiquity.

The influence of the Apostolic Canons was greatly increased by the various versions of them soon current in the Christian Church, East and West. We have already indicated the influence of the second Latin version of Dionysius Exiguus. They were also translated (more or less fully) into Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, and Armenian; in general they seem to have furnished during the fifth and sixth centuries a large element of the ecclesiastical legislation in the Eastern Church (see the detailed description of the so-called “127 Copto-Arabic canons,” by F. Nau in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1612–19; also Funk, Die apostolischen Konstitutionen, Rottenburg, 1891, and the articles APOSTOLIC CHURCH-ORDINANCE, EGYPTIAN CHURCH-ORDINANCE, DIDACHE, DIDASCALIA APOSTOLORUM). The manuscripts of the (Greek) Apostolic Canons are described by Pitra, “Juris ecc. Græcorum historia et monumenta,” Rome, 1864, I, 3–4; the manuscripts of the Latin versions of Dionysius Exiguus, by C. H. Turner, op. cit. supra, fasc. I. p. 1; cf. Von Funk, “Didascalia et Constitutiones apostolorum,” (Paderborn, 1906), I, xlviii-liv, also xxiv-xlviii. The fifty Latin canons were first printed in Jacques Merlin’s edition of the Councils (Paris, 1524); the eighty-five Greek Canons by G. Holoander, in his edition of Justinian’s Novels (Nuremberg, 1531), whence they made their way into the earlier editions of the “Corpus Juris Civilis,” the “Corpus Juris Canonici,” and the large collections of acts and decrees of the councils.

A few other ancient canonical texts that pretend to Apostolic origin are described by F. Nau, op. cit., 1620–26; the most interesting of them is a brief collection of nine canons that purport to date from an imaginary Apostolic Council of Antioch. They may be read in Pitra, “Hist. et monumenta Juris eccl. Græcorum” (Rome, 1864), I, 88–91; also in Lagarde, “Reliquiæ juris eccl. antiquissimæ græce,” 18–20, and in Harnack, “Mission und Ausbreitung” (Leipzig, 1902). They recommend the faithful not to practice circumcision, to admit the Gentiles, to avoid Jewish and pagan customs, the distinction of clean and unclean foods, the worship of idols, the vices of avarice and gluttony, frequentation of theatres, and taking of oaths. The earliest Christian literature offers numerous parallels to the content of these canons, which, in general, recall the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Didache. In the sixteenth century the Jesuit Turrianus (Torres) defended their authenticity, his chief argument being a reference of Innocent I (401–17) to an Apostolic Council of Antioch (Mansi, III, 1055). A notable literary controversy followed that is not yet quite closed (see Nau, op. cit. , 1621–22). Interest centres chiefly in the first canon, which decrees that the Galileans shall henceforth be called Christians (see Acts, xi, 26), a holy people, a royal priesthood (see I Peter, ii, 9) according to the grace and title of baptism. Some critics see in this canon a defiant reply to the contemptuous use of “Galileans” by Julian the Apostate (Harnack, “Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums,” Leipzig, 1902; Paul Lejay, in “Revue du clergé français,” 15 Oct., 1903, 349–55, with a Fr. tr. of the nine canons). F. Nau is of opinion that they are much older than the latter quarter of the fourth century and calls attention (op. cit., 1624) to Origen, “Contra Celsum,” VIII, 29 (P. G., XI, 1560-” it seemed good to the Apostles and the elders assembled at Antioch, and in their own words to the Holy Spirit to write a letter to the Gentiles who believed”). This statement contradicts Acts, xv, 6, 23, 28, according to which the Apostolic letter was written from Jerusalem. Nevertheless, it seems that this collection of canons was known to Origen, all the more as it claims (in the title) to come from the library of Origen at Cæsarea and to have been found there by the blessed martyr, Pamphilus (cf. Eus., H. E., VI, 32, 3). F. Nau thinks that they may represent a personal rule of conduct drawn up by some second-century Christian (on the basis of Apostolic precepts) who miscopied Acts, xi, 26, into the form of the afore-mentioned canon 1, and then added the other precepts—canon 9 reproduces the decree of Acts, xv, 29. At any rate Dallæus (Daillé) was wrong in charging Turrianus with downright forgery of all these canons (De pseudepigraphis apostolicis libri tres, 1653, III, cc. xxii-xxv, pp. 687–737), and deliberate corruption of the text of Ps. xvi, 14, “they are full of children” (hyion), making it read hyieon—i. e. “they are filled with pork.” This reading of the fifth canon of Antioch is found not only in the oldest Latin Psalters, and in other reliable fourth to sixth century Latin witnesses to the Scripture-text, but also in the best Greek manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus). In other words the Scripture-text used by these canons antedates Origen, and is, in itself, an evidence of their great antiquity. (See ANTIOCH.)

The critical text of the Apostolic Canons is that of the late IGNAZ VON FUNK, a monument of exact scholarship: Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum (Paderborn, 1906, I, 565–95, with valuable notes. The best historical study of their origin and nature is also owing to VON FUNK, Die apostolischen Konstitutionen (Rottenburg, 1891), 180–206; IDEM, Das achte Buck der apostolischen Konstitutionen und die verwandten Schriften (Tübingen, 1893), and his Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen (Paderborn, 1899, 1907), II, 369–72, III, 355 sqq. He was preceded in the nineteenth century by SEBASTIAN DREY (like Funk a professor of the Catholic faculty of theology in the University of Tübingen, where the study of these ancient texts has become an academic heirloom), Neue Untersuchungen über die Constitutionen und Kanones der Apostel (Tübingen, 1832), and by the learned J. W. BICKELL, Gesch d. Kirckenrechts (Giessen, 1843).

Among the older erudite researches into the history and study of the Apostolic Canons honour is due especially to the Anglican savant G. BEVERIDGE, Synodicon sive Pandectœ canonum sanctorum Apostolorum et conciliorum ab ecclesiâ grœcâ receptorum (Oxford, 1672–82; see P. G., CXXXVII, 36–217, For the Apostolic Canons, text and commentary of BEVERIDGE); JUSTEL, Codex canonum ecclesiœ universœ a Justiniano imperatore confirmatus. . . . C. J(ustel) latinum fecit et notisillustravit (Paris, 1610–1618; re-edited by VŒLLUS as Bibliotheca juris canonici veteris, Paris, 1661); DE MARCA, Dissertatio de veterum canonum collectionibus in his Opuscula (Paris, 1681); GALLAND, De vetustis canonum collectionibus dissertationum sylloge (Venice, 1778). See MACNALLAY, The Apostolical Canons in Greek, Latin and English with Notes (London, 1867); LIGHTFOOT, St. Clement of Rome (London, 1890), I, III, 187, 308; LAUCHERT, Die kanones der wichtigsten altkirchlichen Concilien, nebst den apostolischen Kanones (Leipzig, 1896); NAU, Canons des Apótres in Dict. de théol. cath. (1905), II, 5–12; HEFELE, tr. LECLERCQ, Histoire des Conciles, nouvelle traduction française faite sur la deuxième éd. allemande, corrigée et augmentée de notes critiques et biblioqraphiques (Paris, 1907), I, ii, 1203–21, with an excellent bibliography, 1216–21; ACHELIS in Real-Encyc. f. prot. Theol. und Kirche (Leipzig, 1896), I, 734–41, s. v. Apostolische Kanones; BAUDENHEWER, Patrologie (Freiburg, 1901), 310–14.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN.

Collections of Ancient Canons

While the essential principles of the constitution and government of the Church were immutably fixed by her Divine Founder, ecclesiastical legislation, emanating as it does from the authority established by Christ in His society, has shared all the vicissitudes of the latter. This means that it was not a finished product from the beginning, but rather a gradual growth, each phase of which was dictated by the ecclesiastical wisdom of the time. This is especially true of the earlier Christian centuries, when as yet the Church lived largely on tradition and custom, and when such written laws as existed were not originally universal laws, but local or provincial statutes, to which later a broader obligation was added through the express or tacit approbation of the legitimate authority. Hence arose the necessity of collecting, or in a way codifying, such legislation. These ancient collections may be classified either according to their historical authority or according to the method of the compiler.

AUTHORITY

If we consider only their historical authority these collections are genuine (e. g. the “Versio Hispanica”), or apocryphal, i. e. made with the help of documents forged, interpolated, wrongly attributed, or otherwise defective (e. g. the Pseudo-Isidore collection). If we consider their juridical authority they are official, authentic, i. e. promulgated by competent authority, or private, the work of individuals, and owning no value other than their intrinsic worth or that derived from habitual usage.

METHOD

If we consider the method of the compiler, these collections are chronological, in case their laws are classified according to the time of promulgation, or systematic (logical, methodical), if the collection follow a rational order. Naturally, in the earlier centuries the collections are brief and contain few laws chronologically certain. Only with the increase of legislation did a methodical classification become necessary, or at least the addition of methodical tables (see below, African and Spanish collections).

In this article we shall describe the ancient collections of canons;

(1) From the earliest Christian times to the period of the apocryphal collections (middle of the ninth century);

(2) From the end of the ninth century to the Decretum of Gratian (1139–50).

The forged collections of the middle of the ninth century will be treated in the article, FALSE DECRETALS. Much of our knowledge of these matters is owing to the historical researches begun at the end of the sixteenth century, whence issued the critical editions of the Fathers, the councils, and the papal decretals. We are particularly indebted, however, to two works of primary importance:

(1) the dissertation (P. L., LVI) of the Ballerini brothers of Verona (eighteenth century) “Concerning the ancient collection and collectors of Canons as far as Gratian”—a study quite unique for its erudition and critical acumen;

(2) the history of the sources and literature of canon law by Frederic Maassen (Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des Canonischen Rechts, Gratz, 1870, vol. I), in which the learned professor of Gratz took up this subject where the Ballerini had left it, but with a far richer supply of documents. Unfortunately he stops at Pseudo-Isidore.

FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE APOCRYPHAL COLLECTIONS

COLLECTIONS OF THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD

The Apostles certainly issued disciplinary regulations, either as inspired authors (Divine Apostolic law, pertaining to the immutable deposit of faith), or simply as ecclesiastical legislation (human Apostolic law). In the primitive Christian ages there were current divers collections attributed to the Apostles. These collections were apocryphal, although there may be in it some regulations of really Apostolic origin. lt is all very interesting, partly because of the vestiges it offers of the earliest Christian life, and partly because, de facto, many of these regulations were long considered truly Apostolic and, as such, influenced seriously the formation of ecclesiastical law. The most important of these collections are the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (q. v.), the Apostolic Constitutions (q. v.), and the Apostolic Canons (see CANONS, APOSTOLIC). The Apostolic Constitutions, though originally accepted throughout the Orient, were declared apocryphal in the Trullan (Quinisext) Council of 692; they were never accepted as ecclesiastical law in the West. The Apostolic Canons (eighty-five) were, on the other hand, approved by the above-mentioned Trullan Council. Dionysius Exignus, a Western canonist of the first half of the sixth century, noted that “many accept with difficulty the so-called canons of the Apostles.” Nevertheless he admitted into his collection the first fifty of these canons. The so-called Decretum Gelasianum, de libris non recipiendis (about the sixth century), puts them among the apocrypha. From the collection of Dionysius Exiguus they passed into divers Western collections, though their authority was never on one level. We find them admitted at Rome in the ninth century in ecclesiastical decisions; in the eleventh century Cardinal Humbert accepts only the first fifty (Adversus Simoniacos, I, 8, and Contra Nicætam, 16 P. L., CXLIII). Only two of them (20, 29) found their way into the Decretals of Gregory IX.

PAPAL DECRETALS

In primitive Christian centuries the popes carried on ecclesiastical government by means of an active and extensive correspondence. We learn from a synod of the year 370, under Pope Damasus, that the minutes of their letters or decretals (q. v.) were kept in the papal archives. These archives (see VATICAN ARCHIVES) have perished up to the time of John VIII (died 882). In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries attempts were made to reconstruct them; the most successful is that of Jaffé (“Regesta RR. Pont.,” 2nd ed., 1885; cf. the important revision of Jaffé by P. Kehr, “Italia Pontificia,” Berlin, 1906 sqq.). During the period under discussion (i. e. to the middle of the eleventh century) we shall note a constant use of the papal decretals by the compilers of canonical collections from the sixth century on.

GREEK COLLECTIONS

(1) In 451 there was quoted at the Council of Chalcedon a collection of councils no longer extant, nor has the name of the compiler ever transpired. It seems to have been based on the canons of Ancyra (314) and Neo-Cæsarea (314–25), to which were added later those of Gangra (36–70). At the beginning of the collection were then placed the decrees of Nicæa (325); subsequently the canons of Antioch (341) were included, in which shape it was known to the Fathers of Chalcedon. In the latter part of the fifth century the canons of Laodicæa (343–81), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451), were incorporated with this ecclesiastical code, and finally (after the canons of Neo-Cæsarea) the decrees of Sardica (343–44), in which form the collection was in use during the sixth century. Though unofficial in character, it represents (inclusive of sixty-eight canons taken from the “Canonical Epistles” of St. Basil, I, III) the conciliar discipline of the Greek Church between 500 and 600.

(2) This collection was chronological in order. Towards 535 an unknown compiler classified its materials in a methodical way under sixty titles, and added to the canons twenty-one imperial constitutions relative to ecclesiastical matters taken from the Code of Justinian. This collection has been lost.

(3) Some years later (540–550) Johannes Scholasticus, Patriarch of Constantinople, made use of this code to compile a new methodical collection, which he divided into fifty books. It is printed in the second volume of Voel and Justel, “Bibliotheca Juris Canonici veteris” (Paris, 1661). After the emperor’s death (565), the patriarch extracted from ten of the former’s constitutions, known as “Novellæ,” some eighty-seven chapters and added them to the aforesaid collection.

(4) In this way arose the mixed collections known as Nomocanons (Gk. nomoi, “laws,” kanones, “canons”), containing not only ecclesiastical laws but also imperial laws pertaining to the same matters. The first of these was published under Emperor Maurice (582–602); under each title were given, after the canons, the corresponding civil laws. This collection (wrongly attributed to the afore-mentioned patriarch) is also found in the second volume of Voel and Justel (op. cit.).

(5) The Quinisext Council (695) of Constantinople, called Trullan from the hall of the palace (in trullo) where it was held, issued 102 disciplinary canons; it included also the canons of the former councils and certain patristic regulations, all of which it considered constitutive elements of the ecclesiastical law of the East. This collection contains, therefore, an official enumeration of the canons which then governed the Eastern Church, but no official approbation of a given collection or particular text of these canons. It is to be noted that the Apostolic See never fully approved this council. In 787 a similar recapitulation of the ancient canons was made by the Second Council of Nicæa.

ITALO-LATIN COLLECTIONS

(1) LATIN VERSION OF THE CANONS OF NICÆA AND SARDICA

The former council (325) was always held in the highest repute throughout the West, where its canons were in vigour together with those of Sardica, the complement of the anti-Arian legislation of Nicæa, and whose decrees had been drawn up originally in both Latin and Greek. The canons of the two councils were numbered in running order, as though they were the work of but one council (a trait met with in divers Latin collections), which explains why the Council of Sardica is sometimes called œcumenical by earlier writers, and its canons attributed to the Council of Nicæa. For the text of the version as found in the various collections see Maassen, op. cit., p. 8 sqq. The oldest versions of these canons quoted in the papal decretals are no longer extant.

(2) THE “HISPANA” OR “ISIDORIANA” VERSION

Towards the middle of the fifth century, perhaps earlier, there appeared a Latin version of the afore-said canons of Nicæa, Ancyra, Neo-Cæsarea, and Gangra, to which were added a little later those of Antioch, Laodicæa, and Constantinople; the canons of Sardica were inserted about the same time after those of Gangra. Bickell considers it possible that this version was made in Northern Africa, while Walter inclines to Spain; it is now generally believed that the version was made in Italy. It was long believed, however, that it came from Spain, hence the name of “Hispana” or “Isidoriana,” the latter term derived from its insertion in the collection attributed to St. Isidore of Seville (see below, Spanish Collections), in which it was edited, of course according to the text followed by the Spanish compiler.

(3) “PRISCA” OR “ITALA” VERSION

This, too, seems to have grown up gradually in the course of the fifth century, and in its present shape exhibits the afore-mentioned canons of Ancyra, Neo-Cæsarea, Nicæa, Sardica, Gangra, Antioch, Chalcedon, and Constantinople. It came to be known as “Itala” from the place of its origin, and as “Prisca” because of an overhasty conclusion that Dionysius Exiguus referred to it in the preface of his first collection when he wrote: “Laurentius offended by the confusion that reigned in the ancient version [priscœ versionis].” It was edited by Voel and Justel in the first volume of their above-quoted “Bibliotheca juris canonici veteris”; a better text is that of the Ballerini brothers in the third volume of their edition of the works of St. Leo (P. L., LVI, 746).

(4) COLLECTION OF DIONYSIUS EXIGUUS

The collections we have now to describe were justified and called for by the increasing canonical material of the Latin West in the course of the fifth century. It may be said at once that they were far from satisfactory. Towards 500 a Scythian monk, known as Dionysius Exiguus (q. v.), who had come to Rome after the death of Pope Gelasius (496), and who was well skilled in both Latin and Greek, undertook to bring out a more exact translation of the canons of the Greek councils. In a second effort he collected papal decretals from Siricius (384–89) to Anastasius II (496–98), inclusive, anterior therefore, to Pope Symmachus (514–23). By order of Pope Hormisdas (514–23), Dionysius made a third collection, in which he included the original text of all the canons of the Greek councils, together with a Latin version of the same. Of this collection the preface alone has survived. Finally, he combined the first and second in one collection, which thus united the canons of the councils and the papal decretals; it is in this shape that the work of Dionysius has reached us. This collection opens with a table or list of titles, each of which is afterwards repeated before the respective canons; then come the first fifty canons of the Apostles, the canons of the Greek councils, the canons of Carthage (419), and the canons of preceding African synods under Aurelius, which had been read and inserted in the Council of Carthage. This first part of the collection is closed by a letter of Pope Boniface I, read at the same council, letters of Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople to the African Fathers, and a letter of Pope Celestine I. The second part of the collection opens likewise with a preface, in the shape of a letter to the priest Julian, and a table of titles; then follow one decretal of Siricius, twenty-one of Innocent I, one of Zozimus, four of Boniface I, three of Celestine I, seven of Leo I, one of Gelasius I, and one of Anastasius II. The additions met with in Voel and Justel (op. cit.) are taken from inferior manuscripts.

There were gaps in the work of Dionysius; he seems, in particular, to have taken the papal decretals, not from the archives of the Roman Church, but from previous compilations, hence certain omissions, which need not arouse any suspicion of the authenticity of documents not quotes. In spite of its defects this collection far surpassed all previous efforts of the kind, not alone by its good order, but also by the clear, intelligible text of its version, and by the importance of its documents. Very soon it superseded all earlier collections and was much used (celeberimo usu), especially in the Roman Church, says Cassiodorus. It became popular in Spain and Africa and even before Charlemagne had found its way into Gaul and Britain. It was the medium by which the African canons reached the East. Copyists used it to correct the text of the other collections, a fact not to be lost sight of at the risk of taking an interdependence of manuscripts for an interdependence of collections. Despite its authority of daily use and its occasional service in the papal chancery, it never had a truly official character; it even seems that the popes were wont to quote their own decretal letters not from Dionysius, but directly from the papal registers. In time the “Collectio Dionysiana,” as it came to be known, was enlarged and some of these additions entered the “Collectio Hadriana,” which Adrian I sent (774) to Charlemagne, and which was received by the bishops of the empire at Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen) in 802. It is none other than the “Collectio Dionysiana,” with some additions in each of its two parts. In this shape it acquired and kept the title of “Codex Canonum.” Neither the action of Pope Adrian nor the acceptance by the Synod of Aix-la-Chapelle conferred on the book an official character, or made it a code of universally obligatory laws; with much greater reason may it be said that it did not thereby become an exclusively authoritative code of ecclesiastical law. It was first printed in the first volume of Voel and Justel (op. cit.), re-edited by Lepelletier (Paris, 1687), and reprinted in P. L., LXVII. A new and more satisfactory edition is that of Cuthbert Hamilton Turner, in “Ecclesiæ Occidentalis Monumenta Juris Antiquissima” (Oxford, 1899- 1908), vol. II, fasc. II.

(5) THE “AVELLANA” COLLECTION

The Avellana Collection, so-called because its oldest known manuscript was bought for the abbey of Santa Croce Avellana by St. Peter Damian (died 1073). The collection probably dates from the middle of the sixth century. It follows neither chronological nor logical order, and seems to have grown to its present shape according as the compiler met with the materials that he has transmitted to us. Nevertheless, the Ballerini pronounce it a very valuable collection because of the great number of early canonical documents (nearly 200) that are found in no other collection. All its texts are authentic, save eight letters from divers persons to Peter, Bishop of Antioch. The “Avellana” has never been edited as such, though all its documents have passed into the great works of Sirmond, Coustant, Baronius, and Foggini, with the exception of two letters whose text is given by the Ballerini, in whose work, quoted above, are also indicated the places where the various texts of the “Avellana” may be read.

(6) VARIOUS OTHER COLLECTIONS

Despite the exceptional popularity of Dionysius Exiguus, which caused the previous compilations to be disused and soon forgotten, several of them were preserved, as also were some other contemporary collections—among them several that still offer a certain interest. See the above-quoted dissertation of the Ballerini, II, iv, and Maassen (op. cit., 476, 526, 721). It will suffice to mention the collection known as the “Chieti” or “Vaticana Reginæ,” through which a very old and distinct version of the decrees of the Council of Nicæa has reached us. It has been edited by the Ballerini (P. L., LVI, 818).

COLLECTION OF THE AFRICAN CHURCH

(1) CANONS OF THE AFRICAN COUNCILS

From the Eastern Church Northern Africa received only the decrees of Nicæa (325), which it owed to Cæcilianus of Carthage, one of the Nicene Fathers. The African Church created its domestic code of discipline in its own councils. It was customary to read and confirm in each council the canons of preceding councils, in which way there grew up collections of conciliar decrees, but purely local in authority. Their moral authority, however, was great, and from the Latin collections they eventually made their way into the Greek collections. The best-known are:

(a) the Canons of the Council of Carthage (Aug., 397) which confirmed the “Breviarium” of the canons of Hippo (393), one of the chief sources of African ecclesiastical discipline;

(b) the Canons of the Council of Carthage (419), at which were present 217 bishops and among whose decrees were inserted 105 canons of previous councils.

(2) “STATUTA ECCLESIÆ ANTIQUA”

In the second part of the “Hispana” (see below) and in other collections are found, together with other African councils, 104 canons which the compiler of the “Hispana” attributes to a Pseudo-Fourth Council of Carthage of 398. These canons are often known as “Statuta Ecclesiæ Antiqua,” and in some manuscripts are entitled “Statuta antiqua Orientis.” Hefele maintains that in spite of their erroneous attribution, these canons are authentic, or at least summaries of authentic canons of ancient African councils, and collected in their present shape before the end of the sixth century. On the other hand, Maassen, Mgr. Duchesne, and Abbé Malnory believe them a compilation made at Arles in the first part of the sixth century; Malnory specifies St. Cæsarius of Arles (q. v.) as their author.

(3) THE “BREVIATIO CANONUM” OF FULGENTIUS FERRANDUS

It is a methodical collection and under its seven titles disposes 230 abridged canons of Greek (“Hispana” text) and African councils. It was compiled towards 546 by Fulgentius, a deacon of Carthage and a disciple of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe; the text is in P. L., LXVII.

(4) THE “CONCORDIA” OF CRESCONIUS

This writer, apparently an African bishop, compiled his collection about 690. It is based on that of Dionysius Exiguus; only, in place of reproducing in full each canon, it cuts it up to suit the demands of the titles used; hence its name of “Concordia.” Between the preface and the text of the collection the writer inserted a resume of his work. This took on the name of “Breviatio Canonum” which led some to imagine that the latter title implied a work other than the “Concordia,” whereas it meant only a part or rather the preamble of the latter, whose text is in P. L., LXXXVIII.

COLLECTIONS OF THE SPANISH CHURCH

Under this heading the historian of canon law generally understands the collections that arose in the lands once under Visigothic rule—Spain, Portugal, and Southern Gaul. In this territory councils were very frequent, especially after the conversion of King Reccared (587), and they paid much attention to ecclesiastical discipline. Naturally the need of canonical collections was soon felt. As a rule, such collections contain, besides the decrees of Spanish synods, the canons also of Nicæa and Sardica (accepted in the Spanish Church from the beginning), those of the Greek councils known through the “Itala,” and those of the Gallican and African Councils, quite influential in the formation of Spanish ecclesiastical discipline. Three of these collections are important:—(1) THE “CAPITULA MARTINI”

It is divided into two parts, one dealing with the bishop and his clergy, the other relative to the laity; in both the author classifies methodically the canons of the councils in eighty-four chapters. He says himself in the preface that he does not pretend to reproduce the text literally, but with set purpose breaks up, abridges, or glosses the same, in order to make it more intelligible to “simple people”; possibly he has occasionally modified it to suit the Spanish discipline of his time. Though much has been borrowed from Latin, Gallican, and African Councils, it is the Greek Councils that furnish the greater part of the canons. The “Capitula” were read and approved at the Council of Braga (572). Some writers, misled by the name, attributed them to Pope Martin I; they are in reality the work of Martin of Pannonia, better known as Martin of Braga (q. v.), of which place he was archbishop in the sixth century. Their text was incorporated with the “Isidoriana,” from which they were taken and edited apart by Merlin and by Gaspar Loaisa, and in the first volume of the oft-quoted work by Voel and Justel, after collation of the variants in the best manuscripts.

(2) THE SPANISH “EPITOME”

The Epitome is the name of the collection edited by the Ballerini (op. cit., III, IV) from two manuscripts (Verona and Lucca). It has two parts: one includes the canons of Greek, African, Gallican, and Spanish councils; the other divers papal decretals from Siricius to Vigilius (384–555), with two apocryphal texts of St. Clement and an extract from St. Jerome. The compiler designedly abridged his texts, and mentions only three sources, a Braga collection (the “Capitula Martini,” his first chapter being a resume of that work), an Alcalá (Complutum) collection, and one of Cabra (Agrabensis). Though characterized by lack of order and exactness, the “Epitome” interests us because of the antiquity of its sources. Maassen thinks it connected with the “Codex Canonum,” the nucleus of the group of collections whence eventually issued the “Hispana,” and of which we shall treat apropos of the latter.

(3) THE “HISPANA” OR “ISIDORIANA”

This collection must not be confounded with the above-described “Versio Hispanica” or “Isidoriana,” among the earlier Latin collections, and which contained only canons of Greek councils. The collection in question, like that of Dionysius Exiguus on which it is based, contains two parts: the first includes canons of Greek, African, Gallican, and Spanish councils, with some letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople, while the second has the papal decretals as found in Dionysius, together with some others, most of the latter addressed to Spanish bishops. This is the chronological “Hispana.” Somewhat later, towards the end of the seventh century, it was recast in logical order, by some unknown writer, and divided into ten books, which were again subdivided into titles and chapters. This is the methodical “Hispana.” Finally, the copyists were wont to place at the beginning of the chronological “Hispana” a table of contents of the methodical collection, but with references to the text of the chronological: in this shape it was known as the “Excerpta Canonum.” The chronological “Hispana” seems to have been originally the “Codex Canonum” mentioned at the Fourth Council of Toledo (633), with later additions. In the ninth century it was attributed, with insufficient evidence, to St. Isidore of Seville. In spite of this erroneous attribution, the “Hispana” contains very few documents of doubtful authenticity. Later on, additions were made to it, the latest being taken from the seventeenth council of Toledo (694). In this enlarged form, i. e. the “Codex Canonum,” the “Hispana” was approved by Alexander III as authentic (Innocent III, Ep. 121, to Peter, Archbishop of Compostella). Until the thirteenth century, its authority was great in Spain. Pseudo-Isidore (see below) made a generous use of its materials. (See the text in P. L., LXXXXIV, reprinted from the edition of Madrid, 1808–21, executed at the Royal Printing House).

GALLICAN COLLECTIONS

(1) THE “COLLECTIO QUESNELLIANA”

The close relations of the churches of Gaul with those of Italy and Spain familiarized the former at an early date with the canonical collections of the latter churches, to which were added the canons of their own Gallican synods. At the beginning of the sixth century there arose in Gaul an extensive collection, based apparently on the “Antiqua Isidoriana,” the “Prisca,” the “Chieti” collection (see above), and the African collections, and which, besides the earliest Eastern and the African councils, includes papal decretals, letters of Gallican bishops, and other documents. It is of Gallican origin, though it includes no councils of Gaul. Its name is derived from the Oratorian, P. Quesnel, its first editor, who wrongly entitled it “Codex Canonum ecclesiæ Romanæ,” and tried to prove that it was an official collection of the Roman Church. It cannot, therefore, serve as authentic confirmation of the usages of that Church or of the churches of Africa. The Ballerini reprinted it in the third volume of their edition of the works of St. Leo I, with excellent dissertations against Quesnel (P. L., LVI). During the sixth and succeeding centuries the canonical compilers kept at their task; they received the African canons, those of Gallican councils, the statutes and letters of national bishops. Some of these collections were chronological, others methodical (see the Ballerini, II, x and Maassen, op. cit., 556, 821). We have already called attention to the importance (after 802) of the “Collectio Dionysio-Hadriana.”

(2) THE “CODEX CAROLINUS”

A collection of papal decretals addressed to Charles Martel, Pepin, and Charlemagne, compiled by the latter’s order in 791 (P. L., XCVIII), not to be confounded with the “Libri Carolini” (see CAROLINE BOOKS) in which were set forth for Pope Adrian I various dubia concerning the veneration of images.

ENGLISH AND IRISH COLLECTIONS

Before the seventh century we meet with no collections of canons particular to the English and Irish Churches. In England ecclesiastical discipline is at this time based on the provincial councils, which draw their inspiration from the general councils, and are reinforced by the ordinances of the Anglo-Saxon kings. Roman collections appear in 678 when Dionysius Exiguus is quoted at the Council of Herford. Thenceforth appear various collections of local origin, e. g. the “De Jure Sacerdotali” (P. L., LXVIII) and the “Exceptiones” attributed (but without sufficient reason) to Egbert of York (died 767). The most celebrated of these collections is the “Synodus Patritii” or “Collectio Hibernensis,” of the early part of the eighth century, whose compiler put together previous ecclesiastical legislation in sixty-four to sixty-nine chapters, preceded by extracts from the “Etymologiæ” of St. Isidore concerning synodal regulations. The preface states that for the sake of brevity and clearness, and to reconcile certain juridical antinomies, effort is made to render the sense of the canons rather than their letter. It is a methodical collection to the extent that the matters treated are placed in their respective chapters, but there is much confusion in the distribution of the latter. In spite of its defects this collection made its way into France and Italy and until the twelfth century influenced the ecclesiastical legislation of churches in both countries (Paul Fournier, De l’influence de la collection irlandaise sur les collections canoniques).

PARTICULAR COLLECTIONS

Apart from the above-described general collections there are some special or particular collections that deserve brief mention.

(1) Some of them deal with a particular heresy or schism, e. g. the collections of Tours, Verona, Salzburg, Monte Cassino, those of Notre Dame, of Rustiens, the Novaro-Vaticana, and the “Codex Encyclius” relative to Eutyches and the Council of Chalcedon, the “Veronensis” and the “Virdunensis” in the affair of Acacius.

(2) Others contain the documents and juridical texts that concern an individual church or country, e. g. the collection of Arles, in which were gathered the privileges of that Church, the collections of Lyons, Beauvais, Saint-Amand, Fécamp, etc., in which were brought together the canons of the councils of France.

(3) In the same category may be placed the capitula or episcopal statutes, i. e. decisions and regulations collected from Various quarters by local bishops for the use and direction of their clergy (see CAPITULARIES), e. g. the “Capitula” of Theodulf of Orléans, end of the eighth century (P. L., CV), of Hatto of Basle (882, in Mon. Germ. Hist: Leges, 1, 439–41), of Boniface of Mainz (745, in D’Achéry, Spicilegium, ed. nova I, 597). Still other collections deal with some special point of discipline. Such are the ancient liturgical collections called by the Greeks “Euchologia” (q. v.) and by the Latins “Libri mysteriorum,” or “sacramentorum,” more usually “Sacramentaries” (q. v.), also since the eighth century the “Ordines Romani” (q. v.) found in P. L., LXXVIII. Here, too, belong the collections of ecclesiastical formulæ (see FORMULARIES, BOOKS OF), especially the “Liber Diurnus” (q. v.) of the Roman Chancery, compiled probably between 685 and 782 (P. L., CV, 11), edited by Garnier (Paris, 1680) and anew by M. de Rozières (Paris, 1869), and by Th. Sickel (Vienna, 1889). Special mention is due to the “Penitentials” (Libri Pœnitentiales), collections of penitential canons, councils, and catalogues of ecclesiastical sanctions, to which were gradually added rules for the administration of the Sacrament of Penance. This important subject will be treated more fully under the article PENITENTIAL BOOKS.

COLLECTIONS OF ECCLESIASTICO-CIVIL LAWS

The civil law, as such, has no standing in the canonical forum. Yet in the first centuries of her existence the Church often rounded out her own legislation by adopting certain provisions of the secular laws. Moreover, either by mutual agreement, as under the Carlovingian kings, or by the civil power’s usurpation of ecclesiastical domain, as frequently happened under the Byzantine emperors, the civil authority legislated on matters in themselves purely canonical; such laws it behooved an ecclesiastic to know. Moreover, the priest often needs some acquaintance with the pertinent civil law in order to decide properly even in purely secular matters that are occasionally submitted to him. Hence the utility of collections of civil laws concerning ecclesiastical matters or the administration of the canonical laws (praxis canonica). We have already noted in the East the collections known as “Nomocanones”; the West also had mixed collections of the same nature.

(1) COLLECTIONS OF ROMAN LAW

This law interested quite particularly the ecclesiastics of the barbarian kingdoms that rose on the ruins of the Western Empire, since they continued to live by it (Ecclesia vivit lege romana); moreover, apart from the laws of the Anglo-Saxons, the legislation of all the barbarian peoples of Gaul, Spain, and Italy was profoundly Influenced by the Roman law. (a) The “Lex romana canonice compta,” apparently compiled in Lombardy during the ninth century, and handed down in a manuscript of the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. It includes portions of the “Institutiones” of the “Codex” of Justinian, and of the “Epitome” of Julian.

(2) CAPITULARIES OF THE FRANKISH KINGS

The laws of the latter were very favourable to religious interests; not a few of them were the result of the mutual deliberations of both the civil and the ecclesiastical power. Hence the exceptional authority of the royal capitularies (q. v.) before ecclesiastical tribunals. In the first half of the ninth century Ansegisus, Abbot of Fontenelles (823–33), collected in four books capitularies of Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, and Lothaire; the first two books contain provisions concerning the “ecclesiastical order,” the latter two exhibit the “law of the world.” Ansegisus himself added three appendixes. His work was widely used in France, Germany, and Italy, and was quoted in diets and councils as an authentic collection.

This rapid sketch exhibits the vitality of the Church from the earliest centuries, and her constant activity for the preservation of ecclesiastical discipline. During this long elaboration the Greek Church unifies her legislation, but accepts little from beyond her own boundaries. On the other hand the Western Church, with perhaps the sole exception of Africa, makes progress in the development of local discipline and exhibits an anxiety to harmonize particular legislation with the decretals of the popes, the canons of general councils, and the special legislation of the rest of the Church. Doubtless in the above-described collection of canons, the result of this long disciplinary development, we meet with forged decrees of councils and decretals of popes, even with forged collections, e. g. the collections of pseudo-Apostolic legislation. Nevertheless the influence of these apocryphal works on other canonical collections was restricted. The latter were, almost universally, made up of authentic documents. Canonical science in the future would have been nourished exclusively from legitimate sources had not a larger number of forged documents appeared about the middle of the ninth century (Capitula of Benedict Levita, Capitula Angilramni, Canons of Isaac of Langres, above all the collection of Pseudo-Isidore. See FALSE DECRETALS). But ecclesiastical vigilance did not cease; in the West especially, the Church kept up an energetic protest against the decay of her discipline; witness the many councils, diocesan synods, and mixed assemblies of bishops and civil officials, also the numerous (over forty) new canonical collections from the ninth to the beginning of the twelfth century and whose methodical order foreshadows the great juridical syntheses of later centuries. Being compiled, however, for the most part not directly from the original canonical sources, but from immediately preceding collections, which in turn often depend on apocryphal productions of the ninth century, they appear tainted to the extent in which they make use of these forgeries. Such taint, however, affects the critical value of these collections rather than the legitimacy of the legislation which they exhibit. While the “False Decretals” affected certainly ecclesiastical discipline, it is now generally recognized that they did not introduce any essential or constitutional modifications. They gave a more explicit formulation to certain principles of the constitution of the Church, or brought more frequently into practice certain rules hitherto less recognized in daily use. As to the substance of this long development of disciplinary legislation, we may recognize with Paul Fournier a double current. The German collections, while not failing to admit the rights of the papal primacy, are seemingly concerned with the adaptation of the canons to actual needs of time and place; this is particularly visible in the collection of Burchard of Worms. The Italian collections, on the other hand, insist more on the rights of the papal primacy, and in general of the spiritual power. M. Fournier indicates, as especially influential in this sense, the Collection in Seventy-four Titles. Both tendencies meet and unite in the works of Yvo of Chartres. The compilations of this epoch may, therefore, be classed in these two broad categories. We do not, however, insist too strongly on these views, as yet somewhat provisory, and proceed to describe the principal collections of the next period, following, as a rule, the chronological order.

END OF THE NINTH CENTURY TO GRATIAN (1139–50)

In these two centuries the ecclesiastical authorities were quite active in their efforts to withstand the decay of Christian discipline; the evidence of this is seen in the frequency of councils, mixed assemblies of bishops and imperial officials, and diocesan synods whose decrees (capitularies) were often published by the bishops. In this period many new collections of canons were made, some forty of which, as already said, are known to us.

THE “COLLECTIO ANSELMO DEDICATA”

Though as yet unedited, this collection is generally accounted quite valuable by reason of its abundance of materials and its good order; it was also one of the most widely used. Its twelve books treat the following subjects: hierarchy, judgments, ecclesiastical persons, spiritual things (rules of faith, precepts, sacraments, liturgies), and persons separated from the Church. Its sources are the “Dionysiana,” the “Hispana,” the correspondence (Registrum) of Gregory I, and various collections of civil laws. Unfortunately it has also drawn on Pseudo-Isidore. It is dedicated to Anselm, doubtless Anselm II of Milan (833–97), and is now held to have been compiled in Italy towards the end of the ninth century. It is certainly anterior to Burchard (1012–23), whose work depends on this collection. The author is unknown.

THE “COLLECTION OF REGINO OF PRÜM”

The Collection of Regino is entitled “De ecclesiasticis disciplinis et religione Christianâ” (on the discipline of the Church and the Christian religion), and according to the preface was put together by order of Ratbod, metropolitan of Trier, as a handy manual for episcopal use in the course of diocesan visitations. Its two books treat:

(1) of the clergy and ecclesiastical property, and

(2) of the laity.

Each book begins with a list (elenchus) of questions that indicate the points of chief importance in the eyes of the bishop. After this catechism, the Abbot of Prüm (died 915) adds the canons and ecclesiastical authorities relative to each question. The collection was made about 906 and seems to depend on an earlier one edited by Richter under the title, “Antiqua Canonum collectio qua in libris de synodalibus causis compilandis usus est Regino Prumiensis” (Marburg, 1844). The text of Regino is found in P. L., CXXXII; a more critical edition is that of Wasserschleben, “Reginonis Abbatis Prum. libri duo de synodalibus causis” (Leipzig, 1840).

THE “CAPITULA ABBONIS”

Abbo, Abbot of Fleury (died 1004), dedicated to Hugues Capet (died 996) and his son Robert (therefore before the end of the tenth century) a collection in fifty-six chapters, dealing with the clergy, ecclesiastical property, monks and their relations with the bishops. Besides the canons and papal decretals, he made use of the Capitularies, the Roman civil law, and the laws of the Visigoths; his collection is peculiar in that he enclosed within his own context the texts quoted by him. This collection is found in the second volume of the “Vetera Analecta” of Mabillon (Paris, 1675–85), and is reprinted in P. L., CXXXI.

THE “COLLECTARIUM CANONUM” OR “LIBRI DECRETORUM” OF BURCHARD OF WORMS

This collection is in twenty books and was compiled by Burchard, an ecclesiastic of Mainz, later Bishop of Worms (1002–25), at the suggestion of Brunicho, provost of Worms, and with the aid of Walter, Bishop of Speyer, and the monk Albert. This is the work often called “Brocardus.” Burchard follows quite closely the following order: hierarchy, liturgy, sacraments, delicts, sanctions, and criminal procedure. The nineteenth book was familiarly known as “Medicus” or “Corrector,” because it dealt with the spiritual ailments of different classes of the faithful; it has been edited by Wasserschleben in “Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche” (Leipzig, 1851). The twentieth, which treats of Providence, predestination, and the end of the world, is therefore a theological treatise. The collection, composed between 1013 and 1023 (perhaps in 1021 or 1022), is not a mere compilation, but a revision of the ecclesiastical law from the standpoint of actual needs, and an attempt to reconcile various juridical antinomies or contradictions. Burchard is a predecessor of Gratian and, like the latter, was a very popular canonist in his time. It is to be regretted that he depends on the above-mentioned ninth-century collections and even added to their apocryphal documents and erroneous attributions. The two collections just described (Regino and Collectio Anselmo dedicata) were known and largely used by him. Pseudo-Isidore also furnished him more than 200 pieces. The entire collection is in P. L., CXL.

THE “COLLECTIO DUODECIM PARTIUM”

yet unedited, is by an unknown, but probably a German, author. It includes a great deal of Burchard, follows quite closely his order, and by most is held to have copied his material, though some believe it older than Burchard.

THE COLLECTION IN SEVENTY-FOUR BOOKS, OR “DIVERSORUM SENTENTIA PATRUM”

This collection, known to the Ballerini and Theiner, is the subject of a careful study by Paul Fournier (“Le premier manuel canonique de ha réforme du onzième siècle” in “Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire publiés par l’Ecole Française de Rome,” 1894). He considers it a compilation of the middle of the eleventh century, done about the reign of St. Leo IX (1048–54), and in the entourage of that pope and Hildebrand; moreover, it was well known in and out of Italy and furnished to other collections not only their general order, but also much of their material. Fournier believes it the source of the collection of Anselm of Lucca, of the “Tarraconensis” and the “Polycarpus” (see below), also of other collections specified by him. This collection is yet unedited; Fournier gives (op. cit.) the beginnings and endings (Incipit, Explicit) of all the titles, also references to their sources.

THE COLLECTION OF ST. ANSELM OF LUCCA

This collection, wrongly adjudicated from the Bishop of Lucca. (1073–86), is divided into thirteen books, based on Burchard and the “Collectio Anselmo dedicata,” and contains many apocryphal pieces; it also contains papal decretals not found in other collections, whence the Ballerini concluded that St. Anselm consulted directly the pontifical archives. It has no preface; from the beginning (Incipit) of a Vatican manuscript it is clear that St. Anselm compiled the work during the pontificate and by order of St. Gregory VII (died 1085). It passed almost entire into the Decretum of Gratian. A critical edition is owing to Fr. Thaner, who published the first four books under the title “Anselmi episcopi Lucensis collectio canonum una cum collectione minore Jussu Instituti Saviniani (Savigny) recensuit F. T.” (Innsbruck, 1906).

THE COLLECTION OF CARDINAL DEUSDEDIT

Created by St. Gregory VII, Cardinal Deusdedit was enabled to use the correspondence (Registrum) of this pope, also the Roman archives. His work is dedicated to Victor III (1086–87), the successor of Pope Gregory, and dates therefore from the reign of Victor; its four books on the papal primacy, the Roman clergy, ecclesiastical property, and the Patrimony of Peter, reflect the contemporary anxieties of the papal entourage during this phase of the conflict between the Church and the empire. We owe to Pio Martinueci (Venice, 1869) a very imperfect edition of this collection, and to Wolf de Granvell, professor at Gratz, a critical edition (Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit, Paderborn, 1906).

COLLECTION OF BONIZO

Bonizo, Bishop of Sutri near Piacenza, published, apparently a little later than 1089, a collection in ten books preceded by a brief preface. In this work he treats successively the catechism and baptism, then the duties of divers classes of the faithful: ecclesiastical rulers and inferior clergy, temporal authorities and their subjects, finally of the cure of souls and the penitential canons. The fourth book only (De excellentiâ Ecclesiæ Romanæ) has found an editor, Cardinal Mai, in the seventh volume of his “Nova Bibliotheca Patrum” (Rome, 1854).

THE “POLYCARPUS”

A collection in eight books so called by its author, Gregory, Cardinal of San Crisogono, and dedicated to an Archbishop of Compostella, of whose name only the initial “D.” is given; in all probability he is Didacus, archbishop of that see from 1101 to 1120, which is therefore the approximate date of the “Polycarpus.” It seems to depend on Anselm of Lucca and on the “Collectio Anselmo dedicata,” and the above-mentioned “Collection in Seventy-four Books”; the author, however, must have had access to the Roman archives. This collection is as yet unedited.

COLLECTION OF YVO OF CHARTRES

Both by his writings and his acts this great bishop exercised a pronounced influence on the development of canon law in the first quarter of the twelfth century (he died 1115 or 1117). We owe to Paul Fournier a profound study of his juridical activity ( “Les collections canoniques attribuées à Yves de Chartres,” Paris, 1897 and “Yves de Chartres et le droit canonique” in “Revue des questions historiques,” 1898, LXII, 51, 385). Not to mention the “Tripartita” (see below), he has left us:

(1) THE “DECRETUM”

The Decretum is a vast repertory in seventeen parts and three thousand seven hundred and sixty chapters; though roughly subdivided under the aforesaid seventeen rubrics, its contents are thrown together without order and seemingly represent undigested results of the author’s studies and researches; hence it has been surmised that the “Decretum” is a mere preparatory outline of the “Panormia” (see below), its material in the rough. Theiner does not admit that the “Decretum” is the work of Yvo; it is, nevertheless, generally accepted that Yvo is the author, or at least that he directed the compilation. Nearly all of Burchard is found therein, and in addition a host of canonical texts, also Roman and Frankish law texts gathered from Italian sources. Fournier dates it between 1090 and 1095. It is found in P. L., CLXI.

(2) THE “PANORMIA”

The Panormia, admittedly a work of Yvo. It is much shorter than the “Decretum” (having only eight books) and is also more compact and orderly. Its material is taken from the Decretum, but it offers some additions, particularly in the third and fourth books. It seems to have been composed about 1095, and appears at that time as a kind of methodical Summa of the canon law; with Burchard it divided popularity in the next fifty years, i. e. until the appearance of the “Decretum” of Gratian.

THE “TRIPARTITA”

The Tripartita, so called because of its triple division. It contains in its first part papal decretals as late as Urban II (died 1099), and is therefore not of later date; its second part offers canons of the councils after the “Hispana” text; the third part contains extracts from the Fathers and from the Roman and the Frankish law. Hitherto it was supposed to have been taken from the “Decretum” of Yvo or composed by some unknown author. Fournier, however, thinks that only the third book postdates the “Decretum,” and then as an abridgment (A). The other two books he considers a trial-essay of the “Decretum,” by Yvo himself, or by some writer who worked under his direction while he laboured at the vast bulk of the “Decretum.” These two books, according to Fournier, formed a separate collection (A) later on joined to the above-mentioned third book (B), in which manner arose the actual “Tripartita.” In this hypothesis many chapters in the “Decretum” were borrowed from the afore-mentioned (A) collection, whose nucleus is found in its extracts from Pseudo-Isidore completed from divers other sources, especially by use of a collection of Italian origin, now kept in the British Museum. hence known as the “Britannica.” The “Tripartita” is yet unedited.

DIVERS COLLECTIONS

All three of these above-described collections (Decretum, Panormia, Tripartita) called for and found abridgements. Moreover, new collections arose, owing to fresh additions to these great compilations and new combinations with other similar works. Among them are:

(1) The “Cæsaraugustana,” so called because found in a Carthusian monastery near Saragossa. It seems to have been compiled in Aquitaine, and contains no papal decretals later than Paschal II (died 1118), which suggests its composition at a previous date. Its fifteen books borrow much from the “Decretum” of Yvo of Chartres.

(2) The “Collection in Ten Parts,” compiled in France between 1125 and 1130, an enlarged edition of the “Panormia.”

(3) The “Summa-Decretorum” of Haymo, Bishop of Châlons (1153), an abridgment of the preceding.

Antonius Augustinus (q. v.), who made known in the sixteenth century the “Cæsaraugustana,” revealed also the existence of the “Tarraconensis,” which came to him from the Cistercian monastery of Ploblete, near Tarragona. It is in six books and has no documents later than the reign of Gregory VII (died 1085). It belongs, therefore, to the end of the eleventh century; the “Correctores Romani,” to whom we owe (1572–85) the official edition of the “Corpus Juris canonici,” made use of the “Tarraconensis.” Fournier called attention to two manuscripts of this collection, one in the Vatican, the other in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris (see above, the Collection in Seventy-four Books).

BALLERINI, De antiquis Collectionibus et collectoribus canonum in P. L., LVI; MAASSEN, Gesch. der Quellen und der Lit. des canon. Rechts (Gratz, 1870); A. TARDIF, Hist. des sources du droit canonique (Paris, 1887); HUBLER, Kirchenrechtsquellen (Berlin, 1898); PHILIPPS, Kirchenrechts (Ratisbon, 1845), IV, and Droit ecclésiastique dans ses sources (tr. CROUZET, Paris, 1852); WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1905), I. tit. xi; SCHERER, Handbuch des Kirchenrechts (Gratz, 1898), I; SÄGMÜLLER, Lehrbuch des Kathol. Kirchenrechts (Ratisbon, 1900); VERING, Lehrbuch d. Kath.-Orient. u. Prot. Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1893); BICKELL, Gesch. des Kirchenrechts (Giessen, 1843), I; WALTER, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts aller christlichen Confessionen (Bonn, 1871); POHLE in Kirchenlex., II, 1845.

JULES BESSON.

Ecclesiastical Canons

Ecclesiastical Canons are certain rules or norms of conduct or belief prescribed by the Church. The name is derived from the Greek kanon, the instrument used by architects and artificers for making straight lines. Some writers think that the Church preferred the word canon to law, as the latter had a harsh meaning for the faithful in the times of persecution. The early Fathers use canon as equivalent to the rule of faith, or for some formula expressing a binding obligation on Christians (Irenæus, Adv. Hær., I, ix; Tertullian, De Præscr., 13). Bickell declares that for the first three hundred years, canon is scarcely ever found for a separate and special decree of the Church; rather does it designate the rule of faith in general. He appeals to the fact that the plural form of the word is seldom used in the earliest Christian writers (Bickell, Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, I, 8). With the fourth century began the use of canon for a disciplinary decree, owing to its employment in this sense by the First Council of Nice (325). The Cassinese editors of Ferraris (s. v. Canones) say that in the first ages of the Church many disciplinary regulations were not required, and hence it was scarcely necessary to discriminate decrees into dogmatic and disciplinary, as the faithful classed both under the obligation to observe the general rule of faith. From the fourth century onward, canon signified almost universally a disciplinary decree of a council or of the Roman pontiffs. The word decretum during the same period, though signifying in general an authoritative statute or decision, began to be limited more and more to dogmatic matters, while canon when used in opposition to it was restricted to laws of discipline. That this usage, however, was not invariable is evident from Gratian’s use of “Decretum” to signify his collection of canons and decrees. From the Council of Nice to that of Trent exclusive, the regulations concerning discipline issued by assemblies of bishops received the name of canons.

With the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century began the departure from this ancient usage. This council used the word canon for short, dogmatic definitions with an anathema attached to them. On the other hand it gave the name of decrees to its disciplinary regulations. The example set by Trent was followed by the Council of the Vatican. The usage of Trent seems to bring canon nearer to the signification it bore before the Council of Nice, when it referred rather to faith than to discipline. The general idea of a decision by Church authority seems to be also the root-meaning of the expressions “Canon of Scripture,” “Canon of the Mass,” “Canon of Saints,” although for the last term Ducange (s. v. Canonizare) suggests a somewhat different origin. As ecclesiastical regulations began to multiply, it became necessary to gather them into codices, which generally received the title of “Collection of Canons” (see In these, civil laws are often added to the Church regulations. For such collections the Greeks used the term Nomocanones. The Latins have no special name for them, though Capitularies (q. v.), e. g. of Charlemagne, is sometimes referred to as a somewhat parallel usage in the West.

As to the authority of ecclesiastical canons, it is evident a distinction must be made when speaking of canons of faith and canons of discipline, for the former are irreversible, the latter are not. Similarly, it is plain that canons containing a precept already binding by reason of Divine or natural law, cannot be on the same footing as those that are of mere ecclesiastical origin. In general, the “Corpus Juris Canonici” declares (cap. 1. de Const.) that canonical statutes are binding on all; likewise (cap. Quum scimus) that bishops are the guardians of the canons and must see to their observance. When there is question of canons in the ordinary ecclesiastical sense (namely, that which obtained before the Council of Trent), as they refer principally to matters of discipline, it must be borne in mind that they are neither immutable nor irreformable. The subject-matter of such canons depends not only on circumstances of persons, places, and times, but also on considerations of expediency or temporary necessity. A change in any of the causes which brought about the framing of the canons, will make a change in their binding-force, for disciplinary regulations are almost necessarily mutable. In like manner when there is question of the binding force of a canon, it is important to determine whether it was issued by a general council or by the decree of a pope, as imposing an obligation on all the faithful, or whether it was framed solely for restricted regions or persons. In the latter case its binding-force is as restricted as its scope.

It must be borne in mind that the object which the Church has always had in view in promulgating her canons has been the guidance and preservation of the clergy and laity in the duties of a Christian life and in the best methods of ecclesiastical administration. Although, therefore, such canons contain elements of positive human law, yet ultimately they are founded on the Divine or natural law. As such they cannot be entirely abrogated by contrary custom (Ferraris, loc. cit.), though their rigour may be mitigated by certain circumstances, on the ceasing of which, the pristine rigour of the canon would be again binding. When they are entirely of human law, they may, of course, be completely abrogated, not only by legislation on the part of the proper authorities, but also by legitimate custom. The study of the sacred canons is especially enjoined on the clergy. Perhaps most of the regulations refer directly to ecclesiastics, and the clergy will find in them the surest guidance for their own conduct and for the fruitful exercise of their ministry in directing the faithful. The neglect of the prescriptions of the sacred canons has always been the source of corruption in morals, and perhaps the chief reason for the loss of faith by nations as well as by individuals.

FERRARIS, Bibliotheca (Rome, 1888), II; SMITH, Elements of Eccl. Law (New York, 1895), I; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1898); BICKELL. Geschichte des Kirchenrechts (Leipzig, 1843).

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

Canons and Canonesses Regular

(Also called REGULAR CLERICS, RELIGIOUS CLERICS, CLERIC-CANONS, AUGUSTINIAN CANONS, BLACK CANONS, MONXCANONS).

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, a canon regular is essentially a religious cleric, or, as the same doctor aptly expresses it: “The Order of Canons Regular is necessarily constituted by religious clerics, because they are essentially destined to those works which relate to the Divine mysteries, whereas it is not so with the monastic Orders.” (II-II:189:8 ad 2um, and II-II:184:8). We have then here what constitutes a canon regular and what distinguishes him from a monk. The clerical state is essential to the Order of Canons Regular, whereas it is only accidental to the Monastic Order. Hence Erasmus, himself a canon regular, declared that the canons regular are a quid medium between the monks and the secular clergy. And for the same reason Nigellus Vireker, a Benedictine monk of Canterbury in the twelfth century, contrasts the life of canons regular, as he know them, with that of his own brethren and the Cistercians, pointing out the advantages of the former. The canons, he tells us, were spared the long choral duties, the sharp reproofs, the stern discipline of the Black Monks, and were not bound to the Spartan simplicity of vesture and diet of the field-working Cisterians (“Speculum Stultorum,” Rolls Series: “The Anglo-Latin Satirical poets of the Twelfth Century”). The “Llanthony Chronicler” relates how the first founders of his famous abbey, having consulted among themselves, decided to become canons regular, first, because on account of the charity they were well liked by all, and then because they were satisfied with a modest manner of living, their habit, though clean, being decent, neither too coarse, nor too rich. In this moderation of life we may say that canons regular follow the example of their lawgiver, St. Augustine, of whom St. Possidius, his biographer, relates that his habit, his furniture, his clothes were always decent, neither too showy nor too humble and shabby.

The spirit of the canonical order is thus quaintly but clearly explained in the “Observances in Use at the Augustinian Priory at Barnwell, Cambridge,” lately edited with a translation by F.W. Clarke:

The road along which Canons Regular walk in order to reach the heavenly Jerusalem is the rule of Blessed Augustine. Furthur lest Canons Regular should wander away from the rule, there are given to them, in addition, observances in accordance with it handed down from remote ages and approved among holy fathers in all quarters of the world. This rule is simple and easy, so that unlearned men and children can walk in it without stumbling. On the other hand it is deep and lofty, so that the wise and strong can find in it matter for abundant and perfect contemplation. An elephant can swim in it and a lamb can walk in it safely. As a lofty tower surrounded on all sides by walls makes the soldiers who garrison it safe, fearless, and impregnable, so the rule of Blessed Augustine, fortified on all sides by observances in accordance with it, makes its soldiers, that is, Canon Regular, undismayed at the attacks, safe and invincible.

To explain further the nature and distinctive spirit of the canonical order, we may say, with St. Augustine, that a canon regular professes two things, “sanctitatem et clericatum.” He lives in community, he leads the life of a religious, he sings the praises of God by the daily recitation of the Divine Office in choir; but at the same time, at the bidding of his superiors, he is prepared to follow the example of the Apostles by preaching, teaching, and the administration of the sacraments, or by giving hospitality to pilgrims and travellers, and tending the sick. And so we find that Pope Paschal II, in his Bull addressed in 1118 to the prior and community at Colchester, tells them that their order has always been devoted to preaching, hearing confessions, and baptizing, and ready to accept the care of such parishes and public chapels as might be entrusted to their charge. This has been pointed out by other popes, as also by St. Ives of Chartres, and by Cancellieri, who, quoting the authority of an ancient writer to the effect that the clerics living in common in the Lateran Basilica observed the regulations introduced there by Pope Gelasius, says that “their work was the administration of the sacraments and the offering of prayer.” It is the same now. From one monastery alone, that of St. Florian, in Austria, some forty parishes are served, and those same canons who gave hospitality on the Great St. Bernard serve a number of parishes in the Canton Valais. The public prayer, or liturgical office, is celebrated with all the splendour befitting God’s honour and His house. But the canons regular do not confine themselves exclusively to canonical functions. Nothing, unless incompatible with the duty of clerics is rejected. To this day, as already mentioned, they give hospitality to pilgrims and travelers on the Great St. Bernard and on the Simplon, and in former times the hospitals of St. Bartholomew’s Smithfield, in London, of S. Spirito, in Rome, of Lochleven, Monymusk, and St. Andrew’s, in Scotland, and others like them, were all served by canons regular. In fact, many congregations of canons made it their chief end to work among the poor, the lepers, the insane, and the infirm. The clerics established by St. Patrick in Ireland had a Guest House for pilgrims and the sick whom they tended by day and by night. And the rule given by Chrodegang to this canons enjoined that a hospital should be near their house that they might tend the sick. The Councilof Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen) also ordains the erection of a hospital for pilgrims over which a canon regular is to preside. The essential and characteristic habit of canons regular is the rochet. With regtard to the other parts, their dress, as a general rule, is that of other clergy, although some have added a scapular. By most the rochet is worn as part of their daily dress, though sometimes reduced to a small linen band hanging from the shoulders in front and behind. it is now so worn in Austria, on the Great St. Bernard, and at Aosta. As to the colour of the dress there is no fixed rule, the custom and traditions of the various Congregations may be observed. The general colour seems to have been white as now worn by the Lateran Congregation. A question having been raised as to the proper habit of a canon regular, when named bishop, it was settled by a Brief of Leo X. A long dissertation on the dress of the canons regular was presented to the pope by jurisconsult, Zaccaria Ferreri, who maintained that, with the exception of the rochet, the canons regular, like the secular clergy, had no fixed dress. It may be interesting to note that, in this dissertation on the authority of the “Most Reverend Lord Cardinal of England, and many other Prelates, and the English Ambassador,” the author says, “in England the Canons Regular wore violet like the other clergy.” In the Constitutions given by Cardinal Wolsey to canons regular mention is also made of this variety of habit.

ORIGIN

Having thus explained what a canon regular is, and what the spirit and work of the canonical order are, it will be easier now to answer such questions as these:

Who was the founder of the canons regular?

Whence do they drive their origin?

When and where were they first known?

Various and contradictory opinions have been expressed to answer these and similar questions. There have been some writers who, like the famous Cistercian abbot, Joachim, Coriolanus, Marquez, and others held that the canonical order began about 1100. According to others the order dates from the time of Charlemagne, who expressed the wish that all the clergy should be either monks or canons living in common , as prescribed by the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 789, and Mainz, in 813. The great Bishop of Hippo is also regarded by some as the founder of the canonical institute. All these opinions are set aside by many other writers, and especially by the historians of the order, who almost unanimously trace back the origin of the canons regular much farther in antiquity. Their institute, they maintain, was founded by Christ Himself, and dates from the time of the Apostles. These writers and historians begin by saying that, although it be true that there was a great revival, or general reformation and spreading of the order in the twelfth century, in France and elsewhere through the zeal of Ives, Bishop of Chartres, in italy through the newlyfounded congregation of Blessed Peter de Honestis, and elsewhere through the congregation of St. Rufus, yet this does not imply that the order took its origin at that epoch, but rather—since it needed reforming—that it had already existed for some time. History, in fact, tells us that about the eleventh century the regular or canonical life hitherto observed alsmost everywhere by the clergy was given up in many churches, and thus a distinctiion was made between the clerics who lived in separate houses and those who still preserved the old discipline, living under rule and having all things in common. The former were called canonici saeculares, the latter canonici regulares, by which name they have been known ever since. It is also true that in the year 763 Chrodegang, Bishop of metz, assembled the clergy of his cathedral around him, led with them a community life, and gave them a rule taken from the statutes of ancient orders and canons, a discipline also recommended shortly after by the Councils of Aix-la-Chapelle and Mainz; but in doing this he was only following the example of St. Augustine, who had introduced among his own clergy the manner of life which he had seen practiced at Milan. And that is why the member so the canonical order regard St. Augustine not as their founder, but only as their reformer, or lawgiver; because to the clergy who lived with him he had given certain special regulatiions, which were in course of time adopted by almost all the canons regular, who were on that account called “Canons Regular of St. Augustine.” Those who believe in the Apostolic origin of the canonical institute, support their contention by the authority of popes, theologians, and church historians. There is abundant evidence, they say that Christ Himslef instituted a perfect religious state, and that it was embraced by the Apostles and many of their disciples from the very beginning of the Church. It is also certain that from the time of the Apostles there have always been in the Church clerics who, following the example of the primitive Christians, living “secundum regulam sub sanctis Apostolis constitutam” (according to the Apostolic Rule), had all things in common. Eusebius, the historian, relates that St. Mark, the disciple of St. Peter, established this discipline at Alexandria, as did St. Crescentius in Gaul, St. Saturninus in Spain, and St. Maternus in Germany. We know that St. Eusebius introduced it at Vercelli in Italy, and St. Amborse at Milan. Pope Urban I (A.D. 227), Paschal II (1099), Benedict XII (1334), Eugenius IV (1431), Sixtus V, and Pius V in their various Letters and bulls, are quoted by the historians of the order, to prove distinctly that St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, only restored, or caused to reflourish, the order of canons regular, which was first instituted by the Apostles. St. antoninus, Vincent of Beauvais, Sigebert, Peter of Cluny, Fagnani, and many others tell us that the canonical order traces back its origin to the earliest ages of the Church. It will suffice to give here the authority of Suarez, who sums up the case very clearly. After having stated that the Apostles taught by Christ Himslef formed the first order of clerics, and that the order did not perish with the Apostles, but was preserved by continuous succession in their disciples, as proved by letters of Pope St. Clement and urban I (though these letters are Pseudo-Isidorain in character), the writer continues:

We read in the Life of St. Augustine that when he was made priest, he instituted a monastery within the church and began to live with the servants of God according to the manner and rules constituted by the holy Apostles. Many therefore suppose that the Order of Regular Clerics, or Canons Regular, was not instituted by St. Augustine, but was either reformed by him or introduced by him into Africa and furnished witha special rule. Pius IV maintains that the Order of Regular Clerics was instituted by the Apostles, and this Benedict XII confirms in his preface to the Constitutions of the Canons Regular. There is no question as regards the continuance of this state from the time of St. Augustine to this time, although with great variety as far as various institutes are concerned.

To this we may add that when a controversy arose between the Benedictine monks and the canons regular with regard to precedence, the question was settled by Pius V in favour of the canons, on account of their Apostolic origin. We may then conclude with the words of Cardinal Pie, who, addressing the canons regular of the Lateran Congregation, whom he had established at Beauchene in his diocese, says:

These that are clothed in white robes, who are they, and whence come they come, I will tell you. heir origin is nothing else but the society and the common life of Jesus and His Apostles, the original model of community life between the bishop and his clergy. On that account they chiefly come from Hippo and from the home of Augustine, who has given them a Rule, which they still glory to observe.

The name Austin (or Augustinian) Canons is commonly used instead of Canons Regular, and there are some who think that Austin Canons are so styled because they were instituted by St. Augustine. This is a wrong notion. St. Augustine did not found the order of canons regular, not even those who are called Austin Canons. There were canons regular before St. Augustine. The various authoritites quoted in this article prove it. All St. Austin did was to induce his clergy to live secundum regulam sub sanctis Apostolis constitutam, which he had seen practised at Milan, adding to the Apostolic Rule hitherto observed by clerics living in common, some regulations, afterwards called the “Rule of St. Augustine.” Or, in the words of Pope Paschal II in a Bull quoted by Pennott, “Vitæ regularis propositum in primitiva ecclesia cognoscitur ab Apostolis institutum quam B. Augustinus tam gratanter amplexus est ut eam regulis informaret” (A regular mode of life is recognized in the Early Church as instituted by the Apostles, and adopted earnestly by Blessed Augustine, who provided it with new regulations)—Hist. Tripart., Lib. II, c. iv, 4. These regulations which St. Austin had given to the clerics who lived with him soon spread and were adopted by other religious communities of canons regular in Italy, in France, and elsewhere. When, in and after the eleventh century, the various congregations of canons regular were formed, and adopted the Rule of St. Augustine, they were usually called Canonici Regulares Ordinis S. Augustini Congregationis, and in England Austin Canons, or Black Canons. but there have always been canons regular who never adopted the Rule of St. Augustine. Giraldus Cambrenisis mentions some in his day in England. In a word, canons regular may be considered as the genus, and austin Canons as the species; or we may say that all Austin Canons are canons regular, but not all canons regular are Austin canons. If further proofs of the Apostolic origin of the canonical order are desired, many may be found in the work of Abbot Ceasare Benvenuti (see bibilograhpy at end of this article), who century by century, from councils, Fathers, and other ecclesiastical sources, proves that from the first to the twelfth century there had always been clerics living in common according to the example of the Apostles. It will be enough to citehere the authority of Döllinger who, after saying that from the time of the Apostles there have been in the Church, virgins, laymen, and ecclesiastics named ascetics, continues:

At Vercelli the holy Bp. Eusebius intorduced the severe discipline of the Oriental monks among his clergy both by word and example. Before the gat of Milan was a cloister for monks under the protection of St. Ambrose . . . St. Augustine, when a priest, founded a cloister at Hippo, in which with other clerics he lived in humility and community of goods. When Bishop his episcopal residence was converted into a cloister for ecclesiastics. (Eccl. History, tr. by the Rev. E. Cox, II, 270).

To this again may be added, among many others, the words of Benedict XII, Eugenius IV, Pius IV, and Pius V, in their bulls, all asserting almost in as many words, what has been here said. The following words, taken from the Martyrologium for canons regular and approved by the Congregation of Sacred Rites, will suffice for the purpose:

Ordo Canonicorum Regularium, qui in primaevis Ecclesiae saeculis Clerici nominabantur utque ait S. Pius V. in Bullâ (Cum ex ordinum 14 Kal. Jan., 1570): ‘ab Apostolis originem traxerunt, quique ab Augustiono eorum Reformatore iterum per reformationis viam mundo geniti fuere,’ per universum orbem diffusus innumerabilium SS. agmine fulget. (The order of canons regular, who in the early ages of the Church were called clerics, and who, as St. Pius V says in the Bull Cum ex ordinum, 1570, derived their origin from the Apostles, and who later were born anew to the world through a process of reformation, by their reformer, Augustine, being spread throughout the universe, are renowned for an army of innumerable saints).

DEVELOPMENT

This rule, which, in the words of Giraldus Cambrensis, happily joins the canonical and clerical life together, was soon adopted by many prelates, not only in Africa, but elsewhere also. After the death of the holy Doctor, it was carried into Italy and France by his disciples. One of them, Pope Gelasius, about the year 492, re-established the regular life in the Lateran Basilica. From St. John Lateran (the Mother and Mistress of all Churches) the reform spread till at length the Rule was universally adopted by almost all the canons regular. It was in the same Lateran Basilica, tradition tells us, that St. Patrick, the future Apostle of Ireland, professed the canonical institute which he afterwards intorduced with the Christian Faith, into his own country. At the voice of the great apostle the Irish nation not only embraced Christianity, but many also, following his example, embraced the canonical life. On the authority of Sir James Ware, Canon Burke (Life and Labours of St. Augustine) asserts that “all the monasteries founded in Ireland by St. Patrick, were for canons regular.” This opinion is also maintained by Allemande, who affirms (Hist. monastique de l’Irlande) that “the Regular Canons of St. Augustine were so early or considerable in Ireland before the general suppression of monasteries, that the number of houses they are said to have had seems incredible. They alone possessed, or had been master of, as many houses as all the other orders together, and almost all the chapters of the cathedral and collegiate churches in Ireland consisted of canons regular.” To these authorities we might add that of the Rev. R. Butler, who, in his notes to the “Registrum Omnium Sanctorum,” expressly affirms that the “old foundations in Ireland were exclusively for Canons.” We might also quote the the words of Bishop Thomas de Burgo, who, in his “Hibernia Dominicana,” does not hesitate to say that St. Patrick was a canon regular, and that, having preached the Christian Faith in Ireland, he established there many monasteries of the canonical institute. After this no one will think that the same writer exaggerates when he appends to his work a catalogue of 231 monasteries which at some time or other belonged to canons and canonenesses regular. The Irish clerics became the most learned scholars in Europe, Ireland’s seats of learning, monasteries, nunneries, and charitable institutions were usnsurpassed either in number or excellence by those of any nation in th world. The Abbot or Priors of Christ Church and All Hallows in Dublin, of Connell, Kells, Athessel, Killagh, Newton, and Raphoe had seats in Parliament.

There seems very little doubt that the canonical institute was introduced into Scotland by St. Columba. This saint, called “monasteriorum pater et fundator,” in reference to the numerous churches and monasteries built either by him or by his disciples in Ireland and Scotland, was formed to the religious life in the monastery of St. Finnian. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, anno 565, relates that Columba, Masspreost (Mass-Priest), “came to the Picts to convert them to Christ,” or, as another manuscript says: “This year, 565, Columba the Messa-preost, came from the parts of the Scots (Ireland) to the Britons to teach the Picts, and built a monastery in the island of Hy.” To what order this monastery, founded by Columba, belonged, we may judge from other monasteries built by the saint in Ireland and Scotland. As we have already stated, St. Columba was the disciple of St. Finnian, who was a follower of St. Patrick; both then had learned and embraced the regular life which the great Apostle had established in Ireland. Moreover, such writers as Ware, de Burgo, Archdall, Cardinal Moran, Bower, expressly tell us that Columba built monasteries for canons regular in Ireland and Scotland. So, for instance, Ware, in his “Antiquitates Hiberniae,” writing of Derry, says: “St. Columba built (this monastery) for Canons Regular in the year 545.” This monastery was a filiation of the monastery of SS. Peter and Paul at Armagh—which, according to the same writer, had been founded by “St. Patrick for Canons Regular.” Again, tradition places the first landing of the saint on leaving Ireland at Oronsay, and Fordun (Bower) notices the island as “Hornsey, ubi est monasterium nigrorum Canonicorum, quod fundavit S. Columba” (where is the monastery of Black Canons which St. Columba founded). Speaking of the very monastery built by the saint at Hy, another historian, Gervase of Canterbury, in his “Mappa Mundi,” informs us that the monastery belonged to the Black Canons.

It may be here the place to mention the opinion of some writers who think that the monasteries established by St. Columba in Scotland were for Culdees. It will be remembered that numerous opinions have been expressed concerning the origin and the institute of the Culdees, some calling them monks, some secular canons and hospitallers, and others going so far as to say that they were Independents, or Dissenters, nay even the forefathers of the modern Freemasons. The present writer, on the other hand, is of opinion that the Culdees originally, and some even to the very end, were nothing else but clerics living in common just as those St. Patrick had established in Ireland and St. Columba had introduced into Scotland.

At the time of the Reformation there were in Scotland at least thirty-four houses of canons regular and one of canonesses. These included six Premonstratensian houses, one Gilbertine, and one of the Order of St. Anthony. The others seem to have been chiefly of the Aroasian Congregation, first introduced into Scotland from Nostall Priory, in England. The chief houses were:

St. Andrews, the Metropolitan of Scotland, founded by Angus, King of the Picts. The church was at first served by Culdees, but in 1144 Bishop Robert, who had been a canon regular at Scone, established here members of his own community. The prior was mitred and could pontificate. In Parliament he had precedence of all abbots and priors.

Scone, founded by King Alexander I. Here the Scottish kings were crowned. The stone on which the coronation took place was said to be that on which Jacob rested his head; it is now at Westminster, having been removed by Edward I. Tradition syas that the Culdees were at Scone before Alexander brought canons regular from Nostall Priory in 1115.

Holy Rood, of which King David was the founder, in 1128, for canons regular, in the “vail that lyis to the Eist frae the Castell, quhare now lyis the Cannongait, and which at that time was part of ane gret forest full of hartis, hyndis, toddis and sicklike manner of beistis,” as Bellenden, the translator of Bower, expresses it. This famous abbey was burnt down, at the instigation of John Knox, in 1544, but some efforts were made to restore Divine service in the chapel as late as 1688, for in that year Father G. Hay, a Scotch canon regular, of the French congregation, performed there a funeral as he says, “in his habit with surplice and aulmess after the rites of Rome.” Next the abbey was the Royal Palace, and we are told that the Scottish kings often went

Unto the saintly convent, with good monks to dine And quaff to organ music the pleasant cloister wine.

Many of the houses founded by St. Columba remained in possession of the canons till the time of the Reformation. Oronsay and Crusay were of the number. Much valuable information concerning many of the canonical houses may be found in Fordun’s Scoti-Chronicon, written before 1384 (ed. Skene, Edinburgh, 1871–72). As Walter Bower, its continuator and annotator, was a canon regular, and abbot of Inchcolm, he no doubt derived all his materials at firs hand from the archives of the order, and thus many important particulars are related by him concerning the foundations of the houses, their inmates, and particular events.

There are not wanting writers who, on the authority of Jocelin, William of Malmsbury, “Gesta Pontificum,” and others, are of opinion that the canonical order was established in Britain by St. Patrick, on his return from Rome to Ireland. Be this as it may, the Saxon conquerors of the country extirpated not only the religious establishments, but almost the very Faith of Christ from the land. The faithful either were obliged to dwell in the fastnesses of Wales or were made slaves. It was in these circumstances that Pope Gregory the Great sent to England St. Augustine with forty clerics, who according to the Bull of Pope Eugenius IV (quoted by Lingard in his Anglo-Saxon Church, I, iv), by which, in 1446, he restored the Lateran Basilica to the canons regular, formed a Canonical Institute. Speaking of the ordr founded by the Apostle and reformed by the holy Bishop of Hippo, the pope says: “Blessed Gregory commanded St. Augustine, the Bishop of England, to establish it as a new plantation among the nation entrusted to his care and spread it to the utmost distant parts of the West.” And William of Coventry, in his Chronicle, A.D. 620, tells us that “Paulinus with twelve clerics was sent by the Pope to help Augustine.” In the North also the disciples of St. Columba were preaching the Gospel and establishing the canonical order among the nation they were converting to Christ. The Roman and British clergy amalgamated, and were learn from English historians that most if not all the cathedral and large churches were served by regular clerics or canons regular till the tenth century, when they were replaced by Benedictine monks by royal authority, and sometimes by means even less lawful. Dr. Lingard clearly states that:

in many of these religious establishments the inmates had been Canons Regular from the beginning. In many they had originally been monks and had converted themselves into Canon, but all considered themselves bound by their rule to reside within the precincts of their monasteries, to meet daily in the church for the performance of divine service, to take their meals in the same hall, and to sleep in the same dormitory.

In fact, this same historian is of opinion that St. Augustine and his companions were clerics living in common. Writing of the clergy in Anglo-Saxon times, Dr. Lingard says:

The chief resource of the Bishop lay in the Cathedral monastery, where the clergy were carefully instructed in their duties and trained in the exercise of their holy profession. They were distinguished by the name of Canons because the rule which they observed had been founded in accordance with the canons enacted in different councils.

And he adds this explanatory note from the Excerptiones of Egbert:

Canonen dicimus regulas quas sancti Patres constiturerunt in quibus scriptum est quomodo canonici, id est clerici regulares, vivere debeant.

(By the term canons we designate those rules which the holy Fathers have laid down, in which it has been written how canons (canonici), i.e. regular clerics, ought to live). We have also the fact that in the twelfth century many churches served by secular canons, like Plympton, Twynham, Taunton, Dunnow, Gisburn, were given to canons regular, who, it would seem, were the original owners. This view is confirmed by the authorities of various historians. In his History of the Archbishops (ed. Stubbs, Rolls Series, London, 1876), Diceto tells us that at Dunstan’s suggestion King Edgar drove the clerics out of most of the churches of England and placed monks in their stead. In Liber de Hyda we find that canons had been introduced at Winchester by King Ethelred, and that Bishop Grimbald, a zealous reformer of the clergy, had established a community of clerics whose duty it was to perform the Divine Office. Speaking of Ælfric, a monk who had been elected Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, A.D. 995, remarks that when he came to hic cathedral he was received by a community of clerics, when he would have preferred monks. It would seem, then, that writers like Tanner, the modern editors of Dugdale’s Monasticon, and others, who think that the canons regular were introduced into England after the year 1100, or after the coming of William the Conqueror, may have been misled by the fact that it was only after the eleventh century that the canons regular were so styled generally; nevertheless these are the same ecclesiastics, until then commonly called religious or regular clerics. It is also true that, as elsewhere so in England, in the twelfth century there was a great revival in the canonical order on account of various congregations newly found in France, Italy, and the Low countries, and it was some of these new canons that came with the Conqueror; but this does not prove that the canonical life was unknown before. In England alone, from the Conquest to the death of Henry II, no fewer than fifty-four houses were founded where the canons regular were established. Colchester in 1096 was the first, followed ten years later by Holy Trinity in London. In 1100 Ralph Mortimer, by consent of Gerard, Bishop of Hereford, founded a canonical house at Wigmore, and in 1110 another house for Austin Canons was built at Haghmond. At Taunton a colony of secular priests became a monastery of canons regular. Secular canons were also replaced by canons regular at Twynham, Plympton, Waltham, and other places. In the period mentioned there were, among others, the foundations of the Austin houses at Dunmow, Thremhall, Southhampton, Gisburn, newnham in Bedfordshire, Norton in Cheshire, Stone in Staffordshire, Anglesey and Barnwell in Cambridgeshire, Berden in Essex. This was, no doubt, a period of great prosperity for the canonical order in England. But soon evil days came. There was first the Black Plague, and like every other ecclesiastical institution, the canons regular were fairly decimated, and we may say that they never quite recovered. To remedy the evil Cardinal Wolsey thought it expedient to introduce a general reform of the whole canonical order in England. In the capacity of papal delegate, on 19 March, 1519, he issued the Statuta, which were to be observed by all the Austin Canons. These ordinance, as Abbot Gasquet observes, are valuable evidence as to the state of the great Augustinian Order at that time in England. The statutes provide for the union of all the Austin Canons; for the assembly of a general chapter every three years; for various matters concerning obedience, poverty, and the general discipline of the cloister. Special regulations are given for the daily recitation of the Divine Office and singing of Masses. Directions are laid down for the reception and profession of novices, for uniformity in the religious habit, and sending young students to Oxford University. But troubled days soon came over the land, and these statutes, good though they were, could not keep off the evil times. The canonical houses were suppressed, and the religious dispersed, persecuted, little by little disappeared from the land altogether. Yet, in spite of the previous disasters, by Abbot Gasquet’s computation ninety-one houses belonging to the canons regular wee suppressed or surrendered at the time of the Reformation between 1538 and 1540, with one thousand and eighty-three inmates—namely, Austin Canons, fifty-nine houses and seven hundred and seventy-three canons; Premonstratensians, nineteen houses and one hundred and fifty-one religious. This number of houses and religious does not include the lesser monasteries with an aggregate of one house and five hundred monks and canon, nor the nuns of the various orders estimated at one thousand five hundred and sixty.

The best known canonical houses were: Walsingham, Waltham, St. Mary’s Overy, Bolton, St. Bartholomew’s Smithfield, Nostall, Bridlington, Bristol, Carlisle, newbury, hexham, Lanercost, Bodmin, colchester, Dunstable, Merton, Kertmele, Llanthony, Plympton, St. Frideswide’s at Oxford, Osney.

At Walshingham there was a famous shrine of Our Lady, a model of the Holy House of Nazareth, founded two hundred years before the miraculous removal to Loretto. Erasmus, writing in the sixteenth century, gives a vivid description of the shrine and the canons, its custodians. At Bourne Abbey lived from 1300 to 1340 Robert de Brunne, a canon regular, who had been styled the “Father of the English language.” In his monastic seculsion he welded together the diverse dialects, which then divided shire from shire, into the grammaatical structure which the language has since retained. Bridlington Priory, where William de Newbridge and several other historians lived, was also sanctified by the life, virtues, and miracles of its holy prior, John de Tweng, the last English saint to be canonized prior to the Reformation. He died in 1379. In 1386 a mandate was issued to collect evidence with a view to canonization. the body was translated in 1405 de mandato Domini papae, and Boniface IX by a Bull, the original of which was found in the Vatican Archives by J.A. Twemlow a few years ago, formally canonized him. The holy prior was a very popular saint in the North of England. A rich shrine had been built over his tomb, from which the people begged Henry VIII to withold his hand; but all in vain. Lest the people should be reduced in the offering of their money, the shrine was pulled down and destroyed. Sempringham saw the beginning by St. Gilbert, and the wonderful growth of the only pre-Reformation institute of distinctly English origin. Here, too, Peter de Langtoft, the historian, lived and wrote his well-known works. Within the walls of Merton Abbey Thomas of Canterbury, when a youth, received his eduacation and made his profession as a canon regular before he was consecrated archbishop. Chic Priory, whence came William de Corbeil, Archbishop of Canterbury, was renowned for the learning of its religious clerics: “clerical litteraturâ insignes.” Thurgarton was the home of that spiritual writer, Walter Hilton, who, about the year 1400, wrote the Scala perfectionis, usually attributed to some Carthusian monk. St. Frideswide’s, founded for canons regular at Castle Tower by Robert d’Oiley, and translated to Osney in 1149, became, as Cardinal Newman tells us, “a nursery for secular students, subject to the Chancellor’s jurisdiction.” At Lilleshall Priory lived John Myrk, the author of Instructions for Parish Priests, a work written in irregular couplets, doubtless that they might be easily committed to memory. It has been edited by the Early English Text Society. The following verses, where Myrk gives excellent and explicit directions for behaviour in church, are a fair sample of the author’s style:

That when they do to Church fare,

Then bid them leave their many words,

Their idle speech and nice border {jests}

And put away all vanity

And say their Pater Noster and their Ave.

None in the church stand shall,

Nor lean to pillar not to wall,

But fair on knees they shall them set,

Kneeling down upon the flat,

And pray God with heart meek

To give them grace and mercey eke.

Suffer them to make no bere {noise}

But aye to be in their prayer.

Some twenty-five years ago the canons regular of the Lateran Congregation returned to this Cornish town where before the Reformation their brethren the Austin Canons had a beautiful priory in honour of St. Mary and St. Petrock. The new prior is now the residence of the provincial, or visitor, the novitiate-house for England, and the center from which several Missions—as Truro, St. Ives, and Newquay—are served by canons regular. Although when the storm of persecution came and the religious houses were either seized or surrendered the canons regular were not as faithful to the Church and their profession as might have been desired, yet there were not wanting many who preferred to lay down their lives rather than betray their Faith or give up God’s property. Of this number were W. Wold, Prior of Bridlington, the Sub-Prior of Walsingham, with sixteen canons, and Ven. Laurence Vaux. The canonical order is now represented in England by Premonstratensians at Crowley, Manchester, Spalding, and Storrington. The Canons Regular of the Lateran Congregation are at Bodmin, Truro, St. Ives, and Newquay, in Cornwall; at Spettisbury and Swanage, in dorsetshire; at Stroud Green and Eltahm, in London. Besides the occupations of the regular life at home and the public recitation of the Divine Office in choir, they are chiefly employed in serving missions, preaching retreats, supplying for priests who ask their service, and hearing confessions, either as ordinary or extraordinary confessors to convents or other religious communities.

The canonical order must have been introduced into the New World soon after the discovery of that country by Columbus. In fact, tradition tells us that some canons regular from Spain were his companions in one or other of his voyages. Certain it is that at the general chapter of the Lateran Congregation held at Ravenna in 1558, at the request of many Spanish canons, Don Francis de Agala, a professed canon regular from Spain, who for some ten years had already laboured in the newly-discovered country, was created vicar-general in America, with powers to gather into communities all the members of the canonical institute who were then dispersed in those parts, and the obligation to report to the authorities of the order. At present there are canons regular of the Lateran Congregation in the Argentine, and in Canada the Canons of the Immaculate Conception serve different missions. The premonstratensian Canons also are in different places in South America.

REFORMS AND CONGREGATIONS

As we have already observed, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries a great reform and revival took place in the canonical order. A great number of congregations of canons regular sprang into existence, each with its own distinctive constitutions, grounded on the Rule of St. Augustine and the statutes which blessed Peter do Honestis, about the year 1100, gave to his canons at Ravenna, where also he instituted the first sodality, called “The Children of Mary.” In order to preserve uniformity and regularity among these numerous congregations Pope Benedict XII, in the year 1339, issued his Bull Ad decorem, which may be rather called a book of constitutions to be observed by all canons regular then existing. By this Bull the order, then extending through Europe and Asia, was divided into twenty-two provinces or kingdoms, among them being Ireland, England, and Scotland, forming each a province. The abbots and visitors were to be convened at a provincial chapter to be held in each province every four years. Visitors were to be elected. Whose duty it was to make a canonical visitation of every house in their respective provinces. Minute regulations are laid down for the daily recitation or singing of the Divine Office in choir, clothings, professions, studies at the universities, expenses and other details in the clerical life, and the general discipline of the canons in the cloister. The Roman Martyrology mentions the existence of more than thirty-three different congregations of canons regular. The historian of the order number no fewer than fifty-four. It is evident that it would be quite impossible to give here even a short account of each in particular, therefore we shall content ourselves with making special mention of a few.

By common consent the Lateran Congregation, officially styled Congregatio SS. Salvatoris Lateranensis, stands first in antiquity and importance. As the title implies, this congregation takes its origin from the Roman Basilica of St. John Lateran, the pope’s own cathedral. History, confirmed by the authority of Pontifical Bulls, informs us that Pope Silvester established in the basilica built by the Emperor Constantine clerics living in common after the manner of the Primitive Church. In the year 492, Gelasius, a disciple of St. Augustine, as we have already mentioned, intorduced in the patriarchal basilica the regular discipline which he had learnt at Hippo. Pope Gregory the Great, Eugenius II, Sergius III, and Alexander II, all endeavoured to maintain the observance of the regular life established among the clergy of the basilica. As relaxation had crept in, the last name pope, at the request of St. Peter Damian, called some canons from St. Frigidian at Lucca, a house of strict observance. The reform spread, till at length the houses that had embrace it were formed into one large congregation. In the eighteenth century the Lateran Congregation numbered forty-five abbeys and seventy-nine other houses in Italy, besided many affiliated convents of canonesses, monasteries, and colleges of canons regular outside of Italy. The canons regular served the Lateran Basilica from the time they were put in possession till 1391, when secular canons were introduced by Boniface VIII. Several attempts were made to restore the basilica to its original owners, and finally Pope Eugenius IV, in 1445, gave it over to them, an act wich was confirmed by Nicholas I. But the arrangement did not last long, and eventually the canons regular were definitvely displaced, and the basilica made over to secular canons. All that remains now to the canons regular is the nae they derive from the basilica and a few other privileges, such as precedence over all the other religious orders and the faculty of saying all the Offices which are said by the Lateran Canons in all their Church.

There are at present houses belonging to the Lateran Congregation in Italy, Poland, France, Belgium, England, Spain, and America. The congregation is divided into six provinces, each presided over by a visitor or provincial. The abbot general and procurator general reside in Rome at S. Pietro in Vincoli, where is also the directorate of the confraternity called “The Children of Mary.” There are novitiate houses, where young men are prepared for the order, in Italy, Belgium, Spain, England, and Poland. The proper habit of the Lateran Congregation is a white woolen cassock with a linen rochet, which is worn as an essential part of the daily dress. Their work is essentially clerical, the recitation of the Divine Office in church, the administration of the Sacraments, the preaching of the Word. In Italy they have charge of parishes in Rome, Bologna, Genoa, Fano, Gubbio, and elsewhere.

It is the opinion of Helyot and others that no Canons of the Holy Sepulchre existed before 1114, when some canons regular, who had adopted the Rule of St. Augustine, were brought from the West and introduced into the Holy City by Godfrey of Bouillon. On the other hand, Suarez, Mauburn, Ferreri, Vanderspeeten, and other, upholding the tradition of the canonical order, maintain that St. James the Less, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, established clerics living in common the in the Holy City, where also, after the time of the crusaders, flourished the Congregation of the Holy Sepulchre. Driven away by the Moslems, the canons sought refuge in Europe, where they had monasteries, in Italy, France, Spain, Poland, and the Low Countries. In these several countries, with the exception of Italy, they continued to exist until the French Revolution. In Italy they seem to have been suppressed by Innocent VIII, who, in 1489, transferred all their property to the Knights of Malta. As regards men, the congregation seems now extinct, but it is still represented by Sepulchrine Canonesses, who have converts in Belgium, Holland, France, Spain, and England. According to Dugdale’s Monasticon, the canons had two houses in England, one at Thetford and the other at Warwick. By a Bull, dated 10 January, 1143, to be found in the Bullarium Lateranense, Pope Celestine II confirms the church and the Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre in all the possessions they had received from Godfrey of Bouillon, King Baldwin, and other benefactors. Mention is also made in the Bull of several churches in the Holy Land and in Italy belonging to the canons. Cardinal de Vitry, a canon regular of Oignies, and Cardinal Patriarch of Jeursalem, who had lived in Palestine some years, relates that the canons served, amongst other churches, that of the Holy Sepulchre and those on Mount Sion and on Mount Olivet. The patriarch was also Abbot of the Holy Sepulchre, and was elected by the canons regular.

In the year 1109 the famous scholar and teacher, William de Champeaux, formerly Archdeacon of Paris, and afterwards a canon regular, opened, at the request of his disciples, in his monastery of St. Victor near the city, a school which, owing to the great reuputation of the master for learning, soon drew crowds of students from many parts. Founded by a scholar, the monastery of St. Victor for many centuries was a centre of learning and virtue, or, as a French writer (Pasquier) says, “Les lettres y furent toujours logées a bonnes enseignes” (there, letters were always entertained at good inns). Here were formed men like Hugh, Richard, and Adam of St. Victor, all famous for their theological works and their piety. The last named, Adam, had been called by Dom Gueranger “the greatest poet of the Middle Ages.” It was Adam who, among his beautiful liturgical hymns composed three admirable proses in honour of St. Thomas of Canterbury, beginning “Gaude Sion et latare,” “Aquas plenas amaritudine,” “Pia Mater plangat Ecclesia.” The pious composer writes very feelingly of the holy martyr, whom he had heard and seen at St. Victor only sixteen months before his martyrdom. The archbishop, while at Paris to thank the king for his protection, wished also to visit the monastery of St. Victor, where at the time lived the saintly Richard. This visit took place on the octave of the Feast of St. Augustine, and the chronicler relates how the future martyr was joyously received by the community and was introduced into the chapter room, where he made an address to the brethren from the text, “In pace factus est locus” (Psalm 75). This visit and conference of their holy brother (for it must be remembered that St. Thomas had made his profession as a canon regular) made a great impression, we are told, on all who were present, and they remembered it when they shortly after heard of his cruel death.

So great was the reputation of the monastery built by William de champeaus that houses were soon established everywhere after the model of St. Victor’s, which was regarded as their mother-house. At the death of Gilduin, the immediate successor of William, who had been made Bishop of Chalons, the Congregation already counted forty-four houses. From this congregation, in 1149, sprang another, that of Sainte Genevieve, which in its turn became very numerous and, reformed as the Gallican Congregation, in the sixteenth century, by a holy man called Charles Faure, had, at the outbreak of the Revolution, no fewer than one hundred abbeys and monasteries in France. Both these congregations became extinct, as far as men are concerned, but the ancient congregation of St. Victor is still represented by a very old community of canonesses at Ronsbrugge, near Ypres, in Belgium. Some years ago the congregation was revived, with some modifications, by the Very Rev. Dom Goea, then Vicar-General of St. Claude in France, under the denomination of Canons Regular of the Immaculate Conception. Before their expulsion from France they served the ancient Abbey of St. Anthony in Dauphiné. They have now emigrated to Italy and to Canada. Their habit is a white woollen gown and linen rochet with a black cloak.

The Premonstratensian Congregation was founded at Prémontré, near Laon, in France, by St. Norbert, in the year 1120, and approved by Pope Honorius II, in 1126. According to the spirit of its founder, this congregtion unites the active with the contemplative life, the institute embracing in its scope the sanctification of its members and the administration of the sacraments. It grew large even during the lifetime of its founder, and now has charge of many parishes and schools, especially in Austria and Hungary. The Premonstratensians wear a white habit with white cincture. They are governed by an abbot general, vicars, and visitors.

The origin of the Congregation of the Holy Cross appears to be uncertain, although all admit its great antiquity. It has been divided into four chief branches: the Italian, the Bohemian, the Belgian, and the Spanish. Of this last very little is known. The branch once flourishing in Italy, after several attempts at reformation, was finally suppressed by Alexander VII in 1656. In Bohemia there are still some houses of Croisier Canons, as they are called, who, however, seem to be different from the well known Belgian Canons of the Holy Cross, who trace their origin to the time of Innocent III and recognize for their Father Blessed Theodore de Celles, who founded their first house at Huy, near Liège. These Belgian Croisier Canons have a great affinity with the Dominicans. They follow the Rule of St. Augustine, and their contitutions are mainly those compiled for the Dominican Order by Raymond of Pennafort. Besides the usual duties of canons in the church, they are engaged in preaching, administering the sacraments, and teaching. Formerly they had houses in Belgium, Holland, Germany, France, England, Ireland, and Scotland. Till some years ago they served missions in North America. At present they have five monasteries in Belgium, of which St. Agatha is considered the mother-house. To these Croisier Canons belongs the privilege, granted to them by Leo X, and confirmed by Leo XIII, of blessing beads with an indugence of 500 days. Their habit was formerly black, but is now a white soutane with a black scapular and a cross, white and black on the breast. In choir they wear in summer the rochet with a black almuce.

To St. Gilbert of Sempringham is due the honour of founding the only religious order of distinctly English origin. Having completed his studies in England and in France, he returned to the Diocese of Lincoln, where he began to labour with great zeal for the salvation of souls, becoming a canon regular in the monastery of Bridlington. But finding that the discipline of the order was not strictly observed, he conceived, in1148, the idea of introducing a reform in those regions. After much prayer, thought, and taking advice from holy men, he came to the conclusion that it was necessary to establish a new congregation, composed of both men and women, who should live under the same roof, though of course separated. This idea he put into execution, giving the rule of St. Benedict to the woman and that of canons regular to the men, with special and carefully elaborated constitutions for both. The Gilbertine Congregation spread especially in the North of England, and as already stated, at the time of the general dissolution it had twenty houses and one hundred and fifty-one religious. At the temporary University of Stamford, Sempringham Hall, founded by Robert Lutrell in 1292, was especially for the students of the Gilbertine Congregation.

The canons regular, usually called monks, whom visitors find serving at the Hospice on the Great St. Bernard, belong to the Congregation of St. Augustine, St. Bernard, and St. Nicholas, as it is officially called. They were established on this famous pass of the Alps by Bernard of Menthon, a canon regular of Aosta, about the year 969, according to some, or later, according to others. The religious institute in such a place was only meant by the founder for the convenience of pilgrims and travellers who cross the Alps at a point always full of dangers. The hospice, the canons, their work are too well known to need more than a short mention here. Besides lay brothers and servants, thee are always at the hospice about fifteen canons, who come from Martigny, their mother-house, where also resides the superior general of the congregation. Some canons have charge of the hospice on the Simpion Pass, and a certain number of parishes in the Canton Valais are served by canons of the same congregation.

The origin of the Windesheim Congregation is due to Gerard Groot, a zealous preacher and reformer of the fourteenth century, at Deventer in the Low Countries. Touched by his preaching and example, many poor clerical students gathered around him and, under his direction, “putting together whatever they earned week by week, began to live in common.” Such was the beginning of the institute known as that of the “Brothers and Sisters of the Common Life.” This institution spread rapidly, and in short time nearly every town in Holland and the adjacent countries contained one or more houses of “The New Devotion” as it was then called. But difficulties were not wanting. The members of “The New Devotion” were not bound together by any vows, and the institute had received no formal approval from the ecclesiastical authorities. Groot foresaw that the only safeguard for the continuance of the new institute was to affiliate it in some way to some great religious order already approved by the Church, to the authority of which the devout brethren and sisters might look for guidance and protection. Having heard of the famous Blessed John Ruysbrock, prior of a house of canons regular at Groendael near Brussels, he went to visit and consult him. Deeply edified by what he saw and heard there, Gerard Groot resolved to place this new institute under the spiritual guidance of the canons regular. The execution of tis resolve was left by Gerard Groot, at his death, to his beloved disciple, Florentius Radwyn. A beginning was soon made, and the foundation of the first house laid at Windersheim, near Zwolle. This became the mother-house of the famous congregation, which, only sixty years after the death of Groot, possessed in Belgium alone more than eighty well-organized monsteries, some of which, according to the chronicler John Buschius, who had visited them all, contained as many as a hundred, or even two hundred, inmates. The congregation continued in its primitive fervour until thedevastations of the Reformers drove it from its native soil, and it was at last utterly destroyed during the French Revolution. To this double institute the Church owes many pious and learned men—as Raymond Jordan, called Idiota, John Ruysbrock, Mauburn, Garetius, Latomus, and Erasmus. Some, like St. John Ostervick, canonized by Pius IX, shed their blood rather than deny their Faith. Chief among these learned and holy men stands Thomas a Kempis, when still a youth joined the institute, and knew the saintly Floretius and the first founders of the congregation.

Although the canonical order possessed so many houses in Ireland before the dissolution by Henry VIII; yet, on account of the persecution, little by little it appears to have languished, and by 1620 to have been nearly extinct; it somewhat revived, however, for canons regular were once more to be found in the country not long after this. It is not improbable that at the outbreak of the persecution, like many members of other religious orders, some of the Irish canons may have retired to foreign monasteries and maintained a quasi-independent existence,and have been joined by others of their compatriots who were desirous of entering the canonical institute. In 1645 Dom Thaddeus O’Conel was butchered at Sligo by the Scotch Puritans together with the Archbishop of Tuam, Malachy O’Quechly. At the commencement of 1646 the canons were sufficiently numerous to be formed by Innocent X into a separate congregation, that of St. Patrick, and this congregation, as the same pope declared, inherited all the rights, privileges, and possessions of the old Irish canons. In the year 1698 the Irish Congregation, by a Bull of Innocent XII, was affiliated and aggregated to the Lateran Congregation. From the moment the union was made the two congregations formed but one, and the members of each enjoyed all the rights and privileges of the other. The constitutions of the Lateran Congregation were adopted with some little modification by the Irish. In 1703 Dom Milerius Burke, Abbot of St. Thomas, Dublin, was appointed by the abbot general, Clappini, with the approval of Clement XI, vicar-general in the three kingdoms. In 1735 the Irish canons were claiming before the Congregation of Propoganda their right to several churches, parishes, and houses. The cause was settled in their favour, but there were many difficulties, and they could get possession of only a few. In the “Spicilegium Ossoriense” (III, 148) we find that Henry O’Kelly, a canon regular, obtained from Pope Benedict XIII letters in virtue of which he not only called himself Abbot of St. Thomas, Dublin, but also claimed the parochial rights over a great part of the city, without any dependence upon the metropolitan. The last canon of the Irish Congregation died towards the beginning of the nineteenth century. But the Irish Congregation having been united, as we have stated, with the Lateran, all its rights and privileges still survive in the last-named.

The Austrian-Congregation, formed in 1907, is composed of the various ancient monasteries, abbeys, and collegiate churches of canons regular in Austria. These are St. Florian, Klosterneuburg, Reichersburg, Voran, Neustift. The president of this new congregation is the Abbot of St. Florian.

Other more or less distinct congregations now no longer in existence have been those of St. Rufus, founded in 1039, and once flourishing in Dauphine; of Aroasia (Diocese of Arras, in France), founded in 1097; Marbach (1100); of the Holy Redeemer of bologna, also called the Renana (1136), now united to the Lateran Congregation; of the Holy Spirit in Sassia (1198); of St. George in Alga, at Venice (1404); of Our Saviour in Lorraine, reformed in 1628 by St. Peter Fourier.

CANONESSES REGULAR

To most religious orders and congregation of men convents of nuns are related, following the same rules and constitutions. There are canonesses regular, as well as canons regular. The Apostolic origin is common to both. As Suarez says, with regard to origin and antiquity the same is to be said of orders of women both in general and in particular as of orders of men. The one generally began with the other. St. Basil in his rules addresses both men and women. And St. Augustine founded his first monastery for women in Africa at Tagaste. Most, if not all, of the congregations which go to form the canonical order had, or still have, a correlative congregation for women. In Ireland St. Patrick instituted canons regular, and St. Bridget was the first of numberless canonesses. The monasteries of the Gilbertine Congregation were nearly always double, for men and women. As with the canons, so also among the canonesses, discipline and love of community life now flourished now languished, so that in the tenth and eleventh centuries many of them became canonicae saeclulares and though living in the same house, no longer cherished the spirit of religious poverty or kept a common table.

On the other hand many communities of canonesses willingly took the name and the rule of life laid down for the congregations of regular canons. There still exist in Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Holland, England, Germany, Africa, America, nuns and convents belonging to the Lateran or to some other congregation of canons regular. The contemplative life is represented by such convents as Newton Abbot in England, Sta. Pudenziana at Rome, Sta. Maria di Passione at Genoa, Hernani in Spain, St. Trudo at Bruges. The Hospitalarians were till lately well represented in France with convents of canonesses at Paris, Reims, Laon, Soisssons, and elsewhere.

Occupied in the education of children, there are besides some of the ancient convents of canonesses of various congregations, the canonesses of the Congregaation of Notre Dame, instituted in 1597 at Mattaincourt, in Lorraine, by St. Peter Fourier. This congregation, whose object is the gratuitous education of poor girls, spread rapidly in France and Italy. There are now convents of Notre Dame in France, Belgium, Holland, Austria, Germany, Italy, and Africa. In France alone, until the persecution of 1907, they had some thirty flourishing communities and as many schools for externs and boarders. Driven away from france, some have taken refuge in England, like those of the famous convent of Les Oiseaux, Paris, who are now at Westgate, and those of Versailles who have settled at Hull. With some modifications the work was soon introduced into the New World in a remarkable way. The canonesses of the convent at Troyes had for some time earnestly desired to carry on their institute in Canada. Circumstances, however, prevented their going, but at their request Margaret Borugeoys, the president, of the confraternity attached to their convent, gladly crossed the ocean. In 1657 she opened a school at Montreal, in which, in accordance with the rules laid down by Peter Fourier, the poor were taught gratuitously. The school was a great success. Margaret returned to France to ask for helpers, and found them among her sister, the Children of Mary of Troyes. Returning to Canada with four fellow-workers, and soon followed by others she opened a school for boarders as well as a day school. In 1676 these pious women were formed into the “Congregation of Notre Dame.” Margaret died in 1700 and has since been declared venerable. The work she had transferred to Canada is still flourishing. At her death there were ten houses in the Dominion; there are now more than a hundred spread over the whole of North America under a superior general, who resides at the mother-house, Montreal.

In 1809 Bishop Wittmann founded, in Bavaria, “The Poor Sisters of the Schools of Notre Dame,” and institute similar to that founded by St. Peter Forier. This association is now widespread in Europe and in America, and has done excellent work in the field of education.

There are English canonesses at Bruges, and at Neuilly, near Paris. In England there is a convent of the Holy Sepulchre at New Hall, with a flourishing school, originally at Liège; also a filiation of that at Bruges, at Hayward’s heath, with a large school; at Newton Abbot a numerous community, with a colony at Hoddesdon, devoted to the contemplative life and the Perpetual Adoration. This last convent is, as it were, a link with the pre-Reformation canonesses, through Sister Elizabeth Woodford, who was professed at Barnharm, Priory, Bucks, 8 December, 1519. When the convent was suppressed, in 1539, she was received for some time into the household of Saint Thomas More. Later on she went to the Low Countries and was received into the convent of canonesses regular at St. Ursula’s, Louvain, of the Windersheim Congregation. So many English ladies, daughters and sisters of martyrs, like Ann Clitheroe, Margaret Clement, Eleanor and Margaret Garnet, followed her that, in 1609, they formed an English community, St. Monica’s, Louvain. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, this community of English canonesses returned to England, first to Spettisbury, afterwards to their present home at Newton Abbot. The chronicles of this ancient convent are being published, and two very interesting volumes have already appeared.

Bullarium Lateranense (Rome, 1727); PENNOTTO, Generalis Sacri Ordinis Clericorum-Canonicorum Historia Tripartia (Rome, 1642); AMORT, Vertus disciplina canonici saecularis et regularis; BENVENUTI, Discoso storico-teologico della vita commune dei Chierici dei primi dodici secoli della Chesa (1728); MOLINET, Sur 10rigine et 1antiquite des chanoines seculiers et reguliers; PISANI, Notice historique sur 10rdre des Chanonies Reguliers (Louvain, 1874); BONNEAU, Simple otice sur 10rdre Apostolique des Cahanines Reguliers (Louvain, 1892); GAUTIER, (Euvres poetiques d Adam de St. victor (Paris, 1858); SCULLY, Life of the Ven. Thomas a Kempis (London, 1901); Journal of Theological Studies (London, 1904), Vl REEVES (ed.), Life of St. Columba, foundr of Hy, Written by Adamnan (Edinburgh, 1874); SUAREZ, tr. HUMPHREY, The Religious State; RANDOLPH, Abbeys around London (London, 1899); HAMILTON (ed) Chronicle of the English Canonesses, Louwain (London, 1905);HERMANS, Annales Canonicorum Reg. Ordinis S. Curcis (Bois-le due, 1858); HELYOT, Histoire des ordres monastiques, religieux et militaires (Paris, 1714); MIRAEUS, origines Canonic, Regularium (Cologne, 1615); DeCollegiis Can. Reg. (Cologne, 1615); Codex regular, et constit. Can. Reg. (Antwerp, 1638).

A. ALLARIA.

Canons Regular of the Immaculate Conception

A congregation founded in the department of Isère, at Saint-Antoine, France, by the Abbé Dom Adrien Gréa, and approved by Pius IX and Leo XIII, in three rescripts, 1870, 1876, and 1887. Its members have undertaken the restoration of canonical life with its primitive observances, the recitation of the whole of the Divine Office day and night, perpetual abstinence and the fasts of early days. Their object is to unite the practices of ordinary religious life to clerical functions, principally in the administration of clerical duties and the education of young clerics. The mother-house is at Saint-Antoine, but following the French laws of 1901 and the persecution which was the consequence thereof, the community was transferred to Andora Stazione, in the province of Genoa, Italy. The congregation has houses in France, Switzerland, Italy, Scotland, and in Canada, where it was established in 1891, at Nomingue in Ottawa and at St. Boniface in Manitoba. There are four establishments in the Diocese of Ottawa, six in that of St. Boniface, two in Saskatchewan and one in Prince Albert. The community is composed of eight priests and major clerics, and of about as many scholastics, postulants and lay brothers. The priests are successfully employed in colonization and the education of youth.

Le Canada Ecclésiastique (Montreal, 1907).

ELIE J. AUCLAIR.

Canopus

A titular see of Egypt. Its old Egyptian name was Pikuat; the Greeks called it Kanobos, or Kanopos, after a commander of a Greek fleet buried there. The city stood in the seventh Nomos (Menelaites, later Canopites), not far from the Canopic mouth. It had many martyrs in the persecution of Diocletian, among others St. Athanasia with her three daughters, and St. Cyrus and John. There was here a monastery called Metanoia, founded by monks from Tabennisi, where many patriarchs of Alexandria took shelter during the religious quarrels of the fifth century. Two miles east of Canopus was the famous heathen temple of Manouthin, afterwards destroyed by monks, and a church on the same spot dedicated to the Evangelists. St. Cyril of Alexandria solemnly transported the relics of the holy martyrs Cyrus and John into the church, which became an important place of pilgrimage. It was here that St. Sophronius of Jerusalem was healed of an ophthalmy that had been declared incurable by the physicians (610–619), whereupon he wrote the panegyric of the two saints with a collection of seventy miracles worked in their sanctuary (Migne, P.G., LXXXVII, 3379–676)

Canopus formed, with Menelaus and Schedia, a see subject to Alexandria in Aegyptus Prima; it is usually called Schedia in the “Notitiae episcopatuum.” Two titulars are mentioned by Lequien (II, 415), one in 325, the other in 362. The modern Arabic name is Aboukir, “Father Cyrus,” in honour of the first of the two celebrated martyrs. It is to-day a village with 1000 inhabitants, at the end of a little peninsula north-east of Alexandria. It has a trade in quails, which are caught in nets hung along the shore. Off Aboukir, 1 August, 1798, the French fleet was destroyed within the roads by Nelson; 25 July, 1799. Bonaparte destroyed there a Turkish army 18,000 strong; and on 8 March, 1801, the French garrison of 1800 men was defeated by 20,000 English and Turks commanded by Abercromby.

S. VAILHÉ

Canopy

The canopy, in general, is an ornamental covering of cloth, stone, wood, or metal, used to crown an altar, throne, pulpit, statue, etc. In liturgical language, the term is commonly employed to designate

the structure covering an altar, formerly fitted with curtains and supported on four pillars;

the covering suspended over the throne occupied by dignitaries of the Church or princes;

the covering under which the Blessed Sacrament is sometimes borne in processions etc.

In medieval times altars were protected by a covering then called a ciborium (see the article ALTAR, under sub-title Ciborium), but now known as a baldachinum, or canopy, which survives at the present day as a feature of certain styles of architecture. When an altar had no ciborium it was covered with a cloth called a dais. As a mark of distinction bishops and higher prelates have a right to a covering over the thrones which they occupy at certain ecclesiastical functions. This is called a canopy. It is sometimes granted by special privilege to prelates inferior to bishops, but always with limitations as to the days on which it may be used and the character of its ornamentation. When bishops assist at solemn functions in the churches of regulars the latter are bound to provide the episcopal seat with a canopy (Cong. of Bishops and Regulars, 1603). Princes enjoy similar privileges, but their seats should be outside the sanctuary, and regulated in accordance with custom. The colour of the canopy should correspond with that of the other vestments. Two kinds of canopy are employed in processions of the Blessed Sacrament. One of small dimensions and shaped like an umbrella—except that it is flat and not conical is called an ombrellino. It is provided with a long staff by which it is held. The other, called a baldacchino, is of more elaborate structure and consists, in main outline, of a rectangular frame-work of rich cloth, supported by four, six, or eight staves by which it is carried. In both cases the covering consists of cloth of gold, or silk of white color. The ombrellino is used for carrying the Blessed Sacrament to the sick and for conveying it from the altar to the baldacchino. The latter is used for all public processions, when it is borne by nobles of the highest rank, the more worthy holding the foremost staves. It is forbidden to carry relies of the saints under the baldacchino, but this honour may be given to those of the Sacred Passion (Cong. of Rites, May, 1826). Cæremoniale Episcoporum, (Rome, 1902), passim: Du CANGE, Glossarium Latinitatis, s. vv. Conopeum, Ciborium, Baldachinum (Venice, 1738); PUGIN, Glossary of Ecclesiastical Ornaments, s.v. Canopy (London, 1868); BOURASSÉ Dictionnaire d’archéologie sacree, s.v. Baldaquin (Paris, 1851); KRAUS, Geschichte der christlichen Kunst (Freiburg im Br., 1896), I, 372 etc.

PATRICK MORRISROE.

Canossa

A former castle of Matilda, Countess of Tuscany, in the foothills of the Apennines, about eighteen miles from Parma, where took place the dramatic penance of King Henry IV of Germany in presence of Pope Gregory VII. The king, excommunicated 22 February, 1076, would have been utterly abandoned by the inimical German princess unless within a year he made peace with the pope. Early in January, 1077, the latter was on his way to the diet called to meet at Augsburg, 2 February, when he heard that Henry had crossed Mont Cenis. Fearing for his person, he took refuge in the impregnable and almost inaccessible burg of Canossa, the hereditary stronghold of his friend and protectress, Matilda. The king, however, was really intent on performing the penance necessary to lift the excommunication, by which diplomatic step the plans of his enemies in Germany would be nullified. For three days (25–27 January) he stood constantly before the castle gate, in the dress of a penitent, beseeching with many tears the pope’s forgiveness. Gregory finally yielded, moved by the royal compunction and by the importunities of his royal entourage, among them Matilda. He received Henry back into the communion of the Church, and promised to promote his reconciliation with the German princes. But the king soon violated his solemn oath to comply with the pope’s conditions, and renewed the conflict. The story, as narrated above, is told by Gregory himself (Reg. Ep., IV, 12), in a letter to the princes of Germany explanatory of the event of Canossa. The contemporary chronicler, Lambert of Hersfeld, asserts that at the Mass of reconciliation the pope, when about to give communion to Henry, took himself on half of the Sacred Host and challenged the king to take the other as an ordeal. Modern historians deny the truth of this assertion.

The penance of Henry was, in reality, only a personal humiliation, and not a degradation of the royal office; nor was it in that form imposed by the pope, nor did the king spend three days and nights in his bare shirt without food and without shelter (Hergenrother, “Kirchengeschichte,” ed. Kirsch, II, 361). The ruins of Canossa are now within the Commune of Ciano d’Enza, some shapeless fragments of broken walls that rise on rocky buttresses above a sea of hardened brown mud, “twisted and tossed and contorted into the most hideous of crevasses” (Hare). The castle-well and “gate of penance” alone remain.

Hare, Cities of Northern Italy (London, 1896), II,245–49; Buchberger, Kirchliches Handlexikon (Munich, 1906), I, 830; Knöpfler, Die Tage von Tribur und Canossa, in Hist. Polit. Blatter (1884), XCIV, 209,381; Gosselin, Temporal Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages (Baltimore, 1853), II; Hergenröther, Church and State (tr., London, 1872).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Antonio Canova

The greatest Italian sculptor of modern times, b. at Possagno, in the province of Treviso, 1 November, 1757; d. at Venice 13 October, 1822. Educated by his grandfather, Pasino Canova, a stone-cutter of unusual ability, the boy could model in clay and carve little marble shrines before he was ten. The attention of Senator Giovanni Falieri was attracted to the child, whom he placed with the sculptor Torretto at Bassano, where he worked for two years. Canova then went back to his grandfather; but Falieri’s sons interceded for their playmate, and the boy-artist was invited to the palace in Venice. After one year under Torretto’s nephew, he spent the next four years in independent efforts. He owed his first workshop to the kindness of certain monks who gave him a vacant cell for a studio. In his sixteenth year he modelled his first statue, “Eurydice”; three years later he produced the “Orpheus,” both now in the Villa Falieri at Asolo. Then came the “Daedalus and Icarus,” a remarkable group, dramatic and full of movement (Venice Academy). In 1780 Canova went to Rome, where he came into contact with the antique from which his talent received fresh energy, and he applied himself earnestly to its study. “Theseus and the Minotaur” (1782) is one of his best works (Volksgarten, Vienna). In 1787 the young sculptor executed the monument to Clement XIV in the church of the Santi Apostoli at Rome. The noble figure of the pontiff is seated, the right hand stretched forth in benediction. His next work was the elaborate tomb of Clement XIII in St. Peter’s, with the admirable “Lions of Canova” at the base. In 1793 he did the Cadenabbia “Psyche and Cupid,” a graceful composition of exquisite lines; and in 1796 the life-size “Kneeling Magdalen” (Cadenabbia) and the “Hebe” (Berlin). The year following saw the “Psyche and Cupid” of the Louvre. In 1800 Canova made the “Perseus” which stands grouped with his two boxers, “Kreugas and Damoxenus,” in the Gabinetto Canova of the Vatican Gallery.

In 1802, by special request of Napoleon I, he went to Paris and modelled a colossal figure of the emperor, holding a Victory in his hand (Apsley House, London). His “Bust of Napoleon” is in the Corcoran Gallery, Washington. Some years later Canova modelled a noble statue of Napoleon’s mother in antique garb; one of Marie Louise as “Concord” (Parma) and the reclining portrait of Pauline Bonaparte, wife of Prince Borghese, as “Venus Victrix” (Villa Borghese, Rome). The colossal, boyish “Palamedes” for the Villa Carlotta, Cadenabbia (1804), was followed next year by the “Venus from the Bath” (Pitti Palace, Florence). At the same time Canova was engaged upon the monument for the Archduchess Maria Christina, a group of nine mourning figures entering a mausoleum (church of the Augustinians, Vienna), and travelled to Austria to superintend the setting up of the work. In 1807 he executed the “Bust of Pius VII,” one of his most notable achievements in portraiture. The number of his productions is so large that it is impossible to mention minor ones. Some of his lighter subjects, “his leisures” he called them, are well known, e.g. the “Dancing Girls.” In 1814 he produced the “Three Graces.”

In 1815 Canova went to Paris, as the pope’s envoy, to negotiate for the return of the art treasures carried away from Italy by Napoleon in his campaign, and conducted his mission so successfully that a large part of the spoils was recovered. In acknowledgment of his services he was created Marquis of Ischia, with an income attached to the title. The pope in person inscribed the sculptor’s name in the Golden Book of Roman Nobles. Canova, about this time, blocked out his colossal statue of Religion holding a cross and unveiling a circular relief on which was the figure of the Lamb. Owing to its huge size the “Religion” found no place; it was repeated on a lesser scale for Lord Brownlow. In 1817 came the charming “Infant St. John” and the tomb for the Stuart princes in St. Peter’s. In 1818 Canova was commissioned to make a heroic statue of Washington for the State House, Raleigh, N.C. He clothed him as a Roman warrior but the head was mild and full of dignity. The “Recumbent Magdalen,” for the Earl of Liverpool, was one of the sculptor’s latest works, as was also the “Pius VI” (in the Confessio at St. Peter’s), whose uplifted face and joined hands are full of a religious exaltation. A colossal bust of his friend and biographer Count Cocognara, was the last work from his hand.

Canova was buried at his native Possagno, where he had spent large sums in erecting a memorial church, in imitation of the Parthenon and Pantheon. His bronze “Pietà” is there, also the “Descent from the Cross,” one of his few paintings, coloured in the manner of the early Venetians. Leo XII gave him a monument in the Capitol (Rome); and a design which the master had made for Titian’s tomb was used for his own in S. Maria dei Frari, Venice. Canova’s main glory rests on his classic subjects; he did not wholly escape the affectation and artificiality of his day, but his best sculptures are noble in conception and form, full of grace, tranquil beauty, and elegance. He lifted the art of sculpture from the low condition to which it had fallen in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. His finish was peculiarly soft and velvet-like, the flesh having an appearance of bloom. His friends have denied that he used acids to produce this effect. It should be noted, however, that very different estimates have been formed of his work, especially of his religious subjects. In character Canova was gentle, modest, of a religious nature, and of the most unwearying generosity. He was an indefatigable worker, and employed in beneficence, especially for the advancement of young artists, the wealth which flowed in upon him. He received many honours: orders of chivalry, membership in the French Institute, and a perpetual presidentship of the Roman Academy of St. Luke. He was never married, and the name is said to be extinct, save as borne by the descendants of his stepbrothers called Satori-Canova.

M. L. HANDLEY.

Cantate Sunday

A name given to the fourth Sunday after Easter, from the first word of the Introit at Mass on that day—“Cantate Domino novum canticum,” Sing ye to the Lord a new song—similar to the names Gaudete and Laetare Sundays, assigned to the third Sunday of Advent and the fourth of Lent. These names, which are as old probably as the twelfth century, appear to have been in common use in the Middle Ages and to have been employed to signify the date in secular affairs as well as ecclesiastical. John of Salisbury, Bishop of Chartres (d. 1182), is one of the earliest writers to use the name.

GUERANGER, Liturgical Year (Worcester, s.d.); HAMPSON, Medii aevi Kalendarium, or Dates, Charters and Customs of the Middle Ages (London, 1841), II, 40.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Ancient Diocese of Canterbury

(CANTUARIA-Roman name, DUROVERNUM, whence, in Anglo-Saxon times, DUROVERNIA; canonical name CANTUARIENSIS).

The Ancient Diocese of Canterbury was the Mother-Church and Primatial See of All England, from 597 till the death of the last Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal Pole, in 1558.

FOUNDATION OF THE SEE

When St. Augustine was sent to evangelize England by St. Gregory the Great, he found an opening for his labours in the fact that Æthelburga, or Bertha, Queen of Æthelberht, King of Kent, was a Christian and a disciple of St. Gregory of Tours. This led him to Canterbury, where he converted the king and many thousands of Saxons in 597, the very year of his landing. Though St. Gregory had planned the division of England into two archbishoprics, one at London and one at York, St. Augustine’s success at Canterbury explains how the southern archiepiscopal see came to be fixed there instead of at London. The first beginnings of the diocese are told by St. Bede (Hist. Eccl., I, xxxiii). “When Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury, assumed the episcopal throne in that royal city, he recovered therein, by the King’s assistance, a church which, as he was told, had been constructed by the original labour of Roman believers. This church he consecrated in the name of the Saviour, our God and Lord Jesus Christ, and there he established an habitation for himself and all his successors.”

THE ARCHBISHOPS

There were in all sixty-eight archbishops during the period, just short of a thousand years, in which Canterbury was the chief Catholic see in England. In the following list the dates of some of the earlier prelates cannot be regarded as critically certain, but are those usually given. Those marked with an asterisk became cardinals.

St. Augustine, 597–604.

St. Laurence, 604–619.

St. Mellitus, 619–624.

St. Justus, 624–627.

St. Honorius, 627–653.

St. Deusdedit, 655–664.

St. Theodore, 668–690.

St. Berhtwald, 693–731.

St. Tatwin, 731–734.

Nothelm, 735–740.

Cuthbert, 741–758.

Bregwin, 759–765.

Jaenberht, 766–790.

Ethelhard, 793–805.

Wulfred, 805–832.

Feologild, 832-.

Ceolnoth, 833–870.

Ethelred, 870–889.

Plegmund, 890–914.

Athelm, 914–923.

Wulfhelm, 923–942.

St. Odo, 942–958.

Alfsin, 959–959.

St. Dunstan, 960–988.

Ethelgar, 988–989.

Sigeric, 990–994.

Elfric, 995–1005.

St. Ælphege, 1005–1012.

Living, 1013–1020.

St. Ethelnoth, 1020–1038.

St. Eadsi, 1038–1050.

Robert, 1051–1052.

Stigand, 1052–1070.

Lanfranc, 1070–1089.

St. Anselm, 1093–1109.

Ralph d’Escures, 1114–1122.

William de Corbeuil, 1123–1136.

Theobald, 1139–1161.

St. Thomas Becket, 1162–1170.

Richard, 1174–1184.

Baldwin, 1185–1190.

Hubert Walter, 1193–1205.

Stephen Langton*, 1207–1228.

Richard Grant, 1229–1231.

St. Edmund Rich, 1234–1240.

Boniface of Savoy, 1245–1270.

Robert Kilwardby*, 1273–1279.

John Peckham, 1279–1292.

Robert Winchelsey, 1294–1313.

Walter Reynolds, 1313–1327.

Simon Meopham, 1328–1333.

John Stratford, 1333–1348.

Thomas Bradwardine, 1349–1349.

Simon Islip, 1349–1366.

Simon Langham*, 1366–1368.

William Whittlesey, 1368–1374.

Simon Sudbury, 1375–1381.

William Courtenay, 1381–1396.

Thomas Arundel, 1396–1414.

Henry Chicheley*, 1414–1443.

John Stafford*, 1443–1452.

John Kemp*, 1452–1454.

Thomas Bourchier*, 1454–1486.

John Morton*, 1486–1500.

Henry Dean, 1502–1503.

William Warham, 1503–1532.

Thomas Cranmer, 1533–1556.

Reginald Pole*, 1556–1558.

Of this list seventeen archbishops were recognized as saints, nine were cardinals, and twelve became Lord Chancellors of England. The full title of the archbishop was Primate of all England, Metropolitan of the Province, and Diocesan of the Diocese. In documents he was described as Archbishop providentia divina, instead of permissione divina, as was usual with other bishops.

METROPOLITAN RIGHTS

The organization of the province was, of course, a matter of gradual growth, and therefore the number and the names of the suffragan sees in the earlier periods vary very much, as does the extent of the metropolitan jurisdiction. At the height of its power Canterbury counted seventeen suffragan sees: Bangor, Bath and Wells, Chichester, Coventry and Lichfield, Ely, Exeter, Hereford, Llandaff, Lincoln, London, Norwich, Rochester, St. Asaph, St. David’s, Salisbury, Winchester, and Worcester. To these were added five of the six sees founded under Henry VIII in 1541 and afterwards recognized by the Holy See under Mary (1553–1558), viz., Bristol, Gloucester, Oxford, Peterborough, and Westminster. Several of these bishops acted on state occasions as the curia of the archbishop. Thus the Bishop of London acted as his dean; Winchester was his chancellor; Lincoln his vice-chancellor; Salisbury his precentor; Worcester his chaplain; and Rochestor his cross-bearer. Even the Archbishop of York was not exempt from his jurisdiction, and these metropolitan rights also extended to Irish bishops (see Wharton, “Anglia Sacra,” for instances) and to the clergy of Normandy, Gascony, and Aquitaine, as long as these provinces formed part of the English dominions. The archbishop enjoyed perpetual legatine power, being Apostolicae Sedis legatus natus, and in councils abroad he took precedence of other archbishops, having the right to a special place “at the Pope’s right foot.” In England he was the ordinary of the royal court, wherever held, and the king and queen were regarded as his parishioners. He had the right of crowning and anointing the sovereign, a privilege confirmed by a Bull of Alexander III. He was the first peer of the realm, with precedence over all dukes not of the blood royal. He had the right of confirming the election of all suffragan bishops, and of consecrating them, and in the case of Rochester he enjoyed the patronage of the see, having the nomination of the bishop and the right to the temporalities during all vacancies. He also possessed many churches and parishes in the dioceses of London, Winchester, Norwich, Lincoln, Chichester, and Rochester. There were over eighty such benefices, all of which were exempt from the jurisdiction of their proper bishops and subject to him. The archbishop alone had the right of summoning a provincial synod.

THE DIOCESE

The diocese itself was not of great extent, consisting only of part of the County of Kent. There were 257 parishes, and only one archdeaconry for the whole diocese. The archbishop’s palace was at Canterbury on the west side of the cathedral. The archbishop owned more than twenty manors in Kent alone, including the castle of Saltwood. The London residence, in later times, was at the Manor of Lambeth, while Otford was the most favoured country seat.

THE CATHEDRAL

The consecration by St. Augustine of an existing Roman basilica has been described in the words of the Ven. Bede. This building, with additions and alterations, continued until 1067, when, with the adjacent monastery, it was destroyed by fire. In 1070 Lanfranc began to rebuild it on a considerable scale, but no trace of his work remains visible. But the present nave and western towers still rest on his foundations, and in fact the existing cathedral covers as nearly as possible the same ground, with the addition of the retro-choir. Parts of the crypt and some of the monastery ruins also belong to his period. A new choir, afterwards known as the “glorious choir of Conrad,” was begun in 1096, finished in 1130, and burnt in 1174, though two chapels and part of the crypt survive. The present choir, begun by William of Sens and continued by William the Englishman, was finished in 1184, and is the earliest specimen of Transitional architecture, as well as being the longest choir in England (180 feet). In 1378 Lanfranc’s nave was pulled down, and the present nave was begun by Prior Chillendon. At the same date the chapter house and the cloisters were finished. Finally the cathedral was completed, about 1495, by the erection of the great central tower 235 feet high. The total length of the cathedral is 522 feet, the breadth of the nave and aisles 71 feet. The building illustrates in itself almost all the varieties of Gothic, though Early English and Perpendicular predominate.

HISTORY OF THE SEE

Before England had acquired national unity, the foundation of the see had given it ecclesiastical unity. Older than any national institution, its history is inseparably bound up with that of the country, and the barest outline exceeds our space. The formation of the dicese was monastic, taking its rise from the Monastery of Christ Church, and the ecclesiastical organization grew by means of the great religious houses at Dover, Lyminge, Folkestone, Minster in Sheppy, Minster in Thanet, Reculver, and the great rival monastery in Canterbury of Sts. Peter and Paul, afterwards St. Augustine’s. Throughout the subsequent history the archbishops could not deal with archiepiscopal property without the concurrence of the monastic chapter, and the efforts of the archbishops to rid themselves of the control of the Canterbury monks gave rise to the frequent disputes between prelate and chapter that recur throughout the history of the diocese. From these foundations as centres the parochial system gradually spread. Another characteristic was the purely Roman character of the Church in Kent. It was free from all such conflicts with Celtic Christianity as took place in the North, and in liturgy it never developed a local use, but followed the Roman Rite that St. Augustine had introduced. The first five archbishops were all Romans, St. Deusdedit being the first Englishman to rule the see. He was succeeded by St. Theodore, a Greek, one of the greatest of the archbishops, who travelled throughout England, and organized the primatial power and metropolitan jurisdiction. He was followed by a line of monastic prelates, chiefly local administrators. Under one of these, Jaernbehrt (766–790), during the supremacy of Mercia, the very primacy was threatened by the establishment of an Archbishopric of Lichfield, but this did not last. After Alfred’s time came several archbishops translated from other sees, and bringing wider knowledge, so that the see grew in authority until it rose to its height during the episcopate of St. Dunstan, whose genius marked an epoch in diocesan, as in national, history. Under him the influence of Canterbury was felt throughout the land. While relying chiefly on the work of the greater monasteries, he also encouraged the secular clergy, whose parochial settlements always followed the missionary work begun from the houses of the regulars. St. Ælphege, murdered by the Danes in 1012, added the glory of martyrdom to the chair of Canterbury. The last of the Saxon prelates was Stigand, regarded as uncanonical because he had received his pallium from an antipope, and he was finally dispossessed by William the Conqueror in 1070. Until this time there had been a sort of auxiliary bishop, or choriepiscopus, with the title “Bishop of St. Martin’s,” who held the church of that name at Canterbury, and whenever the bishop was absent filled his place. The last of these prelates was Godwin, who died in 1065. The new archbishop, Lanfranc, refused to continue the arrangement. Lanfranc introduced the prebendal system at Canterbury, and reorganized the arrangement of property, dividing off that of the archbishop from that of the monastery, with the result that from that time the close bond that had previously existed between them disappeared. Thenceforth, too, the Archbishops of Canterbury became absorbed in the wider duties of primate, as is seen in the episcopate of St. Anselm, who contested with the king the rights of the Church involved in the question of investitures.

The widened sphere of archiepiscopal activity was signalized when the pope appointed Theobald (1139–1161) as legatus natus. He was succeeded by St. Thomas of Canterbury, whose long struggle was crowned by martyrdom in 1170. Henceforth Canterbury, as the place of his shrine, entered on new glories, becoming famous through all Christendom for the miracles wrought at the tomb, the devotion of the pilgrims, and the splendour of the shring. The next archbishop, Richard, had to maintain the primacy of Canterbury against the claims of York, the question being finally compromised by the pope, who gave York the title “Primate of England” and Canterbury that of “Primate of All England.” Succeeding archbishops played prominent parts as statesmen, notably Hubert Walter and Stephen Langton, the latter taking the leading part in obtaining Magna Charta from King John. Endless disputes with the monks and fruitless struggles against papal exactions and royal abuses marked the short and unhappy episcopate of St. Edmund of Canterbury (1234–1240), the last of the canonized archbishops. From his time to the Reformation the archbishops were men distinguished in many ways, under whom the privileges and power of the diocese were constantly increased. The tradition was not reversed till the time of Cranmer, who, like his predecessors, received his pallium from the pope, but considered that he held the archbishopric from the king. Having broken his own vow of celibacy, he easily divorced the king from Queen Catherine. He allowed the shrine of St. Thomas to be desecrated and plundered in 1538, and in 1541 he ordered the tombs of all the canonized archbishops to be destroyed. Most of the property of the see he was forced to surrender to the king. In 1539 the two great monasteries of Christ Church and St. Augustine’s had been suppressed, and their property seized. By his office Cranmer was the head of the Church in England, but under Henry he helped to despoil it, and under Edward he led the reforming party against it, abolishing the Mass, and stripping the churches. The spiritual and material ruin thus accomplished could not be effectually remedied during the brief episcopate of Cardinal Pole (1556–1558). This prelate did all that was possible in so short a time, but his death, which took place on the 17th of November, 1558, brought to a close the line of Catholic archbishops. With the accession of Elizabeth-which took place on the same day-the new state of things, which has continued to the present time, was begun. Canterbury, as a city, has never recovered from the loss of St. Thomas’s shrine and the destruction of the two great monasteries, but the cathedral still remains, one of the finest buildings in the country, as a witness to its former glory.

The arms of the see were: Sapphire, an episcopal staff in pale, Topaz, and ensigned with a cross patee Pearl, surmounted of a pall of the last, charged with four crosses, formee, fitchee, Diamond, edged and fringed as the second.

Somner, Antiquities of Canterbury (1640); Battely, Enlarged Edition of Somner’s Antiquities (London, 1703); Dart, History of Cathedral Church of Canterbury (1726); Hasted, History of the City of Canterbury (Canterbury, 1799); Willis, Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral (London, 1843); Stanley, Historical Memorials of Canterbury (London, 1855); Hook, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury (1865–75); Walcott, Memorials of Canterbury (1868); Historical MSS. Commission Fifth Report (1876), Eighth do. (1881), and Ninth do. (1883); Jenkins, Canterbury, in Diocesan Histories (London, 1880); Smith, Chronological History of Canterbury (Canterbury, 1883); Literae Cantuarienses in R.S. (London, 1887–1889) and several other volumes in the same series; Withers, Canterbury: the Cathedral and See (London, 1896); Cox, Canterbury (London, 1905); Kent Archaeological Society, Archaeologica Cantiana, 27 vols. (1858–1905).

EDWIN BURTON

Canticle

Although the word is derived from canticulum, (diminutive of canticum, a song, from the Latin canere, to sing), it is used in the English Catholic translation of the Bible as the equivalent of the Vulgate canticum in most, but not all, of the uses of that word; for where canticum is used for a sacred song, as in the ten canticles found in the Breviary (as given below), it is always rendered “canticle,” whilst in other connections (e.g. Gen., xxxi, 27, secular songs; Job, xxx, 9, song of derision; Is., xxiii, 15, “harlot’s song”) it is rendered “song.” The Authorized Version does not make such a distinction, but regularly translates from the Hebrew and the Greek “song.” From the Old Testament the Roman Breviary takes seven canticles for use at Lauds, as follows:

On Sundays and Festivals, the “Canticle of the Three Children” (Dan., iii, 57).

On Mondays, the “Canticle of Isaias the Prophet” (Is., xii).

On Tuesdays, the “Canticle of Ezechias” (Is., xxxviii, 10–20).

On Wednesdays, the “Canticle of Anna” (I Kings, ii, 1–10).

On Thursdays, the “Canticle of Moses” (Exod., xv, 1–19).

on Fridays the “Canticle of Habacuc” (Hab., iii 2–19).

On Saturdays, the “Canticle of Moses” (Deut., xxxii, 1- 43).

These canticles take the place of a fourth psalm at Lauds. From the New Testament the Breviary takes the following:

At Lauds, the “Canticle of Zachary” (Luke, i, 68–79), commonly referred to as the “Benedictus” (from its first word);

At Vespers, the “Canticle of the Bl. Mary Virgin” (Luke, i, 46–55), commonly known as the “Magnificat” (from its first word).

At Complin, the “Canticle of Simeon” (Luke, ii, 29–32), commonly referred to as the “Nunc dimittis” (from the opening words).

These three canticles are sometimes referred to as the “evangelical canticles,” as they are taken from the Gospel of St. Luke. They are sung every day (unlike those from the Old Testament which, as is, shown above, are only of weekly occurrence). They are placed not amongst the psalms (as are the seven from the Old Testament), but separated from them by the Chapter, the Hymn, the Versicle and Respouse, and thus come immediately before the Prayer (or before the preces, if these are to be said). They are thus given an importance and distinction elevating them into great prominence, which is further heightened by the rubric which requires the singers and congregations to stand while they are being sung (in honour of the mystery of the Incarnation, to which they refer). Further, while the “Magnificat” is being sung at Solemn Vespers, the altar is incensed as at Solemn Mass. [For variety of ceremonial and of usage, and explanations of the symbolism of its assignment to Vespers, see Migne, Encyclopedie theologique, VIII (Liturgie) 745–7.] All three canticles are in use in the Greek and Anglican churches. In the Breviary the above-named ten canticles are provided with antiphons and are sung in the same eight psalm-tones and in the same alternating manner as the psalms. To make the seven taken from the Old Testament suitable for this manner of singing, nos. 2–7 sometimes divide a verse of the Bible into two verses, thus increasing the number of Breviary verses. No. 1, however, goes much farther than this. It uses only a portion of the long canticle in Daniel, and condenses, expands, omits, and interverts verses and portions of verses. In the Breviary the canticle begins with verse 57, and ends with verse 56 (Dan., iii); and the penultimate verse is clearly an interpolation, “Benedicamus Patrem, et Filium . . ..” In addition to their Breviary use some of the canticles are used in other connections in the liturgy; e.g. the “Nunc dimittis” as a tract at the Mass of the Feast of the Purification (when 2 February comes after Septuagesima); the “Benedictus” in the burial of the dead and in various processions. The use of the “Benedictus” and the “Benedicite” at the old Gallican Mass is interestingly described by Duchene (Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution, London, 1903, 191–196). In the Office of the Greek Church the canticles numbered 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 are used at Lauds, but are not assigned to the same days as in the Roman Breviary. Two others (Is., xxvi, 9–20, and Jonas, ii, 2–9) are added for Friday and Saturday respectively. The ten canticles so far mentioned do not exhaust the portions of Sacred Scripture which are styled “canticles.” There are, so example, those of Debora and Barac, Judith, the “canticle of Canticles”; and many psalms (e.g. xvii, 1,”this canticle”; xxxviii,1, “canticle of David”; xliv,1, “canticle for the beloved”; and the first verse of Pss. 1xiv, 1xv, 1xvi, 1xvii, etc). In the first verse of some psalms the phrase psalmus cantici (the psalm of a canticle) is found, and in others the phrase canticum psalmi (a canticle of a psalm). Cardinal Bona thinks that psalmus cantici indicated that the voice was to precede the instrumental accompaniment, while canticum psalmi indicated an instrumental prelude to the voice. This distinction follows from his view of a canticle as an unaccompanied vocal song, and of a psalm as an accompanied vocal song. It is not easy to distinguish satisfactorily the meanings of psalm, hymn, canticle, as referred to by St. Paul in two places (see CONGREGATIONAL SINGING). Canticum appears to be generic—a song, whether sacred or secular; and there is reason to think that his admonition did not contemplate religious assemblies of the Christians, but their social gatherings. In these the Christians were to sing “spiritual songs,” and not the profane or lascivious songs common amongst the pagans. These spiritual songs were not exactly psalms or hymns. The hymn may then be defined as a metrical or rhythmical praise of God; and the psalm, accompanied sacred song or canticle, either taken from the Psalms or from some less authoritative source (St. Augustine declaring that a canticle may be without a psalm but not a psalm without a canticle).

In addition to the ten canticles enumerated above the Roman Breviary places in its index, under the heading “Cantica,” the “Te Deum” (at the end of Matins for Sundays and Festivals, but there styled “Hymnus SS. Ambrosii et Augustini”) and the: “Quicumque vult salvus esse” (Sundays at Prime, but there styled “Symbolum S. Athanasii,” the “Creed of St. Athanasius”). To these are sometimes added by writers the “Gloria in excelsis,” the “Trisagion,” and the “Gloria Patri” (the Lesser Doxology). In the “Psalter and Canticles Pointed for chanting” (Philadelphia, 1901), for the use of the Evangelical Lutheran Congregations, occurs (p. 445) a “Table of canticles” embracing Nos. 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, besides certain psalms, and the “Te Deum” and “Venite” (Ps. xicv, used at the beginning of Matins in the Roman Breviary). The word Canticles is thus seen to be somewhat elastic in its comprehension. On the one hand, while it is used in the common parlance in the Church of England to cover several of the enumerated canticles, the Prayer Book applies it only to the “Benedicite,” while in its Calendar the word Canticles is applied to what is commonly known as the “Song of Solomon” (the Catholic “Canticle of Canticles,” Vulgate, “Canticum canticorum”).

H.T. HENRY

Canticle of Canticles

(Heb. Gr. Αισμα ᾀσμάτων, Lat. Canticum canticorum.)

One of three books of Solomon, contained in the Hebrew, the Greek, and the Christian Canon of the Scriptures. According to the general interpretation the name signifies “most excellent, best song.” (Cf. the similar forms of expression in Ex., xxvi, 33; Ezech., xvi, 7; Dan., viii, 25, used throughout the Bible to denote the highest and best of its kind.) Some commentators, because they have failed to grasp the homogeneousness of the book, regard it as a series or chain of songs.

CONTENTS AND EXPOSITION

The book describes the love for each other of Solomon and the Sulamitess in lyrico-dramatic scenes and reciprocal songs. One part of the composition (iii, 6 to v, 1) is clearly a description of the wedding-day. Here the two chief personages approach each other in stately processlon, and the day is expressly called the wedding-day. Moreover the bridal wreath and the bridal bed are referred to, and six times in this section of the song, although never before or after, the word spouse is used. All that has preceded is now seen to be preparatory to the marriage, while in what follows the Sulamitess is the queen and her garden is the garden of the king (v, 1-vi, 7 sq.), although such expressions as “friend,” “beloved,” and “dove,” are common. Along with the assurances of love for each other, there is a continually progressive action that represents the development of the warm friendship and affection of the pair, then the bridal union and the married life of the royal couple. The bride, however, is exhibited as a simple shepherdess, consequently, when the king takes her, she has to undergo a training for the position of queen; in the course of this training occur various trials and sorrows (iii, 1; v, 5 sqq.; vi, 11—Heb., 12)

Various meanings have been attributed to the contents of the song. Before the sixteenth century tradition gave an allegorical or symbolical meaning to the love of Solomon for the Sulamitess. The view held by the Jewish Synagogue was expressed by Akiba and Aben Ezra; that held by the Church, by Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, and Jerome. An opinion opposed to these found only isolated expression. Akiba (first century after Christ) speaks severely of those who would strike the book from the Sacred Canon, while St. Philastrius (fourth century) refers to others who regarded it not as the work of the Holy Ghost but as the Composition of a purely sensuous poet. Theodore of Mopsuestia aroused such indignation by declaring the Canticle of Canticles to be a love-song of Solomon’s, and his contemptuous treatment of it gave great offense (Mansi, Coll. Conc., IX, 244 sqq; Migne, P.G., LXVI, 699 sqq.). At the OEcumenical Council of Constantinople (553), Theodore’s view was rejected as heretic and his own pupil Theoret, brought forward against him unanimous testimony of the Fathers (Migne, P. G., LXXXI, 62). Theodore’s opinion was not revived until the sixteenth century, when the Calvinist Sebastien Castalion (Castalio), and also Johannes Clericus, made use of it. The Anabaptists became partisans of this view; later adherents of the same opinion were Michaelis, Teller, Herder, and Eichhorn. A middle position is taken by the “typical” exposition of the book. For the first and immediate sense the typical interpretation holds firmly to the historical and secular meaning, which has always been regarded by the Church as heretical; this interpretation gives, however, to the “Song of Love,” a second and higher sense. As, namely, the figure of Solomon was a type of Christ, so is the actual love of Solomon for a shepherdess or for the daughter of Pharaoh, intended as a symbol of the love of Christ for His Church. Honorius of Autun and Luis of Leon (Aloysius Legionensis) did not actually teach this view, although their method of expression might be misleading (cf . Cornelius a Lapide, Prol. in Canticum, c. i). In earlier times reference was often made to a first and literal meaning of the words of a text, which meaning, however, was not the real sense of the context as intended by the author, but was held to be only its external covering or “husk.” Entirely dissimilar to this method is the typical exposition of modern times, which accepts an actual double meaning of the text, the two senses being connected and intended by the author. Bossuet and Calmet may, perhaps, be regarded as holding this view; it is unmistakably held by the Protestant commentators Delitzsch and Zockler as also by Kingsbury (in The Speaker’s Commentary) and Kossowicz. A few others hold to this view, but the number does not include Lowth (cf. De sacra poesi Hebr. prael., 31). Grotius makes it evident, not so much in words as in the method of exposition, that he is opposed to a higher interpretation. At the present day most non-Catholics are strongly opposed to such an exposition; on the other hand most Catholics accept the allegorical interpretation of the book.

EXPOSITION OF THE ALLEGORY

The reasons for this interpretation are to be found not only in tradition and the decision of the Church, but also in the song itself. As long as the effort is made to follow the thread of an ordinary love-song, so long will it be impossible to give a coherent exposition, and many despair of ever obtaining a successful interpretation. In the commentary of the present writer, “Comment. in Eccl. et Canticum Canticorum” (Paris, 1890), a number of examples are given of the typical and of the purely secular interpretations, and besides these, in treating of each of the larger divisions, the varying methods of exposition are carefully investigated. The proper connection of scenes and parts can only be found in the realm of the ideal, in allegory. In no other way can the dignity and sanctity befitting the Scriptures be preserved and the striking title, “Song of Songs,” receive a satisfactory explanation. The allegory, however, can be shown as possible and obvious by means of numerous passages in the Old and the New Testament, in which the relation of God to the Synagogue and of Christ to the Church or to the adoring soul is represented under the symbol of marriage or betrothal (Jer., ii. 2; Ps xliv; Heb., xlv; Osee, 19 sqq., Ezech., xvi, 8 sqq., Matth, xxv, 1 sqq; II Cor., xi, 2; Eph., v, 23 sqq.; Apoc., xix, 7 sq., etc.). A similar manner of speaking occurs frequently in Christian literature, nor does it appear forced or artificial. The testimony of Theodoret to the teaching of the Early Church is very important. He names Eusebius in Palestine, Origen in Egypt, Cyprian in Carthage, and “the Elders who stood close to the Apostles,” consequently, Basil, the two Gregorys [of Nyssa and Nazianzen—Ed.], Diodorus, and Chrysostom, “and all in agreement with one another.” To these may be added Ambrose (Migne, P. L., XIII, 1855, 1911), Philastrius (Migne, P. L., XII, 1267), Jerome (Migne, P. L. XXII, 547, 395; XXIII, 263), and Augustine (Migne, P. L., XXXIV, 372, 925; XLI, 556). It follows from this, that the typical interpretation, also, contradicts tradition, even if it does not come within the decree pronounced against Theodore of Mopsuestia. This method of exposition has, moreover, very few adherents, because the typical can only be applied to separate individuals or things, and cannot be used for the interpretation of a connected text which contains only one genuine and proper meaning. The foundation of the typical interpretation is destroyed at once when the historical explanation is held to be indefensible.

In the allegorical interpretation of the song, it makes no essential difference whether the bride is taken as a symbol of the Synagogue, that is, of the congregation of the Old Covenant or of the Church of God of the New Covenant. In truth, the song turns aside from both; by the spouse should be understood human nature as elected (electa elevata, sc. natura humana) and received by God. This is embodied, above all, in the great Church of God upon earth, which God takes to Himself with the love of a bridegroom, makes the crowning point of all His external works, and adorns with the bridal ornament of supernatural grace. In the song the bride is not reproached with sins and guilt but, on the contrary, her good qualities and beauty receive high praise; consequently, the chosen community of God appears here under that form which is according to the Apostle, without spot or blemish (Eph., v, 27). It is plain that the Canticle of Canticles finds its most evident application to the most holy Humanity of Jesus Christ, which is united in the most intimate bond of love with the Godhead, and is absolutely spotless and essentially sanctified; after this to the most holy Mother of God as the most beautiful flower of the Church of God. (In regard to a twofold sense of this kind of in the Scriptures, cf. “Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie,” 1903, p. 381.) The soul that has been purified by grace is also in a more remote yet real sense a worthly bride of Lord. The actual meaning of Canticles is not, however, to be limited to any one of these applications, but is to be appropriated to the elected “bride of God in her relation of devotion to God.”

As a matter of fact, the spiritual interpretation of the song has proved a rich source for mystical theology and asceticism. It is only necessary to call to mind the best of the old commentaries and interpretations of the book. There are still in existence fifteen homilies by St. Gregory of Nyssa on the first six chapters (Migne, P. G., XLI, 755 sqq.). The commentary of Theodoret (Migne, P. G., LXXXI, 27 sqq.) is rich in suggestion. In the eleventh century Psellus compiled a “Catena” from the writings of Nilus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Maximus (Auctar. bibl. Patr., II, 681 sqq.). Among the Latins Ambrose made such frequent use of the Canticle of Canticles that a whole commentary may be developed from the many applications, rich in piety, that he made of it (Migne, P. L., XV, 1851 sqq.). Three commentaries are to be found in the works of Gregory the Great (Migne, P L., LXXIX, 471 sqq., 905; CLXXX, 441 sqq.). Apponius wrote a very comprehensive commentary which, even as late as 1843, was republished at Rome. The Venerable Bede prepared the matter for a number of smaller commentaries. The elaborate exposition by Honorius of Autun of the book in its historical, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical meanings deserves special mention. The eighty-six homilies left by St. Bernard are universally known. Gilbert of Hoyland added to this number forty-eight more. The greatest of the saints enkindled their love for God on the tender expressions of affection of Christ and His bride, the Church, in the Canticle of Canticles. Even in Old Testament times it must have greatly consoled the Hebrews to read of the eternal covenant of love between God and His faithful people.

Within certain limits the application to the relation between God and the individual soul adorned with supernatural grace is self-evident and an aid to virtuous living. The bride is first raised by the bridegroom to a relation of complete affection, afterwards betrothed or married (iii 6-v, 1), and, finally, after a successful activity (vii, 12 sq.; viii, 11 sq.); is received into the heavenly dwellings. A life of contemplation and activity bound up with painful trials is the way there. In the Breviary and Missal the Church has repeatedly applied the song to the Mother of God (see B. Schafer in Komment., p. 255 sqq.). In truth the bride adorned with the beauty of spotless purity and deep affection is a figure most appropriate to the Mother of God. This is the reason why St. Ambrose in his book “De virginibus,” so repeatedly and especially quotes Canticles. Finally, the application of the song to the history of the life of Christ and of the Church offers pious thought rich material for contemplation. In doing thus the natural course of the song can, in some measure, be followed. At His entrance into life, and especially at the time of His public activity as a teachers the Saviour sought the Church, His bride and she came lovingly towards Him. He united Himself with her at the Cross (iii, 11), the Church itself makes use of this thought in a number of offices. The affectionate conversations with the bride (to ch. v, 1) take place after the Resurrection. What follows may be referred to the later history of the Church. A distinction should be made in such methods of interpretation, however, between what may be accepted as certain or probable in the context and what pious contemplation has, more or less arbitrarily, added. For this reason, it is important to ascertain more exactly than was done in earlier times the genuine and true sense of the text.

LITERARY FORM OF THE SONG

Both of the traditional poetic accentuation and language used to express the thoughts show the book to be a genuine poem. The attempt has been made in various ways to prove the existence of a definite metre in the Hebrew text. The opinion of the present writer is that a six-syllable trochaic metre may be applied to the original Hebrerw version (De re metrica Hebraeorum, Freiburg, Baden, 1880). e and true sense of the text. The essentially lyrical character of the song is unmistakable. But as various voices and scenes appear, neither should the dramatic character of the poem fail of recognition; it is, however, evident that the development of an external action is not so much the intention as the unfolding of the lyrical expression of feeling under varying circumstances. The cantata form of composition is suggested by the presence of a chorus of the “daughters of Jerusalem” though the text does not indicate clearly how the words are divided among the various characters. This accounts for the theory put forward at times that there are different personages who, as bride and bridegroom, or as lovers, talk with, or of, cach other. Stickel in his commentary assigns three different persons to the role of the bridegroom, and two to that of the bride. But such arbitrary treatment is the result of the attempt to make the Canticle of Canticles into a drama suitable for the stage.

UNITY OF THE CANTICLE

The commentator just mentioned and other exegetes start from the natural conviction that the poem, simply called the Song of Songs and handed down to posterity as a book, must be regarded as a homogeneous whole. It is evident that the three clearly distinguished roles of bridegroom, bride, and chorus maintain their plainly defined characters from beginning to end; in the same way certain other designations, as “beloved,” “friend,” etc., and certain refrains keep recurring. Moreover, several parts apparently repeat one another, and a peculiar phraseology is found throughout the book. The attempt has, however, been made to resolve the poem into separate songs (some twenty in all); thus has been tried by Herder, Eichhorn, Goethe, Reuss, Stade, Budde, and Siegfried. But It has been found exceedingly difficult to separate these songs from one another, and to give to each lyric a meaning dlstinctly its own. Goethe believed this impossible, and it is necessary to resort to a working over of the songs by the person who collected them. But in this everything would depend on a vague personal impression. It is true that a mutual dependence of all the parts cannot be maintained in the secular (historical) interpretation. For, even in the historical hypothesis, the attempt to obtain a flawless drama is successful only when arbitrary additions are made which permit the transition from one scene to another, but these interpolations have no foundation in the text itself. Tradition also knows nothing of genuine dramatic poetry among the Hebrews, nor is the Semitic race more than slightly acquainted with this form of poetry. Driven by necessity, Kämpf and others even invent double roles, so that at times other personages appear along with Solomon and the Sulamitess; yet it cannot be said that any one of these hypotheses has produced a probable interpretation of the entire song.

DIFFICULTIES OF INTERPRETATION

ALLEGORICAL

All the hypotheses of the above-mentioned kind owe their origin to the prevalent dislike of allegory and symbolism. It is well known how extremely distasteful poetic allegory is to our age. Nevertheless allegory has been employed at times by the greatest poets of all ages. Its use was widespread in the Middle Ages, and it was always a preliminary condition in the interpretation of the Scriptures by the Fathers. There are many passages in the Old and New Testaments which it is simply impossible to understand without allegory. It is true that the allegorical method of Interpretation has been greatly misused. Yet the Canticle of Canticles can be proved to be a flawlessly consecutive poem by the employment of rules for poetical allegory and its interpretation which are fixed and according to the canons of art. The proof of the correctness of the interpretation lies in such a combination of all the parts of the song into a homogeneous whole. The dramatic form, as far as it can be plainly seen in the traditional text, is not destroyed by this method of elucidation; indeed a number (four to seven) of more or less independent scenes must be recognized. In separating these scenes from one another the Jewish or Syrian bridal customs may be taken into consideration, as has been done, especially by Budde and Siegfried, if the result is the simplifying of the explanation and not the distortion of the scenes, or other acts of caprice. An attempt has been made in the commentary (p. 388 sqq.) of the present writer to give in detail the determinative rules for a sound allegorical interpretation.

HISTORICAL

According to Wetzstein, whom Budde and others follow, the book should be regarded as a collection of short songs such as are still used by the bedouins of Syria in the “threshing-board.” The features of similarity are the appearance of the bridal pair for seven days as king and queen the immoderate praise of the two, and the dance of the queen, during which she swings a sword to the accompaniment of a song by the chorus. Bruston and Rothstein have, however, expressed doubts as to this theory. In Solomon’s song the bride, in reality, does not appear as a queen and does not swing a sword; the other traces of similarity are of so general a character that they probably belong to the wedding festivities of many nations. But the worst is that the essential songs avowedly do not stand in the proper order. Consequently it is presupposed that the order. Consequently it is presupposed that the order of succession is accidental. This opens wide once more the door to caprice. Thus, as what is said does not fit this theory it is claimed that a collector, or later redactor who misunderstood various matters, must have made small additions with which it is impossible now to do anything. Others, as Rothstein in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, presuppose that the collector, or rather the redactor, or even the author, had a dramatic end in view, as life and motion and action are, taken all together, unmistakable.

It is accepted (at least for the present form of the poem) that the book presents a pastoral poem that the book presents a pastoral poem in dramatis or, at least, melodramatic form. The poem, according to this theory, shows how a beautiful shepherdess keeps her betrothal vow to her lover of the same rank in fife notwithstanding the allurements and acts of violence of a king. But this shepherd has to be interpolated into the text and not much can be said for the imaginary faith kept with the distant lover, as the Sulamitess, in the middle section of the Song of Solomon, gives herself willingly to the king, and no reason is apparent in the text why her boundless praise should not be intended for the present king and not for an absent lover. Stickel overcomes the great difficulties which still remain in a very arbitrary manner. He allows a second pair of lovers to come suddenly forward, these know nothing of the chief personages and are employed by the poet merely as an interlude. Stickel gives this pair three short passages, namely: i, 7 sq.; i, 15-ii, 4; iv, 7-v, 1. Moreover in these hypotheses appears the difficulty which is ever connected with the historical interpretation, that is, the lowering of the song which is so highly prized by the Church. The historical interpretation transforms it into ordinary love-scenes, in various moments of which, moreover, a fiery, sensuous love breaks forth. For the same expressions which, when referred allegoricallly to Christ and the Church, announce the strength of the love of God, are under ordinary conditions the utterances of a repellent passion.

AGE AND AUTHOR OF THE CANTICLE

Tradition, in harmony with the superscription, attributes the song to Solomon. Even in modern times quite a number of exegetes have held this opinion: among Protestants, for example, Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, Zöckler, and Keil. De Wette says: “The entire series of pictures and relationships and the freshness of the life connect these songs with the age of Solomon.” The song evidences the love of Solomon for nature (it contains twenty-one names of plants and fifteen of animals), for beauty and art, and for regal splendour; bound up with this latter is an ideal simplicity suitable to the type of character of the royal poet. There is also evident a strain of the most tender feeling and a love of peace which are well in keeping with the reputation of Solomon. The somewhat unusual language in connection with the skilful and brilliant style point to a well-practised writer. If some Aramaic or foreign expressions are to be found in the song, in relation to Solomon, such cannot cause surprise. It is remarkable that in Proverbs the fuller form of the relative is always used, while in Canticles the shorter form is employed, the one used earlier in the song of Debbora. But in the same way Jeremias used the ordinary form in his prophecies, while in the Lamentations he repeatedly employed the shorter. The point is raised that Tirzah (vi, 4—Heb.) is mentioned along with Jerusalem as the capital of the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes. The comparison, though, is made only as to beauty, and Tirzah had, above all, a reputation for loveliness. Many other commentators, as Bottcher, Ewald, Hitzig, and Kämpf, put the composition of the book in the time directly after Solomon. They assert that the action of the poem takes place in the northern part of Palestine, that the author is especially well acquainted with this section of the country, and writes in the form of the language used there. It is further said that Tirzah could only be compared with Jerusalem at the time when if was the capital of the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes that is after the age of Solomon but before the time when Samaria was the capital of the Northern Kingdom. All these reasons however, have more subjective than objective value. No more convincing, finally, are the reasons that cause others to place the book in post-Exilic times; among such exegetes may be mentioned: Stade, Kautzsch, Cornill, Grätz, Budde, and Siegfried. They support their theory by reference to many peculiarities of language and believe they even find traces of Greek influence in the song; but for all this there is a lack of clear proof.

CONDITION OF THE HEBREW TEXT

Gratz, Bickell, Budde, and Cheyne believe that they have been able to prove the existence of various mistakes and changes in the text. The passages referred to are: vi, 12; vii, 1; iii, 6–11; for alterations of the text see chapters vi and vii.

G. GIETMANN

Cantor

The chief singer (and sometimes instructor) of the ecclesiastical choir, called also precentor. His duties and qualifications have varied considerably according to time and place; but generally he must be ready to lead all the singing in church, to start any chant, and be watchful to prevent or correct mistakes of singers placed under him. He may be responsible for the immediate rendering of the music, showing the course of the melody by movements of the hand. The chief singer of the Gregorian Schola Cantorum was called Prior scholae or Primicerius. In medieval cathedrals the cantor was master of music and chant, but also commonly one of the dignitaries of the chapter. In the fourteenth century the cantor in many churches began to delegate his instruction of the singers to a master of music. After the introduction of harmonized music some duties naturally fell to the conductor or choir-master, who might be a layman. the cantor’s place in church is on the right of the choir, and immediately on his left stands his assistant, formerly called the “Succentor.” In ruling the choir the cantor very commonly carried a staff as the mark of his dignity. This custom still survives in some places.

GERBERT, De cantu et musica sacra (St. Blasien, 1774); BAUMER, Histoire du Brevaire (Paris, 1905); MEES, Choirs and Choral music (London, 1901); DUCHESNE, Christian Worship (London, 1901); WAGNER, History of Plain Chant (London, 1907).

WILFRID G.A. SHEBBEARE

Cesare Cantù

Italian historian and poet, b. at Brivio, 8 December, 1807; d. at Milan, 11 March, 1895. He was at first a student of theology, but left the seminary without completing the course, not feeling himself called to the priesthood. after this he turned his attention to literature, and taught the Italian language and literature at Sondrio in 1823, at Como in 1827, and at Milan in 1832. While at Como Cantù wrote a tale in verse called “Algiso o la lega Lombarda” (1828), which attracted well-deserved attention; the “Storia della citta e della diocesi di Como” (2 vols., Milan, 1829–1832) made him still better known. Shortly afterwards appeared “Ragionamenti sulla Storia Lombarda nel secolo XVII” (Milan, 1832), which was published later under the title “Commento storico ai Promessi Sposi de A. Manzoni, o la Lombardia nel secolo XVII.” In this work Cantù expressed liberal views in his comments on the Austrian policy, and was consequently condemned to thirteen months’ imprisonment. The miseries of the incarceration were described by him in the well-known historico-political novel, “Margherita Pusterla” (Milan, 1838), a book widely read and frequently republished.

About this date Cantù began his most important work, the “Storia universale” (35 vols., Turin, 1837, and succeeding decades). The work was often reprinted, and has been translated into English, German, French, and Spanish. It is the first historical work by an Italian which, in a well-finished and vigorous style, gives a philosophical treatment of the development of all civilized peoples from the remotest times to the pontificate of Pius IX. Cantù, it is true, did not draw directly from original sources, but depended on French and German authorities, the value of which he did not always judge with sufficient acumen. He worked up the material thus obtained, however, with entire independence. Yet he showed the influence of the Romantic school, of which Manzoni is the most important representative, and he sought to combine Church and State, politics and religion. The effect of the Romantic movement is still more evident in those works in which Cantù treated the history of Italy of his own time, as in: “Storia dei cent’ anni, 1750–1850” (5 vols., Florence, 1851); “Storia degli Italiani” (3 vols., Turin, 1879). Constantly viewed with suspicion by the Government on account of his political opinions, he was obliged to make his escape from Milan to Piedmont when the Revolution of 1848 broke out, but he returned when the uprising came to an end. He was a member of Parliament from 1859 to 1861, and from 1874 until the time of his death he was the director of the archives of Lombardy. In addition to the more important publications mentioned above, Cantù wrote a large number of small historical works and numerous popular books and tales for the young, most of which passed through several editions, and were translated into other languages. Among these minor writings may be mentioned: “Letture giovanili,” 4 vols.; “Buon senso e buon cuore”; “Il giovinetto dirizzato all bontà”; “Il galantuomo”; and many others. A complete edition of his poetry appeared at Florence in 1870.

Bertolini, Cantù e le sue opere (Florence, 1895); Mazzoni, Atti dell’ Accademia della Crusca (Florence, 1899).

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Canute

(Or CNUT: THE GREAT, THE MIGHTY)

King of the English, Danes, and Norwegians, b. about 994; d. at Shaftesbury, 12 November 1035. He was the son of Sweyn, King of Denmark, and Sigrid, widow of Eric of Sweden. Though baptized while a child, there is no evidence of Christianity in his life until after he ascended the English throne. He accompanied his father on the invasion of England, and after the repulse at London and Sweyn’s sudden death near Bury (3 February, 1014) was declared King of England by the Danish fleet. The witan, however, recalled Æthelred, their “born lord,” who had fled at Sweyn’s approach, and Canute, unable to withstand the restored monarch, set sail for the North. At Sandwich, after cutting off the noses, ears, and hands of the hostages taken by his father, he put them ashore—a dire omen of a more terrible return. Returned to Denmark, Canute proclaimed himself king and set about gathering a powerful fleet. England, instead of being prepared for his return, was torn by internal dissensions, and when Canute appeared off the coast with a fleet, said to have numbered two hundred sail, each boat containing eighty men, Eadrie deserted Eadmund Ironside and joined the Danish standard. Upon the death of Æthelred, Eadmund was made king by the people of London, and, with all Wessex in submission, Canute laid siege to the city. This was the beginning of a series of bloody conflicts, interrupted only by pillage of the country-side, culminating at Assandun, where, after battle which was waged all day and into the night, the English were routed, and “all the nobility of the English race was there destroyed” (Anglo-Saxon Chron., ed. Giles, London, 1847, p. 409). Eadmund was still formidable. Canute followed him into Gloucestershire and made terms of peace on the Isle of Olney. Mercia and Northumbria were Canute’s portion, and a tax known as the “danegeld” was levied on both armies to defray the expenses of the Danish fleet. Eadmund died a month later after a heroic reign of seven months; Eadric was murdered at the king’s order; Eadwig, Eadmund’s brother was similarly removed; and in July, 1017, Canute married Ælfgifu, or Emma, Eadmund’s widow, a strange union which some writers attribute to political motives. Canute already had two sons, Harold and Sweyn, by another wife, but the right of succession was to be with the offspring of the new union.

Thus at the age of twenty-three, by right of might, Canute stood master of the realm; and if he was received unanimously by the people, it was because none durst oppose him. From this forward, however, his one desire seemed to be to wipe out the memory of the bloodshed and horror in which his kingship had been secured. The Danish host, a fruitful source of animosity, was dismissed after a danegeld of £72,000 had been raised, London alone contributing £15,000. Canute retained the crews of forty ships as a body-guard, known as the huscarls or thingmanna. “Eadgar’s Law,” the old constitution of the realm, was revived and Dane and Englishman stood on a level footing. The Church had suffered heavily at Canute’s hands, but he sought her friendship and built a church at Assandun to commemorate the victory; rebuilt the church of St. Eadmund at Bury and established the monks there; and was a benefactor in many other places, contributing even to the erection of the cathedral of Chartres. On his visits to Denmark he took many missionaries with him, among whom were Ranier, Bernhard, and Gerbrand, Bishops of Fionia, Sconen, and Zealand. In 1026 Canute made a pilgrimage to Rome, his path being marked by his charities. He records in a letter his joy at visiting the tombs of the Apostles; his meeting with Pope John and Emperor Conrad; his plea for security for English and Danish travellers to Rome; the pope’s promise to lighten the tax for the pallium; and he adds his own vow to rule justly and regrets the misdeeds of his youth.

Canute’s greatest gift to his people was peace, says Green. Eighteen years unbroken by domestic strife laid the foundations of a national tranquillity. The kingdom was divided into four earldoms, and little by little Danish names disappear and are replaced by English (Freeman, Norman Conquest, I, 289). The people are to “love and worship one God and love King Cnut with right truthfulness.” The ferocity which mutilated the hostages was not burnt out, for the king struck down one of his huscarls with his own hand. But he pronounced heavy sentence upon his deed and, on another occasion, is said to have rebuked his flatterers by placing his crown upon the crucifix of the cathedral of Winchester. From the time his sceptre is secure, a sincere zeal for his people’s good shines out in his life. The yoke is lightened and his benefactions are widespread. He is a patron of poets and a lover of minstrelsy, and upon hearing the monks of Ely chant on Candlemas, he breaks out into the famous song:—Merie sungen ðe muneches binnen Ely,

Ða Cnut Ching reu ðer by;

Roweð, Cnihtes, noer ðe land,

And here we þes muneches sæng. (Merrily sang the monks of Ely when Cnut King rowed by. Row, boatmen, near the land, and hear we these monks sing.)

Intriguing, ambitious, and violent, Canute yet atoned for his early cruelty by a Christianity that was not unworthy. He came as an invader and ruthless destroyer, and by a change of temperament as remarkable as it was far-reaching in its effects, remained to rule, in justice and peace, a people whose part he wholly espoused. He was buried in the old minster at Winchester.

E.F. SAXTON

St. Canute IV

Also spelled CNUT.

Martyr and King of Denmark, date of birth uncertain; d. 10 July 1086, the third of the thirteen natural sons of Sweyn II surnamed Estridsen. Elected king on the death of his brother Harold about 1080, he waged war on his barbarous enemies and brought Courland and Livonia to the faith. Having married Eltha, daughter of Robert, Count of Flanders, he had a son Charles, surnamed the good. He was a strong ruler, as is proved by his stern dealing with the pirate Eigill of Bornholm. The happiness of his people and the interests of the Church were the objects he had most at heart. To the cathedral of Roskilde, still the royal burying-place, he gave his own diadem. His austerity was equalled by his assiduity in prayer. An expedition to England, in favour of the Saxons against William the Conqueror, planned by him in 1085, failed through the treachery of his brother Olaf. His people having revolted on account of the cruelties of certain tax-collectors, Canute retired to the island of Funen. There, in the church of St. Alban, after due preparation for death, the king, his brother Benedict, and seventeen others were surrounded and slain, 10 July, 1086. His feast is 19 January, translation, 10 July; his emblems, a lance or arrows, in memory of the manner of his death.

“Acta SS., July, III, 118–149, containing the life (written in 1105) by Aelnoth, a monk of Canterbury, and also that by SAXO GRAMMATICUS; BOLLANDISTS, “Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina,” (Brussels, 1898), 232; CHEVALIER. “Repertoire des sources historiques du moyen age” (Paris, 1905); I, col. 771; BUTLER, “Lives of the Saints,” 19 January.

PATRICK RYAN

Diocese of Capaccio and Vallo

(CAPUTAQUENSIS ET VALLENSIS)

Suffragan diocese of Salerno.

Capaccio is a city in the province of Salerno (Italy), in an unhealthy region, not far from the ruins of the ancient Paestum. It is believed that Capaccio was built after the destruction of Paestum by the Saracens (915), and that the see was transferred there. The first known bishop of Capaccio is Arnolfo, present at the council of the Lateran in 1179. Lelio Morello, elected in 1586, obtained from Sixtus V the transfer of the bishop’s residence to Dania. Other bishops worthy of mention were: the zealous monk Pietro Matta de Haro (1611), who was assisted by the venerable Gian Filippo Romanello, founder of a congregation of priests for the instruction of the peasantry in the articles of faith; the learned Cardinal Francesco Maria Brancacci (1627); Tommaso Caraffa (1639), and Giovanni della Pace (1684). The bishop resides at Vallo. The diocese contains a population of 122,400, with 102 parishes, 282 churches and chapels, 256 secular and 14 regular priests, and 3 religious houses for men.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844); Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 365.

U. BENIGNI

Baptiste-Honoré-Raymond Capefigue

Historian, b. at Marseilles, 1802; d. at Paris, 22 December, 1872. In 1821 he was a law student at Paris; at a later date he became a contributor to the “Quotidienne,” and in 1827 he was made editor of the Legitimist journal, “Messager des Chambres.” On account of his journalistic activity in behalf of the government, Capefigue soon received a position in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but lost it in consequence of the Revolution of July. A strong Royalist, he was after this an active supporter of the Orleanists in his writings and later of Napoleon. Capefigue was a prolific writer; his works are, consequently, somewhat superficial and of no great historical value, but in them he always maintained his convictions as a devout Catholic. His first work was entitled: “Recueil des opérations de l’armée française en Espagne sous les ordres du Duc d’Angoulême” (Paris, 1823). His principal work, “Histoire de Philippe-Auguste” (Paris, 1827–1829), 4 vols., passed through several editions. The best of his publications is: “Histoire de la Restauration et des causes qui ont amené la chute de la branche aînée des Bourbons” (Paris, 1831, 10 vols; 3d ed., Paris, 1842, 4 vols.). Of less importance was the work, on a more ambitious scale, “L’Europe depuis l’avènement de Louis-Philippe” (Paris, 1845–1846, 16 vols.; 2d ed., 1847–1849, 10 vols.), and the publication entitled, “L’Europe depuis la chute de Louis-Philippe jusqu’à la présidence de Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte” (Paris, 1849), 3 vols. Mention should also be made of: “Les reines de la main gauche” (Paris 1858–1864), 15 vols., which includes sketches of Agnes Sorel, Pompadour, du Barry, etc., and “Les reines de la main droite” (Paris, 1856–1864), 6 vols., sketches of Catherine de’ Medici, Elizabeth of England, and Maria Theresa, etc. Among his writings which belong to the department of church history are: “Vie de saint Vincent de Paul” (Paris, 1827; 2nd ed., 1840); “Quatre premiers siècles de l’Eglise chrétienne” (Paris, 1850), 4 vols. Capefigue also produced a historical novel called: “Jacques II à Saint-Germain” (Paris, 1833), 2 vols.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Pietro Caperolo

Friar Minor, date of birth unknown; d. at Velletri in 1480; he was a man of much energy and great learning, and was held in high esteem as a preacher by the people of Brescia, Velletri, and other cities of Northern Italy. Caperolo played an important part in the religious disturbances, which arose about the year 1475, between the Franciscan provinces of Milan and Venice, and which were occasioned in great measure by the war then going on between Milan and the Venetian Republic. After considerable difficulty Caperolo succeeded in obtaining permission from Pope Sixtus IV to separate several convents of the Venetian provice from the obedience of the Observants, and to form a vicariate, which was placed under the obedience of the Conventuals, but retained the right to elect its own provincial superior. The members of the new congregation were known as Caperolani, from Caperolo their founder. The death of Caperolo, however, put an end to the Caperolani as a distinct branch within the order, and all the members of the new vicariate without exception returned to the obedience of the Observants.

Wadding, Annales Minorum (Rome, 1732), XIII, 402; XIV, 242; Kobler in Kirchenlex., s.v.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

John Capgrave

Augustinian friar, historian, and theologian, b. at Lynn in Norfolk, 21 April, 1393; d. there, 12 August, 1464 (according to Pits, 1484). His name is known chiefly in connection with the “Nova Legenda Angliae,” the first comprehensive collection of English saints’ lives. But this work was really complied by John of Tynemouth, a Benedictine (born c. 1290), and Capgrave merely edited and re-arranged it, though it has ever since passed under his name. Yet quite apart from the “Nova Legenda,” his own undoubted works prove him to have been a scholar of unusual eminence. But few facts-and these gleaned from his own works-are known concerning his life. He states that he was born at Lynn in Norfolk, and not in Kent as Bale and others have stated. His university is uncertain, both Oxford and Cambridge claiming him, but he certainly was ordained priest in 1417 or 1418, and was professed an Augustinian at Lynn. He became a doctor of Divinity, and subsequently provincial of his order. Many of his unpublished works exist in MS., but some are lost. His historical works are: “De illustribus Henricis” (R.S., London, 1858); “Vita Humfredi ducis Glocestriae”; Life of St. Gilbert of Sempringham”; “Metrical Life of St. Katharine” (Early English Test Soc., 1893); “Chronicle of England to A.D. 1417” (R.S., London, 1858); “Vita S. Augustini”; “De sequacibus S. Augustini”; “De illustribus viris O. S. A.” His theological works, too numerous to detail (given by Hingeston, below), include commentaries on many books of the Bible, a work on the creeds, sermons, lectures and addresses to the clergy.

Hingeston, Capgrave’s Chronicle of England (R.S., London, 1858); Maunde Thompson in Dict. Nat. Biog. (London, 1887), IX, 20; Horstman, Nova Legenda Angliae, Introduction (Oxford, 1901).

EDWIN BURTON

Diocese of Cap Haïtien

CAPITIS HAITIANI)

Erected by Pius IX, 3 October, 1861, in the ecclesiastical Province of Port au Prince, territorially corresponds to the Department of the North of the French-speaking negro Republic of Haiti. In 1906 the jurisdiction of the See of Cap Haïtien covered some 650,000 Catholics, or rather more than one-fourth of the whole population of the Haitian Republic, which forms the western political division (about one-third the area) of the Island of Santo Domingo, the largest but one of the Greater Antilles.

HISTORY

On his second voyage to Santo Domingo, or, as he named it, Hispaniola, Columbus brought with him some religious of the Order of St. Dominic. This was in November, 1493, and since then the Haitian part of the island, at least, has never lacked pastors. A plan of the city of Cap Haïtien still extant, and dating from the year 1600, differs hardly at all in extent from the plan of the present city. In the collection of annals of the “missions catholiques” there are, also, letters of the same period, written from Petite Anse by a Jesuit Father. The parishes of the North were generally served by religious of the Society of Jesus, but there were also at Cap Haïtien some Franciscans whose names have been preserved, and one section of that city is still called “Morne des Capucins.” In addition to the work of the parish the Jesuits administered a very large hospital at the gate of the city and another (military) hospital inside. There was also a convent of nuns, very fine, and of very considerable size, to judge by its site, which has remained unoccupied, being now held in reserve by the Government for the Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny, whenever that congregation shall be able to found an establishment there.

From the time when Haiti secured its national independence (1804) to the Concordat (1860) the country was without a hierarchy. After a period of unsuccessful attempts at ecclesiastical reorganization under vicars and prefects Apostolic, negotiations between the Holy See and the administration of President Geffrard resulted (28 March, 1860) in the conclusion of the Concordat, which expired in 1885. Monsignor Monetti, titular Bishop of Lervia, was sent to Haiti in 1861 to settle various points left open in the text of the Concordat, and among these was the establishment of a suffragan see at Cap Haïtien, as well as the amount of the stipends to be paid to bishops and vicars-general. Provision was made for another diocese at Port de la Paix, but it was never formally established, and its territory is administered from Cap Haïtien.

The first Bishop of Cap Haïtien, Monseigneur Constant Mathurin Hillion, took possession of his see 24 May, 1874. There was no cathedral, and the Divine Offices were performed in a miserable chapel which was much too small. To supply this pressing need the bishop set about rebuilding a ruined church which dated from the time of Louis XV. He was able to collect a sum of about 200,000 francs ($40,000), and in the space of three months an American company completed the construction of the actual nave with its aisles, the transept and choir being still (1906) incomplete. The bishop also lost no time in establishing two schools, one for boys and the other for girls, under the Institute of Christian Instruction (Frères La Mennais) and the Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny. The sisters had arrived 9 May, 1872; the Frères La Mennais came 9 November, 1877. At this epoch, through the initiative of Père Bertin, curé and honorary canon, the equipment of the cathedral was rendered complete by the erection of a presbytery. Upon the death of Monseigneur Guillons, Monseigneur Hillion succeeded him as Archbishop of Port-au-Prince, and Monseigneur Kersuzan, titular Bishop of Hippo and coadjutor to the late archbishop, was made Bishop of Cap Haïtien, 10 November, 1886. The Bishop of Cap Haïtien had until then resided in a house too small for the gatherings of all the clergy in their annual retreat. He found means to build a very fine episcopal residence, with a chapel and adequate outbuildings, an edifice undeniable the most considerable in the city after the cathedral. This residence was destroyed by fire, but the construction of a more spacious and equally imposing edifice is now (1906) in progress. The diocesan seminary had been carried on at Pont-Chateau, in Brittany, by the Society of Mary founded by B. René de Montfort. When the French Government outlawed the religious orders, Monseigneur Kersuzan succeeded in installing his present seminary (Saint-Jacques) at Lanpaul, in the Diocese of Quimper, Brittany. It is under the care of secular priests: a director, two administrators, and six professors, with 50 students. The same bishop also founded at Cap Haïtien the College of Notre-Dame de secours perpétuel, which affords Haitian youths the advantages of secondary education without the expense and risks of a sojourn in Europe. This college is administered by a director, two ecclesiastic, and two lay, teachers. Lastly, the hospice owes to Monseigneur Kersuzan the introduction of the sisters, whose ministrations insure disinterested care for the sick with due consideration of their spiritual welfare.

RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL STATUS

Since the establishment of the hierarchy the twenty-one parishes of this diocese have little by little been provided with pastors, and some with assistants. There are altogether sixty-three churches, chapels, and oratories in the diocese. The number of practical Catholics has more than trebled and marriages have multiplied everywhere. There still remains, however, an unconverted majority in the immense parishes, which often contain a population of 30,000, while the smallest always contain several thousands.

In addition to the college already mentioned there is a boys’ school, conducted by ten of the Frères La Mennais, with 200 pupils; and three other schools, each employing three religious of the same order, with from 150 to 200 pupils in each. The Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny carry on six schools, one with 250 pupils under ten sisters, and five, each with 150 pupils under three sisters. The Daughters of Wisdom supply, besides ten religious for the hospice, 22 religious, teaching an aggregate of 750 girls in six schools in as many parishes. The number of Protestants residing in the diocese is extremely small, and is made up almost entirely of strangers from the neighbouring islands. There are three Masonic temples at Cap Haïtien, and probably one in each of the other towns or considerable villages of the diocese. When there was virtually no clergy, it was a fashion in Haiti to join the lodges; but these are now little frequented, except two or three times a year, on festival occasions, when there are receptions or banquets.

M. CHATTÉ

Capharnaum

A titular see of Palestine. Its name (also KAPERNAUM) means village of Nahum or consolation. It is frequently mentioned in the Gospels: Jesus, when repelled by the Nazarenes, made it His new abode (Matthew 4:13; Luke 4:31; John 2:12); He chose there his first disciples, Peter, Andrew, James, John, Matthew (Matthew 4:18, 21; 9:9; Mark 1:16); He cured there the centurion’s servant, Peter’s mother-in-law, a paralytic, a demoniac, the Hæmorrhoissa, etc.; it was there that He brought to life again the daughter of Jairus, and delivered many discourses, especially the one concerning the institution of the Eucharist (John 6i). The inhabitants, however, at the instigation of the Pharisees, broke off with Him, and Jesus, on leaving their city, cursed it (Matthew 11:23). Under Constantine the Great, Count Joseph, a converted Jew, built a church there which the pilgrim known as “Pseudo-Antoninus” visited in the sixth century. Since then the town has not been mentioned in the history of Palestine. It was never a Greek see, nor even a Latin one in the Middle Ages. Lequien, it is true (III, 719), quotes a document concerning the ecclesiastical province of Scythopolis in Palestina Secunda, wherein we read: “Ibi sunt adhoc Bethsaida, Naim et Capharnaum, sed alio nomine vocitantur nec habent episcopos.” Just when it became a Latin titular see is not known, the title now being held by the coadjutor to the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. Capharnaum must be identified with Tell-Houm on the north bank of the Lake of Tiberias. There are splendid ruins there, chiefly of a magnificent synagogue seventy-two feet long and fifty-four feet wide. In a little convent on this site some Franciscans reside for the reception of pilgrims. According to some archaeologists the site of Capharnaum is not at Tell-Houm, but in the vicinity, on the way to Tiberias, either at Khan-Minieh or at Aïn-Tabigah. In the latter place the Cologne Catholic Society conducts an agricultural colony.

Wilson, Lands of the Bible, II, 139–149; Thomson, The Land and the Book, I, 542; Robinson, Biblical Researches (1856), III, 347–357; Conder, Tentwork in Palestine, II, 182; Kitchener in Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund (July, 1979).

S. VAILHÉ

Capitolias

A titular see of Palestine, suffragan to Scythopolis in Palestina Secunda. According to the coins of the city, its special era begins A.D. 97 or 98; it dates, therefore, at least under this name, from the time of Nerva or Trajan. It was originally a part of the Decapolis. Capitolias is mentioned by many geographers, among others by Hierocles and Georgius Cyprius in the sixth and seventh centuries. Six bishops are given by Lequien (III, 715). The first, Antiochus, was present at Nicaea in 325; the second, Ananias, was at Chalcedon in 451; the last, St. Peter, is said to have suffered martyrdom at the hands of the Saracens early in the seventh century; he seems, however, to have been only a priest of Capitolias. In the twelfth century the see was an independent archbishopric, as appears from a “Notitia episcopatuum” of that time (H. Gelzer, in Byzantin. Zeithschrift, I, 253). Eubel, I, 169, mentions four Latin titulars in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The site of Capitolias is identified with the ruins at Bet-er-Ras, near Irbid, the chief village of a kaïmakamlik in the vilayet of Syria.

Schumacher, Northern Adjlun, 154 sq.; Lequien, Oriens Christianus (1740), III, 715–18.

S. VAILHÉ

Capitularies

CapitulariesFrancis James Schaefer

Capitularies (Lat. Capitularia), collections of laws or ordinances, chiefly of the Frankish kings, divided into many single laws or chapters (capitula), so that a capitulare meant the sum total of such single laws. Sometimes such collections consisted of only one law or capitulum; even then they were called capitularia. The word capitulare was used officially for the first time (779) in an enactment of Charlemagne (Mon. Germ. Hist: Leges, II, i, 47). It was also applied to certain legislative acts of bishops.

EPISCOPAL CAPITULARIES.—The capitularies or capitula of the bishops were compilations of ecclesiastical laws, drawn as a rule from previous legislation, and proposed to the clergy and people for their guidance. Their general purpose was, on the one hand, to make it easy for ecclesiastics to know the canons or laws of the Church, at least in the summaries thus compiled; on the other, to keep intact and uniform the discipline of the Church, and to maintain the religious life of both clergy and laity at as high a standard as possible. There are yet extant many such compilations, which may. be divided into two categories. Those of the first contain laws whose content shows that they were not restricted to one diocese, but were applicable to several. Those of the second were meant primarily for one diocese and are more properly called capitularies. To the first order of capitularies belong the capitula of St. Martin, Metropolitan of Braga (571–80) in Gallicia, the present Portugal (Mansi, Sacr. Conc. Coll., IX, 845, sqq.). His object was to render more intelligible the canons of the Greek Church by a new translation into Latin, and to arrange them in a systematic order. The collection became very important in subsequent ages, when it was incorporated with the “Collectio Hispana,” and with this passed into the work of Pseudo-Isidore. After the tenth century it formed part of nearly every compilation of ecclesiastical law. Then follow two collections made by St. Boniface (d. 754). The first contains twenty-eight capitula issued about 744 (Mansi, op. cit., XII, App. 107, sqq.); the second has thirty-six statuta issued about 745 (op. cit., XII, 383, sqq.). The collection of Egbert, Archbishop of York (735–51), known as “Excerptiones Egberti Eboracensis Archiepiscopi” (op. cit., XII, 411, sqq.), is but a summary made by the deacon Huncar about 1040 from a larger work of Egbert (q.v.) entitled “De jure sacerdotali.” The collection attributed to Isaac, Bishop of Langres in France (859–80), and known as “Cannes Isaac Episcopi Lingonensis” (op. cit., XVI, App. 633, sqq.), is merely an extract from the three books of capitularies of Benedictus Levita. The capitula of Angilramnus, Bishop of Metz (768–91), are said to have been published by him after he had received them from Adrian I (772–95). They are intimately connected with the pseudo-Isidorian decretals, and hence not genuine; they were written about the middle of the ninth century (Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianie, 757, sqq.).

Among the capitularies of the second class we may mention first the Rule of St. Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz (742–66), written about 760 (Mani, op. cit., XIV, 313, sqq.), which regulated the common or canonical life of his diocesan clergy. These decrees, modified by Amalarius of Metz, were eventually made obligatory upon the clergy of the whole Frankish Empire at the Diet of Aachen (817). Then follow: the capitulary of Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans (797–821), issued towards the end of the eighth century, with several additions (op. cit., XIII, 993, sqq.); the capitulary of Hatto, Bishop of Basle (836), issued about 822 (op. eft., XIV, 393, sqq.); the capitula of Rodulf, Archbishop of Bourges, issued about 850 (op. cit., XIV, 943, sqq.); the capitula of Herard, Archbishop of Tours (855–70), issued in 858 (op. cit., XVI, App. 677, sqq.); the various capitula of Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims (845–82), issued in 852, 856, and 874 (op. cit., XV, 475, sqq., 493, sqq.); the capitula of Walter, Bishop of Orleans, issued about 871 (op. cit., XV, 503, sqq.); finally, the constitutio of Riculf, Bishop of Soissons, issued about 889 (op. cit., XVIII, 81, sqq.). A number of these capitularies were published in diocesan synods, e.g. those of Herard of Tours, of Hincmar of Reims (at least the ones of 852 and 874), and of Walter of Orleans. Perhaps this was the usual custom, since the capitula of Theodulf of Orleans and of Rodulf of Bourges mention the diocesan synod as of obligation at stated intervals.

ROYAL CAPITULARIES.—The capitularies of the Frankish kings were legislative or administrative enactments. In the Merovingian period they were known as epistola, praiceptum, edictum, decretio, or pactus if issued by several kings together. In the present acceptation of the word the capitularies comprise legislative acts issued by the Frankish rulers, either Merovingians or Carlovingians, from the beginning of the sixth century to the end of the ninth. They are usually distinguished from leges, or laws, not because they: lack legislative force, but because since the sixth century the term leges is usually applied to the written or formally codified customs prevailing among the various Germanic nations; thus we have the “Lex Salica,” the “Lex Alamannorum,” and the like. The capitularies, on the contrary, may have a wider application. They were usually drawn up without any specific order and without such formalities as the royal seal or signature; hence they differed from other royal acts, e.g. the diplomats and mandata. The capitularies were executed by the royal officers or by the king himself; therefore they did not need the formalities required for other documents as evidences of the royal will. The contents of the capitularies are manifold. Sometimes they contain only directions given to royal officers, chiefly the missi dominici; sometimes additions to, or modifications of, the leges; more generally they contain ordinances bearing on almost every form of civil and ecclesiastical life. Among the civil ordinances are regulations affecting the royal magistracy, commerce, customs-duties, markets, currency, the army, safety of travellers, procedure in criminal and civil suits, private rights or prerogatives, and many other subjects. Concerning ecclesiastical matters there are regulations on the organization of the Church, its relation, to the civil power, monastic life, discipline of the Church, education, manner of worship, ecclesiastical feast-days, and the like. A division or systematic classification of the capitularies is practically impossible. While some deal exclusively with ecclesiastical matters; in many of them things ecclesiastical and civil are so intermingled that it is difficult to distinguish in them two kinds of capitularies. Nor can the capitularies bearing on civil matters be divided into classes, though some have imagined that they could distinguish three different kinds. Those of the first class were called capitularia legibus addenda, and were said to contain modifications of the leges, made with the consent of the nation whose laws were thus affected. Those of the second class were called capitularia per se scribenda, said to contain ordinances affecting the people of the Frankish Empire generally, issued by the king with or without the consent of the men of rank. Those of the third class were called capitularia missorum, and were said to contain merely instructions for the royal officers or counts known as the missi dominici.

There is no sufficient basis, however, in the text of the capitularies for this classification. While the matter contained therein has a bearing on all those subjects, still it is put together so indiscriminately that no systematic division can be made; in fact, no uniform system was aimed at in this legislation. There is, moreover, no sufficient foundation for the assertion that for a certain class of capitularies the consent of a nation was required. The laws or ordinances were enacted either by the king himself and alone, or after a consultation with his advisers, or with the men of rank in a diet or parliament. It was customary among the Franks, as indeed among the Germanic nations generally, to assemble once a year in the month of March, or at some other time in the spring or summer, for legislative, military, or other purposes. The attendance, which at first was general on the part of all freemen, gradually shrank to the men of rank or the nobles and ecclesiastical dignitaries, such as counts, bishops, and abbots. At such assemblies or diets legislative matters were discussed between the king and his attendants, in which all, bishops, abbots, counts, and other royal officers, took part. Once the subjects were sufficiently debated, they were drawn up as capitula and published as laws. For this reason a certain number of capitularies were prepared and issued in the annual diets. But the same cannot be asserted of all, since there are many which were not issued in the diets, or at least of which this cannot be stated with certainty. If matters of an ecclesiastical character came up for discussion, they were generally, though not always, submitted to the judgment of the bishops alone. In fact, the bishops of the Frankish Empire often held their synods contemporaneously with the diets. Sometimes also the diets presented an almost exclusively ecclesiastical character, and thus they were called synods as well as conventus or placita. In order to preserve the capitularies and through them the written law, they were reduced to writing and kept in the archives of the imperial palace. Copies of them were sent to the royal officers throughout the empire, or else the officers were themselves requested to secure copies, send them to each other, and in turn make them known to the people. In a capitulary of the year 825 Emperor Louis the Pious (814–40) ordered that the archbishops and counts should secure copies of the capitularies from the chancellor, and communicate them to other ecclesiastical or royal dignitaries in their districts for the purpose of publication. This publication was to be done in the judicial assemblies or courts of justice, in the marketplaces of cities, and also in the churches. These orders were apparently not executed conscientiously; otherwise translations into the vernacular would have been made, of which, however, there is practically no trace.

As the number of the capitularies kept growing, the need was felt of uniting them into one work. The first (incomplete) collection of this kind was made in 827 by Ansegisus (q.v.), Abbot of the monastery of Fontanelle, or, as it was called afterwards, St-Vandrille in Normandy. He divided his work into four books: the first contained the ecclesiastical capitularies of Charlemagne, the second the ecclesiastical capitularies of Louis the Pious, the third the capitularies of Charlemagne on civil matters, the fourth the capitularies of Louis the Pious and his son Lothaire on civil matters. Three appendixes were added to the work containing titles of capitularies, or capitularies that were doubled. This collection, though owing to the private initiative of Ansegisus received the sanction of Louis the Pious in 829, and in this way obtained an official character. Towards the middle of the ninth century a new collection in three books appeared, designed to continue and complete the work of Ansegisus. Its author states that it was made by Benedictus Levita, a deacon of Mainz (847), at the suggestion of Bishop Autgar of that city. In reality it contains few genuine capitularies; the greater part of the work is a forgery, the materials for which were taken from the Roman law, the Breviarium Alarici, the leges of the Visigoths and Bavarians, the canons of councils, the decretals of the popes, the penitential books, and the writings of the Fathers. It was published shortly after 847 and is intimately connected with the decretals of Pseudo-Isidore. Hence, according to many, it was most probably written either at Reims or Le Mans, the birthplace of the Isidorian decretals.

The capitularies enjoyed great authority through-out the Middle Ages. Bishops made use of them in their legislation; thus the above mentioned Herard of Tours in his capitula, Isaac of Langres in his canons, and Walter of Orleans in his capitula. The provincial councils of the ninth and tenth centuries recommended their perusal, or else adopted their constitutions, e.g. a synod of Reims (881), a synod of Mainz (888), a synod of Ravenna (904), and a synod of Trosly, Diocese of Soissons (909). Finally, the later compilers of canons, like Regino of Prum, Burchard of Worms, No of Chartres, and Gratian, borrowed much of their material from the capitularies. The text of the capitularies has often been printed. They were first edited by Vitus Aznenpach (Ingolstadt, 1545) from a manuscript of the monastery of Tegernsee (Bavaria). An incomplete edition of the capitularies of Ansegisus and Benedictus Levita was published by Jean du Tillet (Paris, 1548). Five books of capitularies were published by B. J. Herold (Basle, 1557), but this edition is rather incomplete and defective. The edition of du Tillet was completed by Pierre Pithou (Paris, 1588), and again by Francois Pithou (Paris, 1603). Jacques Sirmond published the capitularies of Charles the Bald and his successors (Paris, 1623). A very complete edition of the capitularies was produced by Etienne Baluze (Paris, 1677), was reprinted at Venice in 1772, and reedited by Pierre de Chiniac (Paris, 1780). The edition of Baluze has been inserted in various publications of law and history issued since then in Germany, France, and Italy. A new edition was made by Pertz for the “Monumenta Germanise Historica” (Leges, I-II, Hanover, 1835–37). A later and better edition appeared in the same great collection, the work of A. Boretius and V. Krause (Leges, I, II, Hanover, 1883–97). Baluze, Pertz, Boretius, and Krause sought to give the complete text of all existing capitularies and to arrange them in their chronological order; in their editions, therefore, the reader will find much more than the capitularies of Ansegisus and Benedictus Levita, which latter are now accessible in special reprints.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Episcopal and Pontifical Capitulations

Capitulations were agreements, by which those taking part in the election of a bishop or pope imposed special conditions upon the candidate to be fulfilled by him after his election. Episcopal capitulations owe their origin to the fact that since the eleventh and twelfth centuries the real election of bishops was restricted to the canons of cathedral chapters, who were anxious to curtail the prerogatives or the income of the bishops, and to secure for themselves privileges or larger revenues. Since the early part of the thirteenth century the canons of Mains agreed amongst themselves not to elect a bishop unless he promised beforehand to exact no financial contributions from the clergy. Such capitulations became practically universal throughout Germany, where the election of bishops remained in the hands of cathedral chapters. In the diet held at Nuremberg in 1522 the chapters were condemned for extorting such concessions from the bishops. If these capitulations contain conditions which curtail the jurisdiction or the prerogatives of the bishop, the privileges of the diocese, or the like, then they do not bind the candidate-elect, even if he has taken an oath to carry them out; the canons have no jurisdiction in such matters. Several papal declarations forbade them and pronounced them invalid; thus the Constitution “Contingit” of Nicholas III (1277–80) in the “Liber Sextus” (II, tit., xi, 1); Pius V (1566–72) “Durum nimis,” 31 May, 1570; Gregory XIII (1572–85) “Inter apostolicas,” 5 September, 1584; Innocent XII (1691–1700) “Ecclesiæ Catholicæ,” 22 September, 1695; and Benedict XIV (1740–58) “Pastoralis regiminis,” 15 July, 1754. Severe penalties were imposed on those who should act contrary to these instructions, viz., suspension for those in the episcopal order, interdict for the chapters, and excommunication for their individual members. Still the capitulations were maintained in Germany, partly because the constitution of ecclesiastical states was often based on them; partly because such privileges of the chapters were acknowledged by the “Instrumentum pacis,” or Treaty of Osnabrück (1648); and partly because the emperors at the beginning of their reigns promised to protect the customary usages of the chapters.

The papal capitulations arose in about the same manner when, from the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the election of a pope was reserved to the cardinals. The first authentic example occurred when Innocent VI (1352–62) was chosen pope. The conditions then laid down by the cardinals restricted the rights of the future pope, especially with regard to the nomination, punishment, or deposition of cardinals, the appointment to positions in the papal provinces, and the administration of temporalities—in all of which the cardinals wished to have a voice. Similar but more far-reaching capitulations were entered into at the election of Eugene IV (1431–47), at the election of Pius II (1458–64), at the election of Paul II (1464–71), and at the election of Innocent VIII (1484–92). These papal capitulations were likewise forbidden and pronounced null and void. Innocent VI, in the Constitution “Sollicitudo” of the year 1353, rejected as not binding upon him the capitulation entered into at the time of his own election. Innocent VIII believed that he was not bound to observe those conditions of the capitulation which were contrary to the prerogatives of the head of the Church. More general declarations are contained in the Constitution “Ubi periculum” of Gregory X (1271–76), published in 1274; in the “In eligendis,” published by Pius IV (1559–65), 9 October, 1562; and in the “Æterni Patris” of Gregory XV (1621–23), 15 November, 1621.

SCHMALZGRÜBER, Jus ecclesiasticum (Rome, 1843), I; FERRARIS, Bibliotheca, s. v. Electio (Paris, 1865), III; HINSCHIUS, Kirchenrecht (Berlin, 1869, 1878), I, II; PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht (Ratisbon, 1854), V; BRUNNER, Wahlkapitulationen der Bischöfe von Konstanz in Zeitschr. für die Gesch. des Oberrheins (Karlsruhe, 1898); PASTOR, Gesch. der Päpste (Freiburg, 1891, 1894, 1895), I, II, III.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Count Gino Capponi

Historian and litterateur; born at Florence, Italy, 13 September, 1792; died 3 February, 1876. He came of an ancient family, whose members had often figured in the annals of Italian literature. Under private tutors of note, Count Capponi was well trained in the humanities and in such modern languages as English, French, and German. Fond of travelling, he early began his peregrinations throughout his native land, acquainting himself with the past and present traditions of Italian art and letters. In 1813, when he had but barely reached man’s estate, he visited Paris, on a deputation to Napoleon. He also visited England, where he contracted a close friendship with the exiled Foscolo, and later he travelled in Holland and Germany. Back in Florence once more, he devoted himself to constant study, maintaining all the while constant relations with the best scholars and writers of the time, and figuring prominently in the various learned and literary academies. To his initiative and active co-operation was due the successful launching of a number of important periodicals dealing with many and varied interests. Thus the “Antologia” was founded in 1821 by Vieusseux, who valued greatly the aid given him by Capponi, and he was quite efficacious in starting the “Giornale Agrario Toscano” (1827), the “Guida dell’Educatore” (1836), and the “Archivio Storico Italiano” (1842). Entering into political life, he there professed moderate sentiments and so recommended himself by his self-restraint and prudence that he became head of a ministry in the Grand Duchy during the troublous times of 1848. He was afterwards a senator of the realm. He passed the latter part of his life in darkness, having been stricken by blindness in 1840.

While engaged in translating from the French a history of Florence by Mme O. Allart, he conceived the idea of writing his own “Storia della Repubblica di Firenze,” which, after twenty years of labour, he published in 1875 (Florence, 2nd revised ed., 1876), by the advice of the German historian, Alfred von Reumont. His history extends from the beginning of the commune down to the fall of the republic in 1530, and is a statement of all that is told by the old Florentine chronicles and by the early historians, substantiated by documents and amplified with considerations on the state of culture in the various periods. Many of his lesser writings have been brought together in the “Scritti editi ed inediti” published by M. Tabarrini (Florence, 1877). Interesting still is the polemic which he wrote in connexion with the controversy about Amerigo Vespucci. Those who treat of the Lombards in Italy must take cognizance of his “Lettere al professor Capei sulla dominazione dei Longobardi in Italia.” His views on pedagogical matters are expressed in the “Frammenti sull’ educazione” and his studies in political economy take a practical turn in the “Cinque letture di economia toscana.” With the zeal of an intelligent student of folk-lore he arranged, amplified, and published the “Raccolta di proverbi toscani” of the scholar Giusti. Instructive not only with regard to the man himself, but also for the general political, social, and literary conditions of his time, is the “Epistolario” published in six volumes by G. C. Carraresi (Florence, 1884–90); it embraces many letters written by others to Count Capponi, as well as those written by him.

The personality of Capponi reveals itself in every respect as one of the most engaging that modern Italy has possessed. He was a man of strong integrity, a sturdy Catholic, friendly to those forms of political liberty that obeyed the moral law, and thoroughly imbued with love for all the arts of refinement.

Edinburgh Review (April, 1876); Nuova Antologia (Feb., 1886); VON REUMONT. Gina Capponi, Jun Ein Zeit- und Lebensbild (Gotha, 1880; this has also a bibliography); GUASTI in Atti dell’ Accademia delle Crusca (1876); DE GUBERNATIS, in Rivista Europea (June, 1876); his personal memoirs published as Ricordi in the Scritti editi ed inediti. II.

J. D. M. FORD.

Domenico Capranica

Cardinal, theologian, canonist, and statesman, b. at Capranica near Palestrina, Italy, in 1400; d. at Rome, 14 July, 1458. After brilliant studies in canon and civil law at Padua and Bologna, under such teachers as the later Cardinals Giuliano Cesarini and Nicholas of Cusa, he received the title of Doctor of Both Laws at the age of twenty-one. Soon he became secretary to Martin V, and Apostolic prothonotary, and in 1423 or 1426 was made cardinal by this pope, though his nomination was not published in secret consistory until 1430. He had earned this rapid promotion by various political and military services, notable by his administration of Imola and Forli and by his successful reduction of rebellious Bologna. In the meantime he had become Bishop of Fermo, but for some reason did not go to Rome for the public ceremonies of the cardinalate. Despite his protest, and their previous agreement with Martin V, the cardinals of the conclave that followed the latter’s death (1431) refused to recognize Capranica’s nomination, and the new pope, Eugene IV, sustained their decision on the ground that the delivery of the hat and assignment of the title were necessary for the validity of a cardinalitial nomination. Capranica, having already suffered severe losses at Rome through the enmity of the Orsini, took refuge first with the Visconti of Milan and later appealed (1432) to the Council of Basle for recognition of his title. This was granted, but to punish him for adhering to the Council Eugene IV deprived him of all honours and dignities, also of all his possessions. Capranica, then served by Æneas Sylvius as secretary, bore himself with moderation and caution, and soon sought a reconciliation with the pope at Florence (30 April, 1434), who restored to him his offices and goods, gave him the cardinalitial Title of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, and sent him to the Council at Ferrara, with special commission to treat with the Greek bishops and theologians concerning the reunion of the Churches. He frequently administered important departments of the States of the Church, always with justice, prudence, and integrity. He executed twelve responsible embassies for the Apostolic See, and was named (1449) Grand Penitentiary and Archpriest of the Lateran. Capranica was one of the most earnest reformers in the Roman Church, inaugurated the restoration of primitive fervour among the Cistercians of Tuscany, and drew up for Nicholas V, in 1449, a model plan of a general religious reformation (Pastor, Gesch. d. Päpste, 4th ed. I, 394–96). He was extremely stern and severe in character, and in the duties of his office open and free of speech, also quite fearless. He insisted on a personal examination of the votes cast for Nicholas V, whose election greatly surprised him, and remonstrated vigorously with Callistus III for his nepotism, especially in the nomination of Don Pedro Luis Borgia as Vicar (governor) of Spoleto (Pastor, op. cit., tr. II, 461). While very liberal to the poor, on the other hand he was austere and rigid towards the worldly prelates of the city and was wont to freely reproach them. His household was a model for correctness and simplicity of life. Capranica was eminent as a peacemaker, notable at Genoa, where he healed grievous municipal dissensions, and again between the Apostolic See and King Alfonso of Naples and the princes of Germany. During the plague of 1456 he remained at Rome when many others fled. He took a very prominent part in all the negotiations for a crusade against the Turks in the hope of restoring Constantinople to the Palæologi. To posterity he is best known as the founder of the Collegio Capranica (see COLLEGES, ROMAN), which he opened in his own palace (the oldest Roman monument of the early Renaissance) for thirty-one poor scholars, sixteen in theology and the liberal arts, and fifteen in canon law. Its constitutions, drawn up by himself (Rome, 1705, 1879), are praised as a model of their kind; the college itself is the oldest of the Roman colleges and therefore rejoices in the peculiar title of “Almo Collegio.” In 1460 his brother Cardinal Angelo Capranica erected nearby a special building for the college (Denifle, Die Universitäten, I, 317 sqq.). He left all his property to ecclestiastical uses, saying: “The Church gave it to me; I give it back, for I am not its master, but its steward. I should indeed have reaped but little profit from the nights spent in studying ecclesiastical discipline if I were to leave to my relatives the goods of the Church which belong to the poor” (Pastor, op. cit. II, 492) At his death the Milanese ambassador wrote home that “the wisest, the most perfect, the most learned, and the holiest prelate whom the Church has in our days possessed is gone from us.” He added that he was universally considered as the next pope (op. cit. II, 494). Pastor himself says that of all the cardinals of the Renaissance Age none but Albergati, Cesarini, and Carvajal can be compared with him (ibid., 495). He lies buried in Santa Maria sopra Minerva, near St. Catherine of Siena. He wrote an excellent opusculum known as “The Art of Dying Well” printed in 1487. In his life by Catalanus (see below) are some notes on the Council of Basle, and he is said by Mansi (in Moroni) to have written a history of that council, never printed. He also drew up for the instruction of his nephew certain “Rules of Life” that Pastor says reflect his beautiful character.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Giovanni Battista Caprara

Statesman and cardinal, born at Bologna, 29 May, 1733; died at Paris, 27 July, 1810. His parents were Count Francesco Raimondo Montecuccoli and Countess Maria Vittoria Caprara; it was from his mother that he took his name. Having entered the ecclesiastical state, he was appointed in 1758 vice-legate of Ravenna, in 1767 nuncio at Cologne, in 1775 at Lucerne, and in 1785 at Vienna, In this last and most important position he did not always defend with sufficient courage the interests of the Church against the aggressions of the Emperor Joseph II (1765–90), and the imperial ministers Prince Kaunitz and Count Cobenzl. During the summer of 1792 he was made Cardinal-Priest of the Title of Sant’ Onofrio, and in August, 1800, Bishop of Jesi in the Mark of Ancona. When the Concordat between Pius VII (1800–23) and the French Republic was concluded (July, 1801), Napoleon Bonaparte, then First Consul, asked for the appointment of a papal legate with residence in Paris. His choice fell upon Cardinal Caprara, undoubtedly because he expected in this way little or no opposition to his plans; Caprara was appointed legate a latere for France in August, 1801; he departed at once for his destination and arrived in Paris on the 4th of October. During the negotiations which followed concerning the execution of the Concordat he displayed too conciliatory a spirit in dealing with the ten constitutional bishops who were to be appointed to as many of the newly-established dioceses; in fact, he went contrary to specific instructions from Rome. However, persistent pressure exerted by Napoleon may be taken as an excuse for the legate’s conduct. Cardinal Caprara officiated at the Solemn restoration of public worship in the cathedral of Notre-Dame on Easter Day (18 April, 1802), at which function the First Consul, the high officers of state, and the new ecclesiastical dignitaries assisted. At times the cardinal legate showed more strength in the interest of the Church; thus, in a letter written 18 August, 1803, he protested most energetically against the Organic Articles added to the Concordat by the French Government.

In May, 1802, Shortly after the above-mentioned solemnities, he was appointed Archbishop of Milan, and as such he blessed, on the 26th of May, 1805, the Iron Crown, which Napoleon placed on his own head in his new dignity of King of Italy. Otherwise Caprara retained his position as papal legate in France until his death, or rather until the imprisonment of Pope Pius VII in July, 1809. His declining health saved him from the embarrassment connected with the divorce and second marriage of Napoleon (April, 1810). In his last will his entire fortune was left to the hospital of Milan. In memory of all that was done in behalf of France he published the “Concordat et recueil des bulles et brefs de N. S. Pie VII. sur les affaires de l’Eglise de France” (Paris, 1802). Cardinal Caprara was a man of simple and pure habits, zealous for religion and very charitable, but often inclined to yield to the imperious will of princes and ministers, a weakness which at times justified the reproaches of Pius VI (1775–99) and Pius VII.

RINIERI, La Diplomazia Pontificia (Rome, 1902), I; THEINER, Hist. des deux Concordats (Paris, 1869), I; GENDRY, Pie VI (Paris, 1905); ARTAUD, Histoire du Pape Pie VII (Paris, 1837); WERNER in Kirchenlex, (Freiburg, 1887), II.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

John Capreolus

A theologian, born towards the end of the fourteenth century, (about 1380), in the diocese of Rodez, France; died in that city 6 April, 1444. He has been called the “Prince of Thomists,” but only scanty details of his personal history are known. He was a Dominican affiliated to the province of Toulouse, and a general chapter of his order at Poitiers in 1407 assigned him to lecture on “The Sentences” in the University of Paris. He began in 1408 and achieved success. The following year he finished the first part of his celebrated defensive on commentary on the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. He passed examinations for degrees at the Sorbonne in 1411 and in 1415. After serving for some time as regent of studies at Toulouse, he repaired to Rodez where he laboured assiduously at his commentaries completing the three remaining parts in 1426, 1428 and 1433. In the preface of a compendium of Capreolus’s work by lsidore de Isolanis, it is stated that these manuscripts once narrowly escaped destruction by fire, a lay brother having saved thern, to the joy of the author, who was then advanced in years. The same authority describes the erudite commentator as having cherished through life a tender devotion to the Blessed Virgin. Though following the order of “The Sentences,” the commentaries of Capreolus are a calm, learned, and penetrating exposition of the teaching of St. Thomas, as well as a comprehensive defence against sundry opponents and critics, including Scotus, Henry of Ghent, John of Ripa, Guido (the Carmelite), Aureolus, Durandus Gregory of Rimini, William of Ockham, and other Nominalists. Copious and apt citations show that the author mastered Aristotle and his Arabic commentator, Averros; but a scrupulous fidelity to the Angelical Doctor, that earned for him the extraordinary appellation of “Soul of St. Thomas,” is his chief characteristic.

There is nothing in the wide field of the doctrinal discussions of his time that Capreolus did not study and elucidate with precision of insight and reasoning, and express in a style so terse and vigorous that his work is rightly given a place among the most enduring achievements of the golden age of Scholasticism. The commentaries, bearing slightly variant titles, were published in four folio volumes at Venice, 1483, 1514, 1519, 1589. ln 1881, Bishop Borret of Rodez, who had made the life and works of Capreolus, the object of considerable research, suggested a critically revised edition of the commentaries, which was at length undertaken by the Dominicans. Its publication was begun at Tours in 1900 and is now (1907) nearly compteted in the seventh volume, under the title: “Johannis Capreoli Tholosani, Ordinis Praedicatorum, Thomistarum principis, Defensiones Theologiae Divi Thomae Aq.de novo editae cura et studio RR. PP. Ceslai Paban et Thomae Pegues.” Early compendiums of the work by Paul Soncinas and by Sylvester Prierias were much used in their day.

JOHN R. VOLZ.

Capsa

A titular see of North Africa. The city, said to have been founded by the Libyan Hercules, belonged to King Jugurtha, who had deposited his treasures there; it was captured by Marius in 106 B.C. and destroyed, but later became a Roman colony. When Africa was divided into two provinces by Justinian, it was assigned to Byzacena. Under Justinian the Duke of Byzacena resided there and the town which was protected by a strong citadel, was called Justiniana Capsa. In the eleventh century after tlle Arab conquest, more than two hundred flourishing villages stood in the surrounding region. Five bishops, one a Donatist, are known from 255 to 484 (Morcelli, Africa Christiana, 1, 118, Gams, 464). The modern name of the town is Gafsa; it is situated in a most fertile oasis, about 81 miles west of Gabes and 128 west of Sfax, with which it is connected by a railway. The oasis has about 5000 inhabitants trading in dates, carpets, and wool rugs. It is well watered, has magnificent palm-trees, and is an important centre for French military and civil administratlon in Tunisia.

S. VAILHÉ

Captain (In the Bible)

In the Douay version captain represents several different Hebrew and Latin words, and designates both civil and military officers. It is used without rule, other words being frequently substituted where the same expression with the same sense is translated, and this is true with regard to the Latin Vulgate as well as the Hebrew or Greek text. It is rarely used to designate civil officials, and then only the highest. Thus we find “captain of my people” (IV Kings, xx, 5); “let us appoint a captain” (instead of Moses; Num., xiv, 4; cf. Prov., vi, 7). When applied to military officers it corresponds in most cases to the Hebrew sár, and like it designates officers of all grades, namely:

(1) Generals, “captains of the host”(sár háççãbã, strategos, hegoumenos princeps exercitus, dux); but in many cases “general of the army” or “prince of the army” is used.

(2) The various grades of officers of infantry: “captains of thousands” (sár hãalãphim, chiliarchos, tribunus); “captains of hundreds” (sár hámmeôth, ekatontarchos, centurio); “captains of fifty” (sár hamíshshîm, pentekontarchos, quinquagenarius); and “captains over tens” (dekarches, decurio).

(3) “Captains of the chariots” (sár hãrékéb. The “captains of cavalry,” Vulg. duces equitatus in II Par., xviii, 30, 31, 32, xxi, 9, should be “captains of the chariots”).

(4) Commanders of the body-guard (sár háttábbãhîm, sár hãrãçîm, translated respectively “captain of soldiers,” Gen., xxvi, 26, xxxvii. 36, etc., and “captain of the shieldbearers,” III Kings, xiv, 27).

(5) Lastly, captain is used to designate two special classes of officers, the shôterîm, probably officers charged with the organization of newly levied troops and the order of the camp (Deut., xx, 5, 9), and the shálîshîm, whose status is not clear; under the later kings they were royal equerries or aides-de-camp (IV Kings, ix, 25, xv, 25, cf. vii, 2, 17). It is also applied to the chiefs of marauding bands (III Kings, ii, 24).

In the New Testament “captain” occurs but once, Matt., ii, 6, in the prophecy of Micheas, ii, 5, “for out of thee shall come forth the captain that shall rule my people Israel.”

F. BECHTEL.

Captivities of the Israelites

I. THE ASSYRIAN CAPTIVITY

(1) The End of the Northern Kingdom

The Kingdom of Israel, formed by the secession of the Ten Tribes under Roboam, covered the whole northern and north-eastern part of the realm of David which constituted the bulk of the land of the Hebrews. Politically and materially it was of much greater importance than its southern neighbour, Juda. Under Jeroboam II (782–746 B.C.) it had recovered from the inroads of the Syrians and the pecuniary exactions of Shalmaneser II of Assyria, and had regained on the east and north-east the boundaries conquered of yore by Solomon. In fact the Israel of Jeroboam II was at the summit of its prosperity. But beneath this bloom lay a depth of religious and moral corruption. Jehovah had always been acknowledged as the supreme God, but His worship was still tainted by the heathenish symbolism of the calf at the national temples of Bethel and Dan (Osee, viii, 5–7), and affronted by the Chanaanitish cult at the high-places and groves, where the Baalim or gods of fertility were offered rites accompanied by unbridled sexual licence (Osee, ii, 13, 17; iv, 12 sq.). The Prophets Amos and Osee (A. V. Hosea), especially the latter, paint in strong colours a picture of the dire iniquity of the times: “There is no truths and there is no mercy, and there is no knowledge of God in the land. Cursing, and lying, and killing, and theft, and adultery have overflowed, and blood hath touched blood.” (Osee, iv, 1, 2.) Practically there prevailed the principle that Jehovah could not fail to uphold His People, sin as it might, so long as that people paid Him the outward homage of sacrifice and ceremony. Against this superstitious presumption and the licence of the land Osee spoke in burning words, and in the very hey-day of Israel’s prosperity foretold the detruction of the kingdom as the penalty of its wickedness. They announced captivity in foreign countries: “They shall not dwell in the Lord’s land; Ephraim is returned to Egypt, and hath eaten unclean things among the Assyrians” (Osee, ix, 3).

After Jeroboam II, political disintegration began from within by a series of short reigns of usurpers, who reached the throne and were hurled from it by murder. At the same time a world-power, Assyria was looming up on the East and menacing the existence of the small states which lay between it and the Mediterranean. An Assyrian king, Tiglath-pileser III (D.V. Theglathphalasar, the Phul of IV K., xv, 19), led a campaign against Damascene Syria, Hamath, and Palestine (742–738), and Manahem, the reigning prince of Israel, was fain to buy security with a heavy tribute silver. Manahem’s son Phaceia (Pekahiah), after a two years’ reign fell a victim to a conspiracy, and the throne was seized by its leader, Phacee (Pekah). The latter entered into an alliance with King Rasin (Rezin) of Damascus, whose object was the capture of Jerusalem and the placing of a Damascene king over Juda, in order to consolidate the Syrian-lsraelitie defence against the ever-threatening Assyrian domination. But Achaz of Jerusalem acknowledged Tiglath-pileser’s suzerainty, and called in his aid in opposition to the prophetic warnings of Isaias. Later, at Damascus, he did homage to the Assyrian emperor, and from that city imported pagan ideas into the Temple ritual. The power Achaz invoked was destined ultimately to scourge his country, but it fell heavily first upon the coalition against Juda. Tiglath-pileser reappeared in Syria in 734, and his advance forced the allies to raise the siege of Jerusalem. After defeating Rasin and blockading Damascus, the Assyrians turned westward and occupied Northern Palestine. The cuneiform inscriptions tell us that Tiglath-pileser required Phacee’s death as the penalty of his presumption, and made his slayer, Osee (Hoshea), king in his stead. (Cf. IV K., xv, 29 sq.) Numbers of captives were carried out of Israel, the first of the deportations which depopulated the country. The prisoners were taken from Galaad, Galilee, and other northern districts of the kingdom, both east and west of the Jordan basin.

It was therefore over a crippled and impoverished land that Osee ruled as a vassal-King. For relief from this galling pressure he turned to Egypt, the only nation that could then pretend to cope with Assyria. He ceased paying the annual tribute and allied himself with Sua (So), a ruler of Lower Egypt, and Hanan, a Philistine prince of Gaza. The expedient was a ruinous failure; Egypt, always a false friend of Israel, deserted Osee. Tiglath-pileser’s successor, Shalmaneser (the fourth of the name), having learned of this conspiracy, came down upon the Kingdom of Israel and made Osee a prisoner. But the patriotic revolt was a national one and survived the king’s capture. Samaria, the capital, held out desperately against a besieging Assyrian army for three years, and was not taken till 722 B.C., Sargon II having meanwhile succeeded Shalmaneser. It was the death-blow of the Kingdom of Israel. An Assyrian inscription found in the ruins of Sargon’s palace at Nineveh informs us that he carried away 27,290 of the people. War, famine, and earlier deportations must have much reduced the population. To fill the place of the dead and exiled Israelites, Sargon brought in among the remnant Babylonians and other pagan peoples from conquered lands. The Northern Kingdom became the Assyrian province of Samaria, and from the intermarriage of its various races arose the Samaritans. Out the depopulation of the former kingdom of its natives was far from complete. The bulk of the populace, composed of the poorer and least influential inhabitants, was allowed to remain, so that we read in the Assyrian monuments of a later futile effort of Hamath, Arpad, Simnira, Damascus, and “Samarina,” i.e. samaria, to shake off the lordship of Sargon. (Schrader, keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, II, 56, 57.) But the Israelitic stock left in the land was gradually merged into the composite race of Samaritans.

(2) The Ten Tribes in Exile

The exiles were settled by their conquerors “in Halah and Habor [a river] by the river of Gozan, in the cities of the Medes.” Their colonies were therefore in the heart of Northern Mesopotamia and in Western Persia, then subject to Assyria. In Mesopotamia, or Assyria proper, the Israelites were assigned to the region centring about the city of Nisibis, which is mentioned by Josephus as their leading settlement. The exiled of the Ten Tribes remained and multiplied, never returning to Palestine. (See authorities cited by Schurer in art. “Diaspora” in sup. vol. of Hastings’ Bib. Dict., 92.) Wellhausen and others who assume that the banished Israelites of the Northern Kingdom lost their identity and disappeared in the surrounding population regard the explicit testimony to the contrary of Josephus in his “Antiquities”: “the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates until now, and are an immense multitude [myriades apeiroi), not to be estimated by members.” We may well believe that the swarming Hebrew population of Southern Russia is composed in large part of descendants of the Israelites expatriated in Northern Assyria and the regions south of the Caspian. No particulars of the lot of these transplanted inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom have reached us. We may only surmise from the manner in which they multiplied that their situation was at least a tolerable one.

(3) Assyrian Harrying of Juda The annihilation of its sister kingdom laid open petty Juda to the full pressure of Assyria. Thenceforward that unhappy state, placed between the rival Assyrian and Egyptian Empires, was at the mercy of whichever happened at the time to be the stronger. A miraculous intervention did indeed hurl back Sennacherib’s Assyrian army from the walls of Jerusalem in the reign of Ezechias (Hezekiah), but the country outside the city suffered cruelly from the ravages of that expedition. A monument of Sennacherib, who was Sargon’s son and successor, records that he captured forty-six fortified towns and numberless smaller places of Juda, and took away as spoil, presumably to Assyria, 200,150 people and an immense number of beasts and herds. (Cf. IV K., xviii, 13, in confirmation of this.)

II. THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY

(1) The Destructon of the Kingdom of Juda

Yet Jerusalem, the Temple and the dynasty remained intact. Under the succeeding rulers, Manasses and Amon, the kingdom slowly recovered, but their potent example and approval led the nation into unprecedented syncretic excesses. So flagrant was the idolatry the worship of the Baalim under the symbol of obelisks and pillars or sacred trees, and the degrading cults of Astarte and Moloch, that not even the holy precincts of the Temple of Jehovah were free from such abominations. The morality of a people given over to licentious and cruel syncretism may be imagined. The sweeping religious reform under Josias seems not to have penetrated much beneath the surface, and the inveterate pagan propensities of the nation broke out in later reigns. The Prophets denounced and warned in vain. Except in the spasm of Josias’ reform they were not listened to. Only a supreme national chastizement could purify this carnal people, and effectually tear idolatrous superstitions from their hearts. Juda was to undergo the fate of Israel.

A prelude to the process of national extinction was the defeat of Josias and his army by Pharao Nechao at Mageddo or Migdol. Egypt had thrown off the Assyrian suzerainty and was threatening Assyria itself. Josias had encountered the Egyptians, probably in an effort to keep the independence Juda had enjoyed during his reign. But by this time the second Assyrian Empire was tottering to its fall. Before Nechao reached the Euphrates Nineve had surrendered to the Medes and Babylonians, the Assyrian territories had been shared between the victors, and instead of Assyria Nechao was confronted by the rising Chaldean power. The Egyptians were defeated at Carchemish in the year 605 by Nabuchodonosor (Nebuchadnezzar), the son and heir of the Babylonian king Nabopolassar. It was now the Chaldean Kingdom, with its capital at Babylon, which loomed large upon the political horizon. Joakim (Jehoiakim), a son of Josias, was forced to exchange Egyptian for Babylonian vassalage. But a fanatical patriotism urged defiance to the Chaldeans. The people looked upon the Temple, Jehovah’s dwelling-place, as a national aegis which would safeguard Juda, or at least Jerusalem, from the fate of Samaria. In vain Jeremias warned them that unless they turned from their evil ways Sion would go down before the enemy as the sanctuary of Shiloh had long before. His words only stung the Jews and their leaders to fury, and the Prophet narrowly escaped a violent death. In the third year of his reign Joakim rebelled, and Juda was able to ward off for four or five years the inevitable taking of Jerusalem by Nabuchodonosor. Joachin (Jehoiachin), who meanwhile had succeeded to the crown of Juda, was forced to surrender the beleaguered city, 597 B.C. His life was spared, but the conqueror dealt Jerusalem a terrible blow. The princes and leading men, the rank and file of the army, the citizen of wealth, and the artificers, numbering in all 10,000, were carried captive to Chaldea. The Temple and palace were rifled of their treasures. Sedecias (Zedekiah), an uncle of Joachin, was placed over the shadow of a kingdom remaining. (IV K., xxiv, 8 sqq.) After nine years of a reign characterized by gradual decay and religious and moral chaos, revolt flamed forth again, fed by the always illusory hope of succour from Egypt. Jeremiah’s warnings against the folly of resistance to Chaldean domination were futile; a blind, fanatical fury possessed princes and people. When the patriotic cause momentarily triumphed, the advance of the Egyptian army causing Nabuchodonosor to raise temporarily the siege of Jerusalem, the Prophet’s was the solitary voice that broke the exultant peal by the persistent refrain of ruin at the hands of the Chaldeans.

The issue verified his prediction. The Egyptians again failed the Israelites in their hour of need, and the Babylonian army closed in on the doomed city. Jerusalem held out more than a year, but a dreadful famine weakened the defence and the Babylonians finally entered through a breach in the wall, 586 B.C. Sedecias and remnant of his army escaped in the night, but were overtaken on the plain of Jericho, the king captured, and his followers routed (Jer., iii, 7–9). He was carried to the Babylonian camp at Reblatha in Emath, and cruelly blinded there, but not before he had seen his sons put to death. The royal palace was burnt. A similar fate met Solomon’s splendid Temple, which had been the stimulus and stay of the religious-national outbreaks. Its sacred vessels, of enormous value, were taken to Babylon and in part distributed among the pagan shrines there; the large brass fixtures were cut to pieces. The destruction of the larger houses and the city wall left Jerusalem a ruin. The people found in Jerusalem and, presumably, the greater number of those who had not sought refuge in the city were deported to Chaldea, leaving only the poorest sort to till the land and save it from falling into an utter waste. Some local government being necessary for these remaining inhabitants, Masphath (Mizpah), to the north of Jerusalem, was chosen as its seat, and Godolias (Gedaliah) a Hebrew, left as overseer of the remnant. On learning this, many Isralites who had fled to neighbouring countries returned, and a considerable colony centred at Masphath. But a certain Ismahel, of the Davidic stock, acting at the instigation of the Ammonite king, treacherously massacred Godolias and a number of his subordinates. The murderer and his band of ten were leading away to Ammon the terror-stricken rest of the community, when the latter were rescued by a Hebrew military officer connected with the administration. But fear that the Chaldean vengeance for the overseer’s death would smite indiscriminately drove the colony into Egypt, and Jeremias, who had taken asylum at Masphath, was compelled to accompany it thither.

(2) The Exile and its Effects

We are left to conjecture the number deported from Juda by the Babylonians. The 200,150 captives whom Sennacherib the Assyrian took from the Southern Kingdom three generations before its downfall we can reasonably surmise to have been settled in Assyria, i.e. Northern Mesopotamia, perhaps in the neighbourhood of the Israelitish communities (see above). These cannot be reckoned as properly in the Babylonian Exile. We have no data for a close estimate of the numbers brought away by the Chaldeans. Assuming the dates of Jeremias 3:28–30 to be correct, none of the deportations there noted took place in the years of the great disasters, viz. 597 and 586. Adding these minor expatriations—a sum of 4600—to the 10,000 of the first capture of Jerusalem, gives 14,000; and since the final catastrophe was more sweeping than the former we are warranted in trebling that number as a rough estimate of the total of the Babylonian Captivity. The exiles were settled in the Kingdom of Babylonia, partly at the capital, Babylon, but rnore in localities not very distant from it, along the Euphrates and the canals which irrigated the great Chaldean plain. Nehardea, or Neerda, one of the principal of these Jewish colonies lay on the great river. (Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII, ix, 1.) Nippur, an important city between the Euphrates and the Tigris also contained many Hebrew captives within its walls or vicinity. One of the main canals which fertilized the interfluvial plain, passing through Nippur, was the nâr Kabari, which is identical with the river Chobar “in the land of the Chaldeans” of Ezech., i, 1, 3; iii, 15. (See Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands (1903), 410 sq.] Other colonies were at Sora and Pumbeditha. It has been plausibly conjectured that Nabuchodonosor, whom the cuneiform records show as a builder and restorer, would not fail to utilize the great labour power of the Hebrew captives in the work of reclaiming and draining waste lands in Babylonia; for, as its present condition proves, that region without artificial irrigation and control of the overflow of the rivers if a mere desert. The country about Nippur seems to have been thus restored in ancient times. In any case it is a priori quite probable that the mass of the exiles were for a time at least in a condition of mitigated slavery. The condition of slaves in Babylonia was not one of grinding serfage; they enjoyed certain rights, and could, by redemption and other means, ameliorate their lot and even gain entire freedom. It is evident that soon after their deportation many of the Jews in Chaldea were in a positions to build homes and plant gardens (Jer., xxix, 5). Babylonia was pre-eminently a land of agriculture, and the Southern Israelites, who at home, on the whole had been a vine-growing and pastoral people, now by choice, if not by necessity, gave themselves to the tilling of the soil and the rearing of cattle in the rich alluvial flats of Mesopotamia (cf. I Esd., ii, 66). The products of Babylonia, especially grain, formed the staples of its busy internal commerce, and doubtless the great marts at Babylon, Nipper, and elsewhere, attracted many Jews into mercantile pursuits. The trading activities and the exact and well-regulated commercial methods of Babylonia must have greatly stimulated and developed the innate commercial genius of the expatriated race.

The fact that the Jews were allowed to settle in colonies, and this according to families and clans, had a vital bearing on the destinies of that people. It kept alive the national spirit and individuality, which would have disappeared in the mass of surrounding heathendom if the Southern Israelites had been dispersed into small units. There are indications that this national life was strengthened by a certain social organization, in which reappeared the primitive divisions of leading family and tribal stocks, and that their heads, the “elders,” administered under royal licence the purely domestic affairs of the settlements (cf. Ezech. viii, 1; I Esd., ii, 2; II Esd., vii, 7). As long as the Temple stood it was the centre and pledge of Jewish hopes and aspirations, and even the first exiles kept their mental vision fixed on it as a beacon of early deliverance. The negative and ill-presaging voice of Ezechial was unheeded by them. When Jerusalem and the Temple fell, the feeling was one of stupor. That Jehovah could forsake His dwelling-place and allow His sanctuary to be humbled to the dust by deriding Gentiles was inconceivable. But there was the terrible fact. Was the Lord no longer their God and greater than all other gods? It was a crisis in the religion of Israel. The providential rescue was at hand in prophecy. Had not Jeremias, Ezechiel, and others before them repeatedly foretold this ruin as the chastisement of national infidelity and sin? This was remembered now by those who in their fanatical deafness had not listened to them. So far from Jehovah being a defeated and humbled God, it was His very decree that had brought the catastrophe to pass. The Chaldeans had been merely the instruments of His justice. He now revealed to the Jews as a God of moral righteousness and universal sway, as a God who would tolerate no rival. Perhaps they had never before realized this; certainly never as now. Hence it is that the Exile is a great turning-point in the history of Israel—a punishment which was a purification and a rebirth. But Exilic prophecy did not merely point to the great religio-ethical lesson of the visitations of the past: it raised more loudly than ever the of hope and promise. Now that Jehovah’s purpose had been accomplished, and the chosen people been humbled beneath His hand, a new era was to come. Even the mournful Jeremias had declared that the captives would return at the end of seventy years—a round number, not to be taken literally. Ezechiel, in the midst of the desolation of the Exile, boldly sketched a plan of the resurgent Sion. And Deutero-Isaias, probably a little later, brought a stirring and jubilant message of comfort and the assurance of a joyful, new life in the fatherland.

Several minor but important factors contributed to the preservation and cleansing of the religion of Israel. One was negative: the forcible uprooting from the soil where Chanaanitish idolatries had so long survived, detached the Jews from these baneful tradition. The others are positive. Without the Temple no sacrifices or solemn worshilp could be lawfully practised. The want was in part supplied by the keeping of the Sabbath, especially by religious assemblies on that day—the beginnings of the future synagogues. The Mosaic Law, too, assumed a new importance and sacredness, because Jehovah therein manifested His will, and in some sort dwelt, as an ordaining Presence. The writings of the Prophets and other scriptures, in so far as they existed, also received a share of the popular veneration hitherto concentrated on the Temple and external rites. In short, the absence of sacrifice and ceremonial worship during half a century had a tendency to refine the monotheism and, in general, to spiritualize the religion of the Hebrews.

(3) The Prelude of the Restoration

Nabuchodonosor after a long and prosperous reign was succeeded by his son Evil Merodach, the Amil Marduk of the monuments. The latter showed himself benign to the long-imprisoned ex-king Joachin (Jechonias), releasing him and recognizing in a measure his royal dignity. After a short reign Evil Merodach was deposed, and within the space of four years (560–556) the throne was occupied by three usurpers. Under the last of these, Nabonidus, the once all-powerful Babylonian Monarchy declined rapidly. A new political power appeared on the eastern and northern frontiers. Cyrus, the King of Anzan (Elam) and Persia, had overcome Astyages, ruler of the Medes (or Manda), and seized his capital, Ecbatana. Media, by the partition of the Assyrian Empire and the further conquests of Cyaxares, had grown powerful; its territories took in, on the north and west, Armenia and half of Cappadocia. Cyrus extended these conquests by the subjugation of Lydia, thus stretching his sovereignty to the Aegean Mediterranean and forming a vast empire. The balance in Hither Asia was destroyed, and Babylon was threatened by this formidable rew power. The Deutero-Isaian Prophet hailed this brilliant star on the political horizon with joy, and recognizing in Cyrus the foreordained servant of God, predicted through him Babylon’s downfall and Israel’s deliverance (Is., xliv, 28 xlv, 7). In the year 538 B.C. the Persian monarch invaded Chaldean territory; helped by disaffection in the south, one of his generals was able in a few days to take Babylon without resistence, and Cyrus became the ruler of the Chaldean Kingdom.

(4) The Restoration under Cyrus: Zorobabel’s Return

Cyrus reversed the policy of deportation followed by Assyrian and Babylonian kings. He deemed this the wiser statecraft, probably because he had experienced in the conquest of Babylonia the danger of keeping an ill-affected population in the midst of a country threatened by a foreign foe. At the same time, to repeople Judea with a nation bound to the Persian dynasty by ties of gratitude would strengthen his realm against Egyptian invasion. Thus did Providence “stir up the heart of Cyrus” to a liberal course towards the Israelites, and employ him as an unwitting instrument in the reconstitution of a people whose mission was not yet accomplished. Cyrus, accordingly, in the first year of his rule at Babylon, 538 B.C., forty-eight years after the destruction of Jerusalem issued an edict in which he allowed and recommended the return of all the Hebrews in his domain to the fatherland, ordered the rebuilding of theTemple, for which a subsidy from the royal treasury was granted, directed the sacred vessels seized by Nabuchodonosor to be sent back, and urged all Isralites to contribute to the restoration of public worship. The extreme liberality of the Persian monarch in the matter of the Temple is less surprising when we consider that a restored Jerusalem was inconceivable without a restored sanctuary. Semitic cities and districts rose or declined with the shrines of their deities, and Cyrus’s largeness towards the Jews in religious affairs is quite in keeping with his rehabilitation of certain Babylonian temples and the return of images to their former abodes, as witnessed by his inaugural proclamation (Records of the Past, new series, V, 143 sq.). That the Northern Israelites dwelling in Assyrians Mesopotamia were not similarly favoured is to be explained not merely by the much longer time elapsed since their political extinction—a lapse which had permitted them to become rooted to the land of their exile—but principally to the absence of any desire on their part to set up the old symbolic, half-heathen sanctuaries of Jehovah. They too had learned the stern lesson of the Captivity. It was a province of the Persian Empire and not a Kingdom of Juda, that Cyrus had determined to create, and therefore Zorobabel, the grandson of Joachin, alias Jechonias (I Paral., iii, 17–19), and therefore the heir-royal of the Davidic line, was to be only its governor. He was a young man who had never known any court but that of Babylon, and so far as history records never violated the surprising trust placed in him by attempting to recover the crown of his fathers. A contrary thesis has been defended on insufficient grounds by Sellin (Serubbabel, Leipzig, 1898). Sassabasar, “the Jewish prince” mentioned in the first Book of Esdras, is identical with Zorobabel. He and Josue, the high-priest, were entrusted with the Temple furniture, and made the leaders of the gola, or expedition of the returning Jews. Besides a considerable number of slaves, 42, 360 followed Zorobabel on the long journey to Judea. The data about this repatriation in the Book of Esdras are fragmentary. “Every man went into his own city” and from the latter particulars we should infer that the body of the immigrants took up their abode in the small cities and towns outside, and mostly to the south of Jerusalem. The latter must have been little more than a ruin. The returned exiles found the neighbouring tribes and races, the Samaritans, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, installed at nearly at many points on Jewish soil, alongside pitiful remnants of their countrymen, it must have needed the authority, if not the force, of the Persian Emperor to make room for the Israelites on their former homesteads. Under Zorobabel the struggling community enjoyed autonomy in its internal affairs. In the absence of the old system of royal administration, the primitive organization by clans and families, partially resumed in captivity, gained added vigour, and the heads of these sections, the “princes” and “elders,” represented them in all general assemblies.

But the new Israel was less a political than a religious community. Only a fraction of the 250,000 or more Jews who had gone into the East could have lived to return, and, allowing for natural increase among the captive people, a still smaller part of those who might have looked upon Judea as their home returned from the Exile to dwelI within its borders. Only the most patriotic and religious, the zealous elite, answered the call of Cyrus and migrated from their abodes, which had become fixed, moved by a desire to restore the theocracy in a purer form with the “house of God” as its heart and centre (cf. I Esd., i, 5). One of the first measures, therefore, to which the leaders addressed themselves was the rebuilding of the altar of burnt-offerings upon whose dedication the faithful rejoiced at the resumption of the daily sacrifices. Within less than a year after the corner-stone of a new Temple was laid. But an obstacle was encountered in the jealousy of the Samaritans, the half-heathen neighbours on the north. They were largely represented in the alien elements living among the Jews, and viewed with distrust the reorganization of a religion and community in which they would not fill in important, much less a prodominent role. They accordingly asked to join in the construction of the Temple. Zorobabel declined their aid by referring to the decree of Cyrus. Hereby he inaugurated that policy of separation from all contaminating influences long tollowed by later leaders of Israel. But the Samaritans, if they could not assit, could hamper the enterprise by intrigues at the Persian court. Owing to these difficulties the work was suspended, and the zeal of the people cooled. It was not till these were aroused by the reproaches of the prophets Aggeus (Haggai) and Zacharias that Zorobabel and Josue could begin anew the work under Darius Hystaspis (521), sixteen years after its suspension. The external obstacles had been removed by a decree of Darius; the undertaking was pushed vigorously, and four years later the second Temple was completed. But those who had seen the Temple of Solomon sadly confessed that the new sanctuary could not bear comparison with the glory the former.

The history of the Jewish Captivity properly embraces the additional migration from Babylonia of about 1400 souls led by the priest and scribe Esdras (Ezra). In the sacred narrative the account of the second gola follows immediately that of the finishing of the Temple. But its true chronological setting a matter of dispute. The obscurity involving the point arises from the fact that the books of Esdras and Nehemias, the chief inspired sources for the history of the Restoration, mention in several places a King Artaxerxes, without specifying which of three Persian monarchs of that name is meant, viz. whether the first, surnamed Longimanus (465–424 B.C.) the second, Mnemon (405–362), or the third Ochus (362–338). The controversy turns on the point whether the expedition of Esdras, referred to in the first book of that name (viii), preceded or followed the first governorship of Nehemias. The hitherto accepted order places the Esdras gola in the seventh year of Artaxeres (458 B.C.), and hence before the appointment of Nehemias, which occurred in the twentieth year of an Artaxerxes. But several exegetes have recently advanced strong reasons for reversing this order. Van Hoonacker, the leading advocate of the priority of Nehemias to Esdras, assigns the latter’s expedition to the seventh year of Artaserxes II, i.e. to 398. Lagrange, according to whom the mission of Nehemias took place under the second Artaxerxes, fixes the Esdras migration as late as 355, a little more than a century after the prevalent date. Of course a revision of the temporal relations of the missions of Esdras and Nehemias postulates a serious confusion in the text and arrangement of the books bearing those names as they have come down to us. More or less involved in this chronological question is that of the respective parts of Nehemias and Esdras in the reconstruction of the Jewish theocracy. Van Hoonacker contends that the cooperation of Esdras with Nehemias, described in II Esdras (also called Nehemias), viii, occurred before Esdras had, as he claims, gone Babylon to organize the expedition in order to strengthen the new community, and that we must allow that the priest scribe’s place in the task of reorganization was minor and supplementary to that of Nehemias, the governor. According to this view—and herein it is largely borne out by the terms of Esdras’ commission as given by the Persian king (1Esd., vii, 13–26)—the charge of the priest-scribe was not the promulgation of the Law, but the embellishment and improvement of the Temple service, the constitution of judges, and other administrative measures. The question is not without an important bearing on the validity of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis of the origin of the Pentateuch. (See ESDRAS, NEHEMIAS, BOOKS OF)

III. THE ROMAN CAPTIVITY

Jerusalem fell before the Roman arms in August, A.D. 70, after a long and dreadful siege conducted by Titus, the son of the Emperor Vespasian and himself later emperor. Hosts of prisoners were taken in this war; the number was estimated at 97,000, being substantially all that remained of the nation in Palestine. The severity of treatment meted out to these unfortunates tells of the exasperation caused by the stubborn defence of Jerusalem. The weak and sickly prisoners were at once put to death. The rest of the concourse were gathered in the Gentile’s Court of the ruined Temple and told off into various classes. All those recognized or reported as active in the rebellion were set aside for slaughter, except seven hundred young men of the finest presence, who were spared to grace the triumph at Rome. The remainder of the captives were divided into those over and those under seventeen. Of the former, part were put in chains and sent to labour in the Egyptian mines; others, including thousands of the female sex, were dispersed among the Roman cities to be victims of the inhuman public games. Those below seventeen were sold as slaves. The leaders of the rebellion, John of Gishkhala and Simon of Gerasa were carried captives to Rome to appear in the triumph of Titus; John was afterwards put to death.

GEORGE J. REID

Archdiocese of Capua

(CAPUANA).

The city of Capua is situated in the province of Caserta, Southern Italy. Of Etruscan foundation, it was formerly known as Volturnum and was capital of Campania Felix. About 424 B.C. it was captured by the Samnites and in 343 B.C. implored Roman help against its conquerors. During the Second Punic War, after Hannibal’s victory at Cannae (216 B.C.), he and his army were voluntarily received by Capua, where the Carthaginians became demoralized by luxurious living. The city was recaptured by the Romans (211 B.C.), its inhabitants were killed or enslaved, and the territory declared common land (ager publicus). Julius Caesar made Capua a Roman colony under the name Julia Felix. In A.D. 456 the Vandals under Genseric sacked the city. During the Gothic war Capua suffered greatly, and similarly a little later from the Lombards. About 840 it was burned to the ground by the Saracens, after which it was rebuilt, but at some distance from the former site, where, however, another city was built and called Santa Maria in Capua Vetere. In 1058, the Norman, Richard, Prince of Aversa, conquered it; thenceforth its history is linked with that of the Two Sicilies.

Christianity, it is said, was first preached at Capua by St. Priscus, a disciple of St. Peter. In the martyrology mention is made of many Capuan martyrs, and it is probable that, owing to its position and importance, Capua received the Christian doctrine at a very early period. The first bishop of whom there is positive record is Protasius, present at the Roman Council under Pope Melchiades (313); he was succeeded by Protus Vincentius, a Roman deacon and legate of Pope Sylvester I at Nicaea, who took a prominent part in the Arian controversies, and was present at the Council of Sardica (343). At the conciliabulum of Arles (353) he was led astray by Constantius and consented to the deposition of St. Athanasius, an error for which he made amends at Rimini. Bishop Memorius, who held a council to deal with the Schism of Antioch and the heresy of Bonosus, is often mentioned in the letters of St. Augustine and St. Paulinus, and was the father of that ardent Pelagian, Julian of Eclanum. In 443, Priscus, an exile from North Africa and a man of great sanctity, was elected bishop; possibly it is his name that popular tradition carried back to the head of the list of Capuan bishops. Another incumbent of this see was Germanus, whom Pope Hormisdas sent twice to Constantinople to restore unity with the Roman Church. In 541, Bishop Benedictus died and was ever afterwards held in repute of sanctity. His successor, Victor, was a learned exegete. In 968 John XIII took refuge in Capua, and in gratitude raised the see to archiepiscopal rank. In 1087, under Victor III, and in 1118, under Gelasius II, councils were held in Capua; at the latter Henry V and the antipope, Gregory VIII (Burdinus), were excommunicated. Among other bishops, nearly all famous for their learning, are: M. Marino (1252), a disciple of St. Thomas Aquinas; Filippo de Berilli (1506), who suffered for justice’ sake; Fra Nicolò Schomberg (1520), a distinguished theologian; Cesare Costa (1573), active as a reformer of the clergy, and a learned canonist; Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1602); and Cardinal Capecelatro, Librarian of the Holy Roman Church and author of many learned works. The suffragan dioceses of Capua are: Caiazzo, Calvi and Teano, Caserta, Isernia and Venafro, Sessa Aurunca. The archdiocese contains a population of 96,800, with 57 parishes, 90 churches and chapels, 255 secular and 18 regular priests, 16 religious houses of women.

U. BENIGNI

Capuchinesses

A branch of the Poor Clares of the Primitive Observance, instituted at Naples, in 1538, by the Venerable Maria Longo. This holy woman had in early years embraced the rule of the Third Order of St. Francis and devoted herself to active works of charity. She founded a hospital for the sick in which she herself served, and also gave herself to the saving of fallen women. She adopted at her hospital the custom of ringing the bell at nightfall for prayers for the faithful departed. In 1630 the Franciscan Friars of the Capuchin Reform went to Naples, and were for a time given shelter in her hospital. She had long wished to undertake a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, but about this time she was instructed in prayer that she could please God more by building a convent under the title of Santa Maria in Gerusalemme. She built the convent and established in it a community of sisters under the Rule of the Third Order, and was herself appointed superior. At first the spiritual directors of the convent were the Theatine Fathers, but afterwards these gave over the direction to the Capuchins, by whose advice the sisters in 1538 adopted the primitive Rule of St. Clare. They also received constitutions based on those of the Capuchin Friars, and were placed under the jurisdiction of the Capuchin vicar-general, whence they are styled Capuchinesses. They made a foundation in Rome in 1576 and very shortly afterwards were to be found in various parts of Italy and France, where they flourished until the Revolution. They still exist, in diminished numbers, in Italy and elsewhere. Some of the convents are still under the jurisdiction of the Minister-General of the Capuchin Friars Minor; others are under the jurisdiction of their respective diocesans. St. Veronica Giuliani was a member of this observance, as was also the Blessed Mary Magdalen Martinengo. The Capuchinesses flourished in many countries of Europe before the Revolution; they still have convents in Italy and Spain, also in South America, and until lately in France. Exiled French Capuchinesses opened (1904) a house at Vaals in Holland, near Aachen, destined to serve as a German novitiate.

FATHER CUTHBERT.

Capuchin Friars Minor

An autonomous branch of the first Franciscan Order, the other branches being the Friars Minor simply so called (but until lately usually known as Observants or Recollects), and the Conventual Friars Minor. This division of the first Franciscan Order has come about by reason of various reforms; thus the Observants were a reform which separated from the Conventuals, and the Capuchins are a reform of the Observants.

I. GENESIS AND DEVELOPMENT

The Capuchin Reform dates from 1525. It had its origin in the Marches, the Italian province where, after Umbria, the Franciscan spirit seems to have found its most congenial dwelling-place. Cut off by the mountains from the great highways of Italy, the inhabitants of the Marches have to this day retained a delightful simplicity of character and blend a mystical tendency with a practical bent of mind. They may be said to possess the anima naturaliter Franciscana, and it is easy to understand the quick response of the people of this province to the Franciscan teaching, and the tenacity with which the friars of the Marches clung to the primitive simplicity of the order. We have a monument of the enduring vigour of the Franciscan spirit in the Marches in the “Fioretti di San Francesco,” wherein the first freshness of the Franciscan spirit seems to have been caught up and enshrined. From the Marches, too, we get another book, of a very different character, but which in its own way bears eloquent witness to the zeal of the brethren of this province for poverty, the “Historia VII Tribulationum” of Angelo Clareno. And at Camerino, on the borders of the province, are preserved the relics of Blessed John of Parma, another of the leaders of the “Spiritual” Friars. The Marches were, in fact, from the earliest days of the order, a centre of resistance to the secularizing tendency which found an entrance amongst the friars even in the days of St. Francis, of which tendency the famous Brother Elias is the historic type.

At the beginning of the sixteenth century the Franciscans in the Marches, as elsewhere, were divided into the two distinct families of Conventuals and Observants or Zoccolanti. The dividing line between the two families was their adhesion to the primitive ideal of Franciscan poverty and simplicity; the Conventuals accepted revenues by papal dispensation; the Observants refused fixed revenues and lived by casual alms. At least such was the principle; but in practice the Observants had come themselves to relax the principle under various legal devices. Thus, though they would not accept money themselves, they allowed secular persons, styled syndics, to accept money for their use; they accepted chaplaincies to which were affixed regular stipends. To those who looked to the primitive custom of the order, such acceptances seemed but legalized betrayal of the rule, nor were these relaxations at any time allowed to pass without protest from the more zealous of the Observants. But the question was not merely concerning this or that point; it was one of general tendency. Was the order to maintain itself in the simplicity and unworldliness of St. Francis, or was it to admit and bow to the spirit of the world? Was it to be dominated by the spirit of St. Francis or by the spirit of Brother Elias? Such was the question as it shaped itself in the minds of the reforming friars; and one has to recognize this truly to appreciate the history of the various Franciscan reforms. The difficulty which met each reform, as it arose and acquired an independent constitution, was the difficulty which meets every unworldly ideal in its attempt to propagate itself in the actual world. To live on and endure it must take to itself a secular embodiment, and in the process is apt to acquire something of the secular spirit; and the more unworldly the original ideal, the more difficult is its process of secular development. This is peculiarly so in the case of a religious community like the Franciscan Order, which aims at realizing a principle of life so entirely opposed to the principles commonly accepted in the world at large. Hence it is that the Observants, after breaking away from the Conventuals, themselves gave rise to various reforms which aimed at a more perfect return to the primitive type. In this way the Capuchin Reform took its origin from amongst the Observants of the Marches. The leader of the reform was Father Matteo di Bassi, a member of the Observant community in the Diocese of Fermo. He was an exemplary religious and a zealous preacher. It is said that Leo X had given him permission to institute a reform amongst the Observants; but if so Father Matteo did not avail himself of the permission, perhaps because of the death of that pontiff. But in 1525, a year of Jubilee, he went to Rome and whilst there obtained from Clement VII leave to wear the Capuchin habit and to live in strictest poverty. Matteo di Bassi was finally led to this step by an incident which recalls to mind the history of St. Francis. The friar had been attending a funeral and was returning to his convent, when he met a beggar by the wayside barely clad. Moved with compassion, Father Matteo gave the beggar part of his own clothing. Shortly afterwards the friar was in prayer when he heard a voice, which three times admonished him, saying “Observe the Rule to the letter.” Whereupon he arose, and took an old habit, and made a long pointed hood out of the cappa, and donning the habit at once set out for Rome. This story, retailed by all the earliest chroniclers, makes it certain that the aspiration to observe the rule to the letter was the one compelling motive of the reform, and that the taking of the habit with the long pointed hood was the symbol of this aspiration. For the habit in this shape ws supposed to be the original form of the Franciscan habit, whilst the habit with the cappa and small rounded hood was held by many to be an innovation introduced with the spirit of relaxation. Certain it is that the habit adopted by Father Matteo and his followers was known in the order before their time. In the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, is a copy of an altar-piece dating from the fifteenth century, representing Our Lady with a number of friars gathered under her outspread mantle; and they are wearing a habit similar in form to that of the Capuchins. In a picture of St. Francis in the library of Christchurch, Oxford, attributed to Margaritone, we find the same form of habit; and in at least one other instance of early portraiture of the Seraphic saint he seems to have been represented with a habit of this sort. (See “On the Authentic Portraiture of St. Francis of Assisi,” by N. H. J. Westlake, London, 1897.) Thomas of Celano again seems to speak of it as a novelty that a certain friar went about wearing a habit “with the hood not sewn to the tunic” (II Celano, 32—ed. d’Alençon, Rome, 1906). And at the Ognisanti, in Florence, is preserved a habit, said to be one worn by St. Francis, the hood of which is sewn to the tunic. At any rate the reforming friars, in assuming the pointed hood sewn to the habit, claimed to be assuming the form of habit worn by St. Francis and the first friars, and in their eyes it was a symbol of their return to the primitive observance.

In putting his hand to the reform, Matteo di Bassi had no intention of separating himself from the jurisdiction of the Observants; he thought rather to introduce the reform amongst them. All he asked from Clement VII was liberty for himself and other friars of a like mind to wear the habit of St. Francis, to observe the rule strictly in accordance with the earliest tradition , and to preach the Word of God in the world. From the days of St. Francis himself the liberty of the stricter observance had been allowed; and the friars enjoying such liberty had usually dwelt apart in small houses or hermitages, but under the effective jurisdiction of the superiors of the order. But when, on Matteo di Bassi’s return from Rome, two other friars, Louis of Fossombrone and his brother Raphael, sought to join the new reform, they were stoutly opposed by the superiors, especially by the minister provincial, John of Fano, who, however, himself eventually joined the Capuchins. Nevertheless, the two friars were at length, through the intervention of the Duke of Camerino allowed to proceed to Rome. On 18 May, 1526, they received from the Cardinal-Bishop of Palestrina, the Grand Penitentiary, the Brief, “Exparte vestrâ,” whereby Clement VII formally allowed them, together with Matteo di Bassi, to separate from the community of the Observants and live in hermitages, in order that they might be free to observe the rule as they desired; and, to protect them against molestation on the part of the superiors of the order, they were placed under the protection of the Bishop of Camerino. They were by the same Brief permitted to aggregate others to their manner of life. They were, however, still considered to belong to the Observant family, though separated from the community; but on 3 July, 1528, owing to the continued opposition of the Observant superiors, Clement VII, by the Bull “Religionis zellus,” released them from their obedience to the Observants and constituted them a distinct family of the order, in a certain dependence, however, upon the Master-General of the Conventuals, to whom it belonged to confirm the vicar-general to be elected by the new reform.

In the following April, 1529, the first chapter was held at Albacina. At this time the reform numbered eighteen friars and four convents or hermitages. Matteo di Bassi having been elected vicar-general, the chapter drew up the new constitutions designed to safeguard the primitive observance of the rule. No one can read these “Constitutions of Albacina” without being struck with the similarity of tone and purpose between them and the “Speculum Perfectionis,” about which so much has been heard since M. Paul Sabatier published his edition in 1898. The provisions relating to poverty and studies would almost seem an echo of that celebrated legend. Thus, when “hermitages or monasteries” are to be erected, the constitutions decree that no more land is to be taken than is in keeping with their poor estate; the houses are to be built, if possible, of mud and wattles, but earth and stones may be used where wattles cannot be obtained; the churches, however, shall be of more becoming structure, yet small and narrow. The friars are to bear in mind the admonition of St. Francis that their churches and houses must be such as to proclaim that those who dwell in them are but pilgrims and strangers on the earth. The houses are to be built outside the cities or towns, yet not far distant from them. In the houses near large cities not more than twelve friars might dwell, and in the other houses not more than eight—“for such indeed was the will of St. Francis as is set forth in the chronicles of the Order.” The proprietorships must always be vested in the municipality or the donor, who may turn the friars out at will, and should this happen the friars are to go out at once without delay and seek another place. To each house a hermitage must be attached, where the friars may retire for solitary contemplation. In regard to alms they were not to quest for meat, eggs, or cheese, but they might receive these things when offered spontaneously. They were never, however, to lay in a store of food, but to depend on daily alms. At the utmost they might receive sufficient food to last for three days, and rarely for one week. They are forbidden to have syndics or procurators to receive property for them.—“No other syndic shall there be for us save Christ our Lord; and our procurator and protector shall be the most Blessed virgin Mother of God; our deputy shall be our blessed Father Francis; but all other procurators we absolutely reject.” The preachers were to be kept busy in the vineyard of the Lord, not only during Lent, but at all other times. They were not, however, allowed to use many books; two or three at most were deemed sufficient. They sermons were to be simple and plain, without studied rhetoric; nor were they to be allowed to receive any remuneration for their preaching. Classes for the study of literature were not be established; but they might study the Scriptures and such devout authors as “love God and teach us to embrace the Cross of Christ.” The friars were not to hear the confessions of seculars except in cases of extreme necessity. In the houses of the order only one Mass was to be said each day, at which all the priests should be present, except on Sundays and solemn feasts, when all might celebrate; nor were they to receive any honoraria for Masses. They were, moreover, forbidden to follow funerals or celebrate dirges, except in case of necessity. Finally, they were to go barefoot, shod only in simple sandals; and to recite the Divine Office at midnight even on the three last days of Holy Week; and on no account were extra Offices to be added to the canonical Office, so that the friars might have more time for private prayer.

Such were the “Constitutions of Albacina.” Their intention is evident to any one conversant with the early Franciscan legends: they sought to re-establish the Franciscan life in the spirit and letter of the earliest Franciscan tradition. One point needs explanation here. In the earliest pontifical documents concerning the new reform, it is stated that the friars are to be free to observe the rule strictly in the eremitical life. The meaning of this, however, was not that they should be hermits in the sense of living always a retired and solitary life. Matteo di Bassi had asked of Clement VII liberty to observe the Rule of St. Francis in hermitages, to preach the Word of God in the world, and to bring sinners to repentance. The preaching of the Word of God was an essential feature of the Capuchin reform. We have already seen how the constitutions of the order bade the preachers be frequently employed in their work of souls at all times of the year. Matteo di Bassi himself had no sooner received the sanction of Clement VII than he returned to the Marches and began to preach and to nurse the sick during the pestilence which swept through the Marches in 1525. The explanation, however, is simple enough to those who know the Franciscan legends. Amongst the Franciscans the hermitage stood in opposition to the large convent. The first houses of the order were built outside the city walls in some quiet spot where the friars, when not engaged in active ministry for others, could live undisturbedly in the cultivation of the spirit. These houses were small, and only a few friars dwelt in the same place. Besides the small communities, there were also hermitages, technically so called, at some distance from the community, whither the friars might retire for a still more secluded life. The original Franciscan life was thus a commingling of the active life with the eremitical. As the order increased in numbers, large convents were built in which the simplicity and seclusion of the original Franciscan community were in great measure lost; in these large houses it became impossible to observe the primitive standard of poverty, and the tendency was to conform to the more complex life and ceremonial of the monastic orders, properly so called. Hence every reform of the order turned again towards the ideal of the small community and the more secluded situation, where the original simplicity and poverty could more easily be maintained.

Matteo di Bassi remained vicar-general of the reform only for two months; then he resigned his jurisdiction into the hands of Louis of Fossombrone, as commissary general, in order that he might be free to give himself to the work of the apostolate. From this time he can hardly be said to belong to the family of the reform; though he seems to have still availed himself of the privileges granted him in 1525 by Clement VII. He died in 1552 and was buried in the church of the Observants in Venice, where his body was for a long time accorded the honours given to the relics of a saint, until a recent decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites restricted such honours to those formally beatified. But though not formally beatified, Matte di Bassi is styled ‘Blessed” in the martyrologies of the order. During the government of Louis of Fossombrone the reform began to spread quickly and widely. Shortly after the Chapter of Albacina the friars were invited to Rome and given a house, Santa Maria dei Miracoli, near the Flaminian Gate, from which they removed in the following year to the convent of Santa Euphemia near Santa Maria Maggiore. Meanwhile a movement for reform was taking place amongst the Observants of Calabria, which was to have a marked influence upon the development of the reform in the Marches. Two friars, Louis of Reggio and Bernardine of Reggio, surnamed lo Giorgio, had, about the same time that Matteo di Bassi had visited Rome, also arrived in the Eternal City, and with the sanction of Clement VII had attempted to reform movement amongst the Observants of Santi Apostoli. Their efforts proving futile, they obtained leave, in 1526, to return to Calabria and choose three convents for their purpose. They assumed the name of Recollects—a name very generally given to the reforming friars, for the reason stated above. Here, as in the Marches, the superiors of the Observants regarded the reform with disfavour and treated the reformers as rebellious subjects; hence, at a chapter held by the Minister General of the Observants, at Messina, in 1532, the Calabrian Recollects petitioned to be allowed to pass to the Capuchin jurisdiction. Their petition, however, only drew upon them further rebuke. As they continued to persist in their demand, the minister general obtained from the pope a Brief of excommunication against them; but this was shortly withdrawn through the intervention of the Duke of Nocera and the Duchess of Camerino, and the Calabrian Recollects passed into the Capuchin family, forming the first province of the order outside of Marches.

Following the example of the Calabrians, the most zealous Observants began to pass over to the Capuchins in such numbers that Paul III, at the instance of the Minister General of the Observants, issued two Briefs, the first dated 18 December, 1534, and the second 12 January, 1535, forbidding any more Observants to be received by the Capuchins until the next general chapter of the Observant family. The second of these Briefs is noteworthy by reason of the fact that in it the friars of the new reform are for the first time called Capucini—Capuchins. Hitherto, in the pontifical documents they had been styled Fratres Ord. S. Francisci Capucciati. But in the Brief of 12 January,1535, the pope adopted the name already conferred upon the new reform by the populace, who, seeing the long hoods, at once called the friars Cappuccini. Henceforth the friars are officially styled “Friars Minor of the Order of St. Francis, Capuchin.”

At the chapter of the order held at Rome in November, 1535, Bernardine of Asti was elected vicar-general. He was a remarkable man—the genius and saviour of the new reform. He combined great prudence and power of organization with a rare humility and sweetness of character. He had held high office amongst the Observants before he joined the Capuchins in 1534. He died in 1554, and is styled blessed in the martyrology of the Franciscan Order. His election was providential, for the Capuchin family had now to pass through a time of storm and stress, which the wisdom and fame of Bernardine of Asti, in great measure, enabled it to survive. Hardly had Bernardine of Asti taken up the reins of government than Louis of Fossombrone created a disturbance amongst the friars, alleging that the election was invalid. He himself had aspired to the headship of the order. A new chapter was thereupon convoked, in April, 1536, and Bernardine of Asti was again elected, whereupon Louis of Fossombrone threw off the habit and apostatized. His apostasy perhaps influenced Paul III when on 3 January, 1537, he forbade the Capuchins to establish any houses of their reform outside Italy. But a greater blow fell in 1542 when Bernardine of Siena—the famous Occhino, not to be confounded with Saint Bernardine, who d. in 1444—the successor of Bernardine of Asti as vicar-general, apostatized and joined the Protestant Reformers. The scandal caused by this defection gave new vigour to the efforts of those who were opposed to the Capuchins, and at this time it was seriously considered at the Roman Court whether they should be suppressed. In fact it was generally said amongst the people that their suppression was already decreed. To dispel this rumour the new vicar-general, Francis of Jesi, assembled two hundred of his brethren at Assisi for the feast of the Portiuncula, in 1543. But it was Bernardine of Asti who pleaded the cause of the reform at the Council of Trent and averted the threatened disaster. And by his eloquent pleading he saved not only the new reform from extinction, but also the essential character of the Franciscan Order. For the conciliar Fathers had resolved that in future all religious orders should possess common property, and not be dependent upon alms. This resolution struck at the very fundamental principle of the Franciscan life, since, according to the Rule of St. Francis, his friars were to possess property neither individually nor in common, but to depend for their daily sustenance upon their labour and upon alms. As St. Francis had pleaded for this absolute poverty before Pope Innocent III, so Bernardine of Asti now pleaded before the council, and with such success that the Capuchin Friars and the Observants were expressly exempted from the general law and allowed the privilege of common, as well as of individual, poverty. By a providential coincidence, whilst the fate of the new reform was hanging in the balance, it received a new recruit in a poor countryman who was destined perhaps more than anyone else to establish the Capuchin family in the love and veneration of the Roman people: this was St. Felix of Cantalicio, the lay brother friend of St. Philip Neri. But in a short while the cloud passed away, and the Capuchin family grew with amazing swiftness in numbers and in fame. At the chapter of 1536 the reform numbered five hundred friars; in 1587 it had increased to five thousand nine hundred and fifty-three friars. In 1574 Gregory XIII revoked the decree of Paul III, and granted Capuchins the right to establish ultramontane provinces; and in 1619 the reform was released from all dependence upon the Conventuals, and given a minister general of its own election. It need hardly be said that, as the order increased in numbers and spread to various countries, it was found necessary to modify the stringent regulations of the first constitutions. The Council of Trent compelled the Capuchins to establish courses of studies for the friars destined for the priesthood; larger convents were built, and the regulation forbidding the friars to hear the concessions of secular people was rescinded. Yet a constant effort was made to maintain the simplicity of the Franciscan life. Notwithstanding the Council of Trent, the Capuchins obtained from St. Pius V for their lay brothers the privilege of voting in the elections of the order, thus conserving the original democratic character of the Franciscan family. In the ordinances of the general chapter of 1613 great stress was laid on simplicity of life, and regulations were made forbidding such innovations as high masses and introduction of spiritual exercises for novices, after the manner of the Jesuits. The same spirit and intention are found in the definitive constitutions formally approved by Urban VIII, in 1643. This pontiff had already, by a decree of the Sacred congregation of Bishops and Regulars (30 April, 1627), declared the Capuchins to be true sons of St. Francis, and on 28 June of the same year had issued the Bull “Salvatoris et Domini,” in which he reaffirmed a former constitution of Paul V, “Ecclesiæ Militantis,” of 15 October, 1608, setting forth that the Capuchins are the spiritual descendants of St. Francis in the direct line, and not a mere offshoot of the Franciscan Order.

In the time of Urban VIII the reform numbered over seventeen thousand friars in forty-two provinces; a century later, at the general chapter of 1754, thee were representatives from sixty-three provinces, and the number of the friars was given as thirty-two thousand eight hundred and twenty-one. But during the French Revolution the order suffered severely; nearly all the provinces were disorganized or suppressed; and in the subsequent revolutions on the European continent the Capuchins suffered the fate of all the religious orders, being continually oppressed and dispersed. Yet during the last twenty years a notable revival has taken place. In 1889 the order had 636 houses and 7852 friars; in 1906 there were 731 houses and 9970 friars, divided into 56 provinces.

II. INFLUENCE OF THE REFORM UPON THE GENERAL HISTORY OF THE CHURCH

The Capuchins, together with the Jesuits, were the most effective preaches and missionaries of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. We have already seen that the privilege granted by clement VII to Matteo di Bassi was not only to observe the Rule of St. Francis in its primitive simplicity, but also to go about preaching the Word of god. In this matter the friars of the reform were but reasserting the primitive Franciscan life; and it is to be noted that the method of their apostolate was also thoroughly in accord with what the early legends of the order tell us about St. Francis’s method. In their preaching they eschewed artificial oratory and set forth their message with simplicity and directness which came from the heart. But perhaps what most endeared them to the people, and gave them that singular power with all classes to which the history of the times bears witness, was their all-embracing charity. The picture of the Capuchin friar drawn by Manzoni in “I Promessi Sposi” is historical. In their apostolate they not merely preached from the pulpits; they mingled in the daily life of the people, ministering to suffering humanity in its temporal as well as its spiritual needs. In the frequent pestilences which devastated Italy and Europe generally in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Capuchins were constantly found doing a notable part in the service of the sick. The annals of the order and the chronicles of the times tell us of the heroism of the friars in the pestilences which swept through Northern Italy and Spain in 1589, through Switzerland in 1609, through Germany in 1611. In the great pestilence of 1630 the friars took charge of the lazarettos at Milan, and acted as confessors, nurses, cooks, and dispensers to the victims. They did the same at Marseilles and Freiburg. At Siena the friars were assembled for the provincial chapter when the pestilence broke out; they prorogued the chapter and went out to nurse the sick, and forty-three of them fell victims to their charity. During the pestilence of 1636 in Franche-Comté, so many Capuchins died in ministering to the sick that Urban VIII allowed young clerics to be ordained priests before the canonical age to take the place of those who had succumbed. St Laurence of Brindisi, sent as missionary Apostolic to Germany in 1599, began his apostolate by nursing the sick in the pestilence of that year. Undoubtedly their universal charity, united to the austerity of their lives, accounts for much of their success as missionaries, whether with Catholics or non-Catholics.

And not only were they popular with the multitude; they had the confidence of the authorities. This is shown in the frequent choice of the friars by the popes and princes to fill responsible positions. Thus in the wars against the Turks in the sixteenth century, it was usually the Capuchins who were appoint ed chaplains and spiritual directors to the Christian forces. In the Venetian expedition of 1571, a number of Capuchins accompanied the Venetian navy by command of St. Pius V, and at the battle of Lepanto, Father Anselmo da Pietramolara was in the thick of the fight, urging on the Christian forces with raised crucifix; in fact, it was his indomitable bravery which prevented the ship he was in from being captured by the Turks. The friars were similarly employed in the struggles of the German princes against the Turks in the seventeenth century. St. Laurence of Brindisi, in 1610, went as chaplain general with the Christian army, and so did Venerable Mark of Aviano, in 1687. It is pleasing to note that the friars obtained, from Gregory XII, power to absolve Christians who, during the wars, freed or hid captive Turks.

They were moreover not infrequently commissioned to transact affairs of sate. St. Laurence of Brindisi was sent as ambassador by the Emperor Rudolph to solicit the alliance of Spain with the Catholic League of Germany. Gregory XIII employed the Capuchins to negotiate for the ransom of Christian captives in Algiers. Father Giacinto da Casale was commissioned by Gregory XV to unite the Catholic princes of Germany in defence of the Faith. Sometimes their personal influence, without any official status, enabled them to intervene with success in public matters, as in Switzerland, when the canton of Appenzell was hesitating whether to ally itself with the Catholic cantons or with the Protestant, the Capuchins went in and drew Appenzell to the Catholic side. In similar fashion, in 1637, a Swiss Capuchin acted as arbitrator in the canton of Aargau. These public acts testify to the great influence acquired by the friars in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; but their influence was gained by hard and strenuous labours both as home and as foreign missionaries. They were to be found everywhere, preaching and ministering to the people. Not only were they established in almost every country of Europe, but as foreign missionaries their activity seems almost incredible. At the general chapter of 1662 the list of foreign missions served by the friars included the Congo, Benin, Morocco, Egypt, Ethiopia, Smyrna, Mingrelia, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Chaldea, Ecbatana, Kurdistan, Persia, Tatary, Brazil, New Granada, Canada, Morea, the Grecian Archipelago, whilst they also had missions, under Propaganda, in Rhætia, the Grisons, and the Valtellina.

As “home” missionaries they were mainly instrumental in reforming the pulpit, substituting solid teaching, with burning and convincing piety, for the vapid rhetoric so common amongst the preachers of the sixteenth century. Their object was always to reach the heart of the people. To be convinced of the solidity and piety of their preaching, one has only to consult the many books of sermons and treatises of devotion which the missionary friars have left us. According to Baronius and the chroniclers of the order, the devotion of the Quarant’ Ore owes its origin to the missionary zeal of the Capuchins. Father Giuseppe da Ferno is said to have been the first to expose the Blessed Sacrament for forty hours’ prayer, during a mission he was preaching in the Duomo at Milan, in 1637. Giuseppe da Ferno certainly wrote a treatise on the method of the Quarant’ Ore, and from this time we find frequent mention of the devotion in the missionary chronicles of the order. But the supreme monument to their missionary zeal is the Congregation of the Propaganda itself. This congregation was instituted by Gregory XV, in 1622, at the suggestion of Father Girolamo da Narni, Vicar-General of the Reform. He was a noted preacher and experienced in missionary labours. When the congregation was established, its first prefect was the Capuchin Cardinal of Sant’ Onofrio; and its first martyr was another Capuchin, St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen, whom the propaganda had appointed Prefect of the Mission of Rhætia. The friars had already been established for some years in Switzerland, whither they had been called by St. Charles Borromeo in his capacity as Protector of the Catholics in those parts. The saint, backed by Pope Gregory XIII, had requested the general chapter of 1581 to send friars thither, and the chapter had at once acceded to the request. Such was their success in combating the errors of the Calvinists and in preserving the Faith in many cantons that to this day they are accorded a privileged position in the churches of the Catholic cantons as confessors and preachers. It was in the Grisons that Saint Fidelis was martyred, in 1622. Here the Calvinists had practically gained over the whole population, as also in the Valtellina, and only by heroic efforts were the friars able to keep alive any remnant of the Faith. The missions in these parts are still under the jurisdiction of the Capuchins.

In Savoy the friars, under the leadership of Father Cherubino da Mariana, the friend of St. Francis of Sales, were at work in 1596, and the mission of Thonon was especially given into their charge in 1610. Father Cherubino also introduced the friars into the Vallese in 1610, at which time, as St. Francis of Sales reported, the religious condition of that country seemed hopeless. Under St. Laurence of Brindisi twelve Capuchins were sent, in 1599, to combat the influence of Protestantism in Germany, where by their public controversies with Protestants, as well as by their preaching, they did much to win back many to the Faith. They rapidly established houses in all parts of Southern Germany, and in 1611 they were established in the Rhine Provinces by Father Francis Nugent, a distinguished Irish friar.

On the foreign missions they were equally energetic. The first foreign mission was undertaken in 1551, when two friars were commissioned by Julius III to go to Constantinople. They were, however, expelled, after being imprisoned and tortured. But we find them shortly afterwards in Crete, where Father Ignazio d’Apiro established five missionary centres in two years, besides a hospital at Canea. He was a man well versed in Oriental languages. He died in 1569. About this time two Capuchins were put to death in Palestine. But it was at the general chapter of 1581 that the friars put their hand definitively to the matter of foreign missions. They then obtained a faculty from Sixtus V to send missionaries to the East, and a band of friars, amongst whom was St. Joseph of Leonissa, were despatched to Constantinople. Imprisonment and torture awaited them; but from that time the friars have held fast to their missions in the Turkish dominions. In 1623 the Propaganda commissioned the Capuchins to found missions in Syria, Egypt, and Abyssinia. Six friars were sent to Constantinople, where they at once established a school for the study of Oriental languages; others went to Aleppo, Alexandria, and Armenia. Their method was to open schools wherever they settled, and they were active in publishing books. As a result of their labours in Syria at this time, a schismatic Armenian metropolitan and a schismatic Greek metropolitan sought reunion with the Church. In 1618 the general chapter, at the request of Paul V, sent missionaries to the Congo. They encountered great difficulties, owing to the Dutch traders, and success seemed hopeless. Yet they struggled on till 1654, when a fresh effort was made, and a new band of missionaries was sent out, including Father G. Antonio Cavazzi, the writer of a well-known work on the Congo.

From Aleppo friars were sent, in 1630, to Cairo, under the leader ship of the Blessed Agathange de Vendôme, one of the most remarkable missionaries of the seventeenth century. He was an Arabic scholar, and had published books in Arabic setting forth the Catholic Faith. On the coming of the friars to Cairo Urban VIII addressed a letter to the Catholics in Egypt, bidding them welcome the friars and accord them every assistance. But unhappily the friars found that their work amongst the Copts, for whose reunion with the Roman See they more particularly laboured, was hindered chiefly by the scandalous lives of the European Catholic merchants. Yet the friars obtained leave from the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria to preach in the churches of the Copts, and the pope even grant ed them permission to celebrate Mass in the same churches. Father Agathange’s influence with the Copts was such that he persuaded the Coptic patriarch to appoint for the Copts in Abyssinia a bishop who would live in peace with the Catholics. In 1637 Father Agathange, together with Father Cassian de Nantes, entered Abyssinia, but owing to the treachery of a German Lutheran they were at once seized and imprisoned, and the following year suffered martyrdom. The Capuchin mission in Abyssinia was thus brought swiftly to a close, but only to be renewed in later years. Towards the end of the last century the friars were again established in the dominions of the Negus, chiefly through the exertions of the celebrated Capuchin missionary afterwards known as Cardinal Massaïa. He has left a record of his experiences in his book, “I miei trentacinque anni nell’ alta Etiopia” (Rome and Milan, 1895).

Towards the middle of the seventeenth century the friars established missions in India at Surat, Pegu, Golconda, and Madras, and a little later at Pondicherry. The story of their Indian missions is much the same as elsewhere; they established schools, wrote books in the vernacular of the country, held public conferences with the learned heathen, and found their chief obstacle in the European traders—in this case, the Portuguese. At the present day the missions in India are amongst the most important in the order: the Archdiocese of Agra (the premier diocese in India), the Dioceses of Lahore and Allahabad, and the Prefecture of Rajputana, are entirely served by Capuchins. They still carry on their work in Asia Minor, where they have a flourishing missionary seminary at Smyrna. Other present-day missions are in Central and South America, in Arabia and Somaliland, in the Seychelles, Philippines, and Caroline Islands, in Abyssinia and Mesopotamia; whilst in Europe they carry on missionary work in Constantinople and Bulgaria. In 1906 eight hundred and fifty-five friars of the reform were engaged in foreign missionary labour.

The reform has produced few writers of the first order in literature or scholarship, though the “Bibliotheca Scriptorum Ord. Min. Cap.” (Genoa, 1680; Venice, 1747) gives the names of a great number of writers and goodly list of works, many of them of no mean merit. But most of their writings are connected with their apostolic labours—books of sermons, devotional treatises, and works dealing with the history of the missions. In this last department they have produced several valuable works, such as Cavazzi’s treatise on the congo, Dionigi Carli’s book on the customs, rites, and religion of the people of Africa , Merolla da Sorrento’s account of the Congo and South Africa, and Cardinal Massaïa’s work on Abyssinia. In the seventeenth century the French Capuchins were noted for their studies of Oriental languages, and in view of the present revival of the Celtic tongues, it may be recalled that a Breton Capuchin, Gregorius de Rostrenen, published in 1732 “Dictionarium Gallo-Celticum, seu Gallo-Aremoricum” (Rennes, 1732) and “Grammatica cum Syntaxi Gallo-Celtica, seu Gallo-Aremorica” (Rennes, 1738). In Scriptural exegesis Bernardine a Piconio has a deservedly high name as the author of the “Triplex expositio” (1706), whilst in the sixteenth century Francis Titelmann, who left the theological chair of Louvain to put on the habit of St. Francis, gained European repute by his treatises on Scripture and his controversy with Erasmus. Amongst devotional writings, the works of Gaetano da Bergamo, published in the first half of the eighteenth century, have an enduring value; his treatise on humility and meditations on the Passion have both been translated into English. Benedict Canfield’s treatise “On the Holy Will of God” has an enduring place in ascetical literature. Amongst modern theologians of merit a place must be given to Albert of Bulsano; and as an authority on canon law the Belgian Capuchin Piatus is much esteemed. In the late revival of Franciscan historical studies, Père Edouard d’Alençon has issued new editions of the “Sacrum Commercium” (Rome, 1900), and the legends of Thomas of Celano (Rome, 1906). Amongst the chroniclers of the order the first place must be given to Boverius, a man of great learning not only as an historian, but as a controversial writer of the sixteenth century. In 1640 Carolus de Arembergh published at Cologne “Flores Seraphici,” a voluminous work concerning the noted members of the order.

But the Capuchin friars have at all times been men of action rather than students, and the enormous influence they possessed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was due to their extensive labours as home and foreign missionaries and to the universality of their genius in dealing with the spiritual needs of the people. Amongst the special marks of favour shown them by the Holy See must be mentioned their custody of the Holy House of Loreto, given to them in 1608, and the fact that since 1596 they have had the privilege of supplying the Apostolic preacher at the Roman court. Pope Urban VIII was a special patron of the order. His friendship with the friars was in part due to the fact that his brother, Antonio Barberini, afterwards Cardinal of Sant’ Onofrio, was a member of the order. This pope built for them the famous convent of the Barberini in Rome, the architect of which was himself a Capuchin friar, Fra Michaele da Bergamo; and the new church attached to the convent was the first church in Rome to be dedicated in honour of the Immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin. The convent was opened with great solemnity on 15 April, 1631, and Urban VIII signalized the event by appointing Fra Michaele architect of the Apostolic palace. The convent was the headquarters of the order until a few years ago, when the minister general and his curia were expelled by the Italian government, which now uses the greater part of the convent as a barracks, leaving only a few friars to take care of the church. We may here take note that the reform has given many cardinals and bishops to the Church; sixteen of its members have been canonized or beatified, and the cause of others is in process at Rome with a view to canonization.

That the friars came in for much of the abuse levelled against the Church and especially against the religious orders, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, only testifies to their influence and zeal. Except the Jesuits, no religious order has, perhaps been more vilely lampooned. In France, during the seventeenth century, book after book appeared defaming the friars; one of these was translated into English and published in London in 1671 under the title of “The Monk’s Hood pull’d off, or the Capuchin Fryar described.”

III. THE REFORM IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES

It was in 1599 that the first friars of the reform came to England. These were Father Benedict Canfield, an Englishman, and Father Chrysostom, a Scotchman. Benedict Canfield was of Puritan parentage, but had embraced the Catholic Faith whilst yet a student. As a friar he was reputed a powerful preacher, and was a writer of note. But he had hardly landed in England when he and his companion were seized and imprisoned. He was released at the end of three years and expelled the kingdom. Amongst other friars who came to England about this time were Father Archangel, “the Scotch Capuchin,” who became the subject of a popular Italian biography, written by the Papal Legate Rinuccini, in which, however, the author’s imagination played freely around historical fact; and Ephiphanius Lindsay, described in the Memoir of P. Cyprien de Gamache as “son of the Count of Maine,” but probably of the family of the Lindsays, lairds of Mains in Kirkcudbrightshire. But in 1630 the missionaries were withdrawn, when Henrietta Maria, Queen of Charles I, brought over twelve Capuchins as royal chaplains. Under the protection of the court, the friars publicly celebrated Mass and preached, sometimes holding controversies with the Protestants, and they are said to have made many conversions. Their mission, however, was abruptly terminated when Queen Henrietta went o Holland to solicit aid for the king against the Parliament. The royal chapel was closed, and the friars told to consider themselves prisoners in their own house. They were afterwards sent back to France. They returned at the Restoration of Charles II, but only for a few years. From this time no Capuchin seems to have come to England until Father Arthur O’Leary, the brilliant Irish friar, settled in London, in 1789, ostensibly as chaplain to the Spanish Embassy, but really to minister to the Irish Catholics, for whom he built St. Patrick’s Church in Soho Square. He died in 1802. The present province of England was not established until the latter end of the last century, through the instrumentality of Father Louis of Lavagna, an Italian friar, who came to England in 1850 with the intention of proceeding to Canada, but having arrived in London he was induced to stay there and minister to the wants of the Catholics in the district of Peckham. Here he built a small church, and at his request other friars were sent over to assist him. At this time the Franciscan Order had virtually died out in England. Only one Father of the Recollect Province founded in the time of Queen Mary remained, and he ended his days a few years later in the house of the Capuchins at Pontypool, thus creating a link between the new Franciscan foundation and the old.

The order rapidly took root on English soil. Ten years after the coming of Father Louis of Lavagna the friars had four canonical communities at Peckham, Pantasaph, Chester, and Pontypool, besides several stations; during the next few years they established several houses in the Diocese of Southwark, so that in 1873 it was thought expedient to erect the English houses into a canonical province. The province is yet too young to afford much matter in the way of history of general interest; but it may be noted that in little more than half a century the friars have established thirty-five missions, most of which have been given over to the bishops when they were able to support a secular priest; besides the parochial work thus entailed, they are continually employed in missionary labours outside their own parishes. In 1904 several friars of the province were sent to establish a house in Mendocino, California, which is to be the centre for missionary work in Mendocino county, now given into their charge by the Archbishop of San Francisco. They also have undertaken to supply missionaries for the Vicariate of Aden in Arabia. In 1905, at the request of the Bishop of Southwark, the friars undertook a unique mission to Catholic hop-pickers. Every year in the month of September there is a large exodus of the London poor into the hop-gardens of Kent; of these poor Catholics average yearly about ten thousand. Until 1905 no provision was made for the spiritual needs of the Catholic hop-pickers, and hardly any of them during the period of picking were able to hear Mass or receive the sacraments. Now each year when the hop-picking begins, Capuchin friars, assisted by Sisters of Mercy and lay workers, men and women, go down to the hop-district. The work has distinctive characteristics. The majority of the hop-pickers are of the very poorest class, whence chiefly comes the leakage from the Church; they seldom enter a church, and often are lost to the priest in the shiftings and maze of London life. In the Kentish hop-gardens they come again under the influence of the priest and religion. The work is as yet in its infancy, but it is big with possibilities for regaining to the Faith the indifferent and lapsed amongst our Catholic London poor; and it is characteristically Franciscan in its object and methods, for once again the friar is seen celebrating Mass and preaching in the open fields amongst the ill-clad and the hungry. In 1906 the friars were able to restore one of the broken links in the history of English Franciscans by their return to Oxford, once glorified by the learning amidst poverty of the sons of the Poverello. On the outskirts of the city they have secured a school for the training of candidates for the order, whence they can look down upon Merton College, where, according to tradition, Duns Scotus lectured, and upon the site of the ancient friary where the relics of Blessed Agnellus of Pisa—sent by St. Francis to establish the English province—were enshrined until their dispersion in the reign of Henry VIII.

It was in 1615 that the first friar of the Capuchin reform came to Ireland, Father Stephen Daly. He was sent over by father Francis Nugent, whom in 1608, had received a papal commission to establish the reform in his native land. According to Bernardine of Colpetrazo, the other branches of the Franciscan Order had, in 1549, petitioned the general chapter of the Capuchins to send over friars to introduce the reform into the Franciscan houses of that country; but this was impossible, since at that time the decree of Paul III was still in force which forbade the Capuchin reform to establish houses outside Italy. Francis Nugent, the actual founder of the Irish province, was a remarkable man. He had already introduced the reform into the Rhine country when he petitioned the Roman authorities to set aside a house of the order for the reception of Irish friars. Accordingly, the convent of Charleville, in the Low Countries, was given him for this purpose, and thither the Irish friars from all provinces were sent to form a community whence the Irish foundation might be begun. The convent of Charleville thus became the novitiate and alma mater of the province of Ireland. In 1615, first Stephen Daly and then four other friars were sent over. At first they lived separately wherever they could; but in 1623 or 1624 (the exact date seems uncertain) they took a house in Bridge Street, Dublin, where they lived in community. But in 1630 the house was seized by the Lords Justices and conferred upon the University of Dublin. The friars, however, remained in the country, and were gradually reinforced in numbers: several of them suffered imprisonment and banishment for the Faith. In 1642, the Irish mission numbered fifty-one friars, with houses in Dublin, Slane, Limerick, Mullingar, Drogheda, and Cork. In 1733 they had fourteen houses in Ireland and two in France, and were that year erected into a canonical province. Just then began one of the saddest periods in the history of the Irish people. Persecution and famine for a time seemed to break the spirit of the people; vocations became scarce, and the Irish province became almost extinct. It lingered on, however. In 1771 Father Arthur O’Leary built a church in Cork, and the friars reopened houses in Dublin and Kilkenny. The last days of the old province were made illustrious by the apostolic labours of the world- famous Father Theobald Mathew, the propagator of the temperance movement. After being for a while united with the friars in England under a commissary-general, the Irish friars were again, in 1873, formed into a separate “custody,” with autonomous government, and in 1885 the canonical province was re-established. There are now four convents of the order in Ireland, with eighty- nine friars. From the days of Father Mathew, the Irish friars have been to the front in forwarding the temperance movement initiated by him; but in October 1905, the Irish hierarchy formally entrusted to them the preaching of a national crusade of temperance. Since then the friars are to be found in all parts of the country carrying out their mission.

On the American continent the Capuchins not only have flourishing missions in Central and south America, they have also two provinces in the United States, a missionary district in California, served by the English province, and missions in Canada, served by French friars. The present establishment of the friars in the United States dates from 1857; but there were missionary Capuchins in the present territories of the United States and Canada early in the seventeenth century. In 1632 friars of the province of Paris were put in charge of the missions in Acadia. The centre of the mission was at Port royal, now Annapolis, but it extended from Hancock County, in Maine, northwards, to the Bay of Chaleur. They seem also to have had missions in the Antilles, for in 1641 the friar, Father Pacifique, was murdered there whilst on a visitation of the missions. The missions in Acadia were in a flourishing condition when the English Puritans broke up the settlement in 1655 and expelled the friars. Yet in 1656 the friars were still at work amongst the Micmac Indians. In 1714 French Capuchins were invited to undertake missions in Louisiana by the coadjutor Bishop of Quebec, de Mornay, himself a Capuchin Friar. They remained there until 1770, when for political reasons, Spanish friars took the place of their French brethren. They had missions in New Orleans, St. Louis, Galveston, Mobile, Pensacola, Natchez, Natchitoches, and other places. But in 1800 the friars were withdrawn. In 1787 two German friars were in charge of the Holy Trinity Church, Philadelphia.

But, as has been said, the present establishment of the friars in the United States dates from 1857; and its history is one of romantic incidents in the history of the reform. The chance visit of a young Swiss from the United States to his native land, and his recital of the spiritual needs of America, inspired two secular priests in Switzerland with the idea of introducing the Capuchin Order into the United States. They resigned their parishes and, going out to America, were given Mt. Calvary, Wisconsin, as the site of a Capuchin convent, by the Bishop of Milwaukee. At the express with of Pope Pius IX these two secular priests were then clothed with the religious habit and commissioned to lay the foundation of a new province. At the present day this province has houses at Mt. Calvary, Milwaukee, New York, Brooklyn, Detroit, Appleton, and Yonkers. In New York they have four parishes, and three parishes in Milwaukee; at Mt. Calvary they have a flourishing college, begun in 1864. Besides the province of Mt. Calvary, there is also the province of Pennsylvania, established by Bavarian and Westphalian friars, driven from their native home by the Kultukampf. The first house of this province was established at Pittsburg in 1874; but it was not till 1882 that the province became autonomous, at which time it had houses in Pittsburg, Herman, Pa.; Victoria, Kan.; Peoria, Metamora, Ill., and Cumberland, Md. The fathers of this province have introduced into the United States a charitable institution which has had remarkable success in Germany, the Seraphisches Liebeswerk—the “Seraphic Work of Charily.” This society aims at assisting destitute Catholic children to obtain Catholic education, by placing them in institutions or in private families. The centre of this work is at the Capuchin convent, Pittsburg, Pa.

In Canada, the French Capuchins have houses in Ottawa and Quebec, and a missionary centre for work amongst the Micmac Indians at Sainte-Anne de Restigouche. The work carried on here is reminiscent of the heroic days of the Canadian mission. From the mission centre the fathers make missionary tours amongst the scattered Indians. The Micmac number about four thousand; they are much attached to their religion and language, and show no signs of decay.

Amongst Capuchins of note who have laboured in North America, mention must be made of Ignazio Persico, Bishop of Savannah from 1870 till 1872, and afterwards cardinal. Another cardinal still living Cardinal Vives y Tuto, took his vows as a Capuchin Friar at Santa Clara College, San Francisco, in 1872, and was for a time a member of the community at Milwaukee. Nor may we omit the name of Bishop Charbonel, who resigned the See of Toronto to take the Capuchin habit. It was he who invited the saintly friar, Louis of Lavagna, founder of the present English province, to take up missionary work in Toronto in 1856. The friar only lived nine months after reaching Toronto, drying on 17 March, 1857; yet during that short period he had gained the reputation of a saint.

Thus are the Capuchins, together with their brethren of the other families of the Franciscan Oder, taking up again in English-speaking lands the traditions of past centuries with renewed vigour. The troubles of the past may have purified, they have not broken, the Franciscan spirit.

By way of distinction from other religious, the Capuchin Friars in most countries append the “O.M. Cap.”(Ordinis Minorum, Capuccinorum) after their names; but in England and Ireland they sign “O.S.F.C.” (Ordinis Sancti Francisci, Capuccinorum) in accordance with the use of the ancient English province.

Collectio Authentica Ordinationum Capit. Gen. in Anaclecta Ord. Cap., V. Vi; BOVERIUS, Annales Ord. S. Fr. Cap. (Lyons, 1632), I, II; Bullarium Ord. Cap. (Rome, 1740); Innsbruck, (1883–4); Bibliotheca Script. Ord. Cap. (Venice, 1747); Chronica Fr. Joannis Romoei, in Analecta Ord. Cap., XXII; D’AREMBERGH, Flores Seraphici (Cologne, 1640); PELLEGRINO DA FORLI, Annali Cappuccini (Milan, 1882); ROCCO DA CESINALE, Missione dei Cappuccini (Paris, 1867); Chronicle of the English Province, in Franciscan Annals (Crawley, England,) XIII; The Capuchins in English-speaking Lands,, in Seraphic Child of Mary (pub. By the Capuchins of Pennsylvania), IV. V.

FATHER CUTHBERT.

Capuciati

(From caputium, hood—So named from the headgear which was one of their distinctive marks.)

I. A short-lived confraternity founded in 1182 or 1183 in France for the restoration and maintenance of peace. It was one of the various attempts to put an end to the incessant wars and feuds which were spreading ruin and desolation throughout that country during the twelfth century. The origin of the Capuciati is traced to a poor carpenter of Le Puy, named Durand, who claimed to have had an apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1182. In this vision he received a paper on which there was a representation of the Blessed Virgin seated on a throne with a figure of the child Jesus in her hands, and bearing the inscription, “Lamb of God who takest away the sins of the world give us peace.” An association was to be formed whose members should bind themselves to keep and procure peace and, as distinctive signs, wear a white hood and a medal bearing a reproduction of the picture and inscription.

Durand met with astounding success in the execution of these instructions. A confraternity was organized under the direction of the clergy exactly on the lines of Catholic confraternities of the present day. The Church of Our Lady of Le Puy became the centre of the movement, which spread with extraordinary rapidity over the province of France, south of the Loire. The Capuciati, in addition to pledging themselves not to swear falsely, not to blaspheme, not to play dice, enter taverns, or wear costly garments, also promised to do all in their power to restore and maintain peace. Their endeavours in this line were not ineffectual, an overwhelming defeat which the “Routiers,” or undisciplined bands of soldiery of the period, sustained in 1183 must be largely ascribed to the co-operation of the Capuciati with the royal army. The existence of the confraternity was of short duration. Its disappearance is involved in obscurity; but it seems to have directed its efforts against the members of the nobility, and to have been wiped out of existence by them, aided by the “Routiers.” Its advocacy of heretical principles is not clearly and trustworthily indicated in historical records. The accusation that it respected neither ecclesiastical nor civil authority may perhaps be explained by its resistance to real or imagined abuses of power.

II. CAPUCIATI was also a designation applied to that special class of English Lollards who profited by the preaching and denunciations of the former Augustinian monk, Peter Pateshull (c. 1387), to indulge in deeds of iconoclasm. They owed their name to their practice of keeping the hoods on their heads in presence of the Blessed Sacrament.

N.A. WEBER

Apostolic Prefecture of Caquetá

Apostolic prefecture situated in South America on the southern border of the Republic of Colombia, in the angle formed by the Central Cordilleras and the Cordilleras del Caquetá, on the river Caquetá, which, after changing its name into Japura, empties into the Amazon.

According to an agreement of 27 December, 1902, between the Government and the Holy See, this prefecture comprises almost the entire Colombian province of Mocoa; it formerly belonged to the extensive Diocese of Pasto. The decree of erection is dated 20 December, 1904, and the Capuchins of the Spanish province of Cataluna are entrusted with the evangelization of the aborigines, who as yet are in a very low state of civilization, some being even addicted to cannibalism.

In 1906 there were two permanent mission-stations at Mocoa and Sibundoy, with 10 fathers and 3 lay brothers in charge of 14 chapels. About 12,000 converted Indians live among 40,000 heathens. In 1906, 245 baptisms, 130 marriages, and 118 funerals were recorded, and the five Catholic schools numbered 178 children. It is subject not to the Propaganda but to the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs.

OTTO JERON

José de Carabantes

(Also Caravantes).

Friar Minor Capuchin and theologian, born in Aragon, in 1628; died in 1694. He did much in the evangelization of the Indian tribes in Spanish America. He wrote a work entitled “Ars addicendi atque docendi idiomata,” and likewise a “Lexicon, seu vocabularium v erborum, adverbiorum, etc.,” for the use of missionaries among the Indians (Madrid, 1678). A biography of Father Carabantes was published at Madrid in 1705 by Diego Gonzales de Quiraga.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Caracalla

(MARCUS AURELIUS SEVERUS ANTONINUS, nicknamed CARACALLA)

Roman Emperor, son of Septimius Severus and Julia Domna, b. 188; d. 217. He became joint ruler in 211 with his brother Geta, whom he caused to be murdered in 212, and thereby became sole emperor. He was slain himself in the neighbourhood of Carrhæ in Mesopotamia. In spite of his cruelty, immorality, avarice and treachery Caracalla was a brave soldier and successful administrator and did much to restore the security of the Empire by his campaigns against the Germans and in the Orient. He had little sympathy with Roman ideals or customs and his influence aided considerably in weakening the moral unity of the Empire and destroying the ancient traditions of Rome. The most noteworthy act of his reign was the extension by the Constitutio Antoniana (212) of the rights of Roman citizenship to all the inhabitants of the Empire. It is impossible to estimate what effect this rather doubtful boon had upon the fortunes of Christianity. While the martyrs henceforth could be executed as Romans the right of appeal to Cæsar was abrogated and new and heavy burdens of taxation were imposed. No changes in the laws regarding Christians were introduced by Caracalla and the policy followed in the reign of his father was continued with unabated severity and many were put to death. Rome and the spirit of syncretism fostered by the policy of this Emperor bore fruit in later reigns.

TERTULLIAN, Ad Scapulam; DIO CASSIUS, Hist. Bk. LXXVII; HERODIAN, Bks. VII and VIII; SPARTIANUS, Vita Caracallæ in Scriptores Hist. Aug.; Tillemont, Hist. des Empereurs, III, 98; GIBBON, Chap. vi; ALLARD, Hist. des persécutions pendant la première moitié du IIIe siecle (Paris, 1886), II, 158–69; SCHILLER, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, I, pt. II, 739–89.

P.J. HEALY

Archdiocese of Caracas

(SANTIAGO DE VENEZUELA)

ARCHDIOCESE OF CARACAS (SANCTI JACOBI DE BENEZUELA)

Located in the Republic of Venezuela, a metropolitan see with the Barquisimeto, Calabozo, Guayana, Merida, and Zulia as suffragans. It was made an episcopal see in 1530, soon after the Spanish conquest, though until 1637 the residence was at Coro, was vacant from 1721 to 1727, and was raised to the rank of an archdiocese in 1803. Archbishop Juan Bautista Castro, appointed in 1904, was the eighth metropolitan and the thirty-fourth Bishop of Caracas. Battandier gives (1907) the population of the archdiocese as 425,640; that of the city is (1904) 60,000. The latter has a pleasant and healthful climate, is situated at the foot of the Sill de Caracas (4017 ft.), and is connected with the seaport La Guaira by a railway of twenty-three miles. The city suffers from earthquakes, in one of which (1812) 12,000 lives were lost. It was founded in 1567 by Diego Losada, and in 1595 was plundered and burned by the English under Drake; Bishop Juan de Manzanillo, a Dominican, soon rebuilt the Cathedral of Santa Anna that still stands in the Plaza Bolivar. There are 102 priests and 110 churches and chapels. The University of Caracas, founded in 1822, has faculties of political, medical, mathematical, and ecclesiastical sciences; the chairs of the latter faculty are in the metropolitan seminary.

The Church has suffered in Caracas more perhaps than in any other of the South American Republics. The university, therefore, the seminary, the convents that once flourished in that beautiful city, have gone through many hardships, and it is difficult to give an accurate account of their present condition. The population on the whole can still be called Catholic, while the recent International Eucharistic Congress celebrated in Caracas shows a revival in the Venezuelan Church.

J. MONTES DE OCA Y OBREGÓN.

Vincent Caraffa

Seventh General of the Society of Jesus, born at Naples, 5 May, 1585; died at Rome, 6 June, 1649. He was of the family of the Counts of Montorio and a relative of Pope Paul IV. He entered the Society of Jesus, 4 October, 1604, and was sixty years of age at his election as general. He died four years after. He had taught philosophy and governed the principal house of the Society at Naples, and was provincial at the time of the election to the generalship. In 1635 he had published his “Fascetto di Mirra” (Bundle of Myrrh), which has been translated into several languages. He is the author of several other ascetical works such ascetical works such as

Cammino del Cielo,

Cittadino del Cielo,

Il Peregrino della terra,

Idea Christiani hominis, and

Il Serafino, all previous to his election. He wrote under the name of Aloysius Sidereus. His only known writing when general was his encyclical letter: “De mediis conservandi primævum spiritum Societatis” (The means of preserving the primitive spirit of the Society). His short term in office coincided with the beginning of the war of Jansenism on the Society and the troubles with Palafox, Bishop of La Puebla. A great scandal occurred in Spain because of unsuccessful business speculations by a coadjutor brother, and in France on account of the open apostasy to Calvinism of a priest; but the martyrdom of men like Jogues, Brébeuf, Cuthbert Prescott, Neville, and others in Canada and England was an assurance that the Society’s ancient fervour had not relaxed. The well-known Confraternity of the Bona Mors, which is now so universal in the Church, was instituted at the suggestion of Father Caraffa. Daurignac, History of the Society of Jesus (Cincinnati, 1865), VI; B.N., The Jesuits, Their Foundation and History (New York, 1879); Feller, Biog. Univ. (Paris, 1819); De Backer, Bibl. de la c. de J. (Liége, 1858).

T.J. CAMPBELL

Caraites

A Jewish sect professing to follow the text of the Bible (Miqra) to the exclusion of Rabbinical traditions, and hence opposed to the Talmud. They are called in Jewish writings Bene Miqra’ Ba’ Migra,’ Qera’im—i.e. followers of the Bible. The tendency to reject or minimize the traditions and decisions of the Elders is rather old; the Sadducees were, in that respect, the forerunners of Caraism. Our Lord himself is said to have discarded such traditions altogether, but, when more closely examined, the passages quoted show simply that He, knowing such traditional lore to be human, insisted more on the true spirit of the Bible. He corrected individual traditions to safeguard the true import of the Biblical legislation, but He did not deny the principle. (Cf. Matt., XV, 2 sq.) Caraism in the strict sense owes its origin to Anan (died about A.D. 780), and for a time it bore the name of Ananism. It gained ground among the Jews up to the tenth century, but then met with a decided and able opponent in Saadia al-Fayyumi, 892–942. During the eleventh century there was a lively struggle between Rabbinites and Caraites, especially in Spain, but through the influence of two statesmen, Joseph Faussol and Judah ben Ezra, Caraism was almost entirely driven out of that country, and practically out of Western Europe. Since then it has succeeded in maintaining itself in the East, but has steadily lost ground to the parent orthodox Judaism. To-day Caraism numbers about 10,000 adherents in Russia and 2000 in other countries. In keeping with their principle, that the text of the bible alone is authoritative, the Caraites have made some valuable contributions to grammar and Biblical philology; it must be granted, however, that the desire of finding in the bible a justification for certain beliefs held on other grounds has led many of the Caraites to vindicate rules of interpretation as arbitrary as many of those of ancient Judaism. Anan and his successors have been greatly influenced by Islamic models in deducing laws from their own Sacred Books. Among the best-known authors of Caraism we may mention Judah Hadassi (twelfth century) whose “Eskhol ha-Kofer” was in the Middle Ages, and still is, one of the main sources of Caraism; Aaron ben Joseph (thirteenth century); Aaron ben Elijah (fourteenth century); Elijah ben Moses Bashyasi (fifteenth century). In modern times the most celebrated Caraite scholar is Abraham Firkowich (1786–1874), whom his well-deserving labours and discoveries, and still more his literary forgeries in favour of Caraism, have made especially famous.

The beliefs of Caraism with regard to God and man are substantially those of orthodox Judaism. They differ especially in religious observances. The Caraites have retained, or reverted to, many of the mystical views of Xssenism, particularly with regard to cleanliness. The Sabbath law is very rigorous. It must be added, also, that whatever may be their independence from Rabbinism in theory, the Caraites have adopted in practice many Rabbinical customs and observances.

R. BUTIN

Juan Caramuel y Lobkowitz

Spanish ecclesiastic and writer; b. at Madrid, 23 May, 1606; d. at Vigevano, 8 September, 1682. He was a precocious child, early delving into serious problems in mathematics and even publishing astronomical tables in his tenth year. After receiving a superficial education at college, where his unusual ability brought rapid advancement, this prodigy turned his attention to the Asiatic languages, especially Chinese. He was received into the Cistercian Order at the monastery of La Espina, in the Diocese of Palencia, and after ordination entered upon a singularly varied and brilliant career. His sermons attracted the favourable attention of the Infante Ferdinand, Governor of the Low Countries, while he was attached to the monastery of Dunes in Flanders, and in 1638 he was honoured with the degree of Doctor of Theology by the University of Louvain. When he was obliged to leave the Palatinate, the King of Spain made him his envoy to the court of the Emperor Ferdinand III. He was in turn Abbot of Melrose (Scotland), Abbot-Superior of the Benedictines of Vienna, and grand-vicar to the Archbishop of Prague. In 1648, when the Swedes attacked Prague, he armed and led a band of ecclesiastics who did yeoman service in the defence of the city. His bravery on this occasion merited for him a collar of gold from the emperor. Soon after he became Bishop of Konigratz, then Archbishop of Otranto, and at his death was Bishop of Vigevano.

His books are even more numerous than his titles and his varied achievements; for, according to Paquot, he published no less than 262 works on grammar, poetry, oratory, mathematics, astronomy, physics, politics, canon law, logic, metaphysics, theology and asceticism. But he produced little that is of permanent value. He loved to defend novel theories, and in “Theologia moralis ad prima atque clarissima principia reducta” (Louvain, 1643) tried to solve theological problems by mathematical rules. Some of his moral opinions gained for him from St. Alphonsus Liguori the title of “Prince of the Laxists.”

LEO F. O’NEIL.

Auguste Carayon

French author and bibliographer, born in Saumur, France, 31 March, 1813; died at Poitiers, 15 May, 1874. He joined the Society of Jesus in 1848, and was at various times librarian and procurator. He edited many historical works between 1864 and 1874, and is considered a leading authority upon the history of his order, especially in New France. His principal works are: Bibliographie historique de la Compagnie de Jesus (Paris, 1864); Documents inédits concernant la Compagnie de Jésus (Poitiers, 1863–1874, 18 vols); Première mission des Jesuites au Canada (Paris, 1864) Bannissement des Jesuites de la Louisiane (1865); Etablissment de la Compagnie de Jésus ê Brest par Louis XIV (Paris, 1865); Les prisons du Marquis de Pombal (1865); Notes historiques sur les parlemente et les Jesuites au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1867). Carayon is also the author of several devotional treatises published between 1854 and 1863.

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., II, 714–718; Thwaites, Jesuit Relations (Cleveland, 1896–1901), I, 311.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

James Joseph Carbery

Third Bishop of Hamilton, Ontario, born in the County Westmeath, Ireland, 1 May, 1823; died at Cork, 17 December, 1887. His early education was received at the Seminary of Navan. He entered at an early age the Order of St. Dominic, and made his course of philosophy and theology at Viterbo and Rome. Returning to Ireland in 1849, he soon became known for his learning, eloquence, and zealous labours. He filled many important positions in his order, and became an assistant to the master general. In 1883 he was appointed Bishop of Hamilton, and was consecrated in Rome, 11 November of the same year. He died while seeking to restore his broken health by a visit to his native country.

V. F. O’DANIEL.

Carbonari

(CHARCOAL-BURNERS)

The name of a secret political society, which played an important part, chiefly in France and Italy, during the first decades of the nineteenth century. The improbable claim was made that the society originated some centuries earlier, and the French king Francis I appears in the secret documents of the Carbonari as one of their protectors. In reality the association originated as the eighteenth century passed into the nineteenth; it was one of the results of the political movement which accompanied the great French Revolution and of the political principles that were proclaimed at that time. It is not certain whether the Carbonari, as a political society, had its first organization in France or Italy. At any rate the power of the association was first shown at the beginning of the nineteenth century in the Kingdom of Naples and the States of the Church. Just as the name “Carbonari” was adopted from the charcoal-burners, so also in their secret intercourse they made use of many expressions taken from the occupation of charcoal-burning. The place where the members assembled was called baracca (hut), its interior vendita (place of selling coal), and its surroundings foresta (forest). The members called one another buon cugino (good cousin); those not belonging to the society were pagani (heathens). The Carbonari were divided into two classes: apprentices and masters. No apprentice could rise to the grade of a master before the end of six months. The members made themselves known to one another by secret signs in shaking hands. These signs for masters and apprentices were unlike. One of the underlying principles of the society, it is true, was that the “good brotherhood” rested on religion and virtue; but by this was understood a purely natural conception of religion, and the mention of religion was absolutely forbidden. In reality the association was opposed to the Church. Nevertheless, it venerated St. Theobald as its patron saint. The members belonging to each separate district formed a vendita, called thus from the place of assembly. At the head was the alta vendita, to which deputies were chosen from the other vendite. A small hatchet was the distinguishing symbol of a master, the apprentices were indicated by a little fagot worn in the button-hole. Initiation into the society was accompanied by special ceremonies which, in the reception into the grade of master, imitated the Passion of Christ in a manner actually blasphemous. The members were bound by a frightful oath to observe absolute silence concerning whatever occurred in the vendita. The similarity between the secret society of the Carbonari and Freemasonry is evident. Freemasons could enter the Carbonari as masters at once. The openly-avowed aim of the Carbonari was political: they sought to bring about a constitutional monarchy or a republic, and to defend the rights of the people against all forms of absolutism. They did not hesitate to compass their ends by assassination and armed revolt. As early as the first years of the nineteenth century the society was widespread in Neapolitan territory, especially in the Abruzzi and Calabria. Not only men of low birth but also government officials of high rank, officers, and even members of the clergy belonged to it.

In 1814 the Carbonari resolved to obtain a constitution for the Kingdom of Naples by force. The lawful ruler, Ferdinand I, was opposed to them, but the king placed on the throne by Napoleon, Murat, connected himself with them in March, 1815, as he believed the time was come to create a united and independent Italy. However, Murat was captured and shot in October of the same year and Ferdinand once more mounted the throne. In the following years the Carbonari grew in strength and power in all the districts of the Kingdom of Naples and made preparations for a new revolutionary movement. From Naples the Carbonari spread into the neighbouring territories of the States of the Church, and here also the society sought to overthrow the absolute dominion of the papacy. The Carbonari even promulgated a forged papal Brief which contained an apparent confirmation of the association. On 15 August, 1814, Cardinals Consalvi and Pacca issued an edict against secret societies, especially against Freemasonry and the Carbonari, in which all were forbidden under severe penalties to become members of these secret associations, to attend their meetings, or to furnish a meeting-place for such. Notwithstanding all this the propaganda of the Carbonari went on, chiefly in the district of Macerata, where an outbreak occurred, 25 June, 1817, which, however, was easily suppressed by the papal troops (cf. the important report, of Leggieri, Processo romano contro i congiurati di Macerata di 1817, ristretto presentato alla congregazione criminale, Rome, 1818).

When the Spanish revolution broke out in 1820, the Neapolitan Carbonari once more took up arms, in order to wring a constitution from King Ferdinand I. They advanced against the capital from Nola under a military officer, Morelli, and the Abbot Minichini. They were joined by General Pepe and many officers and government officials, and the king on 13 July took an oath to observe the Spanish constitution in Naples (cf. Pepe’s defence of himself, Relation des evenements politiques et militaires qui ont eu lieu a Naples en 1820 et 1821, Paris, 1822). The movement also spread to Piedmont, and Victor Emmanuel resigned the throne in favour of his brother Charles Felix. It was only through the intervention of Austria, which sent troops to Italy, that the movement was crushed and the Neapolitan constitution suppressed. The Carbonari, however, secretly continued their agitation against Austria and the governments in friendly connection with it. They formed, even in Rome, a vendita, published in the press the most violent accusations against the lawful rulers, and won over to their cause members of deposed sovereign families, among whom was Prince Louis, later Napoleon III. Pope Pius VII issued a general condemnation of the secret society of the Carbonari, 13 September, 1821. The association lost its influence by degrees and was gradually absorbed into the new political organizations that sprang up in Italy; its members became affiliated especially with Mazzini’s “Young Italy.” From Italy the organization was carried to France where it appeared as the Charbonnerie, which, as in Italy, was divided into ventes. Members were especially numerous in Paris, where the society was formed in 1821 by three young men named Bazard, Buchez, and Flotard. The chief aim of the association in France also was political, namely, to obtain a constitution in which the conception of the sovereignty of the people could find expression. From Paris as a centre the Charbonnerie spread rapidly through the country, and by the end of the year 1821 it was the cause of several mutinies among the troops. The movement lost its importance after several conspirators had been executed, especially as quarrels broke out among the leaders. The Charbonnerie took part in the Revolution of July, 1830; after the fall of the Bourbons, however, its influence rapidly declined. After this a Charbonnerie démocratique was formed among the French Republicans, the aim of which was to obtain a republican constitution for the country; however, after 1841, nothing more was heard of it. Carbonari were also to be found in Spain, but their numbers and importance were more limited than in the other Romance countries.

J.P. KIRSCH

Ignatius Carbonnelle

Professor of mathematics and science, writer on mathematical and scientific subjects, and editor; born at Tourmai, Belgium, 1 February, 1829; died at Brussels, 4 March, 1889. He entered the Society of Jesus 8 September, 1844, applying himself to mathematical studies and contributing papers to the “Bulletins de l’academie royale de Belgique.” After his ordination to the priesthood he spent six years, 1861 to 1867, teaching at Calcutta, and was the first editor of “The Indo-European Correspondence,” 1865 to 1867.0n his return to Europe he became professor of mathematics and astronomy at Louvain, but was soon appointed to the staff of “Etudes,” the “Revue catholique,” the “Annales de la société scientifique de Bruxelles” and the “Revue des questiones scientifiques.” In 1875 he founded the Scientific Society of Brussels, of which he became secretary in 1877, and from that year until his death he was editor of “Annales” and the “Revue.” Some of his essays were republished under the title, “Les confins de la science et de la philosophie” (second edition in 2 vols., Paris, 1881).

Revue des questiones scientifiques (Brussels, 1869), 25; Précis historiques (Brussels, 1889), 190; Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., s. v.

JOHN CORBETT

Diocese of Carcassonne (Carcassum)

Diocese comprising the entire department of Aude, and suffragan to Toulouse. On the occasion of the Concordat of 1802 the former Diocese of Carcassonne, nearly all the old Archdiocese of Narbonne, almost the entire Diocese of Saint-Papoul, a part of the ancient Dioceses of Alet and Mirepoix, and the former Diocese of Perpignan were united to make the one Diocese of Carcassone; in 1822 the Diocese of Perpignan was re-established. (1) The Diocese of Carcassone was founded after 533. The Visigoths sought to compensate themselves for the loss of Lodève and Uzès by having Carcassonne erected into a bishopric. The first of its bishops known to history was Sergius (589). From 1848 to 1855 the see was occupied by Bishop de Bonnechose, later Cardinal, and from 1855 to 1873, by the mystical writer, Bishop de la Bouillerie. (2) The Archdiocese of Narbonne. Local tradition identifies Paulus, first Bishop of Narbonne, with Sergius Paulus mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (xiii, 7), but Gregory of Tours assigns the episcopate of St. Paulus to the middle of the third century. Among other incumbents of the See of Narbonne were St. Rusticus (427–61); St. Theodardus (885–93); Guifredus (Guiffroy) of Cerdagne, who was excommunicated several times (1019–79); Guy Goulques (1259–65), who became pope under the title of Clement IV (1265–1268); Bernard de Farges (1311–41), who founded the Narbonne College at Paris; Cardinal Georges d’Amboise, Prime Minister to Louis XIII and Archbishop of Narbonne from 1482 to 1485 and from 1492 to 1493; Cardinal Briçonnet (1507–14), chief instigator of the expedition of Charles VIII into Italy, and famous for his opposition to Julius II in the Council of Pisa; Giulio de’ Medici (1515–23), who became pope under the title of Clement VIII (1524–34), and Cardinal de Joyeuse (1582–84). In medieval times the Archbishopric of Narbonne was of great importance. For four centuries its jurisdiction extended over a part of Northern Spain, and in the eleventh century it had as suffragans the Dioceses of Toulouse, Béziers, Lodève, Uzès, Agdi, Maguelonne, Carcassonne, Elne, Gerona, Barcelona, Vich, and Urgel. Important councils were held at Narbonne in 589 and in the thirteenth century, and its bishops presided legally over the meetings of the Estates of Languedoc. (3) The Diocese of Saint-Papoul. A Benedictine abbey founded in 760 by Pepin the Short, and named after the holy priest Papoul, martyred near Toulouse in the third century, was created an episcopal see by John XXII in 1317. (4) The Diocese of Alet. A Benedictine abbey founded at Alet in 813 was made an episcopal see by John XXII in 1317. Nicolas Pavillon, a Jansenist, known for his resistance to the commands of the Holy See, was Bishop of Alet from 1637 to 1677. (5) The Diocese of Mirepoix. See .

The history of this region is intimately connected with that of the Albigenses. The monastery of Prouille, where St. Dominic established a religious institute for converted Albigensian women in 1206, is still a place of pilgrimage consecrated to the Blessed Virgin. St. Peter of Castelnau, the Cistercian inquisitor martyred by the Albigenses in 1208, St. Camelia, put to death by the same sectarians, and St. John Francis Regis (1597–1640), the Jesuit, born at Fontcouverte in the Diocese of Narbonne, are specially venerated in the Diocese of Carcassonne. Notre-Dame de Canabès and Notre-Dame de Limoux, both of which date back to the ninth century, are still frequented by pilgrims. The church of Saints-Nazaire-et-Celse at Carcassonne was rebuilt toward the end of the eleventh century, the first work upon it being blessed by Pope Urban II, who came to Carcassonne to urge the Vicomte Bernard de Trincavel to join the Crusade. The naves of this church are Roman, and the transept and choir Gothic.

Previously to the enforcement of the Law of 1901, there were in the Diocese of Carcassonne Capuchins, Cistercians, Dominicans, Lazarists, Carmelites, and Children of Mary Immaculate. Two important local orders of women care for the sick, and teach: the Sisters of the Holy Family (mother-house at Pézenas) and the Sisters of the Holy Name of Jesus (mother-house at Lusignan). In 1900 the diocese had the following religious institutions: 7 foundling asylums, 22 infant schools, 2 orphanages for boys, 6 for girls, 1 house of shelter, 9 hospitals and homes for the aged, 2 houses of retreat, 8 dispensaries, 1 insane asylum, and 69 houses of hospital sisters. At the close of 1905 (the end of the period covered by the Concordat) statistics showed a population of 313,531, with 37 pastorates, 378 succursal parishes (mission churches), and 40 curacies formerly supported by the State.

Gallia Christiana (ed. nova, 1739), VI, 1–136, 269–88, 860–935; Instrumenta, 1–72, 101–26, 411–75; (ed. nova, 1785), XIII, 299–314; Instrumenta, 247–67; DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux, I, 289–95, 307–308; VIC-VAISSETTE, Histoire de Languedoc (Toulouse, 1875), V; CROS- MAYREVIELLE, Histoire du Comté et de la Vicomté de Carcassonne (2 vols., Paris, 1846, 1896); HENNET DE BERNOVILLE, Mélanges concernant l’évêché de Saint- Papoul, pages extraites et traduites d’un manuscrit du quinzième siècle (Paris, 1863); GUIRAUD, Cartulaire de Prouille (Paris, 1907); CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl. s. v. Alet, Carcassonne, Narbonne, Saint-Papoul.

GEORGES GOYAU

Girolamo Cardan

(CARDANO, CARDANUS)

Italian physician and mathematician, b. at Pavia, 24 September, 1501; d. at Rome, 21 September 1576. He was educated at the Universities of Pavia and Padua, receiving at the latter the degree of Doctor of Medicine. He lectured on medicine at Milan in 1543 and at Pavia in 1544. In 1562 he was appointed professor at Bologna through the mediation of St. Charles Borromeo, and in 1571 he went to Rome where he received a pension from the pope and resumed the practice of his profession.

Cardan was an eccentric character. Perhaps it was on account of his leaning towards astrology and superstition that he was unjustly charged with atheism. His philosophical views were characteristic of the time in which he lived. He recognizes but three of the Aristotelean elements, viz. air, water, and earth, while warmth and moisture, according to him, are the energizing principles which give all things life. In man he distinguishes between the mens, or spirit, and the soul which is the seat of the sensitive faculties including the ratio. The latter belongs to the body and perishes with it, while the former is immaterial and immortal and partakes of the Divine. Moreover, one and the same spirit dwells in all men. This spirit is destined to be elevated in ecstasy to the contemplation of the Divine Essence. Cardan also characterizes this ecstasy as the state of faith in which all the lower faculties, including the ratio, become quiescent, so that, according to him, faith and reason would seem to be incompatible. His whole system occupies a position of little importance in the history of philosophy, and led logically to magic and astrology, in which he became adept. Cardan’s fame rests on his work in mathematics, and especially in algebra. In 1545 he published his “Ars Magna,” a treatise on algebra which contains the solution of the cubic equation, since named after him. This involved him in a lengthy dispute with Tartaglia. Cardan, it appears, had obtained the solution from Tartaglia, its original discoverer, under promise of the strictest secrecy. He however extended and developed it, and after his pupil Ferrari had discovered the solution of the biquadratic equation by means of the cubic, he felt justified in publishing it. In the preface of his work he acknowledges his obligations to Tartaglia and Ferrari. Cardan was also author of: “De Subtilitate libri XXI” (Nuremberg, 1550); “De Rerum Varietate libri XVII” (1557); “Opus novum de proportionibus numerorum, motuum, ponderum sonorum” (1570). Cardan’s “Opera Omnia” in 10 vols. appeared in Lyons in 1663.

H.M. BROCK

Juan Cardenas

Moral theologian and author; b. at Seville, 1613; d. 6 June, 1684. He entered the Society of Jesus at the age of fourteen, and during many years held in it the office of rector, master of novices, and provincial. Through his busy life he ever found time for intellectual work of a high order. He composed several small ascetical treatises: “Seven Meditations on Jesus Crucified” (originally published at Seville, 1678) and “Geminum sidus Mariani diadematis” (Lyons, 1673). From his pen we also have two pious biographies: “Historia de la Vida y Virtudes de la Venerable Virgen Damiana de las Llangas” (Seville, 1675) and “Breve relación de la Muerte, Vida, y Virtudes del Venerabile Cavallero D. Miguel Manara Vincentelo de Leca” (Seville, 1679).

But he is chiefly remembered for his important contributions to moral theology, which won for him the highest praise from St. Alphonsus Ligouri. In a singularly clear style and with great profundity of thought he examines some of the moral opinions prevalent in his day, especially those tinged with extreme Laxism, in his well known “Crisis theologica bipartita, sive Desputationes selectæ” (Lyons, 1670). This work, which appeared in two parts, opened up a storm of controversy, and in the edition of 1680 he reasserted his position in a supplement which defended moderate Probabilism against the twofold attacks of Laxists and Rigorists. Though the argument is unquestionably strong, and the opinions advanced moderate and sound, the many digressions that the controversy suggests make this part of the book rather uninteresting. In the Venetian editions of 1694, 1700, and 1710 there were first published, together with these three parts, and explanation of the propositions condemned by the pope in 1679. This last work, of which Father P.J. Kugler, S.J., composed a compendium in 1704, has often been published separately under the title: Crisis theologica in qua plures selectæ difficultates ex morali theologia ad lydium veritatis lapidem revocantur ex regula morem positâ a SS. D.N. Innocentis XI p.m., etc.

Antonio, Bibliotheca Hispana nova (Madrid, 1783), I, 671; Ribadeneira-Sotwell, Bibliotheca Scriptorun S.J. (Rome, 1676); De Backer and Sommervogel, Bibliothéque de la c de J., (Brussels, Paris, 1891), II, col. 734–37; De Backer, Bibliographie des éscrevains de la c. de J. (Liège, 1869), I, col. 1078; Hunter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1876), II, p. 1, 231; Döllinger-Reusch, Geschicte der Moralstreitigkeiten in der Römishkatholishchen Kirche (Nördlingen, 1889), I, 39, 41, 46.

LEO F. O’NEIL

Cardica

A titular see of Thessaly. Cardica is a Latinized medieval form for Gardicium, the true Greek name being Gardikion. It figures only in later “Notitiae episcopatuum” of the twelfth or thirteenth century as a suffragan of Larissa. Lequien (II, 979) mentions five Latin Bishops of Cardica, from 1208 to 1389, the first being Bartholomew, to whom many letters of Pope Innocent III are addressed. Lequien was unacquainted with any Greek bishop of the see. Manuscript lists, however, contain eight names. They are: John, 1191–1192; Metrophanes, degraded in 1623; Gregorius or Cyrillus, 1623; Sophronius, 1646–1649; Gregorius, about 1700; Meletius, 1743; Paisius, eighteenth century; Gregorius, about 1852. When Thessaly was united with Greece (1881) the see had been vacant since 1875. It was suppressed in 1899, and Gardikion, commonly Gardiki, is now but a little town with about 3,000 inhabitants in the Diocese of Phthiotis.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Cardinal

A dignitary of the Roman Church and counsellor of the pope.

By the term cardinal (Cardinalis) was originally understood every priest permanently attached to a church, every clericus, either intitulatus or incardinatus. [C. 3 (Gelasius I, 492–496), D. XXIV. C 35 (Gregory I, 595), D. LXXXI. C. 6 (Gregory I, 603), D. LXXIV. C. 42 (Gregory I, 592), C. VIII, q. 1.] It became the usual designation of every priest belonging to a central or episcopal church, an ecclesiastical cardo (Lat. for hinge). Cf. Hincmar of Reims, “De jure metropolitani,” c. 20 (Opp. ed. Sirmond, II, 731); C. 2, §6 (Pseudo-Isidore), D. XXII. Lastly it was equivalent to principalis, i. e., excellent, superior, and is so used by St. Augustine (De baptismo, I, 6; ed. Bened. IX, 56).

The origin, development, and modifications of this office will be treated as follows: I. Cardinal-priests; II. Cardinal-deacons; III. Cardinal-bishops; IV. Cardinalitial dioceses, titles, and deaconries; V. Relations of the cardinals to the bishops; VI. Relations of the cardinals to the pope; VII. Nomination of cardinals; VIII. Duties of cardinals; IX. Rights of cardinals; X. The College of cardinals.

I. CARDINAL-PRIESTS

Until late in the Middle Ages the title of cardinal was given to prominent priests of important churches, e.g., at Constantinople, Milan, Ravenna, Naples, Sens, Trier, Magdeburg, and Cologne (cf. G. Phillips, Kirchenrecht, Ratisbon, 1845 sq., VI, 41 sqq.; P. Hinschius, “Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und Protestanten in Deutschland,” Berlin, 1869, I, 318 sqq.). In keeping with this custom we find the term Cardinalis applied at Rome from the end of the fifth century to priests permanently attached to the (twenty-five to twenty-eight) Roman tituli, or quasi-parishes (quasi diœceses), belonging to the church of the Bishop of Rome, the pope-therefore to the Cardo ecclesia par excellence-in which tituli the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance were administered, and which were also often called tituli cardinales. The “Liber Pontificalis” describes as follows this quasi-parochial system of ancient Rome: “Hic [Euaristus, 99–107?] titulos in urbe Româ divisit presbyteris . . .”; and again: “Hic [Dionysius, 259–268] presbyteris ecclesias dedit et cymeteria et paroccias diocesis constituit”; and elsewhere: “[Marcellus, 308–309] XXV titulos in urbe Româ constituit quasi diocesis propter baptismum et pœnitentiam multorum qui convertebantur ex paganis et propter sepulturas martyrum” (op cit., ed. Duchesne, Paris, 1886, I, 126, 157, 164). In other words, an ecclesiastical division of the city for various parochial purposes is attributed to popes of the second and third centuries. Such a division, scarcely possible in the period of persecution, is vouched for at the end of the fifth century by the signatures of Roman presbyters present at the Council of Rome in 499 under Pope Symmachus (cf. A. Thiel, Epistolæ Romanorum Pontificum genuinæ, Brunsberg, 1868, 651 sqq.). These presbyters were thenceforth known as cardinales [C. 5. (Constitutum apocryphum Silvestri I, about the end of the fifth century, c. 7), D. XCIII, C. 2 (Concilium apocryphum Silvestri I, about the end of the fifth century), C. II, q. 4; C. 3, 4, 5 (Roman Synod under Pope Stephen III, 760), D. LXXXIX; Letter of Leo IX (1053) to Michael Cærularius in Jaffé, “Regesta Pontificum Romanorum,” 2d ed. (Leipzig, 1885), no. 4302].

However, not all the numerous priests attached to these titular churches were known as cardinales, but, in keeping with the then current use of cardinalis as the equivalent of principalis (see above), only the first priest in each such church-let us say the archipresbyter. According to a constitution of John VIII, published between 873 and 882, these cardinal-priests (presbyteri cardinales) were the supervisors of ecclesiastical discipline at Rome and also ecclesiastical judges. We read in this constitution “De jure cardinalium” as follows: “Itemque ex nostrâ præsenti constitutione his in mense vel eo amplius vel apud illum vel illum titulum sive apud illam vel illam diaconiam sive apud alias quasilibet ecclesias vos convenire mandamus, et ob vestram et inferiorum clericorum vitam et mores et qualitates et habitus vestium perscrutandum et qualiter quilibet præpositi se erga subditos habeant vel quod subditi suis præpositis non obediant et ad quæque illicita amputanda, clericorum quoque et laicorum querimonias, quæ ad nostrum judicium pertinent, quantum fieri potest definiendas, quippe cum sicut nostram mansuetudinem Moysi, ita et vestram paternitatem LXX seniorum, qui sub eodem causarum negotia diiudicabant, vicissitudinem gerere, certum habeamus. Item monasteria abbatibus viduata et abbatum nostra præcedente conscientia substitutionem his, qui sunt inter vel fuerint monasticæ professionis, disponenda comittimus” (Jaffé, op. cit., no. 3366). That is, the pope commands them to meet at least twice a month, in their own or other churches, to investigate their own lives and those of the clergy, the relations of superiors and inferiors, and in general to check all violations of the laws; also to settle, as far as is possible in the papal court, all conflicts between laymen and ecclesiastics. The pope, he says, is like Moses in gentlenss of government, while the administration of the cardinals recalls the paternal character of the seventy elders who sat as judges under the patriarch’s control. The pope also entrusts to them the administration of vacant abbeys and the filling of the vacant sabbatial offices, but not without his foreknowledge.

Moreover, in virtue of a papal provision as old as the reign of Pope Simplicius (468–83), these cardinal-priests were wont to conduct Divine service at the three principal cemetery churches (St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Laurence), and later on at the same churches raised (with St Mary Major) to patriarchal rank. To each of these four churches were assigned seven cardinals; the latter were therefore twenty-eight in number. This is the sense of the “Liber Pontificalis” when it says (ed. Duchesne, I, 249 sqq.): “Hic [Simplicius] constituit ad sanctum Petrum apostolum et ad sanctum Laurentium martyrem ebdomadias, ut presbyteri manerent, propter penitentes et baptismum: regio III ad sanctum Laurentium, regio prima ad sanctum Paulum, regio VI vel septima ad sanctum Petrum” (cf. Duchesne, “Les tîtres presbytéraux et les diacones,” in “Mélanges d’archæol. et d’hist.,” VII, 17 sqq.; J. Zettinger, “Die ältesten Nachrichten über Baptisterien der Stadt Rom,” in “Römische Quartalschrift,” XIX, 326 sqq.). For the twelfth century we have the statement of Johannes Diaconus in the sixteenth chapter of his work “De ecclesiâ Lateranensi” (ed. J. Mabillon, in “Museum Italicum,” Paris, 1724, II, 574): “Cardinales Sanctæ Mariæ Maioris sunt ii: SS. Apostolorum, S. Cyriaci in Thermas, S. Eusebii, S. Pudentianæ, S. Vitalis, SS. Marcellini et Petri, S. Clementis. Cardinales Sancti Petri sunt ii: S. Mariæ Transtiberim, S. Chrysogoni, S. Cæciliæ, S. Anastasiæ, S. Laurentii in Damaso, S. Marci, SS. Martini et Silvestri. Cardinales Sancti Pauli sunt ii: S. Sabinæ, S. Priscæ, S. Balbinæ, S. Balbinæ SS. Nerei et Achillei, S. Sixti, S. Marcelli, S. Susannæ. Cardinales Sancti Laurentii sunt ii: S. Praxedis, S. Petri ad Vincula, S. Laurentii in Lucina, S. Crucis in Jerusalem, S. Stephani in Cæliomonte, SS. Joannis et Pauli, SS. Quattuor Coronatorum.” The eldest of these cardinal-priests acted as their head: he was known as archipresbyter, and was the chief and immediate assistant of the pope at all ecclesiastical functions; from the twelfth century he was known as prior cardinalium presbyterorum.

II. CARDINAL-DEACONS

Besides the clergy attached to each Roman Church, there was in the city a “regionary” clergy of almost equal antiquity, so called because of its relations to the ecclesiastical regiones or quarters into which, after the fashion of the municipal regions, Christian Rome was at an early date divided. For the care of the poor the city was divided into seven regions, each of which was administered by a deacon. The “Liber Pontificalis” dates this division into seven regions from the time of Clement I, and ascribes to Popes Evaristus and Fabian the assignment of the regions to as many deacons. It says of Clement I (88–97): “Hic fecit VII regiones, dividit notariis fidelibus ecclesiæ, qui gestas martyrum sollicite et curiose, unusquisque per regionem suam, diligenter perquireret” (ed. Duchesne, I, 123), i. e., he divided the city into seven regions and assigned them to as many faithful notaries of the Church, whose duty it was earnestly and carefully to collect in each region the acts of the martyrs. And of Evaristus (99–107?): “Hic titulos in urbe Româ dividit presbyteris et VII diaconos ordinavit qui custodirent episcopum prædicantem, propter stilum veritatis” (op. cit., I, 126), i. e., he divided among the priests the “titles” of the city of Rome, and ordained seven deacons to bear witness to the preaching of the bishop. Much more credible is the statement in the life of Fabian (236–250): “Hic regiones dividit diaconibus et fecit VII subdiaconos, qui VII notariis immiterent, ut gestas martyrum in integro fideliter colligerent, et multas fabricas per cymeteria fieri præcipit” (op. cit., I, 148), i. e., he divided the “regions” among the deacons and created seven subdeacons whom he placed over the notaries, that the latter might collect with fidelity and completeness the acts of the martyrs; he also commanded many buildings to be put up in the cemeteries. In this way there arose in each of the regions an edifice (diaconia) for the reception of the poor, and close by a church. These regionary deacons were wont to subscribe the acts of Roman synods and other documents as diaconi ecclesiæ Romanæ, or deacons of the Roman Church, sometimes, probably, adding their proper region. Thereby also were expressed the fixity of their relations to the church of the Bishop of Rome and their obligation to assist him at liturgical functions. It was natural enough, therefore, that the term cardinales should very soon be applied to these regionary deacons (diaconi cardinales), as well as to the aforementioned twenty-eight priests of the immediate papal entourage in ecclesiastical functions.

In the Middle Ages the ecclesiastical division of Rome into seven regions disappeared, owing to the changes in Roman topography; consequently, the diaconi cardinales ceased gradually to bear the names of their regions. Of the latter there remain only their number, seven, consecrated by antiquity and their dignity. In the course of time other charitable institutions took the place of the original deaconries. At the end of the sixth century Gregory the Great had eighteen deacons. Under Benedict VII (684–85) we meet with monasteria diaconiæ. Adrian I (772–95) fixed at eighteen the number of the diaconal churches, nor was there any alteration of this number until the sixteenth century. In consequence, from the end of the eleventh to the end of the twelfth century, the number of cardinal-deacons was fixed permanently at eighteen. The chief source of this enlargement of their number was the addition of the six diaconi palatini and their archdeacon, i. e., the ecclesiastical officers whose duty it was to serve in turn during the week at the papal Mass (“Liber Pontificalis,” I, 3647, 50470, 509110, and II, 1874, 2527; Duchesne, “Les régions de Rome au moyen-âge,” in “Mélanges d’archéologie et d’hist.,” X, 144). The above-mentioned Johannes Diaconus describes as follows the manner in which these eighteen cardinal-deacons assisted at the papal Mass: “In quibusdam vero dominicis et festivis diebus sanctorumque præcipue sollemnitatibus quandoque sacerdos est regalis et imperialis episcopus, immo patriarcha; et idem apostolicus in supradicto sacratissimo altare Salvatoris huius Lateranensis basilicæ missam debet celebrare; et quando celebrat dominus papa sancti Petri vicarius . . . debet etiam ibi præsens esse archidiaconus cum sex diaconibus palatinis, qui in palatio legere debent evangelium et in basilicâ Lateranensi et alii duodecim diacones regionarii, qui solent evangelium legere in stationibus ecclesiarum Romæ constitutis. Isti decem et octo diaconi totidem ecclesias habent infra muros civitatis. Et tamen omnes sunt canonici patriarchalis basilicæ Lateranensis” (“De Ecclesiâ Lateranensi,” C. viii, in “Museum Italicum,” II, 567), i.e., on certain great feasts, bishops of superior rank say Mass on the altar of the Lateran Basilica. When the pope says Mass there must also be present, with their archdeacon, the six palatine deacons, whose duty it is to read the Gospel in the [papal] palace, and in the Lateran Basilica; also the twelve regionary deacons (diacones regionarrii) who are wont to read the Gospel in the “station” churches of Rome. These eighteen deacons have each a church of Rome; they are also, adds Johannes Diaconus, canons of the Lateran Basilica. The head of the cardinal-deacons was the archdeacon, also known as prior diaconorum cardinalium. In his quality of supervisor of ecclesiastical discipline in the city, and curator of the papal finances, he was, after the pope, the most important person in the Roman Church during the early Middle Ages.

Since, according to the foregoing, the name of “cardinal” was linked with participation and co-operation in the papal Mass, or in ecclesiastical services at the principal papal churches of Rome it need not surprise us that, by reason of analogous participation in these services, other Roman ecclesiastics, from the deacons downwards, came to bear the title of cardinal. Cardinal-subdeacons are often mentioned, and once even cardinal-acolytes. In the “Commentarius electionis Gregorii VII” the electors are said to be “Romanæ ecclesiæ cardinales clerici, acoliti, subdiaconi, diaconi, presbyteri” (Jaffé, Bibliotheca Rer. Germ., Berlin, 1864, II, 9 sqq.).

III. CARDINAL-BISHOPS

In the course of time and according as the papal headship of the Church manifested itself more and more, the volume of ecclesiastical and temporal business increased greatly at Rome, in consequence of which the popes called in neighbouring bishops to represent them at episcopal functions and to aid them with their counsel. They also followed the custom, widespread in the early medieval period, of dealing with the important questions in synodal meetings. The “Liber Pontificalis” says of Stephen III (768–772): “Erat enim hisdem præfatus beatissimus præsul ecclesiæ traditionis observator. Hic statuit ut omni dominico die a septem episcopis cardinalibus ebdomadariis, qui in ecclesiâ Salvatoris observant, missarum sollemnia super altare beati Petri celebraretur et Gloria in excelsis Deo diceretur” (I, 478), i. e., the pope, as a diligent custodian of tradition ordered that every Sunday solemn Mass should be said on the altar of St. Peter, in the Lateran Basilica, by one of the seven cardinal-bishops in weekly service at which Mass also the “Gloria in Excelsis” should be sung. This statement takes it for granted that at the end of the eighth century the weekly service of the cardinal-bishops was already an ancient custom. That these bishops also received the name of episcopi cardinales is intelligible enough after what has been said. Though the number of cardinal-bishops has always been seven, their particular sees have not shared the same fixity. In the entourage and service of the pope we meet not only bishops of Ostia, Porto, Albano, Præneste, and Silva Candida, but also bishops of Velletri, Gabii, Tivoli, Anagni, Nepi, and Segni (Phillips, Kirchenrecht, VI, 178 sqq.; Hinschius, Kirchenrecht, I, 324 sqq.). It is only since the beginning of the twelfth century that the cardinalitial dioceses were finally fixed as the seven in the immediate vicinity of Rome, hence suburbicaria: Ostia, Porto, Santa Rufina (Silva Candida), Albano, Sabina, Tusculum (Frascati), Præneste (Palestrina). (Cf. Johannes Diaconus, “De eccl. Later.,” c. xvi, ed. Mabillon, in “Museum Ital.,” II, 574; L. Duchesne, “Le sedi episcopali nell’ antico ducato di Roma,” 1892, 6 sqq.) In the twelfth century the number of the cardinalitial dioceses was diminished by one, when Callistus II united Santa Rufina (Silva Candida) with Porto, so that only six remained. In the Middle Ages, therefore, the cardinals should have numbered fifty-three or fifty-four. As a rule, however, they were fewer; after the thirteenth century their number often sank considerably. Under Alexander IV (1254–61) there were but seven cardinals. During the Western Schism their number increased, inasmuch as each of the contending claimants created his own college of cardinals. The Council of Constance demanded that their number be fixed at twenty-four (Martin V, in his Decree of Reform, 1418, C. 1 “De numero et qualitate cardinalium”; cf. B. Hübler, “Die Konstanzer Reformation und die Konkordate von 1418,” Leipzig, 1867, 128). The same number was demanded by the Council of Basle in 1436 (Sess. XXIII, c. iv, “De numero et qualitate cardinalium,” in Hardouin, “Acta Conc.,” Paris, 1714, VIII, 1206 xq.). In 1555 an agreement was reached between Paul IV and the cardinals, whereby their number was fixed at forty, but this agreement was never carried out. On the other hand, Sixtus V, by his yet valid constitutions “Postquam verus,” of 3 Dec., 1586 (§ 4), and “Religiosa sanctorum,” of 13 April, 1587, fixed the number of cardinals at seventy, six cardinal-bishops, fifty cardinal-priests, and fourteen cardinal-deacons, in imitation of the seventy elders of Moses, and declared null and void all nominations in excess of this number (Bullarium Rom., Turin, 1857, VIII, 810 sqq., 833 sqq.). As a matter of fact, such nominations would not be invalid, and have been made (Archiv. f. kathol. Kirchenrecht, LXIX, 167 sq.).

IV. CARDINALITIAL DIOCESES, TITLES, AND DEACONRIES

The actual cardinalitial dioceses are Ostia and Velletri, Porto and Santa Rufina, Albano, Frascati (Tusculum), Palestrina (Præneste), and Sabina. The cardinalitial titles are as follows: S. Lorenzo in Lucina, S. Agnese fuori le mura, S. Agostino, S. Anastasia, SS. Andrea e Gregorio al Monte Celio, SS. XII Apostoli, S. Balbina, S. Bartolommeo all’Isola, S. Bernardo alle Terme, SS. Bonifacio ed Allessio, S. Calisto, S. Cæcilia, S. Clemente, S. Crisogono, S. Croce in Gerusalemme, S. Eusebio, S. Giovanni a Porta Latina, SS. Giovanni e Paolo, S. Girolamo degli Schiavoni, S. Lorenzo in Damaso, S. Lorenzo in Panisperna, SS. Marcellino e Pietro, S. Marcello, S. Marco, S. Maria degli Angeli, S. Maria della Pace, S. Maria della Scala, S. Maria della Vittoria, S. Maria del Popolo, S. Maria in Araceli, S. Maria in Cosmedin, S. Maria in Transpontina, S. Maria in Trastevere, S. Maria in Via, S. Maria sopra Minerva, S. Maria Nuova e S. Francesca Romana, SS. Nereo ed Achilleo, S. Onofrio, S. Pancrazio, S. Pietro in Montorio, S. Pietro in Vincoli, S. Prassede, S. Prisca, S. Pudenziana, SS. Quattro Coronati, SS. Quirico e Giulítta, S. Sabina, SS. Silvestro e Martino ai Monti, S. Silvestro in Capite, S. Sisto, S. Stefano al Monte Celio, S. Susanna, S. Tommaso in Parione, SS. Trinità al Monte Pincio, S. Vitale, SS. Gervasio e Protasio. The cardinalitial deaconries are: S. Maria in Via Lata, S. Adriano al Foro Romano, S. Agata alla Suburra, S. Angelo in Pescheria, S. Cesareo in Palatio, SS. Cosma e Damiano, S. Eustachio, S. Giorgio in Velabro, S. Maria ad Martyres, S. Maria in Aquiro, S. Maria in Cosmedin, S. Maria in Dominica, S. Maria in Portico, S. Nicola in Carcere Tulliano, SS. Vito, Modesto e Crescenzio. There are, therefore, in all, seventy-five churches (6 + 53 + 16) disposable for the three orders of cardinals. And since, as a rule, the cardinals number less than seventy, there are usually several churches without any cardinal. (Cf. P. M. Baumgarten, “Der Papst, die Regierung und die Verwaltung der heiligen Kirche in Rom,” Munich, 1905, 186 sq., following the data of the “Gerarchia Cattolica,” Rome, 1904.)

V. RELATIONS OF THE CARDINALS TO THE BISHOPS

The cardinals were, therefore, from a very early period, assistants of the pope in his liturgical functions, in the care of the poor, the administration of papal finances and possessions, and the synodal disposition of important matters. They took on a very much greater importance, however, after the decree of Nicholas II (1059), “In nomine Domini,” regulating papal elections. In accordance with this document the election of the pope and the government of the Church, during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, fell more and more into their hands; they passed to them exclusively after the Decretal of Alexander III, “Licet de vitandâ,” at the third Lateran Council (1179). The increasing insignificance of the “regionary” and “palatine” clergy, from the middle of the twelfth century, coupled with the disappearance of the judices palatini, tended to enlarge the share of the cardinals in the administration of papal justice and finances, also of the fiefs of the Holy See and of the States of the Church. We may add to this that after the cessation of papal journeys to the different nations of Christendom and of the Roman synods under papal presidency, the cardinals remained almost the only counsellors and legates of the popes. Henceforth their functions were equivalent to those of the “permanent synod” and the syncelli at Constantinople (Sägmüller, “Die Tätigkeit und Stellung der Kardinäle bis Papst Bonifaz VIII,” Freiburg, 1896, 16 sqq., 208 sqq.; S. Keller, “Die sieben römischen Pfalzrichter im byzantinischen Zeitalter,” Stuttgart, 1904).

The place and the occasion of this manifold activity of the cardinals was the consistory, i. e. the reunion of the cardinals and the pope. In it were regularly treated questions of faith and important disciplinary matters, e. g. dogmatic decisions, canonizations, approbations of rules of new orders, affairs of the Inquisition and the universities, indulgences for the Universal Church, modifications of the rules for papal elections, the convocation of general councils, also the nomination and mission of Apostolic legates and vicars. Moreover, in the consistory were treated all matters concerning dioceses and bishops, the so-called causæ majores par excellence, among them the creation, transfer, division, reunion, and suppression of dioceses, the nomination and confirmation of bishops, also their transfer, resignation, cession, suspension, deposition, and degradation. It was in the consistory that were granted to monasteries the numerous privileges by which they were withdrawn from episcopal, and made subject to papal, jurisdiction; there also took place frequently the confirmation of the abbots and abbesses elected in such exempt monasteries. Before the consistory, moreover, were treated the important questions that arose concerning the properties of the Roman Church (bona ecclesiæ romanæ), the papal fiefs, the Crusades, and such grave political matters as the settlement of disputed royal elections, the approbation of newly-elected kings, and the deposition of princes. In the meetings of the consistory, which in the Middle Ages were frequently held weekly, the cardinals also assisted the pope in the disposition of an overwhelming mass of lawsuits. Finally, the cardinals were put in charge of several of the great offices of the Church: in the Chancery a cardinal-chancellor or rather vice-chancellor, in the administration of the papal revenues a cardinal-camerarius, in the conduct of the penitentiaria a cardinal-penitentiary. The cardinals were also grand-inquisitors, likewise the “rectors” in the States of the Church. Others were sent abroad as cardinal legates; others again acted as cardinal protectors of nations and religious orders (Sägmüller, Die Tätigkeit und Stellung der Kardinäle, 46 sqq.).

Given the position of the pope and his intimate relations both to the individual cardinals and to such a close corporation as the college itself, at papal functions, in papal elections, in synods, in the consistory, in the conduct of diplomatic negotiations, it is easy to understand how all cardinals, including cardinal-priests and cardinal-deacons came to outrank bishops and archbishops, and after the fourteenth century even patriarchs, just as at Constantinople the syncelli eventually outranked bishops and archbishops. This pre-eminence, however, was a matter of slow and uneven development. The cardinal-bishops were the first to outrank other bishops, then archbishops, and finally patriarchs. But as the cardinals formed a college, and the collegiate rights were equally shared by all, the cardinal-priests and cardinal-deacons claimed the same rank as the cardinal-bishops, while the latter were quite willing to see their colleagues placed on their own higher plane. It was occasionally maintained in the Middle Ages that the cardinals were no less successors of the Apostles than the bishops, and that their authority was of Divine origin. For argument appeal was made to the seventy elders of Moses and to Deuteronomy, xvii, 8 sqq., and to other texts. Leo X declared in the Bull “Supernæ” of 5 May, 1514, that the cardinals in a body should come immediately after the pope and should precede all others in the church (Bullar. Rom., V, 604 sqq.). The superior rank of the cardinals was clearly indicated when, after the time of Alexander III, bishops and even archbishops became cardinal-priests, and even (though less frequently) cardinal-deacons (Sägmüller, Die Tätigkeit und Stellung der Kardinäle, 193 sqq.). The cardinals were on an equality with emperors and kings, whom they addressed as “brothers,” e. g. the cardinal legate Roland at the Diet of Besançon in 1157. It was only natural, therefore, that in the end the name cardinal, which until late in the Middle Ages was borne by the principal ecclesiastics of the more important churches, should be reserved for the Roman cardinals. Pius V, it is said, issued a decree to this effect 17 Feb., 1567. There were never any “cardinals by birth” (cardinales nati), i. e., no other office necessarily implied elevation to the dignity of cardinal.

VI. RELATIONS OF THE CARDINALS TO THE POPE

In the Middle Ages the cardinals attempted more than once to secure over the pope the same pre-eminence which they had secured in a permanent way over the episcopate, i. e., they sought to change the monarchical form of government into an aristocracy. What tended to bring about this result was the fact that in all important matters the popes were accustomed not to act without the counsel or the consent of the cardinals (de fratrum nostrorum consilio, de fr. n. consensu), or declared that they could not act otherwise. Consequently, the conclusion was often drawn by canonists, or by the enemies of the popes, that they were obliged to givern in this manner. Moreover, this was inferred from the current concent of corporations. It was applied to both pope and cardinals as well as to the bishop and his chapter; to the Ecclesia Romana as well as to any other cathedral church. Hence, during the papal conclaves, which often lasted a long time, the cardinals sought occasionally to bind the new pope by “election-capitulations” (see ), after the obligations imposed on new bishops by their chapters; prevented the appointment of new cardinals; allied themselves (at least individually) with the civil power against the pope; maintained that the pope could not abdicate without their consent; or even that they could depose him, at least that they could convoke a council for that purpose, as in fact they did convoke the Council of Pisa in 1409 to put an end to the Western Schism. The Council of Basle decreed that it was the duty of the cardinals, first individually and then as a college, to reprove any pope forgetful of his duty, or acting in a way that no longer corresponded to his exalted position (Hardouin, Acta Conc., VIII, 1208). The first “election-capitulations” were drawn up in the conclave of 1352 and were often repeated, especially during the Western Schism, when the cardinal electors were wont to bind the future pope to do all that was possible for the extinction of the schism. Innocent XII finally forbade all such previous agreements by the Constitution “Ecclesiæ Catholicæ” of 22 Sept., 1695. In face of such an attitude on the part of the cardinals, some popes were very cautious and conciliatory and might be classed as “parliamentary popes,” e. g. Clement IV; others, like Boniface VIII, resisted, and rightly, with great earnestness. [Cf. Sägmüller, “Zur Geschichte des Kardinalats. Ein Traktat des Bischofs von Feltre und Treviso, Teodoro de’ Lelli, über das Verhältniss von Primat und Kardinalat” (Rome, 1893); Idem, “Die Tätigkeit und Stellung der Kardinäle,” 215 sqq.; M. Souchon, “Die Papstwahlen von Bonifaz VIII bis Urban VI, und die Entstehung des Schismas 1378” (Brunswick, 1888); Idem, “Die Papstwahlen in der Zeit des grossen Schismas” (ibid., 1898); Wenck, “Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen” (1900), 139 sqq; Sägmüller, “Zur Tätigkeit und Stellung der Kardinäle bis Bonifaz VIII,” “Die oligarchischen Tendenzen der Kardinalkollege bis Bonifaz VIII,” “Zur Tätigkeit und Stellung der Kardinäle bis Papst Bonifaz VIII” in “Tübingen theolog Quartalschrift,” LXXX (1898), 596 sqq., LXXXIII (1901), 45 sqq., LXXXVIII (1906), 595 sqq.; also N. Valois, “La France et le grand schisme d’Occident” (Paris, 1902), and J. Haller, “Papsttum und Kirchenreform” (Berlin, 1903 sqq.).]

VII. NOMINATION OF THE CARDINALS

In the nomination of cardinals the pope has always been, and is still, free. In the medieval period, according to the detailed account given by Cardinal Giacomo Gaetani Stefaneschi, in his “Ordo Romanus XIV” (c. cxvi, sq.), a work of the early part of the fourteenth century, the pope was wont to ask the cardinals for their opinions as to the new members of the college, but afterwards decided quite freely (Mabillon, “Museum Italicum,” II, 424 sqq.; J. Kästers, “Studien zu Mabillons römischen Ordines,” Münster, 1905, 65 sqq.). The above-mentioned “election-capitulations” and the Council of Basle demanded that the nomination of cardinals should be made dependent on the consent of the college (Hardouin, Acta Conc., VIII, 1207). According to the demand of the reform-councils (Constance, Basle) and the decrees of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, De ref., c. i), there should be in the college representatives of all Christian nations. Sixtus V decreed, in keeping with the wishes of the reform-councils, that, above all, it should contain doctors of theology (magistri theologiæ), and that there should be in the college at least four theologians from the mendicant orders. According to an ancient concession the wishes of Austria, Spain, and Portugal are as far as possible respected, when there is question of raising to the cardinalate a bishop of one of these nations, known thenceforth as a crown-cardinal. It is customary for the governments of the same nations to contribute at the creation of such a cardinal the incident “taxes” or expenses (2832 scudi, or about $3000). Similarly they are wont to provide for the support of their respective national cardinal protectors. At the Vatican Council the demand was made that in the Sacred College and the Roman Congregations there should be from every nation not only scholarly, but also wise and experienced, men (“Coll. Lacensis,” Freiburg, 1890-VIII, 838; Granderath-Kirsch, “Gesch. des vatik. Konzils,” ibid., 1903-I, 440; II, 167). The person nominated must possess the qualifications of a bishop (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, De ref., c. i). He must, therefore, be at least thirty years of age. However, for the cardinal-deacons it suffices to have entered on the twenty-second year; but the new cardinal-deacon must receive deacon’s orders within a year, otherwise he loses both passive and active vote (Postquam verus, § 6). In keeping with the provisions for promotion to nobility, illegitimates, even when legitimated by later marriage, are ineligible (ibid., § 12), also (ibid., § 16) the fathers of (living) legitimate children, nephews or cardinals, and (ibid., §§ 17, 18) those who are related to a cardinal in the first or second degree of consanguinity. Of course, the pope can occasionally dispense from these disqualifying conditions (Archiv für kath. Kirchenrecht, LXIX, 168). cardinals takes place in a secret consistory, during which those actually resident in Rome are informed of their nomination. In the afternoon of the same day the newly-created cardinals meet in the pope’s apartments, in the antechamger of which the scarlet zucchetta, or skull-cap, is handed to them; thereafter the scarlet biretta is placed by the pope on the head of each. The “red hat” is given in the next public consistory after they have taken the customary oath. At the beginning of the next secret consistory takes place the ceremony known as the “opening of the mouth” (aperitio oris), and at the close of the same consistory the “closing of the mouth” (clausura oris), symbolizing their duties to keep the secrets of their office and to give wise counsel to the pope. The ring is then given to each, and at the same time the “title” or church by which the new cardinal shall henceforth be known. If the creation of a cardinal takes place outside of Italy, the scarlet zucchetta is sent him by one of the pope’s Guardie Nobili (Noble Guards), and the scarlet biretta by a special ablegate. In Austria, Spain, and Portugal the biretta is usually imposed by the sovereign or civil ruler. Occasionally it is conferred by some distinguished prelate especially delegated by the pope. In all such cases the recipient must promise under oath, and under pain of nullity of his nomination, that within a year he will go personally to Rome for the further ceremonies above described, and to receive his “title” (Postquam verus, § 19). Formerly the dignity of cardinal was acquired only after public proclamation and reception of the hat and ring. At present any form of publication suffices (Pius V, 29 Jan., 1571; Greg. XV, “Decet,” 12 March, 1621, in “Bullarium Romanum,” XII, 663 sq.). Creation of cardinals in petto is therefore without effect, unless there follows publication of the names. A testamentary publication does not suffice. Pius IX announced (15 March, 1875) a creation of cardinals in petto with publication of their names in his testament, but this creation never went into effect. From the reign of Martin V, i. e. from the end of the Western Schism, during which there were many cardinals created by the contending popes, it became customary for the pope to create cardinals without declaring their names (creati et reservati in pectore), the Italian equivalent for which is in petto. The publication of the names may, in given circumstances, be made at a much later date. Only, at whatever time such publication takes place, the cardinals so created rank in seniority according to the date of their original announcement as reserved in petto, and precede all those created after that time (P. A. Kirsch, “Die Reservatio in petto bei der Kardinalscreation,” in “Archiv. f. kath. Kirchenrecht,” LXXXI, 421 sqq.; K. Eubel, “Zur Kardinalsernennung des Dominicus Capranica,” in “Röm. Quartalschrift,” XVII, 273 sqq.). By virtue of canonical obedience the pope could compel an unwilling person to accept the cardinalitial dignity. (Cf. L. Wahrmund, “Ueber die kirchliche Zulässigkeit der Rekusation der übertragenen Kardinalswürde,” in “Archiv f. kath. Kirchenrecht,” LXVII, 3 sqq.) The oath taken by the cardinals is quite similar to that taken by bishops. But the cardinal must swear that he will defend conscientiously the papal Bulls concerning non-alienation of the possessions of the Roman Church, nepotism, and papal elections, likewise his own cardinalitial dignity.

VIII. DUTIES OF CARDINALS

It is the duty of the cardinals to assist the pope at the chief liturgical services known as capellæ papales, to distinguish them from the capellæ cardinaliciæ, at which the pope is not present; also to counsel him and aid in the government of the Church (c. 17 in VIto de electione, I, 6; Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, de ref., c. 1, and Sess. XXV, de ref., c. 1). Hence the cardinals are obliged to reside at Rome and cannot leave the Papal States without permission of the pope. The violation of this law entails grave penalties, even the loss of the cardinalitial dignity (C. 2, X, de clerico non residente, III, 4; Leo X, “Supernæ,” 5 May, 1514, § 28, in “Bullar. Rom.,” V, 604 sqq.; Innocent X, “Cum juxta,” 19 Feb., 1646, in “Bullar. Rom.,” XV, 441 sqq.). Similarly, they would lose all the benefices possessed by them (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, de ref., c. 17). It is otherwise with foreign bishops created cardinals; they retain their dioceses and are not obliged to reside at Rome. The “suburbicarian” bishops, however, by ancient custom reside at Rome. The share of the cardinals in the government of the Church is exercised partly in the consistories, partly in the curial offices (Cancellaria, Dataria, Penitentiaria), in the Roman Congregations, and in various ecclesiastical commissions.

THE CONSISTORY.

The Consistory.-A papal consistory is the assembly of the cardinals about the pope and recalls the consistorium principis of the Roman Empire (G. Paleotti, “De sacri consistorii consultationibus,” Rome, 1592; Sägmüller, “Die Tätigkeit und Stellung der Kardinäle,” 46 sqq., 97 sqq.). Consistories are public (publica) or extraordinary, and secret (secreta) or ordinary. Semi-public consistories are a combination of a public and a secret consistory. The public consistories are attended not only by the cardinals, but by the bishops, prelates, princes, and ambassadors to the papal court present in Rome. They are called for the purpose of giving the red hat to new cardinals, the solemn conclusion of canonizations, and public audiences to sovereigns and their ambassadors. Much more important are the secret consistories. As already described, it was in them that during the Middle Ages were heard and decided the numberless lawsuits and judicial matters that came before the Apostolic See. Innocent III was wont to hold such a consistory three times a week (“Gesta Innocentii,” c. 41, in Migne, P. L., CCXIV, LXXX; A. Luchaire, “Le tribunal d’Innocent III,” in “Séances et travaux de l’Acad. des sciences morales et politiques,” 1903, 449 sqq.; M. Späthen, “Giraldus Cambrensis und Thomas von Evesham über die von ihnen an der Kurie geführten Prozesse” in “Neues Archiv d. Gesellschaft f. alt. deutsche Geschichtskunde,” XXXI, 595 sqq.). With the transfer of their judicial attributes to the great curial offices, especially the Rota and the Roman Congregations, consistories became less frequent. Under Innocent XI (d. 1689) they were held once a month (J. H. Bangen, Die römische Kurie, ihre gegenwärtige Zusammensetzung und ihr Geschäftsgang, Münster, 1854, 75). Secret consistories are now called more rarely, at intervals of several months, and deal with the few subjects or questions actually pending. The following matters are dealt with in them, and call for the counsel of the cardinals: the creation, i. e. nomination proper, of new cardinals; the publication of names reserved in petto; the giving of the cardinalitial insignia with exception of the red hat; the opening and closing of the mouth; the institution of patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops, and the nomination of such titular bishops as do not belong to the missionary territories; the transfer of bishops; the granting of the pallium to archbishops; the creation, division, and union of dioceses; the institution of abbots whose abbeys are in the gift of the Holy See; the nomination of the camerlengo and the vice-chancellor of the Roman Church; the choice and mission of cardinals as legati a latere; the conclusion of concordats, consultation on differences and conflicts between Church and State. Generally, however, the consistory is called only to inform the cardinals by a so-called allocution of the status of important ecclesiastico-political matters, or to make known the opinion of the pope. These allocutions are meant for the entire Church, and are therefore published in ecclesiastical organs.

After the death of the pope (sede vacante) the duties of the College of Cardinals differ from those exercised by them during his lifetime (sede plenâ). In the earliest times the government of the Roman Church was taken over by the presbyterium or presbyteral clergy, as we know from a letter of that body addressed to St. Cyprian of Carthage after the death of Pope Fabian in 250 (Cypriani, Opp. omnia, ed. G. Hartel, Vienna, 1868, 486; A. Harnack, “Die Briefe des römischen Klerus aus der Zeit der Sedisvacanz im Jahr 250” in “Theolog. Abhandlungen Karl von Weizsäcker gewidmet,” Tübingen, 1892, I sqq.). From the sixth century on it was the archipresbyter (archpriest), the archidiaconus (archdeacon), and the primicerius notariorum (chief notary) who represented the Apostolic See, locum servantes Apostolicæ Sedis (Liber Diurnus, ed. Th. Sickel, Vienna, 1889, Formula LIX). After the full development of the authority of the College of Cardinals, as above described, the latter took charge and exercised its power in very many ways; some canonists went so far as to maintain that during the vacancy of the Apostolic See the College of Cardinals possessed the fullness of the papal prerogative. Their authority was exercised chiefly in two ways, in the administration of the States of the Church and in the election of the new pope. (It is to be noted that Art. 6 of the Italian Law of Guarantees, 13 May, 1871, provides for complete liberty of the cardinals in papal elections.) The Bull “Ubi Periculum” of Gregory X, concerning papal elections, issued at the Council of Lyons (1274), confined the cardinals to the exercise of the above-mentioned power. Among other things it says: “Iidem quoque cardinales accelerandæ provisioni sic vacent attentius, quod se nequâquam de alio negotio intromittant, nisi forsan necessitas adeo urgens incideret, quod eos oporteret de terrâ ipsius ecclesiæ defendendâ vel eius parte aliqua providere, vel nisi aliquod tam grande et tam evidens periculum immuneret quod omnibus et singulis cardinalibus præsentibus videretur illi celeriter occurrendum” (C. 3, § 1, in VIto de electione, I, 6). In other words, the pope commands the cardinals to make all due haste with the election and to concern themselves with nothing else, except in case of necessity, e. g. the defence of the States of the Church or any part of them, or some danger so great and evident that each and every one of the cardinals present thinks it necessary to deal with it immediately.

The law prevailing at present is based on the Constitution “In eligendis” of Pius IV (9 October, 1562) §§ 6–8 (Bullarium Rom., VII, 233 sqq.). This constitution provides that according to ancient custom (evidently closely related to the above-described interimistic administration by the archpriest, the archdeacon, and the chief of the notaries) the administration of the States of the Church shall be confided to the College of Cardinals after the following manner: the cardinal camerlengo (della Santa Romana Chiesa) and three other cardinals (a cardinal-bishop, cardinal-priest, and cardinal-deacon, the so-called capita ordinum) shall manage all current business. Every three days, however, during the conclave, the capita ordinum are renewed according to seniority. These cardinals do not possess papal jurisdiction; they cannot therefore make laws, nor modify the system of papal elections, create cardinals or bishops, nor issue commissions to cardinal legates. They could, however, in case of a grave danger menacing the Church, provide by an absolute majority and secret vote for the necessary ways and means to meet the situation, issue urgent temporary ordinances for particular dioceses, and order the public recitation of prayers. In case of the death of the cardinal camerlengo, the cardinal grand penitentiary, and individual penitentiaries, this cardinalitial commission could fill their places for the period of the vacancy (C. 2, § 1 in “Clem. de Electione,” I, 6; Clement XII, “Apostolatus Officium,” 4 Oct., 1732, §§ 6, 15, 18, in “Bullar. Roman.,” XXIII, 445 sqq.). No canonical provisions exist regulating the authority of the College of Cardinals sede Romanâ impeditâ, i. e. in case the pope became insane, or personally a heretic; in such cases it would be necessary to consult the dictates of right reason and the teachings of history.

IX. RIGHTS OF CARDINALS

To the many duties of the cardinals correspond very extensive rights. They enjoy, in a very special manner, the privilegium fori, or right to ecclesiastical court and judges; the pope is their only judge, and alone can depose them (C. 2, X, de clerico non residente, III, 4). The provision that for the condemnation of an ecclesiastic seventy-two, forty-four, or twenty-seven witnesses were needed, according as he was bishop, priest, or deacon, is no longer recognized (C. un. in VIto de schismaticis, V, 3; Paul IV, “Cum sepius,” 9 Jan., 1556 in “Bullar. Rom.,” VI, 507 sq.). Modern states no longer recognize the privilegium fori even for cardinals; in recent times they have often appeared before the civil courts at Rome (S. Brandi, I Cardinali di S. R. Chiesa nel diritto pubblico italiano, Rome, 1905). Inimical persecution of a cardinal, personal injury to, or imprisonment of, him, are counted high treason (crimen læsæ majestatis); not only the principals, but also those intellectually responsible for the wrong (originators, participants, auxiliaries), and their male descendants incur the canonical penalties of infamy, confiscation, loss of testamentary rights and civil offices, and excommunication. (C. 5, in VIto de pœnis, V. 9; “Apostolicæ Sedis moderationi,” 12 Oct., 1869, I, 5). Apart from excommunication these penalties are no longer practically applicable. In accordance with the historical development of the office, the cardinals obtained place and vote in general councils. They alone can be sent abroad as legati a latere. They enjoy all the privileges of bishops. Any censure, canonical, or otherwise threatened, or any odious provision is applicable to cardinals only when it is expressly so provided (C. 4, in VIto de sententiâ excommunicationis, V, 11). They may choose a confesssor in any diocese; he must, however, have the approbation of his own bishop (C. 16, X de pœnitentiâ V, 38). Like the bishops, they have the right to a domestic chapel, and may everywhere use portable altars (C. 12 in VIto de privilegiis, V, 7). In their titular churches the cardinals exercise a certain quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, i. e. they may there use the episcopal ornaments (pontificalia), give the episcopal blessing, and promulgate indulgences of 200 days (Congreg. Indulg., 28 Aug., 1903). They may confer tonsure and minor orders on the members of their ecclesiastical family, also on persons attached to their titular churches (Benedict XIV, “Ad audientiam,” 15 Feb., 1753, § 16, in “Bullar. Bened.,” XIV, IV, Const. 11). When actually present in Rome, they may grant benefices in their titular churches (C. 24, X de electione, I, 6; C. 11, X de Metrop. et Ord., I, 33). They may also hold visitations in their own churches, and exercise therein corrective and disciplinary authority; they may not, however, exercise judicial authority (C. 11, X de Metrop. et Ord., I, 33; Innocent XII, “Romanus Pontifex,” 17 Sept., 1692, § 9, in “Bullar. Rom.,” XX, 464; F. Albitius, “De iurisdictione quam habent cardinales in ecclesiis suorum titulorum,” Rome, 1668). If a cardinal is promoted to a bishopric, the usual informational process is omitted; he is not obliged to take the usual oath, and is relieved of the ordinary curial expense known as taxæ (Sägmüller, Die Tätigkeit und Stellung der Kardinäle, 153 sqq.). Every cardinal resident in Rome has a right to a revenue of 4,000 scudi (about $4,000). This is known as his piatto cardinalicio, or ordinary means of support. If the ordinary revenues assigned him do not produce as much, the papal treasury makes up the deficit. For their support churches are also assigned to them, e. g. as commendatory abbots. Their right to elect the pope will be treated in the article .

The honorary rights of the cardinals are also numerous. They come immediately after the pope, and precede all other ecclesiastical dignitaries. As Roman princes they follow immediately the reigning sovereign, and rank with the prince of reigning houses (“Cæremoniale cardinalium,” 14 May, 1706, § 6; Decree of 16 April, 1858; Bangen, “Die römische Curie,” 462). Hence, only cardinals of reigning houses retain their inherited titles of nobility and their family arms, but without the crown and with the cardinal’s hat and the fifteen tassels (Innocent X, “Militantis ecclesiæ,” 19 Dec., 1644, in “Bullar. Rom.,” XV, 339 sq.). They alone have the right to the name of cardinal and are addressed as Eminentia, Eminentissimi (Your Eminence or Your Eminences), a title formerly borne by the German ecclesiastical prince-electors and, to the present day, by the Grand Master of the Knights of St. John. Urban VIII instructed them (10 June, 1630) to cease correspondence with any sovereign who refused them this title. It may be added that the legislation of several states takes cognizance of the exalted rank of the cardinals.

Chief amon the insignia of the cardinal is the red hat, first worn by the legati a latere (cardinal envoys of the pope). It was granted to the secular cardinals by Innocent IV at the Synod of Lyons in 1245, and to the religious cardinals by Gregory XIV in 1591; the latter, it must be noted, continue to wear the distinctive habit of their order (Barmgarten, “Die Uebersendung des rothen Hutes” in “Hist. Jahrbuch,” XXVI, 99 sqq.). They also wear the red (scarlet) biretta, that was granted to them, probably, by Paul II (1464–71). They also have the right to wear scarlet, particularly a scarlet mantle, which according to tradition was probably granted them by Boniface VIII (1294–1303). They also wear a ring with a sapphire stone, and use the ombrellino that is held over them whenever they quit their carriages to accompany with bare heads the Blessed Sacrament, if perchance they meet It on their way. In their titular churches a baldacchino covers the cardinalitial throne, and they have the right to use in these churches the episcopal ornaments, i. e. the mitre of damask silk (since Paul II), the crosier and the pectoral cross. They also give the benedictio sollemnis after the manner of a bishop. Pius X, by a decree of 24 May, 1905, permitted cardinal-priests and cardinal-deacons to wear everywhere the pectoral cross, even in presence of the pope (“Acta S. Sedis,” XXXVII, 681; Sägmüller, “Die Tätigkeit und Stellung der Kardinäle,” 149 sqq.). During the vacancy of the Apostolic See the colour of the cardinal’s dress is saffron (J. M. Suaresius, Dissert. de croceâ cardinalium veste, Rome, 1670).

X. THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS

The cardinals, as already said, are a corporation, a college after the manner of the cathedral chapters. When the latter ceased to lead any longer the vita canonica or common life, they became corporations recognized by the canon law, with free administration of their property, chapter-meetings, autonomy, disciplinary authority, and the right to have and use a seal. That the members of the chapter (capitulars, canons) were the only counsellors and auxiliaries of the bishop helped to round out the position of the former, and to unite them as against the other clergy of the cathedral, all the more so as this right of the capitulars to co-government of the diocese (partly by counsel, concilium, and partly by consent, consensus) was constitutional and recognized by the canon law. The cathedral chapters reached their fullest development as corporations early in the thirteenth century, when they obtained the exclusive rights of episcopal elections. In a similar way the cardinal-bishops, cardinal-priests, and cardinal-deacons came to form a corporation, by the fact that since Alexander III (1159–1181) they alone had the right to elect the pope, they alone were his immediate assistants at Mass, and were his only counsellors in all important matters. Since 1150 the corporation of the cardinals becomes more and more known as a collegium, though such sysonymous terms as universitas, conventus, cœtus, capitulum are occasionally used. The dean or head of the College of Cardinals is the Bishop of Ostia; the sub-dean is the Bishop of Porto. The dean is the successor of the former archpriest, the first of the cardinal-priests, known since the twelfth century as prior cardinalium presbyterarum; he is also to some extent the successor of the archdeacon, known since the thirteenth century as prior diaconarum cardinalium. The archpriest was the immediate assistant of the pope at ecclesiastical functions. The archdeacon, as supervisor of the discipline of the Roman clergy and administrator of the possessions of the Roman Church, was, after the pope, the most important person in the papal court. During a vacancy, as above stated, both archpriest and archdeacon, together with the chief notary (primicerius notariorum), governed the Apostolic See. When later on the cardinals became a corporation that included bishops among its members, one of these bishops must naturally assume the headship; it could be no other than the Bishop of Ostia, whose immemorial right it was to bear the pallium at the consecration of the newly-elected pope, in case the latter were not yet a bishop, and to whom fell later the privilege of anointing the Roman Emperor, and of taking in general councils the first place after the pope. As president of the college it is the duty of the dean to convoke the same, to conduct its deliberations, and to represent it abroad.

As a legal corporation the cardinals have their own revenues, which are administered by a camerlengo ( camerarius) chosen from their own body (not to be confounded with the cardinal camerlengo, administrator of the papal estate), and to some extent the successor of the former archdeacon or prior diaconorum cardinalium. In the Middle Ages the revenues of the College of cardinals were considerable. They were jointly entitled, among other dues, to a share of the moneys paid into the papal treasury on such occasions as the conferring of the pallium, confirmation of bishops, also by nations and fiefs that acknowledged the sovereignty or protection of the Holy See. Therefore, since the thirteenth century, the cardinals have had their own treasury (F. Schneider, “Zur älteren päpstlichen Finanzgeschichte” in “Quellen und Forschungen aus italien. Archiv und Bibl.,” IX, 1 sqq.). Nicholas IV allotted to the College of Cardinals (18 July, 1289) one half the revenues of the Apostolic See, i.e. of the pallium taxes, the dues for confirmation of bishops (servilit communio), the “census” or tribute from the countries subject to the pope, the Peter’s-pence, the visitation dues (paid in on the occasion of their visits to Rome, visitatio liminum apostolorum, by all archbishops, by bishops immediately subject to the Holy See or confirmed and consecrated by the pope, and by abbots freed from episcopal jurisdiction and immediately subject to the Holy See), besides other sources of revenues (J. P. Kirsch, “Die Finanzverwaltung des Kardinalkollegiums im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert,” Münster, 1895); Baumgarten, “Untersuchungen und Urkunden über die Camera collegii cardinalium für die Zeit von 1295–1437,” Leipzig, 1889; A. Gottlob, Die Servitientaxe im 13. Jahrhundert,” Stuttgart, 1905; E. Göller, “Der Liber taxarum der päpstlichen Kammer,” Rome, 1905). The common revenue of the College of Cardinals is now inconsiderable; hence the rotulus cardinalicius, or dividend paid yearly to the cardinals resident in Rome, is comparatively small.

Precedence or rank among the cardinals is regulated according to the three orders above described, and in each order according to seniority. In the order of bishops, however, seniority is not according to date of reception in the cardinalitial body, but according to the date of episcopal consecration (Clement XII, “Pastorale officium,” § 5, 10 Jan., 1731, in “Bullar. Roman.,” XXIII, 226). According to an ancient custom dating from the thirteenth century, cardinals resident in Rome enjoy what is known as jus optionis or the right of option (Sägmüller, “Die Tätigkeit und Stellung der Kardinäle,” 179 sqq.; Baumgarten, “Die Translation der Kardinale von Innocenz III bis Martin V,” in “Hist. Jahrbuch,” XXII, 85 sqq.). This means that when a cardinalitial office is vacant, the cardinal next in rank of seniority can choose (optare) the vacant office. Thus the oldest of the cardinal-bishops can choose the office of Dean of the College; he becomes at the same time Bishop of Ostia, since according to ancient custom the Dean of the Sacred College is always the Bishop of Ostia. However, in the interest of their dioceses, and apart from the bishoprics of Ostia and Porto, the cardinal-bishops are allowed to make such option but once. The jus optionis is also customary for the other two orders, both within each order, and from one to the other, given the necessary qualifications for such elevation. A cardinal-deacon, already ten years in the Sacred College, holds the jus optionis ahead of a cardinal-priest of later creation, provided, however, that there remain in the college ten cardinal-deacons (Paul IV, “Cum venerabiles,” 22 Aug., 1555, in “Bullar. Rom.,” VI, 502 sqq.; Sixtus V, “Postquam verus,” § 7, 8, 3 Dec., 1587, ibid., VIII, 810 sqq.; Benedict XIII, “Romani Pontifices,” § 5, 7, 7 Sept., 1724, ibid., XXII, 94 sq.; Clement XII, “Pastorale Officium,” § 8, 10 Jan., 1731, ibid., XII, 226; L. Brancatius, “Dissertatio de optione sex episcopatuum,” Rome, 1692). (See;; .)

PANVINIUS, De episcopatibus, titulis et diaconiis cardinalium (Venice, 1567); BARBATIA, De præstantiâ cardinalium; MANFRIDUS, De cardinalibus S. R. E.: De sacrosancto collegio; ALBANUS, De cardinalatu; VILLADIEGO, De origine ac dignitate et potestate S. R. E. cardinalium. These treatises are to be found in Tractatus iuris universi (Venice, 1587), XIII, 2, 63 sqq. See also BOTERO, Dell’ ufficio del cardinale (Rome, 1599); PLATUS, De cardinalis dignitate et officio tractatus (Rome, 1602); CONTELORIUS, Elenchus cardinalium ab anno 1294 ad annum 1430 (Rome, 1641); AUBÉRY, Histoire générale des cardinaux (Paris, 1642 sqq.); COHELLIUS, Notitia cardinalatus (Paris, 1653); PARIS GRASSI, De cæremoniis cardinalium et episcoporum in eorum diœcesibus (Rome, 1654); DUCHESNE, Hist. de tous les cardinaux français de naissance (Paris, 1660). For Irish cardinals, see Saturday Review (1882), LIII, 323; and for English cardinals, WILLIAMS, Lives of the English Cardinals, etc., from Adrian IV to Wolsey (London, 1868); also Dubl. Rev. (1874), LXXVI, 258, and BAXTER, England’s Cardinals (London, 1903); see also D’ATTICHY, Flores historiæ sacri collegi S. R. E. cardinalium (Paris, 1690); DU PEYRAT, Traité de l’origine des cardinaux (Cologne, 1665); LETI, Il cardinatismo di Santa Chiesa (s.1, 1668); Der Kardinalhut oder Bericht von den Kardinälen wie auch von dem Conclave (s.1, 1667); MATHIAS A CORONA, Tractatus posthumus di potestate et dignitate S. R. E. cardinalium, nuntiorum, legatorum Apostolicorum et inquisitiorum fidei (Liège, 1677); CIACONIUS, Historia Pontificum romanorum et S. R. E. cardinalium, ed. OLDUINUS (Rome, 1677); DE LUCA, Il Cardinale di S. Chiesa pratico (Rome, 1680); THOMASSINUS, Vetus et nova ecclesiæ disciplina circa beneficia (Paris, 1688), pt. I, lib. II, cc. cxiii-cxvi; BUDDEUS, De origine cardinaliciæ dignitatis (Jena, 1693); PALATIUS, Fasti cardinalium omnium S. R. E. (Venice, 1701); PIAZZA, La gerarchia cardinalizia (‘Rome, 1793); EGGS, Purpura docta seu vitæ, legationes, res gesta, obitus, S. R. E. cardinalium (Munich, 1714); MURATORI, De cardinalium institutione in Antiquitates Italicæ (Milan, 1741), V, 153 sqq.; ANDREUCCI, Dissertatio de dignitate, officio et privilegiis cardinalium (Rome, 1766); KLEINER, Dissertatio de origine et antiquitate S. R. E. cardinalium (Heidelberg, 1767); TAMAGNA, Origini e prerogative dei cardinali (Rome, 1790); CARDELLA, Memorie storiche de’ cardinali della S. R. Chiesa (Rome, 1792 sqq.); VALIERI, Della dignità dei cardinalato (Venice, 1833); FERRARIS, Prompta bibliotheca canonica, s. v. Cardinalis: Dignité des cardinaux; in Analecta juris pontifici, II, 1918 sqq.; CRISTOFORI, Storia dei cardinali di S. R. Chiesa dal secolo V all’anno 1888 (Rome, 1888); SETON, The Cardinalate in The Catholic World (1875), XXI, 359, 473; HUMPHREY, Urbis et Orbis (London, 1899); CROSTAROSA, Dei titoli della chiesa Romana (Rome, 1893); KEHR, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum: Italia Pontificia (Berlin, 1906), I; also CHEVALIER, Rép. des sources hist.: topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894–99), s. v.

JOHANNES BAPTIST SÄGMÜLLER

Cardinal Protector

Since the thirteenth century it has been customary at Rome to confide to some particular cardinal a special solicitude in the Roman Curia for the interests of a given religious order or institute, confraternity, church, college, city, nation, etc. He was its representative or orator when it sought a favour or a privilege, defended it when unjustly accused, and besought the aid of the Holy See when its rights, property, or interests were violated or imperilled. Such a cardinal came to be known as a cardinal protector. In ancient Rome a similar relationship existed between the client (cliens) and his patron (patronus); as the power of the city grew, a still closer analogy is visible between the Roman institution and the modern ecclesiastical protectorate. Nearly every provincial city had its patronus, or procurator, in imperial Rome, usually a Roman patrician or knight, and such persons were held in high esteem. Cicero, e.g., was patronus of Dyrrachium (Durazzo) and of Capua, in which city a gilded statue was raised to him. In time the office became hereditary in certain families; Suetonius, in his life of Tiberius, says that the Claudian family (gens Claudia) was from ancient times (antiquitus) protector of Sicily and the Peloponnesus. The Roman Church adopted this, with many other imperial institutions, as one serviceable for external administration, not that the popes who first conferred this office and title sought to copy an ancient Roman usage, but because analogous conditions and circumstances created a similar situation. The office is conferred by the pope through the secretary of state, sometimes by spontaneous designation of the Holy Father, sometimes at the request of those who seek such protection. Such a cardinal protector had the right to place his coat-of-arms on the church, or main edifice, of the institute, or the municipal palace of the city in question. The first to hold such an office was Cardinal Ugolino Conti (Gregory IX), who sought thereby to paralyze the intrigues of his many enemies at Rome; at the request of St. Francis himself he was named protector of the Franciscans by Innocent III, and again by Honorius III. Alexander IV and Nicholas III retained for themselves the office of protector of the Franciscans. Indeed, the latter were long the only order that boasted of a cardinal protector; it was only in the fourteenth century that gradually the office was extended. As early as 1370 Gregory XI was obliged to restrain the abuses committed by the cardinal protector of the Franciscans; Martin V (1417–31) forbade the acceptance by the protector of a religious order of any payment for his protection. While Sixtus IV and Julius II defined more particularly the limits of the office, Innocent XII (1691–1700) must be credited with the final regulation of the duties and rights of a cardinal protector.

Kingdoms, empires, etc. must have had cardinal protectors previous to Urban VI (1378–89), since that pope forbade such cardinals to receive anything from the respective sovereigns of these states, lest through love of money they should be led to abet works of injustice. In 1424 Martin V forbade the cardinals to accept the protectorate of kings and princes, which prohibition was renewed in 1492 by Alexander VI. This prohibition was not renewed by Leo X in the ninth session of the Lateran Council of 1512; the cardinals, however, were urged to exercise the office in an impartial way and without human respect. At present the only state with a cardinal protector is the Kingdom of Portugal.

Hieronymi Plati, Tractatus de cardinalis dignitate et officio (Rome, 1836), xxxiii; Humphrey, Urbis et Orbis (London, 1896).

U. BENIGNI.

Cardinal Vicar

The vicar-general of the pope, as Bishop of Rome, for the spiritual administration of the city, and its surrounding district, properly known as Vicarius Urbis.

LIST OF VICARII

A complete but uncritical list of the vicarii in spiritualibus in urbe generales, was published by Ponzetti (Rome, 1797); it was added to and improved by Moroni (Dizionario, XCIX). From the manuscripts of Cancellieri in the Vatican Library new names were added by Crostarosa (Dei titoli della Chiesa romana, Rome, 1893). Eubel, by his own studies for the first volume of his “Hierarchia Catholica Medii Ævi,” and with the aid of the manuscript notes of Garampi in the Vatican Archives, was enabled to present a new list substantially enlarged and improved (1200–1552). Many new discoveries of the undersigned have enabled him to draw up a critical list of the vicars and their representatives from 1100 to 1600. For the period before 1100 a fresh examination of all the original sources is necessary; for the present all names previous to that date must be held as uncertain. The first vicarius in spiritualibus clearly vouched for is Bovo (Bobo) episcopus Tusculanus (Lavicanus) about 1106 (Duchesne, Lib. Pont., II, 299 and 307, note 20; cf. also Jaffé, RR. PP. 12, 6069, 6106). Until 1260 the vicars were chosen from among the cardinals; the first vicar taken from among the bishops in the vicinity of Rome was the Dominican Thomas Fusconi de Berta, episcopus Senensis (Moroni, Eubel). This custom continued until the secret consistory of 29 Nov., 1558, when Paul IV decreed that in the future the vicars should be chosen from among the cardinals of episcopal dignity; it was then that arose the popular title of “cardinal-vicar,” never used officially; the formal title is, and has always been, Vicarius Urbis.

NOMINATION AND OATH

It seems certain that in the twelfth century vicars were named only when the pope absented himself for a long time from Rome or its neighbourhood. When he returned, the vicar’s duties ceased. This may have lasted to the pontificate of Innocent IV (1243–54); on the other hand it is certain that in the latter half of this century the vicar continued to exercise the duties of his office even during the presence of the pope at Rome. Thus the nomination of a vicar on 28 April, 1299, is dated from the Lateran. The office owes its full development to the removal of the Curia to Southern France and its final settlement at Avignon. Since then the list of vicars is continuous. The oldest commissions do not specify any period of duration; in the Bull of 16 June, 1307, it is said for the first time that the office is held “at our good will.” It is only in the sixteenth century that we meet with life-tenures; the exact year of this important modification remains yet to be fixed. Formerly the nomination was by Bull; when began the custom of nominating by Brief is difficult to determine. The oldest Bull of nomination know bears the date of 13 Feb., 1264 [Reg. Vat., tom. 28, fol. XC r, cap. XXXVIII (356); Guiraud, Les régistres d’Urbain IV, II, 359]. An immemorial custom of the Curia demands that all its officials shall be duly sworn in, and this was the case with the vicars. In all probability during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries such oaths were taken at the hands of the pope himself. Later the duty fell to the Apostolic Camera. The oath, whose text (though very much older) first appears in a document of 21 May, 1427 (Armar., 29, tom. 3, fol. 194 v, Vatican Archives), greatly resembles, in its first part, the usual episcopal oath (Corp. Jur. Can., ed. Friedbe, II, 360; Tangl, Die päpstlichen Kanzleiordnungen von 1200–1500, p. 51); while the latter part applies to the office in question. The oath is conceived in very general terms and lays but slight stress on the special duties of the vicar. The official named on 18 Oct., 1412, as representative of the vicar was also sworn in, and before entering on his office was admonished to take, in presence of a specified cardinal, the usual oath of fidelity to the pope and of a faithful exercise of the office.

AUTHORITY

According to the oldest known decree of nomination, 13 Feb., 1264, both Romans and foreigners were subject to the jurisdiction of the vicar. In this document, however, neither the special rights of the vicar nor the local extent of his authority are made known, but it is understood that the territory in question is the city of Rome. On 27 June, 1288, the vicar received the rights of “visitation, correction and reformation in spiritual matters. . . . . of dedicating churches and reconciling cemeteries, consecrating altars, blessing, confirming, and ordaining suitable persons from the city” [Reg. Vat., tom. 44, fol. XCIIv, cap. XXVIIII (389); Langlois, Les régistres de Nicolas V, 595]. On 21 July, 1296 [Reg. Vat., tom. 48, fol. CLXXVIIr, cap. 85 (750); Theiner, Monumenta Slavoniæ Meridionalis, I, 112; Potthast, Regesta, 24367; Faucon-Thomas, Les régistres de Boniface VIII, 1640)] Boniface VIII added the authority to hear confessions and impose salutary penances. On 6 July, 1202 [Reg. Vat., tom. 50, fol. CCCLXXXVIr, cap. XLVII (250)] the following variant is met with: “to reform the churches, clergy, and people of Rome itself,” and the additional right to do other things pertaining to the office of vicar. His jurisdiction over all monasteries is first vouched for 16 June, 1207 (Reg. Clementis papæ V, ed. Bened. cap. 1645). The inclusion among these of monasteries, exempt and non-exempt and their inmates, without the walls of Rome, was the first step in the local extension of the vicar’s jurisdiction. He was also empowered to confer vacant benefices in the city. For a considerable length of time the above-mentioned rights exhibit the fulness of the vicar’s authority. Special commissions, however, multiply in this period, bearing with them in each case a special extension or new application of authority. Under Clement VI (1342–52) the territory of the vicar-general’s jurisdiction was notably increased by the inclusion of the suburbs and the rural district about Rome (Reg. Vat., tom. 142, fol. 152r, cap. VII, XXXI). Until the time of Benedict XIV (1740–58) this was the extent of the vicar’s jurisdiction. By the “district of the city of Rome” was understood a distance of forty Italian miles from the city walls. Since, however, the territory of the suburbicarian sees lay partially within these limits, the vicar came to exercise a jurisdiction concurrent with that of the local bishop and cumulatively. This was a source of frequent conflicts, until 21 Dec., 1744, when the local jurisdiction of the suburbicarian bishops was abolished by Benedict XIV, in so far as their territory fell within the above-mentioned limits (Bangen, Die römische Curie, Münster, 1854, 287).

In the course of time the vicar acquired not only the position and authority of a vicar-general, but also that of a real ordinary, including all the authority of the latter office. This is quite evident from his acquired right of subdelegation whereby he was allowed to name a vicegerens, his representative not alone in pontifical ceremonies (as many maintain), but also in jurisdiction. For the rest, being already delegatus a principe he can canonically subdelegate (Bangen, op. cit., 288, note 2). By a Constitution of Clement VIII, 8 June, 1592, the vicar’s right to hold a visitation ordinary and extraordinary of churches, monasteries, clergy, and the people (dating from 16 June, 1307) was withdrawn in favour of the Congregatio Visitationis Apostolicæ, newly founded, for the current affairs of the ordinary visitation. Henceforth this duty pertains to the vicarius urbis only in so far as he may be named president or member of this congregation, the prefect of which is the pope himself. The great “extraordinary” visitations, held generally at the beginning of each pontificate, are executed by a specially-appointed commission of cardinals and prelates, the presidency of which falls by custom to the vicar. The Congregation of the Visitation is quite independent of the vicar, being constituted by Apostolic authority. The authority of the vicar does not cease with the pope who appointed him. But should he die during a vacancy of the Holy See, his successor cannot be appointed by the College of Cardinals; all current affairs are transacted by the vicegerens who thus becomes a quasi vicar-capitular. Theoretically at least, the vicar may hold diocesan synods; he could also formerly grant a number of choir-benefices. Leo XIII reserved this right in perpetuity to the pope.

THE VICEREGENS

The first episcopal assistant of the vicar known is Angelus de Tineosis, Episcopus Viterbiensis, named 2 Oct., 1321, as assistant to the Vicar Andreas, Episcopus Terracinensis. His position is not so well outlined in the documents that we can form a clear idea of his duties. It is significant that Angelus officiated as assistant even when the Vicar Andreas was in the city. On the other hand, the Vicar Franciscus Scaccani, Episcopus Nolanus, was allowed to choose an assistant for the business of the vicariate only in the case of his own absence from Rome (Reg. Lateranense, tom. 68, fol. 83v, 19 Aug., 1399). According to this document it was not for the pope but the vicar himself, though authorized thereto by the pope, who chose his own assistant and gave over to him all his authority or faculties, in so far as they were based on law or custom. This shows that the vicarius urbis was firmly established in the fulness of his office and externally recognized as such; certain consuetudinary rights had even at this date grown up and become accepted. We see from the Bullarium Magnum (II, 75) that on 18 Oct., 1412, John XXII nominated Petrus Saccus, a canon of St. Peter’s, as locum tenens of the Vicar Franciscus, abbas monasterii S. Martini in Monte Cimino O. S. B., and himself conferred on this official all the faculties of the vicar. The new locum tenens was bidden to take the usual oath before the Apostolic Camera (see above). A similar case is that (1430) of Lucas de Ilpernis, another canon of St. Peter’s. When Petrus Accolti, Bishop-elect of Ancona, was named vicarius urbis (1505) he took over the jurisdiction, but the pontificalia or ceremonial rights were given to Franciscus Berthleay, Bishop of Mylopotamos, until the consecration of Accolti. A similar case is that of Andreas Jacobazzi, a canon of St. Peter’s, named vicar in 1519, but not consecrated as Bishop of Lucera until 1520; the pontificalia were committed to Vincentius, Bishop of Ottochaz-Zengg.

The series of assistants to the vicar, now known as vices-gerentes, begins with 1560. Until the time of Clement XI (1700) they were named by the vicar; since then the pope has appointed them by a special Brief. The vicesgerens is therefore not a representative (locum tenens) of the vicar, but a subordinate auxiliary bishop appointed for life, though removable at any time. His authority (faculties) relative to jurisdiction and orders is identical with that of the vicar; for its exercise, however, he depends on the latter, as is expressly stated in the Brief of his nomination. In particular, the vicar has committed to him the administration of the treasury of relics known as the Lisanotheca or relic-treasury of the vicariate, the censorship of books, and the permission to print. The censorship of books was entrusted to the vicar by a Bull of 4 May, 1515 (in the Magnum Bullarium); this right, however, is now exercised by the vices-gerens subject to the Magister sacri palati, to whose imprimatur he adds his own name without further examination of the book in question. The really responsible censor is therefore the Magister sacri palati, not the vicesgerens. Occasionally there have been two assistants of the vicar, to one of whom were committed all matters of jurisdiction, to the other the pontificalia and ordinations; the latter was known as suffragan of the vicar.

PAUL MARIA BAUMGARTEN.

Cardinal Virtues

The four principal virtues upon which the rest of the moral virtues turn or are hinged.

Those who recite the Divine Office find constantly recurring what seems to be the earliest instance of the word cardinal as applied to the virtues. St. Ambrose, while trying to identify the eight Beatitudes recorded by St. Matthew with the four recorded by St. Luke, makes use of the expression: “Hic quattuor velut virtutes amplexus est cardinales.” A little later we find cardinal employed in like manner by St. Augustine (Common of Many Martyrs, third nocturn, second series; also Migne, P. L., XV, 1653; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I-II, Q, lxxix, a. 1, ad 1). That St. Jerome also uses the term is a statement which rests on a treatise not written by him, but published among his works; it is to be found in Migne, P. L., XXX, 596.

The term cardo means a hinge, that on which a thing turns, its principal point; and from this St. Thomas derives the various significations of the virtues as cardinal, whether in the generic sense, inasmuch as they are the common qualities of all other moral virtues, or in the specific sense, inasmuch as each has a distinct formal object determining its nature. Every moral virtue fulfils the conditions of being well judged, subserving the common good, being restrained within measure, and having firmness; and these four conditions also yield four distinct virtues.

THE FOURFOLD SYSTEM

The origin of the fourfold system is traceable to Greek philosophy; other sources are earlier, but the Socratic source is most defininte. Among the reporters of Socrates, Xenophon is vague on the point; Plato in “The Republic” puts together in a system the four virtues adopted later, with modifications by St. Thomas. (In “The Laws,” Bk. I, 631, Plato recurs to his division: “Wisdom is the chief and leader: next follows temperance; and from the union of these two with courage springs justice. These four virtues take precedence in the class of divine goods.”) Wishing to say what justice is, the Socratic Plato looked for it in the city-state, where he discovered four classes of men. Lowest was the producing class-the husbandmen and the craftsmen; they were the providers for the bodily needs, for the carnal appetites, which require the restraint of temperance (sophrosúne). Next came the police or soldier class, whose needful virtue was fortitude (andreía). In this pair of cardinal virtues is exhibited a not very precise portion of Greek psychology, which the Scholastics have perpetuated in the division of appetites as concupiscible and irascible, the latter member having for its characteristic that it must seek its purpose by an arduous endeavour against obstacles. This is a Scholastic modification of tò ‘epithumetikòn and tó thumoeidés, neither of which are rational faculties, while they are both amenable to reason (metà lò); and it is the latter of them especially which is to help the reason, as leading faculty (tò ‘egemonikón), to subdue the concupiscence of the former. This idea of leadership gives us the third cardinal virtue, called by Plato sophía and philosophía, but by Aristotle phrónesis, the practical wisdom which is distinguished from the speculative. The fourth cardinal virtue stands outside the scheme of the other three, which exhaust the psychological trichotomy of man; tò ‘epiphumetikón, tò thumoeidés, tò logikón. The Platonic justice of the “Republic,” at least in this connexion, is the harmony between these three departments, in which each faculty discharges exactly its own proper function without interfering in the functions of the others. Obviously the senses may disturb reason; not so obviously, yet clearly, reason may disturb sense, if man tries to regulate his virtues on the principles proper to an angel without bodily appetites. In this idea of justice, viz., as concordant working of parts within the individual’s own nature, the Platonic notion differs from the Scholastic, which is that justice is strictly not towards self, but towards others. Aristotle, with variations of his own, describes the four virtues which Plato had sketched; but in his “Ethics” he does not put them into one system. They are treated in his general discussion, which does not aim at a complete classification of virtues, and leaves interpreters free to give different enumerations.

The Latins, as represented by Cicero, repeated Plato and Aristotle: “Each man should so conduct himself that fortitude appear in labours and dangers: temperance in foregoing pleasures: prudence in the choice between good and evil: justice in giving every man his own [in suo cuique tribuendo]” (De Fin., V, xxiii, 67; cf. De Offic., I, ii, 5). This is a departure from the idea prominent in Platonic justice, and agrees with the Scholastic definition. It is a clearly admitted fact that in the inspiration of Holy Scripture the ministerial author may use means supplied by human wisdom. The Book of Wisdom is clearly under Hellenic influence: hence one may suppose the repetition of the four Platonic virtues to be connected with their purpose. In Wis., viii, 5, 6, 7, occur sophía or phrónesis, dikaiosúne, sophrosúne, ‘andreía. The same list appears in the apocryphal IV Mach., v, 22, 23, except that for sophía is put e’usébeia. Philo compares them to the four rivers of Eden.

DOCTRINE OF ST. THOMAS

St. Thomas (Summa Theol., I-II, Q. lxi, aa. 2 and 4) derives the cardinal virtues both from their formal objects or the perceived kinds of rational good which they generally seek, and from the subjects, or faculties, in which they reside and which they perfect. The latter consideration is the more easily intelligible. In the intellect is prudence; in the will is justice; in the sensitive appetites are temperance restraining pleasure, and fortitude urging on impulses of resistance to fear which would deter a person from strenuous action under difficulties; also checking the excesses of foolhardy audacity, as seen in some who gratuitously courted martylrdom in times of persecution. On the side of the formal object, which in all cases is rational good, we have the four specific variations. The rational good as an object for the action of intellect demands the virtue of prudence; inasmuch as the dictate of prudence is communicated to the will for exertion in relation to other persons, there arises the demand for justice, giving to every man his due. So far the actions are conceived; next come the passions: the concupiscible and the irascible. The order of objective reason as imposed on the appetite for pleasures demands the virtue of temperance; as imposed on the appetite whch is repelled by fear-inspiring tasks, it demands fortitude. St. Thomas found four cardinal virtues in common recognition and he tried to give a systematic account of the group as far as it admitted of logical systematization. In so doing he naturally looked to the faculties employed and to the objects about which they were employed. He found it convenient to regard the action of reason, prudence, and the two passions of the sensitive appetite, lust and fear, as internal to the agent; while he regarded the action of the will as concerned with right order in regard to conduct towards others. As one exponent puts it: “Debitum semper est erga alterum: sed actus rationis et passiones interiores sunt: et ideo prudentia quæ perficit rationem, sicut fortitudo et temperantia quæ regulant passiones, dicuntur virtutes ad nos.” Thus with three virtues ad intra and one ad extra were established four cardinal virtues, contray to Plato’s scheme, in which all were directly ad intra, referring to the inner harmony of man.

If it be urged against the cardinal virtues being moral, that all moral virtues are in the rational will and only justice among the four cardinal is so seated, St. Thomas replies that prudence is practical, not speculative; and so it has regard to the will, while the two passions, the concupiscible and the irascible, receiving in their own department, at the dictate of reason, the improving qualifications or habits which are the effects of repeated acts, are thereby rendered more docile to the will, obeying it with greater promptness, ease, and constancy. Thus each cardinal virtue has some seat in the will, direct or indirect. At times Aristotle seems to imply what the Pelagians taught later, that the passions may be trained so as never to offer temptation; as a fact, however, he fully allows elsewhere for the abiding peccability of man. Those whose passions are more ordered may in this regard have more perfect virtue; while from another standpoint their merit is less than that of those who are constant in virtue by heroic resistance to perpetual temptations of great strength.

In the above account of the doctrine propounded by St. Thomas, a number of his nice abstractions are left out: for example, he distinguishes prudence as concerned with means to good ends, which it belongs to another virtue to assign: “ad prudentiam pertinet non præstituere finem virtutibus moralibus, sed de his disponere quæ sunt ad finem.” He relies on synderesis, or synteresis, for primary, universal principles; on wisdom for knowledge of the Divine; on counsel for judging what prudence is to dictate; on what he calls “the potential parts” of the cardinal virtues for filling up the description of them in various departments under cognate names, such as appear in the relation of modesty, meekness, and humility to temperance.

The theological virtues are so thoroughly supernatural that to treat them as they might appear in the order of nature is not profitable: with the cardinal virtues the case is different. What has been said above about them makes no reference to grace: the remarks are confined to what may belong simply to natural ethics. There is a gain in the restriction, for a natural appreciation of them is exceedingly useful, and many characters suffer from a defective knowledge of natural goodnes. St. Thomas introduces the discussion of cardinal virtues also as gifts, but much that he says omits reference to this aspect.

The cardinal virtues unite the intellectual element and the affective. Much has been said recently of heart going beyond intellect in virtue; but the cardinal virtues, while concerned with the appetitive or affective parts, place prudence as the judge over all. Similarly the theological virtues place faith as the foundation of hope and charity. There is thus a completeness about the system which may be asserted without the pretence that essentially these four virtues must be marked off as a quartet among virtues. If the Greeks had not written, perhaps the Church would not have had exactly this fourfold arrangement. Indeed the division of good conduct into separate virtues is not an instance of hard and fast lines. The solidarity of the virtues and their interplay must always be allowed for, while we recognize the utility of specific differentiations. Within limits the cardinal virtues may be said to be a scientifically arranged group, helpful to clearness of aim for a man who is struggling after well-ordered conduct in a disordered world, which is not prudent, just, brave, temperate.

Plato, Republic, Bk. IV, 427–434; Idem, Laws, Bk. I, 631; Idem, Theætetus, 176B; Aristotle, Ethics, VI, 5; V, 1; III, 7 and 10; Peter Lombard, Sent., Pt. III, Dist. xxxiii, with the various commentators on the text; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I-II, Q. lxi; Waffelaert, Tractatus de Virtutibus Cardinalibus (Bruges, 1886).

JOHN RICKABY.

Bartolommeo and Vincenzo Carducci

Both known in Spain as Carducho, Florentine painters, brothers, usually grouped under the Spanish School. Of these two artists Bartolommeo, the elder (b. 1560; d. 1608), after executing a few paintings in Florence, only two of which are worthy of note—those representing the Immaculate Conception and the Nativity in the Jesuit Church—accompanied Zuccaro to the court of Philip II and assisted him in his paintings in the Escorial. Here Bartolommeo worked in conjunction with Tibaldi upon the decoration of the library, the latter doing the ceiling and the former the walls. He took with him, in 1585, his younger brother, who was then at so tender an age that he declares he “had very faint recollections of Italy and spoke Castilian as his mother tongue.” The elder brother worked also as an architect and as a sculptor, and executed a considerable amount of fresco work in the Escorial for Philip II, notably the painting in the Cloister, and commenced to decorate a gallery in the palace of the Pardo, for Philip III, with scenes taken from the life of Charles V. He died, however, before he had made much progress in this work. His most important production is his “Descent from the Cross,” in the church of San Felipe in Madrid.

Vincenzo was appointed court painter by Philip III, in 1609, and completed the work commenced by his brother, adopting the history of Achilles as his subject. He was also court painter to Philip IV. He did not live to finish his last picture, a St. Jerome, which is inscribed “Vincencius Carducho hic vitam non opus finit 1638,” and his death occurred while under confinement, as he lost his reason early in 1638. He painted for the Carthusians at Paular fifty-four large pictures representing the life of St. Bruno; the National Museum of Madrid, too, and the churches and palaces of that city abound in his paintings. He was also the author of an excellent book on painting, “Dialogos de las excelencias de la Pintura,” and was responsible for obtaining in 1633 the remission of a tax on paintings which was a serious burden upon the artists of his day. Four years later he secured the total abolition of the tax. He was also commissioned to decorate the Palace of Buen Retiro, and executed a series of historical frescoes which were practically the first secular pictures seen in Castile.

BUTRÓN, Discursos apolegéticos en que se defiende la ingenuidad del arte de la pintura (Madrid, 1626); CEÁN BERMÚDEZ, Diccionario histórico de los más ilustres profesores de las Bellas Artes en España (Madrid, 1800); BALDINUCCI, Notizie de Profesori del disegno (Florence, 1688); CONCA, Descrizione odeporica della Spagna (Parma, 1793); COSSIO, La pintura española (Madrid, 1886); MADRAZO, Catálogo descriptivo é histórico de los cuadros del Museo del Prado (Madrid, 1872); ORLANDI, Abecedario Pittorico (Naples, 1733); PACHECO, Arte de la pintura (Seville, 1649); SMITH, Painting, Spanish and French (London, 1884); HARTLEY, Spanish Painting (London, 1904); ZARCO DEL VALLE, Documentos méditos para la Historia de las Bellas Artes en España (Madrid, 1870); STIRLING, Annals of the Artists of Spain (London, 1848).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Carem

(Sept., karem; Hebrew, KRM, vine or vineyard)

Name of a town in the Tribe of Juda. The name, at least in this form, occurs but once in the Bible, viz. in Josue, xv, 59, and here only in the Septuagint translation; it is therefore absent, together with some other names mentioned in the same passage, from the Vulgate and from the English versions.

By some scholars Carem has been identified with the Bethacarem or Bethacharam mentioned in Jeremias vi, 1, and II Esdras, iii, 14; but be that as it may, there is a general consensus of critical opinion to the effect that the ancient Carem occupied the site of the modern ‘Ain Karim, a flourishing village situated about four miles west of Jerusalem. In favour of this identification is alleged, besides the substantial identity of the name, the fact that around ‘Ain Karim are found other villages whose modern names correspond with considerable accuracy to the names mentioned with Carem in the Greek text of Josue, xv, 59. It is probable that the remarkable fountain which springs up close to the village on the north took its present name, ‘Ain Karim (Fountain of Karim), from the ancient Carem, which has been replaced by the modern town. The latter is a village of about 1000 inhabitants, more than half of whom are Mohammedans. It is located on a hill beyond the mountains that lie to the west of Jerusalem, and overlooks the beautiful valley of Colonieh, in which olives and fruit-trees flourish in great abundance. Towards the eastern extremity of the village stands the church of the Nativity of John the Baptist, to which are attached a monastery and lodging-place for pilgrims. The present church and monastery were built by the Franciscan friars who have been established in the place since 1690. The older sanctuary which occupied the same site had been abandoned after the Crusades and had fallen to ruin. Five hundred yards south of the church is the fountain of Carem (‘Aim Karim), which is sometimes designated by the Christians as the Fountain of the Virgin. It flows from the side of a high mountain and is covered by a roofed structure with stone arches, which is a place of prayer for the Mussulmans. At a short distance from the fountain is another convent, erected by the Franciscans in 1892 on the ruins of an ancient monastery.

‘Ain Karim has acquired celebrity in the later Christian tradition, not only of the Latin, but also of the Oriental Churches. From the twelfth century onward many writers affirm that it is the “city of Juda” in the “hill country” whither, according to St. Luke (i, 39), the Virgin Mary went to visit her cousin Elizabeth; consequently, the dwelling-place of Zachary, the birthplace of John the Baptist. This identification is noted in certain manuscript copies of the Gospel in Arabic and Coptic, sometimes in the margin, sometimes in the text, a fact which would seem to indicate a standing tradition in the Christian communities of Egypt and Abyssinia, received, doubtless, from their neighbours of Syria and Palestine. There has been, moreover, since the twelfth century, a fairly constant tradition, based chiefly on the relations of pilgrims to the Holy Land, according to which ‘Ain Karim was revered, at least during the Middle Ages, as the birthplace of the Precursor. In most of the descriptions given by travellers the place is called St. John, the home of Zachary, etc., but it is described as located about five miles west of Jerusalem, and this corresponds well with the location of ‘Ain Karim. Besides, the characteristic features of the modern town are recognizable in the various descriptions. A text of the monk Epiphanius (Descriptio Terrae Sanctae, CXX, 264), whom Rohricht (Bibliotheca Geographica Palestinae, Berlin, 1890, p. 16) assigns to the middle of the ninth century, shows that the tradition is at least of earlier origin than the time of the Crusades. This writer calls the birthplace of the Precursor “Carmelion,” a name evidently derived from Carem, and locates it about six miles west of the Holy City, and about eighteen miles from Amoas (Emmaus). Against this nearly unanimous agreement of medieval descriptions there are recorded only two or three dissenting texts, and these being associated with erratic topographical statements concerning other localities have little weight against the existing tradition.

A far stronger objection is deduced from the silence of early writers, notable of St. Jerome, who wrote an ex professo treatise on the Biblical places of the Holy Land; and, as a matter of fact, the tradition concerning ‘Ain Karim has never been recognized as conclusive by the scholars, either ancient or modern, who have written commentaries on the New Testament. Thus (1) the chief commentators of the medieval period, understanding the words of St. Luke in a determined sense, viz. “the city of Juda,” referred them to Jerusalem, the city of Juda par excellence, giving to the word Juda a somewhat wide and indefinite meaning. This opinion was given up by nearly all later scholars. (2) Baronius, Papebroch, Cornelius a Lapide, and after them a great number of others, have for much better reasons identified the city of the “hill country” with Hebron, the most celebrated and important of the cities originally within the confines of Juda; Jerusalem, strictly speaking, belonged to Benjamin. But this opinion also has been abandoned by the majority of modern commentators. (3) Other writers, following a conjecture of Reland (Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata, Utrecht, 1714, p. 870), take the word Iouda in this instance to be a proper name, and identify it with Jota or Jeta, a levitical town of Juda mentioned in the Book of Josue (Jos., xv, 55; xxi, 16). This opinion, though lacking positive historical evidence, has been followed not only by the majority of Protestant commentators, but also by not a few Catholic scholars, for instance the Abbé Constant Fouard in his work “Christ the Son of God” (London, New York, 1891). Nevertheless, some modern Catholic writers, among whom is Victor Guérin, still adhere to the tradition of ‘Ain Karim; but in the absence of positive early documentary evidence the controversy cannot be definitely settled.

JAMES F. DRISCOLL.

Mathew Carey

Author and publisher, b. in Dublin, Ireland, 28 January, 1760; d. in Philadelphia, U.S.A., 15 September, 1839. He was the first Catholic of prominence in the publishing trade in the United States, and brought out in 1790 the first edition of the Douay Bible printed in America. His father was a baker who acquired a small fortune. In early youth Mathew was a dull pupil, but later exhibited remarkable ability in languages and mathematics. When fifteen years of age he disappointed his father by deciding to be a book-seller and printer, and began at once to learn the business as an apprentice. He was an omnivorous reader and acquired a fund of knowledge through persistent application to study. His first article, published in the “Hibernian Journal” in 1777, was on dueling. A duel fought by one of Carey’s friends suggested the article which was a strong argument against this means of settling differences. In 1779 he published a pamphlet on the “Urgent Necessity of an Immediate Repeal of the Whole Penal Code against Roman Catholics.” Before its publication the work was advertised and the preface, which was a radical statement of the situation, was printed. The pamphlet was regarded by Parliament as an evidence of the seditious character of the Irish people. The leaders of the Catholic party in Dublin, who hoped for favourable legislation from Parliament at this time, took up the matter, offered forty pounds for the detection of the author and made arrangements for his prosecution in the event of his capture. Carey escaped to France where he remained a year. While there he met Lafayette and worked for a time in the printing office of Franklin at Paris. After his return to Ireland he conducted the Dublin “Freeman’s Journal.” With funds supplied by his father he founded in 1783 the “Volunteers Journal.” “The object of the paper,” to use his own words “was to defend the commerce, the manufactures, and the political rights of Ireland against the oppression and encroachment of Great Britain.” It was a radical paper suited to the temper of the times, and did much to form public opinion. On 5 April, 1784, an article attacking Parliament and the Premier was published. For this Carey was arrested, tried before Parliament, and sent to Newgate. When Parliament was dissolved he was released. He then accepted the advice of his friends, left Ireland in disguise and emigrated to America, landing in Philadelphia.

Lafayette visited him in Philadelphia and gave him $400 to establish the “Pennsylvania Herald.” He began to publish the debates of the House of Assembly in 1785 from notes he took himself, and as this was an innovation in the newspaper business in America, the paper immediately had a large circulation. There was great political bitterness at this time in Pennsylvania, between the Constitutionals and the Republicans. Carey became one of the leading advocates of the Constitutionals, and Oswald, who published the “Independent Gazetteer,” was the mouthpiece of the Republicans. The foreigners in America were generally on the side of the Constitutionals. Through his paper Oswald attacked them and Carey became their defender. As a result of a personal attack by Oswald, Carey challenged him to a duel. It was fought in New Jersey, and Carey was seriously wounded. It is strange, as Carey admits in his autobiography, that he should have been led to fight a duel after he had denounced duelling in his earliest essay. In partnership with five others he began the “Columbian Magazine” in 1786. The discordant views of the publishers and the small profits accruing to the proprietors led Carey to withdraw from the enterprise within a year. In January, 1787, he began the publication of the “American Museum” which continued until December, 1792. It was dedicated to “Dr. Carroll, Bishop-elect of the Catholic Church” and contained no essays of the editor, but was filled with valuable articles from papers and documents which were deemed of general interest and worthy of preservation. It was not a financial success. After quitting the “Museum” he began on a small scale the business of book-selling and printing, to which he devoted himself closely for over twenty-five years, abandoning it altogether in 1821. In 1793 the yellow fever epidemic broke out in Philadelphia, and he was appointed a member of the Committee of Health to devise means for the relief of the sufferers. He applied himself in a painstaking way to arrest the spread of the disease and published the results of his investigations in a volume on the “Rise, Progress, Effects, and Termination of the Disease” in 1793. Five editions were published. In 1793 Carey called a meeting of prominent Irishmen in Philadelphia, and with them founded the “Hibernian Society for the Relief of Immigrants from Ireland.” In 1796 he was engaged with several others in founding the “Sunday School Society,” the first of its kind established in the United States. Becoming involved in a quarrel with a publisher, William Cobbett, he published a scathing reply in a Hudibrastic poem, “The Porcupiniad,” in 1799.

In 1810 the question of the re-charter of the first United States Bank came up and Carey, although a Democrat, took sides with those who favoured the bank. At first he published a series of articles in “the Democratic Press,” a paper which strongly opposed the bank. Later he went to Washington, took an active part in the discussions there when the question of a re-charter came before Congress, and published two pamphlets favouring the re-charter. In 1814 he published the work for which he is best known, “The Olive Branch.” The second war with Great Britain was still in progress, and the country was divided into rival factions, and the aggressions of the party hostile to American interests endangered the success of the war. The work was written in the interests of harmony and was, as stated in the preface, “An Appeal to the patriotism, the honour, the feeling, the self interest of your readers to save a noble nation from ruin.” It had a large circulation and exercised a good influence, but was not welcomed in New England. In 1820 a second “Olive Branch” was written to harmonize factional interests.

In his boyhood Carey had read everything published in behalf of the Irish cause, and, aroused by Great Britain’s treatment of Ireland, he had resolved to write some day in defence of his native country. In 1818 the famous Godwin wrote “Mandeville,” a novel in which the fictions of the massacre of 1641 were exploited. This occasioned the publication by Carey of “Vindiciae Hibernicae” (1818). In it the general unreasoning attitude of Great Britain toward Ireland was discussed, but special emphasis was placed on Catholic emancipation and the legendary massacre of 1641. The plan pursued throughout the work to vindicate Ireland and the Catholics was the use of testimony taken exclusively from Protestant historians. In doing this some of the best material available was excluded. The alleged plots against the Protestants in the so-called massacre of 1641 were shown to be absurd and the number of persons killed greatly exaggerated. The claims of Temple and Clarendon and the assertions of later and uncritical historians were refuted in detail.

Carey began writing on the Tariff question in 1819. In seeking the cause of the financial depression of 1818 and 1819 he was led to believe that the failure to put a high tariff upon goods manufactured in the United States was responsible for the general disaster. Prior to this he found political economy as presented in Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” abstruse and uninteresting. He now took up this work again with the purpose of answering the Free Trade arguments, and published in 1822 his “Essays on Political Economy.” Subsequently he published and distributed at his own expense numerous pamphlets on the tariff question. His essays had a large circulation and went far towards turning sentiment in the direction of a protectionist policy. In 1820 he founded the “Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of National Industry” which consisted of the leading citizens of Philadelphia. Because the organization was not sufficiently aggressive Carey withdrew from it and it soon ceased to exist. Carey’s tariff arguments will not bear the test of scientific criticism, but it must be remembered that he had no economic training. While the soundness of his conclusions cannot be admitted, the policy advocated had much to commend it when Carey wrote.

He was married in 1791 while he was living in very limited circumstances. Later he acquired a considerable fortune, but retained throughout habits of frugality. He was the father of nine children, one of whom was the distinguished economist, Henry C. Carey. In 1833–34 he published his Autobiography in the “New England Magazine.” A valuable collection of Carey’s letters is in the “records” of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia for 1898, 1899, 1900, 1902, vols. IX, X, XI, XII, and XIII. Carey took a very active though anonymous part in the disastrous schism occasioned in St. Mary’s parish, Philadelphia, by the rebellious priest William Hogan (1819–22). He is credited with writing or inspiring, as well as publishing, many of the pamphlets issued at the time. An extended list of these publications is given in Finotti, “Bibliographia Catholica Americana” (Boston, 1872), 137–172.

ALLIBONE, Dict. of British and American Authors (Philadelphia, 1859–71); Imperial Biog. Dict. (London, s.d.); WEBB, A Compendium of Irish Biography (Dublin, 1878); HUNT, Our American Merchants (Boston, 1864); Live of William Cobbett (Philadephia, 1835); JANSEN, The Stranger in America (London, 1807); Niles’ Register (Baltimore, 1811–47); Hunt’s Merchant’s Magazine (New York, 1839); American Almanac (Boston, 1841).

J.E. HAGERTY

Etienne de Carheil

French missionary among the Indians of Canada, born at Carentoir, France, November 1633; died at Quebec, 27 July, 1726. He entered the Society of Jesus at Paris, 30 August, 1652; studied in Amiens, La Flèche, and Bourges, and acted as instructor in Rouen and Tours. After his ordination in 1666, Carheil left for Canada, and spent two years at Quebec in preparation for mission work. From his entrance into the novitiate he had longed to shed his blood for Christ; the only martyrdom he found in Canada was that of thirty years of hardships and sufferings among the Hurons and the Iroquois. The first scene of his missionary labours was Cayuga where he remained until the chiefs drove him from their canton in 1684. He taught grammar for three years at the College of Quebec, and was then assigned to the Mission of Mackinac. His strenuous opposition to the brandy traffic provoked the enmity of La Mothe Cadillac, the French commandant at that post and he was compelled to return to Quebec in 1703. During most of the ensuing years he ministered to the French in Montreal and other towns. Father Carheil was a ripe scholar and possessed a rare knowledge of the languages of the tribes he evangelized. He left two manuscript volumes entitled “Racines Huronnes.”

ORHAND, Un admirable inconnu (Paris, 1890); THWAITES, Jesuit Relations (Cleveland, 1896–1901), I, 325, 326, LXX, 129; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c. de J. II, 747; SHEA, History of the Catholic Missions (New York, 1855), CXV; IDEM, Cath. Ch. in Colonial Days (New York, 1886), index; ROCHEMONTEIX, Les Jésuites et la Nouvelle France au XVIIe siècle (Paris, 1895–96), III, c.x.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Diocese of Cariati (Paternum)

Cariati (Paternum), Diocese of (Cariatensis), suffragan of Santa Severina. Cariati is a city of Calabria in the province of Cosenza, Italy, healthfully situated near the sea. The first bishop mentioned in history is Menecrates, present at the Synod of Rome in 499. In one of his letters St. Gregory the Great recommends the Church of Cariati to the Bishop of Reggio. According to some, during the eleventh or twelfth century the Diocese of Cerenza (Geruntia) was united to Cariati, though it is only in 1342 that mention is made of a Bishop of Cariati and Cerenza. Noteworthy bishops were: Polychronius (1099), founder of the monastery of S. Maria de Attilia in Santa Severina; the Cistercian Blessed Matteo (1234), first Abbot of San Giovanni di Fiore; Alessandro Crivello (1561), a gallant soldier, afterwards nuncio in Spain; Fra Filippo Gesualdo (1602), a Minor Conventual who died in the odour of sanctity. In 1818 Pius VII united with this diocese Strongoli and Umbriatico. The diocese contains a population of 60,000, with 28 parishes, 70 churches and chapels, 1 regular and 60 secular priests.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XXI, 257; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 368.

U. BENIGNI

Caribs

Next to the Arawaks, probably the most numerous Indian stock, of more or less nomadic habits, in South America. They cannot, however, compare in numbers with the sedentary aborigines of Peru and Bolivia. The Caribs were the second group of Indians met by Columbus on the Antilles, and even at that time the name was a synonym for “cannibals.” At the time of Columbus they held the whole of the Lesser Antilles, whence they made constant and cruel inroads upon the Arawaks of the larger northern islands, killing the men and capturing the women, whom they carried to their homes on Guadalupe, Martinique, etc. as slaves. The Arawaks were in great dread of them and of their weapons, which were superior to the primitive fire-hardened javelins and wooden war-clubs in use on the Greater Antilles, although some of the natives had also acquired the bow and arrows, probably from contact with their hereditary foes, the Caribs. The latter were also hardy and daring sailors, paddling fearlessly from island to island comparatively long distances. In costume, mode of living, dwellings, etc., the Caribs differed but little from the Arawaks. Their language is totally different. The distinctive feature in dress consisted in this, that the Arawaks wore the hair short, while the Caribs allowed it to flow at full length.

The proper name of the Caribs is given as “Karina.” How far the word may have been applied to designate the stock in general is not certain. Of their pre-Columbian history only so much seems ascertained, that they originally occupied Northern Venezuela and parts of Guiana, and from the northern shores of South America gradually extended to the Lesser Antilles, driving northward the Arawaks. Had the landing of Columbus not interfered, they in all probability would have exterminated the Arawaks and spread over the Greater Antilles also. The enmity between the Caribs and the Arawaks is hereditary. But the former were not always successful. On the Orinoco, for instance, the Arawaks held their own. There was and is, on the South American mainland, less disparity in warlike features between the stocks than between the Caribs and Arawaks of the Antilles, especially those of the Bahamas. In general culture and social organization the two stocks are much alike. The Caribs build excellent boats which they equip with sails, and some groups make rather fair pottery. Their religious creed is the animism and fetichism characteristic of all Indians, witchcraft forming the leading part of their rites and ceremonials. Of the numerous groups into which the Caribs are divided, the Bakairis, on the upper Shingu River in Brazil, are the most southerly, so that the stock is scattered from the fourteenth degree of latitude south to near the coast of Venezuela, and from the Galibis in Guiana as far west, at least, as the eastern confines of Colombia.

The almost complete extermination of the Antillean Caribs was brought about by their indomitable ferocity and particularly by their addiction to cannibalism. Every effort on the part of the Spaniards and French to abolish it proved fruitless. In central South America the Catholic missionaries, chiefly the Jesuits, worked with considerable success among Carib tribes along the Amazon, devoting special attention to the Motolones and establishing missions among them. During the seventeenth century Father Samuel Fritz laboured among them, as well as among tribes of Arawak stock. These efforts, which had already been very much hampered by the aggressions of the Portuguese from Brazil, came to naught, owing to the expulsion of the Jesuits. The Franciscans continued to the missions on a limited scale after 1767, but the blow had been too severe to allow more than a feeble recovery. A few missions still subsist wanting, however, the strength of their early organization.

The Caribs have been considered the cannibals par excellence of Northern South America. This is true of those formerly located on the Antilles; but on the mainland, where not under strict control, all the forest tribes of Indians are more or less anthropophagous. There is, in this respect, no difference between the Caribs, Arawaks, Tapuyas, and other natives of the Amazonian basin. It is surmised, from results of linguistic investigations, that the original home of the Caribs was where the branch known as the Bakairis is located to-day namely, on the upper Shingu in north-eastern Matto Grosso (Brazil), and that from there they spread to the north and northeast, driving the Arawaks before them.

The earliest information concerning the Caribs is contained in the letters of COLUMBUS, beginning with the year 1493. Of subsequent old sources must be mentioned: OVIEDO, Historia general y natural (Madrid, 1850); HERRERA, Historia general (Madrid, 1601–15).

From the seventeenth century we have very important sources: BOYER, Véritable relation, etc. (Paris, 1654); PELLEPART, Relation des Missions des R.P. de la c. de. J.,etc. (Paris, 1665); DU TERTRE, Histoire des Antilles (Paris, 1667–1671); ROCHEFORT, Histoire naturelle et morale des Iles Antilles (Rotterdam, 1681); BIET, Voyage de la France équinoxiale in l’isle de Cayenne (Paris, 1664); GUMILLA, Historia del Orinoco (Madrid, 1745).

Modern literature on the Caribs is largely in the shape of transactions of European and American scientific societies. Monographs: SCHOMBURGK, Comparative Vocabulary, etc. (British Association Report, 1848); A Vocabulary of the Maiiongkong Language (Proceedings of the Philological Society, London, 1850), IV; EHRENREICH, Verhandlungen der Berliner anthropol. Gesellschaft (1888).

Modern books: VON DEN STRINEN, Durch Central-Brasilien (important also for Arawaks and other stocks); THURN, Among the Indians of Guiana; BRETT, Indian Tribes of Guyana (New York, 1852).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Giacomo Carissimi

The most influential and prolific Italian composer of his time, b. in 1604 at Marino in the Papal States; d. 12 Jan., 1674, in Rome. After completing his musical education in Rome, Carissimi became choirmaster at Assisi, and, in 1628, he was appointed to a like position at the church of St. Apollinaris in Rome. He is considered the father of the modern oratorio form, which had its origin in the simple laudi sacri composed by Palestrina and Annimuccia for St. Philip Neri’s meetings of young people, held in his oratorio or place of prayer. By imparting a lyric quality to the recitative, lending variety to the orchestral accompaniments, and dramatic movement to the whole, he developed this form to the point where it was taken up and carried to its perfection by Händel and Bach. Although many of Carissimi’s oratorios and other works have been lost, the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris contains the following oratorios in manuscript: “La plainte des damnés,” “L’histoire de Job,” “Ezéchias,” “Baltazar,” “David et Jonathan,” “Abraham et Isaac,” “Jephté,” “Le jugement dernier,” “Le mauvais riche,” “Jonas.” An almost complete collection of the works of this master made by Dr. Henry Aldrich (1647–1710) is found in the library of Christ Church College, Oxford. Of Carissimi’s settings to liturgical texts two printed collections of motets for two, three, and four voices, and masses for five and nine voices are mentioned. An eight-part “Nisi Dominus” and a “Lauda Sion” in manuscript are preserved in the Santini Library in Rome. Among Carissimi’s pupils were Alessandro Scarlatti, J.K. Kerll, Johann Ph. Krieger, Chr. Bernard, and M.A. Charpentier.

AMBROS, Gesch. der Musik (Leipzig, 1881); MENDEL, Musikalisches Lexikon (Leipzig, 1870).

JOSEPH OTTEN

Dionigi Carli da Piacenza

One of a band of Franciscan friars of the Capuchin Reform, sent out to the Congo in 1666. One of his companions was Padre Michele Angelo Guattini da Rhegio, who wrote an account of the voyage of the missionaries from Genoa to Lisbon and thence to Brazil, Loanda, and the Congo, that being the route the missionaries had to take to get to their destination. Padre Michele Angelo died shortly after his arrival in the Conga, leaving his manuscript in the hands of Dionigi Carli, who, on his return to Italy a few years afterwards owing to sickness, wrote an account of his own experiences in the Congo and on his homeward journey. Carli gives a detailed description of the manners and customs of the natives and of the doings of the missionaries. He tells how the friars died in numbers, owing to the climate, and speaks with discouragement of the peculiar difficulties of the situation. He trusts that some of the 2700 children he baptized will reach Heaven and be to his credit as a missionary in the judgment book of God. Finally he gives some account of the various cities he passed through in Portugal, Spain, and France on his way home. Carli published at Rhegio in 1672 his won work together with that of Guattini under the title: “Il Moro transportato in Venezia ovvero curioso raconto de’ Costumi, Riti et Religione de’ Populi dell’ Africa, America, Asia ed Europa.” A second edition appeared at Bologna in 1674. An English translation is published in Churchill, “Voyages” (London, 1704), I.

FATHER CUTHBERT

Ancient Diocese of Carlisle

(CARLEOL, KARLIOLUM)—ANCIENT DIOCESE OF CARLISLE (CARLEOLENSIS, KARLIOLENSIS).

The Catholic was smaller in extent than the present Anglican diocese, which was enlarged in 1856. The territory it originally included first became a political unit in the reign of William Rufus (1087–1100), who made it into the Earldom of Carlisle, including therein most, but not all, of the two counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland. In the reign of his successor, Henry I, the earldom was made a bishopric. Till that time it had formed part of the Diocese of Durham, though there was a strong Celtic element that looked to Glasgow for episcopal administration. For the first bishop, the king secured the appointment of his former confessor, Æthelwulf (1133–1155), an English monk, Prior of the Augustinian Canons, whom the king had established at Carlisle in 1102. At the time of his consecration, however, Æthelwulf seems to have been Prior of the Augustinian house at Nostell in Yorkshire. He ruled the diocese until his death in 1156, and from his charters it is clear that the see was from the first well administered, and that there was a vigorous diocesan life. Æthelwulf built a moderate-sized Norman minster of which the transepts and part of the nave still exist, and to serve this cathedral he introduced his own Augustinians, with the result that Carlisle was the only see in England with an Augustinian cathedral chapter, the other monastic cathedral chapters being Benedictine. Of the next bishop, Bernard, little is known, and after his death, in or about 1186, there was a long vacancy, during which the diocese was administered by another Bernard, Archbishop of Ragusa. During this period Carlisle suffered severely from the incursions of the Scots, and early in Henry III’s reign we find the king complaining to the pope that Carlisle had revolted to Scotland, and that the canons had elected a bishop for themselves. The papal legate, Gualo, punished this action by exiling the canons and appointing Hugh, Abbot of Beaulieu, a good administrator, as bishop. It was important to the English Government to have a reliable prelate at Carlisle, as they constantly looked to the bishop to attend to Scottish affairs, negotiate treaties, and generally play the part of diplomat. The next bishop was Walter Malclerk, formerly agent of King John, and a prominent figure in the reign of Henry III. Always a patron of the Friars Preachers, he introduced both Dominicans and Franciscans into the city and diocese. He resigned his see in 1246 in order to join the Order of St. Dominic. About this time a new choir was begun and carried to completion, only to be destroyed in the great fire of 1292. A fresh beginning was made by energetic Bishop Halton (1292–1324), a favourite of Edward I, and for nearly a hundred years the building of the present choir proceeded, though with many interruptions. Its chief glory is the great east window, remarkable both for its own beauty and as marking a transition from the earlier style to the perfection of tracery. During this time the see was governed by a line of bishops, busy and useful diplomats in their day, but not remarkable in other respects. One of these was Thomas Merke, the intimate friend of Richard II, who was later on tried for high treason under Henry IV and deprived of his bishopric. The subsequent scholars, being frequently employed in negotiating truces and treaties with Scotland, while several of them were Chancellors of Oxford or of Cambridge. Among them was Wolsey’s friend, John Kite (1521–1537), who remained faithful to his master, and who supported him in the poverty of his latter days. The last of the Catholic bishops was Owen Oglethorpe, the kindly-tempered prelate who was prevailed on to crown Elizabeth when no other prelate could be found to do that office for her—an act he so much regretted that, Antony a Wood says, the rest of his days “were both short and wearisome.” He disobeyed the queen openly when she forbade him to elevate the Sacred Host in her presence; he refused to appear at a disputation on religion, or to take the Oath of Supremacy, was deprived of his bishopric with the other Catholic bishops, and died a prisoner 31 December, 1559. With him the history of the Catholic see of Carlisle came to an end. It was a poor diocese, and when the Reformers plundered the churches they found little but a chalice in each, and even of these some were of tin. There was only one archdeaconry, that of Carlisle. The cathedral was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, though this was changed at the Reformation to the Holy Trinity. The arms of the see were: Argent, on a cross, sable, a mitre with labels, Or.

NICOLSON AND BURN, History of Westmoreland and Cumberland (London, 1777); HUTCHINSON, History of Carlisle (Carlisle, 1796), an extract from his History of Cumberland (Carlisle, 1794); JEFFERSON, History of Carlisle (Carlisle, 1838); PRESCOTT, Statutes of Carlisle Cathedral (Carlisle, 1879); PRESCOTT, Visitations in the Ancient Diocese of Carlisle (Carlisle, 1888); FERGUSON, Diocesan History of Carlisle (London, 1889); ELEY, The Cathedral Church of Carlisle (London, 1900).

EDWIN BURTON

Carlovingian Schools

Under the Merovingian Kings there was established at the court a school—scola palatina, the chroniclers of the eighth century styled it—for the training of the young Frankish nobles in the art of war and in the ceremonies of the court. This was not, however, a school in the modern acceptation of the term. Whatever education there was of the literary kind at that time was imparted at the monastic and cathedral schools. With the accession of Charlemagne (768) a scheme of educational reform was inaugurated, first in the palace school itself, and later in the various schools established or reformed by imperial decrees throughout the vast empire over which Charlemagne reigned. The reform of the palace school, the change, namely, from a school of military tactics and court manners to a place of as the learning, was begun in 780, as soon as the victories over the Lombards, Saxons, and Saracens afforded. It was not, however, until the arrival of Alcuin at Aachen in 782 that the work of educational reform began to have any measure of success. Alcuin was not only placed at the head of the emperor’s school in the palace, but was admitted to the council of the emperor in all educational matters and became Charlemagne’s “prime minister of education.” He represented the learning of the school of York, which united in its traditions the current of educational reform inaugurated in the South of England by Theodore of Tarsus and that other current which, starting from the schools of Ireland, spread over the entire northern part of England. He was not, indeed, an original thinker. Nevertheless, he exerted a profound cultural influence on the whole Frankish Kingdom by reason of the high esteem in which Charlemagne and his courtiers held him. He taught grammar, rhetoric, dialectic and the elements of geometry, astronomy, and music (see ARTS, SEVEN LIBERAL). And his success as a teacher of these branches seems to have been generally acknowledged by all the courtiers as well as by his royal patron. We know from Einhard’s biography of Charlemagne that the emperor, the princes and the princesses, and all the royal household formed a kind of higher school at the palace in order to learn from Alcuin what would nowadays be considered the merest rudiments.

Charlemagne was not content with securing for his palace school the services of the ablest teacher of that cage. Acting under Alcuin’s advice he proceeded by a series of enactments dating from 787 (two years after the final triumph over the Saxons) to 789, to inaugurate a reform in the educational conditions throughout the empire. In 787 he issued the famous capitulary which has been styled the “Charter of Modern Thought.” In it he addresses himself to the bishops and abbots of the empire, informing them that he “has judged it to be of utility that, in their bishoprics and monasteries committed by Christ’s favour to his charge, care should be taken that there should not only be a regular manner of life, but also the study of letters, each to teach and learn them according to his ability and the Divine assistance.” He has observed, he says, in the letters which, during past years, he has received from different monasteries, that though the thoughts contained therein are most just, the language in which those thoughts are expressed is often uncouth, and the fear arises in his mind lest if the skill to write correctly were thus lacking, the power of rightly comprehending the Scriptures might be less than it should be. “Let there, therefore, be chosen [for the work of teaching] men who are both willing and able to learn and let them apply themselves to this work with a zeal equal to the earnestness with which we recommend it to them.” Copies of this letter are to be sent to all suffragan bishops and to all (dependent) monasteries. In the great council held at Aachen (789) he issued more explicit instructions regarding the education of the clergy. From the wording of the capitulary of 787, it is clear that Charlemagne intended to introduce the reform of education into all the cathedral and monastic schools of the empire.

Again in the capitulary of 789 we read: “Let every monastery and every abbey have its school, in which boys may be taught the Psalms, the system of musical notation, singing, arithmetic and grammar.” There can be no doubt that by boys are meant not only the candidates for the monastery and the wards (generally the children of nobles) committed to the care of the monks, but also the children of the village or country district around the monastery, for whom there was usually an external school attached to groups of monastic buildings. This is made evident by an enactment of Theodulf, Bishop of Orléans, who, when Alcuin retired to the monastery of Tours in 796, succeeded him at the Court as adviser of the emperor in educational matters. The document dates from 797, ten years after Charlemagne’s first capitulary was issued, and enacts explicitly “that the priests establish schools in every town and village, and if any of the faithful wish to entrust their children to them to learn letters, that they refuse not to accept them but with all charity teach them . . . and let them exact no price from the children for their teaching nor receive anything from them save what parents may offer voluntarily and from affection” (P.L., CV., col. 196). To Alcuin himself tradition has assigned the lines set up in the streets of Strasburg in which the attractions of a school are compared with those of a nearby tavern: “Choose, O traveller; if thou wilt drink thou must also pay money, but if thou wilt learn thou wilt have what thou seekest for nothing.” In these free schools the teacher was, apparently, the priest of the town or village, and, as far as we can judge, the curriculum composed what may be called the rudiments of general education, with an elementary course in Christian Doctrine.

The “new learning” inaugurated at the palace school, which seems to have had no fixed location, but to have followed the court from place to place, was not slow in spreading throughout the empire. Its first noticeable success was at Fulda, which since the days of its first abbot, Sturm, had maintained a tradition of fidelity to the ideals of St. Benedict. The man to whose enlightened zeal the success of the schools of Fulda was largely due was Rhabanus Maurus. While still a young monk at Fulda, Rhabanus, learning of the fame of Alcuin, begged to be sent to Tours, where, for a year, he listened to the aged teacher, and imbibed some of his zeal for the study of the classics and the cultivation of the sciences. On his return to Fulda he was placed at the head of the monastic school and, amid many difficulties, continued to labour for the intellectual reform of his own monastery and his own land. What these difficulties were we may judge from the treatment which he received at the hands of his abbot, Ratgar, who, believing that the monks were better employed in building churches than in studying their lessons, closed the school of the monastery and confiscated the teacher’s note-books. Rhabanus’ unpleasant experiences on this occasion are reflected by his saying “He alone escapes calumny who writes nothing at all.” He was not, however, discouraged, and the day finally came when, as Abbot of Fulda, he could give full authority to his measures for educational reform. Later, as Archbishop of Mainz, he continued to sustain the programme of the Carolingian revival, and by his efforts for the improvement of popular preaching, and by his advocacy of the use of the vernacular tongue, earned the title of the “Teacher of Germany.” His influence, indeed, may be traced beyond the territory which belonged to the monastery of Fulda; to him and to his educational activity is due the revival of learning in the schools of Solenhofen, Celle, Hirsfeld, Petersburg and Hirschau. Even Reichenau and St. Gall owe much to him, and it is perhaps no exaggeration to say that who, like Otfried of “Der Krist,” first the Old High German an instrument of literary expression.

In France, the Carolingian revival was, as has been said, taken up by Theodulf, Bishop of Orléans, who, both by his own diocesan enactments and by the advice which he gave the emperor, proved his right to the title of Alcuin’s successor. Alcuin, himself, after his retirement to the monastery of Tours, devoted his attention almost exclusively to monastic education and the transcription of liturgical and theological works. Whatever love he had for the classics changed towards the end of his life into a deep-seated suspicion of all “pagan literature.” In this he offers a striking contrast, with Lupus Servatus, a disciple of Rhabanus, who, as Abbot of Ferrières, early in the ninth century encouraged and promoted the study of the pagan classics with all the ardour of a fifteenth century Humanist. Through the influence of Alcuin Theodulf, Lupus and others, the Carolingian revival spread to Reims, Auxerre, Laon, and Chartres, where even before the schools of Paris had come into prominence, the foundations of scholastic theology and philosophy were laid. In Southern Germany and Switzerland the Carolingian revival was felt before the close of the eighth century in Rheinau, Reichenau, and St. Gall, and early in the following century in Northern Italy, especially in Pavia and Bobbio. Under the successors of Charlemagne there sprang up the schools of Utrecht, Liège, and St. Laurent in the Low Countries which continued the movement.

With the extension and promotion of the Carolingian revival of education are associated the names of the Irish teachers who were Alcuin’s rivals and who are certainly entitled to a share in the credit of having been the first masters of the schools. According to the St. Gall chronicler who wrote the history of Charles the Great, two Irish monks arrived in France before Alcuin had received Charlemagne’s invitation, and having made known somewhat boastfully their desire to teach wisdom, were received by the emperor with honour, and one of them placed at the head of the palace school. The story, however, is not accepted as reliable. We know for certain that after Alcuin left the court of Charlemagne, Clement the Irishman succeeded him as master of the palace school, and that he had pupils sent to him even from the monastery of Fulda. The grammarian, Cruindmelus, the poet Dungal, and Bishop Donatus of Fiesole were among the many Irish teachers on the Continent who enjoyed the favour of Charlemagne. Indeed, the emperor, according to Einhard, “loved the strangers” and “had the Irish in special esteem.” His successors, likewise, invited the Irish teachers to their court. Louis the Pious was the patron of the Irish geographer Dicuil, Lothair II stood in a similar relation to the Irish poet and Scribe Sedulius, founder of the school at Liège, and Charles the Bald equalled his grandfather in his affectionate esteem for the Irish teachers. Under him Elias taught at Laon, Dunchad at Reims, Israel at Auxerre, and, the greatest of all the Irish scholars, John Scotus Eriugena, was head of the palace school. Naturally the Irish teachers flocked to the places already known to them by the missionary activity of their fellow-countrymen of former generations We find them at Reichenau, St. Gall, and Bobbio, “a whole herd of philosophers” as a ninth century writer expresses it. Every monastery or cathedral school at-which they appeared soon showed the effect of their influence. To the curriculum already in vogue in the Carolingian Schools the Irish teachers added the study of Greek, and wherever they taught philosophy or theology (dialectic and the interpretation of the Scriptures) they drew largely from the writings of the neo-Platonists and from the works of the Greek Fathers.

With regard to the details of schoolwork in the institutions founded or reformed by Charlemagne, the chronicles of the time do not furnish us as much information as one would desire. We know that the course of studies in the town and village schools (per villas et viocos) comprised at least the elements of Christian Doctrine, plainsong, the rudiments of grammar, and perhaps, where the influence of St. Benedict’s rule was still felt, some kind of manual training. In the monastic and cathedral schools the curriculum included grammar (corresponding to what we now call language-work in general, as well as the study of poetry), rhetoric, dialectic, geometry, arithmetic, music and astronomy. The text-book in these subjects was, wherever the Irish teaching prevailed, Martianus Capella, “De Nuptiis Mercurii et philologiae”; elsewhere, as in the schools taught by Alcuin, the teacher compiled treatises on grammar, etc. from the works of Cassiodorus, St. Isidore of Seville, and Venerable Bede. In some instances the works of Boethius were used as texts in dialectic. The master, scholasticus or archischolus (earlier capiscola), had at his command, besides his assistants, a proscholus, or prefect of discipline, whose duty it was (in the monastic school of Fulda, at least) to teach the children “how to walk, how to bow to strangers, how to behave in the presence of superiors.” The teacher read (legere was synonymous with docere) while the pupils took down his dictation in their wax-tablets. The “school-room” was, until as late as the twelfth century the cloister of the monastery and, in the case of some very popular teachers, the street or a public square. The floor of the schoolroom was strewn with straw on which the pupils sat—boarded floors and benches do not appear to have been in use in schools until the fifteenth century, although seats of a certain kind were provided at Cluny, in the twelfth century, namely, wooden boxes which served the double purpose of a seat and a repository for writing materials. Discipline in the Carolingian schools was maintained by the proscholus, and that the medieval scholar dreaded the rod is clear from an episode in the history of the school of St. Gall where, in order to escape a birching, the boys set fire to the monastery. Regulations regarding neatness, the hours to be given to work, and provision for the mid-day siesta, etc. show that some attention was paid to the health and comfort of the pupils. After the death of Charlemagne and the dismemberment of the empire, the educational reforms introduced by him received a setback. There was a brief period under Charles the Bald, when royal favour was once more bestowed on scholars. But with the advent of the tenth century came other cares and occupations for the royal mind. Nevertheless, the monastic and episcopal schools, and no doubt the village schools too, continued wherever war and pillage did not render their existence impossible. Thus the educational influence of the Carolingian revival of learning was continued in some way down to the dawn of the era of university education in the thirteenth century.

WILLIAM TURNER

Carmel

Carmel (Heb. נרמל, Kármél, “garden” or “garden-land”), designates in the Old Testament a certain city and its adjacent territory in the tribe of Juda. The city was in the hill country of Juda, and its territory was contiguous to that of Maon, Ziph, and Jota (cf. Josue, xii, 22; xv, 20, 55). It was in Carmel that Saul set up the trophy of his victory over Amalec [I Kings (A.V., I Samuel), xv, 12]. As Nabal, a man of Maon, was shearing his sheep in the pasture-land of Carmel, there occurred between him and David, then a fugitive from the anger of Saul, the episode in which Abigail, Nabal’s wife, played so conspicuous a part (I Kings, xxv, 2, 5, 7, 40). It was apparently in Carmel of Juda that King Osias, son of Amasias, had arable lands and vineyards [II Paralipomenon (A.V., II Chronicles), xxvi, 10]. These simple Biblical data enable us to understand why this city and its district were actually called “Carmel”; in contrast to the wilderness a little farther to the south and to the east, the region appeared like a “garden” to the Hebrews of old, and the city naturally derived its name from that of the adjacent territory. In the fourth century of our era St. Jerome describes the town of Carmel as a village with a Roman garrison and speaks of the district as a mountain. In the time of the Crusades, the city was held by King Amalrich against Saladin, and then passed into oblivion till the nineteenth century, when it was recognized by travelers under the name of Kurmul. The place is now utterly desolate, but its ruins—conspicuous among which are three churches and a strong castle with bevelled stones—indicate a town of considerable extent and importance. The ruins of the town are about ten miles S.E. of Hebron, and close to those of Maon.

ROBINSON, Biblical Researches, II, 193–196 (Boston, 1841); STANLEY, Sinai and Palestine, 100, 479, 484 (New York, 1859); SMITH, Historical Geography of the Holy Land (New York, 1897, 306, 317, note.

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Mount Carmel

A well-known mountain ridge in Palestine, usually called in the Hebrew Bible הברמל, Hákkármél (with the definite article), “the garden” or “the garden-land.” In later Hebrew it is known simply as Kármél, and in modern Arabic as Kurmul, or more commonly as Jebel Mâr Elîas (Mountain of St. Elias). At its extremity, near the sea, Mount Carmel looks like a bold promontory which all but runs into the waves of the Mediterranean. This northwestern end of Carmel is about nine miles southwest of Acre, and in 32°50’ N. lat. And 35° E. long. From this point, the ridge gradually retires from the coast and stretches southeast, ascending for about ten miles to its highest point and then sinking for nearly three miles more. Like its northern, its southern end is marked by a bold bluff above Wady el-Milh. This is the range of mountains which is usually designated under the name of Mount Carmel. The name is also applied at times to the lower hills which, for another twelve or thirteen miles, form the prolongation of the main range and extend to the southeast as far as the neighbourhood of Jenin. These lower hills, however, are of a softer formation than the main range of Carmel, and really separate it from the Hill Country, or central longitudinal section of Western Palestine. Hence they should rather be considered as forming a chain of heights distinct from Carmel, and be simply spoken of as hills of Samaria. The three principal summits of the main range of Carmel are far inferior in altitude to those of the mountains of either Galilee or Judea. Its highest peak, a little to the south of the Druse village of ‘Esfiyeh, is only 1810 feet. Next in altitude comes the southeastern summit of Carmel, near the ruins called El Mahraka, and some 1700 feet high; and last, the northwestern promontory or cape of Carmel, where the Carmelite monastery is situated 560 feet above the sea. The general shape of the range is that of a triangle, the apex of which is near the Mediterranean, while the sides, to the east and west, look very different from each other. The western side sinks slowly by long ridges and dales upon that part of the sea-coast which is known as the plain of Saron. The eastern side, on the contrary, is abrupt above the plains of Haifa and Esdrelon, and in many places descends almost by precipices to the River Cison, which flows at the foot of the mountain and is generally parallel to its axis. Its geological structure is no other tan that of the central longitudinal section of Palestine, west of the Jordan. It is made up of the same hard limestone. In it there are numerous caves, and it abounds in flints, geodes, and fossils. On the northeast, igneous rocks break out from a basalt formation which runs through the plain of Esdrelon and extends to the Sea of Galilee. As nearly the whole range of Carmel is covered with abundant and rich vegetable earth, it has still much of that appearance which no doubt was the origin of its name: “the garden” or “the garden land.” Most of the ridge is covered with thickets of evergreens. Besides the pine, its most common trees are the prickly oak, myrtle, lentisk, carob and olive. Carmel is also remarkable for its profusion of aromatic plants and wild flowers. Its woody heights are tenanted chiefly by the roebuck, leopard, and wild cat. In various places of the range, ancient wine presses can still be pointed out; but the vine is almost entirely extinct except in the neighbourood of ‘Esfiyeh and of the German colony which was established in 1869 near Haifa. Of its former numerous villages but a few are at present inhabited, and only small patches of land around these and near the sea-coast are now cultivated. Besides ‘Esfiyeh, its principal extant villages are Et Tireh, Daliet El Kurmul, and Um Ez Zeinat. Most of the villagers are Druses and Christians. In the present day, Carmel belongs to the pashalic of Acre.

Mt. Carmel is never mentioned in the New Testament; but it is oftentimes spoken of in the Old Covenant. Its conquest is referred to the time of Josue (xii, 22), and its territory is given as forming the southern boundary of the tribe of Aser (xix, 26). Its luxuriant verdure, chiefly caused by the vicinity of the Mediterranean Sea and by abundant dew, was regarded as singularly beautiful; hence the poetical comparison, “thy head is like Carmel,” found in the Canticle of Canticles (vii, 5; Heb., vii, 6), and the distinct reference to the “beauty of Carmel” in Isaias (xxxv, 2). As Nabuchodonosor towered proudly above the kings of the earth, so Carmel was prominent above the sea (Jer., xlvi, 18). Its great fertility made it the type of a country which was favoured with the Divine blessing (Jer., 1, 19; Mich., vii, 14); and its devastation was conceived as the surest sign of God’s severe punishment of His people (Is., xxxiii, 9; Jer., iv, 26; Amos, I, 2; Nah., I, 4). Its woody summits and its tortuous caverns formed a secure hiding place for a fugitive [Amos, ix, 3. See also III (A.V., I) K., xviii, 4, 13]. The sacredness of its heights was well known in ancient Israel. Apparently long before Elias’ time—how long before cannot now be made out—an altar had been erected in honour of Yahweh on Mt. Carmel, and its ruins were repaired by that prophet as soon as this could be done with safety (III K., xviii, 30). It was the ridge of Carmel that the same Prophet Elias chose for the assembly of the people, such assemblies being usually held at some holy place (III K., xviii, 19 sq.). Again, in IV K., iv, 23, there is a manifest allusion to the custom or resorting to Carmel for the celebration of the new moon and of the sabbath. From various passages of Holy Writ it has been inferred that this sacred mountain was the actual place of residence of both Elias and Eliseus (Cf. IV K., ii, 25; iv, 25, 27, etc.); and, as a matter of fact, Elias grotto and the cavern known as the School of the Prophets are still pointed out. There is likewise some reason to believe that the incident tole of Elias in IV K., I, 9–15, took place on the mountain of Carmel. In this passage our English translation speaks indeed of the prophet as sitting down on “a hill,” when he caused fire to come down from heaven on the two “fifties” and their respective captains who had been sent by King Ochosias to put him under arrest. But the rendering of the original Hebrew word by “a hill,” which would naturally suggest a place different from the mountain range of Carmel, is very probably a defective one. The Hebrew expression rather means “the mountain” with an implicit reference to Mt. Carmel, since that expression, in connection with Elias, is used for that range only, with the exception of Sinai, which, of course, is not intended in IV K., I, 19–15.

However this may be, there is another incident in Elias’ life which Holy Writ distinctly places on the ridge of Carmel, and on account of which that mountain has been, and will ever be, particularly renowned. The event is narrated in detail in III K., xviii. It was that of a public contest between Elias, the great champion of Yahweh worship, and the prophets of Baal, the Phoenician deity whose cult had lately been fully organized by the wicked Achab in the new capital of the Northern Kingdom. For two years a severe drought, foretold by Elias, had prevailed in Israel. Yet it had not sufficed to convince the people that Yahweh, not Baal, was indeed the true God. In the third year, when the drought was about to be broken, Elias, according to the Lord’s command, met King Achab, and obtained from him that all the people be gathered together with the prophets of Baal unto Mt. Carmel. There, in the presence of all, he, the only surviving prophet of the Lord, proposed that the God who would consume by fire a bullock laid upon wood and with no fire under it be alone recognized as God. The challenge was accepted. In vain did the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal call upon their sun-god till noon, nay even till the time of the evening sacrifice. It was now the turn of Elias. Having repaired an ancient altar of Yahweh by means of twelve stones, the prophet disposed the wood, laid a bullock upon it, and got filled with water the trench which he had dug around the whole. His prayer to Yahweh was heard. The fire from heaven consumed all, to the very water in the trench, and all the people seeing this worshipped, saying: “Yahweh is God. Yahweh is God.” Then followed in rapid succession, the slaying of all the prophets of Baal who had been brought down to the brook Cison; Elias’ prayer on the top of Carmel for rain and his repeated bidding to his servant: “Go up and look toward the sea”; the arising of a cloud, the forerunner of a violent storm; the king’s prompt departure for Jezrahel, lest he should be stopped by the rain; and lastly, Elias’ swift running before Achab to the entrance of Jezrahel. The scene marked out alike by tradition and by natural features as the place of this glorious victory of Yahweh and Elias over Baal and his prophets is the south-eastern extremity of Mt. Carmel, the part of the mountain nearest to, and most accessible from Jezrahel. The place now known as El Marahka, “the burning” or “the sacrifice,” is very probably the spot on which stood the altar of Yahweh which Elias repaired. It is marked by shapeless ruins whither Druses of neighbouring villages come to perform a yearly sacrifice. Its position, at the south-eastern point of the ridge, easily allowed the altars thereon erected to be seen by Achab and the priests of Baal and the multitude who stood on a wide upland sweep close beneath it. Not far from it there is a well always supplied with water even in the driest seasons, from which Elias could draw the water with which he could fill the trench around his altar. On the lower declivities of the mountains is a mound called Tell El Kassis, which means “the hill of the priest,” or “of the priests,” which may mark the place where the prophets of Baal were put to death. The brook Cison which runs at the foot of Carmel was no doubt absolutely dry after the two years’ drought, so that the multitude could easily go across its bed to witness Yahweh’s victory on Mt. Carmel, and King Achab hasten across it to Jezrahel before the threatening storm should fill it with water and render it impassable. The corpses of the slain prophets of Baal were hurled down into the Cison, and when the brook was changed by the storm into an impetuous torrent, they were carried swiftly to the Mediterranean Sea. From the slaughter by the side of the river, the prophet of the Lord “went up” again to El Marahka, and there prayed fervently for the breaking of the drought. There, too, he naturally bade his servant to “go up and look toward the sea” for while from the place where he prayed the view of the Mediterranean is intercepted by an adjacent height, the height itself may be ascended in a few minutes and a full view of the sea be obtained from the top. Finally, both Achab and Elias having rushed down to the plain, safely crossed the Cison before the rain could interfere with them, because at this point the river is very close to Mt. Carmel.

Thus it can readily be seen that the traditional site of the public contest between Elias and the prophets of Baal fulfils all the conditions required by the sacred narrative. The last Scriptural reference to the Carmel range is found in the opening chapter of the deutero-canonical book of Judith. There we find stated that the inhabitants of Carmel were numbered among the peoples of the Western districts whom Nabuchodonosor threatened with destruction, should they venture to deny him help in his present conflict with powerful enemies (Judith, I, 8, in Vulgate and in Septuagint). There also we are told that despite his menaces, they all, “with one mind,” refused to obey his orders, whereupon the Assyrian king swore to avenge himself of them (Judith, I, 11, 12). In ancient times the sacredness of Carmel seems to have been known to other nations besides Israel. Thus in the list of places conquered by the Egyptian King Thothmes II, there is a probable reference at No. 48 to the “holy headland” of Carmel (See also Nos. 49, 96, in “Records of the Past,” new series, V, 47, 50). In the fourth century B.C. the neo-Platonic philosopher Iamblicus, in his life of Pythagoras, speaks of Mt. Carmel as “sacred above all mountains and forbidden of access to the vulgar.” The great Roman historian, Tacitus, mentions an altar as erected there without temple or image: “tantum ara et reverentia”; and Suetonius, in his “Lives of the Caesars,” narrates that before making war against the Jews Vespasian went to Carmel and consulted the oracle of its god. After the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70), the Jews did not lose sight of the mountain of Carmel and of its connection with Elias. In the twelfth century of our era Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela writes as follows in the narrative of his journey to Palestine: “Under the mountain of Carmel are many Jewish sepulchres, and near the summit is the cavern of Elias upon whom be peace. . . . On the summit of the hill, you may still trace the site of the altar which was rebuilt by Elias of blessed memory, in the time of King Achab, and the circumstances of which is about four yards.” Rabbis of the thirteenth and following centuries make similar references to Elias in connection with Mt. Carmel; and it is well known that in the eighteenth century the Jews used to join with the Mohammedans and the Christians to celebrate the feast of that holy prophet on the mountain which bears his name, “Jebel Mâr Elîas.” As we have seen, the traditional site of Elias’ contest is still held sacred by the Druses. But it is Christianity which, through its pious pilgrims and its Carmelite monks, has chiefly contributed to preserve the sacred memories of Mt. Carmel. The best positions from which to view the extensive prospect are furnished by the flat roof of the Carmelite monastery at the north-western end of the mountain, and by the platform of the chapel recently erected by the Carmelites at its south-eastern extremity.

WRIGHT, Early Travels in Palestine (London, 1848); ROBINSON, Biblical Researches (Boston, 1841), III; GUÉRIN, Description de la Palestine, etc. (Paris, 1876), II; CONDER, Tent Work in Palestine (London, 1889); THOMSON, The Land and the Book (New York, 1882), II; SMITH, Hist. Geogr. Of the Holy Land (New York, 1906); BAEDEKER, Palestine and Syria (4th ed., New York, 1906).

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Carmelite Order

One of the mendicant orders.

ORIGIN

The date of the foundation of the Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel has been under discussion from the fourteenth century to the present day, the order claiming for its founders the prophets Elias and Eliseus, whereas modern historians, beginning with Baronius, deny its existence previous to the second half of the twelfth century. As early as the times of the Prophet Samuel there existed in the Holy Land a body of men called Sons of the Prophets, who in many respects resembled religious institutes of later times. They led a kind of community life, and, though not belonging to the Tribe of Levi, dedicated themselves to the service of God; above all they owed obedience to certain superiors, the most famous of whom were Elias and his successor Eliseus, both connected with Carmel, the former by his encounter with the prophets of Baal, the latter by prolonged residence on the holy mountain. With the downfall of the Kingdom of Israel the Sons of the Prophets disappear from history. In the third or fourth century of the Christian Era Carmel was a place of pilgrimage, as is proved by numerous Greek inscriptions on the walls of the School of the Prophets: “Remember Julianus, remember Germanicus,” etc. Several of the Fathers, notably John Chrystostom, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Jerome, represent Elias and Eliseus as the models of religious perfection and the patrons of hermits and monks. These undeniable facts have opened the way to certain conjectures. As St. John the Baptist spent nearly the whole of his life in the desert, where he gathered around him a number of disciples, and as Christ said he was endowed with the spirit and virtue of Elias, some authors think that he revived the institute of the Sons of the Prophets.

The glowing descriptions given by Pliny, Flavius Josephus, and Philo, of the manner of life of the Essenes and Therapeutes convinced others that these sects belonged to the same corporation; unfortunately their orthodoxy is open to serious doubts. Tacitus mentions a sanctuary on Carmel, consisting “neither of a temple, nor an idol, but merely an altar for Divine worship”; whatever its origin may have been, it certainly was at the time of Vespasian in the hands of a pagan priest, Basilides. Pythagoras (500 B.C.) is represented by Jamblichus (A.D. 300) as having spent some time in silent prayer in a similar sanctuary on Carmel, a testimony of greater force for the time of Jambilichus himself than for that of Pythagoras. Nicephorus Callistus (A.D. 1300) relates that the Empress Helena built a church in honour of St. Elias on the slopes of a certain mountain. This evidence is, however, inadmissible, inasmuch as Eusebius is witness to the fact that she built only two churches in the Holy Land, at Bethlehem and at Jerusalem, not twenty, as Nicephorus says; moreover the words of this author show clearly that he had in view the Greek monastery of Mar Elias, overhanging the Jordan valley, and not Carmel as some authors think; Mar Elias, however, belongs to the sixth century. These and other misunderstood quotations have enfeebled rather than strengthened the tradition of the order, which holds that from the days of the great Prophets there has been, if not an uninterrupted, at least a moral succession of hermits on Carmel, first under the Old Dispensation, afterwards in the full light of Christianity, until at the time of the Crusades these hermits became organized after the fashion of the Western orders. This tradition is officially laid down in the constitutions of the order, is mentioned in many papal Bulls, as well as in the Liturgy of the Church, and is still held by many members of the order.

The silence of Palestine pilgrims previous to A.D. 1150, of chroniclers, of early documents, in one word the negative evidence of history has induced modern historians to disregard the claims of the order, and to place its foundation in or about the year 1155 when it is first spoken of in documents of undoubted authenticity. Even the evidence of the order itself was not always very explicit. A notice written between 1247 and 1274 (Mon. Hist. Carmelit., 1, 20, 267) states in general terms that “from the days of Elias and Eliseus the holy fathers of the Old and the New Dispensation dwelt on Mount Carmel, and that their successors after the Incarnation built there a chapel in honour of Our Lady, for which reason they were called in papal Bulls “Friars of Blessed Mary of Mount Carmel.” The General Chapter of 1287 (unedited) speaks of the order as of a plantation of recent growth (plantatio novella). More definite are some writings of about the same time. A letter “On the progress of his Order” ascribed to St. Cyril of Constantinople, but written by a Latin (probably French) author about the year 1230, and the book “On the Institution of the First Monks” connect the order with the Prophets of the Old Law. This latter work, mentioned for the first time in 1342, was published in 1370 and became known in England half a century later. It purports to be written by John, the forty-fourth (more accurately the forty-second) Bishop of Jerusalem (A.D. 400). However, as Gennadius and other ancient bibliographers do not mention it among the writings of John, and as the author was clearly a Latin, since his entire argument is based upon certain texts of the Vulgate differing widely from the corresponding passages of the Septuagint, and as he in many ways proves his entire ignorance of the Greek language, and, moreover, quotes or alludes to writers of the twelfth century, he cannot have lived earlier than the middle of the thirteenth. A third author is sometimes mentioned, Joseph, a Deacon of Antioch, whom Possevin assigns to about A.D. 130. His work is lost but its very title, “Speculum perfectæ militæ primitivæ ecclesiæ,” proves that he cannot have belonged to the Apostolic Fathers, as indeed he is entirely unknown to patristic literature. His name is not mentioned before the fourteenth century and in all probability he did not live much earlier.

The tradition of the order, while admitted by many of the medieval Schoolmen, was contested by not a few authors. Hence the Carmelite historians neglected almost completely the history of their own times, spending all their energy on controversial writings, as is evident in the works of John Baconthorpe, John of Chimeneto, John of Hildesheim, Bernard Olerius, and many others. In 1374 a disputation was held before the University of Cambridge between the Dominican John Stokes and the Carmelite John of Horneby; the latter, whose arguments were chiefly taken from canon law, not from history, was declared victorious and the members of the university were forbidden to question the antiquity of the Carmelite Order. Towards the end of the fifteenth century this was again ably defended by Trithemius (or whoever wrote under his name), Bostius, Palæonydorus, and many others who with a great display of learning strove to strengthen their thesis, filling in the gaps in the history of the order by claiming for it numerous ancient saints. Sts. Eliseus and Cyril of Alexandria (1399), Basil (1411), Hilarion (1490), and Elias (in some places c. 1480, in the whole order from 1551) had already been placed on the Carmelite calendar; the chapter of 1564 added many more, some of whom were dropped out twenty years later on the occasion of a revision of the Liturgy, but were reintroduced in 1609 when Cardinal Bellarmine acted as reviser of Carmelite legends. He, too, approved with certain reservations the legend of the feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, 16 July, which had been instituted between 1376 and 1386 in commemoration of the approbation of the rule by Honorius III; it now (1609) became the “Scapular feast,” was declared the principal feast of the order, and was extended to the whole Church in 1726. The tendency of claiming for the order saints and other renowned persons of Christian and even classical antiquity came to a climax in the “Paradisus Carmelitici decoris” by M. A. Alegre de Casanate, published in 1639, condemned by the Sorbonne in 1642, and placed on the Roman Index in 1649. Much that is uncritical may also be found in the annals of the order by J.-B. de Lezana (1645–56) and in “Decor Carmeli” by Philip of the Blessed Trinity (1665). On the publication, in 1668, of the third volume of March of the Bollandists, in which Daniel Papebroch asserted that the Carmelite Order was founded in 1155 by St. Berthold, there arose a literary war of thirty years’ duration and almost unequaled violence. The Holy See, appealed to by both sides, declined to place the Bollandists on the Roman Index, although they had been put on the Spanish Index, but imposed silence on both parties (1698). On the other hand it permitted the erection of a statue of St. Elias in the Vatican Basilica among the founders of orders (1725), towards the cost of which (4064 scudi or $3942) each section of the order contributed one fourth part. At the present time the question of the antiquity of the Carmelite Order has hardly more than academical interest.

FOUNDATIONS IN PALESTINE

The Greek monk John Phocas who visited the Holy Land in 1185 relates that he met on Carmel a Calabrian (i.e. Western) monk who some time previously, on the strength of an apparition of the Prophet Elias, had gathered around him about ten hermits with whom he led a religious life in a small monastery near the grotto of the prophet. Rabbi Benjamin de Tudela had already in 1163 reported that the Christians had built there a chapel in honour of Elias. Jacques de Vitry and several other writers of the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth centuries give similar accounts. The exact date of the foundation of the hermitage may be gathered from the life of Aymeric, Patriarch of Antioch, a relative of the “Calabrian” monk, Berthold; on the occasion of a journey to Jerusalem in 1154 or the following year he appears to have visited the latter and assisted him in the establishment of the small community; it is further reported that on his return to Antioch (c. 1160) he took with him some of the hermits, who founded a convent in that town and another on a neighbouring mountain; both were destroyed in 1268. Under Berthold’s successor, Brocard, some doubts arose as to the proper form of life of the Carmelite hermits. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Albert de Vercelli, then residing at Tyre, settled the difficulty by writing a short rule, part of which is literally taken from that of St. Augustine (c. 1210). The hermits were to elect a prior to whom they should promise obedience; they were to live in cells apart from one another, where they had to recite the Divine Office according to the Rite of the church of the Holy Sepulchre, or, if unable to read, certain other prayers, and to spend their time in pious meditation varied by manual labour. Every morning they met in chapel for Mass, and on Sundays also for chapter. They were to have no personal property; their meals were to be served in their cells; but they were to abstain from flesh meat except in cases of great necessity, and they had to fast from the middle of September until Easter. Silence was not to be broken between Vespers and Terce of the following day, while from Terce till Vespers they were to guard against useless talk. the prior was to set a good example by humility, and the brothers were to honour him as the representative of Christ.

MIGRATION TO EUROPE

As will be seen from this short abstract no provision was made for any further organization beyond the community on Carmel itself, whence it must be inferred that until 1210 no other foundation had been made except those at and near Antioch, which were probably subject to the patriarch of that city. After that date new communities sprang up at Saint Jean d’Acre, Tyre, Tripoli, Jerusalem, in the Quarantena, somewhere in Galilee (monasterium Valini), and in some other localities which are not known, making in all about fifteen. Most of these were destroyed almost as soon as they were built, and at least in two of them some of the brothers were put to death by the Saracens. Several times the hermits were driven from Carmel, but they always found means to return; they even built a new monastery in 1263 (in conformity with the revised rule) and a comparatively large church, which was still visible towards the end of the fifteenth century. However, the position of Christians had become so precarious as to render emigration necessary. Accordingly colonies of hermits were sent out to Cyprus, Sicily, Marseilles, and Valenciennes (c. 1238). Some brothers of English nationality accompanied the Barons de Vescy and Grey on their return journey from the expedition of Richard, Earl of Cornwall (1241), and made foundations at Hulne near Alnwick in Northumberland, Bradmer (Norfolk), Aylesford, and Newenden (Kent). St. Louis, King of France, visited Mount Carmel in 1254 and brought six French hermits to Charenton near Paris where he gave them a convent. Mount Carmel was taken by the Saracens in 1291, the brothers, while singing the Salve Regina, were put to the sword, and the convent was burnt.

CHARACTER AND NAME

With the migration of the Carmelites to Europe begins a new period in the history of the order. Little more than the bare names of the superiors of the first period has come down to us: St. Berthold, St. Brocard, St. Cyril, Berthold (or Bartholomew), and Alan (1155–1247). At the first chapter held at Aylesford, St. Simon Stock was elected general (1247–65). As the oldest biographical notice concerning him dates back only to 1430 and is not very reliable, we must judge the man from his works. He found himself in a difficult position. Although the rule had been granted about 1210 and had received papal approbation in 1226, many prelates refused to acknowledge the order, believing it to be founded in contravention of the Lateran Council (1215) which forbade the institution of new orders. In fact the Carmelite Order as such was only approved by the Second Council of Lyons (1274), but St. Simon obtained from Innocent IV an interim approbation, as well as certain modifications of the rule (1247). Henceforth foundations were no longer restricted to deserts but might be made in cities and the suburbs of towns; the solitary life was abandoned for community life; meals were to be taken in common; the abstinence, though not dispensed with, was rendered less stringent; the silence was restricted to the time between Compline and Prime of the following day; donkeys and mules might be kept for traveling and the transport of goods, and fowls for the needs of the kitchen. Thus the order ceased to be cremitical and became one of the mendicant orders. Its first title, Fratres eremitæ de Monte Carmeli, and, after the building of a chapel on Carmel in honour of Our Lady (c. 1220), Eremitæ Sanctæ Mariæ de Monte Carmeli, was now changed into Fratres Ordinis Beatissimæ Virginis Mariæ de Monte Carmeli. By an ordinance of the Apostolic Chancery of 1477 it was further amplified, Fratres Ordinis Beatissimæ Dei Genitricus semperque Virginis Mariæ de Monte Carmeli, which title was rendered obligatory by the General Chapter of 1680.

Having obtained the mitigation of the rule, St. Simon Stock, who was altogether in favour of the active life, opened houses at Cambridge (1249), Oxford (1253), London (about the same time), York (1255), Paris (1259), Bologna (1260), Naples (date uncertain), etc. He strove especially to implant the order at the universities, partly to secure for the religious the advantages of a higher education, partly to increase the number of vocations among the undergraduates. Although the zenith of the mendicant orders had already passed he was successful in both respects. The rapid increase of convents and novices, however, proved dangerous; the rule being far stricter than those of St. Francis and St. Dominic, discouragement and discontent seized many of the brothers, while the bishops and the parochial clergy continued to offer resistance to the development of the order. He died a centenarian before peace was fully restored. With the election of Nicholas Gallicus (1265–71) a reaction set in; the new general, being much opposed to the exercise of the sacred ministry, favoured exclusively the contemplative life. To this end he wrote a lengthy letter entitled “Ignea sagitta” (unedited) in which he condemned in greatly exaggerated terms what he called the dangerous occupations of preaching and hearing confessions. His words remaining unheeded, he resigned his office, as did also his successor, Radulphus Alemannus (1271–74), who belonged to the same school of thought.

HABIT

The approbation of the order by the Second Council of Lyons secured its permanent position among the mendicant orders, sanctioned the exercise of the active life, and removed every obstacle to its development, which thenceforth went on by leaps and bounds. Under Peter de Millaud (1274–94) a change was made in the habit. Hitherto it had consisted of a tunic, girdle, scapular, and hood of either black, brown or grey colour (the colour became subject to numberless changes according to the different subdivisions and reforms of the order), and of a mantle composed of four white and three black vertical stripes or rays, whence the friars were popularly called Fratres barrati, or virgulati, or de pica (magpie). In 1287 this variegated mantle was exchanged for one of pure white wool which caused them to be called Whitefriars.

The Thirteenth Century Besides the generals already mentioned, the thirteenth century saw two saints of the order, Angelus and Albert of Sicily. Very little is known of the former, his biography, purporting to be written by his brother Enoch, Patriarch of Jerusalem, being a work of the fifteenth century; in those portions in which it can be controlled by contemporary evidence it is proved to be unreliable, e.g. when it establishes a whole Greek hierarchy at Jerusalem during the period of the Crusades; or when it gives the acts of an apocryphal Council of Alexandria together with the names of seventy bishops supposed to have taken part in it. These and some other particulars being altogether unhistorical, it is difficult to say how much credence it deserves in other matters for which there is no independent evidence. It is, however, worthy of notice that the Breviary lessons from 1458, when the feast of St. Angelus first appears, until 1579 represent him simply as a Sicilian by birth and say nothing of his Jewish descent, his birth and conversion at Jerusalem, etc. Nor is there any positive evidence as to the time when he lived or the year and cause of his martyrdom. According to some sources he was put to death by heretics (probably Manichæans), but, according to later authors, by a man whom he had publicly reproved for grave scandal. Again, the oldest legends of St. Francis and St. Dominic say nothing of a meeting of the three saints in Rome or their mutual prophecies concerning the stigmata, the rosary, and the martyrdom. The life of St. Albert, too, was written a long time after his death by one who had no personal recollection of him and was more anxious to edify the reader by an account of numerous miracles (frequently in exaggerated terms), than to state sober facts. All that can be said with certainty is that St. Albert was born in Sicily, entered the order very young, in consequence of a vow made by his parents, that for some time he occupied the position of provincial, and that he died in the odour of sanctity on 7 August, 1306. Though he was never formally canonized, his feast was introduced in 1411.

FOUNDATIONS IN THE BRITISH ISLES

The English province, to which the Irish and Scottish houses belonged until 1305, made rapid progress until about the middle of the fourteenth century, after which date foundations became less numerous, while from time to time some of the smaller houses were given up. The Carmelites enjoyed the favour of the Crown, which contributed generously towards several foundations, particularly that of Oxford, where the royal residence was handed over to the order. The site is now occupied by the Beaufort Hotel, but there may still be seen Friars’ Walk, and the little church of St. Mary Magdalen which for a time was served by the Carmelites. Other royal foundations were Hitchin, Marlborough, etc. John of Gaunt was a great benefactor of the order and chose his confessors from amongst its members; the House of Lancaster likewise almost always had Carmelites as royal confessors, a post which corresponded to some extent to that of royal almoner or minister of public worship. These confessors were as a rule promoted to small bishoprics in Ireland or Wales. The order became very popular among the people. The life was one of deep poverty, as is proved by various inventories of goods and other documents still extant. During the Wycliffite troubles the order took the leadership of the Catholic party, the first opponent of Wyclif being the Provincial of the Carmelites, John Cunningham. Thomas Walden was entrusted by Henry V with important missions abroad, and accompanied Henry VI to France. During the wars with France several French convents were attached to the English province, so that the number of English Carmelites rose to fifteen hundred. But ultimately there remained only the house at Calais, which was suppressed by Henry VIII. At the end of the fifteenth century the province had dwindled down to about six hundred religious.

None of the various reforms seems to have been introduced into England, although Eugene IV and the general, John Soreth, took steps in this direction. The peculiar constitutions in vigour in England, and the excellent organization of the province rendered the spread of abuses less to be feared than elsewhere. At the beginning of the Reformation a number of the junior religious, affected by the new learning, left the order; the remainder were compelled to sign the Act of Supremacy, which they apparently did without hesitation, a fact not much to be wondered at if it be borne in mind that Cardinal Wolsey had already obtained power from the Holy See to visit and reform the Carmelite convents, a measure which left no alternative but blind submission to the royal will or suppression. Separated from the rest of the order, the Carmelites were for a time subjected to the rule of George Brown, general of all the mendicants, but gained a comparative independence under John Byrd, first provincial and then general of the English section of the order. At the time of the final suppression there were thirty-nine houses, including that of Calais. The suppression papers are very far from complete, exhibiting the names of only about 140 religious, and containing the inventories of less than a dozen houses. These were in a state of abject poverty. At Oxford the friars had been obliged to sell the benches of the church and the trees in the road, and the commissioners stated that soon they would have to sell the tiles off the roof, to buy a few loaves of bread. Yet one of the novices, Anthony Foxton, nothing daunted by this trying situation, fled to Northallerton to continue his novitiate, whence a few weeks later he was expelled for the second time. The property of the order was squandered with the same recklessness as other ecclesiastical goods. The library of the London house, considered one of the finest in England (this applies in all probability to the building, not to its contents, which bear no comparison with other monastic libraries of that period), came into the possession of Dr. Butt. The other buildings were sold in parcels. Only two Carmelites are known to have suffered death, Lawrence Cook and Reginald Pecock; others seem to have recanted in prison. But as practically nothing is known of the fate of a large number of convents, especially those of the North, it is more than probable that during the different risings some were burnt and their inmates hanged. Among the few remains of the English Carmelite convents must be mentioned the first two foundations, Hulne, now a ruin, and Aylesford, in a fairly good state of preservation, and also the beautiful cloister in what is now the workhouse for male paupers at Coventry. An attempt to revive the English province during the reign of Queen Mary was unsuccessful.

The history of the Irish and Scottish provinces has never been exhaustively studied, owing chiefly to the loss of many documents. The total number of Irish convents is variously given as twenty-five or twenty-eight, but in all probability some of these had but a short-lived existence. The fact that the general chapters repeatedly appointed Englishmen as provincials for Ireland seems to indicate that the province was frequently troubled by disunion and strife. At an early epoch the Dublin house was designated a studium generale, but as it is never mentioned as such in the official lists it probably served only for the Irish students, foreign provinces not being required to send their contingent. For the pursuit of higher studies special faculties were given to the Irish and Scottish in London and at the English universities. The Irish convents fell without exception under the iron hand of Henry VIII.

The Scottish province numbered at the utmost twelve convents, of which that of South Queensferry at the foot of the Forth Bridge is still extant. Here again we have to content ourselves with stray notices, from which, however, it is manifest that the order was in high favour with the Crown. Some Scottish Carmelites played an important part at the University of Paris, while others were among the chief promoters of the Reform of Albi. At the suppression of the English convents many religious betook themselves to Scotland where convents were allowed to exist as best they could until 1564.

CONSTITUTIONS

The oldest constitutions that have come down to us are dated 1324, but there is evidence of a former collection begun about 1256 to supplement the rule, which lays down only certain leading principles. In 1324 the order was divided into fifteen provinces corresponding to the countries in which it was established. At the head of the order was the general, elected in open scrutinium (ballot) by the general chapter; at each successive chapter he had to render an account of his administration and if no serious complaints were made he was confirmed in his office until he was removed by the nomination to a bishopric, or by death, or until he resigned of his own accord. He chose his own residence which from 1472 was usually Rome. He was given two companions (generally of his own choice) to accompany him on his journeys and to assist him with advice. The whole order contributed annually a fixed amount towards the maintenance of the general and the costs of the administration. In theory, at least, the power of the general was almost unlimited but in practice he could not afford to disregard the wishes of the provinces and provincials. The general chapter assembled fairly regularly every third year from 1247 to the end of the fourteenth century; but from that period onward the intervals became much longer, six, ten, even sixteen years. The chapters had become a heavy burden, not only for the order but also for the towns which accorded them hospitality. Each province (their number was constantly increasing) was represented by the provincial and two companions. In addition to these there was a gathering of masters in divinity and promising students who held theological disputations, while the definitors discussed the affairs of the order; as the Holy See usually granted indulgences on the occasion of chapters, the pulpits of the cathedral and parochial and conventional churches were occupied several times a day by eloquent preachers; traveling being performed on horseback, each province sent a number of lay brothers to care for the horses.

Thus the general chapters were always attended by large numbers of friars, from five hundred to a thousand and more. To defray the costs each provincial was bound to ask his sovereign for a subsidy, the English Crown as a rule contributing ten pounds, while board and lodging for the members of the chapter were found in other religious houses and among the townspeople. In return the order used to grant the town letters of fraternity and to place its patron saints on the Carmelite calendar. For the election of the general all the provincials and their companions assembled, but the remaining business was entrusted to the definitors, one for each province; these were chosen at the provincial chapter in such a way that no one could act in this capacity in two successive chapters. The duty of the definitors was to receive reports on the administration of the provinces; to confirm provincials or to depose them, and elect the annual taxation; to nominate those who were to lecture on Scripture and the Sentences at the universities, especially Paris; to grant permission for the reception of academical honours at the expense of the whole order; to revise and interpret existing laws and add new ones; and finally, to grant privileges to deserving members, deal with those guilty of serious offenses by meting out adequate punishment, or, if cause were shown for leniency, by relaxing or condoning previous sentences. This done, the whole chapter was again called together, he decisions of the definitors were published and handed in writing to each provincial. Of the records of the earlier chapters only fragments are now to be found, but from 1318 the acts are complete and have partly been printed.

The provincial chapters were held as a rule once a year, but there were complaints that some provincials held only two in three years. Each convent was represented by the prior or vicar and by one companion elected by the conventual chapter to take complaints against the prior. Out of the whole number of capitulars four definitors were chosen who together with the provincial performed much the same duties on behalf of the province as did the definitory of the general chapter on behalf of the whole order. Among other things they had full authority to depose priors and to elect new ones; they also selected students to be sent to the various studia generalia and particularia, and to the universities, and made adequate provision for their expenses. They decided—subject to the approval of the general and the Holy See—on the foundation of new convents. They dealt with delinquents. Attempts were made from time to time to limit the duration of the office of provincials, but so long as the general legislation of the church tolerated an indefinite tenure of office these endeavours were practically unavailing.

The superior of a convent was the prior, or in his absence and during a vacancy the vicar. The prior was controlled in his administration by three guardians who held the keys of the common chest and countersigned bills and contracts. Complaints against the prior were sent to the provincial or the provincial chapter. There was no limit to the tenure of office of the prior; he might be confirmed year after year for twenty or more years. In the case of convents in university towns, especially Paris and the Roman Curia (Avignon, afterwards Rome) the nomination belonged to the general or the general chapter; and there appears to have been an unwritten law that at Cambridge, Louvain, and other universities the priorship should be filled by the bachelor who in the course of the year was to take his degree as Master in Divinity. From about the middle of the fourteenth century it became customary to fill the offices of general, provincial, and prior (at least in the larger convents) exclusively with those who had taken degrees. Almost the only systematic exception to this rule is to be found in the province of Upper Germany.

SOURCES OF MEMBERSHIP

When St. Simon Stock established convents in university towns he obviously counted upon the undergraduates as the future recruits of the order; nor was he deceived in his expectation. True, the time had passed when in one day sixty or more students with their professors flocked to the Dominican convent at Paris to receive the habit from the hands of Blessed Jordan. But there were still many applicants, notwithstanding the severe by-laws of the universities regulating the reception of students in mendicant convents. It was perhaps chiefly the poor scholars who by joining one of these orders secured for themselves the necessaries of life as well as the means of education. Not only in the time of St. Simon but even much later a good deal of trouble was caused by these young men, who had recently exchanged the free and easy life of the scholar for the discipline of the cloister. In many convents we find numerous instances of members of the families of the founders and chief benefactors becoming conventuals; in some cases the relationship of uncle and nephew may be traced through several centuries; just as the prebends of cathedrals and collegiate churches were often the gift of the founder and his family and were handed down from generation to generation, the more humble cells of a Carmelite convent remained frequently in the hands of one and the same family who considered it their duty as well as their right to be ever represented by at least one member. Again, it frequently happened that a father desirous of settling his son in life bought or endowed a cell for him in a convent. It was probably due to the ardent piety of former times and the careful preservation from dangerous society that such casual calls ripened into solid vocations. In places where the Carmelites had public or semi-public schools they found little difficulty in choosing suitable boys. But there remained a good many convents in small places, where the recruiting was evidently not so easy and where with a decreasing number of inmates a dangerous relaxation of religious observance went hand in hand. For, throughout the Middle Ages a friar belonged to the convent in which he had taken the habit, although through force of circumstances he might be absent from it for the greater part of his life. Hence, the general chapter repeatedly commanded the priors to receive every year one or two promising young men even if they brought no endowment, so as to gradually increase the number of religious. In other cases where provinces were numerous enough but lacked the means of subsistence the reception of novices might be stopped for several years.

PROBATION AND FORMATION OF MEMBERS

The clothing of novices was preceded by certain inquiries into their antecedents and the respectability of their families. The year of probation was spent in the convent which they entered, the “native convent” as it was called, and a father was commissioned to take personal care of a novice, teaching him the customs of the order and the ceremonies of the choir. According to the oldest constitutions, each novice might have a special master, but in practice one master, assisted, if necessary, by a substitute, was appointed for all. The novices were not allowed to mingle with the rest of the community or with the boys of the convent school; no office that in any way could interfere with their chief duty, viz. learning the Divine Office, was given them. On the other hand the prior was not to allow anyone to reprehend the novices or find fault with them, except the novice-master himself, whose business it was to teach, correct, guide, and encourage them. Towards the end of the novitiate the probationer was voted on; if he had given satisfaction he was allowed to make his profession, otherwise he was dismissed. One of the conditions for profession was that the novice should be able to read fluently and write correctly. Those who might smile at such elementary requirements should remember that reading and writing implied a complete mastery of the Latin grammar and a practical knowledge of the system of abbreviations and contractions, a knowledge of palæography which is not now required either of schoolboys or advanced scholars.

After profession the provincial decided what was to be done with the young religious. He might stand in need of further training in grammar and rhetoric, or he might begin at once the study of physics and logic. If his own convent afforded no facility for these pursuits, which was probably seldom the case, he would be sent to another. Once a week or a fortnight the teacher would hold a repetition with his scholars in presence of the community so that it might become known who had studied and who had been negligent. Special convents were assigned for the study of philosophy and theology; in England the former was taught at Winchester, the latter at Coventry. The higher studies were, however, pursued at the studia generalia of which in 1324 there were eight: Paris, Toulouse, Bologna, Florence, Montpellier, Cologne, London, and Avignon. Their number was gradually increased until each province had its own, but in earlier times every province was bound to send a certain number of students to each of these studia, and to provide for their maintenance; they were even free to send a larger number than prescribed, but they had to pay for the full number even if they sent less. In addition to the students sent to the studia at the expence of their provinces, others might be sent at the expense of their parents and friends, provided the superiors had given their consent. Thus the number of students at the Carmelite convent at Paris averaged three hundred, in London over a hundred. The majority of students were sent to pro simplici formâ, that is just to complete their course, after which they returned to their provinces. Only the most promising were allowed to study for degrees, because this involved a prolonged residence at the universities, ten, twelve or more years, and a corresponding outlay. (For the course of studies and the various steps leading to the degree of Master in Divinity see UNIVERSITIES.) The provincial and general chapters regulated the succession of lecturers on Scripture and the Sentences; particularly at Paris, the foremost university, provision was often made for ten years in advance, so as to ensure a steady supply of able readers and to distribute as far as possible the honours among all the provinces. For the universities would allow only one friar of each of the mendicant orders to take degrees in the course of a year, and each order was naturally anxious to put its most capable men in the foreground. It was therefore not an idle boast when it was said, as we read sometimes, of one or other of the Carmelites, that he was the best lecturer of his term at Paris. As Paris was the most celebrated university, so the doctors of Paris had precedence over those of the other universities. During the schism Paris took sides with the Clementist party whose most powerful support it was. The Urbanist party in the Carmelite Order transferred the prerogatives of the graduates of Paris to those of Bologna, a poor makeshift. There exists a fairly complete list of the Masters of Paris, but only fragmentary information concerning other universities. Unfortunately the register of the English province was destroyed during the Reformation, while the greater part of the archives of Oxford and Cambridge were lost during the Civil War, so that the priceless notices collected by John Bale are the chief sources for our knowledge of Carmelite activity at the English universities. This is the more regrettable as the position of Carmelite friars was regulated by special statutes often alluded to, but nowhere preserved. On their return from the universities the religious were usually appointed to some readership, care being taken that in every convent there should be a daily lecture on Scripture and theology.

PENALTIES ESTABLISHED BY RULE

The constitutions deal very fully with the faults committed by religious and their punishment. A few words will not be out of place with regard to more serious breaches of discipline, especially the violation of the religious vows. Faults against chastity were punished with six months,’ or, if notorious, with a year’s imprisonment, and the loss of voice and place in chapter for from three to five years. If special circumstances required it the punishment was increased, and in the case of a grave scandal the culprit was sent to the galleys for hard labour for a number of years or even for the remainder of his life. If serious suspicion existed against anyone which it was impossible either to prove or to disprove, the accused was allowed the benefit of canonical purgation, i. e. having himself denied the charge on oath, he produced six other religious of good name and high standing to affirm on oath that they considered the charge unfounded and the accused innocent. If unable to find such witnesses, he was punished as though he had been convicted. Other faults that occur frequently were open disobedience and rebellion against the command of the superiors, the undue exercise of proprietorship, theft, apostasy (by which was understood any absence from the convent without proper permission, even if there was no intention of quitting the order permanently). Thus, if a religious, being sent from one place to another, tarried on the road without proper cause, or went out of his way without necessity, he was punished as an apostate; again, a lecturer at the universities leaving town before the end of the course was judged guilty of the same crime, his action being prejudicial to the honour of the order. In all these matters it must be borne in mind that the penal system of the Middle Ages was far less humane than the modern one, and that many faults were ascribed to perversity of will where we should make allowance for weakness of character or even mental derangement. The more serious faults were judged and punished by the provincial and general chapters, to whom was also reserved the absolution of the culprits and their reinstatement. The general chapters frequently granted free pardon to all prisoners except those recently condemned and there were occasional complaints that some of the superiors showed undue leniency; but the material before us proves that on the whole discipline was well maintained. With an average of twenty thousand friars or more during the fifteenth century, the “Chronique scandaleuse” is singularly unimportant, a fact that tells in favour of the order, all the more as a large percentage of this number consisted of students at the great universities exposed to many temptations.

CONSTITUTIONAL REVISIONS

These constitutions underwent numerous changes. Almost every chapter made additions which were frequently canceled or qualified by subsequent chapters. John Balistarius (1358–74) published a revised edition in 1369 (unedited) and the mitigation of the rule by Eugene IV necessitated a further revision under John Soreth (1462, printed in 1499). Nevertheless it must be admitted that the legislation of the order moved too slowly, and that many measures were out of date almost as soon as they were passed. Moreover, laws that may have been excellent for Norway or England were hardly applicable in Sicily or at Seville. These simple facts account for many complaints about relaxation or want of discipline.

From the approbation of the order by the Council of Lyons until the outbreak of the great Western Schism (1274–1378) there was a steady increase in provinces and convents, interrupted only temporarily by the Black Death. At the time of the schism it was not left to the provinces, much less to individuals, to choose their own party; they necessarily followed the politics of the country to which they belonged. A census taken in 1390 shows the following provinces on the Urbanist side: Cyprus (number of convents not stated); Sicily, with 18 convents; England with 35; Rome with 5; Lower Germany with 12; Lombardy with 12 or 13; Tuscany with 7; Bologna with 8; and Gascony with 6. The Clementist party with the Scottish, French, Spanish, and the greater number of the German houses, was rather more powerful. The general, Bernard Olerius (1375–83) being a native of Calatonia, adhered to Clement VII, and was succeeded first by Raymond Vaquerius and next by John Grossi (1389–1430), one of the most active generals, who during the schism made numerous foundations and maintained excellent discipline among the religious belonging to his party, so that at the union in 1411 he was unanimously elected general of the whole order. The Urbanists had been less fortunate. Michael de Anguanis who succeeded Olerius (1379–86) having become suspect, was deposed after a long trial; the financial administration was far from satisfactory, and the loss of Paris proved a serious blow to that section of the order. Soon after the re-establishment of the union a radical change of the rule became necessary. This, as has been seen, was originally composed for a handful of hermits living in a singularly mild climate. Notwithstanding the few changes made by Innocent IV, the rule had proved too severe for those who spent one half of their life in the intellectual turmoil of the university and the other half in the exercise of the sacred ministry at home. Accordingly Eugenius IV granted in 1432 a mitigation allowing the use of flesh meat on three or four days a week, and dispensing with the law of silence and retirement. But even so the chief abuses that had crept in during the fourteenth century were by no means abolished.

ABUSES, IRREGULARITIES

It is indispensable to have a clear idea of these abuses in order to understand the reforms called into life to counteract them.

The permanency of superiors. Even an excellent superior is liable to lose his first energy after a number of years while an indifferent superior seldom improves. This is one of the most difficult problems in the history of monasticism, but the experience of fifteen hundred years has turned the scales in favour of a limited tenure of office.

The right of private property. Notwithstanding the vow of poverty many religious were allowed the use of certain revenues from hereditary property, or the disposal of moneys acquired by their work, teaching, preaching, the copying of books, etc. All this was fully regulated by the constitutions and required special permission from the superiors. It was, therefore, quite reconcilable with a good conscience, but it necessarily caused inequality between rich and poor friars.

The acceptance of posts of honour outside the order. From the middle of the fourteenth century the popes became more and more lavish in granting the privileges of papal chaplaincies, etc., to those who paid a small fee to the Apostolic chancery. These privileges practically withdrew religious from the rule of their superiors. Again, after the Black Death (1348) thousands of benefices fell vacant, which were too small to provide a living for an incumbent; these were eagerly sought after by religious, among others by Carmelites, who, for an insignificant service, such as the occasional celebration of Mass in a chantry, obtained a small but acceptable income. The papal dispensation ab compatibilibus and the necessary permission of the superiors were easily obtained. Others again were empowered to serve high ecclesiastics or lay people “in all things becoming a religious” or to act as chaplains on board ship, or to fill the post of organist in parish churches. All such exceptions, of which many instances could be quoted, tended to loosen the bonds of religious observance; they filled with pride those who had obtained them and with envy those who were less fortunate.

A further source of disorder was found in the small convents with only a few religious, who, naturally, could not be expected to keep up the full observance and sometimes appear to have kept hardly any.

Reforms These and other abuses were by no means peculiar to the Carmelites; they occurred, to say the least, in an equal degree in all the mendicant orders, and awakened everywhere loud cries for reform. In point of fact, long before the end of the Western Schism nearly every order had inaugurated that long series of partial and local reforms which constitutes one of the most refreshing elements in the history of the fifteenth century; but though it seems to have remained unknown to the strenuous reformers, no lasting improvement was possible so long as the root of the evil was not removed. This was not in the power of individual reformers, even of saints, but required the concerted action of the whole Church. It required a Council of Trent to raise the whole conception of religious life to a higher level. The first step towards reform in the Carmelite Order dates from 1413, when three convents, Le Selve near Florence, Gerona, and Mantua, agreed to adopt certain principles, among which were the limitation of the tenure of office to two years, with an enforced vacation of four years between each two terms of office, the abolition of all private property, and the resignation of all posts necessitating the residence of religious outside their convents. After considerable difficulty, the congregation of Mantua, as it was called, obtained in 1442 quasi-autonomy under a vicar-general. It gradually brought under its authority several other houses in Italy, but it was only after the death of the general, John Soreth, himself an ardent reformer but an enemy of all separatist tendencies, that it began to spread with rapidity. In 1602 it counted fifty-two houses. The most celebrated member of this reform was Blessed Baptista Mantuanus (Spagnoli) (q. v.) who filled the office of vicar-general six times and became general of the whole order. The statutes of this congregation were printed in 1540 and again in 1602. After the French Revolution it was amalgamated with the remains of the old stock of the order in Italy.

Blessed John Soreth (1451–71) throughout his long generalship carried out a similar reform, but on the basis of the constitutions. His own life and work are a proof that under certain circumstances a protracted tenure of office can be most profitable. While offically visiting numerous provinces he established in each of them several reformed houses whither the most fervent religious flocked. For these he obtained many privileges; no superior could refuse permission to one desirous of joining such a convent; the very fact of entering a reformed house dispensed a religious from penalties previously incurred, which, however, would revive should he return to a non-reformed convent. No superior could withdraw a member of a reformed community except for the purpose of reforming other houses through his instrumentality. If Soreth was, on the whole, successful in his enterprise he also encountered a certain amount of systematic opposition on the part of graduates who were loth to give up their privileges of not attending choir, of taking their meals privately, and of having lay brothers and “fags” [younger brothers required to perform certain menial tasks] for their personal attendance, and who preferred to withdraw to distant convents rather than submit to the rules of the general. The latter obtained leave from the Holy See to fill up the gaps by bestowing the title of doctor on those who were not qualified by a proper course at the universities, a most dangerous proceeding, which before long led to fresh and serious abuses. It has often been asserted that Soreth died of poison, but there is no foundation for such a calumny. Even after his death the movement so happily inaugurated did not lose all vigour, but neither of his two immediate successors understood the art of appealing to the higher nature of his subjects, whereby Soreth had gained his marvellous influence. Christopher Martignon (1472–81) was considered an intruder, his election being ascribed to the pressure exercised by Sixtus IV, his personal friend, and Pontius Raynaud (1482–1502) had the reputation of being a martinet. Peter Terasse (1503–13) visited most of the provinces and has left in his register (unedited) a vivid picture of the condition of the order immediately before the Reformation. Many convents, he is able to state, were thoroughly reformed, while others were far from perfect. He himself, however, was too generous in granting licenses and privileges, and, though strict in punishing, he contributed not a little to the very abuses he intended to abolish. His successor, Blessed Baptista Mantuanus (1513–16), was too old and worn out to exercise any lasting influence. He obtained, however, the recognition and approbation of the congregation of Albi.

This congregation had been established in 1499 by Bishop Louis d’Amboise, who, there being no reformed convent in the province of France, obtained from Mantuanus tow religious, one of whom died on the road; the survivor found in the Collège Montaigu in Paris some twenty students willing to embrace the religious life. They were placed in the convent of Albi, while the legitimate inmates were dispersed. Soon other convents, Meaux, Rouen, Toulouse, joined the movement, at the head of which was Louis de Lyra. It is related, though hardly credible, that the general died of grief when he heard of this new rift in the unity of the order. The General Chapter of 1503 excommunicated Louis de Lyra on the ground that the right of reforming belonged to the general and not to self-constituted reformers. But the congregation was already strong enough to offer resistance and had even found an entrance into the most important convent of the order, that of Paris. The next year Terasse spent five months there trying to win back the dissidents. At last, by a strange error of judgment, he ordered the lecturers to leave Paris at the conclusion of the term and the students to return to their native convents within three days. The natural result was that many of them formally joined the congregation of Albi which now obtained complete control at Paris. A compromise was then reached whereby the vacancies were alternately filled by the order and by the congregation of Albi. Baptista Mantuanus obtained for the latter papal approbation and an extension of the privileges of his own congregation. Notwithstanding this victory the new congregation became prey to disunion and was unable to make much headway. The evils brought about by the Reformation and the civil and religious wars weighed heavily upon it until, in 1584, it was dissolved by the Holy See.

A further reform of somewhat different nature was that of the convent of Mount Olivet near Genoa, 1514; it consisted in a return to the purely contemplative life and the ancient austerity of the order. The general, Giovanni Battista Rubeo, has left a record that during his visit there in 1568, which lasted only three days, he abstained from flesh meat. This reform continued well into the seventeenth century. A later reform modelled upon that of St. Teresa was inaugurated at Rennes in 1604 by Philip Thibault (1572–1638) and nine companions. With the assistance of the Discalced Carmelites he was able to give it a solid basis, so that before long it embraced the whole province of Touraine. Unlike the other reforms it remained in organic union with the bulk of the order, and enjoyed the favour of the French Court. Among its greatest ornaments were Leo of St. John, one of the first superiors, and the blind lay brother, John of St. Sampson, author of various works on the contemplative life.

AFFILIATIONS, CARMELITE SISTERS

About the middle of the fifteenth century several communities of Beguines at Gueldre, Dinant, etc., approached John Soreth with the request that they be affiliated to the order (1452). He gave them the rule and constitutions of the friars, to which he added some special regulations which unfortunately do not appear to be preserved. The prestige of the Carmelite Sisters grew rapidly when the Duchess of Brittany, Blessed Frances d’Amboise (1427–85), joined one of the convents, which she herself had founded. Before the end of the century there were convents in France, Italy (Blessed Jane Scopelli, 1491), and Spain. Especially in the latter country the manner of life of the nuns was greatly admired, and several convents became so crowded that the slender means available hardly sufficed for their maintenance.

ST. TERESA AND ST. JOHN OF THE CROSS

The convent of the Incarnation at Avila was destined to fashion the brightest ornament of the Carmelite Order, St. Teresa of Jesus. Born in 1515 she entered the convent in 1535 and made her profession in the following year. Shortly afterwards she fell ill and, unable to fulfill the usual duties of a religious, gave herself to the practice of mental prayer. Frightened by her directors, who believed her trances to be diabolical illusions, she passed through a period of interior trials which awakened in her the desire for a more perfect life. Learning that the primitive rule aimed at the contemplative life and prescribed several austerities which had since been dispensed with, she resolved upon the foundation of a convent for thirteen nuns in her native town, which after many difficulties was established on 24 August, 1562. The general, Rubeo (1564–78), who at that time visited Spain, approved of what St. Teresa had done and encouraged her to make further foundations. In a letter written from Barcelona (unedited) he enlarged on the blessings of the contemplative life and granted permission for the establishment of two convents for reformed friars within the province of Castile. But warned by what had happened in the case of the congregation of Albi he made some very stringent regulations so as to suppress from the outset any separatist tendencies. In the course of fifteen years St. Teresa founded sixteen more convents of nuns, often in the teeth of the most obstinate oppression.

Among the friars she found two willing helpmates, the prior Anton de Heredia who had already filled important posts in the order, e. g. that of auditor of civil causes at the General Chapter of 1564, and St. John of the Cross, who had just completed his studies. They entered with supernatural courage upon a life of untold hardships and were joined not only by a number of postulants, but also by many of their former brethren in religion. The province of Castile being numerically weak, it stands to reason that the provincial resented the departure of so many of his subjects, among whom were the most reliable and promising. The papal nuncio, Hormaneto, was favourably disposed towards the reform. As Apostolic visitor of the religious orders he wielded papal powers and considered himself entitled to overrule the restrictions of the general. He granted leave for the foundation of other convents of friars, besides the two stipulated by the general, and for the extension of the reform to the province of Andalusia. By an almost incomprehensible error of judgment he appointed visitor of the Calced Carmelites of this last named province Jerome of the Mother of God (Jerome Gratian, 1545–1615) who had just made his profession among the Reformed or Discalced Carmelites, and who, however zealous and prudent, could lay no claim to much experience of the religious life. The Calced Carmelites appealed to Rome, and the result was that the general took a great dislike to the new reform. He himself was a reformer, and had favoured the foundation of a convent of reformed nuns at Alcalá de Henares by Mary of Jesus (1563), and of a reformed convent of friars at Onde in Aragon under James Montanes (1565), and in his visitations he frequently resorted to drastic measures to bring about improvements; moreover he was a strict disciplinarian, punishing faults with a severity which to us seems inconceivable. When he found that the danger he had striven to avert, viz. a repetition of the disorders caused by the congregation of Albi, had actually occurred, he resolved to root out the new reform. The General Chapter of 1575 decided to abolish the Discalced Carmelites, threatened to send Mariano del Terdo, formerly a hermit, and Baldassare Nieto, an ex-Minim, to their former abodes, ordered the three Andalusian convents of Grenada, Seville, and Peñuela, to be closed, and the friars to return to their proper convents within three days. The acts of the chapter (unedited) are silent as to the nuns, but it is known from the correspondence of St. Teresa that she received orders to choose one of her convents their to remain, and to abstain from further foundations.

The Discalced friars, however, relying upon the powers they had received from the nuncio, resisted these commands and went so far as to hold a provincial chapter at Almodóvar (1576). The general sent a visitor with ample powers, Girolamo Tostado, who for some years had been his official companion and was fully acquainted with his intentions. At this juncture the nuncio died and was succeeded by Sega, who at first remained impartial but soon began to proceed vigorously against the reform. A second chapter having been held at the same place (1578), the nuncio excommunicated all the capitulars; St. John of the Cross was seized in the convent of the Incarnation at Avila where he was confessor and hurried to Toledo, where he was thrown into a dungeon and cruelly treated; others were imprisoned elsewhere. The persecution lasted for nearly a year until at length Philip II intervened. The reform having thus proved too strong, it was resolved to give it legal standing by establishing a special province for the Discalced friars and nuns, but under obedience to the general (1580). The first provincial was Jerome Gratian who throughout had been the chief support of St. Teresa. To her it was given to see the triumph of her work, but dying on 4 October, 1582, she was spared the pain which the disunion among the friars of her own reform must have caused her. When founding her first convent she had a definite object in view. Not only was she anxious to reintroduce the contemplative life, but knowing how many souls were daily being lost through heresy and unbelief she wished the nuns to pray and offer up their mortifications for the conversion of infidels and heretics, while the friars were also to engage in active work. She was delighted when St. John of the Cross and his brethren went from village to village instructing the ignorant in Christian doctrine, and her joy knew no bounds when, in 1582, missioners of the order were sent out to the Congo. This first missionary expedition, as well as a second, came to an abrupt end through misadventures at sea, but a third was successful, at least so long as it received support from home.

Jerome Gratian, the provincial, was heart and soul in these undertakings. When his tenure of office expired he was replaced by a man of a very different stamp, Nocoló Doria, known in religion as Nicholas of Jesus (1539–94), a Genoese who had come to Spain as the representative of a large banking house, in which capacity he was able to render important services to the king. Aspiring after a higher life, he distributed his immense fortune among the poor, took Holy orders and joined the reformed friars at Seville (1577). He rapidly rose from dignity to dignity, and while engaged in the foundation of a convent in his native town, was elected provincial of the Discalced Carmelites. Endowed with an iron will and indomitable energy, he at once began to fashion his subjects after his own ideas. Having known only the old stock of the order during the troublous times preceding the separation of his province, he was not attached to the order as such. He widened rather than lessened the breach by laying aside, on a mere pretext and against the wishes of the friars, the venerable Carmelite Liturgy in favour of the new Roman Office books, and by soliciting useless privileges from Rome; he withdrew the missioners from the Congo, renounced once for all every idea of spreading the order beyond the frontiers of Spain, restricted the active work to a minimum, increased the austerities, and without consulting the chapter introduced a new form a government which, it was said at the time, was more fit for the policing of an unruly Italian republic than for the direction of a religious order. He relegated St. John of the Cross to an out-of-the-way convent and on the flimsiest pretext expelled Jerome Gratian. Finally at the General Chapter of 1593 he proposed “for the sake of peace and tranquillity and for many other reasons,” the total separation of the Discalced Carmelites from the rest of the order, which was granted by a Bull of 20 December, of the same year. Doria now became the first general of the Discalced Carmelites. He died a few months later. It would be unjust to belittle his merits and talents, but it must be acknowledged that in many respects his spirit was diametrically opposed to the lofty conceptions of St. Teresa and the generous dispositions of St. John of the Cross, while the unwarranted expulsion of Jerome Gratian is a blot on his reputation. It was, he said on his death-bed, the only thing that troubled him. The Spanish Carmelites having practically renounced all exterior work and interest, the further history of that branch reduces itself to notices on the foundations of convents, and the truly edifying life of numerous friars and nuns. At the end of the eighteenth century Spain possessed eight provinces with about 130 convents of friars and 93 of nuns. The greater number of these convents were suppressed in 1836, but many have been restored since 1875, when the old Spanish congregation was united with the Italian congregation. They now constitute the Order of the Discalced Carmelites, without subdivision. The Portuguese province was separated from the Spanish congregation in 1773 for political reasons; it possessed twenty-one convents of friars and nine of nuns, nearly all of which were secularized in 1834.

MISSIONARY WORK

As has been said, the first two missionary undertakings came to a premature end, one on account of shipwreck, the members of the other being captured by privateers. When set free the missioners, instead of resuming their journey to the west coast of Africa, proceeded to Mexico, where they laid the foundation of a province which in the course of time embraced twenty convents of friars and ten of nuns, but was finally suppressed by the Government. As early as 1563 Rubeo had granted leave to the Calced friar, Francisco Ruiz, to make foundations in Peru, Florida, and elsewhere, nominating him at the same time vicar-general. By 1573 there were convents at Santa Fè (New Mexico), New Grenada, and other places, and provision was made for further increase. The Chapter of 1666 took the matter seriously in hand and after certain reforms had been carried out the provinces of Bahia, Pernambuco, and Rio de Janeiro were erected in 1720. There were also convents in Guadeloupe and San Domingo, and there is evidence that foundations were contemplated, if not actually made, in the Philippine Islands as far back as 1705. The Discalced Carmelite nuns of the Spanish congregation found their way to the states of South America as early as the beginning of the seventeenth century; several of their convents are still in existence, and others have lately been erected in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, and Peru.

The congregation of St. Elias of Discalced Carmelites, otherwise called the Italian congregation was erected at the instigation of Clement VIII. By a strange irony of fate Nicolò Doria, who afterwards resisted the spreading of the order beyond the Peninsula and the Spanish colonies, had been commissioned in 1584 to establish a convent at Genoa. This was followed by one in Rome, Santa Maria della Scala, destined to become the nursery of a new congregation and the living example of perfect observance, and another at Naples. Several of the most prominent members of the Spanish congregation had been sent to these foundations, among them Ven. Peter of the Mother of God (1565–1608), and Ferdinand of St. Mary (1538–1631), who became the first superiors; Ven. John of Jesus Mary (1564–1615), whose instructions for novices have become authoritative, and whose incorrupt body is still preserved in the convent of St. Sylvester near Monte Compatri; Ven. Dominic of Jesus Mary (1559–1630), the great wonder-worker of his time, and Thomas of Jesus (1568–1627) to whose genius for organization not only the order but the Catholic Church is deeply indebted. With men such as these at its head the congregation spread rapidly, not alone in Italy but through the length and breadth of Europe, and attracted men of high social position. The Archduke Albert of Austria and his consort, the Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia of Spain having applied in Rome for a colony of Discalced Carmelites, the pope nominated Thomas of Jesus founder of the Belgian province. So successful was he that in the course of twelve years he erected ten convents of friars and six of nuns. The establishment in France was more difficult; systematic opposition from various quarters rendered each foundation a hard task, yet from 1611 till the end of the century almost every year saw the foundation of one or two new convents. Germany, Austria, Poland, even distant Lithuania, were opened to the disciples of St. Teresa. The spread of the congregation may perhaps best be illustrated by statistics. In 1632 the reform counted 763 priests, 471 clerics and novices, and 289 lay brothers, total 1523. In 1674 there were 1814 priests, 593 clerics and 747 lay brothers, total 3154. In 1731 the total had risen to 4193 members. No later statistics are available, but it may be taken that the increase continued for another twenty years until the spirit of Voltaire began to make itself felt. Comparatively little has been published about the foundations, the annals of the order reaching only as far as 1612, and much manuscript material having been lost, but a great deal is still waiting for the hand of the chronicler.

Although the exercise of the contemplative life was given prominence even by the Italian congregation, the active life received far wider scope than in the Spanish fraction of the order. Almost from the beginning it was decided on principle and in full harmony with the known intentions of St. Teresa, that missionary undertakings were quite reconcilable with the spirit of the congregation. The pope himself suggested Persia as the first field of labour for Carmelite missioners. Such was the zeal of the fathers assembled in chapter that each of them declared himself ready to lay down his office and go forth for the conversion of unbelievers as soon as his superiors should give him permission to do so. This promise is made to the present day by every member of the order. It was not until 1604 that the first expedition led by Paul Simon of Jesus Mary was actually sent out to Persia. Three fathers, a lay brother, and a tertiary, proceeded through Germany, Poland, and Russia, following the course of the Volga, sailing across the Caspian Sea, until after more than three years of great hardship they reached Ispahan on 2 December, 1607. They met with surprising success, and being speedily reinforced were soon able to extend their activity to Bagdad, Bassora, and other towns, penetrating into India where they founded flourishing missions at Bombay, Goa, Quilon, Verapoly, and elsewhere, even at Peking. Some of these missions are still in the hands of the order, although the political events of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries proved fatal to others. Another field of labour was the Near Orient, Constantinople and Turkey, Armenia and Syria. To these was added in 1720 “a new mission in America in the district called Mississippi or Lusitania, which was offered by Captain Poyer in the name of the French company, but under certain conditions.” If indeed this mission was accepted, it does not seem to have been long prosperous.

One of the happy results of the establishment of missions in the Levant was the recovery of Mount Carmel, which had been lost to the order in 1291. Prosper of the Holy Ghost on his journeys to and from India had repeatedly visited the holy mountain and convinced himself that with prudence and tact it might be recovered. For a time the superiors were by no means favourably disposed towards the project, but at last they furnished him with the necessary powers, and a contract to the said effect was signed at Caiffa, 29 November, 1631. Onuphrius of St. James, a Belgian, and two companions were commissioned to re-establish religious life on the spot where the Carmelite order had had its origin. They reached Alexandrette on 5 November, 1633, and at the beginning of the following year took possession of Mount Carmel. For cells, oratory, refectory, and kitchen they used caverns cut in the living rock, and their life in point of austerity and solitude was worthy of the prophets who had dwelt on Carmel. At length it became necessary to construct a proper convent, in which they were installed 14 December, 1720, only to be plundered a few days later by the Turks, who bound the fathers hand and foot. This convent served as a hospital during Napoleon’s campaign; the religious were driven out, and on their return, 1821, it was blown up by the Turks. An Italian lay brother, John Baptist of the Blessed Sacrament (1777–1849), having received orders to rebuild it, and having collected alms in France, Italy, and other countries, laid the foundation stone of the new fabric in 1827. But as it became necessary to do the work on a larger scale than formerly, it was completed only by his successor, Brother Charles, in 1853. It forms a large square block, strong enough to afford protection against hostile attempts; the church is in the centre with no direct entrance from outside; it is erected over a crypt sacred to the Prophet Elias, and has been elevated by the pope to the rank of minor basilica. There are few travellers of any creed who in the course of their journeys in the Holy Land do not seek hospitality on Mount Carmel.

It must not be supposed that the Carmelites were spared the perils to which the missionary life is exposed. John of Christ Crucified, one of the first band of missioners sent out to Persia met with a hostile reception in the neighbourhood of Moscow, and was thrown into a dungeon where he remained for three years. At last he was released and, nothing daunted, continued his journey to Ispahan. Another lay brother Charisius a Sanctâ Mariâ, suffered martyrdom in 1621 on the Island of Ormuz; he was tied to a tree and cut open alive. Blessed Dionysius of the Nativity (Pierre Bertholet), and Redemptus a Cruce, a Portuguese lay brother, suffered for the Faith in Sumatra on 28 November, 1638. The former had been pilot and cartographer to the Portuguese viceroy, but gave up his position and became a Carmelite novice at Goa. Soon after his profession the viceroy once more demanded his services for an expedition to Sumatra; Dionysius was ordained priest so that he might at the same time act as chaplain and pilot, and Redemptus was given him as companion. No sooner had the ship cast anchor at Achin than the ambassador with his suite was treacherously apprehended, and Dionysius, Redemptus, and a number of others were put to death with exquisite cruelty. The two Carmelites were beatified in 1900. Other members of the order suffered martyrdom at Patras in Achaia in 1716.

In order to ensure the steady supply of missioners the order established some missionary colleges. The original idea had been to found a special congregation under the title of St. Paul, which should entirely devote itself to missionary work. The Holy See granted permission and placed the church of St. Paul in Rome (now Santa Maria della Vittoria) at the disposition of the congregation; but on second thought the project was allowed to drop, and the missionary career was opened to all members of the Italian congregation. Those who manifested a talent in this direction, after having completed their ordinary studies were sent to the college of S. Pancrazio in Rome (1662) or to that of St. Albert at Louvain (1621) to study controversy, practical theology, languages, and natural sciences. After a year they were allowed to take the missionary oath, and after a second year they returned to their provinces until a vacancy in one of the missions necessitated the appointment of a new labourer; by these means the order was prepared to send out efficient subjects at very short notice. The seminary of the Missions ètrangérs in Paris was founded by a Carmelite, Bernard of St. Joseph, Bishop of Babylon (1597–1663).

An attempt in this direction had been made soon after the Council of Trent, but was not followed up. The pope, struck with the missionary zeal of the Carmelites, consulted Thomas of Jesus as to the best means of bringing about the conversion of infidels. This religious, in his works “Stimulus missionum” (Rome, 1610) and especially “De procurandâ salute omnium gentium” (Antwerp, 1613), laid down the disciples upon which the Holy See actually instituted and organized the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda; other fathers, particularly Ven. Dominic of Jesus Mary, contributed towards its success by collecting funds; the Bull of institution by Gregory XV pays just a tribute to the zeal of the Carmelites. In establishing missions the order had in view not only the conversion of infidels but also that of Protestants. St. Teresa herself had been deeply afflicted by the spread of Lutheranism; hence the foundation of the Dutch, English, and Irish missions. The history of the first of these is only partly known; of the three it was the least beset with difficulties, and although obstacles were never wanting, it did not pass through the dangers which were a matter of almost daily occurrence in England and Ireland. The most prominent members were Peter of the Mother of God (Bertius, died 1683) and his brother Cæsar of St. Bonaventure (died 1662), the sons of Peter Bertius, rector of the University of Leyden, a famous convert to the Catholic Faith.

MISSIONS IN THE BRITISH ISLES

The establishment of a mission in England dates back to the year 1615. Thomas Doughty of Plombley, Lincolnshire (1574–1652), probably himself a convert, entered the Carmelite novitiate of La Scala in 1610 after having spent some years at the English College where he had taken Holy orders. After a few months he was obliged by ill-health to return to England, but remained in correspondence with the order and sent some postulants to Belgium. Finally he resumed the religious life and after profession proceeded to London, where he had charge of important negotiations. Having become acquainted with the Spanish ambassador and having secured a chaplaincy for himself and his successors, he was introduced at Court and gained the confidence of Queen Anne of Denmark. Nevertheless he was never secure from priest-hunters and had many hairbreadth escapes. Other missioners having joined him, he withdrew to a country place near Canterbury where he died after a long illness. He was the author of several controversial and spiritual books much appreciated in his time. For years he loudly advocated the establishment of an English novitiate on the Continent, for which he collected the necessary funds, but unfortunately the superiors did not see their way to take up the idea and when at last it was carried out it came too late to be of much practical use.

The next missioner, Eliseus of St. Michael (William Pendryck, 1583–1650), a Scotsman and a convert, who had received his religious training at Paris and Genoa, arrived in London with letters patent constituting him vicar-provincial and superior of the mission. He led for the most part a very retiring life but did not escape persecution; towards the end of his activity he became involved in one of the innumerable disputes as to the extent of the pope’s powers; compelled to justify his attitude before the nuncio in Belgium, he returned to England crushed with disappointment. Among the prominent missioners must be mentioned Bede of the Blessed Sacrament (John Hiccocks, 1588–1647), a converted Puritan, who had been the first superior of the missionary college at Louvain. Soon after his arrival in London he was offered a mission on the estates of Lord Baltimore in Newfoundland, which he appears to have been inclined to accept, but when the faculties from Rome arrived, he was in prison, having been surprised by the priest-hunters while writing to his superiors. For several months his fate as well as that of a brother religious and fellow-prisoner was uncertain, but being at last set free through the intervention of the French ambassador he returned to Belgium. He underwent imprisonment for a second time in Holland, but after a long interval came back to London where he resumed his missionary work. Francis of the Saints (Christopher Leigh, 1600–41) died of the plague contracted in prison. John Baptist of Mount Carmel (John Rudgeley, 1587–1669) spent a considerable portion of his life in prison. Joseph of St. Mary (Nicholas Rider, 1600–82), after many years of fruitful activity, devoted his old age to the training of aspirants to the order; these were sent abroad for their novitiate and studies and on their return were appointed to one or other of the missionary stations belonging to the order.

The most remarkable men in a long series of missioners were Bede of St. Simon Stock (Walter Joseph Travers, 1619–96) and his half brother, Lucian of St. Teresa (George Travers, 1642–91). The son of a Devonshire clergyman, Walter Travers was articled to a London solicitor. An elder brother having become a Catholic and a Jesuit, Walter, desirous of guarding himself against a like fate, began to study controversial works with the result that he became convinced of the truth of the Catholic Church which he went to Rome to join. He became a student the English College and afterwards entered the Carmelite Order in which he filled various offices. He was active in London during the whole period of the Restoration and has left a record of his manifold experience. At the outbreak of the Oates’ Plot he was obliged to return to Italy, but after some years resumed his work in London, until old age and grief over his brother’s death compelled him to retire to Paris where he died in the odour of sanctity. He had the consolation of solemnly inaugurating a chapel in Bucklersbury in London, as well as those at Heresford and Worcester, but the Orange Revolution undid the work begun by him. George Travers, after a dissolute life, accidentally met his brother in London, was rescued by him, instructed, and received into the Church. He made his studies under Joseph of St. Mary, and entered the novitiate at Namur. At the outbreak of the plot he was sent to London, where he passed through many thrilling adventures. Some time after the Orange Revolution he was betrayed by a false friend, and thrown into prison, whither his accuser, on a different charge, followed him. This man was suffering from a contagious disease which Lucian, while nursing him, contracted, and of which he died, 26 June, 1691.

Much less is known of the missioners of the eighteenth century than of those of the seventeenth. Their lives, though still exposed to dangers, were as a rule quiet; moreover, the art of memoir writing seems to have been lost under the House of Orange. One of the more prominent missioners of this period was Francis Blyth (q.v.). In 1773 the English mission acquired the college of the Society of Jesus, recently suppressed, at Tongres, where a number of missioners were prepared for their work before the French Revolution swept over Belgium. The disappearance of this short-lived establishment dealt the death-blow to the Carmelite mission in England. A few missioners remained stationed in various places, but they received no fresh help and little encouragement; the property of the mission as well as its library and archives were lost through the iniquitous laws which rendered the last will of a Catholic illegal. On the occasion of the Catholic Emancipation, Francis Willoughby Brewster was obliged to fill up a parliamentary paper with the laconic remark: “No superior, no inferior, being the last man.” He died at Market Rasen in Lincolnshire 11 January, 1849. Cardinal Wiseman, anxious to introduce the Discalced Carmelites into his archdiocese, obtained in 1862 an order authorizing him to select some suitable subjects. His choice fell upon Hermann Cohen (Augustine Mary of the Blessed Sacrament, 1820–71), a converted Jew of Hamburg, originally a brilliant musician, whose conversion and entrance into a strict order had caused considerable stir in France. He opened a small chapel in Kensington Square, London, 6 August, 1862, where the new community struggled against many difficulties, not the least of which was their deep poverty. Before long a convenient site was found for a spacious church, designed by Pugin and inaugurated by Cardinal Manning in 1866, and a convent, completed in 1888. A second house having been founded in a remote country district in Somerset, the English semi-province was canonically established in 1885. Father Hermann did not see the completion of his work; having been called to Spandau to minister to the French prisoners of war, he died of smallpox and was buried in Berlin.

Soon after the English mission a similar undertaking was begun in Ireland by Edward of the Kings (Sherlock, 1579–1629) and Paul of St. Ubaldus, both of whom had made their novitiate in Belgium and had in all probability studied at the missionary college at Louvain. Although the persecution in Ireland was, if possible, more brutal than that in England, Catholic missioners had the support of the poorer classes, who clung tenaciously to their Faith, and from among who they were recruited. Besides a convent at Dublin they founded residences in the ruins of several former Carmelite abbeys (as they were called), viz. at Athboy, Drogheda, Ardee, Kilkenny, Loughrea, Youghal, and other places. Many of these were but of ephemeral existence. About the same time the Calced Carmelites returned to Ireland, and there arose a dispute as to the ownership of these convents. At the separation of the orders it had been stipulated that the Discalced Carmelites were not to take away any of the convents of their Calced brethren. The Holy See decided in 1640 that the former should retain possession of the four ancient convents they then inhabited, as there still remained twenty-eight houses for the Calced Carmelites to revive. No sooner had this decision reached Ireland than the Cromwell persecution put a stop to any further increase and necessitated the dissolution of the communities that had been erected. Several friars earned the crown of martyrdom, viz. Thomas Aquinas of St. Teresa, who was put to death at Ardee in 1642; Angelus of St. Joseph, cleric (George Halley), an Englishman who was shot 15 August, 1642; and Peter of the Mother of God, lay brother, who was hanged at Dublin, 25 March, 1643. There is reason to believe that others met with a similar fate, but no particulars have been preserved; many, however, suffered imprisonment. Such events told on the life of the province. Canonically erected in 1638, it was dissolved in 1653 but re-established during the comparatively quiet time of the Restoration. In 1785 a chapel and convent were built near the ruins of the Abbey of Loughrea, founded in 1300, and from 1640 in the hands of the Teresian friars, who, nevertheless, were several times obliged to abandon it. Further building operations were carried out in 1829 and again towards the end of the century. The year 1793 witnessed the laying of the foundation stone of St. Teresa’s church, Clarendon Street, Dublin. This church, which also underwent frequent alterations and enlargements, served as a meeting room during Daniel O’Connell’s campaign, which ended in the Catholic Emancipation Act. It was felt that in this case the interests of the Church were identical with those of the country. A third convent was built at Donnybrook near Dublin in 1884.

The Calced Carmelites appear to have attempted a mission in England at the beginning of the seventeenth century when George Rainer was put to death (c. 1613). No particulars are known about his life and the missionary projects seems to have died with him. In Ireland, however, they carried on a flourishing mission from the early part of the same century, and they have at present six convents and a college which is well attended. Their church in Whitefriars Street, Dublin, is well known to Catholics and is an architectural curiosity.

Steps were taken about 1635 to make a foundation in America, and a petition was presented to the pope for approbation of the mission founded there, but for some reason or other it does not seem to have had a lasting result. The Dutch province, however, founded houses at Leavenworth (1864) and Scipio, Anderson Co., Kansas (1865); Englewood, Bergen Co., New Jersey (1869); New Baltimore, Somerset Co., Pennsylvania (1870); Pittsburg, Pennsylvania (1870); Niagara Falls, Canada (1875); and St. Cyril’s College, Illinois (1899); while the Irish Calced Carmelites settled in 1888 in New York City and at Tarrytown, New York, and the Bavarian Discalced Carmelites at Holy Hill and Fond du Lac, Wisconsin (1906).

DAILY LIFE

The life of a Carmelite is somewhat different according to the branch of the order to which he belongs, and the house in which he lives. The life in a novitiate, for instance, is different even for those who have taken their vows, from that in a college, or in a convent intended for the care of souls. It is also stricter among the Discalced Carmelites, who keep perpetual abstinence (except in the case of weakness or illness) and who rise in the night for the recitation of the Divine Office, then among the Calced Carmelites, who have adapted their rule to the needs of the times. Formerly the whole Office was sung every day, but when in the sixteenth century the exercise of mental prayer became more and more universal, particularly through the influence of St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross, the singing was abandoned for a recitation in monotone except on certain feasts. The Calced Carmelites still adhere to the liturgy of the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, a Gallo-Roman Rite, practically identical with that of Paris in the middle of the twelfth century. It underwent certain changes during the Middle Ages and was completely and satisfactorily revised in 1584. The Discalced Carmelites, for reasons already stated, adopted the new Roman Liturgy in 1586. In all convents a certain time is given to mental prayer, both in the morning and the afternoon. It is generally made in common, in the choir or oratory, and is intended to impress the soul with the presence of God and the everlasting truths. Other religious exercises and private devotions supplement those already mentioned. The rule of fasting, somewhat less severe among the Calced Carmelites, is preserved everywhere, although the church has in many respects mitigated her legislation in this matter. The Discalced Carmelites (Teresians) are generally barefooted; otherwise the only distinction in the habit of the two branches consists in the fashioning of the various garments. The habit of the lay brothers is like that of the choir religious, except that among the Discalced Carmelites they wear a brown mantle and no hood; but in the Spanish congregation they use the hood, and, since 1744, a white mantle. The correct colour of the habit has often been made the subject of somewhat animated discussions among the different branches of the order.

DESERT CONVENTS

A peculiar institution is that of “deserts.” The recollection of Mount Carmel and the purely contemplative life, as well as the wording of the rule, which prescribes that the brothers should dwell in their cells or near them, meditating day and night on the Law of the Lord, except when other necessary occupation call them away, had awakened in many a desire for an exclusively spiritual life. It has been noticed that some of the first generals resigned their offices in order to dedicate the remainder of their life to contemplation, and in the constitutions and other documents exceptions are sometimes made in favour of convents “situated in forests,” far away from human habitations. Among such convents were, to mention only two, Hulne in England and Liedekerke in the Netherlands. One of the first Discalced Carmelites in Spain, Thomas of Jesus, who has already been mentioned in connection with the missions, conceived the idea of founding a “desert” where the religious should find the opportunity for devoting their whole time and energy to the cultivation of a spirit of contemplation. With the exception of four or five who were to remain there permanently, each friar was to spend but a year in the “desert,” and afterwards return to the convent whence he had come, so that, the whole community being composed of strong and healthy members, no relaxation however slight should become necessary. After some hesitation the superiors took up the idea, and a suitable site having been found, the first “desert” was inaugurated 28 June, 1592, at Bolarque, on the banks of the Tagus in New Castile. The result was so encouraging that it was decided to found such a house in every province, so that there have been altogether twenty-two “deserts,” many of which, however, have been swept away during periods of political agitation. They were constructed after the manner of a charterhouse, but on a smaller scale. A number of cells, each forming a little house of four rooms with a garden attached, were built in the shape of a quadrangle, one wing of which contained the chapel, sacristy, library, etc. In the older “deserts” the chapel was placed in the centre of the quadrangle. The refectory, kitchen, robbery and other dependencies were connected with the principal cloister; all the buildings were plain, imposing on account of their austerity than their ornamental character. The manner of life, too, resembles that of the Carthusians, (NOTE: LINK WORD CARTHUSIANS TO PROPER ARTICLE “CARTHUSIAN ORDER, THE”:) but is far more severe. The chant of the Divine Order is more solemn than in other convents; more time is devoted to mental prayer; the fast is extremely strict, the silence all but uninterrupted; only once a fortnight the hermits after the manner of the ancient anchorites, assemble for a conference on some spiritual subject; many volumes of such conferences are still preserved and some have been printed. An hour’s social intercourse follows the conference. The time not devoted to prayer and reading is spent in manual labour, the religious finding occupation in the cultivation of their gardens. Study, strictly speaking, is not allowed, lest the strain upon the mind become too severe.

Each “desert” possessed extensive grounds which were laid out as forests with numerous rivulets and ponds. At equal distances from the convent and from each other there were small hermitages consisting of a cell and chapel, whither the friars retired at certain periods of the year, as Advent and Lent, in order to live in a solitude still more profound than that of the convent. There they followed all the exercises of the community, reciting their Offices at the same time and with the same solemnity as the brothers in choir, and ringing their bell in response to the church bells. Early in the morning two neighbouring hermits served each other’s Mass. On Sundays and feasts they went to the convent for Mass, chapter, and Vespers, and returned in the evening to their hermitages, with provisions for the ensuing week. While in the hermitage they fared on bread, fruit, herbs, and water, but when in the convent their meals were less frugal, although even then the fast almost equalled that of the early monks. Notwithstanding this rigorous observance the “deserts” were never used as places of punishment for those guilty of any fault, but on the contrary as a refuge for those aspiring after a higher life. No one was sent to the “desert” except upon his own urgent request and even then only if his superiors judged that the applicant had the physical strength and ardent zeal to bear and to profit by the austerity of the hermit life. Among the more celebrated “deserts” should be mentioned those of San Juan Bautista, founded in 1606 at Santa Fé, New Mexico; Bussaco (1628), near Coimbra, Portugal, now a horticultural establishment and recreation ground; Massa (1682), near Sorrento, Italy, well known to visitors to Naples on account of the marvellous view of the gulfs of Naples and Salerno to be obtained from the terrace of the convent; and Tarasteix (1859), near Lourdes, France, founded by Father Hermann Cohen.

The Calced Carmelites tried to introduce a similar institute but were less successful. André Blanchard obtained in 1641 the papal approbation for the foundation of a convent at La Graville near Bernos, in France, where the original rule of St. Albert, without the mitigations of Innocent IV should be kept, and the life led by the hermits on Mount Carmel copied; all went well until the arrival, in 1649, of a pseudo-mystic, Jean Labadie, formerly a Jesuit, who in an incredibly short time succeeded in so influencing the majority of the religious, that at length the bishop had to interfere and dissolve the community. Another “desert” was founded by the Calced Carmelites in 1741 at Neti near Syracuse in honour of the Madonna della Scala. A suggestion made in the course of the seventeenth century to the Discalced Carmelites of the Italian congregation to introduce perpetual mental prayer after the manner in which in some convents the perpetual chant of the Divine Office, or Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is practiced, namely by relays of religious, was decided against by the chapter as being altogether unsuitable.

EXTERIOR OCCUPATIONS

Apart from the purely contemplative life led in the “deserts,” and the specific religious exercises practiced in all convents (though in different measure), the chief occupation of the order consists now in the care of souls and missionary work. So long as the Carmelites occupied a well-defined position at the universities and took part in the academic work, a large number cultivated almost exclusively the higher studies. During the Middle Ages the subjects of Carmelite writings were almost invariable, including the explanation of a certain number of Biblical writings, lectures on the various books of Aristotle, the Sentences, and canon law, and sermons De tempore and De sanctis. In the long list of Carmelite writings preserved by Trithemius, Bale, and others, these subjects occur over and over again. Several friars are known to have cultivated the study of astronomy, as John Belini (1370) and Nicholas de Linne (1386); others concerned themselves with the occult sciences, e. g. William Sedacinensis, whose great work on alchemy enjoyed considerable vogue during the Middle Ages; Oliver Golos was expelled the order on account of his too great knowledge of astrology (1500). There were poets too, within the order, but while many were justly praised for purity and elegance of style, as Lawrence Burelli (c. 1480), only one secured lasting renown, Blessed Baptista Mantuanus. The other fine arts were also represented, painting chiefly by Philippo Lippi of Florence, whose life, unfortunately, caused him to be dismissed with dishonour. Although many friars cultivated music, no really prominent name can be mentioned. In the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries allusion is frequently made to Carmelite organists serving various churches outside the order while one obtained leave from the general to repair organs wherever his services might be required.

IN THE UNIVERSITY

When the Carmelites first appeared at the universities, the two great schools of the Dominicans and Franciscans were already formed, and there remained no room for a third. Some attempts to elevate the teaching of John Baconthorpe to the rank of a theological school came to naught. The majority of lecturers and writers belonged to the Thomistic school, especially after the great controversies on grace had compelled various orders to choose sides. This tendency became so intense that the Carmelite Salmanticenses made it their duty to follow the teaching of the Angelical Doctor even in the minutest details. Controversy was inaugurated by Guy de Perpignan, general from 1318–20, author of “Summa de hæresibus”; the subject was taken up anew at the time of the Wycliffite troubles and ultimately led to the important works of Thomas Netter de Walden, the “Doctrinale” and “De Sacramentis et Sacramentalibus,” which proved a gold mine for controversialists for several centuries. No epoch-making work was done at the time of the Reformation, and the order lost all its northern and the greater part of its German provinces. Although few Carmelite controversialists are to be found on the Catholic side (the best known being Evrard Billick), there were hardly any prominent members among those who lost their faith.

MYSTICAL THEOLOGY

Although Scholastic philosophy and theology, as well as moral theology, have found some of their chief exponents among the Carmelites (e.g. the Salmanticenses), other branches of science being less generously cultivated, the field on which absolutely fresh ground was opened by them is mystical theology. During the Middle Ages this subject had been treated only in so far as the ordinary course of studies required, and those of the friars who wrote on it were few and far between, nor do they seem to have exercised much influence. All this was changed with the establishment of the Teresain Reform. As has already been said, St. Teresa was led, unknown to herself, to the highest planes of the mystical life. With her marvellous gift of introspection and analysis, and her constant fear of swerving, be it ever so little, from the teaching of the Church, she subjected her own personal experiences to severe scrutiny, and ever sought the advice and direction of learned priests, chiefly of the Dominican Order. When St. John of the Cross joined the reform, he, fresh from the lecture-rooms at Salamanca and trained in the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas, was able to give her light on the phenomena of psychology and Divine grace. Both of these saints have left writings on mystical theology, Teresa recording and explaining in simple but telling words her own experiences, John taking up the matter more in the abstract sense; still some of his writings, particularly the “Ascent of Mount Carmel,” might almost be considered a commentary on the life and the “Interior Castle” of St. Teresa. There is no evidence that he had derived his knowledge from study; he was unacquainted with the works of St. Bernard, Hugh of St. Victor, Gerson, and the Low German mystics, and knew nothing of the mystical school of the German Dominicans; he appears to have known St. Augustine and the other fathers only in so far as the Breviary and theological textbooks contained extracts from their writings. He was therefore in no way influenced by the views of earlier mystics, and had no difficulty in keeping aloof from the beaten track, but he evolved his system from his own and St. Teresa’s personal experience as seen in the light of Scholastic theology, and with constant reference to the words of Holy Scripture. For the analogies and allegories of previous mystics he had no taste, and nothing was farther from him than the wish to penetrate the secrets of Heaven and gaze behind Divine revelation.

An order which gives such prominence to the contemplative life could not but take up the subject and study it under all aspects. The experimental part, which of course does not depend on the will of the individual, but which, nevertheless, is assisted by a certain predisposition and preparation, found at all times a home not only in the “deserts” and the convents of Carmelite nuns, but in other houses as well; the annals of the order are full of biographies of profound mystics. Considering the danger of self-deception and diabolical illusion which necessarily besets the path of the mystic, it is surprising how free the Carmelite Order has remained from such blots. Rare instances are on record of friars or nuns who left the safe ground for the crooked ways of a false mysticism. Much of this indemnity from error must be ascribed to the training directors of souls receive, which enables them to discern almost from the outset what is safe from what is dangerous. They symptoms of the influence of good and evil spirits have been explained so clearly by St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross, and a prudent reserve in all that does not tend directly to the advancement of virtue has been so urgently counselled, that error can creep in only where there is a want of openness and simplicity on the part of the subject. Hence, among the great number of mystics there have been but a very few whose mysticism is open to question. Several great theologians endeavoured to reduce mystical theology to a science. Among these must be reckoned Jerome Gratian, the confessor and faithful companion of St. Teresa; Thomas of Jesus, who represented both sides of the Carmelite life, the active part as organizer of the missions of the Universal Church as well as of his order, and the contemplative part as founder of the “deserts.” His great works on mystical theology were collected and printed at the bidding of Urban VIII; Philip of the Blessed Trinity (1603–71), whose “Summa theologiæ mysticæ” may be taken as the authoritative utterance of the order on this subject; Anthony of the Holy Ghost, Bishop of Angula (died 1677), author of a handbook for the use of directors of souls, entitled “Directorium mysticum”; Anthony of the Annunciation (died 1714), and, finally, Joseph of the Holy Ghost (died 1739), who wrote a large work on mystical theology in three folio volumes; all these and many more strictly adhered to the principles of St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross and to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. The ascetic part was not less cultivated. For elevation of principles and lucidity of exposition it would be difficult to surpass Ven. John of Jesus-Mary. The difficult art of obeying and the more difficult one of commanding have been dealt with in a masterly manner by Modestus a S. Amabili (died 1684). The Calced Carmelites, too, have furnished excellent works on different branches of mystical theology.

FOUNDATIONS OF WOMEN

The Carmelite nuns established by St. Teresa spread with marvellous rapidity. Such was the veneration in which the foundress was held in Spain during her life-time that she received more requests for foundations than she could satisfy. Although very careful in the selection of superiors for new convents she had not always the most capable persons at her disposal and complained in several instances of the lack of prudence or the overruling spirit of some prioresses; she even found that some went so far as to tamper with the constitutions. Such incidents may be unavoidable during the first stage of a new order, but Teresa strove to counteract them by detailed instructions on the canonical visitation of her convents. She desired one of her favourite subjects, Ven. Anne of Jesus (Lobera, born 1545; died 4 March 1621), prioress of Granada to succeed her in the position of “foundress” of the order. Hence, when Nicolò Doria changed the manner of government of the Discalced Carmelites, Anne of Jesus submitted the Constitutions of St. Teresa (already revised by the General Chapter of 1581) to the Holy See for approbation. Certiain modifications having been introduced by successive popes, Doria refused to have anything to do with the nuns. His successors, however, reinstated them, but maintained the prohibition in vigour for the friars against making foundations outside Spain and the Spanish colonies. A convent, however, had already been inaugurated at Genoa and another was in contemplation in Rome, where some ladies, struck with the writings of St. Teresa, formed a community on the Pincian Hill under the direction of the Oratorians, one of the members being a niece of Cardinal Baronius. On the arrival of the Discalced friars in the Holy City it was found that the nuns had much to learn and more to unlearn. Other convents followed in rapid succession in various parts of Italy, the beatification and canonization of St. Teresa (1614 and 1622) acting as a stimulus. Not all convents were under the government of the order, many having been from the first subject to the jurisdiction of the local bishop; since the French Revolution this arrangement has become the prevailing one. In 1662 the number of nuns under the government of the Fathers of the Italian Congregation was 840; in 1665 it had risen to 906, but these figures, the only ones available, embrace only a very small fraction of the order.

About the beginning of the seventeenth century Mme Acarie (Blessed Marie of the Incarnation, 1565–1618) was admonished in an apparition by St. Teresa to introduce her order into France. Several attempts were made to obtain some nuns trained by the holy foundress herself, but the Spanish superiors declared themselves unable to send subjects beyond the Pyrenees. M. (afterwards Cardinal) de Bérulle, acting on behalf of Mme Acarie and her friends, received a Brief from Rome empowering him to proceed with the foundation; but as it contained some clauses distasteful to him, e. g. that the new foundations should be under the government of the friars as soon as these should be established in France, and as it did not contain some others he had counted upon, he obtained through the French ambassador an order from the king commanding the general to send certain nuns to Paris. Among these were Anne of Jesus, and Ven. Anne of St. Bartholomew (1549 to 7 June, 1626), then a lay sister, who had been St. Teresa’s attendant during the latter years of her life. Altogether seven sisters left Spain for Paris, where they arrived in July, 1604, being received by Princesse de Longueville and other ladies of the Court. As it soon became manifest that M. de Bérulle had his own ideas about the government of the order, which he was anxious to associate with the French Oratory founded by him, pending the establishment of an “Order of Jesus and Mary” he had in contemplation, six of the foundresses left France within a few years, while the seventh remained only under protest.

The French Carmelite nuns were placed (with few exceptions) under the government of the Oratorians, the Jesuits, and secular priests, without any official connection either with the Spanish or the Italian congregation of Discalced Carmelites, forming a congregation apart from the rest of the order. They spread very rapidly, being held in high esteem by the episcopate, the Court, and the people. Unfortunately the mother-house in Paris (Couvent de l’Incarnation, Rue d’Enfer) became for some years one of the centres of the Jansenists, but otherwise the French Carmelites have reflected glory on the Church. Among the most celebrated French Carmelite nuns may be mentioned Louise de la Miséricorde (1644–1710), who as Duchesse de la Vallière had taken an unfortunate part in the court scandals under Louis XIV, which she expiated by many years of humble penance; Ven. Térèse de Saint Augustin (Mme Louis de France, 1737–87) daughter of Louis XV, notwithstanding her exalted birth, chose for herself one of the poorest convents, Saint-Denis near Paris, where she distinguished herself by the exercise of heroic virtue. During the Revolution all the communities were dissolved; one of them, that of Compiègne, endeavoured to keep up, as far as circumstances allowed, the observances prescribed by the rule, until the sixteen nuns were all apprehended, cast into prison, dragged to Paris, tried, condemned to death, and consigned to the guillotine, 17 July, 1794; they were beatified in 1906. Another Carmelite nun, Mother Camille de l’Enfant Jésus (Mme de Soyecourt) underwent with her community long imprisonment, but being at last liberated she became instrumental in re-establishing not only her own but many other convents. When at the beginning of the twentieth century the law on religious associations was passed, there were over a hundred Carmelite convents in France with several offshoots in distant parts of the world, even Australia and Cochin China. In consequence of the French legislation many communities took refuge in other countries, but some are still in their old convents.

Quitting Paris for Brussels, Ven. Anne of Jesus became the foundress of the Belgian Carmel. At her instigation the Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia called the friars from Rome, with the result that foundations increased rapidly. One of these, at Antwerp, was due to Ven. Anne of St. Bartholomew, who, while in France, had been promoted from lay sister to prioress, having learned to write by a miracle; she was instrumental in delivering Antwerp from a siege. The Belgian Carmel sent out colonies to other countries, Germany and Poland, where Mother Teresa of Jesus (Marchocka, 1603–52) became celebrated. Another convent was founded at Antwerp for English ladies (1619), who were reinforced by Dutch sisters; in 1623 it was detached from the order and placed under the bishop, and in its turn made foundations at Lierre in 1648, and Hoogstraeten in 1678, all of which became the abode of many noble English ladies during the times of penal laws. At the outbreak of the French Revolution the nuns had to flee the country. After a short stay in the neighbourhood of London the community of Antwerp divided into two sections, one proceeding to America, the other settling ultimately at Lanherne in Cornwall, whence they sent out an offshoot which finally settled at Wells in Somerset (1870); the community of Lierre found a home at Darlington, Co. Durham (1830), and that of Hoogstraeten, after much wandering, settled at last at Chichester, Co. Sussex, in 1870. Not counting the French refugees, there are at present seven convents of Carmelite nuns in England. An earlier project for a convent in London, with Mary Frances of the Holy Ghost (Princess Elénore d’Este, 1643–1722, aunt of the Queen of James II) as prioress, came to naught owing to the Orange Revolution, but it appears that about the same time a community was established at Loughrea in Ireland. At times the nuns found it difficult to comply with all the requirements of the rule; thus they were often compelled to lay aside the habit and assume secular dress. Several convents were established in Ireland in the eighteenth century, but in some cases it became necessary for the nuns to accommodate themselves so far to circumstances as to open schools for poor children. There are at present twelve convents in Ireland, mostly under episcopal jurisdiction.

The second section of the English community at Antwerp, consisting of Mother Bernardine Matthews as prioress and three sisters, arrived at New York, 2 July, 1790, accompanied by their confessor, Rev. Charles Neale, and Rev. Robert Plunkett. On the feast of St. Teresa, 15 October of the same year, the first convent, dedicated to the Sacred Heart, was inaugurated on the property of Mr. Baker Brooke, about four miles from Port Tobacco, Charles Co., Maryland. Want of support compelled the sisters to seek a more convenient site, and on 29 September, 1830, the foundation-stone was laid for a convent in Aisquith Street, Baltimore, whither the community migrated the following year, Mother Angela of St. Teresa (Mary Mudd) being then prioress. In 1872, during the priorship of Mother Ignatius (Amelia Brandy), the present (1908) convent, corner of Caroline and Briddle Streets was inaugurated. This community made a foundation at St. Louis, 2 October, 1863, first established at Calvary Farm, and since 1878 within the city. The foundation at New Orleans dates back to 1877, when Mother Teresa of Jesus (Rowan) and three nuns took a house in Ursuline Street, pending the construction of a convent in Barrack Street, which was completed on 24 November, 1878. The convent at Boston was founded 28 August, 1890, and in its turn established that of Philadelphia, 26 July, 1902, Mother Gertrude of the Sacred Heart being the first prioress. In May, 1875, some nuns from Reims arrived at Quebec and found a convenient place at Hochelaga near Montreal, where they established, the convent of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart. Another Canadian foundation attempted from Baltimore in the same year was unsuccessful, and had to be given up after a few years.

LIFE OF THE NUNS

The life of a Carmelite nun is somewhat different from that of a friar, as there is an essential difference between the vocation of a priest and that of a lay person. Active work, such as nursing the sick and teaching, are out of the question in a cloistered convent. The Carmelite sister leads a contemplative life, a considerable portion of her time being devoted to Divine service, meditation and other pious exercises, the rest occupied with household work and other occupations. The life is necessarily strict, the fasting severe, and there are many opportunities for exercising virtue.

VARIOUS CARMELITE INSTITUTIONS

Several religious institutions have gathered round Carmel. In the Middle Ages we find attached to many convents and churches anchorages, that is, hermitages for recluses who at their own request were walled up by the bishop and who exercised a great influence over the populace by reason of their example, their austerities, and their exhortations. Among the more celebrated Carmelite recluses may be mentioned Thomas Scrope of Bradley, at Norwich, afterwards titular Bishop of Dromore in Ireland and Apostolic legate in Rhodes; and Blessed Jane of Toulouse (beginning of the fifteenth century) whose cultus was approved by Leo XIII.

Probably ever since the coming of the friars to Europe, founders of convents and benefactors were admitted to the order under the title of Confratres, which gave them a right to participation in the prayers and good works of a section or of the entire order, and to suffrages after their death. Neither such Confratres, nor even the text of confraternity letters, contain any mention of obligations incumbent on them. The letters were at first granted only after mature consideration, but from the end of the fifteenth century it was less difficult to obtain them; in many cases the general handed numerous blank forms to provincials and priors to be distributed by them at their own discretion. Out of this confraternity, which stood in no organic connection with the order, arose in the sixteenth century, according to all probability, the Confraternity of the Scapular.

Another confraternity was a guild established in 1280 at Bologna, and perhaps elsewhere, which held its meetings in the Carmelite church and from time to time made an offering at a certain altar, but otherwise was entirely independent of the order. As has been seen, some communities of Beguines in the Netherlands asked, in 1452, for affiliation to the order, and thus gave rise to the first convents of Carmelite nuns. At a later period Herman of St. Norbert (died 1686), preaching in 1663 at Termonde, determine five Beguines, among them Anne Puttemans (died 1674), to sell their property and found the congregation of Maricoles or Maroles, which was aggregated to the order 26 March, 1672; they occupy themselves with the education of poor girls and with the care of the sick in their own homes, and have still many convents in the Dioceses of Mechlin, Ghent, and especially Bruges. A community of thirty-seven hermits living in various hermitages in Bavaria and the Tyrol having asked for aggregation, the General Chapter of the Discalced Carmelites of 1689 granted their wish under certain conditions, among others that not more than four or five should live in each hermitage, but the decree was rescinded in 1692, for what reason is not known, and all connection between these hermits and the order was severed.

CARMELITE TERTIARIES

Tertiaries or members of the Third or Secular Order may be divided into two classes, those living in their own homes and those living in community. The former class is first met with in the middle of the fifteenth century, when the Holy See granted permission to the Carmelites to institute a Third Order of secular persons, after the model of similar institutions attached to other mendicant orders. The oldest printed Missals and Breviaries contain the rite of admission of such persons; these were then known by the term of bizzoche, which has since acquired a somewhat unpleasant meaning. They were found to recite certain prayers (in the Teresian Reform also to practice meditation), to keep certain fasts and abstinences, refrain from worldly amusements, and to live under obedience to the superiors of the order; they might wear a distinctive habit resembling that of the friars or nuns. Tertiaries living in community observe a rule similar to, but less austere than, that of the friars; there are two communities of Tertiary brothers in Ireland, one at Clondalkin, where they have a boarding-school established previous to 1813, and another, in charge of an asylum for the blind, at Drumcondra near Dublin, There are also Tertiary fathers (natives) in the Archdiocese of Verapoly in India, established 1855, who serve a number of missions.

Tertiary sisters have a convent in Rome founded by Livia Vipereschi for the education of girls; they were approved by Clement IX in 1668. The Austrian congregation has had, since 1863, ten houses partly for educational purposes, partly for the care of servants. In India, too, there are native Tertiary sisters in Verapoly and Quilon with thirteen houses, boarding schools, and orphanages. A Tertiary convent was founded in Luxemburg in 1886. Finally, mention must be made of the Carmelite Tertiaries of the Sacred Heart lately established in Berlin, with orphanages and kindergartens in various parts of Germany, Holland, England, Bohemia, and Italy.

STATISTICS

At the present time (1908) there are about 80 convents of Calced Carmelite friars, with about 800 members and 20 convents of nuns; 130 convents of Discalced Carmelite friars, with about 1900 members; the number of convents of nuns, including the French previous to the passing of the Association law, was 360.

A considerable portion of this article being based on unpublished material, the following notices are necessarily incomplete, and to a large extent antiquated.

GENERAL SOURCES: MIGNE, Dict. des ordres religieux, I, 635 sqq.; Bullarium Carmelitanum, vols. I and II, ed. MONSIGNANUS (Rome, 1715, 1718), vols. III and IV (Rome, 1768), ed. XIMENES (Rome, 1768); RIBOTI, Speculum Carmelitarium, ed. CATHANEIS (Venice, 1507), ed. DANIEL A VIRGINE MARIA (2 vols. in fol., Antwerp, 1680), containing the Corpus of medieval Carmelite historians together with numerous dissertations and polemical writings, and practically superseding such authors as: FALCONE, Chronicon Carmelitarium (Placenza, 1545); BRUSSELA, Compendio historico Carmelitano (Florence, 1595); BOLARQUEZ, Chronicas dell’ Orden del Monte Carmelo melitano (Palermo, 1600); AUBERTUS MIRæUS, Carmelit. Ordinis origo (Antwerp, 1610); J. DE CARTHAGENA, De antiquitate Ordin. B. M. V. de Monte Carm. (Antwerp, 1620). DOMINICUS A JESU, Spicilegium episcoporum, Ordin. Carmel. (Paris, 1638); DANIEL A VIRG. MARIA, Vinea Carmeli (Antwerp, 1662), with a synchronological table embracing the events during the lifetime of St. Simon Stock (1165–1265) by SEGHERUS PAULI, which the student will do well to handle critically. The first three vols. of LEZANA, Annales sacri prophetici et Eliani Ord. (4 vols., Rome, 1645, 1650, 1653, and 1656), contain the life of the Prophet Elias, the history of the order during the Old Law, at the coming of Christ, and during the Middle Ages as far as 1140; the fourth vol., which might have permanent value as it embraces the period from 1140 till 1515, is in many respects unsatisfactory and superficial. PHILIPPUS A SS. TRINITATE, Compendium historiæ Carmelitarum (Lyons, 1656); IDEM, Theologia Carmelitana (Rome, 1665); IDEM, Decor Carmeli (Lyons, 1665); HAITZE D’ ACHE wrote against this work Les moines empruntés, to which JEAN DE VAUX replied by Réponse pour les Religiuex Carmes au livre intitulé: Les moines empr. (Cologne, 1697). LOUIS DE STE THÉRÉSE, La succession du S. prophète Elie (Paris, 1662); JOHANNES-NEPOMUCENUS A S. FAMILIA, vere PETRUS RENERUS, Histoire de l’Ordre de N.D. du Mont Carmel sous ses neuf premiers généraux (Maastricht, 1798), published anonymously; this author frankly adopts the thesis of the Bollandists. ALEXIS-LOUIS DE S. JOSEPH, Histoire sommaire de l’Odre de N.D. du Mont Carmel (Carcassonne, 1855); FERDINAND DE STE THÉRÉSE, Ménologe du Carmel (3 vols., Lille, 1879), not always reliable; CAILLAUD, Origine de l’Ordre du Carmel (Limoges, 1894); ZIMMERMAN, Monumenta historica Carmelitana (Lérins, 1907), so far only one vol., containing the oldest constitutions, acts of general chapters, biographical and critical notes on the first generals, lists of the Masters of Paris, and various collections of letters. No critical history, however compendious, has as yet been attempted, although there is no lack of material in public archives as well as in those of the various branches of the order

ORIGINS: The bibliography of the controversy about the antiquity of the order is extremely lengthy, but of no general interest; the principal works are: (1) in favour of the traditional view: DANIEL A VIRGINE MARIA, op. cit.; SEBASTIANUS A S. PAULO, Exhibitio errorum (Cologne, 1693); (2) against the tradition: Acta SS., April, I, 764–99, May, II, Commentar. apologet., 709–846; PAPEBROCH, Responsio ad Exhib. error. (3 vols., Antwerp, 1696); IDEM, Elucidtio.; REUSCH, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher (Bonn, 1885), II, 267 sqq.

GENERAL HISTORY OF THE ORDER: GULIELMUS DE SANVICO (1291), TRITHEMIUS, De ortu et progressu; de viris illustribus; PALæONYDORUS, Fasciculus trimerestus (Mainz, 1497; Venice, 1570), reprinted in DANIEL A VIRGINE MARIA, op. cit.; LUCIUS, Bibliotheca Carmel. (Florence, 1593); COSME DE VILLIERS DE S. ETIENNE, Bibliotheca Carmelitana (2 vols., Orléans, 1752), which whould be compared with the MSS. corrections and additions of NORBERTUS A S. JULIANA in the Royal Library at Brussels. DE SMEDT, Introductio general. ad histor. eccles. (Ghent, 1876); HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1893); CHEVALIER, Rép. topo-bibliogr., s. v.; KOCH, Die Karmelitenklöster der niederdeutschen Provinz (Freiburg im Br., 1889); ZIMMERMAN, Die heil. Einsiedeleien im Karmeliten-Orden, in Stimmen v. Berge Karmel (Graz, 1898–1900); IDEM, Die englischen Karmelitenklöster (Graz, 1901–1903).

REFORMS: Reform of Mantua: PENSA, Teatro degli uomini illustri della famiglia di Mantova (Mantua, 1618); FELLINI, Sacrum musæum s. Congreg. Mantuanæ (Bologna, 1691); VAGHI, Commentarium fratrum et sororum Ordin. B. V. M. de Monte Carm. Congreg. Mantuan. (Parma, 1725). On the reform of Touraine (Rennes), LEO A S. JOHANNE, L’esprit de la réforme des Carmes en France (Bordeaux, 1666); SERNIN-MARIE DE S. ANDRÉ, Vie du Ven. Fr. Jean de S. Samson (Paris, 1881). Reform of St. Teresa, (1) Spain: Besides her own writings, FRANCISCUS A S. MARIA and others: Reforma de los Descalços (6 vols., Madrid, 1644); part of this work, which is partisan, in favour of Doria and against St. John of the Cross and Jerome Gratian, has been translated into Italian (Genoa, 1654) and French (Paris, 1665; Lérins, 1896); GRÉGOIRE DE S. JOSEPH, Le Pére Gratien et ses juges (Rome, 1904), also tr. It. and Sp.; IDEM., Peregrinación de Anastasio (Burgos, 1905), published anonymously. (2) Portugal: MELCHIOR A S. ANNA and others, Chronica de Carmelitas Descalços (3 vols., Lisbon, 1657). (3) Italy and other countries: ISIDOR A S. JOSEPH. and PETRUS A S. ANDREA, Historia generalis fratrum discalceator. (2 vols., Rome, 1668, 1671); EUSEBIUS AB OMNIBUS SANCTIS, Enchiridion chronologicum Carmel. Discalceat. (Rome, 1737); LOUIS DE STE THÉRÉSE, Annales des Carmes déchaussés de France (Paris, 1666; Laval, 1891); HENRICUS-MARIA A SS. SACRAMENTO, Collectio scriptorum Ord. Carmel. Excalceat. (2 vols., Savona, 1884), superficial. On the missions: JOH. A JESU-MARIA, Liber seu historia missionum (1730); PAULINUS A S. BARTHOLOMæO, Opera (Rome, 1790); BERTHOLDE-IGNACE DE S. ANNE, Hist. de l’éstablissement de la mission de Perse (Brussels, 1886); ALBERT-MARIE DU S. SAUVEUR, Le sanctuaire du Mont Carmel (Tournai, 1897), the original edition published without acknowledgment, by JULIEN DE STE THÉRÉSE (Marseilles, 1876); HENRICUS A S. FAMILIA, Leven der gelukzaligen Dionysius en Redemptus (Ypres, 1900); RUSHE, Carmel in Ireland (Dublin, 1897; supplement, 1903); ZIMMERMAN, Carmel in England (London, 1899).

CARMELITE NUNS: HOUSSAYE, M. de Bérulle et les Carmélites de France (Paris, 1872); GRAMIDON, Notices historiques sur les origines (Paris, 1873); HOUSSAYE, Les Carmélites de France et les constitutions (Brussels, 1873); ALBERT-MARIE DU S. SAUVEUR, Les Carmes déchaussés de France (3 vols., Paris, 1886) with a supplement on the Jansenist troubles in the convent of the Incarnation at Paris; Mémoire sur la fondation, le gouvernement et l’observance des Carmélites déchaussées (2 vols., Reims, 1894), anonymous, by the Carmelite nuns of the Rue d’Enfer, Paris, with a valuable bibliography; Chroniques de l’ordre des Carmélites (9 vols., partly at Troyes, 1846; partly at Poitiers, 1887); BERTHOLD-IGNACE DE STE ANNE, Vie de la Mère Anne de Jésus (2 vols., Mechlin, 1876, 1882); La vie et les instructions de la Vén. anne de S. Barthélémy (anonymous, by a solitary of the “Desert” of Marlaigne), (new ed., Paris, 1895); SYLVAIN, View du P. Hermann (Paris, 1881), tr. Germ. and It.; Carmel in India (anonymous) (London, 1895); IGNACE DE S. JEAN L’VANGÉLISTE, Vie et vertus héroiques de la Mère Thérèse de Jésus (Marchocka) (Lillie, 1906); Vie de la R. Mère Camille de l’Enfant Jésus née de Soyecourt (anonymous), ed. D’HULST (Paris, 1898); BEDINGFIELD, Life of Margaret Mostyn (London, 1884); HUNTER, An English Carmelite: Life of Catherine Burton (London, 1876); CURRIER, Carmel in America (Baltimore, 1890).

BENEDICT ZIMMERMAN.

Melchior Carneiro

(Carnero).

Missionary bishop; b. of a noble family at Coimbra, in Portugal; d. at Macao, 19 August, 1583. He entered the Society of Jesus, 25 April, 1543, was appointed in 1551 the first rector of the College of Evora, and shortly after transferred to the rectorship of the College of Lisbon. When, in 1553, Simon Rodriguez, the first provincial of Portugal, was summoned to Rome to answer charges made against his administration, the visitor, Nadal, assigned him Carneiro as a companion. In the meantime King John of Portugal, the great friend and patron of the Society, had written both to Pope Julius III and to St. Ignatius, requesting the appointment of a Jesuit as Patriarch of Ethiopia. The pope chose John Nugnez, giving him at the same time two coadjutors with the right of succession, Andrew Oviedo, titular bishop of Hieropolis, and Melchior Carneiro, of Nicæa. They were consecrated in 1555, and were the first Jesuits to be raised to the episcopal dignity. The pope had given them an order of obedience to accept consecration, and St. Ignatius acquiesced, considering that the dignity carried with it hardship and suffering rather than honour. Unable to enter his missionary field of Ethiopia, Carneiro set out for the Indies and landed at Goa. He laboured there on the Malabar coast until 1567, when he was appointed first bishop of Japan and China, which office he seems to have renounced soon after, for in 1569 Leonard de Saa succeeded him. He retired to the home of the Society of Jesus at Macao, where he died. Carneiro has written some letters of considerable historical interest, one from Mozambique, one from Goa, and two from Macao. They are printed in various collections.

Mon. Hist. Soc. Jesu (Madrid, 1894–96); Vita Ignatii Loyolæ, I-IV, passim; Literæ Quadrimestres, I-IV, passim; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c. de J., II, s.v.

B. GULDNER

Jean-Baptiste Carnoy

Belgian biologist, b. at Rumilies, province of Hainaut, near Tournai, 11 Jan., 1836; d. at Schuls, in Switzerland, 6 September, 1899. After the usual course in theology at the seminary of Tournai, he was ordained priest and then devoted some years to the study of natural science, for which he had always shown great talent. His progress was rapid and, after receiving the degree of Doctor of Science, he was awarded a government travelling fellowship. He went to Germany, where he worked with Hanstein at Bonn and also spent some time in Leipzig, Berlin, and Vienna. He was then sent to Rome by his bishop on business pertaining to the Diocese of Tournai. While there he made the acquaintance of Buoncompagni and Castracane and was associated with the latter in his researches. In 1868 he was recalled to Belgium, his bishop, at the request of Monseigneur Laforêt, having consented to attach him to the University of Louvain to found a course in general biology. Financial difficulties at the university, however, made it impracticable to carry out this plan at the time, and he became, instead, vicar at Celles near Tournai. During his stay here he completed his “Recherches anatomiques et physiologiques sur les champignons” published in the bulletin of the “Société royale de botanique.” In 1870 he was appointed curé at Bauffe, where his pastoral duties gave him little leisure for scientific work. In 1876 he was again invited to Louvain on the proposal of Monseigneur Nameche. He began his teaching with a course in practical microscopy, and in 1879 he published his “Manuel de microscopic.” This was, however, but preliminary to his work in biology, upon which his fame as a teacher and investigator rests. But instead of taking the whole science for his field he confined himself to that phase of it which seemed to him of greatest interest and importance, viz. the study of the structure and phenomena of the cell. He thus became the founder of the school of cellular biology or eytology at Louvain—the first of its kind—whose laboratories he equipped at his own expense. He gathered about him students whom he inspired with his own enthusiasm, and he spared no pains or labour to advance his school and its work and to secure recognition for it. In 1884 he founded “La Cellule,” a journal of cytology, in which much of his own work and that of his collaborators was published. Carnoy did much to advance our knowledge of the cell. He advocated Fromman’s theory of the reticulated structure of the cell, and appears to have been the first to explain the true nature of the albuminoid membrane. He devoted considerable study to the nucleus and was able to distinguish three species of nucleoli within the nucleus, differing in structure and function. He also carried on important researches in cell segmentation. Besides the works already mentioned, Carnoy was the author of the “Traite de biologie cellulaire” (1884), an important work, which, however, was never completed.

GILSON, in La Cellule (Lierre and Louvain, 1900), XVII, i-xxxiv; HAHN, in Revue des questions scientifiques, XLVI, p. 695; Eulogies by HEBBELYNCK and GILSON in Annuaire de l’Université Catholique de Louvain (1900).

H.M. BROCK

Horacio Carochi

Born in Florence, c. 1586; died in Mexico in 1666. he entered the Society of Jesus and before he had concluded his philosophical studies he went to Mexico, where he studies the Indian languages, especially the Nahuatl and the Othomí, which he mastered fully. He was made secretary of the province and wrote “Arte de la Lengua mexicana con la declaración de todos sus adverbios, printed at Mexico in 1645”; “Vocabulario copioso de la Lengua mexicana”; “Gramática de la Lengua Otomæ”; “Vocabulario Otomí”; “Sermones en Lengua mexicana.” His letters to the bishop of Puebla, Juan de Palafox, also deserve mention. Only the first named work has been printed. It is a much esteemed contribution to Mexican linguistics and a rare book.

SOTWELL, Bibliotheca Jesuitica (Rome, 1676); BERISTAIN, Biblioteca hispano-americana; LUDEWIG, Literature of Am. Aboriginal Language (1858).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Caroline Books (Libri Carolini)

A work in four books (120 or 121 chapters), purporting to be the composition of Charlemagne, and written about 790–92. It is a very severe critique of the Seventh General Council, held at Nicaea in 787, particularly as regards its acts and decrees in the matter of sacred images. In fact, it is a grave theological treatise in which both the Iconoclastic council of 754 and its opponent, the aforesaid Second Nicene of 787, are brought before the bar of Frankish criticism and judged equally erroneous, the former for excluding all images from the churches as sheer idolatry, the latter for advocating an absolute adoration of images. Though launched under the royal name, the theological, philosophical, and philological learning displayed far surpass the known powers of Charlemagne. The author may be Alcuin; possibly one or more of the Spanish or Irish theologians who were then residing at the Frankish court. The work had its origin in a very faulty (see Anastasius Bibliothecarius in Mansi, Coll. Conc. XII, 981) Latin version of the Greek acts of the Seventh General Council (Second Nicene) which the negligence of the Roman copyists disfigured still more; in one crucial text, e.g., the negative particle was omitted, and in another the council was made to assert that the images were to be adored as the Trinity itself, whereas the genuine Greek text is quite orthodox. This version was severely criticized by an assembly of Frankish theologians at which Charlemagne assisted. Some (85) obnoxious passages were gathered therefrom and brought to Pope Adrian I by Abbot Angilbert for correction. This document is lost, but its content may be gathered from the moderate and prudent reply (794) of Adrian (PL 1247–92; cf. Nam absit a nobis ut ipsas imagines, sicut quidam garriunt, deificemus, etc.). Dissatisfied with this defence of the council (not reputed oecumenical by the king’s theologians) Charlemagne caused the preparation (790–92) of the large work in question, known since then as “Quattuor Libri Carolini.” (Hampe, Hadrians I Verteidigung der zweiten nieänischen Synode in Neues Archive, 1896, XXI, 85 sqq.; Hergenröther-Kirsch, Kircheng. 4th ed. Freibeurg, 1904, II, 133; Knöpfler-Hefele, Kircheng., 1902, 283).

In further explanation of this remarkable step, it has been noted that Charlemagne was at this time much irritated against the Greek Empress Irene, partly for the failure of the marriage projected between her son and his daughter Rotrudis, partly for the protection and help she was affording to Adelchis, the son of the dethroned King of Lombardy, to which may be added a certain jealousy of any authority over his Frankish subjects by a Greek council in which they had taken no part. Some believe that he was even then contemplating the assumption of the imperial title, and was therefore only too willing to discredit Greek authority wherever possible. The work was first printed at Paris in 1549 by the priest Jean du Tillet (Tilius), later Bishop of Saint Brieuc and then of Meaux, but anonymously and without indication of the place where he found the manuscript (Tilius was suspected of a leaning to Calvinism). While the Centuriators of Magdeburg (q.v.) at once made use of it as an evidence of Catholic corruption of the true doctrine concerning images, some Catholic apologists asserted that it was only an heretical work sent by Charlemagne to Rome for condemnation, others that it was a forgery of Carlstad (the manuscript of Tilius was, after all, a very recent one; Floss, De suspecta librorum Carolinorum a Joanne Tilio editorum fide, Bonn, 1860). They overlooked the fact that Augustinus Steuchus (1469–1549) librarian of the Vatican, writing in defence of the Donation of Constantine, had already quoted a passage from the “Libri Carolini” (I, 6) which he declared he had found in a Vatican manuscript written in an ancient Lombard hand; it had disappeared, however, by 1759, according to a letter of Cardinal Passionei to the learned Abbot Frobenius Förster, then meditating a new edition of the work (see preface no. 10 to his edition of the Opera Alcuini. Floss (op. cit.) maintained the thesis of a forgery, but the genuinity of the work can no longer be questioned since the discovery (1866) by Reifferscheid of a tenth century (imperfect) manuscript in the Vatican Archives (Narratio de Vaticano Libror. Carol. codice, Breslau, 1873). Moreover, the work is evidenced as extant in the latter half of the ninth century by Hincmar of Reims (Adv. Hincmar. Laud., c. 20). Its genuinity was long since admitted by Catholic scholars like Sirmond and Natalis Alexander VIII, (Saec. VIII, Diss. VI, 6). The work was reprinted by the imperialist editor Michael Goldast (Imperialia decreta de cultu imaginum, Frankfort, 1608, p. 67, sqq., and Collect. Constitut. imper., I. 23) whence it was taken by others, e.g. Migne (P. L., XCVIII, 989–1248), though the latter had at his disposition the better edition of G. A. Heumann, Augusta Concilii Nicaeni II Censura, i.e. Caroli M. de impio imaginum cultu libri IV (Hanover, 1731). Some excerpts from it are reprinted in Jaffé, Bibl. Rer. Germanic. VI, 220–42.

The authors of the “Libri Carolini” admit that images may be used as ecclesiastical ornaments, for purposes of instruction, and in memory of past events; it is foolish, however, to burn incense before them and to use lights, though it is quite wrong to cast them out of the churches and destroy them. The writers are scandalized chiefly by the Latin term adoratio, taking it wrongly to mean absolute adoration, whereas the original Greek word, Proskynesis, means no more than reverence in a prostrate attitude. So they insist that God alone is to be adored (adorandus et colendus). The saints are to be venerated, only in a suitable manner (opportuna veneratio). Ecclesiastical tradition, they insist, holds of reverential honour, to the Cross of Christ, the Holy Scriptures, the sacred vessels, and the relics of the saints. They blame the excessive reverence shown by the Greeks to their emperors, criticize unfavourably the elevation of Tarasius (q.v.) to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and find fault (not always unreasonably) with the Scriptural and patristic exegesis of the Greeks. On the other hand, they ignorantly confound the sayings and doings of this orthodox council with those of the Iconoclastic conciliabulum of 754, frequently misrepresent the facts, and in general exhibit a strong anti-Greek bias. In explanation of their attitude the following words of Cardinal Hergenröther (Kircheng., ed. Kirsch, 1904, II, 132) seem appropriate:

Apart from the [unrecognized] errors of the translation, the acts and decrees of the Seventh General Council offended in various ways the customs and opinions of the Teutonic world where heathenism, but lately vanquished, was still potent in folklife and manners. The rude semi-heathen Teuton might easily misunderstand in an idolatrous sense the honours awarded to images, as yet few in number owing to the uncultivated taste of the people. While, therefore, images were tolerated, they were not yet encouraged and held but a subordinate place. The Greeks had always reverenced highly, not alone the person of the Emperors, but also their portraits and statues, and in this respect incense and prostrations (Gr. Proskynesis, Lat. adoratio) were immemorial usages. It seemed to them, therefore, that they could not otherwise pay due reverence to the images of the Saviour and the saints. It was otherwise with the Germans, unaccustomed to prostrate themselves or to bend the knee before their kings. Such acts seemed fitted to express that adoration (latreia) which was due to God alone; when exhibited to others they were frequently a source of scandal. In the Teutonic mind, moreover, the freer ecclesiastical life of the West already shone by contrast with the extravagance of Oriental emperor-worship.

As stated above, Pope Hadrian I, in a letter addressed to Charlemagne, answered lengthily the eighty-five Capitula submitted to him. He reminded the king that twelve of his bishops had taken part in a Roman Synod (previous to the Second Nicene Council) and had approved the “cultus” of images; he refuted a number of the arguments and objections brought forward, and asserted the identity of his teaching with that of the highly-respected Pope Gregory the Great concerning images. He also defended in a dignified way the Second Nicene Synod, not yet finally acknowledged by him, calling attention at the same time to his own just grievances against the Greeks who still retained the churches and estates that the Iconoclast Leo III (717–41) had violently withdrawn from Roman jurisdiction. This letter of Pope Adrian (d. 795) may not have been known to the bishops and abbots of the synod which met at Frankfort in 794 and on the above-described erroneous supposition rejected (can. 2) the Second Nicene Council. Charlemagne sent the acts of this synod to Rome, with a demand for the condemnation of Irene and Constantine VI, but seems gradually to have yielded to the mild and prudent firmness of Adrian for whom he professed at all times the most sincere admiration and friendship. A last echo of the theological conflict crystallized in the “Libri Carolini” is heard at the Paris Synod of 825, which, no wiser than its predecessor as to the erroneous version of the acts in question, sought in vain to obtain from Pope Eugene II an abandonment of the position taken by Adrian I. Despite the increasing favour of the the “cultus” of images among their people, the Frankish bishops continued their opposition to the Second Nicene Council; the latter, however, eventually gained recognition especially after a new and somewhat more accurate version of its acts and decrees was made by Anastasius Bibliothecarius under John VIII (872–82). In the meantime the Frankish writer Walafrid Strabo had summarized and popularized the true ecclesiastical doctrine in his excellent “Liber de exordiis et incrementis rerum ecclesiasticarum,” written about 840 (ed. Knöpfler, Munich, 1890). See ICONOCLASM; IMAGES; FRANKFORT, COUNCIL OF; DUNGAL OF ST. DENYS; JONAS OF ORLÉANS.

HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, III, 678, 694–717; HERGENRÖTHER-KIRSCH, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte (4th ed., Freiburg, 1904), II, 132–137; BLANC, Cours d’ hist. ecclésiastique (Paris, 1896), II, 100–103; NOLTE in Kathol. Literaturzeitung (1861), 237; FLOSS, Leben und Schriften Agobards, Erzbischofs von Lyon (Güterzloh, 1897); DÜMMLER, Uber Leben und Lehre des Bischofs Claudius von Turin in Sitzungsberichte der preuss. Akademie (Berlin, 1895), 427; HAUCK, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1900), II; HERMES in Kirchenlexikon, VII, 189–96; WAGENMANN-HAUCK in Realencyclopädie f. prot. Theologie und Kirche (Leipzig, 1901), X, 88–97; SCHAFF, History of the Christian Church (New York, 1895), IV, 465–70; and the ecclesiastical histories of ROHRBACHER, ALEOG, KRAUS, etc.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Caroline Islands

A group of about 500 small coral islands, east of the Philippines, in the Pacific Ocean. The distance from Manila to Yap, one of the larger islands of the group, is 1200 miles. The Caroline Islands were discovered in the sixteenth century by the Spaniards and were so named in honour of Charles V. The Jesuits, John Anthony Cantova and Victor Walter, attempted missionary work there in 1731; the former was soon murdered, the latter obliged to flee. Two other Jesuits were killed later. In 1767 the Jesuits were suppressed in the Spanish dominions, and during the next 120 years there is no trace of a missionary. The controversy between Germany and Spain concerning the possession of the Carolines having been settled by Pope Leo XIII in favour of Spain, the king directed Spanish Capuchins to the islands, 15 March, 1886, and the Propaganda officially established that mission, 15 May, 1886, dividing it into two sections, named West and East Carolines respectively. Until then the islands had belonged ecclesiastically to the Vicariate Apostolic of Micronesia.

The aborigines, of the Polynesian race, are not cannibals; they live mainly by hunting and fishing, and know nothing of agriculture, though the soil is very fertile. They wear very little clothing and build small huts of branches. Immorality is rife among them, even the little children being infected with it. The boys make progress in learning, the girls are exceptionally slow. The language spoken in commerce is English, but the aborigines have several dialects of their own. The Spanish Capuchins had a catechism and prayer book printed in the Ponape dialect, and Father Anthony of Valentia wrote a small grammar and dictionary of the Yap dialect in 1890. They believe in a Supreme Being (Yalafar) and in a bad spirit (Can), yet they have hardly any religious rites. When the Spanish Fathers had laid the foundations of the mission, these islands passed by purchase into the hands of Germany (1 June, 1899). Spain had contributed more than $5000 a year towards the mission; Germany granted no support. Spain had compelled the aborigines to send their children to school; Germany gave full liberty in this regard, and the somewhat lazy people consequently began to neglect school as well as church. The mission thereby suffered greatly, and the Propaganda finally deemed it advisable to replace the Spanish Capuchins with others of German nationality (7 Nov., 1904) and to erect one Apostolic prefecture instead of the two separate missions (18 Dec., 1905). The Very Reverend Father Venantius of Prechthal was appointed first prefect Apostolic. In 1906 twelve fathers and twelve brothers were working in thirteen stations, and several Sisters of St. Francis left Luxemburg to take charge of the ten schools, in which were 262 children. Ninety adult converts were the harvest of that year, and the Catholic population is given as 1900 among 11,600 heathens and a few Protestants. The United States Government sent, 1 July, 1905, a Jesuit from the observatory at Manila to erect a meteorological station on the island of Yap, of which station the Capuchin Father Callistus was appointed director. The origin of the East-Asiatic typhoons had been traced to these regions, and twice a day observations are made, and notice is frequently given to Manila by cable.

STOLBERG, Die Karolineninsel Yap (Berlin, 1906); BAUMGARTEN, Das Wirken der kath. Kirche auf dem Erdenrund (Munich, 1902); STEIDL, Die Missionen der Kapuziner in der Gegenwart (Meran, 1890); Katholische Missionen, XXXIII-XXXV; CHRISTIAN, The Caroline Islands (London, 1899); The Statesman’s Year-Book (1907), 1023; Missiones Cath. (Rome, 1907), 713–14; STREIT, Atlas des Missions cath. (Steyl, 1906), 20, and plates 15 and 22; SHOEMAKER M.M., Islands of the Southern Seas (New York, 1898).

OTTO JÉRON.

Raymond Caron

(Or REDMOND)

Franciscan friar and author, b. at Athlone, Ireland, in 1605; d. at Dublin, 1666. Entering the Franciscan convent in his native town he there made his preliminary studies, after which he studied philosophy at Drogheda. Subsequently he left Ireland and studied theology at Salzburg and at the Franciscan college at Louvain. At the latter place he was, immediately after his ordination, appointed professor of theology, and in that capacity maintained the reputation he had earned as a student. In 1635 he published at Antwerp a work “Roma triumphans Septicollis,” in defence of Catholic doctrine, and had he continued at Louvain the quiet life of author and professor it would have been well for his peace of mind. But in 1648 he was sent by the superior of his order in the Netherlands to Ireland as visitator with ample powers to correct and reform. He resided at the Franciscan convent at Kilkenny, and plunged at once into the strife of faction then raging there. Opposing the nuncio and Owen Roe O’Neill, he sought to bring all to the side of Ormond and imprisoned the members of his order at Kilkenny who refused to adopt his views, a proceeding which made him so unpopular that his life was in danger, and he had to be protected by Lord Castlehaven at the head of an armed force. During the rule of the Puritans he remained abroad, but returned to England at the Restoration and lived there for several years. He was throughout the supporter of Ormond and his policy and wrote two works, in defence of Peter Walsh’s “Remonstrance”: “Loyalty asserted, and the late Remonstrance of the Irish Clergy and Laity confirmed and proved by the authority of Scripture, Fathers, etc.” (London, 1662); and “Remonstrantia Hibernorum contra Lovanienses” (London, 1665). This conduct earned for him the character of a loyalist; but it brought on him the condemnation of his own superiors and for a time he was under ecclesiastical censure.

WARE-HARRIS, Writers of Ireland (Dublin, 1764); GILBERT, History of Irish Affairs, 1641–52 (ibid., 1880); CASTEHAVEN, Memoirs (ibid., 1815); WALSH, History of the Irish Remonstrance (1674).

E. A. D’ALTON.

René-Edouard Caron

A French Canadian statesman and magistrate, b. at Sainte Anne de Beaupre, Canada, 13 October, 1800, of Augustin Caron, a farmer, and Elizabeth Lessard; d. 13 December, 1876. He studied at the Quebec seminary and was admitted to the Bar in 1826. In 1833 he was elected Mayor of Quebec, an office he held for ten years with zeal and devotedness, particularly during the cholera of 1834, and the fire of 1845, which nearly destroyed the whole city. Elected for the Legislative Assembly in 1834, he was called to the Legislative Council, at the Union of the two provinces (1841). He was appointed Speaker of the Upper House successively in 1843, 1848, and 1851, having likewise a seat in the Cabinet on the last two occasions. He shared with Lafontaine and Morin the merit of wrestling from an ultra-Tory oligarchy equal rights for Lower Canada. His patriotism and disinterestedness made him twice forgo power and honours to assure to his province the benefits of responsible government. In 1853 he was appointed Judge of the Superior Court, and in 1855 of the Court of the Queen’s Bench, an office which he discharged for twenty years with prudence and impartiality, ever guided by conscience and the sense of duty. He took part in the codification of the civil laws (1859). In 1872 his long career of unsought honours was crowned by his appointment to the Lieutenant-Governorship of the Quebec Province, a position which he held till his death.

TURCOTTE, Le Canada sous l’Union (Quebec, 1872); FENNINGS-TAYLOR, Portraits of British Americans (Montreal, 1865).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Vittore Carpaccio

A Venetian painter whose real name was Scarpazza, b. at Venice about 1455; d. in the same city between 1523 and 1526. He was one of those Venetian masters who formed a link between the earlier artists, such as Jacobello del Fiore and the classic painters like Giorgione and Titian. Lazzaro Bastiani was his teacher, not, as Vasari has maintained, his pupil. Being an artist who worked for the middle classes of Venetian society, Carpaccio enjoyed neither the official position nor the aristocratic patronage that fell to the lot of the Bellinis. It was only in 1501 that he received orders for the Doge’s Palace, where he painted the “Lion of St. Mark,” still to be seen there, and the “Battle of Ancona,” destroyed in the fire of 1577. In 1508 he was one of the commission appointed to set a valuation upon Giorgione’s frescoes at the Fondaco dei Tedeschi.

Nearly all of Carpaccio’s lifetime was spent in painting for the scuole (schools) or religious confraternities either of artisans or foreigners. It was for one of these that he executed the most celebrated and extensive of his works “The Life of St. Ursula,” now preserved in the Academy of Venice. His other paintings were produced, doubtless, under similar circumstances. They usually depicted the lives of the saints, and they included such subjects as: “The Life of the Virgin,” “The Life of St. Stephen,” “The Life of St. Jerome,” and “The Life of St. George.” The first two are found in museums of Europe, but about 1560 the others were placed, with the “Miracle of St. Tryphonius” and the “Call of St. Matthew,” in the little Venetian church of San Giorgio de Schiavoni, the best place in the world in which to make Carpaccio’s acquaintance. The eight unframed panels found in the church of Saint Alviso, signed “Carpathius” and dealing with the histories of Joseph, the Queen of Sheba, Job, and Rebecca, are attributed, although without positive proof, to the youthful period of the master.

Carpaccio’s style, like that of all the Venetian painters of the time, bore the imprint of Mantegna’s influence. Architecturally he was inspired by Lombardi, but his peculiar charm lay in knowing better than any other artist how to reproduce the incomparable grace of Venice. Long before the time of Guardi and the Canalettis, Carpaccio was the historian and the poet of its calle and canali, and his work, together with Marin Sanudo’s Journal, provides the best picture extant of the golden age of the republic. Carpaccio was the most truly Venetian of all the artists of Venice, and, of course, it is there that he can be best understood and appreciated. Moreover, he was the most Oriental, and his work abounds in the costumes and views of the East. In 1511 he had completed a panorama of Jerusalem that he offered in a letter to the Marquis of Mantua. It might naturally be supposed that Carpaccio had accompanied Gentile Bellini to Constantinople, but it has been ascertained that he limited himself to copying Reuwich’s pictures in Breydenbach’s “Itinerary,” published at Mainz in 1486.

His genius is of a most realistic turn. He has nothing of Giovanni Bellini’s deep, religious lyricism; besides, his expression lacks vigour. His “Martyrdom of the Ten Thousand” in the Academy of Venice is among his feeblest efforts, being merely a happy, tranquil, although quite pleasing, conception, luminous and life-like, and characterized by exquisite dignity and an indescribable air of cheerful heroism. His great equestrian picture of St. Vitalis at Venice was the most beautiful piece of decorative painting prior to the time of Paul Veronese. When pathetic, Carpaccio is charming. Nothing is more instructive than to compare his “Life of St. Ursula” with Memling’s famous shrine in Bruges. With the Venetian everything merges into splendid spectacles and ceremonies. However, his “Saint’s Vision” is one of the most beautiful paintings of virginal sleep ever made. His “St. Jerome in his Cell” yields nothing in point of nobility to Durer’s fine print, and his last pictures, such as “The Holy Family” at Caen and the eloquent “Pieta” at Berlin, reveal a soulful intensity of which his earlier productions gave no promise.

VASARI, Le Vite (1557); RIDOLFI, Meraviglie dell’ arte (Venice, 1648, in 4to); RUSKIN, St. Mark’s Rest (London); LUDWIG AND MOLMENTI, Vittore Carpaccio, la vita e le opere (Milan, 1906, in 4to); ROSENTHAL, Carpaccio (Paris, 1907); DE WYZEWA, Les maítres italiens d’autrefois (Paris, 1907).

LOUIS GILLET

Carpasia

A titular see of Cyprus. Carpasia, Karpasia, also Karpasion (sometimes mistaken for Karpathos) is said to have been founded by King Pygmalion near Cape Sarpedon, now Cape St. Andrea, at the extreme end of a peninsula on the north-east shore of Cyprus, a short distance north of the modern Rhizokarpaso. Its first-known bishop, St. Philo, was ordained by St. Epiphanius in the fourth century; he has left a commentary on the Canticle of Canticles, a letter, and some fragments. Hermolaus was present at Chalcedon in 451. The chroniclers mention three other names, and a fourth occurs on a seal, all without dates. Another is quoted in the “Constitutio Cypria” of Alexander IV (1260). The see was suppressed in 1222 by the papal legate, Cardinal Pelagius, but it figures in later episcopal lists. During the Latin domination the Greek Archbishop of Arsinoe (Famagusta) was obliged to reside at Rhizokarpaso.

P.G., XL, 9–154; KERAMEUS, Analecta, I, 393–399; FABRICIUS, Biblioth. græca, ed. HARLES, IV, 751, X, 479; MASLATRIE, Histoire de Chypre, passim; IDEM, L’ile de Chypre, 46; HACKETT, A History of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus (1901), 318, 320.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Diocese of Carpi

DIOCESE OF CARPI (CARPENSIS).

The city of Carpi is situated in the province of Modena, Central Italy. It belonged originally to the famous Countess Matilda, from whom it passed to the Holy See (1115–1215). From 1215 to 1319 it was subject to Modena and from the latter date until 1525 was ruled by the Pio, vassals of the Holy See. In 1530 Charles V, who had occupied Carpi since 1525, made it over to Alfonso (I) d’Este, Duke of Ferrara. Carpi was created a see only in 1779, by Pius VI, the first bishop being Francesco Benincasa. Under Julius II it became immediately dependent on the Holy See, having previously been under the jurisdiction of Modena. The cathedral, built by King Aistulf in 756, was entirely rebuilt and richly embellished by Duke Alberto Pio. In 1855 Carpi became a suffragan of Modena. The diocese contains a population of 70,000, with 31 parishes, 50 churches and chapels, 84 secular and 4 regular priests, and 4 religious houses for women.

CAPPELLETTI,Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XV, 401; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 369.

U. BENIGNI

Carracci

AGOSTINO CARRACCI

An Italian painter, engraver, and etcher, b. at Bologna, 16 August, 1557; d. at Parma, 22 March, 1602. The son of Antonio Carracci, a tailor, he was nephew of Lodovico and brother of Annibale. He began his art life as a goldsmith; but, urged by his uncle, the youth abandoned plastic for graphic art, and studied painting, first with Fontana, who had been Lodovico’s master, and later with Passerotti. The fame of Correggio’s masterpieces drew Agostino to Parma, and afterwards, accompanied by Annibale, he made a long sojourn in Venice, where he became a distinguished engraver under the celebrated Cort. In 1589 he and his brother returned to Bologna and with Lodovico started the “School of the Carracci” (see below, LODOVICO), in which he taught while working devotedly at painting. In his native town is his masterpiece, “The Last Communion of St. Jerome,” a beautiful work, showing Corregio’s influence. Agostino helped in the decoration of nearly every great palace in Bologna, and his poetic imagination was of great avail when with the matter-of- fact Annibale he assisted in the decoration of the Farnese Palace in Rome. He was a poet, and an interesting sonnet of his tells the students of the “Academy” what parts to choose from each school of painting and from the masters of the past in order to attain perfection. In 1600 Annibale and Agostino had a disagreement, and the latter left for Parma, where for the rest of his life he painted for the duke. Agostino was a master of engraving: he introduced what is called “the large style,” and the lines of his plates were broadly and boldly laid. His influence in the art of engraving was felt far beyond the bounds of Italy, and his technic with the graver was widely imitated. His plates were freely and beautifully executed, there is an admirable expression on all his faces, and the execution of the hands and feet is marvellous. In addition to his masterpiece, mention may be made of: “St Francis receiving the Stigmata” (Vienna); “Triumph of Galatea” (London). Among his numerous plates the best and most celebrated are: “Antonio Carracci” (his father); “Tiziano Vocelli”; “The Repose in Egypt.”

ANNIBALE CARRACCI

Painter, etcher and engraver, brother of Agostino, b. at Bologna, 3 November, 1560; d. in Rome, 15 July, 1609. The boy’s father, after much persuasion by Lodovico an uncle, was induced to let Annibale study painting instead of learning the trade of tailor, and Lodovico became his first teacher. After a visit to Parma and a study of the masters in that city, Annibale accompanied his brother Agostino to Venice and worked with him there. He returned to Bologna in 1589, and with his uncle and brother opened the Academy of the Incamminati or Desiderosi, called later the “School of the Eclectics” and the “School of the Carracci,” whose object was to “revive” art. In 1600 Annibale went to Rome, whither Cardinal Odoardo Farnese had invited him, to decorate the splendid Farnese Palace. This was his greatest achievement, and up to and through Sir Joshua Reynolds’s time Annibale was ranked with Raphael. Poussin says of the Farnese decorations, “in them he surpassed every artist who preceded him.” Agostino assisted him in this work but left before a year was over, either from Annibale’s jealousy, as some assert, or because of the latter’s quarrelsome disposition. In any event, Annibale stands as the most distinguished of the five Carracci, and in perfection of drawing, delicacy of colour, and grace in modelling closely approaches the old masters. “The Three Maries” is his finest easel picture, and both in feeling and handling is beautiful and impressive. Although a founder of the Desiderosi, his landscapes possess great charm even as backgrounds, and, what was unusual then, he painted landscapes where figures were but accessories, and also worked in genre. His etchings and engravings, however, are much inferior to his paintings, and, compared with Agostino’s work with the graver, conventional and amateurish. When Annibale died, his nephew Antonio, to whom he was benefactor, teacher, and friend, gave him a splendid burial in the Pantheon. Among his principal paintings are: “The Three Maries” (Castle Howard, England); “Holy Family” (Berlin); “Portrait of Himself” (Florence); “La Vierge aux Cerises” (Paris); “Pietà” (St. Petersburg). Of his engraved and etched plates the best is: “The Dead Christ in the Lap of the Virgin,” called the “Caprarola Christ.”

ANTONIO MARZIALE CARRACCI

An Italian painter, the natural son of Agostino Carracci, b. in Venice, 1583; d. in Rome, 1618. He began his art studies early and proved an apt scholar. He was taught first by his father, and later and chiefly by his uncle Annibale for whom he developed a deep affection. With Annibale he went to Rome where most of his work was done. Cardinal Tonti employed the talented youth to decorate his chapel, and on its completion he was commissioned to paint the chapel of St. Charles Borromeo, and a fresco in one of the rooms of the pope’s palace at Monte Cavallo. His easel pictures were few, and are to-day exceedingly rare. In 1609, when his uncle and teacher, Annibale, died, he showed his devotion by burying him with great solemnity near the tomb of Raphael. His was an uneventful career. Chief among his works are: “The Flood” (Louvre); “Christ healing a blind man” (Modena); “Lute Player” (Modena).

FRANCESCO CARRACCI

Painter and engraver, son of Giovanni Antonio Carracci, b. in Bologna, 1595; d. in Rome, 1622. The father was a brother of Agostino and Annibale. Francesco was a youth of great talent and promise. He was taught by Lodovico in the Academy of the Incamminati, but left the school to start one in opposition to his teacher, calling it the “True School of the Carracci.” Like the other members of the Carracci family he taught, engraved, and painted. His “Adoration” in the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore, Bologna, is not only his masterpiece but an excellent piece of vigorous painting. The “True School” was not a success, and, his students leaving him, Francesco went to Rome and made another attempt to found an academy, only to fail again. He died in abject poverty. He left a few engravings after the works of Lodovico and Annibale.

LODOVICO CARRACCI

Painter, etcher, engraver, and founder of the “Eclectic School” of painting, b. at Bologna, 21 April, 1555; d. there, 13 November, 1619. He was of humble origin, and his brother Antonio was a tailor by trade. Slow, plodding, but determined, the young Lodovico was advised by his masters, Fontana and Tintoretto, to abandon his chosen career of art, and his fellow-students jeered him, calling him “the ox” on account of his physical and mental characteristics. But neither teachers nor pupils could turn him from the path he had marked out for himself. He travelled throughout Italy to prosecute his studies, and was chiefly influenced by the works of Andrea del Sarto, Titian, and Corregio. He returned to Bologna in 1589 and with Agostino and Annibale, his nephews, opened the Academy degli Desiderosi, “the school of those who regret the past, despise the present, and aspire to a better future.” For eleven years these three worked together, and then, the younger men going to Rome, Lodovico remained the sole head of the Academy until his death. The object of the “Eclectics” was to combine in their art Michelangelo’s line, Titian’s colour, Correggio’s chiaroscuro, and Raphael’s symmetry and grace. Midway, however, in their successful career, the three Carracci were forced to modify their eclecticism and rely more and more on nature. The fame of the Carracci Academy was great, its influence spread over all Italy, and Lodovico’s was a great name-great more on account of the painters he developed than from his own work with the brush. Albani, Guido Remi, Domenichino, Lanfranco, Spada, Tiarini, and Bonzi (Il Gobbo) were among those who attended the school. Lodovico’s paintings are pleasing in colour, and exhibit much intelligence and technical skill, but lack spontaneity, originality, and individuality. He was a teacher rather than an artist. His engravings, much more interesting than his other work, are very beautiful; evidently he began his plates by freely and simply etching them and then finished with an elaborate use of the graver. Chief among his works are: “Ecce Homo” (Rome); “Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes” (Berlin); “Virgin and Child” (Paris). Among his etched and engraved plates are the “Holy Family” and “Samson overcoming the Lion.”

CROWE AND CAVALCASELLE, History of Painting in Italy (London, 1864); LÜBKE, Gesch. der italienischen Malerei (Stuttgart, 1878); MICHAUD, Biog. Univ.; LANDON, Vies et Œuvres des peintures les plus cèlébres de toutes les écoles (Paris, 1803–25); VASARI, Vite de’ piu excellenti pittori, scultori e architetti (Florence, 1849).

LEIGH HUNT.

Bartolomé Carranza

(Also called DE MIRANDA, from his native town).

Archbishop of Toledo; b. at Miranda de Arga, Spain, 1503; d. at Rome, 2 May, 1576. Carranza belonged to a noble family which had its estates at Miranda de Arga in Spanish Navarre. He received his early education at Alcalá and in 1520 entered the Dominican convent of Benalaque near Guadalajara. He continued his philosophical and theological studies at Salamanca; in 1528 he was made master of the liberal arts, and in 1534 lector of theology, at the College of St. Gregory, Valladolid. On account of some doctrinal opinions he was said to hold, an accusation was about this time brought against him, but nothing further came of it. Carranza’s reputation as a learned theologian increased rapidly, and he was appointed censor by the Inquisition and was commissioned to prepare opinions and sermons. He was also sent by his order on various important missions. Thus in 1539 he represented his province at the general chapter of the Dominicans at Rome. After his return, in 1540, the Emperor Charles V offered him the See of Cuzco in Peru, but Carranza declined the appointment and continued performing his duties as lector of theology at Valladolid. In 1545, when the Council of Trent was opened, Charles V sent Carranza and another Dominican, Dominicus de Soto, as imperial theologians, to the council, and by June, 1545, Carranza was in Trent. During the first period of the council (1545–47) he took an active part in the discussions of the theologians in the congregations, expressed opinions concerning the various matters appointed for discussion, the sacraments in general, Baptism, the Eucharist, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, and preached at Divine service, 14 March, before the assembled council (Le Plat, “Monum. Trident.,” I, 52–62, gives the text of the sermon). He also showed great zeal in the conferences concerning the reform of church discipline. In the warm discussions as to the duty of episcopal residence, Carranza, like all the Spaniards, was strongly of the opinion that the duty of residence was a Divine law (juris divini), and therefore could not be delegated to a vicar. On this question, Carranza wrote and issued a treatise, “Controversia de necessarii residentii personali episcoporum et aliorum inferiorum ecclesiæ pastorum Tridenti explicata” (Venice, 1547), which may be found in Le Plat, “Monum. Trident.,” III, 522–584. Carranza also had a share in drawing up the eleven articles proposed by the Spaniards, which treated the duty of episcopal residence and other questions of discipline relatiing to the office of a bishop. When the council was transferred to Bologna he did not go to that city, but remained in Trent. In 1548 Charles asked him to accompany Prince Philip to Flanders as confessor, but Carranza declined the position; in 1549 he refused the appointment of Bishop of the Canary Islands.

After his return to Spain, in 1549, he was made prior of the monastery at Palencia, and in 1550 provincial. In 1551, when Pope Julius III reopened the Council at Trent, Carranza went once more to that city to take part in the deliberations. The council was again interrupted in 1552, and Carranza went back to Spain, where, besides his duties in his order, he also took part in the labours of the Inquisition. As almoner of Prince Philip, Carranza came in contact with the prince, and often preached before him and his court. When, in 1554, Philip was betrothed to Queen Mary of England, and was preparing to go to that country for the marriage, he sent Carranza and other members of Spanish orders ahead of him, in order to give support to the queen in her efforts to bring back the country to the Catholic Faith. Carranza remained until 1557 in England, where he was actively engaged, in connexion with Cardinal Pole, as visitator and preacher. He sought to prevent the sale of Protestant books, preached frequently against the false doctrines, and made an inspection of the University of Oxford, from which, by his efforts, a number of professors were expelled. After Charles V had abdicated the throne and was succeeded, in Spain, by Philip, Carranza returned, in 1557, to the Continent, and went to Flanders, where the new king had his principal residence at that time. In Flanders the zealous Dominican also busied himself with efforts to check the introduction and spread of Protestant writings and to maintain the Catholic Faith.

The See of Toledo falling vacant by the death of the Cardinal Archbishop Siliceo, 31 May, 1557, the king decided upon Carranza as successor to the position. In vain did Carranza exert himself to win the favour of the king for another candidate. Philip II persisted in his choice, so that at last Carranza yielded and was preconized by Pope Paul IV, 16 December, 1557, as Archbishop of Toledo and, therefore, Primate of Spain. Carranza received episcopal consecration at Brussels, in 1558, from Cardinal Granvella, then Bishop of Arras. Equipped with important political instructions the new archbishop left Flanders in June and reached the court at Valladolid in August. Soon after this he went to Yuste to visit Charles V, who was dying; he remained with the emperor until the latter’s death. A report arose in time that Carranza had led Charles into heretical views, so that the emperor had not died in the true Catholic Faith. This rumour was pure invention, but it gave a new ground for the process before the Inquisition which had already begun against him. It was only for about a year that Carranza was able to devote himself to his diocese, where he bestowed especial attention upon the care of the poor. In 1558 his “Commentary on the Christian Catechism” (Commentarios del revmo. Señ. Fray Bartolomé Carranza de Miranda sobre el catechismo cristiano) had appeared at Antwerp. A number of views suspected of heresy were found in the book, and the Grand Inquisitor Valdés brought an action against the author. Besides this work on the catechism,Carranza’s manuscripts, expressions he had employed in sermons, and letters found in his possession, including one from Juan Valdés, the heretic, were taken as evidence against him. Melchior Cano, the famous theologian, and Dominicus de Soto, both members of the same order as the archbishop, drew numerous propositions from the commentary which were open to ecclesiastical censure. A Brief of Paul IV, dated 7 January, 1559, had granted the Grand Inquisitor of Spain the power, for the space of two years, to investigate the conduct of all Spanish bishops; this measure was intended to conteract the threatening danger of the spread of Protestant doctrine. With the permission, therefore, of King Philip II (26 June, 1558) the grand inquisitor had the archbishop arrested at Torrelaguna, 22 August, 1558, and brought a prisoner to Valladolid. Pope Pius IV made repeated requests to Philip II in the matter, and the Holy Father was urged several times, in the years 1562 and 1563, by the members of the Council of Trent, to bring the case of the Archbishop of Toledo before his court. The Congregation of the Index also gave at the council a favourable testimony for Carranza in regard to his commentary.

Nevertheless the Spanish process pursued its tedious course. In 1564, when the Inquisition had closed its investigation, the king expressed the wish to Pius IV that the matter be decided in Spain by judges appointed by the pope. The pope agreed to this and named (13 July, 1565) four judges who were to pronounce judgment in Spain. These judges were: Cardinal Ugo Buoncompagni, Ippolito Aldobrandini, Fel. Peretti, O. S. F., and J. B. Castagna, Archbishop of Rosano; all four became popes later. However, after their arrival in Spain in November, 1565, they were not permitted to proceed independently of the officials of the Inquisition, and the process, therefore, reached no final settlement. At last, in 1567, owing to the peremptory order of Pius V, the suit was brought before the Curia, the official documents were sent to Rome, and Carranza, who had been in prison eight years, was taken to Rome, where he arrived 28 May, 1567. The papal chambers in the Castle of Sant’ Angelo were appointed to be his residence during the trial. Once more the case lasted a long time, being nine years before the Curia. It was not until the reign of Gregory XIII that a final decision was reached, 14 April, 1576. Carranza was not found guilty of actual heresy, but he was condemned to abjure sixteen Lutheran propositions of which he had made himself suspected, was forbidden to enter on the government of his diocese for another five years, and was ordered during this period to live in the monastery of his order near the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, and there to perform certain religious exercises as penance. Carranza died, however, in the same year, and was buried in the choir of the church just mentioned. Before this he had, on 23 April, visited the seven great churches and had celebrated Mass on the following day in the basilica of the Lateran. Previous to receiving the last sacraments he touchingly declared that he had been all his life a true adherent of the Catholic Faith, that he had never voluntarily understood and held the condemned propositions in a heretical sense, and that he submitted entirely to the judgment pronounced upon him. He had borne the imprisonment of nearly seventeen years with patience and resignation, and was universally venerated at Rome. Pope Gregory XIII gave permission for the placing over his grave of a monument bearing an inscription in his honour.

Carranza’s sorrowful fate was brought about, largely, by the intense desire to keep all Protestant influences out of Spain. At the same time it cannot be denied that expressions which he used and propositions which he occasionally set forth would of themselves give rise to the suggestion of heretical opinions. At a later date the Congregation of the Index also condemned his commentary. This work, a stout folio, treated the doctrines of Christian faith and morals under four heads: faith, commandments, sacraments, and good works. Besides the commentary, Carranza published a “Summa Conciliorum et Pontificum a Petro usque Paulum III” (Venice, 1546), often republished and enlarged by later editors. The “Summa” was prefaced by four dissertations: “Controversiæ quattuor, (1) Quanta sit auctoritas traditionum in ecclesiâ; (2) Quanta Sacræ Scripturæ; (3) Quanta Romani Pontificis et Sedis apostolicæ; (4) Quanta Conciliorum”; further, by the controversial treatise concerning episcopal residence mentioned above, and by an “Introduction to the Hearing of the Mass” (Instruccion para oir messa). An edition was issued at Antwerp in 1555.

NAVARRETE, Coleccion de documentos inéditos para la historia de España (Madrid, 1844), V; GACHARD, Retraite et mort de Charles-Quint au monastére de Yuste (Brussels, 1854–55f), II; Concilium Tridentianum, ed. Societas Gœrresiana, I; DIARIA, ed. MERKLE (Freiburg im Br., 1901); QUÉTIF AND ECHARD, Scriptores ord. Prædicatorum (Paris, 1721), II; TOURON, Histoire des hommes illustres de l’ordre de S. Dominique (Paris, 1747), IV; LLORENTE, Histoire critique de l’inquisition d’Espagne (Paris, 1818), III; RODRIGO, Historia verdadera de la Inquisicion (Madrid, 1877), III; SCHÄFER, Geschichte des spanischen Protestantismus (Gütersloh, 1902), I and III; REUSCH, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher (Bonn, 1883 sqq.), III; LAUGWITZ, Barth. Carranza, Erzbischof von Toledo (Kempton, 1870); CABALLERO, Vida de Melchior Cano (Madrid, 1871); EHRLE in Der Katholik (1885, I, 86, sqq.).

J.P. KIRSCH

Diego Carranza

Born at Mexico, 1559; died at Tehuantepec. He entered the Dominican Order 12 May, 1577, and was sent to Nejapa in Oaxaca after being ordained a priest. He was assigned to the mission among the Chontal Indians, who roamed through the forests almost in a savage condition, although, by their language, they belong to the same linguistic stock as the sedentary Nahuatl. Undergoing great privations, Carranza clung to these forest tribes, and succeeded in partly settling them in hamlets and erecting hermitages where they might worship. For twelve years he led this life of exposure and contracted leprosy. He must have died quite young, but the exact date is unknown. Before his death he erected a church for his wards in the village of Santa Maria Tequiztlan. Details concerning this devoted missionary are very meagre. We know however, that he composed, in the Chontal idiom, a “Doctrina cristiana,” “Exercicios espirituales,” and “Sermones,” which remained in manuscript, but they are now lost. They would be of the greatest value, since hardly anything has been published on this idiom.

DÁVILA-PADILLA, Historia de la Fundación deca (Mexico, 1596); BURGOA, Geográfica Descripción (Mexico, 1674); ANTONIO, Bibliotheca hispana nova (Madrid, 1733–1738); SQUIER, Monograph of Authors (New York, 1861); BRINTON, The American Race (New York, 1891); OROZCO Y BERRA, Lenguas indíjenas y Carta etnográfica de México (Mexico, 1864); PIMENTEL, Cuadro descriptivo y comparatívo de las Lenguas indíjenas de México (Mexico, 1862).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Juan Carreno de Miranda

Spanish painter, b. at Avilés in Asturia, 1614; d. at Madrid, 1685. He was a pupil of Pedro de Las Cuevas and Bartolomé Roman, but at the age of twenty knew more than his masters could teach him, and left them to set up a studio for himself. Velazquez is said to have interested himself to gain permission for the young artist to study the frescoes of the royal palaces; Carreno then obtained a commission to decorate the mirrors in the palace of Alcázar, and his talents so recommended him to the Court that in 1660 he was appointed by the king as court painter (pintor de cámara), a position he retained under the next king, Charles II. He was a man of particularly happy, peaceable disposition, full of generosity, and an immense favourite with his pupils and friends. His work is tender, suave, and of pure, fresh colouring, and in his particular method he is only surpassed by Murillo. Unfortunately, he was too much given to imitating the work of Velazquez, and, although his portraits are powerful and truthful likenesses, their resemblance in general pose to those of the master force them to challenge the incomparable works of Velazquez, to the obvious detriment of Carreño. His strongest portrait is that of Prince Pedro Ivanovitz Potemkin, Ambassador from the Emperor of Russia to the Court of Spain, a full length figure in red, and he painted three portraits of Charles II, life-like representations of the child-king. He executed several etchings. His best paintings are to be seen at Madrid, St. Petersburg, Pamplona, Valenciennes, and Vienna. Palomino gives a long account of his pictures in Alcala, Segovia, and Pamplona, but very little about the artist himself. He was responsible, with Francisco Ricci, for the decoration of the celebrated cupola of San Antonio de los Portugueses, and the same two artists collaborated in painting the “Magdalen in the Desert” for the Convent of Las Recogidas.

CEÁN BERMÚDEZ, Diccionario histórico de los más ilustres profesores de las Bellas Artes in España (Madrid, 1800); BALDINUCCI, Notizie de’ Professori del disegno (Florence, 1688); CONCA, Descrizione odeporica della Spanga (Parma, 1793); COESIO, La Pintura española (Madrid, 1886); MADRAZO, Catálogo descriptivo é histórico de los cuadros del Museo del Prado (Madrid, 1872); ORLANDI, Abecedario pittorico (Naples, 1733); PACHECO, Arte de la Pintura (Seville, 1649); PALOMINO DE CASTRO Y VELASCO, Museo Pictórico y Escala Optica (Madrid, 1715); ID., El Parnaso español pintoresco laureado (Madrid, 1724); STIRLING, Annals of the Artists of Spain (London, 1848); SMITH, Painting, Spanish and French (London, 1884); HARTLEY, Spanish Painting (London, 1904); ZARCO DEL VALLE, Documentos inéditos para la Historia de las Bellas Artes en España (Madrid, 1870).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Rafael Carrera

Born at Guatemala, Central America, 24 October, 1814; died there 14 April, 1865, one of the most remarkable men that Central America has produced. A mestizo, he had no opportunity to secure an education, and learned to sign his name only after he had already risen to power. The judgment usually passed upon him is most unfavourable. He is described as a cruel, bloodthirsty upstart from the lowest walks of life, opposed to liberty and progress and even to order. The last is certainly not true, since it was Carrera who, in the end, brought order into the bloody chaos in which political factions had plunged Guatemala for decades. Two factions were then opposing each other in Central America: the Centralists, who clung to Spanish colonial traditions, and the Federalists, who dreamt of a federation of the Central American States in imitation of the United States of North America. Strife had been bitter and bloody, at least since 1824, and on both sides terrible excesses were committed. The Federalists or Liberals had forcibly abolished the convents and monastic orders, driven away the clergy in general, levying contributions right and left on the Church, making forced loans to gratify the rapacity of unscrupulous and profligate office-holders under pretext of supporting the Government. To this kind of “liberty” Carrera was opposed. His opposition was intuitive, not from principle or reasoning. Like the Indians, he clung to the Church from tradition and habit. In 1829 he was an obscure drummer-boy in one of the bands that fought and pillaged for the Centralist party. General Morazan was the leader of the Liberals and captured the city of Guatemala in the same year, putting the Federalist faction in power again. Carrera abandoned the military career for the time and became a humble swineherd. But when, in 1837, the cholera made its appearance in Guatemala, the Indians, attributing its ravages to the poisoning of the water by the Federalist authorities, rose in arms against them.

The uprising was put down by force, called forth by the usual cruelties perpetrated by Indians on such occasions. Carrera’s wife was outraged by Liberals. He vowed revenge and kept his vow. On a later occasion his aged mother was also ill-treated, which still further increased his wrath. He gathered a band of followers and began a merciless warfare. Extermination of the Liberal faction was thereafter his aim. No pity had been shown to those he most loved, and he felt no compassion for those under whose orders they had been wronged. Against the trained soldiers of Morazan he could not for a long time prevail, but his incessant harassing told upon the enemy in the end and, after Morazan had recaptured the city of Guatemala in 1839, that leader found himself entrapped. In 1840 Carrera was absolute master of Guatemala. Until then he had been concerned only with war; now he faced the task of reorganization, for which he was little or not at all prepared. He re-established the clergy, the convents, and recalled the Jesuits, thus laying the foundation of a new life. He proved himself wiser than the Centralists, who opposed all progress, more practical than the Liberals, who refused to take into account the historical development of the people and their actual condition, striving by force to impose changes for which the people were not prepared and which they could not understand.

In 1847 Carrera was, by a kind of election, made President of Guatemala, and seven years later he became dictator, that is, president for life with the right to designate his successor. In 1862 he attacked San Salvador and took its capital. Towards the end of his life he had to repress attempts at insurrection. But no outbreak could succeed; he was too firmly master of the situation, and his influence over the Indians (who form three-fourths of the population) was too powerful.

STEPHENS, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan (London, 1842); BANCROFT, History of the Pacific States (San Francisco, 1882); FROBEL, Seven Years’ Travel in Central America (London, 1859); SQUIER, The States of Central America (New York, 1858).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Carrhae

A titular see of Mesopotamia. Carrhae is the Haran of the Bible. It is frequently mentioned in Assyrian monuments under the name Harranu, which means “Road.” It was the centre of the worship of the goddess Sin (the Moon), and was inhabited by Sabeans. Abraham came thither from Ur, in Chaldea (Gen., xi, 31), with his family, which remained there (xxvii, 43) while he went on to Canaan (xii, 1). Rebecca was born there (xxiv, 4), and Jacob lived there during fourteen years with his uncle Laban (xxviii, 2; xxxi, 3). Under King Hezekiah it was taken by the Assyrians (IV K., xix, 12; Is., xxxvii, 12). Ezechiel (xxvii, 23) says it had commercial relations with Tyrus. In the neighbouring plain Crassus was defeated and killed by the Parthians (53 B.C.); Emperor Galerius was defeated on the same site (A.D. 296).

Christianity did not make rapid progress at Carrhae. Julian the Apostate, before his expedition against the Persians, resided there in preference to Edessa, a Christian city; under Justinian most of its inhabitants were yet heathen (Procop. De bel. Pers., II, 13). In time, however, it became a suffragan of Edessa in Osrhoene. Lequien (II, 973) mentions from the fourth to the sixth century eleven bishops; among them are: Vitus, the friend of St. Basil, St. Protogenes, and St. Abrahamius. The latter died at Constantinople. Emperor Theodosius II was so impressed by his saintly life that he chose to wear his poor tunic. From the sixth century the Jacobites had at Carrhae a very flourishing Church; Patriarch Michael the Syrian enumerates seventeen bishops from the eighth to the twelfth century (Revue de l’Orient chretien, 1901, p. 197). One Latin bishop is known, but not with certainty (Eubel, I, 282). Carrhae was the residence of Merwan, the last of the Ommiad caliphs, and became the centre of a famous Mussulman school, where, in the tenth century, many Greek works were translated into Arabic. Harran, to-day a village in a wide, barren plain, destitute of trees, is not far from the river Belikh (Bilichus), and about 25 miles from Orfa (Edessa) in the vilayet of Aleppo. Its houses are shaped like sugar loaves and inhabited chiefly by bedouins. There are ruins of a Roman camp, of many churches, and of a fortress dating from the Crusades. Near the village is still to be found the well whence Rebecca was drawing water when Eliezer found her.

AINSWORTH, Researches in Assyria, Bablyonia, and Chaldæa, 153; CHESNEY, The Expedition for the Survey of the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris, I, 48, 106–15; II, 401, 426–33, 460; CHWOLSON, Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus, I, 301–471; STANLEY, The Jewish Church, I, 414–418; AINSWORTH, Haran in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology (1901), XIII, 385–390; BADGER, The Nestorians, 341; SACHAU, Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien, 217–224; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geography (London, 1878), I, 526.

S. VAILHÉ

Joseph Carrière

Moral theologian, thirteenth superior of the seminary and Society of Saint-Sulpice, b. 19 February, 1795, at La Panouze-de-Cernon, near Rodez, France; d. at Lyons, 23 April, 1864. He entered the seminary of Saint-Sulpice in 1812, and five years later, at the age of twenty-two, became a member of the society and was ordained priest. The following year he was called to Saint-Sulpice to teach the postgraduate course of moral theology, and, despite his extreme youth, distinguished himself as a brilliant and sound teacher. In 1829 he came to America in the capacity of official visitor to the Sulpician houses; invited to take part in the First Provincial Council of Baltimore, held in that year, he gained admiration there by his learning as well as by his charming and simple character. The works which have given him a place in the history of theology were chiefly published between 1829 and 1850, when he was chosen superior of the society, a position he retained till his death.

Carrière’s published writings are: “Dissertation sur la réhabilitation des marriages nuls” (1828–34); “Juris cultor theologus circa obligationes restitutionis,” by I. Vogler, S.J., enlarged and adapted to the French Law (1833), and incorporated in Migne’s “Theologiae Cursus Completus”; “Praelectiones theologicae: De Matrimonio” (2 vols., Paris, 1837; Louvain, 1838); a compendium of this work (1837), which has had eight editions; “Praelectiones theologicae: De justitia et jure” (3 vols., Paris, 1839; Louvain, 1845), and a compendium (1840) which also reached its eighth edition; “Praelectiones theologicae: De Contractibus (3 vols., Paris, 1844–47; Louvain, 1846–48), of which the compendium (1848) has had four editions. Carrière was the first writer of note to treat theology in its relations to the Napoleonic Code; his expositions of the French Law were so lucid, full, and accurate that they were used as authorities by jurists, and, it is said, are even to-day so regarded. These qualities characterize his whole work; the opinions he rejects are treated as fairly and almost as fully as those he adopts; his works abound in erudition, but are clear, orderly, precise—admodum eruditae, solidae, accuratae, says Father Hurter, S.J. He was inclined to the opinion, generally held in France in his day, that the State had the power to create diriment impediments to marriage among Catholics; but he abandoned it as soon as it was disapproved at Rome. Conservative in temperament and by education, he was one of the first to combat the ideas of de Lamenais. His position at Saint-Sulpice afforded a wide scope to the influence of his learning and solid judgment, and of his simple and upright nature as well, and made him one of the foremost figures of the French Church in his day.

O’MAHONY, Joseph Carrière (Dublin, 1865); BERTRAND, Histoire littéraire de la c. de Saint-Sulpice (Paris, 1900), II, 272 sq.; LEVESQUE in Dict. de théol. cath. (Paris, 1905).

JOHN F. FENLON

Louis de Carrières

Born in the château de la Plesse in Avrillé, Angers, France, 1 September, 1662; d. at Paris, 11 June 1717. He entered the French Oratory at a time when such masters as Le Cointe, Thomassin, Malebranche, Richard Simon, and Bern. Lamy were flourishing, and made the Holy Scriptures the favourite subject of his studies. In the solicitude to promote Biblical science he founded a scholarship, the first beneficiary of which was the well-known C. F. Houbigant. He held various offices in his community, and earned the reputation of a priest as modest as he was learned.

His work, “La Sainte Bible en français, avec un commentaire littéral inséré dans la traduction,” has won for his name a widespread and long-lived celebrity among the readers of the Holy Scriptures in French. It differs entirely from anything published by former commentators. Taking Le Maistre de Sacy’s translation as a framework, a few words of paraphrase are here and there used to explain difficulties or clear up obscure places. These simple and short additions inspired for the most part by Vatable, Tirinus, Menochius, Bonfrere, and Jansenius, and printed in italics, are at first glance discernible from the text itself, with which at the same time they are so amalgamated as to form but one continuous narrative. There are no notes to interrupt the text; no tiresome enumerations of the various interpretations brought forward in the course of ages; hence no necessity for the reader to compare and choose among them. A few blemishes, however, mar these real qualities; besides occasional mistranslations, some groundless hypotheses and opinions now antiquated, the reader may think that better judgment could at times have been shown in the choice of authorities and interpretations.

The first volumes published at Paris and Reims in the beginning of the eighteenth century were heartily welcomed and highly recommended by Bossuet, who encouraged the writer to pursue his work and augured well for its success. The commentary, forming twenty-four volumes, duodecimo, was completed in 1716. New editions rapidly followed one another: the second edition with preface, summaries, and dissertations compiled by the Abbé de Vence, twenty-two volumes, duodecimo (Nancy, 1738–1741); third edition, five volumes, octavo (Paris, 1740); fourth edition, ten volumes, octavo (1747); fifth edition, with maps and illustrations, six volumes, quarto (1750), etc. Carrières paraphrase, slightly corrected, together with an abridged revision of Calmet’s commentaries and a few dissertations from the Abbé de Vence, made up Rondet’s “Bible d’Avignon” (1748–1750), widely known later as “Bible de Vence.” During the nineteenth century Carrières version has been frequently reprinted, often with the commentaries of Menochius, sometimes also with the notes of modern interpreters, like Sionnet (1840) and Drioux (1884).

INGOLD, Essai de bibliographie oratorienne (Paris, 1880); PERRAUD, L’Oratoire de France au XVIIe et au XIXe siècle (Paris, 1865); PORT, Dictionnaire historique de Maine-et-Loire (Paris, 1878); RONDET, Sainte Bible en latin et en français (Avignon, 1748), Avertissement; GLAIRE, La Sainte Bible en latin et en français (Paris, 1834), Preface.

CHAS. L. SOUVAY

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

American statesman, b. at Annapolis, Maryland, 19 September 1737, d. at Doughoregan manor near Baltimore, Maryland, 14 November, 1832.

His grandfather, Charles Carroll, emigrated from England to Maryland because of the persecution of Catholics, 1 October 1688. He obtained considerable grants of land and was made attorney-general under the third Lord Baltimore. The year he arrived in America, Lord Baltimore was deprived of his rights, and Maryland was made a royal province. As Carroll was in favour with the Baltimores, he enjoyed important political positions in the colony before and after the restoration of their rights in 1715. Charles Carroll of Annapolis, the father of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, was born in 1703, and died in 1783. He was a wealthy landowner and bitterly opposed the political disabilities under which the Catholics of Maryland suffered. The mother of Charles Carroll of Carrollton was Elizabeth Brooke, the daughter of Clement Brooke and Jane Sewall, and was a near relation of her husband. Charles Carroll’s biographer, Rowland, divides his life into three periods of about thirty years each; the first was a period of preparation, the second a period of public service, and the third a period of retirement, with scholarly observation of public events. At ten years of age Carles Carroll was sent to school at the Jesuits at Bohemia on Harmon’s Manor in Maryland, where one of his fellow students was his cousin, John Carroll, afterwards Archbishop of Baltimore. The following year, 1748, they both crossed the ocean to the Jesuit college at St-Omer in French Flanders, where Charles remained six years. After a year at the college of the Jesuits at Reims he entered the College Louis le Grand at Paris. In 1753 Carroll went to Bourges to study civil law. He remained there for a year and then returned to Paris until 1757. In this year he took apartments in the Temple, London, where he studied law for several years. In later days he spoke in highest praise of the training he received at St-Omer and the College Louis le Grand. To the former he owed his deep conviction of religious truth, and to the latter his critical ability, his literary style, and the basis for the breadth of knowledge which made him an invaluable citizen.

Upon his return to America, in 1765, the estate of Carrollton in Frederick County, Maryland, was given him and later he became known as Charles Carroll of Carrollton, to distinguish him from his father Charles Carroll of Annapolis. In the difficulties with the mother country, Carroll aggressively defended the position taken by the colonies. In 1770, by a proclamation Governor Eden imposed certain fees upon the colonists. As fees were treated as taxes this was vigorously opposed as violating the right of the people to tax themselves. The jurist Daniel Dulaney defended the position of the Government in a series of articles in the “Maryland Gazette” under the signature Antillon. Carroll took up the debate as a champion of popular rights, maintaining the thesis that fees were taxes and that taxes should not be levied upon the people except by the consent of their representatives. He wrote four articles and the popular sentiment was decidedly with him. This controversy established Carroll’s reputation as a debater and a scholar.

In 1774, Carroll was elected with six others by the citizens of Anne Arundel County and of Annapolis, with full power to represent them in the provincial convention. Catholics had been disfranchised and declared ineligible to a seat in the Assembly, but by this act the prejudice against them was swept away. Carroll was from this time for a period of twenty-seven years called to important public service in behalf of the colony and for the general government. In December of this year he was appointed a member of a Provincial Committee of Correspondence. He was a member of the Maryland Convention of 1775 which adopted the “Association of the Freemen of Maryland” which became the charter of the colony until the adoption of the Maryland constitution in 1776. The Association was pledged to an armed resistance to Great Britain. He was appointed by the convention one of a committee of nine to “consider the ways and means to put this province in the best state of defense.” On 12 September, 1775, the citizens of Anne Arundel County and the city of Annapolis appointed a Committee of Observation for the town and county of which Carroll was a member. At this meeting he was elected one of the deputies to represent the county in the State Convention for one year, and he was selected with six others to license suits in the county for the same period. The Colonial Convention on the 13th of October appointed Charles Carroll chairman of a committee of five “to devise ways and means to promote the manufacture of saltpetre.” On the 11th of January 1776, he Maryland Convention instructed the Maryland delegates to the Continental Congress, “to disavow in the most solemn manner, all design in the colonies for independence.” This position was strenuously opposed by Carroll, who at this time advocated independence. In February, 1776, the Continental congress appointed Carroll one of a committee of three to visit Canada to secure the alliance of the Canadians in the struggle for independence. Franklin and Samuel Chase were the other members of the committee, and Father John, afterwards Archbishop, Carroll accompanied them. The committee was clothed with almost absolute power over military affairs in that country, and their failure to accomplish their object was not due either to their want of zeal or lack of ability. On the 28th of June, 1776, the Maryland Convention withdrew the instructions given on previous occasions to its delegates to Congress, and authorized them “to vote in declaring the United States free and independent states.” Principally responsible for this change of attitude by Maryland was Charles Carroll, who was afterwards rewarded in being elected a delegate to the Continental Congress on the 4th of July. He took his seat on the 18th of July and signed the Declaration of Independence on the 2nd of August, when the copy engrossed on parchment was presented for signature. Of all the signers he risked the most. He was the wealthiest man in the colonies at the beginning of the Revolution, his wealth being estimated at $2,000,000. On the 19th of July Carroll was appointed on the Board of War, a very important appointment, as this board had charge of all the executive duties of the military department, subject to the direction of Congress. In the fall of 1777 the Board of War was enlarged and some of Washington” enemies were made members. Out of this new membership the Conway Cabal developed, the objects of which were defeated by Carroll, Morris, and Duer.

Charles Carroll was appointed one of two delegates from Annapolis to the Colonial Convention which was to adopt a constitution for Maryland. It met 14 August. Carroll was selected as one of the seven to draw up a constitution. He was responsible for the distinctive part of the constitution, the method of choosing senators. The senate was to be composed of fifteen members, who were to be selected by a body of forty electors, two from each county, and one each from Baltimore and Annapolis. In the fall of 1778, Carroll resigned his seat in Congress and returned to Maryland to become a member of its senate. He was placed on all its important committees. He was re-elected to Congress in 1780, but promptly resigned from his seat. He was elected president of the Maryland Senate, 23 May, 1783, and a second time on 23 December. Carroll was in the Maryland Senate from 1787 to 1789, when the constitution was adopted, and became a leader of the Federalists. He was elected to the U. S. Senate from Maryland and took his seat in 1789. On the 19th of May, Carroll was appointed one of a committee of three to revise the journal of the Senate for publication. As a Federalist Carroll favoured the tariff, Hamilton’s funding measures, and the strengthening of the national government. He and Lee of Virginia were the chief advocates of placing the capital at Philadelphia for ten years, thence to be removed to the Potomac. As a democrat he opposed all distinctions and titles. Although favouring a centralized government he preferred to serve his state, for when Congress at its session in 1792 passed a law making it ineligible for a person to hold office in Congress and in a State legislature, Carroll resigned his seat in the U.S. Senate to retain his place in the Maryland Senate. In this capacity he served the State of Maryland till 1801. In 1799 he served on the committee to settle the boundary disputes between Maryland and Virginia.

After the election of Jefferson to the presidency in 1800, Carroll viewed public events with anxiety and fear. He was out of sympathy with the prosecution of a second war with Great Britain. In later years he became more hopeful of his nation’s future. His last public act was the laying of the corner-stone of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad on the 4th of July, 1828. After the death of Adams and Jefferson on the 4th of July, 1826, he was the only surviving Signer of the Declaration of Independence.

On the 5th of June, 1768, Charles Carroll married his cousin Mary Darnall, who died in 1782. They had seven children, four of whom died in youth. One of his daughters married Richard Caton, an Englishman, and another married the distinguished statesman from South Carolina, Robert Goodloe Harper. He outlived by several years his only son, Charles Carroll, Jr.

ROWLAND, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York, 1898); LATROBE, Sketch of Charles Carroll of Carrollton in Biography of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence (New York, 1872), VII; NILES, Register (1827), XXXVII. 79; Appleton’s Journal (New York, 1874), XII, nos. 286, 287; Catholic World (New York, 1876), XXII, 537; SHEA Hist. Cath. Ch. In U. S. (New York, 1889–92); GRIFFIN, Catholics in the Am. Revolution (Ridley Park, Pennsylvania, 1907). A very full list of publications relating to Charles Carroll is printed in Hist. Records and Studies (U.S. Cath. Hist. Soc., New York, Jan., 1903), III, pt. I.

J. E. HAGERTY

Daniel Carroll

Brother of Archbishop Carroll, b. at upper Marlboro, Maryland, U. S. A., 1733; d. at Washington, 1829. Politically he was, in his time, one of the most influential men of his native State, but the wider fame of his illustrious brother has somewhat overshadowed his repute. His early training was like that of the archbishop. “My father,” he wrote, 20 Dec., 1762, to his kinsman, James Carroll, in Ireland, “died in 1750 and left six children, myself, Ann, John, Ellen, Mary and Betsey. My eldest sister Ann is married to Mr. Robert Brent in Virginia. They have one child a son. My brother John was sent for his education on my return. Ellen, my second sister, is married well, to Mr. Wm. Brent in Virginia near my eldest sister. She has three boys and one girl. My sisters Mary and Betsy are unmarried and live chiefly with my mother” (Woodstock Letters, VII, 5). An elder brother, Henry, was drowned while a boy at school. Until the Revolution Daniel Carroll led the life of the country gentlemen of the day, but it may be noted that the Catholic men who had been sent abroad to school were far superior, as a class, to their neighbours, whose narrow and insular education rarely led them to interests beyond their county limits. Carroll was an active partisan of the colonists, serving as a member from Maryland of the old Colonial Congress (1780–1784). He was also a delegate from Maryland to the convention that sat in Philadelphia, 14 May to 17 Sept., 1780, and framed the Constitution of the United States. Thomas Fitz- Simons of Pennsylvania was the only other Catholic among the members. On his return to Maryland, Carroll was by his efforts largely instrumental in having the Constitution adopted by that State. In opposition to the arguments of Samuel Chase, the Anti- Federalist leader in Maryland, he wrote and printed a public letter defending the proposed Constitution, the last sentences of which read: “If there are errors it should be remembered that the seeds of reformation are sown in the work itself and the concurrence of two-thirds of the Congress may at any time introduce alterations and amendments. Regarding it then in every point of view with a candid and disinterested mind I am bold to assert that it is the best form of government which has ever been offered to the world” (Maryland Journal, 16 Oct., 1787). As one of the four laymen representing the Catholics of the United States, his name is signed to the address of congratulation presented to George Washington on his election as President of the Republic under the Constitution.

In the sessions of the new Congress Carroll served again (1789–1791) as a member from Maryland. When the Congress, at the session held in October, 1784, at Trenton, New Jersey, enacted that a board of three commissioners should lay out a site, between two and three miles square, on the Delaware for a federal city, to be the capital of the nation, he was named with Thomas Johnson and David Stuart as his associates. The choice of the present site of Washington was advocated by him, and he owned one of the four farms taken for it, Notley Young, David Burns, and Samuel Davidson being the others interested. The capitol was built on the land transferred to the Government by Carroll, and there is additional interest to Catholics in the fact that, in 1663, this whole section of country belonged to a man named Pope, who called it Rome. On 15 April, 1791, Carroll and David Stuart, as the official commissioners of Congress, laid the corner-stone of the District of Columbia at Jones’s Point near Alexandria, Virginia. When the Congress met in Washington for the first time, in November, 1800, Carroll and Notley Young owned the only two really comfortable and imposing houses within the bounds of the city. Young’s name is among those assisting as collectors of subscriptions (1787) for the founding of Georgetown College.

SHEA, Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll (New York, 1888); SCHARF, History of Western Maryland (Baltimore, 1882); VARNUM, The Seat of Government of the U. S. (Washington, 1854); FORD, Essays on The Constitution of The U. S. (Brooklyn, 1892); Madison State Papers in the archives of the State Department, Washington; United States Gazette, files (1791).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

John Carroll

First bishop of the hierarchy of the United States of America, first Bishop and Archbishop of Baltimore, b. at Upper Marlboro, Md., 8 Jan., 1735; died in Baltimore, 3 Dec., 1815. His father, Daniel, born in Ireland, settled at Upper Marlboro, where he became a merchant, and married Eleanor Darnall, a relative of the wife of Charles Carroll of Carrollton. She was very rich and had been well educated in France. Their first son died in infancy; their second, Daniel, figured prominently in Revolutionary history. John, their third son, was probably baptized at Boone’s Chapel, now Rosaryville, Maryland. When twelve years of age, he went to the Jesuits’ grammar school at Bohemia in Cecil Co., Maryland, where he was “assiduous in study, pious and amiable.” After one year there, he went abroad to St. Omer’s College in French Flanders, and for six years pursued a liberal education with “marked capability of mind, attention to studies and docility and kindness of manner.” His father died in 1750, and in 1753 John Carroll joined the Society of Jesus. In 1755 he began his studies of philosophy and theology at Liege, and after fourteen years (1769) was ordained priest at the age of thirty-four. The next four years he spent at St.-Omer and at Liege teaching philosophy and theology. During the winter of 1772–3 Father Carroll travelled through Europe as preceptor, with the son of Lord Stourton. Upon his return to England he was, for a short time the guest and chaplain of Lord Arundell at Wardour Castle. This year, 1773, Pope Clement XIV issued (21 July) and published (16 August) at Rome, the Bull suppressing and dissolving the Society of Jesus. This news reached Father Carroll 5 September, and after writing a vindication of the Society he had to provide for his future course of life. In the following spring he returned (26 June) to Maryland and hastened to his mother’s home at Rock Creek, with whom and other intimates he had faithfully corresponded while in Europe. As a result of laws discriminating against Catholics, there was then no public Catholic Church in Maryland, so Father Carroll began the life of a missionary in Maryland and Virginia. He built a tiny frame chapel on his mother’s estate and here on Sundays (in her house on weekdays) he said Mass when at home. During the next two years he devoted the time left from his devotions to the study of ancient literature and current topics in order to increase his knowledge; yet he did not neglect his social obligations. Apropos of his support at that time he himself wrote: “Catholics contributed nothing to the support of religion in its ministers; the whole maintenance fell on the priests themselves . . . the produce of their lands was sufficient to answer their demands.”

In 1776, when a committee composed of Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase, and Charles Carroll of Carrollton was about to be sent by the Continental Congress to seek the neutrality of Canada during the War of Independence, “by a special resolution (Feb. 15) Charles Carroll of Carrollton was requested to prevail on Mr. John Carroll to accompany the committee to Canada, to assist them in such matters as they shall think useful.” He accepted the honourable office, and spent the remainder of the winter in Canada; he found, however (Shea, Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll, New York, 1888, 148–53), that it was too late to discuss the question of union with the revolted colonies, or even neutrality, and returned to New York at the end of May in company with Benjamin Franklin. His influence on his fellow-countrymen even at this period may be surmised from the fact that, though out of the constitutions adopted by the Thirteen States, only four did away with the old Penal Laws and allowed Catholics absolute equality with other citizens, yet these (Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, and Maryland) were situated nearest to Father Carroll. During these years he chose to live with his mother, then seventy years old, and refused to accept an assignment elsewhere by Father Lewis, formerly Superior of the Jesuits in Maryland, and now Vicar-General of the Vicar Apostolic of London (or the Western District). Father Lewis, however, did not consider him entitled to support from the income of the property belonging to the Jesuits, although he had to labour very hard, often riding twenty-five miles on sick-calls. (Shea, op. Cit., 85–86); Campbell in U.S. Cath. Magazine, Baltimore, 1844, III, 364,365.)

When the war was over Carroll and five other priests met at Whitemarsh, Md., 27 June, 1783, to discuss ways and means to carry on their missionary work and hold their property intact. They held a second meeting 6 November, 1783, and a third 11 October, 1784, at the same place, when they formulated the draft of the regulations binding all the clergy of Maryland. Thereby every priest was maintained and given thirty pounds a year, and each priest agreed to offer ten Masses for every priest who died there. The adopted the following:

“It is the opinion of a majority of the chapter that a superior in spiritualibus, with powers to give Confirmation, grant faculties, dispensations, bless oils, etc., is adequate to the present exigencies of religion in this country. Resolved therefore,

“1st, That a bishop is at present unnecessary.

“2nd, that if one is sent it is decided by the majority of the chapter that he shall not be entitled to any support from the present estates of the clergy.

“3rd, That a committee of three be appointed to prepare and give an answer to Rome conformable to the above resolution.”

In response to a petition sent by the Maryland clergy to Rome, 6 November, 1783, for permission for the missionaries here to nominate a superior who should have some of the powers of a bishop, Father Carroll, having been selected, was confirmed by the pope, 6 June, 1784, as Superior of the Missions in the thirteen United States of North America, with power to give confirmation. He was asked to send a report of the state of Catholicity in the United States. This same year a minister named Charles Henry Wharton, a Marylander, an ex-Jesuit, and distant relative of Father Carroll, attacked the Church, and was answered by Carroll in “An Address to the Roman Catholics of the United States of North America.” Its aim and spirit may be gauged from one of its passages wherein Carroll said: “General and equal toleration, by giving a free circulation to fair argument, is a most effectual method to bring all denominations of Christians to an unity of faith.” The work was published at Annapolis in 1784, and is the first Catholic work written by an American Catholic published in the United States. Father Carroll was, all the while, distracted, personally wishing the rehabilitation of the Society of Jesus and to remain himself a Jesuit. But officially seeing the need of a bishop, and that too an American, he decided to accept the pope’s appointment of himself, and forthwith as Prefect Apostolic sent (Feb., 1785), to Cardinal Antonelli, his acceptance of that office, but urged that some method of appointing church authorities be adopted by Rome that would not make it appear as if they were receiving their appointment from a foreign power. A report of the status of Catholics in Maryland was appended to his letter, where he stated that 9000 were freemen, 3000 children, and 3000 negro slaves; that some of the more prominent families, despite the dearth of priests (there being then only nineteen in Maryland) were still Catholics in faith, sufficiently religious, though prone to dancing and novel-reading. The pope was so pleased with Father Carroll’s report that he granted his request “that the priests in Maryland be allowed to suggest two or three names from which the Pope would choose their bishop.” In the meanwhile Father Carroll took up his residence in Baltimore (1786–7), where even Protestants were charmed by his sermons delivered in old St. Peter’s church. He took an active part in municipal affairs, especially in establishing schools, Catholic and non-Catholic, being president of the Female Humane Charity School of the City of Baltimore, one of three trustees for St. John’s College at Annapolis, founder of Georgetown College (1791), head of the Library Company, the pioneer of the Maryland Historical Society, and President of the trustees of Baltimore College (1803). He represented to Congress the need of a constitutional provision for the protection and maintenance of religious liberty, and doubtless to him, in part, is due the provision in Article Sixth, Section 3, of the Constitution, which declares that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” and also the first amendment, passed this same year by the first Congress, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: (for a more cautious view see SHEA, op. cit., 348).

Church troubles, Trusteeism in New York, and Nationalism in Philadelphia, at this time decided the priests of Maryland (March, 1788) to petition Rome for a bishop for the United States. Cardinal Antonelli replied, allowing the priests on the mission to select the city and, for this case only, to name the candidate for presentation to the pope. Twenty-four of the twenty-five other priests in the meeting voted for Father Carroll. Accordingly on 6 November, 1789, Pope Pius VI appointed him bishop. His consecration took place in Mr. Weld’s chapel at Lulworth Castle, England, 15 August, 1790, at the hands of the Rt. Rev. Charles Walmesley, Senior Vicar Apostolic of England. Bishop Carroll returned to Baltimore in triumph, 7 December, when he preached an appropriate and touching sermon in St. Peter’s church. Troubles in Boston required him soon to go thither, where he removed much prejudice.

In common with their fellow-citizens, the Catholics of the United States hailed with joy the election of George Washington as first president under the new Constitution. Before the inauguration Bishop Carroll, on behalf of the Catholic clergy, united with the representatives of the Catholic laity (Charles Carrollton, and Daniel Carroll of Maryland, Dominick Lynch of New York, and Thomas FitzSimons of Pennsylvania) in an address of congratulation, admirable for its sentiments of exalted patriotism [“An Address from the Roman Catholics of America to George Washington, Esq., President of the United States,” London, 1790, fol.; reprint New York, 1865, facsimile and notes; see Shea, op.cit. , 349–50, and ibid., the memorable and cordial reply of Washington (12 March, 1790) “To the Roman Catholics of the United States,” in which he says: “I presume that your fellow-citizens will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the accomplishment of their Revolution, and the establishment of your Government, or the important assistance which they received from a nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is professed.” The original of this reply is preserved in the Archives of the Archbishop of Baltimore]. It may not be out of place to quote here the noble words of Bishop Carroll himself, addressed (10 June, 1789) to a maligner of Catholics: “Their blood flowed as freely (in proportion to their numbers) to cement the fabric of independence as that of any of their fellow-citizens. They concurred with perhaps greater unanimity than any other body of men in recommending and promoting that government from whose influence America anticipates all the blessings of justice, peace, plenty, good order, and civil and religious liberty” (Brent, 97, see below; Shea, op.cit., 153).

On 7 Nov., 1791, he held the First Synod of Baltimore, attended by twenty-two priests of five nationalities. To train priests for his diocese of three million square miles, Bishop Carroll had asked the Fathers of the Company of Saint Sulpice to come to Baltimore, where they arrived in 1791 and started the nucleus of St. Mary’s College and Seminary. Bishop Carroll issued his first pastoral letter 28 March, 1792; very practical, yet tender, appealing for support for the clergy by means of the offertory collections. In 1793 for the first time, Bishop Carroll conferred Holy orders, the recipient being the Rev. Stephen Badin, the first priest ordained within the limits of the original thirteen of the United States. In 1795, he ordained to the priesthood Prince Demetrius Gallitzin who was to add 6,000 converts to his flock. In 1798, Bishoop Carroll won an interesting and important lawsuit, the famous Fromm Case (Shea, op.cit., 448–5), in which Judge Addison, President of the Court of Common Pleas of the Fifth Circuit of Pennsylvania, decided that “The Bishop of Baltimore has the sole episcopal authority over the Catholic Church of the United States. Every Catholic congregation within the United States is subject to his inspection; and without authority from him no Catholic priest can exercise any pastoral function over any congregation within the United States.” In 1792, says Shea (op.cit., 486–7) he interceded with Washington in regard to missions among the Indians; eventually the president recommended to Congress a civilizing and Christianizing policy among the Indians, one result of which was the acceptance of the services of a Catholic priest, to whom a small yearly salary was allowed. After the death of Washington, Bishop Carroll “issued a circular to his clergy (29 Dec., 1799) in regard to the celebration of the 22d of February as a day of mourning, giving directions for such action as would be in conformity with the spirit of the Church, while attesting to the country the sorrow and regret experienced by Catholics at the great national loss” (Shea, op.cit., 495). Having been invited by the unanimous resolution of Congress, in common with the clergy of all denominations and congregations of Christians throughout the United States, he preached a panegyric of the president in St. Peter’s church in Baltimore, 22 February, 1800, which was regarded by all who heard it, or read it in print (Baltimore, 1800), says Shea, (op.cit., 495), as one of the most masterly which were uttered on that day. Episcopal orders were conferred for the first time in the United States by Bishop Carroll on Bishop Neale, his coadjutor, with right of succession to the See of Baltimore. Plans for building his cathedral now occupied Bishop Carroll’s mind, and on 7 July, 1806, he laid the corner-stone on ground bought for $20,000, and the seventh design of the architect, B.H. Latrobe, was accepted.

In 1808, Bishop Carroll became Archbishop, with suffragan sees at New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Bardstown. At a meeting held in Baltimore in 1810, Archbishop Carroll, with Bishop Neale and three of his suffragans, drew up some important regulations for the welfare and direction of their clergy and people (See BALTIMORE, PROVINCIAL COUNCILS OF). Owing to ill-health Archbishop Carroll had to decline the proffered honour of laying the corner-stone of Washington’s Monument in Baltimore, in the autumn of 1815. His end was now approaching. To a Protestant minister who said to the dying prelate that his hopes were now directed to another world, Archbishop Carroll replied: “Sir, my hopes have been always fixed on the Cross of Christ.” A short while after he said, “Of those things that give me most consolation at the present moment, one is that I have always been attached to the practice of devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary; that I have established it among the people under my care, and placed my diocese under her protection.” On 22 November he received the last sacraments, after which he made a touching discourse to the priests present. “The whole population of Baltimore,” said a letter from a relative, were “constantly calling to inquire about, and to urge permission to see him.” The funeral Mass was offered in St. Peter’s pro-Cathedral and the body temporarily laid in the chapel of St. Mary’s Seminary till 1824, when the cathedral crypt was ready for the deposit it still guards.

“Archbishop Carroll, though of low stature, had a commanding and dignified appearance,” wrote the Rev. Dr. C. I. White. “The configuration of his head, his whole mein, bespoke the metropolite. . . . He wrote them (Latin, Italian and French) not less readily and tersely than his own. He mingled often in gay society, relished the festivities of polished life, and the familiar intercourse of both clergy and laity of the Protestant denomination. He was wholly free from guile, uniformly frank, generous and placable; he reprobated all intolerance. . . . He ranked and voted with the Federalist party. He loved republicanism. His manners were mild, impressive and urbane.”

A Baltimore paper of the day said of the burial: “We have never witnessed a funeral procession where so many of eminent respectability and standing among us followed the train of mourners. Distinctions of rank, of wealth, of religious opinion were laid aside in the great testimony of respect to the memory of the man.” Another Baltimore paper said: “In him religion assumed its most attractive and amiable form, and his character conciliated for the body over which he presided, respect and consideration from the liberal, the enlightened of all ranks and denominations; for they saw that his life accorded with the benign doctrines of that religion which he professed. In controversy he was temperate yet compelling, considerate yet uncompromising.

Brent says he had “sound judgment, real piety and pre-eminent talents.” “The discourses from the pulpit, and the pastoral letters of Archbishop Carroll were alike distinguished for their unction and classical taste. His voice being naturally feeble, the exertions which he made to be distinctly heard from the pulpit rendered his elocution less agreeable there than in other situations requiring less force of lungs. His colloquial powers and resources were great and rich, and his kind and benignant feelings always prompted him to apply them to the best of advantage. There was an irresistible charm and elegance indeed in his conversations.”

The archives of the Baltimore cathedral contain the original Brief making Father Carroll Superior of the Missions in the United States, and erecting the See of Baltimore and appointing bishop Carroll, copies of the Briefs raising Baltimore to an archiepiscopal see and conferring the pallium on Bishop Carroll, also very many of his official and private letters, etc.

BRENT, “Biographical Sketchof the Most Rev. John Carroll” (Baltimore, 1843); CAMPBELL, “Memoirs of the Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll” in “United States Catholic Magazine” (1844–5); IDEM, Desultory Sketches of the Catholic church in Maryland” in “Religious Cabinet” (1842); WHITE, Appendix to DARRAS, “History of the Catholic Church”; SHEA, “Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll” (New York, 1888).

LOUIS O’DONOVAN.

Archdiocese of Cartagena

(CARTHAGENA IN INDIIS)

The city of the same name, residence of the archbishop, is situated on an island to the north of Tierra Bomba (Colombia). Heredia built and fortified it in 1533, and Philip II, King of Spain, in 1579, grant ed it the title of city; it is now the capital of the State of Bolivar. Pope Clement VII erected it into a bishopric in 1534, and Leo XIII raised it to metropolitan rank in 1900.

Its first bishop was the Dominican Tomás del Toro (1535). Other bishops were: Fra Antonio de Hervia (1590), who was the first professor at the University of Lima; Fra Juan de Labrada (1596), who rebuilt the cathedral; the Franciscan, José Diaz de Lamadrid (1677), who built many churches and hospitals, and who gave to the cathedral a pulpit of marble, mosaics, and a monstrance valued at ninety thousand dollars. Pedro Adán Brioschi was the first archbishop. The diocese contains 300,000 inhabitants; it has 98 parishes, two religious orders of men and two of women; it has also a university and a college directed by the Jesuits, a seminary, and various houses of education for girls, directed by nuns.

VARIGNY in La grand encyclopédie , IX, 612; Ann. Pont. Cath. (Paris, 1907).

M. DE MOREIRA

Diocese of Cartagena

DIOCESE OF CARTAGENA (CARTHAGINIENSIS)

Suffragan of Granada in Spain since the concordat of 1851, previously of Toledo. It includes practicably the provinces of Murcia and Albacete, with some towns in those of Alicante and Almeria. The bishop resides at Murcia, the civil capital of the province which has a population of 111,539. Cartagena was almost completely destroyed by the Vandals in 425, and some writers, e.g. La Fuente, infer that it lost at that time its dignity of metropolitan see. On the other hand the decrees of the Second Council of Tarragona (516) are signed, among other, by a Bishop of Cartagena named Hector. There is no evidence for the statement that St. Fulgentius, brother of St. Isidore of Seville, was Bishop of Cartagena. The city was rebuilt by the Byzantines, and under them attained some measure of its former splendour. At the end of the sixth century Bishop Licinianus was known as author of several epistles on theological subjects, some of which have been preserved (P.L., LXXII, 689–700). In 674 the Byzantines were expelled, and Cartagena ceased to be an episcopal see. Under Moorish rule there is a record of a Bishop of Cartagena name John (998). In 1247 the city was retaken from the Moors, and the see was restored. Its first bishop was a Franciscan, fray Pedro Gallego, the confessor of King Alfonso X. In 1291 Nicholas IV transferred the residence of the bishop from Cartagena to Murcia, the former city being much exposed to piratical attacks. Among its best-known bishops have been Juan Martinez Siliceo (1540), tutor of Philip II, and later Archbishop of Toledo (1546), and Cardinal Luis Belluga (1704), a great promoter of agriculture. The Catholic population of the diocese is 691,382; there are 132 principal parishes and 87 filial parishes, 620 priests, and 217 churches.

FLOREZ, de la Provincia cataginense in España sagrada (Madrid, 1763); V, 64–157; LA FUENTE, Hist.cc.ca de España (Madrid, 1873–75), II, 30–42, 94–96, 140–45, 389–90, III, 383; VINCENTE Y PORTILLO, Biblioteca histórica de Cartagena (Madrid, 1889), I.

EDUARDO DE HINOJOSA

St. Carthage

St. Carthage, whose name is also given as Mochuda, was born of a good family, in what is now County Kerry, Ireland, about the year 555. He spent his youth as a swineherd near Castlemaine, and became a monk in a neighbouring monastery under the guidance of St. Carthage the Elder, subsequently receiving priest’s orders. In 580 he determined to lead a hermit’s life, and he built a cell at Kiltallagh, where his fame soon attracted pilgrims. After a few years the jealousy of two neighbouring bishops forced him to quit his hermitage, and he proceeded on a visit to Bangor, where he spent a year. On the advice of St. Comgall he returned to Kerry and founded churches at Kilcarragh and Kilfeighney. He then visited Waterford, Clonfert-molua (Kyle), and Lynally, whence, on the recommendation of St. Colman Elo, he settled at Rahan, near Tullamore, in the present King’s County.

St. Carthage founded his monastery of Rahan about 590, and soon had hundred of disciples. He was consecrated Abbot-Bishop of the Fercal district, and composed a rule for his monks, an Irish metrical poem of 580 lines, divided into nine separate sections—one of the most interesting literary relics of the early Irish Church. Numerous miracles are also recorded to him. At length, Blathmaic, a Meathian prince, instigated by the neighbouring monks, ordered St. Carthage to leave Rahan. This expulsion of the saint and eight hundred of his community took place at Eastertide of the year 635. Journeying by Saigher, Roscrea, Cashel, and Ardfinnan, St. Carthage at length came to the banks of the River Blackwater, where he was given a foundation by the Prince of the Decies, and thus sprang up the episcopal city of Lios-mor, or Lismore, County Waterford.

Great as was the fame of Rahan, it was completely eclipsed by that of Lisemore, although St. Carthage lived less than two years at his new foundation. He spent the last eighteen months of his life in contemplation and prayer, in a cave near the present St. Carthage’s Well. When at the point of death, he summoned his monks and gave them his farewell exhortation and blessing. Fortified by the Body of Christ he died on the 14th of May, 637, on which day his feast is celebrated as first Bishop and Patron of Lismore. Short as was St. Carthage’s stay in Lismore, he left an ineffaceable impress of his labours in a famous abbey, cathedral, and infant university, but more so in the shining example of an austere and blameless life. Purity was his transcendent virtue, and to guard it he practised the severest penances. On this account St. Cuimin of Connor thus writes of him in an Irish quatrain:

The beloved Mochuda of mortification,

Admirable every page of his history.

Before his time there was no one who shed

Half so many tears as he shed.

Usher had two manuscript copies of the Irish life of St. Carthage; and in 1634 Philip O’Sullivan Beare sent a Latin translation to Father John Bollandus, S.J. The “Vita Secunda” is the one usually quoted. In 1891 the present writer discovered the site of the Relig Mochuda in which St. Carthage was buried.

Acta SS. 14 May (III); COLGAN, Acta Sanctorum Hiberniae (Louvain, 1645); LANIGAN, Eccles. Hist. of Ireland (Dublin, 1829), II; BARING-GOULD, Lives of the Saints (London, 1874), V; O’HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints (Dublin, 1889), V; GRATTAN FLOOD, St. Carthage (Waterford, 1898); HEALY, Insula Sanctorum et Doctorum (Dublin, 1902); POWER, Place-Names of the Decies (Waterford, 1907); HYDE, Literary History of Ireland (London, 1901).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

Archdiocese of Carthage

ARCHDIOCESE OF CARTHAGE (CARTHAGINIENSIS)

THE CITY

The city of Carthage, founded by Phoenician colonists, and long the great opponent of Rome in the duel for supremacy in the civilized world, was destroyed by a Roman army, 146 B.C. A little more than a century later (44 B.C.), a new city composed of Roman colonists was founded by Julius Cæsar on the site of Carthage, and became the capital of the Roman province of Africa Nova, which included the province of Africa Vetus, as well as Numidia. From this date Roman Africa made rapid progress in prosperity and became one of the most flourishing colonies of the empire.

HISTORY

The history of African Christianity opens in the year 180 with the accounts of two groups of martyrs who suffered at Scillium, a city of Numidia, and Madaura. Twenty years later a flourishing Church existed in Carthage, already the centre of Christianity in Africa. In his “Apology,” written at Carthage about 197, Tertullian states that although but of yesterday the Christians “have filled every place among you [the Gentiles]—cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palaces, senate, forum; we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods.” If the Christians should be in a body desert the cities of Africa, the governing authorities would be “horror-stricken at the solitude” in which they would find themselves, “at a silence so all pervading,” a stupor as of a dead world (Apol., xxxvii). Fifteen years later the same author asks the Proconsul Scapula: “What will you make of so many thousands, of such a multitude of men and women, persons of every age, sex and rank, when they present themselves before you? How many fires, how many swords will be required?” And with regard to the Christians of the African capital he inquires: “What will be the anguish of Carthage itself, which you will have to decimate, as each one recognizes there is relatives and companions; as he sees there, it may be, men of your own order, and noble ladies, and all the leading persons of the city, and either kinsmen or friends of those in your own circle? Spare thyself, if not us poor Christians. Spare Carthage, if not thyself” (Ad Scapulam, v). It is clear from this that the Christian religion at the beginning of the third century must have had numerous adherents in all ranks of Carthaginian society; Tertullian, if the contrary were the case, would merely have stultified himself by making a claim which could have been so easily disproved. A council of seventy bishops held at Carthage by Bishop Agrippinus at the epoch (variously dated between 198 and 222), substantially corroborates the testimony of Tertullian as to the general progress of Christianity in Africa in the early years of the third century. It is impossible to say whence came the first preachers of Christianity in Roman Africa. It is worthy of note in this regard, however, that from the moment when African Christianity comes into historical prominence, the bishops of Roman Africa are seen in very close relations with the See of Rome. The faithful of Carthage in particular were “greatly interested in all that happened at Rome; every movement of ideas, every occurrence bearing on discipline, ritual, literature, that took place at Rome was immediately re-echoed at Carthage” (Duchenne, Hist. Anc. De l’Eglise, I, 392; cf. Leclecq, L’Afrique chrét., I, iii). Indeed, during the last decade of the second century the Roman Church was governed by an African, Pope Victor (189–199).

The two greatest names in the history of the Church of Carthage are those of Tertullian and St. Cyprian. The former comes on the scene, in the troubled days of he persecution of Septimius Severus, as an able and valiant defender of his religion. He was born at Carthage, about the year 160. In his youth he devoted himself to the study of law and literature, and thus obtained the intellectual training which was to prove of the greatest service to his future coreligionists. His conversion appears to have been influenced by the heroism of the martyrs, and one of his earliest treatises was an exhortation to those ready to die for the faith (Ad martyres). His first work was a severe arraignment of pagans and polytheism (Ad nationes), and this was followed in a short time (197) by his “Apologeticus“, addressed to the imperial authorities. The latter work was calm in tone, “a model of judicial discussion” (Bardenhewer). Unlike previous apologists of Christianity, whose appeals for tolerance were made in the name of reason and humanity, Tertullian, influenced by his legal training, spoke as a jurist convinced of the injustice of the laws under which the Christians were persecuted. The “Apologeticus” was written before the edict of Septimius Severus (202), and consequently, the laws to which the writer took exception were those under which the Christians of the first and second centuries had been convicted. From the year of the martyrdom of Scillium and Madaura (180) the Christians of Africa were not molested by the authorities for nearly two decades. But in 197 or 198 the governors recommenced the legal pursuit of the followers of Christ, who soon filled the prisons of Carthage. Tertullian encouraged the “blessed martyrs designate” by what he termed a contribution to their spiritual sustenance (Ad martyres, i), and at the same time protested against the unjust measures of which they were the victims. But the magistrates took no heed of his protests. Christians were daily condemned to exile, torture, death, and, in at least one instance, to a still more dreaded fate (Apol., 1). In 202 the new anti-Christian legislation of Septimius Severus appeared in the form of an edict which forbade anybody to become a Jew or a Christian. According to Tertullian the Church at this period was recruited chiefly by conversion (fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani, Apol., xviii); the new law, consequently, aimed at cutting off this fertile source of membership, by imposing the death- penalty both on converts and on those who were the instruments of their conversion. Among the martyrs executed at Carthage under the law of Severus were the young matron Vibia Perpetua and the slave Felicitas, the Acts of whose martyrdom, which, perhaps, we owe to Tertullian (Duchesne, op. cit., I, 394), is one of the “jewels of ancient Christian literature.” Throughout the trying period inaugurated by the new legislation (202–213), during which the law was enforced with more or less severity according to the disposition of the governor of the moment, Tertullian was the central figure of the Church of Carthage. His rigorism indeed drew him, about the opening year of the persecution, into the sect of the Montanists, but in spite of this lapse he appears not to have lost for many years the confidence of the orthodox; as late as 212 he wrote his letter to the Proconsul Scapula in the name of the Christians of Carthage (Leclercq, op.cit., I, 165). It was only in the following year (213) that he broke definitively with the Church and became the head of an obscure sect, called after him “Tertullianists,” which maintained a precarious existence till the age of St. Augustine.

From this time to the election of St. Cyprian (249) little is known of the Church of Carthage. The Acts of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas mention a certain Optatus, who was Bishop either of Carthage or Thuburbo minus. Agrippinus, already mentioned, was Bishop of Carthage about 197, and the immediate predecessor of St. Cyprian was Donatus, who presided over a council of ninety African bishops which condemned as a heretic Privatus, Bishop of Lambesa. Like Tertullian, Cyprian was a convert to Christianity; he was baptized at Carthage about 246. The period of his episcopate (249–258) is one of the most important, as well as the best known, in the annals of Christianity in Africa. A year after his elevation the edict of the Emperor Decius against the Christians was promulgated, and its appearance was the signal for wholesale apostasy. During the long interval of peace since the persecution of Severus the fervour of the Christians of Carthage had suffered a notable decline. The time was therefore favourable for effecting the emperor’s purpose, which was to compel the Christians to renounce their faith and offer sacrifice on the altars of the gods. In the early stages of the persecution capital punishment was not resorted to, except in the case of bishops, but the mere threat of even less sever penalties induced large numbers to comply with the law. Many others, however, proved themselves worthy of their religion and died heroically.

At the beginning of the storm, Cyprian, knowing that as bishop he would be one of the first victims, and judging that in a time so perilous it was his duty for the moment to preserve his life for the good of his flock, retired to a secure refuge. His motives were not, however, correctly construed by some of his people, and even the Roman priests who directed the chief Church of Christendom after the martyrdom of Pope Fabian (236–250) made a rather uncomplimentary allusion, in a letter to the clergy of Carthage, to “the Good Shepherd and the hireling.” Cyprian was naturally offended at the tone of this missive, and easily proved to the satisfaction of the Romans that they had misjudged him. But the difficulties which arose in Carthage itself during his retirement were not so easily overcome. In the absence of the bishop five priests hostile to him took it upon themselves to receive back apostates (lapsi, libellatici) into communion, merely on the recommendation of confessors awaiting martyrdom in prison. The intercession of confessors for the fallen was then customary, and was always regarded by the bishops as a reason for remitting part of the canonical penance for apostasy. But in Carthage at this time some of the confessors seem to have regarded themselves as having practically superseded the bishops, and issued letters of communion in a tone of command. One of them, for example, gave a note ordering the restoration of the bearer and his friends to communion (communicet ille cum suis). Cyprian objected to this usurpation of his authority, which, if not resisted, would destroy the Church’s discipline, and he was supported in this attitude by the clergy and confessors of the Roman Church. On this Novatus, one of the rebellious priests, set out for Rome to obtain, if possible, support for his party. But the schismatical envoy at first met with no success. Eventually, however, he won over the priest Novatian and some of the Roman confessors. The object of the alliance was to elect a “confessors’ pope,” who would support a “confessors’ bishop,” to be elected in Carthage in opposition to Cyprian. The allies were, however, defeated at the outset by the election of Pope Cornelius, who was on the side of Cyprian. But this check did not at all dispose them to yield; they proceeded to elect an antipope in the person of Novatian. Meanwhile Cyprian had returned to Carthage, where he convened a council of African bishops for the purpose of dealing with the question of the lapsi. The decision of the council was moderate: all apostates who repented their fall were admitted to penance, which should last a greater or less time according to the degree of their guilt. The decree to this effect was confirmed by a Roman council under Pope Cornelius. But now, curiously enough, Novatian, who had taken the part of the laxists of Carthage, became a rigorist; he admitted apostates to penance, indeed, but without hope of reconciliation with the Church, even at the point of death. His views, however, were received with little favour, and eventually, through the efforts of Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyprian, and Pope Cornelius, the Roman confessors from whom he had derived his prestige deserted his party and were admitted to communion. The attempts to organize a schism in Carthage were no more successful. Cyprian was supported by all the bishops of Africa, with five exceptions, three of whom were apostates and two heretics.

The years 255–257 witnessed a controversy between Rome and Carthage on a question of discipline which for a short time produced strained relations between these two great centres of Latin Christianity. The trouble arose over the different modes in vogue in Rome and in Africa of receiving into communion persons baptized in heretical sects. In Rome baptism conferred by heretics was per se admitted to be valid; in Africa such baptism was regarded a wholly invalid. The matter was allowed to drop after the death of Pope Stephen (2 August, 257). Africans and Romans preserved their respective practices till the fourth century, when the former, at the Synod of Arles (314), agreed to conform to the Roman custom (Hefele, Hist. Of the Councils, I, 188). Cyprian died a martyr in the persecution of Valerian, September, 258.

From this date to the outbreak of the last persecution under Diocletian, in 303, very little is known of the history of the Church of Carthage. Two of the bishops who succeeded St. Cyprian, Carpophorus and Lucian, in this period of forty-five years are mentioned by Optatus, but nothing is related of them save their names. The worldly spirit which had been the cause of so many defections in the African Church of St. Cyprian’s age was equally in evidence in the early part of the fourth century. A new form of apostasy characterized this persecution. In large numbers Christians betrayed their faith by giving up to the civil authorities copies of the Scriptures and the liturgical utensils. These renegades, who received the name of “traditors,” were indirectly the cause of the gravest division that had yet been seen in Christendom. The Donatist schism originated in the consecration of Cæcilian as Bishop of Carthage (311) by Felix of Aptunga, who was falsely accused as having been a traditor. Its effects on the Church of Africa were disastrous. The obstinacy of the Donatists kept the schism alive for more than a century, and it was only the intervention of the Emperor Honorius in 405 that dealt it a death-blow. The civil penalties then inflicted on the schismatics brought them back to the Church in large numbers, although the sect still existed in 429, when Carthage was taken by the Vandals.

The Vandal occupation of Africa, which lasted over a century (429–534), was a period of severe trial to the Catholics of that country. The disorganization of the African Church was arrested by the re-conquest under Justinian of this portion of the empire, but the heresies which, during the sixth and seventh centuries, proved so fruitful in dissensions affected this portion of Christendom like the rest. The final catastrophe came with the fall of Carthage into the hands of the Arabs. in 698. From this time the once flourishing church of Africa is rarely heard of. Apostasy became the order of the day, and in 1053 only five bishops remained in the former pro-consulate.

PRIMACY OF CARTHAGE

In the time of St. Cyprian the Bishops of Carthage exercised a real though not official primacy in the African Church. Roman Africa at this period consisted of three provinces: (1) the province of Africa proper, which comprised the proconsulate, Byzacena and Tripoli; (2) Numidia; (3) Mauretania. These three civil divisions formed in the middle of the third century but one ecclesiastical province. In 305 a Primate of Numidia is mentioned for the first time, and in the course of the fourth century Byzacena, Tripoli, and the Mauretanias each obtained an episcopus primæ sedis. These later primatial sees were, however, of little importance; their metropolitans presided over the provincial synods, appointed delegates to the annual councils of Carthage, received the appeals of the clergy of their provinces, and gave letters of travel (litteræ formatæ) to the bishops of their jurisdiction who wished to visit Italy (Synod of Hippo, 393, can. xxvii). The provincial clergy had the right, if they preferred, to ignore their immediate metropolitan and appeal directly to the Primate of Carthage. At first the provincial primacy devolved ipso facto on the senior bishop of the province, but as this method proved a source of dispute the synod of Hippo of 393 (can. iv) decreed that in case of difference of opinion among the provincial bishops the primate should be “appointed in accordance with the advice of the Bishop of Carthage.” It was the right of the Bishop of Carthage also to determine, a year in advance, the date for the celebration of Easter.

COUNCILS OF CARTHAGE

The earliest council of Carthage of which we know was held about 198 (?); seventy bishops, presided over by the Bishop of Carthage, Agrippinus, were present. According to Cyprian the question of the validity of baptism conferred by heretics came up for discussion and was decided in the negative. Afer this date more than twenty councils were held in Carthage, the most important of which were: (1) those under St. Cyprian relative to the lapsi, Novatianism, and the rebaptism of heretics; and (2) the synods of 412, 416, and 418 which condemned the doctrines of Pelagius. (See AFRICAN SYNODS.)

BISHOPS OF CARTHAGE

The Acts of the martyrdom of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas mentioned, as noted above, a Bishop Optatus, who, if he was a Bishop of Carthage, as is generally supposed, is the first known incumbent of this see. It is possible, however, that Optatus was Bishop of Thuburbo minus, and, if so, Agrippinus, who was bishop in 197, heads the list of Bishops of Carthage. From this date to the election of St. Cyprian (249) we know of only two Bishops of Carthage, Cyrus and Donatus. After St. Cyprian (249–258) the succession so far as known (cf. Leclercq, op.cit., II, Appendix; Kirchenlex., II, 1998; Duchesne, op.cit. I, xx) is as follows: between 258 and 311 Carpophorus, Lucian, and Mensurius; Cæcilian (311 till after 325); Gratus, at Council of Sardica (344 -), presided at Council of Carthage (349); Restitutus, at Council of Rimini (359); Aurelius (391), presided at Council of Carthage (421); Capreolus (431); Quodvultdeus (437); Deogratias (454—458); Eugenius (481, exiled 496); Boniface (523—535); Repartatus (535, banished 551); Primosus or Primasius (553 till after 565); Publianus (581); Dominicus (591); Fortunius (632); Victor (635). After this date no Bishop of Carthage is heard of till the middle of the eleventh century.

After eight centuries of abeyance the archiepiscopal See of Carthage was restored by Leo XIII (19 Nov., 1884) and confided to Archbishop (later Cardinal) Lavigerie, to whose zeal it was owing that since 1875 the ancient site of Carthage became again a centre of Christian life (see Baunard, Le Cardinal Lavigerie, Paris, 1898, passim). The territory of the new archdiocese, hitherto administered by was enlarged by papal decree 31 March, 1885, and now includes the entire Regency (French Protectorate) of Tunis. By another decree of 28 March, 1886 the eighteen titular of the new and their successors enjoy the dignity of papal chamberlains. A magnificent was dedicated by Cardinal Lavigerie (15 May, 1890) on the famous Hill of Byrsa, in honour of St. Louis IX of France; connected with it are several charitable and educational institutions. A council of Carthage was held 20 April, 1890, in which the decrees of the Council of Algiers (1873) were renewed and applied to the new ecclesiastical province. The archdiocese counts at present about 35,000 Catholics in a Mohammedan population of 1,600,000; it has fifty-four parishes (cures) and fourteen vicariates. It was also owing to Cardinal Lavigerie that the famous excavations on the site of ancient Carthage were begun about 1880 by one of his missionaries, Father Delattre. They were originally carried on at the cardinal’s expense, and for some time the church of St. Louis served as a museum for the preservation of the antiquities discovered. Apart from the light thrown by these excavations on the Phoenician and Roman life of ancient Carthage, the discoveries of Father Delattre have greatly increased our knowledge of the early Christian life of Africa, particularly in the fourth and fifth centuries. Many Christian epitaphs and inscriptions have been made known, the Christian architecture of the period has been illustrated by the ground-plans of ancient basilicas, some of them quite famous in Christian antiquity (e.g. the Basilica Major of Carthage), while Christian burial customs and domestic life have had fresh light thrown on them; in a word, the importance of these excavations for our knowledge of Christian antiquity is second only to that of De Rossi’s epoch-making discoveries at Rome.

LECLERCQ, L’Afrique chrétienne (Paris, 1904); Afrique in Dict. D’Archéol. Et de Liturgie (Paris, 1903); DUCHESNE, Histoire ancienne de l’eglise (Paris, 1906), I; NEHER in Kirchenlex., s.v.; GSELL, Monuments antiques de l’Algérie (Paris, 1901); HEALY, The Valerian Persecution (Boston, 1905); BENSON, Cyprian, his Life, his Times, his Work (New York, 1897).

For the modern period: LAVIGERIE, De l’utilité d’une mission archéologique permanente à Carthage (Algiers, 1881); DELATTRE, L’Epigraphie Chrétienne à Carthage (Paris, 1881); Lampes chrètiennes in Revue de l’art chrètien (1890); L’Archéologie chrétienne à Carthage (Paris, 1886); La basilique de Damous-el-Karita (Paris, 1892); and numerous contributions to Cosmos and Revue de l’art chrétien, also the local Bulletins of the archæological societies of Constantine, Hippo, and Oran, the Bulletin archéologique du Comité des travaux historiques, and the Nuovo Bulletino di archeologia cristiano; BABELON, Carthage (Paris, 1896); WIELAND, Ein Ausflug ins altchristliche Afrika (Stuttgart, 1900); and Annual Report of the Simthsonian Institution (Washington, 1899), 601–14 (translation of the article of PH. BERGER in Revue des deux mondes, CLIII, 1899).

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Carthusian Order

The name is derived from the French chartreuse through the Latin cartusia, of which the English “charterhouse” is a corruption. For the foundation of the order see the article SAINT BRUNO. The following points will be considered here: (I) The Rule; (II) Life of the Monks; (III) Organization; (IV) Development; (V) Present State of the Order; (VI) Distinguished Carthusians; (VII) English Province; (VIII) Carthusian Nuns.

I. THE RULE

We have two accounts of the manner of life of the first Carthusians, the earliest, written by Guibert, Abbot of Nogent, the second by Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny. The former runs as follows: “The church stands upon a ridge . . . thirteen monks dwell there, who have a sufficiently convenient cloister, in accordance with the cenobitic custom, but do not live together claustraliter like other monks. Each has his own cell round the cloister, and in these they work, sleep, and eat. On Sundays they receive the necessary bread and vegetables (for the week) which is their only kind of food and is cooked byy each one in his own cell; water for drinking and for other purposes is supplied by a conduit. . . . There are no gold or silver ornaments in their church, except a silver chalice. They do not go to the church as we do [Guibert was a Benedictine], but only for certain of them. They hear Mass, unless I am mistaken, on Sundays and solemnities. They hardly ever speak, and, if they want anything, ask for it by a sign. If they ever drink wine, it is so watered down as to be scarcely better than plain water. They wear a hair shirt next the skin, and their other garments are thin and scanty. They live under a prior, and the Bishop of Grenoble acts as their abbot and provisor . . . Lower down the mountain there is a building containing over twenty most faithful lay brothers [laicos], who work for them. . . . Although they observe the utmost poverty, they are getting together a very rich library. (P.L., CLVI, 853 sqq.).

Peter the Venerable adds certain details, lays stress on the poorness of their garments, and mentions that they restricted their possessions both in land and cattle, and fixed their own number at thirteen monks, eighteen lay brothers, and a few servants. Of their diet he says, “They always abstain from the eating of meat, whether in health or ill. They never buy fish, but accept them if given in charity. Cheese an eggs are allowed on Sundays and Thursdays. On Tuesdays and Saturdays, they eat cooked vegetables, but on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, they take only bread and water. They eat once a day only, save at Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, Epiphany, and on certain other festivals. . . . On feast days they go to the refectory, eat twice, and sing the whole office in the church.” (P.L., (CLXXXIX, 944 D.)

Guibert wrote in 1104, Peter some twenty years later, so there was time for development, which may account for certain discrepancies between the two accounts. The “Customsi” of the Chartreuse were not committed to writing till 1127. Bruno had left the world in order to serve God in solitude, and without any intention of founding an order. In the earliest days the hermits had no rule, but all strove to live after Bruno’s example and in accordance with the Evangelical counsels. When regular monastic buildings were erected and vocations began to increase, some sort of rule became a necessity. St. Bruno wrote none, but the customs which he introduced, together with additions born of experience, were embodied in the “Consuetudines” written by Guigo, the fifth prior, in 1127. This was not a rule written with authority, but a record of the usages of the motherhouse of the order (Ann., 1, 305), compiled at the request of the priors of the charterhouses, and finally accepted by them as their code. In the introduction the writer says that almost all the customs are contained “either in the epistles of the Blessed Jerome, or in the Rule of St. Benedict, or in other authorized writings.” A later writer, Boso, the nineteenth prior of the Grande Chartreuse (d. 1313), says, “It is clear that the contents of the Statutes come either from St. Benedict’s Rule, St. Jerome’s Epistles, the ‘Vitae Patrum’ or the ‘collationes’ and other writings of Cassian and the Fathers” (quoted in Ann., 1, 37). The Rule of St. Benedict (the only monastic rule of those days) gave the norm of those duties which were performed in common, and supplied the arrangement of the Divine Office, the treatment of guests, the form of the vows. Many new departures were introduced to meet the needs of the solitude which is an essential of the Carthusian life; from the Fathers of the Desert came the laura-like arrangement of the building and the solitary life of the cells, while the statutes are probably also indebted to the Rule of Camaldoli (see CAMALDOLESE) (founded by St. Romuald in 1012), which was reduced to writing by the Blessed Rudolf in 1080. The fundamental principle of Camaldoli and the Chartreuse is the same, namely, the combination of Western monasticism as embodied in St. Benedict’s Rule with the eremitical life of the Egyptian solitaries. In both orders the superiors were to be priors, not abbots, and in all the earliest Carthusian houses there was, as at Camaldoli, a “lower house” for lay brothers who served the external needs of the contemplative monks at the “upper house.” The first hermits tended strongly to be purely eremitical, but the cenobitic development was hastened hour by the necessities of life find by the influence of neigbouring Benedictine houses, especially perhaps of Cluny. The union of the two systems was only gradually evolved under the pressure of circumstance.

Guigo’s “Consuetudines” were first approved by Innocent II in 1133 (Ann., I, 305) and are still the basis of the modern statutes. In 1258 the general, Dom Riffier, issued a new edition, adding various ordinances passed by the general chapters since 1127; these are known as the “Statuta Antiqua.” The “Statuta Nova” with similar additions appeared in 1368. In 1509 the general chapter approved the “Tertia Cornpilatio,” consisting of a collection of the ordinances of the chapters and a synopsis of the statutes. The Carthusian Rule was printed for the first time by Johann Amorbach at Basle in 1510. This volume contains Guigo’s “Consuetudines,” the “Statuta Antiqua,” the “Statuta Nova,” and the “Tertia Compilatio.” The “Nova Collectio Statutorum” was published in 1581. This work, which had cost eleven years of preparatory labour, includes in one well-ordered series all the various legislation scattered throughout the cumbersome volume of 1510. A century later a second edition was printed at the Correrie or “lower house” of the Grande Chartreuse by order of Dom Innocent Le Masson, and this, after receiving certain corrections of slight importance, was finally confirmed by Innocent XI by the Bull “Injunctum nobis” of 1588. Tile fifth edition of the statutes is a verbal reprint of the second. The first part, or “Ordinarium”‘, which is printed separately, is concerned with church ceremonial, the second treats of the government of the order and the observances and occupation of the religious, the third is concerned with the lay brothers and the nuns. Guigo’s “Consuetudines” contains in substance the customs introduced by St. Bruno with certain additions and modifications. The many formal changes and accretions which the original “Consuetudines” have undergone, have affected neither their substance nor their spirit, but, as Le Masson says, “have been like a change of clothing, which adds nothing and takes nothing from the substance of the body” (Discip. Ord. Cart., 1, vii, 9). We must remember that the pictures given by Guibert and Peter the Venerable depict the Carthusian life at a stage of semi-development. The only mitigation of importance introduced since Guigo’s day is the decrease of the fast on bread and water from thrice to once weekly. Additional duties have been laid upon the monks in the shape of extra prayers, the singing of a daily conventual Mass, the lengthening of the night Office and of the Office for the Dead, and the withdrawal of the permission to take a midday siesta, while, instead of having, as formerly, seven or eight hours uninterrupted sleep, their rest is now broken by the long night vigils (P. L., CLIII, 609A).

II. LIFE OF THE MONKS

A Carthusian monastery covers a great deal of ground owing to the system of life. It usually consists, of the great cloister, round which are the separate houses, or “cells” of the monks, the lesser cloister with cells of various officials, the “obediences,” or workshops of the lay brothers and their living rooms, church, chapter-house, refectory and other conventual offices. The church is usually small and without aisles, divided by a solid screen with a door and two altars into the choir proper and lay brothers’ choir. No organ is allowed. There is usually a tribune for visitors. No woman, save the sovereign, may enter a charterhouse. At the side of each cell door is the guichet or hatch, through which the monk’s food is introduced by a lay brother; within, a covered ambulacrum, with a small garden beside it, leads to the house. This consists of five rooms; on the ground floor, a store room for timber and fuel, and a workshop with a lathe and other tools; above, an antechamber, a small library with just sufficient room for bookcase, chair, table, and the cell proper, whose furniture consists of a wooden box-bedstead with woollen blankets, and mattress of straw, a table for meals, a few chairs, a stove, and a stall with a prie-Dieu, known as the oratorium.

The Carthusian life is essentially solitary and contemplative with a certain admixture of the cenobitic element (see I). A very large part of the day is devoted to saying the three Offices (i.e. that of the day, the Office of Our Lady, which is called de Beata, and the Office of the Dead), while much time is given to mental prayer. The rest is divided between manual labour, study, and a little recreation. The whole horarium depends on whether the Office of the day be that of the feria or of a Sunday or feast. The following is the ferial arrangement, which is by far the commoner. The Carthusian’s day begins at half-past five, when a junior monk, going the round of the cloister, rings a bell hanging near the sleeper’s ear. The church bell rings at six, when Prime of the day is said in the oratorium, followed by Terce de Beata. All offices said in the oratorium are accompanied by full choir ceremonial, as bowing, covering, and uncovering. At half-past six the Angelus sounds, and the monk remains at prayer till a quarter to seven, when he goes to the church. The conventual Mass, which is always sung, is preceded by adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and the litanies of the saints. The Carthusian liturgy differs considerably from the Roman Rite, being substantially that of Grenoble in the twelfth century with some admixture from other sources. There are no servers at the high Mass, and the priest is attended by the deacon, who wears neither alb nor dalmatic, but the cuculla ecclesiastics (see below) and, for the Gospel only, a stole. The subdeacon merely reads the Epistle at the lectern in the middle of the choir. There are many other points of difference. Copes and monstrances are unknown in the charterhouse. After the conventual Mass the priests say their private Masses, reciting Terce with the server before vesting and Sext de Beata after their thanksgiving.

At about half-past eight the monk returns to his cell and is occupied with manual work and meditation till ten, when, after saying Sext of the day, he fetches his dinner from the guichet. The meal is copious and excellently cooked, consisting of vegetable soup, fish or eggs, vegetables, cheese, butter and fruit, and a small bottle of wine or, in England, of rather thin beer. After dinner there is an hour and a half of solitary recreation, which may be spent in garden, ambulacrum, or cell at will, and is followed by None; spiritual reading, study, and manual labour till half-past two, when Vespers de Beata are said. At a quarter to three the monk leaves his cell for the second time, going to the church to sing Vespers, and, except on feasts and their vigils, Vespers and Matins of the Dead. He returns to his cell about four, and, after half an hour’s study, takes his supper, consisting generally of eggs and a little salad. This is followed by spiritual reading and examination of conscience, known in the order as the “recollection.” At a quarter to six, but earlier on the eve of a feast, the bell sounds for Complin of the day and de Beata. At about half-past six the monk retires to bed, still wearing the greater part of his habit. Five hours after the Complin bell, he rises and says Matins and Lauds de Beata with the Psalm “Deus venerunt gentes” and certain prayers for the recovery of the Holy Land. These last were ordered to be said during Mass by the Lateran Council in 1215, and were retained voluntarily bv the Carthusians after the law ceased to bind, but transferred to this hour. At a quarter to twelve the monk leaves his cell for the third and last time to sing Matins and Lauds with Lauds of the Dead. This takes two and a half to three hours. To a visitor it is very impressive. A large portion of the Office is sung in complete darkness save for the sanctuary lamps, the rest by the light of small oil lamps carefully shaded to throw their light only one the choir books, one of which is provided for every three religious. The Carthusian chant, a species of Gregorian, has a special character of its own, slow and plaintive. “As the duty of a good monk is rather to lament than to sing,” say the rubrics, “we must so sing that lamentation, not the joy of singing, be in our hearts.” At about a quarter past two in the morning the Carthusian returns to his cell, where he says Prime de Beata. His total of sleep, thus broken into two parts, is seldom less than seven hours. On Sundays and feast days this horarium is considerably modified. The community assemble for all the Hours of the Great Office in church, and in the refectory for both meals. These latter are always eaten in silence, while the Scripture or some homily of the Fathers is chanted to the solemn tones of the nocturn-lessons. On these days also there is a common recreation with talking in the cloister for the solemnly professed, but only on Sundays for all. Once every week, the monks go out for a walk together, during which they converse. This is known as the Spatiamentum and usually lasts about three and a half hours.

During the great monastic fast, which lasts from 14 September to Ash Wednesday, except for Sundays and feast days, dinner is an hour later, and supper consists of a glass of wine and a crust of bread ne potus noceat (Statutes). During Lent, Vespers are sung before dinner, which is not till midday and supper is as above. Meat is never allowed on any account, though, in a case of life and death, the monk may, if not solemnly professed, be dispensed. Once a week there is a fast on bread and water and during Advent and Lent, on Fridays and on certain vigils lacticinia are forbidden.

The Carthusian wears the ordinary monastic habit in white serge, but the scapular which is joined by bands at the side and has the hood attached to it, is known as the “cowl.” The long flowing garment with wide sleeves, which usually bears this name, is used only by the deacon at high Mass. No beard is worn, and the hair is shaved except for a narrow strip round the head. Novices wear a black mantle and their cowl is short and unjoined. The postulancy usually lasts one month, the novitiate one year, at the end which simple vows are taken; the solemn vows are taken four years later.

The lay brothers live an entirely cenobitical life, and are occupied in the servile work of the establishment. Their habit differs only slightly from that of the fathers. After two years postulancy and novitiate, the lay novice becomes a donné, wearing a brown habit, but takes no vows. He may remain always in this condition, but it requires eight more years to become a solemnly professed lay brother. The lay brothers and donnés, collectively known as the Familia, are under the procurator, and have their own chapel, chapter-house, and refectory. Their Office consists of a large number of Paters and Aves. They attend the night Office, conventual Mass, and Vespers, on Sundays and feasts, but usually only the first part of the night Office.

III. ORGANIZATION

The prior of the Grande Chartreuse, who is elected by the monks of that house, is always the general of the order. He wears no insignia, but is the only one in the order who receives the title of “Reverend Father,” all other religious being known as “Venerable Fathers.” The general chapter, which consists of the visitors and all the priors, meets annually, and receives the resignations of all the superiors of the order including the general. These it reinstates or removes at will. Its ordinances have the force of law, but do not become permanent unless twice renewed. The visitors, who are appointed by the chapter, make a visitation of each charterhouse every two years, to enquire into its condition and reform any abuses. The first general chapter of the order was held by St. Anthelm in 1142, and in the year 1258 its powers were confirmed by Pope Alexander IV. To the wise ordinances of this body and to its series of distinguished generals the order owes its claim nunquam reformata quia nunquam deformata.

The prior of each house is, in strict law, elected by the professed monks of the community, if there are four present who have been actually professed for that house or who are original founders. Nowadays he is generally the father general and the chapter. The prior is assisted by various officials. These are the vicar, who takes the prior’s place in case of necessity, the procurator, who is entrusted with the temporal administration and the care of the lay brothers, the coadjutor, who looks after guests and retreatants, the antiquior, who takes the vicar’s place, the sacristan, and the novice-master.

IV. DEVELOPMENT

From its very nature the order grew slowly. In 1300 there were but 39 monasteries, but during the fourteenth century 113 were founded, extending as far as Silesia, Bohemia, and Hungary. During the Great Schism there were two generals, but both resigned on the election of Alexander V in 1409 and the order was once more united. During the fifteenth century, 44 charterhouses were founded and in 1521 there were in all 206, but during the sixteenth century 39 were destroyed b the Reformation and only 13 founded. In 1559 a foundation in Mexico was projected but fell through owing to the opposition of the King of Spain. Writing in 1607 Le Masson says, “We number about 2,500 choir monks and 1,300 lay brothers and donnés, giving an average of a dozen fathers and eight or nine lay brothers to each house.” Between 1600 and 1667, 22 monasteries were founded, and then no more till the nineteenth century. The order entirely escaped the scourge of commendatory superiors. Joseph II suppressed 24 houses, and in 1784 the Spanish Government compelled its charterhouses to separate from the order.

The French charterhouses were less infected with Jansenism than most of the ancient orders. Owing to the energy of the general, Dom Antoine de Mongeffond, only thirty monks out of a total of over 1,000, and those mostly belonging to the Paris house, ultimately refused to sign the “Unigenitus.” These fled to Utrecht. At the outbreak of the Revolution there were 122 charterhouses, which were nearly all suppressed, as the French armies swept over Europe. In 1816 the monks returned to the Grande Chartreuse. The Spanish houses were suppressed in 1835; the Port-Dietu in Switzerland, which had escaped the earlier storm, in 1847; the monasteries in Italy for a second time during the course of the Risorgimento; and the restored French houses as a consequence of the Association Laws of 1901.

V. PRESENT STATE OF THE ORDER

In 1900 the monks possessed eleven monasteries in France and nine in other parts of Europe. The French houses are now empty and four new or restored houses have been opened in Spain and Italy. The following is a list of the charterhouses existing at the end of 1907. In Italy: Farneta, near Lucca, recently repurchased and occupied by the general and the conventus Cartusiae; Pisa; Florence, where the monks are merely custodians of a national monument; Trisulti, near Alatri; La Torre, in Calabria; Vedana, in the Diocese of Belluno; La Cervara, near Genoa, recently repurchased. The Procura of the order at Rome. In Spain: Monte Allegro, near Barcelona; Aula Dei, Peñaflor, near Saragossa; Miraflores, with its spelendid royal tombs; the liqueur is made at the Casa de los Cartujos, Tarragona. In England: Parkminster, in Sussex, is the largest charterliouse in the world, with thirty-six cells and 3,166 feet of cloister. It now contains the community of Notre-Dame de Près, Montreuil, as well as its own. In Switzerland: Val-Sainte in Canton Friburg. In Gerimany: Hain near Düsseldorf. In Austria Pletterjack, founded in 1403, abandoned 1595, and since rebuilt. In Belgium: the printing works belonging to Montreuil are now at Tournai. There are 300 solemnly professed monks, 35 junior professed, and 15 novices, making 350 choir monks, of whom about 20 are not yet priests; also about the same total of lay brothers, lay novices, and donnés. The badge of the order is a globe surrounded by a cross and seven stars, with the motto “Stat crux, dum volvitur orbis.”

The famous liqueur is a secret manufacture, invented by the monks in the nineteenth century, as a means of subsistence, to take the place of the broad acres lost in the Revolution. The large proceeds, after assisting to pay for the maintenance of the various charterhouses and the building of new ones, has been entirely devoted to various works of charity.

VI. DISTINGUISHED CARTHUSIANS

Besides St. Bruno the best known saints of the order are: St. Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln (d. 1200); St. Anthelm, seventh prior of the Grande Chartreuse, and first general, who died Bishop of Belley in 1178; St. Arthold, Bishop of Belley (d. 1206); St. Stephen of Chitillon, Bishop of Die (d. 1213). Many members have been beatified, among them the English Carthusian martyrs and Bl. Nicolo Albergati, Cardinal and Bishop of Bologna. There have been about seventy Carthusian bishops and archbishops, including a few cardinals. There has never been a Carthusian pope.

Guibert mentions the richness of the library of the chartreuse (see I), and in his “Consuetudines” Guigo writes, “We desire that books be looked after most carefully as the continual food of our souls, and that they be written [fieri] with the utmost diligence, so that we may preach the Word of God by the work of our hands, since we cannot do so with our mouths,” and again, “we teach writing to almost all whom we receive” (P.L., CLIII, 693). Throughout the Middle Ages the Carthusians were famous copyists. St. Bruno himself was the first Carthusian author, writing commentaries on the Psalms and on St. Paul’s Epistles (v. Löbbel, op. cit. infra, 179–241). He was followed by Guigo, who, besides the “Consuedines,” wrote “Meditations” and a “Life of St. Hugh of Grenoble.” Writers of the order have mostly treated of ascetics and mvstical theology. The following are among the more famous: Ludolf of Saxony (d. after 1340), the author of a well known “Vita Christi”; Henry of Xalkar (d. 1408), who converted Gerhard Groot; Denis the Carthusian (d. 1471), the Doctor Ecstatims whose works are now being edited by the order in 45 vols.; Lanspergius (d., 1539); Surius (d. 1578), whose “Vitae” still form a useful supplement to the Bollandists’ unfinished “Acta”; Nicholas Molin (d. 1638); Petreius (d. 1640); Innocent Le Masson (d. 1703); Le Couteulx (d. 1709); Tromby, who flourished c. 1783, all historians of the order. The first book printed at a charterhouse was issued from the presses of the Seliola Dei near Parma in 1477. The modern printing works of the order were transferred in 1901 from the chartreuse of Montreuil to Tournai.

VII. ENGLISH PROVINCE

The first English charterhouse was founded at Witham in Somerset by King Henry II in 1178, the tenth and last by Henry V in 1414 at Sheen. At the time of Henry VIII’s breach with Rome the monks, especially those of the London charterhouse (founded 1370), offered a stanch resistance. The fourth of May, 1535, is memorable for the deaths of the Protomartyrs of the English Reformation, the Bridgettine Monk Richard Reynolds, and the three Carthusian Priors, John Houghton of London, Robert Lawrence of Beauvale, and Augustus Webster of Axholme. During the next five years, fifteen of the London Carthusians perished on the scaffold or were starved to death in Newgate Gaol. On Mary’s accession nineteen monks belonging to various houses gathered at Sheen under Prior Maurice Chauncy, a monk of the London Charterhouse, who, to his lasting sorrow, had lost the crown of martyrdom by taking the Oath of Supremacy. The restoration was short-lived, for on Mary’s death the monks were once more driven into exile. Prior Chauncy (died in 1581, but the English community kept together in different parts of the Low Countries with varying fortunes, until the charterhouse of Sheen Anglorum at Nieuport, with a community of six choir monks and two donnés, was suppressed by Joseph II in 1783. The last prior, Father Williams, died at Little Malvern Court, 2 June, 1797. His papers, the seal of Sheen Anglorum, and various relics are now in the possession of the Carthusians of Parkminster. A charterhouse was founded at Perth in 1429 by King James I of Scotland, and a short-lived foundation was made at Kinalehin in South Connaught in 1280, being abandoned by the order in 1321.

VIII. CARTHUSIAN NUNS

In the Priorship of St. Antheim, about 1245, the nuns of the ancient Abbey of Prébayon asked to be received into the order, and Blessed John of Spain, Prior of Montrieux, was ordered to adapt the Carthusian Rule to their needs. The nuns have never been numerous. Two convents were founded in the twelfth century, nine in the thirteenth, and four in the fourteenth, but of all these only nine were in existence in 1400. In 1690 when Innocent Le Masson published the “Statuts des Moniales” there were only five, four of which were in France and one near Bruges; the last was suppressed by Joseph II in 1783, and the others disappeared in the French Revolution. In 1820 the surviving nuns reassembled at Lozier (Isere), and finally settled in 1822 at Beauregard, some miles from the Grande Chartreuse. Thence foundations were made in 1854 at Bastide-Saint-Pierre (Tarn-et-Garonne), and in 1870 at Notre-Dame du Gard near Amiens. The nuns are still at Beauregard, but the rest are in exile at Burdine in Belgium, and at San Francesco, and Motta Grossa near Turin. The total number of nuns is about 140, of whom 90 are “consecrated.”

The Carthusian nuns have always been famed for their regularity and fervour. Convents which had become lax were cut off from the order by the general chapter. The small number of convents is explained not only by the severity of the rule, but also by the great reluctance to accept new houses always displayed by the order. In 1368 the acceptance of new houses was forbidden by the general chapter, and this prohibition was frequently reiterated. The life of the nuns is very similar to that of the monks, with certain exceptions. They have single rooms instead of separate dwellings, two recreations every day, eat together daily, are not bound to wear the cilicium, and if ill are cared for in an infirmary. They are allowed eight hours sleep. Eleven hours daily are given to prayer and meditation, as well as work for the poor or for the church. The arrangement of their Office is practically that of the monks. Perpetual enclosure has been practised since the thirteenth century, and visitors are only received at a grille and in the presence of another nun. Each convent is divided into two distinct parts: the monastery proper with the cells and conventual offices; the dwelling of the two monks, who are known as the vicar and the coadjutor. These two direct the nuns and have two or three lay brothers to serve them. The two fathers live exactly as if in a charterhouse, attending Office in stalls placed in the sanctuary of the church, which is divided from the nuns’ choir by a curtained grille.

The nuns are subject to the general chapter which appoints the vicar. They elect their own prioress, though the vicar has the first voice in the election; the prioresses must consult the vicar in all important matters and, like the priors, are bound to tender their resignation to each general chapter.

The habit is the same as that of the monks, with the exception of the hood, for which a veil is substituted—white for the young religious, and black for the “consecrated” nuns. According to the statutes the vows should be solemn, but since the Revolution they have been regarded as simple by the Church. No widow is received. The Carthusian nuns have retained the privilege of the consecration of virgins, which they have inherited from the nuns of Prébayon. The consecration, which is given four years after the vows are taken, can only be conferred by the diocesan. The rite differs but slightly from that given in the “Pontifical.” The nun is invested with a crown, ring, stole and maniple, the last being worn on the right arm. These ornaments the nun only wears again on the day of her monastic jubilee, and after her death on her bier. It is a consecrated nun who sings the Epistle at the conventual Mass, though without wearing the maniple. At Matins, if no priest be present, a nun assumes the stole and reads the Gospel. There are also lay sisters, Données, and Saeurs Tourières. Famous among Carthusian nuns have been St. Roseline of Villeneuve and Bl. Beatrix of Ornacieux.

The most complete general notice together with a full bibliography is given in HEIMBUCHER, Orden u. Kongregationen der Katholischen Kirche (2d ed., Paderborn, 1907); see also La Grande Chartreuse par un Chartreux (Lyons, 1898). Sources for St. Bruno’s life are in Acta SS., October, III; the only modern critical life if LÖBBEL, Der Stifter des Karthäuserordens, in Kirchengeschichtl. Studien (Münster, 1899), V, pt. I. The Vie de S. Bruno par un religieux de la Grande Chartreuse (Montreuil, 1898) gives the traditional version. TROMBY, Storia critica-cronologica e diplomatica del partiarca s. Brunone e del suo ordine Cartusiana (10 vols., Naples, 1773); LE COUTEULX, Annales ordinis Cartusiensis (8 vols. Montreuil, 1901); LEFEBVRE, S. Bruno et l’Ordre des Chartreux (2 vols., Paris, 1883); HENDRICKS, The London Charterhouse (London, 1889); CHAUNCY, Historia aliquot martyrum (Montreuil, 1888); The Chartreuse of S. Hugh in Sussex, in The Month (August, 1887); GRATTAN FLOOD, The Charthusians in Ireland, in Ir. Eccl. Rec. (Sept., 1892); Statuta ordinis cartusiensis a domino Guigone priore cartusie edita (Basle, 1510); Statuts des Moniales Chartreuses Directorium Novitiorum utriusque sexus, in Nova Collectio Statutorum (4th ed., Correrie, 1736); The Carthusians (Rochdale, 1902), an official pamphlet; La vie contemplative, son rôle spostolique par un Chartreux (Montreuil, 1900).

RAYMUND WEBSTER.

Georges-Etienne Cartier

A French Canadian statesman, son of Jacques Cartier and Marguerite Paradis, b. at St. Antoine, on the Richelieu, 16 Sept., 1814; d. in London 20 May, 1873. He studied at Montreal College (Sulpicians). During the Canadian rebellion (1837–38) he fought at the battle of St. Denis. Forced to cross the frontier, he was reported frozen to death in the forests of Vermont. He practised law successfully in Montreal. Elected for Verchères (1849), he followed Lafontaine and Baldwin, the founders of constitutional government in Canada. He was successively honoured with important seats in the Cabinet. Under the Union of the two Canadas (1841–67) he was four times Attorney-General of Lower Canada: in 1856, in 1857, with the leadership of his province; in 1858 as Premier of Canada, and in 1864. After the confederation (1867) he was Minister of Militia.

The following important measures are mostly due to his influence: the Grand Trunk Railway (1852); the final settlement (1854) of the seigniorial (feudal) tenure, which had become an obstacle to agriculture and industry; Victoria Bridge (inaugurated in 1860); the judiciary decentralization of Lower Canada; the creation of normal schools (1857); the modification of the criminal laws (1864); the codification of civil laws (1865). To avert legislative union, detrimental to the nationality and faith of the French Canadians, Cartier concurred in effecting—as a remedy—the Confederation of Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Quebec) with the Maritime Provinces (Nova Scotia and New Brunswick). By his ability, energy, and patriotism, he succeeded in securing for his native province as a condition sine qua non a degree of autonomy and a parliamentary representation proportionate to its historical and political importance, and in safeguarding the rights of the English and French minorities respectively in the provinces of the former Union. Under the Confederation, he contributed to the building of the Intercolonial Railway, the acquisition of the North-West Territories, framing for Manitoba a constitution which respected the rights of minorities. He likewise shared in drawing British Columbia and Vancouver into the Confederation, and in realizing the Canadian Pacific Railway. Cartier was created a baronet in 1868.

During twenty-five years he was the uncontested leader of his province in the struggle for equal rights. A man of indomitable energy, equally loyal to the catholic Faith, to his French-Canadian origin, and to the British Crown,, he directed his fellow-countrymen in the path of progress and prosperity, assuring to them the advantages of responsible government and a large share of influence in the councils of the nation.

TURCOTTE, Le Canada sous l’Union (Quebec, 1872); Revue canadienne Montreal, 1873); Courrier du Canada (Quebec, 1873); TASSE, Discours de Sir Georges Cartier (Montreal, 1893).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Jacques Cartier

The discoverer of Canada, b. at Saint-Malo, Brittany, in 1491; d. 1 September, 1557. Little is known of his youth, but it is probable that he followed some of his countryment on their adventurous expeditions to Newfoundland or to Brazil. Cartier offered his services to Philippe de Chabot, Seigneur de Brion and Admiral of France, at a time when Francis I was about to renew those attempts at French colonization in which Thomas Aubert (1508), Jean Denys (1506), the Baron de Léry (1528), the brothers Parmentier (1520) and Verrazano the Florentine (1523) had been the principal agents. His reputation as a mariner marked him out forf preferment. Two small ships of sixty tons, equipped with sixty men each, were placed at his disposition; he set sail, 20 April, 1534, from Saint-Malo, and in twenty days made Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland. Continuing his explorations northwards, Carter entered the Strait of Belle Isle and explored the coast of Labrador as far as Brest, then, turning south, followed western coast of Newfoundland as far as Cape St. John. He then sailed towards the Magdalen Islands, which, as well as Prince Edward Island, he sighted, and advancing towards the west, he visited the entrance of the Miramichi River, Chaleurs Bay and Gaspé Basin. Thence, crossing the estuary of the St. Lawrence to the northern coast, he shaped his course back to France.

The first voyage lasted 137 days. On his return, Cartier made a circumstantial report of his expedition, and next year the kind offered him a commission to continue his exploration. Three ships, fitted out with 110 men, set sail 26 May, 1535, and this time determined to attempt the ascent of the great river, Cartier went up as far as Hochelaga (Montreal), returning to pass the winter at Stadacona (Quebec), near which were four or five Indian villages. Having entrenched himself at the mouth of the River Lairet, a tributary of the Sainte-Croix, he was able to live quietly during the winter, but unfortunately the scurvy broke out among his companions of whom twenty-five died. After planting a cross on the spot where they had wintered, Cartier sailed for France (6 May). He arrived safely at Saint-Malo, 16 July.

During a third voyage to Canada, undertaken in the year 1541, with five ships, Jacques Cartier passed the winter at the entrance of the River Cap-Rouge, fortifying his position for fear of being molested by the neighbouring savages. At this place, which he named Charlesbourg-Royal, Cartier awaited the arrival of the Sieur de Roberval, whom the king had charged to colonize Canada (1540). However, the spring having arrived without Roberval, Cartier thought it wise to return to France. Reaching Newfoundland, he met Roberval, who wished him to return to Canada. Cartier, however, persisted in setting sail for France, and the issue of Roberval’s attempts at colonization afterwards justified the conduct of the discoverer of Canada. The King of France, as solicitous as was Cartier himself for the safety of Roberval, resolved to send an expedition to his relief. Cartier assumed command of this expedition, and hence his fourth voyage (1543) of which we have no details. After that he crossed the sea no more, but retired to his manor of Limoilou, near Saint-Malo, where he remained until his death.

Voyages de Jacques Cartier au Canada en 1534 (Paris, 1865); Bref recit et succincte narration de la navigation faite en 1535 et 1536 par le Capitaine Jacques Cartier (Paris, 1863); MANET, Biographie des Malouins célèbres (Saint-Malo, 1824); DUPLAIS, La Bretagne et ses fils (Paris, 1887); HAROUT, Jacques Cartier (Nantes, 1884); JOÜON DE LONGRAIS, Jacques Cartier (Paris, 1885); DIONNE, Jacques Cartier (Quebec, 1889).

N. E. DIONNE.

Bernardino Lopez de Carvajal

Cardinal, b. 1455, at Plasencia in Estremadura, Spain; d. at Rome 16 Dec., 1523. He was a nephew of the famous Cardinal Juan Carvajal, and owing to the universal esteem for the latter advanced rapidly in the ecclesiastical career at Rome, whither he came during the pontificate of Sixtus IV (1471–84). Under Innocent VIII he held successively the Spanish sees of Astorga (1488), Badajoz (1489), and Cartagena, in which latter quality he was sent as nuncio to Spain, and by their Catholic Majesties sent back as Spanish ambassador to Alexander VI, by whom he was made Cardinal of Sts. Peter and Marcellinus in 1493, which title he exchanged in 1495 for that of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme. In the next following years he was sent twice as legate to the German imperial court, also to Naples, and acted as Governor of the Campagna. In 1503 he was made Bishop of Siguenza in Italy, and Administrator of Avellino; from 1507 to 1509 he was in turn Cardinal-Bishop of Albano, Frascati, Palestrina and Santa Sabina. In spite of this rapid advancement and his numerous benefices he is best remembered as the leading spirit of the schismatical Council of Pisa (1511), which he organized with the aid of four other cardinals (Briçonnet, Francesco Borgia, Sanseverino, and René de Prie); dissatisfaction with this treatment by Julius II, and subserviency to the excommunicated French king, Louis XII, led Carvajal to this rebellious attitude. Moroni (Diz., X, 134) says that he went so far as to accept the office of antipope (Martin VI) at Milan whither the Council was soon transferred. Von Reumont says (gesch. d. Stadt Rom. III, ii 78–79) that in Pisa he was known to the urchins of the street as “Papa Bernardino.” It would seem, therefore, that ambition was his chief failing; otherwise he was reputed a good theologian and a friend of art and letters, virtuous, eloquent, and skilful in the business of the curia. Both Carvajal and his colleagues were excommunicated by Julius II, and deposed from their offices, which act of the pope was confirmed by the Fifth Lateran Council (1512). At the seventh session (1513) of this council the Italian cardinals, Carvajal and Sanseverino, separated from their two French colleagues, formally renounced the schism, and were restored by Leo X to their offices. (Pastor, Gesch. d. Päpste, Freiburg, 1906, IV (1), 37–40). Carvajal was later made Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia and Dean of the Sacred College, with his uncle’s former title of San Marcello, and as such welcomed to Rome Adrian VI, (op. cit. IV (2) 47–48), whom he survived, and Clement VII. He had lived at Rome under eight popes, and was buried in his titular church of Santa Croce, where a magnificent sepulchral monument perpetuates his memory. The noble but modernized frescoes (Pinturicchio school) in the tribuna of the apse, representing the Discovery of the Holy Cross, are owing to his generosity. His natural gifts, inherited prestige, numerous benefices, high offices, love of splendour, and great wealth attracted to him more than once the favourable attention of several conclaves, but at a critical period in his career he stood in his own light by fathering an ugly and perilous schism on the very eve of the Protestant Reformation.

ANTONIO, Bibl. Hisp. nova (Madrid, 1783), I, 215–216; EGGS, Purpura docta (Rome, 1798), III, 278; HEFELE-HERGEN-RÖTHER, Conciliengeschichte, VIII, 470 sqq.; SANDRET, Le Concile de Pise, in Revue des quest. hist. (1883), XXXIV, 425 sqq.; ROSSBACH, Das Leben und die politisch-kirchliche Wirksamkeit des Bern. Lopez de Carvajal, Kardinal von Santa Corce (Breslau, 1893); MAURENBRECHER, Gesch. der kath. Reformation (Nördligen, 1880), I, passim.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Gaspar de Carvajal

Dominican missionary, b. in Estremadura, Spain, c. 1500; d. at Lima, Peru, 1584. Having entered the Order of St. Dominic in Spain, he went to Peru in 1533 and devoted himself to the conversion of the native Indians. In 1540 Carvajal accompanied the famous expedition of Gonzalo Pizarro to the territory of Quixos and the Amazon. After several months of toilsome travel Pizarro and his followers reached Canelos, the limit originally proposed for their expedition; but hearing from the natives of the existence of a rich and fruitful land beyond, they resolved to press forward. They soon found themselves in a country destitute of provisions and infested with tribes of fierce and unfriendly Indians. Coming to the River Napo, Pizarro decided to send a small band of men accompanied by Carvajal and under the command of Francisco de Orellana down the river in search of provisions. Having reached the point of confluence of the Napo and Amazon, Orellana resolved to abandon his brigantine to the course of the river. Carvajal and another member of the expedition, Sánchez de Vargas, protested against this proceeding of dishonour and treachery. They were both promptly landed by Orellana, and later Pizarro and his men found them in the wilderness. The expedition returned to Quito in 1542 with only eighty survivors of the original four hundred. Carvajal was sent by his superiors to the mission of Tucuman, where for several years he laboured with unceasing zeal and devotion for the conversion of the native tribes in this immense territory. Having been elected to the office of provincial, he spent the greater part of four years in organizing and extending the province and founding new convents. In 1565 he was chosen to represent the province of Peru at Rome, but in all probability he did not cross the ocean.

Appleton’s Cyclopædia of American Biography, I, 545–46; PRESCOTT, History of the Conquest of Peru (Philadelphia, 1900).

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Juan Carvajal (Carvagial)

Cardinal; b. about 1400 at Truxillo in Estremadura, Spain; d. at Rome, 6 December, 1469. Little is known of his early youth, except that he made much progress in canon and civil law, and by 1440 had attained distinction at Rome as auditor of the Rota and governor of the City. Thenceforth his life was to be spent mostly in the foreign service of the Holy See; his contemporary, Cardinal Jacopo Ammanati, says (Comment., I, 2, 7) that he was sent twenty-two times as papal legate to various rulers and countries. Between 1441 and 1448 he spent much time in Germany and laboured, in union with Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, to placate the strong feelings of the German princes against Eugene IV, to overcome their “neutrality” in the last, and schismatic phase of the Council of Basle, and to bring about the treaties known as the Concordat of the Princes (1447) and the Concordat of Aschaffenburg or Vienna (1448; see ), He was rewarded by Eugene IV (14 December, 1446) with the Cardinal’s hat and the Title of St. Angelo in foro piscium. In 1444 and again in 1448 he was sent to Bohemia to promote the cause of religious unity but failed both times, owing to the stubbornness of the Calixtines and the influence of John Rokyzana, Archbishop of Prague, beloved in Bohemia, but whose orthodoxy was suspected at Rome (see ).

In 1455 Carvajal was sent by Callistus III to Hungary to preach a vigorous crusade against the Turks, and for six years was the soul of the first effectual resistance made by Christian Europe to the ominous progress of the Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople (1453). Aided by the famous Capuchin preacher, St. John Capistran, he gathered an army of about 40,000 men, effected a union with the troops of John Hunyady, and on 22 July, 1456, the siege of Belgrade, the key of the Danube, was raised by a glorious victory that inaugurated the century-long resistance of Christian Hungary to the propaganda of Islam. He reconciled King Ladislaus (1457), with Emperor Frederick III, and in 1458 made peace between teh Magyar nobles in favour of Matthias Corvinus as successor of Ladislaus. He was still in Hungary, organizing the defence of that bulwark of Christendom, when Pius II invited the princes of Christian Europe to meet him at Mantua (1459) to confer on the common danger and the need of a general crusade. While Cardinal Bessarion sought in Germany something more than brilliant promises, Carvajal continued his labours in Hungary, which he left only in the autumn of 1461, after six years of extraordinary service for the common good of Christian Europe, but “grown old and feeble,” says Pastor (History of the Popes), “in that severe climate, amid the turmoils of the Court and the camp, and the fatigues of travel . . . [in] that bleak country of moorlands and marshes.” He was made Cardinal-Bishop of Porto and Santa Rufina on his return. He had long held the See of Plasencia in Spain, where a noble bridge across the Tagus, built by him, is yet known as “the cardinal’s bridge.” In spite of his age and feeble health, he was still willing to take a foremost part in the crusade that Pius II was preparing at Ancona in 1464, when the death of that pope (14 August) put an end to the enterprise. His last legation was to Venice in 1466.

From all his journeys Carvajal brought back nothing but the reputation of an unspotted priesthood (Pastor, op. cit., IV, 131). “Such a legate,” wrote the King of Hungary, “truly corresponds to the greatness of our need” (op. cit., II, 391). By his contemporaries he was considered the ornament of the Church, comparable to her ancient Fathers (Cardinal Ammanati) and the sole reminder of the heroic grandeur of Rome’s earliest founders (Pomponius Lætus). Though genial in intercourse, there was something awe-inspiring about this saintly man whose ascetic life enabled him to provide liberally for the poor and for needy churches. Denifle mentions (Die Universitäten, I, 813) a college founded by him at Salamanca. His discourse in the papal consistories, says Pastor, was brief, simple, clear, logical, and devoid of contemporary rhetoric; his legatine reports have the same “restrained and impersonal character.” Palacky, the non-Catholic historian of Bohemia writes of Carvajal (Geschichte Böhmens, IV, ii, 372): “Not only in zeal for the Faith, in moral purity and strength of character, was he unsurpassed, but he was also unequalled in knowledge of the world, in experience of ecclesiast ical affairs, and in the services which he rendered to the papal authority. It was chiefly due to his labours, prolonged during a period of twenty years, that Rome at last got the better of Constance and Basle, that the nations returned to their allegiance, and that her power and glory again shone before the world with a splendour that they had not seen since the time of Boniface VIII.” Pastor says of him that he was absolutely free from the restless ambition and self-glorification so common among the men of the Renaissance, and seemed born for ecclesiastical diplomacy. His dominant idea was the consecration of his life to the Church and the promotion of the glory and power of Christ’s Vicar. “Pars hæc vitæ ultima Christo neganda non est” (I must not refuse to Christ this last portion of my life) were the words in which he offered himself to Pius II as leader of a relief to the diminutive Christian Republic of Ragusa hard pressed in 1464 by the Turks. He left no printed works; among his manuscript remains are a defence of the Holy See, reports of his legations, a volume of letters, and discourses sacred and profane. He was buried in San Marcello al Corso. A monument erected to him there by Bessarion bears these words: Animæ Petrus pectore Cæsar erat (A Peter in spirit, a Cæsar in courage).

PASTOR, History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages (tr. London, 1894), IV, 131–35 and passim; LOPEZ, De rebus gestis S. R. E. Card. Carvajal commentarius (Rome, 1754)-the chief source of information; PRAY, Annales regni Hungariæ stirpis mixtæ (Pesth, 1780), VI, xiii, ii, 1448–58; WADDING, Annales Ord. Minorum, XII, 332; ANTONIO, Bibl. Hisp. Vetus (1788), II, 296; VASST, Le Cardinal Bessarion (Paris, 1878).-Dr. Pastor says (IV, 145) that a complete and really critical biography of Carvajal would be a valuable work.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN.

Luis de Carvajal

Friar Minor and Tridentine theologian, b. about 1500; the time of his death is uncertain. Of the noble and wealthy family of Carvajal in the old Spanish province of Baetica, Carvajal was possessed of extraordinary gifts of mind and heart, and at an early age was sent to the University of Paris, where he completed his studies. Having entered the Franciscan Order, he taught theology at Paris, whence he was sent as legate of Cardinal Angelus to the Council of Trent. During the fifth session, in which the doctrine of original sin was discussed, Carvajal addressed the Council in favour of the Immaculate Conception, in defending which he had already won fame at Paris; it was doubtless owing to him that the Council inserted the words beginning “Declarat tamen” at the end of the fifth canon of this session. The last glimpse we get of Carvajal is at Antwerp in 1548, at which time he brought out the third edition of his “Theologicarum sententiarum liber singularis.” Besides this work, he is the author of the “Declamatio expostulatoria pro immaculatâ conceptione” (Paris, 1541) and of a defence of the religious orders against Erasmus, entitled “Apologia monasticae professionis” (Antwerp, 1529).

WADDING, Annales Minorum, XVIII, 1546, XXIV; MERKLE, Conc. Trid. Diariorium, etc. (Freiburg, 1901), I, 491; HURTER, Nomenclator, IV, 1177; Acta Ord. Minorum, Dec. (1904), 475.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Luisa de Carvajal

Born 2 Jan., 1568, at Jaraizejo, Spain; died 2 Jan., 1614, at London, a lady of high birth, who received from God what appears to have been a special vocation to go to England and minister to those who were suffering for the Faith. Left an orphan at the age of six, she was brought up by her uncle and aunt at Pampeluna, where she showed evidence of extraordinary sanctity. She resolutely refused to marry; yet she had no attraction to the religious life. On the death of her aunt and uncle she collected a few women of her uncle’s former household, and they led a life of prayer together. This continued for twelve years, until her Jesuit confessor at length allowed her to fulfil her desire of setting out for England, in 1605. On arriving in London, Luisa assembled a little community similar to the former one at Pampeluna. She spent her time in visiting those in prison, and going to the houses of others in danger of apprehension. She had the happiness of ministering to Father Roberts, O. S. B., and Thomas Somers, a secular priest, immediately before their martyrdom. Her life attracted the attention of the authorities, who said she was doing more to convert Protestants than twenty priests. On two occasions pretexts were found for putting her in prison; on each occasion she was released at the instance of the Spanish ambassador. Attempts were then made with the latter to procure her removal from the kingdom. These would probably in the end have succeeded, had they not been prevented by her death which occurred on her forty-sixth birthday.

A Spanish Life was published in 1632; LADY GEORGIANA FULLERTON, Life of Louisa de Carvajal, in Quarterly Series (London, 1873, 1881, 1889).

BERNARD WARD

Thomas Carve

Historian, b. in Co. Tipperary, Ireland, 1590; d. probably in 1672. His correct name was Carew, that of a family of great influence in Munster during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. From his own works it is clear that the Butlers of Ormonde were his patrons during his early years. It is not certain where he was educated, but he was ordained priest, and passed some years in an Irish diocese. On the invitation of Walter Butler, then Colonel of an Irish regiment serving in Austria, he left Ireland and remained for some time as chaplain to Butler’s regiment. He returned to Ireland twice (1630, 1632), and on the death of Butler he acted as chaplain to Devereux, Butler’s successor in the command of the Irish forces fighting under Ferdinand II. He accompanied the troops during several of the campaigns of the Thirty Years’ War, and had thus a good opportunity of observing the events recorded in his history of the war. In 1640 he was appointed chaplain to the English, Scotch, and Irish forces in Austria, and continued to hold that position till 1643, when he went to reside at Vienna as a choral vicar of the Cathedral of St. Stephen. His last book was published at Sulzbach in 1672. The principal works from his pen are: (1) “Itinerarium R. D. Thomae Carve Tipperariensis, Sacellani majoris in fortissima juxta et nobilissima legione strenuissimi Colonelli D. W. Devereux,” etc. (Mainz, 1639–41, pts. I-II; Speyer, 1648, III; new ed., 1 vol., 1640–41). A new edition of the whole work was published at London, 1859. It gives a good account of the Thirty Years’ War. In connection with the mysterious career of Wallenstein it is particularly valuable. (2) “Rerum Germanicarum ab anno 1617 ad annum 1641 gestarum Epitome” (1641). (3) “Lyra seu Anacephalaeosis Hibernica, in qua de exordio, seu origine, nomine, moribus ritibusque Gentis Hibernicae succinte tractatur, cui quoque accessere Annales ejusdem Hiberniae necnon rerum gestarum per Europam 1148–1650” (Vienna, 1651; 2nd ed., Sulzbach, 1666). (4) “Enchiridion apologeticum Noribergae” (1670). (5) “Responsio veridica ad illotum libellum cui nomen Anatomicum examen P. Antonii Bruodini, etc.” (Sulzbach, 1672)

An account of Carve is given by KEARNEY in his Preface to the Itinerarium (London, 1859); WARE-HARRIS, Writers of Ireland (Dublin, 1746), 144–161; SHIRLEY, Catalogue of the Library of Lough Fea (Dublin), 35–36; LOWNDES, Bibl. Manual (Bohn), 382–383.

JAMES MACCAFFREY.

John Caryll

Poet, dramatist, and diplomatist, b. at West Harting, England, 1625; d. 1711; not to be confounded with his nephew, John Caryll, immortalized by a line in Pope’s “Rape of the Lock.” He was head of an old English Catholic and royalist family at that time settled at West Harting, in Sussex. His father, of whom he was heir, was likewise named John; his mother was a daughter of William, second Baron Petre. Of his education he received part at the English college of Saint-Omer, in Artois, part at the English College in Rome. During the reign of Charles II he produced several plays and poems of more than average merit. In poetry his chief performances were a translation of Ovid’s Epistle of Briseïs to Achilles, first appearing in 1680 in a work entitled “Ovid’s Epistles, translated by several hands,” and afterwards separately; also a translation of Vergil’s first Eclogue, printed in Nichol’s “Select Collection of Miscellany Poems” and published in 1683. His plays, both of them brought out at the Duke of York’s Theatre, were a tragedy written in 1666 and called “The English Princess, or the death of Richard III” (Samuel Pepys, who saw this piece acted 7 March, 1667, found it no more than “pretty good”), and a comedy entitled “Sir Solomon Single, or the Cautious Coxcomb,” which came out in 1671, upon the pattern of Moliere’s “Ecole des Femmes.” In 1679, during the national madness brought on by Titus Oates’s pretended “Popish Plot,” Caryll, as a Catholic of distinction, was committed to the Tower of London, whence he had the good luck soon to be let out on bail. When James II succeeded to the throne in 1685, he sent Caryll as his agent to the court of Pope Innocent XI, withdrawing him some months later upon the Earl of Castlemaine’s appointment to that post. Caryll was then appointed secretary to Queen Mary of Modena, in whose service he continued after the Revolution of 1688, when he followed the exiled royal family across the sea to Saint-Germain. From his voluntary expatriation, however, there ensued no confiscation of his property until 1696, when, by reason of his implication in one of the plots to overthrow William III, he having furnished money for that purpose, his estate at West Harting was declared forfeited and himself attainted. His life interest in West Harting was thereon granted to Lord Cutts, but redeemed by Caryll’s nephew aforesaid for £6,000. The dethroned King James II died in 1701, being succeeded in his rights and claims by his son, the so-called Pretender, who as King James III conferred upon Caryll the empty title of Baron Caryll of Dunford and the office of one of his secretaries of state. Meanwhile, in 1700, Caryll had published anonymously another work, this time in prose, entitled “The Psalmes of David, translated from the Vulgat.” He died 4 September, 1711, and was buried at Paris in the church of the Scotch college, of which he had been a benefactor and where there was set up a tablet to his memory. He left no issue. His wife was Margaret, a daughter and co-heir of Sir Maurice Drummond. One of his sisters, Mary, became first abbess of the English Benedictine nuns at Dunkirk. The last of the Caryll family, a grandson of the above mentioned nephew, died in poverty at Dunkirk in 1788.

THOMPSON, in Dict. Nat. Biogr., IX, 254, 255; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 419, 420; FOLEY, Rec. Eng. Prov. S.J., III, 534 et sqq.; Caryll MSS. (Brit. Mus.).

C. T. BOOTHMAN.

Carystus

A titular see of Greece. According to legend it was named after Carystus, a son of Chiron. The ancient city is often mentioned by geographers, chiefly on account of its beautiful marble and its amianth obtained from Mount Oche. The see was at first a suffragan of Corinth, but early in the ninth century was made a suffragan of Athens and before 1579 of Euripos (Chaleis). Only two Greek bishops are mentioned by Lequien (II, 197): Cyriacus, who subscribed the letter of the bishops of Hellas to the Emperor Leo in 458, and Joel at the beginning of the eighteenth century. At least another titular may be mentioned, Demetrius, a friend of Michael Acominatos, the famous Metropolitan of Athens in the thirteenth century. The bishopric was maintained in 1833, but under the district name of Carystia, its titular residing at Kyme. In 1900 it was united to Chaleis (Euripos), the capital of the island. As to the Latin see, we read that Innocent III assigned it with other suffragans to the Archbishopric of Athens. In the “Gerarchia Cattolica” (1907, 244) it is assigned to its original metropolis, Corinth. No residential bishop is known. Lequien (III, 857) mentions an obviously titular bishop of 1718. Carystus is to-day a village of about 2000 inhabitants on the southern coast of Euboea.

HOFF, On the History of Carystus from 1205 to 1470 in Sitzungsb. Akadem. Wissensch. (Vienna, 1853), XI, 555–606; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr. (London, 1878), I, 555.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Diocese of Casale Monferrato (Casalensis)

DIOCESE OF CASALE MONFERATTO (CASALENSIS).

A suffragan of Vercelli. Casale Monferrato, the ancient Bodincomagus, is a city in the province of Alessandria, Piedmont (Italy), on the River Po, and has been a stronghold since the time of the Lombards. King Liutprand enlarged it, and Emperor Otto II made it the chief town of a marquisate, giving it to the sons of Aleran, Duke of Saxony; later it was inherited by Emperor Michael VIII, Palaeologus, who sent thither his son Theodore. In 1533, the dynasty of the Palaeologi being extinct, Charles V gave it to the Gonzaga. From 1681 to 1706 it was in the hands of the French, from whom, in 1713, it passed to the House of Savoy. Casale was created a see in 1474 by Sixtus IV; previously it belonged to the Diocese of Asti. Its first bishop was Bernardino de Tebaldeschi; his successor was Gian Giorgio Paleologo (1517), who also governed the marquisate for his nephew, a minor. Among its noteworthy bishops were: the Dominican Benedetto Erba (1570), most zealous for the Christian instruction of children and the introduction of the Tridentine reforms, in which good work he was associated with St. Charles Borromeo; he was also the founder of the monti di pietà; Giulio Careta (1614), who imitated other contemporary bishops and founded an oratory for priests, and when the pest was ravaging Casale (1630) himself nursed the sick; Scipione Pasquali (1645), author of a history of the campaign of Charles Emmanuel of Savoy against Montferrat. Among the churches of Casale are the cathedral, one of the finest monuments of Lombard architecture, and that of St. Hilary (Ilario). The diocese has a population of 200,500, with 140 parishes, 562 churches and chapels, 322 secular and 86 regular priests, 8 religious houses of men and 8 of women.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XIV, 563; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 324.

U. BENIGNI

Giovanni Battista Casali

Musician, b. at Rome in 1715; d. there 1792. From 1759 until his death he held the position of choir-master in the church of St. John Lateran. Of his numerous compositions a mass in G major and several motets (Confitebor tibi, Ave Maria, Exaltabo, Improperium) have been reprinted in Lueck’s “Collection” (Ratisbon, 1859). These compositions, while liturgical in spirit and form, show a considerable departure from the great period of the Roman School in a freer use of the dissonance, and they also bear witness to the influence of the opera in which form Casali also wrote. Most of his works are preserved in the library of Abbate Santini in Rome. Casali was one of the last of that period to write for voices a capella.

KORNMÜLLER, Kirchenmusikalisches Lexikon; MENDEL, Musikalisches Lexikon.

JOSEPH OTTEN

Vicariate Apostolic of Casanare

Vicariate Apostolic in the Republic of Colombia, South America, administered by the Augustinians, subject to the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. The city of Casanare, situated on the river of the same name, was formerly a part of the Diocese of Tunja (Archdiocese of Bogota). The vicariate was created in 1893, though efforts were made in this direction as early as 1884. Its territory forms an immense triangle bounded on the north-east by the Meta, on the north-west by Venezuela, on the west by the Andes. The conterminous dioceses are Bogota, Tunja, and Pamplona. The population in 1893 was about 110,000 souls, ministered to by 10 priests. The territory of the vicariate coincides with the political district (Intendencia) of Casanare and takes its name from the Casanare River, an affluent of the Meta. The seat of the vicariate is at Tamara; other important places are Nunchia, Tame, Arauca, Orocué, Moreno, Trinidad, etc. Its first missionaries were Jesuits, who established there 126 reductions (see PARAGUAY). After their expulsion (1767) the original barbarism took the place of civilization and religion. The churches built by the first Jesuit missionaries were large and well furnished; even to-day local merchants and private individuals exhibit candlesticks and other objects that once belonged to these abandoned and despoiled churches. At present (1907) there are about 30 missionaries in the territory and 3 convents of Sisters of Charity. The revolutions of 1895 and 1899 interfered seriously with the progress of the missions.

Gerarchia Cattolica (Rome, 1907), 327; Ann. Pont. Cath. (Paris, 1907), 341; STREIT, Kathol. Missionsatlas (Steyl, 1906), p. 27 and map 28.

U. BENIGNI

Girolamo Casanata

(Or Casanatta)

Cardinal, b. at Naples, 13 July, 1620; d. at Rome, 3 March, 1700. His father, Tommaso Casanatta, was a member of the supreme council of the kingdom. Girolamo studied law at the university of his native town and practised in the courts for some time. Eventually he gave up the brilliant promises of a secular career and entered the service of the Church, in deference to the advice of Cardinal Pamphily whom he had met on a visit to Rome. When that cardinal became pope as Innocent X, Casanata was made private chamberlain and soon advanced rapidly in the ecclesiastical career, becoming in turn Governor of Sabina, Fabriano, Ancona, and Camerino. In the last- named city he became a close friend of its bishop, Emilio Altieri, afterwards Clement X. In 1658 Alexander VII sent him as inquisitor to Malta, whence he was shortly recalled to Rome and made prelate of the “Consulta” and active member of the courts known as the “Segnatura di Grazia” and the “Segnatura di Giustizia.” He was Consultor of the Congregation of Rites and of Propaganda, and governor of the conclave that chose the successor of Alexander VII; under Clement IX he was made assessor of the Holy Office (Congregation of the Inquisition). He was appointed secretary of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars by Clement X, and 13 June, 1673, was named Cardinal-Deacon of the Title of Santa Maria in Porticu, and later (1686) Cardinal-Priest of the Title of San Silvestro in Capite. In 1693 Innocent XII bestowed on him the office of Librarian of the Vatican (Bibliotecario di Santa Romana Chiesa). On his death-bed he was assisted by two Dominicans, Father Cloché, the general of the order, and Father Massoulié. He was buried in St. John Lateran, though his heart was deposited in Santa Maria sopra Minerva, the church of the Dominicans, to whom he was always warmly attached, and who looked on him as their benefactor. The many responsible offices held by Casanata are evidence of his uncommon wisdom and his extensive curial experience. In the conduct of these offices it was necessary that he study profoundly the numerous and grave doctrinal, disciplinary, and political questions brought before the Holy See in the latter half of the seventeenth century. It will suffice to recall the controversies concerning Quietism (Michael Molinos, Fénelon, Madame Guyon), the Gallican Liberties, the right of Régale, the Four Articles of 1682, the Chinese Rites controversy between the Jesuits and the Dominicans and other orders, not to speak of various doctrinal errors of the time, not unlike our own in its extravagant theological fancies, and the diffusion of lax moral theories so frequently condemned by contemporary popes.

The Casanatense Library (see below) still preserves 1125 manuscript volumes of opinions, reports, and statements (voti, relazioni, posizioni) concerning matters treated in the various Congregations to which Casanata belonged. So far these precious materials have been too little utilized to justify a satisfactory account of the part he played in contemporary ecclesiastical administration. His curial duties did not prevent him from taking an interest in letters and the sciences. He was on friendly terms and corresponded with the learned men of his day. Among those whom he encouraged most was Zaccagni, whom he induced to publish the well-known collection of materials for the ancient history of the Greek and Latin Churches, “Collectanea monumentorum veterum Ecclesiæ græcæ et latinæ” (Rome, 1694, 4to). His chief service to learning, especially the theological sciences, was the Casanatense Library (Biblioteca Casanetense) founded and endowed by him. While living he had collected a library of about 25,000 volumes; this he left to the above-mentioned Dominican convent of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, together with an endowment fund of 80,000 scudi (almost as many dollars), to provide for the administration of the trust and for the acquisition of new books. In 1655 the same convent had inherited the library of Giambattista Castellani, chief physician of Gregory XV, with 12,000 scudi for the erection of a suitable edifice. Cardinal Casanata, moreover, ordered that the new library should be accessible to the public six hours daily, excepting feast-days. In addition to the library staff he provided for a college (theologi casanatenses) of six Dominicans of different nationalities (Italian, French, Spanish, German, English, Polish). Each of them must previously have received the degree of Doctor from one of the most famous universities of Europe. Aided by the resources of the library, they were to devote themselves to the defence and propagation of Catholic doctrine. Moreover, two professors were to expound regularly the text of St. Thomas Aquinas (“Summa Theologica” and other writings). In other words, by means of the new library, he had created at Rome another centre of intellectual activity (see “Minerva,” 1892–93, II, 622). After the loss of the temporal power (1870) the library was declared national property, but the Dominicans were left in charge until 1884. At present the Casanatense Library is entirely under lay management. It has 5238 manuscripts, among them 64 Greek codices (15 of them the gift of Casanata), and 230 Hebrew texts (rolls and books), among which are 5 Samaritan codices. The incunabula (books printed before 1500) number 2036; there is also a large collection of Roman governmental proclamations (bandi, editti) from 1500 to 1870, comedies of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, etc. Father Cloché, the General of the Dominicans, placed in the library a statue of Cardinal Casanata, the work of the sculptor Le Gros. An inscription records the formal permission of Clement XI to preserve there the books of heretical authors.

Touron, Hommes illustres de l’orare de saint-Dominique (1743–49), IV, 534 sqq.; Monumenta Ord. Præd. Historica, XIII, 335; Bacalari, Index codicum græcorum bibliothecæ Casanatensis (Florence, 1894); Gustavo Sacerdote, Catalogo dei codici ebraici della biblioteca Casanatense (Florence, 1897); Vaglizo and Colaneri, La Biblioteca Casanatense (Rome, 1896).

U. BENIGNI.

Bartolomé de las Casas

(Originally CASAUS)

Born at Seville, probably in 1474; d. at Madrid, 1566. His family was from France and settled at Seville. He called himself Casaus during his youth, and changed the name to Casas later on.

Francisco Casaus, or Casas, the father of Bartolomé, had accompanied Columbus on his second voyage and brought back an Indian boy whom he left to his son as a servant. Bartolomé studied law at Salamanca, took his degree of Licentiate, and enjoyed a fair reputation as a lawyer. He possessed the confidence of the Spanish Governors of the Antilles after the departure of Columbus, and the first of these, Ovando, took him to the Island of Hispañola in 1502. Both Ovando and his successor, Velasquez, relied, in more ways than one, on the advice of Las Casas, who did not, however, remain much longer a layman, for in 1510 we find him a secular priest.

The condition of the Indians, especially those of the Greater Antilles, was not a satisfactory one. The earliest Spanish colonists in America were not the choicest examples of their race, neither were they numerous enough to improve the country and its resources as fast as they wished. Hence it was that the Indians were pressed into service; but those of the Antilles were not fitted for labour. With them the women, not the men, formed the labouring class. This the Spaniards did not know and, as Europeans, could not understand. Nor could they comprehend how the Indian was physically unfit for manual labour, owing to the lack of training. Hence the aborigines were overworked, and in many cases harshly treated, while epidemics were imported from the Old World, and a rapid decrease of the indigenous population set in. Las Casas saw all this, and sought to prevent it by every means at his disposal. He received, in the first years of his activity, full support from the clergy in America, and still more in Spain, where Cardinal Cisneros was counted among his most unfailing supporters.

In becoming a priest Las Casas gained two important points: almost complete freedom of speech and material independence. As an ecclesiastic he could penetrate nearly everywhere, and express himself as he liked. The rapid disappearance of the Indians in the Antilles caused much concern in Spain. Fears were entertained that it would ruin the colonies. Las Casas proposed a remedy. He suggested and, with characteristic vehemence, insisted that the natives should be placed under the control of the Church, and separated from contact with any portion of the laity. This measure could not replace the many aborigines who had already perished, and it gave but little relief to the remnant. Yet the Crown, always anxious to assist the Indians, and most favourably impressed by the philanthropic endeavours of Las Casas, was willing and eager that he should make a trial. The north-eastern coast of South America (Venezuela) was selected, and Las Casas was sent there in 1519 with ample means for the experiment. It must be stated, however, that when Las Casas was in Spain the second time, in 1517, he had made great efforts to secure farmers as emigrants for the Antilles, but failed. About the same time another measure of relief was proposed: the importation of negroes. Las Casas was one of its advocates. When he went to Venezuela he took with him seven negroes as his own personal slaves, and it is certain that he recommended the distribution of negroes through the Antilles, allowing five or six hundred to each island.

The charge often made against Las Casas, that he introduced negro slavery into the New World, is unjust. As early as 1505 negroes were sent to the Antilles to work in mines. After that they were repeatedly imported, but without his co-operation. Besides, slavery was at that time sanctioned by Spanish custom and law. But the fact that he tolerated slavery in the case of negroes, while condemning Indian servitude, appears to us a logical inconsistency. It did not occur to him that the personal liberty of negroes and Indians alike was sacred, and that in point of civilization there was little difference between the two races. At a later period he recognized his error, but the cause of the Indians had so completely absorbed his sympathies that he did nothing for the black race.

The first attempt of Las Casas to carry out his plan of educating the Indian apart from the white man resulted in disastrous failure, caused by the Indians themselves. After establishing a post at Cumaná, Las Casas returned to give an account of what he had done. In the meantime the aborigines, seeing a large building of frail material, filled with commodities ultimately destined for distribution among them as time went on, forcibly appropriated the supplies, set fire to the buildings, and, after killing as many of the Europeans as could not escape, withdrew to the interior with their booty. It was a sore blow to the priest, but, instead of drawing the true lesson from it, he laid the blame on his countrymen, accusing them of having instigated the catastrophe out of ill will towards himself and his projects. Thereafter the colonization of the New World became in his eyes a grave offence, even a sin. Embittered in spirit, he joined the Dominican Order and began a fierce crusade for what he considered the rights and interests of the Indians.

In his active sympathy for the American aborigines Las Casas had not stood alone. He had on his side, in principle, the sovereigns and the most influential men and women of Spain. He was sincerely admired for his absolute devotion to the cause of humanity, his untiring activity and zeal. He stood out among the men of his day as an exceptionaly noble personality. But the more perspicacious among his admirers saw, also, that he was eminently unpractical, and, while they supported within reason, they could not approve the extremes which he peremptorily demanded. His very popularity spoiled his character. Among the clergy, the Hieronymites, who had been entrusted with the conversion and training of the Antillean natives, were his first active supporters. After his entry into the Order of Preachers, the Dominicans naturally stood by him. The conquest of Mexico brought the Spaniards into intimate contact with the most numerous and most cultured groups of Indians in America. The degree of culture and the civil polity of these groups were overrated, and the character of the people misunderstood, as well as their social organization. They were represented as highly civilized, and the coercion accompanying the conquest, even if indispensable for the changes which alone could set the aborigines upon the path of progress, appeared to many to be wanton cruelty. Las Casas was prompt to raise the cry of condemnation.

It was in 1522 that, after the failure of his plan at Cumaná, Las Casas retired to a Dominican convent on the Island of Santo Domingo, where he soon after began to write his voluminous “Historia de las Indias.” His picture of the earliest times of Spanish colonization is gruesome. He exaggerated the number of aborigines on the island at the time of discovery, and magnified into a deed of revolting cruelty every act which savoured of injustice. Sober common sense demands the revision and correction of his indictments. The life which Las Casas would have desired to lead could not, in the face of his disappointments, be led by a man of his temperament. At the same time the authorities favoured further investigations into the condition of the Indians, chiefly in the regions last occupied. He therefore went to Nicaragua in 1527. Everywhere he found abuses, and everywhere painted them in the blackest colours, making no allowances for local conditions or for the dark side of the Indian character. That the natives, owing to centuries of isolation, were unable to understand European civilization did not enter his mind. He saw in them only victims of unjustifiable aggression. It is greatly to the credit of the Spanish Government’s goodwill to have not only tolerated but encouraged the visionary designs of Las Casas, who became more and more aggressive. Some of his biographers have unjustifiably extended the scope of his travels at that time. He is credited with having made a journey to Peru in the execution of his philanthropic mission; the truth is that Las Casas never touched South America, except on its northern coast. Nevertheless, he addressed to the king a memorial, couched in violent terms, on Peruvian affairs, of which he had not the least personal knowledge.

The critical question was that of Indian labour. Slavery had repeatedly been abolished, except in the case of prisoners of war and as a punishment for rebellion. The most rational solution appeared to be to let the Indian pass to enfranchisement through progressive stages of training under the supervision of the whites, such as might have the effect of initiating him little by little in the ways of European civilization. This plan demanded a feudal condition of things, and the Repartimientos and Encomiendas, while abolishing personal servitude, substituted for it agrarian serfdom. While not eliminating the possibility of individual and official abuses, however, it checked them in many ways. Las Casas was not satisfied with the improvement; it was not radical enough for him. He continued to agitate, and, though he does not appear as the framer of the “New Laws” for the Indies (promulgated in 1542), it is certain that those enactments were due to his influence with the Government, with the clergy, and with persons who, guided more by humanitarian theories than by practical knowledge of the New World, would not have stopped short of complete emancipation, regardless of its consequences to European settlement. The strong support which Las Casas found in Spain discredits the accusations of tyranny brought against the Spaniards by Las Casas himself and by his partisans. His violent denunciations were not only unjust, but extremely ungrateful. Throughout his career he never lacked either the means for support or for carrying out his schemes. But his vehemence and sweeping injustice estranged more and more those who, fully desirous of aiding the Indians, had to acknowledge that gradual reform, and not sudden revolution, was the true policy.

The “New Laws,” with their amendments of 1543 and 1544, were a surprise and a source of much concern, especially in America. They did not abolish serfdom, but they limited it in such a manner that the original settlers (Conquistadores) saw before them utter ruin by the eventual loss of their fiefs. The newly acquired territories belonged to the Crown. Those who had sufferred unspeakable hardships, exposures, and sacrifices to secure this new continent for Spain had a right to expect compensation for themselves and their descendants. That expectation was now suddenly threatened with disappointment. Not only this, but the Indians obtained such favours that, as long as Spanish rule lasted in America, the reproach was justly made to the mother country that a native enjoyed more privileges than a creole. A storm of indignation broke out in America against the new code, and against Las Casas as its promoter. About that time the Emperor Charles V had Las Casas proposed for the episcopal see of Cuzco, in Peru, but he refused it. He had often declared that he would never accept any high office. In the case of Cuzco it ws not so much modesty as prudence, for in Peru his life would have been in imminent danger. Certain it is that he afterwards accepted the Bishopric of Chiapas, in Southern Mexico. Notwithstanding his egregious failure in Venezuela, the Crown was disposed and even anxious to give him further opportunities and means to try once more the practicability of his schemes. He was in Central America, with intermissions, until 1539, disseminating his views and causing trouble everywhere. Received at Guatemala in the most friendly manner by Bishop Marroquin, he turned against his benefactor, because, while the latter was in full harmony with him so far as concerned his efforts in favour of the natives, he differed with him in regard to the mode of procedure. Little by little he alienated the sympathy of the most influential members of his own order, such, for example, as Fray Domingo de Betanzos. Some of the Franciscans, among them the celebrated missionary Fray Toribio de Paredes (Motolinia), took a decided stand against the methods of relief urged by Las Casas. Officials and private individuals, exasperated by the violence of his language, retorted with equal acrimony, and accusations of inconsistency were made against him. While he refused absolution to those who held fiefs, he did not hesitate to take advantage of personal service without compensation. Even his private character was, though unjustly, assailed. It must be said that Las Casas had set the example by his treatment of Bishop Marroquin.

The laws of the Indies were gradually modified so as to afford the necessary protection to the natives without injuring too much the interests of the settlers. But the bitterness of Las Casas grew with age. In 1552 there appeared in print his “Brevísima Relacion de la Destruycion de las Indias,” a most injudicious book, glaringly partial, based upon testimony often very impeachable and always highly coloured. That so passionate and one-sided a document should have been published with the permission of the authorities argues a broad tolerance on the part of the Spanish Government, which, moreover, still continued its support to Las Casas. In 1555 an annual pension of 200,000 maravedis was granted to him, and five years later this was increased to 350,000 maravedis. Disappointed at the failure of his extravagant plans, he spent the last ten years of his life in comparative quietness, dying in the convent of Atocha, at Madrid, in the ninety-third year of his age.

Las Casas was a man of great purity of life and of noble aspirations, but his conviction that his own views were flawless made him intolerant of those of others. By no means thoroughly acquainted with the character of his Indian wards, he idealized them, but never took time to study them. His knowledge of them was far less correct than that of such men as Motolinia. Neither was he in any exact sense a missionary or a teacher. Between the years 1520 and 1540 he accompanied some of his Dominican brethren on missions-for instance, to Honduras. He occasionally visited certain districts, but the life of constant personal sacrifice among the aborigines was not to his taste. With the exception of what he wrote on the Indians of the Antilles, in the “Historia de las Indias,” he has left very little of value to ethnology, for the bulky manuscript entitled “Historia apologética” is so polemical in its tone as to inspire deep mistrust. He did almost nothing to educate the Indians. The name “Apostle of the Indies,” which has been given him, was not deserved; whereas there were men opposed to his views who richly merited it, but who had neither the gifts nor the inclination for that noisy propaganda in which Las Casas was so eminently successful. Although for over fifty years an ecclesiastic, he always remained under the spell of his early education as a lawyer. His controversy with Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda on the Indian question is a polemic between two juris-consults, adorned with, or rather encumbered by, theological phraseology.

Las Casas left no linguishtic contributions like those of Marroquin, Betanzos, Molina, and other devoted priests. He was, however, a prolific writer, though not all of his writings have ben published. The “Historia apologética de las Indias,” for instance, has been only partly printed in the “Documentos para la Historia de España” (Madrid, 1876). The “Historia de las Indias,” the manuscript of which he completed in 1561, appeared in the same collection (1875 and 1876). His best-known work is the “Brevísima Relacion de la Destruycion de las Indias” (Seville, 1552). There are at least five Spanish editions of it. It circulated very quickly outside of Spain and in a number of European languages. Appearing at a time when every seafaring nation of Europe was jealous of Spain’s American possessions, and bent upon damaging Spanish reputation for religious, as well as for political and commercial reasons, this violent libel, coming from a source so highly considered as Las Casas, was eagerly welcomed. Latin translations of it issued from Frankfort, 1598, Oppenheim, 1614, Heidelberg, 1664; French translations from Antwerp, 1579, Amsterdam, 1620 and 1698, Rouen, 1630, Lyons, 1642, Paris, 1697 and 1822; Italian from Venice, 1630, 1643, and 1645. A German translation appeared in 1599; Dutch translations at Amsterdam in 1610, 1621, and 1663. There is an English version: “A Relation of the first voyages and discoveries made by the Spaniards in America” (London, 1699). Many of the writings of Las Casas have been included in the work of J. A. Llorente: “Œuvres de Don Bartollomé de las Casas” (Paris, 1822).

A biography, or rather panegyric, of Las Casas has been weritten by QUINTANA in Vidas de Españoles célebres (Madrid, 1807). See also: YCAZBALCETA, Documentos para la Historia de México (Mexico, 1866), II, and Bibliografía Méxicana del Siglo XVI (Mexico, 1886). Passing over the innumerable more or less correct sketches and mentions of Las Casas in modern works, the sources may be noted which date from the lifetime of the celebrated Dominican. GOMARA, Historia general de las Indias (Saragossa, 1522; Medina del Campo, 1553; Antwerp, 1554; Saragossa, 1555). A most important but partial source is OVIEDO, Historia general y natural de las Indias (Madrid, 1850). From the beginning of the seventeenth century there is HERRERA, Historia de los Hechos de los Castellanos en las Islas y Tierra firme del Marocéano (Madrid, 1601–15; Antwerp, 1728; Madrid, 1726–30). Lately there have appeared the interesting biographical data of the book of DIEGO GUTIEREZ DE SANTA CLARA, Historia de las Guerras civiles del Perú (Madrid, 1904), I. The most extensive biographers of Las Casas have been two monks of his own order: ANTONIO DE REMESAL, Historia general de las Indias occidentales, y particular de la gobernacion de Chiapas y Guatemala (Madrid, 1619, and, under a somewhat different title, 1620); AUGUSTIN DÁVILA Y PADILLA, Historia de la Fundación y Discurso de la Provincia de Santiago de México (Madrid, 1596; Brussels, 1625). Finally the voluminous collection, Documentos inéditos de Indias, contains many documents touching upon Las Casas or emanating from his pen.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Diocese of Caserta

DIOCESE OF CASERTA (CASERTANA).

Caserta is the capital of the province of that name in Southern Italy, situated in a fertile and pleasant region about twenty miles from Naples. It attained a certain importance under the Lombards and later under the Normans, and the counts of Caserta were once powerful lords in that vicinity. Later it was held as a fief by various noble families, last of all by the Gaetani, who made it over to Charles III of Savoy, King of Naples, by whom it was transformed into a second Versailles. The royal castle, the work of the architect Vanvitelli, is an edifice of great magnificence. Splendid residences were afterwards built in the vicinity by the aristocracy of Naples. It is not known when Caserta became an episcopal see. The first-known bishop was Ranulfo whose election in 1113 was confirmed by Senne, Archbishop of Capua. Other bishops of note were: Andrea (1234), who finished the beautiful belfry of the cathedral; Secondo (1285) and Azzone (1200), champions of ecclestiastical liberty; Antonio Bernardo della Mirandola (1552), a famous student of Aristotle; Benedetto Mandina (1594), a zealous promoter of an alliance of Christian princes against the Turks; the Franciscan, Bonaventura Caballo (1669), renowned for his piety and his preaching. In 1818 Pius VII united this see with that of Caiazzo, but Pius IX made them separate sees. Casetta is a suffragan of Capua, and has a population of 96,800, with 51 parishes, 176 churches and chapels, 267 secular and 38 regular priests, and 7 religious houses of men and 10 of women.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XX, 241–60; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 374–76.

U. BENIGNI

John Casey

Mathematician, b. at Kilbehenny, Ireland, 12 May, 1820; d. at Dublin, 3 Jan, 1891. He received his early education in the school of his native town. As soon as his age permitted he took service under the Board of National Education and taught in various schools, finally becoming head master of the Central Model School of Kilkenny. In his leisure moments he cultivated his natural taste for mathematics, learning at the same time Latin, French, and German. His success in obtaining a geometrical solution of Poncelet’s problem brought him to the notice of mathematicians, including Dr. Salmon and Professor Townsend of Trinity College, Dublin. Following the advice of the latter, he entered Trinity in 1858, though approaching his fortieth year. He won a sizarship in 1859, a scholarship in 1861 and took his B. A. degree in 1862. During the following eleven years he was mathematical master in the Kingstown School where he gained distinction by his success in training candidates for the Indian Civil Service examinations. In 1873 he became professor of higher mathematics and mathematical physics at the Catholic University in Dublin. Shortly afterwards he was offered a professorship at Trinity which he refused, preferring to devote his energies to the advancement of Catholic higher education. In 1881 he was elected to a fellowship in the Royal University and at the same time was appointed lecturer on mathematics at University College, Stephen’s Green, a position which he held until his death.

Casey carried on an extensive correspondence with mathematicians at home and abroad, and during his life received many distinctions in recognition of his work in mathematics. In 1866 he was elected a member of the Royal Irish Academy, serving for many years as a member of its council, and for four years as vice-president. He received the honorary degree of LL.D. from Trinity in 1869. In 1874 he was elected a member of the London Mathematical Society, and in 1875 he was made a Fellow of the Royal Society. In 1878 he served as secretary of the British Association during its Dublin meeting. From 1862–1868 he was one of the editors of the “Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin Messenger of Mathematics” and for several years Dublin correspondent of the “Jahrbuch über die Fortschritte der Mathemtik.” Casey was an enthusiastic and devoted teacher and yet found time for much original work in mathematics, confining himself chiefly to geometry which he treated with much ability. He was withal a man of ardent piety, being a member of the Third Order of St. Francis and for many years a daily communicant. He was the author of a number of mathematical papers, many of them published in the “Philosophical Transactions” and in the “Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy.” In 1881 he began a series of textbooks which were highly esteemed. Among his works are: “On Cubic Transformations” (Dublin, 1880); “Sequel to Euclid” (Dublin, 1881); “Treatise on the Analytic Geometry of the Point, Line, Circle and Conic Sections” (Dublin, 1885); “Treatise on Plane Trigonometry containing an account of the Hyperbolic Functions” (Dublin, 1888); “Treatise on Spherical Geometry” (Dublin, 1889).

Irish Monthly (1891), XIX, 106, 152; Proc. Royal Society (1891), XLIX, 30, p. xxiv.

H.M. BROCK

Henri Raymond Casgrain

Author of some of the best works in French Canadian literature, b. at Rivière Ouelle, 16 September, 1831; d. at Quebec, 2 February, 1904. His father, a proprietor of the old feudal regime who had been a member of the Canadian ministry, gave him a careful education at the College of Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière. Having finished his classics he studied medicine, but became a priest in 1856. For several years he discharged his clerical duties at Beauport and Quebec, until poor health and a serious affection of the eyes compelled him to retire; thenceforth he was free to devote himself entirely to literary pursuits. He first wrote tales, such as, “Le tableau de la rivière Ouelle,” “La jongleuse,” “Les pionniers canadiens,” for periodicals, his work appearing, 1860–68, in the “Soirées canadiennes et foyer canadien.” In these narratives, which were well received, he depicted the life and customs of the early colonists of Canada. He has also left several biographies of Canadian writers, including lives of de Gaspé, Garneau, Crémazie, Chauveau. Casgrain’s instinct for research led him to devote himself almost exclusively to history. His historical works include: “Histoire de la Mère Marie de l’Incarnation” (1864); “Histoire de l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec” (1878); “Une paroisse canadienne au XVIIe siècle”; “Pelerinage au pays d’Evangéline” (1855); “Montcalm et Lévis” (1891); “Une seconde Acadie” (1894); “Histoire de l’asile du Bon-Pasture de Québec” (1890); “Les sulpiciens et les prêtres des Missions étrangers en Acadie” (1897); not to mention numerous monographs, archæological studies, and letters of travel written for the press. Ill-health compelled him to spend a long time in Europe, and he turned necessity to profit by making researches in the archives of France; thus he gathered many valuable documents for he history of his own country. Under his direction the Government of Quebec published (188–1895) the collection known under the name of “Documents de Lévis,” dealing with the last wars between the French and English in Canada, which he had secured from the family of this name. He also collected and published the works of Crémazie, the national poet of the French Canadians, under the title: “ uvres de Crémazie” (1882). Some of Casgrain’s writings have been crowned by the French Academy. He was professor of history at Laval University, and president of the Royal Society of Canada (1889–1890). As historian, poet, and literary critic Casgrain has exercised considerable influence upon the intellectual movement in Canada, and has accomplished much in making his country known. Although almost blind he was gifted with remarkable fecundity. That he had read in his youth many of the works of Romantic school is betrayed by a style inclined to over-elaboration, but his diction grew purer as time went on. His literary judgments are not always accurate, and his appreciations of historical events are sometimes at fault. It has been said that he was better fitted to write tales than history. However, everything considered, his work, as a whole, has real worth. Above all he was a patriot; his one thought was to increase the fame of his country. Casgrain’s outlook is somewhat restricted, but his flights of fancy are frequently beautiful, and he is always interesting. He left unedited memoirs, which were bequeathed, together with his manuscripts and a part of his fortune, to Laval University.

ROUTHIER, Eloge historique de M. H. R. Casgrain in Royal Society Transactions, new ser., X, 35; also Presidential Address, 1st ser., VIII, and Bibliography, XII; LAFLAMME, L’abbé Henri Raymond Casgrain in Annuaire de l’université de Laval (1904–05), XLVIII, 174; CAMILLE ROY, L’abbé Casgrain in La Nouvelle-France (1904), III, 257, 408, 511. For criticism see KERALLAIN, La jeunesse de Bougainville (Paris, 1896); ROCHEMONTEIX, Les Jesuites et la Nouvelle-France au XVIIIe siècle, II, 268.

J. EDMOND ROY

Cashel

A town in the County Tipperary, Ireland, which is also a Catholic archbishopric and the see of a Protestant bishop. The Rock of Cashel, to which the town below owes its origin, is an isolated elevation of stratified limestone, rising abruptly from a broad and fertile plain, called the Golden Vein. The top of this eminence is crowned by a group of remarkable ruins. This ancient metropolis has lost its importance and most of its inhabitants. The population is less than 3000. Originally known as Fairy Hill, or Sid-Druim, the “Rock” was, in pagan times, the dun or castle of the ancient Eoghnacht Chiefs of Munster. In Gaelic Caiseal denotes a circular stone fort and is the name of other places in Ireland. The “Book of Rights” suggests that the name is derived from Cais-il, i. e. “tribute stone,” because the Munster tribes paid tribute on the Rock. Here, Corc, the grandfather of Aengus Mac Natfraich, erected a fort, and Cashel subsequently became the capital of Munster. Like Tara and Armagh it was a celebrated court, and at the time of claimed supremacy over all the royal duns of the province, when Aengus ruled as King of Cashel. About 450, Patrick preached at the royal dun and converted Aengus. The “Tripartite Life” of the saint relates that while “he was baptising Aengus the spike of the crozier went through the foot of the King” who bore with the painful wound in the belief “that it was a rite of the Faith.” And, according to the same authority, twenty-seven kings of the race of Aengus and his brother Aillil ruled in Cashel until 897, when Cerm-gecan was slain in battle. There is no evidence that St. Patrick founded a church at Cashel, or appointed a Bishop of Cashel. St. Ailbe, it is supposed, had already fixed his see at Emly, not far off, and within the king’s dominions. Cashel continued to be the chief residence of the Kings of Munster until 1100. Hence its title, “City of the Kings.” Before that date there is no mention in the native annals of any Bishop, or Archbishop of Cashel. Cormac MacCullinan is referred to, but not correctly, as Archbishop of Cashel, by later writers. He was a bishop, but not of Cashel, where he was king. The most famous man in Ireland of his time, but more of a scholar and warrior than an ecclesiastic, Cormac has left us a glossary of Irish names, which displays his knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and the “Psalter of Cashel,” a work treating of the history and antiquities of Ireland. He was slain in 903, in a great battle near Carlow.

Brian Boru fortified Cashel in 990. Murtagh O’Brien, King of Cashel, in presence of the chiefs and clergy, made a grant in 1101 of the “Rock” with the territory around it to O’Dunan, “noble bishop and chief senior of Munster,” and dedicated it to God and St. Patrick. Then Cashel became an archiepiscopal see, and O’Dunan its first prelate as far as the primate, St. Celsus, could appoint him. At the synod of Kells, 1152, Cardinal Paparo gave a pallium to Donat O’Lonergan of Cashel, and since then his successors have ruled the ecclesiastical province of Munster. In 1127 Cormac MacCarthy, King of Desmond, erected close to his palace on the “Rock” a church, now known as Cormac’s Chapel, which was consecrated in 1134, when a synod was held within its walls. During the episcopate of Donal O’Hullican (1158–82), the King of Limerick, Donal O’Brien, built in 1169 a more spacious church beside Cormac’s Chapel, which then became a chapterhouse.

The “City of Kings” had a full share in the vicissitudes of the times. Maurice, a Geraldine, filled the see from 1504 to 1523, and was succeeded by a natural son of Pierce, Earl of Ormond, Edmund Butler, prior of Athassal Abbey. In addition to the wars between the Irish and the English there now arose a new element of discord, the Reformation introduced by Henry VIII. The archbishop shared in the family failings, propensity for plundering and servility to the king. While residing at Kilmeaden Castle he levied black-mail on the traders of the Suir, robbing their boats and holding their persons for ransom. At a session of the privy council held at Clonmel, 1539, he swore to uphold the spiritual supremacy of the king and denied the power in Ireland of the Bishop of Rome. It does not appear that he left the Church. He died 1550 and was buried in the cathedral. Roland, a Geraldine (1553–61), was created archbishop by Queen Mary. After a vacancy of six years Maurice FitzGibbon (1567–78) a Cistercian abbot was promoted to the archbishopric by the pope, and James MacCaghwell was put forward by Elizabeth. Thus began the new religion at Cashel. FitzGibbon, who belonged to the Desmond family, being deprived of his see fled to France and passed into Spain where he resided for a time at the Court. He conferred with the English ambassador at Paris in order to obtain pardon for leaving the country without the Queen’s sanction, and to get permission to return. In this he failed, and going back to Ireland secretly he was arrested and imprisoned at Cork, where he died (1578) after much suffering. On the death of MacCaghwell, Elizabeth advanced Miler MacGrath, a Franciscan, and apostate Bishop of Down, to the See of Cashel. He held at the same time four bishoprics and several benefices, out of which he provided for his numerous offspring. Having occupied the see fifty-two years and wasted its temporalities, he died in 1622. His monument in the ruined cathedral bears a strange epitaph written by himself.

Dermod O’Hurley of Limerick, a distinguished student of Louvain and professor at Reims, was appointed (1581) by Gregory XIII. Having laboured secretly for two years among his flock, he was discovered and brought before the Lord Justices at Dublin. He suffered cruel tortures rather than take the Oath of Supremacy. He was hanged outside the city (1583). The story of the See of Cashel varies little for more than two centuries following; it is a narrative of struggle and persecution for the old Faith. The roll of its prelates presents men illustrious by learning, wisdom, and piety, as in former days. Meanwhile, on “the Rock” the monuments to the Faith and art of a noble period were yielding to the spoiler and falling to decay. Dr. James Butler 2nd (1774–91), on being appointed settled in Thurles, where the archbishops have since resided. His successor, Archbishop Bray (1792–1820), built a large church in the early part of the nineteenth century, on the site of which Archbishop Leahy (1857–74) erected a splendid cathedral in Romanesque style. It was completed and consecrated in 1879 by Archbishop Croke (1874–1902), and dedicated to Our Lady of the Assumption. St. Albert (feast 8 Jan.), a reputed former bishop, is the patron of the diocese. The Archbishop of Cashel is Administrator of the ancient Diocese of Emly.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL PROVINCE OF CASHEL

The Ecclesiastical Province of Cashel comprises the Archdiocese of Cashel with the Diocese of Emly and eight suffragan sees: Cloyne, Cork, Kerry, Killaloe, Limerick, Ross, , and Kilfenora. The Bishop of Galway is Apostolic Administrator of Kilfenora.

Statistics for 1908.—Archdiocese of Cashel and Diocese of Emly: archbishop, 1, parishes, 46, parish priests, 44, administrators, 2, curates, 67, secular clergy, 103, regular clergy, 3, parochial and district churches, 84, houses of regular clergy (Augustinians), 1, theological seminary (at Thurles), 1, college (at Rockwell, Cashel), 1, convents of nuns, 15, with 322 members, monasteries of brothers, 4, with 24 members, Catholic population (1901) 111,185, non-Catholic population (1901) 4659, total 115,844.

COLGAN, Acta Sanctorum (Louvain, 1645); LANIGAN, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (Dublin, 1905); WARE-HARRIS, Works on Ireland (Dublin, 1764); PETRIE, The Ecclesiastical Architecture of Ireland (Dublin, 1845); Book of Rights, ed. O’DONOVAN (Dublin, 1847); RENEHAN, Collections of Irish Church History (Dublin, 1861), I; Spicilegium Ossoriense, ed. MORAN (Dublin, 1863) HEALY, Life and Writings of St. Patrick (Dublin, 1905).

J.J. RYAN

St. Casimir

Prince of Poland, born in the royal palace at Cracow, 3 October, 1458; died at the court of Grodno, 4 March, 1484. He was the grandson of Wladislaus II Jagiello, King of Poland, who introduced Christianity into Lithuania, and the second son of King Casimir IV and Queen Elizabeth, an Austrian princess, the daughter of Albert II, Emperor of Germany and King of Bohemia and Hungary. Casimir’s uncle, Wladislaus III, King of Poland and Hungary, perished at Varna in 1444, defending Christianity against the Turks. Casimir’s elder brother, Wladislaus, became King of Bohemia in 1471, and King of Hungary in 1490. Of his four younger brothers, John I, Albert, Alexander, and Sigismund in turn occupied the Polish throne, while Frederick, the youngest, became Archbishop of Gnesen, Bishop of Cracow, and finally cardinal, in 1493. The early training of the young princes was entrusted to Father Dlugosz, the Polish historian, a canon at Cracow, and later Archbishop of Lwów (Lemberg), and to Filippo Buonaccorsi, called Callimachus. Father Dlugosz was a deeply religious man, a loyal patriot, and like Callimachus, well versed in statecraft. Casimir was placed in the care of this scholar at the age nine, and even then he was remarkable for his ardent piety. When Casimir was thirteen he was offered the throne of Hungary by a Hungarian faction who were discontented under King Matthias Corvinus. Eager to defend the Cross against the Turks, he accepted the call and went to Hungary to receive the crown. He was unsuccessful, however, and returned a fugitive to Poland. The young prince again became a pupil of Father Dlugosz, under whom he remained until 1475. He was later associated with his father who initiated him so well into public affairs that after his elder brother, Wladislaus, ascended to the Bohemian throne, Casimir became heir-apparent to the throne of Poland. When in 1479 the king went to Lithuania to spend five years arranging affairs there, Casimir was placed in charge of Poland, and from 1481 to 1483 administered the State with great prudence and justice. About this time his father tried to arrange for him a marriage with the daughter of Frederick III, Emperor of Germany, but Casimir preferred to remain single. Shortly afterwards he fell victim to a severe attack of lung trouble, which, weak as he was from fastings and mortifications, he could not withstand. While on a journey to Lithuania, he died at the court of Grodno, 4 March 1484. His remains were interred in the chapel of the Blessed Virgin in the cathedral of Vilna.

St. Casimir was possessed of great charms of person and character, and was noted particularly for his justice and chastity. Often at night he would kneel for hours before the locked doors of churches, regardless of the hour or the inclemency of the weather. He had a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and the hymn of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, “Omni die dic Marix mea laudes anima,” was long attributed to him. After his death he was venerated as a saint, because of the miracles wrought by him. Sigismund I, King of Poland, petitioned the pope for Casimir’s canonization, and Pope Leo X appointed the papal legate Zaccaria Ferreri, Bishop of Guardalfiera, the Archbishop of Gnesen, and the Bishop of Przemysl to investigate the life and miracles of Casimir. This inquiry was completed at Turn in 1520, and in 1522 Casimir was canonized by Adrian VI. Pope Clement VIII named 4 March as his feast. St. Casimir is the patron of Poland Lithuania, though he is honoured as far as Belgiumand Naples. In Poland and Lithuania churches and chapels are dedicated to him, as at Rozana and on the River Dzwina near Potocka, where he is said to have contributed miraculously to a victory of the Polish army over the Russians. In the beginning of the seventeenth century King Sigismund III began at Vilna the erection of a chapel in honour of St. Casimir, which was finished under King Wladislaus IV. The building was designed by Peter Danckerts, of the Netherlands, who also adorned the walls with paintings illustrating the life of the saint. In this chapel is found an old painting renovated in 1594, representing the saint with a lily in his hand. Two other pictures of the saint are preserved, one in his life by Ferreri, and the other in the church at Krosno in Galicia.

POTTHAST, Biblotheca historica medii ævi, Wegweiser (2nd ed.), 1236; CHEVALIER, Bio-bibl., s. v.; ESTREICHER, Bibliografia poloka (Cracow, 1903), XIX, 210–12; PRILESZKY, Acta sanctorum Hungariæ (Tyrnau, 1743), I, 121–32; FERRERI, Vita beati Casimiri confessoris ex serenissimis Poloniæ regibus (Cracow, 1521) in Acta SS., March, I, 347–51; ST. GREGORY, Miracula S. Casimiri in Acta SS., March, I, 351–57; IDEM, S. Casimiri theatrum seu ipsius prosapia, vita, miracula (Vilna, 1604); CIATI, La santità prodigiosa di S. Casimiro (Luccoa, 16. .); Officium S. Casimiri confessoris M. D. Lithuaniæ patrini (Vilna, 1638); COLLE, Compendio della vita di S. Casimiro (Palermo, 1650); TYSZKIEWICZ, Królewska droga do nisba albo zycie sw. Kazimierza (Warsaw, 1752); Sw. Kazimier, in Przyjaeiel ludu (Lissa, 1846), XIII; PEKALSKI, Zywoty sw. Patronów polskich (Cracow, 1866); PRZEZDZIECKI, Oraison de saint Casimir à la très sainte Vierge (Cracow, 1866); LESZEK, Zywot sw. Kazimierza Jagiellonczyka (Cracow, 1818); PALLAN, Sw. Kazimierz (Tarnów, 1893); PAPÉE, Swiety Kazimierz królewicz polski (Lemberg, 1902); PAPÉE, Studya i szkice z czasów Kazimierza Jagiellonczyka (Warsaw, 1907), 141–54.

L. ABRAHAM.

Casium

A titular see of Lower Egypt (Ptolemy, IV, v, 12), not far from Pelusium, and near the sandhills known by Greek geographers as Kasion Oros, to-day El-Katieh, or El-Kas. There was at Casium a temple of Zeus Kasios, the Aramean god Qasiou, and Pompey, who had been murdered near the place, was buried there. The town is mentioned in Georgius Cyprius (ed. Gelzer, 694), Hierocles’ “Synecdemos” (727, 2), and Parthey’s “Notitia Prima,” about 840, as a bishopric depending on Pelusium in Augustamnica Prima. Only one bishop is known, Lampetius, present at Ephesus in 431. He was sent by St. Cyril, with Hermogenes, Bishop of Rhinocorua, to Rome, where both were present at the consecration of Pope Pope Sixtus III. Many letters of St. Isidore of Pelusium are addressed to him (Lequien, II, 545).

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr. (London, 1878), I, 558.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Jean-Jacques Casot

The last surviving Jesuit of the old Canada mission, born in Liège, Belgium, 4 October, 1728; died at Quebec, 16 March, 1800. With him ended the long line of the sons of St. Ignatius who laboured in Canada during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. At his death the Society of Jesus became extinct in New France. He first joined the Society as a lay brother at the novitiate in Paris, 16 December, 1753, and left for Canada towards the close of 1756, where he was employed as cook at the college of Quebec. He was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Briand, of Quebec, in order to preserve from extinction as long as possible the Society of Jesus in Canada. He was an humble and devout religious who “deprived himself of the very necessaries of life, in order that he might expend the whole of whatever property he had received from his deceased brethren in promoting and multiplying as widely as he could different works of zeal and charity” (English Menology, S.J.). Upon his decease, the property of the Jesuits in Canada passed into the possession of the British Crown. His portrait forms the frontispiece of Thwaites’ “Jesuit Relations” (Cleveland, 1896–1901), LXXI, 125).

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

George Cassander

Flemish Humanist and theologian, b. 15 August, 1513 at Pitthem in West Flanders; d. 3 February, 1566, at Cologne. He studied at Louvain, where he was graduated in 1533. In 1541 he was appointed professor of belles-lettres at Bruges, but resigned two years later, partly from a natural desire to travel for instruction, and partly in consequence of the opposition aroused by his pro-Reformation views. On his journeys, which were undertaken in the company, and at the expense of his friend, Cornelius Wouters, he visited Rome, and in 1544 came to Cologne, where he settled permanently in the summer of 1549. He soon abandoned the classics for the study of the Bible and ecclesiastical questions, and had already published several classical, Biblical, and patristic treatises, when in 1556 he commenced a series of liturgical works. His “Hymni Ecclesiastici” (1556) were followed in 1558 by the “Liturgica de ritu et ordine Dominicæ coenæ celebrandæ.” Both publications were placed on the Index. As a completion of the “Liturgica,” his “Ordo Romanus” appeared (1558); and in 1560 the “Preces Ecclesiasticæ” were published. Cassander’s activity in promoting religious peace between Catholics and Protestants began with the publication of his anonymous book: “De officio pii viri in hoc religionis dissidio” (1561). This work, written at the request of the jurist, Francis Baldwin, and submitted by him to the Colloquy of Poissy (Sept., 1561), gave offence to both sides. Calvin wrote a violent answer, in which he unjustly berated Francis Baldwin as the author of the publication. On the Catholic side, William Lindanus, afterwards Bishop of Roermonde, remonstrated with Cassander by letter, and would have attacked him publicly had it not been for the intervention of a secretary of the King of Spain.

At the request of William, Duke of Cleves, Cassander wrote in 1563 a treatise against the Anabaptists: “De Baptismo Infantium.” It was supplemented in 1565 by “De Baptismo Infantium: Pars Altera.” The treatise, “De sacrâ communione Christiani populi in utrâque panis et vini specie” (Cologne, 1564), a plea in favour of the reception of communion under both species by the laity, attracted the attention of the Emperor Ferdinand I, who was himself a partisan of the idea. The latter, wishing to use the author as the peacemaker between Catholics and Protestants, invited him to Vienna. Cassander, prevented by illness from acting upon the invitation, wrote his “Consultatio de articulis Religionis inter Catholicos et Protestants controversis,” which he addressed to Maximilian II (1564), as Ferdinand I had died before its completion. This work, however, failed to satisfy either side. It is most probable, though not universally admitted, that Cassander died in full submission to the Catholic Church. He certainly always wished to remain a faithful member of the Church; but it is equally certain that some of his opinions were Protestant to the core. He advocated, for example, the division of ecclesiastical doctrines into fundamental and non-fundamental articles, the supremacy of private judgement, and the human origin of the papal primacy. An incomplete collection of his works was issued at Paris in 1616, and placed on the Index the following year.

DE SCHREVEL, Hist. Du semin. De Bruges (Bruges, 1883–95), I, 263–65, 387–609; FRITZEN, De Cassandri ejusque sociorum studiis irenicis (Muenster, 1865); PASTOR in Kirchenlex., s.v.

N.A. WEBER

Joseph Cassani

(Also Casani).

Born at Madrid, 26 Nov., 1673, entered the Society of Jesus, 16 Nov., 1686, was still in active service of priestly functions in 1745, and died in 1750. He was one of the founders in of the Academia de la Lengua española at Madrid, and published there a “Diccionario de la Lengua Catellana” in 1726–1730, in six volumes. He was a very prolific writer. Among his works may be noted Admirable vida, singulares virtudes etc. del extçtico Varon P. Dionisio Rickel (Madrid, 1738); Varones ilustres de la Compañia de Jesus Escual militar de forificacion Tratado de la naturaleza y orígen de los cometas (Madrid, 1737). He was a member of the Academia from 6 July, 1713. Although he never visited America, he appeals particularly to Americans through his “Historia de la Provincia de la Compañia de Jesus del Nueva Reyno de Granada en la América” (Madrid, 1741), the only regular chronicle of the Jesuit Order in Columbia thusfar extant. [Note: Fr. Cassani wrote the “Historia” in Venezuela.] The fact that Cassani was never in the New World detracts somewhat from the usefulness of this otherwise valuable history, as far as ethnologic and ethnographic data are concerned; otherwise it is a conscientious and earnest work, giving interesting data, chiefly of the missions in the upper Orinoco basin. The work is exceedingly rare.

Sommervogel-de Backer, Bibl. des éscriv. de la c. de J.; Diccionario hispano-americano; Salvç; Catçlogo de la Biblioteca de Salvç (Valencia, 1874); Acosta, Compendia hist. del Descub. y Coloniz., de la Nueva Granada (Paris, 1848); Brinton, The American Race (New York, 1891).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Diocese of Cassano all’ Ionio

DIOCESE OF CASSANO ALL’ IONIO (CASSANENSIS).

Suffragan of Reggio. Cassano all’ Ionio is a city of Calabria, province of Cosenza, situated in a fertile region in the concave recess of a steep mountain. It was already known in Caesar’s time as Cassanum. It is not known when it became an episcopal see; in 1059 mention is made of a bishop of Cassano, otherwise unknown. In 1096 we read of a bishop known as Saxo (Sassone). Other bishops worthy of mention are: Antonello dei Gesualdi (1418), learned in canon and civil law; Belforte Spinelli (1432), who while yet a layman assisted at the Council of Constance, under Martin V was sent on important missions, and later renounced the world and retired to Venice, leaving his rich library to the Collegio Spinelli of Padua; Cristoforo Giacoazzi (1523), later Cardinal, called to Rome by Paul III on account of his skill in ecclesiastical affairs; Giovanni Angelo Medici (1553), afterwards Pius IV; the Englishman, Audoeno Ludovico Cambrone (1588), who was sent by Pope Gregory XIII on different missions, and never resided in Cassano; the Franciscan, Deodata de Arze (1614); the two Theatines, Paolo Palombo (1617) and Gregorio Caraffa (1648); the Augustinians, Luigi Balmaseda (1670) and Vincente de Magistris (1671). The diocese has a population of 130,000, with 46 parishes, 200 churches and chapels, 253 secular and 10 regular priests, 2 religious houses of men and 3 of women.

U. BENIGNI

Patrick S. Casserly

Educator, b. in Ireland; d. in New York, where for many years he conducted a classical school. He was also associate editor of the “New York Weekly Register.” He translated the “Sublime and Beautiful” of Longinus, and “Of the Little Garden of Roses and Valley of Lillies” of Thomas a Kempis; edited Jacob’s “Greek Reader” (1836), of which sixteen editions were published, and a textbook on Latin Prosody (1845), which is still extensively used in classical schools, and wrote and published a pamphlet entitled “New England Critics and New York Editors,” in reply to an article in the “North American Review” on the merits of certain Greek class-books.

EUGENE, his son, b. in Ireland, 1822; d. at San Francisco, California, 14 June, 1883. He was graduated from Georgetown University, and in 1844 was admitted to the New York Bar. During the years 1846–7 he served as Corporation Counsel in New York, and in 1850 moved to San Francisco, where he took an active part in both local and national politics. In 1869 he was elected United States Senator from California, but resigned his seat and returned to San Francisco, November, 1873, to resume the practice of the law.

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE

John Cassian

A monk and ascetic writer of Southern Gaul, and the first to introduce the rules of Eastern monasticism into the West, b. probably in Provence about 360; d. about 435, probably near Marseilles. Gennadius refers to him as a Scythian by birth (natione Scytha), but this is regarded as an erroneous statement based on the fact that Cassian passed several years of his life in the desert of Scete (heremus Scitii) in Egypt. The son of wealthy parents, he received a good education, and while yet a youth visited the holy places in Palestine, accompanied by a friend, Germanus, some years his senior. In Bethlehem Cassian and Germanus assumed the obligations of the monastic life, but, as in the case of many of their contemporaries, the desire of acquiring the science of sanctity from its most eminent teachers soon drew them from their cells in Bethlehem to the Egyptian deserts. Before leaving their first monastic home the friends promised to return as soon as possible, but this last clause they interpreted rather broadly, as they did not see Bethlehem again for seven years. During their absence they visited the solitaries most famous for holiness in Egypt, and so attracted were they by the great virtues of their hosts that after obtaining an extension of their leave of absence at Bethlehem, they returned to Egypt, where they remained several years longer. It was during this period of his life that Cassian collected the materials for his two principal works, the “Institutes” and “Conferences.” From Egypt the companions came to Constantinople, where Cassian became a favourite disciple of St. John Chrysostom. The famous bishop of the Eastern capitol elevated Cassian to the diaconate, and placed in his charge the treasures of his cathedral. After the second expulsion of St. Chrysostom, Cassian was sent as an envoy to Rome by the clergy of Constantinople, for the purpose of interesting Pope Innocent I in behalf of their bishop. It was probably in Rome that Cassian was elevated to the priesthood, for it is certain that on his arrival in the Eternal City he was still a deacon. From this time Germanus is no more heard of, and of Cassian himself, for the next decade or more, nothing is known. About 415 he was at Marseilles where he founded two monasteries, one for men, over the tomb of St. Victor, a martyr of the last Christian persecution under Maximian (286–305), and the other for women. The remainder of his days were passed at, or very near, Marseilles. His personal influence and his writings contributed greatly to the diffusion of monasticism in the West. Although never formally canonized, St. Gregory the Great regarded him as a saint, and it is related that Urban V (1362–1370), who had been an abbot of St. Victor, had the words Saint Cassian engraved on the silver casket that contained his head. At Marseilles his feast is celebrated, with an octave, 23 July, and his name is found among the saints of the Greek Calendar.

The two principal works of Cassian deal with the cenobitic life and the principal or deadly sins. They are entitled: “De institutis coenobiorum et de octo principalium vitiorum remediis libri XII” and “Collationes XXIV.” The former of these was written between 420 and 429. The relation between the two works is described by Cassian himself (Instit., II, 9) as follows: “These books [the Institutes] . . . are mainly taken up with what belongs to the outer man and the customs of the coenobia [i.e. Institutes of monastic life in common]; the others [the “Collationes” or Conferences] deal rather with the training of the inner man and the perfection of the heart.” The first four books of the “Institutes” treat of the rules governing the monastic life, illustrated by examples from the author’s personal observation in Egypt and Palestine; the eight remaining books are devoted to the eight principal obstacles to perfection encountered by monks: gluttony, impurity, covetousness, anger, dejection, accidia (ennui), vainglory, and pride. The “Conferences” contain a record of the conversations of Cassian and Germanus with the Egyptian solitaries, the subject being the interior life. It was composed in three parts. The first instalment (Books I-X) was dedicated to Bishop Leontius of Fréjus and a monk (afterwards bishop) named Helladius; the second (Books XI-XVII), to Honoratus of Arles and Eucherius of Lyons; the third (Books XVIII-XXIV), to the “holy brothers” Jovinian, Minervius, Leontius, and Theodore. These two works, especially the latter, were held in the highest esteem by his contemporaries and by several later founders of religious orders. St. Benedict made use of Cassian in writing his Rule, and ordered selections from the “Conferences,” which he called a mirror of monasticism (speculum monasticum), to be read daily in his monasteries. Cassiodorus also recommended the “Conferences” to his monks, with reservations, however, relative to their author’s ideas on free will. On the other hand, the decree attributed to Pope Gelasius, “De recipiendis et non recipiendis libris” (early sixth century), censures this work as “apocryphal,” i.e. containing erroneous doctrines. An abridgment of the “Conference” was made by Eucherius of Lyons which we still possess (P. L., L, 867 sqq.). A third work of Cassian, written at the request of the Roman Archdeacon Leo, afterwards Pope Leo the Great, about 430–431, was a defence of the orthodox doctrine against the errors of Nestorius: “De Incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium” (P. L., L, 9–272). It appears to have been written hurriedly, and is, consequently, not of equal value with the other works of its author. A large part consists of proofs, drawn from the Scriptures, of Our Lord’s Divinity, and in support of the title of Mary to be regarded as the Mother of God; the author denounces Pelagianism as the source of the new heresy, which he regards as incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Yet Cassian did not himself escape the suspicion of erroneous teaching; he is in fact regarded as the originator of what, since the Middle Ages, has been known as Semipelagianism. Views of this character attributed to him are found in his third and fifth, but especially in his thirteenth, “Conference.” Preoccupied as he was with moral questions he exaggerated the rôle of free will by claiming that the initial steps to salvation were in the power of each individual, unaided by grace. The teaching of Cassian on this point was a reaction against what he regarded as the exaggerations of St. Augustine in his treatise “De correptione et gratia” as to the irresistible power of grace and predestination. Cassian saw in the doctrine of St. Augustine an element of fatalism, and while endeavouring to find a via media between the opinions of the great bishop of Hippo and Pelagius, he put forth views which were only less erroneous than those of the heresiarch himself. He did not deny the doctrine of the Fall; he even admitted the existence and the necessity of an interior grace, which supports the will in resisting temptations and attaining sanctity. But he maintained that after the Fall there still remained in every soul “some seeds of goodness . . . implanted by the kindness of the Creator,” which, however, must be “quickened by the assistance of God.” Without this assistance “they will not be able to attain an increase of perfection” (Coll., XIII, 12). Therefore, “we must take care not to refer all the merits of the saints to the Lord in such a way as to ascribe nothing but what is perverse to human nature.” We must not hold that “God made man such that he can never will or be capable of what is good, or else he has not granted him a free will, if he has suffered him only to will or be capable of what is evil” (ibid.). The three opposing views have been summed up briefly as follows: St. Augustine regarded man in his natural state as dead, Pelagius as quite sound, Cassian as sick. The error of Cassian was to regard a purely natural act, proceeding from the exercise of free will, as the first step to salvation. In the controversy which, shortly before his death, arose over his teaching, Cassian took no part. His earliest opponent, Prosper of Aquitaine, without naming him, alludes to him with great respect as a man of more than ordinary virtues. Semipelagianism was finally condemned by the Council of Orange in 529.

The best edition of the works of Cassian is that of PETSCHENIG (Vienna, 1886–1888); a tr. of his writings by GIBSON is published in the series of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Oxford and New York, 1894), XI. See also HOLE in Dict. of Christ. Biog. I, 414 sqq. (London, 1877); GODET in Dict. de théol. cath. (Paris, 1906), II, 1824 sqq. BARDENHEWER, Les Pères de l’église (Paris, 1905), II; GRÜTZMACHER in Realencyklopädie f. prot. Theol. (Leipzig, 1897), III, 746 sqq.; POHLE in Kirchenlex., II, 2021 sqq.; HOCH, Lehre des Johannes Cassianus von Natur und Gnade, etc. (Freiburg, 1896); CHEVALIER, Rep. bio-bibliogr. (Paris, 1905), 796–97.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

William Cassidy

Journalist, essayist, critic, b. at Albany, New York, U.S.A., 12 Aug., 1815; d. there 23 Jan., 1873. One of the most accomplished and brilliant journalists of his time, he was educated at the Albany Academy and Union College, graduating in 1833. He studied law with John Van Buren, eighth President of the United States, was appointed State Librarian 1843, and became editor of the Albany “Atlas.” On consolidation of the “Atlas” with the “Argus,” he assumed the editorship of the new paper and retained it to his death. As a writer he was terse, incisive, vigorous, and scholarly, and was a conversationalist of rare power. He was a member of the State Constitutional Convention in 1871, and in 1872 was appointed by Governor Hoffman on the commission to revise the Constitution. His influence was that of a pen wielded by a master of thought, and his achievements those of the exponent of party and the leader of political councils. At his funeral held from the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Albany, Bishop McNeirny pontificated. Both houses of the State Legislature then in session adjourned out of respect to the deceased.

J. T. DRISCOLL.

Giovanni Domenico Cassini

Astronomer, b. at Perinaldo (Nice, Italy), 8 June, 1625; d. at Paris, 14 September, 1712. After two years at Vallebone he entered the Jesuit College at Genoa and studied under Casselli. Coming by chance across some books on astrology, he took up the serious study of astronomy, abandoning his belief in the former pseudo-science. In 1644 the Marquis Malvasia invited him to Bologna, where he was building an observatory. In 1650 he filled the chair of astronomy at the University, left vacant by the death of Cavalleri. Together with the Marquis Tanara he was sent to Pope Alexander VII to plead with Bologna against Ferrara in the dispute over the navigation and the courses of the rivers Reno and Po. His studies in hydraulic engineering procured for him the position of inspector of water and waterways. Later he was appointed by Mario Chigi, the brother of Alexander VII, superintendent of the fortifications of Fort Urban. In 1663 he was delegated to arrange the difficulty that had arisen between the pope and the Grand-duke of Tuscana about the course of the River Chiana. All this time he continued his astronomical work. The Abbé Picard, prior of Rillè in Anjou and successor of Gassendi in the chair of astronomy at the College de France, recommended Cassini to Colbert, the minister of Louis XIV, and after some delay Pope Clement IX consented to lend Cassini to France for a few years. He reached Paris in 1669. In 1671 he went to live in the observatory which was then built partly under his direction. In 1673 he was finally persuaded by the king to become naturalized. Soon afterwards he married a French woman, Geneviève Delaitre, and became himself a thorough Frenchman. His blindness (1711) was probably caused by over-exertion in he course of his work. Fontenelle points out his calm and gentle character, based on a deeply religious nature, which made him bear almost cheerfully nearly total blindness. While working for Pope Alexander VII he sent a manuscript to the Jesuit Riccioli, a friend and astronomer at Bologna, treating of the Immaculate Conception, and recommending that it be celebrated as a special feast.

Cassini was principally an observer. We owe to him the calculation of the rotation periods of the planets Jupiter, Venus, and partly of Mars by means of observations of motions of spots on their disks. These results were very important in those days, because they furnished analogues to the disputed motion of the earth. With the aid of Campani’s long telescope, he added four satellites of Saturn to the one that had been seen by Huyghens. he studied the causes of the librations of the moon, observed the zodiacal light, and developed a theory of the motion of comets. His first achievement was the re-establishment and improvement of the gnomon and the meridian, traced by Ignazio Dante in the church of St. Petronius, Bologna, for the purpose of fixing the time of the solstices and reforming the calendar.

He was very industrious, and constantly held the attention of the public. He interested the king and the court in his work, and as director of the observatory trained a great number of astronomers among whom were many of the Jesuits belonging to the Chinese mission. His Italian memoirs are almost all collected in his “Opera Astronomica” (Rome, 1666). His very numerous French publications appear scattered in the “Journal des Savants” and “Mémoires de l’Académie des Sciences,” of which latter he was a member.

Delambre, Histoire de l’astr. (Paris, 1821); Fontenelle, Eloge de J. D. Cassini (Paris, 1825); Mèdler, Geschichte der Himmelskunde (Braunschweig, 1873); Drohodjewska, Les savants modernes; Cassini (Lille, 1887).

WILLIAM FOX

Cassiodorus

Roman writer, statesman, and monk, b. about 490; d. about 583. His full name was Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, the last being a surname. Although of Syrian ancestry, his family had been for at least three generations one of the most important in Bruttium (Southern Italy). His great-grandfather successfully defended Bruttium during the Vandal invasion of 455; his grandfather was signally favoured by Valentinian III and Actius, but chose to retire early from his honourable career, and his father went through all the degrees of the magistracy, at length being made prætorian prefect and a patrician by Theodoric.

Cassiodorus or, more properly, Senator, born on the paternal estate at Scyllaceum (Squillace) in 490 or somewhat earlier, made his first appearance as councillor to the prætorian prefect about 501. A panegyric on Theodoric attracted this prince’s attention, and between 507 and 511 he appointed Cassiodorus quæstor. The rule prohibiting a magistrate of that time to govern his own province was waived by Theodoric in favour of Cassiodorus’s father and again a second time when Cassiodorus himself was made corrector, i. e. governor, of Lucania and Bruttium. Consul in 514, he was minister in 526 when Theodoric died. From the time of his quæstorship he had remained the king’s regular councillor, and he retained his influence throughout the regency of Amalaswintha, who made him prætorian prefect. But Gothic power was passing through a serious crisis. Athalaric, the son of Amalaswintha, died in 534; Theodahadus, who had been made king by Amalaswintha, had the latter slain and in 536 himself fell a victim to Witiges, who, in turn, was taken prisoner in 540 by Belisarius, the Byzantine general. Cassiodorus decided to retire. Several years previously Benedict of Nursia had founded among the ruins of a temple of Apollo at Monte Cassino, a monastery which was to serve as a model for all the West, and it was undoubtedly in imitation of Benedict’s institution that Cassiodorus erected the monastery of Vivarium on his own estate. Here he spent his remaining days, which must have been numerous, as we are told that at the age of ninety-three he was still writing. If born in 490, he could not therefore have died before 583.

The writings of Cassiodorus may be classified according to the two great divisions of his life, namely, his public career and time of religious retirement. While in office he devoted himself to work relating to politics and public affairs. There still remain fragments of two of his panegyrics, which, conformably to an already ancient tradition among Roman office-holders, he dedicated to the Gothic kings and queens. One was addressed to Eutharic, Theodoric’s son-in-law (518 or 519); the other was delivered at Ravenna on the occasion of the marriage of Witiges and Matheswintha (536). A great wealth of instances drawn from Roman history and illustrations from mythology serve the purpose of placing in relief the story of high heroic deeds set forth amid a clatter of empty phrases. In 519 Cassiodorus published a chronicle dedicated to Eutharic, the consul of the year. It is in substance a list of consuls, preceded by a table of the kings of Assyria, Latium, and Rome, and accompanied by a few notes. Cassiodorus uses successively an abridgment of Livy, the histories of Aufidius Bassus, St. Jerome, and Prosper, and the “Chronicle of Ravenna.” The historical comments appended to the names of the consuls are taken at random from these sources without either skill or accuracy. From the year 496 Cassiodorus wrote from his own experiences and with a pronounced partiality for the Goths. He betrays the same inclination in his “History of the Goths,” published between 526 and 533 and of which we have only the abridgment edited by Jornandes in 551. Finally, as the bequest of his official career, we have his letters gathered into twelve books, the “Variæ,” at the close of 537. This voluminous correspondence does not contain as much historical information as one whould expect, dates, figures, names of men and places being frequently omitted as opposed to elegance of style. On the other hand, useless and pompous digressions, commonplaces of ethics or history, form the basis of these compositions. “The reader,” says Mommsen, “often hesitates as to the meaning of what is said and is ever vainly seeking a reason for its being said.” Cassiodorus carefully avoids all concrete details of the troublous time in which he lived, all that might in any way offend either Goths, Romans, or Byzantines. He is even lavish in his praise of those princes who were killing one another: Amalaswintha, Theodahadus, and Witiges. Books VI and VII of the “Variæ” are a collection of formulæ, the first of a kind quite common in the Middle Ages. These letters were designed for use on any occasion where a migistrate was created, needing only the insertion of new names. The letters in the other books are scarcely more interesting. However, such was the taste of the time, and the correspondence of Symmachus is almost equally insipid.

Cassiodorus seems to have begun his ecclesiastical writings with the “De animâ,” which, after 540, he added to the “Variæ” as a thirteenth book. This little treatise sets forth the nature and origin of the soul, its vices and virtues, following chiefly the opinions of Claudianus Mamertus and St. Augustine-Cassiodorus being still in secular life when he wrote it. He indicates as the first fruit of his conversion a commentary on the Psalms which occupied him for several years. The works composed during the religious retirement reveal his anxiety to make the literary investigations serviceable to his monks; they also manifest a peculiar taste for figures and the symbolism of numbers. The commentary on the Psalms is founded chiefly on the “Enarrationes” of St. Augustine. The “Complexiones in epistolas et acta apostolorum et apocalypsin”-thus named because, in them, instead of commenting verse by verse, Cassiodorus combines several verses in order to paraphrase them-are also compilations; perhaps he refers to this work when he says that he has purged of all heresy an exposition by Pelagius of the Epistle to the Romans. He had the “Jewish Antiquities” of Flavius Josephus translated and also the ecclesiastical histories of Theodoret, Sozomen, and Socrates. He himself made extracts from the translations of these three historians and combined them in the “Historia Tripartita,” a hasty composition, teeming with errors and contradictions, but nevertheless much used throughout the Middle Ages as a manual of history. In another compilation he united the grammatical treatises and their commentaries ascribed to Donatus with the book of Sacerdos on figures; towards the close of his life Cassiodorus added thereto a treatise on orthography, merely another collection of extracts. The “De computo paschali” of 562 is not his but an anonymous work, added by a copyist to the chronicle of Cassiodorus.

Of all the work achieved by this author in the monastic retreat, what we of to-day find most interesting is the “Institutiones divinarum et sæcularium litterarum,” written between 543 and 555. His object was to furnish the monks with means of interpreting Holy Writ, but the plan of study which he suggests is far in advance of simple meditation on the Bible. He demands the reading of commentators, of Christian historians, to whom he adds Flavius Josephus, of chroniclers, and of the Latin Fathers. He recommends the liberal arts; he proclaims the merit gained by those who copy the Sacred Books, and outlines the rules to be followed in the correction of the text. Finally, in a second part, he resumes the theory of the liberal arts by following the division worked out by St. Jerome, Martianus Capella, and St. Augustine. He distinguishes the arts, notably grammar and rhetoric, from the sciences, which are arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. Dialectics, to which he attributes great importance, he considers part art and part science. Of course, Cassiodorus subordinates the profane studies to theology, but, unlike Isidore, for example, his extracts and compendiums do not dispense the monks from making further researches; they rather provoke such research by referring to books with which he was careful to equip the convent library. It had been his dream to found the first theological faculty in Rome; at least he had the merit of putting in the first rank of monastic occupations intellectual work, to which St. Benedict had allotted no place. During his public career Cassiodorus endeavoured to reconcile two races, the Goths and the Romans; in his religious retreat he laboured with greater success to harmonize the culture of the ancient with that of the Christian world. Modern civilization was the outgrowth of the alliance brought about by him.

INFLUENCE OF CASSIODORUS UPON CHURCH MUSIC

In his work on the liberal arts (De Artibus ac Disciplinis Liberalium Litterarum) Cassiodorus writes of music under the heading, Institutiones musicæ, and this latter treatise has been reprinted by Gerbert (Scriptores eccl. de mus. sacr., I) and is particularly valuable for the study of the early beginnings of the music of the Church. Cassiodorus did not go to the original sources-the Greek theoricians-for his knowledge of the Greek system of music, which was the only one then known and which he taught his monks. He borrowed from the Roman author Albinus, whose works are now lost. Cassiodorus, with Bœthius, is the chief exponent of the theory of music between antiquity and the early Middle Ages. For this reason his writings are of great assistance to the many students who are occupied in restoring the chant of the Church, especially as to its rhythm, in accordance with the oldest tradition. His works also contain instructive information about musical instruments in use in his time, namely the flute, shawm, bag-pipe, pipe of Pan, and the organ.

DREVES, Aurelius Ambrosius (Freiburg, 1893); RIEMANN, Handbuch der Musikgeschichte (Leipzig, 1906). GARET (GARETIUS), Cassiodori opera omnia (Rouen, 1679; Venice, 1729); also in P. L., LXIX-LXX; Variæ, ed MOMMSEN in Mon. Germ. hist.: Auct. ant. (Berlin, 1894), XII; Chronicon in Chronica minora, ed. MOMMSEN, II; Mon. Germ. hist.: Auct. ant. (Berlin, 1894), XI, 109–161; HODGKIN, The Letters of Cassiodorus, Being a Condensed Translation of the Variæ (London, 1886); MORTET, Notes sur le texte des institutions de Cassiodore (Paris, 1904), and in Revue de philologie (1900, 1903); ROGER, L’Enseignement des lettres classiques d’Ausone à Alcuin (Paris, 1905), 175–187; ZIMMER, Pelagius in Ireland (Berlin, 1901), 200- 216; HARTMANN in PAULY, Real-Encyc. des class. Alt., ed. WISSOWA, VI, part I, s. v. Cassiodorus (Stuttgart, 1899), 1671, sqq. For earlier bibliography see CHEVALIER, Rép. Bio-bibl.

PAUL LEJAY

JOSEPH OTTEN

François Dollier de Casson

Fourth superior of Saint-Sulpice, Montreal, Canada, b. near Nantes, France, 1636; d. in 1701. He was first a soldier and served as a captain under Marshal Turenne, his bravery eliciting this general’s esteem. In 1657 he entered the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice, at Paris, was admitted into the Company, and went to Canada in 1666. There he devoted himself with great ardour to missionary work and, in company with Father Galinée, a fellow Sulpician, made a reconnoitring tour of Lakes Erie and Ontario; unfortunately, his account of the expedition has been lost. In 1671 Father de Casson succeeded Father de Queylus as superior of the Sulpicians, and while in this position contributed largely to the development of Villemarie (Montreal), planned the laying out of its streets, began the canal known since by the name of Lachine, and moreover, stimulated the energy of the colonists under trying and hazardous circumstances. He wrote a “Histoire du Montreal” (Mémoires de la société historique de Montréal, 1869), and “Récit de ce qui s’est passé au voyage que M. de Courcelles a fait au lac Ontario” (Bibliothèque nationale de Paris, old French supplement, no. 13, 516, 516, fol. 207–218).

A. FOURNET

Diocese of Cassovia

(Hung. Kassa; Germ. Kaschau; Slav. Kosice)

DIOCESE OF CASSOVIA (CASSOVIENSIS)

Diocese in Hungary, founded in 1804 by the division of the Diocese of Agria, in the archdiocese of the same name, and the Dioceses of Cassovia and Szatmar. It includes Abauj, Saros, and Zemplen. Its first bishop was Andrew Szabo (1804–19). The chief benefactors of the diocese were the Bishops Emerich Palugyay (1831–38); John Perger (1868–76), and Constantin Schuster (1877–87).

The episcopal city, situated among vine-clad hills, on the Hernad, 130 miles north-east of Budapest, is one of the principal towns of Northern Hungary and the seat of numerous industries. The population in 1900 was about 40,000, mostly Catholic Magyars. The Cathedral of St. Elizabeth (restored 1882–96) is one of the most beautiful monuments of Gothic art in Hungary. There are in the diocese 197 parish churches and about 300 priests. The ecclesiastical seminary has about fifty students of theology. Premonstratensian Canons have houses at Cassovia and also at Lelesz.

There are also in the diocese four small convents of Franciscans, two houses of Piarists, besides Ursulines, Dames Anglaises, Sisters of Charity, etc. In 1900 the Catholic population of Latin Rite was 307,186; Greek Catholics, 160,527. The Protestant population numbered 898,727; Israelites, 35,475. An illustrated description of the diocese in two volumes was printed on the occasion of its first centenary (1904). A history of the diocese was then published.

A. FISCHER-COLBRIE

Castabala

A titular see of Asia Minor, Latin title suppressed, 1894. This city was situated somewhere on the river Pyramos (now Djihan) in Cilicia, and was also known as Hieropolis. It was probably near Osmanié, in the vilayet of Adana, perhaps at Kestel or Kastal, a village five or six miles south of Anazarbus. Others have located it, erroneously, at Karanlik or Kartanlik between the Pyramos and Aegaea (now Ayas), or at Kara Kaya near Demir Kapou (Amanicae portae). According to Hierocles, Georgius Cyprius, and Parthey’s “Notitiae episcopatuum” (I), it was a suffragan of Anazarbus, metropolis of Cilicia Secunda. About the tenth century it seems to have been confounded with or united to Mamista, i.e., Mopsuestus. Seven bishops are mentioned by Lequien (II, 901). The first, Maris, is spoken of in an apocryphal letter of St. Ignatius, and another letter is addressed to him. Moyses was present at Nicaea in 325. Theophilus, a semi-Arian and friend of St. Basil, was sent to Rome on an embassy with two colleagues. The last, Theodorus, attended the Trullan Council in 692.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Andrea Castagno

(Or ANDREINO DEL CASTAGNO)

Florentine painter, b. near Florence, 1390; d. at Florence, 9 August, 1457. Little is known of his life. Vasari tells us that his father was only a poor labourer and that the painter himself commenced life as a keeper of cattle. It is not known what led him to study art, or who was his first master. In 1434, after the return of the Medici, he was given a commission to commemorate in painting on the façade of the palace the execution of the Albizzi, the Peruzzi, etc. From that time he went by the name of “Andrea degli Impiccati.” In 1454 Pope Nicholas V commissioned him to decorate the apartments of the Vatican. Vasari recounts that Andrea, having learned the secret of oil-painting from Domenico Veneziano, and wishing to remain the sole master of the art, assassinated his comrade. It is known, however, that Domenico survived him four years. Castagno is one of the artists who, with Paolo Uccello (b. 1497) and Filippo Lippi (b. 1406), contributed most actively to the Masaccio revolution in art. His works, however, show the influence of the frescoes of the Brancacci’s chapel. He was greatly influenced also by the work of the sculptor Donatello. He has neither the passion of the latter, nor the moral grandeur of Masaccio, nor the elegance of Lippi. But in his own domain, which is the perfecting of plastic and of the resources of drawing, no one has made more progress than he. His paintings have been scattered and cannot be studied anywhere but in Florence. The most celebrated of his works is the life-like and strongly-executed equestrian portrait of Niccolò da Tolentino, in the Cathedral of Florence, which forms the pendant to that of John Hawkwood by Uccello (1436). Most remarkable is the “Last Supper,” which hangs in the refectory of the old convent of S. Appolonia. The figures, almost colossal, have a power of anatomy, an individuality, a savage life which forces one to forget the absence of all religious emotion. Such characteristics are also found in the frescoes of the Villa Carducci, which are now at the National Museum. They represent Thomyris, Esther, and the Cumaean Sibyl, the poets Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio, statesmen such as Acciaiuoli, Farinata degli Uberti, and Pippo Spano. These last, by the energy of their attitude, the hang of their draperies, and their heroic aspect, produce an impression of grandeur and solemnity which is found nowhere in the Florentine school of the fourteenth century outside of the works of Masaccio and Signorelli.

LOUIS GILLET

Diocese of Castellammare di Stabia

(CASTRI MARIS, STABLE; DIOCESE OF CASTELLAMMARE: STABIENSIS).

The seat of the diocese is an industrial city, situated on the Bay of Naples, on a slope of Monte Gauro, and famous for its health-giving mineral springs. It is also a naval station. The city was built near the ruins of the ancient Stabiae, buried in A.D. 79 under the ashes and scoria of Vesuvius. The history of the city is more or less that of Naples. It has been a fortified town since the time of the House of Anjou, and it is supposed that Christianity was introduced there at an early period. Previous to Ursus, present at the Roman synod under Pope Symmachus, in 499, no register was kept of the bishops of this city. Among its noteworthy bishops were: Lubentius, present in Rome in 649; St. Castellus (827); Palmerio (1196), champion of ecclesiastical rights against Frederick II; Giovanni Fonseca (1537), a famous theologian at the Council of Trent; Ludovico Gravina (1581) and C. Vittorino Maso (1599), learned theologians and canonists; also the accomplished orator, Clemente del Pezzo (1651). In 1818 Pius VII united with this see Torre Patria, the ancient Liternum. The diocese has a population of 70,400, with 26 parishes, 90 churches and chapels, 220 secular and 30 regular priests, 4 religious houses of men and 11 of women.

U. BENIGNI

Diocese of Castellaneta (Castania)

DIOCESE OF CASTELLANETA (CASTELLANETENSIS).

Suffragan of Taranto. Castellaneta is a city of the province of Leece, in Southern Italy, about twenty-four miles from Taranto (Tarentum). Nothing is known of this city previous to 1080, when it was taken by Robert, Duke of Tarentum, who expelled its Byzantine inhabitants, at which time, probably, the episcopal see was created; in the same year Tarentum was made a metropolitan see. A Bishop of Castellaneta, Joannes, is first mentioned with the Diocese of Castellaneta. There is a record of an otherwise unknow Bishop of Mottola who died in 1040; his successor was a certain Liberius. The diocese has a population of 38,000, with 6 parishes, 41 churches and chapels, 53 secular and 16 regular priests, 2 religious houses of men and 6 of women.

U. BENIGNI

Juan de Castellanos

Born in Spain in the first half of the sixteenth century; date of death unknown. He came to America previous to 1545 as a cavalry soldier, and acquired some means on the Pearl Coast. Abandoning the military profession he became a secular priest at Cartagena and, declining the dignities of canon and treasurer, went as curate to Tunja on the Colombian table-land. There he composed his epic poem, “Elegias de Varones ilustres de Indias,” the first part of which appeared at Madrid in 1588, and the first three parts in 1837. The remainder of the work is still in manuscript. The Lenox Branch of the New York Public Library possesses a complete and handsome copy. The verse is better than that of Ercilla’s “Araucana”; it treats successively of the deeds of the principal Spaniards who distinguished themselves in America, beginning with Columbus, and is an invaluable source for the colonial history of northern South America, including many details of ethnography and ethnology.

Castellanos enjoyed the advantage of being among the earliest “conquerors,” and was acquainted with nearly every prominent leader of the time. He relies to some extent upon Oviedo for many details, stating that Oviedo communicated to him verbally what he knew by personal experience of the settlement at Cartagena. Castellanos’ poem is the second of a series of epic compositions in Spanish treating of the early colonization of America, Ercilla’s being the earliest in date of publication.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Benedetto Castelli

Mathematician and physicist; b. at Perugia, Italy, 1577; d. at Rome, 1644. He was destined by his parents for the service of the Church and entered the Order of St. Benedict, at Monte Cassino. There he became abbot, and in 1640 he was transferred to the Abbey of San Benedetto Aloysio. He was specially interested in the mathematical sciences and their application to hydraulics. Galileo, his teacher, and Toricelli, one of his pupils, speak very highly of his scientific attainments, and both of them frequently asked his advice. In 1623 Urban VIII invited him to Rome and later appointed him chief mathematician to the pope and public professor of mathematics in the University of Rome. In 1625 he was sent with Monsignore Corsini to study the disorders occasioned by the waters of the Romagna, and to propose a remedy. Here he completed his important work on the “Mensuration of Running Water,” in which he developed the important relations, that the speed of a current varies inversely as the area of its cross section, and that the discharge from a vessel depends on the depth of the tap below the free surface of the water. He was often consulted in other provinces of Italy in connexion with drainage, water-supply, prevention of floods, and the like.

His chief work is “Della misura dell’acqua corrente” (Rome, 1628; 3rd ed., 1660), translated into English by Salusbury (London, 1661), and into French by Saporta (1664), reprinted (Bologna, 1823) in Cardinali’s collection “d’autori italiani che trattano del moto dell’acqua.” Another work is “Risposta alle oppositioni del Sig. Lodvico, &c., contro al trattato del Sig. Galileo, Delle cose che stanno sopra acqua” (Bologna, 1655). According to Poggendorf, the invention of the helioscope is ascribed to him.

SALUSBURY, Math. Collections and Translations (London, 1661); La Grande Encycl., s. v.

WILLIAM FOX

Pietro Castelli

Italian physician and botanist, b. at Rome in 1574; d. at Messina in 1662. He was graduated in 1617, studied under the botanist Andrea Cesalpino, and was professor at Rome from 1597 to 1634 when he went to Messina. He laid out the botanical gardens at Messina (1635), where he cultivated many exotic medicinal plants. He was equally distinguished as a botanist, chemist, and surgeon. He stoutly maintained the necessity for all physicians of studying anatomy, and declared in 1648 that he had dissected more than one hundred corpses. The learned Dane, Thomas Bartolinus, was led by Castelli’s fame to visit him in Messina, in 1644, and speaks of his activity as a publicist. He wrote no less than one hundred and fifty pamphlets. Among these there is one written in 1653 in answer to inquiries by Hieronymus Bardi of Genoa, wherein Castelli speaks of the cinchona plant and its curative properties in cases of malaria. He seems to have had but little knowledge of the plant, and no experience in its medicinal application. Still, the pamphlet is noteworthy as being the first Italian publication that mentions the Peruvian febrifuge.

CHARLES G. HERBERMANN.

Giovanni Battista Castello

Italian painter, sculptor, and architect; b. at Gandino, in the Valle Seriana, in the territory of Bergamo, in 1509 (some writers state 1500 or 1506); d. at Madrid in 1579. He is commonly called Il Bergamasco, to distinguish him from Giovanni Battista Castello, a Genoese, who was a miniature-painter. When young, he was entrusted to the care of Qurelio Busso of Crema, a pupil of Polidoro da Caravaggio, by whom he was taught the first principles of art. That painter took him to Genoa, and after some time left him in that city, unprotected and without means, but considerably advanced in his studies. A Genoese nobleman, Tobia Pallavicino, took him under his protection and sent him to Rome to study the great masters there, where he became very proficient in painting, sculpture, and architecture. On his return to Genoa he decorated the palace of his protector and painted some frescoes in the church of San Marcellino. He made a great reputation by his painting of the martyrdom of St. Sebastion, in the monastery of San Sebastiano and, together with Luca Cambiasco, was employed by the Duke Grimaldi, in the Nunziata di Portoria in Genoa, Castello painting on the ceiling of the choir the Savior as judge of the World, and Luca painting the laterals with the fate of the Blessed and the Reprobate. On visiting his native country, desiring to leave there something worthy of his fame, he undertook his great work in the hall of the Lanzi Palace at Gorlago, where he has represented some of the most interesting subjects of the Iliad.

Towards the latter part of his life (1567) he was invited by Charles V to visit Spain and was employed by that monarch in the palace of the Pardo, which he ornamented with subjects from Ovid. He also executed some works in the Escorial and other palaces, and died holding the office of architect of the royal palace. As architect, he is supposed to have remodelled the church of San Matteo in Genoas and to have designed the imperial palace at Campetto. The paintings of Castello show correct design, with excellent colouring, more nearly allied, however, to the Venetian than to the Roman school.

Miliizia. Lives of Celebrated Architects, II, 65, 66; Pilkington, Dict. of Painters, 105; Bryan, Dict. of Painters and Engravers, I, 267, 268; Champlin and Perkins, Cycl. of Painters and Paintings, I, 145.

THOMAS H. POOLE.

Baldassare Castiglione

An Italian prose-writer, b. at Casatico, near Mantua, 6 December, 1478; died at Toledo, Spain, 7 February, 1529. After receiving a classical education at Milan, he went to the court of Ludovico il Moro. Soon, however, owing to his father’s death in 1499, he left the Sforza and became a retainer of Francesco Gonzaga, Marquis of Mantua. In September, 1504, Urbino became his new residence, and here, in the service of Duke Guidobaldo da Montefeltro, he spent the best years of his life. The splendour of the Montefeltro court was such as to attract thither the most distinguished writers and artists of the time, and in their midst Castiglione, though engrossed in momentous affairs of state, drank at the fountain-head of art and literature. In 1513 Francesco Maria della Rovere, Guidobaldo’s successor, made him a count and later his ambassador to the Holy See. In 1524 Pope Clement VII sent him as a special envoy to Charles V, but, in spite of his good offices on behalf of the pontiff Rome was sacked on the 6th of May, 1527, and Clement made a captive. This melancholy event broke Castiglione in health and spirits and hastened his death. Great honours were paid to his memory, and Charles the Fifth was said to have called him “one of the best knights in the world.” His fame, however, mainly rests on his “Cortegiano” (Courtier), a work in four books, describing the accomplishments and moral character of the ideal courtier. He began writing it in 1514 and finished it four years later, but polished its style so elaborately as to delay its publication until 1528, one year before his death. A truly representative son of the Renaissance, he exhibited in his “Courtier” brilliant classical scholarship and exquisite taste, combined with a keen spirit of observation and noble conceptions. As a result, “Il Cortegiano” gradually acquired a world-wide reputation, and was translated into a dozen languages, including Japanese. The latest edition is that of Opdyke (New York, 1902). His many letters, in part unpublished, are of considerable importance.

CIAN, Il Cortegiano del Conte B.C. annotato e illustrato (Florence, 1894); MARTINATI, Notizie storico-bibliografiche intorno al Conte B.C. (Florence, 1890).

EDOARDO SAN GIOVANNI

Count Carlo Ottavio Castiglione

Philologist and numismatist, b. of an ancient family at Milan, Italy, 1784; d. at Genoa, 10 April, 1849. He was descended from Baldassare Castiglione, the author of the “Cortegiano.” Early in life he displayed a great aptitude for languages and numismatics and quickly acquired a mastery of almost all the Indo-Germanic and Semitic languages. In 1819 he published a description of the Cufic coins in the Gabinetto of Brera at Milan, under the title, “Monete cufiche del musee di Milano” (Milan, 1819). His principal work in Oriental literature is entitled “Mémoire géographique et numismatique sur la partie orientale de la Barbarie appelée Afrikia par les Arabes, suivi de recherches sur les Berbères atlantiques” (Milan, 1826). In this he endeavours to ascertain the origin and the history of the towns in Barbary whose names are found on Arabic coins. Outside of Italy he is perhaps best known by his edition, begun in 1819, of some fragments of the Gothic translation of the Bible by Ulfilas, which had been discovered in 1817 by Cardinal Mai among the palimpsests of the Ambrosian Library. At first Castiglione brought out some specimens in conjunction with the cardinal, but later at various times he published by himself a number of fragments of the Epistles of St. Paul. Besides these he wrote numerous unpublished works on linguistics.

BIONDELLI, Vita di C. O. Castiglione (Milan, 1856).

EDMUND BURKE

Giovanni Benedetto Castiglione

Painter and etcher, b. at Genoa, Italy, 1616; d. at Mantua, 1670. In Italy he was known as Il Grechetto from his beautiful colouring, and in France as Il Benedetto. Some authorities make him a pupil of Paggi and Andrea de’ Ferrari, and others of Van Dyck. But as Van Dyck left Genoa when Castiglione was nine years old, and since Genoa was rich in Van Dyck’s works, it is more than probable that the young man never saw Van Dyck, but had ample opportunity, in his native city, to study his works and those of Rubens also. He travelled throughout Italy and painted in nearly every large city. In 1654 Charles II, Duke of Mantua, generously gave him an apartment in his own palace and pensioned him. Castiglione did his best work in Mantua. His specialty was animal painting, but he enjoys an excellent reputation as a landscape, historical, and portrait painter. He frequently chose Biblical subjects, but, apparently only when these afforded him a chance to introduce animals. He was fond of painting kermesses, village, market, and rural scenes, and closely approached the marvellous Dutchmen in this kind of work. His touch was spirited, his colour beautiful and the chiaroscuro excellently managed. His many pastoral scenes show him possessed of a keen sense of the picturesque, and he proved himself an admirable draughtsman and figure-painter. Orders poured in upon him from England, France, and Germany. His rank as a master is, however, due to his point-work more than to his brush-work. He etched in a free, spirited, and effective style more than seventy plates, and so skillfully managed the light and shade that many of them have the effect of aquatint. Unlike his Italian contemporaries, he seldom used the graver, but relied on pure line, like Rembrandt and the etchers of the North. Lipmann thinks Castiglione’s needle-work was based “on contact with Van Dyck.” Benedetto had many imitators, especially his brother Salvatore and his son Francesco, both his pupils. Salvatore’s work is often very difficult to distinguish from Castiglione’s. Among his noted works are “The Nativity” (his masterpiece), at Genoa; “Adoration of the Shepherds,” at the Louvre, Paris; “Noah entering the Ark,” at Dresden. Some notable prints are: “Melancholy,” “Landscape” (dated 1658), “Animals Entering the Ark.”

SOPRANI, Le Vite de’ pittori genovesi (Genoa, 1768); LAROUSSE, Dict. Universel (Paris, 1877); LIPMANN, Engraving and Etching (New York, 1906); MABERLY, The Print Collector (New York, 1880).

LEIGH HUNT

Castile and Aragon

The united kingdom which came into existence by the marriage (1469) of Isabella, heiress of Castile, with Ferdinand the Catholic, King of Aragon. Columbus made his voyages of discovery as the agent of the “Catholic Kings” (los Reyes Católicos) of this united kingdom, which in the course of history became the Kingdom of Spain—or, more precisely, of the Spains.

CASTILE

The origin of the name Castile is a matter of dispute, but it is more than probably derived from the fortified castles (castillos), built first by the Romans to protect themselves from the Cantabrians whom they had not completely subjugated, and afterwards by the Christians to defend the northern regions which they had conquered from the Moors. At the present time this name is given to the extensive region which forms the central portion of Spain, and is bounded on the north by the Bay of Biscay (the ancient Sinus Cantabricus), on the east by the Basque Provinces, and the provinces of Navarre, Aragon, and Valencia, on the south by Andalusia, and on the west by Estremadura, Leon, and the Asturias, and is divided into Old Castile and New Castile.

OLD CASTILE (CASTILLA LA VIEJA)

It is asserted by some (Fernández Guerra, Cantabria) that Old Castile was called Vellegia and afterwards Vétula, that it was called Vieja, or Antiqua, to distinguish it from Castilla la Nueva—the New Castile formed from the lands which since the eleventh century had been reconquered beyond the mountain chain of the Carpetano-Vetónica. Old Castile is in outline an irregular triangle, the western frontier bordering on the ancient Kingdom of Leon, the south-eastern boundary being the Sierras de Gredos, Guadarrama, and the Moncayo (Mons Caunus), and the north-eastern, the river Ebro. In the political division of Spain the ancient province of Cantabria, which is included in Castile, does not belong to it either ethnographically or geographically, but forms a separate district called by those who inhabit it de Peñas al Mar, or more commonly La Montaña. In the present political division Old Castile comprises a territory of 22,415 square miles, with a population of 1,654,585, and since the division of 1833 it has included the eight provinces of Burgos, Palencia, Valladolid, Avila, Segovia, Soria, Logroño, and Santander. Old Castile forms the highest plateau of Spain, perhaps of Europe, the mean height being 880 feet. The mountain streams of this region feed the river Ebro in the north-east, the Duero, which flows through the centre, and the Pisuerga, which is a tributary of the Duero. Owing to its situation it has the most extreme climate of Spain, both as to cold and heat, and its fertile soil produces wheat and other cereals. The most important cities are: Burgos, population 29,683, famous for its Gothic cathedral, which is one of the most beautiful in the world; Valladolid, population 52,181, which was the capital of Spain until the time of Philip II; Santander, population 41,021, capital of Cantabria, a maritime city with an extensive commerce; Segovia, population 11,318, where the ancient Alcazar and the artillery school are situated; and Avila, population 25,039, the city of St. Teresa.

NEW CASTILE

As has already been said, this name was given to the territory reconquered from the Arabs, from the time of Alfonso VI to that of St. Ferdinand. This region also forms a great table-land, not quite so lofty as that of Old Castile, and is bounded on the north by the mountain chain of the Carpetano-Vetónica, on the south by the Sierra Morena, on the east by the mountains of Cuenca; the mountains of Toledo, which merge into the Sierra de Guadalupe in Estremadura, run through the centre and separate the two great valleys into which New Castile is divided, that of the Tagus to the north, and that of the Guadiana to the south. The river Jucar, which flows through the south-east, rises in the mountains of Cuenca. The climate is not so cold as that of Old Castile, and the soil not so fertile, there being a scarcity of water, especially in La Mancha. Its present limits comprise an area of 28,017 square miles, with a population of 1,777,506, and is divided into the five provinces of Madrid, Toledo, Ciudad Real, Cuenca, and Guadalajara. The principal cities are: Madrid, population 518,442, the capital of Spain since the time of Philip II, noted for its royal palace, picture gallery, containing specimens of Velasquez, Murillo, etc., and armoury (Museo de la Real Armería); Toledo, population 26,239, ancient capital of the kingdom of the Visigoths, honoured by Charles I with the title of “Imperial,” and noted for its cathedral, one of the finest monuments of Spain, and the see of the cardinal primate, as well as for its military school; Guadalajara, which has a military school for engineers; Aranjuez, where one of the favourite country residences of the Spanish royal family is situated; and Alcalá, the seat of the university founded by Cisneros, which has since been transferred to Madrid. The Escorial, near Madrid, contains the famous mausoleum of Philip II, and is one of the historic monuments of New Castile.

HISTORY

(1) The Countship (Condado) of Castile

The territory of Old Castile began to be reconquered in the time of the first three Alfonsos, who entrusted to several counts the repopulation and defence of these cities; thus Ordoño I entrusted the repopulation of Amaya, on the Pisuerga, to Rodrigo, a Goth by extraction, and his son, Diego Porcellos, fortified and repopulated Burgos under the orders of Alfonso III. Nuño Núñez de Roa, Gonzalo Téllez de Osma, and Fernán Gonzáles de Sepúlveda appear also in the same rôle. In 910 a Count of Castile, Nuño Fernández, assisted the sons of Alfonso III in their rebellion against their father, and Ordoño II of Leon (924) was defeated by the troops of Abdérraman in Valdejunquera because the Counts of Castile did not come to his assistance; in punishment of their disloyalty, Ordoño had them imprisoned and executed in Leon. Tradition hands down the names of these counts as Nuño Fernández, Abolmondar el Blanco, his son Diego, and Fernando Ansúrez. Further on mention is made of the judges of Castile, Lain Calvo and Nuño Rasura, established to facilitate the administration of justice, but who fostered the spirit of independence. The hero of this movement was Count Fernán González, to whom legendary lore has attributed all manner of heroic achievements. It is, however, known that, after having fought with Ramiro II against the Arabs, and after the battle of Simancas and the retreat of Abdérraman, this count, dissatisfied, as it appears, because the King of Leon distributed his troops in the frontier towns, rose in rebellion against him. He was, however, vanquished and made prisoner. He became reconciled with his sovereign, giving his daughter Urraca in marriage to the king’s son, Ordoño, who afterwards became Ordoño III. Notwithstanding this alliance, Fernán González continued to foment trouble and discord in Leon, aiming to secure his independence. He successively aided Sancho against his brother, Ordoño III, and Ordoño, son of Alfonso IV (the Monk), against Sancho the Fat (el Graso). After the death of Fernán González (970) there followed the campaigns of Almánzor, in which all the reconquered territory was at stake. In 995 the King of Navarre and García Fernández, the son of Fernán González, made an attempt to oppose him, but were defeated at Alcocer. Sancho Garcia, grandson of Fernán González, took part in the victory of Calatañazor, which put an end to the campaigns of the victorious Moslem hájib (1002). This Count Sancho García was called El de los Fueros (literally, “He of the Rights” or “of the Charters”), because of the rights or charters which he granted to the various cities. His son, García Sánchez, gave one of his sisters, Elvira, in marriage to Sancho the Great of Navarre, and another, Jimena, to Bermudo III of Leon, and was himself about to marry Sancha, Bermudo’s sister, when he was assassinated by the Velas, Counts of Alava. At his death Sancho of Navarre reclaimed the countship of Castile, and took possession of it, notwithstanding the resistance of Bermudo III.

(2) The Kingdom of Castile

Sancho the Great divided his possessions among his sons. Castile, with the title of king, was given to Ferdinand, who had married Sancha, the sister of Bermudo, who was to have married García Sánchez, the last independent count. Ferdinand I, of Castile, united Castile and Leon, the latter having fallen to his wife upon the death of her brother, Bermudo III. Thus reinforced, Ferdinand extended his conquests as far as Coimbra; but he committed the fatal error of dividing his possessions among his three sons and two daughters. Sancho, who inherited the Kingdom of Castile, began encroaching upon the rights of his brothers, but was assassinated at the siege of Zamora, which he was trying to take from his sister Urraca, and was succeeded by Alfonso VI. This monarch began to reunite the estates of his father, and carried the war of reconquest beyond the mountain chain of the Carpentano-Vetónica, capturing Madrid and Toledo, and thus laying the foundations of New Castile. He gave his daughter Teresa in marriage to Henry of Burgundy, forming for them, with the western territory reconquered from the Moors, the Countship of Portugal, which was the beginning of the Portuguese monarchy. His daughter Urraca succeeded him, the first queen to reign in the kingdom where Isabella the Catholic was later to hold the sceptre. Alfonso VII bore the title of emperor, and extended his conquests as far as Almeria, but he, also, at his death in 1157, divided his possessions among his children, giving Leon to Ferdinand II, and Castile to Sancho, in whose short reign the Military Order of Alcántara was founded. Alfonso VIII (1158–1214) conquered Cuenca and defeated the Almohades in the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (1212), which definitively freed New Castile from the Mussulman yoke. This decisive victory is annually commemmorated by the Church in Spain on the 16th of July, under the title “El Triumfo de la Santa Cruz” (The Triumph of the Holy Cross). After the brief reigns of Henry I and Doña Berengaria, Castile and Leon were definitively united under St. Ferdinand III (1219–52), who conquered the greater part of Andalusia (Jaen, Cordova, and Seville, 1248), leaving the Mohammedans only the Kingdom of Granada. The cathedral of Burgos occupies the first place among the monuments of his greatness. His successors failed to carry on the reconquest. Alfonso X, “The Wise” (el Sabio), was too much taken up with his vain pretensions to the imperial crown of Germany, Sancho the Brave (1248–95) and Ferdinand IV, “The Cited” (el Emplazado), with their domestic struggles. In the time of Sancho IV the celebrated defence of Tarifa took place, giving to Alonzo Pérez de Guzmán, to whom it was entrusted, the title of “The Good” (el Bueno). Alfonso XI (1310–50) in the battle of Salado annihilated the last of the Mussulmans who attempted the reconquest of Spain. The irregularity of his private life, however, paved the way for the disorders and cruelties of the reign of his son Pedro, the Cruel, who met death at the hands of his bastard brother, Henry II (1369–79). Bertrand du Guesclin, with his famous companies, was the ally of Henry II. John I attempted to obtain possession of Portugal, but was defeated by the Portuguese at Aljubarrota (1385), and his grandson, John II, turned over the government to his favourite, Alvaro de Luna, whom he afterwards caused to be decapitated (1453). Henry IV, “The Impotent,” was the tool of the nobles, who forced him to declare illegitimate his daughter Juana, known as la Beltraneja (the daughter of Beltran), and the succession thus passed to his sister Isabella the Catholic (1474).

ARAGON

Aragon derives its name from the river Aragon, a small tributary of the Ebro near Alfaro, and forms an irregular ellipse, bounded on the north by the Central Pyrenees (Pic du Midi), on the east by Catalonia and Valencia (Provinces of Lérida, Tarragona, and Castellon), on the south by Valencia and New Castile (Provinces of Valencia and Cuenca), and on the west by Navarre and Castile (Provinces of Guadalajara and Soria). It is one of the most mountainous regions of Spain, perhaps of Europe, surrounded as it is on the north by the Pyrenees mountains and the Sierras de la Peña and de Guara, on the west by the Moncayo and the mountains of Cuenca, and on the south by the Montes Universales and the Sierra de Gúdar. From north-west to south-east it is traversed by the River Ebro, of which almost all the rivers of this region are tributaries, the Aragon, Gallego, and Cinca emptying into it from the north, and the Jiloca, the Jalon, and others of lesser importance from the south. The Guadalaviar and the Mijares, however, are fed directly from the mountains of Teruel. These topographical conditions made the soil of Aragon very fertile; the mountains are covered with great forests, and fruits grow abundantly, but, on account of the isolation of the mountains and the scarcity of water on some of the high table-lands, some regions are but thinly populated. According to the modern division of provinces (30 Nov., 1833), Saragossa, Huesca, and Teruel belong to Aragon. The principal cities are Saragossa, famous for its sieges in the War of Independence and for the ancient shrine del Pilar, where from very remote times the Blessed Virgin has been venerated, and Huesca (Osca), where Pedro IV established, in 1354, a university to which was given the name of the Sertorio, in memory of Quintus Sertorius, who, in 77 B. C., founded here a school for the sons of native chiefs.

HISTORY

We must depend principally on legend for information about the origin of the Aragonese monarchy. It is certain that a portion of the Goths driven northward by the Mussulman invasion sought refuge among the mountaineers, who were never completely subjugated by any conqueror (indoctus juga ferre—Horace), and there formed certain independent countships, principally those of Sobrarbe, Aragon, and Ribagorza. The legend designates the Montes Uruel or S. Juan de la Peña as the spot where the patriots assembled, and from a cross which appeared over a tree the name, Sobrarbe, and the coat of arms were derived, just as Aragon took its name from the river which flows west of Jaca, which appears to have been its capital. About 724 mention is made of a García Jiménez who was Count of Sobrarbe, and further on we find that García Iñiguez bestowed the Countship of Aragon upon a knight named Azmar, who had obtained possession of Jaca. This countship then embraced the valleys of Canfranc, Aisa, Borao, Aragües, and Hecho. After Azmar (d. 975) we find the names of several counts of Aragon—Galindo, Jimeno Aznar, Jimeno García Aznar, Fortunio Jiménez, and Urraca, or Andregoto, who married García of Navarre, thus uniting Navarre and Aragon. The Countship of Ribagorza, established under the protection of the Franks, was reconquered by Sancho the Great of Navarre, who at his death left Aragon to his son Ramiro, and Sobrarbe and Ribagorza to his son Gonzalo (1035), but at Gonzalo’s death Ramiro was elected to succeed him, the Aragonese monarchy being definitively founded. Sancho Ramírez (1069–94) took a great part of the deep valley of the Cinca from the Moors, with the strongholds of Barbastro and Monzon, and died while besieging Huesca. His son Pedro I, after vanquishing the Moorish auxiliary army in the battle of Alcoraz, took possession of the city. His brother, Alfonso the Fighter (El Batallador, 1104–34), who succeeded him, captured Saragossa (1118), but died from the effects of wounds received in the siege of Fraga, willing his estates to the military orders of Jerusalem, thinking that they would be best able to bring the war of reconquest to a successful close. His subjects, however, would not accept this, and obliged his brother Ramiro, who was a monk in the monastery of Saint-Pons de Tomières, to accept the crown. Dispensed by the pope from his vows, he married Agnes of Poitiers, and when the birth of a daughter, whom he married to Raymond Berengar IV, Count of Barcelona, assured the succession, he returned to his cloister. Thus a permanent union was effected between Aragon and Catalonia. Raymond Berengar reconquered Fraga, and his son Alfonso II finished the reconquest of Aragon, adding Teruel. Pedro II, “The Catholic” (El Católico, 1196–1213), made his kingdom a dependency of the Holy See, although not with the consent of his subjects, but died in the battle of Muret, in which he took part to aid his kinsman, the Count of Toulouse, in the war against the Albigenses. Jaime the Conqueror (El Conquistador) successfully terminated the conquest of Valencia (1238) and Majorca (1228), and aided Alfonso X of Castile to reconquer Murcia, thus accomplishing the reconquest of the western part of the Peninsula. Pedro III, “The Great” (El Grande, 1276–85), after the Sicilian Vespers took possession of Sicily as heir of the Hohenstaufen, and the wars and disputes which followed in Italy, and the dissensions of the Aragonese nobles occupied the reigns of Alfonso III (1285–91), Jaime II, Alfonso IV (1327–36), and Pedro IV (1336–87). John I and Martin (1395–1410) dying without heirs, the Conpromiso de Caspe (a commission of nine members, three from the Cortes of each province) was assembled and gave the crown of Aragon to Ferdinand of Antequera, Infante of Castile. Alfonso V, his son and successor, renewed the wars in Italy. As the adopted son of Joanna of Naples, he laid claim to the throne of Naples, and obtained possession of it (1416–58). John II disturbed the peace of his reign by the unjust persecution of his son the Prince of Viana, and at his death was succeeded by Ferdinand the Catholic, who by his marriage to Isabella the Catholic definitively united the Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon.

RELATIONS BETWEEN CASTILE AND ARAGON

The will of Sancho the Great of Navarre had in 1035 separated these two kingdoms; in the twelfth century they were temporarily united by the marriage of Doña Urraca to Alfonso I, “The Fighter,” but this unhappy marriage caused a war which ended in the separation of the couple (1114), and Alfonso VII was afterwards obliged to recover the strongholds of La Rioja, which had remained in the possession of the Aragonese monarch (1134). At the death of Alfonso I of Aragon Alfonso VII reclaimed and occupied part of his estates, but Alfonso II aided by Alfonso VIII in the siege of Cuenca (1177) obtained for his kingdom freedom from the dependence on Castile, to which it had been subjected since the time of Ramiro the Monk. The two great warriors, St. Ferdinand III and Jaime el Conquistador, were contemporaries and lived in harmony. Jaime helped Alfonso X in the conquest of Murcia, which remained to Castile. Later, however, the relations between Castile and Aragon again became involved, on account of the claims for the succession to Alfonso X, which the Infantes of la Cerda, aided by Philip III of France and Alfonso III of Aragon, put forth. The Compromiso de Caspe placed the crown of Aragon on the head of an Infante of Castile, Ferdinand of Antequera (1412), and the marriage of Isabella, heiress of Henry IV of Castile, to Ferdinand, the heir of John II of Aragon, finally united these kingdoms and formed the beginning of the Spanish monarchy.

The linguistic unity of Castile and Aragon is a very notable fact because although Aragon and Catalonia, united since the twelfth century (1137), possess two very different languages, Castile and Aragon, although they had an entirely independent historical development until the sixteenth century, have the same language with the exception of some minor dialectical differences. After the union the political individuality of Aragon was lost in that of Castile, and in the time of Philip II, on account of the Antonio Pérez incident, the ancient kingdom lost part of its fueros, or political liberties. In the War of Succession it sided with the Archduke Charles, and the victory of Philip V served still more to increase its dependence.

CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL DIVISIONS

It is difficult, on account of the different epochs in which they were formed and the different principles which governed them, to give an exact idea of the relations between the civil and ecclesiastical divisions of Castile and Aragon.

JUDICIARY

The Judiciary Divisions consist of the five district courts of (1) Burgos, (2) Valladolid, (3) Madrid, (4) Albacete-Murcia, and (5) Saragossa, which are subdivided as follows: (1) Provinces of Burgos, Santander, Logroño, and Soria; (2) Valladolid and Palencia; (3) Madrid, Avila, Guadalajara, Segovia, and Toledo; (4) Ciudad Real and Cuenca; (5) Saragossa, Huesca, and Teruel. The Burgos district comprises thirty-seven Courts of First Instance and as many Property Registries; that of Valladolid, seventeen of each; that of Madrid, forty-nine Courts of First Instance and forty-two Property Registries; Albacete-Murcia, eighteen Courts of First Instance and the same number of Property Registries; Saragossa, twenty-one Courts of First Instance and thirty Property Registries.

MILITARY

For Military Purposes there are four districts, subdivided into sixteen provinces, as follows: Old Castile, subdivided into the provinces of Avila, Palencia, and Valladolid; Burgos, with the provinces of Burgos, Logroño, Soria, and Santander; New Castile, with the provinces of Madrid, Segovia, Toledo, Cuenca, Ciudad Real, and Guadalajara; Aragon, with Saragossa, Huesca, and Teruel.

Education

For university and secondary instruction the four districts are: Old Castile, with the University of Valladolid and four centres of secondary education at Valladolid, Burgos, Palencia, and Santander; New Castile, with the University of Madrid, and centres of secondary instruction at Madrid (S. Isidro and Cisneros), Ciudad Real, Guadalajara, Segovia, Toledo, and Cuenca; Aragon, with the University of Saragossa, and centres of secondary instruction at Saragossa, Huesca, Teruel, Logroño, and Soria; Leon, with the University of Salamanca and a centre of secondary instruction at Avila. Primary instruction is under the care of one first-class inspeccion at Madrid, the four second-class inspecciones of Valladolid, Burgos, Toledo, and Saragosso, and the eleven third-class inspecciones of Avila, Ciudad Real, Cuenca, Logroño, Guadalajara, Palencia, Santander, Segovia, Soria, Huesca, and Teruel.

ECCLESIASTICAL

This is in many respects not in conformity with the civil, and still subject to the changes made by the Concordat of 1851, which suppressed some sees and transferred others. In Old Castile there are the two Archdioceses of Burgos and Valladolid, the former of which has for its suffragan dioceses Palencia, Santander, Calaborra (Logroño), and Osma (Soria), while the latter has Avila and Segovia. In New Castile the Archdiocese of Toledo has the four suffragan dioceses of Madrid-Alcalá, Guenca, Sigüenza (Guadalajara), and Ciudad Real. In Aragon the Archdiocese of Saragossa has for its suffragans Jaca, Huesca, Tarazona, Barbastro, and Teruel. its suffragans Jaca, Huesca, Tarazona, Barbastro, and Teruel. The statistics of all these dioceses are given in the following table:—

Diocese

Date of Erection

Deaneries

Parishes

Religious

Communities

Men

Women

Burgos

988; metropolitan

Palencia

in time of Alfonso VI

47

1220

8

40

Santander

3rd century

24

345

9

38

Calahorra

4th century

26

425

6

9

Osma

Apostolic origin (?)

47

266

9

28

Valladolid

Apostolic origin,

28

349

5

13

Segovia

restored 11th century

9

93

7

37

Toledo

1595, metropolitan since 1859

15

276

3

26

Madrid-Alcala

In the time of the Goths,

20

442

2

58

Cuenca

restored by Alfonso VI

18

232

11

22

Sigüenza

Apostolic origin,

12

325

1

27

Ciudad Real

metropolitan since 5th century

18

350

1

15

Saragossa

1851, Bull of 1885

11

88

6

30

Jaca

1179

15

370

12

71

Huesca

Restored by Alfonso VIII

8

70

1

5

Tarazona

1876

9

167

6

16

Barbastro

Apostolic origin, restored 1117,

9

138

4

36

Teruel

metropolitan since 1138

10

154

1

9

As a diocese 1575

5

96

8

Apostolic, restored 1086

In the time of the Goths,

restored in 1115

Pedro I, 1094, 1104

Philip II, 1577

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION

There are seminaries in all the dioceses, and besides a number of colleges for youths intended for the priesthood (collegios de vocaciones eclesiásticas). There are also numerous colleges under the direction of the Society of Jesus, the Piarists, the Marists, the Brothers of the Christian Schools, and the Salesians. The statistics of these independent schools have never been published.

CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS

Although charitable work is carried on extensively throughout Spain, especially by the religious orders, both of men and women, which devote themselves exclusively to such work, it is difficult to give exact figures, as some are under government control, while others are purely religious, and the statistics are very incomplete. Thus, official statistics, which place the total number of institutions at 356, give to Saragossa only two charitable institutions, whereas the “Anuario Eclesiastico” makes the number twenty-eight.

NOTES

Historia general de España, por individuos de la Real Academia de la Historia, bajo la direccion de Don Antonio Cánovas del Castillo; Colmeiro, Reyes Cristianos, en Castilla, Aragon, etc. (Madrid, 1891); Catalina y Garcia, Castilla y Léon (Madrid, 1891); Mariana, Historia General de España; Lafuente, Historia General de España; Reseña geografica y estadística de España, Dirección general del Instituto geografico y estadístico (Madrid, 1888—); Anuario Eclesiástico de España (Madrid, 1904, last ed.). See also Chevalier, Topo-Bibl. (Paris, 1894–99), 194 for bibliography of Aragon, and 604–5 for that of Castile.

RamÓn Ruiz Amado

Cristóbal de Castillejo

Spanish poet, b. in Ciudad Rodrigo (Salamanca), 1491; d. in Vienna, 12 June, 1556. From the age of fifteen he was attached to the person of the younger brother of the Emperor Charles V, the Infante Ferdinand, who subsequently became King of Bohemia and Hungary, and eventually Emperor of Germany. He lived for many years in Austria as secretary to that prince, and late in life took ecclesiastical orders, retiring to a monastery near Vienna where he passed the remainder of his days. Castillego was the champion of the old school of Spanish verse as opposed to the Italian measures recently introduced by Boscan, seconded by Garcilasso de la Vega. He vigorously opposed the innovation, maintaining and demonstrating in his writings that the old metres were amply competent for the expression of all sentiments. When he did use the villancicos, canciones, and other measures of the new school, it was only to attack and ridicule the innovators.

As a poet he was distinguished for purity of language, grace, fluency, and humour, the latter quality abounding in his “Dialogue between Himself and His Pen.” He used satire with simplicity and ease, and, at times, freely and boldly. Some of his satires, notable the “Sermon on Love” and the “Dialogue on the Condition of Women,” were so offensive to the clergy that the Inquisition prohibited the publication of his poems until they had been expurgated. Among his other works are the fanciful “transformation of a Drunkard into a Mosquito” and a satire addressed “To those who give up the Castillian measures and follow the Italian.” His poems are divided into three books devoted to love; conversation and pastime; moral and religious verses. In 1573 a collection of the “Works of Castillejo Expurgated by the Inquisition” was published in Madrid, which was one of the first books printed in that city. The most complete edition is that published by Ramón Fernandez (Madrid, 1792).

VENTURA FUENTES

Caspar Castner

(Or Kastner).

A missionary, b. at Munich, Bavaria, 7 October, 1655; d. at Peking, China, 9 November, 1709. He entered the Society of Jesus, 17 September, 1681, and studied theology at Ingolstadt where he finished his studies, 22 March, 1694. For a short time he taught logic at the gymnasium at Ratisbon; after this he devoted himself to the work of missions and sailed in 1696 for China at the head of a company of brother Jesuits from Portugal and Genoa. In China he laboured with great success on the island of Shang-chuen (St. John) and in the city of Fatshan, then a competitor of Canton. In 1702 he went with Father Franciscus Noel to Lisbon and Rome in order, as representative of the Bishops of Nanking and Macao, to obtain some settlement of the question of Chinese Rites. In 1706 he returned to China, taking with him a number of missionaries.

Besides the merit of his apostolic labours, Father Castner deserves much praise for his work in the sciences of navigation, astronomy, and cartography. He called the attention of the Portuguese Government to the fact that the voyage to Macao would be much shorter if the vessels followed a direct course from the Cape of Good Hope by the way of the Sunda islands, avoiding Mozambique and Goa, and the result showed that he was right. He did excellent work in the mapping of the Chinese Empire, and had so great a reputation as a mathematician that he was made president of the mathematical tribunal and instructor of the heir to the throne. Besides a number of elaborate reports on the question of Chinese Rites which he drew up with the aid of Father Noel, Father Castner also wrote an interesting but rare little work called “Relatio Sepulturæ Magno Orientis Apostolo S. Francisco Xaviero erectæ in Insula Sanciano MDCC.” It is an exact description of the island where from 19 March to 2 June, 1700, he had been engaged in erecting, at the command of his superiors, a memorial over the grave of St. Francis Xavier. The book was accompanied by a good map. One of the few copies printed in China is in the so-called “Orban’sche Sammlung” of the library of the University of Munich. A translation was published by Father Joseph Stöcklein in his “Welt-Bott” (Augsburg, 1729), No. 309. The title-page and map are reproduced in the work of Henri Cordier, “L’imprimerie sino-européenne en chine” (Paris, 1901), 11–15.

Franco, Synopsis analium Societatis Jesu (Augsburg, 1726), 398, 424; Mederer, Annales Ingolstadienses (1782), III, 80; Zach, Monatliche Correspondenz zur Beförderung der Erdund Himmelskunde (Gotha, 1800), I, 589–93; Lipowski, Gesh. der Jesuiten in Baiern (Munich, 1816), II, 253; Kalendar für katholische Christen (Sulzbach, 1889), 123–124; Backer-Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J. (1891), II, 853–54; (1900), IX, 9; Münsterberg, Bayern und Asien im XVI., XVII., XVIII. Jahrhundert in Zeitshrift des Münchener Alterhumes-Vereins (Munich, 1894), VI, 12 sqq.; Huonder, Deutsche Jesuiten-missionère, supplement to Stimmen aus Maria-Laasch (1899), LXXIV, 189.

OTTO HARTIG

Castoria

A titular see of Macedonia. Livy (XXXI, XL) mentions a town near a lake in Orestis, called Celetrum, whose inhabitants surrendered to Sulpitius during the Roman war against Philip V (200 B.C.). Procopius (De aedif., vii. 3) tells us that Justinian, finding the town of Diocletianopolis ruined by the barbarians, built a city on the lake, of Castoria. Tafel (De Viâ Egnatianâ, 44–46) suggests that Celetrum, Diocletianopolis, and Castoria are three successive names of the same place. Be that as it may, Castoria seems to have replaced Celetrum. There Bohemond camped with his army at Christmas, 1083. The Byzantine chroniclers describe it as a strong fortress. In the tenth century it must have been occupied by the Bulgarians. About 1350 it was given up by the Emperor Joannes Cantacuzene to the King of Servia, and in 1386 it was captured by the Turks. As early at least as the reign of Basil II, Castoria was the first suffragan see of Achrida. Lequien (II, 315) mentions only three bishops: Joasaph in 1564, Hierotheus, who went to Rome about 1650, and Dionysius Mantoucas; this short list of course can be readily completed. The see still exists for the Greeks and has been made a metropolitan. Some ten Latin bishops are known from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries. (Lequien, III, 1087; Eubel, I, 179, II, 134.) Castoria is to-day [1908] the chief town of a mutessariflik in the vilayet of Monastir, with about 10,000 inhabitants—Turks, Greeks, and Bulgarians. It is also the see of a Bulgarian bishopric with 2224 families, 32 priests, and 22 churches.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Francesco Castracane degli Antelminelli

Naturalist, b. at Fano, Italy, 19 July, 1817; d. at Rome 27 March, 1899. He was educated at the Jesuits’ school at Reggio nell’Emilia, and was ordained priest in 1840. Four years later he was made canon of the cathedral at Fano, and at the same time resumed his studies at the Collegio dei Nobili in Rome. In 1852 he resigned his canonry, and took up his residence at Rome. Castracane had a great love of nature, and during the latter half of his life devoted himself to biological research. He was one of the first to introduce microphotography into the study of biology. His first experiments in applying the camera to the microscope were made as early as 1862 with diatomaceæ, and he subsequently made these micro-organisms his chief study. While investigating their structure and physiological functions and, particularly in his last years, their processes of reproduction, he valued the knowledge which they afforded, not merely as an end in itself, but also on account of its bearing on some of the problems of biology, geology, and even hydrography. The extensive collections of diatomaceæ obtained by the Challenger Expedition were entrusted to him for description and classification. He discovered among them three new genera, two hundred and twenty-five new species, and some thirty new varieties. Castracane was a devout priest as well as an enthusiastic investigator. He shrank from preferment and led a simple, regular life. He continued his work to the end, saying Mass even on the day of his death. He was the author of a large number of papers, published chiefly in the proceedings of the Accademia dei Nuovi Lincei, over whose meetings he presided for many years.

TONI, Commemorzione del conte ab. F. Castracane degli Antelminelli in Mem. della Pont. Accad. dei Nuovi Lincei (Rome, 1899), XVI; MENGARINI-TRAUBE, Castracane degli Antelminelli in Biolog. Centralblatt (Leipzig, 1900), XX, 401–402, 433–447.

HENRY M. BROCK

Alphonsus de Castro

Friar Minor and theologian, b. in 1495 at Zamora, Leon, Spain; d. 11 February 1558, at Brussels. When fifteen years old he entered a little convent of the Franciscan Order near Salamanca in the province of St. James. He taught theology at the University of Salamanca, and for forty-three years was confessor to Charles V and Philip II, and preacher at the Court of Spain. In 1545 he accompanied Cardinal Grennis as theologian to the Council of Trent, and during the fourth session took an important part in the discussion concerning Holy Scripture. As representative of the cardinal he subscribed to the canons of this session, and suggested that the words “praeter hos sacros libros multa alia sunt tenenda quae scripta non sunt, sed observantur Ecclesiae auctoritate” be added to the Decree “De Canonicis Scriptures.” In succeeding sessions he addressed the council on the advisability of vernacular versions of the Sacred Scripture, and on original sin. He accompanied Philip II to England, returned with that monarch to the Continent in 1557, and was appointed to the archiepiscopal See of Compostella, made vacant by the death of Cardinal John Tolenton. His untimely death, however, prevented his consecration. Castro’s best-known works include (1) “Adversus omnes haereses,” first published at Cologne in 1539; (2) “De justa haereticorum punitione” (Salamanca, 1547). Both these works were published in one edition at Paris (1571–78).

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Fernando Castro Palao

Spanish theologian, b. at Leon in 1581; d. at Medina, 1 Dec., 1633. From his earliest youth he gave such proofs of sanctity that he became known as “the saint,” “the angel,” “the predestined child.” At the age of fifteen, in 1596, he entered the Society of Jesus, and here his fame for learning equalled that of his holiness. He taught philosophy at Valladolid, moral theology at Compostella, Scholastic theology at Salamanca, and finally became rector of the College of Medina, and consultor and qualificator of the Holy Inquisition. His death overtook him while he filled these last three offices. He excelled especially as a moral theologian; his classes of moral theology were attended by a greater number of students than were ever known to follow the course at Compostella. His decisions were regarded as oracles, and the most difficult cases were submitted to him for solution. St. Alphonsus numbers him among the principal authorities on moral theology (Dissert. schol. mor., Naples, 1755, c. iv, n. 119) and Gury calls him “a probabilist, a most learned, wise, erudite, and prolific author.” His “Opus Morale” comprises seven volumes, and covers in the same number of treatises, the whole field of moral theology. It appeared first at Lyon, 1631–51; its fifth edition is dated 1700. A general index to the whole work is found in the fourth volume of this last edition, and also in the third edition, which appeared at Venice in 1721. Immediately after his death (1633) there appeared at Valladolid a meditation book written by him, entitled, “Manual del Cristiano de varias consideraciones para el exercico santa de la oracion.” The first part of this work contains meditations on the end of man; the second treats of the life of Christ and his Blessed Mother; the third considers God Himself and in his relations to us. An English translation of a letter of Father Castro Palao on the death of Father Thomas White appeared in the “Month” for 1890 (vol. 69, pp. 91–93).

Sommervogel, Bibliothéque de la c. de J. (Brussels, 1891, II. col. 867. sq.; Müllendorff in Kirkenlex, s.v.; Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1892), I, 363.

A.J. MAAS

Guillen de Castro y Bellvis

Spanish dramatic poet, b. of a noble family at Valencia in 1569; d. at Madrid in 1631. He appears to have been early distinguished in the world of letters, for when a very young man we find him a member of the “Nocturnos,” a brilliant Spanish imitation of the “Academies” then fashionable in Italy. In early life he followed a military career. At one time he was a captain of cavalry; at another he had an important command at Naples, through the friendship of the viceroy, Count of Benavente. Returning to Spain, he gained the favour of the powerful Count-Duke Olivares, who gave him several posts that were lucrative as well as honourable. He also gained the friendship of the Duke of Osuna, who settled an annuity upon him. But if his literary ability won for him many influential friends, a haughty and sour temper, a discontented spirit, and great obstinacy soon lost for him whatever advantages he had gained. He was obliged then to turn to the theatre to earn a painful subsistence as a dramatic writer. He died in poverty and was buried by charity. As a lyric and dramatic poet Guillen de Castro had few if any superiors. He wrote some forty comedies, all of which show the inventive genius and patriotism of the author, and they enjoyed great popularity both in and out of Spain. The best known probably are “Las Mocedades del Cid” in two parts, “Engañarse engañando,” and “Pagar en propia moneda.” To the first mentioned Castro owed his European reputation, for it is from the first part of this play that the French dramatist Corneille gathered the materials for his own brilliant tragedy “Le Cid,” which, according to Ticknor, did more than any other drama to determine for two centuries the character of the theatre throughout Europe. His comedies were published in two parts at Valencia, in 1621 and 1625 respectively.

VENTURA FUENTES

Casuistry

The application of general principles of morality to definite and concrete cases of human activity, for the purpose, primarily, of determining what one ought to do, or ought not to do, or what one may do or leave undone as one pleases; and for the purpose, secondarily, of deciding whether and to what extent guilt or immunity from guilt follows on an action already posited.

Being merely a science of application, casuistry must be based on the principles and established conclusions of moral theology and ethics. These normative sciences it presupposes; to them it is ancillary; and strictly speaking it is distinct from them. It does not define objective morality, nor the objective circumstances that modify morality, nor the psychological conditions that fix motive and consent; but, borrowing from the moralist the principles that determine these elements of a volitional act, its inquiry regards the extent of their presence or absence in a given case. Neither does it establish the existence of moral obligation; but, assuming the precepts of morality as already established, its only office is to determine the subjective morality of an individual act. In subordination to the sciences which it subserves, its sphere comprises the whole range of man’s free activity. The decisions of the casuist are right or wrong, therefore, in so far as they are or are not in accord with a science of morality, which is itself a right interpretation of the natural or positive laws promulgated by the Supreme Legislator of the Universe. They are of no worth, when based on an arbitrary or purely self-sanctioned autonomous philosophy of conduct.

Since the special function of casuistry is to determine practically and in the concrete the presence or absence of a definite moral obligation, it does not fall within its scope to pass judgment on what would be more advisable, or on what may be recommended as a counsel of perfection. It leaves these judgments to the sciences to which they belong, particularly to pastoral and ascetical theology. The prudent director of consciences, however, being more than a casuist, ought in giving advice to make use of these other sciences in so far as they are applicable. Should he fail to do so, the blame cannot be attributed to casuistry.

The necessity of casuistry and its importance are obvious. From the nature of the case, the general principles of any science in their concrete application give rise to problems which trained and expert minds only can solve. This is especially true regarding the application of moral principles and precepts to individual conduct. For, although those principles and precepts are in themselves generally evident, their application calls for the consideration of many complex factors, both objective and subjective. Only those who unite scientific knowledge of morality with practice in its application may be trusted to solve promptly and safely problems of conscience. Personal, social, commercial, and political experience proves this abundantly. Moral education requires long, patient, and delicate training, and few acquire it without the aid of casuistry. The objections that are urged against casuistry arise from misconception of its purpose and scope, or from errors and abuses that have sometimes accompanied its practice. The former are sufficiently disposed of; the latter no more discredit its legitimate use than the corresponding difficulties which may be raised against therapeutics or civil law impair the value of these sciences. Historically considered, casuistry in some form or other is as old as human conscience. Wherever civilization has developed along moral lines, there the casuist has been for the interior forum of conscience what the judge was for the exterior forum of civil legality. The scope of this article, however, is confined to Catholic casuistry. The history of this may be divided into three periods:

I. FROM THE FIRST TO THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

During this period, though there are no works treating of casuistry in a formal and scientific way, practical applications of Christian morality to the conduct of life are numerous and continuous; first, in the works of the Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers, in the decisions of popes and bishops, and in the decrees of councils; later, in the Scriptural commentaries, the Books of Sentences, and the Penitential Books.

II. THIRTEENTH TO THE MIDDLE OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

After the Fourth Council of Lateran the reduction to a scientific form of the casuistic doctrine, which had been gradually developed and elaborated during the patristic period, began concurrently with an awakening interest in theological studies and the apostolic activity of the now flourishing mendicant orders. The work of the Dominican, Raymund of Pennafort, entitled “Summa de Poenitentia et Matrimonio,” and published about 1235, opened an era in the scientific study of casuistry, and fixed the manner of treatment which the science retained for over two hundred years. Two other books exercised an influence during this period on the formation of scientific casuistry: The “Summa Astesana,” published in 1317 by a Franciscan of Asti in Piedmont; and the “Summa Pisana,” written by the Dominican Bartholomew of San Concordio, or of Pisa (d. 1347), which treated casuistic subjects alphabetically, and was the first of a long series of similar works. The “Summa Summarum,” of Sylvester Prierias, O.P. (d. 1523), practically brings the age of the great “Summists” to a close. St. Antoninus, O.P., of Florence (d. 1459) is notable in his period for his “Summa Confessionalis” and “Summa Confessorum,” which were followed by many more manuals of a like kind. He was probably the first who treated moral theology as a distinct science, and thus prepared the way for that closer union of treatment between it and casuistry which finally obtained in the following period.

III. MIDDLE OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY TO THE PRESENT TIME

The first hundred years of this period are characterized by a splendid development of theological sciences, due to the ecclesiastical reformation begun and carried out by the Council of Trent, to the institution of a new religious order, the Society of Jesus, and to the intellectual activity evoked in defence of the Church against the pseudo-Reformation of Luther and of contemporaneous heresiarchs. In this progress casuistry shared. Besides the various “Summae Casuum” which were published, the great theologians of the time, in commenting on the second part of the “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas, treated fully and profoundly casuistical questions regarding personal, social, political, and religious duties, regarding the mutual relations of states, and regarding the relative rights of Church and State. During this time moral theology finally attained the dignity of a special science, and became the explicit basis of casuistry. Prominent in bringing about this development were John Azor, S.J. (d. 1603), whose “Institutiones Morales” was printed at Rome in 1600; Paul Laymann, S.J. (d. 1635), who published at Munich in 1625 his “Theologia Moralis”; and Hermann Busembaum (d. 1668), whose “Medulla Theologiae Moralis” became the text for the celebrated commentaries of Claude La Croix, S.J. (d. 1714), of St. Alphonsus Liguori, and in our time of Anthony Ballerini, S.J. The progress of casuistry was interrupted towards the middle of the seventeenth century by the controversy which arose concerning the doctrine of probabilism. This controversy might have been conducted with scientific calm and finally disposed of by the Holy See, but by the injection into it of Jansenistic fanaticism, sophistry, and satire, real issues were confused, and an embittered strife arose, which for nearly two centuries disturbed Catholic schools. The effects on casuistry were deplorable. Two extreme schools, the Rigorists and the Laxists, came into being, and centred attention upon themselves. The vast body of conservative theologians were practically ignored, or charged with laxity because they did not hold the opinions of a narrow school. The Laxists were taken as typical casuists, and because some of them were Jesuits, Jesuit morality became a byword of reproach. The tenets of both Rigorists and Laxists were repeatedly condemned by ecclesiastical authorities; nevertheless the repute of sane casuistry suffered not only among the enemies of the Church, but even to a degree among Catholics also. So much so, that, by the middle of the eighteenth century the very name of casuistry became a synonym for moral laxity—a signification it yet unfortunately retains in the minds of many whose information on the subject is drawn from prejudiced sources. When Jansenistic rigorism seemed to have attained a permanent triumph, especially in France and Spain, relief was obtained through Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (d. 1787), the saintly founder of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. By recalling casuists to the study of their classic authors he restored casuistry itself to the place its importance and dignity demanded. His first publication was the “Medulla Theologiae Moralis” of Hermann Busembaum, S.J., with annotations. In eight successive editions this work was enlarged and improved, until it became a synopsis of casuistical literature. The last edition, entitled “Theolgia Moralis,” was published in 1785, and received the approbation of the Holy See in 1803. In 1871 Pius IX proclaimed the saintly author a Doctor of the Church. The after-history of casuistry is one of peace and development along the lines laid down by St. Alphonsus.

TIMOTHY BROSNAHAN

Edward Caswall

Oratorian and poet, b. 15 July 1814, at Yately, Hampshire, of which place his father, the Rev. R. C. Caswall, was vicar; d. at the Oratory, Birmingham, 2 January, 1878. He was educated at Marlborough Grammer School and at Brasenose College, Oxford, where he was Hulme exhibitioner. Before leaving Oxford he published, under the pseudonym of Scriblerus Redivivus, “The Art of Pluck,” in imitation of Aristotle, a witty satire upon the ways of the careless college student, which still has a circulation. To the eighth edition, in 1843, he wrote a special preface of regret for certain passages, now excluded, which, at that later date, he had come to regard as irreverent. In 1838 he was ordained deacon, and in 1839 priest, in the Church of England. In 1840 he became perpetual curate of Stratford-sub-Castle in the diocese of his uncle, Dr. Burgess, Bishop of Salisbury. In 1846 he published “Sermons on the Seen and the Unseen,” a volume of thoughtful discourses marked by the same tender and fervent piety found in his well-known hymns, and by a clear leaning to certain elements of Catholic doctrine. Soon afterwards, having come under the influence of Cardinal (then Dr.) Newman and the “Tracts for the Times,” he resigned his curacy and, in January, 1847, was received into the Church by Cardinal Acton at Rome. In 1849 Caswall’s wife, who had also become a Catholic, died suddenly of cholera, and early in 1850 he became an Oratorian. In 1852 he was ordained priest, and lived at the Oratory until his death. He was buried at Rednal, in the private cemetery of the congregation, near the grave of Cardinal Newman. Besides various manuals of devotion, several of which he translated from the French, his principal works are: “Lyra Catholica,” a translation of all the Breviary and Missal hymns with some others (often reprinted; last edition, London, 1884); “The Masque of Mary and other Poems,” original poetry, thoughtful, imaginative, tender, and full of zealous faith, a book which drew from Cardinal Newman, in return, a remarkable poem addressed to the author (reprinted several times; last edition, London, 1887); “The Catholic’s Latin Instructor in the principal Church offices and devotions” (frequently reprinted; last edition, London, 1897).

K. M. WARREN.

Roman Catacombs

This subject will be treated under seven heads:

I. Position;

II. History;

III. Inscriptions;

IV. Paintings;

V. Sarcophagi;

VI. Small Objects Found in the Catacombs;

VII. Catacombs outside Rome.

I. POSITION

The soil on which the city of Rome is built, as well as that of the surrounding district, is of volcanic origin; alluvial deposits are found only on the right bank of the Tiber, on the downward course of the stream, below the Vatican. Wherever the volcanic deposits occur three strata appear, one above the other: the uppermost is the so-called pozzolano, earth from which the Romans, by an admixture of lime, prepared their excellent cement; next is a stratum of tufa, made up half of earth and half of stone; the lowest stratum is composed of stone. From the earliest times the lowest layer was worked as a stone quarry, and, both in the lowest and uppermost strata, irregularly hewn galleries are discovered everywhere, as in the Capitoline Hill and in the suburbs of the city.

It was formerly believed that the early Christians used these galleries as places of burial for their dead. But all the catacombs are laid out in the middle stratum of tufa, from which no building-material was obtained. It is only necessary to compare the irregular galleries of the sand-pits and stone-quarries with the narrow straight passages and vertical walls of the catacombs in order to recognize the difference. In some cases an arenaria, or sand-pit, forms the starting-point for the laying out of a catacomb; in other spots the catacombs are connected by a gallery with the arenariae so that entrance could be gained into the Christian city of the dead, in times of persecution, without exciting notice. The catacombs are, therefore, entirely of Christian construction. As a rule a stairway leads below the surface to a depth of from thirty-three to forty-nine feet or even more; from this point diverge the galleries, which are from ten to thirteen feet in height, and seldom broader than would be necessary for two grave-diggers, one behind the other, to carry a bier. Side galleries branch off from the main galleries, intersecting other passages. From this level or story steps lead to lower levels where there is a second network of galleries; there are catacombs which have three or even four stories, as, for example, the Catacomb of St. Sebastian. The labyrinth of galleries is incalculable. It has been asserted that if placed in a straight line they would extend the length of Italy. Along the passages burial chambers (cubicula) open to the right and left, also hewn out of the tufa rock. In the side walls of the galleries horizontal tiers of graves rise from the floor to the ceiling; the number of graves in the Roman catacombs is estimated at two millions. The graves, or loculi, are cut out of the rock sides of the gallery, so that the length of the bodies can be judged from the length of the graves. When the body, wrapped in cloth, without a sarcophagus, was laid in the spot excavated for it, the excavation was closed by a marble slab or sometimes by large tiles set in mortar. For the wealthy and for martyrs there were also more imposing graves, known as arcosolia. An arcosolium was a space excavated in the wall above which a semicircular recess was hewn out, in which a sarcophagus was sometimes placed; in the excavation below, the body was laid and covered with a flat marble slab. It was not common to bury the dead beneath the floor of the passages or burial chambers. At the present day the majority of the graves are found open, the slabs which once sealed them having vanished; often nothing remains of the ashes and bones. The rock and broken material loosened by the constant digging in the innumerable passages were piled up in the sand-pits nearby, or brought to the surface in baskets, or were heaped up in the passages which were no longer visited because the families of the dead had passed away. In order to obtain light, and above all fresh air, shafts called luminaria, somewhat like chimneys, were cut through the soil to the surface of the ground. These luminaria, however, are seldom found before the fourth century, when the great numbers of the faithful who attended religious services in the catacombs on the feast days of the martyrs rendered such precautions for health a necessity. At this date also wider and easier stairways were made, leading from the surface of the ground into the depths below.

The early Christian name for these places of burial was koimeterion, coemeterium, place of rest. When, in the Middle Ages, the recollection of the catacombs passed away, the monks attached to the church of St. Sebastian on the Via Appia kept the coemeterium ad catacumbas on this road accessible for pilgrims. After the rediscovery and opening of the other coemeteria, the name belonging to this one coemeterium was applied to all. The catacombs awaken astonishment on account of the remarkable work of construction which, in the course of three hundred years, the piety of the early Christians and their love for the dead produced. In estimating the enormous sum of money required for the catacombs, it must also be taken into consideration that the early Christians, by voluntary contributions, supported the clergy, aided the poor, widows, and orphans, assisted those sent to prison or the mines on account of their faith, and bought from the executioners at a large price the bodies of the martyrs.

II. HISTORY

The Romans cremated their dead and deposited the ashes in a family tomb (sepulcrum, memoria), or in a vault or common sepulchre (columbarium); but the Jews living in Rome retained their native method of burial, and imitated the rock-graves of Palestine by laying out cemeteries in the stone-like stratum of tufa around Rome. In this manner Jewish catacombs were laid out and developed before Christianity appeared in Rome. Connected with the two chief Jewish colonies, one in the quarter of the city across the Tiber, and the other by the Porta Capena, were two large Jewish catacombs, one on the Via Portuensis and one on the Via Appia, as well as some smaller ones; all are recognizable by the seven-branched candlestick, which repeatedly appears on gravestones and lamps.

Until after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70) the Christians were regarded as a sect of the Jews; hence those Jews who were converted by the Apostles at Rome were buried in the catacombs of their fellow-countrymen. The question arises as to where those converted from heathenism by the Apostles found their last resting-place. It is a fact to which Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius, and other pagan historians bear witness, that as early as the days of the Apostles members of the higher and of even of the highest ranks of the nobility had become Christians. These converts of rank from heathenism had their own tombs, and permitted their brethren in the Faith to construct, in connection with these family tombs, places of burial modelled on the Jewish catacombs. This is the origin of the Christian catacombs. The catacombs of the Apostolic Era are: on the Via Ardeatina, the catacomb of Domitilla, niece of the Emperor Domitian and a member of the Flavian family; on the Via Salaria, that of Priscilla, who was probably the wife of the Consul Acilius Glabrio; on the Via Appia, that of Lucina, a member of the Pomponian family; on the Via Ostiensis, that of Commodilla, connected with the grave of St. Paul. At a later date other catacombs were constructed, nearly all of them having their origin in a family vault; among them are those of Caecelia, Prætextatus, Hermes, etc., which still bear the names of their founders. Again, the grave of a venerated martyr would be another nucleus of a catacomb, e.g. that of St. Laurence, St. Valentine, or St. Castulus; such a coemeterium would bear the name of the martyr. Coemeteria occasionally owed their names to some external feature as the one ad duas lauros (the two laurel trees); this title is still added to the names of the two martyrs, Peter and Marcellinus, resting there. Thus in the course of three hundred years some fifty catacombs, large and small, formed a wide circle around the city, the majority being about half an hour’s walk from the city gate.

The question, however, arises as to whether the Christians were able to construct these subterranean cemeteries without molestation from the heathens. Undoubtedly the Romans had knowledge of the spots where the Christians buried their dead; but according to old laws every spot where a body lay was under the protection of Roman law and custom that guaranteed the inviolability of burial places. It is true that the Emperors Decius and Diocletian, at a later date, declared the ground covering the catacombs to be the property of the State, thus making it impossible to enter the catacombs by the ordinary ways. But the successors of Decius and Diocletian repealed these laws as contrary to the entire spirit of the Roman State. Even though the Christians felt themselves secure in the catacombs, yet the laying out of the galleries, the burying of the bodies, the odour of decay, and the pestilential air in summer, made the lives of the fossores, or excavators, one of the greatest self-sacrifice, while visiting the graves of the departed became much more difficult for the surviving members of families. Therefore, after the Emperor Constantine had granted freedom to the Church, and had set an example for the erection of churches and chapels over the graves of martyrs by building a basilica over the burial-place of St. Peter and Paul, it became customary to lay out cemeteries above ground, preferably in the neighbourhood of such holy spots. At the same time, however, burial in the catacombs did not fall into disuse, especially as the piety of the popes and the faithful of the fourth century led to the adorning of the resting-places of the early martyrs with marbles, paintings, and inscriptions (see DAMASUS, SAINT, POPE). Furthermore, by enlarging the burial chambers, by opening shafts for light, and by the construction of broader stairways, access was made easier for the faithful of Rome and for pilgrims. Just as, in the course of the fourth century, the veneration of the martyrs, especially at their graves and on the anniversaries of their death, became more widespread, so the confidence in their intercession found its expression in the endeavour to secure burial in the vicinity of a martyr’s tomb.

Then came that year of misfortune, 410, when the Goths laid siege to Rome for months, devastated the surrounding country, and plundered the city itself. This naturally put an end to burial in the catacombs. In the following centuries Goths, Vandals, and Lombards repeatedly besieged and plundered Rome; plague and pestilence depopulated the region around the city; both the churches over the graves of the martyrs and the catacombs sank into decay, and shepherds of the campagna even turned the deserted sanctuaries into sheepfolds. For this reason Pope Paul I (757–67) began to transfer the remains of the martyrs to the churches of the city; the work was continued by Paschal I (817–24) and Leo IV (847–55). As a result the catacombs lost their attraction for the faithful, and by the twelfth century they were completely forgotten.

In 1578 a catacomb on the Via Salaria was accidentally rediscovered. It was not, however, until the publication in 1632, after the author’s death, of the “Roma Sotteranea” of Antonio Bosio (q.v.), that attention was once more called to the catacombs. For nearly forty years, from the year 1593, Antonio Bosio had devoted himself to finding and exploring the early Christian cemeteries. The real “Columbus of the catacombs,” however, is Giovanni Battista de Rossi. De Rossi’s labours and publications have led to the wide diffusion of a knowledge of archaeology and an increased veneration for the catacombs. Among his works are: “Roma Sotterranea” in three volumes; “Inscriptiones christianae” in two volumes, and numerous scattered pamphlets and articles; he also founded and edited the “Bullettino de archeologia christiana” (since 1863). The Holy See gives between three and four thousand dollars (18,000 lire) annually for the work in the catacombs, and the excavations are superintended by a special commission (see ARCHAEOLOGY, THE COMMISSION OF SACRED). De Rossi died 20 September, 1894, after devoting nearly fifty years, from his earliest youth, to the exploration of the catacombs and the study of Christian antiquity. His work was and is carried on by his pupils, among them Armellini, Stevenson, Marucchi, Wilpert, and others. The publications annually issued by Catholic and non-Catholic investigators bear witness to the self-sacrificing zeal and devotion as well as to the sound scholarship with which the science of Christian antiquities ispursued. In addition to this the Collegium Cultorum Martyrum, by holding religious services followed by popular addresses on the feast days of the martyrs, in the various catacombs, endeavours to stimulate the reverence of Romans and strangers for these noble memorials of the Early Church and to diffuse the knowledge of them. In all quarters the example of Rome acted as a stimulus to the study of Christian antiquity and led to exploration and excavations; unexpected treasures of the first Christian centuries have been rescued from oblivion in other parts of Italy, in France, Illyria, Greece, North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, and Asia Minor.

At Rome, during the last half-century, excavations were undertaken in the following catacombs on the outskirts of the city; the catacombs of Thecla and Commodilla on the Via Ostiensis; the catacomb of Domitilla on the Via Ardeatina; those of Callistus, Praetextatus, and Sebastian on the Via Appia; Sts. Peter and Marcellinus on the Via Labicana; Laurentius and Hippolytus on the Via Tiburtina; Nicomedes, St. Agnes, and the coemeterium majus on the Via Nomentana; Felicitas, Thraso, and Priscilla on the Via Salaria Nova; Hermes on the Via Salaria Vetus; Valentinus on the Via Flaminia. On the right bank of the Tiber the catacombs explored were those of Pontianus and Generosa on the Via Portuensis. The most thorough explorations were carried out in the catacombs of Callistus, Domitilla, and Priscilla. In a large number of cases the graves of the martyrs mentioned in the old authorities (martyrologies, itineraries, the “Liber pontificalis,” and the legendary accounts of the martyrs) were rediscovered. At the same time there was dug up a treasure, valuable beyond expectation, of early Christian epitaphs and paintings, which gave much unlooked-for information concerning the faith of the early Christians, their concepts of life, hopes of eternity, family relations, and many other matters.

III. INSCRIPTIONS

Although thousands of inscriptions on the graves of the early Christians have been lost, and many more contain nothing of importance, there is still a valuable remainder that yields more information than any other source concerning the first Christian centuries. That Christianity as early as the days of the Apostles found entrance into distinguished families of the Eternal City, and that, as time went on, it gradually won over the nobility of Rome is evident from the epitaphs containing the titles clarissimi, clarissimae (of senatorial rank), as well as from epitaphs in which appear the names of noted clans (gentes). The change wrought by Christianity in the social relations of master and slave is plain from the exceedingly small number of inscriptions containing the words servus (slave), or libertus (freedman), words which are constantly seen on pagan gravestones; the often recurring expression alumnus (foster-child) characterizes the new relation between the owner and the owned. Many of the epitaphs give eloquent voice to the love of married couples, dwelling on the fact that man and wife had lived chastely (virginius, virginia) before entering the married state, on the virtues of the dead companion and the faithfulness to the departed observed through long years of solitary life in order that, lying side by side in the same grave, they might rise together at the Resurrection. Others record the love of parents for a dead child and conversely. Reference to the virgin state, which seldom appears in heathen epitaphs, is often met with in the Christian inscriptions; from the fourth century on mention is made of a virginity specially dedicated to God, virgo Deo dicata, famula Dei. Besides allusions in the inscriptions to the various ecclesiastical ranks of bishop, priest, deacon, lector, and excavator (fossor), there are references to physicians, bakers, smiths, and joiners, often with emblems of the respective instruments. Especially interesting are inscriptions which throw light on the religious coneptions of the time, which speak not only of the hope of eternity, but also of the means of grace on which that hope rests- above all, of the faith in the one God, and Christ, his Son. They also dwell on membership in the Church through baptism, and on the relations with the dead through prayer. Naturally, the older the epitaphs referring to dogma the greater their importance.

Next comes the question as to how the age of an inscription can be ascertained. In the first place the inscriptions are limited to the first four centuries of the Christian Era, since, after the invasion of the Goths (410), burial in the catacombs occurred only in isolated incidences and soon ceased altogether. The later Roman inscriptions and all the inscriptions of Gaul, Africa, and the Orient, however such additional information they may give in regard to dogma, cannot here be taken into consideration. The most natural and certain method of determining the age of an inscription, i.e. through the reference it usually contains to the annual consul, can scarcely be used a dozen times in the epitaphs of the first two centuries. There are, however, many auxiliary means of determining the question, as: the names, the form of the letters, the style, the place of discovery, the pictorial emblems (varying from the anchor and the fish to the monogram of Christ); these permit, with a reasonable degree of certainty, the assignment of inscriptions to the fourth century, to the time before Constantine, to the beginning of the third or the end of the second century, or even to an earlier period. The Roman gravestones of the first four centuries furnish numerous proofs not only for the fundamental dogmas of the Catholic Church but also for a large additional number of its doctrines and usages, so that the epitaphs could be employed to illustrate and enforce nearly every page of a modern Catholic catechism. Some inscriptions are here given as examples.

Catacomb of Callistus, second century (text somewhat restored):

PHRONTON epoiesen SEPTIMIOS PRAItextATOS kAIKilianos

O LOYLOS TOY theoY AXIOS BIOsas

OY METENOESA KAN ODE SOI YPERSTESA

KAI EYKArisTESO TO ONOMATI SOY PAredoke

TEN psYCHen TO THEO TRIANTA TRIOn eton

. . . . . EX MENON PETEILos . . . laMPRotatos

ETon . . . paredOKE ten psychen to theo

PRo . . . septEMBRION

This inscription was found in a fragmentary condition along with other inscriptions of the Caecilian family, near the grave of St. Cecilia. Phronton made the grave. The epitaph mentions two dead, Septimius Praetextatus Caecilianus and Petilius, the latter with the additional statement Lamprotatos, clarissimus, signifying one of senatorial rank. Septimius is called a “servant of God” and is then represented as speaking: “If I have lived virtuously I have not repented of it and if I have served Thee [O Lord] I will give thanks to Thy Name.” He “gave up his soul to God” at the age of thirty-three years and six months. The same expression, “he gave up his soul to God,” is used for Petilius, the date of whose death is given as before 1 September. Catacomb of Domitilla, second century:

C. IVLIA. AGRIPPINA

SIMPLICI. DVLCIS IN

ÆTERNUM

“Sweet Simplicius, live in eternity” is the wish which Caia Julia Agrippina, whose aristocratic name indicates a very early imperial date, sends after the departed. Catacomb of Domitilla, third century:

. . . . SPIRITVS

TVVS IN REFRIGERIO

The beginning of the inscription, containing the name, has disappeared. “May thy spirit be in refreshment.” The very ancient prayer in the Canon of the Mass entreats for the dead locum refrigerii, lucis et pacis (a place of refreshment, light, and peace). Catacomb of Pontianus, beginning of the fourth century:

EVTYCHIANO FILIO DVLCISSIMO

EVTYCHIUS PATER [Chi-Rho symbol] V.A.I.M.

II.D IIII DEI SERVS ICHTHYS

i.e. “Eutychius, the father [has erected] the gravestone to his sweetest little son, Eutychianus. The child who lived one year, two months, and four days the servant of God.” The Greek monogram of the name of Christ Chi-Rho, and the “ICHTHYS” scratched on the gravestone, shows that the child had, through baptism, died a Christian and had been received into heaven by “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour.” (See ANIMALS IN CHRISTIAN ART.) Catacomb of Priscilla, third century (in verse):

VOS PRECOR O FRATRES. ORARE. HVC QVANDO VENITIS

ET PRECIBVS. TOTIS. PATREM. NATVMQVE ROGATIS

SIT. VESTRÆ. MENTIS. AGAPES. CARÆ. MEMINISSE

VT DEVS. OMNIPOTENS. AGAPEN IN SÆCVLA SERVET

i.e. “I beg you, brethren, whenever ye come hither [to the service of God] and call in united prayer on the Father and the Son, that ye remember to think on your loved Agape, that Almighty God may preserve Agape in eternity.” A second, fragmentary, piece of the inscription recalls the sentence of death pronounced in Paradise, de terra sumptus terrae traderis (thou wast taken from the earth and unto the earth shalt thou return). Agape lived twenty-seven years; so had it been appointed to her by Christ. The mother, Eucharis, and the father, Pius, erected the gravestone to her. Catacomb of Commodilla, inscription of A.D. 377:

CINNAMIVS OPAS LECTOR TITVLI FASCIOLE AMICVS PAVPERVM

QVI VIXIT ANN. XLVI. MENS. VII. D. VIIII DEPOSIT

IN PACE KAL MART

GRATIANO IIII ET MEROBAVDE COSS

i.e. Cinnamius Opas, lector of the title [church] of Fasciola, a friend of the poor, who lived forty-six years, seven months, and nine days, and was buried in peace on 1 March, when Gratian was consul for the fourth time and with him Merobaudus. Catacomb of Commodilla, A.D. 394:

DEP III IDVS MAII OSIMVS QVI

VIXIT ANNVS XXVIII QVI FECIT

CVM CONPARE SVA ANNVS SEPTE

MENSIS VIII BENEMERENTI IN PACE. CON

SVLATV NICOMACI. FLABIANI. LOCV MAR

MARARI QVADRISOMVM

i.e. Buried on 13 May, Osimus who lived twenty-eight years, who was united to his wife seven years and nine months. May the well-deserving rest in peace. He died during the consulate of Nicomachus Flavianus. Grave of the stone-mason for four bodies. Catacomb of Callistus, third century:

PETRONIÆ AVXENTIÆ. C.F. QUÆ VIXIT

ANN. XXX. LIBERTI. FECERUNT. BENEMERENTI IN. PACE

The freedmen of Petronia Auxentia, the highly born lady (clarissimae feminae), who died at the age of thirty, made the grave where she rests in peace. She seems to have had neither children, brothers or sisters, nor, at the time of her death, parents. Catacomb of Callistus, fourth century:

DASVMIA QVIRIACE BONE FEMINE PALVMBRA SENe FELlE . . .

QVÆ VIXIT ANNOS LXVI DEPOSITA IIII KAL MARTIAS IN PACE

Cyriaca, a member of the noble Dasumian family, who died at the age of sixty-six years, is called a “dove without bitterness,” a eulogy that is found on other female graves. Catacomb of Callistus, about A.D. 300:

With the permission of his Pope Marcellinus (296–304) Severus the Deacon made in the level of the cemetery of Callistus directly under that of the pope a family vault, consisting of a double burial chamber (cubiculum duplex) with arched tombs (arcosolia) and a shaft for air and light, as a quiet resting-place for himself and his family, where his bones might be preserved in long sleep for his Maker and Judge. The first body to be laid in the new family vault was his sweet little daughter Severa, beloved by her parents and servants. At her birth God had endowed her for this earthly life with wonderful talents. Her body rests here in peace until it shall rise again in God, Who took away her soul, chaste, modest, and ever inviolate in His Holy Spirit; He, the Lord, will reclothe her at some time with spiritual glory. She lived a virgin nine years, eleven months and fifteen days. Thus was she translated out of this world.

Besides the text of the epitaphs, on many of the tombstones the ideas are also conveyed by pictures; in this manner expression is given, above all, to the hope of eternal life for the dead. First come symbolic pictures and signs: the anchor, the palm, the dove with the olive-branch, are allegorical symbols of hope, victory, and everlasting peace; from the third century on appears the fish, the symbol of Christ. The Good Shepherd carrying the lamb on His shoulders, and the Orante, both often depicted together, were well-known and favourite allusions to the joy of heaven. The carving on the tombstone also copied those paintings on the catacombs that represent Biblical scenes, e.g. the awakening of Lazarus, the adoration of the Wise Men. Carvings of an entirely secular character are also found on the tombstones, namely representations of characteristic tools to indicate the rank in life or trade of the dead, e.g. for a baker, a grain measure; for a joiner, a plane; for a smith, an anvil and hammer. If the dead had borne in life the name of an animal, Leo (lion), Equitius (from equus, a horse), a picture of the particular animal was also cut on the tombstone. From the time of Constantine the monogram of Christ was a favourite symbol for use on gravestones.

IV. PAINTINGS

The paintings of the catacombs conveyed pictorially the same ideas as the inscriptions. These frescoes adorn the spaces between the single graves, ornament the arched niches above the arcosolia, and are employed to decorate the walls and ceilings of entire burial chambers. It is true that the paintings are not so easily understood as the inscriptions or epitaphs, but while the oldest epitaphs afford little instruction, since they are limited simply to the names of the dead, the paintings, of which the number is very large, give information concerning the beginnings of Christianity. Certain fixed types are repeated in manifold forms, so that one explains another. In the course of time new types of pictures and new conceptions were developed which throw a steadily increasing light on the belief and the hope of the primitive Christians in regard to death.

The heathen “who have no hope” might stand disconsolate by the grave of the departed, they might adorn the oeterna domus (the eternal home) of the dead with gay pictures of ordinary life. The Christians in these paintings of the catacombs conceived the souls of the dead as Oranti, or praying female figures, in the bliss of heaven. The Good Shepherd Who lovingly carries the lamb on His shoulders to the flock that are pastured in Paradise signified to the Christian the reason for his hope in eternity. The representations of baptism and of the miraculous multiplication of the loaves are allusions to the means of grace by which heaven is attained. After favourable judgment is pronounced, the saints, the advocates or intercessors, lead the souls into the joys of heaven. To depict the belief of the early Christians in a future life the art of the catacombs generally chose episodes from the Old and New Testaments, episodes to which many allusions still occur in the prayers for the dying. If death is represented as having entered the world through the sin of Adam and Eve, the escape from death is indicated in pictures from the Old Testament showing the rescue of Noe from the Deluge, the preservation of Isaac from the sacrificial knife of his father Abraham, the rescue of the Tree Hebrew Children from the fiery furnace, the escape of Jonas from the belly of the great fish, Susanna’s deliverance with the aid of Daniel from false accusation. From the New Testament the raising of Lazarus is used as the type of the resurrection from the dead; the miracles of the Saviour, the healing of the blind, the cure of the palsied man, are all taken as proofs of the omnipotent power of the Son of God over sickness and death. The Wise Men from the East having been the first called out of heathenism, were regarded by the Christians of the catacombs as their predecessors in the Faith, as security for the hope that they too might, at some time, adore the Son of God above. The Mother of God is never separated from the Divine Child; one of the oldest paintings of the catacombs, painted under the eyes of the pupils of the Apostles and found in the cemetery of Priscilla, represents the Virgin holding the Child on her lap, while the Prophet Isaias, who stands before her, points to the star above the head of the Mother and Child. In the frequent pictures of the Wise Men the Virgin is seated on a throne accepting in the name of her Child the gifts which the Magi bring. A fresco of the third century in the cemetery of Priscilla represents the annunciation; a painting of the fourth century in the coemeterium majus shows the Virgin as an Orante, before her the Divine child, who is clearly indicated to be Christ by the monogram of the name Christ painted to the right and left of the figure. The enthroned Saviour surrounded by the Apostles, the dead, who are being led by the saints before the Judge to receive a gracious verdict, the Wise Virgins at the heavenly wedding feast, all these form the last links in the chain of heavenly hopes that bind together earth and heaven, time and eternity.

The themes depicted in the purely decorative painting of the burial chambers, especially that of the ceilings, are largely taken from concepts peculiar to Christianity: the dove with the olive-branch of peace, the peacock that in springtime renews its gay plumage, the lamb, taken as a symbol of the soul, all these continually reappear as allusions to the consoling hopes cherished in this place of death. When the artist paints family life, e.g. a picture of a husband, wife, and child, who occupy a common grave, he represents the three as Oranti standing with raised hands absorbed in the contemplation of God. There are some purely secular paintings in the catacombs, e.g. a fresco in the cemetery of Priscilla representing vine-dressers carrying away a large cask; in the cemetery of Domitilla, corn-merchants superintending the unloading of sacks of grain from ships; and in the cemetery of Callistus, a market-woman selling vegetables.

Special reference should be made to the representations of the Eucharist in connection with the multiplication of the bread when the Lord fed the multitude with the loaves and fishes. Since the second century the Early Church regarded the five letters of the Greek word for fish “ICHTHYS” as the first letters of the words making up the phrase “IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOU YIOS SOTER” (Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour), bread and fish, the food with which Christ had fed the multitude, were in themselves an allusion to the Eucharistic meal. Thus in the catacomb of Domitilla a man and his wife are represented reclining on a cushion, before them a small table holding loaves of bread and fish; in the cemetery of Priscilla the presiding officer at the semi-circular table breaks for the guests the round loaves of bread; the wine-cup with handles stands ready near bread and fish; baskets on either side holding the miraculously multiplied loaves and fishes indicate the deeper meaning of the scene. Both paintings belong to the earliest Christian art. There is in the catacomb of Callistus a painting of a large fish; close before or above the fish is a woven basket on the top of which lie round loaves of bread; the front part of the basket has a square opening in which is seen a glass containing red wine. In the six so-called Chapels of the Sacraments of the same catacomb various representations of the Eucharist appear in combination with pictures of baptism, the raising of Lazarus, a ship, etc. Bread and fish are shown lying on a table; on one side stands Christ, Who stretches a hand in blessing over the food; on the other side is an Orante, the symbol of the soul, which in this meal receives the pledge of the heavenly one. The opposite picture represents the sacrifice of Isaac. In a third picture, placed between these two, guests sit around a table on which are bread and fish; in the foreground stand the baskets holding the miraculously multiplied loaves. These and similar pictures, all belonging to the first half of the third century, are based upon the thought that the Eucharistic meal has been prepared for us by the Saviour as the pledge and type of the heavenly one.

Catholic writer have at times found a richer dogmatic content in the pictures of the catacombs than a strict examination is able to prove; but Protestant scholars go to the other extreme when they claim that the “dogmatic results” obtained from the early Christian pictures are exceedingly small. Although it is willingly acknowledged that non-Catholic writers have occasionally placed a picture in a proper light, it is nevertheless necessary to protest against the attempt to eliminate from the early Christian memorials all dogmatic proof for the faith of the Catholic Church.

Just as it is of importance to settle the dates of inscriptions, so also it is essential to determine as nearly as possible when paintings were executed; there are for the paintings, as for the inscriptions, indications which serve as clues. The artistic value of the pictures increases the closer they approach the golden age of profane art. In the second and third centuries the pictures were lightly sketched and painted in transparent colours on a carefully prepared background of plaster. During this period the artist did not follow set patterns, but was under the necessity at first of devising forms in which to express his new Christian ideas. As secular art fell into decay Christian art experienced the same decline. Another aid in determining the age of a fresco is given by the site in a catacomb where a picture has been painted, whether in the oldest part or in a later addition. As time went on the painter’s range of artistic conceptions enlarged; thus in the third and fourth centuries scenes were depicted which were foreign to earlier Christian art. When in the fourth century the newly-erected basilicas were ornamented with mosaics, the same form of decoration was also introduced into the catacombs; this is shown in a mosaic depicting as an Orante a person who had died. The ornamentation of the places of interment came to an end with the above-mentioned cessation of burial in the catacombs; in lieu of this the graves of the martyrs were now decorated, generally with pictures of the saints, who are represented grouped around the Saviour. These paintings form a class apart from the other pictures of the catacombs on account of the constant decline in the artistic execution and because of the subjects of the composition. The last pictures painted in the catacombs are some executed in the ninth century in the crypt of St. Cecilia. St. Cecilia herself is represented as an Orante in the garden of heaven; there is also preserved in this crypt a bust-fresco of Christ in a niche, next to which is a picture of Pope St. Urban who buried the martyr, St. Cecilia.

V. SARCOPHAGI

In ancient Rome citizens of rank built for themselves family tombs on the great military roads; the structure above ground (monumentum) was adorned with statues and inscriptions, while the bodies were deposited in stone coffins (sarcophagi) or, when cremated, in funerary urns in a subterranean vault or hypogoeum. The freedmen and clients of the noble family to whom the tomb belonged were buried in graves made in the upper stratum of the earth of the area monumenti, or plot of ground or garden in which the tomb stood. These graves were indicated by stelae, or stone slabs, which gave the names of the dead. Those who were first converted from heathenism to Christianity were interred in a similar manner. This is evident both from the hypogoeum of the Flavian family, which has horizontal niches to the right and left for the sarcophagi, and from the stelae with symbols or inscriptions that are Christian in character, although, as is easily understood, such telae are not numerous. The example of the Jews, however, led very early to the excavation, in the enclosure of the area monumenti, of subterranean galleries or passage ways, the walls of which offered ample space for single graves or loculi. From the beginning burial in sarcophagi was, on account of the expense, a privilege of the rich and of people in rank; this is also one reason why Christian sculpture developed later than Christian painting. As the Christians were obliged at first to buy sarcophagi from heathen stone-masons they avoided purchasing those with mythological scenes. They preferred such as were ornamented with carvings of scenes from pastoral life, the harvest and vintage; at times they selected sarcophagi merely ornamented on the front with wave lines (strigili), as for example, the sarcophagus of Petronilla, a relative of the imperial Flavian family, which was found in the catacomb of Domitilla. The only decoration of this sarcophagus, outside of the wave lines, were figures of lions at the corners; on the upper edge of the sarcophagus was the inscription:

AVRELIAE. PETRONILLAE. FILIAE. DVLCISSIMAE.

“To Aurelia Petronilla, sweetest daughter.” There are still in the catacombs of Priscilla, Domitilla, and Prætextatus a number of sarcophagi, the most ancient of which show no Christian sculpture. It was not until towards the end of the third century that Christian sarcophagi were ornamented with sculpture; at first the carvings were small figures of the Good Shepherd or an Orante placed where the strigili came together, or else Christians symbols were carved on the tabella inscriptionis, i.e. the flat slab closing the grave in which the epitaph was cut. A Christian stone-mason, probably, cut these Christian emblems on sarcophagi made in heathen workshops. The oldest sarcophagus showing Christian emblems carved in relief is one found in the Vatican quarter and now in the Lateran Museum; it has in excellent work, between two scenes of family life, an Orante, symbolical of the person buried, and the Good Shepherd. Another sarcophagus, also belonging to the time before Constantine and in the same museum, has as its chief decoration the story of Jonas; around this scene are grouped representations of Noe, the raising of Lazarus, Moses smiting the rock in the wilderness, a pastoral scene, and purely secular fishing scenes.

Christian sculpture on sarcophagi was not fully developed until about the middle of the fourth century; two sarcophagi of this period, that of Junius Bassus in the crypt of St. Peter’s, and another similar in style, in the Lateran Museum, are the finest examples of early Christian carving. When it became customary, in the vicinity of the great basilicas, to build mausoleums or mortuary chapels, in which the sarcophagi were either sunk in the ground or exposed along the walls, sculpture as a Christian art developed rapidly. The growth was perhaps too rapid, for the comparatively small number of Christian sculptors could only meet the constantly increasing demand by over-hasty or half-finished work. To this period which extended from the second half of the fourth into the first decades of the fifth century belong by far the greater part of the sarcophagi found, most of which are in the Lateran Museum. The terrible misfortunes that befell Rome after it had been conquered and plundered by the Goths in 410 checked and finally put an end to carved decoration on Christian sarcophagi.

Naturally, the reliefs of the sarcophagi show the same fundamental ideas as are expressed in the paintings of the catacombs, and they are conveyed by the presentation of the same Biblical scenes. Plastic art, however, followed its own course in the development of the themes. This is evident from the large number of figures employed for the scenes, and still more from the great variety of new subjects which were introduced into the domain of Christian art. When Adam and Eve are shown, it is not, as in the frescoes, merely with the tree and the serpent; in sculpture the second Adam, Christ, is represented standing between the first pair, offering to Adam a sheaf of grain and to Eve a goat, symbols of labour in the field and household occupations. While in the frescoes Moses stands alone when he smites the rock with his staff that the water may gush out, the sculptured relief includes the Jews quenching their thirst. The same difference is evident in the representation of the raising of Lazarus; whereas in sculpture the two sisters and some witnesses of the miracle fill out the scene, in the frescoes the figures are limited to the chief personages. The range of subjects is increased by the addition of other incidents from the old Testament, e.g. the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, symbolic of baptism, and the vision of Ezechiel, intended an as allusion to the resurrection of the body; more especially, however, by fresh scenes from the life of Christ. The carvings representing the manger, the scenes from the Passion, and the prominence given to the position and office of Peter in the Christian scheme of salvation, have no parallel in the paintings of the catacombs. Only once in the catacombs is the birth of Christ taken as a subject of a painting, and this is a fresco of a very late date in the catacomb of St. Sebastian. The reliefs on the sarcophagi show the little Child lying in the manger with the Virgin sitting near by on a knoll; behind her stands Joseph while the ox and ass are placed to one side, and above shines the star that guides the Wise Men. The Virgin is often represented sitting on a throne and holding the Child forward on her hands to receive the adoration of the Magi. As regards scenes from the Passion, Christians preferred, during the centuries of persecution, to represent the Saviour as the Son of God, full of miraculous power, as the conqueror of death and surrounded by His heavenly glory, rather than in His sufferings and death on the Cross. As Christianity advanced, however, in its conquest of heathenism, the faithful turned their attention more to the sufferings of Christ. Still, although sculpture ventured to present scenes from Christ’s Passion, His humiliation was always accompanied by an allusion to His glory; at the foot of the empty Cross sleep the watchers by the grave, above the Cross is the monogram of Christ enclosed in a victor’s wreath; or Christ is represented seated on the throne of His heavenly glory in the midst of scenes from His Passion. The subjects chosen from the Passion are the prediction of the denial of Peter, the washing of the feet, the crowning with thorns, Pilate’s judgment, with the Old Testament prototype of the sacrifice of Isaac as contrasting relief. The manner in which the Church of the fourth century regarded the office of Peter is plain from the preference shown for representations of the traditio legis in which Peter, as the Moses of the New Covenant, receives from the hand of Christ (Dominum legem dat), the New Testament, the Lex or law that he was to proclaim and explain to Christians. The different scenes of the reliefs were separated from one another by arcades, or perhaps by trees, or, frequently they followed one another directly; the numerous incidents carved on large sarcophagi were often arranged in two rows, one over the other. In this disposition plastic art followed the model set by the mosaics in the great basilicas.

Although single scenes carved on the sarcophagi are not difficult to explain, yet where the composition is more complicated it is often not easy to discover the leading thought, as the artist was apt to run scenes together. An example will make this clear. On a sarcophagus in the Lateran Museum the following scenes succeed one another from left to right: the sacrifices of Cain and Abel; Peter led to execution; the triumph of the Cross; the beheading of Paul; Job. The question arises as to why the figures are thus arranged. In the death of Abel the judgment pronounced on the whole human race in Paradise was executed for the first time, while Job is the great herald of the Resurrection: “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in the last day I shall rise out of the earth. And I shall be clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh I shall see my God” (xix, 25). The fulfilment of this hope is shown by the two Apostles and the glory of the risen Saviour. On many of the sarcophagi, however, especially those belonging to the period of the decline of Rome, the compositions lack a central thought and are arranged either according to the fancy of the sculptor or according to the command and desire of the purchaser.

Outside of the sarcophagi the most important early Christian sculpture is the life-size statue of St. Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, in the Lateran Museum, which was dug up near the catacomb bearing his name. The statue, of which only the lower half has been preserved, belongs to the middle of the third century. The figure of the Good Shepherd, also in the Lateran Museum, belongs probably to the time before Constantine; there are, besides, some other statuettes of the Good Shepherd, which are assigned to the second half of the fourth century. Of the work of the stone-masons and sculptors in the cubicula of the martyrs, and in the ornamentation of the altars, choir-screens, pulpits, Easter candlesticks, etc., of the great basilicas only scanty remains have been preserved. Early Christian sculpture reached its zenith in the first half of the fourth century when it joined in the triumph of the Christian religion as it emerged from the catacombs. Sculpture was employed at this period chiefly to ornament Christian graves with symbols of religious hope in the risen Christ.

VI. SMALL OBJECTS FOUND IN THE CATACOMBS

The ornaments which the early Christians put in the graves, the lamps and perfume bottles that they placed outside, the coins, pieces of glass, and rings, that were pressed, to distinguish the spot, into the fresh plaster that sealed the opening, all these remains of early Christianity are often of artistic and scientific value. Both the coins and the factory stamps on the tiles that sealed the grave are in many instances important clues to the age of a gallery in a catacomb, as well as to the date of the inscriptions and paintings that may be found in it.

Earthen lamps were set in the fresh plaster sealing the slab which closed the grave, or were placed on projecting mouldings in the cubicula, and these lamps in the early period were very simple. It was not before the middle of the fourth century that Christian potters began to ornament lamps with Christian pictures and symbols; these consisted mainly of the Biblical scenes already noted in the frescoes, e.g. Jonas, the Good Shepherd, Oranti, the Three Hebrew Children in the fiery furnace. In addition to these, other Biblical characters were introduced, e.g. Josue and Caleb carrying the great bunch of grapes, the three angels visiting Abraham, Christ carrying the Cross and adored by angels. A large number of the lamps of this period are ornamented with pictures of animals (the lion, peacock, cock, hare, fish), shells, trees, geometrical designs, for both Christian and heathen potters chose ornaments without a religious character in order to offend neither Christian nor pagan customers. A number of bronze lamps have also been preserved, many with three small chains for hanging; but metal lamps were more used in the homes than in the catacombs. The most important group of these small objects of early Christian times is that of the so-called “gilded glasses,” or the bases of glass drinking-vessels with Biblical incidents, pictures of saints, or family scenes, designed in gold-leaf and laid between two layers of glass; most of these glasses belong to the fourth century. Such drinking cups or glass mugs were popular as presents at baptisms and wedding anniversaries; they were also probably used at the love-feasts, or agapæ, which, on the great feast days of the saints, were spread for the poor in the porticoes of the porches. This explains the great number of gilded glasses ornamented with the portraits of the two chief Apostles. The designs shown by such glasses vary greatly; they throw valuable light on the paintings, the ornamentation of the lamps, the carvings of the sarcophagi, and in many ways are of dogmatic importance. Thus the design of Moses smiting the rock in the wilderness and the water gushing forth bears the inscription “Petrus,” a proof that the early Christians saw in the leader of the Israelites the prototype of Peter, who in this case is regarded as the mediator for the Christian springs of grace, and in the pictures of the Transmission of the Law (Dominus legem dat), as the mediator of the truths of salvation. When these gilded glass mugs or cups were broken, the bases containing in gold-leaf the religious pictures were set in the mortar sealing the grave. No whole glasses have been preserved, and these bases are only found in the catacombs.

Much discussion has arisen over the ampullae said to contain blood. These are small earthen pots or phials and vessels of glass containing a reddish-brown deposit on the inner side, that have been found secured in the outer surface of the mortar seal of large numbers of graves. This incrustation was held to be the blood of the martyrs, and each grave where such a phial was found was believed to be the burial place of a martyr; accordingly in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the bones discovered in these graves were presented, as the remains of martyrs, to the churches of Italy and beyond the Alps. This assumption was not shaken by the fact that many of these vessels were found on the graves of children, and that the statements as to the consul given in the epitaphs showed dates at the end of the fourth century when martyrdom was no longer suffered. it is now universally held by scholars that these vessels contained pungent essences intended to counteract the odour of the decay perceptible in the galleries of the catacombs. In the same way folded linen has been found inside the graves, which when burned still gives out a strong and agreeable scent; this linen must have been soaked with essences to attain the same end, i.e. to overcome the smell of decay. While in the last few decades the places of Christian burial of the fifth and sixth centuries in Egypt have yielded a large amount of well-preserved materials and woven fabrics, the garments and cloths in which the bodies in the Romans catacombs were wrapped have all mouldered away. It is only where the dead were enveloped in cloth worked with gold threads that the threads have been partially preserved, as in the case of St. Hyacinth. De Rossi found a body in the catacomb of St. Callistus that had been wrapped in cloth with gold threads. Within recent years a grave was discovered in the catacomb of Priscilla where the cloths are still preserved in which the bones lie, but it is rightly feared that they will fall to dust when brought into the air. Once a year at St. Peter’s a large carpet is exhibited that has sewn into it the so-called coltre, or cloth, in which, it is supposed, martyrs were buried. Taking its genuineness for granted, this cloth is the only woven fabric now existing at Rome which has been preserved from the time of the primitive Roman Church.

VII. CATACOMBS OUTSIDE OF ROME

It was impossible to lay out subterranean passages in the Mons Vaticanus because the soil there is not of volcanic formation, but consists of alluvial deposits. Consequently there is no catacomb around the grave of St. Peter; the faithful who wished to have their last resting-place near the tomb of the Apostle were buried close to the surface of the ground. Such cemeteries were probably laid out wherever the formation was not suitable for the excavation of subterranean passages, at the same time such areae or cemeteries of the Christians had no protection against desecration by a maddened mob. Where the soil allowed it, therefore, underground cemeteries were excavated. A number of small catacombs lay at a short distance from Rome, e.g. those of St. Alexander on the Via Nomentana, and St. Senator at Albano; the former has some importance on account of its epitaphs, the latter on account of its paintings. The town of Chiusi in central Italy has a catacomb called St. Mustiola, Bolsena that of St. Christina. At Naples the catacombs of St. Januarius preserve paintings, e.g. of Adam and Eve, belonging to the best period of early Christian art. Sicily has numerous catacombs, especially in the neighbourhood of Syracuse; the museum of Syracuse, besides epitaphs, lamps, and other objects, contains a very beautiful early Christian sarcophagus. There are also several small catacombs on the Island of Malta, and others in Sardinia, the latter having beautiful frescoes of the fourth century. In 1905 a large catacomb was discovered in North Africa near Hadrumetum in which the graves as a rule had not been opened, but unfortunately they are poor in epitaphs, paintings, and small objects. In all these the objects most frequently found are lamps, without ornamentation of importance. The Greek monogram of Christ, so often found on the Roman lamps of the fourth century, is also met on the lamps in the catacombs outside Rome, and in some places is the only sure proof of the Christian character of the burial place.

ANTON DE WAAL.

Catafalque

Catafalque, derived from the Italian word catafalco, literally means a scaffold or elevation, but in its strictly liturgical sense the word is employed to designate the cenotaph-like erection which is used at the exequial offices of the Church, and takes the place of the bier whenever the remains are not present. It is covered with a black cloth or pall, on which there is a cross either of white or some other colour (De Herdt, Praxis Sac. Lit., II, 328). The catafalque is usually placed immediately outside the sanctuary, and is the centre of the ceremonies of that part of the exequial office known as the absolution, receiving the same attention as the corpse would if present. Hence it is that lights burn around the catafalque during the function, and it is aspersed with holy water and incensed. During the absolution at the catafalque the cross-bearer should always stand between it and the door of the church, the celebrant or officiant being at the other end, between it and the sanctuary. When it is not possible for any reason to have a catafalque, its place may be supplied by a square piece of black cloth (pannus niger), which should be laid in front of the lowest step of the altar, and be sprinkled with holy water and incensed at the proper time by the officiant. Formerly the word was used to designate the bier or structure on which the corpse rested. No flowers should be used in connection with it, but it is allowable in the case of deceased prelates to mount their insignia to show the dignity, and in the case of nobles to display the family coat of arms, together with coronets, orders, and other insignia, to show the rank of the deceased. A very notable monument of this kind was that erected to the memory of Michelangelo by his brother artists on the occasion of his funeral in the Church of Santa Croce, Florence.

PATRICK MORRISROE.

Giuseppe Catalani

Catalan (CATALANO, CATALANUS), GIUSEPPE, a Roman liturgist of the eighteenth century, member of the Oratory of San Girolamo della Carita (Hieronymite), famous for his correct editions of the chief liturgical books of the Roman Church, which are still in habitual use, and which he enriched with scholarly commentaries illustrative of the history, rubrics, and canon law of the Roman Liturgy. Among these are the “Pontificale Romanum” (3 vols. in fol., Rome, 1738–40, reprinted at Paris, 1850; reedited by Muhlbauer, Augsburg, 1878), with a learned introduction and notes, and based on the best manuscripts; “Caeremoniale episcoporum” (2 vols. in fol., Rome, 1747, with copperplate engravings; reprinted at Paris, 1860); “Sacrarum Caeremoniarum save rituum ecclesiasticorum S. R. Ecclesiae libri tres” etc. (I vol. in fol., Rome, 1750–51); “Rituale Romanum Benedicti XIV jussu editum et auctum” etc. (Rome, 1757, 2 vols. in fol.). Catalani is also the author of works on the history, series, duties, and privileges of two important curial offices: “De Magistro Sacri Palatii libri duo” (Rome, 1751) and “De Secretario S. Congreg. Indicis libri duo” (Rome, 1751). We owe him also annotated editions of two works much used for the spiritual formation of the Catholic clergy: the letter of St. Jerome “ad Nepotianum suum” (Rome, 1740) and St. John Chrysostom’s work on the priesthood (De Sacerdotio, Rome, 1740). His (rare) historical treatise on the reading of the Gospels at Mass, its origin, ancient usages, etc. (“De codice Evangelii,” Rome, 1733; see “Acta erudit. Lips.,” 1735, 497–99) is yet highly appreciated by all liturgists. He belongs also among the best historians of the ecumenical councils by reason of his edition of their decrees, which Father Hurter calls a very learned (plane docta) work; “Sacrosancta concilia cecumenica commentariis illustrata” (Rome, 1736–49). Finally, he offers no slight interest to the ecclesiastical scholars of the New World because of his new edition (Rome, 1753, 6 vols. in fol.) of Cardinal d’Aguirre’s “Collectio maxima conciliorum Hispanics et Novi Orbis,” i. e Mexico and South America (first published at Rome, in 1693).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Catalonia

A principality within the Spanish Monarchy, occupying an area of 12,414 square miles in the north-east corner of the Iberian Peninsula. The name is derived either from the compound Gath-Alania, referring to the occupation of that region by the Goths and Alans, or from Gothaland, or from Catalanos, supposed to have been the name of an indigenous people identical with Ptolemy’s Catalauni, or, according to others again, from Otger Catalo, a hero of the Eastern Pyrenees who vanquished the Saracens about the year 756. The principality forms a right-angled triangle, of which the least side lies along the Eastern Pyrenees, the greater leg of the right angle forming the boundary of Aragon, while the hypotenuse of the triangle is represented by the Mediterranean coastline. Thus Catalonia is bounded on the north by France (the ancient province of Roussillon) and the little independent republic of Andorra, on the west by Aragon, on the south-west by Valencia, and on the east by the Mediterranean. Its surface slopes gently from the Pyrenees down to the sea-coast on the one side and the basin of the Mediterranean on the other, the eastern portion being drained directly into the Mediterranean by the Ter and Llobregat rivers, the western by the Noguera and Segre into the Ebro. Of these rivers, only the Ebro is really navigable in any part of its course, though the Segre is used as a waterway for timber and the produce of the upland country.

According to the census of 1900, Catalonia had a population of 1,960,620-an average of about 157.25 to the square mile. Its climate, somewhat cold in the north-east, is generally very temperate, the olive and fig being cultivated throughout and the orange in the maritime regions, which compare in beauty with the most celebrated portions of Greece and Italy.

HISTORY

Peopled, according to the most probable opinion, by Iberian races, Catalonia was from the earliest ages invaded by foreign settlers, the Greeks in particular founding the colonies of Rhodon (Rosas) and Emperion (Ampurias) on the beautiful Gulf of Rosas. The Carthaginians left no traces of their presence in Catalonia, although Hannibal marched across it; but the Romans, conquerors of Carthage, making themselves masters of the country, founded its civilization and its language. The Catalan language, a neo-Latin dialect, differs from Castilian chiefly in the absence of doubled vowels and in the suppression of the unaccented syllables which follow an accent (e. g. temps, for Castilian tiempo, “time”; foc for fuego, “fire”). Catalonia forms part of the Roman Hispania Tarraconensis and Citerior, and the country is still full of Roman remains. It next formed the first State established by the Goths in Spain, Astolfo having set up his court at Barcelona. When the Arabs took possession of Spain the lot of the Catalans was particularly hard, since their country, lying directly in the path which the Emirs followed on their victorious expeditions into Gaul, found it impossible to begin such a struggle for independence as the Asturians and the Aragonese had begun. But after the conquest of the Mohammedans by Charles Martel, and their expulsion from Gallia Narbonensis, the Catalans could lift up their heads among the recesses of the Pyrenees, where they gathered under the leadership of Quintillian, an independent chief in the district of Montgrony. Soon Charlemagne began his expeditions into Catalonia (778), conquering Gerona, Barcelona, Ausona (the modern Vich), and Urgel. Louis the Pious, son and successor of Charlemagne, formally undertook the conquest of Catalonia, which, under the name of Marca Hispanica (the Spanish March), he entrusted to Borrel. This district was ruled by dependent counts from 801 to 877, and in the latter year this dignity was made hereditary by the Diet of Quercy, Wilfrid the Hairy beginning a dynasty of counts who in a short time became independent. Wilfrid set the boundaries of his dominions at the rivers Segre and Llobregat, and founded the monasteries of Ripoll and Montserrat, the two centres of Catalan national life.

Wilfrid was succeeded by Borrel I, Suñer, and Borrel II, in whose time Almansor took and sacked Barcelona (985). In this period we find Catalonia divided into various countships-Barcelona, Ausona, Urgel, Ampurdán, Perelada, Besalú, Gerona, etc.-now united, now separated, until the time of Berenger III. Ramón Berenger I, the Old (1035–1076), published the Usatges (Customs), the first civil code of the Reconquest (1071), and left the throne to his two sons, of whom Ramón Berenger II, called the Fratricide, because he was believed to have put his brother to death, was vanquished in an ordeal by combat, and journeyed to the Holy Land in penance for his crime. Ramón Berenger III, the Great, married Dulcia, heiress of Provence, united the two countships, and entered upon the Aragonese policy of intervention in Italian affairs. Ramón Berenger IV, the Saint, married Petronilla, daughter and heiress of Ramiro the Monk, thus bringing about the union (1137) of Aragon and Catalonia (see ); he also finished the reconquest of Catalonia, capturing the cities of Tortosa and Lerida. After Alfonso-Ramón, who succeeded to the kingdom and the countship in 1162, the histories of Catalonia and of Aragon are one. Especially worthy of note here are the conquests of Valencia (1238) and the Balearic Isles (1229), won chiefly by Jaimé the Conqueror. The latter were peopled mostly with Catalans, as the island dialects prove, the Majorcan still preserving a base of archaic Catalan, while in the Valencian there is an influx of Aragonese. The Order of Mercy, for the redemption of captives, originally an order of knighthood, was founded on Catalan soil, in 1223, by St. Peter Nolasco and St., Raymund of Peñafort. In 1225, Philip the Bold, King of France, laid siege to Gerona and was defeated on the Coll de les Panises. An expedition of Catalan and Aragonese allies, summoned to the Levant by the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus Palæologus, and commanded by Roger de Flor, founded, in 1313, the Latin Duchies of Athens and Neo Patra. Lastly, it was with Catalan sailors and fleets that the kings of Aragon, intervening in the affairs of Italy, possessed themselves of the Kingdom of Sicily (1282) and Naples (1420).

Castilian influence began to make itself felt in Catalonia from the time when the Castilian dynasty, in the person of Fernando I, of Antequera, ascended the throne of Aragon. The first important collision between Catalonia and her Castilian rulers had its origin in the persecution which Juan II, the husband of Doña Juana Enriquez, carried on against his son, the Prince of Viana, who was generally beloved by the Catalans. From this resulted a war lasting twelve years. The marriage of Fernando (Ferdinand) II of Aragon with Isabel of Castile established Spanish unity and Castilian preponderance, to which, also, the discovery of America in the name of Castile, together with the diversion of commerce from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, and the consequently diminishing economic importance of Barcelona and other ports on that coast, largely contributed. Catalonia no doubt played an important part in the direction of Spanish policies in Italy, and the principality lived in a state of contentment under the first three Austrian monarchs. But the misgovernment of Philip IV provoked an uprising in Catalonia (Feast of Corpus Christi, 1640), and the insurgents named Louis XIII of France Count of Barcelona. This insurrection, however, was suppressed by the Castilians. In the War of the Succession Catalonia embraced the cause of the Archduke of Austria against Philip V, who punished the Catalans (1713) by abolishing their ancient fueros, or constitutional rights. Catalonia was the first region of Spain to rise against the Napoleonic tyranny, and overthrew the French in 1808.

ACTUAL CONDITIONS

What was anciently the Countship of Barcelona is now the Principality of Catalonia, divided into the four provinces of Barcelona, Tarragona, Lerida, and Gerona.

The Province of Barcelona, with an area of 2965 square miles, includes 327 municipalities. Its principal city, Barcelona (pop. 525,977), beautifully situated between the sea and a chain of verdant mountains, possesses a port which is considered one of the best on the Mediterranean, both by nature and by its recent improvements. The city combines the attractions of a great modern metropolis with the interesting associations of a long history, the presence of so many magnificent old buildings seeming to stimulate modern enterprise in the same direction. (See .) Many smaller cities-e. g. Sabadell, Tarrasa, Manresa (see ), Reus-depend industrially on Barcelona, and the banks of the Llobregat and the Ter are bordered with paper-, spinning-, and other mills, which utilize the motive power of the numerous waterfalls.

The 184 municipalities of Tarragona aggregate 2503 square miles in area. The province produces wine, vinegar, and fruits in great abundance. Its capital, Tarragona (pop. 25,000), was selected by the Romans for its exceptionally fine situation upon a slight eminence, the sea on one side, and a very fertile fruit-producing district on the other; in spite of the excellence of its harbour, its importance has decreased through the transfer of industries to Reus and of commerce to Salou, a little farther south. Historically, Tarragona is one of the world’s most interesting cities. Tortosa, an ancient episcopal see, is also commercially famous for its vinegar.

Lerida, the largest, but the least wealthy, province of Catalonia, has an area of 4685 square miles, divided into 324 municipal districts. Its resources are agricultural, chiefly fruits and timber. Besides Lerida, the capital (the ancient Ilerda), the most important cities of this province are: Cervera, in ancient times the seat of a university celebrated for its theological faculty, Seo de Urgel, and Solsona.

The Province of Gerona (the ancient Marca Hispanica), with an area of 2361 square miles, divided into 249 municipal districts, has a generally mountainous surface, which produces large quantities of cork of the best quality. Its long coastline, with numerous small harbours, is excellently adapted for both fishing and navigation. Its principal cities are: Gerona, the capital (pop. about 15,000), a city of great historical importance, famous for its remarkable variety of mineral waters; Figueras, with its once redoubtable fortress; Olot, situated in a volcanic region abounding in springs.

In the judiciary department of its government Catalonia is served by a single district court (audiencia), that of Barcelona, with criminal tribunals in the four provincial capitals, Barcelona having seventeen courts of first instance (five of them in the capital itself), Tarragona eight, Lerida eight, and Gerona six. In the military administration, the Captaincy-General of Catalonia is one of the fourteen military districts of Spain, and is divided into four military governments. It belongs to the naval department of Cartagena, and has stations at Barcelona, Tarragona, Tortosa, Mataró, and Palamós. It has only one university, that of Barcelona, with four provincial and two local institutes (Figueras and Reus).

ECCLESIASTICAL DIVISIONS

The principality of Catalonia forms the ecclesiastical province of Tarragona, the archiepiscopal see of which is, according to tradition, one of the most ancient in Spain, dating from the first century of Christianity. The suffragan dioceses are Barcelona (a see claiming Apostolic origin), Gerona, Lerida, Solsona, Tortosa, Urgel, and Vich. The following table gives briefly the most complete statistics obtainable of religious communities in the Province of Tarragona:—

Dioceses

Religious Communities

Men

Women

Cloistered

Not Cloistered

Colleges

Houses

Benevolent

Institutions

Tarragona

2

9

. . .

. . .

2

Barcelona

10

8

. . .

39

12

Gerona

2

7

. . .

. . .

. . .

Lerida

5

6

. . .

. . .

13

Solsona

8

. . .

19

24

10

Tortosa

5

13

19

6

12

Urgel

6

3

28

33

4

Vich

8

. . .

. . .

5

. . .

(See also separate articles on Tarragona, Barcelona, Gerona, and the other dioceses.)

Bofarull, Historia critica y eclesiástica de Cataluña (Barcelona); Barroso, Anuario eclesiástico de España (Madrid, 1904); Reseña geográfica . . . por la dirección general del Instituto Geográfico y Estadístico (Madrid, 1888); El Principado de Cataluña in Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia, XL, 261.

RamÓn Ruiz Amado.

Archdiocese of Catania (Catanensis)

Catania, a seaport and capital of the province of the same name in Sicily, is situated on the eastern side of Mount Etna in a very fertile region. It was known to the ancients as Catana or Catina. Founded (c. 730 B. C.) by Chalcidian emigrants from Naxos, Catania was soon a flourishing city. Hiero I, King of Syracuse, in 470 B. C. transported these first settlers to Leontini (now Lentini) and filled Catania with Syracusans and Polopennesians. The former inhabitants attempted to regain possession of the city, but were driven back by Dionysius and Agathocles. Catania accepted the Roman yoke during the First Punic War, and after the fall of the Roman Empire shared the fate of Sicily. The city has suffered much from the eruptions of Etna. Most of its old monuments are buried under the lava. According to legend the Faith was first preached there by St. Beryllus, an immediate Disciple of Christ. During the persecution of Decius the virgin St. Agatha suffered martyrdom. At the same period or a little later the Bishop of Catania was St. Everus mentioned in the acts of the martyrs of Leontini (303). This same year is marked by the martyrdom of the Deacon Euplius and others. Domninus, Bishop of Catania, was present at the Council of Ephesus (431); another bishop, Fortunatus, was twice sent with Ennodius by Pope Hormisdas to Emperor Anastasius I to effect the union of the Eastern Churches with Rome (514, 516). Bishops Leo and Junius appear in the correspondence of St. Gregory the Great. In 730 Bishop Jacobus suffered martyrdom for his defence of images. Another bishop, St. Leo II, was known as a wonder-worker (thaumaturgus). Bishop Euthymius was at first an adherent of Photius, but in the Eighth General Council approved the restoration of Ignatius as patriarch. Among other bishops of Catania may be noted, Giuliano della Rovere, later pope under the name of Julius II. The cathedral was destroyed by the earthquake of 22 January, 1693, in which thousands of people met their death. The church del San Carcere contains beautiful sculptures of the eleventh century and a fine painting of St. Agatha by Bernardino Negro. The church of San Nicolò possesses fine paintings and a magnificent organ of 2916 pipes, built under Abbot Donato del Piano. The adjoining Benedictine monastery is famous for its cloister, library, and rich collection of paintings. In the ninth century, while still a Greek city, Catania became suffragan to Monreale. In 1860 it was made an archiepiscopal see, immediately subject to the Holy See. The archdiocese contains 295,300 inhabitants, with 43 parishes, 16 religious houses of men and 17 of women, and 47 educational institutions.

The University of Catania was founded by Pope Eugenius IV in 1444 with the co-operation of Alfonso, King of Aragon and Sicily. The papal Bull of erection, besides establishing the usual faculties on the model of Bologna, authorized the teaching of Greek and Latin. Funds for the endowment were provided by the municipality of Catania and by royal grants. The privileges of the university were confirmed in 1458 and 1494. It comprises at present the Faculties of Law, Medicine, Natural Sciences, Philosophy and Letters, with 105 professors and 1100 students. The library, founded in 1755 by the Benedictine abbot, Vito Arnico, contains 120,000 volumes.

Cappelletti, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XXI, 633–42; Ferrara, Storia di Catania sino alla fine del secolo XVIII (ibid., 1829); Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), s. v.

U. BENIGNI.

Diocese of Catanzaro

DIOCESE OF CATANZARO (CATACIUM)

Suffragan of Reggio. Catanzaro is the capital of the province of Calabria, Italy. The date of the erection of the see is uncertain; it may have been 1122, when Callistus II transferred to Catanzaro the See of Taverna. The diocese has a population of 85,000, with 48 parishes, 97 churches and chapels, 116 secular and 4 regular priests, 1 religious house of men, and 5 of women.

U. BENIGNI

Catechumen

“Catechumen,” in the early Church, was the name applied to one who had not yet been initiated into the sacred mysteries, but was undergoing a course of preparation for that purpose. The word occurs in Gal. vi, 6: “Let him that is instructed in the word, [ho katechoumenos, is qui catechizatur] communicate to him that instructeth him [to katechounti, ei qui catechizat] in all good things.” Other parts of the verb katicksein occur in I Cor., xiv, 19; Luke, i, 4; Acts, xviii, 24.

I. As the acceptance of Christianity involved belief in a body of doctrine and the observance of the Divine law (“teach, make disciples, scholars of them”; “teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you,” Matt., xxviii, 20), it is clear that some sort of preliminary instruction must have been given to the converts. In Apostolic times this would vary according as these were Jews or pagans, and was naturally simple in character and short in duration. When, however, the churches came to be organized, the instruction and probation would be longer and more elaborate.

Thus, as early as the date of the Epistle to the Galatians (56–57?) we meet with the mention of catechist and catechumen; but we cannot infer from this that the full regulations were already in force. It was rather the danger of apostasy, or even betrayal in time of persecution which gave rise to special precautions as to admission into the Church. To avert this danger a careful intellectual and moral preparation was needed: intellectual to guard against the arguments of the pagan philosophers; moral, to give strength against the torments of the persecutors. This is the “trial of faith more precious than gold which is tried by the fire” of which St. Peter speaks (I Pet., i, 7).

Hence we find in St. Justin’s first Apology (c. lxi, P.G, VI, 420), distinct reference to the twofold preparation and also to the more elaborate rites of initiation: “Those who ,are persuaded and believe in the truth of our teachings (didaskomena) and sayings undertake to live accordingly; they are taught to ask, with fasting, the remission of their sins; we also praying and fasting with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are regenerated in the same way that we have been regenerated,” etc. By the end of the second century we find the catechumenate in force in all its main lines.

Tertullian reproaches the heretics with disregarding it; among them, he says “one does not know which is the catechumen and which the faithful, all alike come [to the mysteries], all hear the same discourses and say the same prayers” (quis catechumenus, quis fidelis incertum est; pariter adeunt, pariter audiunt, pariter orant), “Catechumens are initiated before they are instructed” (ante sunt perfecti catechumeni quam edocti.—”De Praeser.”xli, P.L., II, 56) A little later we read of Origen being in charge of the catechetical school (tou tes katecheseos didaskaleiou) at Alexandria (Eusib., Hist., Eccl., VI, iii). It is not necessary to quote further author ities for the third and fourth centuries, the age in which the catechumenate flourished in its full form.

During the years of persecution the necessity of the institution was realized, and in the intervals of peace the arrangements were more and more elaborated. When, however, Christianity finally triumphed over paganism, the reasons for retaining the catechumenate became less urgent. The majority were born of Christian families, and so were brought up in the Faith, and were in no danger of falling into paganism. Moreover, with the increasing development of the doctrine of grace, and original sin the practice of early baptism became the rule. Further, the conversion of the barbarians precluded the possibility of submitting them to any prolonged period of preparation. Hence the catechumenate gradually fell into disuse, and has merely left traces in the existing rites of baptism and reception in the Church. Still, even now, an informal species of the old regulations should be observed in the case of grown up converts.

II. The catechumens were divided into mere inquirers (audientes, akromeni) and catechumens properly so-called; and in each stage there was a three-fold preparation—catechetical, ascetical, and liturgical.

(1) If a pagan wished to become a Christian he was given some elementary instruction in the fundamental doctrines and practices of the Church (see CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE). He had to show by his conduct that he was in earnest about the step he was about to take. So far, he was only in the stage of inquiry, and was not counted as a Christian at all. He was allowed to be present at the first part of the Mass, but he was dismissed immediately after the sermon.

(2) As soon as his instructors were satisfied that he was likely to persevere, the inquirer was promoted to the rank of catechumen. He was now entitled to be called a Christian, though he was not looked upon as one of the “faithful.” “Ask a man, ‘Are you a Christian?’ He answers, ‘No,’ if he is a pagan or a Jew. But if he says ‘Yes,’ ask him again, ‘Are you a catechumen or one of the faithful?’“ (St. Aug., “In Joan.,” xliv, 2, P.L., XXXV, 1714).

In the early ages the rites of admission to the catechumenate were quite simple, but in the course of time they became more elaborate. At first the candidates were merely signed on the forehead with the sign of the cross, or hands were imposed on them with suitable prayers; and sometimes both ceremonies were used. Thus St. Augustine in his model of an instruction to an inquirer says: “He should be asked whether he believes what he has heard, and is ready to observe it. If he answers in the affirmative he should be solemnly signed and treated according to the custom of the Church” (solemniter signandus est et ecclesiae more tractandus.—De Cat. Rud., xxvi, P.L., XL, 344).

Eusebius mentions the imposition of hands and prayer (Vita Constantini, iv. 61, P.G., XX, 1213). Among the Latins, and especially at Rome, breathing accompanied with a form of exorcism and placing in the mouth a little exorcised salt, was employed in addition to the signing with the cross and the imposition of hands. Other rites were the opening of the ears (Mark, vii, 34) and anointing. See Martène, “De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus” (Rouen, 1700), I, where several ordines ad fasciendum Christianum, or catechumenum, are given; Chardon, “Hist. des Sacrements,” in Migne’s “Theol. Cursus Completus,” Paris, 1874, XX, 31 sqq., 149 sqq.

Catechumens when present at Mass were not dismissed with the inquirers, but were detained while a special prayer was recited over them. They then also withdrew before the Mass of the Faithful began. The instruction which they received is described in the article CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. As to their standard of living they had to abstain from all immoral and pagan practices, and give proof by their virtue and works of penance that they were worthy to begin a more immediate preparation for baptism. The duration of this stage was not fixed. In general it lasted long enough to test the dispositions of the catechumen. The council of Elvira alludes to the custom of making it last two years and the civil law fixed it at this (Justinian, Novel. cxliv). But the causes which ultimately led to the abolition of the catechumenate (see above) tended also to shorten it.

Thus the Council of Agde (506) allowed even Jews (with regard to whom special caution was required) to receive baptism after eight months preparation; and later on St. Gregory reduced the term to forty days. On the other hand the duration of the catechumenate might be extended, and the catechumen might be reduced to the rank of the audientes, if he was guilty of grave crimes (fifth canon of Neocaesarea, fourteenth canon of Nicaea). What seems extraordinary to our modern notions is that the catechumens themselves put off their baptisms for many years, sometimes even till their last illness. Constantine the Great is an example of this extreme delay. St. Ambrose, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. John Chrysostom were not baptized till after their thirtieth year. A question much discussed was the fate of those who died in this stage.

As we have seen, they were looked upon as Christians, but not as belonging to the “faithful,” because the cleansing waters of baptism had not been poured over their souls. St. Gregory describes his terror during a storm at sea lest he might be taken away unbaptized (Carmen de Vita Sua, 324, sqq., P.G. XXXVII, 994). However, St. Ambrose has no doubt about the salvation of Valentinian the Younger, who has asked for baptism, but had died before the saint could reach him (“De Obitu Valentini.,” n. 51, P.L. XVI, 1374). Hence the common teaching was that the defect of baptism might be supplied by desire. This was especially held with regard to those who were in the later stage of immediate preparation, to be described presently. On this whole question see Franzelin, “De Ecclesia” (Rome, 1887), 414 sqq.

(3) When the catechumens had completed this stage of preparation and trial, their names were inscribed among the competentes; i.e. those seeking to be baptized. The Greeks called them photizomenoi. This might mean that they were being enlightened in the mysteries of the faith; or, more probably, that they were being baptized, for the Greeks commonly spoke of baptism as “light” (cf. Heb., vi, 4; x, 32). In this advanced stage they were sometimes called fideles by anticipation (e.g. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., I, 4; V, 1; P.G., XXXIII, 373, 505). Lent was the time when the three-fold preparation—instructive, ascetical, and liturgical—was carried on.

The ascetical preparation was severe. Prayer and fasting naturally formed part of it; but the competentes were also exhorted to keep silence as far as possible and, if they were married, to observe continence. (St. Justin, “Apol.,” lxi, P.G., VI, 420; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., I, sub fin.,P.G., XXXIII, c01.376; St. August., “De Fide et Op.,” ix, P.L. XL, 205). Confession was also enjoined (Tertullian, “De Bapt.,” xx, P.L. I, 1222 where he quotes Matt., iii, 6: “they were baptized, confessing their sins.” See also St. Cyril, ib.; Eusebius, “Vita Const., iv, 61). The instruction given at this time is described in the article CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, where an account of St. Cyril’s “catecheses” will be found.

The rites connected with this stage were elaborate. There are considerable survivals of them in the first part of the order of baptism, and also traces in the Lenten Masses, especially the Mass of the Wednesday of the fourth week. The assemblies were called “scrutinies” (examination and presentation of the candidates), and were seven in number. At the first scrutiny the candidates gave in their names. After the collect of the Mass, and before the lessons, the ceremony of exorcism was performed over them. This was done at all the scrutinies except the last, by the exorcists, and then the priest signed them with the cross and laid hands upon them. It is interesting to know that the words at present used in baptism “Ergo, maledicte diabole,” etc. belonged to the exorcism, and the words “Aeternam ac justissimam pietatem” etc. belonged to the laying on of hands.

The third scrutiny was of a specially solemn character, for it was then that the candidates received the Gospel, the Symbol (Creed), and the Our Father. Each of these was accompanied by a short explanation. For example, St. Augustine has left four sermons (lvi-lix) “De Oratione Domenica ad competentes” (P.L., XXXVIII, 377 sqq.), and three on the delivery of the Symbol (ibid., 1058 sqq.). In our present missal the Mass of the Wednesday of the fourth week in Lent has a lesson in addition to the ordinary Epistle, or rather lesson. The former is taken from the thirty-sixth chapter of Ezechiel, the latter from the fiftieth of Isaias; and both (together with the Introit and the two Graduals, and the Gospel, the healing of the man born blind, John, ix) have obvious reference to the “great scrutiny.”

The seventh scrutiny took place on Holy Saturday, apart from the Mass, as indeed there was formerly no Mass for that day. The priest himself performed the ceremony of the exorcism and the Ephphetha (Mark, vii). Then followed the anointing on the breast and back. The candidates pronounced the three-fold renunciation of Satan and recited the Creed. The actual initiation, (baptism, confirmation, and Communion) took place at the Paschal Mass, at which the neophytes assisted for the first time, being now no longer mere catechumens. But until the Sunday after Easter they were considered as “infants,” receiving further instruction, especially on the sacraments which had lately been conferred upon them (see CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE). Finally, on Low Sunday (Dominica in Albis depositis) when the Introit of the Mass speaks of the “new born babes” (I Pet., ii, 2), they put off their white garments, and were henceforth counted among the regular “faithful.”

Funk (ed.), Didache, (Tuebingen , 1887); St. Justin, Apol. I in P.G. Vi, 328 sqq; Tertullian, De Baptismo, P.L. I, 1197 sqq.; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, P.G. XXXIII, 369, sqq.; St. Augustine, De Catech. Rudibus, P.L., XL, 309, Sermones ad competentes, lvi-lix, P.L. XXXVIII, 377, sqq.; In Traditione et Redditione Symboli, P.L. XXXVIII, 1058, sqq.; Martene, De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus (Rouen, 1700), tom. I, 29, sqq.; Chardon, Hist. de Sacrements in Migne, Cursus Theologiae Completus, XX; Duchesne, Origines de cult chretien (Paris, 1898), IX; Thurston, Lent and Holy Week, (London, 1904), 169, sqq.; Kuepper in Kircheniex., s.v. Katechumenat; Bareille in Dict. de theol. cath., s.v. Catechumenat.

T. B. SCANNELL.

Categorical Imperative

A term which originated in Immanuel Kant’s ethics. It expresses the moral law as ultimately enacted by reason and demanding obedience from mere respect for reason. Kant in his ethics takes his point of departure from the concept of a good will: “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world or out of it that can be called good without qualification except a good will.” But that will alone is good which acts not only conformably to duty, but also from duty. And again the will acts from duty when it is determined merely by respect for the law, independently of inclination, and without regard to the agreeableness or the consequences of the action prescribed. Therefore the first fundamental principle of morality is: “Let the law be the sole ground or motive of thy will.” Kant further finds that the law is capable of inspiring respect by reason of its universality and necessity, and hence lays down the following general formula of the moral law: “Act so that the maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a universal law for all rational beings.” Necessity and universality, he declares, cannot be derived from experience, whose subject matter is always particular and contingent, but from the mind alone, from the cognitive forms innate in it. Hence the moral law originates in pure reason and is enunciated by a synthetical judgment a priori—a priori because it has its reason, not in experience, but in the mind itself; synthetical, because it is formed not by the analysis of a conception, but by an extension of it. Reason, dictating the moral law, determines man’s actions. Yet it may do so in a twofold manner. It either controls conduct infallibly, its dictates being actually responded to without conflict or friction—and in this case there is no obligation necessary or conceivable, because the will is of itself so constituted as to be in harmony with the rational order—or it is resisted and disobeyed, or obeyed only reluctantly, owing to contrary impulses coming from sensibility. In this case determination by the law of reason has the nature of a command or imperative, not of a hypothetical imperative, which enjoins actions only as a means to an end and implies a merely conditional necessity but of a categorical imperative, which enjoins actions for their own sake and hence involves absolute necessity. While for God, Whose will is perfectly holy, the moral law cannot be obligatory, it is for man, who is subject to sensuous impulses, an imperative command. Accordingly, the categorical imperative is the moral law enacted by practical reason, obligatory for man, whose sensibility is discordant from the rational order, and demanding obedience from respect for its universality and necessity.

Kant essays to prove the existence of a categorical imperative a priori from the idea of the will of a rational being Will is conceived as a faculty determining itself to action according to certain laws. Now it is only an end that serves as an objective principle for the self-determination of the will, and only an end in itself that serves as a universal principle holding for all rational beings. But man, and indeed every rational being, is an end in himself, a person, and must in all actions, whether they regard self or others, be respected as such. Thus arises a supreme practical principle, objective and universal, derived not from experience, but from human nature itself; a principle from which, as the highest practical ground, all laws of the will are capable of being derived. This, then, is the categorical imperative, to be enunciated in the following terms: Act so as to use humanity, whether in your own person or in others, always as an end, and never merely as a means.

Hence Kant infers, first, that the will of every rational being, by commanding respect for humanity as an end in itself,lays down a universal law, and is therefore a law unto itself, autonomous, and subject to no external lawgiver; secondly, that morality consists in obedience to the law of our own reason, and immorality, on the contrary, in heteronomy, that is, in obedience to any, even Divine, authority distinct from our own reason, or in action from any other motive than respect for our reason as a law.

The merits of Kant’s categorical imperative are said to consist in this: that it firmly establishes the reign of reason; elevates the dignity of man by subjecting in him sensibility to reason and making rational nature free, supreme, and independent; overcomes egoism by forbidding action from self-interest; and upholds morality by the highest authority. But the theist philosopher and the Christian theologian must needs take another view. Man is not an end in himself, but is essentially subordinate to God as his ultimate end and supreme good; nor is he autonomous, but is necessarily subject to God as his supreme Lord and lawgiver. Man, conceived as a law unto himself and an end in himself, is emancipated from God as his master and separated from Him as his supreme good; conceived, moreover, as autonomous and independent of any higher authority, he is deified. This is not building up true and lofty morality, but is its complete overthrow; for the basis of morality is God as the ultimate end, highest good, and supreme lawgiver. Kant utterly ignores the nature of both intellect and will. Human reason does not enact the moral law, but only voices and proclaims it as the enactment of a higher power above man, and it is not from the proclaiming voice that the law derives its binding force, but from the majesty above that intimates it to us through our conscience.

Nor do the universality and necessity of a law determine the will. What really attracts the will, and stirs it as a motive to action, is the goodness of the object presented by the intellect; for the rational appetite is by its nature an inclination to good. Hence it is that the desire of perfect happiness necessarily results from rational nature, and that the supreme good, clearly apprehended by the mind, cannot but be desired and embraced by the will. Hence, too, a law is not presented as obligatory, unless its observance is known to be necessarily connected with the attainment of the supreme good. It is, therefore, wrong to denounce the pursuit of happiness as immoral or repugnant to human nature. On the contrary, a paralysis of all human energy and utter despair would result from bidding man to act only from the motive of stern necessity inherent in law, or forbidding him ever to have his own good in view or to hope for blessedness.

The theory of the categorical imperative is, moreover, inconsistent. According to it the human will is the highest lawgiving authority, and yet subject to precepts enjoined on it; it is absolutely commanding what is objectively right, and at the same time reluctant to observe the right order. Again, the categorical imperative, as also the autonomy of reason and the freedom of the will, belongs to the intelligible world, and is, therefore, according to the “Critique of Pure Reason,” absolutely unknowable and contradicted by all laws of experience; nevertheless in Kantian ethics it is characterized as commanding with unmistakable precision and demanding obedience with absolute authority. Such a contradiction between Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” and his “Ethics,” between theoretical and practical reason, induces in morals a necessity which resembles fatalism.

Kant sets forth the categorical imperative in his “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals” (1785) and his “Critique of Practical Reason” (1788).

JOHN J. MING

Category

(Greek kategoría, accusation, attribution).

The term was transferred by Aristotle from its forensic meaning (procedure in legal accusation) to its logical use as attribution of a subject. The Latin equivalent, prædicamentum, given it by Boethius, aptly suggests its technical significance. The categories or predicaments are the most widely generic classes or groups of predicates applicable to an individual Subject—summa genera prædicatorum. Whether Aristotle originally intended them as aspects and divisions of words, of ideas, or of things is a debated question. Nevertheless they lend themselves readily to each of these subjects. They are divisions:

of Ideas in as much as they are the widest generalizations under which all other more restricted ideas may be subsumed;

of words in that they are the oral terms answering to those supreme notions;

of things in the sense that they are aspects which the mind abstracts from the objects falling under experience.

In the first acceptation they belong to logic, where they stand as the ultimate classification of strictly universal ideas; in the second to grammar, where they represent the parts of speech; in the third to ontology, where they are the ultimate classes of real (finite) being. In this latter sense they will be here considered. Since it is the business of philosophy to reduce the world of real beings—the self included—to its simplest terms or aspects and their orderly relations, the task of discovering and defining the corresponding categories has been attempted by every philosopher of note. The results, however, have been by no means identical. Thus we find the Indian sage, Kanada, the reputed founder of the Vaiseshika philosophy, reducing all things to substance, quality, action, generality particularity, co-inherence, and non-existence, while the Greek (supposed) author of the word philosophy, Pythagoras, discovers twenty ultimate groups, ten of which he calls good and the opposite ten bad. Plato in turn subsumes all things under being, identity, diversity, change. In modern times Descartes and Leibniz arranged seven categories: mind (spirit), matter (body), measure, shape, rest, motion, position, while Kant, basing his division on the varieties of judgment, invented twelve categories or forms under which he makes the intellect (Verstand) judge of all objects of experience. Aristotle’s classification of ten categories which was taken up into Scholasticism, and still holds its place in the logic and ontology of Catholic philosophy, is thus set forth in the fourth chapter of the “Organon”:

of things in-complex enunciated (i.e. simple predicates), each signifies either substance or quantity or quality or relation or where (place) or when (time) or position or possession or action or passion. But substance is to speak generally as ‘man,’ ‘horse’; quantity as ‘two’ or ‘three cubits’; quality as ‘white’; relation as ‘greater’; where as ‘in the Forum’; when as ‘yesterday’; position as ‘he sits’; possession as ‘he is shod ‘; action as ‘he cuts ‘; passion as ‘he burns.’

Of these groups substance, quantity, quality and relation are obviously the principal; the remaining six are reducible to some form of relation, for it should be noted that between some of the categories a real distinction is not required; a virtual, i.e. an objectively founded mental distinction suffices, as, e.g., between action and passion. The object or thing divided into the categories is:

(a) real being i.e. not the mere being expressed by the copulative verb (ens copulæ); nor conceptual being (entia rationis); nor, at least according to many Aristoteleans, being as explicitly actual (ens participium); but substantive or essential being—reality—the object matter of ontology (ens essential non ens existentæ);

(b) being per se, i.e. being having an essential not merely accidental unity—such as an artificial or a random construction (ens per se, non per accidens), or concrete adjectives which include a subject;

(c) complete being, not the abstract differentiæ or the parts of things;

(d) finite being; the Infinite of course transcends all categories. Though the privilege of categorization is thus limited, a method has been devised whereby accommodation may be secured for any (finite) reality whatsoever.

For (a) some beings enter a category directly (in linea recta), as do genera, species, and individuals; (b) others indirectly (a latere), as do specific and individual differentiæ; or (c) others come in by reduction as do the parts of things and things having only an accidental unity (entia per accidens), and even, by analogy, mental fictions (entia rationis). Thus for instance family and hand are reduced to the category of substance; intensity of heat to quality; a point to quantity and so on. It should be noted, however, that being itself as such (ens transcendentale) cannot be confined to a category since it is not a univocal, but only an analogous attribute of the supreme divisions of reality (e.g. substance and accident), and is not therefore a genus as is each category. For the same reason accident is not a genus by itself under which the nine classes mentioned above are subsumed as species. If the foregoing restrictions are taken into account it will be found that the Aristotelean classification answers its purpose—the simplification of the world of finite reality for the sake of investigation—and that on the whole no more workable scheme has thus far been devised.

F. P. SIEGFRIED

Catenæ

(Lat. catena, a chain)

Collections of excerpts from the writings of Biblical commentators, especially the Fathers and early ecclesiastical writers, strung together like the links of a chain, and in this way exhibiting a continuous and connected interpretation of a given text of Scripture. It has been well said that they are exegetical anthologies.

These fragments of patristic commentaries are not only quite valuable for the literal sense of Scripture, since their text frequently represents the evidence of very ancient (now lost) manuscripts; they are also serviceable to the theologian (dogmatic and mystical), to the ecclesiastical historian, and to the patrologist, for they often exhibit the only remains of important patristic writings (see ,; cf. Holl, Fragmente vornikänischer Kirchenväter, Leipzig, 1899).

With the disappearance of the great Scriptural theologians, investigators, and commentators of the fourth and fifth centuries, there arose a class of Scriptural compilers, comparable to Boethius and Isidore of Seville in the provinces of philosophy, church history, and general culture. The very antiquity of the patristic commentators, so close to the origin of the Sacred Books, and the supreme value set by Catholic theology on the unanimous consent of the Fathers in the exposition of Scripture, naturally led, in an age of theological decadence, to such compilations. The earliest Greek catena is ascribed to Procopius of Gaza, in the first part of the sixth century, but Ehrhardt (see Krumbacher, 211) points to Eusebius of Cæsarea (d. about 340) as the pioneer in this branch of Scriptural exegesis. Between the seventh and the tenth centuries appear Andreas Presbyter and Johannes Drungarios as compilers of catenæ to various Books of Scripture, and towards the end of the eleventh century Nicetas of Serræ, perhaps the best representative of Byzantine scholarship in this respect. Both before and after, however, the makers of catenæ were numerous in the Greek Orient, mostly anonymous, and offering no other indication of their personality than the manuscripts of their excerpts. Similar compilations were also made in the Syriac and Coptic Churches (Wright, de Lagarde, Martin, in Krumbacher, 216).

In the West, Primasius of Adrumentum in Africa (sixth century) compiled the first catena from Latin commentators. He was imitated by Rhabanus Maurus (d. 865), Paschasius Radbertus, and Walafrid Strabo, later by Remigius of Auxerre (d. 900), and by Lanfranc of Canterbury (d. 1089). The Western catenæ, it must be noted, have not the importance attached to the Greek compilations. The most famous of the medieval Latin compilations of this kind is that of St. Thomas Aquinas, generally known as the “Catena Aurea” (Golden Catena) and containing excerpts from some eighty Greek and Latin commentators on the Gospels (ed. J. Nicolai, Paris, 1869, 3 vols.). Since the sixteenth century much industry has been expended in collecting, collating, and editing these exegetical remains of the early Christian Fathers, fully one-half of whose commentaries, Faulhaber asserts (see bibliography), have reached us in this way. Among the modern editors of Greek catenæ much credit is due to the Jesuit Bartholomew Cordier, who published (1628–47) important collections of Greek patristic commentaries on St. John and St. Luke and, in conjunction with his confrère Possin, on St. Matthew; the latter scholar edited also (1673) similar collections of patristic excerpts on St. Mark and Job. The voluminous catenæ known as Biblia Magna (Paris, 1643) and Biblia Maxima (Paris, 1660), edited by J. de la Haye, were followed by the nine volumes of well-known “Critici Sacri, sive clarissimorum virorum annotationes atque tractatus in biblia” (edited by Pearson, London, 1660; Amsterdam, 1695–1701), containing selections, not only from Catholic but also from Protestant commentators. An important modern collection of the Greek catenæ on the New Testament is that of J. A. Cramer (Oxford, 1638–44). See also the twenty-eight volumes of the Migne commentary in his “Scripturæ sacræ cursus completus” (Paris, 1840–45).

Similar collections of Greek patristic utterances were constructed for dogmatic purposes. They were used at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, at the Fifth General Council in 533, also apropos of Iconoclasm in the Seventh General Council in 787; and among the Greeks such compilations, like the exegetical catenæ, did not cease until late in the Middle Ages. The oldest of these dogmatic compilations, attributed to the latter part of the seventh century, is the “Antiquorum Patrum doctrina de Verbi incarnatione” (edited by Cardinal Mai in Scriptor. Vet. nova collectio, Rome, 1833, VII, i, 1–73; cf. Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz, Leipzig, 1887). Finally, in response to homiletic and practical needs, there appeared, previous to the tenth century, a number of collections of moral sentences and parænetic fragments, partly from Scripture and partly from the more famous ecclesiastical writers; sometimes one writer (e.g. Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, especially St. John Chrysostom whom all the catenæ-makers pillage freely) furnishes the material. Such collections are not so numerous as the Scriptural or even the dogmatic catenæ. They seem all to depend on an ancient Christian “Florilegium” of the sixth century, that treated, in three books, of God, Man, the Virtues and Vices, and was known as tà ‘iepá (Sacred Things). Ere long its material was recast in strict alphabetical order; took the name of tà ‘iepá parállela, “Sacra Parallela” (because in the third book a virtue and a vice had been regularly opposed to one another); and was attributed widely to the great Greek theologian of the eighth century, St. John Damascene (Migne, P. G., XCV, 1040–1586; XCVI, 9–544), whose authority has lately been defended with much learning (against Loofs, Wendland, and Cohn) by K. Holl in the above-mentioned “Fragmente vornikänischer Kirchenväter” (Leipzig, 1899), though the Damascene probably based his work on the “Capita theologica” of Maximus Confessor. The text of these ancient compilations is often in a dubious state, the authors of most of them are unknown, and many are still unedited; one of the principal difficulties in their use is the uncertainty concerning the correctness of the names to which the excerpts are attributed. The carelessness of copyists, the use of “sigla,” contractions for proper names, and the frequency of transcription, led naturally to much confusion. For the Byzantine collections of ethical sentences and proverbs (Stobæus, Maximus Confessor, Antonius Melissa, Johannes Georgides, Macarius, Michael Apostolios) partly from Christian and partly from pagan sources, see Krumbacher, 600–4, also A. Elter, De Gnomologiorum Græcorum historii atque origine (Bonn, 1893).

The best modern treatise on the catenæ is that of EHRHARDT, in KRUMBACHER, Gesch. d. byzantinischen Literatur (2nd ed., Munich, 1897), 106- 18-bibliography and manuscript indications. Among the older works cf. ITTIG, De Catenis et bibliothecis (Leipzig, 1707), and FABRICIUS, Bibliotheca Græca, VIII, 639–700. A very full list of catenæ is given in HARNACK, Gesch. d. altchristlich. Literatur (Leipzig, 1893), I, 835–42. For the catenæ manuscripts in the Vatican, see PITRA, Analecta Sacra, II, 350, 359, 405, and FAULHABER, Die Proheten-Catenen nach den römischen Handschriften (Freiburg, 1899); Catholic University Bulletin (Washington, D. C., 1899), V, 368; (1900), VI, 94.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Cathari

(From the Greek katharos, pure), literally “puritans,” a name specifically applied to, or used by, several sects at various periods. The Novatians of the third century were frequently known as Cathari, and the term was also used by the Manichæans. In its more usual sense, Cathari was a general designation for the dualistic sects of the later Midde Ages. Numerous other names were in vogue to denominate these heretics. Without speaking of the corrupted forms of “Cazzari,” “Gazzari,” in Italy, and “Ketzer” in Germany, we find the following appellations: “Piphili,” “Piphles,” in Northern France and Flanders; “Arians,” “Manichæans,” and “Patareni,” owing to real or alleged doctrinal similarity; “Tesserants,” “Textores” (Weavers), from the trade which many of the members followed. Sometimes they were erroneously styled “Waldenses” by their contemporaries. From the demagogue Arnold of Brescia and the heretical bishop Robert de Sperone, they were called “Arnoldistæ” and “Speronistæ.” To their geographical distribution they owed the names of “Cathari of Desenzano” or “Albanenses” (from Desenzano, between Brescia and Verona, or from Alba in Piedmont, Albano, or perhaps from the provinces of Albania); “Bajolenses” or “Bagnolenses” (from Bagnolo in Italy); “Concorrezenses” (probably from Concorrezo in Lombardy); “Tolosani” (from Toulouse); and especially “Albigenses” (from Albi). The designations “Pauliciani,” of which “Publicani,” “Poplicani,” were probably corruptions, and “Bulgari,” “Bugri,” “Bougres,” point to their probable Oriental origin.

Among recent historians there is a pronounced tendency to look upon the Cathari as the lineal descendants of the Manichæans. The doctrine, organization, and liturgy of the former, in many points, reproduce the doctrine, organization, and liturgy of the early disciples of Manes. The successive appearance of the Priscillianists, the Paulicians, and the Bogomili, representatives to some extent of similar principles, fairly establishes the historical continuity between the two extreme links of the chain—the Manichæans of the third, and the Cathari of the eleventh, century. In the present state of our knowledge, however, conclusive proofs in favour of the genetical dependence of the Cathari on the Manichæans are lacking. Some differences between the two religious systems are too radical to find a sufficient explanation in the appeal to the evolution of human thought. Among the Cathari we look in vain for that astronomical mythology, that pagan symbolism, and the worship of the memory of Manes, which were important characteristics of Manichæism. However attractive it may be to trace the origin of the Cathari to the first centuries of Christianity, we must be cautious not to accept as a certain historical fact what, up to the present, is only a probable conclusion.

I. CATHARIST PRINCIPLES

The essential characteristic of the Catharist faith was Dualism, i.e. the belief in a good and an evil principle, of whom the former created the invisible and spiritual universe, while the latter was the author of the material world. A difference of opinion existed as to the nature of these two principles. Their perfect equality was admitted by the absolute Dualists, whereas in the mitigated form of Dualism the beneficent principle alone was eternal and supreme, the evil principle being inferior to him and a mere creature. In the the East and the West these two different interpretations of Dualism coexisted. The Bogomili in the East professed it in its modified form. In the West, the Albanenses in Italy and almost all the non-Italian Cathari were rigid Dualists; mitigated Dualism prevailed among the Bagnolenses and Concorrezenses, who were more numerous than the Albanenses in Italy, though but little represented abroad. (For an exposition of absolute Dualism, see ALBIGENSES; on the mitigated form, see BOGOMILI.) Not only were the Albanenses and Concorrezenses opposed to each other to the extent of indulging in mutual condemnations, but there was division among the Albanenses themselves. John of Lugio, or of Bergamo, introduced innovations into the traditional doctrinal system, which was defended by his (perhaps only spiritual) father Balasinansa, or Belesmagra, the Catharist Bishop of Verona. Towards the year 1230 John became the leader of a new party composed of the younger and more independent elements of the sect. In the two coeternal principles of good and evil he sees two contending gods, who limit each other’s liberty. Infinite perfection is no attribute even of the good principle; owing to the genius of evil infused into all its creatures, it can produce only imperfect beings. The Bagnolenses and Concorrezenses also differed on some doctrinal questions. The former maintained that human souls were created and had sinned before the world was formed. The Concorrezenses taught that Satan infused into the body of the first man, his handiwork, an angel who had been guilty of a slight transgression and from whom, by way of generation, all human souls are derived. The moral system, organization, and liturgy of absolute and mitigated Dualism exhibit no substantial difference, and have been treated in the article on the Albigenses.

II. HISTORY

FRANCE, BELGIUM AND SPAIN

Although there is no historical foundation for the legend that the Manichæan Fontanus, one of St. Augustine’s opponents, came to the castle of Montwimer (Montaimé in the Diocese of Châlons-sur-Marne) and there spread dualistic principles, yet Montwimer was perhaps the oldest Catharist centre in France and certainly the principal one in the country north of the Loire. It is in the central part of France that we come upon the first important manifestation of Catharism. At a council held in 1022 at Orléans in presence of King Robert the Pious, thirteen Cathari were condemned to be burned. Ten of these were canons of the church of the Holy Cross and another had been confessor to Queen Constance. About the same time (1025), heretics of similar tenets, who acknowledged that they were disciples of the Italian Gundulf, appeared at Liège and Arras. Upon their recantation, perhaps more apparent than real, they were left unmolested. The sectarians appeared again at Châlons under Bishop Roger II (1043–65), who in 1045 applied to his fellow-bishop, Wazo of Liège, for advice regarding their treatment. The latter advised indulgence. No manifestation of the heresy in North France is recorded during the second half of the eleventh century; its secret existence, however, cannot be doubted.

A new outbreak of the evil occurred in the twelfth century both in France and Belgium. In 1114 several heretics who had been captured in the Diocese of Soissons were seized and burned by the populace while their case was under discussion at the Council of Beauvais. Others were either threatened with, or actually met a similar fate at Liège in 1144; some of them were spared owing only to the energetic intervention of the local bishop, Adalbero II. During the rest of the twelfth century, Cathari appeared in rapid succession in different places. In 1162 Henry, Archbishop of Reims, while on a visit to Flanders, found them widely spread in that part of his ecclesiastical province. Upon his refusal of a bribe of six hundred marks, which they are said to have offered him for toleration, the heretics appealed to the pope, Alexander III, who was inclined to mercy in spite of King Louis VII’s advocacy of rigorous measures. At Vézelay in Burgundy seven heretics were burned in 1167. Towards the end of the century the Count of Flanders, Phililp I, was remarkable for his severity towards them, and the Archbishop of Reims, Guillaume de Champagne (1176–1202), vigorously seconded his efforts. Confiscation, exile, and death were the penalties inflicted upon them by Hugues, Bishop of Auxerre (1183–1206). The execution of about one hundred and eighty heretics at Montwimer in May, 1239, was the death-blow of Catharism in those countries. Southern France, where its adherents were known as Albigenses, was its principal stronghold in Western Europe. Thence the Cathari penetrated into the northern provinces of Spain: Catalonia, Aragon, Navarre, and Leon. Partisans of the heresy existed in the peninsula about 1159. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, King Pedro II of Aragon personally led his troops to the assistance of Raymond VI of Toulouse against the Catholic Crusaders, and fell at the battle of Muret in 1213. During that century a few sporadic manifestations of the heresy took place, at Castelbo in 1225 and again in 1234, at Leon in 1232. The Cathari however never gained a firm foothold in the country and are not mentioned after 1292.

ITALY

Upper Italy was, after Southern France, the principal seat of the heresy. Between 1030–1040 an important Catharist community was discovered at the castle of Monteforte near Asti in Piedmont. Some of the members were seized by the Bishop of Asti and a number of noblemen of the neighbourhood, and, on their refusal to retract, were burned. Others, by order of thc Archbishop of Milan, Eriberto, were brought to his archiepiscopal city, where he hoped to convert them. They answered his fruitless efforts by attempts to make proselytes; whereupon the civil magistrates gave them the choice between the Cross and the stake. For the most part, they preferred death to conversion. In the twelfth century, when, after prolonged silence, historical records again speak of Catharism, it exhibits itself as strongly organized. We find it very powerful in 1125 at Orvieto, a city of the Papal States, which, in spite of the stringent measures taken to suppress the heresy, was for many subsequent years deeply infected. Milan was the great heretical capital; but there was hardly a part of Italy where the heresy was not represented. It penetrated into Calabria, Sicily, and Sardinia, and appeared even in Rome. The prohibitions and penalties enacted by the civil and ecclesiastical rulers of the thirteenth century could not crush the evil, although the merciless Frederick II occupied the imperial throne and Popes Innocent III, Honorius III, and Gregory IX were not remiss in their efforts to suppress it. To prevent the enforcement of the punishment decreed against them, the members of the sect, on a few occasions, resorted to assassination, as is proved by the deaths of St. Peter Parenzo (1199) and St. Peter of Verona (1252); or, like Pungilovo, who after his death (1269) was temporarily honoured as a saint by the local Catholic population, they outwardly observed Catholic practices while remaining faithful Catharists. According to the Dominican inquisitor, Rainier Sacconi, himself a former adherent of the heresy, there were in the middle of the thirteenth century about 4000 perfected Cathari in the world. Of these there were in Lombardy and the Marches, 500 of the Albanensian sect, about 200 Bagnolenses, 1500 Concorrezenses, and 150 French refugees; at Vicenza 100, and as many at Florence and Spoleto. Although the increase in the number of “Believers” was very probably not proportionate to that of the “Perfecti,” in consequence of the arrival of refugees from France, yet the Cathari of the northern half of Italy formed at this time over three-fifths of the total membership. The heresy, however, could not hold its own during the second half of the thirteenth century, and although it continued in existence in the fourteenth, it gradually disappeared from the cities and took refuge in less accessible places. St. Vincent Ferrer still discovered and converted some Cathari in 1403 in Lombardy and also in Piedmont, where in 1412 several of them, already deceased, were executed in effigy. No definite reference to their existence is found at a subsequent date.

GERMANY AND ENGLAND

Catharism was comparatively unimportant in Germany and England. In Germany it appeared principally in the Rhine lands. Some members were apprehended in 1052 at Goslar in Hanover and hanged by order of the emperor, Henry III. About 1110 some heretics, probably Cathari, and among them two priests, appeared at Trier, but do not seem to have been subjected to any penalty. Some years later (c. 1143) Cathari were discovered at Cologne. Some of them retracted; but the bishop of the sect and his socius (companion), not so ready to change their faith, were cited before an ecclesiastico-lay tribunal. During the trial they were, against the will of the judges, carried off by the people and burned. The heretical Church must have been completely organized in this part of Germany, as the presence of the bishop seems to prove. To these events we owe the refutation of the heresy written by St. Bernard at the request of Everwin, Abbot of Steinfeld. In 1163 the Rhenish city witnessed another execution, and a similar scene was almost simultaneously enacted at Bonn. Other districts, Bavaria, Suabia, and Switzerland, were infected, but the heresy did not gain a firm foothold. It disappeared almost completely in the thirteenth century.

About 1159, thirty Cathari, German in race and speech, left an unknown place, perhaps Flanders, to seek refuge in England. Their proselytizing efforts were rewarded by the temporary conversion of one woman. They were detected in 1166 and handed over to the secular power by the bishops of the Council of Oxford. Henry II ordered them to be scourged, branded on the forehead, and cast adrift in the cold of winter, and forbade any of his subjects to shelter or succour them. They all perished from hunger or exposure.

THE BALKAN STATES

Eastern Europe seems to have been, in point of date, the first country in which Catharism manifested itself, and it certainly was the last to be freed from it. The Bogomili, who were representatives of the heresy in its milder dualistic form, perhaps existed as early as the tenth century and, at a later date, were found in large numbers in Bulgaria. Bosnia was another Catharist centre. Some recent writers make no distinction between the heretics found there and the Bogomili, whereas others rank them with the rigid Dualists. In the Western contemporary documents they are usually called “Patareni,” the designation then applied to the Cathari in Italy. At the end of the twelfth century, Kulin, the ban or civil ruler of Bosnia (1168–1204) embraced the heresy, and 10,000 of his subjects followed his example. The efforts made on the Catholic side, under the direction of Popes Innocent III, Honorius III, and Gregory IX, to eradicate the evil, were not productive of any permanent success. Noble work was accomplished by Franciscan missionaires sent to Bosnia by Pope Nicholas IV (1288–92). But though arms and persuasion were used against the heresy, it continued to flourish. As the country was for a long time a Hungarian dependency, Hungary was conspicuous in its resistance to the new faith. This situation developed into a source of weakness on the Catholic side, as the Cathari identified their religious cause with that of national independence. When, in the fifteenth century, the Bosnian king, Thomas, was converted to the Catholic Faith, the severe edicts which he issued against his former coreligionists were powerless against the evil. The Cathari, 40,000 in number, left Bosnia and passed into Herzegovina (1446). The heresy disappeared only after the conquest of these provinces by the Turks in the second half of the fifteenth century. Several thousand of its members joined the Orthodox Church, while many more embraced Islam.

III. THE CATHARI AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The Catharist system was a simultaneous attack on the Catholic Church and the then existing State. The Church was directly assailed in its doctrine and hierarchy. The denial of the value of oaths, and the suppression, at least in theory, of the right to punish, undermined the basis of the Christian State. But the worst danger was that the triumph of the heretical principles meant the extinction of the human race. This annihilation was the direct consequence of the Catharist doctrine, that all intercourse between the sexes ought to be avoided and that suicide or the Endura, under certain circumstances, is not only lawful but commendable. The assertion of some writers, like Charles Molinier, that Catholic and Catharist teaching respecting marriage are identical, is an erroneous interpretation of Catholic doctrine and pratice. Among Catholics, the priest is forbidden to marry, but the faithful can merit eternal happiness in the married state. For the Cathari, no salvation was possible without previous renunciation of marriage. Mr. H.C. Lea, who cannot be suspected of partiality towards the Catholic Church, writes: “However much we may deprecate the means used for its (Catharism) suppression and commiserate those who suffered for conscience’ sake, we cannot but admit that the cause of orthodoxy was in this case the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to prove disastrous.” (See Lea, Inquisition, I, 106.)

Eberhard of Béthune, Antihaeresis, in Biblioth. Max. Patr. XXIV, 1525–84; St. Bernard, Sermones in Cantica, in P.L., CLXXXIII, 1088–1102; Ber. Guidonis, Practica Inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis, ed. Douais (Paris, 1886); Bonacursus, Vita haereticorum, in P.L., CCIV, 775–92; Moneta, Adv. Catharos et Waldenses, ed. Ricchini (Rome, 1743); Rainier Sacconi, Summa de Catharistis et Leonistis, in Martène and Durand, Thesaurus nov. Anecdot. (Paris, 1717), V; Ecbert of Schönau, Sermones contra Catharos, in P.L., CVC, 11–98; Fredericq, Corpus documentorum Inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis Neerlandicae (Ghent, 1889, sqq.); Döllinger, Beiträge zur Sektengesch. des M. A. (Munich, 1890); Schmidt, Histoire et doct. de la secte des Cathares (Paris, 1849); Douais, Les Albigeois (Paris, 1879); Lea, Inquisition of the Middle Ages (New York, s.d.), I, 89–208, 563–83; II, 290–315, 569–87, and passim; Tanon, Tribunaux de l’inquisition en France (Paris, 1893); Alphandéry, Les idées morales chez les hétérodoxes latins au début du XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1903), 34–99; Guiraud, Questions d’hist. (Paris, 1906), 1–149; Palmieri, Les Bogomiles en Bosnie-Herzég. in Dict. théol. cath. (Paris, 1905), II, 1042–45; Vacandard, L’inquisition (Paris, 1907), 81–123 and passim; Davison, Some Forerunners of St. Francis of Assisi (s.C. 1907), 16 sqq.; Molinier, L’Eglise et la société Cathares, in Rev. hist., XCIV, 225 sqq. (1907), and XCV, 1–22, 263–94 (1907). For further bibliographical indications see Molinier, Sources de l’histoire de France (Paris, 1903), Part I, III, 54–77.

N.A. WEBER

Cathedra

(1) The chair or throne (thronos) of a bishop in his cathedral church, on which he presides at solemn functions. Originally the bishop’s cathedra stood in the center of the apse, flanked on either side, though on a lower plane, by the benches of the assisting priests. A good idea of the arrangement may be had from the catacomb frescoes representing Christ seated on a throne surrounded by the apostles, whom He is instructing in their future duties, and in the fourth century mosaic in the apse of St. Pudenziana. The earliest type of bishop’s throne consisted of a high-backed armchair, rounded at the top, made out of a single block of marble. The stone seats in the Roman catacombs of similar form were probably used by the bishop in the occasional services of the subterranean chapels. Wooden episcopal chairs were in use in Africa. The marble chair supporting the famous statue of St. Hippolytus (third century) is an excellent example of an ancient cathedra; the back has less than half the elevation of the thrones of the fourth and fifth centuries. In several Roman basilicas e.g. St. Petronilla, St. Bablina, and Sts. Nereus and Achilleus, a niche for the bishop’s cathedra was constructed in the wall of the apse, but this arrangement was exceptional. An example of a cathedra with a perforated seat, like those used in the Roman baths, is preserved at Monte Cassino. The form and decoration of the most ancient of episcopal cathedrae were borrowed from paganism; one side of the chair of St. Hippolytus, however, is engraved with the saint’s computation of the paschal cycle from the year 222 to 334. During the early centuries of Christianity it was customary for the bishop to deliver his sermon or homily while seated in his chair facing the congregation, but in the great basilicas of the Constantinian era, as well as subsequently, this arrangement became impracticable; it would have been extremely difficult in a large church to be heard from this location, particularly in a church where the altar was surmounted by a ciborium. St. John Chrysostom was accustomed to address his great audience from the better-adapted lector’s ambon in front of the altar. It appears probable also that in some instances the episcopal cathedra was moveable, and thus could be placed near the chancel while the bishop addressed the congregation. This inference is suggested by the famous chair of Bishop Maximianus at Ravenna, the back of which, as well as the sides, contains sculptured ornamentation; if the chair was to remain stationary against the wall of the apse, the adornment of the back would have been superfluous. In a church ornamented with an iconostasis, a moveable episcopal chair became especially necessary if the bishop wished to preach from his throne, for otherwise he would be almost wholly shut out from view of the congregation. The two most famous ancient cathedrae still preserved are the chair of Maximianus mentioned above, and the chair of St. Peter. The latter, a moveable chair, stood in the time of Ennodius of Pavia (d.521), who alludes to it, in the baptistery of St. Peter’s. During the pontificate of Alexander VII (1655–1667) it was encased in the bronze throne in the apse of the new St. Peter’s, where it remained invisible till 1867. It was then, on the occasion of the eighteenth centenary of the martyrdoms of Sts. Peter and Paul, by order of Pius IX, removed from its bronze enclosure and exposed to the gaze of the faithful. De Rossi took advantage of the moment, and gave a description of the chair in his “Bullettino” (1867, 33 sqq.). The oak framework, in which four large rings are fastened, is regarded as of much greater antiquity than the other parts of the cathedra; the presence of the rings suggests the inference that originally the chair was one of the “sedes gestatoriae,” which came into fashion in the reign of Claudius (41–54). The wear and tear of time, and the zeal of the relic-hunter, made extensive repairs necessary at a later period, perhaps in the reign of Charlemagne. The oak frame was reinforced by the insertion of pieces of acacia, and new panels of the same wood were made for the front and sides. The front panel is adorned with square slabs of ivory, disposed in three rows of six each, representing the labors of Hercules. Some of these slabs are placed upside down and were not, apparently, made for the places they occupy. The ivory ornaments of the back, on the contrary, are well adapted to the form of the chair; they represent the combats of animals, of centaurs and of men. In the center of the horizontal bar of the tympanum is the figure of an emperor, between two angels, variously supposed to represent Charlemagne, Charles the Bald, or an emperor of the seventeenth century. The ivories of the front panel are attributed to .the fifth century. The beautiful ivory chair of Bishop Maximianus (so called from the monogram in front, “Maximianus ep.”) preserved in the sacristy of the cathedral at Ravenna is an excellent specimen of fifth- or sixth-century ivory carving. Until recentl y it was attributed to the pontificate of Bishop Maximianus of Ravenna (d. 556), but Venturi (Storia dell’ Arte Ital., I, 466) attributes it rather to Maximianus of Constantinople (d. 431). The back is engraved with twenty four scenes from the life of Christ and the Blessed Virgin, the front represents St. John the Baptist with the four Evangelists, while on the sides the story of Joseph, in ten scenes, is depicted. Occasionally, the cathedra was covered by a baldachino, e.g. at Torcello and Grado. The marble cathedra of St. Mark, in his church at Venice, is of great antiquity (Secchi, La catedra di San Marco, Venice, 1835).

(2) The term cathedra was applied also to the see of a bishop. The earliest use of the word in this sense occurs in Tertullian, who speaks (De praescriptione, XXXVI) of “cathedrae Apostolorum” in allusion to Apostolic succession in episcopal sees. In the councils and ecclesiastical writings of the early Middle Ages such expressions as “cathedrae viduatae,” “cathedrae principales,” “cathedrae matrices” have a similar signification. For the feast of the “chair” or “cathedra” of St. Peter at Rome and at Antioch, see CHAIR OF PETER.

(3) Canon 41 of the Council of Aachen, held in 789, refers to the cathedral church as distinguished from other churches of a diocese as “principalis cathedrae”; the term for the official seat of the bishop is thus employed for the bishop’s church. By a definition “ex cathedra” is meant a formal infallible decision of the pope, obligatory on all the faithful. See also, FALDSTOOL.

Haddan, in dictionary of Christian Antiquities, s. v. (London, 1875); I: Lowrie, Monuments of the Early Church, (New York, 1901); Venturi, Storia dell’ Arte Italiana (Milan, 1901); Kraus, Gesch. der christl. Kunst (Freiburg, 1896); Kaufmann, Christl. Archäologie (Paderborn, 1905); de Fleury, La Messe, II, 147 sqq.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Cathedral

The chief church of a diocese, in which the bishop has his throne and close to which is his residence; it is, properly speaking, the bishop’s church, wherein he presides, teaches, and conducts worship for the whole Christian community. The word is derived from the Greek kathedra through the Latin cathedra, throne, elevated seat. In early ecclesiastical literature it always conveyed the idea of authority. Christ Himself spoke of the scribes and Pharisees as seated on the chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2), and it suffices to recall the two feasts of the Chair of St. Peter (at Antioch and Rome) to show that, in the language of the Fathers as well as among the monuments of antiquity, the cathedra was the principal symbol of authority. (Martigny, Dict. des antiq. chrét., Paris, 1877, s.v. Chaire) In the Latin Church the official name is ecclesia cathedralis; nevertheless, this expression is not wholly identical with that of ecclesia episcopalis, also an official title, which indicates the church of one who is only a bishop, while the churches of the higher-ranking prelates take their names from the dignity of their incumbents; ecclesiae archiepiscopalis, metropolitanae, primatialis, patriarchalis. In the East the word cathedral does not exist, the episcopal church being known simply as “the church” or “the great church.” (L. Clugnet, Dictionnaire grec-français des noms liturgiques en usage dans l’Eglise-grecque, Paris, 1895, s.v. Ekklesia). What seems to predominate is the name of the city; at the consecration of a bishop it is simply said that he is destined for the church of God in a given city. In popular usage the cathedral is variously named. In France, England, and English-speaking countries the word cathedral is general; occasionally it gives way to the expression, metropolitan church (la metropole). In Lyons it is known as the primatial church, in reference to the special dignity of the archbishop. In Spain it is called la seo or la seu (the see). In one instance the city itself is thus known, Urgel being called la seo d’Urgel or simply la seo. In Italy the cathedral is called il duomo, and in some parts of Germany, especially in the ecclesiastical province of Cologne, der Dom (whence the German term Domherr, canon), the episcopal church being looked on as preeminently the house of god or of the saint of whom it was named (DuCange, Glossar., med. et inf. latin., s.v.v. Ecclesia, domo, and domus). At Strasburg and elsewhere in Germany the cathedral is called Münster (monasterium), because some cathedrals were served by monks, or, rather, were the abode of canons living in community, the church being thus converted into a sort of monastery, especially where the reform of St. Chrodegang (d. 766) had been adopted. (DuCange, Glossar., s.v. Monasterium). Medieval documents and writers offer other names for the cathedral church. The following are found in the above mentioned work of Du Cange (s.v. Ecclesia): ecclesia major, ecclesia mater, ecclesia principalis, ecclesia senior, more frequently ecclesia matrix. The last appellation was current in Northern Africa (Fulgentius Ferrandus, Breviatio canonum, nos. 11. 17, 38, in Migne, P. L., LXVII, 950) and has been consecrated y the canon law; Innocent III says quite explicitly (e. Venerabili, 12, de verb. signif.): Per matricem ecclesiam cathedralem intelligi volumus.

Hence the juridical character or standing of the cathedral does not depend on the form, dimensions, or magnificence of the edifice, since, without undergoing any change a church may become a cathedral, especially when a new diocese is founded. What properly constitutes a cathedral is its assignment by competent authority as the residence of the bishop in his hierarchical capacity, and the principal church of a diocese is naturally best adapted to this purpose. Such official designation is known as canonical erection and necessarily accompanies the formation of a new diocese. At present, and for a long time past, new dioceses are formed by a division (dismembratio) of older ones. Erection and division being what are known in canon law as important affairs (causae majores) are reserved to the sovereign pontiff, and the erection of cathedrals likewise belongs to him. Very often the Apostolic Letters by which a new diocese is created expressly designate the cathedral church; again, however (and such is usual in the United States), the episcopal city being named the bishop is left free to select his church (III Conc. Balt., n.35). The transfer of a cathedral can occur in two ways:

First, the episcopal residence may be moved from one city to another within the same diocese, in which event the cathedral also would have to be changed; such a transfer would require the intervention of the Holy See, since it created the diocese and assigned the bishop to his first residence.

Second, the cathedral may be transferred from one church to another within the same city, either to a church already in use or to one built specially for the purpose. As the mere act of rebuilding does not necessitate the removal to another city and hence a change of episcopal title, this second kind of transfer requires no papal authorization. The consent of the bishop and the clergy of the cathedral would therefore regularly suffice, presupposing, of course, reasonable motives, e.g. inadequate size of the church, unhealthy or inconvenient location, etc.(Pollottini, Collect. resolut. S. Cong. Conc., s.v. Ecclesia Cathedralis, II, n. 1 sq).

In both of the above methods it is necessary to transfer with the cathedral all that is characteristic of it or essential to it as such: first the name and pre-eminence of cathedral, then the chapter and clergy, and finally the title in all movables and real estate, except what belongs to the former cathedral in its capacity of parish church. The suppression of a cathedral follows that of a diocese—just as its establishment follows the creation of a diocese—but does not do away with the church itself as a place of worship. Ecclesiastical law, based on the constitution of the Church, provides that there shall be but one bishop of each diocese. The bishop, of course, is at home in all the churches of his diocese, and in any or all of them he is at liberty to erect a temporary throne or seat (cathedra) symbolic of his episcopal jurisdiction, but there is only one cathedral. This unity of residence is implied by the unity of headship and direction, and canonists add that the unity of the mystical marriage of the bishop with his church signifies the unity of his spiritual spouse. To this rule of residence there are two so-called exceptions.

The first deals with two or even three dioceses united aeque principaliter, i.e. without forfeiting their existence or rights as dioceses, and yet having but one bishop. Such cases are not uncommon in Italy, e.g. the three united Dioceses of Terracina, Sezze, and Piperno. This combining of dioceses was authorized by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, c. XIII, de ref.) to meet the insufficiency of resources in certain cases. But while in this case the same bishop has several cathedrals, yet there is but one in each diocese. The following passage relative to a seminary in the Diocese of Piperno clearly establishes the legitimate existence of these cathedrals of united dioceses (Privernen., Aperitionis seminarii, 16 March, 1771, in Pallottini, loc cit., n. 17,18): “The union of an equal level of dignity does not affect the internal status of the dioceses so united; each continues to hold its rights, privileges, etc., as before. The union is really only a personal one, inasmuch as henceforth one bishop is charged with the government of all the sees thus united.”

The second apparent exception is in regard to ancient churches which, for one reason or another, have ceased to be cathedrals, yet preserve their ancient title, retain a certain degree of pre-eminence, and occasionally enjoy some honorary privileges. One of the oldest examples is that of the ancient cathedral on Mount Sion in Jerusalem, which ceased to be a cathedral when the bishop’s see was transferred to the great Constantinian church erected on Calvary (Duchesne, Christian Worship, tr. London, 1903, 491–92). Sometimes an episcopal see was transferred to another city of the diocese without losing its first title: thus the see Perpignan still preserves the ancient title of the city of Elne. Several of the ancient French episcopal titles, suppressed by the concordat of 1801 and never reestablished, have been revived in memory of the past and added to the titles of existing sees; thus the Archdiocese of Aix carries with it the titles of the suppressed dioceses of Arles and Embrun. But such honorary survivals of ancient cathedrals in no wise conflict with the unity of the real cathedral.

Formerly a solemn consecration or dedication was requisite to set apart churches for purposes of worship. But for many centuries it has sufficed, at least for churches of minor importance, that they be blessed according to the form provided in the Ritual. The obligation, however, of consecrating cathedrals has always been maintained in the liturgical books of the Roman Church, and was formerly renewed for the ecclesiastical province of Rome by the Roman provincial council of 1725 under Benedict XIII (tit. XXV, c, 1). moreover, the Congregation of Sacred Rites acknowledged this as a general law when (7 August, 1875) it replied as follows to the bishop of Cuneo in Piedmont: “Incumbere debent episcopi ut ecclesiae saltem cathedrales et parochialis solemnitur consecrenter” (Cuneen., ad I; n. 3364)—i.e. the bishops should see to it that at least the cathedral and the parish churches (strictly so-called) be consecrated. This is all the more imperative for the cathedral because the anniversary of its dedication must be celebrated by all the clergy of the diocese. Canon law does not specify the form and dimensions of the cathedral; nevertheless, it supposes the edifice sufficiently spacious to accommodate a large assemblage of the faithful on the occasion of elaborate pontifical ceremonies. If possible, the choir, sanctuary, and nave should be of suitable proportions, and besides the altar and general equipment necessary in other churches, the cathedral should have a permanent episcopal seat. The word cathedra, so expressive in the language of antiquity, has gradually been replaced in liturgical usage, by throne (thronus) or seat (sedes). According to the “Caeremoniale Episcoporum” (I, c. xiii) the throne should be a fixture and placed either at the extreme end of the apse—when, as in the ancient basilicas, the altar is in the middle of the church and the celebrant faces the people—or else to the front of the altar on the Gospel side, when the altar is placed, as is usual, against the rear wall and the celebrant turns his back to the people. In either case the throne should have an approach of three steps and be surmounted by a canopy as a sign of honor. When the bishop pontificates, the steps of the throne should be carpeted and both the throne proper and the canopy be decorated with costly materials. The thronos of the Greek bishop is the same, except that its very high back is surmounted by an icon, or sacred image. The cathedral should also have its baptismal fonts (q.v.). Finally, not only should it have an ample supply of the sacerdotal vestments and sacred vessels required in all churches, but also of the vestments and pontifical insignia used by the bishop in solemn ceremonies.

As personnel or staff, ecclesiastical law requires that a cathedral should have a chapter (q.v.), taking the place of the ancient presbyterium and constituting, as it were, the senate of the church and the bishop’s council. The chief obligation of the chapter is daily to celebrate the Divine Office and Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the name of the entire Christian community. Its members, dignitaries, and canons escort and assist the bishop when he pontificates; even when he merely presides at the services they form an entourage of honor for him. In the United States there are no chapters, properly so called, these being replaced to a certain extent by “consultors” (III Conc. Balt., passim). The solemnity of the ceremonies also calls for a greater or lesser number of ecclesiastics of lower rank; there exists, however, no definite legislation on this head. It is sometimes asked whether the cathedral can be a parish church. As the bishop is unquestionably the first pastor of the diocese he might, in a certain sense, be said to be its first parish priest, were it not that this title implies jurisdiction of an inferior kind and confined to a portion of the diocesan territory. Moreover, the bishop does not personally and immediately exercise the duties of the parochial cure of souls (cura animarum). Originally, the cathedral was the only parish church for the entire diocese, and later, after the establishment of rural parishes, for the episcopal city. In Christian antiquity it was only in large cities like Rome that certain ministerial functions were habitually discharged in presbyterial churches; these tituli, or titles, however, were always dependent on the bishop (see Parish, Cardinal). But, in a general way, the division of cities into distinct and individual parishes does not date beyond the eleventh century (M. Lupi, De parochis ante annum millesimum, 1788). Once this division was made it was quite natural that the cathedral should retain as parish territory the district immediately surrounding it. Indeed, there are very few cathedrals that are not at the same time parish churches, although in this regard the law prescribes nothing. The cure of souls does not, then, devolve on the bishop, but on the chapter, which exercises it through a vicar chosen either from its own number or from outside. A chapel in the cathedral church is frequently set aside for parochial ministrations, this custom being very general in Spain and Italy. But the ancient Christian discipline has not entirely disappeared, and it is interesting to observe how, in many places, certain ceremonies are reserved to the cathedral, especially the administration of baptism. In Florence, Sienna, Pisa, and other cities, the parish churches have no baptismal fonts, and all children, unless in urgent cases, must be baptized in the cathedral, or, rather, in the baptistery. It is to be noted that the revenues, accounts, and administration of the cathedral parish are entirely distinct from those of the cathedral as such. As the principal church of the diocese—no matter what their privileges in other respects—even over those they may have received from Rome the title of minor basilica; hence it is that the clergy of the cathedral church when walking in large processions take precedence over those of all the other churches of the city and diocese, collegiate churches included.

Canonists compare to a spiritual marriage the union of a bishop with his church, and although this expression may be truer with respect to the church as understood in the moral sense than to the cathedral, it is nevertheless not inappropriate. They say that the bishop should love his cathedral , adorn and embellish it, and never neglect it. Metaphors apart, the bishop receives his cathedral as his “title” (titulus) or right; he is its governor (rector) and its head. He should take possession of it by a solemn entrance into his episcopal city and by the ceremony of enthronement (inthronisatio) as prescribed in the Roman Pontifical and the “Caeremoniale Episcoporum,” (I, c. ii) in so far, at least, as custom will permit. Except when the visitation of his diocese or some other just cause necessitates his absence, he should reside near his cathedral, attend services there, pontificate (i.e. perform the more solemn services) on the days specified in the above-mentioned “Caeremoniale Episcoporum,” preach and teach Divine truth, and find there a last resting-place. Theoretically, the diocesan clergy are the clergy of the cathedral delegated by the bishop to minister in his stead to the distant members of his flock. Hence the clergy of the diocese should feel at home in their cathedral and in its sanctuary find by right their place whenever occasion arises. There is much, indeed, to bind the diocesan clergy to their mother church, since it is there that the general ordinations regularly take place, that by Tridentine law the theologalis should expound the Holy Scripture for the benefit of all the clergy (Conc. Trid., Sess. V, c. i, de ref), and that the seminarians participate in the services of the Church feasts and learn the ecclesiastical ceremonies (Sess. XXIII, c. xviii, de ref). In order that all the clergy may, in a way, belong to the cathedral, the obligation is imposed upon them of celebrating the two feasts proper to the cathedral, it’s patronal feast and the anniversary of its dedication, just as they would observe these feasts in their own particular churches. The patronal feast of the cathedral, i.e. the commemoration of the religious mystery or the saint fir whom it has been named—or indeed of its two patrons, if it have two, aeque principales—must duly solemnized as a first-class double with octave, the regular cle rgy only being dispensed from the octave. Although the observance of the anniversary of the dedication is also of obligation for all the clergy, there is this difference: the priests of the episcopal city celebrate it as a second-class double with octave, while only those regulars who reside in the episcopal city are obliged to celebrate it, and they observe it as a second-class double without octave (General Decree of 9, July, 1895, in Decret. authent. S. Cong. Rit., n. 3863)

A cathedral cannot subsist without resources, I.e. without temporal possessions. Canonically speaking, these are provided by the establishment of a fund (dotatio) for the support of the cathedral. Strictly speaking, the latter should not be established unless sufficient resources are assured for the performance of Divine worship and the maintenance of the cathedral clergy (III, tit. 48, de eccles. aedificandis vel reparandis). The same law applies to all other churches. In the thirteenth century, when the decretal legislation arose, the endowment of a church, benefice, or monastery was not conceivable except by an allotment of land, whose fruits or revenues constituted the necessary means of support for the institution or persons in question. To-day such endowment, when not maintained by the State or municipality, is in the form of personal estate and is seldom adequate, so that both cathedral and parochial churches depend largely on the annual contributions of the faithful. The repair, renovation, and rebuilding of cathedrals are the object of many decisions of the Sacred Congregation of the Council. The cathedral property either belongs to the Church in full right or is claimed by the State, the municipality, etc. In the first case the cost of the repairs falls principally on the bishop, but not on him alone. First, the income of the fabrica, i.e. the funds destined to the support of the edifice, like the Fabbrica of St. Peter’s or the Opera at Siena and elsewhere, is used to defray these expenses; second, the episcopal revenue properly speaking (mensa episcopalis) is drawn upon, i.e. when it is large enough to suffer a drain without undue inconvenience to the bishop; third, the canons and other beneficed ecclesiastics of the cathedral are assessed proportionately to the amount of their income; an assessment may then be levied upon the diocesan clergy, and finally an ecclesiastical tax may be imposed upon the faithful. When these different means are either impractical or insufficient, foundations for Masses may be temporarily suspended (Pallottini, op. cit., I, per totum; Benedict XIV, Inst. eccl., C.). The aforesaid measures, however, suppose an organization of ecclesiastical benefices which are now about extinct; at present the practical method is an appeal to the generosity of the clergy and the faithful. It may be, however, that the cathedral is held to be property of the State or city, in which case, if either has pledged itself to care for the building, the responsibility of the bishop or clergy ensues only in default of the former (Permaneder-Riedl, Die kirchliche Baulast, Munich, 1890). The question sometimes arises as to whether the bishop has any claim upon the temporal possessions of the cathedral. According to the letter of the law, provision should be made for the personal support of the bishop, at the same time that it is made for the revenue of the cathedral; this endowment of the episcopal office (mensa episcopalis) should be totally distinct from the endowment of the cathedral; in this event, the bishop should come to the assistance of his cathedral rather than take from its income. Like the cathedral clergy, however, the bishop can with all propriety claim the adventitious revenues of foundations in proportion as he discharges the duties involved. But there are many countries in which the system of ecclesiastical benefices does not exist. In such countries the Apostolic Letters that create the diocese assign the bishop a suitable support (cathedraticum) instead of the canonical revenue. In the collection of this cathedraticum the bishop may assess the cathedral for as much as (even more than) he asks from the other churches of the diocese. He may even consider himself the real pastor of his cathedral church and apply to himself the diocesan rule whereby a pastor is assigned an appropriate salary out of the income of his church.

Finally, as regards the temporal administration of the cathedral, local customs, quite variable, as a rule, are to be duly considered. It will suffice if we mention here the common ecclesiastical law according to which the administration of the cathedral belongs conjointly to the bishop and the chapter. It is not only the bishop’s right and duty to control the administration of the cathedral by exacting financial reports, as in the case of all the churches and ecclesiastical institutions of the diocese; in the administration of the cathedral he participates personally and intervenes directly. He assists either in person or by his vicar-general at the deliberations of the chapter or administrative council, whatever its name and composition, being rightfully its first member and president, and he alone is qualified to sanction measures for the use of the funds and revenues of all kinds belonging to the cathedral. See: Bishop; Diocese; Cathedraticum; Buildings, Ecclesiastical; Canon.

Mich. Ant. Frances, De ecclesiis cathedralibus eorumque privilegis et praerogativis (Lyons, 1668); The Canonists, in tit., De ecclesiis aedificandis et reparandis, lib. III, tit. 48; Decreta authentica S. C. Rituum (Rome, 1901), s.vv. Ecclesia, Cathedralis Ecclesia, Episcopus; Taunton, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), 134; E.W. Benson (Anglican), The Cathedral, (London, 1878)

A. BOUDINHON

Cathedraticum

(Lat. cathedra, episcopal seat or throne).

A certain sum of money to be contributed annually for the support of the bishop, as a mark of honour and in sign of subjection to the cathedral church, hence its name. In the early ages of the Church, contributions for the support of the bishop were tendered rather through custom than by law. The earliest legislation on the subject seems to be a canon of the Second Council of Braga (572). According to the decree of this council, only parish churches and chapters were obliged to pay the cathedraticum (Can. Placuit, 10, qu. 3). The reason given for this limitation is that at the time of the Council of Braga the sacraments were administered to the faithful in parochial churches only. When in the course of time, many other ecclesiastical edifices were built and endowed, it was judged proper that these also should pay the cathedraticum. Hence Pope Honorius III made a universal law (cap. Conquerente, de Off. Ordin.) that not only chapters and parish churches, but also endowed chapels and benefices should be subject to the same tax (Rota coram Tan. decis, 228). This sum was to be paid to the bishop on the occasion of his annual visitation of his diocese. The amount of the cathedraticum was fixed in ancient times at two solidi; a solidus was one seventy-second part of a pound of gold. According to canonists, this remains the obligatory amount of the tax, unless custom establishes a different sum. If a smaller amount than the original tax becomes customary in a diocese, the bishop must be content with this reduced pension, nor can he command a return to the higher sum (S. C. C. in Amalph., 1705). In general it is presumed that the quantity of the cathedraticum will be determined by reasonable custom according to the exigencies of various dioceses and countries. Where custom has not fixed the sum, the S. Congregation of the Council declared that either the amount paid by a neighbouring diocese or the equivalent of the original two solidi must be taken as the proper tax (In Albin., 1644).

The regular clergy are not obliged to pay the cathedraticum for their monasteries and conventual churches, as is expressly stated in the “Corpus Juris” (cap. Inter cætera, viii, caus. 10). The reason is found in the very idea of the cathedraticum, which is given by a church or benefice in sign of subjection to the jurisdiction of the bishop. As exempt regulars are immediately subject to the Holy See, there is no obligation on them to pay the cathedraticum. In the case, however, that regulars administer parish churches or secular benefices, they are subject to the tax, inasmuch as such institutions fall under diocesan law. It has also been declared that confraternities which have no churches in the strict sense of the word, but only chapels, are exempt from this episcopal tax (“In Firmana, Cathedr.”). As the cathedraticum pertains to episcopal rights, it is privileged and consequently no prescription can totally abrogate it. This is expressly declared by the S. Congregation of the Council (In Amalph., 1707), when it decrees that no contrary custom, even of immemorial antiquity, can exempt from the payment of this tax. It is also to be noted that, according to the common law, the cathedraticum is to be uniform for all institutions in a diocese, without regard to the opulence or poverty of the benefices.

Owing to the phraseology of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, cap. ii), a controversy arose as to whether this council had abrogated the cathedraticum. The S. Congregation of the Council gave the following interpretation: “The Council did not abolish the cathedraticum; but desired that it be paid, not at the time of the episcopal visitation, but rather at the diocesan synod.” It is owing to the custom of paying this tax at the synod that the name synodaticum has been given to it. By law, however, there is, strictly speaking, no fixed time for making this payment. For although as a rule it is customary to do so in the synod, yet custom or agreement can place it at another time. In fact the S. Congregation of the Council has declared that the cathedraticum must be paid, even in those years in which no diocesan synod is celebrated (In Perus., Cathedr., 1735). As the cathedraticum is a mark of subjection to the cathedral church, the bishop cannot exempt any benefice from this tax. On the other hand he cannot demand it from clerics or priests who have no benefices, even though he plead ancient custom to the contrary (S. C. Ep. In Compsan., 1694). He can require it, however, from the diocesan seminary if benefices have been incorporated with it. In like manner he can demand the cathedraticum from monasteries with which secular churches and benefices have been united. An exception to this law was made, however, for the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in 1630.

All this concerns the laws on the cathedraticum where the Church is canonically established. Obviously, in so-called missionary countries, where benefices are practically unknown, such laws cannot apply. As, however, it is only equitable that the diocese should support its bishop, especially as he has no episcopal benefice, a pension which retains the canonical name of cathedraticum is usually paid to the bishop in most missionary countries. There is no uniform law on the subject. The question necessarily occupied the attention of various synods and the conclusion was unanimous that a tax analogous to the cathedraticum should be imposed on dioceses for the support of their bishops. Thus the Eighth Provincial Council of Baltimore (see ), held in 1855, declares in its seventh decree: “As it is just that the bishop who watches over the salvation of all, should receive from all the faithful of the diocese whatever is necessary for his proper support and for enabling him to execute his office, we decree that he may demand for this purpose a part of the revenues of all churches in which the care of souls is exercised.” The Cardinal Prefect of the Propaganda, writing to the bishops of the Province of Cincinnati in 1857, says: “The right of the bishop to receive support from his diocese has been recognized; nevertheless, the application and determination of the means of support can best be treated of in diocesan synods, because cognizance can then be taken of the state and condition of each diocese.” The Provincial Council of New Orleans in 1856 calls this subsidy the “right of cathedraticum, either to sustain the bishop or to provide for various necessities of the diocese.” It states that each bishop of the province should determine the amount in a diocesan synod. In Canada, the Provincial Council of Halifax in 1857 declares: “As the bishop is constituted not for one part but for all parts of his diocese, and as he labours and watches for all alike, all are obliged to contribute for his proper sustenance.” The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1866, likewise states that “it is evidently equitable and just that all the faithful of each diocese should contribute to the support of their bishop, who bears the solicitude for all.”

As to the determination of the quantity of the cathedraticum, we find the First Provincial Council of Cincinnati requesting Propaganda to sanction some uniform method, but the latter preferred to commit this to the diocesan synods. In the acts of the First Provincial Council of Quebec in 1851, we fine the following scheme “proposed” to Propaganda. It is there said to be similar to that already sanctioned for some bishops in Canada and Ireland: each bishop is to receive a third of the revenues of one or two parishes; or the fourth or fifth part of three or four parishes; or the tenth part of practically all the parishes in his diocese, having regard to the circumstances of each parish. Propaganda sanctioned the employment of the last-named provision in 1852. In the Province of Halifax, Canada, it was decreed in 1857 that a collection be taken up annually in October for the support of the bishops. In England, the Third Provincial Council of Westminster in 1859 placed the amount of the cathedraticum at one half pound sterling. It declared that the liability to pay this tax was obligatory on each cathedral chapter; on priests ordained for the mission, who receive salaries from churches or oratories; on those who have the cure of souls; and on all who preside over churches and public oratories unless they can prove a special exemption.

In the United States, the Eighth Provincial Council of Baltimore, when vindicating the right of the bishop to part of the revenues of the churches, enumerates as such revenues, the renting of pews, the collections taken up during Mass, and the offerings made at baptisms and marriages. An identical decree was adopted by the Second Council of the Province of Australia in 1869, but Propaganda did not sanction it and declared that the matter should preferably be determined by the various diocesan synods. This was likewise the opinion of the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1866. As a consequesce, different methods of computing the cathedraticum prevail throughout the United States. In one prominent diocese, for example, the rector of each church must pay one-fifth of his revenue if it exceed one thousand dollars, or one-third if it be less. The revenue in question is declared to be made up of the pew rents, the collections during Divine service and the funeral stipends. Finally the diocesan arrangement for the cathedraticum has been declared by Propaganda (as in 1872) to be a binding law on those whom it concerns.

Acta et Decreta Conc. Recent. Coll. Lacensis (Freiburg im Br., 1875), III; FERRARIS, Bibl. Jur. Can. (Rome, 1886), II, s. v.; SMITH, Notes on II Conc. Balt. (New York, 1874); BENEDICT XIV, De Synodo diœcesanâ, V, 67; TAUNTON The Law of the Church (London, 1906), s.v.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

Ven. Edmund Catherick

Priest and martyr, born probably in Lancashire about 1605; executed at York, 13 April, 1642. He was descended from the old family of Catherick of Carlton and Stanwick, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, known for its loyalty to the Faith. Educated at Douai College, he was ordained in the same institution, and about 1635 went out to the English mission where he began his seven years’ ministry which closed with his death. During this time he was known under the alias Huddleston, which was probably his mother’s maiden name.

Apprehended in the North Riding, near Watlas, Catherick was brought by pursuivants before Justice Dodsworth, a connection by marriage—possibly an uncle. Gillow states (IV, 310) that it was through admissions made to Dodsworth, under the guise of friendship, that Catherick was convicted. He was arraigned at York and condemned to death together with Father John Lockwood. The execution was stayed by the king for a short time, but he finally signed the warrant and it was carried out during his presence at The Manor in York. Catherick and Lockwood were dragged through the streets of York on a hurdle to the place of execution and hanged, drawn, and quartered. Catherick’s head was placed on Micklegate Bar, and what fragments remained, after the hangman’s butchery, were buried at Toft Green. The “body” is now at St. Gregory’s Monastery, Downside, and the skull, said to have been found at Hazlewood Castle, was carefully examined by Lingard in 1845.

Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 432; Challoner, Memoirs, II; De Marsys, Hist. de la persécution presente des cath., III.

E.F. SAXTON

Monastery of St. Catherine

Situated on Mount Sinai, at an altitude of 4854 feet, in a picturesque gorge below the Jebel-Musa, the reputed Mountain of the Law. This Byzantine convent, perhaps the most interesting of the Christian Orient, is under the Rule of St. Basil, and is well-known for its hospitality. It is chiefly famous, however, on account of its library, in which was discovered the Codex Sinaiticus, a valuable Biblical manuscript dating from the fourth century. Although now in a state of decay, the Monastery of St. Catherine is still held in great veneration by the Orthodox Greeks, both because it is believed to contain the remains of the famous virgin of Alexandria, and because of its intimate connection with some of the most sublime events recorded in Holy Scripture. In a little oratory where a lamp is kept always burning, and which is only to be entered unshod, the monks show the supposed location of the Burning Bush. The earliest known historical fact is the erection of a church by Emperor Justinian about A.D. 550. A Byzantine mosaic, which is still in existence, shows that this was formerly called the church of the Transfiguration; here were gathered the hermits who had previously lived in separate cells and caves among the rocks of Mount Sinai. It is not known when or how the monastery obtained possession of the remains of St Catherine of Alexandria and adopted her name. According to legend her body was transported thither by the hands of angels. The name, however, does not appear in literature before the tenth century. To protect the monks and pilgrims against the Saracens the monastery was fortified like a castle, the exterior wall of which forms a quadrangle resting on solid rock. The fact that a castle presupposes a military force accounts for the mention some authors make of a military order of St. Catherine, founded in 1063, which would thus antedate any other military order. No trace has been found, however, of the rule of any such order, or of a list of its grand masters. From the Crusades the monastery of St. Catherine attracted many Latin pilgrims, who gradually formed a brotherhood, the members of which pretended to the knighthood. In return for a vague promise to protect sacred shrines and pilgrims, they were granted the coveted St. Catherine’s Cross, a cross inserted in the wheel of St. Catherine. See Catherine of Alexandria; Sinai; MSS. of the Bible.

Palmer, Sinai to the Present Day (London, 1878); Wilson and Palmer, Ordnance Survey of Sinai (London, 1872); Roehrichts and Meisner, Deutsche Pilgerreise nach dem heiligen Lande (Berlin, 1880); Stanley, Sinai and Palestine (London, 1882); Julian, Sinai et Syrie (Lille, 1903).

CH. MOELLER

Catherine de’ Medici

Born 13 April, 1519; died 5 January, 1589; she was the daughter of Lorenzo de’ Medici (II), Duke of Urbino, and Madeleine de la Tour d’ Auvergne who, by her mother, Catherine of Bourbon, was related to the royal house of France. Left an orphan when only a few weeks old, Catherine had barely reached the age of thirteen when Francis I, King of France, eager to thwart the projects of the Emperor Charles V and to court the friendship of Clement VII, Catherine’s uncle, arranged a marriage between Catherine and his second son Henry, Clement VII coming to Marseilles in October, 1533, for the ceremony. The death, however, of the pontiff during the ensuing year prevented Francis I from realizing the political advantages he had hoped for from this union. Having brought to the French court only 100,000 écus and a few poor appanages, Catherine was relegated to the background, where she remained even when, on the death of her husband’s elder brother, she attained the dignity of Dauphiness. Obliged to continue in this comparative obscurity for ten years because of being childless, her entire policy meanwhile consisted in trying to retain the favour of Diane de Poitiers, her husband’s mistress, and of the Duchesse d’Etampes, mistress of Francis I. On the accession of Henry II, 31 March, 1547, Catherine became Queen of France, but she still remained inconspicuous, except during Henry’s short campaign in Lorraine, when she acted as regent, and even then showed her political abilities.

It was only on Henry II’s death, 10 July, 1559, that Catherine’s political career really began. Her son Francis II, husband of Mary Stuart, was king, and the Guises, Mary Stuart’s uncles, were in power, a condition that overtaxed Catherine’s patience. The Huguenots relied on her because everyone knew that the psalms of Marot had always delighted her, and that she had recently promised the Prince de Conde and the Admiral de Coligny, who were Huguenot leaders, liberty and security for their followers. But the intriguing Huguenots developed a State within the State in France, and Castelnau tells us that at their synods they were urged to adopt “all means of self defence and attack, of furnishing money to military men and making attempts upon cities and fortresses.” Catherine was obliged to allow the Guises to quell the conspiracy of Amboise, March, 1560, and for a few months to exercise a sort of Catholic dictatorship. Then to check and paralyze their power, she appointed Michel de l’Hôpital chancellor, a man whose wife and children were Calvinists, and convoked an assembly of notables at Fontainebleau (August, 1560) at which it was decided that the punishment of heretics should be suspended, and that the States General, from which religious peace was looked for, were to meet at Orleans in December. Meanwhile Francis II died, 5 December, 1560.

Catherine’s policy remained just what it had been during Francis’ brief reign. She continued to oscillate between the Catholics and Protestants in order to establish the dominion of the royal family, and was forever manoeuvring between Protestant England, whose queen, Elizabeth, she sought at certain times as a daughter in law, and Catholic Spain, whose king, Philip II, was her son in law. Thus did Catherine strive to insure the independence and political self government of French royalty. As Charles IX, Catherine’s second son and the successor of Francis II, was scarcely ten years old, Catherine was regent and virtually sovereign. She named Anthony of Bourbon, King of Navarre and a Protestant, lieutenant general of the kingdom, increased l’Hopital’s power, inflicted upon the Guises a sort of political defeat by imposing an obstacle to the marriage of Mary Stuart with Don Carlos, son of Philip II, and convoked the conference of Poissy in an endeavour to bring about a theological understanding between Catholics and Huguenots. “It is impossible,” she wrote to Rome, “to reduce either by arms or law those who are separated from the Roman Church, so large is their number.” She also opposed her son in law, Philip II of Spain, who demanded severity against the Huguenots, and the edict of January, 1562, insured them toleration. The political interests that helped to set the religious factions at variance did not abate: the arrogance of the Huguenots exasperated the Catholics, and the Vassy massacre (March, 1562) opened the first religious war, which fact alone was a victory for the Guise policy and a defeat for that of the regent. At one time Catherine thought of taking sides with Conde against the Guises, and accordingly wrote him four letters, which the Huguenots subsequently claimed to have contained her orders to Conde to take up arms, but which Catherine declared had been altered. Events then occurred in rapid succession, and she had the humiliation of seeing Guise bring Charles IX back to Paris.

Thenceforth Catherine fluctuated between the Catholic and Huguenot forces. She negotiated and watched the intrigues of Spain when it would interfere in behalf of the Catholics; of England when it would interest itself in the Huguenots; and of the emperor who took advantage of French anarchy to reclaim the three bishoprics recently conquered by Henry II. The assassination of Guise by the Huguenot, Poltrot de Mere (18 February, 1563), hastened the hour of peace, and when the treaty of Amboise (12 March, 1563) had granted certain liberties to Protestants, Catherine, to show Europe that discord no longer existed in France sent both Catholics and Protestants to recover Le Havre (28 July, 1563), which Admiral de Coligny had yielded to the English. It was indeed a great period in Catherine’s life: Charles IX who had attained his majority on the 27th of June solemnly declared to her that she should govern more than ever; the treaty with England, 11 April, 1564, assured Calais to France; and Catherine and the young king made a tour of the provinces. The Bayonne interview between Catherine and the Duke of Alba (June, 1565) caused a renewal of trouble; the Protestants spread the rumour that the queen mother had conspired against them with the King of Spain, and a serious resort to arms was under way. For Catherine’s growing hatred of Coligny; her fear lest Charles IX, susceptible to certain Huguenot influence, should ally himself with the Prince of Orange and wage war against Spain; her order for the murder of Coligny what she might regain her control over Charles IX; and finally, for the connection of Coligny’s murder with the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day and Catherine’s responsibility in the matter see the article St. Bartholomew’s Day.

Charles IX died 30 May, 1574, and Henry, Duke of Anjou, whom Catherine had but lately made King of Poland, became King of France. She was very fond of this third son, but had only a limited influence over him. The concessions which he made to Protestants in the treaty known as the “Peace of Monsieur” (5 May, 1576) brought about the formation of the Holy League for the protection of Catholic interests. For twelve years the power of the Guises in France was constantly on the increase, the relentless warfare against the Huguenots serving only to fortify it, and as a consequence Catherine suffered cruelly. Surrounded by his favourites, Henry III let his dynasty fall into disrepute. Francis of Valois, Catherine’s youngest son, died 10 June, 1584, and Henry III being without issue, Henry of Bourbon, a Protestant (the future Henry IV), fell heir to the crown of France. And now the discouraged queen mother and the childless king saw France become the bone of contention between the League and the Huguenot party; the royal family of Valois, doomed to extinction, watched the struggle as would supernumeraries assisting at a theatrical performance. Catherine, ever ambitious, laid claim to the crown of Portugal for a member of her family, and dreamed in vain of giving the crown of France to her daughter’s son, the Marquis de Pont a Mousson; but the matter rested between the Guises and the Bourbons. At the close of 1587 the real master of Paris was no longer Henry III, but the Duke of Guise, and on the “Day of the Barricades” (12 May, 1588) Catherine saved her son’s honour by going in person to negotiate with Guise who received her as would a conqueror. She thus gained time for Henry III to fly secretly from Paris, and then she provisionally reconciled Henry III and Henry of Guise by the “Edict of Union” (July, 1588). This intriguing woman, who used these means to prolong the wearing of the crown by a Valois, was at Blois with her son, Henry III, for the meeting of the States General, when she learned, on 23 December, 1588, that through assassination Henry III had rid himself of Guise. Her surprise was tragic. “You have cut out, my son, but you must sew together,” she exclaimed upon hearing the news, and thirteen days later she died in despair at leaving her son in this critical situation. It was soon ended, however, when, on 1 August, 1589, the dagger of Jacques Clement cut short Henry’s earthly existence. Catherine had always placed the interests of her children and her family first, and she died oppressed with anxiety whether this last representative would remain king of France until his death.

Dictatorial, unscrupulous, calculating, and crafty, the subtlety of her policy harassed all parties concerned and perhaps contributed to the aggravation of discord, although Catherine herself was peaceably inclined. Moreover, being intensely superstitious, she surrounded herself with astrologers. But she was sadly wanting in strong religious faith, and acted in favour of Catholicism only because in so doing she saw some advantage to her crown. There was never any joint interest between the Catholic Church and Catherine’s religious policy. Indeed her methods were so essentially egotistical as to border on cynicism, and it was because the interests of France and of royalty were at that time identical that Catherine, in working for her children, incidentally rendered direct political service to France and, for thirty years, prevented foreigners from interfering with, or exploiting, its religious discords. Despite her many cares she found leisure in which to enrich the Bibliotheque Royale, to have Philibert Delorme erect the Tuileries, and Pierre Lescot build the Hotel de Soissons. In a word she was a woman of the Renaissance, a disciple of Machiavelli, and the objective point of her policy may be perceived when we remember that she was a mother, crowned.

De Reumont, La jeunesse de Catherine de Medicis, tr. Baschet (Paris, 1864); Cheruel, Marie Stuart et Catherine de Medicis (Paris, 1858); Zeller, Le mouvement guisard en 1588: Catherine de Medicis et la Journee des Barricades in Revue Historique (1889); Lettres de Catherine de Medicis, ed. de la Ferriere, I IV, and de Puchesse, VII (Paris, Imprimerie Nationale); de Lacombe, Les débuts des guerres de religion: Catherine de Médicis entre Guise et Conde (Paris, 1899); Bouchot, Catherine de Medicis (Paris, 1899); Sichel, Catherine de Médicis and the French Reformation (London, 1905).

GEORGES GOYAU

St. Catherine de’ Ricci

(In baptism, Alessandra Lucrezia Romola), a Dominican nun, of the Third Order, though enclosed, born in Florence, 23 April, 1522; died 2 February, 1590. She is chiefly known to the world for her highly mystical and miraculous life, and especially as the subject of a marvellous, but fully and most carefully authenticated ecstasy, into which she was rapt every week, from Thursday at noon till 4 p.m. on Friday, for several years. In this state she went through all the stages of Our Lord’s Passion, actually realizing, and showing forth to others with wonderful vividness, all that His Blessed Mother suffered in witnessing it. Her father, Pier Francesco de’ Ricci, was one of an old and respected family of bankers and merchants. Her mother of the Ricasoli family—died when she was a small child, and she was brought up by a devoted stepmother, Fiammetta da Diacceto. The latter soon observed the child’s unusual tendency to holiness—particularly to solitary prayer—and did her utmost to foster and develop it. Whilst still a child, Alessandra resolved to join some strictly observant religious order; but the state of relaxation just then was so universal that it was long before she could find what she desired. Her vocation was finally decided during a stay at Prato, where she made acquaintance with the Dominican Convent of San Vincenzio, founded in 1503 by nine ladies who had been devoted followers of Savonarola. Alessandra there found the spirit of religious fervour high enough to satisfy even her ideal; and, after some difficulties with her father, she entered the novtiate, was clothed in 1535 (taking the name of Catherine), and professed in 1536.

Both during her novitiate and for four or five years after profession, she was subjected to humiliating trials from the community, owing to their misunderstanding of some of the high supernatural favours she received; but her holiness and humility eventually triumphed. She was then appointed to one important office after another, finally remaining prioress or sub prioress till her death. During all these years, whilst conscientiously fulfilling every religious duty, she was feeling and showing keen interest in all her relations—especially her brothers—and in numerous friends and “spiritual children.” The great “Ecstasy of the Passion,” above referred to, happened for the first time in February, 1542, and was renewed every week afterwards for twelve years, when it ceased in answer to the prayers of Catherine herself and the community. The fame of it was bringing so many people of every rank and calling to Prato that the peace and strict observance of the convent were suffering. Catherine de’ Ricci lived in an age of great saints; among her contemporaries were St. Charles Borromeo, St. Philip Neri, and St. M. Magdalen de Pazzi. With the two last named she is said to have held in different ways, miraculous intercourse, never having met them in a natural way. She was beatified in 1732 by Clement XII, after many delays in the process, and canonized by Benedict XIV in 1746 on both occasions amid great rejoicings at Prato, where her memory is always kept fresh. The lineal descendants of her community still inhabit the convent of San Vincenzio (now commonly called Santa Caterina), and there her body still reposes. Her feast is kept on the 13th of February.

For the original sources see the Letters of Catherine de’ Ricci, ed. Gherardi (Florence, 1890); also two old Italian lives by Razzi and Guidi with documents mentioned. A number of her letters with full details of her life may be found in Capes, Life of St. Catherine de’ Ricci (London, 1905).

F.M. CAPES

St. Catherine of Alexandria

A virgin and martyr whose feast is celebrated in the Latin Church and in the various Oriental churches on 25 November, and who for almost six centuries was the object of a very popular devotion.

Of noble birth and learned in the sciences, when only eighteen years old, Catherine presented herself to the Emperor Maximinus who was violently persecuting the Christians, upbraided him for his cruelty and endeavoured to prove how iniquitous was the worship of false gods. Astounded at the young girl’s audacity, but incompetent to vie with her in point of learning the tyrant detained her in his palace and summoned numerous scholars whom he commanded to use all their skill in specious reasoning that thereby Catherine might be led to apostatize. But she emerged from the debate victorious. Several of her adversaries, conquered by her eloquence, declared themselves Christians and were at once put to death. Furious at being baffled, Maximinus had Catherine scourged and then imprisoned. Meanwhile the empress, eager to see so extraordinary a young woman, went with Porphyry, the head of the troops, to visit her in her dungeon, when they in turn yielded to Catherine’s exhortations, believed, were baptized, and immediately won the martyr’s crown. Soon afterwards the saint, who far from forsaking her Faith, effected so many conversions, was condemned to die on the wheel, but, at her touch, this instrument of torture was miraculously destroyed. The emperor, enraged beyond control, then had her beheaded and angels carried her body to Mount Sinai where later a church and monastery were built in her honour. So far the Acts of St. Catherine.

Unfortunately we have not these acts in their original form, but transformed and distorted by fantastic and diffuse descriptions which are entirely due to the imagination of the narrators who cared less to state authentic facts than to charm their readers by recitals of the marvellous. The importance attached throughout the Middle Ages to the legend of this martyr accounts for the eagerness and care with which in modern times the ancient Greek, Latin and Arabic texts containing it have been perused and studied, and concerning which critics have long since expressed their opinion, one which, in all likelihood, they will never have to retract. Several centuries ago when devotion to the saints was stimulated by the reading of extraordinary hagiographical narrations, the historical value of which no one was qualified to question, St. Catherine was invested by Catholic peoples with a halo of charming poetry and miraculous power.

Ranked with St. Margaret and St. Barbara as one of the fourteen most helpful saints in heaven, she was unceasingly praised by preachers and sung by poets. It is a well known fact that Bossuet dedicated to her one of his most beautiful panegyrics and that Adam of Saint-Victor wrote a magnificent poem in her honour: “Vox Sonora nostri chori,” etc. In many places her feast was celebrated with the utmost solemnity, servile work being suppressed and the devotions being attended by great numbers of people. In several dioceses of France it was observed as a Holy Day of obligation up to the beginning of the seventeenth century, the splendour of its ceremonial eclipsing that of the feasts of some of the Apostles. Numberless chapels were placed under her patronage and her statue was found in nearly all churches, representing her according to medieval inconography with a wheel, her instrument of torture. Whilst, owing to several circumstances in his life, St. Nicholas of Myra, was considered the patron of young bachelors and students, St. Catherine became the patroness of young maidens and female students. Looked upon as the holiest and most illustrious of the virgins of Christ, it was but natural that she, of all others, should be worthy to watch over the virgins of the cloister and the young women of the world.

The spiked wheel having become emblematic of the saint, wheelwrights and mechanics placed themselves under her patronage. Finally, as according to tradition, she not only remained a virgin by governing her passions and conquered her executioners by wearying their patience, but triumphed in science by closing the mouths of sophists, her intercession was implored by theologians, apologists, pulpit orators, and philosophers. Before studying, writing, or preaching, they besought her to illumine their minds, guide their pens, and impart eloquence to their words. This devotion to St. Catherine which assumed such vast proportions in Europe after the Crusades, received additional eclat in France in the beginning of the fifteenth century, when it was rumoured that she had appeared to Joan of Arc and, together with St. Margaret, had been divinely appointed Joan’s adviser.

Although contemporary hagiographers look upon the authenticity of the various texts containing the legend of St. Catherine as more than doubtful, it is not therefore meant to cast even the shadow of a doubt around the existence of the saint. But the conclusion reached when these texts have been carefully studied is that, if the principal facts forming the outline are to be accepted as true, the multitude of details by which these facts are almost obscured, most of the wonderful narratives with which they are embellished, and the long discourses that are put into the mouth of St. Catherine, are to be rejected as inventions, pure and simple. An example will illustrate. Although all these texts mention the miraculous translations of the saint’s body to Mount Sinai, the itineraries of the ancient pilgrims who visited Sinai do not contain the slightest allusion to it. Even in the eighteenth century Dom Deforis, the Benedictine who prepared an edition of Bossuet’s works, declared the tradition followed by this orator in his panegyric on the saint, to be in a great measure false, and it was just at this time that the feast of St. Catherine disappeared from the Breviary of Paris. Since then devotion to the virgin of Alexandria has lost all its former popularity.

Migne, P.G., CXVI, col. 276–301; Viteau, Passions des saints Ecaterine et Pierre d’Alexandrie, Barbara et Anysia (Paris, 1897); Varnhagen, Zur Geschichte der Legende der Katharina von Alexandrien (Erlangen, 1891); Analecta Bollandiana (Brussels, XXII, 1903, 423–436; XXVI, 1907, 5–32).

LEON CLUGNET

St. Catherine of Bologna

Poor Clare and mystical writer, born at Bologna, 8 September, 1413; died there, 9 March, 1463. When she was ten years old, her father sent her to the court of the Marquis of Ferrara, Nicolò d’Este, as a companion to the Princess Margarita. Here Catherine pursued the study of literature and the fine arts; and a manuscript illuminated by her which once belonged to Pius IX is at present reckoned among the treasures of Oxford. After the marriage of the Princess Margarita to Roberto Malatesta, Prince of Rimini, Catherine returned home, and determined to join the little company of devout maidens who were living in community and following the rule of the Third Order of St. Augustine in the neighboring town of Ferrara. Later the community, yielding to the entreaties of Catherine, adopted the Rule of St. Clare, and in 1432 they were clothed with the habit of the Second Order of St. Francis by the provincial of the Friars Minor. The increasing number of vocations, however, made it necessary to establish other monasteries of the Poor Clares in Italy, and in pursuance of the Brief of Callistus III, “Ad ea quæ in omnipotentis Dei gloriam,” convents were founded at Bologna and Cremona. St. Catherine was chosen abbess of the community in her native town, which office she held until her death. The grievous and persistent temptations which in the early days of her religious life had tried her patience, humility, and faith, especially the latter virtue, gave place in later years to the most abundant spiritual consolation, and enjoyment of the heights of contemplation. A large part of St. Catherine’s counsels and instructions on the spiritual life are to be found in her “Treatise on the Seven Spiritual Weapons,” which contains, besides, an account of the saint’s own struggles in the path of perfection, and which she composed with the aid of her confessor shortly before her death. The body of St. Catherine, which remains in-corrupt, is preserved in the chapel of the Poor Clares at Bologna. St. Catherine was canonized by Pope Benedict XIII. Her feast is kept on the 9th of March throughout the Order of Friars Minor.

WADDING, Annales Minorum, X, 184; XII, 307; XIII, 324; and passim; Acta SS.; March, II, 35–89; LEO, Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the Three Orders of St. Francis (Taunton, 1885), I, 394–437; ZAMBONI, La Vita di Santa Caterina di Bologna (Bologna, 1877).

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

St. Catherine of Genoa

(CATERINA FIESCHI ADORNO.)

Born at Genoa in 1447, died at the same place 15 September, 1510. The life of St. Catherine of Genoa may be more properly described as a state than as a life in the ordinary sense. When about twenty-six years old she became the subject of one of the most extraordinary operations of God in the human soul of which we have record, the result being a marvellous inward condition that lasted till her death. In this state, she received wonderful revelations, of which she spoke at times to those around her, but which are mainly embodied in her two celebrated works: the “Dialogues of the Soul and Body,” and the “Treatise on Purgatory.” Her modern biographies, chiefly translations or adaptations of an old Italian one which is itself founded on “Memoirs” drawn up by the saint’s own confessor and a friend, mingle what facts they give of her outward life with accounts of her supernatural state and “doctrine,” regardless of sequence, and in an almost casual fashion that makes them entirely subservient to her psychological history. These facts are as follows:

St. Catherine’s parents were Jacopo Fieschi and Francesca di Negro, both of illustrious Italian birth. Two popes—Innocent IV and Adrian V—had been of the Fieschi family, and Jacopo himself became Viceroy of Naples. Catherine is described as an extraordinarily holy child, highly gifted in the way of prayer, and with a wonderful love of Christ’s Passion and of penitential practices; but, also, as having been a most quiet, simple, and exceedingly obedient girl. When about thirteen, she wished to enter the convent, but the nuns to whom her confessor applied having refused her on account of her youth, she appears to have put the idea aside without any further attempt. At sixteen, she was married by her parents’ wish to a young Genoese nobleman, Giuliano Adorno. The marriage turned out wretchedly; Giuliano proved faithless, violent-tempered, and a spendthrift. And made the life of his wife a misery. Details are scanty, but it seems at least clear that Catherine spent the first five years of her marriage in silent, melancholy submission to her husband; and that she then, for another five, turned a little to the world for consolation in her troubles. The distractions she took were most innocent; nevertheless, destined as she was for an extraordinary life, they had the effect in her case of producing lukewarmness, the end of which was such intense weariness and depression that she prayed earnestly for a return of her old fervour. Then, just ten years after her marriage, came the event of her life, in answer to her prayer. She went one day, full of melancholy, to a convent in Genoa where she had a sister, a nun. The latter advised her to go to confession to the nuns’ confessor, and Catherine agreed. No sooner, however, had she knelt down in the confessional than a ray of Divine light pierced her soul, and in one moment manifested her own sinfulness and the Love of God with equal clearness. The revelation was so overwhelming that she lost consciousness and fell into a kind of ecstacy, for a space during which the confessor happened to be called away. When he returned, Catherine could only murmur that she would put off her confession, and go home quickly.

From the moment of that sudden vision of herself and God, the saint’s interior state seems never to have changed, save by varying in intensity and being accompanied by more or less severe penance, according to what she saw required of her by the Holy Spirit Who guided her incessantly. No one could describe it except herself; but she does so, minutely, in her writings, from which may here be made one short extract:—“[The souls in Purgatory] see all things, not in themselves, nor by themselves, but as they are in God, on whom they are more intent than on their own sufferings. . . . For the least vision they have of God overbalances all woes and all joys that can be conceived. Yet their joy in God does by no means abate their pain. . . . This process of purification to which I see the souls in Purgatory subjected, I feel within myself.” (Treatise on Purgatory, xvi, xvii.) For about twenty-five years, Catherine, though frequently making confessions, was unable to open her mind for direction to anyone; but towards the end of her life a Father Marabotti was appointed to be her spiritual guide. To him she explained her states, past and present, in full, and he compiled the “Memoirs” above referred to from his intimate personal knowledge of her. Of the saint’s outward life, after this great change, her biographies practically tell us but two facts: that she at last converted her husband who died penitent in 1497; and that both before and after his death—though more entirely after it—she gave herself to the care of the sick in the great Hospital of Genoa, where she eventually became manager and treasurer. She died worn out with labours of body and soul, and consumed, even physically, by the fires of Divine love within her. She was beatified in 1675 by Clement X, but not canonized till 1737, by Clement XII. Meantime, her writings had been examined by the Holy Office and pronounced to contain doctrine that would be enough, in itself, to prove her sanctity.

The first published life, based on early MSS., is GENUTI, “Vita mirabile e dotrrina santa della Beata Caterina da Genova” (Florence, 1551). Founded on the above: FLICHE, “St. Catherine de Genes, sa vie et son esprit’ (1881); “Life and Doctrine of St. Catherine of Genoa” (Eng. Tr., New York, 1874). For a discussion of her doctrine, PARPERA, “Beata Caterina Genuensis illustrata (Genoa, 1682). See also BUTLER “Lives of the Saints,” IX, 14 Sept., and a modern life by DE BUSSIERE.

F.M. CAPES

St. Catherine of Siena

Dominican Tertiary, born at Siena, 25 March, 1347; died at Rome, 29 April, 1380.

She was the youngest but one of a very large family. Her father, Giacomo di Benincasa, was a dyer; her mother, Lapa, the daughter of a local poet. They belonged to the lower middle-class faction of tradesmen and petty notaries, known as “the Party of the Twelve,” which between one revolution and another ruled the Republic of Siena from 1355 to 1368. From her earliest childhood Catherine began to see visions and to practise extreme austerities. At the age of seven she consecrated her virginity to Christ; in her sixteenth year she took the habit of the Dominican Tertiaries, and renewed the life of the anchorites of the desert in a little room in her father’s house. After three years of celestial visitations and familiar conversation with Christ, she underwent the mystical experience known as the “spiritual espousals,” probably during the carnival of 1366. She now rejoined her family, began to tend the sick, especially those afflicted with the most repulsive diseases, to serve the poor, and to labour for the conversion of sinners. Though always suffering terrible physical pain, living for long intervals on practically no food save the Blessed Sacrament, she was ever radiantly happy and full of practical wisdom no less than the highest spiritual insight. All her contemporaries bear witness to her extraordinary personal charm, which prevailed over the continual persecution to which she was subjected even by the friars of her own order and by her sisters in religion. She began to gather disciples round her, both men and women, who formed a wonderful spiritual fellowship, united to her by the bonds of mystical love. During the summer of 1370 she received a series of special manifestations of Divine mysteries, which culminated in a prolonged trance, a kind of mystical death, in which she had a vision of Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven, and heard a Divine command to leave her cell and enter the public life of the world. She began to dispatch letters to men and women in every condition of life, entered into correspondence with the princes and republics of Italy, was consulted by the papal legates about the affairs of the Church, and set herself to heal the wounds of her native land by staying the fury of civil war and the ravages of faction. She implored the pope, Gregory XI, to leave Avignon, to reform the clergy and the administration of the Papal States, and ardently threw herself into his design for a crusade, in the hopes of uniting the powers of Christendom against the infidels, and restoring peace to Italy by delivering her from the wandering companies of mercenary soldiers. While at Pisa, on the fourth Sunday of Lent, 1375, she received the Stigmata, although, at her special prayer, the marks did not appear outwardly in her body while she lived.

Mainly through the misgovernment of the papal officials, war broke out between Florence and the Holy See, and almost the whole of the Papal States rose in insurrection. Catherine had already been sent on a mission from the pope to secure the neutrality of Pisa and Lucca. In June, 1376, she went to Avignon as ambassador of the Florentines, to make their peace; but, either through the bad faith of the republic or through a misunderstanding caused by the frequent changes in its government, she was unsuccessful. Nevertheless she made such a profound impression upon the mind of the pope, that, in spite of the opposition of the French king and almost the whole of the Sacred College, he returned to Rome (17 January, 1377). Catherine spent the greater part of 1377 in effecting a wonderful spiritual revival in the country districts subject to the Republic of Siena, and it was at this time that she miraculously learned to write, though she still seems to have chiefly relied upon her secretaries for her correspondence. Early in 1378 she was sent by Pope Gregory to Florence, to make a fresh effort for peace. Unfortunately, through the factious conduct of her Florentine associates, she became involved in the internal politics of the city, and during a popular tumult (22 June) an attempt was made upon her life. She was bitterly disappointed at her escape, declaring that her sins had deprived her of the red rose of martyrdom. Nevertheless, during the disastrous revolution known as “the tumult of the Ciompi,” she still remained at Florence or in its territory until, at the beginning of August, news reached the city that peace had been signed between the republic and the new pope. Catherine then instantly returned to Siena, where she passed a few months of comparative quiet, dictating her “Dialogue,” the book of her meditations and revelations.

In the meanwhile the Great Schism had broken out in the Church. From the outset Catherine enthusiastically adhered to the Roman claimant, Urban VI, who in November, 1378, summoned her to Rome. In the Eternal City she spent what remained of her life, working strenuously for the reformation of the Church, serving the destitute and afflicted, and dispatching eloquent letters in behalf of Urban to high and low in all directions. Her strength was rapidly being consumed; she besought her Divine Bridegroom to let her bear the punishment for all the sins of the world, and to receive the sacrifice of her body for the unity and renovation of the Church; at last it seemed to her that the Bark of Peter was laid upon her shoulders, and that it was crushing her to death with its weight. After a prolonged and mysterious agony of three months, endured by her with supreme exultation and delight, from Sexagesima Sunday until the Sunday before the Ascension, she died. Her last political work, accomplished practically from her death-bed, was the reconciliation of Pope Urban VI with the Roman Republic (1380).

Among Catherine’s principal followers were Fra Raimondo delle Vigne, of Capua (d. 1399), her confessor and biographer, afterwards General of the Dominicans, and Stefano di Corrado Maconi (d. 1424), who had been one of her secretaries, and became Prior General of the Carthusians. Raimondo’s book, the “Legend,” was finished in 1395. A second life of her, the “Supplement,” was written a few years later by another of her associates, Fra Tomaso Caffarini (d. 1434), who also composed the “Minor Legend,” which was translated into Italian by Stefano Maconi. Between 1411 and 1413 the depositions of the surviving witnesses of her life and work were collected at Venice, to form the famous “Process.” Catherine was canonized by Pius II in 1461. The emblems by which she is known in Christian art are the lily and book, the crown of thorns, or sometimes a heart—referring to the legend of her having changed hearts with Christ. Her principal feast is on the 30th of April, but it is popularly celebrated in Siena on the Sunday following. The feast of her Espousals is kept on the Thursday of the carnival.

The works of St. Catherine of Siena rank among the classics of the Italian language, written in the beautiful Tuscan vernacular of the fourteenth century. Notwithstanding the existence of many excellent manuscripts, the printed editions present the text in a frequently mutilated and most unsatisfactory condition. Her writings consist of

the “Dialogue,” or “Treatise on Divine Providence”;

a collection of nearly four hundred letters; and

a series of “Prayers.”

The “Dialogue” especially, which treats of the whole spiritual life of man in the form of a series of colloquies between the Eternal Father and the human soul (represented by Catherine herself), is the mystical counterpart in prose of Dante’s “Divina Commedia.” A smaller work in the dialogue form, the “Treatise on Consummate Perfection,” is also ascribed to her, but is probably spurious. It is impossible in a few words to give an adequate conception of the manifold character and contents of the “Letters,” which are the most complete expression of Catherine’s many-sided personality. While those addressed to popes and sovereigns, rulers of republics and leaders of armies, are documents of priceless value to students of history, many of those written to private citizens, men and women in the cloister or in the world, are as fresh and illuminating, as wise and practical in their advice and guidance for the devout Catholic today as they were for those who sought her counsel while she lived. Others, again, lead the reader to mystical heights of contemplation, a rarefied atmosphere of sanctity in which only the few privileged spirits can hope to dwell. The key-note to Catherine’s teaching is that man, whether in the cloister or in the world, must ever abide in the cell of self-knowledge, which is the stable in which the traveller through time to eternity must be born again.

Processus contestationum super sanctitate et doctrina beatae Catharinae de Senis, in MARTENE AND DURAND, Veterum Scriptorum et Monumentorum Amplissima Collectio (Paris, 1729), VI; GIGLI, L’opere della serafica Santa Caterina da Siena (Siena and Lucca, 1707–54); TOMMASEO, Le Lettere di S. Caterina da Siena (Florence, 1860); Italian translations of the Legend and the Supplement are included in the first and fifth volumes of GIGLI’s Edition; important portions of the Process are still left unpublished in manuscripts in the Biblioteca Comunale of Siena and the Biblioteca Casanatense at Rome.

EDMUND G. GARDNER.

St. Catherine of Sweden

Catherine of Sweden, Saint, the fourth child of Saint Bridget of Sweden (q.v.) and her husband, Ulf Gudmarsson, b. 1331 or 1332; d. March 24, 1381. At the time of her death St. Catherine was head of the convent of Wadstena, founded by her mother; hence the name, Catherine Vastanensis, by which she is occasionally called. At the age of seven she was sent to the abbess of the convent of Riseberg to be educated and soon showed, like her mother, a desire for a life of self-mortification and devotion to spiritual things. At the command of her father, when about thirteen or fourteen years old, she married a noble of German descent, Eggart von Kürnen. She at once persuaded her husband, who was a very religious man, to join her in a vow of chastity. Both lived in a state of virginity and devoted themselves to the exercise of Christian perfection and active charity. In spite of her deep love for her husband, Catherine accompanied her mother to Rome, where St. Bridget went in 1349.

Soon after her arrival in that city Catherine received news of the death of her husband in Sweden. She now lived constantly with her mother, took an active part in St. Bridget’s fruitful labors, and zealously imitated her mother’s ascetic life. Although the distinguished and beautiful young widow was surrounded by suitors, she steadily refused all offers of marriage. In 1372 St. Catherine and her brother, Birger, accompanied their mother on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land; after their return to Rome St. Catherine was with her mother in the latter’s last illness and death.

In 1374, in obedience to St. Bridget’s wish, Catherine brought back her mother’s body to Sweden for burial at Wadstena, of which foundation she now became the head. It was the mother-house of the Brigittine Order, also called the Order of St. Savior. Catherine managed the convent with great skill and made the life there one in harmony with the principles laid down by its founder. The following year she went again to Rome in order to promote the canonization of St. Bridget, and to obtain a new papal confirmation of the order. She secured another confirmation both from Gregory XI (1377) and from Urban VI (1379), but was unable to gain at the time the canonization of her mother, as the confusion caused by the Schism delayed the process. When this sorrowful division appeared she showed herself, like St. Catherine of Siena, a steadfast adherent of the party of the Roman Pope, Urban VI, in whose favor she testified before a judicial commission. Catherine stayed five years in Italy and then returned home, bearing a special letter of commendation from the pope. Not long after her arrival in Sweden she was taken ill and died. In 1484 Innocent VIII gave permission for her veneration as a saint and her feast was assigned to March 22 in the Roman martyrology. Catherine wrote a devotional work entitled “Consolation of the Soul” (Sielinna Troest), largely composed of citations from the Scriptures and from early religious books; no copy is known to exist. Generally she is represented with a hind at her side, which is said to have come to her aid when unchaste youths sought to ensnare her.

J. P. KIRSCH.

Catholic

The word Catholic (καθολικός from καθ’ ὅλον—throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus we meet such phrases as the “the catholic resurrection” (Justin Martyr), “the catholic goodness of God” (Tertullian), “the four catholic winds” (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of “the general resurrection,” “the absolute or universal goodness of God,” “the four principal winds,” etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to μερικός (partial) or ἴδιος (particular), and one familiar example of this conception still survives in the ancient phrase “Catholic Epistles” as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but to the Church at large.

The combination “the Catholic Church” (ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [καθολικὴ] Church.” However, in view of the context, some difference of opinion prevails as to the precise connotation of the italicized word, and Kattenbusch, the Protestant professor of theology at Giessen, is prepared to interpret this earliest appearance of the phrase in the sense of μία μόνη, the “one and only” Church [Das apostolische Symbolum (1900), II, 922]. From this time forward the technical signification of the word Catholic meets us with increasing frequency both East and West, until by the beginning of the fourth century it seems to have almost entirely supplanted the primitive and more general meaning. The earlier examples have been collected by Caspari (Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, etc., III, 149 sqq.). Many of them still admit the meaning “universal.” The reference (c. 155) to “the bishop of the catholic church in Smyrna” (Letter on the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, xvi), a phrase which necessarily presupposes a more technical use of the word, is due, some critics think, to interpolation. On the other hand this sense undoubtedly occurs more than once in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 180), where, for example, it is said of certain heretical writings that they “cannot be received in the Catholic Church.” A little later, Clement of Alexandria speaks very clearly. “We say,” he declares, “that both in substance and in seeming, both in origin and in development, the primitive and Catholic Church is the only one, agreeing as it does in the unity of one faith” (Stromata, VII, xvii; P. G., IX, 552). From this and other passages which might be quoted, the technical use seems to have been clearly established by the beginning of the third century. In this sense of the word it implies sound doctrine as opposed to heresy, and unity of organization as opposed to schism (Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part II, vol. I, 414 sqq. and 621 sqq.; II, 310–312). In fact Catholic soon became in many cases a mere appellative—the proper name, in other words, of the true Church founded by Christ, just as we now frequently speak of the Orthodox Church, when referring to the established religion of the Russian Empire, without adverting to the etymology of the title so used. It was probably in this sense that the Spaniard Pacian (Ep. i ad Sempron.) writes, about 370: “Christianus mihi nonem est, catholicus cognomen,” and it is noteworthy that in various early Latin expositions of the Creed, notably that of Nicetas of Remesiana, which dates from about 375 (ed. Burn, 1905, p. lxx), the word Catholic in the Creed, though undoubtedly coupled at that date with the words Holy Church, suggests no special comment. Even in St. Cyprian (c. 252) it is difficult to determine how far he uses the word Catholic significantly, and how far as a mere name. The title, for instance, of his longest work is “On the Unity of the Catholic Church,” and we frequently meet in his writings such phrases as catholica fides (Ep. xxv; ed. Hartel, II, 538); catholica unitas (Ep. xxv, p. 600); catholica regula (Ep. lxx, p. 767), etc. The one clear idea underlying all is orthodox as opposed to heretical, and Kattenbusch does not hesitate to admit that in Cyprian we first see how Catholic and Roman came eventually to be regarded as interchangeable terms. (Cf. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, II, 149–168.) Moreover it should be noted that the word Catholica was sometimes used substantively as the equivalent of ecclesia Catholica. An example is to be found in the Muratorian Fragment, another seemingly in Tertullian (De Praescrip, xxx), and many more appear at a later date, particularly among African Writers.

Among the Greeks it was natural that while Catholic served as the distinctive description of the one Church, the etymological significance of the word was never quite lost sight of. Thus in the “Catechetical Discourses” of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 347) he insists on the one hand (sect. 26): “And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is—for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord—nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of us all.” On the other hand when discussing the word Catholic, which already appears in his form of the baptismal creed, St. Cyril remarks: (sect. 23) “Now it [the Church] is called Catholic because it is throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other.” But we shall have occasion to quote this passage more at length later on.

There can be no doubt, however, that it was the struggle with the Donatists which first drew out the full theological significance of the epithet Catholic and passed it on to the schoolmen as an abiding possession. When the Donatists claimed to represent the one true Church of Christ, and formulated certain marks of the Church, which they professed to find in their own body, it could not fail to strike their orthodox opponents that the title Catholic, by which the Church of Christ was universally known, afforded a far surer test, and that this was wholly inapplicable to a sect which was confined to one small corner of the world. The Donatists, unlike all previous heretics, had not gone wrong upon any Christological question. It was their conception of Church discipline and organization which was faulty. Hence, in refuting them, a more or less definite theory of the Church and its marks was gradually evolved by St. Optatus (c. 370) and St. Augustine (c. 400). These doctors particularly insisted upon the note of Catholicity, and they pointed out that both the Old and the New Testament represented the Church as spread over all the earth. (See Turmel, “Histoire de la theologie positive, 1904, I, 162–166, with references there given.) Moreover, St. Augustine insists upon the consensus of Christians in the use of the name Catholic. “Whether they wish or no,” he says, “heretics have to call the Catholic Church Catholic” (“De vera religione,” xii). “Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of worship none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle” (Contra Epistolam quam vocant Fundamenti, iv). Of later exponents of this same thesis the most famous Vincent of Lerins (c. 434). His canon of Catholicity is “That which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” “This,” he adds, “is what is truly and properly Catholic” (Commonitorium, I, ii).

Although belief in the “holy Church” was included in the earliest form of the Roman Creed, the word Catholic does not seem to have been added to the Creed anywhere in the West until the fourth century. Kattenbusch believes that our existing form is first met with in the “Exhortatio” which he attributes to Gregorius of Eliberis (c. 360). It is possible, however, that the creed lately printed by Dom Morin (Revue Bénédictine, 1904, p. 3) is of still earlier date. In any case the phrase, “I believe in the holy Catholic Church” occurs in the form commented on by Nicetas of Remesiana (c. 375). With regard to the modern use of the word, Roman Catholic is the designation employed in the legislative enactments of Protestant England, but Catholic is that in ordinary use on the Continent of Europe, especially in Latin countries. Indeed, historians of all schools, at least for brevity’s sake, frequently contrast Catholic and Protestant, without any qualification. In England, since the middle of the sixteenth century, indignant protests have been constantly made against the “exclusive and arrogant usurpation” of the name Catholic by the Church of Rome. The Protestant, Archdeacon Philpot, who was put to death in 1555, was held to be very obstinate on this point (see the edition of his works published by the Parker Society); and among many similar controversies of a later date may be mentioned that between Dr. Bishop, subsequently vicar Apostolic, and Dr. Abbot, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury, regarding the “Catholicke Deformed,” which raged from 1599 to 1614. According to some, such combinations as Roman Catholic, or Anglo-Catholic, involve a contradiction in terms. (See the Anglican Bishop of Carlisle in “The Hibbert Journal,” January, 1908, p. 287.) From about the year 1580, besides the term papist, employed with opprobrious intent, the followers of the old religion were often called Romish or Roman Catholics. Sir William Harbert, in 1585, published a “Letter to a Roman pretended Catholique,” and in 1587 an Italian book by G.B. Aurellio was printed in London regarding the different doctrines “dei Protestanti veri e Cattolici Romani.” Neither do the Catholics always seem to have objected to the appellation, but sometimes used it themselves. On the other hand, Protestant writers often described their opponents simply as “Catholics.” A conspicuous instance is the “Pseudomartyr” of Dr. John Donne, printed in 1610. Moreover, if only for brevity’s sake, such burning questions as “Catholic Emancipation” have commonly been discussed by both sides without any qualifying prefix. In connection with this matter we may call attention to a common Anglican view represented in such a popular work of reference as Hook’s “Church Dictionary” (1854), s.v. “Catholic”—“Let the member of the Church of England assert his right to the name of Catholic, since he is the only person in England who has a right to that name. The English Romanist is a Roman Schismatic and not a Catholic.” The idea is further developed in Blunt’s “Dictionary of Sects and Heresies” (1874), where “Roman Catholics” are described as “a sect organized by the Jesuits out of the relics of the Marian party in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.” An earlier and less extreme view will be found in Newman’s “Essays Critical and Historical,” published by him as an Anglican (see No. 9, “The Catholicity of the Anglican Church”). The Cardinal’s own note on this essay, in the last revised edition, may be read with advantage.

So far we have been considering only the history and meaning of the name Catholic. We turn to its theological import as it has been emphasized and formalized by later theologians. No doubt the enumeration of four precise “notes” by which the Church is marked off from the sects is of comparatively recent development, but the conception of some such external tests, as pointed out above, is based upon the language of St. Augustine, St. Optatus, and others, in their controversies with the heretics of their time. In a famous passage of St. Augustine’s treatise “Contra Epistolam quam vocant Fundamenti,” directed against the Donatists, the holy doctor declares that besides the intrinsic acceptability of her doctrine “there are many other things which most justly keep me within the bosom of the Church,” and after indicating the agreement in the faith among her members, or, as we should say, her Unity, as well as “the succession of priests from the installation of Peter the Apostle, to whom our Lord after His resurrection entrusted His sheep to be fed, down to the present episcopate,” in other words the quality which we call Apostolicity (q. v.), St. Augustine continues in a passage previously cited in part, “Lastly there holds me the very name of Catholic which not without reason so closely attaches to the Church amid the heresies which surround it, that although all heretics would fain be called Catholics, still if any stranger should ask where the Catholic service is held, not one of these heretics would dare to point to his own conventicle” (Corpus Scrip. Eccles. Lat., XXV, Pt. I, 196). It was very natural that the situation created by the controversies of the sixteenth century should lead to a more exact determination of these “notes.” English theologians like Stapleton (Principiorum Fidei Doctrinalium Demonstratio, Bk. IV, cc. iii sqq.) and Sander (De Visibili Monarchia, Bk. VIII, cap. xl) were foremost in urging this aspect of the question between the Churches, and foreign scholars like Bellarmine, who engaged in the same debates, readily caught the tone from them. Sander distinguished six prerogatives of the Church instituted by Christ. Stapleton recognized two primary attributes as contained in Christ’s promises—to wit, universality in space and perpetuity in time—and from these he deduced the other visible marks. Bellarmine, starting with the name Catholic, enumerated fourteen other qualities verified in the external history of the institution which claimed this title (De Conciliis, Bk. IV, cap. iii). In all these varying schemes, it may be remarked, the universality of the Church was given a foremost place among her distinctive marks. However, already in the fifteenth century the theologian John Torquemada had set down the notes of the Church as four in number, and this more simple arrangement, founding upon the wording of the familiar Mass Creed (Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam), eventually won universal acceptance. It is adopted, for instance, in the “Catechismus ad Parochos,” which in accordance with a decree of the Council of Trent was drawn up and published in 1566 with the highest official sanction (see CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE). In this authoritative document we read:

The third mark of the Church is that she is Catholic, that is, universal; and justly is she called Catholic, because, as St. Augustine says, ‘she is diffused by the splendour of one faith from the rising to the setting sun.’ Unlike republics of human institution, or the conventicles of heretics, she is not circumscribed within the limits of any one kingdom, nor confined to the members of any one society of men, but embraces within the amplitude of her love, all mankind, whether barbarians or Scythians, slaves or freemen, male or female.

In confirmation of this, various prophetic utterances of Holy Scripture are quoted, after which the Catechism proceeds: “To this Church, built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets (Ephes., ii, 20) belong all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or shall exist in the profession of the true faith to the end of time, all of whom are founded and raised upon the one cornerstone, Christ, who made both one, and announced peace to them that are near, and to them that are afar. She is also called universal, because all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her, like those who entered the ark to escape perishing in the flood. This, therefore, is to be taught as a most just criterion to distinguish the true from a false church.” This multiplex and somewhat confused presentment of the note of Catholicity undoubtedly finds its warrant in the equally wide interpretation of some of the early Fathers. Thus, for example, St. Cyril of Jerusalem says: “The Church is called Catholic because she is diffused throughout the whole world [i.e. the habitable world, οἰκουμένης] from one end of the earth to the other, and because she teaches universally and without curtailment all the truths of faith which ought to be known to men whether they concern visible or invisible things, heavenly things or the things of earth; further because she brings under the yoke of God’s true service all races of men, the mighty and the lowly, the learned and the simple; and finally because she tends and heals every kind of sin committed by body or soul and because there is no form of virtue, whether in word or deed or in spiritual gifts of any kind whatever, which she does not possess as her own” (Cateches., xviii, 23; P. G., XXXIII, 1043). In similar terms speaks St. Isidore (De Offic., Bk. I), among the Fathers of the West, and a variety of other explanations might also, no doubt, be appealed to.

But of all these various interpretations, which, after all, are not inconsistent with one another, and which are probably only characteristic of a fashion of exegesis which delighted in multiplicity, one conception of Catholicity is almost invariably made prominent. This is the idea of the actual local diffusion of the Church, and this is also the aspect which, thanks no doubt to the influence of Protestant controversy, has been most insisted upon by the theologians of the last three centuries. Some heretical and schismatical teachers have practically refused to recognize Catholicity as an essential attribute of Christ’s Church, and in the Lutheran version of the Apostles’ Creed, for example, the word Catholic (“I believe in the holy Catholic Church”) is replaced by Christian. But in the majority of the Protestant professions of faith the wording of the original has been retained, and the representatives of these various shades of opinion have been at pains to find an interpretation of the phrase which is in any way consistent with geographical and historical facts. (For these see CHRISTENDOM.) The majority, including most of the older Anglican divines (e.g. Pearson on the Creed), have contented themselves with laying stress in some shape or form upon the design of the Founder of the Church that His Gospel should be preached throughout the world. This diffusion de jure serves its purpose sufficiently as a justification for the retention of the word Catholic in the Creed, but the supporters of this view are of necessity led to admit that Catholicity so understood cannot serve as a visible criterion by which the true Church is to be distinguished from schismatical sects. Those Protestant bodies who do not altogether reject the idea of “notes” distinctive of the true Church consequently fall back for the most part upon the honest preaching of God’s word and the regular administration of the sacraments as the only criteria. (See the “Confession of Augsburg,” Art. 7, etc.) But such notes as these, which may be claimed by many different religious bodies with apparently equal right, are practically inoperative, and, as Catholic controversialists have commonly pointed out, the question only resolves itself into the discussion of the nature of the Unity of the Church under another form. The same must be said of that very large class of Protestant teachers who look upon all sincere Christian communions as branches of the one Catholic Church with Christ for its invisible head. Taken collectively, these various branches lay claim to worldwide diffusion de facto as well as de jure. But clearly, here again the question primarily involved is that concerning the nature of the Unity of the Church, and it is to the articles CHURCH and UNITY, that the reader who wishes to pursue the matter further must be referred.

As against these and other interpretations which have prevailed among Protestants from the Reformation until quite recent times, the scholastic theologians of the last three centuries have been wont to put forward the conception of the note of Catholicity in various formal propositions, of which the most essential elements are the following. The true Church of Christ, as it is revealed to us in prophecy, in the New Testament, and in the writings of the Fathers of the first six centuries, is a body which possesses the prerogative of Catholicity, i.e. of general diffusion, not only as a matter of right, but in actual fact. Moreover, this diffusion is not only successive—i.e. so that one part of the world after another should in course of ages be brought in contact with the Gospel—but it is such that the Church may be permanently described as spread throughout the world. Further, as this general diffusion is a property to which no other Christian association can justly lay claim, we are entitled to say that Catholicity is a distinctive mark of the true Church of Christ.

It will be seen from this that the point upon which stress is laid is that of actual local diffusion, and it can hardly be denied that both Scriptural and Patristic arguments adduced by Bellarmine, Thomassin, Alexander Natalis, Nicole, and others, to take but a few prominent names, afford strong justification for the claim. The Scriptural argument seems first to have been developed by St. Optatus of Mileve against the Donatists, and it was equally employed by St. Augustine when he took up the same controversy a few years later. Adducing a large number of passages in the Psalms (e.g. Pss. ii and lxxi), with Daniel (ch. ii), Isaiah (e.g. liv, 3), and other prophetic writers, the Fathers and modern theologians alike draw attention to the picture which is there afforded of the Kingdom of Christ the Messiah as something gloriously and conspicuously spread throughout the world, e.g. “I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession,” “He shall rule from sea to sea,” “All the nations shall serve Him,” etc., etc. Moreover, in combination with these we have to notice our Lord’s instructions and promises: “Go ye therefore and teach all nations,” “You shall be witnesses unto me . . . even to the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts, i, 8), or St. Paul’s words quoting Psalm xviii, “Yes, verily, their sound went out over all the earth and their words unto the ends of the whole world” (Rom., x, 18), etc. But the real strength of the argument lies in the patristic evidence, for such words of Scripture as those just quoted are cited and interpreted, not by one or two only, but by a large number of different Fathers, both of the East and of the West, and nearly always in such terms as are consistent only with the actual diffusion over regions which to them represented, morally speaking, the whole world. It is indeed particularly important to note that in many of these patristic passages the writer, while insisting upon the local extension of the Church, distinctly implies that this diffusion is relative and not absolute, that it is to be general indeed, but in a moral, not in a physical or mathematical sense. Thus St. Augustine (Epist. cxcix; P. L., XXXIII, 922, 923) explains that the nations which formed no part of the Roman Empire had already joined the Church, which was fructifying and increasing throughout the whole world. But he adds that there will be always need and room for it still to grow; and, after quoting Romans 10:14, he adds:

In those nations therefore among whom the Church is not yet known it has still to find a place [in quibus ergo gentibus nondum est ecclesia, oportet ut sit], not indeed in such a way that all who are there should become believers; for it is all nations that are promised, not all the men of all nations. . . . Otherwise how shall that prophesy be fulfilled, ‘Ye shall be hated by all for my name’s sake,’ unless among all nations there are those who hate as well as those who are hated?

Lastly, it should be said that among some confused thinkers of the Anglican communion, as also among certain representatives of Modernist opinions, an interpretation of the Catholicity of the Church has lately come into fashion which has little connection with anything that has hitherto fallen under our notice. Starting with the conception familiar in such locutions as “a man of catholic tastes,” meaning a man who excludes no rational interest from his sympathies, these writers would persuade us that a catholic church either does or should mean a church endowed with unlimited comprehensiveness, i.e. which is prepared to welcome and assimilate all opinions honestly held, however contradictory. To this it may be answered that the idea is absolutely foreign to the connotation of the phrase Catholic Church as we can trace it in the writings of the Fathers. To take a term consecrated by centuries of usage and to attach a brand-new meaning to it, of which those who through the ages had it constantly on their lips never dreamed, is to say the least extremely misleading. If this comprehensiveness and elasticity of belief is regarded as a desirable quality, by all means let it have a new name of its own, but it is dishonest to leave the impression upon the ignorant or the credulous, that this is the idea which devout men in past ages have all along been groping for, and that it has been left to the religious thinkers of our own day to evolve from the name catholic its true and real significance. So far from the idea of a nebulous and absorbent substance imperceptibly shading off into the media which surround it, the conception of the Fathers was that the Catholic Church was cut off by the most clearly defined of lines from all that lay outside. Its primary function, we might also say, was to set itself in acute opposition to all that threatened its vital principle of unity and stability. It is true that patristic writers may sometimes play with the word catholic, and develop its etymological suggestiveness with an eye to erudition or edification, but the only connotation upon which they insist as a matter of serious import is the idea of diffusion throughout the world. St. Augustine, indeed, in his letter to Vincentius (Ep. xciii, in “Corpus Scrip. Eccles. Lat.,” XXXIV, p. 468) protests that he does not argue merely from the name. I do not maintain, he declares equivalently, that the Church must spread throughout all the world, simply because it is called Catholic. I base my proof of its diffusion upon the promises of God and upon the oracles of Holy Scripture. But the saint at the same time makes it clear that the suggestion, that the Church was called Catholic because it observed all God’s Commandments and administered all the sacraments, originated with the Donatists, and he implies that this was a view in which he did not himself concur. Here again the demonstration of the unity of the Church as built upon a dogmatic basis is fundamental, and the reader must be referred to the article CHURCH. The Anglican Bishop of Carlisle, in an article published in the Hibbert Journal for January, 1908, and entitled “The Catholic Church, What Is It?,” seems to carry the modern formula, Catholic = comprehensive, to its most extreme lengths. No principle of cohesion seems to be left except this, that the Catholic Church is that which bans nothing. The bishop conceives of it, apparently, as an institution invested by Christ with unlimited power to add to its numbers, but no power to expel. It must surely be plain that practical common sense pronounces against such a conception not less strongly than the plain words of our Lord in the Gospel or the consistent attitude of the Fathers. In addition to the references given in the course of this article, see WILHELM AND SCANNELL, Manual of Catholic Theology (1898), II, 351–4; KRAUS, Real-Encycklopadie der christlichen Alterthumer (Freiburg, 1882), s. v. Catholicus; MAZZELLA, De Religione et Ecclesia (Rome, 1885); SCHANZ, A Christian Apology (tr. Dublin, 1891); MOUREAU, in Dict. de theol, cath., s. v. Catholicite; BILLOT, De Sacra Traditione (Rome, 1904), 72–134; SEMERIA, Dogma, Gerarchia e Culto (Rome, 1902), 235–257; TURMEL, Histoire de theologie positive (Paris, 1906), II, 117; NEWMAN, Essays Historical and Critical, Essay ix, with note.

For the Protestant view see the latest (HAUCK) ed. of HERZOG, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, s. v. Kirche; HARNACK, History of Dogma (tr. London, 1896), II; PEARSON, Exposition of the Creed; FAIRBAIRN, Catholicism, Roman and Anglican (London, 1899).

HERBERT THURSTON

Catholic Benevolent Legion

A fraternal assessment life-insurance society organized in Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A., 5 September, 1881. The charter members were Dr. George R. Kuhn, John C. McGuire, John D. Carroll, John Rooney, Thomas Cassin, John D. Keiley, Patrick F. Keany, William G. Ross, David T. Leahy, and Robert Myhan Bishop Loughlin of Brooklyn was the spiritual adviser of the supreme council, the body through which the legal incorporation was made, and which governed the entire organization. The object of the Legion was, as stated in its constitution, to unite fraternally, for social, benevolent, and intellectual improvement, Catholic men between the ages of eighteen and fifty-five years at the time of admission. Life insurance not to exceed $5,000 was given in various amounts to members according to an optional classification, assessments for which were governed by the age of the member. The original figures of these assessments were increased in 1905 to meet the requirements of sounder insurance experience, as was the case with most of the other organizations of this character. Reports to 1908 showed that the Legion had, from its establishment, paid in death insurance $19,000,000. It had 20,000 members out of a total, from time of organization, of 74,188, and was represented by councils in six States: New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Indiana, Illinois and Connecticut.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

The Catholic Club of New York

A social organization described by its constitution as a club which “shall consist of Catholic gentlemen who are governed by a spirit of devotion to the Church and fidelity to the Holy Father.” Its objects, as defined by the constitution, “shall be to advance Catholic interests, to promote the moral improvement of its members, to foster among them a true Catholic spirit, to encourage the study of Catholic history, literature, science and art, and for these purposes to maintain a library, and by frequent social intercourse to bind themselves more closely in the pursuit of these and kindred ends.” The club sprang from the Xavier Alumni Sodality, which was organized in 1863, in connection with the College of St. Francis Xavier, New York, with the object of encouraging Christian piety among the educated Catholic men of the city, and for many years directed by the Rev. P.F. Dealy, S.J. In March, 1871, the Xavier Union was organized by members of the Sodality to promote other desirable ends not embraced in the scope of a purely religious organization, and to unite the members more intimately in social intercouse. The club was formally opened 13 March, 1871, with a membership of about 150, and Joseph Thoron was elected its first president, on 28 March of the same year. In 1872 Archbishop McCloskey took the club under his formal protection, and the organization has ever since enjoyed the active patronage of the archbishops of New York, and has co-operated with them in promoting Catholic interests. On 1 January, 1888, the name was changed from the Xavier Union to the Catholic Club of the City of New York. Its growth was soon such that a building was erected for it on a site purchased at No. 120 Central Park South, for $115,000. Here a building, 75 by 200 feet, was erected at a cost of $225,000, of which formal possession was taken in 1892. From this period the club grew with great rapidity until the normal resident membership numbers about 1000 the non-resident over 500, and, in addition, there is a considerable army and navy membership consisting of officers of these arms of the service. The club is governed by a board of officers and managers, and has a spiritual director appointed by the Archbishop. A Committee on Catholic Interests has special charge of all matters within the scope indicated in which Catholic lay activity or co-operation with the arch-bishop may seem necessary. The library contains over 35,000 volumes. Many lectures are given during the season and the club co-operates with leading educational and charitable Catholic enterprises.

JOHN JEROME ROONEY

Trancribed by Joseph P. Thomas

Catholic Epistle

Catholic Epistle, the name given to the Epistle of St. James, to that of St. Jude, to two Epistles of St. Peter and the first three of St. John, because, unlike the Epistles of St. Paul, they were addressed not to any particular person or church, but to the faithful generally after the manner of an Encyclical letter. Though addressed to particular persons the other two Epistles of St. John are also styled Catholic, because they have always been grouped with the epistles bearing that name. See James, St.; John, St.; Jude, St.; Peter, St.

Catholic Knights of America

A fraternal life-insurance company chartered under the laws of the State of Kentucky, U.S.A. It was founded in Nashville, Tennessee by James J. McLoughlin, D.N. Burke, John Broderick, and John MeDonald. The first meeting was held, 23 April, 1877, at Emmett Hall, Nashville, with James J. McLoughlin as temporary chairman. At the second meeting, 1 May, 1877, the first permanent branch was organized with J.J. McLoughlin, president, and John McDonald, secretary. The name selected for the new organization was the Order of United Catholics, which was subsequently changed, on the recommendation of Bishop P.A. Feehan, of Nashville, to Catholic Knights of America. The bishop gave his cordial approval to the new society, and accepted the office of spiritual director. In June, 1877, plans were drawn up for the establishment of a supreme council form of government, and branches were organized in Grafton, West Virginia; Louisville, Kentucky; New Albany, Indiana; and Galion, Ohio.

The first session of the supreme council was held in Louisville, Kentucky, 9 July, 1878. Sixteen branches were represented; a supreme constitution was adopted, the Hon. W.C. Smith of Louisville was elected first Supreme President, and Bishop Feehan was chosen Supreme Spirltual Director. At the second annual session, held in Indianapolis 8 July, 1879, seventy-two branches were represented. It was then decided to hold biennial sessions like most of the fraternal societies that were founded at this period, the Catholic Knights had to learn by experience that their rates were inadequate, and the association was among the first of these bodies to change the rate system. Although the organization sustained a loss of several thousands, the wisdom of the change of rates was early reorgnanized by the loyal members, and the loss was soon made good by the influx of nearly 5000 young members in a period of a little over two years. Financially it is one of the strongest organizations of its kmd in the United States. It has a membership of 20,000, divided among 560 branches, located in forty-two States of the Unions. Since its inception to 1 August, 1907, it has paid to the heirs of over 8500 deceased members nearly fifteen million dollars. The total resources of the order on 1 August, 1907, were $828,000. The head-quarters are located at St. Louis, Missouri.

ANTHONY MATRE.

Catholic Missionary Union

The corporate name of a society whose directors are chosen from among the bishops of the United States, the seminaries, the parishes and the missionary organizations of that country, its purpose being to engage priests and lay-men as missionaries to non-Catholics in the United States, to provide for their maintenance, to distribute Catholic literature, and in every way to assist the bishops in establishing and carrying on home missions in their various jurisdictions. It was formed by the Paulist Fathers in carrying out the vocation of their founder, Isaac Thomas Hecker, i.e. the conversion of non-Catholics in America.

This movement recognizes and helps to meet the responsibility of clergy and people for the spiritual welfare of Catholics, of baptized non-Catholics, as being even sacramentally part of Christ’s fold; and of all others, as called by God to be saved and brought to the knowledge of the truth by the Church’s ministrations. Thus, instead of ignoring the religious condition of their non-Catholic countrymen, all classes of Catholics will be aided by this society in zealously striving to convert them. Among the practical efforts of this movement is the forming in each diocese of bands of missionaries composed of diocesan priests acting under their bishops. These assemble non-Catholics wherever possible and explain to them the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The mode of explanation is more expository than controversial. Through a “question box” queries are invited concerning the Church’s teaching, and through carefully prepared lectures and the widespread dissemination of literature misunderstandings are dispelled and an attractive presentation of the Catholic teaching provided.

The Catholic Missionary Union owns the Apostolic Mission House, the training school for the missionaries, located at the Catholic University, Washington, D.C., and dedicated in April, 1904. It provides a normmal course of instruction for priests who are desirous of devoting themselves to the conversion of non-Catholics in the diocesan mission-bands, or even in the parochial ministry. The following dioceses are now provided with these apostolates, as the missionary bands are called: Providence, Hartford, Burlington, New York, Pittsburg, Cleveland, Wheeling, Covington, Peoria, St. Paul, Dubuque, St. Louis, Sioux Falls, Fort Wayne, Richmond, North Carolina, Charleston, St. Augustine, Mobile, Natchez, and Oklahoma, numbering together 51 priests. There are six other priests assisting at missions in these dioceses in preparation for forming apostolates in their own dioceses, namely in Springfield, Buffalo, and Winona. Meanwhile priests are making their courses of study in the Apostolic Mission House for Ogdensburg, Erie, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Alton, Baker City, Peoria, Pittsburg, Sioux City, St. Augustine, and St. Paul, together with several members of religious communities, some domiciled, and others attending classes giving missions, or preparing to do so, there is now a total of 82 priests. For the more necessitous dioceses not only are the missionaries trained without any expense to the bishops, but financial support is furnished them after they begin their work. During a decade of years the missionaries in the movement that centres about the Apostolic Mission House have given 1008 missions to Catholics,1468 missions to non-Catholics, and received many converts into the Church, besides placing many more under instruction to be received later by the parochial clergy. It is not possible to give precise statistics, but it is sure that conversions have been stimulated by these missionary activities. During the year 1906 it is computed that about 25,000 converts were received into the Church in the United States by various missionary agencies.

An important feature of the missions is the free distribution of Catholic literature. The books are given into the hands of non-Catholics by the missionaries themselves standing before the altar after the public services, it being expressly stated that they are accepted to be read. In this way a great deal more than a million of Catholic books have passed into non-Catholic hands during the last ten or twelve years. These are Cardinal Gibbons’ “Faith of Our Fathers,” Searle’s “Plain Facts,” Conway’s “Question Box,” Faa Di Bruno’s “Catholic Belief,” Xavier Sutton’s “Clearing the Way,” and others; not counting a very great number of catechisms, Mass-books, pamphlets, and leaflets.

A public convention of missionaries to non-Catholics is assembled by the society every two or three years. The delegates discuss fully the religious conditions in America and the prospects of converting the people to the Catholic Church. Carefully prepared papers are read, and addresses delivered, and their topics debated, all looking to the choice of means and methods for increasing the number of converts. The proceedings of each convention are published in book form and circulated very extensively with remarkly good results. It is noteworthy that at the latest convention (June, 1905) the principal religious orders were present by their representatives. The Mission Union depends wholly on charity for funds to support its work. The principal medium of collection is its monthly magazine “The Missionary” which, by edifying Catholics with authentic accounts of the results of the propaganda, stimulates their charitable offerings. The whole movement has from the begining enjoyed the fullest approval of the bishops and the co-operation of the religious orders, and has received the express commendation of the Holy See.

WALTER ELLIOTT.

Catholicos

(Greek Katholikos, universal).

The ecclesiastical title of the Nestorian and Armenian patriarchs.

I. NESTORIANS

During the first five centuries Seleucia in Mesopotamia, subsequently the see of the Nestorian catholicos, was under the Patriarchate of Antioch. In the fifth century, as can be seen in the “Synodicon Orientale” (ed. Chabot), almost all the bishops of Seleucia-Ctesiphon bore the title of catholicos, without, however, severing their relations with Antioch; hence, originally, the word catholicos was not synonymous with patriarch. Owing to the political separation of the East from the West and to theological disputes, several attempts were made during the fifth century to secure religious independence. In the synod held at Seleucia under Dadjesus in 424 (cf. Synodicon, 51, text and 296. tr.) it was forbidden to appeal from the Catholicos of Seleucia to the Patriarch of Antioch. The breach, however, became complete and permanent under the Nestorian Mar Babai. The synod held under him (497 or 499) renewed the decree of independence from Antioch, and henceforth Seleucia became the centre of Nestorianism. The list of the Nestorian catholicoi is given by Bar Hebraeus (Chronicon ed. Abbeloos, and Lamy, III passim), the list is supplemented by the editors, III, 566 sqq. In the middle of the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Catholicos Mar Mama, several bishops met, elected Sullaka, and sent him to Rome for consecration. Since then there has been a Catholic patriarch whose residence is now at Mosul. A list of the catholicoi united with Rome is given by Abbeloos and Lamy, op. cit., 570 sqq. (See NESTORIANS)

II. ARMENIANS

Among the Armenians also catholicos was originally a simple title for the principal bishop of the country; he was subordinate to the See of Caesarea in Cappadocia. The bishops of Albania and Georgia, although dependent on the Catholicos of Armenia bore the same title. Under King Pap and the Catholicos lousik Armenia asserted its independence of Caesarea. In the fifth century the Armenians adopted Monophysitism and anathematized the Council of Chalcedon, 491. Many of the catholicoi, however, especially after the Crusades, professed the orthodox Catholic Faith. The see of the Armenian catholicos, originally Achtichat, has varied considerably. Besides many schisms have taken place, and today there are no less than five Armenian catholicoi. One of them, the successor of the old catholicos, is at Sis in Cilicia, with jurisdiction over the Turkish provinces of Asia. His power in ecclesiastical matters, supreme in theory, is considerably curtailed in practice by the appointment of a catholicoi with additional powers in Constantinople. Since 1113 there is also an Armenian catholicos at Aghtamar with jurisdiction over the island of that name and the villages surrounding Lake Van. Another catholicos resides in Jerusalem, but with greatly reduced powers. In 1441 another schism occurred, and a catholicos was elected in Etchmiadzin in Greater Armenia. Today he bears the title of “Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of all Armenians” and at least theoretically, is considered the principal catholicos by all non-Catholic Armanians. Since 1740 there has also been a Catholic catholicos in Constantinople with the title of Patriarch of Cilicia. He is recognized by the Porte as having jurisdiction over all Catholic Armenians in the Turkish possessions. (See ARMENIA; CONSTANTINOPLE.)

In the beginning of the fourth Century Albania and Georgia (Iberia) were converted to Christianity by Armenian missionaries, and the principal bishop of each of these countries bore the title of catholicos, although neither of them was autocephalous. They followed the Armenians in rejecting the Council of Chalcedon. At the end of the sixth, or beginning of the seventh, century the Georgian catholicos asserted his independence and came back to orthodoxy. Henceforward the Georgian Church underwent the same evolutions as the Greek. In 1783 Georgia abolished the office of its catholicos, and placed itself under the Holy Synod of Russia, to which country it was united politically in 1801. The Albanian catholicos remained loyal to the Armenian Church, with the exception of a brief schism towards the end of the sixth century. Shortly afterwards Albania was assimilated partly with Armenia and partly with Georgia. There is no mention of any catholicos in Albania after the seventh century. It is asserted by some that the head of the Abyssinian Church, the Abuna, also bears the title of catholicos, but, although this name may have been applied to him by analogy, there is, to our knowledge, no authority for asserting that this title is used by the Abyssinian Church itself.

R. BUTIN

Catholic University of America

A pontifical institution located in Washington, D.C. It comprises the Schools of the Sacred Sciences, Philosophy, Law, Letters, and Science, each of which includes several departments. Under the supreme authority of the Holy See, the governing power of the university resides in the episcopate of the United States, and by their delegation in the board of trustees, composed of bishops, priests, and laymen. The president of the board is the Chancellor of the University, and this office is held by the Archbishop of Baltimore ex officio. The immediate government of the university is entrusted to the rector who is assisted by the academic senate. Instruction is given by professors, associate professors, and tutors. The number of these in 1907 was 32; the number of students (1906–1907) was 210. The library contains 100,000 volumes. The official organ of the university is “The Catholic University Bulletin” published quarterly 1895–1907, and since 1908 eight times yearly. Other official publications are the “General Announcements,” the “Announcements” of the different Schools and the rector’s “Annual Report.”

In the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, October, 1866, the Bishops expressed their desire for the establishment of a university. The project took definite shape in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884) which included in its “Acta et Decreta” the decision to found a university and accepted Miss Mary Gwendoline Caldwell’s offer of $300,000 to inaugurate the work. Washington was selected as the site, and the Right Rev. John J. Keane, then Bishop of Richmond, was appointed rector. Pope Leo XIII, in 1887, sanctioned the undertaking and by the Apostolic Letter “Magni nobis gaudii” (7 March, 1889) approved the constitution and statutes, and empowered the university to grant the usual degrees. The scope of the university as defined by Leo XIII was “to provide instruction in every department of learning to the end that the clergy and laity alike might have an opportunity to satisfy fully their laudable desire for knowledge.” The pope furthermore urged that the seminaries, colleges, and other Catholic institutions of learning should be affiliated to the university; and he ordained that no step should be taken towards founding any other university without the approbation of the Holy See.

The School of Sacred Sciences was opened in November, 1889. This was followed in 1895 by the School of Philosophy for which Mgr. James McMahon of New York donated the hall bearing his name. Chairs were founded by Miss Caldwell (2); the Misses Andrews, Baltimore; the Misses Drexel, Philadelphia; Mr. & Mrs. Eugene Kelly, New York (2); Hon. M.P. O’Connor, San José, California; Patrick Quinn, Philadelphia; Mrs. C.B. Whitford, Baltimore; Joseph Banigan, Providence; Col. M.P. O’Brien, New Orleans (3); Rev. A.H. Walburg, Cincinnati; Miss Margaret Gardiner, Baltimore; The Catholic Total Abstinence Union; The Ancient Order of Hibernians; and the Knights of Columbus. Founders of fellowships were Miss Anna Hope Hudson, Baltimore, and Rev. Thomas Brehony, Wilkesbarre, Pennsylvania. Scholarships were endowed by the Messrs. Benziger, New York; Duke Joseph de Loubat, New York; Michael Jenkins, Baltimore; Miss Emily Harper, Baltimore; Charles M. Routt, Alton, Illinois; Rev. W.A. Nolan, Butler, Pennsylvania; Rev. Dwight Lyman, Govanstown, Maryland; Miss Winifred Martin, Baltimore; Rev. P.J. Lavin, Necedah, Wisconsin; Miss Mary D. Peabody, Washington; Rev. Thomas Carroll, Oil City, Pennsylvania; The Mitchell Memorial Committee, Brooklyn; The Catholic Young Men’s National Union; the Right Rev. John J. Conroy, second Bishop of Albany, New York; Very Rev. Mgr. R.L. Burtsell, Rondout, New York; Miss Ruth C. Dana, Boston; the Most Rev. John Hennessy, Archbishop of Dubuque; Rev. E.W.J. Lindesmith, Rootstown, Ohio; Rev. James Brennan, Erie, Pennsylvania; Timothy Riordan, Baltimore, Edward Johnson, Milwaukee; the Right Rev. T.M. Burke, Bishop of Albany, New York; Rev. P.J. Murphy, Oliphant, Pennsylvania; the Right Rev. Mgr. D.W. Murphy, Dover, New Hampshire; the Right Rev. Mgr. J.M. Mackey, Cincinnati.

The university has also received donations and bequests from Albert F. Ryan, Norfolk, Virginia; Michael Cudahy, Chicago, Illinois; Miss Lina Caldwell, Newport, Rhode Island; Miss Rebecca Reyburn, Baltimore, Maryland; Miles P. O’Connor, San José, California; Mrs. A.R. Reynolds, Philadelphia; David T. Leahy, Brooklyn, New York; Messrs. Leopold Huffer and Sons, Paris, France; O. Andrews, Baltimore, Maryland; Miss Eliza P. Blight, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Sylvester Johnson, Louisville, Kentucky; Rev. J. Lambert, Laconia, New Hampshire; Gen. John Lawlor, Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin; John McCaffrey, Albany, New York; Miss M. Moran, Baltimore; M. Murphy, Chicago, Illinois; J.F. Sinnott, Philadelphia; Mrs. Stanley, Baltimore; J. Walsh, Baltimore; Rev. J.J. Doherty, Hernsdale, Pennsylvania; J.P. Morgan, C.A. Hoyt and A. Dougherty, New York. Numerous subscriptions were also made to the Divinity, University Chapel, and Guarantee Funds, as also to the Archbishop Kenrick Chair and the Archbishop Williams Chair.

In 1896, Bishop Keane was succeeded in the rectorship by Rev. Thomas J. Conaty of Worcester, Massachusetts, who became (1903) Bishop of Los Angeles. His successor was the Right Rev. Denis J. O’Connell, appointed (1907) Bishop of Sebaste. His prudent administration and the generous response of the Catholic people in the collection which Pius X directed to be taken up annually in each diocese enabled the university to overcome the financial difficulties which it encountered in 1904.

Since its foundation the university has gradually become a centre of learning for the laity, the diocesan clergy, and the religious orders. The institutions grouped about it, with the dates of establishment, are as follows: St. Thomas College (Paulist Fathers), 1889; Marist College (Marists), 1891; Holy Cross College (Congregation of the Holy Cross), 1895; College of the Holy Land (Franciscans), 1897; St. Austin’s College (Sulpicians), 1901; The Apostolic Mission House (Catholic Missionary Union), 1902; College of the Immaculate Conception (Dominicans), 1903. These colleges are the novitiates and houses of study of the several communities; their advanced students pursue courses in the University. Other affiliated institutions, outside the city of Washington, are the St. Paul Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota, and the Institute of Scientific Study, New York. In compliance with the express desire of the Holy See the university has contributed toward the improvement and co-ordination of the Catholic schools in the United States and has taken an active part in the organization and proceedings of the Catholic Educational Association established for the purpose of unifying and furthering educational work. Though as yet but partially developed and inadequately endowed, it has exerted a salutary influence by encouraging research, maintaining a high standard of scholarship, and impressing upon the minds of the Catholics throughout the country the need of providing university education under Catholic auspices.

HERBERMANN, in Am. Cath. Quart. Review (Philadelphia, 1889); HEWITT, in The Catholic World (New York), XLII, 85; KEANE, ibid. XLVII, 577; XLIX, 427; MAAS, in Amer. Eccl. Review (Dec., 1903); McPOLIN, in New Ireland Review (Jan., 1908); SHAHAN, The House of God (New York, 1905), gives a good bibliography, p. 347.

E.A. PACE

François Catrou

French historian, b. at Paris, 28 December, 1659; d. there 12 October, 1737. He was the son of Mathurin Catrou, secretary to Louis XIV. During his college days a marked facility and grace in composition gave promise of his future literary success. At eighteen he entered the Society of Jesus. During his regular period of Jesuit probation and study his talents for preaching were discovered, and at the completion of his course in 1690 he began his active career as a preacher, in which office he continued for ten years with remarkable success. In 1701 he founded the “Journal de Trevoux,” and was an active member of its staff for twelve years. While thus engaged in journalistic duties he found time for historical research, and to his productions in this line his fame is chiefly due. His principal works are: (1) histoire generale de l’empire du Mogul,” published in five duodecimo volumes, 1715, the matter being drawn, in the main, from the memoirs of the Venetian traveller Manuzio (translated into Italian as “Istoria generale del Imperio del Mogul” by Domenico Occhi, Venice, 1751, and into English as “History of the Mogul Dynasty,” London, 1826).—(2) “Histoire du fantisme dans la religion protestante,” a controversial work dealing principally with the Anabaptists and the Quakers; the best edition, 1740, in two duodecimo volumes, Paris—(3) “Histoire romaine,” with geographical and critical notes in twenty-one quarto volumes (1725–37), edited a second time in 1737.—The notes are from the pen of P. Rouillé, S.J. This gigantic work was translated into Italian by Fra Zannino Marsecco, Venice, 1730–37, and into English by R. Bundy, as “The Roman History with Notes, done into English from the Original French of the Rev. Fathers Catrou and Rouillé,” London, 1728–37, in six folio volumes. The French work was highly praised at the time for its deep research and solid reasoning, but its somewhat pompous style soon brought severe censure from the critics. Its appearance in an English dress gave occasion to some very bitter attacks; but, though censured, this work was the source of Nathaniel Hooke’s inspiration. In his “Roman History” he drew freely from the text of Catrou and more freely from the critical notes of Rouillé.—(4) “Traduction de Virgile,” with critical and historical notes. The translation is at all times free and not infrequently inaccurate. The notes and the accompanying life of Virgil manifest a thorough acquaintance with both poem and poet. Catrou’s Virgil was a constant companion of the historian Gibbon during his early studies. “I always consulted the most learned and ingenious commentators” he writes in his autobiography; “Torrentius and Dacier on Horace, and Catrou and Servius on Virgil.”

DENNIS J. KAVANAGH.

Diocese of Cattaro (Catharum)

DIOCESE OF CATTARO (CATARENSIS).

Suffragan of Zara. Cattaro, the principal town in one of the four divisions of Dalmatia, is situated at the foot of steep limestone rocks, on one of the small bays of the Adriatic, and nearly surrounded by mountains. The Gulf of Cattaro, itself a natural port, is divided into four smaller bays called Bocche di Cattaro, one of the most picturesque sites in Europe. The ancients called the town Ascrivium, and its gulf, Sinus Rhizonicus. Early in the Christian Era Ascrivium became a Roman colony; it was destroyed about 860 by the Saracens, but was rebuilt by the inhabitants of the town of Cattaro, who had been driven from home by the Hungarians. In the twelfth century, Cattaro seems to have been a republic; as early as 1178 its coins appear, bearing the image of St. Trypho. Later on it passed successively under Byzantine and Servian rule, and in 1368 formed an alliance with King Louis of Hungary. Having sided with the Genoese against the Venetians it was captured and burned by the latter (1378). In 1423 Cattaro voluntarily submitted to Venice, though retaining a certain autonomy. The long rule of Venice is reflected in the architecture of the town. During the Napoleonic period it passed successively into the hands of the Austrians, the French, the Russians, the French, and the Montenegrins, who sacked it after the departure of the French (1814). It then fell under Austrian rule, and is now a seaport of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and the commercial outlet of Montenegro. Situated as it was, Cattaro must have received the Gospel at an early period, according to legend from St. Boimus. The list of bishops, however, does not go farther back than 877. The Catholic population of the diocese is 13,363, the non-Catholic, 15,000. There are 19 parishes, 11 vicariates, 50 secular and 12 regular priests.

U. BENIGNI

Augustin-Louis Cauchy

French mathematician, b. at Paris, 21 August, 1789; d. at Sceaux, 23 May, 1857. He owed his early training to his father, a man of much learning and literary taste, and, at the suggestion of La Grange, who early detected his talents and took a lively interest in him, he received a good classical education at the Ecole Centrale du Panthéon in Paris. In 1805 he entered the Ecole Polytechnique, where he distinguished himself in mathematics. Two years later he entered the Ecole des Ponts et Chaussées and, after a brilliant course of study, he was appointed one of the engineers in charge of the extensive public works inaugurated by Napoleon at Cherbourg. While here he devoted his leisure moments to mathematics. Several important memoirs from his pen, among them those relating to the theory of polyhedra, symmetrical functions, and particularly his proof of a theorem of Fermat which had baffled mathematicians like Gauss and Euler, made him known to the scientific world and won him admittance into the Academy of Sciences. At about the same time the Grand Prix offered by the Academy was bestowed on him for his essays on the propagation of waves. After a sojourn of three years at Cherbourg his health began to fail, and he resigned his post to begin at the age of twenty-two his career of professor at the Ecole Polytechnique. In 1818 he married Mlle. de Bure, who, with two daughters, survived him.

Cauchy was a stanch adherent of the Bourbons and after the Revolution of 1830 followed Charles X into exile. After a brief stay at Turin, where he occupied the chair of mathematical physics created for him at the university, he was invited to become one of the tutors of the young Duc de Bordeaux, grandson of Charles, at Prague. The old monarch conferred the title of baron upon him in recognition of his services. He returned to France in 1838, and was proposed by the Academy for a vacant chair at the Collège de France. His conscientious refusal to take the requisite oath on account of his devotion to the prince prevented his appointment. His nomination to the Bureau des Longitudes was declared void for the same reason. After the Revolution of 1848, however, he received a professorship at the Sorbonne. Upon the establishment of the Second Empire the oath was reinstated, but an exception was made by Napoleon III in the cases of Cauchy and Arago, and he was thus free to continue his lectures. He spent the last years of his life at Sceaux, outside of Paris, devoting himself to his mathematical researches until the end.

Cauchy was an admirable type of the true Catholic savant. A great and indefatigable mathematician, he was at the same time a loyal and devoted son of the Church. He made public profession of his faith and found his greatest pleasure and recreation in works of zeal and charity. He was an active member of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and took a leading part in founding the “Ecoles d’Orient” in 1856, and the “Association pour la liberté du dimanche.” During the famine of 1846 in Ireland Cauchy made an appeal to the pope on behalf of the stricken people. He was on terms of intimate friendship with Père de Ravignan, S. J., the well-known preacher, and when, during the reign of Louis-Philippe, the colleges of the Society of Jesus were attacked he wrote two memoirs in their defence. Cauchy is best known for his achievements in the domain of mathematics, to almost every branch of which he made numerous and important contributions. He was a prolific writer and, besides his larger works, he was the author of over seven hundred memoirs, papers, etc., published chiefly in the “Coptes Rendus.” A complete edition of his works has been issued by the French Government under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences. Among his researches may be mentioned his development of the theory of series in which he established rules for investigating their convergency. To him is due the demonstration of the existence and number of real and imaginary roots of any equation, and he did much to bring determinants into general use. In connexion with his work on definite integrals, his treatment of imaginary limits deserves special mention. He was the first to give a rigid proof of Taylor’s theorem. The “Calculus of Residues” was his invention, and he made important researches in the theory of functions. By his theory of the continuity of functions and the method of limits he placed the differential calculus on a logical basis. Cauchy was also a pioneer in extending the applications of mathematics to physical science, especially to molecular mechanics, optics, and astronomy. In the theory of dispersion we have his well-known formula giving the refractive index in terms of the wave length and three constants. Besides his numerous memoirs, he was the author of “Cours d’analyse de l’Ecole royale polytechnique” (1821); “Résumé des leçons données à l’Ecole royale polytechnique sur les applications du calcul infinitésimal” (1823); “Leçons sur les applications du calcul infintésimal à la géométrie” (1826, 1828); “Leçons sur le calcul différentiel” (1829); “Anciens exercices de mathématicques” (1826–1830); “Résumés analytiques” (1833); “Noveaux exercices de mathématiques” (1835–1836); “Noveaux exercices d’analyse et de physique mathématique” (1840–47).

VALSON, La vie et les travaux du baron Cauchy (Paris, 1868); MARIE, Hist. des sciences math. et phys. (1888), XII; BALL, Hist. of Math. (London, 1893); KNELLER, Das Christentum, u. die Vertreter der neueren Naturwisseschaft (Freiburg, 1904); IDEM in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (Freiburg, 1903), LXIV; The Month, No. 516 (New Series, 126), June, 1907.

HENRY M. BROCK

Caughnawaga

Or SAULT ST. LOUIS.

An Iroquois reservation, situated on the south bank of the St. Lawrence, about ten miles above Montreal. Area, 12,327 acres. Population in 1905, 2,100; all Catholics, except five or six families. The language is the Mohawk dialect. The Sault (or Rapids) was an old seigniory, or concession, granted to the Jesuits in 1680. To P. Raffeix, S.J., is due the idea of thus grouping the Iroquois neophytes on the banks of the St. Lawrence, to guard them from the persecution and temptation to which they were subject amid the pagan influences of their own villages. In 1667 the missionary prevailed upon seven communities to take up their residence at Laprarie, opposite Montreal. Other Christian Iroquois, from different localities, soon came to join the settlement, and in 1670 there were twenty families. As the proximity of the whites was prejudicial to the Indians, the mission was transferred, in 1676, several miles higher up the river. This second site is memorable as the scene of the saintly life and death of Catherine Tegakwitha (d. 1680). In 1890 a granite monument was erected on the site, in memory of the humble Iroquois virgin. In 1689, to escape the threatened attacks of their pagan tribesmen, the Christian Iroquois sought refuge in Montreal, where they remained eight or nine months. When the danger had passed, they founded another settlement a mile or two above the last. In 1696 another migration took place to a fourth site. Here it was that P. Lafitau, S.J., discovered the famous “ginseng” plant, so valuable in the eyes of the Chinese. The discovery created a great sensation, and was for a time the source of a lucrative commerce. This fourth site still proving unsatisfactory, the settlement was moved to the present site of Caughnawaga in 1716. From 1667 to 1783 the mission was conducted by the Jesuits; from 1783 to 1903 by secular priests and Oblates. In 1903 it was again confided to the Jesuits. Among the more noted missionaries were Fathers Bruyas, S.J., Chauchetiere, S.J., Lafitau, S.J., Burtin, O.M.I., Marcoux, who composed an Iroquois dictionary and grammar, and Forbes who drew up complete genealogical tables of the settlement. The Indians are intelligent and industrious. Some are engaged in farming, others take rafts down the Lachine rapids. The industries are principally bead-work and the making of lacrosse rackets and snowshoes. Besides the presbytery, dating from 1716, and the church, built in 1719 and restored in 1845, there are in the village the ruins of a French fort of 1754, two schools, and a hospital. The government by chiefs was, in 1889, replaced by that of a mayor and council.

“Jesuit Relations” (Cleveland, 1901); CHAUCHETIERE, “La Vie de la B.C. Tegakouita” (Mante, 1887); SHEA, “History of Catholic Missions among the Indian Tribes of the U.S.” (New York, 1854; new ed. 1899); DE ROCHEMONTEIX, “Les jesuites de la Nouvelle France au XVIIIe siecle” (Paris, 1906).

JOSEPH GRAS

François-Etienne Caulet

(Also called M. DE FOIX from an abbey of which he was commendatory abbot).

A French bishop and Jansenist, b. at Toulouse, 1610; d. at Pamiers, 1680. After completing his studies at the Collège de La Flèche he laboured for some time under Père de Condren, Superior of the French Oratory, and then joined M. Olier in founding the Vaugirard Seminary and the Company of Saint-Sulpice. When M. Olier accepted the parish of Saint-Sulpice (1642), Caulet became practically the head of the seminary. In 1644 Louis XIV, at the suggestion of St. Vincent de Paul, made him Bishop of Pamiers. Caulet had not sought episcopal honours, but once a bishop he showed great zeal in the reformation of the clergy, the annual visitation of the diocese, the holding of synods, and the founding of schools, one of which was devoted especially to the training of teachers. His impulsive zeal did not fail to raise opposition. The chapters of Foix and Pamiers, which he tried to reform, revolted openly, and had to be coerced into submission by Briefs of Alexander VII and ordinances of Louis XIV. For an account of his conflict with the Jesuits of Pamiers (1668) regarding approbation for hearing confessions, see Bertrand, “Hist. Litt. de la Compagnie de Saint-Sulpice” (Paris, 1900), III, 55,57. For the lengthy previous controversies see CONFESSION, apropos of Approbation, and Ferraris (Roman ed., 1885) s.v. “Approbation”; Santi (ed. Leitner, Rome, 1905), “Praelectiones juris canonici,” III, 366; Bouix, “De episcopo,” II, 250, and “De jure regularium,” II, 213 sqq.

Two facts stand out prominently in Caulet’s episcopal career, his dubious attitude with regard to the formulary of Alexander VII (Denzinger, “Enchiridion,” no. 971) and his noble conduct in the affaire de la régale, i.e. the royal pretension to the revenues and the administration of vacant sees. On receipt of the formulary of Alexander VII Caulet issued a pastoral letter requesting his clergy to subscribe to it, but with certain qualifications (foi aux dogmes révélés, déférence respectueuse aux faits non révélés). Most people see in that respectful deference the silence respectueux of the Jansenists. However, De la Chambre (Traité du formulaire), Bouix (De Papâ, II, 95), and Bertrand (Histoire littéraire, III, 19) are of opinion that Caulet really meant an internal adhesion of the mind, albeit this adhesion may not have come up to the “ecclesiastical faith” as proposed by Fénelon, and later admitted commonly by theologians. Clement IX did not urge the point, and accepted Caulet’s adhesion such as it was. In February, 1673, Louis XIV, in need of funds, attempted to extend to all French bishoprics the droits de régale. Caulet was one of the few bishops who stoutly resisted the royal encroachment. Betrayed by his metropolitan, despoiled by the king, he appealed to Innocent XI, who issued several Briefs, lauding his courage and his loyalty to the Church. The last of these Briefs, dated 17 July, 1680 (Inn. XI, epistolae, Rome, 1890, I, 357), reached Pamiers just after Caulet’s death, and it contained the best eulogy a bishop could receive. Caulet left a mass of episcopal ordinances, synodal statutes, memoirs, etc., analyzed by Doublet and Bertrand. Two treatises on the régale were published under his name in 1680 and 1681.

J.F. SOLLIER

Caunus

(KAUNOS).

A titular see of Asia Minor. Kaunos was said to have been founded by Kaunos, son of Miletos and Kyane, on the southern coast of Caria, opposite Rhodes, and was known as Rhodian Peraea, at the foot of Mount Tarbelos. Its acropolis was called Imbros. It exported, chiefly to Rome, highly prized figs. It was the home of the painter Protogenes. The “Synecdemus” of Hierocles and most “Notitiae episcopatuum,” as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century, place it in Lycia, as a suffragan of Myra. Four bishops are mentioned by Lequien (I, 981): Basil, who attended the council at Seleucia in 359; Antipater, at Chalcedon in 451; Nicolaus, who subscribed the letter to Emperor Leo in 458; Stephanus at Nicaea in 787. The interesting ruins of the city are half an hour from the modern village of Dalian, in the vilayet of Konia, on the right bank of a little brook, the ancient Kalbis. Among them are a theatre, a large rectangular building that was probably a temple, others of uncertain destination, a Byzantine church, and very curious rock-hewn tombs.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Cause

CAUSE IN GREEK PHILOSOPHY

THE SCHOLASTIC ANALYSIS OF CAUSATION

CAUSATION IN MODERN THOUGHT

LATER SPECULATIONS

(Gr. aitía, aítion, Lat. causa, Fr. cause, Ger. Ursache; from the Latin both the Italian term cosa and the French chose, meaning “thing,” are derived),

Cause, as the correlative of effect, is understood as being that which in any way gives existence to, or contributes towards the existence of, any thing; which produces a result; to which the origin of any thing is to be ascribed. The term cause is also employed in several other suppositions, philosophical, scientific, legal, etc., to which reference will be made in the course of the present article. The description just given is that of cause taken in the philosophical sense, as well as in its ordinary signification in popular language, for, strictly speaking, cause, being a transcendental, cannot receive a logical definition. It is that also commonly advanced as a preliminary to the investigation of the nature of causality, in the schools. Although the ideas of cause and of causality are quite obviously among the most familiar that we possess, since they are involved in every exercise of human reasoning, and are presupposed in every form of argument and by every practical action, a very great vagueness attaches to the popular concept of them and a correspondingly great ambiguity is to be found in the use of the terms expressing them. In view of this fact, it will be necessary to clear the ground traversed in the main portion of the present article by stating that it is concerned, not so much in treating of individual causes considered in the concrete, as with the analysis of the idea of causality underlying and involved in that of every cause. There is also a psychological, as well as a metaphysical, aspect of the subject, which ought not to be lost sight of, especially in that part of the article in which the more recent speculations with regard to causality are touched upon.

As a matter of fact, all mankind by nature attributes to certain phenomena a causative action upon others. This natural attribution of the relationship of cause and effect to phenomena is anterior to all philosophical statement and analysis. Objects of sense are grouped roughly into two classes—those that act and those that are acted upon. No necessarily conscious reflection seems to enter into the judgment that partitions natural things into causes and effects. But when we proceed to ask ourselves precisely what we mean when we say, for example, that A is cause and B effect, that A causes B, or that B is the result of A, we raise the question of causality. Whatever answer we put forward, it will be the statement of our conception of causation. It will be the expression of our judgment as to the actual relationship between A and B involved in the conception of the one as cause and of the other as effect. It will probably be found, when we attempt to formulate any answer to the question, that much more is involved than we had at first sight thought; and, since the investigation we should pursue would probably proceed upon lines analogous to those upon which philosophy has, as a matter of fact, travelled, it will not be amiss to trace the history and development of the problem concerned with causes and causality, and to set down briefly the various solutions advanced. We shall begin, therefore, with the first crude conception of power or efficiency, and pass on through the stages of hyloism and idealism to the full analysis of cause and statement of causality made by Aristotle. This will be considered merely in outline, as filled in in the following more detailed account of the doctrines of the Schoolmen upon the subject, who, while adopting it in all its main lines, in several respects modified the teaching of the Stagirite. The critical attack upon the possibility of a knowledge of causality, made by the Scottish sceptic Hume, will next be considered in its relation to the reply of the Common Sense School, as represented by Reid. The doctrine of Kant, with its double sequence of idealism and materialism, will be touched upon briefly; and, with a comparison of the mechanical concept of modern science with regard to causes and the more fundamental metaphysical analysis of causality, the philosophical treatment of the topic will be brought to an end.

Before the inception of the pre-Socratic schools of Greek philosophy, the first rude and popular conception of causes was mixed up with much that was extravagant and, in the proper sense of the word, superstitious. The powers of nature were personified, and thought of as intelligent and wilful. They were conceived of as far more powerful than man, but uncertain and capricious, so that it was necessary to propitiate them and enlist their favour by offering them sacrifices and praying to them. Thus there was the idea of power, and a loose attribution of effects to one or another of the natural forces that had vaguely come to be looked upon as causes. It was in order to provide a ground of unity, rather than thus to distract causes, that the early philosophers took up their search for the principles of things. The problem immediately before them was that of explaining similarity and diversity, as well as change, in the visible world. With them, though the term aitía was employed, and even occasionally in several of the senses in which Aristotle later distinguished it, the commoner term was arché, with which the former was apparently generally interchangeable. By this term a principle was designated that, in some vague sense, approaches in meaning to the material cause of the Stagirite. It was used to signify an entity prior to existing entities, and yet in some way coexisting with them and furnishing the ground or reason for their existence. But it did not connote the idea of cause in the strict sense, namely as that which actually gives being to its effect, such as is involved in later concepts of causality and is derived from the observation and analysis of the conditions of physical change. The problem thence arising had not yet been definitely set. The task of the philosophers of these early schools was the investigation of nature, with, for result, the discovery of its elemental constituent or constituents, its primordial principles. Thus the representatives of both the Ionian and Eleatic Schools, in reducing all things to a single purely material basis, or to several bases, assign, indeed, a principle that may be considered as a concrete cause, but do not raise the real question of causality, or give any satisfactory account either as to how one thing differs from another or as to how things can come to be at all. Nor, in explaining diversity and change by assigning heat, rarefaction, condensation, arrangement in space, number, etc., was more than an attempt made to call closer attention to the fact of causation and to determine more accurately than did popular opinion what were the concrete causes by which things came to be what they are. This, obviously, is not an analysis of causality, and in no sense really touches the heart of the question. It hardly calls for the remark that at most the causes, or more properly the principles, assigned, even if understood in the sense of inherent differentiating principles, were such as would account for no more than an accidental diversity, leaving all things, the diversity of which was the very point to be explained, really identical in substance.

The progress from this first search for the elemental principles of being to the later investigation and interpretation of alteration, or change, in itself was gradual. Something had to be found that would account for the regularity of the succession of phenomena in the physical world, as well as for their diversity and alteration. The Pythagoreans put forward their doctrines of number as an explanation; Plato, his theory of ideas. Thus, in his advance upon his predecessors, he clearly allows, in a very real sense, for formal causes of existence. But he does not specify the nature of these ideas, other than as substances, separate from the individual entities that they cause. In some manner not fully explained, these individual entities are precisely what they are by participating in the idea. In different passages in his writings Plato alludes to the relation between the ideas and the concrete entities as a participation, a community, or an imitation. Thus he states the fact of similarity in the essences and processes of the physical world, but does not offer any explanation or definite account of it. In common with the earlier nature philosophers, Plato assigns concrete causes but does not attempt to give any solution of the real problems of causality. Not until Aristotle formulated his famous doctrine of the four causes of being can it be said that the question was envisaged with sufficient clearness to admit of exact presentation or fruitful discussion. Instead of explaining diversity in the physical world by a reference to a common underlying principle and an accidental modification, either fortuitous or designed, proceeding from it and in it—at best the crude makeshift of an incipient philosophy that has yet to state correctly the problem to be solved, instead of looking outside the object, or effect, for that which specifies it, and finding a substance entirely separated from it, to which its substantial existence in the world of phenomena, in some cryptic manner, is to be attributed, Aristotle instituted a profound inquiry into the essentially diverse modes in which any one thing can be said to contribute to the existence of any other. In so doing he changed the nature of the inquiry. The result was not only the discovery of the four causes, but a solution of the really far more important question of causality. There is no doubt but that his teaching is, in a very real sense, a synthesis of all that had gone before it; but it is a synthesis in which no one of the preceding doctrines is adopted precisely as it stood in the earlier systems. The secret which governed the adaptation of the currently accepted “principles” and made the synthesis possible, lay in the signification that he gave to the formal cause. The task he had to perform had ceased to be that of discovering merely physical constituents or principles, and had shifted to the fundamental issue of metaphysical inquiry. Aristotle gives the opinions of his predecessors at considerable length in the “Physics,” and again in the “Metaphysics,” in which he submits them to a careful analysis and rigorous criticism. But the elements of his own doctrine with regard to the four causes, as causes, were there in solution. The signification of the term arché, already used, was sufficiently comprehensive to include that of aitía, since all causes come necessarily under the head of principles. The Ionians of the older school had dealt with matter. Later Ionians had treated vaguely of efficient causes. The method and moral teaching of Socrates had convolved and brought out the idea of the final, while Plato had definitely taught the existence of separated formal, causes. All these factors contributed to the result of his inquiry, and the splendid historical criticism and review to which he submits the earlier philosophers and their teachings on this point show not only his wide and profound acquaintance with their doctrines, but his readiness also to credit them with whatever they had advanced that at all made for knowledge. Still, to this point, as has been said, it was a question of principle rather than of cause; and, when of cause as such, of cause considered in the concrete rather than of the causality of causes.

The problem, then, for Aristotle, took the form of an analysis of essences in such wise as to perceive, separate, and classify those principles which, in conspiring to bring the essence of any effect, object or event, actually into existence, as it were, flow into it. For the idea of cause is of that which in any way influences the production of an effect as an essence. And, to declare the manner in which such causes, once discovered, are found to correspond, and play their several parts in causation, will be to state causality. Now, as our notion of principles in general, whether in the being, in the becoming, or in the understanding of any thing, is primarily derived from observation of motions taking place in space, so our notion of cause is derived from observation of changes, whether local, quantitative, qualitative, or substantial. The explanation of any change leads to the doctrine of the four distinctions, or classes, of causes as formulated by Aristotle. They were:

matter, húle—tò hex oû gínetaí tí enupárchontos

form, morphé, eîdos—ho lógos ho toú ti ên eînai—

moving, or efficient cause, tò kinetikó—hóthen he archè tês metabolés he próte—

final cause, tò télos—tò hoû héneka (Cf. Physics, II, iii.)

These are severally related in various ways. It is in the declaration of this relationship that the notion and explanation of causality is to be found. The material cause, that out of which the principiate, or effect, is made or caused, is conceived as an indeterminate potentiality. It is determined to a definite substantial essence by the formal cause. This, in turn, is conceived as an actuality specifying the material potentiality. Formal causes are the changeless essences of things in themselves, permanent in them amid the flux of accidental modifications, yet by actual union with the material cause determining this to the concrete individual; and not, like the ideas of Plato, separated from it. They are, under the action of the moving, or efficient, cause, the accomplishment of the determinability of matter. The moving, or efficient, cause, which, as will be seen later, is that which has come to be chiefly regarded as the true cause, and that round which most controversy has arisen, is, in this fourfold division of causes, that one by the operation or agency of which the effect is brought into being; i.e. by the operation of which the formal cause of the effect is induced in the material. Lastly, the final cause is that principle on account of which the efficient cause moves towards the production of its effect. It is the effect itself formally considered as the term of the intention of the agent, or efficient cause. Neither Aristotle nor Plato is very clear as to the precise sense in which the final cause is to be understood. The Aristotelean phrase is loose enough to cover the two meanings: i.e., the end considered as the object desired, and the end considered as the desire of the object. Aristotle perceives and teaches that the end is frequently identified with the form, and that this is also frequently identified in species with the moving cause; for man, as he says in the example that he gives, begets man. It does not, however, follow that all moving causes are always identified, even in species, with their effects. Indeed, Aristotle teaches that this is not the case. He holds that the world is eternal; but, in virtue of his fundamental principle that no potentiality can precede actuality, he makes it a participative eternity. Hence the material and the formal causes that together go to make up the world are created, or more properly, eternally concreated. From this fundamental principle of the priority of actuality over potentiality, Aristotle proves also the fact of the existence of God as the first moving cause. As each effect of a process is now to be reckoned an actuality that was before no more than potential, and postulates a moving cause in order that it should have come into being as the term of a motion, so all things in the world, taken together, necessitate an absolutely first cause of the same nature. This first moving cause must, on Aristotle’s principle, be an absolute actuality, since, were it not entirely in act, it could not be the moving cause of all things nor keep them eternally in motion. Similarly, it must be pure form, or noûs, with no admixture of matter, since this would import a limitation of its actuality. Thus did Aristotle raise and answer the question of causality, dividing causes into four classes, and indicating the nature of the causal influx with which each contributes towards the production of their common effect. For, according to this theory, all the four causes, taken together, are really the cause of any given physical effect.

The teaching of Aristotle is that which substantially passed current in the medieval schools. With certain important modifications concerning the eternity of the material cause, the substantiality of certain formal causes of material entities, and the determination of the final cause, the fourfold division was handed on to the Christian teachers of patristic and scholastic times. As Aristotle had developed and improved the doctrine of Plato with regard to inherent substantial forms, so the leaders of Christian thought, guided in their work by the light of revelation and the teaching of the Church, perfected the philosophical teaching of Aristotle. It is not, indeed, advanced that the Christian philosophy of this period was merely theological; but it is contended that certain purely philosophical truths, verifiable in and by philosophy, were obtained as a result of the impetus given to metaphysical research by the dogmas of revelation. This is not the place for enlarging upon such a topic except in so far as it is directly pertinent to the question of causes; and it is principally in other matters that the contention obtains. Still, at least in the three cases to which allusion has just been made, it is true that speculation was helped forward on the right lines by the teaching of the Church. The truth of the contention is patent. In the patristic Period, particularly in the works of St. Augustine, who was a Platonist rather than an Aristotelean, and in the scholastic period, the foremost representative of which is St. Thomas Aquinas, the doctrine of the four causes of being is set forth in connection with the modifications noted. The theory of causality, as held and taught in the Middle Ages, and as taught in the schools today, will in this section be exhibited in some detail.

“The ancient philosophers came to the knowledge of truth by degrees and slowly,” writes St. Thomas.

For at first, being as it were less cultivated, they did not recognize any beings other than sensible bodies. And those of them who acknowledged movement in them only admitted movement as to accidents, as in rarity and density, aggregation and disgregation. And, supposing that the substance of bodies was untreated, they assigned certain causes for accidental changes of this kind, as, for example, friendship, strife, intellect or something of this nature. Proceeding, they distinguished intellectually between the substantial form and the matter, which they considered as uncreated; and they perceived that substantial transmutation takes place in bodies with respect to their substantial forms. (Summa Theologica I:44:2)

The last sentence of this passage gives the basis of the Scholastic doctrine with regard to causes. “Consider,” a Scholastic would say, “a substantial change—that is to say, a change in which one substance, made known to the understanding by its qualities, ceases to be what it was in the instant A, and becomes, in the instant B, another substance. In order that such a change should be possible, four things are necessary: namely,

the thing that is changed;

the term, or manner of being, or essence, that is induced in that which is changed;

the active agent that produces the change, or accomplishes the existence of the new term, manner of being, or essence; and

the motive, or reason why this latter acts.

There is also, though it cannot be reckoned as a cause, the terminus a quo, or the original determinative of the thing changed, which passes out of being with the advent of the newly induced term. These four necessary things, since they produce the final result by a mutual action and interaction, in which they give being to it considered as result, are its causes. They are to be discovered, moreover, wherever and whenever any change takes place, not only in substantial, but also in accidental, changes, or mere changes of qualities.” Consider the two cases, the one of accidental, the other of substantial, change. A cube of wax is moulded by the hand into a sphere. The wax, as permanent substratum of the change of figure, is considered to be the matter, or material cause. The spherical figure supervening upon that of the cubical, is the induced formal cause. The moulder, or fashioner of the sphere, is the efficient cause. The final cause is to be sought for in the intention of the moulder. The substance of the wax remains throughout the entire process of the moulding. It is affected only accidentally by the operation. Consequently the example is one of accidental change, and gives us no more than an accidental formal cause. But in cases of substantial change, such as, for example, the electrolysis of water, the induced formal cause is a substantial one; and, moreover, since the substance of the water does not remain after the change has taken place, the material cause cannot be other than a subject, or permanent substratum, that is neither water nor oxygen and hydrogen taken together. In such a case, it is called primordial, or first matter, and is conceived as being a subject potential to information by any and all formal causes. It is a potentiality, but, as a permanent substratum, or determinable entity, is capable of receiving new substantial determinations in the place of that which actually denominates it. It cannot exist alone, but exists only as informed, or actuated by a formal cause. It is not eternal, but created, or, more properly, concreated with substantial form. The material cause, as presented in the Scholastic system of philosophy, fulfils the conditions of a cause as given above. It gives being to the effect, since without it this could neither exist nor come into being. Though it is conceived as an essentially incomplete subject, as a merely passive potentiality, it is distinguished from the complete effect, to the becoming and being of which it contributes. The diversity of primordial matter from the forms which actuate it is exhibited by the consideration that there is an essential distinction between the subject of change and the states, modifications, or determined natures from which and towards which the change is conceived as acting. Hence primordial matter is reasonably held to be a reality, belonging reductively to the category of substance, and determinable to every kind of corporeal substance by reason of its essential ordination to the reception of a form. Quantity is said to be a consequent of material substances by reason of the matter entering into their physical composition; and by matter, as quantified, forms, specifically the same, are held to be numerically individuated.

The doctrine of the school with regard to formal causes must be understood in the light of the thesis that all forms are, of their nature, acts, or actualities. The formal cause of material entities has been described as that substantial reality which intrinsically determines matter in any species of corporeal substance. It is conceived as the actuating, determining, specifying principle, existent in the effect. It is a substance, not of itself as form, but reductively, as the quidditative act, as the material cause belongs to the same category in the sense of being a receptive potentiality. But substantial form, with which we are here dealing, is not of its nature either dependent or independent of the matter that it informs; or actuates. Certain substantial forms are said to be drawn from the potentiality of matter—those, namely, that for the exercise of all their functions are totally dependent upon material dispositions or organs. Of this nature are said to be all substantial forms, or formal causes, specifically below that of the human being, i.e. the soul of man. This, as intrinsically independent of matter in its chief functions of intellection and volition, is, although the formal cause of man, as such, held to be immaterial, and to necessitate a special and individual creative act on the part of God. While the material cause of corporeal entities is one, in the sense that it is one indeterminate potentiality, the formal cause is said to be one in the sense that one substantial formal cause only can exist in each effect, or result, of the union of form and matter. For formal causes, as the specifying factors in diverse corporeal entities, are diverse both numerically and specifically. They are so specifically in that they proceed in an order of varying perfection, from the formal causes of the simple elements upwards, just as the various effects, or results, of the union of matter and form, which are specified by them, proceed in an order of varying perfection, to the lower of which, in each subsequent grade, a higher is super-added. They are numerically diverse, in the same species, because of the differentiation that accrues to them on account of their reception in quantified matter (materia signata).

Consistent with this teaching is that in which the angels are said to be distinguished specifically, and not numerically, as lacking the material subject by which substantial forms of the same species are differentiated. In the same way the human soul, when separated from the body at death, is held to retain its “habit” towards the quantified matter that it actuated as formal principle, and from which it received its differentiation from all other human souls. In a sense similar to that of substantial forms specifying primordial matter, accidental formal causes are conceived as informing corporeal substances already in existence as entities. The causality of the substantial formal cause is shown in the same manner as that of the material. It concurs in the being of the effect, or result of the union of matter and form, as actually constituting this in its proper and specific essence. Yet it is distinct from it in that it does not include in itself matter, which the composite effect does. A parallel consideration will show the nature of the causality of accidental formal causes. The specific qualities of material substances, as well as of immaterial, are said to depend upon their formal causes. It may be noted that, while both the material and the formal principle are, properly speaking, causes, in that they contribute, each in its proper manner, towards the resultant effect, their causal nature is intrinsic. The informed matter is the effect, produced and sustained by the act of information. Form and matter are physically component parts of the effect. The theory derived from an examination of corporeal changes, both accidental and substantial, that has just been outlined, is that commonly known as Hylomorphism. It permeates the whole of Scholastic physical science and philosophy and is employed, both as to terminology and signification, in the exposition of Catholic theology. In this place it will be well to note that the terminology and meaning of this doctrine are not only consecrated to theology by the usage of theologians, but have also been employed in the solemn definitions of the Church. In the general Council of Vienne it was defined that whosoever shall presume to assert, defend, or pertinaciously hold that the rational or intellective soul is not the form of the human body, of itself and essentially, is to be considered as a heretic. (Cf. “Conc. Viennen. Definitiones . . . ex Clementinâ de Summâ Trinitate” in Denzinger, “Enchirid.,” n. 408.) This teaching was reasserted in the decree of Pope Leo X, in the Fifth Lateran Council (Bull, Apostolici Regiminis), and again by Pope Pius IX, in a Brief to the Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne, concerning the books and teaching of Günther (1857).

The efficient cause is that which, by its action, produces an effect substantially distinct from itself. It is denominated efficient on account of the term produced by its action, i.e. the effect itself, and not necessarily from any presupposed material principle which it is conceived as potent to transform. The action, or causality, of the efficient cause is conceived as one which educes the actuality of the effect from its potentiality. This it is held to do in virtue of its own actuality, though precisely how no one has ever explained. No explanation of the essential nature of the action of the efficient cause would seem to be possible. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that

an effect shows the power of the cause only by reason of the action, which proceeds from the power and is terminated in the effect. But the nature of a cause is not known through its effect except in so far as through its effect its power is known, which follows upon its nature. (Contra Gentiles, III, lxix, tr. Rickaby.)

Both the fact of efficient causality, and an account of its mode of action, as to accidents, are thus expressed by St. Thomas, in answer to the objections of “some Doctors of the Moorish Law”:

Now this is a ridiculous proof to assign of a body not acting, to point to the fact that no accident passes from subject to subject. When it is said that one body heats another, it is not meant that numerically the same heat, which is in the heating body, passes to the body heated; but that by virtue of the heat, which is in the heating body, numerically another heat comes to be in the heated body actually, which was in it before potentially. For a natural agent does not transfer its own form to another subject, but reduces the subject upon which it acts from potentiality to actuality. (Op. cit., Bk. III, lxix.)

The same argument, mutatis mutandis, would likewise hold good if applied to the efficient causes of substances. The efficient cause, unlike the material and the formal, is thus seen to be entirely extrinsic to its effect. It is held to act in virtue of its form. The fact and mode of this action is given in the above quotation from the “Contra Gentiles”; but the precise nature of the action, or relation, between the efficient cause and its effect is not stated. It is quite clear that the accident, quality, power, or motion in the cause A is not held to pass over into the effect B, since a numerically new one is said to be reduced from potentiality. Equally clear is it that nothing of the first efficient cause is supposed to pass over into its effects, as creation is said to be ex nihilo sui et subiecti; and there is nothing in God to pass over, since all that we conceive of as in God is God Himself. Consequently it would seem that the concept of efficiency in general includes no more than the activity of the cause as producing the effect by educing an accidental or a substantial form from the potentiality of matter. In the one case of forms not so educible, the efficient cause (God) creates and infuses them into matter. (Cf. In III Phys., Lect. 5.) There are many divisions and subdivisions of the efficient cause commonly made in Scholastic treatises, to which the reader is referred for a more complete development of the subject. Under this head, however, will be added the principal dignities, or axioms of causality, as laid down by the Schoolmen:

Whatever exists in nature is either a cause or an effect (Contra Gent., III, cvii).

No entity can be its own cause (op. cit., II, xxi).

There is no effect without a cause.

Given the cause, the effect follows; the cause removed, the effect ceases. This axiom is to be understood of causes efficient in act, and of effects related to them not only in becoming but also in being (op. cit., II, xxxv).

An effect requires a proportionate cause. This axiom is to be understood in the sense that actual effects respond to actual causes, particular effects to particular causes, etc. (op. cit., II, xxi).

The cause is by nature prior to its effect. Priority is not necessarily understood here as relating to time. (Op. cit., II, xxi; Summa theol. III:62:6; “De potentiâ,” Q. iii, a. xiii; “De veritate,” Q. xxviii, a. vii.)

The perfection of the effect pre-exists in its cause (formally, virtually, or eminently). (Cf. Summa theol. I:6:2.)

Whatever is the cause of a cause (precisely as cause) is the cause also of its effect. This axiom enunciates a truth with regard to series of connected causes formally acting by their nature. (Cf. Summa Theol. I:45:5.)

The first cause (in any order of causes dependent one on the other) contributes more to the production of the effect than the secondary cause. (Cf. De causis, in cap.) Arguments, besides that given above, for the establishing of the fact of efficient causality in the physical world are to be found in the “Contra Gentiles,” III, lxix.

It may be pointed out, in anticipation of the conception of purely mechanical, or dynamical, causation to be referred to later on, that in this system causation is not merely taken to mean an impulse, or change, in motion. The theory advanced is one to account for change of any kind, and, by a profound analysis, to reach the causes upon which things depend for their becoming and their actual beings. The final cause, or end, is that for the sake of which the effect, or result of an action, is produced. It is distinguished in the following manner: I (1) The end considered objectively, or the effect itself as desired by the agent; (2) the end formally considered, or the possession or use of the effect. II (1) The end of the efficient operation, or that effect or result to which the operation is directed by the efficient cause; (2) the end of the agent, or that which he principally and ultimately intends by his operation. III (1) The end prior to the activity caused by it, both as cause and in the line of being; (2) the end prior to the activity as cause, but posterior to this in the line of being. There are other divisions of the final cause, for the details of which the reader is referred to the literature upon the subject. The causality of the final cause is to be referred to its appetibility. “As the influx of the efficient cause is in its act, so the influx of the final cause is in its being sought after and desired” (St. Thomas, De veritate, Q. xxii, a. ii.) That it is a true cause Aquinas shows in the following words:

Matter does not acquire form, except according as it is moved by an acting cause (agent); for nothing reduces itself from potency to act. But the acting cause does not move, except by reason of the intention of an end. For if the acting cause were not determined to some effect, it would not act to produce one rather than another. In order, therefore, that it should produce a determined effect, it is necessary that it should he determined to something certain as end. (Summa theol. I-II:1:2; cf. also In V Metaphysic., Lect. 2.)

The final cause, like the efficient, is extrinsic to the effect, the latter being the cause of the existence of the former, and the former causing the latter, not in its existence, but as to its activity here and now exercised. Efficient causes acting towards ends are distinguished as: (1) acting by intelligence; or (2) acting by nature. Ultimately, the tendency of the operation of the latter class is resolved into operation by intelligence, since the determined operation following on their nature is, and must be, assigned to an intelligent first cause, either of a particular series, or of all series: i.e. God. Thus deliberative operation is seen not to be of the essence of operation towards the attainment of ends. It is shown that, in no one of the four classes into which causes are differentiated is an infinite progression possible; and, upon the doctrine advanced as to causality in general, and the four classes of causes in particular, are based arguments demonstrating rationally the existence of God. It may be of interest to refer in this section to the exemplary cause, or exemplary ideas, as conceived by St. Thomas. He writes (Summa theol. I:15:1):

In all those things that are not generated by chance, it is necessary that form should be the end of the generation of each. But the efficient cause [agens] does not act on account of the form, except in so far as the likeness of the form is in it. And this happens in two ways. (1) For in certain efficient causes the form of the thing to be made pre-exists, agreeably to natural essence, as in those things that act by nature; as man begets man, and fire produces fire. (2) But in others it pre-exists agreeably to intelligible essence; as in those things which act by intellect; as the likeness of the house pre-exists in the mind of the builder.

He concludes that, since the world is not the result of chance, there is an idea (in the succeeding article of the same question, many ideas) in the Divine mind, as the archetype forms of things. But these ideas are the essence of God understood by Him as imitable in diverse modes on the part of His creatures. In this sense, perhaps, did Aristotle identify form, end, and moving cause. In the imitability on the part of creation, St. Thomas finds the secret of the world of phenomena. Viewed with his theory of causality as exposed above, it is perhaps the most complete and consistent explanation that has ever been given of the problem. When we find Spinoza putting forward substance, with its two attributes of thought and extension, determined to modes (unreal as these ultimately turn out to be); when Berkeley teaches that what we take to be causal changes in the phenomenal world are illusory, that there are no secondary causes, and that God and the human mind alone are real; when Hegel posits the unfolding of thought as the cause of phenomenal change, or Schopenhauer will manifesting itself in phenomenal succession—we seem to have found some clue to the labyrinth of causality, some common ground of unification. But it is at the cost of doing violence to our sense perception and immediate necessary judgments that the unification is brought about. In the Scholastic solution of the problem a ground of unification is provided in the transcendence, rather than the immanence, of the first and original source of all efficient causality. Moreover, with the isolation of the four causes and the declaration of their relationships and interaction, a coherent account is given of the working of secondary causality, as a matter of fact, in the phenomenal world. There is one aspect of the present topic that usually has a treatment apart from the more general question of causality. How, it is asked, can causal action be conceived as taking place between soul and body—between mind and matter, or between matter and mind? For a fuller statement of the answer to the latter part of this question the reader must be referred to the article EPISTEMOLOGY. It may be pointed out here, however, that in the Scholastic philosophy, man is not regarded as being a double entity—i.e. body+soul—but as a single one. The soul is the true and proper form of the body, which is its matter. It is, consequently, man who sees, hears, feels, etc., just as it is man who understands and wills. The communication from the outside world to his consciousness is made by the action of phenomena upon his organs of sensation. He is in touch with things external to himself through the medium of their “sensible species.” These, as phantasmata, under the abstraction of the “acting intellect,” are transformed into “intelligible species.” Thus, from the observation of causal action in the concrete, man rises to a true intellectual knowledge of causality in itself.

The first part of the question includes two issues. Man wills and performs actions, either becoming the efficient cause of effects, or causing efficient causes to act. God wills and creates the world. In the second case philosophy must confess to a mystery. It is held to be proved, by a consideration of the multiplicity and mutability of the entities that together form the world, that they have their origin in that one supreme and immutable entity which is God. It is further held to be proved that they are neither produced out of Him nor out of an already existing subject. To such a production of effects is given the name Creation. How God, as efficient cause of creation, acts, it is impossible to conceive. In the first case, will is a faculty of the soul, which is the substantial form of man. Consequently a man wills, rather than the will (or the soul), and, by reason of the intimate union of body and soul as matter and form (i.e. one suppositum, thing, or person), man acts. As informed by “soul” man is capable of willing to act and of acting; as body, or matter informed by “soul,” he is capable of acting upon other bodies. For a more complete development of this point see PSYCHOLOGY.

Though the Scholastic philosophy never fell into complete desuetude, nor ever lacked distinguished exponents of its principles, the upheaval of the sixteenth century was productive of new systems of thought in the development of which the idea of causality was profoundly modified, and ultimately was, in any intelligible sense, to a great extent abandoned. In this period two main lines of thought with regard to causes and causal action are pursued. On the one hand there is a tendency to revert to a purely mechanical conception, on the other to a purely idealistic one. The later Schoolmen had, by indulging largely in stereotyped, and often useless, speculations, in which a perplexing number of concrete cases of causality figure, brought Scholasticism into disrepute; while a general vague unrest and a desire for practical results from philosophy contributed to the formation of a new empirical system, constructed upon the principles of what is called the scientific method.

In his “Instauratio magna,” Bacon gave impetus to the movement. While accepting the traditional fourfold division of causes, he was of opinion that any speculation with regard to final causes is fruitless. The material cause, also, is not a proper subject for investigation. Even the efficient cause, except in given conditions, is such as cannot lead us to knowledge. Forms alone help the interpreter of nature and this in the practical sense that by a knowledge of forms he is in a position to become an efficient minister of nature. What is meant by form is not very clearly explained; but it is fairly safe to say that by it Bacon intended something approximating in meaning to the eîdos of Aristotle. Both Bacon, as is to be seen in his treatment of heat in the “Novum Organum,” and Descartes make motion the cause of the “apparently diverse changes in nature.” The latter entirely rejected the Scholastic system of formal causes, and considered matter as entirely inert. Hence diversify and change are to be accounted for immediately by motion+matter; while ultimately the sole efficient cause of all things is nothing else than the Will of God.

The opinion of Descartes on this head, together with his complete dualism of body and mind, led to the theory of causality, already advanced by certain Arabs in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and known as Occasionalism. This is one of the most curious causal theories that has ever been put forward, and merits some notice. The Occasionalists—Malebranche, Geulinex (Leibniz)—taught that created things do not themselves possess any effective activity, but are merely occasions in which the activity of the sole efficient cause, God, is manifested. A cause in nature does not produce any effect; but is the condition—or, more properly, the occasion—of the production of effects. Similarly, there is no causal connection or relation between body and soul. When God acts in nature producing effects, or things, occasioned by the previous existence of other things, He acts directly likewise upon our minds producing the corresponding idea of causal change. When we will, our volition is no more than the occasion of His acting on our bodies and effecting a movement, or change, corresponding to our willing. Akin to this explanation of the origin of our concepts of causality and of volition, is the doctrine of Leibniz on “pre-established harmony” between the soul-monad and the material-monads. Conformably to the theory of the Occasionalists, there is no transeunt, but only immanent, action to be admitted in causal changes. Several of the considerations given above in the section developing the doctrine of the Schoolmen anticipate this theory as an objection, notably that which deals with the reductive nature of efficient causality by which the potential is said to become actual and thus constitute the effect.

The problem of causation, for which a solution was advanced by the Occasionalists in the introduction of God as sole efficient cause, was disposed of by Hume in a still more drastic manner. His critical examination of the idea of causality issues, in full accordance with his sensistic principles, in sheer scepticism. Having previously reduced mind to no more than a succession of perceptions, he declares: “To me there appear to be only three principles of connection among ideas, namely, Resemblance, Contiguity in time or place, and Cause or Effect” (Works, IV, 18). Thus, for Hume, causality is no more than a relation between ideas. It is not an a priori relation, “but arises entirely from experience, when we find that any particular objects are constantly conjoined with each other” (ibid., 24). However, we can never comprehend any force or power, by which the cause operates, or any connection between it and its supposed effect. The same difficulty occurs in contemplating the operations of mind on body. . . . So that, upon the whole, there appears not, throughout all nature, any one instance of connection, which is conceivable by us” (ibid., 61 sqq.). Whence, then, does our conception of cause come? Not from a single observed sequence of one event from another, for that is not a sufficient warranty for us to form any general rule, but from the conjunction of one particular species of event with another, in all observed instances. “But there is nothing,” he writes,

in a number of instances, different from every single instance, which is supposed to be exactly; except only, that after a repetition of similar instances, the mind is carried by habit, upon the appearance of one event, to expect its usual attendant, and to believe that it will exist. . . . When we say, therefore, that one object is connected with another, we mean only, that they have acquired a connection in our thought, and give rise to this inference, by which they become proofs of each other’s existence (p. 63)

Hence Hume defines cause as that object, followed by another, “where, if the first object had not been, the second would never have existed,” or “an object followed by another, and whose appearance always conveys the thought to that other” (ibid.). In this doctrine Hume advances a psychological explanation of the origin of the idea (habit), but inculcates an utter scepticism as to the reality of causation. Hume’s position was sharply attacked by Thomas Reid, who invoked “common sense” to confute him, principally on account of the consequences of his scepticism in the region of natural theology. But Reid, mistaking the doctrine of the Schoolmen as to perception—he supposed that Scholasticism taught that the species sensibilis was that which is perceived, rather than that by which the sensible object is perceived—went so far as to assert that sense perception is the same as intellectual judgment. Reid was accused by Kant of having altogether misunderstood the point of the question raised by Hume; and was defended by Galluppi, who instead makes Kant mistaken as to Hume’s meaning. Kant represents Hume as saying: “Metaphysical causation is not in the objects observed; therefore it is a product of the imagination based on custom or habit.” This he alters to: “Causation is not in the things observed; therefore it is in the observer.” But Hume’s real argument is: “Metaphysical causality is not in the things observed; therefore it cannot be in the observer, in whom all is derived from observation.” This, he says, Reid thoroughly understands, and pertinently retorts: “As a matter of fact the concept of metaphysical causation is in the intellect; and, since it is not derived from the things observed, it must therefore be a subjective law of the observer.” Had Reid not misunderstood the import of the species sensibilis his appeal to “common sense” would have given him a greater affinity to the Schoolmen. His division of first principles as necessary or contingent has the metaphysical in the first category. Among these he places the principle of causation, thus assigning it a place as a necessary first principle, prior to all experience and independent of it.

Thomas Brown, whose work was said by Mackintosh to be “all open revolt against the authority of Reid,” agrees with Hume in resolving causality into invariable succession, but dissents from his theory that the idea has its origin in “habit,” and contends, with Reid, that it is an intuitive, or first truth. His analysis of consciousness into “the whole series of states of the mind,” and consequent denial that there is a consciousness capable of knowing its own states, is, however, in explicit contradiction with Reid’s teaching. Thus, Reid having overlooked the point of transition from phenomenal observance to noumenal truth, Brown still further separates the two and prepares the way for Hamilton and Mill, the former of whom makes our notion of causality a belief dependent upon a powerlessness of our nature to think otherwise. The latter explains causality as uniform antecedence, the growth of human experience and not to be extended beyond the realm of experience. “In distant parts of the stellar regions,” he writes, “where the phenomena may be entirely unlike those with which we are acquainted, it would be folly to affirm that this general law prevails.” (System of Logic, III, xxi.)

Hume was the philosophical predecessor of Kant. We accordingly find in the “Kritik der reinen Vernunft” that, on the question of causality, the doctrine of Kant, to a considerable extent, is in substantial agreement with that of the Scottish sceptic. Where Hume posited a repetition of similar instances of connection, by the observance of which is set up a habit that accounts psychologically for the idea of necessary causation, Kant advances a regular succession of effect from cause. This regular succession, whatever it may chance to be in nature, is physical causation. But we cannot know anything of it a priori. There is, as far as we can discover, no reason why A should succeed to B, rather than to C, D, or E. Whatever the order of succession is de facto, we must learn by observation, since there is nothing in the nature of things, so far as we can judge, to make one the consequent of another rather than of some third. We do, however, know—and this a priori—that the order of succession, whatever it may actually happen to be, is, and must be, regular. This follows from a fundamental position of the Kantian philosophy. Space and time are a priori concepts, or subjective forms. All phenomenal successions, whatever they may be, exist in time and space. Or, rather, time is regular succession, just as space is regular reciprocal occupancy. Hence, whatever the things existing in space may de facto be, and however the order of succession may happen to take place, the one must be definitely determined to some set of reciprocal relations, and the other must be one, definite, and irreversible. We arrive at a knowledge of the one actual order of succession, of which some one order must be, by observation; but the datum of a regular order is known beforehand. Efficient causality, therefore, in the world, as regular succession, is an a priori item of knowledge. What the precise order is remains to be discovered, and its formulation is the formulation of natural laws. Between cause, then, and effect there is a constant and necessary relation; but the effect is not in the cause. In the scheme of categories developed by Kant, cause and effect fall under the head of Relation, together with substance and accident, and action and passion. But the relation is known through experience, and consequently is of no value beyond the realm of experience. No inference can be made from it to God, as cause. The cosmological proof is thus rejected by Kant.

From Kant onwards the two lines of thought already noted become yet more clearly marked. Indeed the elements of both are to be found in his own writings. On the one hand, the idealistic development of philosophic thought reaches its expression in Hegel, Schopenhauer, etc. On the other, science, as such, limits itself more and more to purely mechanical concepts. The problems of causality are referred to the idealistic standpoint, or else are treated in terms of matter and motion, with no reference to the essences of the effects.

With Hegel causality takes the form of the development of the Idea, as the Absolute in itself (an sich), through its manifestation as otherness (für sich), and back to identity (an und für sich). All that is, in the way of cause, is the working out, or unfolding, and coming back to itself, of the Absolute Idea. Being is becoming. The Hegelian notion of Being as essentially pure thought issues naturally in a kind of inversion of the ordinary notion of causality; for, with Hegel, the notion of causality is causality itself. Although he opposed Hegel and his philosophy with great violence, the system of Schopenhauer is not greatly dissimilar to this. Schopenhauer substitutes Will for Idea. The world, and its processes, are the objectivized form of the Will. But, strictly speaking, Will cannot be considered as cause and effect. Rather are these but two aspects of one and the same thing. Thus Schopenhauer (as does to some extent von Hartmann) reduces causality to the universal operation of a single ideal principle. Both attenuate the idea of it, Schopenhauer by his extreme doctrine of relativity, von Hartmann by his conception of the all-oneness of the Unconscious. According to Schopenhauer, we call cause that state of objects which is followed by another state (i.e. the effect), on account of the principle of sufficient reason of becoming—principium rationis sufficientis fiendi.

This last notion of causality, as mere sequence, but without any idealistic ground to account for it, is that which principally obtains in current science. A given event, in the instant A, is uniformly followed by a second given event in the instant B. No implication of power, or dependence, is conceived or stated. Similarly, a group of events, in one instant, is followed by another group in the next; the total sum of things comprising the world is succeeded by the total sum of things comprising the world in two succeeding instants. In all these cases, as far as they are considered by science, the event or events of the prior instant are always the cause of what follows, provided the succession is invariable. Thus the same thing may conceivably be, and is sometimes said to be both cause and effect, identical in all respects but that of succession in time. There need be no necessary contradiction between such a view and that of philosophy; for science, as such, does not consider the questions of metaphysics or seek to determine the essential causes of beings. A relationship, given that it is invariable, as the unconditional constant succession of John Stuart Mill, between the two or more phenomena, is all that science demands and, under the particular abstractions with which it deals, this is enough to ensure scientific results. A knowledge of the conditions of the existence of certain phenomena is the principal aim of science; and this is strictly pursued by observation, experiment, and the application of mathematical methods. There is, consequently, no radical opposition between the two provinces of knowledge, since both the ends sought and the means employed in their search differ. Indeed were a man of science to make any pronouncement as to the nature of essential causes or their mode of causality, he would have overstepped the boundaries drawn by his science and declared himself a metaphysician. As a matter of fact, there have not been wanting scientists, whose habit of mind and training are entirely scientific and in no sense metaphysical, who have done this very thing and attempted to give a scientific solution of a purely metaphysical problem. There will be no need to give any detailed account of such an attempt, the success of which is obviously impossible. The scientific means at disposal are not equal to the task. But, on the other hand, in its own sphere and working with its own particular abstractions, science is quite competent to reach its own results in its own way, and this without any necessary correction on the part of metaphysics.

It will be perceived that the period of groping for the concrete causes of things gave place to one in which the synthesis of causes provided an explanation of causality. The concept of the efficient cause—not of the causal nexus and interaction as a whole—was, in the next stage, submitted to a critical analysis resulting in scepticism, then rehabilitated either on idealistic or mechanical lines. But the critical analysis, though it certainly led indirectly to both these later views as to causality, was answered, by the appeal to “common sense,” in a way that, but for one missing factor, would probably have turned the current of philosophic thought back to Scholasticism and the Aristotelean doctrine, as the only one providing a satisfactory account, either of the action of what we call causes and the production of effects in the world, or of the true origin of the idea of necessary causality. For the theory of Aristotle and the Schoolmen can lay claim, most truly, to a character of common sense. It is based upon the observation, by the senses, of individual cases of causal action in the phenomenal world. So far it is no more than in agreement with the common experience of mankind. But, beyond this, it provides a suitable account of the manner in which an observation of individual cases can become an intellectual concept. This it does in its theory of the origin of ideas. In this point, then, the Scholastic system of philosophy can be represented as in full accord with, and built out of, the common judgments of mankind. It parts company with this only in requiring clearer evidence, using stricter analysis and sharper criticism. Also, it proceeds farther, though still along the lines traced by common sense, in its analyses and syntheses, until it has presented natural knowledge as a complete and co-ordinate whole.

The fact, already alluded to, that several of the systems given to the world, even after Hume’s criticism, have much in common with, yet lack the conclusive and convincing force of, the Scholastic system on this issue, would seem to argue in favour of the claim of the latter to common sense or naturalness. As a metaphysical theory, it has the merit of being straightforward, clear, and consistent; and it accounts for that for which it professes to account without ambiguity or circumlocution. That, as a matter of history, modern speculation on this point did not return, confirmed and justified, to the earlier lines, after the criticism of Hume, is probably due, in the main, to the fact that the full concept of causality had been more or less lost sight of during the period preceding him. His criticism was aimed at the possibility of a knowledge of causal efficiency; and without an adequate theory of cognition, as well as a proper grasp of the relationships between efficient cause and effect in the process of becoming, the idea of efficiency, or power, is indeed inexplicable. Thus, while in the idealistic theories the attempt is made to restate the problem on a new basis, and solve it by reference to the manifestation, in one or another form, of Spirit, modern science pursues its own course and limits itself to the investigation of purely scientific conditions. Neither the one nor the other, properly speaking, raises the question as to the true and immediate causes of the qualities or essences of entities, for both have abandoned that standpoint from which alone the problem, in this sense, is envisaged.

Cause, in law, embraces any action, suit, or other original proceeding, between a plaintiff and a defendant. A cause of action is the entire set of facts that give rise to an enforceable claim. It includes the right of action; but the right does not necessarily include the cause. Thus, by lapse of time, a cause may cease to be actionable; or by legal enactment, as in the case of a solicitor, who cannot sue for his bill of costs until one month after its delivery. Until the expiry of the time there is no cause of action.

FRANCIS AVELING

Nicolas Caussin

A famous Jesuit preacher and moralist; b. at Troyes in France, in 1583; d. at Paris, 2 July, 1651. His father, a physician of extensive practice, was able from a competent income to aid materially in the development of the remarkable talents that his son early displayed. Young Caussin’s success in oratory, particularly after his entry into the Society of Jesus (1609), was brilliant, and drew to him the attention of the royal family. When the kingdom of Henry IV was fast declining under the impotent sway of the queen-regent, Marie de’ Medici, Louis XIII came to the throne. Richelieu summoned Caussin to court to direct the young king’s conscience. The task was a difficult one in those disturbed times, but Caussin, with scrupulous earnestness, gave his heart and soul to the work. The king, who relied implicitly on him, was made to realize that peace would once more reign in his realm and in his own soul when he recalled the queen-mother and other members of the royal family from the banishment in which they were languishing. Richelieu disliked this advice and accused Caussin of raising false scruples in the king’s mind, and even of holding communications that savoured of treachery or that were at all events disloyal to his sovereign, with another of the royal chaplains. Caussin was at once banished to Quimper-Corentin in Brittany, where he remained until the death of Richelieu in 1643, when he returned to Paris to prepare his works for the press.

Many false statement regarding Caussin’s disgrace were current. The Jansenist Arnauld claims that “it was well known from persons intimately connected at the former court of Louis XIII, that Father Caussin considered himself obliged to tell His Majesty that attrition, arising from the fear of hell alone, was not sufficient for justification, as there could be no justification without love of God, and this was what caused his disgrace.” Many more surmises were engaged in by other Jansenists, but the reason given above is admitted by unfriendly biographers of the father. Among his works are: “La Cour Sainte” (5 vols.)—“A comprehensive system of moral maxims, pious reflections and historical examples, forming in itself a complete library of rational entertainment, Catholic devotion, and Christian knowledge.” It was translated into several languages and has done much to perpetuate his fame. The English translation was printed in Dublin in 1815. “Le parallèle de l’éloquence sacree et profane”; “La vie de Sante Isabelle de France, soeur du roi St. Louis”; “Vie du Cardinal du Richelieu”; “Thesaurus Græcæ Poeseos.” For his other works see De Backer, “Bibl. des écriv. de la c. de J.” (Liège, 1855), and Sommervogel (new ed., Liège), II Feller, Biog. Univ. (Paris 1834); Duhr, Jesuiten Fabelen (4th ed. , 1904), 670 sqq.; Cherot in Dict. de théol. cath., s.v.

JOHN J. CASSIDY.

Diocese of Cava and Sarno

Cava and Sarno, Diocese of (Cavensis et Sarnensis). Cava dei Tirreni is a city picturesquely situated in the province of Salerno, in Southern Italy. It was built by the inhabitants of Marina, after the destruction of that city by the Vandals (c. 455). In 980 St. Alferio Pappacarbona, monk of Cluny, withdrew to a deep cleft in Monte Finestre which dominates the city, and became the founder of one of the most celebrated of Italian monasteries. Its abbots received many privileges from the popes, especially from Urban II, who visited the monastery, and from Boniface IX, who in 1394 attached the episcopal dignity to the abbot’s office. The cathedral of Cava, famous for its organ, has been since 1513 the principal church of the city. The library of the monastery is very rich in ancient parchments, mostly private in character, written in Greek, Latin, Italian, and Arabic. It has also a beautiful gallery of paintings. Since 1860 the monastery has been one of the “national monuments”; some monks remain as its custodians. There are in Cava a college, gymnasium, and lyceum, in charge of Benedictines. In 1818 the Diocese of Sarno was united to that of Cava. Sarno is a city in the province of Salerno, situated on the river of the same name. It was made an episcopal see in 1066, the first bishop being Riso. Cardinal Sfondrato, Archbishop of Amalfi, was at one time Bishop of Sarno. The united dioceses are immediately subject to the Holy See. They contain a population of 58,200, with 27 parishes, 5 religious houses of men and 7 of women.

U. BENIGNI

Felice Cavagnis

Canonist, b. in Bordogna, Diocese of Bergamo, Italy, 13 January, 1841; d. at Rome, 29 December, 1906. After a brilliant course in the Pontifical Roman Seminary he received the doctorate in philosophy, theology, and in civil and canon law. Leo XIII named him professor of public ecclesiastical law in the Roman Seminary in 1880, a position which he retained for fifteen years, during which time he proved himself an eminent canonist, especially in all that related to the constitution of the Church and its relations with civil society. The Roman congregations vied with one another in securing his services. He was appointed Consultor of the Sacred Congregations of Bishops and Regulars, of the Council, and of Studies; Consultor and Secretary of the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs; Canonist of the Sacred Penitentiary; and member of the Commission for the Codification of Canon Law. In all these exalted offices he left profound traces of his acuteness and skill in handling arduous and delicate questions. Austria, Spain, and Portugal honoured him with titles and distinctions, while the sovereign pontiff made him successively canon of several Roman basilicas, rector of the Roman Seminary, Domestic Prelate, and finally, 18 April, 1901, raised him to the cardinalate. He is best known by his important work: “Institutiones Juris Publici Ecclesiastici” (Elements of Public Ecclesiastical Law), a reliable and even classical manual of ecclesiastical government. He was conspicuous for gentleness of manner and the modest retirement which he observed even as cardinal.

His death was mourned as a public loss to religion and science. The most important of his publications are: “Della natura di società giuridica e pubblica competente alla Chiesa” (Rome, 1880); “Nozioni di diritto pubblico naturale ed ecclesiastico” (Rome, 1886); “La Massoneria quel che e quel che ha fatto, quel che vuole” (Rome, 1905); “Institutiones Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici” (Rome, 1906), in three volumes.

S. LUZIO

Bonaventura Cavalieri

Italian mathematician, b. at Milan in 1598; d. at Bologna, 3 December, 1647. At the age of fifteen he entered the Congregation of Hieronymites, or Jesuates. He taught theology for a time, but, as he showed a decided preference and talent for mathematics, his superiors sent him to the university at Pisa. Here he studied under Castelli, and became one of the most illustrious of the disciples of Galileo. In 1629 he became professor of mathematics at Bologna, where he continued to teach until his death. He suffered many years from gout, and, like Pascal, sought relief from pain in mathematical researches. Cavalieri was one of the leading mathematicians of his time, and is celebrated for his “Method of Indivisibles,” to which he was led by his investigations on the determination of areas and volumes. The principle was known to Kepler. Cavalieri published an account of his method in 1635 in his “Goemetria indivisibilibus continuorum novâ quâdam ratione promota.” It is an improvement over the method of exhaustions employed by the Greek mathematicians and was a forerunner of the integral calculus, which has since superseded it. In his “Geometria” he assumes that lines are made up of an infinite number of points, surfaces of an infinite number of lines, and solids of an infinite number of surfaces. This statement was attacked, especially by Guldinus, as being unscientific, and in 1647 in his “Exercitationes Geometricæ sex,” Cavalieri endeavours to put it into better form, and answer the objections of his critics. In this work he also gives the first rigid demonstration of the theorem of Pappus, which Guldinus had rediscovered, though he was unable to give a satisfactory proof of it. A later edition of the “Geometria” appeared in 1653. Cavalieri did much to render common the use of logarithms in Italy. Besides the works already mentioned, he was the author of “Lo Specchio ustorio, ovvero trattato delle settioni coniche,” 1632; “Directorium generale uranometricum in quo trigonometriæ fundamenta ac regulæ demonstrantur,” 1632; “Rota planetaria,” 1640; “Trigonometria plana et sphærica linearis et logarithmica,” 1635.

BALL, Hist. of Math. (London, 1893); CAJORI, Hist. of Math. (New York, 1894); Biog. Univ., VII; FRISI, Elogio di B. Cavalieri (Milan, 1829), I.

H. M. BROCK

James Cavanagh

Soldier, b. in County Tipperary, Ireland, 1831; d. in New York, 7 January, 1901. He emigrated to New York when he was sixteen years old and went to work as a carpenter. In 1852 he enlisted as a private in the Sixty-Ninth Regiment of the Militia, and was captain of Company C of the state command when it went to take part in the Civil War, 23 April, 1861. When the regiment returned after the battle of Bull Run and was reorganized as the Sixty-Ninth New York Volunteers of the Irish Brigade, he again went to the front as its major. In this rank he served during the campaigns of the Army of the Potomac, until the battle of Fredericksburg, 13 December, 1862, when he was shot in the hip while leading the regiment in one of the charges up Marye’s Heights. He was then discharged from the army because of the disabilities from his wound. When the State Militia was reorganized as the National Guard, he rejoined the regiment and was made its lieutenant-colonel. In 1867 he was elected colonel, which command he held for more than twenty years. He received the brevet of brigadier-general, 10 January, 1893, the first time that rank was conferred on an officer of the New York State Militia, and in 1894 he retired, after a service of forty-two years. For a number of years before his death he was attached to the New York Custom House as a special customs inspector.

CONYNGHAM, The Irish Brigade and its Campaigns (Boston, 1869); The Irish American (New York), files; MICHAEL CAVANAGH, Memoirs of Gen. Thomas Francis Meagher (Worcester, 1892).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Giovanni Antonio Cavazzi

Of Montecucolo, a Capuchin friar of the province of Bologna, date of birth uncertain; died at Genoa, 1692. In 1654 a band of friars was sent to the Congo to supply the place of those who had died or were incapacitated by sickness, and amongst the newcomers was Cavazzi. He suffered much on the long sea-voyage, yet his zeal was unabated when he landed in the Congo, where he laboured for many years with much spiritual fruit. Being invalided home, he was summoned by the Propaganda to give an account of the mission, and from this he got the idea of setting down in writing his observations and experiences. He produced a voluminous work, but had hardly finished it when he was again sent on the mission. The manuscript was entrusted by the superiors of the order to Fortunato da Bologna, who rewrote the book in more elegant style, and published it at Bologna in 1687 under the title “Istorica Descrizione de’ Tre Regni Congo, Matamba et Angola.” The work is profusely illustrated. In the “Bibliotheca Scriptorum Ordinis” Fortunato da Bologna is stated to have rewritten an already published work of Cavazzi, but the “Bibliotheca” seems in error on this point, as may be gathered from Fortunato’s prefatory remarks.

FATHER CUTHBERT.

Celestino Cavedoni

An Italian ecclesiastic, archæologist, and numismatist; b. 18 May, 1795, at Levizzano-Rangone, near Modena; d. 26 November, 1865, at Modena. He pursued his theological studies in the diocesan seminary, and from 1816 to 1821 distinguished himself in the study of archæology and the Greek and Hebrew languages at the University of Bologna. He was then appointed custodian of the Numismatical Museum of Modena, and received a position in the City Library, of which he became librarian in 1847. From 1830 to 1863 he held the chair of hermeneutics at the University of Modena. Cavedoni was, moreover, a corresponding member of the commission created by Napoleon III to edit the works of Count Bartolommeo Borghesi, to which collection he contributed numerous scientific notes. Among his numismatic works may be mentioned “Saggio di osservazioni sulle medaglie di famiglie romane” (1829); “Carellii nummorum Italiæ Veteris tabulæ” (Leipzig, 1850); “Numismatica Biblica” (Modena, 1850; German tr. by Werlhof, Hanover, 1855–56). Cavedoni contributed numerous historical and archæological papers to the “Annali” and the “Bullettino” of the Archæological Institute of Rome and to other Italian publications. In religious polemics he wrote a refutation of Renan’s “Life of Jesus,” which passed through four editions in several months: “Confutazione dei principali errori di Ernesto Renan nella sua Vie de Jésus” (Modena, 1863).

BERTAUX, in La Grande Encyclopédie, IX, 967; HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck 1895), III, 1024–25.

N.A. WEBER.

Andres Cavo

A writer frequently quoted on Spanish-Mexican history; b. at Guadalajara in Mexico, 21 January, 1729, he entered the Society of Jesus, 14 January, 1758, and went to Italy with the other members of the order after their expulsion from Mexico in 1767. An important chronicle of events from the date of the conquest of Mexico (1521) to the year 1767, which Cavo wrote for the municipality of the City of Mexico, Bustamente asserts was composed after his expatriation and while at Rome. From considerations of delicacy Cavo desisted from after the work after his order had been expelled from Mexico. He has preserved and co-ordinated a large number of facts that are found nowhere else. Bustamenete edited and continued the chronicle to 1836, bit not with the impartiality of Cavo. The book was published at Jalapa in Mexico in 1870.

Beristain de Souza, Biblioteca hispano-americana setentrional (Mexico 2nd ed., 1885 By Fortino Hipolito Vera); Cavo, Los Tres Siglos en Mexico (Jalapa, 1870); Diccionario universal de Historia y Geografia (Mexico).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

William Caxton

Born in the Weald of Kent, c. 1422; died at Westminster, 1491; the first English printer and the introducer of the art of printing into England. Of his life we have little definite information beyond that given us by himself in the prefaces and epilogues to his printed books. He thanks his parents for having given him an education that fitted him to earn a living, though he says nothing as to the place where he had been educated. From the records of the Mercers’ Company we learn that in 1438 (the first definite date of his life that is known) he was apprenticed to Robert Large, a well-known and wealthy London mercer. About 1446 he became a merchant on his own account and settled at Bruges, and, being a good man of business, soon became prosperous. In 1453 he went to England for his formal admittance to the Mercers’ Company, and in 1465 he was appointed governor for Bruges of the Merchant Adventurers, an association of English merchants. This important position involved delicate and responsible commercial negotiations, and Caxton seems to have fulfilled his duties honourably and with success. About 1470 a change took place in his life. He gave up his connexion with commerce, and entered the service of Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, sister of Edward IV. It is not known why he did this, but it may well be that he wished for greater freedom for literary work. He had already begun his first translation from the French, the “Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye,” and this he finished in 1471, dedicating it to his patroness, the Duchess of Burgundy. It was this piece of work which led him to turn his attention to the art of printing. The book in manuscript was much sought after, and the labour of copying was too heavy and too slow to meet the demand. Therefore, he says, “I have practysed & lerned at my grete charge & dispense to ordeyne this said book in prynte . . . that every man may have them attones.”

There is some evidence to show that Caxton first learned printing at Cologne, where other famous printers had learned it, but the question is still under debate. His first book, the “Recuyell,” was undoubtedly printed at Bruges in 1474, at the press of Colard Mansion, an illuminator of manuscripts, who had set up a press in that city in 1473. Caxton’s second book, the “Game & Pleye of Chess,” another translation from the French, came, it is almost certain, from the same press in 1475.

The highest point of interest in Caxton’s life is reached when in 1476, returning to England, he set up a printing press of his own at Westminster. The first dated book issued from this press was the “Dictes and sayings of the Philosophers” and bears the imprint 1477. From this date to the end of his life he issued ninety-six books from the Westminster press, including, amongst others, the works of Chaucer and Gower, Sir Thomas Malory’s “Morte d’Arthur,” and various translations of more or less classical works from French, Latin, and Dutch, together with a number of smaller books, a good many of which are religious. His industry was very great, and he died in the midst of his work. He was not only a skilful master printer and publisher of books, but to some extent a man of letters-editor, author, translator-with a certain style of his own and a true enthusiasm for literature. His work as writer and translator helped to fix the literary language of England in the sixteenth century. Specimens of his printed books exist in various public and private libraries. The British Museum possesses eighty-three Caxton volumes, twenty-five of which are duplicates.

Blades, Life and Typography of Wm. Caxton (London, 1861- 63); condensed and revised edition of the above (London, 1882); Gordon Duff, William Caxton (Chicago, 1903); Lee, in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; British Museum Catalogues.

K. M. WARREN.

Diocese of Cayes

Cayes, Diocese of (Cajesensis), in the republic of Haiti, suffragan to Port-au-Prince. The actual ecclesiastical province of Port-au-Prince (the archdiocese and the four suffragan dioceses of Cap Haïtien, Gonaives, Cayes, and Port-de-Paix) dates only from the reorganization following upon the Concordat of 1860 between Pope Pius IX and the Republic of Haiti; but the Faith was planted in this part of Santo Domingo towards the end of fifteenth century, and despite the many political and social vicissitudes of the island has never been quite extinguished there. The jurisdiction of Bishop of Cayes (Monseigneur Jean-Marie-Alexandre Morice, elected 4 March, 1893) extends over the whole civil Department of the South (Werner, Orb.Terr.Cath., Freiburg 1890) and his episcopal see is at Cayes (commonly spoken of as Aux Cayes), a seaport in the extreme south-western part of the island. This diocese is divided into 25 parishes containing altogether a population of 500,000, almost without exception Catholics by profession. According to the “Annuaire pontifical” for 1907, there were 95 churches or chapels in the diocese, with 35 secular priests.

The Catholic progress of Cayes since the first settlement of Santo Domingo, as well as the educational, racial, and economic conditions and development of the district, have been substantially the same as in the northern diocese of Haiti. (See Cap Haïtien.)

M. CHATTÉ.

Comte de Caylus

ANNE-CLAUDE-PHILIPPE DE TUBIÈRES-GRIMOARD DE PESTELS LEVIEUX DE LÉVIS, COMTE DE CAYLUS

French archaeologist, b. at Paris, in 1692; d. in 1765. He was the eldest son of Lieutenant-General de Caylus and was educated with the greatest care by his mother, a woman of much ability and literary distinction, whose “Souvenirs” are full of valuable information for the history of the time. When only seventeen years old he enlisted and took part in the campaigns of the French army in Spain and Germany. After the peace of Rastadt (1714), he left the army and devoted himself entirely to the study of the arts and sciences. He first travelled for a few years in Italy, Greece, the East, England and Germany, visiting old ruins and gathering inscriptions and antiquities. His desire to see everything himself and verify the information given by ancient historians was such that he sometimes risked his life. He went even so far, during his excursion to the ruins of Ephesus and Colophon, as to take as guides and bodyguards a troop of much-dreaded highwaymen who infested the country. After his return to Paris, he wrote his most important book, “Recueil d’antiquités égyptiennes, étrusques, grecques, romaines et gauloises” (Paris, 1752–67, seven vols., the last two volumes published after his death). He also worked, with Mariette, Barthelemy and Rive, at the collection of ancient paintings known as “Peintures antiques trouvees a Rome” (three vols. folio), which was published in 1783–87, long after Caylus’ death. A member of the Academy of Painting in 1731, and of the Academy of Inscriptions in 1742, he wrote no fewer than fifty reports on various topics of erudition. Caylus was also a painter and an engraver of no little merit, and he is credited with finding a new process to inlay colors in marble. Many engravings were made at his own expense, such as those of the “Histoire de Saint Joseph,” after Rembrandt (Amsterdam, 1755). In his moments of leisure Caylus took pleasure in composing novels, humorous pieces, and fairy tales, which were published together under the title of “Oeuvres badines” (Paris, 1787). His “Oriental Tales” were translated into English (London, 1817).

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Charles-Félix Cazeau

A French-Canadian priest, born at Quebec, 24 December, 1807, of Jean-Baptiste Cazeau and Genevieve Chabot; died 26 February, 1881. He studied at Nicolet Seminay and in 1825 joined the clergy, acting as under-secretary to Bishop Plessis of Quebec. He shared more or less directly in the diocesan administration during fifty-six years, serving successively under Bishops Plessis, Panet, Signay, Turgeon, Baillargeon, and Taschereau. With his arduous duties as secretary vicar-general, and, at four different periods, administrator of an immense diocese, he combined the direction of the men’s sodality and, later, the chaplaincy of the Good Shepherd Institute, from 1856 until his death. His generosity and charity were boundless. His chief title to veneration and gratitude is his devotedness to the “exiles of Erin,” whom, in 1847, famine and pestilence forced to seek a home on the shores of the St. Lawrence. Not content with risking his life in the quarantine station with so many heroic priests, nine of whom fell victims to duty, the Abbe Cazeau, moved with compassion at the sight of the many orphans, took for his share 300, placed them in French-Canadian families, and helped to provide for their maintenance and education out of his slender means. Few of these failed to respond to his zeal, many graced the Church and society by their brilliant qualities and virtuous lives. He kept a register of his 300 orphans, in which were inscribed the chief events of their careers, and he was always ready by word, by letter, or by a gift, to reform the wayward, comfort and relieve the stricken and the afflicted. The Abbé Cazeau was appointed a Domestic Prelate by Pius IX in 1875.

LIONEL LINDSAY

St. Ceadda

(Commonly known as ST. CHAD.)

Abbot of Lastingham, Bishop successively of York and Lichfield, England; date of birth uncertain, died 672.

He is often confounded with his brother, St. Cedd, also Abbot of Lastingham and the Bishop of the East Saxons. He had two other brothers, Cynibill and Caelin, who also became priests. Probably Northumbrian by birth, he was educated at Lindisfarne under St. Aidan, but afterwards went to Ireland, where he studied with St. Ecgberht in the monastery of Rathmelsige (Melfont). There he returned to help his brother St. Cedd to establish the monastery of Laestingaeu, now Lastingham in Yorkshire. On his brother’s death in 664, he succeeded him as abbot.

Shortly afterwards St. Wilfrid, who had been chosen to succeed Tudi, Bishop of Lindisfarne, went to Gaul for consecration and remained so long absent that King Oswiu determined to wait no longer, and procured the election of Chad as Bishop of York, to which place the Bishopric of Lindisfarne had been transferred. As Canterbury was vacant, he was consecrated by Wini of Worcester, assisted by two British bishops. As bishop he visited his diocese on foot, and laboured in an apostolic spirit until the arrival of St. Theodore, the newly elected Archbishop of Canterbury who was making a general visitation. St. Theodore decided that St. Chad must give up the diocese to St. Wilfrid, who had now returned. When he further intimated that St. Chad’s episcopal consecration had not been rightly performed, the Saint replied, “If you decide that I have not rightly received the episcopal character, I willingly lay down the office; for I have never thought myself worthy of it, but under obedience, I, though unworthy, consented to undertake it.” St. Theodore, however, desired him not to relinquish the episcopate and himself supplied what was lacking (“ipse ordinationem ejus denuo catholica ratione consummavit”—Bede, Hist. Eccl. IV, 2). Ceadda then returned to Lastingham, where he remained till St. Theodore called him in 669 to become Bishop of the Mercians. He built a church and monastery at Lichfield, where he dwelt with seven or eight monks, devoting to prayer and study time he could spare from his work as bishop. He received warning of his death in a vision.

His shrine, which was honoured by miracles, was removed in the twelfth century to the cathedral at Lichfield, dedicated to Our Lady and the Saint himself. At the Reformation his relics were rescued from profanation by Catholics, and they now lie in the Catholic cathedral at Birmingham, which is dedicated to him. His festival is kept on the 2nd of March. All accounts of his life are based on that given by Venerable Bede, who had been instructed in Holy Scripture by Trumberct, one of St. Chad’s monks and disciples.

EDWIN BURTON

Diocese of Cebú

DIOCESE OF CEBÚ (CEBUANENSIS); DIOECESIS NOMINIS JESU

Located in the Philippine Islands. Cebú, the diocesan city, spelled also Sebú and Zebú, in the province of the same name, is so called from the island on which it is situated, in turn so called from the Indian ox (bos indicus), on account of a fancied resemblance between that animal and the outline of the island. Magellan discovered Cebú in April, 1521, but he lost his life in a foolhardy battle on the island of Mactan, opposite Cebú, and no trace of his expedition was left except the celebrated statuette of the Holy Child, called the Santo Niño, still held in the greatest veneration.

The Diocese of Cebú was separated from the Diocese of Manila, which originally included the whole Philippine archipelago, 14 August, 1595. The new territory comprised the present Dioceses of Cebú and Jaro, and the Vicariate Apostolic of the Marian Islands. The diocese now consists of the islands of Cebú, Leyte, Samar, Bohol, Siquijor, Camaguin, and the smaller islands adjacent. Since its establishment in 1595, twenty-two bishops have governed the Church of Cebú. The northern half of the island of Mindanao remains under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Cebú, until the appointment of a bishop at Zamboanga, as provided for (1903) by Leo XIII, in the Bull “Quæ Mari Sinico.” Cebú was the birthplace of the Christian religion in the Philippine Islands. It was here that it made its first stand against the gradually advancing forces of Mohammedanism. Father Urdaneta, an Augustinian friar, accompanied by six others of the same order, went to Cebú in April. 1565, and immediately began his work of evangelization. The first convert was a niece of Tupas, a native chief of great influence. Two other friars, Fathers Juan de Vivero and Juan de Villanueva, arrived with Salcedo in 1567. Shortly afterwards the Jesuits went to Bohol, in 1595, and also to Leyte, Samar, and Mindanao. They built fortified churches for defense against the Moros everywhere, and forts at Cebú, Iloilo, Misamis, Zamboanga, and other places. They also began, in 1595, the College of San Ildefenso, now called San Carlos College, in Cebú. The work of the missionaries was facilitated by the disposition of the brave but naturally peaceful Visayan people, who occupied most of the territory. The missionaries were opposed by the ferocious tribes of the Mohammedans, who for centuries had been gradually extending their sway eastwards, and by 1521 were strongly established in the western part of the island of Mindanao, in the Sulu archipelago. The efforts of the missionaries were threefold in character: defensive against the bloodthirsty Moros, who roamed over these seas in flotillas of ships; active in the evangelization of the tribes; and also didactic in the arts of peace, agriculture, trades, and the rudiments of learning. The natives, already well forward in trades, soon became expert carpenters, masons, workers in metals, weavers—in a word, well equipped to make the best use of the natural resources at hand. As the missionaries advanced, the domination of the Moros was gradually restricted, though even as late as 1856 occasional fleets of Moro boats appeared, striking terror into the peaceful Visayans. With the beginning of steam navigation, the Spanish ships of war at once assumed offensive tactics against the Moros, whose vessels were easily captured and destroyed.

After the insurrection of 1898, and the Spanish-American War that followed, the people suffered greatly, not only from the evils of war, but also from the loss of their cattle and horses by epidemics. Many of their churches were destroyed, not only by the insurrectos, but also by United States troops. The chief evil, however, was the lack of priests. The parishes average about ten thousand souls. In the mountainous regions about half a million of souls were without spiritual succour. The Franciscans, by whom many churches were formerly supplied, began to return, and the Jesuits worked with great success in Mindanao. Redemptorist Fathers from Ireland are exclusively occupied in giving missions to the people. The Lazarists have two colleges for boys, one in Cebú with 600, another in Samar with 350 pupils. The same Fathers have also charge of the ecclesiastical seminary, in which there are 85 students. A college for girls is conducted in Cebú by the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, with 500 pupils. An orphan asylum and trade school under the same Sisters care for 85 girls and a few small boys. A leper hospital was maintained for fifty years until 1906. The diocese contains 135 secular priests and 123 religious, of the following communities: Augustinians, Recollects, Franciscans, Benedictines, Jesuits, Lazarists, and Redemptorists. There are fifty-five schools in the diocese, with an attendance of about 12,000 pupils. The people are practically all Catholics, and are very devout and loyal to the Church. Estimated population, 2,145,679. The Right Rev. Thomas Augustine Hendrick, the first American bishop, was consecrated at Rome, 23 Aug., 1903, and took possession 6 March, 1904.

REDONDO, Historia de la Diocese de Cebú, in Guia Official de Filipinas (1907); BOURNE, The Philippine Islands; The Philippine Commission Reports; The Catholic Directory (Milwaukee. 1908).

THOMAS A. HENDRICK

St. Cecilia

Virgin and martyr, patroness of church music, died at Rome.

This saint, so often glorified in the fine arts and in poetry, is one of the most venerated martyrs of Christian antiquity. The oldest historical account of St. Cecilia is found in the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum”; from this it is evident that her feast was celebrated in the Roman Church in the fourth century. Her name occurs under different dates in the above-mentioned martyrology; its mention under 11 August, the feast of the martyr Tiburtius, is evidently a later and erroneous addition, due to the fact that this Tiburtius, who was buried on the Via Labicana, was wrongly identified with Tiburtius, the brother-in-law of St. Cecilia, mentioned in the Acts of her martyrdom. Perhaps also there was another Roman martyr of the name of Cecilia buried on the Via Labicana. Under the date of 16 September Cecilia is mentioned alone, with the topographical note: “Appiâ viâ in eâdem urbe Româ natale et passio sanctæ Ceciliæ virginis (the text is to be thus corrected). This is evidently the day of the burial of the holy martyr in the Catacomb of Callistus. The feast of the saint mentioned under 22 November, on which day it is still celebrated, was kept in the church in the Trastevere quarter at Rome, dedicated to her. Its origin, therefore, is to be traced most probably to this church. The early medieval guides (Itineraria) to the burial-places of Roman martyrs point out her grave on the Via Appia, next to the crypt of the Roman bishops of the third century (De Rossi, Roma sotterranea, I, 180–181). De Rossi located the burial-place of Cecilia in the Catacomb of Callistus in a crypt immediately adjoining the crypt or chapel of the popes; an empty niche in one of the walls contained, probably, at one time the sarcophagus with the bones of the saint. Among the frescoes of a later time with which the wall of the sepulchre are adorned, the figure of a richly-dressed woman appears twice and Pope Urban, who was brought personal into close relation with the saint by the Acts of her martyrdom, is depicted once. The ancient titular church of Rome, mentioned above was built as early as the fourth century and is still preserved in the Trastevere. This church was certainly dedicated in the fifth century to the saint buried on the Via Appia; it is mentioned in the signatures of the Roman Council of 499 as “titulus sanctae Caeciliae” (Mansi, Coll, Conc. VIII, 236). Like some other ancient Christian churches of Rome, which are the gifts of the saints whose names they bear, it may be inferred that the Roman Church owes this temple to the generosity of the holy martyr herself; in support of this view it is to be noted that the property, under which the oldest part of the true Catacomb of Callistus is constructed, belonged most likely, according to De Rossi’s researches, to the family of St. Cecilia (Gens Caecilia), and by donation passed into the possession of the Roman Church. Although her name is not mentioned in the earliest (fourth century) list of feasts (Depositio martyrum), the fact that in the “Sacramentarium Leoniam,” a collection of masses completed about the end of the fifth century, are found no less than five different masses in honour of St. Cecilia testifies to the great veneration in which the saint was at that time held in the Roman Church [“Sacram. Leon.,” ed. Muratori, in “Opera” (Arezzo, 1771), XIII, I, 737, sqq.].

About the middle of the fifth century originated Acts of the martyrdom of St. Cecilia which have been transmitted in numerous manuscripts; these acts were also translated into Greek. They were utilized in the prefaces of the above-mentioned masses of the “Sacramentarium Leonianum.” They inform us, that Cecilia, a virgin of a senatorial family and a Christian from her infancy, was given in marriage by her parents to a noble pagan youth Valerianus. When, after the celebration of the marriage, the couple had retired to the wedding-chamber, Cecilia told Valerianus that she was betrothed to an angel who jealously guarded her body; therefore Valerianus must take care not to violate her virginity. Valerianus wished to see the angel, whereupon Cecilia sent him to the third milestone on the Via Appia where he should meet Bishop (Pope) Urbanus. Valerianus obeyed, was baptized by the pope, and returned a Christian to Cecilia. An angel then appeared to the two and crowned them with roses and lilies. When Tiburtius, the brother of Valerianus, came to them, he too was won over to Christianity. As zealous children of the Faith both brothers distributed rich alms and buried the bodies of the confessors who had died for Christ. The prefect, Turcius Almachius, condemned them to death; an officer of the prefect, Maximus, appointed to execute this sentence, was himself converted and suffered martyrdom with the two brothers. Their remains were buried in one tomb by Cecilia. And now Cecilia herself was sought by the officers of the prefect. Before she was taken prisoner, she arranged that her house should be preserved as a place of worship for the Roman Church. After a glorious profession of faith, she was condemned to be suffocated in the bath of her own house. But as she remained unhurt in the overheated room, the prefect had her decapitated in that place. The executioner let his sword fall three times without separating the head from the trunk, and fled, leaving the virgin bathed in her own blood. She lived three days, made dispositions in favour of the poor, and provided that after her death her house should be dedicated as a church. Urbanus buried her among the bishops and the confessors, i.e. in the Catacomb of Callistus.

In this shape the whole story has no historical value; it is a pious romance, like so many others compiled in the fifth and sixth century. The existence of the aforesaid martyrs, however, is a historical fact. The relation between St. Cecilia and Valerianus, Tiburtius, and Maximus, mentioned in the Acts, has perhaps some historical foundation. These three saints were buried in the Catacomb of Praetextatus on the Via Appia, where their tombs are mentioned in the ancient pilgrim Itineraria. In the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” their feast is set down under 14 April with the note: “Romae via Appia in cimiterio Prætextati”; and the octave under 21 April, with the comment: “Rome in cimiterio Calesti via Appia.” In the opinion of Duchesne the octave was celebrated in the Catacomb of Callistus, because St. Cecilia was buried there. If, therefore, this second notice in the martyrology is older than the aforesaid Acts, and the latter did not give rise to this second feast, it follows that before the Acts were written this group of saints in Rome was brought into relation with St. Cecilia. The time when Cecilia suffered martyrdom is not known. From the mention of Urbanus nothing can be concluded as to the time of composition of the Acts; the author without any authority, simply introduced the confessor of this name (buried in the Catacomb of Praetextatus) on account of the nearness of his tomb to those of the other martyrs and identified him with the pope of the same name. The author of the “Liber Pontificalis” used the Acts for his notice of Urbanus. The Acts offer no other indication of the time of the martyrdom. Venantius Fortunatus (Miscellanea, 1, 20; 8,6) and Ado (Martyrology, 22 November) place the death of the saint in the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (about 177), and De Rossi tried to prove this view as historically the surest one. In other Western sources of the early Middle Ages and in the Greek “Synaxaria” this martyrdom is placed in the persecution of Diocletian. P.A. Kirsch tried to locate it in the time of Alexander Severus (229–230); Aubé, in the persecution of Decius (249–250); Kellner, in that of Julian the Apostate (362). None of these opinion is sufficiently established, as neither the Acts nor the other sources offer the requisite chronological evidence. The only sure time-indication is the position of the tomb in the Catacomb of Callistus, in the immediate proximity of the very ancient crypt of the popes, in which Urbanus probably, and surely Pontianus and Anterus were buried. The earliest part of this catacomb dates at all events from the end of the second century; from that time, therefore, to the middle of the third century is the period left open for the martyrdom of St. Cecilia.

Her church in the Trastevere quarter of Rome was rebuilt by Paschal I (817–824), on which occasion the pope wished to transfer thither her relics; at first, however, he could not find them and believed that they had been stolen by the Lombards. In a vision he saw St. Cecilia, who exhorted him to continue his search, as he had already been very near to her, i.e. near her grave. He therefore renewed his quest; and soon the body of the martyr, draped in costly stuffs of gold brocade and with the cloths soaked in her blood at her feet, was actually found in the Catacomb of Prætextatus. They may have been transported thither from the Catacomb of Callistus to save them from earlier depredations of the Lombards in the vicinity of Rome. The relics of St. Cecilia with those of Valerianus, Tiburtius, and Maximus, also those of Popes Urbanus and Lucius, were taken up by Pope Paschal, and reburied under the high altar of St. Cecilia in Trastevere. The monks of a convent founded in the neighbourhood by the same pope were charged with the duty of singing the daily Office in this basilica. From this time the veneration of the holy martyr continued to spread, and numerous churches were dedicated to her. During the restoration of the church in the year 1599 Cardinal Sfondrato had the high altar examined and found under it the sarcophagi, with the relics of the saints, that Pope Paschal had transported thither. Recent excavations beneath the church, executed at the instigation and expense of Cardinal Rampolla, disclosed remains of Roman buildings, which have remained accessible. A richly adorned underground chapel was built beneath the middle aisle, and in it a latticed window, opening over the altar, allows a view of the receptacles in which the bones of the saints repose. In a side chapel of the church there have long been shown the remains of the bath in which, according to the Acts, Cecilia was put to death.

The oldest representations of St. Cecilia show her in the attitude usual for martyrs in the Christian art of the earlier centuries, either with the crown of martyrdom in her hand (e.g. at S. Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, in a sixth-century mosaic) or in the attitude of prayer, as an Orans (e.g. the two sixth and seventh-century pictures in her crypt). In the apse of her church in Trastevere is still preserved the mosaic made under Pope Paschal, wherein she is represented in rich garments as patroness of the pope. Medieval pictures of the saint are very frequent; since the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries she is given the organ as an attribute, or is represented as playing on the organ, evidently to express what was often attributed to her in panegyrics and poems based on the Acts, viz., that while the musicians played at her nuptials she sang in her heart to God only (“cantantibus organis illa in corde suo soi domino decantabat”); possibly the cantantibus organis was erroneously interpreted of Cecilia herself as the organist. In this way the saint was brought into closer relation with music. When the Academy of Music was founded at Rome (1584) she was made patroness of the institute, whereupon her veneration as patroness of church music in general became still more universal; today Cecilian societies (musical associations) exist everywhere. The organ is now her ordinary attribute; with it Cecilia was represented by Raphael in a famous picture preserved at Bologna. In another magnificent masterpiece, the marble statute beneath the high altar of the above-mentioned church of St. Cecilia at Rome, Carlo Maderna represented her lying prostrate, just as she had received the death-blow from the executioner’s hand. Her feast is celebrated in the Latin and the Greek Church on 22 November. In the “Martyrologium Hieronymainum” are commemorated other martyrs of this name, but of none of them is there any exact historical information. One suffered martyrdom in Carthage with Dativus in 304.

MOMBRITIUS, Sanctuarium, I, 186 sqq.; BOSIO, Atti di S. Cecilia (Rome, 1600); SURIUS, De vitis Sanctorum (Venice, 1581), VI, 161 sqq.; LADERCHI, S. Caciliae virg. et mart. acta ac transtiberina basilica (Rome, 1722); BOLLANDISTS ed., Bibliotheca hagiographica latina (Brussels, 1898–99), I, 224; SIMEON METAPHRASTES, in P.G., CXVI; BARONIUS, Annales, ad an. 821, 15 xv (the spurious document of Pope Paschal I); BOLLANDISTS ed., Synaxarium Constatinopolitanum (Brussels, 1902), 243; Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, I, xciii sq., 143, and II, 55–57, 65; TILLEMONT, Hist. ecclés., III, 259 sqq.; De Rossi, Roma Sotterranea, II, xxxii sq.; GUERANGER, Histoire de Ste Cecile (Paris 1849; 2nd ed., 1852); IDEM, Ste Cecile et la societe romaine (Paris, 1878); MORSE, BIRKS, and HOLE, in Dict. of Christian Biog., s.v.; AUBE, Les chrétiens dans l’empire romain (2nd ed., Paris, 1881), 352 sqq.; ALLARD, Histoire des persecutions, I, 427 sqq.; ERBES, Die heilige Cacilia im Zusammenhang mit der Papstcrypta sowie der altesten Kirche Roms, in Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, IX, 1888, 1 sqq.; P.A. KIRSCH, Die heilge Cacilia, Jungfrau und Martyrin (Ratisbon, 1901); IDEM, Das Todesjahr der heiligen Cacilia, in Stromation Archaiologikon (Rome, 1900), 42–77; KELLNER, Das wahre Zeitalter der heil. Cacilia, in Theologische Quartalschrift (Tubingen, 1902), 237 sqq.; (1903), 321 sqq.; (1905), 258 sqq.; DUFOURCQ, Les Gesta martyrum romains (Paris, 1900), 116 sqq., 293 sqq.; MARUCCHI, Basiliques et eglises de Rome (Rome, 1902), 438 sqq.; BIANCHI-CAGLIESI, S. Cecilia e sua basilica (Rome, 1902); DETZEL, Christl. Ikonographie (Freiburg im Br., 1896), 220 sqq.; ROHAULT DE FLEURY, Les saints de la Messe, I, pl, 16–17; P. SIXTUS, Elucubrationes historico-liturgicae de recenti quadem sententia circa aetatem S. Caeciliae martyris, in Ephemerides liturgicae (Rome, Sept.-Oct. 1907). See also the accounts in BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 22 November.

J.P. KIRSCH

Cedar (1)

[éréz, kedros, cedrus].

A coniferous tree frequently mentioned in the Bible. The Hebrew éréz, like the corresponding Arabic arz, the Greek (kedros), the Latin cedrus, or the English cedar, may be applied to several different species of conifers, but usually it designates the celebrated cedar of Libanus (Cedrus Libani). In Lev., xiv, 4, 6, 49, 52, and Num., xix, 6, the cedar of Libanus seems out of the question, as the tree must be one whose wood the Israelites could readily obtain during their sojourn in the desert, which is plainly not the case with the cedar of Libanus. Juniperus Phoenicea, a species of juniper which is found in the Arabah, and probably also in the adjoining Sinaitic Peninsula, and whose wood, like that of the cedar, possesses aromatic properties, is most likely the tree meant in the texts. In Num., xxiv, 6, too, the cedar of Libanus, which thrives best on high, dry ground, can hardly be intended, unless as has been suggested, the terms of comparison in the last two members have been accidentally transposed. In all the other passages the cedar of Libanus is referred to, though in a few cases a doubt might be raised as to whether it is meant exclusively. The cedar is described as a tree “of a high stature” (Ezech., xxxi, 3; Is., ii, 13; xxxvii, 24; IV K., xix, 23), whose “height was exalted above all the trees of the country” (Ezech., xxxi, 5; cf. Judges, ix, 15; III K., iv, 33; IV K., xiv 9; Amos, ii, 9). It is “the cedar of God” (ps. lxxix, 11), the tree of the Lord which He has planted [Ps. civ, 16 (Hebr.)]. It is the type of strength [Ps. xxviii, 5; Job, xl, 12 (Hebr. 17)], the symbol of lofty pride (Ps. xxxvi, 35; Is., ii, 13), the emblem of greatness and power (Jer., xxii, 7; Zach., xi, 2) and of surpassing excellence (Ecclus., xxiv, 17). It is the “glory of Libanus” (Is., lx, 13), “most beautiful for his greatness and for the spreading of his branches” (Ezech., xxxi, 3, 6, 7).

All this is verified in the cedar of Libanus, which is the stateliest and most majestic tree of Palestine. It often reaches a height of 100 feet and more, and the girth of the trunk in old trees may exceed 40 feet. The branches, with their numerous ramifications, spread out horizontally and are of such size that not infrequently the spread of the tree exceeds its height. The leaves are dark green and grow in tufts like those of the larch, but unlike these they persist through the winter. The wood is reddish-white, fragrant, and close-grained, at least in older trees. Moreover, by reason of the resinous oil with which it is impregnated, it is proof against dry-rot and worms, and in consequence is extremely durable. Pieces found by Layard in the ruins of the palace of Assurnasirpal were still in a good state of preservation after 2700 years. These qualities caused it to be much sought for building purposes. It was extensively used in the palaces built by David and Solomon, and especially in the first Temple (II K., v, 11; vii, 2; III K., v, 6 sq.; vi, 9 sq.; vii, 2 sq.) It was also used in the second Temple (I Esd., iii, 7). Because of its close grain and lasting qualities, statues and images were fashioned out of it (Is., xliv, 14, 15; cf. Pliny, “Hist. Nat.,” XIII, ii). Young trees were made into masts (Ezech., xxvii, 5). The statement that the cedar is unsuitable for masting rests on insufficient observation; in dense growths trees suitable for masts are not uncommon. There is no reason, then, why, in the last text, “cedars from Libanus” should be referred to the Aleppo pine, which, moreover, is not special to Libanus and could have been obtained by the Tyrians nearer home. The large forests of cedar-trees which once adorned Libanus, and from which the Hebrews drew the wood, have almost entirely disappeared. They were laid under contribution by Phoenician and Hebrew, Egyptian and Assyrian, Greek and Roman, till only a few (eleven) small groups of trees remain. The most important and best-known is situated below the summit of Dahr el-Qodîb, the highest peak of the chain, four miles from Besherre. Here are found about 400 trees, among which are some ten venerable patriarchs probably about 2000 years old, more remarkable, however, for their girth of trunk than for their height. Extensive forests exist farther north in Mt. Amanus and Mt. Taurus. There are two other varieties of cedar, considered by some botanists as distinct species; namely, Cedrus deodara, or deodar-tree, a native of the Himalayas, and Cedrus Atlantica, growing in the Atlas mountains.

The cedar is often used in Scripture for figures and comparisons. Besides the uses already indicated the following may be mentioned. Because of its luxuriant growth and length of life it is an emblem of prosperity (Ps. xci, 13), and because of its stateliness it is a figure of beauty and majesty (Cant., v, 15; Ecclus., I, 13). It is also used as the symbol of the Messias and His kingdom (Ezech., xvii, 22 sq.).

POST, Flora of Syria (Beirut, 1896), 751: IDEM in HASTINGS, Dict. Of the Bib., I, 364; TRISTRAM, Nat. Hist. Of the Bibl. (London, 1889), 343 sq.; HOOKER in Nat. Hist. Rev. (1862), 11—18; ANDERLIND, in Zeitschr. D. D. Pal. Ver. (1884), 89 sq.; BOISSIER, flora Orient. (Basle and Geneva, 1867–88), V, 699; MISLIN, Les lieux saints (Paris, 1858), I, 337; LEVESQUE in VIG., Dict. De la Bible, II, 374; FONCK in Lexicon Bibl., I, 799.

F. BECHTEL

Cedar (2)

[Heb. Qedar; Gr. Kedar].

The name of the second son of Ismael (Gen., xxv, 13; I Par., i, 29); also of an Arabian tribe descended from him, and of the territory occupied by it. This tribe is repeatedly mentioned in the Bible and in Assyrian inscriptions; in these latter the people is called Qidrai and the country Qidri. The Cedarenes are represented as a nomadic people differing but little from the modern desert-dwelling Arabs. They lived in tents, which are called black no doubt because, like those of the bedouins, they were made of goat’s and camel’s hair (Jer., xlix, 29; Cant., i, 4-Heb. 5); they were gathered in hacerim or encampments protected merely by a rough enclosure like the douars of the tribes of North Africa (Is., xlii, 11, Heb.); they possessed many camels and much other cattle, in which they carried on a trade with Tyre (Jer., xlix, 29; Ezech., xxvii, 21); they were a restless, warlike people and skillful archers (Ps. cxix, 5 sq.; Is., xxi, 17). These frequent references as well as the use of Cedar for Arabia and the Arabians in general [Cant., i, 4 (5); Ps. Cxix, 5], show that before they were crushed by the Assyrian power the Cedarenes were a people of considerable importance. In the Assyrian inscriptions they are associated with certain kings of the Arabs (Aribi). From the fact that Hazael, one of them, is once called King of Cedar in cylinder B of Assurbanipal, the conclusion has been drawn that these kings were Cedarenes, and that towards the middle of the seventh century B.C. Cedar held the hegemony among the tribes of the Syro-Arabian desert—the Arabs of the Bible and of the inscriptions. However, as a certain Ammuladi is called King of Cedar, while his contemporary Ya’uta’ or Uaite’ is styled King of the Arabs, it is probable that the Cedarenes were merely allies of these kings. The prophecy of Isaias, “within a year. . . . all the glory of Cedar shall be taken away” (xxi, 16), probably refers to an expedition of Sennacherib against Hazael, when the latter’s gods were carried by the conqueror to Ninive. Still, Cedar may possible be used as synonymous with Arabs, in which case the prophecy may refer to the severe punishment inflicted by Sargon on some Arabian tribes.

However this may be, the Cedarenes met with disastrous reverses at the hands of Assurbanipal. When Samas-sum-ukin rebelled against his brother, Ya’uta’ or Uaite,’ the son of Hazael, sided with him and sent a force to his aid under the Cedarene generals Abiyate’ and Aimu, while he and Ammuladi, King of Cedar, invaded and plundered Syria. After the taking of Babylon and the death of Samas-sum-ukin, Assurbanipal turned his attention to the Arabs. Uaite’ and Ammuladi were defeated in a series of engagements. Uaite’ fled to the Nabataeans for refuge, but was given up to the Assyrians; Ammuladi was captured in Moab. Both were carried to Ninive and chained with dogs near the principal gate. In the place of Uaite’ Assurbanipal appointed Abiyate’ who had led the Arab contingent sent to help Samas-sum-ukin but who, after being defeated, had surrendered and obtained pardon. Abiyate’ however, in conjunction with another Uaite,’ for whom he seems to have resigned, soon organized a new revolt, in which the Nabataeans now also joined. Assurbanipal, hastening to the scene of rebellion by the most direct but most difficult road across the Syrian desert, crushed and almost annihilated the rebel tribes. He carried with him to Ninive a multitude of prisoners, among them Abiyate,’ Aimu, and Uaite,’ and an immense number of camels, oxen, and other cattle. The Cedarenes met with further reverses under Nabuchodonosor (Jer., xlix, 28). They never fully recovered from these heavy blows and henceforth history is silent concerning them, though their name is mentioned till the fifth century A.D. While there is no doubt that the Cedarenes dwelt in the Syro-Arabian desert, known to the ancients as Arabia Deserta, there is some diversity of opinion about their exact location. As both in the Bible and in the inscriptions of Assurbanipal they are mentioned in connection with the Nabataeans [Heb. Nebaioth; Assyr. Nabaite], they most probably lived in close proximity to these. Pliny, in fact, states (Hist. Nat., v, 12) that the Cedrei, who doubtless are the Cedarenes, were neighbours of the Nabataeans. Now before the Persian period the Nabataeans were settled south-east of Idumaea, on the northern limits of the Hidjaj, with Egra as their capital. We may therefore conclude that the Cedarenes were located in the south-western part of the Arabia Desert, or of the modern Hamad, extending perhaps into Arabia proper. They would thus have been sufficiently remote for a residence among them to convey the idea of distant exile (Ps. cxix, 5), and yet near enough to be well known to the Hebrews. Theodoret mentions (Patr. Lat., LXXX, 1878) that in his time (fifth century A.D.) They dwelt near Babylon. The religion of the Cedarenes, like that of all pre-Islamitic Arabs, was Sabianism, or worship of the heavenly bodies. Their chief divinity was Atarsamaim, i.e. “Atar [Athar-Astarte] of the heavens.” In Judith, i, 8, instead of “Cedar” we must probably read “Galaad” with the Septuagint.

SMITH, Hist. Of Assurbanipal (London, 1871); 256 sq., 283 sq.; cuneif. Inscript. Of West Asia, III,pl. 24 -28; Records of the Past (ser. I), I, 93 sq., III, 115; VIGOUROUX, La Bible et les découv. Mod. (Paris, 1889), IV, 293 sq.; DELITZSCH, Wo lag das Paraies, 296 sq., GLASER, Sizze der Gesch. Arabiens (Berlin, 1901); II, 267 sq.; MARGOLIOUTH in HAST., Dict. Bib., II, 832; HALEVY in Dict. De la Bible, I, 862; LEGENDRE, IBID., ii, 357.

F. BECHTEL

St. Cedd

(Or Cedda).

Bishop of the East Saxons, the brother of St. Ceadda; died 26 Oct. 664. There were two other brothers also priests, Cynibill and Caelin, all born of an Angle family settled in Northumbria. With his younger brother Ceadda, he was brought up at Lindisfarne under St. Aidan. In 653 he was one of four priests sent by Oswiu, King of Northumbria, to evangelize the Middle Angles at the request of their ealdorman, Peada. Shortly after, however, he was recalled and sent on the same missionary errand to Essex to help Sigeberht, King of the East Saxons, to convert his people to Christ. Here he was consecrated bishop and was very active in founding churches, and established monasteries at Tilbury and Ithancester. Occasionally he revisited his native Northumbria, and there, at the request of Aethelwald, founded the monastery of Laestingaeu, now Lastingham, in Yorkshire. Of this house he became the first abbot, notwithstanding his episcopal responsibilities. At the Synod of Whitby, like St. Cuthbert, he, though Celtic in his upbringing, adopted the Roman Easter. Immediately after the synod he paid a visit to Laestingaeu, where he fell a victim to the prevalent plague. Florence of Worcester and William of Malmesbury in later times counted him as the second Bishop of London, but St. Bede, almost a contemporary, never gives him that title. His festival was kept on 7 January.

EDWIN BURTON

Cedes

(Or CADES; Heb., Qédésh, sanctuary; Gr., Kades or Kedes), two cities of Palestine.

(1) A Levitical city and place of refuge in Nephtali (Jos., xix, 37; xx, 7; xxi, 32; 1 Par., vi, 76) hence called “Cedes in Nephtali” (Judges, iv, 6), or “Cedes in Galilee” (Jos., xx, 7, etc.), to distinguish it from Cedes in Issachar and Cades (Heb. Qédésh) in the Nageb. The form Cades occurs in the Vulg. Only in Jos., xii, 22, and I Mach., xi, 63, 73. The name would indicate that it was a sacred city before the Hebrew occupation. Cedes was the home of Barac, and here he and Deobbora gathered their army, consisting mainly of men of Nephtali, Zabulon and Issachar, before giving battle to Sisara, near Mt. Thabor (Judges, iv, 6, 10 sq.; v, 15). In the reign of Phacee, King of Israel, it was taken by Theglathphalasar and its inhabitants were carried captives to Assyria (IV K., xv, 29). During the Machabean wars Jonathan defeated the generals of Demetrius II, Nicanor, in its neighbourhood (I mach., xi, 63–74). At the time of the great Jewish rebellion it was in the hands of the Tyrians, and Titus camped under its walls before taking Gishala (Joseph., Bell. Jud., II, xviii, 1; IV, ii, 3). In Josephus it appears variously as Kedese, Kedasa, Kadasa, and Kydasa. Eusebius calls it Kydissos, St. Jerome, Cidissus (in de Lagarde, “Onomastica,” 271, 53; 110, 8). Cedes was a city of Upper Galilee, close to and north of Asor (Jos. Xix, 37; IV K., xv 29; I Par., vi, 176; I Mach., xi, 63 67–73; Joseph., Ant., V, i, 18, 24; IX, xi, 1; XIII, v, 6, 7). As the latter lay in the neighbourhood of Hûleh, the Biblical “Waters of Merom,” or Lake of Semechonitis of Josephus (Jos., xi, 1–10; Joseph., Ant., V, v, 1), Cedes cannot have been far distant from its shores. There can be no doubt, then, that it is to be identified with the Village of Qades or Qedes, situated on a hill north-west of the lake. Here are found the foundations of an ancient wall, ruins of a temple and of a large mausoleum, a number of fine specimens of sarcophagi, some of which are double, besides pieces of broken columns, bases and capitals, scattered over the hill or imbedded in the walls of the houses. These remains show that in the Greek or Roman period, to which they are due, Cedes was an important city. Such it must always have ben by reason of its strong position on one of the trade routes from Tyre to the regions across the Jordan, though after the time of the Judges it hardly figures in Hebrew history.

Exception has recently been taken by Conder, Hummelauer, Zanecchia, etc., to the common opinion which connects this Cedes with the events of Judges, iv. They would place the home of Barac at another Cedes, in the south of Nephtali, which they identify with Kirbet Qadîsh on the Lake of Genesareth, south of Tiberias. A city of Cedes existing at this point would throw light on some of the details of the narrative. It would help to explain how Barac managed to assemble a large force without interference on the part of Jabin, King of Asor, which is hard to understand if the rendezvous was the Cedes of Upper Galilee. Its nearness to Mt. Thabor would also explain why the battle with Sisara came to be fought near that mountain. Lastly, the arrival of the flying Sisara at the tent of Jahel, apparently on the day of the battle itself, would be more readily understood. The only direct argument, however, for the existence of this second Cedes is the similarity of the name Qadîsh. The identification of Sennim (Heb. Ca ánánnîm or Beçá ánánnîm), where the tents of Haber the Cinite were pitched, with Sinn-en-Nabrah (Hjummelauer) or the Khirbet Bessûm (Conder) is too uncertain to base any conclusions upon it.

(2) A Levitical city of Issachar assigned to the family of Gersom (I Par., vi, 72-Heb. 57). In the parallel list of Jos., xxi, 28 it is called Cesion. The Cades of Jos., xii, 22, commonly held to be Cedes in Galilee, is by some identified with the Cedes of Issachar.

ROBINSON, Bibl. Research. (London, 1856) III, 367; Survey W. Pal., Mem., I, 204, 226 sq.; GUERIN, Galilée (Paris, 1874–75), II, 355 sq.; ZANECCHIA, La Pal. D’auj., II, 715; BUHL, Geog. Des alt. Pal., 235 sq.; HUMMELAUER, Comm. In Jos., 437, 442; LEGENDRE in Vig., Dict. De la Bible, II, 360.

F. BECHTEL

Brook of Cedron

[Heb. Náhál Qidhrôn, “Wâdi Qidron”; only once “fields of Qidron”; John, xviii, 1, ho cheimarros ho Kedron; in R.V., Kidron]. The name designates in Holy Writ the ravine on the east of Jerusalem, between the Holy City and the Mount of Olives. The word Cedron is usually connected with the root Qadár, “to be dark,” and taken to refer to the colour of the stream or ravine; but its exact origin and precise meaning are really unknown. The Valley of Cedron begins with a slight depression near the Tombs of the Judges, a mile and a quarter north-west of Jerusalem. It runs first south towards the Holy city, and then turns nearly east, passing to the north of the tombs of the Kings. Next, it bends to the right towards the south, deepening as it follows this general direction between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives. Opposite St. Stephen’s gate, it is fully 100 feet deep and about 400 feet broad; its bed is shaded by venerable olive-trees and crossed by an old bridge. Below the bridge, the valley presents the first traces of a torrent bed. It narrows gradually and sinks more rapidly leaving to the east the church of the tomb of Blessed Virgin, and next, Gethsemani. A thousand feet from the old bridge, the valley is merely a deep gulley across which another bridge is thrown, and on the banks of which are, to the right, Mohammedan tombs, and to the left, the sepulchres of Josaphat, Absalom, St. James, and the Jewish cemetery. About a thousand feet farther, there is in a cave, on the right bank, the Fountain of the Virgin, and higher up, on the left, the village of Siloe. Somewhat farther down, the Tyropoeon valley falls from the right into the Cedron, which now expands down to the Valley of Hinnom. Here, the Cedron is about 200 yards wide, and has on its left the Mount of Offence. Shortly after the junction of the Valley of Hinom with the Cedron, there is Job’s well, to the south of which Sir C. Warren found, in 1868–69, the shaft of a great rock-cut aqueduct.

On leaving the Holy City, the Valley of the Cedron runs its winding and gradually precipitous course through the Wilderness of Judea to the north-western shore of the Dead Sea. The Cedron is perfectly dry during the summer and most of the winter. North of Jerusalem, it bears the name of Wâdi al-Jos (Valley of Nuts); between the city and the Mount of Olives, it is known as Wâdi Sitti Mariam (Valley of St. Mary), or again as the Valley of Josaphat (cf. Joel, iii, 2, 12); after leaving Jerusalem, it is called Wâdi en-Nâr (Valley of Fire), and also Wâdi er-Rahib (Valley of the Monks). Its whole length is some 20 miles in a straight line, and its descent nearly 4000 feet. Its bed east of Jerusalem is now about40 feet higher than in ancient times. The Cedron is first mentioned in Holy Scripture in connection with David’s flight from Absalom, during which he crossed it [II K. (A. V. II Samuel) xv, 23]; and next, in connection with the prohibition to Semei against his ever crossing it [III K. (A. V. I K.) ii, 37]. It was at the torrent Cedron that King Asa burnt the filthy idol of his mother [III K., xv, 13; II Par. (A. V. II Chron.) xv, 16]. It was into it that Ezechias and Josias cast all the impurities which had polluted the House of the Lord (cf. II Par., xxix, 16; xxx, 14; IV K., xxiii, 4, 6, 12). The torrent Cedron is last mentioned in the O. T. in Jer., xxxi, 40, apparently as part of the common cemetery of Jerusalem. In the N. T. it is spoken of only once, in connection with Christ’s going forth over it to Gethsemani (John, xviii, 1). In the present day it is the desired resting-place of both Jews and Mussulmans, and the supposed scene of Last Judgment.

ROBINSON, Biblical Researches in Palestine (1856), I; MISLIN, Les Saints Livres (3d ed., 1876), II; Palestine Exploration Fund, Jerusalem; BUHL, Geog. Des alten Palästina.

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Diocese of Cefalù

DIOCESE OF CEFALÙ (CEPHALUDENSIS); CEPHALOEDIUM.

The city of the same name in the province of Palermo, in Sicily (Italy), is situated nearly in the centre of the northern coast of the island. Destroyed by the inhabitants of Messina, it was reconstructed about 1130 by King Roger I of Sicily. Its first bishop was Nicetas who, in 869, assisted at the Eighth General council held at Constantinople for the trial of Photius. When Roger I rebuilt the city, Tocelmo was bishop. Among its bishops were: Arduino II, suffered exile twice on account of his opposition to Frederic II; Nicolò (1352) died in the prison of Castel Grassario, and Fra Francesco of the ducal house of Gonzaga (d. 1587), founder of the first seminary opened in Sicily. The cathedral was built by Roger I, and, though often restored, is a fine monument of Norman architecture. The adjoining cloister, still kept in its primitive state, is remarkable for graceful columns adorned with sculptures and arabesques. The diocese is a suffragan of Palermo, it has 22 parishes, 300 secular clergy, 265 churches, chapels, and oratories, 160,320 inhabitants, and 24 houses of religious (women).

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (venice, 1844), XXI, 540; Annuario ecclesiastico (1907), 386–87.

U. BENIGNI

Rémi Ceillier

Patrologist, b. at Bar-le-Duc, 14 May, 1688; d. at Flavigny, 26 May, 1763. He received his early education if the Jesuit College at Bar-le-Duc. After completing the course of humanities and rhetoric, he entered (1705) the monastery of Moyen-Moutier in the Vosges, belonging to the Benedictine congregation of St-Vannes and St-Hydulphe. Later he was appointed professor in the same monastery, a position which he held for six years. In 1716 he was made dean of Moyen-Moutier, in 1718 prior of the monastery of Saint Jacques de Neufchâteau, in 1724 assistant to Dom Charles de Vassimont at the priory of Flavigny-sur-Moselle, and on the latter’s death in 1733 prior of that monastery. Under his wise administration this monastery flourished materially, spiritually, and intellectually. His first great work, prepared while he was professor at Moyen-Moutier, was an “Apologie de la morale des Pères, contre les injustes accusations du sieur Jean Barbeyrac, professeur en droit et en histoire à Lausanne” (Paris, 1718). In this work a long dissertation of 40 pages is devoted to establishing the authority of the Fathers of the Church; afterwards the author follows step by step the arguments of Barbeyrac, and defends individually those Fathers whom he had attacked—Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and others. The success of this work led Ceillier to undertake another, similar in character, but wider in scope, and dealing with all the sacred and ecclesiastical writings. The nature of the work can best be judged from its title, “Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés et ecclésiastiques qui contient leur vie, le catalogue, la critique, le jugemen, la chronologie, l’analyse et le dénombrement des différentes éditions de leurs ouvrages; ce qu’ils renferment de plus intéressant sur le dogme, sur la morale, et sur la discipline de l’Eglise; l’histoire des conciles tant généraux que particuliers et les actes choisis des martyrs.” The first volume appeared in 1729, the others at various intervals, the 23d and last being published after the death of the author. The work contains an historical account of the sacred and ecclesiastical authors, lists, analyses, and critical appreciations of their writings, together with selected quotations; it was incomplete when the author died. It ends with the writings of William of Auvergne in the middle of the thirteenth century. It has passed through several editions; the latest is that of Abbé Bauzon, 17 vols. in 4to with two volumes of indexes (Paris, 1860–1869). The preparation of a work so comprehensive in character was made possible by the assistance which Ceillier received from his confreres. The most valuable portion of the work is that dealing with the Fathers of the first six centuries. Here the author was able to draw upon the writings of Tillemont, and to use the scholarly Benedictine editions of the Fathers. Charges of Jansenism made against Ceillier in his lifetime and afterwards find no substantiation in his writings, and the treatment accorded to the author and his works by Benedict XIV shows that the pope had no doubts as to his orthodoxy.

PATRICK J. HEALY

Celebret

A letter which a bishop gives to a priest, that he may obtain permission in another diocese to say Mass, and for this purpose bears testimony that he is free from canonical censures. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, chap. xvi on Reform) lays down the rule that “no cleric who is a stranger shall without letters commendatory (q.v.) from his own ordinary be admitted by any bishop to celebrate the divine mysteries.” Ordinarily permission is not to be given to a priest from another diocese to say Mass without this certificate signed and duly sealed. The seal is obviously the more important requisite, as it is the safer guarantee against forgery. The celebret should be officially recognized by the diocesan authority of the place where a priest may wish to say Mass. One who has his celebret in due form, or who is certainly known to be in good standing in his own diocese, may be allowed to celebrate till he has had a sufficient time to comply with this rule. A priest with proper credentials cannot reasonably be prevented from saying Mass, though he will be expected to comply with reasonable restrictions which may be imposed.

The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, as a regulation against collectors of funds for other dioceses or countries, enacted a decree (No. 295) that priests on such a mission should not be allowed to celebrate Mass even once till they had received permission from the ordinary. This rule has generally been enforced in diocesan synods. The absence of the celebret does not suffice for the refusal of permission to say Mass, if persons worthy of belief bear positive testimony to the good standing of the priest. If the permission were unreasonably refused, the priest may say Mass privately, if no scandal is given. Yet the rectors of churches are not obliged to incur any expenses the celebration may involve. (S.C.C., 15 Dec., 1703).

R. L. BURTSELL

Celenderis

A titular see of Asia Minor.

Celenderis was a port and fortress in Isauria, founded by the Phoenicians or, according to legend, by Sandacos, son of Astynoös and grandson of Phaethon. It figures in Parthey’s “Notitiae episcopatuum” as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century, as a suffragan of Seleuceia. Lequien (II, 1015) gives four titulars: Musonius in 381, Julianus, or Julius, in 451 and 458, Peter at the Trullan Council in 692, and Eustathius at Nicaea in 787. Another, whose name is unknown, was amongst the friends of Photius in 878. We must add two names: Asterius, a correspondent of Severus in 508 and 511, and Pelagius in 518 (E. W. Brooks, “The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus,” II, 4; “Vita Severi,” 28; “Chronique de Michel le Syrien,” ed. Chabot, 267). Celenderis is to-day a little village, commonly called Kilindria, the chief centre of the caza of Gulnar in the vilayet of Adana, with 210 inhabitants, mostly Greeks. It has a pretty roadstead, but of difficult approach. There are Roman and medieval ruins, among them those of an aqueduct, a castle, beautiful sarcophagi, etc.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Pope St. Celestine I

Nothing is known of his early history except that he was a Roman and that his father’s name was Priscus. He is said to have lived for a time at Milan with St. Ambrose; the first notice, however, concerning him that is known is in a document of St. Innocent I, in the year 416, where he is spoken of as Celestine the Deacon. In 418 St. Augustine wrote to him (Epist., lxii) in very reverential language. He succeeded St. Boniface I as pope, 10 Sept., 422 (according to Tillemont, though the Bollandists say 3 Nov.), and died 26 July, 432, having reigned nine years, ten months, and sixteen days. In spite of the troublous times at Rome, he was elected without any opposition, as is learned from a letter of St. Augustine (Epist., cclxi), written to him shortly after his elevation, in which the great doctor begs his assistance in composing his difficulties with Antonius, Bishop of Fessula in Africa. A strong friendship seems to have existed between Celestine and Augustine, and after the death of the latter in 430, Celestine wrote a long letter to the bishops of Gaul on the sanctity, learning and zeal of the holy doctor, and forbade all attacks upon his memory on the part of the Semipelagians, who under the leadership of the famous ascetic, John Cassian, were then beginning to gain influence. Though his lot was cast in stormy times, for the Manichaeans, Donatists, Noviatians, and Pelagians were troubling the peace of the Church, while the barbarian hordes were beginning their inroads into the heart of the empire, Celestine’s firm but gentle character enabled him to meet successfully all the exigencies of his position. We see him everywhere upholding the rights of the Church and the dignity of his office. In this he was aided by Placidia, who, in the name of her youthful son, Valentinian III, banished from Rome the Manichaeans and other heretics who were disturbing the peace. Celestine not only excluded Coelestius, the companion and chief disciple of Pelagius, from Italy, but procured the further condemnation of the sect from the Council of Ephesus, while through his instrumentality St. Germanus of Auxerre and St. Lupus of Troyes, who had been sent to Britain in 429, the native land of Pelagius, by the Gallic bishops, succeeded in extirpating the error from its native soil.

A firm upholder of the ancient canons, we find Celestine writing to the bishops of Illyria, bidding them observe the canons and their old allegiance to the Bishop of Thessalonica, the papal vicar, without whom they are not to consecrate any bishop or hold any council. He also writes to the Bishops of Vienne and Narbonne, whom he warns to keep the ancient canons, and, in accordance with the warning of his predecessor, to resist the pretensions of the See of Arles. Moreover they must not refuse to admit to penance those who desire it at the moment of death; bishops, too, must not dress as monks, and severe action is to be taken against a certain Daniel, a monk from the Orient who had been the cause of serious disorders in the Church of Gaul. To the Bishops of Apulia and Calabria he writes that the clergy must not remain ignorant of the canons, neither are the laity to be advanced to the episcopate over the heads of the clergy, nor is the popular will, no matter how strong, to be humoured in this matter—populus docendus non sequendus. Moreover he threatens severe penalties for future transgressors. In upholding the rights of the Roman Church to hear and decide appeals from all quarters, he came for a time into conflict with the great Church of Africa (see Apiarius). The African bishops, however, through manifesting some warmth, never called into question the Divine supremacy of the Holy See, their very language and actions expressed its fullest recognition; their complaints were directed rather against the sometimes indiscreet use of the papal prerogative. The last years of the pontificate of Celestine were taken up with the struggle in the East over the heresy of Nestorius (see Nestorius; Cyril of Alexandria; Ephesus, Council of). Nestorius who had become Bishop of Constantinople in 428 at first gave great satisfaction, as we learn from a letter addressed to him by Celestine. He soon aroused suspicions of his orthodoxy by receiving kindly the Pelagians banished from Rome by the pope, and shortly after, rumours of his heretical teaching concerning the twofold personality of Christ reaching Rome, Celestine commissioned Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, to investigate and make a report. Cyril having found Nestorius openly professing his heresy sent a full account to Celestine, who in a Roman synod (430), having solemnly condemned the errors of Nestorius, now ordered Cyril in his name to proceed against Nestorius, who was to be excommunicated and deposed unless within ten days he should have made in writing a solemn retractation of his errors. In letters written the same day to Nestorius, to the clergy and people of Constantinople, and to John of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Rufus of Thessalonica, and Flavian of Philippi, Celestine announces the sentence passed upon Nestorius and the commission given to Cyril to execute it. At the same time he restored all who had been excommunicated or deprived by Nestorius. Cyril forwarded the papal sentence and his own anathema to Nestorius. The emperor now summoned a general council to meet at Ephesus. To this council Celestine sent as legates, Arcadius, and Projectus, bishops, and Philippus, a priest, who were to act in conjunction with Cyril. However, they were not to mix in discussion but were to judge the opinions of the others. Celestine in all his letters assumes his own decision as final, Cyril and the council, “compelled by the sacred canons and the letters of Our Most Holy Father, Celestine, Bishop of the Roman Church.”

The last official act of Celestine, the sending of St. Patrick to Ireland, perhaps surpasses all the rest in its far-reaching consequences for good. He had already sent (431) Palladius as bishop to the “Scots [i.e. Irish] believing in Christ.” But Palladius son abandoned Ireland and died the year following in Britain. St. Patrick, who had previously been refused, now received the long-coveted commission only a few days before the death of Celestine, who thus becomes a sharer in the conversion of the race that in the next few centuries was to accomplish such vast works by its countless missionaries and scholars in the conversion and civilization of the barbarian world. In the local affairs of the Roman Church, Celestine manifested great zeal. He restored and embellished the church of Santa Maria in Trastevere, which had suffered from the Gothic pillage of Rome, also the church of St. Sabina, besides decorating the Cemetery of St. Priscilla with paintings of the Council Ephesus. The precise date of his death is uncertain. His feast is kept in the Latin Church on 6 April, the day on which his body was placed in the Catacombs of St. Priscilla whence it was transferred in 820 by Pope St. Paschal I to the church of Sta Prassede, though the cathedral of Mantua likewise claims his relics. In the Greek Church where he is highly honoured for his condemnation of Nestorius, his feast falls on 8 April.

The extant writings of St. Celestine consist of sixteen letters, the contents of many of which have been indicated above, and a fragment of a discourse on Nestorianism delivered in the Roman Synod of 430. The “Capitula Coelestini,” the ten decisions on the subject of grace which have played such a part in the history of Augustinianism, are no longer attributed to his authorship. For centuries they were affixed as an integral part to his letter to the Bishops of Gaul, but at present are considered as most probably the work of St. Prosper of Aquitaine. Anastasius Bibliothecarius attributes to him several other constitutions but with little authority. Doubtful also is the statement of the “Liber Pontificalis” that Celestine added the Introit to the Mass.

Sancti Celestini Epistolae et Decreta, P.L., L; Acta ss., X; Hefele, History of the Councils, II, III; Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, I; Grisar, Geschichte Roms und der Papste im Mittelalter (Freiburg im Br., 1898), I; Cardinal de Noris, Historia Pelagiana; Tillemont, Memoires pour servir a l’ histoire ecclesiastique, XIV; Natalis Alexander, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Roncaglia-Mansi, IX; Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Amplissima Collectio, IV; Rivington, The Roman Primacy.

J. F. X. MURPHY.

Pope Celestine II

(GUIDO DEL CASTELLO, DE CASTELLIS)

A native of Roman Tuscany, date of birth unknown; d. 8 March, 1144. He was a disciple of Abelard, and added to great learning the reputation of a grave and upright priest. He was made cardinal in 1128, and in 1140 legate to France where he incurred the displeasure of St. Bernard for the protection he accorded Arnold of Brescia. He succeeded Innocent II, 25 September, 1143, and at once lifted from France the interdict that his predecessor had inflicted because of the act of Louis VII in opposing his own candidate to the rightfully elected Bishop of Bourges. On the eve of a serious conflict with Roger of Sicily he died, after a short reign of about six months.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Pope Celestine III

(GIACINTO BOBONE)

The first of the Roman Orsini to ascend the Chair of Peter, b. about 1106; d. at Rome, 8 January, 1198. He was forty-seven years a cardinal when, in his eighty-fifth year, he was elected (30 March, 1191) successor of Clement III; being only a deacon he was ordained priest (13 April) and consecrated bishop the next day, respectively Holy Saturday and Easter. The following day he anointed and crowned King Henry VI of Germany as emperor, and as empress his queen Constantia. The king was then on his way to Southern Italy to enforce against Tancred the claims of Constantia to the crown of the two Sicilies. The Roman people, however, did not permit the afore-mentioned solemnities to take place until both pope and king had aided them to satisfy their wrath against the neighbouring Tusculum. The town was levelled with the ground and abandoned to the savage vengeance of the Romans. The aged pope has been blamed for this act of cruelty, in this so unlike his predecessor Innocent II who withstood (1142) a similar passionate insistence of the Romans for the destruction of Tibur (Tivoli). The responsibility, however, rests chiefly on the emperor, whose blood-thirsty Italian career was thus becomingly inaugurated. In spite of the pope the emperor proceeded southward to make good his claims to Sicily, but was defeated and compelled to retire, leaving the empress a prisoner of Tancred, who freed her at the papal petition. The aged Celestine astonished many by his longanimity in dealing with the young and violent Henry VI who in Germany surpassed his predecessors in cruelty and oppression of the churches. The pope was also slow and cautious in threatening Henry with excommunication for his imprisonment of King Richard the Lion-Hearted whom Henry had caused to be seized (1192) by Duke Leopold of Austria, and delivered to himself, as Richard was on the way back to England, nor was the English king set free until he had paid a great ransom (£100,000). It was a violation of the law of nations that a younger and more vigorous pope would not have so long tolerated. Only in 1193 were the duke and his associates excommunicated and an attempt made to compel restitution of the ransom. Shortly after, on the death of Tancred (1194) Henry VI again crossed the Alps, resolved to finally compass the union of the German Crown with that of the Two Sicilies. Amid incredible cruelties he accomplished his purpose, defied the rights of the pope as overlord of Sicily, deceived the pope with vain promises of a crusade, and would probably have hastened by a generation the memorable conflict of Rome with his son Frederick II had not death carried off the cruel and lawless king, 28 Sept., 1197, in his thirty-sixth year, not, however, before he had induced the pope to acknowledge the aforesaid infant Frederick as King of the Two Sicilies. Celestine himself soon passed away, in the ninety-second year of his age. He showed more resolution in dealing with other princes of Europe, particularly in defence of the ecclesiastical marriage laws. He induced King Alfonso IX of Leon to abandon his project of an incestuous union with a Portuguese princess, and defended with vigour the validity of the marriage of Queen Ingeburg with Philip Augustus of France, to whom he refused a divorce, while he declared invalid the divorce accorded to Philip by the bishops of his kingdom. A serious crusade was the constant ideal of Pope Celestine; he confirmed the new military Order of Teutonic Knights (1191), and favoured greatly the Knights Templar and the Hospitallers. St. Malachy of Armagh, St. Bernward of Hildesheim, St. John Gualbert, and St. Ubaldus of Gubbio were canonized by him (See HENRY VI.).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Pope Celestine IV

(GOFREDO CASTIGLIONI.)

A native of Milan, nephew of Urban III, and probably a Cistercian; died 10 November, 1241. He was made cardinal by Gregory IX and succeeded him, 25 October, 1241, at the height of the papal warfare with Emperor Frederick II. He died after a reign of fifteen days.

LABBE AND COSSART, Coll. Conc., XXIII, 1463; ARGELATI, Biblioth. Mediolanensis (1745), I, 1, 440; POTTHAST, Reg. Rom. Pont. (1874), I, 940.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Pope St. Celestine V

(PIETRO DI MURRONE.)

Born 1215, in the Neapolitan province of Moline; elected at Perugia 5 July, 1294; consecrated and crowned at Aquila, 29 August; abdicated at Naples, 13 Dec., 1294; died in the castle of Fumone, 19 May, 1296. He was of humble parentage, became a Benedictine at the age of seventeen, and was eventually ordained priest at Rome. His love of solitude led him first into the wilderness of Monte Morone in the Abruzzi, whence his surname, and later into the wilder recesses of Mt. Majella. He took for his model the Baptist. His hair-cloth was roughened with knots; a chain of iron encompassed his emaciated frame; he fasted every day except Sunday; each year he kept four Lents, passing three of them on bread and water; the entire day and a great part of the night he consecrated to prayer and labour. As generally happens in the case of saintly anchorites, Peter’s desire for solitude was not destined to be gratified. Many kindred spirits gathered about him eager to imitate his rule of life, and before his death there were thirty- six monasteries, numbering 600 religious, bearing his papal name (Celestini). The order was approved, as a branch of the Benedictines, by Urban IV, in 1264. This congregation of (Benedictine) Celestines must not be confounded with other (Franciscan) Celestines, extreme Spirituals whom Pope Celestine permitted (1294) to live as hermits according to the Rule of St. Francis, but were pendent of the Franciscan superiors. In gratitude they called themselves after the pope (Pauperes eremitæ Domini Celestine), but were dissolved and dispersed (1302) by Boniface VIII, whose legitimacy the Spirituals contested [Heimbucher, Orden und Kongregationen (2nd ed. Paderborn, 1907); I, 280; II, 360]. In 1284, Pietro, weary of the cares of government, appointed a certain Robert as his vicar and plunged again into the depths of the wilderness. It would be well if some Catholic scholar would devote some time to a thorough investigation of his relations to the extreme spiritual party of that age; for though it is certain that the pious hermit did not approve of the heretical tenets held by the leaders, it is equally true that the fanatics, during his life and after his death, made copious use of his name.

In July, 1294, his pious exercises were suddently interrupted by a scene unparalleled in ecclesiastical history. Three eminent dignitaries, accompanied by an immense multitude of monks and laymen, ascended the mountain, announced that Pietro had been chosen pope by unanimous vote of the Sacred College and humbly begged him to accept the honour. Two years and three months had elapsed since the death of Nicholas IV (4 Apr., 1292) without much prospect that the conclave at Perugia would unite upon a candidate. Of the twelve Cardinals who composed the Sacred College six were Romans, four Italians and two French. The factious spirit of Guelph and Ghibelline, which was then epidemic in Italy, divided the conclave, as well as the city of Rome, into two hostile parties of the Orsini and the Colonna, neither of which could outvote the other. A personal visit to Perugia, in the spring of 1294, of Charles II of Naples, who needed the papal authority in order to regain Sicily, only exasperated the affair, hot words being exchanged betrween the Angevin monarch and Cardinal Gaetani, at that time the intellectual leader of the Colonna, later, as Pope Boniface VIII, their bitter enemy. When the situation seemed hopeless, Cardinal Latino Orsini admonished the fathers that God had revealed to a saintly hermit that if the cardinals did not perform their duty within four months, He would visit the Church with severe chastisement. All knew that he referred to Pietro di Murrone. The proposition was seized upon by the exhausted conclave and the election was made unanimous. Pietro heard of his elevation with tears; but, after a brief prayer, obeyed what seemed the clear voice of God, commanding him to sacrifice his personal inclination on the altar of the public welfare. Flight was impossible, even if he contemplated it; for no sooner did the news of this extraordinary event spread abroad than multitudes (numbered at 200,000) flocked about him. His elevation was particularly welcome to the Spirituals, who saw in it the realization of current prophecies that the reign of the Holy Spirit ruling through the monks was at hand; and they proclaimed him the first legitimate pope since Constantine’s donation of wealth and worldly power to “the first rich father” (Inferno, Canto XIX). King Charles of Naples, hearing of the election of his subject, hastened with his son Charles Martel, titular King of Hungary, ostensibly to present his homage to the new pope, in reality to take the simple old man into honourable custody. Had Charles known how to preserve moderation in exploiting his good luck, this windfall might have brought him incalculable benefits; as it was, he ruined everything by excessive greed.

In reply to the request of the cardinals, that he should come to Perugia to be crowned, Pietro, at the instigation of Charles, summoned the Sacred College to meet him at Aquila, a frontier town of the Kingdom of Naples. Reluctantly they came, and one by one, Gaetani being the last to appear. Seated on an humble ass, the rope held by two monarchs, the new pontiff proceeded to Aquila, and, although only three of the cardinals had arrived, the king ordered him to be crowned, a ceremony which had to be repeated in traditional form some days later, the only instance of a double papal coronation. Cardinal Latino was so grief- stricken at the course which affairs were evidently taking that he fell sick and died. Pietro took the name of Celestine V. Urged by the cardinals to cross over into the States of the Church, Celestine, again at the behest of the king, ordered the entire Curia to repair to Naples. It is wonderful how many serious mistakes the simple old man crowded into five short months. We have no full register of them, because his official acts were annulled by his successor. On the 18th of September he created twelve new cardinals, seven of whom were French, and the rest, with one possible exception, Neapolitans, thus paving the road to Avignon and the Great Schism. Ten days later he embittered the cardinals by renewing the rigorous law of Gregory X, regulating the conclave, which Adrian V had suspended. He is said to have appointed a young son of Charles to the important See of Lyons, but no trace of such appointment appears in Gams or Eubel. At Monte Cassino on his way to Naples, he strove to force the Celestine hermit-rule on the monks; they humoured him while he was with them. At Benevento he created the bishop of the city a cardinal, without observing any of the traditional forms. Meanwhile he scattered privileges and offices with a lavish hand. Refusing no one, he was found to have granted the same place or benefice to three or four rival suitors; he also granted favours in blank. In consequence, the affairs of the Curia fell into extreme disorder. Arrived in Naples, he took up his abode in a single apartment of the Castel Nuovo, and on the approach of Advent had a little cell built on the model of his beloved hut in the Abruzzi. But he was ill at ease. Affairs of State took up time that ought to be devoted to exercises of piety. He feared that his soul was in danger. The thought of abdication seems to have occurred simultaneously to the pope and to his discontented cardinals, whom he rarely consulted.

That the idea originated with Cardinal Gaetani the latter vigorously denied, and maintained that he originally opposed it. But the serious canonical doubt arose: Can a pope resign? As he has no superior on earth, who is authorized to accept his resignation? The solution of the question was reserved to the trained canonist, Cardinal Gaetani, who, basing his conclusion on common sense and the Church’s right to self-preservation, decided affirmatively.

It is interesting to notice how curtly, when he became Boniface VIII, he dispatches the delicate subject on which the validity of his claim to the papacy depended. In the “Liber Sextus” I, vii, 1, he issued the following decree: “Whereas some curious persons, arguing on things of no great expediency, and rashly seeking, against the teaching of the Apostle, to know more than it is meet to know, have seemed, with little forethought, to raise an anxious doubt, whether the Roman Pontiff, especially when he recognizes himself incapable of ruling the Universal Church and of bearing the burden of the Supreme Pontificate, can validly renounce the papacy, and its burden and honour: Pope Celestine V, Our predecessor, whilst still presiding over the government of the aforesaid Church, wishing to cut off all the matter for hesitation on the subject, having deliberated with his brethren, the Cardinals of the Roman Church, of whom We were one, with the concordant counsel and assent of Us and of them all, by Apostolic authority established and decreed, that the Roman Pontiff may freely resign. We, therefore, lest it should happen that in course of time this enactment should fall into oblivion, and the aforesaid doubt should revive the discussion, have placed it among other constitutions ad perpetuam rei memoriam by the advice of our brethren.”

When the report spread that Celestine contemplated resigning, the excitement in Naples was intense. King Charles, whose arbitrary course had brought things to this crisis, organized a determined opposition. A huge procession of the clergy and monks surrounded the castle, and with tears and prayers implored the pope to continue his rule. Celestine, whose mind was not yet clear on the subject, returned an evasive answer, whereupon the multitude chanted the Te Deum and withdrew. A week later (13 December) Celestine’s resolution was irrevocably fixed; summoning the cardinals on that day, he read the constitution mentioned by Boniface in the “Liber Sextus,” announced his resignation, and proclaimed the cardinals free to proceed to a new election. After the lapse of the nine days enjoined by the legislation of Gregory X, the cardinals entered the conclave, and the next day Benedetto Gaetani was proclaimed Pope as Boniface VIII. After revoking many of the provisions made by Celestine, Boniface brought his predecessor, now in the dress of a humble hermit, with him on the road to Rome. He was forced to retain him in custody, lest an inimical use should be made of the simple old man. Celestine yearned for his cell in the Abruzzi, managed to effect his escape at San Germano, and to the great joy of his monks reappeared among them at Majella. Boniface ordered his arrest; but Celestine evaded his pursuers for several months by wandering through the woods and mountains. Finally, he attempted to cross the Adriatic to Greece; but, driven back by a tempest, and captured at the foot of Mt. Gargano, he was delivered into the hands of Boniface, who confined him closely in a narrow room in the tower of the castle of Fumone near Anagni (Analecta Bollandiana, 1897, XVI, 429–30). Here, after nine months passed in fasting and prayer, closely watched but attended by two of his own religious, though rudely treated by the guards, he ended his extraordinary career in his ninety-first year. That Boniface treated him harshly, and finally cruelly murdered him, is a calumny. Some years after his canonization by Clement V in 1313, his remains were transferred from Ferentino to the church of his order at Aquila, where they are still the object of great veneration. His feast is celebrated on 19 May.

Acta SS. May, IV, 419; Bibl. hagiogr. Latina, 979 seq.; Analecta Bollandiana (1897), XVI, 365–82 (the oldest life of Celestine); CELIDONIO, Vita di S. Pietro del Morrone, Celestino papa quinta, scritta su’ documenti coevi (Sulmona, 1896); IDEM, La non-autenticita degli Opuscula Coelestina (ibid., 1896; these opuscula edited by TELERA, Naples, 1640, may have been dictated, but not composed by Celestine); ROVIGLIO, La rinuncia de Celestino V (Verona, 1894); AUTINORI, Celestino V ed il sesto anniversario della sua coronazione (Aquila, 1894); RAYNALDUS, Ann. eccl. ad ann. 1294–96; HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, V; also the histories of the City of Rome by VON REUMONT and by GREGOROVIUS.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Celibacy of the Clergy

Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades. The character of this renunciation, as we shall see, is differently understood in the Eastern and in the Western Church. Speaking, for the moment, only of Western Christendom, the candidates for orders are solemnly warned by the bishop at the beginning of the ceremony regarding the gravity of the obligation which they are incurring. He tells them:

You ought anxiously to consider again and again what sort of a burden this is which you are taking upon you of your own accord. Up to this you are free. You may still, if you choose, turn to the aims and desires of the world (licet vobis pro artitrio ad caecularia vota transire). But if you receive this order (of the subdiaconate) it will no longer be lawful to turn back from your purpose. You will be required to continue in the service of God, and with His assistance to observe chastity and to be bound for ever in the ministrations of the Altar, to serve who is to reign.

By stepping forward despite this warning, when invited to do so, and by co-operating in the rest of the ordination service, the candidate is understood to bind himself equivalently by a vow of chastity. He is henceforth unable to contract a valid marriage, and any serious transgression in the matter of this vow is not only a grievous sin in itself but incurs the additional guilt of sacrilege.

Before turning to the history of this observance it will be convenient to deal in the first place with certain general principles involved. The law of celibacy has repeatedly been made the object of attack, especially of recent years, and it is important at the outset to correct certain prejudices thus created. Although we do not find in the New Testament any indication of celibacy being made compulsory either upon the Apostles or those whom they ordained, we have ample warrant in the language of Our Saviour, and of St. Paul for looking upon virginity as the higher call, and by inference, as the condition befitting those who are set apart for the work of the ministry. In Matt., xix, 12, Christ clearly commends those who, “for the sake of the kingdom of God,” have held aloof from the married state, though He adds: “he who can accept it, let him accept it.” St. Paul is even more explicit:

I would that all men were even as myself; but every one hath his proper gift from God. . . . But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they so continue, even as I.

And further on:

But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment. (I Cor., vii, 7–8 and 32–35.)

Further, although we grant that the motive here appealed to is in some measure utilitarian, we shall probably be justified in saying that the principle which underlies the Church’s action in enforcing celibacy is not limited to this utilitarian aspect but goes even deeper. From the earliest period the Church was personified and conceived of by her disciples as the Virgin Bride and as the pure Body of Christ, or again as the Virgin Mother (parthenos meter), and it was plainly fitting that this virgin Church should be served by a virgin priesthood. Among Jews and pagans the priesthood was hereditary. Its functions and powers were transmitted by natural generation. But in the Church of Christ, as an antithesis to this, the priestly character was imparted by the Holy Ghost in the Divinely-instituted Sacrament of Orders. Virginity is consequently the special prerogative of the Christian priesthood. Virginity and marriage both holy, but in different ways. The conviction that virginity possesses a higher sanctity and clearer spiritual intuitions, seems to be an instinct planted deep in the heart of man. Even in the Jewish Dispensation where the priest begot children to whom his functions descended, it was nevertheless enjoyed that he should observe continence during the period in which he served in the Temple. No doubt a mystical reason of this kind does not appeal to all, but such considerations have always held a prominent place in the thought of the Fathers of the Church; as is seen, for example, in the admonition very commonly addressed to subdeacons of the Middle Ages at the time of their ordination. “With regard to them it has pleased our fathers that they who handle the sacred mysteries should observe the law of continence, as it is written ‘be clean ye who handle the vessels of the Lord’ “(Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia, II, 242).

On the other hand, such motives as are dwelt upon in the passage just quoted from the Epistle to the Corinthians are of a kind which must appeal to the intelligence of all. The more holy and exalted we represent the state of marriage to be, the more we justify the married priest in giving the first place in his thoughts to his wife and family and only the second to his work. It would be hard to find more unexceptionable testimony to this point of view than that of Dr. Döllinger. No scholar of this generation was more intimately acquainted with the by-ways of medieval history. No one could have supplied so much material for a chronique scandaleuse like that which Dr. Lea has compiled in his history of celibacy. Moreover, when Dr. Döllinger served his connection with the Church after the Vatican Council, he had absolutely no motive to influence his judgment in favour of Rome’s traditional discipline, if it were not that he believed that the lesson both of the past and the present was clear. Nevertheless, when the Old Catholics abolished compulsory celibacy for the priesthood, Dr. Döllinger, as we are told by the intimate friend of his, an Anglican, was “sorely grieved” by the step, and this seems to have been one of the principal things which kept him from any formal participation in the Old Catholic communion. In reference to this matter he wrote to the same Anglican friend:

You in England cannot understand how completely engrained it is into our people that a priest is a man who sacrifices himself for the sake of his parishioners. He has no children of his own, in order that all the children in the parish may be his children. His people know that his small wants are supplied, and that he can devote all his time and thought to them. They know that it is quite otherwise with the married pastors of the Protestants. The pastor’s income may be enough for himself, but it is not enough for his wife and children also. In order to maintain them he must take other work, literary or scholastic, only a portion of his time can be given to his people; and they know that when the interests of his family and those of his flock collide, his family must come first and his flock second. In short, he has a profession or trade, a Gewerbe, rather than a vocation; he has to earn a livelihood. In almost all Catholic congregations, a priest who married would be ruined; all his influence would be gone. The people are not at all ready for so fundamental a change, and the circumstances of the clergy do not admit of it. It is a fatal resolution. (A. Plummer in “The Expositor,” December, 1890, p. 470.)

A testimony given under such circumstances carries more weight than long explanations would do. Neither was it the only occasion on which the historian so expressed himself. “When a priest,” Döllinger wrote in a letter to one of his Old Catholic friends in 1876, “can no longer point to personal sacrifice which he makes for the good of his people, then it is all over with him and the cause which he represents. He sinks to the level of men who make a trade of their work [Er rangiert dann mit den Gewerbetreibenden].” (See Michael, Ignaz von Döllinger, ed. 1894, p. 249.)

Supposing always that the vow of celibacy is faithfully kept, the power which this practical lesson in disinterestedness must lend to the priest’s exhortations when addressing his people is too obvious to need insisting upon. Numberless observers, Protestant and Agnostic as well as Catholic, have borne the obstacles to really confidential relations and more especially to confession in the case of the married clergy—even if this difficulty is often quite unfairly exaggerated in the many current stories of Anglican clergymen sharing the secrets of the confessional with their wives—are certainly real enough. When the once famous Père Hyacinth (M. Loyson) left the Church and married, this was the first point which once struck a free-thinker like George Sand. “Will Père Hyacinthe still hear confessions?” she wrote. “That is the question. Is the secrecy of the confessional compatible with the mutual confidences of conjugal love? If I were a Catholic, I would say to my children: ‘Have no secrets which cost too much in the telling and then you will no cause to fear the gossip of the vicar’s wife.’”

Again, with regard to missionary work in barbarous countries, the advantages which lies with a celibate clergy can hardly need insisting upon and are freely admitted both by indifferent observers and by the non-Catholic missionaries themselves. The testimonies which have been gathered in such a work as Marshall’s “Children Missions” are calculated perhaps, from their juxtaposition, to give an exaggerated impression, while the editor’s bantering tone will sometimes wound and repel: but the indictment is substantially accurate, and the materials for a continuation of this standard work, which have been collected from recent sources by the Rev. B. Solferstan, S.J., in every respect bear out Marshall’s main contention. Over and over again the admission is made by well-qualified observers, who are themselves either indifferent or opposed to the Catholic Faith, that whatever genuine work of conversion is done, is effected by the Catholic missionaries whose celibate condition permits them to live among the natives as one of themselves. See, for example, to speak only of China, Stoddard, “Life of Isabella Bird,” (1906), pp. 319–320; Arnot Reid, “Peking to Petersburgh” (1897), p. 73; Professor E.H. Parker, “China Past and Present” (1903), pp. 95–96.

The comparatively slight cost of the Catholic missions with their unmarried clergy need not be dwelt upon. To take a single example, the late Anglican Bishop Bickersteth, the much-respected Bishop of South Tokio, Japan, describes in one of his published letters how he had “ a good deal of talk” with a Catholic vicar Apostolic, who was on his way to China. Whereupon Bickersteth remarks that “Roman Catholics certainly can teach us much by their readiness to bear hardships. This man and his priests are at times subject to the most serious privations I should fear. In Japan a Roman priest gets one-seventh of what the Church Missionary Society and the Society of the Gospel allow to an unmarried deacon. Of course they can only live on the food of the country.” (See “The Life and Letters of Edward Bickersteth,” 2nd ed., London, 1905), p. 214) With regard again to the effect upon a priest’s work the following candid testimony from a distinguished married clergyman and professor of Trinity College, Dublin, is very striking. “But from the point of view of preaching,” writes Professor Mahaffy, “there can be little doubt that married life creates great difficulties and hindrances. The distractions caused by sickness and other human misfortunes increase necessarily in proportion to the number of the household; and as the clergy in all countries are likely to have large families the time which might be spent in meditation on their discourses is stolen from them by other duties and other cares. The Catholic priest when his daily round of outdoor duties is over, comes home to a quiet study, where there is nothing to disturb his thoughts. The family man is met at the door by troops of children welcoming his return and claiming his interest in all their little affairs. Or else the disagreements of the household demand him as an umpire and his mind is disturbed by no mere speculative contemplation of the faults and follies of mankind but by their actual invasion of his home.” (Mahaffy, The Decay of Modern Preaching, London, 1882, p. 42.)

To these general considerations various replies are urged. In the first place, it is asserted that celibacy is a mere specious device invented to ensure the subjection of the clergy to the central authority of the Roman See. Such writers as Heigl (Das Cölibat, Berlin, 1902) contend that the deprivation of home and family ties tends to rob the priest of all national feeling and of standing in the country, and consequently to render him a willing tool in the hands of the spiritual autocracy of the popes. The historical summary which follows will help to do justice to this objection. But for the moment, we may note that St. Dunstan, who more than any other character in early English history is identified with the cause of a celibate clergy, was Archbishop of Canterbury from 960 to 988, a period during which the papacy was subjected to oppression and disorder of the worst kind. In fact the practice of celibacy was almost universally enjoined long before the resolute energy of Gregory VII (Hildebrand) built up what it has of late years been the fashion to call the papal monarchy. Again, the consistently nationalist tone of such a chronicler as Matthew Pris, not to speak of countless others, lets us see how mistaken it would be to suppose that celibates are devoid of patriotism or inclined to lay aside their racial sympathies in deference to the commands of the pope. And a similar lesson might be drawn from the Gallicanism of the French clergy in the seventeenth century, which seemingly was not inconsistent with at least ordinary fidelity to their vows of continence.

Another objection which has been urged against sacerdotal celibacy is that the reproduction of the species is a primary function and law of man’s nature, and therefore constitutes an inalienable right of which no man can deprive himself by any vow. In view of the fact that social conditions of every sort, as well as the moral law, necessitate celibacy on the part of millions of the race, no one takes this objection seriously. So far as any justification of this position has been attempted, it has been found in the analogy of the animal or vegetable kingdom, in which the reproduction of its own kind has been represented as the main object of created existence. But such a comparison applied to an intellectual being like man is hardly more than puerile, and if the argument is pressed we might answer that, as horticulturists are well aware, some of the most beautiful and highly-developed of the natural products of our flower-gardens are only to be obtained at the sacrifice of their fertility. The argument if anything tells the other way. The one serious objection against the law of clerical celibacy is the difficulty which its observance presents for all but men of exceptionally strong character and high principle.

Such writers as Dr. H.C. Lea and M. Chavard have set themselves to gather up all the scandalous excesses which have been charged against a celibate priesthood since the beginning of the Middle Ages. It has been their aim to show that the observance of continence in a much-exposed life is beyond the strength of the average man, and that consequently to bind the rank and file of the clergy by such a law is only to open the door to irregularities and abuses far more derogatory to the priestly character than the toleration of honourable marriage could possible be. They urge that, in point of fact, the law during long periods of time has become a dead letter throughout the greater part of Christendom, and that its only result has been to force the priest into courses of licence and hypocrisy which have robbed him of all power to influence men for good. As to the historical evidence upon which such charges are based, there will probably always be much difference of opinion. The anti-clerical animus which prompts a certain type of mind to rake these scandals together, and to revel in and exaggerate their prurient details, is at least as marked as the tendency on the part of the Church’s apologists to ignore these uncomfortable pages of history altogether. In any case, it may be said in reply, that the observance of continence with substantial fidelity by a numerous clergy, even for centuries together, is assuredly not beyond the strength of human nature when elevated by prayer and strengthened by Divine grace. Not to speak of such countries as Ireland and Germany, where, it might be contended, the admixture with other creeds tends to put the Catholic clergy unduly upon their mettle, we might turn to the example of France or Belgium during the last century. No candid student of history who reviews this period will hesitate to admit that the immense majority of many thousands of secular priests in these two countries have led lives which are clean and upright, in accordance with their professions. We prove it not only by the good report which they have enjoyed with all moderate men, by the tone of respectable novelists who have portrayed them in fiction, by the testimony of foreign residents, and by the comparatively rare occurrence of scandals, but, what is most striking of all, we argue from the tributes paid to their integrity by former associates who have themselves severed their connection with the Catholic Church, men, for example, like M. Loyson (Père Hyacinthe) or M. Ernest Renan. Speaking of the wholesale charges of incontinence often levelled against a celibate priesthood, M. Renan remarks: “The fact is that what is commonly said about the morality of the clergy is, so far as my experience goes, absolutely devoid of foundation. I spent thirteen years of my life under the charge of priests, and I never saw the shadow of a scandal [je n’ai pas vu l’ombre d’un scandale]; I have known no priests but good priests. The confessional may possibly be productive of evil in some countries, but I saw no trace of it in my life as an ecclesiastic” (Renan, Souvenirs ‘Enfance et de Jeunesse, p. 139).

Similarly M. Loyson, when seeking to justify his own marriage, does not attempt to suggest that the obligation of celibacy was beyond the strength of the average man, or that the Catholic clergy lived otherwise than chastely. On the contrary, he writes: “I am well aware of the true state of our clergy. I know of the self-sacrifice and virtues within its ranks.” His line of argument is that the priest needs to be reconciled with the interests, the affections, and the duties of human nature; which seems to mean that he ought to be made less spiritual and more earthly. “It is only,” he says, “by tearing himself away from the traditions of a blind asceticism, and of a theocracy still more political than religious, that the priest will become once more a man and a citizen. He will find himself at the same time more truly a priest.” We are not contending that the high moral standard conspicuous in the clergy of France and Belgium is to be found in an equally-marked degree all over the world. Our argument is that the observance of celibacy is not only possible for the few called to be monks and enjoying the safeguards of the monastic life, but that it is not beyond the strength of a great body of men numbered by tens of thousands, and recruited, as the French and Belgian clergy mostly are, from the ranks of the industrious peasantry. We have no wish to deny or to palliate the very low level of morality to which at different periods of the world’s history, and in different periods of the world’s history, and in different countries calling themselves Christian, but Catholic priesthood has occasionally sunk, but such scandals are no more the effect of compulsory celibacy than the prostitution, which is everywhere rampant in our great cities, is the effect of our marriage laws. We do not abolish Christian marriage because so large a proportion of mankind are not faithful to the restraints which it imposes on human concupiscence. No one in his heart believes that civilized nations would be cleaner or purer if polygamy were substituted for monogamy. Neither is there any reason to suppose that scandals would be fewer and the clergy more respected if Catholic priests were permitted to marry.

HISTORY OF CLERICAL CELIBACY

FIRST PERIOD

Turning now to the historical development of the present law of celibacy, we must necessarily begin with St. Paul’s direction (I Tim., iii, 2, 12, and Titus, i, 6) that a bishop or a deacon should be “the husband of one wife.” These passages seem fatal to any contention that celibacy was made obligatory upon the clergy from the beginning, but on the other hand, the Apostle’s desire that other men might be as himself (I Cor., vii, 7–8), already quoted) precludes the inference that he wished all ministers of the Gospel to be married. The words beyond doubt mean that the fitting candidate was a man, who, amongst other qualities which St. Paul enunciates as likely to make his authority respected, possessed also such stability of divorce, by remaining faithful to one wife. The direction is therefore restrictive, no injunctive; it excludes men who have married more than once, but it does not impose marriage as a necessary condition. This freedom of choice seems to have lasted during the whole of what we may call, with Vacandard, the first period of the Church’s legislation, i.e. down to about the time of Constantine and the Council of Nicaea.

A strenuous attempt has indeed been made by some writers, of whom the late Professor Bickell was the most distinguished, to prove that even at this early date the Church exacted celibacy of all her ministers of the higher grades. But the contrary view, represented by such scholars as Funk and Kraus, seems much better founded and has won general acceptance of recent years. It is not, of course, disputed that all times virginity was held in honour, and that in particular large numbers of the clergy practised it or separated from their wives if they were already married. Tertullian comments with admiration upon the number of those in sacred orders who have embraced continence (De exhortatione castitatis, cap. xiii), while Origen seems to contrast the spiritual offspring of the priests of the New Law with the natural offspring begotten in wedlock by the priests of the Old (In Levit. Hom. vi, no. 6). Clearly, however, there is nothing in this or similar language which could be considered decisive, and Bickell, in support of his thesis, found it needful to appeal mainly to the testimony of writers of the fourth and fifth century. Thus Eusebius declares that it is befitting that priests and those occupied in the ministry should observe continence (Demonst. Evangel., I, C. ix), and St. Cyril of Jerusalem urges that the minister of the altar who serves God properly holds himself aloof from women (Cat. xii, 25). St. Jerome further seems to speak of a custom generally observed when he declares that clerics, “even though they may have wives, cease to be husbands.”

But the passage most confidently appealed to is one of St. Epiphanius where the holy doctor first of all speaks of the accepted ecclesiastical rule of the priesthood (kanona tes ierosynes) as something established by the Apostles (Haer., xlviii, 9), and then in a later passage seems to describe this rule or canon in some detail. “Holy Church,” he says, “respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the diaconate, the priesthood, or the episcopate, no nor even to the subdiaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death, especially in those places where the ecclesiastical cannons are strictly attended to” (Haer., lix, 4). Epiphanius goes on, however, to explain that there are localities in which priests and deacons continue to have children, but he argues against the practice as most unbecoming and urges that the Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost has always in the past shown her disapproval of such procedure. But we need hardly insist that all this is very inadequate evidence (even when supplemented by some few citations from St. Ephraem and other Orientals) to support the contention that a general rule of celibacy existed from Apostolic times. Writers in the fourth century were prone to describe many practices (e.g. the Lenten fast of forty days) as of Apostolic institution which certainly had no claim to be so regarded. On the other hand, there are facts which tell the other way. The statement of Clement of Alexandria at an earlier date is open to no ambiguity. After commenting on the texts of St. Paul noted above, and expressing his veneration for a life of chastity, Clement adds: “All the same, the Church fully receives the husband of one wife whether he be priest or deacon or layman, supposing always that he uses his marriage blamelessly, and such a one shall be saved in the begetting of children” (Stromateiae, III, xiii).

Not less explicit is the testimony given by the church historian, Socrates. He declares that in the Eastern Churches neither priests nor even bishops were bound to separate from their wives, though he recognized that a different custom obtained in Thessaly and in Greece (H.E., Bk. I, cap. xi) Socrates tells the story of Paphnutius rising in the assembly and objecting to an enactment which he considered to rigorous in behalf of celibacy. It would be sufficient, he thought, that such as had previously entered on their sacred calling should abjure matrimony according to the ancient tradition of the Church, but that none should be separated from her to whom, while yet unordained, he had been united. And these sentiments he expressed although himself without experience of marriage. Some attempt has been made to discredit this story, but nearly all modern scholars (notably Bishop von Hefele, with his most recent editor, Dom H. Leclercq) accept it without reserve. The fact that the attitude of Bishop Paphnutius differs but little from the existing practice of the Eastern Churches is alone a strong point in its favour. These testimonies, it will be observed, are from Eastern sources and indicate, no doubt, the prevailing Oriental discipline. Wernz expressed the opinion that from the earliest days of the Church the custom, if not the law, was for bishops, priests, and all in major orders, to observe celibacy.

SECOND PERIOD

In the history of clerical celibacy conciliar legislation marks the second period during which the law took definite shape both in the East and in the West. The earliest enactment on the subject is that of the Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) in canon xxxiii. It imposes celibacy upon the three higher orders of the clergy, bishops, priests, and deacons. If they continue to live with their wives and beget children after their ordination they are to be deposed. This would seem to have been the beginning of the divergence in this matter between East and West. If we may trust the account of Socrates, just quoted, an attempt was made at the Council of Nicaea, (perhaps by Bishop Osius who had also sat at Elvira) to impose a law similar to that passed in the Spanish council. But Paphnutius, as we have seen, argued against it, and the Fathers of Nicaea were content with the prohibition expressed in the third canon which forbade mulieres subintroductas. No bishop, priest, or deacon was to have any woman living in the house with him, unless it were his mother, sister, or aunt, or at any rate persons against whom no suspicion could lodge. But the account of Socrates at the same time shows that marriage on the part of those who were already bishops or priests was not contemplated; in fact, that it was assumed to be contrary to the tradition of the Church. This is again what we learn from the Council of Ancyra in Galatia, in 314 (canon x), and of Neo-Caesarea in Cappadocia, in 315 (canon i). The latter canon absolutely forbids a priest to contract a new marriage under the pain of deposition; the former forbids even a deacon to contract marriage, if at the moment of his ordination he made no reservation as to celibacy. Supposing, however, that he protested at the time that a celibate life was above his strength, the decrees of Ancyra allow him to marry subsequently, as having tacictly received the permission of the ordaining bishop. There is nothing here which of itself forbids even a bishop to retain his wife, if he were married before ordination. In this respect the law, as observed in the Eastern Churches, was drawn gradually tighter. Justinian’s Code of Civil Law would not allow anyone who had children or even nephews to be consecrated bishop, for fear that natural affection should warp his judgment. The Apostolic Constitutions (c. 400), which formed the principal factor of the church law of the East, are not particularly rigid on the point of celibacy, but whether through imperial influence or not the Council of Trullo, in 692, finally adopted a somewhat stricter view. Celibacy in a bishop became a matter of precept. If he were previously married, he had at once to separate from his wife upon his consecration. On the other hand, this council, while forbidding priests, deacons, and subdeacons to take a wife after ordination, asserts in emphatic terms their right and duty to continue in conjugal relations with the wife to whom they had been wedded previously. This canon (xiii of Trullo) still makes the law for the great majority of the Churches of the East, though some of the Eastern Catholic communions have adopted the Western discipline.

In Latin Christendom, however, everything was ripe for a stricter law. We have already spoken of the Council of Elvira, and this does not seem to have been an isolated expression of opinion. “As a rule,” remarks Bishop Wordsworth from his anti-celibate standpoint, “the great writers of the fourth and fifth century pressed celibacy as the more excellent way with an unfair and misleading emphasis which led to the gravest and moral mischief and loss of power in the Church.” (The Ministry of Grace, 1902, p. 223). This, one would think, must be held to relieve the papacy of some of the onus which modern critics would thrust upon it in this matter. Such writers as St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Hilary, etc., could hardly be described as acting in collusion with the supposed ambitious projects of the Holy See to enslave and denationalize the local clergy. Although it is true that at the close of the fourth century, as we may learn from St. Ambrose (De Officiis, I,1), some married clergy were still to be found, especially in the outlying country districts, many laws then enacted were strong in favour of celibacy. At a Roman council held by Pope Siricius in 386 an edict was passed forbidding priests and deacons to have conjugal intercourse with their wives (Jaffe-Löwenfeld, Regesta, I, 41), and the pope took steps to have the decree enforced in Spain and in other parts of Christendom (Migne, P.L., LVI, 558 and 728). Africa and Gaul, as we learn from the canons of various synods, seem to have been earnest in the same movement, and though we hear of some mitigation of the severity of the ordinance of Elvira, was enforced against transgressors than that if they took back their wives they were declared incapable of promotion to any higher grade, it may fairly be said that by the time of St. Leo the Great the law of celibacy was generally recognized in the West. With regard to subdeacons, indeed, the case was not clear. Pope Ciricius (385–398) seems to rank them with acolytes and not to require separation from their wives until after the age of thirty when they might be ordained deacons if they had previously, during some short period of trial, given proof of their ability to lead a life of stricter continence. Writers like and Wernz regard them as bound to celibacy in the time of Pope Leo the Great (446). The Council of Agde in Gaul, in 506, forbade subdeacons to marry, and such synods as those of Orléans in 538 and Tours in 567 prohibited even those already married from continuing to live with their wives. As other councils took an opposite line, the uncertainty continued until King Pepin, in 747, addressed a question upon the subject to Pope Zachary. Even then the pope left each locality in some measure to its own traditions, but he decided clearly that once a man had received the subdiaconate he was no longer free to contract a new marriage. The doubtful point was the lawfulness of his continuing to live with his wife as her husband. During this Merovingian period the actual separation of the clergy from the wives which they had previously married was not insisted on. A law of the Emperor Honorius, in 420, forbids that these wives should be left unprovided for, and it even lays stress upon the fact that by their upright behaviour they had helped their husbands to earn that good repute which had made them worthy of ordination. However, this living together in the relation of brother and sister cannot have proved entirely satisfactory, even though it had in its favour such illustrious examples as those of St. Paulinus of Noa, and of Salvinianus of Marseilles.

At any rate the synods of the sixth and seventh centuries, while fully recognizing the position of these former wives and according them even the formal designation of bishopess, priestess, deaconess, and subdeaconess (episcopissa, presbytera, diaconissa, subdiaconissa), laid down some very strict rules to guide their relations with their former husbands. The bishopess, as a rule, did not live in the same house with the bishop (see the Council of Tours in 567, can. xiv). For the lower grades actual separation does not seem to have been required, although the Council of Orléans in 541, can. xvii, ordained: “ut sacerdotes sive diacom cum conjugibus suis non habeant commune lectum et cellulam”; while curious regulations were enforced requiring the presence of subordinate clergy in the sleeping apartment of the bishop, archpriest, etc., to prevent all suspicion of scandal (see, e.g., the Council of Tours, in 567), canons xiii and xx). A good deal seems to have been done at the beginning of the Carolingian epoch to set things upon a more satisfactory footing. To this St. Chrodegang (q.v., formerly the chancellor of Charles Martel, and after 742 Bishop of Metz), contributed greatly by his institution of canons. Those were clergy leading a life in common (vita canonica), according to the rule composed for them by St. Chrodegang himself, but at the same time not precluded by their hours of study and prayer from giving themselves like ordinary secular priests to the pastoral duties of the ministry. This institution developed radiply and met with much encouragement. In a slightly modified from the Rule of St. Chrodegang was approved by the Council of Aachen, in 816, and it formed the basis of the cathedral chapters in most of the diocese throughout the dominions of Charlemagne.

The influence both of these canons who devoted themselves principally to the public recitation of the Office, as also of those who lived with the bishop in the episcopium and were busied with parochial work, seems to have had an excellent effect upon the general standard of clerical duty. Unfortunately, “the Iron Age,” that terrible period of war, barbarism, and corruption in high places which marked the break-up of the Carolingian Empire, followed almost immediately upon this revival. “Impurity, adultery, sacrilege and murder have overwhelmed the world,” cried the Council of Trosly in 909. The episcopal sees, as we learn from such an authority as Bishop Egbert of Trier, were given as fiefs to rude soldiers, and were treated as property which descended by hereditary right from father to son. A terrible picture of the decay both of clerical morality and of all sense of anything like vocation is drawn in the writings of St. Peter Damian, particularly in his “Liber Gomorrhianus.” The style, no doubt, is rhetorical and exaggerated, and his authority as an eyewitness does not extend beyond that district of Northern Italy, in which he lived, but we have evidence from other sources that the corruption was widespread and that few parts of the world failed to feel the effect of the licence and venality of the times. How could it beotherwise when there were intruded into bishoprics on every side men of brutal nature and unbridled passions, who gave the very worst example to the clergy over whom they ruled? Undoubtedly during this period the traditions of sacerdotal celibacy in Western Christendom suffered severely but even though a large number of the clergy, not only priests but bishops, openly took wives and begot children to whom they transmitted their benefices, the principle of celibacy was never completely surrendered in the official enactments of the Church.

With Pope St. Leo IX, St. Gregory VII (Hildebrand), and their successors, a determined and successful stand was made against the further spread of corruption. For a while in certain districts where effective interference appeared hopeless, it would seem that various synodal enactments allowed the rural clergy to retain the wives to whom they had previously been married. See, for example, the Councils of Lisieux of 1064, Rouen in 1063 and 1072, and Winchester, this last presided over by Lanfranc, in 1076. In all these we may possibly trace the personal influence of William the Conqueror. But despite these concessions, the attitude of Gregory VII remained firm, and the reform which he consolidated has never subsequently been set aside. His determined attitude brought forth a whole literature of protests, amongst others the letter “De Continentiâ” which is widely attributed to St. Ulric of Augsburg, though every modern scholar admits it to be a forgery, fabricated more than one hundred years after St. Ulric’s death. The point is of importance because the evidence seems to show that in this long struggle the whole of the more high-principled and more learned section of the clergy was enlisted in the cause of celibacy. The incidents of the long final campaign, which began indeed even before the time of Pope St. Leo IX and lasted down to the First Council of Lateran in 1123, are too complicated to be detailed here. We may note, however that the attack was conducted along two distinct lines of action. In the first place, disabilities of all kinds were enacted and as far as possible enforced against the wives and children of ecclesiastics. Their offspring were declared to be of servile condition, debarred from sacred orders, and, in particular, incapable of succeeding to their fathers’ benefices. The earliest decree in which the children were declared to be slaves, the property of the Church, and never to be enfranchised, seems to have been a canon of the Synod of Pavia in 1018. Similar penalties were promulgated later on against the wives and concubines (see the Synod of Melfi, 1189, can. xii), who by the very fact of their unlawful connection with a subdeacon or clerk of higher rank became liable to be seized as slaves by the over-lord. Hefele (Concilienge-schichte, V, 195) sees in this first trace of the principle that the marriages of the clerics are ipso facto invalid.

As regards to the offenders themselves, the strongest step seems to have been that taken by Nicholas II in 1059, and more vigorously by Gregory VII in 1075, who interdicted such priests from saying Mass and from all ecclesiastical functions, while the people were forbidden to hear the Mass which they celebrated or to admit their ministrations so long as they remain contumacious. In the controversies of this time the Masses said by these incontinent priests were sometimes described as “idolatrous”; but this word must not be pressed, as if it meant to insinuate that such priests were incapable of consecrating validly. The term was only loosely used, just as if it was also sometimes applied at the same period to any sort of homage rendered to an antipope. Moreover the wording of a letter of Urban II (Ep. cclxxiii) enforcing the decree takes an exception for cases of urgent necessity, as, for example, when Communion has to be given to the dying. Clearly, therefore, the validity of the sacraments when consecrated or administered by a married priest was not in question. Finally, in 1123, at the First Lateran Council, an enactment was passed (confirmed more explicitly in the Second Lateran Council, can. vii) which, while not in itself very plainly worded, was held to pronounce the marriages contracted by subdeacons or ecclesiastics of any of the higher orders to be invalid (contracta quoque matrimonia ab hujusmodi personis disjungi . . . judicamus—can. xxi). This may be said to mark the victory of the cause of celibacy. Henceforth all conjugal relations on the part of the clergy in sacred orders were reduced in the eyes of canon law to mere concubinage. Neither can it be pretended that this legislation, backed, as it were, by the firm and clear pronouncements of the Fourth Council of Lateran in 1215, and later by those of the Council of Trent, remained any longer a dead letter. Laxity among the clergy at certain periods and in certain localities must undoubtedly be admitted, but the principles of the canon law remained unshaken, and despite all assertions to the contrary made by unscrupulous assailants of the Roman system the call to a life of self-denying continence has, as a rule, been respected by the clergy of Western Christendom.

IN ENGLAND

A few words may here be added in particular about the history of clerical celibacy upon English soil. Very extreme views have been put forward by various Anglican writers. Passing over Dr. Lea as quite untrustworthy, the following statement of a more sober writer, the Bishop of Salisbury (John Wordsworth) may be taken as a specimen. After declaring that during the Anglo-Saxon period the English clergy were undisguisedly married, he adds: “It would be easy to multiply evidence for the continuance of a practically married clergy in this country up to the time of the Reformation. Sometimes I believe that they were privately but still legally married so that their wives and children might have the benefit of their property after their death. For all marriages properly performed in England were valid according to the civil law, unless they were voided by action in the Bishop’s Court, down to the passing of Lord Lynhurst’s Act in 1835, however much they might be contrary to law” (Ministry of Grace, p. 236). It can only be said that this is a quite gratuitous assertion , unsupported by any evidence yet produced, and founded in the main upon that strange misconception, so well exposed in Professor Maitland’s “Roman Canon Law in the Church of England,” that ecclesiastical law in England differed from, and was independent of, the jus commune (i.e. the canon law) of the Catholic Church. Objectors may safely be challenged to produce a single case during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in which a clerk in sacred orders went through the marriage ceremony with any woman, or in which is wife or the children born after his ordination claimed to inherit his property upon his death. On the other hand, the denunciations of all such unions as mere concubinage are innumerable, and the evidence for any great prevalence of these irregular connections, despite the rhetorical exaggerations of such writers as Gower or Langland, is relatively slight. Unfortunately, nearly all the best-known popular histories (Trevelyan’s “Age of Wicliffe” might be cited as a specimen) are written with a strong anti-Roman or anti-sacerdotal bias, particularly disastrous in matters in which there can be no question of comparative statistics, but only of general impressions.

With regard to the Saxon and Angevin period again, careful study of the evidence has convinced the present writer that a very exaggerated estimate has been formed of the prevalence of marriage or concubinage among the secular clergy. Two points deserve especially to be remembered. First, that the Anglo-Saxon word preost does not necessarily mean a priest but simply a cleric. The ordinary word for priest in the sense of sacerdos, was maesse-preost. This is continually ignored, but the evidence for it is quite unmistakable and is fully admitted in Bosworth-Toller’s “Dictionary” and in the important monograph, “The Influence of Christianity upon the Vocabulary of Old English” (1902) by the American scholar Dr. H. MacGillivray. To take one illustration, Abbot Xlfric writes: “Gemaenes hades preostum is alyfed . . . thaet hi syferlice sincipes brucon”—i.e. “To clerics [preostum] of the common order [i.e. to clerks in minor orders] it is permitted that they enjoy marriage soberly”; and then he continues: “but in sooth to the others that minister at God’s altar, that is to say mass-priests and deacons (maessepreostum and diaconum), all conjugal relations are forbidden” (Aelfric, Homilies). Similarly, where Bede speaks of St. Wilfrid receiving the tonsure, the Anglo-Saxon translation, as in many similar cases, renders it, “he waes to preost gesceoren,” i.e. he was shorn into a cleric (preost). Wilfrid’s ordination as priest did not take place until several years later. Now the importance of this will be appreciated when we find a well-known historian writing thus: “Celibacy was avowedly not practised by the northern clergy [in Anglo-Saxon England]. The law of the Northumbrian Priests declares ‘if a priest forsake a woman and take another let him be excommunicate.’ A priest might therefore take a wife and cleave to her without rebuke.” (Hunt, The English Church to the Norman Conquest, 1899, p 383). Now this piece of evidence is quite inconclusive; the word preost which is here used, may or may not assume that it refers to any other class of preost, i.e. cleric, than those in minor orders who were always entirely free to marry. The second point which it is equally important to remember is that clerics in minor orders were a very numerous class in Saxon, Norman and Angevin times. With us there are, practically preparing for ordination to the priesthood, while such candidates now from their earliest years lead a life apart from the world in the seclusion of colleges and seminaries. In the medieval Church things were very different. Almost all young men with any little education preferred to enroll themselves in the ranks of the clergy to receiving the tonsure, hoping that some chance of employment or of a benefice might come their way. They were still free to marry and sometimes they married openly. But often, it seems, they entangled themselves in rather ambiguous relations which in the then state of marriage law might easily be legitimized afterwards, but which also might be repudiated and broken off if they desired to receive ordination.

All this, which up to a certain point was not inconsistent with good faith, unfortunately prepared the way for easy relapses into incontinence, and generated a public opinion in which it was not accounted a reproach to be known as the son of a priest. Undoubtedly the sons of priests formed a large class. There was a natural tendency to bring them up also as clerics, and there was no doubt an immense amount of scheming, not unfrequently successful, to secure their promotion to the benefices held by their fathers. But promotion to the benefices held by their fathers. But it would be a great mistake to regard these sons of priests as all necessarily born in flagrant violation of the canons. The situation was a very complicated one, and it is impossible to pronounce any sober opinion upon its moral aspects without a careful study, on the other hand, of the conditions of social, and particularly of student, life, which an appreciation of the ambiguities of the marriage law, as regards which the difficulties raised by the sponsalia de praesenti have long been the despair of canonists. One of the Constitutions of the Legate Otho, issued in 1237, is particularly instructive in this connection. He has learnt, he declares, on good authority that “many clerics [not yet priests, be it noted] forgetful of the salvation of their souls, after contracting a clandestine marriage, do not fear to retain the churches (to which they may previously have been appointed) without putting away their wives, and to acquire fresh ecclesiastical benefices and to be promoted to sacred orders contrary to the provisions of the sacred canons, and finally in due course of time after children have been reared from this union, to prove at the proper moment, by means of witnesses and documents, whether they themselves be still living or have passed away, that a marriage had really be contracted between the parties.” (Wilkins, I, 653.) To meet this, Otho decrees that any married clerk in possession of a benefice, loses all title to it ipso jure, and secondly, that all property in possession of such clerks or priests who have been clandestinely married before their promotion to Holy orders, is to go to the Church and none of it to their children. But the whole legal aspect of the celibacy question in England can best be studied in the pages of Lyndewode’s “Provinciale.” (See particularly pp. 16 sqq. and 126–130, of the standard edition of 1679. The only thing which Lyndewode makes clear, quoted above, is that the English Church in the fifteenth century refused to recognize the existence of any such entity as the priest’s “wife.” It knew of nothing but concubinae and denied to these any legal right whatever or any claim upon the property of the partner of their guilt.

PRESENT POSITION

With regard to the law of celibacy and its canonical effects in the Western Church at the present day, only one or two points can be briefly touched upon. For the details the reader must be referred to such a work as that of Wernz “Jus Decretalium,” II, 295–321. Clerk in minor orders, as already stated, as free to marry, and by such marriages they forfeit the privilegia canonis and the privilegia fori only in part, provided they observe the required conditions (cf. Decreta Conc. Trid., Sess XIII, cap. vi); though in our day such observance is practically impossible; but they are incapable of being promoted to sacred orders unless they separate from their wives, and make a vow of perpetual continence. Further, if as clerks they held any benefice or ecclesiastical pension, these are at once forfeited by marriage, and the become incapable of acquiring any new benefice. Historically there has been some little variation of practice with regard to married clerks, and the severe measures enacted in their regard by Pope Alexander III were subsequently mitigated by Boniface VIII and the Council of Trent. As regards ecclesiastics in sacred orders (i.e. the subdiaconate and those that follow), the teaching of both theologians and canonists alike, for many centuries past, has been unanimous as regards the facts, though some little divergence has existed regarding the manner of explaining them. All are agreed that the subdeacon in presenting himself of his own free will for ordination binds himself by a tacit vow of chastity (Wernz, IV, n. 393), and that this even constitutes a diriment impediment in view of any subsequent marriage. The idea of this votum annexum seems to be traceable in one form or another as far back as the time of Gregory the Great. Although the opposition to the law of celibacy frequently took the form of open agitation, both in the earlier Middle Ages and again at the Reformation period, only one such movement calls for notice in modern times. This was an association formed principally in Würtemberg and Baden in the early part of the nineteenth century to advocate the mitigation or repeal of the law of celibacy. The agitation was condemned by an Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI, on 15 August, 1832, and no more permanent harm seems to have resulted than the publication of a certain amount of disaffected literature, such as the pretentious but extremely biased and inaccurate work on compulsory celibacy by the brothers Theiner, a book which at once prohibited by authority and repudiated by Aug. Theiner before he was reconciled to the Church.

LAW OF CELIBACY IN ORIENTAL CHURCHES

Upon this head something has already been said above, and the general principle has been stated that in the Oriental Churches deacons and priests are free to retain the wives to whom they have been wedded before ordination, but are not allowed to contract any new marriage when once they are ordained. A few details may here be added about the practice of the different Churches, taking first the schismatical communions and then those united to the Holy See.

In the Greek Churches acknowledging the jurisdiction of the schismatic Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, etc., lectors and cantors, who are clerics in minor orders, are still free to marry, but if they contract a second marriage they can be promoted to no higher grade, and if they are guilty of continence with any other person or marry a third time, they are no longer allowed to exercise their functions. Subdeacons seem to be able to marry a second time without being deposed, but in that case they cannot be promoted to the priesthood. Again, a priest who before his ordination has contracted an unlawful marriage, even unwittingly, is no longer permitted to exercise his priestly functions when the fact is discovered. Priests and deacons are bidden to practise continence during the time of their service of the altar. In 1897 there seem to have been 4025 parish churches in Greece, and these were served by 5423 married and 242 unmarried priests.

In the Russian Church, though a previous marriage seems to be, practically speaking, a conditio sine quâ non for ordination in the case of the secular clergy, still their canonists deny that this is a strict obligation. The candidate for orders must either be already married or must formally declare his intention of remaining celibate. Any marriage attempted after the reception of the subdiaconate is invalid and the ecclesiastic so offending renders himself liable to severe penalties. Further, to have been already married, or to have married a widow, or to have contracted any other marriage which offends against the canons—e.g. with a near relative, an unbeliever, or person or notoriously loose character, e.g. an actress—constitutes a disqualification for ordination. Formerly the priest who lost his wife was required to retire into a monastery. He is still free to do so and in this way may qualify for higher functions, e.g. for the episcopate, etc., the bishops in the Greek and Russian Church being selected exclusively from the monastic clergy. Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, widower priests are no longer compelled to retire into monasteries, but they need the permission of the Synod to continue to discharge their parochial functions.

In the Armenian Church, again, clerics in minor orders are still free to contract marriage, and such marriage is required as a condition for ordination to the simple secular priesthood. Besides monks and the ordinary clergy, the Armenian Church recognizes a class of Vartapeds, or preachers, who are celibate priests of higher education. From their ranks the bishops and higher clergy are as a rule selected. It is only by exception that a monk is chosen to the episcopate.

Amongst the Nestorians celibacy is not so much honoured as amongst most of the Oriental Churches. Priests and deacons may marry even after ordination, and if their wife should die they marry a second or even a third time. Still, bishops are required to live as celibates, though formerly this does not seem to have been the case.

The Copts and also the Abyssinian Monophysites resemble the Greek Church in their laws regarding clerical marriage. A marriage contracted after the reception of Holy orders, or any second marriage, involves deposition. All the Coptic bishops are chosen from the monastic clergy. Among the Syrian Jacobites similar rules prevail. Bishops, as a rule, are chosen from the monks and a second marriage is forbidden to a priest who is left a widower. If, however, he marries, the marriage is regarded as valid although he is deprived of his clerical functions.

Turning now to the Oriental Churches in communion with the Holy See, we may note that as a general principle married clerics are not ineligible for the subdiaconate, diaconate, and priesthood. As in the Russian Church they must either be married in accordance with the canons (i.e. not to a widow, etc.), or else as a preliminary to ordination they are asked whether they will promise to observe chastity. The full recognition of the right of the Oriental clergy to retain their wives will be found in the Constitution of Benedict XIV, “Etsi pastoralis,” 26 May, 1742. There has, however, been a strong movement of recent years among the Eastern Catholic Churches favouring conformity with Western Christendom in this matter of celibacy. For example, the Armenian Church dependent upon the Patriarch of Cilicia even as far back as July, 1869, passed a resolution that celibacy should be required of all the higher orders of the clergy. Again the Synod of Scharfa in Syria, in 1888, decreed that “the celibate life which is already observed by the great majority of the priests of our Church should henceforth be common to all,” although the deacons and priests who were already married were allowed to continue as before, and though a certain power of dispensation in cases of necessity was left with the patriarch. Similarly in 1898 a synod of the Catholic Copts at Alexandria decreed that henceforth all candidates for any of the higher orders must be celibate “according to the ancient discipline of the Church of Alexandria and the other Churches of God.”

HERBERT THURSTON

Cella

One of the names by which the small memorial chapels sometimes erected in the Christian cemeteries of the first age were known; these edifices are also referred to as memoriae martyrum, confessiones, etc. The term cella in this sense occurs in a very interesting inscription of Caeasarea in Mauretania quoted by De Rossi (Bullet., April, 1864):—AREAM AT [A.D.] SEPULCHRA CULTOR VERBI CONTULIT,

ET CELLAM STRUXIT SUIS CUNCTIS SUMPTIBUS.

[This cemetery (area) was given by a worshiper of the Word,

who also erected a chapel (cella) at his own expense.]

It is the general opinion of archaeologists that the edifices erected in the Roman cemeteries by Pope Fabian (236–250) [Multas fabricas per cymeteria fieri praecepit (Lib. Pont., I, 148)] were memorial cellae constructed primarily as places for the celebration of the funeral agapae or anniversaries by friends of the deceased, when the oblatio pro dormitione, or Mass for the dead, was offered. Two such cellae, or cemeterial basilicas, dedicated respectively to Sts. Sixtus and Cecilia and St. Soter, may still be seen in the cemetery of St. Callistus. In form they belong to the class of edifices known as cellae trichorae, each consisting of a rectangular nave terminating in three semicircular apses, the chords of which form three sides of a square. In other instances cellae terminate in a single apse. Originally each of these cellae consisted of three apses alone which probably served as a choir or sanctuary for the clergy during the celebration of the liturgy, while the congregation assisted at the services from the adjacent lawn. Owing to the great respect of the Roman civil authorities for places of interment, it is conjectured that, except in the more rigorous persecutions, the Christians may have sometimes held their regular Sunday liturgical services in the manner described, under the pretext of memorial services for the dead.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Elizabeth Cellier

A noted London midwife, who came into prominence through the pretended “Meal-Tub Plot” of 1680. Nothing seems known of her life till her marriage with Peter Cellier, a Frenchman, and her conversion from Anglicanism. In 1678 the prisons were filled with Catholics in consequence of the national alarm caused by the fabricated plots of Titus Oates. Mrs. Cellier’s charity led her to visit and relieve these prisoners, and as her profession procured for her the acquaintance of many leading Catholic ladies, she often became the channel of their charity towards the prisoners. Among these ladies was the Countess of Powis, whose kindness was shown to, among others, a clever imposter, Thomas Dangerfield. Becoming aware of this man’s true character, Lady Powis ceased to assist him further, and he, in revenge, decided to denounce her to the Government as concerned in a new popish plot. His story was that he had been released from prison through the good offices of Lady Powis and Mrs. Cellier, on condition that he would assassinate the king, Lord Shaftesbury, and others. He further pretended that he was to be engaged in manufacturing false plots to be foisted on those who were known to be unfavourable to the Catholic cause. One of these shams was to be based on a document which, he alleged, was hidden in a meal-tub in Mrs. Cellier’s house. Search was made, and in a meal-tub the paper in question was found. It charged with treason most of the leading Protestants, including the king’s natural son, the Duke of Monmouth, the Earl of Shaftesbury, and Sir Thomas Waller, who was the very official charged with the search. In consequence of Dangerfield’s accusation founded on this document, Lady Powis and Mrs. Cellier were arrested, as well as some other Catholics, among them the Earl of Castlemain. Mrs. Cellier’s trial took place on 11 June, 1680. She was charged with high treason, but practically the only evidence against her was that of Dangerfield himself, and she had little difficulty in proving him a witness entirely unworthy of credence. She was found not guilty, and Dangerfield himself was arrested on account of a felony, for which he had been previously outlawed. After her acquittal she published a brief relation of the whole affair, under the title of “Malice Defeated.” This led not only to a long series of pamphlets for and against her, but also to her second prosecution. The charge this time was that of libel against the king and ministry, because she alleged that two witnesses in the Edmundbury Godfrey case had been tortured. But the real object of this prosecution, according to Roger North, was to prevent her from giving evidence in favour of the imprisoned Catholic peers. For this she was sentenced to pay a fine of £1,000 and to stand three times in the pillory. During the reign of James II she planned the foundation of a corporation of skilled midwives and a foundling hospital. It is stated that she is buried in Great Missenden Church, Buckinghamshire. She wrote: (1) “Malice Defeated; or a brief relation of the Accusation and Deliverance of Elizabeth Cellier” (London, 1680); (2) “A scheme for the Foundation of a Royal Hospital and raising a revenue of £5000 or £6000 a year by and for the maintenance of a Corporation of skilful midwives” (London, 1687), printed in the “Harleian Miscellany” (IV, 142) and in the “Somers Tracts” (II, 243); (3) “To Dr. ______, An answer to his Queries concerning the College of Midwives” (London, 1687–88).

EDWIN BURTON

Benvenuto Cellini

Cellini, Benvenuto, goldsmith, medallist, and sculptor, b. in Florence November 3, 1500; d. there February 13, 1571. He came of old Florentine stock, his father being Giovanni Cellini, an architect and musician, and his mother Elizabetta Granacci. Benvenuto’s musical education was begun very early by his father, but since the boy’s ambitions and longings were all for plastic art, he was permitted, at the age of fourteen, to enter on a career that made him the most famous goldsmith of the world. It was not until his fortieth year that he commenced his efforts in statuary. Cellini was ever a dutiful son and unselfishly devoted to his brother and sister. He was brave, generous, self-reliant, notoriously hot-tempered, and quick to avenge a slight or an insult. His self-confessed crimes are mostly street fights, where his ungovernable temper overmastered him, as, for instance, when the taunts of Pompeo, with his band of friends, provoked a blow from Cellini that proved immediately fatal. It was a street brawl, not unusual among the Florentines of the sixteenth century, and the blow was meant to wound but not to kill. Pope Paul III investigated the affair and Cellini was pardoned.

To please his old father, Cellini did not discontinue his musical studies, and became for a time a member of Pope Clement’s band of musicians, but all his energies were given to the goldsmith’s art. He became “unique in his profession” (Pope Paul III). He began his studies under Marcone and Francesco Salimbene in Florence, and continued them at Rome under Giovanni, called “Il Firenzuola,” with whom he quarrelled, choosing, later, Pagolo Arsago as a master. With Arsago he remained two years and then went back to Florence and his old master Salimbene. He wrote treatises on the goldsmith’s art, sculpture, and bronze-casting; he composed verses, and acquired world-wide fame by his minute and lengthy autobiography. In his “Life” he shows himself, with intense reality of self-delineation, to be a vain and boastful man, and while the style is simple, even plebeian, there abound dramatic movement and Florentine wit, which make the book “more amusing than any novel” (Walpole). This wonderful romance has great historical value, and sixteenth-century Rome and Florence are therein vividly portrayed. Goethe translated it into German.

Cellini was a soldier, and did yeoman duty at the sack of Rome in 1527; it was claimed he aimed the gun that killed the enemies’ leader, Constable Bourbon. Accused of stealing the Church’s funds, Cellini was arrested and imprisoned in the Castle of Sant’ Angelo from 1537 until 1539, when he made his escape. After his recapture he was treated with a harshness out of all proportion to the crime. Indeed, the evidence distinctly pointed to his innocence, and in 1540 the pope granted him a full pardon. Cellini was admitted to the Florentine nobility in 1554. Without pledging himself to enter into religion, he took the first tonsure in 1558, but gave up his aspirations to the priesthood two years later. At the age of sixty-four he married Piers, daughter of Salvadore Parigi who, with a son and daughter, survived him. In 1564 occurred the obsequies of Michelangelo, and, with Ammanati, Cellini represented Sculpture in the funeral procession. Beset with many worries and physical ills he died, and was buried with public honors in the church of the Annunziata, an oration being then delivered “praising him for his life and work.” He was a man of sincere faith and, as he says, “took all his difficulties to God.”

Cellini’s marvellous work in precious metals made him famous throughout Europe. His services in gold, his flagons, rings, and jewels exhibit the highest skill, the perfection of execution, and the widest range of invention. Cellini made the dies for the mints of Pope Paul III and Pope Clement VII, and designed the coins for Duke Alessandro de’ Medici of Florence. Everything minted under his direction attained the highest artistic excellence. And, too, his work in alto-rilievo was as fine as that in basso-rilievo. His small figures in gold are beautiful, a morse for Pope Clement’s cope, on which the figure of God the Father surmounts a diamond, surrounded by a group of cherubs, and a foil for the pope’s diamond being two of his greatest achievements. If there be any fault in his productions, it is a tendency to be luxuriant.

In 1540 Cardinal Ferrara, his benefactor, who obtained his release from prison, took Cellini to Paris, to the Court of Francis I. Here he made a colossal statue of Mars and a silver Jupiter. He began casting life-size and gigantic figures in bronze, and was supremely successful. He consummated his career in 1545, when he returned to Florence to model and cast in bronze for Cosimo de’ Medici, the famous “Perseus.” The sturdy demi-god, with tense muscles, stands firmly, holding aloft in his left hand the head of Medusa, his right tightly gripping a short sword. His calmly triumphant gaze rests on the torso prostrate beneath his foot. In the wax model the body of Perseus is not so short and thick, and his limbs are not as coarse as in the finished bronze. The casting of this celebrated statue, which is still in Florence, was the acme of technical dexterity, “the metal filling the mould from the head of Medusa to the foot of Perseus.” Cellini’s last important work was the crucifix in white marble presented to Philip II of Spain by the Duke of Florence, and now in the Escorial. Among his other works still preserved are a golden salt-cellar (Vienna) and a shield, elaborately wrought (Windsor Castle).

LEIGH HUNT.

Celsus the Platonist

An eclectic Platonist and polemical writer against Christianity, who flourished towards the end of the second century. Very little is known about his personal history except that he lived during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, that his literary activity falls between the years 175 and 180, and that he wrote a work entitled ‘alethès lógos (“The True Word,” or “The True Discourse”), against the Christian religion. He is one of several writers named Celsus who appeared as opponents of Christianity in the second century; he is probably the Celsus who was known as a friend of Lucian, although some doubt this, because Lucian’s friend was an Epicurean, and the author of the “True Discourse” shows himself a Platonist. It is generally supposed that Celsus was a Roman. His intimate acquaintance, however, with the Jewish religion and his knowledge, such as it was, of Egyptian ideas and customs incline some historians to think he belonged to the Eastern portion of the empire. Those who believe him to have been a Roman explain his knowledge of Jewish and Egyptian matters by assuming that he acquired that knowledge either by travelling, or by mingling with the foreign population of Rome.

Celsus owes his prominence in the history of Christian polemics not so much to the pre-eminent character of his work, as to the circumstance that about the year 240 a copy of the work was sent to Origen by his friend Ambrosius, with a request to write a refutation of it. This Origen, after some hgesitation, consented to do, and embodied his answer in the treatise “Against Celsus” (katà Kélsou). So careful is Origen to cite the very words of his opponent that it is possible to reconstruct the text of Celsus from Origen’s answer, a task which was accomplished by Jachmann in 1846, and more successfully by Keim in 1873. The original of Celsus’s treatise having perished, the text reconstructed from Origen (about nine-tenths of the original has in this way been recovered) is our only primary source.

Celsus’s work may be divided as follows: a preface, an attack on Christianity from the point of view of Judaism, an attack on Christianity from the point of view of philosophy, a refutation of Christian teachings in detail, and an appeal to Christians to adopt paganism. In the preface Celsus forecasts the general plan of his attack by describing in the first place the general character of Christianity and then proceeding to accuse both Christian and Jew of “separatism,” that is to say, of arrogating to themselves a superior wisdom, while in reality their ideas concerning the origin of the universe, etc., are common to all peoples and to the wise men of antiquity. In the second portion, Celsus argues that Christ did not fulfil the Messianic expectations of the Hebrew people. Christ, he says, claimed to be of virgin birth; in reality, He was the son of a Jewish village woman, the wife of a carpenter. The flight into Egypt, the absence of any divine intervention in favour of the Mother of Jesus, who was driven forth with her husband, and other arguments are used to show that Christ was not the Messias. During the course of His public ministry Christ could not convince His countrymen that His mission was divine. As followers He had ten or twelve “infamous publicans and fishermen.” Such is not the company that befits a god. (This is one out of many instances in which Celsus suddenly passes from the Jewish to the pagan point of view.) As to the miracles ascribed to Christ, some, said Celsus, were merely fictitious narratives, the others, if they did really take place, are not more wonderful than the deeds of the Egyptians and other adepts in the magic arts. He next proceeds (cf. Orig., “Contra Celsum,” II) to upbraid those Jews who, “abandoning the law of their fathers,” allowed themselves to be deceived by one whom their nation had condemned, and changed their name from Hebrew to Christian. Jesus did not fulfil His promises to the Jews; instead of succeeding as they should have expected the Messias to succeed, He failed even to keep the confidence and loyalty of His chosen followers. His alleged prediction of His death is an invention of His Disciples, and the fable of His Resurrection is nothing new to those who remember the similar stories related of Zamolxis, Pythagoras, and Rhampsinit. If Christ rose from the dead, why did He appear to His Disciples only, and not to His persecutors and to those who mocked Him?

In the third portion (cf. Origen, op. cit., III) Celsus inaugurates a general attack on Christianity from the point of view of philosophy. He upbraids both Jews and Christians with their ridiculous disagreement in matters of religion, whereas, in fact, both religions rest on the same principles: the Jews revolted from the Egyptians and the Christians from the Jews; sedition was in both cases the true cause of separation. Next, he upbraids the Christians with lack of unity among themselves; so many sects are there, and so different, that they have nothing common save the name Christian. Like almost all the pagan opponents of Christianity he finds fault with Christians because they exclude from their fellowship the “wise and good,” and consort only with the ignorant and sinful. He misunderstands the Christian teaching regarding the Incarnation, “as if,” he says, “God could not by His own power accomplish the work which He sent Christ on earth to accomplish.” With this misunderstanding is connected Celsus’s false view of the Christian teaching on the subject of Divine Providence and God’s special care of mankind as compared with the plants and animals. The world, he says, was not “made for man’s use and benefit,” but for the perfection and completion of God’s plan of the universe. In the fourth part of his “True Discourse” (cf. Origen, op. cit., V) Celsus takes up the teachings of the Christians in detail and refutes them from the point of view of the history of philosophy. Whatever is true in the doctrines of the Christians was borrowed, he contends, from the Greeks, the Christians having added nothing except their own perverse misunderstanding of the tenets of Plato, Heraclitus, Socrates, and other Greek thinkers. “The Greeks,” he says, “tell us plainly what is wisdom and what is mere appearance, the Christians ask us at the outset to believe what we do not understand, and invoke the authority of one who was discredited even among his own followers.” In like manner the Christian teaching concerning the Kingdom of God is merely a corruption of Plato’s doctrine; when the Christians tell us that God is a spirit, they are merely repeating the saying of the Stoics that God is “a spirit penetrating all and encompassing all.” Finally, the Christian idea of a future life is borrowed from the Greek poets and philosophers; the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is simply a corruption of the world-old idea of transmigration of souls. In the fifth, and last portion of his work (cf. Origen, op. cit., VII, lxii sqq.; VIII) Celsus invites the Christians to abandon their “cult” and join the religion of the majority. He defends the worship of idols, the invocation of demons (daímones), the celebration of popular feasts, urging among other considerations, that the Christian who enjoys the bounties of nature ought, in common gratitude, to render thanks to the powers of nature. He concludes his treatise by an appeal to Christians to abandon their “vain hope” of establishing the rule of Christianity over all the earth; he invites them to give up their “life apart,” and take their place among those who by word and deed and active service contribute to the welfare of the empire. In an epilogue he promises another work (whether it was ever written we do not know) in which he is to explain in detail how those who would and could follow his philosophy of life should live.

The aim of Celsus’s work is different from that of the other opponents of Christianity in the early centuries. He exhibits comparatively little of the bitterness which characterized their attacks. He does not descend to the lower level of pagan polemics. For instance, he omits the customary accusation of atheism, immorality, “Thyestian feasts and Œdipodean gatherings,” accusations which were very commonly urged against the Christians for the purpose of rousing popular indignation. His aim was, perhaps, eirenic. His appeal to his Christian contemporaries to abandon their separatism and make common cause with the pagan subjects of the empire may have been more than a rhetorical device. It may have been inspired by a sincere wish to “convert” the Christians to an appreciation and adoption of the pagan philosophy of life. Indeed, Origen acknowledges that his opponent is not blind to the unfavourable side of pagan religion, especially to the abuses of particular cults and the absurdities of popular mythology. It is only just to Celsus, therefore, to ascribe to him all possible sincerity in his wish to “help all men,” and to bring all men to the ideal of “one religion.” On the other hand, Celsus’s attitude towards the Christian religion was, it hardly need be said, that of a pagan not well informed on all points and devoid of that sympathy which alone would enable him to understand the meaning of the most essential tenets of Christianity. He was remarkably well read in pagan literature, and, besides, was acquainted with the religious ideas of the “barbarous” peoples.

His knowledge of Judaism and Christianity was such as could not have been obtained from books alone. He must have consorted with Jewish and Christian teachers, and with the representatives of the Gnostic sects. Hence arose the danger of confounding with the official doctrine of Christianity the tenets of a particular school of Gnostic interpretations, a danger which Celsus did not succeed in escaping, as is evident in many passages of his work, and as Origen was very careful to point out. He was acquainted with the Old Testament only in part. He used the “books of the Christians,” the Gospels and, possibly, some of the Pauline Epistles, but on the latter point there is room for doubt. Celsus may have obtained his knowledge of St. Paul’s teaching by conversation with Christians. There can be no doubt, however, that he used the Gospels, not merely some proto-evangelical documents, but the four narratives substantially as we have them to-day. Celsus took pains to make himself acquainted with the beliefs of his Christian contemporaries, and he is unquestionably conscious of his knowledge of Christianity. Yet, he has no suspicion of the distinction between the universally accepted teachings of the “great Church” of the Christians and the doctrines peculiar to Ophites, Marcionites, and other heretical sects. Moreover, he is, if indeed well-intentioned, yet a partisan; he adopts the current Roman notion that Christianity is merely an offshoot of Judaism; in regard to the person of Christ he exhibits none of that respect which the later Platonists manifested towards the founder of Christianity; towards the miracles ascribed to Christ he shows a sceptical spirit, at one time describing them as fables invented by the Disciples, at another paralleling them with the wonders wrought by Egyptian sorcerers; he looks upon the Resurrection of Christ as either a silly story invented by the followers of Jesus, or a ghost-apparition such as is narrated of many of the heroes of antiquity. Above all, he fails to attain a correct understanding of the doctrine of Incarnation and atonement. When he comes to speak of the manner of life of his Christian neighbours, he, in common with all his pagan fellow-writers, cannot see the reasonableness of Christian humility, nor can he reconcile with the Christian hope of conquering the world to Christ, the fact that Christian proselytizers shun encounters with the learned and powerful and seek out the poor and the sinful, women, children, and slaves, and preach the Gospel to them. His manner too, in spite of the probable eirenic scope of his work, is that of a special pleader for paganism who uses all the resources of dialectic and rhetoric, all the artifices of wit and sarcasm to make his opponents seem ridiculous. Perhaps the secret of his efforts to render Christianity ridiculous is betrayed in his open disapproval of the attitude of aloofness which Christians adopted towards the interest and welfare of the empire. “You refuse to serve the state,” he says, “in peace or in war; you wish its downfall; you use all the force of your magic arts to acomplish the ruin of mankind.”

Celsus anticipated in his criticism of the New Testament the objections which have in our own time become identified with the names of Strauss and Renan. Similarly, in the objections which he urged from the point of view of philosophy he anticipated in a striking manner the arguments used by modern rationalists and evolutionists. Too much stress has, perhaps, been laid on the last point. Nevertheless, it is interesting, to say the least, to find a second-century opponent of Christianity off-setting the Christian idea of a direct divine origin of man by the theory that men and animals have a common natural origin, and that the human soul is sprung from the animal soul.

Celsus is generally described as a Platonist in philosophy. This is correct, if not understood in a too exclusive sense. Although he antedates Plotinus, the first great neo-Platonist, by almost half a century, he belongs to the age of syncretism in which Greek philosophy, realizing the inadequacy of its own resources, developed an eclectic spiritualism which welcomed and strove to assimilate the religious teachings of the various Oriental peoples. This syncretic tendency was resorted to as a remedy against the materialism and scepticism in which philosophy had, as it were, run to seed. Thus Celsus draws his philosophy not only from the genuine works of Plato, but also from the pseudo-Platonic writings, especially the so-called letters of Plato, from Heraclitus, Empedocles, the Stoics, the Epicureans, and from the religious systems of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Hindus, etc. The fundamental principles, however, on which he builds this syncretic system, are Platonic. God, he teaches, is the ineffable, unknowable One, the Source of all things, Himself without source, the All-pervading Logos, the World-Soul. God is a spirit, and whatever has come directly from His hands is spirit. Material things He made through the agency of created gods. The substance of material things is eternal matter; all force is spirit (angel or demon) indwelling in matter. The human soul is divine in its origin; it was placed in the body on account of some primordial sin. All change, all growth and decay in the universe, is not the result of chance or violence but part of a plan of development in which spirits minister to the design of an all-seeing, infinitely beneficent spirit. Even the vicissitudes of the idea of God, the various religions of ancient and modern times, are, says Celsus, part of the divinely appointed scheme of things. For no matter how the religions of the world may differ among themselves, they all hold that there is one God who is supreme. Moreover, the various mythological concepts must be understood to mean the same powers (dunámeis) which are worshipped in different countries under different names. Those are the beneficent powers which give increase and fruit to the tiller of the soil. Christians are, therefore, ungrateful for the gifts of nature when the refuse to worship the deities who symbolize the forces of nature. Finally these powers, spirits, or demons, mediate between God and man, and are the immediate source of prophecy and wonder-working. This last point is important. To understand Celsus’s criticism of the Gospel narrative it is necessary to remember that he was a firm believer in the possibility of cures by magic.

Celtus’s treatise is contained in Origen’s work; for the Greek text cf. KOETSCHAU, Origenes Werke (Leipzig, 1899), also MIGNE, P. G., XI. A German translation of the treatise is published by KEIM, Celsus’ wahres Wort (Zurich, 1873); PATRICK, The Apology of Origen in reply to Celsus (Edinburgh, 1897); BIGG, Neoplatonism (London, 1895); GEM, Christian Platonists of Alexandria (Oxford, 1886); LIGHTFOOT, Apostolic Fathers, Part II, II (London, 1885); FAIRWEATHER, Origen (New York, 1901); CRUTWELL, Library History of Early Christianity (London, 1893), II, 498 sqq.; KAYSER, Le philosophie de Celse (Strasburg, 1843); PÉLAGAUD, Etude sur Celse (Paris, 1878); BUHL, La polémique de Celse (Strasburg, 1844); EHRHARD, Altchristliche Litteratur, Part I (Freiburg, 1900), 335 sqq.; HARNACK, Gesch. der altchristlichen Litteratur (Berlin, 1897), II, pt. I, 314–5; BARDENHEWER, Gesch. der altkirchlichen Litteratur (Freiburg, 1892), I, 158 sqq.; FUNK, Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandl. u. Untersuch. (Paderborn, 1899), II, 152 sqq.

WILLIAM TURNER.

Conrad Celtes

(Properly CONRAD PICKEL, or MEISEL; called also in Lat. PROTUSIUS).

A German Humanist, b. at Wipfeld in Lower Franconia, 1 February, 1459; d. at Vienna, 4 February, 1508. He pursued his studies at Cologne (1477) and Heidelberg (1484), and at the latter university received the stimulating instruction of such men as Dalberg and Agricola. After this he wandered about for a time as a “travelling scholar,” delivering humanistic lectures at Erfurt, Rostock, and Leipzig. While at Leipzig he issued his first work, “Ars versificandi et carminum” (1486), as well as an edition of Seneca. In 1486 he went to Rome, where he had friendly relations with Pomponius Lætus; travelling through Italy he became acquainted at Florence with Marsilio Ficino, at Bologna with Beroaldus, and at Venice with Sabellicus and the celebrated printer, Aldus Manutius.

On the return of Celtes to Germany Frederick III, at the instance of the Elector Frederick of Saxony, crowned him Poet Laureate. This ceremony took place with much pomp at Nuremberg, and he received, at the same time, a doctor’s degree. Soon after this Celtes made a wandering tour throughout the whole of Germany. In the course of his travels he went to Cracow (c. 1488), where he busied himself with mathematics and the natural sciences, and formed friendships with a number of able Humanists, such as Lorenzo Rab and Bonacursius. In imitation of the Roman Academy (see ) he founded at Cracow a learned society called the Sodalitas Litterarum Vistulana, and another, entitled the Sodalitas Litterarum Hungarorum in Hungary, to which country he proceeded by way of Prague and Olmütz. The name of this latter association was afterwards changed to Sodalitas Litterarum Danubiana, and its seat was transferred to Vienna (1494). On the return journey Celtes stopped at Passau, Ratisbon, and Nuremberg, and went as far as Mainz and Heidelberg, where the Sodalitas Litterarum Rhenana was founded. On a second tour, in 1491, he reached Lübeck, where his efforts to form an association of scholars proved unsuccessful. In 1494 he became professor at Ingolstadt; this position, however, put no check on his propensity for wandering, and when the pest raged at Ingolstadt he was at Heidelberg as tutor to the Palatine princes. In 1497 the emperor called him to Vienna, where he gave humanistic and historical lectures, some of which were on the works of classic writers, as Apuleius, Cicero, Tacitus, etc.

The lectures of Celtus were as permanent in their effects on the advancement and spread of the spirit of humanistic learning as was the founding of his various learned associations. Especially was he of great importance for the science of history, in that he was the first to treat the history of the world as a whole, and to bring the history of the empire into connexion with that of other nations. His greatest labour, however, the “Germania Illustrata,” a work in which he desired to preserve the results both of his long journeys and of his researches in the history of the empire, remained a fragment. He gained a name for himself in the literary world by the discovery and publication of the writings of the nun Roswitha (Hroswitha). although Eschbach’s assumption that Celtes had forged these works excited for a time serious discussion, yet Köpke and others succeeded in clearing him of this charge (Ottonische Studien, II). Still further literary credit is due Celtes for his publication of the “Ligurinus” of Günther, and for the discovery of the “Tabula Peutingeriana” (a map of the military roads of the Roman Empire). No less creditable to his literary sagacity is the collection of Greek and Latin manuscripts which he made as librarian of the imperial library founded by Maximilian I at Vienna. He also won fame as a poet, and was the guiding spirit of the Poets’ Academy at Vienna, the first institution of this kind to be established. Nevertheless his “IV Libri Amorum,” “IV Libri Odarum,” and “V Libri Epigrammatum” are works of no great merit; their contents are in part very free, if not erotic. Celtes was an Epicurean, and, like many of the more free-thinking Humanists, in his concept of the standards of life he placed a higher value on the ancient heathen, than on the Christian, ideal. On this point he was obliged to bear much blunt reproof from his friend, Charitas Pirkheimer.

KLÜPFEL, De vitâ et scriptis C. Celtis (Freiburg, 1827), 2 vols., contains an exhaustive list of his writings; RUITH, C. Celtes (1852); ASCHBACH, Die früheren Wanderjahre des C. Celtes in Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akad. philos.-hist. Klasse (1868), LX, 75–150, and in Gesch. der Universität Wien, II, 189–270; HARTFELDER, Celtes als Lehrer in Neue Jahrb. f. Phil. u. Päd., 128, 299, and in Zeitschr. f. vergleichende Literaturgesch. (1890), new series, 3, 331 sqq.; GEIGER, C. Celtes in seinen Beziehungen zur Geographie (Munich, 1896).

JOSEPH SAUER

The Celtic Rite

This subject will be treated under the following seven heads:

I. History and Origin;

II. Manuscript Sources;

III. The Divine Office;

IV. The Mass;

V. the Baptismal Service;

VI. The Visitation, Unction, and Communion of the Sick;

VII. The Consecration of Churches;

VIII. Hymns.

I. HISTORY AND ORIGIN

The term “Celtic Rite” is generally, but rather indefinitely, applied to the various rites in use in Great Britain, Ireland, perhaps in Brittany, and sporadically in Northern Spain, and in the monasteries which resulted from the Irish missions of St. Columbanus in France, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy, at a time when rites other than the then existing rite of Rome were used, wholly or partially, in those places. The term must not be taken to imply any necessary homogeneity, for the evidence such as it is, is in favour of considerable diversity. This evidence is very scanty and fragmentary, and much of what has been written about it has been largely the result of conjectures based upon very insecure foundations, and has been influenced by controversial motives.

The beginning of the period is vague. There is no evidence before the fifth century and very little even then. The extreme end of it may be taken as 1172, when the Synod of Cashel finally adopted the Anglo-Roman Rite. The existence of a different rite in Britain and Ireland has been used to prove that the Christianity of these islands had an origin independent of Rome, though, even if it were true, it is not easy to see how that should prove anything more than the fact itself. In reality the existence of a Celtic Rite has no bearings, one way or the other, on the Anglo-Roman controversy. In the period before the eighth century diversity of rites was the rule rather than the exception. Rome, though when its advice was asked it might naturally recommend its own way of doing things, did not then make the smallest attempt to force uniformity on any local church. With a very complete unity of faith, and at times a considerable amount of intercourse between different parts of the Western Church, there existed great diversity of practice in things in which diversity, as St. Gregory’s answer to St. Augustine seems to imply, was not considered to matter very much. Gradually, no doubt, the influence of important centres, such as Rome itself on one side, and Toledo on another, tended to lessen the diversity and to draw divergent Churches together into larger liturgical districts, so that by the time of the final fusion, which happened in the Charlemagne period, the Roman Rite with its Ambrosian variant, the Romanized Celtic Rite, and the Hispano-Gallican Rite, now represented by the Mozarabic survival, were practically all that were left, but we must beware of antedating this classification. The essential unity of the Roman Empire was such that whether Christianity came to Britain from Rome, from Gaul, or from the East in the first instance, the fact would have no bearings on the origin and spread of the liturgical customs, which certainly developed at a later period than its first introduction. In the fourth century we find an apparently organized British Church, with bishops who represent it at the Council of Arles in 314, and certainly at Rimini in 359. This Church was evidently in close communication with the Church in Gaul, as may be inferred from the dedication to St. Martin of the two churches at Withern and at Canterbury, and from the mission of Victridius of Rouen in 396, and those of Sts. Germanus and Lupus in 429, and Sts. Germanus and Severus in 447, directed against that heresy of Pelagius which had its origin in Britain. It is not unreasonable to suppose that at the period when liturgies were beginning to be differentiated more or less by districts and provinces the liturgy of the Church of Britain should resemble that of the neighbouring Church of Gaul, and it is possible to infer from St. Augustine’s question to St. Gregory, concerning the different customs of Masses observed in Rome and in Gaul, that he found Gallican customs prevailing in Britain. But St. Augustine may only be referring to the use of Queen Bertha’s Frankish chaplain, Bishop Luidhard, at Canterbury, and there is no evidence one way or the other as to what liturgy was in use among the Romanized Britons themselves.

The passage attributed to Gidas (Haddan and Stubbs, I, 112), “Britones toti mundo contrarii, moribus Romanis inimici, non solum in misa sed in tonsura etiam,” is probably of the seventh century. Yet upon this frail foundation of conjecture an elaborate theory has been built and still remains almost an article of faith with so large and important a school of Anglican controversialists that it is impossible to ignore its existence, though it has been given up by all serious liturgiologists. This theory (for which see also AMBROSIAN LITURGY AND RITE) is to the effect that St. Irenaeus, the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of St. John the Divine, brought the Rite of Ephesus to Provence, whence it spread through Gaul and to Britain. This so-called “Ephesine” Rite (a term often used as synonymous with “Hispano-Gallican”), say the supporters of the theory, was the foundation of the Sarum Rite, and from this it derived a belief that the Church of England had an origin independent of Rome. It is hardly necessary to assert here that the Sarum Rite is merely a local variety of the Roman, and that the influence of the Gallican Rite upon it is no greater than upon any other Roman variety, so that the deductions, which have recently been reasserted with great certainty by the Bishop of Chichester in his “Story of the English Prayerbook,” are quite unwarranted by the facts. But on examination it will be seen that the Ephesine origin of the Gallican Rite rests only upon the assertion of an eighth-century Irish writer (in Cott. MS. Nero A. II in the British Museum), who, by the way, derives the Celtic Rite, as far as the Divine Office is concerned, from Alexandria, and on a statement by Colman at the Synod of Whitby, in 664, respecting the origin of the Celtic Easter, which, as St. Wilfrid pointed out at the time, was certainly incorrect. The theory seems to have been first put forward in modern times by Sir William Palmer in his “Origines Liturgicae,” on the authority of the said Irish writer, and has found its way into many Anglican textbooks. Yet the only points of difference between the British Church of St. Augustine’s time and the Roman of which we can be certain are: (1) The rule of keeping Easter; (2) the tonsure; (3) some differences in the manner of baptizing.

(1) THE EASTER QUESTION

The Britons adhered to the old Roman cycle of 84 years instead of the newer cycle of 19 years. They counted the third week of the moon, on the Sunday of which Easter must fall, from the 14th to the 20th instead of from the 15th to the 21st as the vernal equinox. Until 457, when the 532-year cycle of Victorius of Aquitaine was adopted at Rome, Britain agreed with Rome in its differing from Alexandria and the East. In 525 Rome altered its rule again to the 19-years cycle of Dionysius Exiguus, to conform to the Eastern usage, and from that time until the change of style in 1582 Rome and the East agreed in their rule of Easter, and even now calculate by the same rule, though the fact that the Greek 21st of March is only an imaginary vernal equinox, thirteen days later than the real one, makes the actual Greek Easter generally fall on a different day from the Roman. Yet it is still argued (e.g. in Archbishop Nuttall’s Catechism; s.p.c.k., 1907) that the Easter difference proves the Eastern origin of the British Church. If it proves anything it is the exact opposite. Colman at the Synod of Whitby evidently had some vague memory of the long extinct Quartodeciman controversy in his mind when he claimed an Ephesian origin for his Easter, and St. Wilfrid rightly pointed out that the essence of the Quartodeciman rule was that Easter might be kept on any day of the week, whereas the Celts kept theirs on Sunday only. St. Aldhelm, in his letter to King Geruntius of Cornwall, seems to charge the Cornish with Quartodecimanism, but he also mistook the point of that controversy. The Easter question was eventually settled at various times in different parts of the Celtic Church. The following dates are derived from Haddan and Stubbs: South Ireland, 626–8; North Ireland, 692; Northumbria (converted by Celtic missions), 664; East Devon and Somerset, the Celts under Wessex, 705; the Picts, 710; Iona, 716–8; Straathclyde, 721; North Wales, 768; South Wales, 777. Cornwall held out the longest of any, perhaps even, in parts, to the time of Bishop Aedwulf of Crediton (909).

(2) THE FORM OF THE TONSURE

The Britons were accustomed to shave the whole head in front of a line drawn from ear to ear, instead of using the coronal tonsure of the Romans. This, though there is no real evidence that it was the practice of the Druids, was nicknamed tonsura magorum. (Magus was accepted as equivalent to druid, and to this day the of Matthew 2, are druidhean in the Scottish Gaelic Bible.) Later, the Roman party jeered at it as the tonsura Simonis Magi, in contradistinction to their “tonsure of St. Peter.” This is mentioned in the passage attributed wrongly, to Gildas (Haddan and Stubbs, I, 113).

(3) SOME UNSPECIFIED DIFFERENCE IN THE MANNER OF BAPTIZING

It has been conjectured, on no real evidence, that the British Church resembled the Spanish in baptizing with a single immersion. But this form had been allowed by Rome in the case of Spain. It would seem however, from a letter from Pope Zacharias to St. Boniface (1 May, 748, Haddan and Stubbs, III, 51), that an unnamed English synod had forbidden any bapism except in the name of the Trinity, and had declared that whoever omits the Name of any Person of the Trinity does not truly baptize. Spelman and Wilkins put this synod at London in the time of St. Augustine, 603. Mansi makes its date the first year of Theodore of Tarsus, 668. It would seem by this that it was the formula that was at fault, and certainly in the time of Theodore the possibility of priests, presumably Celtic, having been invalidly baptized was considered. “Si quis presbiter ordinatus deprehendit se non esse baptizatus, baptizetur et ordinetur iterum et omnes quos prius baptizavit baptizentur,” says the “Poenitentiale Theodori” (Lib. II, cap. iii, 13), and in cap ix of the same book, after ordering the reordination of those ordained by Scottish and British bishops, “qui in Pascha et tonsua catholici non sunt,” and the asperging of churches consecrated by them, Theodore adds: “Et qui ex horum similiter gente vel quicunque de baptismo suo dubitaverit, baptizetur.”

Thus it may be seen that, with these exceptions, and excepting also one statement by Gildas (to the effect that certain lessons, differing from those of any known rite, were read at ordinations), and a possible allusion by him to the anointing of hands at ordination, we have no information about the rites of the British Church. They may have been Gallican but they may just as well have been Roman in type, or if the Christianity of Britain preceded the construction of definite liturgies, they may have been indigenous, with or without foreign influences. The Britons were quite capable of composing their own liturgy on that nucleus which was common to all Christendom; but we do not know whether they did so or not.

One part of Britain, indeed, derived a great part of its Christianity from post-Patrician Irish missions. St. Ia and her companions, and St. Piran, St. Sennen, St. Petrock, and the rest of the Irish saints who came to Cornwall in the late fifth and early sixth centuries found there, at any rate in the West, a population which had perhaps relapsed into Paganism under the Pagan King Teudar. When these saints introduced, or reintroduced, Christianity, they probably brought with them whatever rites they were accustomed to, and Cornwall certainly had its own separate ecclesiastical quarrel with Wessex in the days of St. Aldhelm, which, as appears by a statement in Leofric’s Missal, was still going on in the early tenth century, though the details of it are not specified.

The rites of the Irish Church stand on firmer ground, though even there the information is scanty. There were Christians in Ireland before St. Patrick, but we have no information as to how they worshipped, and their existence is ignored by the “Catalogus Sanctorum Hiberniae,” attributed to the seventy-century Tirechan. This interesting document, which, though its dates need not be accepted too exactly, is worthy of general credit, divides the saints of Ireland into three orders, each of which orders is stated to have lasted during the reigns of four kings, the three orders covering, between them, a period of about 225 years, from the coming of St. Patrick in 440, in the reign of Laoghaire MacNeil, to the reign of Blathmac and Diarmait, sons of Aodh Slane, in 665. Symmetry is attained by omitting about six intervening reigns, but the outside dates of each period are clear enough, and the liturgiological value of the document consists in the statements, very probably true in the main, respecting the customs of the saints of these orders as to the Masses and celebrationes, i.e. the Divine Office, and the Easter and tonsure questions. (Celebratio—“Divine Office”; Irish, Celebrad. Dr. MacCarthy in his edition of the Stowe Missal gives several instances of this use of the word.) the first order was in the time of St. Patrick. They were all bishops, 350 in number, founders of churches. They had one Head, Christ; one leader, Patrick; one Mass, and one tonsure from ear to ear, and they celebrated one Easter “quarta decima luna post aequinoctium vernale.” All these bishops were sprung from the Romans, the French (i.e. the Gauls), the Britons, and the Scots. Their period is given from the reign of Laoghaire to that of Tuathal Moelgarbh (c. 440–544). The second order were a few bishops and many priests, 300 in number. They had one head, Christ, they celebrated different Masses and “diversas regulas,” they had one Easter, the fourteenth of the moon after the equinox, and one tonsure from ear to ear. The received a Mass from the Britons, David, Gilla (Gildas), and Docus (Cadoc). It may be noted that the “Vita Gildae” tells how King Ainmerech sent for Gildas to restore ecclesiastical order in his kingdom “quia paene catholicam fidem inipsa insula omnes reliquerant.” The second order lasted from the end of the reign of Tuathal to that of Aodh MacAinmerech (c. 544–99). The third order were priests and a few bishops, 100 in number, “qui in locis desertis habitabant et oleribus et aqua et eleemosynis vivebant, propria devitabant,” evidently hermits and monks. They had different Masses, different rules, and different tonsures, “alii enim habebant coronam, alii caesariem,” and celebrated different Easters, some on the fourteenth, some on the sixteenth, of the moon, “cum duris intentionibus”—which perhaps means “obstinately.” These lasted from the reign of Aeda Allain (Aodh Slaine) to that of his two sons (Blathmac and Diarmait, c. 599–665). The meaning seems to be that the first order celebrated a form of Mass introduced by St. Patrick, the second and third orders used partly that Mass and partly one of British origin, and in the case of the third order Roman modifications were also introduced. Though we have no direct evidence one way or the other, it would seem probable that St. Patrick, who was the pupil of St. Germanus of Auxerre and St. Honoratus of Lerins, brought with him a Mass of the Gallican type, and it is clear that the British Mass introduced by Sts. David, Gildas, and Cadoc differed from it, though to what extent we have no means of knowing. The “unam celebrationem” of the first order and the “diversas regulas” of the second and third probably both refer to the Divine Office, and we may take the authority of the eighth-century tract in Cott. MS. Nero A. II for what it is worth in its not improbable statement that St. Germanus taught the “Cursus Scottorum” to St. Patrick, who certainly was under his instruction for some time. The working of the “Catalogus” seems to imply that the first and second orders were Quartodecimans, but this is clearly not the meaning, or on the same argument the third order must have been partly Sextodecimans—if there were such things—and moreover we have the already mentioned statement of St. Wilfred, the opponent of the Celtic Easter, at the Synod of Whitby, that such was not the case. Tirechan can only mean what we know from other sources: that the fourteenth day of the moon was the earliest day on which Easter could fall, not that it was kept on that day, Sunday or weekday. It was the same ambiguity of expression which misled Colman in 664 and St. Aldhelm in 704. The first and second orders used the Celtic tonsure, and it seems that the Roman coronal tonsure came partly into use during the period of the third order. After that we have an obscure period, during which the Roman Easter which had been accepted in South Ireland in 626–28, became universal, being accepted by North Ireland in 692, and it seems probable that a Mass on the model of the Carlsruhe and Piacenza fragments and the Stowe and Bobbio Missals, that is to say a Roman Canon with some features of a non-Roman type came into general use. But it was not until the twelfth century that the separate Irish Rite, which, according to Gilbert, Bishop of Limerick (1106–390), was in use in nearly all Ireland, was abolished. St. Malachy, bishop of Armagh (1134–48), began the campaign against it, and at the Synod of Cashel, in 1127, a Roman Rite “juxta quod Anglicana observat Ecclesia” was finally substituted.

In Scotland there is very little information. The intercourse with Ireland was considerable, and the few details that can be gathered from such sources as Adamnan’s Life of St. Columba and the various relics of the Scoto-Northumbrian Church point to a general similarity with Ireland in the earlier period. Of the rite of the monastic order of the Culdees (Céli Dé or Goillidhe-Dé, servants of God, or possibly Cultores Dei) very little is known, but they certainly had a rite of their own, which may have been similar to the Irish. The Roman Easter and tonsure were adopted by the Picts in 710, and at Iona in 716–18, and much later, in about 1080, St. Margaret of Scotland, wife of King Malcolm III, wishing to reform the Scottish church in a Roman direction, discovered and abolished certain peculiar customs of which Theodoric, her chaplain and biographer, tells us less than we could wish. It seems that the Scots did not begin Lent on Ash Wednesday, but on the Monday following. This is still the Ambrosian practice. They refused to communicate on Easter Day, and the arguments on the subject make it seem as if the laity never communicated at all. In some places they celebrated Mass “contra totius Ecclesiae consuetudinem, nescio quo ritu barbaro.” The last statement may be read in connection with that in the Register of St. Andrew’s (drawn up 1144–53), “Keledei in angulo quodam ecclesiae, quae modica nimis est, suum officum more suo celebrant.” How much difference there may have been cannot be judged from these expressions. Scotland may have retained a primitive Celtic Rite, or it may have used the greatly Romanized Stowe or Bobbio Mass. The one fragment of a Scottish Rite, the Office of the Communion of the Sick, in the Book of Deer, probably eleventh century, is certainly non-Roman in type, and agrees with those in the extant Irish books.

In 590 St. Columbanus and his companions invaded the Continent and established monasteries throughout France, South Germany, Switzerland, and North Italy, of which the best known were Luxeuil, Bobbio, St. Galen, and Ratisbon. It is from the Rule of St. Columbanus that we know something of a Celtic Divine Office. These Irish missionaries, with their very strict rule, were not altogether popular among the lax Gallican clergy, who tried to get them discouraged. At a council at Macon, in 623, certain charges brought by one Agrestius were considered. Among them is the following: “In summâ quod a caeterorum ritu ac norma desciscerent et sacra mysteria sollemnia orationum et collectarum multiplici varietate celebrarent.” There has been more than one interpretation of this phrase, some holding, with Pope Benedict XIV, that it refers to the use of many collects before the Epistle, instead of the one collect of the then Roman Missal, others that it implies a multiplicity of variables in the whole Mass, analogous to that existing in the Hispano-Gallican Rite. The Columbanian monasteries gradually drifted into the Benedictine Order.

The ultimate origin of the various prayers, etc., found in the fragments of the Celtic Rite in the books of private devotion, such as the Book of Cerne, Harl. MS. 7635, and MS. Reg. 2. A. xx, which are either Irish or have been composed under Irish influence, is still under discussion. The Turin Fragment and the Bangor Antiphoner (See BANGOR, ANTIPHONARY OF) contain for the most part pieces that are either not found elsewhere or are only found in other Irish books. The Book of Cerne is very eclectic, and pieces therein can also be traced the Gelasian, Gregorian, Gallican, and Spanish origins, and the Stowe Missal has pieces which are found not only in the Bobbio Missal, but also in the Gelasian, Gregorian, Gallican, Spanish, and even Ambrosian books. The general conclusion seems to be that, while the Irish were not above borrowing from other Western nations, they originated a good deal themselves, much of which eventually passed into that composite rite which is now known as Roman. This seems to be a rough statement of the opinion of Mr. Edmund Bishop, who is the soundest English authority on the subject, which involves the much larger question of the origin and development of all the Western rites.

II. MANUSCRIPT SOURCES

The following manuscripts contain fragments of the Celtic Rite:

BRITISH (I.E. WELSH, CORNISH, OR BRETON)

None. There is a Mass in Bodl. MS. 572 (at Oxford), in honour of St. Germanus, which appears to be Cornish and relates to “Ecclesia Lanaledensis,” which has been considered to be the monastery of St. Germanus, in Cornwall, a few miles on the western side of the Tamar. There is no other evidence of the name, which was also the Breton name of Aleth, now part of Saint-Malo. The manuscript, which contains also certain glosses, possibly Cornish or Breton-it would be impossible to distinguish between them at that date-but held by Professor Loth to be Welsh, is probably of the ninth century, and the Mass is quite Roman in type, being probably written after that part of Cornwall had come under Saxon influence. There is a very interesting Proper Preface.

IRISH (WHETHER INSULAR OR CONTINENTAL)

(1) The Turin Fragment. A manuscript Of the seventh century in the Turin Library. It was published by W. Mayer, with a dissertation comparing it with the Bangor Antiphoner, in the Gottingen “Nachrichen” of 1903. Mayer considers the fragment to have been written at Bobbio. It consists of six leaves and contains the canticles, “Cantemus Domino,” “Benedicite,” and “Te Deum,” with collects to follow those and the Laudate psalms (cxlvii-cl) and the “Benedictus,” the text of which is not given, two hymns with collects to follow them, and two other prayers. There is a facsimile of one page and a description in “Collezione paleografica Bobbiese,” Vol. I.

(2) The Bangor Antiphoner. A manuscript from the monastery of Bangor, in Down, written or copied from a manuscript written during the time of Abbot Cronan (680–91). It is now in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. It has been edited, in facsimile, for the Henry Bradshaw Society (1895–96) by F.E. Warren, having been already printed in Muratori’s “Anecdota Bibl. Ambros.,” IV, pp. 121–59, in Migne’s “Patrologia Lat.,” LXXII, 579, and in the “Ulster Journal of Archaeology,” 1853. It contains a large collection of canticles, hymns, collects, and antiphons, all, with very few exceptions, relating to the Divine Office. All but two of the twenty-one pieces in the Turin fragment are found in this manuscript also. (See BANGOR, ANTIPHONARY OF.)

(3) The Bobbio Missal. A manuscript Of the seventh century found by Mabillon at Bobbio in North Italy now in the Biblotheque Nationale at Paris (Lat. 13,246). Published by Mabillon (Lit. Rom. Vet., II) and by Neale and Forbes (Ancient Liturgies of the Gallican Church). There is an analysis of it by Dom Cagin in “Paeographie musicale,” V. By Neale and Forbes it is entitled “Missale Vesontionense seu Sacramentarium Gallicanum,” its attribution to Besancon being due to the presence of a Mass in honour of St. Sigismund. Monseigneur Duchesne appears to consider it to be more or less Ambrosian, but Mr. Edmund Bishop (liturgical note to Kuypers’ “Book of Cerne”) considers it to be “an example of the kind of book in vogue in the second age of the Irish Saints,” and connects it with the undoubtedly Irish Stowe Missal. It contains a “Missa Romensis cottidiana” and Masses for various days and intentions, with the Order of Baptism and the “Benedictio Cerei.”

(4) The Stowe Missal. A manuscript of the late eighth or early ninth century, with alterations in later hands, most of them written by one Moelcaich, who signs his name at the end of the Canon, and whom Dr. MacCarthy identifies, not very convincingly, with Moelcaich MacFlann, c. 750. It was discovered abroad, in the eighteenth century, by John Grace of Nenah, from whom it passed to the Duke of Buckingham’s library at Stowe. It was bought by the late Earl of Ashburnham in 1849, and from his collection it went to the Royal Irish Academy. It contains part of the Gospel of St. John, probably quite unconnected with what follows, bound up with the Ordinary and Canon of the Mass, three Masses, the Order of Baptism and of the Visitation, Unction, and Communion of the Sick, and a treatise in Irish on the Mass, of which a variant is found in the “Leabhar Breac.” The liturgical parts are in Warren’s “Celtic Church.” It was edited for the Royal Irish Academy in 1885 by Dr. B. MacCarthy, and is now being re-edited (a facsimile having been already issued) for the Henry Bradshaw Society, by Mr. G.F. Warner, to whose work the present writer is indebted for much help. A translation, by J. Charleston, of the Ordinary and Canon of the Mass appeared in the “Transactions” of the Glasgow Ecclesiological Society, in 1898.

(5) The Carlsruhe Fragment A.—Four pages in an Irish hand of the late eighth or early ninth century in the Library of Carlsruhe. It contains parts of three Masses, one of which is “pro captivis.” The arrangement resembles that of the Bobbio Missal, in that the Epistles and Gospels seem to have preceded the other variables under the title of “lectiones ad misam.”

(6) The Carlsruhe Fragment. B.—Four pages in an Irish hand probably of the ninth century. It contains fragments of Masses, and includes a variant of the intercessions inserted in the Intercession for the Living in the Stowe Missal and in Witzel’s extracts from the Fulda Manuscript. There are also some fragments of Irish in it.

(7) The Piacenza Fragment. Four pages (of which the two outer are illegible) in an Irish hand, possibly of the tenth century. The two inner pages contain parts of three Masses, one of which is headed “ordo missae sanctae mariae.” In the others are contained the Prefaces of two of the Sunday Masses in the Bobbio Missal, one of which is used on the eighth Sunday after the Epiphany in the Mozarabic. [The text of these three fragments (5–7), with a dissertation on them by the Rev. H. M. Bannister, is given in the “Journal of Theological Studies,” October, 1903.]

(8) The Book of Dimma. A manuscript probably of the eighth century now at Trinity College, Dublin. It contains the Four Gospels and has an order for the Unction and Communion of the Sick written between the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John. This last is printed in Warren’s “Celtic Church.”

(9) The Book of Mulling. A manuscript, probably of the eighth century, in Trinity College, Dublin. It contains the Four Gospels, an Office for the Unction and Communion of the Sick, and a fragmentary directory or plan of a service. These have been printed, with a dissertation, in Lawlor’s “Chapters on the Book of Mulling,” and the Unction and Communion Office in Warren’s “Celtic Church.”

(10) The St. Gall Fragments. These are eighth- and ninth-century fragments in Manuscripts 1394 and 1395 in the Library of St. Gallen. The first book (1394) contains part of an ordinary of the Mass, which as far as it goes resembles that in the Stowe Missal. The second (1395) contains the confession and litany, which also begin the Stowe Missal, a fragment of a Mass of the Dead, a prayer at the Visitation of the Sick, and three forms for the blessing of salt and water. All these are given in Warren’s “Celtic Church.”

(11) The Basle Fragment. (A. vii. 3 in the Basle Library). This is a ninth-century Greek Psalter with a Latin interlinear translation. On a fly-leaf at the beginning are two hymns in honour of Our Lady and of St. Bridget, a prayer to Our Lady and to the Angels and Saints, and a long prayer “De conscientiae reatu ante altare.” The last is printed in Warren’s “The Celtic Church.”

(12) The Zurich Fragment (Public Library, Zurich). This is a tenth-century leaf containing part of an office for the profession of a nun. It is printed in Warren’s “The Celtic Church.”

(13) The Liber Hymnorum. This is not exactly a liturgical book, but a collection of forty hymns in Latin and Irish, almost all of Irish origin, with canticles and “ccclxv orationes quas beatus Gregorius de toto psalterio congregavit.” There are explanatory prefaces in Irish or Latin to each hymn. Some of the hymns are found in the Bangor Antiphoner, the “Leabhar Breac,” and the Book of Cerne. There are two manuscripts of this collection, not agreeing exactly, one in trinity College, Dublin, of the eleventh century, an done in the Franciscan Convent at Dublin, of somewhat later date. A combination of both manuscripts has been edited for the Henry Bradshaw Society (1897–98) by Dr. J. H. Bernard and Dr. R. Atkinson.

SCOTTISH

The Book of the Deer. A Book of the Gospels of the tenth century formerly belonging to the Monastery of the Deer in Buchan, and now in the Cambridge University Library. It contains part of an order for the communion of the Sick, with a Gaelic rubric, written in a hand of perhaps the end of the eleventh century. This is printed in Warren’s “The Celtic Church.” The whole manuscript was edited by Dr. Stuart for the Spalding Club in 1869.

OTHER MANUSCRIPTS

Besides these manuscripts there are certain others bearing on the subject which are not liturgical, and some of which are not Celtic, though they show signs of Celtic influences. Among these are:

(1) The Book of Cerne. A large collection of prayers, etc., for private use, associated with the name of Aethelwald the Bishop, possibly a Bishop of Lindisfarne (712–40), but perhaps a later Bishop of Lichfield (818–30). This late eighth- or early ninth-century manuscript, which once belonged to the Abbey of Cerne in Dorset, but is now in the University Library at Cambridge, though actually Northumbrian or Mercian in origin, is full of Irish, Gelasian, and Hispano-Gallican matter. It has been edited (with a most valuable “Liturgical Note” by Mr. E. Bishop) by Dom A.B. Kuypers (Cambridge, 1902).

(2) Harl. MS. 7653, British Museum. A fragment of seven leaves of an Irish manuscript of the ninth century, containing a litany, the Te Deum, and a number of private devotions. It has been edited by Mr. W. de G. Birch, with The Book of Nunnaminster, for the Hampshire Record Society (1889), and by Mr. Warren in his monograph on the Bangor Antiphoner (Vol. II, p 83).

(3) Reg. 2. A. xx, British Museum. An eighth-century manuscript of probably Northumbrian origin, containing selections from the Gospels, collects, hymns, canticles, private devotions, etc. It has been fully described in Mr. Warren’s “Bangor Antiphoner” (Vol. II, p. 97).

(4) The Leabhar Breac, or Speckled Book. An Irish manuscript of the fourteenth century, belonging to the Royal Irish Academy, and containing a very large collection of ecclesiastical and religious pieces in Irish. The contents are not as a rule of a liturgical character, but the book contains a variant of the Irish tract of the Mass which is also in the Stowe Missal. This has been printed, with a translation, in Dr. MacCarthy’s edition of the Stowe Missal, and in “Transactions of the Aberdeen Ecclesiological Society,” with translation and notes by Mr. D. Macgregor (1898). The whole book has been published in facsimile, but without transliteration or translation, though with a detailed table of contents, by the Royal Irish Academy (1876), and the Passions and Homilies contained in it have been edited with a translation and glossary by Dr. R. Atkinson in the Todd Lecture series of the same Academy (1887).

III. THE DIVINE OFFICE

The chief evidences as to the nature and origin of the Celtic Divine Office are found in the Rule of St. Columbanus, in the Turin fragment and the Bangor Antiphoner, in the eighth-century tract in Cott. MS. Nero A. II., and in allusions in the “Catalogus Sanctorum Hiberniae.” The Rule of St. Columbanus give directions as to the number of psalms to be recited at each hour, the Turin fragment, and the Bangor Antiphoner give the text of canticles, hymns, collects, and antiphons, and the Cottonian tract gives what was held in the eighth century to be the origin of the “Cursus Scottorum.” (Cursus psalmorum and Synaxis are terms used for the Divine Office in the Rule of St. Colmubanus.) the last differentiates between the “Cursus Gallorum,” which it derives imaginatively from Ephesus and St. John, through St. Polycarp and St. Irenaeus, and this “Cursus Scottorum,” which, according to this writer, probably an Irish monk in France, originated with St. Mark at Alexandria. With St. Mark it came to Italy. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Basil, and the hermits St. Anthony, St. Paul, St. Macarius, St. John, and St. Malchus used it. St. Cassian, St. Honoratus, and St. Porcarius of Lerins, St. Caesarius of Arles, St. Germanus, and St. Lupus also used it, and St. Germanus taught it to St. Patrick, who brought it to Ireland. There “Wandilochus Senex” and “Gomorillus” (Comgall) used it, and St. Wandilochus and Columbanus brought it to Luxeuil. The part of the story from St. Germanus onwards may possibly be founded in fact. The other part is not so probable. The statements of the “Catalogus” concerning “unam celebrationem” in the first, and “diversas regulas” during the second and third, ages of the saints probably refer to the original cursus of St. Patrick and to the introduction of other cursus, partly (perhaps with the Mass of Sts. David, Gildas and Cadoc) from Britain; and it does not quite follow that what St. Columbanus carried to Gaul was the same as that which St. Patrick had brought from Gaul in an earlier age. The Rule of St. Columbanus and the Bangor book distinguish eight Hours, “ad duodecimam” [Vespers, called “ad Vespertinam” and “ad Vesperam” in the Bangor book] Adamnan’s Life of St. Columba calls it once (iii,23) “Vespertinalis missa”], “ad initium noctis (answering to Complin), “ad nocturnam,” or “ad medium noctis,” “ad matutinam” (Lauds), “ad secundam” (answering to Prime), “ad tertiam,” “ad sextam,” and “ad nonam.” At the four lesser Hours St. Columanus orders three psalms each; at Vespers, “ad initium noctis,” and “ad medium noctis” twelve each, and “ad matutinam,” a very curious and intricate arrangement of psalmody varying in length with the longer and shorter nights. On Saturdays and Sundays from 1 November to 25 March, seventy-five psalms were recited on each day, under one antiphon for every three psalms. From 25 March to 24 June these were diminished by three psalms weekly to a minimum of thirty-six psalms. It would seem, though it does not say so, that the minimum was used for about five weeks, for a gradual increase of the same amount arrives at the maximum by 1 November. On other days of the week there was a maximum of thirty-six and a minimum of twenty-four. The Rule does not say how the Psalter was distributed, but from the Bangor book it seems that the “Laudate” psalms (cxlvii-cl) were said together, doubtless, as in all other rites, Eastern or Western, except certain eighteenth-century French uses, at Lauds and that “Domine, Refugium” (Ps. lxxxix) was said “ad secundam.” Adamnan mentions that St. Columba sang Ps. xliv, “Eructavit cor meum,” at Vespers on one occasion. The psalms at the lesser Hours were to be accompanied by a number of intercessory versicles. In the Bangor book these, somewhat expanded from the list in the Rule, but certainly to be identified with them, are given in the form of one, two, or three antiphons and a collect for each intercession. There are six canticles given in the Bangor Antiphoner:

“Audite, coeli,” headed “Canticum Moysi.” This has no antiphons, but a repetition of the first verse at intervals, after the manner of the Invitatory to the “Venite” in the Roman Rite.

“Cantemus Domino,” also headed “Canticum Moysi.”

“Benedictus, also called “Benedictio trium Puerorum.”

“Te Deum, preceded by Ps. cxii, 1, “Laudate, pueri.”

“Benedicitus,” also called “Evangelium.”

“Gloria in excelsis,” followed by psalm and other verses similar to those which, with it, make up the Doxologia megale of the Greek Rite. It is ordered to be used “ad vesperum et matutinam,” resembling the Greek Rite use of it at Complin (Apodeipnon) and Lauds (Orthros). When the Stowe Missal was written the Irish used this canticle at Mass also, in its Roman position.

The Bangor Antiphoner gives sets of collects to be used at each hour. One set is in verse (cf. the Mass in hexameters in the Reichenau Gallican fragment). It also gives several sets of collects, not always complete, but always in the same order. It may be conjectured that these sets show some sort of skeleton of the Bangor Lauds. The order always is: (1) “Post canticum” (evidently from the subjects, which, like those of the first ode of a Greek canon, refer to the Crossing of the Red Sea, Cantemus Domino”); (2) “Post Benedictionem trium Puerorum”; (3) “Post tres Psalmos,” or “Post Laudate Dominum de coelis” (Ps. cxlvii-cl); (4) “Post Evangelium” (clearly meaning “benedictus,” which is the only gospel canticle in the book and the only one not otherwise provided for. The same term is often applied—e.g. in the York Breviary—to “Benedictus,” “Magnificat,” and “Nunc Dimittis”); (5) “Super hymnum”; (6) “De Martyribus.”-The last may perhaps be compared with the commemorations which come at the end of Lauds in, for instance, the present Roman Divine Office. There are also sets of antiphons, “super Cantemus Domino et Benedicite,” “super Laudate Dominum de coelis,” and “De Martyribus.” In the Bangor book there are collects to go with the “Te Deum,” given apart from the preceding, as though they formed part of another Hour; but in the Turin fragment they, with the text of the “Te Deum,” follow the “Benedicite” and its collects, and precede the “Laudate Dominum de coelis.” In the Book of Mulling there is a fragment of a directory, or plan, of some service. Dr. Lawlor seems to think it to be a plan of a daily Office used morning and evening, but the editors of the “Liber Hymnorum” take it to be a special penitential service and compare it with the penitential office sketched out in the “Second Vision of Adamnan” in the Leabhar Breac, which, as interpreted by them, it certainly resembles. The plan in the Book of Mulling is: (1) illegible; (2) “Magnificat”; (3) stanzas 4, 5, 6 of St. Columba’s hymn “Noli pater”; (4) a lesson from St. Matt., v; (5) the last three stanzas of the hymn of St. Secundus, “Audite omnes”; (6) two supplementary stanzas; (7) the last three stanzas of the hymn of Cumma in Fota, “Celebra Juda”; (8) antiphon “Exaudi nos Deus,” appended to this hymn; (9) last three stanzas of St. Hillary’s hymn, Hymnum dicat”; (10) either the antiphon “Unitas in Trinitate” or (as sketch of Adamnan seems to show) the hymn of St. Colman MacMurchon in honour of St. Michael, “In Trinitate spes mea”; (11) the Creed; (12) the Paternoster; (13) illegible, but possibly the collect “Ascendat oratio.”

IV. THE MASS

Two books, the Bobbio and the Stowe Missals, contain the Irish Ordinary of a daily Mass in its late Romanized form. Many of the variables are in the Bobbio book, and portions of some Masses are in the Carlsruhe and Piacenza fragments. A little, also, may be gleaned from the St. Gall fragments, the Bangor Antiphoner, and the order for the Communion of the Sick in the Books of Dimma, Mulling, and Deer. The tract in Irish at the end of the Stowe Missal and its variant in the Leabhar Breac add something more to our knowledge. The Stowe Missal gives us three somewhat differing forms, the original of the ninth century, in so far as it has not been erased, the correction by Moelcaich, and, as far as it goes, the Mass described in the Irish tract. From its size and contents it would seem to be a sort of Missale Itinerantium, with an Ordinary that might serve for most any occasion, a general Common of Saints and two Masses for special intentions (for penitents and for the dead). The addition of the Order of Baptism, not, as in the Bobbio book or in the “Missale Gothicum” ad “Missale Gallicanum,” as part of the Easter Eve services, but as a separate thing, and the Visitation of the Sick, points to its being intended to be a convenient portable minimum for a priest. The pieces said by the people are in several cases only indicated by beginnings and endings. The Bobbio book, on the other hand, is a complete Missal, also for a priest only, of larger size with Masses for the Holy Days through the year

The original Stowe Mass approaches nearer to that of Bobbio than the revised form does. The result of Moelcaich’s version is to produce something more than a Gelasian Canon inserted into a non-Roman Mass. It has become a mixed Mass, Gelasian, Roman, or Romano-Ambrosian for the most part, with much of a Hispano-Gallican type underlying it, and perhaps with some indigenous details. It may be taken to represent the latest type of Irish Mass of which we have any information. The title of the Bobbio daily Mass is “Missa Romensis cottidiana,” and the same title occurs before the Collect “Deus qui culpa offenderis” at the very end of the “Missale Gothicum.” This collect, which is in the Gregorian Sacramentary, occurs in both the Bobbio and the Stowe, and in the latter has before it the title, “Orationes et preces missae aecclesiae romane,” so that it is evident that the Roman additions or substitutions were recognized as such.

The Order of the daily Mass, founded on that in the Stowe Missal is:

Praeparatio Sacerdotis.

Confession of sins, beginning “Peccavimus, Domine, peccavimus.” This and the Litany which follows are found also in the St. Gall fragments, but not in the Bobbio book.

Litany of the Saints. In the original hand there are only thirteen invocations (Our Lady, ten Apostles, St. Mark, and St. Luke). Moelcaich added thirty-one more, of which twenty-four are Irish. The manuscript is wrongly bound, so that these additions look as if they were associated with the dyptychs in the Canon.

“Oratio Augustini”: “Rogo te Deus Sabaoth.” This is found in various ninth- and tenth-century French books (see Warren’s “Celtic Church”).

“Oratio Ambrosi”: “Ante conspectum divinae majestatis.” Inserted by Moelcaich. Found in several French books.

Collect: “Ascendat oratio nostra.” This occurs after the Creed and Paternoster in the “Liber Hymnorum.”

The Mass itself

From the Irish tracts it seems that the chalice was prepared before the Introit, a very usual practice in both East and West in early times. It is still the Eastern practice, and is retained to this day by the Dominicans at low Mass, and in the Mozarabic Rite (see Dr. Legg’s Ecclesiological Essays, pp. 91–178). Water was poured in first with the words “Peto (Leabhar Breac, Quaeso) te, Pater, deprecor te, Fili, obsecro te, Spiritus Sancte.” The Leabhar Breac directs that a drop shall be poured at naming each Person. The wine was similarly poured on the water, with the words, “Redittit pater, indulget Filius, miseretur Spiritus Sanctus..”

The Introit. Mentioned in the Irish tracts, but not given in the Ordinary or elsewhere in either Missal. Probably it was sung from a Psalter.

Collect. That in the Stowe and Bobbio Ordinaries is “Deus qui de beato Petro,” the collect for St. Peter’s Day, “iii Kal Julias” in the Gelasian Sacramentary. In the Stowe a corrector, not Moelcaich, has prefixed “in solemnitatibus Petri et Christi [sic].”

“Imnus angelicus,” i.e. “Gloria in excelsis.” Begun in the original hand, continued by Moelcaich on an inserted slip. This comes after the conclusion of the “Missa Romensis cottidiana” in the Bobbio book and is preceded by a prayer “post Alos,” which probably means the Trisagion (Hagios o Theos, k.t.1.), or the Greek of the Sanctus, as used elsewhere in the Mozarabic, one or other of which may have come at this point, as it did (according to St. Germanus of Paris) in the Gallican Rite. This in the last was followed by Kyrie eleison and “Benedictus,” the latter being called “Prophetia.” There are collects styled “post Prophetiam” in the Bobbio Missal at the beginnings of several Masses. After the Gloria in the Bobbio there is a collect “post Benedictionem,” which means after the “Benedicite.” This was said in the Gallican, as part is still said in the Mozarabic, after the Epistle. The collects “post Precem,” according to Mabillon, mean the same, but that seems improbable, and this name may possibly refer to the prayers after the Bidding Prayer Litany, which has been known as “Prex.”

Collect, “Deus qui diligentibus te,” given as a Sunday collect in the Gelasian. It is written by Moelcaich over erased matter (probably the original continuation of “Gloria in excelsis”), and another hand has prefixed a direction for its use. “in cotidianis diebus,” instead of that which follows.

Collect “Deus qui culpa offenderis.” In the original hand with inserted heading already mentioned, and “haec oratio prima Petri.” It follows the St. Peter collect in the Bobbio Ordinary.

“Hic augmentum.” Inserted by Moelcaich. This, whatever it may mean, is mentioned in the Irish tract as “tormach” (increase, expansion) coming before the “Lesson of the Apostle.” Later, at the Offertory, one finds “secudna pars augmenti hic super oblata.” Probably it means additional proper collects. St. Columbanus uses the word, in the sense of “addition,” with reference to the petitions added to the psalms at the day hours, “cum versiculorum augmento intervenientium.”

The Epistle. In the Stowe daily Mass, I Cor., xi, 26–52. On certain days the Bobbio had a lesson from the Old Testament or Apocalypse before the Epistle.

The Gradual. The tract calls it “salm digrad.” If everything between the Epistle and Gospel may be included under that name, the construction is (a) Prayer, “Deus qui nos regendo conservas,” added, but not by Moelcaich. Found in the later Gelasian manuscripts. (b) Prayer, “Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui populum tuum.” An Easter collect in the Bobbio Missal, given also by Gerbert as Ambrosian. (c) Psalm civ, vv. 4, 1–3, 4. (d) Prayer, “Grata sint tibi Domine.” The secreta of an Advent Mass in the Gelasian. (e) Alleluia. Ps. cxvii, 14. (f) Prayer, “Sacrificiis praesentibus, Domine.” The “secreta of another Advent Mass in the Gelasian. (g) “Deprecatio Sancti Martini pro populo,” (The title added by Moelcaich.) This is a Bidding Prayer Litany or Prex resembling very closely the Great Synapte of the Greek Rite and the litany used on the first four Sundays of Lent instead of “Gloria in excelsis” in the Ambrosian. (h) Prayer, “Sacrificium tibi, Domine.” The secreta of an other Advent Mass in the Gelasian. Perhaps it is here an “Oratio post Precem” of the Gallican type. (i) Prayer, “Ante oculos tuos, Domine.” It occurs in the same place in the Mass published by M. Flaccus Illyricus (Martène, I, 182). (k) Lethdirech sund [a half uncovering (of the chalice and paten) here]. This is referred to in the tract as indinochtad corrici leth inna oblae agus incailich (the uncovering as far as half the oblation and chalice), and is associated there with the singing of the Gospel and Allóir. Earlier it is mentioned as following the Gradual. (1) Psalm cxl, 2, sung thrice. (m) “Hic elivatur lintiamen calicis.” Dr. Legg (Ecclesiological Essays, p. 133) mentions that this lifting of the veil was the practice in England just before the Reformation, and in the Dioceses of Coutances and St.-Pol-de-Leon much later. (n) Prayer, “Veni Domine sanctificator.” Nearly the {“Veni sanctificator” of the present Roman Offertory.

[Of these (a) to (h) are in the original hand, part of (i) is inserted by Moelcaich, possibly over erasures, the rest of (i) and (k) to (n) are written by Moelcaich on added leaves. The psalm verses are only indicated by their beginnings and endings. It may be that the prayers were said, and the ceremonies with the chalice veil were gone through by the priest while the congregation sang the psalms and Alleluia. Nothing of all this is in the Bobbio. Possibly, judging from the collect “Post Benedictionem,” which is the collect which follows the “Benedictus es” (Dan., iii) on ember Saturdays in the Roman Missal, either the “Benedicite” or this “Benedictus” came between the Epistle and Gospel, as in the Gallican of St. Germain’s description.]

The Gospel. In the Stowe Mass, St. John vi, 51–57. This begins in Moelcaich’s hand on an inserted sheet and ends in the original hand. The tracts say that the Gospel was followed by the “Alloir,” which Dr. Stokes translates “Alleluia,” but Mr. Macgregor takes to mean “Blessing” and compares with the “Per evangelica dicta,” etc., of the Roman Rite.

“Oratio Gregorii super evangelium.” On an inserted slip in Moelcaich’s hand. In the Gregorian Sacramentary on the second Saturday and third Sunday of Lent, but not in connection with the Gospel.

The Creed. In the original hand, with the “Filioque” inserted between the lines, possibly by Moelcaich.

The Offertory. The order in the Stowe Missal is (a) Landirech sund (a full uncovering here). In Moelcaich’s hand. (b) “Ostende nobis, Domine, misericordiam,” etc. thrice. (c) “Oblata, Domine, munera sanctifica, nosque a peccatorum nostrorum maculis emunda.” This is in the Bobbio Missal (where it is called “post nomina”) and in the Gelasian and Gregorian. It is the secreta of the third Mass of Christmas Day in the present Roman Missal. According to the tract, the chalice was elevated while this was sung, after the full uncovering. The Leabhar Breac says that it was elevated “quando cantitur Imola Deo sacrificum laudis.” (d) Prayer, “Hostias quaesumus, Dominie.” This occurs in one set of “Orationes et preces divinae” in the Leonine Sacramentary. It is written here by Moelcaich over an erasure which begins with “G,” probably, as Mr. Warner conjectures, the prayer “Grata sit tibi,” which follows “Oblata, Domine” in the Bobbio Missal. In Moelcaich’s correction this in an amplified form occurs later. (e) Prayer, “Has oblationes et sincera labamina.” In Moelcaich’s hand. This prayer, which includes an intercession “pro animabus carorum nostrorum N. et cararum nostrarum quorum nomina recitamus,” is evidently a relic of the former reading of the dyptychs at this point, as in the Hispano-Gallican liturgies. It and the next prayer in its Stowe form, as Mr. Warren points out, resemble Gallican or Mozarabic “Orationes post nomina.” (f) “Secunda pars augmenti hic super oblata.” Probably refers to additional proper prayers, analogous to the Roman secreta (see 7, supra). (g) Prayer, “Grata sit tibi haec oblatio.” An expanded form of the prayer which followed “Oblata” in the original writing. A long passage referring to the diptychs is inserted. Most of this prayer is on the first page of an inserted quire of four leaves in Moelcaich’s hand. In the Bobbio, only “Oblata” and “Grata sit tibi” are given at the Offertory, one being called “Post nomina,’ the other “Ad Pacem.” Perhaps the Pax came here in the seventh century, as in the Gallican and Mozarabic.

The “Sursum Corda,” not preceded by “Dominus vobiscum.”

The Preface. Unlike the Bobbio daily Preface, which, like that of the Roman Missal, goes straight from “per Christum Dominum nostrum” to “Per quem,” this inserts a long passage, reminding one, at the beginning and near the end, of the Trinity and Sunday Preface of the Roman Missal, but otherwise being peculiar to itself. At the end of this passage is a direction in Irish to the effect that here the dignum of the addition (dignum in tormaig), i.e. the Proper Preface, comes in, if it ends with “Per quem.” After the “Per quem” clause there is a similar direction if the “addition ends with “Sanctus.”

The Sanctus, with a Post-Sanctus, resembling somewhat that in the Mozarabic Missal for Christmas Day, and that for Christmas Eve in the “Missale Gothicum.” There is a Post-Sanctus also in the first of the three Masses given in the Stowe. It is followed by “Qui pridie,” as though the Gelasian Canon were not used in that case.

“Canon dominicus papae Gilasi.” This is the Gelasian Canon (as given in Mr. H.A. Wilson’s edition) with certain variations, the most noticeable of which are: (a) “Te igitur” adds, after “papa nostro,” “episcopo sedis apostolicae,” and after “fidei cultoribus,” “et abbate nostro n. episcopl.” Sedis apostolicae” is added also in the Bobbio. (b) A direction follows, “Hic recitantur nomina vivorum.” (c) “Mement etiam domine,” contains a long list of intercessions for various classes of persons. This is also found in Carlsruhe Fragment B, but not in the Bobbio. (d) “Communicantes.” Variants for Christmas, Circumcision (called Kalendis), “Stellae” (i.e. Epiphany-cf. Welsh, Dydd Gwyl Ystwyll; Cornish, Degl Stul; and “in stilla domini” in the St Cuthbert Gospels. The actual variant here is natalis calicis, i.e. Maundy Thursday, the end of one and the beginning of the other have been dropped out in copying), Easter, Clausula pasca (i.e. Low Sunday), Ascension, and Pentecost. The inserted quire ends with the second of these, and the others are on a whole palimpsest page and part of another. The original hand, now partly erased, begins with part of the first clause of the Canon, “tuum dominum nostrum supplices te rogamus,” and contained all but the first line of the “Te igitur” and “Memento” clauses, without the long intercessory passage, the “nomina vivorum” direction, or the variants. (e) the original hand begins, “Et memoriam venerantes,” continuing as in the present Roman Canon without variation until the next clause. The Bobbio Canon includes Sts Hilary, Martin, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory, Jerome, and Benedict. (f) “Hanc igitur oblationem” contains an interpolation referring to a church “quam famulus tuus . . . aedificavit,” and praying that the founder may be converted from idols. There are many variables of the ‘Hanc igitur” in the Gelasian. In the daily Mass the Bobbio inserts “quam tibi offerimus in honorem nominis tui Deus” after “cunctae familiae tuae,” but otherwise is the ordinary Gelasian and Gregorian. (g) In “Quam oblationem” and “Qui pridie” there are only a few variations, egit for agens, acepit [calicem] for accipiens (as also in the Bobbio book), and “calix sancti sanguinis mei” (sancti is erased in the Bobbio), until the end, when Moelaich has added the Ambrosian phrase “passionem meam predicabitis, resurrectionem meam adnuntiabitis, adventum meum sperabitis, donec iterum veniam ad vos de coelis.” Similar endings occur also in the Liturgies of St. Mark and St. James and in several Syrian liturgies. The tracts direct the priest to bow thrice at “accipit Jesus panem” and after offering the chalice to God to chant “Miserere mei Deus” (Leabhar Breac) and the people to kneel in silence during this, the “perilous prayer.” Then the priest takes three steps backwards and forwards. (h) “Unde et memores” has a few evident mistakes, and is Gelasianin adding sumus after memores. (i) “Supplices te rogamus” adds et petimus and omits caelesti. (k) “Memento etiam Domine et eorum nomina qui nos praecessereunt com signo fidei et dormiunt in somno pacis.” This clause, omitted in the Gelasian, agrees with the Bobbio. In the latter the words “commemoratio defunctorum” follow. In the Stowe there is an intercessory interpolation with a long list of names of Old Testament saints, Apostles, and others, many of whom are Irish. The list concludes with the phrase, used also in the Mozarabic, “et omnium pausantium.” Moelcaich’s addition to the “Praeparatio” Litany is wrongly inserted before these names. (1) “Nobis quoque” differs from the Gelasian in the order of the names of the female saints, agreeing with the Bobbio, except that it does not add Eugenia. (m) After “Per quem haec omnia” Moelcaich has added “ter canitur” and an Irish direction to elevate the principal Host over the chalice and to dip half of It therein. Then follows in the original hand., “Fiat Domine misericordia tua,” etc. (Ps. xxxii, 22), to which “ter cantitur” probably refers.

The Fraction. Moelcaich adds an Irish direction, “It is here that the Bread is broken.” The original hand has “Cogno[v]erunt Dominum in fractione panis. Panis quem frangimus corpus est D. N. J. C. Calix quem benedicimus sanguis est D. N. J. C. in remissionem peccatorum nostrorum,” interspersed with six Alleluias. Then over an erasure, Moelcaich inserts “Fiat Domine misericordia, etc. Cognoverunt Dominum Alleluia,” and a prayer or confession of faith, “Credimus, Domine, credimus in hac confractione.” This responsory answers to the Ambrosian Confractorium and the Mozarabic Antiphona ad Confractionem panis. “Fiat misericordia,” etc., is the actual Lenten Mozarabic antiphon. The prayer “Credimus,” etc., has a slight likeness to the recitation of the Creed at this point in the Mozarabic. The tract directs an elaborate fraction, varying according to the day, and resembling that of the Mozarabic Rite and the arrangement (before Consecration) in the Eastern Office of the Prothesis, and like these having mystical meanings. The common division is into five, for ordinary days; for saints and virgins, seven; for martyrs, eight; for “the oblation of Sunday as a figure of the nine households of heaven and nine grades of the Church,” nine; for the Apostles, eleven; on the circumcision and Maundy Thursday twelve; on Low Sunday (minchasc) and Ascension, thirteen; and on Easter, Christmas, and Whitsunday, the sum of all the preceding, sixty-five. Directions are given to arrange the particles in the form of a cross within a circle, and different parts are apportioned to different classes of people. The Leabhar Breac omits all this and only speaks (as does the Stowe tract earlier) of a fraction in two halves, a reuniting and a commixture, the last of which in the Stowe Canon comes after the Pater Noster. There is nothing about any fraction or commixture in the Bobbio, which, like the Gelasian, goes on from the “Per quem haec omnia” clause to the introduction of the Pater Noster. In the Ambrosian Rite both the fraction and Commixture occur at this point, instead of after the Pater Noster, as in the Roman. [In the St. Gall fragment there are three collects (found in the Gelasian, Leonine, and Gregorian books), and a “Collectio ante Orationem Dominicam,” which ends with the same introduction to the Pater Noster as in Stowe and Bobbio. These are all that come between the Preface and Pater Noster.] the rest onward to the end of the Communion is in Moelcaich’s hand.

The Pater Noster, preceded by the introduction: “Divino magisterio edocti [instead of the Roman “Praecptis salutaribus moniti”] et divina institutione formati audemus dicere.” This is the same in the Bobbio and the St. Gall fragment. There is nothing to show that this and the Embolism which follows were variable, as in the Gallican (cf. Missale Gothicum and others) and the present Mozarabic. The Embolism in the Stowe is nearly exactly the Gelasian, except that it omits the name of Our Lady and has “Patricio” for “Andrea.” The Bobbio Embolism does not omit Our Lady, but has neither St. Andrew nor St. Patrick. The Pater Noster in the Books of Deer, Dimma, and Mulling has a different introduction and Embollism and in the Communion of the Sick in the Stowe there is yet another.

The Pax. “Pax et caritas D. N. J. C. et communicatio sanctorum omnium sit semper nobiscum. Et cum spiritu tuo.” This is in the St. Gall fragment, in the same place. Prayer, “Pacem mandasti, pacem dedisti, etc.

The Commixture. “Commixtio corporis et sanguinis D.N.J.C. sit nobis salus in vitam perpetuam.” These words are not in the Bobbio or the St. Gall fragment, but in the latter the commixture is ordered to be made here (mittit sacerdos sancta in calicem), and then the Pax to be given. In St. Germanus’s description a form very like the Pax formula of the Stowe was said here by a priest, instead of a longer (and variable) benediction by a bishop. These were not in any way associated with the Pax, which in the Gallican, as now in the Mozarabic, came just before “Sursum corda.” The two ideas are mixed up here, as in the Roman and Ambrosian.

The Communion. “Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollis [sic] pecata mundi.” These words are not in the Bobbio or the St. Gall. They are nearly the words said before the communion of the people in the Roman Rite of today. In the St. Gall the rubric directs the Communion of the people after the Pax. Probably these words had the same association in the Stowe as at present. Then follows in the Stowe, “Pacem meam do vobis, Pacem relinquo vobis [John, xiv, 27]. Pax multa diligentibus legem tuam Domine, Et non est in illis scandalum. Regem coeli cum pace, Plenum odorem vitae, Novum carmen cantate, Omnes sancti venite. Venite comedite panem meorum, Et bibite vinum quod miscui vobis. Dominus regit me” [Ps. xxii, 1], with Alleluia after each clause. (The St. Gall has only the quotation from St. John, xiv, 27, before Ps. xxii, but “Venite comedite” comes later. In the Bangor Antiphoner is a hymn of eleven four-lined stanzas, “Sancti venite, Christi corpus sumite,” entitled “Ymnus quando comonicarent sacerdotes.”) Then follow in the Stowe, the St. Gall, and in the Communion of the Sick in the Stowe, and in the Books of Deer, Dimma, and Mulling, a number of communion antiphons. The Bangor Antiphoner also gives a set. No two sets are alike, but some antiphons are common to nearly all. There is a resemblance to the Communion responsory, called “Ad accedentes,” of the Mozarabic Rite, and similar forms are found in Eastern liturgies, sometimes with the same words. Possibly the Tricanum of St. Germanus was something of the same sort. At the end of these in the Stowe is the colophon “Moelcaich scripsit,” with which Moelcaich’s corrections and additions to the Mass end.

The Post Communion, “Quos coelisti dono stasti.” This is a Sunday post-communion in the Gelasian, for the Sixth Sunday after Pentecost in the Gregorian and for the Sixth Sunday after Trinity in the Sarum. It is given in the daily Mass in the Bobbio, with the title “Post communionem,” and in the St. Gall. There are post-communions to the three Masses which follow later. Two are Gelasian, and the third is a form of a Gallican “Praefatio” or Bidding Prayer.

“Consummatio missae.” This is the title in the Bobbio to the prayer, “Gratias tibi agimus. . . . .. . . . qui nos corporis et sanguinis Christi filii tui communione satiasti,” which ends the Mass there, in the Stowe and in the St. Gall. It seems to be compounded of two prayers in the Leonine (Jul. xxiv, and Sept. iii.) In the Gallican books it is a variable prayer. The dismissal formula in the Stowe is “Missa acta est in pace.”

The non-Roman elements in the Stowe Missal are: (1) The Bidding Litany between the Epistle and Gospel, which, however, came after the Gospel in the Gallican. (2) The Post-Sanctus. (3) the Responsory of the Fraction. (4) The position of the Fraction before the Pater Noster. (5) the elaborate Fraction. (6) the Communion Antiphons, and Responsory. In the “missa apostolorum et martirum et sanctorum et sanctarum virginum,” in the Stowe, the Preface and Sanctus are followed by a Post-Sanctus of regular Hispano-Gallican form, “Vere sanctus, vere benedictus”“ etc., which modulates directly into the “Qui pridie”“ with no place for the intervention of “Te igitur”“and the rest of the first part of the Gelasian Canon. This may represent an Irish Mass as it was before the Gelasian interpolation. In the other two Masses this is not shown. In the Bobbio the Masses throughout the year seem to be Gallican in arrangement up to the Preface, and Gelasian Roman afterwards. They contain at their fullest, besides Epistle, Gospel, and sometimes a lesson from the Old Testament or the Apocalypse (the Prophetia of the Ambrosian Rite), the following variables: (1) Collects, sometimes called “Post Prophetiam,” sometimes not named. (2) bidding Prayer, sometimes called by its Gallican name, “Praefatio.” This is followed by one or more collects. (3) Collect “post nomina.” (4) Collect “Ad Pacem.” (5) Sometimes “secreta,” but whenever this title is used the Mass is wholly Roman and has no “Praefatio,” “Post nomina,” nor “Ad Pacem,” but only one collect preceding it. (6) “Contestatio,” in one case called “immolatio missae.” This is the Praefatio in the Roman sense. Here the Mass ends, with apparently no variable post-communion, though these are given in the three Masses in the Stowe. The Masses are: three for Advent; Christmas Eve and Day; St. Stephen; Holy Innocents; Sts. James and John; Circumcision; Epiphany; St. Peter’s Chair; St. Mary; the Assumption (this and St. Peter’s Chair are given in the Martyrology of Oengus on 18 Jan., evidently its place here); five for Lent; “In symboli traditione”; Maundy Thursday; Easter Eve and Day; two Paschal Masses; Invention of the Cross; Litany days; Ascension; Pentecost (called “in Quinquaginsimo”); St. John Baptist; “in S. Johannis passione”; Sts. Peter and Paul; St. Sigismund; Martyrs; one Martyr; one Confessor; St. Martin; one Virgin; for the Sick; Dedication; St. Michael; for travellers; for the priest himself; “Missa omnimoda”; four votive masses; for the Living and the Dead; “in domo cujuslibet”; seven Sunday Masses; for the king; two daily Masses; for a dead priest; for the Dead—sixty-one in all. The Mass “in symboli traditione” includes the traditio and expositio symboli, that for Maundy Thursday is followed by the Good Friday Lectio Passionis, and the Easter Eve Mass is preceded by preces and intercessory orationes similar to those now used on Good Friday, by the “benedictio cerei” (for which a hymn and a prayer occur in the Bangor Antiphoner), here only represented by “Exultet,” and by the order of Baptism.

V. THE BAPTISMAL SERVICE

There are two Celtic orders of baptism extant: one in the seventh-century Bobbio Missal and one in the ninth-century part of the Stowe Missal. They differ considerably from one another in the order of the ceremonies, though they have a good deal of their actual wording in common. The Stowe is the longest of any early form, and on the whole has most in common with the Gelasian and Gregorian. In some of its details it has the appearance of a rather unskilful combination of two orders, for the Exorcism, the Renunciation, and the Confession of Faith come twice over, and the long Blessing of the Font and Baptismal Water is a combination of the Gelasian and Gregorian forms. The actual formula of baptism is not given in the Stowe, but in the Bobbio it reads: “Baptizo te in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unam habentem [sic] substantiam ut habeas vitam aeternam partem cum sanctis.” This form resembles those in the “Missale Gothicum,” the “Vetus Gallicanum,” and the eleventh-century Mozarabic “Liber Ordinum,” in adding “ut habeas vitam aeternam,” though all differ in other additions. Both the Stowe and the Bobbio have the Gallican washing of the feet after Baptism, with words very similar to those in the “Gothicum” and “Vetus Gallicanum.”

Bobbio form:

“Ad Christianum faciendum.” (a) First Exorcism. (b) Signum Crucis. (c) Insufflation.

Blessing of Font. (a) Exorcism of water. (b) Two collects. (c) “Sursum Corda” and Preface. (d) Chrismation at Font.

Second Exorcism: “Exorcidio te spiritus imunde.”

“Ephpheta.” The form is “Effeta, effecta est hostia in odorem suavitatis.” Cf., later, the Stowe form.

Unction with oil of catechumens on nose, ears, and breast. The form is “Ungo te oleo sanctificato sicut unxit Samuel David in regem et prophetam.”

Renunciation. The three renunciations of the Stowe (and general Roman) form, combined under one answer.

Confession of Faith, with full Creed.

Baptism.

Chrismation, with which is said the form “Deus D. N. J. C. qui te regeneravit,” etc.

Vesting with white robe.

Washing the Feet.

“Post Baptism,” two collects.

Stowe form:

Exorcism and Signum Crucis. Three prayers. The first is in Moelcaich’s hand and includes the signing, the second occurs also in the Bangor Antiphoner as “Collectio super hominem qui habet diabolum,” and the third “Deus qui ad salutem” is repeated before the Blessing of the Font.

Consecratio salis, with an exorcism from the Gelasian.

Renunciation. Three separate answers.

Confession of Faith. The Creed in its shortest possible form, a simple profession of faith in each Person of the Trinity.

Insufflation, without words.

First Unction on breast and back with oil and chrism, saying, “Ungo te oleo sanctificatio in nomine,” etc.

Second Renunciation, in the same words as before.

Four prayers of exorcism, two of which are Gelasian and two Gregorian.

Irish Rubric. “It is here that salt is put into the mouth of the child.”

“Ephpheta.” The form is: “Effeta quot est apertio effeta est hostia in honorem [sic] suavitatis in nomine” etc. The Gelasian and Gregorian (like the modern Roman” have, “Effeta quod est adaperire in odorem suavitatis, tu autem effugare Diabole, appropinquabit enim judicium Dei.” The play upon the words effeta and effecta is peculiar to the Bobbio and Stowe. In other books “Ephpheta” is not associated with the giving of the salt, as it appears to be here, but with the touching of the nose and ears with spittle.

Prayer, “Domine sancte Pater omnipotens aeterne Deus, qui es et qui eras et qui venturus es.” This occurs in the Gelasian as “Ad catechumenum ex Pagano faciendum,” and is said in the present Roman Baptism of Adults before the giving of the salt in the case of converts from Paganism.

Prayer, “Deus qui ad salutem humani generis.” This, which forms part of the “Benedictio Aquae” in the Gelasian, Gregorian, and modern Roman, is repeated here for the second time, having been said already with the first exorcism.

Prayer, “Exaudi nos Domine. . . . . . et mittere dignare.” The prayer used at the “Asperges” in the modern Roman Rite.

The Second Unction. “Huc usque catechumenus. Incipit oleari oleo et crismate in pectus et item scapulas antequam baptizaretur.”

The Litany. “Circa fontem canitur.” The text is not given. In the Ambrosian rite the Litany is said after the Baptism, and in the modern Roman on Easter Eve after the Blessing of the Font.

Two psalms (or rather verses of two psalms): “Sitvit anima mea usque vivum, quemadmodum. Vox Domini super aquas multas. Adferte.” This is an inverted way of expressing Ps. xli, 2 and Ps. xxviii, 3. The whole of Ps. xli is said in the Ambrosian, and Ps. xxviii in the Roman (Baptism of Adults).

The Blessing of the Font. The first part consists of exorcisms which, though they occur in various parts of the existing Gelasian books, are always connected with the Blessings of the Font, or of water therein. The last part consists, with a few verbal variations, of the prayer “Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, adesto magnae pietatis tuae mysteriis,” and the Preface and prayers that follow in the Gelasian, Gregorian, and modern Roman Easter Eve ceremonies, down to the pouring of chrism into the Font. The direction which follows orders the chrism to be poured “in modum crucis”-”et quique voluerit implet vasculum aqua benedictionis ad domos consecrandas et populus praesens aspergitur aqua benedicta.”

The Confession of Faith repeated, but with a slightly amplified form.

The Baptism. A triple immersion or aspersion is ordered, but no formula is given.

The Chrismation. The anointing is in cerebrum in fronte. The prayer is “Deus omnipotens Pater D.N.J.C. qui te regeneravit,” etc. This is found in the Gelasian, Gregorian, modern Roman and Ambrosian, and in the Bobbio and “Vetus Gallicanum.” The formula is “Ungo te de oleo et de Chrismate salutis et sanctificationis in nomine. . . . nunc et per omnia in saecula saeculorum,” and “operare creatura olei operare in nomine,” etc.

The Vesting with the White Robe by the deacon, with the usual words (said by the priest), “Accipe vestem candidam,” etc.

The Signing of the Hands. The priest says, “Aperiatur manus pueri,” and “Signum crucis Christi accipe in manum tuam dexteram et conservet te in vitam aeternam.” Mr. Warren finds an instance of this ceremony in the eleventh-century Jumièges Ritual, but otherwise it does not seem to be known.

The Washing of the Feet. This ceremony is peculiarly Gallican and Celtic, and is not found in Roman books. An order was made in Spain by the Council of Elvira, in 305, that it should be performed by clerks, not by priests. The Stowe form begins with verses from the Psalms, “Lucerna pedibus” and others, with Alleluias. Then follow a formula and a prayer, both referring to Christ washing the feet of His Disciples.

The Communion. “Corpus et sanguinis [sic] D.N.J.C. sit tibi in vitam aeternam, followed by thanksgivings for both Communion and Baptism. At the end are a Blessing of Water (found also in the Gregorian) and an Exorcism (found also in Gallican and Ambrosian books, and in a slightly varied form, in the eleventh-century Mozarabic “Liber Ordinum”). These, if they belong to the Baptism, are clearly out of place, rendered unnecessary, as Mr. Warren suggests, by the introduction of the larger Roman “Benedictio Fontis.” It is possible, however, that they belong to the Visitation of the Sick, which follows immediately without any break in the manuscript. That service in the Book of Mulling has a “benedictio Aquae” at the beginning.

VI. THE VISITATION, UNCTION, AND COMMUNION OF THE SICK

There are four extant specimens of these services: in the Stowe Missal and the Books of Dimma, Mulling and Deer. The Stowe and Dimma are the longest and most complete, and agree very closely. The Mulling differs in the preliminary bidding prayers and in adding at the beginning a “Benedictio aquae” and “Benedictio hominis,” the latter of which comes, in the Stowe and Dimma, at the end, though in a different form, and it agrees with the Dimma in inserting a recitation of the Creed, which is not in the Stowe. The Deer form has only the communion, which agrees substantially with the other three. The order in the Stowe is:

“Benedictio Aquae.” “Benedic, Domine, hanc creaturam aquae” (Gregorian) and “Exorcizo te spiritus immunde” (found in the Bobbio Baptismal Order before the “Ephpheta” and in an Ambrisian Order quoted by Martène, but in both as an “exorcismus hominis”). These two are considered by Warren to belong to the Baptismal Order, but cf. the position of the “Benedictio super aquam” and “Benedictio hominis” in the Book of Mulling.

Praefatio, in the Gallican sense, “Oremus fratres, Dominum Deum nostrum pro fratre nostro,” followed by six collects, all but one of which, as well as the Praefatio are in the Dimma.

Two Gospels. Matt., xxii, 23, 29–33, and xxiv, 29–31. The first is in the Dimma, where there is also an Epistle, I Cor., xv, 19–22.

The Unction. In the Dimma this is preceded by a declaration of faith in the Trinity, in eternal life, and in the Resurrection. In the Mulling the Credo follows the Unction. The form of the Unction here is “ungo te de oleo sanctificato ut salveris in nomine. . . . . . in saecula,” etc. The Dimma is “Ungo te de oleo sanctificato in nomine Trinitatis ut salveris in saecula saeculorum,” and the Mulling “Ungo te de oleo sanctificationis in nomine Dei Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti ut salveris in nomine Sancti Trinitatis.” The forms in the old Ambrosian Rituals and in the pre-Tridentine Rite of the Venetian Patriarchate began with “Ungo te oleo sanctificato.” A very similar form is given by Martene from a twelfth-century Monte Cassino Breviary (Vol. IV, 241), and another is in the tenth-century Asti Ritual described by Gastoue (Rassegna Gregoriana, 1903). The Roman and modern Ambrosian forms begin with “Per istam unctionem.” Nothing is said in the Celtic books about the parts of the body to be anointed.

The “Pater Noster,” with introduction, “Concede Domine nobis famulis tuis,” and Embolism “Libera nos Domine.” The Dimma has the same introduction, but after the Pater Noster the Infirmus is directed to recite “Agnosce, Domine, verba quae precepisti.” As another (or it may be as an alternative) introduction to a Pater Noster. The Mulling and Deer have an introduction, “Creator naturarum omnium.” In each case the Pater Noster and its accompaniments are preliminary to the Communion.

Three prayers for the sick man, referring to his Communion. These are not in the Dimma, Mulling, or Deer. One, “Domine sancte Pater te fideliter,” is in the present Roman Ritual.

The Pax. “Pax et caritas D.N.J.C.,” etc. as in the Mass.

The Communion. The words of administration as given in the Stowe are “Corpus et sanguis D.N.J.C. fili Dei vivi altissimi, et reliqua.” The Dimma omits altissimi and gives the ending in full, “conservat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. The Mulling has “Corpus cum sanguine D. N. J. C. sanitas sit tibi in vitam aeternam.” The Deer has the same, except that it ends “in vitam perpetuam et salutem.” Then follow Communion anthems similar to those in the Mass. These differ in order and selection in the Stowe Mass, the Stowe, Dimma, Mulling, and Deer Communions of the Sick, and in the Bangor Antiphoner, though several are common to them all.

The Thanksgiving. “Deus tibi gratias agimus.” This is found in the Dimma, Mulling, and Deer forms, where it ends the service. In the Dimma it is preceded by the Blessing.

The Blessing, “Benedicat tibi Dominus et custodiat te,” followed by the signing of the Cross and “Pax tibi in vitam aeternam.”

VII. THE CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES

In the Leabhar Breac there is a tract describing the consecration of a church. The ceremony is divided into five parts, the consecration of the floor, and of the altar with its furniture, the consecration out of doors, the aspersion inside, and the aspersion outside. The consecration of the floor includes the writing of two alphabets thereon. There are directed to be seven crosses cut on the altar, and nothing is said about relics. On the whole the service appears to be of the same type as the Roman, though differing in details, and if the order of the component parts as given in the tract may be taken as correct, in order also. The tract, edited with a translation by the Rev. T. Olden, D.D., has been printed by the St. Paul’s Ecclesiological Society (Vol. IV., 1900).

VIII. HYMNS

There are many native Irish hymns both in Latin and Irish. Of these, most no doubt were not intended for liturgical use, but rather for private reading, but a certain number were undoubtedly used in the services of the Celtic Church. In the “Liber Hymnorum” there are hymns by Patrick, Columba, Gildas, Sechnall, Ultan, Cummaim of Clonfert, Muging, Coleman mac UiClussaigh, Colman Mac Murchan, Cuchuimne, Oengus, Fiach, Broccan, Sanctam, Scandalan Mor, Mael-Isu ua Brolchain, and Ninine, besides a few by non-Irish poets. The Bangor Antiphoner adds the names of Comgall and Camelac to the list. Of the twelve hymns given in the latter, eight are not found elsewhere, and ten are certainly intended for liturgical use.

MARTENE, De Antiquis Ecclesiae ritibus” (Bassano, 1788); MURATORI, “Liturgia Romana vetus” (Venice, 1748); MABILLON, “Musaeum Italicum” (Paris, 1637); ID., “De Liturgia Gallicana” (Paris, 1685); GERBERT, “Monumenta veteris Liturgiae Allemaniae” (St. Blaise, 1777); NEALE AND FORBES, “Ancient Liturgies of the Gallican Church” (Burntisland, 1855–67); FELTOE (ed.), “Sacramentarium Leonanum” (Cambridge, 1896); WILSON (ed.), “The Gelasian Sacramentary” (Oxford, 1894); Id., “Classified Index to the Leonine, Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries” (Cambridge, 1892); DELISLE, “Memoires sur d’anciens sacramentaires” (Paris, 1886); HADDAN AND STUBBS, “Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland” (Oxford, 1869–78); PROBST, “Die abendlandische Messe vom funften bis zum achten Jahrhundert” (Munster, 1896); DUCHESNE, “Les origines du culte chretien” (Paris, 1902; tr. London, 1904); WORDSWORTH, “The Ministry of Grace” (London, 1901); FRERE, “New History of the Book of Common Prayer” (London, 1878); G. Stokes, “Ireland and the Celtic Church (London, 1907); WARREN (ed.), “Bangor Antiphoner (1893–95); BERNARD AND ATKINSON (eds.), “Liber Hymnorum” (1898); WHITLEY STOKES (ed.), “Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee; WARNER, (ed.), “Stowe Missal,” pt. I-the last four works issued by Henry Bradshaw Society;—MACCARTHY, “On the Stowe Missal in Royal Irish Acad.” (Dublin, 1877–86); KUYPERS, “The Prayer Book of Aethelwald the Bishop [Book of Cerne]” (Cambridge, 1902); LAWLOR, “Chapters on the Book of Mulling (Edinburgh, 1897); MEYER, “Das Turiner Bruchstuck der altesten irischen Liturgie,” in “Nachrichten von der Konigl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen” (Gottingen, 1904); BANNISTER, “Some recently discovered fragments of Irish Sacramentaries,” in “Jour. Of Theol Stud.” For Oct., 1903; CAGIN, “Description of the Bobbio Missal,” in “Paleographic musicale” (Solesmes, 1896), V; BAUMER, “Das Stowe-Missale” in “Zeitschrift fur kathol. Theologie (July and Jan., 1893–94); “Leabhar Breac, The Speckled Book”-facsimile with introduction, etc., in R. I. Acad. (Dublin, 1876); MACGREGOR, “An Ancient Gaelic treatise on the Symbolism of the Eucharist,” in “Transactions of Aberdeen Ecclesiological Soc., No. XI, 1898); WARREN, “The Irish Missal belonging to Corpus Christi College, Oxford” (London, 1879); Id., “The Leofric Missal” (Oxford, 1883); FORBES, “Missale Drummondiense” (Burntisland, 1882); E. BISHOP, “Liturgical note in Kuypers’ Prayerbook of Aethelwald [Book of Cerne} (Cambridge, 1902); Id., “The Earliest Roman Mass Book” in “Dub. Rev.” for Oct., 1894; Id., “The Litany of Saints in the Stowe Missal”L, in “Journal of Theol. Studies” for Oct., 1905; Id., “Spanish Symptoms (in Gallican, Irish and Roman Service Books),” in same Journal for Jan., 1907); MERCATI, “More Spanish Symptoms” in same “Journal” for April, 1907; LEJAY, “Articles in Rev. d’hist. Et de litt. rel.” (1897), II, 91, 189; (1903), VIII, 556; (1904), IX, 556; FEROTIN, “Le Liber Ordinum en usage dans l’eglise wisigothique et mozarabe,” in CABROL, “Mon. Eccl. Lit.” (Paris, 1904), V; LEGG, “Ecclesiological Essays” (London, 1905); “Sti Columbani Regula,” in FLEMINGIUS, “Collectanea Sacra” (Louvain, 1667); REEVES, “On the Celi-De, commonly called Culdees,” in “R.I. Acad.” (Dublin), 18740; xxiv; BURY, “Life of St. Patrick,” (London, 1905); DOTTIN, “Notes bibliographiques sur l’ancienne litterature d’Irlande,” in ‘Rev. d’hist. Et de lit. rel.” (Paris, 1900), V, 161,—It should be added that there is also a considerable mass of quasi-historical literature on both sides, Anglican and Roman, from which a certain amount of information may be gleaned, but it requires to be used with great discrimination, owing to its controversial character.

HENRY JENNER

Cemetery

Cemetery.—.Name.—The word coemeterium or cimiterium (in Gr. koimeterion) may be said in early literature to be used exclusively of the burial places of Jews and Christians. A single doubtful example (Corp. Inscript. Lat., VIII, n. 7543), where it seems to be applied to a pagan sepulture, can safely be disregarded, and though the word, according to its etymology, means sleeping place (from koimasthai, to sleep), its occurrence in this literal sense is rare. Moreover, the phrase “their so-called cemeteries” (ta kaloumena koimeteria), used in an imperial edict of 259, shows that it was even then recognized as a distinctive name. The word occurs in Tertullian (De anima, c. li) and is probably older. Let us add that though what we now understand by a cemetery is a separate, park-like enclosure not being the “yard” of any church, the word was originally of much more general application. It was applied either to any single tomb or to a whole graveyard, and was the usual term employed to designate those subterranean burial places now commonly known as the catacombs.

Early History.—There can be little doubt that in the beginning of the preaching of Christianity the converts to the Gospel were content to be interred without distinction in the graves of their Jewish brethren (Acts, v, 6, viii, 2, and ix, 37). But it is also plain from the nature of things that this arrangement could not have been of long duration. To the Jew the dead body and all connected with it was an uncleanness. To the Christian it involved no contamination, but was full of the hope of immortality. (I Cor., xv, 43). The practice of separate interment must, therefore, have begun early both in Rome and in other places where there were large Christian colonies. It would seem that the earliest Christian burial places were family vaults (to use a rather misleading word) erected upon private property. But the desire to rest near those of their own faith who had passed away before must have been especially strong in Rome, where even artisans practising the same trade sought to be buried side by side with their fellow-craftsmen and formed associations for the purpose. Wealthy Christians accordingly enlarged their family burial places and admitted their poorer brethren to share them. “For himself, for his freedmen, and for charity” (sibi et libertis et misericordiæ) is an inscription found in a construction of this class. Partly owing to the nature of the soil, partly, no doubt, to the desire of imitating the burial places in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and in particular the sepulchre of Christ, the practice was largely followed of excavating a subterranean chamber or series of chambers in the recesses of which bodies could be laid and walled in with bricks or marble slabs. The need of interring a disproportionately large number of persons upon one small property probably led to the early development of a system of narrow galleries tunnelled through the tufa, with horizontal niches (loculi) scooped out in the walls on both sides. At the same time it would be a mistake to suppose that Christians throughout the Roman Empire were compelled to resort to great secrecy regarding their interments. On the contrary, the well-understood principle of law that a burial place was a locus religiosus and consequently inviolable seems at normal times to have guaranteed to the Christians a large measure of immunity from interference. The jurisdiction which the pagan College of Pontiffs possessed over all places of sepulture no doubt caused difficulties, especially at those epochs when active persecution broke out, but the general tendency of the Roman magistrates was to be tolerant in religious matters. Moreover it is probable that for many years after the Gospel was first preached in Rome the Christians were looked upon merely as a particular sect of Jews, and the Jews, as we may learn from Horace and other pre-Christian writers, had long held a recognized and assured position which excited no alarm.

Hence from Apostolic times down to the persecution of Domitian, the faithful were interred upon private burial allotments, situated like the pagan tombs along the border of the great roads and of course outside the walls of the city. Moreover, as Lanciani says, “these early tombs whether above or below ground, display a sense of perfect security and an absence of all fear or solicitude” (Lanciani, Pagan and Christian Rome, 309). The vestibule and crypt of the Flavians, members of Domitian’s own family, afford a conspicuous example of this. The ground, bordering on the Via Ardeatina, belonged to Flavia Domitilla, the niece of Domitian. Here a catacomb was excavated, a portion of which seems to have been set aside for the interment of the family. The entrance can plainly be seen from the road, and the vestibule and adjoining chambers still remain in which, according to Roman custom, anniversary feasts took place in honour of the dead. In this case the feasts would have been the agapæ, or love feasts of the Christians, probably preceded or followed by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; but the custom of honouring the third, ninth (afterwards seventh), thirtieth, and anniversary day of the decease seems to have been borrowed from the religious observances of Greece and Rome and to date from the earliest times. In contrast to these original private tombs the portion of the catacomb excavated for the use of the Christian community at large consisted of a vast network of galleries dug at more than one level. For a while, like many other underground Christian cemeteries, this catacomb seems to have been known by the name of the donor, Domitilla, but later it was called after the holy martyrs Nereus and Achilleus, who were subsequently buried there. Further, towards the close of the fourth century a basilica in honour of these two martyrs was erected upon the spot. Their tomb was near the entrance and consequently it was not disturbed, but the ground was dug away and the church built immediately over the tomb, much below the level of the surrounding soil. On the other hand, through devotion to these saints interments multiplied and numerous fresh galleries for the purpose were excavated in the immediate vicinity of the church. All this is typical of what took place in many other instances. The early burial places, which were certainly in private ownership and confined to isolated plots of ground (areæ), seem in the third century to have often become property held by the Christian community in common, other adjoining allotments being bought up and the whole area honeycombed with galleries at many different levels. We learn from the “Philosophumena” that Pope Zephyrinus appointed Callistus (c. 198) superintendent of the cemeteries. So again we have distinct record of the restoration of the cemeteries to the Christians in 259 after the Valerian persecution. (Euseb., Hist. Eccles., VII, xiii.) According to De Rossi the freedom which the Church at normal times enjoyed in their possession was due to the fact that the Christians banded themselves together to form a collegium funeraticium, or burial society, such associations, of which the members paid a certain annual contribution, being expressly recognized by law. (See Roma Sotterranea, I, 101 sq.) For this view there is very good evidence, and though objections have been raised by such authorities as Monseigneur Duchesne and Victor Schultze, the theory has by no means been abandoned by later scholars. (See Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l’eglise, I, 384; Marucchi, Eléments d’archéologie, I, 117–124.)

When martyrs were thus buried, crowds of their fellow-Christians desired to be buried near them; moreover, some sort of open space forming a small chamber or chapel was generally opened out where Mass could be celebrated upon or beside the tomb. Still, this was only an occasional use. The catacombs, owing to difficulties of light and ventilation, were not ordinarily used as places of Christian worship except at times of fierce persecution. After Constantine’s edict of toleration (312), when peace was restored to the Church, basilicas were sometimes built over portions of the catacombs, especially over the known burial place of some favourite martyrs. At the same time, during the fourth century the eagerness to be interred in these subterranean galleries gradually waned, though the zeal of Pope Damasus in honouring the tombs of the martyrs seems to have revived the fashion for a few years at a later date. After 410, when Rome was sacked by Alaric, no more burials took place in the Roman catacombs, but the earlier spread of Christianity is well illustrated by the excavations made. Any accurate estimate is of course impossible, but Michael de Rossi calculated that in the zone of territory lying within three miles of the walls, more than five hundred miles of subterranean galleries had been tunnelled and that the number of Christians buried therein must have exceeded 1,700,000. The use of open-air cemeteries in place of catacombs had probably begun in Rome before Constatine. Many have been identified in modern times (De Rossi, Roma Sotterranea, vol. III, bk. III), though it is not always easy to determine exactly the period at which they started. In other parts of the world it is quite certain that innumerable open-air Christian cemeteries were in existence long before the close of the period of persecutions. We may cite as characteristic the discoveries of Dr. W. M. Ramsay in Phrygia, where many Christian graves clearly belong to the second century, as also those of Northern Africa, of which we hear already in Tertullian, and in particular those of Salona in Dalmatia (second to sixth century; see Leclercq, Manuel d’ archéologie, I, 327–329). This last is particularly interesting because the surviving remains illustrate so clearly the extreme antiquity of the practice of interring the dead in the near neighbourhood of the oratories in which the Christians assembled to offer the Holy Sacrifice. It is probably to this custom that we may trace the origin of the lateral chapels which have become so notable a feature of all our greater churches No doubt the tendency to surround the church with graves was long kept in check by the Roman law forbidding the dead to be interred within the walls of cities; but this law at an early date began to be disregarded, and after the pontificate of John III (560–575) it would seem that burials at Rome generally took place within the walls.

As a rule the Christians, though their cemeteries were separate, accommodated themselves in things permissible to the burial usages of the peoples among whom they lived. Thus in Egypt the early Coptic Christians converted their dead into mummies with the use of asphalt and natron. Again, though catacombs existed far away from Rome in many places where the soil favoured such excavations, e.g. in Naples and Sicily, still, in certain tracts of country otherwise suitable, e.g. in Umbria, the early Christians abstained from this method of interment, apparently because it was not used by the pagan inhabitants (see N. Müller in Realencyklopadie f. prot. Theol., X, 817).

Burial in Churches.—The fact that the tombs of the martyrs were probably the earliest altars (cf. Apoc., vi, 9), together with the eager desire to be buried near God’s holy ones, gradually led up to the custom of permitting certain favoured individuals to be interred not only near but within the church. It may be said that the Roman emperors led the way. Constantine and Theodosius were buried under the portico of the church of the Apostles in Constantinople. At Rome, when the restrictions against burial within the city began to be set aside, the entrance of St. Peter’s became the usual place of interment for the popes and other distinguished persons. It was no doubt in imitation of this practice that King Ethelbert of Canterbury was persuaded by St. Augustine to dedicate a church to Sts. Peter and Paul outside the town, with the intent “that both his own body and the bodies of his episcopal successors and at the same time of the kings of Kent might be laid to rest there.” They were in point of fact buried in the vestibule. Probably a varying phase of the same tendency may be recognized in the practice of erecting little shelters or oratories, basilicæ, over certain favoured graves in the open. The Salic law prohibited outrages upon such basilicas under heavy penalties: “Si quis basilicam super hominem mortuum exspoliaverit 1200 denarios culpabilis iudicetur,” i.e. “If any one shall plunder a basilica erected over the dead he shall be fined 1200 denarii” (cf. Lindenschmidt, Handbuch d. deutsch. Alterthumskunde, I, 96). But interment within the church itself had been known from an early date in isolated cases. St. Ambrose allowed his brother Satyrus, although he was a layman, to be buried within the church beside the tomb of the martyr. As for himself, he wished to be buried under the altar of his own basilica. “Hunc ego locum (sc. sub altari) praedestinaveram mihi. Dignum est enim ut ibi requiescat sacerdos ubi offerre consuevit,” i.e. “This place (beneath the altar) I had chosen for myself. For it is fitting that where the priest has been wont to sacrifice, there should he rest (Migne, P. L., XVI, 1023). In the earlier periods, however, when we hear of burial in churches we may as a rule presume that the cemetery basilicas are meant (cf. De Rossi, Roma Sotterranea, III, 548 sq.), and for a long time the resistance made to the growing practice of burial in churches was very determined. Of the numerous conciliar decrees upon the subject that of Vaison in 442 may be taken as a specimen. “According to the tradition of our ancestors,” it says, “measures must be taken that on no account should anyone be buried within the churches, but only in the yard or in the vestibule or in the annexes [exedris]. But within the church itself and near the altar the dead must on no account be buried.” This decree with others of similar purport was afterwards incorporated in the canon law. As may be learned from St. Gregory of Tours it was frequently disregarded in the case of bishops and royal personages, but on the other hand we have record of many other bishops, abbots, and other distinguished men both in the sixth century and later who were buried juxta urbem, or in campis, or in communi coemeterio. St. Acca (q.v.) might be mentioned as an English example in point. None the less in the first half of the ninth century the serious abuses attendant upon the neglect of this prohibition were constantly complained of. The passage in the capitularies of Theodulfus (c. 790) is particularly interesting because it was afterwards translated into Anglo-Saxon (c. 1110) in the following form:

“It was an old custom in these lands often to bury departed men within the church and to convert into cemeteries [lictunum] the places that were hallowed to God’s worship and blessed for offering to Him. Now it is our will that henceforth no man be buried within a church unless it be some man of the priesthood [sacerdhades] or at least a layman of such piety that it is known that he by his meritorious deeds earned when living such a place for his dead body to rest in. It is not our intention however that the bodies which have been previously buried in the church should be cast out but that the graves which are seen therein be either dug deeper into the earth or else be levelled up and the church floor be evenly and decently laid so that no grave [nan byrgen] be any longer apparent. But if in any place there be so many graves that it is impossible to effect this, then let the place be left as a cemetery [Thonne læte man tha stowe to lictune] and the altar be taken from thence and set in a clean [i.e. new] place and a church be there raised where people may offer to God reverently and decently. (Thorpe, Eccles. Institutes and Laws, 472).

This decree plainly shows both that the law against burying within the churches had often been disregarded in the past and also that any attempt to enforce it rigidly was looked upon as impracticable. No one could determine the precise degree of piety which merited a relaxation, and in most countries those whose dignity, wealth, or benefactions enabled them to press their claims with vigour had little difficulty in securing this coveted privilege for themselves or for their friends. The English liturgist, John Beleth, seems to admit that any patronus ecclesiæ, i.e., the patron of a living, could claim to be buried in the church as a right, and his words are adopted by Durandus, though possibly without a full appreciation of their meaning. Still, such lay interments within the sacred building and especially in the chancel always stood in contradiction to the canon law, and some show of resistance was generally made. In particular, it was insisted on that tombs should not project above the pavement or should at least be confined to the side chapels. The ecclesiastical legislation of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries continued to recognize the right of the clergy to be buried within the sacred building, but it need hardly be remarked that the intervention of state legislation in almost all modern countries has deprived these decrees of much of their practical importance.

Medieval Cemeteries.—When the tribes of the North were first converted to Christianity an effort was generally made to restrain the converts from being buried in the barrows used by the pagans. This does not seem to have been the case to the same extent when the Gospel was preached to the Romanized Gauls. There, says Boulanger (Le mobilier funeraire gallo-romain et franc, 27), the pagan and the Christian Roman will often be seen resting side by side. “Glass with biblical subjects or pottery bearing Christian inscriptions may be found next door to a grave which contains the obol intended for Charon.” In the Frank and Saxon interments there is not usually this confusion of pagan and Christian. At the same time, the national burial custom, which required the warrior to be buried with his arms and the girl with her ornaments and the implements of her daily occupation, was long observed even by Christians. The temptation which this custom offered for the rifling of graves was viewed with much disfavour by the Church, and under Charlemagne an ecclesiastical council passed a decree which seems to have been effective in putting an end to this burial with accoutrements (Boulanger, op. cit., 41). Still Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, in 857, found it necessary to issue a whole series of instructions De sepulcris non violandis. In all these early Christian cemeteries the orientation of the tombs was carefully attended to. Each corpse was laid with its feet to the east, though it has been remarked as a curious fact that pagan Frankish sepultures also commonly exhibit the same peculiarity (Boulanger, op. cit., 32). With regard to England it may probably be assumed, though clear evidence is lacking, that separate Christian graveyards were formed almost from the beginning in all those places where the faithful were numerous. It would seem that even before a church was built it was the practice of our Saxon forefathers to set up a cross, which served as a rendezvous for the Christians of the district. An instance may be quoted from the almost contemporary life of St. Willibald, born in 699, who when he was three years old was consecrated to God at the foot of such a cross in a remote part of Hampshire. The suggestion has been recently made with much plausibility that round such a cross the Christian converts loved to be laid to rest, and that these primitive crosses marked a site upon which church and churchyard were established at a later time (see Baldwin Brown, Arts in Early England, I, 254–266). Certain it is that the churchyard cross was always a conspicuous feature of the consecrated enclosure and that the churchyard usually afforded sanctuary as secure as that of the church itself for those who were fleeing from justice or private vengeance. Numerous ecclesiastical ordinances enjoin that the churchyard was to be surrounded by a wall or other boundary sufficient to keep out straying cattle and to secure the area from profanation. As a specimen we may take the following ordinance of the Bishop of Lincoln in 1229: “Regarding the arrangements of a church-yard [coemeterium] let the ground be properly enclosed with a wall or a ditch, and let no part of it be taken up with buildings of any kind, unless during time of war. There should be a good and well-built cross erected in the church-yard to which the procession is made on Palm Sunday, unless custom prescribes that the procession should be made elsewhere” (Wilkins, Concilia, I, 623). This churchyard procession on Palm Sunday, in which, as early as the time of Lanfranc, the Blessed Sacrament was often carried in a portable shrine, as well as all the relics of the church, was a very imposing ceremony. Many descriptions of it have been left us, and traces still survive even in Protestant countries, where, as for example, in Wales, the country people to this day often visit the churchyard on Palm Sunday and scatter flowers on the graves (see Thurston, Lent and Holy Week, 213–230; The Month, April, 1896, 378). Less admirable was the use of the churchyard in medieval times as a sort of recreation ground or market-place. Numerous decrees were directed against abuses, but it was difficult to draw a clear line between what was legitimate and permissible and what was distinctly a profanation of the sacred precincts. The very fact that people congregated in the churchyard on the way to and from service on Sundays and holidays made it a convenient place of assembly. Down to modern times the day of the village feast or fair is often found to coincide with the sometimes forgotten original dedication of the church or with the festival of its patron saint. Moreover, there was a tendency to regard the church and its precincts as a sort of neutral ground or place of security for valuables. Hence ancient contracts often include a clause that such and such a sum of money is to be paid on a certain date in a particular church or churchyard. In any case it cannot be denied that the erection of stalls and booths for fairs in the churchyard persisted in spite of all prohibitions (Baldwin Brown, op. cit., 274–364).

A curious feature found in many churchyards from the twelfth to the fourteenth century, especially in France, is the so-called lanterne des morts, a stone erection sometimes twenty or thirty feet high, surmounted by a lantern and presenting a general resemblance to a small lighthouse. The lantern seems to have been lighted only on certain feasts or vigils and in particular on All Souls’ Day. An altar is commonly found at the foot of the column. Various theories have been suggested to explain these remarkable objects, but no one of them can be considered satisfactory. Besides the churchyard cross and the lanterne des morts, cemeteries, especially when not attached to the parish church, frequently contained a mortuary chapel similar to those with which modern usage is still familiar. Here, no doubt, Mass was offered for the souls of the departed, and the dead were on occasion deposited, when for some reason the service at the graveside was delayed. These mortuary chapels seem usually to have been dedicated to St. Michael, probably from the function attributed to him of escorting the dead to and from the judgment seat (cf. the Offertory in the requiem Mass: “Signifer sanctus Michael repraesentet eas in lucem sanctam.” In other graveyards a “lych-gate,” i.e., a roofed gateway to the cemetery, served to afford shelter to the coffin and mourners when waiting to proceed to the graveside. Provision was also generally made, and some such arrangement is recommended by the decrees of more modern times, for the bestowal of bones which might be dug up in making new graves. Most churchyards possessed something in the nature of a charnel house or ossuary, and in many parts of the world, where for various reasons space had to be economized, a principle was recognized that after a certain term of years graves might be emptied to make room for new occupants, the remains thus removed being consigned to the charnel house. This was and is particularly the case in regions where, owing to the unsuitable nature of the soil, e.g. in the City of Mexico, the dead are built into oven-like chambers of solid masonry. When these chambers are cleared at intervals to receive another occupant, it is not unusual to find here and there a body which instead of falling to dust has become naturally desiccated or mummified. Such gruesome specimens have not unfrequently been sold and without a particle of foundation exhibited as “walled up nuns” or “victims of the Inquisition.” (See The Month, Jan., 1894, pp. 14, 323, 574, and April, 1904, p. 334.) Among the Capuchns and some other orders in Southern Europe charnel houses are often constructed with the most fantastic elaboration, the bodies, dried to the consistency of parchment, being arranged around the chamber in niches and robed in their religious habits. Moreover, even here, secular persons, following medieval precedents, have been admitted in some cases to share the sepulture of the religious. The curious practices observed in many ancient cemeteries, for instance in the arcade known as the Charnier of the Cemetery of the Innocents at Paris, would afford much matter for discussion, but lie outside the limits of the present article. A very favourite decoration for such erections or for cemetery walls was the Dance of Death, otherwise known as the Danse Macabre. The frescoes of this character, however, seem none of them to be older than the fourteenth century.

Monastic Cemeteries.—From an early date every religious house possessed a cemetery of its own. An interesting discovery of such a graveyard belonging to Anglo-Saxon nuns of the eighth century was made a few years ago near Hull. It is possible that these monastic cemeteries in early missionary days often formed the nucleus of a churchyard intended for all the faithful. In any case it became the ardent desire of many pious persons to be laid to rest among the religious of monastic institutions, and they often sought to purchase the privilege by benefactions of various kinds. Formal compacts dealing with this matter are to be met with among early charters, e.g. those of Anglo-Saxon England; and the question, as will easily be understood, led to much friction at a somewhat later date, between the religious orders and secular clergy, resulting in a great deal of ecclesiastical legislation upon the right of choosing a sepulture and the claims of the parish priest.

Consecration of Cemeteries.—The practice of blessing the grave or the vault in which any Christian was laid to rest is extremely ancient, and it may be traced back to the time of St. Gregory of Tours (De Gloria Conf., c. civ). In many early pontificals, e.g. those of Egbert of York and Robert of Jumièges, a special service is provided with the title Consecratio Cymiterii, and this, with certain developments and additions, is still prescribed for the blessing of cemeteries at the present day. According to this rite five wooden crosses are planted in the cemetery, one in the centre and the others at the four points of the compass. After the chanting of the Litany of the Saints with special invocations, holy water is blessed and the bishop makes the circuit of the enclosure sprinkling it everywhere with this water. Then he comes to each of the crosses in turn and recites before it a prayer of some length, these five prayers being identical with those appointed for the same purpose in the Anglo-Saxon pontificals of the eighth century. Candles are also lighted before the crosses and placed upon them, and this feature, though not so ancient as the prayers, is also of venerable antiquity. On each of these occasions incense is used, and finally a consecratory preface is sung at the central cross, after which the procession returns to the church., where solemn Mass is celebrated. A cemetery which has thus been consecrated may be profaned, and it is in a measure regarded as losing its sacred character when any deed of blood or certain other outrages are committed within its enclosure. For example, as the ground has been blessed for those who are in communion with the Church, the forcible intrusion of someone who had died under the Church’s ban is looked upon as a violation which unfits it for the purpose for which it was designed. Innocent III decided that in such a case, if for any reason it was impossible to exhume the remains and cast them out of the enclosure, the cemetery must be reconciled by a form of service specially provided for the purpose. In a celebrated instance, known as the Guibord Case, which occurred in Montreal, Canada, in 1875, the bishop, seeing the civil law uphold the intrusion, laid the portion of the cemetery so profaned under an interdict. Finally we may note the quasi-consecration imparted to the famous Campo Santo of Pisa, as well as to one or two other Italian cemeteries, by the alleged transference thither of soil from Mount Calvary.

Cemeteries in Civil Law.—It would be impossible here to deal in detail with the various legislative enactments which now almost everywhere prevent the Church’s burial requirements from being carried into effect. (See Burial.) “From the principles which now obtain in German law,” writes Dr. Peter Lex in his recent work, “Das kirchliche Begrabnissrecht,” “the idea of a Catholic churchyard from the point of view of Catholic teaching and practice, has been completely suppressed and the cemetery has been degraded into a mere burial-ground belonging to the civil corporation.” In such matters as the burial of Protestants or non-Christians in ground formerly blessed for the faithful only, the Church when opposed by the civil power allows her ministers to give way rather than provoke a conflict. In England, according to the Burials Act of 1852, the “Burial Boards” in different parts of the country are empowered to provide adequate graveyards out of the rates. In these a certain portion is consecrated according to the rites of the Church of England and the remainder is left unconsecrated. Of this last such a proportion as may be necessary is assigned for the use of Catholics, who are free to consecrate it for themselves. Moreover, when a chapel is erected upon the Church of England portion of the cemetery, a similar building must as a rule be provided in the other sections. The act assigns to the “Burial Board,” at least indirectly, the control of the inscriptions to be set up upon the tombstones in the cemetery, but these powers are generally administered without hardship to Catholics. When Catholics are buried in ground which is not specially consecrated for their use the priest conducting the funeral is directed by the “Rituale Romanum” to bless the grave, and if the priest himself cannot conduct the funeral further, to put blessed earth into the coffin. Children who have died before baptism, we may notice, should be interred apart in ground which has not been consecrated; and it is usual even in the consecrated portion to assign a separate place for infants that have been baptized.

For other points not touched upon here, see the article BURIAL.

For general works see Permandeder, in Kirchenlex., VII, 718; Ruland, Gesch. der kirchlichen Leichenfeier (Ratisbon, 1901); Lek, Das kirchliche Begrabnissrecht (Ratisbon, 1904); Bertrand, De la législation de la Sepulture (Paris, 1904); Archiv für k. Kirchenrecht, I, 25 sq., LXXVIII, 171 sq; Moulart, De Sepultura et Coemeteriis (Louvain, 1862), and in L’Eglise et L’Etat (Louvain, 1896), 512–29.

For the Catacombs and early Middle Ages see Leclercq, Manuel d’archéol. chrét. (Paris, 1907), I, 217–234, a very satisfactory discussion of the subject; Müller in Realencyklopadie f. prot. Théol., X, 814 sqq., also an extraordinarily full and elaborate article; Lanciani, Christian and Pagan Rome (London, 1892), 305–361; Brown, From Schola to Cathedral (London, 1893); Marucchi, Elements d’archéol. (Rome, 1901), especially I; Lindenschmidt, Handbuch der deutschen Alterthumskunde, I, 64–146; Cochet, La Normandie Souterraine (Paris, 1860); Brown, The Arts in Early England (London, 1902), I, 253–270; Kraus, Real-Encyklopadie, I, 307 sq.; Boulanger, Le mobilier funéraire gallo-romain et franc (Paris, 1905); Murcier, La Sépulture Chret. (Paris, 1855).

On the Canon Law see Wernz, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1902), III, 464–71; Zema, Quoestiones Canonico-Liturgicoe (Rome, 1903); Cavagnis, Institut. Jur. Pub. Eccles. (Rome, 1889), II, 289 sq; Ferraris, Bibliotheca, s. v. Sepultura.

For the Liturgy see Martene, De Antiquis Ecclesioe Ritubus (Bassano, 1788); Cabrol, Le livre de la priere antique (Paris, 1900), 326–32.

For the ecclesiastical discipline of the Province of Quebec see Gignac, Compend. Jur. eccl., etc. (Quebec, 1903), De rebus, etc., Nos. 773, 774, 778, 783; also Discipline Eccl. du Diocese de Quebec, s.v. Sepulture; and for the Civil Law, Weir, The Civil Code of Lower Canada (Montreal, 1888).

For the cemetery legislation of the Province of Quebec, see Mignault, Le Droit Paroissial, etc. (Montreal, 1893), in Index s.v. Cimetieres; Dorais, Code Civil de la Province de Quebec (2nd ed., Montreal, 1905), nos. 53 b. and 66 sqq.; Tyler, American Eccl. Law, Ch. 71–85; American and English Encycl. of Law, V, 781–98; Desmond, The Church and the Law (Chicago, 1898), c. xvi.

Herbert Thurston.

Cemetery Laws in the United States.—The several States of the Union have upon their statute books legislation, in its broader outlines identical, providing for the incorporation of cemetery associations, the safe and sanitary location and regulation thereof, and the protection of sepulture therein. In some States this statutory protection is more or less restricted to incorporated cemetery associations and is not directly applicable to church cemeteries. As a rule cemeteries throughout the United States are exempt from taxation and monuments therein from execution. The law is adverse to the disturbance of the dead in their last resting-place. In Alabama cemetery authorities removed the body of a child from a cemetery, which had been discontinued, to another cemetery that had been founded in place thereof, without giving the child’s parents notice. The parents recovered damages to the amount of $1700 from the cemetery authorities. (18 So. R., 565) In many of the States there are statutes making it a criminal offence to remove or deface tombstones, fences, or trees in a cemetery.

The bodies of the dead belong to their surviving relatives to be disposed of as they see fit, subject, of course, to public sanitary regulations. (Bogert vs. Indianapolis, 13 Ind. R., 434.) The title of the lot-holder in a cemetery is rarely a title in fee simple. The right of burial conveyed by written instrument in a churchyard cemetery is either an easement or a licence, and never a title to the fee-holder. (McGuire vs. St. Patrick’s Cathedral, 54 Hun. N.Y., 207.) Where, for instance, the certificate of purchase reads, “to have and to hold the lots for the use and purpose and subject to the conditions and regulations mentioned in the deed of trust to the trustees of the church,” this was construed as a mere licence; and, as such, revocable. The regulations of the Church may, and usually do, limit the right of interment in the cemetery to those who die in communion with the Church; and the courts have held that the Church is the judge in this matter. (Dwenger vs. Geary, 113 Ind. 114, 54 Hun. N. Y., 210.) One C___, a Catholic, received from the proper officer of a Catholic cemetery a receipt for seventy-five dollars, being the purchase money for a plot of ground in the cemetery. C___ died a Freemason, and the cemetery authorities would not allow his body to be buried in the lot which he had bought. The case went to the highest courts in New York, and the cemetery authorities were upheld, it satisfactorily appearing that the rules of the Catholic Church forbid the burial, in consecrated ground, of one who is not a Catholic or who is a member of the Masonic fraternity. (People vs. St. Patrick’s Cathedral, 21 Hun. N. Y., 184.) The Guibord Case at Montreal (1875) may be recalled in this connection. Guibord, an excommunicated man, was interred in the Catholic cemetery by a decree of a civil court. Bishop Bourget laid the portion of the cemetery thus desecrated under interdict. Bishop Dwenger, of the Fort Wayne Diocese, secured an injunction against one Geary, who desired to bury the body of his suicide son in a lot owned by him (Geary) in the Catholic cemetery. The Supreme Court of Indiana upheld the bishop. (113 Ind., 106.)

While the right of eminent domain may be invoked to condemn lands for cemetery purposes, the same right may be employed to take the cemetery lands for such public purposes as extending a highway. However, in some States there are statues prohibiting the opening of streets through cemeteries. The State exercising its police power, or a municipality, when authority is delegated to it by the legislature, may forbid the further use of a cemetery for interments, or declare it a nuisance and a danger to public health, and authorize the removal of the dead therefrom; and this may be done by such authorities without recourse to eminent domain proceedings. Various questions have arisen as to the right of a cemetery lot-owner to erect a monument thereon and as to his right to compel the cemetery authorities to keep the cemetery walks and grounds in good order and repair. In the absence of special regulations reserving such matters to the discretion of the cemetery authorities, the right of the lot-owner has been affirmed in these particulars. (61 N.W. Rep., 842; 36 S.W. R., 802.) Trusts for the purpose of keeping the graves in repair are held to be charitable to the extent of excepting them from the statue against perpetuities. (Am. and English Encycl. of Law, V, 790.) The heir-at-law has a right of property to the monuments of his ancestors in the graveyard, and may sue any person defacing them. (3 Edw. Ch., Rh., 155.)

For the cemetery legislation of the Province of Quebec, see Mignault, Le Droit Paroissial, etc. (Montreal, 1893), in Index s.v. Cimetieres; Dorais, Code Civil de la Province de Quebec (2nd ed., Montreal, 1905), nos. 53 b. and 66 sqq.; Tyler, American Eccl. Law, Ch. 71–85; American and English Encycl. of Law, V, 781–98; Desmond, The Church and the Law (Chicago, 1898), c. xvi.

Humphrey J. Desmond.

Canadian Legislation Concerning Cemeteries.—In the Dominion of Canada, cemeteries are under the authority of the legislatures of the different provinces. Outside of the Province of Quebec, in the English-speaking provinces, the laws regarding them are, with slight variations, the same. In all the provinces, cemeteries are exempt from taxation. Cemetery companies are authorized by general statutes. In the Province of Ontario provision is made for the amount of capital to be subscribed, and a certain percentage to be paid thereon, before an act of incorporation shall be granted, and “no such cemeteries shall be established within the limits of any city.” In the case of incorporated villages or towns, a cemetery may be established when the lieutenant-governor, in council, considers that there is no danger for the public safety, and that in the opinion of the Provincial Board of Health the proposed cemetery may, under all the circumstances, be safely permitted. It is enjoined that “no body shall be buried in a vault or otherwise, in any chapel or other building in the cemetery, nor within fifteen feet of the outer wall of such chapel or building. No grave may be re-opened for the removal of a body, without permission of the corporation authorities, or the order of a judge of the County Court, excepting cases where the Crown may order the removal of a body for the purpose of legal inquiry.” The company must furnish a grave for strangers and for the poor of all denominations free of charge, on a certificate, in the latter case, of a minister or a clergyman of the denomination to which the deceased belonged, that the representatives of the deceased are poor and cannot afford to buy a lot in the cemetery. The shareholders in such cemetery, cannot receive more that eight per cent on their investments. All excess must be applied to the preservation, improvement, and embellishment of the land of burial-grounds, and to no other purpose. Penalties are imposed upon any one destroying or defacing any tomb, injuring trees or plants, or committing any nuisance in the cemetery (see ch. cccvii, of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897, an “Act respecting the Property of Religious Institutions”).

The Criminal Code of Canada enacts penalties for not burying the dead, for indignity to dead bodies, for forging, mutilating, destroying, or concealing registers of burials. The body of every offender executed, shall be buried within the walls of the prison, within which judgment of death is executed on him, unless the lieutenant-governor in council orders otherwise.

Any religious society or congregation of Christians may, among other things, acquire land for a cemetery. These are subject to the general rules, as the precautions for health, etc. The provisions of this law have been extended to the Church of England, and “all rights and privileges conferred upon any society or congregation of Christians, in virtue of this statute, shall extend in every respect to the Roman Catholic Church, to be exercised according to the government of said Church.” Since 7 April, 1891, the same privileges have been extended to those professing the Jewish religion. In the Province of Quebec, provisions are also made for the incorporation of cemetery companies. The lieutenant-governor may at any time, by order in council, confirm any deed of sale or grant, executed with prescribed formalities, of any one piece of land not exceeding twenty-five arpents in extent, to any persons not less than five in number named in such deed, such persons not being trustees for a religious congregation or society, or Roman Catholics. These associations are subject to the general laws as regards health regulations, and are further obliged to keep registers of all interments or disinterments, as well as a record of all proceedings and transactions of the corporations. Any parish mission, congregation or society of Christians not being a parish recognized by law, may, in the mode indicated by the statute, acquire lands for cemeteries, and, subject to the approval of the lieutenant-governor, may exchange such lands for others for a like purpose. Each parish must have its cemetery, the exception being in favour of large cities, where many parishes use the same place for interments. This cemetery belongs to the parish represented by the parish priest, or Protestant rector or pastor, and churchwardens. No cemetery can be acquired, exchanged, or enlarged without the authorization of the bishop. Lands may be expropriated for cemetery purposes. No body may be buried until at least twenty-four hours after death. Special laws exist in all the provinces with reference to burials in time of epidemic. In the Province of Quebec, interments in churches are permitted, but the coffin must be covered by at least four feet of earth, or encased in masonry, of at least eighteen inches in thickness if in stone, or of at least twenty inches if in brick, both brick and stone having been well covered with cement. The same regulations apply to burials in private vaults. Interments in churches or cemeteries may be prohibited in the interest of public health by the superior or diocesan ecclesiastical authority. In the Province of Quebec the civil and religious authorities are interwoven, thus the pastor of every parish is bound to keep in duplicate registers of births, marriages, and deaths. At the end of each year he deposits one of the copies at the court-house of the district, and the other is retained in the parish record.

As regards burials in consecrated ground, no question can now be raised affecting the powers of the Catholic Church authorities. By Art. 3460, Revised Statutes, P.Q., 1888, it is enacted: “it belongs to the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authority to designate the place in the cemetery, in which each individual of such faith shall be buried, and if the deceased, according to the canon rules and laws, in the judgment of the ordinary, cannot be interred in ground consecrated by the liturgical prayers of such religion, he shall receive civil burial in ground reserved for that purpose and adjacent to the cemetery.” Virtually the same law is in force in the Province of Ontario as that shown above. This legislation in the Province of Quebec arose from a celebrated action at law, commonly known as the “Guibord Case.” Joseph Guibord was a member of the “Institut Canadien,” an organization which had been condemned by the bishop, and whose members were excommunicated as a body. Guibord died, 18 November, 1869. His widow applied to the religious authorities for the burial of his body in the cemetery. The parish priest of the church of Notre-Dame, under instructions from diocesan authorities, refused to accede to this demand, offering however to bury the deceased in an adjoining lot, where children who die without having been baptized, public sinners, etc., are interred. This the widow refused, and she applied for a writ to force the church authorities to grant a Christian burial. This petition was granted by the Superior Court. The Court of Review, reversing the judgment, held that the civil courts had no jurisdiction to inquire into the reasons for the refusal of the parish priest to grant Christian burial, and that he and his wardens had the right to subdivide the burial grounds into such lots as they might think fit, and to regulate as to where and how the mode of burial should be carried out. Many other questions were raised, but these were the principal grounds. The Court of Appeal for the Province of Quebec unanimously confirmed the Court of Review. The case was carried before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England, where the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal was reversed. It was held that a Catholic parishioner, who had not been excommunicated nominatim (i.e. by name), and who had not been proved to have been a public sinner, was not, according to the diocesan regulations, which had been invoked by both parties, under any valid ecclesiastical censure which would deprive his remains of Christian burial. The report of the case may be found in “Lower Canada Jurist,” Vol. XX, and covers all the relations of Church and State since the cession of Canada by France to England.

Strict regulations exist as to the disinterment of bodies, which cannot be effected without authority from the Superior Court, as well as from the diocesan authorities. These apply equally to cemeteries, and to churches and chapels where burials have been made. Registers of all such disinterments have to be kept. In 1907 a petition was presented by the Franciscan Order to the Superior Court at Three Rivers, against the rector of the Anglican parish church. It set forth that, prior to the cession of Canada to England, the Franciscans were known as the “Recollets,” and had established a missionary post at Three Rivers, in the earliest days of the colony, where they built a church, wherein they buried the members of their order, and some Catholic laymen as well. When the cession took place, their properties were confiscated. They urged that for many years they had no representatives in the country, and that their church had passed into, and then was in the possession of the minister of the Church of England. The latter body, they said, had never used their church for burial purposes, as was established by the register of burials. They further set forth that recently the Franciscan Order had built a new church, where they desired to have the remains of their brethren who had been buried during the French regime interred according to the discipline of the Catholic Church, and they prayed for an order from the court, to be permitted to make such disinterments, undertaking to pay all damages. On 3 December, 1907, a judgment was rendered dismissing the petition because, prior to making their application, the Franciscans had not obtained permission from the authorities of the Church of England, in whose possession and under whose control the church was when the order for the disinterment was sought to be obtained.

For Canadian law in general: Stewart, Index to Dominion and Provincial Statutes (Montreal, 1902); Mignault, Droit Paroissial (Montreal, 1893); Pagnuelo, Liberte religieuse en Canada (Montreal, 1872); Beauchamp, Privy Council Reports in Lower Canada Jurist, XX, 228; Municipal Code, Province of Quebec; Law Reports: Cases in Privy Council (English), ed. Robert Cowell; Brown, Les Cures et Marguilliers de l’Oeuvre et Fabrique de Notre-Dame de Montreal, VII, 157.

J. J. Curran

Early Roman Christian Cemeteries.—This article treats briefly of the individual catacomb cemeteries in the vicinity of Rome. For general information on the Roman catacombs, see ROMAN CATACOMBS. This summary account of the individual catacombs will follow the order of the great Roman roads, along which were usually located the Christian cemeteries.

Sources of the History of the Catacombs.—There is but the faintest hope that any new documents will ever turn up to illustrate the pre-Constantinian period of the ancient cemeteries of Rome. Their place is taken necessarily by late martyrologies, calendars, Acts of the martyrs, writings of popes, historico-liturgical books of the Roman Church, and by old topographies and itineraries come down to us from the Carlovingian epoch. Among the old martyrologies the most famous is that known as the Martyrology of St. Jerome (Martyrologium Hieronymianum). Its present (ninth-century) form is that essentially of Auxerre in France, where it underwent considerable remodelling in the sixth century. But it is older than the sixth century, and is surely an Italian compilation of the fifth century, out of rare and reliable documents furnished by the churches of Rome, Africa, Palestine, Egypt, and the Orient. No martyrology contains so many names and indications of saints and martyrs of a very early period, and it is of especial value for the study of the catacombs, because it very frequently gives the roads and the cemeteries where they were buried and venerated in the fifth century, while the cemeteries were yet intact. By dint of transcription, however, and through the neglect or ignorance of copyists, the text has become in many places hopelessly corrupt, and the restitution of its dates and local and personal indications has been one of the hardest crosses of ancient and modern ecclesiastical archaeologists. Besides its very ancient notices of the cemeteries, this martyology is of great value as embodying a catalogue of martyrs and basilicas of Rome that surely goes back to the early part of the fifth century, and perhaps a third-century catalogue of the Roman pontiffs. Several other martyrologies of the eighth and ninth centuries contain valuable references to the martyrs and the cemeteries, especially that know as the Little Roman (Parvum Romanum) Martyrology, and which served as a basis for the well-known compilation of Ado. Next in importance comes an ancient Roman Calendar, published between the years 334 and 356, written out and illustrated by a certain Furius Dionysius Philocalus. This calendar contains a list of the popes, known formerly as the “Bucherian Catalogue,” from the name of its first editor, and the Liberian, from the pope (Liberius, 352–56) with whom it ends. The whole book is now usually known as the “Chronographer of A.D. 354.” Besides this ancient papal catalogue, the book contains an official calendar, civil and astronomical, lunar cycles, and a Paschal table calculated to 412, a list of the prefects of Rome from 253 to 354 (the only continuous one known), a chronicle of Roman history, the “Natalitia Caesarum,” and other useful contents, which have caused it to be styled “the oldest Christian Almanac.” It contains numerous traces of having been drawn up for the use of the Roman Church, and hence the value of two of its documents for the cemeteries. They are, respectively, a list of the entombments of Roman bishops from Lucius to Sylvester (253–335), with the place of their burial, and a Depositio Martyrum, or list of the more solemn fixed feasts of the Roman Church, with indications of several famous martyrs and their cemeteries. The importance of all this for the original topography of the catacombs is too clear to need comment. We will only add that closer examination of the ecclesiastical documents of the “Chronographer of 354” leaves us persuaded that they date from the third century and represent the location of the cemeteries at that time and the martyrs whose cult was then most popular.

In the latter half of the fourth century Pope St. Damasus (366–84) did much to beautify the ancient Roman cemeteries and to decorate the tombs of the most illustrious martyrs. As he possessed a fine poetic talent, he composed many elegant inscriptions, which were engraved on large marble slabs by his “friend and admirer,” Furius Dionysius Philocalus, already known to us as the calligrapher of the preceding document. The lettering used by this remarkable man was very ornamental, and as its exact like is not found before or after, it has been styled the hieratic writing of the catacombs. In time these inscriptions were copied by strangers and inserted in various anthologies and in travellers’ scrapbooks or portfolios. Many of the original stones perished from various causes, but were piously renewed in situ during the sixth century. To these Damasan inscriptions De Rossi owed much, since any fragment of them in a cemetery indicates an “historic crypt,” and their copies in the manuscripts are links for the construction of the chain of history that connects each great cemetery with the modern investigator.

To the above fontes, or sources of information and control, must be added the historic-liturgical literature of the Roman Church from the fourth to the eighth centuries—the period in which the bodies of the most celebrated martyrs began to be removed en masse from the catacombs, through fear of the marauding Lombards. Such are the Liber Pontificalis in its several recensions, the Acts of the martyrs, chiefly the Roman ones, the calendars of the Roman Church constructed out of the missals or sacramentaries, the antiphonaries, capitularies of the Gospels, and the like, in which not infrequently there are hints and directions concerning the cemeteries and the martyrs of renown who were yet buried there. Finally, there has been extracted almost endless information from the old Roman topographies of travellers and the itineraries of pilgrims. Of the former we possess yet two curious remnants, entitled “Notitiae regionum Urbis Romae” and “Curiosum Urbis Romae,” also a list of oils collected at the shrines of the Roman martyrs by Abbot Johannes for Queen Theodolinda, and known as the Papyrus of Monza. An Old Syriac text of the sixth century and a note of the innumeræ cellulæ martyrum consecratæ in the almanac of Polemius Silvius (499) complete the list of strictly topographical authorities. Certain itineraries of pilgrims from the seventh to the ninth century are not less useful as indicating the names and sites of the cemeteries, whether above or below ground, and what bodies were yet entombed therein, as well as the distance between the cemeteries and their position relative to the great monuments of the city.

After the middle of the ninth century the historic crypts had been emptied, and the bodies brought to Roman churches. Naturally, the written references to the catacombs ceased with the visitors, and a stray chapter in the “Mirabilia Urbis Romae” or an odd indication in the “Libri Indulgentiarum” kept alive the memory of those holy places which once attracted a world of pilgrims. It is not easy to explain how one of the best of the old itineraries, referable to the seventh century, should have fallen into the hands of William of Malmesbury, and been by him copied into his account of the visit of the crusaders to Rome under Urban II (1099). Neither is it easy to explain why the old itineraries of Einsiedeln, Wurzburg, and Salzburg make no mention of the tombs of such celebrated Roman martyrs as St. Clement the consul, St. Justin the philosopher, Apollonius the Roman senator, Moses a famous priest of the time of St. Cornelius, and many other celebrities of the early Roman Church, who were, in all likelihood, buried in some of the many Roman cemeteries. What the old pilgrims saw they related honestly and faithfully; more they compiled from guides now lost. They were not learned men, but pious travellers, anxious to benefit their successors and unconsciously enabling us to form some exact idea of the solemn scenes that they once assisted at. (Shahan, The Beginnings of Christianity, New York, 1905, 410–16).

The Vatican Cemetery.—The first popes were buried near the body of St. Peter, “in Vaticano” “juxta corpus beati Petri.” St. Anacletus, the second successor of St. Peter raised over the body of the Apostle a memoria, or small chapel (Lib. Pontif., ed. Duchesne, I, 125). This narrow site was the burial-place of the popes to Zephyrinus (d. 217), with whom began the series of papal burials in the cemetery of St. Callistus (Barnes, The Tomb of St. Peter, London, 1900). Among the epitaphs discovered near the tomb of St. Peter are two celebrated ones, dogmatic in content, that of Livia Primitiva, now in the Louvre, and that known as the Ichthys Zonton (Fish of the Living), symbolic of the Eucharist. In the sixteenth century a marble fragment showing the word Linus was found on this site, not improbably from the epitaph of the first successor of St. Peter. The building of two basilicas, the Old St. Peter’s in the fourth and the New St. Peter’s in the sixteenth century, easily explains the disappearance of the early papal monuments “in Vaticano.” The cemetery was probably above ground. From 258 to 260 (de Waal, Marucchi) the bodies of the Apostles reposed in the catacomb of St. Sebastian on the Via Appia, in a cubiculum or chapel (the Platonia), yet extant, whither they were taken from their original resting-places for some not sufficiently clear reason. In the fifth century members of the imperial family found a resting-place in the vicinity of the Apostle’s tomb. It was long a favourite burial-place; in 689 the Saxon king, Cedwalla, was laid to rest there, “ad cujus [sc. apostolorum principis] sacratissimum corpus a finibus tenae pio ductus amore venerat,’ says Bede (H.E., v, 7), who has preserved the valuable metrical epitaph put up by order of Pope Sergius ending with: “Hic depositus est Caedual, qui et Petrus, rex Saxonum,” etc. The “Grotte Vecchie” and the “Grotte Nuove,” or subterraneous chapels and galleries in the vicinity of the tomb of St. Peter, cover the site of this ancient Christian cemetery; in them lie buried also a number of popes; St. Gregory I, Boniface VIII, Nicholas V, Alexander VI. The rich sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, important for early Christian symbolism, is in the “Grotte Nuove” [de Waal, Der Sarkophag des Junius Bassus in den Grotten von St. Petrus, Rome, 1900; Dufresne, Les Cryptes vaticanes, Rome, 1900; Dionisis (edd. Sarti and Settele), Sacrar. Vaticanae basilicae cryptarum monumenta, Rome, 1828–40]

I. VIA AURELIA, beyond the Porta Cavallegieri

1. Cemetery of St. Pancratius. A very youthful martyr, probably of the persecution of Diocletian. His body was never removed to a city church as were so many others, hence the cemetery remained open in the Middle Ages. Its galleries have suffered a complete devastation, last of all during the French Revolution, when the relics of the martyrs were dispersed.

2. Cemetery of Sts. Processus and Martinianus, the jailers of St. Peter in the Mamertine Prison, converted by him, and soon after his death beheaded on the Aurelian Way. The pious matron Lucina buried their bodies on her own property. The cemetery, it is believed, extends beneath the Villa Pamfili, and perhaps beyond under the Vigna Pellegrini. The accessible galleries exhibit a complete devastation, also very large loculi, an indication of remote Christian antiquity. In the fourth-century overground basilica St. Gregory preached his sermon “Ad. SS. martyrum corpora consistimus, fratres” etc. (P.L. LXXVI, 1237). Paschal I transported the bodies of the two saints to a chapel in the Vatican. After the twelfth century the cemetery was totally forgotten.

3. Cemetery of the “Duo Felices.” The origin of the name is obscure, though connected somehow with Felix II (355–58) and Felix I (269–74); the latter, however, was certainly buried in the papal crypt in St. Callistus.

4. Cemetery of Calepodius, a very ruinous catacomb under the Vigna Lamperini, opposite the “Casale, di S. Pio V,” or about the third milestone. Calepodius was a priest martyred in a popular outbreak, and buried here by Pope St. Callistus. Later the pope’s own body was interred in the same cemetery, not in the one that bears his name. St. Julius I (337–52) was buried there, and a little oratory long preserved the memory of St. Callistus. His body was eventually transferred to Santa Maria in Trastevere, where it now lies.

II. VIA PORTUENSIS, the road leading to “Portus” or Porto, the new “Havre” of Rome.

5. Cemetery of St. Pontianus, to the right beneath Monte Verde. It is so called, not from Pope Pontianus (230–35) but from a wealthy Christian of the same name mentioned in the Acts of Callistus, and whose house seems to have been the original nucleus of the present Sta Maria in Trastevere, the site once claimed by the cauponarii under Alexander Severus, but adjudged by that emperor to the Christians. It was discovered by Bosio in 1618. Many famous martyrs were buried there, among them Sts. Abdon and Sennen, noble Persians who suffered martyrdom at Rome, it is thought in 257. In an overground fourth-century basilica were deposited the bodies of two popes, Anastasius I (d. 405) and Innocent I (d. 417). Byzantine frescoes of the sixth century attract attention, also the “historic chapel” of Sts. Abdon and Sennen, whose bodies were removed to the basilica magna above ground about 640, finally in 820 to the city basilica of St. Mark, when the cemetery was abandoned.

6. Cemetery of St. Felix, indicated in several “Itineraria” as located on the Via Portuensis, not far from the cemetery of Pontianus, but not yet found; also known as “ad insalsatos” probably a corruption (Marucche) of “ad infulatos,” in reference to the Persian tiara of Sts. Abdon and Sennan.

7. Cemetery of Generosa. Generosa was a Roman lady who buried on her property the bodies of the martyrs Simplicius, Faustinus, and Beatrix, transferred later (683) to St. Bibiana, in the city. The cemetery, a poor rural one, is now famous for important inscriptions of the “Fratres Arvales” found there between 1858 and 1874. (Henzen, Acta fratrum Arvalium quae supersunt, Berlin, 1874.) The cemetery probably grew up (Marucchi) from a neighbouring quarry whence later it took in the sacred wood of the ancient pagan brotherhood of “Arvales,” who seem to have died off or removed elsewhere about the middle of the third century. An ancient basilica, built by St. Damasus, was also unearthed when the aforesaid inscriptions were discovered. As in most catacombs an overground cemetery grew up, which was used until the eighth century.

III. VIA OSTIENSIS

8. Tomb of St. Paul. The body of St. Paul was buried on the Ostian Way, near the place of his martyrdom (ad Aquas Salvias) on the property (in proedio) of Lucina, a Christian matron. St. Anacletus, second successor of St. Peter, built a small memoria or chapel on the site, and about 200 the Roman priest Caius refers to it (Euseb., H.E., ii, 25) as still standing. From 258 to 260 the body of St. Paul with that of St. Peter lay in the “Platonia” of St. Sebastian; in the latter year, probably, it was returned to its original resting-place. In the meantime a cemetery had been growing in the aforesaid proedium of Lucina. Constantine replaced the little oratory of Anacletus with a great basilica. Under Gregory XVI, the sarcophagus of St. Paul was discovered, but not opened. Its fourth-century inscription bears the words PAULO APOST MART (Paul, Apostle and Martyr). The museum of the modern basilica contains some very ancient epitaphs from the aforesaid cemetery of Lucina, antedating the basilica; two of them bear dates of 107 and 111. After these we must come down to 217, before finding any consular date on a Christian epitaph. Dom Cornelio Villani proposed (1905) to publish all the ancient Christian epitaphs found here.

9. Cemetery of Commodilla, at a little distance from that of Lucina. Commodilla is an unknown Christian matron, on whose property were buried Felix and Adauctus, martyrs of the persecution of Diocletian. This cemetery, once extensive, is now difficult of access, and its frescoes and inscriptions have disappeared almost entirely. The open loculi are an evidence of the pillage to which such cemeteries were once subject.

10. Tomb of St. Timothy. Timothy was possibly a priest of Antioch, martyred at Rome under Diocletian, and buried by the pious matron Theona in her garden, not far from the body of St. Paul, “ut Paulo apostolo ut quondam Timotheus adhaereret,” says the martyrology (22 May). De Rossi identifies with this tomb a small cemetery discovered by him (1872) in the Vigna Salviucci to the left of the Ostian Way, and opposite the apse of St. Paul.

11. Cemetery of St. Thecla, discovered by Armellini in 1870, named from some unknown Roman Thecla, and certainly anterior to Constantine; an epitaph of Aurelia Agape has an early Christian savour and is cut on the back of a pagan epitaph of the time of Claudius Gothicus (268–70).

12. Cemetery of Aquæ Salviæ. There was certainly a cemetery in early Christian times on or near the site of the decapitation of St. Paul (now Tre Fontane); it probably bore the name of St. Zeno. Farther on was the cemetery of St. Cyriacus, mentioned in the “Mirabilia Urbis Romae” and seen by Bosio at the end of the sixteenth century. Its exact site is no longer known. Ostia itself, at the end of the road, had a remarkable Christian cemetery.

IV. VIA ARDEATINA, to the right of the Appian Way; the ancient Porta Ardeatina between the churches of St. Sabas and St. Balbina was destroyed in the sixteenth century to make way for the fortifications of Sangallo.

13. Cemetery of St. Domitilla (Tor Marancia), the largest of all the Roman catacombs known to Bosio, who thought it a part of Saint Callistus, and nearly perished (1593) in its depths. It is the ancestral burial-place of Flavia Domitilla, wife of the consul Flavius Clemens (95). She was exiled by Domitian for her Christian Faith to the island of Pontia; her faithful servants Nereus and Achilleus, said to have been baptized by St. Peter, followed her into exile, were beheaded at Terracina, and their bodies brought back to the family sepulchre of their mistress. In 1873 De Rossi discovered the important ruins of the large three-nave basilica erected here between 390 and 395 in honour of these saints and of St. Petronilla, whose body was transferred thence to St. Peter’s in the eighth century. At an earlier date (1865) he had the good fortune to discover, close to the highway, the primitive entrance to the cemetery, one of the most ancient Christian monuments. It is a spacious room or gallery, with four or five separate niches for as many sarcophagi, the walls finished in fine stucco, with classical decorations. On either side are similar edifices, a little later in date, but evidently used by the guardian of the monument and for the celebration of the Christian agapae or love-feasts. The sarcophagi, whole or fragmentary, the brick tiles, and the names on the epitaphs (Claudii, Flavii, Ulpii, Aurelii) show that the hypogoeum or “vestibule of the Flavians,” as it is called, belongs to the early part of the second century. De Rossi believed it the tomb of the martyred consul, Flavius Clemens (95). The site has suffered from the vandalism and greed of earlier visitors, but the frescoes yet extant exhibit great beauty of execution and a rich variety of Christian symbolism. “We are quite sure,” say Northcote and Brownlow (I, 126–7), “that we have been here brought face to face with one of the earliest specimens of Christian subterranean burial in Rome; and it shows us the sense of liberty and security under which it was executed.” Not far away was discovered in 1875 the famous epitaph of “Flavius Sabinus and his sister Titiana,” possibly the children of Flavius Sabinus, brother of the Emperor Vespasian, mentioned by Tacitus (Hist., III, 65) as a mild, but indolent and austere man, terms that to some seem to make him out a Christian and therefore the origin of the new religion among the Flavii. Quite near also are the touching third-century inscriptions of M. Antonius Restutus “sibi it suis fidentibus in Domino,” i.e. for himself and his own who trust in God; likewise the very ancient and fine crypt of Ampliatus, whom De Rossi identifies with the Ampliatus of Romans, xvi, 8. Not to speak of numerous dogmatic epitaphs, the cemetery of Domitilla is famous for a beautiful third-century Adoration of the Magi, here four in number, and for the venerable second-century medallion of Sts. Peter and Paul, the oldest known monument of Christian portraiture, and a signal proof of their simultaneous presence at Rome and their religious authority. It was also, according to De Rossi, the burial-place of Sts. Marcus and Marcellianus, and the family sepulchre of St. Damasus, whose Mother (Laurentia) and sister (Irene) were buried there, likewise himself. The site was discovered by Wilpert, in 1902.

V. VIA APPIA

14. Cemetery of St. Callistus, one of the oldest underground burial-places of the Roman Christians. As a public Christian cemetery it dates from the beginning of the third century. The original nucleus from which it developed was the famous crypt of Lucina, a private Christian burial-place from the end of the first century, very probably the family sepulchre of the Caecilii and other closely related Roman families. From there grew, during the third century, the vast system of galleries and cubicula that then took and has since kept the name of Coemeterium Callisti; early in the third century it was known as The Cemetery (to koimeterion) par excellence, and owed its new name, not to the burial there of Pope Callistus (for he was buried in the cemetery of Calepodius), but to his zeal in developing and perfecting the original areoe, or private Roman sepulchral plots, that in his time had come to be the first landed property ever possessed by the Catholic Church. The chief interest of this cemetery lies in the so-called Papal Crypt, in whose large loculi were buried the popes from St. Zephyrinus (d. 218) to St. Eutychianus (d. 283). Of the fourteen epitaphs it once contained there remain but five, more or less fragmentary: Anterus, Fabian, Lucius, Eutychianus, Urban? (Marucchi, II, 138–144). In the fourth century Pope St. Damasus ornamented richly this venerable chapel, and put up there two epitaphs in honour of the numerous martyrs buried in St. Callistus, among them several of his predecessors. One of these epitaphs was found in situ, but broken in minute fragments. Its restoration by De Rossi is a masterly specimen of his ingenious epigraphic erudition; the closing lines are now celebrated:

Hic fateor Damasus volui mea condere membra

Sed cineres timui sanctos vexare piorum.

(I, Damasus, wished to be buried here, but I feared to offend the sacred remains of these pious ones). For a view of the (near-by) countless graffiti or pious scratchings of medieval pilgrims (names, ejaculations) see Marucchi, “Eléments d’archéol. chrét.,” II, 140–4. Popes St. Marcellinus and St. Marcellus (d. 304); d. 309) were buried in the cemetery of Priscilla (see below); on the other hand Popes St. Eusebius (d. 309) and St. Melchiades (d. 314) were buried in the cemetery of Callistus, but elsewhere (see below). The neighbouring very ancient crypt of St. Cecilia offers an interesting Byzantine (sixth-century) fresco of the saint, and in the niche whence her body was transferred (817) to the church of St. Cecilia in Trastevere, a recent copy of Stefano Maderna’s famous statue of the saint as she was found when her tomb was opened in 1599. In the same cemetery, and close by, separated only by a short gallery, is a series of six chambers known as the “Sacramental Chapels” because of the valuable frescoes that exhibit the belief of the early Roman Christians in the Sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, and are at the same time precious jewels of early Christian art. Pope St. Eusebius, as said, was buried in this cemetery, in the gallery called after him the crypt of St. Eusebius, and in which once reposed quite close to him another martyr pope, St. Caius (d. 296). In the sepulchral chapel of the former may still be seen the epitaph put up by Damasus, and from which monument alone we learn of an unhappy schism that then devastated the Roman Church. On either side are sculptured perpendicularly the words: “Furius Dionysius Philocalus, Damasis pappæ cultor atque amator,” i.e. the name of the pope’s famous calligrapher, also his friend and admirer. At some distance lies the crypt of Lucina, in which was once buried Pope St. Cornelius. Lucina is identified by De Rossi with the famous Pomponia Graecina of Tacitus (Annales, XIII, 32); the crypt, therefore, is of Apostolic origin, an opinion confirmed by the classical character of its symbolic frescoes and the simplicity of its epitaphs; its Eucharistic frescoes are very ancient and quite important from a doctrinal standpoint. The body of St. Cornelius, martyred at Centumcellae (Civitavecchia) was brought hither and long remained an object of pious veneration, until in the ninth century it was transferred to Santa Maria in Trastevere. His epitaph (the only Latin papal epitaph of the third century) is still in place: “Cornelius Martyr Ep [iscopus],” i.e. Cornelius, martyr and bishop.

15. Cemetery of St. Sebastian. This cemetery, from two to three miles out of Rome, was known through the Middle Ages as Coemeterium ad Catacumbas, whence the term catacomb, a word seemingly of uncertain origin (Northcote and Brownlow, I, 262–63). The chief importance of this cemetery now lies in the fact that here were deposited (258) for a time the bodies of St. Peter and St. Paul, taken respectively from their Vatican and Ostian repositories under somewhat obscure circumstances; they were restored in 260. The chapel in which they were thus temporarily placed (see Liber Pontif., ed. Duchesne, Introd., I, civ-cvii, and i, 212) beneath the church of St. Sebastian, is still accessible. Close by arose in time the cemetery known as “ad Catacumbas” or “in Catacumbas,” a local indication that was eventually extended to all similar Christian cemeteries. St. Philip Neri loved to visit the crypts of St. Sebastian; an inscription in one of them recalls his veneration of these holy places. From the fourth century on, an overground cemetery was formed around the Basilica Apostolorum that was then built and which included the Platonia or aforesaid mortuary chapel of the Apostles. The rich mausolea of this cemetery added to the dignity of the underground burial-place that was, like the others of its kind, no longer used for burials after 410. The body of St. Sebastian, buried there “apud vestigia apostolorum,” is still in the church, but in a modern chapel. It was only after the eighth century that the original fourth-century name of Basilica Apostolorum gave way to that of St. Sebastian.

16. Cemetery of Prætextatus, dates from the second century, when the body of St. Januarius, eldest son of St. Felicitas, was buried there (c. 162). The chapel of that saint exhibits a fine Damasan epitaph and elegant symbolical frescoes representing the seasons, with birds, genii, etc. Among the famous martyrs buried in this cemetery were Felicissimus and Agapitus, deacons of Pope Sixtus II and colleagues of St. Laurence, put to death under Valerian in 258, also St. Urbanus, a bishop and confessor mentioned in the Acts of St. Cecilia. Certain portions of this cemetery, hitherto inaccessible by reason of the proprietor’s unwillingness, are said to offer traces of great antiquity, and perhaps contain historic chapels or tombs of much importance.

VI. VIA LATINA

The cemeteries on this road, like those on the Aurelian Way, have never been regularly explored, and their galleries are at present quite choked or dilapidated. Marucchi (II, 229) distinguishes three groups of ancient Christian monuments that appear in the afore-mentioned “Itineraria”; the church of Sts. Gordian and Epimachus; the basilica of Tertullinus, and the church of St. Eugenia with the cemetery of Apronianus, also a large basilica dedicated by St. Leo I to St. Stephen Protomartyr, discovered in 1857, in the heart of an ancient Roman villa, near the remarkable pagan tombs of the Valerii and Pancratii.

VII. VIA LABICANA, outside the Porta Maggiore.

17. Cemetery of St. Castulus, a martyr under Diocletian, and according to the Acts of St. Sebastian the husband of Irene, the pious matron to whose house was brought the body of the soldier-martyr. The cemetery was discovered by Fabretti in 1672 and reopened in 1864, when the railway to Civitavecchia was building, but was again closed because of the ruinous state of the corridors and crypts.

18. Cemetery of Sts. Peter and Marcellinus, known also as ad duas lauros, ad Helenam from the neighbouring (ruined) mausoleum of St. Helena (Tor Pignattara), and sub Augusta, in comitatu, from a neighbouring villa of Emperor Constantine. St. Peter and St. Marcellinus suffered under Diocletian. They were honoured with a fine Damasan epitaph known to us from the early medieval epigraphic collections. Here also were buried St. Tiburtius, son of the city prefect, Chromatius, and the obscurely known group called the “Quattuor Coronati,” four marble-cutters from the Danubian region. The splendid porphyry sarcophagus at the Vatican came from the mausoleum of St. Helena. In 826 the bodies of Peter and Marcellinus were stolen from the crypt and taken to Germany, where they now rest at Seligenstadt; the story is graphically told by Einhard (Mon. Germ. Hist., Script., XV, 39). Since 1896 excavations have been resumed here, and have yielded important results, among them the historic crypt of Sts. Peter and Marcellinus and a small chapel of St. Tiburtius. Wilpert discovered here and illustrated a number of important frescoes: Our Lord amid four saints, the Annunciation, the Adoration of the Magi, the Good Shepherd, Oranti, and some miracles of Christ (Wilpert, Di un ciclo di rappresentanze cristologiche nel cimitero dei SS. Pietro e Marcellino, Rome, 1892). Elsewhere are scenes that represent the agape, or love-feast, of the primitive Christians, symbolic of paradise or of the Eucharist. There is also a noteworthy fresco of the Blessed Virgin with the Infant Jesus between two adoring Magi. This cemetery is said to have been more richly decorated with frescoes than any other except that of Domitilla.

VIII. VIA TIBURTINA

19. Cemetery of St. Cyriaca. According to ancient tradition, represented by the pilgrim-guides (itineraria), she was the widow who buried St. Laurence (martyred 6 Aug., 258) on her property “in agro Verano.” In 1616 Bosio saw in this cemetery an altar, a chair, and an inscription, with a dedication to St. Laurence. The enlargement of the modern cemetery of San Lorenzo damaged considerably this venerable catacomb. Many important or interesting epitaphs have been found in this cemetery, among them those of a group of Christian virgins of the fourth and fifth centuries (De Rossi, Bullettino, 1863). In the fourth century Constantine built here a basilica over the tomb (ad corpus) of St. Laurence; here were buried Pope Zosimus (418), Sixtus III (440), and Hilary (468); in one of these three niches, later vacant, lie buried the remains of Pius IX. In 432 Sixtus III added another church (basilica major) facing the Via Tiburtina; it was not until 1218 that Honorius III united these churches and made the basilica of Constantine the Confessio of the earlier Sixtine basilica, on which occasion the presbyterium, or sanctuary, had to be elevated.

20. Cemetery of St. Hippolytus. On the left of the Via Tiburtina under the Vigna Gori (now Caetani). Considerable uncertainty reigns as to the identity of this Hippolytus, both in his Acts and in the relative verses of Prudentius; possibly, as Marucchi remarks, this confusion is as old as the time of St. Damasus and is reflected in his metrical epitaph, discovered by De Rossi in a St. Petersburg manuscript. According to this document Hippolytus was at first a follower of Novatian, about the middle of the third century, but returned to the Catholic Faith and died a martyr. The famous statue of Hippolytus, the Christian writer of the third century, made in 222, and now in the Lateran Museum, was found in the Vigna Gori in the sixteenth century; our martyr and the Christian scholar are doubtless identical. In 1882–83 a small subterranean basilica was discovered here with three naves and lighted by an air-shaft. According to the “Itinerary of Salzburg” this cemetery contained the body of the actor-martyr Genesius and the bodies of the martyrs Triphonia and Cyrilla, the (alleged) Christian wife and daughter of Emperor Decius, of whom nothing more is known.

IX. VIA NOMENTANA

21. Cemetery of St. Nicomedes, near the Porta Pia, in the Villa Patrizi, known to Bosio but rediscovered only in 1864. Nicomedes is said to have suffered martyrdom under Domitian and to have been buried by one of his disciples “in horto juxta muros.” Very ancient masonry, Greek epitaphs, and other signs, indicate the great age of this small cemetery, that may reach back to Apostolic times.

22. Cemetery of St. Agnes. The body of St. Agnes, who suffered martyrdom probably under Valerian (253–60), was buried by her parents “in praediolo suo,” i.e. on a small property they owned along the Nomentan Way. There was already in this place a private cemetery, which grew rapidly in size after the interment of the youthful martyr. The excavations carried on since 1901, at the expense of Cardinal Kopp, have revealed a great many fourth-to-sixth-century graves (formae) beneath the sanctuary of the basilica. The cemetery (three stories deep) is divided by archaeologists into three regions, the aforesaid primitive nucleus (third century), a neighbouring third-century area, and two fourth-century groups of corridors that connect the basilica of St. Agnes with the ancient round basilica of St. Constantia. It is not certain that the actual basilica of St. Agnes, built on a level with a second story of the catacomb, is identical with that built by Constantine; there is reason to suspect a reconstruction of the edifice towards the end of the fifth century. St. Damasus composed for the tomb of Agnes one of his finest epitaphs. Symmachus (498–514), and Honorius I (625–38), restored the basilica, if the former did not reconstruct it; to the latter we owe the fresco of St. Agnes between these two popes. In the sixteenth century, and also in the nineteenth (Pius IX, 1855), it was again restored; in 1901 (25 Nov.) new excavations laid bare the heavy silver sarcophagus in which St. Pius V had deposited the bodies of St. Agnes and St. Emerentiana. In the neighbouring Coemeteium majus (accessible from the cemetery of St. Agnes through an arenaria, or sand-pit) is the famous crypt or chapel of St. Emerentiana, opened up in 1875, at the expense of Monsignore Crostarosa, and identified by De Rossi with the Coemeterium Ostrianum, the site of very archaic Roman memories of St. Peter, a position now strongly disputed by his disciple Marucchi (see below, Cemetery of Priscilla). In the vicinity of the crypt of St. Emérentiana is an important arcosolium-fresco representing the Blessed Virgin as an Orante, with the Infant Jesus before her. It belongs to the first half of the fourth century, and is said by Marucchi (II, 343) to be almost the latest catacomb fresco of Our Lady, a kind of hyphen between the primitive frescoes and the early Byzantine Madonnas; it seems at the same time a very early evidence of the adorational use of paintings in public worship (Le Bourgeios, Sainte Emerentienne, vierge et martyre, Paris, 1895).

23. Cemetery of St. Alexander, between four and five miles from Rome, and within the limits of an early Diocese of Ficulea. It is the burial-place of two martyrs, known as Alexander and Eventius. Whether this Alexander is the second-century pope and martyr (c. 105–15), as his legendary Acts indicate, is quite doubtful; possibly he is a local martyr of Ficulea. The matron Severina buried here the bodies of the two saints in one tomb, and near to them the body of Saint Theodulus; early in the ninth century they were all transferred to the city, after which the cemetery fell into ruins. As in the cemetery of St. Laurence and in that of St. Symphorosa, there arose here two basilicas, one built by Constantine (ad corpus), rediscovered in 1855, another in the fifth century; there remain yet some important relics of the former, an altar with its marble cancellus, or front, in which was opened a fenestella confessionis through which could be seen the bodies of the martyrs, the site of the schola cantorum in front of the altar, and in the apse the episcopal chair.

X. VIA SALARIA NOVA

24. Cemetery of St. Felicitas. This famous Roman matron and her seven sons were put to death for the Christian Faith, under Marcus Aurelius. The very ancient Acts of their martyrdom are extant in a Latin translation from the Greek, and are probably based on the original court records. The place of burial of the mother and Silanus, her youngest son, not given in the Acts, is learned from the fourth-century Liberian Catalogue and from sixth—and seventh—century itineraries, as the cemetery of Maximus (otherwise unknown) on the Via Salaria. A basilica, built there in the fourth century, was ornamented with a fine epitaph by St. Damasus (Verdun manuscript). Early in the fifth century it served Boniface I (418) as a place of refuge from the adherents of the antipope Eulalinus; Boniface was also buried there, according to the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum.” Gregory the Great preached there one of his homilies “Ad martyres.” The two bodies were transferred to the city in the ninth century, and the cemetery was lost sight of until De Rossi discovered it in 1858, almost simultaneously with his discovery of the crypt of St. Januarius in the cemetery of Praetextatus. In 1884 the “historic crypt” was discovered, beneath a basilica of the fourth century; it is surmised that this must have been the site of the house of Felicitas, or at least of the trial.

25. Cemetery of Thraso, Coemeterium Jordanorum. The cemetery of Thraso, a rich and aged martyr in the persecution of Diocletian, was discovered in 1578 by Bosio. It once contained a fine Damasan epitaph; its chief oratory or crypt was restored in 326 and was open until the end of the thirteenth century. The body of St. Thraso was at some unknown time taken to Sts. John and Paul in the city. In this cemetery excellent third—or fourth—century frescoes are still visible, among them an interesting one symbolic of the Eucharist. A little farther on, to the right of the road, is the Coemeterium Jordanorum, possibly, says Marucchi (II, 369), the deepest of the Roman catacombs; it has four stories, but the groups of galleries are separated by sand-pits (arenariæ). The name, says the aforesaid writer, may be a corruption of Germanorum, i.e. the other sons of St. Felicitas. Here, too, it seems, ought some day to be found the arenaria, or sand-pit, in which Sts. Chrysanthus and Daria were buried during the persecution of Valerian (257), and in which (their Acts tell us) some Christians who came there to pray were stoned to death and walled up by the heathen (Via Salaria in arenaria illic viventes terrâ et lapidibus obrui). In the sixth century this venerable sanctuary was still visited, and through its fenestella the bones of the martyrs scattered on the ground within could still be seen (Marucchi, op. cit., II, 371). Many important and interesting epitaphs have been found here.

26. Cemetery of Priscilla. This is the oldest general cemetery of Early Christian Rome (Kaufmann) and in several respects the most important. It takes its name from Priscilla, the mother of the Senator Pudens in whose house St. Peter, according to ancient tradition, found refuge. The sepulchral plot (area) of Pudens on the New Salarian Way became the burial-place of Qquila and Prisca (Rom., xvi, 3), and of Sts. Pudentiana and Praxedes, daughters of Pudens. In this manner the history of the very ancient Roman churches of Santa Pudentiana and Santa Prassede, also that of Santa Prisca on the Aventine, being originally the meeting-places (domesticæ ecclesiæ, Rom., xvi, 5), of the little Christian community, became intimately connected with the burial-site of the family to which they originally belonged. In this catacomb were buried Sts. Felix and Philip (two of the seven martyr sons of St. Felicitas), also Popes St. Marcellinus (d. 304) and St. Marcellus (d. 309), both victims of the persecution of Diocletian. In the basilica (see below) that was soon raised on this site were buried several popes, St. Sylvester (d. 335), St. Liberius (d. 366), St. Siricius (d. 399), St. Celestine (d. 432), and Vigilius (d. 555). Their “fine group of sarcophagi remained intact,” says Marucchi (II, 385) until the ninth century, when the transfer of their bodies to various city churches brought about the usual neglect and final decay of the cemetery, above and below ground. Marucchi maintains that here and not at St. Agnes’ is the true Coemeterium Ostrianum mentioned in Ancient Roman Acts of martyrs as containing a reservoir where St. Peter was wont to baptize, also the chair in which he first sat (ad nymphas ubi Petrus baptizaverat, sedes ubi prius sedit Sanctus Petrus, etc.) when he began his Roman ministry. With much erudition and acumen he develops this thesis in his oft quoted work (Elements d’archéologie chrétienne, II, 432 sqq.), his principal arguments being based on a detailed study of two ancient reservoirs in this cemetery, according to him the original Petrine baptisteries, through deep veneration for which holy places came about the later development of the cemetery of Priscilla, the burial there of several fourth—and fifth-century popes, the overground basilica of St. Sylvester, etc. It was only in 1863 that earnest and continuous efforts were made to explore in a scientific way this vast necropolic; in 1887 the finding of the burial-crypts of the Acilii Glabriones amply repaid the efforts of the Sacred Commission of Archaeology. The corridors and cubicula of this portion of the cemetery of Priscilla offer numerous evidences of Apostolic antiquity, and there is sufficient reason to believe (a) that the aforesaid Acilii Glabriones were closely related to the family of Senator Pudens, and (b) that their Christian family epitaphs of the second century began with the (not yet found) epitaph of Manius Acilius Glabrio, consul in 91, and put to death by Domitian for charges (Suetonius, Domit., 15; Dio Cassius, LXVII, 13) now recognized as equivalent to the profession of the Christian religion.

Not far from the modern entrance to the cemetery is the elegant subterranean chapel or crypt known as the Capella Greca, from two Greek epitaphs found there; this crypt is ornamented with very ancient symbolic frescoes, the most important of which is the celebrated Eucharistic painting in the apse, known as the Fractio Panis, because in it a figure (the priest) is breaking bread and giving it to persons seated at the same table (Wilpert, Fractio Panis, la plus ancienne représentation du sacrifice eucharistique, Paris, 1896). In the vicinity was found in 1820 the epitaph of St. Philomena (facsimile in Christian Museum of the Lateran); according to Marucchi the current legend of St. Philomena is a nineteenth-century invention. The three tiles of this epitaph were removed at some early date from their original place and used to close another grave, so that the body found in 1820 was not that of Philomena, nor are the tracings on the epitaph those of instruments of martyrdom but anchors, palms, etc. (op. cit., II, 409–10; cf. de Waal, “Die Grabschrift der heiligen Philumena,” in “Röm. Quartalschrift,” 1898). There is also here a very ancient fresco of the Blessed Virgin holding to her breast the Infant Jesus, while a prophet (Isaias?; cf. Is., ix, 2; xlii, 6) points to a star above her head. It is a clear evidence of the sentiments of Christian veneration for the Mother of God in the second century, to which period the best archaeologists refer this fresco (see Mary). Elsewhere in Saint Priscilla is the oldest known liturgical fresco of the early Christian Church, the virgo sacra or Deo dicata, i.e. a Christian virgin whose solemn consecration to the service of God is quite dramatically set forth by the artist (cf. Marucchi, II, 417–18, and Wilpert, “Gottgeweihten Jungfrauen,” in bibliography). From a theological point of view not the least important discovery in Saint Priscilla was the fresco in which Our Lord is represented as giving the Christian law to St. Peter with the inscription “Dominus legem dat” (the Lord gives the law); De Rossi considered it as confirmatory of the primacy of Peter; Monsignor Duchesne saw in it a reference to the traditio symboli or Apostles’ Creed communicated to the neophytes at the moment of baptism. It belonged to the fourth century and was discovered in 1887, but has since almost entirely perished (reproduced in De Rossi’s “Bullettino,” 1887, 23 sqq.). The once rich and imposing basilica built by St. Sylvester over the scene of so many early and valuable Christian memories has long since perished. De Rossi published (“Bullettino,” 1890, plates VI-VII) a plan of its probable outlines; Marucchi suggests (ingeniously and with veri-similitude) that in the apse of this basilica stood the ancient Chair of Peter, the “sedes ubi prius sedit” when he baptized in the suburban villa of Senator Pudens, the true Coemeterium Ostrianum in whose venerable precincts Pope Liberius took refuge about the middle of the fourth century, and confirmed the faith of the Romans by baptizing regularly amid the Apostolic memories yet fresh and influential at that place. Some of the papal epitaphs in this basilica have reached us by way of the various medieval epigraphic collections, among them [“Sylloge Corbeiensis,” in De Rossi, “Inscript. Christ.,” II (1) 83, 85] an epitaph that the latter, with Marucchi (II, 469–70) and others, believes to be the epitaph of Pope St. Liberius; if so it offers indisputable evidence of the constant orthodoxy of that much maligned pope.

XI. VIA SALARIA VETUS, beyond the present Porta Pinciana.

27. Cemetery of St. Pamphilus, an unknown martyr. It was discovered by De Rossi in 1865. Among some rude charcoal sketches in one of its cubicula is one representing the demolition of a pagan idol, an index of the end of the fourth century.

28. Cemetery of St. Hermes (or Basilla), a little farther on, in a vineyard of the German College. Hermes seems to have been a martyr of the early part of the second century (c. 119). The fourth-century Liberian Catalogue mentions him as buried in the cemetery of St. Basilla; Padre Marchi and De Rossi had the good fortune to discover the ancient fourth-century basilica raised above the martyr’s tomb; it proves to be the largest of the subterranean churches of Rome, and was probably built on the site of an older edifice It was constructed in the tufa rock, lined with masonry, and had quite a high vault. This basilica was a favourite burial-place, for its floor was found covered with sepulchres. The body of St. Hermes was removed to the city by Adrian I (772–95). This cemetery also held the bodies of Sts. Protus and Hyacinthus, martyrs in the persecution of Valerian (257), and mentioned in the Liberian Catalogue. Their mistress, Saint Basilla, suffered at the same time; the Martyrologium Hieronymianum calls them “doctores sanctæ legis.” The body of St. Basilla has not been found, but that of St. Hyacinthus now reposes in the church of the Propaganda at Rome whither it was transferred in 1845 after its discovery by Padre Marchi; that of St. Protus, though once buried in the neighbouring loculus, seems to have been removed in the ninth century by Leo IV. Since 1894 excavations have been renewed in this cemetery, in consequence of which the crypt and stairs built by St. Damasus, or about his time, have been found. The cemetery of Hermes has already yielded a number of valuable dogmatic epitaphs now kept in the Kircherian Museum at Rome.

29. Cemetery ad clivum cucumeris. It was located in the vicinity of Aqua Acetosa, and was the burial-place of several martyrs, among them the Consul Liberalis, whose fine metrical epitaph has come down to us through the “Itineraries.”

Martyris hic sancti Liberalis membra quiescunt

Qui quondam in terris consul honore fuit

(Here reposes the body of Saint Liberalis, who in life was honoured as a Consul). The exact site of this cemetery is unknown, though De Rossi believed for a while (1892) that he had discovered it.

XII. VIA FLAMINIA, outside of Porta del Popolo, the great northern highway, as the Via Appia was the great southern highway, of Rome.

30. Cemetery of St. Valentinus. This martyr, according to his (late) Acts a priest and a physician, seems to have suffered under Claudius Gothicus (268–70). He was buried on the site of his martyrdom by the pious matron Sabinilla at the first milestone on the Flaminian Way. In time a small cemetery grew up about the tomb of the martyr which in the Middle Ages was in charge of the Augustinians; one of them, the historian Onofrio Panvinio, wrote a description of it. Eventually, however, the cemetery became a wine-cellar. In 1877 Marucchi discovered the “historical crypt” of St. Valentinus, with its interesting Byzantine frescoes of the seventh century, among them a Crucifixion, the only one found in the catacombs, and one of the oldest artistic representations of this scene. As in the ancient Crucifixion in santa Maria Antiqua (Roman Forum), the figure of Christ is clothed in a colobium, or long mantle. An overground cemetery on the site is said to have been the most extensive of its kind. The epitaphs collected there yield only to the epigraphic collection in the Lateran Museum for number and importance; many are dated, from 318 to 523, i.e. to the final period of the consular dignity. A fourth-century basilica built on this site has recently been discovered (1888), showing, like so many others, the fenestella confessionis through which the tomb of the martyr could be seen. The cemetery was open and respected as late as the middle of the eleventh century. With the transfer of the martyr’s body (fourteenth century) to Santa Prassede in the city began the decay of the catacomb; the basilica had fallen by the time of Bosio (1594), whose “Villa Bosia” was over the cemetery, and yet exists as Villa Trezza.

The best English introduction to the study of the catacombs is the work of Northcote and Brownlow (see below). The latest and best literature is found in the works, quoted below, of Kaufmann, Marucchi, and Leclercq, particularly in the exhaustive study of Nicholas Muller, art. Koimeterien, in Realencyclopadie f. prot. Theol. und Kirche, X, 794–877. The chief collections of materials are those of Giovanni Batista De Rossi, and in them are also seen on the largest scale the methods of investigation that have rendered such excellent results for theology and church history, also the history of the arts, social life, etc. of Christian antiquity. For the life of De Rossi, see that article. The titles of his writings number over 200, but the epoch-making works are the following: 1. Roma sotterranea cristiana (3 vol., Rome, 1864–77), large quarto with maps and illustrations, dealing, however, only with the cemetery of Saint Callistus. The introduction is a monumental piece of work. As these works are rare, even in public libraries, Dr. Kaufmann gives (pp. 24–27) full tables of their contents. De Rossi planned a complete collection of the inscriptions (epitaphs) of the catacombs but only partially finished it. 2. Inscriptiones christianoe urbis Romoe septimo soeculo antiquires (folio I, Rome, 1861; II, ibid., 1888). 3. In a special periodical (now very rare) conducted by him he consigned many results of his studies and investigations Bullettino di archeologia cristiana (Rome, 1863–1894), in five series, continued as its official record by the Commission of Sacred Archaeology under the title of Nuovo Bullettino, etc. (Rome, 1895 sqq.). Among his numerous special studies we may mention his account of the earliest pictures of the Blessed Virgin in the catacoms, Imagines selectoe Deiparoe virginis in coemeteriis subterraneis udo depictoe (Rome, 1863; to be read now in connection with the magisterial Malereien of Wilpert), and his account of the inscriptions of the Christian museum of the Lateran, Il museo epigrafico Pio Lateranense (Rome, 1877); cf. Marucchi, Guida del museo cristiano-Lateranense (Rome, 1898). Two fundamental studies of De Rossi, made at the beginning of his career and yet of value for catacomb researches, are his De Christianis monumentis ichthyn exhibentibus, in Spicileg. Solesm. (Paris, 1855), III, 544–77; De Christianis titulis Carthaginen. (ibid.), 505–538.

The Jesuit writer, Raffaele Garrucci, deserves an honourable mention for his voluminous (6 large folios) and learned work that deals largely with the catacombs, Storia dell’arte cristiana nei primi otto secoli della Chiesa (Prato. 1873–80), with numerous illustrations. The writings of De Rossi, especially his Roma sotteranea, soon gave rise to a number of adaptations in various European languages; one of the most useful and reliable is that of Northcote and Brownlow, Roma Sotterranea, or an Account of the Roman Catacombs, especially of the Cemetery of St. Callistus (London, 1869; 2d ed. 1878–79), published also in briefer form. Quite similar are the German work (same title) of Kraus (Freiburg, 1873; 2nd ed. 1879), and the French manual of Reusens, Elements d’archeologie chretienne (Louvain, 1871–75; 2nd ed., 1885).

The constant activity of excavation, literary research, and criticism, creates as constant a demand for newer manuals of the science which has thus grown up; among the later works of this kind we may mention with praise: Armellini, , Lezioni di archeologia sacra (Rome, 1898); Idem, Gli antichi cimiteri cristiani di Roma e d’Italia (Rome, 1893); Marucchi, Les elements d’archeologie chretienne (Paris, 1902–05, 3 vols.); Kaufmann, Handbuch der christlichen Archaologie (Paderborn, 1905; an Italian tr., Manuale di archeologia cristiana (Rome, 1907); Leclercq, Manuel d’archeologie chretienne depuis les origines jusqu’au VIII siecle (3 vols., Paris, 1907), the latter being a resume of the rich materials of the new Benedictine dictionary of Christian archaeology quoted below. Among later English works similar in intention, if not equal in execution, are: Cheetham, History of Early Christian Art (New York, 1895), and the praiseworthy summary of Lowrie, Christian Art and Archoeology (London, 1901).

The natural desire to obtain some easy control over the enormous mass of facts and opinions that all these labours developed led soon to the creation of illustrated encyclopedias of Christian antiquities, all of which are useful beyond expression for the study of the catacombs. The first of these, based on De Rossi’s work, was Martigny, Dict. des antiquites chretiennes (Paris, 1865; 3d ed., 1889). It was followed by a good English (non-Catholic) compilation of the same nature, Smith and Cheetham, A dictionary of Christian Antiquities (London, 1876–80), and shortly by the German (Catholic) work edited by Kraus, Realenzyklopadie d. christl. Alterhumer (Freiburg, 1882–86), now out of print and rare. In the mean time the French Benedictines of Farnborough, England (Cabrol chief editor) have begun a very exhaustive encyclopedia of both Christian archaeology and liturgy under the title of Dict. d’archeol. chret. et de liturgie (Paris, 1903 sqq.). Among the French disciples of De Rossi who contributed most to spread the principles and methods of the new catacomb excavations may be mentioned Le Blant, Inscriptions chretiennes de la Gaule (Paris, 1856–65), and Nouveau recueil des inscriptions, etc. (ibid., 1892); Idem, Etudes sur les sarcophages chretiens antiques de la ville d’Arles (Paris, 1878), Les sarcophages chretiens de la Gaule (ibid., 1886), and other important works. Easily foremost, however, among the scientific students of the Roman catacombs is Monsignore Joseph Wilpert, whose accurate reproduction of the originals of the catacomb frescoes has placed before all scholars reliable copies of these famous relics of ancient Christian life, and enables everyone to study them scientifically and at his ease: Wilpert, Die Malereien der Katakomben Roms (Freiburg, 1903, 2 folio volumes, 596 pages of text, 267 plates and 54 figures, published also in Italian as Pitture delle Catacombe romane, same place and date). He had previously published a number of valuable researches, both patristic and archaeological in content; among them: Prinzipienfragen der christlichen Archaologie (Freiburg, 1889, with supplement, ibid., 1890); Die gottgeweihten Jungfrauen in den ersten Jahrhunderten der Kirche (ibid., 1892); Ein Cyklus christologischer Gemalde, etc. (ibid., 1891); Fractio Panis, die alteste Darstellung des eucharistischen Opfers (ibid., 1895); Die Malereien in der Sakramentskapelle i. d. Katak. des hl. Callistus (ibid., 1897). Among the scholarly Protestant writers on the catacombs the following deserve credit: Piper, Einleitung in die monumentale Theologie (Gotha, 1867); Muller, Archaologische Studien, etc. (Leipzig, 1895–1901), and since 1902, as Studien uber christliche Denkmaler, particularly his articles in the Realenzyklopadie f. prot. Theologie u. Kirche, on Koimeterien, Christusbilder, and Inschriften; Schultze, Die Katakomben (Leipzig, 1882), Der theologische Ertrag der Katakombenforschung (ibid., 1882), Die altchristlichen Bildwerke, etc. (ibid., 1889); and Archaologie der altchristlichen Kunst (Munich, 1895).

Important for the study of the catacombs, their excavations, history, problems, sources, literature, etc, are the above-mentioned official Nuovo Bullettino, the Christian archaeological bulletin of the Civilta Cattolica by Grisar, the Comptes rendus of Kirsch in the Romische Quartalschrift fur christliche Alterthumskunde (Freiburg and Rome), conducted, for the archaeological content, by Mgr. DeWaal to which may be added the Oriens Christianus, conducted by A. Baumstark (Campo Santo Tedesco, or German College, Rome), a useful repository of archaeological information from the Christian Orient. Here it may not be out of place to mention the merits of the Roman association known as the “Collegium Cultorum martyrum,” especially devoted to the veneration of the holy martyrs and the sites of their sepulchres, and the Christian Archaeological Congresses of 1894 and 1900. The American Journal of Archoeology (Baltimore, 1885 sqq.) also devotes attention to the results of catacomb studies and researches. It is easily under[s]tood that the researches in every field of early Christian antiquities throw light on the catacombs and in turn are helped by the special researches in these cemeteries; hence the importance of the remarkable discoveries of Pere Delattre of the Peres Blancs on the site of ancient Carthage (for a bibliography of his writings see Le Musee Lavigerie de Saint-Louis de Carthage (Tunis, 1900); cf. Dalton, Catalogue of Early Christian Antiquities, etc., in the British Museum (London, 1901).

Similarly it is of interest to know the sources of the early art-impulses among the Roman Christians, attributed mostly to the Orient (Egypt, Syria, Palestine), by Strzygowski, Orient oder Tom (Leipzig, 1901), Kleinasien (ibid., 1903). Finally it may be useful to add that any serious study of the catacombs demands some acquaintance with the excellent introductory pages of the above-mentioned manuals of Kaufmann, Marucchi, or Leclercq, also with the earlier volumes of the histories of the City of Rome by the Catholic writers Von Reumont (Berlin, 1867), and Grisar (Rome, 1900, I, unfinished): and the non-Catholic Gregorovius (Eng. tr.), to which must be added the excellent introduction and notes of the critical edition of the Liber Pontificalis (2 vols., 4x, Paris, 1886, 1892), by Mgr. Louis Duchesne.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN.

Religious of the Cenacle

The Society of Our Lady of the Cenacle was founded in 1826, at La Louvesc in France, near the tomb of St. John Francis Regis, the Jesuit apostle of the poor, by Jean-Pierre-Etienne Terme, a holy and zealous missionary priest of the Diocese of Viviers, and Marie-Victoire-Therese Couderc, a woman twenty years of age, but already mature, in courage, energy, and the living resources of faith. Desirous to attract pilgrims to the tomb of St. John Francis Regis, and induce them to there recollect themselves in solitude, prayer, and meditation, they resolved to open houses where women might follow the exercises of a retreat; the first of these houses was opened at La Louvesc. Father Terme was not to see the full development of his work; he died in 1834, leaving his religious family to the direction of the Jesuit Fathers. Encouraged by episcopal authority, and then by Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII, the last of whom definitely approved its constitutions, the new institute grew rapidly and soon counted houses in France, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland, and Holland. In England, the first house was opened at Manchester, in 1888. The year 1892 saw the first foundation in America, at New York.

The Society of Our Lady of the Cenacle honours particularly, and proposes to itself for its model, the retirement of the Blessed Virgin in the Cenacle, after the Ascension of our Lord, while the whole Church, expecting the Holy Ghost, “were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus” (Acts, i, 14). The religious of this society aim, first, at their own personal sanctification; secondly, at procuring the salvation and perfection of their neighbour. It is this twofold end that they endeavour to attain by the invisible apostolate of perpetual prayer, the recitation of the Divine Office, and the daily Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, as well as by the exercise of exterior forms of apostolate, principally in providing for spiritual retreats and the teaching of Christian doctrine.

The houses of the society are open at any time to women of all classes wishing to make the Spiritual Exercises, that is, apply themselves for a few days to the consideration of the truths of faith, to recollection and prayer, either in order to make a choice for the disposition of their future life, or because they feel it necessary to regulate their lives in a more Christian manner. From its origin, the society has taken up the teaching of Christian doctrine as a powerful means of apostolate, and receives all persons who are desirous to learn the truths of faith, so as to dispose themselves for the reception of the sacraments, also all who are preparing to enter the Catholic Church, or who, after their return to God, seek to strengthen themselves in faith and piety. Other means used are the day’s retreat, associations, etc.; in fact, all offices of spiritual charity proper to extend the kingdom of God in souls, according to the spirit of the Cenacle, are employed by the Society of Our Lady of the Cenacle, for the love of Christ and the Blessed Virgin.

B. ZIMMERMAN.

Robert Cenalis

(Sometimes written CÉNEAU and COENALIS, whence the nickname, le Soupier)

Bishop, historian, and controversialist, b. in Paris, 1483; d. there, 1560. In 1513 he became doctor of the Faculty of Theology in the Sorbonne, and in 1515 was made Bishop of Vence. From here he was transferred in 1530 to the See of Riez, and in 1532 to that of Avranches. He took an active part in the religious and polemical discussions that attended the Reformation, and wrote several controversial works, the most important of which are: “Pro tuendo sacro coelibatu” (Paris, 1545); “Tractatus de utriusque gladii facultate, usuque legitimo” (Paris, 1546, and Leyden, 1558); “Axioma de divortio matrimonii mosaici per legem evangelicam refutato” (Paris, 1549); “Traductatis Calviniacae” (Paris, 1556); “Methodus de compescendâ haereticorum ferociâ” (Paris, 1557). In the same year and place in which the last-named work was published, there appeared his “Historia Galliae,” dedicated to King Henry II. This was a folio volume, treating of the name, origin, and achievements of the Gauls, Franks, and Burgundians. It has but little critical value. Not long afterward he produced “L’histoire ecclésiastique de Normandie.” While Bishop of Riez he issued synodal statutes of that diocese, and wrote an erudite treatise on weights and measures under the title: “De liquidorum leguminumque mensuris, seu verâ mensurarum ponderumque ratione” (Paris, 1532, 1535, 1547).

JOHN A. RYAN.

Diocese of Ceneda

DIOCESE OF CENEDA (CENETENSIS).

The city of Ceneda is situated in the province of Treviso, in former Venetian territory, on a declivity of the Rhaetian Alps, in a picturesque region. In ancient times it was known as Ceneta or Acedum. It was pillaged by Attila in 452, and a century later by Totila. During the domination of the Lombards it was governed by a duke, and afterwards became part of the marquisate of Treviso. Later (994) the bishop of that city was also its temporal lord, even after it was incorporated with Venice, since in 1447 and in 1514 Bishops Francesco and Oliviero gave the republic civil investiture of the territory of Ceneda, reserving for themselves and their successors (until about 1768) authority over the city and a few villas. The Gospel, it is said, was preached in this region in the first century by St. Fortunatus, deacon of St. Hermagoras of Aquileia. The earliest known bishop is Vindemius, present in 579 at the Synod of Grado, held to continue the Schism of the Three Chapters. In 680 Ursinus, bishop of Ceneda, was present at the Council of Rome convened against the Monothelites. Other bishops were: Azzo (1140); Sigifredo (1170), during whose time there were many conflicts between Ceneda and the neighbouring towns; Antonion Correr (1409); Lorenzo da Ponte (1739), the last bishop to exercise temporal power. Since 1818 Ceneda has been a suffragan of Venice; previously it was under the jurisdiction of Udine. The diocese has a population of 183,000, with 118 parishes, 500 churches and chapels, 216 secular and 25 regular priests, 5 religious houses of men and 3 of women.

U. BENIGNI

Censer

A vessel suspended by chains, and used for burning incense at solemn Mass, Vespers, Benediction, processions, and other important offices of the Church. It is now commonly called a thurible. In its prevailing shape the censer consists of a cup, or bowl, which rests on a firm base and is provided with a hollow movable pan for holding ignited charcoal, a lid or covering, and four chains about three feet in length, three of which unite the bowl to a circular disc, while the fourth is used for raising the lid, to which one end is attached, the other passing through a hole in the disc and terminating in a small ring. To carry the censer the chains are grasped in the hand just under the disc, care being taken to keep the base elevated to a height of six or eight inches from the ground and to swing it gently to and fro in order that the current of air thus created may cause the fire to burn the fragrant gums or incense which is placed on it whenever the censer is being used. The censer played an important part in the ancient religious worship both of the Jews and Pagans. It is no wonder, then, that its employment in Christian ceremonies goes back to the very earliest times. Its primitive form, however, was quite different from what it is now, being something like a vase with a perforated cover to emit the perfumed odours. Later on chains were added for greater convenience in manipulation. These vessels in the Middle Ages were often made of gold and silver and enriched with numerous details of most elaborate ornamentation. In the archives or inventories of many Continental and English cathedrals (such as St. John Lateran, Trier, Louvain, Lincoln, and York Minster) minute descriptions are given of some ancient specimens in the possession of these churches.

BONA, De Rebus Liturgicis (Turin, 1747), I, xxv; DUGDALE, Monasticum Anglicanum (London, 1682), passim; PUGIN, Glossary of Ecclesiastical Ornament (London, 1868), s.v. Censer; O’LOAN, Ceremonies of Ecclesiastical Functions (Dublin, 1893), 27; LEVASSEUR, Manuel Liturgique (Paris, 1890), I, 275; VAN DER STAPPEN, De Celebratione Missæ (Mechlin, 1892), X, 92.

PATRICK MORRISROE.

Censorship of Books

(Censura Librorum.)

DEFINITION AND DIVISION

In general, censorship of books is a supervision of the press in order to prevent any abuse of it. In this sense, every lawful authority, whose duty it is to protect its subjects from the ravages of a pernicious press, has the right of exercising censorship of books. This censorship is either ecclesiastical or civil, according as it is practiced by the spiritual or secular authority, and it may be exercised in two ways, viz.: before the printing or publishing of a work, by examining it (censura prævia); and after the printing or publishing, by repressing or prohibiting it (censura repressiva). This is the double meaning of the classical word censura, especially as used in the legislation of the Roman Church. Later on, however, particularly in civil law, censura denoted almost exclusively censura prævia. Wherever the abolition of censorship in past centuries is referred to, only the latter is meant.

The reverse of censorship is freedom of the press. In all civilized countries, however, that have abrogated the censura prævia, freedom of the press is by no means unlimited. It abuse may, in the worst cases, be condemned and punished according to common law, and the old censorship has nearly everywhere been replaced by more severe press-laws. Although the censorship of books (in the wider sense) did not begin precisely with the invention and spread of the art of printing, yet in our definition of it, only productions of the press are spoken of. In the first place, censorship now, as well as in centuries past, is concerned exclusively with printed works; secondly, in the narrower sense (censura prævia), it has taken that definite form, which is expressed by “censorship of books,” only after the invention of the printing press. When explaining, however, the historical development of censorship, we must begin with an earlier period, because we are here dealing with it as exercised by the Universal Church of Rome. From the beginning and at all times in principle, the Church adhered to the censorship, although in the course of time the application was modified according to conditions and circumstances. The censorship of books, as well as the press-law of states or of church-communities other than Catholic, can be mentioned here for the sake of comparison only.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

As soon as there were books or writing of any kind the spreading or reading of which was highly detrimental to the public, competent authorities were obliged to take measures against them. Long before the Christian era, therefore, we find that heathens as well as Jews had fixed regulations for the suppression of dangerous books and the prevention of corruptive reading. From numerous illustrations quoted by Zaccaria (pp. 248–256) it is evident that most of the writings condemned or destroyed offended against religion and morals. Everywhere the books declared dangerous were cast into the fire—the simplest and most natural execution of censorship. When at Ephesus, in consequence of St. Paul’s preaching, the heathens were converted, they raised before the eyes of the Apostle of the Gentiles a pile in order to burn their numerous superstition books (Acts, xix, 19). No doubt, the new Christians moved by grace and the Apostolic word did so of their own accord; but all the more was their action approved by St. Paul himself, and it is recorded as an example worthy of imitation by the author of the Acts of the Apostles. From this burning of the books at Ephesus, as well as from the Second Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, it clearly appears how the Apostles judged of pernicious books and how they wished them to be treated. In concert with the Apostle of the Gentiles (Tit., iii, 10). St. John most emphatically exhorted the first Christians to shun heretical teachers. To the disciples of the Apostles it was a matter of course to connect this warning not only with the persons of such teachers, but first and foremost with their doctrine and their writings. Thus, in the first Christian centuries, the so-called apocrypha (q.v.) above all other books appeared to the faithful as libri non recipiendi, books which were on no account to be used. The establishment of the Canon of Holy Writ was, therefore, at once an elimination and a censuring of the apocrypha. The two documents referring to this, both from the latter half of the second century, are the Muratorian Canon (q.v.) and the Apostolic Constitutions (see Hauler, Didascaliæ Apostolorum fragments, Leipzig, 1900, p. 4).

When the Church, after the era of persecution, was given greater liberty, a censorship of books appears more plainly. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicæa (325) condemned not only Arius personally, but also his book entitled “Thalia”; Constantine commanded that the writings of Arius and his friends should everywhere be delivered up to be burned; concealment of them was forbidden under pain of death. In the following centuries, when and wherever heresies sprung up, the popes of Rome and the oecumenical councils, as well as the particular synods of Africa, Asia, and Europe, condemned, conjointly with the false doctrines, the books and writings containing them. (Cf. Hilgers, Die Bücherverbote in Papstbriefen.) The latter were ordered to be destroyed by fire, and illegal preservation of them was treated as a heinous criminal offense. The authorities intended to make the reading of such writings simply impossible. Pope St. Innocent I, enumerating in a letter of 405 a number of apocryphal writings, rejects them as non solum repudianda sed etiam damnanda. It is the first attempt at a catalog of forbidden books. The so-called “Decretum Gelasianum” contains many more, not only apocryphal,but also heretical, or otherwise objectionable writings. It is not without reason that this catalog has been called the first “Roman Index” of forbidden books. The books in question were not unfrequently examined in the public sessions of councils. There are also cases in which the popes themselves (e.g., Innocent I and Gregory the Great) read and examined a book sent to them and finally condemned it. As regards the kinds and content of writings forbidden in ancient times, we find among them, besides apocryphal and heretical books, forged acts of martyrs, spurious penitentials, and superstitious writings. In ancient times, information about objectionable books was sent from both East and West to Rome, that they might be examined, and, if necessary, forbidden by the Apostolic See. Thus at the beginning of the Middle Ages, there existed, in all its essentials, though without specified clauses, a prohibition and censorship of books throughout the Catholic Church. Popes as well as councils, bishops no less than synods, considered it then, as always, their most sacred duty to safeguard the purity of faith and to protect the souls of the faithful by condemning and forbidding any dangerous book.

During the Middle Ages prohibitions of books were far more numerous than in ancient times. Their history is chiefly connected with the names of medieval heretics like Berengarius of Tours, Abelard, John Wyclif, and John Hus. However, especially in the thirteenth and fourteen century, there were also issued prohibitions against various kinds of superstition writings, among them the Talmud and other Jewish books. In this period also, the first decrees about the reading of various translations of the Bible were called forth by the abuses of the Waldenses and Albigensians. What these decrees (e.g., of the synod of Toulouse in 1129, Tarragona in 1234, Oxford in 1408) aimed at was the restriction of Bible-reading in the vernacular. A general prohibition was never in existence. During the earlier Christian centuries, and until late in the Middle Ages, there existed, as compared with our times, but few books. As they were multiplied by handwriting only, the number of copies to be met with was very small; moreover none but the learned could make use of them. For these reasons, preventive censorship was not necessary until, after the invention of the printing press and the subsequent large circulation of printed works, the harm done by pernicious books increased in a manner hitherto unknown. Nevertheless, a previous examination of books was not altogether unknown in more remote times, and in the Middle Ages it was even prescribed in some places. St. Ambrose sent several of his writings to Sabinus, bishop of Piacenza, that he might pass his opinion on them and correct them before they were published (P.L. , XVI, 1151). In the fifth century, Gennadius sent his work, “De Scriptoribus Ecclesiaticus” to Pope Gelasius for the same purpose. The chronicler, Godfrey of Vietrbo, applied expressly to Urban III (1186) for examination and approbation of his “Pantheon” which he dedicated to the pope. These are, of course, examples of a merely private, preventive censorship. Yet in the most flourishing period of the Middle Ages we find censorship of that kind established by law in the very centres of scientific life. According to the papal statutes of the University of Paris (1342), the professors were not allowed to hand any lecture over to the booksellers before it had been examined by the chancellors and the professors of theology. (In the previous century the booksellers were bound by oath to offer for sale only genuine and “corrected” copies.) A similar censorship occurs in the fourteenth century at all universities.

Down to more recent times, forbidden books were got out of the way in the simplest manner, by destroying or confiscating them. It is worthy of note that when the Roman synod of 745 ordered the burning of the superstitious writings sent by St. Boniface to the Apostolic See, Pope Zachary ordered them to be preserved in the pontifical archives (Mansi, XII, 380). Again, while the provincial synod of Paris (121) strictly forbade certain works of Aristotle as found in the erroneous Arabic edition, Pope Gregory IX (1231) merely suspended the use of these writings until they had been minutely examined and cleared of all suspicion (Du Plessis d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum, I, 1, 133; Denifle, Charularium Universitatis Parisiensis, I, 70, 138). The Roman expurgation of suspected books, so often unjustly held in ill repute, had therefore, no inglorious beginnings under this last-named great ecclesiastical legislator. In general, it may be said that in the examination and prohibition of books, Rome displayed wise moderation and true justice, since it intended only to keep faith and morals unpolluted. With the invention an spread of typography begins a new period in the censorship of books. It was in the nature of things that the discoveries and tendencies at the end of the fifteenth, and commencement of the sixteenth, century should very soon abuse the “divine art” of printing for the purpose of multiplying and disseminating all kinds of pernicious books. The religious disruption of Germany had not yet begun when Rome took precautionary measures by insisting on a preventive censorship of all printed works. The beginnings of the censorship just mentioned are not to be traced to the Curia of Rome, but to Cologne, where we find it established in the university in the reign of Sixtus IV. In a Brief of 18 March, 1479, this pope granted the fullest powers of censorship to the university, and praised it for having hitherto checked with such zeal the printing and selling of irreligious books. In 1482 the Bishop of Würzburg enacted a law of censorship for his diocese; in 1485 and 1486 the Archbishop of Mainz did the same for his ecclesiastical province. Thus the way was paved for the Bull of Innocent VIII (17 Nov. , 1487), which universally prescribed the censorship of books, and entrusted the bishops with its execution. Nevertheless, this first universal binding papal edict of censorship remained unheeded. We only hear of its being promulgated by Herman IV, Archbishop of Cologne. Consequently, in Venice, the papal legate, Nicolò Franco, issued in 1491 an order of censorship for this republic. As early, however, as 1480 we find books published with the approbation of the Patriarch of Venice. The decree of 1491 ordered the censorship of theological and religious books only.

On 1 June 1501, followed the Bull of Alexander VI, an exact copy of Innocent VIII’s, but issued only for the ecclesiastical provinces of Cologne, Mainz, Trier, and Magdeburg. Finally, during the Lateran Council, Leo X promulgated, 3 May, 1515, the Bull “Inter sollicitudines.” This is the first papal censorial decrees given for the entire Church which was universally accepted. All writings without exception were subjected to censorship. The examination was entrusted to the bishops or to the censors appointed by them and to the inquisitor; in Rome, it appertained to the cardinal-vicar (q.v.) and the Magister Sacri Palatii. Printers offending against the law incurred the punishment of excommunication; moreover they were liable to a fine and had their books destroyed by fire. After examination, approbation was to be given free of charge and without delay and this under pain of excommunication. Meanwhile, the prohibition of books had been maintained by the pope and bishops as usual. In 1482 the bishops of Würzburg and Basil forbade certain printed works in their diocese, and by a Bull of 4 August, 1487, Innocent VII prohibited Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s nine hundred theses, printed at Rome in December, 1486. This prohibition was ratified by Alexander VI in 1493. In Germany great excitement prevailed, it being the eve of the Reformation. A book containing the tenets of humanism, the “Epistolæ obscurorum virorum,” was suppressed by a brief of Leo X, 15 March, 1517. The case of Reuchlin’s “Augenspiegel” was a long time pending in Rome; the book was ultimately prohibited, 23 June, 1520. Some days previous (15 June, 1520) Leo X issued the Bull “Exsurge Domine,” by which all writings of Luther, even future ones, were forbidden under pain of excommunication. Adrian VI again set forth this prohibition in divers Letters of the year 1522, and in 1524, Clement VII inserted in the Bull “Consueverunt” (in coena domini) a clause proscribing under pain of excommunication all heretical writings, notably those of Luther.

After being reorganized by Paul III (Bull of 21 July, 1542) the General Inquisition took charge of the supervision of books, chiefly in Rome and Italy. Subsequent to a proclamation of 12 July, 1543, enjoining with special emphasis the suppression and censorship of books, this tribunal composed a catalogue of forbidden books, which, together with a rather too rigorous decree (30 Dec. , 1558) and another that mitigated it, was promulgated in the reign of Paul IV, some days after the date just mentioned. Similar catalogues have been published since the twenties of the sixteenth century, by political as well as ecclesiastical authorities, particularly in England, the Low Countries, France, Germany, and Italy (Venice, Milan, Lucca). But the catalogue of the Inquisition of 1559 was the first Roman list that was meant for the whole world; it was also the very first that bore the title “Index.” This Roman catalogue, like all others published up to that time, contained almost exclusively works distinctly heretical or suspected of heresy; and since these were considered as already condemned and forbidden, especially by the Bull “In Coena Domini,” the catalogue seemed to be merely the detailed list or register, in short the “Index” of the prohibited books. This Index of Paul IV, however, contained one particularly rigorous enactment, viz.: that all books—published as well as to be published—of the writers mentioned in the catalogue (of the so-called first class); all books of the second and third class; and even books thereafter published by printers of heretical works, were declared forbidden under the same most severe pains and penalties. No other entirely new enactments or regulations of censorship were contained in this edition. Later editions of the Index imitated this first one only in name. The typical Index for Roman decrees of this kind appeared soon after and abolished the too rigorous one of Paul IV.

During the fourth session (1546) of the Council of Trent the assembled Fathers, discussing the canon of Holy Scripture, insisted expressly on the censorship of books, such as had been universally proscribed by the Lateran Council, and on the sanctions therein decreed, especially in regard to books and writings treating of religious things, or in their words, de rebus sacris. For members of religious orders wishing to publish works of this sort, examination and approbation of their writings on the part of their superiors was prescribed, in addition to the approbation of the ordinary. Towards the end of the council the reorganization of the censorship and prohibition of books was more particularly debated. The result was the so-called “Index Tridentinus,” which, however, was not published until 1564, by order of the council, along with the brief of Pius IV; wherefore it is also called “Index of Pius IV.” Besides a revised catalogue of forbidden books, this index contained, as a most important modification, ten general rules composed by the council, since known as the “Tridentine Rules.”

First, these ten rules contain prohibitions

of all heretical and superstitious writings;

of all immoral (obscene) books, the old classics alone excepted, which, however, are not to be used in teaching the young;

of all Latin translations of the New Testament coming from heretics.

A particular statement is made with regard to heresiarchs, or heads of sects sprung up since 1515, whose names are mentioned in the so-called first class of the index. All their books, even those free from objection, i.e., not treating of religious questions, as well as future publications, are to be considered forbidden. Second, the rules contain conditional prohibitions, i.e. , books published by heretics, or even by Catholics, that are in the main good and useful, but not altogether free from dangerous passages, are forbidden until corrected by the lawful authorities. To these writings belong chiefly those mentioned in the Index itself as needing correction.

Third, on certain conditions, and after asking special permission, leave is granted for the reading of Latin translations of the Old Testament edited by heretics, and for the use of Bible-versions in the vernacular written by Catholics.

Fourth, preventive censorship and approbation, as prescribed by the Bull of Leo X (1515), are insisted on. The punishment of excommunication is extended also to the author who has his book printed without the necessary approbation. A copy of the examined and approved manuscript is to remain with the censor. Moreover, printers and booksellers are forbidden both to offer for sale prohibited books and to sell conditionally interdicted works to anyone not producing a permit; they are ordered to keep ready an exact list of all writings they have in stock. At the same time bishops and inquisitors are urged to supervise printing and book-shops and to have them inspected.

Finally, the rules inflict the punishment of excommunication on such as read and possess forbidden heretical works, or those suspected of heresy. Any person reading or keeping a book prohibited for other reasons commits a grievous sin and is to be punished according to the bishop’s discretion. The ten rules remained in force until Leo XIV abrogated them by the Constitution “Officiorum ac Munerum” (25 Jan., 1897) and replaced them by new general decrees. In the course of time, however, the rules not only received some few additions, especially when a new index was published, but in consequence of contrary custom also gradually lost their binding force with regard to certain regulations.

The most important event regarding the administration of the censorship after the Council of Trent was the institution of a special congregation, the S. Congregatio Indicis Librorum Prohibitorum. (See Roman Congregations.) The first task of this body of cardinals was to be the promulgation of new indexes as well as the expurgation of books needing correction. It also soon took in hand the examination and prohibition of dangerous new writings, together with the supervision and management of all that pertained to the production and distribution of books. The Congregation of the Index was called into existence by Pius V, in March, 1571, formally and solemnly confirmed by the Bull of Gregory XIII, “Ut pestiferarum” (13 September, 1572), and its rights eventually defined by Sixtus V in the bull “Immensa Æterni Patris” (22 Jan., 1588), with those of the other congregations of cardinals. Sixtus V intended to replace, in his new index (printed 1590) the ten Tridentine rules by twenty-two new ones. This index, however, never passed into law; Sixtus died and its publication was stopped by the succeeding popes. In the next Roman Index the ten rules were re-instated instead of the twenty-two rules of Sixtus V. The new index, published at length by Clement VIII (1596), contained, besides additions to the catalogue of forbidden books, not only the ten rules but, directly after them, an instruction on the prohibition, expurgation, and printing of books, some remarks on the fourth and ninth rules, and on several of the forbidden books. The instruction reminds bishops and inquisitors both of their duties and rights regarding the prohibition of books. Outside Italy, they, as well as the universities, are ordered to draw up and promulgate indexes of forbidden books for their respective districts, copies of which are to be sent to Rome. As regard the expurgation of books, the instruction sets forth in detail who is authorized for this purpose, how it is to be practiced in different cases, and what is to be cancelled. After completing the corrections, bishop and inquisitor are to publish a “Codex expurgatorius,” according to which the books in question are to be expurgated. Practically, neither of the first two parts of this instruction was of much consequence. Outside of Italy, apart from Spain and Portugal, Poland and Bohemia, particular indexes were almost unknown. A short time after it was even forbidden to do this without special leave of the Congregation of the Index. As to expurgation, it was only in Rome itself, apart from Spain, Portugal, and Belgium that an “Index expurgatorius” (one volume) was published in 1607, the author of which was the then Magister Sacri Palatii. But this never became legally binding. The third part of the instruction exactly states the rules to be observed (1) when examining a book previous to the printing; (2) when approving, and (3) when actually printing it. The whole is a more detailed specification of the decree of the Lateran Council as well as the regulations laid down in the tenth Tridentine rule. The observations appended to the instructions refer chiefly, on the one hand, to the permission of reading translations of the Bible; on the other to the prohibition of astrological works, of the Talmud, and of other Jewish books.

In the early part of the seventeenth century both the Congregation of the Index and the Magister Sacri Palatii published in Rome, from time to time, decrees containing new prohibitions of books. These decrees were collected in smaller indexes considered as additions to the index of Clement VIII, and in 1632 the then secretary of the Congregation of the Index edited (in his private capacity only) a complete alphabetical list of all books forbidden up to that time. But it was not until 1664, under Alexander VII, that by order of the Congregation a new official index was published which differed from all prior ones in form and arrangement of the subject-matter; as to the contents, the only difference was that all prohibitions from 1596 to 1664 were inserted. The same is to be said of the abridged edition of the index of Alexander VII, which was published the following year (1665). In the introductory Brief, “Speculatores,” this pope decreed that in the prohibition of books none but the penalties fixed, both in the tenth rule and the bull “In Coena Domini,” should be in force. In the second half of the seventeenth century and the first of the eighteenth, many (chiefly Jansenistic) books were condemned by the congregation of the Index, the Roman Inquisition, and papal Bulls or briefs. The works interdicted by letters Apostolic were, as a rule, forbidden under pain of excommunication. During this time it was not unusual that in addition to single books whole classes of writings of a similar kind were forbidden, just as had been done formerly, particularly in letters Apostolic. Originally these classes of books were inserted in the alphabetical list mostly under the word libri until the Index was reformed under Benedict XIV. This new index (1758) far surpasses all former ones by reason of the correction of the many typographical errors and inaccuracies to be found in the earlier indexes, so that it is in every sense the best edition published prior to 1900. It was also notable for the novel arrangement by which the aforesaid classes of works were expressly registered, at the commencement of the catalogue of forbidden books, in four paragraphs headed “Decrees Concerning Forbidden books not Mentioned Individually in the Index.” Among the works enumerated, we find especially writings on certain disputed questions such as the Immaculate Conception, the theory of grace, the Malabar and Chinese Rites.

The most important addition to this index was the Bull “Sollicita ac Provida” (9 July, 1753), which, for the Congregations of both the Inquisition and the Index, uniformly regulated and definitively settled the whole method of conducting cases concerning literary productions. Even now this bull furnishes the principal direction for all decisions concerning the prohibition of books. Benedict XIV states as his motive for publishing this constitution the many unjust complaints against the prohibition of books as well as against the Index. All such complaints, even in our own times, are best refuted by this Bull. In the following century neither index nor censorship underwent substantial changes. Quite spontaneously, however, the prescriptive law was formed to no longer submit for ecclesiastical censorship all books and writings, but only theological and religious ones. this right was assented to first tacitly, then also indirectly by other ecclesiastical enactments. when alter on, by the Bull “Apostolicæ Sedis” (12 Oct, 1869) Pius IX reorganized the ecclesiastical censures (penal laws of the Church) he abolished the punishment of excommunication which, both in the Tridentine (1564) and Clementine (1596) indexes, was inflicted upon printers as well as authors not submitting their works for ecclesiastical censorship. Since the publication of that Bull only three definite classes of books are still forbidden under pain of excommunication (see below). During the Vatican Council, great exertions were made, especially on the part of Germany and France, to induce the assembled Fathers to mitigate the ecclesiastical laws relating to censorship (cf. Coll. Lacens. Concil., VII, 1075), but before this question could be discussed, the council was dissolved. Leo XIII, therefore, took it upon himself to reorganize the ecclesiastical legislation in this respect, which he accomplished by the Constitution, “Officiorem ac Munerum” (25 Jan., 1897) and the reform of the Index, published in 1900. Since that time, for all literary matters, for censorship and prohibition of books, no other laws or rules are in force than those contained in the new index of Leo XIII. Of former enactments, the Bull “Sollicita ac Provida” alone has been retained; together with the new Bull, “Officiorem ac Munerum” it forms the first and general part of the Leonine Code, whereas the second and larger, but not therefore more important, part comprises the special, alphabetically arranged catalog of books forbidden by particular decrees since 1600. Pius X issued in 1905 orders regarding the printing and publication of liturgical chants and melodies, and in the Encyclical Letter “Pascendi dominici gregis” (8 Sept., 1907), most urgently enjoined on all the prohibition and censorship of books.

ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS IN OPERATION SINCE 1900

The end of the Church founded by Christ is the propagation and promulgation of the teachings of Christ and a life after these teachings. One of the most formidable dangers threatening purity of morals among members of the Church arises from pernicious books and writings. For this very reason the Church has from the beginning and at all times taken such precautions against bad literature as were appropriate for the different times and the peculiar character of the dangers. If the Church had ever neglected doing this, she would have failed in one of her most important and solemn duties. In our own days the danger caused by bad books has risen to a degree never thought of before. Unrestraint of intellect and will is the real cause of this increase. The so-called freedom of the press, or the abolition of public censorship, is largely responsible for this unrestraint. All the more the Church is bound to put an end to evil by wise and just laws. The highest ecclesiastical authority, Leo XIII himself, has done so in the most solemn way by the aforesaid Bull “Officiorum ac Munerum” (23 Jan., 1897) which obliges very strictly all the faithful. This papal constitution contains the general legal enactments (decreta generalia) arranged under two headings of ten and five chapters respectively, in forty-nine paragraphs or articles. The forty-nine paragraphs exhibit not only the prohibition of certain classes of books, together with the injunction of preventive censorship for other classes, but also detailed regulation concerning the application and sanction of the whole law.

The first paragraph decrees that the books mentioned in former indices and and forbidden previous to 1600, remain forbidden even though not individually enumerated in the new index of Leo XIII—unless they be allowed by the new general paragraphs. To this class, however, belong almost exclusively heretical books and a few others forbidden also by the following general decrees. Here it is to be remarked that heretical works of ancient times, or even of the Middle Ages, are no longer held to be forbidden, so that the words of the first paragraph seem to refer exclusively to the sixteenth century. In accordance with the main end of the law, paragraph 2 forbids books of apostates, heretics, schismatics, and in general all writers defending heresy or schism or undermining the very foundation of religion; paragraph 11 prohibits books falsifying the notion of “Inspiration of Holy Scripture”; paragraph 14 condemns all writings defending dueling, suicide, divorce, or representing as useful and innocuous for Church and State Freemasonry and other secret societies or maintaining errors specified by the Apostolic See [those mentioned, e.g., in the Syllabus of Pius IX (1864) or Pius X (1907)]; paragraph 12 interdicts superstitious writings in the following words: It is forbidden to publish, read or keep books teaching or recommending sorcery, soothsaying, magic, spiritism, or similar superstition things; paragraph 9 reads as follows: Books systematically (ex professo) discussing, relating or teaching obscene and immoral things are strictly prohibited; paragraph 21 says: Dailies, newspapers and journals which aim at (data opera) destroying religion and morality are interdicted not only by natural law but also by ecclesiastical prohibition. All works forbidden in the above-mentioned paragraphs may be put together in one group, viz.: irreligious, heretical, superstitious, and immoral writings. It will readily be understood that these classes of books constitute a serious danger to faith and morals and consequently must needs be forbidden by the Church. Works, however, composed by heterodox authors are, agreeable to paragraphs 3 and 4, not forbidden even if treating of religion, provided that they contain nothing serious against the Catholic Faith. Paragraph 10 grants leave for the use of the classics, ancient as well as modern, though not free from immortality, in consideration of the elegance and purity of their style. This exception is made for the benefit of those whose official or educational duties demand it; for teaching purposes, however, only carefully expurgated editions are to be given to students. Concerning newspapers and journals forbidden in paragraph 21, the bishops are especially reminded to deter the faithful from such reading; and in paragraph 22 it is warmly recommended to all Catholics and particularly the clergy, to publish nothing in dailies, journals, and writings of that sort, except for just and sensible reasons.

A second group of prohibited books comprises all insulting writings directed against God and the Church. Regarding them paragraph 11 says: All books are forbidden that insult God or the Blessed Virgin Mary or the saints or the Catholic Church and her rites, the sacraments or the Apostolic See. In like manner all books are forbidden that aim at the defamation of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the clergy or the religious. It is hardly necessary to say that a fair historical work, for example, on an individual member of the hierarchy, of a religious order, or even on any particular order who have but disgraced their calling or the Church, is not included in paragraph 11. With this second group may also be reckoned, among the works forbidden by paragraphs 15 and 16, all novel religious pictures that deviate from the spirit and the decrees of the Church, also all works on indulgences containing spurious or falsified statements.

The third and last group also comprehends several classes of forbidden books. To these belong, in the first place, all editions and versions of Holy Writ not approved by competent ecclesiastical authorities. For by paragraphs 5, 6, and 8, leave to use editions and versions published by non-Catholics, provided they do not attack Catholic dogmas either in the preface or the annotations, is given only to such as are occupied with theological or Biblical studies. And by paragraph 7, all venacular versions, even those prepared by Catholic authors, are prohibited if they are not, on the one hand, approved by the Apostolic See, or, on the other, are not supplied with annotations taken from the works of the Holy Fathers and learned Catholic writers and accompanied by an episcopal approbation. Second, according to paragraph 18, there belongs to the third group of prohibited works, all liturgical books, such as missals, breviaries and the like, in case any change is made in them without special sanction of the Apostolic See. By a new decree of Pius X (1905), all editions of ecclesiastical liturgical chant differing from the pontifical edition are now forbidden. Third, by paragraph 20, are forbidden prayer or devotional books or booklets, catechisms and books of religious instruction, books and booklets of ethics, asceticism and mysticism, or any others of like kind if they are published without permission of the competent ecclesiastical authorities. Fourth, the works condemned by paragraph 13 must be mentioned, viz., books and writings containing novel apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, miracles, or those endeavouring to introduce novel devotions, private or public, in case these works appear without legitimate ecclesiastical approbation. These four classes of prohibited works are here put together in the third group because all of them are but conditionally forbidden, i.e., only in case the previous ecclesiastical approbation be wanting. It is just these classes of books that may be very dangerous, particularly to pious people, unless previous examination and approbation sufficiently guarantee the absence of anything contrary to Christian Faith or the Church. It was proper, therefore, to forbid them. Besides the three groups just quoted, the Constitution “Officiorum ac Munerum” prohibits no other class of books. For works individually mentioned in the Index and held to be still forbidden, belong one way or the other to one of these groups, and for this very reason they have been put on the Index.

The Index of forbidden books is a general law strictly binding on all, inclusive of the learned, and this even if in a particular case no great risk would be incurred by the reader or owner of a forbidden book. The obligation refers to the reading as well as to the possession of the book in question. It is in itself a grave obligation by reason of the importance of the matter, since the safeguarding and protection of faith and morals are involved. This is also apparent both from the existence of the constitution and from its wording. Nevertheless it is self-sufficient that not only for subjective, but also for objective, reasons lighter transgressions and venial sins may be committed when offending against the prohibition of books. Only in the event of more serious offenses, in two particular cases, the heaviest ecclesiastical punishment is inflicted by the law. According to paragraph 47, the penalty of excommunication specially (speciali modo) reserved to the pope is forthwith incurred by all who, though conscious of law and penalty yet read or keep or print or defend books of heretical teachers or apostates maintaining heresies. Under the same penalty, and in like manner, books individually condemned by letters Apostolic are indicted by paragraph 47, in case the letters referred to are still in full force, and punish the reading of the condemned book with excommunication reserved to the pope. The penalty of the said paragraph applies solely to books, not to smaller pamphlets or manuscripts of any kind. The paragraphs 23 to 26 deal with the permission to read and keep forbidden books. Whosoever desires such permission may obtain it from the competent ecclesiastical authorities. To these it appertains to judge of the need for the permission requested. It is evident that the permission granted by the church can exempt only from the ecclesiastical law. In spite, therefore, of a special dispensation, the licensee would not be at liberty to read such books as would for some reason or other cause him grievous harm in faith and morals. For him also, the obligation of the natural law remains intact, just as before the license was granted.

Since the prohibition of books concerns all, anyone wishing to use forbidden books is bound to get a dispensation either from the Apostolic See or from some person specially authorized by the pope (paragraph 23). By paragraph 24 full powers to that effect are given to the Roman Congregation of the Index as well as to that of the Holy Office; also to the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith with regard to the countries under it and to the Magister Sacri Palatii Apostolici with reference to Rome. Bishops as well as prelates with apostolic jurisdiction have the aforesaid power, according to paragraph 25, by virtue of their office, only in urgent cases for individual books; they are however, invested with full power, either directly by the Apostolic See or through the Congregation of the Index or the Propaganda. Dispensations are to be granted with prudence, and on just and reasonable grounds. The general authority given to bishops directly by the pope, in the so-called quinquennial faculties, may be delegated by them to others since the Decree of 14 December, 1898 (Acta S. Sedis, XXXI, 384). The bishops of England have this power from the Congregation of the Propaganda, and they make use of it by delegating it to their priests; thus, the latter may, without further formalities, give permission (e.g., to their penitents) to read forbidden books. Still a confessor, or even a bishop, who foresees that the reading of prohibited writings would expose the petitioner to great risk regarding faith or morals, would not be free to grant the desired dispensation; and if the petitioner nevertheless obtains it, he is not allowed to make use of it, since he is at all times bound by the natural law. Whoever has permission to use forbidden books may not read works distinctly forbidden by the bishop for his own diocese unless the dispensation refers expressly to “all books prohibited by whomsoever”; otherwise he must ask special leave of his bishop. In addition to this paragraph 26 states that anyone having obtained a dispensation is strictly bound to keep forbidden books in such a way as to prevent them from falling into the hands of others.

It is, of course, absolutely impossible for both the pope and the Congregation of the Index to watch over the press of all counties in order to suppress at once each and every pernicious writing. Nor is this necessary after the definite aforenamed classes have been marked out as pernicious and consequently forbidden. For with regard to the worst and most dangerous works, even they who are unskilled in such things will perceive that these are strictly prohibited by the Church through the general decrees of the Index, though they have never been individually condemned nor put on the Index. There happens, however, at all times and in all nations cases in which the writings of celebrated scholars, even of distinguished Catholic theologians, contain erroneous doctrines. The better the author is known as an orthodox Catholic, the greater his reputation as a writer, the more easily will his work influence and mislead the unsuspecting. In these and similar cases, though the savant may have acted in good faith and written his book in the best of intentions, the Church as a Divinely appointed guardian must protect the imperilled faithful. If such a book is circulated and read only in small districts, it may be sufficient that the competent bishop, after careful examination, forbid it for his diocese. If however, the work in question constitutes a danger to the whole country, it must as soon as possible be denounced to the Apostolic See, above all by the bishops concerned, in order that the book may be examined in Rome and forbidden, if necessary, to all Catholics. This is a sacred obvious duty of all bishops; nevertheless the ecclesiastical law specially reminds them of it by paragraph 29. In the different countries and diocese the bishops are the appointed guardians of faith and morals. Hence, the highest ecclesiastical authorities in Rome do not, as a rule, take any steps until a book has been denounced by them. It is for this reason that the law contains three paragraphs, 27 to 29, on the obligation of giving information about bad books. The tenor of paragraph 29 has been stated above; the two others read as follows:

Although it is the concern of all Catholics and particularly of the educated to give notice of pernicious books to the bishops or the Apostolic See, still it is above all the official duty of the nuncios, the Apostolic delegates, the ordinaries (bishops) and the rectors of universities of high scientific repute. It is desirable that anyone giving information against bad books should mention not only the title of the book, but as far as possible, the reason why he thinks the book deserving of condemnation. Those, however, to whom information is given, have the sacred duty to keep private the names of informers.

From these plain regulations it will be readily seen that the much abused so-called “denunciation” has nothing odious about it at all; that, on the contrary, just as in the case of a public prosecutor, it is part and parcel of the most indispensible official duties, e.g., of a bishop. So far the Constitution of Leo XIII with regard to the prohibition of books. In addition, however, it contains exact regulations concerning the preliminary examination, the so-called “preventive censorship.” Of this, the censorship of books in the proper sense, the second title of the Bull “Officiorum ac Munerum” treats in five chapters. From the notion and scope of censorship it is evident that it appertains exclusively to the pope and the bishops, not, however, to any community of scholars nor to any university. The pope, of course, has the right of censorship for the entire Church. In the general decrees here spoken of, he has (by paragraphs 7 and 30) reserved to himself the examination and approbation of all vernacular editions of Holy Scripture, if they are to appear without annotations. From paragraph 18 it is likewise apparent that authentic editions of the Missal, Breviary, Ritual, Cæremonial Episcoporum, Pontificale Romanum, and other liturgical books (to which also belong works on liturgical chant) require the approbation of the Apostolic See (see above). A book forbidden for the entire Church may not, as a rule, be reprinted. If, however, in a particular case this be necessary or desirable, it is to be done only with permission of, and on the conditions laid down by, the Congregation of the Index (paragraph 31). The same holds good also for any work forbidden not absolutely but with the clause donec corrigatur (i.e., until it be corrected). Paragraph 32 prescribes that writings on matters appertaining to a still pending process of beautification or canonization require the approbation of the Congregation of Rites. Generally speaking, collections of decrees of the Roman Congregations may be published only with the express permission of the Congregation concerned (paragraph 33). For censorship and approbation of grants of indulgences see INDULGENCES. Since Apostolic vicars and missionaries are immediately under the Congregation of Propaganda, they must, according to paragraph 34, observe the regulations of the said congregation regarding censorship of books. Apart from the particular cases mentioned above, in which censorship is reserved to the pope or to one of the Roman Congregations, it appertains in general to the bishop of the place in which a book appears (paragraph 35). This does not imply, however, that the said bishop may not simply agree to the censorship of another ordinary, e.g., the bishop of the author. Paragraph 36 warns the regulares i.e., members of religious orders with solemn vows, that beyond an episcopal imprimatur, they shall also require, according to the regulation of the Council of Trent—at least for books de rebus sacris—the approbation of their own superior. Finally, paragraph 37 states that a writer living in Rome, even if he wish to bring out his work elsewhere, need not have any other approbation than that of the cardinal-vicar, and the Magister Sacri Palatii Apostolici.

After this first chapter (paragraphs 30 to 37) the second instructs bishops (paragraph 38) to appoint as censors none but conscientious and capable men. The next paragraph (39) recommends to the censors themselves, warmly, and above all, the exercise of impartial justice. When examining books they must have before their eyes solely the dogmas of Holy Church and the universal Catholic doctrine as contained in the decrees of oecumenical councils, the constitutions of Roman Pontiffs, and the unanimous teaching of theologians. The last paragraph (40) prescribes that the bishop, if after finishing the examination nothing is to be said against the publication of the book, should grant the author the required permission in writing and free of charge. The imprimatur is to be printed at the beginning or the end of the book. Pius X in the Encyclical “Pascendi Dominici gregis” of 8 September, 1907 (Acta S. Sedis, XL, 645), expressly orders all bishops to appoint as censors qualified theologians, to whom the censorship of books appertains ex officio. Like appointments are to be made also at Rome. The official censor is to present to the bishops a written verdict on every book he has examined. In case the decision is favorable to the book, the bishop will give the approbation using the formula Imprimatur, which is to be preceded by Nihil obstat, together with the name of the censor. If after the examination the bishop refuses the approbation, but thinks the book capable of improvement, he must make known to the author the points to be corrected.

In the third chapter paragraph 41 mentions more exactly which books are to be submitted to previous censorship. All the faithful must submit for previous censorship at least those books that deal with Holy Scripture, theology, church history, canon law, natural theology, ethics or other branches of religion or morals, and in general all writings having special reference to religion and morality. To this class also belong the more important journals treating of religious or theological matters, as far as they are equivalent to books, not, however, writings of lesser extent, booklets or papers discussing similar topics. Publications of this sort need only be submitted for censorship when, for special reasons, in consideration of circumstances of matter or time, examination and approbation seem to be necessary. In the first title (paragraph 19), episcopal approbation is expressly prescribed for all novel litanies. The litanies of the saints, the Blessed Virgin, the Holy Name, and the Sacred Heart of Jesus have been explicitly approved by the Apostolic See or the Congregation of Rites, Paragraph 42 demands of secular priests that in token of their submissiveness, they should confer with their bishops, even for such books as are exempted from censorship. They must also obtain permission from their bishop if they wish to be editors of a paper or journal. Supposing that the paper or journal in question is subject to censorship, the bishop may, of course, appoint as its censor the editor approved by him. In that case the censorship of a paper published even frequently would have no special difficulties.

The fourth chapter, which consists of four paragraphs, is meant chiefly for Catholic printers and publishers. Paragraph 43 provides that No book subject to ecclesiastical censorship may be published without stating at the beginning the name and surname of both author and publisher; moreover, place and year of printing and publication ought to be mentioned. If for good reasons it be advisable in special cases to suppress the name of the author, the ordinary can give leave to do so. Paragraph 44 reminds printers and publishers that for each new edition, as well as for translations of a work already approved, fresh approbation is required. Books condemned by the Apostolic See are, according to paragraph 45, to be considered as forbidden everywhere and in any translation whatsoever. The last paragraph (46) prohibits booksellers from selling, lending out, or keeping in stock, such books as explicitly treat of obscene matters. To put up for sale other forbidden books, they require permission of their bishop. But even then they must not sell them top any person unless they can reasonably suppose him to be qualified for using such literature.

As regards the last (fifth) chapter which deals with penalties incurred by trespassers against the general rule, the first paragraph (47) has been mentioned previously, as it fixes the punishment for reading, etc., special classes of forbidden books. The next paragraph (48) inflicts excommunication “reserved to no one” on any person printing or causing to be printed, without approbation of the ordinary, books of Holy Scripture or annotations or commentary on them. The closing paragraph (49) declares it to be the duty of the bishops to watch over the observance of the law and to employ, at discretion, monition or even punishment in case of contraventions not provided for by paragraphs 47 and 48. The above-mentioned forty-nine paragraphs—Decreta generalia, as they are called in the Bull—exhibit the proper ecclesiastical law regulating the prohibition and censorship of books. There remain now to be ascertained the full import and binding force of these general decrees. This is best done by quoting the pertinent words of the Constitution “Officiorum ac Munerum”:

On mature consideration of the matter, and after consulting with the cardinals of the Congregation of the Index, we have decided to issue the general decrees embodied in this constitution. The tribunal of the aforementioned Congregation shall henceforth be guided solely by these decrees, to which, by the sake of God, Catholics of the entire world must submit. it is our will that the said decrees shall have legal power, and we abrogate the rules published by order of the Council of Trent together with the commentaries annexed to them, as well as our predecessors’ instructions, decrees, monita, and every other order or enactment referring to this matter, with the sole exception of the Constitution of Benedict XIV, “Solicita ac provida,” which, as it has hitherto been in full force, shall remain so in future.

The Encyclical of Pius X, “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” (Acta S. Sedis, XL, 593 sqq.) not only confirms the general decrees of Leo XIII, but also lays special stress on the paragraphs concerning previous censorship. The pope demands of all bishops strictest vigilance over all works about to appear in print; he recommends warmly to them to take, if necessary, measures against dangerous writings; he expressly commands them to institute in all dioceses a council the members of which are, in a special manner, to watch carefully the teachings of innovators (Modernists), in order to assist the bishop in combatting their books and writings.

MOTIVES OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS REGULATING CENSORSHIP

Every law is in one way or another a restriction of human liberty. In the domain of thought especially, mankind resents such an interference on the part of any human authority. The precept of fasting is more easily submitted to than an order relating to the prohibition of books. Thus, apart from all slander against, and misconceptions of, the ecclesiastical laws regulating censorship, apart also from all deficiencies to be met with in these as in all other laws, it is easily understood that proud human nature is from the first opposed to everything these laws prescribe. This is all the truer the more distinctly and unequivocally the commands and prohibitions are worded, and the more strictly and universally they are applied, even to the educated and the learned. There are, of course, books forbidden to man by mere natural law. Still, in such cases, man fancies himself to be guided by his own judgment, by the dictates of his own conscience; whereas with regards to the ecclesiastical laws he sees himself dependent upon, and restrained by, human authority. Moreover, ecclesiastical legislation, since it is meant for all, contains not only prohibitions but also positive orders, and even in its prohibitions it goes, in places, beyond the limits of natural law. For human law is universal in its provisions, and obliges even when, for subjective reasons, natural law does not bind the individual. It must be added that in past centuries particularly the censorship of the State often made itself decidedly unpopular with the people, and that their hatred was but too easily, but without reason, transferred to the censorship of the Church. What has been said explains to some extent why the ecclesiastical laws relating to books and the Index are so much disliked. Nevertheless, these laws constitute a perfectly reasonable guidance for the human will. They are, therefore, good laws, nay, for the faithful taken as a whole they are morally necessary and extremely useful even at the present time.

It is universally granted that especially in our days there exists hardly a greater danger to faith and morals than that which we may call the literary danger. From the greatness or rather indispensableness of the good at stake, the opportuneness and even necessity of preventive and strictly binding measures undoubtedly follow. In other words, the object in view of the law, that of safeguarding and keeping pure religion and morality, is absolutely necessary; now this object is at the present time more than ever endangered by a bad press; consequently those authorities whose principal office it is to protect the faith and morals of their subjects, must needs make suitable provisions against that press. Hence the moral necessity of such laws. Natural law empowers the father to keep away from his child bad and corrupt companions; the highest public authorities are bound to protect by stern meaures, if necessary, their communities from epidemics and infectious maladies; State and police rightly allow the selling of poison and the like only under strict supervision. In the same way the competent ecclesiastical authorities in their sphere justly claim the right to protect the faithful by appropriate precautions from the poison, the danger of infection, the corruption springing up from bad books and writings. Faith and morals in a very special sense are the domains of the Church; within their limits, she must have independent, sovereign power and be able to discharge autonomously her most sacred duties. It ought to be clear, also, without special proof, at least to orthodox Catholics, that such morally necessary laws issued by the Church of Christ cannot be other than substantially good and reasonable. Considering, moreover, that the matter in question is a legislation which is really as old as the Church herself, which was applied according to circumstances by Leo the Great and Gregory the Great just as by Benedict XIV and Leo XIII, and which in its present form comes from such legislators as the last-named popes—everyone must admit that the wisdom and suitableness of the regulations are fully guaranteed. While with regard to these laws, as far as they are of a disciplinary nature, there can be no question of real infallibility, still they remain strictly guiding precepts of Christ’s Church guided by the Holy Spirit. As the origin and aim of the law, so likewise do its provisions make known its reasonableness and suitableness. Allusion to this has been made in the general history of censorship, and more detailed references have been given in the summary of the recent Leonine laws.

From the previously mentioned arrangement of all forbidden books in three groups it clearly follows that the Church not only keeps within the limits of her right, but also forbids only as much as she is bound to forbid by reason of her office as teacher and guide of all the faithful. She suppresses only those books that are in fact dangerous to all, those writings which every man of common sense must call destructive to faith and morality. Thus the only real dangers and the unrestraint of free speech are checked. Neither do the paragraphs stating penalties contain intolerable rigorousness, since ecclesiastical punishment is inflicted solely for the most grievous offenses. Besides, as to the sale of immoral, obscene books, the Church is not more exacting towards booksellers than the natural law; and with regards to the sale of other prohibited books she is more indulgent than any well-ordered government towards sellers of poison or dangerous explosives. There are cases, just as in all general laws, where an individual is in need of a dispensation. But for these very cases the law makes provision by exactly stating how and where the needed permission is to be obtained. During late years especially, the Church has most liberally granted such dispensations. Likewise in the matter of previous censorship, the Church confines herself to what is absolutely required, by subjecting to examination only theological and religious writings, i.e., such as are most likely to imperil true Christianity and religion. If it must be admitted that the Church of Christ is the mistress of all the faithful, even of the profoundest scholars, and Divinely endowed with power to reach all, then in truth free research and scientific study are not hampered by previous censorship—any more, at least, than profane learning is hindered by its most qualified and renowned representatives at the universities. In the laws of censorship itself, impartiality and true justice are most strongly impressed upon censors and judges, who are aware from its terms that it is their most solemn duty to exercise their functions solely in conformity with the dogmas and the universal teachings of the Catholic Church, but in no case whatever according to private prejudices or the doctrine of any particular school.

This is why the censorship of the Catholic Church differs from every other ecclesiastical or political censorship, and why it has been guarded no less from biased injustice than from arbitrary rigour and conflicting inconstancy. Just these defects, on the other hand, characterized non-Catholic censorship, particularly that of all the Protestant sects with their continual variations of doctrine in Great Britain and Holland, the Northern Kingdoms, and Germany. The same shortcomings disgraced the political censorship of past centuries and rightly led in the end to the failure of Gallican, Josephinistic, Napoleonic, and Prussian censorship. Thus, however, is no proof of the objectionableness of censorship in itself, merely evidence of its defective execution. It may be added that prohibition of books and preventive measures against a bad press are indispensable, even where, in appearance, and according to the letter of the law, absolute freedom of the press prevails. The truth of this is established by the political history of the last century no less than by the civil legislation of more recent years. During the past decades, the freedom of the press, sanctioned by the law, has degenerated in so many places into absolute lawlessness, that on all sides and from all parties has arisen a demand for legal protection. The Catholic Church was therefore bound to adhere all the more firmly to her system, though in its practical application she was able to introduce many opportune mitigations. As to the censorship here dealt with, all factors of importance concur to demonstrate its usefulness and even necessity as practised in the Church of Christ, viz., the eminent importance for time and eternity of the doctrines that are to be safeguarded; the trustworthy foundation of revealed truth and universal Catholic teaching on which the previous examination is based; the guarantee of judicious and impartial censors. At the same time the historical development of Catholic censorship on the one hand and Protestant and political censorship on the other, furnishes the best illustration and most lucid commentary on the subject. For the historical evidence, see Hilgers, “Der Index der verboten Bücher,” quoted below. (See INDEX OF PROHIBITED BOOKS; MODERNISM.)

Zaccaria, Storia polemica delle proibizioni de’libri (Rome, 1777); Fessler, Sammlung vermischter Schriften (Freiburg, 1869), s.v. Censur und Index, 125–214; Reusch (Old Catholic), Der Index der verboten Bücher (Bonn, 1883–1885); Taunton, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), s.v. Censorship of Books; Vermeersch, De prohibitione et censuræ librorum (Rome, 1906). For historical evidence, see Hilgers, Der Index der verboten Bücher (Freiburg, 1904); Idem, Die Bücherverbote in Papstbriefen (Freiburg, 1907).

JOSEPH HILGERS

Ecclesiastical Censures

Medicinal and spiritual punishments imposed by the Church on a baptized, delinquent, and contumacious person, by which he is deprived, either wholly of in part, of the use of certain spiritual goods, until he recover from his contumacy.

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT

The name and general nature of this punishment date from the Roman Republic. With the ancient Romans, in the year A.U.C. 311, we find established the office of public censor (censores), whose functions were the keeping of a register (census) of all Roman citizens and their proper classification, e.g., senators, knights, etc. Furthermore their functions were the disciplinary control of manners and mores, in which their powers were absolute, both in sumptuary matters and in the degradation of any citizen from his proper class, for reasons affecting the moral or material welfare of the State. This punishment was called censure (censura). As the Romans were jealous in preserving the dignity of their citizenship, so also was the Church solicitous for the purity and sanctity of her membership, i.e., the communion of the faithful. In the early church the faithful in communion with her were inscribed in a certain register; these names were read in public gatherings, and from this list were excluded those who were excommunicated, i.e., put out of the communion. these registers were called diptychs or canons, and contained the names of the faithful, both living and dead. The Canon of the Mass still preserves traces of this ancient discipline.

Excommunication was then the generic term for all coercive remedies used against delinquent members of the Church, and there were as many kinds of excommunication as there were grades of communion in the Christian society, either for the laity, or for the clergy. Thus some of the grades of the laity in the Church were the expiatores and pænitentes, again subdivided into consistentes, substrati, audientes, and flentes or lugentes. Then also, as now, some goods of the Church were common to all its members e.g., prayer, the sacraments, presence at the Holy Sacrifice, and Christian burial. Other goods again were proper to the various grades of clerics. Whoever was deprived of one or all of these rights, came under the general designation of excommunicated, i.e., one placed outside the communion to which his grade in the Church entitled him, either wholly or in part. (Bernardi, Com. in Jus Eccl., II, pt. II, diss. 3, cap. 5.) In earlier ecclesiastical documents therefore, excommunication and similar terms did not always mean censure, or a certain species of censure, but sometimes meant censure, sometimes poena, as explained below, and very often penance. In the later Roman legal terminology (Codex Theod. I tit.I, 7 de off. rector. provinc.) we find the word censure used in the general sense of punishment. Accordingly the Church, in the early ages, used this term to designate all her punishments, whether these were public penances, excommunications, or, in the case of clerics, suspension or degradation. In her ancient penal legislation, the Church, like the Roman State, looked on punishment as consisting, not so much as the infliction of positive suffering, as in the mere deprivation of certain goods, rights, or privileges; these in the Church were spiritual good and graces, such as participation with the faithful in prayer, in the Holy Sacrifice, in the sacraments, in the general communion of the Church, or, as in the case of clerics, in the rights and honours of their office.

Some centuries later, however, in the period of the Decretals, we note a great advance in legal science. In the schools and in the courts, a distinction was made between internal and external forum, the former referring to matters of sin and conscience, the latter to the external government and discipline of the Church. The different kinds and the nature of punishments were also more clearly defined by commentators, judges, and doctors of law. In this way, from the beginning of the thirteenth century, although not expressly so stated in the decretals, the term censure became the equivalent of a certain class of ecclesiastical penalties, i.e., interdict, suspension, and excommunication. Innocent III, who in 1200 (cap. 13 X De judicious, II, 1) had used the term for punishment in general, at a later date (1214), answering a query as to the meaning of ecclesiastical censure in pontifical documents, expressly distinguished (cap. 20, X De verb, signif. V, 40) censure from any other ecclesiastical penalty (respondemus quod per eam non solum interdicti, sed suspensionis et excommunicationis sententia valet inteligi), thereby authentically declaring that by ecclesiastical censure were meant the penalties of interdict, suspension, and excommunication. Furthermore, in accordance with the internal nature of these three penalties, glossators and commentators, and in their wake later canonists introduced and maintained the distinction, still universally recognized, between medicinal or remedial punishments (censures) and vindictive punishments. The primary scope of the former is the correction or reformation of the delinquent; this being properly accomplished, they cease. Vindictive punishments (poenæ vindicativæ), while not absolutely excluding the correction of the delinquent, are primarily intended to repair violated justice, or to restore the social order of justice by the infliction of positive suffering. Such are corporal and pecuniary punishments, imprisonment and seclusion for life in a monastery, deprivation of Christian burial, also the deposition and degradation of clerics as well as their suspension for a definite period of time. (Suspension latæ sententiæ, e.g., for one or for three years, is a censure, according to St. Alphonsus, Th. Mor. VII, n. 314.) Confession penances are vindictive punishments, their chief purpose being, not reformation, but reparation, and satisfaction for sins. The irregularity arising from a crime is not a censure, nor is it a vindictive punishment; in fact, it is not a punishment at all, properly speaking, but rather a canonical impediment, an inability to support the honour of the sacred ministry, which forbids the reception of orders, and the exercise of those received.

The matter of censures was seriously affected by the Constitution “Ad vitanda” of Martin V in 1418. Prior to this constitution, all censured persons, known to be such by the public, were to be avoided (vitandi) and could not be communicated with in divinis or in humanis, i.e., in religious or in civil intercourse. A censure, being a penal withdraw of the right of participating in certain spiritual goods of the Christian society, was of course something relative, that is, it affected the person thus enjoined and also the persons who participated with him in the use of these goods. In this way the sacraments or other spiritual services could not be accepted from a suspended cleric. But, by virtue of the Constitution of Martin V, only those censured persons were in the future to be considered and treated as vitandi who were expressly and specifically by name declared to be such by a judicial sentence. The S. Cong. Inquis. (9 Jan. 1884) declared this formality unnecessary in the case of notorious excommunicates vitandi for the reason of sacrilegious violence to clerics. Nor is the validity of the denunciation restricted to the locality where it takes place (Lehmkuhl, II, n.884). On the other hand, Martin V expressly declared that this relaxation was not in favor of the censured party, so that the tolerati really gained no direct privilege, but was only in favor of the rest of the faithful, who could henceforth communicate with tolerated excommunicates, and, as far as the censure was in question, could deal with them as non-censured persons—all this on account of the grave changes in social conditions. (See EXCOMMUNICATION.) In 1869 Pius X modified seriously the ecclesiastical discipline in the matter of censures by his Constitution “Apostolicæ Sedis Moderatoni” (q.v.) which abrogated many latæ sententiæ censures of the common law, changed others (thus reducing their number), and made a new list of common law censures latæ sentiæ.

NATURE OF THE PENALTIES

If every human society has the right to protect itself by laying down conditions according to which men can be and remain members and enjoy the benefits of such society, it is easily conceivable how necessary such a right is for the Church, being a society founded on moral principles, aiming at higher ends, and dispensing spiritual benefits, in view of the eternal welfare of her members. The power to enforce these conditions the Church receives from Christ. It is certain that the Church has the right to make disciplinary laws to govern her subjects. That right would be meaningless if she had no way of enforcing the observance of her laws. Christ Himself gave her this power when He gave to Peter the power to govern the whole Church (John xxi, 15 sqq.). He meant as much when he said of the offending brother that “if he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and publican” (Matt., xviii, 17). Moreover, from her very origin, the Church has used this right to enforce her laws, as may be seen from the action of St. Paul against the incestuous Corinthian (I Cor. v, i sqq.) and against Hymeneus and Alexander (I Tim. i 20). The end for which the Church is striving is the eternal salvation of the faithful. In dealing with delinquent members therefore she seeks principally their correction; she wishes the reformation of the sinner, his return to God, and the salvation of his soul. This primary effect of her penalties is often followed by other results, such as the example given to the rest of the faithful, and, ultimately, the preservation of Christian society. On the Divine principle, therefore, that God does not desire the death of the sinner, but that he should be converted from his ways and live (Ezechiel, xviii, 23), the Church has always inclined to the infliction of censures, as medicinal or remedial in their nature and effects, rather than to vindictive punishments, which she uses only when there is little or no hope for the sinner himself.

It follows, then, that the primary and proximate end of censures is to overcome contumacy or willful stubbornness in order to bring back the guilty person to a better sense of his spiritual condition; the secondary and remote end is to furnish an example of punishment in order that other evil-doers may be deterred. Contumacy is an act of stubborn or abstinent disobedience to the laws; but it must imply contempt of authority; i.e., it must not only be directed against the law, but must also, generally express contempt for the punishment or the censure attached to the law. (Lehmkuhl, Cas. Consc., Freiburg, 1903, no. 984.) Ignorance of the threatened punishment or grave fear would, therefore, generally excuse a person from incurring censure; under such circumstances there can be no question of real contumacy. Since contumacy implies abstinent persistence in crime, in order to become liable to these punishments a person must not only be guilty of crime, but must also persist in his criminal course after having been duly warned and admonished. This warning (monitio canonica), which must precede the punishment, can emanate either from the law itself or from the ecclesiastical superior or judge. Contumacy can therefore occur in one of two ways: first, when the delinquent does not heed the warning of his ecclesiastical superior or judge, addressed to him personally and individually; second, when he violates a law of the Church with full knowledge of the law, and of the censure attached, in the latter case the law itself being a standing warning to all (Lex interpellat pro homine).

Censures, being a privation of grave spiritual benefit, are inflicted on Christians only for a sin internally and externally grave, and in genere suo, i.e., in its own kind, or that contemplated by the censure, perfect and complete. There must be a just proportion between the crime and the penalty. Being medicinal, the punishment of a censure consists, not in depriving the delinquent of the spiritual goods themselves, but only of the use of the spiritual goods, and this, not perpetually, but for an indeterminant time, i.e., until he repents, in other words, until the patient is convalescent from his spiritual illness. Hence excommunication, being by far the gravest of censures, is never inflicted for a certain definite time; on the other hand, suspension and interdict, under certain conditions, may be inflicted for a definite time. The real punishment of ecclesiastical censures consists in the privation of the use of certain spiritual good or benefits. These spiritual goods are those which are within the power of the Church or those which depend on the Church, e.g., the sacraments, public prayers, Indulgences, sacred functions, jurisdictions, ecclesiastical benefices and offices. Censures, however, do not deprive of grace, nor of the private prayers and good works of the faithful; for, even if censured, the eternal communion of the saints still remains by virtue of the indelible character imprinted by baptism. Thus, to distinguish the various effects of the three censures: Excommunication may be inflicted on clerics and laymen and excludes from the communion of the faithful, prohibits also the use of all spiritual goods in which the faithful participate as members of the visible body whose visible head is the Roman Pontiff. Suspension is for clerics only, leaves them participating in the communion of the faithful, but directly prohibits them from the active use of sacred things, i.e., as ministers (qua ministri), and deprives them of some or all of the rights of the clerical state, e.g., jurisdiction, the hearing of confessions, the holding of office, etc. Interdict prohibits the faithful, either clerics or laymen, from the passive use of some ecclesiastical goods, as far as these are sacred things (res sacræ) or as far as the faithful are participants, e.g., certain sacraments, Christian burial, etc.

DIVISION

Besides the particular division of censures into excommunication, suspension, and interdict, there are several general divisions of censures. First censures a jure and ab homine. Censures a jure (by the law) are those inflicted by a permanent edict of the lawgiver, i.e., which the law itself attaches to a crime. We must distinguish here between a law, i.e., an enactment having, of itself, permanent and perpetual binding force, and a mere command or precept, usually temporal in obligation and lapsing with the death of the superior by whom it was given. Censures a jure, therefore, are annexed either to the common law of the Church, such as decrees of popes and general councils, or are inflicted by general law, e.g., by bishops for their particular diocese or territory, usually in provincial or diocesan synods. Censures ab homine (by man) are those which are passed by the sentence, command, or particular precept of the judge, e.g., by the bishop, as contradistinguished from the law described above. They are usually owing to particular and transient circumstances, and are intended to last only as long as such circumstances exist. The censure ab homine may be in the form of a general order, command, or precept, binding on all subjects (per sententiam generalum), or it may be only by a particular command or precept for an individual case, e.g., in a trial where the delinquent is found guilty and censured, or as a particular precept to stop a particular delinquency.

Another division of censures is important and peculiar to the penal legislation of the Church. A censure a jure or ab homine may be either (1) latæ sententiæ or (2) ferendæ sententiæ.

(1) Censures latæ sententiæ (of sentence pronounced) are incurred ipso facto by the commission of the crime; in other words, the delinquent incurs the penalty in the very act of breaking the law, and the censure binds the conscience of the delinquent immediately, without the process of a trial, or the formality of a judicial sentence. The law itself inflicts the penalty in the moment when the violation of the law is complete. this kind of penalty is especially effective in the Church, whose subjects are obliged in conscience to obey her laws. If the crime be secret, the censure is also secret, but it is binding before God and in conscience; if the crime be public the censure is also public; but if the secret censure thus incurred is to be made public, then a judicial examination of the crime is had, and the formal declaration (declaratory sentence) is made that the delinquent has incurred the censure.

(2) Censures ferendæ sententiæ (of sentence awaiting pronouncement) are so attached to the law or to the precept that the delinquent does not incur the penalty until, after a legal process, it is formally imposed by a judicial or condemnatory sentence. Whether a censure be latæ or ferendæ sententiæ is ascertained from the terms in which it is couched. the expressions most commonly used in the censure latæ sententiæ are: ipso factor, ipsa jure, eo ipso sit excommunicatus, etc. If however, the expressions are of the future, and imply judicial intervention, the censure is ferendæ sententiæ e.g., excommunicetur, suspenditur, etc. In doubtful cases, the sentence is presumed to be ferendæ sententiæ, because in penal matters the more benign interpretation is to be followed. Moreover, before the infliction of the latter kind of censures, three warnings (monitiones) are necessary, or one peremptory warning, except when both the crime and the contumacy of the delinquent are notorious and therefore sufficiently proved.

Censures are again divided into reserved and non-reserved censures. As sins may be reserved, so also may censures, reservation in this case being limited to limitation or negation of an inferior’s jurisdiction to absolve from the censure, and the retention of this power by his superior. (See Reservation).

REQUIREMENTS FOR CENSURES

For the infliction of censures, either a jure or ab homine, are required: (1) Jurisdiction in the legislature or the judge; (2) sufficient cause; (3) correct method of procedure. As to jurisdiction, since censures belong to the forum externum or external government of the Church, it necessarily follows that for their infliction, either by law or by judge, jurisdiction or power to act in this forum is required. Sufficient cause moreover, must be had for the infliction of a censure. A censure, as a sanction of the law, is an accessory to the law; therefore a substantial defect in the law, e.g., injustice or unreasonableness, modifying the law, nullifies also the censure attached to the law. This sufficient cause for a censure may be lacking in the law, either because in its formulation the legal order was not observed, or because the fault considered in the law was not sufficiently grave to justify the penalty of ecclesiastical censure. The penalty must be in proportion to the crime. If in the legislative act the legal order was observed, but the proportion of punishment to crime was lacking, i.e., if the offense did not justify the extreme penalty attached to the law, then as the law has two parts, it is sustained in the first part, i.e., the precept, but not in the second, i.e., the penalty or censure (Suarez Disp. IV, sect. VI, no. 10). In doubt, however, both law and penalty are presumably valid. As to the correct method of procedure, a sentence of censure may be void if any substantial rule of procedure is not observed, e.g., the warnings in a censure inflicted ab homine. The censure is valid, however, if there be any objective proportion between the gravity of the penalty and the gravity of the fault, even if the sentence have some accidental defect, e.g., a censure inflicted through hatred for a person who, however, is a transgressor, or if some other accidental rule of procedure has not been observed. A question arises concerning censures invalid in foro interno or according to truth, but valid in foro externo or according to presumption of law. For instance, a person is convicted of a crime in foro externo to which a censure is attached, but in his conscience he knows himself to be innocent. What are the effects of a censure thus inflicted? Having been found guilty in foro externo, the censure has valid effects in that forum and must be observed externally, to avoid scandal and for good discipline. All acts of jurisdiction in foro externo of such a censured party might be declared invalid. But in foro interno he would possess jurisdiction, and, should there be no danger of scandal, he could act as though uncensured without incurring the penalty of violating the censure, e.g., irregularity. A censure may also be inflicted conditionally; if the condition is fulfilled, the censure is valid.

Can censures be inflicted as vindictive penalties, i.e., not primarily as remedial measures, but rather to avenge a crime? This is a graver question, and canonists has sought to solve it by an interpretation of certain texts of the law, chiefly from “Decretum” of Gratian (Eos qui rapiunt, Raptores.—Caus. XXXVI, Q. 2, c. 1, 2, Si quis episcopus, Caus. XXVII, Q. 1, c. 6. etc.). These laws, however, contemplate the earlier discipline of censures, when the name was applied to punishments in general, without any specific signification. It is evident, therefore, that the solution must now be sought in positive law. In the law of the Decretals, no express decision of the question is to be found, although the species of penalties are there more accurately distinguished. In later law, the Council of Trent, (Sess. XXV, c. iii, De ref.) most wisely warns bishops that the sword of censures is to be used only with sobriety and with great circumspection. Censures, being essentially a deprivation of the use of spiritual goods or benefits, are to be inflicted medicinally, and should therefore be lifted as soon as the delinquent recedes from his contumacy. We have seen above that St. Alphonsus and other authors after him, hold that secondarily, a censure mat have punitive and deterrent motive, and from that point of view, may be inflicted for a given time. This is generally speaking, for while it is certain that excommunication can never be thus inflicted as a vindictive punishment, suspension and interdict can be inflicted, rarely and for a short period, as vindictive penalties by positive law. The reason of this is that suspension and interdict do not, like excommunication, cast the delinquent out from the communion of the faithful, neither do they deprive him absolutely of all spiritual goods; they may, therefore, for grave reasons take on the nature of vindictive penalties. This is especially true when their effect is the privation of some temporal right, e.g., when a cleric is suspended from his office or benefice; for whenever censures deprive primarily of the use of temporal goods, they are rather punishments properly so called than censures, whose primary character is the deprivation of the use of spiritual goods (Suarez, op. cit., disp. IV, sect. V, 29–30).

SUBJECT OF CENSURES, ACTIVE AND PASSIVE

As regards the active subject of censures, i.e., who can inflict them, it must be stated that censures belong to the external government of the Church. They can therefore be inflicted only by those who have proper jurisdiction in the external government of the church (forum externum). Censures a jure, i.e., incorporated into laws binding Christian society, in whole or in part, can be passed by him who has the power to thus legislate. Thus the pope or a general council can inflict such censures on the whole world, the Roman congregations in their own spheres, the bishop within his own diocese, the chapter or vicar capitular during the vacancy of a see (sede vacante), regular prelates having external jurisdiction, legates of the Holy See, also chapters of regulars over their own subjects. Parish priests, abesses, and secular judges, however, have no such power. Censures ab homine, or inflicted by an ecclesiastical judge, whether his jurisdiction be ordinary or delegated, can be inflicted to enforce a certain law, or to prevent certain evils. Vicars-general and delegated judges not having legislative power cannot inflict censures a jure, but only ab homine, in order to assert and protect their power, e.g., to enforce the execution of a judicial decree. In respect to the passive subject of censures, i.e., who can be censured, it must be noted that censures. being spiritual punishments, can only be inflicted on Christians, i.e. baptized persons. Moreover, being punishments, they can only be inflicted on the subjects of the superior inflicting the censure; such subjection may arise from domicile, quasi-domicile, or by reason of the crime committed (ratione delicti). Pilgrims violating a particular law are not subject to censure, but if they transgress the common law with a censure ferendæ sentientiæ attached, the latter can be inflicted on them by the local bishop. Cardinals and bishops are not subject to censures a jure (except excommunication) unless in the law express mention be made of them. Kings and sovereigns cannot be censured by bishops, nor can communities or chapters be excommunicated by them. However, a community can suffer interdict and suspension, only in that case, it would not be a censure, properly speaking, but rather a penal privation; ceasing to be a member of the community, one would cease to undergo the penalty.

ABSOLUTION FROM CENSURES

All canonists agree in this, that a censure once incurred can only be taken away by absolution. Although censures are medicinal punishments and are destined to overcome contumacy, they do not cease at once upon repentance. As the sentence was a judicial act, so there is required a judicial absolution, lawfully given when there is amendment. Not even the death of the censured party, if excommunicated or interdicted, would remove the censure, because even in this case there would still remain some of the effects of the censure, e.g., the privation of Christian burial. The only case in which formal absolution would not be required is when a censure is inflicted with a conditio resolutiva, e.g., suspension pending the performance of a certain act. When suspension or interdict are inflicted as vindictive punishments, not being censures properly so called, they may cease, not by absolution, but by lapse of the time for which they are inflicted. Censures themselves, i.e., not yet incurred, cease by the abrogation of the law to which they were annexed, by revocation, or (usually) by the death of the superior, if issued ab homine as a particular precept.

Absolution, which is the loosing or relaxation of the penalty by competent authority, is an act of justice, and a res favorabilis in censures, and hence cannot be denied to a penitent censured person. It can be given in two ways: (1) In the forum internum, that is, for the sin and hidden censure. This can be given by any priest having the necessary jurisdiction; can be given in confession or outside of confession, in what is called the forum of conscience (forum conscientiæ). In either case, however, the formula used is that of the sacramental absolution referring to censures. (2) In the forum externum absolution can only be given by those vested with the necessary judicial power, i.e., by the one who inflicted the censure, his successor, delegate, or his superior, e.g., the pope. The formula used here is either the solemn one or the shorter formula, as the occasion demands; both are found in the Roman Ritual. Absolution can be given either absolutely or conditionally, i.e., depending on the fulfillment of some condition for its validity. It is also given ad cautelam (for safety’s sake) in all rescripts, Bulls, and Apostolic privileges, lest the effects of the concession be impeded by some hidden censure. Lastly, we have absolution ad reincidentiam; this takes effect immediately, but if the penitent, within a certain time, does not do something prescribed, he at once occurs, ipso facto, a censure of the same kind as that from which he had just been absolved. He who takes away the censure can impose the reincidentia. Today there is only a reincidentia ab homine, i.e., although sometimes called for and provided for in the law. it must be applied ab homine, i.e., by the absolving person (Lega, lib II, vol. III, nos. 130–31).

In regard to the question of the minister of absolution, or who can absolve from censures, we have the general principle: “only he can loose who can bind” (illius est solvere cujus est ligare); in other words, only those can absolve who have the necessary jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is either ordinary or delegated. In case of censures ab homine, by particular sentence or by way of precept, also in the case of reserved censure a jure, only he who inflicted the censure or his successor, superior, or delegate can absolve. Hence a vicar capitular can absolve from the censures passed by the ordinary power of the late bishop, having succeeded to the power held by that late prelate. In regard to the power of the superior, the pope as universal superior can always remove the censures inflicted by his inferiors, bishops, etc. An archbishop, not being the absolute superior of his suffragans, but only in certain things, can remove censures imposed by his suffragans only when on visitation or in case of appeal. When, however, the superior absolves from the censure imposed by an inferior, he must in all cases notify the inferior and must demand that the delinquent give him full satisfaction. The extent of the power of a delegated judge to absolve must be clearly stated in his letters.

When censures are passed a jure communi or ab homine by a general sentence, if these censures be not reserved, any approved confessor having jurisdiction to absolve from sin may absolve from them both in the external and the internal forum, the absolution in the one forum being valid in the other, except when the censure has been carried to the forum contentiosum, i.e., is already in litigation before a court, in which case the absolution of the internal forum would not hold for the external. A priest not approved or not having jurisdiction to hear confessions cannot absolve from censures, even if not reserved, except in danger of death. Lastly, when censures are reserved a jure no one can absolve except the one to whom to whom they are reserved, or his superior, successor, or delegate. Censures which are reserved to the pope are either simply reserved or reserved in a special manner. In relation to the former, the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, c. vi, De ref.) formulated the common law according to which a bishop or one delegated by him can absolve, in foro conscientiæ and in his own diocese, his subjects from these censures when the crime is occult and not notorious, or when it has not been brought before a judicial tribunal. By bishops are here meant also abbots having ecclesiastical territory, vicars capitular, and others having episcopal jurisdiction; not, however, vicars general in virtue of their general commission, nor regular prelates. The subjects for whom these faculties may be used are those who live in the bishop’s diocese, or outsiders who come to confession in his diocese, these being his subjects in view of the absolution to be imparted. Such absolution, however, cannot be given in foro externo, but is limited to the forum conscientiæ, i.e., to the domain of conscience. If censures are reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special manner, a bishop by his ordinary power cannot absolve, except in case of necessity. Special concessions for these cases are, however, given to the bishops by the Holy See for a certain time, or for the life of the bishop, or for a certain number of cases. Censures which are reserved by pontifical law to bishops or ordinaries can be absolved by all bishops, abbots, vicars capitular and vicars-general, in any forum, and even in notorious cases. At the point of death (in articulo mortis), any priest, even if not approved, can absolve from all censures, but also all absolution from them as governed by the provision of the aforesaid papal Constitution (Pius IX, 1869), “Apostolicæ Sedis Moderationi.” For serious changes in the method of absolution (in cases of necessity) from papal censures, owing to the decree of S. Cong. Inquis. (23 June, 1886) and later interpretations, see Tanquery, Synop. Th. Mor., III (II), 1907, pp. 321–24, and Gury-Ferrères, Th. Mor., II, nn. 575–76; also articles EXCOMMUNICATION; SUSPENSION.

CONDITIONS FOR ABSOLUTION

These conditions affect both the priest who absolves and the person absolved. The absolution of a priest is invalid if obtained by force or if extorted by grave, unjust fear. Furthermore the absolution would be invalid if the principal, moving cause be false, e.g., if the judge absolves precisely because alleges that he has already made satisfaction, when in reality he has not done so. The conditions to be absolved are generally expressed in the above-mentioned formula, injunctis de more injungendis, i.e., enjoining those things which the law requires. These are: (1) satisfaction to the offended party; (2) that the delinquent repair the scandal according to the prudent judgment of the bishop or confessor and remove the occasion of sin, if there be any; (3) that, in the case of one absolved from censures specially reserved, he promise (in foro externo, on oath) to abide by the further direction of the Church in the matter (stare mandatis ecclesiæ); (4) sometimes also, in graver crimes, an oath is required not to perpetrate them again; (5) that apart from the penance imposed in confession, the absolved person receive and perform some other salutary penance as a satisfaction for this fault.

Bucceroni, De Censuris, 4th ed. (Rome, 1896); Hollweck, Die kirchlichen Strafgesetze (Mainz, 1899), p. 86 sqq.; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor., 10th ed. (Freiburg, 1902), II, nn. 860–1030; Laurentius, Institutiones Juris Eccl. (Freiburg, 1903), nn. 300–327; Lega, De Judiciis Eccles., L. II, vol. III (Rome, 1899), nn. 80–197; Hilarius & Sexten., Tractatus de Censuris Eccles. (Mainz, 1898); Taunton, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), s.v. Censure.

LEO GANS.

Theological Censures

Doctrinal judgments by which the Church stigmatizes certain teachings detrimental to faith or morals. They should not be confounded with canonical censures, such as excommunication, suspension, and interdict, which are spiritual punishments inflicted on delinquents.

The right of censuring adverse doctrines has ever been asserted by the church, from St. Paul, who declares anathema on them who should pervert the Gospel of Christ unto another Gospel (Gal., i, 8), and warns his disciples to avoid the profane novelties of words and the oppositions of knowledge falsely so called (I Tim., vi, 20), down to Pius X, who condemned the errors of “Modernism.” It is an essential part of her magisterium which, says Newman, “acts in two channels, in direct statement of truth and in condemnation of error.” See the letter “Gravissimas inter” of Pius X and the constitution “de fide” (ch. iv) of the Vatican Council (Denzinger, nos. 1524 and 1645). That right belongs to the Church herself, but she may exercise it through popes, councils, Roman congregations, universities, or special commissions. Bishops, by virtue of their office, hold the power of censuring doctrines, but their judgment is not final, and their prohibition binds only within the limits of their respective dioceses. Private theologians, either individually or collectively have no authority officially to censure propositions, however they may, unless expressly enjoined from so doing in special cases, judge and qualify them according to existing doctrinal standards, and their initiative often goes far towards preparing the official action of the Church. History shows considerable variation in the exercise of the censuring power. In early days, when the cardinal truths of Christianity were at stake, an author, book, or tract was purely and simply announced heretical and anathematized. In the Middle ages, which were the ages of theological speculation and also of subtilty, a more minute notation had to be resorted to, and even special organs were created for that purpose (see Index of Prohibited Books). In recent times specific notes are often discarded in favor of a more comprehensive mode of censuring; damnandas et proscribendas esse. The various documents embodied in nearly all modern textbooks of moral theology and in Denzinger’s “Enchiridion” (to which we must now add the Holy Office Decree, 3 July, “Lamentabili sane exitu” and the papal Encyclical, 8 Sept., 1907, “Pascendi dominici gregis”) shows a large number of theological censures or notes. Those most in use will be found in the Bulls “Unigenitus” and “Auctorem fidei” (Denzinger, CI and CXIV). We may divide them into three groups according as they bear principally upon (1) the import, or (2) the expression, or (3) the consequences, of condemned propositions.

(1) Hæretica (heretical), erronea (erroneous), hæresi proxima (next to heresy), errori proxima (next to error), temeratia (rash), etc.

A proposition is branded heretical when it goes directly and immediately against a revealed or defined dogma, or dogma de fide; erroneous when it contradicts only a certain (certa) theological conclusion or truth clearly deduced from two premises, one an article of faith, the other naturally certain. Even though a statement be not obviously a heresy or an error it may yet come near to either. It is styled next, proximate to heresy when its opposition to a revealed and defined dogma is not certain, or chiefly when the truth it contradicts, though commonly accepted as revealed, has yet never been the object of a definition (proxima fidei). The censure next, or proximate to error, whose meaning may be determined by analogy to the foregoing, is of less frequent use than that of rashness or temerity, which means opposition to sound common opinion (communis), and this either for paltry reasons or no reasons at all. A still finer shade of meaning attaches to such censures as sapiens hæresim, errorem (smacking of heresy or error), suspecta de hæresi, errore (suspected of heresy or error). Propositions thus noted may be correct in themselves, but owing to various circumstances of time, place, and persons, are prudently taken to present a signification which is either heretical or erroneous. To this group also belong some special stigmata with reference to determined topics, e.g. the preambles of faith (infidelis, aversiva a fide), ethical principles (improbabilis, non tuta), history (antiquata, nova) and Holy Scripture (verbo Dei contraria), etc.

(2) Ambigua (ambiguous), captiosa (captious), male sonans (evil-sounding), piarum aurium offensiva (offensive to pious ears), etc.

A proposition is ambiguous when it is worded so as to present two or more senses, one of which is objectionable; captious when acceptable words are made to express objectionable thoughts; evil-sounding when improper words are used to express otherwise acceptable truths; offensive when verbal expression is such as rightly to shock the Catholic sense and delicacy of faith.

(3) Subsannativa religionis (derisive of religion), decolorativa canodris ecclesiæ (defacing the beauty of the Church), subversiva hierarchiæ (subversive of the hierarchy), eversiva regnorum (destructive of governments), scandelosa, perniciosa, periculosa in moribus (scandalous, pernicious, dangerous to morals), blasphema, idolatra, superstisiosa, magica (blasphemous, leading to idolatry, superstition, sorcery), arrogans, acerba (arrogant, harsh), etc.

This enumeration, though incomplete, sufficiently draws the aim of the third group of censures; they are directed against such propositions as would imperil religion in general, the Church’s sanctity, unity of government and hierarchy, civil society, morals in general, or the virtue of religion, Christian meekness, and humility in particular.

The authority of theological censures depends upon the source from which they come and the intention with which they are issued. Condemnations coming from the seat of infallibility, pope or council, and vested with the usual conditions of an ex cathedra pronouncement are themselves infallible, and consequently require both our external obedience and internal assent. There is no reason for restricting the infallibility of the censures to the sole note heretica as some theologians would do. The difference between the note of heresy and other inferior notes is not one of infallibility, but of different matters covered by infallibility. The note of heresy attached to a proposition makes it contradictory to an article of faith, which is not the case with other notes, even if they are infallible. Condemnations coming from another source which, however, is not infallible are to be received with the external respect and implicit obedience due to disciplinary measures, and moreover, with that degree of internal assent which is justified by circumstances. In every case the extent of outward compliance, or of interior submission, or both is determined by a proper interpretation of the censures:

Sometimes, as in the condemned propositions of Pistoia, there is little room for doubt, the precise meaning of the condemnation being explained in the very tenor of it.

When categorical propositions are condemned in their import, and not in their wording or consequences only, their contradictories present themselves for our acceptance as de fide, proximæ fidei, certæ, or communes as the case may be.

Condemnations issued on account of bad wording or evil consequences should at least put us on our guard against the hidden falsehood or the noxious tendency of the proposition.

Modal propositions require special attention. The principal modalities in use are in individuo, in globo, prout iacent, in sensu ab auctore intenta. Propositions are not always, as was the case for the errors of Pistoia, condemned one by one, the proper qualifications being attached to each individually (in individuo). In the case of Wyclif, Hus, Luther, Baius, Molinos, Quesnel, etc., to a whole series of propositions a whole series of censures was attached generally (in globo). This mode of general censure is not ineffectual. To each of the propositions thus condemned apply one, or several, or all of the censures employed—the task of fitting each censure to each propositions being left to theologians. Again, some propositions are censured according to their obvious tenor and without reference to their context or author (prout iacent); while others e.g. those of Baius, Jansen, etc. are stigmatized in the sense intended by their author (in sensu ab auctore intento). Obviously the Church does not claim to read into the mind of a writer. What she claims is an operative doctrinal power including the double faculty of pointing out to her children both the error of a doctrine and the fact that such an erroneous doctrine is contained in such a book written by such an author. In such cases, a Catholic is bound to accept the whole judgment of the Church, although some theologians would make a difference between the assent due to the condemnation of the error and the assent due to the designation of the book or author.

Vague censures of this kind, Damnandas et proscribendas esse, are more in the nature of simple prohibitions than censures. They mean that a Catholic ought to keep clear of such teachings absolutely, but they do not point out the degree of falsehood or danger attached to them.

In a general matter, censures are restrictive laws, and, as such, to be interpreted strictly. A Catholic is not debarred from the right of ascertaining, for his own guidance or the guidance of others, their legitimate minimum; but the danger, not always unreal, of falling below that minimum should itself be minimized by what Newman calls “a generous loyalty toward ecclesiastical authority” and the pietas fidei.

Sessa, Scrutinium doctrinarum (Rome, 1709); D’Argentré, Collectio iudiciorum (Paris 1728); Viva, Damnatarum thesium theologica trustina (Padua, 1737); Montagne, De censuria seu notis theologicis, ed. Migne (Paris, 1837); Di Bartolio, Les critères théol., Fr. tr. (Paris, 1889), on the Index; Didiot, Logigue surnaturelle subjective (Paris 1891), No. 377; Manning, The Vatican Council in Privilegium Petri (London, 1871); Newman, A letter to the Duke of Norfolk in Certain Difficulties of Anglicans (London, 1892), II; Choupin, Valeur des décisions doctrinales du Saint-Siège (Paris, 1907); Ferraris, Propositiones damnatæ in Prompta Bibliotheca; Quillet, Censures doctrinnales in Dict. de théol. cath; Lagrange, Le décret “Lamentabili” in Rev. Bibl. (Oct., 1907). See also treatises in moral theology, De fide, and in dogmatic theology, De ecclesia, chiefly Scheeben, Wilhelm, and Scannell, Hunter.

J.F. SOLLIER

Census

A canonical term variously defined by different writers. Zitelli (Appar. Jur. Eccl.) calls it a real obligation or annual tribute imposed on a pious institute by the bishop and payable to himself or others. Aicher (par. 79) says that it is an offering to be made by a benefice in sign of subjection, or for some exemption or other right conceded to it. Laurentius (III, p. 70) defines it as the obligation of an annual payment in money or kind perpetually imposed upon a benefice. Ferraris (s.v.) considers census as a right of receiving an annual payment from something which is fruitful and on which it is founded. He insists that the census is not the thing itself or the property which affords the tribute, but the right of drawing the annual tribute from it. Other authorities, however, as Von Scherer, seem to consider census to be the property itself or its equivalent in money, viewed as giving to some one a right to draw revenue from it.

Census canonically considered must be distinguished from pensio. The latter is the right which a superior concedes to a person of receiving a portion of the revenues of a benefice in the possession of a third party. Later canonists sometimes use the words census and pensio as practically synonymous. A census is called ancient of it is imposed on its benefice at its very foundation and has been approved by the bishop. It is called new if it is placed upon a benefice already erected. According to a canon of the third Council of the Lateran (1179) no one but the pope can impose on a benefice a new census, or increase an ancient one. A census is said to be reservative when a person transfers the property to another, keeping only the right to an annual revenue for himself. It is named consignative when he sells or consigns to another the right to an annual pension from something of which he himself retains the dominion. Such consignative census is reducible to a species of buying and selling, and is treated as such in the decrees of Martin V and Callistus III embodied in the Corpus Juris Canonici.

The imposing of a census upon a benefice is considered as equivalent to dismemberment or division, inasmuch as it diminishes the revenues. If the census be perpetual it is looked on as a species of alienation of church property and as such falls under the ecclesiastical laws governing such alienation. Generally the census is imposed by the patron of a new benefice retaining the right to a part of its revenues, or by a bishop requiring that a portion of the income of a church which he incorporates with a monastery be paid to himself, or the census may take the form of a tribute paid to a mother church by one of its daughter establishments which has become independent. The “Liber Censuum Romanæ Ecclesiæ,” edited by Fabre and Duschesne (Paris, 1889 sqq.), not only throws light on the subject at issue, but also affords an explanation of many historical events of the Middle Ages.

Laurentius, Institutione Jur. Eccl. (Freiburg, 1903); Ferraris, Bibliotheca (Rome, 1886); Aichner, Compendium Jur. Eccl. (Brixen, 1895).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

German Roman Catholic Central Verein of North America

(DEUTSCHER RÖMISCH-KATHOLISCHER CENTRALVEREIN VON NORDAMERIKA)

The origin of the Central Verein dates back to 1854, in which year the presidents of three German Catholic benevolent societies of Buffalo, new York, issued a call to various German Catholic societies for the purpose for forming a central body. The movement was inspired and advocated by zealous missionary priests, and approved by Bishop Timon of Buffalo. The success of a similar organization among their Catholic brethren in Germany (founded at Mainz, 1848), lent additional force to the arguments for a union in the United States. The call was responded to by seventeen societies, and on 15 April, 1855, the Central Verein was duly organized in St. Alphonsus Hall, Baltimore, Maryland. The main object at the outset was to unite the energies of the various associations against freemasonry and secret societies in general. Hence the efforts of the new organization were directed chiefly towards defending the menaced rights of the Catholics in the United States, as also “to promote a vigorous religious activity in the united societies according to the spirit of the Roman Catholic Church and mutually to aid and materially to benefit one another.” Membership was restricted to Catholic benevolent societies whose official language was German. The growth by decades was as follows:

1855—17 societies (1,500 members)

1865—62 societies (8,340 members)

1875—302 societies (31,672 members)

1885—378 societies (32,783 members)

1895—548 societies (48,989 members)

From the last named date, however, the growth became less marked, and in 1901 a reorganization movement was inaugurated. Instead of affiliating local societies as heretofore, the formation of state organizations was encouraged, and these so-called “Staatsverbände” were then incorporated as a whole, the various local societies losing their direct affiliation to the Central Verein. This plan proved a complete success. In 1907 the report of the secretary showed sixteen state organizations and fifty-two local societies from states in which no “Staatsverband” existed, with a total paid-up membership of 99,291. The unreported membership would bring this total far beyond 100,000. The Holy See approved the work of the Central Verein in a reply to a letter of allegiance sent by the eleventh general convention held at Buffalo, 1866, to Pope Pius IX. The reply praises the spirit of Catholic unity prevailing among the members and wishes them success and the ever copious assistance of Divine grace. It gratefully acknowledges and appreciates the contributions the Central Verein had gathered for the support of the Holy See. During fifty-two years the society contributed about $12,000 to the Peter’s-pence collection.

The care of the immigrants was made a prominent feature of the work of the society, and special agents were appointed to look after their interests in New York and Baltimore. Later on the Central Verein was affiliated to the St. Raphael’s Society. The result of their combined efforts was the establishment in New York of the Leo House for the use of Catholic immigrants. Aid was extended to a similar undertaking at Galveston, Texas. The cause of Catholic education has a conspicuous advocates in the Central Verein. The Teachers’ Seminary at St. Francis, Wisconsin, was founded mainly by contributions from the society. In his address to the delegates assembled in Dubuque, Iowa, 1907, Archbishop Falconio, the Apostolic Delegate, said: “What your society has done in the interest of Christian education is truly admirable and an example worthy of imitation for all Catholics.” The annual conventions, under the name of “Katholikentage,” have assumed large proportions. Extending over four or five days, they include solemn church festivities, parades, addresses by prominent clergymen and laymen, business meetings, and social gathering.

MATT, The German Roman Catholic Central Verein (St. Paul, Minn.).

PETER J. BOURSCHEIDT

Centuriators of Magdeburg

In 1559 there appeared at Basle the first three folio volumes of a work entitled “Ecclesiastica Historia. . . . . secundum singulas centurias. . . . . per aliquot studiosos et pios viros in Urbe Magdeburgicâ” (i.e. A History of the Church. . . . . according to centuries,. . . . done at Magdeburg by some learned and pious men). It was the work of a group of Lutheran scholars who had gathered at Magdeburg, and who are now known to history as the “Centuriators of Magdeburg” because of the way in which they divided their work (century by century) and the place in which the first five volumes were written; most of the others were written at Wismar or elsewhere, but the sub-title “in Urbe Magdeburgicâ” was retained. The originator of the idea and the moving spirit of the organization which produced the work was Matthias Vlacich (latinized Flacius), also known as Francovich, and, from the country of his birth (Istria), Illyricus. Born in 1520, the influence of his uncle Baldo Lupertino, an apostate friar, prevented him from becoming a monk and directed his steps in 1539 to Germany, where, at Augsburg, Basle, Tübingen, and Wittenberg, he developed a fanatical anti-Roman temper. The Augsburg Interim of 1547 led to the Adiaphoristic controversy, in the course of which he poured forth a flood of calumnious abuse upon the Reformer Philip Melanchthon; the bitter feeling generated gave rise to the hostile parties of Philippists and Flacians. All attempts to restore peace failed, and the University of Jena, where Flacius was appointed professor of theology in 1557, became a centre of rigid Lutheranism in strong opposition to Melachthon. His wanderings after 1562, and the numerous domestic controversies between the Reformers, in which Flacius took part until his death (11 March, 1575), did not prevent him from becoming the most learned Lutheran theologian of his day, while, in addition to numerous minor controversial works, his untiring energy led him to devise the vast historical work known as “The Centuries.”

After Luther’s death (1546) anti-Catholic controversy tended to lose its dogmatic character and to become historical. Flacius sought historical weapons wherewith to destroy Catholicism, and in that spirit wrote his once famous and influential catalogue of anti-papal witnesses, “Catalogus testium veritatis qui ante nostram ætaem Pontifici Romano eiusque eroribus reclamarunt” (Basle, 1556; enlarged ed., Strasburg, 1562; ed. by Dietericus, Frankfort, 1672). Some four hundred anti-papal witnesses to truth were cited, St. Gregory the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas being included in the number of those who had stood up for truth against “the Papal Antichrist.” As early as 1553 Flacius was seeking patrons whose financial support should enable him to carry out his comprehensive plan of a church history which was “to reveal the beginnings, the development and the ruthless designs of the Antichrist.” The German princes, and the burghers particularly of Augsburg and Nuremberg, helped him generously, but no support was forthcoming from the followers of Melanchthon. He travelled through Germany in search of material while his zealous fellow-worker, Marcus Wagner (from Weimar near Gotha), searched the libraries of Austria, Bavaria, Scotland, and Denmark for the same purpose. Into the vexed question of the dishonourable means alleged to have been used by Flacius in acquiring MSS., and his use of the knife to mutilate them, thus giving rise to the proverbial Manus Flaciana and culter Flacianus, we cannot enter here. An examination of the remains of his library, now at Wolfenbüttel, does not tend to lessen the force of the accusation. Recent research emphasizes the importance of the assistance given by the crypto-Protestant, Caspar von Nydbruck, imperial councillor, and head of the Imperial Library of Vienna, whose influence was exerted throughout Europe on behalf of the work. The editorial board, Gubernatores et Inspectores institut historiæ Ecclesiasticæ, was composed of Flacius, John Wigand (b. 1523, d. 1587), superintendent at Magdebug, Mathew Judex (b. 1528, d.1576), preacher at Magdeburg, Basil Faber (b.1525, d. 1576), humanist, who collaborated in the first four “Centuries,” Martin Copus, a physician who acted as treasurer, and Eblinek Alman, a burgher of Magdeburg, each of whom had his own assistants. Seven junior assistants were appointed to compile extracts from early Christian writers and historians in accordance with a fixed plan, two more mature scholars acted as “Architects,” grouped the material, and submitted it to the editors. When approved of, the materials were worked up into chapters and again submitted before the final form was fair-copied.

Even when at Jena, and during his subsequent wanderings, Flacius retained the direction of the work. Each century was systematically treated under sixteen headings bearing uniform titles in the various volumes. An analysis of the “Quarta Centuria,” which appeared in 1560, will give an idea of the contents: Title page; dedication to Queen Elizabeth (co. 3–12); (i) brief statement of the chief events of the century (c01.13); (ii) spread of the Church: where and how (13–35); (iii) persecution and peace of the Church under Diocletian and Maximian (35–159); (iv) the Church’s teaching and its history (160–312); (v) heresies (312–406); (vi) rites and ceremonies (406 -483); (vii) Church discipline and government (483–582); (viii) schisms and controversies (583–609); (ix) councils (609–880); (x) leading bishops and doctors (880–1337); (xi) leading heretics (1338–1403); (xii) the martyrs (1403–1432); (xiii) miracles and miraculous occurrences (1433–1456); (xiv) political relations of the Jews (1456–1462); (xv) other non-Christian religions (1462–1560); (xvi) political changes (1560–1574); Scriptural index (8 cols.); general index (92 pages of four columns). This method was applied only to the first thirteen centuries, which were published separately in folio volumes at Basle; I-III in 1559; IV in 1560; V and VI in 1562; VII and VIII in 1564; IX in 1566; X and XI in 1567; XII in 1569; and XIII in 1574. The three remaining centuries were completed in manuscript by Wigand (who was largely responsible for all the work done between 1564–74), but never published, and the various attempts made in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to continue the work came to naught. In 1624 a complete edition of the “Centuries” in six folio volumes was issued at Basle by Louis Lucius, who omitted the authors’ names and dedications, and introduced various modifications of the text in a Calvinistic sense. A third edition appeared at Nuremburg 1757–1765, but did not get beyond the fifth “century.”

The underlying idea of the work, and that which determined the choice and use of materials, was to show that while “at the beginning of the Church it was not popish anti-Christian doctrine, but evangelical doctrine and religion, which had prevailed,” from the death of the last of the Apostles down to the restoration of the true religion by Martin Luther, the Church had gone astray, misled by the Roman Antichrist. Consequently as early as the second century errors are discovered in the teachings of Clement, Justin Martyr and Irenæus on the fundamental doctrines of free will and justification. On the other hand Catholic controversialists were not slow to make use of the numerous and important admissions of the early appearance of characteristic Catholic teaching. The plan of the book was a noble one, and, as the work of the first among modern writers on ecclesiastical history who profess to treat the subject critically, it marks an epoch in church history; its method, with its return to original sources, is quite sound, and the skill with which the vast masses of material were marshalled is worthy of all praise, hampered though it is by the chronological division of the work. Yet noble as was the plan, the same cannot be said of its execution; virulent anti-papal abuse is common to the whole work. The exercise of the critical faculty is limited by the demands of anti-Roman controversy, and no attempts is made to take a calm and impartial survey of the Church’s history. Its constant polemical tone, is grouping of facts coloured by party spirit, its unjust treatment of the Church, its uncritical accumulation of anti-papal story and legend, made the “Centuries” for a long time the arsenal, of Protestant controversialists. From its pages they learnt to look upon St. Boniface as “the apostle of lies,” who “shamelessly imposed the yoke of Antichrist upon the necks of the Germans”; and upon Pope Gregory VII as a man to whom every imaginable crime was ascribed, and whose iniquities were the despair even of the vituperative vocabulary of Flacius. “The marks of Antichrist” were to be found in Pope Alexander III, who is said to have “worshipped strange gods, strengthened and confirmed the teaching of the devil, and thought highly of Baalism.” Through the ages no crime is too monstrous, no story too incredible, provided it furnish a means of blackening the memory of the occupants of Peter’s Chair. It was the work, stigmatized by Canisius as opus pestilentissimum, that led Caesar Baronius (q.v.) to write his “Annales Ecclesiastici,” in twelve folio volumes (Rome, 1588–1607), covering the period from the birth of Christ to the year 1198. Such was its success that it completely superseded the work of the Centuriators, the principal value of which now is its use as a key to the historical arguments of Protestant controversial writers in the late sixteenth and the seventeenth century.

DOLLINGER, Die Reformation (Ratisbon, 1848), II, 224–62; JANSSEN, Gesch. Des d. Volkes seit d. Ausgang d. M.A. (Freiburg, 1876–94), V, 312, VII, 299, tr. of I -V (London, 1896–1906); Historisches Jahrb, (1896), XVII, 79–87; NIEMOLLER, Matthias Flacius und der flacianische Geist in der alt. Prof. Kirchen-Hist. In Zeitschr. F. kath, Theol. (1888), XII, 75–115; BAUR, Die Epochen der irch, Geschichtschreibung (Tubingen, 1852), 39–71; CABROL, in Rev. bénédictine (1905), XXII, 151 sq.; SCHULTE, Beitrage zur Entstehungsgesch, der Magdeburger Centurien (1877); SCHAUMKELL, Beitrag zur Entstehungsgesch, d. Magd. Cent. (Ludwigslust, 1898); KAWERAU, in Realencykl f. prof. Theol. Und Kirche, s.v. Flacius (Leipzig, 1899), VI 82–92; PREGER, Mathias Flacius Illyricus und seine Zeit(Erlangen, 1859–61). For the important eleventh century liturgical MS. (episcopal ceremonial) known as the Missa Illyrica or Flaciana, because it once belonged to Flacius (Co. Helmstad, 1151. at Wolfenbuttel), see Braun in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (1905), LXIX,143 sq.

EDWARD MYERS

Centurion

(Lat. Centurio, Gr. kentyrion, ekatontarkos, ekatontarkys).

A Roman officer commanding a century or company, the strength of which varied from fifty to one hundred men; But in the Vulgate and the D.V. the term is also applied to an officer of the Hebrew army. In New Testament times there were sixty centurions in a legion, two to the maniple and six to the cohort. They were not all of equal rank. The centurion who commanded the first of the two centuries composing the maniple ranked above the commander of the second; the first centurion of the first maniple (triarii) of the cohort was higher than the first centurion of the second (principes), and he higher than the ranking centurion of the third (hastati), etc. There was also precedence of rank according to the number of the cohort. The chief centurion in the legion was the primipulus or first centurion of the triarii of the first cohort. He had charge of the legion’s eagle, assisted at the councils of war, and in the absence of a superior officer took command of the legion. The auxiliary cohorts had six or ten centurions according as they consisted of 500 (cohortes quingenariae) or 1000 men (cohortes milliariae). These were inferior to the legionary centurions. The centurions carried as insignia of their rank a staff made of a vine-branch, with which, on occasion, they chastised their men; whence vitis (vine) was used to designate their centurionship. Ordinarily they could rise no higher than the rank of primipulus and at the expiration of their term of service they retired into private life. With the grant of land they received and with what they acquired during the wars they were usually well off. The primipili often became wealthy enough to gain entrance into the equestrian order. The post of centurion, it should be noted, was not, as a rule, held by men of family, though occasionally a young man of rank aspiring to a higher military career served first as centurion in a legion.

Of the two centurions mentioned in the Gospels only one was a Roman officer. He who asked Our Savior to cure his servant and whose faith the Savior so highly commended (Matt., viii, 5 sq.; Luke, vii, 2 sq.), though a gentile, belonged to the army of Herod Antipas, since Capharnaum lay in this Prince’s territory. The tetrarch’s army was probably organized after the manner of the Roman auxiliary troops. The other, who commanded the detachment of soldiers at the Crucifixion (Matt., xxvii, 54, Mark, xv, 39,44, Luke, xxiii, 47) was of course an officer of the Imperial cohort stationed at Jerusalem (Acts, xxi, 31). In the Acts two centurions are mentioned by name, Cornelius, centurion of “the Italian band” or cohort, the first gentile admitted into the Church (Acts, x, 1 sq.) and Julius, centurion of the “band Augusta,” who brought St. Paul to Rome (Acts, xxvii, 1, etc.). Others are spoken of in connection with the Apostle’s arrest and transfer to Caesarea (Acts, xxi, 32, xxii, 25, xxiii, 23). Since no legion was stationed in Palestine before the time of Vespasian, these centurions all belonged to auxiliary cohorts. For this reason it was unlikely that either Cornelius or Julius was a member of the patrician family whose name he bore; both were probably the sons of freedmen. In a number of places in the Old Testament centuriones stands in the Vulgate for sare me’oth (“captains of hundreds”), once [I Sam. (I K.), viii, 12] even for sare hamishshim (“captains of fifty”), though here the agreement of the Septuagint with the Vulgate would seem to show that the Hebrew text is defective. In several of these places the D.V. has “centurions,” but in the others “captains,” “captains of” or “over hundreds”; in two cases (Ex., xviii, 21, 25) “rulers of” or “over hundreds.” The centuriones of Ex., xviii, 21, 25, Num., xxxi, 14, etc., Deut., I, 15 were both civil and military officers.

Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rom. Antiq. (London, 1901), I, 787, 790; Mommsen, Nomina et Gradus Centurionem, in Ephemer. Epigraph. (1879), 226–245; Mueller, Die Rangordnung und das Avancement d. Centurionem, in Philologus (1879), 126–149; Desjardins, in Melanges Graux (1884), 676–679; Marquardt, Rom. Staatsverwaltung (2nd. ed.,) 430 sq.; Mommsen and Marquardt, Manuel des Antiqu. Rom. (Paris, 1891), XI, 65, sq.

F. BECHTEL

St. Ceolfrid

Benedictine monk, Abbot of Wearmouth and Jarrow, b. 642, place of birth not known; d. 29 Sept., 716, at Langres on the frontier of Burgundy. His family belonged to the highest rank of the Ango-Saxon nobility. The name Ceolfrid is the Teutonic form of Geoffrey. At the age of eighteen he became a monk in the monastery of Ripon, then ruled over by St. Wilfrid. After ten years of study and preparation he was ordained priest by St. Wilfrid. He soon afterwards visited Canterbury and spent some time with Botulph, founder and Abbot of Icanhoe, now the town of Boston (Botulph’s town) in Lincolnshire. On his return to Ripon he fulfilled the duties of novice-master, in which capacity he became noted for his profound humility and love of menial work. His fame reached the ears of St. Benedict Biscop, then in the midst of his great monastic enterprise on the banks of the Wear. He begged him from St. Wilfrid, and soon after reaching Wearmouth Ceolfrid was made prior of the monastery and left in charge during the absence of Benedict on his journeys to Rome. Meeting with difficulties as superior, he went back to Ripon, but was afterwards persuaded to return. From this time he became the constant companion of Benedict and accompanied him to Rome on his fifth journey to the Holy City.

About 681 Benedict began the foundation of a second monastery at Jarrow on the banks of the Tyne about six miles from Wearmouth. Ceolfrid was appointed the first abbot to act as the deputy of Benedict, who in reality was abbot of both houses. He took with him seventeen monks from Wearmouth, and from an inscription formerly on the wall of the church we learn that the monastery was completed about 684 or 685. Benedict died 12 January, 690, and directed the brethren to elect Ceolfrid to be his successor. Ceolfrid proved himself a worthy disciple of his master, carefully carrying out the ideals of Benedict. His disciple, the Venerable Bede, has thus described his character and work: “This last [Ceolfrid] was himself a man of most extraordinary diligence and superior quickness of apprehension; prompt in carrying into effect but prudent in forming designs and unrivalled in piety . . . During his long administration Ceolfrid brought to a happy conclusion all the admirable plans for promoting piety which his distinguished predecessor had begun. Time also suggested and enabled him to carry into execution numerous improvements of his own. Amongst a great variety of these, we ought particularly to notice that he considerably augmented the number of private oratories or chapels of ease; added largely to the plate and sacred vestments of the Church, and with ardour which equalled the past energy of Benedict in founding, he nearly doubled the libraries of both his monasteries. Besides innumerable other literary acquisitions he procured three pandects of the new, added to one of the old translations of the bible which he had brought from Rome. In his latter days, departing again for that city, he took with him as a donative one of these three valued volumes, leaving to his monasteries the other two” (Liber de Vitis Abbat. Wirim, Wilcock tr.).

This volume, which Ceolfrid carried with him on his last journey to Rome was the famous “Codex Amiatinus.” Until recent years it was thought to have been the work of Servandus, abbot of a monastery near Alatri in Italy (sixth century). The name of Cassiodorus has also been connected with this manuscript, owing to its striking resemblance to his Bible; but Vigouroux concludes that it is absolutely independent of Cassiodorus, though the prologue it contains on the divisions of the Bible may possibly be of Cassiodorian origin. The famous Catholic antiquarian, De Rossi (1888), discovered its true origin. He has conclusively proved that it was written at Wearmouth or Jarrow between the years 690 and 716; that it was one of the three copies of St. Jerome’s Vulgate which Bede refers to in the passage quoted above; and that Ceolfrid presented the manuscript to the pope. For many years it was preserved in the Abbey of Monte Amiato near Siena; it now rests in the Laurentenian Library at Florence, where it was transferred at the suppression of the abbey in 1786. This Codex gives the oldest text of St. Jerome’s Vulgate and has played a most important role in its history; in the publication of the Sixtine and Clementine editions of the Bible it was preferred to all other manuscripts. Samuel Berger says of it: “It is from Northumberland that the correct texts of the Vulgate were sent out not only throughout Italy, to which England was thus paying a debt, but also throughout France. Alcuin was from York and had been chosen by Charlemagne to correct the text of the bible.” He was instrumental in extinguishing the last remnants of Celtic particularism in the celebration of Easter.

Ceolfrid obtained from Pope Sergius I letters of immunity for his two monasteries, and had them presented before a synod of English bishops in the presence of King Alefrid, thus obtaining both royal and episcopal sanction. With the advance of years came sickness and infirminty, and he resigned his office with the intention of journeying to Rome, there to end his days. He also wished to give his brethren an opportunity of “living under the direction of a younger abbot, that the example of a more active leader might inspire them with greater ardour in the pursuit of virtue.” He died on his last journey at Langres, and was buried in the church of the three martyrs, Sts. Speusippus, Eleusippus, and Meleusippus. His relics were afterwards transferred to Jarrow, and thence, in the time of the Danish invasions, to Glastonbury.

BEDE, “Ecclesiastical History of England” (London, 1840); 229, 317, 318, 342; IDEM, “Liber de vitis Abbat. Wirim.”; MONTALEMBERT, “Monks of the West,” IV, xiii; BUTLER, “Lives of the Saints,” September 25th; “Weremuth-Jarrow und Rom im 7. Jahrhundert “ in “Der Katholik” for September, 1901; CORNELY, “Introd. Gen. In S. Scripturas,” I, 436; BERGER “De l’histoire de la Vulgate en France,” 4; WHITE, “The Codex Amiatinus and its Birthplace” in ‘Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica,” II, 273–308.

G.E. HIND

Ceolwulf

(CEOLWULPH or CEOLULPH)

Coelwulf, King of Northumbria and monk of Lindisfarne, date and place of birth not known; died at Lindisfarne, 764. His ancestry is thus given by the “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle”: “Ceolwulf was the son of Cutha, Cutha of Cuthwin, Cuthwin of Leoldwald, Leoldwald of Egwald, Egwald of Aldhelm, Aldhelm of Ocga, Ocga of Ida, Ida of Eoppa.” Harpsfeld says that he succeeded Osred on the throne, but most authorities say that he was adopted as heir by Osric in 729. Learned and pious, he lacked the vigour and authority necessary for a ruler. Bede bears witness to his learning and piety in the introductory chapter of his “Ecclesiastical History.” He dedicated this work “to the most glorious King Ceolwulph,” sent it to him for his approval, and addresses him thus: “I cannot but commend the sincerity and zeal, with which you not only give ear to hear the words of Holy Scripture, but also industriously take care to become acquainted with the actions and sayings of former men of renown.”

His unfitness for his duties as king prompted his subjects to seize him and confine him in a monastery in the second year of his reign. He escaped from this confinement and reascended the throne. During his reign he appointed his cousin Egbert to be Bishop of York, and Bede tells us that the ecclesiastical affairs of his kingdom were presided over by the four bishops, Wilfrid, Ethelwald, Acca, and Pecthelm. After a reign of eight years he wearied of “the splendid cares of royalty,” and voluntarily resigned to become a monk at Lindisfarne (738). His cousin Eadbert succeeded him. Ranulphus Cestrensis speaks of his retirement to St. Bede’s monastery of Jarrow, but all others agree that it was Lindisfarne. He brought to the monastery many treasures and much land, and after his entrance the monks were first allowed to drink wine and beer, contrary to the tradition handed down from St. Aidan, who only allowed them milk or water. Henry of Huntingdon, when entering into detail with regard to his retirement, says he was principally urged to it by reading the writings of Bede on the lives of former kings who had resigned their thrones to enter the monastic state. He was buried in the cathedral of Lindisfarne next to the tomb of St. Cuthbert, and, according to Malmesbury, many miracles were wrought at his tomb. The body was afterwards transferred to the mainland of Northumberland, probably along with St. Cuthbert’s, in order to preserve it from desecration at the time of the Danish invasion. His feast day in the calendar is the 15th of January.

BEDE, Eccles. History (ed. (GILES), I, 334, 335, 340; Acta SS., Jan. 25,I; LINGARD, Hist. of England (London, 1854), I, 71, 72; DIXON AND RAINE’S Fasti Eborac., 94; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ed. GILES), index; RAINE, Hist. of North Durham, 68.

G. E. HIND

Francisco Cepeda

(Also called ZEPEDA and ZEPEDAS)

Born in the province of La Mancha, 1532; died at Guatemala, 1602. He became a Dominican at the convent of Ocaña, and was sent to Chiapas in Mexico. He was a very active missionary among the Indians, and when the differing modes of instructing them became an obstacle to their conversion, Cepeda was sent to Mexico to simplify the Indian grammars printed there, and obtain a standard for the guidance of the missionaries. In consequence of that journey, the “Artes de los idiomas Chiapanecos, Zoque, Tzendal y Chinanteco” (probably the work of several authors) was published in 1560 under his name. The book has disappeared, but its former existence is well established, by Remesal at first, and by subsequent authors. It is the first book printed in America in four languages (five with the Spanish). The title is given variously, but the above is the correct one. Cepeda became Provincial of the Dominicans in Guatemala, 1593, and Commissary of the Inquisition.

REMESAL, Historia general de las Indias occidentales &ca. (Madrid, 1619); LEON Y PINELO, Epítome (Madrid, 1737, &ca.); ANTONIO, Bibliotheca Hispana nova (1737–1738); BERISTAIN, Biblioteca &ca. (Amecameca, 1883); YCAZBALCETA, Bibliografia (1886); PIMENTEL, Cuadro descriptivo &ca. (Mexico, 1862).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER.

Ceramus

A titular see of Asia Minor. Ceramus (or Keramos) was a city of Caria, subject at first to Stratonicea, afterwards autonomous, and one of the chief cities of the Systema Chrysaorikon (Bulletin de corresp. hellén., IX, 468). In Roman times it coined its own money. It is mentioned in the “Notitiæ episcopatuum” until the twelfth or thirteenth century as suffragan to Aphrodisias, or Stauropolis. We know but three bishops: Spudasius, at Ephesus in 431; Maurianus, at Nicæa in 787; and Symeon, at the council which reinstated Photius in 879. Ceramus has preserved its old name, but is now only a small village in the vilayet of Smyrna, on the north shore of Gueuk-Abaa bay (the Keramic Gulf), not far from the sea.

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geog. (London. 1878), s. v. Cerameicus.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Cerasus

A titular see of Pontus Polemoniacus in Asia Minor. Cerasus is remembered for the sojourn of Xenophon and his Ten Thousand on their famous retreat. It seems to have stood in the valley at a short distance from the modern city. The latter was founded by Pharnaces, after whom it was called Pharnacia; but owing to the abundance of cherry-trees in the country, it was soon named Cerasus like the old town, and this appellation has remained. It was from Cerasus that Pompey imported the first cherry-trees to Rome, whence they afterwards spread through all Europe. The city is mentioned by Pliny and Greek geographers, but does not appear to have been very important. It was a suffragan of Neocæsarea (Niksar); in the eleventh century it became a metropolis, and was still extant at the end of the fifteenth century, but by the seventeenth the see was suppressed. From the fifth to the twelfth century Lequien (II, 513) mentions nine titulars; his list might be increased. The Turkish Kerassoun, or Ghiresson, is a port on the Black Sea, and the chief town of a caza in the vilayet of Trebizond; it has about 10,000 inhabitants (5000 Greeks, 1000 Armenians, and a few Catholics, visited from time to time by Capuchins from Trebizond). The climate is mild. The town is surrounded by a large forest of hazel- and cherry-trees, the latter being still very numerous. There are ruins of ancient walls, of an amphitheatre, a fortress, and of Byzantine churches.

CUINET, Turquie d’Asie, I. 64–78; PAPAMICHALOPOULOS, A Tour in Pontus (Greek; Athens, 1903), 256–282; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr. (London, 1878), I, 590.

S. VAILHÉ.

Ceremonial

The book which contains in detail the order of religious ceremony and solemn worship prescribed to be observed in ecclesiastical functions. At present there are only two official liturgical books that bear the titles, “Cæremoniale Romanum” and “Cæremoniale Episcoporum.” The Missal, Breviary, Ritual, and Pontifical likewise contain directions for the celebration of Mass, the recitation of the Office, the administration of the sacraments, and episcopal functions respectively. They may, therefore, in a certain sense be considered ceremonials; but since the primary purpose of these books is to serve as texts of the liturgical prayers, the added directions being only general, they are not looked upon as ceremonials in the accepted sense of the term. The most ancient ceremonials and rituals of the Roman Church are the so-called “Ordines Romani.” Mabillon (Musæum Italicum, Paris, 1687–89, II) enumerates fifteen of them. They treat of the election of the Roman pontiff, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Orders, the functions for special days of the year, etc. Authors do not agree as to the date at which they were composed. Abbot Hilduinus, Walafridus Strabo, Sigebertus (in his chronicle), and after them Leopoldus Bambergensis, record that the Roman pontiff sent a copy of one of these “Ordines” to Pepin of Heristal (died 714) or to Charles Martel (died 741). It was probably composed by the pontifical master of ceremonies and contained, besides the functions observed in the various churches at that time, many rites and customs taken from a similar book which dates back to the time of Gelasius I (died 496), and was corrected and augmented by Gregory the Great (died 604).

The “Ordines Romani” were the ground-work of the “Cæremoniale Romanum,” compiled by Augustinus Patricius, surnamed Piccolomineus, Bishop of Pienza (1483–1496), who had been formerly pontifical master of ceremonies. The work, which was dedicated to Innocent VIII, 1 March, 1488, was not intended originally for publication, but in 1516 it was printed by pontifical permission at Rome and Venice by Christophorus Marcellus, Archbishop of Corcyra, under the title “Rituum Ecclesiasticorum, sive Sacrarum Cæremoniarum S. Romanæ Ecclesiæ libri tres non ante impressi.” The pontifical master of ceremonies at that time, Paris de Grassis, was incensed at its publication, averring that it would lower the papal dignity in the estimation of the masses, and asked Leo X to destroy the copies of it and censure the editor. It was, however, not suppressed, but reissued at Florence (1521); Cologne (1557); Rome (1560); Venice (1573, 1582, 1616); Leipzig (1733), and at Rome (1750), with a commentary by Joseph Catalanus under the title “Sacrarum Cæremoniarum, sive Rituum Ecclesiasticorum S. Romanæ Ecclesiæ libri tres, ab Augustino Patricio ordinati et a Marcello Corcyrensi Archiepiscopo primum editi.” It consists of three books, the first of which contains extra-liturgical functions, such as the election and consecration of the Roman pontiff, the coronation of an emperor, the canonization of saints, the creation of cardinals, etc.; the second describes the liturgical functions at Mass, Vespers, and the other canonical Hours; the third gives general rules and instructions. In 1587 Sixtus V established the Congregation of Ceremonies for the purpose of watching over the rites and ceremonies which are to be observed in the Papal Court, to decide questions regarding pre-eminence among the persons who assist at the papal functions, to arrange all the details for the presentation of princes and their envoys to the Roman pontiff, and to give directions to the ablegates who carry the insignia of the cardinalate to newly-created cardinals residing outside of Rome. Many dioceses and monastic orders have their proper ceremonials, and those compiled by individual authors for giving assistance to the clergy in the performance of their ecclesiastical functions are very numerous.

ZACCARIA, Bibliotheca Ritualis, tom. I, lib. I, cap. vii, art. 1 (Rome, 1776).

A. J. SCHULTE.

Ceremony

(Skt., karman, action, work; from kar or ker, to make or create; Lat. cœremonia)

Ceremony in liturgy, an external action, gesture, or movement which accompanies the prayers and public exercise of divine worship. To these the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, cap. v.) adds the things over which or with which the prayers are pronounced, e.g. blessings, lights, incense, vestments, etc. Ceremony is the necessary outcome of the twofold nature of man, intellectual and sensible, on account of which, as St. Thomas Aquinas says (Contra Gentiles, III, cxix), he must pay God a twofold adoration, one spiritual, which consists in the interior devotion of the soul, the other corporal, which manifests itself in the outward form of worship, for there is no inward sentiment or feeling which man is not wont to express outwardly by some suitable gesture or action. Ceremonies are employed to embellish and adorn sacred functions; to excite in the faithful sentiments of respect, devotion, and religion, by which the honour of God is increased and the sanctification of the soul is obtained, since these constitute the principal object of all liturgical acts; to lead the illiterate more easily to a knowledge of the mysteries of religion; to indicate the dispositions necessary to receive the sacraments worthily; and to induce the faithful to fulfil with greater docility the obligations which the reception of the sacraments imposes on them.

Some ceremonies owe their institution to purely physical reasons or necessity, e.g. the lights used in the catacombs, which were retained by the Church for the mystical reason that they represent Christ, the Light of the World; others are founded on mystical or symbolical reasons, e.g. all the ceremonies at baptism which precede the pouring of the water on the person to be baptized; many are founded on historical, natural, and mystical reasons at the same time, e.g. the mixing of wine and water at Mass recalls to our mind what Christ did at the Last Supper, and represents the blood and water that flowed from His side on the Cross as well as the union of the faithful with Christ. Catholic ceremonies, therefore, are not superstitious practices, meaningless observances or relics of heathen and Jewish customs, but regulations of Divine, Apostolic, and ecclesiastical institution. They may be grouped, according to Suarez (De Sacramentis, Disp. lxxxiv) into three classes:

(a) Some invest a function with decorum, dignity, and reverence, e.g. washing the hands, striking the breast, approaching the altar with downcast eyes.

(b) Others serve as external acts of worship, e.g. bending the knee, bowing the head.

(c) Many are prescribed for a moral and mystical signification, e.g. elevating the bread and wine at the Offertory of the Mass, raising the hands and eyes, giving the kiss of peace, frequently making the sign of the cross.

To these may be added another class which not only symbolize, but produce, spiritual effects, and obtain Divine grace, e.g. the imposition of the hands of the bishop together with the form of words by which priestly power and inward grace are conferred on the recipient of Holy orders. The sum total of the ceremonies of an individual function is called a rite (ritus), e.g. the rite of Mass, baptism, extreme unction; the totality of the rites of religion is called its cult (cultus). (See RITE).

MENGHINI, Elementa juris liturgici (Rome, 1906); COPPINSTIMART, Sacrœ liturgiœ compendium (Tournai, 1903). STELLA Institutiones liturgicœ (Rome, 1895); MAGAÑA Sagrada liturgia (Pamplona, 1905); VAN DEE STAPPEN, Sacra Liturgia (Mechlin, 1904), I.

A. J. SCHULTE.

Cerinthus

(Greek Kerinthos).

A Gnostic-Ebionite heretic, contemporary with St. John; against whose errors on the divinity of Christ the Apostle is said to have written the Fourth Gospel.

We possess no information concerning this early sectary which reaches back to his own times. The first mention of his name and description of his doctrines occur in St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., I, c. xxvi; III, c. iii, c. xi), written about 170. Further information is gathered from Presbyter Caius (c. 210) as quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxviii, 2). Hippolytus, in “Philosophoumena,” VII, 33 (c. 230), practically transcribes Irenaeus. Cerinthus is referred to by Pseudo-Tertullian in “Adv. Omnes Haeres,” written about 240. A fragment of Dionysius of Alexandria, taken from “De Promissionibus,” written about 250, is given by Eusebius after his quotation from Caius. The most detailed account is given by St. Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres,” xxviii, written about 390), which, however, on account of its date and character must be used with some caution. A good summary is given by Theodoret (“Haer. Fab.,” II, 3, written about 450). Cerinthus was an Egyptian, and if not by race a Jew, at least he was circumcised. The exact date of his birth and his death are unknown. In Asia he founded a school and gathered disciples. No writings of any kind have come down to us. Cerinthus’s doctrines were a strange mixture of Gnosticism, Judaism, Chiliasm, and Ebionitism. He admitted one Supreme Being; but the world was produced by a distinct and far inferior power. He does not identify this Creator or Demiurgos with the Jehovah of the Old Testament. Not Jehovah but the angels have both made the world and given the law. These creator-angels were ignorant of the existence of the Supreme God. The Jewish law was most sacred, and salvation to be obtained by obedience to its precepts. Cerinthus distinguished between Jesus and Christ. Jesus was mere man, though eminent in holiness. He suffered and died and was raised from the dead, or, as some say Cerinthus taught, He will be raised from the dear at the Last Day and all men will rise with Him. At the moment of baptism, Christ or the Holy Ghost was sent by the Highest God, and dwelt in Jesus teaching Him, what not even the angels knew, the Unknown God. This union between Jesus and Christ continues till the Passion, when Jesus suffers alone and Christ returns to heaven. Cerinthus believed in a happy millenium which would be realized here on earth previous to the resurrection and the spiritual kingdom of God in heaven.

Scarcely anything is known of Cerinthus’s disciples; they seem soon to have fused with the Nazareans and Ebionites and exercised little influence on the bulk of Christendom, except perhaps through the Pseudo-Clementines, the product of Cerinthian and Ebionite circles. They flourished most in Asia and Galatia.

Bareille, in Dict. de Theol. Cath., s.v.; Duchesne, Hist. ancienne de L’Eglise (Paris, 1907); Dict. of Christ. Biogr.; Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Cent. (1875); Davidson, Introductions to N. Test. (1894), I, 345; II, 245–6; Kunze, De Hist. Gnosticismi Fontibus (Leipzig, 1894).

J.P. ARENDZEN

Certitude

The word certitude indicates both a state of mind and a quality of a proposition, according as we say, “I am certain,” or, “It is certain.” This distinction is expressed in the technical language of philosophy by saying that there is subjective certitude and objective certitude. It is worthy of notice, as regards the use of English terms, that Newman reserves the term certitude for the state of mind, and employs the word certainty to describe the condition of the evidence of a proposition.

Certitude is correlative to truth, for truth is the object of the intellect. Knowledge means knowledge of truth; and hence we are in the habit of saying simply of a proposition that “it is certain,” to express that it is true, and that its truth is so evident as legitimately to produce certitude. Certitude is contrasted with other states of mind in reference to a proposition: the state of ignorance, the state of doubt, and the state of opinion. The last-named signifies, in the strict use of the term, the holding of a proposition as probable, although in common parlance it is loosely used in a wider sense, as in speaking of a man’s religious opinions, meaning not his speculations or theories about religious questions, but his dogmatic convictions. Certitude is such assent to the truth of a proposition as excludes all real doubt. Here it is proper to observe a distinction between merely undoubting assent, i.e. the mere absence of doubt, and an assent that positively excludes doubt, an assent with which doubt is incompatible. Thus one may give to a statement in the morning newspaper an undoubting assent and credence, yet readily withdraw that assent if the statement be contradicted in the afternoon papers. Such assent, though undoubting, is not certitude. But there is a kind of assent from which doubt is not only in fact absent but absent of necessity, because such assent and doubt are incompatible. Such is the assent which one gives to the truth that he really exists, and that he feels well or ill, or to the truth of the proposition that it is impossible for a thing in the same respect both to be and not to be, or to the moral law, the existence of God, and the immortality of the soul. Of these truths we are certain, and such assent is properly called certitude. Certitude differs from opinion in kind, not in degree only; for opinion, that is assent to the probability of a proposition, regards the opposite proposition as not more than improbable; and therefore opinion is always accompanied by the consciousness that further evidence may cause a change of mind in favour of the opposite opinion. Opinion, therefore, does not exclude doubt; certitude does. It has been disputed among philosophers whether certitude is susceptible of degrees, whether we may rightly say that our certitude of one truth is greater than our certitude of another truth. In Zigliara’s judgment, this question may easily be solved if a distinction is made between the exclusion of doubt (in which our various certitudes of different truths are all equal, and by which they are all equally marked off in kind from opinion) and the positive firmness of assent, which may be more intense in one case than in another, though in both it be equally true that we are certain. And, in fact, if we examine experience on this point, it is clear that our certitude of a self-evident truth, e.g. of the axioms of geometry, is greater than our certitude of a proposition demonstrated by a long and complex series of proofs, and that our certitude of such a fact as our own existence or our own state of feeling (gladness or health) is greater than our certitude of the existence, for instance, of a republican form of government in this country, though we are certain in both cases. We are more certain when we assent to a truth as certain which falls in with our inclination than when we are forced to a conviction. It should be noted, too, that in the common opinion of theologians there is a greater certitude in divine faith than in any human science.

There are several kinds of certitude. In the first place, it is divided into metaphysical, physical, and moral certitude.

Metaphysical certitude is that with which self-evidently necessary truth is known, or necessary truth demonstrated from self-evident truth. The demonstrative sciences, such as geometry, possess metaphysical certitude. The contingent fact of one’s own existence, or of one’s present state of feeling, is known with metaphysical certitude.

Physical certitude is that which rests upon the laws of nature. These laws are not absolutely unchangeable, but subject to the will of the Creator; they are not self-evident nor demonstrable from self-evident truth; but they are constant, and discoverable as laws by experience, so that the future may be inferred from the past, or the distant from the present. It is with physical certitude that a man knows that he shall die, that food will sustain life, that electricity will furnish motive power. Astronomers know beforehand with physical certitude the date of an eclipse or of a transit of Venus.

Moral certitude is that with which judgments are formed concerning human character and conduct; for the laws of human nature are not quite universal, but subject to occasional exceptions. It is moral certitude which we generally attain in the conduct of life, concerning, for example, the friendship of others, the fidelity of a wife or a husband, the form of government under which we live, or the occurrence of certain historical events, such as the Protestant Reformation or the French Revolution. Though almost any detail in these events may be made a subject of dispute, especially when we enter the region of motives and try to trace cause and effect, and though almost any one of the witnesses may be shown to have made some mistake or misrepresentation, yet the occurrence of the events, taken in the mass, is certain.

Father John Rickaby (First Principles of Knowledge) observes that certitude is not necessarily exclusive of all misgiving whatsoever (such as the thought of the bare possibility that we may be mistaken, for we are not infallible), but of all solid, reasonable misgivings. The term moral certitude is used by some philosophers in a wider sense, to include an assent in matters of conduct, given not on purely intellectual grounds of evidence, but through the virtue of prudence and the influence of the will over the intellect, because we judge that doubt would not be wise. In such a case, we know that an opinion or a course of action would be right as a rule, let us say, in nine cases out of ten, though we cannot shut our eyes to the possibility that the particular case which we are considering may be the exceptional case in which such a judgment would be wrong. Other philosophers say that in such a case we are not certain, but only judge it wise to act as if we were certain, and put doubts aside because useless. But it seems clear that in such a case we are certain of something, whether that something be described as the truth of a proposition or the wisdom of a course of action. This certitude might perhaps better be called Practical certitude, since it mainly concerns action. Hence, it is said that in cases in which it is necessary to act, in which great issues are involved, and yet the evidence, when logically set forth, would seem to amount to no more than a higher probability for one course than for another, the standard of judgment, or criterion, is the judicium prudentis viri, the judgment of a wise man, whose mind is unclouded by passion or prejudice, and who has some knowledge derived from experience of similar cases. Such a judgment is totally different from the spirit of the gambler’s throw, which is reckless not only of certainty but even of probability.

Certitude is likewise divided into natural certitude (termed also direct, or spontaneous) and philosophical. Natural certitude is that which belongs to “common sense,” or the spontaneous working of the judgment, which is common to all men not idiots or insane. This certitude belongs chiefly to self-evident truth and to the truths necessary for the conduct of life, e.g. the existent of other beings besides ourselves, the duties existing between husband and wife, parents and children, the existence of a Supreme Being deserving of reverence. To these and similar truths the mind comes with certitude, without any special education, in the ordinary course of life in human society. Philosophical (or scientific) certitude is that which results from a process of reflection, upon an analysis of the evidence for and against our convictions, a perception of the reasons which support them and of the objections which may be urged against them, together with an examination of the powers and the limits of the human intelligence. The term natural certitude is sometimes used in another sense, in contradistinction from the certitude of Divine faith, which is supernatural certitude, and which, according to theologians generally, is greater than any degree of certitude to be had in science, because it rests not upon human reason, which is liable to be mistaken, but upon the authority of God, who cannot err. (St. Thomas, Summa, I, Q. i, a. 5.)

A great part of philosophy is taken up with the questions whether certitude is possible, what is the extent of the sphere of certain knowledge, and by what tests or criteria truth may be certainly distinguished from falsehood, so that we may know when we have a right to be certain. A few philosophers in ancient and modern times have, seriously or not, denied the possibility of attaining certitude on any subject whatsoever, and professed universal scepticism. Such are Nicholas of Cusa, Montaigne, Charron, and Bayle, the last of whom aimed at producing the impression that everything is disputable by showing that everything is disputed. Literally universal scepticism is impossible, for it is a profession of knowledge to assert that nothing can be known, and to believe that there can be no belief. It is thus a contradiction in terms. A sceptic should in consistency be sceptical as to his own scepticism; but no attention would be given to such a sceptic unless as one attends, for amusement, to a jester. Nevertheless, universal scepticism may practically produce pernicious consequences, because its universality is overlooked, and its arguments are viewed as if they applied only to some particular sphere in which the reader (if it so be) is tempted to doubt. Thus, sceptical objections against the principle of causation may be employed against the proofs for the existence of God, while the reader is not warned, and does not remember, that they would equally avail against taking food and sleep for the restoration of strength, or against the anticipation that the sun will rise to-morrow. It should be added that some Christian apologists, in endeavouring to prove the necessity of Divine revelation, have used language differing but little from that of scepticism, to the disparagement of human reason. A noted example is Huet, “Traité de la faiblesse de l’esprit humain” (Paris, 1723).

What is more common than a profession of universal scepticism is a scepticism as to the possibility of philosophic certitude. Many who have no doubt as to natural certitude, or the certitude acquirable by “common sense,” the natural, spontaneous action of the unsophisticated mind, regard philosophy as more apt to open questions than to settle them, and to raise objections than to solve them. This seems to have been the position of Pascal, who says: “Reason confounds dogmatists, and nature confounds sceptics”; and, “The heart has reasons of its own which the understanding does not know.” This seems to have been the position also of a very different man, David Hume, who says: “Fortunately since reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, nature herself suffices for that purpose and cures me of this philosophical delirium” (Treatise of Human Nature, I, 297). He said to a friend who spoke to him concerning the future life and the existence of God: “Though I throw out my speculations to entertain the learned and metaphysical world, yet in other things I do not think so differently from the rest of the world, as you imagine.” And he gives his idea of scepticism in a remark upon Berkeley’s arguments against the real externality of the sensible world: “That these arguments are in reality merely sceptical appears from this, that they admit of no answer, and produce no conviction; their only effect is to cause that momentary amazement and irresolution and confusion, which is the result of Skepticism.” (Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ch. xii, note 4.) Kant’s system, which denies that the speculative reason can attain to real knowledge, and admits only Practical certitude, and consequently denies the possibility of any system of metaphysical philosophy, is virtually the same view. It is needless to say that, in a philosopher, such a view is self-contradictory. Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason,” as well as his other works, was an exercise of the speculative reason. If certitude of knowledge is not obtainable on any subject by the speculative reason, how could he indulge in such positive and dogmatic propositions? If we consider this view of philosophy, as it is held by some men of sense and virtue, who point to the disputations and wranglings of philosophers, the variety of opinions, the number of infidel philosophers, and the general suspicion felt by earnestly religious people, the answer to it is, that this view has some measure of truth, but is a great exaggeration. It is quite true that philosophical inquiries concerning morals and religion, if not conducted with proper moral dispositions, are likely to terminate in doubt. If there be any bias, whether conscious or unconscious, against the obligations of morality and religion, there can of course be only one issue. If the understanding seeks to know everything; if it rejects facts, however well attested, because it does not see how they can be so; if it will accept no truth, however firmly demonstrated, unless the harmony with every other part of a system can be made clear; if the mind makes itself the measure of possibility; if it claims to see through and through the universe, and its origin, and its end; if it refuses to submit to mystery, or to acknowledge that it is limited; and if, because it cannot know everything, it will proudly not consent to know anything, of course with such a disposition philosophizing cannot issue in philosophic certitude. But that is not the fault of philosophy, nor of reason; and the abuse cannot take away the use, but only be a warning against the misuse of philosophy.

“Methodic doubt,” that is, provisional doubt of every truth, was put forward by Descartes as the proper course for the discovery of truth. This philosopher teaches that in order to be certain of the truth of our convictions we should begin by doubting everything, except one thing: “I think, and therefore I am.” He professes to hold that every other truth may be doubted and needs proof. He suggests that we may doubt whether we can discover the truth on any other point whatsoever, for it may appear possibly that we have been created by a malign or mischievous beings who so constituted our mind that we must invariably be mistaken. The Cartesian method is self-contradictory. To make the supposition that possibly the human intellect cannot know the truth, on any point whatsoever, is to assume that this supposition may be true, and that there is such a thing as truth, and that it can be known. To attempt to disprove the supposition, to undertake to show the veracity of the cognitive faculties, presupposes their veracity or power of knowing the truth on some points at least. In fact, Descartes proved the veracity of the cognitive faculties from the veracity of God. The veracity of God, however, is known as the result of a demonstration of some length and complexity; and the undertaking of such demonstration shows a previous belief in the power of the mind to discover the truth. In fact, the very doubt on such a subject is a self-contradiction; for doubt as well as certitude is correlated to truth. To doubt whether a particular view may not be false is to suspect that the opposite may be true. To doubt that the intellect can know any truth is to question whether it may not be true that we are ignorant. But this implies that there is such a thing as truth, and that the truth at least about our own power of knowing, can be discovered. Without such a presupposition, thought cannot be carried on at all. Nor is it a blind presupposition or animal instinct. For in the perception of first principles, or truths evident by their own light, there is implicit the perception that there is such a thing as truth and knowledge. The error in Descartes’ method is its exaggeration. It is wise to be on our guard against the prejudices, or opinions, peculiar to a particular time and place, the place of birth or education, the class or party to which our early associations have attached us; but the principles which are self-evident, or which are accepted by the human race, should be exempted from doubt. It must be remembered, too, that the Church teaches that a Catholic cannot without sin entertain doubts against the Faith; though, of course, he may lawfully doubt whether it is true that a particular doctrine is taught by the Church, or whether he has correctly apprehended what the Church intends to teach, and whether a particular teacher expounds it correctly; or, again, he may investigate the evidences of Christianity and of Catholicism, and may doubt whether a particular argument is valid proof. But the method of doubt, taken as a whole, has been condemned by the Church.

Since, then, some things can be known with certitude, some things can be seen to be probable, and some things must remain forever a matter of doubt; and since the human reason is liable to error, the need has been felt for some criterion or criteria by which we may know that we really know, and by which genuine certitude concerning the truth may be distinguished from the spurious certitude of delusion.

The proper test of truth is evidence, whether the evidence of a truth in itself or by participation in the evidence of some other truth from which it is proved. Many truths, indeed, have to be accepted on authority; but then it has to be made evident that such authority is legitimate, is capable of knowing the truth, and is qualified to teach in the particular department in which it is accepted. Many truths which are at first accepted on authority may afterwards be made evident to the reason of the disciple. Such in fact is the ordinary way in which learning and science are acquired. The error of Bonald’s system of Traditionalism (which was condemned by the Church) consists in its exaggeration, in its maintaining that the truths of natural religion are known solely on authority, that each generation simply inherits them from the preceding, and that unless they had been revealed to the first parents of the race human reason never could have discovered them.

If we take the cognitive faculties, one by one, the senses are not in themselves deceived concerning their proportionate object, but owing to circumstances they are so liable to deception that they need the vigilant supervision of the reason. The nature of sensible phenomena is not their object, but that of the reason. It should be remembered, however, that the scientific theories concerning the nature of sound, of colour and light, and of heat, have been thought out by the aid of data furnished by the senses, and therefore confirm the trustworthiness of the senses within certain limits. That men of science have no doubt as to the reality of extension, figure, movement, and space, any more than of force, is shown by their discussions concerning atoms, electrons, and ions. Consciousness is infallible as to the fact of its present states, e.g. that I am feeling warm, or well, or that I am thinking. The memory often errs, but often is trusted with certitude. Reason within a narrow sphere, is infallible, viz. in the perception of self-evident truth, e.g. that whatever is is, that every movement or change must have a cause, that things equal to the same are equal to each other. Truths which are clearly and easily deducible from self-evident truth share in their certitude. Next to such certitude, we may place the certainty of truths affirmed by the whole human race, especially as regards practical principles. “That which seems to all men, this we say is; and he who rejects this ground of belief will not easily assign a more solid one” (Aristotle, Ethics, X, ii). Universal consent is not, however, the sole criterion. To make it such was the error of Lamennais. Besides the truths resting on self-evidence (or easy deduction from it) and those resting on the authority of the human race, there is a considerable body of truth which each man of average intelligence comes to know with certitude in the course of his life. Most of these truths are first learned upon authority and afterwards verified by one’s own reflection or experience. It may even be said that a practical Christian in the course of his life has by experiential verification an additional moral certitude of the truth of revelation, since he has experience of the power of the Christian religion to sustain the soul against temptation and to strengthen every virtuous and noble aspiration.

THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH CONCERNING CERTITUDE

The Church pronounces judgment concerning the sphere of certitude, not so much for the sake of speculative knowledge, as in the interest of religion and morality. The mind of the Church upon this subject is manifested

(1) by placing books dealing with the question upon the Index, or by obliging ecclesiastics, or teachers in Catholic institutions, or editors of Catholic periodicals to subscribe some proposition;

(2) by “condemning” a proposition extracted from some work, in the sense in which it is found in that work;

(3) dogmatically, by a solemn affirmation of some truth or the anathematization of a falsehood. When a proposition is “condemned” or anathematized, the contradictory (not the contrary) proposition is asserted as true.

Concerning the sphere of certitude in religion, “Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the first cause (principium) and last end of all things, may be known with certainty, by the natural light of the human reason, through the medium of things created” (Vatican Council, Constitut. de Fide Cath., cap. ii); and this affirmation is supported bar an anathema of the contradictory proposition (ibid., can. I). The condemnation of the Agnostic position concerning God may be studied in the Encyclical “Pascendi gregis dominici,” in which the subject is admirably treated.

That “the freedom of the human will and the spirituality of the soul may be known with certainty, by the natural light of the reason,” is a truth which the pope, approving of a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, obliged Bonnetty, editor of the “Annales de philosophie chrétienne,” in 1855, to subscribe (Denzinger, “Enchiridion,” n. 1506). It would seem that these truths concerning the human soul are also in some measure implied in the definition and anathema cited above, concerning our knowledge of God; for the attributes of God are known by the natural reason only, through the things that are made; and therefore freedom and morality must be known to be attributes of some creature before they can be attributed to God.

The limitation of natural knowledge and certitude has been repeatedly asserted by the process of placing books upon the Index, by the “condemnation” of propositions, by papal Briefs, and finally by a dogmatic decree, which alone is sufficient, viz: that of the Vatican Council (De Fide, cap. iv) which declares that

there are two orders of knowledge, distinct both in their source and their object; distinct in their source, for the truths of one order are known by natural reason, and those of the other by faith in divine revelation; and distinct in their object, because, over and above the truths naturally attainable, there are proposed to our belief mysteries hidden in God, which can be known through divine revelation alone.

This solemn affirmation is supported by an anathema against any one who shall deny that there is an order of knowledge higher than the natural, or who shall say that man can naturally by progress attain at length to the knowledge of all truth (De Revelat., can. iii). Moreover, even as regards the natural knowledge of God, the Vatican Council teaches that

truths not unattainable by the natural light of the human reason have, by divine mercy, been revealed in order that they may be known by all easily, and with certainty and without any admixture of error (De Fide, cap. ii).

As regards certitude concerning the fact of Divine revelation, the Vatican Council teaches that the proofs are not, indeed, such as to make assent intellectually necessary (De Fide, cap. iii and can. v), but that they are sufficient to make the belief “agreeable to reason” (rationi consentaneum), being “most certain and accommodated to the intelligence of all” (De Fide, cap. iii). Anathema is pronounced against any one who shall say that Divine revelation cannot be made credible by “external signs” but only by “inner experience or personal inspiration” (De Fide, can. iii), and against any one who shall say that “miracles are not possible,” or that “miracles can never in any case be certainly known” to be such, or that “by miracles the divine origin of the Christian religion cannot be properly proved” (rite probari; De Fide, can. iv). It is, then, moral certitude that is attainable by the reason as to the fact of Divine revelation. The certitude of faith is supernatural, being due to Divine grace, and is superior not merely to moral certitude, but to the certitude of physical science, and to that of the demonstrative sciences. When it is a question whether any particular truth is contained within the deposit of revelation, the certainty of faith can be obtained only from the authority of the “teaching Church,” but a human certitude may be obtained by arguments drawn from the inferior and subordinate authorities such as the Fathers and the “Schola Theologica.” M. J. Ryan.

Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra

A Spanish author, born at Alcála de Henares, Spain, in 1547; died at Madrid, 23 April, 1616. Of Cervantes it may be most truly said that the narrative of his life is no less fraught with interest than the most exciting novel of adventure. He received the best part of his early training in a school at Madrid conducted by the cleric, Juan Lopez de Hoyos. Despite sundry affirmations to the contrary effect by this or that biographer he does not seem to have attended any of the universities then flourishing in Spain. However, as was the case with many of the leading Spanish spirits of the age, he had early an opportunity to perfect his training by a sojourn in the land where the movement of the Renaissance had begun, for when but twenty-one years of age, he became attached to the suite of an Italian prelate who was on a mission to the Spanish Courts. With this eccelesiastic, later Cardinal Acquaviva, he went to Rome. Once in Italy he doubtless began straightway to familiarize himself with Italian literature, a knowledge of which is so readily discernible in his own productions. He did not find the service of the cardinal to his liking, for in a short time he was figuring as a simple volunteer among the Spanish troops that played a part in the campaign against the Turks. He fought bravely on board a vessel in the great battle of Lepanto in 1571, and was shot through the left hand in such a way that he never after had the entire use of it.

When his wound was healed he engaged in another campaign, one directed against the Moslem in Northern Africa, and then after living a while longer in Italy he finally determined to return home. But the ship on which he was making the trip back to Spain was captured by Corsairs, who took him, with his fellow captives, to Algiers. There he spent five years, undergoing great sufferings, some of which seem to be reflected in the episode of the “Captive” in “Don Quixote,” and in scenes of the play, “El trato de Argel.” Unsuccessful in several attempts at an escape, he was at last ransomed just when he was in great danger of being sent to Constantinople. Had he really been taken there the world would probably be now without its greatest novel, the imperishable story of the Knight of La Mancha. Back once more in Spain Cervantes is said but on no too certain evidence, to have spent a year or two in military service. However that may be, he was certainly engaged in literary pursuits from 1582 on; for about this time, a love affair—his attachment to Catalina de Palacios whom he soon made his wife—gave the impulse to the first literary work to bring him public notice. This was the “Galatea” a pastoral romance after the manner already established in the peninsula by the “Menina e moca” in Portuguese of Bernardim Ribeiro and the “Diana enamorada” of Jorge de Montemayor. It is inferior to the “Diana” and as artificial as most works of its kind, still it exhibits a certain power of inventiveness and some depth of real emotion on the part of its author.

Cervantes next turned his attention to the drama, hoping to derive an income from that source, but the plays which he composed failed to achieve their purpose. In the main they show that he was out of his element in purveying for the stage, that he lacked dramatic instinct, and had never mastered the details of the technic of dramatic art. He is least infelicitous in two of his plays, the “Trato de Argel,” already mentioned, and impassioned tragedy, “Numancia.” This latter is the best of all his dramas and yet, correctly appreciated, it is rather a powerful patriotic declamation than a piece of real scenic excellence. It was not printed until 1784.

What he did in the years directly following the time when he renounced the hope of becoming a great dramatic poet is hardly clear. It is safe to assume that he was in sore straits, or he would not have been content to earn his livelihood as a collector of taxes in the province of Granada. An irregularity in his accounts, one due rather to some subordinate than to himself, led to his incarceration for a while during 1597 at Seville. If a remark which Cervantes himself makes in the prologue of “Don Quixote” is to be taken literally, the idea of the work, though hardly the writing of its “First Part,” as some have maintained, occurred to him in prison. At all events, during this period of tribulation he must have been evolving in his mind the great work of fiction soon to be published as “El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de La Mancha,” whereof the first part was printed in 1605. (The English spelling, “Quixote” transliterates an early Spanish spelling with “x,” current at a time when “x” and “j” were still frequently interchanged. On etymological grounds the “x” represents the original sound.)

The vogue obtained by Cervantes’s story led to the publication of a continuation of it by an unknown who masquerades under the name of Fernandez Avellaneda. In self-defence Cervantes produced his own continuation, or “Second Part,” of “Don Quixote,” which made its appearance some ten years after the first part. Two years before this event, that is, in 1613, he put forth a collection of tales, the “Novelas ejemplares,” some of which had been written earlier. Not included in the original form of the “Exemplary Tales” is the novelette, “La tía fingida” (The Fictitious Aunt), now often printed with them. Some critics would deny it to Cervantes, and it appears not to have been printed until 1814. On the whole, the “Novelas ejemplares” are worthy of the fame of Cervantes; they bear the same stamp of genius as the “Don Quixote.” The picaroon strain, already made familiar in Spain by the “Lazarillo de Tormes” and its successors, appears in one or another of them especially in the “Rinconete y Cortadillo,” which is the best of all. The remaining works of our author embrace his “Entremeses” (Interludes), little dramatic trifles not wholly negligible; the “Viaje del Parnaso,” a rhymed review of contemporary poets written terza rima; and the “Persiles y Sigismunda,” a novel of adventurous travel completed just before his death.

For the world at large interest in Cervantes centres particularly in “Don Quixote,” and this has been regarded chiefly as a novel of purpose. It is stated again and again that he wrote it in order to ridicule the romances of chivalry and to destroy the popularity of a form of literature which for much more than a century had engrossed the attention of a large proportion of those who could read among his countrymen and which had been communicated by them to the ignorant. Byron has taken a very tragic view of the results wrought by the Spanish romancer, according to him:

Cervantes smiled Spain’s chivalry away,

And therefore have his volumes done such harm

That all their glory, as a composition

Was dearly purchased by his land’s perdition. (Don Juan, XIII, 11.)

There is a grain of truth, and much exeggeration in Byron’s statement. It is true that the Spanish writer set out with the purpose of assailing the books of chivalry; the friend whom he introduces into the prologue of the work asserts that from the beginning to end it is an attack upon them. Moreover, these works had long called for attack. The countless novels of knightly daring which had followed in the wake of the very worthy “Amadis de Gaula” had obtained an unwonted vogue and had created an air of false idealism which tended to leave Spain unduly in the rear of advancing civilization, for, cherishing them, she clung too closely to the medieval past. Serious historians had cried out against them, so had scholars, theologians, preachers and mystics, and yet many, even the greatest in the land, continued to be no less ardent admirers of them than the innkeeper in the first part of “Don Quixote.” For administrative reasons, the Emperor Charles V felt compelled in 1553 to forbid the introduction of the chivalrous romances into the American Indies, and this law the Spanish Parliament would fain have extended to Spain itself in 1558, in order to penalize the further publication of works of the class. But, up to 1602, the novels of knight-errantry continued to appear in constantly new although weaker forms, for this was the date of the “Don Policisne de Beocia” of Juan de Silva. Three years later, Cervantes’s book was published, and it instantly accomplished what all previous agitation had failed to achieve, for after its appearance no new chivalresque romance was issued, and the reprinting of the old ones practically ceased. Now, granting that Cervantes gave the coup de grace to the books of chivalry, we must not overlook the consideration that the lasting value of “Don Quixote” is not to be sought in the fact that it killed the taste for the medieval stories of chivalrous adventure, which parodied with fatal efficiency, but rather in the fact that the author achieved something immeasurably greater than what he had premeditated. He wrote a novel which as a social document has never been surpassed in the annals of narrative fiction, one in which the main interest is found in the behaviour of the two contrasting yet mutually complementary, figures of Don Quixote and his squire, Sancho Panza, thrown by their creator into contact with a world of materialism, where but scanty respect is entertained for the idealistic past. To say that the decline of Spain is in any way attributable to the success of “Don Quixote” is only Byronic hyperbole; independently of the existence of this marvellous product of the fancy of the genius named Miguel de Cervantes, Spain’s loss of its former power is amply explained by political, social, and moral phenomena of various kinds.

From time to time there come forward those who persist in believing that “Don Quixote” was intended to satirize certain important noble personages of the time. It was aimed at the Duke of Lerma, say some; at the Duke of Medina Sidonia, say others. This latter idea was echoed in England by Defoe in the Preface to his “Serious Reflections during the Life, and Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe” (1720). The sober fact is that no foundation exists for any such interpretations of the author’s purpose. In the episodical by-plays, in one or another intercalated tale such as that of Lucinda and Cardenio there may be veiled references, satirical or not, to noted characters of the time but we have no reason to suppose that underlying “Don Quixote” as awhole there is any serious satirical purpose other than to attack the pseudo-chivalry. The book was probably intended by Cervantes chiefly as a work of entertainment; as such it succeeded in his time and as such it still elicits the enthusiatic interest of constantly increasing generations of readers. The many attempts that have been made to detect didactic purposes of different kinds in this or that by-factor of the novel may be regarded as futile. Those persons are far astray who suppose that Cervantes meant to assail the Inquisition, to attack the firmly rooted devotion to the Blessed Virgin, or to deride the clergy as a class.

During its author’s lifetime, the first part of the novel passed through at least nine editions in Spanish. The edition of Brussels, 1607, went all over Northern Europe. By that date it was known in England, and it was promptly placed under contribution by the English playwrights. Thus Middleton utilized it, Ben Jonson and Fletcher drew matter from it, and there is even a tradition that Shakespeare collaborated with Fletcher in the composition of a play based on tale of its episodes. That a stranger should, in view of the success achieved by the book, conceive the idea of writing a sequel to it is not surprising; Cervantes, in fact, invited a continuation of it in the closing words of his first part. Notwithstanding this, he became indignant when the so-called “Avellaneda” published his prolongation of the adventures of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, and he bestirred himself to furnish his own rounding out of the story and to make all other spurious sequels impossible by killing off his hero. As to the personality back of the pseudonym “Avellaneda” many surmises have been made Lope de Vega has been suggested, so have Tirso de Molina and Juan Ruiz de Alarcon, but all proposed identifications have to be rejected. Whoever in “Avellaneda” was, it must be said in simple justice to him that his literary merits are not slight, and that those critics err who seek to minimize them. He certainly reveals much narrative power, considerable humour, a mastery of dialogue, and a forcible style. Of the two parts written by Cervantes, the first has ever remained the favourite. The second part is inferior to it in humorous effect; but, nevertheless, the second part shows more constructive insight, better delineation of character, an improved style, and more realism and probability in its action. The influence exerted by the glorious work has been enormous, for what modern man of genius has not read it? Among the more immediately imitative writings may be mentioned: in French Charles Sorel’s “Berger extravagant” and Marivaux’s “Phasimond”; in English, Butler’s “Hudibras,” Mrs. Charlotte Lennox’s “The Female Quixote,” and Smollett’s “Sir Launcelot Greaves”; in German, Wieland’s “Don Silvio Rosala.” English and French playwrights have borrowed liberally also from the “Exemplary Tales,” Hardy, Fletcher, Massinger, and Rowley, to mention but a few, are much indebted to them.

As a story, the “Persiles y Sigismunda,” just completed at the time of Cervantes’s death, and published posthumously, is less interesting than his other narrative works. The element of adventurous travel by sea and land, of which much is made in the late Greek romances, is prominent here; it contains a bewildering entanglement of love episodes, and the characters are always narrating interminable tales which delay the progress of the action. As a result the work is too prolix and becomes somewhat tedious despite the exuberance of fancy and fertility of resource that characterize it. Its rhetoric is more pompous, and in general there is in it greater elaboration of style than Cervantes was wont to show in his compositions.

J.D.M. FORD

Salazar Francisco Cervantes

Born at Toledo, Spain, probably in 1513 or 1514; went to Mexico in 1550; died there in 1575. He deserves mention, especially as one of the first professors of the University of Mexico, established by order of Charies V, and opened formally, 25 January,1553. Cervantes occupied the chair of rhetoric. He wrote several important works on the history of the city of Mexico and the province of New Spain in general. In Spain he was a professor at the University of Osuna. He was a man of solid learning and of considerable influence during his lifetime. Of his numerous writings the “Dialogos Latinos” are best known. They give in three parts a description of the young city of Mexico as it was about 1554, and notes valuable to the historian and archaeologist. Not less interesting is the “Túmulo Imperial de la gran Ciudad de México,” printed 1560, and reprinted in 1886 by Yeazbalceta in his “Bibliografia.” It refers to the funeral honours celebrated at Mexico on the occasion of the death of Charles V, and gives not only a minute description of the ceremonies, but of the decorations and temporary structures raised for the occasion, with one fairly executed plate. For the customs of the times it is highly valuable. The “Dialogos” were published at Mexico in 1554 in the original Latin, and in 1875 Yeazbalceta republished them in Latin, with an excellent Spanish translation and valuable notes. Cervantes has left several other works, mostly of a the theological nature, and it is known that he also wrote “History of Mexico” which is lost, but was highly praised by those who were able to consult the manuscript.

AD. F. BANDELIER.

Diocese of Cervia

DIOCESE OF CERVIA (CERVIENSIS)

Suffragan of Ravenna. Cervia is a city in the province of Ravenna, Italy, on the ancient Via Flaminia in a marshy district not far from the sea. It was called anciently Phicoclæ, but took its present name before 997, perhaps after the destruction of the city by fire in 708. Its political vicissitudes are more or less the same as those of Ravenna. During the episcopate of Bishop Rustico (1219), Cervia was placed under an interdict for its maltreatment of an envoy of the Archbishop of Ravenna. The first known Bishop of Cervia is St. Gerontius. He was returning with Viticanus, Bishop of Cagli, from the Roman council held in 501 to treat accusations made against Pope Symmachus, when he was assaulted and killed by bandits. (The legend says “heretics,” perhaps Goths, or more probably Heruli, of the army of Odoacer.) His relics are venerated at Cagli. Other bishops worthy of mention were: the Venetian Pietro Barbo (1440), later Pope Paul II; Bonifacio Bevilacqua (1601), afterwards Cardinal, and an intimate friend of Gregory XV, who made him Duke of Fornano. The diocese has a population of 12,696, with 12 parishes, 26 churches and chapels, 43 secular priests, and 1 religious house of women.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), II, 557–78; FORLIVESI, Cervia in Cenni Storici (Bologna, 1889); Ann. Eccl. (Rome, 1907), 389.

U. BENIGNI

Andrea Cesalpino

(Caesalpinus).

A physician, philosopher, and naturalist, distinguished above all as a botanist; born at Arezzo in Tuscany, Italy, 6 June, 1519; died at Rome, 23 February, 1603. For his studies at the University of Pisa his instructor in medicine was R. Colombo (d. 1559), and in botany the celebrated Luca Ghini (d. 1556). After completing his course he taught philosophy, medicine, and botany for many years at the same university, besides making botanical explorations in various parts of Italy. At this time the first botanical gardens in Europe were laid out; the earliest at Padua, in 1546; the next at Pisa in 1547 by Ghini, who was its first director. Ghini was succeeded by Cesalpino, who had charge of the Pisan garden 1554–1558. When far advanced in years Cesalpino accepted a call to Rome as professor of medicine at the Sapienza and physician to Pope Clement VIII. It is not positively certain whether he also become the chief superintendent of the Roman botanical garden which had been laid out about 1566 by one of his most celebrated pupils, Michele Mercati (1541–1593). All of Cesalpino’s writings show the man of genius and the profound thinker. His style, it is true, is often heavy, yet in spite of the scholastic form in which his works are cast, passages of great beauty often occur. Modern botanists and physiologists who are not acquainted with the writings of Aristotle find Cesalpino’s books obscure; their failure to comprehend them has frequently misled them in their judgment of his achievement. No comprehensive summing up of the results of Cesalpino’s investigations, founded on a critical study of all his works has appeared, neither has there been a complete edition of his writings. Seven of these are positively known, and most of the seven have been printed several times, although none have appeared since the seventeenth century. In the following list the date of publication given is that of the first edition. His most important philosophical work is “Quaestionum peripateticarum libri V” (Florence, 1569). Cesalpino proves himself in this to be one of the most eminent and original students of Aristotle in the sixteenth century. His writings, however, show traces of the influence of Averroes, hence he is an Averroistic Aristotelean; apparently he was also inclined to Pantheism, consequently he was included, later, in the Spinozists before Spinoza. A Protestant opponent of Aristotelean views, Nicholas Taurellus (d. 1606, at Altdorf), who is called “the first German philosopher,” wrote several times against Cesalpino. The work of Taurellus entitled “Alpes caesae,” etc. (Frankfort, 1597), is entirely devoted to combating the opinions of Cesalpino, as the play on the name Caesalpinus shows. Nearly one hundred years later Cesalpino’s views were again attacked, this time by an Englishman, Samuel Parker (d.1688), in a work entitled: “Disputationes de Deo et providentiâ divinâ” (London, 1678).

Cesalpino repeatedly asserted the steadfastness of his Catholic principles and his readiness to acknowledge the falsity of any philosophical opinions expounded by him as Aristotelean doctrine, which should be contrary to revelation. In Italy he was in high favour both with the secular and spiritual rulers. Cesalpino’s physiological investigations concerning the circulation of the blood are well known, but even up to the present time they have been as often overestimated as undervalued. An examination of the various passages in his writings which bear upon the question shows that although it must be said that Celsalpino had penetrated further into the secret of circulation of the blood than any other physiologist before William Harvey, still he had not attained to a thorough knowledge, founded on anatomical research, of the entire course of the blood. Besides the work “Quæstionum peripateticarum” already mentioned, reference should be made to “Quaestionum medicarum libri duo” (Venice, 1593), and to his most important publication “De plantis libri XVI” (Florence, 1583). This last work has made Cesalpino immortal; the date of its publication, 1583, is one of the most important in the history of botany before Linnaeus. The permission to print the book is dated 27 September, 1581. The work is dedicated to the Grand Duke Francesco de Medici; including dedication and the indexes, it contains some 670 quarto pages, of which 621 are taken up with the text proper. Unlike the “herbals” of that period, it contains no illustrations. The first section, including thirty pages of the work, is the part of most importance for botany in general. From the beginning of the seventeenth century up to the present day botanists have agreed in the opinion that Cesalpino in this work, in which he took Aristotle for his guide, laid the foundation of the morphology and physiology of plants and produced the first scientific classification of flowering plants. Three things, above all, give the book the stamp of individuality: the large number of original, acute observations, especially on flowers, fruits, and seeds, made, moreover, before the discovery of the microscope, the selection of the organs of fructification for the foundation of his botanical system; finally, the ingenious and at the same time strictly philosophical handling of the rich material gathered by observation. Cesalpino issued a publicatlon supplementary to this work, entitled: “Appendix ad libros de plantis et quaestiones peripateticas” (Rome, 1603). Cesalpino is also famous the history of botany as one of the first botanists to make a herbarium; one of the oldest herbaria still in existence is that which he arranged about 1550–60 for Bishop Alfonso Tornabono. After many changes of fortune the herbarium is now in the museum of natural history at Florence. It consists of 260 folio pages arranged in three volumes bound in red leather, and contains 768 varieties of plants. A work of some value for chemistry, mineralogy, and geology was issued by him under the title: “De metallicis libri tres” (Rome, 1596). Some of its matter recalls the discoveries made at the end of the eighteenth century, as those of Lavoisier and Hauy, it also shows a correct understanding of fossils. The Franciscan monk, Karl Plumier (d. 1704), gave the name of Cesalpinia to a species of plants and Linnaeus retained it in his system. At the present day this species includes not over forty varieties and belongs to the sub-order Caesalpinioideae (family Leguminosae), which contains a large number of useful plants. Linnaeus in his writings often quotes his great predecessor in the science of botany and praises Cesalpino in the following lines:

Quisquis hic exstiterit primos concedat honores

Casalpine Tibi primaque certa dabit.

JOSEPH ROMPEL.

Giuliano Cesarini

(Also known as CARDINAL JULIAN)

Born at Rome, 1398; died at Varna, in Bulgaria 10 November, 1444. He was one of the group of brilliant cardinals created by Martin V on the conclusion of the Western Schism, and is described by Bossuet as the strongest bulwark that the Catholics could oppose to the Greeks in the council of Florence. He was of good family and was educated at Perugia, where he studied Roman law with such success as to be appointed lecturer there, Domenico Capranica and Nicholas of Cusa being among his pupils. When the schism was ended by the universal recognition of Martin V as pope, Giuliano returned to Rome, where he attached himself to Cardinal Branda. Suggestions of wide reform were rife, and the principles of the outward unity of the Church and its reformation from within became the ideals of his life. In 1419 he accompanied Branda on his difficult mission to Germany and Bohemia, where the Hussites were in open rebellion. The cardinal thought so highly of his services that he used to say that, if the whole Church were to fall into ruin, Giuliano would be equal to the task of rebuilding it. He had all the gifts of a great ruler, commanding intellectual powers, and great personal charm. He was a profound scholar and a devoted Humanist, while his private life was marked by sanctity and austerity. In 1426 Martin V created him cardinal and sent him to Germany to preach a crusade against the reformers who were committing grievous excesses there. After the failure of this appeal to arms Cesarini was made President of the Council of Basle in which capacity he successfully resisted the efforts of Eugene IV to dissolve the council, though later (1437) he withdrew from the opposition, when he perceived that they were more anxious to humiliate the pope than to accomplish reforms. When the reunited council assembled at Ferrara he was made head of the commission appointed to confer with the Hussites and succeeded at least in winning their confidence. In 1439, owing to a plague, the council was transferred from Ferrara to Florence, where Cesarini continued to play a prominent part in the negotiations with the Greeks. After the successful issue of the council, Cesarini was sent as papal legate to Hungary (1443) to promote a national crusade against the Turks. He was opposed to the peace with Ladislaus, King of Hungary and Poland, and signed at Szegedin with Sultan Amurath III, and persuaded the former to break it and renew the war. It was an unfortunate step and resulted in the disastrous defeat of the Christian army at Varna in 1444, when Cardinal Giuliano was slain in the flight. His two well-known letters to Aeneas Sylvius about the pope’s relations to the Council of Basle are printed among the works of Pius II (Pii II Opera Omnia, Basle 1551, p. 64).

VESPASIANO DA BISTICCI, Vite di Uomini illustri, first printed at Rome, 1763; also printed in MAI, Spicilegium Romanum, I, 166–184; and in the new ed. of VESPASIANO (Bologna, 1892), I. JENKINS, The Last Crusader: The Life and Times of Cardinal Julian (London, 1861); PASTOR, History of the Popes, tr. ANTROBUS (London, 1899), I; GREGOROVIUS, History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, tr. HAMILTON (London, 1900), VII, Part I, Bk. XIII, i, ii; CHEVALIER, Rep.: Bio bibl. (Paris, 1905–1907) gives an extensive bibliography.

EDWIN BURTON

Diocese of Cesena

DIOCESE OF CESENA (CAESENATENSIS).

The ancient Cæsena is a city of Emilia, in the province of Forli (Italy), in the former States of the Church. It is situated picturesquely on a hill at the base of which flows the Savio. It was probably of Gallic origin, and was taken by the Romans in the third century B.C. It was destroyed during the civil wars between Marius and Sylla. After the overthrow of the Ostrogoths it became a part of the exarchate. By the Donation of Pepin (752) it became the fief of the Holy See, which was confirmed in its possession by Rudolph of Hapsburg (1278). In medieval times it was governed by various families, e.g. the Ordelaffi di Forli and the Malatesta, the latter being remembered for their justice and good government. After the death of Caesar Borgia, Cesena, with the rest of Romagna, acknowledged the immediate authority of the Holy See (1503). Among its many famous men we may mention two popes: Pius VI (Gian Angelo Braschi) and Pius VII (Barnaba Charamonti). The best known of its bishops were: St. Maurus (d. 946); Gian Battista Acciaioli (1332), exiled by Francesco degli Ordelaffi; Gregorio Malesardi (1408), who built the cathedral; Jacopo (1379), under whom occurred the massacre ordered by the pseudo-pope, Clement VII; the Dominican Vincenzo Maria Orsini, later Benddict XIII. Cesena is suffragan of Ravenna and has 59 parishes, 66,700 inhabitants, and possesses 5 convents for men and 8 for women.

CAPPELETTI, Le chiese d’Italia, II, 525–56; BRASCHI, Memoriae Caesenates (Rome, 1738); Annales Caesen. In MURATORI, Rer. Ital. Script., XIV, 1089–1186.

U. BENIGNI

St. Ceslaus

Born at Kamien in Silesia, Poland (now Prussia), about 1184; died at Breslau about 1242. He was of the noble family of Odrowatz and a relative, probably a brother, of St. Hyacinth. Having studied philosophy at Prague, he pursued his theological and juridical studies at the University of Bologna, after which he returned to Cracow, where he held the office of canon and custodian of the church of Sandomir. About 1218 he accompanied his uncle Ivo, Bishop of Cracow, to Rome. Hearing of the great sanctity of St. Dominic, who had recently raised to life the nephew of Cardinal Orsini, Ceslaus, together with St Hyacinth, sought admission into the Order of Friars Preachers. They received the religious habit from the hands of St. Dominic in the convent of Sabina. Their novitiate completed, St. Dominic sent the two young religious back as missionaries to their own country. Establishing a monastery at Friesach in Austria, they proceeded to Cracow whence Ceslaus was sent by St. Hyacinth to Prague, the metropolis of Bohemia.

Labouring with much fruit throughout the Diocese of Prague, Ceslaus went to Breslau, where he founded a large monastery, and then extended his apostolic labours over a vast territory, embracing Bohemia, Poland, Pomerania, and Saxony. Sometime after the death of St. Hyacinth he was chosen provincial of Poland. Whilst he was superior of the convent of Breslau all Poland was threatened by the Tatars. The city of Breslau being besieged, the people sought the aid of St. Ceslaus, who by his prayers miraculously averted the impending calamity. Four persons are said to have been raised to life by him. Having always been venerated as a saint, his cult was finally confirmed by Clement XI in 1713. His feast is celebrated throughout the Dominican order on 16 July.

A. WALDRON.

Cestra

A titular see of Asia Minor, Hierocles (709), Georgius Cyprius (ed. Gelzer, p. 836), and Parthey (Notitiae episcopatuum), place this city in Isauria, as a suffragan of Seleuccia. Bishop Epiphanius was present at Chalcedon in 451, and subscribed the letter to Emperor Leo in 458 (Lequien, II, 1025). Another, Elpidius, was a partisan of Severus (Chronique de Michael le Syrien, ed. Chalot, 267; Brooks, The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, 159, 161). Lequen supposes that the town was situated near the River Cestros, in Pamphylia, and took its name from that stream. This inadmissible hypothesis caused an odd mistake in the “Gerarchia cattolica” (Rome, 1895, 302), according to which Cestra is Ak-Sou, this is the name of the River Cestros, not a city. The site has not yet been identified.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Ceylon

An island (266 1/2 miles long and 140 1/2 miles broad), to the south-east of India and separated from it only by a chain of reefs and sand-banks called Adam’s Bridge. The maritime districts, which are flat and low, are distinguished from the central parts, which are mountainous, by great difference in temperature. The mean temperature has been calculated at 76.3 degrees, the lowest being 28.2 degrees at Newera Eliya, and the highest 103.8 degrees at Anuradhapura, the ancient sacred capital of the island. The climate of Ceylon influenced by two monsoons: the south-west prevailing from May to September, and the northeast from November to February. Pidurutalagala (8296 ft.) is the highest mountain, and Adam’s Peak (7353 ft.) is the best known, as containing the legendary footprints of Buddha worshipped by Buddhists and Mohammedans alike, and as yearly resort of a multitude of pilgrims. The country is well watered by rivers of which the Kelani-ganga enters the sea at Colombo, the capital of the island, and the Mahaviliganga at Trincomalee. Ceylon is rich in vegetation and scenery, and as the traveller proceeds from Colombo to Kandy (the seat of the ancient kings) and thence to Newara Eliya, it presents a panorama of beauty. The country abounds in tropical fruits, such as pineapples, plantains, oranges, and mangoes and in such trees as ebony, satin, calamander, and ironwood. The plantations produce, principally, cocoanuts and cinnamon, tea, cinchona, cocoa, and, more recently, rubber. The most noted upcountry product formerly was coffee. This has given place to tea, Ceylon now being one of the chief tea-growing countries in the world. The island has from very ancient times been famous for its gems, of which the chief are sapphires, rubies, and cat’s-eyes; the Gulf of Manaar on the north-west coast is the scene of the famous pearl fishery. Phumbago or graphite is the only mineral product of any importance. The animal kingdom is well represented in Ceylon, which has from olden times been renowned for its elephants.

HISTORY AND PEOPLE

Ceylon’s history goes back to a remote past. Galle in the south of the island is by some believed to be the seaport of ancient Tarshish from which King Solomon drew his “ivory, apes, and peacocks.” Under the name of Taprobane it was known to the ancient Greeks and Romans. Hence Milton’s reference to Ceylon as “India’s utmost isle, Taprobane.” To the people of India, however, it was “Lanka,’ the resplendent, a name still in use. It is celebrated in the great epic, the “Ramayana” in which is related the story of the abduction of the Indian princess Sita by Ravena, King of Ceylon, and of the war which followed in consequence. We pass from legend to actual history at about the year 543 B. C. when Wijeya, a prince of Northern India, invaded Ceylon and conquered the natives known as Yakkos and, having married the native princess Kuveni, settled in the country with his 700 followers. Wijeya was son of King Sihabahu, “the slayer of the lion” (siha or sinha), hence the name “Sinhalese,” given to the people of Ceylon. The Sinhalese (Cingalese) being thus the descendants of the Wijeyan settlers belong to the Aryan stock, and their language and customs bear out this origin. The wild men of Ceylon, known as the Veddas, “hunters,” who inhabit a small area in the remote interior of the island and live principally by the bow and arrow, are the representatives of the aboriginal inhabitants whom Wijeya subdued. The Wijeyan dynasty was not allowed undisputed sway in Ceylon, for from the third century B.C. Tamil princes from Southern India made incursions into Ceylon, while at times the tide of invasion was rolled back into India by the much-harassed Sinhalese. The Sinhalese kings most famous for success in their conflict with the Tamils, as well as for the internal development of the country during their reigns, were Dutugemunu (200 B.C.), Gajabahu (100 B.C.), and Prakramabahu (A.D. 1150). The ancient capital of the Sinhalese kings was Anuradhapura, whose splendour is even now attested by its vast ruins. In the eighth century it was transferred Polonnaruwa, which was soon abandoned to the conquering Tamils. The seat of government was thence shifted to various places, until in the fifteenth century it was finally fixed at Kandy, now the second city of the island and famous for the Buddhist temple known as the “Dalada Maligawa,” the repository of the tooth-relic of Buddha. During this period of trouble the trade of the country fell principally into the hands of the Arabs. Many of these formidable warriors settled in the maritime parts of the island their trading instincts are inherited by their descendants, generally known as “Moors”; with accretions from their co-religionists of the neighbouring continent they form the Mohammedan community of Ceylon.

It was in the beginning of the sixteenth century that modern Europe first came in contact with Ceylon. In 1505 a Portuguese fleet, while operating in the Indian seas against Arab traders, touched accidentally at Galle on the southern coast; in 1517 the Portuguese re-appeared and with the consent of the Sinhalese king established a factory at Colombo. The Portuguese having begun as traders soon made themselves political masters of the entire sea-board, forts were established, and European civilization was introduced. In 1658 the Portuguese were driven out by their rivals the Dutch, who then added Ceylon to their East Indian possessions. The descendants of the Dutch, being the product of intermarriage with the Portuguese and the natives, constitute the “Burgher” community of Ceylon. The English first cast their eyes upon Ceylon in 1782 during the war with Holland, when a British force reduced and took possession of Trincomalee, which was, however, soon retaken by the French and restored to the Dutch. But in 1795 an appeal came to the British from the Sinhalese king was then maintaining all unequal contest against Dutch aggression, and in 1796 the Dutch were overcome by the British forces and yielded Ceylon to England; the cession was formally confirmed by the Treaty of Amiens in 1802. The English had thus succeeded the Portuguese and the Dutch in the possession of the maritime districts of the island, but the central provinces were still under the feeble rule of the Sinhalese king who reigned at Kandy. The king was out of favour with his subjects on account of his cruelty and misgovernment, and at the request of the disaffected chiefs a British force was dispatched to Kandy in 1815. King Sri Wickrama Sinha was taken prisoner and the Kandyan provinces vere added to the British Crown which has since held the sovereignty of the whole of Ceylon. What may be called the indigenous population of Ceylon comprises various races; to which must be added the European residents either in the employ of the Government or engaged in commerce or industries, and the Indian immigrants, some of whom carry on a petty trade, but who in their larger number constitute the labour-supply of the island. The chief native races are: (1) the Sinhalese, consisting of the low-country Sinhalese and the up-country or Kandyan Sinhalese; (2) the Tamils, inhabiting chiefly the Northern and Eastern Provinces; 3) the Moors; (4) the Burghers. According to the decennial census of 1901 the total population of Ceylon was 3,565,954 distributed according to nationality as follows: Sinbalese, 2,330,807; Tamils, 951,740; Moors, 228,034; Burghers, 23,482; Europeans, 6,300; others, 25,591. The last includes the Veddas of Ceylon (3971) who are gradually disappearing.

CIVIL GOVERNMENT

Ceylon has the distinction of being the premier Crown Colony of England. It is accordingly under the direct control of the Secretary of State for the Colonies whose authority, subject to the will of the Sovereign and the Imperial Parliament, is supreme. The local administration is vested in a Governor assisted by an executive council and a legislative council. The executive council is an advisory board and consists of the colonial secretary, the officer commanding the military forces, the attorney-general, the auditor-general, and the treasurer. The legislative council whose president is the governor comprises the members of the executive council and twelve other members, of whom four are official and eight unofficial. The unofficial members who are nominated by the governor, subject to the approval of the secretary of state, represent (1) the low-country Sinhalese; (2) the Kandyan Sinhalese; (3) the Tamils; (4) the Moors, (5) the Burghers; (6) the European merchants; (7) the European planters, and (8) the general European community. The unoffical members are supposed to be selected in accordance with the wishes of the respective communities, though this is not often the case, except in regard to the mercantile and planter members whose selection is practically left to the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce and the Ceylon Planter’s Association respectively. The members of the legislative council may speak and vote on all questions brought forward; still not only are the official members in the majority but they are bound to vote for the Government in matters of policy, whatever their private opinions may be. For administrative purposes Ceylon is divided into provinces, of which there are now nine viz.: the Western, Central, Northern, Southern, Eastern, North-Western; North Central, Uva, and Sabaragamuwa, each of which is presided over by a superior officer called the Government agent. Other important departments are those of the director of public works, the surveyor-general, the principal collector of customs, the registrar-general of lands, the principal civil medical officer, and the director of public instruction. The civil service is recruited in England by means of a competitive examination which is open to all British subjects including Ceylonese; a limited number of Iocally-born persons appointed by the governor form a subordinate service, while the minor officers in the clerical service are partly selected by competitive examination and partly nominated without examination. Colombo, Kandy, and Galle have municipal councils the members of which are partly elected by the rate-payers and partly nominated by the governor, and local boards are established in many smaller towns. An important part of the machinery of government in the country districts is the system of native headmen of various grades, who perform both revenue and police duties under the direction of the Government agents or their assistants.

LAW AND JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

The Dutch, during the existence of their rule, had applied to Ceylon their admirable system of laws known as the Roman-Dutch Law, and after the annexation of the country by England it was declared by proclamation dated 23 September, 1799, that the administration should thenceforth “be exercised according to the laws and institutions that had subsisted under the ancient government of the United Provinces” of HolIand, subject to such deviations and alterations as might thereafter be enacted. Accordingly the Roman-Dutch Law became and has continued to be what may be called the common law of Ceylon but by various subsequent ordinances and other legislative enactments this law has been either repealed or modified. In addition to the general laws applicable to the whole island, there are certain special laws or customs peculiar to certain communities in matters relating to inheritance, marriage and other personal questions. Thus the Moors are governed in such matters by their own customs, which conform more or less to the general Mohammedan law as found in Koran and the commentaries thereon. The Tamil inhabitants of the Jaffna peninsula, or what is now the Northern Province, have their customary code of laws known as the “Thesawalamai” (customs of the country), and similarly the Kandyan Sinhalese observe their ancient customs, which they were allowed to retain by the Kandyan Convention made between the British and the chiefs on the annexation of the Kanyan provinces. These various systems of laws are administered by a series of courts, viz: (1) the Supreme Court of Judicature, consisting of a chief justice and three puisne judges with unlimited criminal jurisdiction and an appellate jurisdiction with an ultimate appeal to His Majesty the King in civil cases above 5000 rupees in value; (2) District courts, with unlimited original civil jurisdiction and limited criminal jurisdiction; (3) Courts of Request, with limited civil jurisdiction, (4) Police courts, which are courts both of trial and of preliminary investigation for committal to the Supreme Court or District courts; (5) Gansabhawas, or village tribunals, which have jurisdiction over natives in regard to small civil claims and trivial offences, especially breaches of communal rules and in which the proceedings are conducted in the native language of the inhabitants.

MARRIAGE

In the eye of the law all marriages are civil contracts and may be contracted freely between persons who are not within prohibited degrees of kindred or within the prohibited ages. The law now applicable generally in the island is the Ordinance No. 2 of 1895, under which a marriage may be entered into before the registrar of marriages after certain formalities as to previous notice of marriage and the issue of a certificate thereof, while marriage by special license is also provided for. But the ordinance so far recognizes the Christian views of marriage that according to it the parties holding the above-mentioned registrar’s certificate as to notice may present themselves to a Christian minister and have the ceremony performed in a place of Christian worship. ln this case the minister is required to register the marriage in a book and to transmit a duplicate of the entry to the registrar of marriages, and the ordinance further provides that no minister shall be compelled to solemnize a marriage between persons either of whom shall not be a member of the church denomination or body to which such minister belongs nor otherwise than according to the rules, customs, rites, and ceremonies of such church domination or body. An absolute divorce can be obtained only by decree of court after full inquiry and upon tho ground either of adultery or malicious desertion or incurab!e impotency at the time of marriage. The ordinance above mentioned does not apply to the Moors, who, as already indicated, are governed by the Mohammedan law both as to marriage and divorce, nor to the Kandyan Sinhalese, with regard to whom there is a special ordinance (No. 3, of 1873) which while abolishing their ancient custom of “associated marriages” or polyandry and in other respects giving effect to British public policy, makes provision for the contract of marriage and its dissolution in a manner more or less in conformity with ancient Kandyan sentiment, such as the liberty to dissolve marriage by mutual consent without the intervention of a court of justice. The main difference, however, between marriages generally and Kandyan marriages is that, while in regard to the former, registration is the best though not the only proof of marriage, thus admitting of proof aliunde of an actual marriage or the presumption of a valid marriage from cohabitation and repute, registration is essential in the case of the latter. The system of caste prevails in Ceylon though not in such a vigorous form as in India, and while the contact with Western civilization has weakened social barriers in many respects, intermariage between various castes does not take place to any applicable extent among the pure native population.

EDUCATION

The educational system of Ceylon is as simple as it is efficient, and is controlled by the Department of Public Instruction. It comprises English, vernacular, and mixed schools, which are either Government or (with the exception of private unregistered schools) “Grant-in-Aid schools.” The Government maintains an English high school called the Royal College, having the standard of an English grammar school. It maintains also a technical school mainly for the purpose of supplying the Government departments, and a training school for teachers. The Grant-in-Aid schools belong to the missionary and other religious bodies, and receive yearly grants according to certain scales on the result of examinations in secular subjects held by Govemment inspectors. The system of payment by results has helped to solve the religious difficulty so often experienced in many other countries. The chief institutions belonging to religious communities and having the same status as the Royal College are St. Thomas’s College (Anglican), Wesley College (Wesleyan), St. Joseph’s College (Catholic), and Ananda College (Buddhist). Ceylon forms a centre for the Cambridge University local examinations, which are largely used as educational tests. The Government also maintains a medical college whose diploma is a qualification for practising medicine. Law studies for the admission of advocates and proctors (solicitors) are under the control of a Council of Legal Education consisting of the judges of the Supreme Court and in number of members of the Bar. There is no special organization for the systematic prosecution of the study of Oriental languages and literature, but one at least of the temple schools conducted by the Buddhist priesthood, in which Sanscrit and Pali are taught, receives a subsidy from the Government. According to the statistics published for 1905 the number of the Government and schools and the scholars was 554 and 70,715; and of the Grant-in-Aid schools, 1582 and 156,040.

RELIGION

The chief religions in Ceylon are Buddhism, Hinduism, Mohammedanism, and Christianity. Buddhism is professed by the great bulk of the Sinhalese population. Being first propounded by Gautama Buddha in Magadha in Northern India in the sixth century B.C., it was introduced into Ceylon in the reign of the Sinhalese king became a zealous convert and under his patronage the new religion spread rapidly among his subjects. Ceylon thus became a stronghold of Buddhism, and it was here that the Buddhist scriptures were first reduced to writing in 88. B.C. The magnificent ruins of dagobas and viharas in the ancient kings and people of Ceylon. Buddhism suffered much during the Tamil wars, with the further consequence that by reason of the contact thus brought about with India popular Buddhism received an admixture of Hinduism which is still traceable in the devalas in which Kali and other Hindu gods are worshipped by the Buddhists. After the advent of Europeans to Ceylon and the consequent introduction of Western civilization, Buddhism lost much of its prestige just as it had previously lost much of its purity and activity. But within the last twenty-five years there has been a great Buddhist revival, mainly due to the efforts of the Theosophical Society founded by Col. Olcott and Madame Blavatsky. Schools have sprung up, pride in the ancient religion has revived, and under the leadership of educated Buddhists the masses have learned to resist Christian influences and have even shown a spirit of aggression. The large majority of the Tamil population are Hindus, especially in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, and the form of Hinduism most in favour is Sivaism or the worship of Siva. Besides the Moors already mentioned a comrnunity of Malays, said to be descendants of the natives of Java imported into Ceylon during the Dutch period and recruited by later immigrants from the Straits Settlements, profess Mohammedanism.

The first form of Christianity in Ceylon was of course Catholicism. The conversion of heathens was part of the public policy of the Portuguese, and accordingly we find that in 1518 a number of Franciscan friars arrived in Ceylon and under the protection of the Portuguese Government, preached the Faith, and converted many thousands. We read of many churches built and many monasteries established within the Portuguese territories, and of the conversion of many even of noble and royal blood among the Sinhalese. Among the more notable converts was Prince Dharmapala, grandson of a Sinhalese king, who was baptized and crowned king in Lisbon in 1541 under the name of Don Juan and a reigned a Christian monarch in Ceylon from 1542 to 1597. About this time also took place the visit to Ceylon of St. Francis Xavier, the Apostle of the East, by whom large numbers were converted to the Faith, especially among the Tamils of the North. Catholicism progressed until it encountered the antagonism of the Dutch who were all of the Dutch Reformed Church and who made that form of Christianity the established religion of the State. The Catholic religion was proscribed during the Dutch rule, penal laws were enacted, and the Catholics suffered severe persecution. Nevertheless the light of the Faith was not wholly extinguished and the practice of religion was continued especially through the exertions of missionaries from the Portuguese settlement of Goa, who amidst persecution and hardship ministered to the Catholic people and even converted many heathens. A new era, however, dawned with the conquest of the island by the British Government which put in practice the principles of religious liberty, though the Church of England became in turn the established form of Christianity. The greater part of the “Dutch Christians” among the natives were either absorbed by the Anglican Church or relapsed into Buddihism, and at the present day Dutch Prebyterianism is represented only by a few hundred Dutch descendants who are served by the Presbyterian ministers from Scotland. The Church of England in Ceylon is governed by a bishop who is suffragan to the bishop of Calcutta. The clergy consist of members of the Church Missionary Society and of the sister Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. The Anglican Church continued to be maintained by the Government till the year 1881 when by act of the local legislature it was disestablished and provision was made for the constitution of a synod, consisting of clergy and laity under the presidency of the bishop, for the regulation of its affairs, for the election of trustees to hold and administer its property and funds. Other Protestant bodies are: Wesleyan Methodist mission, begun in 1814, it holds many important stations and does much for education: Baptist Missionary Society, first missionary landed in Ceylon in 1812; American Mission (Congregationalists), under the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, whose work is confined to the Tamils of the Northern Province. The decennial census of 1901 gave the following religious statistics: Buddhists, 2,141,404; Hindus, 826,826; Christians, 349,239; Mohammedans, 246,188; others, 2,367. The Christians were: Catholics, 287,119; Anglicans, 32,514; Presbyterians, 3337; Wesleyan Methodists, 14,991; Baptists, 3309, Congregationalists, 2446. Authentic Catholic statistics gave a total of 293, 929 Catholics in 1904 and this number has since probably reached 300,000.

The Catholic Church, as the above figures show, is the largest Christian body in the island. As it was first in the field, so it has been the most fruitful in results. At the date of the British occupation (1796) the Catholic population was only 50,000. At first Ceylon was under the jurisdiction of the Portuguese Diocese of Cochin with a local vicar-general. In 1834 it was erected into a separate vicariate Apostolic by Pope Gregory XVI, and in 1845, as the Catholic were increasing in numbers, the island was divided into two vicariates Apostolic, Colombo and Jaffna, the former being entrusted to the Benedictine Congregation of the Silvestrines, and the latter to the Oblates of Mary Immaculate. Again, in 1883, the central provinces of the island were separated from Colombo and constituted as the vicariate Apostolic of Kandy under the same Benedictines, while Colombo was transferred to the Oblates. The year 1886 witnessed a notable development of the Church in Ceylon, the Right Rev. C. Bonjean, O.M.I., being then the Vicar Apostolic of Colombo, the Right Rev. C. Pagnani, O.S.B., the Vicar Apostolic of Kandy, and the Right Rev. A. Melizan, O.M.I., the Vicar Apostolic of Jaffna. In that year the Holy See by agreement with the Crown of Portugal abolished the royal patronage which had been exercised in the East Indies from the time of the Portuguese domination, as a consequence, and in accordance with the needs of the time, the Catholic hierarchy was established in India and Ceylon. Monsignor (afterwards cardinal) Agliardi was sent as delegate Apostolic to put in force the new arrangements and on the 6th of January, 1887, the hierarchy was formally established in Ceylon, Bishop Bonjean being appointed Archbishop of Colombo, Dr. Pagnani, Bishop of Kandy and Dr. Melizan, Bishop of Jaffna. Further changes took place in 1893, when two new dioceses, Galle and Trincomalee, were formed from the Archdiocese of Jesuits of the Belgian province were placed in the former and Jesuits of the French province in the latter with Fathers Van Reith, S.J. and Lavigne, S.J. as the first bishops. These five bishops have assisting them nearly 200 priests, both European and native and the communities of Sisters of the Good Shephers, the Sisters of the Holy Family, the Franciscan nuns, Missionaries of Mary, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and the Sisters of Charity of Jesus and Mary, in charge of various schools and institutions. Although Monsignor Agliardi was sent especially to establish the hierarchy, the Apostolic Delegation to the East Indies was intended to be permanent; accordingly when he departed in 1887he was succeeded by Monsignor Aiuti, who in turn was succeeded in 1892 by Monsignor Ladislaus M. Zaleski, who took up his residence at Kandy. At the same time the Holy See took steps to place the education and the supply of native priests in the East on a solid and more secure basis, and accordingly in 1893 a general seminary was established by Leo XIII, which is conducted by professors of the Society of Jesus at Kandy, Ceylon, the students being of various nationalities and races, recruited from all parts of the East. The Catholic bishops are on excellent terms with the British Government and are held in high esteem by the people of the island generally. Their legal status, however, was not quite assured in respect of succession to ecclesiastical property though no practical difficulty was experienced; but the Supreme Court of Ceylon, having recently held that the Catholic bishops had no legal corporate capacity and could not therefore claim, merely by virtue of their office, title to property held by their predecessors, the legislature, in consequence of representations made to the Government on the subject, passed the Ordinance No. 19 of 1906, whereby the Catholic archbishop and bishops, and their respective successors, appointed according to the laws and usages of the Catholic Church, are constituted corporations sole with perpetual succession, and with full power to acquire and hold all species of property, and to sue or be sued in respect of such property in all courts of justice. While the ecclesiastical system of the Church is thus complete, the Catholic laity are not backward in respect to organization and public action, for in addition to various religious and social institutions they have formed an association representative of all Catholics under the name of “The Catholic Union of Ceylon,” having for its object the protection and advancement of Catholic interests. The general statistics for 1905 are: churches and chapels, 592; schools, 570, with 45,549 pupils; seminaries, 5, with 174 students (in the central or “Leonianum” Seminary at Kandy there are 88); orphan asylums, 16, with 975 orphans; 133 European secular priests, 43 native priests, and 288 religious (Oblates, Jesuits, Benedictines); and 430 sisters in the various educational and charitable institutions.

T.E. DE SAMPAYO

Noel Chabanel

A Jesuit missionary among the Huron Indians, born in Southern France, 2 February, 1613; slain by a renegade Huron, 8 December, 1649. Chabanel entered the Jesuit novitiate at Toulouse at the age of seventeen, and was professor of rhetoric in several colleges of the society in the province of Toulouse. He was highly esteemed for virtue and learning. In 1643, he was sent to Canada and, after studying the Algonquin language for a time, was appointed to the mission of the Hurons, among whom he remained till his death. In these apostolic labours he was the companion of the intrepid missionary, Father Charles Garnier. As he felt a strong repugnance to the life and habits of the Indians, and feared it might result in his own withdrawal from the work, he nobly bound himself by vow never to leave mission, and he kept his vow to the end. In the “Relation” of 1649–50, Father Ragueneau describes the martyr deaths of Chabanal and Garnier, with biographical sketches of these two fathers.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Diocese of Chachapoyas

Diocese of Peru created by Pius VII in 1803, under the name of Chachapoyas and Maynas; made a suffragan to Lima by Gregory XVI in 1843, under the name of Chachapoyas. It has about 96,000 souls, divided into 45 parishes. The population of the episcopal city is about 6,000; it has a fine cathedral.

J. MONTES DE OCA Y OBREGÓN.

James Chadwick

Second Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle, born at Drogheda, Ireland, 24 April, 1813; died at Newcastle, 14 May, 1882, and buried at Ushaw. He was the third son of a gentleman of an old Catholic Lancashire family, John Chadwick, who had settled in Ireland, and an Irish lady, Frances Dromgoole. He was educated at Ushaw College from May, 1825, until his ordination as priest on 17 December, 1836. He then was general prefect at the college for three years, after which he taught humanities until he was appointed professor of philosophy a post he occupied for five years. In 1849 he became Vice-president of the college and professor of dogmatic theology. After a few months his health broke down, and he found the change he needed among a little body of secular priests who devoted themselves to preaching missions and retreats. In 1856 their house at Wooler was burnt, and Father Chadwick returned once more to Ushaw as professor of philosophy. From 1859 to 1863 he was chaplain to Lord Stourton, but again returned to Ushaw as professor of pastoral theology. He was fulfilling these duties when he was elected bishop of the diocese in 1866; he was consecrated 28 Oct. in the college chapel by Archbishop Manning. For sixteen years he ruled the diocese and for one year during that time (1877) he also held the dignity of president of Ushaw, being the eighth in that office. A man of great personal dignity and charm, he is remembered for his meekness and sweetness of manner. His works include: an edition of Leuthner’s “Coelum Christianum” (London, 1871); “St. Teresa’s Own Words: Instructions on the Prayer of Recollection” (Newcastle, 1878); “Instructions How to Meditate” (published anonymously), and many pastoral letters.

EDWIN BURTON

Pierre Chaignon

Born at Saint-Pierre-la-Cour, Mayenne, France, 8 October, 1791, entered the Society of Jesus 14 August, 1819; died at Angers, 20 Sept., 1883. He passed his whole life in the ministry, chiefly in the spiritual direction of priests. In thirty years he gave three hundred retreats to the clergy of the principal dioceses of France. His chief literary work is his “ Méditationes sacerdotales “ which has appeared in several Ianguages, Bohemian, Polish, Italian, and English. Bishop De Goesbriand of Burbriand, Vermont, U. S. A., translated it into English from the eleventh edition. Chaignon wrote also “Le salut facilité aux pécheurs par la dévotion au très saint et immaculé Coeur de Marie”; “Les six dimanches de St. Louis de Gonzague”; “Le prêtre è l’autel”; “Paix de l’ame”; and also several brochures on a good death, the jubilees of 1869 and 1875, etc. He established a Union of Prayer for Deceased Priests which was canonically erected into a confraternity in 1861.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Chair of Peter

Under this head will be treated:

I. The annual Feast of the Chair of Peter (Cathedra Petri) at Rome

II. The Chair itself

I. THE ANNUAL FEAST OF CATHEDRA PETRI AT ROME

From the earliest times the Church at Rome celebrated on 18 January the memory of the day when the Apostle held his first service with the faithful of the Eternal City. According to Duchesne and de Rossi, the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” (Weissenburg manuscript) reads as follows: “XV KL. FEBO. Dedicatio cathedræ sci petri apostoli qua primo Rome petrus apostolus sedit” (fifteenth day before the calends of February, the dedication of the Chair of St. Peter the Apostle in which Peter the Apostle first sat at Rome). The Epternach manuscript (Codex Epternacensis) of the same work, says briefly: “cath. petri in roma” (the Chair of Peter in Rome).

In its present (ninth-century) form the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” gives a second feast of the Chair of St. Peter for 22 February, but all the manuscripts assign it to Antioch, not to Rome. Thus the oldest manuscript, that of Berne, says: “VIII kal. mar. cathedræ sci petri apostoli qua sedit apud antiochiam.” The Weissenburg manuscript says: “Natl [natale] sci petri apostoli cathedræ qua sedit apud antiocia.” However, the words qua sedit apud antiochiam are seen at once to be a later addition. Both feasts are Roman; indeed, that of 22 February was originally the more important. This is clear from the Calendar of Philocalus drawn up in the year 354, and going back to the year 311; it makes no mention of the January feast but speaks thus of 22 February: “VIII Kl. Martias: natale Petri de cathedra” (eighth day before the Calends of March, the birthday [i. e. feast] of the Chair of Peter). It was not until after the insertion of Antioch in the copies of the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” that the feast of February gave way in importance to that of January. The Roman Church, therefore, at an early date celebrated a first and a second assumption of the episcopal office in Rome by St. Peter. This double celebration was also held in two places, in the Vatican Basilica and in a cemetery (coemeterium) on the Via Salaria. At both places a chair (cathedra) was venerated which the Apostle had used as presiding officer of the assembly of the faithful. The first of these chairs stood in the Vatican Basilica, in the baptismal chapel built by Pope Damasus; the neophytes in albis (white baptismal robes) were led from the baptistery to the pope seated on this ancient cathedra, and received from him the consignatio, i. e. the Sacrament of Confirmation. Reference is made to this custom in an inscription of Damasus which contains the line: “una Petri sedes, unum verumque lavacrum” (one Chair of Peter, one true font of baptism). St. Ennodius of Pavia (d. 521) speaks of it thus (“Libellus pro Synodo,” near the end): “Ecce nunc ad gestatoriam sellam apostolicæ confessionis uda mittunt limina candidatos; et uberibus gaudio exactore fletibus collata Dei beneficio dona geminantur” (Behold now the neophytes go from the dripping threshold to the portable chair of the Apostolic confession; amid abundant tears called forth by joy the gifts of Divine grace are doubled). While therefore in the apse of the Vatican Basilica there stood a cathedra on which the pope sat amid the Roman clergy during the pontifical Mass, there was also in the same building a second cathedra from which the pope administered to the newly baptized the Sacrament of Confirmation. The Chair of St. Peter in the apse was made of marble and was built into the wall, that of the baptistery was movable and could be carried. Ennodius calls the latter a gestatoria sedes; throughout the Middle Ages it was always brought on 22 February from the above-mentioned consignatorium or place of confirmation to the high altar. That day the pope did not use the marble cathedra at the back of the apse but sat on this movable cathedra, which was, consequently, made of wood. The importance of this feast was heightened by the fact that 22 February was considered the anniversary of the day when Peter bore witness, by the Sea of Tiberias, to the Divinity of Christ and was again appointed by Christ to be the Rock of His Church. According to very ancient Western liturgies, 22 February was the day “quo electus est 1. Petrus papa” (on which Peter was first chosen pope). The Mass of this feast calls it at the beginning: “solemnitatis prædicandæ dies præcipue nobilis in quo. . . . beatus Bar-Jona voce Redemptoris fide devotâ prælatus est et per hanc Petri petram basis ecclesiæ fixus est,” i. e. this day is called especially praiseworthy because on it the blessed Bar-Jona, by reason of his devout faith, was raised to pre-eminence by the words of the Redeemer, and through this rock of Peter was established the foundation of the Church. And the Oratio (collect) says: “Deus, qui hodiernâ die beatum Petrum post te dedisti caput ecclesiæ, cum te ille vere confessus sit” (O God, who didst this day give us as head of the Church, after Thyself, the Blessed Peter, etc.).

The second of the aforementioned chairs is referred to about 600 by an Abbot Johannes. He had been commissioned by Pope Gregory the Great to collect in special little phials oil from the lamps which burned at the graves of the Roman martyrs (see CATACOMBS; MARTYR) for the Lombard queen, Theodolinda. According to the manuscript list of these oils preserved in the cathedral treasury of Monza, Italy, one of these vessels had on it the statement: “oleo de sede ubi prius sedit sanctus Petrus” (oils from the chair where St. Peter first sat). Other ancient authorities describe the site as “ubi Petrus baptizabat” (where Peter baptized), or “ad fontes sancti Petri; ad Nymphas sancti Petri” (at the fountain of Saint Peter). Formerly this site was pointed out in the coemeterium majus (principal cemetery) on the Via Nomentana; it is now certain that it was on the Via Salaria, and was connected with the coemeterium, or cemetery, of Priscilla and the villa of the Acilii (Acilii Glabriones), situated above this catacomb. The foundation of this villa, showing masonry of a very early date (opus reticulatum), still exists. Both villa and cemetery, in one of whose burial chambers are several epitaphs of members of the family, or gens, of the Acilii, belong to the Apostolic Period. It is most probable that Priscilla, who gave her name as foundress to the catacomb, was the wife of Acilius Glabrio, executed under Domitian. There is hardly any doubt that the site, “ubi prius sedit sanctus Petrus, ubi Petrus baptizabat” (where Saint Peter first sat, where Peter baptized), should be sought, not in an underground cubiculum (chamber) in the catacombs, but in an oratory above ground. At least nothing has been found in the oldest part of the cemetery of Priscilla now fully excavated, referring to a cathedra, or chair.

The feast of the Cathedra Petri was therefore celebrated on the Via Salaria on 18 January; in the Vatican Basilica it was observed on 22 February. It is easy to believe that after the triumph of Christianity the festival could be celebrated with greater pomp in the magnificent basilica erected by Constantine the Great over the confessio, or grave of Peter, than in a chapel far distant from the city on the Via Salaria. Yet the latter could rightly boast in its favour that it was there Saint Peter first exercised at Rome the episcopal office (“ubi prius sedit sanctus Petrus,” as Abbot Johannes wrote, or “qua primo Rome petrus apostolus sedit,” as we read in the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” at 18 January). This double festival of the Chair of St. Peter is generally attributed to a long absence of the Apostle from Rome. As, how ever, the spot, “ubi s. Petrus baptizabat, ubi prius sedit” was distant from the city, it is natural to think that the second feast of the cathedra is connected with the opening of a chapel for Christian worship in the city itself.

II. THE CHAIR ITSELF

The Goths, who conquered and pillaged Rome in 410, advanced toward the city by the Via Salaria and the Via Nomentana; the same roads were traversed in the sixth and seventh centuries by later German invaders of Roman territory. Not only the churches, therefore, but even the cemeteries on these thoroughfares were easily given to plunder and devastation. We have seen, moreover, that as late as 600 a lamp was burning on the site “ubi prius sedit sanctus Petrus.” If the original chair of the Apostle had still been there at that time, would it have been saved from destruction in the pillage that did not spare the sarcophagi in the catacombs? The words of the Abbot Johannes, “oleo de sede, ubi prius sedit sanctus Petrus,” seem to leave scarcely a doubt as to this. The fact, evidenced by the martyrologies (see above), that by the ninth century one of the two feasts of the Roman cathedra had drifted away to Antioch, shows that the cathedra of the Via Salaria must have perished as early as the sixth or seventh century.

We come now to the question, where stood originally the chair shown and venerated in the Vatican Basilica during the fourth century? On the strength of ancient tradition it has been customary to designate the church of Santa Pudenziana as the spot where, in the house of the supposed Senator Pudens, the two great Apostles not only received hospitable entertainment, but also held Christian services. But the legends connected with Santa Pudenziana do not offer sufficient guarantee for the theory that this church was the cathedral and residence of the popes before Constantine. At the close of his Epistle to the Romans (xvi, 5), St. Paul mentions a place where religious services were held, the house of Aquila and Prisca (ten kat oikon auton ekklesian—now Santa Prisca on the Aventine). Aquila and Prisca are first among the many to whom the Apostle sends salutations. Aquila’s connexion with the Catacomb of Priscilla is still shown by the epitaphs of that burial place. In 1776 there was excavated on the Aventine, near the present church of Santa Prisca, a chapel with frescoes of the fourth century; in these frescoes pictures of the two Apostles were still recognizable. Among the rubbish was also found a gilded glass with the figures of Peter and Paul. The feast of the dedication of this church (an important point) still falls on the same day as the above-described cathedra feast of 22 February; this church, therefore, continued to celebrate the traditional feast even after the destruction of the object from which it sprang. In the crypt of Santa Prisca is shown a hollowed capital, bearing in thirteenth-century letters the inscription: BAPTISMUS SANCTI PETRI (Baptism of Saint Peter), undoubtedly the echo of an ancient tradition of the administration of baptism here by Peter. In this way we have linked together a series of considerations which make it probable that the spot “ubi secundo sedebat sanctus Petrus” (where Saint Peter sat for the second time), must be sought in the present church of Santa Prisca; in other words, that the chair referred to by St. Damasus was kept there in the period before Constantine. It was there, consequently, that was celebrated the “natale Petri de cathedrâ,” set for 22 February in the calendars beginning with the year 354. It follows also that this is the cathedra referred to in the oldest testimonia which speak of the chair from which Peter taught at Rome. The (third-century) poem, “Adversus Marcionem,” says (P.L., II, 1099):

Hâc cathedrâ, Petrus quâ sederat ipse, locatum

Maxima Roma Linum primum considere iussit.

(On this chair, where Peter himself had sat,

great Rome first placed Linus and bade him sit.)

Further, St. Cyprian, writing about 250, during the vacancy of the chair after the death of Pope St. Fabian, describes it as follows: “Cum locus Fabiani, id est locus Petri et gradus cathedræ sacerdotalis vacaret” (when the place of Fabian, i. e. the place of Peter and the step of the sacerdotal chair were vacant). Still earlier, about 200, Tertullian writes, in his “De præscriptione bæreticorum”: “Percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsæ adhuc cathedræ apostolorum suis locis præsident. Si Italiæ adjaces habes Romam” (Visit the Apostolic churches in (among) which the very chairs of the Apostles still preside in their places. If you are near Italy, there is Rome). How Pope Damasus might be led to transfer the cathedra Petri from Santa Prisca to the Vatican, can be readily understood from the circumstances of that time. From the reign of the first Constantine the Lateran had been the residence of the popes, and its magnificent basilica their cathedral, while the neighbouring baptistery of Constantine served for the solemn administration of baptism on the eve of Easter. In the half-century from 312 to 366 (date of the accession of Damasus), the importance of Santa Prisca, its baptistery, and its cathedra must naturally have declined. Damasus could therefore be certain of the approval of all Rome when he transferred the venerable Apostolic relic from the small chapel in Santa Prisca to his own new baptistery in the Vatican, where it certainly remained to the first quarter of the sixth century, after which it was kept in different chapels of the Vatican Basilica. During the Middle Ages it was customary to exhibit it yearly to the faithful; the newly-elected pope was also solemnly enthroned on this venerable chair, a custom that ceased at the transfer of the papal capital to Avignon, in the early part of the fourteenth century. In order to preserve for posterity this precious relic, Alexander VII (1655–67) enclosed, after the designs of Bernini, the Cathedra Petri above the apsidal altar of St. Peter’s in a gigantic casing of bronze, supported by four Doctors of the Church (Ambrose, Augustine, Athanasius, Chrysostom). Thenceforth, for 200 years, it was not exibited to the public. In 1867, however, on the occasion of the eighteenth centenary of the martyrdom of the two great Apostles, it was exposed for the veneraon of the faithful. At that time the Alessandri brothers photographed the chair, and that photograph is reproduced here. The seat is about one foot ten inches above the ground, and two feet eleven and seven-eighths inches wide; the sides are two feet one and one-half inches deep; the height of the back up to the tympanum is three feet five and one-third inches; the entire height of the chair is four feet seven and one-eighth inches. According to the examination then made by Padre Garucci and Giovanni Battista de Rossi, the oldest portion (see illustration) is a perfectly plain oaken arm-chair with four legs connected by cross-bars. The wood is much worm-eaten, and pieces have been cut from various spots at different times, evidently for relies. To the right and left of the seat four strong iron rings, intended for carrying-poles, are set into the legs. At a later date, perhaps in the ninth century, this famous chair was strengthened by the addition of pieces of acacia wood. The latter wood has inlaid in it a rich ornamentation of ivory. For the adornment of the front of the seat eighteen small panels of ivory have been used, on which the labours of Hercules, also fabulous animals, have been engraved; in like manner it was common at this period to ornament the covers of books and reliquaries with ivory panels or carved stones representing mythological scenes. The back is divided by small columns and arches into four fields and finishes at the top in a tympanum which has for ornamentation a large round opening between two smaller ones. The tympanum is surrounded on all sides by strips of ivory engraved in arabesques. At the centre of the horizontal strip a picture of an emperor (not seen in the illustration) is carved in the ivory; it is held to be a portrait of Charles the Bald. The arabesque of acanthus leaves filled with fantastic representations of animals, and the rough execution of the work, would make the period of this emperor (884) a probable date. What still remains of the old cathedra scarcely permits an opinion as to the original form. In any case it was a heavy chair made of plain, straight pieces of wood, so that it cannot be considered a sella curulis of Pudens, as earlier tradition held it to be. If the four rings on the two sides belong to the original chair (Ennodius of Pavia about the sixth century used the term sedes gestatoria as an expression universally understood in reference to this chair), then it was probably an ordinary carrying-chair, such as was commonly used in ancient Rome.

While the two chairs were the visible memorials of the earliest origins of Peter’s Apostolic work at Rome, the recollection of his first arrival in the city is stil preserved in the litanioe majores (greater litanies) on 25 April. On this day is also celebrated the feast of St. Mark, whom St. Peter had sent to Alexandria in Egypt. Antioch and Alexandria, the two most important patriarchates of the East, were, in common with Rome, founded by Peter. Gregory the Great refers as follows to this spiritual relationship with the Roman Patriarchate of the West, in a letter to the Patriarch Eulogius (P.L., LXXVII, 899): “Quum multi sint Apostoli, pro ipso autem principatu sola Apostolorum principis sedes in auctoritate convaluit, quæ in tribus locis unius est. Ipse enim sublimavit sedem, in quâ etiam quiescere et præsertim vitam finire dignatus est. Ipse decoravit sedem, in quâ Evangelistam (Marcum) discipulum misit. Ipse firmavit sedem, in quâ septem annis, quamvis discessurus, sedit. Quuum ergo unius atque una sit sedes, cui ex auctoritate divinâ tres nunc episcopi præsident, quidquid ego de vobis boni audio, hoc mihi imputo” (Though there are many Apostles, pre-eminence of authority belongs permanently to none other than the Chair of the Prince of the Apostles, which Chair though established in three places remains nevertheless that of one and the same [Apostle]. He lifted it to the highest dignity in the place [Rome] where he deigned to fix his residence and end his life. He honoured it in the city [Alexandria] to which he sent his disciple, the Evangelist Mark. He strengthened it in the city [Antioch] where, though destined to depart, he sat for seven years. Since therefore the Chair in which now by divine authority three bishops preside is the identical chair of the self-same [Peter], I take myself whatever good I hear concernmg you).

We conclude, therefore, that there is no reason for doubting the genuineness of the relic preserved at the Vatican, and known as the Cathedra Petri. According to Eusebius, Jerusalem preserved the cathedra of St. James (Hist. Eccl., VII, xix), Alexandria that of St. Mark (G. Secchi, La cattedra alessandrina di San Marco, Venice, 1853). Tertullian, in the above quoted passage, refers to the value placed by the Apostolic Churches on the possession of the chairs of their founders (apud quas ipsæ adhuc cathedræ apostolorum suis locis præsident), and in enumerating them he puts Rome first. Moreover, the other writers above quoted, and whose testimony reaches back to the second century, all postulate the presence in Rome of an actual Cathedra Petri, See also PETER, SAINT; PRIMACY.

The most exhaustive study of these subjects is that of DE Rossi, in Bullettino di archeologia christiana (Rome, 1867), 33, sqq.—Cf. STEVENSON, in KRAUS, Realencyklopädie d. christlichen Alterthümer (Freiburg im Br., 1886), II, 156–61; SANGUINETTI, De Sede romanâ beati Petri, etc., commentarius historico-criticus (Rome, 1867); RAMPOLLA, De Cathedrâ romanâ beati Petri (Rome, 1868); NORTHCOTE-BROWNLOW, in Roma Sotterranea, I, 494; BARNES, St. Peter in Rome and his Tomb on the Vatican Hill (London, 1900), 35, 55, 79–82; SMITH AND CHEETHAM (non-Catholic), Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (Hartford, 1880), II, 1625–27.—Among the older works consult, PHOEBEUS, De identitate Cathedroe Petri Romanoe libri II (Rome, 1666); ed. PIERALISI (Rome, 1886); TORRIGIO, Grotte Vaticane (Rome, 1639); CANCELLIERI, De Secretariis basilicoe Vaticanoe (Rome, 1788); Acta SS., June, V, 425–75; also FOGGINI, De romano beati Petri itinere (Florence, 1741; and MAMACHI’S similar work, Rome, 1872). Cf. ZACCARIA, De sancti Petri apost. princ. primatu (Rome, 1776).

For the feast of the Chair see KELLNER, Die Feste Cathedra Petri und des antiochenischen Episkopats dieses Apostels, in Zeitschrift f. kath. Theologie (1889), XIII, 566–76; MARUCCHI, Le memorie dei SS. Apostoli Pietro e Paolo nella città di Roma (ibid., 1894); MORIN, Un sermon ancien pour la féte de la Chaire de St-Pierre, in Revue bénéd., 1896, XIII, 343–46. Cf. BENEDICT XIV, Su le feste della Cattedra di San Pietro, due dissertazioni inedite (Rome, 1828).

ANTON DE WAAL.

Chalcedon

A titular see of Asia Minor. The city was founded 676 B. C. by the Megarians on the Bithynian coast, opposite the place where a little later Byzantium rose. It was captured by the Persian general Otanes after the expedition of Darius against the Scythians. Allied alternately with Athens and Sparta, it became eventually a part of Bithynia, and in 74 B. C. passed over to the Romans, who lost it temporarily to Mithradates. In the imperial period it was a free city, but was dismantled by Valens (364–78). The Persians held it from 616 to 626. Chalcedon was the birthplace of the philosopher Xenocrates, a disciple of Plato, and of the sculptor Beotes. The virgin St. Euphemia and her companions suffered martyrdom there, probably under Galerius (305–11). It is in her magnificent church that the Fourth General Council against Eutyches, known as the Council of Chalcedon (451), was held. This church was situated on the top of the hill at Haïdar-Pasha (Haider Pasha); it was destroyed by Suleiman to build his mosque in Constantinople. Among other martyrs who suffered at Chalcedon mention may be made of the Persian St. Sabel and his companions. Chalcedon was an episcopal see at an early date; after the great council it became a metropolis, but without suffragans. There is a list of its bishops in Lequien (I, 599), completed by Anthimus Alexoudes in “Anatolikos Aster” (XXX, 108), revised for the early period by Pargoire in “Echos d’Orient” (III, 85, 204; IV, 21, 104). Among others are St. Adrian, a martyr; St. John, Sts. Cosmas and Nicetas, during the Iconoclastic period; Maris, the Arian; Heraclianus, who wrote against the Manichæans and the Monophysites; Leo, persecuted by Alexius Comnenus. The titular Latin see is suffragan of Nicomedia. Lequien (III, 1019) mentions eight Latin bishops, from 1345 to 1443; Eubel (I, 199; II, 141) has ten names, from 1293 to 1525. Five other titular bishops of the sixteenth century are mentioned in the “Revue bénédictine” (1904, 144–45, 155–56).

Chalcedon is to-day Kadi-Keui (Kadikoi). It has about 30,000 inhabitants: 15,000 Greeks, 5000 Armenians (500 Catholics), 2000 Latins, 6000 Mussulmans, 2000 Jews, 200 Protestants. The Latin parish is conducted by the Assumptionists; they have also a seminary for Catholic Greeks, with a Greek chapel, and a high school for Oriental studies, which publishes a review, the “Echos d’Orient.” The Christian Brothers have there a large college with commercial and elementary courses. The Dames de Sion have a school for girls; the Sisters of the Immaculate Conception of Lourdes a convent; the Capuchins a scholasticate. There are also public chapels belonging to the Franciscans and the Catholic Armenians. The Armenian Sisters of the Immaculate Conception have a house at Chalcedon, and the Armenian Mechitarists a college. Two Greek churches, one Armenian, and one English Protestant church complete the list of Christian institutions. At Haïdar-Pasha, the port of Kadi-Keui and head station of the Anatolian railway to Bagdad, the Assumptionists have a public chapel, and there are schools conducted by the Christian Brothers, and the Oblate Sisters of the Assumption, also a synagogue, German Protestant and Jewish schools, and an English cemetery, with a monument to the soldiers who died in the Crimean War. At Famaraki (ancient Hiereia) the Assumptionists have a chapel, and the Oblate Sisters of the Assumption a school. Near Kadi-Keui and within the limits of the Greek diocese are places of interest. Scutari is the Turkish name of Chrysopolis, a city which the Mussulmans consider sacred on account of its cemetery and its beautiful mosques. It has a hospital for lepers and a Catholic church, cared for by Georgian Benedictines, also schools in charge of the Marists and of Sisters of Charity. It was there that Licinius was defeated by Constantine (324); there also lived St. Maximus, the Confessor (580–662), the hero of the Monothelite controversies. Tchiboukli, on the Bosphorus, is the Byzantine Irenaion, where stood the famous monastery of the Acœmetæ, founded by St. Marcellus; at Kalamish (the port of Eutropius) lived the stylite, St. Luke; Djadi-Bostan is the ancient Rufiniana, where the famous councils Ad Quercum were held in 397 and 403. In the vicinity were the monasteries of St. Hypatius and St. John. On the Kaish-Dagh lived St. Auxentius, St. Bendidianus, and St. Stephen, and at Touzla (Cape Acritas) St. Athanasius of Paulopetrion and St. Gregory. Finally, in full view of Kadi-Keui, are the celebrated Prince’s Islands, with their numberless political and ecclesiastical associations.

Lequien, Oriens Christianus (1740), I; Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geog. (London, 1878); Echos d’Orient, III, 85 sqq.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Council of Chalcedon

The Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in 451, from 8 October until 1 November inclusive, at Chalcedon, a city of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Its principal purpose was to assert the orthodox Catholic doctrine against the heresy of Eutyches and the Monophysites, although ecclesiastical discipline and jurisdiction also occupied the council’s attention.

Scarcely had the heresy of Nestorius concerning the two persons in Christ been condemned by the Council of Ephesus, in 431, when the opposite error of the Nestorian heresy arose. Since Nestorius so fully divided the Divine and the human in Christ that he taught a double personality or a twofold being in Christ, it became incumbent on his opponents to emphasize the unity in Christ and to exhibit the God-man, not as two beings but as one. Some of these opponents in their efforts to maintain a physical unity in Christ held that the two natures in Christ, the Divine and the human, were so intimately united that they became physically one, inasmuch as the human nature was completely absorbed by the Divine. Thus resulted one Christ not only with one personality but also with one nature. After the Incarnation, they said, no distinction could be made in Christ between the Divine and the human. The principal representatives of this teaching were Dioscurus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and Eutyches, an archimandrite or president of a monastery outside Constantinople. The Monophysitic error, as the new error was called (Gr. mone physis, one nature), claimed the authority of St. Cyril, but only through a misinterpretation of some expressions of the great Alexandrine teacher.

The error of Eutyches was first detected by Domnus, Patriarch of Antioch. a formal accusation was preferred against the former by Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum (Phrygia), at a synod of Constantinople in November of that year. This synod declared it a matter of faith that after the Incarnation, Christ consisted of two natures (united) in one hypostasis or person; hence there was one Christ, one Son, one Lord. Eutyches, who appeared before this synod, protested, on the contrary, that before the Incarnation there were two natures, but after the union there was only one nature in Christ; and the humanity of Christ was not of the same essence as ours. These statements were found contrary to Christian orthodoxy; Eutyches was deposed, excommunicated, and deprived of his station in the monastery. He protested, and appealed for redress to Pope Leo I (440–61), to other distinguished bishops, and also to Theodosius II. Bishop Flavian of Constantinople informed Pope Leo and other bishops of what had occurred in his city. Eutyches won the sympathy of the emperor; through the monk’s representations and those of Dioscurus, Patriarch of Alexandria, the emperor was induced to invoke a new council, to be held at Ephesus. Pope Leo, Dioscurus, and a number of bishops and monks were invited to attend and investigate anew the orthodoxy of Eutyches. The pope was unable to go, but sent three delegates as his representatives and bearers of letters to prominent personages of the East and to the impending synod. Among these letters, all of which bear the date of 13 June, 449, is one known as the “Epistola Dogmatica,” or dogmatic letter, of Leo I, in which the pope explains the mystery of the Incarnation with special reference to the questions raised by Eutyches. Thus, he declares that after the Incarnation what was proper to each nature and substance in Christ remained intact and both were united in one person, but so that each nature acted according to its own qualities and characteristics. As to Eutyches himself, the pope did not hesitate to condemn him. The council was held at Ephesus, in August, 449. Only the friends and partisans of Dioscurus and Eutyches were allowed to have a voice. The Alexandrine patriarch presided; he ignored the papal delegates, would not permit the letters of Pope Leo, including the “Epistola Dogmatica,” to be read in the assembly. Eutyches was declared orthodox and reinstated in his priestly and monastic office. On the other hand, Flavian of Constantinople and Eusebius of Dorylaeum were deposed. The former was banished, and died shortly afterwards in consequence of ill-treatment; he was succeeded by the deacon Anatolius, a partisan of Dioscurus. Owing to the gross violence of Dioscurus and his partisans, this assembly was called by Leo I the “Latrocinium,” or Robber Council, of Ephesus, a name that has since clung to it.

Theodosius II, who sympathized with Eutyches, approved these violent deeds; Leo I, on the other hand, when fully informed of the occurrences at Ephesus, condemned, in a Roman synod and in several letters, all the Acts of the so-called council. He refused also to recognize Anatolius as lawful Bishop of Constantinople, at least until the latter would give satisfaction concerning his belief. At the same time he requested the emperor to order the holding of a new council in Italy, to right the wrongs committed at Ephesus. As a special reason for the opportuneness, and even necessity, of the new council, he alleged the appeal of the deposed Flavian of Constantinople. Theodosius, however, positively declined to meet the wishes of the pope. At this stage the sudden death of the emperor (28 July, 450) changed at once the religious situation in the East. Theodosius was succeeded by his sister, Pulcheria, who offered her hand, and with it the imperial throne, to a brave general named Marcian (450–57). Both Marcian and Pulcheria were opposed to the new teaching of Dioscurus and Eutyches; and Marcian at once informed Leo I of his willingness to call a new council according to the previous desire of the pope. In the meantime conditions had changed. Anatolius of Constantinople, and with him many other bishops, condemned the teaching of Eutyches and accepted the dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo. Any new discussions concerning the Christian Faith seemed therefore superfluous. Western Europe, moreover, was in a state of turmoil owing to the invasion of the Huns under Attila, for which reason most of the Western bishops could not attend a council to be held in the East. Leo I therefore protested repeatedly against a council and wrote in this sense to the Emperor Marcian, the Empress Pulcheria, Anatolius of Constantinople, and Julian of Cos; all these letters bear the date of 9 June, 451. Meanwhile, 17 May, 451, a decree was issued by Marcian—in the name also of the Western Emperor Valentinian III (425–55)—ordering all metropolitan bishops with a number of their suffragan bishops to assemble the following September at Nicaea in Bithynia, there to hold a general council for the purpose of settling the questions of faith recently called in doubt.

Though displeased with this action, the pope nevertheless agreed to send his representatives to Nicaea. He appointed as legates Paschasinus, Bishop of Lilybaeum (Marsala) in Sicily, Lucentius, also a bishop, Julian, Bishop of Cos, and two priests, Boniface and Basil; Paschasinus was to preside over the coming council in the pope’s place. On 24 and 26 June, 451, Leo I wrote letters to the Emperor Marcian, to his legate Paschasinus, to Anatolius of Constantinople, to Julian of Cos, and to the synod itself, in which he expressed the desire that the decrees of the synod should be in conformity with his teaching as contained in the aforesaid dogmatic epistle. A detailed instruction was also given to the papal legates, which contained directions for their guidance in the council; this document, however, has perished, with the exception of two fragments preserved in the Acts of the council. In July the papal legates departed for their destination. Many bishops arrived at Nicaea during the summer, but the opening of the council was postponed owing to the emperor’s inability to be present. Finally, at the complaint of the bishops, who grew weary of waiting, Marcian requested them to come to Chalcedon, in the near vicinity of Constantinople. This was done, and the council opened at Chalcedon on 8 October.

In all likelihood an official record of the proceedings was made either during the council itself or shortly afterwards. The assembled bishops informed the pope that a copy of all the “Acta” would be transmitted to him; in March, 453, Pope Leo commissioned Julian of Cos, then at Constantinople, to make a collection of all the Acts and translate them into Latin. Very ancient versions of the Acts, both in Greek and Latin, are still extant. Most of the documents, chiefly the minutes of the sessions, were written in Greek; others, e.g. the imperial letters, were issued in both languages; others, again, e.g. the papal letters, were written in Latin. Eventually nearly all of them were translated into both languages. The Latin version, known as the “versio antiqua,” was probably made about 500, perhaps by Dionysius Exiguus. About the middle of the sixth century the Roman deacon Rusticus then in Constantinople with Pope Vigilius (537–55), made numerous corrections in the “versio antiqua,” after comparison with Greek manuscripts of the Acts, chiefly with those of the “Acoemetae” monastery either at Constantinople or at Chalcedon. As to the number of sessions held by the Council of Chalcedon there is a great discrepancy in the various texts of the Acts, also in the ancient historians of the council. Either the respective manuscripts must have been incomplete; or the historians passed over in silence several sessions held for secondary purposes. According to the deacon Rusticus, there were in all sixteen sessions; this division is commonly accepted by scholars, including Bishop Hefele, the learned historian of the councils. If all the separate meetings were counted, there would be twenty-one sessions; several of these meetings, however, are considered as supplementary to preceding sessions. all the sessions were held in the church of St. Euphemia, Martyr, outside the city and directly opposite Constantinople. The exact number of bishops present is not known. The synod itself, in a letter to Pope Leo, speaks of 520, while Pope Leo says there were 600; according to the general estimate there were 630, including the representatives of absent bishops. No previous council could boast of so large a gathering of bishops, while the attendance at later councils seldom surpassed or even equalled that number. The council, however, was not equally representative as to the countries whence came so many bishops. Apart from the papal legates and two African bishops, practically all the bishops belonged to the Eastern Church. This, however, was well represented; the two great civil divisions (prefectures), of the Orient and of Illyricum, comprising Egypt, the Orient (including Palestine), Pontus, Asia, Thrace, Dacia, and Macedonia, sent their contingents. The more prominent among the Eastern bishops were Anatolius of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, Dioscurus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Stephen of Ephesus, Quintillus of Heraclea, and Peter of Corinth. The honour of presiding over this venerable assembly was reserved to Paschasinus, Bishop of Lilybaeum, the first of the papal legates, according to the intention of Pope Leo I, expressed in his letter to Emperor Marcian (24 June, 451). Shortly after the council, writing to the bishops of Gaul, he mentions that his legates presided in his stead over the Eastern synod. Moreover, Paschasinus proclaimed openly in presence of the council that he was presiding over it in the name and in the place of pope Leo. The members of the council recognized this prerogative of the papal legates. When writing to the pope they professed that, through his representatives, he presided over them in the council. In the interest of order and a regular procedure the Emperor Marcian appointed a number of commissioners, men of high rank, who received the place of honour in the council. Their jurisdiction, however, did not cover the ecclesiastical or religious questions under discussion. The commissioners simply directed the order of business during the sessions; they opened the meetings, laid before the council the matters to be discussed, demanded the votes of the bishops on the various subjects, and closed the sessions. Besides these there were present several members of the Senate, who shared the place of honour with the imperial commissioners.

At the very beginning of the first session, the papal legates, Paschasinus at their head, protested against the presence of Dioscurus of Alexandria. Formal accusations of heresy and of unjust actions committed in the Robber Council of Ephesus were preferred against him by Eusebius of Dorylaeum; and at the suggestion of the imperial commissioners he was removed from his seat among the bishops and deprived of his vote. In order to make a full investigation of his case the Acts of the Robber Council, with those of the synod held in 448 by Flavian of Constantinople, were read in full; this occupied the whole first session. At the end the imperial commissioners declared that since Flavian of Constantinople and other bishops had been unjustly deposed by the Robber Council it would be just that Dioscurus and the leaders in that synod should now suffer the same punishment. A number of bishops agreed, but finally all declared themselves satisfied with the deposition of Dioscurus alone.

The second session (10 October) was occupied with the reading of testimonia bearing on questions of faith, chiefly those under discussion. Among them were the symbols or creeds of the Councils of Nicaea (325) and of Constantinople (381); two letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria, viz. his second letter to Nestorius and the letter written to the Antiochene bishops in 433 after his reconciliation with them; finally the dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I. All these documents were approved by the council. When the pope’s famous epistle was read the members of the council exclaimed that the faith contained therein was the faith of the Fathers and of the Apostles; that through Leo, Peter had spoken.

The third session was held 13 October; the imperial commissioners and a number of bishops were absent. Eusebius of Dorylaeum presented a new accusation against Dioscurus of Alexandria in which the charges of heresy and of injustice committed in the Robber Council of Ephesus were repeated. Three ecclesiastics and a layman from Alexandria likewise presented accusations against their bishop; he was declared guilty of many acts of injustice and of personal misconduct. At the end of the session the papal legates declared that Dioscurus should be deprived of his bishopric and of all ecclesiastical dignities for having supported the heretic Eutyches, for having excommunicated Pope Leo, and for having refused to answer the charges made against him. All the members present agreed to this proposition; and the decree of deposition was communicated to Dioscurus himself, to the Alexandrine ecclesiastics with him at Chalcedon, to the Emperors Marcian and Valentinian III, and to the Empress Pulcheria.

The fourth session, which comprised two meetings, was held on 17 and 20 October. At the request of the imperial commissioners the bishops again approved the dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I; Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia in Cicilia, former partisans of Dioscurus in the Robber Council of Ephesus, were pardoned and admitted to the sessions; an investigation was made into the orthodoxy of a number of bishops from Egypt, and of a number of monks and archimandrites suspected of Eutychianism; finally a dispute between Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus concerning the territorial extent of their respective jurisdiction was adjudicated.

The most important of all the sessions was the fifth, held 22 October; in this the bishops published a decree concerning the Christian Faith, which must be considered as the specific dogmatic decree of the Fourth General Council. A special commission, consisting of the papal legates, of Anatolius of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, and several others, was appointed to draw up this creed or symbol. After again approving the decrees and symbols of the Councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), and Ephesus (431), as well as the teaching of St. Cyril against Nestorius and the dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I, the document in question declares:

We teach . . . one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, known in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.

After the recitation of the decree all the bishops exclaimed that such was the true faith, and that all should at once sign their names to it. The imperial commissioners announced that they would communicate to the emperor the decree as approved by all the bishops.

The sixth session (25 October) was celebrated with special solemnities; Marcian and Pulcheria were present with a great attendance, with all the imperial commissioners and the Senate. The emperor made an appropriate address; the decree of faith made in the preceding session was read again and approved by the emperor; and with joyful acclamations to the emperor and to the empress, in which they were compared to Constantine and Helena, the proceedings were closed.

The object of the council was attained in the sixth session, and only secondary matters were transacted in the remaining sessions. the seventh and eighth sessions were both held 26 October.

In the seventh an agreement between Maximus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem was approved, according to which the territory of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem was restricted to the three provinces of Palestine.

In the eighth session Theodoret of Cyrus, a former partisan of Nestorius, was compelled to condemn the name of his friend under threats of expulsion from the council. He was then reinstated in his bishopric.

The ninth and tenth sessions (27 and 28 October) dealt with the case of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, who had been deposed on charges made by some of his ecclesiastics. The accusation proved to be unfounded and Ibas was reinstated in his office. A decision was also given to the effect that a pension should be paid by Maximus of Antioch to his deposed predecessor Domnus.

The eleventh and twelfth sessions (29 and 30 October) dealt with a conflict between Bassianus and Stephen, both raised successively but irregularly to the See of Ephesus. The council declared that a new bishop should be chosen for Ephesus, but the two aforesaid should retain their episcopal dignity and receive a pension from the church revenues of Ephesus.

The thirteenth session (30 October) decided a case of conflicting jurisdiction. Eunomius of Nicomedia and Anastasius of Nicaea both claimed metropolitan rights, at least for a part of Bithynia. The council decreed that in a province there could be only one metropolitan bishop, and in favour of the Bishop of Nicomedia.

The fourteenth session (31 October) decided the rival claims of Sabinian and Athanasius to the See of Perrha in Syria. Sabinian had been chosen in place of Athanasius deposed by an Antiochene synod in 445; later Athanasius was reinstated by the Robber Council of Ephesus. The council decreed that further investigation should be made into the charges against Athanasius, Sabinian meanwhile holding the see. If the charges should prove untrue, Athanasius should be reinstated and Sabinian receive a pension from the diocese. In the same session a letter of Pope Leo was read, and the council approved the decisions in regard to Maximus of Antioch in his conflict with Juvenal of Jerusalem, and his obligation of providing for his predecessor Domnus.

In the fifteenth session (31 October) the council adopted and approved twenty-eight disciplinary canons. The papal legates, however, as well as the imperial commissioners departed at the beginning of the session, probably foreseeing that the hierarchical status of the Bishop of Constantinople would be defined, as really occurred in canon 28.

The first canon approved the canons passed in previous synods.

The second established severe penalties against those who conferred ecclesiastical orders or positions for money, or received such orders or positions for money, and acted as intermediaries in such transactions.

The third forbade secular traffic to all ecclesiastics, except in the interest of minors, orphans, or other needy persons.

The fourth forbade the erection of a monastery or an oratory without the permission of the proper bishop; recommended to the monks a life of retirement, mortification, and prayer; and forbade the reception of a slave in a monastery without the permission of his master.

The fifth inculcated the canons of previous synods concerning the transfer of bishops and clerics from one city to another.

The sixth recommended that no one should be ordained except he were assigned to some ecclesiastical office. Those ordained contrary to this provision were not to exercise their order.

The seventh forbade ecclesiastics to exercise the military art or to hold a secular office.

The eighth decreed that the clerics of charitable homes, monasteries, or oratories of martyrs should be subject to the bishop of the territory.

The ninth ordained that ecclesiastics should conduct their lawsuits only before the bishop, the synod of the province, the exarch, or the Bishop of Constantinople.

The tenth forbade ecclesiastics to be enrolled in the church-registers of different cities.

The eleventh ordained that the poor and needy, when travelling, should be provided with letters of recommendation (litterae pacificae) from the churches.

The twelfth forbade the bishops to obtain from the emperors the title of metropolitans to the prejudice of the real metropolitan of their province.

The thirteenth forbade to strange clerics the exercise of their office unless provided with letters of recommendation from their bishop.

The fourteenth forbade minor clerics to marry heretical women, or to give their children in marriage to heretics.

The fifteenth decreed that no deaconess should be ordained below the age of forty; and no person once ordained a deaconess was allowed to leave that state and marry.

The sixteenth forbade the marriage of virgins or monks consecrated to God.

The seventeenth ordained that the parishes in rural districts should remain under the jurisdiction of their respective bishops; but if a new city were built by the emperor, its ecclesiastical organization should be modelled on that of the State.

The eighteenth forbade secret organizations in the Church, chiefly among clerics and monks.

The nineteenth ordained that the bishops of the province should assemble twice a year for the regular synod.

The twentieth forbade again the transfer of an ecclesiastic from one city to another, except in the case of grave necessity.

The twenty-first ordained that complaints against bishops or clerics should not be heard except after an investigation into the character of the accuser.

The twenty-second forbade ecclesiastics to appropriate the goods of their deceased bishop.

The twenty-third forbade clerics or monks to sojourn in Constantinople without the permission of their bishop.

The twenty-fourth ordained that monasteries once established, together with the property assigned to them, should not be converted to other purposes.

The twenty-fifth ordained that the metropolitan should ordain the bishops of his province within three months (from election).

The twenty-sixth ordained that ecclesiastical property should not be administered by the bishop alone, but by a special procurator.

The twenty-seventh decreed severe penalties against the abduction of women.

The twenty-eighth ratified the third canon of the Council of Constantinople (381), and decreed that since the city of Constantinople was honoured with the privilege of having the emperor and the Senate within its walls, its bishop should also have special prerogatives and be second in rank, after the Bishop of Rome. In consequence thereof he should consecrate the metropolitan bishops of the three civil Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Cappadocia.

This last canon provoked another session of the council, the sixteenth, held on 1 November. The papal legates protested therein against this canon, alleging that they had special instructions from Pope Leo on that subject, that the canon violated the prerogatives of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and was contrary to the canons (vi, vii) of the Council of Nicaea. Their protests, however, were not listened to; and the council persisted in retaining this canon in its Acts. With this incident the Council of Chalcedon was closed. At the closing of the sessions the council wrote a letter to Pope Leo I, in which the Fathers informed him of what had been done; thanked him for the exposition of Christian Faith contained in his dogmatic epistle; spoke of his legates as having presided over them in his name; and asked for the ratification of the disciplinary matters enacted, particularly canon 28. This letter was handed to the papal legates, who departed for Rome soon after the last session of the council. Similar letters were written to Pope Leo in December by Emperor Marcian and Anatolius of Constantinople. In reply Pope Leo protested most energetically against canon xxviii and declared it null and void as being against the prerogatives of Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and against the decrees of the Council of Nicaea. Like protests were contained in the letters written 22 May, 452, to Emperor Marcian, Empress Pulcheria, and Anatolius of Constantinople. Otherwise the pope ratified the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, but only inasmuch as they referred to matters of faith. This approval was contained in letters written 21 March, 453, to the bishops who took part in the council; hence the Council of Chalcedon, at least as to the first six sessions, became an ecumenical synod, and was considered as such by all Christians, both in the time of Poe Leo and after him. The Emperor Marcian issued several edicts (7 February, 13 March, and 28 July, 452) in which he approved the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, forbade all discussions on questions of faith, forbade the Eutychians to have priests, to live in monasteries, to hold meetings, to inherit anything, to bequeath anything to their partisans, or to join the army. The clerics among the followers of Eutyches, hitherto orthodox, and the monks of his monastery, were to be expelled from Roman territory, as once the Manichaeans were. The writings of the Eutychians were to be burned; their authors, or those who spread them, were to be punished with confiscation and banishment. Finally Eutyches and Dioscurus were both banished. The former died about that time, while the latter lived to the year 454 in Gangra in Paphlagonia.

The Council of Chalcedon with its dogmatic definition did not put an end to the controversy concerning the natures of Christ and their relation to each other. Many people in the East disliked the term person used by the council to signify the union of, or the means of uniting, the two natures in Christ. They believed that Nestorianism was thereby renewed; or at least they thought the definition less satisfactory than St. Cyril’s concept of the union of the two natures in Christ (Bardenhewer, Patrologie, 2nd ed., 321–22). In Palestine, Syria, Armenia, Egypt, and other countries, many monks and ecclesiastics refused to accept the definition of Chalcedon; and Monophysites are found there to this day. (See DIOSCURUS; EUTYCHIANISM; MONOPHYSITISM.)

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Chalcis

A titular see of Greece. The city was capital of the island of Eubœa (Negropont), and has been called Eubœa, Stymphelos, Haliearne, Hypochalcis, and later Euripos, and Negropont. It was founded in prehistoric times, was prosperous in the tenth century B.C., and sent colonies as far as Macedonia and even Italy. From 506 B.C. to the reign of Alexander the Great it was alternately the ally and enemy of Athens. In 194 B.C. it fell into the power of the Romans. Justinian fortified it; the Arabs captured it in 880, but it was reconquered by the Byzantines, and during the Middle Ages its trade was extensive. It was captured by the Venetians in 1209 and by Mohammed II, 12 July, 1470. Since 1833 it has formed a part of the Kingdom of Greece. Chalcis has to-day about 10,000 inhabitants. Lequien (II, 214) mentions eleven bishops of Chalcis from the fourth to the eighteenth century. The see was originally a suffragan of Corinth, then of Athens; finally it became an independent metropolis. The Greek titular bears to-day the double title “Chalcis and Carystia” (from Carystus). The Latin bishops bore in the thirteenth century the title of Negropont (Lequien, III, 845; Eubel, I, 384). On 8 February, 1314, the see was united by Clement V to the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople and remained so till the sixteenth century, when it was again independently established. Chalcis in Thrace was another see, suffragan of Heracleia (Lequien, I, 1149); its site has not been identified. A third Chalcis, known by the sojourn of St. Jerome, was a bishopric depending on Seleucia Pieriæ in Syria Prima (Lequien, II, 785). This city is often mentioned in Jacobite documents under its native name Kinnesrîn.

LEAKE, Northern Greece, II, 254–266; BAUMEISTER, Topograph. Skizze der Insel Euboia; DONDORFF, De rebus Chalcidicis (Halle, 1855); OBERHUMMER, Chalcis, in PAULY-WISSOWA, Real-Encyclopädie, III, 2078–2088; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr. (London, 1878), I, 599–600.

S. VAILHÉ

Chaldean Christians

The name of former Nestorians now reunited with the Roman Church. Ethnologically they are divided into two groups (Turco-Persian and Indian), which must be treated apart, since in their vicissitudes one group differs considerably from the other. The first group is usually known as Chaldeans, the second as Christians of St. Thomas (also called the Syro-Malabar Church).

I. NAME AND TERRITORY OF CHALDEANS

Strictly, the name of Chaldeans is no longer correct; in Chaldea proper, apart from Baghdad, there are now very few adherents of this rite, most of the Chaldean population being found in the cities of Kerkuk, Arbil, and Mosul, in the heart of the Tigris valley, in the valley of the Zab, in the mountains of Kurdistan. It is in the former ecclesiastical province of Ator (Assyria) that are now found the most flourishing of the Catholic Chaldean communities. The native population accepts the name of Atoraya-Kaldaya (Assyro-Chaldeans) while in the neo-Syriac vernacular Christians generally are known as Syrians. The territory now occupied by these Chaldeans belonged once to the ancient Sassanid Empire of Persia, later Omayyad and then the Abbassid caliphs of Islam. Turkish and Mongol invasions, and later efforts to reconstruct the former Kingdom of Persia shattered effectually the earlier political unity of this region; since the end of the sixteenth century the territory of the Chaldeans has been under Turkish or Persian rule. In fact, however, a number of the mountain tribes are only nominally subject to either.

II. CHALDEANS IN TURKEY AND PERSIA

From the fifth century, the Persian Church quietly, almost unconsciously, adopted the Nestorian errors. Previous to that period, its relations with Rome had been insignificant owing to distance, language, racial temper, and a certain ardour of nationalism begotten by the almost perpetual wars with the Roman Empire. Up to the end of the Middle Ages, there also lay between Persia and Rome another, and insuperable, obstacle: The Byzantine Church.

It is true that at the end of seventh century a Nestorian prelate, Sahdona, accepted the Council of Chalcedon and returned to Christian orthodoxy, but this implied only a renewal of union with the Melchite (Orthodox Greek) Church of Antioch and the East, by no means a recognition of the supremacy of the Pope of Old Rome. The present Chaldeans do not therefore descend from Sahdona.

It was not until the thirteenth century that the political revolutions of Central and Farther Asia permitted closer relations between the Nestorian Christians and the Roman Church, whose missionaries then reached the valley of the Tigris by way of the new Latin principalities. Innocent IV, an earnest promoter of the Eastern missions, had sent two Dominicans to Sabhrisho’ ibn-al-Masih, the Catholicos of the Nestorians. Through his vicar Ard (perhaps Addai) the catholicos sent to Rome a profession of faith and a theological treatise by the Archbishop of Nisibis, Iso’yahb bar Malkon (1247). The result of this mission is unknown; certainly Makkika and Denha, successors of the aforesaid catholicos, pursued the matter no further. Yahbalaha III, however, elected in 1281, sent to the pope, in his own name and in that of Argun, King of the Tatars, the Chinese monk, Barsauma (1287). Nicholas IV welcomed the Nestorian envoy and sent him home with many gifts for the catholicos, requesting kind treatment for such Dominican missionaries as might traverse his province.

In 1304 the same Yahbalaha took advantage of the return to Rome of the Dominican James to address to Benedict XI a profession of faith dated from the city of Maraga. The frightful disturbances of the fourteenth century interrupted these friendly relations. Towards the middle of the fifteenth century the office of catholicos became hereditary and passed from uncle to nephew in the same family. Meanwhile the Nestorian communities, dispersed throughout the former Arabian Empire, cut off from all communication with their natural religious centre, dwindled to insignificant proportions or disappeared altogether. In 1445 Andreas, Archbishop of Colossae, was sent by Eugene IV to reconcile with Rome the Nestorian prelate Timothy, known as the Archbishop of Tarsus, but then resident in Cyprus. After obtaining from this prelate certain modifications of the Nestorian Liturgy, Andreas forbade the Latin Christians of Cyprus to treat the Chaldeans as heretics.

In 1551 the Catholicos Simeon bar Mama was succeeded by his nephew, Simeon Denha. According to a custom then about a century old, the latter was consecrated by Henanisho, the only remaining metropolitan. A numerous anti-synod met at Mosul, convoked by the Bishops of Arbil, Salamas, and Aderbaidjan. In agreement with the principal laymen they chose for bishop a monk of the monastery of Rabban-Hormizd Se’ ud bar Daniel, known as Sulaga (Ascension). Probably at the suggestion of some Latin missionary, they sent him to Rome, where he received episcopal consecration from Julius III, with the title of Patriarch of the Chaldeans. On his return to his country Sulaga consecrated two metropolitans and three bishops. In the meantime, the aforesaid Nestorian catholicos, Simeon Denha, won over the Pasha of Diarbekir; John Sulaga was imprisoned and later on (1555) was put to death. The united Chaldeans soon chose as his successor Abdisho,’ the Metropolitan of Djeziret ibn-Omar (Beit-Zabdai’), who went to Rome (1562) during the pontificate of Pius IV, received there the pallium, and was invited to assist at the Council of Trent. He declined this honour but addressed to the assembly a profession of faith that was read at the twenty-second session. He returned to his people, and after a few years died among them at Seert (1567). The patriarchal office remained vacant for some time. Though very little as known of Aitalaha, the successor of Abdisho,’ it is certain that he did not go to Rome for the pallium, as did his predecessors. His energetic auxiliary, however, Hormizd-Elias Amas Abid, who had been consecrated by Sulaka as Archbishop of Amid and Jerusalem, was always in friendly communication with the Latins. In the meantime a large body of Nestorians headed by Denha Simeon, the Archbishop of Gelu, Salamas, and Seert, rejected the authority of the successor of bar Mama and submitted to Aitalaha, on whose death Simeon was chosen to succeed him. The Turco-Persian wars obliged Simeon to reside in the mountains, near Salamas in Persia, whereas his predecessors had resided at Amid (Amida). This change of residence had important consequences: the successors of Simeon in the end retained jurisdiction only over the provinces subject to the Persians, and had no longer any intercourse with Rome except at long intervals. In this way many Chaldeans returned to the Nestorian heresy (if, indeed, they had ever abandoned it). Simeon died in 1593. In 1619 his successor, Simeon II, wrote that he should visit Rome, which promise, however, he was unable to execute. In 1650 Simeon III corresponded with Innocent X. In 1658 Simeon IV entered on relations with the Congregation of Propaganda, for which attitude his subjects tried to depose him. Alexander VII, however, defended him earnestly in a letter to the King of Persia and urged that he might be permitted to retain his patriarchal office. There is still extant a letter of Simeon V (1670) to Clement X, also one of Simeon VI (1770) to Clement XIV. Since the election of Simeon VII (1839) no further attempts have been made by the Chaldeans of Persia to renew relations with Rome. The establishment (1837) of a Protestant mission near Urmia probably accounts for this regrettable attitude. Nevertheless, the present Nestorian patriarch, resident at Kotchannes in the mountains of Kurdistan, is a direct successor of John Sulaga, one of those who initiated the aforesaid union with Rome.

Simeon bar Mama was succeeded in 1576 by Elias Simeon Venha who in 1586 sent a profession of faith to Sixtus V. It was, however, judged heretical. Elias II (1591–1617) took up again the question of reunion and in a letter to Rome (1610) complained that he and his people were regarded as heretics by the Franciscans of the Holy Land. In 1616 he assembled at Amid (Diarbekir) a general synod, attended by eight metropolitans and in which Padre Tommaso da Novara, superior of the Franciscan convent of Aleppo, took part. In preparation for this synod an embassy had been sent to Rome (1612) headed by the archimandrite, Addai. The union was consummated, but in appearance only. Two persons appeared to have been sincere in their conversion: Addai, consecrated at the aforesaid synod as Bishop of Amid and Jerusalem and (perhaps) the patriarch. The latter, however, died the following year. His successor, Elias (III) Simeon (1617–1660) also solicited from Rome the pallium but his profession of faith was not found orthodox. The negotiations soon ceased and were not resumed either by Elias (IV) John (1600–1700), or by Elias (V) (1700–1723). It is said that Elias (VI) Denha (1723–1778) corresponded with Rome. If so his successor, Elias (VII) Ishotyahb, observed an attitude of independence. Finally, John Hormizd—the last descendant of the patriarchal family of bar Mama—went over definitely to the Catholic Church (1830) and took with him the See of Baghdad-Mosul and many Nestorians.

In 1672, Joseph, the Nestorian Archbishop of Diarbekir, following the advice of the Capuchin missionaries, withdrew from communion with the Patriarch Elias IV. The latter tried to have him assassinated and roused against him the vigorous enmity of the Turkish authorities. Joseph fled to Rome (1675), but after an understanding with the Propaganda, and with the sanction of Clement X, returned to his own country where he was active in organizing the union of his people with Rome. Innocent XI granted him the pallium (1681) and the title of patriarch. He resigned in 1693 and died at Rome. The learned Joseph (II) Ma’aruf (1693–1713), received from Clement XI (1701) the title of Patriarch of Babylon. His successor, Joseph (III) Moses Timothy (1714–1756), had a very troubled career. In 1731 he went to Constantinople to protest against the incessant annoyances of the Nestorians. Thence he proceeded to Rome, where he promptly received an intimation to return to his diocese. He was unable, however, to reach it and appeared again in Rome (1735), where for six years he was kept in seclusion. At the end of this period he was restored, at the prayers of his flock, and returned to Amid (1741), where he died in 1756. Joseph (IV) Timothy (1759–1779) followed him in the patriarchal office. Joseph (V) Augustine Hindi succeeded (1779–1826) with the title of Archbishop and Administrator of the Chaldean Patriarchate of the Province of Diarbekir, for the Diocese of Mosul he had as auxiliary the priest George of Alkosch. Owing to the scarcity of documents the history of this period is little known. From letters edited by Giamil (Genuinae relationes, 391–399) it would appear that properly speaking Joseph IV had no successor, perhaps because of the aforementioned conversion to Catholicism of John Hormizd, the last descendant of bar Mama. John Hormizd had been excommunicated in 1818, but was reconciled with Rome in 1830 and proclaimed Patriarch of Babylon by Pius VIII; he owed this happy settlement to the kind efforts of Pierre Coupperie, the Latin Bishop of Babylon. In 1838 Nicholas Isaias Jacob, Bishop of Aderbaidjan, and a former pupil of the College of Propaganda at Rome, was appointed his coadjutor with right of succession. The same year John Hormizd died, and in 1847 Isaias Jacob resigned. His successor, Joseph (VI) Audo (1848–1878), entered on a serious conflict with Pius IX. Though the Bull “Reversurus” had provoked (1867) a schism in Armenia, it was imposed upon the Chaldeans in 1869. Joseph Audo maintained his prerogative in the matter of episcopal ordinations and was threatened with excommunication by the papal Encyclical of September, 1876. Audo died in 1878, but had previously been reconciled with Pius IX. Leo XIII appointed as his successor Elias (XII) Abolionan (1878–1894), who was followed by the learned George ‘Abdisho’ (V) Khayyath (1894–1899) and Joseph Emmanuel (II) Thomas.

III. PRESENT STATUS

The latest and most complete Statistics of the Catholic Chaldeans were furnished in 1896 by Mgr. George ‘Abdisho’ Khayyath to the Abbe Chabot (Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, I, no. 4). The patriarch considers Baghdad as the principal city of his see. His title of Patriarch of Babylon results from the erroneous identification (in the seventeenth century) of modern Baghdad with ancient Babylon. As a matter of fact the Chaldean patriarch resides habitually at Mosul and reserves for himself the direct administration of this diocese and that of Baghdad. There are five archbishops (resident respectively at Bassora, Diarbekir, Kerkuk, Salamas, and Urmia) and seven bishops. Eight patriarchal vicars govern the small Chaldean communities dispersed throughout Turkey and Persia. The Chaldean clergy, especially the monks of Rabban-Hormizd, have established some missionary stations in the mountain districts inhabited by Nestorians. Three dioceses are in Persia, the others in Turkey. There are in all 233 parishes and 177 churches or chapels. The Catholic Chaldean Clergy number 248 priests; they are assisted by the religious of the Congregation of St. Hormizd (Rabban-Hormizd) who number about one hundred. There are about fifty-two Chaldean schools (not counting those conducted by Latin nuns and missionaries). At Mosul there is a patriarchal seminary, distinct from the Syro-Chaldean seminary directed by the Dominicans. The total number of the Chaldeans according to the above-mentioned authority is nearly 78,000, 24,000 of whom are in the Diocese of Mosul. This number is perhaps a little exaggerated. The figure of about 66,000 given by Dr. Oussani (see ASIA) as against 140,000 Nestorians is more correct. The liturgical language of the Chaldean Church is Syriac. Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Kurd are variously spoken by the people; in some districts the vernacular is neo-Syriac. The liturgical books are those of the ancient Nestorian Church, corrected in the sense of Catholic orthodoxy. Unfortunately, without doctrinal necessity, they have in some places been made to conform with Latin usage.

Religiously and morally the Chaldeans are on a level with the other Catholic communities of the Oriental Rite. They are becoming daily better instructed, owing in part to the zeal and devotion of Latin missionaries and religious (Dominicans at Mosul, Carmelites at Baghdad, Lazarists in Persia). Their clergy counts among its members such learned men, as Mgr. Giamil, Mgr. Addai Scher, and Mgr. Manna, authors of numerous publications interesting to Orientalists. This literary revival is mostly due to the Lazarist, Pere Bedjan, a Persian Chaldean. He devoted much industry and learning to popularizing among his people, both Catholics and Nestorians, their ancient chronicles, the lives of Chaldean saints and martyrs, even works of the ancient Nestorian doctors.

IV. MALABAR CHRISTIANS

The west coast of India exhibits since the sixth century a number of flourishing Christian communities subject to the Nestorian Catholicos of Persia. In the sixteenth century Portuguese invaders of India found on the aforesaid coast over 200,000 of these ancient Persian or Syriac Christians, who called themselves Christians of St. Thomas. They acknowledged their dependence on the Nestorian Church for a long time, however, on account of the dangers of travel and continual wars, their intercourse with it was only intermittent. Most of the time, therefore, they were without bishops. The clergy of Goa tried to annex them by a process of latinization, and the Jesuits, successors of St. Francis Xavier, followed a similar policy, but with much moderation and practical sense.

After the above described renewal of relations between Rome and the Chaldean Catholics, their procurator, Bishop Hormizd Elias, was sent to India (1562) by the pope and the Patriarch ‘Abdisho,’ with two Dominican missionaries, one of whom was a bishop. ‘Abdisho’ ordained as Bishop of Malabar a certain Joseph whom the Portuguese detained at Goa so that he was able to reach his mission only after two years. In the meantime, because of urgency, a successor had been named, Bishop Abraham of Angamale. This was the cause of misunderstandings and disputes to which Pius IV put an end (1565) by dividing the Malabar territory. This step did not greatly relieve the anxieties of the United Chaldeans of Malabar. Bishop Abraham complained to the pope “that the Fathers of the Society [of Jesus] and the Latin Portuguese tried to withdraw him from obedience to the Chaldean patriarch and to persuade him to demand the pallium directly from the pope. In this way they sought to compel him to “conform to the Latin Rite and to turn over gradually to the Holy See the administration of this province.” The King of Cochin himself asked from the pope (1576) for Bishop Abraham a safe-conduct to attend at Goa the Provincial Council of the Indies, without fear of imprisonment. In 1599, Alexis Menezes, Archbishop of Goa, convoked at Diamper a celebrated synod, in which it was decided to unify the hierarchy and to correct the rituals, missals, and other liturgical books of the Malabar Christians in the sense of the Roman Liturgy. Portuguese authority enforced these decisions on the Malabar Coast, but the policy eventually failed. Many Catholics left the Latin Church and joined the Nestorians. A little later (1603) the Jacobite (Monophysite) patriarch sent a bishop to India, whereupon more than a hundred thousand Malabar Christians accepted him with a view to the preservation of their liturgical (Syriac) tongue, heedless of his Monophysitism, which was, no doubt quite unintelligible to them. Owing to the Carmelite missionaries, who succeeded the Jesuits, nearly 250,000 persevered in Catholic unity, and have remained to the present, loyal to the Holy See and submissive to the Latin hierarchy though they have never ceased their petition to be restored to the obedience of the Chaldean patriarch. This re-affiliation has not been accorded them, even after the Encyclical of Leo XIII “Orientalium Dignitas.” The pope, however, has withdrawn them from the jurisdiction of the Latin bishops and has given them three vicars Apostolic of their nation and rite. These native bishops administer the Dioceses of Trichur, Ernakulam and Changanachery, and are directly subject to Propaganda (1897). This is only a provisional solution. The Catholic Chaldeans of Malabar look always towards the (Catholic) Chaldean patriarchs, who never tire of urging the extension of their jurisdiction over the distant Malabar churches, historically united with the Church of Persia and its legitimate representatives.

J. LABOURT

Chalice

HISTORY

The chalice occupies the first place among sacred vessels, and by a figure of speech the material cup is often used as if it were synonymous with the Precious Blood itself. “The chalice of benediction, which we bless,” writes St. Paul, “is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” (I Cor., x, 16). No reliable tradition has been preserved to us regarding the vessel used by Christ at the Last Supper. In the sixth and seventh centuries pilgrims to Jerusalem were led to believe that the actual chalice was still venerated in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, having within it the sponge which was presented to Our Saviour on Calvary. Curiously enough, while Antoninus of Piacenza refers to it as made of onyx, Adamnan, less than a century later, describes it as a “silver cup holding the measure of a Gallic sextarius and with two opposite handles” (see Geyer, Itinera, Hierosolimitana, pp. 154, 173, 234, 305). At a much later period two other vessels have been venerated as the chalice of the Last Supper. One, the sacro catino of Genoa, is rather a dish than a cup and is made of green glass, though long supposed to be an emerald, fourteen and a half inches in diameter and of priceless value. The other, at Valencia in Spain, is a cup of agate. The fact is that the whole tradition is untrustworthy and of late date. It will be referred to further under the article GRAIL, and meanwhile we may be content to quote the words of St. Chrysostom (Hom. 1in Matt.): in Matt.): “The table was not of silver, the chalice was not of gold in which Christ gave His blood to His disciples to drink, and yet everything there was precious and truly fit to inspire awe.” So far as it is possible to collect any scraps of information regarding the chalices in use among early Christians, the evidence seems to favour the prevalence of glass, though cups of the precious and of baser metals, of ivory, wood, and even clay were also in use. (See Hefele, Beiträge, II, 323–5.) A passage of St. Irenæus (Hær., I, c. xiii) describing a pretended miracle wrought by Mark the Gnostic who poured white wine into his chalice and then after prayer showed the contents to be red, almost necessarily supposes a vessel of glass, and the glass patens (patenas vitreas) mentioned in the “Liber Pontificalis” under Zephyrinus (202–19) as well as certain passages in Tertullian and St. Jerome, entirely favour the same conclusion. But the tendency to use by preference the precious metals developed early. St. Augustine speaks of two golden and six silver chalices dug up at Cirta in Africa, (Contra Crescon., III, c. xxix), and St. Chrysostom of a golden chalice set with gems (Hom. 1 in Matt.). As regards shape, our principal information at this early period is derived from certain representations, said to be meant for Eucharistic chalices, which are found in early mosaics, sarcophagi, and other monuments of Christian art. The general prevalence of an almost stemless, vase-shaped type with two handles, inclines us to believe that a glass vessel of this nature discovered in the Ostrian catacomb on the Via Nomentana, and now preserved in the Lateran Museum, may really have been a chalice. At an early date it became common to inscribe the donor’s name upon costly vessels presented to churchcs. Thus it is known that Galla Placidia (d. 450) offered a chalice with such an inscription to the church of Zacharias at Ravenna, and the Emperor Valentinian III sent another to the church at Brive. Such goblets were sometimes known as calices literati. The earliest specimen of a chalice of whose original purpose we can feel reasonably confident is the chalice of Chelles, preserved until the French Revolution and believed to have been wrought by, or at least to date from the time of, the famous artificer St. Eligius of Noyon, who died in 659. The material was gold, richly decorated with enamels and precious stones. In shape it was without handles and like a celery glass, with a very deep cup and no stem, but the cup was joined to the base by a knop, which under the name of nodus or pomellum became a very characteristic feature in the chalices of the Middle Ages. In many of the specimens described or preserved from the Merovingian, Carlovingian, and Romanesque periods, it is possible to make a distinction between the ordinary sacrificial chalice used by bishops and priests in the Mass and the calices ministeriales intended for the Communion of the faithful at Easter and other seasons when many received. These latter chalices are of considerable size, and they are often, though not always, fitted with handles, which, it is easy to understand, would have afforded additional security against accidents when the sacred vessel was put to the lips of each communicant in turn. In a rude and barbarous age the practical difficulties of Communion under species of wine must have been considerable, and it is not wonderful that from the Carolingian period onwards the device was frequently adopted of using a pipe or reed (known by a variety of names, fistula, tuellus, canna, arundo, pipa, calamus, siphon, etc.) for the Communion of both clergy and people. To this day at the solemn papal high Mass, the chalice is brought from the altar to the pope at his throne, and the pontiff absorbs its contents through a golden pipe. This practice also lasted down to the reformation among the Cistercians.

THE CHALICES OF THE MIDDLE AGES

Of chalices earlier than the time of Charlemagne the existing specimens are so few and so doubtful that generalization of any kind is almost impossible. Besides the already mentioned chalice of Chelles, now destroyed, only two of those still preserved can be referred confidently to a date earlier than the year 800. The most remarkable of these is that of Tassilo, which bears the inscription TASSILO DUX FORTIS + LUITPIRG VIRGA (sic) REGALIS. This beautiful piece of metal work exhibits an egg-shaped cup joined to a small conical base by a knop. The character of the ornamentation shows clearly the predominance of Irish influences, even if it be not actually the work of an Irish craftsman. Plainer in design, but very similar in form, is the chalice said to have belonged to St. Ledger. Its Eucharistic character is proved beyond doubt by the inscription which it bears: HIC CALIX SANGVINIS DNI IHV XTI. If, as is possible, these words are intended to form a chronogram, they yield the date 788. Of the succeeding period, by far the most remarkable example preserved is the magnificent relic of Irish art known as the Chalice of Ardagh (see picture), from the place near which it was accidentally discovered in 1868. This is a “ministerial” chalice and it has two handles. It is seven inches in height but as much as nine and a half inches in diameter, and the bowl is capable of containing nearly three pints of liquid. The material is silver alloyed with copper, but gold and other metals have been used in its wonderful ornamentation, consisting largely of interlacing patterns and rich enamels. An inscription in very interesting ancient characters gives simply the names of the Twelve Apostles, a list of course highly suggestive of the Last Supper. The date conjecturally assigned to this masterpiece from the letters of the inscription is the ninth or tenth century. But in any case the broadening of the cup and the firm and wide base indicate a development which is noticeable in nearly all the chalices of the Romanesque period. The chalice known as that of St. Gozlin, Bishop of Toul (922–962), is still preserved in the cathedral of Nancy. In its broad, low, circular form it much resembles the last-named chalice. Another very beautiful ministerial chalice with handles, but of later date (twelfth century?), is that of the Abbey of Wilten in the Tyrol. It may be added that although these double-handled cups of precious metal were no doubt primarily intended for the Communion of the people, they were also on great occasions used by the celebrant in the Holy Sacrifice. The fresco in the under-church of San Clemente in Rome (eleventh century?), representing the Mass of St. Clement, shows a two-handled chalice upon the altar, and the same may be seen in the famous liturgical ivory panel of the Spitza collection (Kraus, Christliche Kunst, II, 18)

It is certain, however, that the chalices commonly used for the private Masses of parish priests and monks were of a simpler character, and in the eighth, ninth and following centuries much legislation was devoted to securing that chalices should be made of becoming material. From are mark attributed to St. Boniface (c. 740) that in the early ages of the Church the priests were of gold and the chalices of wood, but that now the chalices were of gold and the priests of wood, it might be inferred that he would have favoured simplicity in the furniture of the altar, but the synodal decrees of this period only aimed at promoting suitable reverence for the Mass. England seems to have taken the lead in this matter, and in any case the English canons may be quoted as typical of those which soon afterwards were enforced everywhere. Thus the Council of Celchyth (Chelsea) forbade the use of chalices or patens of horn quod de sanguine sunt, and the canons passed in the reign of Edgar, under St. Dunstan, enjoined that all chalices in which the “housel is hallowed” should be of molten work (calic gegoten) and that none should be hallowed in a wooden vessel. The laws of the Northumbrian priests imposed a fine upon all who should “hallow housel” in a wooden chalice and the so-called canons of Ælfric repeated the injunction that chalices of molten material, gold, silver, glass (glaesen) or tin should be used, not horn, and especially not wood. Horn was rejected because blood had entered into its composition. Probably, however, the most famous decree was that included in the “Corpus Juris” (cap. xlv, dist. i, de consecratione) “that the chalice of the Lord, together with the paten, if not gold, must be entirely made of silver. If, however, anyone is so poor, let him at least have a chalice of pewter. The chalice must not be made of brass or copper, because it generates rust (i. e. verdigris) which causes nausea. And let no one presume to say Mass with a chalice of wood or glass. This decree is traditionally attributed to a certain council of Reims, but Hefele is unable to identify it.

From the eleventh century onwards sufficient chalices and representations of chalices survive to enable us to draw conclusions regarding their evolution of form. A round knop, short stem, broad firm base, and wide, rather shallow cup are characteristic of the earlier period. One of the richest surviving examples is the chalice known as that of St. Remi. It is remarkable for the maledictory inscription engraved on its base: QUICUNQUE HUNC CALICEM INVADIAVERIT VEL AB HAC ECCLESIA REMENSI ALIQUO MODO ALIENAVERIT ANATHEMA SIT. FIAT AMEN. In the thirteenth century, while the cup of the ordinary chalice still remains broad and rather low, and base and knop are circular, we find a certain development of the stem. On the other hand the cup, in a large number of examples of the fourteenth century, tends to assume a conical or funnel shape, while the stem and knop become angular, or prismatic in section, generally hexagonal. The base is often divided into six lobes to match the stem, and the knop itself is sometimes resolved into a group of studs or bosses, which in certain fifteenth-century specimens give place to a mass of areading and architectural ornament set with figures. The stem is at the same time elongated and becomes much taller. Under Renaissance influences, on the other hand, the ornamentation in the more sumptuous specimens of chalices is often excessive, spending itself in the form of figured repoussé work upon the base and stem. The cup almost invariably assumes a tulip shape, which continues during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, while the chalice greatly increases in height. With this, in the seventeenth century, often went a very thin stem, or again a quite inadequate base, so that many chalices of this period leave the well-founded impression of bring either fragile or top heavy. The question of the restriction of Communion under both kinds and the consequent withdrawal of the chalice from the laity is a matter of some obscurity and does not belong to the present article. In many places where the Precious Blood was no longer given to the people, it seems that to reconcile them more easily to the change, a cup containing simple wine was presented to each communicant as he left the sanctuary after receiving the Sacred Host. Parish priests were enjoined to explain very carefully to the people that this was only ordinary wine intended to enable them to swallow the Host more readily. This practice, called purificatio, is still prescribed as part of the rite of the General Communion on Easter Day in the “Cæremonial Episcoporum” (II, cap. xxix). Probably a special chalice of large capacity was reserved for this purpose. As it was very probably a chalice of large capacity, with handles, it seems impossible to distinguish such a goblet from the calix ministerialis of earlier times. Another kind of chalice referred to by archæologists is that said to have been used after baptism to give milk and honey to the neophytes, but no definite surviving example of such a vessel seems to be known.

PRESENT LEGISLATION

According to the existing law of the Church the chalice, or at least the cup of it, must be made either of gold or of silver, and in the latter case the bowl must be gilt on the inside. In circumstances of great poverty or in time of persecution a calix stanneus (pewter) may be permitted, but the bowl of this also, like the upper surface of the paten, must be gilt. Before the chalice and paten are used in the Sacrifice of the Mass they require consecration. This rite is carried out according to a form specially provided in the “Pontificale” and involving the use of holy chrism. The consecration must be performed by a bishop (or in the case of chalices intended for monastic use, by an abbot possessing the privilege), and a bishop cannot in an ordinary way delegate any priest to perform this function in his place. Further, if the chalice lose its consecration—which happens for example if it be broken or the cup perforated, or even if it has had to be sent to have the bowl regilded-it is neccesary that it should be reconsecrated by the bishop before it can again be used. Strictly speaking, only priests and deacons are permitted to touch the chalice or paten, but leave is usually granted to sacristans and those officially appointed to take charge of the vestments and sacred vessels.

ADJUNCTS OF THE CHALICE

These are the corporal, the purificator, the pall, the burse, and the chalice veil.

The corporal (q.v.) will be considered separately.

The purificator (purificatorium or more anciently emunctorium) now consists of a rectangular piece of linen usually folded twice lengthwise and laid across the top of the chalice. It is used for wiping and drying the chalice, or the paten, or the priest’s lips, e.g. after the ablutions. Unlike the corporal and the pall, it requires no special blessing. In the Middles Age it was not customary, as it is nowadays, for each priest to have a purificator of his own, frequently renewed, but it seems that a cloth of this kind was kept at the altar which was used in common by all.

The pall is a small square of stiffened linen ornamented with a cross, which is laid upon the orifice of the chalice to protect its contents from flies or dust. The word pallium, or palla, was originally used of all kinds of coverings, notably of what we now call the altar-cloths, and also of the corporal. Even in St. Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc., VII, xxii) we read of the sacred gifts being veiled by a pallium, which was probably some sort of corporal. But about the time of St. Anselm (c. 1100) the custom seems to have grown up in some places of using two corporals at the altar. One was spread out, and upon it the chalice and host were laid. The other, folded into smaller compass, served only to cover the chalice (sce Giorgi, Liturgia Rom. Pont., II, 220, III, 79–81). This folded corporal is now represented by the little disk of linen which we call the pall. At one time it was forbidden to cover the pall with silk or rich embroidery; now the upper surface may be of silk and embroidered, but the under-side, which is in contact with the chalice, must still be linen. The original identity of the pall and the corporal is further illustrated by the fact that both alike require to be specially blessed before use.

The chalice veil and the burse (q.v.) are of comparatively recent introduction. Even Burchard, the compiler of the “Ordo Missae” (1502), now represented by the rubricae generales of the Roman Missal, supposes that the chalice and paten were brought by the priest to the altar in a sacculum or lintheum, which seems to have been the ancestor of the present veil. The burse, which is simply a cover used to keep the corporal from being soiled, and which for that reason was known in Old English as a “corporas-case,” is somewhat older. Several medieval burses are still preserved in the collection at Danzig. Nowadays both burse and veil are usually made of the same material as that of the set of vestments to which they belong, and they are similarly ornamented.

THE CHALICE IN ART

From what has already been said it will be clear that the chalice, as the most important of all the vessels in church use, must have exercised an incalculable influence upon the early developments of the goldsmith’s craft. Such monuments as the Ardagh chalice and the Tassilo chalice, both of Irish origin, stand almost alone in the information they afford of an otherwise unsuspected mechanical skill and richness of ornament, particularly in the matter of enamels, in a remote and barbarous age. The earliest, documents connected with the life of St. Patrick reveal the fact that the artificers of chalices and bells had a certain status which in that rude age won respect for the arts of peace. The chalice in a particular way was identified with the priesthood. This sacred vessel, which now stands upon the priest’s coffin during his obsequies, recalls the time when a small chalice of metal or of wax was buried with him in his tomb; and the chalice which is the recognized emblem of so many saints—e.g., St. John the Evangelist—suggests in many instances the promise made by Christ to His followers, “if ye shall drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt you.” To attempt to illustrate the characteristics of the artistic silver work in the different countries of Europe would take us too far. But it is much to be desired that by the favour shown to good material, skilful workmanship, and a pure type of art, the chalices constructed for the liturgical use of the Church may still serve as an encouragement of all that is best in the craft of the worker in precious metals.

HISTORY AND ARCHÆLOGY-HEFELE, Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte (Tübingen, 1864), II, 322–30; ROHAULT DE FLEURY, La Messe (Paris, 1886), Vol. IV, a work which contains by far the best collection of illustrations of medieval chalices; BÄUMER, in Kirchenlex. s.v. KELCH; THALHOFER, Litugik (Freiburg, 1890), I; BOCK in the Jahrbuch of the Vienna Central Commission, IV; WEISS, in the Mittheilungen of the Vienna Central Commission, IV; REUSENS, Eléments d’archéologie chrét. (Aachen, 1885), I, 232, 460, II, 320; OTTE, Handbuch der Kunst-Archeologie (1886), I; LINAS, Orfèvrerie Mérovingienne (Paris, 1864); CORBLET, Histoire de l’Eucharistie (Paris, 1886), II, 241–273; BERGNER, Handbuch der kirchlichen Kunstalterhümer (Leipsig, 1905), 320–27; WILLIAMS, The Arts and Crafts of Spain (3 vols., London, 1907)

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.-BARBIER DE MONTAULT, Le mobilier ecclésiastique (2 vols., Paris, 1887); VAN DER STAPPEN, Sacra Liturgia (Mechlin, 1903), III, 96–110; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1903), III.

HERBERT THURSTON

Richard Challoner

Bishop of Debra, Vicar Apostolic of the London District, author of spiritual and controversial works, b. 29 Sept., 1691; d. 12 Jan., 1781.

This prelate, who, during the greater part of the eighteenth century, was to be the leading figure of English Catholicism, was not born of Catholic parents, but was the son of a Presbyterian winecooper of Lewes, Sussex, England. After his father’s death his mother became housekeeper to the Catholic family of Gage, at Firle in Sussex. It is not known whether she was already a Catholic, or whether she was converted as a consequence of her new surroundings, but her boy was not received into the Church till he was about thirteen years old. This was at Warkworth, in Northamptonshire, the seat of another well-known Catholic family, that of Holman. Lady Anastasia Holman, wife of George Holman, Esq., was a daughter of the martyred Viscount Stafford, and their chaplain, the well-known controversial writer, John Gother, instructed Richard Challoner in Catholic doctrine, and procured for him a nomination to a foundation at Douai College. The boy entered college on 29 July, 1705 (Dicconson’s Diary), and spent the next twenty-five years there, first as student, then as professor, and as vice-president. His abilities enabled him to complete the usual twelve years’ course in eight years, and in 1708 he took the college oath, binding himself to return to England, when required, to labour on the mission. At the age of twenty-one he was chosen to teach the classes of rhetoric and poetry, which were the two senior classes in “humanities”; and a year later his success as a teacher justified his appointment as professor of philosophy, a post which he held for eight years. Ordained priest 28 March, 1716, he graduated Bachelor in Divinity of the University of Douai in 1719, and in the following year was chosen by the president, Dr. Witham, to be his vice-president, an office which involved the supervision of both professors and students. At the same time he was appointed professor of theology and prefect of studies, so that he had the direction of the whole course of studies.

His success as a teacher was probably due rather to his untiring industry and devotion to this work than to any extraordinary mental power, for he was never an original thinker, but his gift lay in enforcing the spiritual reality of the doctrines he was expounding. His fervent piety was his chief characteristic, and this appears even in his controversial works. In 1727 he defended his public thesis and obtained the degree of Doctor in Divinity. In 1728 he published his first work, the little book of meditations so well known under the quaint title of “Think Well on’t.” He had long desired, however, to leave the college and to take up the harder work of the mission, and in 1730 he was at last allowed to return to London, where he threw himself with zeal into the laborious work of the ministry. Though the penal laws were no longer enforced with extreme severity, the life of the Catholic priest was still a hard one. Disguised as a layman, Dr. Challoner ministered to the small number of Catholics, celebrating Mass secretly in obscure ale-houses, cockpits, and wherever small gatherings could assemble without exciting remark. He was an untiring worker, and in the poorest quarters of the town, in the prisons and the sponging-houses, he sought out souls to save. In his spare time he gave himself to study and writing, and was thus able to produce several works of instruction and controversy. One of these, “The Catholic Christian instructed in the Sacraments, Sacrifice and Ceremonies of the Church,” led to trouble, for in the preface he assailed a recent work of Dr. Conyers Middleton, an Anglican divine, who had attacked the Church. This gentleman so resented Dr. Challoner’s reply that he set the law in motion against him, and it was thought prudent for him to leave England for a time and retire again to Douai. This was in 1738, the year in which the able president of Douai, Dr. Witham, died, and strenuous efforts were made by the superiors of the college to have Dr. Challoner appointed president. But Dr. Petre, the Vicar Apostolic of the London District, opposed this on the ground that he desired to have him as his own coadjutor bishop. Propaganda had apparently already arranged Challoner’s appointment as president of Douai, but the representations of Dr. Petre were so strong that he prevailed, and Briefs were issued on 12 Sept., 1739, appointing Challoner to the See of Debra in partibus.

These Briefs, however, were not carried into effect, for the bishop-elect, endeavouring to escape the responsibility of the episocpate, raised the point that he had been born and brought up a Protestant. The delay so caused lasted a whole year, and it was not till 24 Nov., 1740, that the new Briefs were issued. The consecration took place on 29 Jan., 1741, in the private chapel at Hammersmith. The new bishop’s first work was a visitation of the district, the first methodical visitation of which there is any record since the creation of the vicariate in 1688. The district included ten counties, besides the Channel Islands and the British possessions in America—chiefly Maryland and Pennsylvania and some West Indian islands. The missions beyond the seas could not be visited at all, and even the home counties took nearly three years. In the intervals of his travels the bishop was engaged in writing. In 1740 he brought out a new prayer book for the laity, the “Garden of the Soul,” which has ever since remained the favourite work of devotion, though the many editions that have since appeared have been so altered that little of the original work remains. Next, finding that the sufferings of the English martyrs were in danger of being forgotten, he published in two volumes, “Memoirs of Missionary Priests,” in which he gives an account of the martyrs form 1577 to 1681. This work, laboriously compiled from original records, had been the chief means of perpetuating the tradition of the English martyrs and remains the standard work on the subject. In 1745 he produced his longest and most learned book, “Britannia Sancta,” containing the lives of the British, English, Scottish, and Irish saints. Another work to which he devoted much energy and time was the preparation of a revised edition of the Douay Bible and Reims New Testament. The chief points to note in his edition are the elimination of the obscure and literal translations from the Latin in which the original version abounds, the alteration of obsolete words, a closer approximation in some respects to the Anglican version, as, for instance, in the substitution of “The Lord” for “Our Lord,” and finally the printing of the verses separately. The first edition of the New Testament appeared in 1749, the second, together with the first edition of the Old Testament, in 1750. Between these two editions there are but few differences, but the third edition, published in 1752, had important changes both in text and notes, the variations numbering over two thousand. Dr. Challoner’s Bible has been the groundwork of nearly all subsequent English versions. An American edition was published in Philadelphia in 1805.

In 1753 Dr. Challoner brought out another of his best-known works, the popular “Meditations for every Day of the Year,” a book which has passed through numerous editions and been translated into French and Italian. In the same year Pope Benedict XIV put an end to the long disputes that had been carried on between the secular clergy and the regulars, in the last stages of which Dr. Challoner took a leading part. There were several points at issue, but the matter was brought to a head over the contention put forward by the regulars, that they did not need the approbation of the vicars Apostolic to hear confessions. The bishops opposed this and, after a struggle lasting for several years, obtained a final settlement of this and other questions, a settlement, in the main, satisfactory to the bishops. In 1758 Dr. Petre, Vicar Apostolic of the London District, died, and Dr. Challoner, as his coadjutor, succeeded him at once. He was, however, nearly seventy years old, and was so ill that he was forced immediately to apply for a coadjutor. The Holy See appointed the Hon. and Rev. James Talbot to this office, and with the help of the younger prelate, whose assistance considerably lessened his labour, his health somewhat recovered. But from this time he lived almost entirely in London, the visitations being carried out by Dr. Talbot. He continued to write, and almost every year published a new book, but they were more usually translations or abstracts, such as “The Historical Part of the Old and New Testament.” One more work of original value remained, and that was his little “British Martyrology” published in 1761.

As an administrator he was always unfailing in supplying deficiencies in the face of extraordinary difficulties. He had already provided for his people a suitable prayer book and meditation book, as well as convenient editions of the Holy Scriptures, the “Imitation of Christ,” and the catechism of Christian Doctrine. But, besides this literary work, he caused two schools for boys to be opened, one at Standon Lordship, now represented by St. Edmund’s College, Old Hall, and the other at Sedgley Park, in Staffordshire. He also founded a school for poor girls at Brook Green, Hammersmith, besides assisting the already existing convent school there. he also instituted conferences among the London clergy, and he was instrumental in founding the still-existing “Benevolent Society for the Relief of the Aged and Infirm Poor.” His manifold activity is the more remarkable because his life was spent in hiding, owing to the state of the law, and often he had hurriedly to change his lodgings to escape the Protestant informers, who were anxious to earn the government reward of £100 for the conviction of a priest. One of these, John Payne, known as “The Protestant Carpenter,” indicted Dr. Challoner, but was compelled to drop the proceedings, owing to some documents, which he had forged, falling into the hands of the bishop’s lawyers. For some years he and the London priests were continually harassed in this way. Finally the evil was remedied by the Catholic Relief Act of 1778, by which priests were no longer liable to imprisonment for life. This concession, slight as it was, speedily kindled a fierce blaze of bigotry, and two years later the Gordon Riots broke out. The chapels and houses of Catholics were wrecked and plundered by frenzied mobs. From his hiding-place the bishop, now nearly ninety years of age, could hear the howls of the mob, who were searching for him with the intention of dragging him through the streets. They failed to find his refuge, and on the following day he escaped to Finchley, where he remained till the riots came to an end. But he never fully recovered from the shock. Six months later he was seized with paralysis, and died after two days’ illness. He was buried in the vault of his friend Bryan Barrett, at Milton in Berkshire.

His private life was marked by extraordinary mortification, while large charity passed through his hands. He had the gift of prayer in a marked degree, and on two occasions at least he spoke prophetic words, which later events verified. For these reasons, as much as for the office he held so long, his name has ever been held in singular veneration by English Catholics. The portrait which formerly hung in his own house is now preserved, with his cassock and other relics, at St. Edmund’s College, Old Hall, England. Besides the works mentioned above, Dr. Challoner’s other writings were: “Grounds of Catholic Doctrine” 91732); “Unerring Authority of the Catholic Church” (1732); “Short History of the Protestant Religion” (1733); “A Roman Catholick’s Reasons why He cannot Conform” (1734); “The Touchstone of the New Religion” (1734); “The Young Gentleman Instructed in the Grounds of the Christian Religion” (1735); “A Specimen of the Spirit of the Dissenting Teachers” (1736); “The Catholic Christian Instructed” (1737); “Rheims Testament,” ed. with F. Blyth (1738); translation of St. Augustine’s “Confessions” (1740?); “The Ground of the Old Religion” (1742); “A Letter to a Friend concerning the Infallibility of the Church” (1743); “A Papist Misrepresented and Represented,” abridged from Gother; “Remarks on Two Letters against Popery” (1751); “Instructions for the Jubilee” (1751); “The Wonders of God in the Wilderness: Lives of the Fathers of the Deserts” (1755); “The Life of St. Teresa,” abridged from Woodhead (1757); “Manual of Prayers” (1758); “A Caveat against the Methodists” (1760); “The City of God of the New Testament” (1760); “The Morality of the Bible” (1762); “Devotion of Catholics to the Blessed Virgin” (1764); “Rules of Life for a Christian” (1766). He also issued some minor works in the nature of tracts and pastoral letters. A complete life of Bishop Challoner is nearing completion (1907).

MILNER, A Funeral Discourse on the Death of the Ven. and Rt. Rev. Richard Challoner (1782); BARNARD, Life of Venerable and Rt. Rev. Richard Challoner (London, 1784); MILNER, Brief Account of the Life of the Rt. Rev. Richard Challoner (London, 1798); BUTLER, Biographical Account of Rt. Rev. Dr. Challoner, published anonymously in Catholic Spectator (1824) and reprinted in Catholic Magazine (1831); BRADY, Annals of the Catholic Hierarchy (London, 1877), III, 164; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885), I: COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog. (London, 1887), IX, 440; BURTON, Bishop Challoner in Penny Biographical Series (Catholic Truth Society, London, 1897).

EDWIN BURTON

Diocese of Châlons-sur-Marne

DIOCESE OF CHÂLONS-SUR-MARNE (CATALAUNENSIS)

The Diocese comprises the department of Marne, exclusive of the arrondissement of Reims. United in 1802 with the Diocese of Meaux and in 1821 with that of Reims, the diocese of Châlons was re-established in 1822, and is suffragan to Reims. Local legends maintain that the evangelization of Châlons by St. Memmius, sent thither by St. Peter and assisted by his sister Poma, also by Sts. Donatian and Domitian, took place in the first century, but in the revised list of the diocesan saints in the Breviary these legends have been suppressed. Abbe Duchesne assigns the founding of the See of Châlons to the fourth century, Amandinus, who attended the Council of Tours in 461, being its ninth bishop. St. Lumier (Leudomerus), Bishop of Châlons about 580, was noted for his miraculous power over animals. The bishops of this see played an important part in early French history, and at the coronation of the Capetian kings the Bishop of Châlons always carried the royal ring. The cathedral was consecrated in 1147 by Eugene III, assisted by St. Bernard and eighteen cardinals. Among its celebrated abbeys the diocese counted those of St. Memmius, founded in the fifth century by Alpinus; Toussaints, founded in the eleventh century; Montier-en-Der, founded in the seventh century by St. Bereharius, a monk from Luxeuil; Saint-Pierre au Mont, founded during the same period. Notre-Dame de l’Epine, near Châlons, was a place of pilgrimage as early as the beginning of the fifteenth century.

Prior to the law of 1901 there were Jesuits and Lazarists in the Diocese of Châlons, which has many schools in charge of the local congregation of Notre-Dame, founded in 1613 by the Venerable Mère Alix Leclerc. In 1900 there were in the diocese the following religious institutions: 16 infant schools, 3 boys’ orphanages, 9 girls’ orphanages, 7 dispensaries, 15 hospitals and asylums, 11 houses for religious nurses, 1 house of retreat, and 1 insane asylum. At the close of 1905 (the end of the period under the Concordat) statistics showed that the diocese had a population of 231,411, with 25 parishes (cures), 312 succursal parishes (mission churches), and 6 vicariates supported by the State.

GEORGES GOYAU

Cham, Chamites

I. CHAM

(A.V. Ham). Son of Noe and progenitor of one of the three great races of men whose ethnographical table is given by Genesis 10. Wherever the three sons of Noe are enumerated in the Bible, Cham is placed between Sem and Japhet. We may gather, however, from Genesis 9:24 that this enumeration is not based on their age, since Cham is there spoken of as the “younger son” of Noe, as compared, apparently, with both his brothers. The only incident of the life of Cham after the deluge, which is recorded in the Bible, is that related in Genesis 9:21–24. Cham sees his father under the influence of wine lying naked in his tent. He tells his brothers, who respectfully cover the patriarch. The sequel makes it plain that Cham was, on this occasion, guilty of great irreverence. For when Noe hears of the conduct of his sons he blesses Shem and Japhet, with their posterity, and he pronounces a curse, not on Cham, but on his son Chanaan and his descendants, predicting that they will be the servants of their bretheren. (For a fuller treatment of this point see Chanaan, Chanaanites.)

II. THE CHAMITES

The natives and tribes which descent from Cham are enumerated in Genesis 10:6–20. They are divided into four great families: Chus, Mesram, Phuth, and Chanaan. The Cushites are found in the valleys of the Euphrates and Tigris, in Arabia, and also in Africa. Mesram is Egypt. Phuth, less known, seems to have occupied regions west of Egypt, particularly Libya. Chanaan comprised the numerous tribes whose country was subsequently occupied by Israel. The Chamites were, consequently, spread over an immense extent of territory. They founded the greatest empires of antiquity, Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, Phoenicia. In Asia they were early replaced or subjugated by Semites. In Africa they have been likewise overcome, in the course of time, by the races of Sem and Japhet. This subjection has meant, in general, the triumph of a higher civilization, purer morals, and a more spirtual religion. (See Lenormant, “Hist. ancienne de l’Orient,” I, 96 sq.)

W.S. REILLY

Archdiocese of Chambéry (Camberium)

ARCHDIOCESE OF CHAMBÉRY (CAMBERIENSIS).

The Archdiocese of Chambéry comprises the entire arrondissement of Chambéry in Savoy (with the exception of 8 communes), 10 communes in the arrondissement of Annecy (Haute-Savoie), and 8 communes in the arrondissement of Albertville (Savoie). In 1467, in the ducal chapel built for the Holy Winding-Sheet (Santo Sudario) by Amadeus IX, duke of Savoy, and the Duchess Yolande of France, Paul II erected a chapter directly subject to the Holy See, and his successor Sixtus IV, united this chapter with the deanery of Savoy. In 1515 Leo X published a Bull making the deanery an archbishopric, but Francis I objected, and it was only in 1775 that this deanery was separated from the Diocese of Grenoble by Pius VI, who, in 1779, created it a bishopric with the see at Chambéry. The Duchy of Savoy, politically subject to the King of Sardinia, had thenceforth 4 bishoprics: Chambéry, Saint-Jean de Maurienne, Tarentaise, and Geneva (with residence at Annecy). In October, 1792, the commissaries to the Convention formed the constitutional Diocese of Mont-Blanc, with Annecy as the see and Lyons as the metropolitan. The Concordat of 1802 created a Diocese of Chambéry and Geneva, suffragan of Lyons. A Bull dated 17 July, 1817, made Chambéry, once more a city of the Sardinian States, the seat of an archdiocese, with Aosta for suffragan; the Dioceses of Annecy (re-established in 1822), Saint-Jean-Maurienne, and Tarentaise (in 1825), soon also became suffragans of Chambéry. After the annexation of Savoy to France, in 1860, this condition continued, except that the Diocese of Aosta was made a suffragan of Turin.

The Cistercian Abbey of Hautecombe, founded in 1135, is one of the burial places of the House of Savoy. The relic known as the Holy Winding-Sheet of Christ was kept at Chambéry until 1598, in which year the Duke of Savoy had it transported to Turin, where St. Charles Borromeo wished to venerate it. Notre-Dame de Myans (antedating the twelfth century), where St. Francis de Sales officiated, and where diocesan missionaries now reside, and Notre-Dame de l’Aumone at Romilly (thirteenth century), whither Francis I of France went as a pilgrim, are still places of pilgrimage. Before the execution of the law of 1901 there were in the archdiocese Capuchins, Cistercians of the Immaculate Conception, and Trappists; the last are there yet. The Sisters of St. Joseph, an order founded at Chambéry in 1812 and devoted to teaching and charitable work, are now widespread, having 12 establishments in Brazil, 9 in North America, 1 in Iceland, 2 in Sweden, 5 in Russia, 10 in Denmark, and 8 in Norway. In 1900 the archdiocese had the following religious institutions: 1 foundling asylum, 2 maternity hospitals, 1 orphanage for boys, 5 for girls, 1 insane asylum, 1 house of retreat, 3 houses for nursing sisters, 8 hospitals and asylums, and 5 industrial schools. At the close of 1905 (end of the period under the Concordat), statistics showed a population of 164,424, with 18 parishes, 153 succursal parishes (mission churches), and 49 vicariates supported by the State.

GEORGES GOYAU

Samuel de Champlain

Founder of Quebec and Father of New France, born at Brouage, a village in the province of Saintonge, France, 1570, or according to the “Bibliographie Saintongeoise,” 1567; died at Quebec, 25 December, 1635. He was the son of Antoine Champlain, a mariner, and Marguerite Le Roy, and his early education was entrusted to the parish priest. While still a youth Champlain accompanied his father on several voyages, and thus became familiar with the life of a mariner. When about twenty years of age he tendered his services to the the Maréchal d’Aumont, one of the chief commanders of the Catholic army in the expeditions against the Huguenots. The career of a soldier did not appeal to the youth, whose ambition was to become a navigator. “Navigation,” he wrote,

has always seemed to me to occupy the first place. By this art we obtain a knowledge of different countries, regions, and realms. By this we attract and bring to our own land all kinds of riches; by it the idolatry of paganism is overthrown, and christianity proclaimed throughout all the regions of the earth. This is the art . . . which led me to explore the coasts of a portion of America, especially those of New France, where I have always desired to see the lily flourish, together with the only religion catholic, Apostolic and Roman. (Les voyages du Sieur de Champlain, Paris, 1613, Pt. V).

In 1598 Champlain returned to Brouage and made preparations for a voyage to Spain in the interest of his fellow-countrymen. While at Seville he was offered the command of the Saint Julien, one of the vessels fitted out by Spain to oppose the attack made on Porto Rico by the English. It was during his cruise in the Saint Julien that Champlain first suggested the possibility of uniting the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans by cutting through the Isthmus of Panama. Champlain kept a journal of his explorations in the Gulf of Mexico, and after his return to France, in 1601 or 1602, he received a pension and the appointment of geographer to the king. It was in the year 1603 that Champlain first visited the shores of Canada, as the lieutenant of Aymar de Chastes, viceroy under Henry 1V. Pierre de Chauvin had proposed to make a permanent settlement at Tadoussac, but Champlain was not in favour of this place, and, having cast anchor at the foot of Cape Diamond, he considered that the point of Quebec would be the most advantageous site for the future colony. He then proceeded with Pont-Gravé to explore the St. Lawrence as far as Sault Saint Louis, and gathered from the natives such information as he could concerning Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, the Detroit river, Niagara Falls, and the rapids of the St. Lawrence, and returned to France in August, 1603. The next year he followed the fortunes of de Monts’ expedition in Acadia, as geographer and historian. The party wintered on the island of Sainte-Croix, and in the spring Champlain explored the country between the island and Port Royal, continuing this work until the fall of 1607. As the lieutenant of de Monts Champlain laid the foundation of the Abitation de Québec on the 3d of July, 1608, and around this modest dwelling arose the little village of Quebec. A year later the founder joined the Hurons in an expedition against the Iroquois whom they defeated. Criticism has been directed against Champlain for having become involved in Indian warfare; but with a knowledge of the conditions of trade, and the situation of the few Frenchmen at this time, his action seems to have been in the best interests of the settlement. It was during this expedition that Champlain discovered the lake which still bears his name. On his visit to France in 1610 he married Hélène Boullé, then a girl only twelve years of age. According to the marriage settlement the young wife remained with her parents for two years. In 1620 she arrived at Quebec, and remained in the fort until 1624. Madame Champlain was beloved in New France and after her husband’s death she founded the Ursuline Convent at Meaux. In the year 1611 Champlain continued his exploration of the St. Lawrence. Within a short distance of Mount Royal, discovered by Jacques Cartier seventy-five years before, he found a place suitable for a future settlement, and ordered the ground to be cleared and prepared for building. La Place Royale, the name given to the site by Champlain, is now in the heart of the commercial portion of the city of Montreal. The island opposite, now a popular summer resort, he named Sainte-Hélène, in honour of his wife. After his return from France in 1613 he set out from Sainte-Hélène with four Frenchmen and an Indian, to explore the region above Sault Saint Louis. In the month of June he came in sight of the River Gatineau, the River Rideau, and the Chaudière Falls, and went as far as Allumette Island. Two years later, on the 14th of August, 1615, he set out from Carhagouha at the head of a small band of Frenchmen to assist the Hurons against the Iroquois. The place of rendezvous was Cahiagué. On their journey they passed by Lake Ouantaron, now known as Lake Simcoe, and proceeded by way of Sturgeon Lake. Following the River Trent they reached the Bay of Quinté, where, says Champlain, “is the entrance to the grand river St. Laurence.” Crossing Lake Ontario they penetrated the woods and passed over the River Chouagen or Oswego. This journey had occupied five weeks, and the expedition had endured many hardships before meeting the enemy. During the skirmishes Champlain had been severely wounded in the knee by an arrow, but the pain from the wound he says “was nothing in comparison with that which I endured awhile I was carried, bound and pinioned on the back of one of the savages.” The Hurons were forced to retreat, and it was not until the 23d of December that the party again arrived at Cahiague. Champlain had now prepared the way for colonization in New France, but for a time his efforts were fruitless. The merchants were not disposed to assist him in developing the country, seeing that the fur trade held out prospects of large gain. After crossing the ocean several times, however, he induced a few hardy settlers of sterling merit to seek their fortune on the banks of the St. Lawrence. These were the real pioneers of New France. In 1629 the little settlement received a check, when an English fleet under three brothers named Kirke appeared before Quebec, and the fort was compelled to surrender. Under the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye Quebec was restored to France, and Champlain again took up his residence in the fort, where he died, after having spent forty years of his life in the heroic endeavour to promote the religious and commercial interests of the land of his fathers in the New World. Champlain published the following works: “Bref discours des choses plus remarquables que Samuel Champlain de Brouage a reconnues aux Indes Occidentales” (1598); “Des sauvages: ou voyage de Sieur de Champlain faite en l’an 1603” (Paris, s.d.); “Les Voyages du Sieur du Champlain Xainctongeois, 1604–1613” (Paris, 1613); “Voyages et Descouvertures faites en la Nouvelle-France, depuis l’année 1615 jusques à la fin de l’année 1618. Par le Sieur de Champlain” (Paris, 1619); “Les Voyages de la Nouvelle France Occidentale, dicte Canada, faits par le Sieur de Champlain Xainctongeois, depuis l’an 1603 jusques en l’annee 1629” (Paris, 1632); “Traité de la marine et du devoir d’un bon marinier. Par le Sieur de Champlain” (s.d.). In 1870 the Abbé Laverdière edited the works of Champlain in six volumes under the title of “Oeuvres de Champlain publiees sous le patronage de l’Universite Laval, par l’Abbé C.H. Laverdière, M.A., professeur d’Histoire a la Faculte des arts et Bibliothécaire de l’Université” (2d ed., Quebec, 1870). While the work was in the press the plates were destroyed by fire and only the proof sheets were saved. This edition does not contain the account of the visits to Mexico and the West Indies. The first volume has an excellent biographical sketch of Champlain by Abbé Laverdière. The Voyages du Sieur de Champlain was published in two volumes (Paris, 1830), and another edition in the same year at the expense of the French Government. The “Voyage to the West Indies and Mexico (1599–1602)” appeared in 1859.

ARTHUR G. DOUGHTY

Anthony Champney

A controversialist, born in England c. 1569; died there c. 1643. He studied at Reims (1590) and Rome (1593). As priest he was imprisoned at Wisbech, and was active against the Jesuits, acting later for the Appellant Clergy in Rome (1602). Afterwards he was appointed president of the English College of Arras near Paris, becoming doctor of theology and Fellow of the Sorbonne. He was vice-president of Douai College, from 1619 to 1625, and from 1628 till he returned to England, where he died some time after 1643. He published: “An Answer to a Letter of a Jesuited Gentleman” (1601); “A Manual of Controversies” (1614): “A Treatise of the Vocation of Bishops” (1616); “Mr. Pilkington his Parallela Disparalled” (1620); “An Answer to a Pamphlet (by D. Featley) intituled, ‘The Fisher catched in his owne Net’“ (1623); “A Defence of the Appendix to the Antidote” (before 1624); “Legatum Fratribus suis Cleri Anglieani Sacerdotibus Testamento relictum” (in Bishop Smith’s “Monita”). His “History of Queen Elizabeth” is still in manuscript. Formerly, as stated by Gillow, Cooper, Knox, etc., it was preserved in the archives of the Old Chapter, but since 1879 has been restored to Westminster Archives, to which it belonged; there are also some other works in manuscript.

DODD, Church History (London, 1737), III, 81; MSS. in British Museum, Addit. MSS., 18393, 18394; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 462; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., X. 35.

EDWIN BURTON.

Jean-François Champollion

(Called THE YOUNGER to distinguish him from his elder brother, Champollion-Figeac).

A French Orientalist, born at Figeaci, Lot, 23 December, 1790; died in Paris, 4 March, 1832. While still young, he studied Hebrew, Syriac, Ethiopic and Arabic, to which he added later on, Persian, Sanskrit, and in particular Coptic. His special field of activity was Egyptology, and his great glory is to have recovered the key for the understanding of the hieroglyphs. In 1807 he read before the Academy of Grenoble an introduction to a complete description of Egypt under the Pharaohs. The publication of the main work was begun in 1814 under the title “L’Egypte sous les Pharaons”; only the first two volumes, bearing on geography, were issued. His efforts to decipher the hieroglyphics began in 1808. By means of the triple inscription of the Rosetta Stone, he succeeded in ascertaining several of the signs, and on 17 September, 1822, he read before the Academy of Inscriptions his now famous “Lettre a M. Dacier,” in which he gave the fruits of his researches. The mystery of the hieroglyphics had been solved. With the exception of a brief controversy with Dr.Young, relative to the priority of the discovery, his claims have never been disputed. In 1823 he outlined his system more thoroughly in a series of memoirs read in the Institute. These memoirs were put together and printed under the title “Precis du systeme hieroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens” (Paris, 1824, 2nd ed., 2 vols., 1828). In 1824 he was sent to Italy by the King of France on a scientific mission, and on his recommendation a rich collection of Egyptian antiquities was secured by the Musée du Louvre. It was during his sojourn in Italy that he catalogued the Egyptian monuments of Naples, Florence, and Rome. Appointed curator of the Egyytian Museum of the Louvre, he issued his “Notice descriptive des monuments égyptiens du musée Charles X” (Paris, 1827). He then received a commission to explore Egypt, in the company of Rosellini. The enthusiastic letters which he wrote were published day by day; after his death, they were reprinted in book form by his brother, in 1833, and again by his daughter in 1868. In 1830 he was named member of the Academy of Inscriptions and elected to the chair or Egyptian archaeology, founded for him at the College de France. Soon, however, he retired to Quercy, and devoted the last months of his life to the completion and revision of his Egyptian grammar and dictionary. He was a genius, but it is the testimony of all those who came in contact with him that the man was even better than the scholar.

Among his other works were “Deux lettres a M. Ie duc de Blacas d’Aulps, relatives au musée royal égyptien de Turin” (Paris, 1824–1826); “Catalogue des monuments égyptiens du musée du Vatican” (Rome, 1826), “Panthéon égyptien,” etc. (1823–1831), published in parts, the whole work was to have formed two volumes, but was not completed. His manuscripts were acquired by the French Government and published by his brother. Among these posthumous works, the most important are: “Monuments de l’ Egypte et de la Nubie d’apres les dessins exécutés sur les lieux,” etc., 4 vols. (Paris, 1835–1845); “Monuments de l’ Egypte et de la Nubie, notices descriptives” (Paris, 1844–1874); “Grammaire égyptienne,” 3 parts (Paris, 1836–1841); “Dictionnaire égyptien en écriture hieroglyphique,” in 4 parts (Paris, 1841–1844)

Loret in La Grande Encyclopedie, s.v.; Jolowick, Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca (2 vols, Leipzig, 1858- 1861); Steindorff in Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands (Philadelphia, 1903), 629 sqq.; Ibraham-Hilmy, The Literature of Egypt and the Sudan (London, 1886–88).

R. BUTIN

Etienne Agard de Champs

A distinguished theologian and author, born at Bourges, 2 September, 1613; died at Paris (according to De Backer, at La Fleche), 31 July, 1701. He entered the Jesuit noviciate in 1630, and later, in Paris, was professor of rhetoric, philosophy, and theology; he was rector at Rennes, thrice rector at Paris, head of the professed house, twice provincial of France, and once provincial of Lyons. Jansenism, the one topic of debate in the France of his day, is the theme of all his books. Writing under the name of Richard Antonius, he composed: “Defensio Censurae Sacrae Facultatis Parisiensis—seu Disputatio Theologica de libero arbitrio” (Paris, 1645). This solid treatise was well received, and went through five editions in two years. It called forth a reply from Vincent Lenis in his “Theriaca” (Paris, 1648), which occasioned the “Antonii Ricardi Theologi Responsio ad objectiones Vincentianas” (Paris, 1648). He defends the Sorbonne in his “De Haeresi Janseniana” (1654). Among his other works the best known is “Le secret du Jansenisme découvert et refute par un Docteur Catholique” (Paris, 1651).

LEO F. O’NEIL

Chanaan, Chanaanites

Chanaan, Chanaanites.—The Hebrew word, KNCV Kena’an, denoting a person, occurs: (I) in the Old Testament as the name of one of Cham’s sons; (2) in a lengthened form, Kena’anah (D. V., Chanana, Chanaana) as the name of two other people (I Par., vii, 10; II Par., xviii, 10); (3) denoting a country, as the name of the region of the Chanaanites, or descendants of Chanaan. In the days when the trading Phoenicians held a prominent place, especially among the Chanaanites, this word (Kena’ani), and even Chanaan (e.g. Is., xxiii, 8), got the signification of merchant, trader. As the name of the country it occurs under the forms Kinahhi, Kinahni, and Kinahna, as early as two centuries before Moses in the cuneiform letters of Syrian and Palestinian princes to Egyptian Pharaos, found at Tell el-Amarna; and earlier still in Egyptian inscriptions, in the form Ka-n-’-na. The Phoenician town of Laodicea calls itself on coins from the second century B.C. “a mother in Kena’an “. In Grecian literature, too, evidence remains that the Phoenicians called one of their ancestors, as well as their country, Chna and even at the time of St. Augustine the Punic country people near Hippo called themselves Chanani, i. e. Chanaanites. If the word be of Semitic origin, it should be derived from the root KNC Kana, and mean, originally, low; or, in a figurative sense, small, humble, despicable, subjected. Following this derivation in its original sense, “the land of Chanaan” has been explained by various scholars as “the low land”—whether the name may have originally denoted only the flat seashore, or the mountainous country of Western Palestine as well, in opposition to the still higher mountains of the Lebanon and the Hermon. But Biblical tradition rather seems to derive the name of the country from that of the person. It takes the “land of Canaan” as “the border of the Canaanites” (A. V., Gen., x, 19), i.e. of the race of Chanaan, Cham’s son, and it does not seem advisable to put against this so uncertain a conjecture as the etymology given above. The less so, as the figurative meaning of the word, as a synonym of slave or servant, fits in very well with the little we know of Noe’s grandson.

Chanaan, the Son of Cham.—In Gen., ix, 18 and 22, Cham appears as the father of Changan, and in Noe’s prediction (verses 25–27) Chanaan stands side by side with his “brothers” (in the larger sense of the Hebrew word) Sem and Japheth:

“He said: Cursed be Chanaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

“And he said: Blessed be the Lord God of Sem, be Chanaan his servant.

“May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Sem, and Chanaan be his servant.”

The curse called down on Chanaan is undoubtedly connected with the sin of his father, Cham (verse 22). But it is rather hard to indicate the precise nature of this connection. Had Chanaan in some way a share in his father’s sin, and is it for this reason that what was said in verse 18 is repeated in the story of the sin, viz.: that Cham was the father of Chanaan? Or is the latter struck by Noe’s prophetic curse for the sins of his posterity, who were to imitate Cham’s wickedness? Certain it is, that this curse, as well as the blessing invoked upon Sem and Japheth, was especially fulfilled in their posterity. The descendants of Chanaan were partly rooted out, partly subjected by the Israelites; and all the Chanaanite races, as such, disappeared from the scene of history. Others have tried to solve the problem by critical methods. It was supposed that Gen., ix, 20–27 was derived from a source in which Chanaan had taken the place of his father, Cham, and so was passed off as Noe’s third son. It is as conceivable that in the original prophecy the name of Cham occurred, and that the Israelites, seeing the prophecy fulfilled, especially in the posterity of Chanaan, might have changed it to that of the son. But none of these critical conjectures has any solid foundation.

Quite uncertain, too, is the opinion which represents Chanaan as the youngest of Cham’s four sons. It is based on Gen., x, 6: “And the sons of Cham: Chus, and Mesram and Phuth, and Chanaan.” But this whole list of the descendants of Noe’s sons is, at least in substance, ethnographical, and the order of succession geographical; hence an enumeration of tribes beginning with the most distant and ending in Palestine. In verses 16–20, therefore, there is question only of Chanaanite tribes, and they occupy the last place because they dwell in, or near, Palestine. Consequently it cannot be concluded from this that Chanaan was the youngest son of Cham.

The Land of Chanaan.—With a few exceptions the Biblical writers seem to indicate by this name, at the least, the whole of Western or cis-Jordanic Palestine. It extends from the desert of Sin in the south to near Rohob and the entrance to Emath in the north (Num., xiii, 3, 18; cf. 22). A more accurate demarcation of the land of Chanaan is in Num., xxxiv, 3–12, and Ezech., xlvii, 15–20. For though the name does not occur in Ezechiel, the identity of the boundary lines drawn there is not to be doubted. In either text the western boundary is formed by the Mediterranean, and the greater part of the eastern by the Dead Sea and the lower course of the Jordan.

The southern frontier coincides with that of the territory of Juda (Jos., xv, 1–4), whilst Cadesbarne (Ain Kedis), 30° 33’ N. lat., may be taken as the most southern point. From St. Jerome’s time (In Ezech., Migne, XXV, 476–478) the northern frontier was placed in Middle or even Northern Syria. From this passage of St. Jerome even a fons Daphnis (Daphne near Antioch) found its way into the Vulgate (Num., xxxiv, 11) instead of the town of Ain. But though some of the border towns are not yet known with absolute certainty, we may take for granted nowadays that this northern boundary-line of Chanaan must be drawn to the south of the Lebanon and Hermon, at about 33° 18’ N. lat.; and that it completely coincides with the northern frontier of the country conquered and inhabited by the Israelites, which, according to numerous quotations, stretched “from Dan to Bershabee” or “from the entering in of Emath unto the brook of Egypt.” The northern part of the eastern boundary, however, seems to follow, not the upper course of the Jordan, but the course of the Rukkad from Hasar-’Enan (El-Hadr) to ‘Ain (‘Ayun), so that here the whole of Western Jaulan still seems to be included in the land of Chanaan—not, however, the land of Galaad or the country in general beyond the Jordan to the south of the Jarmuk. All the places quoted above agree with. this conception, and only twice does the name of the country Chanaan occur in a more limited sense: first for the Phoenician coast (Is., xxiii, 11), and secondly for the low land of the Philistines (Soph., ii, 5)—both in a time when only these regions along the coast were still inhabited by Chanaanites. We have already seen how the name was honored even later still in Phoenicia itself. In Egypt the name of the country seems to be used especially for the sea-coast; at the same time the name Chanaanites is also applied to the inhabitants of the mountainous country behind it. In the Tell el-Amarna letters the country of Kinahhi seems to include both the Phoenician coast and the mountains of Upper Galilee, and probably, farther to the north, the country of Amurri (Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon). Cf. H. Clauss, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastinavereins (1907), XXX, 17, 29, 30, 35, 36, 64, 67.

Gen., x, 15–18 enumerates as the descendants of Chanaan a series of tribes, most of which, and originally perhaps all, were settled outside Palestine proper, and up to Northern Syria; “And Chanaan begot Sidon, his firstborn, the Hethite, and the Jebusite, and the Amorrhite, and the Gergesite, the Hevite and the Aracite: the Sinite, and the Aradian, the Samarite, and the Hamathite: and afterwards the families of the Chanaanites were spread abroad.” These latter are the tribes peopling Biblical Chanaan or Western Palestine: “And the limits of Chanaan were from Sidon as one comes to Gerara even Gaza, until thou enter Sodom and Gomorrha, and Adama, and Seboim even to Lesa.” If we may identify Lesa (A. V. Lasha) with Lesem (Jos., xix, 47) or Lais (Judges, xviii, 14, etc.), the Dan of later days, the coast from Sidon to Gaza and Gerara is here indicated as the western boundary of Chanaan, and the valley of the Jordan from the Pentapolis to Lais-Dan as the eastern boundary. But the “Codex Samaritanus” has in verse 19 quite another statement: “And the border of the Canaanite was from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, and [from the Euphrates] to the hindmost [or Western] Sea.” Apparently by “the Canaanite” are here meant all the descendants of Chanaan, mentioned in verses 15–18, of whom the Hethites, at least, lived close to the Euphrates. It is hard to decide which reading is the original one. Both show the descendants of Chanaan settled in the Biblical “land of Chanaan,” i.e. the later “land of Israel.” As a rule it is the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of this “land of Chanaan,” taken collectively, who are indicated by this common name of Chanaanites. Thus in the Pentateuch, especially in parts attributed to a Jahvistic source, as e.g. Gen., xii, 6, xxiv, 3, 37, xxxviii, 2, 1, 11. Elsewhere, however, chiefly in so-called Elohistic parts, the name of Amorrhites is used in the same general sense. And very often as many as six or seven, or even eleven, different tribes or peoples are distinguished, one of which in particular bears the name of Chanaanites. Thus e.g. Fxod., iii, 8: “The Chanaanite, and Hethite, and Amorrhite and Pherezite, and Hevite, and Jebusite.” Repeatedly (e.g. Jos., iii, 10), the Gergesites, mentioned above (Gen., x, 16), are added; and in Gen., xv, 19–21, we find “the Cineans and Cenezites, the Cedmonites . . . the Raphaim also”; whilst in Num., xiv, 25, the Amalecite; in A. V. Deut., ii, 23, and Jos., xiii, 3, the Avims; and in Jos., xi, 21 (and elsewhere), the Enacims are named, leaving out other older, and probably trans-Jordanic, tribes like the Zuzim, the Emim, and the Chorreans (Gen., xiv, 5,6).

Of most of these tribes little or nothing is known. For Amorrhites see article under that title. The Hethitec founded a mighty kingdom in Northern Syria, but it is uncertain whether their namesakes in the south of Palestine (Gen., xxiii, 3, xxvi, 34, etc.) had anything in common with them besides the name. About the Chanaanites in a more limited sense we learn that they had their dwelling-place to the east and west of the mountains, i.e. along the coast of the Mediterranean and in the valley of the Jordan and the Araba to the south of the Dead Sea (Num., xiii, 30, xiv, 25; Deut., i, 7, xi, 29 sq.; Jos., v, 1, xi, 3, xiii, 3). So it is by this name that the Phoenicians are still called in Abd., 20; and the “Syrophenician” woman of Mark, vii, 26, is a Chanaanitish woman in Matth., xv, 22. It is not likely that all the various pre-Israelitish tribes remained sharply distinguished from one another. “There are good reasons for believing that at a very early period the population of Palestine already presented a mixture of races; and that through intermarriage the dividing lines between these races became fainter in the course of time, until all sharp distinctions were obliterated. The problem of distinguishing between these various groups whom the Hebrews encountered upon settling in Palestine is at present incapable of solution.” (Morris Jastrow Jr., Encyclop. Bibl., I, 642.) Still it does not seem too great a venture to distinguish (with Hughes Vincent, “Canaan,” p. 455) two principal groups of tribes: the Amorrhites in the mountains and the Chanaanites along the sea-coast and in the valley of the Jordan, and perhaps in the plain of Esdrelon (Jos., xvii, 12–18). On the other hand, when the Israelites under Josue penetrated into Chanaan they found this mixed “Chanaanitish” or “Amorrhitish” population, not bound together politically under one government, but divided into more than thirty petty kingdoms (Jos., xii, 7–14), a state of things which must have made the conquest considerably easier for them. This same system of cutting up the country into small parts obtained two or three centuries earlier, in the time of the Tell el-Amarna letters, which were for the greater part written by, or to a number of these city-kings—and apparently even earlier still in the days of Abraham (Gen., xiv, 2, 8, 18, xx, 2). In this respect these letters contain a striking corroboration of the Biblical story. After the campaigns of Tothmes III in the sixteenth century B.C. all these small states acknowledged the supremacy of the Egyptian Pharaos and paid them tribute. After a time, however, this sovereignty must have gradually become more and more nominal, and in spite of the later campaigns of Seti I and Ramses II against the Hethites, it left no traces after the conquest by Josue.

The further particulars given by the Bible about the Chanaanites are rather scanty. We read occasionally of their cities “great and walled up to the sky” (Dent., i, 28; cf. Num., xiii, 29); of their “chariots of iron” (Jos., xvii, 16); and repeatedly of their gods Baal and Moloch and their goddesses Astarte and Ashera; of their altars and their stone pillars (masseboth) and wooden posts (asherim); in connection with these altars, of their sacrifices of children and manifold forms of moral perversity; the abominations on account of which “the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants” (kV., Lev., xviii, 25), and which, in spite of the severe prohibition of the Law and the admonitions of the Prophets, found but too much imitation in Israel itself. Most of these particulars have of late received a splendid corroboration and explanation in archaeological discoveries, principally in consequence of the systematic excavations conducted in Palestine by W. H. Flinders Petrie and F. J. Bliss at Tell el-Hesy; by Bliss and M. R. A. Stewart Macalister at Tell Zakariya, Tell es-Safy, and Tell Jedeide; by Macalister at Tell Jezer; by E. Sellin at Thenac; by G. Schumacher at Tell el-Mutesallim to all of which Sellin added in 1907 his labors at old Jericho.

Even before the tribes who are introduced to us as Chanaanites in the Bible penetrated into Palestine (between 3000 and 2500 B.C.) there must have lived for many centuries an older population, dwelling there partly in caves, but also possessing their primitive “towns” surrounded by earthen walls. This period is characterized especially by stone instruments and very primitive earthenware. The Chanaanitish tribes who gradually took their place came from the north and were for a long time, if not under the supremacy, without a doubt under the manifold influence of Babylon. In the fifteenth century B.C., when the country was already politically subject to Egypt, the kings of the Chanaanitish towns used in their correspondence, not only with the Pharaos but also between themselves, the Babylonian cuneiform characters, and—with the addition of a number of Chanaanitish words—the language of Babylon as well. Macalister (Pal. Expl. Fund Quart. Stat. 1905, 323 sq.) and, quite lately, Sellin (Mitth. and Nach. des Deutschen Palastinavereins, 1907, 70) found some scanty evidence that the Old Hebrew or Phoenician characters were also known in those days. Civilization, meanwhile, had made immense progress, as is evident from the use of bronze and other metals—soon, too, of iron; from the building of dwelling-places, city walls, towers, and strongholds; from the increasing number and value of objects of domestic and religious use; from the designs and fitting up of sanctuaries and burial caves; and from the richer variety of form, ornamentation, and painting in the products of the potter’s art—though art does not appear to have enjoyed a continuous and even development.

When the Israelites (Num., xiii, 29; Dent., i, 28) speak in awe of “great cities,” the hyperbole is nearly as great as in the expression “walled up to the sky”; those explored have covered, at most, seven or eight hectares (about 19 acres), but the fortifications have been excellent. The wall of Jericho, built of burnt bricks, had a width of from three to twelve metres, i.e. from about 9 to 39 feet (Sellin, op. cit., p. 69). If the ancient inhabitants offered their sacrifices in dish-like cups cut in the surface of the rocky ground, the Chanaanites had their open-air temples, or Bamoth (high places), with altar, sacrificial pit, and stone pillars from about seven to nine feet high. At Gazer eight pillars were found, still standing, the smallest of which (about 5 ¬Ω feet high) seems to be the oldest, and is perhaps the real emblem of the deity. Of the asherim, or wooden posts, only the stone bases seem to be left. Two large grottos situated under the sanctuary must also have played a part in this worship. But the most disgusting traces of this idolatry are the skeletons of infants—mostly new-born babes—sacrificed to the deity, which at Gazer were found buried in jars beneath the floor of the sanctuary, and elsewhere, especially at Mageddo, in its immediate neighborhood. Several times the remains of these human victims, among which have been adults, were found beneath or in the foundations of houses and other buildings; a striking illustration of the words of Jos., vi, 26: “Cursed be the man before the Lord that shall raise up and build the city of Jericho. In [or with] his firstborn may he lay the foundation thereof, and in [or with] the last of his children set up its gates.” The naturalistic character of this religion becomes especially evident in the numerous Astarte plaques, or statuettes, of divergent types, and likewise in the often occurring phallic emblems. Among these latter some class part of the baetylic stone pillars, and find in a few bulls’ heads representations of Baal or Moloch. Some representations of Babylonian deities also occur, and, still more frequently, images from Egyptian mythology. The Astarte plaques likewise show Egyptian inspiration. In short, the Chanaanitish civilization seems continually to have felt the influence of both these nations. In pottery, moreover, Aegean-Phoenician art produced marked results from the beginning of the fourteenth century B.C. On the other hand, the settlement of the Israelites in Chanaan, judging from the explorations made, opened no new period in so far as archaeology is concerned, so that the “Chanaanitish” period (i.e. the various “Semitic” periods of Macalister, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statements, 1907, p. 203) has been extended to about the ninth or eighth century B.C.

Indeed, the submission of the Chanaanites was not made effectual nearly so soon as some chapters of the Book of Josue might lead us to expect. Particularly the places that have become best known to us through the excavations, Thenac, Mageddo, and Gazer, are among those that submitted to Israel only after a lapse of time (Jos., xvii, 11–13; Judges, i, 27–29). Gazer even in the days of Solomon was still inhabited by Chanaanites (III K., ix, 16). And in the same context (verses 20–21) we learn that Solomon, through forced statute labor, subjugated “unto this day” the whole of the Chanaanitish population of his realm. Thus Chanaan had become once and for all the servant of Sem. Afterwards Phoenicia with its colonies was subjugated by the Romans, sons of Japheth, and soon vanished altogether from the roll of nations.

JOHN P. VAN KASTEREN.

Diego Alvarez Chanca

A physician-in-ordinary to Ferdinand and Isabella of Castile and Aragon; dates of birth and death uncertain. Owing to his professional skill and learning, he was appointed by the Crown to accompany the second expedition of Christopher Columbus to America in 1493. Shortly after landing on the shores of the Island of Haiti, Dr. Chanca proved his skill as a physician by successfully treating Columbus for an attack of pernicious malarial fever, and saving the lives of other prominent members of the expedition who were attacked by disease. On a site selected by Chanca, whose professional advice had been sought, was established the first Christian settlement in the New World, to which Columbus gave the name of Isabella in honour of his illustrious patroness. In this locality Chanca wrote his letter to the muncipal council of his native city, which was the first document describing the flora, the fauna, the ethnology, and the ethnography of America. A remarkable circumstance in connection with this letter is the fact that everything therein contained was the result of only three months of observation and study. Upon his return to Spain, Chanca published in 1506 a medical treatise entitled “Para curar el mal de Costado” (The Trentment of Pleurisy), and in 1514, he published a work in Latin criticizing a book entitled “De conservanda juventute et retardanda senectute,” the work of Amaldo de Villanova, a brother-phycician. Chanca’s work was published under the title “Commentum novum in Parabolas divi Arnaldi de Villanova.”

VENTURA FUENTES

Chancel

The chancel is part of the choir near the altar of a church, where the deacons or sub-deacons stand to assist the officiating priest. It was originally railed off by cancelli or lattice work, from which the name is derived. The term is now generally confined to parish churches, and such as have no aisles or chapels round the choir. In some churches, in addition to the principal chancel, there are others at the ends of the side-aisles. The Latin word cancellus was commonly used for the low screen which marked the separation of the presbyterium and choir from the rest of the church. In a later time the name chancel came to be applied to the presbyterium itself. Very few chancels, however, of the early period have been preserved in place. A clear idea of the normal arrangement can be had in St. Clement’s at Rome, where the sixth-century screens of the choir and presbyterium were simply removed from the lower church and set up in the twelfth-century church above. In St. Clement’s the chancel screen of the presbyterium coincided with the chord of the apse, and the altar also stood upon this line; the approaches had therefore to be constructed on either side of the altar. The chancels of the presbyterium are surmounted by a light colonnade for the support of curtains. The term was used in England before the Reformation, and the Anglicans still retain it. Among English Catholics it is now little used, that portion of the church near the altar, separated by rails from the nave, being designated the sanctuary. In cathedrals and conventual churches, where space is required to accomodate the canons or the religious, a portion of the church between the sanctuary and the nave is taken for the purpose; it is not, however, called the chancel, but the choir.

BOND, Gothic Architecture in England (London, 1906); FLETCHER, A History of Architecture (London, 1903); ATKINSON, Glossary of English Architecture (London, 1906).

THOMAS H. POOLE.

Bl. Pierre-Louis-Marie Chanel

Duplicate of “Bl. Pierre-Louis-Marie Chanel (1),” in Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. . Peter Chanel, the proto-martyr of the Society of Mary, and of Oceania, was canonized in 1954 by Pope Pius XII.

Bl. Pierre-Louis-Marie ChanelJoseph Fréri

Born at Cuet, Diocese of Belley, France, 1802; died at Futuna, 28 April, 1841. He was ordained priest in 1827, and engaged in the parochial ministry for a few years; but the reading of letters of missionaries in far-away lands inflamed his heart with zeal, and he resolved to devote his life to the Apostolate. In 1831 he joined the Society of Mary, and in 1836 he embarked for Oceania. He was assigned by his bishop to the Island of Futuna, and landed in Nov., 1837. No Christian missionary had ever set foot there, and the difficulties Peter encountered amidst those savage tribes were almost incredible. Nevertheless, he was beginning to see the results of his efforts, when Niuluki, king and also pontiff of the island, already jealous of the progress of the new religion, was exasperated by the conversion of his son and daughter. At his instigation, one of the ministers gathered some of the enemies of Christianity and Peter was cruelly assassinated without uttering a word of complaint. Through his death, the venerable martyr obtained what he had so ardently desired and earnestly worked for, the conversion of Futuna. In 1842, two Marist missionaries resumed his work, and nowhere has the preaching of the Gospel produced more wonderful results. Peter was declared Venerable by Pius IX in 1857, and beatified by Leo XIII on 17 November, 1889.

BOURDIN, Vie du Ven. Serviteur de Dieu Pierre-Marie-Louis Chanel (Lyons, 1867); NICOLET, Life of Blessed P. M. L. Chanel (Dublin, 1890); Quelques guerisons et graces signalees obtenues par l’intercession du Bienheureux P. M. L. Chanel (Lyons, 1891); HERVIER, Les Missions Maristes en Oceanie (Paris, 1902); Life of the Ven. Fr. Colin, Founder and First Superior General of the Society of Mary (St. Louis, 1909).

JOSEPH FRERI

Vicariate Apostolic of Changanacherry

VICARIATE APOSTOLIC OF CHANGANACHERRY (CHANGANACHERENSIS)

Located in Travancore, British India; created 28 July, 1896. Its first actual vicar Apostolic, Mathew Makil, titular Bishop of Tralles, was consecrated 25 Oct., 1896. This vicariate was established to meet the needs of Native Indian Christians of the Syro-Malabar Rite. It includes five deaneries of Nordist Syrians (descendants of native Malabar castes) and two Sudists (descendants of fourth century immigrant Syrians), a social distinction originating long ago in their residence at Cranganore. Its territory extends south as far as Purakad, and is bounded on the north by Vicariate of Ernakulam, on the east by the Ghats, and on the west by the Gulf of Arabia. The Catholic population numbers 140,172 in a total of 900,000. There are 95 churches and 57 chapels; the native clergy number 283 (253 secular, 30 regular); besides these there are 20 brothers. There are four Carmelite monasteries. The convents of religious women have 70 members (35 Carmelites, 20 Visitation nuns, and 15 Clarisses). The annual conversions reach about 1000. There are 75 theological seminarists with 20 pupils in preparatory work. In 3 English (boarding) high schools there are 650 boys, and in 4 middle schools 360 girls. In 418 native parish schools there are 14,328 pupils. The Catholic press is represented by one native Malayalam weekly paper and 2 monthly periodicals. The Jacobite Syrians and the Protestants number 13,000; the pagan population about 600,000.

Missiones Catholicæ (Rome, 1907), 824–25; Illustrated Catholic Missions (London, March, June, 1903); La Ver aroma (30 May, 1903); Messenger of the Sacred Heart (April, 1897); Census of India (1901), XXVII, Travancore, part I, 109–110, and Cochin, part I, 44–45, 60.

MATHEW VATTAKALAN

Claude Chantelou

Patristic scholar, born in 1617, at Vion, in the present Diocese of Le Mans, France; died 28 November, 1664, at the Monastery of Saint-Germain-des-Prés in Paris. Having spent some time in the Order of Fontevrault, he left it to become a Benedictine in the Congregation of Saint-Maur, in which he made his profession, 7 February, 1640, at Toulouse. When the General Chapter of 1651 ordained that two religious be entrusted with the preparation of a history of the congregation, Chantelou was one of the appointees, and from that time until his death resided at Saint-Germain-des-Prés. He is the author of the following works: “Bibliotheca Patrum ascetica” (Paris, 1661–64), a collection of extracts from the writings of the Fathers regarding the spiritual life; “S. Benedicti abbatis Clarevallensis Paræneticon” (Paris, 1662), an edition of sermons of St. Bernard preceded by a life of the saint written by Alain, Bishop of Auxerre (a life of St. Malachy, Archbishop of Armagh, concludes the work); “S. Basilii Cæsareæ Cappadociæ archiepiscopi regularum fusius disputatarum liber” (Paris, 1664), answers of St. Basil to questions proposed by his monks respecting the monastic life; “Carte géographique de la France bénédictine,” published by Le Chevalier in 1726. Marin de Caraurais edited and completed Chantelou’s manuscript, “History of the Abbey of Montmajour,” near Arles (Marseilles, 1878). Nobilleau published his “Analyses du cartulaire tourangeau de Marmoutier” (Tours, 1879). Chantelou was also a collaborator in the publication of important Benedictine historical collections, e. g. the “Spicilegium” of D’Achéry.

LE CERF, Bibliothèque hist. et crit. des auteurs de la congrégation de St-Maur (The Hague, 1726). 58–60; LAMA, Biblioth. des écrivains de la congrégation de St-Maur (Munich and Paris, 1882), 43; HEURTEBIZE in Dict. de théol. cath. (Paris, 1905), II, 2215.

N. A. WEBER

Chantry

(M.E. chaunterie; O. Fr. chanterie, Fr. chanter, to sing; M. Lat. cantaria, cantuaria whence cantarie, cantuarie).

The endowment of one or more priests to say or sing Mass for the soul of the endower, or for the souls of persons named by him, and also, in the greater number of cases, to perform certain other offices, such as those of choir member in a collegiate church or cathedral, or of curate in outlying districts, or of chaplain in hospitals and jails, or of schoolmaster or librarian. It was thus essentially, though not solely, a liturgical institution requiring as a sine qua non of its existence a place where the incumbent might say Mass. As a rule this was provided for by screening off a space between the great pillars of the nave or transept of some parish church or cathedral, and erecting an altar there. but frequently an addition was made to and opening into the choir, or a detached building was erected for the purpose. These detached chantry chapels, built in a churchyard, or in an outlying district, or at the entrance to bridges, often consisted of two stories, the lower one being devoted to the strictly religious uses of the foundation, while the incumbent used the upper one as his home or as a schoolroom. To erect a chantry the consent of the ordinary, which was given only when it was found that a fund sufficiently large for its building and maintenance had been set aside, had to be obtained; then the permission of the Crown to alienate lands in mortmain had to be secured; and then, to provide against the violation of the rights of the mother-church, the priest in whose parish the chantry was to be erected had to be consulted; finally, to give it a legal character, it had to be instituted by the civil authorities of the locality. In the erection of some chantries, beyond giving his permission, the bishop played no part. The donor or his trustees, retained the funds as well as the right of appointing and removing the incumbent. Chantries of this kind were called “mercenary,” and were erected usually only for a definite period of time. Two other forms, called “collative” and “in private patronage,” were ecclesiastical; the only difference between them being that in the latter the donor or his trustees named the incumbent, whereas in the former the bishop alone had the right.

Traces of the chantry system are to be found in England as far back as the Conquest, but these foundations were not numerous until the middle of the fourteenth century. After that time, however, owing largely, no doubt, to the tremendous revolution effected by the great pestilences, and the subsequent growth in wealth and influence of the middle classes, their number constantly increased until, at the time of their suppression, there were, according to Heylin, 2374 of them. The work of suppressing and despoiling the chantries, begun by Henry VIII, was taken up and completed by his successor, Edward VI, in 1547. They yielded to the harpies that swarmed about his court 180,000 pounds. But the spirit which gave them birth could not be destroyed, and we see it manifesting itself in our own time in the erection of the Vaughn Chantry in the new cathedral of Westminster. Among the many evils attendant upon the suppression of the chantry the most grievous, perhaps, was the effect upon education. For the chantries were the grammar schools of the period—the incumbent “teaching gratis the poor who asked it humbly for the love of God.” Just how many of them had taken on this character of grammar school it is difficult to say. But that it was very large is seen from the fact that in 1562, nine years after Edward, the long-heralded “Father” of grammar schools, was dead, we find Williams, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in an address to the queen, referring to “the want of schools; that at least a hundred were wanting in England which before that time had been”—an allusion which we may safely assume had reference to the chantry schools. And Leach, who does not hesitate to call Edward “the Spoiler,” instead of “the Father” of schools, says that between 1547 and 1645 no grammar school was founded in England which had not already existed as a chantry. (See SCHOOLS.)

SHARPE, “Calendar of Wills Proved and Enrolled in the Court of Husting, London, 1258–1688, ed. PAGE (2 vols., London 1889–1890); “Yorkshire Chantry Surveys, Being the Certificates of the Commissioners Appointed to Survey the Chantries, Guilds, Hospitals, etc., in the County of York, ed. RAINES (2 vols., Surtees Society, London, 1898); A History of the Chantries within the County Palatine of Lancaster, Being the Reports of the Royal Commissioners of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Queen Mary”; LEACH ed., “Early Yorkshire Schools, York, Beverly, Ripon (Yorkshire Archeological Society), I, in Record Series (London, 1899), XXVII; STOW, “A Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster and of the Borough of Southwark (2 vols., London, 1754–5); MOYES in “Academy,” XXXVII, 223; Leach in “Contemporary Review” (1892); MILBURN in “Dublin Review” (April, 1899); JESSOP in “Nineteenth Century” (March, 1898); MOYES in “Dublin Review” (January and April, 1899); “Saturday Review,” LIX, 344; HOLLAND in “Catholic University Bulletin” (Jan., 1903).

CORNELIUS HOLLAND.

Jean Chapeauville

A Belgian theologian and historian, b. at Liège, 5 January, 1551; d. there 11 May 1617. He made his philosophical studies at the Universities of Cologne and Louvain, and at the latter received the degree of Licentiate of Theology. He then entered the priesthood, and in 1578 was appointed one of the synodal examiners for the Diocese of Liège, and in 1579 parish priest of St. Michael’s in the same city. He performed the functions of the latter office for about ten years. Having been a canon of the collegiate church of St. Peter’s in Liège since 1582, he was elevated in 1599 to the dignity of a provost of the same church. In 1587, Pope Sixtus V appointed him the first penitentiary canon of St. Lambert’s Cathedral. On 12 June, 1600, he was promoted to the archdeaconship of Famenne. Meanwhile, in 1582, he had been nominated Inquisitor of the Faith, and in 1598, Ernest of Bavaria, Bishop of Liège, appointed him vicar-general, in which office he was retained, despite his protests, by Bishop Ernest’s successor, Ferdinand of Bavaria. Chapeauville was distinguished for his great charity in attending the sick, especially during the pestilence that visited Liège in 1581, and for his exemplary piety and his zeal for the progress of sacred studies. He taught theology with great success in several monasteries of Liège and published works on theological subjects. He endeavoured to enforce in the diocese the reforms decided upon by the Council of Trent, particularly the establishment of a clerical seminary and the concursus for the nomination of parish priests. He also published a valuable collection of the chief works on the history of the bishops of Liège, and even wrote an account of the episcopate of Liège, commencing with Erard de la Marck (1506) and ending with the year 1613. His principal works are: “Tractatus de necessitate et modo administrandi sacramenta tempore pestis” (Liège, 1586); “Petit traite des vices et des vertus” (Liège, 1594); “Abbrege de la somme des péchez M. J. Benedicti” (Liège, 1595); “De casibus reservatis tractatus” (Liège, 1596); “Catechismi Romani elucidatio scholastica” (Liège, 1600); “Historia admirandarum curationum quae divinitus ope deprecationeque divi Perpetui Leodiensis episcopi contigerunt. Adjecta est vita B. Perpetui” (Liège, 1601; Fr. tr., 1601); “Summa catechismi Romani” (Liège, 1605); “Epistola ad catechistas de taedio quod catechistis obrepere solet” (Liège, 1605); “Catechista, sive brevis tractatus de necessitate et modo administrandi doctrinam christianam” (Liège, 1608); “Qui gesta pontificum tungrensium, trajectensium et leodiensium scripserunt auctores praecipui” (3 vols., Liège, 1612, 1613, 1616).

A. VAN HOVE

Chapel

(Lat. capella; Fr. chapelle).

When St. Martin divided his military cloak (cappa) and gave half to the beggar at the gate of Amiens, he wrapped the other half round his shoulders, thus making of it a cape (capella). This cape, or its representative, was afterwards preserved as a relic and accompanied the Frankish kings in their wars, and the tent which sheltered it became known also as cappella or capella. In this tent Mass was celebrated by the military chaplains (capellani). When at rest in the palace the relic likewise gave its name to the oratory where it was kept, and subsequently any oratory where Mass and Divine service were celebrated was called capella, chapelle, chapel. The word is first found used in this sense by Marculfus (seventh century), who gives the above etymology, an explanation which has been generally accepted ever since, though Durandus ventures upon an alternative derivation, to wit, capra, because the tent above mentioned was made of goat-skins. Another, but improbable, derivation is cupella, a domical or cup-shaped monument (see CUPOLA). The canopy over an altar was also at one time called a capella. In ecclesiastical documents the main sanctuary of a church is often termed the capella major, to distinguish it from the side-altars (cf. St. Charles Borromeo’s “Instructions”). In Spain the sanctuary containing the high altar is to this day called the capilla mayor. The thing is, however, much more ancient than the name, and Thomassin quotes numerous early references to oratoria, sacella, and eukteria. In dealing with the subject a large number of different kinds of chapels are to be considered, which vary according to their connexion with, or dependence upon, other buildings, or to the specific uses to which they were put. Thus we have chapels which structurally form part of a larger church, those which are included within other buildings not churches, and those which are entirely separate and detached. We have also papal, royal, episcopal, votive, wayside and mortuary chapels. It seems best for the purposes of this article, first to trace the origin and development of chapels in general, and then to deal with the different kinds, according to their special uses, and under their respective titles, in alphabetical order.

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

The earliest places of Christian worship may be called chapels, inasmuch as they were informal churches, i. e. a chamber in a house, or the atrium and tablinum of the house adapted for the purpose; but the earliest oratories or chapels, as distinct from the buildings where the bishop and presbytery presided over the regular assemblies of Christians, were probably martyrs’ memorials. Thus, the Council of Gangra (350) censures desecrators of the sepulchra martyrum and of the synaxes, sacrifices, and memorials celebrated therein. The Fifth Council of Carthage (400) orders the bishops to raze all unauthorized altars and martyrs’ monuments erected in the open fields or at the roadside unless authenticated. The first instance on record of a private chapel is that of Constantine (the prototype of the chapel royal, and of the saintes chapelles of France, viz.: at Paris, Vincennes, and St-Germain-en-Laye); the emperor had a chapel in his palace at Constantinople, and carried with him in his wars and progresses a facsimile of it in the shape of a portable tent (Socrates, Hist. eccl., I, xiv). Another early example of a chapel within another building is the small one now known as the Sancta Sanctorum, in the still remaining fragment of the ancient Lateran palace. It was the private chapel of the popes and existed as early as 583, when Pelagius II placed certain relics in it (Manuscripts Bibl. Vat., in Baronius). The private chapel also of the archbishops of Ravenna, in their palace there, is still to be seen; it was built, or at least decorated, by Archbishop Peter Chrysologus about 430. Instances are extant of the original meeting-places of Christians being preserved under the level of the subsequent church, the soil having risen in the course of ages. Thus, under the lower church of San Clemente at Rome is a chamber, at present inaccessible, that may have have been part of the house of Clemens. Under the existing church of St-Gervais at Rouen is a third or early fourth-century chamber which is now a crypt. Under the high altar of Chartres cathedral is the chapel of St-Lubin, bounded on the west by a piece of the Gallo-Roman wall of the fortress of the Carnutenses, and here, it is believed, the first Christians of Chartres, who were allowed to erect a chapel against the wall itself, worshipped. Other examples occur at Sens (St-Savinien), Créteil, Etampes (Notre-Dame), Hexham and Ripon.

The spread of Christianity from the cities into the country must have early occasioned the erection of oratories and chapels for the use of believers living at a distance from the bishop’s church. St. Chrysostom (Hom. xviii in Act.) exhorts nobles and rich men to build chapels in their country homes and to employ priests, deacons, and other clerks to offer there, on Sundays, the Unbloody Sacrifice, on weekdays, to celebrate the morning and evening Offices, and to bless the table, and teach the children and servants on the estate. The prohibition by the Council of Laodicea (c. 350) of the celebration of the liturgy in private houses is considered by Thomassin to refer only to the cities where regular churches already existed. This freedom in the erection of chapels had soon to be restricted. There being as yet no parochial system, as now understood, it became necessary to safeguard the jurisdiction of the city-bishop throughout the circumscription of influence and activity recognized as belonging to the cathedral or mother-church. Justinian (Novel. lviii) made private oratories illegal, save for simple prayer; if such chapels were separate from the dwelling, the bishop might permit service to be held there, but clerks were not to be ordained to these as “titles.” Apparently this edict was ignored, for the Quinisext Council of Constantinople (692) decrees that clerks who in oratories within houses celebrate Mass or baptize must submit to the judgment of the bishop in each case (can. xxxi). The fifty-ninth canon of the same council positively forbids baptism in such chapels. Ordination, since the close of the age of persecutions, has never been given without a “title” or definite sphere of work and corresponding maintenance having been first secured to the ordained. In the Council of Chalcedon were read Acts of the Constantinopolitan Council under Flavian, mentioning priests attached to martyria or suburban churches at Constantinople, and the sixth canon forbade the ordination of any save to some title, these martyria being in the list of those recognized. In the West the same enactment was repeated by the seventh canon of the Fourth Council of Aries (524).

The royal example was soon followed by the nobles, over whose chapels the bishops were constantly asserting and enforcing their jurisdiction and safeguarding the interests of the parochia or mother-church. The Council of Agde (506) conceded to the nobles that the Mysteries might be celebrated in their oratories, except on the principal feasts, on which days they and their households must attend the parish church (cf. below, the present legislation); otherwise the offerings of the faithful on those days would have been made in the chapel, to the detriment of the mother-church and parochial clergy. Charlemagne, as head of the revived Empire of the West, followed his imperial predecessors in legislating for the Church, or rather in giving imperial sanction to needful reforms in the Church. “It hath pleased us,” he says in his Capitularies (V, clxxxii), “that neither in our palace nor elsewhere shall a chapel be set up without permission of the bishop in whose diocese (parochia) it is”; and (V, ccxxx), “Those who have oratories in their houses may pray there, but may not have Masses celebrated without permission of the bishop.” And Thomassin quotes, as proceeding from a Gallican council of this time, a canon to the effect that on Sundays and feasts all shall come to the church and none shall invite priests to celebrate Mass in their houses. In course of time many chapels, both those set up by nobles, and those furnished by the ecclesiastical authority, became regular parish churches. In England particularly many foundations, now parochial, were originally manorial chapels, and on the other hand the parish church was often founded independently of the manor-house, as at Deerhurst, on the Severn, where exist side by side and of the same date, both the manorial chapel and the Saxon parish church. Some of these manorial chapels, while still remaining private property, with chaplains appointed and maintained by the lay proprietor, were given semi-parochial privileges and came to be looked upon as chapels-of-ease to the parish church, A notable example of a noble man’s chapel becoming a cathedral is found at Moulins-sur-Allier, where the ancient chapel of the Dukes of Bourbon now forms the choir of the cathedral, the nave having been added by Viollet-le-Duc. Other buildings such as court-houses, hospitals, and of course all religious houses and their granges, had chapels attached to them in medieval times; but, from the very first, except in the case of exempt monasteries and their dependencies, the appointment of priests to serve such chapels was always subject to the control of the bishop, which remains the law of the Church to this day.

KINDS OF CHAPELS

CHAPELS WITHIN A LARGER CHURCH

Under this head must be included Lady chapels, side-chapels, ante-chapels, etc., attached to, or under the roof of a larger church. Chantry chapels will be treated in a separate section. The earliest form, perhaps, of the subsidiary chapel within a larger church, is to be seen in the parallel apses which in some ancient churches flank the great apse or main sanctuary. These originated in the East, where, however, they served as sacristies or the like. The Oriental Rites, unlike the Roman, have always had a preliminary offertory or prothesis at which the oblations are handled before Mass. This ceremony, at first performed at the altar itself, was in some rites (notably the Byzantine) elaborated into a preliminary offering at a subsidiary altar or “table of prothesis,” the prepared oblations being solemnly conveyed to the main altar in the course of the actual liturgy. The northern apse or chapel became the place of prothesis, and the other remained a sacristy or diaconicon. Although the architectural feature of parallel apses was early introduced into the West, they had no effect upon the rite in places where the Roman Liturgy was in use, but remained at first mere sacristies. In France and Spain, where the Gallican Rite prevailed, they would doubtless be used in the Oriental way. Paulinus of Nola, in the fifth century (Ep., xxxii), speaks of two chambers, possibly apses, flanking the altar of his church whereof the right-hand one was a sacristy and the other a library or place of retirement for prayer. In the ninth century the Roman church of Santa Maria in Cosmedin was altered for the use of the Orientals by the addition of side apses, and the well-known basilica of Torcello was similarly furnished at about the same time. If the word chapel includes places set apart for prayer as well as those for the celebration of the liturgy, these examples must be considered as rightly coming under this division of the subject. The same must be said also of the apartments opening out from the naves of the churches of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme and Santa Balbina, both at Rome and dating probably from the fifth century. Similar chapels existed in the ninth-century churches of Santa Christina at Pola de Lena and Santa Maria de Naranco, both near Oviedo in Spain. All these examples and many others that might be enumerated differed only from the side-chapels of later ages in having no altars. The ancient discipline of “one altar in one church” has always been preserved in the East, at least in theory, though an exception to its corollary “one Mass at one altar” must be made in the case of Jerusalem, where in the fourth-century Mass was offered twice on the Calvary altar on Maundy Thursday, and twice in the Anastasis on Easter Day. The Gallican Rite required this latter restriction; thus, in a synod of Auxerre, it is decreed that two Masses must not be said at one altar on the same day, and, moreover, that no presbyter may celebrate at an altar which had that day been used by the bishop. Also, for many centuries, the Ambrosian Rite preserved the same theory and it was for one altar only that Milan cathedral was designed. But when the members of the priesthood, instead of concelebrating with the bishop in the basilica, began each to say his own Mass, a plurality of altars became a necessity if the ancient rule of “one Mass at one altar” was to be kept. In the East, where the matter was not of great urgency, as individual Masses remained the exception, the subsidiary altar, if required, was enclosed in a chapel forming a complete though miniature church. The Blanskenoy church in Moscow, which contains eight complete and enclosed chapels grouped round a central one, is probably an extreme example. In churches subject to Celtic rule a group of separate chapels was sometimes formed, e. g. the Seven Churches at Glendalough, Ireland, the Ten Churches of Twineham, in England (remaining as late as the eleventh century), and the marvellous group of sanctuaries at Rocamadour, in France, a famous place of pilgrimage in the Middle Ages and probably an isolated survival of the Celtic plan. In churches of the Roman Rite altars were simply set up in any convenient part of the church, although, in the Middle Ages, they were partly screened off. An extreme example of this may be seen in the well-known plan, never carried out, for the abbey church of St. Gall (ninth century), which is so filled up with enclosed altars that congregational worship would have been impossible. In existing churches the parallel apses at once suggested a pair of chapels, and those which lacked this feature were sometimes altered accordingly. In others, smaller apses were often built out from the main apse; the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem seems to have been thus treated in the tenth century, if not earlier, and other chapels were added to the original plan. The sanctuary or “station” on the site of the Crucifixion, which stood between the Holy Sepulchre and the basilica of the Holy Cross, may be taken as an early example of a chapel within a church, for although it was originally in the open air and not included under the roof of the church, as at present, it was used daily in the fourth century after the morning and evening Offices in the Sepulchre church (Anastasis) and had an altar on which the Holy Oblation was offered on Maundy Thursday and the True Cross exhibited on Good Friday (Peregrinatio ad Loca Sancta, ed. Gamurrini, Rome, 1888).

As access to the chapels radiating from the main apse was inconvenient, later builders devised the ambulatory, or passage behind the apse proper and connecting all the apsidal chapels with the “procession path.” This was an important innovation destined to revolutionize the plan of most large churches; it issued at length in the chevet, or crown of chapels, a design which found favour in most European countries, but was nowhere carried to the height of beauty and elaboration that it realized in France. The basilica of St-Martin at Tours is considered to have been the common source from which most examples of this idea were copied, none of them being older than about 900. They were comparatively rare in England, owing to the prevalent square east-end, but there are beautiful examples, as at Westminster, Norwich, and Peterborough. The transept, eastern or western, also invited the formation of chapels, and this position is almost universal in the great Norman cross-churches. It was used in preference to the chevet plan in England, where the transept was a more frequent and more developed feature than elsewhere; for while in continental churches the need for increased chapel space was supplied by utilizing the intervals between buttresses (first at Notre-Dame, Paris, in 1290), the English preferred to form extra chapels along the east wall of the transept, and even to lengthen or rebuild the transept for that purpose, their buttresses being as a rule too shallow to afford the space required. At Gloucester there are three stories of chapels, one above the other, the crypt and the triforium containing altars exactly corresponding with those of the ground level. Where the buttresses were interior, as at Albi, the church was from the outset provided with a series of chapels, sometimes in two stories, along its whole perimeter.

The dedication of the chevet chapels to important saints led naturally to the easternmost being assigned to Our Lady. In France this chapel is frequently somewhat larger than the rest, as at Bayeux, Reims, Séez, and Troyes; much larger at Amiens and Le Mans; and very much larger at Rouen (both in the cathedral and in the abbey church of St. Ouen) and Coutances. The number of the chevet chapels varies from three at St-Etienne of Nevers to the magnificent sweep of thirteen which are the glory of Le Mans. Langres is singular, for so large a church, in having but one such chapel, and Sens seems to have had originally one circular chapel at the east end, like “Becket’s Crown” at Canterbury. It was in the Lady chapel towards the close of the Middle Ages, that innovations in church music were allowed, only the strict chant being heard in the choir. At Gloucester the Lady chapel is furnished with two galleries (with chantry chapels below) for the singing of “pricksong”; each is provided with a broad stone desk for the necessary books, thus differing from the choir where such accommodation was unusual and unnecessary, but few books being used there except on the lectern.

Reference may here be made to Galilees and ante-chapels, which sometimes contained altars and were used for liturgical purposes. They usually take the form of an enlarged western entrance or narthex. Those of St-Front (Périgueux), Romain-Moutier, and Jumièges are early examples, while those at Vézelay and Cluny are conspicuous for their size. The finest example in England is that at Durham (really the Lady chapel), and there is a smaller one at Ely. At Lincoln there is a Galilee on the western side of the south transept. Two parochial Galilees exist in Norwich, at St. Peter Mancroft and St. John Maddermarket, both being the ground story of the western tower. In most of the medieval college chapels of Oxford and Cambridge, what is usually called the ante-chapel is really only the space outside the entrance to the choir, occupied nowadays at service time by those who are not members of the college. Baptisteries were often built in the form of chapels, and either contained altars or had chapels with altars opening out of them, as in the Lateran basilica (fourth century).

AMBASSADORS’ CHAPELS

The use of a private chapel for the ambassadors of a Catholic country at a Protestant Court, and vice versa, has frequently been allowed as a matter of courtesy, though not of strict right according to international law. In England, even at a time when the exercise of the Catholic religion was proscribed by the penal laws, Catholic ambassadors were permitted to have such chapels attached to their embassies. The Sardinian, Neapolitan, Venetian, Bavarian, Portuguese, and Spanish ambassadors were thus favoured, all having their private chapels in London. The Sardinian (erected 1648), Bavarian (1747), and Spanish (1742) chapels were even opened to the public and became eventually ordinary parochial churches. The two former still exist, while the latter was replaced (1890) by a handsome church.

BISHOPS’ CHAPELS

The bishop’s chapel was, at first, nothing less than the basilica or cathedral where he was accustomed to preside with his presbytery, but the feudalization of the bishop and the installation in cathedrals of choirs of monks or canons, under an ordinary superior of their own, made it necessary that the bishop should possess a separate private chapel. Of these episcopal chapels there remain many beautiful examples, of which that at Reims is one of the finest. Another deserving of mention is that which was formerly attached to the London residence of the bishops of Ely, dedicated to St. Etheldreda. It was built in 1290; though dismantled at the Reformation, it was for a short period during the Stuart times refitted and lent for the use of the Spanish ambassador. Afterwards it passed into the hands of a Welsh Protestant congregation, from whom it was bought by the Fathers of Charity in 1876, and reopened by them for Catholic worship. In the Middle Ages the chapel, whether of the bishop or of the noble, often signified his whole maison ecclésiastique (see section, Papal Chapel), i. e. his chaplains, clerks, choristers and the ecclesiastical furniture, which accompanied him from place to place. All bishops have the right to a private chapel in their houses, and they retain this right even when travelling.

CEMETERY OR MORTUARY CHAPELS

These are of very early origin, whether special, as at the burial-place of a martyr, or general, as in the common resting-places of the faithful. The Roman catacombs furnish many examples of both kinds. After the days of persecution, Christians were able to worship at the resting-places of the dead without secrecy or fear of profanation, and thus the cemetery and mortuary chapels of the Middle Ages arose. Two of the most curious are: that at Sarlat, in the Dordogne, which is a conical structure some forty feet high, containing a circular mortuary chapel on the ground-floor and towards the top a pharos or lantern, and that at Avioth (Meuse), containing an open sanctuary supported by columns and a glazed lantern above. The former is of the twelfth and the latter of the fifteenth century. Magnificent chapels were often built to serve as the burial-places of kings and other great men. Becket’s Crown, at Canterbury, and Henry the Seventh’s chapel at Westminster, are examples, as also is the circular chapel containing the tomb of King Emmanuel of Portugal, in the Abbey of Batalha. The most famous of all, perhaps, is the Cathedral of Aachen, which enshrines the tomb of Charlemagne.

CHANTRY CHAPELS

These differ from other interior chapels only in being erected and endowed for the celebration of Masses of requiem, in perpetuity, for some individual soul, generally that of the founder himself. Special priests were usually appointed to serve them, and were called “chantry priests.” It was not until the thirteenth century that such chapels became common, and by that time, most of the available space in the churches had been already occupied, hence we find chantry chapels stowed away in corners and odd places. Being intended for private, not public, Masses, they were frequently smaller than other chapels. Vacant spaces in aisles and transepts, or, as in many larger churches, between the pillars of the nave, lent themselves to their accommodation, though sometimes they were distinct buildings annexed to the church. Whenever possible they were placed near the tomb of their founder, and very often such tombs were either enclosed within the chapel itself or actually adjoined it. Like other chapels they were invariably screened off from the rest of the church; wooden screen-work was perhaps the more common, but some notable examples still exist in England of chantry chapels, like miniature sanctuaries, screened and vaulted in stone and of surpassing beauty. Such are Prince Arthur’s chantry at Worcester, the Founder’s chapel at Tewkesbury, the chantries of William of Wykeham and Cardinal Beaufort at Winchester, and those of Bishop Bubwith and Dean Sugar at Wells. Sometimes the chapel was placed above the tomb and reached by a winding staircase, as at Christ Church, Oxford, in what is commonly but wrongly called “St. Frideswide’s Shrine.” Chantries were also sometimes built and maintained by a local guild, such as the Guild of the Holy Ghost at Beccles, and the Palmers’ Guild at Ludlow. Strictly speaking, the chantry is the endowment, and in some cases it was attached to an existing chapel in which other Masses were commonly celebrated. (See CHANTRY.)

CHARNEL CHAPELS AND CHARNEL-HOUSES

These were in the same class as cemetery chapels and consisted generally of a vault or chamber in which were deposited the bones displaced in the digging of graves, with a chapel adjoining or, more usually, above. Brittany abounds in such chapels, of which Viollet-le-Duc gives two curious examples, at Fleurance and Faouët. In England there were specimens at Worcester, Norwich, Old St. Paul’s (London), Bury St. Edmunds, Grantham, Stratford-on-Avon, and many other places. That at Norwich, a detached building to the west of the cathedral, now used as a grammar-school, is perhaps the most perfect example still standing.

CHAPELS OF EASE

These were separate buildings, churches in everything but name, built in remote portions of large parishes and so called because they were intended to ease the parish church and the parishioners living at a distance from it. Clergy appointed for the purpose served them as vicars of the parish priest. These chapels were not formerly allowed to contain a font or have a cemetery adjoining them, but in later times both these privileges were often conceded, and many such chapels have since become independent of the mother-church.

GATE-HOUSE CHAPELS

The enclosure wall of most medieval monasteries was entered through a gatehouse, many of which contained chapels. In England such chapels existed at Furness, Evesham, Llanthony, Malling, Merivale, and Bury St. Edmunds. Similar chapels were to be found also in the gate-houses of many walled towns. The “flanging Chapel” of Langport, Somerset, is a fine example.

PAPAL CHAPELS

Technically the Capelta Papale signifies the entire staff of dignitaries and officials privileged to assist at one of the greater papal functions, and includes the College of Cardinals, the patriarchs, assistants at the pontifical throne, Apostolic prothonotaries, domestic prelates, private chamberlains, chaplains, heads and procurators of religious orders, papal choristers, and a host of other officials such as the vice-chamberlain of the Roman Church, the majordomo, the prelates of the Rota, etc., who rank as members of the pope’s household. Regarded in this sense, the papal chapel originated on the removal of the papal court from Rome in 1305, when the traditional feasts and ceremonies celebrated formerly in the different basilicas of Rome were transferred to the Palatine chapel of Avignon. On the return to Rome in 1377, the popes continued, for various reasons, to perform these ceremonies in a private chapel instead of in the basilicas. Nicholas V built a chapel in the Vatican for the purpose, which was demolished by Paul III to make room for the Pauline chapel erected by him. The other chapel in the Vatican, now used for most of the important papal functions, is the Sistine, built by Sixtus IV in 1473. It is noted no less for its famous choir than for the paintings of Raphael, Michelangelo and others which adorn its walls and ceiling. Since 1870 the number of days on which the full capella assists the pope has been greatly curtailed. Formerly there were thirty-two such days in the course of the year; now they are not more than half a dozen. These are the anniversary of the coronation of the reigning pontiff, the requiem for his immediate predecessor, and the public consistories. To them are occasionally added such special ceremonies as jubilee Masses and the canonization of new saints, the latter functions often taking place in St. Peter’s instead of the Sistine chapel. With regard to the term “papal chapel,” taken in its untechnical meaning, such chapels would seem to correspond more or less with other private chapels, like those of bishops or reigning sovereigns. One of the earliest of these existed in the Lateran palace in the fourth century, and since that time the pope’s place of residence has always contained a private chapel for his own use. One is that in the villa of Innocent VIII (now the Belvedere), which that pope built in the Vatican gardens in the fifteenth century; that in the Quirinal during the time that it was a papal residence; that in the Castel Gandolfo, the former summer residence of the popes; and the small chapel in the Vatican, adjoining the pope’s private apartments, where the Holy Father says his daily Mass. The last-named is the only one that is now in regular use, and it differs in no way from any other private chapel.

CHAPELS OF REPOSE

According to the old English Rite it was the custom in medieval times, on the afternoon of Good Friday, to deposit one of the Hosts consecrated on Maundy Thursday, together with the cross that had been used in the morning office (see CROSS), in what was called the Easter sepulchre or chapel of repose, and to bring them forth again on Easter morning with solemn chant and ceremony, thus symbolizing the burial of Christ’s Body in the sepulchre and its resurrection therefrom. The usual position for the Easter sepulchre was in a niche on the north side of the sanctuary, and the sepulchre itself was commonly a movable wooden structure erected year by year for the purpose. Among the entries in the old churchwarden’s accounts still extant, none occurs with more frequent regularity than that of the payment made for putting up and taking down the Easter sepulchre. In some instances it was a permanent stone structure, and among the few examples still existing the best known is that in the church of Arnold (Nottinghamshire). In the Roman Rite the term “chapel of repose” is applied to the altar or chapel where the Blessed Sacrament is solemnly reserved between the Mass of Maundy Thursday and the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday. (See HOLY WEEK.)

ROYAL CHAPELS

It has always been the privilege of royal palaces, in Protestant as well as Catholic countries, to possess private chapels for the use of the Court. That of Constantine has already been mentioned. Chapels royal have often been merely apartments in the palace itself, but sometimes separate buildings have been specially erected for the purpose. St. George’s, Windsor, and La Sainte-Chapelle, Paris, are noteworthy examples of the latter class. The last-named beautiful building is perhaps the most famous of all royal chapels. It was built in 1248 by St. Louis of France to house the relic of the Crown of Thorns which he had obtained from Constantinople, and it adjoined his palace of La Cité. The architect was Pierre de Montereau, whose wonderful creation is still one of the most admired and most imitated buildings of its kind in the world. In the lower story was a chapel for the palace servants and above was the royal chapel proper, with its sumptuous shrine. It was, of course, desecrated at the Revolution, but became once more a chapel royal for a short time under Louis Philippe. Since then it has, until recently, been used only once a year, for a “Red Mass” said at the opening of the law courts hard by. It is now merely a national monument. Of English chapels royal, besides St. George’s, Windsor, already mentioned, those of St. James and the Savoy date from Catholic times. The latter was rebuilt by Henry VII on the site of the old Savoy Palace. From 1564 to 1717 it was used as a parish church and only became a chapel royal in 1773. Besides this and the chapel in St. James’s Palace, there is also a Protestant chapel royal in the palace of Hampton Court. In the seventeenth century the presence in England of the Catholic consorts of three of the Stuart kings brought about the existence of Catholic chapels royal in London during a period of about eighty years, One was built at St. James’s in 1625 for the use of Henrietta Maria, consort of Charles I, and her retinue, which was used occasionally up to 1642. It was reopened in 1662 for Queen Catherine of Braganza, Charles the Second’s consort, but closed again in 1671 when she removed her court to Somerset House. Under James II it once more served for Catholic worship, from 1685 to 1688, since which date it has been assigned to the use of the Lutheran members of the Court and is now known as the “German chapel.” At Somerset House a new Catholic chapel was built for Queen Henrietta Maria in 1636, which was in use until 1642, and again from 1662 until her death in 1669. When Queen Catherine removed her court hither from St. James’s in 1671, it was reopened for Catholic worship and so continued until her death in 1705, when it passed into the hands of the Protestant Government. There was also a Catholic oratory at Whitehall, used occasionally up to 1642 when Queen Henrietta Maria was resident there, and in 1687 James II opened a new chapel in the same palace, which was closed again the following year. In Scotland the chapel royal was originally located in Stirling Castle, but was transferred to Holyrood by Queen Mary in 1542. At the Reformation it was used for a time as a Protestant parish church, but again became a Catholic chapel royal in 1687 under James II (James VII of Scotland). After his flight to France in 1688, it was plundered and partially destroyed by fire. It was subsequently re-roofed, but since 1768 it has been in a state of ruin.

SHIP CHAPELS

Thomassin mentions a few examples, the best known being that of St. Louis, who was allowed to carry the Blessed Sacrament on board ship and to have Mass, without consecration, celebrated before It, the rolling and tossing of the vessel being considered prohibitive of the full ceremonial.

VOTIVE, WAYSIDE, AND BRIDGE CHAPELS

The Middle Ages furnish numerous examples of votive chapels, erected by the devotion of private persons, often to commemorate some special event or to enshrine some valued relic. Among these may be classed many of the famous places of pilgrimage, both in England and elsewhere. Akin to these are the wayside and bridge chapels which testify to the piety of the times. Existing examples of the latter are to be seen at Pisa, Avignon, Wakefield, Rotherham, Bradford-on-Avon, and St. Ives, while a century ago the remains of such buildings still stood at Rochester, York, Bath, and London. (See BRIDGE-BUILDING BROTHERHOOD.) Wayside chapels, intended for the use of travellers, were often to be found on the way leading to some pilgrimage shrine. The “Slipper Chapel,” in Norfolk, is a well-preserved example, formerly used by the pilgrims going to the celebrated shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham. It has in recent years been restored and once more placed in Catholic hands.

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW AS TO CHAPELS

The present-day law of the Church, while placing no restriction on the erection of chapels that form part of a larger church, lays down very definite regulations respecting any that belong to the category of private chapels. This applies, however, only to those intended for the celebration of Mass; there is no restriction whatever as regards the setting apart of a particular chamber in a private house merely for purposes of private prayer and devotion. But for a chapel in which Mass is to be said, canon law legislates very strictly. Cardinals, bishops (even titular), and regular prelates, are allowed the use of a private chapel by right; for all others a special indult is required. The ordinary of the diocese can give the necessary permission for the chapel or oratory of an institution such as a religious house, an orphanage, hospital, workhouse, or prison, such chapels being usually public or semi-public. But for a strictly private chapel in a private house, intended only for the convenience of the inmates of the house, a papal indult must be obtained, and such indults are only granted for sufficient reasons, e. g. distance from a church, permanent ill-health of a member of the household, etc. With regard to the fulfilment of the obligation of hearing Mass in such private oratories, the ancient law of the Church was that the obligation could only be satisfied by attendance at the parish church. The Council of Trent somewhat modified this rule and since then theologians have differed as to what was the exact law. To settle the matter, Leo XIII, in 1899 (S. R. C. no. 4007), decided that;

the obligation can be satisfied by any one in all public or semi-public chapels to which the faithful have access; but

it cannot ordinarily be satisfied in a strictly private chapel by any persons other than those for whose convenience the chapel exists.

This rule, in practice, is capable of a somewhat wide interpretation, and the indult by which the permission for the chapel is granted usually extends the privilege to various other persons, e. g. relations, guests, servants, etc. All places of worship in England belonging to Catholics, like those of other religious bodies outside the Established Church, were formerly termed “chapels.” Rock, Church of Our Fathers (London, 1852); NORTHCOTE AND BROWNLOW, Roma Sotteranea (London, 1869); WALCOTT, Church and Conventual Arrangement (London, 1861); BLOXAM, Principles of Gothic Ecclesiastical Architecture (London, 1882); GASQUET, Parish Life in Medieval England (London, 1896); BOND, Gothic Architecture in England (London, 1905); BARNES, Catholic Chapels Royal in Downside Review (1900–02); SMITH AND CHEETHAM, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, s. v. Chapel (London, 1875); Transactions of the St. Paul’s Ecclesiological Society (London, 1881–84), I; THOMASSIN, Vetus et Nova Ecclesiœ Disciplina (Venice, 1766); PELLICCIA, The Polity of the Christian Church, tr. BELLETT (London, 1883); LENOIR, Architecture monastique (Paris, 1852); MARTIGNY, in Dict. des antiq. chrét. (Paris, 1865); VIOLLET-LE-DUC, Dict. raisonné de l’architecture (Paris, 1874); BUSS-KREUTZWALD, in Kirchenlexikon; LE CLERCQ, Manuel d’archéologie chrétienne (Paris, 1907).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Placide-Louis Chapelle

Archbishop of New Orleans, U.S.A., b. at Runes Lozère, France, 28 August, 1842; d. at New Orleans, 9 August, 1905. He began his classical studies at Mende, France, and concluded them at Enghien, Belgium. After a brilliant course of philosophy and theology at St. Mary’s Seminary, Baltimore, he received the degree of S.T.D. Ordained priest, 28 June, 1865, he was sent as pastor to St. John’s Church, Rockville, Maryland, and four years later was named pastor of St. Joseph’s, Baltimore. In 1882 he was appointed to St. Matthew’s, Washington, where he soon became the leading Catholic clergyman. Dr. Chapelle was consecrated November, 1891, at Baltimore, titular bishop of Arabissus and coadjutor to Archbishop Salpointe of Sante Fé, New Mexico, with the right of succession; he succeeded to that see, 7 January, 1894. He was transferred to the Archbishopric of New Orleans, 7 December, 1897. The Holy See appointed him, 11 October 1898, Apostolic Delegate to Cuba and Porto Rico and Envoy Extraordinary to the Philippine Islands. He proved himself equal to this important and delicate mission. He spoke with facility French, Spanish, and English, was thoroughly acquainted with the laws of the Church and the spirit of the American Constitution, and rendered valuable services to the Holy See and to the United States. Being in Paris during the negotiations for the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, he obtained the insertion therein of the clause which confirmed to the Catholic Church the possession of all properties to which she had a right under the Spanish Government. He was appointed by Leo XIII Apostolic Delegate to the Philippines, 9 August, 1899, and arrived at Manila, 24 January, 1900. His first act was to persuade General Otis to liberate the priests and religious held prisoners by Aguinaldo. After reorganizing the affairs of the Church, he helped greatly in the general pacification of the country. Pope Leo XIII acknowledged and highly praised in a pontifical Brief the work of Archbishop Chapelle. His mission in the Philippines being at an end, Leo XIII retained him as Apostolic Delegate to Cuba and Porto Rico and named him Assistant to the Pontifical Throne and Count of the Holy Roman Empire. Pius X, in an autograph letter of 8 October, 1904, said to Archbishop Chapelle: “You have rendered most signal services to the Church in Cuba and Porto Rico.” Though having an auxiliary bishop, he wished to visit personally all the parishes of Louisiana, and he returned from Havana, 30 May, 1905, to fulfil this pastoral duty. Yellow fever had just broken out in New Orleans, and he started without delay for the city, to be with his stricken people. He took the fever himself, and died, 9 August, 1905, after having in a pastoral, written four days before his death, offered to God his life for his people.

A. ORBAN.

Chaplain

(Latin capellanus, from capella, chapel).

The origin of capella has been a fruitful source of controversy. The opinion most favoured is that which Du Cange (Gloss. Med. et Inf. Lat.) has drawn from earlier writers, viz. that the word is derived from the capa or capella of St. Martin of Tours. This was a short cloak preserved as a relic by the Kings of France. They carried it with them when they went to war and on the field enshrined it under a tent. This tent gradually received the name capella, and the custodians of the relic were thence called capellani. Others think that the word capella simply signifies a covering, and that the name arose from the tent-like structure erected by the kings of France to canopy the altar for soldiers in the field, and that the word has no relation to the relic of St. Martin.

COURT CHAPLAINS

If the derivation of capella from the capa Sancti Martini be the correct one, we must look for the origin of court chaplains in the clerics who were guardians of the sacred relics in royal palaces. Gradually these clerics were empowered to say Mass in the oratories committed to their care, and thence there was but a step to endowing them with spiritual jurisdiction for the benefit of those living in the palaces. They became the confessors and instructors of all who frequented the court chapel. When such chaplains had increased to a large number, in France, an arch-chaplain was appointed as their superior. From the time of Charlemagne onwards, this latter office was committed to abbots and bishops, and its holder became an important personage in the realm. Not only had he spiritual jurisdiction over the chaplains and members of the royal court, but he was also entrusted with the expedition of such ecclesiastical concerns as were brought to the cognizance of the sovereign from various parts of his kingdom. Both in the Holy Roman Empire and in France, the arch-chaplain or palatine chaplain long held the office of high chancellor of the realm. In France, the arch-chaplain was also grand almoner. The revolution of 1789 swept away the office, but it was restored by Pope Pius IX in 1857 and lasted to the fall of the Second Empire.

BENEFICED CHAPLAINS

There are a large number of clerics whose duty it is to say certain prescribed Masses or to procure their celebration, or to take part in various church services, such as choir service. Such persons received their support from a pious foundation erected for the purpose. Such chaplaincies are called either ecclesiastical or lay. They are ecclesiastical if the property donated by a founder has been formally erected into a benefice by the proper spiritual authority. If however, the property designed for the purpose of procuring certain acts of Divine service has not received ecclesiastical erection it is called a lay chaplaincy. The latter is, strictly speaking, not a benefice in the canonical sense of the term. When a founder erects a chaplaincy, he is at liberty to define the duties of the person who is to enjoy the benefit of his foundation. Thus he may prescribe that a certain number of Masses be said by the chaplain; he may designate the intention for which they are to be offered, the altar at which they are to be said, and other like prescriptions. He can also determine whether the chaplain is to say the Masses personally or only be responsible for their celebration. The Church has always been most liberal in confirming the conditions prescribed by such founders and insisting on their due observance. If the testator has left his goods to a layman, with the obligation of procuring the celebration of certain Masses by any priest whom he shall choose, such chaplaincy is called mercenary, and it does not partake of the nature of an ecclesiastical benefice, as the latter requires generally that the holder should be appointed for life. The controllers of such mercenary chaplaincies can of course be laymen, or even women or children. At times the name of lay chaplains is given to such persons. A chaplaincy is called collative if the founder bestows his goods for spiritual purposes in such a way that the bishop is to erect the foundation into a benefice, for no layman can erect a sacred edifice or institute a spiritual office without the episcopal authorization. Such benefices are called collative because the bishop collates or confers the right to hold them upon the acceptable candidate even if such candidate has been presented or nominated by lay authority. To exclude the episcopal confirmation would be to make it impossible for the chaplaincy to be held as an ecclesiastical benefice. Hereditary or family chaplaincies are those to which, by the will of the founder, the holder of the benefice is to be nominated by the testator’s heirs or assigns. In such cases also the confirmation of the bishop is of absolute necessity. If the chaplaincy be attached to a definite edifice or to an altar in that edifice, it may not by common law be removed to another place. Instances, however, are on record where the Holy See has sanctioned the removal of such chaplaincies from one castle of noble family to another, where the request has been made by the heirs of the founders.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING BENEFICED CHAPLAINS

When the founder of a chaplaincy has not expressly stipulated that the beneficiary is to celebrate personally the prescribed Masses, it is not requisite that the chaplain be in Sacred orders as he can procure otherwise the celebration of the Masses. If it be an ecclesiastical benefice, however, the incumbent must at least be a cleric. When the founder explicitly stipulates that the chaplain is to be a priest, the condition must be adhered to. If, however, he says merely that the chaplain is personally to celebrate the stipulated Masses, then the benefice can be given to a simple cleric, provided he is of such age that he can receive the priesthood within a year. If the foundation requires that the chaplain take part in the Divine Office in a cathedral or collegiate church, then personal service is obligatory on the beneficiary, nor can he employ a substitute, if by obtaining the benefice he becomes a mansionary of that church. In cases where a daily Mass is one of the conditions of the foundation, it is generally held that the chaplain can occasionally intermit this duty for a proper cause. He can also, if hindered by sickness, omit the application of the daily Mass for a fortnight, without being obliged to secure the fulfilment of the foundation requirement by another priest. If the chaplain is obliged to offer his Mass for a definite intention specified by the founder, he may not receive an alms for another intention and satisfy both by the same Mass. As to residence the chaplain’s office depends on whether his chaplaincy be lay or clerical; if lay, he may be arbitrarily removed by the one who has the right of appointment, unless the will of the founder be expressly to the contrary; if clerical, the chaplain, like all other holders of beneficies, is presumably appointed for life, unless the laws of foundation provide otherwise.

PAROCHIAL OR AUXILIARY CHAPLAINS

This name is given in Europe to those priests who render assistance to a parish priest, who cannot care for his whole parish owing to the large number of the faithful within its confines. The position and duties of such parochial chaplains are in many ways analogous to those of vicars and curates (see CURATE; VICAR). The Council of Trent allows parish priests to appoint the chaplains necessary for their parish, but in most dioceses custom has reserved their appointment to the ordinary. In case the appointment be made by the parish priest himself, he may delegate the chaplain to perform the necessary offices, with the exception of the hearing of confessions. The latter authorization must come from the bishop. Chaplains have no fixed powers. The bishop or the parish priest can make the limitations they judge proper. Whenever they exercise the care of souls, it must always be with dependence on the parish priest as to time and method. They need a special delegation of the pastor to assist validly at a marriage. The support of parochial chaplains is to be derived from the parish funds, unless they possess a benefice in the church having the annexed obligation of assisting the parish priest. In the latter case, they are irremovable. When their faculties have been conferred by the bishop, they do not lose them by the death of the parish priest.

DOMESTIC CHAPLAINS

Benefices possessed by chaplains are often attached to the residence of distinguished families. In many countries of Europe, noblemen or their ancestors have provided for the sustenance of such private chaplains. Often such a priest takes on himself the duty of instructing the children of the house. If the position of the domestic chaplain be really of the nature of a benefice, it follows the rules already given for beneficed chaplains; otherwise the incumbent is considered as an auxiliary chaplain of the parish or diocese where he resides.

CHAPLAINS OF CONVENTS

According to various decrees of Roman congregations, the chaplains of nunneries must be men of mature age, if they can be procured. This rule is so strict that if the bishop without necessity has appointed a junior to the position, the superior may refuse to receive him. (S.C. Ep., In Messan., 1602.) Chaplains unworthy of their charge are to be immediately removed. As a rule, regulars are not to be appointed chaplains in convents unless there be a dearth of secular priests. The chaplain receives his faculties from the bishop, except in the case of nuns who are subject to some order of regulars. Only in the case of exempt nuns can the chaplain administer all the sacraments to them, to the exclusion of the parish priest. As a rule, convent chaplains should not be appointed for life. If a convent claims to have the right of presenting an irremovable chaplain to the bishop, the latter should forward the claim to Rome to obtain judgment upon it. If this is favourable, a perpetual chaplain is to be approved.

Chaplains of public institutions, such as colleges, hospitals, prisons, etc., receive their power from the intention of the bishop when appointing them or from the laws of the foundation if there be one. As a rule they are allowed to say Mass and preach in the community chapel, and to exercise various quasiparochial functions for the community.

PONTIFICAL CHAPLAINS

Attached to the pope’s chapel are various grades of chaplains. The private chaplains are those who assist the pontiff at the altar when he celebrates Mass, and are assisted by the honorary private chaplains, who minister directly to the pope only occasionally. There are also the private clerics of the chapel, the common chaplains and the supernumerary chaplains. Honorary chaplains “outside the city” are those who assist the pope only when he is outside Rome. The honorary private chaplains were instituted by Pope Clement XII; the common chaplains by Pope Alexander VII. In 1907, Pope Pius X confirmed to the common chaplains the title of Monsignore and their distinctive dress.

MILITARY CHAPLAINS

Priests appointed to minister to the needs of the army and the navy are commonly called military chaplains. In Catholic countries where the numbers of such chaplains have been large, the governments have usually appointed a chaplain-major. Unless this appointment has been sanctioned by the Holy See, such chaplains-major possess no spiritual jurisdiction over the other chaplains. The common law of the church is that military chaplains should be approved by the ordinary of the place, not by the chaplain-major, otherwise confessions and marriages performed by them are invalid. When there are exceptions to this rule, it can only be in virtue of a special papal indult. Such indults have been granted for various countries. In Spain the vicar-general of the army has jurisdiction independent of the ordinary. In France military chaplains have been abolished since the separation of Church and State. Chaplains were formerly granted to the French soldiers only when their barracks were far from the parish churches. In 1887, Pope Leo XIII concluded a convention with the United States of Columbia in which various privileges for military chaplains were confirmed. In some countries, as Austria and Prussia, the chaplains are distinguished into parish priests, curates, and assistants. They are subject to an army vicar Apostolic, who generally receives episcopal consecration. The exemption of military chaplains in Austria from the jurisdiction of the ordinary dates from 1720. For the British Army and Navy, a decress was issued by the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, 15 May, 1906. It declares that the pro tempore Archbishop of Westminster is the ecclesiastical superior of all commissioned army and navy chaplains. As regards the former, he is to treat with the Government concerning their nomination, and take such measures as he shall deem expedient for their spiritual well-being. They are to report to him semi-annually, or at least annually, whatever concerns their state and occupation. Commissioned chaplains (except in Ireland and India) are to receive exclusively from the archbishop the faculties which he may grant them in virtue of his ordinary or delegated jurisdiction. These faculties they may exercise in the place determined by the archbishop, in favour only of the soldiers, their wives, and families. When a chaplain is transferred, his faculties endure until he has taken charge of his new station; but as soon as he receives notice of his transfer, he must inform the archbishop of it. As to their conduct as clerics these chaplains are subject to the local ordinary, to whom their special faculties must be shown, though his consent is not needed for their exercise so long as it is not extended to civilians.

On retirement from a chaplaincy in the army, the priest must return to his former diocse. In South Africa the local clergy are to supply the place of chaplains as far as possible. The Archbishop of Westminster alone is to treat with the Government for the appointment of navy chaplains, and is to grant them faculties which may be used in any part of the world, but only on shipboard. If, however, by the arrangement of the commander of a ship, it be necessary for the chaplain to exercise his faculties on land, he must if possible notify the ordinary of the place, not to obtain authorization, but simply to show proper deference, except in the case that the exercises his functions for others than the members of the navy, for them he is obliged to have recourse to the ordinary of the place where he is (Acta S. Sedis, Vol. XL, fasc. 5). In Ireland the military chaplains are subject to the local bishops. The Provincial Council of Dublin in 1853 requires that army chaplains report to the bishop at stated times the religious condition of those under their charge. In the United States Army probably the first chaplains commissioned by the Government were those appointed during the Mexian War. At present the Government appoints a limited numer of chaplains for the army and navy. To administer the sacraments to soldiers in garrison, army chaplains need the approbation of the ordinary; when the soldiers are mobilized, chaplains may exercise their functions anywhere without such authorization. Navy chaplains (cf. Smith, op. cit. infra.) seem to fall under the general law that faculties must be obtained from the bishop of the port whence the vessel sails. However by the general decree of 4 April, 1900, they would have faculties on shipboard from the mere fact that they were approved by their own proper ordinaries.

FERRARIS, Prompta bibl. (Rome, 1886), III; BOUIX, De Parocho (Paris, 1880); SMITH, Elements of Eccles. Law (New York, 1895), I; LAURENTIUS,Instit. jur. eccl. (Freiburg, 1903); HUMPHREY, Urbs et Orbis (London, 1899).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Jean-Antoine Chaptal

Comte de Chanteloup, technical chemist and statesman; b. Nogaret, Lozère, France, 4 June, 1756; d. Paris, 30 July, 1832. He graduated as doctor of medicine from the Montpellier University in 1777. In 1781, he filled the newly established chair of chemistry at the same university, and established chemical works there, which acquired a European celebrity. Refusing to yield to the solicitations of the King of Spain or of President Washington, he prosecuted his work in France through the stormy times of the Revolution, up to the days of the Restoration. In 1793, he assumed charge of the Grenelle saltpetre works, where he greatly improved the manufacture of gunpowder. In the Polytechnic School of Paris he was given the chair of organic (vegetable) chemistry. After the fall of Robespierre, he was placed in charge of the reorganization of Montpellier University, again taking his old chair of chemistry. Upon the foundation of the French Institute, he was admitted as member. He returned to Paris, and established other chemical works near the city. Under the Consulship of Napoleon, he was called to the Council of State, and later became Minister of the Interior. His work in this department was very extensive, including the establishment of commercial exchanges, of chambers of commerce, the reorganization of loan offices (monts-de-piété), the introduction of productive labour in prisons, and many other advances in local Government. He introduced the Sisters of Charity into the hospital service; regulated the mineral water industry, of which the present French Government takes full cognizance, and arranged for the exposition of industrial products for five years. He established the study of viniculture at the Luxembourg. Roads and canals received his attention; the roads over the Simplon and Mont-Cenis Passes are largely his work. He was in the Ministry from 1800 to 1804. When Napoleon became emperor he made Chaptal senator, Grand Officer of the Legion of Honour in 1806, and, soon after, treasurer of the Senate and Count of the Empire. During the Hundred Days, the general control of manufacture and commerce was entrusted to him. During the Restoration, he was member of the Academy of Sciences in the chemical section. In 1819, he entered the Chamber of Peers.

His technical activity covered a wide field, such as improvements in the manufacture of sulphuric acid, saltpetre for gunpowder, beet-root sugar, wine, dyeing, bleaching and other things. His principal printed works, some eleven volumes, were published from 1790 to 1823. Chaptal occupies a peculiarly interesting position in the long list of Catholic scientists. His career covered the stormy period of the French Revolution, and, more fortunate than the brilliant Lavoisier, he was spared to prosecute his useful work. The seeking of his services by Washington in the new republic, although he did not yield to the solicitation, brings him the nearer to the Americans. He was a worker on the technical side of chemistry, supplementing the theoretical investigations of Lavoisier, and developing the field of chemical manufacture, which today is its all-important division.

T. O’CONOR SLOANE

Chapter

The name Chapter (Lat. capitulum), designating certain corporate ecclesiastical bodies, is said to be derived from the chapter of the rule book, which it was the custom to read in the assemblies of monks. By degrees the meeting itself was called the chapter and the place of meeting the chapter house. From these conventual chapters or meetings of monks for the transaction of business connected with their monasteries or orders, the designation passed over to somewhat analogous assemblies of other ecclesiastics. Hence we speak of collegiate chapters and of cathedral chapters. In general a chapter may be defined as an association of clerics of a certain church forming a moral body and instituted by ecclesiastical authority for the purpose of promoting the divine worship by means of choir service. If it be a cathedral chapter, however, its principal object is to assist the bishop in the government of his diocese, and the choir service is only secondary. Members of chapters are called canons.

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

From the earliest times the priests and deacons of the cathedral city aided the bishop in conducting ecclesiastical affairs. Considered as a body, these clerics were called the Presbyterium. The custom often obtained of bishop and clergy occupying a common dwelling, and this fact, joined with the example of the monks, led to a uniform method of life. About the end of the fourth century St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, reduced this common life to a more perfect form, and when, later, many of his clerics themselves became bishops, they introduced similar rules in their churches. In Spain, Italy, and England (Bede, Hist. Eccl., I, xxvii) early traces are found of this common life of the bishop and his priests. Among the Franks, especially, St. Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz (d. 766), formed his clergy into a community bound by a rule, which was, however, distinct from that of regulars. From this rule or canon, the members of the body derived their name of canons. Later on other larger churches, in imitation of the cathedral, adopted a similar mode of life, and hence arose the distinction between canons of cathedral and collegiate churches, some of whom were secular and some regular. The main object of the last-named capitular bodies is to promote the splendour of God’s worship by choir service. This article will treat particularly of cathedral chapters.

CONSTITUTION OF CATHEDRAL CHAPTERS

A cathedral chapter constitutes a moral body or corporation. Inasmuch as it is an ecclesiastical corporation it can be erected only by the pope, according to the prevailing discipline. The chapter can be considered as forming one body with the bishop, in as far as it constitutes his senate and aids him in the government of his diocese; or as forming a body distinct from the bishop, having its own regulations and interests. Viewed under the first aspect the cathedral chapter has the bishop for its head; under the last, it has its own proper superior. Taking the chapter in the strict sense, however, canonists generally declare that the bishop must always be distinguished from it; nor can he be called a member of the chapter. Anciently, the principal dignitary of the chapter was the archdeacon, but from the eleventh century the dean, who was also archpriest, had the internal government of the chapter. In some countries this dignitary is called the provost. The collation to canonries, by common law, pertains to the bishop and the chapter conjointly, unless in the case of such canonships as are papal reservations. The nomination of the head of the chapter belongs to the pope. In some countries, as Austria, Bavaria, Spain and until recently France, the Government, in virtue of concordats or ancient privileges, has the right of nomination to some or all of the vacant canonries.

OFFICIALS OF THE CHAPTER

At the head of the chapter as a corporate body, is a president who, as before said, is called in different countries by various names, though the prevailing one is that of dean. The duty of this official is to convoke the chapter and preside over it. He is also to see that the canonical statutes are observed in all that relates to capitular meetings and the choir service. The chapter appoints a treasurer, a secretary, and a sacristan. The Council of Trent decreed (Sess. V, Cap. i) that a canon theologian should be constituted in cathedral churches. His office is to explain the Holy Scriptures and the dogmas of the Faith, and also to treat questions pertaining to moral theology. A canon penitentiary is likewise to be appointed (Sess. XXIV, cap. viii) with power to hear confessions in the whole diocese. As to other dignitaries or officials of the chapter, there is no uniformity among the various capitular bodies. The Council of Trent approved of this variety (Sess. XXV, cap. vi), and hence the peculiar statutes or customs of each chapter or diocese or country must be examined to know what dignitaries, in addition to those mentioned, form part of the capitular body. Among such other officials may be named the custos, primicerius, portarius, precentor, hospitalarius, eleemosynarius or almoner, and camerarius or chamberlain. Punctator and hebdomadarius are not distinct offices but special functions committed to certain canons.

OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CHAPTER

These are called by the general name of capitulars or canons. The division of such canons into seniors and juniors, residential and forensic, prebendal and semi-prebendal, etc., belongs rather to archæology. The number of simple canons is not fixed by a general law of the Church, and the bishop can, with the consent of his chapter, increase their number, except in cases where the pope has absolutely determined how many canons shall compose a particular chapter. In the latter case no new capitulars can be added except by Apostolic authority. Honorary canons have neither a canonry nor a vote in the chapter, but they are entitled to a stall in the choir. The number of such honorary canons must not exceed that of the titular ones. Leo XIII prescribed in 1894 that a bishop is not to nominate to an honorary canonship a subject of another diocese, without the consent of the chapter and the goodwill of the candidate’s own ordinary. The honorary canons who do not belong to the diocese must never be equal to the third part of all the capitulars. In England and Scotland the number of canons is usually ten, and the president is called provost. In Ireland the chapter is presided over by a dean, and besides the canons penitentiary and theologian, there are usually also a number of other dignitaries.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CAPITULARS

Cathedral canons (capitulars) have precedence, after the bishop or vicar-general, over all the diocesan clergy when they go in procession as a chapter. They have also a certain pre-eminence, so that they may be made judges delegate of the Holy See in preference to the other clergy and to canons of collegiate churches. They also wear certain honorary insignia, as a ring, a cross, a violet soutane, etc., and sometimes even the mitre. Leo XIII decreed in 1894 that canons of minor basilicas in Rome can use such insignia only within their churches, and that canons “outside the city” can employ them only within their dioceses. A capitular has a right to receive his prebend or income from the day of installation. He likewise has a place and vote in the chapter and a stall in the choir. He is obliged to make a profession of faith before the bishop or his vicar at a meeting of the chapter, within two months of his installation. Residence near the cathedral church is required, as his duties are to be performed personally and not by substitutes, except in very rare cases. The conventual Mass is to be assisted at daily by the canons according to their rotation. If the Mass be offered for benefactors, all must be present. Choir service is also of obligation, and the canons must not merely assist but also chant the psalms. Absence is allowed only for a legitimate cause or through dispensation of the proper ecclesiastical authority. They must assit at the deliberations of the chapter and fulfil whatever duties may be imposed upon them by it unless legitimately excused. When the bishop celebrates Mass or takes part in other pontifical functions, the capitulars must assist him according to the form prescribed in the “Ceremonial of Bishops” and the “Roman Pontifical.” They are also to accompany the bishop when he goes in procession to the cathedral, and after the service they must go with him to the church door in a body.

CAPITULAR MEETINGS

Chapters, being true ecclesiastical colleges in the strict sense of the word, have all the rights such bodies possess by their nature or by the positive sanction of law. Consequently, they can hold sessions, ordinary or extraordinary, to expedite matters concerning the chapter. By common law, they need no previous approbation of the bishop for such meetings, but the bishop can require that they give him notice of a capitular congregation and of the resolutions approved by it. The convocation of the chapter to consider its own affairs belongs to the dean or provost, except where a particular statute intervenes. The bishop convokes it when it is to treat of diocesan matters. All the canons present in the city are to be called to meetings of the chapter. At times even those absent are to be summoned, as for the election of a prelate, the reception of new canons, etc. The meeting is to be held at the prescribed time and place. Two-thirds of the capitulars form a quorum, according to the regulations of some chapters; canon law requires only a majority. Business is to be transacted by a general and public deliberation, followed by a vote. This vote need not be unanimous, unless the subject matter refers to the canons as individuals. The chapter has authority to make laws for itself, provided they be not contrary to the general canon law. These statutes, according to the prevailing discipline, must be approved by the bishop. In particular cases, where there is a tie vote, the dean or bishop has the casting vote or a double suffrage. Like every other ecclesiastical corporation, the chapter has the right of possessing and administering the property over which it has the dominion. Consequently the chapter can appoint its own officials to administer its possessions, even without the ordinary’s approbation. The supreme administrator of capitular property, as the dean or other dignitary, is to be determined by local statutes or customs.

CHAPTERS SEDE PLENÂ

As the chapter constitutes the diocesan senate, the bishop is obliged to ask its counsel or consent for various administrative acts. Where consent is required, the bishop cannot validly proceed against the will of the capitulars. Where only counsel is prescribed, the ordinary fulfills his obligation by asking their advice, but he is not constrained to follow it. In some cases defined by law, the acts of the bishop are null, if the counsel of the chapter be not asked. The consent of the chapter is requisite in general for all matters of grave importance, especially such as place a perpetual obligation on the diocese or on property, unless the bishop is allowed greater liberty either by custom or Apostolic delegation. In particular, the consent of the capitulars is necessary for buying, selling, or alienating ecclesiastical property; for mortgaging church property, for uniting, dividing, or suppressing spiritual benefices or parishes; for erecting new canonries, even honorary ones; for collating to benefices, if the right be held by the chapter conjointly with the bishop; for nominating prosynodal examiners; for assuming a temporary coadjutor for the bishop; for committing parish churches to regulars; for imposing new taxes or contributions on the diocese; for measures that would be prejudicial to the chapter or diocese, because the chapter is the lawful defendant of diocesan rights. The counsel of the chapter is to be asked for the making and promulgating of new diocesan laws, whether composed in the synod or out of it; for correcting and punishing the faults of clerics; for the building of new monasteries; for administrative acts of some moment, as in appointments to parishes and other diocesan business. For the matters cited, the consent or counsel of the chapter is required by the bishop when he is exercising his ordinary jurisdiction. In cases, however, where he acts as delegate of the Holy See, no such counsel or consent need be asked. The chapter on its side is obliged to show due obedience to the bishop in the observance and execution of his lawful commands, in submitting to his canonical visitation, and in obeying his just judgment in judicial causes.

CHAPTERS SEDE IMPEDITÂ

When on account of some physical or canonical impediment, the bishop cannot govern his diocese, the episcopal administration does not pass to the chapter, but it becomes its duty to notify the pope, who alone appoints the administrator of a diocese, except in certain cases determined by law, when the chapter can conduct diocesan affairs; as when the bishop has been imprisoned by heretics or pagans; when he is excommunicated or suspended; when the vicar-general dies and the bishop is far away. In the above exceptional cases the chapter may administer the diocese until the Holy See provides otherwise.

CHAPTERS SEDE VACANTE

On the death of the bishop, the chapter succeeds to his ordinary and customary jurisdiction in spirituals and temporals, except to those which he had by virtue of Sacred orders, or by special privilege, or by special delegation of the Holy See. The faculties delegated to bishops as delegates of the Apostolic See by the Council of Trent also pass to the chapter. Within eight days of the bishop’s death, the chapter must elect a vicar capitular to whom the whole administration of the diocese must be committed (see ), and the chapter can reserve no jurisdiction to itself. Lastly, it nominates the new bishop.

CATHEDRAL CHAPTERS IN MISSIONARY COUNTRIES

In England, Ireland, Scotland, Holland, and some other countries, cathedral chapters have been erected. As the circumstances of these countries are different from those in lands where the Church is canonically established, the Holy See has made some changes in the common law governing cathedral chapters. The canons are dispensed from residence near the cathedral church, and may be parish priests or missionaries dispersed through the diocese. They are likewise dispensed from the daily chanting of the Divine Office in choir. It is generally prescribed, however, that when the capitulars come to the cathedral for their monthly meetings, they must recite Terce together and assist at a conventual Mass. As a general rule the rights and offices of canons in missionary countries are the same as those already enumerated for places where canonical law is in full force. The Bishop is therefore to ask their counsel or consent, as the case may be, in matters referring to diocesan administration and when the episcopal see is vacant, the chapter succeeds to the deceased bishop and elects a vicar capitular. In the United States, cathedral chapters have not as yet been constituted. In 1883 Propaganda consulted the American bishops on the advisability of erecting them, but the prelates judged that the time was not yet opportune.

WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899), II; SMITH, Compendium Jur. Can. (New York, 1890); BOUIX, De Capitulis (Paris, 1882); FERRARIS, Prompta Bibl. (Roman ed., 1886), II.

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Chapter House

A building attached to a monastery or cathedral in which the meetings of the chapter are held. In monasteries the chapter house was used daily after Prime (and sometimes after Terce), for the reading of the “Martyrology” and the “Necrology,” for the correction of faults, the assigning of the tasks for the day, and for the exhortation of the superior, and again for the evening Collation or reading before Complin. Secular canons used the chapter house for similar purposes, and for the formal transaction of public business of common interest to the body corporate. The chapter house is not mentioned by St. Benedict (d. 543), nor is it indicated in the ancient plan of the Abbey of St. Gall, drawn up in 820; the monks then probably assembled for chapter in a part of the cloister near the church. The need of a separate building made itself felt, and the chapter house is mentioned in the statutes approved by the Council of Aachen in 816. The shape of the chapter houses varied: some were rectangular, others rectangular with an apsidal termination, others again were circular or polygonal. The rectangular room, with a wooden roof, and little architectural distinction, is characteristic of the continent of Europe. In England the chapter house was the object of very careful designing and elaborate ornamentation; the polygonal-shaped chapter house is a triumph of English thirteenth-century architecture, and no single instance of it is found either in France or Germany. The earliest example is probably that of Lincoln, decagonal in shape, which was built from 1240–1260. Other instances are those of York, Lichfield, Southwell, Salisbury, and Wells. English examples of the elongated form will be found at Bristol, Canterbury, Chester, Durham, Gloucester, and Oxford. The ingenious theory which seeks to identify the polygonal shape with secular foundations, and the rectangular shape with monastic foundations, breaks down in presence of the circular chapter house of Worcester, and the octagonal chapter house of Westminster Abbey, both Benedictine in origin.

MARTÈNE, De Antiquis Monachorum Ritibus (Rouen, 1700); ROCK, Church of our Fathers (London, 1849), III, 79; DUCANGE, Glossarium (Paris, 1883), s. v. Capitulum; GASQUET, English Monastic Life (London, 1904); CABROL, Dictionnaire d’archéol. chrét. (Paris, 1903), s. v. Abbaye; BUMPUS, The Cathedrals of England and Wales (London, 1905–6); BOND, Gothic Architecture (London, 1905).

EDWARD MYERS

Character

Quite distinct from the technical meaning which the term character possesses in theological controversy is that attached to it in the language of common life, as well as in the literature devoted to psychology, ethics, and education. The interest surrounding the conception of character in these latter branches of speculation has been constantly increasing during the past hundred years.

PSYCHOLOGY AND CHARACTER

Different shades of meaning pertain to the term in different contexts. In general we may say that character is the expression of the personality of a human being, and that it reveals itself in his conduct. In this sense every man has a character. At the same time only human beings, not animals, have character: it implies rationality. But in addition to this usage, the term is also employed in a narrower sense, as when we speak of a man “of character.” In this connotation character implies a certain unity of qualities with a recognizable degree of constancy or fixity in mode of action. It is the business of psychology to analyze the constituent elements of character, to trace the laws of its growth, to distinguish the chief agencies which contribute to the formation of different types of character, and to classify such types. If anything approaching a science of character is ever to be built up, it must be a special psychology. French psychologists during the last thirty years have given us a large quantity of acute observations on the topic of character. Chief amongst them have been: MM. Azam, Pérez, Ribot, Paulhan, Fouillée, and Malapert. Still these contributions do not constitute a science.

The behaviour of each human being at any stage of his existence is the outcome of a complex collection of elements. The manner in which he apperceives or takes in certain present impressions, the sort of thoughts which they awaken, the particular feeling with which they are associated in his mind, and the special volitions to which they give rise are, in spite of the common nature in which he participates with other men, in a certain measure peculiar to himself. Taken collectively they are said to constitute or, more accurately perhaps, to reveal his character. At any epoch in mature life a man’s character is the resultant of two distinct classes of factors: the original or inherited elements of his being, and those which he has himself acquired. On the one hand, every human being starts with a certain nature or disposition—a native endowment of capacities for knowledge, and feelings, and tendencies towards volitions and action—which varies with each individual. This disposition is dependent in part on the structure of the bodily organism and especially of the nervous system which he has inherited; in part, perhaps, also on his soul which has been created. It forms his individuality at the beginning of life; and it includes susceptibilities for responding to external influences, and potentialities for developing in various ways which differ with each human being. A fundamental error in English psychology from Locke to John Stuart Mill was the ignoring or under-estimating of this diversity of native aptitude in different individuals. Much of the Associationist treatment of the development of the human mind proceeded on the assumption of an original equality or similarity of mental faculty, and consequently tended to ascribe all subsequent differences to a diversity of circumstances. It vastly exaggerated what has been called the part played by nurture as compared with that of nature. It overlooked the fact that the original capacity and disposition of the individual mind largely determines how it shall appropriate the experience presented to it by its environment. This error was peculiarly unfavourable to the affording of an adequate account of character. Since Darwin there has been a return to the older and truer doctrine which recognized fully the importance of the original endowment of each individual. For, although the author of the “Origin of Species” himself exaggerated the influence of the environment in his biological theory, he and his followers were driven to lay great stress upon heredity and the transmission from parent to offspring of individual variations and acquired habits.

THE FOUR TEMPERAMENTS

The original endowment or native element in character with which the individual starts life is practically identical with what the Ancients and the Schoolmen recognized under the term temperament. From the times of Hippocrates and Galen they distinguished four main types of temperament: the sanguine, the choleric, the phlegmatic, and the melancholic. Curiously enough modern speculation from Kant to Wundt and Fouillée tends to accept the same general classification, though sometimes under other names. These different types of temperament the Ancients held to be due to the predominance in the organism of different humours. Modern writers variously account for them by differences of texture and varying solidity of the tissues of the body, by varying development of different parts, by diverse rates of activity in the processes of nutrition and waste, in the changes of nerve-energy, or in circulation, and by differences of tonicity in the nerves. Whatever be the true physiological explanation, the fourfold classification seems fairly to represent certain markedly contrasted types of disposition, though they leave room for subdivision and intermediate forms. Moreover, though scientists are still far from being agreed as to the precise elements in the organism on which temperament depends, the fact that different forms of temperament have an organic basis seems certain. The transmission from parent to offspring of hereditary dispositions, therefore, involves no conflict with the doctrine of the creation of each human soul.

Although our original temperament is thus given to us independently of our will, we ourselves play an important part in the moulding of our character, and we thus become responsible for certain ethical qualities in it. Character has been defined as “a completely fashioned will.” It would be more accurate to say that character is “natural temperament completely fashioned by the will.” It is, in fact, a resultant of the combination of our acquired habits with our original disposition. As the quality, shape, and structure of the organism and of its different parts may be variously modified in the process of growth—especially during the plasticity of early life—by variations in nutrition, exercise, and environment, so may the faculties of the soul be variously developed by the manner in which it is exercised, and by the nature of the objects on which its faculties are employed. Among the acquired elements which go to the building up of character may be distinguished those pertaining to cognition, whether sensuous or intellectual, and those belonging to the emotional and volitional activities of the soul. Exercise strengthens the power and widens the range of each faculty, creating, not uncommonly, a craving for further exercise in the same direction. The regular use of the intellect, the controlled activity of the imagination, the practice of judgment and reflection, all contribute so the formation of habits of mind more or less thoughtful and refined. The frequent indulgence in particular forms of emotion, such as anger, envy, sympathy, melancholy, fear, and the like, fosters tendencies towards these sentiments which give a subconscious bent to a large part of man’s behaviour. But finally the exercise of the will plays the predominant part in moulding the type of character which is being formed. The manner and degree in which currents of thought and waves of emotion are initiated, guided, and controlled by the will, or allowed to follow the course of spontaneous impulse, has not less effect in determining the resultant type of character than the quality of the thoughts or emotions themselves. The life of the lower animal is entirely ruled by instinct from within, and by accidental circumstances from without. It is therefore incapable of acquiring a character. Man, through the awakening of reason and the growth of reflection, by the exercise of deliberate choice against the movements of impulse, gradually develops self-control; and it is by the exercise of this power that moral character is especially formed. Character is in fact the outcome of a series of volitions, and it is for this reason we are responsible for our characters, as we are for the individual habits which go to constitute them.

TYPES OF CHARACTER

Starting from the basis of the four fundamental temperaments, various classifications of types of character have been adopted by different writers. The intellectual, the emotional, and the volitional or energetic stand for the chief types with A. Bain. M. Pérez, taking for his principle of division the phenomenon of movement, distinguishes characters as lively, slow, ardent, and équilibrés or well-balanced. M. Ribot, proceeding from a more subjective ground of division and excluding indefinite and unstable types as strictly speaking characterless, recognizes as the most general forms: the sensitive, subdivided into the humble contemplative and emotional; the active, subdivided into the great and the mediocre; and the apathetic, subdivided into the purely apathetic or dull; and the calculateurs or intelligent. By combination these again afford new types. M. Fouillée takes sensitive, intellectual, and volitional for his scheme and by cross-combinations and subdivisions works out an equally complex plan. MM. Paulhan, Queyrat, and Fouillée and Malapert have each different divisions of their own, thus establishing, at all events, the impossibility of attaining agreement on the subject.

ETHOLOGY

These efforts naturally suggest the question: Is a science of character possible? Mill devoted an important section in Book VI of his “Logic” to answering this query. He argues that there may be a true science of human nature, though not, as in the case of the physical sciences, an exact science. The laws which it can formulate are only approximate generalizations expressive of tendencies. It may not attempt exact predictions, owing to the complexity and uncertainty of the causes at work. Though mankind have not one universal character, there exist universal laws of the formation of character. The ascertainment of these laws constitutes the object of the science of ethology. The phenomena being so complex the method of investigation must be deductive. We have to draw inferences from general psychological principles, and then to verify them by study of concrete individual cases.

It is very unwise to lay down limits to the progress of knowledge; but it may be affirmed that, at all events, we have at present nothing approximating to a science of character. As we have said, there is already in existence a considerable literature devoted to the psychological analysis of the constituents of the different forms of character, to the study of the general conditions of its growth, and to the classification of types of character. But the results, as yet reached, have little claim to the title of a science. There are moreover two obstacles, which though not, perhaps, absolutely fatal to the possibility of such a science are graver difficulties than Mill realized. Firstly, there is the element of individuality lying at the root of each character and variously determining its growths even in like circumstances, as we see in two children of the same family. The mistaken view as to the original equality and similarity of different minds naturally involved an erroneous under-estimation of this difficulty. Secondly, there is the fact of free-will, denied by Mill. We do not maintain that free-will is irreconcilable with a science whose laws are approximate generalizations as Mill conceived those of ethology to be. All anti-determinists allow enough of uniformity in the influence of motive upon action to satisfy this condition. Still the admission of free-will in the building up of character does indisputably increase the unpredictableness of future conduct and consequently of a science of character.

ETHICS AND CHARACTER

Whilst psychology investigates the growth of different types of character, ethics considers the relative value of such types and the virtues which constitute them. The problem of the true moral ideal is, in some ethical systems mainly, and in all systems partially, a question of the relative value of different types of character. The effect on the agent’s character of a particular form of conduct is a universally accepted test of its moral quality. Different systems of ethics emphasize the importance of different virtues in the constitution of the ideal moral character. With the Utilitarian, who places the ethical end in the maximum of temporal happiness for the whole community, benevolence will form the primary element in the ideal character. For the Stoic, fortitude and self-control are the chief excellences. The egoistic Hedonist would seem bound to praise enlightened prudence as the highest virtue. For the Christian, Christ is, of course, the true example of ideal character. The vast multitude of varied types of moral perfection presented to us in the lives of the saints who have striven to copy Him show the infinite many-sidedness and rich fruitfulness of that ideal. In all conceptions of ideal character strength forms an essential feature. Firmness of will, fortitude, constancy in adhering to principle or in pursuit of a noble aim hold so important a place that in common language to be a man of character is frequently equivalent to being capable of adhering to a fixed purpose. But strength of this kind may easily degenerate into irrational obstinacy or narrow fanaticism. Another essential is the virtue of justice, the constant, practical recognition of the rights and claims of others-involving, of course, all our duties towards Almighty God. In addition to these, habits of charity and magnanimity, with temperance and self-restraint in the control of our lower appetencies, will be included. Finally, the richer the culture of the mind, the larger the intellectual horizon, the broader the sympathies, and the more balanced the springs of action in the soul, the more will the character approximate to the ideal of human perfection.

EDUCATION AND CHARACTER

The true aim of education is not merely the cultivation of the intellect but also the formation of moral character. Increased intelligence or physical skill may as easily be employed to the detriment as to the benefit of the community, if not accompanied by improved will. Both do not necessarily go together. As it is the function of ethics to determine the ideal of human character, so it is the business of the theory or science of education to study the processes by which that end may be attained and to estimate the relative efficiency of different educational systems and methods in the prosecution of that end. Finally it is the duty of the art of education to apply the conclusions thus reached to practice and to adapt the available machinery to the realization of the true purpose of education in the formation of the highest type of ideal human character.

MICHAEL MAHER.

Character (in Catholic Theology)

Character indicates a special effect produced by three of the sacraments, viz. Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy orders. This special effect is called the sacramental character. The term implies a relation (as will be explained below) to a term used in the Epistle to the Hebrews (1:3) concerning the Son of God, who is there described as the Charaktèr tês hypostáseos autoû, or “figure [figura] of the Father’s substance.” In Protestant theology, the term character is used in another sense in treatises concerning the Blessed Trinity; the phrase “hypostatic character” being employed to signify the distinctive characteristic (or what Catholic theologians call the proprietas personalis) of each of the Three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Here we are concerned only with the sense of the word in Catholic theology, that is, with sacramental character.

Sacramental character means a special supernatural and ineffaceable mark, or seal, or distinction, impressed upon the soul by each of the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy orders; and it is by reason of this ineffaceable mark that none of these three sacraments may be administered more than once to the same person. This is express Catholic doctrine declared both in the Council of Florence (Sess. ult., Decret. Eugenii IV, §5) and in the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. ix, and Sess. XXIII, cap. iv and can. iv). “If any one shall say that in three sacraments, viz. Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy orders, there is not a character impressed upon the soul, that is a certain spiritual and ineffaceable mark [signum] whence these sacraments cannot be iterated, let him be anathema” (Concil. Trid. Sess. ult., can. vii). If, indeed, there be grave doubt whether any one of these sacraments has really been administered, or whether the maimer of its administration has been valid, then it may be administered in a conditional form. But if they really have been validly administered, they cannot again, without sacrilege, be conferred upon the same person. The character imparted by these sacraments is something distinct from the grace imparted by them. In common with the other sacraments, they are channels of sanctifying grace. But these three have the special prerogative of conferring both grace and a character. In consequence of the distinction between the sacramental grace and the sacramental character, it may even happen, in the reception of these sacraments, that the character is imparted and the grace withheld; the lack of proper dispositions which is sufficient to prevent the reception of the grace may not prevent the reception of the character. Thus, an adult who receives baptism without right faith and repentance but with a real intention of receiving the sacrament, obtains the character without the grace. The sacramental character, then, is not in itself a sanctifying gift; it is of a legal and official, rather than of a moral, nature. Nevertheless, normally, the character has a connection with grace. It is only accidentally, by reason of some faulty disposition in the recipient of the sacrament, that the association between the character and the grace is broken. In the Divine intention, and in the efficacy of the sacraments, the grace and the character go together; and the grace is proportioned to the special function which the character indicates. So that the character is sometimes called a sign, or mark, of grace.

The sacramental character, as we have said, is ineffaceable from the soul. This means, not that the effacement of this spiritual mark is an absolute metaphysical impossibility, but that in the established order of Divine Providence there is no cause which can destroy it in this life—neither sin, nor degradation from the ecclesiastical state, nor apostasy. This is of faith; and it is a theological opinion of great probability that the character is not effaced from the souls of the blessed in Heaven; while it is an opinion of some probability, that it is not effaced from the souls of the lost. Theology further tells us that character is a mark, sign, or badge by which the recipient is devoted to the work of worshipping God according to the ordinances of the Christian religion and Christian life; and that this is the reason why a character should be impressed by the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy orders rather than by the others. Not all of the sacraments are directly and immediately ordained for the work of Divine worship; e.g. the Sacrament of Penance only absolves from sin, restoring the sinner to his former state, but not conferring on him any special privilege or faculty. Again, among the sacraments immediately connected with the worship of God, we may distinguish between the sacrament which constitutes the very act of worship (that is the Eucharist), and those sacraments which qualify a person to take part, as an agent or recipient, in the worship. Now these last are Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy orders. The Sacrament of Orders consecrates a man to the work of Divine worship as an agent, i.e. for the conferring of the sacraments upon other persons; baptism dedicates a person to Divine worship by qualifying him to receive the other sacraments; and confirmation, which confers spiritual manhood (as distinguished from the new birth of baptism), qualifies the recipient for the duty of honouring God by professing the Christian Faith before its enemies. The sacramental character is compared by theologians to a military badge, or the insignia of an order of knighthood. Scotus illustrates it by an argument drawn from the analogy of civil society, in which he names three official ranks:

the royal household, or that of the chief magistrate, by whatever name he may be called;

the public service, e.g. the army;

the officers of the army.

By baptism, he says, we are enrolled in the household of Christ; by confirmation, we are made soldiers of Christ; by Holy orders, we are made officers. And as these ranks have their distinctive badges in civil society, so in the spiritual society, or Church, the ranks are distinguished in the sight of God and His angels by spiritual badges, marks, or sacramental characters. All theologians affirm that the sacramental character is not a mere external denomination; and practically all are agreed that it is a sort of quality or state made inherent in the soul. Those, such as Scotus, who say that it is a relation (to Christ) mean that it is a relation with a real fundamentum, or ground and whether we say that it is a relation having a ground in the soul, or a state or quality involving a relation, seems to signify quite the same thing, the difference being only in the expression. The category of quality being divided by Aristotelean and Scholastic philosophers into four kinds, theologians for the most part classify the sacramental character as something akin to the genus of quality called power. Theologians also tell us that the character inheres not in the very substance of the soul but in one of the rational faculties; but it is a question in dispute whether the faculty in which the character inheres as its subject be the will or the practical reason (the Scotists holding that it is the will; the Thomists, that it is the practical reason). The sacramental character or mark is the character or mark of Christ, not of the Holy Spirit, and as the Redeemer has three prerogatives, as Prophet, Priest, and King, this mark is the mark of Christ as Priest. It is a participation in His priesthood and an assimilation to it. Now, every created perfection is a shadow of some perfection of the Deity, and therefore assimilation to Christ even in His human nature is assimilation to God. And as the Son is described in the Epistle to the Hebrews as “the Character of the Father’s substance,” hence the sacramental character has been defined as “a distinction impressed by the Eternal Character [the Son] upon the created trinity [i.e. the soul with the intellect and the will] sealing it into a likeness (secundum imaginem consignans) unto the Trinity which creates and anew-creates (Trinitati creanti et recreanti).” For theology distinguishes in the soul

the natural image and likeness of God;

the likeness produced by sanctifying grace and faith, hope, and charity;

the likeness not moral, but, so to say, legal and official, produced by the sacramental character.

The doctrine of the sacramental character is one of those which have been developed, and its history is traceable with sufficient clearness. It is to be observed, however, that the doctrine rests upon the authority of the Council of Trent, and that the history is given as history, not for the purpose of invoking the authority of the primitive Church. Though first solemnly defined by the Council of Trent, it had already been officially declared in the Council of Florence; and it was the unanimous opinion of all theologians, long before the time of Wyclif, who questioned it. It was set forth with the utmost explicitness by St. Augustine in the controversies of the fifth century. He points out that all who favoured rebaptism did so because they failed to distinguish between two effects of the sacrament that is between the sanctifying gift of grace and the Holy Spirit, on the one hand, and the gift, on the other hand, which was not in itself sanctifying but which was a mark dedicating the recipient (cf. Contra Ep. Parm., II, n. 28, with Ep. xcviii ad. Bonifac.). In this controversy the doctrine of the sacramental character was but asserting itself with greater emphasis because it was (constructively) attacked. The Church was but bringing out into distinctness a doctrine held all along. For the Fathers of the fourth century habitually speak of baptism as a permanent, an everlasting, or an ineffaceable, seal; and what they say of baptism may be applied to confirmation, since the two sacraments were usually associated. They compare the seal, or mark, of baptism with the insignia of soldiers, with the mark placed by shepherds upon sheep, with circumcision, with the marking of the doorposts of the Israelites in Egypt. Such evidence as we have from the earlier ages all tends to prove that the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries were only thinking out more explicitly what they had received from their predecessors. Thus Hippolytus contrasts the seal (or mark) of baptism, the mark given by Christ to his believers, with the mark of the beast (Hippolyt., De Christo et Antichristo, n. 6); the writer of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (see POPE ST. CLEMENT I; CLEMENTINES) calls it (c. 7, 8) the “seal impressed”; the “Pastor” of Hermas (lib. lII, Simil., IX, cc. 6, 16, 17, 31) speaks of baptism as a seal. At the end of the second century we find in the work known as “Excerpta Theodoti” (n. lxxvi), generally attributed to Clement of Alexandria, historical evidence of the existence of the doctrine. As the coin circulating in Judea in Christ’s time bore the image and superscription of Cæsar, so, the writer says, does the believer obtain through Christ the name of God as an inscription, and the Holy Spirit as an image, upon his soul; as even brute animals by a mark show their owner and by a mark are distinguished, so the believing soul, which has received the seal of truth, bears the marks (stígmata) of Christ.

In the light of this traditional teaching it is possible to see some reference to this truth in the Apostolic writings. Thus St. Paul says: “Now he that confirmeth us with you in Christ, and that hath anointed us, is God: Who also hath sealed us, and given the Pledge of the Spirit in our hearts” (II Cor., 1:21–22). Here there is a distinction made between the “unction,” i.e. grace, and the “sealing,” or impressing of a mark (character), and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Again he says: “In whom [Christ] also believing you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise” (Ephes., 1:13), and “grieve not the holy Spirit of God: whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption” (4:30). It is obvious, therefore, that this doctrine has been taught from the beginning, at first, indeed, without emphasis or clearness, in an obscure and only half-conscious manner, but with growing clearness; and though some theologians in the Middle Ages may have doubted whether it could be proved to be contained in the deposit of revealed truth, they did not at all doubt that it was true, or that it was a part of Catholic teaching.

M. J. RYAN.

Charadrus

A titular see of Asia Minor. According to Strabo (XIV, 669) and Skylax, 102, it was a harbour and fortress in Cilicia Tracheia, between Anemurium and Antioch, The Greek name is Charadros or Charadrous, still retained in the actual name Kalandran, a little village in the vilayet of Adana, with 280 inhabitants. Nounechios, Bishop of Charadrus, was present at Chalcedon in 451 (Lequien, II, 1017). The same prelate subscribed, in 458, the letter of the bishops of Isauria to Emperor Leo, with the double title Lamos and Charadrus (Mansi, Conc., VII, 563; see Lequien, loc. cit.). This means that Charadrus was at an early date united with Lamos, a see in Isauria, suffragan to Seleuceia.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Jean-Baptiste Chardon

Indian missionary in Canada, and in the Louisiana territory, born at Bordeaux, France, 27 April, 1672; died at Quebec, 11 April, 1743. He entered the Society of Jesus at Bordeaux, 7 Sept. 1687, and arrived in Canada in 1699. He was on the Ottawa mission in 1700. In the following year he went to Green Bay, Wisconsin, to aid the venerable Henri Nouvel, who had been nearly forty years on the mission there. In 1711 he was evangelizing the Illinois on the St. Joseph River. According to Marest, he was a missionary full of zeal, with a rare talent for learning languages. He remained at Green Bay until 1728, and was the only priest on the old mission ground west of Lake Michigan for several years. No further information regarding Chardon, except the date of his death, is available.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Mathias Chardon

(His name in religion was Charles.)

A learned French Benedictine of the Congregation of the Saint-Vannes, b. at Yvoi-Varignan in the present department of Ardennes, France, 22 September, 1695; d. at the monastery of St-Arnold in Metz, 21 October, 1771. He took vows in the monastery of St-Vannes (St-Viton) in Verdun in 1712, and soon became famous for his learning. At the general chapter of the Congregation of St-Vannes, held at Toul, in 1730, Chardon was forced to resign his office as a professor because he opposed the Bull “Unigenitus.” He is the author of the “Histoire des Sacraments” (Paris, 1745, 6 vols.), an historical treatise refuting the errors of the Sacramentarians by showing how the sacraments were administered in the Church, and how they were used from the time of the Apostles to the present. There is also an Italian translation (Verona, 1754; Brescia, 1758; Capolago, 1835), and it is reprinted in Migne, “Cursus Theologiae” (Paris, 1840), XX, 1–1152.

MICHAEL OTT

Chariopolis

A titular see of Thrace. Nothing is known about this city during antiquity. In 1087 it was plundered by Tselgou and Solomon, Kings of the Patzinaces and of the Hungarians. In 1205 Villehardouin passed through there, after the unsuccessful siege of Adrianople. It figures only in later “Notitiae episcoptuum” of the twelfth or thirteenth century as a suffragan of Heracleia in Thrace. An act of Isidorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, dated 13 August, 1347, places it again under the jurisdiction of Heracleia. Lequien (II, 1133) mentions but four bishops, the first present at Nicaea in 787, the last in 1351. It is not known when the see ceased to be a residential one for the Greeks; they frequently use the name for titular bishops. Chariopolis is now a little town with about 3000 inhabitants in the vilayet of Adrianople, northwest of Rodosto; the Turks call it Khairebolou, Aireboli, or Irebol.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Charismata

The Greek term charisma denotes any good gift that flows from God’s benevolent love (charis) unto man; any Divine grace or favour, ranging from redemption and life eternal to comfort in communing with brethren in the Faith (Rom., v, 15, 16; vi, 23; xi, 29). The term has, however, a narrower meaning: the spiritual graces and qualifications granted to every Christian to perform his task in the Church: “Every one hath his proper gift [charisma] from God; one after this manner, and another after that” (I Cor., vii, 7 etc.). Lastly, in its narrowest sense, charisma is the theological term for denoting extraordinary graces given to individual Christians for the good of others. These, or most of these, are enumerated by St. Paul (I Cor., xii, 4, 9, 28, 30, 31), and form the subject-matter of the present article. They are: “The word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, faith, the grace of healing, the working of miracles, prophecy, the discerning of spirits, diverse kinds of tongues, interpretation of speeches” (I Cor., xii, 8–10). To these are added the charismata of apostles, prophets, doctors, helps, governments (ibid., 28).

These extraordinary gifts were foretold by the Prophet Joel (ii, 28) and promised to believers by Christ: “And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues,” etc. (Mark, xvi, 17, 18). The Lord’s promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts, ii, 4) at Jerusalem, and, as the Church spread, in Samaria (Acts, viii, 18), in Caesarea (x, 46), in Ephesus (xix, 6), in Rome (Rom., xii, 6), in Galatia (Gal., iii, 5), and more markedly in Corinth (I Cor., xii, 14). The abuses of the charismata, which had crept in at this latter place, induced St. Paul to discuss them at length in his First Epistle to the Corinthians. The Apostle teaches that these “spiritual things” emanate from the Spirit who quickens the body of the Church; that their functions are as diversified as the functions of the natural body; and that, though given to individuals, they are intended for the edification of the whole community (I Cor., xii).

Theologians distinguish the charismata from other graces which operate personal sanctification: they call the former gratiae gratis datae in opposition to the gratiae gratum facientes. The “gifts and fruits of the Holy Ghost,” being given for personal sanctification, are not to be numbered among the charismata. St. Thomas (Summa Theol., I-II, Q. cxi, a. 4) argues that the Apostle (I Cor., xii, 8–10) “rightly divides charismata; for some belong to the perfection of knowledge, as faith, the word of wisdom, and the word of science; some belong to the confirmation of doctrine, or the grace of healing, the working of miracles, prophecy, the discerning of spirits; some belong to the faculty of expression, as kinds of tongues and interpretation of speeches.” It must, however, be conceded that St. Paul did not intend to give in these two verses a complete enumeration of charismata, for at the end of the chapter he mentions several more; besides he makes no attempt at a scientific division. Englmann (Die Charismen, Ratisbon, 1848) distinguishes two categories of charismata:

charismata tending to further the inner growth of the Church;

charismata tending to promote her outer development.

To the former belong the gifts which help the dignitaries of the Church in performing their offices; to the latter the gift of performing miracles. This division seems indicated in I Peter, iv, 10, 11: “As every man hath received grace [charisma], ministering the same to one another . . . If any man speak, let him speak, as the words of God. If any man minister, let him do it, as of the power, which God administereth.” Seven of the charismata enumerated by St. Paul fall into the first category:

the Apostolate;

the cognate office of prophecy;

the discerning of spirits;

the office of teacher;

the word of wisdom and science;

helps;

the gift of governing.

Five belong to the second category:

increased faith;

the power of miracles;

in specie the healing of the sick;

the gift of tongues;

the interpretation of tongues.

CHARISMATA GIVEN FOR THE INNER LIFE OF THE CHURCH

(1) The Apostolate deservedly heads the list of God’s extraordinary gifts to man for the building up of the Church. The Apostolic office contains in itself a claim to all charismata, for the object of its ordinary working is identical with the object of these special gifts: the sanctification of souls by uniting them in Christ with God. The Apostles received the first great effusion of charismata when the Holy Ghost descended on them in the shape of fiery tongues, and they began to speak in diverse tongues. Throughout their whole missionary activity they are credited with supernatural powers by Scripture, history, and legend alike. The legend, however fanciful in its facts, is built upon the general sense of the Church. Through the Apostles the fullness of Christ’s gifts flowed on to their helpers in various measure, according to the circumstances of persons and places.

(2) Prophecy, the gift of knowing and being able to manifest things hidden from the ordinary knowledge of man. “There were in the church which was at Antioch prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucious of Cyrene, and Manahen . . . and Saul” (Acts, xiii, 1). Agabus “signified by the Spirit, that there would be a great famine over the whole world, which came to pass under Claudius” (Acts, xi, 28). Philip the evangelist “had four daughters, virgins, who did prophesy” (Acts, xxi, 8, 9). These prophets were at times allowed to know and reveal the secrets of hearts (I Cor., xiv, 24, 25); they spoke “that all may learn, and all may be exhorted” (I Cor., xiv, 31), which implies that they were enlightened in the Faith above their fellows. Their gift was not a permanent one: for while one prophet was speaking a sudden revelation might come “to another sitting” and then the speaker must “hold his peace” (I Cor., xiv, 30). The object of prophecy was to speak “to men unto edification, and exhortation, and comfort” (ibid., 3, 4). Paul ranks this charisma above all others: “be zealous for spiritual gifts; but rather that you may prophesy” (I Cor., xiv, 1). “For greater is he that prophesieth, than he that speaketh with tongues . . .” (ibid., 5). It appears to have been so frequent in the early Church as to be considered a special, although extraordinary, office. At Antioch “prophets and doctors” are linked together (Acts, xiii, 1), and “God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors . . .” (I Cor., xii, 28; cf. Eph., iv, 11). In the course of time prophecy became less common, without, however, ever disappearing altogether.

(3) The discerning of spirits should be distinguished from natural or acquired insight, or shrewdness of judgment; it is the supernatural gift enabling its possessor to judge whether certain extraordinary manifestations are caused by a good or an evil spirit, or by natural agents. St. Paul associates it with prophecy: “Let the prophets speak, two or three; and let the rest judge” (I Cor., xiv, 29). This judging or discretion was necessary to prevent and correct abuses which might easily come in the train of prophecy. The discerning of spirits was possessed in a marked degree by many saints, and it is not uncommon now among confessors and spiritual directors.

(4) The Doctor’s office was to preach and teach the Faith permanently in some community assigned to their care. The Apostles themselves and the evangelists mentioned with apostles, prophets, doctors, and pastors (Eph., iv, 11) went from place to place founding new Churches; the Faith could only be maintained by permanent teachers fitted for their work by special gifts. Thus St. Paul writes to Timothy: “The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also” (II Tim., ii, 2). Such faithful men are the catechists in missionary countries.

(5) The word of wisdom and the word of knowledge (logos sophias, logos gnoseos). Wisdom (sapientia) is in St. Paul the knowledge of the great Christian mysteries: the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ, and the indwelling in the believer of the Spirit of God (I Cor., ii, passim; cf. Eph., i, 17). Knowledge (gnosis, scientia) likewise implies acquaintance with the religion of Christ, though in a lesser degree (I Cor., i, 5). In I Cor., viii, 1–7, “knowledge” denotes the special knowledge that all heathen religion is vain, that “there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” The word of wisdom and the word of knowledge seem to be degrees of the same charisma, viz., the grace of propounding the Faith effectively, of bringing home to the minds and hearts of the listener with Divine persuasiveness, the hidden mysteries and the moral precepts of Christianity. The charisma in question was manifested in the speech of St. Peter to the multitude on the day of Pentecost (Acts, ii) and on many occasions when the heralds of the Faith being delivered up, took “no thought how or what to speak:, for it was given them in that hour what to speak” (Matt., x, 19).

(6) Helps (antilepseis, opitulationes) is a charisma connected with the service of the poor and the sick performed by the deacons and deaconesses (Acts, vi, 1). The plural is used to mark the many forms assumed by this ministry.

(7) Government (kyberneseis, gubernationes) is the special gifts bestowed on the rulers of the church for the faithful exercise of their authority. This charisma is connected with all the grades of the hierarchy, with the Apostles and their successors, the bishops and priests, with doctors and deacons and administrators. St. Gregory calls the government of souls the art of arts; if it is so at all times, we must expect to find it endued with more special Divine assistance when the nascent Church was struggling against all the powers of Jew and Gentile.

The second series of charismata (those tending to promote the outer development of the Church) is not connected with any special office. These graces show the power of God at work in the members of the new Church; they were intended to strengthen the faith of believers and to dispel the incredulity of outsiders.

CHARISMATA GIVEN FOR THE OUTER DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH

(1) Faith, as a charisma, is that strong faith which removes mountains, casts out devils (Matt., xvii, 19, 20), and faces the most cruel martyrdom without flinching. Such faith, common at the beginning, has been granted by God in all ages to saints and martyrs, and to many holy men and women whose hidden lives offered no occasion for miracles or martyrdom.

(2) The working of miracles (energema dynameon, operatio virtutum) is the God-given power to perform deeds beyond the ordinary power of man. Under this charisma are comprised the many signs mentions by Mark (xvi, 17, 18): “In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover.” St. Peter heals the infirm and sick and such as were troubled with unclean spirits (Acts, v, 15, 16); Philip works miracles in Samaria (Acts, viii, ); St. Paul suffers no harm from the viper that hung on his hand (Acts, xxviii, 3–5); St. Peter raises Tabitha from the dead (Acts, ix, 40).

(3) Healing (charisma lamaton, gratia sanitatum) is singled out by St. Paul among other miracles because it was probably the most frequent and the most striking. The plural is used to indicate the great number of infirmities that were healed and the variety of means used in the healing, e.g. by pronouncing the name of Jesus (Acts. iii, 6), by the imposition of hands, by anointing with oil, by the sign of the cross.

(4) The gift of tongues and (5) the interpretation of tongues (collectively known as glossolalia) are described at length in I Cor., xiv. In what did glossolalia exactly consist?

It was speaking, opposed to being silent (I Cor., xiv, 28), yet

not always in a foreign tongue. On the day of Pentecost the Apostles did indeed speak the various languages of their hearers, but the still unbaptized Gentiles in the house of Cornelius “speaking with tongues, and magnifying God” (Acts, x, 46) and the twelve newly baptized Ephesians speaking with tongues and prophesying (Acts, xix, 6) had no reason for using any strange tongue. Again, instead of the expression “speaking with tongues” Paul uses the alternative phrases, “speaking in a tongue,” “by a tongue,” “with a tongue” (I Cor., xiv, 2, 4, 13, 14, 27). The object of the gift was not to convey ideas to listeners, but to speak to God in prayer (ibid., 2, 4), an object for which a foreign language is unnecessary. Lastly—and this argument seems conclusive—Paul compares glossolalia, as regards its effect, with talking in an unknown language; it is, therefore, not itself an unknown language (ibid., 11).

It was an articulate language, for the speaker prays, sings, gives thanks (ibid., 14–17).

The speaker was in a kind of trance—“If I pray in a tongue, my spirit [pneuma] prayeth, but my understanding [nous, mens] is without fruit” (ibid., 14).

on unbelievers glossolalia made the impression of the marvellous; perhaps it recalled to their mind the religious ravings of hierophants: “Wherefore (i.e. because unintelligible) tongues are for a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers. If . . . all speak with tongues, and there come in unlearned persons or infidels, will they not say that you are mad?” (I Cor., xiv, 22, 23).

The gift of tongues is inferior to that of prophecy: “Greater is he that prophesieth, than he that speaketh with tongues: unless perhaps he interpret, that the church may receive edification” (ibid., 5).

The charisma of interpretation is, then, the necessary complement of glossolalia; when interpretation is not forthcoming, the speaker with tongues shall hold his peace (ibid., 13, 27, 28). Interpretation is the work either of the speaker himself or of another (ibid., 27). It takes the form of an intelligible address; the explanation was to follow the speech with tongues as regularly as the discerning of spirits succeeded prophecy (I Cor., xiv, 28, 29).

Among the Fathers it is sententia communissima that the speaking with tongues was a speaking in foreign languages. Their interpretation is based upon the promise in Mark, xvi, 1, “They shall speak with new tongues,” and on its final fulfilment in the gift of tongues to the apostles (Acts, ii, 4). A new tongue, however, is not necessarily a foreign language, and a gift which had a special use on the day of Pentecost appears purposeless in meetings of people of one language. There are, besides, textual objections to the common opinion, although, it must be owned, not quite convincing [see the second point above]. Many explanations of this obscure charisma are proposed, but not one of them is free from objection. It may indeed be that there is some truth in all of them. St. Paul speaks of “kinds of tongues,” which may imply that glossolalia manifested itself in many forms: e.g. in the form of foreign languages when required by circumstances, as with the Apostles; as a new language—“a kind of speech distinctive of the spiritual life and distinguished from common speech, which to the exuberant feeling of the new faith appeared unsuitable for intercourse with God” (Weizsacker); or as the manifestation of the unspeakable groanings of the Spirit, asking for us, and causing us to cry, “Abba, Father” (Rom., viii, 15, 26). I Cor., xii-xiv, with commentaries; ST. THOMAS, II-II, QQ. clxxvi-clxxviii; ENGLMANN, Die Charismen (Ratisbon, 1848—best book on the subject); SCHRAM, Theol. mystica, 435; SEISENBERGER in Kirchenlex., s. v.; ID. In BUCHBERGER, Kirchl. Handlexikon; WEIZSACKER, Apost. Age, II, 254–75.

J. WILHELM

Civil Law Concerning Charitable Bequests

The word charity, as employed by the courts and used as descriptive of uses and trusts which will he upheld as charitable, has been the subject of a number of definitions. In the famous Girard will case (Vidal v. Girard, 2 How. U. S. 127), Horace Binney defines a charitable gift: “Whatever is given for the love of God or for the love of your neighbor, in the catholic and universal sense—given from these motives, and to these ends—free from the stain or taint of every consideration that is personal, private, or selfish.” And he further says:” Uncertainty of individual object would seem to be a characteristic of charity, for personal or individual certainty has often been held fatal to it.”

The following comprehensive definition is given by a leading authority: “A charity, in the legal sense of the term, may be defined as a gift to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds or hearts under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies from disease, suffering, or constraint, by assisting them to establish themselves in life, or by erecting and maintaining public buildings or works or otherwise lessening the burdens of the government” (Amer. & Engl. Ency. of Law, V, 894).

By a statute passed in the reign of Elizabeth (43 Eliz., c. 4) certain uses were defined as charitable which would be upheld by the court in contradistinction to those which were held to be superstitious after the Reformation in England. The objects enumerated in the statute were: “Relief of aged, impotent and poor people; maintenance of sick and maimed soldiers and mariners, schools of learning, free schools and scholars in universities; repairs of bridges, ports, havens, causeways, churches, seabanks and highways; education and preferment of orphans; relief, stock or maintenance for houses of correction; marriage of poor maids; supportation, aid and help of young tradesmen, handicraftsmen and persons decayed; relief or redemption of prisoners or captives; aid or ease of any poor inhabitants concerning payments of fifteens, setting out of soldiers, and other taxes.

Under this statute the Court of Chancery was authorized to appoint commissioners to superintend the application and enforcement of charities, and if from any cause the charity could not be applied precisely as the testator had declared, the court had the power in some cases to appropriate it according to the principles indicated in the devise as nearly as possible to the purposes expressed therein. This was called an application of cy pres, from the French words meaning “as near as,” the words of a will being interpreted so as to give effect to the testator’s general intention. The application of this doctrine depends chiefly upon judicial expression in each particular case. In many of the United States it has been repudiated, in others sustained. The statute of Elizabeth did not create a new law upon the subject of charitable uses, though it did create a new jurisdiction, and as it has not been enacted in many of the American States, the better opinion seems to be that the enumeration of charities in the statute had for its aim to show by familiar examples what class or kind of uses were considered charitable, rather than to enumerate all of the purposes which would fall within the scope and intent of the statute.

The Supreme Court of the United States has held, following ancient authority, that there is an inherent jurisdiction in equity in cases of charity, and that they were valid in such courts independent of and previous to the statute of Elizabeth. “The character of the object sought to be attained—the purpose to which the gift is to be applied—not the motive of the donor, is the best test of a legal, public charity” (Pepper and Lewis, Dig. Pa., p. 2753). The following have been held to be charities: the erection and repair of churches, the support of ecclesiastical denominations; of missions; the education of theological students, and kindred objects. In England, bequests for Masses for the dead are void in law, as being for superstitious uses; on the other hand, bequests for Masses have been sustained as charitable bequests in Ireland and in Canada (cf. Lilly and Wallis, “A Manual of the Law Specially Affecting Catholics,” London, 1893, p. 144, and Desmond, “The Church and the Law,” Chicago, 1898, p. 49). In the United States, some jurisdictions have sustained such trusts, while others have held them void (cf. Dillon, Bequests for Masses, Chicago, 1897). The support of education in its various forms is sustained, also the relief of the poor, the maintenance of hospitals and institutions, works of public utility, the abolition of slavery, and the benefit of freedmen. Trusts subversive of morality and religion will not be sustained. Trusts for the encouragement of sport and trusts for the care of private tombs or graveyards have not been sustained. Technically speaking, a bequest is a gift of personal property by will; a devise, a gift of real property by will; but these terms are frequently used interchangeably in popular language, and wills are always interpreted in accordance with the intention of the testator so far as the same can be gathered from the language of the instrument; therefore any language which will serve to express a desire to vest either personal or real property in a charity will be effective.

According to Sir William Blackstone, the power of bequeathing “is coeval with the first rudiments of the law,” but this power was not originally extended to all a man’s personal estate. By the common law, he tells us, one-third of the goods went to the heirs, one-third to the wife, and the remaining one-third was at the testator’s own disposal. By imperceptible degrees the law was changed in different parts of England, until, in order to favour the power of bequeathing and to reduce the whole kingdom to the same standard, statutes were passed in the reign of William and Mary, of William III, of Anne, and of George II, giving the right to testators within certain parts of the Kingdom of England to dispose of their entire personal estates, notwithstanding existing customs restricting this power to one-third only, and the claims of widows and children were utterly barred. By an act passed in the first year of the reign of Victoria (1 Vict., c. 26), it was enacted that all real and personal estate may be disposed of by will executed as required by that act. The right of testamentary disposition either of real or of personal estate exists, with certain limitations in some of them, in all of the United States.

Lands were originally devisable, it would seem, to a qualified extent with the Anglo-Saxons. The development of the feudal system, after the Norman Conquest of England, laid upon the holders of land certain obligations to their paramount lords, which made it necessary that these lands should not pass into the hands of charitable corporations and be thus withdrawn from the feudal obligation, because such corporations were of necessity unable to render the services usually due to the overlord, e. g. military duties, which are not compatible with religious life. This was the moving cause of the passage of certain statutes called Statutes of Mortmain, which it is necessary to consider further in order to understand the law governing gifts to charitable corporations.

“Upon the development of the feudal system at the Norman Conquest,” says Chancellor Kent (4 Kent, 504), “lands held in tenure ceased to be divisible in consequence of the feudal doctrine of non-alienation without the consent of the lord. . . . The restraint upon the power of devising did not give way to the demands of the family and public convenience, so early as the restraint upon alienation in the lifetime of the owner. The power was covertly conferred by means of the application of uses; for a devise of the use was not considered a devise of the land. The mode of doing this was by a feoffment to the use of the feoffor’s last will, and the feoffee being considered as seized of the use, not of the land, could devise it. The devise of the use was supported by the courts of equity, as a disposition binding in conscience; and that equitable jurisdiction continued until the use became by statute the legal estate. The Statute of Uses of 27 Henry VIII, like the introduction of feuds, again destroyed the privilege of devising, but the disability was removed within five years thereafter by the Statute of Wills of 32 Henry VIII.”

In the beginning of the reign of Charles II, military tenures were abolished so as to render the disposition of real property by will absolute. While the power of disposition of real property, as well as personal property either by the common law or by virtue of the statute above referred to, has been made thus free, there still remain certain restrictions upon individuals which must be considered.

All persons of sound mind are competent to bequeath and devise real and personal estate, excepting infants and married women. In England a married woman may now by statute make her will as freely as if unmarried. In some of the United States, if not in most of them, the power of married women over their separate estates, saving to the husband certain proportions in case he should elect to take against the will, is as great as that of unmarried women; that is, married women are for the most part put on the same plane as men; they have certain rights in a proportion of the real and personal estate of their husbands, which he cannot void by will. There are, however, certain restraints upon alienation either by deed or by will, the first of which has already been mentioned, viz: alienation in “mortmain,” a word coined to represent the condition where land has come into the possession of a dead hand, or in Latin mortua manus. An alienation of lands and tenements to any corporation, sole or aggregate, ecclesiastical or temporal, is such an alienation.

After the introduction of the feudal system it was always, and is still, necessary in England to have a licence in mortmain from the Crown to enable a corporation to purchase lands, because the king is the ultimate lord of every fee, and save by his own consent he cannot lose his privilege of escheats and other feudal profits by the vesting of lands in tenants that can never be attainted or die. “In strictness, however, the license to hold in mortmain was only a waiver of the right of the Crown to enter on the lands alienated; for as no royal charter can per se take away the property or prejudice the interest of the subject, such license did not abrogate the right of the mesne lords to enter, and therefore with respect to them, the corporation was not secure until the lapse of the periods respectively limited for the assertion of their rights” (Grant on Corp., 101, quoted in Farrington v. Putnam, 90 M. 418).

Originally the prohibition extended only to religious houses, bishops, and other sole corporations, excluding the parsons of parishes, who were in effect sole corporations and not included therein, but by the Statute “de Religiosis” (7 Edward I, c. 2) it was provided that no person, whether religious or otherwise, should sell, buy, or receive under pretence of a gift, or term of years or any other title whatsoever, any lands or tenements in mortmain under penalty of a forfeiture. Various attempts to evade this statute were met by subsequent statutes. In the reign of George II (9 George II, c. 36) a statute was passed that no lands or tenements or money to be laid out thereon should be given or charged with any charitable uses whatsoever, excepting by deed indented, executed in the presence of two witnesses, twelve calendar months before the death of the donor and enrolled in the Court of Chancery within six months after its execution. This act and its amendments were repealed in 1888, but new legislation codified the law on the subject, practically re-enacting the provisions of the existing law.

As the object of the statutes of mortmain was solely political, they were held not to apply to the alienation of land in the West India colonies or in Scotland. These statutes were not re-enacted in the United States, and therefore we must look to the special restrictions contained in the Statutes of the several States, whether general or special, whence corporations derive their existence, for the limitations upon their power to purchase and hold real estate, and also to the force to be given to the exception of corporations out of the English Statute of Wills, which declares that all persons other than bodies politic and corporations may be devisees of real estate.

At common law every corporation has the capacity to purchase and alienate lands and chattels, but in England corporations, both ecclesiastical and lay, under the statutes above referred to have lost this capacity. In the United States, as has been said, the statutes of mortmain are for the most part not recognized, but conveyances by deed or will of lands and tenements made to bodies corporate are void unless sanctioned by charter or act of legislature, and the inference from the statutes creating corporations and allowing them to hold real estate to a limited extent is that statutory corporations cannot hold real estate for purposes foreign to their institution.

The object of the exception of corporations from the English Wills Act was to prevent the locking up of property in perpetuity and also to prevent the imposition upon dying persons, who might thus be persuaded to give their estates from their families to charitable objects. The English statute of charitable uses has not been re-enacted probably in any of the United States, and it would seem that a devise not directly to a charitable corporation but in trust for such corporation would be good, on the principle that a court of equity has jurisdiction over bequests and devises to charitable uses independent of the statute. It is no valid objection to a grant or devise to a charitable use that it creates a perpetuity or renders the estate granted or devised for the purposes inalienable. (See TRUSTS AND BEQUESTS.)

LILLY AND WALLIS, A Manual of the Law Specially Affecting Catholics (London, 1893), under Trusts and Bequests, 135–67; DESMOND, The Church and the Law (Chicago, 1898), under Bequests to Charity, 44 to 56.

WALTER GEORGE SMITH.

Charity and Charities

In its widest and highest sense, charity includes love of God as well as love of man. The latter kind of love is so closely connected with, and dependent upon, the former, that neither it nor its fruits, under the Christian dispensation, can be adequately set forth without a brief preliminary glance at the relations existing between the two kinds.

INTRODUCTORY

As a virtue, charity is that habit or power which disposes us to love God above all creatures for Himself, and to love ourselves and our neighbours for the sake of God. When this power or habit is directly infused into the soul by God, the virtue is supernatural; when it is acquired through repeated personal acts, it is natural. If, in the last sentence but one, for the words, “power or habit which disposes us to” we substitute the words, “act by which we,” the definition will fit the act of charity. Such an act will be supernatural if it proceeds from the infused virtue of charity, and if its motive (God lovable because of His infinite perfections) is apprehended through revelation; if either of these conditions is wanting the act is only natural. Thus, when a person with the virtue of charity in his soul assists a needy neighbour on account of the words of Christ, “as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me,” or simply because his Christian training tells him that the one in need is a child of God, the act is one of supernatural charity. It is likewise meritorious of eternal life. The same act performed by one who had never heard of the Christian revelation, and from the same motive of love of God, would be one of natural charity. When charity towards the neighbour is based upon love of God, it belongs to the same virtue (natural or supernatural according to circumstances) as charity towards God. However, it is not necessary that acts of brotherly love should rest upon this high motive in order to deserve a place under the head of charity. It is enough that they be prompted by consideration of the individual’s dignity, qualities, or needs. Even when motivated by some purely extrinsic end, as popular approval or the ultimate injury of the recipient, they are in essence acts of charity. The definition given above is at present scarcely ever used outside of Catholic religious and ethical treatises. In current speech and literature the term is restricted to love of neighbour. Accordingly, charity may be popularly defined as the habit, desire, or act of relieving the physical, mental, moral, or spiritual needs of one’s fellows. (See ALMS AND ALMSGIVING.)

The obligation to perform acts of charity is taught both by revelation and by reason. Under the former head may be cited the words of Christ: “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”; “as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner”; and particularly the description in St. Mathew (xxv) of the separation of the good from the bad at the Final Judgment. Reason tells us that we ought to love our neighbours, since they are children of God; since they are our brothers, members of the same human family; and since they have the same nature, dignity, destiny, and needs as ourselves. This love, or charity, should be both internal and external. The former wishes the neighbour well, and rejoices in his good fortune; the latter comprises all those actions by which any of the needs are supplied. Charity differs from justice, inasmuch as it conceives its object, i.e. the neighbour, as a brother, and is based on the union existing between man and man; whereas justice regards him as a separate individual, and is based on his independent personal dignity and rights. The spirit of the Gospel as regards charity is for superior to that of any of the other great religions. Its excellence appears in the following points: love of the neighbour is akin to love of God; the neighbour is to beloved even as the self; men are brothers, members of the same family; the law of charity extends to the whole human race, thus making all persons equal; men are obliged to love even their enemies; the neighbour is not merely a rational creature made in the image and likeness of God, but also the supernaturally adopted son of the Father, and the brother of the Father’s Only-Begotten Son; finally, the Gospel presents the supreme exemplification of brotherly love in the death of Christ on the Cross. In no other religion are all these characteristics found; in most they are totally wanting. The charity inculcated by Judaism is of a very high order, but it falls considerably below that of the New Testament. Although both love of the neighbour as one’s self (Lev., xix, 18) and care of the poor (Deut., xv, 4, 11) are strictly commanded in the Pentateuch as duties to God, the neighbour meant only the Jews and the strangers dwelling within their gates. It did not embrace all mankind. The writes of the “imprecatory” Psalms, for example xvi and liii, rejoice in their enemies misfortune. Indeed, hatred of enemies was so generally regarded as lawful that Christ proclaimed His injunction of love of enemies as something new and unfamiliar. While the Jewish religion taught and still teaches the Fatherhood of God, this doctrine is much less attractive than the Christian conception of the same truth. Besides, it embraces only the children of Israel. The Hebrew idea of the brotherhood of man is correspondingly restricted. Among the other religions, Buddhism probably has the highest form of caritative doctrine, but the motives of its charity are cold, utilitarian, and selfish. It does not command its followers to love their enemies, but merely to refrain from hating them.

The charitable achievements of the non-Christian religions have exhibited all the limitations of their defective first principles. Among the Greeks and the romans the human person had no inherent worth. He was of importance only as a citizen. The majority of the subjects of these two great powers, being slaves, were without any legal rights. The poor, whether slaves or freemen, were treated by even the noblest and wisest of the Greeks and romans with contempt or at most with pity which is akin to contempt. Owing to its doctrine that the emotions should be suppressed and that pain should be borne with indifference, Stoicism had the practical effect of discouraging sympathy with, or charity towards, the unfortunate and the indigent. Human wretchedness was regarded as a minor evil or as no evil at all. Gifts to beggars were few, and usually from motives entirely selfish. Although the assertion is sometimes made that Athens and Rome possessed hospitals, the weight of evidence seems to show conclusively that no public institution for the regular treatment of diseases existed anywhere before the coming of Christ. The rich citizens of Rome annually distributed large sums of money among their clients and dependents, and the Government regularly provided for the needs of thousands upon thousands, but neither of these practices was intended to benefit any of the poor who were not citizens. The dominant motive of both was political—to secure the goodwill and civic influence of the crowd. In Athens the subventions of public money to the poorer artisans were similarly restricted and directed to the same ends.

Hebrew charity was of a much higher order, being motivated by obedience to God and genuine pity for the unfortunate. One of its ideals was thus expressed in the words of Jehovah: “there shall be no poor or beggar among you.” Owners were warned that their possessions were from God, and that they were but stewards. The widow, the orphan, the blind, and the lame, were objects of special compassion and assistance. The poor were permitted to gather up for themselves the gleanings left in the field by the reapers, and to take possession of everything that grew spontaneously in the year of the Sabbath. Those who lent money were forbidden to take interest from their fellow-Hebrews or from the strangers within their land. The fact that labour was held in honour went far towards making the condition of the lowly much less hard than among the heathen peoples. Nevertheless, Jewish charity was essentially national, for it took no account of the alien dwelling without. Interest, and frequently exorbitant interest, was exacted from the latter. In the later centuries of their existence as a nation, the Chosen People departed to a great extent from both the letter and the spirit of their excellent legislation on behalf of the poor. Hence Christ’s frequent condemnation of their leaders as hypocrites, self-seekers, oppressors of the poor, and givers of alms in order to be seen of men. While the Koran strongly enjoins the duty of almsgiving, and while the Mohammedans seem to be fairly charitable towards their coreligionists, their treatment of non-believers has been uniformly devoid of either charity or justice. The acts of oppression, cruelty, and murder which they have perpetrated against other peoples, show that Mohammedans have no conception of charity in the Christian sense. It is true that Christian nations have frequently been cruel towards one another and towards unbelieving races, but not in the consistent, unmitigated, and unlimited fashion of the followers of Islam.

Since the body of this article is to be occupied with a somewhat detailed account of the charitable activity of the Church, only a word need now be said concerning its general superiority over that of Paganism, Judaism, and Mohammedanism. This word cannot be more effectively uttered than in the following sentences of Lecky: “Christianity for the first time made charity a rudimentary virtue, giving it a leading place in the moral type, and in the exhortation of its teachers. Besides its general influence in stimulating the affections, it effected a complete revolution in this sphere, by regarding the poor as the special representatives of the Christian Founder, and thus making the love of Christ, rather than the love of man the principle of charity. . . . . A vast organization of charity, presided over by bishops, and actively directed by the deacons, soon ramified over Christendom, till the bond of charity became the bond of unity, and the most distant sections of the Christian Church corresponded by the interchange of mercy” (History of European Morals, II, 3rd ed., 79, 80).

HISTORY OF CHARITY IN THE CHURCH

(1) THE APOSTOLIC AGE

The conception of love and of brotherhood which Christ brought into the world obtained ample expression and development in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, particularly those written by St. Paul. There is no longer any distinction of Jew and Gentile, Barbarian and Scythian, bond and free; but “Christ is all, and in all” (Col., iii, 11). Even those who are not of the household of the Faith are to be loved and assisted (Rom., xii, 14–20; Gal., vi, 10). In the sight of God the slave is the equal and the brother of his master (Phil., 16). Labour is no longer dishonourable, but the normal condition of livelihood (II Thess., iii, 10). “Religion clean and undefiled before God . . . Is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation” (James, i, 27). While the church has especial solicitude for widows and orphans, she is not to be burdened with those who can be supported by their own relatives (I Tim., v, 8, 16). Persons who seek to become rich are exposed to many snares and temptations, “for the desire of money is the root of all evils” (I Tim., vi, 9, 10). Fraternal charity done in the spirit of Christ effects an equality among all the members of the Christian family, for the material gift of the giver is balanced by the love and prayers of the receiver (II Cor., viii, 13, 14; ix, 11, 12). Even the poor can and should contribute their mite (II Cor., viii, 11, 12). The rich should give to the poor in the spirit of Christ who became poor for our sake (II Cor., viii, 9). Hence charity is not to be performed as under the compulsion of law, but freely and spontaneously. The gift should be from the heart, for “God loveth a cheerful giver” (II Cor., ix, 7).

These doctrines were carried into the everyday life of the new believers. In Jerusalem, “the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul; neither did any one say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but all things were common unto them. . . . For neither was there any one needy among them” (Acts, iv, 32, 34). As soon as the Apostles realized that their spiritual mission was impeded by personal attention to the material works of charity, they appointed as their representatives the seven deacons to serve the tables and provide for the widows (Acts, vi, 1—6). Thus the caritative function of the Church became specialized. Both the spirit and the deeds of charity were exemplified in the agapæ, or love feasts, where rich and poor partook of a common meal to which all had contributed according to their means. (See AGAPE.) When some rich Corinthians introduced the practice of consuming their own contributions before the poor had arrived at the place of the meal, they were reprimanded by St. Paul (I cor., xi, 21, 31). Each congregation had a treasury for the relief of its own poor, and many of them shared their stores with other congregations in times of unusual distress. During a famine in Jerusalem assistance came from the Church at Antioch, and from the Gentile Churches (Acts, xi, 29; Gal., ii, 10).

(2) THE AGE OF THE PERSECUTIONS

As compared with their numbers and resources, the charity of the Christians of this period seems to have surpassed anything that the world has witnessed since. The explanation is to be found in four principal causes: (a) the principles that were kept constantly before the minds of the faithful; (b) the social and political conditions surrounding them; (c) their excellent administration of charity; and (d) the manifold sources from which it was provided.

(a) At the basis of all giving was a thorough grasp of the truth that the human possessor of goods is only a distributor and steward for the supreme owner, who is God. The rich believer recognized his obligation to give to the needy all of his resources that were left after his own wants had been supplied. And he was taught that his own wants were to be interpreted rather strictly, that he was to forego luxuries, and even unnecessary comforts and conveniences. Like other believers, he was to be distinguished from his pagan neighbours by his life of contentment, simplicity, and moderation. Clement, Cyprian, and Tertullian describe minutely the complex and luxurious life of the heathens, and denounce it was wholly unworthy of imitation by Christians who really love their poor neighbours (Ratzinger, “Armenflege,” p. 85 sq.; Uhlhorn, “Christian Charity in the Ancient Church,” p. 129 sq.). And their interpretation of simple and proper Christian life seems to have been adopted by substantially all the believers. In this respect the latter were far in advance of the Christians of modern times. This duty of distribution was discharged by placing the gifts on the altar, whence they were received and dispensed by the bishop. Through this practice the rich were impressed with the truth that they were merely making a return to God, while the poor were taught to look upon what their received as gift of God. Moreover, they were enabled to accept it without injury to self-respect, and in a spirit of gratitude both to God and to the human giver who was only God’s instrument. By praying for the latter they made an equitable return, were in truth dispensers of charity themselves. Two important consequences of this method and this view of charity were: first, the faithful gave so freely and spontaneously that no specific definitions of the duty or penalties for the neglect of almsgiving were formulated by the Church during this period; and second, no contributions were accepted from unbelievers, public sinners, extortioners, unjust possessors, or persons engaged in sinful occupations.

(b) The second cause to which the superabundant charity of the early Christians has been attributed was their social and political environment. Refusing to accept the authority of the Roman State in matters of morality, worship, and religion, they were brought under the displeasure of the civil power. Refusing to offer sacrifice or to take oaths in the name of false gods, they were shut out from the everyday life of the field, the market-place, the social gatherings, the theatre, and the forum, as well as from most of the gainful occupations. Forced to live a life apart, they easily became objects of misunderstanding, suspicion, and calumny. Then came that long and frightful series of persecutions, which they met with a uniform policy of non-resistance. The important consequence of all these conditions was that the normal life of the Christian became one of sacrifice and suffering, of prayer, fasting, and chastity. A very large proportion of them looked forward complacently to martyrdom for themselves, and to the near approach of the end of the world for all. In these circumstances the possession and enjoyment of earthly goods could have very little attraction and very little meaning. Almsgiving, and almsgiving in abundance, became one of the ordinary activities of the earnest Christian who had anything in excess of his own simple needs.

(c) In the third place, the administration of charity was under the immediate and exclusive direction of the bishop. The details of the work, as investigating and registering those in distress, and distributing the amount of relief which the bishop deemed proper in each case, were attended to by the deacons, and in the case of needy women by the deaconesses. The latter were either unmarried women or widows of mature years. Assistance was given only to persons unable to earn their living and in real need, and to these only in so far as was strictly necessary. Centuries of subsequent experience, combined with the latest theoretical knowledge, have neither produced a better system nor achieved more satisfactory results than this primitive Christian organization of charity. In the words of the Lutheran Uhlhorn, “never has she [the Church] more highly reverenced the poor, more kindly and lovingly treated them; never also has she been farther from fostering beggary, and making life easy to idlers” (o. Cit., p. 180).

(d) Among the sources of the material relief dispensed by the Church during the age of the persecutions, the most important seems to have been the oblations of natural products placed upon the altar at the time of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. All the faithful who could do so participated in this offering, since it was regarded as an element of the religious service. The names of the contributors were announced to the congregation. Distinct from the oblations were the collectæ, which were likewise natural products, but which were handed in on certain fast days immediately before the reading of the epistle. Another source consisted of money contributions to the church treasury, to the corbona or arca. These were usually given secretly. Extraordinary collections were taken up from the richer members, and large sums were obtained from those who on the occasion of their conversion sold all their goods for the benefit of the poor. In their capacity as collegia, or corporations, some of the churches may have taken dues from their members which helped to swell their resources for works of charity. Finally, the needy of all classes received a great deal of assistance directly from individuals. Heads of families were obliged to care not only for their children and other dependent relatives, but for all the members of their household, both bond and free. So cheerfully and so generously did the Christians give, so generally did they part with all the superfluous revenues for the benefit of the distressed, that the Church was not called upon to determine the duty of charitable contributions by any precise ordinance or law. The imposition of tithes did not begin until after the victory of Constantine in 312 (Ratzinger, op. cit., pp. 71, 72).

The results produced by the four factors just described were remarkable not only in the material order but also in the realm of thought. Assistance was afforded to the clergy, to widows and orphans, to the destitute, the aged, the sick, the persecuted, and imprisoned, and the stranger; and decent burial was given to the neglected dead. Although the clergy had the first claim upon the charity of the faithful, only those were assisted who were unable to support themselves from their own resources or by their own labour. Indeed, it was through the latter means that the greater number obtained their livelihood. The claims of the widows and orphans were recognized as second only to those of the clergy. Children abandoned by the pagans received support from the Church. In general all members of the community who were wholly or partially incapable of self-maintenance were given the measure of assistance that they needed. Owing to the frequent pestilences, sickness was one of the very important forms of distress, and it received from the charity of the Christians all the care and comfort that the knowledge and resources of the time made possible. Material and moral aid was extended to the victims of persecution. Prisoners were visited and comforted, especially those condemned to inhuman conditions of life and toil in the mines. Succour was frequently brought to the latter from a distance of hundreds of miles. Christians were compelled, through economic conditions or on account of the persecutions, to seek shelter or a livelihood far from home, obtained abundant hospitality from their fellow-Christians. Another form of charity practised by the faithful at this time, and a most necessary one in view of the indifference of the pagans, was the burying of the dead. Although their charity was organized on congregational lines, it was not confined to parochial needs. Aid was given to other congregations, even to those at a great distance. Thus Carthage came to the relief of Numidia, and Rome to the assistance of Cæsarea. Even the Pagans and the Jews were not forgotten; witness touching instances furnished by the Christians of Carthage and Alexandria (Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 84).

Another beneficent work of Christian charity in the material order consisted in transforming the attitude of men towards labour, and the relations between masters and slaves. Freemen who had hitherto been ashamed to work, and who had led a mendicant and parasitic life, became self-supporting and self-respecting. In the Christian workshop master and servant regarded each other as brothers instead of enemies, and the worker performed his task freely instead of under compulsion of the chain and the lash. In the pagan view and in Roman law, the slave had no rights, neither to humane treatment nor to marriage nor to life. He was not a person, but a thing. Christianity taught the master that the slave was his brother in Christ, and his equal both in the Christian assemblies and in the sight of God. It commanded the master to treat his slaves with mildness and humanity, to grant then freedom from toil on Sundays and holidays, to permit them to live a family life in the same conditions of privacy, security, and indissolubility that ought to mark his own marital relations. It enjoined upon the slave the duty of respecting himself as a man and a brother of Christ, and bade him obey his master not out of fear but out of regard for the social authority of Christ. It permitted him to aspire to the highest honours in the Church. While the church made no effort during this period towards the emancipation of the slaves, her attitude in this respect was dictated by motives of the greatest kindness and the truest charity. Socially and economically the Christian slave was no worse off than his persecuted fellow-Christians, whereas if he obtained his freedom he would be unable to find an occupation compatible with a moral life. The agapæ not only helped to feed the poor, but promoted the doctrine of equality and brotherhood. Here the poor man and the slave sat down with the rich man and the master to partake of a meal to which all had contributed according to their means; and the wealthy and the powerful were strikingly reminded that possessions and authority were relatively insignificant in the eyes of the common Father of all. Abuses did, indeed, gradually creep in; in many places the love-feast took on the character of a sumptuous banquet, or was wholly provided by some rich man as a meal for the poorer Christians only; but these changes were largely due to the increase in the size of the congregations, and to the dangers of meeting openly during the time of persecution.

The most notable achievement of Christian charity in the world of ideas sprang from its teaching concerning ownership, and concerning the intrinsic value of the individual. It was in large measure owing to the thoroughness with which the Christians put into practice the truths that God created the earth for all the children of men, and that the human owner is merely the steward and distributor of his possessions, that they were so soon able to triumph over a hostile civilization which was built upon force and selfishness. In reproach of that civilization Tertullian could proudly exclaim: “All things are common among us except women.” The Christian preaching and exemplification of the truth that not merely the roman citizen, but every human being is clothed with the dignity of personality, brought about at length the end of slavery, and exerted a considerable influence upon legislation even before the victory of Constantine. Trajan encouraged the emancipation of slaves; Hadrian deprived the masters of the right to put them to death; Plutarchy and Epictetus held far more humane views concerning the claims of slaves than did Cicero and Cato. Nerva and Trajan extended public assistance to the needy children throughout Italy, instead of confining its benefits to the idlers in the city of Rome, after the manner of all their predecessors. Uhlhorn maintains that as soon as the Church had freed herself from the heresy of Montanism, the Christians began to lose their grasp of the higher motives of charity, and to lay stress upon the distinction between the counsels and the Commandments (op. Cit., p. 205 sq.). For the majority, who aimed only to comply with the Commandments, the duties of charity became, like all other duties, less rigorous. The motives of their charitable activity also degenerated into the desire to obtain personal merit in the supernatural order, and release from their sins. According to Uhlhorn, these doctrines first found definite statement in the works of Hermas, Cyprian, and Origen; but they soon became the prevailing views of the Church, and so continued until Reformation, when a return was made to the primitive teaching (pp. 397, 398). These, however, are the facts: whatever diminution of charitable work occurred is explained by the change in the political and social conditions surrounding the Christians; the distinction between counsel and precept was originated by Christ Himself (Matt., xix, 11, 12); the meritorious character of almsgiving was likewise taught by Him (Matt., xxv, 31—46, and frequently elsewhere); and both these doctrines, together with that of almsgiving was expiatory of the temporal punishment due to sin (not of sin itself), are found in all the early writers, as well as in the liturgy of that age (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., pp. 89–92).

(3) FROM CONSTANTINE TO GREGORY THE GREAT

As a result of the freedom and social importance which the Church obtained through the victory of Constantine, she was called upon to relieve the distress not merely of her own children, but of the whole population. The universal corruption, cruelty, and extravagance of the civil officials, the relentless and grinding usury of the money-lenders and the almost continuous invasions of the barbarians, combined to produce a greater amount of wretchedness than had ever before existed in the empire. Over the three classes just mentioned the Church had very little influence, since none of them became fully Christianized until long after Christianity had become the established religion. Among the means available to meet this distress there remained the oblations at Mass, the collections on fast days, and the extraordinary collections. But none of these was relatively as fruitful as in the age of the persecutions. Hence exhortations to almsgiving become much more frequent, and towards the end of the sixth century the law of tithes makes its appearance. A new source of charitable relief was created by the contributions of the emperors, and of the powerful and wealthy generally. Many of the latter were converted on their death-beds, and endeavoured to atone in their wills for previous neglect of the duty of almsgiving. The bishops not only condemned this postponement of a grave Christian obligation, but refused to accept money which was acquired through dishonesty or extortion, even when it came from the hands of kings. As in the preceding period, the relief of the poor was recognized as a primary function of the Church, and all her revenues even the sacred vessels, as subject to the demands of charity. Hence arose the custom of referring to the possessions of the Church as “the patrimony of the poor.” In the interests of security and system, the church revenues were divided into four parts, of which one went to the bishop, another to the clergy, a third to the maintenance of worship, and the fourth to the relief of distress. This practice became quite general in Rome during the fifth century, whence it gradually extended over the whole Christian world (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 116 sq.). The administration of charity remained in the hands of the bishop, assisted by the oeconomus, who was usually a priest. The latter was in turn assisted by the deacons, subdeacons, and deaconesses. In every episcopal city, and in other places of importance, were houses called diaconiæ, at which and from which assistance was given to the poor, the sic, and the aged. A new institution of chrity appears in the xenodochia, hospitals, which originated during the reign of Constantine. They were primarily intended for the reception of strangers, but soon undertook the care of the sick, the homeless poor, widows, abandoned children, and other helpless classes. In brief, they performed the tasks that are now divided among hospitals, hotels, almshouses, and asylums. Towards the end of the fourth century they increased very rapidly and by the time of Gregory the Great were to be found in almost every city of the empire. They were all under the control of the bishop, and were maintained by landed endowments, the general revenues of the Church, and special contributions from the faithful. A form of charity which in the latter half of the Middle Ages became the dominant one, came into existence during the period now under consideration. This was the monastic system of poor relief. The precept of labour, which occupied a primary place in the rules both of Basil and Benedict, was the means of providing a most striking and most beneficent example to an age that had not yet learned the dignity and value of work. And a large share of the product of the industry of the monks was distributed among the poor. The monasteries supplied physicians for all the sick of the neighbourhood, maintained hospitals for all classes of the distressed, reared and educated the young, and during the fifty century were about the only places of refuge for persons whose homes lay in the path of the devastating barbarians. On the other hand, the present period witnessed the decay of the once important agapæ. More and more they became repasts for the poor provided by the rich, until at length they degenerated into display of the lavish generosity of their providers, and came under the condemnation of the Church. Among the practices of charity by private individuals were: alms given to those of the poor who had permission to solicit aid at the doors of the churches; large donations of property for the endowment of hospitals, such, for example, as those made by Fabiola, Pammachius, Demetrias, Zoticus, Pulcheria, and Olympia; the direct distribution of 11their goods to the poor by many of the wealthy; and many other forms and practices which have necessarily been overlooked by the historian.

In the preaching of the Church at this time the fundamental truths of Christian charity were constantly applied to the different social needs and institutions. The bishops protested strongly and frequently against the excessive taxes and the harsh methods employed in collecting them; against the landowner’s oppression of his tenants, and the extortion practised by the usurer; against the forcible enslavement of freemen, the tyranny of civil officials, and the injustice of the courts; against the inhuman treatment of slaves, and in favour of emancipation. In opposition to the almost universal selfishness of the age, they incessantly proclaimed the duty of almsgiving, the stewardship of wealth, and the solidarity of mankind. To those possessors who refused to distribute their superfluous goods among the needy, some of the Fathers applied the terms “robber,” “thief,” “extortioner.” And they regarded as superfluous all that remained after the reasonable needs of the owner had been supplied. They exacted a restitution for the benefit of the poor of all the proceeds of extortion and usury. Nevertheless they all defended the principle of private ownership. Finally, they kept constantly before the faithful the doctrine that almsgiving is an offering to God by the rich, and a gift from God to the poor. The results of the Church’s preaching and practice of charity during this period were that widows, orphans, abandoned children, friendless young women, prisoners, the sick, the helpless poor, and the victims of the barbarian invasions, received all the care and assistance which their condition and the available resources permitted. In fact, the unrelieved poverty of that day seems to have been less appalling than is the pauperism of our own time. The vigilance of the deacons and deaconesses seems to have been fairly successful in preventing a waste of charity upon beggars and idlers. While the church was not able to bring about the abolition of the manifold social abuses of the time, she was directly instrumental in modifying them to a considerable degree. Thus, the bishops gave a humane example by their treatment of the tenants of the lands owned by the church, punished the murder of slaves by excommunication, frequently emancipated their own bondmen, and demanded for the slave as well for the freeman the privilege of Sunday rest. The civil legislation of the time granted this demand, abolished the gladiatorial sports and the right of life and death which the father had possessed over his children, conceded the right of asylum to the Christian churches, recognized the duty of the State towards all the poor, prohibited indiscriminate begging, and made the bishop president of a court for the trial of cases which concerned the poor, the widow, and the orphan. The bishop’s title, “father of the poor and protector of widows and orphans,” was recognized by the State as well as by the Church. No doubt the more frequent stress now laid upon the supernatural rewards of charity does indicate a decline from the fervour of the preceding age, but there is no evidence that the change in the generosity of the faithful was as great as many historians assume. And it is sufficiently explained by the more heterogeneous character of the Christian population after the danger of persecution had passed. Failure to preach the meritorious character of almsgiving would not only have been an injury to the poor, but would have shown contempt for the teaching of Christ.

(4) THE MIDDLE AGES

The first important event in the world of charity after the reign of Gregory the Great was the deterioration that it suffered in Gaul under the Merovingians. Owing to the anarchic social and political conditions of the time and the resulting demoralization of the clergy, the poor were all but forgotten, and institutions of charity either disappeared or were diverted to other uses. Although the monasteries discharged their duties fairly well during the early part of the Merovingian period, they became involved later on in the general disorder, worldliness, and negligence which reached a climax under Charles Martel. Then came the great law-giver, Charlemagne, who effected a manifold and far-reaching reform. He recovered the church property that had been misappropriated, and re-established the law of tithes, the fourfold division of church revenues, the oblations during Divine service, and other offerings to the priest for charity, and the custom of regarding all the goods of the Church as primarily the patrimony of the poor. According to his legislation, the bishop was to remain the supreme director of charity administration, but in the beneficed parishes the immediate control was in the hands of the person who occupied the benefice. Every form of genuine distress was to be relieved, but idlers, beggars, and vagabonds were to be turned away and compelled to work. The feudal lord was charged with the duty of caring for all the needy among his own vassals. This provision was merely an application to feudal conditions of St. Paul’s injunction that everyone should maintain the dependents of his own household. It continued in force, theoretically at least, throughout the whole of the Middle Ages. The monasteries, too, were required to resume their former practices of charity and their more important function as centres of industry, religion, morality, and civilization for all the surrounding populations. Thus it came about that the work of civilizing and Christianizing the Germanic peoples was for the most part accomplished by the monks of St. Benedict and the monks from Ireland (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., pp. 216–218).

A great impetus was given to charitable activity by the discipline of penance, according to which fasting, prayer, and other forms of penitential exercises were, to a considerable degree, replace by almsgiving. The amount to be contributed was proportioned to the offence; for some of the gravest sins the penalty was total renunciation of one’s possessions and entrance into a monastery. Especially large donations to charity were required of those who had neglected the corporal works of mercy. The bishops and other Christian teachers of the time of Charlemagne frequently reminded the kings, princes, and lords that all earthly power was from God, and that their subjects were their equals before God and their brothers in Christ. Through this teaching Germanic slavery (which, indeed, had never been so general nor so deep-rooted as among the Greeks and the Romans) was mitigated into serfdom. Through the Christian teaching and example concerning the dignity of labour, there arose a class of artisans who were not ashamed of their calling, and who were therefore able at length to free themselves from subjection to the feudal lord. The doctrine that all superfluous wealth ought to be employed for the benefit of the poor, was as clearly proclaimed, at least by the great Christian teachers, such as Bede and Alcuin, as it every had been; but it was not preached so generally nor observed so faithfully. After the death of Charlemagne his organization of charity fell rapidly into decay. Feudalism, all-powerful, haughty, belligerent, unscrupulous, acknowledging no claims but those of might, demoralized both ecclesiastical and civil order. The spiritual leaders of the people were to a very great extent incompetent, worldly, and avaricious. Clerics as well as nobles exploited their serfs and neglected the poor. From the middle of the ninth to the beginning of the twelfth century these deplorable conditions were general throughout Europe. In England, however, the demoralization did not reach its lowest depths until the second half of the tenth century; in Ireland it did not come until the eleventh. Nevertheless the doctrine of charity, as expressed in the documents accompanying charitable foundations, and in the writings of the great teachers like St. Bernard, was everywhere identical with that of the Scripture and the Fathers. The old truths about property as a trust, about the duty of distributing superfluous goods among the poor, about the supernatural rewards of almsgiving, and its value as expiatory of the temporal punishment due to sin—are all clearly taught. Owing to the relatively lower average of Christian fervour, the last two features assume a relatively greater prominence than they had in the teaching of the age of persecutions.

During the three centuries following the death of Charlemagne, the work of relieving the poor was steadily and rapidly transferred from the diocesan clergy to the monasteries. The demoralization of the diocesan clergy, the misappropriation of church property and revenues by the clergy and the lords, the theory that the lords were to care for all the poor within their domains, the deflexion to some of the monasteries of tithes that formerly went to the parish clergy, the practice of giving landed endowments to the monasteries instead of to the parish churches, the humane treatment generally accorded to their tenants by the monks, and the fact that Christian life became more and more centred about the monasteries—combined to effect this transformation. The new and dominant position of the monasteries is thus described by Ratzinger: “The energy of Christian life had gone over from the diocese to the monastery. The latter became the centre for rich and poor, high and low, for innocent youth and repentant age. It provided in some measure a substitute for the primitive episcopal parish. In every district, alike on towering mountain and in lowly valley, arose monasteries which formed the centres of the organized religious life of the neighbourhood, maintained schools, provided models for agriculture, industry, pisciculture, and forestry, sheltered the traveller, relieved the poor, reared the orphans, cared for the sick, and were havens of refuge for all who were weighed down by spiritual or corporal misery. For centuries they were the centres of all religious, charitable, and cultural activity” (op. Cit., pp. 287, 288)—that is, until the end of the fifteenth century. The orders that took the most prominent part in the work of poor-relief were the Benedictines, Cistercians, Premonstratensians, Dominicans, and Franciscans. Through the portarius alms were daily distributed at monastery gate. The needy who were unable to come for a portion of this received assistance in their homes. Connected with the monasteries were hospitals for the treatment and relief of all forms of distress. In addition to their material works of charity, the monasteries did much for the improvement of social conditions and ideals. They treated their tenants and servants a great deal better than did the secular lords, and in their schools maintained a genuine equality between the children of the rich and the poor. The teaching and example of St. Francis and his followers concerning the solid worth of holy poverty recalled millions of souls from selfishness, luxury, and avarice to simpler and saner ideals of life, and as a further result not merely gave an immense impetus to charitable activity among all the people, but contributed not a little towards the abolition of serfdom in Italy (cf. Dubois, Saint Francis of Assisi, pp. 59—61). During the fourteenth and more frequently in the fifteenth century, however, a many abuses got a foothold in the richer monasteries. Avarice, luxurious living, lavish entertainment of guests, favouritism towards relatives, and other forms of relaxation rendered these institutions unable and unwilling to attend properly to the relief of distress. Moreover, the mendicant orders withdrew in the later Middle Ages to the towns, where they devoted themselves almost exclusively to the contemplative life and to preaching.

Next in importance to the monasteries came the hospitals. As already noted, these institutions discharged the functions of guest-house, asylum, almshouse, and hospital in the modern sense. Many of them were managed by secular brotherhoods whose members lived a common life and wore a distinctive garb, but did not claim the privileges of a religious order. The first of these hospitals were established at the end of the ninth century, in Siena, by a certain Soror. Similar institutions in charge of similar brotherhoods soon made their appearance in many of the other cities of Italy. About the middle of the twelfth century the Brotherhood of the Holy Spirit was founded by one Guido in connection with the hospital at Montpellier. This association grew very rapidly. In 1198 Pope Innocent III took it under his special protection, and entrusted to it a large hospital which he had endowed at Rome. This was but one of the many hospitals established under the direction of that remarkable pontiff. By the end of the thirteenth century there was hardly an important town in Germany that did not possess one or more hospitals of Brotherhood of the Holy Spirit. St. Elizabeth of Hungary founded three hospitals. The military orders, such as the Knights of St. John and the Hospitallers in Germany, whose existence is due to the spirit of service and self-sacrifice created by the Crusades, established and maintained hospitals in nearly every country of Europe. These orders did an immense amount of good while they remained true to their original spirit, but their usefulness had come to an end by the middle of the fifteenth century. In the later Middle Ages numerous hospitals were maintained by the free towns and cities. Every town in Italy and Germany had at least one, while the larger cities possessed several. They were superintended by a layman, but the attendants and nurses were members of religious associations. Akin to the hospitals were the leper houses and leper huts in which were sheltered the victims of that form of leprosy which the Crusades brought back from the East. In the thirteenth century these institutions numbered, according to Matthew Paris, nineteen thousand (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 341). To meet the plague there arose in the twelfth century the military order of St. Lazarus. It spread rapidly over the whole of Europe, had charge of many hospitals, and obtained extensive landed possessions. Having finished its tasks and become somewhat demoralized, it was dissolved by Pope Innocent VIII at the end of the fifteenth century.

Several other religious communities and pious associations having for their chief object the relief of distress arose during the period which we are now considering. A group of women belonging to the Third Order of St. Francis, and under the patronage of St. Elizabeth of Hungary (now known as Elisabetherinnen in Germany and Grey Nuns in France), were formed into a community by Pope Martin V in 1428. Their work on behalf of the poor, the sick and the distressed in Germany, France, Austria, and Italy, has been noteworthy in amount and quality. At the end of the twelfth century a lay sisterhood, called Beguine, was organized to care for the sick in the homes of the latter. Later on they gave instruction to poor girls, and shelter to poor girls and widows. They became quite numerous in the Netherlands and Germany, but failed to retain their early spirit, especially in the matter of respect for ecclesiastical authority. By the end of the sixteenth century their career had practically ceased. Among the other communities worthy of mention are: that of St. Anthony of Vienne, which arose in the second half of eleventh century to minister to those afflicted with the disease known as St. Anthony’s fire, and whose period of usefulness lasted about two centuries; the Alexian Brothers, originally a lay association whose chief work was to bury the dead, but which soon undertook other charitable functions; they were formed into a religious congregation in 1458, and still exist in charge of hospitals; the Trinitarians, and the congregation founded by Raymund of Pennafort and Peter Nolasco, both of which appeared about the beginning of the thirteenth century, and in the course of the next five hundred years relieved an immense amount of physical and mental wretchedness by ransoming captives, particularly from the Mohammedans; finally, the “Fratres Pontifices” (Bridge Builders), who during the last four centuries of the Middle Ages made bridges and roads, erected inns for poor and sick travellers, and protected merchants and other wayfarers against the thievery and violence of highwaymen. Their diffusion was rapid and general throughout Europe, and their services to the social and commercial life of the period were incalculable. To the modern mind an organization bound by a religious vow to the avocation of bridge-building may seem fantastic, but it was merely a particular illustration of the general fact that in the Ages of Faith the church was able to create an institution for the relief of every social need. (See BRIDGE-BUILDING BROTHERHOOD.)

A very important agency in the charitable activity of the later Middle Ages was that of pious foundations or endowments. They consisted of lands or other revenue-producing property, the income of which was to be expended for the benefit of the poor. In return for this charity the beneficiaries were expected to pray for the donor, or for the repose of his soul. Here we see the same conception of charity as an instrument of equality between rich and poor, which was enunciated by St. Paul and exemplified in the primitive oblations. Many of the foundations required that requiem Masses should be celebrated for the benefactor. The greater number were connected with monasteries and hospitals, although some were entrusted to the parish churches and, in the cities, to the civil magistrates. Besides their hospitals, the free cities gradually undertook their works of charity, until in the fifteenth century they either directly or indirectly discharged the greater part of the task of relieving the poor, the helpless, and the stranger. The guilds, which played such an important and varied role in the life of the cities, were not merely associations having charge of trade and industry; they were often mutual benefit societies which cared for all needy members and for the dependent families of needy and deceased members. As a result of the charitable activity of Church, municipality, guild, and other associations like the Calenderii in Germany and the Humiliati in Italy, there was practically no unrelieved poverty in the cities during the later Middle Ages. The spectre of the modern proletariat, wretched, debased, with no definite place in the social organism, and no definitely recognized claims upon any social group or institution, had no counterpart in the municipal life of that time.

From the fact that in the cities the care of the poor had for the most part been taken over by municipal agencies in the fifteenth century, and that the parish system of relief had ceased before the end of the eleventh, it is not to be inferred that the charitable activity and influence of the Church were restricted to the religious orders and religious association. The whole structure of municipal charity was built up under her inspiration, encouragement, and direction. All through the Middle Ages the diocesan clergy continued to collect and distribute the means of charitable relief. In the cities they supplied the needs of those persons who had been overlooked by the monasteries, hospitals, and guilds. In the country the theory of feudal responsibility for all dependents caused the charity of the diocesan clergy to be confined to travellers and strangers. Moreover, Ratzinger maintains that in England the system of parish relief continued in full vigour and efficiency up to the time of the Reformation (op. Cit., p. 421 sq.). Professor Ashley contends that it had disappeared before the twelfth century, but his conclusion is based on the presumption of similarity of conditions in England and on the Continent rather than upon positive arguments (English Economic History, II, 309 sq.). Then there was the beneficent influence of the Church upon social and political institutions. Her prohibition of usury, which was also under the ban of the civil law, was a great boon to the poor and all the economically weak. For in those days money was nearly always borrowed to meet temporary and personal needs, and not as now for use as capital. While the theological proof that interest-taking was unlawful may not have been any better understood by the mass of the medieval population than by many of its modern critics, the doctrine itself, reinforced by the ecclesiastical and civil legislation, effectively taught men that gains ought to be the fruit of labour not of exploitation, and on the whole protected the economically weak against the economically strong (cf. Ashley, op. cit., II, 434 sq.). When the increased need for loans threatened to place large numbers of the people at the mercy of the Jewish usurers, the Montes Pietatis were established, mostly by the Franciscans, from which money could be borrowed on payment of a sum sufficient to cover risks and the cost of maintenance. Finally, the Church successfully inculcated what Dr. Cunningham has called, “a keen sense of personal responsibility in the employment of secular power of every kind” (Western Civilization, II, 104). King, prince, and feudal lord held their office from God, and were responsible to Him for the people committed to their charge. The poor, the weak, and the helpless were, in theory, and to a considerable degree in practice, objects of their special care. While the cultivators of the land remained, until the latter part of the Middle Ages, unfree, “bound to the soil,” they enjoyed security of tenure, and could claim the protection and support of the lord. The mutual duties and rights of lord and serf were in a high degree personal, and not reducible to any mere cash-nexus. The principles of charity expounded during the last three centuries remained the same as those found in the Scripture and in the Christian teaching of every age from the beginning. Only they were presented more precisely and systematically. Thus St. Thomas, whose treatment of the matter may be taken as typical, declares that charity towards the neighbour should have as its motive the love of God, and that almsgiving may be made meritorious of eternal rewards and expiatory of the temporal punishment due to sin. He insists that fraternal charity ought to be free, spontaneous, from the heart. When he speaks of it as a duty he has in mind moral duty, not the constraint of external law (cf. Summa Theologica, II—II, all of Q. xxxii). While he maintained that the contemplative life is in itself of higher moral and supernatural worth than the active life, inasmuch as it is more directly concerned with love of God, he also pointed out that a life of activity and labour may become strictly obligatory, and hence more meritorious than a life of contemplation—for example, in order to gain a livelihood, escape the moral dangers of idleness, or give alms to the needy (II-II, Q. clxxxii, aa. 1 and 2; Q. clxxxvii, a. 3). In spite of some occasional exaggeration of the contemplative, and disparagement of the active, life, the utility and dignity of labour have never been more generally recognized than in the second half of the Middle Ages. As to private property, St. Thomas taught that, while it was useful and lawful, all superfluous goods should be used for social purpose (II—II, Q. lxvi, a. 2). In no age has the conception of ownership as a social trust been put into practice by so large a proportion of the community as during this period. For proof we need only point to its innumerable and magnificent institutions, foundations, and expenditures for the glory of God and the service of mankind (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 392).

There are certain serious and oft-repeat ed criticisms of Catholic charity in general and of medieval charity in particular which may be conveniently noticed at this point. They are all reducible to the general assertion that the Church’s teaching concerning the meritorious character of almsgiving led to so much indiscriminate charity as to raise the question whether Catholic work on behalf of poverty was not productive of more harm than good. With regard to this contention, the first observation to be made is that the Church did teach that charitable actions from the proper motive promoted the spiritual welfare of the giver, but that this was the teaching of Christ Himself, as well as of the Christian authorities in every age (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., pp. 89, 160, 388). If the doctrine seems to have been more frequently and more strongly inculcated in the Middle Ages than in the first centuries of the Christian Era, the explanation is to be sought not merely in a lesser spirit of self-sacrifice, but also in the more developed and systematic presentation of the theory, as well as in the fuller accounts which history has handed down to us concerning the beliefs and deeds of the later time. In the second place, the contention, or assumption, that the Church, or any of her authoritative exponents, ever taught that almsgiving was meritorious regardless of the need of the recipient—in other words, that it is a good work to give the neighbour something which does him harm—is simply false. How could any sane and intelligent Christian defend the proposition that an act of injury to the neighbour would win the favour of God? To Him the welfare of one man is as dear as that of another. If this a priori consideration seem inconclusive, let us cite the admissions of the economic historian, Professor Ashley: “It is not difficult to adduce a long catena of passages from the Fathers and from the canons of Councils, which declare in the most explicit fashion the duty of investigation” (op. Cit., II, 315). In this way, he says “Ehrle is able to make a very effective reply to the exaggerations of Emminghaus” (p. 369). His conclusion is: “It must be allowed that so far as the theory of almsgiving is concerned, the medieval Church was free from the fault that has been imputed to it. . . .” (p. 316).

But the important question concerns neither the motives nor the doctrine of medieval charity, but its effectiveness in the relief of poverty. Here are three typical answers to this question: “ . . . in the sphere of simple poverty it fan hardly be doubted that the Catholic church has created more misery than it has cured” (Lecky, History of European Morals, II, 95, 3rd ed.). “For eighteen centuries the charitable and legislative efforts of society have been pauperizing instead of elevating men” (H. B. Adams, Johns Hopkins University Historical Studies, fifty series, p. 319). “This [private charity], like the charity of the Church, was wholly indiscriminating and, therefore, evil in its consequences” (Charles A. Ellwood, in Henderson’s Modern Methods of Charity, p. 167). In all probability these statements are a fairly adequate reflection of what is still the prevailing view outside the Catholic Church. As a matter of simple fact, this view has never been justified by evidence; all the available evidence tends to show that it is a gross exaggeration. It seems to be due partly to prejudice, partly to a priori inferences, and partly to hasty generalizations from isolated and inadequate data. That a large part has been played by the element of religious prejudice, becomes clear when we reflect that most of the descriptions of monastic corruption and incompetence which have formed the original basis of the theory under discussion, were written by men who were bitter opponents of the monks, their religion, and their institutions. In a considerable proportion of cases (ve.g. the case of Fuller, who is quoted below, and of the King’s Commissioners of 1535, quoted by Froude, II, 434) their object was not so much to write history as to discredit the old religion and the old regime. Careful historians of to-day recognize this, but popular writers on the history of charity have not yet given it sufficient attention. The other two causes of the theory, illicit use of the a priori method and hasty generalization, usually appear together, though now one, now the other, predominates. A very common misuse of the a priori method is seen in the contention that the amount of begging, particularly unjustifiable begging, in the Middle Ages was enormous. This charge is based not so much upon statistics—which are almost entirely wanting—nor upon authentic general descriptions, as upon two assumptions: first, that a good Catholic would give indiscriminately to all beggars for the sake of the supernatural merit attached to charitable actions; and second, that the practice of begging was made honourable by the mendicant orders, who employed it as their regular means of obtaining a livelihood. Again and again we meet with this form of argument.

Of course Catholics have never believed that almsgiving which is not beneficial to the receiver could be spiritually helpful to the giver. Consequently belief in the meritorious character of works of charity no more necessarily leads to indiscriminate giving than belief in the virtue of mercy involves indiscriminate condoning of crime. Secondly, the fact that certain religious orders got their living and performed their charitable functions through begging, no more sanctified unworthy begging (which was always under the ban of the Church) to the people of the Middle Ages than the solicitations of clergymen and charity organizations, both of whom live by a species of begging, justifies the general practice of mendicancy to our minds. Concerning generalizations from insufficient data, two instances will suffice. Emminghaus, whose work heads the list of authorities in many non-Catholic works, has, as Professor Ashley admits, misrepresented the position of the Church on meritorious alms giving, apparently because he did not study sufficiently the sources. If he has been guilty of such a fault concerning the theory of Catholic charity, need we be surprised to find that his generalizations about the practice and results are likewise based upon insufficient acquaintance with the sources? Ratzinger calls attention to several instances of this, and declares that the conclusions of Emminghaus with regard to charity in the early Church are due to unpardonable ignorance (op. Cit., p. 93). Professor Ashley writes thus: “There are strong reasons for believing that for a couple of centuries at least before the Reformation, the English monasteries had done but little for the relief of honest poverty; . . . That, in the strong words of Fuller, ‘the Abbeys did but maintain the poor which they made’“ (op. Cit., II, p. 312). In proof of this statement, he quotes two passages from Ratzinger concerning the decline of the monastic system of relief on the Continent, and declares that the same thing must have occurred in connection with the English monasteries. In the first of the passages in question, Ratzinger says that grave abuses, such as avarice, luxury, and a diminution of love for the poor, got into the richer monasteries, and he intimates that to some extent in the fourteenth, and to a greater extent in the fifteenth, century, these abuses were no longer mere exceptions; but he adds that no other period can show as many foundations and works of benevolence (op. Cit., p. 311). All that he tells us in the second passage quoted is that the multiplicity of charitable agencies—monasteries, hospitals, orders, and associations—without any centralized directions, was less effective than the old parish system, and was unable to overcome begging (p. 397). Obviously these limited and qualified statements are not equivalent to Professor Ashley’s sweeping assertion. It would seem that in spite of his usual fairness, he is here unable to emancipate himself from the long prevailing English tradition concerning all pre-Reformation institutions. Similar errors have no doubt been committed more frequently by writers who are less competent and less fair than Professor Ashley.

Assuming that the extreme view under discussion rests upon no sufficient foundation, what conclusion concerning Catholic charity in the later Middle Ages seems to be justified by the evidence? Notwithstanding the well-recognized danger of generalizing from historical facts, it seems safe to say that the amount of culpable waste and of unwise and indiscriminate giving to the poor was considerable; but that the amount of distress that went unrelieved was not, relatively to economic resource and standards of living, greater than the unrelieved want of any age since. The first part of this conclusion seems to be abundantly established by the investigations of Ratzinger (op. Cit., pp. 311, 313, 315, 319, 323, 360, 362, 396–399, 437 sqq., and elsewhere). Justice, however, requires that we make some qualifications. The prevalence of begging during the fifteenth century was due not so much to misdirected charity as to the breaking up of feudalism and to the agrarian changes, such as enclosures and sheep-farming (cf. Ashley, op. cit., p. 352), which deprived immense numbers of persons of all means of likelihood. The fact that the duty of discrimination in giving was not so generally preached and practised as to-day, is largely accounted for by a less developed appreciation of the evil of social dependency. This was inevitable in feudal society. In the third place, much of the inefficiency of the medieval agencies must be attributed solely to their lack of co-ordination and centralization. The second part of our generalization calls to mind the words of the Rev. Dr. Gibbins: “But poverty was neither so deep nor so widespread as it is now, nor as it soon became, and the monasteries and guilds (when they did their duty) were possibly quite as efficient as a modern Board of Guardians” (Industry in England, p. 195). Dr. Gibbins is not a Catholic. Dr. Ellwood maintains (Henderson’s Modern Methods of Charity, foot-note, p. 167) that the dissolution of the English monasteries “revealed” rather than “caused” a large amount of pauperism and vagrancy. We may pertinently ask whether the Poor Law “covered,” i.e. relieved, these conditions as fully and as humanely as the monastic system which is supplanted. Some of its early provisions for the repression of begging constitute a foul blot on the history of English legislation. Cruel as they were, these measures proved ineffective. Speaking of European conditions generally, Ratzinger declares that it was precisely in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when the prohibition of begging was most severe, that the practice was most extensive (o. cit., p. 445).

After more than two centuries of variations, during which the defects of the Statute of Elizabeth had been corrected by the Settlement Law of Charles II, which, in the words of Dr. Ellwood (Henderson, op. cit., p. 173) was “disastrous to rich and poor alike,” the English Poor Law went to that extreme of indiscriminate liberality provided for by the Allowance system of 1782. So demoralizing was this measure that, to quote General Walker, “the condition of the person who threw himself flat upon public charity was better than that of the labourer who struggled on to preserve his manhood in self-support” (cf. Warner, American Charities, p. 15). Despite the great reform which the law underwent in 1834, and despite the intelligent administration which it ought to receive at the end of the nineteenth century, Mr. Thomas Mackay is constrained to write; “the Poor Law as administered throughout the greater part of the country is simply a disaster to the best interests of the poorer classes, and succeeds in maintaining a head of pauperism which, though it continues to decrease, is still a disgrace to the intelligence of the country” (The State and Charity, p. 137). Now, if the case be so with the English Poor Law, which represents the most systematic, determined, and long-continued endeavour to find an adequate substitute for pre-Reformation agencies; if not only in England but in every other European country, the amount of unrelieved want is still, relatively to national resources and standards of living, greater than it was in the Middle Ages; if, as even Uhlhorn admits, “no period has done so much for the poor as the Middle Ages” (op. Cit., p. 397); if the possessors of wealth of those days were imbued with saner ideas as to its worth and a broader and more generous conception of its uses, we can bear with some complacency the knowledge that medieval charity is chargeable with much injudicious distribution and even with considerable misappropriation. Professor Patten, who is one of the leading authorities on economics and economic history in America writes: “The economic aims of the Church were also fairly well realized. It provided food and shelter for the workers, charity for the unfortunate, and relief from disease, plague, and famine, which were but too common in the Middle Ages. When we note the number of the hospitals and infirmaries, the bounties of the monks, and the self-sacrifice of the nuns, we cannot doubt that the unfortunate of that time were at least as well provided for as they are at the present. If the workmen were well fed, warmly clothed, and comfortably housed, surely the economic aims of the age were fairly well realized” (The Development of English Thought, pp. 90, 91).

(5) FROM THE END OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY TO THE PRESENT TIME

The great increase of distress which followed so soon upon the Reformation was due in some measure to the rapid decay of feudalism and the agrarian changes, but in greater measure to the confiscation of the monastic and other sources of Catholic charity, and to the substitution of an extortionate set of secular landlords for the monasteries and the churches. The last factor was especially harmful in England (cf. Gibbins, op. cit., pp. 203—205), but its evil results were considerable in all the regions where the Reformation triumphed (Ratzinger, o. cit., pp. 456—463). Luxury and selfishness increased among the wealthy, while charitable contributions decreased among all classes. Uhlhorn admits that the purer motives of giving, which were the gift of the Reformation, did not lead to the expected results; “that our Church has in this respect also, and perhaps most of all in this, come short in practice of what has been given her in knowledge” (op. Cit., p. 398). How far the practice of giving and the spirit of charity had declined since the advent of the new religion is sufficiently indicated by the bitter complaints of Luther (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., pp. 457, 458). As a necessary consequence the relief of the poor fell more and more to the care of the civil authorities, national, provincial, and municipal. Municipal poor-relief did not, however, originate with the Reformation. As noted above, it had been quite general in the fifteenth century. In the first half of the sixteenth it underwent important developments in the cities of Belgium, beginning with Ypres (1524). The new ordinances of this city were, it seems, chiefly due to the ideas of the Spanish theologian and humanist, Vives. His work, “De Subventione Pauperum,” was written while he resided at the court of Henry VIII, and was published at Bruges in 1526 (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., pp. 438 sq.). It was soon translated into Spanish, Italian, and French. In the second part, which deals with public charity, Vives declares that it is the duty of the civic authorities to care for the needy, and lays down provisions by which the work can best be accomplished. His most important recommendations are: that a census be taken of the indigent; that all who are able be compelled to work; that the authorities, if necessary, provide employment; and that begging be prohibited. These proposals aroused considerable opposition on the ground that they savoured of Lutheranism, denied the natural right of man to beg, and were too harsh upon the deserving poor. The faculty of the Sorbonne, to which the controversy was referred for adjudication, decided that the recommendations of Vives were contrary neither to the Gospel nor the Fathers, but made the reservation that begging should not be prohibited unless the public resources were sufficient to relieve all the distressed. In the work of Vives, says Ratzinger, we find all the fundamental principles of every sound system of relief that has ever existed. And we might add that, as they were not due to the Reformation, but to the intellectual revival which preceded it, they would have been much more fruitful had their application not been hindered by the social, political, and religious disturbances for which the Reformation was responsible. In 1531 the proposals of Vives were embodied in a general law of the Emperor Charles V, with the proviso that the local authorities should have discretionary power to license certain persons to beg. The means of caring for distress under the new ordinances were to be provided by the hospitals and other foundations, and by voluntary contributions.

The Council of Trent laid down minute regulations concerning the administration of hospitals and hospital funds, and reaffirmed the duty of the bishops not only to enforce these regulations, but to examine and oversee all measures for the relief of the poor (De Reformatione, Sess. VII, XXII, XXV). In many portions of the Catholic world these ordinances soon bore considerable fruit, especially in connection with the re-establishment of the system of parish relief. The greatest name identified with this work is that of St. Charles Borromeo, Bishop of Milan. As a result of his boundless zeal and tireless activity, his diocese before long possessed a complete organization of charity which was worthy of comparison with that of the early church, and surpassed any system of his own time. One of the most important features of the period now under consideration has been the rise of religious communities and other associations to relieve various kinds of distress. The Brothers of Charity, founded by St. John of the Cross in Granada, 1534, to care for the sick, soon spread over Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, and Germany. In North America appeared the hospital orders of the Brothers of St. Hippolytus (Mexico, 1585) and the Bethlehemites (Guatemala, 1660). A congregation whose members are at once priests and physicians arose in Turkey under the name of “Fathers of the Pestilence.” The Daughters, or Sisters, of Charity, founded by St. Vincent de Paul about the year 1633 have become celebrated for their manifold works of mercy in every part of the world. St. Vincent’s work on behalf of foundlings, galley-slaves, and the wretched of all descriptions, makes him the most remarkable worker in the field of charity that the world has ever known. The piarists whose object is the instruction and care of poor children were instituted in 1597 by Joseph of Calasanza, and have become very numerous in Austria, Italy, Spain, and Poland. The Institute of the Blessed Virgin, the “English Ladies,” founded by Mary Ward in 1611, was intended to be chiefly a teaching order, though it also has orphan asylums, chiefly in Bucharest and Bavaria. The Sisters of the Good Shepherd devote themselves to the reformation of wayward girls. Their founder was a Frenchman, Father Eudes (1642). The Little Sisters of the Poor had their origin in the charitable work of a French servant girl, Jeanne Jugan, and received the approbation of the Holy See in 1854. Their splendid work on behalf of the aged, as also the rescue work of the sisters of the Good Shepherd, is recognized by all classes in all civilized countries. Although the congregations just mentioned are among the most important that have been established for the relief of distress since the Reformation, they are in reality only a small part of the whole number (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit. pp. 508—536). By far the greatest lay association that has arisen during this period is the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. It was originated in 1833 by Frédéric Ozanam and seven other Catholic students in Paris. At present, branches of the society, called conferences, are to be found in almost every country of Europe, North and South America, and in many parts of Asia, Africa, and Australasia. In 1905 the whole number of conferences throughout the world was estimated at six thousand, with a combined membership of one hundred thousand, or two hundred thousand, including the honorary members. The individual conferences of each city are usually combined into a particular council, the particular councils of a large locality, province, or country, are federated into a central or a superior council, while the superior councils of all the countries are represented in the council-general in Paris. The society does not confine its ministrations to direct material assistance, but in many places maintains nurseries, libraries, orphanages, schools, and employment bureaus, and strives everywhere to extend moral and religious aid and encouragement to those in need of these forms of charity. Owing to its religious spirit, its centralized organization, and its method of personal contact with the needy, the St. Vincent de Paul society is, relatively to its resources, probably the most effective of all existing associations for the relief of distress.

To-day the characteristic agencies of Catholic charity are: institutions in charge of religious communities, as monasteries, hospitals, reformatories, and asylums for homeless infants, or orphans, for the deaf, dumb, blind, aged, crippled and insane; the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and other associations of the same general character; and the parish, through the informal and unorganized, yet very important, work of the parochial clergy. In conformity with the regulations of the Council of Trent, all these are under the supreme direction of the bishop. Some statistics pertaining to France and the United States may be taken as fairly representative. In 1901 the number of persons assisted by Catholic societies in the former country was 107,400, or 83,000 children, 700 girls and women in refuges, 17,000 aged, and 6,700 insane persons. The total number of Catholic charitable societies exceeded 4000 (Henderson, Modern Methods of Charity, p. 527). In the preceding year the 1400 French conferences of the St. Vincent de Paul society expended 440,000 dollars in relief work. According to the Catholic directory for 1908, there were in the United States 272 orphan asylums with 42,597 inmates, and 1054 other charitable institutions. The Report of the Superior Council of New York for the year 1905 informs us that there were in the United States 443 conferences of the St. Vincent de Paul society, whose combined membership was 7,423. During that year they assisted 19,193 families and expended 233,698 dollars.

If the charitable work of the Church since the Reformation seems to compare unfavourably with her record before the Middle Ages, and during the latter half of the Middle Ages, and if in some places and times it seems to have lacked energy, foresight, vigilance, and progressiveness—these appearances are almost wholly explained by the obstacles that have confronted her during that period. The most serious hindrance was, of course, the confiscation of monastic and other church properties from which the poor had been relieved. This occurred not merely in places where the Reformation triumphed, but in Catholic countries also, as in France and Spain during the eighteenth century, and in Italy during the nineteenth. Civil legislation in general has likewise been frequently obnoxious. A great part of the Church’s energies both in Catholic and non-Catholic lands has been absorbed in defending the Faith. The policy of state support of the poor through taxation, which has everywhere been increasing its scope, has not only diminished the field of Catholic charity, but has inflicted serious injury upon the spirit of charity among all classes. The trend of political economy, especially in its popularized forms, during the greater part of the nineteenth century, was strongly against charitable activity, on the ground that compulsory self-reliance would in practically all cases best develop strength of character and capacity for self-support (cf. Warner, American Charities, ch. i). Finally, the materialistic theory of life, according to which the supreme good is abundant and diversified satisfaction of the senses, has produced an immense increase of self-love and selfishness, and a profound diminution of love of God and effective love of the neighbour. While these deplorable conditions have been most general among persons outside the Church, they have seriously affected a large proportion of the Catholic populations everywhere. Surveying the whole historical field of Catholic charity, we are justified in saying that, in proportion to her resources, the Church met the various forms of distress of every age more adequately than any other agency or system; that her shortcomings in charitable activity were due to the nature of the peoples and civilizations, and to the political, social, economic, and religious conditions in which she worked; that the instances of heroic charity which stand to her credit surpass by an immeasurable distance all instances of that class outside her fold; that the individual gifts to charity which she has inspired are likewise supereminent; and that, had she been permitted to reorganize and develop her charities without the interference of the Reformation, the amount of social distress, and of social injustice as well, would be much smaller than it is to-day.

PLACE OF CATHOLIC CHARITY IN PRESENT SOCIETY

Before the Reformation all charities ere administered by the Church; to-day most of them are under the control of the State. Nevertheless the field still open to Catholic charity is neither small nor likely to become smaller. The limitations and defects of public charity are well known; it is almost inevitably more mechanical and less sympathetic that private charity; it is more wasteful, not only because it is less carefully administered, but also on account of the readiness of many persons to claim public relief as a right; and, inasmuch as it supplants appeals to the individual conscience by the imposition of a tax, it inflicts a mortal injury upon the spontaneity of charity and the sense of personal responsibility towards the unfortunate. The inferiority of state-administered charity, so far as outdoor relief is concerned, has received striking illustration in the achievements of Dr. Chalmers in Glasgow more than half a century ago, in the experiment of substituting voluntary for public relief in Whitechapel and Stepney, London, and in the policy of refusing public outdoor relief which prevails in Brooklyn and Philadelphia (cf. Bliss, encyclopedia, s. v. Chalmers; Mackay, The State and Charity, pp. 164 sq.; and Warner, American Charities, pp. 162 -176). The general principles underlying the whole problem of state charity would seem to be these: instead of assuring every person a living, the State ought so to regulate economic conditions that every person able to obtain a livelihood by labour should have that opportunity; that it should have charge of certain extreme forms of distress, such as virulent disease and insanity; and that in general it should co-operate with voluntary charitable agencies, and stand ready to relieve all serious want which is not met by them. At any rate, students and workers in the field of charity seem to be practically unanimous in the belief that the scope of private charity ought to be extended rather than restricted. In this field Catholic charity should occupy the foremost place, and do by far the largest and most effective work. The principles of Catholic charity, concerning the ownership and use of goods, the true equality and brotherhood of men, spontaneity in giving, and the motives for giving, are supremely great. Especially is this true of the motives. The neighbour ought to be assisted out of love of God. As the highest form of this is to love God for His own sake, so the highest form of fraternal charity is that which is motived by the thought that the neighbour is the creature, the image, the child of God, and the brother of Christ. Inasmuch as this motive points to a worth and sacredness in the individual which is higher than anything that he possesses when considered in himself, it is more effective and more comprehensive than the motive which is restricted to love of the neighbour for his own sake. Many needy individuals are in themselves repellent rather than sympathy-compelling. While the second form of fraternal charity for love of God, namely to obtain the spiritual rewards which God has annexed to this form of good works, is lower than the first, it is entirely natural, entirely praiseworthy, and has the approval of Christ Himself. This motive appeals to multitudes who would rarely be able to rise to the higher one, and is occasionally effective in the case of the least selfish. Warner declares that, “of all the churches the one that still induces the largest amount of giving in proportion to the means of those who give is no doubt the Roman Catholic” (op. Cit., p. 316). To a large extent this fact is due to the Church’s practice of insisting upon both motives, and thus touching all the springs of charity in man’s complex nature. At the same time it is a patent fact that large numbers of men and women devote themselves and their means to works of charity solely out of love for the neighbour regarded in himself. This motive is likewise in harmony with the promptings of human nature. It is particularly effective in lofty souls who, lacking any positive religious faith, find in works of charity satisfaction of the desire to serve and worship something outside of themselves. While the number of such persons will in all probability be largely augmented in the near future, neither in numbers nor in achievements will they be worthy of comparison with those who come under the influence and the motives supplied by Christianity.

The second advantage possessed by Catholics in the work of charity lies in their ecclesiastical organization. Relief can be individualized by means of the parish, and centralized by means of the diocese. In many places Catholics are, moreover, co-operating with non-Catholics through the charity organization societies. This is entirely fitting, for two reasons: First, because the methods and purposes of what has come to be called organized charity—namely, investigation, attention to causes, specific treatment, self-help, record-keeping, and co-operation among the different charitable agencies in order to eliminate duplicated and misdirected effort—are entirely sound. Second, because Catholics have a prior claim upon these principles and practices. As noted above, the general principles were first formulated by the theologian, Vives, in 1526, and received their first application about the same time in the Catholic cities of the Netherlands and Germany. They were developed and applied along the specific lines of present practice by Frédéric Ozanam in 1833 (cf. O’Meara, Life of Ozanam). The first non-Catholic to exemplify these modern methods was Chalmers in 1850, while the first charity organization society did not come into existence until 1868 (cf. Warner, op. cit., pp. 377—392). True, these methods are liable to abuse: the work may become too formal, too mechanical, too much given to investigation, and the results may be waste of money, lack of sympathy, and unnecessary hardship to the deserving poor. Nevertheless time and experience seem, in most places, to have reduced these evils to the lowest proportions that can reasonably be expected in a human institution. In many localities it is desirable that Catholic charitable agencies should make a fuller use of these methods, and in general become better organized and better systematized. Where the St. Vincent de Paul Society lives up to the standard set by its founder in this matter, it is the most effective relief society in existence. Some of the American conferences of the association have in recent years begun to employ paid agents with gratifying results. This is a wise feature, inasmuch as voluntary workers cannot always be obtained in sufficient numbers who possess the time, ability, and experience essential to the largest achievement. Again, Catholic charity-workers will follow the best traditions of Catholic charity by co-operating with the tendency, which is every day becoming stronger in the circles of organized charity, to attack the social causes of distress (cf. Proceedings of the Thirty-third National Conference of Charities and Correction, pp. 1—10). This is, of course, the wisest, most effective, most difficult, and, therefore, most meritorious form of charitable effort. In the Middle Ages the social causes of poverty were much better controlled than at present, because the Church had infused into all classes the doctrine that social power carries with it social responsibility. To-day the chief social causes of poverty are the worship of money, and the lack of social responsibility in those who possess social power, i.e. economic power. Only within the Catholic church can be found the principles, resources, organization, and authority through which these causes can be repressed.

Finally, the opportunities of private charity, the direct assistance of individuals by individuals, are still and will continue to be large. This form of charity has always been encouraged by the Church, and when wisely administered it has advantages which are not attainable by the organized form. It makes possible that exchange and the equalization between giver and receiver spoken of by St. Paul, and promotes that mutual understanding and mutual sympathy which are especially necessary in our day, when the gulf separating those who have those who have not has become so wide and so ominous. Individual charity also increases vastly the total amount that passes from the more to the less fortunate, thereby producing a more equitable distribution of the earth’s bounty than would take place if all cases of distress were referred to the already overburdened organization. Dr. Devine, who is one of the foremost authorities in the field of organized charity, speaks in the highest terms of rightly-administered individual charity, and declares that, “it is a question whether the unmeasured but certainly large amount of neighbourly assistance given in the tenement-houses of the city, precisely as in a New England village or in a frontier settlement, does not rank first of all among the means for the alleviation of distress” (“The Principles of Relief,” p. 332, and the entire chapter). See ALMS AND ALMSGIVING; HOSPITALS; POVERTY; ORPHANAGES DEAF AND DUMB; EDUCATION OF THE BLIND; HOMES; PROTECTORIES; PHILANTHROPY; MONASTERY.

BALUFFI, The Charity of the Church a Proof of Her Divinity, tr. GARGAN (Dublin, 1885), general and popular rather than definite and systematic; BOGLIE, ST. Vincent de Paul, tr. PARTRIDGE (London 1899); UHLHORN, Charity in the Ancient Church, tr. (New York, 1883), excellent except for some erroneous notions of doctrine; LECKY, History of European Morals (New York, 1880), II, iv; ASHLEY, English Economic History (New York and London, 1893), II, v; DOLLINGER, Gentile and Jew, tr. DARNELL (London, 1906), II; JANSSEN, History of the German People, tr. MITCHELL AND CHRISTIE (St. Louis, 1896–1900), I, II, III, IV; O’MEARA, Life of Ozanam (London, 1878); WARNER, American Charities (New York, 1894); DEVINE, The Principles of Relief (New York, 1905); MACKAY, The State and Charity (London and New York, 1898); HENDERSON, Modern Methods of Charity (New York, 1904), the best work in English on the subject with which it deals, and comparatively fair to Catholic charity; it contains an excellent bibliography; International congress of Charities at Chicago in 1893 (Baltimore and London, 1894); Proceedings of the National Conferences of Charities and Correction (Indianapolis, 1874—1907); Proceedings of the International Convention of the St. Vincent de Paul Society (St. Louis, 1905); The St. Vincent de Paul Quarterly (New York); Charities and the Commons (New York); PALGRAVE AND LALOR, Dictionaries of Political Economy; BLISS, Encyclopedia of social Reform, s. vv. Charity, Poverty, Pauperism, Poor Laws, Philanthropy; RATZINGER, Armenpflege (Freiburg, 1884), in all probability the best work on Catholic charity; it contains the fullest references to the sources; EHRLE, Beiträge zur Geschichte . . . der Armenpflege (Freiburg, 1881); UHLHORN, Christliche Liebesthätigkeit (Stuttgart, 1883–1890); EMMINGHAUS, Armenwesen . . . In europäischen Staaten (1870), tr. under title, Poor Relief in different Parts of Europe (London, 1873); this work was so inaccurate that it called forth the works of RATZINGER on the Catholic side and UHLHORN on the Protestant; STEIN, in Kirchenlex., s. v. Armenpflege; LALLEMAND, Historie de la charité (Paris, 1902); MONNIER, Histoire de l’assistance publique dans les temps anciens et modernes (1866); DE GERANDO, De la beinfaisance publique (1839); La grand eencyclopédie, s.v. Charité.

JOHN A. RYAN.

Congregation of the Brothers of Charity

Founded in Belgium early in the present century: the rule and constitutions were approved and confirmed by Pope Leo XIII, 4 July, 1899. The founder, the Very Rev. Pierre J. Triest, titular canon of St. Bavon of Ghent, on account of his services in the cause of charity, was surnamed the Vincent de Paul of his native country, and was three times decorated by royal hands with the highest civic orders of the land. After his death his countrymen erected a superb mausoleum to his honour in Brussels, the capital of the kingdom. The special aim of this congregation is the sanctification of its members in the religious state by the exercise of works of charity, which, in the spirit of its founder, embrace every phase of moral and physical suffering and want. They consist in a special manner in tending the sick, in sheltering poor workmen, in the care of the aged, and of insane or idiotic persons, in instructing and bringing up orphan children and young people of every condition. The services rendered by the Brothers of Charity were appreciated by the people and Government of Belgium, and in a short time they had marvellously developed. In 1906, in the mother province, they counted 42 communities in Belgium where about 1,000 brothers care for about 6,000 insane persons, hundreds of old and sick men, and a large number of blind adults. In this same province they instruct and care for more than 9,000 poor children, orphans, idiots, deaf and dumb, and blind. Here is also found the normal school of the congregation affiliated to the Government, the graduates of which teach in the numerous boarding and model schools belonging to the order. So rapid an expansion early attracted the attention of foreign bishops. Calls for brothers came from every quarter. America, England, Holland, Ireland have in turn become large and flourishing provinces. There are 3 houses in England, one in Ireland, and 2 in Holland. The American province was founded in 1865 with the arrival of 5 Belgian brothers in Montreal; the congregation was incorporated in 1869 under the title of: “Brothers of Charity of Vincent de Paul of Montreal.” The Brothers of Charity direct, among other establishments, the Montreal Reformatory School, and Protectory in the city of Montreal where 30 religious are stationed, and which contains 265 inmates and 27 boarders; the S. Benoit-Joseph Labre Insane Asylum and S. Philippe de Neri Retreat at Longue-Pointe near Montreal with 25 religious, 8 novices, 7 postulants, 106 inmates; the Mont S. Bernard Commercial and Scientific College at Sorel, P.Q., with 16 religious and 160 students; the S. Frederic Academic School at Drummondsville, P.Q., and the House of the Angel Guardian, orphanage and industrial institute, Boston, Massachusetts, with 25 religious and 317 pupils.

The novitiate for the American province is at the S. Benoit Asylum, Longue-Pointe, near Montreal, Canada. The Congregation is placed under the authority of a superior general, who is elected by the brothers from among themselves and who resides in Ghent, Belgium, the cradle of the congregation. He is assisted by a council composed of four members who constitute with him the central council of the congregation. Moreover, assistant visitors, a general secretary, and a general procurator are appointed to aid him in governing.

BROTHER PHILEMON

Sisters of Charity

Charity, Sisters of.—The various sisterhoods included under this general title are treated of below under their respective names.

Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, a congregation of women with simple vows, founded in 1633 and devoted to corporal and spiritual works of mercy. Their full title is Sisters or Daughters of Charity (the founder preferred the latter term), Servants of the Sick Poor. The term “of St. Vincent de Paul” has been added to distinguish them form several communities of Sisters of Charity, animated with a similar spirit, among whom they rank in priority of origin and greatness of numbers. They have always been popularly known in France as “the Grey Sisters” from the colour of their habit, which is bluish grey, but are not to be confounded with the Grey Nuns, a community will known in Canada and New England. They are not infrequently called the sisters of St. Vincent de Paul, though a recent French congregation having this saint for their patron, bears that name.

In the United States several diocesan communities who follow a modified form of the rule of the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul and wear a black habit are often called the “Black Cap Sisters,” while the “White Cap” or “Cornette” Sisters are those who follow the original rule and form part of the world-wide community under the direction of the superior General of the Congregation of the Mission. or Lazarists, in Paris. These latter sisters were founded by St. Vincent de Paul and the Venerable Louise de Mérillac (1591–1660), and the widow of Antoine Le Gras, known according to a quaint usage of the time as Mlle Le Gras. The need of organization in work for the poor suggested to St. Vincent the forming of a confraternity among the people of his parish. It was so successful that it spread form the rural districts to Paris, where noble ladies often found it hard to give personal care to the wants of the poor. The majority sent their servants to minister to those in need, but often the work was slighted. St. Vincent remedied this by inducing young women from the country to go to Paris and devote themselves to the service of the poor under the direction of the Ladies of Charity. These young girls formed the nucleus of a very large community of the Sisters of Charity now spread over the world, and who have done so much to make the name of St. Vincent de Paul a household work. Mlle Le Gras, who had recently devoted herself at St. Vincent’s request to the superintendent of the various confraternities of charity, had charge of these young girls, who lodged at some convent or with the ladies of the confraternity. They met on Sundays at St. Vincent’s house for instruction and encouragement. But after three or four years Mlle Le Gras received a few of the most promising of them at her house, where, on 29 November, 1633, she began a more systematic training in the care of the sick and in spiritual life. This is looked on as the real foundation of the community. This little snowball, as St. Vincent playfully called it , was not long in increasing, and on 31 July, 1634, St. Vincent initiated a series of conferences, extending over twenty-five years, which, written sown by the sisters, have had ever since a powerful effect in their formation.

For more than twelve years St. Vincent guided them thus without written rule or constitution and without seeking approval of them as a distinct organization. Let the work grow gradually as the needs of the times demanded, and little did he imagine the vast structure he was laying the foundation of. He used to explain that neither he nor Mlle Le Gras was the founder of the Sisters of Charity, for neither he nor she had ever thought of founding such a community. It sprang from the practical need for such organization. When the idea developed it was at variance with the notions and customs of the times. Hitherto women who publicly consecrated their lives to God’s service did so in convents that cut them off from the world, but his sisters were to spend their time nursing the sick in their homes, having no monastery but the homes of the sick, their cell a hired room, their chapel the parish church, their enclosure the streets of the city or wards of the hospital, “having,” as St. Vincent says in the rule he finally gave them, “no grate but the fear of God, no veil but holy modesty.” After a few months spent with the sisters in her house, Mlle LeGras bound herself irrevocably by vow to the work she had undertaken, 25 March, 1634. This anniversary is religiously kept in the community, for every year the sisters make their annual vows on the feast of the Annunciation. The sisters had hitherto helped the poor and the sick in their homes, but they were now called on for hospital work. A society was formed by some ladies of rank to better the condition of the sick poor in Hotel-Dieu at Paris. A community of Augustinian nuns was in charge, but the miseries of the times had overcrowded the wards, and the revenue was inadequate. It was helpers of the ladies who in turn aided the nuns of the institution that the Sisters of Charity took up hospital work which has since become so prominent a feature in their beneficent activity. A large room near by was hired for their use, where they made delicacies for the sick and also for sale, to swell the income of the hospital. During thefirst year the labours of the ladies and sisters were blessed by seven hundred and sixty conversions, of Lutherans, Calvinists, and even of Turks wounded in sea-fights.

In May, 1636, Mlle Le Gras moved to more commodious quarters with her community. A house at La Chapelle was chosen because of its nearness to Saint-Lazare, the priory recently given to St. Vincent for the Congregation of the Priests of the Mission he had founded. Here the instruction of the poor children in religion and in elementary branches was taken up, the beginning of the widespread labour of the Sisters of Charity in teaching the children of the poor. The charge of foundlings so characteristicof St. Vincent and his sisters came to them through his finding out how miserably these tiny waifs were cared for by the State. The modern foundling asylums owe, of not their origin, at least their excellent system to the work of the Sisters of Charity. On 1 Feb., 1640, at Angers the sisters assumed complete charge of a hospital in which hitherto they had acted as aids to the charitable ladies. In 1641 the headquarters of the community was transferred to a house opposite Saint-Lazare. Here they remained until driven away by the French Revolution. In answer to their desire to be bound by vows, authorization was finally granted to four of the sisters, and these on 25 March, 1642, took simple vows for one year. A copy of these first vows is preserved in the archives of the mission in Paris and says:

I, the undersigned, renew my baptismal promises and make a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience to the Superior of the Priests of the Mission in the company of the Daughtersof Charity, to apply myself all this year to the corporal and spiritual service of the sick poor, our true masters, with the help of God, which I ask though His Son, Jesus crucified, and by the prayers of the Blessed Virgin. Signed, Jeanne de la Croix.

During the war of the Fronde, whole provinces were reduced to the utmost destitution, and St. Vincent took upon himself the burden of relieving all this misery. In this the sisters had a large share. What they did in Paris is seen from St. Vincent’s letters: “they shelter from 800 to 900 women; they distribute soup every day to 1300 bashful poor. In St. Paul’s parish they aid 5000 poor, and altogether 1400 persons have for the last six months depended on them for their means of subsistence.” At the request of the Queen of Poland, a former Lady of Charity, three sisters were sent to her dominions. Here for the first time the sisters appear on the field of battle. This is a ministry often given by them since, and which has secured for then the title of “Angels of the Battlefield,” some dying “sword in hand,” as St. Vincent used to style it. Their usefulness opened the eyes of many a dying soldier to the light of the Faith, and inspired the wish to die in the religion which produced such heroism.

While the sisters were on the battlefield in Poland, St. Vincent’s daughters took up a new work in the care of the aged and infirm at the House of the Name of Jesus, the pioneer of those homes for the aged so multiplied in our day through a kindred community, the Little Sisters of the Poor. At the same time a hospital for the insane was committed to their care, practically completing the list of human miseries to which they brought alleviation.

On the death of Mlle Le Gras and St. Vincent de Paul there were, in 1660, more than forty houses of the Sisters of Charity in France, and the sick poor were cared for in their own dwellings in twenty-six parishes in Paris. As years went on their numbers grew. Switzerland received the sisters in 1750. In 1778 they were established in Piedmont, whence they spread over Italy. The Spanish community was started by six sisters from Paris in 1790. In 1789 France had 426 houses; the sisters numbered about 6000 in Europe. At the very beginning of the Reign of Terror, the motherhouse of the sisters was invaded by the revolutionists, who had attacked Saint-Lazare across the street the night before, but the sight of this band of angels of mercy on their knees in the chapel, moved their assailants to leave them unmolested. In August, 1792, the sisters were ordered to quit the motherhouse; and the end of 1793 saw their community disbanded officially, though the superior, Sister Antoinette Duleau, strive to keep them together as far as practicable. As soon as the Consular government was established, in 1801 the society was recalled by an edict setting forth the excellence of their work and authorizing Citoyenne Duleay, the former superior, to reorganize. Their greatest growth has been in France during the nineteenth century. Persecution has driven them from all their schools for the poor and from most of their works of mercy, but this has given hundreds of new labourers to the foreign missions. During the last hundred years their growth has been extraordinary. They have gone to Austria, Portugal, Hungary, England, Scotland, Ireland, North and south America. The Orientals call them “The Swallows of Allah” from their cornettes, and they have houses in Constantinople, Smyrna, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Damascus, Persia, Abyssiania, and China. Their number is about 25,000.

The first house in the province of the British Isles was opened at Drogheda, Ireland, in 1855. The first house in England in Sheffield in 1857; and in Scotland at Lanark in 1860. The numbers of foundations in 1907 was: England, 46 houses and 407 sisters; Ireland, 13 houses and 134 sisters; Scotland, 8 houses and 62 sisters, making a total of 67 houses and 603 sisters, besides 20 aspirants at the Central House, Mill Hill, London. The principal works under the care of the sisters are as follows, several of these works being carried on in the one house: orphanages, 23; industrial schools, 7; public elementary schools, 24; normal school, 1; traininghomes, 7; homes for working girls, 2; home for women ex-convicts, 1; asylum for insane women, 1; hospitals, 8; houses from which the sisters visit the poor, in which they have soup-kitchens, take charge of guilds and do various other works for the poor, 35.

In the United Stated the first community was started by Mother Elizabeth Ann Seton in 1809. She arranged to have sisters come over from the motherhouse in Paris 1810 to affiliate her young community at Emmitsburg, Maryland to the daughters of St. Vincent, but Napoleon forbade the departure of the sisters for America. She had received, however, from Bishop Flaget, the rules of the Sisters of Charity, and put them in practice with some modifications which were suggested. Houses were founded in Philadelphia and New York, when through the request of Archbishop Hughes of New York, in 1846, the majority of the sisters labouring there were released from the Emmitsburg jurisdiction and formed an independent community following the same rule.

Four years after the withdrawal of the New York sisters, Mother Seton’s community at Emmitsburg was received under the jurisdiction of the Superior General of the Sisters of Charity in France and assumed the French habit and St. Vincent’s rule in its entirety. Their general motherhouse in140 Rue du Bac, Paris, and their central house at St. Joseph’s Academy, Emmitsburg, Maryland. They have establishments in the Archdioceses of Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, and the Dioceses of Albany, Alton, Buffalo, Dallas, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Harrisburg, Hartford, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Mobile, Monterey, and Los Angeles, Nashville, Natchez, Richmond, Rochester, St. Joseph, San Antonio, Syracuse, Wilmington, Puerto Rico, and the Vicariate of North Carolina, where there are 1704 sisters in charge of these institutions: academy, 1; hospitals, 38; orphanages, 28; infant asylums, 14; industrial schools, 5; parochial schools, 33; asylums and schools, 6; insane asylums, 5.

The growth of St. Vincent’s community has been gradual, and the slowness of their founder in giving it a written rule allowed that rule to have a practicability that has made it as fitted for the democratic notions of our day as for the aristocratic ideas of the old regime. But this is most of all because its animating principle is the saying of Christ, “So long as you do it to the least of these my brethren, you do it unto me.” In 1646 the approbation of the Archbishop of Paris was asked by St. Vincent for his community, and this was granted in 1655. Though numerous privileges have been granted to the sisters by various popes, no approbation has ever been asked from the Holy See because their founder wished this community to be a lay one with only private vows. Hence the canon law concerning religious communities does not apply to them. Their confessor is the pastor or secular priest approved by the bishop. The interior administration is subject only to superior general. or his delegates. while their interior works are of course under the jurisdiction of the bishop. This has been the case from the very beginning, and the Holy See has on several occasions ratified their long established custom, notably in 1882.

The rule and constitution have remained unchanged since the days of St. Vincent. To his successor, as Superior General of the Congregation of the Mission and the Daughters of Charity, the sisters vow obedience. He ratifies the election of the mother general divided into several provinces governed by a visitatrix and a director, a priest of the Congregation of the Mission, who are appointed by the central government. There is no distinction among the sisters; those from the highest as from the humblest walks of life associate together as servants of the poor. The hour of rising is everywhere at four o’clock; then followed meditation and Mass and usually Communion. At noon there is their particular examination of conscience which is made again before supper. In the afternoon there are spiritual reading and another meditation. No office is recited, for “Charity is your office,” said St. Vincent. All the rest of the time is given to the poor. He used to tell them that when they left prayer to wait on the poor they were leaving God for God. After three months of approbation the candidate is sent to the “seminary,” where she is trained for six months and then admitted to the habit, which is put on without any ceremony whatever, and after a trial of five years she is permitted to take the four annual vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and the service of the poor. The dress is that of peasant women of the neighborhood of Paris at the date of the foundation, a grey habit with wide sleeves and a long grey apron. The head-dress was at first a small linen cap, but to this was added in the early days the white linen cornette. At first it was used only in the country, being in fact the headdress of the Ile de France district, but in 1685 its use became general. Seven sisters were martyred during the French Revolution, and ten laid down their lives for the Faith in 1870 at T’ien-tsin, among whom was an Irishwoman, Sister Alice O’Sullivan. But no one can count the numbers that have died martyrs to duty on the battlefield, or among the plague-stricken, or in the hidden ways of continuous hard work for the poor. In 1830 at the motherhouse of the sisters, Rue du Bac, Paris, Sister Catherine Labouré (declared venerable in 1907) had a vision of the Blessed Virgin, who urged her to have a medal made and distributed, since well known as the miraculous medal, through the wonders wrought in favour of those who wear it devoutly. Pope Leo XIII granted a special feast of Our Lady of Miraculous Medal to the double family of St. Vincent. The scapular of the Passion, or red scapular was revealed to Sister Apollone Andreveau in 1846 and approved by Pope Pius IX in 1847.

B. Randolph.

Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul (Motherhouse at Mt. St. Vincent-on Hudson, New York; not to be confused with the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul founded earlier).—In 1817 Sister Rose White, Cecilia O’Conway and Elizabeth Boyle were sent by Mother Seton to found a community of the Emmitsburg Sisters of Charity in New York. It was the second branch of the new American institute, the first being at Philadelphia (1814). They took charge of the orphanage, a small wooden building at Prince and Mott Streets. In the early thirties, a young ladies’ academy, St. Mary’s, begun shortly afterwards, was located in Grand Street, and then transferred to East Broadway, where three generations of the young women of the old East Side of New York, now the heart of its Ghetto, were educated.

Meanwhile at the motherhouse at Emmitsburg negotiations were in progress for affiliation with the sisters of Charity in France. In consequence there had been for some time a tendency to abandon certain customs observed there, because these changes were required by the French superiors; for example, the sisters in charge of boys’ asylums were everywhere to be withdrawn. The measure threatened at that period the very existence of the New York orphanage. At this juncture, also, sisters could not be obtained from Emmitsburg to carry on the work of a projected and much-needed hospital in New York, the St. Vincent’s of today. The correspondence that ensued between Archbishop Hughes and Father Deluol, the director of the sisterhood, in relation to these matters, resulted in a notification that all the sisters were to be recalled to Emmitsburg from New York in July of the same year. This and other circumstances proved to the archbishop the necessity to supply the needs of the diocese. In 1846, therefore, aproposition to that effect was made to the Emmitsburg sisters, and the matter was amicably arranged. Those who wished to continue in New York were dispensed from the vow of obedience to their former superior, and of the forty-five sisters than in the diocese, thirty-five remained (8 Dec., 1846).

Sister Elizabeth Boyle became in December, 1846, the first superior of the new community. The novitiate of the New York community was at once opened at St. James’s Academy, 35 East Broadway. In the fourteen year it was removed to the new motherhouse on an state purchased at Mcgown’s Pass, situated within the limits of the present Central Park. Here, in 1847,the Academy of Mount Saint Vincent had its foundation, In 1849 the affiliation of the Emmitsburg Sisters with the community in France took placeand in the same year a band of sisters was sent from Mount Saint Vincent to Halifax, Nova Scotia. The mission was most successful and in 1856, under Mother Xavier, a local community was formed of the sisters then labouring in the Diocese of Newark. Meanwhile in 1857 the “Old Mount” having been absorbed in Central Park, a new “Mount” rose on the east bank of the Hudson just below Yonkers, fourteen miles from the heart of the city. Here today are to be found the motherhouse of the community, the novitiate with a finely equipped training-school, and the Academy of Mount Saint Vincent.

The superiors succeeding Mother Elizabeth Boyle have been, Mother Jerome Ely, for over fifty years a prominent factor in New York’s Catholic educational and charitable work; Mother Angela Hughes, sister of archbishop Hughes; Mother Regina Lawless, Mother Ambrosia Sweeney, Mother Rosina Wightman, Mother Mary Rose Dolan, Mother Melita McClancy and Mother Jesepha Cullen. Some idea of the growth in numbers of this community and of the importance of its present activities may be learned from the following statistics for 1908. It counts about 1400 members who conduct missions in the Dioceses of Albany, Brooklyn and Harrisburg as well as in the Archdiocese of New York. These establishments comprise 20 academies; 73 parochial schools with about 50,000 pupils; 5 asylums with 1800 orphans; high schools approved by the State; several homes containing 600 children; 11 hospitals in which 12,000 patients were treated during the year; 1 home accommodating 270 aged poor; an industrial school and a protectory with 1620 girls; a foundling asylum with 3340 children and 554 needy and homeless mothers; 2 small day nurseries caring for 100 little ones, and a retreat for the insane with 150 patients.

The superior general is the Archbishop of New York, and the community is governed by a council consisting of the mother superior and her three assistants. all residing at the motherhouse. to which the seventy-four missions are subordinate. These sisters retain the black cap and religious dress adopted by Mother Seton when she founded the American Sisters of Charity. They follow the Rule of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul with some slight modifications. On 20 June, 1847, the Holy See extended to them all the privileges, Indulgences, and other spiritual graces already granted to the community of the Sisters of Charity at Emmitsburg.

Mary Ambrose Dunphy.

Sisters of Charity of St. Elizabeth (Mother-house at Convent Station, near Morristown, New Jersey).—A community founded at Newark, in 1859, by Mother Mary Xavier Mehegan, who for twelve years previously had been a member of the Sisters of Charity, of St. Vincent de Paul in New York. In 1858 Bishop Bayley, of Newark, applied to the superior at Mount Saint Vincent’s, New York, for sisters to form a separate mother-house in his diocese. Sister Mary Xavier, who was in charge of St. Mary’s, Newark, was at his request appointed superior of the new foundation, with Sister Mary Catherine Nevin assistant. The habit and the constitutions of the Sisters of Charity in New York were retained. On 29 September, 1859, the new community was formally opened in St. Mary’s, Newark, the first superior general being the Reverend Bernard J. McQuaid, later Bishop of Rochester, New York. In less than a year the first Catholic hospital in New Jersey was opened at St. Mary’s, Newark. On 2 July, 1860, the mother-house was removed to the old Chegaray mansion at Madison, which had recently been vacated by Seton Hall College. An academy was opened the same year and named St. Elizabeth’s, in honour of Mother Elizabeth Seton, the foundress of the American Sisters of Charity. Bishop Bayley had strongly advocated a change in the head-dress of the sisters. This, however, was not carried into effect until 1874, when the black cap adopted by Mother Seton was replaced by a white one with a black veil. To accommodate the rapidly growing community the mother-house and academy were removed in 1880 to Convent Station, near Morristown.

The principal work of the sisters is teaching, but they also labour for the poor and the sick in various charitable institutions. According to the report for 1907, there are 1073 of these sisters in the Dioceses of Newark, Trenton, and Hartford, and the Archdioceses of New York and Boston. They have one college, six academies, one preparatory school for small boys, sixty-seven parochial schools with 40,100 pupils, five orphanages, five hospitals, one home for incurables, one home for the aged, one foundling asylum, and two day nurseries. Their principal educational centre is at Convent Station, where there are schools of primary, grammar, high school, and college grades. The college course was founded in 1899 for the higher education of women. Students are admitted by examination or by certificates from approved academies or high schools. The courses of study are partially elective and lead to the degrees of B.A. and M.A. In 1907 the college library contained 20,000 volumes. The college has no endowment. In connection with the college department is a School of Pedagogy requiring two years of college work for admission. The High School, the School of Pedagogy, and the College are registered by the New Jersey State Board of Education and by the Regents of the University of the State of New York. At the mother-house of the community is a normal training school for the young sisters.

FLYNN, The Catholic Church in New Jersey (Morristown, 1904); Catholic Directory (1908).

Sisters of Charity of St. Elizabeth.

Sisters of Charity (St. John, New Brunswick), founded in 1854 by Bishop, subsequently Archbishop, Connolly. Two years before this the bishop had sent Miss Honora Conway (Mother Mary Vincent) to the novitiate of the Sisters of Charity in New York to prepare for the foundation of a local community. The cholera epidemic of 1854 left many orphans in St. John and other parts of the province. When Miss Conway had finished her novitiate she returned to St. John and in a short time was joined by four other young ladies for whom Bishop Connolly drew up rules, and thus the congregation began. The care the orphans and aged poor, and the Christian education of the young is the work undertaken and successfully carried out by these sisters. In St. John they have an orphanage for girls, a home for the aged, and at Silver Falls a Boys’ Industrial School. The sisters teach in the public schools, and the entire education of the Catholic girls of the city is in their hands. From their High School the pupils enter the Provincial Normal School and the New Brunswick University. The congregation has houses and schools in many places in the diocese and also takes charge of an orphanage in the Diocese of Prince Albert. The mother-house and novitiate of this congregation are at St. John, N.B.

Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a congregation begun by five young women in Dublin, Ireland, 8 December, 1831, with the purpose of devoting themselves to the service of God in the education of children. They opened a school in North Ann Street, Dublin, on 19 March, 1832. Eager for more complete self-sacrifice, they resolved to leave their native land, and chose Philadelphia, U.S.A., for their field of labour, arriving there friendless and penniless, on 4 September, 1833. The Reverend T. J. Donoghoe, pastor of St. Michael’s Church, who had been seeking suitable teachers for his parochial school, heard of these strangers, and with the permission of Archbishop Kenrick, employed them, and drew up a rule of life for their approval. As they organized themselves into a community under this rule, Father Donoghoe is rightly called the founder of this sisterhood with Mary Frances Clarke the first superior, and Margaret Mann the assistant and mistress of novices. On 1 November, 1833, they received the title, Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In 1843 the congregation left the flourishing vineyard of the East, to do pioneer work, and accepted the urgent invitation of Bishop Loras of Dubuque, Iowa, to settle in his diocese whither he also called Father Donoghoe to be his vicar-general. The mother-house of the congregation has since that time been located in Dubuque. A decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars approved the rules in 1877, and on 26 April, 1885, Leo XIII confirmed this. The work of the sisters is that of education; they engage in no other. They had in September, 1907, one thousand members having under their direction 25,000 children.

Mary Cecilia Dougherty.

Sisters of Charity of Providence.—The community of Sisters of Providence, or, more accurately, Daughters of Charity, Servants of the Poor, was founded in Montreal, Canada, by Bishop Bourget and Madame Jean Baptiste Gamelin (Marie Emélie Eugénie Tavernier), 25 March, 1843. With the approbation of the religious and civil authorities Madame Gamelin had for some time been sheltering in her own house a number of infirm and poor old women. After a voyage to Europe Bishop Bourget wished to bring to Montreal some French Sisters of Charity, but the project came to nothing, and he decided to appeal to the young women of his own diocese. On 25 March, 1843, in the chapel of the first asylum in Montreal seven sisters received the religious habit at his hands. The new institution developed rapidly. Its object is to provide for the poor and sick spiritual and temporal relief, to shelter children and the aged, to visit the homes of the poor and the ill, to shelter the infirm and the homeless, to maintain dispensaries for the needy, and to instruct the young. The rule of the Institute of Providence was definitively approved by Leo XIII 12 September, 1900.

The community numbers about 1600 religious with more than eighty establishments, of which the principal in Montreal are the mother-house and the Gamelin Asylum, the Longue-Pointe Refuge, the Hospital for Incurables, the Home for Deaf Mutes, the Bourget Asylum, and the Auclair Asylum. Outside the Diocese of Montreal there are foundations of these sisters in the dioceses of Quebec, Ottawa, Trois-Rivières, Saint-Hyacinthe, New Westminster, Valleyfield, Joliette, Vancouver, Alberta, and Saskatchewan in Canada; and in San Francisco, Oregon City, Burlington, Great Falls, Helena, Boise, and Manchester in the United States. The general administrative body, which is located at the mother-house in Montreal, is composed of the superior general, four assistants, a secretary, and a treasurer. The community comprises seven provinces: Montreal, Hochelaga, Joliette, Trois-Rivières, Washington, Montana, and Oregon.

Vie de Mère Gamelin, by a Religious of her Order (Montreal, 1900); AUCLAIR, Vie de Mère Caron (Montreal, 1908).

Elie J. Auclair.

Sisters of Charity of Jesus and Mary, a congregation founded in 1803 by Canon Triest, who was known as “the St. Vincent de Paul of Belgium,” for he was the founder as well of the Brothers of St. John of God, and the Sisters of the Infant Jesus. When curé of Lovendeghem he laid the foundations of this congregation, and gave up his living to devote himself to training its members. He obtained the first papal recognition in 1806 and in 1816 he went to Rome to get the final approbation, which he received by Brief on September 9th of that year. The mother-house is at Ghent and there are forty branch-houses. The congregation is one of the largest in Belgium. In 1889 some of the sisters at the request of the Belgian Government went to the Congo Missions in Africa, and founded several houses there. In 1895 they went to India and opened two boarding-schools in the Punjab, and one in Ceylon. In 1888, at the invitation of the late Cardinal Vaughan, the sisters went to England and founded a large convent at Tottington near Manchester. Their principal work is teaching in their training-colleges, boarding and day-schools, and orphanages; they also nurse the infirm; they are inclosed and there are no lay-sisters. The interior spirit is one of simplicity, devotion and zeal for the salvation of souls. The congregation has over a thousand members. The habit is white with a black scapular for the professed, the novices wearing a white veil and scapular. The novitiate lasts a year.

FELLER, Biog. univ. (1848), VIII; STEELE, Convents of Great Britain (London, 1892); HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1907).

Francesca M. Steele.

Sisters of Charity of St. Louis.—This congregation was founded at Vannes in Brittany, in 1803, by Madame Molé, née de Lamoignan, for the education of poor girls, at the suggestion of Bishop de Pancemont, of Vannes, who was her director. In 1805 Pius VII blessed the undertaking, but the final approbation of Rome was not obtained till 1840. The founder was elected superior for life as Mère St. Louis. There were at first no lay sisters, but finding this plan did not answer, Oblates of St. Louis were selected to act in this capacity, but they are not allowed to take vows until they have been ten years in the community; they then, like the choir-sisters, take a fourth vow of stability, when they have reached the age of forty. The interior spirit of the congregation is one of penitence and mortification. Its work is the education of poor girls who live in orphanages attached to their convents, and to support these orphanages the sisters have pay schools. The congregation is under the government of a mother-general and the bishop, or a superior appointed by the bishop. The sisters had twenty houses in France, most of which were in Brittany, but all their schools were closed by the Government; the greater number of the sisters in consequence went to Canada, where they met with a hospitable reception, and established fourteen houses. In 1898 they went to England, and opened a house at Minehead in Dorsetshire; they have since made a foundation at Glastonbury and another at Frome. The novitiate lasts two years.

STEELE, Convents of Great Britain (London, 1902).

Francesca. M. Steele.

Sisters of Charity of St. Paul.—These sisters who now add (of Chartres) to their title to distinguish them from another congregation of the same name, were founded at Chartres in 1704 by Monsignor Maréchaut, a theologian of the Cathedral of Chartres, assisted by Mlle de Tilly and Mlle de Tronche. Their first house formerly belonged to a sabot-maker, and this gave them the name of “Les Soeurs Sabotiers,” by which they were originally known. They devote themselves to teaching, nursing, visiting the poor and taking care of orphans, the old and infirm, and the insane. There are no lay-sisters, but every sister must be prepared to undertake any kind of work. The interior spirit is a love of sacrifice and labor for the spiritual and temporal good of others. The postulancy lasts from six to nine months, the novitiate a year, after which the sisters take vows annually for three years, and then perpetual simple vows. The congregation was dispersed under the Commune at the French Revolution, but it was restored by Napoleon I, who gave the sisters a monastery at Chartres, which originally belonged to the Jacobins, from which they became known as “Les Soeurs de St. Jacques.” They settled in England in 1847 at the invitation of Cardinal Wiseman. In 1907 they had fifty-six houses in various towns. Their work in England is mainly educational, schools being attached to all their houses; the English branch is under the government of a mother general. Until 1902 they had over two hundred and fifty houses in France where, besides various kinds of schools, they undertook asylums for the blind, the aged, and the insane, hospitals, dispensaries, and crèches. Since that date more than one hundred and sixty of these schools have been closed, also thirty of the hospitals, military and civil, in the French colonies, three convents at Blois and a hospice at Brie. On the other hand they have in the meanwhile opened five or six hospitals in the French colonies, two hospitals and three elementary schools in the Philippines, and three educational houses in Siam.

STEELE, Convents of Great Britain (London, 1902).

Francesca M. Steele.

Sisters of Charity of Our Lady Mother of Mercy, a congregation founded in Holland in 1832 by the Rev. John Zwijsen, pastor of Tilburg, aided by Mary M. Leijsen, for the instruction of children and the betterment of a people deprived of spiritual aid by the disastrous effects of the Reformation. The See of Utrecht had been vacant for about three hundred years when, on the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy in Holland in 1853, Bishop John Zwijsen, of Gerra, was made Archbishop of Utrecht and Primate of Holland. He found no Catholic institutions for the education of girls in this vast diocese, neither were there any teaching orders, with the exception of his humble congregation. The founder’s accession to the See gave fresh impetus to his cherished work, and from this time the congregation spread rapidly throughout Holland and Belgium. There is now hardly a city of the Netherlands that has not one or more of its communities. Among these institutions are homes for the aged and infirm, the blind, the mutes and also hospitals. The Rules were approved by Gregory XVI in 1843, and Pius IX approved the congregation in 1848. About the middle of the eighteenth century, when the cholera was raging in Holland, the heroic charity of the sisters won the recognition of King William III who conferred decorations of honour on the congregation. It has three houses in England devoted to school and hospital work. In 1874 the first house in the United States was founded at Baltic, Connecticut, where there is a Parochial school and an academy for young ladies. The congregation has other houses at Willimantic and Taftville where the same work is carried on. In 1907 St. Joseph’s community of Willimantic donated, one of the convent buildings for a city hospital, which from the outset proved a success. In 1894 the congregation took charge of the leper settlement, city and military hospitals of Paramaribo, South America; and in East India, the sisters are doing missionary work among the natives. In December, 1907, this congregation had 2621 professed members, 488 aspirants and novices and 102 houses. The number of schoolchildren enrolled was estimated at 54,300; the sick, aged and infirm cared for 3446.

MOTHER ALOYSIO.

Charlemagne

(French for Carolus Magnus, or Carlus Magnus (“Charles the Great”); German Karl der Grosse).

The name given by later generations to Charles, King of the Franks, first sovereign of the Christian Empire of the West; born 2 April, 742; died at Aachen, 28 January, 814. Note, however, that the place of his birth (whether Aachen or Liège) has never been fully ascertained, while the traditional date has been set one or more years later by recent writers; if Alcuin is to be interpreted literally the year should be 745. At the time of Charles’ birth, his father, Pepin the Short, Mayor of the Palace, of the line of Arnulf, was, theoretically, only the first subject of Childeric III, the last Merovinigian King of the Franks; but this modest title implied that real power, military, civil, and even ecclesiastical, of which Childeric’s crown was only the symbol. It is not certain that Bertrada (or Bertha), the mother of Charlemagne, a daughter of Charibert, Count of Laon, was legally married to Pepin until some years later than either 742 or 745.

Charlemagne’s career led to his acknowledgment by the Holy See as its chief protector and coadjutor in temporals, by Constantinople as at least Basileus of the West. This reign, which involved to a greater degree than that of any other historical personage the organic development, and still more, the consolidation of Christian Europe, will be sketched in this article in the successive periods into which it naturally divides. The period of Charlemagne was also an epoch of reform for the Church in Gaul, and of foundation for the Church in Germany, marked, moreover, by an efflorescence of learning which fructified in the great Christian schools of the twelfth and later centuries.

TO THE FALL OF PAVIA (742–774)

In 752, when Charles was a child of not more than ten years, Pepin the Short had appealed to Pope Zachary to recognize his actual rule with the kingly title and dignity. The practical effect of this appeal to the Holy See was the journey of Stephen III across the Alps two years later, for the purpose of anointing with the oil of kingship not only Pepin, but also his son Charles and a younger son, Carloman. The pope then laid upon the Christian Franks a precept, under the gravest spiritual penalties, never “to choose their kings from any other family.” Primogeniture did not hold in the Frankish law of succession; the monarchy was elective, though eligibility was limited to the male members of the one privileged family. Thus, then, at St. Denis on the Seine, in the Kingdom of Neustria, on the 28th of July, 754, the house of Arnulf was, by a solemn act of the supreme pontiff established upon the throne until then nominally occupied by the house of Merowig (Merovingians).

Charles, anointed to the kingly office while yet a mere child, learned the rudiments of war while still many years short of manhood, accompanying his father in several campaigns. This early experience is worth noting chiefly because it developed in the boy those military virtues which, joined with his extraordinary physical strength and intense nationalism, made him a popular hero of the Franks long before he became their rightful ruler. At length, in September, 768, Pepin the Short, foreseeing his end, made a partition of his dominions between his two sons. Not many days later the old king passed away.

To better comprehend the effect of the act of partition under which Charles and Carloman inherited their father’s dominions, as well as the whole subsequent history of Charles’ reign, it is to be observed that those dominions comprised:

first, Frankland (Frankreich) proper;

secondly, as many as seven more or less self-governing dependencies, peopled by races of various origins and obeying various codes of law.

Of these two divisions, the former extended, roughly speaking, from the boundaries of Thuringia, on the east, to what is now the Belgian and Norman coastline, on the west; it bordered to the north on Saxony, and included both banks of the Rhine from Cologne (the ancient Colonia Agrippina) to the North Sea; its southern neighbours were the Bavarians, the Alemanni, and the Burgundians. The dependent states were: the fundamentally Gaulish Neustria (including within its borders Paris), which was, nevertheless, well leavened with a dominant Frankish element; to the southwest of Neustria, Brittany, formerly Armorica, with a British and Gallo-Roman population; to the south of Neustria the Duchy of Aquitaine, lying, for the most part, between the Loire and the Garonne, with a decidedly Gallo-Roman population; and east of Aquitaine, along the valley of the Rhone, the Burgundians, a people of much the same mixed origin as those of Aquitaine, though with a large infusion of Teutonic blood. These States, with perhaps the exception of Brittany, recognized the Theodosian Code as their law. The German dependencies of the Frankish kingdom were Thuringia, in the valley of the Main, Bavaria, and Alemannia (corresponding to what was later known as Swabia). These last, at the time of Pepin’s death, had but recently been won to Christianity, mainly through the preaching of St. Boniface. The share which fell to Charles consisted of all Austrasia (the original Frankland), most of Neustria, and all of Aquitaine except the southeast corner. In this way the possessions of the elder brother surrounded the younger on two sides, but on the other hand the distribution of races under their respective rules was such as to preclude any risk of discord arising out of the national sentiments of their various subjects.

In spite of this provident arrangement, Carloman contrived to quarrel with his brother. Hunald, formerly Duke of Aquitaine, vanquished by Pepin the Short, broke from the cloister, where he had lived as a monk for twenty years, and stirred up a revolt in the western part of the duchy. By Frankish custom Carloman should have aided Charles; the younger brother himself held part of Aquitaine; but he pretended that, as his dominion were unaffected by this revolt, it was no business of his. Hunald, however, was vanquished by Charles single-handed; he was betrayed by a nephew with whom he had sought refuge, was sent to Rome to answer for the violation of his monastic vows, and at last, after once more breaking cloister, was stoned to death by the Lombards of Pavia. For Charles the true importance of this Aquitanian episode was in its manifestation his brother’s unkindly feeling in his regard, and against this danger he lost no time in taking precautions, chiefly by winning over to himself the friends whom he judged likely to be most valuable; first and foremost of these was his mother, Bertha, who had striven both earnestly and prudently to make peace between her sons, but who, when it became necessary to take sides with one or the other could not hesitate in her devotion to the elder. Charles was an affectionate son; it also appears that, in general, he was helped to power by his extraordinary gift of personal attractiveness.

Carloman died soon after this (4 December, 771), and a certain letter from “the Monk Cathwulph,” quoted by Bouquet (Recueil. hist., V, 634), in enumerating the special blessings for which the king was in duty bound to be grateful, says,

Third . . . God has preserved you from the wiles of your brother. . . . Fifth, and not the least, that God has removed your brother from this earthly kingdom.

Carloman may not have been quite so malignant as the enthusiastic partisans of Charles made him out, but the division of Pepin’s dominions was in itself an impediment to the growth of a strong Frankish realm such as Charles needed for the unification of the Christian Continent. Although Carloman had left two sons by his wife, Gerberga, the Frankish law of inheritance gave no preference to sons as against brother; left to their own choice, the Frankish lieges, whether from love of Charles or for the fear which his name already inspired, gladly accepted him for their king. Gerberga and her children fled to the Lombard court of Pavia. In the mean while complications had arisen in Charles’ foreign policy which made his newly established supremacy at home doubly opportune.

From his father Charles had inherited the title “Patricius Romanus” which carried with it a special obligation to protect the temporal rights of the Holy See. The nearest and most menacing neighbour of St. Peter’s Patrimony was Desidarius (Didier), King of the Lombards, and it was with this potentate that the dowager Bertha had arranged a matrimonial alliance for her elder son. The pope had solid temporal reasons for objecting to this arrangement. Moreover, Charles was already, in foro conscientiae, if not in Frankish law, wedded to Himiltrude. In defiance of the pope’s protest (PL 98:250), Charles married Desiderata, daughter of Desiderius (770), three years later he repudiated her and married Hildegarde, the beautiful Swabian. Naturally, Desiderius was furious at this insult, and the dominions of the Holy See bore the first brunt of his wrath.

But Charles had to defend his own borders against the heathen as well as to protect Rome against the Lombard. To the north of Austrasia lay Frisia, which seems to have been in some equivocal way a dependency, and to the east of Frisia, from the left bank of the Ems (about the present Holland-Westphalia frontier), across the valley of the Weser and Aller, and still eastward to the left bank of the Elbe, extended the country of the Saxons, who in no fashion whatever acknowledged any allegiance to the Frankish kings. In 772 these Saxons were a horde of aggressive pagans offering to Christian missionaries no hope but that of martyrdom; bound together, normally, by no political organization, and constantly engaged in predatory incursions into the lands of the Franks. Their language seems to have been very like that spoken by the Egberts and Ethelreds of Britain, but the work of their Christian cousin, St. Boniface, had not affected them as yet; they worshipped the gods of Walhalla, united in solemn sacrifice—sometimes human—to Irminsul (Igdrasail), the sacred tree which stood at Eresburg, and were still slaying Christian missionaries when their kinsmen in Britain were holding church synods and building cathedrals. Charles could brook neither their predatory habits nor their heathenish intolerance; it was impossible, moreover, to make permanent peace with them while they followed the old Teutonic life of free village communities. He made his first expedition into their country in July, 772, took Eresburg by storm, and burned Irminsul. It was in January of this same year that Pope Stephen III died, and Adrian I, an opponent of Desiderius, was elected. The new pope was almost immediately assailed by the Lombard king, who seized three minor cities of the Patrimony of St. Peter, threatened Ravenna itself, and set about organizing a plot within the Curia. Paul Afiarta, the papal chamberlain, detected acting as the Lombard’s secret agent, was seized and put to death. The Lombard army advanced against Rome, but quailed before the spiritual weapons of the Church, while Adrian sent a legate into Gaul to claim the aid of of the Patrician.

Thus it was that Charles, resting at Thionville after his Saxon campaign, was urgently reminded of the rough work that awaited his hand south of the Alps. Desiderius’ embassy reached him soon after Adrian’s. He did not take it for granted that the right was all upon Adrian’s side; besides, he may have seen here an opportunity make some amends for his repudiation of the Lombard princess. Before taking up arms for the Holy See, therefore, he sent commissioners into Italy to make enquiries and when Desiderius pretended that the seizure of the papal cities was in effect only the legal foreclosure of a mortgage, Charles promptly offered to redeem them by a money payment. But Desiderius refused the money, and as Charles’ commissioners reported in favour of Adrian, the only course left was war.

In the spring of 773 Charles summoned the whole military strength of the Franks for a great invasion of Lombardy. He was slow to strike, but he meant to strike hard. Data for any approximate estimate of his numerical strength are lacking, but it is certain that the army, in order to make the descent more swiftly, crossed the Alps by two passes: Mont Cenis and the Great St. Bernard. Einhard, who accompanied the king over Mont Cenis (the St. Bernard column was led by Duke Bernhard), speaks feelingly of the marvels and perils of the passage. The invaders found Desiderius waiting for them, entrenched at Susa; they turned his flank and put the Lombard army to utter rout. Leaving all the cities of the plains to their fate, Desiderius rallied part of his forces in Pavia, his walled capital, while his son Adalghis, with the rest, occupied Verona. Charles, having been joined by Duke Bernhard, took the forsaken cities on his way and then completely invested Pavia (September, 773), whence Otger, the faithful attendant of Gerberga, could look with trembling upon the array of his countrymen. Soon after Christmas Charles withdrew from the siege a portion of the army which he employed in the capture of Verona. Here he found Gerberga and her children; as to what became of them, history is silent; they probably entered the cloister.

What history does record with vivid eloquence is the first visit of Charles to the Eternal City. There everything was done to give his entry as much as possible the air of a triumph in ancient Rome. The judges met him thirty miles from the city; the militia laid at the feet of their great patrician the banner of Rome and hailed him as their imperator. Charles himself forgot pagan Rome and prostrated himself to kiss the threshold of the Apostles, and then spent seven days in conference with the successor of Peter. It was then that he undoubtedly formed many great designs for the glory of God and the exaltation of Holy Church, which, in spite of human weaknesses and, still more, ignorance, he afterwards did his best to realize. His coronation as the successor of Constantine did not take place until twenty-six years later, but his consecration as first champion of the Catholic Church took place at Easter, 774. Soon after this (June, 774) Pavia fell, Desiderius was banished, Adalghis became a fugitive at the Byzantine court, and Charles, assuming the crown of Lombardy, renewed to Adrian the donation of of territory made by Pepin the Short after his defeat of Aistulph. (This donation is now generally admitted, as well as the original gift of Pepin at Kiersy in 752. The so-called “Privilegium Hadriani pro Carolo” granting him full right to nominate the pope and to invest all bishops is a forgery.)

TO THE BAPTISM OF WITTEKIND (774–785)

The next twenty years of Charles’ life may be considered as one long warfare. They are filled with an astounding series of rapid marches from end to end of a continent intersected by mountains, morasses, and forests, and scantily provided with roads. It would seem that the key to his long series of victories, won almost as much by moral ascendancy as by physical or mental superiority, is to be found in the inspiration communicated to his Frankish champion by Pope Adrian I. Weiss (Weltgesch., 11, 549) enumerates fifty-three distinct campaigns of Charlemagne; of these it is possible to point to only twelve or fourteen which were not undertaken principally or entirely in execution of his mission as the soldier and protector of the Church. In his eighteen campaigns against the Saxons Charles was more or less actuated by the desire to extinguish what he and his people regarded as a form of devil-worship, no less odious to them than the fetishism of Central Africa is to us.

While he was still in Italy the Saxons, irritated but not subdued by the fate of Eresburg and of Irminsul had risen in arms, harried the country of the Hessian Franks, and burned many churches; that of St. Boniface at Fritzlar, being of stone, had defeated their efforts. Returning to the north, Charles sent a preliminary column of cavalry into the enemy’s country while he held a council of the realm at Kiersy (Quercy) in September, 774, at which it was decided that the Saxons (Westfali, Ostfali, and Angrarii) must be presented with the alternative of baptism or death. The northeastern campaigns of the next seven years had for their object a conquest so decisive as to make the execution of this policy feasible. The year 775 saw the first of a series of Frankish military colonies, on the ancient Roman plan established at Sigeburg among the Westfali. Charles next subdued, temporarily at least, the Ostali, whose chieftain, Hessi, having accepted baptism, ended his life in the monastery of Fulda (see SAINT BONIFACE; FULDA). Then, a Frankish camp at Lübbecke on the Weser having been surprised by the Saxons, and its garrison slaughtered, Charles turned again westward, once more routed the Westfali, and received their oaths of submission.

At this stage (776) the affairs of Lombardy interrupted the Saxon crusade. Areghis of Beneventum, son-in-law of the vanquished Desiderius, had formed a plan with his brother-in-law Adalghis (Adelchis), then an exile at Constantinople, by which the latter was to make a descent upon Italy, backed by the Eastern emperor; Adrian was at the same time involved in a quarrel with the three Lombard dukes, Reginald of Clusium, Rotgaud of Friuli, and Hildebrand of Spoleto. The archbishop of Ravenna, who called himself “primate” and “exarch of Italy,” was also attempting to found an independent principality at the expense of the papal state but was finally subdued in 776, and his successor compelled to be content with the title of “Vicar” or representative of the pope. The junction of the aforesaid powers, all inimical to the pope and the Franks, while Charles was occupied in Westphalia, was only prevented by the death of Constantine Copronymus in September, 775 (see BYZANTINE EMPIRE). After winning over Hildebrand and Reginald by diplomacy, Charles descended into Lombardy by the Brenner Pass (spring of 776), defeated Rotgaud, and leaving garrisons and governors, or counts (comites), as they were termed, in the reconquered cities of the Duchy of Friuli, hastened back to Saxony. There the Frankish garrison had been forced to evacuate Eresburg, while the siege of Sigeburg was so unexpectedly broken up as to give occasion later to a legend of angelic intervention in favour of the Christians. As usual, the almost incredible suddenness of the king’s reappearance and the moral effect of his presence quieted the ragings of the heathen. Charles then divided the Saxon territory into Missionary districts. At the great spring hosting (champ de Mai) of Paderborn, in 777, many Saxon converts were baptized; Wittekind (Widukind), however, already the leader and afterwards the popular hero of the Saxons, had fled to his brother-in-law, Sigfrid the Dane.

The episode of the invasion of Spain comes next in chronological order. The condition of the venerable Iberian Church, still suffering under Moslem domination, appealed strongly to the king’s sympathy. In 777 there came to Paderborn three Moorish emirs, enemies of the Ommeyad Abderrahman, the Moorish King of Cordova. These emirs did homage to Charles and proposed to him an invasion of Northern Spain; one of the, Ibn-el-Arabi, promised to bring to the invaders’ assistance a force of Berber auxiliaries from Africa; the other two promised to exert their powerful influence at Barcelona and elsewhere north of the Ebro. Accordingly, in the spring of 778, Charles, with a host of crusaders, speaking many tongues, and which numbered among its constituents even a quota of Lombards, moved towards the Pyrenees. His trusted lieutenant, Duke Bernhard. with one division, entered Spain by the coast. Charles himself marched through the mountain passes straight to Pampelona. But Ibn-el-Arabi, who had prematurely brought on his army of Berbers, was assassinated by the emissary of Abderrahman, and though Pampelona was razed, and Barcelona and other cities fell, Saragossa held out. Apart from the moral effect of this campaign upon the Moslem rulers of Spain, its result was insignificant, though the famous ambuscade in which perished Roland, the great Paladin, at the Pass of Roncesvalles, furnished to the medieval world the material for its most glorious and influential epic, the “Chanson de Roland.”

Much more important to posterity were the next succeeding events which continued and decided the long struggle in Saxony. During the Spanish crusade Wittekind had returned from his exile, bringing with him Danish allies, and was now ravaging Hesse; the Rhine valley from Deutz to Andenach was a prey to the Saxon “devil-worshipers”; the Christian missionaries were scattered or in hiding. Charles gathered his hosts at Düren, in June, 779, and stormed Wittekind’s entrenched camp at Bocholt, after which campaign he seems to have considered Saxony a fairly subdued country. At any rate, the “Saxon Capitulary” (see CAPITULARIES) of 781 obliged all Saxons not only to accept baptism (and this on the pain of death) but also to pay tithes, as the Franks did for the support of the Church; moreover it confiscated a large amount of property for the benefit of the missions. This was Wittekind’s last opportunity to restore the national independence and paganism; his people, exasperated against the Franks and their God, eagerly rushed to arms. At Suntal on the Weser, Charles being absent, they defeated a Frankish army killing two royal legates and five Counts. But Wittekind committed the error of enlisting as allies the non-Teutonic Sorbs from beyond the Saale; race-antagonism soon weakened his forces, and the Saxon hosts melted away. Of the so-called “Massacre of Verdun” (783) it is fair to say that the 4500 Saxons who perished were not prisoners of war; legally, they were ringleaders in a rebellion, selected as such from a number of their fellow rebels. Wittekind himself escaped beyond the Elbe. It was not until after another defeat of the Saxons at Detmold, and again at Osnabrück, on the “Hill of Slaughter,” that Wittekind acknowledged the God of Charles the stronger than Odin. In 785 Wittekind received baptism at Attigny, and Charles stood godfather.

LAST STEPS TO THE IMPERIAL THRONE (785–800)

The summer of 783 began a new period in the life of Charles, in which signs begin to appear of his less amiable traits. It was in this year, signalized, according to the chroniclers, by unexampled heat and a pestilence, that the two queens died, Bertha, the king’s mother, and Hildegarde, his second (or his third) wife. Both of these women, the former in particular, had exercised over him a strong influence for good. Within a few months the king married Fastrada, daughter of an Austrasian count. The succeeding years were, comparatively speaking, years of harvest after the stupendous period of ploughing and sowing that had gone before; and Charles’ nature was of a type that appears to best advantage in storm and stress. What was to be the Western Empire of the Middle Ages was already hewn out in the rough when Wittekind received baptism. From that date until the coronation of Charles at Rome, in 800, his military work was chiefly in suppressing risings of the newly conquered or quelling the discontents of jealous subject princes. Thrice in these fifteen years did the Saxons rise, only to be defeated. Tassilo, Duke of Bavaria, had been a more or less rebellious vassal ever since the beginning of his reign, and Charles now made use of the pope’s influence, exercised through the powerful bishops of Freising, Salzburg, and Regensburg (Ratisbon), to bring him to terms. In 786 a Thuringian revolt was quelled by the timely death, blinding, and banishment of its leaders. Next year the Lombard prince, Areghis, having fortified himself at Salerno, had actually been crowned King of the Lombards when Charles descended upon him at Beneventum, received his submission, and took his son Grimwald as a hostage, after which, finding that Tassilo had been secretly associated with the conspiracy of the Lombards, he invaded Bavaria from three sides with three armies drawn from at least five nationalities. Once more the influence of the Holy See settled the Bavarian question in Charles’ favour; Adrian threatened Tassilo with excommunication if he persisted in rebellion, and as the Duke’s own subjects refused to follow him to the field, he personally made submission, did homage, and in return received from Charles a new lease of his duchy (October, 787).

During this period the national discontent with Fastrada culminated in a plot in which Pepin the Hunchback, Charles’ son by Himiltrude, was implicated, and though his life was spared through his father’s intercession, Pepin spent what remained of his days in a monastery. Another son of Charles (Carloman, afterwards called Pepin, and crowned King of Lombardy at Rome in 781, on the occasion of an Easter visit by the king, at which time also his brother Louis was crowned King of Aquitaine) served his father in dealing with the Avars, a pagan danger on the frontier, compared with which the invasion of Septimania by the Saracens (793) was but an insignificant incident of border warfare. These Avars, probably of Turanian blood, occupied the territories north of the Save and west of the Theiss. Tassilo had invited their assistance against his overlord; and after the Duke’s final submission Charles invaded their country and conquered it as far as the Raab (791). By the capture of the famous “Ring” of the Avars, with its nine concentric circles, Charles came into possession of vast quantities of gold and silver, parts of the plunder which these barbarians had been accumulating for two centuries. In this campaign King Pepin of Lombardy cooperated with his father, with forces drawn from Italy; the later stages of this war (which may be considered the last of Charles’ great wars) were left in the hands of the younger king.

The last stages by which the story of Charles’ career is brought to its climax touch upon the exclusive spiritual domain of the Church. He had never ceased to interest himself in the deliberations of synods, and this interest extended (an example that wrought fatal results in after ages) to the discussion of questions which would now be regarded as purely dogmatic. Charles interfered in the dispute about the Adoptionist heresy (see ADOPTIONISM; ALCUIN; COUNCIL OF FRANKFORT). His interference was less pleasing to Adrian in the matter of Iconoclasm, a heresy with which the Empress-mother Irene and Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, had dealt in the second Council of Nicaea. The Synod of Frankfort, wrongly informed, but inspired by Charles, took upon itself to condemn the aforesaid Council, although the latter had the sanction of the Holy See (see CAROLINE BOOKS). In the year 797 the Eastern Emperor Constantine VI, with whom his mother Irene had for some time been at variance, was by her dethroned, imprisoned, and blinded. It is significant of Charles’ position as de facto Emperor of the West that Irene sent envoys to Aachen to lay before Charles her side of this horrible story. It is also to be noted that the popular impression that Constantine had been put to death, and the aversion to committing the imperial sceptre to a woman’s hand, also bore upon what followed. Lastly, it was to Charles alone that the Christians of the East were now crying out for succour against the threatening advance of the Moslem Caliph Haroun al Raschid. In 795 Adrian I died (25 Dec.), deeply regretted by Charles, who held this pope in great esteem and caused a Latin metrical epitaph to be prepared for the papal tomb. In 787 Charles had visited Rome for the third time in the interest of the pope and his secure possession of the Patrimony of Peter.

Leo III, the immediate successor of Adrian I, notified Charles of his election (26 December, 795) to the Holy See. The king sent in return rich presents by Abbot Angilbert, whom he commissioned to deal with the pope in all manners pertaining to the royal office of Roman Patrician. While this letter is respectful and even affectionate, it also exhibits Charles’ concept of the coordination of the spiritual and temporal powers, nor does he hesitate to remind the pope of his grave spiritual obligations. The new pope, a Roman, had bitter enemies in the Eternal City, who spread the most damaging reports of his previous life. At length (25 April, 799) he was waylaid, and left unconscious. After escaping to St. Peter’s he was rescued by two of the king’s missi, who came with a considerable force. The Duke of Spoleto sheltered the fugitive pope, who went later to Paderborn, where the king’s camp then was. Charles received the Vicar of Christ with all due reverence. Leo was sent back to Rome escorted by royal missi; the insurgents, thoroughly frightened and unable to convince Charles of the pope’s iniquity, surrendered, and the missi sent Paschalis and Campulus, nephews of Adrian I and ringleaders against Pope Leo, to the king, to be dealt with at the royal pleasure.

Charles was in no hurry to take final action in this matter. He settled various affairs connected with the frontier beyond the Elbe, with the protection of the Balearic Isles against the Saracens, and of Northern Gaul against Scandinavian sea-rovers, spent most of the winter at Aachen, and was at St. Riquier for Easter. About this time, too, he was occupied at the deathbed of Liutgarde, the queen whom he had married on the death of Fastrada (794). At Tours he conferred with Alcuin, then summoned the host of the Franks to meet at Mainz and announced to them his intention of again proceeding to Rome. Entering Italy by the Brenner Pass, he travelled by way of Ancona and Perugia to Nomentum, where Pope Leo met him and the two entered Rome together. A synod was held and the charges against Leo pronounced false. On this occasion the Frankish bishops declared themselves unauthorized to pass judgment on the Apostolic See. Of his own free will Leo, under oath, declared publicly in St. Peter’s that he was innocent of the charges brought against him. Leo requested that his accusers, now themselves condemned to death, should be punished only with banishment.

AFTER HIS CORONATION IN ROME (800–814)

Two days later (Christmas Day, 800) took place the principal event in the life of Charles. During the pontifical Mass celebrated by the pope, as the king knelt in prayer before the high altar beneath which lay the bodies of Sts. Peter and Paul, the pope approached him, placed upon his head the imperial crown, did him formal reverence after the ancient manner, saluted him as Emperor and Augustus and anointed him, while the Romans present burst out with the acclamation, thrice repeated: “To Carolus Augustus crowned by God, mighty and pacific emperor, be life and victory” (Carolo, piisimo Augusto a Deo coronato, magno et pacificio Imperatori, vita et vicotria). These details are gathered from contemporary accounts (Life of Leo III in “lib. Pont.”; “Annales Laurissense majores”; Einhard’s Vita Caroli; Theophanes). Though not all are found in any one narrative, there is no good reason for doubting their general accuracy. Einhard’s statement (Vita Caroli 28) that Charles had no suspicion of what was about to happen, and if pre-informed would not have accepted the imperial crown, is much discussed, some seeing in it an unwillingness to imperial authority on an ecclesiastical basis, others more justly a natural hesitation before a momentous step overcome by the positive action of friends and admirers, and culminating; in the scene just described. On the other hand, there seems no reason to doubt that for some time previous the elevation of Charles had been discussed, both at home and at Rome, especially in view of two facts: the scandalous condition of the imperial government at Constantinople, and the acknowledged grandeur and solidity of the Carolingian house. He owed his elevation not to the conquest of Rome, nor to any act of the Roman Senate (then a mere municipal body), much less to the local citizenship of Rome, but to the pope, who exercised in a supreme juncture the moral supremacy in Western Christendom which the age widely recognized in him, and to which, indeed, Charles even then owed the title that the popes had transferred to his father Pepin. It is certain that Charles constantly attributed his imperial dignity to an act of God, made known of course through the agency of the Vicar of Christ (divino nutu coronatus, a Deo coronatus, in “Capitularia,” ed. Baluze, I, 247, 341, 345); also that after the ceremony he made very rich gifts to the Basilica of St. Peter, and that on the same day the pope anointed (as King of the Franks) the younger Charles, son of the emperor and at that time probably destined to succeed in the imperial dignity. The Roman Empire (Imperium Romanum), since 476 practically extinguished in the West, save for a brief interval in the sixth century, was restored by this papal act, which became the historical basis of the future relations between the popes and the successors of Charlemagne (throughout the Middle Ages no Western Emperor was considered legitimate unless he had been crowned and anointed at Rome by the successor of St. Peter). Despite the earlier goodwill and help of the papacy, the Emperor of Constantinople, legitimate heir of the imperial title (he still called himself Roman Emperor, and his capital was officially New Rome) had long proved incapable of preserving his authority in the Italian peninsula. Palace revolutions and heresy, not to speak of fiscal oppression, racial antipathy, and impotent but vicious intrigues, made him odious to the Romans and Italians generally. In any case, since the Donation of Pepin (752) the pope was formally sovereign of the duchy of Rome and the Exarchate; hence, apart from its effect on his shadowy claim to the sovereignty of all Italy, the Byzantine ruler had nothing to lose by the elevation of Charles. However, the event of Christmas Day, 800, was long resented at Constantinople, where eventually the successor of Charles was occasionally called “Emperor,” or “Emperor of the Franks,” but never “Roman Emperor.” Suffice it to add here that while the imperial consecration made him in theory, what he was already in fact, the principal ruler of the West, and impropriated, as it were, in the Carolingian line the majesty of ancient Rome, it also lifted Charles at once to the dignity of supreme temporal protector of Western Christendom and in particular of its head, the Roman Church. Nor did this mean only the local welfare of the papacy, the good order and peace of the Patrimony of Peter. It meant also, in face of the yet vast pagan world (barbarae nationes) of the North and the Southeast, a religious responsibility, encouragement and protection of missions, advancement of Christian culture, organization of dioceses, enforcement of a Christian discipline of life, improvement of the clergy, in a word, all the forms of governmental cooperation with the Church that we meet with in the life and the legislation of Charles. Long before this event Pope Adrian I had conferred (774) on Charles his father’s dignity of Patricius Romanus, which implied primarily the protection of the Roman Church in all its rights and privileges, above all in the temporal authority which it had gradually acquired (notably in the former Byzantine Duchy of Rome and the Exarchate of Ravenna) by just titles in the course of the two preceding centuries. Charles, it is true, after his imperial consecration exercised practically at Rome his authority as Patricius, or protector of the Roman Church. But he did this with all due recognition of the papal sovereignty and principally to prevent the quasi-anarchy which local intrigues and passions, family interests and ambitions, and adverse Byzantine agencies were promoting. It would be unhistorical to maintain that as emperor he ignored at once the civil sovereignty of the pope in the Patrimony of Peter. This (the Duchy of Rome and the Exarchate) he significantly omitted from the partition of the Frankish State made at the Diet of Thionville, in 806. It is to be noted that in this public division of his estate he made no provision for the imperial title, also that he committed to all three sons “the defence and protection of the Roman Church.” In 817 Louis the Pious, by a famous charter whose substantial authenticity there is no good reason to doubt, confirmed to Pope Paschal and his successors forever, “the city of Rome with its duchy and dependencies, as the same have been held to this day by your predecessors, under their authority and jurisdiction,” adding that he did not pretend to any jurisdiction in said territory, except when solicited thereto by the pope. It may be noted here that the chroniclers of the ninth century treat as “restitution” to St. Peter the various cessions and grants of cities and territory made at this period by the Carolingian rulers within the limits of the Patrimony of Peter. The Charter of Louis the Pious was afterwards confirmed by Emperor Otto I in 962 and Henry II in 1020. These imperial documents make it clear that the acts of authority exercised by the new emperor in the Patrimony of Peter were only such as were called for by his office of Defender of the Roman Church. Kleinclausz (l’Empire carolingien, etc., Paris, 1902, 441 sqq.) denies the authenticity of the famous letter (871) of Emperor Louis II to the Greek Emperor Basil (in which the former recognizes fully the papal origin of his own imperial dignity), and attributes it to Anastasius Bibliotheca in 879. His arguments are weak; the authenticity is admitted by Gregorovius and O. Harnack. Anti-papal writers have undertaken to prove that Charles’ dignity of Patricius Romanorum was equivalent to immediate and sole sovereign authority at Rome, and in law and in fact excluded any papal sovereignty. In reality this Roman patriciate, both under Pepin and Charles, was no more than a high protectorship of the civil sovereignty of the pope, whose local independence, both before and after the coronation of Charles, is historically certain, even apart from the aforesaid imperial charters.

The personal devotion of Charles to the Apostolic See is well known. While in the preface to his Capitularies he calls himself the “devoted defender and humble helper of Holy Church,” he was especially fond of the basilica of St. Peter at Rome. Einhard relates (Vita, c. xxvii) that he enriched it beyond all other churches and that he was particularly anxious that the City of Rome should in his reign obtain again its ancient authority. He promulgated a special law on the respect due this See of Peter (Capitulare de honoranda sede Apostolica, ed. Baluze I, 255). The letters of the popes to himself, his father, and grandfather, were collected by his order in the famous “Codex Carolinus.” Gregory VII tells us (Regest., VII, 23) that he placed a part of the conquered Saxon territory under the protection of St. Peter, and sent to Rome a tribute from the same. He received from Pope Adrian the Roman canon law in the shape of the “Collectio Dionysia-Hadriana,” and also (784–91) the “Gregorian Sacramentary” or liturgical use of Rome, for the guidance of the Frankish Church. He furthered also in the Frankish churches the introduction of the Gregorian chant. It is of interest to note that just before his coronation at Rome Charles received three messengers from the Patriarch of Jerusalem, bearing to the King of the Franks the keys of the Holy Sepulchre and the banner of Jerusalem, “a recognition that the holiest place in Christendom was under the protection of the great monarch of the West” (Hodgkin). Shortly after this event, the Caliph Haroun al Raschid sent an embassy to Charles, who continued to take a deep interest in the Holy Sepulchre, and built Latin monasteries at Jerusalem, also a hospital for pilgrims. To the same period belongs the foundation of the Schola Francorum near St. Peter’s Basilica, a refuge and hospital (with cemetery attached) for Frankish pilgrims to Rome, now represented by the Campo Santo de’ Tedeschi near the Vatican.

The main work of Charlemagne in the development of Western Christendom might have been considered accomplished had he now passed away. Of all that he added during the remaining thirteen years of his life nothing increased perceptibly the stability of the structure. His military power and his instinct for organization had been successfully applied to the formation of a material power pledged to the support of the papacy, and on the other hand at least one pope (Adrian) had lent all the spiritual strength of the Holy See to help build up the new Western Empire, which his immediate successor (Leo) was to solemnly consecrate. Indeed, the remaining thirteen years of Charles’ earthly career seem to illustrate rather the drawbacks of an intimate connection between Church and State than its advantages.

In those years nothing like the military activity of the emperor’s earlier life appears; there were much fewer enemies to conquer. Charles’ sons led here and there an expedition, as when Louis captured Barcelona (801) or the younger Charles invaded the territory of the Sorbs. But their father had somewhat larger business on his hands at this time; above all, he had to either conciliate or neutralize the jealousy of the Byzantine Empire which still had the prestige of old tradition. At Rome Charles had been hailed in due form as “Augustus” by the Roman people, but he could not help realizing that many centuries before, the right of conferring this title had virtually passed from Old to New Rome. New Rome, i.e. Constantinople, affected to regard Leo’s act as one of schism. Nicephorus, the successor of Irene (803) entered into diplomatic relations with Charles, it is true, but would not recognize his imperial character. According to one account (Theophanes) Charles had sought Irene in marriage, but his plan was defeated. The Frankish emperor then took up the cause of rebellious Venetia and Dalmatia. The war was carried on by sea, under King Pepin, and in 812, after the death of Nicephorus, a Byzantine embassy at Aachen actually addressed Charles as Basileus. About this time Charles again trenched upon the teaching prerogative of the Church, in the matter of the although in this instance also the Holy See admitted the soundness of his doctrine, while condemning his usurpation of its functions.

The other source of discord which appeared in the new Western Empire, and from its very beginning, was that of the succession. Charles made no pretence either of right of primogeniture for his eldest son or to name a successor for himself. As Pepin the Short had divided the Frankish realm, so did Charles divide the empire among his sons, naming none of them emperor. By the will which he made in 806 the greater part of what was later called France went to Louis the Pious; Frankland proper, Frisia, Saxony, Hesse, and Franconia were to be the heritage of Charles the Young; Pepin received Lombardy and its Italian dependencies, Bavaria, and Southern Alemannia. But Pepin and Charles pre-deceased the emperor, and in 813 the magnates of the empire did homage at Aachen to Louis the Pious as King of the Franks, and future sole ruler of the great imperial state. Thus is was that the Carolingian Empire, as a dynastic institution, ended with the death of Charles the Fat (888), while the Holy Roman Empire, continued by Otto the Great (968–973), lacked all that is now France. But the idea of a Europe welded together out of various races under the spiritual influence of one Catholic Faith and one Vicar of Christ had been exhibited in the concrete.

It remains to say something of the achievements of Charlemagne at home. His life was so full of movement, so made up of long journeys, that home in his case signifies little more than the personal environment of his court, wherever it might happen to be on any given day. There was, it is true, a general preference for Austrasia, or Frankland (after Aachen, Worms, Nymwegen, and Ingleheim were favourite residences). He took a deep and intelligent interest in the agricultural development of the realm, and in the growth of trade, both domestic and foreign. The civil legislative work of Charles consisted principally in organizing and codifying the principles of Frankish law handed down from antiquity; thus in 802 the laws of the Frisians, Thuringians, and Saxons were reduced to writing. Among these principles, it is important to note, was one by which no free man could be deprived of life or liberty without the judgment of his equals in the state. The spirit of his legislation was above all religious; he recognized as a basis and norm the ecclesiastical canons, was wont to submit his projects of law to the bishops, or to give civil authority to the decrees of synods. More than once he made laws at the suggestion of popes or bishops. For administrative purposes the State was divided into counties and hundreds, for the government of which counts and hundred-men were responsible. Side by side with the counts in the great national parliament (Reichstag, Diet) which normally met in the spring, sat the bishops, and the spiritual constituency was so closely intertwined with the temporal that in reading of a “council” under Charles, it is not always easy to ascertain whether the particular proceedings are supposed to be those of a parliament or of a synod. Nevertheless this parliament or diet was essentially bicameral (civil and ecclesiastical), and the foregoing descriptions applies to the mutual discussion of res mixtae or subjects pertaining to both orders.

The one Frankish administrative institution to which Charles gave an entirely new character was the missi dominici, representatives (civil and ecclesiastical) of the royal authority, who from being royal messengers assumed under him functions much like those of papal legates, i.e. they were partly royal commissioners, partly itinerant governors. There were usually two for each province (an ecclesiastic and a lay lord), and they were bound to visit their territory (missatica) four times each year. Between these missi and the local governors or counts the power of the former great crown-vassals (dukes, Herzöge) was parcelled out. Local justice was administered by the aforesaid count (comes, Graf) in his court, held three times each year (placitum generale), with the aid of seven assessors (scabini, rachimburgi), but there was a graduated appeal ending in the person of the emperor.

While enough has been said above to show how ready he was to interfere in the Church’s domain, it does not appear that this propensity arose from motives discreditable to his religious character. It would be absurd to pretend that Charlemagne was a consistent lifelong hypocrite; if he was not, then his keen practical interest in all that pertained to the services of the Church, his participation even in the chanting of the choir (though, as his biographer says, “in a subdued voice”) his fastidious attention to questions of rites and ceremonies (Monachus Sangallensis), go to show, like many other traits related of him, that his strong rough nature was really impregnated with zeal, however mistaken at times, for the earthly glory of God. He sought to elevate and perfect the clergy, both monastic and secular, the latter through the enforcement of the Vita Canonica or common life. Tithes were strictly enforced for the support of the clergy and the dignity of public worship. Ecclesiastical immunities were recognized and protected, the bishops held to frequent visitation of their dioceses, a regular religious instruction of the people provided for, and in the vernacular tongue. Through Alcuin he caused corrected copies of the Scripture to be placed in the churches, and earned great credit for his improvement of the much depraved text of the Latin Vulgate. Education, for aspirants to the priesthood at least, was furthered by the royal order of 787 to all bishops and abbots to keep open in their cathedrals and monasteries schools for the study of the seven liberal arts and the interpretation of Scriptures. He did much also to improve ecclesiastical music, and founded schools of church-song at Metz, Soissons, and St. Gall. For the contemporary development of Christian civilization through Alcuin, Einhard, and other scholars, Italian and Irish, and for the king’s personal attainments in literature, see CAROLINGIAN SCHOOLS; ALCUIN; EINHARD. He spoke Latin well, and loved to listen to the reading of St. Augustine, especially “The City of God.” He understood Greek, but was especially devoted to his Frankish (Old-German) mother tongue; its terms for the months and the various winds are owing to him. He attempted also to produce a German grammar, and Einhard tells us that he caused the ancient folksongs and hero-tales (barbara atque antiquissima carmina) to be collected; unfortunately this collection ceased to be appreciated and was lost at a later date.

From boyhood Charles had evinced strong domestic affections. Judged, perhaps, by the more perfectly developed Christian standards of a later day, his matrimonial relations were far from blameless; but it would be unfair to criticize by any such ethical rules the obscurely transmitted accounts of his domestic life which have come down to us. What is certain (and more pleasant to contemplate) is the picture, which his contemporaries have left us, of the delight he found in being with his children, joining in their sports, particularly in his own favourite recreation of swimming, and finding his relaxation in the society of his sons and daughters; the latter he refused to give in marriage, unfortunately for their moral character. He died in his seventy-second year, after forty-seven years of reign, and was buried in the octagonal Byzantine-Romanesque church at Aachen, built by him and decorated with marble columns from Rome and Ravenna. In the year 1000 Otto III opened the imperial tomb and found (it is said) the great emperor as he had been buried, sitting on a marble throne, robed and crowned as in life, the book of the Gospels open on his knees. In some parts of the empire popular affection placed him among the saints. For political purposes and to please Frederick Barbarossa he was canonized (1165) by the antipope Paschal III, but this act was never ratified by insertion of his feast in the Roman Breviary or by the Universal Church; his cultus, however, was permitted at Aachen [Acta SS., 28 Jan., 3d ed., II, 490–93, 303–7, 769; his office is in Canisius, “Antiq. Lect.,” III (2)]. According to his friend and biographer, Einhard, Charles was of imposing stature, to which his bright eyes and long, flowing hair added more dignity. His neck was rather short, and his belly prominent, but the symmetry of his other members concealed these defects. His clear voice was not so sonorous as his gigantic frame would suggest. Except on his visits to Rome he wore the national dress of his Frankish people, linen shirt and drawers, a tunic held by a silken cord, and leggings; his thighs were wound round with thongs of leather; his feet were covered with laced shoes. He had good health to his sixty-eighth year, when fevers set in, and he began to limp with one foot. He was his own physician, we are told, and much disliked his medical advisers who wished him to eat boiled meat instead of roast. No contemporary portrait of him has been preserved. A statuette in the Musée Carnavalet at Paris is said to be very ancient.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

E. MACPHERSON.

St. Charles Borromeo

Archbishop of Milan, Cardinal-Priest of the Title of St. Prassede, Papal Secretary of State under Pius IV, and one of the chief factors in the Catholic Counter-Reformation , was born in the Castle of Arona, a town on the southern shore of the Lago Maggiore in northern Italy, 2 October, 1538; died at Milan, 3 November, 1584. His emblem is the word HUMILITAS crowned, which is a portion of the Borromeo shield. He is usually represented in art in his cardinal’s robes, barefoot, carrying the cross as archbishop; a rope round his neck, one hand raised in blessing, thus recalling his work during the plague. His feast is kept on 4 November. His father was Count Giberto Borromeo, who, about 1530, married Margherita de Medici. Her younger brother was Giovanni Angelo, Cardinal de’ Medici, who became pope in 1559 under the title of Pius IV. Charles was the second son, and the third of six children, of Giberto and Margherita. Charles’ mother died about the year 1547, and his father married again.

His early years were passed partly in the Castle of Arona, and partly in the Palazzo Borromeo at Milan. At the age of twelve his father allowed him to receive the tonsure, and, upon the resignation of his uncle, Julius Caesar Borromeo, he became titular Abbot of Sts. Gratinian and Felinus at Arona.

When he received the tonsure he was sent by his father to Milan, where he studied Latin under J.J. Merla. In October, 1552, he left Arona for the University of Pavia, where he had as his tutor Francesco Alciato, afterwards cardinal. His correspondence shows that he was allowed a small sum by his father, and that often he was in very straitened circumstances, which caused him considerable inconvenience. It was not only that he himself suffered, but that his retinue also were not suitably clothed. Charles evidently felt bitterly his humiliation, but he does not seem to have shown impatience. Leaving Pavia to meet his uncle, Cardinal de’ Medici, at Milan, he was, within a few weeks called upon to attend the funeral of his father, who died early in August, 1558, and was buried in the church of Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan.

Fresh responsibilities at once came to Charles, for though he was not the elder son, yet, at the request of his family, including even his brother, he assumed charge of all the family business. The question of possession of the Castle of Arona was one of great difficulty, as it was claimed by both France and Spain. Charles conducted the negotiations with great energy and diplomatic skill, and as a consequence of the Peace of Cambrai (3 April, 1559) the castle was handed over to Count Francesco Borromeo, in the name of his nephew, Federigo Borromeo, to be held by him for the King of Spain. He also did much to restore to their ancient monastic discipline the religious of his Abbey of Sts. Gratinian and Felinus. Though his studies were so often interrupted, yet his seriousness and attention enabled him to complete them with success, and in 1559 he maintained his thesis for the doctorate of civil and canon law.

In the summer of 1559, Paul IV died, and the conclave for the election of his successor, which began on 9 September, was not concluded till 26 December, when Cardinal Giovanni Angelo de’ Medici was elected and took the name of Pius IV. On the 3rd of January, 1560, Charles received a message by a courier from the pope, asking him to proceed at once to Rome. He started immediately for the Eternal City, but though he travelled rapidly he was not in time for the pope’s coronation (6 January). On 22 January he wrote to Count Guido Borromeo that the pope had given him the charge of the administration of all the papal states. On 31 January he was created cardinal-deacon, together with Giovanni de’ Medici, son of the Duke of Florence, and Gianantonio Serbellone, cousin of the pope. Charles was given the title of Sts. Vitus and Modestus, which was in the August following changed to that of St. Martino-ai-Monti. He wished for no rejoicings at Milan; all the celebration was to be at Arona, where were to be said ten Masses de Spiritu Sancto. At this time Cardinal Ippolito d’Este, of Ferrara, resigned the Archbishopric of Milan, and on 8 February the pope named Charles as administrator of the vacant see. In succession he was named Legate of Bologna, Romagna, and the March of Ancona. He was named Protector of the Kingdom of Portugal, of Lower Germany, and the Catholic cantons of Switzerland. Under his protection were placed the orders of St. Francis, the Carmelites, the Humiliati, the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross of Coimbra, the Knights of Jerusalem (or Malta), and those of the Holy Cross of Christ in Portugal. By a motu proprio (22 January, 1561) Pius IV gave him an annual income of 1000 golden crowns from the episcopal mensa of Ferrara.

Charles’ office of secretary of state and his care for the business of the family did not prevent him from giving time to study, and even to recreations in the form of playing the lute and violoncello, and a game of ball. He lived at first at the Vatican, but in July, 1562, removed to the Palazzo Colonna, Piazza Sancti Apostoli. Soon after his arrival in Rome he founded at the Vatican an academy, which was a way of providing, by literary work, a distraction from more serious occupations. The members, whether ecclesiastics or laymen, met nearly every evening, and many of their contributions are amongst the works of Charles as “Noctes Vaticanœ.” Charles was very soon occupied as secretary of state in using his influence to bring about the re-assembling of the Council of Trent, which had been suspended since 1552. The state of Europe was appalling from an ecclesiastical point of view. Many were the difficulties that had to be overcome—with the emperor, with Philip II of Spain, and, greatest of all, with France, where the demand was made for a national council. Still, in spite of obstacles, the work went on with the view of re-assembling the council, and for the most part it was Charles’ patience and devotion that accomplished the object.

It was not until 18 January, 1562, that the council resumed at Trent, with two cardinals, 106 bishops, 4 mitred abbots, and 4 generals of religious orders present. The correspondence which passed between Charles and the cardinal legates at Trent is enormous, and the questions which arose many times threatened to bring about the breaking-up of the council. Difficulties with the emperor, the national principles put forward on behalf of France by the Cardinal Charles of Lorraine, Archbishop of Reims, required from Charles constant attention and the greatest delicacy and skill in treatment. The twenty-fifth, and last, session of the council was held 3 and 4 December, 1563; at it were present 255 Fathers. At a consistory on the 26th of January, 1564, Pius IV confirmed the decrees of the council, and later appointed a congregation of eight cardinals to see to the execution of these decrees. During the sitting of the re-assembled council Charles’ elder brother, Count Federigo, had died (28 November, 1562). This event had a very determining result as to Charles, for he immediately resolved to give himself with greater strictness to spiritual matters, and he looked upon his brother’s death as a warning to him to give up all worldly things. His resolution was well needed, for, as he was now head of the family, great pressure was brought to bear upon him to give up the ecclesiastical state and to marry. This view was even suggested to him by the pope at the instance of other relatives. Some months passed in these efforts to influence Charles, but finally he resolved to definitely fix himself in the ecclesiastical state by being secretly ordained priest. The ordination took place, by the hands of Cardinal Federigo Cesa, in Santa Maria Maggiore, on the 4th of September, 1563. He writes that he celebrated his first Mass on the Assumption, in St. Peter’s, at the altar of the Confession. He said his second Mass at his house, attached to the Gesu, in an oratory where St. Ignatius had been accustomed to celebrate. Charles at this time had as his confessor Father Giovanni Battista Ribera, S.J. On the 7th of December, 1563, the feast of St. Ambrose, he was consecrated bishop in the Sistine Chapel; on the 23rd of March, 1564, he received the pallium, and was preconized on the 12th of May. In the following June his title was changed to that of Santa Prassede.

Meanwhile Charles had provided for the spiritual wants of his diocese. Antonio Roberti, in May, 1560, had, as his vicar, taken possession of his archbishopric, and Charles sent Monsignor Donato, Bishop of Bobbio, as his deputy for episcopal functions. Monsignor Donato soon died, and in his place, Charles commissioned Monsignor Girolamo Ferragato, O.S.A., one of his suffragans, to visit the diocese, and to report on its needs. Ferragato entered Milan, 23 April, 1562; on 24 June of the same year Charles sent to Milan Fathers Palmio and Carvagial, S.J., with the object of preparing the faithful of the diocese, both clergy and laity, for the carrying out of the reforms prescribed by the Council of Trent. While anxious for the spiritual welfare of his flock, he was no less solicitous for his own. There came to him the thought of what was the will of God concerning him, and whether he was to continue as the spiritual father of his diocese or retire to a monastery. It happened in the autumn of 1563, between the sessions of the Council of Trent, that the Cardinal of Lorraine went to Rome, accompanied by Ven. Bartholomew of the Martyrs, O.P., Archbishop of Braga, in Portugal (see BARTHOLOMEW OF BRAGA). Bartholomew had already shown himself to be of a like spirit to Charles, and when Pius IV introduced them, and suggested that he should begin the reform of the cardinals in the person of Charles, Bartholomew answered that if the princes of the Church had all been like Cardinal Borromeo, he would have proposed them as models for the reform of the rest of the clergy. In a private interview, Charles opened his heart to Bartholomew and told him of his thought of retiring to a monastery. Bartholomew applauded his desire, but at the same time declared his opinion that it was God’s will that he should not abandon his position. Charles was now assured that it was his duty to remain in the world; but all the more he felt he ought to visit his diocese, though the pope always opposed his departure. Bartholomew counselled patience, and represented the assistance he could give to the pope and the whole Church by remaining in Rome. Charles was satisfied, and stayed on, doing the great work necessary by sending zealous deputies. After the Council of Trent he was much occupied with the production of the catechism embodying the teaching of the council, the revision of the Missal and Breviary. He also was a member of a commission for the reform of church music, and chose Palestrina to compose three masses; one of these is the “Missa Papæ Marcelli.”

Pastoral solicitude, which is the characteristic chosen for mention in the collect of his feast, made him ever anxious to have the most suitable representatives in Milan. He heard of the excellent qualities of Monsignor Nicolò Ormaneto, of the diocese of Verona, and succeeded in obtaining the consent of his bishop to his transference to Milan. Ormaneto had been in the household of Cardinal Pole, and also the principal assistant of the Bishop of Verona. On the 1st of July, 1564, Ormaneto reached Milan, and at once carried out Charles’ instructions by calling together a diocesan synod for the promulgation of the decrees of the Council of Trent. There were 1200 priests at the Synod. It was with the clergy that Charles began the reform, and the many abuses needed skilful and tactful treatment. Father Palmio contributed much in bringing the clergy to a sense of the necessity for reform. The synod was followed by a visitation of the diocese by Ormaneto. In September Charles sent thirty Jesuit Fathers to assist his vicar; three of these were placed over the seminary, which was opened on the 11th of November (feast of St. Martin of Tours). Charles was constantly directing the work of restoration of ecclesiastical discipline, and the education of the young, even down to minute details, was foremost in his thoughts. The manner of preaching, repression of avaricious priests, ecclesiastical ceremonies, and church music are some of the subjects on which Charles wrote many letters. The revival of strict observance of rule in the convents of nuns was another matter to which Charles urged Ormaneto’s attention; the setting up of grilles in the convent parlours was ordered, and, to remove material difficulties, Charles ordered his agent, Albonese, to pay the cost of this where the convents, through poverty, were unable to bear the expense. This order brought difficulties with his own relations. Two of his aunts, sisters of Pius IV, had entered the Order of St. Dominic; they resented the setting up of the grilles as casting a slur on their convent. Charles, in a letter (28th of April, 1565) displaying much thought and great tact, strove to bring his aunts to see the good purpose of the order, but without success, and the pope wrote on the 26th of May, 1565, telling them that he had given general orders for the setting up of the grilles, and that it would be pleasing to him that those united to him by ties of blood and affection should set a good example to other convents.

Notwithstanding the support which Charles gave, Ormaneto was discouraged by the checks with which he met, and wished to return to his own diocese. Charles pressed the pope to allow him to leave Rome, and at the same time encouraged Ormaneto to remain. At last the pope gave his consent to Charles visiting his flock and summoning a provincial council; but, desiring his stay to be short one, he created Charles legate a latere for all Italy. Charles prepared to start, chose canonists to help the council, and wrote to the Court of Spain and Philip II. He left Rome 1 September, and, passing through Florence, Bologna, Modena, and Parma, he made his solemn entry into Milan on Sunday, 23 September, 1565. His arrival was the occasion of great rejoicings, and the people did their utmost to welcome the first resident archbishop for eighty years. On the following Sunday he preached in the Duomo, on the words: “With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you” (Luke, xxii, 15).

On the 15th of October the first provincial council met. It was attended by ten out of the fifteen bishops of the province, those absent being represented by their procurators. Three of these prelates were cardinals, and one, Nicolò Sfondrato of Cremona, was afterwards pope with the title of Gregory XIV. Charles announced that the reform must begin with the prelates: “We ought to walk in front, and our spiritual subjects will follow us more easily.” He commenced by fulfilling all things required in himself, and his wonderful clergy astonished the prelates. The council was finished on the 3rd of November, and Charles sent a minute report to the pope. On the 6th of November he went to Trent as legate, to meet the Archduchesses Giovanna and Barbara, who were to be married to the Prince of Florence and the Duke of Ferrara. Charles conducted Barbara to Ferrara and Giovanna to Tuscany, where at Fiorenzuola, he received the news of the pope’s serious illness. He reached Rome to find that the pope’s condition was hopeless, and he at once bade the Holy Father turn all his thoughts to his heavenly home. On the 10th of December Pius IV died, assisted by two saints, Charles and Philip Neri. On the 7th of January, 1566, the conclave for the election of his successor was concluded by the election of Cardinal Michele Ghislieri, O.P., of Alessandria, Bishop of Mondovi, who, at the request of Charles, took the name of Pius V. It had been maintained that Charles at first favoured Cardinal Morone, but his letter to the King of Spain (Sylvain, I, 309) seems to prove that he did his utmost to secure the election of Cardinal Ghislieri.

Pius V wished to keep Charles to assist him in Rome; but though Charles delayed his departure for some time, in the end his earnest representations obtained permission for him to return to Milan, at least for the summer. He returned to his see, 5 April, 1566, having made a detour to visit the sanctuary of Our Lady of Loreto. Charles showed admirably how the Church had the power to reform from within, and, though the task he had to do was gigantic, he set about its execution with great calmness and confidence. He began with his household, gave up much of his property to the poor, and insisted that in all that concerned him personally the greatest economy should be used; for his position as archbishop and cardinal he required due respect. He practised great mortification, and whatever the Council of Trent or his own provincial council had laid down for the life of the bishops he carried out, not only in the letter, but also in the spirit.

The rules for the management of his household, both in spiritual and temporal affairs, are to be found in the “Acta Ecclesiæ Mediolanensis.” The result of the care that was taken of his household was seen in the many members of it who became distinguished bishops and prelates. More than twenty were chosen while members of the cardinal’s household; one of these was Dr. Owen Lewis, fellow of New College, Oxford, who taught at Oxford and Douai, and after being vicar-general to St. Charles was made Bishop of Cassano in Calabria.

The administration of the diocese needed to be perfected; he therefore chose a vicar-general of exemplary life, learned in law and ecclesiastical discipline. He also appointed two other vicars, one for civil and the other for criminal causes. He associated with them other officials, all chosen for their integrity, and took care that they should be well paid, so as to preclude all suspicion of venality. Corruption in such matters was specially distasteful to him. Whilst providing for upright officials, the needs of the prisoners were not forgotten, and in time his court was known as the holy tribunal. He so organized his administration that by means of reports and conferences with the visitors and the vicars forane, his pastoral visits were productive of great fruit. The canons of his cathedral chapter were in turn the object of his reforming care. He put before them his plan of giving them definite work in theology and in connexion with the Sacrament of Penance. They welcomed his reforms, as he wrote to Monsignor Bonome: “The result of the way I have taken is very different to that in vogue to-day” (27 April, 1566). Pius V congratulated Charles on his success and exhorted him to continue the work.

Another great work which was begun at this time was that of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, in order that the children might be carefully and systematically instructed. This work was really the beginning of what is now known as the Sunday school, and there is a remarkable testimony to this in an inscription under a statue outside the Essex Unitarian Church, Kensington, London, where Cardinal Borromeo is mentioned in connexion with the work. The visitation of his flock was steadily carried out and various pious foundations were made to succour the needy and sinners. In 1567 opposition began to be made to his jurisdiction. The officials of the King of Spain announced that they would inflict severe penalties on the archbishop’s officers if they imprisoned any more laymen, or carried arms. The matter was referred to the king, and finally to the pope, who counselled the Senate of Milan to support the ecclesiastical authority. Peace was not restored; and the bargello, or sheriff, of the archbishop was imprisoned. The archbishop announced sentence of excommunication on the captain of justice and several other officials. Much trouble followed, and again the matter was laid before the pope, who decided in favour of the archbishop.

In October, 1567, Charles started to visit three Swiss valleys, Levantina, Bregno, and La Riviera. In most parts, indeed, there was much to reform. The clergy especially were in many cases so lax and careless, and even living scandalous lives, that the people had grown to be equally negligent and sinful. The hardships of this journey were great; Charles travelled on a mule, but sometimes on foot, over most difficult and even dangerous ground. His labours bore great fruit, and a new spirit was put into both clergy and laity. In August, 1568, the second diocesan synod was held, and it was followed in April, 1569, by the second provincial council. In August, 1569, matters came to a head in connexion with the collegiate church of Santa Maria della Scala. This church had been declared by Clement VII, in 1531, exempt from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Milan, provided that the consent of the archbishop was obtained; but this consent had never been obtained, and consequently the exemption did not take effect. Now the governor, the Duke of Albuquerque, had been induced by the opponents of the archbishop to issue an edict declaring that all who violated the king’s jurisdiction should receive severe punishment. The canons of La Scala claimed exemption from the archbishop and relied on the secular power to support them. Charles announced his intention of making his visitation in accordance with the wishes of the pope, by sending Monsignor Luigi Moneta to the canons. He was met with opposition and open insult. Early in September Charles himself went, vested for a visitation. The same violent demeanour was again shown. The archbishop took the cross into his own hands and went forward to pronounce the sentence of excommunication. The armed men raised their weapons; the canons closed the door of the church against Charles, who with eyes fixed on the crucifix, recommended himself and these unworthy men to the Divine protection. Charles was indeed in danger of his life, for the canons’ supporters opened fire, and the cross in his hand was damaged. His vicar-general then put up the public notice that the canons had incurred censures. This act was followed by blows and cries, removal of the notices, and the declaration that the archbishop was himself suspended from his office. Pius V was shocked at this incident, and only with very great difficulty allowed Charles to deal with these rebellious canons, when they repented.

In October, 1569, Charles was again in great danger. The Order of the Humiliati, of which he was protector, had by his persevering care been induced to accept certain reforms, in 1567. But some of its members strove to bring about a return to their former condition. As Charles would not consent to this, some of the order formed a conspiracy to take his life. On the 26th of October, whilst Charles was at evening prayer with his household, a member of the Humiliati, dressed as a layman, having entered with others of the public who were admitted to the chapel, took his stand four or five yards from the archbishop. The motet “Tempus est ut revertar ad eum qui me misit,” by Orlando Lasso, was being sung; the words “Non turbetur cor vestrum, neque formidet” had just been sung, when the assassin fired his weapon, loaded with ball, and struck Charles, who was kneeling at the altar. Charles, thinking himself mortally wounded, commended himself to God. A panic arose, which allowed the assassin to escape, but Charles motioned to his household to finish the prayers. At their conclusion it was found that the ball had not even pierced his clothes, but some of the shot had penetrated to the skin, and where the ball had struck a slight swelling appeared, which remained through his life.

It was seen how far the unruly-minded had gone, and the serious turn affairs had taken. At once the governor took prompt steps to assure Charles of his sympathy and his wish to find the assassin. Charles would not allow this, and asked the governor to use his efforts to prevent the rights of the Church being infringed. In some measure this occurrence led the canons of La Scala to sue for pardon, and on the 5th of February, 1570, Charles publicly absolved them before the door of his cathedral. Notwithstanding his wish to forgive those who had attempted his life, and his efforts to prevent their prosecution, four of the conspirators (amongst them Farina, who actually fired) were sentenced to death. All being of the clergy, they were handed over to the civil power (29 July, 1570); two were beheaded; Farina and another were hanged.

Charles at this time made a second visit to Switzerland, first visiting the three valleys of his diocese, then over the mountains to see his half-sister Ortensia, Countess d’Altemps. Afterwards he visited all the Catholic cantons, everywhere using his influence to remove abuses both among the clergy and laity, and to restore religious observance in monasteries and convents. He visited Altorf, Unterwalden, Lucerne, Saint Gall, Schwyz, Einsiedeln, where he said that he nowhere except at Loreto, experienced a greater religious feeling (10 September, 1570). Heresy had spread in many of these parts, and Charles sent to them experienced missionaries to win back those who had embraced it.

At this time Pius V came to the conclusion that nothing less than the suppression of the Order of the Humiliati was adequate. He therefore issued a Bull (7 February, 1571) suppressing the order and providing for its property. This same year, owing to the short harvest, the whole province suffered from a terrible famine, during which Charles worked with unceasing toil to help the starving, relieving at his own expense as many as 3000 daily for three months. His example induced others to help, the governor, especially, giving large alms. In the summer of 1571 Charles was for somme time seriously ill, in the month of August; having partly recovered, he was making his visitation when he heard of the serious illness of the governor, the Duke of Albuquerque. Charles returned to Milan only in time to console the duchess. He made use of the prayers ordered by Pius V for the success of the Christians against the Turks, to urge on his flock the necessity of averting God’s anger by penance. Great were the rejoicings at the victory of Lepanto (7 October, 1571). Charles was especially interested in this expedition by reason of the papal ships being commanded by Marco Antonio Colonna, whose son Fabricio was married to his sister, Anna Borromeo.

The archbishop remained in bad health, suffering from low fever and catarrh. It was feared that consumption would set in; in spite of his illness he prepared for the third diocesan synod, which was held in his absence in April, 1572. He soon afterwards heard of the death of Pius V (1 May, 1572), and, though feeble, he started for the conclave, which lasted one day and resulted in the election of Cardinal Ugo Buoncompagni, with the title of Gregory XIII, 13 May, 1572. As medical treatment had not restored Charles to health, he now abandoned it and returned to his ordinary rule of life, with the result that he was before long quite well. On his homeward journey he again visited Loreto, in November, and reached Milan on 12 November. He at this time resigned the offices of Grand Penitentiary, Archpriest of Santa Maria Maggiore, and other high dignities. In April, 1573, he held his third provincial council.

The new governor of Milan was Don Luigi di Requesens, who had known Charles in Rome. However, as soon as he took office, being urged by the opponents of Charles, he published some letters falsely incriminating Charles in questions of the royal authority and containing much that was contrary to the rights of the Church. Charles protested against their publication; with great reluctance, and after much anxious deliberation, he publicly pronounced, in August, sentence of excommunication explicitly against the grand chancellor and implicitly against the governor. As a consequence of this, libels were published in the city against Charles. The governor showed his displeasure by placing restricitions on the meetings of the confraternities, also depriving Charles of the Castle of Arona. Various rumours were in circulation of more wicked plans against Charles, but his tranquillity was maintained, and he carried on his work with his usual care, despite the fact that the governor had placed an armed guard to watch his palace. None of the governor’s actions succeeding, the governor was led to ask for absolution, which he obtained by deception. When Gregory XIII learned of this, he compelled the governor to make satisfaction to Charles. This was done, and on 26 November Charles announced that the governor was absolved from all penalties and censures. In this year Charles founded a college for the nobility at Milan.

In August, 1574, Henry III of France was passing through the Diocese of Milan on his way from Poland to take the French throne. Charles met him at Monza. The fourth diocesan synod was in November, 1574. Gregory XIII proclaimed a jubilee for 1575, and on the 8th of December, 1574, Charles left for Rome. He visited many shrines and, having reached Rome, performed the required devotions and started for Milan, in February. He assisted at the death-bed of his brother-in-law, Cesare Gonzaga, and continued the visitation of his province. In 1576 the jubilee was kept in the Diocese of Milan. It began on the 2nd of February. Whilst the jubilee was being celebrated, news came of the outbreak of plague in Venice and Mantua. The fourth provincial council was held in May. In August, Don John of Austria, visited Milan. Religious exercises were being carried out, and his arrival was made the occasion of rejoicings and spectacular effects. All at once everything was changed, for the plague appeared in Milan. Charles was at Lodi, at the funeral of the bishop. He at once returned, and inspired confidence in all. He was convinced that the plague was sent as a chastisement for sin, and sought all the more to give himself to prayer. At the same time he thought of the people. He prepared himself for death, made his will (9 September, 1576), and then gave himself up entirely to his people. Personal visits were paid by him to the plague-stricken houses. In the hospital of St. Gregory were the worst cases; to this he went, and his presence comforted the sufferers. Though he worked so arduously himself, it was only after many trials that the secular clergy of the town were induced to assist him, but his persuasive words at last won them so that they afterwards aided him in every way. It was at this time that, wishing to do penance for his people, he walked in procession, barefooted, with a rope round his neck, at one time bearing in his hand the relic of the Holy Nail.

At the beginning of 1577 the plague began to abate, and though there was a temmporary increase in the number of cases, at last it ceased. The Milanese vowed to build a church dedicated to St. Sebastian, if he would deliver them. This promise was fulfilled. Charles wrote at this time the “Memoriale,” a small work, addressed to his suffragans, which had for its object to recall the lessons given by the cessation of the plague. He also compiled books of devotion for persons of every state of life. By the beginning of 1578 the plague had quite disappeared from all parts. At the end of 1578 the fifth diocesan synod was held. It lasted three days. Charles endeavoured at this time to induce the canons of the cathedral to unite with himself in community life. In this year, on the 16th of August, he began the foundation of the congregation of secular priests under the patronage of Our Lady and St. Ambrose, giving it the title of the Oblates of St. Ambrose. Though he had been helped by various orders of religious, especially by the Jesuits and the Barnabites, one of whom (now Bl. Alexander Sauli) was for many years his constant adviser, yet he felt the need of a body of men who could act as his assistants and, living in community, would be more easily impressed by his spirit and wishes. He was the master mind of this new congregation, and he ever insisted on the need of complete union between himself and its members. It was his delight to be with them, and, looking to him as a father, they were ready to go where he wished, to undertake works of every kind. He placed them in seminaries, schools, and confraternities. The remaining synods were held in 1579 and succeeding years, the last (the eleventh) in 1584.

His first pilgrimage to Turin, to visit the Holy Shroud, was in 1578. About this time he first visited the holy mountain of Varallo to meditate on the mysteries of the Passion in the chapels there. In 1578–9 the Marquis of Ayamonte, the successor of Requesens as governor, opposed the jurisdiction of the archbishop, and in September of the latter year Charles went to Rome to obtain a decision on the question of jurisdiction. The dispute arose in consequence of the governor ordering the carnival to be celebrated with additional festivities on the first Sunday of Lent, against the archbishop’s orders. The pope confirmed the decrees of the archbishop, and urged the Milanese to submit. The envoys sent by them were so ashamed that they would not themselves present the pope’s reply. Gregory XIII had welcomed Charles and rejoiced at his presence. Charles did much work during his stay for his province, especially for Switzerland. In connexion with the rule which Charles drew up for the Oblates of St. Ambrose, it is to be noted that when in Rome he submitted it to St. Philip Neri, who advised Charles to exclude the vow of poverty. Charles defended its inclusion, so St. Philip said, “We will put it to the judgment of Brother Felix.” This brother was a simple Capuchin lay brother at the Capuchins, close to the Piazza Barberini. St. Philip and St. Charles went to him, and he put his finger on the article dealing with the vow of poverty, and said, “This is what should be effaced.” Felix was also a saint, and is known as St. Felix of Cantalicio. Charles returned to Milan by Florence, Bologna, and Venice, everywhere reviving the true ecclesiastical spirit. When he reached Milan the joy of his people was great, for it had been said he would not return. After the beginning of Lent (1580), Charles began his visitation at Brescia; soon after, in April, he was called back to Milan to assist at the death-bed of the governor, Ayamonte. In this year Charles visited the Valtelline valley in the Grisons. In July he was brought to know a youth who afterwards reached great sanctity. He was invited by the Marquis Gonzaga to stay with him, and refused, but while staying at the archpriest’s house he met the eldest son of the marquis, Luigi Gonzaga, then twelve years old, now raised to the altars of the Church as St. Aloysius Gonzaga, S.J. Charles gave him his first Communion. The next year (1581) Charles sent to the King of Spain a special envoy in the person of Father Charles Bascape of the Barnabites, charging him to endeavour to come to an understanding on the question of jurisdiction. The result was that a governor, the Duke of Terra Nova, was sent, who was instructed to act in concert with Charles. After this no further controversy arose.

In 1582 Charles started on his last journey to Rome, both in obedience to the decrees of the Council of Trent, and to have the decrees of the sixth provincial council confirmed. This was his last visit, and during it he resided at the monastery attached to his titular church of Santa Prassede, where still are shown pieces of furniture used by him. He left Rome in January, 1583, and travelled by Sienna and Mantua, where he had been commissioned by the pope to pronounce a judgment. A great portion of this year was taken up by visitations. In November he began a visitation as Apostolic visitor of all the cantons of Switzerland and the Grisons, leaving the affairs of his diocese in the hands of Monsignor Owen Lewis, his vicar-general. He began in the Mesoleina Valley; here not only was there heresy to be fought, but also witchcraft and sorcery, and at Roveredo it was discovered that the provost, or rector, was the foremost in sorceries. Charles spent considerable time in setting right this terrible state of things. It was his especial care to leave holy priests and good religious to guide the people. Next he visited Bellinzona and Ascona, working strenuously to extirpate heresy, and meeting with much opposition from the Bishop of Coire. The negotiations were continued into the next year, the last of Charles on earth. All his work bore fruit, and his efforts in these parts ensured the preservation of the Faith. The heretics spread false reports that Charles was really working for Spain against the inhabitants of the Grisons. In spite of their falsehoods Charles continued to attack them and to defend Catholics, who had much to suffer.

At the end of 1584 he had an attack of erysipelas in one leg, which obliged to remain in bed. He however has a congress of the rural deans, sixty in number, with whom he fully discussed the needs of the diocese. He also made great exertions to suppress the licentiousness of the carnival. Knowing the needs of the invalids who left the great hospital he determined to found a convalescent hospital. He did not live to see it completed, but his immediate successor saw that the work was executed. During September and early October he was at Novara, Vercelli, and Turin. On the 8th of October he left Turin and thence travelled to Monte Varallo. He was going to prepare for death. His confessor, Father Adorno, was told to join him. On 15 October he began the exercises by making a general confession. On the 18th the Cardinal of Vercelli summoned him to Arona to discuss urgent and important business. The night before Charles spent eight hours in prayer on his knees. On the 20th he was back at Varallo; on the 24th an attack of fever came on; he concealed it at first, but suffering from sickness he was obliged to declare his state. For five days this state lasted, but still he said Mass and gave Communion daily, and carried on his correspondence. He seemed to know that death was at hand and determined to work as long as he had strength left. The foundation of the college at Ascona was not completed, and it was urgent that it should be finished in a short time, so Charles pressed on and started, in spite of his sufferings, on 29 October, having previously paid a farewell visit to the chapels. He was found prostrate in the chapel where the burial of Our Lord was represented. He rode to Arona, thence went by boat to Canobbio, where he stayed the night, said Mass on the 30th, and proceeded to Ascona. He visited the college, and afterwards set out at night for Canobbio, staying a short time at Locarno, where he intended to bless a cemetery, but, finding himself without his pontifical vestments, he abandoned the idea. When he reached Canobbio the fever was decreasing, and he was very weak. The next day he took the boat for Arona and stayed there with the Jesuits, at the novitiate he had founded, and on All Saints’ Day he said Mass for the last time, giving Communion to the novices and many of the faithful. The next day he assisted at Mass and received Holy Communion. His cousin, René Borromeo, accompanied him on the boat, and that evening he reached Milan. It was not known there that he was ill. He at once was visited by doctors, whose orders he obeyed. He would not allow Mass to be said in his room. A picture of Our Lord in the tomb was before him, together with two others of Jesus at Gethsemani and the body of the dead Christ. The physicians regarded the danger as extreme, and though there was a slight improvement, it was not maintained, and the fever returned with great severity. The archpriest of the cathedral gave him the Viaticum, which he received vested in rochet and stole. The administration of extreme unction was suggested. “At once,” Charles replied. It was at once given, and afterwards he showed but little sign of life. The governor, the Duke of Terra Nova, arrived after great difficulty in getting through the crowds which surrounded and had entered the palace. The prayers for a passing soul were said, the Passion was read, with Father Bascapè and Father Adorno at the bedside, the words “Ecce venio” (Behold I come) being the last words he was heard to utter (3 November, 1584). On the 7th of November his requiem was sung by Cardinal Nicolò Sfondrato, Bishop of Cremona, afterwards Gregory XIV. He was buried at night in the spot which he had chosen.

Devotion to him as a saint was at once shown and gradually grew, and the Milanese kept his anniversary as though he were canonized. This veneration, at first private, became universal, and after 1601 Cardinal Baronius wrote that it was no longer necessary to keep his anniversary by a requiem Mass, and that the solemn Mass of the day should be sung. Then materials were collected for his canonization, and processes were begun at Milan, Pavia, Bologna, and other places. In 1604 the cause was sent to the Congregation of Rites. Finally, 1 November, 1610, Paul V solemnly canonized Charles Borromeo, and fixed his feast for the 4th day of November.

The position which Charles held in Europe was indeed a very remarkable one. The mass of correspondence both to and by him testifies to the way in which his opinion was sought. The popes under whom he lived—as has been shown above—sought his advice. The sovereigns of Europe, Henry III of France, Philip II, Mary, Queen of Scots, and others showed how they valued his influence. His brother cardinals have written in praise of his virtues. Cardinal Valerio of Verona said of him that he was to the well-born a pattern of virtue, to his brother cardinals an example of true nobility. Cardinal Baronius styled him “a second Ambrose, whose early death, lamented by all good men, inflicted great loss on the Church.”

It is a matter of interest to know that Catholics in England late in the sixteenth or at the beginning of the seventeenth century had circulated some life of St. Charles in England. Doubtless some knowledge of him had been brought to England by Blessed Edmund Campion, S.J., who visited him at Milan in 1580, on his way to England, stopped with him some eight days, and conversed with him every day after dinner. Charles had much to do with England in the days of his assistance to Pius IV, and he had a great veneration for the portrait of Bishop Fisher. Charles also had much to do with Francis Borgia, General of the Jesuits, and with Andrew of Avellino of the Theatines, who gave great help to his work in Milan.

The complete works of St. Charles—“Noctes Vaticanæ” and “Homilies”—were edited by J.A. Sassi and published in five volumes (Milan, 1747–8). The “Acta Ecclesiæ Mediolanensis” contain many works not included in the edition of Sassi. They were first published in 2 vols., Milan, 1599, and there have been several reprints, the last forming vols. II and III of the “Acta Eccl. Med.” Vol. I of this edition will contain Acts previous to, and vol. IV Acts subsequent to, St. Charles. Some of his works which have been published separately are: “Pastorum Instructiones et Epistolæ,” ed. by Westhoff, Münster, 1846; “Sermoni familiari di S. Carlo Borromeo fatti alle monache dette Angeliche,” ed. by Volpi, Padua, 1720; “St. Charles’ Instructions on Church Building,” tr. by George J. Wrigley, London, 1857. For St. Charles’ life (and bibliography) consult also a valuable article by F. Vernet, in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, Fascic. XVII, cols. 2267–2272.

WILLIAM FFRENCH KEOGH

Emperor Charles V

(CHARLES I, King of SPAIN).

Born at Ghent, 1500; died at Yuste, in Spain, 1558; was a descendant of the house of Hapsburg, and to this descent owed his sovereignty over so many lands that it was said of him that the sun never set on his dominions. Charles was the son of Philip, Duke of Burgundy, by Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, and Burgundy was the first heritage to which he at his led, on his fathers death in 1506. As he was a minor at that time, his aunt, Margaret of Austria, undertook the regency for him. William of Chièvres, his father’s chief counsellor, had charge of the prince’s household; Adrian of Utrecht, the Humanist and professor of theology at Louvain, who undertook his education, appears to have exercised a deep and lasting influence on the opinions and convictions of his pupil.

Like many princes of his house, the boy developed slowly, showing no signs of a strong will. In January, 1515, he was declared to be of age, through the influence of Chièvres, who sought to destroy the power by which Margaret was forcing the Burgundian nobility into a too dynastic policy regardless of the country’s need of peace. The peace of the country demanded an alliance with France, even though France should thus gain considerable influence in the internal affairs of Burgundy. Charles at once acceded to the wishes of the nobility (Treaties of Paris, 24 March, 1515, and Noyon, 13 August, 1516). Upon the death of Ferdinand of Aragon in January, 1516, Charles was named as his successor; but as the Duchess Joanna was still living, and Charles’ brother Ferdinand, educated in Spain, was popular in that country, the realization of this arrangement was still in doubt. Of his own motion Charles immediately assumed the title of King of Castile, and announced his intention of going to Spain as soon as possible. It was not till the autumn of 1517 that he effected this purpose, and the Spanish opposition had mean while been silenced. But the power left in the hands of Chièvres, and the Burgundians provoked the uprising in Castile known as the War of the Communidad. It was a movement of the cities. In Castile the discontentment of the ruling classes was joined to that of the handicraftsmen and labourers, in Valencia the movement was exclusively one of mechanics and the proletariat. The rebellion failed because the commercial cities of Southern Castile took no part in it, and because Charles, acting upon his own judgment, placed Spaniards, instead of foreigners, in positions of authority.

In 1520 Charles left Spain to take possession of the German Empire to which he had been elected. The French king, Francis I, had been his rival for the dignity; Leo X thought that his interests in Italy were endangered by Charles’ election. The Kingdom of Navarre was already a matter of contention between France and Spain, while France and the Netherlands wrangled over the original Dukedom of Burgundy as well as Tournai, Flanders, Artois, and some lesser territories. War had not broken out over these questions, and nothing indicated that Charles would be a warlike prince; but he had broken the alliance with France made under Chièvres. The Holy See opposed the election of Charles even more vigorously than France. As King of Aragon, Charles was heir to the Kingdom of Naples, a papal fief; the investiture had not yet taken place, but it could not be withheld. If he should also become emperor, and thus obtain a title to Milan as well, there would result a political condition against which the popes since Innocent III had constantly fought the union of Milan and Naples in one hand.

In spite of the opposition of Rome and France, Charles was elected (28 June, 1519), and everywhere received the title of “Emperor Elect.” Leo X put no difficulties in Charles’ way at Naples. The foundation bad been laid for his universal empire. Not yet twenty years of age at the time of his election, he had shown a marked precocity of development. During a stay in the Netherlands of several months, after his return from Spain, and on his arrival in Germany, it became apparent that he had taken the reins of government into his own hands. His chief counsellor, Chièvres, died in May, 1521, and thenceforward Charles was practically free in all his decisions.

His first important service to the empire was to affect the successful issue of the Diet of Worms, exhibiting his entire independence and intellectual maturity. The Lutheran movement had extended so widely over Germany, that Aleander, the papal representative at the imperial Court, strenuously urged its suppression. Charles had already told him, in the Netherlands, that the affair seemed to him to be settled by the papal Bull of 15 June, 1520. But in Germany he was convinced that the opposition to the Roman Curia was widespread and that this opposition helped the monk, even among those who did not hold heretical doctrines. Still, as he told Aleander, Charles did not think it right to mix up his affairs with those of the pope. He promised the constituent estates of the empire a hearing for the monk before the imperial diet and in return received their promise that if Luther persisted in his heresy they would abandon him. Thus he gained time to turn his attention to temporal politics. He meant to bring to a successful conclusion the efforts which for a generation had been making to give the empire a better constitution, and increase its financial and military strength. An agreement was reached as to how the estates of the realm should share in its government, according to a scheme called the Reichsregiment-how the expenses of the imperial chamber etc. were to be met and how the estates were to furnish the emperor military assistance in war. In April, 1521, Luther appeared before the diet, but did not retract. Next day Charles in person appeared against him before the estates, and expressed his own views with an emphasis not expected from so taciturn a youth. On the 8th of May he prepared the ban against Luther, but it was not published until the 26th. In accordance with the promise given by the estates in February, he spoke for them all.

Had Charles had his way, he would have devoted himself for some time to the pressing internal needs of his country. The constitution especially needed improvement; the finances were so disordered, and the debt so large, that the monarch was hampered in whatever he did, and could provide for the foreign interests of the empire only by very careful management. Owing to the primitive development of means of communication, he could not keep watch over the whole empire, which he therefore decided to divide into districts. Already convinced that he must make Spain the centre of his dominions and the mainstay of his politics, he for that reason determined to make it his personal charge, and went thither in the summer of 1522. Once in Spain, remote from Germany and his hereditary Hapsburg estates, he at first purposed to make them almost entirely independent of him, although he was more dissatisfied with the conditions there than with those of any other part of his empire. Reserving to himself only the general policy of the empire as a whole, he gave his Austrian possessions to his brother Ferdinand, in 1522, making him, at the same time, his representative at the head of the imperial government. The Reichsregiment having been abrogated in 1525, he had Ferdinand chosen King of Rome at the next opportunity (1530). He kept a firmer hold on the government of the Netherlands, but established a permanent regency for them also (1522), selecting for this function two able and thoroughly loyal women: first (till 1530), the faithful Margaret, and next his sister Maria of Hungary, who held the regency till Charles himself abdicated. Naples had been ruled by viceroys under his grandfather, and he continued this policy.

While Charles was completing these dispositions, he became involved in a great war. On the 8th of May, 1521, the date of the edict against Luther, an offensive alliance against France was signed by representatives of the pope and the emperor. Charles had desired only a defensive alliance, but Leo X, long an ally of Francis I, was now bent upon war against him, because Francis had prevented an extension of the papal territory which Leo desired. War would assuredly have broken out between Francis and Charles on the score of Navarre and Burgundy, even if Leo had not hastened the conflict; though it probably would not have attained such dimensions, nor would have lasted so long as it actually did; for Francis I was an irritable and fickle prince, not a man of strong will, and cared more for pleasure than for war. But, as a matter of fact, the main issue to be decided in the ensuing struggle (1521–29) was the extent of the papal power in Italy-the question, that is, whether the papacy or some foreign dynasty should be the dominant political power in the Peninsula. In the first year of this war Charles’ generals won only a few minor victories in Spain and the Netherlands. In 1522 they took Milan from the French. To complete their victory they invaded France, in alliance with the Constable of Bourbon. But the army had been weakened by the siege of Milan, and the French succeeded in again invading Lombardy. Meanwhile Clement VII, who had succeeded Leo X, after the short pontificate of Adrian VI, feared that Charles might become too powerful in Italy, and, when the French returned, prepared to transfer his friendship to them. But before he came to a decision, the Spaniards completely defeated Francis at Pavia (24 February, 1525) and took him prisoner. Francis was carried to Spain and, to obtain his freedom, was forced to sign the Peace of Madrid (44 January, 1526), the terms of which greatly weakened the power of France and gave Charles a free hand in Italy. Charles believed that this peace would be lasting. But Clement VII exerted every effort to at once form a coalition against Charles, and to induce Francis to recommence the war. Under these circumstances Charles directed his army against Rome. The result of this action was the frightful sack of Rome by the imperial troops in 1527, which the emperor had never intended, but his generals were powerless to prevent, since discipline had vanished in presence of constant privations. After the sack, Charles’ army was placed in a dangerous position, as the French advanced to relieve Rome and then besiege Naples. By superior generalship, however, the imperialists once more triumphed. The smaller Italian States, recognizing the hopelessness of opposing the imperial power, made an alliance with Charles. Clement also concluded a treaty of peace at Barcelona, 29 June, 1529; France at Cambrai, 5 August. The Peace of Cambrai settled the political situation of Western Europe for a long time, especially that of Italy.

Meantime Charles regulated the affairs of Spain and the Netherlands. These countries resembled each other in having been originally composed of many independent parts, gradually united under one sovereign. In both cases, too, the previously independent states had obstinately clung to their ancient interests, laws, and customs, and were moreover powerful against the Crown. By centralizing the general administration, and assimilating the laws and legal procedures, he sought to counteract the force of these nationalist tendencies. To this end, he perceived, the king, or (in the Netherlands) the regent, must be the centre of activity. In reorganizing the central bureaus in Spain (1523) and the Netherlands (1531), his main object was to entirely subordinate them to the royal power, and employ in them trained men who should consider themselves servants of the king. In the Netherlands, moreover, he brought about the dependence of the judicial and fiscal officials on the central administration. Through these new and efficient agencies he created an excellent police system as well as a body of laws which fostered the social and industrial life of the people, besides promoting agriculture as no other prince ever had. His commercial legislation was restrictive only when capitalistic excesses or the growth of the proletariat demanded restraint. The edict of 1531 for the Netherlands (promulgated 1540) and the state organization for the care of the poor illustrate this. The creation of these authorities and this system of laws at the same time had the effect of limiting the power of the Cortes and the States General, both of which bodies thereafter retained only the right of taxation, in the exercise of which, moreover, Charles succeeded in accustoming them to regular annual budgets, by explaining to them his own policy and enlightening them as to the needs of the country, and thus showing them why they should contribute revenue.

With individuals Charles dealt still more effectively-in Spain chiefly with the burghers, in the Netherlands with the higher nobility. The latter he won to his support by bestowing on them the most important offices and holding out hopes of the Golden Fleece; the former he hoped to win by leaving them the control of taxation, so that they might regulate it uniformly, and therefore less oppressively. He controlled the clergy by transferring to them an almost general right to the disposal of benefices, which had been granted by the popes either to his predecessors or to himself. He strove especially to foster the progressive industrial elements of the middle class. At the beginning of the century the old cloth industries of Flanders had been seriously threatened by English competition; under Charles the industries of the Netherlands were effectually protected by an entire change in system which may be regarded as a first step towards capitalistic industry. Antwerp became the world’s great centre of commerce and finance. The cloth industry was strengthened by the introduction of factory methods, the linen industry fully developed. While furthering this progress, Charles used it to give political influence in the cities of the Low Countries to the progressive classes who were loyal to himself. Judged by its results, Charles’ economic policy was successful in the Netherlands, but it succeeded only indifferently in Spain, where industrial progress, though much greater during this reign than it had been, was generally slow and never so marked as to produce great political changes. In Spain the opposition to Charles’ policies was found in the Cortes and in the city governments, but still more among the lesser nobility, the Hidalgueria, who resisted all agricultural progress as well as the emperor’s external policy. Most of the Castilians remained under Charles’ rule the same frugal, contented, rustic people as before, in marked contrast to the people of the Netherlands. Yet by industrial improvement and political training, Charles was able to make of Spain the instrument by which his son Philip, in the time of the counter-Reformation, brought effective aid to the Catholics of Europe, and under the unfavourable circumstances this result is as remarkable as the prosperity which the Netherlands attained under his rule.

No less noteworthy were his services to the great empire rapidly springing up in America. Economical considerations being, in the early period of colonization, the most important, the management of American affairs was confided to a bureau of commerce (casa de contratacion) in Seville; but at the same time he established in Spain a special political “Council of the Indies.” In the colonies two viceroyalties and twenty-nine governments, four archbishoprics, and twenty-four bishoprics were gradually organized. Already of all those great problems had arisen which still vex colonial politics-the question, how far the mother country should monopolize the products of the colonies; the question colonization; the question of the treatment of the natives, doubly difficult because on the one hand their labour was indispensable and on the other it was most unwilling; the question, how Christianity and civilization might best be established; finally the question, how science might be systematically promoted by the government that opened up these new countries. On account of the great distance separating Spain and her colonies, the unsatisfactory means of communication, and his lack of funds, Charles was unable to carry out the principles laid down by his government. But be made the first, perhaps the only, attempt on a large scale to deal with colonial politics, in practical effect, from the double standpoint of political and economical interests and with the realization of a duty to promote Christian civilization.

When Charles received news of the Peace of Cambrai, he determined to go to Italy and settle Italian affairs by a personal interview with the pope. This difficult question, which had occupied him for almost a decade, was, as he thought, settled definitively. At Bologna he discussed with the pope principally two questions affecting all Christendom: the Turkish and the Lutheran. In 1521 the Turks had taken possession of Belgrade, the key to Hungary; in 1522, of Rhodes, the bulwark which had hitherto barred their way westward of the AEgean Sea. In the following year the daring pirate, Chaireddin Barbarossa, an ally of the sultan, placing himself at the head of the North African corsairs who were continually harassing the Italian and Spanish coasts, had built up a formidable power in the small Mohammedan States of the North African coast. On land the Turks had defeated the Hungarians at Mohács, and taken possession of almost the entire kingdom. Their way was thus opened to Vienna, which they entered in 1529. Equally great was the danger threatening Christianity from within. Lutheranism had boldly advanced when the edict against Luther remained unenforced, and it had been greatly stimulated by the social-revolutionary movements in Germany from 1522 to 1525. Since 1526 an independent State Church had been organized by the Protestants in several provinces with the aid of their sovereigns, and in 1529 these sovereigns declared at the Diet of Spires that they would allow no attacks on these organizations, nor tolerate any Catholic worship in their states.

As early as 1526 Charles was aware of these two growing dangers. He had thought that by the Peace of Madrid he would obtain freedom to carry on a war against the Turks, as well as to assume the regulation of religious affairs in Germany. But the new outbreak of war in Italy prevented him from giving attention to this work till 1529. On 24 February, 1530, he received the imperial crown from Clement VII at Bologna. On 1 February he had concluded a general peace with the pope and most of the Christian states. The retreat of the Turks from Vienna enabled Charles, before beginning war against them, to make an effort towards religious unity in Germany. In the summer he appeared at the Diet of Augsburg, accompanied by a papal legate, to hear the Protestants. The adherents of the new creed were disposed to approach him in a submissive temper, though on German soil Charles did not possess all the power they ascribed to him. He had disbanded his troops, and the purely political resources at his command were not great. Holding the Duchy of Wurtemburg, he could thence exert pressure on several neighbouring princes, but his title to that duchy was not clear.

Having convinced himself that Catholics as well as Lutherans were irritated against Rome, Charles informed the pope that only the immediate summoning of a general council could bring about peace. He had always desired this; henceforth it became one of his principal aims, of which he never lost sight. At Home he urged it with all his energy, using every effort to remove political obstacles. At the same time he was preparing to meet the next attack of the Turks. This came in 1532, on land. Charles was successful in forcing them back, and in recovering a large part of Hungary, but without inflicting any decisive defeat on the Turks. He transferred the war to the Mediterranean Sea. In 1530, by the advice of the pope, he had given to the Knights Hospitallers, the defenders of Rhodes, the island of Malta, which barred the approach of the Turkish fleet to the Tuscan Sea. In 1531 and 1532 Andrea Doria had sought the Turks in their own waters, but the Turkish fleet avoided a battle. The sultan now sought to prevent the return of Doria by giving the chief command of his navy to Chairaddin, thus making the cause of the pirates his own. Charles thereupon decided to clear the Mediterranean Sea of piracy. In 1555 he personally took part in the campaign against Tunis under the leadership of Doria. He had the largest share in the victory, and urged an immediate advance on Algiers to complete his success. His commanders, however, opposed this plan, as the season was far advanced. This campaign established Charles’ reputation throughout Europe.

While Charles delivered the first serious blow against Islam on the Mediterranean, Paul III, the successor of Clement VII, had summoned a general council. But new difficulties prevented both the assembling of the council and the continuation of the war against the Turks. When Charles returned home from Africa it was evident that he must again go to war with France. Francis I opposed the meeting of the council and, moreover, entered into relations both with the Turks and with the Smalkaldie League of German Protestant princes formed against Charles soon after the Diet of Augsburg, while, upon the death of the last Sforza Duke of Milan, he renewed his claim to that fief. Charles, eager to push the war against the Turks, as well as to restore the unity of Christendom, was ready to partly forego his strict rights both in the Milanese and Burgundy, and to consider the question of the balance of power between his house and that of Valois. Family alliances were proposed with this end in view. A war which France nevertheless began proved abortive, and in 1539 the rivals met at Nice, and peace seemed likely. Visiting the Netherlands and Germany, Charles soon found that new troubles awaited him, once more fomented by France. In 1538 the line of the Counts of Guelders had become extinct; but the last of that line had provided that, after his death, the countship should pass to the Dukes of Cleves-Julich, the strongest temporal principality on the Lower Rhine. Guelders, accordingly, resisted annexation by Burgundy, and Charles would not consent to its annexation to the Duchy of Cleves-Julich, which was favoured by Francis I and the Smalkaldic League. Moreover, Henry VIII of England, having married Anne, daughter of the Duke of Cleves, threatened to join this coalition.

In Hungary, meanwhile, the Turks were again active, and preparations were being made to unite the French and Turkish fleets in the Mediterranean. Francis sought the aid of the Danes and Scandinavians. Charles thought it best to avoid hostilities until he could break up the too formidable coalition of his enemies. He succeeded in detaching Henry of England from the alliance, and during the Diet and religious conference at Ratisbon, in 1541, where he was present in person, he brought Philip of Hesse, the leading spirit of the Smalkaldic League, under his control. He turned then upon the Turks. He intended that the imperial army should operate in Hungary while he attacked Algiers; but both plans failed. The year 1542 was an unfortunate one for him; the French entered the Netherlands, and the Smalkaldic League, with Hesse, attacked Henry of Brunswick, Charles’ only ally in North Germany, and occupied his territories. The patriotism of the Netherlands held the French in check. Charles returned from Spain and, in 1543, attacked Cleves. A few days sufficed to make Guelders a part of Burgundy, which was thus protected on the side of Germany, though still exposed on its French frontier. It was to remedy this weakness that Charles established a line of fortresses which for centuries barred the way against French invasion. In 1544 he invaded France. The strength of Francis was exhausted, and, as Charles, too, was weary of war, a peace was concluded at Crespy (17 September, 1544).

Charles had now to consider whether he would allow liberty of action to the Protestant princes of Germany, to whom, under pressure of war, he had made concessions, especially at the Diet of Spires in 1544. Up to this time he had let affairs take their own course in Germany, and his brother Ferdinand bad been unable to exert effectual pressure. The power of the feudatory princes, steadily increasing since 1521, was now established on a solid basis. In the emperor’s absence they had, on their own initiative, found means to suppress several disturbances which might otherwise have plunged Germany into the horrors of civil war-first the League of the Knights, then the Peasants’ War, then the disorders of the turbulent clergy who had embraced Lutheranism and led the masses astray, and lastly the rebellion of the Anabaptists. By supporting Luther against Charles, the princes secured the means of maintaining the power which they had acquired by their resistance to the emperor. Charles perceived the gravity of the situation at least sufficiently to lead him to resolve upon open war against the princes. To deprive them of their religious leverage, he awaited the opening of the Council of Trent (1545). In the summer of 1546 he opened hostilities. He began by conquering South Germany, then pushed forward into Saxony, and defeated and captured the Elector at Muhlberg, 24 April, 1547. Soon after this he imprisoned Philip of Hesse. (The charges of treachery brought against Charles on this account, are not well sustained.) Charles now believed the princes to be sufficiently humbled to permit him to reorganize the empire with their help at a Diet at Augsburg, as he had previously reorganized Spain and the Netherlands. The settlement of religious difficulties was to be the basis of this reconstruction. He insisted that the council was to have the final decision in matters of doctrine; but until this decision was pronounced he wished for peace and was willing to make certain concessions to the Protestants (the Interim). His sense of justice, however, reserved from these concessions both the retention of the ecclesiastical property seized by the Reformers and the temporary abrogation of episcopal authority in the reformed districts. In consequence of this resolution the Interim lost all its attraction for the Evangelical princes. In dealing with the political reconstruction of the empire, Charles was ready to recognize the condition of Germany so far as it was the result of historical development. He required the feudatories to promise obedience to the imperial power only in specific cases affecting the general welfare, to bind themselves by certain recognized formulae, and not to seek individual profit under pretext of the welfare of the empire. He therefore made here concessions like those already made to his Spanish subjects-namely, a certain degree of autonomy to the several States, in return for their aid in the unquestioned necessities of the empire. No open opposition was made at the Diet, but nothing was done. The Catholics demanded that the Interim should apply to them also; that instrument now no longer made for harmony, and the Protestants resisted it more strenuously than before. On the other band, the German princes were as selfish and provincial as the hidalgos of Castile, and less patriotic. They procrastinated until affairs took an unfavourable turn for the emperor.

But Charles was now ready to dispose of his earthly possessions. His recent campaigns had so undermined his strength as to render it advisable for him to make his will. Warned by the grasping policy of Francis I, he determined to keep the possessions of his family together. He would not, however, leave them all to one heir, knowing how impossible it bad been for even him to govern all to his own satisfaction. What his plans were is unknown, but while he was considering them the Turks and the French king (now Henry II) once more began hostilities against him (1551). In the following year some of the German Protestant princes, led by Maurice of Saxony, unexpectedly attacked the imperial forces, while Charles lay sick at Innsbruck, and Henry II occupied the Bisboprics of Metz, Tool, and Verdun. Charles escaped, but abandoned his plan for the reorganization of the imperial government. He empowered Ferdinand to conclude the Treaty of Passau with the insurgents in April, 1552, which finally gave the ascendency in the German Empire to the princes. His attempt to retake Metz, in the autumn of 1552, failed, and the war was transferred to the Netherlands, where it was waged without decisive result. In North Africa, also, and in Italy, where the Turks, the French, and some Italian States were attacking the emperor, matters became critical. Still the emperor hoped to win a final victory. For in 1553 the accession of Mary Tudor to the throne of England suddenly excited his hope that he might extend his influence in that kingdom. Mary Tudor was ready to marry his son Philip, and in 1554 this alliance became a fact. When their marriage proved childless, the emperor gave up the fight and decided to turn over the conclusion of peace to Philip and Ferdinand. Ferdinand insisted that the authority of princes in the empire, as settled be the agreement of Passan, should be legally recognized by a decree of the Diet, and the equality of the Catholic and Lutheran religions accepted. This was done at Augsburg in 1555. Charles then requested the electors to accept his abdication and to elect Ferdinand his successor. This was done on 28 February, 1558. Shortly after the final decree of the Diet of Augsburg, in 1555, Charles convened the Estates of the Netherlands, and in their presence transferred the government to Philip. Three months later (16 January, 1556) he transferred the Spanish Crown to his son. In spite of this he could not free himself from political cares. It was September, 1556, before he could leave for his long-chosen place of retirement in Spain, accompanied by his two sisters, the widow of the French king, and Maria of Hungary. But he did not live a monastic life even at Yuste. Messengers with political despatches came to him every day. However, he took no active part in affairs. He lived his few remaining months on earth amid works of art, of which he had a keen appreciation (Titian was his favourite painter), amid the books which, as a cultured man, he studied and took pleasure in, and enjoying the music which he loved, while he prepared himself for the life to come.

MARTIN SPAHN.

Charles Martel

Born about 688; died at Quierzy on the Oise, 21 October, 741. He was the natural son of Pepin of Herstal and a woman named Alpaïde or Chalpaïde. Pepin, who died in 714, had outlived his two legitimate sons, Drogon and Grimoald, and to Theodoald, a son of the latter and then only six years old, fell the burdensome inheritance of the French monarchy. Charles, who was then twenty-six, was not excluded from the succession on account of his birth, Theodoald himself being the son of a concubine, but through the influence of Plectrude, Theodoald’s grandmother, who wished the power invested in her own descendants exclusively. To prevent any opposition from Charles she had him cast into prison and, having established herself at Cologne, assumed the guardianship of her grandson. But the different nations whom the strong hand of Pepin of Herstal had held in subjections, shook off the yoke of oppression as soon as they saw that it was with a woman they had to deal. Neustria gave the signal for revolt (715), Theodoald was beaten in the forest of Cuise and, led by Raginfrid, mayor of the palace, the enemy advanced as far as the Meuse. The Frisians flew to arms and, headed by their duke, Ratbod, destroyed the Christian mission and entered into a confederacy with the Neustrians. The Saxons came and devastated the country of the Hattuarians, and even in Austrasia there was a certain faction that chafed under the government of a woman and child. At this juncture Charles escaped from prison and put himself at the head of the national party of Austrasia. At first he was unfortunate. He was defeated by Ratbod near Cologne in 716, and the Neustrians forced Plectrude to acknowledge as king Chilperic, the son of Childeric II, having taken this Merovingian from the seclusion of the cloister, where he lived the name of Daniel. But Charles was quick to take revenge. He surprised and conquered the Neustrians at Amblève near Malmédy (716), defeated them a second time at Vincy near Cambrai (21 March, 717), and pursued them as far as Paris. Then retracing his steps, he came to Cologne and compelled Plectrude to surrender her power and turn over to him the wealth of his father, Pepin. In order to give his recently acquired authority a semblance of legitimacy, he proclaimed the Merovingian Clotaire IV King of Austrasia, reserving for himself the title of Mayor of the Palace. It was about this time that Charles banished Rigobert, the Bishop of Reims, who had opposed him, appointing in his stead the warlike and unpriestly Milon, who was already Archbishop of Trier.

The ensuing years were full of strife. Eager to chastise the Saxons who had invaded Austrasia, Charles in the year 718 laid waste their country to the banks of the Weser. In 719 Ratbod died, and Charles seized Western Friesland without any great resistance on the part of the Frisians, who had taken possession of it on the death of Pepin. The Neustrians, always a menace, had joined forces with the people of Aquitaine, but Charles hacked their army to pieces at Soissons. After this defeat they realized the necessity of surrendering, and the death of King Clotaire IV, whom Charles had placed on the throne but two years previously, facilitated reconciliation of the two great fractions of the Frankish Empire. Charles acknowledged Chilperic as head of the entire monarchy, while on their side, the Neustrians and Aquitainians endorsed the authority of Charles; but, when Chilperic died, the following year (720) Charles appointed as his successor the son of Dagobert III, Thierry IV, who was still a minor, and who occupied the throne from 720 to 737. A second expedition against the Saxons in 720 and the definitive submission of Raginfrid, who had been left the county of Angers (724), re-established the Frankish Monarchy as it had been under Pepin of Herstal, and closed the first series of Charles Martel’s struggles. The next six years were devoted almost exclusively to the confirming of the Frankish authority over the dependent Germanic tribes. In 725 and 728 Charles went into Bavaria, where the Agilolfing dukes had gradually rendered themselves independent, and re-established Frankish suzerainty. He also brought thence the Princess Suanehilde, who seems to have become his mistress. In 730 he marched against Lantfrid, Duke of the Alemanna, whom he likewise brought into subjection, and thus Southern Germany once more became part of the Frankish Empire, as had Northern Germany during the first years of the reign. But at the extremity of the empire a dreadful storm was gathering. For several years the Moslems of Spain had been threatening Gaul. Banished thence in 721 by Duke Eudes, they had returned in 725 and penetrated as far as Burgundy, where they had destroyed Autun. Duke Eudes, unable to resist them, at length contented himself by negotiating with them, and to Othmar, one of their chiefs, he gave the hand of his daughter But this compromising alliance brought him into disfavour with Charles, who defeated him in 731, and the death of Othmar that same year again left Eudes at the mercy of Moslem enterprise. In 732 Abd-er-Rahman, Governor of Spain, crossed the Pyrenees at the head of an immense army, overcame Duke Eudes, and advanced as far as the Loire, pillaging and burning as he went. In October, 732, Charles met Abd-er-Rahman outside of Tours and defeated and slew him in a battle (the Battle of Poitiers) which must ever remain one of the great events in the history of the world, as upon its issue depended whether Christian Civilization should continue or Islam prevail throughout Europe. It was this battle, it is said, that gave Charles his name, Martel (Tudites) “The Hammer,” because of the merciless way in which he smote the enemy.

The remainder of Charles Martel’s reign was an uninterrupted series of triumphant combats. In 733–734 he suppressed the rebellion instigated by the Frisian duke, Bobo, who was slain in battle, and definitively subdued Friesland, which finally adopted Christianity. In 735, after the death of Eudes, Charles entered Aquitaine, quelled the revolt of Hatto and Hunold, sons of the deceased duke, and left the duchy to Hunold, to be held in fief (736). He then banished the Moslems from Arles and Avignon, defeated their army on the River Berre near Narbonne, and in 739 checked an uprising in Provence, the rebels being under the leadership of Maurontus. So great was Charles’ power during the last years of his reign that he did not take the trouble to appoint a successor to King Thierry IV, who died in 737, but assumed full authority himself, governing without legal right. About a year before Charles died, Pope Gregory III, threatened by Luitprand, King of Lombardy, asked his help. Now Charles was Luitprand’s ally because the latter had promised to assist him in the late war against the Moslems of Provence, and, moreover, the Frankish king may have already suffered from the malady that was to carry him off-two reasons that are surely sufficient to account for the fact that the pope’s envoys departed without gaining the object of their errand. However, it would seem that, according to the terms of a public act published by Charlemagne, Charles had, at least in principle, agreed to defend the Roman Church, and death alone must have prevented him from fulfilling this agreement. The reign, which in the beginning was so full of bloody conflicts and later of such incessant strife, would have been an impossibility had not Charles procured means sufficient to attract and compensate his partisans. For this purpose he conceived the idea of giving them the usufruct of a great many ecclesiastical lands, and this spoliation is what is referred to as the secularization by Charles Martel. It was an expedient that could be excused without, however, being justified, and it was pardoned to a certain extent by the amnesty granted at the Council of Lestines, held under the sons of Charles Martel in 743. It must also be remembered that the Church remained the legal owner of the lands thus alienated. This spoliation and the conferring of the principal ecclesiastical dignities upon those who were either totally unworthy or else had naught but their military qualifications to recommend them-as, for instance, the assignment of the episcopal Sees of Reims of Reims and Trier to Milon-were not calculated to endear Charles Martel to the clergy of his time. Therefore, in the ninth century Hincmar of Reims related the story of the vision with which St. Eucher was said to have been favoured and which showed Charles in hell, to which he had been condemned for robbing the Church of its property.

But notwithstanding the almost exclusively warlike character of his reign, Charles Martel was not indifferent to the superior interests of civilization and Christianity. Like Napoleon after the French Revolution, upon emerging from the years 715–719, Charles, who had not only tolerated but perpetrated many an act of violence against the Church, set about the establishment of social order and endeavoured to restore the rights of the Catholic hierarchy. This explains the protection which in 723 he accorded St. Boniface (Winfrid), the great apostle of Germany, a protection all the more salutary as the saint himself explained to his old friend, Daniel of Winchester, that without it he could neither administer his church, defend his clergy, nor prevent idolatry. Hence Charles Martel shares, to a certain degree, the glory and merit of Boniface’s great work of civilization. He died after having divided the Frankish Empire, as a patrimony between his two sons, Carloman and Pepin.

GODEFROID KURTH.

Diocese of Charleston

The Diocese of Charleston (Carolopolitana) now comprises the entire State of South Carolina, U.S.A. (area 30,170 sq. miles). It was established 12 July, 1820, and then included both Georgia and North Carolina. The former state became the territory of the new Diocese of Savannah in 1850, and in 1868 North Carolina became a vicariate Apostolic. Mass was first said in Charleston in 1786, by an Italian [illustration of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist] priest on his way to South America, for a congregation of twelve persons. A year or two later the congregation numbered about 200, at which time an Irish priest named O’Reilly (according to Ramsay) or Ryan (according to Shea) celebrated Mass for 200 Catholics in an abandoned Methodist meeting-house. In 1789 this property was purchased by the Rev. Thomas Keating and the building renovated as St. Mary’s Church. Religious disabilities were still on the law-books, but in 1791 an Act of the Legislature incorporated the Roman Catholic Church of Charleston. The first Bishop of Charleston, the Rt. Rev. John England, was consecrated in Cork, Ireland, 21 Sept., 1820, and reached Charleston in December of that year. Because of dissentions in St. Mary’s congregation he erected a plain wooden structure in 1821, and made it his cathedral under the title of St. John and St. Finbar. His admirable administration marks an epoch not only in the history of the diocese, but also in that of the Catholic Church in the United States, and is more fully treated in the article ENGLAND, JOHN. He died 11 April, 1842, lamented by all. His former coadjutor, the Rt. Rev. William Clancy was transferred in 1843 to the Vicariate Apostolic of Guinea. The second Bishop of Charleston, the Rt. Rev. Ignatius A. Reynolds, was consecrated in Cincinnati, 10 March, 1844, and signalized his episcopate by the publication of an edition (in five volumes) of the works of his predecessor and the erection of a new cathedral. He was a very ascetic man and tireless worker, and died 9 March, 1855. The third bishop of the see was the Rt. Rev. Neisen Lynch, a brilliant graduate of the Propaganda Col-[pg. 631] lege at Rome, and one of the most learned members of the Catholic hierarchy in the United States; his numerous lectures, essays and treatises exhibit the versatility and accuracy of his knowledge. His episcopate was marked by grievous afflictions. The disastrous fire of 1861, closely following the opening of hostilities in Charleston harbour during the Civil War, destroyed the cathedral, the bishop’s residence, and other valuable property, together with the diocesan library. The subsequent bombardment of the city for nearly two years wrought further damage, closed most of the churches, and depleted and impoverished the congregations. General Sherman’s occupation of Columbia was marked by the burning of St. Mary’s College, the Sisters’ Home, and the Ursuline Convent.

Towards the end of the war Bishop Lynch went to Europe as the accredited representative of the Confederacy on a confidential mission. On his return immediately after the war, he stood in the midst of ruins, among a destitute and dejected people, with a diocesan debt of over $200,000 pressing upon him. He at once began to collect funds throughout the country for the immediate needs of his diocese and to liquidate its indebtedness. Most of the succeeding seventeen years were devoted to this work; he left but a small balance of the debt unpaid at his death, 22 February, 1882, having in the meantime built a pro-cathedral, purchased an episcopal residence and restored much church property. He was a member of the Vatican Council (1869–1870) to which he was accompanied by the Rev. Dr. James A. Corcoran (q.v.) one of the most erudite of the American priesthood then working in the Charleston Diocese. During the frequent absence of Bishop Lynch the diocese was ably governed by his vicar-general, Dr. Quigley, pastor of St. Patrick’s Church, under whom was opened St. Francis Xavier’s Infirmary, built with the bequest of a devout lady, and conducted by the Sisters of Mercy.

The fourth bishop, the Rt. Rev. Henry Pinckney Northrop (consecrated 8 January, 1882), was transferred (27 January, 1883) from the Vicariate Apostolic of North Carolina to Charleston. On the night of 31 August, 1886, Charleston was visited by an earthquake which wrecked the pro-cathedral and episcopal residence, and wrought great damage to ecclesiastical property in the city. Through the generous contributions of benefactors in the North, churches, rectories and institutions were completely restored. Under previous bishops churches were erected in the principal cities of the diocese. Bishop Northrop kept pace with the material progress of the State, and dedicated twelve churches, besides the new Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, one of the most beautiful in the South, consecrated 14 April, 1907. The solicitude of Bishop Lynch for the spiritual welfare of the coloured people was emulated by his successors. In 1867 Bishop Lynch purchased and dedicated a church for them exclusively. Its flourishing school is in charge of the Sisters of Mercy residing at St. Catherine’s Convent attached to the church, established under Bishop Northrop, and named for Mother Catherine Drexel, the generous benefactress of this church and school and of the coloured congregation at Catholic Cross Roads. The Sisters of Mercy, who were introduced in 1829, care for the orphans and devote their educational labours to academies and parochial schools. The Ursulines began their foundation in 1834, and have had as pupils daughters of the leading citizens of the State. In 1907 Bishop Northrop introduced the Ladies of the Cenacle. The religious statistics (1908) are as follows: Priests, 19; churches with resident priests, 12; missions with churches, 17; stations, 75; religious women and postulants, 98; students in seminary, 4; academies for young ladies, 5; pupils, 337; parishes with parochial schools, 8; pupils, 590; orphans and cared for, 72; hospital, 1; Catholic population, 9,650.

SHEA, Hist. of Cath. Ch. in U.S. (New York, 1889–92); O’GORMAN, Hist. of the Cath. Ch. in the U.S. (New York, 1895, passim; The United States Catholic Miscellany, files (Charleston, 1822–1862).

P.L. DUFFY

François-Xavier Charlevoix

Historian, b. at St-Quentin, France, 24 October, 1682, d. at La Flèche, 1 February, 1761. He entered the Society of Jesus, 15 September, 1698, at the age of sixteen, studied philosophy at the Collège de Louis le Grand (1700–1704), and then went to Quebec, where he taught grammar from 1705 to 1709. During the years spent in Canada, he gathered material for his future “History of New France.” He returned to Paris in 1709 and studied theology for four years. In 1720, under instructions from the French Court, he began his travels through the French colonies to gather information for the discovery of the Western sea. He embarked at La Rochelle in July of that year, and reached Quebec towards the end of September. He proceeded up the St. Lawrence River and through the Great Lakes to Michillimackinac, from which place he journeyed to the lower end of the territory of the Puans or Winnebago Indians. Entering Lake Michigan he continued along the eastern shore and at length after much endeavour reached the Illinois, whence he descended the Mississippi to its mouth. The vessel upon which he embarked for San Domingo was wrecked near the Bahamas and the expedition was temporarily abandoned.

Charlevoix and his companions returned to the Mississippi by way of the coast of Florida. His second attempt to gain the Island of San Domingo proved more successful, and he reached this colony at the beginning of September, 1722, and left at the end of the same month. He embarked for Havre 24 December, 1722. After his return to France, in 1723, he made a journey to Italy, fulfilling the various duties of his order and working for twenty-two years as an editor of the “Mémoires de Trévoux,” a monthly journal of bibliography, history, and science.

His works are: (1) “Histoire du Japon” (3 vols., 12mo, Rouen, 1715); entirely rewritten (2 vols., 4to, and 9 vols., 12mo, Paris, 1736); revised and re-edited (6 vols., 12mo, Paris, 1754). The history is enriched with maps and plates, and embraces all that is interesting in Kämpfer’s work, “History of Japan and Siam.” At the end is a résumé of all the works on Japan published up to that time. (2) “La Vie de la Mère Marie de l’Incarnation” (8vo, Paris, 1724). (3) “Histoire de l’Isle Espagnole ou de S. Domingue” (2 vols., 4to, Paris, 1730–31; 2 vols., 8vo, Amsterdam, 1733). This work was compiled from data and manuscripts furnished him by Père Le Pers, who had lived in San Domingo for twenty-five years, and also from reports which are preserved in the Dépôt de la Marine of France. (4) “Histoire et description générale de la Nouvelle-France” (3 vols., 4to, and 6 vols., 12mo, Paris, 1744), with maps and plates; English translation (2 vols., 8vo, London, 1761; London, 1763; 2 vols., 8vo, Dublin, 1766). The English version of 1763 had the following descriptive title: “Letters to the Duchess of Lesdiguières; giving an Account of a voyage to Canada, and travels through that vast Country, and Louisiana to the Gulf of Mexico. Undertaken By Order of the present King of France. By Father Charlevoix. Being a more full and acurate description of Canada, and the neighbouring Countries than has been before published; the character of every Nation or Tribe in that vast Tract being given: their Religion, Customs, Manners, Traditions, Government, Languages, and Towns; the Trade carried on with them, and at what places; the Posts or Forts, and settlements, established by the French; the Great Lakes, Water Falls and Rivers, with the manner of navigating them; the Mines, Fisheries, Plants, and Animals of these Countries. With reflections on the Mistakes the French have committed in carrying on their Trade and Settlements; and the most proper method of proceeding pointed out. Including also an account of the Author’s Shipwreck in the Channel of the Bahamas, and return in a boat to the Mississippi, along the Coast of the Gulf of Mexico, with his voyage from thence to St. Domingo and back to France.” John Gilmary Shea issued a translation in six volumes (New York, 1866–72). The edition, limited to 25 copies in quarto and 250 in octavo, contains several portraits engraved on copper (cf. J.R.G. Hassard, in Catholic World, September, 1873). (5) “Histoire du Paraguay” (3 vols., 4to, Paris, 1756; 6 vols., 12mo, Paris, 1757; tr., 2 vols., 8vo, London, 1769). (6) “Eulogy on Cardinal de Polignac,” published in the “Mémoires de Trévoux,” 1742, pp. 1053–1091. (7) “Suggestions for a History of the New World,” founded upon the chronological records of America, also in the “Mémoires de Trévoux,” 1735, pp. 161–172, and inserted in the “History of New France.”

What the critics thought of his works may be found in his own preface to “L’Histoire de la Nouvelle-France.” One censor found the whole first volume useless, another complained that he was too concise. He is accused of depreciating Kämpfer’s work in the “Histoire du Japon” and of having given too much space to religious matters. Rochemonteix, though regarding him as a “historien de valeur,” finds fault with him for occasional carelessness and for differing somewhat in his history from the accounts of the missionaries. With regard to his “Histoire de la Nouvelle-France,” John Gilmary Shea says that “it is too well known and too highly esteemed both for style and matter to need any explanation of its scope or object. The praise of Gibbon will alone assure the reader that as an historical work it is of no inconsiderable merit.”

SHEA, History of New France (translation, New York, 1866–72); ROCHEMONTEIX, Les Jésuites et la Nouvelle-France au Relations (Cleveland, 1896–1901), index, 149; MICHAUD, Biog. Univ., VII, 658; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c. de J., II, 1075–1080.

E.P. SPILLANE.

Diocese of Charlottetown

DIOCESE OF CHARLOTTETOWN (CAROLINAPOLITANA)

Includes all Prince Edward Island (formerly called St. John’s Island), the smallest province of the dominion of Canada. It is situated in the southern waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and, together with the Magdalen Islands lying about sixty miles to the north-east of it, constitutes a diocese which takes its name from Charlottetown, the chief town of Prince Edward Island. The history of Catholicity in the territory now comprised in the diocese of Charlottetown goes back to the year 1719, when all the islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence were granted by the King of France to count Saint-Pierre, a nobleman of his court. Up to that time the population of Prince Edward Island consisted of a few Indians, but on its concession to Count Saint-Pierre immigration set in, and soon a number of settlements were formed, the chief one being at Port La Joie, where the count established his head-quarters. The first priest to labour in the new colony was René-Charles De Breslay, a Sulpician who came from France in April 1721, and who was joined a few months later by Marie-Anselme de Metivier, a priest of the same community. These two priests remained only about two years, and on their return to France their place was taken by Franciscans, who for thirty years ministered to the spiritual wants of the colony. Meanwhile, by the influx of settlers from France and Acadia, the population had so increased that a system of parochial organization became necessary and parishes were gradually formed, to preside over which four priests came from France by request of the Bishop of Quebec, whose diocese then comprised the whole of Canada. Thus, in 1753, five priests laboured in Prince Edward Island, viz., Father Girard at Point Prim, Father Cassiet at Scotchfort, Father Biscaret at St. Peter’s, Father Dosquet at Malpeque, and Father Aubré. A Franciscan, at Port La Joie. Unfortunately, these prosperous conditions did not long endure. They gave way before the English invasion of 1758, when most of the people were driven out, the churches razed to the ground, and the clergy forced to leave the country. For these reasons Prince Edward Island was without a resident priest, from 1758 to 1772, when there arrive an immigration of Scottish Catholics, accompanied by a priest, the Rev. James Macdonald, who continued in charge of the whole colony till his death in 1785. Five years later a second band of Scottish Catholics came to swell the population, bringing with them the Rev. Angus Bernard MacEachern, the most striking figure in the early history of Catholicity in the Diocese of Charlottetown.

At this time Father Le Roux laboured in the Magdalen Islands, having been sent thither by the Bishop of Quebec to minister to the Acadians who had settled in that locality. He built a small church at the foot of Demoiselle Mountain on Amherst Island, where he remained till 1793, when he was succeeded by Father Alain. In 1798 two priests, Father De Calonne and Father Pichard, came to Prince Edward Island and took up their residence, the former in Charlottetown, the latter at Rustico. The first bishop to visit Prince Edward Island was the Rt. Rev. Pierre Denault, Bishop of Quebec, who went there in the summer of 1803. In 1812 his successor, the Rt. Rev. Joseph-Octave Plessis, visited the Maritime Provinces, bringing with him a priest, the Rev. Jean-Louis Beaubien, whom he stationed at Rustico, and to whom he entrusted the spiritual care of all the Acadian missions in Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands. In the year 1819 Father MacEachern was named titular Bishop of Rosea, and received episcopal consecration in Quebec 17 June, 1821. The following year witnessed the ordination at Quebec of the first native priest, Father Bernard Donald Macdonald, who returned home in the early autumn to take charge of the Acadian missions. The Bishop of Rosea at first was merely vicar-general to the Bishop of Quebec, and, though performing episcopal duties throughout the greater part of the Maritime Provinces, he did so without independent jurisdiction. But in August, 1829, Charlottetown was raised to the dignity of an episcopal see, and the Rt. Rev. Angus Bernard MacEachern became its first bishop. Besides Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands, the new diocese comprised the whole of New Brunswick.

On taking possession of his see, one of the first duties to devolve on Bishop MacEachern was to establish an institution for the education of students destined for the priesthood, and accordingly St. Andrew’s College was founded at St. Andrews, Prince Edward Island, in November, 1831. On 22 April, 1835, the first Bishop of Charlottetown died and was succeeded by the Rev. Bernard Donald Macdonald, consecrated bishop at Quebec, 15 October, 1837. Five years later the diocese was dismembered, New Brunswick being made a separate diocese, with the see at St. John. Bishop Macdonald closed the college at St. Andrews in 1844, and in the beginning of the year 1855 the present college of St. Dunstan opened its doors to its first student. On the 28th of September, 1857, four sisters of the Congregation of Notre-Dame opened a convent in Charlottetown, where they began to give instruction to about sixteen pupils. Bishop Macdonald was called to his reward 30 December, 1859, and in the following year his successor, the Rt. Rev. Peter MacIntyre, received episcopal consecration in the cathedral of Charlottetown, 15 August, 1860. The episcopate of Bishop MacIntyre covered a period of over thirty years, during which many churches and schools were erected throughout the diocese. He died 30 April, 1891, and was succeeded by the Rt. Rev. James Charles Macdonald, who had been named coadjutor with right of succession in the preceding year. Catholicity is flourishing in the diocese of Charlottetown. A population of fifty thousand, under the guidance of forty-five priests, worship in fifty-one churches, of which many are neat and elegant structures. Eight convents, wherein fifty nuns of the Congregation of Notre-Dame give instruction to over one thousand pupils, and St. Dunstan’s College, with a roster of one hundred and thirty students, tell what is being done for catholic education, whilst a fully-equipped hospital, under the care of the Sisters of Charity of Quebec, furnishes relief to the sick and suffering.

CASGRAIN, Les Sulpiciens et les prêtres des Missions Etrangères en Acadie (Quebec, 1897); IDEM, Une Seconde Acadie; Archives of the Archdiocese of Quebec; Archives of the Diocese of Charlottetwon; MACMILLAN, The Early History of the Catholic church in Prince Edward Island (Quebec, 1905).

J.C. MACMILLAN

François-Philippe Charpentier

French engraver, inventor, and mechanician, b. at Blois, 1734; d. there 22 July, 1817. His father was a bookbinder, a poor man who made many sacrifices that his son might attend the Jesuit college at Blois; but after young Charpentier had studied there a few years he was compelled to leave and work to support himself. He chose to pursue the art of engraving as best suited to his talent and inclination, and entered the atelier of an excellent copperplate engraver in Paris whom he very soon surpassed. Charpentier is celebrated, however, far more for his inventions, which revolutionized reproductive art, than for his own work with the burin or in aquatint. His first discovery was that of a purely mechanical process for engraving in aquatint (gravure au lavis) and in colour. Wash-drawings and water-colours were copied with marvellous exactitude, sketches by the great masters were reproduced by his machine, and thus otherwise unknown art was placed within the reach of the people. Charpentier made many beautiful and effective plates with his new appliance, and then sold the secret. That admirable engraver and great patron of art, Count Caylus, was one of the first to use the new machine.

Louis XVI gave him the appointment of “Royal Mechanician” (Mécanicien du Roi), and provided a studio for him in the gardens of the Louvre, where he used the burning-mirror for melting metals without fire. He invented a fire-engine which was very generally adopted and, in 1771, a machine for drilling metals. Another invention for mechanical engraving was one which enabled lace-manufacturers to engrave in a few hours elaborate patterns and designs which formerly had required at least six months work of the burin. Charpentier’s device for lighthouse-illumination so pleased Louis XVI that he offered the inventor a pension and a place as the head of the Department of Beacons, asking him to fix the price for his discovery. Charpentier refused the pension and suggested that the office be given to a younger man, saying that he would “prefer freedom in order to devote himself to the development of his ideas.” He received a thousand crowns for his discovery.

During the Directoire he made an instrument for boring six gun-barrels at once, and a machine to saw six boards simultaneously. For these the government paid him 24,000 francs and named him director of the Atelier de prefectionnement, established at the Hôtel Montmorency. Charpentier received many flattering offers from Russia and England for his labour-saving devices, but refused them all. Pious, generous, simple, credulous, Charpentier was the dupe of beggars and schemers, many of whom affixed their names to his inventions and made fortunes thereby. He died as he had lived, in poverty. The chief extant works of his, all prints, are: “Education of the Virgin,” after Boucher; “Death of Archimedes,” after Ferri; “Shepherdess,” after Berchem; “Descent from the Cross,” in colour, after Vanloo.

Biographie universelle, s. v.; BRYAN, Dict. of Painters and Engravers (London, 1903).

LEIGH HUNT

Pierre Charron

Moralist, b. in Paris, 1541; d. there 6 Nov., 1603. He studied law at Bourges, but after several years’ practice he embraced the ecclesiastical state. For thirty years he preached with so much success that the bishops vied with one another to engage his services. Queen Margaret of Navarre entertained him as her preacher in ordinary, and King Henry delighted to hear him even before his conversion to the Catholic Faith. In Bordeaux he met the famous Michel de Montaigne. Their acquaintance ripened into a close and lasting friendship. Montaigne bequeathed to his friend the right to wear his coat of arms, and Charron in return made the sister of Montaigne heir to his possessions. Charron published three books: “Les trois vérités” (Bordeaux, 1594), “Les discours chrestiens” (Cahors, 1600), and “Sagesse” (Bordeaux, 1601). Whilst engaged in bringing out a second edition of the latter, he died suddenly of apoplexy.

At a period of extraordinary religious agitation the “Trois vérités” (Three Truths) proved to be a very opportune and valuable apology. The “Discours chrestiens” were published only a few months before “Sagesse,” and, like “Trois vérités,” they were perfectly orthodox. But the book which carried Charron’s influence and fame beyond the borders of France and down to our time is his “Sagesse.” Its rich material, which Charron had gathered chiefly from Montaigne’s conversations and essays, he divides into three parts: the nature of man; the duties of man as man; and the particular duties of the various classes and conditions of men. His standpoint is invariably that of a human philosopher. The sceptic spirit which pervades the whole book allows it to be summed up in a very few words: by his own natural light and strength man is incapable of finding principles of religion and morality sufficiently certain; and, being sure of nothing, it is consequently wise to live as conveniently and pleasurably as the common usage of the people among whom one lives allows. No attempt is made anywhere in the body of the book to conceal the baldness of this doctrine.

Had Charron, instead of engraving his easy-going “Je ne sçay” as the essence of all his worldly wisdom on the title-page of his “Sagesse” and over the entrance of his house, taken, like Descartes, the time and the trouble of finding a solid basis of moral and religious certainty, he would have shown himself a deeper and more independent philosopher and a worthier moralist. As it is, we need not wonder that the second edition of the “Sagesse” encountered great opposition and was allowed to appear only after some passages had been softened down, and others explained or corrected. Nor is the fierce onslaught of Garasse, who called Charron “athée et le patriarche des esprits forts,” surprising, especially when, even in our days, nearly the same charge is made and ably supported by Ad. Franck in the “Dictionnaire des sciences philosophiques.” These accusations, however, take account neither of the time in which Charron lived, when philosophic uncertainty was not held to imply clearly the rejection of revealed authority; nor of the author’s explicit professions that he intended his “Sagesse” as the best introduction to his “Trois vérités” and his “Discours chrestiens”; nor of the constant good opinion in which the author was held to the end of his life by his many ecclesiastical superiors.

CHARLES B. SCHRANTZ.

Charterhouse

From the fact that St. Bruno founded the first house of his austere order at Chartreux, near Grenoble, the institution has ever since been known by the name of that place. By lingual corruption, just as each house of that order is known in Spain as cartuja and in Italy as certosa, so in England the corruption of Chartreux took the form of charterhouse. The first English house of the order—the first charterhouse—was founded by King Henry II at Witham in Somersetshire, in 1181 (with a cell on Mendip); the last was the celebrated charterhouse of Sheen in Surrey, founded in 1414 by king Henry V. The other charterhouses were those of Hethorpe, or Locus Dei, in Gloucestershire (1222), removed to Hinton in Somersetshire (1227); Beauvale, or Gresley Park, Nottinghamshire (1343); St. Anne’s near Coventry, Warwickshire (1381); Kingston-upon-Hull, Yorks, East Riding (1378); and Mountgrace, Yorks, North Riding (1396); but the most renowned of these houses, because of the fate meted out to its prior, Blessed John Houghton, in 1535, and to its community by Henry VIII, was that of London. It was founded in 1371 by Sir Walter Manny, one of Edward the Third’s most illustrious knights.

As all Carthusian houses follow the same plan in the main outlines of their disposition, though there may be variations in detail, one description stands for all. There are two court-yards, an outer and an inner. The outer one is flanked by long buildings containing the cells of the lay brethren, and such offices as the kitchen, pantry, bakehouse, forge, and carpenters’ shop. Adjoining these buildings is the guest-house. The inner court-yard gives on to the chapter house and the refectory, which is divided into two portions, one for the choir-monks, the other for the lay brethren. At the further end is the church, which has no aisles, and, like the refectory, is divided into two parts. Beyond the church is the large cloister, within which is generally found the cemetery. From this cloister open out the monks’ cells, each of which is a complete dwelling by itself. Besides the garden allotted to each recluse, which he cultivates according to his taste, he has a corridor where he may walk in the recreation hour. On the ground-floor a workroom stocked with tools affords him the necessary relaxation from his spiritual exercises, which fill up a considerable portion of the day. Above are two rooms: one, for sleeping, furnished with a board covered with a blanket; the other containing a stall and prie-Dieu, a work-table, bookshelf, two chairs, and a “refectory” set in the window recess.

The Carthusian’s habit is white; his food consists of bread, fruit, herbs, and vegetables, varied on feast days by fish and cheese; once a week, at least, the Carthusian fasts on bread, water, and salt; flesh he never touches, even when ill. The chief feature of the life in a charterhouse is its complete solitude, which has served to preserve intact in all its austerity the original spirit of the order; so that the saying that it has never been reformed because it never grew lax is justified—“Cartusia nunquam reformata, quia nunquam deformata.” See Carthusians.

Tractatus Statutorum Ordinis Cartusiensis pro Noviciis, etc. (Mon. Angl., VI, pp. v, xii); Gassquet, English Monastic Life (London, 2d ed., 1904); Hendriks, The London Charterhouse (London, 1889); Thompson, A History of the Somerset Carthusians (London, 1895).

HENRY NORBERT BIRT

Alain Chartier

A French poet, born about 1390, at Bayeux, died between 1430 and 1440. It is believed he studied at the University of Paris, as did his brother Guillaume, Bishop of Paris, who died in 1472. Alain was considered an eminent writer during his life, and a century later he was still regarded by the best men of letters as a “noble poet and orator” (Jean Lemaire de Belges), and as “the father of French eloquence” (Jean Bouchet). He is better known to us by the famous story of Margaret of Scotland, who is said to have kissed his lips while he was sleeping in her palace, to honour, she said “the mouth which elicited so many virtuous words.” However pretty this story may be, it is only a legend, because Margaret of Scotland came to France only in 1436, and, according to the best authorities, Chartier was already dead. We know nothing of Chartier’s youth. His first work was “Le livre des quatre dames,” written not long after the defeat of Agincourt (1415) During the civil war and amidst the horrors of the English invasion versial love poems, in which he attained a considerable skill. Among them are: “Le débat de reveille-matin”; “Le débat des deus fortunés d’amour”; “Belle dame sans merci.” These compositions were highly praised by contemporaries, but to a modern reader they appear lifeless and pedantic, a most complete example of the scholarly method which, at that time, tended to take the place of inspiration in French poetry. His “Bréviaire des Nobles,” a code of the perfect knight, is better than his love songs. In 1417 Chartier was driven from Bayeaux by the English invasion, and in 1418 from Paris by the Burgundian faction. He entered the service of Dauphin Charles, “King of Bourges” afterwards King Charles VII. whom he served as private secretary most faithfully. He was entrusted with important missions for the king. In 1424 he went to Germany and in 1428 to Scotland.

Chartier is noteworthy as a prose writer, his prose being far superior to his poetry; his style is full of harmony, constantly enlightened by fine sentences, which are compared by Pasquier to those of Seneca. The “Quadrilogue invectif,” composed in 1422, is a dialogue in which France entreats nobility, people and clergy, to unite their efforts to save her from invasion and civil war. The “Livre de l’espérance” or “Livre des trois vertus” is a moral dissertation. The “Curial” deals with the dangers and corruption of the courtier’s life. Because of the loftiness, courage, and dignity of his life, Chartier was entitled to teach moral lessons and to preach disinterestedness and Christian virtues. Chartier’s works were edited by Duchesne (Paris, 1617); Buchberger mentions an edition of his works by Montaigion (Paris 1861).

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Diocese of Chartres

Comprises the department of Eure-et-Loir. Dismembered by the formation of the new Diocese of Blois, in 1697, it was suppressed in 1802, the entire department of Eure-et-Loir being placed under the jurisdiction of the new Bishopric of Versailles. However, in 1822, the See of Chartres was re-established and made suffragan to the Archbishopric of Paris. The catalogue of the church of Chartres gives as its first bishops, Adventus, Optatus, and Valentinus, the last-named being contemporary with St. Martin. According to the Abbé Duchesne the Bishopric of Chartres may thus be traced back to the time of Constantine. Among its bishops the church of Chartres claims: Saints Martinus Candidus and Anianus (fifth century); St Solennis, instrumental in the conversion of Clovis; St. Adventinus, present at the Council of Orléans in 511; St. Leobinus, at the Council of Orléans in 549; St Chaletricus at the Council of Tours in 567; St. Boetharius (about 594), chaplain to Clotaire II and, for a while the captive of Thierry, King of Burgundy; Fulbert (1007–1029), professor and poet, whose name is identified with the history of the cathedral; St. Yves (1090–1115), Abbot of Saint-Quentin-de-Beauvais, noted as an ecclesiastical writer and canonist, and imprisoned for two years by King Philip I for having opposed the repudiation of Queen Bertha; John of Salisbury (1176–1180), an illustrious writer, former secretary to St. Thomas Becket and Alexander III; Godet deMarais (1690–1709), a writer and the arch enemy of Quietism, also co-operator with Madame de Maintenon in the founding of Saint-Cyr; the future Cardinal de Latil (1821–1824), at first chaplain to the Comte d’Artois and subsequently Archbishop of Reims; Monseigneur Clausel de Montals (1824–1853), ardently attached to Gallican ideas and noted for his opposition to the Abbé Chatel’s schismatic “French Church,” and for his efforts in favor of freedom of instruction. .

Special honour is paid to St. Arnulphus (Arnoul), assassinated in the forest of Yveline about 534; to St. Avitus (Avit) who, in the beginning of the sixth century, founded a monastery at Châteaudun; to St. Laumer (d. 593), founder and Abbot of Saint-Martin de-Dreux, and to Blessed Bernard (end of the eleventh century), founder and Abbot of Tiron. The mystic Arnaud (twelfth century), author of the “Traité de l’oeuvre des six jours” and biographer of St. Bernard, and François-Auguste de Thou, beheaded for political reasons under Richelieu, were both Abbots of Bonneval in the Diocese of Chartres; Philippe Desportes, poet (1546–1606), and the Abbé de Saint Pierre (1658–1743), author of the famous “Projet de paix perpétuelle,” were Abbots of Tiron. Among the natives of the diocese may be mentioned: Godeau, the poet, Bishop of Vence (1605–1672). known at the Hôtel de Rambouillet as “Julie’s dwarf” and also J.-B. Thiers (1636–1703), curé of Champrond, noted for his disagreements with the Chapter of Chartres and his history of wigs ( Histoire des perruques ).

According to Didron, the archéologist, the Chartres cathedral is “the most curious monument in France, perhaps even in all Europe; a unique monument.”

“If elsewhere may be found more beautiful parts,” said the archæologist Visconti, “nowhere else is there a more beautiful whole.” The substructure of the present cathedral encloses a well and a vault around which cluster traditions of the origin of the church. The early Christians of the place, it was said, found here an altar surmounted by a statue representing a woman seated with her child upon her knees—both the altar and statue, “Virgini paritur,” had been erected by the Druids. About the year 67 Saints Altinus and Eodaldus, sent from Sens by Saints Savinianus and Potentianus, built a church over this grotto, where, during the persecution the virgin Modesta, daughter of the governor, Quirinus, was martyred, and her body flung into the well. Whatever may be held as to the time in which Saints Savinianus and Protentianus lived, it would seem that the foundation of the primitive church of Chartres, all that now can be seen, was laid in the days of Constantius Chlorus (beginning of the fourth century). The church was several times destroyed by fire. About 1020 Bishop Fulbert invited all the sovereigns of Europe to contribute towards the rebuilding of the cathedral, but three more fires (1030–1134–1194) interfered with the progress of the work. However, in 1220, Guillaume le Breton could write: “entirely rebuilt in dressed stone and terminating in a vault that may be compared to the shell of a tortoise, the cathedral of Chartres need fear nothing further from temporal fire until the Day of Judgment.”

The pious enthusiasm of which Notre-Dame of Chartres was then the object is attested by the “Poème des Miracles” (1210), recently published by Antoine Thomas, and by Jean le Marchand’s poem of 1262. The consecration of the cathedral occurred in 1260, and St Louis is supposed to have attended the ceremony. The stained glass windows date back to the thirteenth century, and are the finest in the world—they contain 3889 figures. The upper windows were presented by St. Louis, and St. Ferdinand and Queen Blanche of Castile. The porches and windows represent in magnificent symbolism the glorification of Mary. The choir enclosure with its beautifully sculptured groups dates from the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Among the pilgrims who came to Chartres history mentions St. Louis who, in order to reach there, travelled seven leagues on foot; Philip the Fair; Charles the Fair; Philip of Valois; John the Good who went there three times and left his pilgrim’s staff, which has become the bâton cantoral of the Chapter; Charles V (of France) who went thither twice barefooted; Louis XI; Henry III who made eighteen pilgrimages; Henry IV who was crowned there 27 February,1594; Louis XIV and Popes Pascal II, Innocent II, and Alexander III. The object of this yet very popular pilgrimage is threefold: to venerate

the statue of Notre-Dame-sous-Terre, inaugurated in 1857, and modelled after the old statue burned in 1793, being therefore a reproduction of the figure honoured by the Druids. Devotions are held in the crypt which is the largest in France;

the “Vierge Noire de Notre-Dame-du Pilier” (Black Virgin) in the upper church;

the “Voile de la Vierge” (Veil of the Blessed Virgin), given to Charlemagne by Constantine Porphyrogenitus and Irene, transferred about 876 by Charles the Bald from Aachen to Chartres, and raised as a standard in 911 by Gantelme, the bishop, to put to flight the Norman Rollo. In 1360 Edward III of England, and in 1591 Henry Henry IV of France, passed reverently beneath the reliquary containing this veil, which, until the end of the eithteenth century, was considered a chemise, and “chemisettes,” emblematic of this veil, were worn on the breast.

The church of Saint-Pierre of Chartres of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries has some very beautiful fourteenth-century windows; it was dependent upon a Benedictine abbey founded in the sixth century. Several local congregations of women take charge of the schools and the sick: the sisters of Providence (founded in Chartres, 1654); the Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres (founded 1690), who have 123 establishments in the French colonies and others in the countries of the extreme East; the Sisters of the Bon-Secours (founded 1736); the sisters of the Immaculate Conception of Nogent-le-Rotrou (founded 1808), and the Sisters of Our Lady of Chartres (founded 1853). In 1900 the diocese had the following religious institutions: 1 foundling asylum, 17 infant schools, 1 school for deaf-mutes, 17 orphanges, 21 hospitals and hospices, and 2 houses of religious nurses. At the end of 1905 (the close of the Concordat period) the population was 275,433 and there were 25 pastorates, 351 succursals, or second-class parishes, and 15 curacies then remunerated by the State.

Gallia Christiana (ed. nova, 1744), VIII, 1089–1208 and instrumenta, 287–410; Fisquet, La France pontificale (Chartres, Paris, 1873); Henault, Origines chretiennes de la Gaule celtique, Recherches historiques sur la fondation de l’Eglise de Chartres et des Eglises de Paris, de Troyes et d’Orleans (Paris, 1884); de Mély, Le trésor de Chartres (Paris, 1886); Bulteau and Brou, Monographie de la cathédrale de Chartres (Chartres, 1887–92); Clerval, Chartres, sa cathédrale, ses monuments (Chartres, 1905); Huysmans, La cathédrale (Paris, 1902); Massé, The City of Chartres, its Cathedral and Churches (London, 1900); Chevalier, Topo-bibl., 661–64.

GEORGES GOYAU

La Grande Chartreuse

The mother-house of the Carthusian Order lies in a high valley of the Alps of Dauphine, at an altitude of 4268 feet, fourteen miles north of Grenoble. Medieval writers were awestruck by the desolation of the spot, and Martene, who visited it in 1760, writes: “One cannot conceive how it could enter into the mind of man, to establish a community in a spot so horrible and so barren as this.” Modern writers praise its picturesqueness, but some, like Ruskin, find the mountains around, “the simplest commonplace of Savoy cliff, with no peaks, no glaciers, no cascades, nor even any slopes of pine in extent of majesty.” The monastery lies in an open pasture. On the east the ridge of the Grand-Som towers above its roof, on the south the road approaches through a narrow gorge, while on the north and west the valley is shut in by heights covered with woods, due to the planting of the earlier monks, but now the property of the State. The first monastery, built by St. Bruno in 1084 on the spot marked by the chapel of Notre-Dame de Casalibus, was destroyed by an avalanche in 1132, and the new buildings were erected on part of the site of the present grand cloître. The monastery was burnt eight times between 1320 and 1676. At the latter date the prior, Innocent Le Masson, began to rebuild the greater part of it in the somewhat cold and heavy style of the period. His work was solid, and there is a severe monastic element about it. The buildings of to-day are substantially as he left them, though they have been extensively restored during the nineteenth century. They are on the typically Carthusian plan, with the addition of the great guest-houses and capitular hall, constructed to accommodate the Carthusian priors attending the general chapters, together with their attendants. The most ancient portions are the Gothic parts of the grand cloître (over 700 feet long) and the church, which dates in part from 1320 or perhaps earlier, but owes its present form to restoration in the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. The monastery, with a small portion of the surrounding pastures, was rented from the State till, in accordance with the Association Laws of 1901, the last monks were expelled by two squadrons of dragoons on the 19th of April, 1903. For the history of the monastery and order and for the famous liqueur see CARTHUSIAN ORDER.

[Note: The monks of La Grand Chartreuse, driven into exile with the prior general, found refuge at Farneta, in Italy, until 1929, when Montrieux, the first of the French charterhouses to be restored, was reopened. Only in 1940, in the unsettled conditions of World War II, were the monks able to re-occupy La Grande Chartreuse.]

La Grande Chartreuse par un chartreux (Lyons, 1898), tr. WHITEHEAD (London, 1893); CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894–99), 665.

RAYMUND WEBSTER.

Chartulary

(Cartularium, Chartularium, also called Pancarta and Codex Diplomaticus), a medieval manuscript volume or roll (rotulus) containing transcriptions of original documents relating to the foundation, privileges, and legal rights of ecclesiastical establishments, municipal corporations, industrial associations, institutions of learning, and private families. The term is also, though less appropriately, applied to collections of original documents bound in one volume or attached to one another so as to form a roll. The allusion of St. Gregory of Tours to chartarum tomi in the sixth century is commonly taken to refer to chartularies; the oldest, however, that have come down to us belong to the tenth century. Those belonging to the centuries from the tenth to the thirteenth are very numerous. Sometimes the copyist of the chartulary reproduced the original document with literary exactness. Sometimes, however, he took liberties with the text to the extent of modifying the phraseology, modernizing proper names of persons or places, and even changing the substance of the meaning for some such purpose as to extend the scope of the privileges or immunities which the document granted. The value of a chartulary as an historical document depends, of course, on the extent to which it reproduces the substantial meaning of the original, and this question must be settled by the well-known canons of historical criticism. Generally speaking, a chartulary should rank as a public document possessing greater value than a private letter or the narrative of an annalist. We have as yet no complete inventory of the chartularies of the various institutions of the Middle Ages. In recent years many chartularies of medieval monasteries and churches have been published, more or less completely. The “Catalogue général des cartulaires des archives départementales” (Paris, 1847) and the “Inventaire des cartulaires” etc. (Paris, 1878–9) are the chief sources of information regarding the chartularies of medieval France. For the principal English (printed) chartularies, see Gross, “Sources and Literature of English History,” etc. (London, 1900), 204–7 and 402–67. The important chartulary of the University of Paris was edited by Father Denifle, O.P., and M. Chatelain, “Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis” (Paris, 1889, sqq.)

WILLIAM TURNER

Georges Chastellain

(Or Chastelain), a Burgundian chronicler, born in the County of Alost, Flanders, in 1403; died at Valenciennes in 1475. He studied at Louvain, and, after a few years in the army, travelled in England and France. He next entered the service of Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, whose successor, Charles the Bold, coming to Valenciennes in 1473, to hold a chapter of the Golden Fleece, conferred upon him the honour of knighthood, with the title of Indiciarius of the order.

Chastellain’s more important works include

“Chronique des choses de mon temps,” a history of the years 1417–74, of which only fragments remain, continued after Chastellain’s death, by his disciple, Jean Molinet. It was first edited by Buchon in “Les chroniques nationales” (1827) and re-edited by Kervyn de Lettenhove (8 vols., Brussels, 1863–67).

“Récollections des merveilles advenues en mon temps” (Antwerp, 1505).

“Chronique de Messire Jean de Lalaing,” a delightful biography.

In spite of excessive partiality to the Duke of Burgundy, Chastellain’s historical works are valuable for the accurate information they contain. As a poet he was famous among his contemporaries. He was the great master of the school of grands rhétoriqueurs, whose principal characteristics were fondness for the most artificial forms and a profusion of latinisms and graecisms.

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Pierre Chastellain

Missionary among the Huron Indians, born at Senlis, France, in 1606; died at Quebec, 14 August, 1684. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1624 and at the age of thirty sailed from France with two future martyrs, Fathers Isaac Jogues and Charles Garnier, and the new Governor of Canada, Montmagny, the successor in that post of Champlain. In July, 1636, Chastellain and Garnier left Three Rivers with the Indian trading canoes to join the mission in the Huron country. In the September following, both were attacked by smallpox, but recovered. For nearly fifty years Chastellain toiled on the mission of Canada at different stations among the Hurons as well as in Quebec. With great strength of character he combined a gentleness that was never ruffled and an unfailing charity towards others. During his laborious mission work he composed his book “Affectus amantis Christum seu Exercitium amoris erga Dominum Jesum pro totâ hebdomadâ,” a quarto of 483 pages (Paris, 1647).

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Chastity

In this article chastity is considered as a virtue; its consideration as an evangelical counsel will be found in the articles on , , and . As a vow, chastity is discussed in the article .

AS A VIRTUE

Chastity is the virtue which excludes or moderates the indulgence of the sexual appetite. It is a form of the virtue of temperance, which controls according to right reason the desire for and use of those things which afford the greatest sensual pleasures. The sources of such delectation are food and drink, by means of which the life of the individual is conserved, and the union of the sexes, by means of which the permanence of the species is secured. Chastity, therefore, is allied to abstinence and sobriety; for, as by these latter the pleasures of the nutritive functions are rightly regulated, so by chastity the procreative appetite is duly restricted. Understood as interdicting all carnal pleasures, chastity is taken generally to be the same as continency, though between these two, Aristotle, as pointed out in the article on , drew a marked distinction. With chastity is often confounded modesty, though this latter is properly but a special circumstance of chastity or rather, we might say, its complement. For modesty is the quality of delicate reserve and constraint with reference to all acts that give rise to shame, and is therefore the outpost and safeguard of chastity. It is hardly necessary to observe that the virtue under discussion may be a purely natural one. As such, its motive would be the natural decency seen in the control of the sexual appetite, according to the norm of reason. Such a motive springs from the dignity of human nature, which, without this rational sway, is degraded to brutish levels. But it is more particularly as a supernatural virtue that we would consider chastity. Viewed thus, its motives are discovered in the light of faith. These are particularly the words and example of Jesus Christ and the reverence that is owing to the human body as the temple of the Holy Ghost, as incorporated into that mystic body of which Christ is the head, as the recipient of the Blessed Eucharist, and finally, as destined to share hereafter with the soul a life of eternal glory. According as chastity would exclude all voluntary Carnal pleasures, or allow this gratification only within prescribed limits, it is known as absolute or relative. The former is enjoined upon the unmarried, the latter is incumbent upon those within the marriage state. The indulgence of the sexual appetite being prohibited to all outside of legitimate wedlock, the wilful impulse to it in the unmarried, like the wilful impulse to anything unlawful, is forbidden. Moreover, such is the intensity of the sexual passion that this impulse is perilously apt to bear away the will before it. Hence, when wilful, it is a grave offence of its very nature. It must be observed too, that this impulse is constituted, not merely by an effective desire, but by every voluntary impure thought. Besides the classification already given, there is another, according to which chastity is distinguished as perfect, or imperfect. The first-mentioned is the virtue of those who, in order to devote themselves more unreservedly to God and their spiritual interests, resolve to refrain perpetually from even the licit pleasures of the marital state. When this resolution is made by one who has never known the gratification allowed in marriage, perfect chastity becomes virginity. Because of these two elements—the high purpose and the absolute inexperience—just referred to, virginal chastity takes on the character of a special virtue distinct from that which connotes abstinence merely from illicit carnal pleasure. Nor is it necessary that the resolution implied in virginity be fortified by a vow, though as practised ordinarily and in the most perfect manner, virginal chastity, as St. Thomas following St. Augustine, would imply, supposes a vow. (Summa Theol., II-II, Q. clii, a. 3, ad 4.) The special virtue we are here considering involves a physical integrity. Yet while the Church demands this integrity in those who would wear the veil of consecrated virgins, it is but an accidental quality and may be lost without detriment to that higher spiritual integrity in which formally the virtue of virginity resides. The latter integrity is necessary and is alone sufficient to win the aureole said to await virgins as a special heavenly reward (St. Thomas, Suppl., Q. xcvi, a. 5). Imperfect chastity is that which is proper to the state of those who have not as yet entered wedlock without however having renounced the intention of doing so, of those also who are joined by the bonds of legitimate marriage, and finally of those who have outlived their marital partners. However in the case of those last mentioned the resolution may be taken which obviously would make the chastity practised that which we have defined as the perfect kind.

THE PRACTICE OF CHASTITY

To point out the untenableness of the arguments advanced by McLennon, Lubbock, Morgan, Spencer, and others, for an original state of sexual promiscuity among mankind, belongs more immediately to the natural history of marriage. Westermarck, in his “History of Human Marriage” (London, 1891), has clearly shown that many of the representations made of people living promiscuously are false and that this low condition may not be looked upon as characteristic of savages, much less be taken as evidencing an original promiscuity (History of Human Marriage, 61 sqq.). According to this author, “the number of uncivilized peoples among whom chastity, at least as regards women, is held in honour and as a rule cultivated, is very considerable” (op. cit., 66). A fact which cannot be overlooked, of which travellers give unfailing testimony is the pernicious effect, as a rule, upon savages of contact with those who come to them from higher civilization. According to Dr. Nansen, “the Eskimo women of the larger colonies are freer in their ways than those of the small outlying settlements where there are no Europeans” (Nansen, The First Crossing of Greenland, II, 329). Of the tribes of the Adelaide plains of South Australia, Mr. Edward Stephens says: “Those who speak of the natives as a naturally degraded race, either do not speak from experience, or they judge them by what they have become when the abuse of intoxicants and contact with the most wicked of the white race have begun their deadly work. I saw the natives and was much with them before those dreadful immoralities were known and I say it fearlessly that nearly all their evils they owed to the white man’s immorality and to the white man’s drink” (Stephens, The Aborigines of Australia, in Jour. Roy. Soc. N. S. Wales, XXIII, 480). Of the primitive Turko-Tatars, Professor Vambrey observes: “The difference in immorality which exists between the Turks affected by a foreign civilization and kindred tribes inhabiting the steppes becomes very conspicuous to anyone living among the Turkomans and Kara Kalpaks, for whether in Africa or Asia certain vices are introduced only by the so-called bearers of culture” (Vambrey, Die primitive Cultur des Turks tartarischen Volkes, 72). Testimonies to the same effect could be multiplied indefinitely.

THE PRACTICE OF CHASTITY AMONG THE JEWS

Several of the Mosaic ordinances must have operated strongly among the ancient Jews, to prevent sins against chastity. The legislation of Deut., xxii, 20- 21, according to which a bride who had deceived her husband into thinking her a virgin was stoned to death at her father’s door, must in the circumstances have powerfully deterred young women from all impure practices. The effect, too, of the law, Deut., xxii, 28–29, must have been wholesome. According to this enactment, if a man sinned with a virgin “he shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver and shall have her to wife because he hath humbled her. He may not put her away all the days of his life.” The Mosaic law against prostitution of Jewish women was severe, nevertheless through foreign women this evil became widespread in Israel. It is to be observed that the Hebrews were ever prone to fall into the sexual sins of their heathen neighbours, and the inevitable result of polygamy was seen in the absence of a recognized obligation of continence in the husband parallel to that imposed on the wife.

The unchastity of the post-Homeric Greeks was notorious. With this people marriage was but an institution to supply the State with strong and sturdy soldiers. The consequence of this to the position of women was most baneful. We are told by Polybius that sometimes four Spartans had one wife in common. (Fragm. in Scr. Vet. Nov. Coll., ed. Mai, II, 384.) The Athenians were not so degraded, yet here the wife was excluded from the society of her husband, who sought pleasure in the company of hetairai and concubines. The hetairai were not social pariahs among the Athenians. Indeed many of them attained to the influence of queens. Although the Romans styled excess of debauchery “Græcizing,” they nevertheless sounded greater depths of filthy wantonness in the days following the early republic than ever did their eastern neighbours. The Greeks threw a glamour of romance and sentiment about their sexual sins. But with the Romans, immorality, even of the abnormal kind, stalked about, its repulsiveness undisguised. We gather this clearly from the pages of Juvenal, Martial, and Suetonius. Cicero makes the public statement that intercourse with prostitutes had never been a thing condemned in Rome (Pro Cælio, xv), and we know that as a rule marriage was looked upon as a mere temporary relation to be severed directly it became irksome to either party. Never did woman sink to such degradation as in Rome. In Greece the enforced seclusion of the wife acted as a moral protection. The Roman matron was not thus restricted, and many of these of highest social rank did not hesitate in the time of Tiberius to have their names inscribed upon the ædiles’ list as common prostitutes in order thus to escape the penalties which the Julian Law attached to adultery.

CHRISTIANITY AND THE PRACTICE OF CHASTITY

Under Christianity chastity has been practised in a manner unknown under any other influence. Christian morality prescribes the right order of relations. It therefore must direct and control the manner of relationship sustained to each other by soul and body. Between these two there is an ineradicable opposition, the flesh with its concupiscences contending unceasingly against the spirit, blinding the latter and weaning it away from the pursuit of its true life. Harmony and due order between these two must prevail. But this means the pre-eminence and mastery of the spirit, which in turn can only mean the castigation of the body. The real as well as the etymological kinship between chastity and chastisement then is obvious. Necessarily, therefore, chastity is a thing stern and austere. The effect of the example as well as of the words of Our Saviour (Matt., xix, 11–12) is seen in the lives of the many celibates and virgins who have graced the history of the Christian Church, while the idea of marriage as the sign and symbol of the ineffable union of Christ with His spotless spouse the Church—a union in which fidelity no less than love is mutual—has borne its fruit in beautifying the world with patterns of conjugal chastity.

St. THOMAS, Summa, II-II, Q. cli-clii; Cont. Gent., L. III, c. cxxxvi; LESSIUS, De Just. et jure ceterisque virt. card., L, IV, c. ii, n. 92 sq.; ESCHBACH, Disputationes Physiologico-Theologicœ, Disp. v; DÖLLINGER, The Gentile and the Jew etc., II, Book IX; CRAISSON, De Rebus Venereis; BONAL, De Virtute Castitatis; WESTERMARCK, The History of Human Marriage, ch. iv, v, vi; GAY, The Christian Life and Virtues; II, Chastity.

JOHN W. MELODY.

Chasuble

Called in Latin casula planeta or pænula, and in early Gallic sources amphibalus, the principal and most conspicuous Mass vestment, covering all the rest. Nearly all ecclesiologists are now agreed that liturgical costume was simply an adaptation of the secular attire commonly worn throughout the Roman Empire in the early Christian centuries. The priest in discharging his sacred functions at the altar was dressed as in civil life, but the custom probably grew up of reserving for this purpose garments that were newer and cleaner than those used in his daily avocations, and out of this gradually developed the conception of a special liturgical attire. In any case the chasuble in particular seems to have been identical with the ordinary outer garment of the lower orders. It consisted of a square or circular piece of cloth in the centre of which a hole was made; through this the head was passed. With the arms hanging down, this rude garment covered the whole figure. It was like a little house (casula). This derivation is curiously illustrated in the prophetic utterance of Druidical origin preserved in Muirchu’s “Life of St. Patrick,” almost the oldest allusion to the chasuble and crosier which we possess. Before St. Patrick’s coming to Ireland the Druids were supposed to have circulated this oracle:

Adze-head [this is an allusion to the peculiar Irish form of tonsure] will come with a crook-head staff; in his house head-holed [in suâ domu capiti perforatâ, i.e. chasuble] he will chant impiety from his table [i.e. the altar]; from the front [i.e. the eastern] part of his house all his household [attendant clerics] will respond, ‘So be it! So be it!’

The fact that at an early date the word casal established itself in the Celtic language, and that St. Patrick’s casal in particular became famous, makes the allusion of the “house head-holed” almost certain. We can hardly help being reminded of St. Isidore’s definition of casula as “a garment furnished with a hood, which is a diminutive of casa, a cottage, as, like a small cottage or hut, it covers the entire person.” In the earliest chronicles some modification seems to have already taken place in the primitive conception of a hole cut in round piece of cloth. The early medieval chasubles were made of a semicircular piece of stuff, the straight edge folded in the middle, and the two borders sewn together, leaving an aperture for the head. From this it will be seen that the chasuble is only a cope of which the front edges have been sewn together. The inconvenience of the primitive chasuble will be readily appreciated. It was impossible to use arms or hands without lifting the whole of the front part of the vestment. To remedy this, more than one expedient was resorted to. The sides were gradually cut away while the length before and behind remained unaltered. Thus, after being first curtailed at the sides until it reached but little below the elbows, it was eventually, in the sixteenth century, pared away still farther, until it now hardly extends below the shoulders and leaves the arms entirely free. While this shortening was still in progress, it became the duty of the deacon and subdeacon, assisting the celebrant, to roll back the chasuble and relieve as far as possible the weight on his arms. Directions to this effect are still given in the “Cæremoniale Episcoporum,” where it speaks of the vesting of a bishop (Cæremon. Episc., lib. II, cap. viii, n. 19). Another device adopted in some medieval chasubles, to remedy the inconvenience caused by the drag of the vestment upon the arms, was to insert a cord passing through rings by which the sides of the chasuble could be drawn up to the shoulders and secured in that position. This, however, was rare. The chasuble, though now regarded as the priestly vestment par excellence, was in the early centuries worn by all ranks of the clergy. “Folded chasubles” (planetæ plicatæ), instead of dalmatics, are still prescribed for the deacon and subdeacon at high Mass during penitential seasons. The precise origin of this pinning up of the chasuble is still obscure, but, like the deacon’s wearing of the broad stole (stolone)—which represents the chasuble rolled up and hung over his shoulder like a soldier’s great-coat—during the active part of his functions in the Mass, it probably had something to do with the inconvenience caused by the medieval chasuble in impeding the free use of the arms. Of the chasuble as now in common usage in the Western Church two principal types appear, which may for convenience be called the Roman and the French. The Roman is about 46 inches deep at the back and 30 inches wide. It is ornamented with orphreys forming a pillar behind and a tall cross in front, while the aperture for the neck is long and tapers downwards. The French type, also common in Germany and in a more debased form in Spain, is less ample and often artificially stiffened. It has a cross on the back and a pillar in front. In medieval chasubles these orphrey crosses often assume a Y form, and the crosses themselves seem really to have originated less from any symbolical purpose than from sartorial reasons connected with the cut and adjustment.

Like the other sacred vestments the chasuble, before use, requires to be blessed by a priest who has faculties for that purpose. When assumed in vesting for Mass, the act is accompanied with a prayer which speaks of the chasuble as the “yoke of Christ.” But another symbolism is indicated by the form attached to the bestowal of the chasuble in the ordination services: “Receive,” says the bishop, “the priestly vestment, by which is signified charity.”

BRAUN, Die liturgische Gewandung (Freiburg, 1907), pp. 149–239; ROHAULT DE FLEURY, La Messe (Paris, 1886), VII; BOCK, Geschichte der liturgischen Gewänder (Bonn, 1856–71), II-III; THALHOFER, Liturgik (Freiburg, 1883), I; DE VERT, Explication des cérémonies de l’église (Paris, 1706–8); ROCK, Church of Our Fathers (London, 1903), II; BARBIER DE MONTAULT, Les costumes et les usages ecclésiastiques (Paris, 1901), II; VAN DER STAPPEN, Sacra Liturgia (Mechlin, 1902), IV, 124–188; THURSTON, in THE MONTH (Dec., 1898) and in The Tablet (Dec. 28, 1907); HEFELE, Beiträge (Tübingen, 1864), II, 150–223.

HERBERT THURSTON.

François-René de Chateaubriand

French writer, b. at Saint-Malo, Brittany, 4 September, 1768; d. at Paris, 4 July, 1848. He studied at Dol, then at Rennes, and later at Dinan. Although at first destined for the navy, for a while he believed himself called to the ecclesiastical life, but finally, in 1786, obtained a commission as lieutenant in the regiment of Navarre, then quartered at Cambrai. Meanwhile the young officer spent much of his time in Paris, where his brother and one of his sisters resided. Upon the fall of the monarchy, he embarked at Saint-Malo for America, 8 April, 1791. The American wilderness was indeed a revelation to his poetic mind, and furnished it with an inexhaustible supply of imagery. However, when King Louis XVI was arrested at Varennes, Chateaubriand believed it his duty to place his sword at the service of imperilled royalty and, returning to France, landed there 2 January, 1792. He married, emigrated, joined the army of Condé, was wounded and left for dead during the expedition against Thionville, and succeeded in escaping to England in 1793. Here he lived in London in the most abject misery, being unable to return to France until 1800, and even then only under an assumed name.

“Le génie du Christianisme” (Paris, 1802) soon afterwards made him famous, and Bonaparte appointed him secretary of the embassy at Rome and then minister at Valais, Switzerland, a post which he resigned even before occupying it. Admitted to the French Academyto fill the vacancy caused by the death of Marie Joseph Chénier, he refused, despite the entreaties of Napoleon, to withhold his opinion on the revolutionary ideas of his predecessor, and this retarded his reception until after the fall of the Empire. Thenceforth he was plunged into party strife. His political life has been divided into three distinct parts: (1) the purely Royalist period up to 1824; (2) the Liberal period from 1824 to 1830; (3) the period of Royalism and ideal Republicanism between 1830 and the time of his death. Appointed Minister of State after Waterloo, he eloquently and energetically opposed the Decazes ministry (1816–1820), became ambassador successively in Berlin and in London, plenipotentiary to the Congress of Verona, and finally Minister of Foreign Affairs during the Villèle ministry. In 1824 the king dismissed him for the haughtiness of character that had rendered him in tolerable to his colleagues. Chateaubriand that time on waged a merciless war for Liberal principles against all the ministerial depart ments, sparing not even royalty itself. Made ambassador to Rome in 1828, he resigned upon Polignac’s accession to office next year, and when, in 1830, Louis-Philippe ascended the throne, he refused to take the oath of allegiance to the new regime. This was the end of his active political career.

Chief among the writings of Chateaubriand are the “Essai historique, politique et moral sur las révolutions anciennes et modernes” (London, 1797); “Atala” (Paris, 1801), an episode from “Le génie du Christianisme” (Paris,1802, 5 vols., 8vo); “René, which, like “Atala,” belonged to “Le génie du Christianisme,” and was published separately by the author in 1807—a morbid romance exhibiting a picture of fatal melancholy and foolish dreams; Les martyrs” (Paris, 1809), a prose poem intended to prove by example the superiority of Christianity over Paganism as a source of poetic inspiration. With a literary scrupulosity, rare indeed in those days, Chateaubriand made a point of visiting the places which he was to describe in the last-named work. In fact it was this tour that brought forth the “Itinéraire de Paris à Jerusalem” (Paris, 1811), a delightful and accurate book of travels. After that there appeared a series of political works: “De Buonaparte et des Bourbons” (Paris, 1814), a famous brochure said by Louis XVIII to have been worth a whole army to the Restoration; “De la monarchie selon la charte” (Paris, 1816), a brochure which deprived the author of both the title and income of Minister of State: “De la restauration et de la monarchie élective” (Paris, 1831), in which Chateaubriand made the following profession of faith: “I am Bourbon as a matter of honour, royalist according to reason and conviction, and republican by taste and character”; “Etudes, ou discours historiques” (Paris, 1831, 4 vols., 8vo), a work replete with original views and not wanting in erudition. Writings in which the author’s own personality figures are his “Voyage en Amérique” (Paris, 1827) and his great posthumous work, “Les mémoires d’outre-tombe” (Paris, 1849–1850, 12 vols. in 18mo), a vast panorama of the events which made up his life or with which he was identified.

In the perusal of this long series of works one easily discovers the author’s diversified talent. Chateaubriand’s style is marvelously varied. In his prose poems, such as “Les martyrs,” or his romances, like “Atala,” or his poetic descriptions, such as occur in “Le génie du Christianisme,” his colouring is vivid and peerless, and his phraseology most harmonious. “He plays the harpsichord on all my heartstrings,” said a great lady of the early nineteenth century (Il joue du clavecinsur toutes mes fibres). Without apparent effort he gives to his thoughts a luxuriant opulence of expression, richness, and elegance, even also a certain grandiloquence which may now appear somewhat antiquated. On the other hand, upon opening one of his political books one will find him bright, crisp, and incisive. Nor must it be said, as indeed it has been, that Chateaubriand’s delightful and masterly style only serves to conceal deplorable poverty of thought, like a gorgeous drapery thrown over a feeble and insignificant body. Chateaubriand has beautiful ideas; on the past, in his historical pages; on the present, in his political writings, though the latter may not be free from error; and he has abundant views on the future, particularly on the subject of religion and the social rôle which he believed it called upon to play. His influence on literature is unanimously acknowledged. Romanticism may be traced back to him, and it may even be said that the whole literary movement characteristic of the nineteenth century begins with him. Admitting that he had predecessors, and that his style is reminiscent of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, he undoubtedly inaugurated a new literature.

Despite lamentable moral infirmities, Chateaubriand was a sincere Christian from the time of his conversion until his death. For he had need of conversion. Not, indeed, that his education was not religious. He himself relates with what pious zeal he prepared for his First Communion, and what memorable emotions that solemn day awakened within his heart. Some sixteen years later, in 1796, he published the sceptical “Essai sur les révolutions.” In the interval Chateaubriand’s youthful mind had been contaminated by the anti-Christian spirit then pervading France, by the reading of dangerous books, especially those of J.-J. Rousseau, and by his association with the infidel literary men of Paris between 1787 and 1791. When, at the age of twenty-one, he sailed for America, his faith was but a flickering flame likely to be extinguished at any moment. Finally, the miserable life that he was afterwards obliged to lead in London so harassed his soul as to turn him against everything, both institutions and men.

It was indeed a rude shock that awoke his dormant religion. On the 1st of July, 1798, his sister, Mme de Farcy, wrote him of his mother’s death, adding that, grief-stricken at his abandonment of the Faith—a condition sadly manifest in his “Essai sur les révolutions”—she had made it her dying request that he would become reconciled to it. Chateaubriand heeded the appeal. It seemed to come as a last prayer, a tear-laden supplication from the tomb that enclosed the mortal remains of one who had loved him devotedly, and whose anguish he had so ruthlessly augmented. His heart was touched by the recollection of his childhood’s days, by the pious memories with which the picture of his mother was inseparably connected, and, comparing the awful void made within his soul by false philosophy with the ineffable peace with which his religion had formerly filled it, his cruel doubts were suddenly submerged in a flood of tears. “I wept,” said he, “and I believed” (Preface to the first edition of “Le génie du Christianisme”). This change of heart is the more easily explained as it was brought about by the progress of his ideas. His “Essai” is not the work of a confirmed infidel. If occasionally the author speaks like an eighteenth century philosopher, he also speaks as a Christian; he believes and doubts by turns. The mind is not always the dupe of the heart, it is sometimes its debtor. Chateaubriand’s mind oscillated between the faith of the Christian and the incredulity of the sceptic, but his heart, never wholly indifferent, threw its entire belief into the scale, and faith triumphed forever.

On the strength of Chateaubriand’s moral shortcomings Sainte-Beuve has insinuated that he was not genuinely Christian; but this is a calumny. Chateaubriand, unfortunately, was not the only man who, though strong in his faith, was weak in his conduct. His religious sincerity is a well-established fact, and the critic of the day does homage to it. Indeed, this sincerity must be acknowledged, even though his word was not strictly reliable in less serious matters. For instance, J. Bédier tried to prove that the “Voyage en Amérique” was a mere fiction, maintaining that the traveller had not the means of accomplishing such a tour within the five months spent on the American continent. But this position cannot be accepted. In a work entitled “Sainte-Beuve et Chateaubriand” it has been demonstrated that the illustrious writer had all the time required for the journey, which he actually made and did not merely imagine, as Bédier had claimed.

Having had the misfortune to attack the Faith, Chateaubriand craved the honour of defending it, and in various parts of his writings he realized this ambition, but most especially in “Le génie du Christianisme.” His defence of religion presented in this celebrated book is invested with a new character. Moreover, the subtitle of the first edition clearly indicates that the writer’s intention was to point out the “Beauties of the Christian Religion.” The apology is based on the aesthetic, and the fundamental argument of the work is thus expressed in its closing lines: “Though we have not employed the arguments usually advanced by the apologists of Christianity, we have arrived by a different chain of reasoning at the same conclusion: Christianity is perfect; men are imperfect. Now, a perfect consequence cannot spring from an imperfect principle. Christianity, therefore, is not the work of men.” This argument certainly has great intrinsic weight, but it must be admitted that here and there the writer insists on details which contribute nothing to its strength, while, on the other hand, he omits views which might have established it more solidly. Besides, considered apart from its literary merit, the real apologetic value of “Le génie du Christianisme” is but relative. It was due to circumstances; the work came at the right moment and was what it should have been at that moment; hence its success. In his “Mémoires” the author was clearsighted enough to see this and courageous enough to admit it. The eighteenth century had sought to destroy Christian dogmas by holding them up to ridicule, and had thus deluded cultivated minds. Chateaubriand took up the challenge; he proved that this derided religion was the most beautiful of all, and likewise the most favourable to literature and the arts. It was just then that Bonaparte was rebuilding overthrown altars, and the author of “Le génie” and the victorious general worked towards the same end, each in his own way.

Chateaubriand’s influence is incontestable. The Abbé Pradt, a writer who was hostile to his book, said in 1818: “He reinstated religion in the world, establishing it on a better footing than it had occupied, for until then it had followed, so to speak, in the wake of society, and since then it has marched visibly at the bead.” This apology, moreover, exercised a great influence upon the apologists. In the course of the nineteenth century Chateaubriand’s idea was taken up; the beauty of Christian doctrine and its profound harmony with the inspirations of humanity were no longer studied from a merely aesthetic, but from a social and moral point of view. It is the glory of pioneers to open up productive ways in which others go farther than they, but where they still retain the merit of having boldly taken the first steps.

SAINTE-BUEVE, Chateaubriand et son groupe littéraire sous l’Empire (Paris, new ed., 1889); for all works on Chateaubriand appearing prior to 1896 one may generally consult KERVILLER, Essai d’une bibliographie de Chateaubriand (Vannes, 1896); BERTRIN, La sincérité religieuse de Chateaubriand (Paris, 1900); ID., Sainte-Beuve et Chateaubriand (Paris, 1906); BÉDIER, Etudes critiques (Paris, 1904); GIRAUD, Chateaubriand (Paris, 1904). BIRE, Mémoires d’outre-tombe (Paris, new ed., 6 vols. in 12mo, not dated).

GEORGES BERTRIN

Diocese of Chatham

Chatham, Diocese of (Chathamensis), comprises the northern half of the Province of New Brunswick, Canada, i.e., the counties of Gloucester, Madawaska, Northumberland, Restigouche, Victoria, and the part of Kent north of the Richibucto River. This territory formerly belonged to the Diocese of St. John, itself originally a portion of the Diocese of Quebec. On 8 May, 1860, the Diocese of St. John was divided, and the present Diocese of Chatham created. The Rev. James Rogers was appointed the first bishop and consecrated 15 August in the same year. On his arrival at Chatham, Bishop Rogers found only seven priests to attend an immense stretch of country. During his episcopate of forty-two years a wonderful improvement was witnessed, and when he resigned, 7 August, 1902, he left a diocese of 47 parishes and 51 priests. He died 22 March, 1903. On the resignation of Bishop Rogers, the Rev. Thomas Francis Barry, consecrated titular Bishop of Thugga and Coadjutor of Chatham, on 7 August, 1902, succeeded to the See of Chatham. The steady march of development, facility of communication, and immigration, require the formation of new parishes each year; there are now in the diocese 57 churches with resident priests and 25 missions with churches. The Catholic population is about 66,000; a large percentage of which is French Acadian by descent and language. The secular clergy number 65 priests, with 5 theological students, and the regular 31 priests and 7 brothers. Sisters, numbering about 200, of several religious congregations, are in charge of various institutions. There are 8 parochial schools with about 1000 pupils, one classical college (at Caraquet) for boys, directed by the Eudist Fathers, with 130 pupils, and 3 schools taught by Sisters under the Government School Law, with about 400 pupils. Two orphan asylums support 100 orphans, and 4 hospitals are directed by the Hospital Sisters of St. Joseph, among them the government hospital for lepers at Tracadie. The Trappist Fathers and the Trappistine Sisters, expelled from France, have opened monasteries in the parish of Rogersville.

LOUIS O’LEARY

Geoffrey Chaucer

English poet, born in London between 1340 and 1345; died there, 25 October, 1400. John Chaucer, a vintner and citizen of London, married Agnes, heiress of one Hamo de Copton, the city moneyer, and owned the house in Upper Thames Street, Dowgate Hill (a site covered now by the arrival platform of Cannon Street Station), where his son Geoffrey was born. That his birth was not in 1328, hitherto the accepted date, is fully proved (Furnivall in The Academy, 8 Dec., 1888, 12 Dec., 1887). John Chaucer was connected with the Court, and once saw Flanders in the royal train. Geoffrey was educated well, but whether he was entered at either university remains unknown. He figures by name from the year 1357, presumably in the capacity of a page, in the household books of the Lady Elizabeth de Burgh, wife of Prince Lionel, third son of King Edward III (Bond in Fornightly Review, VI, 28 Aug., 1873). The lad followed this prince to France, serving through the final and futile Edwardian invasion, which ended in the Peace of Bretigny (1360), and was taken prisoner at “Retters,” identified by unwary biographers as Retiers near Rennes, but by Skeat as Rethel near Reims, a place mentioned by Froissart in his account of this very campaign. Thence Chaucer was ransomed by the king, who, when the Lady Elizabeth died, took over her page and later (1367) pensioned him for life. Chaucer was married before 1374; probably the Philippa Chaucer named in the queen’s grant of 1366 was then Geoffrey Chaucer’s wife (Lounsbury, Studies in Chaucer, I, 95–7). It seems clear that he could not have been happy in his marriage (Hales in Dict. Nat. Biog., X, 157). He had two sons and a daughter, if not other children. Gascoigne tells us that his contemporary, Thomas Chaucer was the poet’s son. This statement, long discredited, is now fully endorsed by the best authorities (Hales in Athenaeum, 31 March, 1888; Skeat, ibid., 27 Jan.1900). Thomas Chaucer’s mother was Philippa Roet, daughter of Sir Paon or Payne de Roet Guienne king at arms. Roet had another daughter, Catherine, widow of Sir Hugh Swynford, who was for Gaunt’s mistress and eventually his third wife. Thus Chaucer became the brother-in-law of the great duke, who from 1368 onwards had been his most powerful patron. Thomas Chaucer (b. about 1367; d. 1434), later of Woodstock and Ewelme, became chief butler to four sovereign, as well as Speaker of the House of Commons (in 1414). His sister Elizabeth (b.1365) at sixteen entered Barking Abbey as a novice, John of Gaunt providing fifty pounds as her religious dowry. Lewis Chaucer, the “litel sonne Lowys,” for whom the “Astrolale” was written, is supposed to have died in childhood. From about his twenty-sixth year Chaucer was frequently employed on important diplomatic missions; the year 1372–3 marks the turning point of his literary life, for then he was sent to Italy; circumstances make it extremely probable that either in Florence or at Padua he made Petrarch’s acquaintance (Lounsbury, Studies, I, 67–68). The young King Richard II granted Chaucer a second life pension. It is startling to find him, in 1380, concerned in a discreditable abduction (Athenaeum, 29 Nov., 1873; from the Close Roll of 3 of Richard II). He was made comptroller of the petty customs of the port of London and complains of the burden of official life in “The House of Fame” (lines 652–60); and it would appear from the prologue the “Legend of Good Women,” and through the influence of the new queen, Anne of Bohemia, he was enabled by1385 to sucure a permanent deputy. At this time he gave up housekeeping in Aldgate, and settled in the country, presumably at Greenwich, where he had a garden and arbour. The intrigues of the partisans of the king’s uncle, Thomas, Duke of Gloucester, involved Chaucer’s fortunes in partial ruin. The grants made to Philippa, his wife ceased in 1387, so that we may suppose she was then dead; during the springs of 1388 Chaucer was obliged to sell two of his pensions; in 1390 he was twice in one day robbed of the king’s money, but was excused from repaying it. Until King Richard recovered power Chaucer had lean years to undergo. For a while he was Clerk of the Works at Windsor, Westminster and the Tower, but proved thriftless and unsuccessful in business affairs, and gave little satisfaction. Unrivalled opportunities and the fostering care of successive sovereigns could not keep hirn frorn anxiety, if not penury, towards the end. It is noticeable that his latest and most troubled period produced the “Canterbury Tales.” Within four days after his accession King Henry IV, the son of Chaucer’s first benefactor, increased Chaucer’s remaining income by forty marks per annum. The poet then leased a pleasant house in the monastery garden at Westminster, and there, hard by the Lady Chapel of the Abbey (now replaced by the loftier erection of Henry VII ), he died. For a century and a half his only memorial in Westminster Abbey was a Latin epitaph written by Surigonius of Milan, engraved upon a leaden plate, and hung up, probably at Caxton’s instigation, on a pillar near the grave. The present canopied grey marble altar-tomb, on the south side, was set up by Nicholas Brigham, in 1556, all trace of its votive portrait of the venerated master disappeared long ago. The “Canterbury Tales” were first printed by Caxton, from a faulty manuscript, in or about 1476–7; later by Pynson, and by Wynkyn de Worde. Other pieces were collected, and, between 1526–1602, often published with the “Tales.” Many of these, attributed to Chaucer even by his earliest great modern editor, Tyrwhitt, are now known not to be his. (Skeat, “Chaucer’s Minor Poems,” Oxford, 1896; or, Idem “Chaucerian Pieces” in the “Complete Works,” Oxford, 1897, suppl. vol.) Chaucer’s genuine major poems are assigned to this chronological order: The “Romaunt of the Rose,” that is, the first 1705 lines the remainder being rejected as not Chaucer’s (see Chaucer Society Publications, 2nd Series, No 19, 1884), dates from about 1366, and “The A.B.C.,” from the same period; the “Book of the Duchess” from 1369, the “Complaint of Pity” from 1372; “Anelida and False Arcite” from 1372–4; “Troilus and Cressid” from 1379–83, the “Parliament of Fowls” from 1382; the “House of Fame” from 1383–4; the “Legend of Good Women” from about 1385–6; and the “Canterbury Tales” as a whole, from 1386 onwards until after 1390. It is curious that the first draft of the lovely Tales by the Second Nun, the Man of Law, the Clerk, the Knight, and part of the Monk, should have been produced early; and that the Tales by the Miller, the Reeve, the Shipman, and the Merchant, as well as the Wife of Bath’s Prologue, should have been produced after 1387. Chaucer’s objectionable work is, therefore, not the work of his youth.

To the intense affection, frequently expressed, of Hoccleve, we owe the first and best of Chaucer’s portraits, familiar through reproduction. It appears in the margin of “The Governail of Princes,” or “De Regimine Principum” (Harl. MS. 4866, in British Museum). In it we see Chaucer, limned from memory, in his familiar hood and gown, rosary in hand, plump, full-eyed, fork-bearded. (For detailed accounts see Spielman, “The Portraits of Geoffrey Chaucer,” London, 1900, first issued in the “Chaucer Memorial Lectures,” 111–41.) Like Dryden, he was silent, and had a “down look”; this physical characteristic was partly due to a most genuine modesty, partly to the habit of constant reading. Chaucer indeed read and annexed everything, and transmuted everything into that vocabulary of his, all plasticity and all power. He is a cosmopolite, chiefly influenced by Ovid, by his own contemporary Italy, a debtor, if ever man was, to the whole spirit of his age; he has its fire, its impudence, its broad licentiousness; he has rather more than his share of its true-hearted pathos, its exquisite freshness and brightness, its sense of eternity. The so-called “Counsel of Chaucer” sums up, at a holy and serene moment, his philosophic outlook. He had unequalled powers of observation, and gave a highly ironic but most humane report. He is an artist through and through, and that artist had been a soldier and a diplomat, hence his genius, even in its extremes of mirth has balance and health, remoteness and neutrality—it is never bitter, and never in the least “viewy.” Matthew Arnold (Introduction to Ward’s “English Poets” 1885, I, pp. xxxiv—v) accuses him of a lack of what Aristotle calls “high and excellent seriousness.” But “high seriousness” is not quite the note of the fourteenth century. Chaucer’s is the master-note (submerged all over Europe since the Reformation) of joy. This brings us to the question of his personal religion.

Foxe (Acts and Monuments of the Church, 1583, II, 839) started the absurd theory that Chaucer was a follower of Wyclif. The poet’s own abstract habit; his association with the prince who (probably actuated by no very high motives) withdrew his favour from the contemporary reformer when solicitude for a purer practice ran into heresy and threatened revolt; his close friendship with Strode, a Dominican of Oxford and a strong anti-Lollard—these things tend of themselves to denote Chaucer’s views in the matter. The opposite inference is “due to a misconception of his language, based on a misconception of his character” (Lounsbury Studies, II, 469). Like Wyclif, Chaucer loved the priestly ideal; and he draws it incomparably in his “Poor Parson of Town.” Yet, as has been said, that very “Parson’s Tale,” in its extant form, goes far to prove that its author, even by sympathy, was no Wyclifite (A.W. Ward, “Chaucer,” London, 1879, p. 134, in “English Men of Letters Series”). Passionless justice was the bed-rock of Chaucer’s mind. He paints that parti-coloured Plantagenet world as it was, not interfering to make it better, nor to wish it better. Where the churchman type was gross, he represents it grossly. It is well, however, to recall that the famous episode of his “beating a Friar in Fleet street” is the invention of Speght, further embroidered by Chatterton; and that the prose tractate, “Jack Upland,” full of invective against the religious orders, is proved not to be Chaucer’s. His attitude towards women is just as two-sided. He shows in many a theme a reverence toward them which must have been fed by that “hy devocioun” to Our Lady which is beautifully apparent in his pages, and which Hoccleve mentions in recalling his memory; but dramatic exigencies, Boccaccio’s example, presumable hard domestic experience, a laughingly merciless psychology, and a paralyzing outspokenness, contrive too often, as readers regret, to fight it down. He has been held up as a rationalist, on the strength of a few passages, and against the enormous mass of testimony which he furnishes on the soundness of his Catholic ethos. Of that, after all, as of its absence, Catholics are the best judges. The “Nuns’ Priest’s Tale” (Skeat’s ed., lines 4424–40) raises the question of predestination, only to drop it. The context shows that the poet thinks his sudden side-issue not trivial or tedious, but quite the contrary, he quits it only because he cannot “boult it to the bren,” i.e., sift it down, analyze it satisfactorily. Again, the “Knight’s Tale” (Skeat’s ed., lines 2890—14) implies that the author has no mind to dogmatize upon the final destiny of poor Arcite, newly slain. Both these instances have been cited in the masterly chapter on “Chaucer as a Literary Artist” (Lounsbury, Studies, II, 512–15, 520), to prove, in the one ease, an easy dismissal of a mere scholastic dilemma; in the other, Chaucer’s disbelief, or half-belief, in immortality. They prove, rather, a restraint in dogmatizing about the destiny of the individual, a restraint practiced by the church itself. “The Legend of Good Women” opens with some fifteen lines, the purport of which need never have been questioned. They mean nothing if they do not mean that knowledge by evidence is one thing, assurance by faith another thing; and that lack of sensible proof can never discredit revelation. A somewhat playful confession of belief has here been turned into a serious profession of agnosticism, through sheer lack of spiritual understanding. His “hostility to the Church,” as Professor Lounsbury calls it, is certainly not borne out by Chaucer’s going out of his way, as he does, to defend her from age-long calumnies; for instance, in the “Franklin’s Tale,” and in the section “De Ira” of the “Parson’s Tale,” he witnesses to her horror of superstitions and false sciences. Chaucer, in short, though none too supernatural a person, had a most orthodox grip on his catechism.

The “Preces,” or prose “retracciouns,” which are usually painted at either end of the “Canterbury Tales” date from the evening of Chaucer’s life. To Tyrwhitt, Hales, Ward, and Lounsbury, who suspect undue priestly influence, the “Preces” are, in their own words, “morbid,” “reaction and weakness,” “a betrayal of his poetic genius,” “unbearable to have to accept as genuine.” In the course of them, Chaucer disclaims of his books “thilke that sounen in-to sinne” i.e., those which are consonant with, or sympathetic with sin. Skeat is the only editor who understands Chaucer in his contrition (Notes to the “Canterbury Tales,” in the Oxford Press complete edition, 475). Gascoigne (Theological Dictionary, Pt. II, 377, the manuscript of which is in the library of Lincoln College, Oxford) unwittingly parodies the situation, and represents the old sinner “Chawserus” as dying while lamenting over pages, quae male scripsi de malo et turpissimo amore. To the secular point of view it has all seemed, and may well seem, mistaken and deplorable. But nothing is manlier, or more touching and endearing, than this humble self-subordination to conscience and the moral law. “Except ye become as little children” is the hardest saying ever given to the intellectual world. These are great geniuses, Geoffrey Chaucer not least among them, to whom it was not given in vain.

The standard recent editions of Chaucer are: (1) “Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales Annotated and Accented, with Illustrations of English Life in Chaucer’s Time. New and revised edition, with illustrations from the Ellesmere MS.” (Saunder’s ed., London, 1894); (2) “The Student’s Chaucer; being a Complete Edition of his Works” (Skeat ed., Oxford, 1895); (3) “The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, edited from numerous Manuscripts” (Skeat ed. 7 vols., Oxford, 1894–7); (4) “The Canterbury Tales done into Modern English, by the Rev. Walter W. Skeat” (The King’s Classics Series, Gollancz ed., 1904).

LOUISE IMOGEN GUINEY

Pierre-Joseph Chaumonot

Jesuit missionary in New York and Canada, Born near Châtillon-sur-Seine in France, 1611; died at Quebec, 21 February, 1693. His name is sometimes written Calmonotti or Calvonotti. He entered the Jesuit novitiate at Rome, at the age of twenty-one, and arrived at Quebec, 1 August, 1639. In September he was already at work on the missions of Lake Huron, where Brebeuf was superior. He remained there until after the death of Brebeuf and his companions and the destruction of the missions. He was deputed to conduct 400 Hurons to Quebec, and he established them on a reservation on the Isle of Orleans opposite the city. After Le Moyne had arranged for a mission among the Onondagas of New York, Chaumonot and Dablon were sent to organize it. This mission lasted only two years; the priests and the fifty colonists who joined them subsequently being obliged to escape in the night to avoid a general massacre. Returning to Canada, he devoted himself for the rest of his life to his Huron converts. He established his famous Christian settlement, known as Lorette, which after shifting several times was located finally on the river St. Charles where it still exists, though it is called “Jeune Lorette” in contradistinction to the “Ancienne Lorette” established by Chaumonot, who died before the last migration. He was the founder of the Congregation of the Holy Family which figures extensively in early Canadian history.

THWAITES (ed.), Jesuit Relations, passim; CHARLEVOIX, History of New France (New York, 1872), II: ROCHEMONTEIX, Les Jesuites et la Nouvelle-France (Paris, 1896).

THOMAS J. CAMPBELL

Maurice Chauncy

Prior of the English Carthusians at Bruges, date of birth unknown; died at Bruges, 2 July, 1581. He was the eldest son of John Chauncey, Esq. Wood thinks he studied at Oxford, and afterwards went to Gray’s Inn for a course of law. Finally he entered the London Charterhouse. In 1535 the majority of the Carthusians refused to take the oath of supremacy, but Chauncy, on his own confession, consented to take it. After the surrender of the monastery in 1537, Chauncy with a few others joined the Carthusians of Sheen who had settled in Bruges. On the accession of Mary they returned to Sheen, and in 1556 Chauncy was elected prior. In 1558 they retired again to Bruges, living with their Flemish brethren until 1569, when they obtained a house on their own in St. Clare Street. The hostility of the Calvinists compelled them to leave Bruges in 1578. Failing to settle at Douai, they retired to Louvain (May, 1578). Chauncy died at the old house in Bruges. In his history of the Carthusians he frequently laments his weakness in taking the oath of supremacy. He wrote: “Historia aliquot nostri saeculi Martyrun in Angliâ,” etc. (Mainz, 1550, and Bruges, 1583); “Commentariolus de vitae ratione et martyrio octodecim Cartusianorum qui in Anglia sub rege trucidati sunt” (Ghent, 1608), a portion of which was reprinted; “Vitae Martyrun Cartusianorum aliquot, qui Londini pro Unitate Ecclesiae adversus haereticos,” etc. (Milan, 1606). “The Divine Cloud of Unknowing,” in manuscript, is ascribed to him by Anthony a Wood.

Letters and Memorials of Card. Allen (London, 1878), 31; Douai Diaries (London, 1878), 126, 156, 180; WOOD, Athenae Oxoniensis, ed. BLISS (London, 1813), I, 459; MORRIS, Troubles of Our Catholic Forefathers (London, 1872), I, 9, 13, 15, 24, 25; PITS, De Angliae Scriptoribus (Paris, 1619), 775; CHAUNCY, Hertfordshire (London, 1826), I, 116, 117, 121; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885), s.v.

G.E. HIND

Pierre-Joseph-Octave Chauveau

Canadian statesman, born at Quebec, 30 May, 1820; died at Montreal, 4 April, 1890. After a brilliant course at the preparatory seminary of Quebec, he studied law, and was admitted to the Bar in 1841. He was already a contributor to “Le Canadien” and “Le Courrier des Etats-Unis,” and his ready pen showed that he was fitted to be a journalist rather than a barrister. In 1853 he published a novel dealing with Canadian customs which brought him an enviable reputation as a writer. Chauveau played a prominent political role. Having been elected by the County of Quebec, in 1848, to a seat in the Legislative Assembly, he was made a minister in 1851, and later solicitor- general and provincial secretary, but in 1855 abandoned politics. In that year he was chosen superintendent of education. During the twelve years of his office Chauveau gave a great impetus to primary instruction. He also established the first normal schools, and for twelve years published the “Journal de l’Instruction Publique.” Having resigned his position as superintendent of education, in 1867, he returned to political life, to become first minister at Quebec. In 1873 Chauveau was called to the Senate, and became president of that body. Later he was appointed president of the Harbour Commission of Quebec, and in 1877 was made sheriff of Montreal, an office which he held until his death. He published an important work on the history of public education, as well as a detailed biography of the historian Garneau, several poems, a paraphrase of the “Dies irae,” and a number of remarkable articles in the “Journal de l’Instruction Publique.”

OUIMET, Les noces d’or de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste, 1834–84 (Montreal, 1884); BIBAUD, Le Pantheon canadien (Montreal, 1891); BOURASSA, M. Chauveau et l’idee nationale (Montreal, 1895).

N. E. DIONNE

Chelm and Belz

(CHELMENSIS ET BELTHIENSIS RUTENORUM).

A diocese of the Greek-Ruthenian Rite in Russian Poland, subject directly to the Holy See, and formerly a suffragan of Kiijow. Established in 1592, this diocese was the last of the Uniat Church to withstand the persecution of the Russian Government. In 1841 Bishop Felix Szumborski (d. 1851) consented to order a return to the rite which had been in use before the union with Rome; but, admonished by the pope, he recalled the order. A struggle ensued between the Church and the civil authorities. All the priests who remained true to their faith were exiled and the faithful oppressed. As a result of persecution and schism, the Diocese of Chelm and Belz was virtually abolished.

Kirchenlex. (Freiburg im Br., 1891), VII, 445 sq.; WERNER, Orbis Terrarum Catholicus (Freiburg im Br., 1890); 113; BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath.

LEO A. KELLY

Timoléon Cheminais de Montaigu

A pulpit orator, born at Paris, 3 January, 1652; entered the Society of Jesus at fifteen, died 15 September, 1689. After teaching rhetoric and the humanities at Orléans, Cheminais was assigned to the work of preaching. Bayle declares that “many regarded him as the equal of Bourdalore,” though others declare this exaggerated. Before many years his health gave way. He was appointed court-preacher, but was unable to accept the honour, though De Backer asserts the contrary. His voice partly failing him, he devoted himself to the instruction of the people of the villages and country places. The sermons of Cheminais were edited by Bretonneau (4 vols. 12 mo. Paris, 1690–91; 7th ed., Brussels, 1713). They were translated into German (Augsburg, 1739); Pressburg, 1788), Dutch (Rotterdam, 1724), Italian (Venice, 1735). He was also the author of a work called “Sentiments de piété” (Paris, 1691, 1693, 1700; Brussels, 1702). A later edition (Toulouse, 1706) contained the “Sentiments of James II, King of Great Britain.” This work was translated into German (Cologue, 1723; Vienna, 1786), Dutch, (Antwerp), and Italian (Milan, 1837).

T.J. CAMPBELL

Cherokee Indians

The largest and most important tribe of Iroquoian stock of the southern section of the United States, and formerly holding the whole southern Alleghany mountain region of North and South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee, with considerable portions of Alabama, Virginia and Kentucky. They now reside in Oklahoma, with the exception of some 1300 souls on reserved lands in western North Carolina, the descendants of those who remained in their old home when the rest of the tribe was removed to the West in 1839.

The origin and meaning of the name, which they pronounce Tsaragi or Tsalagi, are unknown. The commonly call themselves Yûñwiya (“real people”).

The history of the Cherokees begins with De Soto, who passed within their territory in 1540. In 1684 they made their first treaty with the English of Carolina, with whom thereafter they maintained friendly relations throughout the Colonial period, except in the Yamasee war in 1715–1716, and in a war waged on their own account in 1759–1761. They took sides also with the English against the Americans during the Revolution, but made a treaty of peace with the United States in 1785, although the border fighting went on some years longer. In 1821 Sequoya, a mixed blood of the tribe, invented a syllabic alphabet for the language which has been an immense factor in their progress toward civilization. In 1827 they adopted a regular form of government modelled upon that of the United States, but after long controversy with the State of Georgia, which claimed jurisdiction over most of their territory not already ceded, a treaty was forced upon them in 1835 by which they bound themselves to remove to their present home in Oklahoma. The removal was accomplished in 1839, and their tribal existence continued under the style of the “Cherokee Nation,” until dissolved for American citizenship in 1906. As already noted, a small body remained behind in the old home in the East. The tribe at present numbers altogether about 20,000 persons of pure and mixed blood, exclusive of several thousand names carried upon the rolls, but repudiated by the Indians.

The Cherokees were a sedentary and agricultural people, with hunting and fishing as subordinate occupations. The women were expert potters and basket weavers, and the men skilful carvers of stone and wood. They had no central government, each town being independent in its action. They had a system of seven clans, with descent in the female line. In religion they were pantheists, holding in special reverence the Sun, Fire and Water. Their great religious ceremony was the Green Corn dance, a thanksgiving for the new crops, and their chief athletic amusement was a ball game which is the original of our lacrosse. They buried their dead in caves or under piles of stones.

The story of a Cherokee mission as early as 1643 must be regarded as apocryphal. So far as known, the first Christianizing, or at least civilizing effort among them was undertaken about 1736 by Christian Priber, possibly a Jesuit, but more probably a French officer or agent, who established himself among them, learned the language, organized the tribal government upon a civilized basis, and taught them the principles of Christian morality for some years, until he was seized by the English and conveyed to Charleston, South Carolina, which he died in prison. In 1801 the Moravians began work among the tribe, and were followed by Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Baptists. Catholic mission schools, in whole or part for Cherokees, are now conducted at Vinita, Tulsa, and Muscogee, Indian Territory. The whole tribe may be considered as civilized and Christian, although still retaining much of the old time belief and custom.

MOONEY, Myths of the Cherokee in Nineteen Report, Bureau Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1900); ADAIR, Hist. of the Am. Indians (London, 1775); BARTRAM, Travels (London, 1792).

JAMES MOONEY

Chersonesus

(1) a titular see of Crete. The city stood on a little peninsula of the north-east coast, between Cnossus and Olous, and was the seaport of Lyttos. In the fourth century B.C. it struck coins, and was known for its temple of Britomartis. Its ruins are near the modern village of Khersonisi. Lequien (II, 269) mentions four Greek bishops, from 441 to 789; the see still figures in later “Notitiae Episcopatuum” of the twelfth or thirteenth century. Seven Latin bishops are mentioned by Lequien (III, 915), from 1298 to 1549, of whom the last two, Dionysius and Joannes Franciscus Verdura, were present at the Council of Trent. Another bishop of Chersonesus was Pietro Coletti, at the beginning of the seventeenth century a Catholic, but whether of his native Greek Rite or of the Latin is unknown (E. Legrand, “Bibliographic hellénique, 17e siècle,” III, 143).

(2) a titular see of Thrace, and suffragan to Heracleia. The city was situated near Callipolis (Gallipoli) and Agora (Malgara?). One Greek bishop is mentioned in 449 and one Latin in 1527 (Lequien, I, 1128; III, 973).

CORNER, Creta Sacra (Venice, 1755); PASHLEY, Travels in Crete (Cambridge, 1837), I, 268 sq.; SPRATT, Travels and Researches in Crete (London, 1867), I, 104 sq.; SMITH, Dict. Of Gr. And Rom. Geogr. (London, 1878), I, 507, 508.

S. PÉTRIDES

Cherubim

Angelic beings or symbolic representations thereof, mentioned frequently in the Old Testament and once in the New Testament.

I. IN PHILOLOGY

The word cherub (cherubim is the Hebrew masculine plural) is a word borrowed from the Assyrian kirubu, from karâbu, “to be near,” hence it means near ones, familiars, personal servants, bodyguards, courtiers. It was commonly used of those heavenly spirits, who closely surrounded the Majesty of God and paid Him intimate service. Hence it came to mean as much as “Angelic Spirit.” (The change from K of Karâbu, to K of Kirub is nothing unusual in Assyrian. The word has been brought into connection with the Egyptian Xefer by metathesis from Xeref=K-r-bh.) A similar metathesis and play upon sound undoubtedly exists between Kerub and Rakab, “to ride,” and Merkeba, “chariot.” The late Jewish explanation by analogy between Kerub and Rekûb, “a youth,” seems worthless. The word ought to be pronounced in English qerub and querubim, and not with a soft ch.

II. IN ART

Cherub and Cherubim are most frequently referred to in the Bible to designate sculptured, engraved, and embroidered figures used in the furniture and ornamentation of the Jewish Sanctuary.

According to Exod., xxv, 18–21 there were placed on the kapporeth, or lid of the Ark, (i.e. “the Mercy-Seat”) the figures of two cherubim of wrought (=massive?) gold.

According to III Kings, vi, 23 sqq., and II Paralip., iii, 11 sqq., Solomon placed in the Holy of Holies two huge Cherubim of olive-wood overlaid with gold. “They stood on their feet and their faces were towards the house,” which probably means they faced the Holy Place or the Entrance.

According to Exod., xxvi, 31, cherubim were embroidered on the Veil of the Tabernacle, separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. “With blue and purple and scarlet and fine twined linen” they were made. How many such cherubim were embroidered on the Paroket, or Veil, we do not know. It is often supposed that as this veil screened the Holy Holies, two large- sized figures to represent guardian spirits or keepers were thereon depicted.

According to III Kings, vi and vii, cherubim were engraved apparently as an artistic “motif” in wood and metal. The panelling of the Temple, both interior and exterior, was covered with them, as well as with palm-trees and open flowers. The brazen sea was adorned with figures of lions oxen, and cherubim.

According to Ezechiel, xli, 18 sqq., in his visionary description of the Temple, the wall-space of the Sanctuary was ornamented with cherubim and palm-trees, and each cherub had two faces, that of a man and that of a lion, the faces respectively turned to the palm tree to the right and left. But there is no ground whatever to suppose that the actual cherubim of the Solomonic Temple or pre-Solomonic Sanctuary were double-faced; the contrary seems certain, but from the Scripture text we cannot with certainty conclude what sort of faces these Temple cherubim had, whether animal or human. It is sometimes concluded from Ezech., x, 14, “the first face was the face of a cherub and the second that of a man, the third the face of a lion and the fourth the face of an eagle,” that a cherub’s face cannot have been a human one, and the face of an ox has naturally been suggested, but the argument is not conclusive.

In Egyptian art, figures with a human face and two outstretched wings attached to the arms are exceedingly common. In Assyrian art, also, winged human figures on either side of a palm tree are very often used in decoration. They are sometimes hawk-headed, but more usually possess men’s faces. However, even the Jews at the time of Christ had completely forgotten the appearance of the Temple cherubim. Josephus (Antiq., VIII, 3) says that no one knows or even can guess what form they had. The very fact, however, that the Bible nowhere gives a word of explanation, but always presupposes them well-known, makes us believe that they were among the most common figures of contemporary art.

III. IN INSPIRED VISION

As Jehovah was surrounded by figures of cherubim in His Sanctuary on earth, so He is, according to Scripture, surrounded in reality by cherubim in His Court above. The function ascribed to these heavenly servants of God’s Majesty is that of throne-bearers, or “carriers,” of His Divine Majesty. In Psalm 17 the psalmist describes the sudden descent of Jehovah to rescue a soul in distress in the following words: “He bowed the heavens and came down, and darkness was under His feet. He rode upon a cherub and flew upon the wings of the wind.” The idea of cherubim as the chariot of God seems indicated in I Paralip. 18, where David gives gold for the Temple cherubim, who are described as “the Chariot,” not, probably, because they had the outward shape of a vehicle, but because the Temple cherubim symbolized the swift-winged living thrones upon which the Almighty journeys through the heavens.

The Prophet Ezechiel mentions the cherubim in a two-fold connection:

in his vision of the living chariot of God (Ch. i and x);

in his prophecy on the Prince of Tyre (Ch. xxviii, 14 sqq.).

Ezechiel’s vision of the Cherubim, which is practically the same in the tenth chapter as in the first, is one of the most difficult in Scripture, and has given rise to a multitude of explanations. The prophet first saw a luminous cloud coming from the north; from a distance it seemed a heavy cloud fringed with light and some intense brilliancy in the centre thereof, bright as gold, yet in perpetual motion as the flames of a fire. Within that heavenly fire he began gradually to distinguish four living beings with bodies as men, yet with four faces each: a human face in front, but an eagles face behind; a lion’s face to the left and an ox’s face to the right. Though approaching, yet their knees did not bend in their march, straight and stiff they remained; and for feet they had the hoofs of oxen, shod as it were with shining brass. They had four arms, two to each shoulder, and attached along each arm a wing. Of these four winged arms two were outstretched above, and two were let down and covered their bodies. These four living beings stood together, facing in four opposite directions, and between them were four great wheels, each wheel being double, so that it could roll forward or sideways. Thus this angelic chariot, in whatever of the four directions it moved, always presented the same aspect. And both angels and wheels were all studded with eyes. And over the heads of the cherubim, so that they touched it with the points of their outstretched wings, was an expanse of crystal, and on this crystal a sapphire throne, and on the throne one resembling a man, the likeness of the glory of Jehovah. The mystical meaning of each detail of this vision will probably remain a matter of speculation, but the meaning of the four faces seems not difficult to grasp: man is the king of creation, the lion the king of beasts of the forest, the ox the king of the kine in the field, the eagle the king of the birds of the air. On this account the cherubim have of recent years been explained as mere symbols of the fulness of earthly life, which, like the earth itself, is the footstool of God. But these faces are more naturally understood to signify that these angelic beings possessed the intelligent wisdom of man, the lithe strength of the lion, the ponderous weight of the ox, the soaring sublimity of the eagle. Early Christianity transferred this Old Testament vision to a New Testament sphere and gradually used these cherubic figures to designate the four Evangelists-a thought of rare grandeur and singular felicity, yet only a sensus accommodatus.

Ezechiel’s Prophecy against the Prince of Tyre contains a description of the almost more than earthly glory of that ancient city. Tyre is spoken of as an angel fallen from glory. Of the King of Tyre it is said:

Thou, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. In Eden, the garden of God wert thou, all precious stones were thy covering. Thou wert a cherub with wings outstretched in protection, thou wert on the holy mountain of God, thou didst walk amongst fiery stones. Thou wert innocent in thy ways form the day on which thou wert created until iniquity was found in thee . . . thou didst sin, therefore I will cast thee out from the mountain of God and destroy three, O protecting cherub away from the fiery stones.

Indirectly we can gather from this passage that Cherubim were conceived to be in a state of perfection, wisdom, sinlessness, nearness to God on His Holy Mountain and of preternatural glory and happiness. Unfortunately, the words paraphrased as “with wings outstretched in protection” are difficult to translate: the Hebrew term may mean “cherub of anointing, who covers,” therefore a royal, anointed being, overshadowing others with its wings to shelter them. If this be so, we must add royalty and beneficence to the characteristics of cherubim.

IV. IN THEOLOGY

Notwithstanding the present common opinion of advanced Protestant scholars, that cherubim are only symbolic representations of abstract ideas, the Catholic Church undoubtedly holds that there are actually existing spiritual beings corresponding to the name. That Old Testament writers used the word cherubim to designate angels, not merely to express ideas, can be best gathered from Gen., iii, 24, where God sets cherubim at the entrance of Paradise. This sentence would bear no sense at all if cherubim did not stand for ministerial beings, differing from man, carrying out the behest of God. Likewise, it is difficult to read Ezechiel and to persuade oneself that the Prophet does not presuppose the actual existence of real personal beings under the name of Cherubim; in chaps. i and x he speaks again and again of “living beings,” and he says the spirit of life was within them, and repeatedly points out that the bodily forms he sees are but appearances of the living beings thus mentioned. The living beings (zoa) so often mentioned in St. John’s Apocalypse can only be taken as parallel to those in Ezechiel, and their personal existence in St. John’s mind cannot be doubted. The frequent sentence also: “who sittest upon the Cherubim” (I Sam., iv, 4; II Sam., vi, 2; IV Kings, xix; Is., xxxvii, 37, 16; Pss. lxxix, 2 and xcviii, 1), though no doubt referring to Jehovah’s actual dwelling in the Holy of Holies, yet is better understood as referring to the heavenly throne-bearers of God. There can be no doubt that the later Jews—that is, from 200 B.C. onwards—looked upon the cherubim as real angelic beings; the angelology of the Book of Enoch and the apocryphal Books of Esdras give us an undeniable testimony on this point.

So the Christian Church from the first accepted the personality of the cherubim and early adopted Philo’s interpretation of the name. Clem. Alex.: “The name Cherubim intends to show much understanding (aisthesin pollen).” (Stromata, V, 240.) Though counted amongst the angels during the first centuries of Christianity, the cherubim and seraphim were not mentioned in the lists of the angelic hierarchy. At first but seven choirs of angels were reckoned, i.e. those enumerated (Eph., i, 21 and Col., i, 16), with the addition of angeli et archangeli. Thus St. Irenaeus, Haer.II, xxx, and Origen, Peri archon, I, v. But soon it was realized that the Apostle’s list was not intended to be a complete one, and the Old Testament angelic beings mentioned by Ezechiel and Isaias, the cherubim and seraphim, and others were added, so that we have eight, nine, or ten, or even eleven ranks in the hierarchy. The cherubim and seraphim were sometimes thought to be but other names for thrones and virtues (Gregory of Nyssa, “Contra Eunom.,” I; Augustine in Ps., xcviii, 3). Since Psuedo-Dionys., De Caelesti Hier. (written about A.D. 500), the ninefold division of the angelic order has been practically universal; and the cherubim and seraphim take the highest place in the hierarchy, a rank which was ascribed to them already by St. Cyril of Jerusalem (370) and by St. Chrysostom (about 400), and which Pope Gregory the Great, once aprocrisarius or nuncio at Constantinople, made familiar to the West. Pope Gregory divided the nine angelic orders into three choirs, the highest choir being: thrones, cherubim, and seraphim. Of the cherubim he says (Hom. in Ev., xxxiv, 10), that cherubim means “the fulness of knowledge, and these most sublime hosts are thus called, because they are filled with a knowledge which is the more perfect as they are allowed to behold the glory of God more closely.” This explanation of St. Gregory is ultimately derived from Philo’s similar statement, and was already combined with the Old Testament function of the cherubim by St. Augustine in his sublime comment on Ps., lxxix, 2, “Who sitteth upon the Cherubim”:

Cherubim means the Seat of the Glory of God and is interpreted: Fulness of Knowledge. Though we realize that cherubim are exalted heavenly powers and virtues; yet if thou wilt, thou too shalt be one of the cherubim. For if cherubim means, Seat of God, remember what the Scripture says: The soul of the just is the Seat of Wisdom.

KEIL, Commentary on Ezechiel, I, 20–46, in Clark’s Foreign Lib. (Edinburgh, 1876), IV; KNABENBAUER, Commentarius in Ezechielem (Paris, 1890), 21–41; ZSCHOKKE, Theologie der Propheten (Freiburg im Br., 1877), 250 sqq.; BAREILLE in Dict. de theol. cath., s.v. Anges, 1206–11; WULFF, Cherubim, Throne und Seraphim (Altenburg, 1894); PERROT and CHIPIEZ, Le temple de Jerusalem (Paris, 1889); VIGOUROUX, La Bible et les decouvertes modernes, IV, 358–409; RYLE in HASTINGS, Bible Dict., s.v.

J.P. ARENDZEN

Maria Luigi Carlo Zenobio Salvatore Cherubini

Composer, born in Florence, 14 September, 1760; died at Paris, 15 March, 1842. His instruction in music began at the early age of six, his father being a musician, and at thirteen he had composed a Te Deum, a Credo, a Miserere, a Mass, and a Dixit. When he was eighteen he attracted the attention of the Grand Duke, afterwards the Emperor Leopold II of Germany, who allowed him a pension. This enabled Cherubini to study counterpoint and the Roman School under Giuseppe Sarti (1729–1802) in Bologna. Sarti advised his pupil to abandon the Neapolitan School, and take Palestrina and his contemporaries as his models. It was part of Sarti’s plan of instruction to have his pupils copy the scores of the masters of the Roman schools, a practice which Cherubini kept up throughout his life and enforced when he became director of the Paris Conservatoire, for he held that, while text books are good, analysis is better. While still under the influence of his master he wrote music to liturgical texts, but soon yielded to the trend of the time by turning his attention to the operatic stage. In 1780 his first opera, “Quinto Fabio,” was produced at Alessandria. This was followed by six other operas brought out in various Italian cities. In 1784 Cherubini was invited to visit London, where he composed and had represented two operas, “La Finta Principessa” and “Giulio Sabino,” works which brought him the appointment of composer to the Court. The year 1786–87 he spent in Paris, returning to Italy for the winter of 1787–88. He then definitely took up his abode in Paris, at that time the scene of the operatic war between Gluck and Piccini, the former representing the principle that music should be the expression of dramatic truth, and the latter the prevailing notion of the Italian school, that music is mainly an external ornamentation addition to the dramatic situation, an opportunity of display of vocal virtuosi.

From 1788 to 1805 were trying years for Cherubini. All through this period of political change and unrest he underwent many hardships and humiliations and laboured for recognition and an artistic existence in Paris without permanent success. His operas, “Demophon,” “Lodoiska,” “Elisa,” “Medée,” “L’hotellerie portugaise,” “La Punition,” “Emma” (La prisonniere), “Les deux journées,” “Epicure,” “Anacreon,” written during this time, had to be performed in the small Theatre de la Foire Saint-Germain (where he directed the performances from 1789–1792) because the grand opera house was closed to him. When the Conservatoire was organized in 1795, Cherubini was appointed one of the inspectors. This was about the only distinction conferred upon him during all the years he laboured in Paris. His high ideals, his independent disposition, but above all the pure, lofty character of his music, were responsible for his failure to become popular with his contemporaries, and especially with Napoleon I. In 1805 Cherubini received an invitation from Vienna to write an opera and to direct it in person. “Faniska” was produced the following year and received the enthusiastic approbation of the musical world in general, and in particular, of Haydn and Beethoven. The latter especially admired Cherubini, considering him to be the greatest dramatic composer of his time. Napoleon, holding his court at Schonbrunn during Cherubinis’s visit to Vienna, pressed him into service and commanded him to take charge of his court concerts. In spite of this, Cherubini could not win the approval of the emperor. The latter preferred the lighter Italian style of Paisiello and Zingarelli, who wrote music to which, in the words of Cherubini, Napoleon might listen without ceasing to think about affairs of state. It was hoped that the opera “Pygmalion,” which he brought out after he returned to Paris, would secure for the composer the favour and protection of the head of the State, but in vain.

Disappointed and discouraged by lack of recognition, Cherubini produced scarcely anything in the two years which followed. He was broken-hearted and in ill health. He accepted an invitation from the Prince de Chimay to visit him and recuperate, and then devoted most of his time to drawing and the study of botany. The dedication of a church in the village of Chimay was the circumstance which changed his career. He was requested to write a mass for this occasion, and the great Mass in F was the result. For thirty years he had written for the stage and had failed to find popular favour. His art was too lofty for general appreciation. Although he did not now entirely forsake the dramatic form (five more operas came from his hand after the Mass in F) he was more and more drawn again toward the field of church music, which he had not cultivated for eighteen years. Cherubini’s great inventiveness and powers of expression were now at their height. His previous activity and experience had developed and matured him both morally and artistically, fitting him for the creation of works he has left us. In a material sense also there was soon to be a change for the better. In 1815 the London Philharmonic Society commissioned him to write a symphony, an overture, and a composition for chorus and orchestra, the performance of which he went especially to London to conduct. This increased his fame abroad. After the accession of Louis XVIII to the throne, Cherubini’s fortunes rose rapidly. He was successively appointed Royal Superintendent of Music and Director of the Conservatoire. He was now at the head of music in France. For the first time in his career he enjoyed the favour and approval of those in power and the recognition of the people in general. His greatest works were written during this period, and as the head of the Conservatoire he influenced the growing generation of musicians, and was an effective barrier against the incipient school of impressionism headed by young Berlioz. Cherubini remained active until 1841, when he resigned his various official positions. Remarkable for organic unity of style, elevation of form, truth of expression and ingenious orchestration as are Cherubini’s dramatic works, he became truly himself in his creations for liturgical texts. The sublimity of conception, vividness, and sustained power displayed in his Mass in F, in the Mass in A written for the coronation of Charles X, his two requiems (especially the one in D minor for three men’s voices and orchestra, which he wrote for his own funeral), place these works among the greatest in all musical literature. Pathetic tenderness alternates with epical grandeur and brilliancy. They are master- works of religious music but are not available for liturgical purposes. The immoderate length of most of them and their violently dramatic character at times exclude them from use during Divine service. Moreover, he takes liberties with the sacred text. Cherubini’s masses, like Beethoven’s “Missa Solemnis,” are frequently performed in Germany and elsewhere on festival occasions when large vocal and instrumental bodies unite for the interpretation of the loftiest musical productions of the human mind. Cherubini left some 450 works, almost 100 of which have appeared in print. Among them are 11 masses, 2 requiems, motets, litanies, cantatas, and 25 operas.

CHOWEST, Cherubini, A Monograph (London, 1890); BELLASIS, Memorials of Cherubini (London, 1876); URIEL, Vie de Cherubini (Paris, 1842).

JOSEPH OTTEN

Ancient Diocese of Chester (Cestrensis)

ANCIENT DIOCESE OF CHESTER (CESRENSIS).

Located in England. Though the See of Chester, schismatically created by Henry VIII in 1541, was recognized by the Holy See only for the short space of Queen Mary’s reign, the city had in earlier times possessed a bishop and a cathedral, though only intermittently. Even before the Norman conquest the title “Bishop of Chester” is found in documents applied to prelates who would be more correctly described as Bishops of Mercia or even of Lichfield. After the Council of London in 1075 had decreed the transfer of all episcopal chairs to cities, Peter, Bishop of Lichfield, removed his seat from Lichfield to Chester, and became known as Bishop of Chester. There he chose the collegiate Church of St. John the Baptist as his cathedral. The next bishop, however, transferred the see to Coventry on account of the rich monastery there, though he retained the episcopal palace at Chester. The Diocese of Coventry and Lichfield was of enormous extent, and it was probably found convenient to have something analogous to a cathedral at Chester, even though the cathedra itself were elsewhere; accordingly we find that the church of St. John ranked as a cathedral for a considerable time, and had its own dean and chapter of secular canons down to the time of the Reformation. But the chief ecclesiastical foundation in Chester was the Benedictine monastery of St. Werburgh, the great church of which finally became the Cathedral Church of Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary. The site had been occupied even during the Christian period of the roman occupation by a church dedicated to Sts. Peter and Paul, and rededicated to St. Werburgh and St. Oswald during the Saxon period. The church was served by a small chapter of secular canons until 1093, when Hugh Lupus, Earl of Chester, converted it into a great Benedictine monastery, in which foundation he had the co-operation of St. Anselm, then Prior of Bec, who sent Richard, one of his monks, to be the first abbot. A new Norman church was built by him and his successors. The monastery, though suffering loss of property both by the depredations of the Welsh and the inroads of the sea, prospered, and in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries the monks transformed their Norman church into a gothic building which, though not be reckoned among the greatest cathedrals of England, yet is not unworthy of its rank, and affords a valuable study in the evolution of Gothic architecture. It has been said of it that “at every turn it is satisfying in small particulars and disappointing in great features.” The last of the abbots was John, or Thomas, Clark, who resigned his abbey, valued at £1,003 5s. 11d. per annum, to the king.

In 1541 Henry VIII, having thrown off all obedience to the pope, created six new bishoprics, one of which was Chester. The archdeaconry of Chester, from the Diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and that of Richmond, from York, were combined to form the new see, and the abbey church, now the cathedral, was to be served by a dean and six prebends, the complaisant ex-abbot becoming the first dean. At first the diocese was annexed to the Province of Canterbury, but by another Act of Parliament it was soon transferred to that of York. The first bishop was the Provincial of the Carmelites, John Bird, a doctor of divinity who had attracted the king’s attention by his sermons preached against the pope’s supremacy. Having already been reward by the Bishopric of Bangor, he was now translated to Chester. On the accession of Mary he was deprived as being a married man, and died Vicar of Dunmow in 1556. The diocese being now canonically recognized by the pope, George Cotys, Master of Balliol and Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, in which university he had been a distinguished lecturer in theology, was appointed bishop by the Holy See. In 1556 he was succeeded by Cuthbert Scott, a very learned theologian and Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University. On the accession of Elizabeth he was one of the four Catholic bishops chosen to defend Catholic doctrine at the conference at Westminster, and immediately after this he was sent to the Tower. Being released on bail, he contrived to escape to the Continent. He died at Louvain, 9 Oct., 1564. The arms of the see were: gules, three mitres and their labels, or.

LYSONS, Cheshire (1810); HEMINGWAY, History of Chester (Chester, 1831); ORMEROD, History of Cheshire (1882); MORRIS, Chester during the Plantagenet and Tudor Periods (privately printed, 1893); Chester Architectural and Archæological Society Journal; HIATT, Chester: The Cathedral and See (London, 1905).

EDWIN BURTON

Jean-Louis Lefebvre de Cheverus

First Bishop of Boston, U.S.A., Bishop of Montauban; Archbishop of Bordeaux, France, and Cardinal, b. at Mayenne, France, 28 January, 1768; d. at Bordeaux 19 July, 1836. Ordained priest by dispensation when not yet twenty-three, he was appointed assistant to an uncle, whom he shortly succeeded as pastor of Mayenne, receiving faculties, also, to act as vicar-general. Refusal to take the oath imposed by the Revolution cost him his parish, and very nearly his life. He escaped from Paris to London, in disguise. Proferred aid on his arrival, he replied: “The little I have will suffice until I learn something of the language. Once acquainted with that, I can earn my living by manual labour, if necessary.” In three months he knew English enough to teach, and within a year gathered a congregation. A letter from a former professor, the Rev. Francis A. Matignon, then pastor at Boston, told him of the hard conditions and crying needs of Catholic work there, urging, also, his peculiar fitness for bringing it to success, if he would only come there. The call was heeded. Arriving in Boston, 3 October, 1796, he wrote Bishop Carroll: “Send me where you think I am most needed, without making yourself anxious about the means of my support. I am willing to work with my hands, if need be.”

His work in New England, covering twenty-seven years, included every form of missionary activity. He lived among the Indians, mastering their dialect; trudged on foot long distances, attending scattered Catholics; nursed the sick and buried the dead during two yellow-fever epidemics; collected funds and built a church in Boston; was business-man, adviser, peacemaker, servant, doctor for his flock, failing them in no form of helpfulness. This disinterested devotion to humble duties joined with extraordinary tact gradually won the respect of the prejudiced Puritans. Closer acquaintance, revealing Cheverus’s brilliant talents, wide learning, innate refinement, transparent holiness, and Christ-like charity, deepened respect into confidence, veneration, and love. Ministers invited him to their pulpits. The legislature sought and acted on his counsels. At a state banquet to President John Adams (whose name had headed a list of Protestant contributors to the Catholic Church building fund), he was placed next the guest of honour. Named first Bishop of Boston, 8 April, 1808, he was not consecrated owing to the non-arrival of the Bulls until 1 November, 1810.

Philadelphia sought him as pastor, France as a bishop, Baltimore as coadjutor; “I pray, I supplicate, I entreat with heartfelt earnestness,” he besought the pope, “that I may never be transferred; that I may be permitted to consecrate all my cares to my small but beloved flock.” He had conquered prejudice, but his delicate constitution could not withstand a harsh climate. Impending loss of health was made the valid excuse of his recall to France, and he was transferred to the See of Montauban, 15 January, 1823. His departure struck Catholics with consternation. Non-Catholics formally protested, “What will become of the American church?” cried Archbishop Marechal. “You were, next to God, my greatest dependence.” Montauban was a Huguenot stronghold, but shortly after his arrival there a resident wrote: “There are no longer Protestants at Montauban; we are all bishop’s people.” On 30 July, 1826, he was elevated to the Archbishopric of Bordeaux; Charles X made him a peer; and on 1 February, 1835, he was created cardinal. In Massachusetts his career became an apologia for Catholicity. Dr. Channing, the eminent Unitarian divine, asked: “Who among our religious teachers would solicit a comparison between himself and the devoted Cheverus? . . . How can we shut our hearts against this proof of the Catholic religion to form good and great men? . . . It is time that greater justice were done to this ancient and widespread community.” (See ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON.)

JOSEPH V. TRACY

Michel-Eugène Chevreul

Chemist, physicist, and philosopher, b. at Angers, France, 31 August, 1786; d. at Paris, 9 April, 1889. His father was a physician, who had himself been an investigator and had reached the age of ninety-one years. Educated in his native town at the Ecole Centrale, formerly the university, Chevreul went to Paris at the age of seventeen and obtained a place in the laboratory of Vauquelin, a chemical-manufacturer. Subsequently he became chief of this laboratory. At the age of twenty he began contributing to scientific literature, and at twenty-six had attained the rank of professor at the Lycée Charlemagne. Later he became director of the Gobelins, member of the Academy of Sciences, and was admitted to the Legion of Honour, in which he won every promotion until he ultimately received the Grand Cross. His centennial jubilee in 1886 was a very remarkable demonstration which the Government directed, and in which Chevreul participated with bodily and mental vigour. His funeral, which took place two years and seven months later, was made the occasion of paying great honour to his memory.

Although he is renowned for the extensive range of his work, Chevreul’s fame rests chiefly upon two particular and important lines of investigation which he entered upon and followed up with great success: namely, in chemistry, “The Constitution of the Fats,” and in physics, “The Harmony of Colours.” The former is set forth in his “Recherches chimiques sur les corps gras d’orgine animale” (1823), in which he demonstrated that fats have the constitution of ethereal salts and are neutral glycerine ethers of fatty acids; that is, that they can be separated into their respective fatty acids and glycerine. He demonstrated the reactions occurring when this phenomenon, known as saponification, is brought about by strong bases or strong acids. He distinguished the constituent acids of the common fats and determined their constants. Practical corollaries of this discovery were the establishment of the great industry of stearin candle manufacture and the introduction of glycerine into commerce on a large scale. These researches also led to a broadening amongst chemists of all countries in the study of the theory of the constitution of organic bodies.

Chevreul’s position as director of the Gobelins, to which he had been appointed by Louis XVIII, led to his important discoveries, both in the chemistry of dyeing, previously little understood, and in the physics of colour and colour effect. His papers on the latter subject began in 1828, in the “Mémoirs de l’Acadeémie,” and his great work, “The Law of Simultaneous Contrast of Colours,” was published in 1839. Similar studies had engrossed the attention of Abbé Haüy, the crystallographer, and of Scherffer, a Jesuit (1754); but Chevreul was able to deduce from a vast number of his own observations the laws governing changes in intensity of tone and shade or modification of colour, and particularly the influence of one colour on another in juxtaposition. A practical application of this knowledge, together with practical results from the study of dye-stuffs, and the blending of colours in dyeing, served to bring this art to a perfection which, increased again by the variety of dyes obtainable from benzol, has been of the utmost use industrially.

Chevreul also participated in many of the philosophical debates of his century. He strongly combated scepticism and materialism, and constantly asserted that the harmony of the universe and nature, and of man’s life and place in them, demonstrated a wisdom which must be called Divine. To some who had written of him as an advocate of an irreligious science he answered by asserting in an open letter to a friend (published in “Le Bien Public” 17 September, 1886) that he wished to be known as a savant, and at the same time a faithful Catholic: “Those who know me,” he wrote, “also know that born a Catholic, the son of Christian parents, I live and I mean to die a Catholic.” While Chevreul will not occupy a place in the history of chemistry as high as his fellow-countryman and contemporary, Dumas, he nevertheless suggests one of the best examples of the union of research with technical practice resulting in changes great enough to affect the history of nations. The following are his principal works: “Leçons de chimie appliquée à la teinture” (1828–1831); “De la loi du contraste simultané des couleurs” (1839); “Essai de mécanique chimique” (1854); “De la baguette divinatoire” (1854); “Considérations sur l’histoire de la partie de la médecine qui concerne la prescription des remèdes” (1865); “Histoire des connaissances chimiques” (1866).

FARGE Biographie de Chevreul; HOFFMAN, Nekrolog auf Chevreul, Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft XXII, 8, 1163; BOURGOUGNON, M. E. Chevreul in Jour. Amer. Chem. Soc., XI, 71; DENYS COCHIN, Le Doyen des Etudiants, in Le Correspondant (25 August, 1886), 619; BAILLY, M. E. Chevreul, in Cosmos (6 September, 1886), 151; KNELLER, M. E. Chevreul, in Das Christenthum und die Vertreter der neueren Naturwissenschaft, p. 197 (St. Louis, 1904).

CHARLES F. MCKENNA.

Diocese of Cheyenne

DIOCESE OF CHEYENNE (CHEYENNENSIS)

The Diocese of Cheyenne, established 9 August, 1887, is coextensive with the State of Wyoming, an area of 97,575 square miles. Its first bishop, Rt. Rev. Maurice F. Burke, was consecrated 28 October, 1887. Wyoming had been included in the Diocese of Omaha, established in 1885; before that it belonged to the Vicariate Apostolic of Nebraska. The first Mass, of which there is a record, offered up within the territory of Wyoming was celebrated by the Jesuit missionary, Father De Smet, on the open prairie at the fur-traders’ rendezvous on Green River, Sunday, 4 July, 1840. The congregation was composed of Flathead, Snake and other Indians, and a motley group of trappers and hunters. Father De Smet passed through Wyoming many times within the next eleven years on missionary trips, and as army-chaplain and Indian pacificator. Priests from Canada passed through en route to Indian missions, and ministered to Canadian fur-traders and other Catholics whom they met at Fort Laramie and elsewhere in Wyoming.

Owing to the naturally arid soil, the settlement of Wyoming has been very slow. Absentee cattle-owners ranged vast herds freely everywhere within its boundaries. The development of mines waited on the tardy building of railroads. Scores of Catholics lived in this territory over thirty years and reared families without sacraments, Mass or priest.

The losses to the Faith in Wyoming, as in neighbouring states, have been appalling. Vicars Apostolic, afterwards bishops, had no funds for educating or supporting missionary priests. It would seem that in 1887, as indeed for nearly a decade after, Wyoming’s need was not so much diocesan organization as travelling missionaries. The ecclesiastical census of 1907 gives the diocese about 10,000 Catholics in a population of about 100,000; 22 churches, 7 of which had been built within the year; 17 priests, 20 missions without churches, one academy and day-school in Cheyenne and an Indian school at St. Stephen’s Mission.

J. A. DUFFY

Antoine-Léonard de Chézy

A French Orientalist, born at Neuilly, 15 January, 1773; died at Paris, 31 August, 1832. His father was an engineer, and he was originally destined for a scientific career, but he preferred linguistic studies, and devoted himself to Arabic and Persian under Sacy and Langlès. In 1799 he was appointed assistant librarian in the department of manuscripts of the Bibliothèque Nationale. Attracted by the Sanskrit manuscripts, he was the Frenchman who took up the study of India’s sacred language, though he had neither grammar nor dictionary to assist him. When, in 1814, the first professorship of Sanskrit in Europe was established at the Collège de France, Chézy was called to the position. Many of the foremost European Sanskritists were his pupils, among them Burnouf, Langlois, Loiseleur-Deslongchamps, and Lassen. In 1805 Chézy married Wilhelmine Christiane von Klencke, better known as Helmina von Chézy, an authoress of some reputation. The couple separated after five years.

He is the author of numerous editions and translations of Oriental works. In 1807 appeared “Les Amours de Medjnoun et Leïla,” a translation of Jami’s Persian poem “Laila u Majnun.” “La Mort de Yadjnadatta” (Paris, 1814, and again, with Sanskrit text, 1826) is a translation of a well-known episode of the Ramayana, describing the slaying of a hermit by King Dasaratha (Bombay ed., II, 63). A translation of another episode from the same poem, the fight of Lakshmana with the giant Atikaya (VI, 71) appeared in 1818. Chézy’s most notable work however, was the publication in 1820 of Kalidasa’s famous drama, “Sakuntala” under the title “La reconnaissance de Sacountala.” This was the first time that the Sanskrit text of this masterpiece was printed. Other works of his are all analysis of the Meghaduta (1817), “Anthologie érotique d’Amarou,” a translation of the “Amarusataka,” which appeared under the pseudonym of Apudy in 1831, and “La théorie du Sloka” (1829), a disquisition on Sanskrit metre. Besides this he has left much work in manuscript.

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Gabriello Chiabrera

A poet, born at Savona, Italy, 8 June, 1552, died there 1638. When nine years of age he went to Rome to live with an uncle and there received his early education. He attended lectures on philosophy at Jesuits’ College until his twentieth year. When a youth at Rome, he was on familiar terms with the learned men of the day, and favours came to him unsought from the Dukes of Savoy, Mantua, and Florence, Pope Urban VIII and the Republic of Genoa. He spent most of his time in Florence and Genoa. When fifty years of age he married. He is said to have written this distich to be inscribed over his tomb:

Amico,

Io vivendo cervava il conforto per lo Monte Pernasso.

Tu meglio consigliato, fa di cercarlo sul Monte Calvario.

Chiabrera and G. Marini were the greatest lyric poets of the century. Chiabrera especially was a devoted student of the Greeks and is often called the Italian Pindar, but Anacreon, Alcaeus, and Horace as well as Pindar, and, of the French poets, Ronsard were his models. He used to say that he strove to follow Columbus in discovering a new world, a new world of poetry, as a reaction against the conventionalities of Petrarchism and the degenerated taste of the century. This reaction led the way for the classical lyric of the eighteenth century. Although he declared himself opposed to the use of rhyme, and even wrote some of his longer poems unrhymed, many of his poems show that he was master of it; he even introduced some new metres into ltalian verse; he seems to have preferred short lines and some of his poems are in the form of the Pindaric ode, with strophe, antistrophe, and epode. On the whole, his poems are marked by splendid epithets, beautiful images, grace of form, richness of rhyme, yet, in spite of all that, they seern exaggerated and cold. All that he wrote was done with exactness, but it is only his lyrics that are read today. Less known are his five long heroic poems. He left, besides, a dozen dramatic works in verse and eulogies and dialogues in prose.

JOSEPH DUNN

Diocese of Chiapas

The Diocese of Chiapas comprises almost the entire state of that name in the Republic of Mexico. San Cristobal Las Casas, formerly called Ciudad Real, is the episcopal seat, and is the principal city of the state. The diocese is bounded by those of Guatemala, Tabasco, and Tehuantepec. From the time of its erection, 14 April, 1538, by Pope Paul III, this diocese was the centre of a successful Christianizing movement, due to the apostolic labours of the first bishop who occupied this see, the great Bartolome de Las Casas. The baptismal record of the diocese begins in 1541. The Indians were gathered together by the Dominican brethren of the first bishop into settlements and were taught the crafts which they still practise, and instructed in Christian doctrine in their own tongue, as well as in many religious practices and customs which they have preserved to the present day. The chapter of the cathedral now numbers 7 capitulars. There are 15 secular priests and 6 Jesuits in the city.

The seminary has all the ordinary classes and a good number of students. A well-equipped school for primary instruction is directed by the Marist Brothers, and a school for girls is under the care of the Sisters of the Divine Providence. There are other Catholic schools in this and other cities of the diocese. The see city possesses a good cathedral and nineteen other churches. The diocese has been governed by thirty-six bishops since its foundation.

FRANCISCO OROZCO Y JIMENEZ

Diocese of Chiavari

(CLAVARIUM); DIOCESE OF CHIAVARI (CLAVARENSIS)

Suffragan of Genoa. Chiavari is a city of the province of Genoa in Northern Italy, situated on a little bay of the Gulf of Genoa. It became a diocese in 1892, but until 1896 was administered by the Archbishop of Genoa, to which diocese it originally belonged. The first bishop was Fortunato Vinelli.

Chiavari is famous for its industry and commerce, also for its cherrywood chairs first made by Giuseppe Descalzi. Many of the inhabitants devote themselves to fishing, there being an abundance of fish about that coast. There are also many slate quarries in the neighbourhood. The beauty of the city is much enhanced by the churches of the Madonna, San Francesco, and San Giovanni. After the discovery of the conspiracy of the Fieschi (1542), and the capture of Chiavari by the Counts of Lavagna, this city suffered much, being suspected of friendliness towards the conspirators. Among its illustrious citizens were: Luca Cantiano di Moneglia, founder of a school of painting, and Giuseppe Gregorio Solari, translator of many Latin poets.

The diocese has a population of 99,200, with 138 parishes, 335 churches and chapels, 293 secular and 28 regular priests, 100 ecclesiastical students, 4 religious houses of men and 5 of women.

U. BENIGNI

Chibchas

(Or MUYSCAS).

Next to the Quichuas of Peru and the Aymaras in Bolivia, the Chibchas of the eastern and north-eastern Highlands of Colombia were the most striking of the sedentary Indians in South America. At present they have ceased to form autonomous tribes and are practically extinct. In the beginning of the sixteenth century they occupied what is now the departments of Boyaca and Cundinamarca with, possible, a few outlying settlements. The extent of territory indicated was only that of the tribes to which the name “Chibchas” is specially applied. The linguistic stock was scattered over a greater area, and indications even authorize philologists to admit as highly probable a connection between the Chibcha dialects and some of the idioms of Costa Rica. Whence the Chibchas came is not established; indications seem to favour the North rather than the South. Their traditions allude to the appearance among them, untold ages ago, of two (or three) powerful men (possibly Shamans), who performed miracles and attempted to teach the Indians a different mode of life. It is not quite clear whether the names “Bochica,” “Nemthequeba,” and “Zuhé” apply to one or several personages. Bochica, however, appears most frequently in Chibcha folk-lore, and is represented as an old man who came to Cundinamarca from the eastern plains of Venezuela and lived for a fabulous length of time at Sogamoso on the plateau of Bogotá.

The creed of the Muysca was the pantheistic fetishism of American aborigines in general. Human sacrifices were not uncommon, but most of the offerings consisted of gold, emeralds, and fruits of the field. Shamans, or Zeques, were numerous, and acted as medicine men, diviners, oracles. The Chibchas lived in villages, the houses being mostly circular, and of wood and thatch. In 1571 the population was approximately given at 150,000 souls. At the head of each tribe stood the usual council, guided by the oracular utterances of the leading Shamans, while an elective war-chief (Uzaque) represented the executive. The clan system prevailed. Agriculture, the gathering of salt, limited hunting, and war—with their neighbours and among themselves—were the chief occupations. In certain cases plurality of wives was licit. Traditional lore leads to the inference that, until the second half of the fifteenth century, the tribe of Tunja was the most powerful one of the Chibchas. About 1470 the Indians of Bogota rose, and when Gonzalo Ximenez de Quesada began the exploration of the mountains in 1536, the Indians led by the Zippa, or war-chief of Muequeta, had to be encountered. By 1538 the Chibchas were virtually conquered, and considerable wealth in gold and emeralds was secured by the Spaniards at Tunja. Subsequent attempts at revolt on the part of the Chibchas proved ineffectual.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Archdiocese of Chicago

(Chicagiensis).

Diocese created 28 November, 1842; raised to the rank of an archdiocese, 10 September, 1880; comprises the State of Illinois, U.S.A., north of the south line of Whiteside, Lee, De Kalb, Grundy, and Kankakee Counties, a territory of 10,379 square miles.

Any historical sketch of the Archdiocese of Chicago, however brief, must commence with the name of the intrepid Jesuit missionary James Marquette, who on 25 October, 1674, set out with two attendants from the station of St. Francis Xavier on Green Bay, to found a mission on the Illinois River. This was in pursuance of a promise he and made to the Illinois whom he had met at their village of Kaskaskia when returning from his voyage down the Mississippi the year previous. On the 4th of December he reached on his journey the mouth of the Chicago River. With his two companions he pushed his way over the frozen surface of the river, following the South Branch. Having proceeded about four miles, he was obliged to halt because of sickness. Here he built a cabin, the first white habitation, it would appear, erected on the site of the city of Chicago. After Marquette, many of the French missionaries and voyageurs traversed the land now covered by that municipality. Father St. Cosme, in all probability, passed this way in 1699. Father Gravier was there in the year following. In 1795 the Pottawotomies by the treaty of Greenville ceded to the United States a track of land six miles square at the mouth of the Chicago River. Here, in 1804, Fort Dearborn was erected, and about this garrison settled the Catholic pioneers. The Rev. Gabriel Richard of Detroit preached at the fort in 1821. In 1822 Alexander Beaubien was baptized there by Father Badin, the first priest ordained within the limits of the thirteen original United States. As far as known this is the first case of the administration of baptism to a white person in the vicinity of Fort Dearborn. In 1833 a petition was addressed to the Right Rev. Joseph Rosati, Bishop of St. Louis and Vicar-General of Bardstown in which latter diocese the state of Illinois then lay, praying for the appointment of a resident pastor. The petition declared that there were about one hundred Catholics in Chicago and was signed by thirty-eight men representing one hundred and twenty-two souls. In answer to this request Bishop Rosati appointed Father John Mary Irenæus St. Cyr to take charge at Chicago, and he celebrated the first Mass in Mark Beaubien’s log cabin on Lake Street, near Market, 1833. Shortly thereafter Fr. St. Cyr secured a lot near the corner of Lake and State Streets and put up a church building twenty-five by thirty-five feet, at the cost of four hundred dollars. This modest structure was dedicated in October, 1833. A little later when Bishop Bruté, the first Bishop of Vincennes, visited Chicago, he found there a congregation of four hundred souls. The growing necessities of the missions in northern Illinois soon demanded the services of more than one priest. So, at the solicitation of Bishop Rosati, Bishop Bruté sent Fathers Fischer, Shaefer. St. Palais and Dupontavice. The last named was appointed to Joliet. Father St. Cyr was recalled in 1837. He was succeeded as pastor of the English-speaking congregation by Father O’Meara, who removed the church building erected by Father St. Cyr to Wabash Avenue and Madison Street. After the departure of Father O’Meara, Father St. Palais built on this site a new brick structure. To the priests already mentioned the names of Fathers Plunkett and Gueguen should be added as having rendered good services in the first period of the Church’s history in Chicago.

CREATION OF DIOCESE

The needs as well as possibilities of the Catholic settlement about Fort Dearborn and its vicinity were recognized to be such that the Plenary Council of Baltimore recommended in May, 1843, the formation of the new See of Chicago. Rome acted favorably upon this advice, and in 1844 appointed as the first bishop of the see the Rev. William Quarter of New York. He was born in Killurine, Kings Co., Ireland, 21 January, 1806. After a classical course made in private academies, he attended Maynooth College. He emigrated to America in 1822, where, soon after his arrival, he entered Mt. St. Mary’s College at Emmitsburg, Maryland. Ordained priest, 19 September, 1829, he laboured thereafter with marked success in the diocese of New York, until summoned to the new see of the West, for which he was consecrated bishop in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York, by the Right Rev. John Hughes, 13 March, 1844. On his arrival in Chicago, the fifth of May following, he found there less than twenty priests. Of these, only two were in Chicago, and they were of the number loaned to the mission by Bishop Bruté. Hardly a month after Bishop Quarter’s arrival they were recalled to Vincennes. But one church, St. Mary’s was in the city limits at the time. The new building commenced by Father St, Palais was unfinished, and the parish moreover was encumbered with a debt of nearly five thousand dollars. This, owing to their poverty, the parishioners were unable to liquidate. It is eloquent of the unselfish zeal of the bishop and his brother that out of their private means they paid off all the indebtedness of the parish. The demand for the services of more priests was in large measure soon met. Only two years after his arrival Bishop Quarter was able to summon to a diocese synod thirty-two clergymen. To the credit of his administration it must be noted that he established the first theological conferences held in America.

Thirty days after his arrival in Chicago, Bishop Quarter opened a college. Two professors, Rev. Jeremiah Kinsella and Rev. B. R. McGorsk. constituted the teaching corps of this institution in the beginning, while six young men made up its student body. Not content with a college, however, the bishop projected a university. In December, 1844, a charter was granted for the University of St. Mary’s of the Lake, and on the 4th of July, 1846, the new institution, the first of its kind to appear in the city of Chicago, was ready to receive students. To provide for the religious instruction of young ladies, Bishop Quarter secured the services of five Sisters of Mercy. These, with Sister Mary Francis Ward, arrived in Chicago from Pittsburgh, 23 September, 1846. The work of this religious community, begun in the first days of the Chicago diocese, has kept pace with the city’s development. It was due principally to Bishop Quarter that the legislature of the State of Illinois passed in 1845 the bill according to which the bishop of Chicago was incorporated as a “corporation sole” with power to “hold real and other property in trust for religious purposes.” Bishop Quarter died 10 April, 1848. The four years of his episcopacy were years of foresight, zeal, and energy, fraught with lasting blessings for the Diocese of Chicago.

SECOND BISHOP

The successor of Bishop Quarter was a Jesuit, James Oliver Van de Velde, born 3 April, 1795, near Tearmonde in Belgium. His early education was obtained from a French priest, who had escaped to Belgium during the time of the French Revolution. Young Van de Velde had a marked talent for languages and, while a professor of languages while at the seminary at Mechlin, hearing the apostolic Father Nerinckx appeal for priests for the American missions, he decided to go to the New World, where he entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus at Georgetown. In 1827 he was ordained priest in the cathedral of Baltimore. After some years of missionary work in Maryland, Father Van de Velde was made professor of rhetoric and mathematics in the Jesuit College at St. Louis. He was rector of this institution in 1820, and a year later was sent to represent the Missouri province at a general congregation of the order held in Rome. Consecrated Bishop of Chicago at St. Francis Xavier’s Church, St. Louis, 11 February, 1849, he was installed in his see 1 April following. At this time there were in the diocese forty priests and fifty-six churches. In the city of Chicago itself there were four churches: the cathedral of St. Mary; St. Patrick’s founded in 1846 by Rev. Walter J. Quarter; St. Peter’s (German) founded by Rev. John Jung; and St. Joseph’s (German), the first pastor of which was the Father Jung above mentioned. Bishop Van de Velde in 1849 erected, on Wabash Avenue between Jackson and Van Buren Streets, an orphan asylum, to shelter the little ones bereft of their parents through the cholera that visited the city that year. His name is to be associated too with the General Hospital of the Lake, founded at this time by the faculty of Rush Medical College, but in which, with the permission of the bishop, the Sisters of Mercy took care of the sick. Bishop Van de Velde found the climate of Chicago detrimental to his health, and tendered his resignation to the Holy See. This was at first refused; finally, however, he was transferred to the diocese of Natchez, where, after two years, he died a victim of yellow fever.

THIRD BISHOP

The third bishop of Chicago was the Right Rev. Anthony O’Regan, b. at Lavalleyroe, County Mayo, Ireland, in 1809. After completing his studies at Maynooth College he was ordained priest November, 1833, and for ten years was professor of Scripture, Hebrew, and dogmatic theology at St. Jarlath’s College, Tuam, of which institution he later became president. He then accepted the invitation of Archbishop Kendrick to become the head of the theological seminary of St. Louis, U.S.A. It was from this post he was summoned to occupy the See of Chicago. Consecrated in St. Louis, 25 July, 1854, he was installed in St. Mary’s Cathedral the third of September following. Bishop O’Regan invited the Jesuits to establish themselves in his diocese. One of those sent in response to this call was the Reverend Arnold Damen, who arrived in Chicago, May, 1857, and though offered the pastorate of the Church of the Holy Name, preferred instead to found a parish out upon (what then appeared) an uninhabitable prairie. Undaunted by obstacles, he persevered until a monument to his zeal appeared in the capacious edifice of the church of the Holy Family. But Father Damen’s work was not circumscribed by the limits of a single parish. No quarter of the diocese but could testify to his zeal as a missionary. Gifted with a power of rugged eloquence, Father Damen was particularly effective as a preacher to the masses. Adjoining the Holy Family Church is Saint Ignatius’ College, begun in 1869. For years it was the only Catholic institution of its kind in the city of Chicago, and its alumni are counted in large numbers not only the priests of the archdiocese, but among the representatives of all the higher walks of civic life. In 1857 Bishop O’Regan was relieved of a portion of his responsibility by the erection of the new See of Alton. However, he was anxious to resign the high office which in the beginning he had sough to escape. His administration had met with severe complaint on the part of some of his clergy. And so, after two years and a half in the administration of his diocese, he set forth for Rome to resign his charge. His resignation (3 May, 1858) was accepted, and he was appointed titular bishop of Dora 25 June, 1858. He died in London, 13 November, 1866, having never returned to America.

FOURTH BISHOP

The Right Rev. James Duggan, who has acted as administrator of the diocese, was then appointed its bishop. He was born at Maynooth, County Kildare, Ireland, 22 May, 1825, and emigrated, in 1842, to St. Louis U.S.A., where he was ordained priest 29 May, 1847. In 1857 he was appointed auxiliary to Archbishop Kendrick, and consecrated titular bishop of Antigone. Two years later he was transferred to the vacant see of Chicago. From this is dated a new era in the Catholic life of Chicago. The parochial school system was organized, and charitable institutions sprang up on all sides. In 1860 the Redemptorists, and in the following year the Benedictines, established foundations among the Germans of the North Side. The Religious of the Sacred Heart opened the institution that has since rendered high service in the cause of Catholic education. Bishop Duggan chose as his vicar-general the Rev. Dennis Dunne, pastor of St. Patrick’s, a priest whose noble and generous nature endured him to all who new him. The Rev. Thaddeus Butler was made secretary and the Rev. John McMullen chancellor. It was the last named who induced the sisters of the Good Shepherd to take up their beneficent work in Chicago. St. Columbkill’s, St. Bridget’s, St. James, the Immaculate Conception, and St. John’s parishes were also organized at this time. The refinement and gentleness of Bishop Duggan, his ease and grace of manner, made him socially very popular; while his public spirit was much appreciated by the community at large. In 1862 he went to Rome to be present at the canonization of the Japanese martyrs, and he attended, in 1866, the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. It was about this time that he gave unmistakable signs of the mental aberration of which he was finally to fall victim. Acting upon the advice of friends, he went to Carlsbad, expecting to recuperate his shattered health, but the effort was in vain, and the condition of Bishop Duggan became such that he was removed, 14 April, 1869, to the asylum of the Sisters of Charity in St. Louis. There, without recovering his mental powers, he remained till his death, 27 March 1899. Bishop Duggan being incapacitated, the Rev. H.T. Halligan took charge of the diocese.

ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED

The Right Reverend Thomas Foley was appointed coadjutor and administrator of the practically vacant see, and consecrated titular bishop of Pergamus, 27 February, 1870. He was born in Baltimore, Maryland, 6 March, 1822. On the completion of his preparatory studies at St. Mary’s College, in his native city, and of his theological course in the seminary attached to this college, he was ordained priest by Archbishop Eccleston, in the cathedral of Baltimore, 16 August, 1846. After a short period spent of the mission of Montgomery County, Maryland, and as assistant pastor of St. Patrick’s Church, Washington, he was appointed rector of the cathedral. He was made chancellor by Archbishop Kendrick, and attended, in the capacity of secretary and notary, the plenary councils held in that city in 1852 and 1866. He was installed in the pro-Cathedral of the Holy Name, Chicago, 10 March 1870. Bishop Foley had hardly more than become acquainted with the needs of his charge when he was called upon to witness the devastation of the church property by the great Chicago fire. Seven churches together with their parochial residences and schools, the Alexian Brothers’ Hospital, The House of Providence, St. Xavier’s Academy and Convent, an orphan asylum, and a select school conducted by the Christian Brothers were swept away. The bishop sustained the disaster with courage, and set himself to the work of reconstruction with commendable energy. St. Mary’s Cathedral being thus destroyed, the new cathedral of the Holy Name soon appeared on the site of the old church of that name. The structure is one of the impressive church edifices of Chicago. With generous assistance from other diocese and the exercise of indomitable energy on the part of its priests and laity, Catholic Chicago soon arose from the prostrate state in which it had been left by the fire. At this time many of the religious orders began to assist in the development of the new life which seemed to have been infused into the diocese. The bishop welcomed to his diocese the Franciscans, the Lazarists, the Servites, the Fathers of Saint-Viateur, and the Resurrectionists. Owing to the growth attained by the diocese, Bishop Foley in 1872 recommended that a portion of it be cut off and erected into a new see, and the Diocese of Peoria was created. The period of Bishop Foley’s administration was for much of the Diocese of Chicago a new birth. He saw churches, convents, asylums, and schools, the work of years, wiped out in a few hours. He saw these for the most part replaced by structures more commodious. He witnessed the erection of more than twenty-five new churches, and saw in process of construction five new convents and seven academies. He purchased the Soldier’s Home at the foot of Thirty-fifth street for an orphan asylum, and St. Mary’s church, at Wabash Avenue and Eldridge Court, he bought from the Congregationalists. At his death, on the 19th of February, 1879, there were about three hundred churches in the diocese, and the number of priests had increased from one hundred and forty-two to two hundred and six. On the occasion of his installation he declared that he had come to do honour to the peace of Christ. That his episcopacy had rendered this promised service was universally admitted. Upon his death, after a brief administration of the diocese by the Rev. Dr. John McMullen, who had been the late bishop’s vicar-general, Bishop Feehan of Nashville, Tennessee, was promoted to the vacancy.

CREATED ARCHDIOCESE

Patrick Augustine Feehan was born at Spring Hill, Co. Tipperary, Ireland, on 29 August, 1829. At fifteen years of age he entered Castle Knock College, going from there to Maynooth, where he was appointed to the Dunboyne establishment. In 1852, he departed for America, proceeding to St. Louis. where he was ordained priest, 1 November, 1852. Two years later he was appointed successor to Father O’Regan in the Theological Seminary of Carondelet. He was made pastor of St. Michael’s church in 1858, and shortly after was transferred to the pastorate of the church of the Immaculate Conception, in both of which charges he ever showed himself the devoted and zealous priest. On the 7th of July, 1867, Father Feehan was chosen to succeed Bishop Whelen of Nashville, Tennessee. This diocese had suffered severely during the Civil War. Under the quiet but energetic administration of Bishop Feehan the demoralization of religion that followed in the wake of battle passed; churches multiplied, convents and parochial schools were reared, while the number of priests increased during his administration from twelve to twenty-seven. During the visitation of his diocese by cholera and yellow fever the labours and self-sacrifices of the bishop were unremitting. On 10 September, 1880, Chicago was raised to the dignity of an archdiocese, and Bishop Feehan was made its first archbishop. The ceremony of his installation took place in the cathedral of the Holy Name in the November following. The archdioceses at this time comprised of eighteen counties in the northern part of Illinois and there were one hundred and ninety-four churches and two hundred and four priests. In 1883 the archbishop went to Rome with the other archbishops of the country to prepare the matter to be submitted to the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. In the next year he participated in the deliberations of this council. At this synod the first irremovable rectors of the archdioceses were appointed.

On 1 November, 1890, Archbishop Feehan commemorated the twenty-fifth anniversary of his elevation to the episcopacy, and the demonstration with which the Catholics of the archdiocese celebrated this event gave touching proof of the love and esteem they felt for their venerable archbishop. In 1899, the archbishop, failing in health, and pressed with the constantly multiplying cares of his charge, asked for an episcopal assistant. In answer to this request, the Rev. Alexander McGavick was chosen auxiliary bishop of the diocese and consecrated titular bishop of Narcopolis, 1 May, 1899. Poor health, however, directly incapacitated him, and the Holy See was again petitioned for the needed aid, and the Reverend Peter James Muldoon was consecrated titular Bishop of Tamassus, 25 July, 1901. His energy and zeal were of valuable assistance to the archbishop, while upon his personal loyalty the aged prelate could ever rely. Archbishop Feehan died 12 July, 1902. His administration in Chicago saw a development of Catholic life unprecedented in any other period of the city’s history. When he was installed there were in the diocese two hundred and four priests, while at his death there were five hundred and thirty-eight. At his advent there were one hundred and ninety-four churches, when he died there were two hundred and ninety-eight. The city of Chicago, when he was promoted to the see, had thirty-four churches, at his passing away there were in the city one hundred and fifty churches. Some idea of the manner in which Catholic education was promoted under this archbishop can be gathered from the list of institutions which sprang up in his time, among them: the De La Salle Institute, St. Cyril’s College, St. Vincent’s College, St. Viateur’s College at Bourbonnais, St. Patrick’s Academy, and the Loretto Academy at Joliet.

SECOND ARCHBISHOP

Bishop James Edward Quigley of Buffalo, New York, was promoted (8 January, 1903) to the Archbishopric of Chicago, and installed 11 March following. Born at Osshawa, Ontario, 15 October, 1855, he attended St. Joseph’s College in Buffalo, from which he was graduated in 1872. In this year he won a competitive examination for entrance into the military academy at West Point, but relinquished military ambition to study for the Church. To this end he entered the seminary of Our Lady of the Angels at Niagara Falls. In the following year he went for a time to the university of Innsbruck in the Austrian Tyrol, and thence to Rome where, having completed his theological course in the College of the Propaganda, he was ordained priest 13 April, 1879. He was appointed rector of St. Vincent’s Church, Attica, New York, in 1879, leaving this mission to become rector of St. Joseph’s Cathedral in Buffalo in 1884. Two years later he became pastor of St. Bridget’s Church in the same city and while ministering in this parish was appointed Bishop of Buffalo, his consecration taking place 24 February, 1897. The administration of Bishop Quigley in Buffalo was characterized by a clear, far-reaching discernment. His public spirit, too, made him ever a controlling power in the community, and he was particularly alert to the weal of the labouring classes. His mediation in the dock strike of Buffalo in 1899 and his forceful pronouncements on Socialism were especially noteworthy. In Chicago his talent for mastering details and his regard for due procedure brought a new order and system into the government of the archdiocese, while a synod held 14 December, 1905, marked the introduction to the see of a body of beneficent legislation. A diocesan college for ecclesiastical students was opened in 1905, and the measures of previous administrations for the spiritual care of the immense foreign-born and constantly increasing population was continued and broadened.

STATISTICS

Ten nationalities other than English-speaking were represented in the Archdiocese in 1908. Of the total of 314 churches they had ninety-six divided as follows: German 33, Polish 21, Bohemian 9, Italian 8, Lithuanian 7, Slovak 6, Croatian 5, French 3, Syrian 2, Rutheian 2. Religious orders and congregations having foundations in the archdiocese are: Men: Augustinians; Benedictines (St. Procopius Abbey); Carmelites; Franciscans; Fathers and Brothers of the Holy Cross; Jesuits; Lazarists; Fathers of the Precious Blood; Servites; Clerics of St. Viateur; Missionary Society of St. Paul the Apostle; Alexian Brothers; Brothers of the Christian Schools; Congregation of St. Charles Borromeo; Brothers of Mary; Society of the Divine Word. Communities of Women: Sisters of St. Agnes; Benedictine Sisters; Bohemian Benedictine Sisters; Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul (Emmitsburg, Maryland); Sisters of Christian Charity (Wilkesbarre, Pennsylvania); Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Dubuque, Iowa); Poor Clares; Sisters of the Third Order of St. Dominic (Sinsinawa, Wisconsin); Sisters of St. Dominic (Blauvelt, New York); Sisters of St. Dominic (Adrian, Michigan); Sisters of the Third Order of St. Dominic (St. Catherine, Kentucky); Franciscan Sisters (St. Louis. Missouri); Franciscan Sisters of the Sacred Heart (Joliet, Illinois); Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis (Peoria, Illinois); School Sisters of St. Francis (Milwaukee, Wisconsin); Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis (Joliet, Illinois); Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis of Assisi, M. C. (St. Francis, Wisconsin); Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis (under the protection of St. Cunegunde); Sisters of St. Francis (Lafayette, Indiana); Sisters of St. Francis (Clinton, Iowa); Felician Sisters, O.S.F. (Detroit, Mich.); Sisters of the Good Shepherd; Sisters of the Holy Cross (Notre Dame, Indiana); Sisters of the Holy Family of Nazareth; Sister-Servants of the Holy Heart of Mary (Paris); Hospital Sisters of St. Joseph; Sisters of St. Joseph (St. Louis, Missouri); Sisters of St. Joseph (Concordia, Kansas); Sisters of St. Joseph (La Grange, Illinois); Little Sisters of the Poor; Little Company of Mary (Rome); Ladies of Loreto (Toronto, Canada); Sisters of Mercy (Chicago, Illinois); Sisters of Mercy (Oakley Avenue, Chicago, Illinois); School Sisters of Notre Dame (Milwaukee, Wisconsin); Sisters of the Congregation of Notre Dame (Montreal); Sisters of the Poor Handmaids of Jesus Christ (Ft. Wayne, Indiana); Sisters of the Precious Blood (O’Fallen, Missouri); Sisters of Providence (St, Mary of the Woods, Indiana); Ladies of the Scared Heart (Chicago Province); Sisters of Jesus and Mary (Montreal); Daughters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Buffalo, New York); Polish Sisters of St. Joseph (Stevens Point, Wisconsin); Sisters of the Holy Ghost (Holland); Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart (New York); Sisters of Misericorde; Visitation Nuns; Sisters of the Resurrection; Sisters of St. Mary (St. Louis, Missouri);

Archbishop, 1, bishops, 2, mitred abbot 1; priests 631: secular, 400, of religious orders, 191; churches, 314: with resident priests city of Chicago, 176, country 138; missions with churches, 35, stations 5, chapels 61; ecclesiastical students 115, seminaries of religious orders 3, students 330; colleges and academies for boys 11, students 2575, training schools 2, pupils, 452; academies for girls 27, students 7585; parishes and missions with parochial schools city, 125, pupils 80,520, outside the city, 64, pupils 10,650; orphan asylums 9, orphans 1499; infant asylums 1, inmates 676; industrial and reform schools for boys 2, for girls 2, inmates 710; working boys’ homes 1, inmates 350; working girls’ homes 1, inmates 195; total persons under Catholic care 93,657; hospitals 19, homes for the aged poor 9, inmates 1150, communities nursing sick in their homes, 3 Catholic population about 1,200,000.

Andrews in The History of Chicago; O’Gorman, A Hist. of the R. C. Church in the U.S. (New York, 1895); Shea, Hist. of the Cath. Ch. in the U.S. (New York, 1904); McGovern, The Life of Bishop McMullen (Chicago); Idem, Souvenir of the Silver Jubilee of the Most rev. P. H. Feehan; Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, 1908).

JOHN WEBSTER MELODY

Henry Chichele

(OR CHICHELEY)

Archbishop of Canterbury, b. at Higham Ferrers, Northamptonshire, England, 1362; d. at Oxford, 12 April, 1441. He was the son of Thomas Chichele, a yeoman, and Agnes, daughter of William Pyncheon. Eucated by William of Wykeham at St. John the Baptist’s College, Winchester, he passed from there to New College, Oxford. He took the degree of B.C.L. in 1389–90, and the degree of LL.D. in 1396. Llanvarchall, in the Diocese of St. Asaph, was his first living, and he held in succession the rectory of St. Stephen’s, Walbrook, the archdeaconry of Dorset, together with a prebend of Salisbury (1397), a canonry in the collegiate church of Aberguilly (1400), a canonry of Lichfield (1400), the archdeaconry of Salisbury (1402), the chancellorship of Salisbury, together with the living of Odiham in the Diocese of Winchester (1403), and the livings of Melcombe and Sheraton in the Diocese of Salisbury. Following upon these came his appointment by provision to the Bishopric of St. David by Gregory XII, who consecrated him at Lucca (17 June, 1408).

Early in his career he was admitted an advocate in the Court of Arches and for a time acted as the lawyer for Richard Mitford, Bishop of Salisbury. His skill in legal matters attracted the king’s notice, and in July, 1405, he was sent with Sir John Cheyne on a mission to Innocent VII. Later in the same year he treated with the King of France as a commissioner of peace, and in 1407 he journeyed again to Italy on an embassy to Gregory XII, then at Siena. It was on this occasion that he received the Bishopric of St. David from the pope, with the king’s approval. He was again in Italy at the Council of Pisa (1409), and it was not until May, 1411, that he first visited his diocese and was enthroned. The Diocese of St. David must have seen very little of him, for he went as king’s ambassador to France with the Earl of Warwick in 1413, and early in the following year on the death of Arundel, the king nominated him to the See of Canterbury (19 February, 1414), to which he was elected on the 4th of March. As archbishop he was the king’s trusted friend and councillor. He seems to have favoured the policy of war with France, collecting much money for its support; in 1419 and again in 1420 he accompanied Henry V into France. A keen and skilful lawyer, he was active in all legislative matters, particularly with regard to ecclesiastical affairs, and vigorous in searching out and suppressing the Lollards. His loyalty to the pope’s policy of opposing the statutes of Provisors and Præmunire has been doubted; the opponents of the Catholic Church have looked upon him as the upholder of the independence of the national Church against the claims of Rome. He certainly displeased Martin V, who slighted him by offering a cardinal’s hat and the powers of a legate a latere to Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester. The pope again passed him by in 1439, when Kemp, Archbishop of York, was created cardinal and given precedence over him in Parliament in spite of Chichele’s appeal against such treatment. On two occasions, in 1421 and 1422, Martin V severely reprimanded Chichele for his weakness in not procuring the abolition of the obnoxious statutes. The pope charged him with hindering the liberties of the Church, and suspended him from the office of legate which pertained to his see. Though he appealed from the pope to the judgment of a future council we find him submitting to the pope’s wishes and endeavouring to persuade the Commons to cease withstanding the pope (1428).

Chichele was a munificent benefactor to his birthplace, his university, and his cathedral church. At Higham Ferrers he built and endowed a college for eight priests, four clerks, and six choristers; he founded also a hospital there for twelve poor men. He gave two hundred marks for the relief of poor students at Oxford; this sum was preserved in a chest known as “Chichele’s Chest.” To New College he gave a similar sum of money. He built the Cistercian College of St. Bernard, now St. John’s, Oxford, but his greatest work for his university was the foundation of the College of All Souls for a warden and forty fellows, who were to spend their time in prayer and study. His name is still perpetuated in Oxford, for the one who fills the chair of modern history is known as the “Chichele Professor.” The last years of his life were chiefly spent at Oxford superintending his great foundation there. Old age and infirmity prompted him to suggest his resignation to the pope (1442), but before the necessary arrangements could be made he died.

HOOK, Archbishops of Canterbury (London, 1860–73), V, 1–129; DUCK, Life of H. Chichele (1699); WILKINS, Concilia, III; ANSTEY, Munimenta Academica (Rolls Series), 291; LE NEVE, Fasti Eccl. Anglicanæ; MILMAN, Latin Christianity, VIII, 326, 328.

G.E. HIND

Ancient Catholic Diocese of Chichester (Cicestrensis)

Ancient Catholic Diocese of Chichester (Cicestrensis), in England. This see took its rise in consequence of the decree passed at the Council of London in 1075, requiring all bishoprics to be removed from villages to towns. The old see of the South Saxons, which had been founded towards the end of the seventh century by St. Wilfrid of York, had been filled by a long line of bishops whose cathedral church was at Selsea. In consequence of the new decree, Stigand, Bishop of Selsea, transferred the see to Chichester in 1082. This town, called Regnum by the Romans, obtained its present name from Cissa, son of Ælle, the Saxon chieftain who landed in 477, the town becoming Cissa’s Ceaster, or fort (castrum), and, in tiime, Chichester. The most notable of the early bishops was Ralph de Luffa (1091–1123), who built the cathedral; much of the structure as it still exists was his work. In 1108 he was able to consecrate at least a part of it, but in 1114 the first fire occurred, and extensive rebuilding was necessary. The cathedral was completed and consecrated in 1184, but in 1186 it was again greatly damaged by fire. Bishop Seyffrid II (1180–1204), who had completed the building, now undertook its reconstruction, making considerable changes and introducing Early English work into the Norman building, which accounts for the composite character of the nave. His successor, Simon Fitz Robert of Wells (1204–1207), being a favourite of King John, obtained many important privileges for the see, but after his death, John kept it vacant for many years. The next bishop was Richard Poore (1215–1217), known as the builder of Salisbury cathedral. After him came Ranulf of Warham (1217–1224) and Ralph Neville, the Chancellor (1224–1244), who was remarkable as a statesman. On his death there was a contest over the appointment to the see, which the pope settled by naming and consecrating Richard of Wych (1245- 1253), better known as St. Richard of Chichester, the friend and chancellor of St. Edmund. King Henry III, enraged at this, refused him the temporalities of his see. Having for a time been compelled to live on the alms of his own clergy, St. Richard ultimately succeeded in overcoming the king’s anger, and for eight years ruled the see with wisdom and holiness, his last act being to consecrate a church at Dover in honour of his friend and master, St. Edmund. In 1276, during the pontificate of Stephen of Berghsted (1262–1288), he was canonized, and his relics were enshrined above the high altar.

Chichester had another saintly prelate in Gilbert de S. Leophardo (1288–1305), who added to the Lady Chapel. William Rede (1369–1385) was a scholar-bishop who collected the early records of the see, and his namesake, Robert Rede (1397–1415) compiled the earliest register now existing. Bishops succeeded one another rapidly, many being transferred to other sees. Among them Reginald Pecock (1450–1459), famous for his learning, was accused of heresy and resigned his see. His successor, John Arundel, (1459–1478), built the rood screen in the cathedral. But the diocese fell into bad condition, as is shown by the register of the next bishop, Edward Storey (1478–1503), a wise administrator who founded the Chichester grammar school. Robert Sherburne (1508–1536) made some protest against the encroachments of Henry VIII, but being unable to withstand them officially, resigned the see, and was succeeded by the schismatic Richard Sampson (1536–1543), who in 1538 destroyed the shrine of St. Richard at the king’s command. The next bishop, George Day (1543–1557), though he had accepted schismatical institution from Henry VIII, yet proved a good Catholic, on which account he was imprisoned, and replaced by John Scory. Bishop Day regained his see, however, in 1554. He was succeeded by John Christopherson (1557–1559), the last Catholic Bishop of Chichester. After him the notorious William Barlow inaugurated the line of Anglican prelates. There were in the diocese two archdeaconries, Chichester and Lewes, and, according to the valuation made in 1291, which remained the basis of valuations until the reign of Henry VIII, there were nearly three hundred parishes. Battle Abbey and Lewes Priory were the chief monasteries, and all the chief orders were well represented. One consequence of Sussex being originally so largely in the hands of Norman proprietors was the existence of an unusually large number of small priories dependent on houses in Normandy, such as the Abbey of Fécamp. The bishop had ten episcopal manors, and the Archbishop of Canterbury held the collegiate church of South Malling and twenty-five parishes. The arms of the see were azure, a Presbyter John sitting on a tombstone, in his left hand a book open, his right hand extended, or, with a linen mitre on his head, and in his mouth a sword, all proper.

WALCOTT, Early Statutes of Chichester Cathedral in Archælogia (1877), XLV, 143–244; DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglic. (1846), VI, iii, 1159- 71; LE NEVE, Fasti Eccl. Anglicanæ (1854), I, 135–85; STEPHENS, Memorials of the South Saxon See and Cathedral Church of Chichester (London, 1876); IDEM, Diocesan History of Chichester (London, 1881); CORLETTE, Chichester: the Cathedral and See (London, 1901).

EDWIN BURTON.

Diocese of Chicoutimi

Diocese created, 28 May, 1878, a part of the civil and ecclesiastical Province of Quebec, which embraces the counties of Charlevoix, Chicoutimi, and Lac St.-Jean, and is situated in the north-eastern section of the Province of Quebec, north of the St. Lawrence River. Charlevoix county was settled by the French in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and Chicoutimi and Lac St. Jean were founded in the middle of the nineteenth by the settlers from the valley of the St. Lawrence. This mountainous region contains the Saguenay River, the extensive lakes known as the St.-Jean and the Mistassini. Chicoutimi and Lac St.-Jean were centres of an extensive lumber trade earlier in the century; to-day they are better known for their agricultural development and the paper pulp. This vast region has communication with the West through the Canadian Northern Railway, with the interior of the continent and Europe through the Saguenay and the St. Lawrence Rivers. It was served by the Jesuit missionaries till the end of the eighteenth century; by the Oblates until the middle of the nineteenth; since then by secular priests. A small church built by the Jesuits in 1747 at Tadousac is still standing. The see is at Chicoutimi, a town of 7000 inhabitants, situated on the Saguenay. The diocesan seminary comprises a classical college with 200 pupils and the theological school with 28 student. The parishes have increased from 24 in 1878 to 55 in 1907. There are 105 secular and 18 regular priests (Oblates, Trappists, Eudists). The Marist Brothers have 6 colleges, and the Brothers of St. Francis Regis an agricultural Orphan asylum. There are 340 sisters of the following institutes: Hospitalières, Ursulines, Good Shepherd, Congregation of Notre Dame, Sisters of Charity, Sisters of the Holy Rosary, the Petites-Franciscaines Missionaires de Marie, Sisters of Good Council, Sisters of St. Anthony of Padua, Servants of the Blessed Sacrament. They have charge of an orphan asylum, 3 hospitals, 2 female schools of domestic economy, 7 convents, and many parochial schools. There are 15,000 children in the 310 parochial schools. The population of the diocese is about 66,000 inhabitants of French origin, who, with the exception of about fifty, are all Catholics. The first bishops was Mgr. Dominique Racine, consecrated 4 Aug., 1878; d. 28 Jan., 1888. His successors have been Mgr. L. N. Bégin, consecrated 28 Oct., 1888; appointed Coadjutor Archbishop of Quebec, 22 Dec. 1891; Mgr. M. T. Labrecque, consecrated 22 May, 1892, and Administrator of the Apostolic Prefecture of the Gulf of St. Lawrence from 1872 to 1903.

Rapports sur les Missions du diocèse de Québec (Quebec, 1839–1874); relations des Jésuites (Quebec, 1858); HUARD, L’Apôtre du Saguenay (Quebec, 1895); IDEM, Labrador et Anticosti (Montreal, 1897); Le Canada Ecclésiastique (Montreal, 1908).

V.A. HUARD

Francesco Chieregati

(CHIEREGATO)

Papal nuncio, b. at Vicenza, 1479; d. at Bologna, 6 December, 1539. Little is known of his early career. He was sent by Leo X as papal nuncio to England (1515–17), and also filled a similar office in Portugal and in Spain (1519), in which latter country he became acquainted with Cardinal Adrian Florent, Bishop of Tortosa, the Dutch preceptor of Charles VI, and later Pope Adrian VI. One of the latter’s first acts, after his entry into Rome, was to make Chieregati, whose learning and virtue the pope esteemed, Bishop of Teramo in the Kingdom of Naples; he then sent him to the Diet of Nuremberg, called for the autumn of 1522. He was commissioned to obtain from the German princes a more energetic pursuit of the war against the Turks in Hungary, which nation was then and long after the bulwark of Christian Europe, also a more vigorous suppression of Lutheranism and the execution of the Edict of Worms against Luther. In two discourses (19 November and 10 December) he urged the princes to co-operate for the expulsion of the Turks from Christian Hungary; on the latter date he also demanded the immediate execution of the Edict of Worms (26 May, 1521), whereby Luther had been put under the ban of the empire, which formal outlawry he had hitherto escaped through the protection of Frederick of Saxony and other friendly princes. Finally, on 3 January, 1523, Chieregati read publicly two important documents, sent after him from Rome. They were a papal Brief (issued on the previous 25 November) to the members of the Diet and an Instruction for Chieregati himself. The former contained an eloquent appeal to the Catholic piety, immemorial religious traditions, and magnanimity of the representatives of the German people, and besought the Diet to quench at once the brand of religious sedition and compel the submission of Luther and his adherents. The personal Instruction, issued probably on the same date, and read to the Diet by Chieregati, is one of the most important documents for the early history of the Protestant Reformation. In it Pope Adrian frankly confesses that the sins of ecclesiastics were the chief cause of the grievous tribulations of the Church, and that in the Roman Curia itself, both head and members, popes and prelates, had been guilty of scandalous abuses. For the text of the Instruction see Raynaldus, “Ann. Trid.” (Louvain, 1781), II, 144 sqq.; Pallavicino “Storia del Concilio di Trento” (Rome, 1656), I (2), 4–6; especially Wrede, “Deutsche Reichstagskten” (Munich, 1893), III, 391; see below, Pastor, and Hergenrother-Kirsch. The reply of the Diet was discouraging; the princes and representatives avoided a satisfactory answer to the pope’s urgent requests, proposed the celebration of a general council in some German city, and renewed in an offensive manner the earlier antipapal complaints of the Germans, the famous “Centum (101) gravamina teutonicae nationis”; Pastor adds (op. cit. 97) that the failure of Chieregati was in large measure owing to the timidity and selfishness of the great German prelates who were by no means ready to repeat the humble confession of the noble-hearted pope. The latter has often been blamed for his frankness (see remarks of Pallavicino in Hergenrother-Kirsch), but Pastor (p. 94) defends him both from exaggeration of facts and untimeliness of speech. His unique and heroic admissions were necessary, says this writer, in the interest of a genuine reformation, nor was this remarkable Instruction made public without papal approval. The subsequent history of Chieregati offers like interest.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Archdiocese of Chieti

ARCHDIOCESE OF CHIETI (THEATENSIS)

Archdiocese with the perpetual administration of Vasto. Chieti is the ancient Teate, capital of the Marrucini, and now an important town of the Abruzzi Central Italy. It is situated on a mountain, at the base of which runs the River Pescara. Though the Marrucini, like the Marsi and other kindred people, were originally enemies of Rome, in 304 B.C. they concluded a league with the Romans, which lasted until the War with the Allies, when Teate became a municipality. In the Gothic War it was captured by Totila; later it fell into the hands of the Lombards, from whom it was captured by Pepin and devastated. The Normans rebuilt the city, which thenceforth belonged to the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. St. Justinus is venerated as the first Bishop of Chieti, and the cathedral is dedicated to him. Several of his successors are also venerated as saints, among them Gribaldus (874), whose portrait is yet visible on the bronze doors of the monastery of St. Clement in the Island of Pescara. Other bishops worthy of notice were: Giovanni Pietro Caraffa, who in 1524 resigned the see, and associated himself with St. Cajetan of Tiene in the foundation of the Theatine Order. Later Caraffa became pope under the name of Paul IV. Since 1525 Chieti has been an archbishopric, but has no suffragans. The archdiocese has a population of 300,500, with 113 parishes, 442 churches and chapels, 170 secular and 58 regular priests, 3 religious houses of men and 17 of women.

U. BENIGNI

Diocese of Chihuahua

The Diocese of Chihuahua, in the north of Mexico, comprises the State of Chihuahua, with a population of about 327,000, mostly Indians and mestisos. The diocese was erected in 1891, and has had two bishops: Jose de J. Ortiz, promoted to the archbishopric of Guadalajara, and Nicholas Perez Gavilan. There are 42 parishes, 64 churches and chapels, and a seminary with 50 seminarists.

J. MONTES DE OCA Y OBREGÓN.

Diocese of Chilapa

Diocese in Mexico, suffragan of the Archdiocese of Mexico, comprises the State of Guerrero, in the south of Mexico. The diocese was created in 1863, since which time it has had three bishops: Ambrosia Serrano, Ramon Ibarra, and Homobono Anaya. The population (all Catholic) is 361,239. There are 64 parishes and 94 priests. The episcopal city of Chilafa, about 125 miles south-west of Mexico had in 1895 a population of 8256.

J. MONTES DE OCA Y OBREGÓN.

Children of Mary

The Sodality of Children of Mary Immaculate owes its origin to the manifestation of the Virgin Immaculate of the Miraculous Medal, on which the Church has placed a seal, by appointing the twenty-seventh of November as its feast. This manifestation was made to Sister Catherine Labouré, a novice in the mother-house of the Daughters of Charity in Paris, in 1830. Associations were formed, by way of trial, in various houses, and a rescript of 20 June, 1847, to Very Rev. John Baptist Etienne, Superior General of the Mission, empowered him to erect in each house of the Sisters of Charity a pious confraternity, dedicated to Mary Immaculate, made up of young girls attending their schools or work-rooms. This same rescript also granted to this association, not by affiliation but directly, the same indulgences as are enjoyed by the Prima Primaria of the Society of Jesus. Three years later the sovereign pontiff extended a similar favour to the youths educated by the Priests of the Lazarists, and to the little boys under the charge of the Sisters of Charity. The Brief of Pius IX, 19 September, 1876, permitted the admission into this association of young girls not attending the schools or work-rooms of the Sisters of Charity. Leo XIII confirmed these privileges by the Briefs of 21 May, 1897, 2 August, 1897, and 29 April, 1903. The badge adopted by the Children of Mary Immaculate is the miraculous medal, suspended from a blue ribbon. The statistics of 1897 gave one hundred thousand living members throughout the world, four hundred thousand having been registered from the date of the first canonical erection, in Paris, 19 July, 1847. From the same date to 1908, forty thousand were registered in the institutions of the Daughters of Charity in the United States alone.

FRANCES GILDART RUFFIN

Children of Mary of the Sacred Heart

A Sodality of the Blessed Virgin, founded by the Venerable Mother Barat of the Society of the Sacred Heart, in the Parish school about 1818, almost simultaneously with the convent itself. Father Varin drew up its rules. It had from the first, its laws, feasts, privileges and duties, its directors, president, and other dignitaries. The most fervent among the elder girls were enrolled. The principal end which the members proposed to themselves, was to love and serve the Immaculate Heart of Mary, by imitating her virtues, above all her fortitude and spotless purity. The lily was the first emblem of the sodalists, and “Semper Fidelis” their motto. In 1824 their medal was struck, and from an essay by one of them, Rose de Joigny, the inscription on it, “Cor meum jungatur vobis,” was chosen. The remarkable fresco of Mater Admirabilis at the Trinità dei Monti in Rome is the sensible representation of the spirit of the sodality. By thus placing the ideal of true womanhood before the future wives and mothers of the next generation, Mother Barat sought to lay the foundation of many noble Christian homes.

This beginning led to a work of wider scope and even greater importance. As years advanced, Mother Barat longed to do something more towards securing a higher tone among women. She wrote in 1831:

How rare it is to meet a valiant woman! It must be so, because Holy Writ says ‘Far and from the uttermost coasts is the price thereof’; Let us labour then to form some at any cost. They will form others and good will come from it.

When Mother Barat visited Lyons in 1832, the mistress general of the school had lately established an association composed originally of the former pupils of the Sacred Heart, but afterwards joined by other ladies. The work was in its infancy, yet Mother Barat saw what it might lead to, and resolved to develop it. Father Druilhet, S.J., then drew up the rules by which the Children of Mary of the Sacred Heart are still governed, and Mother Barat placed the association under the patronage of the archbishop. A little later she obtained for it the authorization of Rome, and constituted it on a like basis for all houses of the Society. Mother wrote on that occasion:

Your mission is a very high one, and I do not fear to call it an apostolate, for you are to act as apostles in the midst of a perverse world. You must lead into the right path those who are wandering from it, encourage those kept back by human respect, and stop the downward course of those in danger.

To be apostles in the world these Children of Mary are expected by their rules to practise many virtues, but it is still the lily of Mary’s spotlessness which must shine pre-eminent, hence their love for her Immaculate Conception. Their devotion to the Heart of Jesus prompts the making of vestments and other altar requirements for poor churches and distant missions. Their zeal takes many other forms:—supporting orphans, visiting hospitals, helping the poor in their homes, opening work-rooms and guiding reading-circles for young girls, providing for the maintenance of youthful aspirants to the priesthood: in a word, all the interests of God and Holy Church are theirs. Few large cities in continental Europe are without one such sodality connected with some convent of the Sacred Heart. From New York to San Francisco, Halifax to Buenos Aires, they exist in both Americas. Sydney and Wellington in Australia have theirs, active and flourishing. Bishops and pastors find them efficient helpers, and the sovereign pontiffs have appealed to them, never in vain. Many members have led lives of eminent usefulness, some have risen to unusual distinction in the practice of virtue, whilst not a few have died in the odour of sanctity. Monseigneur Baunard well sums up their character:

A place of honour is here due to thousands upon thousands of women and maidens, Children of Mary, whose association, now spread throughout France, was born of the desire to serve her and imitate her virtues . . . A vast secular association of Christian perseverance, it has Mary Immaculate for model and patroness, spiritual exercises for means, charity and mutual support for resource, and sanctification of self and others for aim the glory of the adorable Heart of Jesus for final end. Associations imitated from this type and bearing the same names, are founded everywhere, and prosper today throughout the Catholic Church (Un sixcle de l’Eglise de France, Paris, 1902).

Lady Georgiana Fullerton, herself a president of one of these sodalities, thus writes concerning them:

What struck us as eminently, if not peculiarly, distinctive of this institute, is the intense desire, and we might almost say the special gift, of imparting to those they educate, and those they influence, the spirit of active apostleship in the world, which is limited to no particular sphere of action, but spreads itself in every place and throughout every social circle, where those inspired with it and trained to it may be thrown. It was the ardent thought of Mother Barat, and the thought which she was continually placing before her community, to follow souls through life, and by means of congregations for the rich and for the poor, never to lose sight of the children educated in their schools. This thought and this desire led to the foundation of those associations of the Children of Mary of the Sacred Heart, which have won so many commendations and encouragements from successive pontiffs.

ALICE POWER.

Chile

(Also written CHILI).

A comparatively narrow strip of coast-land in South America between the Pacific Ocean on the west and the Andes Mountains on the east, including the watershed. It extends from 17 deg. 30’ S. lat. to the extremity of South America (Cape Horn), about 57 deg. S. lat., thus including Tierra del Fuego and the islands of Navarino, Hoste, and smaller isles to the south, besides, in the west, the islands of Chiloé, Wellington, with their surroundings, and farther out in the Pacific, Juan Fernández. The surface of the country, including the main islands, is calculated at about 290,000 sq. miles. Chile is approximately 2500 miles long, while the width varies between 185 and 100 miles. Ascent from the Pacific shore to the eastern crests is therefore very abrupt, the highest mountain peaks rising to over 22,000 feet in the Aconcgua. The whole chain and its ramifications are dotted with more than forty volcanoes, some of which are active. Northern Chile, including the recently occupied Peruvian province of Tacna and the Bolivian province of Tarapacá, etc. are arid along the coast, and the soil is alkaline; south of these provinces fertile valleys abound; the timbered southern extremity is cold, and glaciers reach the seashore. The eastern shores of the Strait of Magellan are barren. The agricultural sections of the republic lie almost exclusively in the temperate zone and are very productive in cereals, fruit, and grapes: in short, all alimentary products characteristic of temperate regions. Chile has gold, silver, copper, iron, nitrates, borates and coal; all of these minerals are worked by the people of the country as well as by foreign enterprise. The country is therefore progressing rapidly, owing chiefly to the character of its inhabitants, who distinguish themselves by energy and intense patriotism. The gold production of Chile from 1544 to August 1894, has been stated at about 9,917,000 ounces. Chile has, in the southern and central sections, a number of rivers, some of which are partly navigable, at least for smaller craft. The most important of these, from south to north are the Cautin or Imperial, the Biobio, and further north, the Maule, Rapel, and Maipó. The streams are short and descend from mountain lakes, of which there are a great number. The southern coast is remarkably indented and the Strait of Magellan, with countless islands and islets, terminates the mainland about 53 deg. S. lat. The north of Chile (Tacna, Tarapacá, Antofagasta and Northern Atacama) is very dry, and rains are scarce. The climate of the coast, further south, is usually from seven to eight degrees cooler than that of corresponding latitudes on the Atlantic. Variations are abrupt, storms frequent, not seldom violent, and rain falls in great quantities. Towards the extremity of the continent and in Tierra del Fuego the rains are still heavier, the climate colder, approaching arctic conditions, with heavy snowfalls. Tempests increase in violence towards the south, along the coast.

POPULATION

According to the census of 1903, the population of Chile numbered 3,205,992 souls, most of whom are Catholics. Of these, however, 15 per cent were only estimated. In 1895 it included 72,812 foreign residents; Italians, Germans, and English being the most numerous. Since 1835 the population had increased threefold. It is the most homogeneous of any country in South America, the Northern Indians having completely disappeared as such. In the south, the Araucanians continue to enjoy a sort of autonomy under military surveillance; their number is variously stated, but is probably more than 20,000, while some put it as high as 60,000. The number of Patagonian aborigines is inconsiderable, and Tierra del Fuego has about 4000 inhabitants.

GOVERNMENT

The form of government is republican. The legislative power is vested in Congress, consisting of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. The latter are elected directly in the provinces for a term of three years, one deputy for every 30,000 inhabitants or fraction thereof, not less than 15,000. Senators are also elected directly by the people, one senator for three deputies, or one senator for two deputies, two if the number of inhabitants does not permit three for the province. The senators’ term of office is six years, at the end of which they may be re-elected. The president, who is the chief executive, is chosen by indirect suffrage, that is, by electors chosen by the people. For judicial purposes the territory is divided into six sections, at the head of each of which is a Court of Appeals. The Supreme court is held art the capital, Santiago, and has the superintendence and direction of all inferior courts. In addition to the provincial appellate tribunals, there are, in some of the districts, special judges of criminal and commercial affairs. Chile consists of twenty-three provinces and the Territory of Magallanes. Each province is subdivided into departments, each department into subdelegations, which in turn are composed of districts. At the head of each province stands an intendant, who is directly dependent on the president; the departments have their governors, under whom are the subdelegates, who control the inspectors of each district. The municipal governments of the provincial capitals are presided over by the intendants, those of subdelegations by the subdelegate. All citizens are equal before the law and eligible to public offices, except in special cases. Residence at all points, association, and education are free, as also the press. The courts decide all cases of abuse of the liberty of the press. The great majority of the population being of Spanish descent, Spanish is the national language, but foreigners enjoy all reasonable liberties. In 1850 the establishment of a specifically German colony was begun at Valdivia, and the development of that province is largely due to German settlers. German immigrants are numerous throughout Chile, and their business standing is quite high. The English also have a good share in larger mining operations and they control to some extent the Chilian lines of steamers on the Pacific. There are private institutes of education founded and supported exclusively by foreigners. The Chilian army and navy are the best in south America. The army has, since the war with Bolivia and Peru, been specially trained by officers obtained from Germany. The number of the regular troops is fixed annually by Congress.

The metric system obtains in the republic. There are three gold coins: the condor (20 Chilian pesos, a peso is equivalent to 36½ cents); the doblón (10 pesos), and the escudo (5 pesos); but paper money and silver are the usual currency. The smallest coins (one and two cents or centavos) contain 95 per cent of copper and 5 per cent of nickel. Imports rose, from 1885 to 1905 inclusive, from 44,000,000 to over 188,000,000 Chilian pesos; exports during the same period, from 51,000,000 to 265,000,000 pesos. The nitrate exports in 1903 alone amounted to 140,000,000. The exports are chiefly to England and Germany. The chief commercial port is Valparaiso, established 1543; it now has a population of 150,000. In 1903, thee were 11,080 miles of telegraph lines in operation and in 1906, 2875 miles of railroads. On 1 January, 1904, the foreign national debt of Chile amount to 16,449,960 pounds sterling, and the home debt to 103,815,821 Chileian pesos. Sixty millions of the latter were represented by paper money in circulation.

EDUCATION

The cost of supporting public education is paid by the government which, in 1903, spent 4, 146,574 pesos for the purpose. Instruction is free and is divided into primary, secondary, and professional or superior. Primary instruction is supervised by a body of instructors headed by an inspector-general. In 1903, there were 1,961 primary schools with 166,928 pupils and 3608 teachers. Besides, thee were 506 private institutions of primary education, and the private secondary schools were frequented by 11,184 students. Normal schools for men and for women also exist. The national institute and the lyceums (11 male and 4 female), and likewise the university at Santiago, the highest institution of learning, are under the immediate control of the council of Public Instruction. Licences to practise law, medicine, and engineering are issued by the university. Furthermore, there are the agricultural institute and schools of agriculture and mining, a school of arts and crafts, academy of painting, pedagogic institute, conservatory of music, and military and naval schools. The council of Technical Instruction at Santiago superintends the agricultural institute, school of arts and crafts, and the professional school for girls. Public libraries and scientific societies of a rather high order flourish, and museums exist as well as botanical garden, astronomical and meteorological observatories, and a hydrographic bureau.

RELIGION

While the State religion is Catholic, still the Church has not enjoyed entire peace. In 1768 the Jesuits, who had begun missionary work among the Araucanians (q. v.) at the beginning of the seventeenth or end of the sixteenth century, were expelled. They were re-admitted, however, in 1843. The State confiscated the church property in 1824, and fixed a salary for the clergy. Tithes and most of the religious houses were abolished. In 1883 ecclesiastical tribunals wee placed under lay supervision, and in 1884 civil marriage was introduced, and is the only form acknowledged by law. A conflict arose, in 1883, between Chile and Rome concerning the right of nomination to vacant sees; this difficulty was satisfactorily adjusted in 1888. Diplomatic relations are maintained with the Holy See, an internuncio residing permanently at Santiago.

Chile constitutes one ecclesiastical province, comprising the Archdiocese of Santiago, the suffragan sees of Concepción, San Carlos de Ancud (Chilóe), and Serena; and the Vicariates Apostolic of Tarapacá and Antofagasta, both dependent on the congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. In Southern Chile there are Indian missions conducted by the Franciscan Recollects, the Capuchins, and the Salesians. There are numerous schools and colleges in the State conducted by the religious, but even in the public schools religious instruction is compulsory. (For further religious statistics, see articles SANTIAGO DE CHILE; CONCEPCION; ANCUD; SERENE; ANTOFAGASTA; TARAPACA.)

HISTORY

Previous to 1535 very little is known of the conditions of the Indians of Chile. Several, and possibly numerous tribes like the Quillotanos and Promaucas or Purumaucas, held the northern sections of the present republic. They, at least the former, may have been of Peruvian stock, but they have completely disappeared and hardly anything is known about their idioms. The word Chile is variously explained, but there is no certain etymology. Southern Chile (Paragonia and Tierra del Fuego omitted) appears to have been held by Indians of Araucanian stock, the warlike people which now bears that name and is organized into a loose confederacy of tribes, forming the most considerable cluster. The first Spanish expedition to Chile was commanded by Diego de Almagro the elder about 1535 and 1536. It penetrated into Norther chile from Bolivia, across the Atacama region, and reached as far as the Rio Claro among the Purumaucas. After an indecisive engagement with that tribe, Almagro retraced his steps to Cuzco in Peru, there to meet his death. It was only in 1540 that a permanent conquest was begun, led by Pedro de Valdivia. Valdivia was more successful that his predecessor. He occupied the country as far as about 38 deg. S. lat., and came in contact with the Araucanians, who destroyed him with his entire force on 1 January, 1554. The Indians north of the Araucanians had been subjected in the years previous, although not without much resistance and repeated uprisings against the Spanish invaders. Valdivia had founded at least seven Spanish settlements, such as Serena, Conceptión, Angol, Imperial, etc. An Indian war of unequalled duration and fierceness followed. It lasted with short interruptions for more than two centuries and was brought to a close only after 1773 by a treaty of peace in which the Araucanians negotiated with the Spanish officers as an independent and foreign power. According to the treaty the Araucanians maintained the integrity of their territory, and were to be represented at Santiago by one of their chiefs in the quality of an envoy. During the past century, these conditions were gradually changed, and the Araucanian territory is now merely the Indian reservation of Chile.

The protracted resistance of the Araucanians has no parallel in the history of America. The Iroquois held their own for not quite two centuries, but their position, between rival European colonies (first France and England, then England and the United States) was much more favourable. They always had a civilized power to fall back upon, whereas the Araucanians were isolated. The feeble attempts made in the seventeenth century by Dutch and English corsairs to establish relations with them had no permanent results. As already mentioned they displayed a remarkable aptitude for improvement in the art of war, whereas in the arts of peace they advanced but little. During that protracted warfare the Spanish colonies in southern Chile were often in a most critical position, for the Spanish arms sometimes suffered disastrous reverses. The old settlement of Imperial had to be definitively abandoned in 1600. In the same year Angol (founded 1553) suffered the same fate. Tucapel was still more short-lived. The Araucanians repeatedly destroyed Concepción. In several engagements in the open field the Indians also obtained considerable successes, their horsemen encountering Spanish cavalry successfully. In 1563 the governor Pedro de Villagran, was defeated and killed by the Araucanians. Some of the Spanish leaders, however, like García Hurtado de Mendoza, obtained signal victories on various occasions. This state of things was not favourable to a steady development of the Spanish colony in Chile. Dependent on the Vice-Royalty of Lima, and frequently molested by English and Dutch filibusters, communication with the outer world was difficult and occasionally interrupted. Left mostly to their own resources, the Chilian Spaniards developed into a hardy and energetic race, proud of having maintained themselves in spite of adversity.

Spain was unable to take care of its colonies in the first decade of the nineteenth century. A provisional government (junta gubernativa) was installed in 1810. Attacked by the Spanish authorities in Peru, Chile had to resort to arms, but its army, led by the brave General Bernardo O’Higgins was defeated at Rancagua in 1814, and Spanish authority was restored for a while. At the battle of Chacabuco, however, (12 February, 1817), and the subsequent action of Maipo (5 April), the Chilians definitively achieved their independence, which was formally declared, 12 February, 1818, and recognized by Spain in 1846. The island of Chiloé alone held out for Spain unti11826. Since then Chile has had its internal troubles, though not as many as other South American republics. The worst was in 1891. Then the people rose against the attempt of Balmaceda to establish a dictatorial power. The bloody engagement at La Placilla, in August of that year, ensured the triumph of the constitutional party. Since then, there have been no internal troubles. Chile has had several foreign wars. In 1839 the Chilian army was called to the aid of the Bolivian and Peruvian opponents of the “Protector” Santa Cruz, who attempted to enforce a union between Peru and Bolivia. The Chileans and their allies from Peru achieved a complete victory at Yungay, January, 1839, and the Chilian flag was displayed in Northern Peru. In 1866 a difficulty arose with Spain that brought about the bombardment of Valparaiso by a Spanish squadron. Finally war broke out between Chile and Bolivia, afterwards also with Peru, in the course of which the Chilian forces destroyed the Peruvian navy, penetrated victoriously as near Central Bolivia as Puno, occupied the whole of the Peruvian coast after severe campaigning, and even reached Cajamarca in Northern Peru. As a result of this long and serious contest (in which Lima was taken after several bloody engagements) Chile obtained possession of the maritime provinces of Bolivia and the Peruvian department of Tacna. A truce, which has not yet been converted into a formal treaty of peace, was made in 1884, putting an end to these hostilities.

For the works on the anthropology of Chile, see article ARAUCANIANS. The natural history (and also the anthropology) of Chile has been the subject of exhaustive treatment by CLAUDIO GAY, Historia Fisica y Política de Chile (Paris and Santiago 1844—1854). In the Verhandlungen des deutschen wissenschaftlichen Vereins (Santiago), much valuable material is found, especially by PHILLIPPI and R. LENZ. The very numerous official publications of the Chilian Government afford a great wealth of statistics, condensed in the publications of the BUREAU OF AMERICAN REPUBLICS, at Washington; in the work of ADOLFO ORTUZAR, Le Chili de nos jours, in Annuaire national (Paris, 1906), of ESPINOXA, Geografía descriptiva de la República de Chile (Santiago, 1897), of ENRIQUE DE SILVA, Ensayo de una bibliografía histórica y geográfica de Chile (Santiago, 1902), and of several others. For the history of Chile the two very important collections, Historiadores primitivos de Chile, begun by BARROS ARANA, and the Documentos inéditos para la historia de Chile, must be consulted, since they contain most, if not all, of the older literature on the country and its inhabitants. To these must be added BARROS ARANA, Historia general de Chile (Santiago, 1884—1885); also, Documentos inéditos del Archivo de Indias; La Provincia Eclesiástica Chilena (Freiburg, 1895).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Domingo (San Anton y Muñon) Chimalpain

A Mexican Indian of the second half of the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth centuries, who received a liberal education in the colleges for Indians of Mexico City under the direction of the clergy. His family having acquired some wealth, he undertook the investigation of the antiquities of his race, and wrote several works in Spanish and Nahuatl, one of which was published by Bustamante as the chronicle of Gomara, of which it appears to be either a copy or a paraphrase. He is credited with the following books, although it is not yet certain how far the attribution of authorship is correct: “Historia mexicana antigua”; Crónica de México desde el año 1068 hasta el de 1597”; Apuntamientos de sucesos desde 1064 hasta 1521”; “Relaciones originales de los Reinos de Aculhuacan, Mexico, etc.”; “Relación de la Conquista de México por los Españoles.”

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

China

The Chinese Empire, the largest political division of Eastern Asia, extends from 18°10’ to 53°45’ N. lat., and from 73°47’ to 134°25’ E. long. It includes China proper or the Eighteen Provinces (Shi-pa-sheng), theoretically a subject territory of Manchuria, the cradle of the present dynasty, and the dependencies: Mongolia, Ili (or Sin-kiang), and Tibet. It boundaries are

on the north, Siberia;

west, Russian Turkistan;

south, British India;

southeast, Burma and Tong-king;

east, the Pacific Ocean;

northeast, Korea.

This article is concerned only with China proper.

AREA AND POPULATION

Roughly speaking, the Eighteen Provinces occupy nearly one-third of the surface of the empire. The area of China proper is estimated in round numbers at 2,000,000 square miles; Père Richard gives 1,532,800. The length is 1860, the breadth 1520, miles. According to the official trade returns for 1906, the estimated population of China was 438,214,000, which includes that of Feng-tien (Manchurian Province, 16,000,000). The “Almanach de Gotha” (1904) and the “Statesman’s Yearbook” (1905) give for the Eighteen Provinces 319,510,000 and 407,335,305 respectively but Hon. W.W. Rockhill in a careful study (Smithson, Miscel. Col., quart. issue 27, part III) gives so low a figure as 270,000,000. The population at various epochs is as follows:

in 1390, 60,545.812;

in 1500, 53,281,153;

in 1619, 60,692,856;

time of Macartney, 333,000,000;

in 1842, 419,600,000;

in 1894, 412,800,000.

NAMES

The Chinese call their empire Chung kwo (Middle Kingdom), a name first applied to Ho-nan, the country of the Chou dynasty; a Chinaman is designated Chung-kwo-jen or man of the Middle Kingdom; in diplomacy China is Ta-ts’ing Kwo (the great empire of Ts’ing, the present dynasty) as it was formerly Ta Ming Kwo (the great empire of Ming). In literature it is called T’ien Hia (Under Heaven), Sze Hai [the four (surrounding) seas], Chung Hwa Kwo (the Middle Flowery Kingdom); some names refer to celebrated dynasties, Hwa Hia (glorious Hia), Han-jen or Han-tze (men or sons of Han), T’ang-jen or T’ang-shan (men or mountains of T’ang).

The Arabs called China Sin, Chin, Mahachin, Machin. The Sinæ and Seres of Ptolemy and other classic writers probably represent the Chinese. In the Middle Ages, Europeans made a distinction between Northern (Cathay) and Southern (Manzi) China. It is probable that the name China, from the Ts’in dynasty (third century B.C.), reached the West by way of Burma and India.

PHYSICAL FEATURES

Coast and Islands The Pacific Ocean bears several names; to the south it is called Nan-Hai, or South (China) Sea, farther up the coast, Tung-hai, or Eastern Sea, and Hwang-Hai, or Yellow Sea. The coast forms a semicircle, the islands of the Che-kiang province (123x E. long. Greenwich), extending farthest east; to the north is the gulf of Chi-li and Shan-tung Peninsula; to the south the gulf of Tong-king, the Island of Hai-nan, and Lei-chou Peninsula. There are also

the Gulf of Liao-tung, Miao-tao Islands, the Chusan Archipelago, with Ting-hai and the celebrated pilgrimage of P’u-tu, the islands of Amoy, Sam-sa, Hai-t’an, Kin-men, T’ung-shan, Tai-wan or Formosa (now Japanese);

Nan-hai, Mirs bay (Ta’p’ong-hai), Hiang-kiang (Hong Kong), Lappa, and Kwang-chou Bays;

the islands of Namoa, Hong-Kong, Lan-tao, Lamma Archipelago, the Ladrones (Lao-wan-chan), the Chw’an Islands (Shang-chw’an, also called San-cian or St. John’s, where St. Francis Xavier died in 1552), Hia-ch’wan, and the Parcels (Ta’i-chou).

The first beacon light was kindled at the mouth of the Yang-tze in 1855; the first light-house was erected on the island of Kung-tung, near Che-fu, in 1867. In 1907 the coast and ports of China had:

116 lighthouses,

5 lightships.

24 light boats,

137 buoys,

10 beacons,

392 in all.

RIVERS

The chief river is the Yang-tze, called simply Ta-Kiang (Great River) or Kiang (River); as far as the Sze-ch’wan bend it is called Kin-sha-kiang; its general course is from west to east and its length about 4000 miles. It is navigable from the ocean to I-cha’ang, and semi-navigable, on account of rapids from I’-cha’ang to P’ing-shan-hien. In the province of Sze-ch’wan its tributaries, on the left, are the Ya-lung-kiang, the Min-kiang (Ch’eng-tu River), and the Kia-ling-kiang; on the right the Ho-kiang and the Wu-kiang; in Hu-pe it receives on the left the Han-kiang; in Kiang-su it crosses the Grand Canal; near its mouth it receives the Hwang-pu or Shanghai River; at its estuary it is divided into two branches by Chung-ming Island; it waters the cities of Ching-kiang, Nan-king, Wu-hu, Ngan-king, Kiu-kiang, Han-kou, I-ch’ang, Ch’ung-king, Sui-fu, and P’ing-shan.

Mention should be made of the following rivers:

north of the Yang-tze the Liao-ho which rises in the great K’ingan, north-east of Dolon-nor, and waters Southern Manchuria;

the Pai-ho (Hai-ho), which flows through T’ien-tsin; at its mouth is Taku, formerly with forts at the entrance;

the Hwang-Ho (Yellow River) or simply the Ho, which is nearly as long as the Yang-tze, and is the scourge of China on account of its floods; in its middle course it forms a large bend, where it runs down between the provinces of Shen-si and Shan-si, encircling the regions of the Ordos country; it receives on the right its principal tributary, the large river Wei, and on the left the Fen-ho; at one time it ran into the Yellow Sea, south of the Shang-tung Peninsula, but now it follows the course of the Ts’i-ho and runs north of the peninsula; the basin of the Ho is considered the cradle of China.

South of the Yang-tze are:

the Ts’ien-tang-kiang;

the Hang-chou River, celebrated on account of its bore;

the Min-kiang, formed by the Kien-k’i, the Shoa-wu-k’i, and the Ning-hwa-k’i;

the Fu-chou River.

The Si-kiang (West River) from Yun-nan receives on the right the Yu-kiang, already increased by the influx of the Tso-kiang, the Nan-ning River; on the left of the Liu-kiang, the Pei (North) kiang; just this side of Chao-k’ing-fu, the Si-kiang divides into a number of branches; the north branch which waters Canton is called Chu-kiang or Pearl River and flows into the sea through the Hu-men, called also the Bocca Tigris or the Bogue, into which also empties from the East the Tung-kiang.

The Grand or Imperial Canal, called the Yo-ho or the Yun-ho, was begun, it is said, during the sixth century B.C., and was finished only in A.D. 1283 under the Mongol dynasty; it runs from T’ien-tsin to Hang-chou, crossing the Yang-tze at Chin-kiang and is the water-course of the Great Plain.

LAKES

The chief lakes are the T’ung-ting in the Hunan province and the P’o-yang in the Kiang-si, both south of the Yang-tze by the Yo-chou Canal; the latter is fed by the Kan-kiang. Mention should also be made of the Ta-hu near Su-chou (Kiang-su) and the Si-hu, near Hang-chou (Che-kiang).

MOUNTAINS

The two chief mountain ranges of China, offshoots of the highlands of Tibet, are the Eastern Kwen-lun and the Nan-shan. The Eastern Kwen-lun include the A-la-shan and the Kan-su mountains; the Ts’in-ling, between the Hwang-ho and the Yang-tze; the Min-shan and the Kiu-lun. The Nan-shan or Nan-ling extend from Yun-nan, Kwei-chou and Kwang-si, between the Yang-tze and the Si-kiang, to Kwang-tung and Fu-kien, their last spurs appearing in the Chusan Archipelago. Mention should also be made of the O-mi-shan,i.e., Mount O-mi (in Sze-ch’wan), the Wu-t’ai-shan (north Shan-si), and the Dokerla, near Aten-tze, all celebrated pilgrim resorts. The Great Plain of China extends from T’ien-tsin to Hang-chou, forming part of the provinces of Chi-li, Ho-nan, Ngan-hwei, Kiang-su, and western Shang-tung; it may be considered the valley of the Great Canal. A certain deposit called loess or hwang-t’u (yellow earth) covers a great part of Kan-su, Shen-si, and particularly Shan-si; this tertiary formation is characterized by its tendency to split vertically and by the numerous clefts caused by erosion; the caves in this deposit are easily deepened and often serve as dwelling for the inhabitants; it is exceedingly fertile for which reasons the Shan-si province has been called the “granary of the empire.”

POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY

The territorial divisions of the Chinese Empire have varied greatly at different times. Under Emperor Yu the Great and the Hia dynasty, the capital was Yang-hia (in Ho-nan), and China was divided into nine chou: K’e, Ts’ing, Yen, Su, Yu, Yung, Leang, King, and Yang. Under the Shang the capital was Po, near modern Kwei-té-fu (Ho-nan), and the division remained the same. Under the Chou (1122–660 B.C.) the capitals were successively Hao (Ch’ang-ngan) and Lo-yang (781 B.C.), and there were still nine chou: You, Ping, Yen, Ch’ing, Ch’e, Yung, Yu, Chin, Yang. During the period covered by the “Spring and Autumn Annals” of Confucius (781–519 B.C.) the capital was Lo-yang and there were the following kingdoms: Chou (1122–249), Loo (1121–248), Wei (1077–413), Ts’ai (1106–446), Tsin (1106–376), Ts’aou (1051–486). Ch’eng (805–374), Woo (1290–472), Yen (863–221), Ch’en (853–478), Sung (1077–285), T’se (1076–220), T’su (1077–222), T’sin (908–245). Under the Ts’in dynasty (220–204 B.C.) China was divided into 36 kiun. Under the Han dynasty (206 B.C. to A.D. 25) the capital was Ch’ang-ngan; there were 103 principalities, 241 marquisates, 32 tao or provinces, 1314 hien. Under the Eastern Han dynasty (A.D. 25–220), there were 13 chou and the capital was Lo-yang. The capitals of China were in turn or at the same time: Lo-Yang (Wei dynasty), Ch’eng-tu (Shu of Sze-ch’wan), Kien-kang, or Nan-king (Wu), Hang-chou (Southern Sung, 420–477), Ta-tung (Northern Wei, 386–532), Ch’ang-ngan (Sui, 581–618), Lo-yang (T’ang, 618–907), K’ai-feng and Hang-chou (Sung, 960–1126), Peking, called Yen-king under the Kin, and Cambalue under the Yuan. During the Mongol period China was divided into ten sheng or provinces; under the Ming dynasty there were fifteen sheng, Kan-su having been taken from Shen-si, Kiang-nan being divided into Kiang-su and Ngan-hwei, and Hu-kwang into Hu-pe and Hu-nan. There are now eighteen provinces. At one time Formosa formed one province; Kiang-hwai, or Northern kiang-su, was temporarily detached from Kiang-su (1905).

THE EIGHTEEN PROVINCES

The Eighteen Provinces (Shi-pa-sheng) consist of: (1) Chi-li (meaning direct rule), in which is Peking (Shun-t’ien-fu), the capital of the empire. The capital is Pao-ting; principal places Sien-hwa, Chen-te (Shehol), Yung-p’ing, T’ien-tsin, Ho-kien, Chen-ting; mention should also be made of Shang-hai-kwan, the most important pass through the Great Wall, Dolon-nor (Lama-miao), the old summer residence of the Mongol emperors; the population is 29,400,000. (2) Shang-tung (east of the mountain, the Heng-shan); capital, Tsi-nan; principal places: Tsi-ning-chou; Ts’ing-chou-fu, Chou-ts’un, Lai-chou, Teng-chou, the treaty port Che-fu, the British establishment Wei-hei-wei, the German port T’sing-tao (Kiao-chou); the T’ai-shan is a celebrated place of pilgrimage. Confucius and Mencius were born in this province; population 38,000,000 (3) Shang-si (west of the mountain); capital, T’ai-yuan-fu; primcipal products, coal and iron; principal mountain, Wu-t’ai-shan; principal cities: Kwei-hwa-ch’eng (also called Kuku-choto or blue city), Ta-tung, P’ing-yang-fu, P’ing-ting-chou; the population of Shan-si, Shen-si, Kan-su, Ho-nan, and Kwei-chou is estimated at 55,000,000. (4) Ho-nan [south of the river (the Hwang-ho)]; capital, K’ai-feng; near Ho-nan-fu, is the sacred mountain Sung, to the west of which is situated the lung-men defile, whose banks are adorned with ancient sculptures, (5) Kiang-su [first syllables of Kiang-ning (Nan-king) and Su-chou]; capital, Su-chou; principal city Kiang-ning (Nan-king), formerly capital of the empire, and now residence of the viceroy of the Liang-kiang or Two Kiangs; chief cities, Shanghai, the most important trading mart of China, and Yang-chou on the Grand Canal; population 23,980,000. (6) Ngan-hwei (first syllables of Ngan-k’ing and Hwei-chou); capital Ngan-k’ing on the left bank of the Yang-tze; principal places Wu-hu, a treaty port, Hwei-chou, Feng-yang, the birthplace of the Mings; population, 36,000,000. (7) Kiang-si (west of the Kiang); capital Nan-ch’ang, on the Kan-kiang, south of the celebrated P’o-yang lake; principal places Kiu-kiang, a treaty port, Yao-chou, King-te-chen, the centre of the manufacture of porcelain, with 100,000 workmen; population 25,534,000. (8) Che-kiang (crooked river); capital, Hang-chou, on the left bank of the T’sien-tang, near the celebrated Lake Si-hu; principal places: Hu-chou, Shao-hing, Ning-po, Ting-hai, Lan-k’i-hien, Kin-hwa; population 11,800,000. (9) Fu-kien (first syllables of Fu-chou and Kien-ning); capital, Fu-chou on the left bank of the Min; principal places: Ts’ean-chou, Amoy (Hiamen), Chang-chou, T’ung-ngan, Yen-p’ing, Kien-ning, Ch’ung-ngan, Lien-kiang, Fu-ning; population, 20,000,000. (10) Hu-pe (north of the lake, Tung-t’ing); capital, Wu-ch’ang, on the right bank of the Yang-tze at the mouth of the Han-ho; opposite, on the right bank of the Han, is Han-yang, on the left Han-kou; other important places, I-ch’ang, Sha-shi, Siang-yang; population, 34,000,000. (11) Hunan (south of the lake); capital, Ch’ang-sha, on the right bank of the Siang-kiang; principal places, Heng-chou, Siang-t’an, Siang-yin, Yo-Chou, and the great market-city Ch’ang-te; population 22,000,000. (12) Kwang-tung (east of the Kwang); capital, Kwang-chou (Canton) after 1664, when it superseded Chou-k’ing-fu; principal places: Chao-chou, Fa-chan, Swatow, Pak-hoi, Kiung-chou (Hai-nan); population 32,000,000. (13) Kwang-si (west of the Kwang); capital, Kwei-lin, on the Kwei-kiang; principal places, Wu-chou on the Si-kiang, Nan-ning of the Yu-kiang, Lung-chou on the Tso-kiang; Liu-chou on the Liu-kiang, Po-se; population 8,000,000. (14) Yun-nan (south of the clouds); capital, Yun-nan-fu; Principal places: Ta-li-fu, capital of the Mohammedan rebels, Tung-ch’wan, Chao-t’ung, Meng-tze, Sze-mao, Aten-tze, Momein (Teng-yueh); this province has a large foreign population, chiefly Minchia, Lolos, Miao-tze, etc.; population, 8,000,000. (15) Kwai-chou (precious region); capital Kwei-yang; principal places: Tsun-i-fu, Pi-tsieh-hien, Ngan-shun, Hing-i-fu. (16) Shen-si (west of the Shen T’ung-kwan Pass), capital Si-ngan-fu near the Wei-ho where the imperial court repaired during the Boxer rebellion (1900); principal places: Han-chung, Hing-ngan. (17) Kan-su (first syllables of Kan-chou and Su-chou); capital, Lan-chou, on the right bank of the Wang-ho; principal places: Si-ning; to the southwest the celebrated monastery Gum-bum, Ning-hia, Liang-chou, Kan-chou, Su-chou. (18) Sze-ch’wan (four rivers, i.e., Yang-tze, Min, Ch’ung, and Kia-ling); capital, Ch’eng-tu, in a large and rich plain, well-irrigated; principal places: Ta-tsien-lu, Ya-chou, Kia-ting, Su-chou or Sui-fu, Sh’un-king, Wan, Ling-yuen, capital of Kien-ch’ang, the Lolo region, Li-tang, and Ba-tang; population, 79,500,000; estimated in 1904 by A. Hosie at 45,000,000.

The following abbreviations are used in the customs, postal, and telegraphic services:

An. Ngan-hwei

Che. Che-kiang

Chi. Chi-li

Fu. Fu-kien

Hei. Hei-lung-kiang (Manchuria)

Ho. Ho-nan

Hun. Hu-nan

Hup. Hu-pe

Kan. Kan-su

Ki. Kiang-si

King. Sheng-king

Kir. Kirin (Manchuria)

Ku. Kiang-su

Kwei. Kwei-chou

Man. Manchuria

Sha. Shan-si

Sht. Shan-tung

Si. Kwang-si

Sin. Sin-kiang

Sze. Sze-ch’wan

Tung. Kwang-tung

Yun. Yun-nan

ETHNOGRAPHY

It would be a great mistake to think that the Chinese people are all of one race. The ordinary Chinaman is of middle size, strongly built, with a round, full face, high cheekbones, a short, depressed nose, thick lips, and fine teeth. His eyes are black and often oblique, his complexion varying between pale white and dark brown; his forehead shaven, and his coarse black hair hanging down his back in a plait; his beard is black and scanty, his feet small. The true Chinaman, that is to say, the native of the central provinces, from the banks of the Hwang-ho and lower Yang-tze, differs greatly from his countrymen of the maritime provinces of Kwang-tung and Fu-kien. Not only are there racial differences between the various types of Chinese, but still further differences arise from the various people living on the borders as well as in the provinces. On the north, the Tatars, Manchus, and Mongols, on the west the Tibetans are important groups. The Chinese call the non-Chinese tribes “barbarians,” or Yi, Fan, and Man; the term Yi was used to designate Europeans and was prohibited by Article 51 of the British Treaty of T’ien tsin (1858); Fan-lao or Fan-jen according to S. W. Williams was used at Canton for foreigners; the general names Man and Mantze are employed more particularly in the West and South and include such non-Chinese as the Yao, Chwang, Tho, Lolo, or Y-kia, Chung-kia, Si-fan, Miao tribes, etc. dispersed through Sze-ch’wan and Yun-nan, while the Hakkas reside in Kwang-tung. There are also savage tribes in Formosa, on the western slope of the central range of mountains.

The queue (pien-tze) worn by the Chinese and so characteristic of the race, was imported by Manchu conquerors in 1627. To compress the feet of the females is far from being a universal custom, and has no connection with position or fortune, Manchu ladies (i.e., those of imperial family) and most of the southern women do not treat their feet in this unnatural way; there are no trustworthy data as to the origin of this torture, which goes back, some say, to A.D. 583. A few years ago some European ladies started an anti foot-binding movement under the name of Tien Tsu Hwei, which seems to have met with a fair amount of success. Some Chinese, especially scholars, wear extraordinarily long nails, which are intended to show their owners are above manual labor. Sometimes they sheath their nails with brass of silver.

GOVERNMENT

Since the beginning of the fifteenth century the seat of government has been Peking (northern court), its name being Shun-tien-fu in the Chi-li province; the southern court (Nan-king) was Kiang-ning in the Kiang-su province, the capital of the empire in the beginning of the Ming dynasty. The emperor is styled Hwang-ti (emperor) or Hwang-sheng, Wan-sui Yeh, Tien-tze (son of heaven), T’ien-wang (heavenly prince); the empress is styled Hwang-heu or Chung-kung; where there are two empresses they are designated Tung-kung and Si-kung (respectively eastern and western, according to the part of the palace they live in. The heir apparent is the Hwang-t’ai-tze; the hereditary imperial nobility include:

T’sin-wang, prince of the first order;

Kiun-wang, of the second order;

Pei-leh (Bei-leh) of the third order;

Pei-tze, of the fourth order;

Fung-ngen Chen Kwo-kung, duke of the first order;

Fung-ngen Fu Kwo-kung, of the second order;

Pu-ju, Pa-fen Chen Kwo-kung, of the third order;

Pu-ju, Pa-fen Fu Kwo-kung, of the fourth order;

Chen-Kwo Tsaing-kiun,

Fu-Kwo Tsaing-kiun,

Fung-Kwo Tsaing-kiun, and

Fung-ngen Tsiang-kiun, generalissimos of the first, second, third, and fourth clases respectively.

The Tsung-shi are the imperial clansmen, descendants of Hien Tsu (1583–1615), the founder of the Manchu dynasty, and are distinguished by their yellow girdles; all affairs relating to the imperial family are treated by the Tsung-jen-fu, the Imperial Clan Court. There are eight princely families with perpetual inheritance:

Li T’sin-wang, Prince of Li;

Jui T’sin-wang, Prince of Jui;

Yu T’sin-wang, Prince of Yu;

Su T’sin-wang, Prince of Su;

Cheng T’sin-wang, Prince of Cheng;

Chwang T’sin-wang, Prince of Chwang;

Shun-ch’éng Kiun-wang, Prince of Shun-ch’éng;

K’e-k’in Kiun-wang, Prince of K’e-k’in.

I Ts’in Wang, Prince of I, not included in the eight, is also perpetual. The central government includes: (1) the Kiun-ki Ch’u, Council of State, created by Yung Chéng in April, 1732, including a few ministers and sixty secretaries, Chang-king; (2) the Nei-ko or Grand Secretariat, including four grand secretaries, Ta-heo-she of Chung T’ang, two Manchus, and two Chinese, each designated by one of the pavilions of the Imperial Palace: Wen Hwa-tien, Wu Ying-tien, T’i Jen-ko, Tung-ko; under the Ming dynasty the Chung T’ang were called Ko-lao; this was the title of the celebrated Paul Siu (Siu K’wang-k’i); two assistant grand secretaries styled Hie-pan Ta-hio-she; (3) the ministerial boards or Liu Pu, which, prior to 1906, numbered six: Li Pu, Board of Civil Appointments; Hu Pu, Board of Review; Li Pu, Board of Rites; Ping Pu, board of War; Hing Pu, Board of Justice; Kung Pu, Board of Public Works. The Yo Pu or Board of State Music is a dependency of the Board of Rites. Some of these boards or ministries have been remodelled, and new ones created since 1906, and they now include, besides the Wai-wu Pu, the following boards: Li Pu, the Board of Civil Office; the Min-cheng Pu, Board of Home Affairs; the Tu-chi Pu, Board of Finance; Hio Pu, Board of Education or of Public Instruction; Fa Pu, Board of Justice; Lu-kiun Pu, Ministry of War; Nung-kung-shang Pu, Board of Agriculture, Works, and Commerce; the Yu-chw’an Pu, board of Posts and Communications, including steam navigations, posts, and telegraphs; Li Pu, Board of Rites; Siun-king Pu, Board of Public Safety. Previous to 1906, each board had two presidents (Shang-su), Manchu and Chinese, two senior vice-presidents, (Tso She-Lang), and two junior vice-presidents, (Yeo She-Lang); there are now one president and two vice-presidents. The Tsung-li Ko Kwo-she-wu Yamen, commonly called Tsung-li Yamen, the Foreign Office, was created by Hien Fung, 20 January, 1861, after the war with France and England; previously foreign affairs had been dealt with by the Li Fan-yuan, board for the administration of vassal countries, controlling Mongolia, Tibet, etc., and formerly Russia; the Li Fan-yuan has now become a ministry of colonies; the Tsung-li Yamen was replaced (23 July, 1901) by the Wai-wu Pu. The Court of Censors or Censorate (Tu Ch’a Yuan) has two presidents (Tu Yu-she), four vice-presidents, twenty-four supervising censors (Liu k’o), divided into six boards, and thirty-eight censors (Yu-che) distributed over fifteen Tao or circuits. The Han-lin Yuan, college of academicians, has two presidents (Chang-yuan Hio-she). There are also the Kwo Tze Kien or imperial college, and K’in-t’ien Kien, or board of astronomy, etc.

PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

There are eighteen provinces (Shi-pa-sheng); these sheng are divided into Tao (circuits), Fu (prefectures), T’ing (independent sub-prefectures), Chou, and Hien; independent Chou are called Chi-li Chou. The Eighteen Provinces, together with Sin-kiang, are under eight governors general or viceroys (Tsung-tu or Che-t’ai) and twelve governors, three of whom are independent. The eight viceroyalities are the Chi-li, Liang-kiang (including Kiang-su, Ngan-hwei, and Kiang-si), Min-che (Fu-kien, Che-kiang), Liang-hou (Hu-pe, Hu-nan), Liang-kwang (Kwang-tung, Kwang-si), Yun-kwei (Yun-nan, Kwei-chou), Shen-kan (Shen-si, Kan-su), and Sze-ch’wan. Each province is presided over by a governor, (Siun-fu, Fu-t’ai) except Chi-li, Fu-kien, Kan-su, Sze-ch’wan, Kwang-tung, Yun-nan, and Kan-su; there is one in Sin-kiang; the Fu-t’ai of Shang-tung, Shan-si, and Ho-nan are not under a governor-general, but are directly under Peking. Immediately after the governor are the high provincial treasurer (Pu-cheng She-sze or Fan-t’ai), the high provincial judge (Ngan-ch’a She-sze or Nieh-t’ai), the salt controller (Yen-yun She-sze), and the grain intendant (Liang-tao); these various officials constitute each provincial government under the collective name of Tu-fu Sze-tao. Next in order come the Fen-siun Tao; the intendant of a circuit (Tao-t’ai—98 in all), the prefect of a Fu (Che-fu—181), the T’ung-che (170); the T’ung-p’an (141); the Che-chou (140); the Che Hien, district magnate (1290); there is a Hio-cheng (Hio-yuan, Hio-t’ai), or provincial director of instruction in each province, who presides at the prefectural examinations.

The Chinese functionaries known to Europeans as Mandarin (from mandar, to command) are called Kwan by the Chinese; there are nine ranks of kwan, divided into civil and military officials, who are distinguished by the button worn on the official hat, by the square embroidered badge on the breast and back of official robes (a bird for the civil, a quadruped for the military, and by the clasp of the girdle.

A provincial official down to Tao-t’ai inclusive is styled Ta-jen (great man); from Che Fu to Che Hien, the name is Ta Lao-ye (great old father); for the rest Lao-ye (old father). Various forms of distinction are awarded for public services; the principle if the Ling-che (the feather) of which there are three grades corresponding to degrees of distinction: the three-eyed, the two-eyed, and the one-eyed peacock feather (K’ung Tsio-ling) and the crow feather (Lan-ling, blue feather). The chief distinction for military men is the Hing-kwa or Hwang-ma-kwa (yellow riding jacket). there are nine degrees of nobility, either transmissible to a certain number of ancestors or descendants (she-si), or hereditary forever (she-si-wang):

Kung (duke),

Hou (marquis),

Pe (earl—together designated as Ch’ao P’in),

Tze (viscount),

Nan (baron),

K’ing-ch’e Tu-yu,

K’i-tu-yu,

Yun-k’i-yu.

The translations sometimes given the first five titles are indicated in parentheses. The residence of a mandarin holding a seal is called Yamen; that of a mandarin without a seal, Kung-su.

EDUCATION

Formerly Chinese children, after being taught to read and write, had to learn such elementary books as the “San-tze-king” (Three-Character Classic), the “Pe-kia-sing” (Hundred Family Names), and the “T’sien-tze-wen” (One Thousand-Character Classic); later they studied the “Sze Shu” or “Four Classical Books.” Memory was developed at the expense of critical faculty, science being almost entirely neglected. A good calligraphy and a thorough knowledge of the Confucian classic were the main requisites for passing an examination, in which an essay on texts selected from these three classic, and called wen-chang, played a considerable part. The wen-chang, suppressed in 1898 during the short period of reform, has been definitely abolished. The civil offices were recruited from those who passed the three examinations: Hiang-she (provincial), held triennially in the autumn; Hwai-she (metropolitan) held at Peking, in the spring; Tien-she, the palace examination. The student (T’ung-sheng) took in succession the three degrees: Siu-ts’ai, Ku-jen, and Tsin-she; at the last examination the first four competitors received the titles of Chwang Yuan, Pang yen, T’an Hwa, and Ch’wan Lu.

After the war with Russia, China felt the necessity of a thorough change; Confucianism was no longer a sufficient weapon against Western enterprise. Elementary, higher primary, middle, higher, and special schools were established on foreign principles. A university and a technical school were opened at Peking, while young students were sent abroad, especially to Japan. It must be admitted that the latter brought back from the Empire of the Rising Sun an entirely new spirit. They have been responsible, to a great extent, for the reorganization of the secret societies, which aim not only at reform, but also at the overthrow of the present dynasty. By an imperial decree which was dated 2 Sept., 1905, and went into effect at the beginning of 1906, the former programme and methods of examination were abolished, and a new system of education inaugurated. This includes the study of the Chinese language, literature, and composition, the various sciences studied in the West, history, geography, foreign languages, especially Japanese, gymnastic exercises and drills, and in the higher grades the study of political economy, and civil and international law. As a natural consequence, new degrees corresponding to B.A., M.A., LL.D., etc. were created. It is evident that the Chinese attitude of mind is undergoing a great change through contact with Western ideas and learning; what is less evident is that deeper layers of the nation have not been reached.

PHILOSOPHY

Chinese philosophy, at least in what is fundamental, is embodied in the religious books, or rather in the classical works called “King.” Confucius was more of a collector than a creator; he was a moral teacher, imbued with traditions he had studied and mastered, and of which he was the ideal representative, but he was no inventor. The man who stamped Chinese philosophy with his strong personality, or rather his genius, was the philosopher Chu Hi (A.D. 1130–1200), born in Fu-kien during the Sung dynasty. He had a retreat for intervals of meditation at the White Deer Grotto in the hills near P’o-Yang lake. The “Book of Changes” (Y-king) begins with the T’ai-ki, the Great Absolute; according to Chu Hi there was in the beginning the primordial principle, the abstract monad called the “absolute nothing,” Wu-ki. When moving, the Great Absolute produced by the congealing of its breath, the Yang, the great male principle; when it finally rested in produced the Yin, or the great female principle; after this great division what was above was heaven, beneath was earth, and during the subsequent evolutions and movement were created in turn, the sun and the moon, the stars and the planets, water and fire, men and animals, vegetables and minerals, etc. Four laws regulate the present movement of the two principles: (1) Hi, the breath of nature, governed not by arbitrary but by fixed, inscrutable laws; (2) Li, the laws of nature; (3) So, the numbers or numerical proportions of the universe; (3) Ying, the appearance of forms of nature.

This philosophical system is represented by diagrams. Sometimes the three powers of nature (San-t’sai), i.e., T’ien (Heaven), Ti (Earth), Jen (Man), are indicated by a triangle. The two primitive principles are shown, the first by a straight line _____ which corresponds to Yang, the male principle, heaven, light, etc.; the second by a broken line __ __ which corresponds to Yin, the female principle, earth, darkness, etc. Combinations of these lines give the following four figures:

(1)

_______

_______

(2)

_______

___ ___

(3)

___ ___

_______

(4)

___ ___

___ ___

(1) T’ai Yang, corresponding to sun, heat, eyes, etc.; (2) The T’ai Yin corresponding to the moon, cold, ears, etc.; (3) The Shao Yang corresponding to the stars, daylight, the nose, etc.; (4) The Shao Yin corresponding to the planets, night, the mouth, etc. A new combination of these figures was revealed to Fu-hi (2852–2738 B.C.), by a dragon-horse which rose from the Yellow River and presented to the gaze of the emperor a scroll upon its back inscribed with mystic diagrams which, being arranged, consisted of eight trigrams or symbols called Pa-kwa:

(1)

_____

_____

_____

(2)

__ __

_____

_____

(3)

_____

__ __

_____

(4)

__ __

__ __

_____

(5)

_____

_____

__ __

(6)

__ __

_____

__ __

(7)

_____

__ __

__ __

(8)

__ __

__ __

__ __

(1) Corresponds to Heaven and the pure male principle, being entirely composed of whole lines; (2) vapours, watery exhalations, lakes; (3) fire, heat, light; (4) thunder; (5) wind; (6) water; (7) mountains; (8) earth and pure feminine principle, being entirely composed of broken lines. An octagonal arrangement devised by the philosophers of the Sung dynasty gives the figures called Sien-tien.

Shen-nung, the second of the Five Emperors, is held to have multiplied by eight the original Kwa of Fu-hi, forming sixty-four hexagrams. This number multiplied by six gives 384, the maximum to which the calculations can be carried practically, though it is stated that a series of 16,777,216 different forms can be obtained. The two principles forming the Tai-ki were sometimes represented by two opposite semi-circles in a circle, the two portions of the circle in dark and clear respectively; later on a dark disk was inserted in the clear portion and a clear disk in the dark portions.

The male and female principles may also be represented by a circle and a square; for instance at Peking the Temple of Heaven is circular while the Temple of Earth is square; the common coin called cash being round with a square hole in the centre is a perfect symbol of Heaven and Earth.

CLASSICS

The doctrine of Confucius and his school is contained in the classical books called “King.” Five of the classics of the highest grade include: (1) The “Y-king” (Book of Changes) with 24,107 characters; (2) the “Shu-king” (Book of History) in fifty-eight chapters with 25,700 characters extends from the Emperors Yao and Shun to Ping Wang of the Chou dynasty (720 B.C.); (3) the “She-king” (Book of Odes) with 39,234 characters, a collection of popular poetry used in the petty states of China, collected and arranged by Confucius; (4) the “Li-ki” (Book of Rites) in forty-nine chapters (including the “Ta-hio” and the “Chung-yung,”) 99,010 characters; (5) the “Ch’un-ts’ew” (Spring and Autumn), or the annals of Lu, the native state of Confucius, from 722 to 484 B.C. The “Yo-king” (Book of Music) was lost. Next came the lesser “King”: (1) the “Sze-shu” (Four Books), “Ta-hio” (Great Study), “Chung-yung” (Invariable Medium), “Lun-yu” (miscellaneous conversations between Confucius and his disciples), and “Meng-tze,” the conversation of the sage Mencius (34,685 characters; with the commentary 209,749); (2) the two rituals, “I-li and “Chou-li” (45,806 characters); (3) the Hiao-king” (Book of Filial Piety with 1903 characters); (4) the three ancient commentators of the “Ch’un-ts’ew”: “Tso-shi,” “Kung-yang,” and “Ku-liang”; (5) the “Eul-ya” (Library Exposition), a dictionary of terms used in the classical writing of the same period. It must be borne in mind that Confucius was an administrator, a statesman, in a word, a practical man, as well as a moralist, but not entirely devoid of originality.

The most distinguished followers of Confucius (b. 551; d. 479 B.C.) were Tsang-shen (506 B.C.) and Meng-tze (Mencius, 372–289 B.C.). The rival of Confucius was Lao-tze, or Lao-kiun, a far deeper philosopher, author of the “Tao-teh-king” and of the “Kan-ying-pien,” with his disciples, Kang-sang-tze (570–43 B.C.), Li-tze (500 B.C.), and Wen-tze (500 B.C.). The heterodox philosophers were Meh-ti (450 B.C.) and Yang-chu (450 B.C.); the Taoists, Chwang-tze (330 B.C.) and Hwai-nan-tze (second century B.C.). Mention should also be made of Wang-ch’ung, author of the “Lun-héng” (first century A.D.), Han-yu, or Han Wen-Kung (A.D. 768–824), and finally, under the Sung, the reformer Wang Ngan-shi (1021–86) and the illustrious Chu-hi (A.D. 1130–1200).

STATE RELIGIONS

The three state religions of China (San-kiao or three doctrines), are Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism.—Confucianism or Ju-kiao (a name adopted by the disciples of Chu-hi in in A.D. 1150) is the religion of the literati; from the moral principles taken from the books arranged by Confucius a state religion has been created; the Trinity (San-ts’ai), Heaven, Earth, and Man is represented by the emperor, T’ien-tze, Son of Heaven, the high-priest of the cult who pays his homage at the winter solstice at midnight and to the earth at the summer solstice. The state worship includes three grades of sacrifices, the victims being things, though persons are not excluded: (1) the great sacrifices offered only to T’ien (Heaven), Ti (Earth), Tai Miao (the great temple of ancestors) and Shieh-tsi (gods of the land and grain); (2) the medium sacrifices, an homage to the sun, the moon, the names of emperors and kings of foreign dynasties, Confucius, the ancient patrons of agriculture and silk, the gods of heaven, earth, and the cyclic year; (3) the inferior sacrifices (Kiun-sze, crowd of sacrifices) offered to the patron of medicine, the spirits of celebrated men, the clouds, rain, wind, and thunder, the five celebrated mountains, the four seas, four rivers, etc. The supreme ruler of heaven is Shiang-ti. There is no priesthood in Confucianism.

Taoism, or Tao-kiao, was invented by the disciples of Lao-tze, but the lofty theories of this philosopher have denigrated to the grossest superstitions, alchemy, astrology, and a worship of a pantheon of idols, the highest of which is Yu-hwang Shang-ti; the chief of the Taoists resides at Lung-hu-shan (Kiang-si); most of the hierarchy are extremely ignorant.

Buddhism, or Fo-kiao, the religion of Fo (Buddha) comes from India; it is said to have reached China in 221 or 219 B.C., but this is hardly probable. The first certain fact regarding Chinese Buddhism is that it was orally taught in the year 2 B.C. to an ambassador of the Emperor Ngai by the Ta Yue-chi or Indo-Scythians; it was officially recognized by the emperor Ming-ti (A.D. 61). The search for manuscripts in India led pilgrims like Fa-hian and Sung-yun (Fo-kwo-ki), Hwei-shin, the celebrated Hiuan-tsang (seventh century), I-tsing, Wang-Hiuan-ts’e, Wu-k’ung and others to undertake long voyages which have thrown great light on the geography of Northern India and Central Asia. In spite of their exertions and of the numerous manuscripts they brought home, it was not until 1410 that the Chinese procured a complete copy of the Buddhist canon; some of the Buddhist sanctuaries are famous places of pilgrimage: the island of P’u-tu (Chu-san), the Wu T’ai-shan (Shan-si); the Omei-shan (Sze-ch’an), the Dokerla (Yun-nan). The Buddhist priests gather in monasteries; the superiors of a district or a prefecture are called Seng-lu-tze; they are selected from the leading abbots (fang-chang); besides the superiors (Seng-kang, Seng-chen, Seng-hwei), there are preceptors, preachers, expositors, and clerks. Buddhism, with its numerous monks, is the most popular religion of China, though a member of one sect very often borrows practices from the others cults and, if an official, will invariably perform the ceremonies of Confucianism. Whatever be the importance of these three religions, they are insignificant compared to the real, national religion of all Chinese—ancestor-worship.

Ancestor worship originated in filial piety which, being of paramount importance in the eyes of the Chinese, is the object of a special book, the “Hiao-king.” Filial piety, however, is not a natural, spontaneous feeling, but a well-defined duty, embracing the obligations towards the emperor, princes, officials, parents, and these vary according to the classes and people. In every house there is a tablet, if not a room; a rich family has a separate building; this is the hall of ancestors; the tablets are called p’ai-wei and the temples tze-t’ang. During the period called tsing-ming, in the first part of April, a general worship of ancestors takes place in the form of libations, and the burning of candles, paper and incense; this cult was prohibited the Christians by a Bull of 1742.

Another great and popular superstition is Fung-shui (wind and water). To describe this is impossible, though it is the daily guide in a Chinaman’s life. It is a system of geomancy founded on the “Y-king,” systematized in the twelfth century; the date of a marriage, the proper place for a burial ground, a lucky site for a building, etc., the settlement of all these questions depends on the laws of Fung-shui laid down by the professors, who besides a knowledge of Buddhist and Taoist doctrines, had some superficial ideas regarding natural science, medicine, and astronomy.

FOREIGN RELATIONS

Some commentators have found China in this passage of Isaias (A. V., xlix, 12): “these from the land of Sinim.” Ptolemy divides Eastern Asia into the country of Sinæ and Serice, north of Sinæ, with its chief city Sera. Strabo, Virgil, Horace, Pomponius Mela, Pliny, and Ammianus, speak of the Seres, and they are mentioned by Florence among the nations which sent special embassies to Rome at the time of Augustus. The Chinese call the eastern part of the Roman Empire (Syria, Egypt, and Asia Minor) Ta Ts’in, Fu-lin during the Middle Ages. The monk Cosmos had a correct idea of the position of China (sixth century. The Byzantine writer, Theophylactus Simocatta (seventh century) gave an account of China under the name Taugas. There is a Chinese record of a Roman embassy in A.D. 166. The sea voyages of Arabs and the pilgrimages of Chinese Buddhists have thrown considerable light on the geography of Asia during the Middle Ages.

The voyage of Vasco da Gama (1497) and the capture of Malacca by Albuquerque opened the Far East to the Portuguese, who arrived in Canton in 1514; Perestrello came in 1516; Fernïo Perez de Andrade followed in 1517 with Thomas Pires, but the misconduct of Simon de Andrade caused the expulsion of the Portuguese from Canton (1521) and the destruction of the fleet of Cautinho (1522); the Portuguese establishment of Liampo (1545) and Chang-chou (1549) were completely destroyed, and the inhabitants massacred. Finally, the Portuguese settled on the island of Hiang-shan at Macao, either in 1553 or 1557. The Dutch commander Cornellus Reyersz took the Pescadore Islands in 1624; but after an agreement made with the Chinese (19 Feb., 1625), Martin Sonk, the governor, transferred the Dutch colony to Tai-wan (Formosa), where it was captured by the Chinese pirate, Koxinga (1661). The capture in 1592 of the Portuguese Carrack, Madre de Dios, gave the English the secret of the East-Indian Trade. In 1596, three ships, the Bear, the Bear’s Whelp, and the Benjamin, under the command of Benjamin Wood, were fitted out at the expense of Robert Dudley, and Queen Elizabeth wrote a letter (16 July) to the Emperor of China. The first English vessel that visited China reached there by accident. It was the Unicorn which, going from Bantam to Japan, was cast by a storm on the east coast of Macao, at the end of June, 1620. In 1634 Captain Weddell explored the Canton River. The first English company organized for the purpose of trading with India, commonly called the “Old Company” was incorporated by Queen Elizabeth, 31 Dec., 1600, under the title “The Govenour and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies. The “English Company (or General Society) trading into the East Indies” also called the “New Company” was incorporated by William III, 5 Sept., 1698, and the two were amalgamated in 1708–9 by Queen Anne, under the title of “The United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies,” commonly known as the “Honourable East India Company.”

The Russians crossed the Ural mountains in the middle of the sixteenth century under Ivan IV and subjugated Siberia; from the Lena River they passed, in 1642, into the basin of Amur. Stephanof, one of their chiefs, met the Chinese for the first time in 1654, when exploring the Sungari River. After withstanding two sieges of their principal fort, Albasin, the Russians signed a treaty with the Chinese at Nerchinsk (27 Aug., 1689), which destroyed their influence in the region of Amur, and from which they did not recover until the middle of the nineteenth century. In 1727 Count Sava Vladislavitch signed a treaty regulating the inland trade between the two countries.

In 1660 the French organized a “Compagnie de Chine” which in 1664 was amalgamated with the “Compagnie des Indes” which gave up its China privileges in 1697–98 to “Compagnie Jourdan, la Coulange et Cie,” which made Canton a trading centre. New companies were organized for the commerce of China in October, 1705, and November, 1712. Finally, in 1719, all the companies were merged into the “Compagnie des Indes,” whose privilege was suspended in 1769, and which was finally dissolved, 3 April, 1790. A French consulate was established at Canton 3 Feb., 1776. The Danes had two companies organized in 1612 and 1670. Austria was represented by the Ostend Company, incorporated 17 Dec., 1722, and the Triest Company. Prussia had the Emden Company. In 1627 a Swedish company was organized; in 1655 Nils Matson Kiöping visited China. On 14 June, 1731, a charter was granted by King Frederick of Sweden to a company organized at Gothenburg. The first American commercial expedition to China was undertaken by the Empress of China, a vessel commanded by John Green, which sailed from New York for Canton, 22 Feb., 1784.

Trading was carried on at Canton through privileged merchants called Hong merchants, whose council, called Co-hong, was incorporated in 1720. Their number carried, but never exceeded thirteen. The foreign merchants traded in thirteen hongs, or factories, extending about 300 feet from the banks of the Pearl River, and about 1000 broad. The Hong merchants, hard pressed by the Hoppo, or custom mandarin, ran into debt with the foreign merchants. A visit of Commodore Anson (1742), a special mission of Captain Panton, even a transfer to another part of the empire, did not remedy the numerous grievances of the Europeans, who were not allowed to reside permanently at Canton, but were compelled to retire to Macao when business was done. The English sent an embassy, headed by Lord Macartney, in the Lion and the Hindostan. Macartney reached Peking 21 Aug., 1793, but did not obtain permission for the English to trade at Chusan, Ning-po, and T’ien-tsin, or to have a warehouse at Peking for their goods. Macartney’s voyage cost ú80,000 (about $380,000), but was without result. Still less successful was the embassy of Lord Amherst (1816). Lord Napier, who was sent on special mission in 1833–4, died worn out by his negotiations. Grievances continued to increase year after year, until the destruction (June, 1839) of 20,283 chests of opium by Commander Lin brought matters to a climax.

On 9 June, 1840, a blockade of the Canton River was proclaimed by Admiral Sir John Gordon Bremer. Ting-hai (Chusan) was captured, 7 July, 1841. Sir Henry Pottinger was now appointed plenipotentiary, and Sir William Parker commander-in-chief. Amoy was captured 27 August, Ning-po 13 Oct., 1841, Shanghai, 16 June, 1842, and the British squadron entered the Ta-kiang (Yang-tze). Finally a treaty of thirteen articles was signed at Nan-king by Pottinger and Ki-yang, 29 August, 1842, on board the Cornwallis. Canton, Amoy, Fu-chou, Ning-po, and Shanghai were to be opened to trade, and consuls appointed to reside at each of these cities. The island of Hong-Kong was ceded to Great Britain, and indemnities were paid: $6,000,000 for the opium seized, $12,000,000 for the expenses of war, and $3,000,000 for the debts of the Hong merchants, whose guild was abolished. The United States and France followed the example of Great Britain. A treaty was signed with the United States at Wang-hia, near Macao, 3 July, 1844, by Caleb Cushing, and one with France by Théodose de Lagrené at Wham-poa, 24 Oct., 1844. An agreement with Belgium was signed at Canton, 25 July, 1845, and a treaty with Norway and Sweden, 20 March, 1847. The Chusan Archipelago was surrendered to the Chinese in 1847 by Sir John F. Davis, Governor of Hong-Kong. Hong-Kong had been declared a free port, 6 Feb., 1842 to the great damage of Macao.

The advantages, however, obtained through the treaty of Nan-king were soon found insufficient. The murder of the French priest Chapdelaine in Kwang-si (26 Feb., 1856) and the seizure at Canton of the lorcha Arrow (8 Oct., 1856) by the Chinese furnished the pretext for a joint action of England and France against China. The bombardment of Canton (27–29 Oct, 1856), the great rebellion in India (May, 1857), the appointment of Lord Elgin and Baron Gros as envoys to China by the two belligerents, the capture of Canton (29 Dec., 1857) and of the Taku forts (20 May, 1858), are the chief events which preceded the signing of the English (26 June) and French (27 June, 1858) treaties of T’ien-tsin. These treaties permitted the appointment of French and English ambassadors to Peking, and allowed the Chinese a like privilege of appointing ambassadors at the Court of St. James and the court of Paris, provided for the opening of the ports of New-chwang, Tang-chou (Che-fu), Tai-wan (Formosa), Chao-chou (Swatow), and Kiung-chou (Hai-nan), granted an indemnity of 2,000,000 taels for damages to the British and a like sum to both powers for war expenses, besides an indemnity to French subjects for the loss sustained through plunder, when Canton was taken, and guaranteed the punishment of the murderer of Father Chapdelaine.

On the 25th of June, 1859, the plenipotentiaries, Bruce and Bourboulon, who were on their way to Peking to have these treaties ratified, were fired upon by the Taku forts. A second war ensued. Elgin and Gros were appointed special envoys to China; Sir Hope Grant and Admiral Hope, General de Mountauban and Admiral Charner were placed in command of the British and French land and naval forces. The forts of Taku were recaptured (21 Aug., 1860). The allies marched passed T’ien-tsin, and after withstanding a treacherous attack by the Chinese at Tung-chou (18 Sept., 1860), they forced a passage across the Pa-li-k’iao bridge (21 Sept.), and captured the Summer Palace (Yuan-ming-yuan), 6 Oct., which was plundered. Wan-shou-shan, another part of the imperial summer resort, was burnt by order of Lord Elgin (18 Oct.) on account of the barbarous treatment inflicted upon the European prisoners taken in the dastardly attack at Tung-chou. The emperor fled to Shehol, and his brother, Prince Kung, who had remained at Peking, signed the Conventions of 24 and 25 Oct., 1860, with the allies. The indemnity was raised to 8,000,000 taels, and Kow-loon, opposite Hong-Kong, was ceded to England as a dependency of this island. A like indemnity was to be paid to France, and T’ien-tsin was to be opened to trade. Meanwhile a treaty had been made at T’ien-tsin with the United States (18 June, 1858), signed by William B. Reed, and one with Russia (13 June, 1858) signed by Admiral Putiatin, and another treaty was made with Russia at Peking (9–14 Nov., 1860), and signed by General Ignatiev. A still earlier treaty had been made with Russia at Aigun (18 May, 1858) and signed by Muraviev. The final result of these various treaties was a rectification of the frontier between Russia and China, the Amur and Usuri rivers forming the new boundary lines.

The wretched Hien Fung, who had replaced Tao-kwang in 1851, died 22 Aug., 1861, and was succeeded by his son T’ung-chi (b. 17 Nov., 1834), under the regency of the two dowager empresses, Tze-ngan and Tze-hi, and Prince Kung. With the help of foreigners, the American, Ward, the English general, Gordon, and the “Ever Victorious Army,” the French admiral Protet, Lebrethon, and others, the T’ai-p’ing rebels, who had captured Nan-king (19 March, 1853) and made a raid on T’ien-tsin, were expelled from Su-chou (4 Dec., 1863) and Nan-king (19 July, 1864), and their power completely destroyed. Treaties were signed with Prussia and the German States (T’ien-tsin, 2 Sept., 1861), Portugal (T’ien-tsin, 13 Aug., 1862), though not ratified, Denmark (T’ien-tsin, 13 July, 1863), Spain (T’ien-tsin, 10 Oct, 1864), Holland (T’ien-tsin, 6 Oct., 1863), Belgium (Peking, 2 Oct., 1865), Italy (26 Oct., 1866), and Austria (Peking, 2 Oct., 1869). A new convention, negotiated by the British minister, Sir Rutherford Alcock, (Peking, 23 Oct., 1869), was not ratified by the British Government. In 1868, a special embassy headed by Anson Burlingame, formerly American Minister to Peking, was sent to the Western countries. They went first to the United States. and additional articles to the Treaty of 1858 were signed at Washington (28 July, 1868); thence they proceeded through Europe. Burlingame died at St. Petersburg. A few months afterward news was received of the awful massacre of French and Russian subjects by the Chinese at T’ien-tsin, 21 June, 1870. A mission under Chung-hou was sent to Versailles to apologize for this. T’ung-chi married, Oct., 1872, and being of age, received in audience the foreign envoys; Japan, France, Great Britain, Russia, the United States and Holland were represented by their ministers, and Germany by an interpreter (29 June, 1873). Relations were strained between Japan and China, owing to an attack made by the aborigines of southern Formosa on the wrecked crew of a Luch’uan junk, and for a time war seemed inevitable. Through British intervention however, satisfaction was obtained by Japan, and an agreement between the two Asiatic nations was signed at Peking, 31 Oct., 1874. T’ung-chi died 12 Jan, 1875.

The situation in China at this time presented many difficulties. There were grave questions to be settled with England, Russia, and France. On 21 Feb., 1875, the English interpreter, A. R. Margary, was murdered at Manwyne (Yun-nan), and an attack was made on the British exploring party from Burma headed by Colonel Horace A. Browne, which Margary had preceded. Protracted and knotty negotiations conducted by the British minister, Thomas F. Wade, led to the conclusion of the convention signed at Che-fu, 13 Sept., 1876. According to this: regulations were to be framed for the frontier trade of Yun-nan; British officials were to be stationed at Ta-li, or some other suitable place in Yun-nan, for a period of five years; the viceroy of India was given permission to send a mission to this province; the indemnity was fixed at 200,000 taels; China was to establish missions and consulates abroad; the ports of I’ch’ang, Wu-hu, Wen-chou, and Pak-hoi were to be opened to trade; British officers might be sent to Ch’ung-k’ing which was to be opened to trade when steamers succeeded in ascending the river. A special mission, including Hon. G.T. Grosvenor, A. Davenport, and E.C. Baber, was sent to Yun-nan to witness the trial and the punishment of the murderers of Margary. On 28 August 1875, Kwo Sung-tao was appointed envoy extraordinary to the Court of St. James.

The Russians, who had signed a treaty with China, 25 July, 1851, at Kuldja, took possession of this region (4 July, 1871), during the rebellion of Yakub. When the Mohammedan rising was crushed by Tso Tsung-tang (1877–78), China claimed the territory occupied temporarily by Russia. A special Chinese mission with Ch’ung-hou as chief was sent to Russia and concluded a treaty at Livadia (Oct., 1879). The contested territory was ceded, together with the Muzart Pass, to Russia, and great inland commercial facilities were also granted to Muscovite merchants. Ch’ung-hou was denounced by the censor, Chang Chi-tung, and sentenced to death; his treaty came to nought. It was a casus belli, but the intervention of England and France prevented the war. Tseng Kai-tze, the Chinese minister in Paris, was sent to St. Petersburg, where he signed a treaty restoring to China the greater part of the Ili and the Muzart Pass (12–24 Feb., 1881).

The third difficulty arose through the occupation of Tong-king by France. China interfered, as the suzerain power of Annam. A treaty was signed at T’ien-tsin by Commodore Fournier (11 May, 1884), but was soon followed by the Bac-lé affair (23 June, 1884), and hostilities were resumed. Admiral Courbet bombarded the Fu-chou arsenal (23 Aug., 1884); Ki-lung in northern Formosa was captured (1 Oct., 1884); the Pescadores were taken (29 March, 1885); finally the Billot-Campbell peace protocol, signed in Paris (4 April, 1885), was followed by a treaty signed at T’ien-tsin (9 June, 1885) by Patenôtre, minister, a commercial convention (T’ien-tsin, 25 April, 1886) by Cogoirdan, minister, and an additional convention (26 June, 1887), under Constans, minister. France retained possession of Tong-king.

Emperor Kwang Siu came of age 7 Feb., 1887, and took control of the government, 4 March, 1889. On 26 Feb., 1889, he married Ye-ho-na-la-shi, daughter of Kwei-siang. The imperial audience took place 5 March, 1891. For a long time, matters had gone from bad to worse between China and Japan, Korea being the coveted prey of both nations. The murder of the Korean Kim-ok Kyum, a friend of the Japanese, by his countryman, Hung Tjung-wu, at Shang-hai (28 March, 1894), and the attack made on the steamship, Kow-shin by the Japanese at the mouth of the Ya-lu River (25 July, 1894) were the starting points of a war. The principal events during the course of this war were: the battle of Sei-kwan (29 July 1894); a declaration of war (1 Aug.); a convention between Korea and Japan (26 Aug.); the battles of Ping-yang (16 Sept.), and the Ya-lu (17 Sept.); the capture of Port Arthur (21 Nov.) and Wei-hai-wei (30 Jan., 1895) by the Japanese; the occupation of New-chwang by the Japanese (6 March); the landing of the Japanese at Formosa. The negotiations between Li Hung-chang, who had been wounded by a fanatic Japanese, and Ito and Mutsu, resulted in the signing of the treaty of Shimonoseki (17 April, 1895). The principle articles of this treaty were the cession of Liao-tung, Formosa, and the Pescadores to the Japanese, an indemnity of 200,000,000 Kuping taels to be paid by China, the opening to Japanese trade of Sha-shi or Kin-chow (Hu-pe), Chung-k’ing, Su-chou, and Hang-chou, etc. On the interference of France, Russia, and Germany, Liao-tung was retroceded to China by the convention of 8 Nov., 1905. Korea fell entirely into the hands of the Japanese. Ostensibly to obtain satisfaction for the murder of two missionaries, the Germans seized Kiao-chou Bay (Shan-tung) (14 Nov., 1897), which was granted to them on long lease (6 March, 1898). Following the example of Germany, Russia obtained a similar lease of Ta-lien-wa and the adjacent waters (27 March 1898); England, Wei-hai-wei (2 April, 1898); France, Kwang-chou-wan (27 May, 1898). On 9 June the territory of Kow-loon ceded to Great Britain was extended to include Deep Bay and Mir’s Bay; moreover, various declarations stipulated the non-alienation by China of the Yang-tze valley (11 Feb., 1898) and Fu-kien (April, 1898). Prince Kung died, 29 May 1898.

From 10 June, 1898, until 20 Sept., 1898, when a coup d’état of Empress Tze-hi deprived Emperor Kwang Siu of all his power, he made a strong attempt to reform the administration of his empire with the assistance of K’ang Yu-wei and others. There followed a terrible reaction, which culminated in the Boxer rebellion. This began in Shang-tung and extended to Chi-li, secretly fostered by the empress dowager and her camarilla, Prince Twan, and General Tung Fu-siang. Everywhere missionaries were murdered. The German minister, Von Ketteler, was murdered (20 June); the legations at Peking were besieged by troops and the infuriated mob. A relief column, under the command of the English admiral, Sir Edward Seymore, failed to reach the capital. Finally a strong international army entered Peking (14 August, 1900), relieving the legations and the Catholic cathedral (Pe-tang), while the emperor, the empress dowager, and the court fled top Si-ngan-fu (Shen-si). Peking was looted and left in ruins.

The negotiations were long and involved, and on their completion a protocol was signed at Peking, 7 Sept., 1901, by the representatives of the ten foreign powers. The principal clauses included: a mission of expiation to Berlin and an expiatory monument to Baron von Ketteler on the spot where he was murdered; the rehabilitation of officials executed for being favorable to foreigners; the suspension of official examinations for five years in all cities where foreigners had been massacred or mistreated; missions of reparation to Japan for the assassination of Sugiyama of the Japanese legation; expiatory monuments in cemeteries where foreign tombs had been desecrated; prohibition of the importation of arms; a total indemnity of 450,000,000 Haikwan taels (about $360,000,000); special quarters for the legations at Peking; the destruction of the forts at Taku; the reorganization of the foreign offices. An imperial edict of 24 July, 1901, transformed the Tsung-li Yamen into a Ministry of Foreign affairs (Wai-wu Pu), which takes precedence over the other ministries of State. Treaties were signed at Shang-hai by China with Great Britain (5 Sept., 1902), with Japan (commercial, 8 Oct., 1903), and with the United States for the extension of commercial relations (8 Oct., 1903).

The great victories gained by Japan over Russia and the signing of the treaty of Portsmouth (23 Aug., 5 Sept., 1905), the various agreements signed by the European nations with the victorious power, the tremendous effects produced on all Asiatic peoples by the triumph of one of them, the latent discontent in China, the delusive and superficial attempts at reform in the Middle kingdom, leave to the future prospects which are anything but encouraging to the Western counties.

CUSTOMS

The imperial maritime customs were started in Shanghai in 1854 when, threatened by rebels, the collection of dues on foreign trade became impossible. Representatives of the three consuls from Great Britain, France, and the United States, were placed in charge of the custom service, which was inaugurated 12 July, 1854. The American and French delegates having retired in the course of years, the British delegate, Horatio N. lay, remained in charge until he was superseded in Nov., 1863, as inspector general, by Robert Hart (b. 20 Feb., 1835, at Portsdown, Ireland). The Shanghai system was extended to Canton (Oct., 1859) and afterwards to the other treaty ports. The importance of the service has grown with years and now includes also the postal service. It is divided into four departments: (1) revenue department (Indoor, Outdoor, and Coast staff), with 957 foreigners of various nationalities, the majority being British, and 4138 Chinese (1903); (2) marine department; (3) educational department; (4) postal department. An imperial decree of 9 May, 1905, placed at the head of the custom service two high mandarins.

At the end of 1906, 2096 localities were opened to postal business, and in 1907 the number of articles dealt with increased to nearly 113 millions. The number of parcels reached 1,383,000, and money transactions taels 1,539,000. Moreover, there are some foreign (British, German, French,. Japanese, American, Russian) postal agencies at some of the treaty ports. On 6 Nov., 1906, a new Chinese ministry was created, styled the Yu-ch’wan Pu (Board of Posts and Communications) with a president and two vice-presidents.

TELEGRAPH SYSTEM

In 1905 the Imperial Company had 375 stations throughout China, Manchuria, and Mongolia. Other companies are the Imperial German Telegraph Co., through Shanghai, Tsing-tao, and Che-fu; the French Telegraph Co., from Amoy to Tourane; the Great Northern Telegraph Co., through Shanghai, Gutzlaff, Nagasaki, Vladivostok, Amoy, and Hong-Kong; the Eastern Extension, Australasia and China Telegraph Co., connecting Shanghai, Gutzlaff, Fu-chou, Hong-Kong, Indo-China, and the Philippines; the Deutsch-Niederlèndische Telegraphengesellschaft, three cables connecting Yap (Carolines) and Shanghai, Menado (Celebes), and Guam (Mariannes); the Commercial Pacific Cable Co., connecting San Francisco, Honolulu, Midway, Guam, Manila, and Shanghai with a branch line between Guam and Yokohama; the Japanese Telegraph Co., connecting Sharp Peak (Fu-chou), Formosa, Ishigakishima, Naha, Oshima, Japan, and Korea.

TRADE

The revenues of the customs in 1906 was Haikwan taels 36,068,595 (1 Haikwan tael = $0.80, U. S.), as against Haikwan taels 22,742,104 in 1897. It included import duties tls. 9,825, 706; export duties tls. 9,825,706; coast trade duties, tls. 2,208,192; tonnage dues, tls. 1,326,619; transit dues incoming, tls. 1,831,934; transit dues outgoing, tls. 445,167; opium Likin, tls. 4,330,083. The gross value of the foreign trade was Hk. tls. 682,767,231 in 1906, as against Hk. tls. 385,142,721 in 1897, the net value being Hk. tls. 646,726,821, as against tls. 366,329,983 in 1897. The value of the direct trade: Continent of Europe (Russia excepted), tls.82,677,826; Russian European ports, tls. 5,757,036; Russia and Siberia by land frontier, tls. 2,565,904; Russia, Pacific ports, tls. 11,018, 087; Korea, tls. 1,811,037; Japan (including Formosa), tls., 94,357,287; Philippine islands, tls. 2,536,704; Canada, tls. 5,192,127; United States, including Hawaii, tls. 70,107,657; Mexico and Central America (including Panama), tls. 54,142; South America, tls. 27,309; Australia, New Zealand, etc., tls. 1,014,469; South Africa (including Maritius), tls. 58,136, a total of tls. 646,726, 821 (net imports, tls. 410,270,082; exports tls. 236,456,739). The chief imports are: opium, tls. 32,285,377 (weighing 54,225 piculs); cotton goods, tls. 152,727,845; woollen and cotton mixtures, tls. 2,269,812; woollen goods, tls. 4,382,958; miscellaneous piece goods, tls. 3,062,711; copper, iron, steel, etc., tls. 17,289,855; cigarettes, tls. 408,081; fish and fishery products, tls. 8,125,721; flour, tls. 6,295,753; matches, tls. 5,139,808; machinery, tls. 5,730,221; medicines, tls, 2,137,134, etc. The chief exports are: beancake, tls. 3,158,394; beans, tls. 3,158,394; bristles, tls. 2,756,262; camphor, tls. 1,310,791; cattle, tls. 3,357,924; raw cotton, tls. 11,631,138; fire-crackers, tls. 3,585,733; matting, tls. 3,064,458; medicines, tls.2,430,322; raw white silk, tls.16,485,481; steam filature raw white silk, tls. 29,614,4498; yellow silk, tls. 3,214,873; wild silk, tls. 6,372,970; silk cocoons, tls. 1,089,873; silk waste, tls. 3,208,162; silk cocoons, refuse, tls. 450,254; silk piece goods, tls. 8,474,750; Shang-tung pongees, tls. 1,279,104; silk products, unclassed, tls. 1,105,610; undressed skins and hides of cows and buffalos, tls. 5,491,908; of horses, asses, and mules, tls. 5,129; of goats, tls. 4,382,138; sheep, tls. 476,567; unclassed, tls. 33,509; straw braid, tls. 8,650,861; vegetable tallow, tls. 1,057,401; black tea, tls. 12,252,518; green tea, tls. 7,645,121; black brick tea, tls. 4,392,064; green brick tea, tls. 2,083,641; tea tablet, tls. 254,958; tea dust, tls. 1028; sheep’s wool, 4,847,015 tls.; chinaware, tls. 1,579,204, etc.; In 1906, 87,949 steamers (70,117,628 tons), and 120,598 sailing vessels (5,702,260 tons), in all 208,547 vessels (75,819,888 tons) entered and cleared Chinese ports, of which Chinese shipping vessels (foreign type) numbered 45,847 (12,212,373 tons), Chinese junks 93,457 (3,974,378 tons), British 28,192 (33,450,560 tons), Japanese 25,108 (11,376,430 tons), French 5514 (3,125,749 tons), German 6315 (7,477,518 tons), American 582 (1,351,200 tons), Norwegian 1978 (1,616,460 tons), Danish 108 (172,826 tons), Swedish 75 (65,992 tons), etc.

TREATY PORTS

I. Northern Ports (1) New-chwang, Shen-king province, Manchuria,in accordance with British Treaty of T’ien-tsin, 1858; custom office opened 9 May, 1864; Chinese population, 74,000. (2) Ching-wang-tao, Chi-li, Manchuria, in accordance with imperial decree, 31 March, 1898; opened 15 Dec., 1901; Chinese population, 5,000. (3) T’ien-tsin, Chi-li, in accordance with British and French Peking Conventions, 1860; opened May, 1861; Chinese population, 750,000. (4) Che-fu, Shang-tung, in accordance with British and French treaties of T’ien-tsin, 1858; opened March, 1862; Chinese population, 100,000. (5) Kiao-chou, Shang-tung, German Convention, 6 March, 1898; opened 1 July, 1899.

II. Yang-tze Ports (6) Ch’ung-k’ing, Sze-ch’wan; opened Nov., 1890; Chinese population, 702,000. (7) I-ch’ang, Hu-pe, in accordance with Che-fu Convention, 1876; opened 1 April, 1877; Chinese population, 50,000. (8) Sha-shi, Hu-pe, treaty of Shimoneseki, 1895; opened 1 October, 1876; Chinese population, 85,000. (9) Chang-sha, Hu-nan, opened 1 July, 1904; Chinese population, 230,000. (10) Yo-chou, Hu-nan, imperial decree of 31 March, 1898; opened 13 Nov., 1899; Chinese population, 20,000. (11) Han-kou, Hu-pe, provincial regulations, 1861; opened Jan. 1862; Chinese population, 530,000. (12) Kiu-kiang, Kiang-si, same regulations; opened Jan. 1862; Chinese population, 36,000. (13) Wu-hu, Ngan-hwei, Che-fu Convention, 1876; opened 1 April, 1877; Chinese population, 123,000. (14) Nan-king, Kiang-su, French Treaty of T’ien-tsin, 1858; opened 1 May, 1899; Chinese population, 261,000. (15) Chin-kiang, Kiang-su, British Treaty, 1858; opened April, 1861; Chinese population, 170,000.

III. CENTRAL PORTS

(16) Shanghai, Kiang-su, Nan-king Treaty, 1842; opened officially 17 Nov. 1843; Chinese population, 651,000. (17) Su-chou, Kiang-su, Shimonoseki Treaty; opened 26 Sept, 1896; Chinese population 500,000. (18) Hang-chou, Che-kiang, Shimonoseki Treaty; opened 26 Sept, 1896; Chinese population 350,000. (19) Ning-po, Shimonoseki Treaty; opened 26 Sept, 1896; Chinese population 500,000. (20) Wen-chou, Che-kiang, Che-Fu Convention, 1876; opened April, 1877; Chinese population, 80,000.

IV. SOUTH COAST PORTS

(21) San-tuao, Fu-kien, imperial decree of 31 March, 1898; opened 1 May , 1899; Chinese population 8000. (22) Fu-chou, Fu-kien, Nan-king Treaty, 1842; opened July, 1861; Chinese population 624,000. (23) Amoy, Fu-kien, Nan-king Treaty, 1842; opened April, 1862; Chinese population 114,000. (24) Swatow, Kwang-tung, English, French, and American Treaty of T’ien-tsin, 1858; opened Jan., 1860; Chinese population 65,000. (25) Canton, Kwang-tung, Nan-king Treaty, 1842; opened Oct., 1859; Chinese population 900,000. (26) Kow-loon, Kwang-tung; opened April, 1887; (27) Lappa, Kwang-tung; opened 27 June, 1871; (28) Kong-moon, Kwang-tung; opened 7 March, 1904; Chinese population, 55,000. (29) San-shui, Kwang-tung; Anglo-Chinese Convention, 4 Feb., 1897; opened 4 June, 1897; Chinese population, 5000. (30) Wu-chou, Kwang-si; same convention; opened 4 June, 1897; Chinese population, 59,000. (31) Kiung-chou (Hoy-hou), Hai-nan, Kwang-tung; French, and English Treaties of T’ien-tsin, 1858; opened April, 1876; Chinese population, 38,000. (32) Pak-hoi, Kwang-tung; Che-fu Convention, 1876; opened April, 1877; Chinese population, 20,000.

V. FRONTIER PORTS

(33) Lung-chou, Kwang-si; French Treaty, 25 June, 1887; opened 1 June, 1899; Chinese population, 12,000. (34) Meng-tze, Yun-nan; French Treaty, 1887; opened 30 April, 1889; Chinese population, 15,000. (35) Sze-mao, Yun-nan; French Convention, 1895; British, 1896; opened 2 Jan, 1897; Chinese population, 15,000. (36) Ten-yueh or Momein, Yun-nan; Convention of 4 Feb., 1897; opened 8 May, 1902; Chinese population, 10,000. (37) Ya-tung, Tibet; opened 1 May, 1894. As yet, Nan-ning, Kwang-si, opened by imperial decree, 3 Feb., 1899, has not a customs office. According to the customs statistics (1906), 6,917,000 Chinese inhabit the treaty ports. The foreign population includes 1837 firms and 38,597 persons (American 3447, British 9356, Japanese 15,548, French 2189, German 1939, Portuguese 3184, Italians 786, Spaniards 389, Belgians 297, Austrians 236, Russians 273, Danes 209, Dutch 225, Brazilians 16, Koreans 47, Norwegians 185, Swedes 135, subjects of non-treaty powers 236).

RAILWAYS

The first railroad was built in 1876, from Wu-sung to Shanghai, but was purchased by the Chinese and taken by them to Formosa in 1877. The following is a list of the railways completed and under construction at the end of 1906: in Manchuria (1) from Irkutsk through Manchuria through Manchuria, Harbin, Pogranichaya to Vladivostock, 925 miles; (2) from Harbin to Kwang-cheng-tse (not completed), 147 miles; (3) from Kwang-cheng-tse through Mukden, Sinmin-fu, Liao-yang, New-chwang, Talien, to Port Arthur, 481 miles (in addition to 36 miles under construction); (4) from Mukden and An-tung (narrow gauge), 187 miles under construction; (5) from Kow-pang-tze to Sin-min-fu, 70 miles. Chi-li and Manchuria: Peking through T’ien-tsin, Shan-hai-kwan, Kow-pang-tse, to New-chwang, 600 miles. Chi-li: Peking to Tung-chou, 13 miles. Chi-li and Mongolia: Peking through Nan-kou, to Kalgan, 33 miles (in addition to 92 miles under construction. Chi-li, Ho-nan, and Hu-pe: Peking through Pao-ting-fu, Cheng-ting, Wei-hwei, Cheng-chou to Han-kou, 754 miles. Ho-nan: Tao-kou, through Wei-hwei, to Ching-hwa, 93 miles. Chi-li and Shan-si: Chen-ting to Tai-yuan-fu, 87 miles (in addition to 68 under construction). Ho-nan: Kai-feng, through Cheng-chou, to Ho-nan-fu, 41 miles (in addition to 75 miles under construction). Shan-tung: Tsing-chou through Tsi-nan, to Po-shan, 270 miles; Hwang-tai-kiao to Lo-kuo, 4 miles. Kiang-su: Shanghai through Su-chou, Chin-kiang to Nan-king, 90 miles (in addition to 113 miles under construction. Che-kiang: Hang-chou City to Hang-chou Settlement, 3 miles, under construction. In Kiang-si and Hu-nan: Yuen-chou to Shui-chou, 64 miles. Kwang-tung: Swatow to Cho-chou-fu, 25 miles; Kung-yik through Sun-ning, to Sam-ka-hoi, 55 miles under construction; Canton to Sam-shui, 30 miles. Kwang-tung, Hu-nan, and Hu-pe: Canton, through Chang-sha, to Han-kuo, 720 miles. Yun-nan: Ho-kou, through Meng-tze to Yun-nan-fu, 19 miles (in addition to 273 under construction).

PROJECTED RAILWAYS

Han-kuo to Ch’eng-tu via Ch’ung-k’ing; Su-chou to Hang-chou and Ning-po; Chang-sha to Chenn-chou-fu; Shanghai to Kia-sing; Amoy to Yen-ping, Tsean-chou-fu, Fu-chou-fu; Si-ngan-fu to Tung-kwan (Shen-si); Tai-yuan-fu to Ping-yang-fu (Shan-si); Tse-chou to Tao-kou; Ta-tung-fu to Kalgan; T’ien-tsin to Te-chou and Chin-kiang; Canton to Kow-loon; Wu-hu to Kwang-te-chou (Ngan-hwei); Canton to Amoy; Canton to Kan-chou (Kiang-si); Chenn-chou-fu to Chang-te (Northern Hu-nan); Heng-chou-fu to Yung-chou-fu (Hu-nan); Tung-kwan to Pu-chou-fu (Shen-si, Shan-si); Kiu-kiang to Nan-chang; Sin-ning to Yung-kiang (Kwang-tung); Kalgan to Kulun (Mongolia); Lan-chou-fu to Ili (Sin-kiang).

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Measures of length: one foot (chih), 14 5/8 inches = 10 tsun; 1 tsun = 10 fen; 10 feet = 1 chang; 10 chang = 1 yu. One li = 360 kung or 867 yards. The land measures are the mao (mow) = 240 pu or 26.73 sq. ft; 100 mao = one k’ing of 16.7 acres, The t’ou = 10 cheng or 2.269 gallons. Measures of weight: The tan or picul = 100 kin or catties = 133 1/3 lbs; 1 kin (pound or catty) = 16 taels or 1 1/3 lb; 1 tael (ounce of liang) = 24 chou or 1 1/3 oz.; 1 liang = 10 tsien; 1 tsien = 10 fen; 1 fen = 10 li. Money: 1 tael or liang = 10 tsien (mace); 1 mace = 10 fen (candareen); 1 candareen = 10 li or cash (in French sapèque). The tael is a weight of silver which varies considerably in value; in 1906 the Haikwan tael, in which the custom revenues and all values are given, was equivalent to 2.46 Indian rupees, 1.60 Japanese yen, Mexican $1.54, English 3s 3 1/2d., U.S. $0.80. Chinese lump silver, called sycee (fine silk), is made into ingots resembling in shape a shoe. The silver experts are called shroff.

CALENDAR

The common year has twelve lunar months. In a period of 19 years, there are seven intercalary years, each of 13 months. Years are reckoned either from the beginning of the reign of the emperor, or from their place in the cycle of 60 years. the sexagenary cycle was devised by Ta-nao, minister of Hwang-ti, the sixty-first year of whose reign (2637 B.C.) was taken for the first cyclical sign. A common civil year consists of from 383 to 385 days. since the time of Emperor K’ang-hi the day is divided into 96 k’o, or quarters, sub-divided into 15 fen, or minutes, the minute into 60 miao, or seconds, each second into 60 wei; these in turn are divided into 12 shih, subdivided into two siao-shi (ch’u and cheng).

SOCIAL LIFE

The family name of a Chinaman is sing. China is called Pe-kia-sing, the “hundred families.” The prenomen is ming-tze; the Christian name is sheng-ming; the name given to children by parents nai-ming; the official name kwan-ming. An emperor, besides his personal name, has a title as ruler nien-hao, and a dynastic title or posthumous name miao-hao; some of the emperors have has several nien-hao. Thus Hiuan-yi was the personal name of the emperor, whose nien-ho (period) was K’ang-hi, and his miao-hao was Sheng Tsu.

The marriage ceremonies include the visit to the prospective bride’s father and brother by an intermediary (mei-jin) sent by the prospective bridegroom’s father and brother to inquire her name, which is to be examined by the horoscope; if the horoscope be auspicious, the mei-jin is sent to make an offer of marriage which, if accepted, is confirmed in writing; presents are sent to the parent of the bride; a lucky day is selected for the wedding, and the bridegroom sends some of his friends to bring the bride to his house. The seven valid grounds for divorce are: talkativeness, wantonness, theft, barrenness, disobedience to a husband’s parents, jealousy, and inveterate infirmity; to these infidelity has been added.

The burial ceremonies are more or less varied, short or long according to the wealth of the deceased, and the dead are buried in graves. The graves of the Ming emperors at Nan-king and in Mongolia are famous. The emperors of the present dynasty are buried in Chi-li in mausoleums called Tung-li and Si-ling; their ancestors rest at Mukden. The period of mourning for a father is three years, which is reduced in practice to twenty-seven months. White is the mourning colour of China; it is blue for the emperor, and the seals are inked in blue instead of vermilion.

The main food is rice (fan), and as it does not grow in Northern China, great quantities are transported to the southern provinces and Cochin-China. Among the Chinese delicacies are birds’ nests (Yen-wo), nests of the collocalia brevirostris, which are made with seaweed (gelidium); dried shark’s fins, black or white (pe-yu-chi or he-yu-chi); béche-de-mer (Hai-san); preserved eggs (pi-tan, sung-hwa-tan). The Chinese use a great deal of oil (hiang-yu) extracted from the seamum orientale, the Arachis Hypogoea, or the Brassica sinensis. The Chinese drink tea (cha) and fermented liquors (sam-shoo and others). They eat with small wooden or ivory sticks, called chop-sticks (kwai-tze); they know the use of the fork (cha-tze), the spoon (piao-keng), and the knife (tao).

FESTIVALS

The first day of the first moon (Yuan-tan) or New Year’s Day, is the occasion of great festivity. houses are decorated with paper flowers and small strips of guilt and red paper; debts are paid and accounts are settled. The first full moon of the year is the Feast of Lanterns (Shang-yuan-tsieh), when lanterns of various forms, colours, and materials are suspended before each door. The fifth day of the fifth month is the Feats of the Dragon’s Boats (T’ien-chung-sieh), instituted in the memory of the statesman K’iu Yuan, who drowned himself in the river Mi-lo, an affluent of the Tung-ting lake, in the fourth century B.C. Other festivals are those of the village gods (T’u-ti-tan), of the god of literature (Wen-ch’ang-tan), of Sakyamuni, Kwan-yn, Confucius, etc.

On 9 Oct., 1907, an imperial edict was issued in Peking, ordering the Board of Revenues and Commerce forthwith to introduce a uniform system of weights and measures throughout the Chinese Empire, the standards to be fixed within six months.

GENERAL.—For a complete bibliography, see Cordier, Bibliotheca Sinica. Dict. bibliog. des ouvrages relatifs ê l’empire chinois (Paris, 1904–08); Richard, Comprehensive Geography of the Chinese Empire and Dependencies, tr. Kennelly (Shanghai, 1908). De Mendoïa, Hist. de las casos mas notables . . . del gran Reyno de la China (Rome, 1585); Semedo, Imperio de la China (Madrid, 1642); Magaullans, Nouv. relation de la Chine (Paris, 1688); Le Comte, Nouv. mémoires sur l’état présent de la Chine (Paris, 1696); Du Halde, Descrip. géog. . . . de l’empire de la Chine (Paris, 1735); Mémoires concernant l’historie, les sciences, les arts. . . . des chinois (Paris, 1776–1814); Grosier, Descrip. générale de la Chine (Paris, 1818–20); Davis, The Chinese (London, 1857); Williams, The Middle Kingdom (London, 1883); Richthofen, China (Berlin, 1877); Gray, China: A history of the laws, manners, etc. (1878); Mayers, The Chinese Government (Shanghai, 1878); Idem, Treaties between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers (Shanghai, 1877); Gilcs, A Glossary of References on Subjects connected with the Far East (Hong-Kong, 1886); Yule, Hobson-Jobson (London, 1886).

THE CHINESE PEOPLE AND LANGUAGE.—Legendre, Deux années au Setchouen (Paris, xliv, 433–74); Smith, Chinese Characteristics (New York, 1903); Douglas, Society in China (London, 1895). Bard, Le chinois chez eux (Paris, 1900); Kiong, Politesse chinois (Shanghai, 1906); Honang, Le marriage chinois (Shaghai, 1898); Vial, L’esprit et le coeur chez les Lolos in Annales des Missions-Etrangères (Paris, 1905); 129 sq.; Cavalerie Chez les chouy-kia, Ibid., (1889), 100–107; Idem, Les Miaotse et les Tchongkia, Ibid., (1904). 332–37; Liétard, Les A-Djé et les Lou-Ou, Ibid, (1904), 74 sq.; Jeremiassen, Loi Aborigines of Hainan and their Speech, in China Rev., XX, 289–305; Gilman, The Aborigines of Hainan, Ibid., XXV, 247–51; Schlefer, The Lois or Aborigines of Hainan in East of Asia Magazine (1904), III, 46–50; Colquhoun and Stewart-Lockhart, The Aborigines of Formosa in China Review, XIII, 200–207; Watters, Essays on the Chinese Language (Shanghai, 1889); Williams, Syllabic Dictionary of the Chinese Language (Shanghai); Volipicelli, Chinese Phonology (Shanghai, 1896); Möllendorf, Classification of the Chinese Dialects (Shanghai, 1896); Douglas, China (London, 1882), xviii,xix, 330–400; De Harlez, Le Yih-king (Paris, 1890); Legge, The Chinese Classics with Critical and Exegetical Notes (Oxford, 1893); Jennings, The Shi-king, or Old Poetry Classic of the Chinese (London, 1891); Zottoli, Cursus Litteræ Sinicæ (Shanghai, 1879—); Piry, Manuel de la langue Manderine (Shanghai, 1895); Couvreur, Dict. classique se la langue chinoise (Ho-kien-fu, 1904); Idem, Guide to Conversation in French, English, and Chinese (Ho-kien-fu, 1906).

GOVERNMENT.—Hoang, Mélanges sur l’adminstration; Variétés Sinologiques (Shanghai, 1902); Douglas, Society in China (London, 1905), i, 1–31, ii, 32–63; Boulger, A Short History of China (London, 1893), xxiii, 356–73; Colquhoun, China in Transformation, (London, 1898), vii, 167–98; Parker, China, her History, Diplomacy, and Commerce (London, 1901), viii, 161–81; Idem, China Past and Present (London, 1903), IV, 128–58, VI, 223–53; Smith, China from Within (London, 1901), ii, 7–16, vi, 45–59; Jerigan, China’s Business Methods and Policy (Shanghai, 1904); Idem, China in Law and Commerce (New York, 1905); Leroy-Beaulieu, The Awakening of the East (London, 1900).

EDUCATION.—Zi, Pratique des examens littéraires (Shanghai, 1894); Idem, Pratique des examens militaires (Shanghai, 1896); Tobar, Le réforme des études in Chine in âtudes, 5 Dec., 1903; Parker, John Chinaman (London, 1901), ix, 197–200; Idem, Educational Curriculum of the Chinese in China Review, ix, 1–13; D’Ollone, La Chine novatrice et guerrière (Paris, 1906), ii, 162–68; 280–84; Martin, Chinese Education, Philosophy and Letters (New York, 1898); Gee, The Educational Directory for China (Shanghai, 1905).

RELIGIONS.—De Harlez, Les religions de la Chine (Leipzig, 1891); Godard, Les croyances chinoises et japanaises (Paris, 1901); De Groot, The Religious System of China (Leyden, Amsterdam, 1894–1904); Hampden, Dragon, Image, and Demon (New York, 1887); Stanley, China from Within (London, 1901), xii, 172–89; Cornaby, China Under the Searchlight (London, 1901), ix; Parker, China, Past and Present (1905), xxx, 80–127.

FOREIGN RELATIONS.—Cordier, Le France en Chine au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1883); Idem, Centenaire de Marco Polo (Paris, 1896); Idem, Hist. des relations de la Chine avec les puissances occidentales (1860–1902) (Paris, 1903); Parker, China’s Intercourse with Europe (London, 1890); Montalto de Jesus, Historic Macao (Hong-Kong, 1902); Krausse, The Far East (London, 1903), ii, 15–34, iii, 35–57; McCarthy, The Coming Power: A Contemporary History of the Far East (1898–1905) (London, 1906); Norman, The Peoples and Politics of the Far East (London, 1895); Curzon, Problems of the Far East (London, 1896), ix, 260–310, xiv,413–28.

TRADE AND CUSTOMS,—Edkins, The revenue and Taxation of the Chinese Empire (Shanghai, 1903); Hosie, Foreign Trade of China for the Years 1904–1905 (Foreign Office, 1906); Cordier, Les douanes impériales maritimes chinoise. Les origines et le développement (T’ung-pao, 1906); Parker, Chinese Revenue (N.C.B.R.A. Soc., 1905); Idem, China, her History, Diplomacy and Commerce (London, 1901), x 195–208, xi, 209–26, xii, 227–43; Dyer, Things Chinese (Shanghai, 1903).

HENRI CORDIER

Chinooks

An aboriginal tribe of the extreme northwest of the United States, which might be adduced as an instance of the baneful effects of our civilization on a people not prepared for it by the influence of religion. Its habitat was the basin of the lower Columbia, from the Dalles to its mouth, except a small area of land on the south bank of the river occupied by a Dene tribe. The family was divided into the Lower and the Upper Chinooks, and they all lived in large houses of wood, each containing several families and forming villages situated, as a rule, on the north side of the Columbia and Willamette rivers. Each village was presided over by a chief, who was independent of all outside influence. A few of these head men attained wealth and enjoyed a consideration unusual among savages. The most prominent of them within historical times was Comcomly, who received the Lewis and Clarke expedition. According to Father De Smet, this man, when at the height of his power, was preceded by 300 slaves whenever he visited Fort Vancouver, “and he used to carpet the ground that he had to traverse, from the main entrance of the fort to the governor’s door, several hundred feet, with beaver and otter skins” (Chittenden and Richardson, Life, Letters, and Travels of Father Pierre Jean De Smet, New York, 1905, II, 443). The staple food of the Chinooks was salmon, with a few roots and berries. These people were great traders and, as most maritime races, they used to barter with the interior tribes the objects obtained from white skippers. It seems that even before the advent of the whites on their coast, they were famous for their commercial excursions, which they accomplished in their beautiful high-prowed canoes, reaching as far as Nootka Sound, on Vancouver Island. A stray member of the tribe has been met in the very centre of British Columbia and another at Wrangel, Alaska. These expeditions, bringing into contact people of different tongues, called for a means of communication which was provided in the shape of a jargon originally made up of Chinook and Nootkan words more or less disfigured according to the nationality of the speaker. To this was added, after the coming of the whites, a considerable number of French and English terms, until it became an intertribal idiom of the greatest use to trader and missionary alike.

The Chinooks were somewhat taller than the generality of the coast tribes. They were universally addicted to the custom of deforming the heads of their infants, through the agency of a board secured to the top of the cradle and pressing down the forehead and occiput. Their character was none of the best. Proud and haughty, their notions of honesty, at least as applied to their relations with strangers, were at best rather hazy, and the readiness with which their females fell prey to unprincipled whites does not speak well of their consideration for chastity. Practically their first contact with the whites dates from the visit of Captains Lewis and Clarke in 1805. Their numbers were then estimated at no less than 16,000. Though their first intercourse with the strangers was of a peaceful nature, they lost no opportunity later on to pilfer from the Astorian traders who established themselves among them in 1812. In 1829, however, their arrogance was somewhat curbed by the visitation of an epidemic which carried off four-fifths of their entire population.

Through the French Canadians in the employ of the Pacific Fur Company, they had heard of the Christian religion; and the Rev. F. N. Blanchet (later Archbishop of Oregon City) even tells us that “very old crucifixes were found among them” when first visited by the Catholic priests (Mémoire présenté a la S. Congrégation de la Propagande, p. 12). This was in 1838, when, accompanied by the Rev. M. Demers (later Bishop of the Diocese of Vancouver) he arrived in the valley of the lower Columbia. The Chinooks who, by this time, had acquired most of the vices of the whites, did not show any particular enthusiasm for the creed of the missionaries. On the other hand, the latter were too few, and they had to limit their ministrations to the French Canadians with their large half-breed families, and to such of the natives as were sufficiently well disposed. Occasionally, however, some Chinooks would come to see them at Fort Vancouver, more out of curiosity than through a desire for instruction. In 1839 Father Demers speaks of “their abominable lives,” and it was only the following year (1840) that he could visit them at their homes, which he reached on 22 May, as a band of Methodist preachers were landing at Astoria. During a stay of three weeks’ duration, he instructed the adults and baptized the children, but they soon relapsed into indifference. In 1851 another special effort was made, with little success, to reclaim them from their degenerate condition. Gradually vice and disease further thinned their ranks, and it actually came to pass that the Lower Chinooks became extinct, while what remained of the upper part of the family, being scattered abroad, was soon more or less mixed with the neighbouring tribes and shared with them in the spiritual assistance proffered. Today, there are not more than 300 Chinooks extant, who are found mostly on the Warm Springs, Yakima, and Grande Ronde reservations in Oregon.

De Smet, Letters and Sketches (Philadelphia, 1843); Duflot, de Mofras, Exploration du territoire de l’Oregon (Paris, 1844); Lewis and Clarke, Hist. of the Expedition (Toronto, s.d.); Demers, Chinook Dictionary, Catechism, Prayers and Hymns (Montreal, 1871).

A. G. MORICE.

Diocese of Chioggia (Chiozza)

DIOCESE OF CHIOGGIA (CLODIENSIS).

Chioggia is a sea-coast city in the province of Venice. It has an important harbour and extensive fisheries. In antiquity it was known as Fossa Clodia; in the Middle Ages as Clugia. In 452 it offered a safe refuge to the inhabitants of the neighbouring cities of Monselice and Este who fled before Attila. Later, however, it shared the political vicissitudes of that region, falling successively into the power of the Goths, the Lombards, and finally of Pepin, King of Italy, son of Charlemagne. During the tenth and eleventh centuries it became a republic. It was ruined and subjugated by the Genoese during their war with the Venetians, but was freed by the Venetian general Zeno (1378–81), and soon flourished under the rule of Venice. In 1106, Enrico Grancarolo, Bishop of the island of Malamocco, then nearly deserted, transferred his see to Chioggia. Other noteworthy bishops are: the Dominican Marco Medici (1578), a famous theologian at the Council of Trent, and his successor Gabriello Fiamma (1584), one of the greatest orators of his time. Cardinal Pietro Bembo was a canon of the cathedral. This cathedral is remarkable for its magnificent pulpit and baptistery. The Diocese of Chioggia is a suffragan of Venice; it has 93,500 inhabitants, 31 parishes, 2 religious houses for men and 11 for women.

U. BENIGNI

Chios

(Gr. Chios, It. Scio, Turkish, Sakiz Adassi).

One of the Sporades in the Ægean Sea, separated from the mainland of Asia Minor by a strait five miles wide in its narrowest part; also the chief town of this island. Its origin is lost in the remotest antiquity. In historical times it became a rich Ionian colony with a great navy, and took an important part in the Medic wars. Allied with Athens during the Peloponnesian War, it was conquered by Lacedæmon, wavered in allegiance between Phillip of Macedon and the Persians entered into an alliance with the Romans, and at last became a Roman possession (70 B.C.). Under the Byzantine Empire it was ravaged by the Arabs in the eight century, and by the Turkish pirate, Tsachas, in 1089. The Venetians occupied it from the beginning of the thirteenth century till 1261, and the Genoese from 1346 to 1566, when it was conquered by Piali Pasha. Since then it has remained a Turkish possession, except for a short occupation by the Tuscans in 1595 and by the Venetians in 1694. In 1822, on the occasion of the Greek insurrection, 30,000 Greeks were killed or sold as slaves, and 20,000 fled from the island, most of them to Syros, where they built Hermopolis. On 22 March, 1881, a great earthquake afflicted the island. With some neighbouring islets Chios forms a sanjak of the archipelago vilayet. The population is said to be 60,000: 1500 Mussulmans, 400 Catholics, 250 Jews, and the rest Greeks. The town itself (Scio) has 15,000 inhabitants. Chios is a metropolitan see for the Greeks (see the episcopal list in Lequien, “Oriens Christianus,” I, 931); they have several churches and schools, and a library. There is also a Latin bishopric, a suffragan of Naxos, which has three churches served by some ten priests. The religious are the Capuchins, Brothers of Christian Doctrine, and Sisters of St. Joseph of the Apparition, with schools. The list of Latin bishops since the fourteenth century is in Lequien, op. cit., II, 1062; more complete in Gams (448) and Eubel, I, 191; II, 141. The diocese also includes the island of Samos, with 100 Catholics, a church, and school conducted by Fathers of the African Missions from Lyons.

The fertile valleys of Chios are like vast orchards, in which grow oranges, lemons, and other fruits. The island also produces wine, mastic, resin of a lentiscus, used chiefly in perfuming the raki, turpentine, silk and cotton, wax, marble, and antimony. In extreme length the island is about thirty-two miles, north to south, and at its widest part eighteen, narrowing down to about eight miles. Chios is one of the sites that lay claim to the honour of Homer’s birthplace; the Dascalopetra, or Homer’s school, a rock where he is said to have taught, is still shown. Chios is also the birthplace of the tragic poet Ion, the historian Theopompus, the philosopher Metrodorus, and many artists; of the Catholics, Giustiniani, a defender of Constantinople in 1453, Allatius (q.v.), and Pepanos; the Greeks, Coresios, Coraïs, and others.

CRAMER, A Geogr. And Histor. Description of Asia Minor (Oxford, 1832), II, 395–402; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 609; TOZER, The Islands of the Ægean (Oxford, 1890), 139–156; CUINET, Turquie d’Asie, I, 406; GIUSTINIANI, La Scio sacra del rito latino descritta (1658); BLASTOS, Chiaca, or History of the Island of Chios (Gr.); PAULY-WISSOWA, Real-Encyc., III, 2286–2297 (important bibliography); HOUSSAYE, l’Ile de Chio, in Revue des Deux Mondes (1881), XLVI, 82–103; PERNOT, En pays turc: l’île de Chio (Paris, 1903).

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Chippewa Indians

The largest and most important tribe north of Mexico, numbering some 30,000 souls, about equally divided between the United States and Canada. The popular name is a corruption of Ojibwa, a name of uncertain etymology, but generally supposed to refer to the “puckered up” appearance of the seam along the front of the tribal moccasin. They call themselves Anishinabag, “original men,” and on account of having formerly had their principal residence at Sault Sainte Marie, at the outlet of Lake Superior, they were known to the French as Saulteurs. The Ojibwa belong to the great Algonquian stock and are closely related to the Ottawa and the Cree. According to their own tradition they came from the east, advancing along the Great Lakes and had their first settlement in their present country at Sault Sainte Marie and at Shaugawaumikong (French Chegoimegon) on the southern shore of Lake Superior, about the present Lapointe or Bayfield, Wisconsin. Their first mention in history occurs in the “Jesuit Relation” for 1640. Through their friendship with the French traders they were able to procure guns and thus to prosecute most successfully their hereditary wars with the Sioux and Foxes on their west and south, with such result that the Sioux were driven out from the Upper Mississippi region, and the Foxes forced down from Northern Wisconsin and compelled to confederate with the Sauk. By the end of the eighteenth century the Ojibwa were the almost unchallenged owners of nearly all of the present Michigan, Northern Wisconsin, and Minnesota, including most of the Red River country and west-ward to the Turtle Mountains of North Dakota, together with the entire northern shores and drainage of Lakes Huron and Superior on the Canadian side. They have never been removed as have been so many other tribes, but by successive treaty sales they are now restricted to reservations within this home territory, with the exception of a few families resident in Kansas.

Notwithstanding their importance as a tribe the Ojibwa are not prominent in colonial history, owing chiefly to their remote situation. In conjunction with the French they had greatly reduced the formidable Foxes early in the eighteenth century, and finally crushed them, single-handed, in a decisive battle about 1780. At a much earlier period they had turned the westward march of the conquering Iroquois. The hereditary war with the Sioux continued until within the past half-century, in spite of repeated efforts of the Government to bring about peace. In common with most of the western tribes they were allies of the French throughout the colonial period, but joined the side of England against the Americans in the Revolution and again in 1812, being especially active in the latter war. They first entered into treaty relations with the United States in 1785.

Although to a certain extent a sedentary people, the Ojibwa were not agricultural, their country being too cold for profitable farming by the rude Indian method, but depended for subsistence upon fishing, hunting, and the gathering of wild rice. Their territory abounded in lakes and clear streams well stocked with fish, with vast fields of wild rice in the quieter waters. They also gathered cranberries and manufactured maple sugar, the latter being itself an Indian discovery. Their pottery was rude and unimportant, but they were expert in basket and mat weaving, and in the manipulation of birch-bark for houses, canoes, boxes, and other purposes. Their dwellings were either rectangular, round-topped structures of poles covered with mats or bark, or were of tipi or tent shape and covered usually with bark. They were much upon the water and were noted for their skill in making and handling their beautiful birch-bark canoes. Living in a timber country they travelled and fought on foot, except when going by water, and had but little acquaintance with either the buffalo or the horse. Physically and intellectually they ranked high among the tribes.

In their system of government each band was practically independent of the others, although according to their tradition it had been more centralized in ancient times, when the tribe had dwelt within a smaller compass. They had the clan system with some twenty clans, the exact number being a matter of controversy owing to the wide dispersion of the bands. Each clan had its own special precedence in war, deliberation, ceremonial function, etc. They buried in the ground, leaving articles of property and food offerings at the grave, as was the almost universal Indian custom. They had the usual multiplicity of gods, but there were no great ceremonial tribal gatherings such as were found among the agricultural and the buffalo-hunting tribes, the religious and ceremonial observances being in the keeping of various societies, of which the Mide (Meda) secret society was the dominant one and preserved the sacred tribal tradition. Despite centuries of missionary effort these societies still flourish and the majority of the tribe continues pagan.

The mission history of the Ojibwa begins in 1660, when the Jesuit René Menard established himself about Keweenaw Bay in Upper Michigan. Five years later another Jesuit, Father Claude Allouez, founded the mission of Saint-Esprit at Chegoimegon (Bayfield, Wisconsin), the principal gathering-place for all the bands south of Lake Superior. Other missions were soon after begun at Sault Sainte Marie and Mackinaw. The work continued under Jesuit auspices down nearly to the end of the eighteenth century when it was taken up by secular priests. Within the last few years a large share of the labour has again devolved upon a Jesuit worker stationed at the Sault, the only priest in Upper Michigan who knows the language. Chief among the later missionaries may be mentioned the well-known philologist, Bishop Frederick Baraga (q.v.) who, beginning in 1830, devoted thirty-six years of his life to the Ojibwa and Ottawa, chiefly at L’Anse on Keweenaw Bay. The narrative of his career is one long record of heroic sacrifice. His great grammar and dictionary is the accepted standard upon the Ojibwa language. Another noted worker in the Red River country, was Father George Belcourt, 1831–1846, author of another dictionary which still remains in manuscript. Of more recent period is the Franciscan, Father Chrysotom Verwyst, stationed at Bayfield, Wisconsin, who has also given much attention to the language. Protestant effort in the tribe was inaugurated in 1823 in Ontario on the Canada side, by the Wesleyan Methodists, followed the next year by the Baptists at Sault Sainte Marie. In 1827 the Congregationalists began work at Mackinaw, and about 1830 the Episcopalians established themselves at the Sault. The majority of the Christian portion of the tribe is Catholic.

Thwaites, Jesuit Relations (Cleveland, 1896–1901); Mooney, Missions in Handbook of American Indians (Washington, 1907); Pilling, Bibliography of the Algonquian Languages (1891); Shea, Catholic Missions (New York, 1855); School-craft, History, Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes (Philadelphia, 1851–59).

JAMES MOONEY

Diocese of Chiusi-Pienza

DIOCESE OF CHIUSI-PIENZA (CLUSINENSIS ET PIENTINENSIS)

Suffragan of Siena. Chiusi is an important town in the province of that name in Tuscany. It is the ancient Clusium, one of the twelve cities of the Etruscan Confederation. Even yet many vestiges of Etruscan fortresses and tombs are visible. At an early period it became subject to the Romans. The Gospel, it is said, was preached there by the immediate disciples of the Apostles. Better authenticated, however, is the story of the martyrdom of the deacon Irenaeus and the virgin Mustiola, which probably took place under Valerian, not under Aurelian. Catacombs are found at Chiusi, The first known bishop was Florentius, present in 465 at the Roman synod under Pope Hilary. Bishop Francesco degli Atti (1348) was a famous canonist, and died in the odour of sanctity. Chiusi formerly boasted of a famous relic, the betrothal ring of the Blessed Virgin, which was taken to Perugia about 1449 by an Augustinian friar; in consequence of this a war broke out between them, in which Perugia was victorious and remained in possession of the ring. Chiusi was at first immediately subject to the Holy See, but was made a suffragan of Siena by Pius II. In 1773 Clement XIV added to it the Diocese of Pienza. Among the famous abbeys of the diocese was that of Ammiato, which was built by Rachis, King of the Lombards, and afterwards rose to great power and influence. The diocese has a population of 26,300, with 56 parishes, 125 churches and chapels, 91 secular and 50 regular priests, 4 religious houses for men and 7 for women.

U. BENIGNI

Chivalry

Chivalry (derived through the French cheval from the Latin caballus) as an institution is to be considered from three points of view: the military, the social, and the religious. We shall also here consider the history of chivalry as a whole.

MILITARY

In the military sense, chivalry was the heavy cavalry of the Middle Ages which constituted the chief and most effective warlike force. The knight or chevalier was the professional soldier of the time; in medieval Latin, the ordinary word miles (soldier) was equivalent to “knight.” This pre-eminence of cavalry was correlative with the decline of infantry on the battlefield. Four peculiarities distinguished the professional warrior:

his weapons;

his horse;

his attendants, and

his flag.

WEAPONS

The medieval army was poorly equipped for long-distance fighting, and bows and crossbows were still employed, although the Church endeavored to prohibit their use, at least between Christian armies, as contrary to humanity. At all events, they were regarded as unfair in combat by the medieval knight. His only offensive weapons were the lance for the encounter and the sword for the close fight, weapons common to both light-armed and heavy cavalry. The characteristic distinction of the latter, which really constituted chivalry, lay in their defensive weapons, which varied with different periods. These weapons were always costly to get and heavy to bear, such as the brunia or hauberk of the Carlovingian Era, the coat of mail, which prevailed during the Crusades, and lastly the plate armor introduced in the fourteenth century.

HORSES

No knight was thought to be properly equipped without at least three horses:

the battle horse, or dexterarius, which was led by hand, and used only for the onset (hence the saying, “to mount one’s high horse”),

a second horse, palfrey or courser, for the route, and

the pack-horse for the luggage.

ATTENDANTS

The knight required several attendants:

one to conduct the horses,

another to bear the heaviest weapons, particularly the shield or escutcheon (scutum, hence scutarius, French escuyer, esquire);

still another to aid his master to mount his battle horse or to raise him if dismounted;

a fourth to guard prisoners, chiefly those of quality, for whom a high ransom was expected.

These attendants, who were of low condition, were not to be confounded with the armed retainers, who formed the escort of a knight. From the thirteenth century the squires also went armed and mounted and, passing from one grade to the other, were raised finally to knighthood.

FLAGS

Banners were also a distinctive mark of chivalry. They were attached to, and carried on, the lance. There was a sharp distinction between the pennon, a flag pointed or forked at the extremity, used by a single chevalier or bachelor as a personal ensign, and the banner, square in form, used as the ensign of a band and reserved to the baron or baronet in command of a group of at least ten knights, called a constabulary. Each flag or banner was emblazoned with the arms of its owner to distinguish one from another on the battlefield. These armorial bearings afterwards became hereditary and gave birth to the complicated science of heraldry.

SOCIAL

The career of a knight was costly, requiring personal means in keeping with the station; for a knight had to defray his own expenses in an age when the sovereign had neither treasury nor war budget at his disposal. When land was the only kind of riches, each lord paramount who wished to raise an army divided his domain into military fiefs, the tenant being held to military service at his own personal expense for a fixed number of days (forty in France and in England during the Norman period). These fees, like other feudal grants, became hereditary, and thus developed a noble class, for whom the knightly profession was the only career. Knighthood, however, was not hereditary, though only the sons of a knight were eligible to its ranks. In boyhood they were sent to the court of some noble, where they were trained in the use of horses and weapons, and were taught lessons of courtesy. From the thirteenth century, the candidates, after they had attained the rank of squire, were allowed to take part in battles; but it was only when they had come of age, commonly twenty-one years, that they were admitted to the rank of knight by means of a peculiar ceremonial called “dubbing.” Every knight was qualified to confer knighthood, provided the aspirant fulfilled the requisite conditions of birth, age, and training. Where the condition of birth was lacking in the aspirant, the sovereign alone could create a knight, as a part of his royal prerogative.

RELIGIOUS

In the ceremonial of conferring knighthood the Church shared, through the blessing of the sword, and by the virtue of this blessing chivalry assumed a religious character. In early Christianity, although Tertullian’s teaching that Christianity and the profession of arms were incompatible was condemned as heretical, the military career was regarded with little favour. In chivalry, religion and the profession of arms were reconciled. This change in attitude on the part of the Church dates, according to some, from the Crusades, when Christian armies were for the first time devoted to a sacred purpose. Even prior to the Crusades, however, an anticipation of this attitude is found in the custom called the “Truce of God.” It was then that the clergy seized upon the opportunity offered by these truces to exact from the rough warriors of feudal times a religious vow to use their weapons chiefly for the protection of the weak and defenseless, especially women and orphans, and of churches. Chivalry, in the new sense, rested on a vow; it was this vow which dignified the soldier, elevated him in his own esteem, and raised him almost to the level of the monk in medieval society. As if in return for this vow, the Church ordained a special blessing for the knight in the ceremony called in the Pontificale Romanum, “Benedictio novi militis.” At first very simple in its form, this ritual gradually developed into an elaborate ceremony. Before the blessing of the sword on the altar, many preliminaries were required of the aspirant, such as confession, a vigil of prayer, fasting, a symbolical bath, and investiture with a white robe, for the purpose of impressing on the candidate the purity of soul with which he was to enter upon such a noble career. Kneeling, in the presence of the clergy, he pronounced the solemn vow of chivalry, at the same time often renewing the baptismal vow; the one chosen as godfather then struck him lightly on the neck with a sword (the dubbing) in the name of God and St. George, the patron of chivalry.

HISTORY

There are four distinct periods in the history of chivalry. The period of foundation, i.e. the time when the Truce of God was in force, witnessed the long contest of the Church against the violence of the age, before she succeeded in curbing the savage spirit of the feudal warriors, who prior to this recognized no law but that of brute force.

FIRST PERIOD: THE CRUSADES

The Crusades introduced the golden age of chivalry, and the crusader was the pattern of the perfect knight. The rescue of the holy places of Palestine from Moslem domination and the defense of pilgrims became the new object of his vow. In return, the Church took him under her protection in a special way, and conferred upon him exceptional temporal and spiritual privileges, such as the remission of all penances, dispensation from the jurisdiction of the secular courts, and as a means of defraying the expenses of the journey to the Holy Land, knights were granted the tenth of all the church revenues. The vow of the crusader was limited to a specified period. For the distant expeditions into Asia, the average time was two or three years.

SECOND PERIOD: THE MILITARY ORDERS

After the conquest of Jerusalem, the necessity of a standing army became peremptory, in order to prevent the loss of the Holy City to surrounding hostile nations. Out of this necessity arose the military orders which adopted as a fourth monastic vow that of perpetual warfare against the infidels. In these orders, wherein was realized the perfect fusion of the religious and the military spirit, chivalry reached its apogee. This heroic spirit had also its notable representatives among the secular crusaders, as Godfrey of Bouillon, Tancred of Normandy, Richard Couer de Lion, and above all Louis IX of France, in whom knighthood was crowned by sanctity. Like the monastic, the knightly vow bound with common ties warriors of every nation and condition, and enrolled them in a vast brotherhood of manners, ideals, and aims. The secular brotherhood had, like the regular its rule imposing on its members fidelity to their; lords and to their word, fair play on the battlefield, and the observance of the maxims of honour and courtesy. Medieval chivalry, moreover, opened a new chapter in the history of literature. It prepared the way and gave ready currency to an epic and romantic movement in literature reflecting the ideal of knighthood and celebrating its accomplishment and achievements. Provence and Normandy were the chief centres of this kind of literature, which was spread throughout all Europe by the trouvères and troubadours.

THIRD PERIOD: SECULAR CHIVALRY

After the Crusades chivalry gradually lost its religious aspect. In this, its third period, honour remains the peculiar worship of knighthood. This spirit is manifested in the many knightly exploits which fill the annals of the long contest between England and France during the Hundred Years War. The chronicles of Froissart give a vivid picture of this age, where bloody battles alternate with tournaments and gorgeous pageants. Each contending nation has its heroes. If England could boast of the victories of the Black Prince, Chandos, and Talbot, France could pride herself on the exploits of Du Guesclin, Boucicaut, and Dunois. But with all the brilliance and glamour of their achievements, the main result was a useless shedding of blood, waste of money, and misery for the lower classes. The amorous character of the new literature had contributed not a little to deflect chivalry from its original ideal. Under the influence of the romances love now became the mainspring of chivalry. As a consequence there arose a new type of chevalier, vowed to the service of some noble lady, who could even be another man’s wife. This idol of his heart was to be worshipped at a distance. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the obligations imposed upon the knightly lover, these extravagant fancies often led to lamentable results.

FOURTH PERIOD: COURT CHIVALRY

In its last stages, chivalry became a mere court service. The Order of the Garter, founded in 1348 by Edward III of England, the Order of the Golden Fleece (Toison d’or) of Philip of Burgundy, dating from 1430, formed a brotherhood, not of crusaders, but of courtiers, with no other aim than to contribute to the splendor of the sovereign. Their most serious business was the sport of jousts and tournaments. They made their vows not in chapels, but in banquet halls, not on the cross, but on some emblematic bird. The “vow of the Swan” of 1306, was instituted during the feast of the dubbing of the son of Edward I. It was before God and the swan that the old king swore with his knights to avenge on Scotland the murder of his lieutenant. More celebrated is the “vow of the Pheasant,” made in 1454 at the court of Philip of Burgundy. The motive was weighty indeed, being nothing else than the rescue of Constantinople, which had fallen the past year into the hands of the Turks. But the solemnity of the motive did not lessen the frivolity of the occasion. A solemn vow was taken before God and the pheasant at a gorgeous banquet, the profligate cost of which might better have been devoted to the expedition itself. No less than one hundred and fifty knights, the flower of the nobility, repeated the vow, but the enterprise came to nought. Chivalry had degenerated to a futile pastime and an empty promise.

Literature, which had in the past so greatly contributed to the exaltation of chivalry, now reacted against its extravagances. In the early part of the fourteenth century this turning point becomes evident in the poetry of Chaucer. Although he himself had made many translations from the French romances, he mildly derides their manner in his “Sir Thopas.” The final blow was reserved for the immortal work of Cervantes, “Don Quixote,” which aroused the laughter of all Europe. Infantry, on its revival as an effective force on the battlefield during the fourteenth century began to dispute the supremacy which heavy cavalry had so long enjoyed. Chivalry which rested entirely upon the superiority of the horseman in warfare, rapidly declined. At Crécy (1346) and Agincourt (1415) the French knighthood was decimated by the arrows of the English archers of Edward III and Henry V. The Austrian nobility at Sempach (1386) and the Burgundian chivalry at Morat (1476) were unable to sustain the overpowering onslaught of the Swiss peasantry. With the advent of gunpowder and the general use of firearms in battle, chivalry rapidly disintegrated and finally disappeared altogether.

CH. MOELLER

Choctaw Indians

An important tribe or confederacy of Muskogean stock formerly holding most of Southern Alabama and Mississippi, with adjoining portions of Louisiana, U.S.A., but now resident in Eastern Oklahoma. The origin and meaning of the name are uncertain. According to their own tradition, which agrees with linguistic evidence, they were formerly connected with the Chickasaw and crossed the Mississippi together from the West. Their first appearance in history was in 1540, when their giant chief, Toscalusa the “Black Warrior,” opposed De Soto’s march in what was perhaps the most terrible Indian battle ever fought in the Eastern United States. Their connected history dates from the establishment of the French at Biloxi in 1699. They were generally more friendly to the French than to the English, but were always unsatisfactory and uncertain allies. They made their first treaty with the United States in 1786, since which time they have never been at war with the Government. In 1820 they sold their last remaining lands east of the Mississippi and agreed to remove to Oklahoma, but the removal was not completed until about twenty years later. Even then a considerable band, known later as Mississippi Choctaw, remained behind, most of whom, however, have recently joined the main body, though there are still hundreds in Louisiana. Those in the Territory constituted an autonomous Government under the title of the Choctaw Nation until 1906, when they were admitted to American citizenship. They number now altogether about 18,000 souls, probably their original number. The Choctaw were agricultural, dwelling in regularly arranged towns, with houses of logs plastered with clay, or of poles covered with mats or thatch. They were noted for their beautiful pottery and artistic basketry. Among their peculiar customs was that of flattening the head, and of digging up and cleaning the bones of the dead, after a short internment, for preservation in the family. They were much given to an athletic ball-play, which is still a favourite among them in the West. Not much is known of their myths or religion, which probably resembled those of the Muskogean tribes generally. Their tribal organization was lax and without central authority. They had the clan system, with descent in the female line, but the number of their clans is not definitely known.

Catholic mission work in the tribe was begun early in the French period, and though renewed effort was made under Jesuit auspices some years later, there were few results. In later years the work has been more successful, and the majority of those still remaining in their old homes are now Catholics, while two mission schools are also in operation among those in Oklahoma. The earlier missions among the Choctaw were intrusted to the Jesuits. Father Mathurin le Petit began work in the tribe in 1726, and continued until his transfer to New Orleans as superior of the Louisiana missions about two years later. He was succeeded by Father Michel Baudouin, who continued with them eighteen years, often in extreme danger from their treacherous and insolent disposition and the hostility of the English traders, until both governor and superior deemed it necessary to recall him and discontinue the work for a time. It was afterwards taken up by Father Nicholas le Febvre, who appears to have continued it until the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1764. Protestant work was begun in Mississippi by the American Board of Foreign Missions in 1818, and continued with success in the West. The Baptists began work in the Territory about 1832. Of the Protestant missionaries the most noted names are those of the Revs. Cyrus Byington and Allen Wright, both of whom have made important contributions to our knowledge of the language. In accordance with a former policy the earlier Protestant establishments were supported largely by Government funds.

JAMES MOONEY

Choir (1)

There is much ambiguity about the terms choir and presbytery. Strictly speaking, the choir is that part of the church where the stalls of the clergy are. The term is often loosely used for the whole of the eastern arm, including the choir proper, sanctuary, retro-choir, etc. At Westminster Abbey the stalls are in the east nave and therefore no part of the choir is in the eastern arm. At Canterbury the stalls are in the eastern arm and the choir occupies its western bays, i.e. the space between the crossing and the sanctuary. In non-collegiate churches the eastern arm is called the chancel, the eastern portion of which is the presbytery or sanctuary. In the earliest Christian churches, e.g. Santa Maria Maggiore at Rome, there were but two parts, a nave and sanctuary; there was no architectural choir. The sanctuary occupied the apse, and the apse was joined immediately to the nave, or, in the double-aisled basilicas of the fourth century, such as those of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome, to the transept; there was no interposition of a choir between nave and apse. The choir was simply the east part of the nave, and was fenced off by low walls, usually of marble, carved or perforated with interlacing patterns—peacocks (the symbol of immortality), lions, doves, etc. These walls were called cancelli, hence the English word “chancel.” The word choir is first used by writers of the Western Church. Isidore of Seville and Honorius of Autun derive it from the corona or circle of clergy or singers who surrounded the altar. The choir proper did not exist until the time of Constantine, when the clergy were able to develop the services of the Church. The introduction of the choir, or enclosed space in the centre of the nave, attached to the bema or presbytery, as the raised space came to be called, was the last great change of plan. Round three sides of this choir the faithful were allowed to congregate to hear the Gospels or Epistles read from the two pulpits or ambones, where were built into its enclosure, one on either side; or to hear the services which were read or sung by the inferior order of clergy who occupied its precincts. The enclosure of the choir was kept low, so as not to hide the view of the raised presbytery. In the south- western districts of France and throughout Spain, also in St. John Lateran, St. Clement, St. Laurence Without-the-walls, and St. Mary Major in Rome, the choir occupies the centre of the nave with an enclosed passage to the sanctuary. In parts of Italy the choir still retains its ancient position behind or eastward of the altar. In the Duomo of Fiesole, and at Lucca, there are two choirs, one behind and the other in front of the high altar. In the north of Germany choirs are usually elevated upon crypts (that of Milan stands over the confessio) and shut in with solid stone screens; the same arrangement exists at Canterbury, Auch, Augsburg, Chartres, Bourages, St-Denis, Amiens, and Notre-Dame in Paris. The finest existing enclosures are those of Paris and Amiens.

BOND, Gothic Architecture in England, 183–85; FERGUSSON, History of Architecture, I, 407; PARKER, Glossary of Architecture, I, 102, 103; WALCOTT, Sacred Archaeology, 146, 147, 148; REBER, History of Medieval Art, 182, 183.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Choir (2)

A body of singers entrusted with the musical parts of the Church service, and organized and instructed for that purpose. The Talmud witnesses to the careful organization of the Temple choir, and as the first Christians worshipped with the Jews, we find them from the first using the psalmodic solo with congregational refrain, and from the fourth century psalmody in alternating chorus, both possibly based on Jewish practice. Thus early, and all through the plain-chant period, the choir seems to have been influenced by the liturgical division of the music into solo and chorus chants. Soon after Constantine’s conversion we hear of lector-schools in which, as boys, many of the clergy had received their raining. But perhaps the most famous song-school of history was the Roman schola cantorum of St. Gregory, described by John the Deacon, called also orphanotrophium, as its singing boys came chiefly from orphanages. Many of the popes of the seventh century were connected with or came from it. Following this we have the establishment of many other schools, of which the most famous were those of Metz and St. Gall, in the eighth century. The current system of oral instruction rendered such schools necessary. About the year 1100, after the introduction of the musical staff, they began to decline in importance. So thoroughly was music practised in the medieval song-schools connected with churches or monasteries, founded for the purpose of setting forth the liturgy with the utmost splendour and beauty, that until the Protestant Reformation the history of music is practically the history of church music. Yet even about the fourteenth century the gradual substitution of musica mensurata for the cantilena romana, part-music for unisonous, wrought an increasing change in the relation of choir to altar. This change was marked when Pope Gregory XI, in 1377, returned to Rome from Avignon, where the new music had flourished, and amalgamated his choir with the schola cantorum, reorganizing it under the title Collegio dei Capellani Pontificia and placing it under a Maestro della Capella Pontificio. The choir now became more laicised and self-contained. It had grown out of, and had been shaped by liturgical needs. Its place was in the sanctuary, its members were ecclesiastics or boys brought up under ecclesiastical direction in a house attached to the cathedral. Now it might occupy a gallery and be ruled by a layman. Yet the school of composition associated with this change was largely built upon plain-chant, and produced such masters of religious music as Palestrina, Vittoria, and Byrd. Later, the introduction of female voices, the toleration of mixed choirs, and the secularization in style of the music sung, brought about a still greater departure from the idea and influence of St. Gregory’s schola cantorum. During the present liturgical revival, however, boys who have been actively employed in church music for so many centuries (we find them mentioned indeed as early as the fourth century) are gradually taking their old place in the constitution and functions of the Christian choir.

Encyclopaedia Biblica (London, 1899); GERBERT, De Cantu et Musica Sacra; WAGNER, History of Plain Chant (London, 1907); MEES, Choirs and Choral Music (London, 1901); DUCHESNE, Christian Worship (London, 1903); BAUMER, Histoire du breviaire (Paris, 1905); GROVE, Dict. of Music and Musicians (London, 1896); GASTOUE, Les Origines du chant romain (Paris, 1907).

WILFRID G.A. SHEBBAKE

Etienne-François, Duc de Choiseul

French statesman, b. 28 June, 1719; d. in Paris 8 May, 1785. Until his thirty-seventh year he pursued a military career and was known as the Comte de Stainville, his social standing being such as to permit him to marry the daughter of Crozat, the wealthy financier, in 1750. So caustic was his speech that he was often declared to be the original of Gresset’s “Méchant” and, despite his clever manoeuvering, he was in no special favour at court until he rendered Madame de Pompadour a service by informing her of d’Argenson’s scheming to make his kinswoman, Madame de Choiseul-Romanet, the mistress of King Louis XV. He even went so far as to transmit to the favourite a letter from Madame de Choiseul-Romanet which proved the conspiracy. Madame de Pompadour recompensed Choiseul by having him appointed ambassador to Rome in 1754. He occupied this post from 5 November, 1754, to 23 January, 1757, at which time religious France was disturbed by the contest between parliament and the clergy in regard to the Bull “Unigenitus.” In 1752 the Parliament of Paris had condemned the practice of certain priests who exacted a certificate of confession from all sick people requesting the sacraments and deprived of the same those whom they called appelants, that is to say, who refused to acknowledge the Bull “Unigenitus.” Louis XV took issue with the clergy, dissolved the parliament at Pontoise in 1753 and summoned it to Paris again in 1754, ordering silence on all religious controversies. At the Assembly of the Clergy of France in 1755, it was manifest that on this question of confession-tickets the episcopate was divided, and the pope had to intervene. Choiseul negotiated with Benedict XIV, and the Bull “Ex Omnibus,” solicited by Louis XV, was the occasion of numerous conferences between Rome and Versailles, being finally published, 16 October, 1756. This re-established religious peace in France. “By following the course it prescribes,” said de Pressy, Bishop of Boulogne, “one will be in no danger of exposing the sacrament to scandalous profanation by administering it to the refractory or of subjecting to unjust defamation those to whom it should not be publicly refused.” Thanks to this peaceful adjustment of affairs, the Jansenists lost all political prestige in France. A few days after issuing the Bull Benedict XIV fell ill and Choiseul wrote several letters and memoirs concerning the expected conclave. These were recently published and they enlighten us as to how the ambassadors of that time watched the pontifical court and planned how they should use the right of veto in the conclave. However, Choiseul left the Roman embassy in 1757 for that of Vienna without having seen a conclave.

Reaching Vienna, 20 August, 1757, he gave his attention to the confirmation of the Franco-Austrian alliance, a decisive episode in the French politics of the day. France renounced its secular struggle against the House of Austria and joined forces with the latter against Prussia. This policy of the Renversement des Alliances, regarding which historians have held very conflicting views, received but poor support from the courts of Paris and Vienna where political anarchy then reigned supreme; it was with great regret that Choiseul declared that “both courts lacked the good order indispensable to the furtherance of great projects.” In November, 1758, Choiseul replaced the Abbé de Bernis as Minister of Foreign Affairs; in 1761 he became Minister of War, and in 1762 Minister of the Navy. “I am like the miser’s coachman” said he, “sometimes in stable-coat, sometimes in apron; at the command of all.” For twelve years he governed France, his great capacity for work and unusual gift of assimilation being of decided value to him. At first he was said to be “a dandy utterly lacking in ability but in whose mind gleamed a bit of phosphorus”; a few years later, according to Catherine of Russia, this dandy had become “the coachman of Europe.” Nothing was beyond the scope of his activity. He reduced the expenses of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from fifty-eight to seven millions, reorganized the artillery and military engineering corps, and, although confronted with perpetual threats of war, sought to avenge the insults that France had received from England during the Seven Years’ War. “The navy,” he said, “will achieve either the salvation or the downfall of France”; and thanks to the combined efforts of Choiseul and his cousin Praslin to re-establish the navy, France was enabled in 1768 to annex Corsica without any opposition whatever on the part of England. Moreover, in 1778, it aided the United States in shaking off the yoke of England and in 1783 recovered its place as a colonial power.

“Choiseul,” said Talleyrand, was “the man who had the clearest insight into the future.” He dreamed of a greater France and contemplated negotiations for the cession of Egypt to France. However, owing to lack of persistency, his attempts at colonization were not very successful; the venture in Guiana ended disastrously, and that in Madagascar, due to the private initiative of the Comte de Mandave, did not receive sufficient encouragement from the Government. Nevertheless, Choiseul, by his colonial plans at least, initiated a policy which was consistent and productive of results. In 1768 and 1769 when Bougainville and Surville discovered the archipelago to the south-east of New Guinea, it was very appropriate that the two harbours in the Louisiade group of islands should have been called respectively Port Choiseul and Port Praslin. Choiseul’s great political achievement in Europe, known as the “Family Compact” or alliance of all the Bourbons, has been widely discussed and he has been censured for not having understood the Polish question. It was under Choiseul’s government that the Jesuits were expelled. In the letters and memoirs that date from his embassy at Rome the Jesuits are not mentioned. But, according to Besanval’s “Mémoires,” Choiseul was thenceforth in disfavour with the Society because, at a court supper, he remarked that Père Laugier, a Jesuit who had preached vehemently against the Jansenists, ought to be banished from Versailles. When in Rome, Choiseul excluded the Jesuits from his negotiations but always received them courteously, and there is no proof that from this period he planned the abolition of the order. However, when one day in 1760 the Dauphin spoke with great earnestness about the Jesuits, Choiseul, who was present, replied: “Monsieur, how can a Dauphin become so enamoured of monks!” Some days later the Dauphin, having called the king’s attention to a memoir in which Choiseul was accused of pursuing, with the parliament, the destruction of the Jesuits, the duke, addressing the Dauphin said: “Perhaps some day I shall be so unfortunate as to become your subject but I shall never be at your service.”

Hence, in 1762, Choiseul was quite ready to have parliament close the Jesuit colleges and, in 1764, decree the suppression of the Society in France. In his “Mémoires” he denies having inspired the intrigues of parliament. It seems proved, however, that, far from deploring these schemes, he took advantage of his influence over Louis XV in order to further them; in the conflict between the Duke of Aiguillon and the magistrate La Chalotais, the Jesuits’ enemy, Choiseul’s sympathies were with La Chalotais. “It is difficult,” he wrote to the king, “to attack me directly on religion because I never speak of it. Formally I am a strict observer of decorum and in public affairs it is my principle to uphold religion.” Apparently, like his friend Voltaire, whose property at Ferney he exempted from taxation, Choiseul deemed religion good for the people, but the spirit of his religious policy was what was called at that time “an enlightened despotism,” ever ready to suspect and paralyze the Church; the expulsion of the Jesuits, agreed to by all the Bourbons, was the greatest effort of lay absolutism against ecclesiastical autonomy and vitality. In 1770 a conspiracy formed by the Duke of Aiguillon, the Chancellor Maupeou, and Madame du Barry, caused Choiseul’s downfall and a lettre de cachet, dated 24 December, 1770, sentenced him to exile at Chanteloup, his estate in Touraine. His departure from Paris was a veritable triumph and the last fourteen years of his life were spent at Chanteloup, where he was surrounded by a regular court and sustained by the affection of his wife and his friend the Abbé Barthélemy, a celebrated archæologist. He died in Paris, being well nigh financially ruined owing to his extravagant manner of life. His brother, Léopold-Charles (1724–1781), was Bishop of Evreux and Archbishop of Albi and Cambrai.

Mémoires de M. le duc de Choiseul (Paris, 1790), merely a collection by SOULAVIE of a certain number of disconnected writings that Choiseul had printed in 1778 for a private distribution among his friends; MAUGRAS, La disgrâce du duc et de la duchesse de Choiseul, la vie à Chanteloup, le retour à Paris, la mort (Paris, 1903); MAUGRAS, Le duc et la duchesse de Choiseul , leur vie intime, leurs amis et leur temps (Paris, 1903); CALMETTES,Choiseul et Voltaire (Paris, 1902); DAUBIGNY, La politique coloniale de Choiseul (Paris, 1892); BOUTRY, Choiseul à Rome (Paris, 1902).

GEORGES GOYAU

Gilbert Choiseul du Plessis-Praslin

French bishop, b. 1613; d. at Paris, 31 December, 1689. He was a descendant of the noble family of du Plessis. He devoted himself from his earliest youth to the ecclesiastical state, while his brother Cæsar entered the military career. Both attained distinction. Gilbert received the title of Doctor at the Sorbonne in 1640, was consecrated Bishop of Comminges in 1644, and at once set about visiting his diocese, restoring discipline among the clergy, and establishing schools and colleges. In time of famine he pawned his own property to assist the poor; and during the plague until stricken by the disease he ministered in person to the sick. In 1671 he was transferred to the Diocese of Tournai, where he displayed the same pastoral zeal.

His influence on the ecclesiastical affairs of France at large was less successful. When, in 1651, the majority of the French bishops petitioned Innocent X to decide upon the ten propositions of Jansenius, Choiseul was among the eleven who requested the Holy Father by special letter to issue no decision in the case. Unable to prevent a formal condemnation of the Jansenists, he exerted himself to bring about an agreement between the contending parties. These efforts had no other result than to reveal in the zealous bishop a regrettable leniency towards a heresy which proved so disastrous to France. His standing towards Gallicanism was clearer. For his bold and constant advocacy of the “Gallican Liberties” he was chosen, in the Assembly of the Clergy of 1682, member of the committee on resolutions, and was personally entrusted with the duty of formulating in Latin the propositions on which the Assembly was to vote. Louis XIV had in 1673 extended to his entire kingdom the royal right of régale. Two bishops only protested against the usurpation and appealed to Rome. This was the beginning of a stubborn struggle between Innocent XI and Louis XIV. To obtain public approval and support from his clergy, and to have limits set to the pontifical power, the king, at the instance principally of his minister, Colbert, convoked the French clergy in a general assembly. Choiseul had no sooner presented his draft than Bossuet rose against it. An animated discussion, related in full by Fénelon in his “De Summi Pontificis Auctoritate,” ensued. When Choiseul saw that Bossuet’s conciliatory distinction between the Holy See’s infallibility in teaching the Faith and its indefectibility in holding it found favour with both clergy and Court, he resigned his special commission. Bossuet took his place and drew up the four articles as they passed into history.

Choiseul’s leaning towards Jansenism betrayed him into another false step. He approved the French translation of a little book published in Cologne under the title “Monita salutaria Beatæ Mariæ Virginis ad cultores suos discretos.” This book was justly reproved by so many that Choiseul thought it well to publish, in a pastoral letter on the Blessed Virgin, a justification of himself. Fortunately the attitude of this prelate towards Gallicanism and Jansenism did not affect his zeal for souls and the Church. He published (Paris, 1681–85) his “Mémoires touchant la Religion,” against atheists, libertines, and Protestants. His “Psalms and Hymns of the Church,” done into French, ran through several editions. He also arranged and gave the literary finish to the interesting memoirs of his brother, the Maréchal Choiseul du Plessis.

FÉNELON, De Summi Pontificis Auctoritate (Paris, 1854); ROHRBACHER, Histoire de l’église (Paris, 1852); VON WEISS, Weltgeschichte (Graz and Leipzig), 1898).

CHARLES B. SCHRANTZ.

Pierre Cholonec

A biographer and French missionary among the Canadian Indians, born in the Diocese of St-Pol-de-Léon, Finistere, 29 June, 1641; died in Quebec, 30 October, 1723. Cholonec entered the Society of Jesus in Paris, 8 October, 1659, and taught in the colleges of Moulins and Eu from 1661 to 1670, except three years spent at La Fleche in the study of philosophy. After four years of theology in Paris, he departed for Canada in August 1674. For many years he was stationed among the Indians at St. Francis Xavier du Sault, where the saintly Indian maiden Catherine Tegakwitha died. Father Cholonec wrote her life which was published in the “Lettres édifiantes” (1781), VI, 40–100; (1839), I, 647–662. A translation is given in Kip, “Jesuit Missions” (New York, 1846), I, 79, 116; but this is only an abridgment of a more extended biography preserved in the archives of the Jesuits in Montreal. In later yours Cholonec was the superior of the Jesuit residence in Montreal.

E.P. SPILLANE

Alexandre-Etienne Choron

A French musician and teacher of music, b. at Caen, 21 October, 1772; d. 29 June, 1834. Being denied by his father the permission to study music under proper guidance, he nevertheless endeavoured to master the theories of J.-P. Rameau and his school. Later he received instruction in harmony for a short time, from the Abbe Roze and Bonesi. Through Bonesi, Choron became acquainted with the treatise of Nicolò Sala (1701–1800) on fugue and counterpoint, and with Italian music art in general. The result was his work “Principes d’accompagnement des écoles d’ Italie.” In order to acquire thoroughly the science of Kirnberger Marpurg, and Albrechtsberger, he studied the German language. Thus equipped, Choron entered upon his wonderful career of reform in all branches of musical activity. In 1811, he was entrusted by the Government with the important task of reorganizing the more important church choirs of Paris and other cities and of directing the musical performances on solemn public and religious occasions. In 1816 Choron became musical director of the Grand Opera, but this engagement lasted only one year, on account of the unpopularity of his endeavours towards reform. He now brought about reopening, under the name of “Ecole royale de Chant et Déclamation” of the Conservatoire, which held been closed in 1815. In 1817 Choron founded the “Institution royale de Musique classique et religieuse,” which was subsidized by the Government and was destined to exert a far-reaching influence through the distinguished musicians it produced and its publication and performance of important choral works, especially those of Palestrina, Bach, and Handel. By the withdrawal of the Government subsidy on the death of Charles X, the school’s efficiency was crippled. This caused such disappointment to Choron that he did not long survive.

Besides accomplishing all this work, Choron published, in collaboration with François-Joseph-Marie Fayalle (1774–1852), “Dictionaire historique des musiciens,” “Méthode élémentaire de musique et de plain chant,” a revised and enlarged edition of Francoeurs’ “Traité général des voix et des instruments d’orchestre,” translations of theoretical works by Albrechtsberger and Azopardi, “Méthode concertante à plusieurs voix” (which treatise formed the basis of institution in Choron’s school), “Méthode de plain chant,” “Manuel complet de musique vocale et instrumentale,” and an “Encyclopédie musicale” in eight volumes. Choron’s school was afterward revived, as the “Ecole Niedermeyer,” by Louis Niedermeyer (1802–61), who, by means of a small Government subsidy, succeeded in keeping alive Choron’s principles and tradition.

Choron’s principal service to musical art in France consists in having trained and purified French taste. Through him and men like Louis Niedermeyer and Joseph d’ Ortigue there gradually developed among musicians that appreciation of the essential difference between sacred music and profane music—between music of the Church and music of the theatre—which finally culminated in the foundation of the now flourishmg “Schola Cantorum” and the famous association “Les Chanteurs de Saint-Gervais.” Both institutions were founded by Charles Bordes and became the principal agencies in France for the realization of the aims of Pope Pius X in regard to the reform of church music.

JOSEPH OTTEN

Chrism

A mixture of oil of olives and balsam, blessed by a bishop in a special manner and used in the administration of certain sacraments and in the performance of certain ecclesiastical functions. That chrism may serve as valid matter for the Sacrament of Confirmation it must consist of pure oil of olives, and it must be blessed by a bishop, or at least by a priest delegated by the Holy See. These two conditions are certainly necessary for validity; moreover it is probable that there should be an admixture of balsam, and that the blessing of the chrism should be special, in the sense that it ought to be different from that which is given to the oil of the sick or the oil of catechumens. (Cf. Lehmkuhl, Cas. Cons. II, n.102.) If either of the last two conditions is wanting the sacrament will be doubtfully valid. To deal with the subject in a sufficiently exhaustive manner, it will be enough to touch upon (1) the origin and antiquity of chrism; (2) its constituent nature; (3) its blessing; and (4) its use and symbolical significance.

(1) ORIGIN

In its primitive meaning the word chrism, like the Greek chrisma, was used to designate any and every substance that served the purpose of smearing or anointing, such as the various kinds of oils, unguents, and pigments. This was its ordinary signification in profane literature, and even in the early patristic writings. Gradually however, in the writings of the Fathers at all events, the term came to be restricted to that special kind of oil that was used in religious ceremonies and functions, especially in the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. This Origen refers to the visible chrism in which we have all been baptized: St. Ambrose venerates in the chrism the oil of grace which makes kings and priests; and St. Cyril of Jerusalem celebrates the praises of the mystic chrism (cf. Dict. De theol. Cath., s.v. Chreme, where many references are given to patristic passages in which the word occurs.) The early councils of the Church have also references to chrism as something set apart for sacred purposes and making for the sanctification of men. Thus the Council of Constantinople held in 381 (Can. vii) and the Council of Toledo, 398 (Can. x). Regarding the institution of chrism, or its introduction into the sacramental and ceremonial system of the Church, some theologians like St. Thomas (Sum., III, QW. lxxii, a. 4) and Suarez (De Conf., D. xxxiii) hold that it was instituted immediately by Christ, whild others contend that it is altogether of ecclesiastical origin. Eugene IV, in his famous “Instruction for the Armenians” (Bull “Exultate Deo,” apud Denzinger, “Enchiridion,” p. 160) asserts that chrism is the matter of the Sacrament of Confirmation, and, indeed, this opinion is so certain that it may note be denied without incurring some note of theological cencure. (Cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, Pt. II, c.iii, q.7.) All that the Council of Trent has defined in this conexion is that they who attribute a certain spiritual and salutary efficacy to holy chrism do not in any way derogate from the respect and reverence due to the Holy Ghost (Sess. VII, c.iv).

(2) NATURE

Two elements enter into the constitution of legitimate chrism, viz. olive-oil and balsam. The former is indeed the preponderating, as well as the principal, ingredient, but the latter must be added in greater or lesser quantity, if not for reasons of validity, at all events in obedience to a grave ecclesiastical precept. Frequent reference is made in the Old Testament to the use of oil in religious ceremonies. It was employed in the coronation of kings, in the consecration of the high priest and in the ordination of the Levites, and indeed, it figured very prominently in the Mosaic ordinances generally, as can be abundantly gathered from Exodus (xxx, 22 sqq.), Leviticus (viii), and Deuteronomy (xxvii, 40). Such being the prevailing usage of the Old Testament in adopting olive-oil for religious ceremonies, it is no cause for wonder that it also came to receive under the New Dispensation a certain religious recognition and approval. The second element that enters into the constitution of genuine chrism is balsam. This is an aromatic, resinous substance that is extracted from the wood of certain trees or plants, especially those belonging to the terebinthine group or family. In the manufacture of this sweet-smelling unguent the early Greek Christians were wont to employ as many as forty different perfumed spices or essences (Goar, Euchologion, p. 627). In the beginning the Christian Era balsam was obtained from Judea (opobalsam) and from Arabia Felix (balm of Mecca), but in modern times it is also procured, and in superior quality, from the West Indies. What is required for chrism should of course be such as is sanctioned by the usage of the Church. The first mention of balsam as an ingredient in the composition of chrism seems to be found in the “Gregorian Sacramentary,” a work belonging to the sixth century. (Cf. Perrone, Prael. Theol., III, 135.) Now, however, according to existing legislation, the addition of balsam is requisite for lawful chrism, but whether it is necessary for the validity of the sacrament, assuming that chrism is the matter of confirmation, this is a matter about which theologians do not agree. (Cf. Bellarmine, De Conf., ix.) The modern view appears to be that it is not so required. But owing to the uncertainty mere olive-oil would be doubtful matter and could not, therefore, be employed apart from very grave necessity.

(3) BLESSING

For proper and legitimate chrism the blessing by a bishop is necessary, and, probably too, such a blessing as is peculiar to it alone. That the bishop is the ordinary minister of this blessing is certain. So much is amply recognized in all the writings of the early centuries, by the early councils (cf. Const. Apos., VII, 42; the Second Council of Carthage of 390, and Third Council of Braga, 572), and by all modern theologians (cf. Frassen, xi, 440). But whether a priest may be the extraordinary minister of this blessing, and, if so, in what circumstances, this is a question that is more or less freely discussed. It seems agreed that the pope may delegate a priest for this purpose, but it is not so clear that bishops can bestow the same delegated authority ex jure ordinario. They exercised, it seems, this perogative in former times in the East, but the power of delegating priests to bless chrism is now strictly reserved to the Holy See in the Western Church. (Cf. Perrone, Prael. Theol., III, 135.) The rites employed in consecrating the sacred chrism go to show that it is a ceremony of the highest importance. Formerly it could be blessed on any day of the year according as necessity arose. Now, however, it must be blessed during the solemn high Mass of Holy Thursday. (Cf. Decr. S.R.C., ed., Gardellini, n. 2475.) For the full solemn ceremonial the consecrating prelate should be assisted by twelve priests, seven deacons, and seven subdeacons. The oil and balsam, being prepared in the sacristy beforehand, are carried in solemn procession to the sanctuary after the Communion, and placed on a table. Then the balsam, held on a silver salver, is blessed, and similarly the olive-oil, which is reserved in a silver jar. After this the balsam is mixed with the oil. Then, the chrism, being perfected with a final prayer, receives the homage of all the sacred ministers present, making each a triple genuflection towards it, and each time saying the words, Ave sanctum chrisma. After the ceremony it is taken back to the sacristy, and distributed among the priests who take it away in silver vessels commonly called oil-stocks, what remains being securely and reverently guarded under lock and key. (Cf. Catalani, Com. in Rom. Pont., I, 120; Bernard. Le Pontifical, II, 470–495.)

(4) USE AND SIGNIFICANCE

Chrism is used in the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, in the consecration of churches, chalices, patens, altars, and altar-stones, and in the solemn blessing of bells and baptismal water. The head of the newly-baptized is anointed with chrism, the forehead of the person confirmed, the head and hands of a bishop at his consecration, and the hands of a priest at his ordination. So are the walls of churches, which are solemnly consecrated, anointed with the same holy oil, and the parts of the sacred vessels used in the Mass which come in contact with the Sacred Species, as the paten and chalice. If it be asked why chrism has been thus introduced into the functions of the church liturgy, a reason is found in its special fitness for this purpose by reason of its symbolical significance. For olive-oil, being of its own nature rich, diffusive, and abiding, is fitted to represent the copious outpouring of sacramental grace, while balsam, which gives forth most agreeable and fragrant odours, typifies the innate sweetness of Christian virtue. Oil also gives strength and suppleness to the limbs, while balsam preserves from corruption. Thus anointing with chrism aptly signifies that fulness of grace and spiritual strength by which we are enabled to resist the contagion of sin and prduce the sweet flowers of virtue. “For we are the good odour of Christ unto God” (II Cor., ii, 15).

ISIDORE of SEVILLE, De Officiis Ecclesiasticis, II, n. 26 in P.L. LXXXIII; RUPERT, De Officiis Ecclesiasticis, V, xvi, xvii, xviii in P.L. CLXXII; ST. THOMAS, Summa Theol. (Rome, 1894), III, Q, lxxii, a.2; GOAR. Euchologion (Paris, 1647), 618–642; BINGHAM, Antiquities of the Christian Church, s.v. Chrism (London, 1850); CATALANI, Pontificale Romanum (Rome, 1850), I, 120; DENZINGER, Ritus Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Wurzbert, 1863), I, 54 sq.; PERRONE. Praelectiones Theologicae, III, De Confirmatione (Paris, 1887); BELLARMINE, III, De Confirmatione (Naples, 1858); LEHMKUHL, Casus Conscientiae (Freiburg im Br., 1902); JANSSENS, La Confirmation (Lille, 1888), 100–120; VAN DER STRAPPEN, De Sacramentorum Administratione (Mechlin, 1902); passim; BERNARD, Le Pontifical (Paris, 1902) II, xi; DUCHESNE, Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution (London, 1903), 306; CABROL, Les Origines Liturgiques (Paris, 1906), 164 sq.; Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, s.v. Chreme (Paris, 1905); Kirchenlex., art. Chrisma (Freiburg im Br., 1882).

PATRICK MORRISROE.

Chrismal, Chrismatory

Formerly used to designate the sheath, or cloth-covering (theca) in which relics were wrapped up. The Latin chrismale was also applied

(a) to the pall or corporal

(b) to the vessel for the Blessed Eucharist

(c) to the cere-cloth covering the table of the altar (see ALTAR-CLOTHS), and

(d) sometimes to the long white-hooded robes in which the newly-baptized were clothed (cf. Roman Ritual, II, cap. ii, n. 24), and which they wore from Holy Saturday evening till Low Sunday—called consequently Dominica in Albis (cf. Du Cange, Glossar. infimæ et mediæ Latinitatis). This garment, however, was more commonly known as the chrisome (cf. Pugin, Glossary), and resembled in shape the modern alb, except that it had a kind of hood for the head. Its representative is now the vestis candida still used at baptism.

In present-day usage the words chrismal and chrismatory are taken indiscriminately and almost universally to refer to the vessels that are employed to hold the oils that are solemnly consecrated by the bishop on Holy Thursday, viz., oil of catechumens, oil of the sick, and chrism. It is the last mentioned that has given its name to these receptacles. Two kinds of these vessels are in service. One set is employed to reserve the yearly supply and is kept in the sacristy of the cathedral, while the other contains what is required for daily use and is kept in the parochial church. Both kinds should be made either of gold, silver, or at least of tin and pewter (stannum), and should have sheaths or cases. They cannot be made of any substance that is likely to become oxidized. In shape the longer ones resemble little jars, while the smaller sort are like small cylindrical boxes and are commonly jointed together. As the vessels for each oil are similar in appearance, they should be Stamped with distinctive marks to discriminate one from the other. The letters I (or INF.), CAT., and CHR. are usually engraved on the outside to designate respectively oil of the sick, oil of catechumens, and chrism. Many interesting specimens of these vessels have come down from the Middle Ages and are still preserved in the treasuries of English and continental cathedrals. These vessels are not blessed, but when containing the oils they may not be handled or carried by lay persons except in cases of necessity (Cong. of Rites). Rituale Romanum (Rome, 1903), passim; CATALANI, Rituale Romanum: De Sacramenti Baptismi Administratione (Rome, 1850); DU CANGE, Glossarium Latinitatis (Venice, 1736), s. v. Chrisma, etc.; BONA, De Rebus Liturgicis (Turin, 1747), I, xxv; O’KANE, Notes on Roman Ritual (Dublin, 1867), 148; VAN DER STAPPEN, De Sacramentorum Administratione (Mechlin, 1900).

PATRICK MORRISROE.

Chrismarium

(1) A place in a church set apart for the administration of confirmation. (2) An ampulla or jar, globular in form, usually made of silver or pewter, and used for containing the holy oils. See CHRISMAL

Order of the Knights of Christ

military order which sprang out of the famous Order of the Temple (see Knights Templars). As Portugal was the first country in Europe where the Templars settled (in 1128), so it has been the last to preserve any remnant of that order. The Portuguese Templars had contributed to the conquest of Algarve from the Moslems; they were still defending that conquest when their order was suppressed (1312) by Pope Clement V (q.v.). King Diniz, who then ruled Portugal, regretted the loss of these useful auxiliaries all the more because, in the trial to which the order had been submitted everywhere throughout Christendom, the Templars of Portugal had been declared innocent by the ecclesiastical court of the Bishop of Lisbon. To fill their place, the king instituted a new order, under the name of Christi Militia (1317). He then obtained for this order the approbation of Pope John XXII, who, by a Bull (1319), gave these knights the rule of the Knights of Calatrava (see Calatrava, Military Order of) and put them under the control of the Cistercian Abbot of Alcobaca. Further, by another Bull (1323), the same pope authorized King Diniz to turn over to the new Order of Christ the Portuguese estates of the suppressed Templars, and, as many of the latter hastened to become Knights of Christ, it may fairly be said that the foundation of Dom Diniz was both in its personnel and in its territorial position a continuation in Portugal of the Order of the Temple. Seated first at Castro Marino, it was later (1357) definitively established in the monastery of Thomar, near Santarem.

By this time, however, Portugal had rid its soil of the Moslem, and it seemed that the Order of Christ must waste its strength in idleness, when Prince Henry, the Navigator, son of King Joao I, opened a new field for its usefulness by carrying the war against Islam into Africa. The conquest of Ceuta (1415) was the first step towards the formation of a great Portuguese empire beyond the seas. It may at present be taken as demonstrated, that the motive of this great enterprise was not mercenary, but religious, its aim being the conquest of Africa for Christ and His Faith. Nothing could have been more in accord with the spirit of the order, which, under Prince Henry himself as its grand master (1417–65), took up the plan with enthusiasm. This explains the extraordinary favours granted by the popes to the order—favours intended to encourage a work of evangelization. Martin V, by a Bull the text of which is lost, granted to Prince Henry, as Grand Master of the Order of Christ, the right of presentation to all ecclesiastical benefices to be founded beyond the seas, together with complete jurisdiction and the disposal of church revenues in those regions. Naturally, the clergy of these early foreign missions were recruited by preference from those priests who were members of the order, and in 1514, a Bull of Leo X confirmed to it the right of presentation to all bishoprics beyond the seas, from which a privilege afterwards arose the custom by which incumbents of such sees wear pectoral crosses of the form peculiar to the Order of Christ. After this campaign King Manoel of Portugal, in order to overcome the repugnance of the knights to remaining in African garrisons, established thirty new commanderies in the conquered territory. Leo X, in order to further increase the number of the order’s establishments, granted an annual income of 20,000 cruzadas to be derived from Portuguese church property, and, as a result of all this material assistance, the total of seventy commanderies of the order at the beginning of Manoel’s reign had become four hundred and fifty-four at its end, in 1521.

While these foreign expeditions kept alive the military spirit of the order, its religious discipline was declining. Pope Alexander VI, in 1492, commuted the vow of celibacy to that of conjugal chastity, alleging the prevalence among the knights of a concubinage to which regular marriage would be far preferable. The order was becoming less monastic and more secular, and was taking on more and more the character of a royal institution. After Prince Henry the Navigator, the grand mastership was always held by a royal prince; under Manoel it became definitively, with those of Aviz and Santiago, a prerogative of the crown; Joao III, Manoel’s successor, instituted a special council (Mesa das Ordens) for the government of these orders in the king’s name. Brother Antonius of Lisbon, in attempting a reform, succeeded in bringing about the complete annihilation of religious life among the knights of the order. The priests of the Order of Christ were compelled to resume conventual life at Thomar, the convent itself becoming a regular cloister with which the knights thenceforward maintained only a remote connection. This unwholesome change the young king, Dom Sebastian, tried to reverse (1574), but the glorious, though useless, death, in Africa, of the last of the crusaders (1578) prevented the accomplishment of his design. During the period of Spanish domination (1580–1640), another attempt to revive the monastic character of the whole order resulted in the statutes enacted by a general chapter, at Thomar in 1619, and promulgated by Philip IV of Spain, in 1627. The three vows were re-established, even for knights not living in houses of the order, though with certain mitigations, marriage, for instance, being permitted to those who could obtain a papal dispensation. The conditions of admission were noble birth and either two years’ service in Africa or three years with the fleet, but commanderies could be held only by those who had served three years in Africa or five years with the fleet.

The last attempt at a reform of the order was that of the Queen Donna Maria, made with the approbation of Pius VI (1789). This, the most important of all the schemes of reformation designed for the order’s benefit, made the convent of Thomar once more the headquarters of the whole order, and instead of the conventual prior, who, since 1551, had been elected by his bretheren for a term of three years, there was a grand prior of the order, acknowledged by all classes and invested with all the privileges and the whole jurisdiction formerly granted by the popes. The soverign, however, remained grand master, and the last Grand Priors of the Order of Christ, as official subordinates of the Crown, did not fail to enter into the political entanglements of the nineteenth century. The last of all, Furtado de Mendoca, was identified with the Miguelist party in the troubles of 1829–32, and it was in the general confiscation of monastic property following the defeat of Dom Miguel that the convent of Thomar and four hundred and fifty commanderies were lost. The King of Portugal is still officially “Grand Master of the Order of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” and as such confers titular membership in the order, with the decoration of the crimson cross charged with another, smaller, cross of white.

The Order of Christ, as a papal decoration, or order of merit, is also a historical survival of the right, anciently reserved to the Holy See, of admitting new members into the Portuguese order. (See Decorations, Papal.)

For the German order sometimes called the Order of Christ (Fratres Militiae Christi) see Sword, Brothers of the.

Ferreira, Memorias e noticias da Ordem dos Templaarios (Lisbon, 1735); Definicoes e statutos dos Cavalleros da Ordem de Christo (Lisbon, 1621); Guimaraes, A Ordem de Christo (Lisbon, 1901).—See also works on Portuguese history cited in bibliography of Aviz.

CH. MOELLER

Diocese of Christchurch

DIOCESE OF CHRISTCHURCH (CHRISTOPOLITANA)

(Its centre being Christchurch, the Capital of Canterbury, New Zealand.) It comprises the provinces of Canterbury and Westland, a small portion of the Province of Nelson, and the Chatham Islands. In July, 1840, the French corvette l’Aube started for Akaroa (Canterbury) to land a body of settlers there, and to annex to France the South Island of New Zealand. The former project was accomplished; the latter was frustrated by lieutenant-governor Hobson. Having ascertained the destination and purpose of the expedition, he raced the corvette to Akaroa in the warship Britomart and, four days before the arrival of the French settler, proclaimed the south Island British territory. The first English colonists (the “Canterbury Pilgrims”) landed at Lyttelton 16 December, 1850. They, and many that followed them, were sent out by the Canterbury Association, a High Church organization whose colonizing scheme was described by Low churchmen as a “Puseyite invasion of New Zealand.” The Canterbury concessions (nearly 3,000,000 fertile acres) were intended to be and remain a great Anglican monopoly. This, however, was prevented by the Constitution Act of 1852. In all Canterbury, including Akaroa, there were 136 Catholics in 1851. During the first two decades they were ministered to by the Marist Fathers Comte, Pesant, Tripe, Séon, Petitjean, and others. In 1860 Christchurch received its first resident priest, Father Chataignier, S.M. On 11 September of that year he laid the foundations of the first church in Canterbury, a wooden structure, 28 by 18 ft. A more spacious church was erected in 1864. Enlarged and beautified by Father Ginary, S. M., this subsequently served as a pro-cathedral from 1887 till 1905. On the discovery of gold in 1864 there was a great influx of people to Westland, which led to the formation of missions in Hokitika, Greymouth, and elsewhere on the West coast. The Diocese of Christchurch, formerly part of the Diocese of Wellington, was established by papal Brief, 10 May, 1887. On his arrival in Christchurch there were in the diocese 35 churches, 16 schools, 7 convents, and 17 priests (8 secular and 9 Marists). The history of the diocese since then is one of closer organization and steady progress. The Marist Brothers and the Sisters of Nazareth were introduced; new parochial districts formed; 30 churches built or enlarged; 15 presbyteries, 9 schools, 10 convents, and 3 monasteries (Marist Brothers) erected; and a white stone cathedral, one of the most beautiful religious edifices in Australasia, was opened 12 February, 1905.

STATISTICS (AUGUST, 1907)

Parochial districts, 21; priests 38 (20 Marists, 18 seculars); Marist Brothers, 13; nuns, 150; convents, 17; Marist Brothers’ monasteries, 3; boarding schools (girls), 6; primary schools, 30; charitable institutions, 2 (Nazareth Home and a great Magdalen Asylum); Catholic population, about 25,000.

MORAN, History of the Catholic church in Australasia (Sydney, s.d.); POMPALLIER, Early History of the Catholic church in Oceania (Auckland, 1888); THOMSON, The Story of New Zealand (2 vols., London, 1859); JOSE, History of Australasia (Sydney, 1901); New Zealand Tablet, files.

HENRY W. CLEARY

Christendom

In its wider sense this term is used to describe the part of the world which is inhabited by Christians, as Germany in the Middle Ages was the country inhabited by Germans. The word will be taken in this quantitative sense in the article in comparing the extent of Christendom with that of Paganism or of Islam. But there is a narrower sense in which Christendom stands for a polity as well as a religion, for a nation as well as for a people. Christendom in this sense was an ideal which inspired and dignified many centuries of history and which has not yet altogether lost its power over the minds of men.

The foundations of a Christian polity are to be found in the traditions of the Jewish theocracy softened and broadened by Christian cosmopolitanism, in the completeness with which Christian principles were applied to the whole of life, in the aloofness of the Christian communities from the world around them, and in the hierarchical organization of the clergy. The conflict between the new religion and the Roman Empire was due partly to the very thoroughness of the Christian system and it naturally emphasized the distinction between this new society and the old state. Thus when Constantine proclaimed the Peace of the Church he might almost be described as signing a treaty between two powers. From that Peace to the time of the Barbarian inroads into the West, Christendom was all but conterminous with the Roman Empire, and it might be thought that the ideal of a Christian nation was then at least realized. The legal privileges which were granted to the bishops from the first and which tended to increase, the protection given to the churches and the property of the clergy, and the principle admitted by the emperors that questions of faith were to be freely decided by the bishops—all these concessions seemed to show that the empire had become positively as well as negatively Christian. To St. Ambrose and the bishops of the fourth century the destruction of the empire seemed almost incredible except as a phase of the final catastrophe, and the system which prevailed in the delays of Theodosius seemed almost the ideal Christian polity.

Yet there was about it much that fell short of the ideal of Christendom. In many ways, as a contemporary bishop expressed it, “the church was in the empire, not the empire in the church.” The traditions of Roman imperialism were too strong to be easily mitigated. Constantine, though not even a catechumen, in a sense at least, presided over the Council of Nicaea and the “Divinity” of his son Constantius, though formally observing the rule that decisions of faith belonged to the bishops, was able to exert such pressure upon them that at one time not a single strictly orthodox bishop was left in the occupation of his see. The officious interference of a theologian emperor was more dangerous to the Church than the hostility of Julian, his successor. But the wish to dominate in every sphere was not the only relic of pagan Rome. Though the emperor was no longer pontifex maximus and the statue of Victory was removed from the senate house, though Theodosius decreed the final closing of the temples and put an end to pagan public worship, the ancient world was not really converted; it was hardly a catechumen. In philosophy, literature, and art it clung to the old models and reproduced them in a debased form. Pagan civilization had not been Christians of a simpler character and a more spontaneous vigour than the inhabitants of the degenerate empire. The formation of Christendom was to be the work of a new generation of nations, baptized in their infancy and receiving even the message of the ancient world from the lips of Christian teachers.

But it was to be long before the great future hidden in the Barbarian inversions was to become manifest. At their first irruption the influence of the Teutonic tribes was only destructive; the Christian polity seemed to be perishing with the empire. The Church, however, as a spiritual power survived and mitigated even the fury of the Barbarian, for the helpless population of Rome found a refuge in the churches during the sack of the city by Alaric in 410. The distinction between church and empire, which this disaster illustrated, was emphasized by the accusations brought against the patriotism of the Christians and by St. Augustine’s reply in his “De Civitate Dei.” He develops in this encyclopedic treatise the idea of the two kingdoms or societies (city, except in a very metaphorical sense, is too narrow to be an adequate translation of civitas) the Kingdom of God consisting of His friends in this world and the next, whether men or angels, while the earthly kingdom is that of his enemies. These two kingdoms have existed since the fall of the angels but in a more limited sense and in relation to the Christian dispensation, the Church is spoken of as God’s kingdom on earth while the Roman Empire is all but identified with the civitas terrena; not altogether, however, because the civil power, in securing peace for that part of the heavenly kingdom which is on its earthly pilgrimage, receives some kind of Divine sanction. We might, perhaps, have expected, now that the empire was Christian, that St. Augustine would have looked forward to a new civitas terrena reconciled and united to the civitas Dei; but this prophetic vision of the future was prevented, it may be, by the prevalent opinion, that the world was near its end. The “De Civitate,” however, which had a commanding influence in the Middle Ages, helped to form the ideal of Christendom by the development which it gave to the idea of the kingdom of God upon earth, its past history, its dignity, and universality.

From the fifth century till the days of Charles the Great there was no effectual political unity in the West, and the Church had no civil counterpart. But Charles’ dominions extended from the Elbe to the Ebro and from Britany to Belgrade; there was but little of Western Christendom which they did not include. Ireland and the South of Italy were the only parts of it which his power or his influence did not reach. Over the territories actually comprised in his empire he exercised a real control, administrative and legislative, as well as military. But the Carlovingian empire was far more than a mere political federation: it was a period of renewal and reorganisation in nearly every sphere of social life. It was spiritual, perhaps, even more than political. In war conversion went hand in hand with victory; in peace Charles ruled through bishops as effectively as through counts; his active solicitude extended to the reform and education of the clergy, the promotion of learning, the revival of the Benedictine Rule, to the arts, to the liturgy and even the doctrines of the Church. In the West Christendom became a temporal polity and a society as well as a Church, and the empire of Charles, brief though its existence proved to be, remained for many centuries an ideal and therefore a power. Yet the Carlovingian civilization was in most cases a return to late Roman models. Originality is not its characteristic. Charles’ favourite church at Aachen is supported on the columns which he sent for from the ruined temples of Italy. Even in his relations with the Church he would have found the closest precedents for his policy in the attitude of Constantine or even perhaps of Justinian. Great as was his respect for the successor of St. Peter, he claimed for himself a masterful share in the administration of matters ecclesiastical: he could write, even before his coronation as emperor, to Pope Leo III, “My part is to defend the Church by force of arms from external attacks and to secure her internally through the establishment of the Catholic faith, your part is to render us the assistance of prayer.” Still every step forward has usually begun with a return to the past; it is thus that the artist or the statesman learns his craft. If the Carlovingian system had lasted, no doubt much that was new would have been developed, and even under Charles’s successor the spiritual and temporal powers were placed on a more equal and more appropriate footing. But Charles was too great for his age; his work was premature. The political bond was too weak to prevail over tribal loyalty and Teutonic particularism. Disorder and disruption would have broken up Carlovingian civilization even if Northman, Saracen, and Hungarian had not come to plunge Europe once more into anarchy.

During the tenth century the work of moral and political reconstruction was slowly carried on by the Church and feudalism; in the eleventh came that struggle between these two creative factors of the new Europe which saved the Church from absorption into feudalism. This century opened with what was, perhaps, the most hopeful attempt, after Charles the Great, to give the medieval empire a really universal character. The revived empire of Otto I in the middle of the tenth century had been but an imperfect copy of its Carlovingian model. It was much more limited geographically, as it included only Germany, its dependent states to the east, and Italy; it was limited also in its interests, for Otto left to the Church nearly all those spheres of ecclesiastical, educational, literary, and artistic activity for which Charles had done so much. But Otto’s grandson, the boy emperor Otto III, “magnum quoddam et improbabile cogitans,” as a contemporary expressed it, attempted to make the empire less German, less military, more Roman, more universal, and more of a spiritual force. He was in intimate alliance with the Holy See, and with almost startling originality he established in Rome the first German and then the first French pope. He seems to have realized the truth that it was only by leaning on and developing religious aspect of the empire that he could hope at that stage of history to make its influence universal in the West. Europe was so unformed politically that the long reign of a wise and determined emperor backed up by the Church might perhaps have changed its future history, have brought together into one broad and rather indefinite channel the small but already divergent streams of national tendencies, and built up Europe on the basis of a Christian federalism. But Otto mirabile mundi, died at the age of twenty-two, and the dream of a Christian empire faded away. Never again did a successor of his make a serious attempt to throw off his German character and to make the sphere of his rule conterminous with Christendom. Fascinating as is the theory of the Holy Roman Empire, and great as was its influence on history and speculation, it was always something of a sham. It claimed in political matters a sphere of action as wide as that of the popes in things spiritual but, unlike the spiritual, this political plena potestas was never admitted. Even before the War of Investitures and the First Crusade had made so wide a breach in the imperial prestige, an Abbot of Dijon of Italian origin could contrast the still enduring unity of the Church with the disruption of the civil power. The empire is generally held to have reached its zenith in the middle of the eleventh century but that is not the century in which we find the ideal of a united Christendom nearest its realization.

Political unity in the West was never restored after the fall of the Carlovingian Empire, religious unity lasted till the Reformation, but in the twelfth century we find, in addition, a very large measure of what may compendiously be called “social unity.” Before that time isolation, disorder and the predominance of feudalism had kept men apart; after it the development of national distinctions was to have something of the same effect. The twelfth century is therefore the period in which Christian cosmopolitanism can best be studied. The Church was naturally the chief unifying force, in the darkest days she had preached the gospel to Frank, Saxon, and Gallo-Roman, and her organization had been, at critical moments when the civil power had almost sunk under the flood, the only bond which linked together the populations of the West. The opening century found the Church in the midst of that Hildebrandine movement, in favour of clerical celibacy and against simony, which was necessary to save the spiritual character of the clergy from being obliterated by too close a contact with temporal administration and the material ambition of feudal society. The reform, though its centre was at Rome, was a European movement. Its forerunners had been found in the monasteries of Burgundy and among the students of canon law in the Rhine cities; at the height of the struggle its leaders included Italians, Lorrainers, Frenchmen, and a German monastic revival. When Paschal II showed signs of faltering, the movement was carried on almost in spite of him by the zeal of French reformers. Even Spain, England, and Demnark caught the saving infection, and the eventual settlement between Church and empire was foreshadowed in the concordat, devised probably by a French canonist, which was agreed to by St. Anselm and Henry I. Thus did all the nations which were to be have their share in the victory of Hildebrandine principles, and there was roused throughout the West a revival of the spiritual life. The ideals of the clergy were raised, or rather they acquired strength and confidence to pursue ideals which they had always, though despairingly, acknowledged. This crusade against selfishness, passion, and weakness brought together the clergy of the West, as the attack on more material foes united its peoples, and as a consequence the ecclesiastical body in the twelfth century is a real society almost contemptuous of political or racial frontiers. We find Frenchmen and an Englishman in the chair of St. Peter; an Italian, St. Anselm, at Canterbury; a Savoyard, St. Hugh, at Lincoln; an English John of Salisbury at Chartres: instances such as those could be multiplied almost indefinitely. In medieval Latin this vast society possessed a language suited to the varied wants of the age, and it is as living as any vernacular if we read it in a letter of St. Anselm, a sermon of St. Bernard, a poem of Adam of St. Victor, the “Polycraticus” of John of Salisbury, an assize of Henry II, the desultory chronicle of Ordericus Vitalis or the finished history of William of Tyre. It was a language which might have had a greater literature if the less simple amongst those who wrote had not been continually harking back to classical models.

The spirit of Catholicity in the Church was guarded and prompted by the ever increasing power of the popes. The days when the Holy See had had to be rescued by the emperors from the petty and passionate Roman nobility must have seemed far off, and the most definite result of the War of Investitures was a second liberation, the conquest of the complete independence of papal elections. Never was the papal power in Europe so great as in the years between the end of that war in 1122 and the great disaster of the Second Crusade. Besides being the guardian of the Faith, the papacy was fast becoming the central court of Christendom. For close on two centuries, from Nicholas I to Leo IX in the middle of the eleventh century, the plenary powers of the pope had been but exceptionally exercised north of the Alps though they had been acknowledged in principle, but in this most legal of centuries the exercise of papal jurisdiction becomes habitual. The curia was treated as a court of first instance as well as a court of appeal. Hardly any subject was too small or too local to be referred to Rome: the pope, for instance, decided whether or not the Duke of Larraine might have a castle within four miles of Toul. Papal legates might be met on all the highways of Christendom, papal courts sat in every land. Canon law grew fast, and the “Decretum” of Gratian, about the middle of the century, though it was not an authoritative collection, provided legates and judges with an admirable synthesis of papal pronouncements. St. Bernard was much troubled at the amount of legal business which poured in upon the pope; it must, he considered, interfere with the more spiritual duties of his high office. But the movement was irresistible; the papacy had become de facto the centre of a vast Christian nation. The empire was, as we have seen, out of court. It was in the papacy that Christendon, a temporal as well as a spiritual society, found its head in temporal and spiritual things alike.

After the faith and the hierarchy of the Church the monastic orders have usually formed the strongest bond of Catholic union, and in the twelfth century the monastic spirit was full of life. In the previous epoch the Cluniac Benedictines had played an essential part in the work of reconstruction; but life was now more complicated, and monasticism took many forms. The contemplative spirit of the old hermits inspired the Carthusian foundation of St. Bruno, “the only ancient order which has never been reformed and never required reforming,” the increased demand for parish work led to the revival of regular canons, and in part to the foundation of the Premonstratensians, the Crusades produced the military orders, while in the Cistercians the new spiritual fervour with its ascetical and mystical tendencies found appropriate expression. Seldom has a new order spread with such rapidity throughout Europe as these white Benedictines, and St. Bernard, their great representative is the most marvellous instance of the power of a single man, without official position, over all classes and different nations. The settlement of a disputed papal election practically depended on his verdict, he appeased the feuds of German noble families and reconciled Italian cities, he led one emperor to the South of Italy and sent another on a crusade of the East; more wonderful still, single-handed he pursued the Roman people to forsake the antipope. Though not the originator, he was the motive power of the Second Crusade, and his eloquence seemed as persuasive in the Rhine cities as in Burgundy, and as successful in saving the Jews from the fanaticism of the crusaders as in rousing the crusading spirit.

Besides the Church and its many activities, there were other forces at work, other expressions of the energy of youthful Christendom which must at least be enumerated. The twelfth-century renaissance was a rapid development of what may be called Franco-Norman civilization. France, if the name is given a comprehensive meaning, had conquered England and South Italy, had brought about the crusades, and had helped the papacy to victory over the empire. It was in France that the new monastic movements took their rise, and the intellectual movement as well. The University of Paris was the university of Christendom, and the problems stated by the Breton Abelard excited the curiosity and the enthusiasm of young men from every country. French was spoken nearly as widely as Latin, and the medieval epic, the romances of the Arthurian legend, and the lyrics of the troubadours, the three most characteristic forms of medieval vernacular literature all were developed amongst men who spoke one of the dialects of French. Politically the Franco-Norman world was divided between Plantagenet, Capetian, and the princes of the South, and the personality of Frederick Barbarossa gave a splendour to German politics, but intellectually and socially French civilization dominated Europe. It was however, a supremacy which lay in the rapidity and logical thoroughness with which she expressed ideas common to the whole West. The development of Gothic architecture in England was almost parallel to the French, the epic and the Arthurian legend found a congenial soil in Germany, and the lyrical poetry of Italy was almost a younger sister to that of Provence. The same spirit seemed to be abroad from Scotland to Palermo, and the Christians of the West must have felt that they were indeed citizens of a great city.

For this sense of a common Christendom was not confined to the clergy or the knightly and baronial classes. The peasantry and the town-population had much improved their economic and legal positions since the beginning of the eleventh century, they had also profited by the education of action and experience. In the movement for the Truce of God, in the Hildebrandine reform, in the Crusades, in all these struggles of a crowded age, the holy people of God had taken a prominent part; all had increased their self-confidence, all had drawn them closer to the clergy and to one another. Though the aim of the Hildebrandine reform was to preserve the distinctive features of the priestly life, it had not formed the clergy into a caste. Gregory VII had appealed to the laity, and the reformers found among the people allies most enthusiastic at times indeed fanatical and cruel. The Crusades, too, had consecrated the devotion of the poor pilgrims as well as knightly valour. At one moment, when the leaders had forgotten the Holy City for the sake of Syrian castles, it was the zeal of the poor that alone saved the fortunes of the expedition. On the other movements of the time clergy and people were often united, and municipal liberties, at least in their earlier stages, found a support in the Church. Alexander III, the greatest pope of the century, was allied with the Lombard republics in their struggle with Frederick Barbarossa, the greatest of its emperors. It is at least probable that since the early ages of the Church, clergy and laity have never been so united as in this century. Few medieval saints have excited so much universal and popular enthusiasm as St. Thomas of Canterbury, a martyr for the rights of the Church and the clergy, and the pilgrims who thronged to Canterbury from all parts of Christendom are perhaps the best evidence of the union between people and clergy, and between the different nations of the West.

The pontificate of Innocent III, which began before the close of the twelfth century, was the climax of this period of Christian cosmopolitanism. It illustrates both the splendour of the ideal and the increasing difficulty of realizing it. Few popes have had nobler aims than Innocent, few have been more favoured by nature and circumstance or have been apparently more successful. He was enabled to put at the head of a national movement in Italy, to govern Rome, where his predecessors had been weakest, to compel the King of France to respect the rights of marriage and the King of England those of the Church, to help in the success of two papalist candidates to the empire, and to see a crusade sail for the East. These are but some of the successes of his reign, yet it is impossible to study the fortunes of his pontificate without observing that nearly every one of his victories is marked by the signs of ultimate failure. Of the two emperors whom he helped to the throne, the first repudiated all his engagements and declared open war upon him in Italy, the second was that Frederick II who was to be the most thoroughgoing foe of the papacy. The homage which Innocent won from King John contributed in a later generation to embitter the relations between England and the Holy See. In his Italian policy, disinterested as it was, can be traced the first beginnings of future evils; the political power he had acquired led to the first case of nepotism and to the first appeal to a French noble for help in the South of Italy. He lost control over both the religious campaigns which he set in motion, for he endeavoured unsuccessfully to protect Raymond of Toulouse from the Albigensian crusaders and to prevent the Venetians diverting the Fourth Crusade from Jerusalem to Constantinople.

That so great a pope should meet with failures so signal was significant of the change coming over Europe. The control over temporal and even ecclesiastical matters was slipping away from the head of Christendom, though the great personality of Innocent and the successful war waged by his successors against the empire might disguise the fact from contemporaries. In the fourteenth century the national wars, the great Schism, the unimpeded progress of the Turks, these were all witnesses to the divisions of Christendom. For a moment, at the time of the Council of Constance in 1414, there seemed to be a rally; the Christian society appeared to be drawing together again in order to put an end to the schism and to reform the Church; but as a matter of fact that council was the first of European congresses, a meeting of national delegates rather than a parliament of Christendom. The history of this change from the Christendom of the twelfth century to the nations of the Reformation epoch, is the history of the later Middle Ages. It is possible, however, to disentangle some of the elements of this complicated process of disintegration.

To the modern student, who is wise after the event, it is clear by the eleventh century that the Europe of the future is not going to be built up politically as an empire and that the ultimate development of some form of national state is assured. The Church, though she might have preserved a large measure ot social unity and linked the nations together, could never have formed a permanent, universal state, for Christianity is not, like Islam, a political system. Politically, there seems but two alternatives; empire or nations. Indeed the roots of nationality can be traced deep down in geographical and racial differences and in the varing degrees in which the Teutonic invaders of the Roman Empire coalesced with its old inhabitants. In the twelfth century, though the sense of a common Christianity is the predominant characteristic of the age, the development of national distinctions proceeded apace. Germany was long to regret the glories of the reign of Frederick Barbarossa, yet even his power failed to level the Alps politically and to overcome the still hardly conscious nationalism of the Lombard cities. The social and intellectual influence which France had exerted in the middle of the century began under Philip Augustus to take a political form; while in England conquerors and conquered were fast amalgamating, and a national feeling, fostered by insular position, had grown up, though it was concealed for the moment by the extent of the Angevin Empire and the foreign interests of Henry II and Richard I. This empire broke into pieces under John, and, after an interval of weakness and hesitation, England appears in the reign of Edward I as the country where nationality had most rapidly developed. Elsewhere, too, the process continued. The personality of St. Louis gave to the French monarchy a halo comparable to the spiritual character which was to cling for so many centuries to the Holy Roman Empire. The fall of the Hohenstauffen decided finally what had long threatened, that Germany was to be not a State, but at any rate a nation severed from Italy, and that Italy itself was to live its own turbulent city life so fruitful in war, in tyranny, in saints, and in works of art.

Meanwhile the new monarchies of the West became self-conscious through their lawyers. Secular law in the twelfth century had given its support to the civil power, but it had been overshadowed, on the whole, by the great development of canon law. Towards the close of the thirteenth it had its revenge as the ally of the national sovereigns. Edward I was both one of the most legal and one of the most powerful of English kings, yet in his case legal absolutism was mitigated by customary law. In France the enigmatic figure of Philip the Fair was half-concealed by his legist ministers, men who combined a radical anti-clericalism, ready to go any lengths, with the most frank acknowledgment of the absolute power of the sovereign. It is an instance of the irony of history that Edward and Philip should be the contemporaries of Boniface VIII, the boldest assertor of papal supremacy. The probable explanation is that the recent victory over the empire misled the papalist writers and perhaps the popes themselves. The disappearance of the Hohenstauffen seemed to leave the papacy an undisputed supremacy in the Christian world. It had been the practice to speak of the spiritual and temporal powers in terms of pope and emperor, and it was long before it was realized, at least on the papal side, that the civil power, defeated as emperor, had returned to the attack with more aggressive vigour as the Monarchy and the State. The papal-imperial controversy continued, though with increasing unreality, when the pope was at Avignon, and the emperor was Louis of Bavaria, and little effort was made to adapt to the new conditions the older theory of the co-ordinate powers of Church and State, both of immediate Divine origin but differing in dignity.

The struggle between Boniface and Philip culminated in the outrage of Anagni, where Nogaret, the French lawyer, struck the aged pope. It was a brutal act, disgraceful only to the perpetrator. Unfortunately, it was followed by the migration, a few years later, of the papal court to the prison-palace of Avignon. This premature development of French absolutism was followed by years of war and anarchy; but from her misfortunes France rose up a consolidated monarchy. In England, aristocratic misrule and some forty years of intermittent civil war produced the same result. In Spain, and even in the German and Scandinavian principalities and kingdoms, different causes tended in the same direction. Thus grew up those monarchies, powerful at home jealous of foreign interference, which contributed so much to the Reformation.

While in the political sphere nations were drawing apart, in the social sphere the Church was losing much of her influence on the thoughts of men. Some of this loss was perhaps inevitable. New interests were springing up on every side with the growth of wealth, of education, and of the complexity of life new professions, other than that of arms, were being opened to the educated laity. Religion could hardly expect to keep the hold she had exercised on the outward lives of Christians. Meanwhile the improvement of secular law would in time render unnecessary and invidious many of the clerical privileges which had been so essential in a simpler age. Thus as European society developed, the clergy, the most cosmopolitan element of it, would necessarily lose some of the commanding influence they had exercised in the ages when they represented civilization as well as religion. But other causes were at work. The high religious enthusiasm of the earlier twelfth century was not maintained at the same level either in clergy or people. And indeed even that Christian age had had its dark side. Passion, the fierce passionate character of a primitive people, was not yet subdued. What had been won by the Hildebrandine movement had to be preserved. No moral victory is final: no generation can afford to disarm. The very success of the Church brought its dangers, and increased power tended to ambition and worldliness. The faults and the wealth of the clergy must have contributed something, it would be difficult to say how much to the darkest feature of the age, the heresy which even in St. Bernard’s time lurked in secret nearly everywhere. This evil spread like a plague through Southern France and Italy, and kept appearing sporadically north of the Alps. It seemed to threaten Christian morals and Christian faith alike. So acute did the danger become in France that it almost justified the violences of the Albigensian Crusade but the Church of the thirteenth century had nobler weapons than those of De Montfort or the Inquisition: the Friars and Scholastic movement attacked heresy, morally and intellectually, and routed it. Henceforth, however, till the sixteenth; century, no great religious or monastic movement, common to Christendom, was provoked by the many moral and intellectual causes which led to the decline and fall of the medieval system and finally to the Reformation itself.

The history of the papacy cannot be separated from that of the Church. The great popes of the past had had a share which can hardly be over-estimated in binding together Christian society and raising its moral level; it is not surprising that the diminished influence of the papacy is among the causes of the disintegration of Christendom. It is difficult not to trace the decadence to the struggle with Frederick II. Before that struggle, in the days of Innocent III, the difficulties of the papacy were due to its agents, its subjects, to the very greatness of the task it had undertaken, not to the character or aims of the popes themselves. But from Gregory IX a different spirit seemed to prevail. The popes were engaged in a hand-to-land conflict with a power which aimed at establishing a strong monarchy in Italy which threatened to stifle Roman and papal freedom the contest was not being waged with an imperious but distant German: it was Italian, territorial and bitter. The spiritual ruler seemed almost merged in the sovereign of Rome and the feudal lord of Sicily. Money was necessary, and in order to obtain it funds had to be raised in other, and especially, transalpine lands, and by means which aroused much discontent and which affected the credit of Rome as the central court of Christendom. The conception of canon law, of a system of courts Christian and a sacred jurisdiction over-riding political frontiers, is a magnificent one, and the debt which European law owes to the canonists is admitted by the modern masters of legal history. It was a system, however, which had many rivals, and it required the support of a high moral prestige. Unfortunately, the machinery was, from the first, defective, there was no organization at Rome capable of dealing with the press of legal business, and even in the twelfth century complaints of venality and delay were frequent and bitter. Litigants are not easily satisfied, nor has the law often been at once impartial cheap, and speedy in any country yet it can hardly be denied that in the thirteenth century; the Roman courts suffered from very serious abuses.

It is unnecessary to follow the fortunes of the papacy after the thirteenth century; the lesson of the French influence, of the schism, of the Italianization of the fifteenth-century popes, is but too clear. Though the essential rights of the Holy See were but seldom denied in those years, it was clear, when the crisis came, and when the papal supremacy had to bear the first attack, that that devotion which makes martyrs and the enthusiasm which inspires righteous rebellion were sadly lacking. It would seem, then that the growth of national divisions, the increased secularism of everyday life, the diminished influence of the Church and the papacy, that all these interdependent influences had broken up the social unity of Christendom at least two centuries before the Reformation, yet it must never be forgotten that religious unity remained. As long as Christendom was Catholic it was a reality, a visible society with one head and one hierarchy. Though for the moment centrifugal tendencies were in the ascendant, the future was full of possibilities. A great religious movement, a revival of the Christian spirit, the reform which should have come when the Reformation came, any such appeal to the common faith and to Catholic loyalty might have brought the Christian nations together again, have put some check upon their internal absolutism and external combativeness and have removed from the Christian name the reproach of mutual antagonism.

Such speculation is, however, as idle as it is fascinating, instead of the reform, of the renewal of the spiritual life of the Church round the old principles of Christian faith and unity, there came the Reformation, and Christian society was broken up beyond the hope of at least proximate reunion. But it was long before this fact was realized even by the Reformers and indeed it must have been more difficult for a subject of Henry VIII to convince himself that the Latin Church was really being torn asunder than for us to conceive the full meaning and all the consequences of a united Christendom. Much of the weakness of ordinary men in the earlier years of the Reformation, much of their attitude towards the papacy, can be explained by their blindness to what was happening. They thought, no doubt, that all would come right in the end. So dangerous is it, particularly in times of revolution, to trust to anything but principle.

The effect of the Reformation was to separate from the Church all the Scandinavian, most of the Teutonic, and a few of the Latin-speaking populations of Europe but the spirit of division once established worked further mischief, and the antagonism between Lutheran and Calvinist was almost as bitter as that between Catholic and Protestant. At the begining, however, of the seventeenth century, Christendom was weary of religious war and persecution, and for a moment it almost seemed as if the breach were to be closed. The deaths of Philip II and Elizabeth, the conversion and the tolerant policy of Henry IV of France, the accession of the House of Stuart to the English throne, the pacification between and Spain and the Dutch, all these events pointed to the same direction. A like tendency is apparent in the theological speculation of the time: the learning and judgment of Hooker, the first beginning of the High Church movement, the spread of Arminianism in Holland, these were all signs that in the Protestant Churches, thought, study, and piety had begun to moderate the fires of controversy, while in the monumental works of Suarez and the other Spanish doctors, the Catholic theology seems to be resuming that stately, comprehensive view of its problems which is so impressive in the great Scholastics. It is not surprising that this moment, when the cause of reconciliation seemed in the ascendant, was marked by a scheme of Christian political union. Much importance was at one time attributed to the grand dessein of Henry IV. Recent historians are inclined to assign most of the design to Henry’s Protestant minister, Sully, the king’s share in the plan was probably but small. A coalition war against Austria was first to secure Europe against the domination of the Hapsburgs but an era of peace was to follow. The different Christian States, whether Catholic or Protestant were to preserve their independence, to practise toleration, to be united in a “Christian Republic” under the presidency of the pope, and to find an outlet for their energies in the recovery of the East. These dreams of Christian reunion soon melted away. Religious divisions were too deep-seated to permit the reconstruction of a Christian polity, and the cure for international ills has been sought in other directions. The international law of the seventeenth century jurists was based upon national law, not upon Christian fellowship, the balance of power of the eighteenth century on the elementary instinct of self-defence, and the nationalism of the nineteenth on racial or linguistic distinctions. It has never occurred to anyone to take seriously the mystic terminology with which in the Holy Alliance Alexander I of Russia clothed his policy of conservative intervention. The Greek insurrection and the Eastern questions generally restored the word Christian to the vocabulary of the European chanceries, but it has come in recent times to express our common civilization rather than a religion which so many Europeans now no longer possess. (See )

FRANCIS URQUHART.

Christian

First Bishop of Prussia, d. 1245. Before becoming a missionary he was a Cistercian monk at the monastery of Oliva near Danzig or, as appears more probable, at Lekno or some other Polish monastery. In 1209 he was commissioned by Innocent III to direct the Prussian missions between the Rivers Vistula and Memel, which had been begun by Abbot Godfrey of Lekno, and the monk Philip in 1207. He was appointed bishop in 1212, and, when, in 1215, he went to Rome in order to report to the pope on the condition and prospects of his mission, he was consecrated first Bishop of Prussia. On his journey to Rome he was accompanied by two converted Prussian noblemen, Warpoda and Suavabona, who were then solemnly baptized by Innocent III. Soon after Christian’s return to Prussia the pagans rose against the foreign Christians who had settled there, destroyed their fortifications, and compelled many of the newly converted to return to paganism. With the permission of Pope Honorius III, Christian gathered an army of crusaders who, however, were too few to gain a decisive victory. The bishop was even forced to leave Prussia. In a contract made with Duke Conrad of Masovia and Bishop Gedeon of Plock, in 1222, Christian received rich possessions and incomes as well as episcopal jurisdiction in Culmerland. He, therefore, decided to erect his episcopal see at Culm, and from there direct the affairs of the Prussian missions. But soon the Prussians invaded Culmerland also. In his extremity Christian founded the Order of the Knights of Dobrin, which was approved by Pope Gregory IX about 1228. When these knights were unsuccessful Christian and Duke Conrad of Masovia applied for assistance to Herman of Salza, the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order in Palestine. In 1228 Conrad entered into a contacts with the Teutonic Order, by virtue of which his possessions in Culmerland became the property of the order. In 1230 Bishop Christian added to this grant all his own possessions in Culmerland and, a year later, one-third of his possessions in Prussia, retaining, however, for himself ecclesiastical jurisdiction both in Culmerland and in Prussia.

Under the leadership of Herman Balk the Teutonic Order began the great conflict which after more than half a century of bloodshed dealt the death-blow to paganism in Prussia and made the Teutonic Order one of the greatest powers in Europe. When Christian asked for the assistance of the German Knights he was determined to keep the ecclesiastical administration of Prussia under his control. Soon, however, he became aware that the order laid claim to the spiritual as well as the temporal management of the conquered territory. Up to the year 1227 none but Cistercians assisted Christian in his apostolic labours; but with the arrival of the German Knights, the Dominicans, who were favoured by the order and by Pope Gregory IX, took a strong foothold in Prussia, while Christian and his Cistercian colabourers were thrown into the background. William of Modena, who had been appointed papal legate for Prussia, disregarded the rights of Christian and proceeded as it there were no Bishop of Prussia. In addition to these misfortunes, Christian was captured and his attendants slain by some pagan Prussians who pretended to have been converted and to desire the Sacrament of Baptism from the bishop. During the six years of his captivity (1233–39) the Teutonic Order and the papal legate did nothing for his release. In 1236 Gregory IX, who, it appears, considered the liberation of Christian impossible, empowered William of Modena to divide Prussia into three dioceses. The bishops for these new sees were, in accordance with the wish of the Teutonic Order, to be selected from the Dominican Order, while no provision whatever was made for the imprisoned Bishop Christian.

Finally, in the winter of 1239–40, Christian obtained his liberty. He was obliged to give hostages whom he afterwards ransomed for a sum stated as eight hundred marks (at that time a large amount), which was granted him by Pope Gregory. Immediately upon his liberation Christian complained to the pope that the Teutonic Order refused baptism to the catechumens who desired it, oppressed the newly converted, claimed episcopal rights, and refused to restore property which belonged to the bishop. The first two accusations may have been wrong or exaggerated but the last two were founded on truth. In 1240 the pope instructed Bishop Henry and two provosts of Meissen to induce the Teutonic Order to satisfy the demands of Christian. The legate’s intended division of Prussia into three dioceses did not take effect, and after Gregory’s death (22 Aug., 1241) Christian and the Teutonic Order agreed that two thirds of the conquered territory in Prussia should belong to the Order, and one-third to the bishop; that, moreover, the bishop should have the right to exercise in the territory belonging to the order those ecclesiastical functions which only a bishop can perform.

William of Modena, the papal legate, did not give up his plans of dividing Prussia into various dioceses. He finally obtained from Pope Innocent IV permission to make a division, and on 29 July, 1243, Prussia was divided into the four dioceses: Culm, Pomerania, Ermland, and Samland. The only recognition which Christian received for his apostolic labours of more than twenty years consisted in the privilege to select for himself any one of the four new episcopal sees. When Christian refused to make a selection he was severely reprimanded by the pope. Despite numerous petitions sent by Cistercian abbots in favour of Bishop Christian, the pope in a Brief of 6 Feb., 1245, threatened to deprive him of all episcopal jurisdiction unless he selected one of the new Prussian dioceses within two months. In the spring of the same year, probably before the two months had passed, Christian died.

PLINSKY in SDRALEK’S Kirchegeschichtliche Abhandlungen, 1902, I, 151–249; KETRZYNSKI, Deutschorden und Konrad von Masovien (Lemberg, 1904); HAUCK, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (Leipzig, 1903), IV, 643 sqq; PRUTZ, Preussische Geschichte (Stuttgart, 1900), I, 42 sqq.; MICHAEL, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes (Freiburg im. Br., 1897), I, 108 sqq.; FELTEN, Papst Gregor IX (Freiburg im Br., 1886), 124–27, 230–32; WOLKY in Zeitschrift für die Geschichte Ermlands (Leipzig, 1878), VI, 289 sqq.

MICHAEL OTT

Christian Archæology

Christian archaeology is that branch of the science of archaeology the object of which is the study of ancient Christian monuments. The modern historian who endeavours to reconstruct the life of the primitive Christians has two sources of information to draw upon, namely: literary and monumental sources. By literary sources is commonly understood the existing remains of early Christian literature; monumental sources consist of the various classes of objects of a material character surviving from antiquity, which were produced by Christians or under Christian influence, sepulchral inscriptions, paintings, sculptures churches, and the products of the minor arts. The principal aim of Christian archaeology, as indicated, is to ascertain all that is possible relative to the manners and customs of the early Christians from the monuments of Christian antiquity. Any attempt to determine the date when the period loosely designated “Christian Antiquity” gave place to the medieval period must of necessity be more or less arbitrary. As a consequence of this difficulty, differences of opinion exist among archaeologists as to the chronological limits to be assigned to Christian archaeology. However, such authorities as De Rossi and Le Blant regard the beginning of the seventh century, or the death of Gregory the Great (604), as a date which marks sufficiently well the end of the ancient, and the beginning of the medieval period. In Gaul and Germany Christian monuments preserved much of their ancient character till a century later.

I. SUMMARY OF ITS HISTORY

The honour of inaugurating the scientific study of Christian antiquity belongs to an Augustinian monk, Onofrio Panvinio, who in 1554 and 1568 published two important works on the basilicas of Rome (De praecipuis urbis Romae sanctioribus basilicis) and on the cemeteries and sepulchral rites of the early Christians (“De ritu sepeliendi mortuos apud veteres Christianos et de eorum coemeteriis”). Ten years after the publication of the latter work, some labourers accidently discovered (31 May, 1578), on the Via Salaria an ancient subterranean cemetery containing inscriptions and frescos of an unmistakably Christian character. Among the first to visit the newly-discovered cemetery was the ecclesiastical historian Baronius, who, though he recognized the importance of the find, yet took no part in contemporary explorations. He had, however, already commenced his great historical work, “Annales Ecclesiastici,” the composition of which absorbed his whole attention. For fifteen years after the discovery on the Via Salaria the only persons to attempt any explorations in the catacombs were a Spanish Dominican, Alfonso Ciacconio and two Flemish laymen, Philip de Winghe and Jean l’Heureux. Ciacconio accomplished nothing of importance. The investigations of the two Flemish explorers gave promise of better results, but their writings remained unpublished, and consequently had no influence on their contemporaries.

The first to begin the systematic exploration of the ancient Roman cemeteries or catacombs, was the “Father of Christian Archaeology,” Antonio Bosio. Born in Malta in 1575, Bosio was placed at an early age under the care of an uncle who resided at Rome, as procurator of the Knights of Malta. At the age of eighteen he was attracted to the study of the early Christian sepulchral monuments of Rome, and from that date till his death, in 1629, a period of thirty-six years, he devoted his life to the exploration of the catacombs. Three years after his death (1632), the results of his investigations and studies were made known to the world in an Italian work entitled “Roma Sotterranea,” edited by the Oratorian Severano, and published at the expense of the Order of Malta. The great merit of this work was at once recognized, and led to the publication by Aringhi, in 1651, of a Latin translation for the benefit of the savants of Europe. The scientific character of Bosio’s explorations has recently been confirmed by an interesting discovery. De Rossi, in spite of his admiration for Bosio maintained that the cemetery of Sts. Mark and Marcellianus, in which Pope Damasus was interred, lay to the right of the Via Ardeatina and not to the left as Bosio believed. In 1902 both the crypts of Pope Damasus and of Sts. Mark and Marcellianus were discovered by Wilpert, and in the locality indicated by Bosio. Important as was the work of Bosio, it was, however, in one department defective. The copies of catacomb paintings made for his “Roma Sotterranea” have been very often found by Wilpert to be quite inaccurate. This fault must be attributed to Bosio’s copyists.

For more than two centuries after the death of Bosio, little advance was made in the exploration of the Roman catacombs, the great treasure-house of the monuments of primitive Christianity. Protestant writers either altogether ignored the discoveries of Bosio or refuted them to their own satisfaction, without ever having seen the monuments. Even Bingham, whose work on Christian Antiquities was published nearly a century after the first edition of Bosio’s work appeared, made no use of the results of his investigations. Yet Catholic authors scarcely showed more appreciation of the monuments than their Protestant contemporaries. Unlike De Rossi in our own age, Bosio founded no school of trained archaeologists to carry on the work he so happily inaugurated; the consequence of which was that all systematic exploration ceased at his death. Fabretti, in his collection of inscriptions published in 1699, devoted only one chapter (viii) to Christian inscriptions. Twenty-one years later, Boldetti, who held the office of custodian of the catacombs, published an apologetic work of little value on the “Cemeteries of the holy Martyrs and ancient Christians of Rome.” A work of Buonarotti on cemeterial glasses (Florence, 1716) is of greater merit. But the eighteenth century will be longer remembered for the destruction of Christian monuments than for the labours of its archaeologists. Under the direction of Boldetti numerous inscriptions were removed from the places where they were originally erected, and scattered through various Roman churches, without any clear indication of the localities from which they were taken. These inscriptions were afterwards collected by Benedict XIV (1740–58) in the Christian Museum of the Vatican, of which he was founder. Many invaluable frescoes, also, were injured or destroyed during the eighteenth century. It would be natural to expect that the establishment of a department in connection with the Vatican Library for the collection of Christian inscriptions and other relics of the early Church would arouse the curiosity of Roman antiquarians. Such is not the fact, however. For several years after the death of Benedict XIV no one took any interest in the catacombs in view of later occurrences it was, perhaps, as well that this was the case. About 1780, Seroux d’Agincourt (q.v.) visited several of the ancient cemeteries, and copied for publication in his “Histoire de Part par les monuments” (Paris, 1823), a number of catacomb frescoes. But M. d’Agincourt was not always satisfied with copies. Following the example of other explorers in the same field, he was too often desirous of obtaining the original paintings, and their inaugurated a more systematic destruction of monuments than any of his predecessors.

With the first half of the nineteenth century began a new epoch in archaeological studies. The work of M. Raoul Rochette “Discours sur l’origine etc. des types qui constituent l’art du Christianisme” (Paris, 1834), and his “Tableau des Catacombes de Rome” (Paris, 1837) had the merit of arousing interest in the Christian monuments of Rome, although his conclusions were not at all convincing. In Italy, Sarti, Settele, Pasquini, De Minicis, Valentini, Manara, Cordero, and others produced works of minor importance on the subterranean-cemeterial monuments, the Christian sarcophagi, and the early basilicas of their country. The honour of inaugurating really important work, however, belongs to the Jesuit Father Marchi. Marchi was the first to demonstrate the essential difference between the arenaria, or sand-pits in the vicinity of Rome, and the galleries of the catacombs. In 1841 he published the first volume of what he intended to be an exhaustive work on early Christian art, for various reasons he was unable to complete the undertaking. But Marchi had associated with him, from the time he began to devote particular attention to the Christian monuments of Rome (1841), a young man, not yet twenty years of age, who was destined to take up the work of Bosio and elevate Christian archaeology to the dignity of a science. This was Giovanni Battista De Rossi (1822–94). The important work undertaken by De Rossi (q.v.) was and that results of the greatest interest and importance for the history of the early Church might be obtained by systematic investigations carried out on scientific principles. No one was better qualified than himself to execute his plans, a fact recognized by Pope Pius IX, who commissioned him to begin the work destined to be so fruitful in results.

The work of De Rossi which best reveals his immense learning and the scientific manner in which his investigations were carried out is his “Roma Sotterranea” (Rome, 1864–77, 3 vols., fol.). The time that has elapsed since the publication of the last volume of this truly magnum opus has confirmed in the main the theories of its author on the civil and religious conditions of the primitive Christians, and on the symbolic character of early Christian art. In 1863 he began the publication of his “Bullettino d’archeologia cristiana,” a periodical almost as indispensable to the student of Christian archaeology as the “Roma Sotterranea.” De Rossi left at his death a school of archaeologists, trained in his scientific methods, and capable of continuing his work. The three earliest of his disciples, Armellini, Stevenson, and Marucchi, have published numerous works giving the results of their own investigations, or popularizing the general results of Christian archaeological discoveries, besides continuing the publication of the Bullettino under the title “Nuovo Bullettino d’archeologia cristiana.” A publicist who accomplished considerable work of permanent value in the domain of Christian archaeology was the Jesuit Garrucci. His most important publication was a “History of Christian Art” in six volumes, which contains five hundred tables of illustrations. Many of these, however, have been found inaccurate and must be used with caution. His text also has been in a great measure superseded by that of recent writers. The best results achieved since the death of De Rossi are attributable to a young German priest whose love for archaeological studies drew him to Rome nearly two decades ago: Mgr. Joseph Wilpert. Wilpert has devoted himself in a special manner to the study of early Christian painting, a department of archaeology to which De Rossi was unable to give the attention the subject deserved. In 1889 Wilpert published his “Principienfragen der christlichen Archaologie,” a brochure defending the principles of interpretation of the Roman school of archeologists against the attacks of German non-Catholic authors. In 1892 appeared his study on “Die Gottgeweihten Jungfrauen,” a valuable contribution on the origins of the religious life. In 1895 he published his “Fractio Panis,” wherein he describes the cycle of sacred representations in the crypt of St. Priscilla, known as the “Capella Greca,” and shows their relation to the principal scene depicted in that chapel, the eucharistic, or sacred-banquet, scene of the apse which he appropriately named “fractio panis,” the Breaking of Bread. The signification of Orantes (praying) figures so frequently depicted on early Christian tombs was first satisfactorily explained by this writer in his “Cyclus christologischer Gemalde” (1891). His greatest work is his “Malereign der Katakomben Roms” (Freiburg, 1903). It consists of two folio volumes, one of plates reproducing more than six hundred catacomb frescoes, half of them in colours; the other of text, in which the author, after laying down his principles of interpretation, classifies and describes the various cycles of the cemeterial paintings and interprets their symbolical meaning. Another German priest resident in Rome, Mgr. de Waal, the founder and editor of the “Romische Quartalschrift,” has written extensively on archaeological subjects; one of his best known works is a description, with illustrations, of the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus (Rodney 1900).

The impetus given to the study of early Christian monuments by the discoveries and publications of De Rossi was immediately felt in every country of Europe. Two English priests, Northcote and Brownlow, were among the first to appreciate the importance of his work, which they popularized in their excellent “Roma Sotterranea” (London, 1869; second edition, 1878). Dr. Northcote also published a useful work on early Christian inscriptions under the title “Epitaphs of the Catacombs” (London, 1878). The former of these works was translated into French by Allard; Kraus’s “Roma Sotterranea” was partly a translation of Northcote and Brownlow, and partly an original work. Smith and Cheetham’s “Dictionary of Christian Antiquities” (London 1875–80) is an evidence of the influence on English Protestants of the Roman explorations, and the recently published manual of Lowrie, “Monuments of the Early Church” (New York, 1901), bears witness to the intelligent interest of American Protestants in the most recent results of Christian archaeological studies. Among the first in France to be influenced by the archaeological revival of De Rossi was the Abbé Martigny, who in 1865 published his, for that time, remarkable “Dictionnaire des antiquités chrétiennes” (third edition. Paris, 1889). Perret’s “Catacombes de Rome” (Paris, 1851–55) is a pretentious work of little value; his illustrations are inaccurate, and his text unreliable Deshassayns de Richemont’s “Catacombes de Rome” appeared in 1870, and in the following year Allard’s translation of Northcote and Brownlow. These works did good service as popular manuals, but original investigations of great importance were carried on by another French archaeologist, Edmond Le Blant. The first volume of Le Blant’s “Inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule” appeared in 1856, the second in 1865, the third in 1892. These were followed by two volumes on the Christian sarcophagi of Arles and of France (Paris, 1878–86), and various studies on Christian epigraphy. At the present time (1906) a highly useful and excellent work in course of publication, is Cabrol and Leclercq’s “Dictionnaire d’archéologie et de liturgie” (since 1903). The discoveries of Count de Vogüé in Central Syria [“La Syrie Centrale” (Paris, 1865)], and in the Holy Land [“Les eglises de la Terre Sainte” (Paris, 1860)] were of great importance for the history of early Christian architecture. The writings of Pere Delattre and of Stephen Gsell are indispensable for the study of the Christian monuments of North Africa. In Germany Professor Franz Xaver Kraus did more, probably, than any other writer to popularize the results of Christian archaeological studies. Besides his “Roma Sotterranea “Kraus edited the excellent “Real-Encyklopadie der christlichen Alterthumer” (Freiburg 1882–86, 2 vols.), and published (Freiburg, 1896–97), an (unfinished) history of Christian art in three volume), of which only the first concerns Christian archaeology. It is the most complete general work on this subject that has yet appeared.Kraus also published in two volumes (Freiburg, 1890–94), a collection of early Christian inscriptions from the Rhineland, besides a number of monographs of an archaeological character. Among German Protestant archaeologists may be mentioned Victor Schultze, whose studies on the catacombs of Naples and Syracuse, and “Archaologie der altchristlichen Kunst” (Munich, 1895) are of importance. Of contemporary German writers on the monuments of Christian antiquity space will not permit more than the mention of a few of the principal: Muller, Ficker, Krumbacher, Strzygowski, Kirsch, Kaufmann, and Baumstark.

II. LITERARY SOURCES

The knowledge of early Christian society derived from the study of the oldest existing Christian monuments has thrown light on many obscurities in the Church’s early history, as it was known from the literature that has come down to us from the first age of Christianity. It is equally true that the study of Christian monuments would be impossible apart from the study of the various literary sources of Christian antiquity. Christian literature and Christian monuments supplement one another. First among the literary sources indispensable for the study of the monuments is the Christian art from the first century was inspired by the Sacred Scriptures. After this primary source, the Acts of the Martyrs, Christian liturgies, certain liturgical prayers, particularly those relative to death, Church calendars, the so-called Pontifical Books, especially the famous Roman “Liber Pontificalis” (q.v.) ancient missals and sacramentaries, and in general all Christian literature, till well on in medieval times, have proved invaluable aids in the interpretation of the momuments. Especially useful were the medieval pilgrims’ itineraries, the Baedekers of their time, because of the indications they contain relative to the topography of the ancient subterranean cemeteries of Christian Rome.

III. CHARACTER OF THE EARLIEST MONUMENTS. PRINCIPAL RESULTS OF CHRISTIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

The principal monuments of the earliest Christian ages have been found in the sub-terranean cemeteries of Rome. The oldest portions of several of these cemeteries date from the first century of the Christian Era, so that, within their range, whatever information they supply bears the stamp of the Apostolic Age. The fact that these monuments are of a sepulchral character must always be borne in mind. No one would expect to find in the inscriptions and sculptures of a modern Catholic cemetery a complete exposition of Catholic theology; neither should such an exposition of dogma be looked for in the inscriptions and frescoes of the catacombs. Any information we might reasonably expect, therefore, from sepulchral monuments should have some relation to the ideas concerning death that were uppermost in the minds of those who erected them. Within this range and to a certain extent beyond it, the monuments are perfectly clear. The inscriptions and paintings of the catacombs, as well as the sculptured sarcophagi of the fourth and subsequent centuries, exhibit in the most unequivocal manner the beliefs of their authors in the momentous question of existence beyond the grave.

IV. INSCRIPTIONS

The earliest Christian inscriptions are simple in the extreme: they barely mention the name of the deceased, with a brief prayer for his soul—“Regina, mayest thou live in the Lord Jesus,” “Peace be with you,” “In peace,” “In God.” By the third century these formula had developed so far as to express belief in the Trinity and the communion of saints; the Sacrament of baptism is implicitly alluded to in the mention of neophytes, tend in such inscriptions as “Fidem accepit,” “post susceptionem suam” (he received the Faith, after his reception); the Eucharist in the two famous epitaphs of Abercius of Hieropolis (q.v.) and Pectorius of Autun. The three highest orders of the hierarchy, and several of the minor orders, are also mentioned, as well as consecrated virgins and widows; frequent reference is, of course, made to the lay members of the community. Still more interesting, perhaps, are the deductions which may legitimately be drawn from certain peculiarities of these very early Christian memorials. The equality of all before God, for example, is taught by the eloquent silence of the epitaphs as to the worldly rank or titles of the deceased. Allusions to slaves and freedmen, so common in contemporary pagan inscriptions, are found in only a few instances on Christian epitaphs, and then in the kindliest manner. Even more remarkable, in an age when persecution was even imminent, is the silence of Christian inscriptions on that subject. No thought was given to the persecutors, the attention of the followers of Christ was wholly absorbed by the world beyond the tomb. And with regard to this better world they entertained a perfect confidence; the very name of cemetery given by them to their last resting-place (koimeterion, dormitorium), “a sleeping-place”) reveals their confidence in the promises of the Saviour. The metrical inscriptions erected in the latter part of the fourth century by Pope Damasus (366–384) manifest the great veneration in which the martyrs were then held, and at the same time supply valuable data as to their history.

V. PAINTINGS

Following the custom then in vogue of decorating the tombs of deceased friends, the Christians of Rome, from the first century, began to adorn with frescoes the burial chambers of the catacombs. The catacombs were, therefore, “the cradle of Christian art.” Although some of the early Christian writers looked upon artistic productions with suspicion, the Roman Church never seems to have had any misgivings in this regard. Art in itself was indifferent; why not adopt and purify it? This was precisely what was done. Even in the oldest paintings of the catacombs, which date from the end of the first century, the process of purification has already begun. The pictorial ornamentation of the Acilian and Flavian family tombs, which belongs to this period, though chiefly decorative in characters like that of contemporary pagan tombs is yet wholly free from idolatrous or indelicate motifs. The foundations of a specifically Christian art were also laid in the first century, in a few frescoes representing Daniel in the lions’ den, Noe in the ark, and the Good Shepherd. All of these subjects were symbols, and symbolism (q.v.) was the special characteristic of Christian art down to the fourth century. The source of inspiration of the symbolic paintings of the catacombs was the Bible. In selecting their subjects from the Sacred Writings the artists, or those who directed their operations, did not proceed at random, but followed certain definite regulations. These regulations were suggested by the fact that the frescoes were to form a sepulchral ornamentation. The dominant idea, therefore, in making a selection of subjects was that the latter, according to the views prevailing among Christians should be adaptable, as symbols, to the condition after death of those on whose tombs they were to be erected. The funeral liturgies, consequently, prayers for the dying, and invocations of like tenor served as guides in the choice of symbols. Thus for example, in the Litany for a Soul Departing, still in use, we have the invocation “Deliver, O Lord, the soul of Thy servant, as Thou didst deliver Daniel from the den of the lions.” The figure of Daniel standing between the two lions, so frequently depicted in the catacombs, is an early pictured form of this prayer. The cycles of sacred representations of the catacombs were, therefore, selected because of their appropriateness to the condition of the Christian soul after death. From the point of view of doctrine and discipline, many of them are of the greatest importance. For instance, with regard to the sacraments, the cycle of frescoes relative to baptism, some of which date from the early second century, show clearly that baptism was administered by effusion; while several of the cycle referring to the Eucharist indicate quite plainly a belief in the sacrificial character of the Mass. In numerous frescoes belief in the divinity of Christ is manifested, and the prominent place occupied by the Blessed Virgin in the thoughts of the Christians of the first three centuries is apparent in the many representations of Mary (the most ancient belongs to the first half of the second century), with the Infant Saviour in her arms. The gradual development of the idea of Mary’s important place in the scheme of redemption is ascertained by comparison of the earlier with the later frescoes of the Mother and Child; a painting of the latter half of the third century in the catacomb of St. Priscilla represents her in the character of model for a virgin taking the veil; while in a fresco of the middle of the fourth century in the Coemeterium majus, she is seen in the attitude of prayer, interceding, according to the interpretation of Wilpert, with her Divine Son, for the surviving friends of the deceased persons on whose tomb this representation appears. The dogma of the communion of saints is as clearly expressed in the paintings, as in the inscriptions of the catacombs. The various Orantes, or praying figures, are symbols of the deceased in heaven interceding with God for friends still members of the Church Militant. Other frescoes represent the particular judgment, with saints in the attitude of advocates pleading with the Judge for their admission to heaven. St. Peter and St. Paul were also favourite subjects with the Christian artists of Rome, especially in the fourth century. The earliest fresco of St. Peter, in the cemetery Ad Duas Lauros, represents the Prince of the Apostles reading from an open roll, in the character of “Legislator of the New Covenant.” The high place in which the ecclesiastical authorities were held is indicated by the special garb in which they are represented, the priests administering baptism are clad in tunic and pallium, two articles of apparel which, with sandals, constituted the dress reserved to personages of a sacred character.

VI. SCULPTURE

During the first age of the Church a specifically Christian sculpture was almost unknown. Many reasons have been given to account for this circumstance, the chief of which, besides that of cost, is the practical difficulty encountered in producing works distinctively Christian without the knowledge of a hostile public and Government. Only a few statues and sarcophagi with representations inspired by the Scriptures survive from the first three centuries. Christian sculpture, consequently, began its real development in the fourth century, in the age of peace inaugurated by Constantine. The principal sculptured monuments of this period consist of the many sarcophagi, mostly found in Rome, Ravenna, and in various parts of France, in which Christians of the Constantinian and post-Constantinian epochs were interred. Being sepulchral monuments, the symbolic subjects of the catacomb frescoes were equally appropriate on Christian sarcophagi. But Christian sculptors quickly felt the influence of the new development of Christian art first seen in the basilicas erected under Constantine. The triumphant symbols of the basilcas, and the historical scenes depicted on their walls, are also found on Christian sarcophagi, side by side with some of the earliest and most venerable symbols of the catacombs. The transition from symbolic to historic art is, consequently, nowhere better represented than in the carved sarcophagi of the fourth and following centuries.

VII. BASILICAS

According to the Acts of the Apostles the first Christians were accustomed to meet in private houses for the celebration of the liturgy: “Breaking bread from house to house” (Acts, ii, 46). The first separate places of worship of the Christians were, therefore, the homes of those among them which were sufficiently large to accommodate a considerable number of people. Down to the reign of Constantine the custom thus established in the Church of Jerusalem, of assembling for the celebration of the liturgy in private residences, seems to have been generally followed. It is very probable, however, that there were churches of the basilica type in Asia Minor before Constantine. The church at Nicomedia, destroyed in the persecution of Diocletian, was erected in the third century. According to an ancient tradition, the house of Senator Pudens at Rome, as well as that of Saint Cecilia, was used for such a purpose. The third-century romance known as the “Clementine Recognitions” has two references of interest in this regard: the author tells of a certain Maro who invited St. Peter to preach in a hall of his mansion, capable of holding five hundred persons (Recog., iv, 6), and, in another place, he speaks of a man named Theophilus who had a similar hall of his house consecrated as a church (ibid., x, 71). The Christian churches of the fourth century, known as basilicas (q.v.), derived their name, and some of their principal features, either from the public basilicas, like those of the Roman forum, or from the private basilicas of great mansions, such as the halls of Maro and Theophilus. These churches consisted of a large oblong hall, divided by columns into a central nave and two or four aisles. The apse at the extremity of the hall opposite the entrance derives, according to Kraus and others, from such early structures as the three-apsed cemeterial churches, two of which may still be seen in the cemetery of St. Callistus. The apse, however, is a feature of the two civil basilicas of Trajan and Maxentius. The atrium, or court-yard before the entrance is a feature of the Christian basilica not seen in the civil basilicas, and is evidently a reminiscence of the domus ecclesiae of the first the three centuries.

The baptisteries erected adjacent to basilicas, were, as a rule, circular or polygonal in form. Circular edifices were also erected as mausoleums; two of the best examples are the church of St. Costanza in Rome and the mausoleum of King Theodoric at Ravenna. Following the precedent of the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, circular or octagonal churches also were sometimes erected; the church of St. Vitale at Ravenna is the best known Western structure of this type. The inferior decoration of the earliest Christian basilicas exhibits a new development in Christian art. The symbols depicted in the catacombs were perfectly appropriate for the purpose for which they were intended, but a different style of adornment was demanded in edifices whose object was not so immediately associated with death. Moreover, the Church of Christ had at length triumphed over paganism, and this triumph suggested to the Christian artists of the Constantinian Age the idea of commemorating the victory in the new basilicas. In this way a new symbolism, representing Christ triumphant on His thrones came into existence. Historical scenes from the life of Christ or from the Old Testament were frequently represented in the frescoes and mosaics of basilicas, and these served not only as all appropriate adornment, but also as an excellent illustration of the Sacred Scriptures.

VIII. THE MINOR ARTS

Under this heading are usually classified such remains of early Christian times as textile fabrics, liturgical clothing and implements, objects of devotion, domestic articles, coins and medals, and illustrations in miniature. The last named are of especial importance for the history of art in the Middle Ages. (See CATACOMBS, and DE ROSSI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA.)

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Christian Art

“Christian art” is a term which, while it always applies to the fine arts and their creations only, is nevertheless used in more than one meaning which we must distinguish in this encyclopedia. Most frequently we designate by Christian art, the fine arts in as much as we find them in the service of the Church, i.e. in so far as they serve either to construct or to embellish houses of worship, the homes of the consecrated servants of God, monasteries, convents, the last resting-places of the faithful, etc., or in as much as they beautify the rites and ceremonies of the Church. In this sense, Christian art is also called ecclesiastical art, and we find it convenient to treat this subject under the title ECCLESIASTICAL ART. But Christian art is sometimes also used to denote the fine arts and their creations, in as much as they are in harmony with Christian ideals and principles. In this regard Christian art will be treated under the several special headings into which its divisions naturally fall. (See PAINTING; MUSIC; SCULPTURE etc.)

Christian Brothers of Ireland

An institute founded at Waterford, Ireland, in 1802, by Edmund Ignatius Rice, a merchant of that city. At the close of the eighteenth century a cloud of ignorance and misery hung over the Catholics of Ireland, the inevitable result of two centuries of dreadful penal enactments. During those unhappy years it was illegal either for a Catholic to educate his children as Catholics or for a teacher to undertake the work. The wretched state of the Catholic boys of Waterford excited the pity of Mr. Rice. He had some idea of joining a religious order on the Continent, but the miserable state of his surroundings decided his future course. The bishop of the diocese, the Most Reverend Dr. Hussey warmly approved of his intention and promised him every support.

Mr. Rice’s career as a merchant came to an end in 1800, and his whole fortune and future life were devoted to the great work he had selected. In 1802, in Waterford, he opened his first school, assisted for a time by a few secular teachers. Soon after, some pious young men, drawn by the influence of his zeal and example, came to his assistance and in 1803 a monastery was built for them by the citizens of Waterford. As the number of assistants increased and the reputation of the school became known through the island, many applications for brothers reached Mr. Rice. Houses were soon opened in Carrick-on-Suir, Dungarvan, and Cork. The Most Rev. Dr. Moylan, then Bishop of Cork, summoned a meeting of the principal citizens and expressed to them a strong desire to procure similar advantages for that city. Two gentlemen offered to devote their lives and fortunes to the good work, and the first house was opened there in 1811. For almost a century the history of the Christian Brothers’ schools of Cork has been one unbroken record of progress in primary, secondary, and technical education. The Most Rev. Dr. Murray, Archbishop of Dublin, in 1812, established a community in Dublin. A second community was founded in 1818 and in 1907 there were ten communities in Dublin, educating more than 6000 Pupils. These establishments comprise not only extensive primary and secondary schools but orphanages, industrial schools, and a large deaf and dumb institution, The Limerick community was founded in 1816 and enlargements were made in 1825 and 1828, while many houses were opened later on in the principal towns of the country.

In 1820 came the crowning of Mr. Rice’s work in the Apostolic Brief by which the Holy See constituted his little band of workers into a religious institute of the Church. The Christian Brothers was the first Irish order of men formally approved by a charter from Rome. Encouraged by this great privilege from the Holy See and blessed by a regular succession of excellent members, the order gradually spread not only through the principal Irish towns, but also to Liverpool, London, and other large centres in England. Having gradually strengthened itself in the British Isles during the remaining years of the nineteenth century, the institute ultimately extended its influence into distant countries. In 1868 a colony was sent to Australia and so fruitful was the effort that out of a community of four, a province has grown up containing about fifty establishments, schools, colleges, orphanages, and a flourishing novitiate. Another extension of great importance.was the opening of a school in St. John’s, Newfoundland (1875). From the begining the efforts of the brothers there have been very successful, and through the zeal and energy of the Benevolent Irish Society there are now five large institutions under their management. Between the regimental schools on one side and those of Anglicans and Methodists on the other, Catholic education was at a very low ebb in Gilbraltar, when the Most Rev. Dr. Scandella introduced the brothers there in 1878. Soon the whole aspect was changed, and there are now on the four establishments of the highest repute. From Gibrater to New Zealand and from Australia to Newfoundland, the brothers had carried the standard of Irish monastic education, when, in 1886, Cardinal Simeoni conveyed to the superior general of the wish of the Holy Father that they should extend their influence to India. The Superior at once complied, and at present there is a flourishing province there with many schools, orphanages, colleges. Since receiving the Brief of approbation in 1820, no event in its history was of greater moment to the order than the request of the Holy Father, through Cardinal Jacobini, to the superior general, to send a community of brothers to Rome (1900). The proselytizing efforts of Anglican and American agencies had given the ecclesiastical authorities some anxiety, and to counteract these insidious influences the Holy Father called the Irish brothers to his side. The result amply justified his confidence. A foundation was made in New York, the first in the United States, in 1906.

The schools of the Irish Christian Brothers are of many types, representing divers phases of educational work, primary, secondary and industrial, with orphanages and schools for the deaf and dumb. These various institutions are nearly all equipped with laboratories for the practical teaching of physical and chemical science, and in many cases with workshops for manual training. Their secondary schools and colleges crown the educational edifices, affording to clever boys, irrespective of their position in life, an opportunity of pursuing a course of higher studies which would be otherwise entirely denied them. In foreign countries provinces of the order are established with the sanction of the Holy See, but as prescribed by the Brief, the whole institute is governed by the superior general, who, with his assistants, resides at St. Mary’s, Marino, Dublin.

J.L. SLATTERY

Sisters of Christian Charity

Also called DAUGHTERS OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, an institute for teaching poor schools and for the care of the blind, founded at Paderborn, Germany, on August, 1849, by Pauline von Mallinckrodt (b. 3 June, 1817, at Minden, Westphalia; d. 30 April, 1881), sister to the famous Hermann von Mallinckrodt. The institute, which was confirmed 7 Feb., 1888, by Leo XIII, had attained great success throughout Germany when, in 1873, its members were forced into exile by the persecution of the Kulturkampf. Some went to South America, where there are now many flourishing communities. Others emigrated to New Orleans, U.S.A., where, in April 1873, they founded a house and took charge of a parochial school. Mother Pauline followed shortly after and established a new provincial mother-house, at Wilkesbarre, Pennsylvania. Since then these sisters have opened houses in the Archdioceses of Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati, New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and St. Paul, and in the Dioceses of Albany, Belleville, Brooklyn, Detroit, Harrisburg, Newark, Sioux City, and Syracuse. They have in these establishments 668 sisters, 46 novices, 25 postulants, conducting 2 academies, 54 parochial schools, 2 orphan asylums, and 1 industrial school. In 1887 the sisters were allowed to return to Germany. The mother-house at Paderborn was reopened and the activities of the religious extended with their former success throughout Germany. They have houses in Belgium and Bohemia.

F.M. RUDGE

Confraternity of Christian Doctrine

An association established at Rome in 1562 for the purpose of giving religions instruction. Till about the thirteenth century, the Apostles’ Creed and Paternoster formed the general basis of religious instruction; all the faithful had to know them by heart, and parish priests were commanded to explain them on Sundays and festivals. Then the range of instruction was widened to include the Commandments and sacraments, the virtues and vices. The Synod of Lambeth under Archbishop Peekham, in 1281, was content to order priests to explain the truths of faith four times year, but the Provincial Council of Lavour, in 1368, commanded parish priests to give instruction on all Sundays and feast days. This council also published a catechism to serve as a textbook for the clergy in giving instructions in Christian doctrine, which was followed in all the dioceses of Languedoc and Gascony. Similar manuals were published elsewhere. The Council of Trent, seeing how multitudes had fallen from the Faith through ignorance of their religion and recognizing the truth proclaimed by Gerson more than a century before, that church reform must begin with the religious instruction of the young, issued the “Catechismus ad Parochos,” and decreed that throughout the Church instructions in Christian doctrine should be given on Sundays and festivals.

But the work of organizing religious instruction had already begun. In 1536 the Abbate Castellino da Castello had inaugurated a system of Sunday schools in Milan. About 1560 a wealthy Milanese nobleman, Marco de Sadis-Cusani, having established himself in Rome, was joined by a number of zealous associates, priests and laymen, pledged to instruct both children and adults in Christian doctrine. Pope Pius IV in 1562 made the church of Sant’ Apollinare their central institution; but they also gave instructions in schools, in the streets and lanes, and even in private houses. The association growing, it divided into two sections: the priests formed themselves into a religious congregation, “The Fathers of Christian Doctrine,” while the laymen remained in the world as “The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.” Encouragement from the Holy See was quickly forthcoming. In 1571, Pope St. Pius V, in the Brief “Ex debito pastoralis officii,” bore witness to the good already accomplished, and recommended bishops to establish it in every parish. Pope Paul V, by the Brief “Ex credito nobis,” in 1607, erected it into an archconfraternity, with St. Peter’s, Rome as its head centre. A rescript of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, in 1686, urged its establishment wherever possible. From Rome it spread rapidly over Italy, France, and Germany. It found advocates in Cardinal Bellarmine, St. Francis of Sales, and St. Charles Borromeo; who drew up a code of rules and established it in every parish of his diocese.

The First Provincial Council of Westminster urged that its members should be used in both Sunday and day-schools, but while Sunday-schools are plentiful, the confraternity is only sparsely established in England. Lastly, in 1905 Pope Pius X strictly ordained that “in each and every parish the society commonly called the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine shall be canonically erected.” If the central confraternity in a diocese is affiliated to the Archconfraternity of Santa Maria del Pianto in Rome, all others participate in all the confraternity indulgences.

Similar in scope and character to the above are the PIEUSES UNIONS DE LA DOCTRlNE CHRÉTIENNE, founded by the Dames de l’Adoration Perpetuelle at Brussels in 1851, for giving religious instruction to boys and girls. In Brussels they are found in about thirty parishes. In 1894 Leo XIII erected it into an archconfraternity for Belgium.

THE ARCHCONFRATERNITY OF VOLUNTARY CATECHISTS (Oeuvre des Catéchismes) was founded to help parish priests in giving religious instructions to children attending the primary schools in Paris and other parts of France, after these had been laicized. In 1893 Leo XIII gave it the rank of an archconfraternity with power to affiliate all similar confraternities in France. The indulgences granted to all these confraternities are very numerous.

M.C. GLANCEY

Brothers of Christian Instruction

A congregation founded in 1817 at Saint-Brieuc, Côtes-du-Nord, France, by Jean-Marie-Robert de la Mennais (b. 1780; d. 1860), for the instruction of youth. The institute was founded primarily to supply the deficiency left by the regulation of Blessed John Baptiste de la Salle forbidding members of his congregation to go on missions singly, whereas in many places there were need and means of maintenance for only one brother. The first novices, consequently, were trained under the Christian Brothers, whose rule was to a large extent adopted. The congregation was recognized by the Holy See in 1851 and canonically erected by Brief of Leo XIII, 13 March, 1891. The members are bound by the simple vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. From the mother-house at Ploermel foundations were made in England, Africa, Asia, America, and Oceania. In 1886 the first brothers arrived in Montreal and were shortly afterwards introduced into the United States. Owing to the French Law of Associations of 1901, the mother-house was transferred to Taunton, England. In 1903 the congregation comprised 3000 members, with 420 educational institutions, including a number of orphanages, agricultural schools, trade schools, and boarding schools, the total number of students being 75,000.

F.M. RUDGE

Christianity

In the following article an account is given of Christianity as a religion, describing its origin, its relation to other religions, its essential nature and chief characteristics, but not dealing with its doctrines in detail nor its history as a visible organization. These and other aspects of this great subject will receive treatment under separate titles. Moreover, the Christianity of which we speak is that which we find realized in the Catholic Church alone; hence, we are not concerned here with those forms which are embodied in the various non-Catholic Christian sects, whether schismatical or heretical.

Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origin of Christianity and its earliest developments are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures and various sub-Apostolic writings, the authenticity of which we must to a large extent take for granted here, as the much less grounds we take for granted the authenticity of “Cæsar” when dealing with early Gaul, and of “Tacitus” when studying growth of the Roman Empire. (Cf. Kenyon “Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the N.T.”). We have this further warrant for doing so, that the most mature critical opinions amongst non-Catholics, deserting the wild theories of Baur, Strauss, and Renan, tend, in regard to dates and authorship, to coincide more closely with the Catholic position. The Gospels, Acts, and most of the Epistles are recognized as belonging to the Apostolic Age. “The oldest literature of the Church,” says Professor Harnack, “is, in the main points and in most of its details, from the point of view of literary history, veracious and trustworthy. . . . He who attentively studies these letters (those i.e. of Clement and Ignatius) cannot fail to see what a fullness of traditions, topics of preaching, doctrines, and forms of organization already existed in the time of Trajan (A.D. 98–117), and in particular churches had reached permanence” (Chronologie der altchristlichen Literature, Bk. I, pp. 8, 11). Other points will, of course, be touched on and other results assumed, which are more fully and formally treated under;;; .

For clearness’ sake we shall arrange the subject under the following chief heads:

I. ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY AND ITS RELATION WITH OTHER RELIGIONS;

II. THE ESSENTIALS OF CHRISTIANITY;

III. THE DIVINE PURPOSE IN CHRISTIANITY.

I. ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY AND ITS RELATION WITH OTHER RELIGIONS

Christianity is the name given to that definite system of religious belief and practice which was taught by Jesus Christ in the country of Palestine, during the reign of the Roman Emperor, Tiberius, and was promulgated, after its Founder’s death, for the acceptance of the whole world, by certain chosen men among His followers. According to the accepted chronology, these began their mission on the day of Pentecost, A.D. 29, which day is regarded, accordingly, as the birthday of the Christian Church. In order the better to appreciate the meaning of this event, we must first consider the religious influences and tendencies previously at work in the minds of men, both Jews and Gentiles, which prepared the way for the spread of Christianity amongst them. The whole history of the Jews as detailed in the Old Testament is seen, when read in the light of other events, to be a clear though gradual preparation for the preaching of Christianity. In that nation alone, the great truths of the existence and unity of God, His providential ruling of His creatures and their responsibility towards Him, were preserved unimpaired amidst general corruption. The ancient world was given to Pantheism and creature-worship; Israel only, not because of its “monotheistic instinct” (Renan), but because of the periodic interposition of God through His prophets, resisted in the main the general tendency to idolatry. Besides maintaining those pure conceptions of Deity, the prophets from time to time, and with ever increasing distinctness until we come to the direct and personal testimony of the Baptist, foreshadowed a fuller and more universal revelation—a time when, and a Man through Whom, God should bless all the nations of the earth. We need not here trace the Messianic predictions in detail; their clearness and cogency are such that St. Augustine does not hesitate to say (Retract., I, xiii, 3): “What we now call the Christian religion existed amongst the ancients, and was from the beginning of the human race, until Christ Himself came in the flesh; from which time the already existing true religion began to be styled Christian.” And thus it has been remarked that Israel alone amongst the nations of antiquity looked forward to glories to come. All peoples alike retained some more or less vague recollection of a Paradise lost, a remote Golden Age, but only the spirit of Israel kept alive the definite hope of a world-wide empire of justice, wherein the Fall of Man should be repaired. The fact that, eventually, the Jews misinterpreted their oracles, and identified the Messianic Kingdom with a mere temporal sovereignty of Israel, cannot invalidate the testimony of the Scriptures, as interpreted both by Christ’s own life and the teaching of His Apostles, to the gradual evolution of that conception of which Christianity is the full and perfect expression. Mistaken national pride, accentuated by their galling subject to Rome led them to read a material significance into the predictions of the triumph of the Messias, and hence to love their privilege of being God’s chosen people. The wild olive in St. Paul’s metaphor (Rom., xi, 17) was then grafted upon the stock of the patriarchs in place of those rejected branches, and entered upon their spiritual inheritance.

We may trace, too, in the world at large, apart from the Jewish people, a similar though less direct preparation. Whether due ultimately to the Old Testament predictions or to the fragments of the original revelation handed down amongst the Gentile, a certain vague expectation of the coming of a great conqueror seems to have existed in the East and to a certain extent in the Roman worlds, in the midst of which the new religion had its birth. But a much more marked predisposition to Christianity may be noticed in certain prominent features of the Roman religion after the downfall of the republic. The old gods of Latium had long ceased to reign. In their stead Greek philosophy occupied the minds of the cultured, whilst the populace were attracted by a variety of strange cults imported from Egypt and the East. Whatever their corruption, these new religions, concentrating worship on a single prominent deity, were monotheistic in effect. Moreover, many of them were characterized by rites of expiation and sacrifice, which familiarized men’s minds with the idea of a mediatorial religion. They combined to destroy the notion of a nation cultus, and to separate the service of the Deity from the service of the State. Finally, as a contributory cause to the diffusion of Christianity, we must not fail to mention the widespread Pax Romana, resulting from the union of the civilized races under one strong central government.

Thus much may be said with regard to the remote preparation of the world for the reception of Christianity. What immediately preceded its institution, as it was born in Judaism, concerns the Jewish race alone, and is comprised in the teaching and miracles of Christ, His death and resurrection, and the mission of the Holy Spirit. During his whole mortal life on earth, including the two or three years of His active ministry, Christ lived as a devout Jew, Himself observing, and insisting on His followers observing, the injunctions of the Law (Matt., xxiii, 3). The sum of His teaching, as of that of His precursor, was the approach of the “Kingdom of God,” meaning not only the rule of righteousness in the individual heart (“the kingdom of God is within you”—Luke, xvii, 21), but also the Church (as is plain from many of the parables) which He was about to institute. Yet, though He often foreshadowed a time when the Law as such would cease to bind, and though He Himself in proof of His Messiahship occasionally set aside its provisions (“For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath,” Matt., xii, 8), yet, as, in spite of His miracles, He did not win recognition of that Messiahship, still less of His Divinity, from the Jews at large. He confined His explicit teaching about the Church to His immediate followers, and left it to them, when the time came, openly to pronounce the abrogation of the Law. (Acts, xv, 5–11, 18; Gal., iii, 19; 24–28; Eph., ii, 2, 14–15; Coloss., ii, 16, 17; Heb., vii, 12.) It was not so much, then, by propounding the dogmas of Christianity as by informing the Old Law with the spirit of Christian ethics that Christ found Himself able to prepare Jewish hearts for the religion to come. Again, the faith which He failed to arouse by the numerous miracles He wrought, He sought to provide with a further and stronger incentive by dying under every circumstance of paint, disgrace, and defeat, and then raising Himself from the dead in triumph and glory. It was to this fact rather than to the wonders He worked in His lifetime that His accredited witnesses always appealed in their teaching. On the marvel of the Resurrection is based in the counsels of God the faith of Christianity. “If Christ is not risen again, your faith is vain,” declares the Apostle Paul (I Cor., xv, 17), who says no word of the other wonders Christ performed. By His death, therefore, and His return from the dead, Christ, as the event proved, furnished the strongest means for the effective preaching of the religion He came to found.

The third antecedent condition to the birth of Christianity, as we learn from the sacred records, was a special participation of the Holy Spirit given to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. According to Christ’s promise, the function of this Divine gift was to teach them all truth and bring back to their remembrance all that [Christ] had said to them (John, xiv, 26; xvi, 13). “I send the Promised of my Father upon you, but remain ye in the city till ye shall be clothed with power from on high” (Luke, xxiv, 49). “John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy ghost, not many days hence” (Acts, i, 5). As a result of that Divine visitation we find the Apostles preaching the Gospel with wonderful courage, persuasiveness, and assurance in the face of hostile Jews and indifferent Gentiles, “the Lord working with them and confirming their words by the signs that followed” (Mark, xvi, 20).

We have now to consider the circumstances of Christianity at the outset, and to estimate to what extent it was affected by the already existing religious beliefs of the time. It took its rise, as we have seen, in Judaism: its founder and His disciples were orthodox Jews, and the latter maintained their Jewish practices, at least for a time, even after the day of Pentecost. The Jews themselves looked upon the followers of Christ as a mere Israelitish sect (airesis) like the Sadducees or the Essenes, styling St. Paul “the instigator of the revolt of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts, xxiv, 5). The new religion was at first wholly confined to the synagogue, and it votaries had still a large share of Jewish exclusiveness; they read the Law, they practised circumcision, and they worshipped in the Temple, as well as in the upper room at Jerusalem. We need not wonder, then, that some modern rationalists, who reject its supernatural origin and ignore the operation of the Holy spirit in its first missionaries, see in early Christianity Judaism pure and simple, and find the explanation of its character and growth in the pre-existing religious environment. But this theory of natural development does not fit the facts as narrated in the New Testament, which is full of indications that Christ’s doctrines were new, and His spirit strange. Consequently, the records have to be mutilated to suit the theory. We cannot pretend to follow, there or in other places, the rationalists in their New Testament criticism. There is the less need of doing so that their theories are often mutually destructive. A dozen years ago an observer computed that since 1850 there had been published 747 theories regarding the Old and New Testaments, of which 608 were by that time defunct (see Hastings, “Higher Criticism”). The effect of these random hypotheses has been greatly to strengthen the orthodox view, which we now proceed to state.

Christianity is developed from Judaism in the sense that it embodies the Divine revelation contained in the latter creed, somewhat as a finished painting embodies the original rough sketch. The same hand was employed in the production of both religions, and by type and promise and prophecy the Old Dispensation points clearly to the New. But type, and promise, and prophecy as clearly indicate that the New will be something very different from the Old. No mere organic evolution connects the two. A fuller revelation, a more perfect morality, a wider distribution was to mark the Kingdom of the Messias. “The end [or object] of the Law is Christ,” says St. Paul (Rom., x, 4), meaning that the Law was given to the Jews to excite their faith in the Christ to come. “Wherefore,” he says again (Gal., iii, 24), “the law was our pedagogue unto Christ,” leading the Jews to Christianity as the slave brought his charges to the school door. Christ reproached the Jews for not reading their Scriptures aright. “For if you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me” (John, v, 46). And St. Augustine sums the whole matter up in the striking words: “In the Old Testament, the New lies hidden; in the New, the Old is made manifest” (De catechiz. rud., iv, 8). But Christ claimed to fulfil the Law by substituting the substance for the shadow and the gift for the promise, and, the end having been reached, all that was temporary and provisional in Judaism came to a conclusion. Still, a direct divine intervention was necessary to bring this about, just as, in any rational account of the theory of evolution, recourse must be had to supernatural power to bridge the gulf between being and non-being, life and non-life, reason and non-reason. “God, who, at sundry times and in divers manner, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, least of all in these days hat spoken to us by his Son” (Heb., i, 1, 2), the message growing in clearness and in content with each successive utterance till it reached completion in the Incarnation of the Word. The Christianity, then, which the Apostles preached on the day of Pentecost was entirely distinct from Judaism, especially as understood by the Jews of the time; it was a new religion, new in its Founder, new in much of its creed, new in its attitude towards both God and man, new in the spirit of its moral code. “The Law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John, i, 17). St. Paul, as was to be expected, is our clearest witness on this point. “If any man be in Christ,” he says, “he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold all things are new” (II Cor., v, 17). How new Christianity was, the Jews themselves showed by putting its Author to death and persecuting His adherents. Renan himself, who is not always consistent, admits that “far from Jesus being the continuer of Judaism, what characterizes His work is its breach with the Jewish spirit” (Vie de Jésus, c. xxviii). It may be granted that there is a certain resemblance between the Essene communities and the earliest Christian assemblies. But the resemblance is only on the outside. The spirit of the Essenes was intensely national; except in the matter of worship in the Temple, they were ultra-Jewish in their observance of external forms, ablutions, the Sabbath, etc., and their mode of life and discouragement of marriage were essentially anti-social. Harnack himself owns that Christ had no relations with this rigoristic sect, as was shown by His mixing freely with sinners, etc. (Das Wesen des Christenthums, Lect. Ii, p. 33, tr.). But Christianity did not reject anything in Judaism that was of permanent value, and so the Jewish converts on the day of Pentecost could not have felt that they were abjuring their ancient faith, but rather that they were then for the first time entering upon the full understanding of it. More will be said on this point when we come to consider what is the essence of Christianity, but we may notice that the Church very early found it necessary to emphasize her distinctness from Judaism by abandoning the essentially Jewish rites of circumcision, Temple-worship, and observance of the Sabbath.

Judaism is not the only religious system that has been requisitioned by rationalistic writers to account for the appearance of Christianity. Points of similarity between the teaching of Christ and His Apostles and the great religions of the East have been taken to indicated a derivation of the latter system from the earlier, and the elaborate eschatology of the Egyptian religion has been quoted to account for certain Christian dogmas about the future life. It were a long and not very profitable task to state and refute these various theories in detail. Underlying all of them is the rationalistic postulate which denies the fact and even the possibility of Divine intervention in the evolution of religion. In virtue of that attitude rationalism is confronted with the impossible task of explaining how a universal religion like Christianity, with an extensive yet logical system of dogma, could have been evolved by a process of promiscuous borrowings from existing cults and yet preserve everywhere its unity and coherence. If the selection were made by Christ and His adherents, rationalists must tell us how these “ignorant and unlettered men” (Acts, iv, 13; cf. Matt., xiii, 54; Mark, vi, 2) knew the religions of the East, when it was a matter of astonishment to their contemporaries that they knew their own. Or, if the dogmas and practices under consideration were the additions of a later age, the questions arise, first, how to reconcile this statement with the fact that the essence of Christianity is discoverable in the earliest Christian witnesses and, secondly, how scattered communities composed of various nationalities and living under different conditions could have united in selecting and maintaining the same dogmas and rules of conduct. We may ask, furthermore, why Christianity which, on this hypothesis, only selected pre-existing doctrines, excited everywhere such bitter hostility and persecution. “About this sect,” said the Roman Jews to St. Paul in prison, “we are informed that it meets with opposition everywhere” (Acts, xxviii, 22)k. Immense erudition has been wasted in the attempt to show that Buddhism (q. v.) in particular is the prototype of Christianity, but, apart from the difficulty of distinguishing the original creed of Gautama from later and possibly post-Christian accretions, it may be briefly objected that Buddhism is at best only an ethical system, not a religion, for it recognizes no God and no responsibility, that in so far as it emphasizes the comparative worthlessness of earthly things and the insufficiency of earthly delights it is in accord with the Christian spirit, but that in aim it is essentially diverse. The supreme aim of Christianity is eternal happiness in a state involving the employment of all the soul’s activities, that of Buddhism the ultimate loss of conscious existence.

Let us grant, once and for all, that God’s intercourse with His creatures is not confined to the old and New Covenants, and that Christianity includes many doctrines accessible to the unaided human reason, and advocates many practices which are the natural outcome of ordinary human activities. We thus expect to find that, human nature being the same everywhere, the various expressions of the religious sense will take similar shapes amongst all peoples. Accordingly, false religions may very well inculcate ascetic practices and possess the idea of sacrifice and sacrificial banquets, of a priesthood, of sin and confession, of sacramental rites like baptism of the accessories of worship such as images, hymns, lights, incense, etc. Not everything in false religion is false, nor is everything in the true religion (or Christianity) supernatural. “We must not look,” says M. Müller, “in the original belief of mankind for [distinctively] Christian ideas but for the fundamental religious ideas on which Christianity is built, without which as its natural and historical support, Christianity could not have become what it is” (Wissenschaft der Sprache, II, 395).

These remarks apply not only to the religious systems which are alleged to have influenced the conception of Christianity, but to those which it met as soon as it issued from Judaism, its cradle. Here, we are face to face with history, and not with mere hypothesis and assumption. For Christianity, on its first essaying to realize its destiny as the universal religion, did actually come in contact with two mighty religious systems, the religion of Rome, and the widespread body of thought, more of a philosophy than a creed, prevalent in the Greek-speaking world. The effect of the national religion of pagan Rome on early Christianity concerned rites and ceremonies rather than points of doctrine, and was due to the general causes just mentioned. With Greek philosophy, on the other hand, representing the highest efforts of the human intellect to explain life and experience, and to reach the Absolute, Christianity, which professes to solve all these problems, had, naturally and necessarily, many points of contact. It is on this connection that modern rationalists have brought all their learning and research to bear in the effort to show that the whole later intellectual system of Christianity is something more or less alien to its original conception. It was the transference of Christianity from a Semitic to a Greek soil that explains, according to Dr. Hatch (Hibbert Lectures, 1888), “why an ethical sermon stood in the forefront of the teaching of Jesus, and a metaphysical creed in the forefront of the Christianity of the fourth century.” Professor Harnack states the problem and solves it in similar fashion. He ascribes the change, as he conceives it, from a simple code of conduct to the Nicene Creed, to the three following causes: (1) The universal law in all development of religion, that when the first generation of converts who have been in contact, more or less immediate, with the founder, and endowed with his spirit, have passed away, their successors, having no personal grasp of their creed, must depend on formulæ and dogmas; (2) the union of the Gospel with the Greek spirit (a) due to the conquests of Alexander and the consequent mingling of Jew and Gentile, (b) further strengthened about A.D. 130, when Greek converts brought into Christianity the philosophy in which they were educated, (c) again, about a century later, when Greek mysteries and Greek civilization in its widest range were admitted, and finally, (d) about the middle of the fourth century, when the Greek spirit finally prevailed and polytheism and mythology (i.e. the worship of the saints) were admitted; (3) the internal struggles with Gnosticism, which aimed at a synthesis of all existing creeds. “The struggle with Gnosticism compelled the Church to put its teaching, its worship, and its discipline into fixed forms and ordinances, and to exclude everyone who would not yield them obedience” (Das Wesen des Christenthums, Lect. Xi, p. 210).

It is the second of these reasons for the birth and growth of dogma that concerns us immediately; but we may remark in regard to the first that it ignores the direct working of God on the soul of the individual, the perpetual renewal of fervour through prayer and the use of the sacraments, that have always marked the course of Christianity. Herein, the spirit of its first days is seen still to be energetic, notwithstanding the comparative elaborateness of creed and ritual of modern Christianity. The saints are admitted to be the most perfect exponents of practical Christianity; they are not exceptions or accidents or by-products of the system; yet they did not find dogma any hindrance to their perfect service of God and man. As regards the third cause above mentioned, we may grant that it has always been the providential function of heresy to bring about a clearer definition of the Christian creed, and that Gnosticism in its many varieties undoubtedly had this effect. But long before Gnosticism had sufficiently developed to necessitate the safeguarding of doctrine by conciliar definition, we find traces of an organized Church with a very definite creed. Not to mention the traditional “for of doctrine” spoken of by St. Paul (Rom., vi, 17) and the act of faith required by Philip from the eunuch (Acts, viii, 37), many critics, including the Protestants Zahn and Kattenbusch (Das Apostolische Symbol., Leipzig, 1894–1900), agree that the present Apostles’ Creed represents a formula which took shape in the Apostolic Age and was uninfluenced by Gnosticism, which Protean heresy first became formidable about A.D. 130. And as regards organization, we know that the episcopate was a fully recognized institution in the time of Ignatius (c. 110), whilst the Canon of New Testament Scripture, the final establishment of which was undoubtedly helped by Gnosticism, was in process of recognition even in Apostolic times. St. Peter (assuming the Second epistle to be his) classifies St. Paul’s Epistles with the “other Scriptures” (II Pet., iii, 16), and St. Polycarp, early in the second century, quotes as Scripture nine of those thirteen Pauline documents.

Concerning the “union of the Gospel with the Greek spirit” which, according to Hatch and Harnack, resulted in such profound modification so the former, we may admit many of the statements made, without drawing from them the rationalistic inferences. We readily grant that Greek thought and Greek culture had thoroughly permeated the society into which Christianity was born. Alexander’s conquests had brought about a diffusion of Greek ideals throughout the East. The Jews were dispersed westwards, both from Palestine and from the towns of the Captivity, and established in colonies in the chief cities of the empire, especially in Alexandria. The extent of this dispersion may be gathered from Acts, ii, 9–11), Greek became the language of commerce and social intercourse, and Palestine itself, more particularly Galilee, was to a great extent hellenized. The Jewish Scriptures were best known in a Greek version, and the last additions to the Old Testament—the Book of Wisdom and the Second Book of Machabees—were entirely composed in that tongue. In addition to this peaceful permeation of the Hebraic by the Greek genius, formal efforts were made from time to time, both in the political and the philosophical sphere to hellenize the Jews altogether.

It is with the latter attempt that we are concerned; for the writings of Philo, its chief and earliest advocate, coincided with the birth of Christianity. Philo was a Jew of Alexandria, well versed in Greek philosophy and literature, and at the same time a devout believer in the Old Testament revelation. The general purpose of his principal writings was to show that the admirable wisdom of the Greeks was contained in substance in the Jewish Scriptures, and his method was to read allegory into the simple narratives of the Pentateuch. To the pure and certain monotheism of Judaism he wedded various ideas taken from Plato and the Stoics, trying thus to solve the problem, with which all philosophy is ultimately confronted, how to bridge the gulf between mind and matter, the infinite and the finite, the absolute and the conditioned. Philo’s writings were, no doubt, widely known amongst the Jews, both at home and abroad, at the time when the Apostles began to preach, but it is extremely unlikely that the latter, who were not educated men, were acquainted with them. Not until the conversion of St. Paul and the beginning of his apostolate can Christianity be said to have come, in the mind of one of its chief exponents, into immediate contact with Greek religious and philosophical theories. St. Paul was learned, not only in Hebrew, but also in Hellenistic lore, and a singularly apt instrument in the design of Providence, on account of his Jewish origin and education, his Greek learning, and his Roman citizenship, to aid Christianity to throw off the swaddling-bands of its infancy and go forth to the conquest of the nations. But whilst recognizing this providential dispensation in the election of St. Paul, we cannot, in face of his own express and emphatic testimony, go on to assert that he universalized Christianity, as Philo attempted to universalize Judaism, by adding to its ethical content the merely natural religion of the Greek thinkers of his own more sublime and pure conceptions. In one of his earliest letters, the First Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul rebukes their factious spirit, whereby some of them had styled themselves partisans of Apollos, a learned Alexandrian, and repudiates again and again that very attempt to make Christianity plausible by tricking it out in the garb of current speculations. “But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, and to the Gentiles foolishness” (I Cor., i, 23; see chaps. I and ii, passim, and Col., ii, 8). St. Paul, at any rate, was not indebted for his Christology to Philo or his school, and any similarity of terminology which may occur in the works of the two authors may quite reasonably be ascribed to the metaphors already embodied in the language they both used.

More insistence has been laid, perhaps, on the resemblance between the Christology set forth by St. John in the opening chapters of his Gospel and in the Apocalypse, and the Logos theories which Philo elaborated, and which he is said to have taken from Greek sources. If he did so, we may remark, he neglected others older and nearer to hand, for the conception of a Divine Word of God, by which the Deity enters into relation with the created universe, is by no means exclusively or originally Greek. The idea, expressed in the opening verses of Genesis, is frequently repeated in the rest of the Old Testament (see Pss., xxxii, 6; cxlvii, 15; Prov., viii, 22; Wisdom, vii, 24–30, etc.). Philo, therefore, was not compelled to seek in the Platonic Nous, which is merely the directive cause of creation, or the Stoic Logos, as the rational soul of the universe, the foundation of his doctrine. His Logos theory is not at all clear or consistent, but, apparently, he conceives the Word to be a quasi-personal, subordinate, intermediate being between God and the world, enabling the Creator to come into contact with matter. He calls this Logos “the eldest” and the “first-born” son of God, and uses phrases that suggest the Fourth Gospel; but there is no resemblance in substance between the bold, clear, categoric statements of the inspired Apostle, and the misty, if poetical, conceptions of the Alexandrian philosopher. We may conjecture that St. John chose his language so as to impress the cultivated Greek mind with the true doctrine of the Divine Logos, thus connecting his teaching with the older revelation, and, at the same time, putting a check upon the Gnostic errors to which Philoism was already giving birth.

Abandoning the Apostolic Age, Harnack, in his “History of Dogma,” ascribes the hellenization of Christianity to the apologists of the second century (1st German edit., p. 253). This contention can best be refuted by showing that the essential doctrines of Christianity ae contained already in the New Testament Scriptures, while giving, at the same time, their due force to the traditions of corporate Christianity. If the Nicene Creed cannot be proved article by article from the sacred records, interpreted by the tradition that preceded them and determined their canon, then the rationalist assertion will have some support. But the point of comparison with the Creed must be not only the Sermon on the Mount, as Hatch desires, nor the merely verbal teaching of Christ, but the whole New Testament record. Christ taught by His life no less than by His words, and it was His actions and sufferings as well as His oral lessons that His Apostles preached. For the fuller exposition of this, see REVELATION. Here it suffices to note that Christian theology became, in the hands of the apologists the synthesis of all speculative truth. It met and conquered the various imperfect systems that possessed men’s minds at its birth and arose after that event. The early heresies—Sabellianism, Arianism, and the rest—were but attempts to make Christianity one of a number of philosophies; the attempts failed, but the scattered truths that those philosophies contained were shown, as time went on, to exist and find their fulfilment in Christianity as well. “The Church,” says Newman, “has been ever ‘sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing and asking them questions’; claiming to herself what they said rightly, correcting their errors, supplying their defects, completing their beginnings, expanding their surmises, and thus gradually by means of them enlarging the range and refining the sense of her teaching” (Development of Doctrine, viii). In the same section Newman thus summarizes the battle and the triumph: “such was the conflict of Christianity with the old established Paganism, which was almost dead before Christianity appeared; with the Oriental Mysteries, flitting widely to and fro like spectres; with the Gnostics, who made Knowledge all in all, despised the many, and called Catholics mere children in the Truth: with the Neo-Platonists, men of literature, pedants, visionaries, or courtiers; with the Manichees, who professed to seek truth by Reason, not by Faith; with the fluctuating teachers of the school of Antioch, the time-serving Eusebians, and the reckless versatile Arians; with the fanatic Montanists and harsh Novatians, who shrank from the Catholic doctrine, without power to propagate their own. These sects had no stay or consistence, yet they contained elements of truth amid their error, and had Christianity been as they, it might have resolved into them; but it had that hold of the truth which gave its teaching a gravity, a directness, a consistency, a sternness, and a force to which its rivals, for the most part, were strangers” (ibid., viii).

II. THE ESSENTIALS OF CHRISTIANITY

We have so far seen, in its origin and growth, the essential independence of Christianity of all other religious systems, except that of Judaism, with which, however, its relation was merely that of substance to shadow. It is now time to point out its distinctive doctrines. In early Christianity there was much that was transitory and exceptional. It was not presented full-grown to the world, but left to develop in accordance with the forces and tendencies that were implanted in it form the first by its Founder. And we, having His assurance that His Spirit would abide with it for all time, to inspire and regulate its human elements, can see in its subsequent history the working out of His design. Hence, it does not trouble us to find in primitive Christianity qualities which did not survive after they had served their purpose. Natural causes and the course of events, always under the Divine guidance, resulted in Christianity taking on the form which would best secure its permanence and efficiency. In Apostolic times, supreme authority as to faith and morals was vested in twelve representatives of Christ, each of whom was commissioned to proclaim and infallibly interpret His Gospel. The hierarchy was in an inchoate condition. Special charismata, like the gifts of prophecy and tongues, were bestowed on individuals outside the official teaching body. The Church was in process of organization, and the various Christian communities, unit ed, doubtless, in a strong bond of charity, and in the sense that they had one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, were to a large extent independent of one another in the matter of government.

Such was the fashion in which Christ allowed His Church to be established. It has greatly changed in outward appearances during the ages. Has there been any corresponding change in substance? Are the essentials of Christianity the same now as they were then? We affirm that they are, and we prove our assertion by examining the main points of the teaching, both of Christ and His Apostles. We must look upon the matter as a whole. We cannot judge of Christianity properly before the coming of the Holy Spirit. The Gospels describe a process which was not consummated till after Pentecost. The Apostles themselves were not fully Christians till they knew through faith all that Christ was—their God and their Redeemer as well as their Master. And as Christianity furnishes a regulative principle for both mind and will, teaching us what to believe and what to do, faith no less than works must characterize the perfect Christian.

(1) THE TEACHING OF CHRIST

Taking, then, first of all, Christ’s own dogmatic and moral teaching, we may divide it into (a) what He did not reveal but only reaffirmed, (b) what He drew from obscurity, and (c) what He added to the sum total of belief and practice.

(a) The Jews, at the time of Christ, however worldly-minded, were at any rate free from their ancestral tendency to idolatry. They were strict monotheists, believing in the unity, power, and holiness of the Supreme Deity. Christ reaffirmed, purified, and confirmed the Jewish theology, both moral and dogmatic. He asserted the spiritual nature of the Godhead (John, i, 18; iv, 24), and insisted on the importance of worshipping Him in spirit, i.e. with more than merely external rites. And he exacted the same right dispositions of heart in the whole of God’s service, showing how both guilt and merit depend on the will and intention (Matt., v, 28; xv, 18). He recalled the original unity and indissolubility of the marriage-tie. He brought into prominence the immortality, and hence the transcendent importance, of the human soul (Matt., xvi, 26), as against the heresy of the Sadducees and the worldliness of the Jews in general. In all these points He fulfilled the Law by showing its real and full significance.

(b) But He did not stop here. Taking the great central precept of the Old Dispensation—the love of God—He pointed out all its implications and made clear that the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God, so imperfectly grasped under the law of fear, was the immediate source of the doctrine of the brotherhood of men, which the Jews had never realized at all. He never tired of dwelling on the loving kindness and the tender providence of His Father, and He insisted equally on the duty of loving all men, summing up the whole of His ethical teaching in the observance of the law of love (Matt., v, 43; xxii, 40). This universal charity He designed to be the mark of His true followers (John, xiii, 45), and in it, therefore, we must see the genuine Christian spirit, so distinct from everything that had hitherto been seen on earth that the precept which inspired it He called “new” (John, xiii, 34). Christ’s clear and definite teaching, moreover, about the life to come, the final judgment resulting in an eternity of happiness or misery, the strict responsibility which attaches to the smallest human actions, is in great contrast to the current Jewish eschatology. By substituting eternal sanctions for earthly rewards and punishments, He raised and ennobled the motives for the practice of virtue, and set before human ambition an object wholly worthy of the adopted sons of God, the extension of their Father’s Kingdom in their own souls and in the souls of others.

(c) Among the doctrines added by Christ to the Jewish faith, the chief, of course, are those concerning Himself, including the central dogma of the whole Christian system, the Incarnation of God the Son. In regard to Himself, Christ made two claims, though not with equal insistence. He asserted that He was the Messias of Jews, the expected of the nations, Whose mission it was to undo the effects of the Fall and to reconcile man with God; and He claimed to be Himself God, equal to, and one with, the Father. In support of this double claim, He pointed to the fulfilment of the prophecies, and He worked many miracles. His claim to be the Messias was not admitted by the leaders of His nation; had it been admitted, He would doubtless have manifested His Divinity more clearly. Most modern rationalists (Harnack, Wellhausen, and others) acknowledge that Christ from the beginning of His preaching knew Himself as the Messias, and accepted the various titles which belong in the Scripture to that personage—Son of David, Son of Man (Dan., vii, 13), the Christ (see John, xiv, 24; Matt., xvi, 16; Mark, xiv, 61, 62). In one passage—and very significant one—He applies the name to Himself—“But this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John, xvii, 3).

In regard to His Divinity, His claim is clear, but not emphasized. We cannot say that the title “Son of God,” which is repeatedly given to Him in the Gospels (John, i, 34; Matt., xxvii, 40; Mark, iii, 12; xv, 39, etc.), and which He is described as taking to Himself (Matt., xxvii, 43; John, x, 36), necessarily of itself connotes a Divine personality; and in the mouths of several of the speakers, e.g. in the exclamation of Nathaniel, “Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God,” it presumably does not. But in the confession of St. Peter (Matt., xvi, 16) the circumstances point to more than a mere amplification of the Messianic title. That title was at that time in habitual use in regard to Jesus, and there would have been nothing significant in peter’s expression and in Christ’s glad acceptance of it, if it had not gone further than the common belief. Christ hailed St. Peter’s confession as a special revelation, not as a mere deduction from external facts. When we compare this with that other declaration narrated in the same Gospel (Matt., xxvi, 62–66), where, in answer to the high-priest’s adjuration, ‘I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God,” Jesus replied, “Thou has said it” (i.e., “I am”; see Mark, xiv, 62), we cannot reasonably doubt that Christ claimed to be Divine. The Jews so understood this and put Him to death as a blasphemer.

Another prominent feature in the theology of Christ was His doctrine about the Paraclete. When, in St. John’s gospel (xiv, 16, 17), He says; “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever, the spirit of truth,” it is impossible to believe that what He promises is a mere abstraction, not a person like Himself. In verse 26, the personality is still more marked: “And the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father shall send in my name, He will teach you all things.” (Cf. Xv, 26, “But when the Paraclete shall come whom I shall send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father” etc.) It may be that the full meaning of those words was not realized till the Spirit did actually come; moreover, the revelation was made, of course, only to His immediate followers; still, no unbiased mind can deny that Christ here speaks of a personal influence as a distinct Divine entity; a distinction and a Divinity which is further implied in the baptismal formula He afterwards instituted (Matt., xxviii, 19).

Christ took up the burden of the preaching of His precursor and proclaimed the advent of the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven, a conception already familiar in the Old Testament [Ps. cxliv (A. V., cxlv), 11–13], but furnished with a wider and more varied content in the words of Christ. It may be taken to mean, according to the context, the Messianic Kingdom in its true spiritual sense, i.e. the Church of God which Christ came to found, wherein to store up and perpetuate the benefits of the Incarnation (cf. The parables of the wheat and the tares, the dragnet, and the wedding feast), or the reign of God in the heart that submits to His sovereignty (Luke, xxvi, 21), or the abode of the blessed (Matt., v, 20 etc.). It was the main topic of His preaching, which was occupied in showing what dispositions of mind and heart and will, were necessary for entrance into “the Kingdom,” what, in other words, was the Christian ideal. Regarded as the Church, He preached the Kingdom to the multitude in parables only, reserving fuller explanations to private intercourse with His Apostles (Acts, i, 3).

The last great dogma which we learn from the life, preaching, and death of Christ is the doctrine of Redemption. “For the Son of Man also came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give His life a redemption for many” (Mark, x, 45). The sacrificial character of His death is clearly stated at the Last Supper: “This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins” (Matt., xxvi, 28). And He ordained the perpetuation of that Sacrifice by His Disciples in the words: “Do this in commemoration of me” (Luke, xxii, 19). Christ, knowing the counsels of His Father, deliberately set Himself to realize in His own person the portrait of the suffering servant of Jahveh, so vividly painted by Isaias (ch. liii), a Messias Who should triumph through death and defeat. This was a strange revelation to Israel and the world. What wonder that so novel an idea could not enter the Apostles’ minds till it had actually been realized and further explained by the Divine Victim himself (Luke, xxiv, 27, 45). Thus, first of all in action, Christ preached the great doctrine of the Atonement, and, by raising Himself from the dead, He added another proof to those establishing His Divine mission and His Divine personality. But, naturally enough, He left the more explicit teaching on these points to His chosen witnesses, whose presentment of Christianity we shall presently examine.

To turn now to what is new in the moral teachings of Christ, we may say, once for all, that it embodied ethical perfection. There may be development of doctrine, but, after the Sermon on the Mount, there can be no further evolution of morals. God’s own perfection is set as the standard (Matt., v, 48). Duty was the principal motive in the Old Dispensation; in the New this was sublimated into love. Men were taught to serve not on account of the penal ties attached to non-service, but on principles of generosity. Before, God’s will was to be the aim of the creature’s performance; now, His good pleasure also was to be sought. “What things are pleasing to Him, these do I always” (John, viii, 29), and by action even more than by word Christ taught the lesson of voluntary self-sacrifice. Never till His time were the Evangelical counsels—voluntary poverty, perpetual chastity, and entire obedience—preached or practised. From no previous moral code, however, exalted, could the Beatitudes have been evolved. Meekness and humility were unknown as virtues to the heathen, and despised by the Jew. Christ made them the ground-work of the whole moral edifice. To realize what new thing Christ’s ethical teaching brought into the world and put within the grasp of everyone, we have only to think of the great host of the Christian saints. For they are the true disciples of the Cross, those who imbibed and expressed His spirit best, who had the courage to test the truth of that Divine paradox which forms the substance of Christ’s moral message; “He that shall wish to save his soul shall lose it, but he that shall lose his soul on my account shall find it” (Matt., xvi, 25; cf. Mark, viii, 35; Luke, ix, 24; xvii, 33; John, xii, 25). That was the course He Himself adopted—the way of the Cross—and His disciples were not above their Master. Self-conquest as a preliminary to conquering the world of God—that was the lesson taught by Christ’s life, and still more by His passion and death.

(2) THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES

Does the Christianity presented to us in the rest of the writings of the New Testament differ from that described in the Gospels? And if so, is the difference one of kind or one of degree? We have seen that Christianity must not be judged in the making, but as a finished product. It was never meant to be fully set forth in the Gospels, where it is presented mainly in action. “I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now,” said Christ in His last discourse. “But when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will teach you all truth . . . and the things that are to come he shall show you” (John, xvi, 12, 13). We may presume that Christ Himself told them these many things when “He showed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God” (Acts, i, 3), and that they were rendered permanent in the minds of the Apostles by the indwelling of the Spirit of Truth after Pentecost. Accordingly, we must expect to find in their teaching a more formal, more theoretic, and more dogmatic exposition of Christianity than in the drama of Christ’s life. But what we have no right to expect, and what rationalists always do expect, is to find the whole of Christianity in its written records. Christ nowhere prescribed writing as a means of promulgating His gospel. It was comparatively late in the Apostolic Age, and apparently in obedience to no preconceived plan, that the sacred books began to appear. Many Christians must have lived and died before those books existed, or without knowledge of them. And so we cannot argue from the non-appearance of any particular tenet to its non-existence, nor from its first mention to its first invention—fallacies which often vitiate the erudite researches of the rationalists.

The main heads of the Apostolic preaching, as far as we can gather from the records, vary with the character of the audiences they addressed. To the Jews they dwelt upon the marvellous fulfilment of the prophesies in Christ, showing that, in spite of the manner of His life and death, He was actually the Messias, and that their redemption from sin had really been accomplished by His sacrifice on the Cross. This was the burden of St. Peter’s discourses (Acts, ii and iii) and those of St. Stephen and all who addressed the Jews in their synagogues (cf. Acts, xxvi, 22–23). Once convinced of the reality of Christ’s mission and the seal God set upon it by His Resurrection, they were received into the Christian body to discover more at leisure all the implications of their belief. In regard to the Gentiles, the same striking fact of the Resurrection was in the forefront of the Apostolic teaching, but more stress was laid upon the divinity of Christ. Still, St. Paul, whose peculiar mission it was to approve the new revelation to those that sat in darkness and had no common ground of belief with the Jews, did not consider that his Gospel was anything different from that of the others. “I have laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God with me: for, whether I, or they, so we preach, and you have believed” (I Cor., xv, 10, 11). This definiteness and uniformity of content in the Apostolic message, and this sense of responsibility in regard to its character, is still more strikingly emphasized by the same Apostle in the next Epistle, wherein, rebuking the Galatians for giving heed to innovators “who would pervert the Gospel of Christ,” he exclaims: ‘Yet, though we ourselves or an angel from heaven preach a gospel other than that we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal., i, 7, 8). There is no trace here of uncertainty or ignorance as to what Christianity meant, or of any tentative groping in search of truth. Even then, when theological science was in its infancy, we find the Apostle exhorting Timothy to keep to the very phrases in which he has received the Faith, “the form of sound words,” avoiding “profane novelties of expression” (I Tim., vi, 20; II Tim., i, 13). Once again “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle” (II Thess., ii, 14). And those traditions were directly communicated by Christ Himself to His Apostle, as he tells us in many passages—“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you” (I Cor., xi, 23), and again “For I delivered unto you first of all what I received” (I cor., xv, 3). Many rationalists have professed to discover in the apostolic writings various kinds of Christianity mutually antagonistic and all alike illegitimate developments of the original Gospel. We have Pauline, Petrine, Joannine Christianity, as distinguished from the Christianity of Christ. But those theories which ignore Catholic tradition and supernatural guidance, and rest on the written records alone, are gradually being abandoned, helped to their disappearance by the critics themselves, who have little respect for each others’ hypotheses. We may take the Apostolic messages as one self-consistent whole, any apparent discrepancies or want of coherence being amply accounted for by the different circumstances of their deliverance. This preaching, therefore, reduced to its simplest form, was: The Resurrection of Christ as a proof of His Divinity and Incarnation, a guarantee of His teaching and a pledge of man’s salvation. On the historic fact of the Resurrection the whole of Christianity is based. If He was not truly slain, Christ cannot have been man; if he did not rise again, He cannot have been God. St. Paul does not hesitate to stake everything on the truth of this fact: If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith also is vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God” (I Cor., xv, 14, 15). Consequently, God’s providence has so arranged matters that the proofs of Christ’s Resurrection place the fact beyond all reasonable doubt.

But if St. Paul is so emphatic about the foundation of the Christian Faith, he is also careful to erect the edifice upon it. It is to him that we owe the statement of the doctrine of grace, that wonderful gift of God to regenerate man. Christ had already taught, in the allegory of the vine and the branches (John, xv, 1–17), that there can be no salutary action on the part of the faithful without vital communication with Him. This great truth is expanded in many passages by St. Paul (Phil., ii, 13; Rom., viii, 9–11; I Cor., xv, 10; II Cor., iii, 5; Gal., iv, 5, 6) wherein regenerate man learns that he is God’s adopted son and united with Him by the indwelling of His Holy Spirit. This privilege is what man gains by Christ’s redemption, the benefits of which are applied to his soul by baptism and other sacraments. And St. Paul is not only the chief exponent of this doctrine, but he alone of the Apostles promulgates anew the mystery of the Blessed Eucharist, the principal fountain of grace (I Cor., xi, 23, 24; cf. John, iv, 13, 14).

We need not pursue farther the development of doctrine amongst the Apostles. The Christianity they preached was received from Christ Himself, and His Spirit prevented them from misconceiving or misinterpreting it. On the strength of His commission they insisted on the obedience of faith, they denounced heresy, and with skill, incredible had it not been Divine, they preserved the truth committed to them in the midst of a perverse, subtle and corrupt civilization. That same Divine skill has remained with Christianity ever since; heresy after heresy has attacked the Faith and been defeated, leaving the fortress all the more impregnable for its onset. The Christianity we profess to-day is the Christianity of Christ and His Apostles. Just as they were more explicit than He in its verbal formulation, so the Apostolic Church has ever since laboured to express more and more clearly the treasures of doctrine originally committed to her charge. In a sense, we may believe more than our first Christian ancestors, inasmuch as we have a more complete knowledge of the contents of our Faith; in a sense, they believed all that we do, for they accepted as we the principle of a Divinely-commissioned teaching authority, to whose dogmatic utterances they were ever prepared to give assent. The same essential oneness of faith and the same variety in its content for the individual exist side by side in the Church to-day. The trained theologian, deeply versed in the wonders of revelation, and the young or the uneducated who know explicitly little more than the bare essentials of Christianity, knowing the One True God, and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent, believing in the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Church, are equally Christians, equally possessed of the integrity of faith.

III. THE DIVINE PURPOSE IN CHRISTIANITY

It remains now to set forth, as far as we can determine it from the sacred records and from the course of history itself, the purpose of God in establishing Christianity. We gather that the Divine founder meant Christianity to be (1) a universal religion, (2) a perfect religion, (3) a visibly organized religion.

(1) UNIVERSALITY INCLUDES BOTH SPACE AND TIME

As regards space, we see that Christianity is intended for the whole world (a) from the prophecies that foreshadowed it in the Old Testament. Among these were the promises made to Abraham and his descendants, the constantly recurring note of which is that in them “all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.” (b) From the plainly expressed purpose of Christ Himself, who, while proclaiming that His personal mission concerned only the “lost sheep of the House of Israel” (Matt., xv, 24), announced the future extension of His Kingdom: “Other sheep I have who are not of this fold” (John, x, 16); “Many from the east and the west shall come and shall recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matt., viii, 11); “And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached throughout the whole world in testimony to all nations” (Matt., xxviii, 19). (c) From the actual conduct of the Apostles, who, though they required the special inspiration of the Holy Spirit to bring home to them the practical bearing of this commission, did finally leave the synagogue and proclaim the Faith to all without distinction of race or country. The universality of Christianity, in time as well as space, is implied in Christ’s promise, “Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matt., xxviii, 20). It follows, furthermore, from the next element in God’s purpose to be considered.

(2) CHRISTIANITY IS MEANT TO BE A PERFECT RELIGION

A priori, we should expect that a religious system which was revealed and instituted, not by a prophet or even an angel, but by the personal action of God Himself, and was designed, moreover, to supplant an imperfect and provisional form of religion, would lack nothing of possible perfection in end or means. Christ’s own teaching satisfied this expectation, and precludes the notion entertained by some early heretics, and still alive in the minds of men, of a fuller and more perfect revelation to come. First of all, He, its Founder, is God, and therefore had all the knowledge and all the power requisite to establish a perfect religion. Secondly, He promised His Apostles the abiding presence of the Spirit of Truth, who should teach them all truth. Thirdly, He promised that the body enshrining this deposit should never be vitiated by error—“The gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt., xvi, 18; cf. Ephes., v, 27). Fourthly, the same truth is insinuated by St. Paul’s words: “God, who at sundry times . . . last of all . . . hath spoken to us by His Son” (Heb., i, 1), and by the expression, the fulness of time, used in Gal., iv, 4, to indicate the epoch of the Incarnation. Fifthly, by the character of the Christian revelation itself and the Christian ethical ideal which is the imitation of Christ, the Perfect Being. No possible development of mankind can be thought of which should not find all that it needs in Christ.

We are compelled, therefore, to believe that the Christian revelation closed with the death of the last of those originally commissioned to set it forth. We are thus brought counter to a modern view regarding revelation which has lately been condemned as heretical by Pius X (Encyclical, “Pascendi Gregis,” Sept., 1907). It is to the effect that revelation is nothing external, but a clearer and closer apprehension of things Divine by the Christian consciousness, which in each particular age is the expression of the experience of the best men of that age. Consequently, revelation grows, like a material organism, by waste and renewed supply, and therefore what is truth for one age maybe quite different from what is truth for another. The error which has these developments is ultimately philosophical, being based on the false assumption that the finite mind can know only the phenomenal and can have no certainty of what is beyond experience. Were that so, any external revelation would be impossible, for its guarantees—miracle and prophecy—could not be grasped by human intelligence. These errors were long ago exposed and condemned by the Vatican Council. The most casual glance at the history of Christianity shows that there has been development of doctrine; the Creed grew only gradually; but that development is merely logical, produced by analysis of the content of the original deposit. (See DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE.)

(3) GOD INTENDED, IN THE THIRD PLACE, THAT CHRISTIANITY SHOULD BE A VISIBLE ORGANIZATION.

Christ established a Church and, in a variety of parables, sketched many of the features of its character and history, all of which point to something external and perceptible by the senses. It is the “house built upon a rock” (Matt., vii, 24), showing the security and permanence of its foundation, and “the city set upon a hill” (Matt., v, 14) indicating its visibility. Its doctrine works in the three great races descended from Noe’s sons like the leaven hidden in three measures of meal, silently, irresistibly (Matt., xiii, 33). It grows great from humble beginnings, like the mustard seed (Luke, xiii, 19). It is a vineyard, a sheep-fold, and finally a kingdom, all of which images are unintelligible if the bond that unites Christians is merely the invisible bond of charity. The old distinction between the body and soul of the Church is useful to prevent confusion of ideas. Christian baptism constitutes membership in the Visible Church; the state of grace, membership in the Invisible. It is obvious that one membership does not necessarily connote the other. Some of these parables apply only to the Church fully developed, and so they indicate Christ’s ultimate purpose. History shows us that, in establishing Christianity as an institution, He was content that on its human side its organization should be subject to the same laws of growth and development as other human institutions. He did not give His Apostles a draft scheme of the Church’s constitution beforehand, to be worked out in the course of ages, prescribing the various stages of progress, and indicating the final term. But the organization which existed in germ in the consecrated hierarchy of the apostles was left to unfold itself under the guidance of the abiding Spirit, according to the needs of time and place. The presence of the Holy Ghost and Christ’s promise sufficiently guarantee that the result, however obtained, is in accordance with the original design. It may well be that the development was very largely natural,, modelled, first of all, on the synagogue, and then on the existing civil government; its progress may have been hastened or retarded by the passions of individuals, but any account of it that ignores the directing finger of Providence cannot be true.

This, then, is Christianity, a supernatural religion and the only absolute one; in a sense (developed in the Epistle to the Hebrews), the oldest, for the Church is not an afterthought, but instituted by God in the fullness of time, and containing a revelation of Himself, which all to whom it has been adequately presented are bound under pain of eternal loss to accept (Mark, xvi, 16), offering to all, who are sincere in seeking, the solution of all the world’s problems; enabling human nature to rise to the sublimest heights and “to play the immortal”; full itself of mysteries and Divine paradoxes, as bringing the Infinite into contact with the finite; the one bond of civilization, the one condition of progress, the one hope of humanity. Its fortunes have been the fortunes of its Founder; “not all obey the gospel” (Rom., x, 16). The Jews rejected Christ in spite of the evidence of prophecy and miracle; the world rejects the Church of Christ, the “city set upon a hill,” conspicuous though she be through the notes that proclaim her Divine. What men call the failure of Christianity is no proof that it is not God’s final revelation. It only makes evident how real is human liberty and how grave human responsibility. Christianity is furnished with all the necessary evidence to create conviction of its truth, given goodwill.—“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

Christianity is best studied in the New testament Scriptures, authenticated and interpreted by the Church of Christ: of the uninspired literature on the subject only a small selection can be given.

CATHOLIC.—A. WEISS, Apologie des Christenthums (3rd ed., Freiburg, 1894–8) (also in Fench tr.); COURBET, Introduction scientifique à la foi chrétienne; Superiorité du Christianisme (Paris, 1902); DE BROGLIE, Problèmes et conclusions de l’histoire des religions (4th ed., Paris, 1904); LINGENS, Die innere Schönheit des Christenthums (Freiburg, 1895); TURMEL, Histoire de la théologie positive (Paris, 1904); SCHANZ, A Christian Apology (Eng., tr., Dublin, 1891–2); NEWMAN, Grammar of Assent; IDEM, Development of Christian Doctrine; DUCHESNE, Histoire ancienne de l’Eglise (Paris, 1906); LILLY, The Claims of Christianity (London, 1894); DEVAS, The Key to the World’s Progress (London, 1906); HETTINGER, Apologie des Chrisenthums (9th ed., Freigburg, 1906); SEMERIA, Dogma, Gerarchia e Culto nella Chiesa primitiva (Rome, 1902); CHATEAUBRIAND, Génie du Christianisme (Eng. Tr., Baltimore, 1856); C. PESCH, Articles in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, Vol. LX, 1901.

NON-CATHOLIC.—HARNACK, Das Wesen des Christenthums (Eng. Tr., London, 1901); IDEM, The History of Dogma; PFLEIDERER, Christian Origins (London, 1906); PULLAN, History of Early Christianity (London, 1898); W. M. RAMSAY, The Church in the Roman Empire (London and New York, 1893); LOWRIE, The Church and Its Organization; the Primitive Age (London, 1904); WEIZACKER, The Apostolic Age (London, 1897); JOSEPH BUTLER, Analogy of Religion in Works, Vol. I, ed. GLADSTONE (Oxzford, 1896); WACE, Christianity and Agnosticism (London, 1904).

JOSEPH KEATING

Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge

The greatest and most important society within the Church of England. It was founded 8 March, 1698, when four laymen, Lord Guildford, Sir H. Mackworth, Justice Hook, and Colonel Colchester, and one clergyman, Dr. Thomas Bray, met on the initiative of the last-named and agreed among themselves “as often as we can conveniently to consult, under the conduct of the Divine providence and assistance, to promote Christian Knowledge.” Dr. Bray had been the Bishop of London’s Commissary in Maryland, and was a man of wide experience, energetic zeal, and ability for organization. The society soon received the countenance of several Anglican bishops, including Gilbert Burnet of Salisbury. Other well known men also took a speedy interest in the work, such as Strype the antiquary, Gilbert White of Selborne, John Evelyn, and the Rev. Samuel Wesley, father of John and Charles Wesley. The first aim of the society was the education of poor children. Within two years they had founded six schools in London, and by 1704 there were 54 schools with over 2000 scholars. Eight years later the schools numbered 117, the scholars 5000. The movement spread, and by 1741 the charity-schools of the S.P.C.K. reached the number of nearly 2000. This educational work at length became so great that a new society, “The National Society for the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church,” was formed to undertake it. Since 1870 this work has been done by the State, and the society has turned its educational efforts to the training of teachers. It entirely maintains St. Katharine’s College, Tottenham, supports the various diocesan training-colleges, and contributes towards the foundation of Sunday-school buildings and mission-rooms. The educational branch of the society’s work has not been confined to England, but in India it has founded scholarships for native Christians, both in the boys’ colleges and in the schools provided for the higher education of women. It also provides technical training for the native Christians by means of industrial schools. The same work is being developed in Australia, Japan, Africa, Burma, and among the American Indians of the North- West. Besides providing for children, the society has done much for “unlettered adults.” From almost the beginning of its existence it has established evening schools and provided for the instruction of prisoners in penitentiaries or prisons. For a time the society paid chaplains to help prisoners, in an age when the government often neglected this duty.

Another branch of the society’s activity is the hospital work. The members visit the sick and dying, and supply the hospitals with Bibles, prayer books and other religious work. Important under this head are the medical missions, which aim at winning the soul of the heathen by caring for his body. These medical missions have been founded in Sierra Leone, Madagascar, South Africa, India, Palestine, China, Japan, Korea, and British Columbia. Students, male and female, are specially trained for this work, and hospitals are built and furnished.

Perhaps more widely known than any is the work of the S.P.C.K. as “the great publishing house” of the Church of England. Simultaneously with the foundation of it first schools it began to print and circulate cheap and good books. One of its first subscriptions was begun “for promoting Christian knowledge by raising Lending Libraries in the several Market towns of the kingdom and by distributing good books.” The first publication was an edition of 600 copies of Dr. Bray’s “Discourse concerning Baptismal and Spiritual Regeneration” which appeared in 1699. The society, while maintaining its position as the great Bible and Prayer Book society of the Church of England, has not confined itself to purely religious works. Its catalogue includes volumes of popular science, travel, biography, and fiction, as well as the special class devoted to theology and history. Even translations of Catholic books are not excluded, and though Catholics, objecting to publications such as Dr. Littledale’s “Plain Reasons,” in which mis- representation becomes a fine art, cannot approve of much that is issued in the society’s volumes, they can acknowledge the general good taste of the society’s publications even when directed against themselves. They may also be excused for regarding as objectionable the versions of English church history which are popularized throughout the country, not only attractively produced manuals, but also by popular lantern lectures. Besides the books published, popular tracts, pictures, and illuminated texts are issued in great numbers. The latest figures available show that, exclusive of Bibles, prayer books, and tracts, the circulation of the society’s publications in 1905 amounted to 11,078,135.

An important development of recent growth is the organizing of lay help. In 1889 the society opened a Training College for Lay workers, in Commercial road, in the East End of London. Here there is accommodation for 40 students, who are trained to assist he parochial clergy in holding mission services, giving classes to adults and children, and conducting temperance and other meetings. Such students, on completion of their course, are formally set apart to the office of Reader in the Church, and are licensed for the work by their respective diocesans.

Yet another branch of work is concerned with emigrants. This was under taken in 1836 at the request of Mr. Gladstone, who had been acting as Under-Secretary for the Colonies, and who was impressed by the spiritual destitution of the crowds of emigrants. The society’s “port chaplains” undertake a systematic visitation of out-going vessels, and the chaplains at the ports of departure give letters of introduction to the chaplains at the ports of arrival, and often the long-voyage chaplains accompany the ships.

Missionary work was, from the first, aimed at by the S.P.C.K. Dr. Bray’s personal experience of the condition of those members of the Church of England who were scattered through what are now the Northern and Southern States of the Union convinced him that the work to be done was so gigantic that it called for a special society, and therefore, in 1701, the “Society for the Propagation of the Gospel” was founded. This did not prevent the parent society helping on the work in every way. Since those days its field of labour has been extended to Canada and Australia and it has been active in spreading the influence of the Church of England. During the reign of Queen Victoria the society expended £100,000 in helping to found and endow colonial and missionary bishoprics. Besides this, large sums have been voted for the building of colleges, churches, and schools. One aspect of this missionary work which calls for special notice is the translation of the Bible into foreign languages. Beginning in 1713 with a Bible in Welsh, it proceeded in 1720 to the dissemination of 10,000 Arabic New Testaments, and at the present day it claims to publish Bibles and other books in a hundred different languages and dialects. In regard to some of these the difficulties are great, as it sometimes happens that a dialect has never been reduced to writing, and the missionary has to put the syllables into some written form and send them home to be printed again and again until it is found that they finally represent the inflexions of the dialect and are capable of conveying the impressions desired. The society also supplies printing presses and types to missions which are in a position to use them. The first effort in this direction was the S.P.C.K. Press in Madras, founded in 1728, and now employing 400 work-people.

The organization and management of the society is efficient and vigorous, and there can be no doubt that it remains to-day one of the chief means of preserving for the Church of England its hold over the people. Remarkable, too, is the manner in which it has managed to keep on good terms with the various warring sections in the Anglican Church. A recent wrier has observed, “The society comes in for a little friendly criticism from time to time from one side or the other of the Church, but it should be borne in mind that it has always striven to be the handmaid of the Church, not the tool of a section.” (Cochrane, “An Important Chapter in English History,”13.) The influence of the society, especially displayed in the colonies, has also made itself felt in the drawing together of the entire Anglican episcopate. Speaking of the S.P.C.K. and the S.P.G., Dr. Lewis, the first Anglican Archbishop of Ontario, one of the originators of the Lambeth Conferences, declared that the influence of those two societies did much to make such conclaves possible. The magnitude of the work annually accomplished, of which the main branches have been here indicated to the exclusion of many minor activities, justified the eulogy by the late Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Benson, when he wrote: “Of all our societies in England, this is the oldest and grandest, and its work the very largest ever conceived.”

SEWELL, The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge: a Short Account of its Work and Organisation (London, 1885); An Important Chapter in English Church History: S.P.C.K., 1698–1905 (London, 1905).

EDWIN BURTON

Congregation of Christian Retreat

There are two branches of this congregation, the Fathers of Christian Retreat and the Sisters. It was founded on the 19th of November, 1789, at Fontenelle, Doubs, France, by Father Antoine-Silvestre Receveur, who was declared Venerable in 1883 by Pope Leo XIII. He had an extraordinary love of the Cross, and was fond of saying “it was a cross to be without one.” The Revolution raging at the time of its birth caused the society to endure many privations and forced its members to make many sacrifices. For three years the sisters, who at that time numbered seventy, were subjected to great persecution, and then a revolutionary mob drove them out of their convent. The choice was given them of death or separation from Father Receveur, which would have involved abandoning the life they had adopted. The sisters unanimously chose death rather than give up their vocation, and their persecutors, touched by their bravery, allowed them to go into exile. After ten years the storm of Revolution subsided, they returned to France, and in 1800 the congregation received the approbation of Pius VII. Its work is the education of youth and the giving of spiritual retreats. The Fathers of Christian retreat used to direct colleges in France, and still act as chaplains to the different convents of the congregation. The Sisters of Christian Retreat teach in elementary and secondary schools, and their rule allows them time and opportunity for higher studies. Those sisters who from age or ill-health are unable to teach spend the greater part of the day in silence and prayer for the members who are engaged in active work. They also do needlework and embroidery of every description. Seven times a day the rule calls all the members to the foot of the altar, and every night at midnight a bell is rung in all the convents to rouse the sisters to thank God for the grace of their vocations. On the 19th of November a special midnight services is held in memory of the entry at midnight into the first convent. A special service called the Adoration of the Cross is held every day in all the convents. There are no lay sisters; the work of the house is done by all the sisters according to the direction of the superior.

In 1902 the congregation had seventeen houses, thirteen in France, four in England, and more than a thousand members. There we then three novitiates, two in France and one in England, but all the French houses except one have since been confiscated under the Association law. Convents were then opened in Belgium and Switzerland, and in England there are now seven convents, including a novitiate. The novitiate lasts two years; postulants without dowry, if qualified for teaching in secondary schools, can be received. The habit is of white serge, with a white cape and scapular; no veil or wimple is worn, but instead a white linen band across the forehead and a white serge cap. The government is under a mother-general. In England the convents are at Shepherd’s Bush, near London; at Clapham; at Redhill, Surrey; at Cannock, Staffordshire, and three new foundations.

STEELE, Convents of Great Britain (London, St. Louis, 1902).

F. M. STEELE.

Christina Alexandra

Queen of Sweden, child of Gustavus Adolphhus II of Sweden, born at Stockholm, 8 December, 1626; d. at Rome, 19 April, 1689. Her father (d. 1632) was the famous soldier whose interposition in the Thirty Years’ Was wrought so much harm to Catholicism. Maria Eleonora of Brandenburg, her mother, had hoped for a son, and was so disappointed at the birth of a daughter that she had little love for the child, who was left to the care of nurses. Gustavus Adolphus, however, was tenderly attached to his daughter; in 1630, when he sailed for Germany, he recommended Christina to the loyalty of his people and put his sister Catherine, who held her court at Stegeborg, in charge of the child’s education. Three years later, Maria Eleonora brought back the body of her husband, Gustavus Adolphus, to Sweden. For a while after this her love seemed to be transferred to the child, but this affectionate relation did not last long. In obedience to the command of her father, Christina was brought up like a boy, and received instruction in the various branches of learning from distinguished men, among whom was the learned Dr. Matthiæ, Bishop of Strengès. The princess was an indefatigable student, and a great reader of good books. Feminine occupations and amusements had no attraction for her, and she was indifferent to dress and finery of all kinds. The mother wished rather to see he daughter lead a life of pleasure, and encouraged her in the enjoyment of wine and other stimulating drinks, so that the country was alarmed for the mortals of the heir to the throne, and Christina was sent again to her aunt. When the aunt died she was put under the care of the sister of the celebrated chancellor Axel Oxenstiern. In her new surroundings the great talents of Christina rapidly developed. She soon mastered several languages, gained a comprehensive knowledge of history and politics, and showed in particular a strong liking for theologico-political speculations. At the same time the masculine qualities of her character grew steadily more evident. Her favorite amusement was bear-hunting, and she could outride most men. At 18 (8 December, 1644) she was of age and entered on the duties of government with a strong hand. It was not, however, until two years later she was crowned, the ceremony taking place with great pomp at Stockholm.

At first Christina devoted herself to the affairs of state with most laudable zeal. It was owing to her interventions that the peace negotiations at Münster and Osnabrück were more quickly concluded than expected. Christina strove to raise her people to a higher plane of civilization, to promote their welfare in every way, and to insure their prosperity. Without lowering the dignity suitable to her station she treated all her subjects with dignity and condescension. She drew to Sweden artists and scholars, among whom were the philosopher Descartes and Hugo Grotius, the expounder of international law; by the payment of large pensions she kept these men attached to her court. The praise with which these scholars repaid their royal patron was often immoderate. As time went on Christina gradually lost interest in the task of government and developed an intense desire for new and exciting pleasures, often for those of a most costly character. The health of the queen suffered from the changed method of her life, and it was with great difficulty that her French physician, Dr. Bourdelot, effected a cure. On the mean time the debts thus incurred rose to a large amount. The Swedish people wished the queen to marry and to give them an heir to the throne, but Christina was not willing to hear of this as she desired to preserve her personal independence. She was much more inclined to abdicate her position and to become a ruler in the realm of genius and learning. At the same time she showed a continually growing inclination to the Catholic Church, for she took no pleasure in the simple forms of Lutheran belief which was all-powerful in Sweden. It is not possible to prove positive whether Dr. Bourdelot or the Spanish ambassador, Pimentelli, influence Christina’s change of religious views. It is certain however, that several members of the Society of Jesus, Fathers Macedo, Francken, Malines, and Casati, succeeded in removing her last doubts as to the truth of Catholicism. Christina perceived that she could not continue to reign in Sweden as a convert to Catholicism, and resigned her throne in favour of her cousin, Charles Gustavus of Pfalz-Zweibrücken, a member of the Wittelsbach family. On 6 June, 1654, at Upsala, she transferred her authority to him with much ceremony, and in the following day started on her travels. She bade farewell to her mother at Nyköping, then hastened to Halmstad, where she dismissed her retinue, and went to Brussels by way of Hamburg and Antwerp. At Brussels she made private confession of her belief in Catholicism; her public entrance into the Church took place in the beginning of November 1655, in the parish church of Innsbruck.

It was from Innsbruck that the European Courts were officially informed of her change of faith. On 23 December, she reached the capital of Christendom, which was decorated in her honour. The pope came personally to meet her, administered the sacrament of Confirmation, and added Alexandra to her name. At Rome, Christina’s home was in the Palazzo Farnese; during her residence here she sought to satisfy her intellectual ambitions as well as the longings of her devout and loving heart. She visited the sacred places to pray, went as a ministering angel into the hovels of the poor, and devoted herself to the study of the collections of art and the libraries. She drew into the circle of her fascinations the leading families of the Eternal City, arranged concerts and plays, and knew how to delight everyone by her acuteness and learning. She was not willing, however, to drop rough Swedish customs, and allowed herself to display various peculiarities of dress and manner, so that many people avoided her. In 1656 and 1657, Christina went to France, the first time with a retinue, the second time incognito. On the latter trip her conduct excited much displeasure as, among other eccentricities she dressed as a man. Much more severe censure was aroused by the trial, without proper legal forms, of an old servant, Monaldeschi, and his subsequent execution, although as sovereign she had the right to pronounce sentence of death, or at least believed herself entitled to this authority. Returned to Rome she gradually fell under the displeasure of the pope, for like a true daughter of Gustavus Adolphus she at times defied foreign laws and customs in too arrogant a fashion. Christina suffered much annoyance from the failure to receive with regularity from Sweden the income to which she was entitled; sometimes no money came at all. Moreover a woman so active intellectually had not taste or time for keeping accounts. Dishonesty in the management of her money affairs naturally followed, and the disorder in her finances were not overcome until the Curia through Cardinal Azzolini provided her with a competent bookkeeper.

After the death of Charles Gustavus (1660) she returned to Sweden to have her rights again legally confirmed. A second visit home (1667) was not of long duration as, in the pettiest manner, difficulties were thrown in the way of her exercise of her religion. After this for a time she lived in Hamburg, but she made her continued stay in that city, then very rigidly Lutheran, impossible by organizing festivities in honour of the newly-elected pope, which ended in tumult and bloodshed. In 1668 she returned to Rome and never again left the Eternal City. Her new home was the Palazzo Riario, and she filled her residence with great collections of books and objects of art. Her palace became a centre both for the learned world and for artists and sculptors; to the latter, Christina gave both aid and generously paid commissions. Her forethought and care were not limited to her acquaintances and members of her household, the poor of Rome also found in her a charitable mother. As she grew older she fulfilled her religious duties with increasing intelligence and zeal, and the approach of her death had no longer any terrors for her. Piously and bravely she prepared herself for the end; after arranging her worldly affairs she received the sacraments with humble devotion and died a true child of the Catholic Church. Against her express wishes the pope had her body embalmed and brought to St. Peter’s where it was buried under the high altar. Her ostentatious but not prepossessing monument is the work of Carlo Fontana. Christina made Cardinal Azzolini her principal heir, while the papal See and various Catholic sovereigns also received legacies. Unfortunately, after the death of Azzolini much of her valuable art collection passed into the hands of strangers; the greater part of her very rich library, however, is in the Vatican. Pictures and plastic art of various kinds have preserved the knowledge of Christina’s features. Although not beautiful, in her youth her appearance must have been interesting. In later years she grew too stout to retain any trace of good looks. Only the flashing,m piercing eyes give any evidence of the fiery spirit which the exterior concealed. The character the northern sovereign remained very much the same through life. Receptive for everything good and great, she unfalteringly pursued her quest after knowledge of the truth and after many wanderings found it in the bosom of the Catholic Church. She had a tender, sympathetic heart, yet was subject at times to fits of temper, even cruelty. She was no saint, but was probably better than the members of her former confession pictured her. Any objective portrait of her will always bear out the judgment of Axel Oxenstiern, “After all she was the daughter of the Great Adolphus,” both in her faults and in her virtues.

Veibull and Höjèr, ed., Svberiges historia fr’n öldesta tider till v’ra dagar (1611–1718), IV; Friis, Dronning Christina af Sverrig, 1626–1689 (Copenhagen, 1896), a work of Protestant tendencies; Bildt, Drottning Krsitinas sich ta dagar (1897), vol. V of the “Scriften”; Woodhead, Memoir of Christina, Queen of Sweden (London, 1863), II; Bain, Christina, Queen of Sweden (London, 1890); Dentoche-Grauert, Königin Christine von Schweden und ihr Hof (Bonn, 1838–42, 2 vols.); Busson, Christine von Schweden in Tyrol (Inssbruck, 1884); Fay, Königin Christine von Schweden, tochter Gustaf Adolfs (Barmen, 1889); Daniels, Christine von Schweden in Preuss. Jahrbucher (Berlin, 1899), XCVI-XCVII; Arhrenholz, Mémoirs concernant Christine, Reine de Suède (Paris, 1825); Barine, Christine de Suède, in the Revue des deux mondes (October, 1888); Treatises in Italian by Compori, Malagola, Picenardi, Gratanelli, written in the years 1871, 1881, 1889, and 1896, on Christina’s connection with the House of Este, her stay at Bologna, Pisa, and Roma, especially Clarella, La regina Christina di Suecia in Italia, 1655–1689 (1892).

P. WITTMAN.

Christine de Pisan

A French poetess and historiographer, born at Venice, 1363; died in France, 1430. Although an Italian by birth, she was French at heart as well as in education and fame. When she was five years old she went to Paris with her father, Thomas de Pisan, who had been appointed astrologer and secretary to King Charles V. She was reared at the court, and educated in the ancient languages and literatures. At the age of fourteen she married a nobleman from Picardy, Etienne du Castel. When her husband died she was only twenty-five years old. Her father and her protector, King Charles, having died several years before, she found herself in straitened circumstances, with three children to provide for. Henry IV, King of England, and Galeazzo Visconti, Tyrant of Milan, each invited her to come and live at his court, but she refused to leave France, where she had been so well treated, and resolved to making a living with her pen. Her writings in prose and verse soon gained her great renown. Her contemporaries compared her eloquence with that of Cicero and her wisdom with that of Cato. Prompted by necessity she wrote incessantly. She declares herself that “in the short space of six years, between 1397 and 1403, she wrote fifteen important books, without mentioning minor essays, which, compiled, make seventy large copy-books.” Among her works in prose we may cite: “Le Livre des Faitz et bonnes Moeurs du Saige Roy Charles,” an elaborate biography, written at the solicitation of Philip of Burgundy, who was rearing her eldest son as his own child; this book is full of moral lessons, but its merit is somewhat impaired by a useless display of erudition and a diffuse style; “Le Livre de Paix,” a treatise dealing with the education of princes, who, according to the author, should be trained in honesty “Trésor de la Cité des Dames” and “Lettre à Isabeau de Bavière,” in which she endeavours to rehabilitate the character of a woman who had been defamed by the “Roman de la Rose.”

Her poetical works consist mostly of long poems, such as “Le Livre des Mutations de Fortune,” “Le Chemin de Longue Etude,” “Le Livre des cent Histoires de Troie,” etc. These are ambitious and heavy compositions. Her ballades, rondeaux, and lesser poems are more commendable; they are clear and graceful. As a complete edition of Christine’s works is being made, her talent will no longer be judged from extracts and separate poems. Though she is by no means a great poetess, she is mentioned with praise eighty years after he death by Marot. She is superior to Eustache Deschamps, her master.

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Bl. Christine of Stommeln

Born at Stommeln near Cologne, in 1242; died 6 November, 1312.

Stommeln, called in the fourteenth century Stumbeln, is situated about nine miles northwest of Cologne and about six miles west of the Rhine. Christine’s father was a well-to-do peasant named Heinrich Bruso; the name of her mother was Hilla. When five years old Christine had visions of the Christ Child to whom she was mystically married in her tenth year. When eleven years old she learned to read the Psalter, but could not write. When twelve her parents wished to give her in marriage, but she went to the convent of the Beguines at Cologne, where she led a life of severe penance, spent much time in prayer, and often fell into convulsions. In her fifteenth year she received the stigmata on her hands and feet and the marks of the Crown of Thorns on the head. She suffered many assaults of the devil, had many trials of her faith and was tempted to suicide. The Beguines thought her crazy and treated her with contempt, so she went back home. As early as 1267 the parish priest, Johannes, took Christine into his house, where she made the acquaintance of Peter of Dacia, a Dominican from Gotland who was at Cologne as a pupil of St. Albert the Great. A mystical bond of devotion, the object of which was God, was formed between the two. Peter visited Christine in 1270 on his way back from Paris to Gotland, and again in 1279; in his account of her he mentions altogether fifteen visits. Christine’s brother followed Peter to Gotland and entered the Dominican Order. Peter became lector and in 1283 was prior in Gotland, where he died in 1288. In the same year the torments which Christine suffered through the devil ceased, and she lived a peaceful life, wearing always the dress of the Beguines, until her death. Her body was first buried in the churchyard at Stommeln and then in the church itself; in 1342 her remains were carried to Niedeggen in the Eifel; a couple of centuries later, 22 June, 1569, they were transferred to Jülich, where a monument to her still exists. At Jülich are also to be seen the notes made by Peter of Dacia and the collection of her letters which the Bollandists have published under the date of 22 June (IV, 271–430). It is difficult to decide just how much literal truth exists in Christine’s visions and apparitions from Purgatory. But even Renan did not doubt the purity of her life (Hist. litt. de la France, XXVII, 1–26). The veneration of the Church has not been granted to Christine; however, the anniversary of her death, 6 November, is observed in Jülich.

GABRIEL MEIER.

Christmas

ORIGIN OF THE WORD

The word for Christmas in late Old English is Cristes Maesse, the Mass of Christ, first found in 1038, and Cristes-messe, in 1131. In Dutch it is Kerst-misse, in Latin Dies Natalis, whence comes the French Noël, and Italian Il natale; in German Weihnachtsfest, from the preceeding sacred vigil. The term Yule is of disputed origin. It is unconnected with any word meaning “wheel.” The name in Anglo-Saxon was geol, feast: geola, the name of a month (cf. Icelandic iol a feast in December).

EARLY CELEBRATION

Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feasts; Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday; Arnobius (VII, 32 in P.L., V, 1264) can still ridicule the “birthdays” of the gods.

Alexandria. The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. About A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, xxi in P.G., VIII, 888) says that certain Egyptian theologians “over curiously” assign, not the year alone, but the day of Christ’s birth, placing it on 25 Pachon (20 May) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus. [Ideler (Chron., II, 397, n.) thought they did this believing that the ninth month, in which Christ was born, was the ninth of their own calendar.] Others reached the date of 24 or 25 Pharmuthi (19 or 20 April). With Clement’s evidence may be mentioned the “De paschæ computus,” written in 243 and falsely ascribed to Cyprian (P.L., IV, 963 sqq.), which places Christ’s birth on 28 March, because on that day the material sun was created. But Lupi has shown (Zaccaria, Dissertazioni ecc. del p. A.M. Lupi, Faenza, 1785, p. 219) that there is no month in the year to which respectable authorities have not assigned Christ’s birth. Clement, however, also tells us that the Basilidians celebrated the Epiphany, and with it, probably, the Nativity, on 15 or 11 Tybi (10 or 6 January). At any rate this double commemoration became popular, partly because the apparition to the shepherds was considered as one manifestation of Christ’s glory, and was added to the greater manifestations celebrated on 6 January; partly because at the baptism-manifestation many codices (e.g. Codex Bezæ) wrongly give the Divine words as sou ei ho houios mou ho agapetos, ego semeron gegenneka se (Thou art my beloved Son, this day have I begotten thee) in lieu of en soi eudokesa (in thee I am well pleased), read in Luke 3:22. Abraham Ecchelensis (Labbe, II, 402) quotes the Constitutions of the Alexandrian Church for a dies Nativitatis et Epiphaniæ in Nicæan times; Epiphanius (Hær., li, ed. Dindorf, 1860, II, 483) quotes an extraordinary semi-Gnostic ceremony at Alexandria in which, on the night of 5–6 January, a cross-stamped Korê was carried in procession round a crypt, to the chant, “Today at this hour Korê gave birth to the Eternal”; John Cassian records in his “Collations” (X, 2 in P.L., XLIX, 820), written 418–427, that the Egyptian monasteries still observe the “ancient custom”; but on 29 Choiak (25 December) and 1 January, 433, Paul of Emesa preached before Cyril of Alexandria, and his sermons (see Mansi, IV, 293; appendix to Act. Conc. Eph.) show that the December celebration was then firmly established there, and calendars prove its permanence. The December feast therefore reached Egypt between 427 and 433.

Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Asia Minor. In Cyprus, at the end of the fourth century, Epiphanius asserts against the Alogi (Hær., li, 16, 24 in P. G., XLI, 919, 931) that Christ was born on 6 January and baptized on 8 November. Ephraem Syrus (whose hymns belong to Epiphany, not to Christmas) proves that Mesopotamia still put the birth feast thirteen days after the winter solstice; i.e. 6 January; Armenia likewise ignored, and still ignores, the December festival. (Cf. Euthymius, “Pan. Dogm.,” 23 in P.G., CXXX, 1175; Niceph., “Hist. Eccl,,” XVIII, 53 in P.G., CXLVII, 440; Isaac, Catholicos of Armenia in eleventh or twelfth century, “Adv. Armenos,” I, xii, 5 in P.G., CXXII, 1193; Neale, “Holy Eastern Church,” Introd., p. 796). In Cappadocia, Gregory of Nyssa’s sermons on St. Basil (who died before 1 January, 379) and the two following, preached on St. Stephen’s feast (P.G., XLVI, 788; cf, 701, 721), prove that in 380 the 25th December was already celebrated there, unless, following Usener’s too ingenious arguments (Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Bonn, 1889, 247–250), one were to place those sermons in 383. Also, Asterius of Amaseia (fifth century) and Amphilochius of Iconium (contemporary of Basil and Gregory) show that in their dioceses both the feasts of Epiphany and Nativity were separate (P.G., XL, 337 XXXIX, 36).

Jerusalem. In 385, Silvia of Bordeaux (or Etheria, as it seems clear she should be called) was profoundly impressed by the splendid Chilhood feasts at Jerusalem. They had a definitely “Nativity” colouring; the bishop proceeded nightly to Bethlehem, returning to Jerusalem for the day celebrations. The Presentation was celebrated forty days after. But this calculation starts from 6 January, and the feast lasted during the octave of that date. (Peregr. Sylv., ed. Geyer, pp. 75 sq.) Again (p. 101) she mentions as high festivals Easter and Epiphany alone. In 385, therefore, 25 December was not observed at Jerusalem. This checks the so-called correspondence between Cyril of Jerusalem (348–386) and Pope Julius I (337–352), quoted by John of Nikiu (c. 900) to convert Armenia to 25 December (see P.L., VIII, 964 sqq.). Cyril declares that his clergy cannot, on the single feast of Birth and Baptism, make a double procession to Bethlehem and Jordan. (This later practice is here an anachronism.) He asks Julius to assign the true date of the nativity “from census documents brought by Titus to Rome”; Julius assigns 25 December. Another document (Cotelier, Patr. Apost., I, 316, ed. 1724) makes Julius write thus to Juvenal of Jerusalem (c. 425–458), adding that Gregory Nazianzen at Constantinople was being criticized for “halving” the festival. But Julius died in 352, and by 385 Cyril had made no change; indeed, Jerome, writing about 411 (in Ezech., P.L., XXV, 18), reproves Palestine for keeping Christ’s birthday (when He hid Himself) on the Manifestation feast. Cosmas Indicopleustes suggests (P.G., LXXXVIII, 197) that even in the middle of the sixth century Jerusalem was peculiar in combining the two commemorations, arguing from Luke 3:23 that Christ’s baptism day was the anniversary of His birthday. The commemoration, however, of David and James the Apostle on 25 December at Jerusalem accounts for the deferred feast. Usener, arguing from the “Laudatio S. Stephani” of Basil of Seleucia (c. 430.—P.G., LXXXV, 469), thinks that Juvenal tried at least to introduce this feast, but that Cyril’s greater name attracted that event to his own period.

Antioch. In Antioch, on the feast of St. Philogonius, Chrysostom preached an important sermon. The year was almost certainly 386, though Clinton gives 387, and Usener, by a long rearrangement of the saint’s sermons, 388 (Religionsgeschichtl. Untersuch., pp. 227–240). But between February, 386, when Flavian ordained Chrysostom priest, and December is ample time for the preaching of all the sermons under discussion. (See Kellner, Heortologie, Freiburg, 1906, p. 97, n. 3). In view of a reaction to certain Jewish rites and feasts, Chrysostom tries to unite Antioch in celebrating Christ’s birth on 25 December, part of the community having already kept it on that day for at least ten years. In the West, he says, the feast was thus kept, anothen; its introduction into Antioch he had always sought, conservatives always resisted. This time he was successful; in a crowded church he defended the new custom. It was no novelty; from Thrace to Cadiz this feast was observed—rightly, since its miraculously rapid diffusion proved its genuineness. Besides, Zachary, who, as high-priest, entered the Temple on the Day of Atonement, received therefore announcement of John’s conception in September; six months later Christ was conceived, i.e. in March, and born accordingly in December.

Finally, though never at Rome, on authority he knows that the census papers of the Holy Family are still there. [This appeal to Roman archives is as old as Justin Martyr (Apol., I, 34, 35) and Tertullian (Adv. Marc., IV, 7, 19). Julius, in the Cyriline forgeries, is said to have calculated the date from Josephus, on the same unwarranted assumptions about Zachary as did Chrysostom.] Rome, therefore, has observed 25 December long enough to allow of Chrysostom speaking at least in 388 as above (P.G., XLVIII, 752, XLIX, 351).

Constantinople. In 379 or 380 Gregory Nazianzen made himself exarchos of the new feast, i.e. its initiator, in Constantinople, where, since the death of Valens, orthodoxy was reviving. His three Homilies (see Hom. xxxviii in P.G., XXXVI) were preached on successive days (Usener, op. cit., p. 253) in the private chapel called Anastasia. On his exile in 381, the feast disappeared.

According, however, to John of Nikiu, Honorius, when he was present on a visit, arranged with Arcadius for the observation of the feast on the Roman date. Kellner puts this visit in 395; Baumstark (Oriens Chr., 1902, 441–446), between 398 and 402. The latter relies on a letter of Jacob of Edessa quoted by George of Beeltân, asserting that Christmas was brought to Constantinople by Arcadius and Chrysostom from Italy, where, “according to the histories,” it had been kept from Apostolic times. Chrysostom’s episcopate lasted from 398 to 402; the feast would therefore have been introduced between these dates by Chrysostom bishop, as at Antioch by Chrysostom priest. But Lübeck (Hist. Jahrbuch., XXVIII, I, 1907, pp. 109–118) proves Baumstark’s evidence invalid. More important, but scarcely better accredited, is Erbes’ contention (Zeitschrift f. Kirchengesch., XXVI, 1905, 20–31) that the feast was brought in by Constantine as early as 330–35.

Rome. At Rome the earliest evidence is in the Philocalian Calendar (P. L., XIII, 675; it can be seen as a whole in J. Strzygowski, Kalenderbilder des Chron. von Jahre 354, Berlin, 1888), compiled in 354, which contains three important entries. In the civil calendar 25 December is marked “Natalis Invicti.” In the “Depositio Martyrum” a list of Roman or early and universally venerated martyrs, under 25 December is found “VIII kal. ian. natus Christus in Betleem Iudeæ.” On “VIII kal. mart.” (22 February) is also mentioned St. Peter’s Chair. In the list of consuls are four anomalous ecclesiastical entries: the birth and death days of Christ, the entry into Rome, and martyrdom of Saints Peter and Paul. The significant entry is “Chr. Cæsare et Paulo sat. XIII. hoc. cons. Dns. ihs. XPC natus est VIII Kal. ian. d. ven. luna XV,” i.e. during the consulship of (Augustus) Cæsar and Paulus Our Lord Jesus Christ was born on the eighth before the calends of January (25 December), a Friday, the fourteenth day of the moon. The details clash with tradition and possibility. The epact, here XIII, is normally XI; the year is A.U.C. 754, a date first suggested two centuries later; in no year between 751 and 754 could 25 December fall on a Friday; tradition is constant in placing Christ’s birth on Wednesday. Moreover the date given for Christ’s death (duobus Geminis coss., i.e. A.D. 29) leaves Him only twenty eight, and one-quarter years of life. Apart from this, these entries in a consul list are manifest interpolations. But are not the two entries in the “Depositio Martyrum” also such? Were the day of Christ’s birth in the flesh alone there found, it might stand as heading the year of martyrs’ spiritual natales; but 22 February is there wholly out of place. Here, as in the consular fasti, popular feasts were later inserted for convenience’ sake. The civil calendar alone was not added to, as it was useless after the abandonment of pagan festivals. So, even if the “Depositio Martyrum” dates, as is probable, from 336, it is not clear that the calendar contains evidence earlier than Philocalus himself, i.e. 354, unless indeed pre-existing popular celebration must be assumed to render possible this official recognition. Were the Chalki manuscript of Hippolytus genuine, evidence for the December feast would exist as early as c. 205. The relevant passage [which exists in the Chigi manuscript Without the bracketed words and is always so quoted before George Syncellus (c. 1000)] runs:

He gar prote parousia tou kyriou hemon he ensarkos [en he gegennetai] en Bethleem, egeneto [pro okto kalandon ianouarion hemera tetradi] Basileuontos Augoustou [tessarakoston kai deuteron etos, apo de Adam] pentakischiliosto kai pentakosiosto etei epathen de triakosto trito [pro okto kalandon aprilion, hemera paraskeun, oktokaidekato etei Tiberiou Kaisaros, hypateuontos Hrouphou kai Hroubellionos.—(Comm. In Dan., iv, 23; Brotke; 19) “For the first coming of Our Lord in the flesh [in which He has been begotten], in Bethlehem, took place [25 December, the fourth day] in the reign of Augustus [the forty-second year, and] in the year 5500 [from Adam]. And He suffered in His thirty-third year [25 March, the parasceve, in the eighteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar, during the consulate of Rufus and Rubellio].”

Interpolation is certain, and admitted by Funk, Bonwetsch, etc. The names of the consuls [which should be Fufius and Rubellius] are wrong; Christ lives thirty-three years; in the genuine Hippolytus, thirty-one; minute data are irrelevant in this discussion with Severian millenniarists; it is incredible that Hippolytus should have known these details when his contemporaries (Clement, Tertullian, etc.) are, when dealing with the matter, ignorant or silent; or should, having published them, have remained unquoted (Kellner, op. cit., p. 104, has an excursus on this passage.)

St. Ambrose (de virg., iii, 1 in P. L., XVI, 219) preserves the sermon preached by Pope Liberius I at St. Peter’s, when, on Natalis Christi, Ambrose’ sister, Marcellina, took the veil. This pope reigned from May, 352 until 366, except during his years of exile, 355–357. If Marcellina became a nun only after the canonical age of twenty-five, and if Ambrose was born only in 340, it is perhaps likelier that the event occurred after 357. Though the sermon abounds in references appropriate to the Epiphany (the marriage at Cana, the multiplication of loaves, etc.), these seem due (Kellner, op. cit., p. 109) to sequence of thought, and do not fix the sermon to 6 January, a feast unknown in Rome till much later. Usener, indeed, argues (p. 272) that Liberius preached it on that day in 353, instituting the Nativity feast in the December of the same year; but Philocalus warrants our supposing that if preceded his pontificate by some time, though Duchesne’s relegation of it to 243 (Bull. crit., 1890, 3, pp. 41 sqq. ) may not commend itself to many. In the West the Council of Saragossa (380) still ignores 25 December (see can. xxi, 2). Pope Siricius, writing in 385 (P. L., XII, 1134) to Himerius in Spain, distinguishes the feasts of the Nativity and Apparition; but whether he refers to Roman or to Spanish use is not clear. Ammianus Marcellinus (XXI, ii) and Zonaras (Ann., XIII, 11) date a visit of Julian the Apostate to a church at Vienne in Gaul on Epiphany and Nativity respectively. Unless there were two visits, Vienne in A.D. 361 combined the feasts, though on what day is still doubtful. By the time of Jerome and Augustine, the December feast is established, though the latter (Epp., II, liv, 12, in P.L., XXXIII, 200) omits it from a list of first-class festivals. From the fourth century every Western calendar assigns it to 25 December. At Rome, then, the Nativity was celebrated on 25 December before 354; in the East, at Constantinople, not before 379, unless with Erbes, and against Gregory, we recognize it there in 330. Hence, almost universally has it been concluded that the new date reached the East from Rome by way of the Bosphorus during the great anti-Arian revival, and by means of the orthodox champions. De Santi (L’Orig. delle Fest. Nat., in Civiltæ Cattolica, 1907), following Erbes, argues that Rome took over the Eastern Epiphany, now with a definite Nativity colouring, and, with as increasing number of Eastern Churches, placed it on 25 December; later, both East and West divided their feast, leaving Ephiphany on 6 January, and Nativity on 25 December, respectively, and placing Christmas on 25 December and Epiphany on 6 January. The earlier hypothesis still seems preferable.

ORIGIN OF DATE

The Gospels. Concerning the date of Christ’s birth the Gospels give no help; upon their data contradictory arguments are based. The census would have been impossible in winter: a whole population could not then be put in motion. Again, in winter it must have been; then only field labour was suspended. But Rome was not thus considerate. Authorities moreover differ as to whether shepherds could or would keep flocks exposed during the nights of the rainy season.

Zachary’s temple service. Arguments based on Zachary’s temple ministry are unreliable, though the calculations of antiquity (see above) have been revived in yet more complicated form, e.g. by Friedlieb (Leben J. Christi des Erlösers, Münster, 1887, p. 312). The twenty-four classes of Jewish priests, it is urged, served each a week in the Temple; Zachary was in the eighth class, Abia. The Temple was destroyed 9 Ab, A.D. 70; late rabbinical tradition says that class 1, Jojarib, was then serving. From these untrustworthy data, assuming that Christ was born A.U.C. 749, and that never in seventy turbulent years the weekly succession failed, it is calculated that the eighth class was serving 2–9 October, A.U.C. 748, whence Christ’s conception falls in March, and birth presumably in December. Kellner (op. cit., pp. 106, 107) shows how hopeless is the calculation of Zachary’s week from any point before or after it.

Analogy to Old Testament festivals. It seems impossible, on analogy of the relation of Passover and Pentecost to Easter and Whitsuntide, to connect the Nativity with the feast of Tabernacles, as did, e.g., Lightfoot (Horæ Hebr, et Talm., II, 32), arguing from Old Testament prophecy, e.g. Zacharias 14:16 sqq,; combining, too, the fact of Christ’s death in Nisan with Daniel’s prophecy of a three and one-half years’ ministry (9:27), he puts the birth in Tisri, i.e. September. As undesirable is it to connect 25 December with the Eastern (December) feast of Dedication (Jos. Ant. Jud., XII, vii, 6).

Natalis Invicti. The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism, see Cumont’s epoch-making “Textes et Monuments” etc., I, ii, 4, 6, p. 355. Mommsen (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 12, p. 338) has collected the evidence for the feast, which reached its climax of popularity under Aurelian in 274. Filippo del Torre in 1700 first saw its importance; it is marked, as has been said, without addition in Philocalus’ Calendar. It would be impossible here even to outline the history of solar symbolism and language as applied to God, the Messiah, and Christ in Jewish or Chrisian canonical, patristic, or devotional works. Hymns and Christmas offices abound in instances; the texts are well arranged by Cumont (op. cit., addit. Note C, p. 355).

The earliest rapprochement of the births of Christ and the sun is in Cypr., “De pasch. Comp.,” xix, “O quam præclare providentia ut illo die quo natus est Sol . . . nasceretur Christus.”—“O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born . . . Christ should be born.”—In the fourth century, Chrysostom, “del Solst. Et Æquin.” (II, p. 118, ed. 1588), says: “Sed et dominus noster nascitur mense decembris . . . VIII Kal. Ian. . . . Sed et Invicti Natalem appelant. Quis utique tam invictus nisi dominus noster? . . . Vel quod dicant Solis esse natalem, ipse est Sol iustitiæ.”—“But Our Lord, too, is born in the month of December . . . the eight before the calends of January [25 December] . . . , But they call it the ‘Birthday of the Unconquered.’ Who indeed is so unconquered as Our Lord . . . ? Or, if they say that it is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice.” Already Tertullian (Apol., 16; cf. Ad. Nat., I, 13; Orig. c. Cels., VIII, 67, etc) had to assert that Sol was not the Christians’ God; Augustine (Tract xxxiv, in Joan. In P. L., XXXV, 1652) denounces the heretical indentification of Christ with Sol. Pope Leo I (Serm. xxxvii in nat. dom., VII, 4; xxii, II, 6 in P. L., LIV, 218 and 198) bitterly reproves solar survivals—Christians, on the very doorstep of the Apostles’ basilica, turn to adore the rising sun. Sun-worship has bequeathed features to modern popular worship in Armenia, where Chistians had once temporarily and externally conformed to the cult of the material sun (Cumont, op. cit., p. 356).

But even should a deliberate and legitimate “baptism” of a pagan feast be seen here no more than the transference of the date need be supposed. The “mountain-birth” of Mithra and Christ’s in the “grotto” have nothing in common: Mithra’s adoring shepherds (Cumont, op. cit., I, ii, 4, p. 304 sqq.) are rather borrowed from Christian sources than vice versa.

Other theories of pagan origin. The origin of Christmas should not be sought in the Saturnalia (1–23 December) nor even in the midnight holy birth at Eleusis (see J.E. Harrison, Prolegom., p. 549) with its probable connection through Phrygia with the Naasene heretics, or even with the Alexandrian ceremony quoted above; nor yet in rites analogous to the midwinter cult at Delphi of the cradled Dionysus, with his revocation from the sea to a new birth (Harrison, op. cit., 402 sqq.).

The astronomical theory. Duchesne (Les origines du culte chrétien, Paris, 1902, 262 sqq.) advances the “astronomical” theory that, given 25 March as Christ’s death-day [historically impossible, but a tradition old as Tertullian (Adv. Jud., 8)], the popular instinct, demanding an exact number of years in a Divine life, would place His conception on the same date, His birth 25 December. This theory is best supported by the fact that certain Montanists (Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., VII, 18) kept Easter on 6 April; both 25 December and 6 January are thus simultaneously explained. The reckoning, moreover, is wholly in keeping with the arguments based on number and astronomy and “convenience,” then so popular. Unfortunately, there is no contemporary evidence for the celebration in the fourth century of Christ’s conception on 25 March.

Conclusion. The present writer in inclined to think that, be the origin of the feast in East or West, and though the abundance of analogous midwinter festivals may indefinitely have helped the choice of the December date, the same instinct which set Natalis Invicti at the winter solstice will have sufficed, apart from deliberate adaptation or curious calculation, to set the Christian feast there too.

LITURGY AND CUSTOM

The calendar. The fixing of this date fixed those too of Circumcision and Presentation; of Expectation and, perhaps, Annunciation B.V.M.; and of Nativity and Conception of the Baptist (cf. Thurston in Amer. Eccl. Rev., December, 1898). Till the tenth century Christmas counted, in papal reckoning, as the beginning of the ecclesiastical year, as it still does in Bulls; Boniface VIII (1294–1303) restored temporarily this usage, to which Germany held longest.

Popular merry-making. Codex Theod., II, 8, 27 (cf. XV, 5,5) forbids, in 425, circus games on 25 December; though not till Codex Just., III, 12, 6 (529) is cessation of work imposed. The Second Council of Tours (can. xi, xvii) proclaims, in 566 or 567, the sanctity of the “twelve days” from Christmas to Epiphany, and the duty of Advent fast; that of Agde (506), in canons 63–64, orders a universal communion, and that of Braga (563) forbids fasting on Christmas Day. Popular merry-making, however, so increased that the “Laws of King Cnut,” fabricated c. 1110, order a fast from Christmas to Epiphany.

The three Masses. The Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries give three Masses to this feast, and these, with a special and sublime martyrology, and dispensation, if necessary, from abstinence, still mark our usage. Though Rome gives three Masses to the Nativity only, Ildefonsus, a Spanish bishop, in 845, alludes to a triple mass on Nativity, Easter, Whitsun, and Transfiguration (P.L., CVI, 888). These Masses, at midnight, dawn, and in die, were mystically connected with aboriginal, Judaic, and Christian dispensations, or (as by St. Thomas, Summa Theologica III:83:2) to the triple “birth” of Christ: in Eternity, in Time, and in the Soul. Liturgical colours varied: black, white, red, or (e.g. at Narbonne) red, white, violet were used (Durand, Rat. Div. Off., VI, 13). The Gloria was at first sung only in the first Mass of this day.

The historical origin of this triple Mass is probably as follows (cf. Thurston, in Amer. Eccl. Rev., January, 1899; Grisar, Anal. Rom., I, 595; Geschichte Roms . . . im Mittelalter I, 607, 397; Civ. Catt., 21 September, 1895, etc.): The first Mass, celebrated at the Oratorium Præsepis in St. Mary Major—a church probably immediately assimilated to the Bethlehem basilica—and the third, at St. Peter’s, reproduced in Rome the double Christmas Office mentioned by Etheria (see above) at Bethlehem and Jerusalem. The second Mass was celebrated by the pope in the “chapel royal” of the Byzantine Court officials on the Palatine, i.e. St. Anastasia’s church, originally called, like the basilica at Constantinople, Anastasis, and like it built at first to reproduce the Jerusalem Anastasis basilica—and like it, finally, in abandoning the name “Anastasis” for that of the martyr St. Anastasia. The second Mass would therefore be a papal compliment to the imperial church on its patronal feast. The three stations are thus accounted for, for by 1143 (cf. Ord. Romani in P. L., LXXVIII, 1032) the pope abandoned distant St. Peter’s, and said the third Mass at the high altar of St. Mary Major. At this third Mass Leo II inaugurated, in 800, by the coronation of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire. The day became a favourite for court ceremonies, and on it, e.g., William of Normandy was crowned at Westminster.

Dramatic presentations. The history of the dedication of the Oratorium Præsepis in the Liberian basilica, of the relics there kept and their imitations, does not belong to this discussion [cf.; . The data are well set out by Bonaccorsi (Il Natale, Rome, 1903, ch. iv)], but the practice of giving dramatic, or at least spectacular, expression to the incidents of the Nativity early gave rise to more or less liturgical mysteries. The ordinaria of Rouen and of Reims, for instance, place the officium pastorum immediately after the Te Deum and before Mass (cf. Ducange, Gloss. med. et inf. Lat., s.v. Pastores); the latter Church celebrated a second “prophetical” mystery after Tierce, in which Virgil and the Sibyl join with Old Testament prophets in honouring Christ. (For Virgil and Nativity play and prophecy see authorities in Comparetti, “Virgil in Middles Ages,” p. 310 sqq.) “To out-herod Herod,” i.e. to over-act, dates from Herod’s violence in these plays.

The crib (creche) or nativity scene. St. Francis of Assisi in 1223 originated the crib of today by laicizing a hitherto ecclesiastical custom, henceforward extra-liturgical and popular. The presence of ox and ass is due to a misinterpretation of Isaias i:3 and Habacuc 3:2 (“Itala” version), though they appear in the unique fourth-century “Nativity” discovered in the St. Sebastian catacombs in 1877. The ass on which Balaam rode in the Reims mystery won for the feast the title (Ducange, op. cit., s.v. Festum).

Hymns and carols. The degeneration of these plays in part occasioned the diffusion of noels, pastorali, and carols, to which was accorded, at times, a quasi-liturgical position. Prudentius, in the fourth century, is the first (and in that century alone) to hymn the Nativity, for the “Vox clara” (hymn for Lauds in Advent) and “Christe Redemptor” (Vespers and Matins of Christmas) cannot be assigned to Ambrose. “A solis ortu” is certainly, however, by Sedulius (fifth century). The earliest German Weihnachtslieder date from the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the earliest noels from the eleventh, the earliest carols from the thirteenth. The famous “Stabat Mater Speciosa” is attributed to Jacopone da Todi (1230–1306); “Adeste Fideles” is, at the earliest, of the seventeenth century. These essentially popular airs, and even words, must, however, have existed long before they were put down in writing.

Cards and presents. Pagan customs centering round the January calends gravitated to Christmas. Tiele (Yule and Christmas, London, 1899) has collected many interesting examples. The strenæ (eacute;trennes) of the Roman 1 January (bitterly condemned by Tertullian, de Idol., xiv and x, and by Maximus of Turin, Hom. ciii, de Kal. gentil., in P. L., LVII, 492, etc.) survive as Christmas presents, cards, boxes.

The yule log. The calend fires were a scandal even to Rome, and St. Boniface obtained from Pope Zachary their abolition. But probably the Yule-log in its many forms was originally lit only in view of the cold season. Only in 1577 did it become a public ceremony in England; its popularity, however, grew immense, especially in Provence; in Tuscany, Christmas is simply called ceppo (block, log—Bonaccorsi, op. cit., p. 145, n. 2). Besides, it became connected with other usages; in England, a tenant had the right to feed at his lord’s expense as long as a wheel, i.e. a round, of wood, given by him, would burn, the landlord gave to a tenant a load of wood on the birth of a child; Kindsfuss was a present given to children on the birth of a brother or sister, and even to the farm animals on that of Christ, the universal little brother (Tiele, op. cit., p. 95 sqq.).

Greenery. Gervase of Tilbury (thirteen century) says that in England grain is exposed on Christmas night to gain fertility from the dew which falls in response to “Rorate Cæli”; the tradition that trees and flowers blossomed on this night is first quoted from an Arab geographer of the tenth century, and extended to England. In a thirteenth-century French epic, candles are seen on the flowering tree. In England it was Joseph of Arimathea’s rod which flowered at Glastonbury and elsewhere; when 3 September became 14 September, in 1752, 2000 people watched to see if the Quainton thorn (cratagus præcox) would blow on Christmas New Style; and as it did not, they refused to keep the New Style festival. From this belief of the calends practice of greenery decorations (forbidden by Archbishop Martin of Braga, c. 575, P. L., LXXIII—mistletoe was bequeathed by the Druids) developed the Christmas tree, first definitely mentioned in 1605 at Strasburg, and introduced into France and England in 1840 only, by Princess Helena of Mecklenburg and the Prince Consort respectively.

The mysterious visitor. Only with great caution should the mysterious benefactor of Christmas night—Knecht Ruprecht, Pelzmärtel on a wooden horse, St. Martin on a white charger, St. Nicholas and his “reformed” equivalent, Father Christmas—be ascribed to the stepping of a saint into the shoes of Woden, who, with his wife Berchta, descended on the nights between 25 December and 6 January, on a white horse to bless earth and men. Fires and blazing wheels starred the hills, houses were adorned, trials suspended and feasts celebrated (cf. Bonaccorse, op. cit., p. 151). Knecht Ruprecht, at any rate (first found in a mystery of 1668 and condemned in 1680 as a devil) was only a servant of the Holy Child.

Non-Catholic observances. But no doubt aboriginal Christian nuclei attracted pagan accretions. For the calend mumming; the extraordinary and obscene Modranicht; the cake in honour of Mary’s “afterbirth,” condemned (692) at the Trullan Council, canon 79; the Tabulæ Fortunæ (food and drink offered to obtain increase, and condemned in 743), see Tiele, op. cit., ch. viii, ix—Tiele’s data are perhaps of greater value than his deductions—and Ducange (op. cit., s. vv. Cervula and Kalendæ).

In England, Christmas was forbidden by Act of Parliament in 1644; the day was to be a fast and a market day; shops were compelled to be open; plum puddings and mince pies condemned as heathen. The conservatives resisted; at Canterbury blood was shed; but after the Restoration Dissenters continued to call Yuletide “Fooltide.”

Besides the works mentioned in the article see also, Die Geschichte des deutschen Weihnachts (Leipzig, 1893); MANN-HARDT, Weihnachtsblüthen in Sitte u. Sage (Berlin, 1864); RIETSCHEL, Weihnachten in Kirche, Kunst u. Volksleben (Bielefeld and Leipzig, 1902); SCHMID, Darstellung der Geburt Christin der bildenden Kunst (1890); MÜLLER, Le costumanzi del Natale (Rome, 1880); CORRIERI, Il Natale nelle letterature del Nord in Cosmos Cath. (December, 1900); ERBES, Das Syrische Martyrologium, etc., in Zeitschr. F. Kirchengesch. (1905), IV (1906), I; BARDENHEWER, Mariä Verkündigung (Freiburg, 1905); DE KERSAINT-GILLY, Fêtes de Noël en Provence (Montpellier, 1900); DE COUSSEMAKER, Drames Liturgiques du Moyen Age (Paris, 1861); DOUHET, Dict, des mystères in MIGNE, Nouv, encycl. théol., XLIII; PÉREMÈS, Dict. De Noëls, ibid. LXIII; SMITH AND CHEETHAM, dict. Christ. Antiq., s.v. Christmas.

CYRIL MARTINDALE

St. Christopher

(Gr. χριστός, Christ, φέρειν, to bear. Lat. Christophorus, i.e. Christbearer).

A martyr, probably of the third century. Although St. Christopher is one of the most popular saints in the East and in the West, almost nothing certain is known about his life or death. The legend says: A heathen king (in Canaan or Arabia), through the prayers of his wife to the Blessed Virgin, had a son, whom he called Offerus (Offro, Adokimus, or Reprebus) and dedicated to the gods Machmet and Apollo. Acquiring in time extraordinary size and strength, Offerus resolved to serve only the strongest and the bravest. He bound himself successively to a mighty king and to Satan, but he found both lacking in courage, the former dreading even the name of the devil, and the latter frightened by the sight of a cross at the roadside. For a time his search for a new master was in vain, but at last he found a hermit (Babylas?) who told him to offer his allegiance to Christ, instructed him in the Faith, and baptized him. Christopher, as he was now called, would not promise to do any fasting or praying, but willingly accepted the task of carrying people, for God’s sake, across a raging stream. One day he was carrying a child who continually grew heavier, so that it seemed to him as if he had the whole world on his shoulders. The child, on inquiry, made himself known as the Creator and Redeemer of the world. To prove his statement the child ordered Christopher to fix his staff in the ground. The next morning it had grown into a palm-tree bearing fruit. The miracle converted many. This excited the rage of the king (prefect) of that region (Dagnus of Samos in Lycia?). Christopher was put into prison and, after many cruel torments, beheaded.

The Greek legend may belong to the sixth century; about the middle of the ninth, we find it spread through France. Originally, St. Christopher was only a martyr, and as such is recorded in the old martyrologies. The simple form of the Greek and Latin passio soon gave way to more elaborate legends. We have the Latin edition in prose and verse of 983 by the subdeacon Walter of Speyer, “Thesaurus anecdotorum novissimus” (Augsburg, 1721–23), II, 27–142, and Harster, “Walter von Speyer” (1878). An edition of the eleventh century is found in the Acta SS., and another in the “Golden Legend” of Jacob de Voragine. The idea conveyed in the name, at first understood in the spiritual sense of bearing Christ in the heart, was in the twelfth or thirteenth century taken in the realistic meaning and became the characteristic of the saint. The fact that he was frequently called a great martyr may have given rise to the story of his enormous size. The stream and the weight of the child may have been intended to denote the trials and struggles of a soul taking upon itself the yoke of Christ in this world.

The existence of a martyr St. Christopher cannot be denied, as was sufficiently shown by the Jesuit Nicholas Serarius, in his treatise on litanies, “Litaneutici” (Cologne, 1609), and by Molanus in his history of sacred pictures, “De picturis et imaginibus sacris” (Louvain, 1570). In a small church dedicated to the martyr St. Christopher, the body of St. Remigius of Reims was buried, 532 (Acta SS., 1 Oct., 161). St. Gregory the Great (d. 604) speaks of a monastery of St. Christopher (Epp., x., 33). The Mozarabic Breviary and Missal, ascribed to St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636), contains a special office in his honour. In 1386 a brotherhood was founded under the patronage of St. Christopher in Tyrol and Vorarlberg, to guide travellers over the Arlberg. In 1517, a St. Christopher temperance society existed in Carinthia, Styria, in Saxony, and at Munich. Great veneration was shown to the saint in Venice, along the shores of the Danube, the Rhine, and other rivers where floods or ice-jams caused frequent damage. The oldest picture of the saint, in the monastery on the Mount Sinai dates from the time of Justinian (527–65). Coins with his image were cast at Würzburg, in Würtermberg, and in Bohemia. His statues were placed at the entrances of churches and dwellings, and frequently at bridges; these statues and his pictures often bore the inscription: “Whoever shall behold the image of St. Christopher shall not faint or fall on that day.” The saint, who is one of the fourteen holy helpers, has been chosen as patron by Baden, by Brunswick, and by Mecklenburg, and several other cities, as well as by bookbinders, gardeners, mariners, etc. He is invoked against lightning, storms, epilepsy, pestilence, etc. His feast is kept on 25 July; among the Greeks, on 9 March; and his emblems are the tree, the Christ Child, and a staff. St. Christopher’s Island (commonly called St. Kitts), lies 46 miles west of Antigua in the Lesser Antilles.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Pope Christopher

(Reigned 903–904). Some hold that Christopher, once Cardinal-Priest of the Title of St. Damasus, a Roman and son of Leo, was an antipope. But though his manner of taking possession of the papacy was wholly uncanonical, he appears to have been subsequently recognized as pope. Hence we find his name included in all the more or less contemporary catalogues of the popes (Liber Pontificalis, II, ed. Duchesne; Watterich, Pontificum Romanorum Vitae, I; and Origines de l’église romaine, I, par les membres de la communauté de Solesmes, Paris, 1836). His portrait figures among the other likenesses of the popes in the church of St. Paul Outside the Walls, at Rome, and among the frescoes of tenth-century popes painted in the thirteenth century on the walls of the ancient church of San Pier-in-Grado, outside Pisa. He was, moreover, acknowledged as pope by his successors; for, in confirming the privileges of the Abbey of Corbie in France, St. Leo IX mentioned the preceding grants of Benedict and Christopher (Jaffe, Regesta RR. Pont., I, n. 4212). This privilege is the only one of Christopher’s acts which is extant (ibid., 3532, 2d ed.). He became pope by forcibly dethroning his predecessor, Leo V, and putting him into prison, seemingly about October 903. As Leo appears to have soon died in his prison, Christopher may be regarded as pope after his death. One writer, indeed, Eugenius Vulgarius, who was interested in blackening the character of Sergius III, pretends that he murdered both Leo V and Christopher. But his evidence is unsatisfactory in itself, and is opposed to evidence better substantiated. At this period, however, the darkest ever known in papal Rome, when its barons were making and unmaking popes at their pleasure, and when both Italy and Rome were in such a state of turmoil that men could find no leisure to write history, we have to grope about in the dark and when we have grasped some detail we can scarcely tell whether it is fact or fiction. A Greek eleventh-century document (Mon. Græca ad Photium pertinent., p. 160, ed. Hergenröther, Ratisbon, 1869) says that Christopher was the first pope who, in his profession of faith which he sent according to custom to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, stated that the Holy Ghost proceeded “from the Father and from the Son.” The difficulty in the way of accepting this statement is that there was no Patriarch Sergius at this time. Christopher was driven from the Chair of Peter by his successor, Sergius III (January, 904), and compelled to end his days as a monk (Chronicle of Hermannus Contractus, ad an. 904), though Vulgarius says he was strangled in prison [Dümmler, Auxilius und Vulgarius (Leipzig, 1866), 160, 135].

Jafe, Regesta RR. Pont. (2 ed.), I, 444 sq.; Migne, P. L., CXXXI, 45; Mann, Lives of the Popes, IV; Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, II, 235.

HORACE K. MANN.

St. Chrodegang

(Called also CHRODEGAND, GODEGRAND, GUNDIGRAN, RATGANG, RODIGANG and SIRIGANG).

Bishop of Metz, born at the beginning of the eighth century at Hasbania, in what is now Belgian Limburg, of a noble Frankish family; died at Metz, 6 March, 766. He was educated at the court of Charles Martel, became his private secretary, then chancellor, and in 737 prime minister. On 1 March, 742, he was appointed Bishop of Metz, retaining his civil office at the request of Pepin. In his influential position St. Chrodegang laboured earnestly for the welfare of Church and State, and was ever solicitous to strengthen the bonds of union between the temporal and spiritual rulers. In his diocese he introduced the Roman Liturgy and chant, community life for the clergy of his cathedral, and wrote a special rule for them. He founded (748) the Abbey of Gorze (near Metz), and remained its friend and protector. He also established St. Peter’s Abbey, on the Moselle, and did much for Gengenbach and Lorsch. For the latter he is said to have obtained the relics of St. Nazarius, and for Gorze those of St. Gorgonius. In 753 he was sent by Pepin to Pope Stephen III to assure him of the sympathy of the Frankish rulers against the inroads of Aistulf, King of the Lombards. He accompanied the pope to Ponthieu. After the death of St. Boniface, Pope Stephen conferred the pallium on St. Chrodegang (754–755), thus making him an archbishop, but not elevating the See of Metz. St. Chrodegang was buried in the Abbey of Gorze. He was a man of imposing appearance, of a mild, though firm, character, of great liberality to the poor, and of more than ordinary ability, well versed in Latin and German. The rule containing thirty-four chapters which he gave his clergy (c. 755) was modeled according to the rules of St. Benedict and of the Canons of the Lateran (Mansi, XIV, 313; Hardouin, IV 1181; Migne, P.L., LXXXIX, 1097). Through it he gave a might impulse to the spread of community life among the secular clergy. It was later increased to eighty-six chapters (D’Archey, Spicilegium, I, 656). In 762, during a dangerous illness, he introduced among his priests a confraternity of prayer known as the League of Attigny.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

St. Chromatius

Bishop of Aquileia, died about 406–407. He was probably born at Aquileia, and in any case grew up there. He became a priest of that church and about 387 or 388, after the death of Valerianus, bishop of that important city. He was one of the most celebrated prelates of his time and was in active correspondence with his illustrious contemporaries, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and Rufinus. Himself a scholarly theologian, he urged these three friends to the composition of many learned works. St. Ambrose was encouraged by him to write exegetical works; St. Jerome dedicated to him different translations and commentaries, which he had written at his suggestion (translations of the Books of Paralipomenon, Tobias, the books of Solomon, commentaries on the Prophecy of Habacuc). In the bitter quarrel between St. Jerome and Rufinus concerning Origenism, Chromatius, while rejecting the false doctrines of Origen, attempted to make peace between the disputants. He always maintained ecclesiastical communion with Rufinus and induced him not to answer the last attack of St. Jerome, but to devote himself to new literary works, especially to the translation of the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius. Chromatius opposed the Arian heresy with much zeal and rooted it out in his diocese. He gave loyal support to St. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, when unjustly oppressed, and wrote in his favour to Honorius, the Western emperor, who sent this letter to his brother, Arcadius. This intercession, however, availed nothing. Chromatius was also active as an exegete. There are preserved seventeen treatises by him on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (iii, 15–17; v-vi, 24), besides a fine homily on the Eight Beatitudes (counted as an eighteenth treatise). His feast is celebrated 2 December.

J.P. KIRSCH

Chronicon Paschale

(PASCHAL CHRONICLE).

The name ordinarily given to a valuable Byzantine chronicle of the world written in the seventh century, so designated because, like many other chronicles of the Middle Ages, it follows a system of Christian chronology based on the paschal canon, or cycle. It is also indicated at times under other titles, as: Chronicon Alexandrinum, Antiochenum, Casaubonianum, Constantinopolitanum, or Fasti Siculi. The anonymous author who wrote the chronicle called it, however: Ἐπιτομὴ Χρόνων τῶν ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ πρωτοπλάστου ἀνθρώπου ἕως κ’ ἔτους τῆς βασιλεῖας Ἡρακλείου τοῦ ευσεβεστάτου καὶ μετὰ ὑπατείαν ἔτους ιθ’ καὶ ιη’ ἔτους τῆς βασιλείας Ἡρακλείου νέου Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ αὐτοῦ υἱοῦ ἱνδικτιῶνος γ.’ [Summary (or epitome) of the ages from Adam the first man to the 20th year of the reign of the most august Heraclius, and the 19th consulat (18th regnal) year of his son Constantine, the third indiction.] It is, therefore, one of those numerous universal chronicles which imitate the method of Eusebius. Being a Byzantine chronicle, it shows all the peculiarities of this branch of the literature of the Eastern Empire. The Byzantine chroniclers were devoted especially to universal history, began with the Creation, and carried the narrative down to their own epoch. Ordinarily they ended their histories with the beginning of the imperial reign in which they wrote. These histories were intended to be popular narratives; the authors introduce many trifling anecdotes, stop with pleasure to describe the physical and intellectual qualities of the chief personages, and at times execute careful portraits of them, like those miniatures of old manuscripts in which the hero of the story is elaborately depicted. The writers enjoy describing extraordinary events, such as earthquakes and the appearance of comets. They regarded most events from the point of view of church history, with which the chronological plan of the Bible was made to agree. The idiom used was that of common life, little polished, but finically ornate. Thus these productions were intended for the mass of the people, and above all for the countless monks of the Eastern Empire, eager to learn the ordinary and extraordinary occurrences of the world’s history. Sempronius Asellius himself points out this difference in the public appealed to and in the style of composition which distinguished the chroniclers (Annales) from the historians (Historia) of Byzantium.

The “Chronicon Paschale,” an example of this type of composition, has for its basis a chronological list of events extending from the creation of Adam to the year A. D. 627. At least this is the ground it covers in the principal manuscript, the Codex Vaticanus græcus 1941 of the tenth century; this codex is damaged at the beginning and end and stops at A. D. 627. The chronicle proper is preceded by an introduction which contains some reflections on Christian chronology and on the calculation of the Paschal cycle. The author was a contemporary of the Emperor Heraclius (610–41), and was probably a cleric attached to the suite of the œcumenical Patriarch Sergius. The work was probably written during the last ten years of the reign of Heraclius. It was formerly maintained that it had been originally begun in the time of Constantine the Great, then brought down to 354, and finally revised under Heraclius. This view has been solidly refuted by Gelzer in his work on Sextus Julius Africanus.

The “Chronicon Paschale” is a huge compilation. For the earlier part of his history the author follows the antediluvian chronology of the work of Sextus Julius Africanus. In his genealogies he makes use of the Bible, quoting passages from it, and also employs another, unknown, source. After reaching the history of Abraham he follows the “Chronicle” of Eusebius (always bearing in mind his ecclesiastical purpose) and another authority which probably agreed with the old Byzantine chronicles of Panodorus (395–408) or Annanius (412). He also makes use of the “Chronographia” (Χρονογραφία) of Malalas (537) in its most complete text. When he reaches the history of the Roman Republic he depends for his authorities on the Fasti consulares. Here the author gives in Greek the version of the Fasti which the chronicles of Hydatius gives in Latin. But, as Frick has pointed out, the “Chronicon Paschale” combines what it borrows from the Fasti, or from their source, with extracts from Eusebius and especially from Malalas. For certain chronological annotations the writer may have made use of the Easter tables of the Dioceses of Alexandria and Antioch. In recounting the events of ecclesiastical history the principal sources used by the writer are the “Chronicle” and the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius and the “Chronographia” of Malalas. He also employs the Acts of the martyrs and the Περὶ μέτρων καὶ σταθμῶν (On measures and weights) of Epiphanius of Cyprus (d. 403). From 532 until about the close of the reign of the Emperor Maurice (582–602) the Chronicle gives little information and contains nothing more than the Fasti consulares. On the other hand, from 600 to 627, that is, for the last years of the Emperor Maurice, the reign of Phocas, and the first seventeen years of the reign of Heraclius, the author is a contemporary historian, and his narrative is in every way quite interesting.

The chronology of the writer is based on the figures of the Bible and begins with 21 March, 5507. It is the first attempt at chronology of the so-called Byzantine, or Roman, Era followed by the Greek Church until modern times. For its influence on Greek Christian chronology, also, and because of its wide scope, the “Chronicon Paschale” takes its place beside Eusebius, and the chronicle of the monk Georgius Syncellus which was so important in the Middle Ages; but in respect of form it is far inferior to these works.

Where the chronicle treats of Julius Cæsar a later hand has inserted a list of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors, the latter ending with Constantine Monomachus (1042). In the Bonn edition of the Byzantine historians (Corpus Scriptorum Historiæ Byzantiæ, Bonn, 1828–78, II, 90) this addition is rightly rejected and put in an appendix.

The best edition is that of DINDORF, taken from the Vatican codex, in the second volume of the Corpus Script. Historiæ Byzantiæ (2 vols., Berlin, 1832), and reproduced in P. G., XCII, 1–1158. The most important work on the subject is GELZER, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie (Leipzig, 1885), II, 138–176. Cf. IDELER, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie (Berlin, 1826), II, 350, 459–465; VON GUTSCHMID, Zur Kritik des Diamerismós tês gês in Rheinisches Museum für Philologie (1858), new series, XIII, 377–408; DELAURIER, Recherches sur la chronologie arménienne (Paris, 1859), p. vii, and 167 sqq.; MOMMSEN, Römische Chronologie (2d ed., Berlin, 1859), 113; HOLDER-EGGER, Untersuchungen über einige analistischen Quellen des V. und VI. Jahrhunderts, in Neues Archiv (1877), II, 59–80; MOMMSEN, in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Auc. Antiq. (1891–92), IX, pt. I, 119–247, 272–301; FRICK, Die Fasti Idatiani und das Chronicon paschale, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, (1892), I, 283–292; IDEM, Chronica minora (Leipzig, 1893), I, p. xc sqq.; WACHSMUTH, Einleitung in das Studium der alten Geschichte (Leipzig, 1895), 195 sqq.; KRUMBACHER, Gesch. der byzantinischen Literatur von Justinian bis zum Ende des oströmischen Reiches, 527–1453 (2d ed., Munich, 1897), 337–39. For the editions and the manuscripts cf. KRUMBACHER, op. cit., 339; POTTHAST, Bibliotheca historica medii ævi (2d ed., Berlin, 1896), 282; BARRY, History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1900).

L. VAN DER ESSEN

Biblical Chronology

Chronology, BIBLICAL, deals with the dates of the various events recorded in the Bible. It has to consider how far the Bible contains a chronology at all; to what extent the Sacred Writers aimed at exactness, or were satisfied with round numbers; whether, and to what extent, textual errors and other sources of corruption have crept into the numbers of the Bible; and finally, what relation exists between the chronologies that have been handed down by neighbouring nations and that which exists in the Bible. “There is no Chronology of the Bible,” wrote Silvester de Sacy; and, though this saying is too sweeping, it may be said with truth that for large parts of the Bible there is little to guide us to an exact determination as to when the events related happened. It is not merely that in the matter of numbers the Hebrew text has not always reached us incorrupt (cf. the differences between the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Samaritan Pentateuchs), but the Books of Scripture, moreover, are not a mere history. Some of them, as the Psalms, are in no sense such. And even those that are so, are not written primarily from the point of view of history. Else, e.g., why two parallel histories of the kingdom—Kings and Chronicles? It is because, as Father Cornely says of the Book of Kings (“Introductio,” Vol. II, i, p. 284), it had a higher end than the historical, viz., to show the peoples of Israel and of Juda that it was their wickedness that brought destruction on them, and, by setting before them the proofs of God’s mercy, to lead them back to the observance of the Law. On the other hand, the Book of Chronicles (D. V. Paralipomenon) written after the Exile, by setting forth the splendours of ancient ritual, sought to move them to the worthy celebration of Divine worship (op. cit., p. 324). What complicates the earlier periods of Bible history is the fact that there was no recognized era (such as the Dionysian Era of our own times) to reckon events from, though for the Roman world the founding of Rome in the eighth century B.C. gradually began to be recognized as such, and, in later times, among the Jews, the date of the defeat of Nicanor by Seleucus Nicator, and the establishment of the Seleucid domination in Syria (312 B.C.) came to be looked upon as a fixed era.

In this article the data that exist for the formation of a chronology of the Bible will be briefly discussed under the following heads: (1) Creation of the World; (2) Creation of Man; (3) Creation of Man to the Flood; (4) Flood to the Birth of Abraham; (5) Birth of Abraham to the Exodus; (6) Exodus to the building of Solomon’s Temple; (7) Building of the Temple to Fall of Jerusalem; (8) Destruction of Jerusalem to Jesus Christ; (9) Date of the Nativity; (10) Beginning of the Ministry; (11) Duration of the Ministry; (12) Date of the Crucifixion; (13) The Acts of the Apostles.

(1) Creation of the world.—In an article on Biblical chronology it is hardly necessary in these days to discuss the date of the Creation. At least 200 dates have been suggested, varying from 3483 to 6934 years B.C., all based on the supposition that the Bible enables us to settle the point. But it does nothing of the sort. It was natural that in the early days of the Church, the Fathers, writing with little scientific knowledge, should have had a tendency to explain the days of Genesis, i, as natural days of twenty-four hours. Still, they by no means all did so. Thus the Alexandrian Fathers (St. Clement, Origen, St. Athanasius, and St. Cyril) interpreted the days of Creation ideally, and held that God created all things simultaneously. So did St. Augustine; and St. Thomas Aquinas hesitated between idealism and literalism. The literal interpretation has now been entirely abandoned; and the world is admitted to be of immense antiquity. Professor Dana declares its age to be fifty millions of years; others suggest figures still more startling (cf. Buibert, “In the Beginning”; Molloy, “Geology and Revelation”; Hummelauer, “Genesis”; Hastings, “Dictionary of the Bible”; Mangenot in Vig., “Dict. de la Bible”; Driver, “Genesis.” Perhaps the words of Genesis (i, 2): “The earth was void and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep,” refer to the first phase of the Creation, the astronomical, before the geological period began. On such questions we have no Biblical evidence, and the Catholic is quite free to follow the teaching of science.

(2) Creation of man.—The question which this subject suggests is: Can we confine the time that man has existed on earth within the limits usually assigned, i.e. within about 4000 years of the birth of Christ?—The Church does not interfere with the freedom of scientists to examine into this subject and form the best judgment they can with the aid of science. She evidently does not attach decisive influence to the chronology of the Vulgate, the official version of the Western Church, since in the Martyrology for Christmas Day, the creation of Adam is put down in the year 5199 B.C., which is the reading of the Septuagint. It is, however, certain that we cannot confine the years of man’s sojourn on earth to that usually set down. But, on the other hand, we are by no means driven to accept the extravagant conclusions of some scientists. As Mangenot says (Vig., Dict. de la Bible, II, 720 sq.), speaking of the right of Catholics to follow the teaching of science:—“certains tenants de l’archéologie préhistorique ont abusé de cette liberté et assigné une antiquité très reculeé à l’humanité” (certain champions of prehistoric archæology have abused this liberty and assigned to the human race an extremely remote antiquity). Thus Guibert writes (op. cit., p. 28): “Haeckel names more than 100,000 years; Burmeister supposed Egypt was peopled more than 72,000 years ago; Draper attributes to European man more than 250,000 years; according to M. Joly, certain geologists accord to the human race 100,000 centuries; and G. de Mortillet shows that man’s existence reaches to about 240,000 years.” He adds, however: “These numbers have been built up on such arbitrary and fragile bases, that true science could not tolerate them long.” In fact, M. Guibert is of opinion that with our present knowledge there is nothing compelling us to extend the existence of man beyond 10,000 years. Such questions as the antiquity of civilization, which had reached a high pitch in Babylonia and Egypt 4000 years B. C., the radical differences of language at the same early period, differences of race (cf. the white, black, and yellow races), which do not seem to have been modified within the historic period, and the remains of human workmanship going back to a very remote antiquity—all these things seem to lead to the conclusion that the existence of man on earth goes back far beyond the traditional 4,000 years. Professor Driver says (“Genesis,” p. xxxvi): “Upon the most moderate estimate it cannot be less than 20,000 years.”

(3) Creation to the flood.—The period from the Creation to the Flood is measured by the genealogical table of the ten patriarchs in Genesis, v, and Genesis vii, 6. But the exact meaning of Chapter 5 has not been clearly defined. Critical writers point out that the number ten is a common one amongst ancient peoples in the list of their prehistoric heroes, and that they attribute fabulous lengths to the lives of these men; thus, the Chaldeans reckon for their first ten heroes, who lived in the period from the Creation to the Flood, a space of 432,000 years. This seems to point to some common nucleus of truth or primitive tradition which became distorted and exaggerated in the course of ages. Various explanations have been given of chapter v to explain the short time it seems to allow between the Creation and the Flood. One is that there are lacunæ in it, and, though it is not easy to see how that can be, still it has to be remembered that they exist in St. Matthew (i, 8) in precisely similar circumstances. That there are difficulties about the genealogical table in chapter v, we know; for, as may be seen from the accompanying table, the total number of years in the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint differs, in the Hebrew, it being 1656, in the Samaritan, 1307, and in the Septuagint, 2242.

Names of the Patriarchs

Age at birth of son:–

Hebrew

Samaritan

Sept.

Adam

130

130

230

Seth

105

105

205

Enos

90

90

190

Cainan

70

70

170

Mahaliel

65

65

165

Jared

162

62

162

Enoch

65

65

165

Methusalem

187

67

167

Lamech

183

53

188

Noah

500

500

500

From Noah to Flood

100

100

100

Creation to Flood

1656

1307

2242

From an inspection of the above table it is obvious that the diversity is due to systematic change—whether to increase the total length of the period or to reduce the age at which the patriarchs had children or for some other reason, we know not. One thing can be confidently asserted, that the length of time between the creation of Adam and the Flood cannot be restricted within the period traditionally set down. It may also be said that “for this period the chronology of the Bible is quite uncertain” (Vigouroux, Dict., 273), and that the freedom of the Catholic in investigating the chronology of this period is quite unrestricted.

(4) The flood to the birth of Abraham.—The years between the Flood and Abraham are computed in the Book of Genesis by the genealogy of chapter xi (10–26).

Names of the Patriarchs

Age at birth of son:–

Hebrew

Samaritan

Sept.

Sem (father of Arphaxad)

102

102

102

Arphaxad (father of Cainan)

35

135

135

Cainan (father of Sale)

130

Sale (father of Heber)

30

130

130

Heber (father of Phaleg)

34

134

134

Phaleg (father of Reu)

30

130

130

Reu (father of Sarug)

32

131

132

Sarug (father of Nachor)

30

130

130

Nachor (father of Thare)

29

79

79

Thare (father of Abraham)

70

70

70

Years from birth of Sem

to birth of Abraham

392

1042

1172

Deduct years of Sem’s

age at time of flood

100

100

100

292

912

1072

Add for age of Abraham

at time of his call

75

75

75

Hence, number of years from

Flood to Call of Abraham

367

1017

1147

Again, however, the numbers in the table above differ in the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint, being respectively 367, 1017, and 1147; and it will be observed that, as a rule, the Greek and Samaritan agree against the Hebrew. Indeed they are identical, except that the name of Cainan, whose age at the birth of Sale is given as 130 years, is to be found in the Greek only. Whether or not the original table contained the name Cainan, we cannot tell. Some hold that it was introduced into the Septuagint to increase the length of time between the Flood and Abraham, or again to make the number of the patriarchs between the Flood and Abraham equal to that of those between Adam and the Flood. At any rate this genealogy gives rise to many questions, thus: Is the name Cainan a later insertion, or has it dropped out from the Hebrew? It is given by St. Luke (iii, 36). Again, are there any lacunæ? For, according to science, the length of this period was much greater than appears from the genealogical table. There is no difficulty in admitting such lacunæ, for we know that St. Matthew (i, 8) says:—Jorum begot Ozias,” though between the two intervened Ochozias, Joab, and Amasias. For, as Professor Sayce says (Early History of the Hebrews, 144), “son in Semitic idiom was frequently equivalent to descendant.” We have also instances of similar omissions in I Chron., vi, 1, and in I Esdr., vii, 1–5. With critical scholars the Flood was a very partial affair. It is not, however, the business of the chronologist to enter into a discussion of that matter. In any case, whether we follow the traditional or critical view, the numbers obtained from the genealogy of the Patriarchs in chapter xi must be greatly augmented, in order to allow time for such a development of civilization, language, and race type as had been reached by the time of Abraham.

(5) Birth of Abraham to the Exodus.—At the birth of Isaac, Abraham is said to have been 100 years old (Genesis, xxi, 5); Isaac was sixty at the birth of Jacob (Genesis, xxv, 26); Jacob arrived in Egypt, at the age of 130 (xlvii, 9). These figures, added, give 290; add to this 430 (the number of years spent by Israel in Egypt) and we get 720 years, which would be the length of time between the birth of Abraham and the Exodus. A difficulty arises, since the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint read in Exodus, xii, 40: “The abode of the Children of Israel that they made in Egypt and the land of Canaan was 430 years.” If this be correct, then only 215 years are left for the sojourn in Egypt, 215 years being required for the sojourn in Canaan, as we have to subtract 75, the age of Abraham when he came to Canaan, from 290 (see above). Still, not all the manuscripts of the Septuagint adopt this reading; and, in any case, we are only face to face with another such diversity between the Greek and Hebrew as is to be found in the genealogies of the Patriarchs.

Let us now bring these facts into relation with the Christian Era. For (III Kings, vi, 1) the fourth year of King Solomon is said to have fallen in the 480th year after the Exodus; and Ussher dates the reign of King Solomon from 1014–975 B.C. But as the Temple was begun in the fourth year of that king, or in 1010, the Exodus took place in the year 1490 B.C. How do these results square with the teaching of science? Professor Sayce, from the connexion of Abraham with Amraphel in the episode related in Genesis, xiv, says that “we can approximately fix the period when the family of Terah migrated from Ur of the Chaldees. It was about 2300 B.C., if the chronology of the native Babylonian historians is correct” (Early History of the Hebrews, 12). Then again he tells us that “Chanaan could not have been invaded by the Israelites until after the fall of the eighteenth dynasty. When Khu-n-aten died it was still an Egyptian province, garrisoned by Egyptian troops” (Higher Criticism and the Monuments, 241). This we learn from the Tel-el-amarna tablets. So we are taken to a period after the death of Ramses II in 1281 B.C. for the date of the Exodus, which most likely took place in the reign of Meneptah, son and successor of Ramses, earlier than the year 1200 B.C. This is not the traditional date of the Exodus, but as Father Hummelauer (Genesis, p. 29) says, it is the conclusion of most men in these days. Nor is there anything to prevent the student of the Old Testament from endeavouring to throw all the light he can upon the vexed question of Biblical chronology, considering how involved it often is in obscurity.

(6) The Exodus to the building of Solomon’s Temple.—The Third Book of Kings (vi, 1) states that Solomon began to build the Temple in the 480th year (the Septuagint gives 440 years) after the Exodus. For the Catholic, that passage seems to settle the question. But a difficulty arises from the fact that there is almost a consensus of scientific opinion that the Exodus from Egypt took place in the reign of Meneptah, or, possibly, that of his successor, Seti II. Moreover we are driven to a date later than the years 1400 for the Exodus, since up to that date, Assyriologists and Egyptologists agree, Palestine was an Egyptian province, with an Egyptian governor (Driver, “Genesis,” p. xxix). Ramses II, the builder of Pithom and Raamses, was the Pharaoh of the oppression, and as he reigned from 1348–1281 (Sayce) we have to descend to one of his successors to find the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Hence we are driven to his immediate successor, Meneptah, at earliest, and to about the year 1277 (Early History of the Hebrews, 150) for the date of the Exodus. On the other hand, the date of the building of the Temple cannot be put later than the middle of the tenth century B.C. But if we take the time between these two dates, we are left with only about 327 years, as against 480 required by 1 Kings 6:1. Wellhausen does not treat the chronology seriously (Prolegomena, 229), but, in company with many other critics, pronounces it to be merely artificial. They say that the number 480 is made up of twelve times 40; forty being taken as a generation; and so the number 40 predominates amongst chronological numbers in this part of Scripture. Thus the time in the desert was 40 years; Othoniel, Debora, Geneon, each ruled for 40 years. Aod ruled for twice 40, or 80 years; the land was under the Philistines 40 years, and David reigned for the same period. But the following facts must be taken into consideration. Professor Sayce points out that “40 years in Hebrew idiom merely signified an indeterminate and unknown period of time, and the Moabite Stone shows that the same idiom existed also in the Moabite language” (Early History of the Hebrews, 146). Chronology in those days was in its infancy; and that the dates were only roughly given is obvious from the recurrence of round numbers. If we were to write down all the numbers that occur during this period, as Father Hummelauer does in his commentary on Judges (p. 12), we should find that the number 40 recurs by no means as often as we are led to suppose. The difficulty remains that 1 Kings 6:1, gives for the length of this period 480 years; science seems to say “not more than 327.” But we have to notice the uncertainties that surround the chronology of this period. We have also to point out that Wellhausen and Stade regard 6:1, as a late insertion (Burney, “Hebrew Text of Kings,” 58). If this were the case it would meet the difficulty; and perhaps it is rendered more likely by the fact that in the Greek this verse is inserted before 5:31–32, and also that it reads 440 instead of 480. We conclude, therefore, that the date of the Exodus was about 1277, the monarchy was founded by Saul, 1020; David mounted the throne, 1002; Solomon in 962, and the Temple was begun, 958 B.C.

(7) Building of the Temple to its destruction.—“On le voit,” says Mangenot (in Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s.v. “Chronologie,” 732), “la chronologie de l’époque des rois d’Israël et de Juda n’est pas aussi ferme et aussi assurée qu’on le croit communément. Elle aurrait besoin d’être raccordée avec la chronologie assyrienne” (It is plain that the chronology of the period of the kings of Israel and Juda is not so settled and ascertained as is commonly supposed. It must be made to accord with the Assyrian chronology). There are certainly textual errors among the numbers. Comparing IV Kings, viii, with II Chronicles, xxii, 2, we find that in the former, Ocozias is said to have been twenty-two years old when he began to reign, in the latter, forty-two. Nor can a critical writer say that the chronicler was ill-informed; one of the principles of Wellhausen and all his school is that Kings was the principal source of Chronicles. Is not this an obvious case of text-corruption? How else, too, can we account for the fact that the Book of Kings gives the sum of the reigns of the kings who reigned from Roboam to the death of Ochozias as 95, whereas it gives the sum of the years from Jeroboam to the death of Joram as ninety-eight, though Jeroboam came to the throne the same year as Roboam, and Ochozias died the same day as Joram? For if the writer of Kings made use of all the clever artificial devices, with which he is credited by critical writers, it is incredible that such an obvious error should have been committed by him. And so it may be said of his giving as the sum of the years from the accession of Jehu of Israel to the fall of Samaria as 143 years, whilst he gives the interval between the accession of Athalia of Juda (who began her reign in the same year as Jehu) and the same event as 165 years.

A development in the method of recording dates seems to have taken place among the Jews during this period. Events were dated in Babylonia by the reign of the kings; in Assyria, regular officials were appointed every year, called limmi, by whose name the year was known, just as the consuls in Rome and the eponymous archons in Athens. Lists of the limmi for the years 909–666 B.C. have been discovered (Sayce, “Early History of the Hebrews,” 147). This chronological system affected the Jews; records for chronicles were thus kept among them, and are frequently referred to in the Book of Kings. So, too, we read, among the lists of royal officials, of a recorder or chronicler. It is true an objection is sometimes raised (cr. Hastings, Dict., I, 400), that the references are not to the Chronicles themselves, but to works based in some way upon them. This, however, seems a purely gratuitous assertion. That the references are to the Book of Chronicles, and not simply to the chronicles, would seem to imply no more than that the chronicles of the different kings were in some way united so as to form a single volume, of which it is quite possible that copies were made. Nor is it extravagant to suppose that great efforts would have been made to save the royal records at the destruction of Samaria, especially as there was a royal official, called the chronicler, who would have had care of them.

If we come now to the actual figures themselves, there is not a serious divergency between them and the results of profane history, whilst in many cases they correspond exactly. What we should naturally expect is, that the farther back we go, the more general would be the knowledge of chronology shown, and so we find it is in regard to the history of the kings. That for the most part fractions of a year are neglected, makes it clear that the writer dealt in round numbers. And yet we find that from the death of Solomon to the accession of Athalia and Jehu, who began to reign in the same year, there is only a divergency of three years in 90 between the Kingdoms of Juda and Israel; whilst from that date to the destruction of Samaria the difference is only 21 years on the other side. So that the total difference, in a period of about 255 years, is one of only 19 years. But then it cannot be admitted that this is a pure error. Many writers say that the deficiency in the length of the years of the kings of Israel is to be supplied by the introduction of two interregnums in the list of the kings of Israel, perhaps one after Jeroboam II, the other after Phacee; or again, that two of the kings of Juda reigned contemporaneously with their fathers. It cannot be pretended that the true explanation has been found. The practical point is that the student is at liberty to throw what light he can on the problem from external sources; and that the chronology of the Book of Kings, as it now stands, is quite adequate for the purposes for which it was supplied. One thing is certain, that the equation of Cheyne’s “Encyclopædia Biblica” (I, 770) is a mere caricature; “This table shows that at the end of the 258th year after the division of the kingdom, there had elapsed 258 synchronistic years, 241 7/12 years of reign in Israel, and 260 such years in Juda; and we have thus the singular equation 258 = 241 7/12 = 260.” No doubt this is very clever; whether it is equally instructive, from the point of view of serious history, is another matter. Let one illustration show: in III Kings, xv, 1, we are told that Abiam reigned over Juda in the eighteenth year of Jeroboam, King of Israel. In verse 9 we are told that, after his death, recorded in verse 8, Asa his son became king, in the twentieth year of Jeroboam. In the second verse we read of Abiam that “he reigned three years in Jerusalem.” Now what does Cheyne’s “Encyclopædia” do in the “singular equation”? Computing the years form the eighteenth to the twentieth year of Jeroboam, according to the modern fashion, it puts them down under one heading of the equation as two years, then under another heading it gives the same period, computed, as is known perfectly well, according to the old Jewish fashion, as three years; and having finally drawn up in this way three different lists of figures, it works out “a singular equation.”—No wonder; yet the writer, apart from the passage in question, must have known that from the fourth to the sixth year of Ezechias was counted as three years by the Jews (IV Kings, xviii, 9, 10), and that from Friday to Sunday was likewise reckoned as three days (Luke, xxiv, 7).

In places the chronology of the kings is far from clear. What light is thrown upon it by the chronology of the surrounding nations? Egypt may be left out, because little help can be got from it. Sayce says of its chronology that “it is more disputable even than that of Israel.” (“Hebrews,” 453.) But bringing to our help the fragment of the Tyrian annals quoted by Josephus, the foundation of the Temple may be fixed, according to Sayce, for about the year 969, which would be very near the date given above. Having fixed the year when the Temple was begun, we know that Solomon reigned from 973 to 936, and David from 1013 to 973. So, to speak roughly, the revolt of the Ten Tribes must have taken place somewhere about the year 936.

Although St. Jerome says, in writing to the priest Vitalis, that to dwell on such matters is rather for a man of leisure than for a studious person, still we must confess it would be satisfactory to know how the general discrepancy arose between the Biblical dates and the corresponding Assyrian dates—from the accession of Roboam to the taking of Samaria. We have fixed roughly the date of the revolt of the Ten Tribes for the year 936 B.C. But the traditional date is 975, and if we follow the dates for the kings down to the taking of Samaria, it will be found that the usual interpretation of the Biblical chronology makes those dates about 40 years earlier than is possible according to the Assyrian chronological canon. Thus King Achab of Israel reigned from 918 to 896; but in the Assyrian inscriptions he is said to have been present at the Battle of Karkar in 854. Ozias was King of Juda from 810 to 758, but, according to the inscriptions, he was at war with Tiglath-pileser about the year 741. Again, Manahen’s reign over Israel extended from 770 to 759, but on the monuments he is inscribed as a tributary of Tiglath-pileser in 738. These examples seem to show that according to the traditional interpretation, the dates of the kings are about 40 years too high.

On the other hand, it has to be remembered that there is no fixed Bible chronology, though there are synchronisms and lengths of reigns given in the Books of Kings. There are, moreover, textual errors, uncertainty in regard to pre-dating and post-dating, unreliability as to the accuracy and interpretation of names on the Assyrian tablets. So that, as we should expect, “few tables of dates furnished by Old Testament chronologists exactly agree” (Hstings, “Bibl. Dict.,” I, 403). Another point has to be remembered. Elaborate artificial explanations of the chronology of the Bible from the building of the Temple to the fall of Jerusalem are given. These explanations embrace not only the period from Solomon to Achaz (741 B.C.), but down from that time to the fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.). But it is certain that the chronology of the Books of Kings from Achaz to the destruction of Jerusalem, a period of 155 years, is not artificial (cf. Hastings, 401); it is in agreement with the Assyrian chronology. And does not this fact throw considerable doubt upon the whole theory of artificiality?

Finally, the Moabite Stone, referred to above, states that Israel dwelt in Medeba during the days of Omri and half the days of his son—altogether 40 years. Of this Professor Sayce says: “The real length of time was not more than 15 years” (Early History of the Hebrews, 146). Now, if this be so, may we not at least argue that either the Moabite Stone is accurate or not? If it is accurate, then the number 40 was used in a most loose fashion as a round number in those days; if inaccurate, then it is clear that even the contemporary stone records of the age of the kings cannot be always trusted. How does this affect the Babylonian tablets and their evidence?

We conclude then that the Temple was built about 969. The secession of the Ten Tribes took place about 937. The fall of Samaria in 722 or 721, and the destruction of Jerusalem 536 B.C.

(8) From the destruction of Jerusalem to the birth of Jesus Christ.—The two great authorities for Jewish chronology after the destruction of Jerusalem are the Books of Esdras and the First Book of Machabees. There are other books too, but their evidence is so uncertain, and in certain cases so much disputed, that we do not propose to make use of them. Such are, for instance, the prophecy of Daniel and the prophecies of Aggeus and Zacharias. In the First Book of Machabees and the Books of Esdras we have generally admitted first-rate authorities. Thus Cheyne’s “Encyclopædia” (III, 2865) writes of Machabees I, “The book has proved itself worthy to hold the highest rank as trustworthy chronology,” and again, “The accuracy of the dates given being in the main beyond all question.” The book embraces the years 175–135 B.C., and the chief events are dated according to the Seleucid Era, 312 B.C. Of the Books of Esdras, Batten says, in Hastings, “The historical value of these books is very great.” Difficulties exist in regard to the names of Darius and Artaxerxes. Is the Darius referred to Darius I or Darius II?—Without much doubt, Darius I.—Van Hoonacker is inclined to identify the Artaxerxes of chapter vi with the second of that name, and so would place the return of Esdras to Jerusalem under Artaxerxes II, in 404, contrary to the view of most commentators. Nehemias, he says, returned under Artaxerxes I in 444. But it is commonly held that Esdras returned in 457 and Nehemias in 444 B.C. The first band of captives returned to Jerusalem under Zorobabel in the first year of Cyrus, i.e. 536 B.C. They laid the foundation of the Temple, which was finished in 516.

We know nothing of the chronology of the Jews after this till the time of the Machabees. But the First Book of Machabees gives information about the period 174–135; it opens with a description of the position of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes. Then comes an account of the rising under Mathathias, in 167, and his death. Next followed his son Judas who continued the struggle till he died in 161. Jonathan, Judas’s brother, was the next leader till independence under Simon. Simon was made ruler in 141, was murdered in 135, and was succeeded by his son John Hyrcanus in the same year.

(9) Date of the nativity of Jesus Christ.—At first sight it seems a simple thing to fix the date of the birth of Jesus Christ. Was it not in the beginning of the first year of the Christian Era? It was a monk of the sixth century, named Dionysius Exiguus (the Little) who fixed our present Christian Era, laying down that Jesus Christ was born on the 25th of December, A. U. C. 753, and commencing the new era from the following year, 754. That date, as we shall see, cannot be correct and, instead of being an improvement on, is further from the truth than the dates assigned by the early Fathers, St. Irenæus and Tertullian, who fixed the date of the Nativity in the 41st year of Augustus, that is to say, 3 years B. C., or A. U. C. 751. We must note first that St. Matthew says (ii, 1) that Our Saviour was born “in the days of King Herod.” Josephus tells us (Antiquities, XVII, viii, 1), that Herod died “having reigned 34 years de facto since the death of Antigonus, and 37 years de jure since the Roman decree declaring him king.” We know also that he began to reign in the consulship of Domitius Calvinus and Asinius Pollio, 40 B.C., in the 184th Olympiad (Ant., xiv, 5); and that he became king de facto in the consulship of Marcus Agrippa and Canidius Ballus, in the 185th Olympiad (Ant., XIV, xvi, 4). These calculations do not make it sure whether Herod died in the year 3, 4, or 5 B. C., but it is most probable that it was in the year 4 B.C. That date is corroborated by an eclipse of the moon which occurred (Ant., XVII, vi, 4) on the very night that Herod burnt Matthias alive, a few days before his own death; for there was an eclipse of the moon from 12 March to 13 March, 4 B.C. All this points to the fact that Herod died in the year 4 B. C., and that so Our Saviour must have been born before that date. In May, October, and December of the year 7 B. C., a conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn took place. Kepler, the astronomer, suggested that perhaps this phenomenon was connected with the star seen by the Magi (Matthew, ii, 2). But this idea is altogether too uncertain to be entertained seriously, or to form a basis for any reliable chronology. Nor can we come to any more definite conclusion from what St. Matthew says of the sojourn of the child Jesus in Egypt (ii, 14, 19, 22), where he remained till the death of Herod. Herod ordered a massacre of the children up to two years old according to the information about the date of the Nativity which he had received from the Magi. In itself there is nothing unlikely in that, for we know that Herod was a most cruel and whimsical man, having, for instance, summoned to his bedside all the principal men of the Jewish nation with a view to having them shot with darts at the moment of his death, so that there might be universal lamentation when he left this life. We do not, however, know what information Herod possessed as to the date of the Nativity, whether the Magi gave him accurate information, or whether they possessed it themselves; what the incident would seem to show was that Our Saviour was born some time before Herod’s death, probably two years or more. So that, if Herod died in the year 4 B.C., we should be taken to 6 or 7 B.C. as the year of the Nativity.

But a difficulty is raised as to the date of the Nativity in connexion with the Roman census mentioned in the second chapter of St. Luke. The Nativity took place after a decree had gone forth from Cæsar Augustus that the whole Roman Empire should be enrolled. The words “This enrolling was first made by Cyrinus, the governor of Syria” (verse 2), or, more correctly, “This first census was taken whilst Quirinius was governor of Syria,” are the source of the difficulty. For we know that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria, and that a census was made in A.D. 7, about eleven years after Herod’s death, and it is not denied that Cyrinus was Quirinius. Schürer, in “The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ” (Div. I, Vol. II, 105–143), endeavours to prove that the statement is an inaccuracy on the part of St. Luke, and, with more or less emphasis, practically all the critical school takes up the same attitude. But prima facie we are not disposed to accept the contention that St. Luke was in ignorance on such a very elementary subject. C. H. Turner, in Hastings’ “Dictionary of the Bible,” thinks he may have been misinformed, since “his acquaintance with Palestine was perhaps limited to the two years’ imprisonment of St. Paul in Cæsarea.” Such an idea seems most unlikely. St. Luke had made careful inquiry about the facts he relates in his Gospel; he had “diligently attained to all things from the beginning,” and that too from those who “were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” (i, 2, 3). For such a man it seems incredible that he should not have taken the trouble to inquire, not as to some petty Jewish custom, but as to such a public and important event as a Roman census, and to have made himself acquainted with the name of the Roman governor at the time.

At the same time it is not clear what the explanation of the note about Quirinius is. Some suggest that πρώτη has, as it undoubtedly has sometimes in classical Greek, the force of πρότερα, so that the sense of the passage would be: “This census was held before that which took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” But there is another explanation. It is true the writer of the article on Chronology in Cheyne’s “Encyclopædia” says, with characteristic positiveness, that “any census in Judea before the well-known one in the year A.D. 7 is impossible.” But on the other hand, Turner, in Hastings’ “Dictionary,” thinks that there is no inherent improbability in the hypothesis of a census in Judea somewhere within the years 8–5 B.C. There is very little doubt, from an inscription found at Tivoli in 1764, that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria; once, as is well known, from a. D. 6–11, but also once at an earlier period. Not at the time of Herod’s death, for Quinctilius Varus was then governor; and before him came Sentius Saturninus from 9–6 B.C., before him Titius. But there is no reason why Quirinius should not be placed after Varus. In that case Saturninus would have been the one to begin the census; it would have been suspended for a time, on account of the death of Herod, and then continued and completed under Quirinius, so that his name would have been associated with it. Perhaps this may explain why Tertullian speaks of a census made by Sentius Saturninus under Augustus (Adv. Marcionem, iv, 19); but it is hardly likely, if he had found another and, apparently, a wrong name in St. Luke, that he would not have taken any notice, or given any explanation of it.

From the evidence it seems that the date of the Nativity given by Dionysius Exiguus is not the right one, for it is after Herod’s death. Tertullian and Irenæus are nearer to the truth with the years 2 or 3 B.C.; but it must be placed still further back, and probably the year 7 B.C. will not be found to be much astray.

(10) Date of the beginning of the ministry.—There is reason to suppose that the early Fathers (such as St. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian) and later writers (as Dionysius Exiguus), in trying to fix a date for the Nativity, argued back from the synchronisms connected with the beginning of Our Saviour’s public life, joined with St. Luke’s statement, “And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years” (iii, 23;—αὑτὸς ἦν Ίησοῦς ὰρχόμενος ὢσεὶ ἑτῶν τριάκοντα); for they took that passage to mean that Jesus Christ had not completed thirty years, but was in the beginning of his thirtieth year (cf. Epiphanius, “Hær.,” ii, 16). But ’ὰρχόμενος does not bear such a meaning here; it is not immediately connected with the phrase ὢσεί ἑτῶν τριάκοντα, which means “about thirty years,” and might without any straining of its sense be used for a year or two more or less than thirty. So that, to determine the date of Our Lord’s baptism from this passage, we should have to add on about thirty years to the date of the Nativity (about 7 years B.C.), which would leave us with the indefinite result that it might have taken place anywhere between A.D. 23 and 27. But in the Gospel of St. John (ii, 20), shortly before the Pasch, and after the miracle of Cana, Jesus cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple; and the Jews in upbraiding Him used the words, τεσσαράκοτα καὶ ἓξ ἕτεσιν ᾠκοδομήθη ὀ ναὸς οὖτος (Six and forty years has this temple been a-building), meaning, that at that time the Jews had been forty-six years at work building the Temple. In that passage is contained a clear mark of time. For though Josephus tells us in one place (Bell. Jud., I, xxi, 1), that the Temple was begun in the fifteenth year of Herod, and in another (Ant., XV, ii, 1) in the eighteenth, still in all probability, as Turner says in Hastings (p. 405), the former is a correction of the latter date, and the fact is that the Temple was begun in the eighteenth year of Herod’s de facto reign (which began in 37 B.C.), or in other words, that it was begun in 19 B.C. We should thus arrive at the year A.D. 27, for the date of the Pasch following Our Saviour’s baptism. Again, St. Luke (iii, 1), assigning a date to the beginning of St. John the Baptist’s mission, says it was “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar.” The fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar would be A.D. 28, and would make it necessary for us, if correct, to alter the date fixed for Our Saviour’s baptism. But Professor Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 387) thinks the fifteenth year of Tiberius is reckoned from A.D. 12, when he was associated with Augustus in the government of the empire. That would take us to A.D. 6 for the beginning of St. John’s ministry, and would allow enough time for the baptism of Our Lord in A.D. 27.

(11) Duration of the ministry.—Various periods have been defended for the length of Christ’s ministry. St. Irenæus (Hær., II, xxii, 3–6) goes so far as to suggest a period of fifteen years. On the other hand, many of the early Fathers, as well as many writers of our own time, confine the public life of Jesus to one year. Thus von Soden, in Cheyne’s “Encyclopædia,” says, “The evidence here points on the whole to one year.” The difference of opinion is based, for the most part, upon the different accounts given by St. John and the Synoptists of Christ’s public life. Whilst the Fourth Gospel indicates three or even more paschs, it is not so easy to deduce even two from the Synoptist narrative. It would be possible to interpret St. John’s Gospel so as to fit in with the theory of there being only one year’s ministry, provided we could omit, with Westcott and Hort, the words τὸ πάσχα from the passage (vi, 4), ἧν δὲ ἑγγὺς τὸ πάσχα ἢ ἐορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων (Now the pasch, the festival day of the Jews, was near at hand). But even the great names of these two textual critics cannot outweigh the fact that all the manuscripts and versions, and nearly all the Fathers, contain τὸ πάσχα.

Accordingly, St. John mentions at least three paschs in the course of the ministry. One (ii, 13) shortly after the baptism, another of which we have just been speaking (vi, 4), and the third, at the time of the Passion (xi, 55). So that the simplest explanation of the length of the ministry would be to say it extended over two years. But how does that conclusion fit in with the narrative of the Synoptists? The difficulty is that St. Mark, the most complete witness of what is called the “synoptic tradition,” does not take much account of time. As Papias said, “he wrote accurately, if not orderly” (ἀκριβῶς ἕγραφεν, οὑ μέντοι τάξει.—Eus., III, xl). Still, even if St. Mark does not make mention of paschs, it does not follow that there were none. Thus, we know that there was a pasch shortly after our Saviour’s baptism (John 2:13), and yet St. Mark does not mention it. He does, however, mention one in xiv, 1, the Pasch of the Passion. And if he does not mention another pasch, he makes remarks from which we can infer the existence of one. Thus in ii, 23, he speaks of the plucking of the ears of corn and evidently refers to the early summer, whilst vi, 39, with its allusion to the green grass, seems to take us to the spring-time. From the events related between these two points it seems clear that a year intervened, and so, as in St. John, we have to find room for another pasch. Our conclusion is that the most natural explanation of St. Mark would lead us to a duration of two years for the ministry.

(12) Date of the crucifixion.—It is clear that the Crucifixion took place under Pontius Pilate, and hence Our Saviour must have died between A.D. 26 and 36 (Ant., XVIII, iv, 2). It is also clearly laid down in the Gospels that the Crucifixion took place on a Friday. For we are told that the Resurrection took place on Sunday, and also that it occurred three days after the Crucifixion, but according to the Greek and Jewish mode of reckoning, the third day is what we should call the second day. A difficulty is, however, raised as to whether Our Saviour died on the 14th or 15th of Nisan. Some are of opinion that, whilst St. John held the Crucifixion to have been on the 14th (xix, 31), the Synoptists were in favour of the 15th (Mark, xv, 42). But it does not seem possible that either St. John or St. Matthew, who were so intimately connected with the facts related, should have been mistaken in this matter, or that, in the same way, either the Synoptists or the Fourth Gospel erred. Nor are we without explanations to reconcile the apparent differences between the Gospels. St. John, we know, favours the 14th of Nisan. But St. Mark, too, tells us how Simon of Cyrene helped Christ to carry the Cross (xv, 21), and how Joseph of Arimathea buried the Body—facts which seem to tell against the Festival Day (xv, 43 sqq.). Besides, the weight of Christian antiquity is in favour of the 14th of Nisan, as are such competent modern scholars as Professor Sanday and the late Bishop Westcott.

If we could make up our mind fully that the Crucifixion took place on the 14th of Nisan, it would help us to determine in what year it happened. For though we cannot always be certain whether a Friday fell on the 14th or 15th of Nisan, still we can be fairly satisfied that the years 29, 30, and 33 fulfilled the necessary conditions, though von Soden, in Cheyne’s “Encyclopædia,” is of opinion that the year 29 does not do so. It has already been seen that the Crucifixion must have happened somewhere between 26 and 36. It may also be taken that it did not occur after 33, because in the next year Caiphas was deposed from the high-priesthood by Vitellius. We are left, then, with the years 29, 30, and 33 to choose between for the death of Jesus Christ. We cannot be certain in our choice. But naturally we should expect the date of such an important event to be handed down by tradition; and we find a very ancient tradition, going back to A.D. 150, for the date A.D. 29, in the consulship of the Gemini. In favour of it are Clement of Alexandria, Origen, the Apocryphal Acts of Pilate, Hippolytus, and the Pseudo-Tertullian.

(13) The apostles.—Frederick Blass (Acta Apostolorum, p. 21) tells us of the chronology of the Acts of the Apostles that we cannot be certain of our dates within a less period than about ten years. That is a strong statement, but nothing will bring home to us better how ambiguous the chronology is than the large number of different systems that have been adopted by interpreters of this book.

Taking the year 29 as that of the Crucifixion, three other dates are at once fixed. For the Resurrection took place three days after the Crucifixion; the Ascension 40 days after that, and ten days later the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles. Other dates are not so simple. In Acts, xii, 1–25 is given an account of Herod’s persecution, the martyrdom of St. James, St. Peter’s miraculous liberation from prison, on the death of Herod, and the return of Sts. Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem, whither they had travelled to convey the alms of the Church in Antioch (xi, 30). All these events seem closely connected with the death of Herod (xii, 23); and from what Josephus says, and the evidence of the coinage, we cannot be far wrong in placing that event in the year 44. From the date of the recall of Felix, governor of Judea, and the arrival of his successor, Festus, we ought to be able to decide the year of the end of St. Paul’s career, as sketched in the Acts. For shortly after the arrival of Festus, St. Paul was sent a prisoner to Rome. Harnack places this event in 57, Lightfoot in 61, Ramsay in 60. Perhaps we may say 62, for he was sent to Rome by Festus, shortly after his arrival in Judea. But this was not long before the death of Pallas in A.D. 62 (Tac., Znn., XIV, lxv). In Rome St. Paul remained two years, hence till 64 (Acts, xxviii, 30). The Acts end here, but tradition says that St. Paul was released at the end of two years’ captivity in Rome, and paid his long-contemplated visit to Spain (St. Clement, Muratorian Fragment, etc.). He also visited Southern Gaul and, as we learn from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, among other places, Crete, Macedonia, and Miletus. This expedition would have taken about three years.

St. Paul’s recorded missionary journeys, which began when he and Barnabas were sent forth by the Holy Ghost to preach (xiii, 4), ended with his arrest in Jerusalem in the year 59 (xxii) before his imprisonment at Cæsarea and Rome. The third missionary journey (xxiii, 23-xxi, 15) must have occupied quite four years, for he spent over two years at Ephesus (xix, 10), besides passing through Macedonia and Greece, going slowly through Macedonia and spending three months in Corinth. This journey would have begun, as far as we can see, in the summer of 55. The second journey (xv, 36-xviii, 22), a work mostly of revisiting churches (xv, 36), ended not very long before the third missionary expedition began, probably in 54, and began about three years previously, in 51. The first 29 verses of chapter xv are taken up with the Council of Jerusalem. There is much difference of opinion as to the date to be assigned to it. Thus Harnack places it in 47, Lightfoot in 51, Ramsay in 50. It would seem most likely to have occurred in 51, the year of the beginning of the second missionary journey, for it was concluded only “some days” (xv, 36) before that expedition was begun. Having fixed the date of the Council of Jerusalem, we are in a position to settle the date of St. Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion. For (Galatians, ii, 1) it was 14 years before the council, or in the year 37. From the same Epistle (i, 18) we know that St. Paul’s conversion took place three years previously, in 34. We may place the martyrdom of St. Stephen a year earlier (i.e. in 33) not more; for Saul was still “breathing out threatenings and slaughter” (Acts, ix, 1) at the date of his conversion. The date of the first missionary journey (xiii, 1; xiv, 26) still remains to be dealt with. Herod Agrippa died in 44, as St. Paul’s first journey did not begin till after that event. Moreover, it was finished before the Council of Jerusalem (51). There is no indication in the Acts sufficiently definite to settle the question. It can, however, be safely stated that the journey must have been finished some time previous to the council; because between the two events Paul and Barnabas “abode no small time with the disciples” (xiv, 27).

It may be well to explain here that the uncertainties which surround its chronology in no way detract from the trustworthiness of the Bible as an historical document, or from its authority as an inspired record. The further back we go, the more general and in outline are our ideas of history; and so, in Genesis, the whole history of the world to the Flood is contained in a few brief chapters. As it is with the narrative of events, so it is with chronology. Coming farther down in Jewish history, it is obvious that in regard to numbers the text is often at fault, equally obvious that the inspired writer often only wishes to place before us round numbers. Of the latest period the evidence we possess for fixing the chronology of the Bible is often inconclusive. It may be safely affirmed that the time has not yet come to fix an authoritative chronology of the Bible. A good deal of obscurity and uncertainty remains to be removed. But when the time does come, it may be confidently asserted that the ultimate result will contain nothing derogatory to the authority of the Bible.

HUMMELAUER, Genesis (Paris, 1895); Judges (1888); Samuel (1886); CORNELY, Introductio (Paris, 1886); VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1899); DRIVER, Genesis (London, 1904); BURNEY, Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford, 1903); SAYCE, Early History of the Hebrews (London, 1897); SAYCE, Higher Criticism and the Monuments (London, 1894); GIGOT, Introduction (New York, 1900); WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena (tr. Edinburgh, 1885); HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible (Edinburgh, 1898); CHEYNE, Encyclopædia Biblica (London, 1899); VAN HOONACKER, Various works about the return from exile (Paris and Ghent); LENORMANT, The Beginnings of History (Eng. tr., London, 1893); RAMSAY, St. Paul the Traveller (London, 1895); SCHÜRER, Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (tr. Edinburgh, 1906); BLASS, Acta Apostolorum (Göttingen, 1895). See also works referred to in article.

J. A. HOWLETT. .

General Chronology

CHRISTIAN ERA

PRE-CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY

REGNAL YEARS

INDICTIONS

BEGINNING OF THE YEAR

THE GREGORIAN REFORM

JULIAN PERIOD

OTHER ERAS

DAYS OF THE MONTH AND WEEK

THE CENTURY

Chronology (Greek chronos time, logos, discourse), the science of time-measurement, has two branches:

Mathematical Chronology, which determines the units to be employed in measuring time, and

Historical Chronology, of which we here treat, and which fixes in the general course of time the position of any particular occurrence, or, as it is generally termed, its date.

It is thus for history what latitude and longitude are for geography. The first requisite in any system of historical chronology is an era, that is to say a fixed point of time, the distance from which shall indicate the position of all others. The term era, the derivation of which is not certainly known, appears first to have been employed in France and Spain to signify a number or rule. Since the need of a definite system of chronology was first recognized by mankind, many and various eras have been employed at different periods and by different nations. For practical purposes it is most important to understand those which affect Christian history.

Foremost among these is that which is now adopted by all civilized peoples and known as the Christian, Vulgar, or Common Era, in the twentieth century of which we are now living. This was introduced about the year 527 by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk resident at Rome, who fixed its starting point in the year 753 from the foundation of Rome, in which year, according to his calculation, the birth of Christ occurred. Making this the year 1 of his era, he counted the years which followed in regular course from it, calling them years “of the Lord,” and we now designate such a date A.D. (i.e. Anno Domini). The year preceding A.D. 1 is called Ante Christum (A.C.) or Before Christ (B.C.). It is to be noted that there is no year O intervening, as some have imagined, between B.C. and A.D. It is supposed by many that the calculation of Dionysius was incorrect, and that the birth of Christ really occurred three years earlier than he placed it, or in the year of Rome 760 which he styles 3 B.C. This, however, is immaterial for the purposes of chronology, the first year of the Christian Era being that fixed, rightly or wrongly, by Dionysius. His system was adopted but gradually, first in Italy, then in other parts of Christendom. England would appear to have been among the earliest regions to have made use of it, under the influence of the Roman missioners, as it is found in Saxon charters of the seventh century. In Gaul it made its appearance only in the eighth, and its use did not become general in Europe until after A.D. 1000; accordingly in French the term millésime was frequently used to signify a date A.D. In Spain, although not unknown as early as the seventh century, the use of the Christian Era, as will presently be shown, did not become general until after the middle of the fourteenth century.

Of the chronological systems previously in use it will be sufficient to briefly describe a few.

The Greeks dated events by Olympiads, or periods of four years intervening between successive celebrations of the Olympic games, and this mode of computation, having been largely adopted at Rome, continued to be frequently used in the first centuries of Christianity. The Olympiads started from 776 B.C., and consequently A.D. 1 was the fourth year of the 194th Olympiad.

The Romans frequently reckoned from the traditional foundation of their city (ab urbe conditâ—A.U.C.), which date, as has been said, coincided with 753 B.C. They likewise often designated years by the names of the consuls then in office (e.g. console Planco). Sometimes the Romans dated by post-consular years (i.e. so long after the consulate of a well-known man). Naturally the regnal years of Roman emperors presently supplanted those of consuls, whose power in later times was merely nominal, and from the emperors this method of describing dates was imitated by popes, kings, and other rulers, with or without the addition of the year A.D. It became in fact universal in the Middle Ages, and it subsists in documents, both ecclesiastical and civil, down to our own day.

The pontifical years of the popes are historically important (see chronological list in article POPE). Care must be taken, of course, in the case of such dates, to observe from what point of time each reign is reckoned. In an elective monarchy like the papacy there is necessarily an interval between successive reigns, which is occasionally considerable. Moreover, the reckoning is sometimes from the election of a pontiff, sometimes from his coronation.

In determining dates by the regnal years of other sovereigns there are of course various points to which attention must be paid. Confining ourselves to English history, the earlier kings after the Norman Conquest dated their reigns only from their coronation, or some other public exhibition of sovereignty, so that there was sometimes an interval of days or even weeks between the close of one reign and the commencement of the next. Only from the accession of Richard II (22 June, 1377) was the reign of a monarch held to begin with the death or deposition of his predecessor. Even subsequently to this it was reckoned sometimes from the day itself upon which the preceding monarch ceased to reign, sometimes from the day following. Not till the first year of Queen Elizabeth was it enacted that the former should be the rule. In certain particular instances the matter was still further complicated. King John dated his reign from his coronation, 27 May, 1199, but this being the Feast of the Ascension, his years were counted from one occurrence of this festival to the next, and were accordingly of varying length. Edward I dated from noon, 20 November, 1272, and in consequence this day in each year of his reign was partly in one regnal year and partly in another. In the civil wars of York and Lancaster, Henry VI and Edward IV equally ignored the period during which his rival assumed or recovered power, and counted their years continuously onwards from the time when they mounted the throne. Charles II, though he began to reign de facto only at the Restoration (29 May, 1660), reckoned his years, de jure, from his father’s execution, 30 January, 1648–9, ignoring the Commonwealth and Protectorate. Queen Mary Tudor reckoned her reign from the death of Edward VI, 6 July, 1553, but the interval until 19 July of the same year being occupied by the abortive reign of Lady Jane Grey, public documents in her name commence only with the latter date. William III and Mary II began to reign 13 Feb., 1688–9, as “William and Mary.” Mary died 28 December, 1694, when the style was altered to “William” alone; but no change was made in the computation of regnal years. Within the year, it was long usual to specify dates by reference to some well-known feast in the ecclesiastical calendar, as, for instance, “the Friday before Pentecost” or “the day of St. John the Baptist.”

In papal and other documents, another epoch is often added, namely, the Indiction. This had originally been a period of fifteen years, at the close of which the financial accounts of the Roman Empire were balanced; but for purposes of chronology the indictions are conventional periods of fifteen years, the first of which began in the reign of Constantine the Great. Unlike the Olympiads, the indictions themselves were not numbered, but only the place of a year in the indiction in which it fell. Thus indictione quartâ; signifies not “in the fourth indiction,” but “in the fourth year of its indiction,” whatever this was. It was obvious that such an element of computation could serve only to verify more precisely the date of a year already approximately known. Moreover, the indictions were calculated on different systems, which have to be understood and distinguished:

The Greek, Constantinian, or Constantinopolitan Indictions were reckoned from 1 September, 312. These were chiefly used in the East.

The Imperial, Cæsarean, or Western Indictions commenced with 24 September, 312. These were usually adopted in Western Christendom. They appear to have been of Anglo-Saxon origin, and to have owed their popularity to the authority of the Venerable Bede. The day he chose for the starting point was due to an erroneous astronomical calculation which made the autumnal equinox fall on 24 September. Further confusion was caused by the mistake of some chroniclers who wrongly began the indictional cycle a year late—24 September, 313.

The Roman, Papal, or Pontifical Indictions, introduced in the ninth century, made the series start from the first day of the civil year, which was in some cases 25 December, in others 1 January. This system was also common in Western Christendom, but in spite of its appellation it was by no means exclusively used in papal documents.

The date at which the year commenced varied at different periods and in different countries. When Julius Caesar reformed the calendar (45 B.C.) he fixed 1 January as New Year’s Day, a character which it seems never quite to have lost, even among those who for civil and legal purposes chose another starting point. The most common of such starting points were 25 March (Feast of the Annunciation, “Style of the Incarnation”) and 25 December (Christmas Day, “Style of the Nativity”). In England before the Norman Conquest (1066) the year began either on 25 March or 25 December; from 1087 to 1155 on 1 January; and from 1155 till the reform of the calendar in 1752 on 25 March, so that 24 March was the last day of one year, and 25 March the first day of the next. But though the legal year was thus reckoned, it is clear that 1 January was commonly spoken of as New Year’s Day. In Scotland, from 1 January, 1600, the beginning of the year was reckoned from that day. In France the year was variously reckoned: from Christmas Day, from Easter eve, or from 25 March. Of all starting points a movable feast like Easter is obviously the worst. From 1564 the year was reckoned in France from 1 January to 31 December. In Germany the reckoning was anciently from Christmas, but in 1544 and onwards, from 1 January to 31 December. In Rome and a great part of Italy, it was from 25 December, until Pope Gregory XIII reformed the calendar (1582) and fixed 1 January as the first day of the year. The years, however, according to which papal Bulls are dated still commence with Christmas Day. Spain, with Portugal and Southern France, observed an era of its own long after the rest of Christendom had adopted that of Dionysius. This era of Spain or of the Cæsars, commenced with 1 January, 38 B.C., and remained in force in the Kingdom of Castile and Leon till A.D. 1383, when a royal edict commanded the substitution of the Christian Era. In Portugal the change was not made till 1422. No satisfactory explanation has been found of the date from which this era started.

The introduction of the Gregorian Calendar entailed various discrepancies between the dates which different people assigned to the same events. The Julian system of time-measurements, introduced by Cæsar, was not sufficiently accurate, as it made the year slightly too long, with the result that by the sixteenth century it had fallen ten days in arrear, so that, for instance, the day of the vernal equinox, which should have been called 21 March, was called 11 March. To remedy this, besides substituting an improved system which should prevent the error from operating in future, it was necessary to omit ten full days in order to bring things back to the proper point. Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced the reformed system, or “New Style,” ordained that ten days in October, 1582, should not be counted, the fourth of that month being immediately followed by the fifteenth. He moreover determined that the year should begin with 1 January, and in order to prevent the Julian error from causing retardation in the future as in the past, he ruled that three leap years should be omitted in every four centuries, viz. those of the centennial years the first two figures of which are not exact multiples of four, as 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, etc. The New Style (N.S.) was speedily adopted by Catholic States, but for a long time the Protestant States retained the Old (O.S.), from which there followed important differences in marking dates according as one or other style was followed. In the first place there was the original difference of ten days between them, increased to eleven by the O.S. 29 February in A.D. 1700, to twelve days in 1800, and to thirteen in 1900. Moreover, the period from 1 January to 24 March inclusive, which was the commencement of the year according to N.S., according to O.S. was the conclusion of the year previous. From want of attention to this, important events have sometimes been misquoted by a year. In illustration may be considered the death of Queen Elizabeth. This occurred in what was then styled in England 24 March 1602, being the last day of that year. In France and wherever the N.S. prevailed, this day was described as 3 April, 1603. To avoid all possible ambiguity such dates are frequently expressed in fractional form as 24 March/3 April, 1602/3. In our modern histories years are always given according to N.S., but dates are otherwise left as they were originally recorded. Thus Queen Elizabeth is said to have died 24 March, 1603. Not till 1700 was the Gregorian reform accepted by the Protestant States of Germany and the Low Countries, and not till 1752 by Great Britain, there being by that time a difference of eleven days between O.S. and N.S. Sweden, after some strange vacillation, followed suit in 1753. O.S. was still followed by Russia and other Eastern Orthodox countries well into the twentieth century, and their dates consequently were thirteen days behind those of the rest of Christendom.

The Christian Era has this disadvantage for chronological purposes, that dates have to be reckoned backwards or forwards according as they are B.C. or A.D., whereas in an ideally perfect system all events would be reckoned in one sequence. The difficulty was to find a starting point whence to reckon, for the beginnings of history in which this should naturally be placed are those of which chronologically we know least. At one period it was attempted to date from the Creation (A.M. or Anno Mundi), that event being placed by Christian chronologists, such as Archbishop Usher, in 4004 B.C., and by the Jews in 3761 B.C. But any attempt thus to determine the age of the world has been long since abandoned. In the year 1583, however—that following the Gregorian reform—Joseph Justus Scaliger introduced a basis of calculation which to a large extent served the purpose required, and, according to Sir John Herschel, first introduced light and order into chronology. This was the Julian Period—one of 7980 Julian years, i.e. years of which every fourth one contains 366 days. The same number of Gregorian years would contain 60 days less. For historians these commence with the midnight preceding 1 January, 4713 B.C., for astronomers with the following noon. The period 7980 was obtained by multiplying together 28, 19, and 15, being respectively the number of years in the Solar Cycles the Lunar Cycle, and the Roman Indiction, and the year 4713 B.C. was that for which the number of each of these subordinate cycles equals 1. The astronomical day is reckoned from noon to noon instead of from midnight to midnight. Scaliger calculated his period for the meridian of Alexandria to which Ptolemy had referred his calculation.

Various eras employed by historians and chroniclers may be briefly mentioned, with the dates from which they were computed.

The Chinese Era dates probably from 2700 B.C., and time is computed by cycles of sixty lunar years, each shorter by eleven days than ordinary solar years.

Era of Abraham, from 1 October, 2016 B.C.

Era of the Olympiads, 13 July, 776 B.C., and continued to A.D. 396 (Olympiad 293).

Era of the Foundation of Rome, 21 April, 753 B.C.

Era of Nabonassar, 26 February, 747, the basis of all calculations of Ptolemy.

Era of Alexander, 12 November, 324 B.C.

Greek Era of Seleucus, 1 September, 312 B.C.

Era of Tyre, 19 October, 125 B.C.

Cæsarian Era of Antioch, 9 August, 48 B.C., instituted to commemorate the battle of Pharsalia.

Julian Era, 1 January, 45 B. C., instituted on the Julian reformation of the calendar.

Era of Spain or of the Cæsars, 1 January, 38 B.C.

Era of Augustus, 2 September, 31 B.C., instituted to commemorate the Battle of Actium.

Egyptian Year, 29 August, 26 B.C., instituted on the reformation of the Egyptian calendar by Augustus.

Era of Martyrs or of Diocletian, 29 August, A.D. 284, employed by Eusebius and early ecclesiastical writers.

Era of the Armenians, 9 July A.D. 552, commemorates the consummation of the Armenian schism by their condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon.

Era of the Hegira, 16 July, A.D. 622, dates from the entrance of Mohammed into Medina after his flight from Mecca; its years are lunar, of 354 days each, except in intercalary years, of which there are eleven in each cycle of thirty. In these there are 355 days.

Persian Era of Yezdegird III, 16 June, A.D. 632.

At the French Revolution it was determined to introduce an entirely new system of chronology, dating from that event and having no affinity with any previously adopted. In the first form this was the Era of Liberty, commencing 1 January, 1789. This was soon replaced by the Republican Era, at first appointed to commence 1 January, 1792, and afterwards 22 September, 1792. This was the date of the proclamation of the Republic, which coincided with the autumnal equinox, calculated on the meridian of Paris. The year was divided into twelve months of thirty days each, and the days into decades, weeks being abolished. The months had names given to them according to their seasonal character.

The autumnal months (22 Sept. onwards) were Vendémiaire (Vintage), Brumaire (Foggy), Frimaire (Sleety).

Winter Months: Nivose (Snowy), Pluviose (Rainy), Ventose (Blowy).

Spring Months: Germinal (Budding), Floréal (Flowery), Prairial (Meadowy).

Summer Months: Messidor (Harvesting), Thermidor (Torrid), Fructidor (Fruitful).

As these months contained only 360 days, five jours complémentaires were added at the end of Fructidor, officially called Primidi, Duodi, Tridi, Quartidi, Quintidi, but commonly known as Sans-culottides. Olympic or leap years occurred every fourth year of the Republic, and had a sixth intermediary day called Sextidi. The period thus terminated was called Franciade. This calendar was enforced in France till 1 January, 1806, when it was abolished by Napoleon, and the use of the Gregorian calendar resumed.

Various methods have been devised for ascertaining upon what day of the week any given date falls. The best known is that of , which has this disadvantage, that a table is usually required to find out what is the Dominical Letter for the year in question. Complication is likewise caused by the necessity of passing from one letter to another in leap years, on reaching the intercalary day in February. The following method is free from these inconveniences, and can be worked without any reference to tables:

The days of the week are numbered according to their natural order, viz. Sunday=1, Monday=2, Tuesday=3, Wednesday=4, Thursday=5, Friday=6, Saturday=7. (At the time from which the Christian Era starts there were of course no weeks, such a measure of time not being known among the Greeks and Romans. Counting backwards, however, according to our present system, we can divide all time into weeks, and it is to be noted that in the Christian period the order of days of the week has never been interrupted. Thus, when Gregory XIII reformed the Calendar, in 1582, Thursday, 4 October, was followed by Friday, 15 October. So in England, in 1752, Wednesday, 2 September, was followed by Thursday, 14 September. What we style 14 August, 1907, the Russians style 1 August, but both call it Wednesday.) For our present purpose the year commences with March; January and February being reckoned as the 11th and 12th months of the preceding year; thus 29 February, when it occurs, is the last day of the year and causes no further disturbance.

As a matter of fact, it is found by computation that 1 March of the year known as A.D. 1 was a Tuesday. Assigning to this year the figure 1 as its year number, to March the figure 1 as its month number, and adding these to 1, the day number of 1 March, we get 3, indicating Tuesday the third day of the weeks. From this first datum all the rest follows. The succeeding days of March increase their figures each by 1, on account of the increased day number. When 7 is passed it is only the figures which remain, after division by that number, which are to be considered; thus 11 may be treated as 4 (7+4) and 30 as 2 (28+2). In general, any exact multiple of 7 (14, 21, 28) may be added or subtracted when convenient without affecting the result. Instead of adding any number (e.g. 1 or 4) we may subtract its difference from 7 or a multiple of 7 (e.g. 6 or 3). The remainder 0 in a division is equivalent to 7, and thus in calculating for the day of the week it signifies Saturday.

As the days of the leading month, so those of the months preceding it follow naturally. As March contains 31 days (i.e. 28+3), April necessarily begins with a day 3 places later in the weekly sequence, and its month number instead of 1 is 4. So of other months, according to the number of days in that which preceded. The following are the month numbers throughout the year which never change:—March 1; April 4; May 6; June 2; July 4; August 0; September 3; October 5; November 1; December 3; January 6; February 2. A.D. 1, being a common year of 365 days (or 52 weeks+1 day), ends with the same day of the week—Tuesday—with which it commenced. Consequently the next year, A.D. 2, commences a day later, with Wednesday for 1 March, and as its year number is increased to 2, we get 2+1+1=4. So in A.D. 3, the year number becomes 3, and 1 March is Thursday. But on account of 29 February preceding 1 March, A.D. 4, this day falls 366 days (or 52 weeks+2 days) after 1 March, A.D. 3, or on Saturday, and its year number must be increased to 5; 5+1+1=7. Thus, to find the number belonging to any year within its own century, we must find how many days beyond an exact number of weeks there have been since that century commenced. As every common year contains one day more than fifty-two weeks, and every leap year two days more, by adding at any period the number of leap years which there have been in the century to the total number of years in the same, we obtain the number of days required. To obtain the number of leap years, we divide the last two figures of the date (i.e. those in the tens and units place) by four. The quotient (neglecting any remainder) shows the number of leap years; which, added to the same two figures, gives the number of days over and above the sets of fifty-two weeks which the years contain. Thus, for example, the year ’39 of any century (939, 1539, 1839, 1939) will have 6 for its year number; for in such year 48 extra days will have accumulated since the corresponding day of the centurial year (00), viz. 1 day for each of the 30 common years, and 18 days for the 9 leap years.

One more element of calculation remains to be considered—the Century. We begin with the Julian system, or Old Style (O.S.)—according to which all centuries contain 75 common years of 365 days, and 25 leap years of 366, and accordingly 125 days in all, over and above 5200 weeks. But 125 days=17 weeks+6 days. Therefore a Julian century ends with the day of the week two days previous to that with which if began, and the succeeding century will begin with the day of the week, one day earlier than its predecessor. Thus, A.D. 1 March, 1300, being Tuesday, in 1400 it would be Monday, in 1500 Sunday, in 1600 Saturday. Having obtained the centurial number for any century, we add to it the year numbers of the years which follow to the close of that century. Centurial numbers O.S. are obtained by subtracting the centurial figure or figures (viz. those preceding 00) from the multiple of 7 next above, the remainder being the number required. Thus for A.D. 1100 the centurial number is 3 (14–11), for 1500, 6 (21–15), for 1900, 2 (21–19).

Under the N.S. three centuries in every four contain 76 common years and 24 leap years, and thus have only 124 days over 5200 weeks, or 17 weeks and 5 days, and end with the day of the week three earlier than they began. The following century, beginning two days earlier than that which it follows, has its centurial number less by 2. Thus 1 March, A.D. 1700, was Monday, and the centurial number 0 (or 7). 1 March, 1800, was Saturday, and the centurial number 5. Every fourth centurial year N.S., being a leap year (1600, 2000, 2400, etc.), has 366 days; and the century to which it belongs, like those of the O.S., diminishes its centurial number only by 1 from the preceding. N.S. having been introduced in the sixteenth century, it is only for dates 15—and upwards that N.S. centurial numbers are required. They are as follows: for 1500=3; 1600=2; 1700=7; 1800=5; 1900=3; 2000=2. It will be seen that the same figures constantly recur. Leap year centuries (with the first two figures exactly divisible by 4) having the centurial number 2, and the three centuries following having 7 (or 0), 5, and 3 respectively, after which 2 comes round again. The centurial number N.S. can be obtained from that of O.S. if the difference of days between O.S. and N.S. be allowed for. This is done by subtracting the said difference from the O.S. centurial number, increased by as many times 7 as the subtraction requires. As we have seen, for the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the difference was 10 days; for the eighteenth, 11; for the nineteenth, 12; for the twentieth and twenty-first, 13. Thus:

a.d. 1500 etc. C.N.

(O.S.)=6(N.S.)

=3(6+7–10).

a.d. 1600

do. =5 do.

=2(5+7–10).

a.d. 1700

do. =4 do.

=0(7) (4+7–11).

a.d. 1800

do. =3 do.

=5(3+14–12).

a.d. 1900

do. =2 do.

=3(2+14–13).

a.d. 2000

do. =1 do.

=2(1+14–13).

Rule to find day of week for any date:—Take the sum of the centurial number+year number+month number+day number; divide this by 7; the remainder gives day of week, O.S. or N.S., according to century number used.

Examples.—(1) King John was crowned 27 May, 1199. What day?

Century (O.S.)

Year

Month

Day

3+

4+

6 or

6(27=21+6)

+27

==40 =7x5+5.

Therefore the day was Thursday.

(2) Waterloo was fought 18 June, 1815. What day?

Century (N.S.)

Year

Month

Day

0+

18 or

4(18=14+4)

+2

+18

=43=7x6+1.

Therefore the day was Sunday, as readers of “Vanity Fair” will recollect.

(3) Columbus discovered the New World 12 October, 1492. What day?

Century (O.S.)

Year

Month

Day

0+

3+

5+

12

=20/7; remainder 6.

Therefore the day was Friday.

(4) If St. Patrick died 17 March, 463, required the day of the week.

Century (O.S.)

Year

Month

Day

3+

1+

1+

17

=22/7; remainder 1.

Therefore the day was Sunday.

(5) Mary Queen of Scots was executed 8 February, 1587 (158 6/7), which was a Wednesday. Was this O.S.or N.S.?

Century (O.S.)

Year 1586

Month

Day

6+

2+

2+

8

=18=Wednesday.

It was O.S.

According to N.S. it would be:–

Century (N.S.)

Year 1586

Month

Day

3+

2+

2+

8

=15=Sunday.

This is an illustration of February being reckoned in the preceding year.

GIRY, Manuel de Diplomatique (Paris, 1894); MAS-LATRIE, Trésor de chronologie (Paris, 1889), Introduction; GROTEFEND, Taschenbuch der Zeitrechnung (Hanover and Leipzig, 1905); GROTEFEND, Zeitrechnung des d. Mittelalters und der Neuzeit (3 vols., Leipzig, 1891–8). Other valuable works of reference are the Benedictine Art de vérifier les dates (Paris, 1818–42); BOND, Handy Book for Verifying Dates (1875); IOELER, Handbuch der Chronologie (Berlin, 1825–6); HAMPSON, Medii Ævi Kalendarium (London, 1841); KRUSCH, Studien zur christlich-mittelalterlichen Chronologie (Leipzig, 1881); SACHSE, Das Aufkommen der Datierungen nach dem Festkalender in Urkunden, etc. (Erlangen, 1904); NILLES, Calendarium Utriusque Ecclesiæ (Innsbruck, 1896); MARZI, La Questione della Riforma del Calendario nel quinto concilio Lateranensi (Florence, 1896); MACDONALD, Chronologies and Calendars (London, 1897); GOLDSCHNEIDER, Ueber die Einfuhrung der neuen Kalender in Danemark und Schweden (Berlin, 1898); LEOOUBLE, La Connaissance des Années det des Jours (Soissons, 1887), a convenient little handbook; ARBUTHNOT, The Mysteries of Chronology (London, 1900).

JOHN GERARD.

Sts. Chrysanthus and Daria

Roman martyrs, buried on the Via Salaria Nova, and whose tombs, according to the testimony of the itinerary guides to the tombs of the Roman martyrs, were publicly venerated (De Rossi, “Roma Sotterranea,” I, 176). A church erected over the tomb was situated near that of St. Saturninus, which was built over the catacomb of Thraso (coemeterium Thrasonis ad S. Saturnium). Their tomb was in fact in a disused sandpit (arenaria) near this catacomb. The two martyrs were revered in Rome in the fourth century, as the appearance of their names in the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” proves. The existing Acts of these Martyrs are without historical value; they did not originate until the fifth century, and are compiled in two texts—a longer one, written originally in Greek, but afterwards translated into Latin, and a shorter one in Latin. The historical notices of Chrysanthus and Daria in the so-called historical martyrologies of the West, as in the Greek synaxaria, go back to the legend which makes Chrysanthus the son of the noble Polemius of Alexandria. He came to Rome with his father and was converted by the presbyter Carpophorus. Everything was done to make him apostatize. Daria, a beautiful and very intelligent Vestal, entered into relations with him, but she herself was won over to the Christian Faith by Chrysanthus, and both concluded a virginal matrimonial union. Many Romans and Roman ladies were converted by these, among them the Tribune Claudius, his wife Hilaria and two sons Maurus and Jason, all of whom, with the exception of the mother, suffered martyrdom. Chrysanthus and Daria were themselves condemned to death, led to a sandpit in the Via Salaria, and there stoned to death.

This legend is evidently connected with a number of Roman martyrs, whose tombs were venerated in the catacombs of the Via Salaria, near those of Chrysanthus and Daria. The story, apart from the assured fact of their martyrdom and the veneration of their tombs, has, perhaps, some historical value, in assigning the date to the reign of the Emperor Numerianus (283–84). As this ruler was never in Rome, some historians believe (for instance, Allard; see below) that the name is Valerianus, and transfer the martyrdom to the persecution under this emperor. But perhaps the name of Numerianus ought to be adhered to, and the origin of this indication is to be found in the legend of an Oriental martyr having the same name. There is another martyrdom closely connected with the tomb of the two saints, which is related at the end of the Acts of these martyrs. After the death of the Chrysantus and Daria, when many of the faithful of Rome were assembled at their tomb to celebrate the anniversary of their death, they were surprised by the persecutors, who filled in with stones and earth the subterranean crypt where the Christians were assembled, so that all perished. Later, when the tomb of Sts. Chrysanthus and Daria was looked for and found, the bones of these martyrs, and even the liturgical silver vessels, which they used for the celebration of the Eucharist, were also discovered. Everything was left as it was found, and a wall was erected so that no one could enter the place. Only through a window-opening in the wall could be seen the tomb of Sts. Chrysanthus and Daria, as well as the bones of the Christians killed in the tomb. This tomb, like so many others, was embellished by Pope Damasus, who had poems in praise of the martyrs engraved on marble and placed there. Gregory of Tours describes this sanctuary in an interesting chapter of his “De gloria martyrum,” I, xxxviii (P. L., LXXI, 739). During the invasions of the Goths the sanctuary was desecrated, but later it was restored, as a metrical inscription composed at that time and falsely attributed to Pope Damasus asserts. In the ninth century the remains of Sts. Chrysanthus and Daria were brought to Prum and were thence transferred to Munstereifel in Rhenish Prussia, where they are still greatly venerated. The feast of these saints stands in the Roman Martyrology on the 25th of October, on which day, also, it appears in some martyrologies dating from the seventh century. In the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” the martyrs were mentioned on 12 August and 29 November; according to some manuscripts, on other days also. The Greeks celebrate their feast on 19 March.

J.P. KIRSCH

St. Chrysogonus

Martyr, suffered at Aquileia, probably during the persecution of Diocletian, was buried there, and publicly venerated by the faithful of that region. His name is found in the so-called “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” on two different days, 31 May and 24 November, with the topographical note, “in Aquileia” (“Martyrol. Hier.,” ed. De Rossi; Duchesne in “Acta SS.,” Nov. II). The Weissenburg manuscript of the “Mart. Hieron.” alone mentions the primitive the topographical indication on the latter date; the Echternach manuscript says, “Romae natale Crisogoni,” while under 23 November Chrysogonus appear again among the Roman martyrs. Very early indeed the veneration of this martyr of Aquileia was transferred to Rome, where a titular church, in Trastevere, bears his name to this day. This church (Titulus Chrysogoni) is first mentioned in the signatures of the Roman Synod of 499 (Duchesne, “Notes sur la topographie de Rome au moyen age” in “Mélanges d’archéol. et d’histoire,” VII, 227), but it probably dates from the fourth century (De Rossi, “Inscript. christ.,” II, 152, N. 27, “Bulletino di archeol. crist.,” 1887, 168). It is possible that the founder of the church was a certain Chrysogonus, and that, on account of the similarity of name, the church was soon devoted to the veneration of the martyr of Aquileia, it is also possible that from the beginning, for some unknown reason, it was consecrated to St. Chrysogonus and takes its name from him. In a similar way the veneration of St. Anastasia of Sirmium was translanted to Rome (see ANASTASIA, SAINT, MARTYR) about the sixth century arose a legend of the martyr that made him a Roman and brought him into relation with St. Anastasia, evidently to explain the veneration of Chrysogonus in the Roman church that bears his name. According to this legend, Chrysogonus, at first a functionary of the vicarius Urbis, was the Christian teacher of Anastasia, the daughter of the noble Roman Praetextatus. Being thrown into prison during the persecution of Diocletian, he comforted by his letters the severely afflicted Anastasia. By order of Diocletian, Chrysogonus was brought before the emperor at Aquileia, condemned to death, and beheaded. His corpse, thrown into the sea, was washed ashore and buried by the aged priest, Zoilus. In the legend the death of the saint is placed on the 23rd of November. In the actual Roman martyrology his feast is celebrated on 24 November; by the Greeks on 16 April.

J.P. KIRSCH

Chrysopolis

A titular see of Roman Arabia, not to be confounded with Chrysopolis (to-day Scutari), opposite Constantinople, which latter place was never a see. Our Chrysopolis was suffragan to Bostra in Arabia. It does not figure in Hierocles nor in Georgius Cyprius; perhaps it had a native name which has not been identified. Its name is, however, found in the “Notitiae episcopatuum” of Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch in the sixth century. (See Echos d’Orient, X, May, 1907.) One Greek bishop is known, John, present at Chalcedon in 451 (Lequien, II, 867). Seven Latin titulars are known from 1297 to 1648 (Lequien, III, 1307; Eubel, I, 193 and 194, note 1; II, 143).

S. VAILHÉ

Chur

(Anciently Curia Rhætorum, in Ital. Coira, Fr. Coïre, in the local Romance language Cuera), Diocese of (Curiensis)

Comprises at present the Swiss Cantons of Graubünden (Grisons), Glarus, Zürich, Unterwalden, and Uri, as well as the little Principality of Lichtenstein. The city of Chur, the residence of the bishop and capital of the Canton of Graubünden, is very ancient, having once been a Roman fortified camp. Its present population is about 10,000, of which number one-third are Catholics.

The first mention of a Bishop of Chur (St. Asimo) is at the Synod of Milan, as early as 451 (Mansi, IV, 141). The Rt. Rev. John Fidelis Battaglia, consecrated 1 March, 1889, is the ninety-sixth Bishop of Chur. The see was at first suffragan to that of Milan, but after the treaty of Verdun (843) it became suffragan to Mainz. In consequence of political changes it became, in 1803, immediately subject to the Holy See. According to local traditions, the first Bishop of Chur was St. Lucius, a reputed King of Britain, who is said to have died a martyr at Chur about the year 176, and whose relics are preserved in the cathedral. St. Lucius is venerated as the principal patron of the diocese. (See G. Mayer, “St. Luzi bei Chur,” Lindau, 1876.) The country had to pass through very severe struggles for the true faith. Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths, and the Lombards after him, attempted to introduce Arianism in the sixth and seventh centuries. During the dispute between Barbarossa and Pope Alexander III, Bishop Egino of Chur sided with the emperor and was rewarded with the dignity of Prince of the Empire (1170). In later times the bishops were also temporal lords of the city, and several of them were better warriors than pastors. The struggles of Switzerland for liberty in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and, later, the secret preaching of Zwingli and Calvin, did great harm to the diocese, especially as the Catholic clergy neglected the instruction of the people. The Reformation was publicly proclaimed at Chur in 1524, and the two Catholic churches of St. Martin and St. Regula were given over to the Protestants, who retain possession of them to this day. The bishop fled, and his administrator, Abbot Theodore Schlegel, was publicly beheaded (1 January, 1529). Bishop Thomas Planta, a friend of St. Charles Borromeo, tried, but without success, to suppress Protestantism. He died, probably poisoned, 5 May, 1565. (See Camenisch, “Carlo Borromeo und die Gegenreform im Veltlin,” 1901.) Twenty years later St. Charles sent the Capuchins into the endangered region, but Bishop Peter II (de Rascher) refused to admit them. His successor, Bishop John V (Flugi d’Aspermont, 1601–27), a saintly and courageous man, endeavoured to restore the Catholic religion, but was compelled to flee three times (1607, 1612, and 1617), and for several years a bloody war was waged between the Catholics and the Protestants. Finally, the newly erected Congregation of Propaganda commissioned the Capuchins to save the Catholic faith among the people (1621). The first Capuchin superior of the mission was St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen, who, on his way from Sewis to Grüsch, a little north of Chur, was slain (24 April, 1622) by peasants whom the sermons of the Protestant preachers had wrought up to a fury. Some relics of this martyr are preserved in the cathedral at Chur. A second mission, that of Misocco and Calanca, in the southern part of the diocese, was entrusted to the Capuchins in 1635. These two missions (Rhætiæ and Mesauci) are at present prefectures Apostolic under the care of Italian Capuchins and the prefects reside at the two cities of Obervatz and Cama, both in the Canton of Grisons.

Several holy and extraordinary men have contributed to the splendour of the Diocese of Chur. Four of its bishops-St. Asimo (c. 450), St. Valentinian (530–48), St. Ursicinus (d. 760), and St. Adalbert (1151–60)-are honoured as saints; St. Sigisbert flourished about the year 600, St. Pirminus a century later; St. Florian, whom the diocese has chosen as its second patron, lived in the ninth century, the hermit St. Gerold in the tenth. The Capuchin Theodosius Florentini, vicar-general from 1860 till his death (15 February, 1865), was a very distinguished missionary; in 1852 he erected the Hospital of the Cross at Chur; before this he had already laid the foundations of two female religious congregations, one for the instruction of children, the other for the care of the sick. Chur is the birthplace of the painter Angelica Kauffman.

The cathedral of Chur, which was begun by Bishop Tello (758–73), has a highly interesting crypt; it is built in Romanesque style, and contains remarkable paintings by Dürer and Holbein. According to the “Kirchliches Handlexicon” (Munich, 1906) the diocese has a Catholic population of about 248,887 (non-Catholics, 431,367). There are 358 secular and 226 religious priests in charge of about 201 parishes, besides many chaplaincies and mission- stations. The largest Catholic community is at Zürich (43,655). The 35 Capuchins of the prefectures Apostolic had charge of 79 chapels in 1906. Three Benedictine abbeys-Einsiedeln, Engelberg, and Disentis-are within the diocese and, with the church of St. Nicolaus von der Flue at Sachseln, are places of pilgrimage. There is an ecclesiastical seminary at Chur, besides colleges at Schwyz, Disentis, Einsiedeln, Engelberg, Sarnen, and Stans. There are in the diocese nine orders of men, ten orders of women (Franciscans, Augustinians, Dominicans, Benedictines, and others), and eleven congregations.

Eichhorn, Episcopatus Curiensis (St. Blasien, 1797); Mohr, Codex diplomaticus zur Gesch. Cur.-Rhætiens. (1846–61); Mont and Plattner, Das Hochstift und der Staat Chur (Chur, 1860); Fetz, Das Bistum Chur, histor.-statistisch beschrieben (Chur, 1863–69); Werner, Kath. Kirchenatlas (Freiburg, 1888); Mülinen, Helvetia Sacra (Bern, 1888), I; D. F., Leben und Wirken des P. Theodos. Florentini (Ingenbohl, 1878); Lütolf, Glaubensboten der Schweiz vor dem hl. Gallus (Lecerne, 1871); Acta Canonizationis S. Fidelis a Sigmaringen (Rome, 1749); Alexius Spirensis, Historialis relatio eorum quæ in Missione Rhæticâ acciderunt, MS. in Capuchin Archives at Rome, printed in Analecta Capucc. (1898), 265 sqq.; Analecta Capucc., passim; Mayer, Vaticano-Curiensia (1888); Büchi, Die katholische Kirche in der Schweiz (1902).

OTTO JÉRON.

Church

The term church (Anglo-Saxon, cirice, circe; Modern German, Kirche; Sw., Kyrka) is the name employed in the Teutonic languages to render the Greek ekklesia (ecclesia), the term by which the New Testament writers denote the society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The derivation of the word has been much debated. It is now agreed that it is derived from the Greek kyriakon (cyriacon), i. e. the Lord’s house, a term which from the third century was used, as well as ekklesia, to signify a Christian place of worship. This, though the less usual expression, had apparently obtained currency among the Teutonic races. The Northern tribes had been accustomed to pillage the Christian churches of the empire, long before their own conversion. Hence, even prior to the arrival of the Saxons in Britain, their language had acquired words to designate some of the externals of the Christian religion.

The present article is arranged as follows:

I. The term Ecclesia

II. The Church in Prophecy

III. Its Constitution by Christ; the Church after the Ascension

IV. Its Organization by the Apostles

V. The Church, a Divine Society

VI. The Church, the Necessary Means of Salvation

VII. Visibility of the Church

VIII. The Principle of Authority; Infallibility; Jurisdiction

IX. Members of the Church

X. Indefectibility of the Church; Continuity

XI. Universality of the Church; the “Branch” Theory

XII. Notes of the Church

XIII. The Church, a Perfect Society

I. THE TERM ECCLESIA

In order to understand the precise force of this word, something must first be said as to its employment by the Septuagint translators of the Old Testament. Although in one or two places (Ps. xxv, 5; Judith, vi, 21; etc.) the word is used without religious signification, merely in the sense of “an assembly,” this is not usually the case. Ordinarily it is employed as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew qahal, i.e., the entire community of the children of Israel viewed in their religious aspect. Two Hebrew words are employed in the Old Testament to signify the congregation of Israel, viz. qahal ‘êdah. In the Septuagint these are rendered, respectively, ekklesia and synagoge. Thus in Proverbs v, 14, where the words occur together, “in the midst of the church and the congregation,” the Greek rendering is en meso ekklesias kai synagoges. The distinction is indeed not rigidly observed—thus in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, both words are regularly represented by synagoge—but it is adhered to in the great majority of cases, and may be regarded as an established rule. In the writings of the New Testament the words are sharply distinguished. With them ecclesia denotes the Church of Christ; synagoga, the Jews still adhering to the worship of the Old Covenant. Occasionally, it is true, ecclesia is employed in its general significance of “assembly” (Acts, xix, 32; I Cor., xiv, 19); and synagoga occurs once in reference to a gathering of Christians, though apparently of a non-religious character (James, ii, 2.) But ecclesia is never used by the Apostles to denote the Jewish Church. The word as a technical expression had been transferred to the community of Christian believers.

It has been frequently disputed whether there is any difference in the signification of the two words. St. Augustine (in Psalm. lxxvii, in P. L., XXXVI, 984) distinguishes them on the ground that ecclesia is indicative of the calling together of men, synagoga of the forcible herding together of irrational creatures: “congregatio magis pecorum convocatio magis hominum intelligi solet.” But it may be doubted whether there is any foundation for this view. It would appear, however, that the term qahal, was used with the special meaning of “those called by God to eternal life,” while ‘êdah, denoted merely “the actually existing Jewish community” (Schürer, Hist. Jewish People, II, 59). Though the evidence for this distinction is drawn from the Mishna, and thus belongs to a somewhat later date, yet the difference in meaning probably existed at the time of Christ’s ministry. But however this may have been, His intention in employing the term, hitherto used of the Hebrew people viewed as a church, to denote the society He Himself was establishing cannot be mistaken. It implied the claim that this society now constituted the true people of God, that the Old Covenant was passing away, and that He, the promised Messias, was inaugurating a New Covenant with a New Israel.

As signifying the Church, the word Ecclesia is used by Christian writers, sometimes in a wider, sometimes in a more restricted sense.

It is employed to denote all who, from the beginning of the world, have believed in the one true God, and have been made His children by grace. In this sense, it is sometimes distinguished, signifying the Church before the Old Covenant, the Church of the Old Covenant, or the Church of the New Covenant. Thus St. Gregory (Epp. V, ep. xviii ad. Joan. Ep. Const., in P. L., LXXVII, 740) writes: “Sancti ante legem, sancti sub lege, sancti sub gratiâ, omnes hi . . . in membris Ecclesiæ sunt constituti” (The saints before the Law, the saints under the Law, and the saints under grace—all these are constituted members of the Church).

It may signify the whole body of the faithful, including not merely the members of the Church who are alive on earth but those, too, whether in heaven or in purgatory, who form part of the one communion of saints. Considered thus, the Church is divided into the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant.

It is further employed to signify the Church Militant of the New Testament. Even in this restricted acceptation, there is some variety in the use of the term. The disciples of a single locality are often referred to in the New Testament as a Church (Apoc., ii, 18; Rom., xvi, 4; Acts, ix, 31), and St. Paul even applies the term to disciples belonging to a single household (Rom., xvi, 5; I Cor., xvi, 19, Col., iv, 15; Philem., i, 2). Moreover, it may designate specially those who exercise the office of teaching and ruling the faithful, the Ecclesia Docens (Matt., xviii, 17), or again the governed as distinguished from their pastors, the Ecclesia Discens (Acts xx, 28). In all these cases the name belonging to the whole is applied to a part. The term, in its full meaning, denotes the whole body of the faithful, both rulers and ruled, throughout the world (Eph., i, 22; Col., i, 18). It is in this meaning that the Church is treated of in the present article. As thus understood, the definition of the Church given by Bellarmine is that usually adopted by Catholic theologians: “A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth” (Coetus hominum ejusdem christianæ fidei professione, et eorumdem sacramentorum communione colligatus, sub regimine legitimorum pastorum et præcipue unius Christi in Terris vicarii Romani Pontificis.—Bellarmine, De Eccl., III, ii, 9). The accuracy of this definition will appear in the course of the article.

II. THE CHURCH IN PROPHECY

Hebrew prophecy relates in almost equal proportions to the person and to the work of the Messias. This work was conceived as consisting of the establishment of a kingdom, in which he was to reign over a regenerated Israel. The prophetic writings describe for us with precision many of the characteristics which were to distinguish that kingdom. Christ during His ministry affirmed not only that the prophecies relating to the Messias were fulfilled in His own person, but also that the expected Messianic kingdom was none other than His Church. A consideration of the features of the kingdom as depicted by the Prophets, must therefore greatly assist us in understanding Christ’s intentions in the institution of the Church. Indeed many of the expressions employed by Him in relation to the society He was establishing are only intelligible in the Light of these prophecies and of the consequent expectations of the Jewish people. It will moreover appear that we have a weighty argument for the supernatural character of the Christian revelation in the precise fulfillment of the sacred oracles.

A characteristic feature of the Messianic kingdom, as predicted, is its universal extent. Not merely the twelve tribes, but the Gentiles are to yield allegiance to the Son of David. All kings are to serve and obey him; his dominion is to extend to the ends of the earth (Pss. xxi, 28 sq.; ii, 7–12; cxvi, 1; Zach., ix, 10). Another series of remarkable passages declares that the subject nations will possess the unity conferred by a common faith and a common worship—a feature represented under the striking image of the concourse of all peoples and nations to worship at Jerusalem. “It shall come to pass in the last days (i.e. in the Messianic Era] . . . that many nations shall say: Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths; for the law shall go forth out of Sion, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem” (Mich., iv, 1–2; cf. Is., ii, 2; Zach., viii, 3). This unity of worship is to be the fruit of a Divine revelation common to all the inhabitants of the earth (Zack., xiv, 8).

Corresponding to the triple office of the Messias as priest, prophet, and king, it will be noted that in relation to the kingdom the Sacred Writings lay stress on three points: (a) it is to be endowed with a new and peculiar sacrificial system; (b) it is to be the kingdom of truth possessed of a Divine revelation; (c) it is to be governed by an authority emanating from the Messias.

In regard to the first of these points, the priesthood of the Messias Himself is explicitly stated (Ps. cix, 4); while it is further taught that the worship which He is to inaugurate shall supersede the sacrifices of the Old Dispensation. This is implied, as the Apostle tells us, in the very title, “a priest after the order of Melchisedech”; and the same truth is contained in the prediction that a new priesthood is to be formed, drawn from other peoples besides the Israelites (Is., lxvi, 18), and in the words of the Prophet Malachias which foretell the institution of a new sacrifice to be offered “from the rising of the sun even to the going down” (Mal., i, 11). The sacrifices offered by the priesthood of the Messianic kingdom are to endure as long as day and night shall last (Jer., xxxiii, 20).

The revelation of the Divine truth under the New Dispensation attested by Jeremias: “Behold the days shall come saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Juda . . . and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least of them even to the greatest” (Jer., xxxi, 31, 34), while Zacharias assures us that in those days Jerusalem shall be known as the city of truth. (Zach., viii, 3).

The passages which foretell that the Kingdom will possess a peculiar principle of authority in the personal rule of the Messias are numerous (e.g. Pss. ii; lxxi; Is., ix, 6 sq.); but in relation to Christ’s own words, it is of interest to observe that in some of these passages the prediction is expressed under the metaphor of a shepherd guiding and governing his flock (Ezech., xxxiv, 23; xxxvii, 24–28). It is noteworthy, moreover, that just as the prophecies in regard to the priestly office foretell the appointment of a priesthood subordinate to the Messias, so those which relate to the office of government indicate that the Messias will associate with Himself other “shepherds,” and will exercise His authority over the nations through rulers delegated to govern in His name (Jer., xviii, 6; Ps. xliv, 17; cf. St. Augustine Enarr. in Psalm. xliv, no. 32). Another feature of the kingdom is to be the sanctity of its members. The way to it is to be called “the holy way: the unclean shall not pass over it.” The uncircumcised and unclean are not to enter into the renewed Jerusalem (Is., xxxv, 8; lii, 1).

The later uninspired apocalyptic literature of the Jews shows us how profoundly these predictions had influenced their national hopes, and explains for us the intense expectation among the populace described in the Gospel narratives. In these works as in the inspired prophecies the traits of the Messianic kingdom present two very different aspects. On the one hand, the Messias is a Davidic king who gathers together the dispersed of Israel, and establishes on this earth a kingdom of purity and sinlessness (Psalms of Solomon, xvii). The foreign foe is to be subdued (Assumpt. Moses, c. x) and the wicked are to be judged in the valley of the son of Hinnon (Enoch, xxv, xxvii, xc). On the other hand, the kingdom is described in eschatological characters. The Messias is pre-existent and Divine (Enoch, Simil., xlviii, 3); the kingdom He establishes is to be a heavenly kingdom inaugurated by a great world-catastrophe, which separates this world (aion outos), from the world to come (mellon). This catastrophe is to be accompanied by a judgment both of angels and of men (Jubilees, x, 8; v, 10; Assumpt. Moses, x, 1). The dead will rise (Ps. Solom., iii, 11) and all the members of the Messianic kingdom will become like to the Messias (Enoch, Simil., xc, 37). This twofold aspect of the Jewish hopes in regard to the coming Messias must be borne in mind, if Christ’s use of the expression “Kingdom of God” is to be understood. Not infrequently, it is true, He employs it in an eschatological sense. But far more commonly He uses it of the kingdom set up on this earth—of His Church. These are indeed, not two kingdoms, but one. The Kingdom of God to be established at the last day is the Church in her final triumph.

III. CONSTITUTION BY CHRIST

The Baptist proclaimed the near approach of the Kingdom of God, and of the Messianic Era. He bade all who would share its blessings prepare themselves by penance. His own mission, he said, was to prepare the way of the Messias. To his disciples he indicated Jesus of Nazareth as the Messias whose advent he had declared (John, i, 29–31). From the very commencement of His ministry Christ laid claim in an explicit way to the Messianic dignity. In the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke, iv, 21) He asserts that the prophecies are fulfilled in His person; He declares that He is greater than Solomon (Luke, xi, 31), more venerable than the Temple (Matt., xii, 6), Lord of the Sabbath (Luke, vi, 5). John, He says, is Elias, the promised forerunner (Matt., xvii, 12); and to John’s messengers He vouchsafes the proofs of His Messianic dignity which they request (Luke, vii, 22). He demands implicit faith on the ground of His Divine legation (John, vi, 29). His public entry into Jerusalem was the acceptance by the whole people of a claim again and again reiterated before them. The theme of His preaching throughout is the Kingdom of God which He has come to establish. St. Mark, describing the beginning of His ministry, says that He came into Galilee saying, “The time is accomplished, and the Kingdom of God is at hand.” For the kingdom which He was even then establishing in their midst, the Law and the Prophets had been, He said, but a preparation (Luke, xvi, 16; cf. Matt., iv, 23; ix, 35; xiii, 17; xxi, 43; xxiv, 14; Mark, i, 14; Luke, iv, 43; viii, 1; ix, 2, 60; xviii, 17).

When it is asked what is this kingdom of which Christ spoke, there can be but one answer. It is His Church, the society of those who accept His Divine legation, and admit His right to the obedience of faith which He claimed. His whole activity is directed to the establishment of such a society: He organizes it and appoints rulers over it, establishes rites and ceremonies in it, transfers to it the name which had hitherto designated the Jewish Church, and solemnly warns the Jews that the kingdom was no longer theirs, but had been taken from them and given to another people. The several steps taken by Christ in organizing the Church are traced by the Evangelists. He is represented as gathering numerous disciples, but as selecting twelve from their number to be His companions in an especial manner. These share His life. To them He reveals the more hidden parts of His doctrine (Matt., xiii, 11). He sends them as His deputies to preach the kingdom, and bestows on them the power to work miracles. All are bound to accept their message; and those who refuse to listen to them shall meet a fate more terrible than that of Sodom and Gomorra (Matt., x, 1–15). The Sacred Writers speak of these twelve chosen disciples in a manner indicating that they are regarded as forming a corporate body. In several passages they are still termed “the twelve” even when the number, understood literally, would be inexact. The name is applied to them when they have been reduced to eleven by the defection of Judas, on an occasion when only ten of them were present, and again after the appointment of St. Paul has increased their number to thirteen (Luke, xxiv, 33; John, xx, 24; I Cor., xv, 5; Apoc., xxi, 14).

In this constitution of the Apostolate Christ lays the foundation of His Church. But it is not till the action of official Judaism had rendered it manifestly impossible to hope the Jewish Church would admit His claim, that He prescribes for the Church as a body independent of the synagogue and possessed of an administration of her own. After the breach had become definite, He calls the Apostles together and speaks to them of the judicial action of the Church, distinguishing, in an unmistakable manner, between the private individual who undertakes the work of fraternal correction, and the ecclesiastical authority empowered to pronounce a judicial sentence (Matt., xviii, 15–17). To the jurisdiction thus conferred He attached a Divine sanction. A sentence thus pronounced, He assured the Apostles, should be ratified in heaven. A further step was the appointment of St. Peter to be the chief of the Twelve. For this position he had already been designated (Matt., xvi, 15 sqq.) on an occasion previous to that just mentioned: at Cæsarea Philippi, Christ had declared him to be the rock on which He would build His Church, thus affirming that the continuance and increase of the Church would rest on the office created in the person of Peter. To him, moreover, were to be given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven—an expression signifying the gift of plenary authority (Is., xxii, 22). The promise thus made was fulfilled after the Resurrection, on the occasion narrated in John, xxi. Here Christ employs a simile used on more than one occasion by Himself to denote His own relation to the members of His Church—that of the shepherd and his flock. His solemn charge, “Feed my sheep,” constituted Peter the common shepherd of the whole collective flock. (For a further consideration of the Petrine texts see article PRIMACY.) To the twelve Christ committed the charge of spreading the kingdom among all nations, appointing the rite of baptism as the one means of admission to a participation in its privileges (Matt., xxviii, 19).

In the course of this article detailed consideration will be given to the principal characteristics of the Church. Christ’s teaching on this point may be briefly summarized here. It is to be a kingdom ruled in His absence by men (Matt., xviii, 18; John, xxi, 17). It is therefore a visible theocracy; and it will be substituted for the Jewish theocracy that has rejected Him (Matt., xxi, 43). In it, until the day of judgment, the bad will be mingled with the good (Matt., xiii, 41). Its extent will be universal (Matt., xxviii, 19), and its duration to the end of time (Matt., xiii, 49); all powers that oppose it shall be crushed (Matt., xxi, 44). Moreover, it will be a supernatural kingdom of truth, in the world, though not of it (John, xviii, 36). It will be one and undivided, and this unity shall be a witness to all men that its founder came from God (John, xvii, 21).

It is to be noticed that certain recent critics contest the positions maintained in the preceding paragraphs. They deny alike that Christ claimed to be the Messias, and that the kingdom of which He spoke was His Church. Thus, as regards Christ’s claim to Messianic dignity, they say that Christ does not declare Himself to be the Messias in His preaching: that He bids the possessed who proclaimed Him the Son of God be silent: that the people did not suspect His Messiahship, but formed various extravagant hypotheses as to his personality. It is manifestly impossible within the limits of this article to enter on a detailed discussion of these points. But, in the light of the testimony of the passages above cited, it will be seen that the position is entirely untenable. In reference to the Kingdom of God, many of the critics hold that the current Jewish conception was wholly eschatological, and that Christ’s references to it must one and all be thus interpreted. This view renders inexplicable the numerous passages in which Christ speaks of the kingdom as present, and further involves a misconception as to the nature of Jewish expectations, which, as has been seen, together with eschatological traits, contained others of a different character. Harnack (What is Christianity? p. 62) holds that in its inner meaning the kingdom as conceived by Christ is “a purely religious blessing, the inner link of the soul with the living God.” Such an interpretation can in no possible way be reconciled with Christ’s utterances on the subject. The whole tenor of his expressions is to lay stress on the concept of a theocratic society.

THE CHURCH AFTER THE ASCENSION

The doctrine of the Church as set forth by the Apostles after the Ascension is in all respects identical with the teaching of Christ just described. St. Peter, in his first sermon, delivered on the day of Pentecost, declares that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messianic king (Acts, ii, 36). The means of salvation which he indicates is baptism; and by baptism his converts are aggregated to the society of disciples (ii, 41). Though in these days the Christians still availed themselves of the Temple services, yet from the first the brotherhood of Christ formed a society essentially distinct from the synagogue. The reason why St. Peter bids his hearers accept baptism is none other than that they may “save themselves from this unbelieving generation.” Within the society of believers not only were the members united by common rites, but the tie of unity was so close as to bring about in the Church of Jerusalem that condition of things in which the disciples had all things common (ii, 44).

Christ had declared that His kingdom should be spread among all nations, and had committed the execution of the work to the twelve (Matt., xxviii, 19). Yet the universal mission of the Church revealed itself but gradually. St. Peter indeed makes mention of it from the first (Acts, ii, 39). But in the earliest years the Apostolic activity is confined to Jerusalem alone. Indeed an old tradition (Apollonius, cited by Eusebius “Hist. Eccl.,” V, xvii, and Clem. Alex., “Strom.,” VI, v, in P. G. IX, 264) asserts that Christ had bidden the Apostles wait twelve years in Jerusalem before dispersing to carry their message elsewhere. The first notable advance occurs consequent on the persecution which arose after the death of Stephen, A. D. 37. This was the occasion of the preaching of the Gospel to the Samaritans, a people excluded from the privileges of Israel, though acknowledging the Mosaic Law (Acts, viii, 5). A still further expansion resulted from the revelation directing St. Peter to admit to baptism Cornelius, a devout Gentile, i. e. one associated to the Jewish religion but not circumcised. From this tune forward circumcision and the observance of the Law were not a condition requisite for incorporation into the Church. But the final step of admitting those Gentiles who had known no previous connection with the religion of Israel, and whose life had been spent in paganism, was not taken till more than fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension; it did not occur, it would seem, before the day described in Acts xiii, 46, when, at Antioch in Pisidia, Paul and Barnabas announced that since the Jews accounted themselves unworthy of eternal life they would “turn to the Gentiles.”

In the Apostolic teaching the term Church, from the very first, takes the place of the expression (Acts, V, 11). Where others than the Jews were concerned, the greater suitability of the former name is evident; for had special reference to Jewish beliefs. But the change of title only emphasizes the social unity of the members. They are the new congregation of Israel—the theocratic polity: they are the people (laos) of God (Acts, xv, 14; Rom., ix, 25; II Cor., vi, 16; I Peter, ii, 9 sq.; Heb., viii, 10; Apoc., xviii, 4; xxi, 3). By their admission to the Church, the Gentiles have been grafted in and form part of God’s fruitful olive-tree, while apostate Israel has been broken off (Rom., xi, 24). St. Paul, writing to his Gentile converts at Corinth, terms the ancient Hebrew Church “our fathers” (I Cor., x, 1). Indeed from time to time the previous phraseology is employed, and the Gospel message is termed the preaching of the Kingdom of God (Acts, xx, 25; xxviii, 31).

Within the Church the Apostles exercised that regulative power with which Christ had endowed them. It was no chaotic mob, but a true society possessed of a corporate life, and organized in various orders. The evidence shows the twelve to have possessed (a) a power of jurisdiction, in virtue of which they wielded a legislative and judicial authority, and (b) a magisterial office to teach the Divine revelation entrusted to them. Thus (a) we find St. Paul authoritatively prescribing for the order and discipline of the churches. He does not advise; he directs (I Cor., xi, 34; xxvi, 1; Titus, i, 5). He pronounces judicial sentence (I Cor., V, 5; II Cor., ii, 10), and his sentences, like those of other Apostles, receive at times the solemn sanction of miraculous punishment (I Tim., i, 20; Acts, v, 1–10). In like manner he bids his delegate Timothy hear the causes even of priests, and rebuke, in the sight of all, those who sin (I Tim., v, 19 sq.). (b) With no less definiteness does he assert that the Apostolate carries with it a doctrinal authority, which all are bound to recognize. God has sent them, he affirms, to claim “the obedience of faith” (Rom., i, 5; xv, 18). Further, his solemnly expressed desire, that even if an angel from heaven were to preach another doctrine to the Galatians than that which he had delivered to them, he should be anathema (Gal., i, 8), involves a claim to infallibility in the teaching of revealed truth.

While the whole Apostolic College enjoyed this power in the Church, St. Peter always appears in that position of primacy which Christ assigned to him. It is Peter who receives into the Church the first converts, alike from Judaism and from heathenism (Acts, ii, 41; x, 5 Sq.), who works the first miracle (Acts, iii, 1 sqq.), who inflicts the first ecclesiastical penalty (Acts, v, 1 sqq.). It is Peter who casts out of the Church the first heretic, Simon Magus (Acts, viii, 21), who makes the first Apostolic visitation of the churches (Acts, ix, 32), and who pronounces the first dogmatic decision (Acts, xv, 7). (See Schanz, III, p. 460.) So indisputable was his position that when St. Paul was about to undertake the work of preaching to the heathen the Gospel which Christ had revealed to him, he regarded it as necessary to obtain recognition from Peter (Gal., i, 18). More than this was not needful: for the approbation of Peter was definitive.

IV. ORGANIZATION BY THE APOSTLES

Few subjects have been so much debated during the past half-century as the organization of the primitive Church. The present article cannot deal with the whole of this wide subject. Its scope is limited to a single point. An endeavour will be made to estimate the existing information regarding the Apostolic Age itself. Further light is thrown on the matter by a consideration of the organization that is found to have existed in the period immediately subsequent to the death of the last Apostle. (See BISHOP.) The independent evidence derived from the consideration of each of these periods will, in the opinion of the present writer, be found, when fairly weighed, to yield similar results. Thus the conclusions here advanced, over and above their intrinsic value, derive support from the independent witness of another series of authorities tending in all essentials to confirm their accuracy. The question at issue is, whether the Apostles did, or did not, establish in the Christian communities a hierarchical organization. All Catholic scholars, together with some few Protestants, hold that they did so. The opposite view is maintained by the rationalist critics, together with the greater number of Protestants.

In considering the evidence of the New Testament on the subject, it appears at once that there is a marked difference between the state of things revealed in the later New Testament writings, and that which appears in those of an earlier date. In the earlier writings we find but little mention of an official organization. Such official positions as may have existed would seem to have been of minor importance in the presence of the miraculous charismata (q. v.) of the Holy Spirit conferred upon individuals, and fitting them to act as organs of the community in various grades. St. Paul in his earlier Epistles has no messages for the bishops or deacons, although the circumstances dealt with in the Epistles to the Corinthians and in that to the Galatians would seem to suggest a reference to the local rulers of the Church. When he enumerates the various functions to which God has called various members of the Church, he does not give us a list of Church offices. “God,” he says, “hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors [didaskaloi]; after that miracles; then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues” (I Cor, xii, 28). This is not a list of official designations. It is a list of “charismata” bestowed by the Holy Spirit, enabling the recipient to fulfill some special function. The only term which forms an exception to this is that of apostle. Here the word is doubtless used in the sense in which it signifies the twelve and St. Paul only. As thus applied the Apostolate was a distinct office, involving a personal mission received from the Risen Lord Himself (I Cor., i, 1; Gal., i, 1). Such a position was of altogether too special a character for its recipients to be placed in any other category. The term could indeed be used in a wider reference. It is used of Barnabas (Acts, xiv, 13) and of Andronicus and Junias, St. Paul’s kinsmen (Rom., xvi, 7). In this extended signification it is apparently equivalent to evangelist (Eph., iv, 11; II Tim., iv, 5) and denotes those “apostolic men,” who, like the Apostles, went from place to place labouring in new fields, but who had received their commission from them, and not from Christ in person. (See APOSTLES.)

The “prophets,” the second class mentioned, were men to whom it was given to speak from time to time under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit as the recipients of supernatural inspiration (Acts, xiii, 2; xv, 23; xxi, 11; etc.). By the nature of the case the exercise of such a function could be occasional only. The “charisma” of the “doctors” (or teachers) differed from that of the prophets, in that it could be used continuously. They had received the gift of intelligent insight into revealed truth, and the power to impart it to others. It is manifest that those who possessed such a power must have exercised a function of vital moment to the Church in those first days, when the Christian communities consisted to so large an extent of new converts. The other “charismata” mentioned do not call for special notice. But the prophets and teachers would appear to have possessed an importance as organs of the community, eclipsing that of the local ministry. Thus in Acts, xiii, 1, it is simply related that there were in the Church which was at Antioch prophets and doctors. There is no mention of bishops or deacons. And in the Didache—a work as it would seem of the first century, written before the last Apostle had passed away—the author enjoins respect for the bishops and deacons, on the ground that they have a claim similar to that of the prophets and doctors. “Appoint for yourselves,” he writes, “bishops and deacons, worthy of the Lord, men who are meek, and not lovers of money, and true and approved; for unto you they also perform the service [leitourgousi ten leitourgian] of the prophets and doctors. Therefore despise them not: for they are your honourable men along with the prophets and teachers” (c. xv).

It would appear, then, indisputable that in the earliest years of the Christian Church ecclesiastical functions were in a large measure fulfilled by men who had been specially endowed for this purpose with “charismata” of the Holy Spirit, and that as long as these gifts endured, the local ministry occupied a position of less importance and influence. Yet, though this be the case, there would seem to be ample ground for holding that the local ministry was of Apostolic institution: and, further, that towards the later part of the Apostolic Age the abundant “charismata” were ceasing, and that the Apostles themselves took measures to determine the position of the official hierarchy as the directive authority of the Church. The evidence for the existence of such a local ministry is plentiful in the later Epistles of St. Paul (Phil., I and II Tim., and Titus). The Epistle to the Philippians opens with a special greeting to the bishops and deacons. Those who hold these official positions are recognized as the representatives in some sort of the Church. Throughout the letter there is no mention of the “charismata,” which figure so largely in the earlier Epistles. It is indeed urged by Hort (Christian Ecelesia, p. 211) that even here these terms are not official titles. But in view of their employment as titles in documents so nearly contemporary, as I Clem., c. 4, and the Didache, such a contention seems devoid of all probability.

In the Pastoral Epistles the new situation appears even more clearly. The purpose of these writings was to instruct Timothy and Titus regarding the manner in which they were to organize the local Churches. The total absence of all reference to the spiritual gifts can scarcely be otherwise explained than by supposing that they no longer existed in the communities, or that they were at most exceptional phenomena. Instead, we find the Churches governed by a hierarchical organization of bishops, sometimes also termed presbyters, and deacons. That the terms bishop and presbyter are synonymous is evident from Titus, i, 5–7: “I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest . . . ordain priests in every city . . . For a bishop must be without crime.” These presbyters form a corporate body (I Tim., iv, 14), and they are entrusted with the twofold charge of governing the Church (I Tim., iii, 5) and of teaching (I Tim., iii, 2; Titus, i, 9). The selection of those who are to fill this post does not depend on the possession of supernatural gifts. It is required that they should not be unproved neophytes, that they should be under no charge, should have displayed moral fitness for the work, and should be capable of teaching. (I Tim., iii, 2–7; Titus, i, 5–9.) The appointment to this office was by a solemn laying on of hands (I Tim., v, 22). Some words addressed by St. Paul to Timothy, in reference to the ceremony as it had taken place in Timothy’s case, throw light upon its nature. “I admonish thee,” he writes, “that thou stir up the grace (charisma) of God, which is in thee by the laying on of my hands” (II Tim., i, 6). The rite is here declared to be the means by which a charismatic gift is conferred; and, further, the gift in question, like the baptismal character, is permanent in its effects. The recipient needs but to “waken into life” [anazopyrein] the grace he thus possesses in order to avail himself of it. It is an abiding endowment. There can be no reason for asserting that the imposition of hands, by which Timothy was instructed to appoint the presbyters to their office, was a rite of a different character, a mere formality without practical import.

With the evidence before us, certain other notices in the New Testament writings, pointing to the existence of this local ministry, may be considered. There is mention of presbyters at Jerusalem at a date apparently immediately subsequent to the dispersion of the Apostles (Acts, xi, 30; cf. xv, 2; xvi, 4; xxi, 18). Again, we are told that Paul and Barnabas, as they retraced their steps on their first missionary journey, appointed presbyters in every Church (Acts, xiv, 22). So too the injunction to the Thessalonians (I Thess., v, 12) to have regard to those who are over them in the Lord (proistamenoi; cf. Rom., xii, 6) would seem to imply that there also St. Paul had invested certain members of the community with a pastoral charge. Still more explicit is the evidence contained in the account of St. Paul’s interview with the Ephesian elders (Acts, xx, 17–23). It is told that, sending from Miletus to Ephesus, he summoned “the presbyters of the Church,” and in the course of his charge addressed them as follows: “Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost has placed you bishops to tend [poimainein] the Church of God” (xx, 28). St. Peter employs similar language: “The presbyters that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also a presbyter . . . tend [poimainein] the flock of God which is among you.” These expressions leave no doubt as to the office designated by St. Paul, when in Eph., iv, 11, he enumerates the gifts of the Ascended Lord as follows: “He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors [tous de poimenas kai didaskalous]. The Epistle of St. James provides us with yet another reference to this office, where the sick man is bidden send for the presbyters of the Church, that he may receive at their hands the rite of unction (James, v, 14).

The term presbyter was of common use in the Jewish Church, as denoting the “rulers” of the synagogue (cf. Luke, xiii, 14). Hence it has been argued by some non-Catholic writers that in the bishops and deacons of the New Testament there is simply the synagogal organization familiar to the first converts, and introduced by them into the Christian communities. St. Paul’s concept of the Church, it is urged, is essentially opposed to any rigid governmental system; yet this familiar form of organization was gradually established even in the Churches he had founded. In regard to this view it appears enough to say that the resemblance between the Jewish “rulers of the synagogue” and the Christian presbyter-episcopus goes no farther than the name. The Jewish official was purely civil and held office for a time only. The Christian presbyterate was for life, and its functions were spiritual. There is perhaps more ground for the view advocated by some (cf. de Smedt, Revue des quest. hist., vols. XLIV, L), that presbyter and episcopus may not in all cases be perfectly Synonymous. The term presbyter is undoubtedly an honorific title, while that of episcopus primarily indicates the function performed. It is possible that the former title may have had a wider significance than the latter. The designation presbyter, it is suggested, may have been given to all those who were recognized as having a claim to some voice in directing the affairs of the community, whether this were based on official status, or social rank, or benefactions to the local Church, or on some other ground; while those presbyters who had received the laying on of hands would be known, not simply as “presbyters,” but as “presiding [proistamenoi—I Thess., v. 12) presbyters,” “presbyter-bishops,” “presbyter-rulers” (hegoumenoi—Heb., xiii, 17).

It remains to consider whether the so-called “monarchical” episcopate was instituted by the Apostles. Besides establishing a college of presbyter-bishops, did they further place one man in a position of supremacy, entrusting the government of the Church to him, and endowing him with Apostolic authority over the Christian community? Even if we take into account the Scriptural evidence alone, there are sufficient grounds for answering this question in the affirmative. From the time of the dispersion of the Apostles, St. James appears in an episcopal relation to the Church of Jerusalem (Acts, xii, 17; xv, 13; Gal., ii, 12). In the other Christian communities the institution of “monarchical” bishops was a somewhat later development. At first the Apostles themselves fulfilled, it would seem, all the duties of Supreme oversight. They established the office when the growing needs of the Church demanded it. The Pastoral Epistles leave no room to doubt that Timothy and Titus were sent as bishops to Ephesus and to Crete respectively. To Timothy full Apostolic powers are conceded. Notwithstanding his youth he holds authority over both clergy and laity. To him is confided the duty of guarding the purity of the Church’s faith, of ordaining priests, of exercising jurisdiction. Moreover, St. Pauls exhortation to him, “to keep the commandment without spot, blameless, unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” shows that this was no transitory mission. A charge so worded includes in its sweep, not Timothy alone, but his successors in an office which is to last until the Second Advent. Local tradition unhesitatingly reckoned him among the occupants of the episcopal see. At the Council of Chalcedon, the Church of Ephesus counted a succession of twenty-seven bishops commencing with Timothy (Mansi, VII, 293; cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, iv, v).

These are not the sole evidences which the New Testament affords of the monarchical episcopate. In the Apocalypse the “angels” to whom the letters to the seven Churches are addressed are almost certainly the bishops of the respective communities. Some commentators, indeed, have held them to be personifications of the communities themselves. But this explanation can hardly stand. St. John, throughout, addresses the angel as being responsible for the community precisely as he would address its ruler. Moreover, in the symbolism of ch. i, the two are represented under different figures: the angels are the stars in the right hand of the Son of Man; the seven candlesticks are the image which figures the communities. The very term angel, it should be noticed, is practically synonymous with apostle, and thus is aptly chosen to designate the episcopal office. Again the messages to Archippus (Col., iv, 17; Philem., 2) imply that he held a position of special dignity, superior to that of the other presbyters. The mention of him in a letter entirely concerned with a private matter, as is that to Philemon, is hardly explicable unless he were the official head of the Colossian Church. We have therefore four important indications of the existence of an office in the local Churches, held by a Single person, and carrying with it Apostolical authority. Nor can any difficulty be occasioned by the fact that as yet no special title distinguishes these successors of the Apostles from the ordinary presbyters. It is in the nature of things that the office should exist before a title is assigned to it. The name of apostle, we have seen, was not confined to the Twelve. St. Peter (I Peter, V, 1) and St. John (II and III John, i, 1) both speak of themselves as presbyters.” St. Paul speaks of the Apostolate as a diakonia. A parallel case in later ecclesiastical history is afforded by the word pope. This title was not appropriated to the exclusive use of the Holy See till the eleventh century. Yet no one maintains that the supreme pontificate of the Roman bishop was not recognized till then. It should cause no surprise that a precise terminology, distinguishing bishops, in the full sense, from the presbyter-bishops, is not found in the New Testament.

The conclusion reached is put beyond all reasonable doubt by the testimony of the sub-Apostolic Age. This is so important in regard to the question of the episcopate that it is impossible entirely to pass it over. It will be enough, however, to refer to the evidence contained in the epistles of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, himself a disciple of the Apostles. In these epistles (about A. D. 107) he again and again asserts that the supremacy of the bishop is of Divine institution and belongs to the Apostolic constitution of the Church. He goes so far as to affirm that the bishop stands in the place of Christ Himself. “When ye are obedient to the bishop as to Jesus Christ,” he writes to the Trallians, “it is evident to me that ye are living not after men, but after Jesus Christ . . . be ye obedient also to the presbytery as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ” (ad Trall., n. 2). He also incidentally tells us that bishops are found in the Church, even in “the farthest parts of the earth” (ad Ephes., n. 3) It is out of the question that one who lived at a period so little removed from the actual Apostolic Age could have proclaimed this doctrine in terms such as he employs, had not the episcopate been universally recognized as of Divine appointment. It has been seen that Christ not only established the episcopate in the persons of the Twelve but, further, created in St. Peter the office of supreme pastor of the Church. Early Christian history tells us that before his death, he fixed his residence at Rome, and ruled the Church there as its bishop. It is from Rome that he dates his first Epistle, speaking of the city under the name of Babylon, a designation which St. John also gives it in the Apocalypse (c. xviii). At Rome, too, he suffered martyrdom in company with St. Paul, A.D. 67. The list of his successors in the see is known, from Linus, Anacletus, and Clement, who were the first to follow him, down to the reigning pontiff. The Church has ever seen in the occupant of the See of Rome the successor of Peter in the supreme pastorate. (See POPE.)

The evidence thus far considered seems to demonstrate beyond all question that the hierarchical organization of the Church was, in its essential elements, the work of the Apostles themselves; and that to this hierarchy they handed on the charge entrusted to them by Christ of governing the Kingdom of God, and of teaching the revealed doctrine. These conclusions are far from being admitted by Protestant and other critics. They are unanimous in holding that the idea of a Church—an organized society—is entirely foreign to the teaching of Christ. It is therefore, in their eyes, impossible that Catholicism, if by that term we signify a worldwide institution, bound together by unity of constitution, of doctrine, and of worship, can have been established by the direct action of the Apostles. In the course of the nineteenth century many theories were propounded to account for the transformation of the so-called “Apostolic Christianity” into the Christianity of the commencement of the third century, when beyond all dispute the Catholic system was firmly established from one end of the Roman Empire to the other. At the present day (1908) the theories advocated by the critics are of a less extravagant nature than those of F.C. Baur (1853) and the Tübingen School, which had so great a vogue in the middle of the nineteenth century. Greater regard is shown for the claims of historical possibility and for the value of early Christian evidences. At the same time it is to be observed that the reconstruction’s suggested involve the rejection of the Pastoral Epistles as being documents of the second century. It will be sufficient here to notice one or two salient points in the views which now find favour with the best known among non-Catholic writers.

It is held that such official organization as existed in the Christian communities was not regarded as involving special spiritual gifts, and had but little religious significance. Some writers, as has been seen, believe with Holtzmann that in the episcopi and presbyteri, there is simply the synagogal system of archontes and hyperetai. Others, with Hatch, derive the origin of the episcopate from the fact that certain civic functionaries in the Syrian cities appear to have borne the title of “episcopi.” Professor Harnack, while agreeing with Hatch as to the origin of the office, differs from him in so far as he admits that from the first the superintendence of worship belonged to the functions of the bishop. The offices of prophet and teacher, it is urged, were those in which the primitive Church acknowledged a spiritual significance. These depended entirely on special charismatic gifts of the Holy Ghost. The government of the Church in matters of religion was thus regarded as a direct Divine rule by the Holy Spirit, acting through His inspired agents. And only gradually, it is supposed, did the local ministry take the place of the prophets and teachers, and inherit from them the authority once attributed to the possessors of spiritual gifts alone (cf. Sabatier, Religions of Authority, p. 24). Even if we prescind altogether from the evidence considered above, this theory appears devoid of intrinsic probability. A direct Divine rule by “charismata” could only result in confusion, if uncontrolled by any directive power possessed of superior authority. Such a directive and regulative authority, to which the exercise of spiritual gifts was itself subject, existed in the Apostolate, as the New Testament amply shows (I Cor., xiv). In the succeeding age a precisely similar authority is found in the episcopate. Every principle of historical criticism demands that the source of episcopal power should be sought, not in the “charismata,” but, where tradition places it, in the Apostolate itself.

It is to the crisis occasioned by Gnosticism and Montanism in the second century that these writers attribute the rise of the Catholic system. They say that, in order to combat these heresies, the Church found it necessary to federate itself, and that for this end it established a statutory, so-called “apostolic” faith, and further secured the episcopal supremacy by the fiction of “apostolic succession,” (Harnac, Hist. of Dogma, II, ii; Sabatier, op. cit., pp. 35–59). This view appears to be irreconcilable with the facts of the case. The evidence of the Ignatian epistles alone shows that, long before the Gnostic crisis arose, the particular local Churches were conscious of an essential principle of solidarity binding all together into a single system. Moreover, the very fact that these heresies gained no foothold within the Church in any part of the world, but were everywhere recognized as heretical and promptly excluded, suffices to prove that the Apostolic faith was already clearly known and firmly held, and that the Churches were already organized under an active episcopate. Again, to say that the doctrine of Apostolic succession was invented to cope with these heresies is to overlook the fact that it is asserted in plain terms in the Epistle of Clement, c. xlii.

M. Loisy’s theory as to the organization of the Church has attracted so much attention in recent years as to call for a brief notice. In his work, “L’Evangile et l’Eglise,” he accepts many of the views held by critics hostile to Catholicism, and endeavours by a doctrine of development to reconcile them with some form of adhesion to the Church. He urges that the Church is of the nature of an organism, whose animating principle is the message of Jesus Christ. This organism may experience many changes of external form, as it develops itself in accordance with its inner needs, and with the requirements of its environment. Yet so long as these changes are such as are demanded in order that the vital principle may be preserved, they are unessential in character. So far indeed are they from being organic alterations, that we ought to reckon them as implicitly involved in the very being of the Church. The formation of the hierarchy he regards as a change of this kind. In fact, since he holds that Jesus Christ mistakenly anticipated the end of the world to be close at hand, and that His first disciples lived in expectation of His immediate return in glory, it follows that the hierarchy must have had some such origin as this. It is out of the question to attribute it to the Apostles. Men who believed the end of the world to be impending would not have seen the necessity of endowing a society with a form of government intended to endure.

These revolutionary views constitute part of the theory known as Modernism, whose philosophical presuppositions involve the complete denial of the miraculous. The Church, according to this theory, is not a society established by eternal Divine interposition. It is a society expressing the religious experience of the collectivity of consciences, and owing its origin to two natural tendencies in men, viz. the tendency of the individual believer to communicate his beliefs to others, and the tendency of those who hold the same beliefs to unite in a society. The Modernist theories were analyzed and condemned as “the synthesis of all the heresies” in the Encyclical “Pascendi Dominici gregis” (18 September, 1907). The principal features of M. Loisy’s theory of the Church had been already included among the condemned propositions contained in the Decree “Lamentabili” (3 July, 1907). The fifty-third of the propositions there singled out for reprobation is the following: “The original constitution of the Church is not immutable; but the Christian society like human society is subject to perpetual change.”

V. THE CHURCH, A DIVINE SOCIETY

The church, as has been seen, is a society formed of living men, not a mere mystical union of souls. As such it resembles other societies. Like them, it has its code of rules, its executive officers, its ceremonial observances. Yet it differs from them more than it resembles them: for it is a supernatural society. The Kingdom of God is supernatural alike in its origin, in the purpose at which it aims, and in the means at its disposal. Other kingdoms are natural in their origin; and their scope is limited to the temporal welfare of their citizens. The supernatural character of the Church is seen, when its relation to the redemptive work of Christ is considered. It is the society of those whom He has redeemed from the world. The world, by which term are signified men in so far as they have fallen from God, is ever set forth in Scripture as the kingdom of the Evil One. It is the “world of darkness” (Eph., vi, 12), it is “seated in the wicked one” (I John, vi, 19), it hates Christ (John, xv, 18). To save the world, God the Son became man. He offered Himself as a propitiation for the sins of the whole world (I John, ii, 2). God, Who desires that all men should be saved, has offered salvation to all; but the greater part of mankind rejects the proffered gift. The Church is the society of those who accept redemption, of those whom Christ “has chosen out of the world” (John, xv, 19). Thus it is the Church alone which He “hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts, xx, 28). Of the members of the Church, the Apostle can say that “God hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love” (Col., i, 13). St. Augustine terms the Church “mundus salvatus “—the redeemed world—and speaking of the enmity borne towards the Church by those who reject her, says: “The world of perdition hates the world of salvation” (“in Joan.,” Tract. lxxx, vii, n. 2 in P. L., XXXV, 1885). To the Church Christ has given the means of grace He merited by His life and death. She communicates them to her members; and those who are outside her fold she bids to enter that they too may participate in them. By these means of grace—the light of revealed truth, the sacraments, the perpetual renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary—the Church carries on the work of sanctifying the elect. Through their instrumentality each individual soul is perfected, and conformed to the likeness of the Son of God.

It is thus manifest that, when we regard the Church simply as the society of disciples, we are considering its external form only. Its inward life is found in the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, the gifts of faith, hope, and charity, the grace communicated by the sacraments, and the other prerogatives by which the children of God differ from the children of the world. This aspect of the Church is described by the Apostles in figurative language. They represent it as the Body of Christ, the Spouse of Christ, the Temple of God. In order to understand its true nature some consideration of these comparisons is requisite. In the conception of the Church as a body governed and directed by Christ as the head, far more is contained than the familiar analogy between a ruler and his subjects on the one hand, and the head guiding and coordinating the activities of the several members on the other. That analogy expresses indeed the variety of function, the unity of directive principle, and the Cooperation of the parts to a common end, which are found in a society; but it is insufficient to explain the terms in which St. Paul speaks of the union between Christ and His disciples. Each of them is a member of Christ (I Cor., vi, 15); together they form the body of Christ (Eph., iv, 16); as a corporate unity they are simply termed Christ (I Cor., xii, 12).

The intimacy of union here suggested is, however, justified, if we recall that the gifts and graces bestowed upon each disciple are graces merited by the Passion of Christ, and are destined to produce in him the likeness of Christ. The connection between Christ and himself is thus very different from the purely juridical relation binding the ruler of a natural society to the individuals belonging to it. The Apostle develops the relation between Christ and His members from various points of view. As a human body is organized, each joint and muscle having its own function, yet each contributing to the union of the complex whole, so too the Christian society is a body “compacted and firmly joined together by that which every part supplieth” (Eph., iv, 16), while all the parts depend on Christ their head. It is He Who has organized the body, assigning to each member his place in the Church, endowing each with the special graces necessary, and, above all, conferring on some of the members the graces in virtue of which they rule and guide the Church in His name (ibid., iv, 11). Strengthened by these graces, the mystical body, like a physical body, grows and increases. This growth is twofold. It takes place in the individual, inasmuch as each Christian gradually grows into the “perfect man,” into the image of Christ (Eph., iv, 13, 15; Rom., viii, 29). But there is also a growth in the whole body. As time goes on, the Church is to increase and multiply till it fills the earth. So intimate is the union between Christ and His members, that the Apostle speaks of the Church as the “fullness” (pleroma) of Christ (Eph., i, 23; iv, 13), as though apart from His members something were lacking to the head. He even speaks of it as Christ: “As all the members of the body whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ” (I Cor., xii, 12). And to establish the reality of this union he refers it to the efficacious instrumentality of the Holy Eucharist: “We being many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of that one bread” (I Cor., x, 17—Greek text).

The description of the Church as God’s temple, in which the disciples are “living stones” (I Peter, ii, 5), is scarcely less frequent in the Apostolic writings than is the metaphor of the body. “You are the temple of the living God” (II Cor., vi, 16), writes St. Paul to the Corinthians, and he reminds the Ephesians that they are “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building being framed together, groweth up into a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph., ii, 20 sq.). With a slight change in the metaphor, the same Apostle in another passage (I Cor., iii, 11) compares Christ to the foundation, and himself and other Apostolic labourers to the builders who raise the temple upon it. It is noticeable that the word translated “temple” is naos, a term which signifies properly the inner sanctuary. The Apostle, when he employs this word, is clearly comparing the Christian Church to that Holy of Holies where God manifested His visible presence in the Shekinah. The metaphor of the temple is well adapted to enforce two lessons. On several occasions the Apostle employs it to impress on his readers the sanctity of the Church in which they have been incorporated. “If any shall violate the temple of God,” he says, speaking of those who corrupt the Church by false doctrine, “him shall God destroy” (I Cor., iii, 17). And he employs the same motive to dissuade disciples from forming matrimonial alliance with Unbelievers: “What agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God” (II Cor., vi, 16). It further illustrates in the clearest way the truth that to each member of the Church God has assigned his own place, enabling him by his work there to cooperate towards the great common end, the glory of God.

The third parallel represents the Church as the bride of Christ. Here there is much more than a metaphor. The Apostle says that the union between Christ and His Church is the archetype of which human marriage is an earthly representation. Thus he bids wives be subject to their husbands, as the Church is subject to Christ (Eph., v, 22 sq.). Yet he points out on the other hand that the relation of husband to wife is not that of a master to his servant, but one involving the tenderest and most self-sacrificing love. He bids husbands love their wives, “as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it” (ibid., v, 25). Man and wife are one flesh; and in this the husband has a powerful motive for love towards the wife, since “no man ever hated his own flesh.” This physical union is but the antitype of that mysterious bond in virtue of which the Church is so truly one with Christ, that “we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. ‘For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh”‘ (Eph., v, 30 sq.; Gen., ii, 24). In these words the Apostle indicates the mysterious parallelism between the union of the first Adam with the spouse formed from his body, and the union of the second Adam with the Church. She is “bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh,” even as Eve was in regard to our first father. And those only belong to the family of the second Adam, who are her children, “born again of water and of the Holy Ghost.” Occasionally the metaphor assumes a slightly different form. In Apoc., xix, 7, the marriage of the Lamb to his spouse the Church does not take place till the last day in the hour of the Church’s final triumph. Thus too St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians (II Cor., xi, 2), compares himself to “the friend of the bridegroom,” who played so important a part in the Hebrew marriage ceremony (cf. John, iii, 29). He has, he says, espoused the Corinthian community to Christ, and he holds himself responsible to present it spotless to the bridegroom.

Through the medium of these metaphors the Apostles set forth the inward nature of the Church. Their expressions leave no doubt that in them they always refer to the actually existing Church founded by Christ on earth—the society of Christ’s disciples. Hence it is instructive to observe that Protestant divines find it necessary to distinguish between an actual and an ideal Church, and to assert that the teaching of the Apostles regarding the Spouse, the Temple, and the Body refers to the ideal Church alone (cf. Gayford in Hastings, “Dict. of the Bible,” s. v. Church).

VI. THE NECESSARY MEANS OF SALVATION

In the preceding examination of the Scriptural doctrine regarding the Church, it has been seen how clearly it is laid down that only by entering the Church can we participate in the redemption wrought for us by Christ. Incorporation with the Church can alone unite us to the family of the second Adam, and alone can engraft us into the true Vine. Moreover, it is to the Church that Christ has committed those means of grace through which the gifts He earned for men are communicated to them. The Church alone dispenses the sacraments. It alone makes known the light of revealed truth. Outside the Church these gifts cannot be obtained. From all this there is but one conclusion: Union with the Church is not merely one out of various means by which salvation may be obtained: it is the only means.

This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to be essential to salvation. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark, xvi, 16). Any disciple who shall throw off obedience to the Church is to be reckoned as one of the heathen: he has no part in the Kingdom of God (Matt., xviii, 17). St. Paul is equally explicit. “A man that is a heretic,” he writes to Titus, “after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he that is such a one is . . . condemned by his own judgment” (Tit., iii, 10 sq.). The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should willfully remain outside her fold. For love of God carries with it the practical desire to fulfill His commandments. But of those who die without visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of willful disobedience to God’s commands. Many are kept from the Church by Ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy. To others the external means of grace may be unattainable. Thus an excommunicated person may have no opportunity of seeking reconciliation at the last, and yet may repair his faults by inward acts of contrition and charity.

It should be observed that those who are thus saved are not entirely outside the pale of the Church. The will to fulfill all God’s commandments is, and must be, present in all of them. Such a wish implicitly includes the desire for incorporation with the visible Church: for this, though they know it not, has been commanded by God. They thus belong to the Church by desire (voto). Moreover, there is a true sense in which they may be said to be saved through the Church. In the order of Divine Providence, salvation is given to man in the Church: membership in the Church Triumphant is given through membership in the Church Militant. Sanctifying grace, the title to salvation, is peculiarly the grace of those who are united to Christ in the Church: it is the birthright of the children of God. The primary purpose of those actual graces which God bestows upon those outside the Church is to draw them within the fold. Thus, even in the case in which God Saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church’s graces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body. Yet the possibility of salvation apart from visible communion with the Church must not blind us to the loss suffered by those who are thus situated. They are cut off from the sacraments God has given as the support of the soul. In the ordinary channels of grace, which are ever open to the faithful Catholic, they cannot participate. Countless means of sanctification which the Church offers are denied to them. It is often urged that this is a stern and narrow doctrine. The reply to this objection is that the doctrine is stern, but only in the sense in which sternness is inseparable from love. It is the same sternness which we find in Christ’s words, when he said: “If you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin” (John, viii, 24). The Church is animated with the spirit of Christ; she is filled with the same love for souls, the same desire for their salvation. Since, then, she knows that the way of salvation is through union with her, that in her and in her alone are stored the benefits of the Passion, she must needs be uncompromising and even stern in the assertion of her claims. To fail here would be to fail in the duty entrusted to her by her Lord. Even where the message is unwelcome, she must deliver it.

It is instructive to observe that this doctrine has been proclaimed at every period of the Church’s history. It is no accretion of a later age. The earliest successors of the Apostles speak as plainly as the medieval theologians, and the medieval theologians are not more emphatic than those of today. From the first century to the twentieth there is absolute unanimity. St. Ignatius of Antioch writes: “Be not deceived, my brethren. If any man followeth one that maketh schism, he doth not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walketh in strange doctrine, he hath no fellowship with the Passion” (ad Philad., n. 3). Origen says: “Let no man deceive himself. Outside this house, i. e. outside the Church, none is saved” (Hom. in Jos., iii, n. 5 in P. G., XII, 841). St. Cyprian speaks to the same effect: “He cannot have God for his father, who has not the Church for his mother” (De Unit., c. vi). The words of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Lateran (1215) define the doctrine thus in its decree against the Albigenses: “Una est fidelium universalis Ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur” (Denzinger, n. 357); and Pius IX employed almost identical language in his Encyclical to the bishops of Italy (10 August, 1863): “Notissimum est catholicum dogma neminem scilicet extra catholicam ecclesiam posse salvari” (Denzinger, n. 1529).

VII. VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH

In asserting that the Church of Christ is visible, we signify, first, that as a society it will at all times be conspicuous and public, and second, that it will ever be recognizable among other bodies as the Church of Christ. These two aspects of visibility are termed respectively “material” and “formal” visibility by Catholic theologians. The material visibility of the Church involves no more than that it must ever be a public, not a private profession; a society manifest to the world, not a body whose members are bound by some secret tie. Formal visibility is more than this. It implies that in all ages the true Church of Christ will be easily recognizable for that which it is, viz. as the Divine society of the Son of God, the means of salvation offered by God to men; that it possesses certain attributes which so evidently postulate a Divine origin that all who see it must know it comes from God. This must, of course, be understood with some necessary qualifications. The power to recognize the Church for what it is presupposes certain moral dispositions. Where there is a rooted unwillingness to follow God’s will, there may be spiritual blindness to the claims of the Church. Invincible prejudice or inherited assumptions may produce the same result. But in such cases the incapacity to see is due, not to the want of visibility in the Church, but to the blindness of the individual. The case bears an almost exact analogy to the evidence possessed by the proofs for the existence of God. The proofs in themselves are evident: but they may fail to penetrate a mind obscured by prejudice or ill will. From the time of the Reformation, Protestant writers either denied the visibility of the Church, or so explained it as to rob it of most of its meaning. After briefly indicating the grounds of the Catholic doctrine, some views prevalent on this subject among Protestant authorities will be noticed.

It is unnecessary to say more in regard to the material visibility of the Church than has been said in sections III and IV of this article. It has been shown there that Christ established His church as an organized society under accredited leaders, and that He commanded its rulers and those who should succeed them to summon all men to secure their eternal salvation by entry into it. It is manifest that there is no question here of a secret union of believers: the Church is a worldwide corporation, whose existence is to be forced upon the notice of all, willing or unwilling. Formal visibility is secured by those attributes which are usually termed the “notes” of the Church—her Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity (see below). The proof may be illustrated in the case of the first of these. The unity of the Church stands out as a fact altogether unparalleled in human history. Her members all over the world are united by the profession of a common faith, by participation in a common worship, and by obedience to a common authority. Differences of class, of nationality, and of race, which seem as though they must be fatal to any form of union, cannot sever this bond. It links in one the civilized and the uncivilized, the philosopher and the peasant, the rich and the poor. One and all hold the same belief, join in the same religious ceremonies, and acknowledge in the successor of Peter the same supreme ruler. Nothing but a supernatural power can explain this. It is a proof manifest to all minds, even to the simple and the unlettered, that the Church is a Divine society. Without this formal visibility, the purpose for which the Church was founded would be frustrated. Christ established it to be the means of salvation for all mankind. For this end it is essential that its claims should be authenticated in a manner evident to all; in other words, it must be visible, not merely as other public societies are visible, but as being the society of the Son of God.

The views taken by Protestants as to the visibility of the Church are various. The rationalist critics naturally reject the whole conception. To them the religion preached by Jesus Christ was something purely internal. When the Church as an institution came to be regarded as an indispensable factor in religion, it was a corruption of the primitive message. (See Harnack, What is Christianity, p.213.) Passages which deal with the Church in her corporate unity are referred by writers of this school to an ideal invisible Church, a mystical communion of souls. Such an interpretation does violence to the sense of the passages. Moreover, no explanation possessing any semblance of probability has yet been given to account for the genesis among the disciples of this remarkable and altogether novel conception of an invisible Church. It may reasonably be demanded of a professedly critical school that this phenomenon should be explained. Harnack holds that it took the place of Jewish racial unity. But it does not appear why Gentile converts should have felt the need of replacing a feature so entirely proper to the Hebrew religion.

The doctrine of the older Protestant writers is that there are two Churches, a visible and an invisible. This is the view of such standard Anglican divines as Barrow, Field, and Jeremy Taylor (see e.g. Barrow, Unity of Church, Works, 1830, VII, 628). Those who thus explain visibility urge that the essential and vital element of membership in Christ lies in an inner union with Him; that this is necessarily invisible, and those who possess it constitute an invisible Church. Those who are united to Him externally alone have, they maintain, no part in His grace. Thus, when He promised to His Church the gift of indefectibility, declaring that the gates of hell should never prevail against it, the promise must be understood of the invisible, not of the visible Church. In regard to this theory, which is still tolerably prevalent, it is to be said that Christ’s promises were made to the Church as a corporate body, as constituting a society. As thus understood, they were made to the visible Church, not to an invisible and unknown body. Indeed for this distinction between a visible and an invisible Church there is no Scriptural warrant. Even though many of her children prove unfaithful, yet all that Christ said in regard to the Church is realized in her as a corporate body. Nor does the unfaithfulness of these professing Catholics cut them off altogether from membership in Christ. They are His in virtue of their baptism. The character then received still stamps them as His. Though dry and withered branches they are not altogether broken off from the true Vine (Bellarmine, Dc Ecciesiâ, III, ix, 13). The Anglican High Church writers explicitly teach the visibility of the Church. They restrict themselves, however, to the consideration of material visibility (cf. Palmer, Treatise on the Church, Part I, C. iii).

The doctrine of the visibility in no way excludes from the Church those who have already attained to bliss. These are united with the members of the Church Militant in one communion of saints. They watch her struggles; their prayers are offered on her behalf. Similarly, those who are still in the cleansing fires of purgatory belong to the Church. There are not, as has been said, two Churches; there is but one Church, and of it all the souls of the just, whether in heaven, on earth, or in purgatory, are members (Catech. Rom., I, x, 6). But it is to the Church only in so far as militant here below—to the Church among men—that the property of visibility belongs.

VIII. THE PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY

Whatever authority is exercised in the Church, is exercised in virtue of the commission of Christ. He is the one Prophet, Who has given to the world the revelation of truth, and by His spirit preserves in the Church the faith once delivered to the saints. He is the one Priest, ever pleading on behalf of the Church the sacrifice of Calvary. And He is the one King—the chief Shepherd (I Peter, v, 4)—Who rules and guides, through His Providence, His Church’s course. Yet He wills to exercise His power through earthly representatives. He chose the Twelve, and charged them in His name to teach the nations (Matt., xxviii, 19), to offer sacrifice (Luke, xxii, 19), to govern His flock (Matt., xviii, 18; John, xxi, 17). They, as seen above, used the authority committed to them while they lived; and before their death, they took measures for the perpetuation of this principle of government in the Church. From that day to this, the hierarchy thus established has claimed and has exercised this threefold office. Thus the prophecies of the Old Testament have been fulfilled which foretold that to those who should be appointed to rule the Messianic kingdom it should be granted to participate in the Messias’ office of prophet, priest, and king. (See II above.)

The authority established in the Church holds its commission from above, not from below. The pope and the bishops exercise their power as the successors of the men who were chosen by Christ in person. They are not, as the Presbyterian theory of Church government teaches, the delegates of the flock; their warrant is received from the Shepherd, not from the sheep. The view that ecclesiastical authority is ministerial only, and derived by delegation from the faithful, was expressly condemned by Pius VI (1794) in his Constitution “Auctorem Fidei” (q. v.); and on the renovation of the error by certain recent Modernist writers, Pius X reiterated the condemnation in the Encyclical on the errors of the Modernists. In this sense the government of the Church is not democratic. This indeed is involved in the very nature of the Church as a supernatural society, leading men to a supernatural end. No man is capable of wielding authority for such a purpose, unless power is communicated to him from a Divine source. The case is altogether different where civil society is concerned. There the end is not supernatural: it is the temporal well-being of the citizens. It cannot then be said that a special endowment is required to render any class of men capable of filling the place of rulers and of guides. Hence the Church approves equally all forms of civil government which are consonant with the principle of justice. The power exercised by the Church through sacrifice and sacrament (potestas ordinis) lies outside the present subject. It is proposed briefly to consider here the nature of the Church’s authority in her office (1) of teaching (potestas magisterii) and (2) of government (potestas jurisdictionis).

(1) INFALLIBILITY

As the Divinely appointed teacher of revealed truth, the Church is infallible. This gift of inerrancy is guaranteed to it by the words of Christ, in which He promised that His Spirit would abide with it forever to guide it unto all truth (John, xiv, 16; xvi, 13). It is implied also in other passages of Scripture, and asserted by the unanimous testimony of the Fathers. The scope of this infallibility is to preserve the deposit of faith revealed to man by Christ and His Apostles (see INFALLIBILITY.) The Church teaches expressly that it is the guardian only of the revelation, that it can teach nothing which it has not received. The Vatican Council declares: “The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter, in order that through His revelation they might manifest new doctrine: but that through His assistance they might religiously guard, and faithfully expound the revelation handed down by the Apostles, or the deposit of the faith” (Conc. Vat., Sess. IV, cap. liv). The obligation of the natural moral law constitutes part of this revelation. The authority of that law is again and again insisted on by Christ and His Apostles. The Church therefore is infallible in matters both of faith and morals. Moreover, theologians are agreed that the gift of infallibility in regard to the deposit must, by necessary consequence, carry with it infallibility as to certain matters intimately related to the Faith. There are questions bearing so nearly on the preservation of the Faith that, could the Church err in these, her infallibility would not suffice to guard the flock from false doctrine. Such, for instance, is the decision whether a given book does or does not contain teaching condemned as heretical. (See DOGMATIC FACTS.)

It is needless to point out that if the Christian Faith is indeed a revealed doctrine, which men must believe under pain of eternal loss, the gift of infallibility was necessary to the Church. Could she err at all, she might err in any point. The flock would have no guarantee of the truth of any doctrine. The condition of those bodies which at the time of the Reformation forsook the Church affords us an object-lesson in point. Divided into various sections and parties, they are the scene of never-ending disputes; and by the nature of the case they are cut off from all hope of attaining to certainty. In regard also to the moral law, the need of an infallible guide is hardly less imperative. Though on a few broad principles there may be some consensus of opinion as to what is right and what is wrong, yet, in the application of these principles to concrete facts, it is impossible to obtain agreement. On matters of such practical moment as are, for instance, the questions of private property, marriage, and liberty, the most divergent views are defended by thinkers of great ability. Amid all this questioning the unerring voice of the Church gives confidence to her children that they are following the right course, and have not been led astray by some specious fallacy. The various modes in which the Church exercises this gift, and the prerogatives of the Holy See in regard to infallibility, will be found discussed in the article dealing with that subject.

(2) JURISDICTION

The Church’s pastors govern and direct the flock committed to them in virtue of jurisdiction conferred upon them by Christ. The authority of jurisdiction differs essentially from the authority to teach. The two powers are concerned with different objects. The right to teach is concerned solely with the manifestation of the revealed doctrine; the object of the power of jurisdiction is to establish and enforce such laws and regulations as are necessary to the well-being of the Church. Further, the right of the Church to teach extends to the whole world: The jurisdiction of her rulers extends to her members alone (I Cor., v, 12). Christ’s words to St. Peter, “I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” distinctly express the gift of jurisdiction. Supreme authority over a body carries with it the right to govern and direct. The three elements which go to constitute jurisdiction—legislative power, judicial power, and coercive power—are, moreover, all implied in Christ’s directions to the Apostles (Matt., xviii). Not merely are they instructed to impose obligations and to settle disputes; but they may even inflict the extremest ecclesiastical penalty—that of exclusion from membership in Christ.

The jurisdiction exercised within the Church is partly of Divine right, and partly determined by ecclesiastical law. A supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church—clergy and laity alike—belongs by Divine appointment to the pope (Conc. Vat, Sess. IV, cap. iii). The government of the faithful by bishops possessed of ordinary jurisdiction (i. e. a jurisdiction that is not held by mere delegation, but is exercised in their own name) is likewise of Divine ordinance. But the system by which the Church is territorially divided into dioceses, within each of which a single bishop rules the faithful within that district, is an ecclesiastical arrangement capable of modification. The limits of dioceses may be changed by the Holy See. In England the old pre-Reformation diocesan divisions held good until 1850, though the Catholic hierarchy had become extinct in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. In that year the old divisions were annulled and a new diocesan system established. Similarly in France, a complete change was introduced after the Revolution. A bishop may exercise his power on other than a territorial basis. Thus in the East there are different bishops for the faithful belonging to the different rites in communion with the Holy See. Besides bishops, in countries where the ecclesiastical system is fully developed, those of the lower clergy who are parish priests, in the proper sense of the term, have ordinary jurisdiction within their own parishes.

Internal jurisdiction is that which is exercised in the tribunal of penance. It differs from the external jurisdiction of which we have been speaking in that its object is the welfare of the individual penitent, while the object of external jurisdiction is the welfare of the Church as a corporate body. To exercise this internal jurisdiction, the power of orders is an essential condition: none but a priest can absolve. But the power of orders itself is insufficient. The minister of the sacrament must receive jurisdiction from one competent to bestow it. Hence a priest cannot hear confessions in any locality unless he has received faculties from the ordinary of the place. On the other hand, for the exercise of external jurisdiction the power of orders is not necessary. A bishop, duly appointed to a see, but not yet consecrated, is invested with external jurisdiction over his diocese as soon as he has exhibited his letters of appointment to the chapter.

IX. MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

The foregoing account of the Church and of the principle of authority by which it is governed enables us to determine who are members of the Church and who are not. The membership of which we speak, is incorporation in the visible body of Christ. It has already been noted (VI) that a member of the Church may have forfeited the grace of God. In this case he is a withered branch of the true Vine; but he has not been finally broken off from it. He still belongs to Christ. Three conditions are requisite for a man to be a member of the Church.

In the first place, he must profess the true Faith, and have received the Sacrament of Baptism. The essential necessity of this condition is apparent from the fact that the Church is the kingdom of truth, the society of those who accept the revelation of the Son of God. Every member of the Church must accept the whole revelation, either explicitly or implicitly, by profession of all that the Church teaches. He who refuses to receive it, or who, having received it, falls away, thereby excludes himself from the kingdom (Titus, iii, 10 sq.). The Sacrament of Baptism is rightly regarded as part of this condition. By it those who profess the Faith are formally adopted as children of God (Eph., i, 13), and an habitual faith is among the gifts bestowed in it. Christ expressly connects the two, declaring that “he who believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark, xvi, 16; cf. Matt., xxviii, 19).

It is further necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of her appointed rulers. Those who reject the jurisdiction established by Christ are no longer members of His kingdom. Thus St. Ignatius lays it down in his letter to the Church of Smyrna: Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be there is the universal Church” (ad Smyrn., n. 8). In regard to this condition, the ultimate touchstone is to be found in communion with the Holy See. On Peter Christ founded his Church. Those who are not joined to that foundation cannot form part of the house of God.

The third condition lies in the canonical right to communion with the Church. In virtue of its coercive power the Church has authority to excommunicate notorious sinners. It may inflict this punishment not merely on the ground of heresy or schism, but for other grave offences. Thus St. Paul pronounces sentence of excommunication on the incestuous Corinthian (I Cor., v, 3). This penalty is no mere external severance from the rights of common worship. It is a severance from the body of Christ, undoing to this extent the work of baptism, and placing the excommunicated man in the condition of the” heathen and the publican.” It casts him out of God’s kingdom; and the Apostle speaks of it as “delivering him over to Satan” (I Cor., v, 5; I Tim., i, 20).

Regarding each of these conditions, however, certain distinctions must be drawn.

Many baptized heretics have been educated in their erroneous beliefs. Their case is altogether different from that of those who have voluntarily renounced the Faith. They accept what they believe to be the Divine revelation. Such as these belong to the Church in desire, for they are at heart anxious to fulfill God’s will in their regard. In virtue of their baptism and good will, they may be in a state of grace. They belong to the soul of the Church, though they are not united to the visible body. As such they are members of the Church internally, though not externally. Even in regard to those who have themselves fallen away from the Faith, a difference must be made between open and notorious heretics on the one hand, and secret heretics on the other. Open and notorious heresy severs from the visible Church. The majority of theologians agree with BeIlarrrne (de Ecclesiâ, III, c. x), as against Suarez, that secret heresy has not this effect.

In regard to schism the same distinction must be drawn. A secret repudiation of the Church’s authority does not sever the sinner from the Church. The Church recognizes the schismatic as a member, entitled to her communion, until by open and notorious rebellion he rejects her authority.

Excommunicated persons are either excommunicati tolerati (i.e. those who are still tolerated) or excommunicati vitandi (i.e. those to be shunned). Many theologians hold that those whom the Church still tolerates are not wholly cut off from her membership, and that it is only those whom she has branded as “to be shunned” who are cut off from God’s kingdom (see Murray, De Eccles., Disp. i, sect. viii, n. 118). (See EXCOMMUNICATION.)

X. INDEFECTIBILITY OF THE CHURCH

Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.

The gift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several part of the Church against heresy or apostasy. The promise is made to the corporate body. Individual Churches may become corrupt in morals, may fall into heresy, may even apostatize. Thus at the time of the Mohammedan conquests, whole populations renounced their faith; and the Church suffered similar losses in the sixteenth century. But the defection of isolated branches does not alter the character of the main stem. The society of Jesus Christ remains endowed with all the prerogatives bestowed on it by its Founder. Only to One particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. To Peter, and in him to all his successors in the chief pastorate, Christ committed the task of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Luke, xxii, 32); and thus, to the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, “faithlessness cannot gain access” [Ep. lv (lix), ad Cornelium). The various bodies that have left the Church naturally deny its indefectibility. Their plea for separation rests in each case on the supposed fact that the main body of Christians has fallen so far from primitive truth, or from the purity of Christian morals, that the formation of a separate organization is not only desirable but necessary. Those who are called on to defend this plea endeavour in various ways to reconcile it with Christ’s promise. Some, as seen above (VII), have recourse to the hypothesis of an indefectible invisible Church. The Right Rev. Charles Gore of Worcester, who may be regarded as the representative of high-class Anglicanism, prefers a different solution. In his controversy with Canon Richardson, he adopted the position that while the Church will never fail to teach the whole truth as revealed, yet “errors of addition” may exist universally in its current teaching (see Richardson, Catholic Claims, Appendix). Such an explanation deprives Christ’s words of all their meaning. A Church which at any period might conceivably teach, as of faith, doctrines which form no part of the deposit could never deliver her message to the world as the message of God. Men could reasonably urge in regard to any doctrine that it might be an “error of addition.”

It was said above that one part of the Church’s gift of indefectibility lies in her preservation from any substantial corruption in the sphere of morals. This supposes, not merely that she will always proclaim the perfect standard of morality bequeathed to her by her Founder, but also that in every age the lives of many of her children will be based on that sublime model. Only a supernatural principle of spiritual life could bring this about. Man’s natural tendency is downwards. The force of every religious movement gradually spends itself; and the followers of great religious reformers tend in time to the level of their environment. According to the laws of unassisted human nature, it should have been thus with the society established by Christ. Yet history shows us that the Catholic Church possesses a power of reform from within, which has no parallel in any other religious organization. Again and again she produces saints, men imitating the virtues of Christ in an extraordinary degree, whose influence, spreading far and wide, gives fresh ardour even to those who reach a less heroic standard. Thus, to cite one or two well-known instances out of many that might be given: St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi rekindled the love of virtue in the men of the thirteenth century; St. Philip Neri and St. Ignatius Loyola accomplished a like work in the sixteenth century; St. Paul of the Cross and St. Alphonsus Liguori, in the eighteenth. No explanation suffices to account for this phenomenon save the Catholic doctrine that the Church is not a natural but a supernatural society, that the preservation of her moral life depends, not on any laws of human nature, but on the life-giving presence of the Holy Ghost. The Catholic and the Protestant principles of reform stand in sharp contrast the one to the other. Catholic reformers have one and all fallen back on the model set before them in the person of Christ and on the power of the Holy Ghost to breathe fresh life into the souls which He has regenerated. Protestant reformers have commenced their work by separation, and by this act have severed themselves from the very principle of life. No one of course would wish to deny that within the Protestant bodies there have been many men of great virtues. Yet it is not too much to assert that in every case their virtue has been nourished on what yet remained to them of Catholic belief and practice, and not on anything which they have received from Protestantism as such.

THE CONTINUITY THEORY

The doctrine of the Church’s indefectibility just considered will place us in a position to estimate, at its true value, the claim of the Anglican Church and of the Episcopalian bodies in other English-speaking countries to be continuous with the ancient pre-Reformation Church of England, in the sense of being part of one and the same society. The point to be determined here is what constitutes a breach of continuity as regards a society. It may safely be said that the continuity of a society is broken when a radical change in the principles it embodies is introduced. In the case of a Church, such a change in its hierarchical constitution and in its professed faith suffices to make it a different Church from what it was before. For the societies we term Churches exist as the embodiment of certain supernatural dogmas and of a Divinely-authorized principle of government. when, therefore, the truths previously field to be of faith are rejected, and the Principle of government regarded as sacred is repudiated, there is a breach of continuity, and a new Church is formed. In this the continuity of a Church differs from the continuity of a nation. National continuity is independent of forms of government and of beliefs. A nation is an aggregate of families, and so long as these families constitute a self-sufficing social organism, it remains the same nation, whatever the form of government may be. The continuity of a Church depends essentially on its government and its beliefs.

The changes introduced into the English Church at the time of the Reformation were precisely of the character just described. At that period fundamental alterations were made in its hierarchical constitution and in its dogmatic standards. It is not to be determined here which was in the right, the Church of Catholic days or the Reformed Church. It is sufficient if we show that changes were made vitally affecting the nature of the society. It is notorious that from the days of Augustine to those of Warham, every archbishop of Canterbury recognized the pope as the supreme source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The archbishops themselves could not exercise jurisdiction within their province until they had received papal confirmation. Further, the popes were accustomed to send to England legates a latere, who, in virtue of their legatine authority, whatever their personal status in the hierarchy, possessed a jurisdiction superior to that of the local bishops. Appeals ran from every ecclesiastical court in England to the pope, and his decision was recognized by all as final. The pope, too, exercised the right of excommunication in regard to the members of the English Church. This supreme authority was, moreover, regarded by all as belonging to the pope by Divine right, and not in virtue of merely human institution. When, therefore, this power of jurisdiction was transferred to the king, the alteration touched the constitutive principles of the body and was fundamental in its character. Similarly, in regard to matters of faith, the changes were revolutionary. It will be sufficient to note that a new rule of faith was introduced, Scripture alone being substituted for Scripture and Tradition; that several books were expunged from the Canon of Scripture; that five out of the seven sacraments were repudiated; and that the sacrifices of Masses were declared to be “blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” It is indeed sometimes said that the official formularies of Anglicanism are capable of a Catholic sense, if given a “non-natural” interpretation. This argument can, however, carry no weight. In estimating the character of a society, we must judge, not by the strained sense which some individuals may attach to its formularies, but by the sense they were intended to bear. Judged by this criterion, none can dispute that these innovations were such as to constitute a fundamental change in the dogmatic standpoint of the Church of England.

XI. UNIVERSALITY OF THE CHURCH

The Church of Christ has from the first claimed to transcend all those national differences which divide men. In it, the Apostle asserts, “there is neither Gentile nor Jew . . . Barbarian nor Scythian” (Col., iii, 11). Men of every race are one in it; they form a single brotherhood in the Kingdom of God. In the pagan world, religion and nationality had been coterminous. The boundaries of the State were the boundaries of the faith which the State professed. Even the Jewish Dispensation was limited to a special race. Previous to the Christian revelation the idea of a religion adapted to all peoples was foreign to the conceptions of men. It is one of the essential features of the Church that she should be a single, worldwide society embracing all races. In it, and in it alone, is the brotherhood of man realized. All national barriers, no less than all differences of class, disappear in the City of God. It is not to be understood that the Church disregards the ties which bind men to their country, or undervalues the virtue of patriotism. The division of men into different nations enters into the scheme of Providence. To each nation has been assigned a special task to accomplish in the working out of God’s purposes. A man owes a duty to his nation no less than to his family. One who omits this duty has failed in a primary moral obligation. Moreover, each nation has its own character, and its own special gifts. It will usually be found that a man attains to high virtue, not by neglecting these gifts, but by embodying the best and noblest ideals of his own people.

For these reasons the Church consecrates the spirit of nationality. Yet it transcends it, for it binds together the various nationalities in a single brotherhood. More than this, it purifies, develops, and perfects national character, just as it purifies and perfects the character of each individual. Often indeed it has been accused of exercising an anti patriotic influence. But it will invariably be found that it has incurred this reproach by opposing and rebuking what was base in the national aspirations, not by thwarting what was heroic or just. As the Church perfects the nation, so reciprocally does each nation add something of its own to the glory of the Church. It brings its own type of sanctity, its national virtues, and thus contributes to “the fullness of Christ” something which no other race could give. Such are the relations of the Church to what is termed nationality. The external unity of the one society is the visible embodiment of the doctrine of the brotherhood of man. The sin of schism, the Fathers tell us, lies in this, that by it the law of love to our neighbour is implicitly rejected. “Nec hæretici pertinent ad Ecclesiam Catholicam, qæ diligit Deum; nec schismatici quoniam diligit proximum” (Neither do heretics belong to the Catholic church, for she loves God; nor do schismatics, for she loves her neighbour—Augustine, De Fide et Symbolo, ch. x, in P. L., XL, 193). It is of importance to insist on this point. For it is sometimes urged that the organized unity of Catholicism may be adapted to the Latin races but is ill-suited to the Teutonic spirit. To say this is to say that an essential characteristic of this Christian revelation is ill-suited to one of the great races of the world.

The union of different nations in one society is contrary to the natural inclinations of fallen humanity. It must ever struggle against the impulses of national pride, the desire for complete independence, the dislike of external control. Hence history provides various cases in which these passions have obtained the upper hand, the bond of unity has been broken, and “National Churches” have been formed. In every such case the so-called National Church has found to its cost that, in severing its connection with the Holy See, it has lost its one protector against the encroachments of the secular Government. The Greek Church under the Byzantine Empire, the autocephalous Russian Church today, have been mere pawns in the hands of the civil authority. The history of the Anglican Church presents the same features. There is but one institution which is able to resist the pressure of secular powers—the See of Peter, which was set in the Church for this purpose by Christ, that it might afford a principle of stability and security to every part. The papacy is above all nationalities. It is the servant of no particular State; and hence it has strength to resist the forces that would make the religion of Christ subservient to secular ends. Those Churches alone have retained their vitality which have kept their union with the See of Peter. The branches which have been broken from that stem have withered.

THE BRANCH THEORY

In the course of the nineteenth century, the principle of National Churches was strenuously defended by the High Church Anglican divines under the name of the “Branch theory.” According to this view, each National Church when fully constituted under its own episcopate is independent of external control. It possesses plenary authority as to its internal discipline, and may not merely reform itself as regards ritual and ceremonial usages, but may correct obvious abuses in matters of doctrine. It is justified in doing this even if the step involve a breach of communion with the rest of Christendom; for, in this case, the blame attaches not to the Church which undertakes the work of reformation, but to those which, on this score, reject it from communion. It still remains a “branch” of the Catholic Church as it was before. At the present day the Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Greek Churches are each of them a branch of the Universal Church. None of them has an exclusive right to term itself the Catholic Church. The defenders of the theory recognize, indeed, that this divided state of the church is abnormal. They admit that the Fathers never contemplated the possibility of a church thus severed into parts. But they assert that circumstances such as those which led to this abnormal state of things never presented themselves during the early centuries of ecclesiastical history.

The position is open to fatal objections.

It is an entirely novel theory as to the constitution of the Church, which is rejected alike by the Catholic and the Greek Churches. Neither of these admit the existence of the so-called branches of the Church. The Greek schismatics, no less than the Catholics, affirm that they, and they only, constitute the Church. Further, the theory is rejected by the majority of the Anglican body. It is the tenet of but one school, though that a distinguished one. It Is almost a reductio ad absurdum when we are asked to believe that a single school in a particular sect is the sole depositary of the true theory of the Church.

The claim made by many Anglicans that there is nothing in their position contrary to ecclesiastical and patristic tradition in quite indefensible. Arguments precisely applicable to their case were used by the Fathers against the Donatists. It is known from the “Apologia” that Cardinal Wiseman’s masterly demonstration of this point was one of the chief factors in bringing about the conversion of Newman. In the controversy with the Donatists, St. Augustine holds it sufficient for his purpose to argue that those who are separated from the Universal Church cannot be in the right. He makes the question one of simple fact. Are the Donatists separated from the main body of Christians, or are they not? If they are, no vindication of their cause can absolve them from the charge of schism. “Securus judicat orbis terrarum bonos non esse qui se dividunt ab orbe terrarum in quâcunque parte orbis terrarum” (The entire world judges with security that they are not good, who separate themselves from the entire world in whatever part of the entire world—Augustine, contra epist. Parm., III, c. iv in P. L., XLIII, 101). St. Augustine’s position rests through out on the doctrine he assumes as absolutely indubitable, that Christ’s Church must be one, must be visibly one; and that any body that is separated from it is ipso facto shown to be in schism.

The contention of the Anglican controversialists that the English Church is not separatist since it did not reject the communion of Rome, but Rome rejected it, has of course only the value of a piece of special pleading, and need not be taken as a serious argument. Yet it is interesting to observe that in this too they were anticipated by the Donatists (Contra epist. Petil., II, xxxviii in P.L., XLIII, 292).

The consequences of the doctrine constitute a manifest proof of its falsity. The unity of the Catholic Church in every part of the world is, as already seen, the sign of the brotherhood which binds together the children of God. More than this, Christ Himself declared that it would be a proof to all men of His Divine mission. The unity of His flock, an earthly representation of the unity of the Father and the Son, would be sufficient to show that He had come from God (John, xvii, 21). Contrariwise, this theory, first advanced to justify a state of things having Henry VIII as its author, would make the Christian Church, not a witness to the brotherhood of God’s children, but a standing proof that even the Son of God had failed to withstand the spirit of discord amongst men. Were the theory true, so far from the unity of the Church testifying to the Divine mission of Jesus Christ, its severed and broken condition would be a potent argument in the hands of unbelief.

XII. NOTES OF THE CHURCH

By the notes of the Church are meant certain conspicuous characteristics which distinguish it from all other bodies and prove it to be the one society of Jesus Christ. Some such distinguishing marks it needs must have, if it is, indeed, the sole depositary of the blessings of redemption, the way of salvation offered by God to man. A Babel of religious organizations all proclaim themselves to be the Church of Christ. Their doctrines are contradictory; and precisely in so far as any one of them regards the doctrines which it teaches as of vital moment, it declares those of the rival bodies to be misleading and pernicious. Unless the true Church were endowed with such characteristics as would prove to all men that it, and it alone, had a right to the name, how could the vast majority of mankind distinguish the revelation of God from the inventions of man? If it could not authenticate its claim, it would be impossible for it to warn all men that to reject it was to reject Christ. In discussing the visibility of the Church (VII) it was seen that the Catholic Church points to four such notes—those namely which were inserted in the Nicene Creed at the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381): Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity. These, it declares, distinguish it from every other body, and prove that in it alone is to be found the true religion. Each of these characteristics forms the subject of a special article in this work. Here, however, will be indicated the sense in which the terms are to he understood. A brief explanation of their meaning will show how decisive a proof they furnish that the society of Jesus Christ is none other than the Church in communion with the Holy See.

The Protestant reformers endeavoured to assign notes of the Church, such as might lend support to their newly-founded sects. Calvin declares that the Church is to be found “where the word of God is preached in its purity, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s ordinance” (Instit., Bk. IV, c. i; cf. Confessio August., art. 4). It is manifest that such notes are altogether nugatory. The very reason why notes are required at all is that men may be able to discern the word of God from the words of false prophets, and may know which religious body has a right to term its ceremonies the sacraments of Christ. To say that the Church is to be sought where these two qualities are found cannot help us. The Anglican Church adopted Calvin’s account in its official formulary (Thirty-Nine Articles, art. 17); on the other hand, it retains the use of the Nicene Creed; though a profession of faith in a Church which is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, can have little meaning to those who are not in communion with the successor of Peter.

UNITY

The Church is One because its members;

Are all united under one government

All profess the same faith

All join in a common worship

As already noted (XI) Christ Himself declared that the unity of his followers should bear witness to Him. Discord and separation are the Devil’s work on the earth. The unity and brotherhood promised by Christ are to be the visible manifestation on the earth of the Divine union (John, xvii, 21). St. Paul’s teaching on this point is to the same effect. He sees in the visible unity of the body of Christ an external sign of the oneness of the Spirit who dwells within it. There is, he says, “one body and one Spirit” (Eph., iv, 4). As in any living organism the union of the members in one body is the sign of the one animating principle within, so it is with the Church. If the Church were divided into two or more mutually exclusive bodies, how could she witness to the presence of that Spirit Whose name is Love. Further, when it is said that the members of the Church are united by the profession of the same faith, we speak of external profession as well as inward acceptance. In recent years, much has been said by those outside the Church, about unity of spirit being compatible with differences of creed. Such words are meaningless in reference to a Divine revelation. Christ came from heaven to reveal the truth to man. If a diversity of creeds could be found in His Church, this could only be because the truth He revealed had been lost in the quagmire of human error. It would signify that His work was frustrated, that His Church was no longer the pillar and ground of the truth. There is, it is plain, but one Church, in which is found the unity we have described—in the Catholic Church, united under the government of the supreme pontiff, and acknowledging all that he teaches in his capacity as the infallible guide of the Church.

SANCTITY

When the Church points to sanctity as one of her notes, it is manifest that what is meant is a sanctity of such a kind as excludes the supposition of any natural origin. The holiness which marks the Church should correspond to the holiness of its Founder, of the Spirit Who dwells within it, of the graces bestowed upon it. A quality such as this may well serve to distinguish the true Church from counterfeits. It is not without reason that the Church of Rome claims to be holy in this sense. Her holiness appears in the doctrine which she teaches, in the worship she offers to God, in the fruits which she brings forth.

The doctrine of the Church is summed up in the imitation of Jesus Christ. This imitation expresses itself in good works, in self-sacrifice, in love of suffering, and especially in the practice of the three evangelical counsels of perfection—voluntary poverty, chastity, and obedience. The ideal which the Church proposes to us is a Divine ideal. The sects which have severed themselves from the Church have either neglected or repudiated some part of the Church’s teaching in this regard. The Reformers of the sixteenth century went so far as to deny the value of good works altogether. Though their followers have for the most part let fall this anti-Christian doctrine, yet to this day the self-surrender of the religious state is regarded by Protestants as folly.

The holiness of the Church’s worship is recognized even by the world outside the Church. In the solemn renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary there lies a mysterious power, which all are forced to own. Even enemies of the Church realize the sanctity of the Mass.

Fruits of holiness are not, indeed, found in the lives of all the Church’s children. Man’s will is free, and though God gives grace, many who have been united to the Church by baptism make little use of the gift. But at all times of the Church’s history there have been many who have risen to sublime heights of self-sacrifice, of love to man, and of love to God. It is only in the Catholic Church that is found that type of character which we recognize in the saints—in men such as St. Francis Xavier, St. Vincent de Paul, and many others. Outside the Church men do not look for such holiness. Moreover, the saints, and indeed every other member of the Church who has attained to any degree of piety, have been ever ready to acknowledge that they owe whatever is good in them to the grace the Church bestows.

CATHOLICITY

Christ founded the Church for the salvation of the human race. He established it that it might preserve His revelation, and dispense His grace to all nations. Hence it was necessary that it should be found in every land, proclaiming His message to all men, and communicating to them the means of grace. To this end He laid on the Apostles the Injunction to “go, and teach all nations.” There is, notoriously, but one religious body which fulfills this command, and which can therefore lay any claim to the note of Catholicity. The Church which owns the Roman pontiff as its supreme head extends its ministrations over the whole world. It owns its obligation to preach the Gospel to all peoples. No other Church attempts this task, or can use the title of Catholic with any appearance of justification. The Greek Church is at the present day a mere local schism. None of the Protestant bodies has ever pretended to a universal mission. They claim no right to convert to their beliefs the Christianized nations of Europe. Even in regard to the heathen, for nearly two hundred years missionary enterprise was unknown among Protestant bodies. In the nineteenth century, it is true, many of them displayed no little zeal for the conversion of the heathen, and contributed large sums of money for this purpose. But the results achieved were so inadequate as to justify the conclusion that the blessing of God did not rest upon the enterprise. (See MISSIONS, CATHOLIC; MISSIONS; PROTESTANT.)

APOSTOLICITY

The Apostolicity of the Church consists in its identity with the body which Christ established on the foundation of the Apostles, and which He commissioned to carry on His work. No other body save this is the Church of Christ. The true Church must be Apostolic in doctrine and Apostolic in mission. Since, however, it has already been shown that the gift of infallibility was promised to the Church, it follows that where there is Apostolicity of mission, there will also be Apostolicity of doctrine. Apostolicity of mission consists in the power of Holy orders and the power of jurisdiction derived by legitimate transmission from the Apostles. Any religious organization whose ministers do not possess these two powers is not accredited to preach the Gospel of Christ. For “how shall they preach,” asks the Apostle, “unless they be sent? “ (Rom., x, 15). It is Apostolicity of mission which is reckoned as a note of the Church. No historical fact can be more clear than that Apostolicity, if it is found anywhere, is found in the Catholic Church. In it there is the power of Holy orders received by Apostolic succession. In it, too, there is Apostolicity of jurisdiction; for history shows us that the Roman bishop is the successor of Peter, and as such the centre of jurisdiction. Those prelates who are united to the Roman See receive their jurisdiction from the pope, who alone can bestow it. No other Church is Apostolic. The Greek church, it is true, claims to possess this property on the strength of its valid succession of bishops. But, by rejecting the authority of the Holy See, it severed itself from the Apostolic College, and thereby forfeited all jurisdiction. Anglicans make a similar claim. But even if they possessed valid orders, jurisdiction would be wanting to them no less than to the Greeks.

XIII. THE CHURCH, A PERFECT SOCIETY

The Church has been considered as a society which aims at a spiritual end, but which yet is a visible polity, like the secular polities among which it exists. It is, further, a “perfect society.” The meaning of this expression, “a perfect society,” should be clearly understood, for this characteristic justifies, even on grounds of pure reason, that independence of secular control which the Church has always claimed. A society may be defined as a number of men who unite in a manner more or less permanent in order, by their combined efforts, to attain a common good. Association of this kind is a necessary condition of civilization. An isolated individual can achieve but little. He can scarcely provide himself with necessary sustenance; much less can he find the means of developing his higher mental and moral gifts. As civilization progresses, men enter into various societies for the attainment of various ends. These organizations are perfect or imperfect societies. For a society to be perfect, two conditions are necessary:

The end which it proposes to itself must not be purely subordinate to the end of some other society. For example, the cavalry of an army is an organized association of men; but the end for which this association exists is entirely subordinate to the good of the whole army. Apart from the success of the whole army, there can properly speaking be no such thing as the success of the lesser association. Similarly, the good of the whole army is subordinate to the welfare of the State.

The society in question must be independent of other societies in regard to the attainment of its end. Mercantile societies, no matter how great their wealth and power, are imperfect; for they depend on the authority of the State for permission to exist. So, too, a single family is an imperfect society. It cannot attain its end—the well-being of its members—in isolation from other families. Civilized life requires that many families should cooperate to form a State.

There are two societies which are perfect—the Church and the State. The end of the State is the temporal welfare of the community. It seeks to realize the conditions which are requisite in order that its members may be able to attain temporal felicity. It protects the rights, and furthers the interests of the individuals and the groups of individuals which belong to it. All other societies which aim in any manner at temporal good are necessarily imperfect. Either they exist ultimately for the good of the State itself; or, if their aim is the private advantage of some of its members, the State must grant them authorization, and protect them in the exercise of their various functions. Should they prove dangerous to it, it justly dissolves them. The Church also possesses the conditions requisite for a perfect society. That its end is not subordinate to that of any other society is manifest: for it aims at the spiritual welfare, the eternal felicity, of man. This is the highest end a society can have; it is certainly not an end subordinate to the temporal felicity aimed at by the State. Moreover, the Church is not dependent on the permission of the State in the attaining of its end. Its right to exist is derived not from the permission of the State, but from the command of God. Its right to preach the Gospel, to administer the sacraments, to exercise jurisdiction over its subjects, is not conditional on the authorization of the civil Government. It has received from Christ Himself the great commission to teach all nations. To the command of the civil Government that they should desist from preaching, the Apostles replied simply that they ought to obey God rather than men (Acts, v, 29). Some measure of temporal goods is, indeed, necessary to the Church to enable it to carry out the work entrusted to it. The State cannot justly prohibit it from receiving this from the benefactions of the faithful. Those whose duty it is to achieve a certain end have a right to possess the means necessary to accomplish their task.

Pope Leo XIII summed up this doctrine in his Encyclical “Immortale Dei” (1 November, 1885) on the Christian constitution of States: “The Church,” he says, “is distinguished and differs from civil society; and, what is of highest moment, it is a society chartered as of right divine, perfect in its nature and its title to possess in itself and by itself through the will and loving kindness of its Founder, all needful provision for its maintenance and action. And just as the end at which the Church aims is by far the noblest of ends, so is its authority the most excellent of all authority, nor can it be looked on as inferior to the civil power, or in any manner dependent upon it.” It is to be observed that though the end at which the Church aims is higher than that of the State, the latter is not, as a society, subordinate to the Church. The two societies belong to different orders. The temporal felicity at which the State aims is not essentially dependent on the spiritual good which the Church seeks. Material prosperity and a high degree of civilization may be found where the Church does not exist. Each society is Supreme in its own order. At the same time each contributes greatly to the advantage of the other. The church cannot appeal to men who have not some rudiments of civilization, and whose savage mode of life renders moral development impossible. Hence, though her function is not to civilize but to save souls, yet when she is called on to deal with savage races, she commences by seeking to communicate the elements of civilization to them. On the other hand, the State needs the Supernatural sanctions and spiritual motives which the Church impresses on its members. A civil order without these is insecurely based.

It has often been objected that the doctrine of the Church’s independence in regard to the State would render civil government impossible. Such a theory, it is urged, creates a State within a State; and from this, there must inevitably result a conflict of authorities each Claiming supreme dominion over the same subjects. Such was the argument of the Gallican Regalists. The writers of this school, consequently, would not admit the claim of the Church to be a perfect society. They maintained that any jurisdiction which it might exercise was entirely dependent on the permission of the civil power. The difficulty, however, is rather apparent than real. The scope of the two authorities is different, the one belonging to what is temporal, the other to what is spiritual. Even when the jurisdiction of the Church involves the use of temporal means and affects temporal interests, it does not detract from the due authority of the State. If difficulties arise, they arise, not by the necessity of the case, but from some extrinsic reason. In the course of history, occasions have doubtless arisen, when ecclesiastical authorities have grasped at power which by right belonged to the State, and, more often still, when the State has endeavoured to arrogate to itself spiritual jurisdiction. This, however, does not show the system to be at fault, but merely that human perversity can abuse it. So far, indeed, is it from being true that the Church’s claims render government impossible, that the contrary is the case. By determining the just limits of liberty of conscience, they are a defence to the State. Where the authority of the Church is not recognized, any enthusiast may elevate the vagaries of his own caprice into a Divine command, and may claim to reject the authority of the civil ruler on the plea that he must obey God and not man. The history of John of Leyden and of many another self-styled prophet will afford examples in point. The Church bids her members see in the civil power “the minister of God,” and never justifies disobedience, except in those rare cases when the State openly violates the natural or the revealed law. (See CIVIL ALLEGIANCE.)

Among the writings of the Fathers, the following are the principal works which bear on the doctrine of the Church: ST. IRENÆUS, Adv. Hereses in P.G., VII; TERTULLIAN, De Prescriptionibus in P. L., II; ST. CYPRIAN, De Unitate Ecclesie in P.L., IV; ST. OPTATUS, De Schismate Donatistarum in P.L., XI; ST. AUGUSTINE, Contra Donatistas, Contra Epistolas Parmeniani, Contra Litteras Petiliani in P.L., XLIII; ST. VINCENT OF LÉRINS, Commonitorium in P.L., L.—Of the theologians who in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries defended the Catholic Church against the Reformers may be mentioned: STAPLETON, Principiorum Fidei Doctrinalium Demonstratio (1574; Paris, 1620); BELLARMINE, Disputationes de Controversiis Fidei (1576; Prague, 1721); SUAREZ, Defensio Fidea Catholicoe adversus Anglicanoe Sectoe Errores (1613; Paris, 1859).—Among more recent writers: MURRAY, De Ecclesiâ (Dublin, 1866); FRANZLIN, De Ecclesiâ (Rome, 1887); PALMIERI, De Romano Pontifice (Prato, 1891); DÖLLINGER, The First Age of the Church (tr. London, 1866); SCHANZ, A Christian Apology (tr. Dublin, 1892).—The following English works may also be noticed: WISEMAM, Lectures on the Church; NEWMAN, Development Of Christian Doctrine; IDEM, Difficulties Of Anglicans; MATHEW, ed., Ecclesia (London, 1907). In special relation to recent rationaIist criticism regarding the primitive Church and its organization, may be noted: BATIFFOL, Etudes d’histoire et de la théologie positive (Paris, 1906); important articles by Mgr. Batiffol will also he found in the Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique for 1904, 1905, 1906, and in the Irish Theological Quarterly for 1906 and 1907; DE SMEDT in the Revue des questions historiques (1888, 1891), vols. XLIV, CL; BUTLER in The Dublin Review (1893, 1897), vols. CXIII, CXXI. The following works are by Anglican divines of various schools of thought: PALMER, Treatise on the Church (1842); GORE, Lux Mundi (London, 1890); IDEM, The Church and the Ministry (London, 1889); HORT, The Christian Ecciesia (London, 1897); LIGHTFOOT, the dissertation entitled The Christian Ministry in his Commentary on Epistle to Philippians (London, 1881); GAYFORD in HASTING, Dict. of Bible, s. v. Church. Amongst rationalist critics may be mentioned: HARNACK, History of Dogma (tr. London, 1904); IDEM, What is Christianity? (tr. London, 1901), and articles in Expositor (1887), vol. V; HATCH, Organization of the Early Christian Churches (London, 1880); WEISZÄCKER, Apostolic Age (tr. London, 1892); SABATIER, Religions of Authority and the Religion of the Spirit (tr. London, 1906); LOWRIE, The Church and its Organization—an Interpretation of Rudolf Sohm’s ‘Kirchenrecht” (London, 1904). With these may be classed: LOISY, L’Evangile et l’Eglise (Paris, 1902).

G. H. JOYCE.

Churching of Women

A blessing given by the Church to mothers after recovery from childbirth. Only a Catholic woman who has given birth to a child in legitimate wedlock, provided she has not allowed the child to be baptized outside the Catholic Church, is entitled to it. It is not a precept, but a pious and praiseworthy custom (Rituale Romanum), dating from the early Christian ages, for a mother to present herself in the Church as soon as she is able to leave her house (St. Charles Borromeo, First Council of Milan), to render thanks to God for her happy delivery, and to obtain by means of the priestly blessing the graces necessary to bring up her child in a Christian manner. The prayers indicate that this blessing is intended solely for the benefit of the mother, and hence it is not necessary that she should bring the child with her; nevertheless, in many places the pious and edifying custom prevails of specially dedicating the child to God. For, as the Mother of Christ carried her Child to the Temple to offer Him to the Eternal Father, so a Christian mother is anxious to present her offspring to God and obtain for it the blessing of the Church. This blessing, in the ordinary form, without change or omission, is to be given to the mother, even if her child was stillborn, or has died without baptism (Cong. Sac. Rit., 19 May, 1896).

The churching of women is not a strictly parochial function, yet the Congregation of Sacred Rites (21 November, 1893) decided that a parish priest, if asked to give it, must do so, and if another priest is asked to perform the rite, he may do so in any church or public oratory, provided the superior of said church or oratory be notified. It must be imparted in a church or in a place in which Mass is celebrated, as the very name “churching” is intended to suggest a pilgrimage of thanksgiving to the church, and as the rubrics indicate in the expressions: “desires to come to the church,” “he conducts her into the church,” she kneels before the altar,” etc. Hence the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (No. 246) prohibits the practice of churching in places in which Mass is not celebrated.

The mother, kneeling in the vestibule, or within the church, and carrying a lighted candle, awaits the priest, who, vested in surplice and white stole, sprinkles her with holy water in the form of a cross. Having recited Psalm 23, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof,” he offers her the left extremity of the stole and leads her into the church, saying: “Enter thou into the temple of God, adore the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary who has given thee fruitfulness of offspring.” She advances to one of the altars and kneels before it, whilst the priest, turned towards her, recites a prayer which expresses the object of the blessing, and then, having sprinkled her again with holy water in the form of the cross, dismisses her, saying: “The peace and blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, descend upon thee, and remain forever. Amen.”

A.J. SCHULTE

Church Maintenance

The proper support of church edifices and church institutions, as well as of the clergy who minister in them, has always been both a necessity and a problem. As the Church of Christ is a visible organization, it must embrace a visible priesthood, worship, and temples. These must be maintained. As a consequence, the Church must acquire property both movable and immovable, and this she cannot obtain without a corresponding generosity on the part of the faithful. To pretend that the Church should be utterly deprived of property, is not only an error, but also an absurdity. In the Old Dispensation, the Jewish priesthood were put in possession of certain towns all through Israel, and by the Mosaic Law they received a portion of various sacrifices offered in the Temple. The magnificent Temple itself was a gift of the kings of Israel, and its maintenance was provided for partly by royal munificence, partly by the offerings of the people. The Temple had its treasury or corbona. By Divine command, as we read in Scripture, the Aaronic clergy received firstfruits, tithes, and other contributions towards their support.

APOSTOLIC TIMES

Nor was there less recognition of the general principle in the New Testament. We are told that Christ and His Apostles had a common purse for the defraying of their expenses. That this information comes to us only incidentally, through the narration of an event bearing no direct relation to it, shows that the Evangelist presumes the reader to take it for granted that there was a common purse for the expenses of Christ and His disciples. The Acts of the Apostles portray to us the fervour of the first Christians, who sold their lands and laid their proceeds at the feet of the Apostles that they might employ them for the needs of the nascent Church. Along with the support of the poor and the widow and the orphan, would also necessarily be included the sustentation of the clergy and the defraying of the expenses connected with the worship of God. Christ in sending forth His disciples to preach told them to accept what was necessary for their support from the people to whom they ministered, basing it on the general principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire (Luke, x, 7); Saint Paul states (I Cor., ix) that it is Christ’s command that the faithful give temporal sustenance to the clergy. While reminding the Corinthians that he himself has been no charge or burden to them, he takes occasion to inculcate on them the duty of supporting their pastors. “If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things? Know you not that they who work in the holy place, eat the things that are of the place; and that they that serve the altar, partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel, should live by the Gospel” (I Cor., ix, 11, 13–14).

Connected with this contribution towards the support of the clergy, we find Saint Paul also alluding to the similar duty of helping the poor. In the fifteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans he states that contributions had been made in Macedonia and Achaia for the support of the poor in Jerusalem, and that he is on his way to that city to bring the contributed relief (Rom., xv, 25–28). In like manner (I Tim., v) he speaks of the Church supporting the widows. The Apostles in fact, as we learn from the Acts, charged the deacons with the ministry to the temporal wants of the poor. The Church has always been mindful of this conjoining of the support of the clergy and of church institutions with that of the poor and suffering, and hence the regulations for setting apart some of the income of holders of benefices and the employment of church moneys for the relief of the helpless and the indigent, the widows, the orphans, and the sick.

THE EARLY CHURCH

From the beginnings of the Christian Church history, as we gather it from the Fathers and early ecclesiastical writers, the faithful made voluntary offerings to defray the expenses of Divine worship and to support the clergy and the poor. Though these offerings would naturally be for the most part in money and in kind, yet we find also property set aside for ecclesiastical purposes. Thus the Christian cemeteries or catacombs and the “titles” or houses where Mass was offered seem very early, even in the lifetime of the Apostles, to have become consecrated to church uses. That in the course of time they passed into the possession of the Church, and became church property in the modern sense of the term, is evident from various edicts and decrees of the Roman Emperors, as, for example, of Aurelian and Constantine. These show conclusively that, even in the times of persecution by pagan rulers, the Church had lands and edifices of various kinds in its possession. Nor was this state of things confined to the city of Rome, but it was practised and recognized all over the Roman Empire.

THE ENDOWED CHURCH

When peace was given to the Church by Constantine, at the beginning of the fourth century, an era of temporal prosperity for the Church set in. As the Empire gradually became Christian, the donations for religious purposes increased by leaps and bounds. Constantine himself set an example for the Christian rulers who followed him, when he bestowed upon the pope the Lateran palace and erected magnificent basilicas in honour of the Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul. Henceforth the civil power, which had been formerly adverse to the Church, became its protector. Gifts of money and land for ecclesiastical purposes were now legally recognized, and though some of the later Roman emperors placed restrictions upon the donations of the faithful, yet the wealth of the Church rapidly increased. Whatever losses ecclesiastical property suffered by the inroads of the barbarians on the fall of the Western Roman Empire, in the last quarter of the fifth century, were made up for later, when the conquering barbarians in their turn were converted to Christianity. Edifices for Divine worship, asylums for the poor and sick, monasteries and nunneries, universities and schools, cathedral and collegiate churches, chantries and preceptories, were founded and endowed in great numbers. The spirit of faith manifested itself in conferring on the Church the means for adding becoming splendour to the celebration of Divine worship and for founding benefices to support the clergy. The bitter complaint made, after the so-called Reformation, that “under the papacy giving had no end” was true to a surprising extent. Landed property became as a rule the title for the ordination of clerics. A great advantage of this system was that the clergy were not obliged to make constant demands on their flocks for the means of livelihood or to sustain worship; and only those who felt impelled to give voluntarily were looked to for offerings. It is true that the Church always insisted on the Divine law that the faithful must support their pastors, yet this support was generally provided for by perpetual foundations, not dependent on the temporary generosity of the people. The wealth of the Church at this period has sometimes been made a matter of reproach to her, but while freely admitting that abuses were possible and indeed at times unquestionable, yet this was in contravention of the laws of the Church. It was never the Church’s intention that her clergy should acquire property or income for the purpose of leading an indulgent or luxurious life. The saying of Saint Ambrose that the Church has wealth not in order to hoard it, but to bestow it on those who are in need of it, was always recognized as a bounden duty. Hence the canonical restrictions placed upon the holder of a benefice in the employment of his income, and the duty imposed upon him of setting aside part of it for the poor. It must not be forgotten that when the Church was wealthiest, it covered Europe with asylums and places of refuge for every form of poverty and distress, and that the great landed monasteries were also noted for their hospitality to pilgrims, their generosity to the indigent, and their zeal for education. It is also noteworthy that despite the calamitous usurpations of the civil power in many countries, which reduced the clergy to comparative indigence, yet the fervour of vocations has never been chilled by the loss of endowments and pensions. The canon law contains many severe regulations against avarice and simony in the clergy. As this is not a technical treatment of the question of church property, nothing is here said specially of the laws governing its acquisition, administration, and alienation; neither, for the same reason, do we enter into any detail concerning the regulations made for benefices and those who hold them. It is intended merely to point out, in general, the temporal means and the sources of support of ecclesiastical institutions and of the clergy during the course of the Church’s history. The rapacities of Governments and the violence of revolutions have torn from the Church many of her endowments in most countries of Europe, and all of them in some. In such cases the clergy must again, as in the earliest times, look to the direct generosity of the faithful for their support and for the means of carrying on the liturgical and benevolent institutions of the Church.

MISSIONARY COUNTRIES

It is particularly in countries where the Church has never been endowed and established, and in those where all such advantages have been entirely withdrawn from her, that the problem of Church maintenance must be faced in all its nakedness. To show what means have been employed to solve this difficult problem, and likewise to give some appreciation of the generosity of the not over-wealthy faithful on the one hand and of the care of ecclesiastical rulers to avoid abuses on the other, it will be well to chronicle the decrees of various synods in countries where church maintenance is a burning question. The synods, first of all, insist on the fact that the faithful are bound by the Divine law to support the clergy who are their spiritual guides. The First Synod of Baltimore in 1791 declares: “Owing to the increasing number of Catholics dispersed over widely-separated tracts of the United States, there is need of a much larger number than formerly of labourers in the Lord’s vineyard, and these cannot be obtained or supported unless the means be given by the faithful, as indeed they are bound by Divine precept to give them, for the Apostle says that it is but just that those who sow spiritual things for others should reap of the latter’s carnal things (I Cor., ix, 11). Therefore the faithful should be frequently reminded of this obligation, and if they do not satisfy it, they have only themselves to blame if they cannot have Mass on Sundays or feast days nor obtain the sacraments in their extreme necessities. Consequently, when in proportion to the worldly goods with which God has endowed them, they refuse to contribute to the ministry of salvation, and so do not satisfy the Divine and ecclesiastical precept through their own fault, let them know that they are in a state of sin and unworthy of obtaining reconciliation in the tribunal of penance; and moreover that they will have to give an account to God, not only for their own sins, but also for the dense ignorance and vices of the poor who on account of the miserable parsimony of the richer people are entirely deprived of Christian instruction. In order therefore that what is done in other parts of the Christian world should have a beginning among us, we have made decrees concerning the offerings of the faithful” (Decr. 23). The Fathers give these regulations concerning the contributions: “The offerings according to the ancient custom of the Church, are to be divided into three parts if it be necessary; so that one part may be applied to the support of the priest, one to the relief of the poor, and one for obtaining such things as are necessary for the Divine worship and the church fabric. If provision has already been made from other sources for the sustentation of the ministers of the sanctuary and for the relief of the indigent, then all the offerings should be used for procuring sacred vessels and other things necessary for the Divine service, for repairing the churches or for building new ones” (Decr. 7). In 1837, the Fathers of the Third Provincial Council of Baltimore say: “Lest priests be forced to beg or suffer such penury as is unbecoming to their sacred order, we exhort the bishops to admonish the faithful of their duty to supply a proper sustenance for those especially who labour in word and doctrine among them. And if on account of sickness or other cause they be not able to fulfil their sacred ministry, lest affliction be added to affliction, let what is necessary be supplied to them by the faithful to whom they have ministered. If the congregation be too poor to do so, we exhort the bishops to use all the means in their power to arouse the charity of other priests and other congregations in their behalf” (Decr. 2). The Third Provincial Council of Cincinnati, in 1861, declares: “Treating of the proper support of the pastor, the Fathers unanimously agreed that the faithful are bound under grave sin to give him sustenance; but that the pastor on his side, if called to assist a dying person who has refused to fulfil this duty though able to do so, is also bound under grave sin to visit him, on account of the serious obligation of charity towards a dying man placed in extreme necessity.” In England, we find the following in the First Provincial Council of Westminster, held in the year 1855: “As the duty of paying tithes does not exist among us, let the faithful be warned that they are not freed thereby from the obligation of providing for Divine worship and for the proper support of the sacred ministers” (Decr. 4). “The faithful who through devotion or for any other cause do not frequent the quasi-parochial church or missionary to whom by domicile they are assigned, should not imagine themselves to be freed from the obligation of assisting the church and supporting their pastors. They should also be as solicitous as those who attend their proper church for relieving the misery of the poor and for educating the young. Therefore, by alms giving according to their means, let them strengthen their legitimate pastors who must sustain the burden and heat of the day in cultivating the vineyard of the Lord” (Decr. 5). The payment of tithes is declared to be binding on the faithful of the Canadian Province of Quebec by the Fourth Provincial Council, in 1868: “As the error has crept into many minds that tithes and other debts which are paid to the Church or her ministers for their support and to enable them to fulfil their duties towards the faithful of whom they have spiritual charge, are to be paid only through force of civil law, and that the obligation of giving them does not arise from any other source, in order that this error be entirely corrected and completely removed, we consider it opportune to declare and decree that this obligation is derived specially from the laws which the Church herself has made or can make independently of the civil law; and that it pertains to the bishop of each diocese to impose precepts concerning this matter upon the faithful, as necessity shall require, and taking into consideration circumstances of persons and places. Wherefore if it seems just and opportune to the bishop to demand a tax, defined with proper moderation, of the faithful of any place, whether the civil law there prescribes or does not prescribe the paying of tithes, let each of them pay it to the priest to whom under any title belongs the duty of ministering to their spiritual needs. There can be no doubt that the faithful of that place severally are bound in justice and conscience to pay this tax, and anyone who refuses is to be visited with penalties according to the circumstances. What has been said of the obligation on the faithful of supporting their pastors is also to be held concerning the building and the reparation of temples and churches, namely that it binds the conscience of the faithful” (Decr. 16). In Ireland, the Third Provincial Council of Tuam, in 1858, treats also of tithes: “in collecting the offerings of the faithful, who emulating the first Christians and even the Hebrews are accustomed to contribute the first-fruits of grain and other products to parish priests and vicars as to the ministers of God, we ordain that no more be demanded than what is offered spontaneously and voluntarily. Reproaches against those who may perchance show themselves less liberal, are to be avoided under pain of suspension” (cap. xvii, 1).

BLESSINGS OF GIVING

The truth that it is more blessed to give than to receive is also insisted on by the synods. Speaking of contributions for the education of candidates for the priesthood, the pastoral letter of the Fifth Provincial Council of Baltimore (1843) says: “It is by placing the ecclesiastical institutions in the respective dioceses on solid foundations, that you will secure for yourselves and your children the perpetuity of the blessings wherewith it has pleased God to enrich you in Christ Jesus. Those to whom the wealth of this world has been given, cannot better employ a portion of it than in providing for the education of ministers of the altar. We are far, however, from meaning to undervalue the offerings which faith may inspire for the erection of temples to the glory of God, or charity may present for the clothing and maintenance of the orphan. We exhort you brethren to follow the impulse of the Holy Ghost in the various good works for which your charitable co-operation is solicited, and to remember in the day of your abundance, that whatever you set apart to the glory of God, in the exercise of charity, is so much secured against the caprice of fortune. ‘Be not then high-minded, nor hope in uncertain riches, but in the living God (who giveth us abundantly, all things to enjoy), do good, be rich in good works, distribute readily, communicate, lay up in store for yourselves a good foundation against the time to come, that you may obtain true life” (I Tim., vi, 17–19). Again the Fathers of the Sixth Provincial Council (in 1846) write: “On you it depends to give, especially to those who labour in word and doctrine, that support which will leave them without solicitude for the things of this world, that they may wholly apply themselves to the exercise of the holy ministry. We beseech you, brethren, to know them who labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, that you may esteem them more abundantly in charity for their work’s sake. To you we look for means to educate youth for the ecclesiastical state, that when fully instructed in the duties of their holy vocation, and trained in discipline, they may become fit ministers of the Church, and adorn it by their piety and zeal, as well as by their talents. You should aid in the erection of the temples in which you and your children are to worship, and see that the house of God be not unworthy of the sublime functions which are to be performed in it. Of the worldly goods which God has bestowed on you, you should set apart a reasonable portion to be specially devoted to His glory; and you should rejoice at the opportunity thus afforded you to manifest your gratitude for His benefits.” The Fathers of the First Plenary Council of Baltimore (1852) joyfully acknowledged the generosity of the faithful: “The wants of the Church in this vast country so rapidly advancing in population and prosperity, impose on us, your pastors, and on you, our children in Christ, peculiar and very arduous duties. We have not only to build up the Church, by the preaching of the Gospel, and the inculcation of all the virtues it teaches, but also to supply the material wants of religious worship in proportion to the unexampled rapidity with which our flocks increase. We have to establish missions in places where, but a few years since, none or but few Catholics were to be found, and where now the children of the Church cry with clamorous importunity for the bread of life. We have to build the Church, where before God’s name was not publicly worshipped; and to multiply His temples where they no longer suffice for the constantly increasing wants of the faithful. We have to provide a ministry for the present and future wants of the country, and in this matter we have to contend with difficulties which are unknown in countries where religion has been long established, and where the piety and zeal of past generations have furnished ample means for this most important object. We have to provide for the Catholic education of our youth. We have not only to erect and maintain the church, the seminary and the schoolhouse, but we have to found hospitals, establish orphanages, and provide for every want of suffering humanity, which religion forbids us to neglect. We thank the Giver of all good gifts for the extraordinary benediction which He has hitherto bestowed upon our efforts, and those of the venerable men whose places we fill. We rejoice at having the opportunity of bearing public testimony to the generous assistance which we have received from our flocks in our respective dioceses. Much however as has been done, much still remains to be accomplished. Our churches are nowhere equal to the wants of the Catholic population, and, in many places, are far from being sufficiently spacious to afford one-half of our people the opportunity of attending Divine worship. We therefore exhort you, brethren, to co-operate generously and cheerfully with your pastors, when they appeal to you in behalf of works of charity and religious zeal. In contributing to Divine worship, you make an offering to God of the gifts He has bestowed on you, and a portion of which He requires should be consecrated to His service, as a testimony of your continued dependence on His sovereign mercy. We hope that the example of your Catholic forefathers, and even of some among yourselves, will be generally felt and not infrequently imitated; and that here as well as elsewhere, the Church will be able to show the proofs of her children’s faith in the numerous temples raised to the honour of God’s name, in the beauty of His sanctuary which the true Christian will ever love, and in the ample and permanent provision made for the maintenance of public worship.”

RESTRICTIONS ON THE CLERGY

While vigorously insisting on the duty of giving on the part of the laity, the Church demands on the part of the clergy that moderation and prudence be exercised and that abuses be avoided. The First Synod of Baltimore, in 1791, warns priests to avoid “all appearance of avarice or simony.” In the Canadian Council of Halifax, in 1857 (Prov. I), it is decreed: “In the administration of the Sacraments care must be taken lest anything be done that Savours of the horrible crime of simony or avarice or filthy lucre, and the Sacraments must never be denied to any one under the pretext that he has not made the customary offerings. If any priest acts otherwise, he is an unfaithful dispenser, he makes light of the ministry of Christ, he scandalizes the little ones; and Such a delinquent should know that he may be severely punished according to the judgment of the ordinary” (Decr. 4). The Plenary Synod of Ireland, at Thurles in 1850, contains a similar decree (Decr. 5): “In the offerings made by ancient and received usage in the administration of certain sacraments, let the parish priests beware lest anything be done that may savour of simony or avarice. Let the sacraments never be denied under the pretext that offerings have not been made; otherwise the delinquents may be disciplined according to the bishop’s judgment.” The following decree (14) is found in the statutes of the First Provincial Council of Westminster (1855): “Where the custom obtains (which is indeed ancient in England), of giving presents to individual priests at Easter and Christmas, such offerings belong to them. But let every priest be on his guard lest he fall under suspicion of receiving anything in view of the sacrament of penance administered by him.” In 1854, the First Council of the Colonies of England, Holland and Denmark passed the following decree (Art. vii, 2): “Let every ordinary determine the stipend for Masses and for everything else that may be accepted from the faithful in ecclesiastical functions, an let no priest infringe this decree under any circumstances, nor ever let them think that they are allowed to deny the sacraments to those who, on account of their poverty, make no contributions. Let the bishops keep before their eyes these words of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII): ‘Let them prohibit absolutely those importunate and illiberal exactions of alms (for they are exactions rather than requests) and other similar things, which are not far removed from simoniacal guilt or the disgrace of seeking after lucre.’“ The authority of the bishop is needed for unusual demands on the faithful. Thus the Second Provincial Council of Tuam (1854): “It is not permitted to any parish priest or ecclesiastical person or layman to make an extraordinary collection for any object whatever, unless the license of the bishop has been asked and obtained” (Decr. 6). In Australia, the Second Provincial Council of 1869 makes a similar precept (No. xii): “We prohibit any collection under any title or pretext, without the permission of the ordinary.” English bishops enter into greater details (II Prov. Westmin.): “Every one seeking alms from the faithful must have the autograph of the ordinary or of his own superior declaring the object of the collection, and the license of the bishop of the place where he collects, under the condition expressed in his letters that he is obliged to render an accurate account to the bishop or to his superior of all the money collected by him and stating explicitly where he obtained it, what persons contributed it, and how long he remained in each place” (Decr. 21). In regard to stipends, the Second Provincial Council of Quebec decrees: “Lest parish priests and rectors of churches fall under suspicion or acquire a bad reputation among their flocks, let them carefully distinguish their own rights from those of their churches; nor may they change the tariff for ecclesiastical functions without the approbation of the bishop, nor may they take anything as their own, except such things as the diocesan law or approved custom ascribes to them” (Art. xvi, § 2, 8). Pope Gregory XVI, writing to the Vicar Apostolic of Gibraltar, in 1841, declared: “As to what pertains to the administration of the sacraments, let it be your care to admonish the faithful subject to you, that these Divine gifts are not to be received for any earthly price; but that they are to be distributed gratis by the ministers of God who have received them gratis; nor can any probable custom contrary to the canon law (against simony) be pretended, for the purpose of asking money on the occasion of the administration of the sacraments, when this has been rightly forbidden by you or the Congregation of the Propaganda by faculties received from us for the preservation of the sanctity of the sacraments.” The people are also warned against improper means for obtaining money for charitable purposes. The Pastoral Letter of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (1866) says: “We warn our people most solemnly against the great abuses which have sprung up in the matter of fairs, excursions and picnics, in which, as too often conducted, the name of charity is made to cover a multitude of sins. We forbid all Catholics from having anything to do with them except when managed in accordance with the regulations of the ordinary, and under the immediate supervision of their respective pastors.” Certain abuses are sternly censured by the American bishops (II Plen. Balt.): “It is reported, and we have learned it with great sorrow, that there are some priests in certain localities who during the Mass itself descend from the altar and go around in the church asking alms of the faithful. We reprobate, and command the extirpation of this most disgraceful abuse, which is injurious to the Church and its sacred rites, and which provokes the derision and contempt of non-Catholics. Concerning this matter we lay the burden on the conscience of each of the bishops” (tit. vi, cap. i). Again in the same chapter the Fathers say: “We cannot but declare that it is an intolerable abuse and a profanation of holy things, when, as has often happened, public and frequent invitations to give alms for the foundation [of Masses] are inserted for many months together in public newspapers among profane business notices. We desire the bishops, and [regular] prelates to destroy this abuse without delay and prevent it in the future.” Likewise when treating of pew-rent, the synods decree that certain seats must be left free, nor can the pastor diminish the free space without the knowledge of the bishop (e. g. II Prov. Westmin., viii). As to collecting money at church entrances when the Sacred Mysteries are celebrated, the Congregation of the Propaganda, writing to the American bishops in 1882 and again in 1866, declared that this practice was contrary to the desires of the sovereign pontiff.

WAYS AND MEANS

The principal methods of obtaining money for the support of the clergy and church institutions, have been already touched on. We may summarize the main ones here. For England the Second Provincial Council of Westminster (viii, De. bon. eccl.) enumerates: pew-rent, collections during Mass, seat money, alms contributed on the occasion of a sermon by a distinguished preacher, and house-to-house collections. In the United States, the same methods are employed. In some parts of Canada, tithes are payable, and the Third Provincial Council of Quebec (No. ix) decreed for Upper Canada that a certain sum should be required of each of the faithful, to be computed on the basis of the civil assessment roll. In addition to the above, priests may accept fixed stipends for Masses, and although they may not demand money for the administration of the sacraments, yet they can receive what is spontaneously offered at baptisms, marriages, funerals, etc. The poor are to be buried gratis (II Plen. Balt., c. ii). No offering may be received for confession (II Prov. Westmin., viii, 14). Nor is any money to be asked for conferring extreme unction (Syn. Plen. Thurles for Ireland, xv). For the pastor and his assistants, a definite salary is usually fixed, payable out of the revenues of the parish (III Plen. Balt., No. 273). To distinguish between parochial goods and sacerdotal perquisites, the following rule is given: When the things offered are adapted for ecclesiastical purposes, they are presumed to be given to the church; when they are for personal use, they are supposed to be given to the pastor. The latter rule applies also to sacred objects if they are presented by the congregation to a particular priest, expressly as a token of gratitude and affection.

The decrees of synods cited in this article may he found in the Acta et Decreta S. Conc. Recentiorum: Collectio Lacensis (Freiburg im Br., 1875). III, with the exception of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (Baltimore, 1886).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING.

Chusai

The Arachite, i.e. the native of Archi, a place south of the portion of Ephraim, near Bethel (Jos., xvi, 2). He is called in I Par. xxvii, 33. “the king’s friend.” This title is given him as that of counsellor is given to Achitophel, or that of leader of the army to Joab. We see a like use of the term in III K., IV, 5. In the Books of Machabees it is an official title given by the Seleucides to persons of confidence who have important military or civil functions (I Mach., ii, 18, iii, 38, vi, 10, 14, 28 vii, 6–8, etc.). It is likely then, that Chusai’s title of “friend” of King David does not imply the intimate relations suggested by the term, but the account that is given of him during Absalom’s rebellion (II K., xv-xvii) shows that in his case the title was not merely official. Just after David has heard of the treason of Achitophel, he is met, on his way up the Mount of Olives, by Chusai, his garments rent and his head covered with dust. He is probably an old man, for David tells him he would be a burden in the flight; but the king does honour to his cleverness by sending him to Jerusalem to “defeat the counsel of Achitophel.” Chusai persuades Absalom to take him into his confidence, and, in the council held shortly afterwards in regard to the measures to be taken against David, he obtains a delay which secured the safety of the king. He is able likewise to convey information to David through Sadoc, Abiathar, and their sons. It may be questioned how far Chusai’s conduct can be justified even according to the ethics of war. Scripture relates his conduct, without approving it.

W.S. REILLY

Chytri

A titular see of Cyprus. The Greek see of similar title was suppressed in 1222 by Cardinal Pelagius, papal legate. It was beautifully located in the centre of the island, in the territory of Chytraea, west of Messaria. The flourishing modern village Kyrka (pronounced tsirka), in Greek officially Kythraia, Turkish Deirmennik has preserved the ancient name. There has been found here a pre-Phoenician necropolis. In the time of Assurbanipal, Pilagura was King of Kitrusi, one of the ten kingdoms in the island. Numerous inscriptions have been found in the Cypriot dialect, some in ordinary Greek. Chytri was noted for the worship of Apollo, Artemis, and Aphrodite Paphia. Later forms of the name are Cythraia, Cythereia, Cythroi, Chytrides; according to the late Greek work of Sakellarios (Kypriaka, 2nd ed., 202–205) Kyrka should be Cythera or Cythereia; he identifies Chytri with Palo-Kythro, a village with ruins two hours south of Kyrka. The historical texts, however, mention only one town. Chytri was at an early date an episcopal see. Lequien’s list of the bishops of the see (II, 1069) is very incomplete, only eight being recorded: the first is St. Pappus, who suffered martyrdom under Licinius, Maximinus, or Constantius; the most famous is St. Demetrian, 885–912 (?).

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Giovanni Giustino Ciampini

An ecclesiastical archaeologist, born at Rome, 1633; died there 1698. He graduated from the Roman University as a student of law but soon devoted himself to archaeological interests, which an important office (Magister brevium gratiæ) in the Apostolic Chancery permitted him to pursue. He devoted himself with ardour to the collection of books, coins, and statues, and to the creation of scientific circles for the development of antiquarian learning; thus he founded, in 1671, a society for ecclesiastical history and, in 1679, an academy of the sciences, the latter under the patronage of his friend, Queen Christina of Sweden. He continued the school of archaeological research begun by Onofrio Panvinio and Antonio Bosio, and carried on, though with inferior genius, by Fabretti, Boldetti, and Bottari, until in our own days, Padre Alarchi and Giovanni Battista De Rossi renewed the original traditions of scientific thoroughess. Apart from some minor archaeological studies” (1693), he has left two illustrated works of permanent utility, one a history of the ancient churches East and West, built by Constantine the Great (De sacris aedificiis a Constantino magno constructis, Rome, 1693), and the other a history of the art of mosaic (Vetera monimenta in quibus praecipua . . . musiva opera . . . illustrantur, Rome, 2 vols., 1690–99). Both works contain good illustrations of many ancient Christian edifices and mosaics that have since perished or suffered change and deterioration; they contain, moreover, a rare ecclesiastical erudition, much of it yet useful. His works were edited (Rome, 1747) in three volumes by Giannini.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Agostino Ciasca

(In the world, PASQUALE).

An Italian Augustinian and cardinal, born at Polignano a Mare, in the province of Bari, 7 May, 1835; died a Rome, 6 February, 1902. He received the habit of the Order of St. Augustine in 1856, made his religious profession in 1857, and in 1858 was ordained priest. Having perfected himself at Rome in the study of philosophy, theology, and canon law, he dedicated himself in particular to the study of the Oriental languages, especially Arabic and Coptic. Possessed of keen intellect and a tenacious memory, he soon acquired a vast and profound knowledge in this branch of study. He was a religious of exemplary life, of strong character, assiduous in his work, well versed in ecclesiastical matters, and most loyal to the Catholic Church—qualities which made him especially dear to Leo XIII, who honoured him with his confidence and entrusted to him several delicate missions. In his order, besides being professor of dogmatic theology, Sacred Scriptures and the Oriental languages, Ciasca also held the positions of prefect of studies, assistant general, and afterwards of procurator general.

In 1866 he obtained the chair of Hebrew in the College of Propaganda, and later took part in the Vatican Council in the quality of theologian and as interpreter for the Oriental bishops. He also occupied the following positions: consultor of the Congregation of Propaganda for the affairs of Oriental Rites (1872); writer in the Vatican Library for Arabic (1876); pontifical interpreter at the Congregation of Propaganda; ordinary censor of Oriental books and professor of Oriental languages in the Roman Seminary (1878); dean of the faculties of Oriental languages and theology in the same seminary, and president of the college of interpreters at the Propaganda (1882); consultor of the Holy Office (1889). In 1891 he was created Titular Archbishop of Larissa with the appointment to the office of prefect of the Vatican Archives; in the same year he was sent by the Holy See to preside over the Ruthenian synod at Lemberg. In 1892 he was named pro-secretary of the Congregation of Propaganda (1893). His brilliant career was crowned by his elevation to Cardinalate at the secret consistory of 19 June, 1899.

Among Cardinal Ciasca’s many services to ecclesiastical learning may be mentioned his publication (1885–89) of the extant fragments of a very ancient Coptic version of the Old Testament, from manuscripts in the Borgia (Propaganda) Museum and his discovery and edition (1888) of a valuable Arabic version of the “Diatessaron” or gospel-harmony of the second-century Christian writer Tatian, a text of much importance for the history of the Canon of the New Testament (cf. M. Maher, “Recent Evidence for the authenticity of the Gospel: Tatian’s Diatessaron,” London, 1903). His own principal works are: “Examen Critico-Apologeticum super Constitutionem Dogmaticam de Fide Catholica editam in Sessione tertia SS. Oecumenici Concilii Vaticanii,” 270 pp. 8vo (Rome, 1872); “I Papiri Copti del Museo Borgiano della S. C. de Propaganda Fide tradotti e commentati,” pamphlet of 55 pp. (Rome, 1881); “Sacrorum Bibliorum Framenta Copto-Sahidica Musei Borgiani,” vol. I, 4to 225 pp., with 8 phototypic plates (Rome, 1885 and 1889)

These two volumes deal with the Old Testament; vol. III, dealing with the New Testament (509 pp. with 40 phototypic plates) was published by the author of the present article in 1904.

“Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmoniae Arabicae nunc primum ex duplici codicae editit et latina translatione donavit . . .” in 4to, 108 pp. with 210 of the text and a phototypic plate (Rome, 1888).

P. J. BALESTRI.

Ciborium

A chalice-like vessel used to contain the Blessed Sacrament. The word is of rather doubtful etymology, Some derive it from the Latin word cibus, “food,” because it is used to contain the Heavenly Bread; while others trace it to the Greek kirorion, “cup,” because of the original shape of this Eucharistic receptacle. The term was aslo applied in early Christian times to the Canopy that surmounted and crowned the altar (see article ALTAR CANOPY), but according to modern liturgical usage the word denotes exclusively the sacred vessel employed for the reservation of the Consecrated Species. At the present day two vessels are used to reserve the Blessed Sacrament: one, called a pyx, is a small round box and serves for carrying the Blessed Sacrament to the sick; the other, generally styled a ciborium, is used for distributing Holy Communion in churches and for reserving the consecrated particles in the tabernacle. In shape the ciborium resembles a chalice, but the cup or bowl is round rather than oblong, and provided with a conical cover surmounted by a cross or some other appropriate device. The bottom of the cup should be a little raised at the centre so that the last particles may be easily removed and the purification more conveniently performed. The material should be gold or silver (base metals are sometimes allowed), but the interior of the cup must be always lined with gold. The ciborium is not consecrated, but blessed by a bishop or some priest deputed by him, according to the form given in the Roman Ritual. While containing the Sacred Species it should be covered with small white veil of silk or cloth of gold, and may not be handled except by sacred ministers; when empty and purified it may be touched by all clerics (Cong. of Rites, Jan., 1907), and by lay persons if specially authorized. In Eastern Churches the paten is commonly used for the distribution of Communion, and the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in gold or silver boxes covered with silk and suspended from the altar-canopy in accordance with ancient custom.

During the first three centuries the Blessed Eucharist was not generally reserved in churches owing to the danger of profanation and the persecutions, but the faithful sometimes kept the Sacred Species in Silver boxes in their homes for the purpose of receiving it at the time of death (St. Jerome, De Afr. Pers., I; Tertullian, De Orat., c. xiv, etc.). In the fourth century there are evidences that it was reserved in churches, but only for the sick. In the fifth and sixth centuries reservation was more common, and the method adopted varied with time and place. The vessels which the Sacred Species was kept were called indiscriminately capsa, pyxis, cuppa, turris, columba, and ciborium, and were themselves preserved either in a chamber in the sacristy (secretarium), in a niche in the wall or pillar (ambry), under an altar, or in other places designated hy the words diaconium, pastophorium, vestiarium, etc. Subsequently it became the practice to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in dove-shaped receptacles (columb) or in little towers (turres), the former being suspended by chains from the ciborium or canopy of the altar, and the latter being usually placed in the Armarium. In the sixteenth century the columbæ and the towers began to disappear, and gave way to the tabernacle and the custom which is now universal throughout the Western Church. Ancient vessels of reservation may still be seen in the treasuries of continental cathedrals at Milan, Cologne, Rouen, and elsewhere. (See TABERNACLE; RESERVATION OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT.)

BONA, Rer. Lit. duo Libri, I. xxv; MARTENE, De antiq. eccl. ritibus, I, xix; VAN DER STAPPEN, De adm. Sacr. (Mechlin, 1900); CORBLET in Hist. du sacrement de l’euchatistie (Paris, 1886), especially II, 285–314, and I, 520–82; LEROSEY, Manuel lilurgigue (Paris, 1890), I. 179 sq.; DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum (London, 1682), passim; KRAUS, Gesch. der christlichen Kunst (Freiburg im Br., 1896) passim; REUSENS, Elements d’archeol. Chret. (Louvain, 1885), I, 464, II, 327 sq.

PATRICK MORRISROE.

Pierre-Martial Cibot

Missionary, born at Limoges, France, 14 August, 1727; died at Peking, China, 8 August, 1780. He entered the Society of Jesus 7 November, 1743, and taught humanities with much success. He was sent to China at his own request 7 March, 1758, and arrived at Macao 25 July, 1759, whence he reached Peking 6 June, 1760, joining the Jesuits who were retained at the court of the emperor. Cibot during his many years of missionary labour in China found time also to devote to historical and scientific studies. Many of his notes and observations on the history and literature of the Chinese were published in the “Mémoires concernant l’histoire, les sciences les arts, les moeurs, les usages, etc., des Chinois: par les missionaires de Pékin” (Paris, 1776–89, 16 vols.). These volumes were at the time the chief source of information in Europe regarding China and its people. Cibot’s most lengthy work, his “Essai sur l’antiquité des Chinois,” appeared in the first volume of the “Mémoires.” In it he claims Yaou (2356 B.C.) as the founder of the Chinese Empire. This view was not held, however, by other contemporary writers in the second volume of the “Mémoires” his colleague, Father Amiot, in his “L’antiquité des Chinois prouvée par les monuments,” defended the traditional Chinese chronology. Cibot also instituted a comparison between the Jews and the Chinese in connection with a commentary on the Book of Esther (Mémoires, vols. XIV-XVI). He collected a herbarium of some value and seems to have been particularly interested in botany, though he contributed a number of articles on various topics in natural science to the “Mémoires,” e.g. “Notices de quelques plantes arbrisseaux de la Chine” (vol. III), “Observations sur les plantes, les fleurs, et les arbres de Chine qu’il est possible et utile de se procurer en France”; “Notice sur le borax”; “Mémoire sur les chevaux” (vol. XI); “Notice sur l’hirondelle, sur le cerf et sur la cigale” (vol. XII), etc. Cibot’s modesty prevented him from signing many of his essays. His style was somewhat diffuse, and his writings received their value chiefly from the variety of topics treated and the interesting information which they contained.

H.M. BROCK

Robert Ciboule

Theologian and moralist, born in the Department of Eure, France, at the close of the fourteenth century; died in 1458. He was chancellor of the church of Notre-Dame, Paris, and later dean of Evreux and chamberlain to Pope Nicholas V. In 1437 he was one of the theologians consulted by Charles VII concerning the rehabilitation of John of Arc, on which his decision was favourable. The same monarch sent him to the Council of Basle, and in 1439 made him ambassador to the Court of Pope Eugene IV at Florence. He wrote many devotional works, all of which he left in manuscript form. His “Sainte méditation de l’homme sur soi-même” was printed in Paris in 1510 and several times reprinted. Several of his sermons are preserved in the National Library of France (Department of Manuscripts) while his opinion regarding Joan of Arc has been partially published in the Procès which tells of her rehabilitation [Procès de condemnation et de rehabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc (Paris, 1841–49), III, 326–328]; and complete in Lanery d’Arc, “Memoires et consultations en faveur de Jeanne d’ Arc,” etc. (Paris, 1889), 351.

JOHN A. RYAN.

Cibyra

A titular see of Caria, in Asia Minor. Kibyra, later Kibyrrha, had been founded by the Lycian district inhabited by the Solymi. It was the leading city of Kabalis, having two votes in the Kabalian tetrapolis; it could arm 30,000 foot and 2000 horse; in 190 B.C. it was ruled by its own kings. In 130 the Romans allowed it to remain independent with its territory. But in 84 it was incorporated with the province of Asia by L. Licinius Murena, a lieutenant of Sulla, and became the capital of the Cibyratic conventus. It was renowned for its ironwork, but, being situated away from the great lines of Roman commerce did not maintain its ancient prosperity. Tiberius restored it after an earthquake. It struck coins, and had its own era reckoned from A.D. 25. It was annexed by Justinian to Caria, and as early as the eighth century became the chief town of the theme (department) of the Cibyriotes. From the seventh to the twelfth or thirteenth century it figures in the “Synecdemus” of Hierocles, and in many “Notitiae episcopatuum” as a suffragan of Stauropolis, the metropolis of Caria. Six bishops are mentioned by Lequien (I, 963), the first being Letodorus (not Leontius) at Nicaea in 325; and the last Stephen, a partisan of Photius, who retracted at the Eighth Ecumenical Council in 869. The ruins of Cibyra are near Horzoum, a village in the vilayet of Koniah, where the ancient theatre, odeon, stadium etc., are still to be seen.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Andrea Ciccione

An Italian sculptor and architect, born in Naples in the first part of the fifteenth century. He was a pupil of Masuccio the younger, and is said to have built the cloister of San Severino, the church and monastery of Monte Oliverto, and several palaces and churches. There is some doubt regarding Ciccione, as certain writers of note make no mention of him, while others do who have been found always reliable. It is known that he sculptured the monument of Giosue Caracciolo, formerly in the Duomo, and that he was selected by Joanna II to make a tomb for her brother, King Ladislaus, in the church of San Giovanni a Carbonara. This consists of a towering pile, three stories has high, flanked by allegorical figures, the sarcophagus half way up, and Ladislaus on his war horse on the summit. The eyes are coloured, the robe borders and hair gilded, and backgrounds blue with gold fleurs-de-lys. Queen Joanna again commission Ciccione when her lover the Grand Seneschal Gian Caracciolo, was murdered by conspirators. Caraccio had a chapel in San Giovanni a Carbonara, and the the monks buried him hastily the night following his assassination. Over the tomb Ciccione raised a monument consisting of a sarcophagus borne three armed knights representing Justice, Strength and Prudence. A standing figure of Caracciolo the top was coloured to portray life. Attention called to the polychromy employed in these tombs, and to the representation of the virtues in military garb. There are no certain dates regarding Ciccione.

M. L. HANDLEY.

Count Leopoldo Cicognara

Politician, writer on art, and collector of Italian antiquities, born at Ferara 26 November, 1767; died at Venice, 5 March, 1834. He was thirty years old when pressure of cicumstances, Bonaparte’s campaigns in Italy, and the hope of a risorgimento in his country drove him in public life. An ardent supporter of the Cisalpine Republic, he was a member of the legislative body at Milan (1798), minister to Turin (1799), deputy to the Congress of Lyons (1801), and also Councillor of State. Being subsequently implicated in the Ceroni conspiracy, Count Cicognara was held prisoner at Milan and exiled to Como and Florence, but was finally restored to his functions and sent to Bologna on a diplomatic mission. However, at the beginning of the Empire he retired from the public career in which he had experienced such changes of fortune, being then only thirty-eight.

From that time on he devoted himself unreserved to the fine arts. A friend from childhood of Canova, a pupil of Corvi and of the landscape-painter Hackert, he combined extensive knowledge and a highly cultivated taste with practical knowledge, and his dissertations on the beautiful “Del Bello, ragiomenti sette,” (Florence, 1808) attracted attention. The Academy of Fine Arts had just been founded in Venice, and Cicognara was appointed its director, a post which he held until 1827. It was during this long administration, which must ever redound to his glory, that the admirable museum was established, about as it is to-day. Meanwhile he finished his great history of sculpture (Storia delta scultura, Venice, 1813–1818, 3 vols. fol. with 131 plates), work designed to complete those of Winckelmann and Seroux d’Agincourt, and won its author foreign member’s seat in the Institute of France. It is, however, less valuable than his masterful publication on the manufactures and monuments of Venice (2 vols. fol. 1815–20; a new, augmented edition, 1833–40 with 250 plates, Italian and French text), in which Cicognara showed himself a learned historian of the city’s antiquities, and the worthy and indispensable precursor of Ruskin and his “Stones of Venice.”

The analytical catalogue (“Catalogo ragionato dei libri d’arte,” Pisa, 1821), which he made of his library and sold to the pope in 1824, is still a model of biblography. Towards the close his life Cicognara became an enthusiast for niello,and wrote a memoir which has since remained a classic (Memorie spettanti alla storia della calcognafia, Prato, 1831, with atlas). The appearance of this treatise created such a demand for this kind of enamel that many spurious pieces were manufactured and sold as part of the Count’s collection, and Cicognara himself was, in consequence, accused of counterfeiting. But modern critics have exonerated him. His last enthusiasm had for its object rare engravings, with which his curio-hunting had made him singularly familiar; he collected over 3000 belonging to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and after his death they were catalogued by his nephew, Count Nanetti, and Ch. Albrizzi, under the title, “The First Century of Calcography” (Venice, 1837).

LOUIS GILLET

El Cid

(Rodrigo, or Ruy, Diaz, Count of Bivar).

The great popular hero of the chivalrous age of Spain, born at Burgos c. 1040; died at Valencia, 1099. He was given the title of seid or cid (lord, chief) by the Moors and that of campeador (champion) by his admiring countrymen.

Tradition and legend have cast a deep shadow over the history of this brave knight, to such an extent that his very existence has been questioned; there is however, no reason to doubt his existence. We must, at the same time regard him as a dual personality, and distinguish between the historical Cid and the legendary Cid. History paints him as a free booter, an unprincipled adventurer, who battled with equal vigour against Christians and Moors; who, to further his own ends, would as soon destroy a Christian church as a Moslem temple; who plundered and slew as much for his own gain as from any patriotic motives. It must be born in mind, however that the facts which discredit him have reached us through hostile Arab historians, and that to do him full justice he should be judged according to the standard of his country in his day. Vastly different indeed is the Cid of romance, legend, and ballad, wherein he is pictured as the tender, loving husband and father; the gentle courageous soldier; the noble, generous conqueror, unswervingly loyal to his country and his king; the man whose name has been an ever-present inspiration to Spanish patriotism. But whatever may have been the real adventures of El Cid Campeador, his name has come down to us in modern times in connection with a long series of heroic achievements in which he stands out as the central figure of the long struggle of Christian Spain against the Moslem hosts.

Ferdinand I, at his death (1065), had divided his dominions between his three sons, Sancho, Alfonso, and Garcia, and his two daughters, Elvira and Urraca, exacting from them a promise that they would respect his wishes and abide by the division. But Sancho, to whose lot had fallen the Kingdom of Castile, being the eldest, thought that he should have inherited the entire dominions of his father, and he resolved to repudiate his promise, claiming that it had been forced from him. Stronger, braver, and craftier than his brothers, he cherished the idea of despoiling them and his sisters of their possessions, and becoming the sole successor of his father.

At this time, Rodrigo Diaz was quite young, and Sancho, out of gratitude for the services of Rodrigo’s father to the State, had retained his son at the court and looked after his education, especially his military training. Rodrigo later rendered such distinguished services in the war in which Sancho became involved with Aragon that he was made alferez (standard-bearer or commander-in-chief) of the king’s troops. After ending this war with Aragon, Sancho turned his attention to his plan of despoiling his brothers and sisters (c. 1070). He succeeded in adding to his dominion Leon and Galicia, the portions of his brothers, but not until in each instance Rodrigo had come to his rescue and turned apparent defeat into victory. The city of Toro, the domain of his sister Elvira, was taken without trouble. He then laid siege to the city of Zamora, the portion of his sister Urraca, and there met his fate, being treacherously slain before the gates of the city by one of Urraca’s soldiers (1072). Learning this, Alfonso who had been exiled to the Moorish city of Toledo, set out in haste to claim the dominions of his brother, and succeeded him on the throne as Alfonso VI, though not without opposition, from his brother Garcia, in Galicia, and especially in Castile, the inhabitants of which objected to a Leonese king. The story is told, though not on the best historical authority, that the Castilians refused Alfonso their allegiance until he had sworn that he had no hand in his brother’s death, and that, as none of the nobles was willing to administer the oath for fear of offending him, Rodrigo did so at Santa Gadea before the assembled nobility. If this be true, it would account in a great measure for the ill-will Alfonso bore Rodrigo, and for his subsequent treatment of him. He did not at first show his hatred, but tried to conciliate Rodrigo and the Castilians by bestowing upon him his niece Jimena in marriage (1074). It was not long, however, before he had an opportunity to satisfy his animosity. Rodrigo having been sent by Alfonso to collect tribute from the king of Seville, Alfonso’s vassal, he was accused on his return, by his enemies of having retained a part of it. Whereupon, Alfonso, giving free rein to his hatred, banished him from his dominions (1076). Rodrigo then began his career as a soldier of fortune, which has furnished themes to Spanish poets of early modern times, and which, idealized by tradition and legend, has made of him the champion of Christian Spain against her Moorish invaders. During this period of his career, he offered his services and those of his followers first to one petty ruler and then another, and often fought on his own account, warring indifferently against Christians and Moors, always with distinguished success, and incidentally rising to great power and influence. But in time of necessity his assistance was sought by Alfonso, and in the midst of career of conquest he hastened to the latter’s support when he was hard pressed by Yusuf, the founder of Morocco. Through some mistake or misunderstanding, however, he failed to join the king, who listening to the complaints and accusations of the Cid’s enemies, took from him all of his possessions, imprisoned his wife and children, and again banished him for his dominions. Disgraced and plundered, the Cid resumed his military operations. Upon his return from one of his campaigns, hearing that the Moors had driven the Christians from Valencia and taken possession of the city, he determined to recapture it from them and become lord of that capital. This he did (1094) after a terrible siege. He spent the remainder of his days there. His two daughters were married to the Infante of Navarre and the Count of Barcelona respectively. His remains were transferred to the monastery of San Pedro de Cardena near Burgos, where they now rest.

The exploits of El Cid form the subject of what is generally considered the oldest monument of Spanish literature. This is an epic poem of a little over 3700 lines as it has reached us (several hundred lines being missing), the author of which, as is not uncommon with works of those days, is unknown. The date of its composition has long been a disputed question. Many critics whose names must be mentioned with respect, among them Dozy and Ticknor, place it at the beginning of the thirteenth century; but today the best opinion places the poem a half-century earlier. Among those who think it was written as early as the middle of twelfth century are many eminent Spanish and foreign scholars, including Sanchez, the first editor of the poem, Capmany, Quintana, Gil y Zarate, Bouterwek, Sismondi, Shlegel, Huber, and Wolf. The learned Amador de los Rios, whose opinion carries great weight, thinks that the famous poem must have been written prior to 1157. Though based upon historical facts, the “Poema del Cid” is to a very large extent legendary. Its theme is twofold, the adventures of the exiled Cid and the mythical marriage of his two daughters to the Counts of Carrion. The first few pages are missing, and what remains opens abruptly with the banishment of the Cid by King Alfonso, and ends with a slight allusion to the hero’s death. But the story it tells is not its chief claim to our consideration. The poem deserves to be read for its faithful pictures of the manners and customs of the day it represents. It is written with Homeric simplicity and in the language of the day, the language the Cid himself used, which was slowly divorcing itself from the Latin, but was still only half developed. The versification is rather crude and ill-sustained. The prevailing metre is the Alexandrine or fourteen syllabled verse with a caesural pause after the eighth; but the lines often run into sixteen or even twenty syllables, and sometimes stop at twelve or ten. This however, may be partly due to careless copying.

The adventures of the Cid have furnished material for many dramatic writers, notably to Guillen de Castro, the eminent Valencian poet and dramatist of the early seventeenth century, whose masterpiece, “Las Mocedades del Cid” earned him whatever reputation he enjoyed outside of Spain. This latter work, in turn, furnished the basis for Corneille’s brilliant tragedy, “Le Cid,” which according to Ticknor, did more than any other drama to determine for two centuries the character of the theatre all over the continent of Europe. Among other works dealing with the life and adventures of the Cid are:

“La Legenda de las Mocedades de Rodrigo,” or “La Crónica Rimada,” as it is sometimes called. This work has been thought to be even older than the “Poema del Cid” by some critics, among them so eminent authority as Amador de los Ríos.

“La Crónica General ó Estoria de España,” written by Alfonso the Wise.

“La Crónica del Cid,” the manuscript of which was found in the very place where the Cid lies buried, the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña. Its author and the time of its appearance are unknown.

VENTURA FUENTES

Cidyessus

A titular see of Asia Minor. It was a city of some importance, west of Ammonia in West-Central Phrygia, in the territory of the Setchanli Ova, Mouse Plain; this large and fertile valley projects far into Phrygia Salutaris, but the city belonged to Phrygia Pacatiana. Its site has been determined by an inscription found at the little village of Ghieuktché Euyuk, west of Afium Kara Hissar, in the vilayet of Brusa. The old native name may have been Kydessos, though it is Kidyessos on coins. Lequien (I, 801) mentions only three bishops: Heraclius in 451, Andreas in 787, and Thomas in 879. The see is still mentioned in later “Notitiæ episcopatuum” until the twelfth or thirteenth centuries as a suffragan of Laodicea.

RADET, En Phrygie (Paris, 1895), 113; RAMSAY, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor (London, 1890), 139, 151, 168.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Diocese of Cienfuegos

Cienfuegos, Diocese of (Centumfocensis), which includes all the Province of Santa Clara in the central part of Cuba, has an area of 9,500 square miles and (census of 1899) a population of 356,536; 317,243 native Cubans; 28,398 Spaniards 10,895 of other nationalities. The diocese, which had previously formed part of that of Havana, was erected by Archbishop Chapelle, of New Orleans, acting as Apostilic-Delgate, in virtue of the Brief “Actum praeclare” of Leo XIII (20 February, 1903), but was administered by the Archbishop of Santiago de Cuba until 31 May, 1904, when its first bishop, Fray Aureole-Torres y Sanz, O.C.D, took possession.

Missions were established in the cities of Trinidad and Sancti Spiritus, in this part of Cuba, during the sixteenth century, under Franciscans, who preached to the aborigines and continued to keep the spirit of religion alive among the colonists, until the expulsion of the religious orders by the Spanish Government in 1835. Numberless religious endowments witnesses to the piety of the inhabitants, especially during the eighteen century, when Catholic fervor reached its highest pitch; but by far the greater part of these were in time confiscated by the successive Spanish governors. On taking possession of his newly erected see, the first care of the Bishop of Cienfuegos was to introduce order into the ecclesiastical administration, which had suffered severely from the civil troubles between 1868 and 1895, many of the church building having been irreparably ruined.

Santa Clara is an essentially agricultural district. There are numerous sugar mills, and the province is well supplied with railroads. Most of the immigration is Spanish. Although, the vast majority of the inhabitants are Catholic, it is impossible to obtain contributions for the support of the religion from a populace whose faith and morals have been impaired by years of political turmoil. The Cubans, moreover, have for generations been accustomed to a Church supported by the State. On the other hand, while indifferentism and Freemasonry are rife, Protestantism—although represented by several denominations—has few adherents.

The diocese contains 38 parishes, but of the parochial clergy only eleven are native Cubans. The religious and charitable institutions at Cienfuegos are: Monserrat College, under the Jesuit Fathers, 20 religious, 159 pupils; Bartolomé de las Casas College, Dominican Fathers, 11 religious, 100 pupils; French College, 6 Marist Brothers, with 80 pupils; College of the Apostolate, 8 Sisters of the Apostolate of the Sacred Heart, with 38 pupils; Huerfanas de la Rosary, an orphanage conducted by the Daughters of the Rosary, 27 boarders and 54 scholars; Congregation of the Servants of Mary, for the care of the sick in their own homes, 8 sisters and 43 girl pupils in the free school; 9 Little Sisters of the Poor, with 62 inmates of their home for the aged. At Santa Clara there is a College of Saint Paul of the Cross, Passionists, 10 religious and 62 pupils; College of the Love of God, 6 Sisters of the love of God, with 56 girl pupils. At Trinidad the “Líceo Trinitario” is under the direction of Father of the Order of Discalced Carmelites. The few native Cubans in this diocese who feel called to priesthood either make their studies at the seminary of the Diocese of Havana or enter religious orders.

Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, 1908); Battandier, Ann Pont. Cath (Paris 1906) Dedicated to EJA 1998 (Bronx, NYC).

Carlo Cignani

Cignani, Carlo, b. 1628, the most distinguished of three Bolognese painters of the same name, was a count and belonged to a noble family; he was the pupil of Albani and perhaps the most celebrated of the students, but at the same time he was strongly influenced by the teaching of the Carracci and by the works of Correggio. His first important work was the ornamentation for Cardinal Farnese of the great salon of his palace at Bologna. In the same city he painted scenes in the style of Correggio representing events in Bologna at the time of the plague. They are in the church of San Michele in Bosco, and each picture is supported by two angels of remarkable beauty. He executed a fine piece of interior decoration in the palace of the Duke of Parma and for it received the honour of knighthood. His great achievement is the painting of the “Assumption of the Virgin” in the cupola of Forlì cathedral. On this immense work he was engaged from 1681 to 1706, and on its completion was elected to high office in that town and appointed by Clement XI president of the Academy of Bologna. There is a grandeur and profundity, about his work hardly warranted by its actual excution. His colouring is suave, his drawing on the whole accurate but not devoid of clever trickery, and his paintings were executed with extraordinary facility, where are three of his works at Copenhagen, several in Vienna, his own portrait at Florence and others at Berlin and Munich. He died at Forlì in 1719.

(2) FELICE, his son, succeeded to the ample fortune left by his father, and practised his art rather from inclination than as an actual professional artist. He was born in 1660 and died in 1724; in Bologna in two of the churches are clever, dexterous, and well-coloured paintings which are his work.

(3) PAOLO was another pupil of the elder artist and his nephew. He was born at Bologna in 1709 and died in 1764. His style is effective, refined, and highly finished, but only three of his paintings are known to present-day critics.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Cenni di Pepo Cimabue

Florentine painter, born 1240; died after 1301; the legendary founder of Italian painting and reputed master of Giotto. Vasari begins his biography with these words:

In the flood of diasters which had overwhelmed unfortunate Italy not only all monuments of art worthy of the name but also all artists had disappeared, when, in 1240, Cimabue was born in the city of Florence, of the noble Cimabue family of the period, to illumine, as it were, the way towards the art of painting.

Then follows the story of the painter’s childhood. According to Vasari some Greeks who had settled in Florence were his masters, but he soon surpassed them, and his reputation became so great that Charles of Anjou came to a visit him in his studio. When he completed his famous “Madonna,” the people bore it in triumph to Santa Maria Novella, with such jubilation that the section where the painter lived was afterwards called the Borgo Allegri. All this has since been proved untrue, and is attributed to the zeal of Vasari, the Italian historian of art, for the glory of Florence, his native city. The so-called barbarism of the thirteenth century is no longer credited. This was, on the contrary, the age of the true Renaissance. The cathedrals of Pisa, Lucca, and Pistoia had been built; the basilica of Assisi and the Abbey of S. Galgano were already in the course of construction. In Rome this was the era of the great Cosmati family, of Torriti, and Cavallini, in Sicily of those wonderful sculptors, Ravello and Capone. At Pisa (1260) it was marked by the completion of the famous pulpit of the baptistery the work of Nicolo Pisano, and the first classical work of art in Italy. Yet this is what Vasari called the “barbarism of the thirteenth century.” The story of Cimabue is a curious example of false historical data. It frequently happened among the ancients that the victorious race stole even the past laurels of the vanquished, appropriating their gods, their legends, and their myths. Similarly a rivalry existed in the Middle Ages between the Republics of Siena and Florence. Florence could never pardon Siena for its great victory of Montaperti ( 1260), and this was the cause of much trouble between the two. The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the most brilliant era of Florence, marked Siena’s downfall. Florence alone possessed artists and writers. By means of the printing press the Florentines spread broadcast boasting accounts of themselves and these errors became fixed.

Nothing availed against such a mass of official falsehoods. It needed all the patience of the modern critic to right these wrongs. It is now established that the famous “Madonna” of Santa Maria NovelIa, called the “Madonna Ruccellai,” is the work of the great artist of Siena Duccio di Buoninsegna, who painted it in 1285 for the altar of the Brotherhood of the Blessed Virgin. These facts are proved by the discovery of a contract preserved in the records of Florence, and also from the evident relationship between this immortal work of art and other works of Duccio. Again it has been discovered that the triumphal procession to which Vasari refers in his account of Cimabue was held not in Florence, but in Siena (9 June, 1311), in honour of another masterpiece of this same Duccio, the great Maestà, or “Madonna of Majesty,” which may now be seen at the Opera del Duomo in Siena. That day, writes an eyewitness, a public feast was ordained in Siena. All the shops were closed. The bishop, the clergy, the Council of Nine, with a multitude of people, went to seek the masterpiece in the house of the painter, near the Porta Stalloregi, and accompanied it as far as the cathedral, bearing torches and singing canticles. Thenceforward Siena took, in all public acts, the name of Civitas Virginis.

It is evident that these comprise all the elements of the assumed biography of Cimabue. Tradition was contented with a change of name. Duccio was forgotten, and the memory of his remained attached to the name of Cimabue, which explains the verse of Dante (Pur., XI):

Credette Cimabue nella pintura

Tener lo campo, ed one ha Giotto il grido

Si che la fama di colui s’ oscura. (Cimabue thought himself the master of painters, Giotto took from him the glory and relegated him to oblivion.)

From this verse of Dante, which preserved for posterity the name of Cimabue, it was inferred that he was the master of Giotto. There was nothing more to do but furnish him with a biography and a list of works. Legend did the rest, as we have already seen. We learn, however, from these verses that Cimabue was a renowned master in his time. A recently discovered text tells us that Cimabove, pictore de Florencia, resided at Rome in 1272. In 1301 he received ten “livres” from the Opera del Duomo of Pisa for “St. John the Baptist” in mosaic, which accompanies the “Christ” in the cathedral and two mention the price for an altar-screen of the Madonna, to be painted by the said master, Cenni de Pepo, called Cimabue with one of his own associates. Here our certitude ends. Aside from the “St. John” of Pisa, a mosaic which has been much repaired, we have not a single work of Cimabue. Some critics ascribe several paintings to him, but it rnust be admitted that in the absence of documents these surmises were without ground. The “Madonna” of the Louvre and that of the Academy of Florence have enough of the characteristics of Duccio to be taken as paintings of his school. The same must be said of the celebrated fresco of the “Virgin with St. Francis” in the right transept of the lower church of St. Francis at Assisi. But in the upper church the frescoes, now almost in ruins, of both transepts and the choir representing the “Last Ends,” illustrating texts of the New Testament from the Crucifixion and the Acts of the Apostles to the Apocalypse, show a savage grandeur and suggest the work of a Byzantine AEschylus. Nothing confims, and on the other hand nothing prevents, the attribution of them to Cimabue. At any rate they are the work of a great artist.

LOUIS GILLET

Giovanni Battista Cima da Conegliano

A Venetian painter, born at Conegliano in the province of Treviso in 1459 or 1460; died in 1517 or 1518. His father, who died in 1484, was a cloth-shearer (cimator), hence the family surname. In 1488 the young painter was at work at Vicenza; in 1492 he established himself at Venice, but by the summer of 1516 he had returned to his native place. Cima married twice, his first wife, Corona, bearing him two sons, the older of whom took Holy orders at Padua. By Joanna, his second wife, he had six children, three being daughters.

His oldest painting inscribed with a date is the “Madonna of the Arbour,” made in 1489, and now in the Museum of Vicenza. This picture is done in distemper and savours so much of the style of Bartolommeo Montagna, who lived at Vicenza from 1480, as to make it highly probable that Cima was his pupil. Even in this early production Cima gave evidence of the serious calm, and almost passionless spirit that so eminently characterized him. Later he fell under the spell of the great Giovanni Bellini and became one of his ablest successors, forming a happy, if not indispensable link between this master and Titian. At first his figures were somewhat crude, but they gradually lost their harshness and gained in grace while still preserving the dignity. In the background of his facile, harmonious compositions the mountains of his country are invested with new importance. Cima was one of the first to assign the landscape a definite place in modern painting, and to formulate the laws of atmosphere and of the distribution of light and shade. His “Baptism of Christ” in the church of S. Giovanni in Bragora (Venice, 1492), gives striking evidence of this. This colouring is rich and right with a certain silvery tone peculiar to Cima, but which in his later works merges into a delicate gold. His conceptions are usually calm and undramatic, and he has painted scarcely any scenes (having depicted religious ones almost exclusively) that are not suggestive of “sante conversazioni.” His “Incredulity of St. Thomas” (National Gallery, London) and his beautiful “Nativity” (Venice, Santa Maria del Carmine, 1509) are hardly aught else. But most of his paintings represent Madonnas enthroned among the elect, and in these subjects he obserbes a gently animated symmetry. The groupings of these sainted figures, even though they may not have a definitely pious character, and the impression of unspeakable peace. Such are, among others, the magnificent “Madonna Montinini” (about 1507) in the Parma Museum; the “Madonna with Four Saints” (about 1511) in the Berlin Museum, and the smaller “Virgin and Child Enthroned with St. John the Baptist and the Magdalen” (about 1513) in the Louvre, which was Cima’s last bequest as poet and landscape painter.

LOUIS GILLET

Prefecture Apostolic of Cimbebasia (Upper)

PREFECTURE APOSTOLIC OF UPPER CIMBEBASIA

Cimbebasia was the name given for a long time to the western part of Southern Africa. Originally it was included in the immense vicariate made up of Senegambia and French and Portuguese Guinea which had been erected in 1842 and of which Bishop Barron was appointed first vicar Apostolic. The Congregation of Propaganda separated Cimbebasia (3 July, 1879) from this vicariate and made of it a prefecture Apostolic. The Congregation of the Holy Ghost was placed in charge of the new field, and Father Duparquet of the same congregation was appointed first prefect Apostolic. The new mission was, however, still very large, being made up of three distinct regions: the northern part, which included the territory of the Amboella and Gangela and was under the influence of Portugal; the southern part, composed of Ovamboland and Damaraland, now under the control of Germany; and Bechuanaland. After having tried to found stations in all these different territories, the missionaries decided to concentrate their efforts on the northern part of the prefecture. The superior general of the congregation, therefore, requested the Holy See to confide to other institutes the remaining sections of the vicariate. Consequently, Propaganda placed the northern part of the vicariate, under the name of the Prefecture of Upper Cimbebasia, in charge of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost (1 August, 1892), while the German territory was called the Prefecture of Lower Cimbebasia, and given to the Oblate Fathers of Mary. Bechuanaland was then united to the vicariate of the Orange Free State. The Prefecture of Upper Cimbebasia is bounded on the north by the Kassai River, on the east by the 22d degree of longitude east of Greenwich, on the west by the upper course of the Kunene, and on the south by the degree of latitude determined by the lower course of the Kunene. This degree of latitude also forms the boundary line between the Portuguese and German possessions in Southern Africa. Under the direction of the prefect Apostolic, 20 priests and 8 Brothers of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost labour for the evangelization of this territory. They are aided by 40 catechists and 5 Sisters of the Congregation of St. Joseph of Cluny. There are 7 stations: Kakonda, Bailundo, Bihe, Katoko, Kassengue, Massaka, and Kuniama; 28 flourishing schools contain 1600 boys and 1100 girls, of whom 374 boys and 123 girls have their home at the schools. The Catholic population numbers about 10,200, of whom 9000 are natives. During 1903 and 1904 there were 806 children and 491 adults baptized.

PREFECTURE APOSTOLIC OF LOWER CIMBEBASIA

Bounded on the north by the degree of latitude determined by the lower course of the Kunene River; on the east by the 22d degree of longitude east of Greenwich; on the south by the 23d degree of south latitude, in such manner that the town of Rehoboth is included in the Vicariate Apostolic of the former Orange Free State, now the Orange River Colony; on the west by the Atlantic. The region is under the control of Germany. The prefecture was erected by a decree of Propaganda of 1 August, 1892, which divided the earlier prefecture of Cimbebasia. The Oblate Fathers of the Immaculate Mary have charge of the mission under the prefect Apostolic, who resides at Windhoek, the principal station. The other mission stations are: Little Windhoek, Nobra, Swakopmund, Usakos, Aminuis, Tpukiro, Omaruru, Okumbabe. The Catholics number about 1000, some 800 being Europeans. The labourers in the evangelization of this field are: 20 priests, 17 brothers, and 11 Missionary Sisters of St. Francis. There are 11 schools with 500 pupils, and 2 orphanages with 108 orphans.

ALEXANDRE LEROY

Archdiocese of Cincinnati

The Archdiocese of Cincinnati (Cincinnatiensis) comprises that part of the State of Ohio lying south of 40 degrees, 41 minutes, being the counties south of the northern line of Mercer, Auglaize, Hardin, all west of the eastern line of Marion, Union, and Madison counties, and all west of the Scioto River to the Ohio River, an area of 12,043 square miles. The see was erected 19 June, 1821; the archdiocese created 19 July, 1850.

EARLY MISSIONARY LIFE

As early as 1749 a Jesuit, Joseph de Bonnecamp, had traversed Northern and Eastern Ohio with De Blainville, who at the time was taking possession of the Valley of the Ohio in the name of France. In 1751 another Jesuit, Armand de la Richardie, established a mission station at Sandusky. In 1795 Rev. Edmund Burke (afterwards first Bishop of Halifax) spent a short time among the Indians along the Maumee, but with little success. In 1790 a colony of French settlers located at Gallipolis on the Ohio, and Dom Peter Joseph Didier, a Benedictine monk, built a church, but growing discouraged left after a few years. The Rev. Stephen T. Badin visited Gallipolis in 1796. Bishop Flaget of Bardstown had charge at this time of Kentucky and Tennessee and the territory divided to-day into the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio. In company with Father Badin he made a tour of Northern Ohio, passing through Chilicothe, Lancaster, and Somerset. The country was nothing but primeval forest. He met the first Catholics at what is to-day known as Somerset, and in response to their earnest appeal he asked the Dominicans to come to their spiritual aid. In this way Father Fenwick, in later years the first Bishop of Cincinnati, was commissioned to take charge. It was here that he met John Fink, and in the latter’s house, on the spot now occupied by the Somerset High School, the Sacrifice of the Mass was first offered for the asembled thirteen families. Some two years later Father Fenwick visited Somerset a second time, and secured from the Dittoe family a tract of three hundred acres for the Dominican Order on condition that a church and monastery be erected as early as possible. The buildings, at first small and primitive, have since been replaced by the more beautiful and commodious structure of St. Joseph’s Priory. It was early in 1811 that the first attempt was made to organize a congregation in Cincinnati. The Catholics interested in the work met on 13 December in the house of Joseph Fabler, but no definite action was taken. Bishop Flaget was passing through Cincinnati in 1814 on one of his episcopal visitations. The city, which to-day numbers within its corporate limits 400,000 people, and is one of the great centres of art, commerce, education, and religion, was at the time practically a wilderness dotted here and there with a small number of log-cabins reared by the sturdy settlers. On this occasion he met the representatives of the Catholic families of Cincinnati. Their names, recorded in the early annals of the church, were Michael Scott, Patrick Reilly, Edward Lynch, Patrick Gohegan, John McMahon, John White, P. Walsh, and Robert Ward. Mr. Scott was one of the earliest Catholic settlers in Ohio, coming from Baltimore in 1805 and eventually moving to Cincinnati. It was in his house that Bishop Flaget, on the occasion of his first visit, celebrated the first Mass in Cincinnati; on this occasion the bishop urged the erection of a church as soon as means would permit. Their faith, courage, and spirit of sacrifice can be truly appreciated when one remembers the obstacles which confronted them, and the spirit of religious bigotry with which they were obliged to contend. A city ordinance forbade the erection of a Catholic church within the city limits. An appeal for assistance to the Catholics in the East met with a ready and generous response, property was secured on the north-west corner of Vine and Liberty Streets, and with logs cut in the timberland of William Reilly, in Mayslick, Ky., rafted to Cincinnati, and carted by oxen to the site outside the corporate limits, they constructed in 1822 the first Catholic Church in Cincinnati, a plain, barn-like structure. On the recommendation of Bishop Flaget, Ohio was made a diocese 19 June, 1821, with Cincinnati as the see.

BISHOPS

EDWARD FENWICK

Edward Fenwick, a native of Maryland and a member of the Dominican Order, was appointed the first Bishop of Cincinnati, and made Administrator Apostolic of Michigan and the eastern part of the North-western Territory. He was consecrated by Bishop Flaget in St. Rose’s Church, Washington County, Kentucky, 13 January, 1822, and arriving in Cincinnati the same year he took up his residence at the junction of Ludlow and Lawrence Streets in a small house which served as an episcopal palace and a place of worship. His cathedral, the log-church on the outskirts of the city, was several miles distant and at times almost inaccessible. The prohibitive ordinance had in the meantime been withdrawn, and the little edifice was placed on rollers and moved by oxen through the streets of Cincinnati to the site now occupied by the College of St. Francis Xavier. Shortly before, the diocese being without priests, churches, or schools, Bishop Fenwick made a trip to Europe in quest of aid. Having received generous assistance from the nobility of France and the reigning pontiff, he purchased upon his return the ground on Sycamore Street (the present site of St. Francis Xavier’s church), and on 19 May, 1825, the corner-stone of the old St. Peter’s Cathedral was laid. The completed edifice was dedicated by Bishop Fenwick 17 December, 1826. The Athenæum, dedicated to St. Francis Xavier, was opened 11 May, 1829, with Rev. H. Montgomery as rector, four theological and six preparatory students. Among the many gifts which the bishop had received in Europe was a printing press, and from this went forth in October, 1831, the first edition of “The Catholic Telegraph,” one of the oldest Catholic papers in the United States. At this time the clergy were few; the diocese extended from the Ohio River to the Lakes; the Catholics, limited in number, were scattered over the most distant points, and the bishop was compelled to visit his flock by stage, on horseback, or on foot. Cholera was raging throughout his diocese in 1832, and on 26 September of the same year he was stricken and died at Wooster. His remains were brought to Cincinnati and deposited in the old cathedral, now St. Francis Xavier’s, 11 February, 1833. In 1846 they were transferred to the new cathedral, where they now repose. When he assumed charge of the diocese, in 1822, his flock numbered fifty families, the churches did not exceed five, and his clergy were the few pioneers brought from Europe; when he died, in 1832, the Catholic population had grown to seven thousand. The churches throughout the diocese and the clergy had increased proportionately; a cathedral and seminary had been erected.

(2) JOHN BAPTIST PURCELL

John Baptist Purcell was consecrated second Bishop of Cincinnati, 13 October, 1833, in the Baltimore cathedral, Archbishop Whitfield being the consecrating prelate. Immediately after his consecration Bishop Purcell attended the Second Provincial Council of Baltimore, and then with borrowed funds set out for his see. Upon his arrival in Cincinnati, 14 November, 1833, he found there only one church—St. Peter’s Cathedral. Four Sisters of Charity had arrived in Cincinnati 27 October, 1829, to take charge of the first cathedral school, and with six orphans under their care started the first asylum for orphans in the diocese. The diocese was growing and clergy were needed. The seminary was removed from the city to Brown County in 1839; but in 1845 it was brought back to the city, and the seminarists continued their studies in the Jesuit college under Father Nota up to 1848, when they were transferred to the episcopal residence, under the supervision of the Rev. David Whelan. On 27 January, 1847, Michael and Patrick Considine conveyed to the bishop a tract of five acres on Price Hill for a new seminary, of which the corner-stone was laid on 19 July, 1848. The centre wing was solemnly blessed and opened 2 October, 1851, under the name of Mount St. Mary’s of the West. From this institution went forth for a half-century the clergy of the Middle West. Its history is inseparably interwoven with the history of the diocese, and its students cherished with feelings of reverence the names of its presidents, Fathers Hallinan, Quinlan, Barry, Rosecrans, Pabisch, Hecht, Byrne, Murray, and Mackey, all men of great learning and deep piety. In 1904 it was transferred to its present site. Cedar Point, Hamilton County, Ohio. The first German parish church, the Holy Trinity, was erected in 1834, and the Rev. John Martin Henni, afterwards the first Archbishop of Milwaukee, was the first pastor. In 1837 he founded the “Wahrheitsfreund,” the first German Catholic paper in the United States. In 1907 it was merged with the “Ohio Waisenfreund.” Bishop Purcell was always an ardent advocate of Catholic education and a pioneer in the defence of parochial schools. The progress of Catholicity was such in the thirties as to cause alarm in certain quarters. Lyman Beecher’s “Plea for the West” had gone forth, and the sentiment it moulded found expression in the Purcell-Campbell debate. The Ohio College of Teachers was in session, and the occasion was seized by the Rev. Alexander Campbell to accuse the Catholic Church of being an enemy to enlightenment. He issued a challenge for an open debate; it was accepted, though reluctantly, by Bishop Purcell. The debate commenced 13 January, 1837, in the Campbellite church, and continued for seven days. Much of the existing prejudice was removed, and the numerous conversions to Catholicity following the controversy were ample proof that the Church and its doctrines had been ably and eloquently defended by the young Bishop of Cincinnati. From this time an impetus was given to the spread of Catholicity in Cincinnati and throughout the diocese. The fertility and wealth of the Ohio Valley had become known; many immigrated from the Eastern States, and Ohio received a large proportion of the Europeans whom unsatisfactory conditions at home induced to cross the sea to seek their fortunes in the New World.

Communities of sisterhoods were invited to share the burden of supplying the growing needs of religion. The Sisters of Charity arrived in Cincinnati in 1829; the Sisters of Notre-Dame in 1840; the Ursulines in 1845; the Sisters of the Good Shepherd in 1857; the Sisters of Mercy and St. Francis in 1858; the Little Sisters of the Poor in 1868; and the Religious of the Sacred Heart in 1869. To these were added religious orders of men. The Jesuits established a house in 1840; and there followed in succeeding years the Fathers of the Precious Blood (Sanguinists), the Franciscans, the Passionists, the Fathers of the Holy Cross, and the Brothers of Mary. The corner-stone of the present St. Peter’s Cathedral was laid in 1841; it was consecrated in 1845. The personality of the bishop was strong and magnetic, and attracted all classes to him. The first German orphan asylum for boys was opened in 1839, and that for girls in 1843. Eventually they were combined, and the German Orphan Asylum at Bond Hill is the successful outgrowth of both. Under the auspices of the St. Peter Benevolent Association for Orphans, formed 25 December, 1833, St. Joseph’s Orphan Asylum was opened on 24 July, 1855. It is a monument to the generosity of the people and ministers to the needs of the four hundred inmates. Sixteen churches were built in the city and the immediate neighbourhood; the parochial schools were equally numerous. The Catholic population now exceeded 50,000, and it was deemed necessary to erect a second diocese for the northern half of the state, at Cleveland, of which, on 10 October, 1847, the Rev. Amadeus Rappe was consecrated the first bishop. Not long afterwards Cincinnati was made an archiepiscopal see (19 July, 1850).

In 1853 a wave of Know-Nothingism was sweeping over the country. Philadelphia and Louisville had been the scenes of riotous outbreaks. The Most Rev. Cajetan Bedini, titular Archbishop of Thebes, who had been appointed nuncio to the court of Brazil, and had been commissioned to investigate certain causes of complaint at Buffalo and Philadelphia, arrived at Cincinnati in Juine, 1853. Prior to his coming popular prejudice was appealed to, his character was maligned, and crimes imputed to him of which he was innocent. On his arrival in Cincinnati the smouldering spirit of Know-Nothingism was fanned into a flame. On Christmas night, 1853, while the guest of the Archbishop of Cincinnati, a mob determined upon his death marched to the cathedral, threatening to burn it. The loyalty of the people to their archbishop, who counselled prudence and forbearance, put to shame and disarmed the spirit of revolt, while the action of the mob, disgracing the hospitality of Cincinnati by insulting an unoffending visitor of one of her citizens, was abhorred by every lover of law and order. Archbishop Hughes was the champion of the Church in the East and the vigilant guardian of her interests; Archbishop Purcell was the power which moulded her destiny in the West. His tongue and pen were always active in her defence. Broadminded and devoted to truth, he was loved by all, irrespective of creed. Convinced that he was right, he never swerved from the path which duty marked out for him to follow. Able and wise and fearless as a churchman, he was none the less loyal as a citizen. When the clouds of civil war were gathering, he proclaimed himself an advocate of the Union in opposition to the sentiments of a large number of his people, hoisted the flag upon the cathedral spire, and delivered an address, classic in thought and expression, which breathed the spirit of the patriot and lover of peace. He was signally honoured by Pius IX; and on the silver jubilee of his priesthood and episcopacy, in 1851 and 1858, on his return from the Vatican Council, and on the occasion of the golden jubilee of his priesthood in 1876, the clergy and laity, non- Catholic and Catholic, vied with each other in their demonstrations of devotion to this patriarch of the West, who had laboured incessantly for half a century in the vineyard of the Lord.

Father Edward Purcell, the archbishop’s brother, had conducted for years a private system of banking. Simple in its beginning and easy of control, it assumed in the course of years proportions which passed, it may be, beyond the grasp and management of an individual. The crisis and financial reverses came in 1879, it is not know how. In his eagerness to compensate the creditors, Archbishop Purcell attempted to assume the responsibility of the bankruptcy. The courts decided that the obligation was not diocesan, that Father Purcell was individually responsible, and that churches and institutions were liable for borrowed monies only. This indebtedness (of churches and institutions), amounting to some $200,000, was paid. The event hastened the death of Father Edward Purcell, and that of his brother followed on 4 July, 1883, at St. Martin’s, Brown County, Ohio, where his remains now rest. The sorrow was universal. Some, it is true, in the hour of their losses, were disposed to blame, but the majority of citizens, Catholic and Protestant, believed firmly in the honesty of purpose of the deceased archbishop and his brother, whose only faults, if such they may be called, were their forgetfulness of self and their willingness to aid their struggling people. The diocese, which in 1833 comprised the State of Ohio, had grown from infancy to full manhood-400 churches and 100 chapels raised their crosses heavenward. The Catholic population amounted to 450,000, more than 85,000 being in Cincinnati alone. He found one church in Cincinnati upon his arrival; there were now upwards of thirty. The original diocese (embracing Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus) employed the services of 400 clergymen, 52 religious communities, 3 theological seminaries, 3 colleges, 25 academic institutions for girls, 22 orphan asylums, 1 protectory for boys, 6 hospitals, 40 charitable institutions, and 266 parochial schools. The Archdiocese of Cincinnati at the time of his death had 180,000 Catholics.

(3) WILLIAM HENRY ELDER

William Henry Elder, Bishop of Natchez, Mississippi, was transferred to the titular See of Avara and made coadjutor to the Archbishop of Cincinnati, with the right of succession, 30 January, 1880, and succeeded to the See of Cincinnati 4 July, 1883. He had been the first to extend his sympathy and to volunteer assistance to his predecessor in the hour of his affliction. He entered upon his episcopal duties during the crucial period of the financial failure. Its settlement was brought about largely through the prudence and wisdom of his administration. He received from Reuben R. Springer the generous bequest of $100,000, and in 1887 he reopened Mount St. Mary’s Seminary of the West, which had been closed for eight years. In 1890 he founded St. Gregory’s Preparatory Seminary at Cedar Point, Hamilton County, the Very Rev. J. C. Albrinck being its first rector. In 1904 it was transferred to Cincinnati and made a day college. Saintly and retiring, the archbishop exercised an influence silent but effective by the unostentatious sanctity of his life. Judicious at critical moments, he ruled wisely. A true lover of souls, he could be found in the confessional up to the close of his eighty- fifth year. He adhered closely to the laws of the Church, and exacted a similar fidelity in others. Two provincial councils were called, in 1883 and 1888. Several synods were convened and regulations framed, creating system and smoothness in the working of the archdiocese. The zeal of his predecessor characterized his efforts in behalf of Catholic education. Charitable institutions were placed upon a firm basis, and the administration of parishes made more methodical. He was loved by all during life, and was mourned by all at his death, 31 October, 1904.

(4) HENRY MOELLER

Henry Moeller, consecrated Bishop of Columbus, Ohio, 25 August, 1900, was promoted to the archiepiscopal See of Areopolis and made coadjutor to Archbishop Elder, with the right of succession, 27 April, 1903. He had been for twenty years Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, previous to his appointment to the See of Columbus.

CAUSES OF GROWTH

Up to 1829 there was practically no immigration to the West. In after years the fertility and wealth of the country lying between the Eastern mountains and the Mississippi directed thither the tide of incoming Europeans. The Irish famine of 1848, and political disturbances in Germany about the same time, sent large numbers of Irish and Germans to America. Friends had preceded them, and glowing accounts of the agricultural possibilities of Ohio attracted many to the Ohio Valley. Steamboat facilities after 1830 and railroads after 1838 contributed largely to increase the population. The Civil War did not retard materially the progress of religion.

PIONEER PRIESTS

The following are worthy of mention: Revs. E. Fenwick, S. T. Badin, J. J. Young, E. Thienpont, J. B. Lamy, Joseph P. Machebeuf, Frederic Rese, J. Ferneding, J. Reed, J. H. Luers, H. D. Juncker, Martin J. Henni, H. Kundig, B. Toebbe, W. Cheymol, J. J. Mullon, Thos. Bolger, and the Jesuits Joseph de Bonnecamp and Armand de la Richardie. Eight of these priests were raised to the episcopate. Among the laymen of distinction, the Fink and Dittoe families in the early years of the Church in Ohio deserve to be remembered. In subsequent years the following merit special mention: Patrick and Michael Considine, John and Joseph Slevin, Stephen Boyle, Chas. Conahan, Joseph and Patrick Rogers, Joseph Butler, Joseph Heman, J. P. Carberry, Dr. Bonner, Col. McGroarty, James F. Meline, N. H. Hickman, Joseph Kline, B. VerKamp, F. A. Grever, Reuben R. Springer, Patrick Poland, Joseph Nurre, H. Himmelgarn, Joseph Niehaus, and Nicholas Walsh. Mrs. Sarah Peter was active in the founding of convents.

SHEA, Hist. Cath. Church in the United States (New York, 1889–1892); O’GORMAN, Roman Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1895); KELLY AND KIRWIN, History of Mt. St. Mary’s Seminary of the West (Cincinnati, 1894); HOUCK, A History of Catholicity in Northern Ohio (Cleveland, 1902); The Catholic Telegraph (Cincinnati) files; REUSS, Bib. Cycl. of the Cath. Hierarchy of the U. S. (Milwaukee, 1898); Catholic Directory (1908).

M.P. O’BRIEN

Cincture

(Lat. Cingulum.)

The cincture (or, as it is more commonly called in England, the girdle) is an article of liturgical attire which has certainly been recognized as such since the ninth century. Then as now it was used to confine the loose, flowing alb, and prevent it from impeding the movements of the wearer. But its liturgical character appears from the prayers which even from early times were recited in putting it on and from the symbolism of spiritual watchfulness which then specially attached to it, according to the text, “Sint lumbi vestri præcincti.” The cingulum is enumerated among the Mass vestments in the Stowe Missal, and this very possibly may represent the practice of the Celtic Church in the seventh century. It seems probable, however, that in the Celtic Church, as in the Greek Church of the present day, the girdle was worn only by bishops and priests; the deacon’s tunic was left ungirded. Some few surviving examples of early girdles (tenth- and eleventh-century) show that in the beginning the cincture was not always a simple cord, as it is now. On the contrary, we find narrow bands of silk and precious stuff, often richly embroidered, and these lasted until late in the Middle Ages. Some such bands and sashes were again introduced for the same purpose in the last century, but the Congregation of Sacred Rites has disapproved of the practice, though it permitted those which existed to be used until worn out (24 November, 1899). The material of the girdle is preferably flax or hemp, but wool and silk—the latter especially for occasions of solemnity—are not prohibited. This material is woven into a cord, and the ends are usually decorated with tassels, By way of ornament strands of gold and silver thread are sometimes introduced, particularly in the tassels at the extremities. The prayer now recited by the priest in putting on the girdle, “Gird me, O Lord, with the girdle of purity,” etc., strongly suggests that this vestment should be regarded as typical of priestly chastity. Like the other Mass vestments, the girdle requires to be blessed before use.

Some kind of cincture, we may further note, is included in almost every form of religious or ecclesiastical costume. In certain religious orders it receives a special blessing, and in such familiar instances as the Cord of St. Francis or the Girdle of St. Augustine it is sanctioned and indulgenced by the Church as indicating a profession of allegiance to a particular institute. Again, the broad sash, which forms part of the civil attire of bishops, priests, and other ecclesiastics, has been imitated, apparently for sthetic reasons, in the costume of choir boys and servers at the altar. It should be said that this last development, while not expressly prohibited so long as certain rules are observed regarding colour and material, is not in any way prescribed or recommended by ecclesiastical authority.

BRAUN, Die liturgische Gewandung (Freiburg. 1901) VAN DER STAPPEN, Sacra Liturgia (Mechlin, 1902), IV; BARBIER DE MONTAULT, Le Costume et les usages eccl siastiques (Paris, 1901); THALHOFER, Liturgik, etc.; ROHAULT DE FLEURY, La Messe, VII. Almost all works on the Mass, e.g. those of GIHR, MÜLLER, BENEDICT XIV, devote a section to vestments.

HERBERT THURSTON.

Cinites

(A.V. Kenites).

A tribe or family often mentioned in the Old Testament, personified as Qayin from which the nomen gentilicium Qeni is derived. In spite of several attempts at a solution, the origin both of the name and of the tribe is still obscure. Hobab the relative (brother-in-law?) of Moses was a Cinite (Judges, i, 16, iv, 11; as Hobab is also called a Madianite (Num., x, 29), it follows that the Cinites belonged to that nation. Judging from appearances, the Cinites were true worshippers of Yahweh. Some scholars, on the strength of Ex., xviii, go even so far as to assert that it was from them that the Israelites received a great portion of their monotheistic theology; the passage, however, deals directly and only with social organization. At any rate, the Rechabites, a clan of the Cinites [I Par. (A. V. I Chron.) ii, 55] were even ascetics and insisted on retaining the nomadic habits of the followers of Yahweh (Jer., xxxv), Though calamities were foretold for the Cinites by Balaam (Num, xxiv, 21 sqq.), they are always represented as being on friendly terms with the Israelites. Owing probably to their alliance with Moses and also to the bonds of a common religion, they befriended the Israelites during their wanderings in the desert [Num., x, 29–32, 1 K. (A.V. I Sam.) xv, 6] and joined them in their march on Chanaan (Judges, 1, 16). There is no intimation that there ever was any enmity between the two nations (cf. I K., xxvii, 10, xxx, 29). The Cinites dwelt south of Palestine with the Amalecites, as is evident from Num., xxiv, 21 sqq., I K., xv, 6, and probably from Judges, i, 16 if, instead of the Massoretic version, we use an alternate Hebrew reading—a reading which is supported by several Greek manuscripts and by the Sahidic Coptic Version (cf. Ciasca, Fragm. Copto-Sahidica). One clan of the Cinites left the tribe and settled in the north under Haber, at the time of Barac and Debbera (Judges, iv, 11); Jahel, who slew Sisara, was the wife of Haber the Cinite (ibid., iv, 17 sqq., v, 24 sqq.). From the facts that we find the Cinites south and north, and that in Aramaic the root from which Qayin is derived implies the idea of a smith, Sayce (in Hastings, Dict. Bib., s.v. Kenites) draws the conclusion that the Cinites were a wandering guild of smiths. This view has against it the obvious meaning of the texts (see especially Gen., xv, 19). Apparently the Cinites shared in the Babylonian Exile and in the Restoration, but they do not appear any more as a distinct tribe and very likely were assimilated with the Jews.

R. BUTIN

Cinna

A titular see of Asia Minor. According to the order of the “Synecdemus” of Hirerocles (p. 696) Kinna was probably in the north-western part of the rich corn-growing district called Haimane, west of Angora, though its exact position cannot be determined. It must have been close to Balyk Koyounji (vilayet of Angora) or even nearer to the River Sangarius. Kinna was a suffragan of Ancya, in Galatia Prima. Lequien (I,483) mentions ten bishops: the first Gorgonius, was present at Nicaea, in 325; the tenth, Angonius, was a partisan of Photius in 879, and another, Sabas, was probably an adherent of St. Ignatius. The see figures in later “Notitiae episcopatuum.”

Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. Of Asia Minor (London, 1890), 245, 247, 430.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Circesium

(KERKESION, KERKISION, KIRKISIA, CERCUSIUM, CIRCESSUS).

A titular see of Osrhoene. Founded under Diocletian and restored by Justinian, it is now identified with the village Abu Serai, on the left bank of the Euphrates, at the confluence of the Khabur, where the river was commonly crossed. The ancient city, however, had replaced a still older one, called Sirhi in Assyrian texts. Benjamin of Tudela and many after him identified it wrongly with Kharkamis (Carchamish), one of the capitals of the Hittites, situated at Jirbas, or Jerablus, the present name of Europos, or Oropos. Circesium was a bishopric in Osrhoene, suffragan of Edessa, it figures only in Parthey’s “Notitiæ episcopatuum” (c. 840). Lequien (II, 977) mentions five bishops: Jonas, who was present at Nicæa, and had suffered mutilation during the preceding persecution; Abramius, present at Chalcedon; Nonnus, a Severian (518 and 532); Davides, present at Constantinople (536); Thomas (553). There are also records of fourteen Jacobite bishops, from 793 to 1042.

RAWLINSON, The Five Great Monarchies (4th ed., London, 1879), II, 67; MASPERO, De Charchemis oppidi situ et historiâ antiquissimâ, 14 sq.; NÖLDEKE, Götting. Nachricht. (Jan., 1876), nn. 11, 13, 15; CHABOT in Revue de l’Orient chrétien, VI, 194.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Circumcision

The Hebrew word, like the Greek (peritome), and the Latin (circumcisio), signifies a cutting and, specifically, the removal of the prepuce, or foreskin, from the penis. The number and variety of tribes and nations who practised it are surprising; a conservative estimate places the number that practise it in our day at two hundred millions. Herodotus says that the Egyptians, Colchians, and Ethiopians, from very early times, were circumcised; and he mentions other races, the Phoenicians and Syrians of Palestine (the Jews, as Josephus maintains), who say that they learned the use of circumcision from the Egyptians (Herod., II, 104; Jos., C. Ap., I, 22). Even some Christians circumcise their children, the Copts, for instance, and the Abyssinians, in Africa; and among the Filipinos, the same may be said of most of the Tagalos, who are Catholics. To these last, however, it is a mere ceremony without religious import. The Mohammedan Moros may have introduced it into the islands, where it remains, notwithstanding centuries of Christian influence against it (C. N. Barney, see bibliography). The Abyssinians are entirely under Jewish influence, though they profess Christianity: they observe the Jewish Sabbath, circumcise on the eighth day, and observe many other usages. (See Andree, cited below, p. 189.) Andree states also that the custom of circumcising is found in Sumatra (pp. 191, 192), the east coast of New Guinea (p. 197), and among the Samoans, who call Europeans “the uncircumcised.” Even in America, circumcision was in use among the Aztec and Maya races (op. cit. 201, 202). The fact of its existence in Australia (Spencer and Gillen, Tribes of Central Australia, p. 218 sq.), and in a great part of the islands of Oceanica, not to speak of America, would seem to throw some doubt on the assertion of Herodotus that it had its origin in Egypt.

It is not easy to assign satisfactory reasons for a usage so general. Those who think it was a tribal mark, like tattooing, or the knocking out of the front teeth, should consider that such marks are usually conspicuous. Was it connected with phallic worship, and thus regarded as an offering to the deity of fertility? or was it, as some think, a substitute for human sacrifice? From the fact that the priests in Egypt were, beyond question, circumcised (G. Rawlinson—Ancient Egypt, vol. I, p. 452), as also from the fact that the upper classes among the Aztec and Celebes tribes made use of it, we may conclude that circumcision was not looked upon as a mark of slavery or subjection, but rather of nobility and superiority. Father Lagrange holds that it had a religious significance, and that, as it is not referred to in Chaldean monuments, it was not a protosemitic practice, but may have had its origin in Arabia (Etudes sur les religions sémitiques, 1903, pp. 239–243).

Merely utilitarian motives have been assigned by many: even Philo (De Circumcisione, II, 211, ed. Mangey) gives cleanliness, freedom from disease, offspring, and purity of heart, this last the only mystical or sacramental one among the four, which Herodotus also mentions as the motive of the Egyptians, kathariotetos eineka (II, 37). Physicians prescribe circumcision in certain cases, for instance, to guard against phimosis, balanitis, and other such evils; further, Rosenzweig recommended its general adoption in the Prussian army (Zur Beschneidungsfrage, 1878). That the ceremony had some relation to initiation into manhood, at the marriageable age, seems to receive support from the custom of certain tribes of being circumcised at the age of puberty; and also from the fact that the Arabic word khatan signifies to circumcise and to be allied by marriage.

It is strange that the universal practice of circumcision among those who profess Mohammedanism is neither based upon, nor sanctioned by, the Koran. Was this silence observed by the Prophet of Islam because there was no need of prescribing what already had the force of law or, perhaps, because it did not seem to him to have any religious significance? However we explain his silence, tradition, by appealing to his authority, soon gave to the practice all the weight of his sanction. The age at which the Arabs were circumcised was, according to Josephus (Ant., I, xii, 2), thirteen years, in imitation of Ismael (Gen. xvii, 25). At present the regular time for circumcising Mohammedan children is between the ages of seven and twelve years. The Bedouin tribes too, though not scrupulous Islamites, have adhered faithfully to this usage of their forefathers. A short description of the ceremony of circumcision among the nomads of the Sinaitic peninsula may be read in the “Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement” (Jan., 1906, p. 28). The writer says that the ceremony has “nothing religious” about it: yet, as he states, the beginning of the Koran is recited on the occasion.

The relation, if there be any, between Gentile and Jewish circumcision is an interesting subject. The clear statement of the Bible that circumcision was given to Abraham, as “a sign of the covenant” (Gen. xvii, 11), need not compel us to believe that hitherto it was unknown in the world. Like the law of clean and unclean, in food and daily life, it may be regarded as a practice of venerable antiquity that was adopted and adapted to express what it had not expressed before. The rainbow existed from the first days of rain and sunshine, for it is the result of both, but the Lord gave its future significance to Noe. The same is true of incense, sacrifice, and lustral water, which, though found very early among nations not in touch with revelation, are yet prescribed by Divine ordinance and used in Divine worship. If, therefore, we question the assertion of Herodotus, that circumcision was of Egyptian origin, and was adopted from the Egyptians by surrounding nations, and, among these, by the Syrians. (Jews) of Palestine, it is not because of theological scruples, but rather because of lack of argument. Whatever may be said about Herodotus as a witness in matters that fell under his personal observation, when he argues, his authority is only in proportion to the weight of his arguments, and these are, in many instances, mere conjectures. Artapanus, quoted by Eusebius (Præpar. Evan., IX, xxviii), goes so far as to say that the Egyptians adopted the practice of circumcision from Moses.

The illustration of the ceremony of circumcision pictured on the ruins of Karnak, is probably later than the going down of Israel into Egypt. It is given in Andree’s work, pp. 187, 188 (see below); and also in Ebers, “Aegypten etc.,” pp. 278–284 (see below), who, moreover, discusses the inferences to be drawn from the finding of a circumcised mummy. We may safely say, however, that up to our time the monuments of antiquity furnish no conclusive proof that circumcision was practised anywhere prior to the Biblical date, at which God made it “a sign of the covenant” between Himself and Abraham (Gen., xvii, 11). To the Jews it had a sacramental meaning, derived from its Divine institution and sanction. As Isaac, so their children were circumcised on the eighth day, according to the law: “An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock: And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant. The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant” (Gen., xvii, 12–14; xxi, 4). For some reason, not given in the text, Moses while in Madian neglected to circumcise his son, Eliezer, on which account God “would have killed him,” i.e. not Eliezer, as some think, but Moses, as the passage indicates. Sephora, having taken a sharp stone, circumcised her son with it, and said, “a bloody spouse art thou to me”; whereupon the Lord “let him go” (Exod., iv, 24–26). The Greek reading, “the blood of my son’s circumcision has ceased to flow,” is obscure. Sephora very probably meant that by what she had done she had saved the life of her husband and confirmed their marriage by the shedding of blood.

During the sojourn of forty years in the desert the law of circumcision was not observed, as the changes incident to nomadic life, in so large a community, made its observance almost impossible. When, however, the people came into the Land of Promise, the Lord said to Josue: “Make thee knives of stone, and circumcise the second time the children of Israel” (Jos., v, 2). The second time, i.e. renew the practice which had been omitted during the nomadic period. As Sephora used a stone knife, so on this occasion stone knives were used, which is a proof that the events narrated are of great antiquity. The words of the Lord to Josue, “This day have I taken away from you the reproach of Egypt,” seem to refer not to circumcision, as some think, but to the disgrace of being slaves to the Egyptians, contrasted with the honour of entering into the true liberty of the children of God. Josephus interprets them in this sense: “Now the place where Joshua pitched his camp was called ‘Gilgal,’ which denotes ‘liberty,’ for since now they had passed over Jordan, they looked upon themselves as freed from the miseries which they had undergone from the Egyptians, and in the wilderness” (Ant., V, i, 11). Many modern scholars, however, translate Gilgal, “a rolling away,” “circle” (Gesenius, s. v.), and think that the Heb. text of Josue (v, 9), “I have rolled away from you the reproach of Egypt,” refers to the removal of the disgrace of uncircumcision; for at that time, they suppose, most of the Egyptians, and not a few Jews while in Egypt, were uncircumcised. The law was clear and peremptory: “The uncircumcised shall be destroyed out of his people” (Gen.,xvii, 14); and for both Jews and strangers circumcision was a necessary preparation for eating the paschal lamb (Exod., xii, 48). Arel, “uncircumcised,” is frequently used as a term of reproach, i.e. profane, unclean (Judges, xv, 18; IK., xiv, 6, xvii, 36, xxxi, 4; Is., lii, 1; Ezech., xxviii, 10, xxxii, 25, 26, etc.). The school of Shammai, therefore, was conservative, insisting on the rigorous observance of the law, while that of Hillel, was more inclined to leniency, in dealing with proselytes and strangers. Josephus, in the advice of Eleazer and Ananias to Izates, King of Adiabene, gives the views of the rigorists and the laxists in reference to the necessity of circumcision (Ant., XX, ii, 4; cf. Graetz, Geschichte d. Juden, III, pp. 172 sqq.). The rigorous doctrine was adopted by John Hyrcanus, who compelled the Idumeans to be circumcised. They received, moreover, the entire Jewish Law; so that Josephus says “they were hereafter no other than Jews” (Ant., XIII, ix, 1). Therefore, the fact that Herod was an Idumean helped him to the throne. The Itureans also were forced “to live according to the Jewish laws” (Jos., Ant., XIII, xi, 3).

Long before this, many of the Persians were circumcised and “became Jews, for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them” (Esth., viii, 17, Heb. text; Josephus, Ant., XI, vi, 13). The Book of Jubilees insists upon he strict observance of the law, and protests against those that “make the members of their body appear like those of the gentiles” (xv, 26, 27). During the period of Greek rule in Palestine, when those that kept the laws of Moses were put to death by the gentile tyrants (I Mach., i, 63; II Mach., vi, 10), some Jews, under Greek influence, “made themselves prepuces” and turned away from the ways and traditions of their fathers (I Mach., i, 15, 16; Jos., Ant., XII, v, 1). To this epispastic operation performed on the athletes to conceal the marks of circumcision St. Paul alludes, me epispastho (I Cor., vii, 18). Therefore Jewish circumcision, in later times, tears the membrane that remains after circumcision given in the ordinary way, among the Arabs for instance, and thus defeats even the surgeon’s skill.

In our day many Jews are not so zealous in keeping the law as their fathers were; nor do they think it necessary to have the “sign of the covenant” in their flesh. The ceremony is considered cruel, nor has it any sacramental import in Jewish national life. The Reform movement at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1843, considered it an unnecessary element of Judaism. This lax doctrine could find no stronger expression than in the case of Chief Rabbi Einhorn of Mecklenburg, who in 1847 defended his having named and consecrated an uncircumcised child in the synagogue, as a child, even though uncircumcised, born of Jewish parents, enjoys all the privileges and assumes all the obligations of a Jew. (See Jewish Encyl., s. vv. Circumcision, Einhorn.)

Neither place nor minister is designated in the law of circumcision. The mother sometimes, oftener the father, circumcised the child. Later, one skilled in the operation, called a Mohel, usually a surgeon, performed it. In Josephus, Ant., XX, ii, 4, we read that Izates, the King of Adiabene, wishing to live as a Jew, “sent for a surgeon” and was circumcised, evidently at home, as in modern times also the ceremony may take place either at home or usually in the synagogue. The eighth day was prescribed, even should it be the Sabbath (see John, vii, 22, 23). A name was given, as in Luke, i, 59, ii, 21, to commemorate the change of the patriarch’s name from Abram to Abraham, when God made the covenant with him and made circumcision the sign of it (Gen., xvii, 5). In the ceremony, the one that holds the child is called Sandek, from the Greek synteknos, equivalent to our godfather in baptism; and as Elias was a zealous champion of the law, for which he suffered much, there is a vacant chair for him at every circumcision.

The Jews were proud of their descent from Abraham, but did not always “do the works of Abraham” (John, viii, 39). They attached so much importance to the external act, that while attending to the letter they neglected the spirit of the law. Jeremias (iv, 4; ix, 25, 26) calls their attention to the necessity of circumcision of the heart, as all important. Even in Deut., x, 16, xxx, 6, this spiritual circumcision is set forth in no uncertain language. As uncircumcision means profane, unclean, imperfect, “I am of uncircumcised lips” (Ex., vi, 12), “their ears are uncircumcised” (Jer., vi, 10), and was applied to inanimate things also, as in Lev., xix, 23, “the fruit that cometh forth shall be unclean [Heb. uncircumcised] to you,” so to circumcise the heart (Rom., ii, 29) means to reform the inner man, by cutting off the vices and correcting the disorders that make him displeasing in the sight of God. To leave the synagogue was to give up that which more than anything else characterized it (see Gal., ii, 7, 8). Yet St. Paul, while showing his freedom from the legalities of the Old Dispensation by not circumcising Titus (Gal., ii, 3), wished to bury the synagogue with honour by subjecting Timothy to the law of circumcision (Acts xvi, 3). Even though Christ Himself, as a true son of Abraham, submitted to the law, His followers were to be children of Abraham by faith, and were to “adore the Father in spirit and in truth” (John, iv, 23). The Council of Jerusalem decided against the necessity of the rite, and St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, condemns the teachers that wished to make the Church of Christ only a continuation of the synagogue: “Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing” (v, 2). Here he refers to the supposed efficacy and necessity of circumcision, rather than to the mere ceremony; for he did not consider it wrong to circumcise Timothy. It was wrong, however, for the Galatians, having been baptized, and having taken upon themselves the obligations of the law of Christ with all its privileges, to be circumcised as a necessary means of salvation, since, by going for salvation from the Church to the Synagogue, they virtually denied the sufficiency of the merits of Christ (cf. Piconio, “Trip. Exp. in Gal.,” v, 2). The Apostle gives the essence of Christianity when he says: “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity” (Gal., v, 6). In his Epistle to the Romans, iv, he shows that Abraham was justified by faith, before circumcision was given as a sign of the covenant; so that the uncircumcision of the New Law is the continuation of the first ages of faith upon the earth. The gentile church of uncircumcision, according to St. Gregory the Great, is composed of men from the time of Abel the Just to the end of ages (Hom. xix in Evan.). St. Justin also says that as Henoch and the just of old received the spiritual circumcision, so do we receive it in the Sacrament of Baptism (Dial. cum Tryph., n. xliii).

St. Thomas holds that circumcision was a figure of baptism: this retrenches and restrains the animal man as that removed a part of his body—which physical act indicated the spiritual effect of the sacrament (De Sac., Summa, III, Q. lxx, a. 1). He gives three reasons why the organ of generation rather than any other was to be circumcised:

Abraham was to be blessed in his seed;

The rite was to take away original sin, which comes by generation;

It was to restrain concupiscence, which is found especially in the generative organs (III, Q. lxx, a. 3).

According to his teaching, as baptism remits original sin and actual sins committed before its reception, so circumcision remitted both, but ex opere operantis, i.e. by the faith of the recipient, or, in the case of infants, by the faith of the parents. Infants that died before being circumcised could be saved, as were those who lived prior to the institution of circumcision, and as females were even after its institution, by some sign—the parents’ prayer, for instance—expressive of faith. Adults did not receive the remission of all the temporal punishment due to sin as in baptism:—“Adulti, quando circumcidebantur, consequebantur remissionem, non solum originalis peccati, sed etiam actualium peccatorum; non tamen ita quod liberarentur ab omni reatu p næ, Sicut in baptismo, in quo confertur copiosior gratia” (III, Q. lxx, a. 4). The main points of the teaching of the Angelic Doctor were commonly held in the Church, even before the days of St. Augustine, who with other Fathers maintained that circumcision was not a mere ceremony, but a sacramental rite. (Cf. De Civ. Dei, xvi, 27.) Authorities, Patristic and Scholastic, may be found in DE AUGUSTINIS, De Re Sacram., I, par. i, art. ii, th. iii. ASHER, The Jewish Rite of Circumcision. (London, 1873); SCHECHTER, Studies in Judaism (1896), 288, 89, 343; REMONDINO, History of Circumcision (Phila. and London, 1891); ANDREE, Ethnographische Parallelen und Vergleiche (Leipzig, 1889), Beschneidung, pp. 166–213; BARNEY, Circumcision and Flagellation among the Filipinos (Carlisle, Pa., 1903); ARNOLD, Circumcision in New York Medical Jour. (Feb. 13, 1886); EBERS, Aegypten und die Bücher Moses (Leipzig, 1868); MACALESTER in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible, s.v.

JOHN J. TIERNEY

Feast of the Circumcision

As Christ wished to fulfil the law and to show His descent according to the flesh from Abraham. He, though not bound by the law, was circumcised on the eighth day (Luke, ii, 21), and received the sublime name expressive of His office, Jesus, i.e. Saviour. He was, as St. Paul says, “made under the law,” i.e. He submitted to the Mosaic Dispensation, “that he might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Gal., iv, 4, 5). “The Christ, in order to fulfil all justice, was required to endure this humiliation, and bear in His body the stigma of the sins which He had taken upon Himself” (Fouard, A Life of Jesus, tr., I, 54). The circumcision took place, not in the Temple, though painters sometimes so represent it, but in some private house, where the Holy Family had found a rather late hospitality. The public ceremony in the synagogue, which is now the usage, was introduced later. Christmas was celebrated on 25 December, even in the ertrly centuries, at least by the Western Church, whence the date was soon adopted in the East also. (See CHRISTMAS). Saint Chrysostom credits the West with the tradition, and St. Augustine speaks of it as well and long estabblished. Consequently the Circumcision fell on the first of January. In the ages of paganism, however, the solemnization of the feast was almost impossible, on account of the orgies connected with the Saturnalian festivities, which were celebrated at the same time. Even in our own day the secular features of the opening of the New Year interfere with the religious observance of the Circumcision, and tend to make a mere holiday of that which should have the sacred character of a Holy Day. St. Augustine points out the difference between the pagan and the Christian manner of celebrating the day: pagan feasting and excesses were to be expiated by Christian fasting and prayer (P. L., XXXVIII, 1024 sqq.; Serm. cxcvii, cxcviii). The Feast of the Circumcision was kept at an early date in the Gallican Rite, as is clearly indicated in a Council of Tours (567), in which he Mass of the Circumcision is prescribed (Con. Tur., II., can. xvii in Labbe, V, 857). The feast celebrated at Rome in the seventh century was not the Circumcision as such, but the octave of Christmas. The Gelasian Sacramentary gives the title “In Octabas Domini,” and prohibits the faithful from idolatry and the profanities of the season (P. L., LXXIV, 1061). The earliest Byzantine calendars (eighth and ninth centuries) give for the first of January both the Circumcision and the anniversary of St. Basil. The Feast of the Circumcision was observed in Spain before the death of St. Isidore (636), for the “Regula Monachorum,” X, reads: “For it hath pleased the Fathers to appoint a holy season from the day of the Lord’s birth to the day of His Circumcision” (P.L., LXXXIII, 880). It seems, therefore, that the octave was more prominent in the early centuries, and the Circumcision later.

It is to be noted also that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not forgotten in the festivities of the holy season, and the Mass in her honour was sometimes said on this day. Today, also, while in both Missal and Breviary the feast bears the title “In Circumcisione Domini et Octav Nativitatis,” the prayers have special reference to the Blessed Virgin, and in the Office, the responses and antiphons set forth her privileges and extol her wonderful prerogatives. The psalms for Vespers are those appointed for her feasts, and the antiphons and hymn of Lauds keep her constantly in view. As paganisn passed away the religious festivities of the Circumcision became more conspicuous and solemn; yet, even in the tenth century, Atto, Bishop of Vercelli, rebuked those who profaned the holy season by pagan dances, songs, and the lighting of lamps (P.L. CXXXIV, 43). (See also NEW YEAR’S DAY.)

Acta SS., Jan., I, Sermo Faustini (describing secular festivities and Christian fasts; BUTLER, The Lives of the Saints, 1 Jan.; SMITH, Dict. of Christ. Antiquities, s.v.; DUCHESNE, Les origines du culte chrét. (tr. London, 1904), 273.

JOHN J. TIERNEY

Cisalpine Club

An association of Catholic laymen formed in England to perpetuate the movement which had found expression in the “Declaration and Protestation” signed by the Catholic body in 1789. These principles represent a remarkable reaction against the attitude hitherto traditional among Catholics, which seems to have begun about the time of the death of the Pretender in 1766. Up to then they had been stanch Jacobites, and had looked to the restoration of the Stuarts as the only chance for a revival of Catholicity. About this time, however, by what Berington calls “one of those singular revolutions for which no cause can be assigned” (State and Behaviour of English Catholics in 1780, p.134), they gave up their former political aspirations, and frankly accepted the reigning House of Hanover. Part of the reaction was a suspicion of the wisdom of their ecclesiastical rulers, who, they became convinced had adopted in the past a needlessly strict attitude, opposed to English national aspirations and which (they contended) had been dictated by the Court of Rome.

They reverted to the Oath of Allegiance of the reign of King James I, which they declared them- selves willing to take, while some even maintained that the Oath of Supremacy could be interpreted in a sense not inconsistent with the Catholic religion. These were the principles which animated the well-known Catholic Committee (1782–92) in their struggle for emancipation. The two chief leaders were Lord Petre and Sir John Throckmorton, both members of old Catholic families, who had suffered much in times past under the Penal Laws. They had the active assistance of Charles Butler, the distinguished lawyer, nephew of Alban Butler, who acted as secretary to the committee. The greater number (though by no means all) of the Catholic aristocracy, who in those days were the practical supporters of religion sympathized with them and, in a modified degree some of the clergy, especially in London. One bishop Charles Berington, was on their side, and the Rev. Joseph Wilkes, O.S.B., who was a member of the committee, went to great lengths in supporting them. Dr. James Talbot (Vicar Apostolic of the London District, 1781–90) also allowed his name to be added and showed a weakness in opposing them which he regretted on his death-bed, and which made the task of his successor, Dr. Douglass (1790–1812), a difficult one.

Towards the end of the year 1788, Lord Stanhope, a member of the Established Church, desiring to help the committee, and believing that their supposed “Ultramontane” principles, and in particular their accredited belief in the “deposing power” of the pope, were the chief obstacles in their way, drew out a “Protestation” disclaiming these in unmeasured language. The commitee adopted the Protestation and early in the following year called upon all Catholics to sign it. Butler admits that it was only with some difficulty that the bishops were induced to sign; but they did sign, and were followed by two hundred and forty priests (out of about two hundred and sixty) and by all the chief Catholic laymen of the country. Two of the bishops afterwards revoked their signatures and Milner, who was one of those who had signed, took an active part in opposing the commitee. The result of their labours was the Act of 1791. In the first draft there had been an “Oath of Declaration, Protestation and Allegiance,” based on the Protestation of 1789, but going to even greater lengths. This oath was definitely condemned by the bishops, led by the venerable Dr. Walmesley, in 1789 and 1791. After a sharp conflict it was removed from the bill during its passage through Parliament, and the Irish Oath of 1774 substituted. As the act in its final state failed to embody the principles of the Protestation, new society was formed to perpetuate these, under the ominous title of “The Cisalpine Club.” Others besides the members of the Catholic Committee were invited to join the club, and the membership usually numbered between forty and fifty. They met four or five times a year, each meeting being preceded by a dinner. At first they took an active part in Catholic affairs, though consistently disclaiming any representative character. In several ways they succeeded in guarding Catholic interests, and by their influence a school was established at Oscott, directed by a governing body of laymen though the headmaster was a priest, appointed by the bishop. After a few years, however, the Cisalpine Club ceased to perform any active work, and developed into mere dining club. At the beginning the bishops had naturally viewed it askance, although indeed in private life the members were all devout and edifying, and often the chief supporters of Catholic charities. As time went on, their Cisalpine tendencies became less and less marked, and they got on good terms with Bishop Poynter (1803-1826), who only regretted the unfortunate name of the club. Soon after the passing of Catholic Emancipatlon (1829) this was remedied by the members re-forming themselves into a new club, which they called the “Emancipation Club,” and which continued for seventeen more years before finally dissolving. ( See BUTLER, CHARLES; CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.)

BERNARD WARD

Cisamus

Cisamus, a titular see of Crete. Kisamos, or Kissamos, was a harbour on the north-west coast of Crete in a bay of the same name, and served Aptera as a port of entry. Lequien (II, 272) gives only two Greek bishops, Theopemptus in 692 and Leo in 787; Gams (404) adds Gerasimus about 1500. The see still exists, and is suffragan to Candia. During the occupation of the island by the Venetians there was also a Latin see subject to Gortyna and Candia. Ten bishops are mentioned by Lequien (III, 927–930) from 1346 to 1589; twenty by Eubel (I, 192, II, 142) from about 1305 to 1498. Angelo Barbadigo (created cardinal by the antipope Nicholas V) who was present at Rome at the coronatlon (1328) of Emperor Louis IV, became administrator apostolicus Chironensis in Crete, Bishop of Cisamus, and afterwards of Verona. Kissamos, or Kissamo Kasteli, is now a little port frequented only by coasting boats.

S. PÉTRIDES

Cistercians

Religious of the Order of Cîteaux, a Benedictine reform, established at Cîteaux in 1098 by St. Robert, Abbot of Molesme in the Diocese of Langres, for the purpose of restoring as far as possible the literal observance of the Rule of St. Benedict. The history of this order may be divided into four periods:

I. The Formation (1098–1134);

II. The Golden Age (1134–1342);

III. The Decline (1342–1790);

IV. The Restoration (after 1790).

I. THE FORMATION (1098–1134)

St. Robert, son of the noble Thierry and Ermengarde of Champagne, was Abbot of Molesme, a monastery dependent on Cluny. Appalled by the laxity into which the Order of Cluny had fallen, he endeavoured to effect reforms in the monasteries of Saint-Pierre-de-la-Celle, Saint-Michel of Tonnerre, and finally in that of Molesme. His attempts at reform in these monasteries meeting with very little success, he, with six of his religious, among whom were Alberic and Stephen, had recourse to Hugh, Legate of the Holy See, and Archbishop of Lyons. Authorized by Archbishop Hugh to institute a reform, Robert and his companions returned to Molesme and there chose from among the religious those whom they considered most fitted to participate in their undertaking. To the number of twenty-one the company retired to the solitude of Cîteaux (in the Diocese of Chalons), which Raynald, Viscount of Beaune, had ceded to them. (See Cîteaux, Abbey of.) On the feast of St. Benedict (21 March), 1098, which fell that year on Palm Sunday, they commenced to build the “New Monastery,” as it is called in the “Exordium sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis.” This, therefore, was the birthday of the Order of Cîteaux. By order of the Apostolic legate, Robert received the pastoral staff from the bishop of the diocese, Gauthier, and was charged with the government of his brethren, who immediately made their vow of stability. Thus was the “New Monastery” canonically erected into an abbey.

At this news, the monks who had remained at Molesme sent a deputation to Pope Urban II, asking that Robert might be sent back to his first monastery. The pope yielded to their petition, and Robert returned to Molesme, after having governed Cîteaux for one year. There the prior, Alberic, was elected to replace him, and, in his turn, sent the two monks, John and Ilbode, as delegates to Pascal II (who had just succeeded Urban II) to beg him to take the church of Cîteaux under the protection of the Apostolic See. By Apostolic Letters, dated at Troja in Campania, 18 April, 1100, Pascal II declared that he took under his immediate protection the abbey and the religious, of Cîteaux, saving their allegiance to the Church of Chalons. Dating from this day, Alberic and his religious established at Cîteaux the exact observance of the Rule of St. Benedict, substituted the white habit for the black which the Benedictines wore, and, the better to observe the rule in regard to the Divine Office day and night, associated with themselves lay brothers, to be chiefly occupied with the manual labours and material affairs of the order. These lay brothers, or conversi, though they were not monks, were to be treated during life and after death just like the monks themselves. St. Alberic died in 1109.

His successor was Stephen Harding, an Englishman by birth, well versed in sacred and profane science, who had been one of the first promoters of the project to leave Molesme. St. Robert, his two immediate successors, and their companions had but one object in view: a reaction against the laxity of Cluny and of other monasteries—to resume manual labour, to adopt a more severe regimen, and to restore in monastic churches and church ceremonies the gravity and simplicity proper to the monastic profession. They never thought of founding a new order, and yet from Cîteaux were to go forth, in course of time, colonies of monks who should found other monasteries destined to become other Cîteaux, and thus create an order distinct from that of Cluny.

St. Bernard’s entrance into the Order of Cîteaux (1112) was the signal of this extraordinary development. Thirty young noblemen of Burgundy followed him, among them four of his brothers. Others came after them, and in such numbers that in the following year (1113) Cîteaux was able to send forth its first colony and found its first filiation, La Ferté, in the Diocese of Chalons. In 1114 another colony was established at Pontigny, in the Diocese of Auxerre. In 1115 the young Bernard founded Clairvaux in the Diocese of Langres. In the same year Morimond was founded in the same Diocese of Langres. These were the first four offshoots of Cîteaux; but of these monasteries Clairvaux attained the highest development, becoming mother of sixty-eight monasteries even in the lifetime of St. Bernard. (See Clairvaux).

After this St. Stephen Harding was to complete the legislation for the new institute. Cluny had introduced into the monastic order the confederation of the members among themselves. St. Stephen added thereto the institution of general chapters and regular visits. Thus mutual supervision, rendering account of the administration, rigid examination of discipline, immediate correction of abuses, were so many sure means of maintaining the observance in all its purity. The collection of statutes which St. Stephen drafted, and in which are contained wise provisions for the government of the order, was called the Charter of Charity (La Charte de Charité). It and the “US,” the book of usages and customs, together with some of the definitions of the first general chapters, received the approbation of Pope Callistus II. At the death of St. Stephen (1134), the order, after thirty-six years of existence, counted 70 monasteries, of which 55 were in France.

II. THE GOLDEN AGE (1134–1342)

The diffusion of the new order was chiefly effected by means of foundations. Nevertheless several congregations and monasteries, which had existed before the Order of Cîteaux, became affiliated to it, among them the Congregations of Savigny and Obazine, which were incorporated in the order in 1147. St. Bernard and other Cistercians took a very active part, too, in the establishment of the great military orders, and supplied them with their constitutions and their laws. Among these various orders of chivalry may be mentioned the Templars, the Knights of Calatrava, of St. Lazarus, of Alcantara, of Avis, of St. Maurice, of the Wing of St. Michael, of Montessa, etc. In 1152 the Order of Cîteaux already counted 350 abbeys, not including the granges and priories dependent upon the principal abbeys. Among the causes which contributed to this prosperity of the new order, the influence of St. Bernard evidently holds the first place; in the next place comes the perfect unity which existed between the monasteries and the members of every house, a unity wonderfully maintained by the punctual assembling of general chapters, and the faithful performance of the regular visits. The general chapter was an assembly of all the abbots of the order, even those who resided farthest from Cîteaux. This assembly, during the Golden Age, took place annually, according to the prescriptions of the Charter of Charity. “This Cistercian Areopagus,” says the author of the “Origines Cistercienses,” “with equal severity and justice kept watch over the observance of the Rule of St. Benedict, the Charter of Charity and definitions of the preceding Chapters.” The collection of statutes published by Dom Martene informs us that there was no distinction of persons made. After a fault became known, the same justice was meted out to lay brothers, monks, and abbots, and the first fathers of the order. Thus, as all were firmly persuaded that their rights would be protected with equal justice, the collection of statutes passed by the general chapter were consulted and respected in all the monasteries without exception. All the affairs of the order, such as differences between abbots, purchase and sale of property, incorporation of abbeys, questions relating to the laws, rites, feasts, tributes, erection of colleges, etc. were submitted to the general chapter in which resided the supreme authority of the order. Other orders took these general chapters as models of their own, either spontaneously, like the Premonstratensians, or by decree of the Fourth Lateran Council, that the religious orders should adopt the practice of holding general chapters and follow the form used by the Order of Cîteaux.

The general chapters were held every year up to 1411, when they became intermittent. Their decisions were codified. The first codification was that of 1133, under the title “Instituta Capituli Generalis.” The second, which bears the title “Institutiones Capituli Generalis,” was commenced in the year 1203 by the Abbot Arnoud I, and was promulgated in 1240. The third, “Libelli Antiquarum Definitionum Capituli Generalis Ordinis Cisterciencis,” was issued in 1289 and in 1316. Finally, the general chapter of 1350 promulgated the “Novellae Definitiones” in conformity with the Constitution of Benedict XII, “Fulgens ut stella” of 12 July, 1355. The regular visits also contributed much to the maintenance of unity and fervour. Every abbey was visited once a year by the abbot of the house on which it immediately depended. Cîteaux was visited by the four first fathers, that is to say, by the Abbots of La Ferté, of Pontigny, of Clairvaux, and Morimond.

“The Visitor,” say the ancient statutes, “will urge the Religious to greater respect for their Abbot, and to remain more and more united among themselves by the bonds of mutual love for Jesus Christ’s sake . . . The Visitor ought not to be a man who will easily believe every one indiscriminately, but he should investigate with care those matters of which he has no knowledge, and, having ascertained the truth, he should correct abuses with prudence, uniting his zeal for the Order with his feelings of sincere paternal affection. On the other hand, the Superior visited ought to show himself submissive to, and full of confidence in, the Visitor, and do all in his power to reform his house, since one day he will have to render an account to the Lord . . . [The Abbot] will avoid both before the Visitor and after his departure everything that will have the appearance of revenge, reproach or indignation against any of them” [sc. his subjects]. If the visitor should act against prescriptions, he was to be corrected and punished according to the gravity of his fault by the abbot who was his superior, or by another abbot, or even by the general chapter. Likewise, the abbot visited should know that he would become grievously culpable before God by neglecting the regular form of visit, and that he would deserve to be called to account by his “Father Immediate” or by the general chapter.

Thus everything was foreseen and provided for the maintenance of good order and charity and for the preservation of the unity of observance and spirit. “No one then ought be astonished,” says the author of “Origines Cistercienses,” “to find in the Cistercian abbeys, during their Golden Age, so many sanctuaries of the most fervent prayer, of the severest discipline, as well as of untiring and constant labour. This explains also why, not only persons of humble and low extraction, but also eminent men, monks and abbots of other orders, doctors in every science and clerics honoured with the highest dignities, humbly begged the favour of being admitted into the Order of Cîteaux.” Thus it was during this period that the order produced the greatest number of saints, blessed, and holy persons. Many abbeys—such as Clairvaux, Villiers, Himmerod, Heisterbach, etc.—were so many nurseries of saints. More than forty have been canonized by the Holy See. The Order of Cîteaux constantly enjoyed the favour of the Holy See, which in numerous Bulls bestowed upon the Cistercians the highest praise, and rewarded with great privileges their services to the Church. They enjoyed the favour of sovereigns, who, having entire confidence in them, entrusted to them, like Frederick II, important delegations; or, like Alphonsus I of Portugal, placed their persons and kingdoms under the care and protection of Our Lady of Clairvaux; or again, like Frederick II, feeling themselves near the point of death, wished to die clothed in the Cistercian habit.

The Cistercians benefited society by their agricultural labours. According to Dr. Janauscheck, “none but the ignorant or men of bad faith are capable of denying the merited praises which the sons of St. Benedict have received for their agricultural labours throughout Europe, or that this part of the world owes to them a greater debt of gratitude than to any other colony no matter how important it may be.” They also conferred great benefits on society by the exercise of Christian charity. By means of their labours, their economy, their privations, and sometimes owing to generous donations which it would be ungrateful to despise, they became more or less rich in the things of this world, and expended their wealth upon the instruction of the ignorant, the promotion of letters and arts, and the relief of their country’s necessities. Caesarius of Heisterbach speaks of a monastery in Westphalia where one day all the cattle were killed, the chalices and books pledged as security, in order to relieve the poor. The Cistercian abbeys had a house for the reception of the poor, and an infirmary for the sick, and in them all received a generous hospitality and remedies for the ills of soul and body.

Intellectual labour had also its place in the life of the Cistercians. Charles de Visch, in his “Bibliotheca Scriptorum Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis,” published in 1649, devotes 773 historical and critical notices to authors who belonged to the Cistercian Order. Even in the very first period, St. Stephen Harding left a work on the Bible which is superior to anything of its kind produced by any contemporary monastery, not excepting Cluny. The Library of Dijon preserves the venerable manuscript of St. Stephen, which was to serve as a type for all Cistercian Bibles. The Cistercian libraries were rich in books and manuscripts. Nor did the sons of St. Bernard neglect the fine arts; they exercised their genius in building, contributed powerfully to the development and propagation of the Romanesque and the Gothic architecture throughout Europe, and cultivated the arts of painting and engraving.

III. THE DECLINE (1342–1790)

The decadence of the order was due to several causes, the first of which was the large number of monasteries, often-times situated in the most widely distant countries, which prevented the “Fathers Immediate” from making the regular visits to all the houses of their filiations, while some of the abbots could not assist every year at the general chapter. Some were also found who, seeing themselves thus sheltered from the remonstrances and the punishments either of the general chapter or of the visitor, permitted abuses to creep into their houses. But the principal cause of the decline of the order (which is based on unity and charity) was the spirit of dissension which animated certain superiors. Some abbots, even not far from Cîteaux, explained in a particular sense, and that adapted to their own point of view, certain points of the Charter of Charity. The solicitude of the Roman pontiffs themselves who tried to reestablish harmony among the superiors, was not always successful.

And yet at that time there were found some courageous and determined monks who became reformers, and even founded new congregations which were detached from the old trunk of Cîteaux. Those congregations which then severed their union with Cîteaux, but which no longer exist at the present time, are:

The Congregation of the Observance of St. Bernard of Spain, founded by Dom Martin de Vargas, in 1425, at Monte Sion near Toledo;

The Congregation of St. Bernard of Tuscany and of Lombardy, approved by Alexander VI (1497);

the Congregation of Portugal, or of Alcobaca, founded in 1507;

the Congregation of the Feuillants, founded by John de la Barriere in 1563, which spread into France and Italy, the monasteries of Italy, however, eventually detaching themselves from those of France to form the Congregation of the Riformati di San Bernardo;

the Congregation of Aragon, approved by a Bull of Paul V (1616);

the Congregation of Rome, or of Central Italy, created by a Decree of Gregory XV in 1623;

the Congregation of Calabria and Lucania, established by Urban VIII in 1633, and to which was united the old Congregation of Flore, which had for its founder Blessed Joachim surnamed “the Prophet.”

Together with the congregations which separated from Cîteaux there were five or six others which, while remaining subject to the jurisdiction of the parent house, were legislated for by provincial or national chapters. Chief among these congregations were those of Northern Germany, the Strict Observance, and La Trappe. The Congregation of Northern Germany was erected in 1595 by Nicholas II (Boucherat), Abbot of Cîteaux, at the desire of Pope Clement VIII, in the monastery of Furstenfeld. It comprised four provinces ruled by the abbots, vicars of the general. It counted twenty-two abbeys, only three of which survived the revolutionary tempest, and now form part of the Common Observance of Cîteaux, as the Cistercian province of Austria-Hungary. The Congregation of Strict Observance, resulting from the efforts for reform of the Abbots of Charmoye and Châtillon, was established at Clairvaux by Denis Largentier, abbot of this monastery (1615). The Abbot of Cîteaux, Nicholas Boucherat, approved the reform and permitted it to hold special assemblies and to choose a vicar-general with four assistant generals. The general chapter of Cîteaux in 1623 praised it highly, Cardinal Richelieu became its protector, and the popes gave it encouragement. In 1663 it received an important member in the person of Abbot de Rancé, who introduced the Strict Observance into the Abbey of La Trappe in the Diocese of Seez, adding to it other very severe practices.

The abbeys which did not respond to the appeal of Martin de Vargas, of Denis Largentier, or of Abbot de Rancé, formed an observance which Pope Alexander VII, in his Bull of 19 April, 1666, named Common, to distinguish it from the Strict Observance, from which in reality it differed only in the use of meat and similar articles of food three times a week, a use certainly contrary to the rule of perpetual abstinence which obtained in the early days, but which the religious wars and other evils of the times in a measure rendered necessary. Mention should be made of two other reforms: that of Orval in Luxemburg, by Bernard de Montgaillard (1605), and that of Septfons, in the Diocese of Moulins, by Eustache de Beaufort, in 1663. The former numbered six monasteries, the latter did not extend beyond Septfons.

The Strict Observance developed rapidly. In a very short time it counted fifty-eight monasteries. At the death of Denis Largentier (1626), Etienne Maugier, who succeeded him, inspired it afresh. From that time it aimed at a certain superiority to which it believed it had some claims, and was resolved, in case of meeting with any opposition, to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the General of Cîteaux. Hence arose quarrels and litigations which lasted forty years or more. In 1632, at the request of the king (Louis XIII), Urban VIII continued the powers which Gregory XV had given ten years before to Cardinal De La Rochefoucauld for the reform of the monasteries of the kingdom. The cardinal heard only the Fathers of the Strict Observance, who persuaded him that no reform was possible without a return to the abstinence from meat. He therefore passed a sentence in 1634 which derogated in many points from the ancient constitutions and the Charter of Charity, particularly in what concerned the jurisdiction of the Abbot of Cîteaux and of the four first fathers. The College of St. Bernard at Paris passed into the hands of the Strict Observance. The Abbot of Cîteaux, Peter de Nivelle, appealed to the sovereign pontiff. The latter annulled the sentence of the cardinal in every point in which it was contrary to legitimate authority. In the meanwhile Peter de Nivelle having resigned, the non-reformed, in the hope of escaping from the authority of Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, elected Cardinal de Richelieu Abbot of Cîteaux. The cardinal applied the reform in his monastery Sustained by him, the reformed took possession of Cîteaux after having dispersed into other monasteries the professed religious of this monastery. At the death of Richelieu the expelled monks assembled at Dijon, 2 January, 1643, and elected to his place Dom Claude Vaussin, but the king vetoed the election; they voted again, 10 May, 1645, and gave all their voted to Claude Vaussin, while the reformed, to the number of only fifteen, voted for Dom Jean Jouaud, Abbot of Prieres in Britanny. On the 27th of November following, Innocent X sent his Bulls to Dom Claude Vaussin, and imposed silence on the reformed. February 1st, 1647, a Brief of the same pope re-established all matters in the condition in which they had been before the sentence of Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld.

The Strict Observance then tried to form an independent order under the authority of the Abbot of Prieres, and with this object in view raised new difficulties in relation to the question of abstinence. A Brief of Alexander VII, dated November, 1657, confirming the decision of Sixtus IV, in 1475, that abstinence from flesh meat was not essential to the rule, did not quiet their scruples. Finally, 26 January, 1662, the same pope interfered in a decisive manner by inviting the two parties to appear at the Court of Rome. The Common Observance sent Claude Vaussin; the Strict Observance, Dom George, Abbot of Val-Richer; La Trappe, Abbot de Rancé. On the 19th of April, 1666, appeared the Bull “In Suprema,” which put an end to the divisions. It recommended that the visits be regularly and strictly made, that monks should live in the monasteries, and that the general chapters should be held every three years. It restored the night silence, poverty in apparel, and monastic tonsure. It maintained the use of meat where that already obtained, and recommended the religious who had made the vow of abstinence to be faithful to it. The Strict Observance remained under the jurisdiction of the Abbot of Cîteaux. This constitution was accepted by the general chapter of 1667, which was held at Cîteaux, in spite of protests from the opponents, and in particular of Abbot de Rance, and the new reform was put into force in all the monasteries of France, where the number of monks was sufficient.

During the eighteenth century, however, there was introduced into the Order of Cîteaux, as into almost all the great religious families, a pernicious licence of thought and morality. New conflicts between the Abbot of Cîteaux and the abbots of the four first houses of filiation arose concerning the government of the order and their own jurisdiction. In virtue of the liberties of the Gallican Church, the king and his council appointed a commission to restore order. A new collection of statutes was drawn up, but these were not definitively adopted until 1786. The general chapter of that year finally agreed among themselves and adopted the new statutes on the eve of the French Revolution. The political and religious disturbances which then and at the commencement of the nineteenth century troubled France and Europe almost ruined this venerable order. When the National Convention, by the decree of 13 February, 1790, secularized all the religious houses of France, the Order of Cîteaux had in France 228 monasteries, with 1875 religious; 61 of these houses, with 532 religious, were in the filiation of Cîteaux; 3, with 33 religious, in that of La Ferté; 33, with 171 religious, in that of Pontigny; 92, with 864 religious, in that of Clairvaux; and 37, with 251 religious, in that of Morimond. The sixty-second and last Abbot of Cîteaux, Dom François Trouvé, having lost all hope of saving his monastery, begged Pius VI to transfer all his powers to Robert Schlecht, Abbot of Salsmansweiler, of the Congregation of Northern Germany, so that the remnants of the ancient corporation of Cîteaux might still have a ruler.

From France the hatred of religion passed with the arms of the usurpers into Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, and other countries, and there continued the work of destruction. By an imperial veto of the 25th of February, 1803, and a decree of the Prussian Government of the 28th of April, 1810, all the monasteries of Germany were ruined. The abbeys of Portugal were abolished by a law of the 26th of May, 1834, those of Spain by the laws of the 25th of July and 11th of October, 1835, those of Poland disappeared before the decrees of the Russian and Prussian rulers.

IV. THE RESTORATION (AFTER 1790)

The reform inaugurated at La Trappe by Abbot de Rance, reviving the austerity and fervour of primitive Cîteaux, was maintained, almost intact, against difficulties of every kind, until the French Revolution. There were then at La Trappe seventy religious and a numerous and fervent novitiate. When, on the 4th of December, a decree of the National Assembly suppressed the Trappists in France, Dom Augustin de Lestrange, then master of novices at La Trappe, authorized by his local superior and the Abbot of Clairvaux, set out with twenty-four of his brethren for Switzerland. The Senate of Fribourg permitted them to settle in Val-Sainte, 1 June, 1791. Pope Pius VI, by a Brief of 31 July, 1794, authorized the erection of Val-Sainte into an abbey. Dom Augustin was elected abbot on the 27th of the following November, and on the 8th of December of the same year, a solemn decree of the nuncio of the Holy See at Lucerne, executing the Brief of Pius VI, constituted Val-Sainte an abbey and the mother-house of the whole Congregation of Trappists. There the Rule of St. Benedict was observed in all its rigour, and at times its severity was even surpassed. Novices flocked thither. From Val-Sainte Dom Augustin sent colonies into Spain, Belgium, and Piedmont.

But the French troops invaded Switzerland in 1796. Obliged to leave Val-Sainte, Dom Augustin, with his religious of both sexes, commenced two years of wanderings through Europe, during which period they gave to the world the spectacle of the most heroic virtues. In 1800 Dom Augustin returned to France, and two years later resumed possession of Val-Sainte. In 1803 he sent a colony of his religious to America under the direction of Dom Urbain Guillet. In 1811, fleeing from the anger of Napoleon, who first favoured the Trappists and then suppressed all their monasteries in France and the whole empire, Dom Augustin himself left for America. In 1815, on the downfall of Napoleon, he returned immediately to La Trappe, while Dom Urbain Guillet established himself at Bellefontaine in the Diocese of Angers.

During this imperial persecution, a schism took place in the Congregation of La Trappe. The colony which Dom Augustin had sent from Val-Sainte into Belgium under the direction of Dom Eugene de Laprade, and which had settled first at Westmalle, and then at Darpheld in Westphalia, had abandoned the Rules of Val-Sainte to embrace those of de Rance. It returned to France and occupied Port-du-Salut in the Diocese of Laval; Westmalle, restored in 1821, withdrew from the jurisdiction of Dom Augustin to form, five years later, the Congregation of Belgium.

Dom Augustin died 16 July, 1827, at Lyons. A Decree dated 1 October, 1834, confirmed two days later by Gregory XVI, united the different houses of Trappists in France in one congregation known as the Congregation of Cistercian Monks of Our Lady of La Trappe. The General President of the Order of Cîteaux is its head and confirms its abbots. The four first fathers are the Abbots of Melleray, Port-du-Salut, Bellefontaine, and Gard. The Rule of St. Benedict and the Constitutions of Cîteaux or those of de Rancé, according to the custom of each monastery, are observed. But with this diversity of observance, the union did not last long. A pontifical Decree dated the 25 February, 1847, and granted at the request of the religious of each observance, divides the Trappist monasteries of France into two congregations: the Ancient Reform of Our Lady of La Trappe, which follows the Rules of de Rance, and the New Reform, which follows the Primitive Observance and is governed by the Charter of Charity. Already Westmalle in 1836 formed a distinct congregation known as the Congregation of Belgium. There were then three distinct congregations of the Trappists.

It was reserved for a later generation to see the most complete reform effected by the fusion of all the congregations into one order in unity of government and observance. On the first of October, 1892, at the desire of Leo XIII, a plenary general chapter was held in Rome, under the presidency of Cardinal Mazzella, delegated by the Cardinal Protector Monaco della Valetta. The assembly lasted twelve days; the fusion was adopted; Dom Sebastian Wyart, Abbot of Septfons, who had taken the most active part in all the negotiations to effect this union, was chosen “General of the Order of the Reformed Cistercians of Our Lady of La Trappe.” Such was the name given to the order. A decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars of 8 December, 1892, then a pontifical Brief of 23 March, 1893, confirmed and ratified the Acts of the chapter. On the 13th of August, 1894, the sovereign pontiff approved the new constitutions and the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars promulgated them on the 25th of the same month. In 1898, the 800th anniversary of the foundation of the order, the sons of St. Bernard again took possession of the ancient Abbey of Cîteaux. Dom Sebastian Wyart was elected abbot, and thus was restored the chain of abbots of Cîteaux which had been broken for 107 years. It was then decided to suppress in the title of the order the words “Our Lady of La Trappe,” the Abbey of La Trappe yielding the first rank to Cîteaux. Finally, on the 30th of July, 1902, an Apostolic Constitution of Leo XIII solemnly confirmed the restoration of the order and gave to it the definite name of “Order of Reformed Cistercians, or the Strict Observance.” Dom Sebastian Wyart died 18 August, 1904. The general chapter, postponed that year until October, chose for his successor the Most Rev. Dom Augustin Marre, Abbot of Igny, and titular Bishop of Constance.

CONDITION OF THE ORDER IN 1908

Several modern congregations must be mentioned which have been grafted on the old trunk of Cîteaux, and which, with some ancient monasteries that escaped the persecution of the close of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, form the Common Observance. Their mode of life corresponds to that of the Cistercians of the seventeenth century, whose mitigation was approved by Alexander VII in 1666. They are the Congregations of Italy, Belgium, Austria, and Switzerland, and the Congregation of Senanque.

1. The Congregation of St. Bernard of Italy was formed in 1820 with the monasteries which remained of the Congregations of the Roman Province and of Lombardy, after Pius VII had been deprived of his States. The congregation adopted the constitutions of the ancient Congregation of Tuscany and Lombardy.

2. The Congregation of Belgium, formed in 1836, at Bornheim in the Diocese of Mechlin, by the religious who were expelled in 1797 from Lieu-Saint-Bernard-sur-l’Escaut, observe constitutions based upon the Brief of Alexander VII and the Cistercian Ritual. They were approved by the Holy See in 1846

3. The Cistercian Congregation of Austria and Hungary was formed in 1859 by the monasteries of Austria which had escaped from the Revolution and submitted to the President General of the Order of Cîteaux.

4. The Congregation of Switzerland was formed in 1806 by the three monasteries of Hauterive, Saint-Urbain, and Wettingen, remnants of the Congregation of North Germany. These monasteries having succumbed in 1841 and 1846, the Abbot of Wettingen, an exile in Switzerland, purchased, in 1854, the Benedictine monastery of Mehrerau on the Lake of Bregenz, to which the Holy See transferred all the privileges of Wettingen. To this monastery was joined that of Marienstatt in the Diocese of Cologne in Nassau.

5. The Congregation of Senanque, or the Mean Observance, owes its origin to the parish priest, Luke Barnouin, who, with some associates, in 1849, attempted the religious life in the solitude of Our Lady of Calvary in the Diocese of Avignon, leaving that retreat in 1854, to take up his abode in the monastery of Senanque, which he had purchased. The new congregation, which, without returning to the primitive constitutions, did not adopt all the mitigations of later centuries, received the name of “Congregation of Cistercians of the Immaculate Conception.” It was incorporated in the Order of Cîteaux in 1857, and in 1872 transferred its seat to the ancient monastery of Lérins. The constitutions of this congregation were approved by Leo XIII, 12 March, 1892.

When the pope, in 1892, undertook to unite in one order the three Congregations of La Trappe, His Holiness caused the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars to address a letter to the Cistercians of the Common Observance inviting them to join their brethren of the Reformed Observance of La Trappe. But as the pope left them free, they preferred to retain their respective autonomies. Since that time the Order of Cîteaux is divided into two branches absolutely distinct; the Strict and the Common Observances. To these may be added the small Congregation of Trappists of Casamari in Italy, which has only three monasteries with about 45 members.

The Order of Reformed Cistercians has (1908) 71 monasteries of men with more than 4000 subjects. In this number of houses are included the annexes which were founded in certain places to serve as refuges for the communities which had been expelled from France. These monasteries are distributed as follows: in France, 20; in Belgium, 9; in Italy, 5; in Holland, 5; in Germany, 3; in England, 3; in Ireland, 2; in Asia, 4; in Africa, 2; in America, 10; (4 in United States, 5 in Canada, and 1 in Brazil). The Reformed Cistercians make profession of the Primitive Observance of Cîteaux, with the exception of a few modifications imposed by the Holy See at the time of the fusion. Their life is strictly cenobitical, that is to say, life in common in its most absolute form. They observe perpetual silence, except in cases of necessity provided for by the rule, or when express permission is granted by the superior. Their day is divided between the Divine Office, agricultural and kindred labours, and free intervals for reading and study. The supreme authority of the order resides in the general chapter, which assembles every year at Cîteaux, from the 12th to the 17th of September, and is presided over by the abbot general. When the general chapter is not in session, current and urgent matters are regulated by the abbot general aided by his “Council of Definitors.”

The abbot general, who is by right Abbot Cîteaux, resides in Rome (Via San Giovanni in Laterano, 95), with the procurator general and the five definitors of the order, of whom there are two for French-speaking countries, one for English-speaking, one for German, and one for Flemish. At the house of the abbot general are also the students whom the different houses of the order send to Rome to follow the course of studies at the Gregorian University. The Order of Reformed Cistercians has for its protector at Rome Cardinal Rampolla Del Tindaro.

The four first houses, which replace the ancient Abbeys of La Ferté, Pontigny, Clairvaux, and Morimond, are La Grande Trappe in the Diocese of Séez, Melleray in the Diocese of Nantes, Westmalle in the Diocese of Mechlin, and Port-du-Salut in the Diocese of Laval. The abbots of these four houses every year visit the mother-house at Cîteaux. The other houses are visited regularly every year by the abbots of the houses on which they immediately depend.

The actual condition of the Common Observance is as follows: The Congregation of Italy has five monasteries (two of them in Rome, at Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, and at San Bernardo alle Terme) and about 60 members. The Congregation of Belgium has two monasteries (Bornheim and Val-Dieu), with 63 members. The Congregation of Austria, the most powerful, has 12 monasteries, with 599 religious. The Congregation of Switzerland has three monasteries, with 171 members. Lastly, the Congregation of Mean Observance of Senanque, which, since the Waldeck-Rousseau Laws of 1901, has lost Senanque, Fontfroide, and Pont-Colbert, now has but two houses, with about 102 members. The Cistercians of the Common Observance in 1900 elected as their general Dom Amedeus de Bie, of the Congregation of Belgium. He has for assistants the vicars-general of the five congregations.

The Order of Cîteaux has produced a great number of saints and has given two popes to the Church, Eugene III, a disciple of St. Bernard, and Benedict XII. It has also given the Church forty cardinals, five of whom were taken from Cîteaux, and a considerable number of archbishops and bishops. The Cistercians of all observances have no less enlightened the Church by their teachings and writings, than edified it by the sanctity of their lives. Among great teachers may be cited St. Bernard, the Mellifluous Doctor and the last of the Fathers of the Church, St. Stephen Harding, author of the “Exordium Cisterciensis Coenobii,” of the “Charter of Charity,” etc. Then follow Conrad of Eberbach (Exordium Magnum Ordinis Cisterciensis); Aelred, Abbot of Rieval (Sermons); Serlon, Abbot of Savigny (Sermons); Thomas of Cîteaux (Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles); Caramuel, the Universal Doctor, author of a Moral Theology very much esteemed, whom St. Alphonsus Liguori calls “the prince of Laxists”; Caesarius of Heisterbach (Homilies, “Dialogus Miraculorum,” etc.); Manrique (Cistercian Annals in vols. folio); Henriques (Menologium Cisterciense); Charles de Visch (Bibliotheca Scriptorum Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis); the Abbot de Rance (“De la sainteté et des devoirs de la vie monastique,” “Eclaircissements sur le même traité,” “Méditations sur la règle de Saint-Benoît,” etc.); Dom Julien Paris (“Nomasticon Cisterciense” in fol., Paris, 1664), Dom Pierre le Nain, sub-prior of La Trappe (“Vie de l’Abbé de La Trappe,” “Essai de l’histoire de Cîteaux,” 9 vols., Paris, 1690–97); Sartorius (“Cistercium bis-tertium,” Prague, 1700, and others. In the nineteenth century it suffices to mention among a great many writers belonging to both Observances Dr. Leopold Janauscheck (Originum Cisterciensium tom. I, Vienna, 1877—the author died before he was able to commence the second volume), Dom Hugues Séjalon, monk of Aiguebelle (Annales d’Aiguebelle, 2 vols. and a new edition of the “Nomasticon Cisterciense” of Dom Paris, Solesmes, 1892).

CISTERCIANS IN AMERICA

The establishment of the Cistercians in America is due to the initiative of Dom Augustin de Lestrange. He was born in 1754, in the castle of Colombier-le-Vieux, Ardèche, France, the son of Louis-César de Lestrange, an officer of the household of Louis XV, and of Jeanne-Pierrette de Lalor, daughter of an Irish gentleman who had followed in 1688 James II in his exile. Dom Augustin was master of novices at La Trappe when the Revolution burst forth, and upon the suppression of the religious orders he sought refuge at Val-Sainte in Switzerland, with twenty-four of his brethren. Driven from Val-Sainte by the French troops, these religious wandered over the whole of Europe, going even into Russia. (See above under III. The Decline.)

Dom Augustin at length resolved to send a colony of Cistercian Trappists to America, where he saw much good to be done. Already in 1793, seeing novices flocking to Val-Sainte, he had directed to Canada a part of his religious under the guidance of Father John Baptist. But at Amsterdam this colony found itself prevented by political troubles from departing, and divided into two bands, one of which settled at Westmalle in Belgium, while the other went to England and established itself at Lulworth in Dorsetshire, in the very place where formerly there had existed a Cistercian abbey which was destroyed by Henry VIII. Dom Augustin, however, had not given up the idea of an American foundation. In 1802 he charged Dom Urbain Guillet to carry out his intentions in this regard. Dom Urbain, born at Nantes, in 1766, the son of Ambroise Augustin Guillet, Knight of Malta, and of Marie-Anne Le Quellec, entered La Trappe in 1785, and was the last to pronounce his vows in that monastery when the Revolution burst forth. He assembled 24 religious, lay brothers, and members of the third order (an institution of Dom Augustin de Lestrange), and sailed from Amsterdam, 24 May, 1802, on board of the Sally, a Dutch vessel flying the American flag to avoid the risks of war—for Holland was at the time an ally of France, and a conflict was imminent between that country and England.

The Sally entered the port of Baltimore, on the 25th of September, after a voyage of four months, having been hindered by contrary winds, and having gone out of her course to avoid English cruisers. Dom Urbain and his companions were received at St. Mary’s Seminary, which was under the direction of the Sulpicians, to whose superior, the venerable M. Nagot, then eighty-five years of age, the Cistercian immigrants had letters. At that time St. Mary’s College possessed several eminent professors, and among these was M. Flaget, who later became Bishop of Bardstown, and then of Louisville, and who, in 1848, was to receive in Kentucky the religious who left Melleray to found Gethsemane.

About fifty miles from Baltimore, between the little towns of Hanover and Heberston was a plantation known as Pigeon Hill, which belonged to a friend of the Sulpicians. Being absent for some years, he left them the power of disposing of it as they should deem proper. This large and beautiful residence was well provided with provisions by the goodness of the Sulpicians. In the woods near by were found all kinds of wild fruits. The Trappists installed themselves at Pigeon Hill. M. de Morainvilliers, a French emigrant, a native of Amiens and pastor of St. Patrick’s church, Baltimore, used his influence with his parishioners to procure for the newly-arrived community the aid necessary for their establishment. But everything was dear in the country, and the money which Father Urbain had destined for the purchase of land did not even suffice for the support of his community. Eighteen months had already passed since the arrival of the colony at Pigeon Hill, and the true foundation had not yet been begun. Dom Urbain had not accepted any of the land which had been offered to him. Moreover, the proximity of Baltimore was a frequent source of desertions among the young people of the third order.

About the beginning of 1805 Dom Urbain heard Kentucky spoken of. Its climate was represented to him as more temperate, and its soil more fertile. He left immediately to visit that country, and found there a devoted friend in the only Catholic priest then resident, Father Stephen Badin (q.v.). Father Badin took upon himself the obligation of finding for the Trappists a suitable establishment. Having left Pigeon Hill in July, 1805, Father Urbain and his companions arrived at Louisville in the beginning of September. The inhabitants received them with great kindness and provided for their first wants. They occupied for the time being a plantation which a pious woman offered them, at some distance from Louisville, and this gave them time to acquire, about sixty miles south of Louisville, in the neighbourhood of Rohan’s Knob, a property called Casey Creek, or Potinger’s Creek.

In the meantime a new band had been sent out by Dom Augustin Lestrange, under the conduct of Father Mary Joseph, a native of Chapell-les-Rennes, in Jura (b. 22 April, 1774), who had been a grenadier in the French army. One day he had been ordered to shoot a priest, but had refused to obey; he left the army and became a religious at Val-Sainte. His community was at that time composed of seven priests, seventeen lay brothers, and twenty-one young people of the third order.

In the beginning of 1809 sixty acres of land had already been cleared at Casey Creek, a quantity of grain sowed, and a great number of trees planted. Permanent settlement was about to be made here when a fire destroyed in a few hours all the buildings of the new monastery. Dom Urbain was deeply affected by the misfortune, and thought only of going elsewhere. An Irish gentleman by the name of Mulamphy whom he had met in Baltimore, offered him the ownership of a habitation in Louisiana. Dom Urbain and Father Mary Joseph left together to visit this property. It pleased them, and they decided to leave Kentucky and Casey Creek.

In the “Sketches of the Early Catholic Missions of Kentucky, 1787–1826” can be read the unexceptionable testimony which Bishop Spalding renders of the fervour of the religious during the whole time they spent in Kentucky. Faithful to the rule of penance, they retrenched nothing from the austere practices of their holy state. The Rev. Father Charles Nerinckx, in a letter to Bishop Carroll, is not sparing in his praises of the Trappists, though he blames certain details of administration which were the cause of their failure at Casey Creek. In the spring of 1809 the community left for Louisiana and took up their abode at Florissant, the property of Mr. Mulamphy, some thirty miles west of St. Louis, on a hill which slopes towards the Missouri. But Father Urbain contemplated the purchase of another property on the other side of the Mississippi, which was offered to him by M. Jarrot, former procurator of the seminary of St. Sulpice at Baltimore, who had established himself at Cahokia, six miles from St. Louis. In the first month of 1810 Dom Urbain bought on the prairie of “Looking Glass” the two highest of the forty mounds which formed the burial-ground of the Indians in the vicinity of Cahokia, known by the name of Indiana Mound.

“Looking Glass” was an immense tract of land in St. Clair County, Illinois, which, it is said, had served the savages for many generations as a burial-place for their dead. These people had built there gigantic monuments which rose up from a base of 160 feet in circumference to a height of more than 100 feet. The Trappists constructed several cabins on the smaller of the two mounds purchased by Dom Urbain, reserving the higher mound for the abbey which they intended to build later. But the new settlers soon felt the influence of the unhealthy climate. Several savage tribes who had attempted in the past to take up their abode there had been obliged to abandon the undertaking. One of the religious escaped the fever, but only one of them died. However, Monks’ Mound, as it was afterwards named, presented great advantages. The city of St. Louis was only six or seven miles distant, all around were vast prairies or abundance of wood, and the waters of the Mississippi were so full of fish that, to use the expression of Father Urbain, “a blind man could not help but spear a big fish, if he tried.” The lands were easy to cultivate and very fertile. The savages who made frequent incursions into the neighbourhood never molested the monks. Dom Urbain had his rights of property confirmed by Congress at Washington in March, 1810. He wished also to acquire 4000 acres of land in the neighbourhood of Monks’ Mound. The president and a certain number of members of Congress were favourable to him, but the hostility of several influential members, who feared to see this country peopled under the influence and direction of religious and Catholic priests, caused his petition to go over to the next session. While waiting, Dom Urbain, struck by the sad condition of religion in the vicinity of St. Louis and in Illinois sent two of his religious to preach the Gospel there—Father Mary Joseph and Father Bernard, the latter a Canadian priest who he had brought with him from New York to Casey Creek. These settled in a parish which was the most renowned for its scandals. “There,” says Gaillardin (“Histoire de la Trappe,” II. 285), “a husband had just sold his wife for a bottle of whisky; the purchaser in his turn sold her for a horse; and finally she was sold a third time for a yoke of oxen.” But so zealously did these missionaries labour there by word and example that in a short time religion flourished. Father Bernard, already advanced in age, after some time succumbed to fatigue. To aid Father Mary Joseph, Dom Urbain took upon himself the care of the Christian people who were nearest to the monastery.

In 1812 a terrible plague visited the colony of the Monks’ Mound. This fever, which desolated the country for two years, attacked the community and rendered it impossible for them to do any work. At the same time all necessaries were dear, and there was no money. Dom Urbain resolved to leave Monk’s Mound. He sold all he possessed and transferred his community to Maryland. There he found on his arrival six other religious under the direction of Father Vincent de Paul, who had been sent from Bordeaux to America by Dom Augustin de Lestrange, and, having landed in Boston the 6 August, 1811, with two religious, had been joined in the following year by three lay brothers. (Father Vincent de Paul was a native of Lyons, born in 1769.) Dom Urbain found the little band in the greatest misery. While waiting for better conditions, he settled them upon a little farm between Baltimore and Philadelphia, and conducted his own subjects to an island near Pittsburgh.

In the meanwhile Dom Augustin de Lestrange, pursued by the anger of Napoleon, who had even set a price upon his head, arrived in New York in December, 1813. The Jesuits had just given up their foundation in that city, and Dom Augustin took over the building they had used as a classical school and which was located where St. Patrick’s Cathedral now stands in Fifth Avenue. Here, with Fathers Urbain and Vincent de Paul, he began a little community which resumed the regular life and exerted on outsiders a salutary influence. They cared for a number of children, most of them orphans; Protestants were edified, and some conversions were made among them. The effort to establish a community was abandoned, however, after two years’ experience. Father Urbain made another attempt to found a colony upon a farm which was offered to him by M. Quesnet, Vicar-General of Philadelphia.

MONASTERY OF PETIT-CLAIRVAUX

In 1814 Dom Augustin, after the abdication of Napoleon, resolved to return to France to re-establish there the Order of Cîteaux. He authorized Father Mary Joseph to remain in America, to continue the evangelization of the savages. Two groups left in October, the one under the conduct of Dom Augustin, the other under that of Father Urbain. A third group set sail later from New York for Halifax, under the guidance of Father Vincent de Paul (May, 1815). Here he was obliged to wait fifteen days for the vessel which was to take him back to his native land, but the vessel sailed while Father Vincent de Paul was engaged upon some business in town. He found himself without friends, without money, and in a country of which he knew nothing. But Father Vincent de Paul found there a vast field for the exercise of his zeal. He undertook to preach to the savages and, at the request of Monseigneur Lartigue, Bishop of Montreal, to found a monastery in Nova Scotia. He laboured eight years for the conversion of the infidels, and then, to carry out the latter project, he left for Bellefontaine in France (1823) and, the same year, returned to America, bringing with him four religious, with whom he founded, in 1825, the monastery of Petit Clairvaux, in Big Tracadie, Nova Scotia. Father Vincent de Paul lived twenty-eight years longer, spreading the blessings of the Gospel in that country. He died 1 January, 1853, in the odour of sanctity, and there is a question of introducing his cause at Rome.

For many years this foundation struggled for existence. Two fires in succession destroyed all. Discouraged thereby, the little community, in 1900, left that country and settled near Lonsdale, Rhode Island, where it founded the monastery of Our Lady of the Valley. Since 1903 the Nova Scotian solitude of Petit Clairvaux has been repeopled. Thirty religious from the Abbey of Thymadeuc (France), under the direction of Dom Eugene Villeneuve, continued the interrupted work, clearing 1000 acres of land, two-thirds of which are forest-lands, two thirds of the remainder either pasture or meadow-lands; only about 15 acres are capable of being worked. The monastery is situated one mile from the Intercolonial Railway. Although the Cistercian Rule was in vigour there it was only incorporated in the Order of Reformed Cistercians in 1869.

GETHSEMANE AND NEW MELLERAY

The year 1848 saw the erection of two other monasteries in the New World, one in Nelson County in the Diocese of Louisville, Kentucky, not far from the scene of the labours and hardships of Fathers Urbain and Mary Joseph and their companions, the other in the Diocese of Dubuque, Iowa, twelve miles west of the Mississippi River. The monasteries are the present Abbeys of Our Lady of Gethsemane and Our Lady of New Melleray.

The Abbey of Gethsemane, in the Diocese of Louisville, was founded by the Abbey of Melleray in France. In 1848 Dom Maxime, abbot of that monastery, sent two of his religious to the United States to find a suitable location for a foundation. Bishop Flaget of Louisville—the saint of Kentucky, as he was called—indicated to them an establishment called Gethsemane, belonging to the Sisters of Loretto who were directing an orphanage. The property, consisting of about 1400 acres of good land, was purchased, and on the 20th of December, 1848, forty religious from Melleray took possession of it. On the 21st of July, 1850, Pius IX erected Gethsemane into an abbey. Dom Eutropius was chosen abbot in March, 1851, and on the 26th of the following October he received abbatial blessing from the hands of Mgr. Spalding, successor of Mgr. Flaget in the Diocese of Louisville. The ten or twelve log houses which had served as dwellings for the Sisters of Loretto and their orphans had become entirely inadequate for the needs of the Fathers, and Dom Eutropius decided to build a monastery. After eleven years of hard and incessant labour, which had considerably impaired his health, the zealous superior resigned his charge and returned to Melleray. From this place of retirement he was called to become the first superior of Tre Fontane near Rome.

His successor at Gethsemane was Dom Benedict Berger, under whose rule the beautiful abbatial church of Gethsemane was solemnly consecrated by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, assisted by the Bishop of Louisville and Buffalo, 15 November 1866. Mgr. Spalding, who had become Archbishop of Baltimore, was present on the occasion, and preached the sermon, a masterpiece of sacred eloquence. Dom Benedict died 13 August, 1890, and was succeeded by Dom Edward Bourban, who transformed into a college the little school which the Sisters of Loretto had left in charge of the new community. This college is situated about a quarter of a mile from the abbey in a picturesque location, and has since been incorporated by the legislature of Kentucky. In 1895 Dom Edward, while on a visit to France, resigned his charge on account of the poor state of his health, and was appointed chaplain of the Trappistines of Our Lady of Les Gardes, in the Diocese of Angers, France. On the 11th of October, 1898, Dom Edmond Obrecht, cellarer of the Abbey of Tre Fontane near Rome, was elected Abbot of Gethsemane, and was blessed by Bishop McCloskey of Louisville on the 28th of the same month. This community numbers 75 members.

The Abbey of New Melleray, in the Diocese of Dubuque, Iowa, about twelve miles west of the Mississippi, is so called because its mother-house is the Abbey of Mount Melleray in Ireland, which was founded by the Melleray Abbey of France. In 1848 Dom Bruno Fitzpatrick, Abbot of Mount Melleray, sent some of his religious to the State of Iowa. Mgr. Lorans, Bishop of Dubuque, offered them 80 acres of land in the vicinity of his episcopal city. The cornerstone of the monastery was laid 16 July, 1849. Raised to the dignity of an abbey in 1862, it had for first abbot, Dom Ephrem McDonald. After twenty years he resigned and returned to Mount Melleray. The Rev. Alberic Dunlea, who arrived in September, 1885, with an important colony from Mount Melleray, succeeded him as superior. He relieved the financial condition of the abbey, and ended the difficulties which had nearly ruined it under the preceding administration. In 1889 a new superior was elected in the person of Father Louis Carew. Later he became definitor of the order for the English-speaking countries, and was succeeded by Father Alberic who became titular prior. In 1897 the monastery was restored to its dignity of abbey, and Dom Alberic Dunlea was elected abbot. The property comprises some 3000 acres of land, with an abundance of excellent water. The abbey has been rebuilt, but in 1908 it was not yet completed.

ABBEY OF LA TRAPPE, CANADA

The Abbey of Our Lady of the Lake of Two Mountains (better known by the name of La Trappe, the official name given to the post-office established there) is situated in the territory of Oka, in the Diocese of Montreal, about thirty miles from that city and upon the shores of the Lake of the Two Mountains, whence it derives its name. The first thought of founding this monastery was due to the venerable M. Rousselot, priest of St. Sulpice, and pastor of Notre-Dame of Montreal. Born at Cholet (Maine et Loire, France), a few leagues distant from the Abbey of Bellefontaine, M. Rousselot had often, in his youth, visited this monastery. Several times during his visits to France he had communicated his projects to the Abbot of Bellefontaine, Dom Jean-Marie Chouteau. The expulsion of the religious decreed by the French Government, and put into execution at Bellefontaine, 6 November, 1880, decided the Rev. Father Jean-Marie to accept the proposition of M. Rousselot. On the 8th of April, 1881, the Rev. Father Abbot, accompanied by one of his religious, arrived in Montreal, where he was most kindly received by Bishop Fabre. After some weeks of negotiation, the Seminary of St. Sulpice ceded to the Trappists 1000 acres of land in the seigniory of the Lake of the Two Mountains. At the same time the provincial Government of Quebec promised to encourage the foundation and to come to its aid. On his return to France the Rev. Father Abbot sent to Canada four of his religious, so that the infant colony comprised five members, including his companion who remained. Father William was the superior. They installed themselves for the time being as well as they could in a little wooden house that belonged to the Mill of the Bay, as it was called, in the territory of Oka. This temporary installation lasted until the month of September. The religious then took possession of a monastery which, without being a permanent abode, gave them room enough for faithfully carrying out the Cistercian observances and receiving new recruits. This first monastery was blessed, 8 September, 1881. It has since been transformed into an agricultural school.

The grain of mustard seed promised to become a great tree. Novices presented themselves, and at the same time the grounds, until then uncultivated, covered with brush and forests and filled with rocks, were cleared and tilled. After this a permanent monastery was planned. In the autumn of 1889, thanks to a generous benefactor, M. Devine, work was commenced upon it. In the month of May, 1890, the corner-stone was laid, and on the 28th of August, 1891, Mgr. Fabre solemnly blessed the first two wings which had been completed. This same day, by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, the priory of Our Lady of the Lake was erected into an abbey. On the 26th of March the community chose as abbot the Very Rev. Father Anthony Oger, who, on the 29th of the following June, received the abbatial blessing from the hands of Mgr. Fabre in the cathedral of Montreal. Finally, in 1897, by the aid of a benefactor as modest as he was generous, M. Rousseau, priest of St. Sulpice, the monastery and the abbatial church were entirely completed, and on the 7th of November Archbishop Bruchesi solemnly consecrated the church. Thence-forth the monks could give themselves fully to their lives of labour and prayer, without fearing any inconvenience in the fulfilment of their regular exercises. But on the 23rd of July, 1902, a fire destroyed the monastery, and the community was obliged to take shelter in the agricultural school. While waiting for sufficient means to rebuild their monastery, the monks constructed a temporary wooden shelter, and on Holy Thursday, 1903, were able to leave the school. The aid rendered by the different houses of the order and the traditional generosity of the Canadian people and the people of the United States, without distinction of creed, soon enabled them to commence the building of a new monastery upon the site of the former, and on the 21st of August, 1906, Mgr. Bruchesi, Archbishop of Montreal, surrounded by several archbishops and bishops, consecrated the abbatial church.

The Abbey of Our Lady of the Lake had in 1908, according to statistics, 120 inmates, including the oblates. This name is given to boys of eleven to fifteen years who are entrusted to the monks by their parents to be brought up according to the Rule of St. Benedict, so that later, if the superiors judge them to be called to the religious life, they may become monks. The rule is mitigated for them in consideration of their tender age. This is a revival of the monastic school of the Middle Ages and of the first centuries of religious life. The principal industries of Our Lady of the Lake are the manufacture of cheese and of a medicinal wine. The monastery possesses also an important creamery for the manufacture of butter. But that which contributes most of all to the renown of La Trappe of Oka is its agricultural school. In this matter the Reformed Cistercians (Trappists) of Our Lady of the Lake follow the glorious traditions of their ancestors. From their very installation in the country, their skill in deriving profit from lands previously sterile was noticed by the farmers of the neighbourhood. Persons of every age and condition asked to be permitted to work with them, so as to learn their methods. This was the beginning of the agricultural school which the Government was in a short time to recognize officially, and which, reorganized since the burning of the former monastery, gives instruction in agricultural science every year to 80 or 100 students. To-day the building devoted to this school is a large modern construction delightfully situated in a picturesque location, and commands a beautiful view of the Lake of the Two Mountains. This agricultural school has been affiliated with the University of Laval.

MONASTERY OF LAKE ST. JOHN

For a long time the Honourable Honore Mercier, Prime Minister of the Province of Quebec, had at the request of the colonization agent of the province, been earnestly entreating the Abbot of Bellefontaine and Dom Anthony of Our Lady of the Lake to send some religious into the country of Lake St. John, recently opened to colonization. He had offered to the Trappist Fathers 6000 acres of land and a considerable sum of money. In the year 1891 he charged the Rev. Th. Greg. Rouleau, principal of the Laval Normal School, who accompanied Mgr. Begin on his visit ad limina, to urge this request of the Government upon the Abbot of Bellefontaine. When the abbot, with the necessary authorization from his order, arrived in Quebec to settle the matter, M. de Boucherville had succeeded M. Mercier as prime minister. M. Pelletier, Secretary of the Province, and the Honourable Louis Beaubien, Minister of Agriculture, were exceedingly happy to continue the work of the preceding ministry. They favoured with all their power the establishment of the Trappists at Lake St. John. Mgr. Labrecque, who had succeeded Mgr. Begin in the See of Chicoutimi, made the foundation the particular object of his personal care and attention. In 1892 Dom Anthony sent a little colony to Lake St. John. Thus was founded the prosperous and beneficent monastery of Our Lady of Mistassini at Lake of St. John in the Diocese of Chicoutimi. In January, 1906, it was erected into a priory, and the Rev. Dom Pacomius Gaboury was elected prior. The monastery in 1907 had twenty inmates.

MONASTERY OF OUR LADY OF THE PRAIRIES, MANITOBA

Archbishop Taché of St. Boniface had long desired to enrich his diocese with an institution of this kind. He wrote about it several times to the Abbot of Bellefontaine, and in the spring of 1892 the latter came to an understanding with the archbishop, and his colabourer, M. Ritchot, pastor of St. Norbert. The prelates gave the Rev. Father Abbot 1500 acres of good land in the parish of St. Norbert, and immediately sent thither a little colony under the direction of Father Louis de Bourmont. The work of construction was carried on with vigour and rapidity, and on the 18th of October in the same year, Archbishop Tache blessed the monastery and named it Our Lady of the Prairies. St. Norbert is situated on the west bank of the Red River, about nine miles south of Winnipeg, the great metropolis of Western Canada. It is exclusively an agricultural colony, and farming is carried on there on an extensive scale by means of the latest improved machinery. In 1893 the harvest was remunerative. In 1897 there were more than five hundred acres of first-class land under cultivation. The monastery of Our Lady of the Prairies had forty inmates in the year 1908. By this date a new building had been erected.

MONASTERY OF OUR LADY OF THE VALLEY, LONSDALE, RHODE ISLAND, U.S.

This monastery is no other than the former Little Clairvaux transferred. After the disastrous events which made it impossible for the community of Little Clairvaux to continue its work at Big Tracadie, Dom John Mary Murphy, yielding to the desire of Bishop Harkins of Providence to have some contemplative religious in his diocese, transferred it to Lonsdale, Rhode Island, in March, 1900, leaving to other religious who came from France his monastery of Little Clairvaux. He commenced without delay to build a wooden structure which would serve for a temporary shelter for the religious. At the same time he was constructing the buildings indispensable for farming. These preparations were pushed forward with such energy that by the month of July the community were able to commence the clearing and cultivation of the lands. It was an arduous and ungrateful task; no single-handed farmer would have undertaken it. But what was impossible to individual effort was soon effected by united labour, and the ungrateful soil became productive. The new monastery, begun in April, 1902, was finished in December of the same year, and in the month of January, 1903, the religious had the consolation of being installed in a building appropriate to their kind of life. For a farm the water supply is of prime importance. The religious of Our Lady of the Valley have discovered a spring which supplies water abundantly for all purposes. Moreover, this water, on account of its mineral properties, has a considerable commercial value. The total area of the property is 450 acres. The success which has thus far attended the efforts of the monks at Lonsdale is a precious encouragement for all those who are engaged in farming pursuits in that rocky part of Rhode Island.

The monastery was erected into a priory in 1907, and the religious elected the Rev. Dom John Mary Murphy prior. It retains in the order the rank of seniority corresponding to the date of incorporation of Little Clairvaux in the Order of Cîteaux. in 1869.

MONASTERY OF OUR LADY OF CALVARY, ROGERSVILLE, N.B.

Foreseeing the evils with which their communities were threatened by the law of 1901 (Waldeck-Rousseau), several abbots of the Order of Cîteaux in France looked to find a refuge in case of expulsion. Dom Anthony Oger, Abbot of Our Lady of the Lake, wrote to Mgr. Richard, pastor of Rogersville, N.B., who answered promptly, placing at his disposal certain mills and 1000 acres of land already partly cultivated. In August, 1902, the prior of Bonnecombe, France, the Rev. Father Anthony Piana and the Rev. Mother Lutgarde, prioress, with another sister, arrived in Montreal and afterwards at Our Lady of the Lake by way of Montreal. Dom Anthony Oger devoted his whole paternal solicitude to aiding his visitors in finding a place suitable for a foundation. The abbot communicated Mgr. Richard’s proposal to the prior of Bonnecombe, who, after two visits to Rogersville decided to accept it, and the project was submitted to the approbation of the general chapter. The abbot general, Dom Sebastian Wyart, urged Dom Emile, Abbot of Bonnecombe for Canada under the direction of Dom Anthony Piana. On the 5th of the following November the little colony was solemnly received at Rogersville by the pastor and his parishioners, and took possession of the monastery, to which was given the name of Our Lady of Calvary, which was canonically erected into a priory 12 July, 1904.

MONASTERY OF OUR LADY OF JORDAN, OREGON

In 1904 the Cistercian monks of Fontgombault (Indreet-Loire, France), were forced to abandon their monastery. They, too, looked for a refuge in America. Under the direction of their abbot, Dom Fortunato Marchand, they went to Oregon to ask for a place of retreat where they would be able to serve Almighty God, and observe their rule. The new foundation of Our Lady of Jordan is situated in the township of Jordan, Linn County, about 90 miles from the Pacific Coast, upon a plateau a mile and a half in area. The property consists of about 400 acres of land, almost 200 of which are actually under cultivation or in meadow-lands, 100 in wood land, and the remainder covered with brush. A torrent, tributary of the Santiam River, bounds it on the south. Upon this torrent has been built a steam saw-mill in connection with the monastery. Here the Oregon fir-trees, which attain immense heights, are converted into lumber for the needs of the community and for commerce. The future of this Cistercian community to a great extent rests upon this industry. The land is ordinarily fertile and produces cereals, vegetables, pears, plums, apples, etc. The monastery of Our Lady of Jordan was solemnly dedicated in 1907, the Archbishop of Oregon City Officiating, in the presence of a large assembly of the laity, among whom were many non-Catholics. On the same occasion the Sacrament of Confirmation was administered by the archbishop. The Right Rev. Father Thomas, Abbot of the Benedictine Abbey of Mount Angel, preached the dedicatory sermon, in which he explained the nature and the object of the life of the Cistercians, or Trappists.

The Monastery of Our Lady of Maristella This monastery, at Taubaté in the Archdiocese of São Paulo do Brazil, is the first, and up to now the only monastery of the Cistercian Order in South America. It was founded in 1904 by the Abbey of Septfons in France, on a farm, or fazenda, at the foot of the Serra Mantiqueira, not far from the railroad between Rio and São Paulo, about twelve miles from Taubaté and six from Trememblé, a small place connected with Taubaté by a tramway. The property consisting of 4000 or 5000 acres, had remained untilled since the abolition of slavery in 1888, and the buildings were falling into ruins. One half of the land lies along the River Parahyba, and the other, consisting of hills and valleys, forms the base of the chain of mountains of Mantiqueira. Rice, coffee, sugar-cane, Indian corn, etc., are cultivated, and cattle are raised. The climate is temperate, although it is within the tropics. The community, forty in number, has established a school for the children of the vicinity.

Exordes de Cîteaux (Grande Trappe, 1884); D’Arbois De Jubainville, Interieur des abbayes cisterciennes au XII et au Les annales d’ Aiguebelle (Valence, 1863); Janauscheck, Originum Cisterciensium etc. (Vienna, 1877), I; Gallia Christiana, IV; Hélyot, Dictionnaire des ordres religieux; Ordinis Cisterciensis Jurium etc. (Rome, 1902); Abrege de l’histoire de l’ordre de Cîteaux par un moine de Thymadeuc (St. Brieuc, 1897). Gaillardin, Histoire de La Trappe; Dom Augustin de Lestrange et les trappists pendant la Revolution (Grande Trappe, 1898); Vie du R. P. Urbain Guillet (Montligeon, 1899); Vérite, Cîteaux, La Trappe et Bellefontaine (Paris, 1885); Spalding, Sketches of the Early Missions of Kentucky, 1781–1826; Maes, The life of Rev. Charles Nerinckx (Cincinnati, 1880); L’abbaye de Notre-Dame du Lac et l’ordre de Cîteaux au Canada et dans les Etats-Unis (Montreal, 1907); Tessier, Bibliotheca Patrum Cisterciensium (4 vol. 4x, 1660); Alanus De Insulis, Opera Mosalia (4x, 1654); Bona, Opera Omnia (4x 1677): Caretto, Santosale del S. Ordine Cisterciense (4 vol. 4x, 1705); Debreyne, many volumes on theology an medicine; Ughelli, Italia Sacra (10 vol. folio, 1717); Henriquez should be quoted for having not only the menologium but also the Phoenix reviviscens (4x, 1626); Regula Constit. et Privilegia Ord. Cist. (folio, 1630); Janauscheck, Bibliographia Bernardina.

F. M. GILDAS.

Citation

(Lat. citare).

A legal act through which a person, by mandate of the judge, is called before the tribunal for trial. It is called verbal when the judge sends an apparitor to the accused to call him to judgment on a fixed day. If the citation be made by a public summons it is called edictal. When a person has been arrested by the officers of the law his citation is said to be real. Citations are also distinguished into simple and peremptory. The former is had when the judge orders a person to appear on a determined day before his tribunal, but does not add a threat nor declare that a prolongation of the time will not be allowed; the latter, or peremptory citation is that which imposes a strict obligation to appear and declares that no later summons will be issued, so that if the person cited does not obey this one, he will be considered contumacious. Real citation is had recourse to, when the accused is suspected of meditating flight or is contumacious; edictal citation, when the defendant can be reached in no other way; peremptory citation only under extraordinary circumstances. A peremptory citation is held to be the equivalent in effect to three simple citations. In a judicial process, a citation is ordinarily so necessary that if it be omitted, every other act of the trial is null and void. There are some exceptions to this, as, for example, if a person be taken red-handed, or when the accused is already before the tribunal, or when there is danger in delay. There are many requisites for a legitimate citation, as that it be asked for by one party to the suit, that it contain the names of plaintiff and defendant, the cause of the summons, the day and place of judgment and so forth. When a certain judge has issued a valid citation, the case must be tried before him, even though other judges would have been competent. If the citation be not couched in the prescribed legal style, or if it be issued for one beyond the court’s jurisdiction, it may be disregarded. When the plaintiff is contumacious, he may be condemned to pronounced without him. Contumacity on the part of the defendant creates a presumption of his guilt, and in a real action puts the other party in temporary possession of the disputed object.

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Abbey of Cîteaux

Founded in 1098 by St. Robert, Abbot of Molesme, in a deserted and uninhabited part of the Diocese of Châlons-sur Saône, today the Diocese of Dijon (Côte-d’Or, France), from which city it is four leagues distant. A small stream of water which overflowed its banks formed there a marsh covered with rushes and coarse grass called in the language of the country cistels, whence the name Cistell or Cîteaux (Lat. Cistercium). Here, in a place unknown to men and hitherto inhabited only by wild beasts, St. Robert and his companions, to the number of twenty-one, placed the foundations of the Order of Cîteaux, and commenced the literal observance of the Rule of St. Benedict. St. Robert built the first monastery of the Cistercian Order, which he named Novum Monasterium (new monastery), to distinguish it from the monastery of Molesme from which he and his brethren had come. The domain in which Cîteaux was situated belonged to Raynald, Viscount of Beaune, who, with his wife Hodierna, gave it voluntarily to God and the Virgin Mary. The name of Cîteaux, which this place formerly bore, soon supplanted that of Novum Monasterium, by which it is called in the “Exordium Cisterciensis Ordinis.” The Duke of Burgundy, Eudes I, touched by the holy life of the monks of Cîteaux, encouraged the work and took upon himself the obligation of defraying all the expenses. The new monastery was inaugurated on the feast of St. Benedict, 21 March, 1098. St Robert was elected Abbot of Cîteaux, but, recalled to Molesme a year afterwards, he was succeeded by St. Alberic, who gave the monks the white habit and placed the monastery immediately under the protection of the Holy See. Under St. Alberic’s successor, St. Stephen Harding, the number of subjects was increased by the arrival of St. Bernard and his thirty companions, all young noblemen of Burgundy, and the order commenced to send out colonies. La Ferté (Fermitas), in the Diocese of Chalons (today of Autun), Pontigny (Pontiniacum) in the Diocese of Auxere, Clairvaux (Claravallis), in the Diocese of Langres (today of Troyes), and Morimond (Morimundus), in the same Diocese of Langres, were the first four daughters of Cîteaux, which, in their turn, gave birth to many monasteries. The abbots of these houses were called the first four Fathers of the order, and the “Charter of Charity,” work of St. Stephen, conferred upon them the right of visiting the Abbey of Cîteaux.

Popes and kings bestowed many honours and privileges upon Cîteaux. This being the mother-abbey of the Cistercian Order, the abbot was recognized as head and superior general of the whole order. The office was elective, the incumbent to be chosen only from among the religious of the order, and only by the religious of the house of Cîteaux. Today the abbot is elected by the general chapter, the religious of Cîteaux not participating. The election was formerly cumulative, that is, to the abbot general belonged, de jure, full administration in spiritual and temporal matters, without waiting for the confirmation of the Holy See. Today this confirmation is required before the abbot general can exercise his powers. The abbot of Cîteaux was also ipso facto prime counsellor (primus consiliarius natus) in the Parliament of Burgundy. He had the right to be called to the assembly of States General of the kingdom and to that of the states of the Province of Burgundy. In the councils he sat immediately after the bishops and had the same honours and prerogatives. He was regarded as the first of the abbots, “the abbot of the abbots.” As head and superior general, he had the right, as he has today, to visit, either in person or by his delegate, all the monasteries of the order, and during the visit to exercise all jurisdictional powers.

Cîteaux has been a nursery of saints and illustrious personages. From St. Robert to Blessed Guy III, twenty-three abbots are venerated in the order as saints and blessed. Lambert (1155–61), Gilbert (1163–67), Alexander (1168–75), and Arnaud I (1201–12) are recognized for the eminent services rendered to the popes and to the kings. Six abbots of Cîteaux were honoured with the Roman purple. Henri (1304–16) and Jean IV de Martigny (1405–28) were illustrious for their knowledge in the ecumenical councils. Guy d’Autun (1460–62), Hymbert Martin de Losne (1462–76), Jean IV de Cirey (1476–1501) were the courageous defenders of the order against the practice of Commendam. Others signalized themselves by their zeal for the restoration of discipline and by their reformatory tendencies: Edme I de la Croix (1585–1604), Nicholas II Boucherat (1604–25), Claude Vaussin (1643–70), John XII Petit (1670–92), Nicholas Larcher (1692–1712). But its past glory and the regularity which still existed at the end of the eighteenth century could not save Cîteaux. It is remarkable, however, that with the exception of one lay brother, none of the religious of Cîteaux accepted the pension of the State. On 4 May, 1791, the abbey was sold for the first time as national property. The sixty-second and last abbot was Dom Francis Trouve (1748–90). Having lost all hope of saving his monastery, he begged Pius VI, 25 July, 1790, to transfer his powers to Dom Robert Schlecht, Abbot of Salmansweiler, a precaution which left life and hope to the other provinces. Dom Trouvé died 27 April, 1797.

The monks of Cîteaux created the vineyards of Clos-Vougeot and Romanée, the most celebrated of Burgundy. In 1791, the abbey, which possessed 9800 acres of land, was sold for 862,000 pounds, and this money was used in turn for various purposes. In December, 1841, it was sold to an Englishman, Arthur Young, a disciple of Fourier, for the purpose of establishing there a phalanstery, which, however, failed completely in 1846. The Abbe Joseph Rey, founder of the Brothers of St. Joseph, purchased it in 1846, established a colony for agricultural purposes there, and opened a school for the reception and education of young delinquents and abandoned children. The colony was suppressed in 1889, and on 2 October, 1898, the Order of Reformed Cistercians took possession again of Cîteaux, and Dom Sebastien Wyart became the sixty-third abbot, after an interruption of 107 years. He was succeeded (Oct., 1904) by Dom Augustin Marre, Abbot Igny, titular Bishop of Constance, and General of the Order of Reformed Cistercians, who, having his residence at Rome, appointed for the government of Cîteaux an auxiliary, Dom Robert Lescand, titular Abbot of Saint-Aubin and Prior of the house of Cîteaux.

Exordia Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis (Fr. tr., Paris, 1884); Le Nain, Essai de l’histoire de Cîteaux (Paris, 1696–97); Paris, Nomasticon Cisterciense (Paris, 1669); Janauschek, Originum Cisterciensium (Vienna, 1897), I; L’Union Cistercienne (Hautecombe, 1892—); Menologe Cistercien, par un moine de Thymadeuc (Saint-Brieuc, 1898); Histoire abregee de l’Ordre de Cîteaux, par un moine de Thymadeuc (Saint-Brieuc, 1898).

F. M. GILDAS.

Citharizum

A titular see of Armenia. The city was situated in Asthianene or Balabitene, a region between Masius and Anti-Taurus, north of Commagene and Mesopotamia. Justinian built a castle there, in which he stationed a garrison under the command of a duke. He also included it in the province, Armenia Quarta, which he had just formed. In 613 Citharizum was taken by Ashot, a general of the Persian king, Chosroes II. In the records of the trullan Council (692) we meet the name of Marianus, Bishop of Kitharizon (or Kithariza), for the name seems to have been indeclinable (Lequien, I, 453). No other bishop is known. the city is mentioned in Parthey, “Notitia Prima,” about 840 as belonging to Armenia Quarta, under the metropolis of Melitene. It is identified with the modern village Keterig.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Diocese of Città della Pieve

(CIVITATIS PLEBIS)

A city of obscure origin in the province of Perugia in Umbria, Central Italy. It certainly was an episcopal see in the eleventh century, since in 1099 the bishop was expelled by the Ghibellines. Later Paschal II united it with the Diocese of Chiusi. Clement VIII re-established it as a separate see (1601), the first bishop being Fabrizio Paolucci of the Counts of Cabulo. In 1642, while Giovanni Battista Carcarasio was bishop, the city was sacked by the German soldiers of the Duke of Parma. The diocese is immediately subject to the Holy See. The cathedral, dedicated to Sts. Gervasius and Protasius, is said to have been erected at the exhortation of St. Ambrose. The diocese has a population of 60,000, with 33 parishes, 86 churches and chapels, 65 secular priests, and 4 religious houses of women.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844); Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 402–3.

U. BENIGNI

Diocese of Città di Castello

Città di Castello, DIOCESE OF (CIVITATIS CASTELLI), is a town in the province of Perugia, in Umbria, Central Italy, situated on a slope of the Apennines, not far from the Tiber, whence Its ancient name of Tifernum or Civitas Tiberina. Pliny built there a magnificent villa. In 550, Fantalogus, by order of the Ostrogothic king, Totila, took and destroyed the city, which was later rebuilt around a castle, whence its name. By the donation of Pepin the Short (752), it became subject to the Holy See. In subsequent centuries it was under various rulers, among them Pier Saccone di Pietramala. In the later Middle Ages it was governed successively by the Guelphs and Ghibellines. In 1375 Città di Castello joined in the insurrection of other cities of the States of the Church. Cardinal Robert of Geneva (later antipope as Clement VII), undertook to recapture it with Breton mercenaries, but was repulsed. Under Martin V, however, it was taken by Braccio da Montone (1420). Later, Nicolòb Vitelli, with the help of Florence and Milan, became absolute ruler or tiranno. In 1474 Sixtus IV sent thither his nephew, Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere (later Julius II). After fruitless negotiations he laid siege to the city, but Vitelli did not surrender until he learned that the command of the army had been given to Duke Federigo of Urbino. The following year Vitelli tried unsuccesefully to recapture the city; fear of Cæsar Borgia alone induced him to desist. During the persecution of Diocletian St. Crescentianus, a Roman knight, and ten others suffered martyrdom at Tifernum. The first-known bishop of this see was Ennodius, present at a Roman council (465) under Pope Hilary. At the time of the sack of the city by Fantalogus (550), the bishop was Florius, later a friend of St. Gregory the Great. In 711 Lombard Arians put to death for the Faith the bishop of the city, Albertus, and his deacon Britius. Città di Castello is the birthplace of Pope Celestine II (1143–44). The cathedral is a noble monument of architecture, and has among its treasures an altar-front (paliotto) of chiselled silver dating back to the twelfth century, and a crosier of the fifteenth. The diocese has a population of 50,250 with 158 parishes, 300 churches and chapels, 162 secular and 10 regular priests, and 12 religious houses of women.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), IV, 581–748; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 403–6; MUZI, Memorie eccl. e civili di Città di Costello (ibid., 1842–47).

U. BENIGNI

Ciudad Real

(ECCLESIA CLUNIENSIS

Bishopric-Priorate of the Military Orders of Spain, directly subject to the Holy See. To counteract the disadvantages caused by the dispersion of the church lands appertaining to the military orders of Santiago, Alcántara, Calahorra, and Montesa, Article VI of the Concordat of 1851 decrees that a special circumscription (coto redondo) be formed for the churches belonging to the aforesaid orders and that the government thereof be confided to a prior, with episcopal rank, and furthermore that said see be designated as in partibus infidelium. Consequently, by the Bull “Ad Apostolicam Beati Petri,” Pius IX created (1875) the Bishopric-Priorate of the Military Orders, assigning to it as territory all the province of Ciudad Real, some towns of which had hitherto belonged to the Diocese of Toledo, others to the Dioceses of Cuenca and Cordova. The residence of the bishop is at Ciudad Real (population, 1900, 15,327). At the same time the pope accorded to King Alfonso XII and to his successors, as Grand Masters of the Military Orders, the right to nominate within three months the bishop-prior, whenever a vacancy occurred, and at the same time to solicit for him from the Holy See the title of Bishop of Dora in partibus infidelium, which church was to remain perpetually united to the Priorate of Ciudad Real. The execution of the Bull was confided to the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, by whom (4 June, 1876) the entire province of Ciudad Real was made a bishopric-priorate of the Military Orders, and for all canonical purposes constituted a territory vere et proprie nullius di cesis, i.e. exempt from all neighbouring jurisdiction.

GOMEZ SALAZAR Y LA FUENTE, Lecciones de disciplina eclesiástica (3d ed., Madrid, 1880), I, 268–70, 484–91; HERVÁS Y BUENDÍA, Diccionario hist. geograf. de la prov. de Ciudad-Real (Madrid, 1892).

EDUARDO DE HINOJOSA

Diocese of Ciudad Rodrigo

DIOCESE OF CIUDAD RODRIGO (CIVITATENSIS)

Suffragan of the Diocese of Santiago; comprises the greater part of the province of Salamanca, and a portion of the province of Cáceres. The city of Ciudad Rodrigo, which is the capital of the diocese, was named for the Count Rodrigo González, who founded it about the middle of the twelfth century. It has approximately a population of 7000 inhabitants, and is the head of the judicial district. The bishopric was established by Ferdinand II, King of Leon, its establishment being confirmed by Pope Alexander III in 1175. This see finally succeeded that of Caliabria, which dated from the Visigothic era, and existed from 621 to 693. Alfonso VIII gave the city of Caliabria to the Diocese of Ciudad Rodrigo in 1191. The first bishop of whom anything certain is known was called Pedro (1165); the most celebrated was the learned jurist Don Diego de Covarruvias y Leyva (1560).

FLÓREZ, De las iglesias de Avila, Caliabria, etc. in España Sagrada (Madrid, 1786), XIV, 45–50; GONZÁLES-DÁVILA, Theatro eclesiástico de las Iglesias de las dos Castillas (Madrid, 1700), IV, 1–48.

EDUARDO DE HINOJOSA

Cius

(Kios.)

A titular see of Asia Minor. Kios was a Milesian colony on the Bithynian coast in the Kianos Kolpos, a bay formed by the Propontis. It was captured by Hymeos, a general of Darius, was destroyed by Philip III, and restored by Prusias, whence its new name Prusias ad Hippum. Its episcopal see was suffragan to Prusa. Bishop Cyrillus was present at Nicaea in 325. At an early date the see was raised to a higher rank; according to Ramsay (Asia Minor, 428) Julianus, who played an important part at Constantinople and Chalcedon as apocrisiarus of Pope Leo, was Bishop of Kios, not of Kos. At the Council of Constantinople, under the Patriarch Menas, in 546 Hedistus subscrlbes as metropolitan of Cius, but this must be a later interpolation, for at the sixth and seventh Oecumenical Councils the see holds again only episcopal rank; at the Eighth General Council and as late as the twelfth century we find archbishops. Of the sixteen titulars quoted by Lequien ( I, 631) the most worthy of notice is St. Eustathius, a confessor under the Iconoclasts. Kios may be Civitot, the landing-place of the Crusaders on their way to Nicaea though this is placed by many geographers at Yalova. The Turks call it Ghemlek. It has 5000 inhabitants (4600 Greeks, 300 Mussulmans, 100 Armenians), and is the chief town of caza in the vilayet of Brusa, and also the residence of the Greek metropolitan of Nicaea. There remain yet some ruins of its ancient walls. The little haven exports chrome.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Civil Allegiance

By civil allegiance is meant the duty of loyalty and obedience which a person owes to the State of which he is a citizen. The word allegiance is a derivative of liege, free, and historically it signifies the service which a free man owed to his liege lord. In the matter in hand its meaning is wider, it is used to signify the duty which a citizen owes to the state of which he is a subject.

That duty, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, rests on nature itself and the sanctions of religion. As nature and religion prescribe to children dutiful conduct towards the parents who brought them into the world, so nature and religion impose on citizens certain obligations towards their country and its rulers. These obligations may be reduced to those of patriotism and obedience. Patriotism requires that the citizen should have a reasonable esteem and love for his country. He should take an interest in his country’s history, he should know how to value her institutions, and he should be prepared to sacrifice himself for her welfare. In his country’s need it is not only a noble thing, but it is a sacred duty to lay down one’s life for the safety of the commonwealth. Love for his country will lead the citizen to show honour and respect to its rulers. They represent the State, and are entrusted by God with power to rule it for the common good. The citizen’s chief duty is to obey the just laws of his country. To be able to distinguish what laws of the civil authority are just and obligatory, it will be advisable to lay down the principles of Catholic theology respecting the nature, subject-matter, and limits of the obedience which citizens owe to the State. To understand these we must know something of the mutual relations between Church and State. From the time of Our Lord to the present, no accusation has been more persistently made against Catholics than that they cannot be good Catholics and good citizens at the same time. They owe, it is said, a divided allegiance. On the one hand they are bound to obey an infallible pope, who is the sole judge of what comes within his sphere of authority, and who may be a foreigner; and on the other they must satisfy the claims of the State to the loyalty and obedience of its subjects. It is asserted that the duties of the citizen are sure to be sacrificed by devout Catholic to the interests of his Church. This conflict of jurisdictions did not arise in pre-Christian times. Each nation had its own religion, its own gods, its own worship. The national religion was a primary element in the constitution of the State. The chief ruler of the State was also supreme pontiff. As a citizen owed obedience to his country’s laws, so he owed reverence and worship to his country’s gods. The State domineered with absolute sway over both the spiritual and the temporal; it claimed the whole devotion of both body and soul. Jesus Christ established a spiritual kingdom on earth, which we call His Church. He gave His Church authority over all matters concern with the worship of the one, true God, and the saIvation of souls; it was His intention that the Gospel should be preached to every creature, that all men should enter His kingdom, that His Church should be Catholic, i.e. universal. This fact is of supreme importance not only in religion, but also in history and politics. As von Ranke said:

The rise of Christianity involved the liberation of religion from all political elements. From this followed the growth of a distinct ecclesiastical class with a peculiar constitution. In this separation of the Church from the State consists perhaps the greatest, the most pervading and influential peculiarity of all Christian times . . . The mutual relations of the spiritual and the secular powers, their position with regard to each other, form from this time forward one of the most important considerations in all history. (The Popes, I, 10)

The teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the duty of civil allegiance will be clear if we lay down her doctrine about the origin and limits of the temporal and spiritual power, and the relation in which they stand to each other. The Church’s teaching on these points is part of her doctrinal system, derived from Scripture and tradition. The archbishops and bishops of the United States made use of the following weighty words in the joint pastoral letter which they addressed to the clergy and laity of their charge in the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, held in the year 1866:

The enemies of the church fail not to represent her claims as incompatible with the independence of the Civil Power, and her action as impeding the exertions of the State to promote the well-being of society. So far from these charges being founded in fact, the authority and influence of the Church will be found to be the most efficacious support of the temporal authority by which society is governed. The church indeed does not proclaim the absolute and entire independence of the Civil Power, because it teaches with the Apostle that ‘all power is of God’; that the temporal magistrate is his minister, and the power of the sword he wields is a delegated exercise of authority cornmitted to him from on high. For the children of the Church obedience to the Civil Power is not a submission to force which may not be resisted; nor merely the compliance with a confounded with a condition for peace and security; but a religious duty founded on obedience to God, by whose authority the Civil Magistrate excercises his power.

In order to learn in detail what the Catholic doctrine is concerning the duty of civil allegiance we can not do better than consult the the popes themselves. Leo XIII touches upon this doctrine in several of his Encyclical letters, he treats of it at length in that which with the words “Immortale Dei,” issued 1 November, 1885.

ORIGIN OF THE STATE

According to Catholic teaching man is by nature a social animal, he naturally seeks the society of his fellows, and he cannot attain to his proper development except in society. As he is born and bred in the bosom of the family, from the necessities of his nature, so, in order to defend himself, in order to attain the full perfection of his bodily, mental, and spiritual faculties, families must join together and form higher and more powerful society, the State. Nature prescribes that the father should be the head of the family and to keep the peace between citizens, to secure to all their rights to punish the wrongdoer to foster the common good, nature imperiously demands that there should be a supreme authority in the State. As Leo XIII says in the Encyclical “Immortale Dei,”

It is not difficult to determine what would be the form and character of the State were it governed according to the principles of Christian philosophy. Man’s natural instinct moves him to live in civil society, for he cannot, if dwelling apart, provide himself with the necessary requirements of life, nor procure the means of developing his mental and moral faculties. Hence it is divinely ordained that he should lead his life, be it family, social, or civil, with his fellow-men, amongst whom alone his several wants can be adequately supplied. But as no society can hold together unless someone be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the cornmon good, every civilized community must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than sociery itself, has its source in nature, and has consequently God for its author. Hence it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything without exception must be subject to Him, and must serve Him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern, holds it from one sole and single source, namely God, the Sovereign Ruler of all. ‘There is no power but from God.’

The state of civil society then is the state of nature; there never was, nor, man’s nature being what it is, could there be could there be a state in which men led a solitary life of freedom without the restraints and the advantages of civil society, such as was dreamed of by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. The authority of the state is derived not from a social compact, voluntarily entered into by men, but, like the authority of the father of a family, it is derived from nature herself, and from God, the Author and the Lord of nature. This Catholic doctrine concerning the Divine origin of civil authority, as it is inherent in society, rnust be carefully distinguished from the theory of the Divine right of kings which was popular in England among the High Church party in the seventeenth century. According to the theory of Divine right the king was the Divinely constituted vicegerent of Jesus Christ on earth; he was responsible to God alone for his acts; in the name of God he governed his subjects in both spiritual and temporal matters. The theory united the spiritual and the temporal power in one subject, and derived the combined authority from the direct and immediate delegation of God. It has not ineptly been called Caesaropapism. But though nature and God prescribe that there should be a supreme authority in the State, and that all citizens should conscientiously render due obedience to it, yet they do not determine the subject of the supreme civil authority. Whether a particular State be a monarchy, an oligarchy, or a democracy, or any combination of these forms of government, is a matter that depends on history and the character of the people. Provided that the government fulfils its function, its form in the eyes of the Catholic Church is of comparatively little importance. As Leo XIII says,

The right to rule is not necessarily bound up with any special mode of government. It may take this or that form, provided only that it be of a nature to ensure the general welfare. But whatever be the nature of the government, rulers must ever bear in mind that God is the paramount ruler of the world and must set Him before themselves as their exemplar and law in the administration of the State. (Encyclical, Immortale Dei)

The same pope touches on this subject in his Encyclical (10 January, 1890) on the chief duties of Christians as citizens. He writes:

The Church, the guardian always of her own right and most observant of that of others, holds that it is not her province to decide which is the best among many different forms of government and the civil institutions of Christian states, and amid the various kinds of State rule she does not disapprove of any, provided the respect due to religion and the observance of good morals be upheld.

He returned to the same point in his Encyclical of 16 February, 1892, on allegiance to the republic in France:

Various political governments have succeeded one another in France during the last century, each having its own distinctive form: the Empire, the Monarch, and the Republic. By giving one’s self up to abstractions one could at length conclude which is the best of these forms, considered in themselves; and in all truth it may be affirmed that each of them if good, provided it lead straight to the end—that is to say, to the common good, for which social authority is constituted—and finally, it may be added that from the relative point of view, such and such a form of government may be preferable because of being better adapted to the character and customs of such or such a nation. In this order of speculative ideas, Catholics, like all other citizens, are free to prefer one form of government to another, precisely because no one of these social forms is, in itself, opposed to the principles of sound reason or to the maxims of Christian doctrine.

THE STATE NOT SECULARIST

The state should not be indifferent to religion and profess mere secularism. Leo XIII writes in “Immortale Dei,”

The State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him since from Him we came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, not less than individuals, owes gratitude to God, who gave it being and maintains it, and whose ever-bounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice—not such religion as they may have preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion—it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin in the State not to have care for religion, as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which he has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, should hold in honour the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favour religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measures that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule. For one and all are we destined by our birth and to enjoy, when this frail and fleeting life is ended, a supreme and final good in heaven, and to the attainment of this every endeavour should be directed. Since, then, upon this depends the full and perfect happiness of mankind, the securing of this end should be of all imaginable interests the most urgent. Hence civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the well-being of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members, in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek.

THE CHURCH A DIVINE SOCIETY

Although the State must not be indifferent to religion, yet direct authority in matters pertaining thereto, since the coming of Jesus Christ, no longer belongs to the State but to the Church, a Divinely constituted and perfect society which He founded, and to which He gave full spiritual power to rule its subjects in matters of religion, and guide them to God. As Leo XIII says, in his Encyclical of 10 January, 1890:

No one can without risk to faith, foster any doubt as to the Church alone having been invested with such power of governing souls as to exclude altogether the civil authority.

And in the Encyclical “Immortale Dei” he says:

For the only-begotten Son of God established on earth a society which is called the Church, and to it He handed over the exalted and Divine office which He had received from His Father, to be continued through the ages to come. ‘As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.’ Consequently, as Jesus Christ came into the world that men might have life and have it more abundantly,’ so also has the Church for its aim and end the eternal salvation of souls, and hence it is so constituted as to open wide its arms to all mankind unhampered by any limit of either time or place. ‘Preach ye the Gospel to every creature.’ Over this mighty multitude God has Himself set rulers with power to govern; and He has willed that one should be the head of all, and the chief and unerring teacher of truth, to whom He has given ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Feed my lambs, feed my sheep. I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.’ This society is made up of men, just as civil society is, and yet is supernatural and spiritual on account of the end for which it was founded and of the means by which it aims at attaining that end. Hence it is distinguished and differs from civil society and, what is of highest moment, it is a society chartered as of right Divine, perfect in its nature and in its title, to possess in itself, through the will and loving kindness of its Founder, all needful provision for its maintenance and action. And just as the end at which the Church aims is by far the noblest of ends, so is its authority the most exalted of all authorlty, nor can it be looked upon as inferior to the civil power or in any manner dependent upon it. In very truth Jesus Christ gave to His Apostles unrestrained authority in regard to things sacred, to gather with the genuine and most true power of making laws, as also with the two-fold right of judging and of punishing, which flow from that power. ‘All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth going therefore teach all nations . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.’ And in another place, ‘If he will not hear them, tell the Church.’ And again, ‘In readiness to revenge all disobedience.’ And once more, ‘That. . . . I may not deal more severely according to the power which the Lord hath given me, unto edification.’ Hence it is the Church, and not the State, that is to be man’s guide to heaven. It is to the Church that God has assigned the charge of seeing to, and legislating for, all that concerns religion; of teaching all nations; of spreading the Christian faith as widely as possible; in short, of administering freely and without hindrance, in accordance with her own judgment, all matters that fall within its competence.

RELATION BETWEEN THE TWO POWERS

In the same Encyclical the pope shows that this power has always been claimed and exercised by the Church, and then goes on to trace the relation which exists between the two powers.

The Almighty, therefore, has appointed the charge of the human race between two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over Divine, and the other over human things. Each in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object of the province of each, so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out within which the action of each is brought into play by its own native right. But in as much as each of these two powers has authority over the same subjects, and as it might come to pass that one and the same thing—related differently, but still remaining one and the same thing—might belong to the jurisdiction and determination of both, therefore God, who foresees all things, and who is the author of these two powers, has marked out the course of each in right correlation to the other. ‘ For the powers that are, are ordained of God.’ Were this not so, deplorable contentions and conflicts would often arise, and not infrequently men, like travellers at the meeting of two roads, would hesitate in anxiety and doubt, not knowing what course to follow. Two powers would be commanding contrary things, and it would be a dereliction of duty to disobey either of the two. But it would be most repugnant to deem thus of the wisdom and goodness of God. Even in physical things, albeit of a lower order, the Almighty has so combined the forces and springs of nature with tempered action and wondrous harmony that no one of then clashes with any other, and all of them most fitly and aptly work together for the great purpose of the universe. There must, accordingly, exist between these two powers a certain orderly connection, which may be compared to the union of the soul and body in man. The nature and scope of that connection can be determined only, as we have laid down, by having regard to the nature of each power, and by taking account of the relative excellence and nobleness of their purpose. One of the two has for its proximate and chief object the well-being of this mortal life; the other the everlasting joys of heaven. Whatever is therefore, in things human is of a sacred character whatever belongs either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls or to the worship of God, is subject to the power and judgment of the Church. Whatever is to be ranged under the civil and political order is rightly subject to the civil authority. Jesus Christ has Himself given command that what is Caesar’s is to be rendered to Caesar, and that what belongs to God is to be rendered to God. There are nevertheless occasions when another method of concord is available for the sake of peace and liberty: we mean when rulers of the State and the Roman Pontiff come to an understanding touching some special matter. (See CONCORDAT.) At such times the Church gives signal proof of her motherly love by showing the greatest possible kindliness and indulgence.

THE CHURCH’S TEMPORAL JURISDICTION

The pope then briefly describes the advantages which would follow from the establishment of this Christian scheme of society if both powers were content to keep within their legitimate sphere. Human nature, however, is prone to go wrong and many and bitter have been the conflicts between the two powers. While no Catholic would maintain that in these struggles the Church was always in the right, modern historians of the scientific school freely admit that the civil power was generally the aggressor. One cause of conflict was the jurisdiction over many merely temporal matters which the Christian emperors of Rome granted to the popes and to bishops. During the Middle Ages bishops continued to claim and to exercise this jurisdiction, which was sometimes enlarged, sometimes curtailed, by local customs and laws. In various ways the pope became paramount lord of whole kingdoms during the same period. Thus, by the voluntary act of King John and his barons, England was made a fief of the Holy See and became for a time tributary to it. When the Church had once lawfully acquired such rights as these, it was natural that she should wish to retain them; indeed, no churchman could lawfully surrender the justly acquired rights of his church, even in temporal matters, without just cause and the leave of the Holy See. Still, the double jurisdiction led to strife between the two powers, and by degrees the State in most European countries not only deprived the Church of the jurisdiction in temporal matters which she once possessed, but made large inroads into the spiritual domain which belongs exclusively to the Church. Conflicts also arose over mixed causes, such as legitimacy, which belonged to both jurisdictions, and in consequence of the claim of the Church to an indirect and incidental jurisdiction in matters temporal. Thus the Church claims authority over the education of her children even in subjects which do not pertain directly to religion, and in all probability in the same way she obtained in England the power which she once enjoyed over testamentary dispositions. This is a matter of the greatest importance in the history of English law. Owing to it the English law of property at the present day is divided into halves, that of reality and that of personalty. The division is due to the fact that the Church, on account of her authority over pious causes and legacies to charitable purposes, early obtained jurisdiction over all testmentary dispositions of personalty, while the realty was left to the civil courts. There was a controversy among theologians and jurists as to the extent of the Church’s power over temporal affairs. All admit that her authority does in some way extend to temporal affairs; indeed the proposition that she has no direct or indirect temporal authority was condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors. To explain the nature of that power three systems have been devised by theologians and jurists.

(A) THEORY OF DIRECT POWER

One school, which comprised such men as John of Salisbury and his friend St. Thomas Becket, maintained that the pope had direct power over temporal as over spiritual matters. All power was given to Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords, and he made over the plenitude of the power which He had received to His vicars, the Roman pontiffs. Consequently the popes are the supreme rulers of the world in both spiritual and temporal matters, they keep the spiritual power in their own hands, while they delegate the temporal to emperors and kings. These, therefore, are directly responsible for their acts to the pope in whose name they govern. It is possible to quote expressions from papal documents which seem to support this opinion. Gregory VII, Innocent III, and other popes, used phrases which are capable of being interpreted in that sense; but if the scope of these documents be considered, and especially if the teaching of these popes on other occasions be taken into account, they must be explained in another way. Thus Innocent III, writing to the Patriarch of Constantinople, says that “not only the Church universal but the whole world was left to Peter to govern,” But his aim is to show the universality of the pope’s spiritual jurisdiction in contrast to that exercised over particular churches by other spiritual rulers. In his celebrated Decretal “Novit,” Innocent III defends himself from the imputation of desiring to usurp or curtail the jurisdiction or power of the King of France: “Why,” he asks, “should we desire to usurp the jurisdiction of another, while we are not competent to wield our own?” He explains that he had summoned the French king before his spiritual tribunal to answer for a sin, a matter which belonged to the ecclesiastical court. Similarly, in his Decretal “Per venerabilem,” the same great pope says that he is well aware that Christ said “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s,” but that, notwithstanding, in certain causes the pope exercises temporal jurisdiction casually and incidentally.

(B) THEORY OF INDIRECT POWER

Hence there was another opinion defended by Hugo of St. Victor, Alexander of Hales, and others, according to which the power granted by Christ to the Church and to the pope was spiritual, and had reference only to religion and the salvation of souls. The Church had no merely temporal jurisdiction of Divine right; Christian emperors and kings were supreme within the limits of their temporal authority. However, in as much as all must give way when there is question of the salvation of souls, “For what doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?” and, “If thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee”; so all impediments to salvation must be removed. He, therefore, who has the care of the salvation of soul should have the power to remove any impediment to salvation, even if it be caused by a Christian emperor or kings. Besides, Christian emperors and kings are children of the Church, and as such subject to the supreme rulers of the Church. The first Christian emperors acknowledged this; great saints and bishops like St. Ambrose and St. Chrysostom taught it and acted on it; the popes of the Middle Ages were only following precedent when they acted like manner. Bellarmine, one of the chief exponents of this theory of the indirect power of the popes over temporal affairs, says that it was the common opinion of theologians; Suarez, another great upholder of the same view, in his volume against James I England, says that it was the more received and approved opinion among Catholics. In our time this opinion has become generally accepted, and Leo XIII seems to adopt it in his Encyclical quoted above on the Christian constitution of States. “Whatever,” he says, “in things human is of a sacred character, whatever belongs either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls or to the worship of God, is subject to the power and judgment of the Church.”

(C) THEORY OF DIRECTIVE POWER

A third opinion was held by Fénelon, Gosselin, and a few others, that the pope has only a directing and guiding, not a constraining, povver over temporal affairs. These writers taught that the Church should instruct, exhort, warn, and admonish temporal rulers she may declare that a civil law is unjust, but that she has no coercing power even indirectly in temporal matters. This position of the Gallican School is now abandoned by all Catholics, and has become obsolete. From what has been said it will be clear what are the nature, the extent, and the limits or civil allegiance according to the teaching of the Catholic Church. According to that teaching citizens are religiously bound to reverence and obey their civil rulers in all matters which belong to the sphere of civil government. That sphere comprises whatever may contribute to the temporal welfare of the whole body of citizens. As religion is a sacred duty and its practice contributes much to the well-being of the citizens, the State must not be indifferent to religion. Still the direct care of religion has not been committed to the state but to the Church founded by Christ, which is a society to which the baptized members of the State throughout the world belong, which has all the powers necessary for the attainment of its supernatural end, the sanctifcation and salvation of souls, and which is independent of the State. Hence, there are limits set to the duty of civil allegiance. The State is not competent to make laws in matter of religion, nor may it interfere with the rights of the Church. If the State transgresses the limits assigned to it, the duty of obedience ceases: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” This undoubted Christian principle is not invoked by the Catholic to shield his disloyalty and disobedience to the State under the specious pretext of following his conscience. The Catholic is not guided in matters of duty by private judgment, but by the public teaching and law of the Catholic Church. The State has nothing to fear from the action of the Catholic Church; her whole energies are bent on making her children good men, good Christians, good citizens. Moreover, the spiritual teaching, power, and influence of the Church are necessary in order to correct certain modern tendencies to exaggerate the power of the State. In proportion as certain doctrines of some socialists and idealists are translated into fact, the power of the State will be increased, and the liberty with which Christ has made free the Christian world will be in serious peril.

T. SLATER

Diocese of Cività Castellana, Orte, and Gallese

Cività Castellana, DIOCESE OF (CIVITATIS CASTELLANÆ, HORTANENSIS ET GALLESINENSIS) is a town in the Province of Rome, on the Treia, an affluent of the Tiber, and was built on the ruins of the ancient Falerii, capital of the Falisci, a Latin tribe frequently at war with the Romans until subdued by Camillus, 394 B. C. In 356 B.C., however, and during the Samnite War, this tribe renewed the struggle with Rome. Excavations on the site of the ancient city have brought to light many important finds illustrating ancient Faliscan civilization. Pope Alexander III died, and was buried at Cività Castellana. In 1798 the Austrians under Mack were defeated here by the French general, Macdonald. A number of martyrs suffered within the limits of the Diocese of Cività Castellana. Its first known bishop was Crescentius, who discovered, in 998, the relies of Martianus and Johannes. In 1437 the Diocese of Cività Castellana was united with that of Orte. Orte (the ancient Horta) is a town that rises on a travertine hill some distance north of Rome. Not far from here are the catacombs of St. Eutychius and others recently discovered. Thirty-eight bishops of Cività Castellana are known previous to its union with Orte. Among the noteworthy bishops since that date may be mentioned: Angelo Pichinoli (1486), nuncio to Hungary; Angelo Gozzadini (1621), and Gianfrancesco Tenderini (1736), who died in the odour of sanctity. In 1252 the Diocese of Gallese was incorporated with that of Cività Castellana. Reestablished in 1562, Gallese was again suppressed in 1573. The diocese has a population of 40,200, with 29 parishes, 202 churches and chapels, 105 secular and 27 regular priests, 6 religious houses of men, and 13 of women. It is immediately subject to the Holy See.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), VI, 9, 16, 49, 68; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 406–08.

U. BENIGNI

Diocese of Civitavecchia and Corneto

Civitavecchia and Corneto, DIOCESE OF (CENTUMCELLARUM ET CORNETANA) is an important and fortified Mediterranean seaport, in the province of Rome. Part of its fortifications and piers date from the time of the Emperor Trajan. The city, which enjoyed considerable importance, military and commercial, under the temporal sovereignty of the popes, was improved to great advantage by Eugene IV, Nicholas V, Julius II, Gregory XIII, Sixtus V, Urban VIII, and others. During the persecution of Gallus, Pope Cornelius was exiled to Centumcellæ, the ancient name of this city (Lib. Pont., ed., Duchesne, I, 150–52). Catacombs have been found here. In 314 Epictetus, its bishop, was present at the Council of Arles. Another Epictetus, Bishop of Centumcellæ towards the middle of the fourth century, was a rabid Arian and a bad counsellor of Emperor Constantius. In 1086 the see was suppressed and Civitavecchia was united to Toscanella and in 1193 to Viterbo. In 1825 Leo XII re-established the see, uniting it to Porto and Santa Rufina. In 1854 the union with Santa Rufina was severed and Civitavecchia was united with the Diocese of Corneto. The latter is a town in the province of Rome, situated on a hill about three miles from the sea, near the ruins of the ancient Tarquinii, once the capital of the Etruscans or rather of the southern part of ancient Etruria; it was in its time a seat of advanced civilization, if we are to judge from the painted earthenware and other objects found in the numerous tombs scattered through this region. The catacombs are a proof of the early introduction of Christianity, which however seems to have made its way thither, neither from Rome nor by sea, but from the neighbouring Bolsena. No bishops of Corneto are known for the ancient Christian period. The basilicas of Santa Maria in Castello and of Santa Restituta are very ancient. Cappelletti believes that if was made a diocese in 1435. The diocese is immediately subject to the Holy See, has 29,700 Catholics, 12 parishes, 7 religious houses of men and 7 of women.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’ltalia (Venice, 1844), I, 529; V, 649; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907) 426–7; DE ROSSI, Bullett. di arch. crist. (1887) V, 104–8; CALISSE, Statuti della città di Civitavecchia in Studi e Documenti (1885) VII, 109–37.

U. BENIGNI

Abbey of Clairvaux

The third daughter of Cîteaux and mother in the fourth line of numerous and celebrated monasteries, founded in 1115 by St. Bernard, in a deep valley upon the bank of the Aube, and known as the Vallée d’Absinthe (Valley of Wormwood or Bitterness), then in the Diocese of Langres, today in that of Troyes in Champagne, Department of the Aube, France. Hughes I, Count of Troyes, donated this valley to the colony of Cistercians. In a short time it became the Clara Vallis, or Clairvaux, as the new abbey is already called in a charter of 1116. After a trying and laborious beginning, Clairvaux, under the direction of St. Bernard, developed rapidly. His renown attracted such large numbers of postulants that even in his lifetime sixty-eight monasteries were founded from it in France, Italy, Germany, England, Spain, and Portugal. In 1116 twelve monks from Clairvaux installed themselves at Trois-Fontaines in the Diocese of Chalons, under the guidance of Roger, one of the first converts St. Bernard by his eloquence had attracted from the celebrated school of Stephen of Vitry. In 1119 Bernard sent another colony to found Fontenay in the Diocese of Autun, today in that of Troyes. Then were founded Foigny in the Diocese of Noyon; Cherlieu in the Diocese of Besançon; Longpont in the Diocese of Soissons; Vauclair in the diocese of Laon; La Grace-Dieu in the Diocese of Saintes; Buzay in the Diocese of Nantes; Bonmont in the Diocese of Geneva (Switzerland); Hautecombe in the Diocese of Geneva, today in that of Chambéry; Chiaravalle in the Diocese of Milan; Moreruela in the Diocese of Zamora (Spain); Rievaulx and Fountains in the Diocese of York (England). Towards 1153 it became necessary to extend the limits of Clairvaux and erect other claustral buildings. The new buildings were quickly constructed. “The Church,” says a witness, “arose from the soil as though it was animated with a living soul and capable of self-motion.” It was 347 feet long and 114 feet wide, with a triple nave in eleven divisions. The transept was 177 feet and contained eight square altars facing one another. No architectural or artistic ornament relieved the severity of the style either of the interior or of the exterior.

Illustrious persons were buried at Clairvaux in the livery of the poor of Christ, among them Henry of France, brother of King Louis VII; Alexander of Cologne, who was later one of the successors of St. Bernard of Clairvaux; Henry Murdach who became Abbot of Vauclair and later Archbishop of York; Philip, Archdeacon of Liège, etc. Religious even of the other orders, flocked there. The Congregation of Savigny, founded in 1105 by Blessed Vital of Mortagne, with seventeen houses, became affiliated to Clairvaux in 1147, as also that of Obazine, founded by St. Stephen of Durfort in 1142. Affonso I, King of Portugal, in 1143 made his kingdom a vassal of the Abbey of Clairvaux and obliged his successors to pay to it every year, on the feast of the Annunciation, fifty marabitains of gold. In 1148, in memory of the victory over the Moors which he had gained the preceding year through the prayers of St. Bernard, he founded the Abbey of Alcobaça, whose abbots were always Grand Almoners of the Kings of Portugal. St. Bernard at his death, in 1153, left at Clairvaux seven hundred religious.

After two centuries of fervour, Clairvaux did not escape the evils of the decadence. But it was one of the first to reform. In 1615, Denis Largentier, who was its abbot, converted while in meditation at the tomb of St. Bernard, restored the fasts, abstinences and other practices of the order, and re-established in his monastery the regularity and the fervour of its first days. Clairvaux became the principal seat of the strict Observance. (See CISTERCIANS.) At the time of the Revolution (1790) Clairvaux had only 26 professed religious, counting the abbot, Dom Louis-Marie Rocourt, 10 lay brothers, and 10 affiliated pensioners of the house; 19 of the religious and all the lay brothers were secularized. After the Revolution the abbot retired to Bar-sur-Aube, where he died in obscurity, the fifty-first and last Abbot of Clairvaux, 6 April, 1824. In 1790 Clairvaux had in affiliation in France ninety-two houses with 864 religious. This abbey had given to the Church one pope, Eugene III, fifteen cardinals, and a great number of archbishops and bishops. Clairvaux became the property of the State, and during the Restoration its buildings were converted into a prison.

F. M. GILDAS.

Clandestinity (in Canon Law)

Strictly speaking, clandestinity signifies a matrimonial impediment introduced by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, c. i) to invalidate marriages contracted at variance with the exigencies of the decree “Tametsi,” commonly so called because the first word of the Latin text is tametsi. The decree reads:

Those who attempt to contract matrimony otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest or of another priest with leave of the parish priest or of the ordinary, and before two or three witnesses, the Holy Synod renders altogether incapable of such a contract, and declares such contracts null and void.

The Council of Trent did not transmit any historical record of this question. While upholding the validity of clandestine marriages “as long as the Church does not annul them,” the council asserts that “for weighty reasons the holy Church of God always abhorred and prohibited them” (Sess. XXIV, De reformatione matrimonii). That this sentence strikes the keynote of unending antipathy on the part of the Church towards clandestine marriages can be gathered by a brief review of the historical attitude of the Church. In the fifth chapter of his Epistle to Polycarp, St. Ignatius intimates how men and women about to marry should enter wedlock with the bishop’s consent, so that their marriage may be in the Lord (Ante-Nicene Fathers, I, 100). Tertullian writes that matrimonial unions contracted without the intervention of ecclesiastical authority are liable to be judged tantamount to fornication and adultery (De pudicitiâ, iv, in Migne, P. L., II, 987). In another passage he extols the happiness of that union which is cemented by the Church, confirmed by oblation, sealed with blessing, which angels proclaim, and which the Father in heaven ratifies (Ad uxorem, in Migne, P. L., II, 9). The thirteenth canon of the so-called Fourth Council of Carthage requires parties contracting marriage to be presented to a priest of the Church by their parents or bridal attendants in order to receive the blessing of the Church (Hefele, History of the Councils, II, 412). Whatever may be the age of this canon, the custom therein enjoined had previously won the approval of St. Ambrose, who earnestly sought to have all marriages sanctified by the priestly pall and benediction (Epistle xix to Vigilius, in Migne, P. L., XVI, 984). The Code of Justinian bears evidence to the influence which this imperial legislator wielded to secure the public celebration of marriage according to some legitimate form (“Novellæ,” or New Constitutions, xxii, lxiv, cxvii).

In the ninth century the Emperor Basil gave the force of written law to a widely observed custom of having a priest assist at marriages to bless and crown the married parties. Not long after, Leo the Philosopher declared that marriages celebrated without a priest’s blessing were worthless. The replies of Pope Nicholas I (863) to the Bulgarians, the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, as well as the “Decretum” of Burchard and that of Gratian embody ample evidence to prove that, during the ninth century and thereafter,the public celebration of nuptials was prescribed and clandestine marriage condemned. Though Gratian alleges forged decretals to show the prohibition of clandestine marriages, it must be granted that he faithfully records the usage of his age concerning the validity of such marriages. Though Alexander III (1159–1181) maintained the validity of clandestine marriage when no other impediment intervened, he obliged parties contracting such marriages to undergo penance, and suspended for three years any priest assisting thereat. (Wernz, Jus Decretalium, IV, title III, no. 516.) Another step in advance was made when Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), inaugurated the proclamation of the banns.

Finally, a turning-point in the history of this question was reached when the Council of Trent enacted the “Tametsi” as a measure destined to check abuses and to safeguard the sacredness of the marriage contract. The principal elements of this decree pertained to the sentence of nullification affecting marriages of Christians failing to enter wedlock in the presence of the parish priest or his legitimate representative and in that of two or more witnesses; to the ways and means of publishing the decree; and to the penalty awaiting transgressors thereof. A succinct comment concerning these points will elucidate the purport of the decree. In the first place, to attain the desired end more effectually, the Council of Trent decreed a singular method of promulgation. It ordered that the decree should be published in every parish, and that it should take effect only after thirty days from its publication. When a parish comprised many churches, publication in the parochial church was sufficient. The term “parochial church” comprehends missions attended by priests on whom the faithful depend for the ministrations of religion (Cong. of the Inquisition, 14 November, 1883). Publication of the decree in churches situated in such missions had the force of law. A new publication was not necessary when a newly-organized parish results from the dismemberment of a parish wherein the law already obtained. On the contrary, if a parish subject to the law should be united to one hitherto exempt, the former would remain bound by the law and the latter retain its immunity (Cong. of Inquis., 14 Dec., 1859).

For obvious reasons, the vernacular should be used in publishing the decree. The use of Latin would, according to the principles of canon law, render the act illicit but not invalid (Gasparri, Tractatus Canonicus de Matrimonio, II, v, 119). The publication would be worthless unless the decree were made known to the faithful as a Tridentine law or as an ordinance emanating from the Holy See. While one publication sufficed to induce obligation, the council suggested repeated publication during the first year of tenure. This publication might be made whenever a congregation assembled in church. The decree was sometimes published in a parish to bind parishioners speaking one language to the exclusion of those using a different tongue. Sometimes the law was intended to oblige none but Catholics residing within the parish lines. In a parish entirely Catholic, wherein heretics settled after the law was duly promulgated, the obligation applied to all, Catholics and heretics. In such cases the “Tametsi” declared null heretical marriages or clandestine mixed marriages (Pius VIII, 26 March, 1830). In a non-Catholic district containing only a few Catholic parishes, the marriage of a Protestant with another Protestant, or the clandestine marriage of a Protestant with a Catholic, would be valid although the number of Catholics in the neighbourhood should so increase as to warrant the actual publication of the decree (Pius VII to Napoleon I, 27 June, 1805; Cong. of Inquisition, 24 November and 29 November, 1852). Finally, populations once largely Catholic in whose parishes the decree was published might be supplanted by non-Catholics. Though canonists are not unanimous in their verdict regarding the application of the law in such conditions, Gasparri, among others, holds that in such cases the law would not bind non-Catholics. For this was, says he, the case when Benedict XIV issued his Declaration for Holland (Gasparri, op. cit., II, v, 202).

After these general considerations concerning the promulgation of this decree, it may not be amiss to note where the decree was actually published. In the United States this law was published in the province of New Orleans; in the province of San Francisco, together with Utah, except that part bordering the Colorado River; in the province of Santa Fé, except the northern part of Colorado; in the Diocese of Indianapolis; in St. Louis, St. Genevieve, St. Charles (Missouri), St. Ferdinand, Kaskaskia, French Village, and Prairie du Rocher. In Europe, the decree was published in Italy and adjacent islands; in the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine; in Ireland, France, Spain, Portugal, Austria, German Empire (Pius X, 18 January, 1906), Poland, Belgium, Rotterdam, Geneva (Zitelli, Apparatus Juris Eccles., I, 428), and Malta (Cong. Inquis., 18 March, 1884). It is no easy matter to give accurate specifications for regions outside Europe and the United States (Lehmkuhl, Theologia Moralis, II, 563). The decree was not published in England, Scotland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark (Zitelli, op. cit., I, 430). In some localities circumstances paved the way towards a partial promulgation of the decree (Zitelli, op. cit., I, 437). Furthermore, although the decree might have been promulgated, the action of legitimate authority could limit its binding force. Thus Benedict XIV terminated the controversy concerning the marriages of heretics in Holland. The fact that many Dutch Catholics had abjured their faith paved the way for questioning the application of the decree already promulgated in that country. To solve this difficulty Benedict XIV ruled that henceforth heretical or mixed marriages, clandestinely contracted, would be valid, provided no other impediment intervened. This declaration was subsequently extended to other localities in which the Tridentine decree was not promulgated until heretics had organized their own congregations in such places. In this way the declaration of Benedict XIV found application in Canada, Trinidad, the dioceses of the United States with the exception of the San Francisco province, the German Empire, Belgium, Russian Poland, the Malabar Coast, the Coromandel Coast, Constantinople and suburbs, Diocese of Warsaw, Archdiocese of Bombay, Diocese of Culm, Duchy of Cleves, Pondicherry, Maastricht, and the suburb of St. Peter near Maastricht.

It may be well to note here the way in which the term heretic is to be understood in this declaration. It comprehended individuals baptized in the Catholic Church, but who subsequently adopted the tenets of some sect: Catholics who had reached the years of discretion and had been alienated from their Faith by the influence of Protestants whose religion they thereafter professed; apostates who allied themselves with some sect; heretics professing no religion whatever (Gasparri, op. cit., II, v, 208). Whenever the requirements of this decree were reduced to practice owing to legitimate usage, no further promulgation was necessary to render the measure effective (Cong. of Holy Office, 1 May, 1887). The decree once published in any parish, could be set aside by revocation on the part of the Holy See. It could also be abrogated by contrary usage or desuetude. Thus, Pius VII, in a letter to the Archbishop of Mainz, 8 October, 1803, decided that marriages contracted before a Protestant minister are valid where the Tridentine decree has lapsed into desuetude. In like manner, the Congregation of the Holy Office decided that the “Tametsi” had passed into desuetude in Japan (11 March, 1806). At the same time the Holy See repeatedly declared that the “Tametsi” did not lose its binding force in a given place because heretics residing there declined to observe it, no matter how long they refused to abide by its requirements (Cong. of Holy Office, 6 July, 1892).

Regarding the subjects of this law, it is necessary to note that the decree invalidating clandestine marriages was both local and personal (Cong. of Holy. Office, 14 December, 1859). In its local application the law comprehended all who contracted marriage in any place where the decree had been duly promulgated, whether they were residents, aliens, travellers, transients, or persons having no fixed abode, because those who come from an exempt territory are obliged to recognize and observe universal laws. Moreover, since jurists claim that territory governs contracts, it follows that residents, aliens, travellers, transients, and those without fixed abode, must observe laws circumscribing contracts in the place where such contracts are made. A decision of the Holy Office, dated 25 January, 1900, gave new weight to this accepted axiom of canonists. On account of the personal element embodied in this decree, the obligation of observing it applied to those thereunto subjected where-ever they might chance to be. For this reason parties having a domicile or quasi-domicile in a district where the law held remained liable to its obligation as often as they betook themselves to an exempt territory to evade the law. Those whose sole or whose chief object in such case was to enter wedlock, were considered guilty of evading the law. However, where one of the contracting parties had acquired a domicile or quasi-domicile in an exempt territory, their marriage, if contracted there, would be valid because the privilege enjoyed by one was here communicable to the other (Benedict XIV, De Synodo, VI, vi).

The better to complete this explanation, a word concerning the terms domicile and quasi-domicile is necessary. An ecclesiastical domicile involves two elements, namely, residence in a particular parish and an intention of abiding there for the greater part of a year. This intention is gauged by external acts whose manifestation marks the actual acquisition of a domicile which is retained thereafter notwithstanding protracted absence, provided the intention of returning perseveres. In like manner residence in a parish and an intention of dwelling there during a considerable portion of the year denote the elements giving consistency to a quasi-domicile. Hence, an individual may be domiciled in one parish and acquire a quasi-domicile in another. Six months’ sojourn in the same parish entitled parties to invite the pastor of that parish to assist at their nuptials. Nevertheless, in answer to a petition made by the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, the Holy See (22 May, 1886) granted for the United States to parties moving from a parish where the “Tametsi” obtained to another parish and residing there for a full month, the privilege of a quasi-domicile so far as the matrimonial contract was concerned. Nor would the privilege be forfeited in case the contracting parties should pass thirty days in such a place in order to enter wedlock there (Putzer, Commentarium in Facultates Apostolicas, no. 49). Although the decree involved a personal element, clandestine marriages were valid as often as the observance of the law was physically or morally impossible, provided such impossibility was general and continued for a month (Cong. of Inquis., 1 July, 1863; 14 November, 1883). Parties whose circumstances led them to profit by this interpretation of the law were obliged to seek the nuptial blessing at their earliest convenience, and to see that their marriage was entered in the proper register (Cong. of Inquis., 14 November, 1883).

To the pastor of either contracting party belonged the right of officiating at their nuptials. Vicars appointed to exercise the functions of pastor with the fullness of the pastoral ministry enjoyed the same right so long as they held office (Cong. of Inquis., 7 Sept., 1898). The Roman pontiff alone could counteract the exercise of this pastoral prerogative. The presence of the pastor in the capacity of witness satisfied the requirements of the Tridentine decree even though he was not formally invited for that purpose (Cong. of Inquis., 17 Nov., 1835). The consent of those about to marry had to be signified in the presence of the pastor and other witnesses required by the decree. Since the sovereign pontiff enjoys universal jurisdiction in the Church, he could validly assist at any marriage whatever. Cardinals had no longer the right of assisting at marriages in their titular churches. Legates of the Holy See were qualified to assist at marriages contracted within the confines of their legation. Bishops might minister at marriages in any portion of their respective dioceses. According to Gasparri (op. cit., II, v, 154), an archbishop might exercise this right for the subjects of his suffragans provided he visited their dioceses according to the requirements of canon law. To a vicar-general was accorded the right of officiating at any marriage in the diocese. Those in whom this right was vested were at liberty to delegate another priest to act in their stead. Such delegation might be special or general. As often as the delegation was special, little danger of invalidity was feared. On the contrary, when general jurisdiction is transmitted to delegates, the Holy See questions, not so much validity, as legitimacy of action. Hence, the Congregation of the Council (20 July, 1889) reproved the conduct of those parish priests who habitually interchanged the faculty of assisting at the marriages of their respective subjects, because such methods tended to render the “Tametsi” ineffectual so far as the presence of the parish priest is concerned. At the same time this Congregation (18 March, 1893) and the Congregation of the Inquisition (9 November, 1898) approved general delegation within judicious limits. Notification of his commission to assist at nuptials had to be given directly to the delegate, either by the individual authorizing him to act or by a messenger specially chosen for this purpose (Sanchez, De Matrimonio, disp. xxvi, no. 8). The commission might be granted orally or in writing. No priest would be justified in presuming permission to assist at marriages. So strict was this rule that a pastor had no power to ratify marriages whose invalidity was superinduced in this way. In like manner, the Congregation of the Inquisition (7 September, 1898) decided that the ordinary faculties granted by bishops to priests, empowering them to administer the sacraments, did not qualify them to assist at marriages. Sanchez (op. cit., disp. xxxv, no. 20) claims that tacit notification would be sufficient to justify a priest to assist at nuptials.

Besides the parish priest, at least two witnesses were required for the validity of a marriage contract. The use of reason and the possibility of actually testifying render any individual capable of exercising this particular function (Benedict XIV, De Synodo, xxiii, no. 6). The simultaneous presence of the pastor and witnesses was necessary to comply with the requirements of the “Tametsi” (Sanchez, op. cit., disp. xli, no. 3). Parish priests or others officiating at marriages without the necessary number of witnesses, or witnesses assisting without the pastor, rendered themselves, together with the contracting parties, liable to severe punishment at the hands of the bishop. Moreover, a parish priest, or any other priest, whether regular or secular, assisting without the pastor’s consent at nuptials of parties belonging to his parish was suspended from priestly functions until absolved by the bishop of the pastor whose rights had been disregarded.

NEW LEGISLATION ON CLANDESTINE MARRIAGE

Through the decree “Ne Temere,” issued 2 August, 1907, by the Congregation of the Council, in conjunction with the pontifical commission for the new canonical code, important modifications have been made regarding the form of betrothal and of marriage. This decree was issued to render easier for the universal Church the substantial form of matrimony, to prevent more efficiently the too numerous, hasty, and clandestine marriages, and to make it easier for ecclesiastical courts to decide as to the existence or non-existence of a previous engagement to marry (see ESPOUSALS). With the exception in regard to Germany noted below, this legislation went into effect at Easter (19 April), 1908, and is thenceforth binding on all Catholics throughout the world, any contrary law or custom being totally abolished. According to this decree, marriages of Catholics are henceforth null unless celebrated before a duly qualified priest (or the bishop of the diocese) and at least two witnesses. The same is true of marriages in which either of the parties is or has been a Catholic. The law, however, does not bind those who are not and never have been Catholics. Priests charged with the care of souls in the territory where a marriage is contracted, or any approved priest whom one charged with the care of souls or whom the bishop of the diocese delegates, are qualified to assist at nuptials. Marriages contracted in a parish, district, or diocese, other than the one to which the contracting parties belong, are valid so long as the pastor of the place or his delegate assists at such marriages. However, priests are forbidden to assist at such marriages unless one of two conditions is verified. Either, one of the parties must have resided a month in the territory where the marriage occurs, or else, one of the parties must have obtained the permission of the priest or bishop under whose jurisdiction such a party resides. In cases of serious necessity such permission is not required.

The following conditions are enjoined by the decree “Ne Temere,” not for the validity of the marriages of Catholics, but to bring them into complete conformity with the demands of right order. Marriages ought to be celebrated in the parish of the bride. If the contracting parties wish to marry elsewhere, they must ask the pastor of the place, or some priest authorized by him or by the bishop, to assist at the marriage, and one of the parties must have resided there for a month. When parties find this procedure inconvenient, one of them must obtain permission from his or her parish priest or bishop to contract marriage elsewhere. In such cases the parties will be obliged to give the necessary assurance regarding their freedom to marry, and to comply with the usual conditions for receiving the Sacrament of Matrimony. When parties have no fixed abode and are travelling throughout the country, they can enter wedlock only before a priest authorized by the bishop to assist at their marriage.

The Sacred Congregation of the Council declared (11 February, 1908) that the dispensations granted in the Bull “Provida” of 18 January, 1906, for Germany will still remain in force. According to this Bull, while Catholic marriages in Germany were made subject to the decree “Tametsi,” mixed marriages and those of Protestants among themselves were exempted. (See MARRIAGE; PARISH PRIEST; DOMICILE.)

Canones et Decreta Sacrosancti Œcumenici Concilii Tridentini (Rome, 1893); Decretum, “Ne Temere” (2 August, 1907); GASPARRI, Tractatus Canonicus de Matrimonio (Paris, 1904); WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1904), IV; OJETTI, Synopsis Rerum Moralium et Juris Pontificii (Prato, 1904); ZITELLI, Apparatus Juris Ecclesiastici (Rome, 1903); SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1887), I; DUCHESNE, Christian Worship (London, 1904); FEIJE, De imped. et disp. matrim. (4th ed., Louvain, 1893); JODER, Formulaire matrimonial (4th ed., Paris, 1897); BASSIBEY, De la clandestinité dans le mariage (Paris, 1903); LAURENTIUS, Institutiones juris eccl. (Freiburg, 1903) 443–51; TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906). For a commentary on the decree “Ne Temere,” see McNICHOLAS in Amer. Ecclesiastical Review (Philadelphia, February, 1908); O’NEILL, ibid. (April, 1908), and CRONIN, The New Matrimonial Legislation (Rome, 1908).

J. D. O’NEILL.

St. Clare of Assisi

Cofoundress of the Order of Poor Ladies, or Clares, and first Abbess of San Damiano; born at Assisi, 16 July, 1194; died there 11 August, 1253. She was the eldest daughter of Favorino Scifi, Count of Sasso-Rosso, the wealthy representative of an ancient Roman family, who owned a large palace in Assisi and a castle on the slope of Mount Subasio. Such at least is the traditional account. Her mother, Bl. Ortolana, belonged to the noble family of Fiumi and was conspicuous for her zeal and piety. From her earliest years Clare seems to have been endowed with the rarest virtues. As a child she was most devoted to prayer and to practices of mortification, and as she passed into girlhood her distaste for the world and her yearning for a more spiritual life increased. She was eighteen years of age when St. Francis came to preach the Lenten course in the church of San Giorgio at Assisi. The inspired words of the Poverello kindled a flame in the heart of Clare; she sought him out secretly and begged him to help her that she too might live “after the manner of the holy Gospel.” St. Francis, who at once recognized in Clare one of those chosen souls destined by God for great things, and who also, doubtless, foresaw that many would follow her example, promised to assist her. On Palm Sunday Clare, arrayed in all her finery, attended high Mass at the cathedral, but when the others pressed forward to the altar-rail to receive a branch of palm, she remained in her place as if rapt in a dream. All eyes were upon the young girl as the bishop descended from the sanctuary and placed the palm in her hand. That was the last time the world beheld Clare. On the night of the same day she secretly left her father’s house, by St. Francis’s advice and, accompanied by her aunt Bianca and another companion, proceeded to the humble chapel of the Porziuncula, where St. Francis and his disciples met her with lights in their hands. Clare then laid aside her rich dress, and St. Francis, having cut off her hair, clothed her in a rough tunic and a thick veil, and in this way the young heroine vowed herself to the service of Jesus Christ. This was 20 March, 1212.

Clare was placed by St. Francis provisionally with the Benedictine nuns of San Paolo, near Bastia, but her father, who had expected her to make a splendid marriage, and who was furious at her secret flight, on discovering her retreat, did his utmost to dissuade Clare from her heroic proposals, and even tried to drag her home by force. But Clare held her own with a firmness above her years, and Count Favorino was finally obliged to leave her in peace. A few days later St. Francis, in order to secure Clare the greater solitude she desired, transferred her to Sant’ Angelo in Panzo, another monastery of the Benedictine nuns on one of the flanks of Subasio. Here some sixteen days after her own flight, Clare was joined by her younger sister Agnes, whom she was instrumental in delivering from the persecution of their infuriated relatives. (See AGNES, SAINT, OF ASSISI.) Clare and her sister remained with the nuns at Sant’ Angelo until they and the other fugitives from the world who had followed them were established by St. Francis in a rude dwelling adjoining the poor chapel of San Damiano, situated outside the town which he had to a great extent rebuilt with his own hands, and which he now obtained from the Benedictines as a permanent abode for his spiritual daughters. Thus was founded the first community of the Order of Poor Ladies, or of Poor Clares, as this second order of St. Francis came to be called.

The history of the Poor Clares will be dealt with in a separate article. Here it suffices to note that we may distinguish, during the lifetime of St. Clare, three stages in the complicated early history of the new order. In the beginning St. Clare and her companions had no written rule to follow beyond a very short formula vitae given them by St. Francis, and which may be found among his works. Some years later, apparently in 1219, during St. Francis’s absence in the East, Cardinal Ugolino, then protector of the order, afterwards Gregory IX, drew up a written rule for the Clares at Monticelli, taking as a basis the Rule of St. Benedict, retaining the fundamental points of the latter and adding some special constitutions. This new rule, which, in effect if not in intention, took away from the Clares the Franciscan character of absolute poverty so dear to the heart of St. Francis and made them for all practical purposes a congregation of Benedictines, was approved by Honorius III (Bull, “Sacrosancta,” 9 Dec., 1219). When Clare found that the new rule, though strict enough in other respects, allowed the holding of property in common, she courageously and successfully resisted the innovations of Ugolino as being entirely opposed to the intentions of St. Francis. The latter had forbidden the Poor Ladies, just as he had forbidden his friars to possess any worldly goods even in common. Owning nothing, they were to depend entirety upon what the Friars Minor could beg for them. This complete renunciation of all property was however regarded by Ugolino as unpractical for cloistered women. When, therefore, in 1228, he came to Assisi for the canonization of St. Francis (having meanwhile ascended the pontifical throne as Gregory IX), he visited St. Clare at San Damiano and pressed her to so far deviate from the practice of poverty which had up to this time obtained at San Damiano, as to accept some provision for the unforeseen wants of the community. But Clare firmly refused. Gregory, thinking that her refusal might be due to fear of violating the vow of strict poverty she had taken, offered to absolve her from it. “Holy Father, I crave for absolution from my sins,” replied Clare, “but I desire not to be absolved from the obligation of following Jesus Christ.”

The heroic unworldliness of Clare filled the pope with admiration, as his letters to her, still extant, bear eloquent witness, and he so far gave way to her views as to grant her on 17 September, 1228, the celebrated Privilegium Paupertatis which some regard in the light of a corrective of the Rule of 1219. The original autograph copy of this unique “privilege”—the first one of its kind ever sought for, or ever issued by the Holy See—is preserved in the archive at Santa Chiara in Assisi. The text is as follows: “Gregory Bishop Servant of the Servants of God. To our beloved daughters in Christ Clare and the other handmaids of Christ dwelling together at the Church of San Damiano in the Diocese of Assisi. Health and Apostolic benediction. It is evident that the desire of consecrating yourselves to God alone has led you to abandon every wish for temporal things. Wherefore, after having sold all your goods and having distributed them among the poor, you propose to have absolutely no possessions, in order to follow in all things the example of Him Who became poor and Who is the way, the truth, and the life. Neither does the want of necessary things deter you from such a proposal, for the left arm of your Celestial Spouse is beneath your head to sustain the infirmity of your body, which, according to the order of charity, you have subjected to the law of the spirit. Finally, He who feeds the birds of the air and who gives the lilies of the field their raiment and their nourishment, will not leave you in want of clothing or of food until He shall come Himself to minister to you in eternity when, namely, the right hand of His consolations shall embrace you in the plenitude of the Beatific Vision. Since, therefore, you have asked for it, we confirm by Apostolic favour your resolution of the loftiest poverty and by the authority of these present letters grant that you may not be constrained by anyone to receive possessions. To no one, therefore, be it allowed to infringe upon this page of our concession or to oppose it with rash temerity. But if anyone shall presume to attempt this, be it known to him that he shall incur the wrath of Almighty God and his Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. Given at Perugia on the fifteenth of the Kalends of October in the second year of our Pontificate.”

That St. Clare may have solicited a “privilege” similar to the foregoing at an earlier date and obtained it vivâ voce, is not improbable. Certain it is that after the death of Gregory IX Clare had once more to contend for the principle of absolute poverty prescribed by St. Francis, for Innocent IV would fain have given the Clares a new and mitigated rule, and the firmness with which she held to her way won over the pope. Finally, two days before her death, Innocent, no doubt at the reiterated request of the dying abbess, solemnly confirmed the definitive Rule of the Clares (Bull, “Solet Annuere,” 9 August, 1253), and thus secured to them the precious treasure of poverty which Clare, in imitation of St. Francis, had taken for her portion from the beginning of her conversion. The author of this latter rule, which is largely an adaptation mutatis mutandis, of the rule which St. Francis composed for the Friars Minor in 1223, seems to have been Cardinal Rainaldo, Bishop of Ostia, and protector of the order, afterwards Alexander IV, though it is most likely that St. Clare herself had a hand in its compilation. Be this as it may, it can no longer be maintained that St. Francis was in any sense the author of this formal Rule of the Clares; he only gave to St. Clare and her companions at the outset of their religious life the brief formula vivendi already mentioned.

St. Clare, who in 1215 had, much against her will been made superior at San Damiano by St. Francis, continued to rule there as abbess until her death, in 1253, nearly forty years later. There is no good reason to believe that she ever once went beyond the boundaries of San Damiano during all that time. It need not, therefore, be wondered at if so comparatively few details of St. Clare’s life in the cloister “hidden with Christ in God,” have come down to us. We know that she became a living copy of the poverty, the humility, and the mortification of St. Francis; that she had a special devotion to the Holy Eucharist, and that in order to increase her love for Christ crucified she learned by heart the Office of the Passion composed by St. Francis, and that during the time that remained to her after her devotional exercises she engaged in manual labour. Needless to add, that under St. Clare’s guidance the community of San Damiano became the sanctuary of every virtue, a very nursery of saints. Clare had the consolation not only of seeing her younger sister Beatrix, her mother Ortolana, and her faithful aunt Bianca follow Agnes into the order, but also of witnessing the foundation of monasteries of Clares far and wide throughout Europe. It would be difficult, moreover, to estimate how much the silent influence of the gentle abbess did towards guiding the women of medieval Italy to higher aims. In particular, Clare threw around poverty that irresistible charm which only women can communicate to religious or civic heroism, and she became a most efficacious coadjutrix of St. Francis in promoting that spirit of unworldliness which in the counsels of God, “was to bring about a restoration of discipline in the Church and of morals and civilization in the peoples of Western Europe.” Not the least important part of Clare’s work was the aid and encouragement she gave St. Francis. It was to her he turned when in doubt, and it was she who urged him to continue his mission to the people at a time when he thought his vocation lay rather in a life of contemplation. When in an attack of blindness and illness, St. Francis came for the last time to visit San Damiano, Clare erected a little wattle hut for him in an olive grove close to the monastery, and it was here that he composed his glorious “Canticle of the Sun.” After St. Francis’s death the procession which accompanied his remains from the Porziuncula to the town stopped on the way at San Damiano in order that Clare and her daughters might venerate the pierced hands and feet of him who had formed them to the love of Christ crucified—a pathetic scene which Giotto has commemorated in one of his loveliest frescoes. So far, however, as Clare was concerned, St. Francis was always living, and nothing is, perhaps, more striking in her after-life than her unswerving loyalty to the ideals of the Poverello, and the jealous care with which she clung to his rule and teaching.

When, in 1234, the army of Frederick II was devastating the valley of Spoleto, the soldiers, preparatory to an assault upon Assisi, scaled the walls of San Damiano by night, spreading terror among the community. Clare, calmly rising from her sick bed, and taking the ciborium from the little chapel adjoining her cell, proceeded to face the invaders at an open window against which they had already placed a ladder. It is related that, as she raised the Blessed Sacrament on high, the soldiers who were about to enter the monastery fell backward as if dazzled, and the others who were ready to follow them took flight. It is with reference to this incident that St. Clare is generally represented in art bearing a ciborium.

When, some time later, a larger force returned to storm Assisi, headed by the General Vitale di Aversa who had not been present at the first attack, Clare, gathering her daughters about her, knelt with them in earnest prayer that the town might be spared. Presently a furious storm arose, scattering the tents of the soldiers in every direction, and causing such a panic that they again took refuge in flight. The gratitude of the Assisians, who with one accord attributed their deliverance to Clare’s intercession, increased their love for the “Seraphic Mother.” Clare had long been enshrined in the hearts of the people, and their veneration became more apparent as, wasted by illness and austerities, she drew towards her end. Brave and cheerful to the last, in spite of her long and painful infirmities, Clare caused herself to be raised in bed and, thus reclining, says her contemporary biographer “she spun the finest thread for the purpose of having it woven into the most delicate material from which she afterwards made more than one hundred corporals, and, enclosing them in a silken burse, ordered them to be given to the churches in the plain and on the mountains of Assisi.” When at length she felt the day of her death approaching, Clare, calling her sorrowing religious around her, reminded them of the many benefits they had received from God and exhorted them to persevere faithfully in the observance of evangelical poverty. Pope Innocent IV came from Perugia to visit the dying saint, who had already received the last sacraments from the hands of Cardinal Rainaldo. Her own sister, St. Agnes, had returned from Florence to console Clare in her last illness; Leo, Angelo, and Juniper, three of the early companions of St. Francis, were also present at the saint’s death-bed, and at St. Clare’s request read aloud the Passion of Our Lord according to St. John, even as they had done twenty-seven years before, when Francis lay dying at the Porziuncula. At length before dawn on 11 August, 1253, the holy foundress of the Poor Ladies passed peacefully away amid scenes which her contemporary biographer has recorded with touching simplicity. The pope, with his court, came to San Damiano for the saint’s funeral, which partook rather of the nature of a triumphal procession.

The Clares desired to retain the body of their foundress among them at San Damiano, but the magistrates of Assisi interfered and took measures to secure for the town the venerated remains of her whose prayers, as they all believed, had on two occasions saved it from destruction. Clare’s miracles too were talked of far and wide. It was not safe, the Assisians urged, to leave Clare’s body in a lonely spot without the walls; it was only right, too, that Clare, “the chief rival of the Blessed Francis in the observance of Gospel perfection,” should also have a church in Assisi built in her honour. Meanwhile, Clare’s remains were placed in the chapel of San Giorgio, where St. Francis’s preaching had first touched her young heart, and where his own body had likewise been interred pending the erection of the Basilica of San Francesco. Two years later, 26 September, 1255, Clare was solemnly canonized by Alexander IV, and not long afterwards the building of the church of Santa Chiara, in honour of Assisi’s second great saint, was begun under the direction of Filippo Campello, one of the foremost architects of the time. On 3 October, 1260, Clare’s remains were transferred from the chapel of San Giorgio and buried deep down in the earth, under the high altar in the new church, far out of sight and reach. After having remained hidden for six centuries—like the remains of St. Francis—and after much search had been made, Clare’s tomb was found in 1850, to the great joy of the Assisians. On 23 September in that year the coffin was unearthed and opened, the flesh and clothing of the saint had been reduced to dust, but the skeleton was in a perfect state of preservation. Finally, on the 29th of September, 1872, the saint’s bones were transferred, with much pomp, by Archbishop Pecci, afterwards Leo XIII, to the shrine, in the crypt at Santa Chiara, erected to receive them, and where they may now be seen. The feast of St. Clare is celebrated throughout the Church on 12 August; the feast of her first translation is kept in the order on 3 October, and that of the finding of her body on 23 September.

The sources of the history of St. Clare at our disposal are few in number. They include (1) a Testament attributed to the saint and some charming Letters written by her to Blessed Agnes, Princess of Bohemia; (2) the Rule of the Clares, and a certain number of early Pontifical Bulls relating to the Order; (3) a contemporary Biography, written in 1256 by order of Alexander IV. This life, which is now generally ascribed to Thomas of Celano, is the source from which St. Clare’s subsequent biographers have derived most of their information.

PASCHAL ROBINSON

St. Clare of Montefalco

Born at Montefalco about 1268; died there, 18 August, 1308. Much dispute has existed as to whether St. Clare of Montefalco was a Franciscan or an Augustinian; and while Wadding, with Franciscan biographers of the saint, contends that she was a member of the Third Order of St. Francis, Augustinian writers, whom the Bollandists seem to favour, hold that she belonged to their order. It seems, however, more probable to say that St. Clare, when she was still a very young girl, embraced the rule of the Third Order of St. Francis (secular), together with her older sister and a number of other pious young maidens, who wore the habit of the Third Order of St. Francis and followed that particular mode of life in community which their piety and fervour suggested. When later, however, they became desirous of entering the religous state in its strict sense, and of professing the three vows of religion, they petitioned the Bishop of Spoleto for an approved rule of life; and, the Third Order of St. Francis (regular) not being then in existence as an approved religious institute, the bishop imposed upon them in 1290 the rule of the Third Order (regular) of St. Augustine. From her very childhood, St. Clare gave evidence of the exalted sancity to which she was one day to attain, and which made her the recipient of so many signal favours from God. Upon the death of her older sister in 1295, Clare was chosen to succeed her in the office of abbess of the community at Santa Croce; but it was only in obedience to the command of the Bishop of Spoleto that she could be prevailed upon to accept this new dignity. Kind and indulgent towards others, she treated herself with the most unrelenting severity, multiplying her fasts, vigils, and other austeri ties to such an extent that at one time her life was even feared for. To these acts of penance she added the practice of the most profound humility and the most perfect charity, while the suffering of her Redeemer formed the continual subject of her meditation.

Shortly after the death of St. Clare, inquiry into her virtues and the miracles wrought through her intercession was instituted , preparatory to her canonization. It was not, however, until several centuries later that she was canonized by Pope Leo XIII in 1881.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Bl. Clare of Rimini

(Chiara Agolanti), of the order of Poor Clares, born at Rimini in 1282; died there 10 February, 1346. Deprived at an early age of the support and guidance of her parents and of her pious husband, Clare soon fell a prey to the dangers to which her youth and beauty exposed her, and began to lead a life of sinful dissipation.

As she was one day assisting at mass in the church of the Friars Minor, she seemed to hear a mysterious voice that bade her say a Pater and an Ave at least once with fervour and attention. Clare obeyed the command, not knowing whence it came, and then began to reflect upon her life. Putting on the habit of the Third Order of St. Francis, she resolved to expiate her sins by a life of penance, and she soon became a model of every virtue, but more especially of charity towards the destitute and afflicted. When the Poor Clares were compelled to leave Regno on account of the prevailing wars, it was mainly through the charitable exertions of Clare that they were able to obtain a convent and means of sustenance at Rimini. Later, Clare herself entered the order of Poor Clares, along with several other pious women, and became superioress of the convent of Our Lady of the Angels at Rimini. She worked numerous miracles and towards the close of her life was favoured in an extraordinary manner with the gift of contemplation. Her body now reposes in the cathedral of Rimini. In 1782 the cult of Blessed Clare was approved by Pius VI, who permitted her feast to be celebrated in the city and Diocese of Rimini on the tenth of February.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

William Clark

English priest, date of birth unknown, executed at Winchester, 29 Nov., 1603. He was educated at Douai College, which he entered 6 August, 1587. Passing to the English College at Rome in 1589, He was ordained priest and returned to Engla nd in April, 1592. Active in the disputes between the seculars and the Jesuits on the appointment of Blackwell as archpriest, he was one of thirty-three priests who signed the appeal against Blackwell dated from Wisbeach Castle, 17 November, 1600. Conse quently he was included in the attack which Father Persons made against the characters of his opponents. When Clement VIII declared in favour of the appellant clergy (5 October,1602) and restored to them their faculties, an attempt was made, but in vain, to exclude Clark from participation in the privilege. At this time he was in the Clink prison. On Low Sunday he was discovered preparing to say Mass in the prison and was placed in still closer confinement. Shortly after this he became connected with the mysterious conspiracy known as the “Bye Plot.” He was committed to the Gatehouse, Westminister, thence to the Tower, and finally to the Castle at Winchester. Nothing was proved against him in relation to the plot save various practices in favour of Catholic interests; nevertheless he was condemned to death 15 November, and executed a fortnight later. He protested that his death was a kind of martyrdom. He is the author of “A Replie unto a certain Libell latelie set foorth by Fa. Parsons,” ect. (16 03, s.1.).

G.E. HIND

Claudia

(Klaudia), a Christian woman of Rome, whose greeting to Timothy St. Paul conveys with those of Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, “and all the brethren” (II Tim., iv, 21). Evidently, Claudia was quite prominent in the Roman communtiy. The Linus mentioned in the text is identified by St. Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, iii, 3) with the successor of St. Peter as Bishop of Rome; and in the “Apost. Const.” VII, 46, he is called the son of Claudia, Linos ho Klaudias, which seems to imply that Claudia was at least as well known as Linus. It has been attempted to prove that she was the wife of Pudens, mentioned by St. Paul; and, further, to identify her with Claudia Rufina, the wife of Aulus Pudens who was the friend of Martial (Martial, Epigr., IV, 13; XI, 54). According to this theory Claudia would be a lady of British birth, probably the daughter of King Cogidubnus. Unfortunately there is not sufficient evidence to make this identification more than possibly true.

W.S. REILLY

Claudianus Mamertus

(The name Ecdicius is unauthorized).

A Gallo-Roman theologian and the brother of St. Mamertus, Bishop of Vienne, d. about 473.

Descended probably from one of the leading families of the country, Claudianus Mamertus relinquished his worldly goods and embraced the monastic life. He assisted his brother in the discharge of his functions, and Sidonius Apollinaris describes him as directing the psalm-singing of the chanters, who were formed into groups and chanted alternate verses, whilst the bishop was at the altar celebrating the sacred mysteries. “Psalmorum hic modulator et phonascus ante altaria fratre gratulante instructas docuit sonare classes” (Epist., IV, xi, 6; V, 13–15). This passage is of importance in the history of liturgical chant. In the same epigram, which constitutes the epitaph of Claudianus Mamertus, Sidonius also informs us that this distinguished scholar composed a lectionary, that is, a collection of readings from Sacred Scripture to be made on the occasion of certain celebrations during the year.

According to the same writer, Claudianus “pierced the sects with the power of eloquence,” an allusion to a prose treatise entitled “On the State of the Soul” or “On the Substance of the Soul.” Written between 468 and 472, this work was destined to combat the ideas of Faustus, Bishop of Reii (Riez, in the department of Basses-Alpes), particularly his thesis on the corporeity of the soul. Plato, whom he perhaps read in Greek, Porphyry, and especially Plotinus and St. Augustine furnished Claudianus with arguments. But his method was decidedly peripatetic and foretokened Scholasticism. Even his language had the same characteristics as that of some of the medieval philosophers: hence Claudianus used many abstract adverbs in ter (essentialiter, accidenter, etc.; forty according to La Broise). On the other hand he revived obsolete words and, in a letter to Sapaudus of Vienne, a rhetorician, sanctioned the imitation of Nævius, Plautus, Varro, and Gracchus. Undoubtedly his only acquaintance with these authors was through the quotations used by grammarians and the adoption of their style by Apuleius, whose works he eagerly studied. Of course this tendency to copy his predecessors led Claudianus to acquire an entirely artificial mode of expression which Sidonius, in wishing to compliment, called a modern antique (Epist., IV, iii, 3). Besides the treatise and the letter from Claudianus to Sidonius Apollinaris, found among the letters of the latter (IV, ii). Some poetry has also been ascribed to him, although erroneously. For instance, he has been credited with the “Pange, lingua,” which is by Venantius Fortunatas (Carm., II, ii); “Contra vanos poetas ad collegam,” a poem recommending the choice of Christian subjects and written by Paulinus of Nola (Carm., xxii); two short Latin poems in honour of Christ, one by Claudius Claudianus (Birt ed., p. 330; Koch ed., p. 248) and the other by Merobaudus (Vollmer ed., p. 19), and two other Greek poems on the same subject, believed to be the work of Claudius Claudianus.

Two facts assign Claudianus Mamertus a place in the history of thought: he took part in the reaction against Semipelagianism, which took place in Gaul towards the close of the fifth century and he was the precursor of Scholasticism, forestalling the system of Roscellinus and Abelard. The logical method pursued by Claudianus commanded the esteem and investigation of Berengarius of Tours, Nicholas of Clairvaux, secretary to St. Bernard, and Richard de Fournival.

SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS, Epistulæ, IV, iii, si, V, ii; Gennadius, GENNADIUS, De Viris illustribus, 83; R. DE LA BROISE, Mamerti Claudiani vita eiusque doctrina de anima hominis (Paris, 1890); the best edition is by ENGELBRECHT in the Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum of the Academy of Vienna (Vienna, 1887); for supplementary information cf. CHEVALIER, Repertoire des sources historiques du moyen-age, Bio-bibliographie (Paris, 1905), II, 2977.

PAUL LEJAY

Claudiopolis (1)

A titular see of Asia Minor. It was a city in Cilicia Tracheia or Byzantine Isauria. The old name is perhaps Kardabounda; under Claudius it became a Roman colony, Colonia Julia Augusta Felix Ninica Claudiopolis. None of its coins are known. It was situated at the lower end of the central Calycadnus valley, before the river enters the narrow gorge which conducts it to the coast lands. Laeke (Journal of a Tour in Asia Minor, 107 sq.) has identified it with Mut, the chief village of a caza in the vilayet of Adana, a view which has since been confirmed by epigraphical evidence (Hogarth, Supplem. Papers, Royal Geogr. Society, 1893, III, 651). It was a suffragan of Seleuceia. Only six bishops are mentioned by Lequien (II, 1027); the first, Ædesius, was present at Nicaea in 325; the last John, was present at Constantinople in 533, and is probably identical with the prelate who was a friend of Severus in 508–11 (Brooks, The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, II, 4, 7, 11). In the tenth century Claudiopolis is mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (Them., xxxvi), as one of the ten cities of Isaurian Decapolis. It figures still in the “Notitiae episcopatuum” in the twelfth or thirteenth century. Mut has about 900 inhabitants, and exhibits vast ruins.

Ramsay, Asia Minor, passim; Ruge in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyk., III, 2662; Headlam, Eccl. Sites in Isauria. in Soc. For The Promotion Of Hellenic Studies, Supplem. Papers, I, 22 sq.; Cuinet, Turquie d’Asie, II, 78.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Claudiopolis (2)

A titular see of Bithynia, in Asia Minor. Strabo (XII, 4, 7) mentions a town, Bithynium (Claudiopolis), celebrated for its pastures and cheese. According to Pausanias (VIII, 9) it was founded by Arcadians from Mantinea. As is shown by its coins, it was commonly called Claudiopolis after Claudius. It was the birthplace of Antinous, the favourite of Hadrian, who was very generous to the city; afterwards his name was added to that of Claudius on the coins of the city. Theodosius II (408–50) made it the capital of a new province, formed at the expense of Bithynia and Paphlagonia, and called by him Honorias in honour of the Emperor honorius. Claudiopolis was the religious metropolis of the province (so in all “Notitiae episcopatuum”). Lequien (I, 567) mentions twenty titulars of the see to the thirteenth century; the first is St. Autonomus, said to have suffered martyrdom under Diocletian; we may add Ignatius, a friend and correspondent of Photius. The Turkish name for Claudiopolis is Bolou or Boli. It is now the chief town of a sanjak in the vilayet of Castamouni, with 10,000 inhabitants (700 Greeks, 400 Armenians, few Catholics). The town is on the Filias Sou (River Billaeus). There are no important ruins, but many ancient fragments of friezes, cornices, funeral cippi, and stelae.

Texier, Asie Mineure, 149; Perrot, Galatie et Bithynie, 42–45; Cuinet, Turrquie d’Asie, IV, 508 sq.; Smith, Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Geogr. (London, 1878), s.v. Bithynium.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Francisco Saverio Clavigero

Born at Vera Cruz, Mexico, 9 September, 1731; d. at Bologna, Italy, 2 April, 1787. At the age of seventeen he entered the Society of Jesus. Father José Rafael Campoi, S.J., at the College of St. Peter and St. Paul in Mexico, directed his attention to the valuable collection of documents on Mexican history and antiquities deposited there by Siguenza y Gongora, and he became an enthusiastic investigator in these fields. When the Jesuits were expelled from Mexico in 1767, Father Clavigero went to Bologna, where he founded a literary academy and pursued diligently his documentary studies in Mexican aboriginal history. He complied there his “Historica antica del Messico (Cesena, 1780), in opposition to the works of De Pauw, Raynal, and Robertson. While the “Historia antica” is the principal work of Clavigero, he had already published in Mexico several writings of minor importance. After his death there appeared “Storia della California,” less appreciated but still not to be neglected by students.

The “Ancient History of Mexico” made considerable impression and met with great favor. Following the book of the Cavaliere Boturini he included a list of sources, paying particular attention to the Indian pictographs, on tissue and other substances, forming part of the Boturini collection, and increasing the list by specimens then extant in various parts of Europe. The catalogue of Indian writers is also taken from Boturini, as Clavigero is careful to state. While materially enlarged since then, and though much additional information has been gained, his catalogue always remains of value. Finally he added a history of the conquest of Mexico. While other Jesuit writers on America, who wrote after the expulsion of the order, like Molina for instance, have maintained in their books an attitude of dignified impartiality, Clavigero has not been able to conceal his resentment for that measure. He does not allude to it, but criticizes the conquerors harshly, extolling at the same time, beyond measure, the character and culture of the Indians. The writings of de Pauw, Adair, and Robertson are severely criticized. The two former have, in their hypercritical tendencies, gone entirely too far in denying to the Indians of certain kind and degree of polity, but Robertson was much more moderate, hence nearer the truth, and more reliable than Clavigero himself. The later is an unsafe guide in American ethnology, on the account of his exaggeration of the culture of the Mexican sedentary tribes. But the systematic arrangement of his work, his style, and the sentimental interest taken in the conquered peoples insured to his book a popular sympathy that for a long time controlled the opinions of students as well as of general readers. The “Storia antica del Messico” was translated into English by Cullen (London, 1787); there is a German translation of the English version (Leipzig, 1789); Spanish editions (London, 1826; Mexico 1844 and 1853).

Beristain de Souza, Biblioteca hispano-americana septentrional (Mexico, 1816 and 1883); Diccinario universal de Historia y Geografia (Mexico, 1853).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Christopher Clavius

Christoph Clau, mathematician and astronomer, whose most important achievement related to the reform of the calendar under Gregory XIII; born at Bamberg, Bavaria, 1538; died at Rome, 12 February, 1612. The German form of his name was latinized into “Clavius.” He entered the Society of Jesus in 1555 and his especial talent for mathematical research showed itself even in his preliminary studies at Coimbra. Called to Rome by his superiors as teacher of this branch of science at the well-known Collegium Romanum, he was engaged uninterruptedly there until his death. the greatest scholars of his time, such men as Tycho Brahe, Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei, and Giovanni Antonio Magini, esteemed him highly. He was called the “Euclid of the sixteenth century”; and even his scientific opponents, like Scaliger, said openly that they would rather be censured by a Clavius than praised by another man. There has, however, been no lack of persistent disparagement of Catholic scholars even down to our own times; and therefore much that is inexact, false, and mythical has been put into circulation about Clavius, as for example that he was originally named “Schlüssel” (clavis, “key”), that he was appointed a cardinal, that he met his death by the thrust of a mad bull, etc. His relations with Galilei, with whom he remained on friendly terms until his death, have also been often misrepresented. The best evidence of the actual achievements of the great man is presented by his numerous writings, which at the end of his life he reissued at Mainz in five huge folio volumes in a collective edition under the title, “Christophori Clavii e Scoietate Jesu opera mathematica, quinque tomis distributa.” The first contains the Euclidian geometry and the “Spheric” of Theodosius (Sphaericorum Libri III); the second, the practical geometry and algebra; the third is composed of a complete commentary upon the “Sphaera” of Joannes de Sacro Bosco (John Holywood), and a dissertation upon the astrolabe; the fourth contains what was up to that time the most detailed and copious discussion of gnomonics, i.e. the art of constructing all possible sun-dials; finally, the fifth contains the best and most fundamental exposition of the reform of the calendar accomplished under Gregory XIII.

Many of these writings had already appeared in numerous previous editions, especially the “Commentarius in Sphaeram Joannis de Sacro Bosco” (Rome, 1570, 1575, 1581, 1585, 1606; Venice, 1596, 1601, 1602, 1603, 1607, Lyons, 1600, 1608, etc.); likewise the “Euclidis Elementorum Libri XV” (Rome 1574, 1589, 1591, 1603, 1605; Frankfort 1612). After his death also these were republished in 1617, 1627, 1654, 1663, 1717, at Cologne, Frankfort, and Amsterdam, and were even translated into Chinese. In his “Geometria Practica” (1604) Clavius states among other things a method of dividing a measuring scale into subdivisions of any desired smallness, which is far more complete than that given by Nonius and must be considered as the precursor of the measuring instrument named after Vernier, to which perhaps the name Clavius ought accordingly to be given. The chief merit of Clavius, however, lies in the profound exposition and masterly defence of the Gregorian calendar reform, the execution and final victory of which are due chiefly to him. Cf. “Romani calendarii a Gregorio XIII restituti explicatio” (Rome, 1603); “Novi calendarii Romani apologia (adversus M. Maestlinum in Tubingensi Academiâ mathematicum)” (Rome, 1588). Distinguished pupils of Clavius were Grienberger and Blancanus, both priests of the Society of Jesus.

ADOLF MÜLLER.

Claudius Clavus

Clavus, Claudius (or Nicholas Niger), the latinized form of the name of the old Danish cartographer Claudius Claussön Swart, b. in the village of Salling, on the Island of Fünen, 14 September, 1388; date of death unknown. He was the first man to make a map of North-Western Europe, which, moreover, included the first map of Greenland. He was apparently an ecclesiastic. In the course of his frequent journeys he went to Italy, where in 1424 he aroused much interest among the Humanists of Rome by announcing that in the Cistercian monastery of Soröe, near Roeskilde, he had seen three large volumes which contained the “Ten Decades” of Livy; according to his own statement he had read the titles of the chapters (decem Livii decades, quarum capita ipse legisset). Through his intercourse with the Humanists he became acquainted with the maps and descriptions of Ptolemy, and was thus led to supplement the work of Ptolemy by adding to it a chart and description of the North-West country. Clavus first turned his knowledge of Scandinavia and Greenland to account in the geographical drawing and description which has been preserved in the Ptolemy MS. of 1427 of Cardinal Filiaster. The manuscript is now in the public library of Nancy. Descriptions of it have been repeatedly given by Waitz, Nordenskjöld, Storm, and others. The facsimile of Clavus’s map and his description of the parts contained, which were published by Nordenskiöld and Storm, show that he gave Greenland and Iceland the correct geographical position, namely, west of the Scandinavian Peninsula.

Far more important, however, for the history of cartography is the second map and description of North-Western Europe and Greenland that Clavus produced. As yet, unfortunately, the original of this work has not been found, nor does any copy contain both the map and the description. This second map has been preserved in the works of the German cartographers, Donnus Nicholas Germanus and Henricus Martellus Germanus, who lived at Florence in the second half of the fifteenth century. Until recently, the descriptive text belonging to the map has only been known by the citations of Schöner and Friedlieb (Irenicus); the complete text was not known until it was found by Björnbo in two codices in the imperial library at Vienna. Björnbo’s discovery is especially important as it is now certain that Claudius Clavus was actually in Greenland and that he claims to have pushed his journey along the west coast as far as 70° 10’ N. lat. Another fact that lends importance to this discovery is that an explanation has at last been found for the incomprehensible names on the old maps of Greenland. Local names in Greenland and Iceland, so entirely different from those that appear in the Icelandic sagas, for a long time served the defenders of the Zeni as an argument that the map of Greenland was the work of the elder Zeno. It is now clear from the list of names given by Clavus that the Icelandic names on the map are not the real designations of the places, but merely the names of Runic characters. In the same manner, when he came to Greenland, Claudius Clavus used the successive words of the first stanza of an old Danish folk-song, the scene of which is laid in Greenland, to designate the headlands and rivers that seemed to him most worthy of note as he sailed from the north-east coast of Greenland around the southern end, and up the west coast. In the linguistic form of the words the dialect of the Island of Fünen is still evident. The discovery also makes clear how the younger Zeno was able to add to the forged story of a journey made in 1558 a comparatively correct map of the northern countries, and how he came to make use of the lines beginning:—Thaer boer eeynh manh ij eyn Groenenlandz aa” etc., which run in English:—

There lives a man on Greenland’s stream,

And Spieldebodh doth he be named;

More has he of white herrings

Than he has pork that is fat.

From the north drives the sand anew.

The second map of Clavus exercised a great influence on the development of cartography. As Clavus in drawing his map of North-Western Europe and Greenland made use of all the authorities to be had in his time, e.g. Ptolemy’s portolanos (marine maps) and itineraries, so the map-makers of succeeding centuries adopted his map, either directly or indirectly: thus, in the fifteenth century, Donnus Nicholas Germanus and Henricus Martellus; in the sixteenth century, Waldseemüller, Nicolò Zeno, Ruscelli, Moletius, Ramusio, Mercator, Ortelius; in the seventeenth century, Hondius, Blaeu, and others; in the eighteenth century, Homann and his successors. It is evident that scarcely any other map has exerted so permanent an influence as the map of Greenland by Claudius Clavus, “the first cartographer of America.”

Storm, Den danske Geograf Claudius Clavus eller Nicolaus Niger (Stockholm, 1891); Björnbo and Petersen, Fyenboen Claudius Claussön Swart (Copenhagen, 1904); Fischer, Die kartographische Darstellung der Entdeckungen der Normannen in Amerika in Proceedings of the Internat. Amer. Congress of 1904 (Stuttgart, 1906).

JOSEPH FISCHER.

James Clayton

Priest, confessor of the faith, b. at Sheffield, England, date of birth not know; d. a prisoner in Derby gaol, 22 July, 1588. He was the son of a shoemaker, and, being apprenticed to a blacksmith for seven years, spent his leisure hours in educating himself, giving special attention to the study of Latin. His studies led him to embrace the Catholic religion, and he was sent to the English College at Reims (1582), where he was ordained priest in 1585, and immediately returned to England to labour in his native county. Four years later, while visiting the Catholic prisoners in Derby gaol, he was apprehended and condemned to death for exercising his priestly office. His brothers pleaded for his pardon and his execution was delayed, though he was still kept a prisoner. Prison life brought on a sickness of which he died.

FOLEY, Records S.J. (London, Roehampton, 1875–1879), III, 47, 230, 802, Douay Diaries, ed. KNOX (London, 1878), 12,29,184, 186, 200, 205, 262, 296; ELY, Certain Brief Notes, etc. (Paris, 1603), 206.

G.E. HIND

Clazomenae

A titular see of Asia Minor. The city had been first founded on the southern shore of the Ionian Sea (now Gulf of Smyrna), about 15 miles from Smyrna; it was one of the twelve cities of the Ionian Confederation, and reached the acme of its importance under the Lydian kings. After the death of Croesus its inhabitants, through fear of the Persians, took refuge on the island opposite their town (today St. John’s Isle), which was joined to the mainland by Alexander the Great; the pier has been restored and is yet used as means of communication between the modern Vourla and the island, on which there is now an important quarantine hospital. Clazomenae is the birthplace of the philosophers Hermotimus and Anaxagoras. The see was a suffragan Ephesus. Lequien (I, 729) mentions two bishops: Eusebius, present at Ephesus and chalcedon, in 431 and 451; and Macarius, at the Eighth Ecumenical Council, in 869. When Smyrna was raised to the rank of a metropolis (perhaps as early as the sixth century) Clazomenae was attached to it, as is shown by Parthey’s “Notitiae,” 3 and 10. In 1387 it was given again to Ephesus by a synodal act of the patriarch Nilus (Miklosich and Müller, “Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopol.,” II, 103). After this date there is no apparent trace of its history; nothing remains of the city except the ancient pier.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Clean and Unclean

Clean and Unclean—The distinction between legal and ceremonial, as opposed to moral, cleanness and uncleanness which stands out so prominently in Mosaic legislation (q. v.).

Jan van Cleef

A Flemish painter, b. in Guelderland in 1646, d. at Ghent, 18 December, 1716. He was a pupil of Luigi Primo (Gentile) and Gaspard de Craeyer. When Craeyer died, Cleef was commissioned to complete his master’s work in the churches and to finish the cartoons for the tapestry ordered by Louis XIV. The churches and convents in Flanders and Brabant are rich in his paintings.

He was a splendid draughtsman, a good colourist celebrated for his management of drapery and for his charming portrayal of children’s heads and the attractive faces of his women. In a school pre-eminent in portraiture Jan held a high place. He accomplished a vast amount of work, all showing the influence of his masters and tending more to Italian than Flemish methods. His favourite subjects were Scriptural and religious, and his treatment of them was simple and broad. His masterpiece, “Nuns Giving Aid during the Plague,” in the convent of the Black Nuns, at Ghent, rivals the work of Van Dyck.

For bibliography, see CLEEF, Joost Van.

LEIGH HUNT

Joost van Cleef

(JOSSE VAN CLEVE).

The “Madman,” a Flemish painter born in Antwerp c. 1520, died c. 1556. He was one of twenty van Cleefs who painted in Antwerp, but whether the well-known Henry, Martin, and William (the younger) were kin of his cannot be determined. Of his father, William (the elder), we know only that he was a member of he Antwerp Academy, which body Joost joined. Joost was a brilliant and luminous colourist, rivalling, in this respect, the Italians, whose methods he followed. Severity and hardness of outline somewhat marred his otherwise fine draughtsmanship. Portraiture in the sixteenth century was represented by Joost van Cleef; and Kugler places him, artistically, between Holbein and Antonio Moro, his “Portrait of a Man” in Munich (Pinakotheck) being long attributed to Holbin. He painted in France, England, and Germany. The celebrated portrait painter of Cologne, Bruyn, was a pupil. Imaging himself unappreciated, he went to Spain and was presented to Phillip II by Moro, the court painter.

Because Henry VIII, according to English authorities chose Titian’s pictures in preference to his, van Cleef became infuriated, and his frenzy later developed into permanent insanity. The French contend that it was Philip, in Spain, who gave Titian the preference. The most distressing feature of Joost insanity was that he retouched and ruined his finished pictures whenever he could gain access to them, and his family finally had to place him under restraint. Beautiful altar-pieces by van Cleef are found in many Flemish churches, notably “The Last Judgment” (Ghent). Perhaps the most celebrated of his works is the “Baccus” (Amsterdam), whose young face is crowned with prematurely grey hair. “A Virgin” (Middleburg) is noteworthy as having a charming landscape for the background, a combination rare in those days. Other works are: “Portrait of the Painter and his wife,” at Windor Castle; “Portrait of a Young Man,” at Berlin; and “Portrait of a Man,” at Munich.

LEIGH HUNT

Martin Van Cleef

A Flemish painter, born at Antwerp in 1520; died in 1570; was the son of the painter William (the younger William) and was throughout his life closely associated with his brother Henry, who exerted great influence over his artistic career. Deschamps asserts that Martin and Joost were brothers, but the majority of writers on Flemish art agree that Joost was the son of the elder William. Martin studied under Franz Floris, “the incomparable Floris,” and at first exhibited a strong predilection for landscape work. Later on, however, persuaded by Henry, devoted himself wholly to figure-painting. Historical subjects were his favourites, but he also achieved great success in genre painting. The latter has been stigmatized as vulgar and suggestive, but while coarse, and reflecting the peasant life of the Flemings, it differed but little in this respect from canvases of the great Dutchmen. After a few early attempts in large compositions after the Italian manner of Floris, he painted small pictures only, and these with great spirit and thorough technic. His work is delicate and refined in treatment, harmonious in colour, and excellent in draughtsmanship.

Martin van Cleef painted in the landscapes the figures of many eminent contemporaries, Gilles and Franz Floris among them, and he continually collaborated with his brother Henry in that way. Henry reciprocated and added to Martin’s s figure-pieces landscape backgrounds charming in colour and design, and harmonizing well with the rest of the picture. On many of his works Martin painted, as a mark, a small ape—playing thus on his name—and in consequence is frequently called the “Master of the Ape.” He was admitted to the Antwerp Academy, and in 1551 became a member of the St. Luke’s Guild of Artists. He never travelled from his native Flanders, and died of gout at the age of fifty, leaving four sons—all of them painters.

LEIGH HUNT

Mathieu-Nicolas Poillevillain de Clémanges

(Or CLAMANGES)

A French Humanist and theologian, b. in Champagne about 1360; d. at Paris between 1434 and 1440. He made his studies in the College of Navarre at Paris, and in 1380 received the degree of Licentiate, later on that of Master of Arts. He studied theology under Gerson and Pierre d’Ailly, and received the degree of Bachelor of Theology in 1393. He had begun to lecture at the university in 1391 and was appointed its rector in 1393, a position he filled until 1395. The Church was then agitated by the Western Schism, and three methods were proposed to re-establish peace: compromise, concession, and a general council. From 1380 to 1394 the University of Paris advocated a general council. In 1394 another tendency was manifest; i.e. both Boniface IX and Clement VII were held responsible for the continuance of the schism, and their resignations decreed to be the means of obtaining peace. To this end a letter was written to King Charles VI by three of the most learned masters of the university, Pierre d’Ailly, Gilles des Champs, and Clémanges. The two first prepared the content, to which Clémanges gave a Ciceronian elegance of form. The letter was unsuccessful, and the university was ordered to abstain from further discussion. Clémanges, forced to resign the rectorship of the university, then became canon and dean of Saint-Clodoald (1395), and later on canon and treasurer of Langres. The antipope Benedict XIII, who admired his Latin style, took him for his secretary in 1397, and he remained at Avignon until 1408, when he abandoned Benedict because of the latter’s conflict with Charles VI. Clémanges now retired to the Carthusian monastery of Valfonds and later to Fontain-du-Bose. In these two retreats he wrote his best treatises, “De Fructu eremi” (dedicated to Pierre d’Ailly), “De Fructu rerum adversarum,” “De novis festivitatibus non instituendis,” and “De studio theologico,” in which latter work he exhibits his dislike for the Scholastic method in philosophy. In 1412 he returned to Langres, and was appointed Archdeacon of Bayeux. His voice was heard successively at the Council of Constance (1414), and at Chartres (1421), where he defended the “liberties” of the Gallican Church. In 1425 he was teaching rhetoric and theology in the College of Navarre, where, most probably, he died. Clémanges is also credited with the authorship of the work “De corrupto Ecclesiae statu,” first edited by Cordatus (possibly Hutten) in 1513, a violent attack on the morality and discipline of the contemporary Church; hence he is sometimes considered a Reformer of the type of Wyclif and Hus. Schubert, however, in his book “Ist Nicolaus von Clémanges der Verfasser des Buches De corrupto Ecclesiae statu?” (Grossenhain, 1882; Leipzig, 1888) has shown that, although a contemporary, Clémanges was not the author of the book. His works were edited in two volumes by J. Lydius, a Protestant minister of Frankfort (Leyden, 1613). His letters are in d’Achery (below) I, 473 sqq.

J. B. DELAUNAY.

Charles Clémencet

Benedictine historian, b. at Painblanc, in the department of Côte-d’Or, France, 1703; d. at Paris, 5 August, 1778. Clémencet entered the Congregation of Saint-Maur at an early age; for a short time he was lector of rhetoric at Pont-le-Voy, but, on account of his great abilities, was soon called to Paris. Here he took part in almost all of the important literary labours of his congregation, showing a marked preference for historical research. At first his superiors commissioned him to edit the “bibliotheca” (Myriobiblion) of Photius. Clémencet soon retired from this task and devoted all his powers to a chronological work for which Dantine, another member of the congregation, had made the preparatory studies. This chronology, Clémencet’s principal work, had the very prolix title: “l’art de vérifier les dates où faits historiques des chartes, des chroniques, et anciens monuments depuis la naissance de Jésus-Christ, par le moyen d’une table chronologique, ou l’on trouve les années de Jésus-Christ et de l’Ere d’Espagne, les Indictions, le Cycle pascal, les Pâques de chaque année, les Cycles solaires et lunaires. Avec un Calendrier perpétuel, l’Histoire abrégée des conciles, des papes, des empereurs romains, grecs, français, allemands et tures; des rois de France, d’Espagne et d’Angleterre, d’Ecosse, de Lombardie, de Sicile, de Jérusalem, etc., des duccs de Bourgogne, de Normandie, de Bretagne; des Comtes de Toulouse, de Champagne et de Blois par des religieux bénédictins de la congrégation de Saint Maur” (Paris, 1750). The work was compiled with extraordinary industry, and contains, as the title shows, a large amount of historical material. In its judgment of persons and facts, however, it betrayed a strong bias to Jansenism and Gallicanism, and was, consequently, frequently attacked, one opponent in particular being the Jesuit Patouillet. The assertion was made, and not without reason, that the title out to read: “L’art de vérifier les dates et falsifier les faits.”

Clémencet also wrote volumes X and XI, issued at Paris, 1756 and 1759, of the monumental work “Histoire littéraire de la France.” The volumes prepared by Clémencet are a rich collection of authorities and are of importance not only for the literary history of France but also for the history of the development of all the nations of the Middle Ages. It was intended that he should edit volume XII of the “Histoire littéraire,” preparing for it the life of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, but he gave up the undertaking and wrote instead an independent work entitled: “Histoire des vies et écrits de Saint-Bernard et de Pierre le Vénérable” (Paris, 1773). His strong predilection for Jansenism is shown in two of his writings, namely: “Histoire générale de Port-Royal depuis la reforme de cette abbaye jusqu’à son entiere destruction (10 vols., Amsterdam, 1755–1757), and “Conferences de la Mère Angélique de Saint-Jean, Abbesse de Port-Royal” (3 vols., Utrecht, 1760). Of the former of these two works only the first half could be published, as the second part contained too strong a defence of Jansenism. On account of his leaning to Jansenism, Clémencet was a bitter opponent of the Jesuits. He attacked them in several exceedingly sharp pamphlets and worked for the suppression of the Society. Among his literary labours should also be mentioned his share in an excellent edition of the works of St. Gregory of Nazianzus. Prudentius Maranus, another member of the Congregation of Saint-Maur, had begun the task. Clémencet issued the first volume under the title: “Gregorii Theologi opera quae extant omnia” (Paris, 1778). This edition is still valuable and far surpasses all the earlier editions.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Franz Jacob Clemens

A German Catholic philosopher, b. 4 October, 1815, at Coblenz; d. 24 February, 1862, at Rome. After spending some time in an educational institutional at Metz, he entered, at the age of sixteen, the Jesuit College of Fribourg, Switzerland, attended the Gymnasium at Coblenz, and thence passed to the University of Bonn. In 1835 he matriculated at the University of Berlin, where he devoted special attention to the study of philosophy and received the doctorate in philosophy (1839). At the end of a literary journey through German and Italy, he became, in 1843, instructor in philosophy at the University of Bonn, and taught there with great success until 1856. In 1848 he was elected a member of the Frankfort Parliament, and attended, at Mainz, the first General Congress of German Catholics, at which he suggested the foundation of the St. Vincent de Paul Society in Germany. In 1856 he was appointed professor of philosophy in the Academy of Munster. So great was his popularity as a teacher at Bonn that, when he removed to Munster, he was followed by some seventy students. The attendance at his lectures in the Westphalian capital was an extraordinarily large one; but his health failed after a few years. In 1861, upon the advice of his physicians, he sought relief in a southern climate; he died at Rome in the beginning of the following year and was buried at the Gesù.

Clemens was a layman of sound Catholic principles, who ably defended the Church even on theological questions. He published his first great work, “Giordano Bruno und Nikolaus von Cusa,” in 1847, at Bonn. He also wrote in defence of the Holy Coat of Trier, “Der heilige Rock zu Trier und die protestantische Kritik” (1845), against Gildemeister and von Sybel. His other principal writings were connected with two controversies in which he became involved. His book, “Die speculative Theologie A. Günthers” (Cologne, 1853), a clear demonstration of the contradiction between Catholic doctrine and the views of Günther, elicited answers from Professors Baltzer and Knoodt, to which Clemens replied. His “De Scholasticorum sententiâ, philosophiam esse theologiae ancillam, commentatio” (Münster, 1856) treated of the subordinate position which philosophy should occupy in regard to theology. It brought him into conflict with Professor Kuhn of Tübingen, against whom he published, in defence of his position: “Die Wahrheit etc.” (Münster, 1860) and “Über das Verhältniss, etc.” (Mainz, 1860).

Der Katholic (1862), I, 257–80; Lit. Handweiser (1862), 88–89; Stockl in Allg. deut. Biog. (Leipzig, 1876), IV, 315–17; Dublin Rev. (1862–63), LII, 417–18).

N.A. WEBER

Clemens non Papa

(Jacques Clement).

Representative of the Flemish or Netherland School of music of the sixteenth century; d. 1558. All that is known with reasonable certainty of his life is that he preceded Nicolas Gombert (1495–1570) as choirmaster at the court of Charles V. An indication of his fame is his nickname non Papa, given to distinguish him from the contemporaneous Pope Clement VII (1523–34). While his style is always noble and fluent, he shows the fault of his time and school of elaborating contrapuntal forms at the expense of a clear and distinct declamation of the text. Clemens was, nevertheless, one of the chief forerunners of Palestrina and Orlandus Lassus, who alone were able to overshadow him. Some of his more important works are: ten masses, one for six, five for five, and four for four voices, published by Petrus, Phalesius at Louvain (1555–80), a large number of motets, and four volumes of “Souter Liedekens,” that is psalms set to familiar Netherland melodies, published by Tylmann Susato at Antwerp (1556–57). Ambros, Gesch. der Musik (Leipzig, 1881); Riemann, Handbuch der Musikgeschichte (Leipzig, 1907).

JOSEPH OTTEN

Pope St. Clement I

Pope Clement I (called CLEMENS ROMANUS to distinguish him from the Alexandrian), is the first of the successors of St. Peter of whom anything definite is known, and he is the first of the “Apostolic Fathers.” His feast is celebrated 23 November. He has left one genuine writing, a letter to the Church of Corinth, and many others have been attributed to him.

I. THE FOURTH POPE

According to Tertullian, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time “most of the Latins” held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (De viris illustr., xv). St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, but here he correctly states that Clement was the fourth pope. The early evidence shows great variety. The most ancient list of popes is one made by Hegesippus in the time of Pope Anicetus, c. 160 (Harnack ascribes it to an unknown author under Soter, c. 170), cited by St. Epiphanius (Haer., xxvii, 6). It seems to have been used by St. Irenaeus (Haer., III, iii), by Julius Africanus, who composed a chronography in 222, by the third- or fourth-century author of a Latin poem against Marcion, and by Hippolytus, who see chronology extends to 234 and is probably found in the “Liberian Catalogue” of 354. That catalogue was itself adopted in the “Liber Pontificalis.” Eusebius in his chronicle and history used Africanus; in the latter he slightly corrected the dates. St. Jerome’s chronicle is a translation of Eusebius’s, and is our principal means for restoring the lost Greek of the latter; the Armenian version and Coptic epitomes of it are not to be depended on. The varieties of order are as follows:

Linus, Cletus, Clemens (Hegesippus, ap. Epiphanium, Canon of Mass).

Linus, Anencletus, Clemens (Irenaeus, Africanus ap. Eusebium).

Linus, Anacletus, Clemens (Jerome).

Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens (Poem against Marcion),

Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus [Hippolytus (?), “Liberian Catal.”- “Liber. Pont.”].

Linus, Clemens, Anacletus (Optatus, Augustine).

At the present time no critic doubts that Cletus, Anacletus, Anencletus, are the same person. Anacletus is a Latin error; Cletus is a shortened (and more Christian) form of Anencletus. Lightfoot thought that the transposition of Clement in the “Liberian Catalogue” was a mere accident, like the similar error “Anicetus, Pius” for “Pius Anicetus,” further on in the same list. But it may have been a deliberate alteration by Hippolytus, on the ground of the tradition mentioned by Tertullian. St. Irenaeus (III, iii) tells us that Clement “saw the blessed Apostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only for many were then surviving who had been taught y the Apostles “. Similarly Epiphanius tells us (from Hegesippus) that Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul. Now Linus and Cletus had each twelve years attributed to them in the list. If Hippolytus found Cletus doubled by an error (Cletus XII, Anacletus XII), the accession of Clement would appear to be thirty-six years after the death of the Apostles. As this would make it almost impossible for Clement to have been their contemporary, it may have caused Hippolytus to shift him to an earlier position. Further, St. Epiphanius says (loc. cit. ): “Whether he received episcopal ordination from Peter in the life-time of the Apostles, and declined the office, for he says in one of his epistles ‘I retire, I depart, let the people of God be in peace,’ (for we have found this set down in certain Memoirs), or whether he was appointed by the Bishop Cletus after he had succeeded the Apostles, we do not clearly know.” The “Memoirs” were certainly those of Hegesippus. It seems unlikely that he is appealed to only for the quotation from the Epistle, c. liv; probably Epiphanius means that Hegesippus stated that Clement had been ordained by Peter and declined to be bishop, but twenty-four years later really exercised the office for nine years. Epiphanius could not reconcile these two facts; Hippolytus seems to have rejected the latter.

CHRONOLOGY

The date intended by Hegesippus is not hard to restore. Epiphanius implies that he placed the martyrdom of the Apostles in the twelfth year of Nero. Africanus calculated the fourteenth year (for he had attributed one year too little to the reigns of Caligula and Claudius), and added the imperial date for the accession of each pope; but having two years too few up to Anicetus he could not get the intervals to tally with the years of episcopate given by Hegesippus. He had a parallel difficulty in his list of the Alexandrian bishops.

Hegesippus

Africanus (from Eusebius)

Interval

Real Dates A.D.

Linus

12

Nero

14

12

Nero

12

66

Cletus

12

Titus

2

12

Vesp

10

78

Clemens

9

Dom

12

(7)

Dom

10

80

Euaristus

8

Trajan

2

(10)

Tajan

2

99

Alexander

10

Trajan

12

10

Trajan

10

107

Sixtus

10

Hadrian

3

(9)

Hadrian

1

117

Telesphorus

11

Hadrian

12

(10)

Hadrian

11

127

Hyginus

4

Anton

1

4

Anton

1

138

Pius

15

Anton

5

15

Anton

5

142

Anicetus

Anton

20

Anton

20

157

If we start, as Hegesippus intended, with Nero 12 (see last column), the sum of his years brings us right for the last three popes. But Africanus has started two years wrong, and in order to get right at Hyginus he has to allow one year too little to each of the preceding popes, Sixtus and Telesphorus. But there is one inharmonious date, Trajan 2, which gives seven and ten years to Clement and Euaristus instead of nine and eight. Evidently he felt bound to insert a traditional date—and in fact we see that Trajan 2 was the date intended by Hegesippus. Now we know that Hegesippus spoke about Clement’s acquaintance with the Apostles, and said nothing about any other pope until Telesphorus, “who was a glorious martyr.” It is not surprising, then, to find that Africanus had, besides the lengths of episcopate, two fixed dates from Hegesippus, those of the death of Clement in the second year of Trajan, and of the martyrdom of Telesphorus in the first year of Antoninus Pius. We may take it, therefore, that about 160 the death of St. Clement was believed to have been in 99.

IDENTITY

Origen identifies Pope Clement with St. Paul’s fellow-labourer, Phil., iv, 3, and 80 do Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome—but this Clement was probably a Philippian. In the middle of the nineteenth century it was the custom to identity the pope with the consul of 95, T. Flavius Clemens, who was martyred by his first cousin, the Emperor Domitian, at the end of his consulship. But the ancients never suggest this, and the pope is said to have lived on till the reign of Trajan. It is unlikely that he was a member of the imperial family. The continual use of the Old Testament in his Epistle has suggested to Lightfoot, Funk, Nestle, and others that he was of Jewish origin. Probably he was a freedman or son of a freedman of the emperor’s household, which included thousands or tens of thousands. We know that there were Christians in the household of Nero (Phil., iv, 22). It is highly probable that the bearers of Clement’s letter, Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Vito, were of this number, for the names Claudius and Valerius occur with great frequency in inscriptions among the freedmen of the Emperor Claudius (and his two predecessors of the same gens) and his wife Valeria Messalina. The two messengers are described as “faithful and prudent men, who have walked among us from youth unto old age unblameably,” thus they were probably already Christians and living in Rome before the death of the Apostles about thirty years earlier. The Prefect of Rome during Nero’s persecution was Titus Flavius Sabinus, elder brother of the Emperor Vespasian, and father of the martyred Clemens. Flavia Domitilla, wife of the Martyr, was a granddaughter of Vespasian, and niece of Titus and Domitian; she may have died a martyr to the rigours of her banishment The catacomb of Domitilla is shown by existing inscriptions to have been founded by her. Whether she is distinct from another Flavia Domitilla, who is styled “Virgin and Martyr,” is uncertain. (See FLAVIA DOMITILLA and NEREUS AND ACHILLEUS) The consul and his wife had two sons Vespasian and Domitian, who had Quintilian for their tutor. Of their life nothing is known. The elder brother of the martyr Clemens was T. Flavius Sabinus, consul in 82, put to death by Domitian, whose sister he had married. Pope Clement is rep resented as his son in the Acts of Sts. Nereus and Achilleus, but this would make him too young to have known the Apostles.

MARTYRDOM

Of the life and death of St, Clement nothing is known. The apocryphal Greek Acts of his martyrdom were printed by Cotelier in his “Patres Apost.” (1724, I, 808; reprinted in Migne, P. G., II, 617, best edition by Funk, “Patr. Apost.,” II, 28). They relate how he converted Theodora, wife of Sisinnius, a courtier of Nerva, and (after miracles) Sisinnius himself and four hundred and twenty-three other persons of rank. Trajan banishes the pope to the Crimea, where he slakes the thirst of two thousand Christian confessors by a miracle. The people of the country are converted, seventy-five churches are built. Trajan, in consequence, orders Clement to be thrown into the sea with an iron anchor. But the tide every year recedes two miles, revealing a Divinely built shrine which contains the martyr’s bones. This story is not older than the fourth century. It is known to Gregory of Tours in the sixth. About 868 St. Cyril, when in the Crimea on the way to evangelize the Chazars, dug up some bones in a mound (not in a tomb under the sea), and also an anchor. These were believed to be the relics of St. Clement. They were carried by St. Cyril to Rome, and deposited by Adrian II with those of St. Ignatius of Antioch in the high altar of the basilica of St. Clement in Rome. The history of this translation is evidently quite truthful, but there seems to have been no tradition with regard to the mound, which simply looked a likely place to be a tomb. The anchor appears to be the only evidence of identity but we cannot gather from the account that it belonged to the scattered bones. (See Acta SS., 9 March, II, 20.) St. Clement is first mentioned as a martyr by Rufinus (c. 400). Pope Zozimus in a letter to Africa in 417 relates the trial and partial acquittal of the heretic Caelestius in the basilica of St. Clement; the pope had chosen this church because Clement had learned the Faith from St. Peter, and had given his life for it (Ep. ii). He is also called a martyr by the writer known as Praedestinatus (c. 430) and by the Synod of Vaison in 442. Modern critics think it possible that his martyrdom was suggested by a confusion with his namesake, the martyred consul. But the lack of tradition that he was buried in Rome is in favour of his having died in exile.

THE BASILICA

The church of St. Clement at Rome lies in the valley between the Esquiline and Coelian hills, on the direct road from the Coliseum to the Lateran. It is now in the hands of the Irish Province of Dominicans. With its atrium, its choir enclosed by a wall, its ambos, it is the most perfect model of an early basilica in Rome, though it was built as late as the first years of the twelfth century by Paschal II, after the destruction of this portion of the city by the Normans under Robert Guiscard. Paschal II followed the lines of an earlier church, on a rather smaller scale, and employed some of its materials and fittings The marble wall of the present choir is of the date of John II (533–5). In 1858 the older church was unearthed, below the present building, by the Prior Father Mulooly, O. P. Still lower were found chambers of imperial date and walls of the Republican period. The lower church was built under Constantine (d. 337) or not much later. St. Jerome implies that it was not new in his time: “nominis eius [Clementis] memoriam usque hodie Romae exstructa ecclesia custodit” (De viris illustr., xv). It is mentioned in inscriptions of Damasus (d. 383) and Siricius (d. 398). De Rossi thought the lowest chambers belonged to the house of Clement, and that the room immediately under the altar was probably the original memoria of the saint. These chambers communicate with a shrine of Mithras, which lies beyond the apse of the church, on the lowest level. De Rossi supposed this to be a Christian chapel purposely polluted by the authorities during the last persecution. Lightfoot has suggested that the rooms may have belonged to the house of T. Flavius Clemens the consul, being later mistaken for the dwelling of the pope; but this seems quite gratuitous. In the sanctuary of Mithras a statue of the Good Shepherd was found.

II. PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE WRITINGS

Many writings have been falsely attributed to Pope St. Clement I:

The “Second Clementine Epistle to the Corinthians,” discussed under III.

Two “Epistles to Virgins,” extant in Syriac in an Amsterdam MS. of 1470. The Greek originals are lost. Many critics have believed them genuine, for they were known in the fourth century to St. Epiphanius (who speaks of their being read in the Churches) and to St. Jerome. But it is now admitted on all hands that they cannot be by the same author as the genuine Epistle to the Corinthians. Some writers, as Hefele and Westcott, have attributed them to the second half Or the second century, but the third is more probable (Harnack, Lightfoot). Harnack thinks the two letters were originally one. They were first edited by Wetstein, 1470, with Latin translation, reprinted by Gallandi, “Bibl. vett. Patr.,” I, and Migne, P. G., I. They are found in Latin only in Mansi, “Concilia,” I, and Funk “Patres Apost.,” II. See Lightfoot, “Clement of Rome” (London, 1890), I Bardenhewer, “Gesch. der altkirchl. Litt.” (Freiburg im Br., 1902), I; Harnack in “Sitzungsber. der k. preuss. Akad. der Wiss.” (Berlin, 1891), 361 and “Chronol.” (1904), II, 133.

At the head of the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals stand five letters attributed to St. Clement. The first is the letter of Clement to James translated by Rufinus (see III); the second is another letter to James, found in many MSS. of the “Recognitions.” The other three are the work of Pseudo-Isidore (See FALSE DECRETALS.)

Ascribed to Clement are the “Apostolical Constitutions,” “Apostolic Canons,” and the “Testament of Our Lord,” also a Jacobite Anaphora (Renaudot, Liturg. Oriental. Coll., Paris, 1716, II; Migne, P.G., II). For other attributions see Harnack, “Gesch. der altchr. Lit.” I, 777–80. The “Clementines’ or Pseudo-Clementines. (q.v.)

III. THE EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS

The Church of Corinth had been led by a few violent spirits into a sedition against its rulers. No appeal seems to have been made to Rome, but a letter was sent in the name of the Church of Rome by St. Clement to restore peace and unity. He begins by explaining that his delay in writing has been caused by the sudden calamities which, one after another, had just been falling upon the Roman Church. The reference is clearly to the persecution of Domitian. The former high reputation of the Corinthian Church is recalled, its piety and hospitality, its obedience and discipline. Jealousy had caused the divisions; it was jealousy that led Cain, Esau, etc., into sin, it was jealousy to which Peter and Paul and multitudes with them fell victims. The Corinthians are urged to repent after the example of the Patriarchs, and to be humble like Christ himself. Let them observe order, as all creation does. A curious passage on the Resurrection is somewhat of an interruption in the sequence: all creation proves the Resurrection, and so does the phoenix, which every five hundred years consumes itself, that its offspring may arise out of its ashes (23–6). Let us, Clement continues, forsake evil and approach God with purity, clinging to His blessing, which the Patriarchs so richly obtained, for the Lord will quickly come with His rewards, let us look to Jesus Christ, our High-Priest, above the angels at the right hand of the Father (36). Discipline and subordination are necessary as in an army and in the human body, while arrogance is absurd for man is nothing. The Apostles foresaw feuds, and provided for a succession of bishops and deacons; such, therefore cannot be removed at pleasure. The just have always been persecuted. Read St. Paul’s first epistle to you, how he condemns party spirit. It is shocking that a few should disgrace the Church of Corinth. Let us beg for pardon- nothing is more beautiful than charity; it was shown by Christ when He gave His Flesh for our flesh, His Soul-for our souls; by living in this love, we shall be in the number of the saved through Jesus Christ, by Whom is glory to God for ever and ever, Amen (58). But if any disobey, he is in great danger; but we will pray that the Creator may preserve the number of His elect in the whole world.—Here follows a beautiful Eucharistic prayer (59–61). The conclusion follows: “We have said enough, on the necessity of repentance, unity, peace, for we have been speaking to the faithful, who have deeply studied the Scriptures, and will understand the examples pointed out, and will follow them. We shall indeed be happy if you obey. We have sent two venerable messengers, to show how great is our anxiety for peace among you” (62–4). “Finally may the all-seeing God and Master of Spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ and us through Him for a peculiar people, grant unto every soul that is called after His excellent and holy Name faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering, temperance, chastity, and soberness, that they may be well-pleasing unto His Name through our High Priest and Guardian. Jesus Christ, through whom unto Him be glory and majesty, might and honour, both now and for ever and ever, Amen. Now send ye back speedily unto us our messengers Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, together with Fortunatus also, in peace and with joy, to the end that they may the more quickly report the peace and concord which is prayed for and earnestly desired by us, that we also may the more speedily rejoice over your good order. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all men in all places who have been called by God and through Him, through whom is glory and honour, power and greatness and eternal dominion, unto Him, from the ages past and for ever and ever. Amen.” (64–5.) The style of the Epistle is earnest and simple, restrained and dignified, and sometimes eloquent. The Greek is correct, though not classical. The quotations from the Old Testament are long and numerous. The version of the Septuagint used by Clement inclines in places towards that which appears in the New Testament, yet presents sufficient evidence of independence; his readings are often with A, but are less often opposed to B than are those in the New Testament; occasionally he is found against the Septuagint with Theodotion or even Aquila (see H. B. Swete, Introd. to the 0. T. in Greek, Cambridge 1900). The New Testament he never quotes verbally. Sayings of Christ are now and then given, but not in the words of the Gospels. It cannot be proved, therefore, that he used any one of the Synoptic Gospels. He mentions St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, and appears to imply a second. He knows Romans and Titus, and apparently cites several other of St. Paul’s Epistles. But Hebrews is most often employed of all New Testament books. James, probably, and I Peter, perhaps, are referred to. (See the lists of citations in Funk and Lightfoot, Westcott and Zahn on the Canon, Introductions to Holy Scripture, such as those of Cornely, Zahn, etc., and “The New Test. in the Apost. Fathers,” by a Committee of the Oxford Society of Hist. Theology, Oxford, 1906.) The tone of authority with which the letter speaks is noteworthy, especially in the later part (56, 58, etc.): “But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him through us let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger; but we shall be guiltless of this sin” (59). “It may, perhaps, seem strange,” writes Bishop Lightfoot, “to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal domination. And yet undoubtedly this is the case.” (I, 70.)

DOCTRINE

There is little intentional dogmatic teaching in the Epistle, for it is almost wholly hortatory. A passage on the Holy Trinity is important. Clement uses the Old Testament affirmation “The Lord liveth,” substituting the Trinity thus: “As God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth and the Holy Spirit—the faith and hope of the elect, so surely he that performeth,” etc. (58). Christ is frequently represented as the High-Priest, and redemption is often referred to. Clement speaks strongly of justification by works. His words on the Christian ministry have given rise to much discussion (42 and 44): “The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles from Christ. Both [missions] therefore came in due order by the will of God. . . . . So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits, having proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons for those who should believe. And this in no new fashion, for it had indeed been written from very ancient times about bishops and deacons; for thus saith the Scripture: ‘I will appoint their bishops in justice and their deacons in faith”‘ (a strange citation of Is., lx, 17). . . .”And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the office of bishop. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they have given a law, so that, if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.” Rothe, Michiels (Origines de l’episcopat, Louvain, 1900, 197), and others awkwardly understand “if they, the Apostles, should fall asleep.” For epinomen dedokasin, which the Latin renders legem dederunt, Lightfoot reads epimonen dedokasin, “they have provided a continuance “. In any case the general meaning is clear, that the Apostles provided for a lawful succession of ministers. Presbyters are mentioned several times, but are not distinguished from bishops. There is absolutely no mention of a bishop at Corinth, and the ecclesiastical authorities there are always spoken of in the. plural. R. Sohm thinks there was as yet no bishop at Corinth when Clement wrote (so Michiels and many other Catholic writers; Lightfoot leaves the question open), but that a bishop must have been appointed in consequence of the letter; he thinks that Rome was the origin of all ecclesiastical institutions and laws (Kirchenrecht 189). Harnack in 1897 (Chronol., I) upheld the paradox that the Church of Rome was so conservative as to be governed by presbyters until Anicetus; and that when the list of popes was composed, c. 170, there had been a bishop for less than twenty years; Clement and others in the list were only presbyters of special influence.

The liturgical character of parts of the Epistle is elaborately -discussed by Lightfoot. The prayer (59–61) already mentioned, which reminds us of the Anaphora of early liturgies, cannot be regarded, says Duchesne, “as a reproduction of a sacred formulary but it is an excellent example of the style of solemn prayer in which the ecclesiastical leaders of that time were accustomed to express themselves at meetings for worship” (Origines du culte chret., 3rd ed., 50; tr., 50). The fine passage about Creation, 32–3, is almost in the style of a Preface, and concludes by introducing the Sanctus by the usual mention of the angelic powers: “Let us mark the whole host of the angels, how they stand by and minister unto His Will. For the Scripture saith: Ten thousand times ten thousand stood by Him, and thousands of thousands ministered unto Him, and they cried aloud: Holy holy, holy is the Lord of Sabaoth; all creation is full of His glory. Yea, and let us ourselves then being gathered together in concord with intentness of heart, cry unto Him.” The combination of Daniel, Vii, 10, with Is., vi, 3, may be from a liturgical formula. It is interesting to note that the contemporary Apocalypse of St. John (iv, 8) shows the four living creatures, representing all creation, singing the Sanctus at the heavenly Mass.

The historical references in the letter are deeply interesting: “To pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived very near to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation. By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even until death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter, who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one or two, but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed Place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance (5). It is obvious that these two Apostles are mentioned because they suffered at Rome. It seems that St. Paul went to Spain as he intended (Rom., xv, 28) and as is declared by the spurious Acts of Peter and by the Muratorian fragment. “Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the elect who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set a brave example among ourselves. By reason of jealousy women being persecuted, after that they had suffered cruel and unholy insults as Danaids and Dircae, safely reached the goal in the race of faith, and received a noble reward, feeble though they were in body” (6). The “vast multitude” both of men and women “among ourselves” at Rome refers to the horrible persecution of Nero, described by Tacitus, “Ann.,” XV, xliv. It is in the recent past, and the writer continues: “We are in the same lists, and the same contest awaits us” (7)- he is under another persecution, that of Domitian, covertly referred to as a series of “sudden and repeated calamities and reverses,” which have prevented the letter from being written sooner. The martyrdom of the Consul Clement (probably patron of the pope’s own family) and the exile of his wife will be among these disasters.

DATE AND AUTHENTICITY

The date of the letter is determined by these notices of persecution. It is strange that even a few good scholars (such as Grotius Grabe, Orsi, Uhlhorn, Hefele, Wieseler) should have dated it soon after Nero. It is now universally acknowledged, after Lightfoot, that it was written about the last year of Domitian (Harnack) or immediately after his death in 96 (Funk). The Roman Church had existed several decades, for the two envoys to Corinth had lived in it from youth to age. The Church of Corinth is called archai (47). Bishops and deacons have succeeded to bishops and deacons appointed by the Apostles (44). Yet the time of the Apostles is “quite lately” and “our own veneration” (5). The external evidence is in accord. The dates given for Clement’s episcopate by Hegesippus are apparently 90–99, and that early writer states that the schism at Corinth took place under Domitian (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, xvi, for kata ton deloumenon is meaningless if it is taken to refer to Clement and not to Domitian; besides, the whole of Eusebius’s account of that emperor’s persecution, III, xvii-xx, is founded on Hegesippus). St. Irenaeus says that Clement still remembered the Apostles, and so did many others, implying an interval of many years after their death. Volkmar placed the date in the reign of Hadrian, because the Book of Judith is quoted, which he declared to have been written in that reign. He was followed by Baur, but not by Hilgenfeld. Such a date is manifestly impossible, if only because the Epistle of Polycarp is entirely modelled on that of Clement and borrows from it freely. It is possibly employed by St. Ignatius, c. 107, and certainly in the letter of the Smyrnaeans on the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, c. 156.

The Epistle is in the name of the Church of Rome but the early authorities always ascribe it to Clement. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, wrote c. 170 to the Romans in Pope Soter’s time: “To-day we kept the holy day, the Lord’s day, and on it we read your letter- and we shall ever have it to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV, xxx). Hegesippus attributed the letter to Clement. Irenaeus, c. 180–5 perhaps using Hegesippus, says: “Under this Clement no small sedition took place among the brethren at Corinth and the Church of Rome sent a most sufficient letter to the Corinthians, establishing them in peace, and renewing their faith, and announcing the tradition it had recently received from the Apostles” (III, iii). Clement of Alexandria, c. 200, frequently quotes the Epistle as Clement’s, and so do Origen and Eusebius. Lightfoot and Harnack are fond of pointing out that we hear earlier of the importance of the Roman Church than of the authority of the Roman bishop. If Clement had spoken in his own name, they would surely have noted expressly that he wrote not as Bishop of Rome, but as an aged “presbyter” who had known the Apostles. St. John indeed was still alive, and Corinth was rather nearer to Ephesus than to Rome. Clement evidently writes officially, with all that authority of the Roman Church of which Ignatius and Irenaeus have so much to say.

THE SECOND LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS

An ancient homily by an anonymous author has come down to us in the same two Greek MSS. as the Epistle of Clement, and is called the Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. It is first mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxxvii), who considered it spurious, as being unknown to the ancients; he is followed (perhaps not independently) by Rufinus and Jerome. Its inclusion as a letter of Clement in the Codex Alexandrinus of the whole Bible in the fifth century is the earliest testimony to a belief in its authenticity; in the sixth century it is quoted by the Monophysite leaders Timothy of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch, and it was later known to many Greek writers. This witness is a great contrast to the very early veneration paid to the genuine letter. Hilgenfeld’s theory that it is the letter of Pope Soter to the Corinthians, mentioned by Dionysius in the fragment quoted above, was accepted by many critics, until the discovery of the end of the work by Bryennios showed that it was not a letter at all, but a homily. Still Harnack has again and again defended this view. An apparent reference to the Isthmian Games in ~7 suggests that the homily was delivered at Corinth; but this would be in character if it was a letter addressed to Corinth. Lightfoot and others think it earlier than Marcion, c. 140, but its reference to Gnostic views does not allow us to place it much earlier. The matter of the sermon is a very general exhortation, and there is no definite plan or sequence. Some citations from unknown Scriptures are interesting.

The editio princeps of the two “Epistles to the Corinthians” is that of Patrick Young, 1633 (2d ed., 1637), from the famous Codex Alexandrinus (A) of the whole Bible in Greek. A number of editions followed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (enumerated by Funk, Gebhardt, and Lightfoot). in the nineteenth we may notice those of C. J. Hefele (Tubingen, 1st ed., 1839), Jacobson (Oxford, 1st ed., 1840, etc.), Dressel (Leipzig, 1857), in the editions of the Apostolic Fathers by these writers. An edition by Bishop J. B. Lightfoot appeared in 1869 (London and Cambridge), one by J. C. M. Laurent in 1870 (Leipzig), and one by 0. von Gebhardt and A. Harnack in 1875 (Leipzig). All these editions are founded on the one MS., which gives both letters incompletely, and not always legibly. On its doubtful readings Tischendorf wrote in 1873 (Clementis Rom. Epistulae, Leipzig), and he gave a so-called facsimile in 1867 (Appendix codicum celeberrimorum Sinaitici et Vaticani, Leipzig). A photographic reproduction of the whole codex was published at the British Museum in 1879. In 1875 the complete text of both Epistles was published by Bryennios at Constantinople, from-a MS. in the Patriarchal library of that city. It was used in Hilgenfeld’s “Clementis Romani Epistulae” (2d ed., Leipzig, 1876), in the second edition of Gebhardt and Harnack (1876). In Lightfoot’s edition of 1877 (London) a Syriac version was also used for the first time. The MS. was written in 1170, and is in the Cambridge University Library. It has been published in full by R. L. Bensley and R. H. Kennett, “The Epistles of St. Clement to the Corinthians in Syriac” (London,1899). Dr. Funk’s “Opera Patrum Apostolicorum” first appeared in 1878–81 (Tubingen). The greut and comprehensive posthumous edition of Lightfoot’s “Clement of Rome” (which contains a photographic facsimile of the Constantinople MS.) was published in 1890 (2 vols. London). The Greek text and English translation are reprinted by Lightfoot, “The Apostolic Fathers” (1 vol., London, 1891). In 1878 Dom Germain Morin discovered a Latin translation of the genuine Epistle in an eleventh-century MS. in the library of the Seminary of Namur (Anecdota Maredsolana, 2 vols., “S. Clementis ad Corinthios Epistulae versio antiquissima,” Maredsous, 1894). The version is attributed to the second century by Harnack and others. It has been employed to correct the text in Funk’s latest edition (1901), and by R. Knopf, “Der erste Clemensbrief” (in “Texte und Unters.,” New Series, Leipzig, 1899). Besides Lightfoot’s excellent English rendering, there is a translation of the two Epistles in “Ante-Nicene Chr. Lit.” (Edinburgh, 1873, I).

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Pope Clement II

(Suidger)

Date of birth unknown; enthroned 25 December, 1046; d. 9 October, 1047. In the autumn of 1046 the King of Germany, Henry III, crossed the Alps at the head of a large army and accompanied by a brilliant retinue of the secular and ecclesiastical princes of the empire, for the twofold purpose of receiving the imperial crown and of restoring order in the Italian peninsula. The condition of Rome in particular was deplorable. In St. Peter’s, the Lateran, and St. Mary Major’s, sat three rival claimants to the papacy. (See Benedict IX.) Two of them, Benedict IX and Sylvester III, represented rival factions of the Roman nobility. The position of the third, Gregory VI, was peculiar. The reform party, in order to free the city from the intolerable yoke of the House of Tusculum, and the Church from the stigma of Benedict’s dissolute life, had stipulated with that stripling that he should resign the tiara upon receipt of a certain amount of money. That this heroic measure for delivering the Holy See from destruction was simoniacal, has been doubted by many; but that it bore the outward aspect of simony and would be considered a flaw in Gregory’s title, consequently in the imperial title Henry was seeking, was the opinion of that age.

Strong in the consciousness of his good intentions, Gregory met King Henry at Piacenza, and was received with all possible honours. It was decided that he should summon a synod to meet at Sutri near Rome, at which the entire question should be ventilated. The proceedings of the Synod of Sutri, 20 December, are well summarized by Cardinal Newman in his “Essays Critical and Historical” (II, 262 sqq.). Of the three papal claimants, Benedict refused to appear; he was again summoned and afterwards pronounced deposed at Rome. Sylvester was “stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a monastery.” Gregory showed himself to be, if not an idiota, at least a man miræ simplicitatis, by explaining in straightforward speech his compact with Benedict, and he made no other defence than his good intentions, and deposed himself (Watterich, Vitæ Rom. Pont., I, 76); an act by some interpreted as a voluntary resignation, by others (Hefele), in keeping with the contemporary annals, as a deposition by the synod. The Synod of Sutri adjourned to meet again in Rome 23 and 24 December. Benedict, failing to appear, was condemned and deposed in contumaciam, and the papal chair was declared vacant. As King Henry was not yet crowned emperor, he had no canonical right to take part in the new election; but the Romans had no candidate to propose and begged the monarch to suggest a worthy subject.

Henry’s first choice, the powerful Adalbert, Archbishop of Bremen, positively refused to accept the burden and suggested his friend Suidger, Bishop of Bamberg. In spite of the latter’s protests, the king took him by the hand and presented him to the acclaiming clergy and people as their spiritual chief. Suidger’s reluctance was finally overcome, though he insisted upon retaining the bishopric of his beloved see. He might be pardoned for fearing that the turbulent Romans would ere long send him back to Bamberg. Moreover, since the king refused to give back to the Roman See its possessions usurped by the nobles and the Normans, the pope was forced to look to his German bishopric for financial support. He was enthroned in St. Peter’s on Christmas Day and took the name of Clement II. He was born in Saxony of noble parentage, was first a canon in Halberstadt, then chaplain at the court of King Henry, who on the death of Eberhard, the first Bishop of Bamberg, appointed him to that important see. He was a man of strictest integrity and severe morality. His first pontifical act was to place the imperial crown upon his benefactor and the queen-consort, Agnes of Aquitaine. The new emperor received from the Romans and the pope the title and diadem of a Roman Patricius, a dignity which, since the tenth century, owing to the uncanonical pretensions of the Roman aristocracy, was commonly supposed to give the bearer the right of appointing the pope, or, more exactly speaking, of indicating the person to be chosen (Hefele). Had not God given His Church the inalienable right of freedom and independence, and sent her champions determined to enforce this right, she would now have simply exchanged the tyrrany of Roman factions for the more serious thraldom to a foreign power. The fact that Henry had protected the Roman Church and rescued her from her enemies gave him no just claim to become her lord and master. Short-sighted reformers, even men like St. Peter Damiani (Opusc., VI, 36) who saw in this surrender of the freedom of papal elections to the arbitrary will of the emperor the opening of a new era, lived long enough to regret the mistake that was made. With due recognition of the prominent part taken by the Germans in the reformation of the eleventh century, we cannot forget that neither Henry III nor his bishops understood the importance of absolute independence in the election of the officers of the Church. This lesson was taught them by Hildebrand, the young chaplain of Gregory VI, whom they took to Germany with his master, only to return with St. Leo IX to begin his immortal career. Henry III, the sworn enemy of simony, never took a penny from any of his appointees, but he claimed a right of appointment which virtually made him head of the Church and paved the way for intolerable abuses under his unworthy successors.

Clement lost no time in beginning the work of reform. At a great synod in Rome, January, 1047, the buying and selling of things spiritual was punished with excommunication; anyone who should knowingly accept ordination at the hands of a prelate guilty of simony was ordered to do canonical penance for forty days. A dispute for precedence between the Sees of Ravenna, Milan, and Aquileia was settled in favour of Ravenna, the bishop of which was, in the absence of the emperor, to take his station at the pope’s right. Clement accompanied the emperor in a triumphal progress through Southern Italy and placed Benevento under an interdict for refusing to open its gates to them. Proceeding with Henry to Germany, he canonized Wiborada, a nun of St. Gall, martyred by the Huns in 925. On his way back to Rome he died near Pesaro. That he was poisoned by the partisans of Benedict IX is a mere suspicion without proof. He bequeathed his mortal remains to Bamberg, in the great cathedral of which his marble sarcophagus is to be seen at the present day. He is the only pope buried in Germany. Many zealous ecclesiastics, notably the Bishop of Liège, now exerted themselves to reseat in the papal chair Gregory VI, whom, together with his chaplain, Henry held in honourable custody; but the emperor unceremoniously appointed Poppo, Bishop of Brixen, who took the name of Damasus II. (See Gregory VI; Benedict IX.)

BARONIUS, Annales Eccl., ad ann. 1046, 1047; LAFITEAU, La vie de Clément II (Padua, 1752); WILL, Die Anfänge der Restauration der Kirche im XI. Jahrhundert (Marburg, 1859); WITTMANN, Clemens II. in Archiv. f. kathol. Kirchenrecht (1884), LI, 238; VON REUMONT, Gesch. d. Stadt Rom (Berlin, 1867), II, 339–44; ARTAUD DE MONTOR, History of the Roman Pontiffs (New York, 1867); HEINEMANN, Der Patriziat d. deutschen Könige (Halle, 1887); HEFELE, Conciliengesch., IV, 7606–14.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Clement III

(Paolo Scolari).

Date of birth unknown; elected 19 December, 1187; d. 27 March, 1191. During the short space (1181–1198) which separated the glorious pontificates of Alexander III and Innocent III, no less than five pontiffs occupied in rapid succession the papal chair. They were all veterans trained in the school of Alexander, and needed only their earlier youthful vigour and length of reign to gain lasting renown in an age of great events. Gregory VIII, after a pontificate of two months, died on 17 December, 1187, at Pisa, whither he had gone to expedite the preparations for the recovery of Jerusalem; he was succeeded two days later by the Cardinal-Bishop of Palestrina, Paolo Scolari, a Roman by birth. The choice was particularly acceptable to the Romans; for he was the first native of their city who was elevated to the papacy since their rebellion in the days of Arnold of Brescia, and his well-known mildness and love of peace turned their thoughts towards a reconciliation, more necessary to them than to the pope. Overtures led to the conclusion of a formal treaty, by which the papal sovereignty and the municipal liberties were equally secured; and in the following February Clement made his entry into the city amid the boundless enthusiasm of a population which never seemed to have learned the art of living either with or without the pope.

Seated in the Lateran, Pope Clement turned his attention to the gigantic task of massing the forces of Christendom against the Saracens. He was the organizer of the Third Crusade; and if that imposing expedition produced insignificant results, the blame nowise attaches to him. He dispatched legates to the different courts, who laboured to restore harmony among the belligerent monarchs and princes, and to divert their energy towards the reconquest of the Holy Sepulchre. Fired by the example of the Emperor Barbarossa and of the Kings of France and England, a countless host of Christian warriors took the road which led them to Palestine and death. At the time of Clement’s death, just before the capture of Acre, the prospects, notwithstanding the drowning of Barbarossa and the return of Philip Augustus, still seemed bright enough.

The death of the pope’s chief vassal, William II of Sicily, precipitated another unfortunate quarrel between the Holy See and the Hohenstaufen. Henry VI, the son and successor of Barbarossa, claimed the kingdom by right of his wife Constanza, the only legitimate survivor of the House of Roger. The pope, whose independence was at an end, if the empire and the Two Sicilies were held by the same monarch, as well as the Italians who detested the rule of a foreigner, determined upon resistance, and when the Sicilians proclaimed Tancred of Lecce, a brave but illegitimate scion of the family of Roger, as king, the pope gave him the investiture. Henry advanced into Italy with a strong army to enforce his claim; an opportune death reserved the continuation of the contest to Clement’s successor, Celestine III. By a wise moderation Clement succeeded in quieting the disturbances caused by contested elections in the Dioceses of Trier in Germany and St. Andrews in Scotland. He also delivered the Scottish Church from the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of York and declared it directly subject to the Holy See. Clement canonized Otto of Bamberg, the Apostle of Pomerania (d. 1139), and Stephen of Thiers in Auvergne, founder of the Hermits of Grammont (d. 1124).

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Clement IV

(GUIDO LE GROS).

Born at Saint-Gilles on the Rhone, 23 November, year unknown; elected at Perugia 5 February, 1265; d. at Viterbo, 29 November, 1268. After the death of Urban IV (2 October, 1264), the cardinals, assembled in conclave at Perugia, discussed for four monthe the momentous question whether the Church should continue the war to the end against the House of Hohenstaufen by calling in Charles of Anjou, the youngest brother of St. Louis of France, or find some other means of securing the independence of the papacy. No other solution offering itself, the only possible course was to unite upon the Cardinal-Bishop of Sabina, by birth a Frenchman and a subject of Charles. Guido Le Gros was of noble extraction. When his mother died, his father, the knight Foulquois, entered a Carthusian monastery where he ended a saintly life. Guido married, and for a short time wielded the spear and the sword. Then devoting himself to the study of law under the able direction of the famous Durandus, he gained a national reputation as an advocate. St. Louis, who entertained a great respect and affection for him, took him into his cabinet and made him one of his trusted councillors. His wife died, leaving him two daughters, whereupon he imitated his father to the extent that he gave up worldly concerns and took Holy orders.

His rise in the Church was rapid; 1256, he was Bishop of Puy; 1259, Archbishop of Narbonne; December, 1261, Cardinal-Bishop of Sabina. He was the first cardinal created by Urban IV (Babel, Hierarchia Catholica, 7). He was in France, returning from an important legation to England, when he received an urgent message from the cardinals demanding his immediate presence in Perugia. Not until he entered the conclave, was he informed that the unanimous vote of the Sacred College had confided into his hands the destinies of the Catholic Church. He was astonished; for only a man of his large experience could fully realize the responsibility of him whose judgment, at this critical juncture, must irrevocably shape the course of Italian and ecclesiastical history for centuries to come. His prayers and tears failing to move the cardinals, he reluctantly accepted the heavy burden, was crowned at Viterbo, 22 February, and, to honour the saint of his birthday, assumed the name of Clement IV. His contemporaries are unanimous and enthusiastic in extolling his exemplary piety and rigorously ascetic life. He had a remarkable aversion to nepotism. His first act was to forbid any of his relatives to come to the Curia, or to attempt to derive any sort of temporal advantage from his elevation. Suitors for the hands of his daughters were admonished that their prospective brides were “children not of the pope, but of Guido Grossus,” and that their dowers should be extremely modest. The two ladies preferred the seclusion of the convent.

The Neapolitan question occupied, almost exclusively, the thoughts of Clement IV during his short pontificate of 3 years, 9 months, and 25 days, which, however, witnessed the two decisive battles of Benevento and Tagliacozzo (1268), and the execution of Conradin. The negotiations with Charles of Anjou had progressed so far under the reign of Urban IV that it is difficult to see how the pope could now well draw back, even were he so inclined. But Clement had no intention of doing so. The power of Manfred and the insecurity of the Holy See were increasing daily. Clement had already, as cardinal, taken an active part in the negotiations with Charles and now exerted himself to the utmost in order to supply the ambitious but needy adventurer with troops and money. Papal legates and mendicant friars appeared upon the scene, preaching a formal crusade, with the amplest indulgences and most lavish promises. Soldiers were obtained in abundance among the warlike chivalry of France; the great difficulty was to find money with which to equip and maintain the army. The clergy and people failed to detect a crusade in what they deemed a personal quarrel of the pope, a “war hard by the Lateran, and not with Saracens nor with Jews” (Dante, Inf., canto xxvii); though, in reality, Saracens, implanted in Italy by Frederick II, made up the main strength of Manfred’s army. Although reduced at times to utter destitution, and forced to pledge everything of value and to borrow at exorbitant rates, the pope did not despair; the expedition arrived, and from the military point of view achieved a brilliant success.

Charles, preceding his army, came to Rome by sea, and upon the conclusion of a treaty, by which the liberties of the Church and the overlordship of the Holy See seemed to be most firmly secured, he received the investiture of his new kingdom. On 6 January, 1266, he was solemnly crowned in St. Peter’s; not, as he had wished, by the pope, who took up his residence in Viterbo and never saw Rome, but by cardinals designated for the purpose. On 22 February was fought the battle of Benevento, in which Charles was completely victorious; Manfred was found among the slain. Naples opened her gates and the Angevin dynasty was established. Though a good general, Charles had many weaknesses of character that made him a very different ruler from his saintly brother. He was harsh, cruel, grasping, and tyrannical. Clement was kept busy reminding him of the terms of his treaty, reproving his excesses and those of his officials, and warning him that he was gaining the enmity of his subjects. Nevertheless, when a little later, young Conradin, disregarding papal censure and anathemas, advanced to the conquest of what he deemed his birthright, Clement remained faithful to Charles and prophesied that the gallant youth, received by the Ghibelline party everywhere, even in Rome, with unbounded enthusiasm, “was being led like a lamb to the slaughter,” and that “his glory would vanish like smoke,” a prophecy only too literally fulfilled when, after the fatal day of Tagliacozzo (23 August, 1268), Conradin fell into Charles’ merciless hands and was beheaded (29 October) on the marketplace of Naples. The fable that Pope Clement advised the execution of the unfortunate prince by saying “The death or life of Conradin means the life or death of Charles,” is of a later date, and opposed to the truth. Even the statement of Gregorovius that Clement became an accomplice by refusing to intercede for Conradin, is equally groundless; for it has been shown conclusively, not only that he pleaded for his life and besought St. Louis to add the weight of his influence with his brother, but, moreover, that he sternly reproved Charles for his cruel deed when it was perpetrated. Clement followed “the last of the Hohenstaufen” to the grave just one month later, leaving the papacy in a much better condition than when he received the keys of St. Peter. He was buried in the church of the Dominicans at Viterbo. Owing to divergent views among the cardinals, the papal throne remained vacant for nearly three years. In 1268, Clement canonized St. Hedwig of Poland (d. 1243).

JORDAN, Le registres de Clément IV (Paris, 1893, sqq.); Life and Letters in MANSI, XIV, 325; HEIDEMANN, Papst Klemens IV. (Mü, 1903, pt. 1); HEFELE, Concilieng. VI, 1–265; HERGENRÖTHER -KIRSCH, Kirchengesch., 4th ed. (Freiburg, 1904), II, 566; PRIEST, Hist. de la Conquéte de Naples par Charles d’Anjou (Paris, 1841); BRAYDA, La risponsabilitá di Clemente IV e di Carlo X d’Anjou nella morte di Corradino di Soevia (Naples, 1900).

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Clement V

(BERTRAND DE GOT.)

Born at Villandraut in Gascony, France, 1264; died at Roquemaure, 20 April, 1314. He was elected, 5 June, 1305, at Perugia as successor to Benedict XI, after a conclave of eleven months, the great length of which was owing to the French and Italian factions among the cardinals. Ten of the fifteen (mostly Italian) cardinals voting elected him. Giovanni Villani’s story (Hist. Florent., VIII, 80, in Muratori, SS. RR. Ital., XIII, 417; cf. Raynald, Ann. Eccl., 1305, 2–4) of a decisive influence of Philip the Fair, and the new pope’s secret conference with and abject concessions to that king in the forest of Saint-Jean-d’Angély, is quite unhistorical; on the other hand, the cardinals were willing to please the powerful French king whom the late Benedict XI had been obliged to placate by notable concessions, and it is not improbable that some kind of a mutual understanding was reached by the king and the future pope. As Archbishop of Bordeaux, Bertrand de Got was actually a subject of the King of England, but from early youth he had been a personal friend of Philip the Fair. Nevertheless, he had remained faithful to Boniface VIII. The new pope came from a distinguished family. An elder brother had been Archbishop of Lyons, and died (1297) as Cardinal-Bishop of Albano and papal legate in France. Bertrand studied the arts at Toulouse and canon and civil law at Orléans and Bologna. He had been successively canon at Bordeaux, vicar-general of the Archbishop of Lyons (his aforesaid brother), papal chaplain, Bishop of Comminges under Boniface VIII, and eventually Archbishop of Bordeaux, then a difficult office because of the persistent conflict between England and France for the possession of Normandy. The cardinals besought him to come to Perugia and go thence to Rome for his coronation, but he ordered them to repair to Lyons, where he was crowned (14 November, 1305) in presence of Philip the Fair and with great pomp. During the usual public procession the pope was thrown from his horse by a falling wall; one of his brothers was killed on that occasion, also the aged Cardinal Matteo Orsini who had taken part in twelve conclaves and seen thirteen popes. The most precious jewel in the papal tiara (a carbuncle) was lost that day, an incident prophetically interpreted by German and Italian historians, and the next day another brother was slain in a quarrel between servants of the new pope and retainers of the cardinals. For some time (1305- 1309), Pope Clement resided at different places in France (Bordeaux, Poitiers, Toulouse), but finally took up his residence at Avignon, then a fief of Naples, though within the County of Venaissin that since 1228 acknowledged the pope as overlord (in 1348 Clement VI purchased Avignon for 80,000 gold gulden from Joanna of Naples). Strong affection for his native France and an equally influential fear of the quasi-anarchical conditions of Italy, and in particular of the States of the Church and the city of Rome, led him to this fateful decision, whereby he exposed himself to the domination of a civil ruler (Philip the Fair), whose immediate aims were a universal French monarchy and a solemn humiliation of Pope Boniface VIII in return for the latter’s courageous resistance to Philip’s cunning, violence, and usurpations (Hergenröther).

STATES OF THE CHURCH

The government of the States of the Church was committed by Clement to a commission of three cardinals, while at Spoleto his own brother, Arnaud Garsias de Got, held the office of papal vicar. Giacomo degli Stefaneschi, a senator and popular chief, governed within the city in a loose and personal way. Confusion and anarchy were prevalent, owing to the implacable mutual hatred of the Colonna and Orsini, the traditional turbulence of the Romans, and the frequent angry conflicts between the people and the nobles, conditions which had been growing worse all through the thirteenth century and had eventually driven even the Italian popes to such outside strongholds as Viterbo, Anagni, Orvieto, and Perugia. No more graphic illustration of the local conditions at Rome and in the Patrimony of Peter could be asked than the description of Nicholas of Butrinto, the historiographer of Emperor Henry VII, on his fateful Roman expedition of 1312 [see Von Raumont, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, Berlin, 1867, II (1), 745–65]. Among the untoward Roman events of Pope Clement’s reign was the conflagration 6 May, 1308, that destroyed the church of St. John Lateran, soon rebuilt, however, by the Romans with the aid of the pope. Clement did not hesitate to try the conclusions of war with the Italian state of Venice that had unjustly seized on Ferrara, a fief of the Patrimony of Peter. When excommunication, interdict, and a general prohibition of all commercial intercourse failed, he outlawed the Venetians, and caused a crusade to be preached against them; finally his legate, Cardinal Pélagrue, overthrew in a terrific battle the haughty aggressors (28 August, 1309). The papal vicariate of Ferrara was then conferred on Robert of Naples, whose Catalonian mercenaries, however, were more odious to the people than the Venetian usurpers. In any case, the smaller powers of Italy had learned that they could not yet strip with impunity the inheritance of the Apostolic See, and an example was furnished which the greatest soldier of the papacy, Gil d’Albornoz (q.v.), would better before the century was over.

PROCESS OF BONIFACE VIII

Almost at once King Philip demanded from the new pope a formal condemnation of the memory of Boniface VIII; only thus could the royal hate be placated. The king wished the name of Boniface stricken from the list of popes as a heretic, his bones disinterred, burned, and the ashes scattered to the winds. This odious and disgraceful step Clement sought to avert, partly by delay, partly by new favours to the king; he renewed the absolution granted the king by Benedict XI, created nine French cardinals out of a group of ten, restored to the Colonna cardinals their places in the Sacred College, and accorded the king titles of church property for five years. Finally, he withdrew the Bull “Clericis Laicos,” though not the earlier legislation on which it was based, and declared that the doctrinal Bull “Unam Sanctam” affected in no disadvantageous manner the meritorious French king, and implied for him and his kingdom no greater degree of subjection to the papal see than formerly existed. The pope was also helpful to Charles of Valois, the king’s brother, and pretender to the imperial throne of Constantinople, by granting him a two years’ tithe of church revenues; Clement hoped that a crusade operating from a reconquered Constantinople would be successful. In May, 1307, at Poitiers, where peace was made between England and France, Philip again insisted on a canonical process for condemnation of the memory of Boniface VIII, as a heretic, a blasphemer, an immoral priest, etc. Eventually, the pope made answer that so grave a matter could not be settled outside of a general council, and the king for a while seemed satisfied with this solution. Nevertheless, he returned frequently and urgently to his proposition. It was in vain that the pope exhibited a willingness to sacrifice the Templars (see below); the merciless king, sure of his power, pressed for the opening of this unique trial, unheard of since the time of Pope Formosus. Clement had to yield, and designated 2 February, 1309, as the date, and Avignon as the place for the trial of his dead predecessor on the shameful charges so long colported about Europe by the Colonna cardinals and their faction. In the document (citation) that called (13 September, 1309) for the witnesses, Clement expressed his personal conviction of the innocence of Boniface, at the same time his resolution to satisfy the king. Though the pope had soon (2 February, 1310) to protest against a false interpretation of his own words, the process was really begun in a consistory of 16 March, 1310, at Avignon. Much delay followed, on one side and the other, apropos chiefly of methods of procedure. Early in 1311, witnesses were examined outside of Avignon, in France, and in Italy, but by French commissaries and mostly on the above-mentioned charges of the Colonna (see BONIFACE VIII). Finally, in February, 1311, the king wrote to Clement abandoning the process to the future council (of Vienne) or to the pope’s own action, and promising to cause the withdrawal of the charges; at the same time he protested that his intentions had been pure. One price of these welcome concessions was a formal declaration by Pope Clement (27 April, 1311) of the king’s innocence and that of his friends; these representatives of France, the “Israel of the New Alliance,” had acted, said the pope, in good faith and with a pure zeal, nor should they fear in the future any canonical detriment from the events of Anagni. William Nogaret was excepted, but on his protestation of innocence, and at the intercession of Philip, a penance was imposed on him and he too received absolution. Only those who detained ecclesiastical property were finally excluded from pardon. The religious zeal of Philip was again acknowledged; all papal acts detrimental to him and his kingdom since November, 1302, were rescinded; the erasures are yet visible in the “Regesta” of Boniface VIII, in the Vatican Archives (see Tosti, “Storia di Bonifazio VIII,” Rome, 1886, II, 343–44). This painful situation was closed for Clement V by the Council of Vienne (16 October, 1311), most of whose members were personally favourable to Boniface. It is not certain that the council took up formally the question of the guilt or innocence of Boniface. In their present shape the official Acts of the council are silent, nor do all contemporary writers mention it as a fact. It is true that Giovanni Villani describes Philip and his counsellors as urgent for the condemnation of Boniface by the council, but, he says, the memory of the pope was formally purged from all adverse charges by three cardinals and several jurists; moreover, three Catalonian knights offered to defend with their swords the good name of the Gaetani pope against all comers, whereupon the king yielded, and demanded only that he be declared guiltless of any responsibility for the turn affairs had taken. With the death of his personal enemies, opposition to Boniface diminished, and his legitimacy was no longer denied even in France (Balan, “Il processo di Bonifazio VIII,” Rome, 1881).

CLEMENT V AND THE TEMPLARS

Since the final expulsion (1291) of the crusading forces from the Holy Land, the ecclesiastico-military orders in Europe had aroused much adverse criticism, partly because to their jealousies (Templars, Hospitallers or Knights of St. John, Teutonic Order) was attributed the humiliating defeat, partly because of the vast wealth they had acquired in their short existence. The Templars (so-called from the Temple of Jerusalem, pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici, i.e. poor fellow-soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon) were the richest. Their fortress-like monasteries, known as Temples, arose in every European land, and by the end of the thirteenth century sheltered the chief banking- system of Europe; the knights were trusted by popes and kings and by persons of wealth because of their uprightness, the good management of their affairs, and their solid credit based on the countless estates of the order and its widespread financial relations. Already before the accession of Pope Clement, their status was growing perilous; apart from the envy aroused by their riches, accusations of pride, exclusiveness, usurpation of episcopal rights, etc. were raised against them. They had resisted several attempts to unite their order with the Hospitallers, and while it is no longer easy to fix the degree of their popularity with the common people, it is certain that in many quarters of Europe they had aroused the cupidity of princes and the jealousy of many higher ecclesiastics, especially in France; without the co-operation of the latter they could never have fallen in so tragic a manner. Their story is told in full in the article; hence, to avoid repetition, it will suffice to mention here the principal facts. In the first year of the pontificate of Clement V the French king began to demand from the pope the suppression of this ecclesiastical order and to set afoot a campaign of violence and calumny such as had so far succeeded in the case of Boniface VIII. If the pope, as was naturally to be feared, refused finally to yield in the matter of the process against his predecessor’s memory, he would surely be glad to buy relief with the sacrifice of the Templars. Owing to the weakness and irresolution of Pope Clement, the royal plan succeeded. After an unsuccessful attempt of the pope (in August, 1307) to unite the Templars and the Hospitallers, he yielded to the demands of King Philip and ordered an investigation of the order, against which the king brought charges of heresy (renunciation of Christ, immorality, idolatry, contempt of the Mass, denial of the sacraments, etc.). Philip, however, did not wait for the ordinary operation of the Inquisition, but, with the aid of his confessor, Guillaume de Paris (the inquisitor of France), and his clever, unscrupulous jurists (Nogaret, de Plaisians, Enguerrand de Marigny) struck suddenly at the whole order, 12 October, 1307, by the arrest at Paris of Jacques de Molay, the Grand Commander, and one hundred and forty knights, followed by the inquisitor’s mandate to arrest all other members throughout France, and by royal sequestration of the property of the order. Public opinion was cunningly and successfully forestalled by the aforesaid jurists. It was also falsely made to appear that the pope approved, or was consentingly aware, of the royal action, while the co-operation of French inquisitors and bishops put the seal of ecclesiastical approval on an act that was certainly so far one of gross injustice.

While Philip invited the other princes of Europe to follow his example, Clement V protested (27 October) against the royal usurpation of the papal authority, demanded the transfer to his own custody of the prisoners and their property, and suspended the inquisitional authority of the king’s ecclesiastic and the French bishops. Philip made an apparent submission, but in the meantime Clement had issued another Bull (22 November) commanding an investigation of the anti-Templar charges in all European countries. (It may be said at once that the results were generally favourable to the order; nowhere, given the lack of torture, were confessions obtrained like those secured in France.) The feeble efforts of Clement to obtain for the order strict canonical justice (he was himself an excellent canonist) were counteracted by the new Bull that dignified and seemed to confirm the charges of the French king, neither then nor later supported by any material evidence or documents outside of his own suborned witnesses and the confessions of the prisoners, obtained by torture or by other dubious methods of their jailers, none of whom dared resist the well-known will of Philip. The alleged secret Rule of the Templars, authorizing the aforesaid charges, was never produced. In the meantime William Nogaret had been busy defaming Pope Clement, threatening him with charges not unlike those pending against Boniface VIII, and working up successfully an anti- Templar public opinion against the next meeting (May, 1308) of the States-General. In July of that year it was agreed between the pope and the king that the guilt or innocence of the order itself should be separated from that of its individual (French) members. The former was reserved to a general council, soon to be convoked at Vienne in Southern France, and to prepare evidence for which, apart from the examinations now going on through Europe, and a hearing before the pope of seventy-two members of the order brought from the prisons of Philip (all of whom confessed themselves guilty of heresy and prayed for absolution), there were appointed various special commissions, the most important of which began its sessions at Paris in August, 1309. Its members, acting in the name and with the authority of the pope, were opposed to the use of torture, hence before them hundreds of knights maintained freely the innocence of the order, while many of those who had formerly yielded to the diocesan inquisitors now retracted their avowals as contrary to truth. When Nogaret and de Plaisians saw the probable outcome of the hearings before the papal commissions, they precipitated matters, caused the Archbishop of Sens (brother of Enguerrand de Marigny) to call a provincial council (Sens was then metropolitan of Paris and seat of the local inquisition tribunal), at which were condemned, as relapsed heretics, fifty-four knights who had recently withdrawn before the papal commissioners their former confessions on the plea that they had been given under torture and were quite false. That same day (12 May, 1310), all these knights were publicly burned at Paris outside the Porte StAntoine. To the end all protested their innocence.

There could no longer be any question of liberty of defence; the papal commission at Paris suspended tits sessions for six months, and when it met again found before it only knights who had confessed the crimes they were charged with and had been reconciled by the local inquisitors. The fate of the Templars was finally sealed at the Council of Vienne (opened 16 October, 1311). The majority of its three hundred members were opposed to the abolition of the order, believing the alleged crimes unproven, but the king was urgent, appeared in person at the council, and finally obtained from Clement V the practical execution of his will. At the second session of the council, in presence of the king and his three sons, was read the Bull “Vox in excelsis,” dated 22 March, 1312, in which the pope said that though he had no sufficient reasons for a formal condemnation of the order, nevertheless, because of the common weal, the hatred borne them by the King of France, the scandalous nature of their trial, and the probable dilapidation of the order’s property in every Christian land, he suppressed it by virtue of his sovereign power, and not by any definitive sentence. By another Bull of 2 May he vested in the Hospitallers the title to the property of the suppressed order. In one way or another, however, Philip managed to become the chief legatee of its great wealth in France. As to the Templars themselves, those who continued to maintain their confessions were set free; those who withdrew them were considered relapsed heretics and were dealt with as such by the tribunals of the Inquisition. It was only in 1314 that the Grand Master, Jacques de Molay and Geoffroy de Charnay, Grand Preceptor of Normandy, reserved to the judgment of the pope, were condemned to perpetual imprisonment. Thereupon they proclaimed the falsity of their confessions, and accused themselves of cowardice in betraying their order to save their lives. They were at once declared relapsed heretics, turned over to the secular arm by the ecclesiastical authority, and were burned that same day (18 March, 1314). Of Pope Clement it may be said that the few measures of equity that appear in the course of this great crime were owing to him; unfortunately his sense of justice and his respect for the law were counterbalanced by a weak and vacillating character, to which perhaps his feeble and uncertain health contributed. Some think he was convinced of the Templars’ guilt, especially after so many of the chief members had admitted it to himself; they explain thus his recommendation of the use of torture, also his toleration of the king’s suppression of all proper liberty of defence on the part of the accused. Others believe that he feared for himself the fate of Boniface VIII, whose cruel enemy, William Nogaret, still lived, attorney-general of Philip, skilled in legal violence, and emboldened by a long career of successful infamy. His strongest motive was, in all probability, anxiety to save the memory of Boniface VIII from the injustice of a formal condemnation which the malice of Nogaret and the cold vindictiveness of Philip would have insisted on, had not the rich prey of the Temple been thrown to them; to stand for both with Apostolic courage might have meant intolerable consequences, not only personal indignities, but in the end the graver evil of schism under conditions peculiarly unfavourable for the papacy. (See PHILIP THE FAIR; VIENNE, COUNCIL OF; .)

CLEMENT V AND EMPEROR HENRY VII

In pursuance of the vast ambitions of the French monarchy (Pierre Dubois, “De recuperatione terræ sanctæ,” ed. Langlois, Paris, 1891), King Philip was anxious to see his brother Charles of Valois chosen King of Germany in succession tot he murdered Adolph of Nassau, of course with a view of obtaining later the imperial crown. Pope Clement was apparently active in favour of Philip’s plan; at the same time he made it known to the ecclesiastical electors that the selection of Count Henry of Lützelburg, brother of the Archbishop of Trier, would be pleasing to him. The pope was well aware that further extension of French authority could only reduce still more his own small measure of independence. Though elected, 6 January, 1309, as Henry VII, and soon assured of the papal agreement to his imperial consecration, it was only in 1312 that the new king reached Rome and was consecrated emperor in the church of St. John Lateran by cardinals specially delegated by the pope. Circumstances forced Henry VII to side with the Italian Ghibellines, with the result that in Rome itself he found a powerful Guelph party in possession of St. Peter’s and the greater part of the city, actively supported also by King Robert of Naples. The new emperor, after the humiliating failure of his Italian expedition, undertook to compel the Angevin king to recognize the imperial authority, but was crossed by the papal action in defence of King Robert as a vassal of the Roman Church, overlord of the Two Sicilies. On the eve of a new Italian campaign in support of the imperial honour and rights Henry VII died suddenly near Siena, 24 August, 1313. He was the last hope of Dante and his fellow-Ghibellines, for whom at this time the great poet drew up in the “De Monarchiâ” his ideal of good government in Italy through the restoration of the earlier strong empire of German rulers, in whom he saw the ideal overlords of the European world, and even of the pope as a temporal prince.

CLEMENT V AND ENGLAND

Ambassadors of Edward I assisted at the coronation of Clement V. At the request of King Edward, the pope freed him from the obligation of keeping the promises added to the Charter in 1297 and 1300, though the king afterwards took little or no advantage of the papal absolution. Moreover, to satisfy the king, he suspended and called to the papal court (1305) the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert of Winchelsea, who had previously suffered much for adhering to the side of Boniface VIII, and whom Edward I was now pursuing with unproved charges of treason. (See .) It was only in 1307, after the accession of Edward II, that this great churchman, at the royal request, was permitted by Clement to return from Bordeaux to his See of Canterbury, whose ancient right to crown the kings of England he successfully maintained. Clement excommunicated (1306) Robert Bruce of Scotland for his share in the murder of the Red Comyn, and he deprived of their sees Bishops Lambarton and Wishart for their part in the subsequent national rising of the Scots. The Lords and Commons at the Parliament of Carlisle (1307) exhibited a strong anti- papal temper, apropos, among other complaints, of the granting of rich English benefices to foreigners, and though no positive action followed, the later Statutes of Provisors and Præmunire look back to this event as indicative of English temper. (See Gasquet, “The Eve of the Reformation,” essay on “Mixed Jurisdiction,” and for other items of English interest the “Regestra” of Clement V, and Bliss, “Calendar of Ecclesiastical Documents relating to England,” London, 1893 sqq., Rolls series.)

CLEMENT V AND THE CANON LAW

He completed the medieval “Corpus Juris Canonici” by the publication of a collection of papal decretals known as “Clementineæ,” or “Liber Clementinarum,” sometimes “Liber Septimus” in reference to the “Liber Sextus” of Boniface VIII. It contains decretals of the latter pope, of Benedict XI, and of Clement himself. Together with the decrees of the Council of Vienne it was promulgated (21 March, 1314) at the papal residence of Monteaux near Carpentras. It follows the method of the “Decretals” of Gregory IX and the “Liber Sextus” of Boniface VIII, i.e. five books with subdivision into titles and chapters. As the pope died (20 April) before this collection had been generally published, its authenticy was doubted by some, wherefore John XXII promulgated it anew, 25 October, 1317, and sent it to the University of Bologna as a genuine collection of papal decretals to be used in the courts and the schools. (Laurin, “Introd. in corpus juris canonici,” Freiburg, 1889; cf. Ehrle, “Archiv f. Litteratur und Kirchengesch.,” IV, 36 sqq.)

Clement’s official correspondence is found in the nine folio volumes of the Regesta Clementis V (Benedictine ed., Rome, 1885–92); BALUZE, Vita paparum Avenionensium (Paris, 1693), I; RAYNAULD, Ann Eccl., ad ann. 1303–13; HEFELE, Conciliengesch. (2d ed.), VI, 393 sqq.; EHRLE, Archiv f. Litt. u. Kirchengesch. (1867–89); CHRISTOPHE, Hist. de la papaauté pendant le quatorziéme siécle (Paris, 1853), I; SOUCHON, Papstwahlen von Bonifaz VIII. bis Urban VI. (1888); RABANIS, Clément V et Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1858); BOUTARIC, La France sous Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1861); RENAN, Etudes sur la politique de Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1899); WENCK, Clement V. und Heinrich VII. (1882); LACOSTE, Nouvelles études sur Clément V (Paris, 1896); BERCHON, Hist. du Pape Clément V (Paris, 1896); BERCHON, Hisat. du Pape Clément V (Bordeaux, 1898), and the exhaustive bibliography in CHEVALIER, Bio-Bibl. For the literature of the Templars, see . It will suffice to mention here: LAVOCAT, Le procés des frères de l’ordre du Temple (Paris, 1888); SCHOTTMÜLLER, Der Untergang des TemplerOrdens (1893); CH. LANGLOIS, Histoire de France, ed. LAVISSE (Paris, 1901), III (ii), 174–200; LEA, History of the Inquisition (New York, 1887), III, 238–334; DELAVILLE LE ROULX, La suppression des Templiers in Revue des questions historiques (1890), XLVII, 29; and GRANGE, The Fall of the Knights of The Temple in Dublin Review (1895), 329–46.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Pope Clement VI

(PIERRE ROGER)

Born 1291 in the castle of Maumont, departmentof Corrèze, France, elected pope, 7 May, 1342, at Avignon, where he died 6 December, 1352. At the age of ten he entered the Benedictine monastery of La Chaise-Dieu (Haute- Loire), where he made his religious profession. After devoting some time to study at Paris, he graduated as doctor and became professor in that city. Subsequent to his introduction to Pope John XXII by Cardinal Pierre Grouin de Mortemart, he rapidly rose from one ecclesiastical dignity to another. At first prior of Saint-Baudile at Nimes, then Abbot of Fécamp in Normandy, he became Bishop of Arras and Chancellor of France in 1328, was promoted to the Archbishopric of Sens in 1329, and to that of Rouen the following year. In the latter city a provincial council, which promulgated several disciplinary decrees, was held under his presidency in 1335. He was created cardinal (1338) by Benedict XII, whom he succeeded as pontiff. One of the characteristic traits of his policy as head of the Universal Church was his excessive devotion to the interests of France and those of his relatives. His French sympathies impeded his efforts to restore and maintain peace between England and France, although his mediation led to the conclusion of a short general truce (Malestroit, 1343). Most of the twenty-five cardinals whom he crreated were French, and twelve of them were related to him. The King of France was given permission (1344) to Communicate under both kinds. Clement accepted the senatorial dignity offered him as “Knight Roger” by a Roman delegation, which numbered Petrarch as one of its members. He also granted their request for the celebration of a jubilee every fifty, instead of every hundred, years (Bull “Unigenitus,” 1343), but declined their invitation to return to Rome. Greater permanency seemed to be assured to the papal residence abroad by his purchase of the sovereignty of Avignon for 80,000 florins from Joanna of Naples and Provence (9 June, 1348). About the same time he also declared this princess innocent of complicity in the murder of her husband. The pope’s success in Roman affairs is evidenced by his confirmation of the ephemeral but then unavoidable rule of Cola di Mienzi (20 May to 15 Dec., 1347). His later condemnation of this arrogant tribune was largely instrumental in bringing about his fall from power. Shortly after these events the jubilee year of 1350 brought an extraordinarily large number of pilgrims to the Eternal City. In his attempt to strengthen the Guelph party in Italy the pope met with failure, and was constrained to cede the city of Bologna to the Archbishop of Milan for a period of twelve years.

Clement took up with ardour the long-standing conflict between the Emperor Louis the Bavarian and the papacy. The former had offended the religious feelings of many of his adherents by arbitrarily annulling the marriage of Marguerite Maultasch, heiress of Tyrol, and John Henry, Prince of Bohemia. The popular discontent was still further intensified when the emperor authorized his own son to marry the same princess. Louis consequently was ready to make the greatest concessions to the pope. In a writing of September, 1343, he acknowledged his unlawful assumption of the imperial title, declared his willingness to annul all his imperial acts and to submit to any papal penalty, but at the same time wished to be recognized as King of the Romans. Clement demanded as further conditions that no law should be enacted in the empire without papal sanction, that the binding force of Louis’s promulgated royal decrees should be suspended until confirmation by the Holy See, that he should depose all bishops and abbots named by himself, and waive all claim to the sovereignty of the Papal States, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. Louis submitted the pope’s demands to the consideration of the German princes, at a time when anti-papal feeling ran very high in Germany, as a result of the separation of the Archbishopric of Prague from the ecclesiastical province of Mainz (30 April, 1344). The princes declared them unacceptable, but also spoke of the necessity of electing a new king in place of Louis, whose rule had been so disastrous to the empire. The pope on 7 April, 1346, deposed Henry of Virneburg, Archbishop of Mainz and an ardent partisan of the reigning emperor, and named the twenty-year-old Gerlach of Nassau to the see. On 13 April of the same year he launched a severe Bull against the emperor, in which he requested the electors to give him a successor. Charles of Luxemburg, the pope’s candidate and former pupil, was elected King of Germany (11 July, 1346), by his father, John of Bohemia, by Rudolf of Saxony, and the three ecclesiastical electors. Charles IV (1346- 78) substantially accepted the papal demands, but his authority was not immediately recognized throughout Germany. The country was on the verge of civil war, when Louis the Bavarian suddenly died while engaged in a boar-hunt near Munich (11 October, 1347). The opposition of Günther of Schwartzenburg (d. 14 June, 1349) to Charles was but of short duration. Left without a protector, through the death of Louis, William of Occam and the schismatical Friars Minor now made their submission to the pope. About 1344 Clement VI granted the sovereignty of the Canary Islands to the Castilian Prince Louis de la Cerda, on condition that no other Christian ruler had acquired any right to their possession. The new sovereign, who was accorded the title of Prince of Fortunia, agreed to introduce Christianity into the islands and to pay tribute to the Holy See. He could not, however, take effective possession of the territory, which was not permanently converted at this time, even though a special bishop (the Carmelite Bernard) was named for the islands in 1351. the pope’s attempts to reunite the Greeks and Armenians with the Roman Church led to no definite results. The East desired not so much a return to doctrinal unity as assistance against the Turks. A crusade against the latter, which was undertaken in 1344, ended in a barren truce.

More of a temporal prince than an ecclesiastical ruler, Clement was munificent to profusion, a patron of arts and letters, a lover of good cheer, well-appointed banquets and brilliant receptions, to which ladies were freely admitted. The heavy expenses necessitated by such pomp soon exhausted the funds which the economy of Benedict XII had provided for his successor. To open up new sources of revenue, in the absence of the ordinary income from the States of the Church, fresh taxes were imposed and an ever-increasing number of appointments to bishoprics and benefices was reserved to the pope. Such arbitrary proceedings led to resistance in several countries. In 1343 the agents of two cardinals, whom Clement had appointed to offices in England, were driven from that country. Edward III vehemently complained of the exactions of the Avignon Court, and in 1351 was passed the Statute of Provisors, according to which the king reserved the right of presentation in all cases of papal appointments to benefices. The memory of this pope is clouded by his open French partisanship and by the gross nepotism of his reign. Clement VI was nevertheless a protector of the oppressed and a helper of the needy. His courage and charity strikingly appeared at the time of the Great Pestilence, or Black Death, at Avignon (1348–49). While in many places, numerous Jews were massacred by the populace as being the cause of the pestilence, Clement issued Bulls for their protection and afforded them a refuge in his little State. He canonized St. Ivo of Tréguier, Brittany (d. 1303), the advocate of orphans (June, 1347), condemned the Flagellants, and in 1351 courageously defended the Mendicant friars against the accusations of some secular prelates. Several sermons have been preserved of this admittedly learned pope and eloquent speaker. He died after a short illness, and, according to his desire, was interred at La Chaise-Dieu. In 1562 his grave was desecrated and his remains burned by some Huguenots.

BALUZE, Vitæ Paparum Avenion. (Paris, 1693), I, 243- 322, 829–925; CHRISTOPHER, Hist. de la papauté pendant le XIVe siècle (Paris, 1853); HÖFLER, Die avignonensichen Päpste (Vienna, 1871); MÜNTZ, L’argent et le luze à la cour pontif. in Rev. des quest. hist. (Paris, 1879), v, 378; WERUNSKY, Excerpta ex registris Clementis VI et Innocentii VI (Innsbruck, 1885); IDEM, Gesch. Karls IV. (Innsbruck, 1889–92); DESPREZ, Lettres closes patentes et curiales des papes d’Avignon se rapportant à la France, Clément VI (Paris, 1901); BÖHMER, Fontes rerum germanicarum (Stuttgart, 1843, 1868), I, IV; KLICMAN, Monumenta Vaticana res gestas Bohemicas illustrantia, I, Acta Clementis VI; GAY, Le Pape Clément VI et les affaires d’Orient (Paris, 1904); KIRSCH, Die Verwaltung der Annaten unter Klemens VI, in Römische Quartalschrift (1902), 125–51; HEFELE-KNÖPFLER, Conciliengesch. (Freiburg, 1890), VI, 663–75, passim; PASTOR, Gesch. der Päpste (Freiburg, 1901), I, 89–95, passim, tr. ANTROBUS (London, 1891), I, 85–92; CREIGHTON, Hist. of the Papacy (London, 1892), I, 44–48; BERLIÈRE, Suppliques de Clèment VI (Paris, 1906), CHEVALIER, Bio-Bibl. (Paris, 1905), I, 954–55; HERGENRÖTHER-KIRSCH, Kirchengesch. (4th ed., 1904), II, 735–37.

N.A. WEBER

Pope Clement VII

(GIULIO DE’ MEDICI).

Born 1478; died 25 September, 1534. Giulio de’ Medici was born a few months after the death of his father, Giuliano, who was slain at Florence in the disturbances which followed the Pazzi conspiracy. Although his parents had not been properly married, they had, it was alleged, been betrothed per sponsalia de presenti, and Giulio, in virtue of a well-known principle of canon law, was subsequently declared legitimate. The youth was educated by his uncle, Lorenzo the Magnificent. He was made a Knight of Rhodes and Grand Prior of Capua, and, upon the election of his cousin Giovanni de’ Medici to the papacy as Leo X, he at once became a person of great consequence. On 28 September, 1513, he was made cardinal, and he had the credit of being the prime mover of the papal policy during the whole of Leo’s pontificate. He was one of the most favoured candidates in the protracted conclave which resulted in the election of Adrian VI; neither did the Cardinal de’ Medici, in spite of his close connection with the luxurious regime of Leo X, altogether lose influence under his austere successor. Giulio, in the words of a modern historian, was “learned, clever, respectable and industrious, though he had little enterprise and less decision” (Armstrong, Charles V., I, 166). After Adrian’s death (14 September, 1523) the Cardinal de’ Medici was eventually chosen pope, 18 November, 1523, and his election was hailed at Rome with enthusiastic rejoicing. But the temper of the Roman people was only one element in the complex problem which Clement VII had to face. The whole political and religious situation was one of extreme delicacy, and it may be doubted if there was one man in ten thousand who would have succeeded by natural tact and human prudence in guiding the Bark of Peter through such tempestuous waters. Clement was certainly not such a man. He had unfortunately been brought up in all the bad traditions of Italian diplomacy, and over and above this a certain fatal irresolution of character seemed to impel him, when any decision had been arrived at, to hark back upon the course agreed on and to try to make terms with the other side.

The early years of his pontificate were occupied with the negotiations which culminated in the League of Cognac. When Clement was crowned, Francis I and the Emperor Charles V were at war. Charles had supported Clement’s candidature and hoped much from his friendship with the Medici, but barely a year had elapsed after his election before the new pope concluded a secret treaty with France. The pitched battle which was fought between Francis and the imperial commanders at Pavia in February, 1525, ending in the defeat and captivity of the French king, put into Charles’ hands the means of avenging himself. Still he used his victory with moderation. The terms of the Treaty of Madrid (14 January, 1526) were not really extravagant, but Francis seems to have signed with the deliberate intention of breaking his promises, though confirmed by the most solemn of oaths. That Clement, instead of accepting Charles’ overtures, should have made himself a party to the French king’s perfidy and should have organized a league with France, Venice, and Florence, signed at Cognac, 22 May, 1526, must certainly have been regarded by the emperor as almost unpardonable provocation. No doubt Clement was moved by genuine patriotism in his distrust of imperial influence in Italy and especially by anxiety for his native Florence. Moreover, he chafed under dictation which seemed to him to threaten the freedom of the Church. But though he probably feared that the bonds might be drawn tighter, it is hard to see that he had at that time any serious ground of complaint. We cannot be much surprised at what followed. Charles’ envoys, obtaining no satisfaction from the pope, allied themselves with the disaffected Colonna who had been raiding the papal territory. These last peretended reconciliation until the papal commanders were lulled into a sense of security. Then the Colonna made a sudden attack upon Rome and shut up Clement in the Castle of Sant’ Angelo while their followers plundered the Vatican (20 September, 1526). Charles disavowed the action of the Colonna but took advantage of the situation created by their success. A period of vacillation followed. At one time Clement concluded a truce with the emperor, at another he turned again despairingly to the League, at another, under the encouragement of a slight success, he broke off negotiations with the imperial representatives and resumed active hostilities, and then again, still later, he signed a truce with Charles for eight months, promising the immediate payment of an indemnity of 60,000 ducats.

In the mean time the German mercenaries in the north of Italy were fast being reduced to the last extremities for lack of provisions and pay. On hearing of the indemnity of 60,000 ducats they threatened mutiny, and the imperial commissioners extracted from the pope the payment of 100,000 ducats instead of the sum first agreed upon. But the sacrifice was ineffectual. It seems probable that the Landsknechte, a very large proportion of whom were Lutherans, had really got completely out of hand, and that they practically forced the Constable Bourbon, now in supreme command, to lead them against Rome. On the 5th of May they reached the walls, which, owing to the pope’s confidence in the truce he had concluded, were almost undefended. Clement had barely time to take refuge in the Castle of Sant’ Angelo, and for eight days the “Sack of Rome” continued amid horrors almost unexampled in the history of war. “The Lutherans,” says an impartial authority, “rejoiced to burn and to defile what all the world had adored. Churches were desecrated, women, even the religious, violated, ambassadors pillaged, cardinals put to ransom, ecclesiastical dignitaries and ceremonies made a mockery, and the soldiers fought among themselves for the spoil” (Leathes in “Camb. Mod. History,” II, 55). It seems probable that Charles V was really not implicated in the horrors which then took place. Still he had no objection against the pope bearing the full consequences of his shifty diplomacy, and he allowed him to remain a virtual prisoner in the Castle of Sant’ Angelo for more than seven months. Clement’s pliability had already given offence to the other members of the League, and his appeals were not responded to very warmly. Besides this, he was sorely in need of the imperial support both to make head against the Lutherans in Germany and to reinstate the Medici in the government of Florence from which they had been driven out. The combined effect of these various considerations and of the failure of the French attempts upon Naples was to throw Clement into the emperor’s arms. After a sojourn in Orvieto and Viterbo, Clement returned to Rome, and there, before the end of July, 1529, terms favourable to the Holy See were definitely arranged with Charles. The seal was set upon the compact by the meeting of the emperor and the pope at Bologna, where, on 24 February, 1530, Charles was solemnly crowned. By whatever motives the pontiff was swayed, this settlement certainly had the effect of restoring to Italy a much-needed peace.

Meanwhile events, the momentous consequence of which were not then fully foreseen, had been taking place in England. Henry VIII, tired of Queen Catherine, by whom he had no heir to the throne, but only one surviving daughter, Mary, and passionately enamoured of Anne Boleyn, had made known to Wolsey in May, 1527, that he wished to be divorced. He pretended that his conscience was uneasy at the marriage contracted under papal dispensation with his brother’s widow. As his first act was to solicit from the Holy See contingently upon the granting of the divorce, a dispensation from the impediment of affinity in the first degree (an impediment which stood between him and any legal marriage with Anne on account of his previous carnal intercourse with Anne’s sister Mary), the scruple of conscience cannot have been very sincere. Moreover, as Queen Catherine solemnly swore that the marriage between herself and Henry’s elder brother Arthur had never been consummated, there had consequently never been any real affinity between her and Henry but only the impedimentum publicæ honestatis. The king’s impatience, however, was such that, without giving his full confidence to Wolsey, he sent his envoy, Knight, at once to Rome to treat with the pope about getting the marriage annulled. Knight found the pope a prisoner in Sant’ Angelo and could do little until he visited Clement, after his escape, at Orvieto. Clement was anxious to gratify Henry, and he did not make much difficulty about the contingent dispensation from affinity, judging, no doubt, that, as it would only take effect when the marriage with Catherine was concelled, it was of no practical consequence. On being pressed, however, to issue a commission to Wolsey to try the divorce case, he made a more determined stand, and Cardinal Pucci, to whom was submitted a draft instrument for the purpose, declared that such a document would reflect discredit upon all concerned. A second mission to Rome organized by Wolsey, and consisting of Gardiner and Foxe, was at first not much more successful. A commission was indeed granted and taken back to England by Foxe, but it was safeguarded in ways which rendered it practically innocuous. The bullying attitude which Gardiner adopted towards the pope seems to have passed all limits of decency, but Wolsey, fearful of losing the royal favour, egged him on to new exertions and implored him to obtain at any cost a “decretal commission.” This was an instrument which decided the points of law beforehand, secure from appeal, and left only the issue of fact to be determined in England. Against this Clement seems honestly to have striven, but he at last yielded so far as to issue a secret commission to Cardinal Wolsey and Cardinal Campeggio jointly to try the case in England. The commission was to be shown to no one, and was never to leave Compeggio’s hands. We do not know its exact terms; but if it followed the drafts prepared in England for the purpose, it pronounced that the Bull of dispensation granted by Julius for the marriage of Henry with his deceased brother’s wife must be declared obreptitious and consequently void, if the commissioners found that the motives alleged by Julius were insufficient and contrary to the facts. For example, it had been pretended that the dispensation was necessary to cement the friendship between England and Spain, also that the young Henry himself desired the marriage, etc.

Camapeggio reached England by the end of September, 1528, but the proceedings of the legatine court were at once brought to a standstill by the production of a second dispensation granted by Pope Julius in the form of a Brief. This had a double importance. Clement’s commission empowered Wolsey and Campeggio to pronounce upon the sufficiency of the motives alleged in a certain specified document, viz., the Bull; but the Brief was not contemplated by, and lay outside, their commission. Moreover, the Brief did not limit the motives for granting the dispensation to certain specified allegations, but spoke of “aliis causis animam nostram moventibus.” The production of the Brief, now commonly admitted to be quite authentic, though the king’s party declared it a forgery, arrested the proceedings of the commission for eight months, and in the end, under pressure from Charles V, to whom his Aunt Catherine had vehemently appealed for support as well as to the pope, the cause was revoked to Rome. There can be no doubt that Clement showed much weakness in the concessions he had made to the English demands; but it must also be remembered, first, that in the decision of this point of law, the technical grounds for treating the dispensation as obreptitious were in themselves serious and, secondly, that in committing the honour of the Holy See to Campeggio’s keeping, Clement had known that he had to do with a man of exceptionally high principle.

How far the pope was influenced by Charles V in his resistance, it is difficult to say; but it is clear that his own sense of justice disposed him entirely in favour of Queen Catherine. Henry in consequence shifted his ground, and showed how deep was the rift which separated him from the Holy See, by now urging that a marriage with a deceased husband’s brother lay beyond the papal powers of dispensation. Clement retaliated by pronouncing censure against those who threatened to have the king’s divorce suit decided by an English tribunal, and forbade Henry to proceed to a new marriage before a decision was given in Rome. The king on his side (1531) extorted a vast sum of money from the English clergy upon the pretext that the penalties of præmunire had been incurred by them through their recognition of the papal legate, and soon afterwards he prevailed upon Parliament to prohibit under certain conditions the payment of annates to Rome. Other developments followed. The death of Archbishop Warham (22 August, 1532) allowed Henry to press for the institution of Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury, and through the intervention of the King of France this was conceded, the pallium being granted to him by Clement. Almost immediately after his consecration Cranmer proceeded to pronounce judgment upon the divorce, while Henry had previously contracted a secret marriage with Anne Boleyn, which marriage Cranmer, in May, 1533, declared to be valid. Anne Boleyn was consequently crowned on June the 1st. Meanwhile the Commons had forbidden all appeals to Rome and exacted the penalties of præmunire against all who introduced papal Bulls into England. It was only then that Clement at last took the step of launching a sentence of excommunication against the king, declaring at the same time Cranmer’s pretended decree of divorce to be invalid and the marriage with Anne Boleyn null and void. The papal nuncio was withdrawn from England and diplomatic relations with Rome broken off. Henry appealed from the pope to a general council, and in January, 1534, the Parliament pressed on further legislation abolishing all ecclesiastical dependence on Rome. But it was only in March, 1534, that the papal tribunal finally pronounced its verdict upon the original issue raised by the king and declared the marriage between Henry and Catherine to be unquestionably valid. Clement has been much blamed for this delay and for his various concessions in the matter of the divorce; indeed he has been accused of losing England to the Catholic Faith on account of the encouragement thus given to Henry, but it is extremely doubtful whether a firmer attitude would have had a more beneficial result. The king was determined to effect his purpose, and Clement had sufficient principle not to yield the one vital point upon which all turned.

With regard to Germany, though Clement never broke away from his friendship with Charles V, which was cemented by the coronation at Bologna in 1530, he never lent to the emperor that cordial co-operation which could alone have coped with a situation the extreme difficulty and danger of which Clement probably never understood. In particular, the pope seems to have had a horror of the idea of convoking a general council, foreseeing, no doubt, grave difficulties with France in any such attempt. Things were not improved when Henry, through his envoy Bonner, who found Clement visiting the French king at Marseilles, lodged his appeal to a future general council on the divorce question.

In the more ecclesiastical aspects of his pontificate Clement was free from reproach. Two Franciscan reforms, that of the Capuchins and that of the Recollects, found in him a sufficiently sympathetic patron. He was genuinely in earnest over the crusade against the Turks, and he gave much encouragement to foreign missions. As a patron of art, he was much hampered by the sack of Rome and the other disastrous events of his pontificate. But he was keenly interested in such matters, and according to Benvenuto Cellini he had excellent taste. By the commission given to the last-named artist for the famous cope-clasp of which we hear so much in the autobiography, he became the founder of Benvenuto’s fortunes. (See Cellini, Benvenuto.) Clement also continued to be the patron of Raphael and of Michelangelo, whose great fresco of the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel was undertaken by his orders.

In their verdict upon the character of Pope Clement VII almost all historians are agreed. He was an Italian prince, a de’ Medici, and a diplomat first, and a spiritual ruler afterwards. His intelligence was of a high order, though his diplomacy was feeble and irresolute. On the other hand, his private life was free from reproach, and he had many excellent impulses, but despite good intention, all qualities of heroism and greatness must emphatically be denied him.

Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste (Freiburg, 1907), IV, pt. II; Fraiken, Nonciatures de Clément VII (Paris, 1906-); Idem in Mélanges de l’école française de Rome (1906); Gairdner, The New Light on the Divorce of Henry VIII in English Histor. Rev. (1896–1897); Ehses, Römische Dokumente zur Geschichte der Ehescheidung Heinrichs VIII. (Paderborn, 1893); Thurston, The Canon Law of the Divorce in Eng. Histor. Rev. (Oct., 1904); Am. Cath. Quart. (April, 1906); Hemmer in Dict. de théol. cath., in which and in Pastor a fuller bibliography will be found.

HERBERT THURSTON.

Pope Clement VIII

(IPPOLITO ALDOBRANDINI).

Born at Fano, March, 1536, of a distinguished Florentine family; died at Rome, 5 March, 1605. He was elected pope 30 January, 1592, after a stormy conclave graphically described by Ranke (Geschichte der ršmischen PŠpste, 9th ed., II, 150 sqq.). In his youth he made excellent progress in jurisprudence under the direction of his father, an able jurist. Through the stages of consistorial advocate, auditor of the Rota and the Datary, he was advanced in 1585 to the dignity of Cardinal-Priest of the Title of St. Pancratius and was made grand penitentiary. He won the friendship of the Hapsburgs by his successful efforts, during a legation to Poland, to obtain the release of the imprisoned Archduke Maximilian, the defeated claimant to the Polish throne. During the conclave of 1592 he was the unwilling candidate of the compact minority of cardinals who were determined to deliver the Holy See from the prepotency of Philip II of Spain. His election was greeted with boundless enthusiasm by the Italians and by all who knew his character. He possessed all the qualifications needed in the Vicar of Christ. Blameless in morals from childhood, he had at an early period placed himself under the direction of St. Philip Neri, who for thirty years was his confessor. Upon Clement’s elevation to the papacy, the aged saint gave over this important office to Baronius, whom the pope, notwithstanding his reluctance, created a cardinal, and to whom he made his confession every evening. The fervour with which he said his daily Mass filled all present with devotion. His long association with the Apostle of Rome caused him to imbibe the saint’s spirit so thoroughly, that in him St. Philip himself might be said to have ascended the papal chair. Though vast political problems clamoured for solution, the pope first turned his attention to the more important spiritual interests of the Church. He made a personal visitation of all the churches and educational and charitable institutions of Rome, everywhere eliminating abuses and enforcing discipline. To him we owe the institution of the Forty Hours’ Devotion. He founded at Rome the Collegio Clementino for the education of the sons of the richer classes, and augmented the number of national colleges in Rome by opening the Collegio Scozzese for the training of missionaries to Scotland. The “Bullarium Romanum” contains many important constitutions of Clement, notably one denouncing duelling and one providing for the inviolability of the States of the Church. He issued revised editions of the Vulgate (1598), the Breviary, the Missal, also the “Cæremoniale,” and the “Pontificale.”

The complicated situation in France presented no insuperable difficulties to two consummate statesmen like Henry of Navarre and Clement VIII. It was clear to Henry that, notwithstanding his victories, he could not peacefully retain the French Crown without adopting the Catholic Faith. He abjured Calvinism 25 July, 1593. It was equally clear to Pope Clement that it was his duty to brave the selfish hostility of Spain by acknowledging the legitimate claims of Henry, as soon as he convinced himself that the latter’s conversion was something more than a political manoeuvre. In the autumn of 1595 he solemnly absolved Henry IV, thus putting an end to the thirty years’ religious war in France and winning a powerful ally in his struggle to achieve the independence of Italy and of the Holy See. Henry’s friendship was of essential importance to the pope two years later, when Alfonso II, Duke of Ferrara, died childless (27 Oct., 1597), and Pope Clement resolved to bring the stronghold of the Este dynasty under the immediate jurisdiction of the Church. Though Spain and the empire encouraged Alfonso’s illegitimate cousin, Cesare d’Este, to withstand the pope, they were deterred from giving him aid by Henry’s threats, and the papal army entered Ferrara almost unopposed. In 1598 Pope Clement won still more credit for the papacy by bringing about a definite treaty of peace between Spain and France in the Treaty of Vervins and between France and Savoy. He also lent valuable assistance in men and money to the emperor in his contest with the Turks in Hungary. He was as merciless as Sixtus V in crushing out brigandage and in punishing the lawlessness of the Roman nobility. He did not even spare the youthful patricide Beatrice Cenci, over whom so many tears have been shed. (Bertolotti, Francesco Cenci e la sua famiglia, Florence, 1879.) On 17 Feb., 1600, the apostate Giordano Bruno (q.v.) was burned at the stake on the Piazza dei Fiori. The jubilee of 1600 was a brilliant witness to the glories of the renovated papacy, three million pilgrims visiting the holy places. In 1595 was held the Synod of Brest, in Lithuania, by which a great part of the Ruthenian clergy and people were reunited to Rome (Likowski, Union zu Brest, 1094). Although Clement, in spite of constant fasting, was tortured with gout in feet and hands, his capacity for work was unlimited, and his powerful intellect grasped all the needs of the Church throughout the world. He entered personally into the minutest detail of every subject which came before him, e.g., in the divorce between Henry IV and Margaret of Valois, yet more in the great controversy on grace between the Jesuits and the Dominicans (see BAÑEZ, MOLINA). He was present at all the sessions of the Congregatio de auxiliis (q.v.), but wisely refrained from issuing a final decree on the question. Clement VIII died in his seventieth years after a pontificate of thirteen years. His remains repose in Santa Maria Maggiore, where the Borghesi, who succeed the Aldobrandini in the female line, erected a gorgeous monument to his memory.

Vita Clem. VIII in LABBE AND COSSART, Coll. Conc., XXI, 1323; WADDING, Vita Clem. VIII (Rome, 1723); VON RANKE, The Roman Popes in the Last Four Centuries (1834–37); PELESZ, Gesch. der Union der ruthenischen Kirche mit Rom (WŸrzburg, 1881); ROSSI, Di una controversia tra la republica di Venezia e Clem. VIII in Archivio Veneto (1889), fasc. 74; SERRY, Hist. controv. de auxiliis (Antwerp, 1709); RƒGNON, Ba-ez et Molina (Paris, 1883); DE MONTOR, Lives of the Roman Pontiffs (New York, 1857).

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Clement IX

(GIULIO ROSPIGLIOSI)

Born 28 January, 1600, at Pistoja, of an ancient family originally from Lombardy; elected 20 June, 1667; d. at Rome, 9 December, 1669. He made a brilliant course of studies at the Roman Seminary, and the University of Pisa, where he received the doctorate in his twenty-third year and was made professor of philosophy. His talents and virtuous life brought him rapid promotion in the Roman Court at a period when Tuscan influence under Tuscan pontiffs was everywhere predominant. He enjoyed the special favour of Urban VIII, like himself fond of literature and poetry, and was made titular Archbishop of Tarsus and sent as nuncio to the Spanish Court. He lived in retirement during the pontificate of Innocent X, who disliked the Barberini and their adherents, but was recalled to office by Alexander VII and by him appointed secretary of state and Cardinal-Priest of the Title of San Sisto (1657). Ten years later, one month after the death of Alexander, Cardinal Rospigliosi was elected to the papacy by the unanimous vote of the Sacred College. He was the idol of the Romans, not so much for his erudition and application to business, as for his extreme charity and his affability towards great and small. He increased the goodwill of his subjects by buying off the monopolist who had secured the macinato, or privilege of selling grain, and as his predecessor had collected the money for the purpose, Clement had the decree published in the name of Alexander VII. Two days each week he occupied a confessional in St. Peter’s church and heard any one who wished to confess to him. He frequently visited the hospitals, and was lavish in his alms to the poor. In an age of nepotism, he did little or nothing to advance or enrich his family. In his aversion to notoriety, he refused to permit his name to be placed on the buildings erected during his reign. On 15 April, 1668, he declared blessed, Rose of Lima, the first American saint. On 28 April, 1669, he solemnly canonized S. Maria Maddalena dei Pazzi and St. Peter of Alcantara. He reorganized the Church in Portugal, after that nation had achieved its independence from Spain. By a mild compromise in the affair of French Jansenism, known as the Clementine Peace, (Pax Clementina), he procured a lull in the storm, which, unfortunately, owing to the insincerity of the sectaries, was but temporary. He brought about, as arbiter, the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle between France and Spain, and gravely admonished Louis XIV against the aggressive career upon which he was setting forth. By strict economy he brought the papal finances into good order, and was able to furnish material aid to Venice for the defence of Crete, then besieged by the Turks. Had the European powers listened to his exhortations, that important island would not have been lost to Christendom. The news of its fall, after a gallant resistance of twenty years, hastened the pope’s death. He died after a pontificate of two years, five months, and nineteen days. He ordered his remains to be buried under the pavement of Santa Maria Maggiore, with the simple inscription Clementis IX, Cineres, but his successor, Clement X, erected in his honour the sumptuous monument which stands at the right-hand side of the nave, near the door. The death of the beloved pontiff was long lamented by the Romans, who considered him, if not the greatest, at least the most amiable of the popes.

FABRONI, Vita Clem. X, in Vitae Italorum doctrinâ excellentium, II, 1; DE MONTOR, Lives of the Roman Pontiffs (New York, 1867), II; GƒRIN, Louis XIV et Clément IX dans l’affaire des deux mariages de Marie de Savoie (1666–68) in Rev. des quest. hist. (1880).

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Clement X

(EMILIO ALTIERI).

Born at Rome, 13 July, 1590; elected 29 April, 1670, and died at Rome, 22 July, 1676. Unable to secure the election of any of the prominent candidates, the cardinals finally, after a conclave of four months and twenty days, resorted to the old expedient of electing a cardinal of advanced years; they united upon Cardinal Altieri, an octogenarian, whose long life had been spent in the service of the Church, and whom Clement IX, on the eve of his death, had raised to the dignity of the purple. The reason a prelate of such transcendent merits received the cardinalate so late in life seems to have been that he had waived his claims to the elevation in favour of an older brother. He protested vigorously against this use of the papal robes as a funeral shroud, but at length was persuaded to accept, and out of gratitude to his benefactor, by ten years his junior, he assumed the name of Clement X. The Altieri belonged to the ancient Roman nobility, and since all but one of the male scions had chosen the ecclesiastical career, the pope, in order to save the name from extinction, adopted the Paoluzzi, one of whom he married to Laura Caterina Altieri, the sole heiress of the family.

During previous pontificates the new pope had held important offices and had been entrusted with delicate missions. Urban VIII gave him charge of the works designed to protect the territory of Ravenna from the unruly Po. Innocent X appointed him nuncio to Naples; and he is credited with no slight share in the re-establishment of peace after the stormy days of Masaniello. Under Alexander VII he was made secretary of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. Clement IX named him superintendent of the papal exchequer. On his accession to the papacy, he gave to his new kinsman, Cardinal Paoluzzi-Altieri, the uncle of Laura’s husband, the office of cardinal nephew, and with advancing years gradually entrusted to him the management of affairs, to such an extent that the biting Romans said he had reserved to himself only the episcopal functions of benedicere et sanctificare, resigning in favour of the cardinal the administrative duties of regere et gubernare. Nevertheless, the Bullarium Romanum contains many evidences of his religious activity, among which may be mentioned the canonization of Sts. Cajetan, Philip Benitius, Francis Borgia, Louis Bertrand, and Rose of Lima; also the beatification of Pope Pius V, John of the Cross, and the Martyrs of Gorcum in Holland. He laboured to preserve the peace of Europe, menaced by the ambition of Louis XIV, and began with that imperious monarch the long struggle concerning the régale, or revenues of vacant dioceses and abbeys. He supported the Poles with strong financial aid in their hard struggle with their Turkish invaders. He decorated the bridge of Sant’ Angelo with the ten statues of angels in Carrara marble still to be seen there. To Clement we owe the two beautiful fountains which adorn the Piazza of St. Peter’s church near the tribune, where a monument has been erected to his memory.

ARISIO, Memorie sulla vita di Clemente X (Rome, 1863); VON REUMONT, Gaesch. d. Stadt Rom (Berlin, 1867), III, ii, 635–36; CERROTI, Bibliografia Romana (Rome, 1893), 226, 563; NOVAES, Elementi della storia de’ romani pontefici da S. Pietro fino a Pio VI (Rome, 1821–25); DE MONTOR, History of the Roman Pontiffs (New York, 1867), II.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Clement XI

(GIOVANNI FRANCESCO ALBANI).

Born at Urbino, 23 July, 1649; elected 23 November, 1700; died at Rome 19 March, 1721. The Albani (q.v.) were a noble Umbrian family. Under Urban VIII the grandfather of the future pope had held for thirteen years the honourable office of Senator of Rome. An uncle, Annibale Albani, was a distinguished scholar and was Prefect of the Vatican Library. Giovanni Francesco was sent to Rome in his eleventh year to prosecute his studies at the Roman College. He made rapid progress and was known as an author at the age of eighteen, translating from the Greek into elegant Latin. He attracted the notice of the patroness of Roman literati, Queen Christina of Sweden, who before he became of age enrolled him in her exclusive Accademia. With equal ardour and success, he applied himself to the profounder branches, theology and law, and was created doctor of canon and civil law. So brilliant an intellect, joined with stainless morals and piety, secured for him a rapid advancement at the papal court. At the age of twenty-eight he was made a prelate, and governed successively Rieti, Sabina, and Orvieto, everywhere acceptable on account of his reputation for justice and prudence. Recalled to Rome, he was appointed Vicar of St. Peter’s, and on the death of Cardinal Slusio succeeded to the important position of Secretary of Papal Briefs, which he held for thirteen years, and for which his command of classical latinity singularly fitted him. On 13 February, 1690, he was created cardinal-deacon and later Cardinal-Priest of the Title of San Silvestro, and was ordained to the priesthood.

The conclave of 1700 would have terminated speedily with the election of Cardinal Mariscotti, had not the veto of France rendered the choice of that able cardinal impossible. After deliberating for forty-six days, the Sacred College united in selecting Cardinal Albani, whose virtues and ability overbalanced the objection that he was only fifty-one years old. Three days were spent in the effort to overcome his reluctance to accept a dignity the heavy burden of which none knew better than the experienced curialist (Galland in Hist. Jahrbuch, 1882, III, 208 sqq.). The period was critical for Europe and the papacy. During the conclave Charles II, the last of the Spanish Hapsburgs, had died childless, leaving his vast dominions a prey to French and Austrian ambition. His will, making Philip of Anjou, grandson of Louis XIV, sole heir to the Spanish Empire, was contested by the Emperor Leopold, who claimed Spain for his second son Charles. The late king, before making this will, had consulted Pope Innocent XII, and Cardinal Albani had been one of the three cardinals to whom the pontiff had entrusted the case and who advised him to pronounce secretly in its favour. This was at the time unknown to the emperor, else Austria would have vetoed the election of Albani. The latter was finally persuaded that it was his duty to obey the call from Heaven; on 30 November he was consecrated bishop, and on 8 December solemnly enthroned in the Vatican. The enthusiasm with which his elevation was greeted throughout the world is the best evidence of his worth. Even Protestants received the intelligence with joy and the city of Nuremberg struck a medal in his honour. The sincere Catholic reformers greeted his accession as the death-knell of nepotism; for, though he had many relatives, it was known that he had instigated and written the severe condemnation of that abuse issued by his predecessor. As pontiff, he did not belie his principles. He bestowed the offices of his court upon the most worthy subjects and ordered his brother to keep at a distance and refrain from adopting any new title or interfering in matters of state. In the government of the States of the Church, Clement was a capable administrator. He provided diligently for the needs of his subjects, was extremely charitable to the poor, bettered the condition of the prisons, and secured food for the populace in time of scarcity. He won the good will of artists by prohibiting the exportation of ancient masterpieces, and of scientists by commissioning Bianchini to lay down on the pavement of Sta Maria degli Angioli the meridian of Rome, known as the Clementina.

His capacity for work was prodigious. He slept but little and ate so sparingly that a few pence per day sufficed for his table. Every day he confessed and celebrated Mass. He entered minutely into the details of every measure which came before him, and with his own hand prepared the numerous allocutions, Briefs, and constitutions afterwards collected and published. He also found time to preach his beautiful homilies and was frequently to be seen in the confessional. Though his powerful frame more than once sank under the weight of his labours and cares, he continued to keep rigorously the fasts of the Church, and generally allowed himself but the shortest possible respite from his labours.

In his efforts to establish peace among the powers of Europe and to uphold the rights of the Church, he met with scant success; for the eighteenth century was eminently the age of selfishness and infidelity. One of his first public acts was to protest against the assumption (1701) by the Elector of Brandenburg of the title of King of Prussia. The pope’s action, though often derided and misinterpreted, was natural enough, not only because the bestowal of royal titles had always been regarded as the privilege of the Holy See, but also because Prussia belonged by ancient right to the ecclesiastico-military institute known as the Teutonic Order. In the troubles excited by the rivalry of France and the Empire for the Spanish succession, Pope Clement resolved to maintain a neutral attitude; but this was found to be impossible. When, therefore, the Bourbon was crowned in Madrid as Philip V, amid the universal acclamations of the Spaniards, the pope acquiesced and acknowledged the validity of his title. This embittered the morose Emperor Leopold, and the relations between Austria and the Holy See became so strained that the pope did not conceal his satisfaction when the French and Bavarian troops began that march on Vienna which ended so disastrously on the field of Blenheim. Marlborough’s victory, followed by Prince Eugene’s successful campaign in Piedmont, placed Italy at the mercy of the Austrians. Leopold died in 1705 and was succeeded by his oldest son Joseph, a worthy precursor of Joseph II. A contest immediately began on the question known as Jus primarum precum, involving the right of the crown to appoint to vacant benefices. The victorious Austrians, now masters of Northern Italy, invaded the Papal States, took possession of Piacenza and Parma, annexed Comacchio and besieged Ferrara. Clement at first offered a spirited resistance, but, abandoned by all, could not hope for success, and when a strong detachment of Protestant troops under the command of the Prince of Hesse-Cassel reached Bologna, fearing a repetition of the fearful scenes of 1527, he finally gave way (15 Jan., 1709), acknowledged the Archduke Charles as King of Spain “without detriment to the rights of another,” and promised him the investiture of Naples. Though the Bourbon monarchs had done nothing to aid the pope in his unequal struggle, both Louis and Philip became very indignant and retaliated by every means in their power (see Louis XIV). In the negotiations preceding the Peace of Utrecht (1713) the rights of the pope were studiously neglected; his nuncio was not accorded a hearing; his dominions were parcelled out to suit the convenience of either party. Sicily was given to Victor Amadeus II of Savoy, with whom from the first days of his pontificate Clement was involved in quarrels on the subjects of ecclesiastical immunities and appointments to vacant benefices. The new king now undertook to revive the so-called Monarchia Sicula, an ancient but much-disputed and abused privilege of pontifical origin which practically excluded the pope from any authority over the church in Sicily. When Clement answered with bann and interdict, all the clergy, about 3000 in number, who remained loyal to the Holy See were banished the island, and the pope was forced to give them food and shelter. The interdict was not raised till 1718, when Spain regained possession, but the old controversy was repeatedly resumed under the Bourbons. Through the machinations of Cardinal Alberoni, Parma and Piacenza were granted to a Spanish Infante without regard to the papal overlordship. It was some consolation to the much-tried pope that Augustus of Saxony, King of Poland, returned to the Church. Clement laboured hard to restore harmony in Poland, but without success. The Turks had taken advantage of the dissensions among the Christians to invade Europe by land and sea. Clement proclaimed a jubilee, sent money and ships to the assistance of the Venetians, and granted a tithe on all benefices to the Emperor Charles VI. When Prince Eugene won the great battle of Temesvár, which put an end to the Turkish danger, no slight share of the credit was given by the Christian world to the pope and the Holy Rosary. Clement sent the great commander a blessed hat and sword. The fleet which Philip V of Spain had raised at the instigation of the pope, and with subsidies levied on church revenues, was diverted by Alberoni to the conquest of Sardinia; and though Clement showed his indignation by demanding the dismissal of the minister, and beginning a process against him, he had much to do to convince the emperor that he was not privy to the treacherous transaction. He gave a generous hospitality to the exiled son of James II of England, James Edward Stuart, and helped him to obtain the hand of Clementina, John Sobieski’s accomplished granddaughter, mother of Charles Edward.

Clement’s pastoral vigilance was felt in every corner of the earth. He organized the Church in the Philippine Islands and sent missionaries to every distant spot. He erected Lisbon into a patriarchate, 7 December, 1716. He enriched the Vatican Library with the manuscript treasures gathered at the expense of the pope by Joseph Simeon Assemani in his researches throughout Egypt and Syria. In the unfortunate controversy between the Dominican and the Jesuit missionaries in China concerning the permissibility of certain rites and customs, Clement decided in favour of the former. When the Jansenists provoked a new collision with the Church under the leadership of Quesnel, Pope Clement issued his two memorable Constitutions, “Vineam Domini,” 16 July, 1705, and “Unigenitus,” 10 September, 1713 (see UNIGENITUS; VINEAM DOMINI; JANSENISM). Clement XI made the feast of the Conception of the B.V.M. a Holy Day of obligation, and canonized Pius V, Andrew of Avellino, Felix of Cantalice, and Catherine of Bologna.

This great and saintly pontiff died appropriately on the feast of St. Joseph, for whom he entertained a particular devotion, and in whose honour he composed the special Office found in the Breviary. His remains rest in St. Peter’s. His official acts, letters, and Briefs, also his homilies, were collected and published by his nephew, Cardinal Annibale Albani (2 vols., Rome, 1722–24).

POLIDORI, De vita et rebus gestis Clementis XI libri sex (Urbino, 1724), also in FASSINI, Supplemento to NATALIS ALEXANDER, Historia Ecclesiastica (Bassano, 1778); REBOULET, Histoire de Clément XI (Avignon, 1752); LAFITEAU, Vie de Clément XI (Padua, 1752); BUDER (non-Catholic), Leben und Thaten des klugen und beržhmten Papstes Clementis XI. (Frankfort, 1721); NOVAES, Elementi della storia de’ sommi pontefici da S. Pietro fino a Pio VI (Rome, 1821–25); LANDAU, Rom, Wien, Neapel wâhrend des spanischen Erbfolgekrieges (Leipzig, 1885); HERGENRÖTHER-KIRSCH, Kirschengeschichte (4th ed., Freiburg, 1907), III. See also on the Albani, VISCONTI in Famiglie di Roma (I), and VON REUMONT in Beitrâge zur ital. Geschichte, V, 323 sqq., and Gesch. d. Stadt Rom (Berlin, 1867), III, ii, 642 sqq. Cf. ARTAUD DE MONTOR, History of the Roman Pontiffs (New York, 1867), II.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Clement XII

(LORENZO CORSINI).

Born at Florence, 7 April, 1652; elected 12 July, 1730; died at Rome 6 February, 1740. The pontificate of the saintly Orsini pope, Benedict XIII, from the standpoint of the spiritual interests of the Church, had left nothing to be desired. He had, however, given over temporal concerns into the hands of rapacious ministers; hence the finances of the Holy See were in bad condition; there was an increasing deficit, and the papal subjects were in a state of exasperation. It was no easy task to select a man who possessed all the qualities demanded by the emergency. After deliberating for four months, the Sacred College united on Cardinal Corsini, the best possible choice, were it not for his seventy-eight years and his failing eyesight.

A Corsini by the father’s side and by the mother’s a Strozzi, the best blood of Florence coursed through his veins. Innumerable were the members of his house who had risen to high positions in Church and State, but its chief ornament was St. Andrew Corsini, the canonized Bishop of Fiesole. Lorenzo made a brilliant course of studies, first in the Roman College, then at the University of Pisa, where, after five years, he received the degree of Doctor of Laws. Returning to Rome, he applied himself to the practice of law under the able direction of his uncle, Cardinal Neri Corsini, a ma of the highest culture. After the death of his uncle and his father, in 1685, Lorenzo, now thirty-three years old, resigned his right of primogeniture and entered the ecclesiastical state. From Innocent XI he purchased, according to the custom of the time, for 30,000 scudi (dollars) a position of prelatial rank,and devoted his wealth and leisure to the enlargement of the library bequeathed to him by his uncle. In 1691 he was made titular Archbishop of Nicomedia and chosen nuncio to Vienna. He did not proceed to the imperial court, because Leopold advanced the novel claim, which Pope Alexander VIII refused to admit, of selecting a nuncio from a list of three names to be furnished by the pope. In 1696 Corsini was appointed to the arduous office of treasurer-general and governor of Castle Sant’ Angelo. His good fortune increased during the pontificate of Clement XI, who employed his talents in affairs demanding tact and prudence. On 17 May, 1706, he was created Cardinal-Deacon of the Title of Santa Susanna, retaining the office of papal treasurer. He was attached to several of the most important congregations and was made protector of a score of religious institutions. He advanced still further under Benedict XIII, who assigned him to the Congregation of the Holy Office and made him prefect of the judicial tribunal known as the Segnatura di Giustizia. He was successively Cardinal-Priest of S. Pietro in Vincoli and Cardinal-Bishop of Frascati.

He had thus held with universal applause all the important offices of the Roman Court, and it is not surprising that his elevation to the papacy filled the Romans with joy. In token of gratitude to his benefactor, Clement XI, and as a pledge that he would make that great pontiff his model, he assumed the title of Clement XII. Unfortunately he lacked the important qualities of youth and physical strength. The infirmities of old age bore heavily upon him. In the second year of his pontificate he became totally blind; in his later years he was compelled to keep his bed, from which he gave audiences and transacted affairs of state. Notwithstanding his physical decrepitude, he displayed a wonderful activity. He demanded restitution of ill-gotten goods from the ministers who had abused the confidence of his predecessor. The chief culprit, Cardinal Coscia, was mulcted in a heavy sum and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Clement surrounded himself with capable officials, and won the affection of his subjects by lightening their burdens, encouraging manufacture and the arts, and infusing a modern spirit into the laws relating to commerce. The public lottery, which had been suppressed by the severe morality of Benedict XIII, was revived by Clement, and poured into his treasury an annual sum amounting to nearly a half million of scudi (dollars), enabling him to undertake the extensive buildings which distinguish his reign. He began the majestic façade of St. John Lateran and built in that basilica the magnificent chapel of St. Andrew Corsini. He restored the Arch of Constantine and built the governmental palace of the Consulta on the quirinal. He purchased from Cardinal Albani for 60,000 scudi the fine collection of statues, inscriptions, etc. with which he adorned the gallery of the Capitol. He paved the streets of Rome and the roads leading from the city, and widened the Corso. He began the great Fontana di Trevi, one of the noted ornaments of Rome.

In order to facilitate the reunion of the Greeks, Clement XII founded at Ullano, in Calabria, the Corsini College for Greek students. With a similar intent he called to Rome Greek-Melchite monks of Mt. Lebanon, and assigned to them the ancient church of Santa Maria in Domnica. He dispatched Joseph Simeon Assemani to the East for the twofold purpose of continuing his search for manuscripts and presiding as legate over a national council of Maronites. We make no attempt to enumerate all the operations which this wonderful blind-stricken old man directed from his bed of sickness. His name is associated in Rome with the foundation and embellishment of institutions of all sorts. The people of Ancona hold him in well-deserved veneration and have erected on the public square a statue in his honour. He gave them a port which excited the envy of Venice, and built a highway that gave them easy access to the interior. He drained the marshes of the Chiana near Lake Trasimeno by leading the waters through a ditch fourteen miles long into the Tiber. He disavowed the arbitrary action of his legate, Cardinal Alberoni, in seizing San Marino, and restored the independence of that miniature republic. His activity in the spiritual concerns of the Church was equally pronounced. His efforts were directed towards raising the prevalent low tone of morality and securing discipline, especially in the cloisters. He issued the first papal decree against the Freemasons (1738). He fostered the new Congregation of the Passionists and gave to his fellow-Tuscan, St. Paul of the Cross, the church and monastery of Sts. John and Paul, with the beautiful garden overlooking the Colosseum. He canonized Sts. Vincent de Paul, John Francis Regis, Catherine Fieschi Adorni, Juliana Falconieri, and approved the cult of St. Gertrude. He proceeded with vigour against the French Jansenists and had the happiness to receive the submission of the Maurists to the Constitution Unigenitus. Through the efforts of his missionaries in Egypt 10,000 Copts, with their patriarch, returned to the unity of the Church. Clement persuaded the Armenian patriarch to remove from the diptychs the anathema against the Council of Chalcedon and St. Leo I. In his dealings with the powers of Europe, he managed by a union of firmness and moderation to preserve or restore harmony; but he was unable to maintain the rights of the Holy See over the Duchies of Parma and Piacenza. It was a consequence of his blindness that he should surround himself with trusted relatives; but he advanced them only as they proved their worth, and did little for his family except to purchase and enlarge the palace built in Trastevere for the Riarii, and now known as the Palazzo Corsini (purchased in 1884 by the Italian Government, and now the seat of the Regia Accademia dei Lincei). In 1754, his nephew, Cardinal Neri Corsini, founded there the famous Corsini Library, which in 1905 included about 70,000 books and pamphlets, 2288 incunabula or works printed in the first fifty or sixty years after the discovery of printing, 2511 manuscripts, and 600 autographs. Retaining his extraordinary faculties and his cheerful resignation to the end, he died in the Quirinal in his eighty-eighth year. His remains were transferred to his magnificent tomb in the Lateran, 20 July, 1742.

FABRONIUS, De vita et rebus gestis Clementis XII (Rome, 1760), also in FASSINI, Supplemento to the Historia Ecclesiastica of NATALIS ALEXANDER (Bassano, 1778); PASSERINI, Genealogia e Storia della famiglia Corsini (Florence, 1858); VON REUMONT, Gesch. d. Stadt Rom (Berlin, 1867), III, iii, 653–55; NOVAES, Elementi della storia de’ sommi pontefici (Rome, 1821–25); HERGENRÖTHER-KIRSCH, Kirchengeschichte (4th ed., Freiburg, 1907) III (bibliography); ARTAUD DE MONTOR, History of the Roman Pontiffs (New York, 1867), II.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Clement XIII

(CARLO DELLA TORRE REZZONICO).

Born at Venice, 7 March, 1693; died at Rome, 2 February, 1769. He was educated by the Jesuits at Bologna, took his degrees in law at Padua, and in 1716 was ppointed at Rome referendary of the two departments known as the “Signatura Justitiæ” and the “Signatura Gratiæ.” He was made governor of Rieti in 1716, of Fano in 1721, and Auditor of the Rota for Venice in 1725. In 1737 he was made cardinal-deacon, and in 1743 Bishop of Padua, where he distinguished himself by his zeal for the formation and sanctification of his clergy, to promote which he held a synod in 1746, and published a very remarkable pastoral on the priestly state. His personal life was in keeping with his teaching, and the Jansenist Abbé Clément, a grudging witness, tells us that “he was called the saint (by his people), and was an exemplary man who, notwithstanding the immense revenues of his diocese and his private estate, was always without money owing to the lavishness of his alms-deeds, and would give away even his linen.” In 1747 he became cardinal-priest, and on 6 July, 1758, he was elected pope to succeed Benedict XIV. It was with tears that he submitted to the will of the electors, for he gauged well the force and direction of the storm which was gathering on the political horizon.

Regalism and Jansenism were the traditional enemies of the Holy See in its government of the Church, but a still more formidable foe was rising into power and using the other two as its instruments. This was the party of Voltaire and the Encyclopedists, the “Philosophers” as they liked to call themselves. They were men of talent and highly educated, and by means of these gifts had drawn over to themselves many admirers and adherents from among the ruling classes, with the result that by the time of Clement XIII, they had their representatives in power in the Portugese and in all the five Bourbon Courts. Their enmity was radically against the Christian religion itself, as putting a restraint on their licence of thought and action. In their private correspondence they called it the Infâme (the infamous one), and looked forward to its speedy extinction through the success of their policy; but they felt that in their relations with the public, and especially with the sovereigns, it was necessary to feign some kind of Catholic belief. In planning this war against the Church, they were agreed that the first step must be the destruction of the Jesuits. “When we have destroyed the Jesuits,” wrote Voltaire to Helvétius in 1761, “we shall have easy work with the Infâme.” And their method was to persuade the sovereigns that the Jesuits were the chief obstacle to their Regalist pretensions, and thereby a danger to the peace of their realms; and to support this view by the diffusion of defamatory literature, likewise by inviting the co-operation of those who, whilst blind to the character of their ulterior ends, stood with them for doctrinal or other reasons in their antipathy to the Society of Jesus. Such was the political situation with which Clement XIII saw himself confronted when he began his pontificate.

PORTUGAL

His attention was called in the first instance to Portugal, where the attack on the Society had already commenced. Joseph I, a weak and voluptuous prince, was a mere puppet in the hands of his minister, Sebastião Carvalho, afterwards Marquis de Pombal, a secret adherent of the Voltairian opinions, and bent on the destruction of the Society. A rebellion of the Indians in the Uruguay Reductions gave him his first opportunity. The cause of the rebellion was obvious, for the natives had been ordered to abandon forthwith their cultivated lands and migrate into the virgin forest. But, as they were under the care of the Jesuit missionaries, Carvalho declared that those must have instigated the natives. Moreover, on 3 September, 1758, Joseph I was shot at, apparently by the injured husband of a lady he had seduced. Pombal held a secret trial in which he pronounced the whole Tavora family guilty, and with them three Jesuit Fathers, against whom the sole evidence was that they had been friends of the Tavoras. Then, on the pretext that all Jesuits thought alike, he imprisoned their superiors, some hundred in number, in his subterranean dungeons, and wrote in the king’s name to Rome for permission from the Holy See to punish the guilty clerics. Clement did not see his way to refuse a request backed by the king’s assurances that he had good grounds for his charges, but he begged that the accused might have a careful trial, and that the innocent might not be included in a punishment they had not deserved. The pope’s letter was written with exquisite courtesy and consideration, but Pombal pronounced it insulting to his master and returned it to the sender. Then he shipped off all the Jesuits from Portugal and its colonies, save the superiors who were still detained in their prisons, and sent them to Civitavecchia, “as a present to the pope,” without a penny from their confiscated funds left to them for their maintenance. Clement, however, received them kindly, and provided for their needs. It was to be expected that diplomatic relations would not long continue after these events; they were severed in 1760 by Pombal, who sent back the nuncio, Acciajuoli, and recalled his own ambassador; nor were these relations restored till the next pontificate. Pombal had seen the necessity of supporting his administrative measures by an endeavour to destroy the good name of his victims with the public. For this purpose he caused various defamatory publications to be written, chief among which was the “Brief Relation,” in which the American Jesuits were represented as having set up an independent kingdom in South America under their own sovereignty, and of tyrannizing over the Indians, all in the interest of an insatiable ambition and avarice. These libels were spread broadcast, especially through Portugal and Spain, and many bishops from Spain and elsewhere wrote to the pope protesting against charges so improbable in themselves, and so incompatible with their experience of the order in their own jurisdictions. The text of many of their letters and of Clement XIII’s approving replies may be seen in the “Appendices” to Père de Ravignan’s “Clément XIII et Clément XIV.”

FRANCE

It was to be expected that the Society’s many enemies in France would be stimulated to follow in the footsteps of Pombal. The attack was opened by the Parlement, which was predominantly Jansenist in its composition, in the spring of 1761. Taking advantage of the financial difficulties into which the French Jesuits had been driven over the affair of Father Lavalette, they proceeded to examine the constitutions of the Society in which they professed to find grave improprieties, and to demand that, if the Jesuits were to remain in the country, these constitutions should be remodelled on the principle of reducing the power of the general and practically substituting for him a commisioner appointed by the Crown. They also drew up a famous document, named the “Extraits des assertions,” made up entirely of garbled extracts from Jesuit writers, and tending to show that their method was to establish their own domination by justifying almost every form of crime and licentiousness, particularly tyrannicide. Louis XV, like Joseph I, had a will enervated by lust, but unlike him, was by no means a fool, and had besides an underlying respect for religion. Thus he sought, in the first instance, to save a body of men whom he judged to be innocent, and for that purpose he referred their constitutions to the French bishops assembled at Paris in December, 1761. Forty-five of these bishops reported in favour of the constitutions, and of the Jesuits being left as they were, twenty-seven or more, not then in Paris, sending in their adhesion; but the king was being drawn the other way by his Voltairian statesmen and Madame de Pompadour, and accordingly preferred the advice of the one bishop who sided with the Parlement, Bishop FitzJames of Soissons. He therefore issued an edict in March, 1762, which allowed the Society to remain in the kingdom, but prescribed some essential changes in their institute with the view of satisfying the Parlement.

Clement XIII intervened in various ways in this crisis of the French Jesuits. He wrote to the king in June, 1761, and again in January, 1762, on the former occasion to implore him to stay the proceedings of his Parlement, on the latter to protest against the scheme of setting a French vicar- general, independent of the general in Rome, over the French provinces; it was likewise on this latter occasion that, whilst blaming their general for the compliance of some of his French subjects, he used the famous words “Sint ut sint aut non sint.” To the French bishops who wrote to him protesting against the doings of the Parlement, he replied in words of thankfulness and approval, e.g. to the Bishop of Grenoble on 4 April, 1762, and to the Bishop of Sarlat (with special reference to the “Extraits des assertions”) on 14 November. 1764; and to the bishops collectively in June, 1762, exhorting them to use all their influence with the king to induce him to resist his evil counsellors. To the arrét of 2 August, 1762, by which the Parlement suppressed the Society in France, and imposed impossible conditions on any of its members wishing to remain in the country, Clement replied by an Allocution of 3 September, in which he protested against the invasion of the Church’s rights, and annulled the arréts of the Parlement against the Society. Finally, when the king, weakly yielding to the pressure of his entourage, suppressed the French provinces by his edict of November, 1764, the Holy Father felt it his duty, besought as he was by so many bishops from all parts, to publish the Bull “Apostolicum,” of 9 January, 1765. Its object was to oppose to the current misrepresentations of the Society’s institute, spiritual exercises, preaching missions, and theology, a solemn and formal approbation, and to declare that the Church herself was assailed in these condemnations of what she sanctioned in so many ways.

SPAIN

The statesmen who had the ear of Charles III were in regular correspondence with the French Encyclopedists, and had for some years previously been projecting a proscription of the Society on the same lines as in Portugal and France. But this was not known to the public, or to the Jesuits, who believed themselves to have a warm friend in their sovereign. It came then as a surprise to all when, on the night of 2–3 April, 1767, all the Jesuit houses were suddenly surrounded, the inmates arrested and transferred to vehicles ordered to take them to the coast, thence to be shipped off for some unknown destination-forbidden to take anything with them beyond the clothes which they wore. Nor was any other explanation vouchsafed to the outer world save that contained in the king’s letter to Clement XIII, dated 31 March. There it was stated that the king had found it necessary to expel all his Jesuit subjects for reasons which he intended to reserve for ever in his royal breast, but that he was sending them all to Civitavecchia that they might be under the pope’s care, and he would allow them a maintenance of 100 piastres (i.e. Spanish dollars) a year-a maintenance, however, which would be withdrawn for the whole body, should any one of them venture at any time to write anything in self-defence or in criticism of the motives for the expulsion. The pope wrote back on 16 April a very touching letter in which he declared that this was the cruelest blow of all to his paternal heart, beseeching the king to see that if any were accused they should not be condemned without proper trial, and assuring him that the charges current against the institute and the whole body of its members were misrepresentations due to the malice of the Church’s enemies. But nothingh could be extracted from the king, and it is now known that this idea of a royal secret was merely a pretext devised in order to prevent the Holy See from having any say in the matter.

Foreseeing the difficulty of so large an influx of expelled religious into his states, Clement felt compelled to refuse them permission to land, and after various wanderings they lhad to settle down in Corsica, where they were joined by their brethren who had been similarly sent away from Spanish America. When, a year and a half later, they were forced to move again, the pope’s compassion overcame his administrative prudence, and he permitted them to take refuge in his territory. On the throne of Naples was seated a son of Charles III, and on that of Parma his nephew. Both were minors, and both had Voltairian ministers through whose instrumentality their policy was directed from Madrid. Accordingly the Jesuits in their dominions were similarly banished, and their banishment drew similar remonstrances from the pope. But in the case of Parma there was a complication, for this state having been for centuries regarded as a fief of the Holy See, the pope had felt himself bound to condemn by his Monitorium of 30 January, 1768, some laws passed by the duke to the detriment of the Church’s liberties. The Bourbon Courts thereupon united in demanding the withdrawal of the Monitorium, threatening, if refused to deprive the pope by armed force of his territories of Avignon and the Vanaissin in France, and of Benevento and Montecorto in Italy. Finally, on 18, 20, 22 January, 1769, the ambassadors of France, Spain, and Naples presented to him identical notes demanding the total and entire suppression of the Society of Jesus throughout the world. It was this that killed him. He expired under the shock on the night of 2–3 February. In one sense, no doubt, his pontificate was a failure, and he has been blamed for a lack of foresight which should have made him yield to the exigencies of the times. But in a higher sense it was a splendid success. For he had the insight to see through the plausible pretences of the Church’s enemies, and to discern the ultimate ends which they were pursuing. He viewed the course of events ever in the light of faith, and was ever faithful to his trust. He always took up sound positions, and knew how to defend them with language conspicuous for its truth and justice, as well as for its moderation and Christian tenderness. His pontificate, in short, afforded the spectacle of a saint clad in moral strength contending alone against the powers of the world and their physical might; and such a spectacle is an acquisition forever.

There were other aspects under which Clement XIII had to contend with the prevailing errors of Regalism and Jansenism in France, Germany, Holland, Poland, and Venice, but these by comparison were of minor moment. Among the pernicious books condemned by him were the “Histoire du peuple de Dieu” of the Jesuit Berruyer, the “Esprit” of Helvétius, the “Exposition de la doctrine chrétienne” of Mésenguy, the “Encyclopédie” of D’Alembert and Diderot, and the “De Statu Ecclesiæ” of Febronius. He greatly encouraged devotion to the Sacred Heart, and ordered the Preface of the Blessed Trinity to be recited on Sundays.

Barberi and Spetia, Bullarii Romani Continuatio (Rome, 1835); Cordara, Commentarii in Döllinger, Beitrage zur politischen, kirchlichen und Kulturgeschichte (1882), III; Procés-verbaux du clergé français (1882), VIII; Novaes, Elementi della storia de’ sommi pontefici (Rome, 1822), XV; De Montor, Histoire de souverains pontifes romains (Paris, 1851); Von Ranke, Die römischen Päpste, III; Crétineau-Joly, Clément XIV et les Jésuites (Paris, 1847); Idem, Histoire de la compagnie de Jésus (Paris, 1851), V; Theiner, Histoire du Pontificat de Clément XIV (Paris, 1852); Ravignan, Clément XIII et Clément XIV (Paris, 1854); Ferrer del Rio, Historia del Reinado de Carlos III (Madrid, 1857); Dávila y Collado, Reinado de Carlos III in Cá de Castillo, Historia General de España (Madrid, 1893); Smith, The Suppression of the Society of Jesus articles in the Month (1902, 1903); Rousseau, Expulsion des Jésuites en Espagne in the Revue des questiones historiques (Jan., 1904).

SYDNEY SMITH.

Pope Clement XIV

(LORENZO-or GIOVANNI VINCENZO ANTONIO-GANGANELLI).

Born at Sant’ Arcangelo, near Rimini, 31 October, 1705; died at Rome, 22 September, 1774.

At the death of Clement XIII the Church was in dire distress. Gallicanism and Jansenism, Febronianism and Rationalism were up in rebellion against the authority of the Roman pontiff; the rulers of France, Spain, Naples, Portugal, Parma were on the side of the sectarians who flattered their dynastic prejudices and, at least in appearance, worked for the strengthening of the temporal power against the spiritual. The new pope would have to face a coalition of moral and political forces which Clement XIII had indeed manfully resisted, but failed to put down, or even materially to check. The great question between Rome and the Bourbon princes was the suppression of the Society of Jesus. In France, Spain, and Portugal the suppression had taken place de facto; the accession of a new pope was made the occasion for insisting on the abolition of the order root and branch, de facto and de jure, in Europe and all over the world.

The conclave assembled 15 February, 1769. Rarely, if ever, has a conclave been the victim of such overweening interference, base intrigues, and unwarranted pressure. The ambassadors of France (d’Aubeterre) and Spain (Azpuru) and the Cardinals de Bernis (France) and Orsini (Naples) led the campaign. The Sacred college, consisting of forty-seven cardinals, was divided into Court cardinals and Zelanti. The latter, favourable to the Jesuits and opposed to the encroaching secular, were in a majority. “It is easy to foresee the difficulties of our negotiations on a stage where more than three-fourths of the actors are against us.” Thus wrote Bernis to Choiseul, the minister of Louis XV. The immediate object of the intriguers was to gain over a sufficient number of Zelanti. D’Aubeterre, inspired by Azpuru, urged Bernis to insist that the election of the future pope be made to depend on his written engagement to suppress the Jesuits. The cardinal, however, refused. In a memorandum to Choiseul, dated 12 April, 1769, he says: “To require from the future pope a promise made in writing or before witnesses, to destroy the Jesuits, would be a flagrant violation of the canon law and therefore a blot on the honour of the crowns.” The King of Spain (Charles III) was willing to bear the responsibility. D’Aubeterre opined that simony and canon law had no standing against reason, which claimed the abolition of the Society for the peace of the world. Threats were now resorted to; Bernis hinted at a blockade of Rome and popular insurrections to overcome the resistance of the Zelanti. France and Spain, in virtue of their right of veto, excluded twenty-three of the forty-seven cardinals; nine or ten more, on account of their age or for some other reason, were not papabili; only four or five remained eligible. Well might the Sacred College, as Bernis feared it would, protest against violence and separate on the plea of not being free to elect a suitable candidate. But d’Aubeterre was relentless. He wished to intimidate the cardinals. “A pope elected against the wishes of the Courts,” he wrote, “will not be acknowledged”; and again, “I think that a pope of that [philosophical] temper, that is without scruples, holding fast to no opinion and consulting only his own interests, might be acceptable to the Courts.” The ambassadors threatened to leave Rome unless the conclave surrendered to their dictation. The arrival of the two Spanish cardinals, Solis and La Cerda, added new strength to the Court party. Solis insisted on a written promise to suppress the Jesuits being given by the future pope, but Bernis was not to be gained over to such a breach of the law. Solis, therefore, supported in the conclave by Cardinal Malvazzi and outside by the ambassadors of France and Spain, took the matter into his own hands. He began by sounding Cardinal Ganganelli as to his willingness to give the promise required by the Bourbon princes as an indispensable condition for election.—Why Ganganelli? This cardinal was the only friar in the Sacred College. Of humble birth (his father had been a surgeon at Sant’ Arcangelo), he had received his education from the Jesuits of Rimini and the Piarists of Urbino, and, in 1724, at the age of nineteen, had entered the Order of Friars Minor of St. Francis and changed his baptismal name (Giovanni Vincenzo Antonio) for that of Lorenzo. His talents and his virtues had raised him to the dignity of definitor generalis of his order (1741); Benedict XIV made him Consultor of the Holy Office, and Clement XIII gave him the cardinal’s hat (1759), at the instance, it is said, of Father Ricci, the General of the Jesuits. During the conclave he endeavoured to please both the Zelanti and the Court party without committing himself to either. At any rate he signed a paper which satisfied Solis. Crétineau-Joly, the historian of the Jesuits, gives its text; the future pope declared “that he recognized in the sovereign pontiff the right to extinguish, with good conscience, the Company of Jesus, provided he observed the canon law; and that it was desirable that the pope should do everything in his power to satisfy the wishes of the Crowns.” The original paper is, however, nowhere to be found, but its existence seems established by subsequent events, and also by the testimony of Bernis in letters to Choiseul (28 July, and 20 November, 1769). Ganganelli had thus secured the votes of the Court cardinals; the Zelanti looked upon him as indifferent or even favourable to the Jesuits; d’Aubeterre had always been in his favour as being “a wise and moderate theologian”; and Choiseul had marked him as “very good” on the list of papabili. Bernis, anxious to have his share in the victory of the sovereigns, urged the election. On 18 May, 1769, Ganganelli was elected by forty-six votes out of forty-seven, the forty-seventh being his own which he had given to Cardinal Rezzonico, a nephew of Clement XIII. He took the name of Clement XIV.

The new pope’s first Encyclical clearly defined his policy: to keep the peace with Catholic princes in order to secure their support in the war against irreligion. His predecessor had left him a legacy of broils with nearly every Catholic power in Europe. Clement hastened to settle as many as he could by concessions and conciliatory measures. Without revoking the constitution of Clement XIII against he young Duke of Parma’s inroads on the rights of the Church, he refrained from urging its execution, and graciously granted him a dispensation to marry his cousin, the Archduchess Amelia, daughter of Maria Theresa of Austria. The King of Spain, soothed by these concessions, withdrew the uncanonical edict which, a year before, he had issued as a counterblast to the pope’s proceedings against the infant Duke of Parma, the king’s nephew; he also re-established the nuncio’s tribunal and condemned some writings against Rome. Portugal had been severed from Rome since 1760; Clement XIV began his attempt at reconciliation by elevating to the Sacred College Paulo de Carvalho, brother of the famous minister Pombal; active negotiations terminated in the revocation, by King Joseph I, of the ordinances of 1760, the origin and cause of the rupture between Portugal and the Holy See. A grievance common to Catholic princes was the yearly publication, on Holy Thursday, of the censures reserved to the pope; Clement abolished this custom in the first Lent of his pontificate. But there remained the ominous question of the Jesuits. The Bourbon princes, though thankful for smaller concessions, would not rest till they had obtained the great object of their machinations, the total suppression of the Society. Although persecuted in France, Spain, Sicily, and Portugal, the Jesuits had still many powerful protectors: the rulers, as well as the public conscience, protected them and their numerous establishments in the ecclesiastical electorates of Germany, in the Palatinate, Bavaria, Silesia, Poland, Switzerland, and the many countries subject to the sceptre of Maria Theresa, not to mention the States of the Church and the foreign missions. The Bourbon princes were moved in their persecution by the spirit of the times, represented in Latin countries by French irreligious philosophism, by Jansenism, Gallicanism, and Erastianism; probably also by the natural desire to receive the papal sanction for their unjust proceedings against the order, for which they stood accused at the bar of the Catholic conscience. The victim of a man’s injustice often becomes the object of his hatred; thus only the conduct of Charles III, of Pombal, Tanucci, Aranda, Moniño can be accounted for.

An ever-recurring and almost solitary grievance against the Society was that the Fathers disturbed the peace wherever they were firmly established. The accusation is not unfounded: the Jesuits did indeed disturb the peace of the enemies of the Church, for, in the words of d’Alembert to Frederick II, they were “the grenadiers of the pope’s guard.” Cardinal de Bernis, now French ambassador in Rome, was instructed by Choiseul to follow the lead of Spain in the renewed campaign against the Jesuits. On the 22nd of July, 1769, he presented to the pope a memorandum in the name of the three ministers of the Bourbon kings, “The three monarchs,” it ran, “still believe the destruction of the Jesuits to be useful and necessary; they have already made their request to Your Holiness, and they renew it this day.” Clement answered that “he had his conscience and honour to consult”; he asked for a delay. On 30 September he made some vague promises to Louis XV, who was less eager in the fray than Charles III. This latter, bent on the immediate suppression of the order, obtained from Clement XIV, under the strong pressure of Azpuru, the written promise “to submit to His Majesty a scheme for the absolute extinction of the Society” (30 November, 1769). To prove his sincerity the pope now commenced open hostilities against the Jesuits. He refused to see their general, Father Ricci, and gradually removed from his entourage their best friends; his only confidants were two friars of his own order, Buontempo and Francesco; no princes or cardinals surrounded his throne. The Roman people, dissatisfied with this state of things and reduced to starvation by maladministration, openly showed their discontent, but Clement, bound by his promises and caught in the meshes of Bourbon diplomacy, was unable to retrace his steps. The college and seminary of Frascati were taken from the Jesuits and handed over to the bishop of the town, the Cardinal of York. Their Lenten catechisms were prohibited for 1770. A congregation of cardinals hostile to the order visited the Roman College and had the Fathers expelled; the novitiate and the German College were also attacked. The German College won its cause, but the sentence was never executed. The novices and students were sent back to their families. A similar system of persecution was extended to Bologna, Ravenna, Ferrara, Modena, Macerata. Nowhere did the Jesuits offer any resistance; they knew that their efforts were futile. Father Garnier wrote: “You ask me why the Jesuits offer no defence: they can do nothing here. All approaches, direct and indirect, are completely closed, walled up with double walls. Not the most insignificant memorandum can find its way in. There is no one who would undertake to hand it in” (19th Jan., 1773).

On 4 July, 1772, appeared on the scene a new Spanish ambassador, Joseph Moniño, Count of Florida Blanca. At once he made an onslaught on the perplexed pope. He openly threatened him with a schism in Spain and probably in the other Bourbon states, such as had existed in Portugal from 1760 to 1770. On the other hand, he promised the restitution of Avignon and Benvento, still held by France and Naples. Whilst Clement’s anger was roused by this latter simoniacal proposal, his good, but feeble, heart could not overcome the fear of a widespread schism. Moniño had conquered. He now ransacked the archives of Rome and Spain to supply Clement with facts justifying the promised suppression. Moniño must be held responsible for the matter of the Brief “Dominus ac Redemptor,” i. e. for its facts and provisions; the pope contributed little more to it than the form of his supreme authority. Meanwhile Clement continued to harass the Jesuits of his own dominions, perhaps with a view to preparing the Catholic world for the Brief of suppression, or perhaps hoping by his severity to soothe the anger of Charles III and to stave off the abolition of the whole order. Until the end of 1772 he still found some support against the Bourbons in King Charles Emmanuel of Sardinia and in the Empress Maria Theresa of Austria. But Charles Emmanuel died, and Maria Theresa, giving way to the importunate prayers of her son Joseph II and her daughter the Queen of Naples, ceased to plead for the maintenance of the Society. Thus left to himself, or rather to the will of Charles III and the wiles of Moniño, Clement began, in November, 1772, the composition of the Brief of abolition, which took him seven months to finish. It was signed 8 June, 1773; at the same time a congregation of cardinals was appointed to administer the property of the suppressed order. On 21 July the bells of the Gesù rang the opening of the annual novena preceding the feast of St. Ignatius; the pope, hearing them, remarked: “They are not ringing for the saints but for the dead.” The Brief of suppression, signed on 8 June, bears the date 21 July, 1773. It was made known at the Gesù to the general (Father Ricci) and his assistants on the evening of 16 August; the following day they were taken first to the English College, then to Castel Sant’ Angelo, where their long trial was commenced. Ricci never saw the end of it. He died in prison, to his last moment protesting his innocence and that of his order. His companions were set free under Pius VI, their judges having found them “not guilty.”

The Brief, “Dominus ac Redemptor” opens with the statement that it is the pope’s office to secure in the world the unity of mind in the bonds of peace. He must therefore be prepared, for the sake of charity, to uproot and destroy the things most dear to him, whatever pains and bitterness their loss may entail. Often the popes, his predecessors, have made use of their supreme authority for reforming, and even dissolving, religious orders which had become harmful and disturbed the peace of the nations rather than promoted it. Numerous examples are quoted, then the Brief continues: “Our predecessors, in virtue of the plenitude of power which is theirs as Vicars of Christ, have suppressed such orders without allowing them to state their claims or to refute the grave accusations brought against them, or to impugn the motives of the pope.” Clement has now to deal with a similar case, that of the Society of Jesus. Having enumerated the principal favours granted it by former popes, he remarks that “the very tenor and terms of the said Apostolic constitutions show that the Society from its earliest days bore the germs of dissensions and jealousies which tore its own members asunder, led them to rise against other religious orders, against the secular clergy and the universities, nay even against the sovereigns who had received them in their states.” Then follows a list of the quarrels in which the Jesuits had been engaged, from Sixtus V to Benedict XIV. Clement XIII had hoped to silence their enemies by renewing the approbation of their Institute, “but the Holy See derived no consolation, the Society no help, Christianity no advantage from the Apostolic letters of Clement XIII, of blessed memory, letters which were wrung from him rather than freely given.” At the end of this pope’s reign “the outcry and the complaints against the Society increasing day by day, the very princes whose piety and hereditary benevolence towards it are favourably known of all nations—our beloved Sons in Jesus Christ the Kings of France, Spain, Portugal, and the two Sicilies—were forced to expel from their kingdoms, states and provinces, all the religious of this Order, well knowing that this extreme measure was the only remedy to such great evils.” Now the complete abolition of the order is demanded by the same princes. After long and mature consideration the pope, “compelled by his office, which imposes on him the obligation to procure, maintain, and consolidate with all his power the peace and tranquillity of the Christian people—persuaded, moreover, that the Society of Jesus is no longer able to produce the abundant fruit and the great good for which it was instituted—and considering that, as long as this order subsists, it is impossible for the Church to enjoy free and solid peace,” resolves to “suppress and abolish” the Society, “to annul and abrogate all and each of its offices, functions, and administrations.” The authority of the superiors was transferred to the bishops; minute provisions were made for the maintenance and the employment of the members of the order. The Brief concludes with a prohibition to suspend or impede its execution, to make it the occasion of insulting or attacking anyone, least of all the former Jesuits; finally it enhorts the faithful to live in peace with all men and to love one another.

The one and only motive for the suppression of the Society set forth in this Brief is to restore the peace of the Church by removing one of the contending parties from the battlefield. No blame is laid by the pope on the rules of the order, or the personal conduct of its members, or the orthodoxy of their teaching. Moreover, Father Sydney Smith, S. J. (in “The Month,” CII, 62, July 1903), observes: “The fact remains that the condemnation is not pronounced in the straightforward language of direct statement, but is merely insinuated with the aid of dexterous phrasing”; and he contrasts this method of stating grounds for the suppression of the Society with the vigorous and direct language used by former popes in suppressing the Humiliati and other orders. If Clement XIV hoped to stop the storm of unbelief raging against the Bark of Peter by throwing its best oarsmen overboard, he was sorely mistaken. But is unlikely that he entertained such a fallacy. He loved the Jesuits, who had been his first teachers, his trusty advisers, the best defenders of the Church over which he ruled. No personal animosity guided his action; the Jesuits themselves, in agreement with all serious historians, attribute their suppression to Clement’s weakness of character, unskilled diplomacy, and that kind of goodness of heart which is more bent on doing what is pleasing than what is right. He was not built to hold his head above the tempest; his hesitations and his struggles were of no avail against the enemies of the order, and his friends found no better excuse for him than that of St. Alphonsus: What could the poor pope do when all the Courts insisted on the suppression? The Jesuit Cordara expresses the same mind: “I think we should not condemn the pontiff who, after so many hesitations, has judged it his duty to suppress the Society of Jesus. I love my order as much as any man, yet, had I been in the pope’s place I should probably have acted as he did. The Xompany, founded and maintained for the good of the Church, perished for the same good; it could not have ended more gloriously.”

It should be noted that the Brief was not promulgated in the form customary for papal Constitutions intended as laws of the Church. It was not a Bull, but a Brief, i. e. a decree of less binding force and easier of revocation; it was not affixed to the gates of St. Peter’s or in the Campo di Fiore; it was not even communicated in legal form to the Jesuits in Rome; the general and his assistants alone received the notification of their suppression. In France it was not published, the Gallican Church, and especially Beaumont, Archbishop of Paris, resolutely opposing it as being the pope’s personal deed, not supported by the whole Church and therefore not binding on the Church of France. The King of Spain thought the Brief too lenient, for it condemned neither the doctrine, nor the morals, nor the discipline of his victims. The court of Naples forbade its publication under pain of death. Maria Theresa allowed her son Joseph II to seize the property of the Jesuits (some $10,000,000) and then, “reserving her rights,” acquiesced in the suppression “for the peace of the Church.” Poland resisted a while; the Swiss cantons of Lucerne, Fribourg, and Solothurn never allowed the Fathers to give up their colleges. Two non-Catholic sovereigns, Frederick of Prussia and Catherine of Russia, took the Jesuits under their protection. Whatever may have been their motives, whether it was to spite the pope and the Bourbon Courts or to please their Catholic subjects and preserve for them the services of the best educators, their intervention kept the order alive until its complete restoration in 1804. Frederick persevered in his opposition only for a few years; in 1780 the Brief was promulgated in his dominions. The Jesuits retained possession of all their colleges and of the University of Breslau until 1806 and 1811, but they ranked as secular priests and admitted no more novices. But Catherine II resisted to the end. By her order the bishops of White Russia ignored the Brief of suppression and commanded the Jesuits to continue to live in communities and to go on with their usual work. Clement XIV seems to have approved of their conduct. The empress, in order to set at rest the scruples of the Fathers, engaged in several negotiations with the pope and had her will. In France, too, the persecuted Jesuits were not altogether without friends. Madame Louise de France, daughter of Louis XV, who had entered the Carmelite Order and was, with her sisters, the leader of a band of pious women at the court of her royal father, had worked out a scheme for re-establishing the Jesuits in six provinces under the authority of the bishops. Bernis, however, defeated their good intentions. He obtained from the pope a new Brief, addressed to himself and requesting him to see that the French bishops conformed, each in his diocese, to the Brief “Dominus ac Redemptor.”

After the death of Clement XIV it was rumoured that he had retracted the Brief of abolition by a letter of 29 June, 1774. That letter, it was said, had been entrusted to his confessor to be given to the next pope. It was published for the first time in 1789, at Zurich, in P. Ph. Wolf’s “Allgemeine Geschichte der Jesuiten.” Although Pius VI never protested against this statement, the authenticity of the document in question is not sufficiently established (De la Serviére).

The first and almost the only advantage the pope reaped from his policy of concessions was the restoration to the Holy See of Avignon and Benevento. These provinces had been seized by the Kings of France and Naples when Clement XIII had excommunicated their kinsman the young Duke of Parma (1768). The restitution, following so closely on the suppression of the Jesuits, seemed the price paid for it, although, to save appearances, the duke interceded with the two kings in favour of the pope, and Clement, in the consistory of 17 January, 1774, took occasion from it to load the Bourbon princes with praises they little deserved. The hostile and schismatical manœ;uvres against the Church continued unabated in many Catholic countries. In France a royal commission for the reformation of the religious orders had been at work for several years, notwithstanding the energetic protests of Clement XIII; without the pope’s consent it had abolished in 1770 the congregations of Grandmont and of the exempt Benedictines; it had threatened the Premonstratensians, the Trinitarians, and the Minims with the same fate. The pope protested, through his nuncio to Paris, against such abuses of the secular power, but in vain. The Celestines and the Camaldolese were secularized that same year, 1770. The only concessions Louis XV deigned to make was to submit to Clement the general edict for the reformation of the French religious before its publication. This was in 1773. The pope succeeded in obtaining its modification in several points.

In 1768 Genoa had ceded the Island of Corsica to France. At once a conflict arose as to the introduction of “Gallican usages.” The pope sent a visitor Apostolic to the island and had the gratification of preventing the adoption of usages in opposition to the Roman practice. Louis XV, however, revenged himself by absolutely refusing to acknowledge the pope’s suzerainty over Corsica. Louis XV died in 1774, and one is rather surprised at the eulogy which Clement XIV pronounced in a consistory on “the king’s deep love for the Church, and his admirable zeal for the defence of the Catholic religion.” He also hoped that the penitent death of the prince had secured his salvation. It may be surmised that he was prompted by a desire to please the king’s youngest daughter, Madame Louise de France, Prioress of the Carmelites of SaintDenis, for whom he had always shown a great affection, attested by numerous favours granted to herself and to her convent.

During Clement XIV’s pontificate the chief rulers in German lands were Maria Theresa, of Austria, and Frederick the Great, of Prussia. Frederick, by preserving the Jesuits in his dominions, rendered the Church a good, though perhaps unintended, service. He also authorized the erection of a Catholic church in Berlin; the pope sent a generous contribution and ordered collections for the same purpose to be made in Belgium, the Rhineland, and Austria. Maria Theresa lived up to the title of Regina Apostolica bestowed on her by Clement XIII. But the doctrines of Febronius were prevalent at her court, and more than once she came into conflict with the pope. She refused to suppress a new edition of Febronius, as Clement XIV requested; she lent a willing ear to the “Grievances of the German nation,” a scheme of reforms in the Church making it more dependent on the prince than on the pope; she legislated for the religious orders of her dominions without consulting Rome. She maintained her edict on the religious against all the pope’s remonstrances, but withdrew her protection from the authors of the “Grievances,” the Electors of Cologne, Mainz, and Trier. She also obtained from Clement in 1770 the institution of a Ruthenian bishop for the Ruthenian Catholics of Hungary. In other parts of Germany the pope had to face similar difficulties. The number and wealth of the religious houses, in some instances their uselessness, and occasionally thier disorders, tempted the princes to lay violent and rapacious hands on them. Numerous houses were to be suppressed in Bavaria for the endowment of the new University of Ebersberg, in the Palatinate the reception of new religious was to be stopped; Clement opposed both measures with success. Westphalia is indebted to him for the University of Münster, erected 27 May, 1773.

In Spain Clement approved the Order of the Knights of the Immaculate Conception, instituted by Charles III. The king also desired him to define the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but France blocked the way. Portugal, whilst it made a certain outward show of goodwill towards Rome, continued to interfere in ecclesiastical affairs and to impose on colleges and seminaries an education more in accord with French philosophism than with the spirit of the Church. At Naples the minster Tanucci hindered the recruitment of religious orders; episcopal acts required the royal placet; the anti- religious press enjoyed high protection. Poland and Russia were another source of deep grief for Clement XIV. Whilst, politically, Poland was preparing its own ruin, the Piarists openly taught the worst philosophism in their schools and refused to have their houses visited by the papal nuncio at Warsaw. King Stanislaus planned the extinction of the religious orders and favoured the Freemasons. The pope was powerless; the few concessions he obtained from Catherine II for the Catholics of her new province were set at naught by that headstrong woman as soon as it suited her politics. Of her own authority she created for the annexed Catholic Ruthenians a new diocese (Mohileff) administered by a bishop (Siestrencewicz) of schismatic temper. Clement XIV had the satisfaction of seeing his nuncio, Caprara, favourably received at the Court of England, and of initiating measures for the emancipation of English Catholics. This turn in the relations between Rome and England was due to the granting of royal honours to the king’s brother when he visited Rome in 1772; the same honours being refused to the Pretender. In the East, the Nestorian Patriarch, Mar Simeon, and six of his suffragans, were reunited to Rome. In Rome the pope found little favour with either the Roman patriciate or the Sacred College; none of the many measures he took for the betterment of his people could atone, in their eyes, for his subserviency to the Bourbon Courts and for the suppression of the Jesuits. The last months of his life were embittered by the consciousness of his failures; at times he seemed crushed under the weight of sorrow. On the 10th of September, 1774, he took to his bed, received Extreme Unction on the 21st and died piously on the 22nd of the same month. Many witnesses in the process of canonization of St. Alphonsus of Liguori attested that the saint had been miraculously present at the death-bed of Clement XIV to console and fortify him in his last hour. The doctors, who opened the dead body in presence of many spectators, ascribed death to scorbutic and hæmorrhoidal dispositions of long standing, aggravated by excessive labour and by the habit of provoking artificial perspiration even during the greatest heat. Notwithstanding the doctors’ certificate, the “Spanish party” and historical romancers attributed death to poison administered by the Jesuits. The mortal remains of Clement XIV rest in the church of the Twelve Apostles. (See also .)

Bullarium Romanum: Clementis XIV epistolæ et brevia, ed. THEINER (Paris, 1852); CORDARA, Memoirs on the suppression of the Jesuits, published by DÖLLINGER in Beitrage zur politischen, kirchlichen u. Culturgeschichte (Vienna, 1882).—As to the Lettres intéressantes de Clément XIV, published by the MARCHESE CARACCIOLO in 1776, Father Sydney Smith, S. J., says, in a note to one of the articles in The Month (CI, 180, Feb., 1903) referred to below: “There has been much discussion about these letters. The Marchese Caracciolo in his Preface is suspiciously reticent as to the channels through which he obtained them, and gives them in a French translation instead of in the original Italian. On this account, and because it is difficult to believe that some of the contents come from Fra Lorenzo [as Clement XIV was called in religion], many critics have rejected the entire collection as spurious. But VON REUTMONT thinks (Ganganelli-Papst Clement-seine Briefe und seine Zeit, 1847, Preface 40–42) that it is in substance a genuine collection, though some of the letters are spurious and interpolated. Von Reumont argues very justly that it would hardly be possible to fabricate so many letters, addressed to correspondents most of whom were alive at the time of the publication, and yet impart to them the unity, distinctness, and spontanedity of a living character.”-CHRETINEAU JOLY, Clément XIV et les Jésuites (Paris, 1847); Le Pape Clément XIV, Lettres au P. Theiner; MASSON, Le Cardinal de Bernis (Paris, 1884); ROUSSEAU, Expulsion des Jésuites en Espagne (Paris, 1907); DE LA SERVIÉRE in VACANT, Dict. de théol. cath. (Paris, 1907), s. v. Clément XIV; The Dublin Review (1855), XXXIX, 107; SMITH, The Suppression of the Society of Jesus, articles in The Month (London, 1902–3), XCIX, C, CI, CII; RAVIGNAN, Clément XIII et Clément XIV (Paris, 1854).

J. WILHELM

Cæsar Clement

Date of birth uncertain; died at Brussels 28 Aug., 1626, great-nephew of Sir Thomas More’s friend, Dr. John Clement. He was a student at Douai when in 1578 the college was removed to Reims, but was shortly sent to the English College, Rome, being admitted 5th September, 1579. He was ordained priest in 1585, but remained in Rome till Oct., 1587. He took the degree of Doctor of Theology in Italy, probably in Rome itself. Though originally destined for the English mission, he never went to England. but held the important positions of Dean of St. Gudule’s, Brussels, and vicar-general of the King of Spain’s army in Flanders. He was a great benefactor to all English exiles, especially the Augustinian Canonesses of Louvain. In 1612 he, with the Rev. Robert Chambers, was commissioned from Rome to make a visitation of Douai College so as to put an end to the dissatisfaction with the administration there. (See Dodd, “Church Hist. of Eng.,” Tierney ed., V, 3 sqq.)

DODD, Church History of England (London, 1737), II, 388; MORRIS, Troubles of our Cath. Forefathers (London, 1872), I, 40, 41, 47, 57; Douay Diaries (London. 1877); FOLEY, Records Eng. Prov. S. J. (London. 1880), VI, 138; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885), I, 497–8; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog. (London, 1887). XI, 32; HAMILTON, Chronicles of the English Augustinian Canonesses of Louvain (London, 1904–6).

EDWIN BURTON.

François Clément

A member of the Benedictine Congregation of Saint-Maur and historian; born at Bèze in the department of Côte-d’Or, France, 1714; died at Paris, 29 March, 1793. He made his first studies at the college of the Jesuits at Dijon. Soon after his profession in 1731 his superiors sent him to the monastery of the “Blancs-Manteaux” at Paris to assist in the learned labours of the congregation. To great intellectual gifts Clément added scientific acumen and an unflagging industry which especially fitted him for his task. He knew no fatigue and at night gave barely two or three hours to sleep. He first busied himself with the preparations for volumes XI and XII of the “Histoire littéraire de la France”; these volumes covered the years 1141–1167 and were edited by Clémencet. He then edited, in collaboration with Dom Brial, a fellow-Benedictine, volumes XII and XIII of the work begun by Bouquet in 1738, “Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France” (Paris, 1786), or as the title is generally given “Scriptores rerum gallicarum et francicarum.” These volumes contain altogether 439 original documents, accompanied by exhaustive introductions, numerous explanatory remarks, and acute critical notes. Clément’s chief work is a revised edition of the chronology first issued by Clémencet in one volume, entitled: “L’art de vérifier les dates des faits historiques.” The new edition in which the original work appeared in an entirely changed form was published at Paris in 1770. A third edition (Paris, 1783–1787) embraced three folio volumes; in this the original underwent even greater alterations, and the labour on it cost Clément more than ten years of toil. In contrast to Clémencet he treated his matter objectively, and was influenced neither by prejudices against the Jesuits nor by a blind predilection for the Jansenists. His position met with the approval of scholars and he was made a member of the “Académie des Inscriptions.” The work is still of value, and it has been well called “the finest memorial of French learning of the eighteenth century.” Clément was engaged in the preparation of a fourth and much enlarged edition when a stroke of apoplexy caused his death. The unfinished work was completed by Viton de Saint-Allais and appeared with additional matter in eighteen volumes (Paris, 1818–19). Viton de Saint-Allais also published from the literary remains of Clément the treatise “L’art de vérifier les dates des faits historiques avant l’ère chrétienne” (Paris, 1820). A work of less importance was one begun by Dom Poncet and edited by Clément, entitled: “Nouveaux éclaircissements sur l’origine et le Pentateuque des Samnaritains” (Paris, 1760). Clément’s industry in collecting material is shown by the “Catalogus manuscriptorum codicum Collegii Claramontani, quem excipit catalogus domus professæ Parisiensis, uterque digestus et notis ornatus” (Paris, 1764). For information concerning his letters see the “Revue bénédictine,” XII, 508.

DE LAME, Bibliothéque des écrivains de la congrégation de Saint-Maur, 484.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER.

John Clement

President of the College of Physicians and tutor to St. Thomas More’s children, born in Yorkshire about 1500; died 1 July, 1572, in the Blocstrate, St. John’s parish, Mechlin. Educated at St. Paul’s School and Oxford, St. Thomas More admitted Clement as one of his household to help in the education of his children and to assist him in linguistic studies. In 1519 we find Clement at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, when Wolsey constituted him the Rhetoric Reader in the university; later he became professor of Greek there. About 1526 he married the daughter of a Norfolk gentleman, Margaret Gibbs, who lived and studied with More’s family. Applying himself to the study of medicine, he was admitted a Fellow of the College of Physicians (1 Feb., 1528), and was chosen by Henry VIII to attend Wolsey when the latter was dangerously ill at Esher (1529). He was consiliarius of the college from 1529 to 1531, in 1547, and again from 1556 to 1558. He held the office of president in 1544, and that of censor in 1555. After the accession of Edward VI he retired to Louvain to escape religious persecution; so obnoxious was he to the Protestant authorities that he was exempted from the general pardon granted by Edward VI. He returned to England in Mary’s reign and practised his profession in Essex, but fled abroad again when Elizabeth came to the throne. Mechlin was his last place of exile. He lies buried in the cathedral church of St. Rumbold in that city. He wrote: “Epigrammatum et aliorum carminum liber”; and also translated from Greek into Latin:

(1) “The Epistles of St. Gregory Nazianzen”;

(2) “The Homilies of Nicephorus Callistus concerning the Greek Saints”;

(3) “The Epistles of Pope Celestine I to Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria.”

DODD, Church History (Brussels, 1737–1742), I, 202; PITS, De Angliœ Scriptoribus (Paris, 1619), 767; WOOD, Athenœ Oxonienses, ed. BLISS (London, 1813–1820), I, 401; ROBINSON, Registers of St. Paul’s School (London, s. d.), 19; MUNK, College of Physicians (London, 1878), I, 26.

G. E. HIND.

Clementines

(KLEMENTIA; CLEMENTINE PSEUDO-WRITINGS)

Clementines is the name given to the curious religious romance which has come down to us in two forms as composed by Pope St. Clement I. The Greek form is preserved only in two Manuscripts and consists of twenty books of homilies. The Latin form is a translation made from the Greek by Rufinus, who died in 410. It is called the “Recognitions.” Two later epitomes of the Homilies exist also, and there is a partial Syriac translation, embracing Recog. i-iii, and Hom. x-xiv, preserved in two British Museum Manuscripts, one of which was written in the year 411. Some fragments are known in Arabic and in Slavonic. The writings are curious rather than admirable,and their main interest lies in the extraordinary theories which they have been made to support during the nineteenth century. The existence of the Clementine Homilies was first made known in 1572 and 1578 by the Jesuit Turrianus, who was a diligent searcher of libraries. He seems to have found a Manuscript of quite a different version from that which we possess. The first edition was that of G. B. Cotelier, 1672, from the Paris Manuscript, in which the 20th book and part of the 19th are wanting. This was re-edited in 1847 by Schwegler. The complete Vatican Manuscript was first used in Dressel’s edition, 1853, reprinted in Migne, P. G., II; another edition by Lagarde, 865. The “Recognitions” are found in numerous Manuscripts, for they were very popular in the Middle Ages: indeed the strange history of Clement and his father Faustus, or Faustinianus, is said to have originated the Faust legend (cf. Richardson, “Papers of Amer. Soc. of Ch. Hist.,” VI, 1894). The first edition, by Faber Stapulensis, appeared in 1504; Migne, P. G., I, gives a reprint of Gersdorf’s edition of 1838. A new and much-needed edition is expected from E. C. Richardson. To the Homilies are prefixed two letters and an account of the reception of one of them. That from Clement to James was translated by Rufinus at an earlier date than the Recognitions (best edition by Fritzsche, 1873).

CONTENTS

Large portions of the Homilies (H.) and Recognitions (R.) are almost word for word the same. Yet larger portions correspond in subject and more or less in treatment. Other parts contained only in one of the two works appear to be referred to or presupposed in the other. The two works are roughly of the same length, and contain the same framework of romance. H. was considered to be the original by Neander, Baur, Schliemann, Schwegler, and others. Lehmann thought the first three books of R. to be original, and H. for the remainder. Uhlhorn argued that both were recensions of an earlier book, “Preachings of Peter,” R. having best preserved the narrative, H. the dogmatic teaching. Cave, Whiston, Rosenmüller, Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, and others held R. to be the original. It is now almost universally held (after Hort, Harnack, Waitz) that H. and R. are two versions of an original Clementine romance, which was longer than either, and embraced most of the contents of both. Sometimes H., sometimes R., is the more faithful to the archetype. With the eLaborate philosophical and dogmatic discourse which forms the bulk of both works is interwoven a story which, when we consider its date, may he described as positively exciting and romantic. It differs slightly in the two books. The narrative is addressed to St. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, and is related in the person of Clement himself. He begins by detailing his religious questionings, his doubts about immortality, etc. He hears at Rome the preaching of a man of Judea who relates the miracles of Christ. This man (R.) was Barnabas; Clement defends him from the mob, and follows him to Palestine. (In H., evidently the original form, no name is given. Clement sets out for Palestine, but is driven by storms to Alexandria; there he is directed by philosophers to Barnabas, whom he defends from the mob and follows to Cæsarea.) At Cæsarea Clement hears that Peter is there and is about to hold a disputation with Simon Magus. At Peter’s 10dging he finds Barnabas, who introduces him. Peter invites Clement to accompany him from city to city, on his way to Rome, in order to hear his discourses. Clement (so R., or Peter himself, H.) sends a report of this to James, from whom Peter has an order to transmit to him accounts of all his teaching.

So far H. i. and R. i., 1–21. Then the two recensions vary. The original order may have been as follows: Clement arises at dawn (H. ii, 1) and finds Peter, who continues to instruct him (2–18, cf. R. ii, 33 and iii, 61). Peter sends for two of his disciples, Nicetas and Aquila, whom he describes as foster-sons of Justa, the Syro-Phœnician woman who was healed by Christ. They had been educated from boyhood by Simon Magus, but had been converted by Zacchæus, another disciple of Peter (19–21). Aquila relates Simon’s parentage and his Samaritan origin, and declares that he claims to be greater than the God who created the world (H. ii, 22, R. ii, 7). He had been a disciple of St. John the Baptist, who is represented in H. as the head of a sect of “daily baptizers”; Dositheus succeeded John as head of it, and Simon supplanted Dositheus (23–4). In R. the Baptist has been omitted, and the sect is that of Dositheus. The woman, Helena, whom Simon took about with him, is described (in R. she is called the moon—R. ii, 12, H. ii, 26), and the sham miracles he claimed to do (H. ii, 32, R. ii, 10). He can make himself visible or invisible at will, can pass through rocks as if they were clay, throw himself down from a mountain unhurt, loose himself when bound; he can animate statues, make trees spring up; he can throw himself into the fire without harm, can appear with two faces: “I shall change myself into a sheep or a goat. I shall make a beard to grow upon little boys. I shall ascend by flight into the air, I shall exhibit abundance of gold. I shall make and unmake kings. I shall be worshipped as God, I shall have divine honours publicly assigned to me, so that an image of me shall be set up, and I shall be adored as God.” (R. ii, 9.) Next day at noon Zacchæus announces that Simon has put off the promised dispute (H. ii, 35–7, R. ii, 20–1). Peter instructs Clement till evening (H. ii, 38–53). [Probably before this should come a long passage of R. (i, 22–74) in which Peter speaks of Old Testament history (27–41) and then gives an account of the coming of the true Prophet, His rejection, Passion, and Resurrection, and relates the preaching to the Gentiles. The Church at Jerusalem having been governed by James for a week of years, the Apostles return from their travels, and at James’s request state what they have accomplished. Caiphas sends to ask if Jesus was the Christ. Here Peter, in a digression, explains why the true Prophet is called Christ and describes the Jewish sects. Then we are told how the Apostles argued before Caiphas, and refuted successively the Sadducees, Samaritans, Scribes, Pharisees, disciples of John, and Caiphas himself. When Peter foretells the destruction of the Temple, the priests are enraged, but Gamaliel quells the tumult, and next day makes a speech. St. James preaches for seven days, and the people are on the point of being baptized, when an enemy (not named, but obviously Simon) excites them against James, who is thrown down the steps of the Temple and left for dead. He is carried to Jericho, with 5000 disciples. On recovering he sends Peter to Cæsarea to refute Simon. He is welcomed by Zacchæus, who relates Simon’s doings to him. The author of H. probably thought all this story inconsistent with Acts, and omitted it.] Next morning before dawn Peter arouses his disciples (H. iii, 1, R. ii, 1), who are enumerated (H. ii, 1, R. ii, 1). Peter gives a private preparatory discourse (H.) and then goes out to the public discussion with Simon. Only one day of it is related in H. (iii, 38–57), but the whole matter of the three days is given in R. (ii, 24–70, iii, 12–30, 33–48). But what H. has omitted R. gives largely, though in a different form, in xvi, xvii, xviii, and partly in xix, as another discussion with Simon in Laodicea. It is clear that R. has the original order. Simon, being worsted, flies in the night to Tyre. Peter determines to follow, leaving Zaccæus as bishop at Cæsarea (H. iii, 58–72, R. iii, 63–6). H. adds that Peter remained seven days longer and baptized 10,000 people, sending on Nicetas and Aquila to stay at Tyre with Bernice, daughter of their stepmother, Justa (iii, 73). But R. relates that seven other disciples were sent on, while Clement remained at Cæsarea for three months with Peter, who repeated in private at night the public instructions he gave during the day. All this Clement wrote down and sent to James. In ch. 74 are described the contents of the ten books of these sermons as sent to Jerusalem. H. now makes Clement, Nicetas, and Aquila go on to Tyre. Bernice tells them how Simon has been raising ghosts, infecting the people with diseases, and bringing demons upon them, and has gone to Sidon. Clement has a discussion with Simon’s disciple Appion (H. v, 7—vi, 25). All this is omitted by R., but the same subjects are discussed in R. x, 17–51. Peter goes on northward by Tyre, Sidon, Berytus, and Byblus to Tripolis (H. vii, 5–12). (R. adds Dora and Ptolemais, omitting Byblus, iv, 1.) Peter’s discourses to the multitude at Tripolis are detailed in H. viii, ix, x, xi, and in R. (three days only) iv, v, vi, with considerable differences. Clement is baptized (H. xi, 35, R. vi, 15). After a stay of three months he goes through Ortosias to Antaradus (H. xii, 1, R. vii, 1).

At this point Clement recounts his history to the Apostle. He was closely related to the emperor. Soon after his birth his mother had a vision that unless she speedily left Rome with her twin elder sons, she and they would perish miserably. His father therefore sent them with many servants to Athens, but they disappeared, and nothing could be learned of their fate. At last, when Clement was twelve years old, his father himself set out upon the search; and he too was no more heard of (H. xii, 9–11, R. vii, 8–10). In the island of Aradus, opposite the town, Peter finds a miserable beggar woman, who turns out to be Clement’s mother. Peter unites them, and heals the woman (H. xii, 12–23, R. vii, 11–23). H. adds a discourse by Peter on philanthropy (25–33). The party now leave Aradus (Mattidia, Clement’s mother, journeying with Peter’s wife) and go by Balaneæ, Palates, and Gable to Laodicea of Syria. Nicetas and Aquila receive them, and hear Clement’s story with amazement; they declare themselves to be Faustus and Faustinianus, the twin sons of Mattidia and brothers of Clement. They had been saved on a fragment of wreck, and some men in a boat had taken them up. They had been beaten and starved, and finally sold at Cæsarea Stratton to Justa, who had educated them as her own sons. Later they had adhered to Simon, but were brought by Zacchæus to Peter. Mattidia is now baptized, and Peter discourses on the rewards given to chastity (H. xii, R. vii, 24–38). Next morning Peter is interrupted at his prayers by an old man, who assures him that prayer is a mistake, since all things are governed by genesis or fate. Peter replies (H. xiv, 1–5—in R. Nicetas); Aquila and Clement try also to refute him (viii, 5—ix, 33; cf. H. xv, 1–5), but without success, for the old man had traced the horoscope of himself and his wife, and it caine true. He tells his story. Clement, Nicetas, and Aquila guess that this is their father. Peter asks his name and those of his children. The mother rushes in, and all embrace in floods of tears. Faustus is then converted by a long series of discourses on evil and on mythology (R. x, 1–51, to which correspond H. xx, 1–10 and iv, 7—vi, 25—the discussion between Clement and Appion at Tyre. The long discussions with Simon before Faustus in H. xvi, xvii, xviii were in their right place in R. as part of the debate at Cæsarea). Simon is driven away by the threats of Cornelius the Centurion, but first he changes the face of Faustus into his own likeness by smearing it with a magic juice, in hopes that Faustus will be put to death instead of himself. Peter frightens away Simon’s disciples by what are simply lies, and he sends Faustus to Antioch to unsay in the person of Simon all the abuse Simon has been pouring on the Apostle there. The people of Antioch in consequence long for Peter’s coming, and nearly put the false Simon to death. Peter restores him to his proper form, and thenceforth they all live happily.

A letter from Clement to James forms an epilogue to H. In it Clement relates how Peter before his death gave his last instructions and set Clement in his own chair as his successor in the See of Rome. James is addressed as “Bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy Church of the Hebrews, and the Churches everywhere.” To him Clement sends a book, “Clement’s Epitome of the Preachings of Peter from place to place.” Another letter, that of Peter to James, forms an introduction. The Apostle urges that the book of his teachings is not to be committed to anyone before initiation and probation. A note follows the letter, relating that James on receipt of the letter called the elders and read it to them. The book is to be given only to one who is pious, and a teacher, and circumcised, and even then only a part at a time. A form of promise (not an oath, which is unlawful) is prescribed for the reader, by heaven, earth, water, and air, that he will take extraordinary care of the writings and communicate them to no one; he invokes upon himself terrible curses in case he should be unfaithful to this covenant. The most curious passage is: “Even if I should come to acknowledge another God, I now swear by him, whether he exist or not.” After the adjuration he shall partake of bread and salt. The elders, on hearing of this solemnity, are terrified, but James pacifies them. The whole of this elaborate mystification is obviously intended to explain how the Clementine writings came to be unknown from Clement’s time until the date of their unknown author. Many parallels can be found in modern times; Sir Walter Scott’s prefaces—the imaginary Mr. Oiled and his friends—will occur to everyone. Nevertheless a good many modern critics accept the “adjuration” with the utmost gravity as the secret rite of an obscure and very early sect of Judaizers.

DOCTRINE

The central and all-important doctrine of the Clementines is the Unity of God. Though transcendent and unknowable, He is the Creator of the World. Though infinite, He has (according to the Homilies) shape and body, for He is the Archetype of all beauty, and in particular the exemplar after which man was fashioned. He, therefore, even has members, in some eminent way. He is the self-begotten or unbigoted, from whom proceeds His Wisdom like a hand. To His Wisdom He said: “Let us make man,” and He is the “Parents” (i. e., Father and Mother) of men.

The Homilies also explain that the elements proceed from God as His Child. From them the Evil One proceeded by an accidental mingling. He is therefore not the Son, nor even to be called brother of the Son. God is infinitely changeable, and can assume all forms at will. The Son proceeds from the most perfect of these modifications of the Divine nature and is conceptional with that modification, but not with the Divine nature itself. The Son is not God, therefore, in the full sense, nor has He all the power of God. He cannot change Himself, though He can be changed at will by God. Of the Holy Ghost we learn nothing definite. The whole of this extraordinary teaching is omitted in R., except the accidental generation of the devil. Instead we find a long passage, R. iii, 2–11, in corrupt and unintelligible Latin, preserved also in the early Syriac Manuscripts. Rufinus in his preface tells us that he omitted it, and in his work on the adulteration of the books of Origin he declares that it is so Origin in doctrine that one seems to hear Enemies himself speaking. It is naturally not found in the best Manuscripts of R., but as preserved in many Manuscripts it is an interpolation by some Arian editor, who seems to have translated it, from the original Greek without always understanding the meaning. The doctrine is, as Rufinus says, the Arianism of the second half of the fourth century. The Son is a creature; the Holy Ghost the creature of the Son.

Of demons much is said. They have great power over the self-indulgent, and are swallowed with food by those who eat too much. Magic is constantly mentioned, and its use reprobated. Idolatry is argued against at length. The immorality of the Greek stories of the gods is ridiculed, and attempts at mystical explanation are refuted. Various virtues are praised: temperance, kindness or philanthropy, chastity in the married state; asceticism of a most rigorous kind is practised by St. Peter. The introduction after the Deluge of eating meat, according to the Book of Genesis, is violently denounced, as having naturally led to cannibalism. The use of meat is, however, not forbidden as a sin, and is probably permitted as a bad, but ineradicable, custom. There is no trace of any Judaistic observance, for though the letter of Peter and the speech of James allow the books to be given to none who is not “a circumcised believer,” this is only a part of the mystification, by which the number of adepts is limited as far as possible.

It is now becoming recognized by all critics that the original writings were not intended for the use of baptized Christians of any sect. Most of the latest critics say they are meant for catechumens, and indeed the office of a teacher is highly commended; but it would be more exact to say that the arguments are adapted to the needs of inquiring heathens. Of baptism much is said, but of repentance little. There is little characteristically Christian doctrine to be found; atonement and the sacrifice of the Cross, sin and its penalty, forgiveness, grace, are far to seek. Once the Eucharist is mentioned by name: “Peter broke the Eucharist” (H. xi, 36, R. vi, 15). Christ is always spoken of as “the true Prophet.,” as the revealer to men of God, of truth, of the answers to the riddle of life. The writer knows a complete system of ecclesiastical organization. Peter sets a bishop over each city, with priest and deacons under him; the office of bishop is well defined. It was principally this fact which prevented critics of the TUBING School from dating H. and R. earlier than the middle of the second century. The writer was not an Ebonite, since he believes in the pre-existence of the Son, His Incarnation and miraculous conception, while he enjoins no Jewish observances.

Antagonism to St. Paul is commonly asserted to be a characteristic of the Clementines. He is never mentioned, for the supposed date of the dialogues is before his conversion, and the writer is very careful to avoid anachronisms. But his Epistles are regularly used, and the grounds for supposing that Simon always or sometimes represents St. Paul are exceedingly feeble. The latest critics, who still admit that St. Paul is occasionally combated, do not attribute this attitude to the Clementine writer, but only to one of some presumed sources. In fact, there is a clear prophetic reference to St. Paul as the teacher of the nations in R. iii, 61. But it is not safe to admit any polemic against. St. Paul’s person in any part of the writings, for the simple reason that there is nowhere any trace of antagonism to his doctrines.

It seems to be universally held that the Clementines are based upon the doctrines of the Book of Elchasai or Helga, which was much used by the Ebonites. The contents of it were said to have been revealed by an angel ninety-six miles high to a holy man Elchasai in the year 100, and this is gravely accepted by Hilgenfeld and Waitz as its real date. It does not however, seem to have been known until it was brought to Rome about the year 220, by a certain Allahabad of Apia. We know its doctrines from the “Philosophers” and from Epiphanies. It taught a second baptism (in running streams with all the clothes on) for the remission of sins, to be accompanied by an adjuration of seven elements; the same process was recommended as a cure for the bite of mad dogs and for similar evils. This is not particularly like the calling of four (not seven) elements to witness a solemn promise by the side of water (without bathing) in the Clementines. For the rest, Elchasai taught magic and astrology, made marriage compulsory, celebrated the Eucharist with bread and water, caused all believers to be circumcised and to live by the Jewish law, held that Christ was born of a human father. All this is contradictory to the Clementines. The only point of resemblance seems to be that the Homilies represent Christ as having been in Adam and Moses, while Elchasai said He had been frequently incarnate in Adam and since, and would be again. The Clementine writer is fond of pairs of antitheses, or syzygia, such as Christ and the tempter, Peter and Simon. But these have no connexion with any Gnostic or Marcionite antitheses, nor is there any trace of the Gnostic genealogies. He is simply airing his own pseudo-philosophic speculations. Polemic against Marcionism has often been pointed out. But the denial of two Gods, a transcendental God and a Creator, is directed against popular neo-Platonism, and not against Marcion. Again, replies are made to objections to Christianity drawn from immorality or anthropomorphism in the Old Testament, but these objections are not Marcionite. The writer is fond of citing sayings of Christ not found in Scripture. His Scripture text has been analyzed by Hilgenfeld, Waltz, and others. He never cites a book of the N. T. by name, which would be an anachronism at the date he has chosen.

EARLY USE OF THE CLEMENTINES

It was long believed that the early date of the Clementines was proved by the fact that they were twice quoted by Origen. One of these quotations occurs in the “Philocalia” of Sts. Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil (c. 360). Dr. Armitage Robinson showed in his edition of that work (1893) that the citation is an addition to the passage of Origen made by the compilers, or possibly by a later editor. The other citation occurs in the old Latin translation of Origen on Matthew. This translation is full of interpolations and alterations, and the passage of Pseudo-Clement is apparently an interpolation by the translator from the Arian “Opus imperfectum in Matt.” (See Journal of Theol. Studies, III, 436.) Omitting Origen, the earliest witness is Eusebius. In his “Hist. Eccl.,” III, xxxviii (A. D. 325) he mentions some short writings and adds: “And now some have only the other day brought forward other wordy and lengthy compositions as being Clement’s, containing dialogues of Peter and Appion, of which there is absolutely no mention in the ancients.” These dialogues need not have been the complete romance, but may have been an earlier draft of part of it. Next we find the Clementines used by Ebionites c. 360 (Epiphanius, Hær., xxx, 15). They are quoted as the “Periodi” by St. Jerome in 387 and 392 (On Gal., i, 18, and “Adv. Jovin.,” i, 26). Two forms of the “Recognitions” were known to Rufinus, and one of them was translated by him c. 400. About 408 St. Paulinus of Nola, in a letter to Rufinus, mentions having himself translated a part or all, perhaps as an exercise in Greek. The “Opus imperfectum” above mentioned has five quotations. It is apparently by an Arian of the beginning of the fifth century, possibly by a bishop called Maximus. The Syriac translation was made before 411, the date of one of the Manuscripts. After this time citations occur in many Byzantine writers, and from the commendation given by Nicephorus Callisti (fourteenth century) we may gather that an orthodox version was current. In the West the translation by Rufinus became very popular, and citations are found in Syriac and Arabic writings.

MODERN THEORIES OF ORIGIN AND DATE

Baur, the founder of the “Tübingen School” of New Testament criticism, rested his ideas about the New Testament on the Clementines, and his ideas about the Clementines on St. Epiphanius, who found the writings used by an Ebionite sect in the fourth century. This Judæo-Christian sect at that date rejected St. Paul as an apostate. It was assumed that this fourth-century opinion represented the Christianity of the Twelve Apostles; Paulinism was originally a heresy, and a schism from the Jewish Christianity of James and Peter and the rest; Marcion was a leader of the Pauline sect in its survival in the second century, using only the Pauline Gospel, St. Luke (in its original form), and the Epistles of St. Paul (without the Pastoral Epistles). The Clementine literature had its first origin in the Apostolic Age, and belonged to the original Jewish, Petrine, legal Church. It is directed wholly against St. Paul and his sect. Simon Magus never existed; it is a nickname for St. Paul. The Acts of the Apostles, compiled in the second century, have borrowed their mention of Simon from the earliest form of the Clementines. Catholicism under the presidency of Rome was the result of the adjustment between the Petrine and Pauline sections of the Church in the second half of the second century. The Fourth Gospel is a monument of this reconciliation, in which Rome took a leading part, having invented the fiction that both Peter and Paul were the founders of her Church, both having been martyred at Rome, and on the same day, in perfect union.

Throughout the middle of the nineteenth century this theory, in many forms, was dominant in Germany. The demonstration, mainly by English scholars, of the impossibility of the late dates ascribed to the New Testament documents (four Epistles of St. Paul and the Apocalypse were the only documents generally admitted as being of early date), and the proofs of the authenticity of the Apostolic Fathers and of the use of St. John’s Gospel by Justin, Papias, and Ignatius gradually brought Baur’s theories into discredit. Of the original school, Adolf Hilgenfeld may be considered the last survivor (died 1907). He was induced many years ago to admit that Simon Magus was a real personage, though he persists that in the Clementines he is meant for St. Paul. To a priori critics it counts as nothing that Simon holds no Pauline doctrine and that the author shows no signs of being a Judæo-Christian. In 1847 Hilgenfeld dated the original nucleus (Preachings of Peter) soon after the Jewish war of 70; successive revisions of it were anti-Basilidian, anti-Valentinian, and anti-Marcionite respectively. Baur placed the completed form, H., soon after the middle of the second century, and Schliemann (1844) agreed, placing R., as a revision, between 211 and 230. This writer sums up the opinions of his predecessors thus:

R. 2nd century: Sixtus Senensis, Blondellus, Nourri, Cotelerius, Natalis Alexander, Cave, Oudin, Heinsius, Rosenmüller, Flügge, Gieseler, Tholuck, Bretschneider, Engelhardt, Gfrörer.

R. 2nd or 3rd century: Schröck, Stark, Lumper, Krabbe, Locherer, Gersdorf.

R. 3rd century: Strunzius (on Bardesanes, 1710), Weismann (1718), Mosheim, Kleuker, Schmidt (Kirchengesch.).

R. 4th century: Corrodi, Lentz (Dogmengesch.).

H. 2nd century (beginning): Credner, Bretschneider, Kern, Rothe.

H. 2nd century: Clericus, Beausobre, Flügge, Münscher, Hoffmann, Döllinger, Hilgers; (middle of 2nd) Hase.

H. end of 2nd century: Schröck, Cölln, Gieseler (3rd ed.), Schenkel, Gfrörer, Lücke.

H. 3rd century: Mill, Mosheim, Gallandi, Gieseler (2nd ed.).

H. 2nd or 3rd century: Neander, Krabbe, Baur, Ritter, Paniel, Dähne.

H. 4th century: Lentz.

Uhlhorn in his valuable monograph (1854) placed the original document, or Grundsrhrift, in East Syria. after 150; H. in the same region after 160; R. in Rome after 170. Lehmann (1869) put the source (Preaching of Peter) very early, H. and R. i-ii before 160, the rest of R. before 170. In England Salmon set R. about 200. H. about 218. Dr. Bigg makes H. the original, Syrian, first half of second century, R. being a recasting in an orthodox sense. H. was originally written by a Catholic, and the heretical parts belong to a later recension. Dr. Headlam, in a very interesting article, considers that the original form was rather a collection of works than a single book, yet all products of one design and plan, coming from one writer, of a curious, versatile, unequally developed mind. While accepting the dependence on the Book of Elchasai, Dr. Headlam sees no antagonism to St. Paul, and declares that the writer is quite ignorant of Judaism. Under the impression that the original work was known to Origen, he is obliged to date it at the end of the second century or the beginning of the third. In 1883 Bestmann made the Clementines the basis of an unsuccessful theory which, as Harnack puts it. “claimed for Jewish Christianity the glory of having developed by itself the whole doctrine, worship. and constitution of Catholicism, and of having transmitted it to Gentile Christianity as a finished product which only required to be divested of a few Jewish husks” (Hist. of Dogma, I, 310).

Another popular theory based upon the Clementines has been that it was the Epistle of Clement to James which originated the notion that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. This has been asserted by no lesser authorities than Lightfoot, Salmon, and Bright, and it has been made an important point in the controversial work of the Rev. F. W. Puller, “Primitive Saints and the Roman See.” It is acknowledged that in St. Cyprian’s time (c. 250) it was universally believed that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and that he was looked upon as the type and origin of episcopacy. Modern criticism has long since put the letter of Clement too tate to allow this theory to be tenable, and now Waitz places it after 220, and Harnack after 260. We shall presently see that it probably belongs to the fourth century.

The “Old Catholic” Professor Langen in 1890 elaborated a new theory. Until the destruction of Jerusalem in 135, he says, that city was the centre of the Christian Church. A new pivot was then needed. The Church of the capital made a bold bid for the vacant post of pre-eminence. Shortly after 135 was published the original form of the Clementine romance. It was a Roman forgery, claiming for the Church of Peter the succession to a part of the headship of the Church of James. James indeed had been “bishop of bishops,” and Peter’s successor could not claim to be more than Peter was among the Apostles, primus inter pares. The Roman attempt was eventually successful, but not without a struggle. Cæsarea, the metropolis of Palestine. also claimed the succession to Jerusalem. The monument of this claim is H., a recension of the Roman work made at Cæsarea before the end of the second century in order to fight Rome with her own weapons. (The intention must be admitted to have been closely veiled.) In the beginning of the third century the metropolis of the Orient, Antioch, produced a new edition, R., claiming for that city the vacant primacy. Langen’s view has found no adherents.

Dr. Hort complained that the Clementines have left no traces in the eighty years between Origen and Eusebius, but he felt obliged to date them before Origen, and placed the original c. 200 as the work of a Syrian Heixaïte. Harnack, in his “History of Dogma,” saw that they had no influence in the third century; he dated R. and H. not earlier than the first half of that century, or even a few decades later. All the foregoing writers presupposed that the Clementines were known to Origen. Since this has been shown to be not proven (1903), Waitz’s elaborate study has appeared (1904), but his view was evidently formed earlier. His view is that H. is the work of an Aramæan Christian after 325 (for he uses the word homoousios) and earlier than 411 (the Syriac Manuscript). R. probably after 350, also in the East. But the Grundschrift, or archetype, was written at Rome, perhaps under the syncretistic system of cult in favour at the court of Alexander Severus, probably between 220 and 250. Harnack, in his “Chronologie” (II), gives 260 or later as the date, but he thinks H. and R. may he ante-Nicene. Waitz supposes two earlier sources to have been employed in the romance, the “Preachings of Peter” (origin in first century, but used in a later anti-Marcionite recension) and the “Acts of Peter” (written in a Catholic circle at Antioch c. 210). Harnack accepts the existence of these sources, but thinks neither was earlier than about 200. They are carefully to be distinguished from the well-known second-century works, the “Preaching of Peter” and “Acts of Peter,” of which fragments still exist. These are quoted by many early writers, whereas the supposed sources of the Clementines are otherwise unknown and therefore probably never existed at all. A long passage from Pseudo-Bardesanes “De Fato” occurs in R. ix, 19 sqq. Hilgenfeld, Ritschl, and some earlier critics characteristically held that Bardesanes used the Clementines. Merx, Waitz, and most others hold that R. cites Bardesanes directly. Nau and Harnack are certainly right, that R. has borrowed the citation at second hand from Eusebius (Præp. Evang., vi, 10, 11–48, A. D. 313).

PROBABLE DATE OF THE CLEMENTINES

We now know that the Clementine writer need not have lived before Origen. Let us add that there is no reason to think he was a Judæo-Christian, an Elchasaïte, or anti-Pauline, or anti-Marcionite, that he employed ancient sources, that he belonged to a secretive sect. We are free, then, to look out for indications of date without prejudice.

R. is certainly post-Nicene, as Waitz has shown. But we may go further. The curious passage R. iii. 2–11, which Rufinus omitted, and in which he seemed to hear Eunomius himself speaking, gives in fact the doctrine of Eunomius so exactly that it frequently almost cites the Apologeticus” (c. 362–3) of that heretic word for word. (The Eunomian doctrine is that the essence of God is to be unborn, consequently the Son Who is begotten is not God. He is a creature, the first-born of all creation and the Image of God. The Holy Ghost is the creature of the Son.) The agreement with Eunomius’s ekthesis pisteos of 381–3 is less close. As the Eunomian passage was found by Rufinus in both the recensions of Clement known to him, we may suppose that the interpolation was made in the original work by a Eunomian about 365–70, before the abridgment R. was made about 370–80. (The word archiepiscopus used of St. James suggests the end of the fourth century. It occurs in the middle of that century in some Meletian documents cited by Athanasius, and then not till the Council of Ephesus, 431.)

H. has also a disquisition on the generation of the Son (xvi, 15–18, and xx, 7–8). The writer calls God autopator and autogennetos, and both Mother and Father of men. His idea of a changeable God and an unchangeable Son projected from the best modification of God has been mentioned above. This ingenious doctrine enables the writer to accept the words of the Nicene definition, while denying their sense. The Son may be called God, for so may men be, but not in the strict sense. He is homoousios to Patri, begotten ek tes ousias, He is not treptos or alloiotos. Apparently He is not ktistos, nor was there a time when He was not, though this is not quite distinctly enunciated. The writer is clearly an Arian who manages to accept the formula of Nicea by an acrobatic feat, in order to save himself. The date is therefore probably within the reign of Constantine (died 337), while the great council was still imposed on all by the emperor—say, about 330.

But this is not the date of H., but of the original behind both H. and R.; for it is clear that the Eunomian interpolator of R. attacks the doctrine we find in H. He ridicules autopator and autogennetos, he declares God to be unchangeable, and the Son to be created, not begotten from the Father’s essence and consubstantial. God is not masculo-femina. It is clear that the interpolator had before him the doctrine of H. in a yet clearer form, and that he substituted his own view for it (R. iii, 2–11). But it is remarkable that he retained one integral part of H.’s theory, viz., the origin of the Evil One from an accidental mixture of elements, for Rufinus tells us (De Adult. libr. Origenis) that he found this doctrine in R. and omitted it. The date of the original is therefore fixed as after Nicæa, 325, probably c. 330; that of H. may be anywhere in the second half of the fourth century. The Eunomian interpolator is about 365–70, and the compilation of R. about 370–80.

The original author shows a detailed knowledge of the towns on the Phœnician coast from Cæsarea to Antioch. He was an Arian, and Arianism had its home in the civil diocese of the Orient. He uses the “Præp. Evang.” of Eusebius of Cæsarea (written about 313). In 325 that historian mentions the dialogues of Peter and Appion as just published—presumably in his own region; these were probably the nucleus of the larger work completed by the same hand a few years later. Citations of Pseudo-Clement are by the Palestinian Epiphanius, who found the romance among the Ebionites of Palestine; by St. Jerome, who had dwelt in the Syrian desert and settled at Bethlehem; by the travelled Rufinus; by the “Apostolical Constitutions,” compiled in Syria or Palestine. The work is rendered into Syriac before 411. The Arian author of the “Opus imperfectum” cited it freely. It was interpolated by a Eunomian about 365–70. All these indications suggest an Arian author before 350 in the East, probably not far front Cæsarea.

The author, though an Arian, probably belonged nominally to the Catholic Church. He wrote for the heathens of his day, and observed the stiff and often merely formal disciplina arcani which the fourth century enforced. Atonement, grace, sacraments are omitted for this cause only. “The true Prophet” is not a name for Christ used by Christians, but the office of Christ which the author puts forward towards the pagan world. He shows Peter keeping the evening agape and Eucharist secret from Clement when unbaptized; it was no doubt a Eucharist of bread and vine, not of bread and salt.

The great pagan antagonist of the third century was the neo-Platonic philosopher, Porphyry; but under Constantine his disciple Iamblichus was the chief restorer and defender of the old gods, and his system of defence is that which we find made the official religion by Julian (361–3). Consequently, it is not astonishing to find that Simon and his disciples represent not St. Paul, but Iamblichus. The doctrines and practices repelled are the theurgy and magic, astrology and mantic, absurd miracles and claims to union with the Divinity, which characterized the debased neo-Platonism of 320–30. It is not against Marcion but against Plato that Pseudo-Clement teaches the supremacy of the Creator of all. He defends the Old Testament against the school of Porphyry, and when he declares it to be interpolated, he is using Porphyry’s own higher criticism in a clumsy way. The elaborate discussion of ancient history, the ridicule cast on the obscene mythology of the Greeks, and the philosophical explanations of a higher meaning are also against Porphyry. The refutation of the grossest idolatry is against Iamblichus.

It is perhaps mere accident that we hear nothing of the Clementines from 330 till 360. But about 360- 410 they are interpolated, they are revised and abridged in H., yet more revised and abridged in R., translated into Latin, translated into Syriac, and frequently cited. It seems, therefore, that it was the policy of Julian which drew them from obscurity. They were useful weapons against the momentary resurrection of polytheism, mythology, theurgy, and idolatry.

The principal editions have been mentioned above. The literature is so enormous that a selection from it must suffice. Somewhat fuller lists will be found in HARNACK, Chronologie, II, in BARDENHEWER, Patrologie and Geschichte der kirchlichen Litteratur and in CHEVALIER, Répertoire.—SCHLIEMANN, Die Clementinen (1844); HILGENFELD, Die Clem. Recogn. und Hom. nach ihrem Ursprung und Inhalt (Jena, 1848); Kritische Untersuchungen über die Evangelien Justins, der Clem. Hom. und Marcions (Halle, 1850); UHLHORN, Die Hom. und Recogn. des Clemens Romanus (Göttingen, 1854); LEHMANN, Die clementinischen Schriften (Gotha, 1869) LIPSIUS, Quellen der römischen Petrussage (1872) and Apokr. Apostelgeschichte (1887), II; SALMON in Dict. Chr. Biog. (1877); LANGEN, Die Clemensromane (Gotha, 1890): FUNK in Kirchenlex. (1884); BIGG, The Clementine Homilies in Studia Biblica (Oxford, 1890), II; BUSSELL, The Purpose of the World-Process and the Problem of Evil in the Clementine and Lactantian Writings in Studia Biblica (1806), IV; W. C[HAWNER], Index of noteworthy words and phrases found in the Clementine writings in Lightfoot Fund Public. (London, 1893); HORT, Clementine Recognitions (lectures delivered in 1884; pub. London, 1901); MEYBOOM De Clemens Roman (1902); HEADLAM, The Clementine Literature in Journ. Theol. Stud. (1903), III, 41; CHAPMAN, Origer and Pseudo-Clement in Journ. Theol. Stud., III, 436; HILGENFELD, Origenes und Pseudo-Clemens in Zeitschr. für Wiss. Theol. (1903), XLVI, 342; PREUSCHEN In HARNACK, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur (1893), I, 212; and II, Chronologie, 518; WAITZ, Die Pseudoclementinen in Texte und Unters., New Series, X, 4; CHAPMAN, The Date of the Clementines in Zeitschr. für Neu-Test. Wiss. (1908). An English translation of the Recognitions, by the REV. T. SMITH, D. D., will be found in the Ante-Nicene Library. III, and of the Homilies, ibid., XVII (Edinburgh, 1871–2).

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Bl. Clement Mary Hofbauer

(JOHN DVORÁK)

The second founder of the Redemptorist Congregation, called “the Apostle of Vienna,” born at Tasswitz in Moravia, 26 December, 1751; died at Vienna 15 March, 1821. The family name of Dvorak was better known by its German equivalent, Hofbauer. The youngest of twelve children, and son of a grazier and butcher, he was six years old when his father died. His great desire was to become a priest, but his family being unable to give him the necessary education he became a baker’s assistant, devoting all his spare time to study. He was a servant in the Premonstratensian monastery of Bruck from 1771 to 1775, and then lived for some time as a hermit. When the Emperor Joseph II abolished hermitages he went to Vienna, where he worked once more as a baker. After two pilgrimages to Rome he again tried a hermit’s life (1782–3), this time under the protection of Barnaba Chiaramonti, Bishop of Tivoli, afterwards Pope Pius VII, taking the name of Clement, by which he was ever afterwards known. He once more returned to Vienna, where at length by the generosity of benefactors he was enabled to go to the university and complete his studies; In 1784 he made a third pilgrimage on foot to Rome with a friend, Thaddäus Hübl, and the two were received into the Redemptorist novitiate at San Giuliano on the Esquiline. After a shortened probation they were professed on 19 March, 1785, and ordained priests a few days later. They were sent, towards the end of the same year, to found a house north of the Alps, St. Alphonsus. who was still alive, prophesying their success. It being impossible under Joseph II to found a house in Vienna, Clement and Thaddäus turned to Warsaw, where King Stanislaus Poniatowski, at the nuncio’s request, placed St. Benno’s, the German national church, at their disposal. Here, in 1795, they saw the end of Polish independence. The labours of Clement and his companions in Warsaw from 1786 to 1808 are wellnigh incredible. In addition to St. Benno’s, another large church was reserved for them, where sermons were preached in French, and there were daily classes of instruction for Protestants and Jews. Besides this Clement founded an orphanage and a school for boys. His chief helper, Thaddäus Hübl, died in 1807; In the next year, on orders from Paris, the house at Warsaw and three other houses which Clement had founded were suppressed, anti the Redemptorists were expelled from the Grand Duchy. Clement with one companion went to Vienna, where for the last twelve years of his life he acted as chaplain and director at an Ursuline convent. During these years he exercised a veritable apostolate among all classes in the capital from the Emperor Francis downward. Unable to found a regular house of his congregation, which was however established, as he had predicted, almost immediately after his death, he devoted himself in a special way to the conversion and training of young men. “I know but three men of superhuman energy,” his friend Werner had said, “Napoleon, Goethe, and Clement Hofbauer.” “Religion in Austria,” said Pius VII, “has lost its chief support.” Indeed it was to Clement Hofbauer perhaps more than to any single individual that the extinction of Josephinism was due. He was beatified by Leo XIII, 29 January, 1888; (See AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN MONARCHY, II, 129.)

His life in German by HARINGER, translated into English by LADY HERBERT (New York, 1883). Another life by O. R. VASSALL PHILLIPS (New York, 1893); BERTHE, Saint Alphonse de Liguori (Paris, 1900), tr. Life of St. Alphonsus de Liguori (Dublin, 1905).

J. MAGNIER.

Clement of Alexandria

(Properly TITUS FLAVIUS CLEMENS, but known in church history by the former designation to distinguish him from Clement of Rome).

Date of birth unknown; died about the year 215. St. Clement was an early Greek theologian and head of the catechetical school of Alexandria. Athens is given as the starting-point of his journeyings, and was probably his birthplace. He became a convert to the Faith and travelled from place to place in search of higher instruction, attaching himself successively to different masters: to a Greek of Ionia, to another of Magna Graecia, to a third of Coele-Syria, after all of whom he addressed himself in turn to an Egyptian, an Assyrian, and a converted Palestinian Jew. At last he met Pantaenus in Alexandria, and in his teaching “found rest.”

The place itself was well chosen. It was natural that Christian speculation should have a home at Alexandria. This great city was at the time a centre of culture as well as of trade. A great university had grown up under the long-continued patronage of the State. The intellectual temper was broad and tolerant, as became a city where so many races mingled. The philosophers were critics or eclectics, and Plato was the most favoured of the old masters. Neo-Platonism, the philosophy of the new pagan renaissance, had a prophet at Alexandria in the person of Ammonius Saccas. The Jews, too, who were there in very large numbers breathed its liberal atmosphere, and had assimilated secular culture. They there formed the most enlightened colony of the Dispersion. Having lost the use of Hebrew, they found it necessary to translate the Scriptures into the more familiar Greek. Philo, their foremost thinker, became a sort of Jewish Plato. Alexandria was, in addition, one of the chief seats of that peculiar mixed pagan and Christian speculation known as Gnosticism. Basilides and Valentinus taught there. It is no matter of surprise, therefore, to find some of the Christians affected in turn by the scientific spirit. At an uncertain date, in the latter half of the second century, “a school of oral instruction” was founded. Lectures were given to which pagan hearers were admitted, and advanced teaching to Christians separately. It was an official institution of the Church. Pantaenus is the earliest teacher whose name has been preserved. Clement first assisted and then succeeded Pantaenus in the direction of the school, about A.D. 190. He was already known as a Christian writer before the days of Pope Victor (188–199).

About this time he may have composed the “Hortatory Discourse to the Greeks” (Protreptikos pros Ellenas) It is a persuasive appeal for the Faith, written in a lofty strain. The discourse opens with passages which fall on the ear with the effect of sweet music. Amphion and Arion by their minstrelsy drew after them savage monsters and moved the very stones; Christ is the noblest minstrel. His harp and Iyre are men. He draws music from their hearts by the Holy Spirit: nay, Christ is Himself the New Canticle, whose melody subdues the fiercest and hardest natures. Clement then proceeds to show the transcendence of the Christian religion. He constrasts Christianity with the vileness of pagan rites and with the faint hope of pagan poetry and philosophers. Man is born for God. The Word calls men to Himself. The full truth is found in Christ alone. The work ends with a description of the God-fearing Christian. He answers those who urge that it is wrong to desert one’s ancestral religion.

The work entitled “Outlines” (Hypotyposeis) is likewise believed to be a production of the early activity of Clement. It was translated into Latin by Rufinus under the title “Dispositiones.” It was in eight books, but is no longer extant, though numerous fragments have been preserved in Greek by Eusebius, Oecumenius, Maximus Confessor, John Moschos, and Photius. According to Zahn, a Latin fragment, “Adumbrationes Clementis Alexandrini in epistolas canonicas,” translated by Cassiodorus and purged of objectionable passages, represents in part the text of Clement. Eusebius represents the “Outlines” as an abridged commentary, with doctrinal and historical remarks on the entire Bible and on the non-canonical “Epistle of Barnabas” and “Apocalypse of Peter.” Photius, who had also read it describes it as a series of explanations of Biblical texts especially of Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes and the Pauline and Catholic Epistles. He declares the work sound on some points, but adds that it contains “impieties and fables,” such as the eternity of matter, the creatureship of the Word, plurality of words (Logoi), Docetism, metempsychosis, etc. Conservative scholars are inclined to believe that Photius has thrown the mistakes of Clement, whatever they may have been, into undue relief. Clement’s style is difficult, his works are full of borrowed excerpts, and his teaching is with difficulty reduced to a coherent body of doctrine. And this early work, being a scattered commentary on Holy Writ, must have been peculiarly liable to misconstruction. It is certain that several of the more serious charges can rest upon nothing but mistakes. At any rate, his extant writings show Clement in a better light.

Other works of his are the “Miscellanies” (Stromateis) and “The Tutor” (Paidagogos). The “Miscellanies” comprise seven entire books, of which the first four are earlier than “The Tutor.” When he had finished this latter work he returned to the “Miscellanies,” which he was never able to finish. The first pages of the work are now missing. What has been known as the eighth book since the time of Eusebius is nothing more than a collection of extracts drawn from pagan philosophers. It is likely, as von Annin has suggested, that Clement had intended to make use of these materials together with the abridgement of Theodotus (Excerpts from Theodotus and the Eastern School of Valentinus) and the “Eclogae Propheticae.” Extracts from the Prophets (not extracts, but notes at random on texts or Scriptural topics) for the continuation of the “Miscellanies.” In the “Miscellanies” Clement disclaims order and plan. He compares the work to a meadow where all kinds of flowers grow at random and, again, to a shady hill or mountain planted with trees of every sort. In fact, it is a loosely related series of remaks, possibly notes of his lectures in the school. It is the fullest of Clement’s works. He starts with the importance of philosophy for the pursuit of Christian knowledge. Here he is perhaps defending his own scientific labours from local criticism of conservative brethren. He shows how faith is related to knowledge, and emphasizes the superiority of revelation to philosophy. God’s truth is to be found in revelation, another portion of it in philosophy. It is the duty of the Christian to neglect neither. Religious science, drawn from his twofold source, is even an element of perfection, the instructed Christian—“the true Gnostic” is the perfect Christian. He who has risen to this height is far from the disturbance of passion; he is united to God, and in a mysterious sense is one with Him. Such is the line of thought indicated in the work, which is full of digressions.

“The Tutor” is a practical treatise in three books. Its purpose is to fit the ordinary Christian by a disciplined life to become an instructed Christian. In ancient times the paedagogus was the slave who had constant charge of a boy, his companion at all times. On him depended the formation of the boy’s character. such is the office of the Word Incarnate towards men. He first summons them to be HIS, then He trains them in His ways. His ways are temperate, orderly, calm, and simple. Nothing is too common or trivial for the Tutor’s care. His influence tells on the minute details of life, on one’s manner of eating, drinking, sleeping, dressing, taking recreation, etc. The moral tone of this work is kindly; very beautiful is the ideal of a transfigured life described at the close. In the editions of Clement “The Tutor” is followed by two short poems, the second of which, addressed to the Tutor, is from some pious reader of the work; the first, entitled “A Hymn of the Saviour Christ” (Hymnos tou Soteros Christou), is, in the manuscripts which contain it, attributed to Clement. The hymn may be the work of Clement (Bardenhewer). or it may be of as early a date as the Gloria in Excesis (Westcott).

Some scholars see in the chief writings of Clement, the “Exhortation,” “The Tutor,” the “Miscellanies,” a great trilogy representing a graduated initiation into the Christian life—belief, discipline, knowledge—three states corresponding to the three degrees of the neo-Platonic mysteries—purification, initiation, and vision. Some such underlying conception was doubtless before the mind of Clement, but it can hardly be said to have been realized. He was too unsystematic. Besides these more irnportant works, he wrote the beautiful tract, “Who is the rich man who shall be saved? (tis ho sozomenos plousios). It is an exposition of St. Mark, x, 17–31, wherein Clement shows that wealth is not condemned by the Gospel as intrinsically evil; its morality depends on the good or ill use made of it. The work concludes with the narrative of the young man who was baptized, lost, and again rewon by the Apostle St. John. The date of the composition cannot be fixed. We have the work almost in its entirety. Clement wrote homilies on fasting and on evil speaking, and he also used his pen in the controversy on the Paschal question.

Duchesne (Hist. ancienne de l’Eglise, I, 334 sqq.) thus summarizes the remaining years of Clement’s life. He did not end his life at Alexandria. The persecution fell upon Egypt in the year 202, and catechumens were pursued with special intent of law. The catechetical school suffered accordingly. In the first two books of the “Miscellanies,” written at this time, we find more than one allusion to the crisis. At length Clement felt obliged to withdraw. We find him shortly after at Caesarea in Cappadocia beside his friend and former pupil bishop Alexander. The persecution is active there also, and Clement is fulfillmg a ministry of love. Alexander is in prison for Christ’s sake, Clement takes charge of the Church in his stead, strengthens the faithful, and is even able to draw in additional converts. We learn this from a letter written in 211 or 212 by Alexander to congratulate the Church of Antioch on the election Asclepiades to the bishopric. Clement himself undertook to deliver the letter in person, being known to the faithful of Antioch. In another letter written about 215 to Origen Alexander speaks of Clement as of one then dead.

Clement has had no notable influence on the course of theology beyond his personal influence on the young Origen. His writings were occasionally copied, as by Hippolytus in his “Chronicon,” by Arnobius, and by Theodoret of Cyrus. St. Jerome admired his learning. Pope Gelasius in the catalogue attributed to him mentions Clement’s works, but adds, “they are in no case to be received amongst us.” Photius in the “Bibliotheca” censures a list of errors drawn from his writings, but shows a kindly feeling towards Clement, assuming that the original text had been tampered with. Clement has in fact been dwarfed in history by the towering grandeur of the great Origen, who succeeded him at Alexandria. Down to the seventeenth century he was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the martyrologies, and his feast fell on the fourth of December. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Pope Clement VIII his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of Cardinal Baronius. Benedict XIV maintained this decision of his predecessor on the grounds that Clement’s life was little known that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church, and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least suspect. In more recent times Clement has grown in favour for his charming literary temper, his attractive candour, the brave spirit which made him a pioneer in theology, and his leaning to the claims of philosophy. He is modern in spirit. He was exceptionally well-read. He had a thorough knowledge of the whole range of Biblical and Christian literature, of orthodox and heretical works. He was fond of letters also, and had a fine knowledge of the pagan poets and philosophers; he loved to quote them, too, and has thus preserved a number of fragments of lost works. The mass of facts and citations collected by him and pieced together in his writings is in fact unexampled in antiquity, though it is not unlikely that he drew at times upon the florilegia, or anthologies, exhibiting choice passages of literature.

Scholars have found it no easy task to sum up the chief points of Clement’s teaching. As has already been intimated, he lacks technical precision and makes no pretense to orderly exposition. It is easy, therefore, to misjudge him. We accept the discriminating judgment of Tixeront. Clement’s rule of faith was sound. He admitted the authority of the Church’s tradition. He would be, first of all, a Christian, accepting “the ecclesiastical rule,” but he would also strive to remain a philosopher, and bring his reason to bear in matters of religion. “Few are they,” he said, “who have taken the spoils of the Egyptians, and made of them the furniture of the Tabernacle.” He set himself, therefore, with philosophy as an instrument, to transform faith into science, and revelation into theology. The Gnostics had already pretended to possess the science of faith, but they were, in fact, mere rationalists, or rather dreamers of fantastic dreams. Clement would have nothing but faith for the basis of his speculations. He cannot, therefore, be accused of disloyalty in will. But he was a pioneer in a diffficult undertaking, and it must be admitted that he failed at times in his high endeavour. He was careful to go to Holy Scripture for his doctrine; but he misused the text by his faulty exegesis. He had read all the Books of the New Testament except the Second Epistle of St. Peter and the Third Epistle of St. John. “In fact,” Tixeront says, “his evidence as to the primitive form of the Apostolic writings is of the highest value.” Unfortunately, he interpreted the Scripture after the manner of Philo. He was ready to find allegory everywhere. The facts of the Old Testament became mere symbols to him. He did not, howerer, permit himself so much freedom with the New Testament.

The special field which Clement cultivated led him to insist on the difference between the faith of the ordinary Christian and the science of the perfect, and his teaching on this point is most characteristic of him. The perfect Christian has an insight into “the great mysteries” of man, of nature, of virtue—which the ordinary Christian accepts without clear insight. Clement has seemed to some to exaggerate the moral worth of religious knowledge; it must however be remembered that he praises not mere sterile knowledge, but knowledge which turns to love. It is Christian perfection that he extols. The perfect Christian—the true Gnostic whom Clement loves to describe—leads a life of unalterable calm. And here Clement’s teaching is undoubtedly colored by Stoicism. He is really describing not so much the Christian with his sensitive feelings and desires under due control, but the ideal Stoic who has deadened his feelings altogether. The perfect Christian leads a life of utter devotion the love in his heart prompts him to live always in closest union with God by prayer, to labour for the conversion of souls, to love his enemies, and even to endure martyrdom itself.

Clement preceded the days of the Trinitarian controveries. He taught in the Godhead three Terms. Some critics doubt whether he distinguished them as Persons, but a careful reading of him proves that he did. The Second Terrn of the Trinity is the Word. Photius believed that Clement taught a plurality of Words, whereas in reality Clement merely drew a distinction between the Father’s Divine immanent attribute of intelligence and the Personal Word Who is the Son. The Son is eternally begotten, and has the very attributes of the Father. They are but one God. So far, in fact, does Clement push this notion of unity as to seem to approach Modalism. And yet, so loose a writer is he that elsewhere are found disquieting traces of the very opposite error of Subordinationism. These, however, may be explained away. In fact, he needs to be judged, more than writers generally, not by a chance phrase here or there, but by the general drift of his teaching. Of the Holy Ghost he says little, and when he does refer to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity he adheres closely to the language of Scripture. He acknowledges two natures in Christ. Christ is the Man-God, who profits us both as God and as man. Clement evidently regards Christ as one Person—the Word. Instances of the interchange of idioms are frequent in his writings. Photius has accused Clement of Docetism. Clement, however, clearly admits in Christ a real body, but he thought this body exempt from the common needs of life, as eating and drinking, and the soul of Christ exempt from the movement of the passions, of joy, and of sadness.

EDITIONS

The works of Clement of Alexandria were first edited by P. Victorius (Florence,1550). The most complete edition is that of J. Potter, “Clementis Alexandrini opera quae extant omnia” (Oxford, 1715; Venice, 1757), reproduced in Migne, P.G. VIII, IX. The edition of G. Dindort (Oxford, 1869) is declared unsatisfactory by competent judges. A new complete edition by O. Stahlin is appearing in the Berlin “Griechisehen christlichen Schriftsteller,” etc. So far (1908) two volumes have been published: the “Protrepticus” and the “Paedagogus” (Leipzig, 1905), and the “Stromata” (Bks. I -VI, ibid., 1906). The preface to the first volume (pp. 1–83) contains the best account of the manuscripts and editions of Clement. Among the separate editions of his works the following are noteworthy: Hort and Mayor, “Miscellanies,” Bk. VII, with English translation (London, 1902); Zahn, “Adumbrationes” in “Forschungen zur Geschiehte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons,” III, and “Supplementum Clementinum” (Erlangen, 1884); Köster, “Quis dives salvetur?” (Freiburg, 1893). The last-mentioned work was also edited by p.m. Barnard in “Cambridge Texts and Studies” by W. Wilson (1897), and translated by him in “Early Church Classics” for the S.P.C.K. (London, 1901). For an English translation of all the writings of Clement see Ante-Nicene Christian Library (New York).

FRANCIS P. HAVEY

St. Clement of Ireland

Also known as CLEMENS SCOTUS (not to be confounded with Claudius Clemens).

Born in Ireland, towards the middle of the eighth century, died perhaps in France, probably after 818. About the year 771 he set out for France. His biographer, an Irish monk of St. Gall, who wrote his Acts, dedicated to Charles the Fat (d. 888), says that St. Clement with his companion Albinus, or Ailbe, arrived in Gaul in 772, and announced himself as a vender of learning. So great was the fame of Clement and Ailbe that Charlemane sent for them to come to his court, where they stayed for some months. Ailbe was then given the direction of a monastery near Pavia, but Clement was requested to remain in France as the master of a higher school of learning. These events may have taken place in the winter of the year 774, after Charlemagne had been in Italy. St. Clement was regent of the Paris school from 775 until his death. It was not until 782 that Alcuin became master of the royal school at Aachen, but even the fame of Alcuin in no wise diminished the acknowledged reputation of Clement. No serious writer of today thinks of repeating the legend to the effect that St. Clement was founder of the University of Paris, but, as there is a substratum of truth in most legends, the fact remains that this remarkable Irish scholar planted the mustard seed which developed into a great tree of learning at Paris. Many anecdotes are related of St. Clement’s life, especially as regards his success as a teacher of youth. Among his pupils were Bruno, Modestus, and Candidus, who had been placed under his care in 803 by Ratgar, Abbot of Fulda. When Alcuin retired to Tours in 796, his post as rector of the School of the Palace was naturally given to St. Clement. In 803, as an old man, Alcuin wrote from his retirement to Charlemagne, querulously commenting on “the daily increasing infuence of the Irish at the School of the Palace.” Alcuin died 19 May 804, and Charlemagne survived till 28 January 814. St. Clement is probably identical with the person of this name who wrote the biography of Charlemagne, but the question has not been definitely settled. Colgan says that he was living in 818, and gives the date of Clement’s death as 20 March and the place as Auxerre where he was interred in the church of Saint-Amator.

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

Maurice Clenock

(Or Clynog.)

Date of birth unknown; died about 1580. He was b. in Wales and educated at Oxford, where he was admitted Bachelor of Canon Law in 1548. During Mary’s reign he became almoner and secretary to Cardinal Pole, prebendary of York, rector of Orpington (Kent), and dean of Shoreham and Croydon, and chancellor of the prerogative court of Canterbury. In 1556 he was made rector or Corwen in the Diocese of St. Asaph, and on the death of the Bishop of Bangor in 1558 was nominated to the vacant see, but was never consecrated, owing to the change of religion under Elizabeth. Surrendering all his preferments, he accompanied Bishop Goldwell of St. Asaph to Rome, where they resided in the English hospital, of which Clenock was camerarius in 1567. In 1578 he was made its warden. At the sme time Gregory XIII ordered the hospital to be converted into a college until Englad should return to the Church. The warden was made the first rector of the college by the pope; but Cardinal Allen judged him unfit, thought he described him as “an honest and friendly man and a great advancer of the students’ and seminaries’ cause” (Letter to Dr. Lewis, 12 May 1579). Depsite his personal good qualities he did not prove a competent ruler. He was accused of unduly favouring his fellow-countrymen at the expense of the English students, who numbered thirty-three as against seven Welshmen. Feeling ran so high that, as Allen wrote, “Mischief and murder had like to have been committed in ipso collegio” (letter cited above). The students, having unsuccessfully appealed to the pope, left the college, and finally the pope, in April, 1579, appointed Father Agazzari, S. J., rector, leaving Dr. Clenock still warden of the hospital. He retired, however, in 1580 to Rouen, where he took ship for Spain, but was lost at sea. In contemporary documents he is frequently referred to as “Dr. Morrice.”

Dodd, Church History (Brussels, 1737), I, 513, also Tierney’s edition (London, 1839), II, 167 sqq.; Kirk, Catholic Miscellany (London, 1826), VI 255; Knox, Historical Introduction to Douay Diaries (London, 1878); Foley, Records Eng. Prov. S.J. (London, 1880), Introduction; Knox Letters and Memorials of Cardinal Allen (London, 1882); Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885), I, 501; Cooper in Dict. Nat. Biog. (London, 1887), XI 37; Law, Jesuits and Seculars in the Reign of Elizabeth (London, 1889); Sander, Report to Cardinal Moroni in Cath. Record Soc. Miscellanea (London, 1905), I; Parsons, Memoirs in Cath. Record Soc. Miscellanea (London, 1906), II.

EDWIN BURTON

Cleophas

According to the Catholic English versions the name of two persons mentioned in the New Testament. In Greek, however, the names are different, one being Cleopas, abbreviated form of Cleopatros, and the other Clopas. The first one, Cleopas, was one of the two disciples to whom the risen Lord appeared at Emmaus (Luke, xxiv, 18). We have no reliable data concerning him; his name is entered in the martyrology on the 25th of September. (See Acta Sanctorum, Sept., VII, 5 sqq.) The second, Clopas, is mentioned in St. John, xix, 25, where a Mary is called Maria he tou Klopa, which is generally translated by “Mary the wife of Clopas.” This name, Clopas, is thought by many to be the Greek transliteration of an Aramaic Alphaeus. This view is based on the identification of Mary, the mother of James etc. (Mark, xv, 40) with Mary, the wife of Clopas, and the consequent identity of Alphaeus, father of James (Mark, iii, 18), with Clopas. Etymologically, however, the identification of the two names offers serious difficulties: (1) Although the letter Heth is occasionally rendered in Greek by Kappa at the end and in the middle of words, it is very seldom so in the beginning, where the aspirate is better protected; examples of this, however, are given by Levy (Sem. Fremdwörter in Griech.); but (2) even if this difficulty was met, Clopas would suppose an Aramaic Halophai, not Halpai. (3) The Syriac versions have rendered the Greek Clopas with a Qoph, not with a Heth, as they would have done naturally had they been conscious of the identity of Clopas and Halpai; Alphaeus is rendered with Heth (occasionally Aleph). For these reasons, others see in Clopas a substitute for Cleopas, with the contraction of eo into w. In Greek, it is true, eo is not contracted into w, but a Semite, borrowing a name did not necessarily follow the rules of Greek contraction. In fact, in Mishnic Hebrew the name Cleopatra is rendered by Clopatra, and hence the Greek Cleopas might be rendered by Clopas. See also, Chabot, “Journ. Asiat.,” X, 327 (1897). Even if, etymologically, the two names are different they may have been borne by one name, and the question of the identity of Alphaeus and Clopas is still open. If the two persons are distinct, then we know nothing of Clopas beyond the fact recorded in St. John; if, on the contrary, they are identified, Clopas’ personality is or may be closely connected with the history of the brethren of the Lord and of James the Less. (See Brethren of the Lord; James The Less.)

Schegg, Jakobus der Bruder des Hern (Munich, 1883); Nicoll, Alphaeus and Klopas in The Expositor (1885), 79 sqq; Wetzel, Alphaeus u. Klopas in Theolog. Stud. u. Krit. (1883), 620 sq.; Jaquier in Vig, Dict. de la Bib., s.v. Alphee; also commentaries on John xix, 25.

R. BUTIN

Clerestory

A term formerly applied to any window or traceried opening in a church, e. g. in an aisle, tower, cloister, or screen, but now restricted to the windows in an aisled nave, or to the range of wall in which the high windows are set. Sometimes these windows are very small, being mere quatrefoils or spherical triangles. In Large buildings, however, they are important features both of beauty and utility. The clerestory is especially used in churches where the division into nave and side aisles permits the introduction of light into the body of the church from above the aisle roofs. According to Fergusson’s theory, the interior of Greek temples was lighted by a clerestory, similar internally to that found in the great Egyptian temples, but externally requiring such a change of arrangement as was necessary to adapt it to a sloping instead of a flat roof. This seems to have been effected by countersinking into the roof, so as to make three ridges in those parts where the light was admitted, though the regular shape of the roof was retained between these openings. Thus, neither the ridge nor the continuity of the lines of the roof was interfered with. This theory is borne out by all the remains of Greek temples that now exist, and by all the descriptions that have been handed down from antiquity. Simpson, however, regards the theory as extremely improbable.

FLETCHER AND FLETCHER, A History of Architecture (London, New York, 1896), 690; GWILT, Encyc. of Arch. (London, 1881), 1648; PARKER, Glossary of Arch. (Oxford, 1850), I. 104; STURGIS, Dict. of Arch. and Building (London, 1904); FERGUSSON, A History of Architecture in all Countries (New York); SIMPSON, A history of Architectural Development (New York, 1905).

THOMAS H. POOLE

Cleric

A person who has been legitimately received into the ranks of the clergy. By clergy in the strict sense is meant the entire ecclesiastical hierarchy. Consequently a cleric is one who belongs in some sense to the hierarchy. For this it is necessary that he have received at least the tonsure (see TONSURE). The clergy by Divine right form an order or state which is essentially distinct from that of the laity. (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXIV, De sac. ord., can. i, 6.) Christ did not commit the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments to the faithful in general, but to certain carefully defined persons, as the Apostles and seventy-two Disciples. They also received the power of governing the flocks; which power is represented by the Keys, a well-known Oriental symbol for authority. That the distinction between clergy and laity was recognized in New Testament times is plain from St. Paul’s statement that the bishops have been placed by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church (Acts, xx, 28), for the right to rule implies a correlative obligation to obey. Presbyters are continually distinguished from the laity throughout the Pualine Epistles.

The word cleric (Lat., clericus from clerus) is derived from the Greek kleros, a “lot.” In the Septuagint, this word is used in the literal sense quite frequently, though not in its later technical sense. In the First Epistle of St. Peter (v, 3) it is applied to entire body of the faithful. The use of the word in its present restricted meaning occurs, however, as early as the third century. It is found in Tertullian (De idol., c. viii), Origen (Hom. in Jer., xi, 3) and Clement of Alexandria (Quis dives salvetur, c. xlii) in this sense. It is not easy to determine exactly how the word came to have its present determinate meaning. The “Pontificale Romanum” refers to clerics as being those whose “lot” is the Lord Himself, and St. Jerome explicitly derives the name from that fact. These statements do not give us, however, the steps by which kleros, “lot” became “clergy” or “cleric.” Probably the best suggested explanation is, that from lot or portion, it came to mean a particular lot or office assigned to some one, and finally the person himself possessing the lot or office.

EXTENSION OF MEANING

While cleric in its strict sense means one who has received the ecclesiastical tonsure, yet in general sense it is also employed in canon law for all to whom clerical privileges have been extended. Such are the members of religious orders: Monks and nuns, and even lay brothers and novices. It is also applied to tertiaries of the mendicant orders. If they be men, however, they must live in community, but if they be women they many enjoy the privilege even when living at home. Hermits and virgins, or celibates whose vows are approved by the bishop, have likewise clerical immunities. Members of the military religious orders, such as formerly the Knights Templars, and at present the Teutonic Knights and Knights of Malta, rank as clerics. The meaning of the word has been so extended as to include even laics, men or women, who render service to a regular community, such as by begging, provided they wear a clerical dress and reside near the monastery or convent. The privileges enjoyed by thus obtaining the benefit of clergy were once great (see IMMUNITY), and were formerly recognized by secular governments. In modern times, however, these privileges in as far as they were guaranteed by the civil power have been almost entirely swept away in every country of the world. It is only when there is question of favours, or as canonists say, in a favourable sense, that cleric has this wide signification. When there is question of penalties, on the contrary, it becomes so restricted as to mean only the lower orders of the secular clergy. In England in medieval times the term clerk acquired in common parlance the significance of an educated man.

CLERICAL RELIGIOUS ORDERS

Among the regular orders in the strict sense, namely those whose members have solemn vows, is a large class designated as clerks regular (clerici regulares) because living according to a rule (regula). In contradistinction to the monastic orders, these clerical orders were instituted for the purpose of exercising a ministry similar to that of the secular clerics, by promotion of the Divine worship and procuring the salvation of souls. Their main object is the spiritual and temporal service of their neighbour in educating youth, preaching, serving the sick, etc. Orders of clerks regular were first founded in the sixteenth century. To this class belong the Jesuits, Theatines, Barnabites, and others. Many religious congregations, which are not orders in the strict sense, such as the Passionists and Redemptorists follow a similar mode of life.

REGIONARY CLERICS

Regionary clerics, who are also called clerici vagantes and acephali, were those who were ordained without title to a special church. They were received into the sacred ministry by the bishops for the purpose of supplying the dearth of the clergy in the outlying districts of the dioceses where no benefices existed. Here they were to act as missionaries and in course of time, if possible, to gather together congregations who would build and endow a church. Many of these clerics became mere wanderers without settled occupation or abode, sometimes supporting themselves by filling temporary chaplaincies in the castles of noblemen. In course of time, numbers of these untitled clerics returned to the settled portions of their dioceses and acted as assistants to such beneficed clergymen as chose to accept their help. Owing to the abuses arising from the unsettled state of these vagrant clerics, the Council of Trent (Sess, XXIII, c. xvi, De ref.) forbade the ordaining in future of any candidate who was not attached to a definite church or pious institute.

OBLIGATIONS OF CLERICS

(1) They must wear a costume suited to their state. While the common canon law does not determine in every detail what the dress of clerics should be, yet many and various prescriptions on the subject are found in the canons, the pontifical constitutions, and the decrees of councils. These ordain that the clerics are not to wear the dress of laymen. They must abstain from gaudy colours, unbecoming their state. The wearing of the soutane or cassock on all occasions, even in public, is prescribed for clerics living in Rome, and bishops may command the same in their dioceses. In non-Catholic countries, synods generally prescribe that for public use the dress of clerics should be such as to distinguish them from laymen; that is of black or of a sober colour, and that the so-called Roman collar be worn. In private, clergymen are commonly required to wear the soutane.

(2) Clerics are forbidden to engage in trade and secular business. In the early ages of the Church, it was allowable to seek necessary sustenance by labour, and that is not forbidden now if the cleric does not receive proper support from ecclesiastical sources. What is specially prohibited is to engage in trade for the sake of gain. The buying and selling, however, which is necessary in the administration of the lands or the goods of a benefice do not fall under the prohibition. Neither is it forbidden to clerics nowadays to place their money out at interest and receive the increment; for this is equivalent, allowing for modern circumstances, to the economic management of the lands of ecclesiastical benefices. Gambling in stocks, however, remains an illicit form of trade for clergymen (Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor., II, n. 612).

(3) There are stringent laws concerning the relations of clerics with persons of the other sex. They must conform to the canons in all that regards allowing females to dwell in their houses. Above all must they avoid associating with those whose moral character causes the least suspicion.

(4) Unbecoming amusements are also forbidden to them, such as the frequenting of improper plays and spectacles, the visiting of taverns, indulgence in games of chance, carrying of arms, following the chase, etc. When in the above amusements, however, there is no necessary impropriety, lawful custom and synodal prescriptions may make a participation in them allowable.

(5) Clerics are bound to obey their diocesan bishops in all matters determined by the canon law. Various Roman decisions have declared that by his ordinary authority, the bishop cannot oblige clerics to render to him any service not expressed in the canons. While the obligation of obedience is binding on all clerics, it is strengthened for priests by the solemn promise made at ordination, and for all holders of benefices by the canonical oath. The obligation to be subject to the bishop in lawful matters is not, however, a vow.

LOSS OF CLERICAL PRIVILEGES

Although the sacramental character received in Sacred orders may not be obliterated, yet even the higher orders of clergy may be degraded from their dignity and reduced to what is technically called lay communion. The same holds, of course, likewise for the lower clergy. When, however, a cleric who has received only minor orders or even tonsure, after losing his privileges, has been restored to the clerical state, this restitution, even when solemn, is merely ceremonious and is not considered as a new conferring of tonsure or minor orders. Even minor clerics are therefore considered to have a stable connection with the hierarchical order. See MINOR ORDERS; DEACON; SUBDEACON; PRIEST; HIERARCHY; LAITY.

WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899), II; FERRARIS, Prompta Bibl. (Rome, 1886), II; LAURENTIUS, Inst. Jur. Eccl. (Freiburg, 1903).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Giovanni Clericato

Canonist, born 1633, at Padua; died 1717. He was of English descent, and the name is variously written CLERICATUS, CHERICATO, CHERICATI, and CHIERICATO, probably from CLARK, the original family name. The charity of a pious woman made it possible for him to satisfy his strong inclination for study; and, being raised to the priesthood he came to be considered one of the ablest men of his time in matters of ecclesiastical jurisprudence. Cardinal Barbarigo, whose life he afterwards wrote, made him Vicar-General of the Diocese of Padua. He wrote many works on civil and canon law; his “Decisiones Sacramentales” was published in 1727, and in 1757 in three volumes, and merited the encomiums of Benedict XIV (notific. 32, n. 6). His name is held in honour in Italian ecclesiastical literature.

MORÉRI, Gr. Dict. Hist. (Paris, 1759); SBERTI, Memorie (Padua, 1790); TIRABOSCHI, Storia della Lett. Ital. (Milan, 1825).

JOHN H. STAPLETON.

Clericis Laicos

The initial words of a Bull issued 25 Feb., 1296, by Boniface VIII in response to an earnest appeal of the English and French prelates for protection against the intolerable exactions of the civil power (see VIII.) The decree was inserted among the papal decretals and is found in Lib. Sextus, III, tit. 23. After a preamble in which the pope complains that the laity are, and have always been, bitterly hostile to the clergy; that, although they possess no authority over ecclesiastical persons or property, they impose all sorts of heavy burdens on the clergy and seek to reduce them to servitude; that several prelates and other dignitaries of the Church, more fearful of giving offence to their earthly rulers than to the majesty of God, acquiesce in these abuses, without having obtained authority or permission from the Apostolic See; he, therefore, wishing to put an end to these iniquitous proceedings, with the consent of his cardinals and by Apostolic authority decrees that all prelates or other ecclesiastical superiors who under whatsoever pretext or colour shall, without authority from the Holy See, pay to laymen any part of their income or of the revenue of the Church; also all emperors, kings, dukes, counts, etc. who shall exact or receive such payments incur eo ipso the sentence of excommunication from which, except in articulo mortis, no one can absolve them without special faculties from the pope; no privileges or dispensations to be of avail against the decree.

The two underlying principles of this Bull, viz. (1) that the clergy should enjoy equally with the laity the right of determining the need and the amount of their subsidies to the Crown, and (2) that the head of the Church ought to be consulted when there was question of diverting the revenues of the Church to secular purposes, were by no means strange or novel in that age of Magnæ Chartæ; and outside of France and England it was accepted without a murmur. But what excited the wrath of the two chief culprits, Philip the Fair and Edward I, was that from its fiery tone, from the express mention of sovereigns, and the grave ipso facto penalties attached, they felt that behind the decree there stood a new Hildebrand resolved to enforce it to the letter. The Bull has been criticized for the unconventional vehemence of its tone, for its exaggerated indictment of the hostile attitude of the laity of all ages towards the clergy, and for its failure to make clear the distinction between the revenues of the purely ecclesiastical benefices and the lay fees held by the clergy on feudal tenure. The unscrupulous advisers of Philip the Fair were quick to take advantage of the pope’s hasty language and, by forcing him to make explanations, put him on the defensive and weakened his prestige.

For sources and literature, see BONIFACE VIII.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

John Clerk

Bishop of Bath and Wells; date of birth unknown; died 3 January, 1541. He was educated at Cambridge (B. A., 1499; M A., 1502) and Bologna, where he became Doctor of Laws. When he returned to England he attached himself to Cardinal Wolsey, and much preferment followed. He became Rector of Hothfield, Kent, 1508; Master of the Maison Dieu at Dover, 1509; Rector of Portishead (Somerset) 1513; Ivychurch (Kent), West Tarring (Sussex), and Charlton, all in 1514; South Molton (Devonshire) and Archdeacon of Colohester, 1519; Dean of Windsor and judge in the Court of Star Chamber, 1519. He was also Dean of the King’s Chapel. He was useful in diplomatic commissions both to Wolsey and the king. In 1521 he was appointed ambassador to the Papal Court, in which capacity he presented King Henry’s book against Luther to the pope in full consistory. He acted as Wolsey’s agent in Rome in the conclave on the death of Leo X. He returned to England to be appointed Master of the Rolls in October, 1522, which office he held till 9 October, 1523. When Wolsey resigned the See of Bath and Wells, in 1523, Clerk was appointed bishop in his stead. As bishop-elect he went on another political embassy to Rome, where he received episcopal consecration, 6 December, 1523. He remained in Rome for two years and once more unsuccessfully represented Wolsey’s interests at the conclave in which Clement VII was elected pope. He left Rome in November, 1525, but was so useful as a diplomatic agent that he was never long in England, and his diocese was administered by his two suffragan bishops. When the question of the royal divorce was raised Clerk was appointed as one of the queen’s counsellors, but Wolsey persuaded him to agree on her behalf that she should withdraw from proceedings at Rome. Afterwards he joined in pronouncing sentence of divorce, and is believed to have assisted Cranmer in works on the supremacy and the divorce. His last embassy was in 1540, to the Duke of Cleves, to explain the king’s divorce of Anne of Cleves. On his return he was taken ill at Dunkirk, not without suspicion of poison, but he managed to reach England, though only to die. He lies buried at St. Botolph’s, Aldgate, not at Dunkirk, as sometimes stated.

Clerk wrote “Oratio pro Henrico VIII apud Leonem pontif. Max. in exhibitione operis regii contra Lutherum in consistonio habitam” (London, 1541), translated into English by T. W. (Thomas Warde?), 1687.

Letters and State Papers of Henry VIII (London, 1830–52); CHERBURY, Life and Reign of Henry VIII (London, 1714); HUNT in Dict. of Nat. Biogr., s. v.; DODD, Church Hist. (London, 1737), I, 181–2; COOPER, Athenæ. Cantab. (Cambridge, 1858), I, 77; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. The account of PITTS, De Ang. Scriptoribus (Paris, 1619), is erroneous.

EDWIN BURTON.

Agnes Mary Clerke

Clerke, Agnes Mary, astronomer, b. at Skibbereen, County Cork, Ireland, 10 February, 1842; died in London, 20 January 1907. At the very beginning of her study she showed a marked interest in astronomy, and before she was fifteen years old she had begun to write a history of that science. In 1861 the family moved to Dublin, and in 1863 to Queenstown. Several years later she went to Italy where she stayed until 1877, chiefly at Florence, studying at the public library and preparing for literary work. In 1877 she settled in London. Her first important article, “Copernicus in Italy,” was published in the “Edinburgh Review“ (October, 1877). She achieved a world-wide reputation in 1885, on the appearance of her exhaustive treatise, “A Popular History of Astronomy in the Nineteenth Century.” This was at once recognized as an authoritative work. Miss Clerke was not a practical astronomer; in 1888, however, she spent three months at the Cape Observatory as the guest of the director, Sir David Gill, and his wife. There she became sufficiently familiar with spectroscopic work to be enabled to write about this newer branch of the science with increased clearness and confidence. In 1892 the Royal Institution awarded to her the Actonian Prize of one hundred guineas. As a member of the British Astronomical Association she attended its meetings regularly, as well as those of the Royal Astronomical Society. In 1903, with Lady Huggins, she was elected an honorary member of the Royal Astronomical Society, a rank previously held only by two other women, Caroline Herschel and Mary Somerville. Her work is remarkable in a literary as well as in a scientific way. She compiled facts with untiring diligence, sifted them carefully, discussed them with judgment, and suggested problems and lines of future research. All this is expressed in polished, eloquent, and beautiful language. With this scientific temperament she combined a noble religious nature that made her acknowledge “with supreme conviction” the insufficiency of science to know and predict the possible acts of Divine Power. Her works, all published in London, include, “A Popular History of Astronomy in the Nineteenth Century” (1885, 4th revised ed., 1902); “The System of the Stars” (1890; 2nd ed., 1905); “The Herschels and Modern Astronomy” (1895); “The Concise Knowledge Astronomy”—in conjunction with J. E. Gore and A. Fowler (1898); “Problems in Astrophysics” (1903); “Modern Cosmogonies” (1906). To the “Edinburgh Review” she contributed fifty-five articles, mainly on subjects connected with astrophysics. The articles on astronomers in the “Dictionary of National Biography”; on “Laplace” and some on other astronomers and astronomical subjects in the “Encyclopaedia Britannica”; and on “Astronomy” in The Catholic Encyclopedia were from her pen, as well as numerous contributions to “Knowledge,” “The Observatory,” the London “Tablet,” and other periodicals.

Ellen Mary, sister of preceding, journalist and novelist, b. at Skibbereen, County Cork, Ireland, 1840; d. in London, 2 March 1906. A gifted and accomplished writer, she was for many years an editorial writer for the London “Tablet.” Her knowledge of the intricacies of the religious and political problems of Continental Europe was remarkable. A seven years’ stay in Italy made her intimately familiar not only with its language and literature, but also with every phase of its public life. She contributed a series of stories, perfect in Italian phrase, idiom, and local colour, to periodicals in Florence. Her pamphlets, “Jupiter and His System” and “The Planet Venus,” were valuable additions to the literature of popular astronomy. In 1899 she published “Fable and Song in Italy,” a collection of essays and studies and specimens of Italian poetry rendered into English in the original metres. A novel, “Flowers of Fire” (1902), was her last work.

The Tablet, files (London, March, 1906; January, 1907); Obituary in Monthly Notices of the R.A.S. (London, 1907); Macpherson in Popular Astronomy (London, March, 1907); The Messenger Magazine (New York, March, 1907).

WILLIAM FOX.

Clerks Regular

CANONICAL STATUS

By clerks regular are meant those bodies of men in the Church who by the very nature of their institute unite the perfection of the religious state to the priestly office, i.e. who while being essentially clerics, devoted to the exercise of the ministry in preaching, the administration of the sacraments, the education of youth, and other spiritual and corporal works of mercy, are at the same time religious in the strictest sense of the word, professing solemn vows, and living a community life according to a rule solemnly approved of by the sovereign pontiff. In the Corpus Juris Canonici the term clerks regular is often used for canons regular, and regular clerks are classed by authors as a branch or modern adaptation of the once world-famous family of regular canons (see CANONS AND CANONESSES REGULAR). This is because of the intimate connection existing between the two; for while separated from the secular clergy by their vows and the observance of a community life and a rule, they form a distinct class in the religious state, the clerical, in opposition to the monastic, which includes monks, hermits, and friars.

Clerks regular are distinguished from the purely monastic bodies, or monks, in four ways:

They are primarily devoted to the sacred ministry; not so the monks, whose proper work is contemplation and the solemn celebration of the liturgy.

They are obliged to cultivate the sacred sciences, which, if cultivated by the monks, are yet not imposed upon them by virtue of their state of life.

Clerks regular as clerics must retain some appearance of clerical dress distinct from the habit and cowl of the monk.

And lastly, because of their occupations, they are less given to the practice of austerity which is a distinct feature of the purely monastic life.

They are distinguished from the friars in this, that though the latter are devoted to the sacred ministry and the cultivation of learning, they are not primarily priests. Finally, clerks regular differ from canons regular in that they do not possess cathedral or collegiate churches, devote themselves more completely to ministerial work in place of choir-service, and have fewer penitential observances of rule.

History

The exact date at which clerks regular appeared in the Church cannot be absolutely determined. Regular clerks of some sort, i.e. priests devoted both to the exercise of the ministry and to the practice of the religious life, are found in the earliest days of Christian antiquity. Many eminent theologians hold that the clerks regular were founded by Christ Himself. In this opinion the Apostles were the first regular clerks, being constituted by Christ ministers par excellence of His Church and called by Him personally to the practice of the counsels of the religious life (cf. Suarez). From the fact that St. Augustine in the fourth century established in his house a community of priests, leading the religious life, for whom he drew up a rule, he has ordinarily been styled the founder of the regular clerks and canons, and upon his rule have been built the constitutions of the canons regular and an immense number of the religious communities of the Middle Ages, besides those of the clerks regular established in the sixteenth century. During the whole medieval period the clerks regular were represented by the regular canons who under the name of the Canons Regular or Black Canons of St. Augustine, the Premonstratensians or White Canons, Canons of St. Norbert, etc., shared with the monks the possession of those magnificent abbeys and monasteries all over Europe which, even though they are in ruins, compel the admiration of the beholder.

It was not until the sixteenth century that clerks regular in the modern and strictest sense of the word came into being. Just as the conditions obtaining in the thirteenth century brought about a change in the monastic ideal, so in the sixteenth the altered circumstances of the times called for a fresh development of the ever fecund religious spirit in the Church. This development, adapted to the needs of the times, was had in the various bodies of simple clerics, who, desirous of devoting themselves more perfectly to the exercise of their priestly ministry under the safeguards of the religious life, instituted the several bodies which, under the names of the various orders or regular clerics, constitute in themselves and in their imitators one of the most efficient instruments for good in the Church militant to-day. So successful and popular and well adapted to all modern needs were the clerks regular, that their mode of life was chosen as the pattern for all the various communities of men, whether religious or secular, living under rule, in which the Church has in recent times been so prolific. The first order of clerks regular to be founded were the Theatines (q.v.) established at Rome in 1524; then followed the Clerks Regular of the Good Jesus, founded at Ravenna in 1526, and abolished by Innocent X in 1651; the Barnabites (q.v.) or Clerks Regular of St. Paul, Milan, 1530; The Somaschi (q.v.) or Clerks Regular of St. Majolus, Somasca, 1532; the Jesuits or the Society of Jesus, Paris, 1534; the Regular Clerks of the Mother of God, Lucca, 1583; the Regular Clerks Ministering to the Sick, Rome, 1584; the Minor Clerks Regular, Naples, 1588; and the Piarists or Regular Clerks of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools, Rome, 1597. Since the close of the sixteenth century no new orders have been added to the number, though the name Clerks Regular has been assumed occasionally by communities that are technically only religious, or pious, congregations (see CONGREGATIONS, RELIGIOUS).

SUAREZ, De Religione, tr. 9: HUMPHREY, Elements of Religious Life (London, 1884); IDEM, The Religious State (London, 1903), II; ANDRE-WAGNER, Dict. de droit canonique (Paris, 1901); VERMEERSCH, De Religious Institutis et Personis (Bruges, 1904), I; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899), III; HELYOT, Dict. des ordres religieux (Paris, 1859), ed. MIGNE, III; HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kong. der kath. Kirche (Paderborn, 1907), III.

JOHN F. X. MURPHY.

Clerks Regular of Our Saviour

A religious congregation instituted in its present form in 1851, at Benoite-Vaux in the Diocese of Verdun, France. The constitutions and spirit of the congregation are those of the Canons Regular of Our Saviour, who were established as a reform among the various bodies of regular canons in Lorraine by St. Peter Fourier, canon of Chamousay in 1623, and confirmed by Urban VIII in 1628. The scope of the reformed order, as outlined in the “Summarium Constitutionum” of St. Peter, was the Christian education of youth and the exercise of the sacred ministry among the poor and neglected. The order flourished exceedingly throughout the Duchy of Lorraine and made its way into France and Savoy; but was completely destroyed by the French Revolution. In 1851 four zealous priests of the Diocese of Verdun, anxious to see revived the apostolic labours of the sons of Fourier, withdrew to the retired shrine of Our Lady of Cenoite-Vaux, and there began a religious life according to the rule given to his canons by St. Peter Fourier. Three years later they received the approbation of the Holy See, which changed their name from Canons Regular, the title of the earlier organization to Clerks Regular. During the next half century the congregation spread and it now numbers several houses, its special work being the education of youth. The members of the congregation are of three grades, priests, scholastics, and lay brothers. Though possessing the title “clerks regular” they are not such in the strict sense of the word, as their vows, though perpetual, are simple, according to the present practice of the Roman authorities of establishing no new institutes of solemn vows.

HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kong. der kath. Kirche (Paderborn, 1907), II, 47 sq.; HELYOT, Dict. des ordres religieux, (Paris, 1859), ed. MIGNE, IV.

JOHN F. X. MURPHY.

Clerks Regular of the Mother of God of Lucca

Clerks Regular of the Mother of God of Lucca, a congregation founded by the Blessed Giovanni Leonardi, son of middle-class parents, who was born in 1541 at Diecimo, a small township in the Republic of Lucca, though at that time the chief place of a fief of the same name held by the bishops of Lucca from the republic. At seventeen years of age he was sent to Lucca to learn the apothecary’s trade, but having from a tender age been most piously inclined, he, after many difficulties, including the necessity of educating himself, embraced the sacerdotal state, and was ordained 22 December, 1572. His congregation may be said to have begun in 1574. Two or three young laymen, attracted by his sanctity and the sweetness of his character, had gathered round him to submit themselves to his spiritual guidance and help him in the work for the reform of manners and the saving of souls which he had begun even as a layman. Giovanni rented the beautiful little church of Santa Maria della Rosa, and in a quarter close by, something like community life was started. It was here, when it became evident that Giovanni’s lay helpers were preparing for the priesthood and that something like a religious order was in process of formation, that a storm of persecution broke out against the devoted founder. The Fathers of the republic seem to have had a real fear that a native religious order, if spread over Italy, would cause the affairs of the little state to become too well known to its neighbours. The persecution, however, was so effective and lasting, that the Blessed Leonardi practically spent the rest of his life in banishment from Lucca, only being now and again admitted by special decree of the Senate, unwillingly extracted under papal pressure. In 1580 Giovanni acquired secretly the ancient church of Santa Maria Cortelandini (popularly known as Santa Maria Nera) which his sons hold to this day. In 1583 the congregation was canonically erected at the instigation of Pope Gregory XIII by Bishop Alessandro Guidiccioni, of Lucca, and confirmed by the Brief of Clement VIII “Ex quo divina majestas,” 13 October, 1595.

The congregation at this time only took simple vows of chastity, perseverance, and obedience, and was known as the “Congregation of Clerks Secular of the Blessed Virgin.” In 1596 Clement VIII nominated the Blessed Giovanni commissary Apostolic for the reform of the monks of the Order of Monte Vergine, and in 1601 the cardinal protector appointed him to carry out a similar work among the Vallombrosans. In 1601 he obtained the church of S. Maria in Portico in Rome. In the same year Cardinal Baronius became protector of the congregation. Giovanni died in Rome 9 October, 1609, aged sixty-eight, and was buried in Santa Maria in Portico. The present church of the congregation in Rome, obtained in 1662, is Santa Maria in Campitelli (called also Santa Maria in Portico) interesting to Englishmen as the first titular church of the Cardinal of York. The body of the founder was removed to this church and lies there under the altar of St. John the Baptist. Giovanni Leonardi was declared Venerable in 1701, and beatified by Pius IX in 1861. Leo XIII, in 1893, caused his name to be inserted in the Roman Martyrology and ordered the clergy of Rome to say his Mass and Office, an honour accorded to no other Blessed in that city except the beatified popes. In 1614 Paul V confided to the congregation the care of the so-called Pious Schools. It is in his Brief “Inter Pastoralis” that the congregation is first called “of the Mother of God,” having until then been known by its original name of “Clerks Secular of the Blessed Virgin.” The care of these schools being considered outside the scope of the congregation, it was relieved of their charge by the same pontiff in 1617.

It was not until 1621 (3 November) that Gregory XV, carrying out what was always in the founder’s mind, erected the congregation into a religious order proper by permitting its members to take solemn vows, and it henceforth became the Clerks Regular of the Mother of God. The Blessed Leonardi received many offers of churches during his life, but with a view of conciliating the governing body of the republic thought it better to refuse them. In all its history the order has never had more than fifteen churches, and never more than seven at one time. It was introduced into Naples in 1632, Genoa 1669, and Milan 1709. The only churches of the order now existing are Santa Maria Cortelandini, Lucca; Santa Maria in Campitelli, Rome; Santa Maria in Portico di Chiaja, and Santa Brigida, Naples; the Madonna della Stella Migliano (1902); and the parish church of S. Carlo in Monte Carlo (1873), the only church of the order outside the borders of modern Italy. In the sacristy of Santa Maria Cortelandini is preserved a large portion of a hair-shirt of St. Thomas of Canterbury whose feast is celebrated there with considerable ceremony; in 1908 half of this relic was presented to the Benedictine Abbey of St. Thomas, Erdington, England. The former residence of the clerks, who kept a large boys’ school until the suppression in 1867, is now the public library of Lucca. Two of the original companions of the holy founder, Cesare Franciotti and Giovanni Cioni, have been declared Venerable. The order justly enjoys great fame for its learning and its numerous scholars and writers. Suffice it to mention Giovanni Domenico Mansi, editor of the “Councils” and a hundred other works. The arms of the order are azure, Our Lady Assumed into Heaven; and its badge and seal the monogram of the Mother of God in Greek characters.

HÉLYOT, Hist. Ord. Rel., especially the Italian version by FONTANA, clerk of this congregation (Lucca, 1738), IV, 268–295; BONANNI, Cat. Ord. Relig., I; MARRACCI, Vita del V. P. Giovanni Leonardi (Rome, 1673); GUERRA, La Vita del B. Giov. Leonardi (Monza, 1895); BARBOSA, Jur. Eccl. Univ., I, xli, 162; Bullar. Rom., III; SARTESCHI, De Scriptoribus Cong. Cler. Matris Dei.

MONTGOMERY CARMICHAEL.

Diocese of Clermont

(CLERMONT-FERRAND; CLAROMONTENSIS)

Comprises the entire department of Puy-de-Dôme and is a suffragan of Bourges. Although at first very extensive, in 1317 the diocese lost Haute-Auvergne through the creation of the Diocese of Saint Flourandin 1822 the Bourbonnais, on account of the erection of the Diocese of Moulins. The first Bishop of Clermont was St. Austremonius (Stramonius). (See AUSTREMONIUS.) According to local tradition he was one of the seventy-two Disciples of Christ, by birth a Jew, who came with St. Peter from Palestine to Rome and subsequently became the Apostle of Auvergne, Berry, Nivernais, and Limousin. At Clermont he is said to have converted the senator Cassius and the pagan priest Victorinus, to have sent St. Sirenatus (Cerneuf) to Thiers, St. Marius to Salers, Sts. Nectarius and Antoninus into other parts of Auvergne, and to have been beheaded in 92. This tradition is based on a life of St. Anstremonius written in the tenth century in the monastery of Mozat, where the body of the saint had rested from 761, and rewritten by the monks of Issoire, who retained the saint’s head. St. Gregory of Tours, born in Auvergne in 544 and well versed in the history of that country, looks upon Austremonius as one of the seven envoys who, about 250, evangelized Gaul; he relates how the body of the saint was first interred at Issoire, being there the object of great veneration.

Clermont counted amongst its bishops a large number of saints, as St. Urbicus (c. 312); St. Leoguntius; St. Illidius (Allyre), who, about 385, cured the daughter of the Emperor Maximus at Trier; the saint’s name was given to the petrifying springs of Clermont, and his life was written by Gregory of Tours; St. Nepotianus (died 388); St. Artemius (died about 394); St. Venerandus (Veau, died about 423); St. Rusticus (424–46); St. Namatius (446–62), founder of the Clermont cathedral, where he deposited the relics of Sts. Vitalis and Agricola brought from Bologna; Sidonius Apollinaris (470–79), the celebrated Christian writer who brought to Clermont the priest St. Amabilis; St. Aprunculus (died about 491); St. Euphrasius (491–515); St. Quintianus (died about 527), whose life was written by Gregory of Tours; St. Gallus (527–51), of whom Gregory of Tours was the biographer and nephew; St. Avitus (second half of the sixth century), founder of Notre Dame du Port; St. Cæsarius (c. 627); St. Gallus II (c. 650); St. Genesius (c. 660); St. Præjectus (Prix), historian of the martyrs of Clermont and assassinated at Volvic 25 January, 676; St. Avitus II (676–91); St. Bonitus, intimate friend of Sigebert II (end of seventh century); St. Stabilis (823–60). and St. Sigo (866). Among the Bishops of Clermont should also be mentioned: Pierre de Cros (1301–04), engaged by St. Thomas Aquinas to complete his “Summa”; Etienne d’Albert (1340–42), later Pope Innocent VI (1352–62); Guillaume du Prat (1528–60), founder of the Clermont College at Paris and delegate of Francis I to the Council of Trent; and Massillon, the illustrious orator (1717–42). The Diocese of Clermont can likewise claim a number of monks whom the Church honours as saints, viz: St. Calevisus (Calais, 460–541), a pupil in the monastery of Menat near Riom, whence he retired to Maine, where he founded the Abbey of Anisole; St. Maztius (died 527), founder at Royat near Clermont of a monastery which became later a Benedictine priory; St. Portianus (sixth century), founder of a monastery to which the city of Saint-Pourçain (Allier) owes its origin; St. Etienne de Muret (1046–1124), son of the Viscount of Thiers and founder of the Order of Grandmont in Limousin, and St. Peter the Venerable (1092–1156), of the Montboissier family of Auvergue, noted as a writer and Abbot of Cluny.

Several famous Jansenists were natives of Clermont: Blaise Pascal, author of the “Pensées” (1623–62); the Arnauld family, and Soanen (1647–1740), Bishop of Senez, famous for his stubborn opposition to the Bull “Unigenitus.” On the other hand the city of Riom was the birthplace of Sirmond, the learned Jesuit (1559–1651), confessor to Louis XIII and editor of the ancient councils of Gaul. Other natives worthy of mention in church history were the Abbé Delille, poet (1738–1813), and Montlosier, the publicist (1755–1838), famous for his memoir against the Jesuits and to whom Bishop Ferou refused ecclesiastical burial. Pope Urban II came to Clermont in 1095 to preside at the organization of the First Crusade; Pope Paschal II visited the city in 1106, Callistus II in 1120, Innocent II in 1130, Alexander III in 1164, and, in 1166, St. Thomas Becket. It was also at Clermont that, in 1262, in presence of St. Louis, the marriage of Philip the Bold and Isabella of Aragon was solemnized. The cathedral of Clermont, dating from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, is not of equal archæological importance with the church of Notre-Dame du Port, which stands to-day as it was rebuilt in the eleventh century, and is one of the most beautiful of Romanesque churches in the Auvergnese style. One of the capitals in Notre-Dame du Port, ascribed to the eleventh century, is among the most ancient sculptured representations of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. This cathedral is much frequented as a place of pilgrimage, as are also Notre Dame d’Orcival and Notre Dame de Vassivière at Besse. The “dry mass” (without Consecration or Communion) was celebrated in the Diocese of Clermont as late as the seventeenth century.

Before the Law of 1901 was carried into effect, there were in the Diocese: Capuchins, Jesuits, Marists, Fathers of the African Missions, Fathers of the Holy Ghost, and Sulpicians. Several local congregations of women are engaged in teaching, among them being the religious of Notre-Dame de Clermont, founded in 1835, with mother-house at Chamalières; the Sisters of St. Joseph of the Good Shepherd, founded by Massillon in 1723, with mother-house at Clermont; the Sisters of the Heart of the Infant Jesus, mother-house at Lezoux; and the Sisters of Mercy, founded in 1806, with mother-house at Billom. The diocese has the following religious institutions: 2 maternity hospitals, 40 infant schools, 1 school for the blind, 4 schools for deaf mutes, 3 boys’ orphanages, 16 girls’ orphanages, 2 houses of refuge and of protection, 23 hospitals and hospices, 35 houses for nursing sisters, and 1 insane asylum. Statistics for the end of 1905 (the close of the period under the Concordat) show a population of 529,181, with 54 parishes, 447 succursal parishes (mission churches), and 175 curacies remunerated by the State.

GREGORY OF TOURS, Historia Francorum; IDEM, Vitœ Patrum (nine out of twenty being devoted to saints of Auvergne); Gallia Christiana (nova) (1715), II, 222–316, 416–418; Instrumenta, 73–128; RÉSIE, Histoire de L’Eglise d’Auvergne (3 vols., Clermont-Ferrand, 1855); MORIN, L’Auvergne chrét. du premier siècle à 1880 (Roanne, 1880); DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux, I, 20, II, 31–39, 117–22; DESDEVIZES DU DÉSERT, Bibliographie du centenaire des croisades à Clermont-Ferrand (Clermont-Ferrand, 1895); CHEVALIER, Rép. des sources hist., Topo-Bibl., s. v.

GEORGES GOYAU.

Pope St. Cletus

This name is only another form for Anacletus, the second successor of St. Peter. It is true that the Liberian Catalogue, a fourth-century list of popes, so called because it ends with Pope Liberius (d. 366), contains both names, as if they were different persons. But this is an error, owing evidently to the existence of two forms of the same name, one an abbreviation of the other. In the aforesaid catalogue the papal succession is: Petrus, Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus. This catalogue, however, is the only authority previous to the sixth century (Liber Pontificalis) for distinguishing two popes under the names of Cletus and Anacletus.

The “Carmen adv. Marcionem” is of the latter half of the fourth century, and its papal list probably depends on the Liberian Catalogue. The “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” (q. v.) mentions both “Aninclitus” and “Clitus” (23 and 31 December), but on each occasion these names are found in a list of popes; hence the days mentioned cannot be looked on as specially consecrated to these two persons. Apart from these lists, all other ancient papal lists, from the second to the fourth century, give as follows the immediate succession of St. Peter: Linos, Anegkletos, Klemes (Linus, Anencletus, Clemens), and this succession is certainly the right one. It is that found in St. Irenæus and in the chronicles of the second and third centuries. Both Africa and the Orient adhered faithfully to this list, which is also given in the very ancient Roman Canon of the Mass, except that in the latter Cletus is the form used, and the same occurs in St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, Rufinus, and in many fifth- and sixth-century lists. This second successor of St. Peter governed the Roman Church from about 76 to about 88. The “Liber Pontificalis” says that his father was Emelianus and that Cletus was a Roman by birth, and belonged to the quarter known as the Vicus Patrici. It also tells us that he ordained twenty-five priests, and was buried in Vaticano near the body of St. Peter.

There is historical evidence for only the last of these statements. The feast of St. Cletus falls, with that of St. Marcellinus, on 26 April; this date is already assigned to it in the first edition of the “Liber Pontificalis.” (See CLEMENT I, SAINT, POPE.)

LIGHTFOOT, Apostolic Fathers, Pt. I: St. Clement of Rome (2nd ed., London, 1890), 201–345; DUCHESNE, Liber Pontificalis, I, LXIX-LXX, 2–3, 52–53; HARNACK, Gesch. der alt-christl. Lit. bis Eusebius, II-I, 144–202; Acta SS., April, III, 409–11; DE SMEDT, Dissertationes selectæ in hist. eccles. (Ghent, 1876), 300–04.

J.P. KIRSCH

Diocese of Cleveland

The Diocese of Cleveland (Clevelandensis), established 23 April, 1847, comprises all that part of Ohio lying north of the southern limits of the Counties of Columbiana, Stark, Wayne, Ashland, Richland, Crawford, Wyandot, Hancock, Allen, and Van Wert, its territory covering thirty-six counties, an area of 15,032 square miles.

EARLY HISTORY

The Jesuit Fathers Potier and Bonnecamp were the first missionaries to visit the territory now within the limits of Ohio. They came from Quebec in 1749 to evangelize the Huron Indians living along the Vermilion and Sandusky Rivers in Northern Ohio. Two years later they received the assistance of another Jesuit, Father de la Richardie, who had come from Detroit, Michigan, to the southern shore of Lake Erie. Shortly after his arrival he induced a part of the Huron tribe to settle near the present site of Sandusky, where he erected a chapel—the first place of Catholic worship within the present limits of Ohio. These Hurons assumed the name of Wyandots when they left the parent tribe. Although checked for a time by Father Potier, they took part in the Indian-French War. Soon they became implicated in the conspiracy of Pontiac, in consequence of which the Jesuits were unjustly forced in 1752 to leave the territory of Ohio, Father Potier being the last Jesuit missionary among the Western Hurons. The Indian missions, established and cared for by the Jesuits for nearly three years, had now to depend exclusively on the chance visits of the priests attached to the military posts in Canada and Southern Michigan. Despite the spiritual deprivation which this implied, the Hurons (Wyandots) kept the Faith for many years, although their descendants were ultimately lost to the Church through the successful efforts of Protestant missionaries. After the forced retirement of the Jesuits no systematic efforts were made to continue the missionary work begun by them until 1795, when the Rev. Edmund Burke, a secular priest from Quebec, came as chaplain of the military post at Fort Meigs, near the present site of Maumee. Father Burke remained at the post until February, 1797, ministering to the Catholic soldiers at the fort, and endeavouring though with little success, to Christianize the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, in the neighbourhood.

In the meantime the See of Bardstown was erected (1810), embracing the entire State of Ohio, as well as Michigan and Kentucky. Bishop Flaget sent (1817) the Rev. Edward Fenwick, O.P. (later first Bishop of Cincinnati), from the Dominican monastery at Somerset, Ohio, to attend the few families who had settled in Columbiana and Stark Counties, in the north-eastern part of Ohio. From that time forward he and other Dominican Fathers, especially the Revs. Nicholas D. Young and John A. Hill, continued to visit at regular intervals the Catholic families in that section of Ohio (notably in Columbiana, Stark, Mahoning, and Wayne Counties), then very sparsely settled. It is, therefore, from this period that Catholicity in Northern Ohio really dates its beginning. In the course of time the Dominican Fathers gradually gave up to the secular clergy their pastoral charges in the above-named counties until, in 1842, they withdrew altogether. St. John’s, Canton, was their last mission. Meanwhile the central portion of Northern Ohio (Huron, Erie, Sandusky, and Seneca Counties) had received a considerable influx of Catholic immigrants, principally from Germany. Similar conditions were obtaining elsewhere in the State, and the need of more compact organization to minister to growing wants made Cincinnati an episcopal see in 1822, with the entire State for its jurisdiction. Little seems to have been done, however, for the northern part of the State, and but little could be done, as Catholics were so few, until the advent of its second bishop, John B. Purcell. He succeeded (13 Oct., 1833) the saintly Bishop Fenwick, who, while engaged in a confirmation tour, died at Wooster, Ohio (26 September, 1832) of cholera, then raging in Ohio. In 1834 Bishop Purcell commissioned the Redemptorist Fathers, who had just arrived in America, to take charge of the widely scattered German missions then existing in these counties, and to organize others where needed. The Rev. Francis X. Tschenhens, C.SS.R., was the first priest assigned to this task. Later on he was assisted by other members of his community, among them the Revs. Peter Czakert, Francis Haetscher, Joseph Prost, Simon Saenderl, Louis M. Alig, and John N. Neumann (later Bishop of Philadelphia). The Redemptorists remained in Northern Ohio until November, 1842. They were succeeded, January, 1844, by seven Sanguinist Fathers, (the Revs. Francis S. Brunner, M.A. Meier, J. Wittmer, J. Van den Broek, P.A. Capeder, J. Ringele, and J.B. Jacomet), who came from Europe at that time at the solicitation of Bishop Purcell. They settled at St. Alphonsus church, Peru, Huron County, whence they attended all the missions formerly under the care of the Redemptorists. They also accepted charge of the scattered missions in Lorain, Medina, and Wayne Counties, besides attending the Catholic Germans in Cleveland. Their advent was hailed with delight wherever they went, and their priestly labours were signally blessed. Under their vigilant care religion flourished, so that the healthy growth of Catholicity in Northern Ohio may justly, under God, be ascribed in large measure to their untiring zeal and self-sacrifice.

The secular clergy are no less deserving of mention, as they, too, laboured in this part of the Lord’s vineyard, amid trials and difficulties, often side by side with their brethren of the religious orders, and more often alone in the widespread missions of Northern Ohio. They did yeoman service, blazing the way for those who succeeded them, and laying the foundations for many missions, which have long since developed into vigorous and prosperous congregations. The first of these secular clergy was the Rev. Ignatius J. Mullen of Cincinnati. Between 1824 and 1834 he frequently attended the missions in Stark, Columbiana, Seneca, and Sandusky Counties. Other pioneer secular priests of prominence were the Revs. Francis Marshall (1827), John M. Henni (later Bishop and Archbishop of Milwaukee), resident pastor of Canton (1831–34), Edmund Quinn, at Tiffin (1831–35), William J. Horstmann, at Glandorf (1835–43), James Conlon, at Dungannon (1834–53), Matthias Wuerz, at Canton (1835–45), John Dillon, first resident pastor of Cleveland (1835–36), Basil Schorb, in charge of missions in Stark, Wayne, and Portage Counties (1837–43), Patrick O’Dwyer, second pastor of Cleveland (1836–38), where he built the first church in 1838, Michael McAleer, in Stark and Columbiana Counties (1838–40), Joseph McNamee, at Tiffin (1839–47), Projectus J. Machebeuf (later Bishop of Denver), at Tiffin and Sandusky (1839–51), Amadeus Rappe (later first Bishop of Cleveland), stationed at Maumee for a short time, and then, as first resident pastor, at Toledo (1840–47), Louis de Goesbriand (later Bishop of Burlington, Vermont), at Louisville, Toledo, and Cleveland (1840–53), Peter McLaughlin, resident pastor of Cleveland (1840–46), Maurice Howard, at Cleveland and later at Tiffin (1842–52), John J. Doherty, at Canton (1843–48), John H. Luhr, at Canton, and later at Cleveland (1844–58), John O. Bredeick, founder of Delphos and its first pastor (1844–58), Cornelius Daley, first resident pastor of Akron, and later stationed at Doylestown (1844–47), Philip Foley, at Massillon and Wooster (1847–48). The Rev. Stephen Badin, proto-priest of the thirteen original United States, and the Rev. Edward T. Collins occasionally came from Cincinnati, between 1835 and 1837, to attend the missions in Northern Ohio, the former those of Canton, Fremont, and Tiffin, and the latter those of Dungannon, Toledo, and along the Maumee River. The first permanent church in Northern Ohio was erected near the present village of Dungannon, in 1820, under the direction of the Rev. Edward Fenwick, O.P., the “Apostle of Ohio,” and later the first Bishop of Cincinnati. Until 1847 churches of brick or wood were built in the following places: Canton (St. John’s, 1823), Chippewa (1828), Randolph, Canal Fulton (1831), Tiffin (St. Mary’s, 1832), Glandorf, Navarre, New Riegel (1833), Peru (1834), Louisville, La Porte (1835), Shelby Settlement (1836), McCutchenville (1837), Thompson (1839), Cleveland, East Liverpool (1840), Toledo, Maumee, New Washington, Norwalk (1841), Sandusky (Holy Angels), Landeck, Liberty, Liverpool, Sheffield (St. Stephen’s, 1842), Delphos, Massillon (St. Mary’s), Akron (St. Vincent’s), Fremont (St. Anne’s), French Creek (1844), Canton (St. Peter’s), Harrisburg, New Berlin, Tiffin (St. Joseph’s), Providence (1845), Sherman (1846), Poplar Ridge (1847).

From 1922 until October, 1847, Northern Ohio was part of the Diocese of Cincinnati, of which the first bishop was Edward Fenwick (1822–32), and its second bishop, John B. Purcell, who succeeded in October, 1833. He petitioned the Holy See, in 1846, for a division of his jurisdiction, then comprising the entire State of Ohio. The petition was granted (23 April, 1847), by the appointment of the Rev. Louis Amadeus Rappe as the first Bishop of Cleveland, and the assignment to his jurisdiction of “all that part of Ohio lying north of 40 degrees and 41 minutes, N.L.” As this division intersected several counties it was changed in January, 1849, to the present limits, as described at the beginning of this article.

BISHOPS OF CLEVELAND

(1) LOUIS AMADEUS RAPPE, consecrated 10th October, 1847, was born 2 Feb., 1801, at Andrehem, France. He was ordained priest at Arras, France, 14 March, 1829. His cathedral church was St. Mary’s on the “Flats,” Cleveland, the first, and at that time the only, church in his episcopal city. In November, 1852, he completed the present cathedral, an imposing brick structure of Gothic architecture, still ranking with the many fine churches of the diocese. During his administration of the diocese, which ended in August, 1870, he convoked five diocesan synods (1848, 1852, 1854, 1857, 1868). He established the diocesan seminary (1848), St. John’s College, Cleveland (1854), St. Louis College, Louisville (1866); these two colleges, however, being closed a few years later, owing to lack of patronage. Under his direction the following educational and charitable institutions were also established: in Cleveland, the Ursuline Academy; St. Vincent’s Orphanage, for boys; St. Mary’s Orphanage, for girls (1861); St. Joseph’s Orphanage, for girls (1862); Charity Hospital (1865); House of the Good Shepherd (1869); Home for the Aged Poor (1870).

In Toledo, Ursuline Academy (1854), St. Vincent’s Orphanage (1855); in Tiffin, Ursuline Academy (1863), St. Francis’ Asylum and Home for the Aged (1867). He founded the community of Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine (1851), whose work is the care of orphans, waifs, and the sick. In 1869 he introduced into the diocese the Franciscan and Jesuit Fathers, giving to the former the care of St. Joseph’s church, Cleveland, and to the latter St. Mary’s, Toledo. Wherever possible he insisted on the support of parish schools. He was a strong advocate of total abstinence, which he practised from the time he was a missionary priest in North-Western Ohio until his death. He never spared himself in the discharge of his manifold and exacting duties. By his affability and disinterestedness he gained the love of his people, as also the respect of his fellow-citizens regardless of creed. He resigned his see in August, 1870, and retired to the Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, where he did missionary work almost to the day of his death (8 September, 1877). Between the time of Bishop Rappe’s resignation and the appointment of his successor, the Very Rev. Edward Hannin administered the affairs of the diocese.

(2) RICHARD GILMOUR, consecrated 14 April, 1872. In November of the same year he convoked the Sixth Diocesan Synod, in which many of the statutes by which the diocese is at present governed were promulgated. It also embodied considerable of the legislature of previous synods, notably that of 1868. This synod made provision for a diocesan fund for the support of the seminary, bishop, etc., and another for the support of sick and disabled priests, by annual assessments on the parishes of the diocese. Among other diocesan statutes published then were those urging anew the support of parochial schools, regulating the financial affairs of parishes, and the manner of electing parish councilmen and of conveying church property. Bishop Gilmour established “The Catholic Universe,” its first issue appearing 4 July, 1874. In 1875 he organized “The Catholic Central Association,” composed of representatives from all the parishes and church societies in Cleveland; its influence for the betterment of social and religious conditions and for the defence of Catholic interests was soon felt not only in Cleveland, but elsewhere as well, and continued during almost its entire existence of nearly eighteen years. It also proved a tower of strength to its organizer in his forced contention for the civic rights of Catholics, in the face of bitter opposition from bigotry and a hostile press. In 1875 the Catholic school property in Cleveland was placed on the tax duplicate in spite of the decision (1874) of the Supreme Court of Ohio, that such property was not taxable. A suit of restraint was entered by the bishop, and finally carried to the Supreme Court, which reaffirmed its former decision. The present episcopal residence was begun in 1874 and completed two years later. It serves also as the residence of the cathedral clergy.

In 1872 the Sisters of St. Joseph, and in 1874 the Sisters of Notre Dame, were welcomed to the diocese. Both communities have flourishing academies in connexion with their convents, besides supplying many parish schools with efficient teachers. The same also is the case with the Ursulines of Cleveland, Tiffin, Toledo, and Youngstown, and the Sisters of the Humility of Mary.

The following institutions were established between 1873 and 1891: St. Anne’s Asylum and House of Maternity, Cleveland (1873); Ursuline Convent, Youngstown (1874); St. Vincent’s Hospital, Toledo (1876); St. Joseph’s Franciscan College, Cleveland (1876–80); Convent of Poor Clares (1877); Ursuline Academy, Nottingham (1877); St. Alexis’ Hospital, Cleveland (1884); St. Louis’ Orphanage, Louisville (1884); Little Sisters of the Poor, Toledo (1885); St. Ignatius’ College, Cleveland (1886); St. Joseph’s Seminary, for young boys, Nottingham (1886). The diocesan seminary was remodelled and considerably enlarged in 1884–85. A diocesan chancery office was established (1877) for the transaction of the official business of the diocese. In 1878 the first attempt was made to gather historical data in connexion with every parish and institution in the diocese, and in a few years a great mass of matter, covering the history of Catholicity in Northern Ohio and the Diocese of Cleveland as far back as 1817, was collected and is now a part of the diocesan archives. In May, 1882, the Seventh Diocesan Synod was held, which resulted in the legislation at present in force. With the exception of about half a dozen of its 262 statutes, it is in perfect harmony with the decrees of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, held in November, 1884. Like his predecessor, Bishop Gilmour made it obligatory on every parish at all financially able to support a parochial school. In consequence, the Diocese of Cleveland has more parochial schools, in proportion to its number of churches and its population, than any other diocese in the United States, and many of its school buildings vie, in size, appointments, and beauty of architecture, with the public-school buildings. With very few exceptions the parish schools are in charge of teachers belonging to male and female religious communities, Bishop Gilmour had an eventful episcopate, lasting nineteen years. He left his strong, aggressive personality indelibly stamped, upon the diocese he had ruled. During the interim between his death (13 April, 1891) and the appointment of his successor, the Rev. Monsignor F.M. Boff was administrator of the diocese.

(3) IGNATIUS FREDERICK HORSTMANN, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, was appointed to succeed Bishop Gilmour. Born in Philadelphia, 16 December, 1840, after graduating from the Central High School, he attended St. Joseph’s College and then entered the diocesan Seminary. In 1860 he was sent by Bishop Wood to the American College, Rome, where he was ordained priest, 10 June, 1865. In the following year he received the degree of Doctor of Divinity and returning to Philadelphia became a professor in St. Charles’s Seminary where he remained eleven years and was then appointed rector of St. Mary’s church, Philadelphia. In 1885 he was made chancellor. His consecration as Bishop of Cleveland took place in Philadelphia, 25 February, 1892. He died suddenly of heart disease on 13 May, 1908, while on an official visit to Canton, Ohio. He had proved himself a zealous pastor of souls, a wise and prudent ruler, a fearless defender of truth. Among the noteworthy accomplishments of his episcopate were the founding of Loyola High School, Cleveland (1902); St. John’s College, Toledo (1898); and the establishment of the diocesan band of missionaries—the first in any diocese of the United States. He was foremost in encouraging every missionary movement, and his zeal for Christian education was one of the dominant purposes of his life. He served as a trustee of the Catholic University and in spite of many duties found time to contribute to the “American Catholic Review” and other periodicals and to edit the American edition of “The Catholic Doctrine As Defined by the Council of Trent” and “Potter’s Catholic Bible.”

A few months before he died he asked for an auxiliary bishop, with jurisdiction over the growing foreign population, especially of the Slav races, in the diocese. The Rev. Joseph M. Koudelka, rector of St. Michael’s church, Cleveland, was named, 29 Nov., 1907, and consecrated, 25 Feb., 1908, being the first auxiliary bishop of special jurisdiction appointed for the United States. He was born in Bohemia, 15 August, 1852, and emigrated to the United States when sixteen years of age. After making his studies at St. Francis’s Seminary, Milwaukee, he was ordained priest, 8 October, 1875. He was for some time editor of “Hlas” (Voice), a Bohemian Catholic weekly paper, and compiled a series of textbooks for Bohemian Catholic schools.

RECENT TIMES

In 1894 the “St. Vincent’s Union,” composed of the laity who contribute towards the support of St. Vincent’s Orphanage, Cleveland, was organized; and it has proved of great financial assistance to that institution. In 1893 Bishop Horstmann opened the Calvary Cemetery, which covers nearly 250 acres, near the southern limits of Cleveland. About fifty acres of the cemetery’s whole area are improved. In 1892 the Cleveland Apostolate was established, an association of secular priests, having for its object the giving of lectures and missions to non-Catholics. Besides making many converts this association has removed much prejudice and brought about a kindlier feeling towards the Church and its members. The Golden Jubilee of the diocese was celebrated, 13 October, 1897. It was a memorable event, observed with great religious pomp in Cleveland, Toledo, and elsewhere. At the bishop’s solicitation the Jesuit Fathers of Toledo opened (September, 1898) St. John’s College. In the same city a home for fallen women was established (1906) by the Sisters of the Good Shepherd. A fine school building was erected (1906) in connexion with St. Vincent’s Asylum, Cleveland, in which the boys have every facility for a thorough education. The diocese is in a prosperous condition, spiritually and financially, and healthy growth is apparent in every direction.

CAUSES OF GROWTH

The growth of the diocesan population down to 1860 was due chiefly to emigration from Ireland and Germany. Since 1870 it has been receiving other large accessions, but from quite another source. The Slav race, manifold in its divisions, has been pouring in, more notably since 1895. The early immigrants were drawn hither by the market for their labour which the opening of a new country offered. The Irish found employment on public works, such as the construction of canals and railroads; the Germans turned more to agriculture. The various branches of the Slav race are engaged in foundries, mills, and factories, and many are also employed as longshoremen and at common labour. The same holds also for the Italians, of whom there is a large percentage. Nearly all the recent immigration has settled in cities like Cleveland, Toledo, Youngstown, Lorain, and Ashtabula, where employment is had in abundance and at a fair wage.

STATISTICS

In December, 1907, the clergy numbered 388, of whom 315 were diocesan priests and 73 regulars (Sanguinists, Franciscans, and Jesuits). There were 21 Brothers of Mary and 5 Christian Brothers, teaching in 6 parochial schools. The Sisters (Sanguinists, Ursulines, Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine, Sisters of Notre Dame, Franciscans, Sisters of St. Joseph, Ladies of the Sacred Heart of Mary, Sisters of the Humility of Mary, Grey Nuns, Sisters of the Good Shepherd, Poor Clares, Little Sisters of the Poor, Dominicans, Sisters of St. Agnes, Sisters of Charity, Sisters of Loretto, Felician Sisters, Sisters of St. Benedict, Sisters-Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary) number 1141, of whom 684 teach in 138 parochial schools. The parishes with resident pastors number 241; mission churches, 60; parochial schools, 186; attendance, 43,544; 1 diocesan seminary with 96 students; diocesan students in colleges and other seminaries, 45; colleges and academies for boys, 4; attendance, 515 pupils; academies for girls, 11; attendance, 2113 pupils; 9 orphanages and one infant asylum, total number of inmates, 1251; hospitals, 9; homes for the aged, 3; Houses of Good Shepherd, 2.

The Catholic population is about 330,000, and is composed of 13 nationalities, exclusive of native Americans, viz., Irish, German, Slovak, Polish, Bohemian, Magyar, Slovenian, Italian, Lithuanian, Croatian, Rumanian, Ruthenian, Syrian.

SHEA, Catholic Missions (New York, 1854), 293, and in Catholic Universe (Cleveland, 13 September, 1881); IDEM, Hist. of the Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1889, 1892); Leben u. Wirken des hochw. Franz Sales Brunner, C.PP.S.; The Catholic Miscellany (Charleston, S.C., 1824–30); The Catholic Telegraph (Cincinnati, 1831–47); HOUCK, A History of Catholicity in Northern Ohio and Diocese of Cleveland (Cleveland, 1902); IDEM, The Church in Northern Ohio (Cleveland, 1889); Reminiscences of the Right Rev. P.J. Machebeuf in the Catholic Universe (18 Oct., 1883, and 31 Jan., 1889); Reminiscences of the Right Rev. Louis de Goesbriand in The Catholic Universe (27 December, 1888.)

GEORGE F. HOUCK

Josse Clichtove

(Jodocus Clichtovaeus).

A theologian, b. 1472 at Nieuport (Flanders); d. 1543 at Chartres (France). He began his studies at Louvain and went to Paris for his philosophical and theological studies. After receiving the doctorate in theology (1506) he was appointed professor at the Sorbonne. In 1515 he was asked to direct the studies of Louis Guillard, the Bishop-elect of Tournai, and four years later accompanied him to this latter place. After a short stay there, he returned to Paris, and in 1527 to Chartres, whither Guillard had been transferred. He took an active part in the Council of Sens, convoked at Paris by Cardinal Duprat, and he gathered in a volume the various arguments brought forward against the Protestants. A champion of reform in philosophical and theological studies during the earlier part of his life, he devoted himself later almost exclusively to combating the doctrines of Luther. His works are numerous and belong to almost every department of theology and philosophy. He began with commentaries on many Aristotelean treatises: logic, natural philosophy, ethics, arithmetic, and geometry. He also wrote studies on several books of Holy Scripture, edited and commented the writings of some of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Among his original works must be mentioned “De verâ nobilitate opusculum” (Paris, 1512); “Elucidatorium ecclesiasticum” (Paris, 1516); “De vitâ et moribus sacerdotum” (Paris, 1519), and several other works of instruction and edification; “Antilutherus” (Paris, 1524); “Propugnaculum ecclesiae adversus Lutheranos” (Paris, 1516); “De Sacramento Eucharistiae contra AEcolampadium” (Paris, 1526); “Compendium veritatum ad fidem pertinentium contra erroneas Lutheranorum assertiones ex dictis et actis in concilio provinciali Senonensi apud Parisios celebrato” (Paris, 1529); “Sermones” (Paris, 1534); “Convulsio calumniarum Ulrichi Veleni quibus S. Petrum nunquam Romae fuisse cavillatur” (Paris, 1535).

Clerval, De Judoci Clichtovei . . . vita et operibus (Paris, 1895); Idem in Dict. de theol. cath., III, 236; Van Der Haeghen, Bibliographie des oeuvres de Josse Clichtove in Bibl. Belgica (Ghent, 1888).

C.A. DUBRAY

William Clifford

(Alias Mansell), divine, d. 30 April, 1670; he was the son of Henry Clifford, by his wife Elizabeth Thimelby, who as a widow joined the English Augustinian nuns at Louvain, and died, aged about seventy-seven, 3 September, 1642. Through humility Clifford never asserted his right to the Barony of Cumberland. After education and ordination at Douai, he came on the English mission. As vice-president, he helped the English College at Lisbon through difficult times, and became superior of Tournay College (Paris), assigned by Cardinal Richelieu to the English clergy. He evaded being made bishop in 1660, declined in 1670 the presidency of Douai, and closed his life in the Hopital des Incurables in Paris. Clifford’s works are: “Christian Rules proposed to a vertuous Soule” (Paris, 1615), dedicated to Mrs Ursula Clifford; “The Spirituall Combat,” translated by R.R. (Paris, 1656), dedicated to Abbot Montague; “Little Manual of Poore Man’s Dayly Devotion” (2nd edition, Paris, 1670), often reprinted; “Observations upon Kings’ Reigns since the Conquest” (MS.); “Collections concerning Chief Points of Controversy” (MS.)

Little Manual, 5th ed., preface; Dodd, Church History, III, 297; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Catholics, I, 514, s.v.; Idem, Lisbon College, 9 and 189; Cooper in Dict. Of Nat. Biog., s.v.; Chronicle of St. Monica’s, Louvain (Edinburgh, 1904), I, 127; Kirk, Biographies (London, 1908), s.v.

PATRICK RYAN

Diocese of Clifton

(Cliftoniensis).

Diocese of England, consisting of Gloucestershire, Somersetshire, and Wiltshire. It was founded by Pius IX when he restored the English hierarchy in 1850. Previously to that the diocese formed part of the Western District, one of the four vicariates established by Innocent XI in 1688, and including Wales and the six south-western counties of England. In 1840 Wales became a separate vicariate, and thenceforth the district consisted of the English counties only. As the vicars Apostolic resided chiefly at Bath in Somerset, when the district was divided into the two dioceses of Clifton and Plymouth, it was fitting that the last Vicar Apostolic of the Western District, Dr. Joseph William Hendren, O.S.F. (1791–1866), consecrated in 1848, should become the first Bishop of Clifton. Thus the diocese is, in a special sense, the representative of the old vicariate. In this capacity the Bishop of Clifton retains possession of the archives of the Western District, one of the most important sources of information for the history of the Church in England from 1780 to 1850. The papers earlier in date perished during the Gordon Riots in 1780. Besides these valuable archives there is at Bishop’s House an interesting series of portraits of the vicars Apostolic of the Western District and of the bishops of Clifton.

A year after the foundation of the new diocese Dr. Hendren was translated to the See of Nottingham and was succeeded by Dr. Thomas Burgess (1791–1854). On 28 June, 1852, a cathedral chapter, consisting of a provost and ten canons, was erected. On the death of Bishop Burgess, 27 Nov., 1854, there was a long vacancy, and the administration of the diocese was given provisionally to Archbishop Errington, coadjutor to Cardinal Wiseman. This arrangement lasted until Feb., 1857, when the Hon. and Rev. William Joseph Hugh Clifford (1823–1893), son of the seventh Lord Clifford, was appointed bishop, being consecrated by Pope Pius IX in person. His long pontificate lasted for thirty-six years, ending with his death, 14 Aug., 1893. His successor was Dr. William Robert Brownlow (1836–1901), famous as an archaeologist, and whose well-known work on the catacombs, written conjointly with Dr. James Spencer Northcote, is a classical work of reference. Dr. Brownlow died 9 Nov., 1901, and was succeeded by the Rt. Rev. George Ambrose Burton, consecrated 1 May, 1902. The diocese, which is under the patronage of “Our Lady Conceived without Sin” and Sts. Peter and Paul, is divided into six rural deaneries. There are 57 public churches and chapels, besides 24 private chapels belonging to communities. The clergy number about 50 secular priests and about 80 regulars, the latter including the Benedictines of the famous abbey and school at Downside. The Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, Cistercians, and Jesuits are also represented in the diocese. The College of Sts. Peter and Paul, Prior Park, founded by Benedictines and afterwards conducted by secular priests, is now in the hands of the Fathers of the Society of the Holy Ghost.

CATHOLIC DIRECTORIES (1850–1907); BRADY, ANNALS OF THE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY (1877).

EDWIN BURTON

José Climent

Spanish bishop, b. at Castellon de la Plana (Valencia), 1706; d. there 25 Nov., 1781. Distinguished for his charities, educational efforts, eloquence, and exemplary life, he studied and afterwards professed theology at the University of Valencia, laboured for several years as parish priest, and was consecrated Bishop of Barcelona in 1766; he resigned his see in 1775. His episcopal activity was directed to the founding of hospitals, the establishing of free schools, and the diffusion of knowledge among the people by means of low-priced publications. He translated into Spanish several works, among them Fleury’s “Moeurs des Israelites et des Chrétiens.” His pastoral instructions contributed largely to his fame. That of 1769, on the renewal of ecclesiastical studies, caused him to be denounced to the court of Charles III for having eulogized the Church of Utrecht; but a commission composed of archbishops, bishops, and heads of religious orders, appointed to examine his case, returned a decision favourable to the prelate. The sway he held over his people was shown by his success in quelling a dangerous uprising in Barcelona against military conscription; but this only served still further to render him obnoxious to a suspicious court. He refused, on conscientious grounds, a promotion to the wealthy See of Malaga, and withdrew to his native place. His life was published in Barcelona in 1785.

Michaud, Biog. Univers, (Paris, 1843–66).

JOHN H. STAPLETON.

Ven. Margaret Clitherow

Clitherow, Margaret, Venerable, Martyr, called the “Pearl of York,” born about 1556; died 25 March 1586. She was a daughter of Thomas Middleton, Sheriff of York (1564–5), a wax-chandler; married John Clitherow, a wealthy butcher and a chamberlain of the city, in St. Martin’s church, Coney St., 8 July, 1571, and lived in the Shambles, a street still unaltered. Converted to the Faith about three years later, she became most fervent, continually risking her life by harbouring and maintaining priests, was frequently imprisoned, sometimes for two years at a time, yet never daunted, and was a model of all virtues. Though her husband belonged to the Established Church, he had a brother a priest, and Margaret provided two chambers, one adjoining her house and a second in another part of the city, where she kept priests hidden and had Mass continually celebrated through the thick of the persecution. Some of her priests were martyred, and Margaret who desired the same grace above all things, used to make secret pilgrimages by night to York Tyburn to pray beneath the gibbet for this intention. Finally arrested on 10 March, 1586, she was committed to the castle. On 14 March, she was arraigned before Judges Clinch and Rhodes and several members of the Council of the North at the York assizes. Her indictment was that she had harboured priests, heard Mass, and the like; but she refused to plead, since the only witnesses against her would be her own little children and servants, whom she could not bear to involve in the guilt of her death. She was therefore condemned to the peine forte et dure, i.e. to be pressed to death. “God be thanked, I am not worthy of so good a death as this,” she said. Although she was probably with child, this horrible sentence was carried out on Lady Day, 1586 (Good Friday according to New Style). She had endured an agony of fear the previous night, but was now calm, joyous, and smiling. She walked barefooted to the tolbooth on Ousebridge, for she had sent her hose and shoes to her daughter Anne, in token that she should follow in her steps. She had been tormented by the ministers and even now was urged to confess her crimes. “No, no, Mr. Sheriff, I die for the love of my Lord Jesu,” she answered. She was laid on the ground, a sharp stone beneath her back, her hands stretched out in the form of a cross and bound to two posts. Then a door was placed upon her, which was weighted down till she was crushed to death. Her last words during an agony of fifteen minutes, were “Jesu! Jesu! Jesu! have mercy on me!” Her right hand is preserved at St. Mary’s Convent, York, but the resting-place of her sacred body is not known. Her sons Henry and William became priests, and her daughter Anne a nun at St. Ursula’s, Louvain.

Her life, written by her confessor, John Mush, exists in two versions. The earlier has been edited by Father John Morris, S.J., in his “Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers,” third series (London, 1877). The later manuscript, now at York Convent, was published by W. Nicholson, of Thelwall Hall, Cheshire (London, Derby, 1849), with portrait: “Life and Death of Margaret Clitherow the martyr of York.” It also contains the “History of Mr. Margaret Ward and Mrs. Anne Line, Martyrs.”

BEDE CAMM.

Diocese of Clogher

DIOCESE OF CLOGHER (CLOGHERENSIS)

A suffragan of Armagh, Ireland, which comprises the County Monaghan, almost the whole of Fermanagh, the southern portion of Tyrone, and parts of Donegal, Louth, and Cavan. It takes its name from Clogher, the seat of the Prince of Oriel, with whose territory the old Diocese of Clogher was, practically speaking, coextensive. The see was founded by St. Patrick, who appointed one of his household, St. Macarten, as first bishop. There does not seem to be any evidence that St. Patrick governed Clogher as a distinct diocese before taking up his residence at Armagh, as is stated by Jocelyn. There is great difficulty in tracing the succession of bishops in Clogher, as indeed in every Irish diocese from the sixth to the eleventh century, on account of the confusion of the bishops with the abbots of the monastic establishments; the difficulty is increased in Clogher in view of the diversity existing between the lists as given in the Irish Annals, and the “Register of Clogher,” compiled by Patrick Culin, Bishop of Clogher (1519–34), and Roderick Cassidy, archdeacon of the diocese. The “Register of Clogher” is of very little historical value.

In 1241 Henry III ordered that Clogher should be united to Armagh, on account of the poverty of both dioceses, but this was not carried out, though under Bishop David O’Brogan large portions of Tyrone were cut off from Clogher and given to Ardstraw (now united with Derry), while the greater part of the present County Louth, including Dundalk, Drogheda, and Ardee, was taken over by Armagh. In 1535 Bishop Odo, or Hugh O’Cervallan, was appointed to the See of Clogher by Paul III, and on the submission of his patron Con O’Neill to Henry VIII, this prelate seems to have accepted the new teaching and was superseded by Raymond MacMahon, 1546. From his time there are two lines of bishops in Clogher, the Catholic and the Protestant. The apostate Miler Magrath was appointed Protestant bishop by Queen Elizabeth in 1570, but on his promotion to Cashel, resigned Clogher in the same year. Heber or Emer MacMahon (1643–50) took a prominent part in the war of the Irish Confederates, and on the death of Owen Roe O’Neill, was chosen general of the Confederate forces. He was defeated at Scariffhollis near Letterkenny, taken prisoner by Coote, and beheaded at Enniskillen. Owing to the persecutions of the Irish Catholics, Clogher was governed by vicars during the periods 1612–43, 1650–71, 1687–1707, 1713–27. The chapter of Clogher was allowed to lapse, but towards the end of the eighteenth century it was re-established by papal Brief.

A very important provincial synod was held at Clones in 1670 by Oliver Plunkett, Archbishop of Armagh (see Moran, Life of Plunkett). The most remarkable shrines of the diocese are at St. Patrick’s, Lough Derg, near Pettigo, still frequented by thousands of pilgrims from all parts of the world (see ST. PATRICK’S PURGATORY); Devenish Island in Lough Erne (see McKenna, Devenish, its History and Antiquities, Dublin, 1897); Innismacsaint, also in Lough Erne, where the “Annals of Ulster” were composed; Lisgoole, Clones, and Clogher. The most celebrated works of ancient ecclesiastical art connected with the diocese are the Domnach Airigid, a shrine enclosing a copy of the Gospels, said to have been given by St. Patrick to St. Macarten, and the Cross of Clogher, both of them now in the National Museum in Dublin. The Catholic population of the diocese is 101,162, distributed in forty parishes and ministered to by about 100 priests.

JAMES MACCAFFREY.

Cloister

The English equivalent of the Latin word clausura (from claudere, “to shut up”). This word occurs in Roman law in the sense of rampart, barrier, [cf. Code of Justinian, 1. 2 sec. 4; De officiis Praef. Praet. Africae (1, 27), 1. 4 De officiis mag. officiorum (I, 31)]. In the “Concordia Regularum” of St. Benedict of Aniane, c. xli, sec. 11, we find it in the sense of “case,” or “cupboard” (Migne, P.L., CIII, 1057). In modern ecclesiastical usage, clausura signifies, materially, an enclosed space for religious retirement; formally, it stands for the legal restrictions opposed to the free egress of those who are cloistered or enclosed and to the free entry, or free introduction, of outsiders within the limits of the material clausura.

I. SYNOPSIS OF EXISTING LEGISLATION

The actual legislation distinguishes between religious orders and institutes with simple vows; institutes of men and those of women.

(1) RELIGIOUS ORDERS

(A) MALE

Material Clausura.

According to the present common law every convent or monastery of regulars must, on its completion, be encloistered. A convent is defined as a building which serves as a fixed dwelling-place where religious live according to their rule. According to the common opinion of jurists (Piat, “‘Praelectiones juris Regularis,” I, 344, n, 4; Wernz, “Jus Decretalium” 658, n. 479) the houses where only two or three religious dwell permanently, and obseve their rule as they can, are subject to this law; it is not necessary that the religious be in a number which secures them the privilege of exemption from the bishop’s jurisdiction. The Congregation of Propaganda seems to have in this opinion its own, in decreeing that, in missionary countries, the law of cloister applies to the religious houses which belong to the mission, and which serve as a fixed dwelling for even two or three regular missionaries of the Latin Rite (Collectanea Propagandae Fidei, Replies of 26 Aug., 1780, and of 5 March, 1787, n. 410 and 412, 1st edit., n. 545 and 587, 2d ed ). On the other hand, the law of cloister does not apply to houses which are simply hired by religious, and which cannot therefore he looked upon as fixed and definitive homes, nor to the Villa-houses to which the religious go for recreation on fixed days or for a few weeks every year.

Strictly speaking, the whole enclosed space—house and garden—ought to be encloistered. Custom, however, allows the erection, at the entrance to the convent, of reception rooms to which women may be admitted. These reception rooms should he isolated from the interior of the convent, and the religious should not have free access to them. The church choir, and even the sacristy, when it is strictly contiguous to the church, are neutral territory, here women may enter, and the religious are free to go thither without special permission. It may be asked whether a strictly continuous material barrier is a necessary part of the clausura. Lehmkuhl (in Kirchenlex., s.v. Clausura) is of the opinion that a door which can be locked should separate the cloistered from the other parts of a house of religious. Passerini, however, thinks (De hominum statibus, III, 461, n. 376) that any intelligible sign suffices, provided it sufflciently indicates the beginning of the cloistered part. And even in the Roman law, the clausurae were sometimes fictitious. Finally, it may be added that it is for the provincial superior to fix the limits of the cloister and the point at which it begins, in comformity with the usages of his order and with the local needs; of course his power is limited by the dispositions of the law.

Formal Clausura.

Obstacle to the Free Egress of the Religious. The cloistered religious may not go outside their material cloister without permission, still, the religious man who transgresses this prohibition does not incur any ecclesiastical censure. In two cases, however, he would commit a grave sin: if his absence were prolonged (i.e. exceeding two or three days); and if he should go out by night. Going out at night without permission is usually a reserved case. But what constitutes going out by night? The present writer is of the opinion that the common estimation (which may vary in different countries) defines it. It consists in leaving the cloister without a good and serious motive, at a late hour, when people would be surprised to meet a religious outside his monastery. Canonical legislation carefully provides that religious, when not employed in the functions of the sacred ministry, shall reside in monasteries. The Council of Trent had already forbidden them to leave the monastery without permission under pretext of meeting their superiors. If they are sent to follow a university course, they must reside in a religious house. The bishop can and must punish the violators of this law of residence (Sess. XXIV, De Reg. et Mon., c. iv). Certain decrees of reform, primarily intended for Italy alone, but probably extended by usage, specially forbid religious to go to Rome without permission of the superior general.

Obstacle to the Entrance of Outsiders

Women are strictly forbidden to enter the encloistered portions of a house of male religious. In his “Apostolicae Sedis” (1869), sec. 2, n. 7, Pius IX renewed the sentence of excommunication against violators of this law. This excommunication is absolutely reserved to the Holy See; it affects the women who enter as well as the superior or religious who admits them. The penalty always supposes, of course, a serious sin on the offender’s part, but the moralists are very severe in their appreciation of cases. The fact of having just fully crossed the boundary suffices, according to them, for the commission of a serious sin and incurs the penalty. Such severity is comprehensible when a continuous material barrier separates the cloistered and noncloistered parts of the monastery; still, the present writer is rather inclined to exonerate that person from a grievous sin who should just step over the boundary and retire immediately. Where there is no such barrier, somewhat more latitude may be allowed. The law makes exceptions for queens and women of like rank, as, for example, the wife of the president of a republic; such persons may also be accompanied by a suitable retinue. Exception is also sometimes made for notable benefactresses, who must, however, previously obtain a pontifical indult. It should be noted that young girls under twelve do not incur this excommunication, but the religious who should admit them would incur the penalty. It is not certain that young girls under seven come under the law; hence the religious who should admit them would not commit a grave fault or incur the excommunication.

(B) FEMALE

Material Clausura

Those parts of the convent to which the nuns have access are all within the cloister, the choir not excepted. Here the law recognizes no neutral territory. If the convent church be public, the nuns cannot go into those parts accessible to the people. Further, the building should be so constructed that neither the sisters can look outside their enclosure, nor their neighbours see into the court-yards or gardens at the disposal of the sisters. Before establishing a women’s convent with cloister, it is the desire of the Holy See—if it be not a condition of validity—that the beneplacitum Apostolicum should be obtained; this is a certain obligation for countries, like the United States, which are subject to the Constitution of Leo XIII “Romanos Pontifices,” 8 May, 1881. (See also the Letter of 7 Dec., 1901, of the Congregation of Propaganda.)

Formal Clausura

Obstacle to Egress. Under no pretext may be sisters go outside their cloister without a legitimate cause approved of by the bishop. Such is the legislation of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, De. Reg. et Mon. c.v.) St. Pius V. restricting still more this law, recognized only three legitimate causes: fire, leprosy, and contagious malady. Without keeping rigorously to this enumeration, we may say that an analogous necessity is always required in order that the bishop may accord the permission. The nuns who transgress this law incur an excommunication reserved absolutely to the Holy See (“Apost. Sedis,” see. 2, n. 6).

Obstacle to the Free Entrance of Outsiders.

The law is much more severe for female than for male houses; in fact, even women are rigorously excluded from the cloistered parts. The penalty for those who enter and for those who admit or introduce them is the same—an excommunication absolutely reserved to the Holy See (“Apost. Sed.,” sec. 2, n. 6). The penalty affects all those, and only those, who have reached the age of reason. Hence, in spite of the general terms of the law, it seems probable that the sister who should introduce a child under seven would not incur the ecclesistical censure. This regime, however, admits of exceptions; corporal or spiritual needs demand the physician’s or the confessor’s presence, the garden must be cultivated, the building kept in repair. Hence general permissions are given to doctors, confessors, workmen, and others. The confessor of the nuns has this permission in virtue of his offlce, so also the bishop who must make the canonical visitation, and the regular superior. If the convent be under the jurisdiction of regulars, outsiders who need to enter the cloister probably require only one permission, that of the regular superior, except where custom requires also the permission of the bishop or of his delegate (St. Alph., “Theol. mor.” VII, 224). Benedict XIV, Lehmkuhl, and Piat, basing their view on the jurisprudence of the congregation of the Council, hold that the bishops permission is always required. This permission, whether coming from the bishop or from the regular superior, should be in writing, according to the wording of the law; but an oral permission is sufficient to avoid the censure (St. Alph., “Theol. mor.,” VII, 223). We may follow the opinion of St. Alphonsus (loc cit ), who maintains that when one has an evident reason for entering within the cloister, he avoids both the censure and the sin, even though he have only an oral permission. It should be observed that girl-boarders are subject to this legislation. Hence the solemnly professed nuns who wish to occupy themselves with the education of the young must be provided with a pontifical indult.

However, cloistered nuns are not absolutely forbidden all intercourse with the outside world. They may of course receive letters; they may also receive visitors in the convent parlour, provided that they they remain behind the grating, or grille, erected there. For such visits a reasonable cause and a permission from the bishop is usally needed . The permission, however, is not required in case of those who, by virtue of their office, are obliged to have relations with a convent, viz. the ecclesiastical superior, the confessor (for spiritual affairs), the canonical visitor, etc. Except in Advent and Lent, relatives and children are permitted once a week. The conditions for a visit by a male religious are very severe; according to some authors he can only receive permission if he is a blood relation to the first or second degree, and then only four times a year. Further, although an irregular visit on the part of a lay person or secular priest does not constitute a grave a fault, any visit without leave is a mortal sin for the religious. Such is the severity of the prohibition contained in the decree of the Congregation of the Council, dated 7 June, 1669. However, the conditions commonly required for a mortal sin must be present. For that reason some eminent theologians do not think there is a mortal sin if the conversation does not last for a quarter of an hour (C. d’Annibale, Summula theol., III, n. 228). It should be noted, at the same time, that certain usages have mitigated the rigour of the laws here mentioned. In Spain, for instance, the permission of the diocesan authority is never asked for making such visits. And of course the law itself affects only convents where the inmates pronounce solemn vows.

(2) INSTITUTES WITH SIMPLE VOWS ONLY

Generally speaking, in a convent or monastery where there are no solemn vows there is no cloister protected by the excommunication of the “Apostolicae Sedis”; further, women cannot make solemn vows except in a convent which has the clausura. Sometimes, however, this papal clausura is granted to convents of women who make only simple vows. Except in this case the institutes of simple vows are not subject to the laws above-described. As a matter of fact, the only female convents in the United States with either solemn vows or the papal clausura are those of the Visitation Nuns at Georgetown, Mobile, St. Louis, and Baltimore. (See Bizzarri, “Collectanea: Causa Americana,” 1st. edit. X, page 778, and the decree, page 791.) The fifth convent mentioned in the decree, Kaskaskia, no longer exists. The same is true of Belgium and France, with the exception of the districts of Nice and Savoy. In these countries, therefore, the nuns forming part of the old religious orders have only the cloister imposed by their rules or by such vows as that of perpetual enclosure taken by the religious of St. Clare. It is worth noting that this vow, although it forbids the inmates to leave the cloister, does not forbid them to receive people from outside. They are not, then, acting contrary to their vow which they admit secular persons to the inside of their convents. But in countries where the absence of solemn vows exempts convents of women from the papal enclosure, the bishop, whom the Council of Trent (Sess. xxv, De Reg. et Mon., c.v.) constitutes the guardian of nuns cloister, can censure and punish with ecclesiastical penalties infractions of cloister, and can thus establish an episcopal clausura (cf. Reply, “In Parisiensi,” 1 Aug. 1839). In the institutes of simple vows, there is nearly always a partial cloister which reserves exclusively to the religious certain arts of their convents. This partial cloister in the nuns’ convents has been committed to the special vigilance of the bishops by the Constitution, “Conditae,” 8 December, 1900, second part, and, if we may judge by the present action of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, the clausura in this form tends to become obligatory on all such Institutes. (See “Normae” of the Congreg. of Bishops and Regulars, 28 June, 1901.)

II. REASONS FOR THIS LEGISLATION

This legislation has for its principal object to safeguard the virtue of chastity. The religious consecrates his person to God, but he is not on that account impeccable in the matter of chastity; indeed, his very profession, if he does not live up to his ideal, exposes him to the danger of becoming a scandal and a source of the gravest harm to religion. To this principal reason inculcated in the Constitution “Periculoso” of Boniface VIII may be added others; for instance, the calm and recollection necessary for the religious life. The Church has therefore acted wisely in forestalling such dangers and protecting those who aim at leading a perfect life; and for this the external rigour is certainly not excessive. Moreover, this external rigour (as, e.g., the grille) varies much according to local needs and circumstances; and it seems that the recent institutes succeed admirably with their partial cloister, which is not protected by the severe penalties of the Church. The more perfect form, however, is undoubtedly better adapted to the mystic life.

III. SOURCES OF THE EXISTING LEGISLATION

(1) RELIGIOUS ORDERS

(A) MALE

There is no pontifical constitution of universal application which prohibits the egress of the religious. The only written law that might be invoked is the decree of Clement VIII “Nullus Omnino,” 25 June, 1599; and it would be difficult to prove that this Constitution is binding outside of Italy. Hence, this element of cloister results partly from usage, partly from special laws. A constitution of universal hearing was projected at the Vatican Council (“De Clausura,” c. ii, “Collectio Lacensis,” VII, 681). The interdict against the admission of women rests nowadays on the Constitution of Benedict XIV, “Regularis Disciplinae,” 3 Jan., 1742, and on that of Pius IX, “Apostolicae Sedis,” see. 2, n. 7, 12 Oct., 1869, which renews the censures against offenders.

(B) FEMALE

Here the Apostolical Constitutions abound. We cite some of the more recent which sanction at the same time the two elements of cloister “Salutare,” 3 Jan., 1742, and “Per binas alias,” 24 Jan. 1747, of Benedict XIV; add also, for the censures, the “Apostolicae Sedis,” see. 2, n. 6, of Pius IX.

(2) INSTITUTES WITH SIMPLE VOWS ONLY

For these institutes there is no other law of universal application besides the constitution, “Conditae a Christo,” which indeed rather supposes than imposes a certain clausura.

IV. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF LEGISLATION

From the very first, the founders of monasteries and the masters of the spiritual life sought to guard against the dangers which commerce with the world and interaction with the other sex offered to those devoted to the life of perfection. So we find from the earliest times, both in the counsels and the rules of the initiators of the religious life, wise maxims of practical prudence. In the Synod of Alexandria (362) we find at the head of the minor ordinances a rule forbidding monks and religious celibates (continentes) to meet women, to speak to them, and, if it can be avoided, to see them, (Revillout, “Le Concile de Nicée,” II, 475, 476). Still, cloister, as we understand it today, did not exist for the first Eastern monks. Their rules concerning monastic hospitality prove this; otherwise, how could St. Macrina have received the visits of which her brother, St. Gregory of Nyssa, speaks (“Vita S. Macrinae,” in P.G., XLVI, 975)? St. Basil’s rules, in recommending discretion in the relations between monks and nuns, prove indirectly the non-existence of a cloister properly so called (“Regulae fusius tractatae, Q. and R., XXX, P.G., XXXI, 997; “Regulae brevius tractatae,” 106–11, P.G. XXXI, 1155–58). What seems stranger still in our eyes, in the East there existed double monasteries where, in contiguous houses, if not actually under the same roof sometimes also pious men and women observed the same rule; sometimes also pious women (agapetai) shared their their homes with monks. As regards Africa, in St. Augustine’s day the visits of clerics or of monks to the “virgins and widows” were made only with permission, and in the company of irreproachable Christians (Conc. Carth. III, can. xxv, Hardouin, I, 963). but the cloister proper was unknown, so much so that the nuns themselves used to go out, though always accompanied (Aug., Epist., ccxi, P.L., XXXIII, 963).

In Europe, St. Caesarius of Arles (536) forbade women to enter men’s monasteries, and even prevented them from visiting the interior part of a nun’s convent (Regula ad monachos, xi; Ad virgines, xxxiv, P.L., LXVII, 1100, 1114); so also St. Aurelius, who further forbade nuns to go out except with a companion (Regula ad monachos, xv; Ad virgines, XL P.L., LXVIII, 390, 401). The Rule of St. Benedict says nothing about the cloister, and even the Rule of St. Francis only forbids monks to enter convents of nuns. It is worth noting that other religious so far surpassed in severity the authorizations of current law as to place their churches under cloister (Carthusians; see “Guigonis Consuetudines,” c. xxi, P.L., CLIII, 681, 682), or to prohibit the introduction of foods which the monks were forbidden to use (Camaldolese). St. Gregory (P.L., LXXVII, 717) in his letter (594) to the Abbot Valentine (letter xlii or xl, bk. IV) complained that the said abbot used to admit women into his monastery frequently, and used to allow his monks to act as godfathers at baptisms, thus associating with the women who acted as godmothers. This last permission appeared to him more reprehensible than the former. In the middle of the fifth century (450–56) an Irish council presided over by St. Patrick forbade (can. ix) the religious and consecrated virgins to lodge in the same inn, ride in the same carriage, or frequently meet together (Hard, I, 1791). About the same time, the Fourth Ecumenical Council (451) subjected to the bishop’s jurisdiction the monks who lived outside their monastery. In 517 the Council of Epao (a locality which has not been identified hitherto. See Hefele, “Conciliengeschichte,” II, 681; Loning, “Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts,” I, 569, n. 2, identifies it with Albon, between Valence and Vienne; the “Mon. Germ. Hist.”: Conc, I, 17, refer to Loning) prescribed measures (can. xxxviii) prohibiting any but women of known integrity or priests on duty from entering the monasteries of virgins (puellarum—Hard., II, 1051). In the Constitution (“Novella”) 133 of Justinian I, peri monachon 16 or 18 March, 539, we meet with a prescription which resembles much more closely our cloister. In the third chapter the emperor forbids women to enter men’s monasteries even for a burial service, and vice versa. In the Council of Saragossa (691) the Fathers assembled protested against the facility with which lay persons were admitted into monasteries (Hard., III,1780). Next come the Council of Freising (about 800), which forbids either laymen or clerics to enter nuns’ convents (can. xxi in the collection reproduced in the “Mon. Germ. Hist: Capitularia Regum Francorum,” I, 28), and the Council of Mainz (813), which forbids (can. xii) monks to go out without the abbot’s leave, and which seems (can. xiii) to forbid absolutely all egress for nuns, even for the abbesses, except with the advice and permission of the bishop (Hard., IV, 1011, 1012). In the acts of the synods of 829 presented to Louis le Debonnaire, we find a measure to prevent monks from conversing with nuns without the bishop’s permission [“Mon. Germ. Hist.: Capitularia,” II, 42, n. 19 (53)]. The Second General Council of the Lateran (1139) forbade nuns to dwell in private houses (can. xxvi) and expressed the wish that they should not sing in the same choir with the canons or monks (Hard., VII, 1222). The Third Council of Lateran (1179) required a cause of clear necessity to justify clerics in visiting convents of nuns. We may add here the decree of Innocent III (1198) inserted in the Decretalia (I, 31, 7), which gives to the bishop the right to supplement the negligence of prelates who should not compel wandering monks to return to their convents.

Thus far we have surveyed the beginnings of the present legislation. In 1298 Boniface VIII promulgated his celebrated Constitution “Periculoso” (De Statu Regularium, in VI°, III, 16) in which he imposed the cloister on all nuns. According to this law all egress is forbidden to them; only persons of irreproachable life are admitted to see the sisters, and that only when there is a reasonable excuse previously approved of by the competent authorities. The bishops (in the convents which are subject to them, as well as in those which depend immediately on the Holy See) and the regular prelates (in other convents) are charged to watch over the execution of these dispositions. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, De Reg. et Mon., c.v.), confirming these measures, confided to the bishops all responsibility for the cloister of nuns; it further directed that no man might go out without a written permit from the bishop, and that outsiders, under pain of excommunication, might not enter without a written permit from the bishop or the regular superior, which permit might not be given except in case of necessity. St. Pius V, in his “Circa Pastoralis” (29 May, 1566), urged the execution of Boniface’s law, and imposed the cloister even on the third orders. Shortly after, the same pontiff, in his “Decori” (1 February, 1570), defined the cases and the manner in which a professed nun might go outside of her cloister. In this connection may also be mentioned the “Ubi Gratiae” of Gregory XIII (13 June, 1575), explained by the Brief “Dubiis” (23 Dec., 1581). The decree of 11 May, 1669, and the declaration of 26 November 1679 of the congregation of the Council, forbid religious men to see nuns, even at the grating except within the limits referred to above.

This legislation is still further confirmed by the Constitutions of Benedict XIV, “Cum sacrarum,” 1 June, 1741, “Salutare” of 3 Jan, 1742, concerning the entrance of outsiders; “Per binas alias,” 24 Jan, I747, on the same subject; and the Letter “Gravissimo,” 31 October, 1749, to the ordinaries of the pontifical territory on access of externs to the gripes, or gratings, through which they might communicate with cloistered religious; finally, by the constitution “Apostolicae Sedis,” 12 October, 1869, which passed sentence of excommunication on all offenders, and abrogated all usages contrary to the Constitution of Pius V on the egress of cloistered nuns (cf. reply of Holy Office 22 December, 1880).

The Apostolical constitutions about the cloister of regulars, and notably the exclusion of women, are all posterior to the Council of Trent. As regards the entrance of women, we have to quote: Regularium,” 24 Oct. 1566, and “Decet,” 16 July, 1570, both of St. Pius V; “Ubi Gratiae,” 13 June, 1575, of Gregory XIII; “Nullus,” section 18, of Clement VIII, 25 June 1599; “Regularis Disciplinae,” 3 Jan., 1742, of Benedict XIV, lastly, the “Apostoliae Sedis” of Pius IX (1869), for the censures. Concerning the egress of religious, the reader may refer to the following constitutions: “Ad Romanum spectat,” sections 20 and 21, 21 Oct., 1588, of Sixtus V; “Decretum illud,” 10 March, 1601, of Clement VIII (on the question of journeys to Rome); also the decree “Nullus omnino,” 25 June, 1599, of Clement VIII (for Italy).

V. LEGISLATION IN THIS EASTERN CHURCH

In our historical survey we have already cited the Greek sources of legislation prior to the seventh century. In 693 the Trullan Council, so called from the hall of the palace at Constantinople where it was held, is more precise than which preceded it. The forty-sixth canon (Hard., III, 1679) forbade monks and nuns to go out, except during the day, for a necessary cause, and with the previous authorization of their superior; the forty-seventh canon forbade men to sleep in a convent of women, and vice-versa. The Second Council of Nicaea (787), which Photius cites in his “Nomocanon” (P.G. CIV, 1091), in its eighteenth canon forbids women to dwell in men’s monasteries (Hard., iv, 497, 498), and in the twentieth it condemns double monasteries, occupied by both monks and nuns (Hard., IV, 499, 500). Neither Balsamon nor Aristenes, in their commentaries on the canons of the councils (P.G., CXXXVII), nor Blastaris (1332), in his alphabetical list of the canons (P.G., CXLV, under the titles, “Hermits,” “Nuns,” col. 45–48, 49–50), nor the Maronite council of 1736, has any more recent general law to cite. This Maronite council cites two other Maronite synods of 1578 and 1596 (Coll. Lac., II. 36). In an article like the present it would be impossible to follow the evolution of the Eastern legislation and the Eastern usages in this matter, owing to the multitude of rites and of communities into which the Orientals tend to split up.

We may cite two Catholic Maronite synods of Mt. Lebanon, held in 1736 ancl 1818. The former of these (De monasteriis et monachis, IV, c.ii) recalls the old canons forbids double monasteries, imposes on the monks a cloister similar to that of the Western regulars, penalizing women offenders with sentence of excommunication, reserved to the patriarch. In the third chapter, devoted to sisterhoods, the Fathers recognize that the strict cloister is not of obligation in their church. They allow the nuns to go out for the needs of their convent, but they desire that the nuns shall never go out alone. The execution of these decrees was very slow, and met with much difficulty; and the synod of 1818 had to be convened in order to finally separate the convents of men from those of women.(cf. Coll. Lac., II, 365–368; 374, 382, 490, 491,496, 576.)

The provincial synod of the Ruthenians of the United Greek Rite (1720) introduced what is practically the Roman clausura the excommunication protecting their cloister is reserved to the pope (Coll. Lac. II, 55,58). In the patriarchical council of the Greek Melchite United Church (1812), we find nothing but a simple prohibition to the monks to go on journeys without written permission from their superior, and to pass the night outside of their monastery, except when assisting the dying (Coll. Lac. II, 586). In the Coptic Catholic and Syrian Catholic Churches there are at present no religious whatever. It may be affirmed, as a matter of fact, that the cloister is often relaxed among Eastern monks, especially the schismatics; the exclusion of women, however, is very rigorous in the twenty convents of Mt. Athos and among the Egyptian monks. There we find even more than the ancient rigour of the Studists for no female animal of any kind is allowed to exist on the promontory (see St. Theodore the studiste, “Epistula Nicolao discipulo, et testamentum” section 5, in P.G. XCIX, 941, 1820). The Basilian nuns of Russian Church also observe a strict cloister.

For CLOISTER in the architectural sense, see under ABBEY.

ARTHUR VERMEERSCH.

School of Clonard

Clonard (Irish, Cluain Eraird, or Cluain Iraird, Erard’s Meadow) was situated on the beautiful river Boyne, just beside the boundary line of the northern and southern halves of Ireland. The founder of this school, the most famous of the sixth century, was St. Finnian, an abbot and great wonder-worker. He was born at Myshall, County Carlow, about 470. At an early age he was placed under the care of St. Fortchern, by whose direction, it is said, he proceeded to Wales to perfect himself in holiness and sacred knowledge under the great saints of that country. After a long sojourn there, of thirty years according to the Salamanca MS., he returned to his native land and went about from place to place, preaching, teaching, and founding churches, till he was at last led by an angel to Cluain Eraird, which he was told would be the place of his resurrection. Here he built a little cell and a church of clay and wattle, which after some time gave way to a substantial stone structure, and entered on a life of study, mortification, and prayer. The fame of his learning and sanctity was soon noised abroad, and scholars of all ages flocked from every side to his monastic retreat—young laymen and clerics, abbots and bishops even, and those illustrious saints who were afterwards known as the “Twelve Apostles of Erin.” In the Office of St. Finnian it is stated that there were no fewer than 3000 pupils getting instruction at one time in the school in the green fields of Clonard under the broad canopy of heaven. The master excelled in exposition of the Sacred Scriptures, and to this fact must be mainly attributed the extraordinary popularity which his lectures enjoyed. The exact date of the saint’s death is uncertain, but it was probably 552, and his burial-place is in his own church of Clonard. For centuries after his death the school continued to be renowned as a seat of Scriptural learning, but it suffered at the hands of the Danes, especially in the eleventh century, and two wretched Irishmen, O’Rorke of Breifney and Dermod McMurrough, helped to complete the unholy work which the Northmen had begun. With the transference by the Norman Bishop de Rochfort, in 1206, of the See of Meath from Clonard to Trim, the glory of the former place departed forever. Irish Life in Book of Lismore; HEALY, Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1890).

JOHN HEALY

Diocese of Clonfert

(Clonfertensis, in Irish Cluain-fearta Brenainn).

The Diocese of Clonfert, a suffragan see of the metropolitan province of Tuam, was founded in 557 by St. Brendan the Navigator, in a sheltered cluain or meadow near the Shannon shore, at the eastern extremity of the County Galway. The diocese was nearly coextensive with the tribe-land of the Hy Many or O’Kelly country. It still contains twenty-four parishes in the south-east of the County Galway, including one small parish east of the Shannon, which formed a part of the ancient Hy Many territory. The renown of Brendan as a saint and traveller by land and sea attracted from the very beginning many monks and students to his monastery of Clonfert, so that it became a very famous school of sanctity and learning, numbering at one time, it is said, no less than three thousand students. Brendan was not a bishop himself, but he had as coadjutor, his nephew, Moinenn, who, after his death, became an abbot-bishop and head of the monastic school. At a later period a still more celebrated man, Cummian Fada, or Cummian the Tall, presided over the school and Diocese of Clonfert. He took a leading part in the famous Paschal controversy and wrote a very learned work on the subject, known as his “Paschal Epistle,” which fortunately still survives (P.L., LXXXVIII) and furnishes conclusive evidence of thevaried learning cultivated in the school of Clonfert.

Clonfert being on the highway of the Shannon suffered greatly from the ravages of the Danes, and also of some Irish chieftains who imitated their bad example; yet the school and monastery lived on through those stormy times, and we have a fuller list of bishops and abbots of Clonfert than we have of any other see, at least in the West of Ireland. It was richly endowed with large estates of fertile land, and hence we find that the Bishop of Clonfert, according to a scale fixed in 1392, paid to the papal treasury on his appointment three hundred florins in gold, the Archbishop of Tuam being taxed only at two hundred florins. At the general suppression of religious houses by Henry VIII, the Abbot O’Gormacan, with the help of Clanrickarde, contrived to hold the abbey lands of Clonfert until his death in spite of royal decrees. Roland de Burgo became bishop in 1534, and being an uncle of the Earl of Clanrickarde was able to keep his lands and his see for more than forty years under Henry, Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth. He was always a Catholic prelate, although it is probable that he took the Oath of Supremacy in order to get the temporalities from Henry VIII. Queen Elizabeth wrote to Sir H. Sydney suggesting the founding of a national university at Clonfert, on account of its central position on the highway of the lordly river, to be endowed with the abbey lands. But the project was never carried out.

The old cathedral of Clonfert still exists, and is one of the few ancient churches still used for religious worship, for it was seized by the Protestants in the reign of Elizabeth and has continued since in their hands. There is, however, practically no Protestant congregation. The church was small, being only fifty-four by twenty-seven feet in the clear, but its two characteristic features, the west doorway and the east windows, are very beautiful examples of the Irish Romanesque. Brash, and expert authority, has described the doorway with great minuteness, and declares that in point of design and execution it is not excelled by any similar work that he has seen in these islands. Of the east altar-window he says, “the design is exceedingly chaste and beautiful, the mouldings simple and effective, and the workmanship superior to any I have seen either of ancient or modern times.” He attributes the building of this beautiful Romanesque church to Peter O’Mordha, a Cistercian monk, first Abbot of Boyle and afterwards Bishop of Clonfert. He belonged to a family of the highest artistic genius, to whom we also owe the noble arches of the old cathedral of Tuam, and the beautiful monastery of Cong.

In 1266, as we learn from the annals of Lough Ce,’ a certain John was sent over from Rome as Bishop-elect of the See of Clonfert. He must have received the sanction of the crown, and could not have been inducted to his see without the help of Walter de Burgo, Earl of Ulster. Hence we are told he was consecrated at the English town of Athenry as Bishop of Clonfert. This was on the Sunday before Christmas, 1266. He was also appointed papal nuncio, and we find (apud Theiner) a letter from Pope John XXI (1276) authorizing him to collect the crusaders’ tax for the recovery of the Holy Land. This John, one of the few Italian prelates ever appointed to an Irish see, was a great benefactor to his cathedral church, and he is believed to have erected the statues and other carvings which decorate the western end of his cathedral. This can hardly be true, so far as the Romanesque doorway is concerned, for the Romanesque had then gone out for at least half a century as a feature in Irish architecture, and given place to the pointed style. It is said that he governed Clonfert for no less than 30 years, and was then transferred by the pope to the Archbishopric of Benvento in Italy, about 1296. It is doubtless true that John, with his artistic Italian tastes, finding in his diocese a cathedral of the best type of the Irish Romanesque, probably a hundred years old, did much to renovate and decorate with statuary the beautiful building. This no doubt would explain the ancient tradition that connects his name with the glories of the old cathedral. It is interesting to note in conclusion that Concors, an Abbot of Clonfert, was one of the three plenipotentaries who were sent by Roderick O’Connor, the last King of Ireland, to conclude the Treaty of Windsor, in the year 1175, by which Roderick renounced forever the sceptre and Kingdom of Ireland. The city of St. Brendan is now a vast solitude. The episcopal palace is falling into ruins; the beautiful church is there, but there is no resident clergyman, and only two houses—that of the sexton and the police barrack.

O’DONOVAN, “Four Masters” (Dublin, 1856), passim; HEALY, “Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars” (Dublin, 1890); WARE-HARRIS, “Lives of the Bishops of Ireland (Dublin, 1739); ARCHDALL, “Monasticon Hibernicum,” ed. MORAN (Dublin, 1873).

JOHN HEALY

Abbey and School of Clonmacnoise

Situated on the Shannon, about half way between Athlone and Banagher, King’s County, Ireland, and the most remarkable of the ancient schools of Erin. Its founder was St. Ciaran, surnamed Mac an Tsair, or “Son of the Carpenter,” and thus distinguished from his namesake, the patron saint of Ossory. He chose this rather uninviting region because he thought it a more suitable dwelling-place for disciples of the Cross than the luxuriant plains not far away. Ciaran was born at Fuerty, County Roscommon, in 512, and in his early years was committed to the care of a deacon named Justus, who had baptized him, and from whose hands he passed to the school of St. Finnian at Clonard. Here he met all those saintly youths who with himself were afterwards known as the “Twelve Apostles of Erin,” and he quickly won their esteem. When Finnian had to absent himself from the monastery, it was to the youthful Ciaran that he deputed his authority to teach and “give out the prayers,” and when Ciaran announced his intended departure, Finnian would fain resign to him his cathair, or chair, and keep him in Clonard. But Ciaran felt himself unripe for such responsibility, and he knew, moreover, he had work to do elsewhere.

After leaving Clonard, Ciaran, like most of the contemporary Irish saints, went to Aran to commune with holy Enda. One night the two saints beheld the same vision, “of a great fruitful tree, beside a stream, in the middle of Ireland, and it protected the island of Ireland, and its fruit went forth over the sea that surrounded the island, and the birds of the world came to carry off somewhat of its fruit.” And when Ciaran spoke of the vision to Enda, the latter said to him:

The great tree which thou beholdest is thou thyself, for thou art great in the eyes of God and men, and all Ireland will be full of thy honour. This island will be protected under the shadow of thy favour, and multitudes will be satisfied with the grace of thy fasting and prayer. Go then, with God’s word, to a bank of a stream, and there found a church.

Ciaran obeyed. On reaching the mainland he first paid a visit to St. Senan of Scattery and then proceeded towards the “middle of Ireland,” founding on his way two monasteries, in one of which, on Inis Ainghin, he spent over three years. Going farther south he came to a lonely waste by the Shannon, and seeking out a beautiful grassy ridge, called Ard Tiprait, or the “Height of the Spring,” he said to his companions: “Here then we will stay, for many souls will go to heaven hence, and there will be a visit from God and from men forever on this place.” Thus, on 23 January, 544, Ciaran laid the foundation of his monastic school of Clonmacnoise, and on 9 May following he witnessed its completion. Diarmait, son of Cerball, afterwards High King of Ireland, aided and encouraged the saint in every way, promising him large grants of land as an endowment. Ciaran’s government of his monastery was of short duration; he was seized by a plague which had already decimated the saints of Ireland, and died 9 September, 544. It is remarkable that a young saint dying before he was thirty-three, should have been the founder of a school whose fame was to endure for centuries. But Ciaran was a man of prayer and fasting and labour, trained in all the science and discipline of the saints, humble and full of faith, and so was a worthy instrument in the hands of Providence for the carrying out of a high design. St. Cummian of Clonfert calls him one of the Patres Priores of the Irish Church, and Alcuin, the most illustrious alumnus of Clonmacnoise, proclaims him the Gloria Gentis Scotorum. His festival is kept on 9 September, and his shrine is visited by many pilgrims.

Ciaran left but little mark upon the literary annals of the famous school he founded. But in the character which he gave it of a seminary for a whole nation, and not for a particular tribe or district, is to be found the secret of its success. The masters were chosen simply for their learning and zeal; the abbots were elected almost in rotation from the different provinces; and the pupils thronged thither from all parts of Ireland, as well as from the remote quarters of France and England. From the beginning it enjoyed the confidence of the Irish bishops and the favour of kings and princes who were happy to be buried in its shadow. In its sacred clay sleep Diarmait the High King, and his rival Guaire, King of Connaught; Turlough O’Conor, and his hapless son, Roderick, the last King of Ireland, and many other royal benefactors, who believed that the prayers of Ciaran would bring to heaven all those who were buried there.

But Clonmacnoise was not without its vicissitudes. Towards the close of the seventh century a plague carried off a large number of its students and professors; and in the eighth century the monastery was burned three times, probably by accident, for the buildings were mainly of wood. During the ninth and tenth centuries it was harassed not only by the Danes, but also, and perhaps mainly, by some of the Irish chieftains. One of these, Felim MacCriffon, sacked the monastery three times, on the last occasion slaughtering the monks, we are told, like sheep. Even the monks themselves were infected by the bellicose spirit of the times, which manifested itself not merely in defensive, but some- times even in offensive warfare. These were evil days for Clonmacnoise, but with the blessing of Ciaran, and under the “shadow of his favour,” it rose superior to its trials, and all the while was the Alma Mater of saints and sages.

Under date 794, is recorded the death of Colgu the Wise, poet, theologian, and historian, who is said to have been the teacher of Alcuin at Clonmacnoise (see Coelchu). Another alumnus of vast erudition, whose gravestone may still be seen there, was Suibhne, son of Maclume, who died in 891. He is described as the “wisest and greatest Doctor of the Scots,” and the annals of Ulster call him a “most excellent scribe.” Tighernach, the most accurate and most ancient prose chronicler of the northern nations, belongs to Clonmacnoise, and probably also Dicuil (q.v), the world-famed geographer. In this school were composed the “Chronicon Scotorum,” a valuable chronicle of Irish affairs from the earliest times to 1135, and the “Leabhar na h-Uidhre,” which, excepting the “Book of Armagh,” is the oldest Irish historical transcript now in existence. In the twelfth century Clonmacnoise was a great school of Celtic art, architecture, sculpture, and metal work. To this period and to this school we owe the stone crosses of Tuam and Cong, the processional cross of Cong, and perhaps the Tara Brooch and the Chalice of Ardagh. The ruined towers and crosses and temples are still to be seen; but there is no trace of the little church of Ciaran which was the nucleus of Clonmacnoise.

JOHN HEALY

St. Clotilda

(Fr. CLOTILDE; Ger. CHLOTHILDE).

Queen of the Franks, born probably at Lyons, c. 474; died at Tours, 3 June, 545. Her feast is celebrated 3 June. Clotilda was the wife of Clovis I, and the daughter of Chilperic, King of Burgundians of Lyons, and Caretena. After the death of King Gundovic (Gundioch), the Kingdom of Burgundy had been divided among his four sons, Chilperic reigning at Lyons, Gondebad at Vienne, and Godegisil at Geneva; Gondemar’s capital is not mentioned. Chilperic and probably Godegisil were Catholics, while Gondebad professed Arianism. Clotilda was given a religious training by her mother caretena, who, according to Sidonius Apollinaris and Fortunatus of Poitiers, was a remarkable woman. After the death of Chilperic, Caretena seems to have made her home with Godegisil at Geneva, where her other daughter, Sedeleuba, or Chrona, founded the church of Saint-Victor, and took the religious habit. It was soon after the death of Chilperic that Clovis asked and obtained the hand of Clotilda.

From the sixth century on, the marriage of Clovic and Clotilda was made the theme of epic narratives, in which the original facts vere materially altered and the various versions found their way into the works of different Frankish chroniclers, e. g. Gregory of Tours, Fredegarius, and the “Liber Historiae.” These narratives have the character common to all nuptial poems of the rude epic poetry found among many of the Germanic peoples. Here it will suffice to summarize the legends and add a brief statement of the historical facts. Further information will be found in special works on the subject. The popular poems substituted for King Godegisil, uncle and protector of Clotilda, his brother Gondebad, who was represented as the persecutor of the young princess. Gondebad is supposed to have slain Chilperic, thrown his wife into a well, with a stone tied around her neck, and exiled her two daughters. Clovis, on hearing of the beauty of Clotilda, sent his friend Aurelian, disguised as a beggar, to visit her secretly, and give her a gold ring from his master; he then asked Gondebad for the hand of the young princess. Gondebad, fearing the powerful King of the Franks, dared not refuse, and Clotilda accompanied Aurelian and his escort on their return journey. They hastened to reach Frankish territory, as Clotilda feared that Aredius, the faithful counsellor of Gondebad, on his return from Constantinople whither he had been sent on a mission, would influence his master to retract his promise. Her fears were justified. Shortly after the departure of the princess, Aredius returned and caused Gondebad to repent to the marriage. Troops were despatched to bring Clotilda back, but it was too late, as she was safe on Frankish soil. The details of this recital are purely legendary. It is historically established that Chilperic’s death was lamented by Gondebad, and that Cartena lived until 506: she died “full of days,” says her epitaph, having had the joy of seeing her children brought up in catholic religion. Aurelian and Aredius are historical personages, though little is known of them in the legend is highly improbable.

Clotilda, as wife of Clovis, soon acquired a great ascendancy over him, of which she availed herself to exhort him to embrace the Catholic Faith. For a long time her efforts were fruitless, though the king permitted the baptism of Ingomir, their first son. The child died in his infancy which seemed to give Clovis an argument against the God of Clotilda, but notwithstanding this, the young queen again obtained the consent of her husband to the baptism of their second son, Clodomir. Thus the future of Catholicism was already assured in the Frankish Kingdom. Clovis himself was soon afterwards converted under highly dramatic circumstances, and was baptized at Reims by St. Remigius, in 496 (see CLOVIS). Thus Clotildas accomplished the mission assigned her by Providence; she was made the instrument in the conversion of a great people, who were to be for centuries the leaders of Catholic civilization. Clotilda bore Clovis five children: four sons, Ingomir, who died in infancy, and Kings Clodomir, Childebert, and Clotaire, and one daughter, named Clotilda after her mother. Little more is known of Queen Clotilda during the lifetime of husband, but it may be conjectured that she interceded with him, at the time of his intervention in the quarrel between the Burgundian kings, to win him to the cause of Godegisil as against Gondebad. The moderation displayed by Clovis in this struggle, in which, though victor, he did not seek to turn the victory to his own advantage, as well as the alliance which he afterwards concluded with Gondebad, were doubtless due to the influence of Clotilda, who must have viewed the fratricidal struggle with horror.

Clovis died at Paris in 511, and Clotilda had him interred on what was then Mons Lucotetius, in the church of the Apostles (later Sainte-Geneviève), which they had built together to serve as a mausoleum, and which Clotilda was left to complete. The widowhood of this noble woman was saddened by cruel trials. Her son Clodomir, son-in-law of Gondebad, made war against his cousin Sigismund, who had succeeded Gondebad on the throne of Burgundy, captured him, and put him to death with his wife and children at Coulmiers, near Orléans. According to the popular epic of the Franks, he was incited to this war by Clotilda, who thought to avenge upon Sigismund the murder of her parents; but, as has already been seen Clotilda had nothing to avenge, and, on the contrary, it was probably she who arranged the alliance between Clovis and Gondebad. Here the legend is at variance with the truth, cruelly defaming the memory of Clotilda, who had the sorrow of seeing Clodomir perish in his unholy war on the Burgundians; he was vanquished and slain in the battle of Veseruntia (Vezeronce), in 524, by Godomar, brother of Sigismund. Clotilda took under her care his three sons of tender age, Theodoald, Gunther, and Clodoald. Childebert and Clotaire, however, who had divided between them the inheritance of their elder brother, did not wish the children to live, to whom later on they would have to render an account. By means of a ruse they withdrew the children from the watchful care of their mother and slew the two eldest, the third escaped and entered a cloister, to which he gave his name (Saint-Cloud, near Paris).

The grief of Clotilda was so great that Paris became insupportable to her, and she withdrew to Tours where close to the tomb of St. Martin, to whom she had great devotion, she spent the remainder of her life in prayer and good works. But there were trials still in store for her. Her daughter Clotilda, wife of Amalaric, the Visigothic king, being cruelly maltreated by her husband, appealed for help to her brother Childebert. He went to her rescue and defeated Amalaric in a battle, in which the latter was killed, Clotilda, however, died on the journey home, exhausted by the hardships she had endured. Finally, as though to crown the long martyrdom of Clotilda, her two sole surviving sons, Childebert and Clotaire, began to quarrel, and engaged in serious warfare. Clotaire, closely pursued by Childebert, who had been joined by Theodebert, son of Thierry I, took refuge in the forest of Brotonne, in Normandy, where he feared that he and his army would be exterminated by the superior forces of his adversaries. Then, says Gregory of Tours, Clotilda threw herself on her knees before the tomb of St. Martin, and besought him with tears during the whole night not to permit another fratricide to afflict the family of Clovis. Suddenly a frightful tempest arose and dispersed the two armies which were about to engage in a hand-to-hand struggle; thus, says the chronicler, did the saint answer the prayers of the afflicted mother. This was the last of Clotilda’s trials. Rich in virtues and good works, after a widowhood of thirty-four years, during which she lived more as a religious than as a queen, she died and was buried in Paris, in the church of the Apostles, beside her husband and children.

The life of Saint Clotilda, the principal episodes of which, both legendary and historic, are found scattered throughout the chronicle of St. Gregory of Tours was written in the tenth century, by an anonymous author, who gathered his facts principally from this source. At an early period she was venerated by the Church as a saint, and while popular contemporary poetry disfigures her noble personality by making her a type of a savage fury, Clotilda has now entered into the possession of a pure and untarnished fame, which no legend will be able to obscure.

GODEFROID KURTH.

Clouet

The family name of several generations of painters.

JEAN (JEAN THE YOUNGER)

Born at Tours, France, 1485; died, probably at Paris, between 1541 and 1545. He was the son and pupil of Jean the Elder, a Flemish painter who went to Paris from Brussels in 1460 and afterwards settled at Tours. Francis I made the son court painter at Paris, and, in 1518, a valet de chambre, a post of distinction. The court called him familiarly “Janet,” a name which became generic, comprising his father, his son François, and their numerous imitators. Ronsard sang:

Peins moy, Janet, peins moy je t’en supplie.

His numerous portraits of royalty and nobility are all in the antique, or Gothic, style, like that of the Van Eycks. His outlines are sharp and precise, all the lines are clear, and he gives great attention to details. Clouet painted his sitter with fidelity and avoided theatrical (Italian) effects, hence the result is a portrait, simple, reticent, and naive. Much of his work was until recently attributed to Holbein. In 1524 he painted the celebrated portrait of Francis I in full armour on horseback, and in 1528 another, a life-size bust (now at Versailles), long ascribed to Mabuse. Some authorities claim that of his many pictures only one is authentic: the portrait of Francis I in the Louvre. Other notable works of Clouet’s are “Eleanor of Spain” (wife of Francis I) in Hampton Court, and “Margaret of Valois” in Liverpool.

FRANÇOIS, CALLED FRANÇOIS JANET AND MAITRE JEHANNET

Born probably at Tours, between 1500 and 1520; died at Paris, between 1570 and 1580. He was the son and pupil of Jean the Younger and was naturalized in 1541. At the age of thirty-five he succeeded his father as court painter to Francis I, to whom he was also appointed a valet de chambre. François was also court painter to Charles IX, at the close of whose reign all traces of him disappear. Clouet’s work in oil, while Flemish in its scrupulous attention to details, is, however, distinctively French, and he carried to its highest the fame of “the Janets.” He was the last of the French primitifs. His pictures are painted solidly, in pale, delicate tones, and without chiaroscuro. Clouet’s portraits are true, accurate, and devoid of sentimentality; they show forth the moral and intellectual qualities of each sitter; and they “have the charm of intime painting” (Blanc). Two portraits of great brilliancy and distinction are the “Francis II as a Child” (1547) now at Antwerp, and “Henry II” (1553) in the Louvre; but Berlin possesses what are, perhaps, his masterpieces: “Francis II” and the “Duc d’Anjou” (Henry III). Clouet’s office required him to depict every great court function, and as late as 1709 such a group of pictures was in existence. He made many sketches in black and red chalk, showing perfect draughtsmanship and splendid modelling. Castle Howard contains eighty-eight such drawings, all in the manner of Holbein. Clouet also painted miniatures; that of greatest historical interest is “Mary Queen of Scots” (Windsor Castle), which has never been out of royal possession since catalogued, in the time of Charles, as “by Jennet a French limner.” It is probably the only authentic picture of the unhappy Mary. Clouet’s work was highly valued during his lifetime, and he was a power at the courts of Francis I, Henry II, Francis II, and Charles IX. The brilliant men and women about these monarchs felt that “the Janets” had elevated art and France. To-day their pictures are so highly prized that many forgeries are made of them. Besides those mentioned, other great canvases by François are “Elizabeth of Austria,” “Charles IX,” both in the Louvre, and four portraits in Stafford House (London). Collections of his drawings are in the Louvre, British Museum, and Albertina Museum (Vienna).

LEIGH HUNT

Councils of Clovesho

Clovesho, or Clofeshoch, is notable as the place at which were held several councils of the Anglo-Saxon Church. The locality itself has never been successfully identified. It is supposed to have been in Mercia, and probably near London (Bede, ed. Plummer, II, 214). Lingard, in his appendix to the “Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church,” takes it to be Abingdon, and Kemble (Saxons in England, II, 191) to be Tewkesbury, and others have thought it might be Cliff-at-Hoo, in Kent, but Haddan and Stubbs (Councils, III, 121, n.) consider all these conjectures to be based upon unreliable evidence. Whatever uncertainty exists in determining the place which was known as Clovesho, there is no doubt as to the fact of the councils or to the authenticity of their Acts. When Archbishop Theodore held the Council of Hertford in 673, in which he declared to the assembled bishops that he had been “appointed by the Apostolic See to be Bishop of the Church of Canterbury,” a canon was passed to the effect that in future yearly synods should be held every August “in the place which is called Clofeshoch.” (Bede, H. E., IV, ch. v.) Notwithstanding this provision, ìt was not until seventy years later that the first Council of Clovesho of which we have an authentic record was assembled. It is true that in the Canterbury Cartulary there is a charter which says that the Privilege of King Wihtred to the churches was “confirmed and ratified in a synod held in the month of July in a place called Clovesho” in the year 716; but the authenticity of this document, though intrinsically probable, is held by Haddan and Stubbs to be dependent upon that of the Privilege of Wihtred. The councils of Clovesho of which we have authentic evidence are those of the years 742, 747, 794, 798, 803, 824, and 825.

(1) The Council of Clovesho in 742 was presided Over by Ethelbald, King of Mercia, and Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury. According to the record of its proceedings (given in Kemble’s “Codex Diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici,” 87), the council “diligently enquired into the needs of religion, the Creed as delivered by the ancient teaching of the Fathers, and carefully examined how things were ordered at the first beginning of the Church here in England, and where the honour of the monasteries according to the rules of justice was maintained.” The privilege of King Wihtred assuring the liberty of the Church was solemnly confirmed. Beyond this, no mention is made of particular provisions.

(2) The Second Council of Clovesho, in 747, was one of the most important in the history of the Anglo-Saxon Church. Its acts were happily copied by Spelman (Councils, I, 240) from an ancient Cottonian Manuscript now lost. They are printed in Wilkins, I, 94; in Mansi, XII, 395; and in Haddan and Stubbs, III, 360. They state that the council was composed of “bishops and dignitaries of less degree from the various provinces of Britain,” and that it was presided over by Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury. According to the Manuscript preserved by William of Malmesbury, “King Ethelbald and his princes and chiefs were present.” It was thus substantially representative of the Anglo-Saxon Church. The Acts relate that “first of all, the Metropolitan, as president, brought forth in their midst two letters of the Apostolic Lord, Pope Zachary, venerated throughout the whole world, and with great care these were plainly read, and also openly translated into our own language, according as he himself by his Apostolic authority had commanded.” The papal letters are described as containing a fervent admonition to amendment of life, addressed to the English people of every rank and condition, and requiring that those who contemned these warnings and remained obstinate in their malice should be punished by sentence of excommunication. The council then drew up thirty-one canons dealing mostly with matters of ecclesiastical discipline and liturgy.

The thirteenth and fifteenth canons are noteworthy as showing the close union of the Anglo-Saxon Church with the Holy See. The thirteenth canon is: “That all the most sacred Festivals of Our Lord made Man, in all things pertaining to the same, viz.: in the Office of Baptism, the celebration of Masses, in the method of chanting, shall be celebrated in one and the same way, namely, according to the sample which we have received in writing from the Roman Church. And also, throughout the course of the whole year, the festivals of the Saints are to be kept on one and the same day, with their proper psalmody and chant, according to the Martyrology of the same Roman Church.” The fifteenth canon adds that in the seven hours of the daily and nightly Office the clergy “must not dare to sing or read anything not sanctioned by the general use, but only that which comes down by authority of Holy Scripture, and which the usage of the Roman Church allows.” The sixteenth canon in like manner requires that the litanies and rogations are to be observed by the clergy and people with great reverence “according to the rite of the Roman Church.” The feasts of St. Gregory and of St. Augustine, “who was sent to the English people by our said Pope and father St. Gregory,” were to be solemnly celebrated. The clergy and monks were to live so as to be always prepared to receive worthily the most holy Body and Blood of the Lord, and the laity were to be exhorted to the practice of frequent Communion (Canons xxii, xxiii). Persons who did not know Latin were to join in the psalmody by intention, and were to be taught to say, in the Saxon tongue, prayers for the living or for the repose of the souls of the dead (Can. xxvii). Neither clergy nor monks were in future to be allowed to live in the houses of the people (Can. xxix), nor were they to adopt or imitate the dress which is worn by the laity (Can. xxviii).

(3) The record of the Council of Clovesho in 794 consists merely in a charter by which Offa, King of Mercia, made a grant of land for pious purposes. The charter states that it has been drawn up “in the general synodal Council in the most celebrated place called Clofeshoas.” At or about the time when the papal legates presided at the Council of Chelsea in 787, Offa had obtained from Pope Adrian I that Lichfield should be created an archbishopric and that the Mercian sees should be subjected to its jurisdiction and withdrawn from that of Canterbury. Consequently at this Council of Clovesho in 794, Higbert of Lichfield, to whom the pope had sent the pall, signs as an archbishop.

(4) A council was held at Clovesho in 798 by Archbishop Ethelheard with Kenulph, King of Mercia, at which the bishops and abbots and chief men of the province were present. Its proceedings are related in a document by Archbishop Ethelheard (Lambeth Manuscript 1212, p. 312; Haddan and Stubbs, III, 512). He states that his first care was to examine diligently “in what way the Catholic Faith was held and how the Christian religion was practised amongst them.” To this inquiry, “they all replied with one voice: ‘Be it known to your Paternity, that even as it was formerly delivered to us by the Holy Roman and Apostolic See, by the mission of the most Blessed Pope Gregory, so do we believe, and what we believe, we in all sincerity do our best to put into practice.’“ The rest of the time of the council was devoted to questions of church property, and an agreement of exchange of certain lands between the archbishop and the Abbess Cynedritha.

(5) The Council of Clovesho in 803 is one of the most remarkable of the series, as its Acts contain the declaration of the restitution of the Mercian sees to the province of Canterbury by the authority of Pope Leo III. In 798 King Kenulph of Mercia addressed to the pope a long letter, written as he says “with great affection and humility,” representing the disadvantages of the new archbishopric which had been erected at Lichfield some sixteen years previously by Pope Adrian, at the prayer of King Offa. King Kenulph in this letter (Haddan and Stubbs, III, 521) submits the whole case to the pope, asking his blessing and saying: “I love you as one who is my father, and I embrace you with the whole strength of my obedience,” and promising to abide in all things by his decision. “I judge it fitting to bend humbly the ear of our obedience to your holy commands, and to fulfil with all our strength whatever may seem to your Holiness that we ought to do.” Ethelheard, Archbishop of Canterbury, went himself to Rome, and pleaded for the restitution of the sees. In 802 Pope Leo III granted the petition of the king and the archbishop, and issued to the latter a Bull in which by the authority of Blessed Peter he restored to him the full jurisdiction enjoyed by his predecessors. The pope communicated this judgment in a letter to King Kenulph (Haddan and Stubbs, III, 538). This decision was duly proclaimed in the Council of Clovesho held in the following year. Archbishop Ethelheard declared to the synod that “by the co-operation of God and of the Apostolic Lord, the Pope Leo,” he and his fellow-bishops unanimously ratified the rights of the See of Canterbury, and that an archbishopric should never more be founded at Lichfield, and that the grant of the pallium made by Pope Adrian, should, “with the consent and permission of the Apostolic Lord Pope Adrian, be considered as null, having been obtained surreptitiously and by evil suggestion.” Higbert, the Archbishop of Lichfield, submitted to the papal judgment, and retired into a monastery, and the Mercian sees returned to the jurisdiction of Canterbury.

(6–7) In 824 and again in 825 synods were held at Clovesho, “Beornwulf, King of Mercia, presiding and the Venerable Archbishop Wulfred ruling and controlling the Synod,” according to the record of the first, and “Wulfred the Archbishop presiding, and also Beornwulf, King of Mercia,” according to the second. The first assembly was occupied in deciding a suit concerning an inheritance, and the second in terminating a dispute between the archbishop and the Abbess Cwenthrytha (Haddan and Stubbs, III, 593, 596).

It is evident from the records that the councils held at Clovesho and those generally of the Anglo-Saxon period were mixed assemblies at which not only the bishops and abbots, but the kings of Mercia and the chief men of the kingdom were present. They had thus the character not only of a church synod but of the Witenagemot or assembly fairly representative of the Church and realm. The affairs of the Church were decided by the bishops presided over by the archbishop, while the king, presiding over his chiefs, gave to their decisions the co-operation and acceptance of the State. Both parties signed the decrees, but there is no evidence of any ingerence of the lay power in the spiritual legislation or judgments of the Church. While it must be remembered that at this period the country was not yet united into one kingdom, the councils of Clovesho, as far as we may judge from their signatures, represented the primatial See of Canterbury and the whole English Church south of the Humber.

KEMBLE, Codex Diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici (London, 1839–48); THORPE ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (London, 1861); BEDE, Historia Eccl. Gentis Anglorum, ed. PLUMMER (Oxford, 1896); WILKINS, Concilia Magnœ Britanniœ (London, 1737); HADDAN AND STUBBS, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents (Oxford, 1869–78); SPELMAN, Concilia, decreta, etc., in re ecclesiarum orbis Britannici (London, 1639–64).

J. MOYES

Giorgio Clovio

(Also known as Giulio Clovio)

A famous Italian miniaturist, called by Vasari “the unique” and “little Michelangelo,” b. at Grizani, on the coast of Croatia, in 1498; d. at Rome, 1578. His family appear to have come from Macedonia, and his original name was perhaps Glovic. Coming to Italy at the age of eighteen, he soon won renown, and became a protégé of Cardinal Grimani, for whom he engraved medals and seals. One of his first pictures was a Madonna after an engraving by Albert Durer. In 1524 Clovio was at Buda, at the court of King Louis II, for whom he painted the “Judgment of Paris” and “Lucretia.” In 1526 he returned to Rome, and a year later, falling into the hands of the Constable Bourbon’s banditti, he made a vow to enter religion if he could escape from them. He accordingly took orders at Mantua, and illustrated several manuscripts for his convent, adopting in religion the name Giulio, perhaps in memory of Giulio Romano, who had been one of his early advisers. Thanks to the intervention of Cardinal Grimani, he was soon released from his vows, and spent several years in the service of this prelate, for whom he executed some of his most beautiful works—a Latin missal, 1537 (in Lord Hertford’s collection), and a Petrarch (in the Trivulzio Library at Milan). He was at Venice in 1538, but in 1540 was summoned to Rome by Pope Paul III. Cosimo II then lured him to Tuscany, and princes disputed over his achievements. Philip II ordered from Clovio a life of his father, Charles V, in twelve scenes, and John III or Portugal paid him 2000 ducats for a psalter, but a prayer book which he made for Cardinal Farnese, and which Vasari calls a “divine work,” was considered Clovio’s masterpiece. The binding was made after a design by Cellini. Clovio died in Rome at the age of eighty; his tomb is to be seen in the church of San Pietro in Vincoli, and his works are preserved in all the libraries of Europe, especially that of the Vatican.

This famous artist, although one of the most highly esteemed in his own line, was nevertheless among those who helped to injure it. By introducing into it the ideas and monumental style of the Renaissance and replacing rich costumes, delicate arabesques, and gothic foliage by the nude, by antique ornaments, trophies, medallions, festoons, etc., Clovio contributed largely to the decadence of the charming art of miniature-painting, and his example of extreme elaboration was imitated throughout Europe at a time when printing had not yet supplanted manuscripts for editions de luxe. However sumptuous his work, it lacked the quality which distinguished that done by the French illuminators at an earlier period for Charles V and the Duc de Berry.

LOUIS GILLET

Clovis

(CHLODWIG, or CHLODOWECH)

Son of Childeric, King of the Salic Franks; born in the year 466; died at Paris, 27 November, 511. He succeeded his father as the King of the Franks of Tournai in 481. His kingdom was probably one of the States that sprang from the division of Clodion’s monarchy like those of Cambrai, Tongres and Cologne. Although a Pagan, Childeric had kept up friendly relations with the bishops of Gaul, and when Clovis ascended the throne he received a most cordial letter of congratulation from St. Remigius, Archbishop of Reims. The young king early began his course of conquest by attacking Syagrius, son of Aegidius, the Roman Count. Having established himself at Soissons, he acquired sovereign authority over so great a part of Northern Gaul as to be known to his contemporaries as the King of Soissons. Syagrius, being defeated, fled for protection to Alaric II, King of the Visigoths, but the latter, alarmed by a summons from Clovis, delivered Syagrius to his conqueror, who had him decapitated in 486. Clovis then remained master of the dominions of Syagrius and took up his residence at Soissons. It would seem as if the episode of the celebrated vase of Soissons were an incident of the campaign against Syagrius, and it proves that, although a pagan, Clovis continued his father’s policy by remaining on amicable terms with Gaulish episcopate. The vase, taken by the Frankish soldiers while plundering a church, formed part of the booty that was to be divided among the army. It was claimed by the bishop (St. Remigius?), and the king sought to have it awarded to himself in order to return it intact to the bishop, but a dissatisfied soldier split the vase with his battle-axe, saying to this king: “You will get only the share allotted you by fate.” Clovis did not openly resent the insult, but the following year, when reviewing his army he came upon this same soldier and, reproving him for the the defective condition of his arms, he split his skull with an axe, saying: “It was thus that you treated the Soissons vase.” This incident has often been cited to show that although in time of war a king has unlimited authority over his army, after the war his power is restricted and that in the division of booty the rights of the soldiers must be respected.

After the defeat of Syagrius, Clovis extended his dominion as far as the Loire. It was owing to the assistance given him by the Gaulish episcopate that he gained possession of the country. The bishops, it is quite certain mapped out the regime that afterwards prevailed. Unlike that adopted in other barbarian kingdoms founded upon the ruins of the Roman Empire, this regime established absolute equality between the Gallo-Roman natives and their Germanic conquerors all sharing the same privileges. Procopius, a Byzantine writer has given us an idea of this agreement, but we know it best by its results. There was no distribution of Gaulish territory by the victors; established in the Belgian provinces, they had lands there to which they returned after each campaign. All the free men in the kingdom of Clovis, whether they were of Roman or of Germanic origin, called themselves Franks, and we must guard against the old mistake of looking upon the Franks after Clovis as no more than Germanic barbarians.

Master of half of Gaul, Clovis returned to Belgium and conquered the two Salic kingdoms of Cambrai and Tongres (?), where his cousins Ragnacaire and Chararic reigned. These events have been made known to us only through the poetic tradition of the Franks which has singularly distorted them. According to this tradition Clovis called upon Chararic to assist him its his war against Syagrius, but Chararic’s attitude throughout the battle was most suspicious, as he refrained from taking sides until he saw which of the rivals was to be victorious. Clovis longed to have revenge. Through a ruse he obtained possession of Chararic and his son and threw them into prison; he then had their heads shaved, and both were ordained, the father to the priesthood and the son to the diaconate. When Chararic bemoaned and wept over this humiliation his son exclaimed: “The leaves of a green tree have been cut but they will quickly bud forth again; may he who has done this perish as quickly!” This remark was reported to Clovis, and he had both father and son beheaded.

Tradition goes on to say that Ragnacaire King of Cambrai, was a man of such loose morals he hardly respected his own kindred, and Farron, his favourite, was equally licentious. So great was the king’s infatuation for this man that, if given a present, he would accept it for himself and his Farron. This filled his subjects with indignation and Clovis, to win them over to his side before taking the field, distributed among them money, bracelets, and baldries, all in gilded copper in fraudulent imitation of genuine gold. On different occasions Ragnacaire sent out spies to ascertain the strength of Clovis’s army, and upon returning they said: “It is a great reinforcement for you and your Farron.” Meanwhile Clovis advanced and the battle began. Being defeated, Ragnacaire sought refuge in flight, but was overtaken; made prisoner, and brought to Clovis, his hands bound behind him. “Why,” said his conqueror have you permitted our blood to be humiliated by allowing yourself to be put in chains? It were better that you should die.” And, so saying, Clovis dealt him his death-blow. Then, turning to Richaire, Ragnacaire’s brother, who had been taken prisoner with the king, he said: “Had you but helped your brother, they would not have bound him,” and he slew Richaire also. After these deaths the traitors discovered that they had been given counterfeit gold and complained of it to Clovis, but he only laughed at them. Rignomir, one of Ragnacaire’s brothers, was put to death at Le Mans by order of Clovis, who took possession of the kingdom and the treasure of his victims.

Such is the legend of Clovis; it abounds in all kinds of improbabilities, which cannot be considered as true history. The only facts that can be accepted are that Clovis made war upon Kings Ragnacaire and Chararic, put them to death and seized their territories. Moreover, the author of this article is of opinion that these events occurred shortly after the conquest of the territory of Syagrius, and not after the war against the Visigoths, as has been maintained by Gregory of Tours, whose only authority is an oral tradition, and whose chronology in this matter is decidedly misleading. Besides Gregory of Tours has not given us the name of Chararic’s kingdom; it was long believed to have been established at Therouanne but it is more probable that Tongres was its capital city, since it was here that the Franks settled on gaining a foothold in Belgium.

In 492 or 493 Clovis, who was master of Gaul from the Loire to the frontiers of the Rhenish Kingdom of Cologne, married Clotilda, the niece of Gondebad, King of the Burgundians. The popular epic of the Franks has transformed the story of this marriage into a veritable nuptial poem the analysis of which will be found in the article on Clotilda. Clotilda, who was a Catholic, and very pious, won the consent of Clovis to the baptism of their son, and then urged that he himself embrace the Catholic Faith. He deliberated for a long time. Finally, during a battle against the Alemanni—which without apparent reason has been called the battle of Tolbiac (Zulpich)—seeing his troops on the point of yielding, he invoked the aid of Clotilda’s God, promised to become a Christian if only victory should be granted him. He conquered and, true to his word was baptized at Reims by St. Remigius, bishop of that city, his sister Albofledis and three thousand of his warriors at the same time embracing Christianity. Gregory of Tours, in his ecclesiastical history of the Franks has described this event, which took place amid great pomp at Christmas, 496. “Bow thy head, O Sicambrian,” said St. Remigius to the royal convert “Adore what thou hast burned and burn what thou hast adored.” According to a ninth-century legend found in the life of St. Remigius, written by the celebrated Hinemar himself Archbishop of Reims, the chrism for the baptismal ceremony was missing and was brought from heaven in a vase (ampulla) borne by a dove. This is what is known as the Sainte Ampoule of Reims, preserved in the treasury of the cathedral of that city and used for the coronation of the kings of France from Philip Augustus down to Charles X.

The conversion of Clovis to the religion of the majority of his subjects soon brought about the union of the Gallo-Romans with their barbarian conquerors. While in all the other Germanic kingdoms founded on the ruins of the Roman Empire the difference of religion between the Catholic natives and Arian conquerers was a very active cause of destruction, in the Frankish kingdom, on the contrary, the fundamental identity of religious beliefs and equality of political rights made national and patriotic sentiments universal and produced the most perfect harmony between the two races. The Frankish Kingdom was thenceforth the representative and defender of Catholic interests throughout the West, while to his conversion Clovis owed an exceptionally brilliant position. Those historians who do not understand the problems of religious psychology have concluded that Clovis embraced Christianity solely from political motives, but nothing is more erroneous. On the contrary, everything goes to prove that his conversion was sincere, and the opposite cannot be maintained without refusing credence to the most trustworthy evidence.

In the year 500 Clovis was called upon to mediate in a quarrel between his wife’s two uncles, Kings Gondebad of Vienne and Godegisil of Geneva. He took sides with the latter, whom he helped to defeat Gondebad at Dijon, and then, deeming it prudent to interfere no further in this fratricidal struggle, he returned home, leaving Godegisil an auxiliary corps of five thousand Franks. After Clovis’s departure Gondebad reconquered Vienne, his capital in which Godegisil had established himself. This reconquest was effected by a stratagem seconded by treachery, and Godegisil himself perished on the same occasion. The popular poetry of the Franks has singularly misrepresented this intervention of Clovis, pretending that, at the instigation of his wife Clotilda, he sought to avenge her grievances against her uncle Gondebad (see CLOTILDA) and that the latter king, besieged in Avignon by Clovis, got rid of his opponent through the agency of Aredius, a faithful follower. But in these poems there are so many fictions as to render the history in them indistinguishable.

An expedition, otherwise important and profitable was undertaken by Clovis in the year 506 against Alaric II, King of the Visigoths of Aquitaine. He was awaited as their deliverer by the Catholics of that kingdom, who were being cruelly persecuted by Arian fanatics, and was encouraged in his enterprise by the Emperor Anastasius, who wished to crush this ally of Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths. Despite the diplomatic efforts made by the latter to prevent the war, Clovis crossed the Loire and proceeded to Vouille, near Poitiers, where he defeated and slew Alaric, whose demoralized troops fled in disorder. The Franks took possession of the Visigoth Kingdom as far as the Pyrenees and the Rhone, but the part situated on the left bank of this river was stoutly defended by the armies of Theodoric, and thus the Franks were prevented from seizing Arles and Provence. Notwithstanding this last failure, Clovis, by his conquest of Aquitaine, added to the Frankish crown the fairest of its jewels. So greatly did the Emperor Anastasius rejoice over the success attained by Clovis that, to testify his satisfaction, he sent the Frankish conqueror the insignia of the consular dignity, an honour always highly appreciated by the barbarians.

The annexation of the Rhenish Kingdom of Cologne crowned the acquisition of Gaul by Clovis. But the history of this conquest, also, has been disfigured by a legend that Clovis instigated Chloderic, son of Sigebert of Cologne, to assassinate his father, then, after the perpetration of this foul deed, caused Chloderic himself to be assassinated, and finally offered himself to the Rhenish Franks as king, protesting his innocence of the crimes that had been committed. The only historical element in this old story, preserved by Gregory of Tours, is that the two kings of Cologne met with violent deaths, and that that Clovis, their relative, succeeded them partly by right of birth, partly by popular choice. The criminal means by which he is said to have reached this throne are pure creation of the barbarian imagination.

Master now of a vast kingdom, Clovis displayed the same talent in governing that he had displayed in conquering it. From Paris, which he had finally made his capital, he administered the various provinces through the agency of counts (comites) established in each city and selected by him from the aristocracy of both races, conformably to the principle of absolute equality between Romans and barbarians, a principle which dominated his entire policy. He caused the Salic Law (Lex Salica) to be reduced to written form, revised end adapted to the new social conditions under which his fellow barbaricans were subsequently to live. Acknowledging the Church as the foremost civilizing force, he protected it in every way possible, especially by providing for it the National Council of Orleans (511), at which the bishops of Gaul settled many questions pertaining to the relations between Church and state. Hagiographic legends attribute to Clovis the founding of a great many churches and monasteries throughout France, and although the accuracy of this claim cannot be positively established, it is nevertheless certain that the influence of the council in this matter must have been considerable. However, history has preserved the memory of foundation which was undoubtedly due to Clovis: the church of the Apostles, later of Sainte-Geneviève, on what was then Mons Lucotetius, to the south of Paris. The king destined it as a mausoleum for himself and his queen Clotilda, and before it was completed his mortal remains were there interred. Clovis died at the age of forty-five. His sarcophagus remained in the crypt of Sainte-Geneviève until the time of the French Revolution, when it was broken open by the revolutionists, and his ashes scattered to the winds, the sanctuary of the beautiful church being destroyed.

The history of this monarch has been so hopelessly distorted by popular poetry and so grossly disfigured by the vagaries of the barbarian imagination as make the portrayal of his character wellneigh impossible. However, from authentic accounts of him it may be concluded that his private life was not without virtues. As a statesman he succeeded in accomplishing what neither the genius of Theodoric the Great nor that of any contemporary barbarian king could achieve: upon the ruins of the Roman Empire he built up a powerful system, the influence of which dominated European civilization during many centuries, and from which sprang France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, and Switzerland, without taking into account that northern Spain and northern Italy were also, for a time, under the civilizing regime of the Frankish Empire.

Clovis left four sons. Theodoric, the eldest, was the issue of union prior to that contracted with Clotilda, who was, however, the mother of the three others, Clodomir, Childebert, and Clotaire. They divided their father’s kingdom among themselves, following the barbarian principle that sought promotion of personal rather than national interests, and looked upon royalty as the personal prerogative of the sons of kings. After the death of Clovis his daughter Clotilda, named after her mother, married Amalric, king of the Visigoths. She died young, being cruelly abused by this Arian prince, who seemed eager to wreak vengeance on the daughter of Clovis for the tragic death of Alaric II.

ARNDT (ed.), GREGORY OF TOURS, Historia ecclesiastica Francorum in Mon. Germ. Hist:. Script. RR. Merovingicarum; JUNGHANS, Die Gesdichte der frankischen Konige Childerich und Chlodovich (Gottingen, 1857), tr. by MONOD as Histore critique de rois Childeric et Clovis (Paris, 1879); RAJNA, Le origini dell’ epopea francese (Florence, 1884); KURTH, Histoire poetique des Merovingiens (Paris 1893): IDEM, Clovis (Tours, 1896, and Paris, 1901).

GODEFROID KURTH

Diocese of Cloyne

(Gaelic Cluain-uania, Cave-meadow. Latin Clonensis or Cloynensis.)

Comprises the northern half of County Cork. It has 140 priests, 47 parishes, 16 convents, 8 Bothers’ schools, 235 primary schools, and, for higher education, St. Colman’s College and Loreto Convent (Fermoy), besides high schools at Queenstown [Cobh] and elsewhere. St. Colman’s Cathedral, Queenstown, begun in 1869 under Bishop Keane, continued under Bishop McCarthy, in 1908 near completion, is one of the most beautiful of modern Gothic cathedrals. The medieval diocesan cathedral, used by Protestants since the sixteenth century, still stands at Cloyne. St. Colman MacLenin (560–601), diverted from his profession of poet-historian by Sts. Ita and Brendan, became (560) first Bishop of Cloyne, where he got a royal grant of land. Some religious poems, notably a metrical life of St. Senan, are attributed to him.

Fergal, Abbot-Bishop of Cloyne, was massacred in 888 by the Danes. There are seven recorded devastations of Cloyne from 822 to 1137. The ecclesiastical records were destroyed, so that few prelates’ names before 1137 are known; we have nearly all of them since that year. In 1152 (Synod of Kells) Cloyne was made one of Cashel’s twelve suffragan sees. From 1265 to 1429 the bishops of Cloyne were mostly Englishmen. Effingham (1284–1320) probably built Cloyne cathedral. Swafham (1363–1376), who wrote “Contra Wicklevistas” and “Conciones,” commenced the “Rotulus Pipæ Clonensis,” the rent-roll of the see. Robbery of church property by nobles impoverished the Sees of Cloyne and Cork, which were united in 1429, by papal authority, under Bishop Purcell. Blessed Thaddeus MacCarthy was bishop from 1490 to 1492. The last Catholic bishop who enjoyed the temporalities was Benet (1523–1536). Tirry, appointed in 1536 by Henry VIII, and Tirry’s successor, Skiddy, are ignored in the Consistorial Acts. Macnamara succeeded Benet; O’Heyne succeeded in 1540; Landes in 1568; Tanner in 1574; MacCreaghe in 1580; Tirry in 1622; Barry in 1647; Creagh in 1676; Sleyne in 1693; MacCarthy in 1712; MacCarthy (Thaddeus) in 1727. The bishops of penal times were ruthlessly persecuted, and some suffered cruel imprisonment or died in exile. John O’Brien, author of an Irish dictionary, poems, and tracts, was Bishop of Cloyne and Ross (1748–1769). He died in exile in Lyons. His successors were Matthew MacKenna, appointed in 1769; William Coppinger in 1791; Michael Collins in 1830; Bartholomew Crotty in 1833; David Walsh in 1847. Since the separation of Ross (1849) the bishops of Cloyne have been: Timothy Murphy, appointed in 1849; William Keane, 1857; John MacCarthy, 1874; Robert Browne, 1894.

Over a century ago, when persecution relaxed somewhat, the diocese, despoiled of all its ancient churches, schools, and religious houses, had to be fully equipped anew. About 100 plain churches were erected between 1800 and 1850. Recently a fourth of these have been replaced, especially in towns, and the new structures are admirably designed and finished. Between 1800 and 1907, notwithstanding great difficulties and loss by emigration, besides 103 parish churches, all the existing schools, colleges, religious and charitable institutions were built, and all are now doing useful and excellent work.

BRADY, Records of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross (Dublin, 1864); BRADY, Episcopal Succession in England, Scotland and Ireland (Rome, 1876); CAULFIELD, ed., Rotulus Pipæ Clonensis (Cork, 1869); ARCHDALL (ed. MORAN), Monasticon Hibernicum (Dublin, 1873); Irish Catholic Directory (Dublin, 1907).

JOHN O’RIORDAN

Congregation of Cluny

(CLUNI, CLUGNI, or CLUGNY)

The earliest reform, which became practically a distinct order, within the Benedictine family. It originated at Cluny, a town in Saone-et-Loire, fifteen miles north-west of Macon, where in 910 William the Pious, Duke of Aquitaine, founded an abbey and endowed it with his entire domain. Over it he placed St. Berno, then Abbot of Gigny, under whose guidance a somewhat new and stricter form of Benedictine life was inaugurated. The reforms introduced at Cluny were in some measure traceable to the influence of St. Benedict of Aniane, who had put forward his new ideas at the first great meeting of the abbots of the order held at Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) in 817, and their development at Cluny resulted in many departures from precedent, chief among which was a highly centralized form of government entirely foreign to Benedictine tradition. The reform quickly spread beyond the limits of the Abbey of Cluny, partly by the founding of new houses and partly by the incorporation of those already existing, and as all these remained dependent upon the mother-house, the Congregation of Cluny came into being almost automatically. Under St. Berno’s successors it attained a very widespread influence, and by the twelfth century Cluny was at the head of an order consisting of some 314 monasteries. These were spread over France, Italy, the Empire, Lorraine, England, Scotland, and Poland. According to the “Bibliotheca Cluniacensis” (Paris, 1614) 825 houses owed allegiance to the Abbot of Cluny in the fifteenth century. Some writers have given the number as 2000, but there is little doubt that this is an exaggeration. It may perhaps include all those many other monasteries which, though no joining the congregation, adopted either wholly or in part the Cluny constitutions, such as Fleury, Hirschau, Farfa, and many others that were subject to their influence.

During the first 250 years of its existence Cluny was governed by a series of remarkable abbots, men who have left their mark upon the history of Western Europe and who were prominently concerned with all the great political questions of their day. Among these were Sts. Odo, Mayeul, Odilo, and Hugh, and Peter the Venerable. Under the last named, the ninth abbot, who ruled from 1122 to 1156, Cluny reached the zenith of its influence and prosperity, at which time it was second only to Rome as the chief centre of the Christian world. It became a home of learning and a training school for popes, four of whom, Gregory VII (Hildebrand), Urban II, Paschal II, and Urban V, were called from its cloisters to rule the Universal Church. In England the Cluniac houses numbered thirty-five at the time of the dissolution. There were three in Scotland. The earliest foundation was that of the priory of St. Pancras at Lewes (1077), the prior of which usually held the position of vicar-general of the Abbot of Cluny for England and Scotland. Other important English houses were at Castleacre, Montacute, Northampton, and Bermondsey.

After the twelfth century the power of Cluny declined somewhat, and in the sixteenth century it suffered much through the civil and religious wars of France and their consequences. The introduction also of commendatory abbots, the first of whom was appointed in 1528, was to some extent responsible for its decline. Amongst the greatest of its titular prelates were Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin, who tried to restore it to some of its former greatness, though their efforts did not meet with much success. Claude de Vert, Prior of Saint-Pierre, Abbeville (d. 1708), was another would-be reformer of the congregation, inspired no doubt by the example of the Maurists.

The abbey-church of Cluny was on a scale commensurate with the greatness of the congregation, and was regarded as one of the wonders of the Middle Ages. It was no less than 555 feet in length, and was the largest church in Christendom until the erection of St. Peter’s at Rome. It consisted of five naves, a narthex, or ante-church, and several towers. Commenced by St. Hugh, the sixth abbot, in 1089, it was finished and consecrated by Pope Innocent II in 1131–32, the narthex being added in 1220. Together with the conventual buildings it covered an area of twenty-five acres. At the suppression in 1790 it was bought by the town and almost entirely destroyed. At the present day only one tower and part of a transept remain, whilst a road traverses the site of the nave. The community of the abbey, which had numbered three hundred in the thirteenth century, dwindled down to one hundred in the seventeenth, and when it was suppressed, in common with all the other religious houses in France, its monks numbered only forty.

The spirit and organization of the congregation was a distinct departure from the Benedictine tradition, though its monks continued all along to be recognized as members of the Benedictine family. Previous to its inception every monastery had been independent and autonomous, though the observance of the same rule in all constituted a bond of union; but when Cluny began to throw out offshoots and to draw other houses under its influence, each such house, instead of forming a separate family, was retained in absolute dependence upon the central abbey. The superiors of such houses, which were usually priories, were subject to the Abbot of Cluny and were his nominees, not the elect of their own communities, as is the normal Benedictine custom. Every profession, even in the most distant monastery of the congregation, required his sanction, and every monk had to pass some years at Cluny itself. Such a system cut at the root of the old family ideal and resulted in a kind of feudal hierarchy consisting of one great central monastery and a number of dependencies spread over many lands. The Abbot of Cluny or his representative made annual visitations of the dependent houses, and he had for his assistant in the government of so vast an organization a coadjutor with the title Grand-Prior of Cluny. The abbot’s monarchical status was somewhat curtailed after the twelfth century by the holding of general chapters, but it is evident that he possessed a very real power over the whole congregation, so long as he held in his own hands the appointment of all the dependent priors. (For the sources of information as to the rule, government, and conventual observance of the congregation, see bibliography at end of this article.) With regard to the Divine Office, the monks of Cluny conformed to the then prevailing custom, introduced into the monasteries of France by St. Benedict of Aniane, of adding numerous extra devotional exercises, in the shape of psalms (psalmi familiares, speciales, prostrati, and pro tribulatione) and votive offices (Our Lady, The Dead, All Saints, etc.) to the daily canonical hours prescribed by the Benedictine Rule.

The library of Cluny was for many centuries one of the richest and most important in France and the storehouse of a vast number of most valuable MSS. When the abbey was sacked by the Huguenots, in 1562, many of these priceless treasures perished and others were dispersed. Of those that were left at Cluny, some were burned by the revolutionary mob at the time of the suppression in 1790, and others stored away in the Cluny town hall. These latter, as well as others that passed into private hands, have been gradually recovered by the French Government and are now in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris. There are also in the British Museum, London, about sixty charters which formerly belonged to Cluny. The “Hotel de Cluny” in Paris, dating from 1334, was formerly the town house of the abbots. In 1833 it was made into a public museum, but apart from the name thus derived, it possesses practically nothing connected with the abbey.

For the rule, constitutions, etc., see BERNARD OF CLUNY, Ordo Cluniacensis in HERRGOTT, Vetus Disciplina Monastica (Paris, 1794); and UDALRIC OF CLUNY, Consuetudines Cluniacensis in P.L., CXLIX (Paris, 1882). For the history of the congregation, etc., DUCKET, Charters and Records of Cluni (Lewes, 1890); MAITLAND, Dark Ages (London, 1845); MABILLON, Annales O. S. B. (Paris, 1703–39), III-V; SAINTE-MARTHE, Gallia Christiana (Paris, 1728), IV, 1117; HELYOT, Hist. des ordres religieux (Paris, 1792), V; MIGNE, Dict. des abbayes (Paris, 1856); LAVISSE, Hist. de France (Paris, 1901), II, 2; LORAIN, Hist. de l’abbaye de Cluny (Paris, 1845); CHAMPLY, Hist. de Cluny (Macon, 1866); HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen der katholischen Kirche (Paderborn, 1896), I; HERZOG AND HAUCK, Realencyklopadie (Leipzig, 1898), III; SACKUR, Die Cluniacenser (Halle a. S., 1892–94).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

John Clynn

(Or CLYN).

Irish Franciscan and annalist, b. about 1300; d., probably, in 1349. His place of birth is unknown, and the date given is only conjecture; but, as he was appointed guardian of the Franciscan convent at Carrick in 1336, it is concluded that he was then at least 30 years of age. He was afterwards in the Franciscan convent at Kilkenny, and there he probably died. He is credited by Ware, in “Writers of Ireland,” with having written a work on the kings of England and another on the superiors of his own order; but these works have not been published, and his celebrity rests on his “Annals of Ireland,” from the birth of Christ to the year 1349. Latin, the entries are at first meagre and uninteresting; but from 1315 Clynn deals with what he himself saw, and, though such things as the building of a choir and the consecration of an altar would interest only his own order and time, other entries throw much light on the general history of the country. Being Anglo-Irish, he speaks harshly of the native chiefs; but neither does he hesitate to condemn the Anglo-Irish lords, their impatience of restraint, their contempt for the Government at Dublin, their oppression of the poor. His account of the plague in 1348–9 is vivid. Surrounded by dead and dying, he laid down his pen, wondering if any of the sons of Adam would be spared, and the scribe who copied the work adds that at this date it seems the author died. His “Annals” were edited by Richard Butler for the Irish Archæological Society (December, 1849).

WARE-HARRIS, Writers of Ireland (Dublin, 1764); WEBB, Compendium of Irish Biography (Dublin, 1878).

E. A. D’ALTON.

Bernabé Cobo

Born at Lopera in Spain, 1582; died at Lima, Peru, 9 October, 1657. He went to America in 1596, visiting the Antilles and Venezuela and landing at Lima in 1599. Entering the Society of Jesus, 14 October, 1601, he was sent by his superiors in 1615 to the mission of Juli, where, and at Potosí, Cochabamba, Oruro, and La Paz, he laboured until 1618. He was rector of the college of Arequipa from 1618 until 1621, afterwards at Pisco, and finally at Callao in the same capacity, as late as 1630. He was then sent to Mexico, and remained there until 1650, when he returned to Peru. Such in brief was the life of a man whom the past centuries have treated with unparalleled, and certainly most ungrateful, neglect. Father Cobo was beyond all doubt the ablest and most thorough student of nature and man in Spanish America during the seventeenth century. Yet, the first, and almost only, acknowledgement of his worth dates from the fourth year of the nineteenth century. The distinguished Spanish botanist Cavanilles not only paid a handsome tribute of respect to the memory of Father Cobo in an addressed delivered at the Royal Botanical Gardens of Madrid, in 1804, but he gave the name of Cobæa to a genus of plants belonging to the Bignoniaceæ of Mexico, Cobæa scandens being its most striking representative.

Cobo’s long residence in both Americas (sixty-one years), his position as a priest and, several times, as a missionary, and the consequently close relations in which he stood to the Indians, as well as to Creoles and half-breeds, gave him unusual opportunities for obtaining reliable information, and he made the fullest use of these. We have from his pen, two works, one of which (and the most important) is, unfortunately, incomplete. It is also stated that he wrote a work on botany in ten volumes, which, it seems, is lost, or at least its whereabouts is unknown today. Of his main work, to which biographers give the title “Historia general de las Indias,” and which he finished in 1653, only the first half is known and has appeared in print (four volumes, at Seville, 1890 and years succeeding). The remainder, in which he treats, or claims to have treated, of every geographical and political subdivision in detail, has either never been finished, or is lost. His other book appeared in print in 1882, and forms part of the “History of the New World” mentioned, but he made a separate manuscript of its in 1639, and so it became published as “Historia de la fundación de Lima,” a few years before the publication of the principal manuscript. “The History of the New World” places Cobo, as a chronicler and didactic writer, on a plane higher than that occupied by his contemporaries not to speak of his predecessors. It is not a dry and dreary catalogue of events; man appears in it on a stage, and that stage is a conscientious picture of the nature in which man has moved and moves. The value of this work for several branches of science (not only history) is much greater than is believed. The book, only recently published, is very little known and appreciated. The “History of the New World” may, in American literature, be compared with one work only, the “General and Natural history of the Indies” by Oviedo. But Oviedo wrote a full century earlier than Cobo, hence the resemblance is limited to the fact that both authors seek to include all Spanish America—its natural features as well as its inhabitants. The same may be said of Gomara and Acosta. Cobo enjoyed superior advantages and made good use of them. A century more of knowledge and experience was at his command. Hence we find in his book a wealth of information which no other author of his time imparts or can impart. And that knowledge is systematized and in a measure co-ordinated. On the animals and plants of the new continent, neither Nieremberg, nor Hernçndez, nor Monardes can compare in wealth of information with Cobo. In regard to man, his pre-Columbian past and vestiges, Cobo is, for the South American west coast, a source of primary importance. We are astonished at his many and close observations of customs and manners. His description of some of the principal ruins of South America are usually very correct. In a word it is evident from these two works of Cobo that he was an investigator of great perspicacity, and, for his time, a scientist of unusual merit.

Torres Saldamando, Antiguos Jesuitas del Perç (Lima, 1882); Cabanilles, Discures sobre algunos botçnicos espaûoles del siglo XVII in the Anales de historia natural (Madrid, 1804).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Viatora Coccaleo

A Capuchin friar, so called from his birthplace, Coccaglio in Lombardy, date of birth unknown; d. 1793. For a time he was lector in theology and wrote several works that give him a place among the noteworthy theologians in a period of theological decline. These are: “Tentamina theologico-scholastica” (Bergamo, 1768–74); “Tentaminum theologicorum in moralibus Synopsis” (Venice, 1791); “Instituta moralia” (Milan, 1760). His defence of papal supremacy, “Italus ad Justinum Febronium” (Lucca, 1768; Trent, 1774), is one of the principal apologies against Febronius. Besides writing several works against Jansenism, he took part in the discussion concerning the devotion to the Sacred Heart and the sanctification of Holy Days, made famous by the Synod of Pistoja (1786), and published: “Riflessioni sopra l’origine e il fine della divozione del S. Cuore di Gesù” (Naples, 1780); “Riposta sul dubbio, se la sola Messa basti a santificare le feste” (Bologna, 1781). To these may be added his studies on the text and meaning of the poem of Prosper of Aquitaine, “Contra Ingratos” (2 vols., Brescia, 1756 and 1763) and his work on the philosophic spirit of Prosper’s epigrams (Brescia, 1760).

JOHN OF RATISBON, Appendix ad Bibliothec. Script. Capuccinorum (Rome, 1852), 40; SCHEEBEN, Dogmatik, I, 455.

JOHN M. LENHART

Diocese of Cochabamba

(COCABAMBENSIS).

The city from which this diocese takes its name is the capital of the department of Cochabamba, Bolivia. Founded in 1563 it was called originally Oropesa. It is situated on the Rio de la Rocha and is the second largest city and one of the most important commercial centres of the republic. According to the census of 1902, the population is over 40,000, of whom practically all are Catholics.

The Diocese of Cochabamba was erected by a Bull of Pius IX, 25 June, 1847, and is a suffragan of Charcas (La Plata). It was the fourth diocese established in Bolivia, the Archdiocese of Charcas (La Plata) and the Dioceses of La Paz and Santa Cruz having been created early in the seventeenth century. It comprises the department of Cochabamba and part of the adjoining department of Beni. The population, mostly catholic, in 1902 was over 330,000. Besides a number of schools and charitable institutions the diocese has 55 parishes, 80 churches and chapels, and 160 priests.

Konversations-Lex. (St. Louis, Missouri, 1903), s. v.; Gerarchia Cattolica (Rome, 1908).

Martin of Cochem

A celebrated German theologian, preacher and ascetic writer, born at Cochem, a small town on the Moselle, in 1630; died in the convent at Waghäusel, 10 September, 1712. He came of a family devotedly attached to the Faith, and while still young entered the novitiate of the Capuchins, where he distinguished himself by his fervour and his fidelity to the religious rule. After his elevation to the priesthood, he was assigned to a professorship of theology, a position which for several years he filled most creditably. However, it was in another sphere that he was to exercise his zeal and acquire fame. Of the evils which befell Europe in consequence of the Thirty Years War, the plague was by no means the least, and when, in 1666, it made its appearance in the Rhenish country, such were its ravages that it became necessary to close the novitiates and houses of study. Just at this crisis, Father Martin was left without any special charge and, in company with his fellow monks, he devoted himself to the bodily and spiritual comfort of the afflicted. What most distressed him was the religious ignorance to which a large number of the faithful had fallen victims on account of being deprived of their pastors. To combat this sad condition, he resolved to compose little popular treatises on the truths and duties of religion, and in 1666 he published at Cologne a résumé of Christian doctrine that was very well received. It was a revelation to his superiors, who strongly encouraged the author to continue in this course.

Thenceforth Father Martin made a specialty of popular preaching and religious writing and, in the Archdioceses of Trier and Ingelheim, which he traversed thoroughly, multitudes pressed about him, and numerous conversions followed. The zealous priest continued these active ministrations up to the time of his death, and even when he had passed his eightieth year he still went daily to the chapel of his convent, where, with the aid of an ear-trumpet, he heard the confessions of the sinners who flocked to him. The intervals between missions he devoted to his numerous writings, the most voluminous of which is an ecclesiastical history in 2 vols, fol., composed for apologetic purposes and provoked by the attacks made upon the Church by Protestantism. However, the author brought it down only to the year 1100. Father Martin’s other works embrace a great variety of subjects: the life of Christ, legends of the saints, edifying narratives, the setting forth of certain points in Christian asceticism, forms of prayer, methods to be followed for the worthy reception of the sacraments, etc. These widely different themes have as points of similarity a pleasing, graceful style, great erudition, and a truly seraphic eloquence. They bespeak for their author sincere piety and deep religious sentiment, coupled with an intimate knowledge of the popular heart and the special needs of the time. But the best known of all the learned Capuchin’s works is unquestionably “Die heilige Messe,” upon which, according to his own statement, he spent three entire years, perusing Holy Writ, the councils, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the lives of the saints, in order to condense into a small volume a properly abridged account of the Holy Sacrifice. As soon as it appeared this book proved a delight to the Catholics of Germany, nor has it yet lost any of its popularity, and, since its translation into several languages, it may be said to have acquired universal renown.

It demanded a great expenditure of energy on the part of the worthy religious to bring these undertakings to a successful issue. Even when in his convent he spent most of the day in directing souls and following the observances prescribed by the Capuchin Rule, hence it was time set aside for sleep that he was wont to give to his literary labours. Sometimes after the Office of Matins he would obtain permission of the superior to go to Frankfort to confer with his publisher and, this accomplished, he would return on foot to his convent at Königstein, catechizing little children, hearing confessions, and visiting the sick along the way. While still in the midst of his labours he was attacked by an illness to which he soon succumbed, at the age of eighty-two. The works published during Father Martin’s lifetime are: “Die Kirchenhistorie nach der Methode des Baronius und Raynaldus bis 1100” (Dillingen, 1693): “Die christliche Lehre”; “Heilige Geschichten und Exempel”; “Wohlriechender Myrrhengarten” (Cologne, 1693); “Büchlein über den Ablass” (Dillingen, 1693); “Exorcismen und für Kranke” (Frankfort, 1695); “Goldener Himmelsschlüssel” (Frankfort, 1695); “Gebetbuch für Soldaten” (Augsburg, 1698); “Anmuthungen während der heiligen Messe” (Augsburg, 1697); “Die Legenden der Heiligen” (Augsburg, 1705); “Leben Christi” (Frankfort, 1689; Augsburg, 1708); “Gebete unter der heiligen Messe” (Augsburg, 1698); “Kern der heiligen Messe” (Cologne, 1699); “Liliengarten” (Cologne, 1699); “Gebetbuch für heilige Zeiten” (Augsburg, 1704); “Die heilige Messe für die Weitleute” (Cologne, 1704); “Traktat über die göttlichen Vortrefflichkeiten” (Mainz, 1707); “Geistlicher Baumgarten” (Mainz and Heidelberg, 1709); “Neue mystische Goldgruben” (Cologne, 1709); “Exemepelbuch” (Augsburg, 1712). This list does not include all the author’s writings. In 1896 there appeared a small work never before published, “Das Gebet des Herzens,” which at the end of its third year went into a seventh edition.

ILG, Geist des heiligen Franciscus Seraphicus (Augsburg, 1883); Etudes franciscaines (Paris), III, 448; Analecta Ord. Min. Cap., XXIII, 279; SISTER MARIA BERNARDINE, Martin von Cochem, sein Leben, sein Wirken, seine Zeit (Mainz, 1886).

F. CANDIDE.

Diocese of Cochin

(COCHINENSIS) on the Malabar coast, India.

The diocese was erected and constituted a suffragan of the Diocese of Goa, of which it had previously formed a part, by the Bull “Pro excellenti praeeminentia” of Paul IV, 4 February, 1558 (cf. Bullarium Patronatus Portugalliae Regum, I, 193). It was later reorganized according to the Concordat of 23 June, 1886, between Leo XIII and King Luiz of Portugal and the Constitution “Humanae Salutis Auctor” of the same pope, 1 September, 1886. It is suffragan to the patriarchal See of Goa (cf. Julio Biker, Collecçao de Tractados, XIV, 112–437). The diocese consists of two strips of territory along the sea-coast, the first about fifty miles long, by eight in its broadest part, the second thirty miles in length. There are two important towns, Cochin and Alleppi (Alapalli) in which the higher educational and charitable institutions of the diocese are situated.

I. HISTORY

The chief religions professed in Malabar at the arrival of the Portuguese were: Hinduism, Christianity (the Christians of St. Thomas or Nestorians), Islam, and Judaism, the last represented by a large colony of Jews. From these the Catholic community was recruited, mostly from the Nestorians and the Hindus. Islam also contributed a fair share, especially when Portugal was supreme on this coast; among the Jews conversions were rare. To Portugal belongs the glory of having begun regular Catholic missionary work in India, and Cochin has the honour of being the cradle of Catholicism in India. The first missionaries to India were eight Franciscan friars, who set sail from Lisbon on the fleet of Pedro Alvarez Cabral (q.v.), 9 March, 1500: Father Henrique de Coimbra, Superior; Fathers Gaspar, Francisco da Cruz, Simao de Guimaraens, Luiz do Salvador, Masseu, Pedro Netto, and Brother Joao da Vitoria. Three of them were slain at Calicut in the massacre of 16 November, 1500. The survivors arrived at Cochin on or about the 26th of that month, and settled there (except the superior, who went back with the fleet to obtain more help for the mission), thus laying the foundation of the Diocese of Cochin (Histor. Seraf. Chron. da Ordem de S. Francisco na Provincia de Portugal, III, 489, 494, 495). They were followed by large contingents of zealous missionaries, who worked from the city of Cochin as a centre. The harvest of souls was rich, the Christians multiplied along the coast and in the interior, and in course of time a bishop was assigned to them

The Nestorian Christians in the vicinity of Cochin naturally attracted the attention of the missionaries, and Fathers Simao de Guimaraens and Luiz do Salvador were soon occupied in refuting their errors and reforming their discipline and customs (Hist. Seraf., III, 497). These two missionaries were the pioneers of the Faith among the Nestorian Christians. Members of the same order continued this missionary work till the middle of the sixteenth century, when these missions were handed over to the Jesuits, who continued the good work with such earnestness and zeal that most of the Nestorian Christians were converted before 1600. The chief public record of their conversion is to be found in the Proces of the Synod of Diamper (of Udiamperur), held in June, 1599, by Alexio de Menezes, Archbishop of Goa, Metropolitan and Primate of the East (“Bull. Patron. Por. reg.,” a collection of papal and royal documents pertaining to the Portughese missions in India, App. tom. I, 147 sqq.; see also “Subsidium ad Bull. Patr. Por.,” Alleppi, 1903). In December, 1502, the Nestorian or Syrian Christians (they used the Syrian language in their liturgy) presented to Vasco da Gama, who had arrived at Cochin, the sceptre of their former kings, and applied to him for assistance against their Mohammedan neighhours. Gama formally accepted the sceptre in the name of the King of Portugal. The Syrian bishop of those Christians promised obedience to the pope through the Franciscan missioriaries and two Nestorian priests accompanied Gama to Lisbon en route for Rome. Thus began the protectorate of the Portuguese over the Syrian Christians, a protectorate which lasted for 160 years (cf. Joao de Barras, “Asia,” Dec. I, bk. V, ch. viii; also “Historia Serafica”). Till 1542 the Franciscans were the only regular missionaries in India, though they had the cooperation of some secular priests, as Father Pedro Gonsalves, Vicar of Santa Cruz church in the city of Cochin, and father Miguel Vaz, a zealous preacher of the Faith, as well as of some isolated members of other religious communities, who had come out as chaplains to the fleets (“Commentarios do Grande Affonso d’Albuquerque,” 3d ed., 1774, I, ch. v, 19–20), and “Ethiopia Oriental,” II, bk. II, ch. i).

Among the pioneer priests of Cochin mention should be made of the Franciscans Joao d’Elvas and Pedro d’Amarante, who till 1507 preached the Gospel at Vypeen, Palliport, Cranganore, and other important places; Father Manuel de S. Mathias with his eleven companions, who laboured for the conversion of the pagans at Porroead, Quilon, Trivellam, and elsewhere. Father Vincent de Lagos, who in 1540 established the college of Cranganore to train the Nestorian Christians in the purity of Catholic Faith, a college highly praised by St. Francis Xavier, and the first built in India. In 1542 it had eighty students (Amado, Hist. da Egreja em Portugal e colonias, Vol. VlI, pt. II, 117–21).

After St. Francis Xavier’s arrival in India, 6 May, 1542, the Society of Jesus quickly spread over India, and the members were always most successful in the missions under their charge. St. Francis often visited Cochin, where the citizens gave him the church of Madre de Deus, and asked him to establish in the city a residence of the Society. It was accordingly founded by Father Balthazar Gago, S.J., in 1550. In the same year Father Nicolao Lancelot, S.J., built the residence and college of Quilon, and Affonso Cipriano, S.J., the residence of Mylapore, soon after the residence and college of Punicail were established, and the residence of Manar. In 1560 the King of Portugal built for the Society of Jesus the college of Cochin, and in 1562 a novitiate of the Society was established there. In 1601 the Jesuit Province of Malabar was founded, and Cochin was made the residence of the provincial. Among the early Jesuits must be mentioned in addition to St. Francis Xavier, foremost of missionaries, Fathers Mansilha, Criminal, B. Nunes, H. Henriques, F. Peres, F. Rodrigues; Brothers Adam Francisco, N. Nunes. Later, the Dominicans, Augustinians, and other orders followed the Society of Jesus to India. The Dominicans built their monastery and college at Cochin in 1553; some years later their example was followed by the Augustinians, and still later by the Capuchins. Cochin thus became the stronghold of the Faith, and it was the missionaries of Cochin who carried the Gospel throughout all Southern India and Ceylon, everywhere establishing missions, and building churches, charitable and educational institutions, all of which were endowed by the kings of Portugal.

Apart from the heroic zeal of the priests, the most powerful element in the propagation of the Faith was the protection the Portuguese Government always accorded to the converts. It provided them with good situations, employing them in civil offices, freed them the molestations of their masters, elevated them in the social scale, exempted them from the operation of Hindu law, appointed for them a judicial tribunal composed of Catholics, which in rural districts was presided over by the local priest. It induced the rajahs to treat the converts kindly, and obliged them to allow their converted subjects all the civil rights, e.g. of inheritance, which their Hindu relatives enjoyed. (“Collecçao de Tractados,” treaties made with the rajahs of Asia and East Africa, passim in the first thirteen vols; also “Archivo Portuguez Oriental” Nova Goa, 1861, Fasc. III, parts I and II passim; “Oriente Conquistado,” Bombay reprint, 1881, I, II, P. Jarric, S.J., “Thesaurus Rerum Indicarum,” Cologne, 1615, I, III, on the Malabar Missions of the Society.)

The above-mentioned Bull of Paul IV, by which the diocese was constituted, raised the collegiate church of the Holy Cross (Santa Cruz), the parish church of Cochin, to the dignity of cathedral of the diocese, and established therein a chapter consisting of five dignitaries and twelve canons. At the same time the pope gave the patronage of the new diocese and see to the kings of Portugal (Bull. Patr. Port. Reg., I, 194).

Until 1506 Hindu law, which was rigorously observed, forbade the use of lime and stone in other constructions than temples. Hence the early Portuguese, to avoid displeasing the rajah, built their houses of wood. Finally the viceroy, Francisco de Almeida, induced the Rajah of Cochin to permit him the use of lime and stone, and on 3 May, 1506, the first stone for the fortress and city was laid by the viceroy with great pomp. It was the feast of the Finding of the Holy Cross, which thus became the patronal feast of the city, and gave to the parish church its title. The church of the Holy Cross (Santa Cruz) was begun in, or rather before, 1506, for in 1505 we find Portuguese soldiers contributing towards the construction of the church of Cochin 1000 xerafins (about $150 a large sum four hundred years ago), the result of an auction of the rich booty of a naval combat (Gaspar Correa, “Lendas da India,” I, 522; II, 182). Some years later this church was raised to collegiate rank, endowed by the king, and provided with a vicar and six beneficed ecclesiastics. It was a magnificent buildings the mother church of the ancient Diocese of Cochin, which the Malabar, Coromandel and Fishery boasts, and Ceylon once obeyed and under whose teaching and discipline they flourished. There are now not less than eleven bishoprics in the territory of the original Diocese of Cochin. The first Bishop of Cochin was Dominican, Father Jorge Tremudo, an illustrious missionary on this coast. The Brief “Pastoralis officii cura nos admonet” of Gregory XIII, 13 Dec., 1572, permited the Bishop of Cochin, on occasion of the vacancy of the See of Goa, to take possession of that see and administer it till the Holy See provided for the vacancy. This is why many bishops of Cochin were appointed archbishops of Goa.

In 1577 Brother Joao Gonsalves, S.J., engraved at Cochin, for the first time, the Malealam type, from which was printed the first Malealam book, “Outlines of Christian Doctrine,” written in Portuguese by St. Francis Xavier for the use of children. In 1578 Fr. Joao de Faria, S.J., engraved at Punicail the Tamil type, with which the “Flos Sanctorum” was printed in Tamil for the Fishery Coast (Paulinus a S. Bartholomaeo, “India Orient. Christiana” Rome, 1794, 179 sqq.; “Oriente Conquistado,” Vol. I, Pt. I, Cong. I, Div. I, section 23).

Cochin was taken, 6 Jan. 1663, by the Dutch, after a siege of six months. The city was reduced in size; the clergy were expelled; the monasteries and colleges, bishop’s palace and 2 hospitals, 13 churches and chapels, were razed to the ground. The church of St. Francis of Assisi, belonging to the Franciscan monastery was spared by the conquerors and converted to their religious use. When the English expelled the Dutch, 20 October, 1795, they kept this church for the same purpose; it stands today a witness to the events of the past four centuries, and is considered the oldest existing church in India. The magnificent cathedral was turned by the Dutch into a warehouse for merchandise. In 1806 it was blown up by the English.

From 1663 until the diocese was reorganized in 1886, the bishops of Cochin resided at Quilon. In 1896 work was begun on the Cathedral of the Holy Cross of Cochin by Bishop Ferreira amid great sacrifices. In April, 1897, when almost complete, the building collapsed, entailing a heavy loss. Bishop Ferreira died at Goa, 4 May, the same year. Bishop Oliveira Xavier took charge of the diocese in March, 1898, removed the debris of the fallen building and successfully carried the work to completlon. The cathedral was opened for Divine Worship, 9 August, 1903. Brother Moscheni, the famous Italian painter of India, belonging to the Jesuit mission of Mangalore, was secured to decorate the church, but hardly finished the sanctuary when he died, 14 November, 1905. The cathedral was consecrated 19 November, 1905, by Bishop Pereira of Damaum, Archbishop ad honorem of Cranganore.

II. RELIGIOUS CONDITIONS

The Church of Cochin has suffered some rigorous persecutions. The most severe was that of 1780, commenced by Nagam Pillay, Dewan of Travancore, in which 20,000 converts fled to the mountains, to escape his cruelties, and many died as martyrs. Father Joao Falco S.J., was the only priest left to console the sufferers. There were other less severe persecutions in 1787, 1809, and 1829 (Paulinus a S. Bartholomaeo, “India Orient. Christiana,” 165 sqq.: also “Church History of Travancore,” Madras, 1903, lntroduction, 55). In a general way there has always been a kind of mild persecution or animosity on the part of Hindu Governments and authorities against Christians. The growth of the Catholic Church is at present affected especially by the “Law of Disability” in force in the Native States of Malabar, by which a convert becomes a stranger to his family, and forfeits all rights of inheritance. The government schools, in which the young are reared in religious indifferentism, form also a remarkable hindrance to conversions, especially among the higher classes.

III. STATISTICS

In all, twenty bishops of Cochin have actually taken possession of the see (“Mitras Lusitanas no Oriente,” I, III; Annuario da Arch. de Goa,” 1907). The total population of the diocese is 398,000; Catholics, 97,259. The number of conversions averages 300 a year. The diocese contains 30 parishes, 9 missions, 77 churches and chapels, 62 secular priests (58 natives of India), 4 Jesuits; Anglo-vernacular parochial schools, with an attendance of 480 boys and 128 girls, 77 vernacular parochial schools, with an attendance of 6592. The Sisters of the Canossian Congregation number 15 in two convents. The following educational and charitable institutions are at Cochin: Santa Cruz High School for boys, under the Jesuit Fathers, and St. Mary’s High school for girls under the Canossian Sisters, both of which prepare students for the Indian universities; they have an average daily attendance respectively of 335 and 153; at Alleppi the Jesuit Fathers conduct the Leo XIII High School for boys, with an average daily attendance of 380, an orphanage with 16 orphans; a catechumenate with 5 catechumens, a printing office; an industrial school. They also have charge of the preparatory seminary of the diocese, in which 20 students are now enrolled. For philosophy and theology students are sent either to the patriarchal Seminary at Rachol, Goa, or to the papal seminary at Kandy, Ceylon; at the former there are now 6, at the latter 5, students from Cochin. The Canossian Sisters at Alleppi conduct the following institutions for girls: St. Joseph’s Intermediate School, attendance 160, a normal training School, attendance 7; a technical School, attendance 29; an orphanage with 56 orphans; a catechumenate, attendance 21, and a dispensary for the benefit of the poor. The religious associations of the diocese are as follows: confraternities, 64, congregations of the Third Order of St Francis, 3; Association of the Holy Family, 1; Conferences of St. Vincent de Paul, 2; Society for the relief of the Souls in Purgatory, 2; Sodalities of the Children of Mary 6, Misericordia Confraternity, 1; The Apostleship of Prayer is established in all the parish churches, and the Association of Christian Doctrine in all churches and chapels of the diocese. (See GOA; PORTUGAL; INDIA.)

Besides documents mentioned above see also Madras Cath. Directory (1908); Mullbauer, Kahl. Miss. in Ostindien (Freiburg, 1852); De Silva, The Cath. in India (Bombay, 1885); Werner, Orb. Terrarum (Freiburg, 1890).

J. MONTEIRO D’AGUIAR

Jacques-Denis Cochin

A preacher and philanthropist, born in Paris, 1 January, 1726; died there 3 June, 1783. His father, Claude-Denis Cochin (d. 1786), was a famous botanist. Jacques-Denis followed a course of theological studies in the Sorbonne and was graduated with the degree of Doctor. In 1755 he was ordained priest. The next year he was given charge of the parish of Saint-Jacques-du-Haut-Pas. There he spent his whole life working for the material as well as the spiritual betterment of his people. He won great fame for the unction and strength of his preaching. His published works include: Four books of Sunday sermons (Paris, 1786–1808); “Exhortations on the Feasts, Fasts and Ceremonies of the Church” (Paris, 1778); “Retreat Exercises” (Paris, 1778); “Spiritual Writings,” a posthumous work published by his brother (Paris, 1784). Cochin is noted especially for his philanthropy. The needs of his own parish suggested the foundation of a hospital. The idea, conceived in 1780, resulted in the completion of a building of which The Sisters of Charity took charge. The inscription on the building, Pauper clamavit et Dominus exaudivit eum, is an index of Cochin’s intentions. He devoted his whole fortune to the work. The hospital was inaugurated with thirty-eight beds; today the number is nearly four hundred. It was originally called Hopital Saint-Jacques. In 1801 the General Council of the Paris hospitals gave it the name of its charitable founder, which it still preserves.

J. B. DELAUNAY

Pierre-Suzanne-Augustin Cochin

Born in Paris, 12 Dec., 1823; died at Versailles, 13 March, 1872. He took an early interest in economical and political questions and contributed articles to the “Annales de Charité” and “Le Correspondant.” In 1850 he was elected vice-mayor, and in 1853 mayor of the tenth district of Paris. His publications won for him membership in the Académie des sciences morales et politiques (1864). He was at that time prominent among the “Liberal Catholics,” an ardent friend of Montalembert and Lacordaire, and was supported by his party for the office of deputy of Paris. He received 6000 votes, but his democratic opponent won by an overwhelming majority. Among his many religious, pedagogical, and sociological works we may name: “Essai sur la vie, les méthodes d’instruction et d’éducation, et les établissements de Pestalozzi” (Paris, 1848); “Lettre sur l’état du paupérisme en Angleterre” (Paris, 1854); “Progrès de la science et de l’industrie au point de vue chrétien” (Paris, 1854); “Abolition de l’esclavage” (Paris, 1861), crowned by the French Academy; “Quelques mots sur la vie de Jésus de Renan” (1863); “Condition des ouvriers français” (1862); “Espérances chrétiennes” (posthumous publication).

J. B. DELAUNAY.

Johann Cochlæus

(Properly Dobeneck), surnamed Cochlæus (from cochlea, a snail shell) after his birthplace Wendelstein, near Schwabach.

Humanist and Catholic controversialist, b. 1479; d. 11 Jan., 1552, in Breslau. His early education he received at the house of his uncle, Hirspeck. About 1500 he began his humanistic studies under Grienniger at Nuremberg. From 1504 he pursued his studies at Cologne and there relations sprang up between Cochlæus and the champions of humanism. In 1510 he obtained the rectorate in the Latin school of St. Lawrence in Nuremberg, where the “Quadrivium Grammatices” (1511 and repeatedly afterwards) and the “Tetrachordum Musices” appeared. At Nuremberg he became an intimate friend of Pirkheimer. With the latter’s three nephews he went to Bologna to continue his humanistic and legal studies. His main object, however, was to pursue a course of theology, in which he obtained his doctorate in 1517, and then by the advice of Pirkheimer went to Rome. There, under the influence of the Oratorio del Divino Amore, Cochlæus turned his attention to the cultivation of a religious life. Ordained at Rome, he went to Frankfort, and after some hesitation, arising no doubt from consideration for his friends, he entered the arena as the opponent of the Lutheran movement. His first works were “De Utroque Sacerdotio” (1520) and several smaller writings published in rapid succession. In 1521 he met the nuncio Aleander at Worms and worked untiringly to bring about the reconciliation of Luther. During the following years he wrote tracts against Luther’s principal theses on the doctrine of justification, on the freedom of the will, and on the teaching of the Church (especially the important work, “De Gratia Sacramentorum,” 1522; “De Baptismo parvulorum,” 1523; “A commentary on 154 Articles”; etc). Luther, to the vexation of Cochlæus wrote in answer only a single work, “Adversus Armatum Virum Cocleum.”

After a short sojourn at Rome Cochlæus accompanied Compeggio to the negotiations at Nuremberg and Ratisbon. The Lutheran movement and the Peasants’ War drove him to Cologne in 1525. From there he wrote against the rebellion and Luther, its real author. In 1526 he received a canonry at Mayence and accompanied Cardinal Albrecht of Brandenburg to the Diet of Speyer. After Emser’s death Cochlæus took his place as secretary to Duke George of Saxony, whom he defended against an attack of Luther based on the false charge of an alliance between the Catholic princes at Breslau (cf. The Affaire of Otto v. Pack). Conjointly with Duke George he laboured strenuously in 1530, to refute the Augsburg Confession, and later directed against Melanchthon, its author, his bitter “Philippicae.” Because of a pamphlet against Henry VIII of England he was transferred in 1535 to a canonry in Meissen. After the duke’s death, owing to the advance of the Reformation, his further stay in Saxony became quite impossible. For the time being he found a refuge as canon first at Breslau and later at Eichstatt. With indomitable ardour he published pamphlet after pamphlet against Luther and Melanchthon, against Zwingli, Butzer, Bullinger, Cordatus, Ossiander, etc. Almost all of these publications, however, were written in haste and bad temper, without the necessary revision and theological thoroughness, consequently they produced no effect on the masses. His greatest work against Luther is his strictly historical “Commentaria de Actis et Sciptis M. Luther” (extending to his death), an armoury of Catholic polemics for all succeeding time. Forced to resign his benefice at Eichstatt in 1548, Cochlæus remained for a short time in Mayence to edit a work of Abbot Conrad Braun. In 1549, however, he returned to Breslau where he died shortly after. Naturally of a quiet and studious disposition he was drawn into the arena of polemics by the religious schism. There he developed a productivity and zeal unparalleled by any other Catholic theologian of his time. He did not, however, possess the other requisites for success in the same degree. Among his two hundred and two publications (catalogued in Spahn, p. 341 sq.) Are to be found, besides tracts bearing on the topics of the day, also editions of ecclesiastical writers and historical publications. Among these latter the work “Historiae Hussitarum XII Libri” (1549) is of great value even today because of the authorities used therein.

De Weldige-Kremer, De Joannis Cochlaei Vita at Scriptis (Münster, 1865); Otto, Johannes Cochlæus (Breslau, 1874); Gess, Johannes Cochlæus (Berlin, 1898); Schlecht, IV Cochlæusbriefe in Histor. Jahrbuch XX (1899), 768 sq.

JOSEPH SAUER

Co-consecrators

Co-consecrators are the bishops who assist the presiding bishop in the act of consecrating a new bishop. It is a very strict rule of the Church that there should be two such assistant bishops, or three bishops in all-though an exception is made for missionary countries where it is practically impossible to bring so many bishops together, the Holy See there allowing two priests to act as assistants to the consecrator. The part assigned by the Roman Pontifical in its present form to the assistant bishops is, after helping to place the book of the Gospels on the shoulders of the elect, to join the consecrator in laying hands on his head, and in saying over him the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum. But it is the consecrator alone who, with extended hands, says the Eucharistic prayer, which constitutes the “essential form” of the rite. In the Oriental rites, Uniat and schismatic, no words of any kind are assigned to the assistant bishops; this was also the case with the ancient Western rites, the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum being a late medieval addition.

HISTORY OF THE USAGE

The earliest times the ides was to Assemble as many bishops as possible for the election and consecration of a new bishop, and it became the rule that the comprovincials at least should participate under the presidency of the metropolitan or primate. But this was found impracticable in a matter of such frequency; so in thc Council of Nic a we find it enacted that “a bishop ought to be chosen by all the bishops of his province, but if that is impossible because of some urgent necessity, or because of the length of the journey, let three bishops at least assemble and proceed to the consecration, having the written permission of the absent” (can. iv). There was, indeed, one exception, which is referred to in the letter of Pope Siricius to the African bishops (386), “That a single bishop, unless he be the Bishop of Rome, must not ordain a bishop.” This exception has long since been discontinued, but it bears witness to the reason for which the intervention of several bishops was ordinarily rerequired, a reason expressly stated by St. Isidore (about 601) in his “De Eccles. Off.” (Bk. II, ch. v, no. 11 in P. L., LXXXIII, 785): “[The custom] that a bishop should not be ordained by one bishop, but by all the comprovincial bishops, is known to have been instituted on account of heresies, and in order that the tyrannical authority of one person should not attempt anything contrary to the faith of the Church.” Such a consideration was not applicable to the case of the Bishop of Rome. In these provisions of the earlier councils the conditions of the time were presupposed. Gradually other conditions supervened, and the right of appointing to the episcopate was reserved to the metropolitans in the case of simple bishops, and to the Holy See in the case of metropolitans, and finally in all cases to the Holy See. But the practice of requiring at least three bishops for the consecration ceremony, though no longer needed for its ancient purpose, has always been retained as befitting the solemnity of the occasion.

THE MODE OF THEIR CO-OPERATION

The question has been raised, Do the co-consecrators equally with the consecrator impart the sacramental gift to the candidate? That they do has been contended on the ground of a well-known passage in Mart ne’s “De Antiquis Ecclesi Ritibus” (II, viii, art. 10), in which he says that “beyond the possibility of a doubt they are not witnesses only but co-operators.” But Mart ne’s reference to Ferrandus’s “Brevatio Canonum” (P. L., LXVII, 948), and through Ferrandus to the decree of Nic n and the words of St. Isidore already quoted, shows that his meaning is that they are not mere witnesses to the fact that the consecration has taken place, but, by taking part in it, make themselves responsible for its taking place. Moreover, though Gasparri (De Sacr . Ordinatione, II, 265) thinks otherwise, it is not easy to see how the assistant bishops can be said to comply with the essentials of a sacramental administration. They certainly do not in the use of the Oriental rites, nor did they in the use of the ancient Western rite, for they pronounced no words which partook of the nature of an essential form. And, though in the modern rite they say the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, which approximate to the requirements of such a form, it is not conceivable that the Church by receiving these words into her rite wished to transfer the office of essential form from the still-persisting Eucharistic Preface, which had held it previously and was perfectly definite, to new words which by themselves are altogether indefinite.

Besides the authors quoted, see THOMASSIN, Vetus et nova Ecclesi Disciplina, II, pt, II, Bk II. ch. iv; DUCHESNE, Origines du. culte chrétien (Paris, 1905); Pontificale Romanum, ed. CATALANI (Paris, 1801); MARTINUCCI. Manuale ss. C rimoniarum (Rome, 1869); KENRICK, Form of the Consecration of a Bishop (Baltimore, 1886); WOODS, Episcopal Consecration in the Anglican Church in The Messenger (New York, November, 1907); BERNARD, Cours de liturgie romaine: Le Pontifical (Paris, 1902), I, 318–22.

SYDNEY E. SMITH

Cocussus

(Cocusus, Cocussus, Cocusus).

A titular see of Armenia. It was a Roman station on the road from Cilicia to Caesarea, and belonged first to Cappadocia and later to Armenia Secunda. St. Paul the Confessor, Patriarch of Constantinople, was exiled thither by Constantius and put to death by the Arians in 350 (Socrates, Hist. Eccl., II, xxvi). It was also the place of exile to which St. John Chrysostom was banished by Arcadius; his journey, often interrupted by fever, lasted seventeen days (Sozomen, Hist., eccl., VIII, xxii). The great doctor was received most kindly by the bishop and a certain Dioscurus. He lived three years at Cocussus (404–407), and wrote thence many letters to the deaconess Olympias and his friends. The Greek panegyric of St. Gregory the Illuminator, Apostle of Armenia, attributed to St. John Chrysostom (Migne, P.G., LXIII, 943), is not authentic; an Armenian text, edited by Alishan (Venice, 1877), may be genuine. Cocussus appears in the “Synecdemus” of Hierccles and in the “Notitiae episcopatuum,” as late as the twelfth century, as a suffragan of Melitene. The name of St. John Chrysostom’s host is unknown. Bishop Domnus was represented at Chalcedon in 451. Longinus subscribed the letter of the bishops of Armenia Secunda to Emperor Leo in 458. John subscribed at Constantinople in 553 for his metropolitan. Another John was present at the Trullan Council in 692 (Lequien, I, 452). The army of the first crusaders passed by Cocussus. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries there were Armenian bishops of Cocussus. It is today a village called Guksun by the Turks, Kokison by the Armenians, in the caza of Hadjin, villayet of Adana. The site is most picturesque, but the climate is very severe during winter, owing to the altitude, 4000 feet above the level of the sea.

Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. Of Asia Minor, passim; Alishan, Sissouan (Venice, 1899), 217–21.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Codex

Codex, the name given to a manuscript in leaf form, distinguishing it from a roll. The codex seems to have come into use about the beginning of the fourth century; the material ordinarily employed in it was parchment, but discovery has shown that papyrus was sometimes used in the making of codices, though really too brittle to be a satisfactory material. The great manuscripts of the Bible are in codex form and generally of parchment; hence the name, Codex Vaticanus etc. For convenience’ sake, we group here the four great codices of the Greek Bible, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi, together with the Greek Codex Bezae, so remarkable for it’s textual peculiarities; also, Codex Amiatinus, the greatest manuscript of the Vulgate. For other codices, see Manuscripts of the Bible, or the particular designation, as Armagh, Book of; Kells, Book of; etc

Codex Alexandrinus

A most valuable Greek manuscript of the Old and New Testaments, so named because it was brought to Europe from Alexandria and had been the property of the patriarch of that see. For the sake of brevity, Walton, in his polyglot Bible, indicated it by the letter A and thus set the fashion of designating Biblical manuscripts by such symbols. Codex A was the first of the great uncials to become known to the learned world. When Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Alexandria, was transferred in 1621 to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, he is believed to have brought the codex with him. Later he sent it as a present to King James I of England; James died before the gift was presented, and Charles I, in 1627, accepted it in his stead. It is now the chief glory of the British Museum in its manuscript department and is on exhibition there.

Codex A contains the Bible of the Catholic Canon, including therefore the deuterocanonical books and portions of books belonging to the Old Testament. Moreover, it joins to the canonical books of Machabees, the apocryphal III and IV Machabees, of very late origin. To the New Testament are added the Epistle of St. Clement of Rome and the homily which passed under the title of II Epistle of Clement—the only copies then known to exist. These are included in the list of New Testament books which is prefixed and seem to have been regarded by the scribe as part of the New Testament. The same list shows that the Psalms of Solomon, now missing, were originally contained in the volume, but the space which separates this book from the others on the list indicates that it was not ranked among New Testament books. An “Epistle to Marcellinus” ascribed to St. Athanasius is inserted as a preface to the Psalter, together with Eusebius’s summary of the Psalms; Psalm 151 and certain selected canticles of the Old Testament are affixed, and liturgical uses of the psalms indicated. Not all the books are complete. In the Old Testament there is to be noted particularly the lacuna of thirty psalms, from 5:20, to 80:11; moreover, of Genesis 14:14–17; 15:1–5, 16–19; 16:6–9; I Kings 12:20–14:9. The New Testament has lost the first twenty-five leaves of the Gospel of St. Matthew, as far as chapter 25:6, likewise the two leaves running from John 6:50, to 8:52 (which, however, as the amount of space shows, omitted the formerly much disputed passage about the adulterous woman), and three leaves containing II Corinthians 4:13–12:6. One leaf is missing from I Clement and probably two at the end of II Clement. Codex A supports the Sixtine Vulgate in regard to the conclusion of St. Mark and John 5:4, but, like all Greek manuscripts before the fourteenth century, omits the text of the three heavenly witnesses, I John 5:7. The order of the Old Testament books is peculiar. In the New Testament the order is Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse, with Hebrews placed before the Pastoral Epistles. Originally one large volume, the codex is now bound in four volumes, bearing on their covers the arms of Charles I. Three volumes contain the Old Testament, and the remaining volume the New Testament with Clement. The leaves, of thin vellum, 12 3/4 inches high by 10 inches broad, number at present 773, but were originally 822, according to the ordinary reckoning. Each page has two columns of 49 to 51 lines.

The codex is the first to contain the major chapters with their titles, the Ammonian Sections and the Eusebian Canons complete (Scrivener). A new paragraph is indicated by a large capital and frequently by spacing, not by beginning a new line; the enlarged capital is placed in the margin of the next line, though, curiously, it may not correspond to the beginning of the paragraph or even of a word. The manuscript is written in uncial characters in a hand at once firm, elegant, simple; the greater part of Volume III is ascribed by Gregory to a different hand from that of the others; two hands are discerned in the New Testament by Woide, three by Sir E. Maunde Thompson and Kenyon—experts differ on these points. The handwriting is generally judged to belong to the beginning or middle of the fifth century or possibly to the late fourth. An Arabic note states that it was written by Thecla the martyr; and Cyril Lucar the Patriarch adds in his note that tradition says she was a noble Egyptian woman and wrote the codex shortly after the Nicene Council. But nothing is known of such a martyr at that date, and the value of this testimony is weakened by the presence of the Eusebian Canons (d. 340) and destroyed by the insertion of the letter of Athanasius (d. 373). On the other hand, the absence of the Euthalian divisions is regarded by Scrivener as proof that it can hardly be later than 450. This is not decisive, and Gregory would bring it down even to the second half of the fifth century. The character of the letters and the history of the manuscript point to Egypt as its place of origin.

The text of Codex A is considered one of the most valuable witnesses to the Septuagint. It is found, however, to bear a great affinity to the text embodied in Origen’s Hexapla and to have been corrected in numberless passages according to the Hebrew. The text of the Septuagint codices is in too chaotic a condition, and criticism of it too little advanced, to permit of a sure judgment on the textual value of the great manuscripts. The text of the New Testament here is of a mixed character. In the Gospels, we have the best example of the so-called Syrian type of text, the ancestor of the traditional and less pure form found in the textus receptus. The Syrian text, however, is rejected by the great majority of scholars in favour of the “neutral” type, best represented in the Codex Vaticanus. In the Acts and Catholic Epistles, and still more in St. Paul’s Epistles and the Apocalypse, Codex A approaches nearer, or belongs, to the neutral type. This admixture of textual types is explained on the theory that A or its prototype was not copied from a single manuscript, but from several manuscripts of varying value and diverse origin. Copyist’s errors in this codex are rather frequent.

Codex Alexandrinus played an important part in developing the textual criticism of the Bible, particularly of the New Testament. Grabe edited the Old Testament at Oxford in 1707–20, and this edition was reproduced at Zurich 1730–32, and at Leipzig, 1750–51, and again at Oxford, by Field, in 1859; Woide published the New Testament in 1786, which B. H. Cowper reproduced in 1860. The readings of Codex A were noted in Walton’s Polyglot, 1657, and in every important collation since made. Baber published an edition of the Old Testament in facsimile type in 1816–28; but all previous editions were superseded by the magnificent photographic facsimile of both Old and New Testaments produced by the care of Sir E. Maunde Thompson (the New Testament in 1879, the Old Testament in 1881–83), with an introduction in which the editor gives the best obtainable description of the codex (London, 1879–80).

JOHN F. FENLON

Codex Amiatinus

The most celebrated manuscript of the Latin Vulgate Bible, remarkable as the best witness to the true text of St. Jerome and as a fine specimen of medieval calligraphy, now kept at Florence in the Bibliotheca Laurentiana. The symbol for it is written am or A (Wordsworth). It is preserved in an immense tome, measuring in height and breadth 19 1/4 inches by 13 3/8 inches, and in thickness 7 inches—so impressive, as Hort says, as to fill the beholder with a feeling akin to awe. Some consider it, with White, as perhaps “the finest book in the world”; still there are several manuscripts which are as beautifully written and have besides, like the Book of Kells or Book of Lindisfarne, those exquisite ornaments of which Amiatinus is devoid. It contains 1029 leaves of strong, smooth vellum, fresh-looking today, despite their great antiquity, arranged in quires of four sheets, or quaternions. It is written in uncial characters, large, clear, regular, and beautiful, two columns to a page, and 43 or 44 lines to a column. A little space is often left between words, but the writing is in general continuous. The text is divided into sections, which in the Gospels correspond closely to the Ammonian Sections. There are no marks of punctuation, but the skilled reader was guided into the sense by stichometric, or verse-like, arrangement into coda and commata, which correspond roughly to the principal and dependent clauses of a sentence. This manner of writing the scribe is believed to have modelled upon the great Bible of Cassiodorus (q.v.), but it goes back perhaps even to St. Jerome; it may be shown best by an example:

QUIA IN POTESTATE ERAT

SERMO IPSIUS

ET IN SYNAGOGA ERAT HOMO HABENS

DAEMONIUM INMUNDUM

ET EXCLAMAVIT VOCE MAGNA

DICENS

SINE QUID NOBIS ET TIBI IHU

NAZARENE VENISTI PERDERE NOS

SCIO TE QUI SIS SCS DI

ET INCREPAVIT ILLI IHS DICENS

It will be noticed that the section “ET IN” and the coda begin at about the same perpendicular line, the commata begin further in under the third or second letter, and so likewise does the continuation of a colon or comma which runs beyond a single line (see facsimile page). This arrangement, besides aiding the intelligence of the text, gave a spacious, varied, and rather artistic appearance to the page. The initial letter of a section was often written in ink of a different colour, and so also was the first line of a book. Beyond that there was no attempt at decorating the text.

The codex (or pandect) is usually said to contain the whole Bible; but it should be noted that the Book of Baruch is missing, though the Epistle of Jeremias, usually incorporated with it, is here appended to the Book of Jeremias. Besides the text of the Scriptural books, it contains St. Jerome’s “Prologus Galeatus” and his prefaces to individual books; the capitula, or summaries of contents; and, in the first quaternion, certain materials which have been much discussed and have proved of the greatest service in tracing the history of the codex, among them dedicatory verses, a list of the books contained in the codex, a picture of the Tabernacle (formerly thought to be Solomon’s Temple), a division of the Biblical books according to Jerome, another according to Hilary and Epiphanius, and a third according to Augustine. Part of Solomon’s prayer (III K., viii, 22–30) in an Old Latin text is reproduced at the end of Ecclesiasticus. A Greek inscription at the beginning of Leviticus, recording that “the Lord Servandus prepared” this codex or part of it, has entered largely into the discussion of its origin.

The recovery of the history of Codex Amiatinus, which has important bearings upon the history of the Vulgate itself and of the text of the Bible, was due to the labours of many scholars and the insight of one man of genius, de Rossi. At the beginning of the pandect, as we have mentioned, there are certain dedicatory verses; they record the gift (of the codex) to the venerable convent of St. Saviour by a certain Peter who was abbot from the extreme territory of the Lombards. The Latin text is as follows:

CENOBIUM A.D. EXIMII MERITO

VENERABILE SALVATORIS

QUEM CAPUT ECCLESIAE

DEDICAT ALTA FIDES

PETRUS LANGOBARDORUM

EXTREMIS DE FINIB. ABBAS

DEVOTI AFFECTUS

PIGNORA MITTO MEI

St. Saviour’s is the name of the monastery on Monte Amiata (whence Amiatinus) near Siena; here this codex was kept from the ninth century till the year 1786, when it was brought to Florence after the suppression of the monastery. Naturally, the codex was supposed to be a gift to this house, but nothing was known of the donor. Bandini, the librarian of the Laurentiana, into whose hands the codex came, noticed that the names of neither the donor nor the recipient belonged to the original dedication. They were written in a different hand over parts of the original inscription, as betrayed by evident signs of erasure. The letters italicized above were by the second hand, while the initial letter C of the first line and the E in the fifth were original. Bandini noticed, also, that cenobium replaced a shorter word and that the last five letters of salvatoris were written on parchment that had not been erased, and so that the ten letters of this word replaced five of the original word. The metre also was entirely at fault. The clue for reconstructing the original lines he found in the expression caput ecclesiæ, which he judged referred to St. Peter. And as in the Middle Ages a favourite title for the Apostolic See was culmen apostolicum, he reconstructed the line in this fashion:

CULMEN A.D. EXIMII MERITO VENERABILE PETRI

This conjecture produced a correct hexameter verse, retained the original initial C, supplied a word of proper length at the beginning and another at the end, and afforded a sense fitting in perfectly with the probabilities of the case. In the fifth line, instead of Petrus Langobardorum, Bandini suggested Servandus Latii, because of the inscription about Servandus mentioned above. This Servandus was believed to be a friend of St. Benedict, to whom he made a visit at Monte Cassino in 541; he was abbot of a monastery near the extremity of Latium.

These conjectures were accepted by the learned world; Tischendorf, for instance, writing seventy-five years later, said Bandini had so well proved his case that no doubt remained. Accordingly, it was settled that the Codex Amiatinus dated from the middle of the sixth century, was the oldest manuscript of the Vulgate, and was written in Southern Italy. A few protests were raised, however; that, for instance, of Paul de Lagarde. He had edited St. Jerome’s translation of the Hebrew Psalter, using freely for that purpose a codex of the ninth century; Amiatinus he judged, with a not unnatural partiality, to be “in all probability” from the hand of the scribe of his ninth-century Psalter, written “at Reichenau on the Lake of Constance.” But, to quote Corssen, it was G. B. de Rossi, “that great Roman scholar, whose never-failing perspicacity and learning discovered at once the birthplace of our famous manuscript” (Academy, 7 April, 1888).

De Rossi followed Bandini in his reconstruction of the first verse, but he thought it unlikely that an abbot, presenting a book to the pope at Rome, should speak of “the extreme limits of Latium,” really but a short distance from Rome. Anzizni, the librarian of the Laurentiana, pointed out to him that the space erased to make room for Petrus Langobardorum was greater than called for by the conjecture of Bandini. De Rossi was at the time engaged on an inquiry into the ancient history of the Vatican library, and, recalling a passage of Bede, he divined that the lost name was Ceolfridus. The erasures, which were irregular, seeming to follow the letters very closely, corresponded perfectly to this conjecture. He proposed then the verse:

CEOLFRIDUS BRITONUM EXTREMIS DE FINIB. ABBAS

The phrase exactly suited an abbot from the end of the world, as England was then regarded and styled; and the story of Ceolfrid made de Rossi’s conjectures acceptable at once, especially to English scholars. Ceolfrid was the disciple of Benedict Biscop (q.v.), who founded the monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow in Northumberland towards the end of the seventh century. England, in those days, was the most devoted daughter of the Roman See, and Abbot Benedict was enthusiastic in his devotion. His monasteries were dependent directly on Rome. Five times during his life he journeyed to Rome, usually bring back with him a library of books presented by the pope. Ceolfrid, who had accompanied him on one of these visits, became his successor in 686 and inherited his taste for books; Bede mentions three pandects of St. Jerome’s translation which he had made, one of which he determined in his old age, in 716, to bring to the church of St. Peter at Rome. He died on the way, but his gift was carried to the Holy Father, then Gregory II. This codex de Rossi identified with Amiatinus.

This conjecture was hailed by all as a genuine discovery of great importance. Berger, however, objected to Britonum, suggesting Anglorum. Hort soon placed the matter beyond the possibility of doubt. In an anonymous life of Ceolfrid, the chief source of Bede’s information, which, though twice published, had been overlooked by all, Hort found the story of Ceolfrid journeying to Rome and carrying the pandect inscribed with the verses:

CORPUS A.D. EXIMII MERITO VENERABILE PETRI

DEDICAT ECCLESIAE QUEM CAPUT ALTA FIDES

CEOLFRIDUS, ANGLORUM EXTIMIS DE FINIBUS ABBAS

etc. Despite the variations, there could be no doubt of their identity with the dedicatory verses of Amiatinus; Corpus was of course the original, not Culmen, and Anglorum, not Britonum; the other differences were perhaps due to a lapse of memory, or this version may represent the original draft of the dedication. De Rossi’s chief point was proved right. It established that Amiatinus originated in Northumberland about the beginning of the eighth century, having been made, as Bede states, at Ceolfrid’s order. It does not follow, however, that the scribe was an Englishman; the writing and certain peculiarities of orthography have led some to believe him an Italian. We know that these two monasteries had brought over a Roman musician to train the monks in the Roman chant, and they may also, for a similar purpose, have procured from Italy a skilled calligrapher. The handwriting of Amiatinus bears a strong resemblance to some fragments of St. Luke in a Durham manuscript, to New Testament fragments bound up with the Utrecht Psalter, and to the Stonyhurst St. John; these facts, together with Bede’s statement that Ceolfrid had three pandects written, indicate that “there was a large and flourishing school of calligraphy at Wearmouth or Jarrow in the seventh and eighth centuries, of which till lately we had no knowledge at all” (White). This conclusion is confirmed by peculiarities in the text and in certain of the summaries. The contents of the first quaternion of Amiatinus coincide so remarkably with descriptions of the celebrated Codex Grandior of Cassiodorus that it has been supposed that the leaves were transferred from it bodily; the conjecture has been rendered more credible by the fact that this codex was actually seen in England by Bede, perhaps before Amiatinus was carried to Rome. Moreover, the contents of our codex do not correspond exactly to the list prefixed which purports to give the contents. These reasons, however, would only prove that the Codex Grandior served as the model, which seems indubitable; while, on the other hand, weighty reasons have been urged against the other attractive hypothesis (see White and de Rossi).

Despite the lowering of its date by a century and a half, Amiatinus holds the first place for purity of text among the manuscripts of the Vulgate. Its excellence is best explained on the ground that its prototype was an ancient Italian manuscript, perhaps one of those brought from Rome by Benedict Biscop, perhaps one brought by Adrian, abbot of a monastery near Naples, when in 668 he accompanied Benedict and Theodore to England. It is remarkable that Amiatinus and the other Northumbrian codices are nearest in text to Italian manuscripts, especially to Southern Italian, and to manuscripts betraying Italian descent. The group to which it belongs bears the closest relationship to the best-esteemed Greek manuscripts extant, aleph, B. (Cf. MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE; CRITICISM, BIBLICAL, sub-title Textual.) In the Old Testament, the text is not of equal purity throughout; Berger, e.g., notes the inferiority of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and Tischendorf of Machabees. The Psalter does not present the Vulgate text, but St. Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew (cf. PSALTER; VULGATE). The excellence of the Amiatine text is not a new discovery: it was well known to the Sixtine revisers of the Vulgate, who used it constantly and preferred it, as a rule, to any other. To this is largely due the comparative purity of the official Vulgate text and its freedom from so many of the corruptions found in the received Greek text, which rests, as is well known, on some of the latest and most imperfect Greek manuscripts.

WHITE, The Codex Amiatinus and Its Birthplace in Studia Biblica (Oxford, 1890), II; WORDSWORTH AND WHITE, Novum Testamentum Latine (Oxford, 1890); DE ROSSI, La Bibbia Offerta da Ceolfrido (Rome, 1887, containing a photographic facsimile of the dedicatory verses); BERGER, Histoire de la Vulgate (Paris, 1893); BATIFFOL in VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1892), s.v. Amiatinus, with facsimile of part of a page of St. Luke. A series of letters to the Academy, 1886–89, by WORDSWORTH, HORT, CORSSEN, SANDAY, HAMANN, BROWNE, etc., constitute the most exhaustive discussion. The text of the N.T. was published by TISCHENDORF (1850, 1854) and by TREGELLES (1857); O.T. not yet published but collated in HEYSE AND TISCHENDORF, Biblia Latina (Leipzig, 1873). The Palæographical Society has published two facsimile pages.

JOHN F. FENLON

Codex Bezae

(CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS), one of the five most important Greek New Testament manuscripts, and the most interesting of all on account of its peculiar readings; scholars designate it by the letter D (see BIBLICAL CRITICISM, sub-title Textual). It receives its name from Theodore Beza, the friend and successor of Calvin, and from the University of Cambridge, which obtained it as a gift from Beza in 1581 and still possesses it. The text is bilingual, Greek and Latin. The manuscript, written in uncial characters, forms a quarto volume, of excellent vellum, 10 x 8 inches, with one column to a page, the Greek being on the left page (considered the place of honour), the parallel Latin facing it on the right page. It has been reproduced in an excellent photographic facsimile, published (1899) by the University of Cambridge.

The codex contains only the Four Gospels, in the order once common in the West, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, then a few verses (11–15), in Latin only, of the Third Epistle of St. John, and the Acts. There are missing, however, from the manuscript of the original scribe, in the Greek, Matt., i, 1–20; [iii, 7–16]; vi, 20-ix, 2; xxvii, 2–12; John i, 16-iii, 26; [xviii, 14-xx, 13]; [Mk. xvi, 15–20]; Acts, viii, 29-x, 14; xxi, 2–10, 16–18; xxii, 10–20; xxii, 29-xxviii, 31; in the Latin, Matt., i, 1–11; [ii, 21-iii, 7]; vi,8-viii, 27; xxvi, 65-xxvii, 1; John, i, 1-iii, 16; [xviii, 2-xx, 1]; [Mk., xvi, 6–20]; Acts viii, 20-x, 4; xx, 31-xxi, 2, 7–10; xxii, 2–10; xxiii, 20- xxviii, 31. The passages in brackets have been supplied by a tenth-century hand. It will be noticed that St. Luke’s Gospel alone, of the books contained, is preserved complete. The condition of the book shows a gap between the Gospels and Acts; and the fragment of III John indicates that, as in other ancient manuscript, the Catholic Epistles were placed there. The fact that the Epistle of Jude does not immediately precede Acts is regarded as pointing to its omission from the codex; it may, however, have been placed elsewhere. We cannot tell whether the manuscript contained more of the New Testament, and there is no indication that it was, like the other great uncial manucripts, ever joined to the text of the Old Testament. Besides the hand of the original scribe, there are corrections in several different hands, some probably contemporary with the original, later liturgical annotations and the sortes sanctorum, or formulae for telling fortunes; all these are important for tracing the history of the manuscript

Beza wrote in the letter accompanying his gift that the manuscript was obtained from the monastery of St. Irenaeus in Lyons, during the war in 1562. Lyons was sacked by the Huguenots in that year and this manuscript was probably part of the loot. The reformer said it had lain in the monastery for long ages, neglected and covered with dust; but his statement is rejected by most modern scholars. It is claimed, in fact, that this codex is the one which was used at the Council of Trent in 1546 by William Dupré (English writers persist in calling this Frenchman a Prato), Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, to confirm a Latin reading of John, xxi, si eum volo manere, which is found only in the Greek of this codex. Moreover, it is usually identified with Codex beta, whose peculiar readings were collated in 1546 for Stephens’ edition of the Greek Testament by friends of his in Italy. Beza himself, after having first denominated his codex Lugdunensis, later called it Claromontanus, as if it came not from Lyons, but from Clermont (near Beauvais, not Clermont of Auvergne). All this, throwing Beza’s original statement into doubt, indicates that the manuscript was in Italy in the middle of the sixteenth century, and has some bearing upon the locality of the production.

It has commonly been held that the manuscript originated in Southern France around the beginning of the sixth century. No one places it at a later dare, chiefly on the evidence of the handwriting. France was chosen, partly because the manuscript was found there, partly because churches in Lyons and the South were of Greek foundation and for a long time continued the use of Greek in the Liturgy, while Latin was the vernacular- for some such community, at any rate, this bilingual codex was produced- and partly because the text of D bears a remarkable resemblance to the text quoted by St. Irenaeus, even, says Nestle, in the matter of clerical mistakes, so that it is possibly derived from his very copy. During the past five years, however, the opinion of the best English textual critics has been veering to Southern Italy as the original home of D. It is pointed out that the manuscript was used by a church practising the Greek Rite, as the liturgical annotations concern the Greek text alone; that these annotations date from the ninth to the eleventh century, exactly the period of the Greek Rite in Southern Italy, while it had died out elsewhere in Latin Christendom, and show that the Byzantine Mass-lections were in use, which cannot have been the case in Southern France. The corrections, too, which concern the Greek text but rarely the Latin, the spelling, and the calendar all point to Southern Italy. These arguments, however, touch only the home of the manuscript, not its birthplace, and manuscripts have travelled from one end of Europe to the other. Ravenna and Sardinia, where Greek and Latin influences also met, have likewise been suggested. It can only be said that the certainty with which till recently it was ascribed to Southern France has been shaken, and the probabilities now favour Southern Italy.

Following Scrivener, scholars universally dated it from the beginning of the sixth century, but there is a tendency now to place it a hundred years earlier. . Scrivener himself admitted that the handwriting was not inconsistent with this early date, and only assigned it a later date by reason of the Latinity of the annotations. But the corrupt Latin is not itself incompatible with an earlier date, while the freedom with which the Latin N.T. text is handled indicates a time when the Old Latin version was still current. It probably belongs to the fifth century. Nothing necessitates a later date.

The type of text found in D is very ancient, yet it has survived in this one Greek manuscript alone, though it is found also in the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, and the Old Armenian versions. It is the so-called Western Text, or one type of the Western Text. All the Fathers before the end of the third century used a similar text and it can be traced back to sub-Apostolic times. Its value is discussed elsewhere. D departs more widely than any other Greek codex from the ordinary text, compared with which as a standard, it is characterized by numerous additions, paraphrastic renderings, inversions, and some omissions. (For collation of text, see Scrivener, Bezae Codex, pp. xlix-lxiii; Nestle, Novi Test. Graeci Supplementum, Gebhardt and Tischendorf ed., Leipzig, 1896.) One interpolation is worth noting here. After Luke, vi, 5, we read:B30n the same day seeing some one working on the Sabbath, He said to him:8CO man, if you know what you do, blessed are you; but if you do not know, you are cursed and a transgressor of the law.’” The most important omission, probably, is the second mention of the cup in Luke’s account of the Last Supper.

The Latin text is not the Vulgate, nor yet the Old Latin, which it resembles more closely. It seems to be an independent translation of the Greek that faces it, though the fact that it contains two thousand variations from its accompanying Greek text have led some to doubt this. Of this number, however, only seven hundred and sixteen are said to be real variant readings, and some of these are derived from the Vulgate. If the translation be independent, both the Vulgate and Old Latin have influenced it greatly; as time went on, the influence of the Vulgate grew and probably extended even to modifications of the Greek text. Chase, however, traces many of the variants to an original Syriac influence. The text, which was in so great honour in the Early Church, possesses a fascination for certain scholars, who occasionally prefer its readings; but none professes to have really solved the mystery of its origin.

JOHN F. FENLON

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus

(Symbol C).

The last in the group of the four great uncial manuscripts of the Greek Bible, received its name from the treatises of St. Ephraem the Syrian (translated into Greek) which were written over the original text. This took place in the twelfth century, the ink of the Scriptural text having become partially effaced through fading or rubbing. Several Biblical codices are palimpsests (see MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE), of which Codex Ephraemi is the most important. After the fall of Constantinople it was brought to Florence; thence it was carried to Paris by Catherine de’ Medici, and has passed into the possession of the National Library.

Through Pierre Alix, Montfaucon, and Boivin, attention was called to the underlying text, and some of its readings given to the world. The first complete collation of the New Testament was made by Wetstein (1716). Tischendorf published the New Testament in 1843 and the Old Testament in 1845. The torn condition of many leaves, the faded state of the ink, and the covering of the original writing by the later made the decipherment an extremely difficult task; some portions are hopelessly illegible. Tischendorf, then a young man, won his reputation through this achievement. His results, however, have not been checked by other scholars, and so cannot yet be accepted without caution.

The codex, of good vellum, measures 12 1/4 inches by 9 inches; there is but one column to a page, C being the earliest example of this kind. The writing is a little larger than that of Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus; the first hand inserted no breathings or accents, and only the occasional apostrophe. The period is marked by a single point. Large capitals are frequent, as in the Codex Alexandrinus. The margin of the Gospels contains the Ammonian Sections, but not the numbers of the Eusebian Canons, which were probably written in vermilion and have faded away. The Euthalian chapters are missing; the subscriptions are brief. From these indications and the character of the writing, Codex C is placed in the first half of the fifth century, along with A. Tischendorf distinguishes two scribes (contemporaries), one for Old Testament, the other for New Testament, and two correctors, one (C2) of the sixth, the other (C3) of the ninth century; he conjectured that Egypt was the place of origin. With the exception of Tischendorf no modern has really studied the manuscript.

Originally the whole Bible seems to have been contained in it. At present, of the Old Testament only some of the Hagiographa survive, in an imperfect state, namely nearly all of Ecclesiastes, about half of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, with fragments of Proverbs and Canticles -in all 64 leaves. About two-thirds of the New Testament (145 leaves) remain, including portions of all the books except II Thess. and II John; no book is complete. The text of C is said to be very good in Wisdom, very bad in Ecclesiasticus, two books for which its testimony is important. The New Testament text is very mixed; the scribe seems to have had before him manuscripts of different types and to have followed now one now another. “Sometimes,” says Kenyon, “it agrees with the neutral group of manuscripts, sometimes with the Western, not unfrequently with the Alexandrian and perhaps oftenest with the Syrian.” From certain displacements in the apocalypse, Hort infers that the book was copied from a codex of small leaves. Such an exemplar would not be used in church services and would have no guarantee of a good text. Possibly the rest of the manuscript was copied from similar codices.

JOHN F. FENLON

Codex Sinaiticus

(The symbol is the Hebrew character Aleph, though Swete and a few other scholars use the letter S.)

A Greek manuscript of the Old and New Testaments, of the greatest antiquity and value; found on Mount Sinai, in St. Catherine’s Monastery, by Constantine Tischendorf. He was visiting there in 1844, under the patronage of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, when he discovered in a rubbish basket forty-three leaves of the Septuagint, containing portions of I Par. (Chron.), Jer., Neh., and Esther; he was permitted to take them. He also saw the books of Isaias and I and IV Machabees, belonging to the same codex as the fragments, but could not obtain possession of them; warning the monks of their value, he left for Europe and two years later published the leaves he had brought with him under the name of Codex Friderico-Augustanus, after his patron. They are preserved at Leipzig. On a second visit, in 1853, he found only two short fragments of Genesis (which he printed on his return) and could learn nothing of the rest of the codex. In 1859 he made a third visit, this time under the patronage of the Czar, Alexander II. This visit seemed likewise fruitless when, on the eve of his departure, in a chance conversation with the steward, he learned of the existence of a manuscript there; when it was shown to him, he saw the very manuscript he had sought containing, beyond all his dreams, a great part of the Old Testament and the entire New Testament, besides the Epistle of Barnabas, and part of the “Shepherd” of Hermas, of which two works no copies in the original Greek were known to exist. Thinking it “a crime to sleep,” Tischendorf spent the night copying Barnabas; he had to leave in the morning, after failing to persuade the monks to let him have the manuscript. At Cairo he stopped at a monastery belonging to the same monks (they were of the Orthodox Greek Church) and succeeded i having the manuscript sent to him there for transcription; and finally, in obtaining it from the monks as a present to the Czar, Tischendorf’s patron and the protector of their Church. Years later, in 1869, the Czar rewarded the two monasteries with gifts of money (7000 and 2000 roubles each) and decorations. The manuscript is treasured in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. Tischendorf published an account of it in 1860; and, under the auspices of the czar, printed it in facsimile in 1862. Twenty-one lithographic plates made from photographs were included in this edition, which was issued in four volumes. The following year he published a critical edition of the New Testament. Finally, in 1867, he published additional fragments of Genesis and Numbers, which had been used to bind other volumes at St. Catherine’s and had been discovered by the Archimandrite Porfirius. On four different occasions, then, portions of the original manuscript have been discovered; they have never been published together in a single edition.

The Codex Sinaiticus, which originally must have contained the whole Old Testament, has suffered severely from mutilation, especially in the historical books from Genesis to Esdras (inclusive); the rest of the Old Testament fared much better. The fragments and books extant are: several verses from Gen., xxiii and xxiv, and from Num., v, vi, vii; I Par., ix, 27-xix, 17; Esdras, ix,9 to end; Nehemias, Esther, Tobias, Judith, Joel, Abdias, Jonas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias, Isaias, Jeremias, Lamentations, i, 1-ii, 20; I Machabees, IV Machabees (apocryphal, while the canonical II Machabees and the apocryphal III Machabees were never contained in this codex). A curious occurrence is that Esdras, ix, 9 follows I Par., xix, 17 without any break; the note of a corrector shows that seven leaves of I Par. were copied into the Book of Esdras, probably by a mistake in the binding of the manuscript from which Codex Sinaiticus was copied. Our Esdras is called in this codex, as in many others, Esdras B. This may indicate that it followed Esdras A, as the book called by Jerome III Esdras (see ESDRAS) is named in ancient codices; the proof is by no means sure, however, as IV Machabees is here designated Machabees D, as was usual, although the second and third books of Machabees were absent from the manuscript. The New Testament is complete, likewise the Epistle of Barnabas; six leaves following Barnabas are lost, which probably also contained uncanonical literature: the “Shepherd” of Hermas is incomplete, and we cannot tell whether other works followed. In all, there are 346 1/2 leaves. The order of the New Testament is to be noted, St. Paul’s Epistles preceding Acts; Hebrews following II Thess. The manuscript is on good parchment; the pages measure about 15 inches by 13 1/2 inches; there are four columns to a page, except in the poetical books, which are written stichometrically in two columns of greater width; there are 48 lines to a column, but 47 in the Catholic Epistles. The four narrow columns give the page the appearance of an ancient roll; it is not impossible, as Kenyon says, that it was in fact copied from a papyrus roll. It is written in uncial characters, well formed, without accents or breathings, and with no punctuation except (at times) the apostrophe and the single point for a period. Tischendorf judged that there were four hands engaged in the writing of the manuscript; in this he has been generally followed. He has been less happy in obtaining acceptance of his conjecture that one of these scribes also wrote the New Testament of the Vatican Codex. He recognized seven correctors of the text, one of them contemporaneous with the writing of the manuscript. The Ammonian Sections and the Eusebian Canons are indicated in the margin, probably by a contemporary hand; they seem to have been unknown to the scribe, however, who followed another division. The clerical errors are relatively not numerous, in Gregory’s judgment.

In age this manuscript ranks alongside the Codex Vaticanus. Its antiquity is shown by the writing, by the four columns to a page (an indication, probably, of the transition from the roll to the codex form of manuscript.), by the absence of the large initial letters and of ornaments, by the rarity of punctuation, by the short titles of the books, the presence of divisions of the text antedating Eusebius, the addition of Barnabas and Hermas, etc. Such indications have induced experts to place it in the fourth century, along with Codex Vaticanus and some time before Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephræmi Rescriptus; this conclusion is not seriously questioned, though the possibility of an early fifth-century date is conceded. Its origin has been assigned to Rome, Southern Italy, Egypt, and Caesarea, but cannot be determined (Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, London, 1901, p. 56 sqq.). It seems to have been at one time at Caesarea; one of the correctors (probably of seventh century) adds this note at the end of Esdras: “This codex was compared with a very ancient exemplar which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus [d. 309]; which exemplar contained at the end of the subscription in his own hand: ‘Taken and corrected according to the Hexapla of Origen: Antonius compared it: I, Pamphilus, corrected it.’” Pamphilus was, with Eusebius, the founder of the library at Caesarea. Some are even inclined to regard Codex Sinaiticus as one of the fifty manuscripts which Constantine bade Eusebius of Caesarea to have prepared in 331 for the churches of Constantinople; but there is no sign of its having been at Constantinople. Nothing is known of its later history till its discovery by Tischendorf. The text of Codex Sinaiticus bears a very close resemblance to that of Codex Vaticanus, though it cannot be descended from the same immediate ancestor. In general, Codex Vaticanus is placed first in point of purity by contemporary scholars and Codex Sinaiticus next. This is especially true, for the New Testament, of the Gospels. The differences are more frequent in the Old Testament where the codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus often agree.

JOHN F. FENLON

Codex Vaticanus

(CODEX B), a Greek manuscript, the most important of all the manuscripts of Holy Scripture. It is so called because it belongs to the Vatican Library (Codex Vaticanus, 1209).

This codex is a quarto volume written in uncial letters of the fourth century, on folios of fine parchment bound in quinterns. Each page is divided into three columns of forty lines each, with from sixteen to eighteen letters to a line, except in the poetical books, where, owing to the stichometric division of the lines, there are but two columns to a page. There are no capital letters, but at times the first letter of a section extends over the margin. Several hands worked at the manuscript; the first writer inserted neither pauses nor accents, and made use but rarely of a simple punctuation. Unfortunately, the codex is mutilated; at a later date the missing folios were replaced by others. Thus, the first twenty original folios are missing; a part of folio 178, and ten folios after fol. 348; also the final quinterns, whose number it is impossible to establish. There are extant in all 759 original folios.

The Old Testament (Septuagint Version, except Daniel, which is taken from the version of Theodotion) takes up 617 folios. On account of the aforementioned lacunae, the Old Testament text lacks the following passages: Gen., i-xlvi,28; II Kings, ii,5–7,10–13; Pss. cv,27-cxxxvii, 6. The order of the books of the Old Testament is as follows: Genesis to Second Paralipomenon, First and second Esdras, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles, Job, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the Minor Prophets from Osee to Malachi, Isaias, Jeremias, Baruch, Lamentations and Epistle of Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel; the Vatican Codex does not contain the Prayer of Manasses or the Books of Machabees.The New Testament begins at fol. 618. Owing to the loss of the final quinterns, a portion of the Pauline Epistles is missing: Heb., ix,14-xiii,25, the Pastoral Letters, Epistle to Philemon; also the Apocalypse. It is possible that there may also be some extra-canonical writings missing, like the Epistle of Clement. The order of the New Testament books is as follows: Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Catholic Epistles, St. Paul to the Romans, Corinthians (I-II), Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians (I-II), Hebrews.

In the Vatican Codex we find neither the Ammonian Sections nor the Eusebian Canons (q.v.). It is, however, divided into sections, after a manner that is common to it with the Codex Zacynthius (Cod. “Zeta”), an eighth-century Scriptural manuscript of St. Luke. The Acts of the Apostles exhibits a special division into thirty-six chapters. The Catholic Epistles bear traces of a double division, in the first and earlier of which some believe that the Second Epistle of Peter was wanting. The division of the Pauline Epistles is quite peculiar: they are treated as one book, and numbered continuously. It is clear from this enumeration that in the copy of the Scriptures reproduced by the Vatican Codex the Epistle to the Hebrews was placed between the Epistle to the Galatians and the Epistle to the Ephesians.

The Vatican Codex, in spite of the views of Tischendorf, who held for the priority of the Codex Sinaiticus, discovered by him, is rightly considered to be the oldest extant copy of the Bible. Like the Codex Sinaiticus it represents what Westcott and Hort call a “neutral text,” i.e. a text that antedates the modifications found in all later manuscripts, not only the modifications found in the less ancient Antiochene recensions, but also those met with in the Eastern and Alexandrine recensions. It may be said that the Vatican Codex, written in the first half of the fourth century, represents the text of one of those recensions of the Bible which were current in the third century, and that it belongs to the family of manuscripts made use of by Origen in the composition of his Hexapla.

The original home of the Vatican Codex is uncertain. Hort thinks it was written at Rome; Rendel Harris, Armitage Robinson, and others attribute it to Asia Minor. A more common opinion maintains that it was written in Egypt. Armitage Robinson believes that both the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus were originally together in some ancient library. His opinion is based on the fact that in the margins of both manuscripts is found the same special system of chapters for the Acts of the Apostles, taken from the division of Euthalius, and found in two other important codices (Amiatinus and Fuldensis) of the Latin Vulgate. Tischendorf believed that three hands had worked at the transcription of the Vatican Codex. He identified (?) the first hand (B1), or transcriber, of the Old Testament with the transcriber of a part of the Old Testament and some folios of the New Testament in the Codex Sinaiticus. This primitive text was revised, shortly after its original transcription, with the aid of a new manuscript, by a corrector (B2—For the Old Testament B2 is quoted by Swete as Ba). Six centuries after (according to some), a third hand (B3,Bb) retraced the faded letters, leaving but very little of the original untouched. According to Fabiani, however, this retracing was done early in the fifteenth century by the monk Clemens (qui saeculo XV ineunte floruisse videtur). In modern times (fifteenth-sixteenth century) the missing folios were added to the codex, in order, as Tregelles conjectures, to prepare it for use in the Vatican Library. Old catalogues show that it was there in the fifteenth century. The addition to the New Testament was listed by Scrivener as Cod. 263 (in Gregory, 293) for the Epistle to the Hebrews, and Cod. 91 for the Apocalypse. Napoleon I had the codex brought to Paris (where Hug was enabled to study it), but it was afterwards returned to the Holy See, with some other remnants of Roman booty, and replaced in the Vatican Library. There are various collations, editions, and studies of the Vatican Codex. The collations are:

that of Bartolocci (Giulio di S. Anastasia), formerly librarian of the Vatican; it was done in 1669 and is preserved in manuscript—Gr. Suppl. 53 of the Bibliothèque Natonale—at Paris (quoted under the sigla: Blc);

that of Birch (Bch) published at Copenhagen in 1798 for the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, in 1800 for the Apocalypse, in 1801 for the Gospels;

that executed for Bentley (Btly) by the Abbate Mico about 1720 on the margin of a copy of the Greek New Testament which was published at Strasburg, 1524, by Cephalaeus; this copy is among Bentley’s books in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge—the collation itself was published in Ford’s appendix to Woide’s edition of the Codex Alexandrinus in 1799;

a list of the alterations executed by the original copyist or by his correctors, edited at the request of Bentley by the Abbate Rulotta with the aid of the Abbate de Stosch (Rlt); this list was supposed to have perished, but it is extant among the Bentley papers in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, under the sigla: B. 17.20;

in 1860 Alford, and in 1862 Cure, examined a select number of the readings of the Vatican Codex, and published the results of their labours in the first volume of Alford’s Greek Testament.

Many other scholars have made special collations for their own purposes e.g. Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, etc. Among the works written on the Vatican Codex we may indicate: Bourgon, Letters from Rome” (London, 1861). In the second volume of the Catalogue of Vatican Greek manuscripts, executed according to the modern scientific method for the cataloguing of the Vatican Library, there is a description of the Codex Vaticanus. As to the editions of this codex, the Roman edition of the Septuagint (1587) was based on the Vaticanus. Similarly, the Cambridge edition of Swete follows it regularly and makes use of the Sinaiticus and the Alexandrinus only for the portions that are lacking in the Vaticanus. The first Roman edition appeared in 1858, under the names of Mai and Vercellone, and, under the same names, a second Roman edition in 1859. Both editions were severely criticized by Tischendorf in the edition he brought out at Leipzig in 1867, “Novum Testamentum Vaticanum, post A. Maii aliorumque imperfectos labores ex ipso codice editum,” with an appendix (1869). The third Roman edition (Verc.) appeared under the names of Vercellone (died 1869) and Cozza-Luzi (died 1905) in 1868–81; it was accompanied by a photographic reproduction of the text: “Bibliorum SS. Graecorum Cod. Vat. 1209, Cod. B, denou phototypice expressus, jussu et cura praesidum Bibliothecae Vaticanae” (Milan, 1904–6). This edition contains a masterly anonymous introduction (by Giovanni Mercati), in which the writer corrects many inexact statements made by previous writers. Until recently the privilege of consulting this ancient manuscript quite freely and fully was not granted to all who sought it. The material condition of the Vatican Codex is better, generally speaking, than that of its contemporaries; it is foreseen, however, that within a century it will have fallen to pieces unless an efficacious remedy, which is being earnestly sought for, shall be discovered.

U. BENIGNI

Thomas Codrington

(Died 1691?), Catholic divine, chiefly known for his attempt to introduce into England the “Institute of Secular Priests Living in Community,” founded in Bavaria by Bartholomaus Holzhauser. He was educated and ordained priest at Douai, where he taught humanities for a time. Later on he lived with Cardinal Howard at Rome, acting as his chaplain and secretary. He returned to England in July, 1684, and on the accession of James II in the following year, he was appointed one of the royal chaplains and preachers in ordinary. While he was in Rome he had joined the institute above mentioned, in which Cardinal Howard took a great personal interest, and his return to England seemed to the superior, Father Hofer, a favourable opportunity for extending the institute. Accordingly Mr. Codrington and his companion, Mr. John Morgan, were appointed procurators to introduce the institute into England. The object of the society, the constitutions of which had been approved by Innocent XI in 1680, was to encourage community-life among the secular clergy. This was to be attained by priests residing together, and doing their work from a common centre, all being subject to the bishop. In this work he received much assistance from Cardinal Howard, who addressed letters both to the secular clergy and to the dean of the chapter, exhorting all English priests to join the institute. Even before leaving Rome he had been active in propagating the institute, and had, with his colleagues, endeavoured not only to introduce it into all the English colleges abroad, but even to make it obligatory on the superiors by a decree. Some progress was in fact made, but before much could be effected the Revolution took place, and in 1688 James II fled from England. Mr. Codrington followed his patron abroad to Saint-Germain, where he continued to act as chaplain until his death, which took place about 1691. For some years strenuous efforts were made to spread the institute in England, and in 1697 special constitutions, designed to meet the peculiar circumstances of English priests, were published with a preface, which shows that several of the leading missionaries had joined it. The chapter, however, were unrelenting, on the ground that it was unsuitable in England and would lead to dissentions among the clergy, and ultimately Bishop Giffard suppressed it. Mr. Codrington published a sermon preached before the king and queen, 28 November, 1686, and another preached before the queen-dowager, 6 February, 1687. The former of these was republished in the 1741 reprint entitled “Catholic Sermons.”

EDWIN BURTON

Co-education

The term is now generally reserved to the practice of educating the sexes together; but even in this sense it has a variety of meanings.

Mere juxtaposition; this implies the use of the same buildings and equipment under the same teaching staff for the education of both sexes, but does not oblige the sexes to follow the same methods or to live under the same regimen.

Co-ordinate education; the students are taught by the same methods and the same teachers and are governed by the same general administration; but each sex has its own classes and, in the case of a university, its separate college.

Identical education; both sexes are taught “the same things, at the same time, in the same place, by the same faculty, with the same methods and under the same regimen. This admits age and proficiency, but not sex, as a factor in classification” (Clarke, op. cit. below, p. 121). It is in this third and narrowest sense that co-education has been the subject of widespread discussion for some time past. In the United States especially the practice has grown rapidly during the last fifty years, while in European countries it has developed more slowly.

EXTENT

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

At present co-education is practically universal in the elementary grades of the public schools of the United States. It also prevails to a large extent in the elementary grades of private and denominational schools, including those which are under Catholic direction, notably the parochial schools.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS

According to the Commissioner’s Report for 1905–6, there were in the United States 40 public high schools for boys only, with 22,044 students, and 29 schools for girls only, with 23,203 students; while the co-educational high schools numbered 7,962 having on their rolls 283,264 boys and 394,181 girls; the difference indicated by these last figures is noteworthy. During the same year there were under private direction 304 high schools for boys only, with 22,619 students; 500 high schools for girls only, with 27,081 students; while the private co-educational schools numbered 725 with an attendance of 26,487 boys and 25,568 gifts. From these statistics it appears that even in private high schools the number of boys is larger where co-education prevails than it is in schools exclusively for boys; and that the number of girls in co-educational schools is not very far below the number in schools exclusively for girls

HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Of 622 universities, colleges, and technological schools reporting to the United States Bureau of Education for the year ended June, 1906, there were for men only, 158; for women only, 129; for both men and women, 335. Comparison with earlier statistics shows a decided advance in co-education. In 1889–90 the women in co-educational colleges numbered 8075, in schools of technology, 707, and in colleges for women only, 1979; the men in all colleges numbered 44,926. In 1905–6 there were 31,443 women in co-educational colleges and 6653 in colleges for women only; the number of men students was 97,738.

The tendency in Europe, generally speaking, is to admit women to university courses of study. but under restrictions which vary considerably from one country to another. In Germany, women, for the most part, attend the university as “hearers,” not as matriculated students. The custom in England is that women should reside in colleges of their own while receiving the benefit of university education. There is also considerable variety in the regulations concerning the granting of degrees to women. Replies to an inquiry issued by the English Department of Education in 1897, with later revision (United States Commissioner’s Report for 1904, chap. xx), showed that of 112 universities on the Continent, in Great Britain, and in the British colonies, 86 made no distinction between men and women students, 6 admitted women by courtesy to lectures and examinations, 20 permitted them to attend some lectures only; of these 20 universities, 14 were German and 6 Austrian. The proportion of women students to the total enrollment in the universities of Central Europe is shown in the following table:—

[Table missing]

In England, provision for the higher education of women began with the founding of Queen’s College, London (1848) and Bedford College (1849). In 1878 the University of London admitted women to examinations and degrees. The Honor degree examinations of Cambridge were opened to women (students of Girton and Newnham colleges) in 1881; some of the Oxford examinations were opened to women (students of Somerville College and Lady Margaret Hall) in 1884; the Scottish universities admitted women in 1892; the University of Durham in 1895; the University of Wales from its foundation in 1893. In Ireland, both the Royal University and Trinity College, Dublin, receive women students. It should, however, be noted that the number of women following university courses in England is still comparatively small. In 1905–6, the colleges mentioned above in connection with Oxford had in residence 136 students, and those at Cambridge, 316. On the other hand, the movement is stronger in some of the recently founded universities. Thus the institutions for women affiliated with the London University (Bedford, Halloway, Westfield, and Royal Free Hospital) in 1905–6 numbered 628 students. It may therefore be said that co-education in Europe, though it has made a beginning, is by no means so prominent a feature of the schools as it is in the United States. Its growth and effects are for this reason best studied in American institutions; and in these the historical facts are the more important inasmuch as they are said to furnish ample justification of the policy.

CAUSES.—The explanation of these facts is to be sought in a variety of conditions, some of which are naturally connected with the general development of the country while others maybe called artificial, in the sense that they are the application of theories or policies rather than direct responses to needs, or final solutions of problems. Thus it is significant that co-education has found its stronghold in the Northern, Central, and Western States of the Union which profited most by the Congressional land grants of 1787 and 1862 and by similar grants on the part of the several States. It was easy to argue, on the basis of democratic principles, that institutions supported by public funds should offer the same advantages to all citizens. From the founding of Oberlin College, Ohio (1833), which was the first institution of its class to introduce co-education (1837), the policy spread at such a rate that by 1880 more than half the colleges, and by 1900 nearly three-fourths, had adopted it. In the more conservative East segregation was the general practice until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. But the precedent established by Boston University (1869) and by Cornell (1872) was soon followed by many other Eastern institutions.

A still more powerful factor has been the public high school, which since 1850 has held an important place in the educational system. Some schools of this class, notably those in the West, were co-educational from the start; others were opened at first for boys only, but eventually they admitted girls on the same terms; this was the case in the larger cities of the East. In 1891, only 15 out of 628 leading cities of the country had separate high schools, in 1901 the number had fallen to 12. The growth of these schools coincided with the movement in favor of higher education for women. The leaders of this movement insisted on the right of women to have equal advantages with men in the line of education; they quite overlooked or disregarded the fact that equality in this case does not mean identity. But any defect in their reasoning on the subject was more than compensated for by their enthusiasm and perseverance. Their efforts, however, were in accordance with the demands made by industrial changes. The introduction of labor-saving machinery which gradually brought about the factory organization of industry, took from woman, one by one, her traditional employments in the home and compelled her to seek new occupations in fields hitherto occupied exclusively by man: hence the very natural demand for equal educational opportunities, not merely to secure the more complete development of woman’s faculties, but also as a necessary means to equip her for her new position. The demand of course grew more imperative as the professions were opened to women. Once it was admitted that a woman might, for instance, take up the practice of medicine, it was quite obvious as a matter of public policy that she should receive the training given to every physician. How fully her claims have been recognized will appear from statistics given above of the growth of universities, colleges, and schools of technology since 1889.

The rapid spread of co-education aroused intense interest not only among educators but also in the mind of the public at large. The subject was discussed from every point of view, moral, medical, and economic, no less than educational. Special inquiries were sent out by school committees, State boards, and the United States Bureau of Education, with a view to obtaining statistics and expressions of opinion. Replies to these inquiries served as a basis for numerous reports, such as that of the Boston School Committee (Document 19, 1890) and that of the Commissioner of Education based on the inquiry of 1891. (See Commissioner’s Report for 1900–1901, chap. xxviii.) The outcome of the discussion may be summarized as follows: (I) the tendency towards co-education as a universal policy was freely admitted by all parties; (2) considerable divergence of opinion was manifested as to the wisdom of co-education, particularly in secondary schools; (3) in many cases the issue was obscured by treating co-education as though it were synonymous with the higher education of women.

In order to set this phase of the question in a somewhat clearer light, it should be noted first of all that the reasons advanced in favor of the higher education of women, valid as they certainly are, do not of themselves require that this education shall be identical with that given to men. Passing over for the present the question whether both sexes should study the same subjects by identical methods for the same length of time, or even supposing that this question should be answered in the affirmative, one is not thereby compelled to admit that co-education is the only acceptable policy. The efficient work of those colleges which are exclusively for women tells strongly in favor of separate education. On the other hand, it should be remarked that the unification of the schools into a system does not necessarily imply co-education all the way through. While endorsing the practice in the elementary school for certain reasons and in the university for other reasons, one may consistently refuse to approve its introduction in the secondary school. A third consideration turns on the moral factor. This is, and always has been, of paramount importance in Catholic education. Whatever advantages of an intellectual sort may be claimed for the co-educational school, these must, from the Catholic point of view, be waived if they cannot be obtained without danger to morality. This view of course is shared by many non-Catholic parents and teachers, some of whom have made it the basis of their criticism of co-education. Doubtless, too, it would have counted for more in the discussion if the whole problem of moral education had received the attention bestowed in late years on everything pertaining to purely intellectual culture. Where that problem is overlooked or lightly dismissed, some of the most serious objections to co-education naturally lose their force, while too much weight is attached to some of the reasons on the opposite side.

PRACTTCE AND ATTITUDE OF CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.—As noted above co-education prevails in most of the Catholic elementary schools. That women should also share in the advantages of higher education is quite in keeping with Catholic policy. An instance of this is the authorization granted by Rome for women to follow, under requisite conditions, courses at the English universities (Decision of Propaganda, July 13, 1907). Another is furnished by such institutions as the Anna-Stift, a university school for Catholic teaching sisters founded at the University of Munster in 1899 to meet the wishes of the German bishops. Instruction is given by university professors not in the halls of the university but in the institute itself, an arrangement that is equivalent to what has been mentioned above as coordinate education. (See Engelkemper in Cath. Univ. Bulletin, May, 1908.) But in secondary schools, the Catholic policy is decidedly opposed to co-education. The high schools, academies, and colleges for boys are altogether separate from those for girls. Boys are taught by male teachers, girls by women, usually religious. Nothing in fact so strongly emphasizes the Catholic attitude in this matter as the work of various orders of men established to teach boys, and of no less various orders of women to teach girls. This is the century-old practice of the Church, and it is observed in all countries. Catholics, moreover, have followed with interest the discussions concerning co-education; and though in many other respects they have adopted in their own work the methods approved by experience in non-Catholic schools, they have not been convinced by the arguments advanced in favor of the co-educational plan.

From the viewpoint of economy co-education might seem the wiser plan; but as a matter of fact, by increasing the number of pupils in each class it throws a heavier burden on the teacher and it makes difficult if not impossible that individual instruction, the need of which is now so generally recognized. A saving that impairs the efficiency of the school is hardly desirable. The advantage also that is claimed on the score of improved discipline, is more apparent than real. While the boys probably part with some of their roughness it is by no means certain that the delicacy of feeling and the refinement of manner that are expected in girls, gain much by the association. Moreover, if there is a demand for better discipline, the right way to meet it is to train teachers more thoroughly in the art of school management. A skillful teacher will easily control a class either of boys or of girls by arousing and maintaining their interest in what is really the work of the school. On the other hand, it can do no harm to young people, especially boys, to cultivate betimes a spirit of obedience to law for its own sake, and not merely teach them to behave themselves out of deference for the opposite sex. There is no doubt a decided benefit to be gotten from social intercourse, provided this is accompanied by the proper conditions. The place for it is in the home, under the supervision of parents, who will see to it that their children have the right kind of associates, and will not leave them to the chance companionships which the mixed school affords. It has often been held that the co-educational system extends to the school the “good effects that flow from the mutual influence of mingling the sexes in the family circle”; but this contention evidently overlooks the profound difference between the home situation which associates children by natural ties of kindred, and the situation in school where these ties do not exist. And it further forgets, apparently, that the home influence itself has latterly been weakened in many ways and by various causes; how far co-education has contributed to this result is of course another question. At any rate, it avails nothing to argue that because boys and girls live together in the same family, it is more natural that they should be educated in the same classes. When appeal is taken to the “natural” order of things, the decision is plainly in favor of separate schools.

On physiological grounds, identical education presents serious difficulties. As no arrangement has been devised, and as none can be devised, to make the conditions of study exactly the same for both sexes, co-education really means that girls are subjected to a regimen intended and conducted for boys. To the physical strain which is thus imposed on them, girls as a rule are not equal; in particular they are apt to suffer from that very rivalry which is often cited as a desirable feature of the mixed school. If education is to take as its first principle conformity to nature, it must certainly make allowance for differences of organism and function. This need becomes the more imperative in proportion as the dependence of mind upon organic processes is more fully realized and turned to practical account in educational work. It then appears beyond question that from a psychological standpoint woman should have a different training from that which men receive. There is no question here as to the superiority or inferiority of either sex, nor will it profit to say that “soul has no gender.” The fact is that each sex has its own mental constitution and its special capacities. To develop these is the work of education; but this does not mean that unlike natures shall be moulded into a superficial resemblance to each other. Even if it were desirable to have the finished product exactly the same in both sexes, it does not follow that this result is to be obtained by subjecting men and women to the same discipline. Educationists are agreed that the need of the developing mind is the first thing to be consulted in framing methods and in organizing the work of the school. They rightly condemn not only a system which treats the boy as though he were a man, but also any feature of method that fails to secure adaptation, even in detail, of the teaching to the present condition of the pupil’s mind. Yet many of them, strangely enough, insist that the same training shall be given to boys and girls in the secondary schools, that is at a period which is chiefly characterized by the manifestation of profound mental differences between one sex and the other. The attempt now so generally made to obviate the physiological and psychological difficulties of co-education by adapting the work of the school to the capacities and requirements of girls, can evidently have but one result, and that not a desirable one, so far as boys are concerned.

It must further be pointed out on vocational grounds that, since woman’s work in the world is necessarily different from man’s, there should be a corresponding difference in the preparation. Here again it is singular that while the whole trend of our schools is towards specialization in view of the needs of after-life, no such consideration should be had for diversity of calling based on diversity of sex. The student is encouraged to take up as early as possible the special lines of work that fit him for his chosen career in business, in literary work, or in any of the professions; yet for the essential duties of life, widely different as these are, men and women receive an identical education. However great be the share which woman is to take in “the public expression of the ideal energies, for morality and religion, for education and social reforms, and their embodiment, not in the home, but in the public consciousness “—it still remains true that her success as a supporter of these ideal endeavors is closely bound up with the right discharge of those du-ties which are at once the lot and the privilege of her sex. Any influence that tends to make those duties less sacred to her or less attractive, is a menace to her individual perfection and may lead to far-reaching calamity. The lowering of sex tension, which is the strongest argument brought forward to support co-education from the view-point of morality, turns out on closer inspection to be a fatal objection; it proves too much. The “indifference” which it is said to produce has its consequences beyond the limit of school-life, and these if left to work out their own results would be, as they undoubtedly are in many instances antagonistic to the essential interests of family and home, and eventually of the national life as well.

The element of religious instruction, essential to Catholic schools, has a peculiar significance in the present problem. It not only gives free scope to ideal and aesthetic tendencies, but it also provides effectual safeguards against the dangers to which adolescence is exposed. As President Hall has said, “every glow of aesthetic appreciation for a great work of art, every thrill aroused by an act of sublime heroism, every pulse of religious aspiration weakens by just so much the potential energy of passion because it has found its kinetic equivalent in a higher form of expression” (Pedagogical Seminary, March, 1908). The “prophylactic value” of religious training is, from the Catholic point of view, far greater than that of the conditions which co-education involves and on which it depends for the development of character and morals. But this value of course can be got only by teaching religion with the same thoroughness and the same perfection of method that characterizes the teaching of other subjects, and in such a way as to make the duties which religion imposes on both the sexes not merely pleasing items of knowledge, but also vital elements in habit and action. (See Education; Schools.)

THOMAS E. SHIELDS

Nicolas Coeffeteau

Preacher and controversialist, born 1574, at Château-du-Loir, province of Maine, France; died Paris, 21 April, 1623. Ha entered the Dominican convent of Sens, 1588, and after his profession, 1590, was sent to St-Jacques, the house of studies at Paris. There in 1595 he began to teach philosophy. On 4 May, 1600, he received the doctorate and was appointed regent of studies, which position he filled until 1606 and again from 1609 to the spring of 1612. He also served two terms as prior and was vicar-general of the French congregation from 1606 to 1609. At this time Coeffeteau had already acquired distinction by his preaching at Blois, Chartres, Angers, and in Paris. Queen Margaret of Valois had made him her almoner in 1602, and in 1608 he received the appointment of preacher in ordinary to King Henry IV. In June, 1617, he was proposed by Louis XIII and confirmed by Pope Paul V as titular Bishop of Dardania and Administrator of the Diocese of Mets. By his vigilance and zealous preaching he checked the spread of Calvinistic errors, renewed and re-established Divine services, and restored ecclesiastical discipline, especially in the great abbeys of Mets and in the monasteries of the diocese. After four years he was transferred, 22 Aug., 1621, to the Diocese of Marseilles; but ill-health kept him from his see. He secured François de Loménie as his coadjutor, but he himself remained at Paris until his death. He was buried in St. Thomas’s chapel of the convent of St-Jacques. Coeffeteau’s writings are chiefly polemical. Five treatises on the Eucharist were occasioned by a controversy with Pierre du Moulin, Calvinist minister of Charenton. Another series on ecclesiastical and pontifical authority was prompted by the action of the Fremich Protestants in relation to political and religious disturbances in England. At the request of Gregory XV, Coeffeteau wrote a refutation of the “De Republicâ Christianâ” by the apostate Archbishop of Spalato, Marc’ Antonio de Dominis. In all these writings, at a time in which partisanship was wont to be violent, Coeffeteau maintained an equable temper and a praiseworthy spirit of moderation, always handling his subjects objectively and dispassionately. His erudition was extraordinary and he was possessed of a rare and penetrating critical judgment. On the question of papal power and authority, Coeffeteau’s position is described as that of a modified Gallicanism. He held that the infallibility of the pope or of an œcumenical council was restricted to matters of faith and did not bear upon questions of fact or of persons. A council, he held, was not superior to a pope except in the case of schism, when it could depose the doubtful incumbent to elect one whose right and authority would be beyond question. In this Coeffeteau differed from the Sorbonne, which asserted the council’s superiority in all cases. Besides being called the father of French eloquence, Coeffeteau was a recognized master of the French language. He was the first to use it as a means of theological expression, and the purity of his diction, especially in his historical writings and translations, is admitted and commended by many excellent authorities.

QUÉTIF-ECHARD, Scriptores Ord. Prœd., II, 434; COULON in VACANT, Dict. de théol. cath. (Paris, 1906), fase. XVIII, col. 267; URBAIN, Nicolas Coeffeteau (Paris, 1894).

JOHN R. VOLZ.

Coelchu

Also COLGA, COLCU (Lat. Colcus)

A distinguished Abbot of the School of Clonmacnoise in Ireland, who flourished during the latter half of the eighth century. He had been a student of this school, and had devoted himself especially to the study of St. Paul, whom he looked upon as his special patron. Coelchu was remarkable for his learning, and was surnamed the Scribe, and also the Wise. Colgan (Acta Sanctorum Hiberniæ) mentions one tract from the pen of Coelchu which was then extant, and which was entirely of a devotional character. He is generally assumed to be the person with whom Alcuin apparently had some correspondence. A letter of Alcuin’s to him has been published by Ussher (Sylloge, Ep. xviii) and republished by Colgan. It is headed “Albini Magistri ad Colcum lectorem in Scotia. Benedicto magistro et pio patri Colcu Alcuinus humilis levita salutem.” There can hardly be any doubt that the Colcu spoken of was the Abbot of Clonmacnoise, and that the writer of the letter was Alcuin, not Albin the companion of Clement, though there is no reason for concluding from the style of the address that Alcuin had ever been a student of Coelchu’s at Clonmacnoise. In this letter Alcuin gives Coelchu an account of the state of religion on the Continent, mentions Joseph, one of Coelchu’s pupils then in France, speaks of disputes between King Charles and Offa of Mercia, on account of which he himself was likely to be sent as negotiator into England. This clearly proves that the letter was written shortly before 790. He sends Coelchu presents of money from King Charles and from himself for the monastery of Clonmacnoise and for other monks in Ireland, and asks their prayers for himself and the king. There is another reference to Coelchu in Alcuin’s letter to Joseph, mentioned already in the letter to Coelchu. Though Coelchu was spoken of as the Scribe or Doctor of all the Irish, none of his writings have come down to us.

COLGAN, Acta SS. Hiberniœ Louvain, 1645), 20 Feb., 378; USSHER, Sylloge (Dublin, 1632), Ep. xviii; WARE-HARRIS, Writers of Ireland (Dublin, 1739–64), 511; MABILLON, Annales O. S. B., ad annum 790; LANIGAN, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (Dublin, 1829) III, 228–232.

JAMES MACCAFFREY.

Theodore Coelde

(THEODORE OF MÜNSTER; THEODORE OF OSNABRÜCK; DERICK, DEDERICK, or DIETERICH, CÖLDE)

Friar Minor and missionary, born at Münster, in 1435; died at Louvain, 11 December, 1515. He was a different person from the Dominican, Theodore of Münster, and from the Augustinian, Theodore of Osnabrück; and was called Theodore von Münster (Theodoricus a Monasterio) from the place of his birth; and Theodore von Osnabrück from his father’s native town. Coelde made his first studies at Cologne, and entered the Order of the Hermits of St. Augustine at an early age. In 1454 he was received into the Franciscan Order in the Netherlands. When the plague broke out at Brussels in 1489, Coelde went about administering the last sacraments to the dying; and when the sacristan accompanying him fell a victim to the plague, Coelde attached the lantern to his girdle, and, with the pyx in one hand and the bell in the other, continued his ministrations. Before the end of the plague, more than thirty-two thousand had received the last rites of the Church from the heroic friar. In 1470 Coelde composed a brief, popular treatise on the truths of the Catholic Faith, entitled “Kerstenspiegel” or “Christenspiegel” (The Christian’s Mirror), which is considered to be the first German catechism. It went through thirty-two editions in Low German and two in High German, and came to be used throughout Germany and the Netherlands as the principal work of popular instruction in religious matters. At the request of his friend and admirer, Archbishop Hermann, he wrote a series of meditations on the sufferings of Christ, which appeared probably about the same time as the “Christenspiegel.” In 1618 the remains of Coelde were exhumed, and, after the suppression of the Franciscan convent at Louvain, were transferred to Saint-Trond, where they now repose behind the high altar.

SCHLAGER, Beiträge zur Geschichte der kölnischen Franziskaner-Ordensprovinz (Cologne, 1904), 190, passim; SCHOUTENS, Martyrologium Minoritico-Belgicum (Hoogstraeten, 1902), 211, 213.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

St. Coemgen

Coemgen (or Kevin), Saint, Abbot of Glendalough, Ireland, b. about 498, the date being very obscure; d. 3 June, 618; son of Coemlog and Coemell. His name signifies fair-begotten. He was baptized by St. Cronan and educated by St. Petroc, a Briton. From his twelfth year he studied under monks, and eventually embraced the monastic state. Subsequently he founded the famous monastery of Glendalough (the Valley of the Two Lakes), the parent of several other monastic foundations. After visiting Sts. Columba, Comgall, and Cannich at Usneach (Usny Hill) in Westmeath, he proceeded to Clonmacnoise, where St. Cieran had died three days before, in 544. Having firmly established his community, he retired into solitude for four years, and only returned to Glendalough at the earnest entreaty of his monks. He belonged to the second order of Irish saints and probably was never a bishop. So numerous were his followers that Glendalough became a veritable city in the desert. His festival is kept throughout Ireland. Glendalough became an episcopal see, but is now incorporated with Dublin. St. Kevin’s house and St. Kevin’s bed of rock are still to be seen: and the Seven Churches of Glendalough have for centuries been visited by pilgrims.

O’HANLON, Lives of Irish Saints (Dublin, 1875), VI, 28 sqq.; HEALY, Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1890); LANIGAN, Ecclesiastical Hist. or Ireland (Dublin, 1829), II; OLDEN in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.

COLUMBA EDMONDS

Coenred

(Or CENRED, also COENRÆD, COINRED, KENRED, and CHRENRED)

King of Mercia (reigned 704–709); date of birth and death unknown. He was the son of King Wulfhere and his Queen Eormengild. When Wulfhere died, in 675, Coenred was probably too young to succeed, and his uncle Æthelred ascended the throne. The A. S. Chronicle speaks of Coenred becoming King of the Southumbrians (a name very rarely used) in 702, and succeeding to the throne of Mercia in 704, when Æthelred retired to the cloister. Southumbria probably designates the northern portion of Mercia, which Æthelred recovered from Northumbria. It is inferred that the people of this region rebelled against Æthelred and chose Coenred for their king, and later induced Æthelred to resign the whole of Mercia in favour of Coenred in 704. A reaction against the Southumbrians took place in 709, when Coenred abdicated in favour of Coelred, the son of Æthelred. Coenred then accompanied Offa, King of the East Saxons, to Rome, where he received the monastic habit from Pope Constantine. He was present at a council of the Mercian clergy in 705, and his name appears on several charters granting lands to Waldhere, Bishop of London, to Cuthswith, Abbess of Worcester, and also to the Abbey of Evesham. It does not appear that he was ever married. A great lover of peace, and of a pious disposition, he was more suited for the cloister than the throne. St. Bede tells us that he befriended St. Wilfrid when in exile, and relates in detail his efforts to convert to a better life one of his chief nobles, who finally died in despair.

LINGARD, Hist. of England, I. iii; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ad ann. 702, 704, 709; BEDE, Eccl. Hist., bk. V, xiii, xix, xxiv; WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY, Gest. Reg. (Eng. Hist. Soc.), i, iii; IDEM, Gest. Pont., 239, 317, 351–2, 386; HADDAN AND STUBBS, Councils, III, 273.

G. E. HIND

Coeur d’Alêne Indians

A small tribe of Salishan stock formerly ranging along the lake and river of the same name in Northern Idaho, U. S. A., and now residing upon a reservation established in 1873 within the same boundaries. The name by which they are commonly known, signifying “awl heart,” is said, although doubtfully, to have been originally a nick-name given by the French traders to a chief of the tribe noted for his stinginess. They call themselves Skitswish. When first noticed by the American explorers, Lewis and Clark, in 1805, the Coeur d’Alêne were a wandering, poverty-stricken people, dwelling in mat-covered communal houses on the border of the lake, and subsisting chiefly upon fish and wild roots. In disposition they were peaceful, brave and honest, and at a later period, having acquired through the French and Iroquois employees of the Hudson Bay Company an idea of the Catholic religion, many of them, as well as the Flatheads, Nez Percés, and others, voluntarily adopted a system of Christian prayers and church forms. In 1841 the Jesuit, Nicholas Point, a companion of De Smet, established the Sacred Heart (now De Smet) mission among them, with such wonderful success that within ten years the entire tribe had become Christian, civilized, and comfortably self-supporting.

In his official report to the Indian Office in 1854, Governor Stevens of Washington says: “It is indeed extraordinary what the good fathers have done at the Coeur d’Alêne mission. They have a splendid church nearly finished by the labours of the fathers, laymen, and Indians; a large barn; a horse mill for flour; a small range of buildings for the accommodation of the priests and laymen; a store room; a milk or dairy room; a cook room, and good arrangements for their pigs and cattle. they are putting up a new range of quarters, and the Indians have some twelve comfortable log cabins. The church was designed by the superior of the mission, Père Avilé, a man of skill as an architect, and undoubtedly, judging from his well-thumbed books, of various accomplishments. Père Gazzoli showed me several designs for the altar, all of them characterized by good taste and harmony of proportion. The church, as a specimen of architecture, would do credit to anyone, and has been faithfully sketched by our artist, Mr. Stanley. The massive timbers supporting the altar were from larch trees five feet in diameter, and were raised to their place by the Indians, simply with the aid of a pulley and rope. They have a large cultivated field of some 200 acres, and a prairie of from 2000 to 3000 acres. They own a hundred pigs, eight yoke of oxen, twenty cows, and a liberal proportion of horses, mules, and young animals. The Indians have learned to plough, sow, till the soil generally, milk cows, and do all the duties incident to a farm. They are some of them expert wood cutters, and I saw some thirty or forty Indians at work getting in the harvest.” All this in thirteen years in the heart of the wilderness, two thousand miles from the frontier town of St. Louis.

The mission still continues to mould the tribal life, and official reports show that the same high standard is maintained, each year showing an advance in prosperity and general intelligence. The tribe is increasing, and numbered 492 souls in 1906.

Annual Report of the Commission of Indian Affairs (Washington, 1831–1906); LEWIS AND CLARK, Original Journals (New York, 1905); MOONEY, art. Missions in Handbook of American Indians (Washington, 1907); SHEA, Catholic Missions (New York, 1855); DE SMET, Oregon Missions (New York, 1847); STEVENS, in Report of Commission of Indian Affairs (Washington, 1854).

JAMES MOONEY

Edward Coffin

(Alias HATTON.)

An English Jesuit and missionary, born at Exeter, 1570; died 17 April, 1626, at Saint-Omer’s College. After studies at Reims and Ingolstadt he was ordained at the English College, Rome, and sent to England. In 1598 he entered the Society. On his way to the novitiate in Flanders, he was seized by the Dutch, near Antwerp, and taken to England, where he was imprisoned for five years. Banished from England in 1603, he acted for twenty years as confessor at the English College, Rome. He volunteered for England again, but died on the journey. He wrote the preface to Father Person’s “Discussion of Mr. Barlowe’s Answer” (Saint-Omer, 1612), Refutation of Hall, Dean of Worcester’s “Discourse for the Marriage of Ecclesiastical Persons” (1619), “Art of Dying Well,” from the Latin of Bellarmine (1621); “True Relation of Sickness and Death of Cardinal Bellarmine,” by c.e. of the Society of Jesus (1622), tr. into Latin, “De Morte,” etc. (Saint-Omer 1623 8vo.); “Marci Antonii de Dominis Palinodia” (Saint-Omer, 1623), tr. by Dr. Fletcher in 1827 as “My Motives for Renouncing the Protestant Religion”; “De Martyrio PP. Roberts, Wilson et Napper” (Stonyhurst MSS., Anglia, III, n. 103).

PATRICK RYAN

Robert Aston Coffin

An ecclesiastical writer and bishop, b. at Brighton, England, 19 July, 1819; d. at Teignmouth, Devonshire, 6 April, 1885. He received his secondary education at Harrow and in 1837 went to Christ Church, Oxford, where he took his B.A. degree with honours in 1840. He then prepared himself for the ministry and, having received Anglican orders from the Bishop of Oxford, he was appointed in 1843 vicar of St. Mary Magdalen, Oxford. While at Oxford he had become a follower of Dr. Newman, and like so many others who had joined the Oxford or Tractarian Movement he left the Anglican Church and was received into the Catholic Church at Prior Park on the feast of St. Francis Xavier, 3 December, 1845, two months after the reception of Dr. Newman. Having spent a year as tutor in the family of Mr. Ambrose de Lisle, he followed Newman to Rome to prepare himself for the priesthood, and was ordained 31 October, 1847, by the cardinal vicar. In the meantime Dr. Newman had been authorized by Pius IX to found the Oratory of St. Philip Neri in England. When, in June, 1848, the Oratory was established, Father Coffin with other convert priests joined it, and he was appointed superior of St. Wilfrid’s, Cotton Hall. The next year he followed a strong attraction he had felt since his conversion for the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, left the Oratory, and entered the Redemptorist novitiate at Saint-Trond, in Belgium. Having made his profession on 2 February, 1852, he returned to England and began his long and fruitful career as a zealous Redemptorist missionary. From 1850 to 1865 he was rector of St. Mary’s, Clapham and from the latter year till 1882 he held the office of provincial of the English Redemptorists. These offices, however, did not prevent him from zealously labouring with pen and tongue, for, from 1852 to 1872, he was almost constantly engaged in giving missions and clergy retreats throughout England, Ireland, and Scotland, and in publishing many ascetical books.

After the death of Dr. Danell, the second Bishop of Southwark, Father Coffin was chosen as his successor, and was consecrated in Rome by Cardinal Howard, in the church of S. Alfonso, 11 June, 1882, taking possession of his see on 27 July. After an illness of several months, borne with great fortitude, Bishop Coffin died at Teignmouth, in the house of the Redemptorists which he himself had founded when provincial. “Although his name was at no time conspicuously before the world, his influence had been widely and deeply felt, and few ecclesiastics in England were held in greater esteem or affection. By the publication of many of the works of St. Alphonsus, by his labours as a preacher and missionary in his younger days, by his numerous retreats, especially to the clergy, and still more by his government of the Province of the Congregation of the Most Holy redeemer in England, Scotland, and Ireland during nearly twenty vears, he performed a quiet, solid and enduring work which will be felt for many generations” (“The Tablet,” London). Among his publications are the following English translations of the Italian works of St. Alphonsus: “The Glories of Mary” (London, 1862, 1868), “The Mysteries of the Faith: The Incarnation” (London, 1854); “The Christian Virtues” (London, 1854), “The Mysteries of the Faith: The Eucharist” (London, 1855), “Visits to the Most Holy Sacrament” (London, 1855); “The Eternal Truths” (London, 1857); “A Devotion in Honour of St. Joseph” (London, I860); “The Mysteries of the Faith: The Redemption” (London, 1861); “Hymns and Verses on Spiritual Subjects” (London, 1863). He also published a translation of “The Oratory of the Faithful Soul” by Blosius (London, 1848), and several pastoral letters.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of Eng. .Cath., s. v.; The Tablet (London, 11 April, 1885).

B. GULDNER

Cogitosus

An Irishman, an author, and a monk of Kildare; the date and place of his birth and of his death are unknown, it is uncertain even in what century he lived. In the one work which he wrote, his life of St. Brigid, he asks a prayer pro me nepote culpabili, from which both Ware and Ussher conclude that he was a nephew of St. Brigid, and, accordingly, he is put down by them among the writers of the sixth century. But the word nepos may also be applied to one who, like the prodigal, had lived riotously, and it may be, that Cogitosus, recalling some former lapses from virtue, so uses the word of himself. At all events, his editor, Vossius, is quite satisfied that Cogitosus was no nephew of St. Brigid, because in two genealogical menologies which Vossius had, in which were enumerated the names of fourteen holy men of that saint’s family the name of Cogitosus is not to be found. Nor did the latter live in the sixth century because he speaks of a long succession of bishops and abbesses at Kildare, showing that he writes of a period long after the time of St. Brigid, who died in 525, and of St. Conleth, who died a few years earlier. Besides this, the description of the church of Kildare belongs to a much later time; and the author calls St. Conleth an archbishop, a term not usual in the Western church until the opening of the ninth century. On the other hand, he describes Kildare before it was plundered by the Danes, in 835, and before St. Brigades remains were removed to Down. The probability therefore is that he lived and wrote the life of St. Brigid about the beginning of the ninth century. His work is a panegyric rather than a biography. He gives so few details of the saint’s life that he omits the date and place of her birth and the date of her death; nor does he make mention of any of her contemporaries if we except St. Conleth, the first Bishop of Kildare, an Macaille from whom she received the veil. He gives the names of her parents, but is careful to conceal the fact that she was illegitimate, and that her mother was a slave. On the other hand, he dwells with evident satisfaction on her piety, her humility, her charity, her zeal for religion, the esteem in which she was held by all. And he narrates at length the many miracles she wrought, and tells of the numbers who came as pilgrims to Kildare, attracted by her fame. In his anxiety to exalt her he says she had as abbess authority over all the abbesses of Ireland, although as a matter of fact she could govern only those who followed her rule; and his statement that she appointed the Bishop of Kildare could not, of course, mean that she conferred any jurisdiction. Cogitosus writes in fairly good Latin, much better indeed than might be expected in that age, and his description of the church of Kiildare with its interior decorations is specially interesting for the history of early Irish art and architecture.

E. A. D’ALTON.

Diego López de Cogolludo

One of the chief historians of Yucatan. His work, the “Historia de Yucatan,” which appeared at Madrid in 1688, and was reprinted in 1842 and 1867, is an important work, full of information personally gathered at a time when older sources, written and oral, that have now partly disappeared, were accessible. Cogolludo consulted and used the writings of Bishop Diego de Landa to a considerable extent, but many of his statements must be taken with cautious criticism. He was a native of Alcalá de Henares in Spain, and took the habit of St. Francis at the convent of San Diego, 31 March, 1629. He emigrated to Yucatan, where he became successively lector in theology, guardian, and finally provincial of his order.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Hermann Cohen

A Discalced Carmelite (Augustin-Marie of the Blessed Sacrament, generally known as Father Hermann), born at Hamburg, Germany, 10 November, 1820; died at Spandau, 20 January, 1871. The son of a Jewish merchant, he devoted himself to music, which he studied under Liszt at Paris, where he joined a brilliant but frivolous circle, to the detriment of his morals. One day, in May, 1847, while leading the choir at Benediction in the church of Sainte-Valérie, he felt himself touched by Divine grace, and, after a short sojourn at Ems, resolved to become a Christian. Baptized 28 August, he instituted with De la Bouillerie the pious practice of the nocturnal adoration; he entered the Carmelite novitiate at Broussey, made his profession 7 October 1850, and was ordained priest 19 April of the following year. His fiery eloquence and the stir caused by his conversion made him a favorite preacher, notwithstanding insufficient studies. He was instrumental in the foundation of convents at Bagnères-de-Bigorre (1853), Lyons (1857), the Desert of Tarasteix near Lourdes (1857), and in London (1862), where he had been known during his artistic career. After some years spent in England he went on a preaching tour through Germany and France and ultimately to Tarasteix. At the outbreak of the Franco-German War he fled to Switzerland, and later on took charge of the lazaretto at Spandau, where he contracted smallpox. He was buried in St. Hedwig’s church, Berlin. Among his works are Le Catholicisme en Agnleterre, a speech delivered at Mechlin, also in English (Paris, 1864); Gloire à Marie (1849); Amour à Jésus (1851); Fleurs du Carmel; Couronnement de la Madonne; Thabor (1870), five collections of sacred songs with accompaniment, pious but somewhat shallow; this also holds good of his Mass (1856).

B. ZIMMERMAN.

Diocese of Coimbatore

(KOIMBATUR; COIMBATURENSIS).

The City of Coimbatore is the capital of the district of Coimbatore in Madras, British India, situated on the River Noyel. Its population in 1901 was 53, 080 of these 3, 000 are Catholics. The diocese embraces the Collectorate of Coimbatore (except the Taluk of the Collegal), the Nilgiris with the south-eastern Wynaad, the Taluks of Palgat, Collancodoo, Tamalpuram, and part of Wallavanad, the Chittur Taluks, and the Nelliampathy Hills in the Cochin territoty. In 1846 Coimbatore was separated from the Vicariate Apostolic of Pondicherry, and in 1850 was made a vicariate Apostolic. On 1 Sept., 1886, it was constituted a diocese, and the Right Rev. Joseph Louis Bardon, Bishop of Telmessus, who had been vicar Apostolic, was chosen as its bishop.

The total population of the diocese is 2,500,000, of whom 37,080 are Catholics. There are 41 European and 13 native priests. In the ecclesiastical seminary are 14 students. The diocese has 2 religious communities of men and 3 of women. There are for boys a second-grade college, a middle school, and a high school; and for girls eighteen convent schools. There are also 67 elementary schools, with 4239 pupils. There are 2 hospitals, 4 orphanages, and an industrial school.

LEO A. KELLY

Transcibed by Joseph P. Thomas

Diocese of Coimbra

Coimbra, Diocese of (Conimbricensis), in Portugal, suffragan of Braga, in the province of Beira. The cathedral city has 13,369 inhabitants. The first known bishop was Lucentius, who assisted (563) at the first council of Braga, the metropolitan See of Coimbra, until the latter was attached to the ecclesiastical province of Mérida (650–62). Titular bishops of Coimbra continued the succession under the Arab conquest, one of whom witnessed the consecration of the church of Santiago de Composotela in 876. The see was re-established in 1088, after the re-conquest of the city by the Christians (1064). The first bishop of the new series was Martin. Among the more famous bishops have been Pedro (1300), chancellor of King Diniz, and Manoel de Menezes (1573–78), rector of the university, who fell with Dom Sebastian on the field of Kassr-el-Kaber. The old cathedral of Coimbra, built in the first half of the twelfth century, partly at the expense of Bishop Miguel and his chapter, is a remarkable monument of Romanesque architecture; the new cathedral, a Renaissance building dating from 1580, is of little interest. The episcopal palace was also built in the eighteenth century. The principal monastery of the diocese is that of Santa Cruz, founded in 1131 by Alfonso VII, and for some time the most important in the kingdom by reason of its wealth and privileges. Its prior was authorized by Anastasius IV and Celestine III to wear the episcopal insignia. In 1904 the diocese had a population of 875,853, divided among 308 parishes.

Florez, España Segrada (Madrid, 1759), XIV, 71–96; Borges de Figueiredo, Coimbra antiga e moderna (Lisbon, 1886).

University of Coimbra.—The earliest certain information concerning a university in Portugal dates from 1288, when the Abbott of Alcobaza, several priors of convents, and parish priests, made known to Nicholas IV that they had obtained from King Diniz the foundation of a “Studium Generale” at Lisbon and had arranged among themselves to defray the salaries of the doctors and masters from the revenues of their monasteries and churches; they besought the pope to confirm this agreement and to protect the work they were undertaking “for the service of God and the glory of their country.” In a Bull of 9 August, 1290, addressed to the “University of the masters and students of Lisbon,” the pope acceded to their request and expressed his satisfaction with the creation of this new seat of studies. This Bull sanctions taxation of lodgings in the Paris and Bologna fashion, grants dispensation from residence to masters and students and authorizes the Bishop of Lisbon (or, sede vacante, the Vicar-capitular), to confer the jus ubique docendi on all faculties except Theology. Frequent quarrels between the students and the citizens led the King of Portugal to request the pope to transfer the new school to Coimbra, a more tranquil place, and to grant at the same time to the new foundation, all of the “privileges” of the former one. The transfer took place 15 February, 1308, on which date King Diniz issued the charter of foundation, quite similar to that of Alfonso the wise for the University of Salamanca in Castile. The sciences then taught at Coimbra were canon and civil law, medicine, dialectic, and grammar. Theology was taught in the convents of the Dominicans and the Franciscans. For reasons unknown to us, the university was again moved to Lisbon in 1339, by order of Alfonso IV. In 1354 it returned to Coimbra, only to be transferred to Lisbon in 1377. From this time until its final transfer to Coimbra in 1537, the university enjoyed greater prosperity. At the beginning of the fifteenth century theology appears regularly as one of the sciences taught there.

During the reign of John III (1521–57) important reforms were carried out, and the university reached the acme of its career. The faculties hitherto widely scattered in different edifices were brought together under one roof in the “Palacio del Rey,” new and illustrious professors were invited from Castile; for the faculty of theology, Alfonso de Prado and Antonio de Fonseca, the latter a doctor of Paris; for the faculty of law the famous canonist Martin de Aspilcueta (Doctor Navarrus), Manuel de Costa, and Antonio Suarez, all three from Salamanca; and for medicine Francisco Franco and Rodrigo Reinoso. The classical languages and literatures were taught in the Colegio de la Artes, as a preparation for the graver studies of the university; this college was at first quite independent of the latter, but was eventually incorporated with it and confided to the Jesuits. One of its first professors was the Scotch Latinist, George Buchanan, later a follower of John Knox and a reviler of Mary Stuart. The colleges of Sïo Pedro and Sïo Paolo were founded for graduates (doctors) who purposed to devote themselves to teaching; other colleges were founded for the students of various religious orders in which they might follow the common life while pursuing their studies at the university. New reforms were inaugurated in 1770, when (23 December) King José I, on the initiative of the Marquis de Pombal, appointed a commission to consider the reorganization of the university. The commission advised the creation of two new faculties, mathematics and natural philosophy, leaving intact the older faculties of theology, canon law, civil law, and medicine. New professors were brought from Italy, Michele Franzini for mathematics, and Dominican Vandelli for natural history. The former Jesuit college, confiscated at the time of the expulsion of the Society from Portugal, was turned over to the faculty of medicine for its clinics and laboratories. The laboratories for physics, chemistry, and natural history were also located there; finally a botanical garden was added. At the end of the eighteenth century, metallurgy was taught by José Bonifacio de Andrade, and hydraulics by Manoel Pedro de Mello, both scholars of repute. In 1907 the University of Coimbra had five faculties, theology, law, medicine, mathematics, and philosophy. Its professors numbered (1905–06) 68, and its students 2916. The library now contains about 100,000 volumes. (See Conimbricenses.)

, Die Entstehung der Universitèten des Mittelalters bis 1440 (Berlin, 1885), 519–534; Visconde de Villa-Major, Eposiïoa succinta da organisaïao actual da Universidade de Coimbra (Lisbon, 1892–1902), I-IV; Minerva, Jahrbuch des gelehrten Welt (Strasburg, 1907).

EDUARDO DE HINOJOSA.

Jean-Baptiste Colbert

Marquis de Seignelay, statesman, b. at Rheims, France, 1619; d. at Paris, 1683. Noticed by Mazarin and recommended by him to Louis XIV he became at the latter’s death, controller of finances. Through the control of finances he organized nearly every public service in France. Of him, Mme. de Sévigné said: “M. de Colbert thinks of finances only and never of religion.” This should not, however, be taken too literally. Colbert was deeply religious, but his religion was tinctured with the evils of the day, Gallicanism and Jansenism. It was Colbert who suggested to Louis XIV the convening of the famous Assembly of the Clergy in 1682 which formulated the four propositions of Gallicanism. In the conflicts which arose between the court of France and Rome Colbert used his influence against Rome. Protestants looked to him as to their protector. The Jansenist De Bourseys was his evil genius as well as his informant on religious questions. Influenced by De Bourseys, he failed to see the real danger of Jansenism, and by treating it with levity, gave it encouragement. The Colbert family gave to the Church a number of nuns and ecclesiastics. Charles Gérin says: “His sisters controlled the great abbeys of Sainte-Marie de Challot, of Sainte-Claire de Reims and of the LeLys near Melun. One of his brothers (Nicolas, 1627–1676) Bishop of Luçon and afterwards of Auxerre, having died, he caused to be appointed in his place his cousin André (1647–1702) who was a member of the assembly of 1682, with another of his cousins, Colbert de St. Pouange, Bishop of Montauban.” This passage omits the following three best known kinsmen of the great Colbert.

II. JACQUES-NICOLAS COLBERT (1655–1707)

Archbishop of Rouen. Fisquet (La France pontificale, Rouen, p. 253) describes him as a worthy and learned prelate giving his principal care to the training of his clerics. C. Gérin (loc. cit., p. 188), however, reproaches him for being worldly, a spendthrift, and, in spite of his pompous declarations of orthodoxy, no less sympathetic to Jansenism than his cousin, the Bishop of Montepellier.

III. CHARLES-JOACHIM COLBERT (1667–1738)

Bishop of Montepellier, and a militant Jansenist. He firt appeared to submit to the Bull “Vineam Domini” of Innocent XI, 1705, but when Clement XI issued the Bull “Unigenitus,” 1713, he openly sided with the appellants Soanen of Senez, de la Broue of Mirepoix, and Langle of Boulogne. The works published under his name (Montepellier, 1740) are probably, at least in part, from the pen of his advisers, Gaultier and Croz, who are moreover charged with the perversion of their master. In 1702, one of his priests, the Oratorian Pouget, published, at his request, the “Catéchisme de Montpellier” a remarkable book but tinctured with Jansenism and condemned by the Holy See, 1712 and 1721.

IV. MICHEL COLBERT (1633–1702)

An ascetic writer and superior of the Premonstrants. His election was somewhat irregular and had to be validated by papal rescript. He is the author of “Lettres d’un Abbé à ses religieux” and “Lettre de Consolation.”

FISQUET, La France pontificale (Paris, s. d.) under the various dioceses referred to above; G=C9RIN, Recherches sur l’assemblée du clergé de 1682 (Paris,1869); BESOIGNE, Vie des Quatre év=EAques engagés dans la cause de Port-Royal (Cologne, 1756); CLEMENT, Histoire de Colbert (Paris, 1875); RAPIN, Mémoires (Paris, 1865); JAL, Dict. critique (Paris, 1867); GAUCHIE in Rev. Hist. Eccl. (Louvain, 1903), III, 983; WAKEMAN, Europe (New York, 1905), 202.

J.F. SOLLIER

Henry Cole

A confessor of the Faith, b. at Godshill, Isle of Wight, about 1500; d. in the Fleet Prison, February, 1579 or 1580. He was educated at Winchester and New College Oxford, admitted a perpetual fellow there (1523), received the degree of B.C.L. (1525), and then went to Italy for seven years, residing chiefly at Padua. During his career he was successively prebendary of Yatminster (1539) rector of Chelmsford, Essex, prebendary of Holborn, sweting (1541), and Wenlakesbarn (1542), warden of New College (1542–51), and rector of Newton Longue-ville in Buckinghamshire. Created a D.C.L. at Oxford (1540), he resigned his fellowship the same year. At first he conformed to the Protestant religion but afterwards saw his error, returned to the Catholic Faith about 1547, and eventually resigned all his preferments. In Mary’s reign he became Archdeacon of Ely, a canon of Westminster (1554), vicar-general of Cardinal Pole (1557), and a judge of the archiepiscopal Court of Audience. He was one of the commissioners who restored Tunstal and Bonner to their bishoprics, a disputant against Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer at Oxford (1554), a delegate for the visitation of Oxford (1556), and Visitor of All Souls College in 1558, in which year he received the rectory of Wrotham, and was sent to Ireland with a commission for the suppression of heresy there. Cardinal Pole appointed Cole one of his executors. During Elizabeth’s reign he remained true to the Catholic Faith and took part in the discussions begun at Westminster in 1559. Then began his sufferings: first, he was fined 500 marks ($1600), then deprived of all his preferments, committed to the Tower (20 May, 1560), and finally removed to the Fleet (10 June), where he remained for nearly twenty years, until his death. He wrote: letters to Dr. Starkey and Sir Richard Morysin from Padua, 1530, and Paris, 1537; “Disputation with Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer at Oxford,” in Fox’s “Acts and Monuments,” “Sum and effect of his sermon at Oxford when Archbishop Cranmer was burnt,” in Fox’s “Acts and Monuments”; “Answer to the first proposition of the Protestants at the disputation before the Lords at Westminster 1559,” in Burnet’s “Hist. Reform. Records”; “Copie of a Sermon at Paule’s Crosse 1560” (London, 1560), “Letters to John, Bishop of Sarum” (London, 1560); “Answers to certain parcels of the Letters of the Bishop of Sarum,” in Jewel’s works.

G.E. HIND

Edward Coleman

A controversialist, politician, and secretary of the Duchess of York, date of birth unknown; executed at Tyburn, 3 December, 1678. He was the son of a Suffolk clergyman and, after a distinguished career at Cambridge, became a Catholic and was employed by the Duchess of York. As her secretary he became acquainted with continental statesmen from whom he sought pecuniary help when in difficulties. In 1675 he offered his services in favour of Catholicism to Père La Chaise, the confessor of Louis XIV; again in 1676 he was in communication with Father Saint-Germain, offering his assistance to prevent a rupture between England and France. These attempts to procure money failed, but he succeeded later in obtaining £3500 from three successive French ambassadors whom he supplied with daily information regarding the proceedings of Parliament. He became a suspected character, and on the discovery of the Titus Oates Plot, conceived in 1678 for the ruin of the Duke of York whose Catholicity was suspected Coleman was named as one of the conspirators. Conscious of his innocence he took no steps to protect himself, allowed his papers to be seized, and gave himself up for examination. He was tried 28 Nov., 1678, being accused of corresponding with foreign powers for the subversion of the Protestant religion, and of consenting to a resolution to murder the king. His defense was that he had only endeavoured to procure liberty of conscience for Catholics constitutionally through Parliament, and had sought money abroad to further this object. He denied absolutely any complicity with the plot against the king’s life. His foreign correspondence of 1675 and 1676, when examined, proved him to be an intriguer, but contained nothing that could connect him in any way with designs on the king’s life. However, in spite of the flagrantly false testimony of Oates and Bedloe, he was found guilty, drawn to Tyburn, and there executed. He was a good linguist, writer, and controversialist. His controversy with Drs. Stillingfleet and Burnet resulted in the conversion of Lady Tyrwhit to the Catholic religion. His writings were: “Reasons for Dissolving Parliament,” “Two Letters to M. La Chaise, the French King’s Confessor” (London 1678, reprinted in Cobbett’s “Parliamentary History”; “The Tryal of Edward Coleman” etc. (London, 1678); “Legacies; a Poem,” etc. (London, 1679).

G.E. HIND

Henry James Coleridge

A writer and preacher, b. 20 September 1822, in Devonshire, England; d. at Roehampton, 13 April 1893. He was the son of Sir John Taylor Coleridge, a Judge of the King’s Bench, and brother of John Duke, Lord Coleridge, Chief Justice of England. His grandfather, Captain James Coleridge, was brother to Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the poet and philosopher. He was sent to Eton at the age of thirteen and thence to Oxford, having obtained a scholarship at Trinity College. His university career was distinguished; in 1844 he took the highest honours in a fellowship at Oriel, then the blue ribbon of the university. In 1848 he received Anglican orders. The Tractarian movement being then at its height, Coleridge, with many of his tutors and friends, joined its ranks and was an ardent disciple of Newman till his conversion. He was one of those who started “The Guardian” newspaper as the organ of the High Church partly being for a time its Oxford sub-editor. Gradually various incidents, the secession of Newman, Dr. Hampden’s appointment as Regius Professor of Theology, the condemnation and suspension of Dr. Pusey, the condemnation and deprivation of W.G. Ward, and the decision in the celebrated Gorham case, seriously shook his confidence in the Church of England. In consequence Dr. Hawkins, Provost of Oriel, declined to admit him as a college tutor, and he therefore accepted a curacy at Alphinton, a parish recently separated from that od Ottery St. Mary, the home of his family, where his father had built for him a house and school. Here, with most congenial work, he was in close connection with those to whom he was already bound by a singular affection. His doubts as to his religious position continued, however, to grow and early in 1852 he determined that he could no longer remain in the Anglican Communion.

On Quinquagesima Sunday (February 22) he bade farewell to Alphington, and in April, after a retreat at Clapham under the Redemptorist Fathers he was received into the Catholic Church. Determined to be a priest he proceeded in the following September to Rome and entered Accademia dei Nobili, where he had for companions several of his Oxford friends, and others, including the future Cardinals Manning and Vaughan. He was ordained in 1856 and six months later took the degree of D.D. In the summer of 1857 he returned to England, and on the 7th of September entered the Jesuit Novitiate, which was then at Beaumont Lodge, Old Windsor, his novice master being Father Thomas Tracy Clarke, for whom to the end of his life he entertained the highest admiration and esteem. In 1859 he was sent to the Theological College of St. Bruno’s, North Wales, as a professor of Scripture, and remained there until, in 1865, he was called to London to become the first Jesuit editor of “The Month,” a magazine started under other management in the previous year. Then cornmenced a course of indefatigable literary labour by as which he is best known. Besides the editorship of “The Month,” to which, after the death of Father William Maher, in 1877, he added that of “The Messenger,” and for which he was one of the most prolific writers, Father Coleridge projected and carried on the well known Quarterly Series to which he himself largely contributed, both with his great work “The Public Life of Our Lord” and others, such as “The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier” and “The Life and Letters of St. Teresa.” Worthy of mention also is his Harmony of the Gospels, “Vita Vitae Nostrae,” a favourite book for meditation, published also in an English version. Studies based on the New Testament were his work of predilection, a taste which seems to have been acquired, at least in part from his old Oxford tutor, Isaac Williams. For a time he was also superior of his religious brethren in Farm Street, London. In 1881 failing health obliged him to resign “The Month” to another Oxonian, Father Richard F. Clarke, but he continued to labour on “The Life of Our Lord” which he earnestly desired to finish. In 1890 a paralytic seizure compelled him to withdraw to the novitiate at Roehampton, where, with indomitable spirit, he succeeded in completing his magnum opus before passing away. The chief sources for his life are articles in The Month, June, 1893, by his friend James Patterson, Bishop of Emmaus, and Father Richard F. Clarke, S.J.

JOHN GERARD.

John Colet

Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral and founder of St. Paul’s School, London; b. in London, 1467; d. there 18 Sept., 1519. He was the eldest son of Sir Henry Colet, twice Lord Mayor of London. Having finished his schooling in London, he was sent to Oxford, but no particulars of his life there have been preserved, not even the name of his college. While at Oxford he determined to become a priest and even before ordination obtained through family influence much preferment, including the livings of St. Mary Dennington, Suffolk, St. Dunstan, Stepney, and the benefices in the counties of Huntingdon, Northamptos, York, and Norfolk. In 1493 he began a tour through France and Italy, studying as he went and acquiring that love of the new learning which marked his after-life. Returning to England in 1496, he prepared for ordination, and became deacon on 17 Dec., 1497, and priest on 25 March, 1497–8. He lectured at Oxford on St. Paul’s Epistles, introducing a new treatment by abandoning the purely textual commentary then usual, in favour of a study of the personality of St. Paul and of the text as a whole. In 1498 he met Erasmus at Oxford, with whom he immediately became intimate, arousing in him especially a distrust of the later schoolmen. Colet’s lectures on the New Testament continued for five years, until in 1504 he was made Dean of St. Paul’s proceeding D.D before he left Oxford. In London he became the intimate friend and spiritual adviser of Sir Thomas More. At the death of his father in 1505 he inherited a fortune, which he devoted to public purposes. His administration of the cathedral was vigorous, and in 1509 he began the foundation of the great school with which his name will ever be associated. The cost of the buildings and endowments is estimated at forty thousand pounds in present value. The object was to provide a sound Christian education. Greek was to be at least of equal importance with Latin. William Lilly was the first head master, but Colet exercised a close personal supervision over the school, even composing some of the textbooks. In 1512 he was accused of advanced views and was in difficulties with his bishop, but on the trial Archbishop Warham dismissed the charges as frivolous. It may well be that Colet, irritated by obvious abuses and not seeing how far the reaction would go, used language on certain points which in the light of after-events is regrettable, but there can be no doubt as to his own orthodoxy and devotion. In 1518 he completed the revised statutes of his school. At his death the following year he was buried in St. Paul’s Cathedral. His school remained on its original site until 1884, when it was removed to Hammersmith.

Colet’s works are: “Convocation Sermon of 1512”; “A righte fruitfull admonition concerning the order of a good Christian man’s life” (1534); “Joannis Coleti Theologi olim Decani Divi Pauli Aeditio” (1527 and often reprinted), the original of almost all Latin Grammars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; “Opus de Sacramentis Ecclesiae” (1867), which with the following treatises, long preserved in MS., was finally edited by the Rev. J. H. Lupton, sur-master of the school; two treatises on the “Hierarchies” of Dionysius (1869); “An Exposition of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans” (1873); “An Exposition of St. Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians” (1874); “Letters to Radulphus” on the Mosaic account of the Creation, and some minor works (1876); “Statutes of St. Paul’s School” (often reprinted). Pitts (de Ang. Scriptoribus, Paris, 1619) gives several additional works by Colet, none of which are extant. Many of his letters are in the works of Erasmus.

The account of Colet by Erasmus in “Epistolae” (Leyden, III, cccxxxv, tr. LUPTON (London, 1883), was the foundation of most of his biographies published before the end of the seventeenth century. Since then there have been several lives published, none by a Catholic writer.-KNIGHT, “Life of John Colet” (London, 1724; republished Oxford, 1823; written with strong Protestant bias); SEEBOHM, “Oxford Reformers: Colet, Erasmus and More” (London, 1867); LUPTON, “Life of John Colet” (London, 1887). For a bibliography see LUPTON, “Introduction to Colet’s Letters to Radulphus”; GARDINER, “Register of St. Paul’s School” (London, 1884); LEE in “Dict. Nat. Biog.” (London, 1887), XI, 321–328, with account of various Colet MSS. Still existing.

EDWIN BURTON.

Nicola Coleti

COLETTI)

Priest and historian, b. at Venice, 1680; d. in the same city, 1765. He studied at Padua, where he received the degree of Doctor. He was sent to the church of San Mois=E8 at Venice, and there devoted himself to historical and antiquarian research. His first work of importance was a new edition of Ughelli’s “Italia Sacra” published in ten volumes from 1717 to 1722. Besides correcting many errors, Coleti continued Ughelli’s history to the beginning of the eighteenth century. Coleti then undertook the compilation of his large work entitled “Collectio Conciliorum.” Up to this time there had been two standard histories of the councils, that of Labbe and Cossart (Paris, 1671–72), and that of Hardouin (Paris, 1715). Baluze had begun a similar work, but only the first volume had appeared. Coleti’s collection was based on that of Labbe, though he availed himself of the labours of Baluze and Hardouin. The work was published by his brother Sebastiano at Venice from 1728 to 1733 in twenty-three volumes. The last two were called “Apparatus primus” and “Apparatus secundus,” containing the indexes, for which the collection was especially valuable. Other works of Coleti’s were “Series episcoporum Cremonensium aucta” (Milan, 1749); “Monumenta ecclesiæ Venetæ S. Moisis” (1758)—this is valuable to the historian for the ancient documents it makes known. Coleti also annotated a manuscript of Maffei now preserved in the Biblioteca Vallicellana at Rome and bearing the title: “Supplementum Acacianum monumenta nunquam edita continens, quæ marchio Scipio Maffeius a vetustissimis Veronesis capituli codicibus eruit atque illustravit, editum Venetiis apud Sebastianum Coleti anno 1728.” In addition to the above, two posthumous dissertations, said to have been published by his brothers, have been attributed to Coleti, but the only mention of them is found in an old catalogue.

VACANT, Dict. de théol. cath., s. v.; HURTER, Nomenclator; RICHARD AND GIRAUD, Biblioteca Sacra, s. v.; DANDOLO, La caduta della republica di Venezia (Venice, 1855).

LEO A. KELLY

St. Colette

(Diminutive of NICOLETTA, COLETTA).

Founder of Colettine Poor Clares (Clarisses), born 13 January 1381, at Corbie in Picardy, France; died at Ghent, 6 March, 1447. Her father, Robert Boellet, was the carpenter of the famous Benedictine Abbey of Corbie; her mother’s name was Marguerite Moyon. Colette joined successively the Bequines, the Benedictines, and the Urbanist Poor Clares. Later she lived for a while as a recluse. Having resolved to reform the Poor Clares, she turned to the antipope, Benedict XIII (Pedro de Luna), then recognized by France as the rightful pope. Benedict allowed her to enter to the order of Poor Clares and empowered her by several Bulls, dated 1406, 1407, 1408, and 1412 to found new convents and complete the reform of the order. With the approval of the Countess of Geneva and the Franciscan Henri de la Beaume, her confessor and spiritual guide, Colette began her work at Beaume, in the Diocese of Geneva. She remained there but a short time and soon opened at Besancon her first convent in an almost abandoned house of Urbanist Poor Clares. Thence her reform spread to Auxonne (1410), to Poligny, to Ghent (1412), to Heidelberg (1444), to Amiens, etc. To the seventeen convents founded during her lifetime must be added another begun by her at Pont-à-Mousson in Lorraine. She also inaugurated a reform among the Franciscan friars (the Coletani), not to be confounded with the Observants. These Coletani remained obedient to the authority of the provincial of the Franciscan convents, and never attained much importance even in France. In 1448 they had only thirteen convents, and together with other small branches of the Franciscan Order were suppressed in 1417 by Leo X. In addition to the strict rules of the Poor Clares, the Colettines follow their special constitutions sanctioned in 1434 by the General of the Franciscans, William of Casale, approved in 1448 by Nicholas V, in 1458 by Pius II, and in 1482 by Sixtus IV.

St. Colette was beatified 23 January, 1740, and canonized 24 May, 1807. She was not only a woman of sincere piety, but also intelligent and energetic, and exercised a remarkable moral power over all her associates. She was very austere and mortified in her life, for which God rewarded her by supernatural favours and the gift of miracles. For the convents reformed by her she prescribed extreme poverty, to go barefooted, and the observance of perpetual fast and abstinence. The Colettine Sisters are found to-day, outside of France, in Belgium, Germany, Spain, England, and the United States.

MICHAEL BIHL

John Colgan

Hagiographer and historian, b. in County Donegal, Ireland, about the beginning of the seventeenth century; d. probably in 1657. Having joined the Franciscan Order he was sent to study in the Irish Franciscan College of St. Anthony of Padua in Louvain. Here he is said to have acted as professor of theology for some time, but he soon forsook the professorial chair in order to devote himself to the Irish studies for which that college is justly famous. Father Hugh Ward (d. 1635) had projected a complete history of the Irish saints, and for this purpose had sent some of his brethren, notably Michael O’Clery, to Ireland to collect materials. Ward died before he could make any progress in his work, but the materials that had been gathered remained. Colgan, being a competent master of the Irish language, had thus ready at hand a collection of manuscripts unequalled in the department of Irish hagiology. He undertook a great work, to be published in six volumes, dealing with the whole range of Irish ecclesiastical history and antiquities. In 1645 he published at Louvain the third volume of this series (Acta Sanctorum Hiberniae, etc.), containing the lives of the Irish saints whose feasts occur in the calendar for the months of January, February, and March. The lives of the saints whose feasts occur in the succeeding months were to have been published in the last three volumes of the series. Wadding, in his “Annales Minorum,” informs us that the volume dealing with the saints for April, May, and June was in the press at Colgan’s death; this seems incorrect, since, if the work had been so far advanced, it would have been published by some one of the many competent colleagues who assisted Colgan.

The second volume of the series, entitled “Trias Thaumaturga,” etc., appeared at Louvain in 1647. It deals with the three great national saints of Ireland, Patrick, Brigid, and Columbcille. In it are contained seven of the ancient lives of St. Patrick, five of St. Columba, and six of St. Brigid. For a long time the “Trias Thaumaturga” was nearly the only source of information on St. Patrick, and even since the Whitley Stokes edition of the “Vita Tripartita” (Rolls Series), Colgan’s work cannot be dispensed with. It should be noted that Colgan gives a Latin version of the “Vita Tripartita” which represents a different text from that edited by Stokes; Colgan’s manuscript seems to have entirely disappeared. Besides the “Lives” in the “Trias Thaumaturga,” there are also contained in this volume many valuable “Appendices,” dealing with the ecclesiastical antiquities of Ireland, and critical and topographical notes, which, though not always correct, are of invaluable assistance to the student. In 1655 he published at Antwerp a life of Duns Scotus, in which he undertook to prove that this great Franciscan doctor was born in Ireland, and not in Scotland, as was then frequently asserted. In the “Bibliotheca Franciscana” Colgan is said to have died in 1647, but this is evidently a mistake, as a note in his work on Duns Scotus proves clearly that he was alive in 1655.

Colgan’s work on Irish hagiology is of undoubted value. Though unfortunately of very weak constitution, he was a man of great ability and industry, and with a sound critical sense. His knowledge of the Irish language enabled him to turn to good account the vast collection of manuscripts (now unfortunately for the greater part lost) which had been collected at the instigation of Ward, while his acquaintance with the traditions existing among the native Irish of his time, about the various names of persons and places, gave him an advantage over writers of the present day. It must be remembered, however, that Colgan, though a fluent Irish speaker, had not, and from the nature of things could not have, a knowledge of the grammatical forms of Old and Middle Irish. Hence his judgments about the dating of the manuscripts and about the meaning of certain difficult expressions ought not to be put forward as irreversible. In other words, Colgan should be judged by the criteria of his time; from this point of view his work on the ecclesiastical history of Ireland is unequalled. But his opinions are not decisive evidences of truth at the present day, especially when pitted against the view of the most skilled students of Old and Middle Irish grammar and texts. His principal works are: “Acta Sanctorum veteris et majoris Scotix seu Hibernix, Sanctorum Insulx, partim ex variis per Europam MS. Codicibus exscripta, partim ex antiquis monumentis et probatis Auctoribus eruta et congesta; omnia Notis et Appendicibus illustrata. Tomus primus qui de Sacris Hibernix Antiquitatibus est tertius, Januarium, Februarium et Martium complectens” (Louvain, 1645); “Triadis Thaumaturgx, seu Divorum Patricci Columbx et Brigidx, trium Veteris et Majoris Scotix, seu Hibernix, Sanctorum Insulx, communium Patronorum Acta, Tomus Secundus Sacrarum ejusdem Insulx Antiquitatum” (Louvain, 1647); “Tractatus de Vita, Patria, Scriptis Johannis Scoti, Doctoris Subtilis” (Antwerp, 1655). Besides these he left in manuscript “De Apostolatu Hibernorum inter exteras Gentes cum Dice Alphabetico de exteris santis” (852 pages); “De Sanctis in Anglia, Britannia, Aremorica, in reliqua Gallia, in Belgio” (1068 pages); “De Sanctis in Lotharingia et Burgundia, in Germania ad senestram et dexteram Rheni, in Italia” (920 pages). Some of these invaluable manuscripts, though eagerly sought for, have not yet been traced (see Gilbert, National MSS. of Ireland, London, 1884; or Doherty, op. cit. below, 81–82).

WADDING-SBARALEA, Scriptores Ordinis Minorum (ed. Rome, 1806; Quaracchi, 1908 sqq.); Bibliotheca Universa Franciscana (Madrid, 1732); WARE-HARRIS, Writers of Ireland (Dublin, 1746); DOHERTY, Inis-Owen and Tirconnell, being some account of Antiquities and Writers of the County of Donegal (Dublin, 1895), 49–52, 71–106; HYDE, A Literary History of Ireland (New York, 1902).

JAMES MACCAFFREY.

Diocese of Colima

Colima, Diocese of (Colimensis).—The city of Colima, the capital of the State of the same name in Mexico, is situated on the Colima River, at an altitude of 1400 feet, and was founded in the year 1522 by Gonzalo de Sandoval. Its population in 1900 was 20,698. The Diocese of Colima was erected by Leo XIII, 11 December, 1881, by the Constitution “Si principum.” Before its erection as a diocese, Colima formed part of the Archdiocese of Guadalajara (Guadalaxara), of which it is now a suffragan. It includes all the State of Colima and the southern part of the State of Jalisco. The population in 1901 numbered 72,500, many of whom are Indians.

Gerarchia Catt. (Rome, 1908); Konversations-Lex. (St. Louis, Missouri, 1903), s.v.

Frédéric-Louis Colin

Superior of the Sulpicians in Canada, b. at Bourges, France, in 1835; d. at Montreal, 27 November, 1902. After pursuing a course of scientific studies he entered the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice at Paris where he was ordained priest in 1859. Transferred to Canada in 1862 he at first took up parochial work; later he became successively professor of theology and director of the higher seminary at Montreal. From 1881 until his death he was superior of the priests of Saint-Sulpice in Canada. Colin distinguished himself both as an orator and as a man of action. Many of his sermons have been printed; among them are one to the papal zouaves returning from Rome (1871), and a funeral oration on Mgr. Bourget (1885). For twenty years Father Colin was the promoter in Montreal of higher education for the clergy and laity. For the clergy he founded the Canadian College at Rome (1885), intended to enable young Canadian priests to pursue a higher course of ecclesiastical studies by attending the Roman universities; besides this he established the seminary of philosophy at Montreal (1892).

For the benefit of laymen Colin established, despite many obstacles, the Laval University. Aided by Ferdinand Brunetière, on whom he exercised a salutary influence, he advocated the erection of a chair of French literature to be occupied by a lecturer from France, and he himself defrayed the costs. In this way he quickened interest in the French language and literature among the intelligent classes of Canada and introduced the custom of calling on French and Belgian specialists for the higher scientific and commercial instruction of young French-Canadians. To Father Colin is also due the practice of inviting a preacher from abroad to deliver the Lenten sermons at Notre-Dame of Montreal. His wise advice was also much sought for by the ecclesiastical and civil authorities.

L’Univers (Paris, 15 Jan., 1903); BRUNETIÈRE in Le Gaulois (30 Dec., 1902); Bulletin trimestriel des anciens élèves de Saint-Sulpice (February, 1903); Semaine religieuse de Montréal (6 and 13 Dec., 1902).

A. FOURNET

Jean-Claude-Marie Colin

A French priest, founder of the Marists, b. at Saint-Bonnet-le-Troncy, now in the Diocese of Lyons, 7 Aug., 1790; d. at Notre-Dame-de-la-Neylière (Rhône) 28 Feb., 1875. After his preliminary studies at St-Jodard, Alix, and Verrières, he entered the Grand-Séminaire de Saint-Irénée, at Lyons, and was ordained priest in 1816. The idea of a religious society dedicated to the Blessed Virgin originated with a group of seminarians at Saint-Irénée. Although the most retiring and modest of the group, Colin became the real founder. While serving as assistant pastor at Cerdon, then in the Diocese of Lyons, he drew up provisional rules which met the warm approval of such men as Bigex, Bishop of Pignerol, Bonald, Bishop of Puy, Frayssinous, minister of ecclesiastical affairs, etc. The town of Cerdon having passed to the newly reorganized Diocese of Belley, Colin obtained from its bishop, Mgr. Devie, permission to take a few companions and preach missions in the neglected parts of the diocese. Their number increased, and in spite of the opposition of the bishop, who wished to make the society a diocesan congregation, Colin obtained (1836) from Gregory XVI the canonical approbation of the Society of Mary as an order with simple vows. In the same year Father Colin was chosen superior general.

During the eighteen years of his administration (1836–1854) Colin showed great activity, organizing the different branches of his society, founding in France missionary houses and colleges, and above all sending to the various missions of Oceanica, which had been entrusted to the Marists, as many as seventy-four priests and forty-three brothers, several of whom gave up their lives in the attempt to convert the natives. In 1854 he resigned the office of superior general and retired to Notre-Dame-de-la-Neylière, where he spent the last twenty years of his life revising and completing the constitutions of the Society, impressing on them the spirit of the Blessed Virgin, a spirit of humility, self-denial, and unwavering loyalty to the Holy See, of which he was himself a perfect model. Two years before his death he had the joy of seeing the Constitutions of the Society of Mary definitively approved by the Holy See, 28 Feb., 1873. The cause of beatification of Father Colin is now (1908) before the Congregation of Rites.

Le Très-Révérend Père Colin (Lyons, 1898); Le Très-Révérend Père Colin (Lyons, 1900); Summarium processus ordinarii in causâ J. C. M. Colin (Rome, 1905).

J.F. SOLLIER

Coliseum

The Coliseum, known as the Flavian Amphitheatre, commenced A.D. 72 by Vespasian, the first of the Flavian emperors, dedicated by Titus A.D. 80. The great structure rises in four stories, each story exhiting a different order of architecture; the first Doric, the second Ionic, the third Corinthian, the fourth composite. The material is the famous travertine. The site was originally a marshy hollow, bounded by the Caelian, the Oppian, the Velian and the Palatine Hills, which Nero had transformed into the fishpond of his Golden House. Its form is that of an ellipse 790 feet in circumference, its length 620, its width 525, and its height 157 feet. The arena, in which took place the gladiatorial combats (ludi gladiatori) and with the wild beasts, for which the Coliseum was erected, was of wood, covered with sand. Surrounding the arena was a low wall, surmounted by a railing high enough to protect the audience from danger of invasion by the furious, non-human contestants. As an additional security against this peril, guards patrolled the passageway between this stall and the podium, or marble terrace, on which were the seats of the senators, the members of the sacred colleges, and other privileged spectators. From the southern side of the podium projected the suggestum, or imperial gallery, for the accommodation of the emperor and his attendants. Next to these sat the Vestals. Back of the podium twenty tiers of seats were reserved for the three divisions of the equestrian order; the upper tiers of seats were occupied by the ordinary citizens. Last of all was a Corinthian colonnade in which the lower orders were accommodated with standing room only. The Coliseum, according to the “Chronographia” of 354, could contain 87,000 spectators. Professor Huelsen (quoted by Lanciani), however, has calculated that it will seat not more than 45,000 people. From the external cornice projected a circle of pine masts, from which awnings could readily be suspended over parts of the audience for the moment exposed to the sun’s rays; the imperial gallery was covered with a special canopy. The arena was never shaded. Nothing is known of the architect of the Coliseum, although an inscription, afterwards shown to be a forgery, attributed its design to a Christian.

THE COLISEUM IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Although seriously damaged by two earthquakes in the fifth century, it is generally held that the Coliseum was practically intact in the eighth century when Bede wrote the well-known lines:

Quandiu stabit coliseus, stabit et Roma;

Quando cadit coliseus, cadet et Roma

Quando cadet Roma, cadet et mundus. (While stands the Coliseum, Rome shall stand; when falls the Coliseum, Rome shall fall; when Rome falls the world shall fall.)

Lanciani attributes the collapse of the western portion of the shell to the earthquake of September, 1349, mentioned by Petrarch. Towards the end of the eleventh century it came into the hands of the Frangipani family, with whose palace it was connected by a series of constructions. During the temporary eclipse of the nobility in the fourteenth century, while the popes resided in Avignon, it became the property of the municipality of Rome (1312). The last shows seen in the Coliseum were given in the early part of the sixth century, one by Eutaricus Cilia, son-in-law of Theodoric, in 519, and a second in 523 by Anicius Maximus. The story of a bullfight in 1332, in which eighteen youths of the Roman nobility are said to have lost their lives, is apocryphal (Delehaye, L’Amphithéâtre Flavien, 5). In 1386 the municipality presented a third of the Coliseum to the “Compagnia del Salvatore ad sancta sanctorum” to be used as a hospital, which transaction is commemorated by a marble bas-relief bust of Our Saviour, between two candles, and the arms of the municipality, above the sixty-third and sixty-fifth arches. During the next four centuries the enormous mass of stone which had formed the western part of the structure served as a quarry for the Romans. Besides other buildings, four churches were erected in the vicinity from this material. One document attests that a single contractor in nine months of the year 1452 carried off 2522 cartloads of travertine from the Coliseum. This contractor was not the first, however, to utilize the great monument of ancient Rome as a quarry; a Brief of Eugenius IV (1431–47), cited by Lanciani, threatens dire penalties against those who would dare remove from the Coliseum even the smallest stone (vel minimum dicti colisei lapidem). The story of Cardinal Farnese who obtained permission from his uncle, Paul III (1534–49), to take from the Coliseum as much stone as he could remove in twelve hours is well known; his eminence had 4000 men ready to take advantage of the privilege on the day appointed. But a new tradition, which gradually took hold of the public mind during the seventeenth century, put an end to this vandalism, and effectually aided in preserving the most important existing monument of imperial Rome.

THE COLISEUM AND THE MARTYRS

Pope St. Pius (1566–72) is said to have recommended persons desirous of obtaining relics to procure some sand from the arena of the Coliseum, which, the pope declared, was impregnated with the blood of martyrs. The opinion of the saintly pontiff, however, does not seem to have been shared by his contemporaries. The practical Sixtus V (1585–90) was only prevented by death from converting the Coliseum into a manufactory of woollen goods. In 1671 Cardinal Altieri regarded so little the Coliseum as a place consecrated by the blood of Christian martyrs that he authorized its use for bullfights. Nevertheless from the middle of the seventeenth century the conviction attributed to St. Pius V gradually came to be shared by the Romans. A writer named Martinelli, in a work published in 1653, put the Coliseum at the head of a places sacred to the martyrs. Cardinal Carpegna (d. 1679) was accustomed to stop his carriage when passing by the Coliseum and make a commemoration of the martyrs. But it was the act of Cardinal Altieri, referred to above, which indirectly effected a general change of public opinion in this regard. A pious personage, Carlo Tomassi by name, aroused by what he regarded as desecration, published a pamphlet calling attention to the sanctity of the Coliseum and protesting against the intented profanation authorized by Altieri. The pamphlet was so completely successful that four years later, the jubilee year of 1675, the exterior arcades were closed by order of Clement X; from this time the Coliseum became a sanctuary. At the instance of St. Leonard of Port Maurice, Benedict XIV (1740–58) erected Stations of the Cross in the Coliseum, which remained until February, 1874, when they were removed by order of Commendatore Rosa. St. Benedict Joseph Labre (d. 1783) passed a life of austere devotion, living on alms, within the walls of the Coliseum. “Pius VII in 1805, Leo XII in 1825, Gregory XVI in 1845, and Pius IX in 1852, contributed liberally to save the amphitheatre from further degradation, by supporting the fallen portions with great buttresses” (Lanciani). Thus at a moment when the Coliseum stood in grave danger of demolition it was saved by the pious belief which placed it in the category of monuments dearest to Christians, the monuments of the early martyrs. Yet, after an exhaustive examination of the documents in the case, the learned Bollandist, Father Delehave, S.J., arrives at the conclusion that there are no historical grounds for so regarding it (op. cit.). In the Middle Ages, for example, when the sanctuaries of the martyrs were looked upon with so great veneration, the Coliseum was completely neglected; its name never occurs in the itineraries, or guide-books, compiler for the use of pilgrims to the Eternal City. The “Mirabilia Romae,” the first manuscripts of which date from the twelfth century, cites among the places mentioned in the “Passions” of the martyrs the Circus Flaminius ad pontem Judaeorum, but in this sense makes no allusion to the Coliseum. We have seen how for more than a century it served as a stronghold of the Frangipani family; such a desecration would have been impossible had it been popularly regarded as a shrine consecrated by the blood, not merely of innumerable martyrs, but even of one hero of the Faith. The intervention of Eugenius IV was based altogether on patriotism; as an Italian the pope could not look on passively while a great memorial of Rome’s past was being destroyed. “Nam demoliri urbis monumenta nihil aliud est quam ipsius urbis et totius orbis excellentiam diminuere.”

Thus in the Middle Ages no tradition existed in Rome which associated the martyrs in any way with the Coliseum; it was only in the seventeenth century and in the manner indicated, that it came to he regarded with veneration as a scene of early Christian heroism. Indeed, little attention was paid by the Christians of the first age to the actual place of a martyr’s sufferings; the sand stained with his blood was, when possible gathered up and treasured as a precious relic, but that was all. The devotion of the Christian body centred wholly around the place where the martyr was interred. Father Delehaye calls attention to the fact that although we know from trust-worthy historical sources of the execution of Christians in the garden of Nero, yet popular tradition preserved no recollection of all event so memorable (op. cit., 37). The Acts of Roman Martyrs, it is true, contain indications as to the places where various martyrs suffered: in amphitheatro, in Tellure, etc. But these Acts are often merely pious legends of the fifth, sixth, and following centuries built up by unknown writers on a feast reliable historical facts. The decree formerly attributed to Pope Gelasius (492–96) bears witness to the slight consideration in which this class of literature was held in the Roman Church; to read it in the churches was forbidden, and it was attributed to unknown writers, wholly unqualified for their self-imposed task (secundum antiquam consuetudinem, leguntur, quia et eorum qui conscripsere nomina penitus ignorantur, et ab infidelibus et idiotis superflua aut minus apta quam rei ordo fuerit esse putantur.—Thiel. Epist. Rom. Pont., I, 458). The evidence, therefore, which we possess in the Roman Acts in favour of certain martyrs suffering in the Coliseum is, for these reasons among others, regarded by Father Delehaye as inconclusive. He does not deny that there may have been martyrs who suffered in the Coliseum, but we know nothing on the subject one way or the other. (Je ne veux pas nier qu’il y ait eu des martyrs de l’amphithéâtre Flavien; mais nous ne savons pas non plus s’il y en a eu, et en tout cas leurs noms nous sont inconnus.—Op. cit., 37.) It is, of course, probable enough that some of the Christians condemned ad bestias suffered in the Coliseum, but there is just as rnuch reason to suppose that they met their death in one of the other places dedicated to the cruel amusements of imperial Rome; for instance, in the Circus Flaminius, the Gaianum, the Circus of Hadrian, the Amphitheatrum Castrense, and the Stadium of Domitian. Even as regards St. Ignatius of Antioch, the evidence that he was martyred in the Coliseum is far from decisive, the terms employed by St. John Chrysostom and Evagrius in reference to this matter convey no precise meaning (Delehaye, op. cit. 43). The same is true of the term used by Theodoret in reference to the death of St. Telemachus, who sacrificed his life to put an end to the bloody spectacles which, as late as the early fifth century, took place in Rome. There is no reason to doubt the fact of the heroic death of St. Telemachus, but there is, on the other hand, no clear proof that its scene was the Coliseum. Theodoret, the only writer who records the incident, says that it happened eis to stadio (in the stadium), a different place from the Coliseum.

MAURICE M. HASSET

Diego Collado

A missionary, born in the latter part of the sixteenth century at Miajadas, in the province of Estremadura, Spain. He entered the Dominican Order at Salamanca about 1600, and in 1619 went to Japan, where the Christians were suffering persecution. After the martyrdom of Luis Flóres, a fellow-Dominican, in 1622, Collado repaired to Rome, and later to Spain, in the interest of Oriental missions. He obtained important concessions, though not without incuring some animosity. Bearing Apostolic and royal letters, he returned to the Orient in 1635. The following year he endeavoured to establish in the Philippines an independent convent devoted solely to the Chinese and Japanese missions, but, owing to the opposition of the Spanish civil authorities, his effort was unsuccessful. Recalled to Spain, he was shipwrecked, in1638, on his way to Manila. He could have saved himself, but he remained with the unfortunates among his fellow-voyagers, hearing their confessions and preparing them for death. The following are his more important writings: “Ars grammatica japonicae linguae” (Rome, 1631, 1632); “Dictionarium sive thesauri linguae japonicae compendium” (Rome, 1632); “Modus confitendi et examinandi paenitentem japonensem formula suamet lingua japonica,” (Rome 1631, 1632); “ Formula protestandae fidei,” (Rome); “Historia eclesiástica de los sucesos de la cristianidad del Japón desde el año de MDCII, que entró en él la orden de predicadores hasta el de MDCXXI por el P. Hiacintho Orfanel, anadida hasta el fin del ano MDCXXII por el Padre Fray Diego Collado” (Madrid, 1632, 1633); “Dictionarium linguae sinensis cum explicatione latina et hispanica charactere sinensi et latino” (Rome, 1632).

JOHN R. VOLZ.

Collect

The name now used only for short prayers before the Epistle in the Mass, which occur again at Lauds, Terce, Sext, None, and Vespers. The word collecta corresponds to the Greek synaxis. It is a noun, a late form for collectio (so missa for missio, oblata for oblatio, ascensa, in the Gelasian Sacramentary, for ascensio, etc.). The original meaning seems to have been this: it was used for the service held at a certain church on the days when there was a station somewhere else. The people gathered together and became a “collection” at this first church; after certain prayers had been said they went in procession to the station-church. Just before they started the celebrant said a prayer, the oratio ad collectam (ad collectionem populi); the name would then be the same as oratio super populum, a title that still remains in our Missal, in Lent for instance after the Post-Communion. This prayer, the collect, would be repeated at the beginning of the Mass at the station itself (Bona, Rer. liturg., II, 5). Later writers find other meanings for the name. Innocent III says that in this prayer the priest collects together the prayers of all the people (De Sacr. altaris myst., II, 27; see also Benedict XIV, De SS. Missæ sacr., II, 5). The Secret and Post-Communion are also collects, formed on the same model as the one before the Epistle. Now the name is only used for the first of the three. Originally there was only one collect (and one Secret and Post-Communion) for each Mass. The older sacramentaries never provide more than one. Amalarius of Metz (d. 857) says (De officiis eccl., in P.L., CV, 985 sqq.) that in his time some priests began to say more than one collect, but that at Rome only one was used. Micrologus [De eccl. observ., probably by Bernold of Constance (d.1100), in P.L., CLI, 973 sqq.] defends the old custom and says that “one Prayer should be said, as one Epistle and one Gospel.” However, the number of collects was multiplied till gradually our present rule was evolved.

The way in which our collects are now said at Mass is the fragment of a more elaborate rite. Of this longer rite we still have a vestige on Good Friday. The celebrant, after greeting the people (Dominus vobiscum), invited them to pray for some intention: Oremus, dilectissimi nobis, etc. The deacon said: Flectamus genua, and all knelt for a time in silent prayer. The subdeacon then told them to stand up again (Levate), and, all standing, the celebrant closed the private prayers with the short form that is the collect. Of this rite—except on Good Friday—the shortening of the Mass, which has affected all its parts, has only left the greeting Oremus and the collect itself. Here, as always, it is in Holy Week that we find the older form. It should be noted, then, that the Oremus did not refer immediately to the collect, but rather to the silent prayer that went before it. This also explains the shortness of the older collects. They are not the prayer itself, but its conclusion. One short sentence summed up the petitions of the people. It is only since the original meaning of the collect has been forgotten that it has become itself a long petition with various references and clauses (compare the collects for the Sundays after Pentecost with those for the modern feasts). On all feast-days the collect naturally contains a reference to the event whose memory we celebrate. Its preparation is the kissing of the altar and the Dominus vobiscum. Before inviting the people to make this prayer the celebrant greets them, and, before turning his back to the altar in order to do so, he salutes it in the usual way by kissing it. The form Dominus vobiscum is the common greeting in the West. It occurs in the Gallican, Milanese, and Mozarabic Liturgies under the form: Dominus sit semper vobiscum. Germanus of Paris notes it as the priest’s (not bishop’s) greeting (P.L., LXXVII, 89). It is taken from the Bible. When Booze came from Bethlehem he said, “The Spirit be with you,” to the reapers (Ruth, ii, 4), and St. Gabriel used the same form to Our Lady at the Annunciation (Luke, i, 28; cf. II Thess., iii, 16). A bishop here says, Pax vobis, unless the Mass has no Gloria, in which case his greeting is the same as that of the priest (Ritus celebr., V, I). This distinction is as old as the tenth century (Ordo Rom., XIV, 79, notes it). The Pax is a joyful and solemn greeting to be left out on days of penance. Its connection with the Gloria, that has just gone before (et in terra pax hominibus), is obvious. The greeting of peace (eirene pasin) is the common one in the Eastern liturgies. In either case the answer is: Et cum spiritu tuo. This is a Hebraism that occurs constantly in both the Old and the New Testament. “Thy spirit” simply means “thee” (Cf. e.g. Dan., iii, 86; Gal., vi, 18; Phil., iv, 23; Philem., 25). Nefesh (Heb.), Nafs (Ar.), with a pronominal suffix, in all Semitic languages means simply the person in question. The Eastern liturgies have the same answer, kai meta tou pneumatos sou (and with thy spirit), as in the Apostolic Constitutions (Brightman, Eastern Lit. 3, 13), or kai to pneumati sou (ibid., 49, 137, etc.).

At the Dominus vobiscum the celebrant, facing the people, extends and then again joins his hands. It is here a gesture of greeting. With folded hands he turns back to the altar and goes to the Missal at the Epistle side. Here, again extending and joining the hands and bowing towards the cross, he sings or says Oremus, and then, with uplifted hands (not above the shoulder, Ritus Celebr., V, 1), goes on at once with the collect or collects. The present rule about the collects is this: on doubles only one collect is said (that of the feast), unless any other feast be commemorated, or the pope or bishop order an oratio imperata. The imperata is, moreover, omitted on doubles of the first class, Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, the eves of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsunday, in Requiems, and solemn votive Masses. On doubles of the second class it is left out in high and sung Masses, and may be said at the others or not, at the celebrant’s discretion. For a very grave cause an imperata may be ordered to be said always, even on these occasions. It always comes last (De Herdt, I, 72). The collect of the Blessed Sacrament, to be said when it is exposed, and that for the pope or bishop on the anniversary of their election, coronation, or consecration, are particular cases of imperatæ. The rules for commemoration of feasts, octaves, ember days, and ferias of Advent and Lent are given in the rubrics of the Missal (Rubr. Gen., VII; cf. De Herdt, I, 70–71). On semi-doubles, Sundays, and days within an octave, three collects must be said; but on Passion Sunday, on Sundays within an octave and throughout the octaves of Easter and Whitsunday there are only two (Rubr. Gen., IX; De Herdt, I, 75, where the rules for these collects will found). But in these cases the number may be greater, if there are commemorations. On simples, ferias, and in Requiems and (not solemn) votive Masses, the celebrant may also add collects, as he chooses, provided the total number be an uneven one and do not exceed seven (Rubr. Gen., IX, 12; De Herdt, I, 83).

The rule about the uneven numbers, on which the S. Congr. Rit, has insisted several times (2 December, 1684; 2 September, 1741; 30 June, 1896), is a curious one. The limit of seven prevents the Mass from being too long. In any case the collect of the day always comes first. It has Oremus before it and the long conclusion (Per Dominum, etc.). The second collect has a second Oremus, and all that follow are joined together without intermediate ending nor Oremus till the last, which again has the long conclusion. This separates the collect of the day from the others and gives it a special dignity, as a remnant of the old principle that it alone should be said. The conclusions of the collects vary according to their form and references (Rubr. Gen., IX, 17). The people (choir or server answer Amen. During the conclusions the celebrant folds his hands and bows towards the cross at the words Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. It should be noted that the great majority of the collects are addressed to God the Father (so all the old ones; the common form is to begin: Deus, qui); a few later ones (as on Corpus Christi, for example) are addressed to God the Son, none to the Holy Ghost. At low Mass collects are said aloud so that they can be heard by the people, at high (or sung) Mass they are sung to the festive tone on doubles, semi-doubles, and Sundays. On simples, ferias, and in Masses for the dead, they have the simple ferial tone (entirely on one note, fa). The rules of the tones, with examples, are in the “Cæremoniale Episcoporum” I, xxvii. At high Mass the deacon and subdeacon stand in a straight line behind the celebrant (the deacon on the top step, the subdeacon in plano) with joined hands. At the collects, in high Mass, the people should stand. This is the old position for public prayer; originally the subdeacon explicitly told them to do so (Levate). The custom of standing during the collects, long neglected, is now being happily revived. At low Mass they kneel all the time except during the Gospel (Rubr. Gen., XVII, 2).

“Rubricæ generales Missalis,” VII, IX, XVI, XVII; “Ritus celebrandi,” V”; Cæremoniale Episcoporum,” I, xxvii; BENEDICT XIV, “De SS. Missæ Sacrificio,” II, v; GIHR, “Das heilige Messopfer” (Freiburg im Br., 1897), II §39, 374–399. See also the sacramentaries, texts, and commentaries quoted in the article .

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Collectarium

(Sometimes COLLECTARIUS, COLLECTANEUM, ORATIONALE, CAPITULARE), the book which contains the Collects. In the Proprium de Tempore of the Roman Missal the title Statio, with the name of some saint or mystery, is frequently prefixed to the Introit of the Mass. It signifies that in early times, probably down to the fourteenth century, the clergy and people celebrated on those days the Divine mysteries in the churches dedicated in honour of that saint or mystery. Before going in procession to the statio they assembled in some nearby church to receive the pontiff, who recited a prayer which was called the Collect. This name was given to the prayer either because it was recited for the assembled people, or because it contained the sum and substance of all favours asked by the pontiff for himself and the people, or because in an abridged form it represented the spirit and fruit of the feast or mystery. In course of time it was used to signify the prayers, proper, votive, or prescribed by the ecclesiastical superiors (imperatæ), recited before the Epistle, as well as the Secrets and the Post-Communions. Later it was applied to the prayers said at Divine Office or any liturgical service.

ZACCARIA, Bibliotheca Ritualis (Rome, 1776), I; BERNARD, Cours de Liturgie Romaine: La Messe (Paris, 1898), II; VAN DER STAPPEN, Sacra Liturgia (Mechlin, 1902), II; CARPO, Compendiosa Bibliotheca Liturgica (Bologna, 1879); GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, tr. (St. Louis, Missouri, 1903).

A.J. SCHULTE

Collections

The offerings of the faithful in their special relation to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will claim fuller and more general treatment under and (Pt. B, §(1), (c); text p. 20). We will confine ourselves here to the particular development which took the form of a contribution in money, corresponding particularly to what is conveyed by the French word quête. Of collections for general church purposes we find mention already in the days of St. Paul, for we read in I Cor., xvi, 1–2: “Now concerning the collections that are made for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye also. On the first day of the week let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him; that when I come, the collections be not then to be made.” This seems to imply that on every Sunday (the first day of the week) contributions were made, probably when the faithful assembled for “the breaking of bread” (Acts, xx, 7), and that then contributions were put by, if not required for some immediate and local need, e. g. the relief of the poor, in order that St. Paul might assign them for the use of other more destitute churches at a distance (cf. II Cor., viii and ix). How far such offerings were allocated to the support of the clergy and how far to the poor there is nothing to tell us, but it is plain that as a matter of principle the claims both of the clergy and of the poor were recognized from the very first. (For the clergy see I Cor., ix, 8–11; II Thess., iii, 8; I Tim., v, 17–18; and for the poor see Acts, iv, 34–35, vi, 1, xi, 29–30; I Tim., v, 16, etc.) Again there can be no doubt that from an early date such alms were administered according to some organized system. The very institution of deacons and deaconesses proves this, and we can appeal to the existence in certain places, for example at Jerusalem, of a roll (breve ecclesiasticum, see the recently recovered “Life of St. Melania,” § 35) bearing the names of those in receipt of relief. Gregory of Tours gives the name of matricularii (De Mirac. B. Martin., iii, 22) to those who were entered on this roll. Speaking generally, the allocation of all offerings was recognized as belonging to the bishop (i. e. in the period before the modern system of parishes and parish priests had evolved itself with any clearness), and the rule was formally enunciated in the West that all offerings were to be divided by the bishop into four parts: the first for the clergy, the second for the poor, the third for the fabric and up-keep of the churches, and the last part for the bishop himself, that he might the better exercise the hospitality which was expected of him. This arrangement seems to date back at least to the time of Pope Simplicius (475), and a hundred years later it is stated by Pope Gregory the Great in the following form when he was consulted by St. Augustine about the English Church which he had just founded: “It is the custom of the Apostolic See to deliver to ordained bishops precepts that of every oblation which is made there ought to be four portions, one, to wit, for the bishop and his household, on account of hospitality and entertainment, another for the clergy, a third for the poor, a fourth for the repairing of churches” (Bede, Hist. Eccles., I, xxvi).

At a latter date we find some modification of this rule for in the Capitularies of Louis the Pious a third of the offerings are assigned to the clergy and two-thirds to the poor in more prosperous districts, while a half is to be given to each in poorer ones. During all this earlier period offereings in money do not seem to have been connected with the Sacrifice of the Mass, but they were either put into an alms-box permanently set up in the church or they were given in collections made on certain specified occasions. With regard to the former Tertullian already speaks (Apol., xxxix, Migne, P. L., I, 470) of “some sort of chest” which stood in the church and to which the faithful contributed without compulstion. It seems to have been commonly called gazophylacium or corbona (Cyprian, “De op. et eleemos.”; Jerome, Ep. xxvii, 14). The collections on the other hand probably took place on days of which notice was given beforehand. Apart from a mention in the “Apology” of Justin Martyr (I, lxvii), from which we should suppose that a collection was made every Sunday, our principal source of information is the series of six sermons “De Collectis,” delivered by St. Leo the Great in different years of his pontificate (Migne, P. L., LIV, 158–168). All these, according to the brothers Bullerini, probably have reference to a collection annually made on 6 July, on which day in pagan times certain games were held in honour of Apollo, at which a collection took place. The Church seems to have continued the custom and converted it into an occastion of almsgiving for pious purposes upon the octave day of the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. It may be noted that both Tertullian (De Jejun., xiii, Migne, P. L., II, 972) and St. Leo seem to regard such contributions of money as a form of mortification, and consequently sanctification, closely connected with fasting. That similar collections were everywhere common in the Early Church and that considerable pressure was sometimes brought to bear to extort contributions we learn from a letter of St. Gregory the Great (Migne, P. L., LXXVII, 1060).

As already noted, these methods of gathering alms seem to have had nothing directly to do with the liturgy. The offerings which were invariably made by the faithful during the Holy Sacrifice were long confined to simple bread and wine, or at least to such things as wax, candles, oil, or incense which had a direct relation to the Divine service. According to the so-called Apostolic Canons (see APOSTOLIC CANONS) other forms of produce which might be offered for the support of the clefgy were to be taken to the residence of the bishop, where he lived a sort of community life with his priests (See Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, I, 564). However, the bread and wine which were brought tot he altar at the Offertory of the Mass were commonly presented in quantities far in excess of what was needed for the Holy Sacrifice, and they thus formed, and were intended to form, a substantial contribution towards the maintenance of those who served in the sanctuary. Various enactments were passed during the Carlovingian period with the object of urging the people to remain faithful to this practice, but it seems gradually to have died out, save in certain functions of solemnity, e. g. the Mass celebrated at the consecration of a bishop, when two loaves and two small casks of wine are presented to the celebrant at the Offertory. On the other hand, this oblation of bread and wine seems to have been replaced in many localities by a contribution in money. At what period the substitution began is not quite clear. Some have thought that a trace of this practice is to be recognized as early as St. Isidore of Seville (595) who speaks of the archdeacon “receiving the money collected from the communion” (Ep. ad Leudof., xii). A less ambiguous example may be found in a letter of St. Peter Damian (c. 1050) where there is mention of gold coins being offered by the wives of certain princes at his Mass (Migne, P. L., CXLIV, 360). In any case it is certain that from the twelfth to the fifteenth century a money offering, known in England as the “mass-penny,” was commonly made at the Offertory all over the Western Church. Kings and personages of high rank often had a special coin which they presented at Mass each day and then redeemed it afterwards for a specified sum. Chaucer says of his Pardoner:—Well could he read a lesson or a storie

But althebest he sang an offertorye;

For well he wyste, when that song was songe,

He moste preach and well affyle his tongue

To wynne silver, as he right wel cowde.

Therefore he sang full merrily and lowde.

The offering was voluntarily, and each one brought what he had to give to the altar-rail. Burckard at the beginning of the sixteenth century gives this direction: “If there be any who wish to offer, the celebrant comes to the epistle corner and there standing bareheaded with his left side turned towards the altar, he removes the maniple from his left arm and taking it in his right hand, he presents the end of it to kiss to those who offer, saying to each: ‘May thy sacrifice be acceptable to God Almighty,’ or ‘Mayst thou receive a hundredfold and possess eternal life.’” This rubric was not retained in the first official and authoritative edition of the Roman Missal, printed in 1570. Possibly the struggle for precedence in going up to make the offering, of which we read in Chaucer, tended to bring this method of contributing into disfavour and led to the carrying round of an alms-dish or bag from bench to bench as is commonly done at present. Collections for special objects, e. g. the building of a church, the construction of a bridge, the relief of certain cases of distress, etc. have at all times been common in the Church, and during the Middle Ages the people were constantly stimulated to give more generously to particular funds for pious purposes, e. g. the Crusades, by the grant of special Indulgences. These grants of Indulgence were often entrusted to preachers of note (“Pardoners”) who carried them from town to town, collecting money and using their eloquence to recommend the good work in question and to enhance the spiritual privileges attached to it. This led to many abuses. The Council of Trent frankly recognized them and abolished all grants of Indulgence which were conditional upon a pecuniary contribution towards a specified object. Other collections during the Middle Ages were associated with special objects of piety-for example, noteworthy shrines, statues, or relics. Some few specimens still remain of stone alms-boxes joined to a bracket upon which some statue formerly stood, or united to Easter sepulchres, shrines, etc. One collection, that for the Holy Places, was commonly associated with the creeping to the Cross on Good Fridays, as it still is to-day.

The strain put upon the charity of the lay-folk in the Middle Ages by the large number of mendicant orders was often severely felt. Some remedy was provided by confining the appeals of those who solicited alms to certain assigned districts. The mendicants so licensed were in England often known as “limitours.” A like difficulty is not unfamiliar in our own day, and the principle has consequently been recognized that a bishop has a right to prohibit strangers from collecting alms in his diocese without authorization. Although it is not always easy to exercise adequate control over these appeals, a certain check may be put upon importunate ecclesiastics by withholding permission to say Mass in the diocese. This method of exercising pressure, to be followed by complaint to the Congregation of Propaganda in case such prohibitions are neglected, is indicated in a strongly worded decree drawn up by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (n. 295). Similar regulations requiring that the bishop’s authorization should be obtained before strangers can be allowed to collect money for charitable purposes in the diocese also prevail in England. Restrictions are further commonly imposed, eiher by synodal decrees or by the command of the bishop, upon certain methods of collecting money which may be judged according to local circumstances to be likely to give scandal or to be attended with danger to souls. The sometimes intricate and delicate questions arising from the collection of money by religious when entrusted with quasi-parochial functions have been legislated for in the Apostolic Constitution “Romanos Pontifices” of 8 May, 1881.

There is a short article s. v. Collecten in the Kirchenlexikon, but there seems to be no one source of information which brings together in moderate compass the facts discussed above. The reader may, however, be referred for various points to different treatises, of which the following are the most noteworthy: Fourneret in Dict. de théol. cath. (1905), s. v. Biens ecclesiastiques; Thalhofer, Liturgik (Freiburg, 1893), Vol. II, Pt. I; Gihr, The Mass (tr. Freiburg, 1902), 496–514; Haddan, Scudamore, and Armfield in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. vv. Alms; Oblations; Poor; Scudamore, Notitia Eucharistica (London, 1876), 346 sq.; Bondroit, De Capacitate Possidendi Ecclesiæ (Louvain, 1900); Biederlack, De Bonis Ecclesiæ Temporalibus (Innsbruck, 1892); Wernz, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1908), III, 134 sq.; Laurentius, Institutiones Juris Ecclesiastici (Freiburg, 1908), 631–657.

HERBERT THURSTON.

Collectivism

The term Collectivism is sometimes employed as a substitute for socialism. It is of later origin, and is somewhat more precise in use and content. Socialism, while sufficiently definite in the minds of those who have a right to class themselves as socialists, is frequently employed in a loose way by others. The single-tax theory government ownership of public utilities such as railways and telegraphs, stricter public regulation of industry, and even moderate measures of social reform, are sometimes called socialism by individuals and newspapers. Collectivism is scarcely ever used except to designate that system of industry in which the material agents of production may be earned and managed by the public, the collectivity. And it usually indicates merely the economic side of socialism, without reference to any philosophical, psychological, ethical, or historical assumptions. Socialism means primarily an ideal industrial order as just described, but it is also quite properly used to characterize the entire idealogical foundation upon which International or Marxian socialists build as well as the concrete movement that is actively strirving the realization of this ideal order. Hence economic determinism, the class struggle and the catastrophic concentration of industry would be called socialist rather than collectivist theories. Notwithstanding these advantages of definiteness, the word collectivism has not been widely employed, even in France and Belgium; nor does it promise to supplant the older term in the future.

While collectivism implies the substitution of collective for private property in the means of production, it is susceptible of considerable diversity in its application throughout the realm of industry. One of the most thoroughgoing of the German socialists, Karl Kautsky, in his forecast of what might be expected to happen the day after the industrial revolution, suggests that when the State has taken a possession of the capitalistic industries it could sell a portion of them to the labourers who work them, another portion to co-operative associations, another to muncipalities, and still another to provincial subdivisions of the nation (in America, the several States). All industries that had already become monopolized by the nation, and the national form of industry would probably be the predominant one ultimately. Land would be collectively owned, but not always collectively operated. According to Kautsky, the small non-capitalistic farms (embracing by far the greater part of all agricultural land) might well remain in the hands of individual farmers. While not owning the ground that he tilled, and while—in all probability—paying rent to the State in proportion to the value of the land, the small farmer would own and manage his agricultural business, the machinery, seeds, horses etc., that he used, and the product that he produced. Thus his position would approximate that of a farmer under the single-tax system. He would not be a wage-receiver in the employ of State. Finally there are certain non-agricultural small industries which could continue to be privately owned and managed. This is especially true of those in which hand labour predominates, and which produce for immediate consumption, for example, the work of barbers, artists, custom-tailors and dressmakers. Since the supreme aim of collectivism is the abolition of that capitalistic regime which enables one man or one corporation arbitrarily to exploit the labour and the necessities of many men, it obviously does not—in theory at least—imply equal compensation for all individuals, nor the destruction of individual initiative, nor the establishment of a bureaucratic despotisrn. Hence the theoretical possibility of different rates of pay, of many and diverse industrial units, of a considerable member of small industries, and of private property in the goods that minister to immediate enjoyment. As the American socialist John spargo puts it, “we want social ownership only of those things which cannot be controlled by private owners except as means of exploiting the labour of others and making them bondsmen” (Capitalist and Labor. etc., 120). As in the matter of the ownership and operation of the means of production, so with regard to the ultimate directive power, the governmental functions, collectivism does not theoretically necessitate the depotic supremacy of a highly centralized State. Indeed, the Continental socialists, who detest the military governments under which they live, favour decentralization rather than the opposite; hence so many of them lay stress upon the development of the local political unit, and the inevitable increase of provincial and municipal functions in the collectivist State. Their ideal, and the ideal of collectivists generally, is a State organized on industrial lines, in which each industry whether local or national, and its workers will be substantially autonomous, and in which government of persons will be replaced by an administration of things.

From this outline of what may be regarded as the prevailing theory of collectivism, it appears that many of the arguments against collectivism have lost something of their former strength and pertinency. This is particularly true of those objections which assume a completely centralized management of industry, equal compensation for all workers, and the entire absence of individual initiative in production. On the other hand, the very diversity of industrial direction, the vast scope given to local and provincial autonomy, and the very small part assigned to coercive and repressive activity in the collectivist system would undoubtedly prove fatal to its efficiency and stability. To suppose that the local industrial unit, say, the municipal gas works, or the local branch of the national shoe manufacture, could be operated effectively on a basis of complete industrial democracy, requires a faith surpassing that of children. The workers would lack the incentive to hard work that comes from fear of discharge, would be under constant temptation to assume that they were more active and more efficient than their equally paid fellows in other workshops of the same class. Hence sufficient centralization to place the of industry outside of the local unit or branch would seem to be indispensable. This means a combination of industrial and political power that could easily put an end to freedom of action, speech, and writing. Since the form of authority would be democratic, the people could no doubt vote such a government out of power; but in the concrete the people means the majority, and a majority might continue for a long series of years to impose intolerable conditions on a minority almost equal in numbers. For collectivism there seems to be no middle ground between inefficiency and despotism. An industrial system which would increase rather than lessen social ills is obviously contrary to the interests of morality and religion. Furthermore, any collectivist regime which should seize private land or capital without compensation is condemned by Catholic doctrine concerning the lawfulness of private ownership and unlawfulness of theft. Setting aside these questions of feasibility and compensation are we obliged to say, or permitted to say, that collectivism as described in this article has formally been condemned by the Catholic Church? In the Encyclical “Rerum Novarum” (On the condition of labour), Pope Leo XIII clearly denounced those extreme forms of socialism and communism which aim at the abolition of all or practically all private property. Perhaps the nearest approach to an official pronouncement on the subject of essential and purely economic collectivism is Holy Father declares that man’s welfare demands private ownership of “stable possessions” and of “lucrative property.” (See SOCIALISM.)

JOHN A. RYAN.

Diocese of Colle di Val d’Elsa

(Collis Hetruscus)

A Diocese of (Collensis), suffragan to Florence. Colle is situated in the province of Siena, Tuscany, on the top of the lofty hill which overlooks the River Elsa. It is said to have been built by the inhabitants of Gracchiano, who had suffered greatly in the frequent wars between Forence and Siena. The Gospel is supposed to have been preached there by St. Martial, a reputed disciple of St. Peter. Colle had at first a collegiate church, exempt from the ordinary jurisdiction of the neighbouring bishop, and widely known through the merits of its archpriest, St. Albert, who flourished about 1202. In 1598, Clement VIII, at the request of Grand Duke Ferdinand of Tuscany erected the Diocese of Colle, the first bishop being Usimbardo Usimbardi. The Diocese has 72 parishes, 117 churches and chapels, 115 secular and 20 regular priests, 3 religious houses of men and 3 of women.

U. BENIGNI

College

(Fr. collège, It. collegio, Sp. colegio)

The word college, from the Latin collegium, originally signified a community, a corporation, an organized society, a body of colleagues, or a society of persons engaged in some common pursuit. From ancient times there existed in Rome corporations called collegia, with various ends and objects. Thus the guilds of the artisans were known as collegia or sodalica; in other collegia persons associated together for some special religious worship, or for the purpose of mutual assistance. This original meaning of the word college is preserved in some modern corporations, as the College of Physicians, or the College of Surgeons (London, Edinburgh). There were in Rome other, more official bodies which bore the title collegium, as the Collegium tribunorum, Collegium augurum, Collegium pontificum, etc. In a similar sense the word is now used in such terms as the College of Cardinals (or the Sacred College), the College of Electors, the College of Justice (in Scotland), the College of Heralds (in England).

From the fourteenth century on the word college meant in particular “a community or corporation of secular clergy living together on a foundation for religious service.” The church supported on this endowment was called a collegiate church, because the ecclesiastical services and solemnities were performed by a college, i. e. a body or staff of clergymen, consisting of a provost, or dean, canons, etc.; later, the term “collegiate” or “college church” was usually restricted to a church connected with a large educational institution. Some of these institutions, besides carrying out the Divine service in their church, were required to take charge of an almshouse, or a hospital, or some educational establishment. It is here that we find the word college introduced in connexion with education, a meaning which was to become the most prominent during succeeding centuries. It seems that in the English universities the term was first applied to the foundations of the so-called second period, typified by New College, Oxford, 1379; from these the name gradually spread to the earlier foundations (Merton, Balliol) which originally were designated by the term aula or domus; then it was taken by the foundations of the third period, the colleges of the Renaissance. As used in educational history, college may be defined, in general, as “a society of scholars formed for the purposes of study or instruction”; and in particular as “a self-governing corporation, either independent of a university, or in connexion with a university, as the College of the Sorbonne in the ancient University of Paris, and the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge.” In some instances, where in a university only a single college was founded or survived, the terms “college” and “university” are co-extensive and interchangeable. This is the case in Scotland and, to a great extent, in the United States. Although in the United States many small institutions claim the ambitious title of university, it is more appropriate to apply this term to those institutions which have several distinct faculties for professional study and thus resemble the universities of Europe. They differ, however, from the continental universities in one important point, namely, in the undergraduate department which is connected with the university proper. In some places, as in Harvard, the term “college” is now in a special sense applied to the undergraduate school. This is the most common and most proper acceptation of the term: an institution of higher learning of a general, not professional, character, where after a regular course of study the degree of Bachelor of Arts, or, in recent years, some equivalent degree, e. g. Bachelor of Philosophy, or Bachelor of Science, is given. (See ARTS, BACHELOR OF, and DEGREES, ACADEMIC.) It is this meaning of college which will be treated in this article; all professional schools called colleges are excluded, such as teachers’ colleges (training schools for teachers), law and medical colleges, colleges of dentistry, pharmacy, mechanical engineering, agriculture, business, mines, etc. Nor will colleges be included which are divinity schools or theological seminaries, as the numerous colleges in Rome, e. g. the Collegium Germanicum, Collegium Latino-Americanum, Collegium Græcum, or the English, Irish, Scotch, North-American Colleges, and many other similar institutions.

As the origin and evolution of the college, or of its equivalent, have not been the same in different countries, it will be necessary, in order to avoid confusion, to treat separately of the colleges peculiar to England. These deserve special attention for the further reason that the American college is an outgrowth of the English college. Even at the present day the distinguishing characteristic of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge is the existence of the colleges. Nothing like it is to be found in any other country, and the relation between these colleges and the university is very puzzling to foreigners. The colleges are distinct corporations, which manage their own property and elect their own officers; the university has no legal power over the colleges, although it has jurisdiction over the individual members of the colleges, because they are members also of the university. Mr. Bryce has used the relation between the university and the colleges as an illustration of the relations between the Federal Government and the separate States of the American Union. But one great difference has been pointed out by Mr. Rashdall: “in place of the strict limitation of spheres established by the American Constitution, the jurisdiction of both University and College, if either chose to exercise them, is legally unlimited. Expulsion from a College would not involve expulsion from the University, unless the University chose so to enact; nor could expulsion from the University prevent a man from continuing to be a member or even a Fellow of a College. The University’s monopoly of the power of granting degrees is the only connecting link which ensures their harmonious co-operation” (Universities of Europe, II, 793). The professors at Oxford are university officials; tutors and lecturers are college officials; these two bodies form two different systems. The majority of students receive the greater part of their education from the tutors and lecturers. (For further details see “The University of Oxford” in “Ir. Eccl. Rec.,” Jan., 1907.)

Although at the present day the collegiate system is peculiar to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, it was not so formerly, nor can England claim the honour of having had the first colleges. This distinction belongs to the University of Paris, the greatest school of medieval Europe. To understand the origin of the colleges and their character, it is necessary to know the social conditions in which the medieval students lived. Large numbers of youths flocked to the famous university towns; there may have been 6000 or 7000 students at Paris, 5000 at Bologna, 2000 at Toulouse, 3000 at Prague, and between 2000 and 3000 at Oxford. Writers of the latter part of the Middle Ages have, it is true, asserted that in preceding centuries Paris had over 30,000, and Oxford from 20,000 to 30,000 students; some popular writers of our days have repeated these statements, but the foremost historians who have dealt with this subject, as Rashdall, Brodrick, Paulsen, Thorold Rogers, and many others, have proved that these fabulous numbers are gross exaggerations (Rashdall, op. cit., II, 581 sqq.). Still the numbers were large, many students very young, some not more than fourteen or fifteen years old; many lived in private houses, others in halls or hostels; the discipline was lax, and excesses and riots were frequent; above all, the poorer students were badly lodged and badly fed, and were at the mercy of unscrupulous and designing men and women. Generous persons, inspired by the spirit of active charity, which was very pronounced during these centuries, sought to alleviate the lot of the poor students. The result was the foundation of the “houses of scholars,” later called colleges. Originally they were nothing but endowed hospicia, or lodging and boarding-houses for poor students; the idea of domestic instruction was absent in the early foundations. The first Parisian colleges were homes for ecclesiastical students, “academical cloisters specially planned for the education of secular clergy.” About 1180 the College of the Eighteen was founded (so called from the number of students); then Saint-Thomas de Louvre (1186), and several others in the first half of the thirteenth century. The most famous of the colleges in Paris was the Sorbonne (see SORBONNE, COLLEGE OF THE) founded about 1257, and intended for sixteen, later for thirty-six, students of theology. In succeeding centuries the Sorbonne came to stand for the whole theological faculty of the University of Paris. In the course of time the university set aside the original autonomy of the colleges and gained complete control over them; in this the colleges of Paris differed widely from the English colleges. Another difference lay in the fact that most English colleges admitted students for faculties other than the theological. The first English college, Balliol, founded about 1261, at Oxford, was largely an imitation of the earlier foundations of Paris, and differed from the general type of English colleges. The real beginning of the English college system was the foundation of Walter de Merton, who afterwards became Bishop of Rochester. Merton College, established 1263 or 1264, became the archetype of the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. The scholars were to begin the study of the arts, and then to proceed to theology, a few to the study of canon and civil law. Besides the thirteen full members of the society (the socii, or Fellows), a number of young boys were to be admitted (twelve at first), as “secondary scholars,” who were to be instructed in “grammar” until they were enabled to begin the study of arts.

The foundation of the secular colleges was greatly stimulated by the presence of the regular colleges, i. e. the establishments of the religious orders in connexion with the universities. The religious orders early profited by the advantages offered in these educational centres, and in their turn had a considerable share in the further development of the universities, particularly the Dominicans and Franciscans. (See UNIVERSITY.) The Dominicans established a house of study in the University of Paris in 1218, the Franciscans 1219, the Benedictines 1229, the Augustinians in 1259. At Oxford the Dominicans opened a house 1220, the Franciscans 1224. Their example was followed by the Benedictines, who founded Gloucester Hall and Durham College. These religious houses formed each a miniature Studium in the midst of a great university. The young members of the orders lived in well-organized communities which gave freedom from cares and favoured quiet study, whereas other students were left to contend with the many hardships and temptations which surrounded them on all sides. It was natural that men who realized the advantages of such a well-regulated life should endeavour to adapt this system to the needs of students who had no intention of entering religious communities. “The secular college would never perhaps have developed into the important institution which it actually became but for the example set by the colleges of the mendicants” (Rashdall, op. cit., I, 478). An erroneous view has been expressed by some writers, viz., that the foundation of the colleges was a symptom of the growing opposition to ecclesiastical control of education, and especially a sign of hostility to the religious orders. The majority of secular colleges were founded by zealous ecclesiastics, in England especially by bishops, most of whom were very friendly to the religious orders. Mr. Bass Mullinger admits that Trinity Hall, Cambridge, seems to have been founded with the intention of furthering “Ultramontane interests” (Hist. of Un. of Cambridge, 41). Hugh de Balsham, a Benedictine, was the founder of Peterhouse, the first college at Cambridge (1284); the third Cambridge college, Pembroke Hall, was founded in 1347 by Marie de Valence, a friend of the Franciscans; one of two rectors was to be a Friar Minor, and the foundress adjured the fellows to be kind, devoted, and grateful to all religious, “especially the Friars Minor.” Gonville hall, Cambridge, was founded in 1350 by Edmund Gonville, an equally warm friend of the Dominicans, for whom he made a foundation at Thetford. The same can be shown with regard to Oxford. To give an instance, according to the statutes of Balliol, one of the outside “procurators” was to be a Franciscan. The indirect influence of religious institutions is discernible also in the semi-monastic features of colleges, some of which have survived to our own times, as the common life and obligatory attendance at chapel. With regard to the latter point it is surprising to learn that the earlier colleges enjoined attendance at Mass only on Sundays, Holy Days, and vigils. At Oxford, the statutes of New College are, as far as is known, the first which require daily attendance at Mass; towards the end of the fifteenth century this daily attendance was enforced also on the students living in the Halls (Rashdall, op. cit., II, 506, 651).

The members of a college were one another’s socii or “Fellows.” In the beginning the terms “Scholars” and “Fellows” were interchangeable, but gradually the term “Fellows” was restricted to the senior or governing members, the term “Scholars” to the junior members. The Senior Scholars or Fellows were largely employed in looking after college business, in later times particularly in teaching the Junior Scholars. In the early foundations it was understood that the inmates should receive most of their instruction outside the walls of the college; but where younger members were admitted, it was necessary to exercise supervision over their studies, and give some instruction supplementing the public lectures. This supplementary teaching gradually became more prominent; although it is not known exactly when this important educational revolution took place, it seems to belong chiefly to the fifteenth century; finally the colleges practically monopolized instruction. The number of students living in the colleges was small at first; most statutes provided only for between twelve and thirty or forty, a few for seventy or more. Most of the students continued to live outside the colleges in licensed halls or private lodgings. The lodging-house system was checked in the fifteenth century, and later the colleges absorbed most of the student population. But from the first the colleges reacted favourably on the whole student body and exercised a most salutary influence on the manners and morals of the university towns. As Cardinal Newman has said: “Colleges tended to break the anarchical spirit, gave the example of laws, and trained up a set of students who, as being morally and intellectually superior to other members of the academical body became the depositaries of academical power and influence” (Hist. Sketches, III, 221). Thus the university itself was largely benefited by the colleges; it derived from them order, strength, and stability. It is true, at a much later date, the university was sacrificed to the colleges, and the colleges themselves became inactive; contrary to the intention of the founders, who had established them for the maintenance of the poor, they were occupied by the wealthy, especially after the paying boarders, “commoners,” or “pensioners,” became numerous. They were at times sinecures and clubs rather than places of serious study.

William of Wykeham, Bishop of Winchester, founded the first college outside a university, namely Winchester College, in 1379, for seventy boys who were to be educated in “grammar,” i. e. literature. Grammar colleges had indeed existed before, in connexion with universities and cathedrals; but Winchester was the first elaborate foundation for grammatical education, independent of either a cathedral or a university. From Winchester College the students were to enter New College, Oxford founded by the same patron of education. The example of Winchester was imitated in the foundations of Eton (1440), and in the post-Reformation schools of Harrow, Westminster (both on older foundations), Rugby, Charterhouse, Shrewsbury, and Merchant Taylors. These institutions developed into the famous “public schools.” During this period, as for a long time after there was no such hard and fast line between the higher and more elementary instruction as exists at the present day. Many grammar schools of England did partly college work. Contrary to the common opinion, as voiced by Green, Mullinger, and others, the number of grammar schools before the Reformation was very great. Mr. Leach states that “three hundred grammar schools is a moderate estimate of the number in the year 1535, when the floods of the great revolution were let loose. Most of them were swept away either under Henry or his son; or if not swept away, they were plundered and damaged” (English Schools at the Reformation, 5–6). Be it remembered that the term “grammar school” is used in the sense common in England, denoting a higher school where the classical languages form the staple subject of instruction.

A most powerful influence on the further development of the colleges was exercised by the humanistic movement. It cannot be denied that during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the study of the classics had been comparatively neglected, as men’s minds were absorbed in scholastic studies. John of Salisbury and Roger Bacon complained bitterly about the neglect of the study of the languages. (Cf. Sandys, Hist. of Class. Scholarship, 568 sqq.) This was completely changed when the enthusiasm for the ancient classics began to spread from Italy throughout Western Christendom. The “new learning” gradually made its victorious entry into the old seats of learning, while new schools were established everywhere, until, about the year 1500, “Catholic Europe presented the aspect of a vast commonwealth of scholars” (Professor Hartfelder, in Schmid’s “Geschichte der Erziehung,” II, ii, 140). The schools of Vittorino da Feltre, “the first modern schoolmaster,” and of Guarino da Verona, became the models for schools in other countries. English scholars had early come in contact with Italian humanists and schools; Grocyn, Linacre, William Latimer, William Lily, Dean Colet were humanists, and tried to introduce the new learning into the English schools. The influence of the Renaissance is most clearly noticed in St. Paul’s School, founded by Dean Colet in 1512, and in the statutes of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 1516, where greater stress is laid on the study of Latin and Greek than in any previous foundation. When humanism had gained the day, largely through the encouragement and influence of men like Bishop John Fisher, Thomas More, and Cardinal Wolsey, English college education had assumed the form and character which were to remain for centuries. The medieval curriculum of the trivium and quadrivium (see ARTS, THE SEVEN LIBERAL) had not been entirely abandoned; it survived in the new scheme of education, but greatly changed and modified. Henceforth the classical languages were the principal subject of instruction, to which mathematics formed the most important addition. “Letters” were the essential foundation; the rest were considered accessory, subsidiary. This humanistic type of schools lasted longer in England than in any other country.

In the medieval universities outside of France and England there existed colleges, but nowhere did they obtain the importance and the influence which they gained in Paris, and most of all in Oxford and Cambridge. The colleges in the German universities,e. g. at Prague, Vienna, Cologne, as well as the Scotch colleges, were primarily intended for the teachers, and only secondarily, if at all, for the students. For the students hostels, called bursœ, were established which were merely lodging-houses. The colleges of the Netherlands, especially those of Louvain, came nearer the English type. The most famous college was the Collegium Trilingue at Louvain, founded in 1517 by Busleiden, after the model of the College of the Three Languages at Alcalá, the celebrated foundation of Cardinal Ximenes for the study of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. At present, there is, on the European continent, no exact equivalent of the English colleges, but as far as the subjects of instruction are concerned, the French lycée and collège, the German gymnasium, and similar institutions, in their higher classes, resemble the English colleges. Many celebrated gymnasia of Teutonic countries developed from pre-Reformation schools. In Schmid’s “Geschichte der Erziehung” (V, i, 50 sqq.) there is a long list of such schools which grew out of medieval institutions, e. g. the Elbing gymnasium (Protestant), established in 1536, which developed from a Senatorial school founded in 1300; the Marienburg gymnasium, from a Latin school established by the Teutonic Knights in the fourteenth century; the Berlin gymnasium (1540), formerly St. Peter’s School (1276); the Mary Magdalen Gymnasium of Breslau, a Protestant school (1528), which grew out of City School (1267); the Gymnasium Illustre of Brieg (1569), a combination of the ancient Cathedral School and the City School; the Lutheran school of Sagan (1541), originally a Franciscan school (1294). During the Renaissance and Reformation period a few institutions of this kind went by the name of Collegium, but more were styled Gymnasium, Lyceum, Athenœum, Pœdagogium, or Academia, although these names in some cases were given to schools which were rather universities. Institutions of collegiate rank were also termed Studia Particularia, to distinguish them from a Studium Generale, or university. In its character the gymnasium was a humanistic school, the classical languages being the main subject of instruction. Not only the Catholic colleges of the post-Reformation period, but also the Protestant school systems, were based on the pre-Reformation schools, particularly those of the Netherlands. The famous school of Zwickau in Saxony was organized between 1535 and 1546 by Plateanus, a native of Liège, on the model of the school of the Brethren of the Common Life in Liège. John Sturm had studied in the same school at Liège, in the Collegium Trilingue at Louvain, and in the University of Paris, and from these schools he derived most of the details of his gymnasium at Strasburg, which was one of the most typical and most celebrated of early Protestant schools. Sturm’s ideas in turn largely influenced another class of German institutions, the famous Fürstenschulen of Grimma, Pforta, etc. Again, Melanchthon, honoured by the title of “founder of the German gymnasium,” based his system on the educational principles of Erasmus and other humanists.

Many features of college life are legacies of the past; some have already been pointed out, namely attendance at chapel and the common life in the great boarding-schools. Various forms of distinctly academical dress have grown out of college practices; no particular form of garment was prescribed by university authority in medieval institutions, but in colleges they soon began to wear a “livery” of uniform colour and material. The modern viva voce examination is the successor of the former oral disputation, the examiners now taking the place of the “opponents” of olden times. As has been shown, the support of poor and deserving scholars was the root idea of the foundation of colleges; the scholarships in English and American schools, the bursarships and stipendia in the schools of Germany and other countries, have sprung from, and perpetuate, the same idea. In the provision for the Senior Scholars, in the fellowships of the medieval colleges, and in the practice of endowing professorships with prebends, there was an early systematic attempt at solving the question of professors salaries. In these and other features, modern college systems are intimately linked with the Catholic past.

THE AMERICAN COLLEGE

The continuity of educational ideals, and the diversity of their application, according to national needs and characteristics, is well illustrated by the American college. As regards its origin, it is an outgrowth of the English college, in particular of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, where John Harvard had been educated. In more than one respect, especially in the fundamental idea of liberal training as the proper preparation for the higher or professional studies, it perpetuates the educational traditions which spread from Paris, and later from the humanistic schools of Italy, to Oxford and Cambridge, and thence were transplanted to the New World. However, the elements derived from Europe were modified from the very beginning and have been still more changed since the foundation of Harvard, so much so that at present there is no exact counterpart of the American college in any other country. There are at present (1908) in the United States over four hundred and seventy institutions which confer degrees and are called universities or colleges, not counting those which are for women exclusively. In some cases, as has well been said, the name “university” is but a “majestic synonym for college,” and some of the colleges are only small high schools. Before the American Revolution 11 colleges were founded, chief among them Harvard (1636), William and Mary (1693), Yale (1701), Princeton (1746), University of Pennsylvania (1751), Columbia (1754), Brown (1764), Dartmouth (1770); from the Revolution to 1800, 12, one of them Catholic, at Georgetown, District of Columbia; 33 from 1800 to 1830; 180 from 1830 to. 1865; and about 240 from 1865 to 1908. The older foundations in the East are independent of State control, but possess charters sanctioned by legislation. Many of the more recent foundations, especially in Western and Southern States, are supported and controlled by the State; on the other hand, denominational control has largely disappeared from the old colleges and is excluded from most new foundations. At present about one-half of the colleges are registered as non-sectarian. From the early part of the nineteenth century efforts were made to offer to women the same educational opportunities as to men. Mount Holyoke Seminary, Massachusetts (1837), and Elmira College (1855), were nearly equivalent to the colleges for men. Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York (1865), however, has been styled the “legitimate parent” of the colleges for women, as it established the same standard as that of colleges for men. Vassar College, Wellesley College (1876), Smith College (1875), Mount Holyoke College (1893), Bryn Mawr (1885), and the Woman’s College, Baltimore (1885), are the most important women’s colleges in the United States. Others are affiliated with colleges or universities for men, as Radcliffe, with Harvard. Many Western and Southern colleges are co-educational.

The American college has been the main repository of liberal education, of an advanced education of general, not technical or professional, character. The “old-fashioned” college had a four-year course of prescribed studies: Latin and Greek, the inheritance of the humanistic period, and mathematics, to which had been added in the course of time natural sciences, the elements of philosophy, and still later, English literature. Modern languages, especially French, were taught to some small extent. Since the Civil War changes have been introduced which are truly revolutionary. Some colleges have grown into universities with different faculties after the model of European, especially German, universities; these institutions have two principal departments, the university proper, for graduate, or professional work, and the collegiate department in the stricter sense of the word. But this very collegiate course has undergone a far-reaching transformation; the line of separation between university and college proper has been largely effaced, so that the college is a composite institution, of a secondary and higher nature, giving instruction which in Europe is given partly by the secondary schools, partly by the universities. the causes of this and other changes are manifold. The nineteenth century saw the extraordinary development of the “high school,” a term, which in the United States, means a secondary school with a four-year course between the elementary (public) school and the college. In 1900, there were over 6000 public and nearly 2000 private schools of this grade with over 630,000 pupils, more than one-half of these being female students. Part of the work of these schools was formerly done in the college. The result of this separation and development of the secondary schools was, first, an increase of the age of applicants for college, and, secondly, higher entrance requirements. In consequence of the increase of age, many students now pass directly from the high school to professional studies, as few professional schools require a college diploma for admission. On the other hand, in order to gain a year or two, some colleges have shortened the course from four to three years (Johns Hopkins); others have kept the four-year college course, but allow the students to devote the last year, or even the last two years partly to professional work (Harvard, Columbia).

A second cause of the modifications mentioned, and one that affected the college seriously was the excessive expansion of the college curriculum, the pressure of many new subjects for recognition, some of which pertain rather to professional schools. The advance in, and enthusiasm for, the natural sciences during the nineteenth century effected changes in the schools of all civilized countries. In many quarters there was a clamour for “practical” studies, and the old classical course was decried as useless, or merely ornamental; its very foundation, the theory of mental or formal discipline, well expressed in the term gymnasium for classical schools in Germany, has been vigorously assailed, but not disproved. At present the pendulum seems to swing away from the utilitarian views of Spencer and others, and the conviction gains ground that the classics, although they can no longer claim the educational monopoly, are after all a most valuable means of liberal culture and the best preparation for professional studies. To meet the difficulty arising from the multitude of new studies and the growing demand for “practical” courses, the elective system was introduced. This system, in its more extreme form, is by many regarded as detrimental to serious work; few students are able to make a wise choice; many are tempted to choose subjects, not for their intrinsic value, but because they are more easy or agreeable; they follow the paths of least resistance and avoid the harder studies of greater educational value. To avoid these evils a compromise has been invented in some colleges in the form of a modified election, the group system, which allows the choice of a certain field of studies, of groups of subjects regulated by the faculty. Some choice in certain branches has been found profitable, but it is now a very general opinion that the elective system can be employed in the college only with many limitations and safeguards, and that certain valuable literary, or “culture” studies in the best sense of the term, should be obligatory. American educators of the highest repute have come to regard early specialization as a dangerous pedagogical error, and they maintain that the elective principle has its proper place in the university. Another result of the encroachment of the university on the college is the disappearance of the old-fashioned teacher with a good general knowledge and practical skill as an educator; his place is taken by the specialist, who more resembles the university professor, who lectures rather than teaches, and comes little in contact with the individual student; the classes are broken up, and courses take their place. This means the loss of an important educational factor, namely, the personal influence of the teacher on the pupil. The larger colleges are particularly exposed to this danger; in the smaller colleges there is more personal intercourse between the faculty and the students, generally also stricter discipline.

The American college is, at the present time, in a state of transition, in a condition of unrest and fermentation. The questions of the length of the college course, of the proper function of the college, of its relation to university work, of the elective system, of the relative value of classics and modern languages, natural and social sciences—all these are topics of general discussion and matters of vital importance and, at the same time, questions beset with great difficulties. Hence it is not surprising to find prominent educators ranged on different sides, some advocating far-reaching changes, others, more conservative, warning against hazardous experiments. Modern conditions undoubtedly demand changes in the college; it would be most desirable if the old literary curriculum and instruction in sciences and other new subjects could be combined into a harmonious system. The present tendency of the college seems to be to undertake too much in subjects and methods, instead of remaining the culmination of secondary training, the final stage of general education.

RASHDALL, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1895), I, II; BRODRICK, History of the University of Oxford (London, 1886); MULLINGER, The University of Cambridge (2 viols., Cambridge, 1883); IDEM, History of the University of Cambridge (London, 1888); DENIABLE AND CHATELAINE, Chartering Universalism Parisians (Paris, 1889–1896); BOUZOUKI, The University of Paris in Catholic University Bulletin (July, Oct., 1895, Jan., 1896); BROTHER ACACIAS, University Colleges in Am. Cathy. Q. Rev. (Oct., 1893., Jan., 1804); WOODWARD, Vittorino da Feltre and other Humanist Educators (Cambridge, 1897); IDEM, Studies in Education during the Age of the Renaissance (Cambridge, 1906); EINSTEIN, The Italian Renaissance in England (New York, 1902); RUSSELL, German Higher Schools (New York, 1899); PAULSEN, Geisha. des gilchrist Underprices au den deutsche Schoolmen undo Universities (2nd ed., 2 viols., Leipzig, 1896); SCHMIDT, Geschichte der Erziehung (Stuttgart, 1889 and 1901), II, ii and V, i; NEWMAN, Historical Sketches, III: Rise and Progress of Universities (charmingly written, but with no great value as history).—For the history of the word: New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, ed. MURRAY (Oxford, 1893), II.

Monographs on Education in the United States, ed. NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER, particularly WEST, The American College (Albany, 1899); SCHWICKERATH, Jesuit Education (St. Louis, 1905), with special reference to American college conditions, chapter x: The Intellectual Scope; xi: Prescribed Courses or Elective Studies?; xii: Classical Studies; Special Report on Educational Subjects (London. 1902), IX-XI; Educational Review (New York, Jan., 1901; May, 1902; Sept., 1906, etc.); articles in The Atlantic Monthly and in The Forum.

ROBERT SCHWICKERATH.

College (in Canon Law)

A collection (Lat. collegium) of persons united together for a common object so as to form one body. The members are consequently said to be incorporated, or to form a corporation. Colleges existed among the Romans and Greeks from the earliest times. The Roman laws required at least three persons for constituting a college. Legal incorporation was made, at least in some cases, by decrees of the Senate, edicts of the emperor, or by special laws. There were, however, general laws under which colleges could be formed by private persons, and if the authorities judged that the members had conformed to the letter and spirit of these laws, they had incontestable rights as collegia legitima; if the requisites were not adhered to they could be suppressed by administrative act. The Colleges could hold property in common and could sue and be sued. In case of failure this common property could be seized, but that of the individual members was not liable to seizure. The Roman collegium was never instituted as a corporation sole; still, when reduced to one member, that individual succeeded to all the rights of the corporation and could employ its name (J. F. Keating, “Roman Legislation on Collegia and Sodalicia” in “The Agape,” London, 1901, p. 180 sqq.). Colleges were formed among the ancient Romans for various purposes. Some of these had a religious object, as the college of the Arval Brothers, of the Augurs, etc.; others were for administrative purposes, as of quæstors, tribunes of the people; others again were trade unions or guilds, as the colleges of bakers, carpenters. The early Roman Christians are said to have sometimes held church property during times of persecution under the title of collegium. For the evidence of this, see H. Leclercq, Manuel d’Archéolog. Chrét. (Paris, 1907, I, 261–66). It is not admitted by Mgr. Duchesne, Hist. anc. de l’Eglise (Paris 1906, I).

CANON LAW

Most of the prescriptions of the ancient civil law were received into the church law and they are incorporated in the “Corpus Juris.” By canonists, a college has been defined as a collection of several rational bodies forming one representative body. Some authors consider university and community as synonymous terms with college, but others insist that there are points of difference. Thus, there are canonists who define university as a collection of bodies distinct from one another, but employing the same name specially conferred upon them. Pirhing remarks that a community of priests attached to the same church do not form a college unless they are members of one body whose head is a prelate elected by that body. According to canon law three persons are required to form a college. Some authors maintained that two were sufficient for the purpose, because Pope Innocent, alluding to St. Matthew, xviii, 20, says that no presbyter is to be chosen for a church where two or three form the congregation, except by their canonical election. As congregation here evidently means college, these writers contend that two can therefore form a college. As a matter of fact, however, the pontiff is simply affirming that the right of election will remain with an already constituted college even though only two of its members remain after the death of the prelate. Pirhing gives as the reason why two cannot constitute a college, that though it be not necessary that the college actually have a head, yet it must be at least capable of giving itself a presiding officer, or rector of the college. If, then, there be only two members and one be constituted the head, the other can not form the body, for the body requires several members, and the head is distinct from the body. He does not mean to assert, however, that if a college be reduced to two members, it can not preserve its corporate rights. On the contrary, the canon law explicitly affirms that one surviving member can conserve the privileges of the corporate body, not for himself personally, but for the college. When a legally constituted college has been reduced to two members, one can elect the other as prelate. If the college be reduced to one member, it becomes a virtual, not an actual, corporation. The single remaining member can exercise the acts belonging to the college, and although he can not elect himself prelate, yet he can choose or nominate some other proper person to the prelacy. He may also commit the election to other persons, or even to one, as the bishop.

The ancient canonists, when stating that three constitute a college, give also the numbers requisite for other canonical bodies, thus: five are necessary to form a university, two a congregation, more than two a family, and ten a parish. Among conspicuous ecclesiastical colleges may be mentioned the Sacred College of Cardinals (see CARDINAL) and cathedral and collegiate chapters (see CHAPTER and COLLEGIATE). The name college is specially applied also to corporate educational bodies within the Church, as without it. Before the Reformation, and even in the first years of Queen Elizabeth, the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge were always spoken of as ecclesiastical corporations. By the present English law they are purely lay corporations, even though all their members be clergymen. The title “Apostolic College” is applied in Rome to those institutions which are immediately subject to and controlled by the Holy See, and are consequently exempt from any other spiritual or temporal authority; the students are declared to be under the direct protection of the pope. Such institutions are, among others, the College of the Propaganda, the German, English, Irish, and Scotch Colleges, and the North and South American Colleges. (For the Apostles of Jesus Christ as a collective authority, see APOSTOLIC COLLEGE.)

PIRHING, Jus Canonicum Universum (Venice, 1759), I; FERRARIS, Biblioth. Canon. (Rome, 1886), II; SMITH, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (London, 1901).

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

Apostolic College

This term designates The Twelve Apostles as the body of men commissioned by Christ to spread the kingdom of God over the whole world and to give it the stability of a well-ordered society: i.e. to be the founders, the foundation, and pillars of the visible Church on earth. The name “apostle” connotes their commission. For an Apostle is a missionary, sent by competent authority, to extend the Gospel to new lands: a tradition, beginning with the sending of The Twelve, has consecrated this meaning of the term to the exclusion of all others which it might derive from its etymology. When we speak of the Apostles as a “college,” we imply that they worked together under one head and for one purpose. Referring the reader to the article APOSTLES for the Scriptural and positive treatment of the question, we may now deal with its dogmatic aspects.

It is evident, a priori, that Revelation must be transmitted and communicated by means of envoys and teachers accredited by God. The consideration of the nature of revelation and its object shows that no other theory is practically possible. In fact, Christ founded a teaching, governing, and ministering Apostolate, whose charter is contained in Matthew, xxviii, 18–20.

All power is given to Me in Heaven and in earth. Going therefore [in virtue of, and endowed with, this My sovereign power: “As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you” (John, xx, 21)], teach ye [matheteusate—make to yourselves disciples, teach as having power—Mark, i, 22] all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them [didaskontes] to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you [eneteilamen] and behold I am with you all days, even to the comsummation of the world.

This college of rulers, teachers, and ministers of the sacraments was placed under the headship of St. Peter, the rock upon whom the foundations of the Church were established. The many texts refering to this subject (see APOSTLES) may be summarized as follows: After accomplishing His own mission, Jesus Christ, in virtue of His power and authority, sent into the world a body of teachers and preachers presided over by one head. They were His representatives, and had for their mission to publish to the world all revealed truth until the end of time. Their mission was not exclusively personal; it was to extend to their successors. Mankind were bound to receive them as Christ Himself. That their word might be His word, and might be recognized as such, He promised them His presence and the aid of the Holy Ghost to guarantee the infallibility of their doctrine; He promised external and supernatural signs as vouchers of its authenticity; He gave their doctrine an effective sanction by holding out an eternal reward to those who should faithfully adhere to it, and by threatening with eternal punishments those who should reject it. This conception of the Apostolate is set forth in the writings of St. Paul and realized in the practice of all the Apostles (Rom., x, 8-19; Eph., iv, 7–14). It runs through the whole Catholic tradition, and is the very soul of the Church at the present day. The College of the Apostles lives forth in the episcopate, which gradually took its place and filled its functions. There are, however, between the attributes of the original Apostles and those of the succeeding hierarchy some differences arising from the circumstance that the Apostles were personally chosen and trained by Christ to lay the foundation of the Church. That circumstance creates for them an exceptional and intransmissible eminence over their successors.

(1) Although both, bishops and Apostles, are appointed by Divine authority, yet the Apostles received their commission immediately from Christ, whereas the bishops receive theirs but mediately, i.e. through the medium of human authority. The power of order and jurisdiction is the same in the Apostles and in their successors, but, whereas the Apostles receive it from the Divine Founder Himself, the bishops receive it through the channel of other bishops. Immediate commission implies, in the missionary, the power to produce, at first hand, credentials to prove that he is the envoy of God by doing works which God alone can work. Hence the charisma, or gift, of miracles granted to the Apostles, but withheld from the generality of their successors whose mission is sufficiently accredited through their connection with the original Apostolate.

(2) Another prerogative of the Apostles is the universality of their mission. They were sent to establish the Church wherever men in need of salvation were to be found. Their field of action had no limits but those of their own convenience and choice, at least if we take them collectively; directions by the chief Apostle are not excluded, for on them may have depended the good order and the success of their work.

(3) A third Apostolic prerogative is the plenitude of power. As planters of the Church the Apostles required and possessed the power to speak with full authority in their own name, without appealing to higher authorities; also the power to found and organize local churches, to appoint and consecrate bishops and to invest them with jurisdiction. The limit to their powers in this respect was: not to undo the work already done by their colleagues. Such power, if needed, could have been exercised only by the head of the Church.

(4) A fourth privilege of the Apostles is their personal infallibility in preaching the Gospel. Their successors in the hierarchy owe what infallibility they possess to the Divine assistance watching, with unfailing care, over the magisterium, or teaching office as a whole, and over its head; the Apostles received each personally, the Holy Ghost, Who revealed to them all the truth they had to preach. This Pentecostal gift was necessary in order to establish each particular church on the solid foundation of unshakable truth.

The prerogatives of the Apostles as founders of the Church were, of course, personal; they were not to be transmitted to their successors because to these they were not necessary. What was passed on is the ordinary powers of order and jurisdiction. The Apostolate was an extraordinary and only temporary form of the episcopate; it was superseded by an ordinary and permanent hierarchy as soon as its constitutional work was done. There is, however, one Apostle has a successor of equal powers in the Roman pontiff. Above the prerogatives of his colleagues St. Peter had the unique distinction of being the principle of the Church’s unity and cohesion. As the Church has to endure to the end of time, so has the unifying and preserving office of St. Peter. Without such a principle, without a head, the body of the Bride of Christ would be no better than a disjointed congeries of members, unworthy of the Divine Bridegroom. In fact the connection of the Church with Christ and the Apostles would be loosened and weakened to the breaking-point. The history of Churches separated from Rome affords abundant proof of this statement. In the Roman pontiffs, then, the Apostolate is still living and acting. Hence from the earliest times the office of the pope has been honoured with the title of Apostolate, as continuing the functions of the Apostolate; the Roman See has, in the same order of ideas, been styled the Apostolic See, and the reigning pope, in the Middle Ages, used to be addressed Apostolatus vester and Apostolicus. In the Litany of Saints we pray; “That thou wouldst vouchsafe to preserve our apostolic prelate [domnum nostrum apostolicum] and all orders of the Church in holy religion.”

The difference between the Apostolate of St. Peter and that of his successors bears on two points only:

(1) St. Peter was chosen and appointed directly by Our Lord; the pope receives the same Divine appointment through the channel of men; the electors designate the person or whom God bestows the office.

(2) The papal infallibility also differs from that of St. Peter. The pope is only infallible when, in the full exercise of his authority, ex cathedra, he defines a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole Church. His infallibility rests on the Divine assistance, on the permanent presence of Christ in the Church. The infallibility of St. Peter and the Apostles relied on their being filled and penetrated by the light of the indwelling Holy Spirit of truth.

The of working miracles, granted to the Apostles, is not continued in the popes. If it was necessary to convince the first believers that the hand of God was laying the foundations of the Church, it ceases to be so when the strength, the beauty, and the vastness of the structure proclaims to the world that none but the Father in Heaven could have erected it for the good of His children. SCHEEBEN, Manual of Catholic Theology, tr. WILHELM AND SCANNEL (London, 1906), 1, 8, 9, 11.

J. WILHELM

Collège de France

The Collège de France was founded in the interest of higher education by Francis I. He had planned the erection of this college as far back as 1517, but not until 1530, and then under the inspiration of Budé and Jean du Bellay, did he realize his idea. As the University of Paris taught neither Hebrew nor Greek, he established chairs of these two languages, and secured for them the best teachers obtainable, Paradisi and Guidacerio Vatable for Hebrew, and Peter Danes and Jacques Toussaint for Greek. Their salaries were paid from the king’s coffers, and they were to receive students gratuitously, a ruling which caused great rivalry on the part of the professors of the University of Paris, who depended on tuition fees; The professors of the college were accused before Parliament by Noël Beda, on the plea that the Vulgate would lose its authority since Hebrew and Creek were taught publicly. G. de Marcillac defended the “Royal Lectors,” as they were called, and won their case. Later on they were accused of a leaning towards Calvinism, and the Parliament forbade them to read or interpret any of the Sacred Books in Hebrew or Greek; however, the protection of the king prevented the execution of the sentence.

In 1534 a chair of Latin eloquence was added to the college. The succeeding kings favoured the college. During the Revolution the courses were unmolested; the Convention even raised the salaries, by decree, from one and two thousand francs to three thousand. The Collège de France was first ruled by the Grand Aumônier de France, who appointed the professors until 1661, when it became a part of the University of Paris, from which it was afterwards separated for a time, and finally reaffiliated in 1766. In 1744 the king himself took it under his direct authority. In 1795 the minister of the interior was in charge; in 1831 the minister of public works; in 1832 the minister of public instruction, who has retained the charge to the present day. It is independent of the university, and administered by its own faculty. The college has been known by different names: in 1534 it was called the “College of the Three Languages”; under Louis XIII, the “Collège Royal”; during the Revolution, the “Collège National”; Napoleon called it the “Collège Impérial,” and under the Restoration, it bore the name of “Collège Royal.” Through the munificence of kings and governments the college grew steadily. In 1545 Francis added to the three chairs of language already established another with two teachers for mathematics, one teacher for medicine, and one for philosophy. Charles IX introduced surgery; Henry III gave it a course in Arabic languages; Henry IV, botany and astronomy; Louis XIII gave it canon law and Syriac; Louis XV, French literature; Louis XVIII endowed it for the Sanskrit and Chinese literatures. In 1831 political economy was introduced, and since then the progress of the sciences has necessitated new chairs, such as those of organic chemistry, physio-psychology, etc.

Renan clearly characterized the tendencies and methods of the Collège de France. In comparing them with those of the University of Paris. he wrote: “The Sorbonne guards the deposit of acquired knowledge—it does not receive sciences before they have shown the life in them—on the contrary the Collège de France favours the sciences in the process of formation. It favours scientific research;” An edict of 1572 forbade any but Catholics to teach in the Collège de France. This law was strictly obeyed as long as the college remained under Catholic authority, but in recent times it has had among its professors such enemies of Catholicism as Michelet, Renan, and Havet. On the whole, however, the faculty of the Collège de France has counted in its ranks brilliant men irrespective of creed, such as Aubert, Lalande, Daubenton, Delille, Cuvier, Vauquelin, Ampère, Biot, Rollin, Sylvestre de Sacy, Abel Rémusat, Boissonade, Daunou, Burnouf, Tissot, etc. In 1907 there were fifty-nine professors and instructors.

DUVAL, Le Collège de France (Paris, 1644); GOUGET, Mémoire historique et littéraire sur le Collège royal de France (3 vols., Paris, 1753); BOUCHON AND BRANDELY, Le Collège de France (Paris, 1873); LEFRANC, Histoire du Collège de France (Paris, 1892); RENAN, Questions contemporaines (Paris, 1868), 143 sqq.; LEFRANC, Les Origines de Collège de France in Revue intern. de l’Enseign. (15 May, 1890).

J. B. DELAUNAY.

Collegiate

(Lat. collegiatus, from collegium)

An adjective applied to those churches and institutions whose members form a college (see COLLEGE). The origin of cathedral and collegiate chapters, springing from the common life of clerics attached to cathedrals and other important churches, has been treated in the article CHAPTER, where special attention is given to what regards cathedral capitulars (see CHAPTER). Collegiate churches were formed on the model of cathedral churches, and the collegiate canons have rights and duties similar to the capitulars of a cathedral, except that they have no voice in the government of the diocese, even when the see is vacant. Their main object is the solemn celebration of the Divine Office in choir. Already in the time of Charlemagne many wealthy collegiate churches had been founded throughout his empire, especially in Germany and France, of which that at Aachen was the most celebrated. In England there was also a large number of these institutions, and at the Reformation, when they were dissolved, the revenues of some of them were used for founding public schools. The founding of a collegiate church gives the founder no right to nominate its members unless he have received a special papal indult to that effect.

For the erection of collegiate institutions, the authority of the Holy See is necessary. The pope refers the matter to the consideration of the Congregation of the Council, which makes a favourable report if certain conditions are found fulfilled, such as: the dignity of the city, the large number of clergy and people, the size and beauty of the church structure, the splendour of its belongings, and the sufficiency of the income. Although the bishop cannot erect a collegiate church, yet, if the college, owing to the death of canons or other similar cause, should cease as an active corporation but still retain, de jure, its status as a college, the bishop can restore it, for this would not be a canonical erection. As the ordinary cannot erect a collegiate church, so neither can he reduce it to a merely parochial status, and still less has he the power to suppress one. Only the pope can formally dissolve a collegiate foundation. A church loses its collegiate dignity by the will of the members, or the act of the supreme ecclesiastical authority, or the death of all the canons. When the right of an institution which claims the collegiate dignity is disputed, the question is to be decided by certain signs which create a presumption in its favour. These are, among others, an immemorial reputation as a collegiate institution, a common seal proper to a college, capitular meetings of the members under the presidency of a dean, the making of contracts in the name of the college, the right of electing a prelate, the cure of souls dependent on the chapter.

Although collegiate churches are ordinarily under the jurisdiction of the bishop, yet its members are not obliged to render any service to the ordinary outside of their own churches, except in case of necessity or through contrary custom. Neither can the cathedral chapter interfere with the chapter of a collegiate church when the latter remains within its own right and privileges. Collegiate churches are distinguished into insignes (famous) and non insignes. There are, however, no rules given in canon law to discern one from the other. Canonists declare that a church is insignis if it be the mother church of the locality, have right of precedence in solemn functions, be of ancient foundation, and conspicuous by its structure and the number of its dignitaries and members, and likewise be situated in a famous or well-populated city. The canons of a church which is insignis have precedence over the canons of other collegiate institutions at Synods and in public processions. When a parochial church is elevated to collegiate rank, the right to the cure of souls does not necessarily pass to the chapter, but may remain with the parish priest. When the chapter has the right of presentation and its votes are equally divided, the bishop may decide as to which part of the canons has presented a candidate of superior merit to the other. If, however, the merits of the candidates be equal, the decision must be referred to the pope, if the chapter cannot agree after taking two ballots. The chapters of collegiate churches, by common law, have the right of electing or presenting candidates for the dignities and canonries of their chapter. The rights of confirmation and installation belong to the bishop. Many innovations on these rights have been made by special decrees or customs, and, according to the prevailing discipline, account must be taken of the so-called pontifical reservations, or the rights which the pope has reserved to himself, especially as regards the highest dignity of the chapter, and also of the legitimate privileges possessed by patrons in Spain, Austria, Bavaria, etc. of nominating and presenting candidates. These privileges are still in force in many instances.

WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899) II; DE LUCA, Prœlectiones Jur. Can. (Rome, 1897), II; FERRARIS. Bibliotheca Canonica (Rome, 1886), II; LUCIDI, De Visit. S. Liminum (Rome, 1899), III.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

St. Colman

Colman, name of several Irish saints:—(1) Colman, Bishop and patron of Kilmacduagh, b. at Kiltartan c. 560; d. October 29, 632. He lived for many years as a hermit in Arranmore, where he built two churches, both forming the present group of ruins at Kilmurvy. Thence he sought greater seclusion in the woods of Burren, in 592, and at length, in 610, founded a monastery, which became the center of the tribal Diocese of Aidhne, practically coextensive with the present See of Kilmacduagh. Although the “Martyrology of Donegal” assigns his feast to February 2, yet the weight of evidence and the tradition of the diocese point to October 29, on which day his festival has been kept from time immemorial, and which was fixed by a rescript of Pope Benedict XIV, in 1747, as a major double.

(2) Colman, of Templeshambo, was also a Connacht saint, and has been confounded with the patron of Kilmacduagh, but he lived somewhat earlier, and The sphere of his ministry lay in the present County Wexford. He was a contemporary of Saint Aidan, who appointed him Abbot of Templeshambo, the mother church of Enniscorthy. Many legends are told of Saint Colman and of his holy well with its sacred ducks, but certain it is that he labored zealously at the foot of Mount Leinster, his monastery being known as Temple Sean Bothe. He died c. 595 on October 27, on which day his feast is recorded in the “Martyrology of Donegal.”

(3) Colman Mac Lenine, founder and patron of the See of Cloyne, b. in Munster, c. 510; d. November 24, 601. He was endowed with extraordinary poetic powers, being styled by his contemporaries “Royal Bard of Munster.” The Ardrigh of Ireland gave him Cloyne, in the present County Cork, for his cathedral abbey, in 560, and he labored for more than forty years in his extensive diocese. Several of his Irish poems are still extant, notably a metrical panegyric on St. Brendan. Colgan mentions a metrical life of St. Senan by him. His feast is observed on November 24. Another St. Colman is also venerated on the same day, as recorded by St. Aengus in his “Felire”: Mac Lenine the most excellent With Colman of Duth-chuilleann.

(4) Colman, founder of the Abbey and Diocese of Mayo, b. in Connacht, c. 605; d. August 8, 676. He became a monk of Iona, and so famous were his virtues and learning, as testified by St. Bede, that on the death of St. Finan, in 661, he was appointed Bishop of Lindisfarne. During his brief episcopacy, the Synod of Whitby was held, in 664, as a result of which (St. Colman being a determined protagonist of the old Irish computation), owing to the decision of King Oswy on the Paschal controversy, he resigned his see. Between the years 665 and 667 St. Colman founded several churches in Scotland, and, at length, accompanied by thirty disciples, sailed for Ireland, settling down at Innisbof£in, County Mayo, in 668. Less than three years later he erected an abbey, exclusively for the English monks in Mayo, subsequently known as “Mayo of the Saxons.” His last days were spent on the island of Innisboffin. His feast is celebrated August 8.

(5) Colman, b. in Dalaradia, c. 450; date of death uncertain. His feast is celebrated June 7. He founded the See of Dromore, of which he is patron and over which he presided as bishop. He studied at Noendrum (Mahee Island), under St. Mochae or Coelan, one of the earliest disciples of St. Patrick. Many interesting stories are told of his edifying life at Noendrum and the miracles he worked there. To perfect his knowledge of the Scriptures St. Colmanwent to the great school of Emly, c. 470 or 475, and remained there some years. At length he returned to Mahee Island to see his old master, St. Mochae, and remained under his guidance for a long period, acting as assistant in the school. Among his many pupils at Mahee Island, in the first quarter of the sixth century, was St. Finian of Moville.

(6) Colman Elo and Colman MacCathbad are also famed in Irish hagiology. The former was founder and first Abbot of Muckamore, and from the fact of being styled “Coarb of MacNisse,” is regarded as Bishop of Connor. He was born c. 555 in Glenelly, in the present County Tyrone, and d. at Lynally in 611, September 26, on which day his feast is celebrated. He studied under his maternal uncle, St. Columcille, who procured for him the site of a monastery now known as Lynally (Lann Elo). Hence his designation of Colmanellus or Colman Elo. Subsequently he founded the Abbey of Muckamore, and was appointed Bishop of Connor. He is also known as St. Colman Macusailni. The latter saint, distinguished as Mac-Cathbad, whence Kilmackevat, County Antrim, was Bishop of Kilroot, a minor see afterwards incorporated in the Diocese of Connor. He was a contemporary of St. Ailbe, and his feast has been kept from time immemorial on October 16.

(7) St. Colman, one of the patrons of Austria, was also an Irish saint, who, journeying to Jerusalem, was martyred near Vienna, in 1012, October 13, on which day his feast is observed. His life, written by Erchenfrid of Melk, is in “Acta SS.,” VI, 357 and “Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.,” IV, 647.

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Walter Colman

Walter Colman, Friar Minor and English martyr: date of birth uncertain; died in London, 1645. He came of noble and wealthy parents and when quite young left England to study at the English College at Douai. In 1625 he entered the Franciscan Order at Douai, receiving in religion the name of Christopher of St. Clare, by which he is more generally known. having completed his year of novitiate, he returned to England at the call of the provincial, Father John Jennings, but was immediately imprisoned because he refused to take the Oath of Allegiance. Released through the efforts of his friends, he went to London, where he was employed in the duties of the sacred ministry and where, during his leisure moments, he composed “The Duel of Death” (London, 1632 or 1633), an elegant metrical treatise on death, which be dedicated to Queen Henrietta Maria, consort of Charles I. When the persecution broke out anew in 1641, Colman returned to England from Douai, whither he had gone to regain his health. On 8 Dec. of the same year he was brought to trial, together with six other priests, two of whom were Benedictines and four members of the secular clergy. They were all condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered on 13 Dec., but through the interposition of the French ambassador the execution was stayed indefinitely. Colman lingered on in Newgate for several years until he died, exhausted by starvation and the hardships of the dungeon where he was confined.

THADDEUS, The Franciscans in England (London, 1898), 62, 72, 106; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Bioq., s. v. Colman; HOPE, Franciscan Martyrs in England (London, 1878), xi, 123 sqq; MASON, Certamen Seraphicum (Quaracchi, 1885), 211, 228; LEO, Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the Three Orders of St. Francis (Taunton, 1887), IV, 368.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Joseph Ludwig Colmar

Bishop of Mainz; born at Strasburg, 22 June, 1760; died at Mainz, 15 Dec., 1818. After his ordination (20 Dec., 1783) he was professor of history and Greek at the Royal Seminary, and curate at St. Stephen’s, Strasburg. During the reign of terror, brought about at Strasburg by the apostate monk, Eulogius Schneider, he secretly remained in the city, and under various disguises administered the sacraments. After the fall of Robespierre he went about preaching and instructing, and worked so successfully for the restoration of religion in the city of Strasburg that Napoleon appointed him Bishop of Mainz; he was consecrated at Paris, 24 August, 1802. The metropolitan see of St. Boniface had been vacant for ten years; the cathedral had been profaned and partially destroyed in 1793; a new diocese had been formed under the old title of Mainz, but subject to the Archbishop of Mechlin; revolution, war, and secularization of convents, monasteries, and the property of the former archdiocese had ruined his new diocese spiritually and financially. Colmar worked like a true apostle; he rebuilt and reconsecrated the profaned cathedral, and by his influence saved the cathedral of Speyer which was about to be destroyed by order of the Government. After many difficulties he opened a seminary (1804), which he placed under the direction of the Venerable Libermann; he visited every parish and school, and reorganized the 1iturgical services, confraternities, devotions, and processions, which the Revolution had swept away. His principal aim was to organize a system of catechetical instruction, to inspire his priests with apostolic zeal, and to guard them against the false enlightenment of that age. He was an active adversary of Wessenberg and the rationalistic liberal tendencies represented by him and the Illuminati. He tried to reintroduce several religious communities in his diocese, but accomplished, however, only the restoration of the Institute of Mary Ward (Dames Anglaises). Shortly before his death he established the sisters of Divine Providence in the Bavarian part of his diocese (the former Diocese of Speyer). During the epidemic of 1813 and 1814, after the battle of Leipzig, he personally served the sick and dying. Colmar edited a collection of old German church hymns (1807) and several excellent prayer books. His sermons were published in seven volumes (Mainz, 1836; Ratisbon, 1879).

SELBST, J. L. Colmar (1902); REMLING, Gesch. der Bischöfe von Speyer (Speyer, 1867); see also life by SAUSEN in both editions of Colmar’s sermons.

FREDERICK G. HOLWECK.

Cologne

(Ger. KÖLN or CÖLN), German city and archbishopric.

THE CITY

Cologne, in size the third city of Prussia, and the capital of the district (Regierungsbezirk) of Cologne, is situated in the lowlands of the lower Rhine on both sides of the river. Its area is 45 square miles; its population (1 December, 1905), 428,722, of whom 339,790 are Catholics, 76,718 Protestants, 11,035 of other sects.

The history of Cologne goes back to the first century before Christ. After Marcus Agrippa transplanted the Ubii from the right to the left bank of the Rhine (38 B.C.), Ara Ubiorum, the centre of the civil and religious life of this tribe, occupied the site of the modern Cologne. In A.D. 50 Agrippina, the daughter of Germanicus, founded here a colony of veterans called Colonia Agrippina; the inhabitants of the two settlements mingled freely with each other, while the Germans gradually assumed Roman customs. After the revolt of the Batavians, Cologne was made the capital of a Roman province and was repeatedly the residence of the imperial court. At an early date Christianity came to Cologne with the Roman soldiers and traders; according to Irenaeus of Lyons, it was a bishop’s see as early as the second century. However, Saint Maternus, a contemporary of Constantine, is the first historically certain Bishop of Cologne. As a result of its favourable situation, the city survived the stormy period of the migrations of the Teutonic tribes. When the Ripuarian Franks took possession of the country in the fifth century, it became the residence of their king. On account of the services of the Bishops of Cologne to the Merovingian kings, the city was to have been the metropolitan see of Saint Boniface, but Mainz was chosen, for unknown reasons, and Cologne did not become an archbishopric until the time of Charlemagne. The city suffered heavily from invasions of the Northmen, especially in the autumn of 881, but recovered quickly from these calamities, especially during the reign of the Saxon emperors and of such vigorous archbishops as Bruno, Heribert, Piligrun, and others.

In the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Cologne attained great prosperity. The basis of this prosperity was the commercial activity of the city, which placed it in relation not only with Northern Europe, but also with Hungary, Venice, and Genoa. The local crafts also flourished; the spinners, weavers, and dyers, the woollen-drapers, goldsmiths, sword-cutlers, and armour-makers of Cologne were especially celebrated. The ecclesiastical importance of the city was equally great; no city north of the Alps was so rich in great churches, sanctuaries, relics, and religious communities. It was known as the “German Rome,” and was annually visited by pilgrims, especially after Rainald of Dassel, Archbishop of Cologne (1159–67), brought thither the remains of the Three Magi from Milan. Learning was zealously cultivated in the cathedral school, in the collegiate chapters, and the cloisters; famous philosophers taught here, among them Rupert of Deutz, Caesarius of Heisterbach, Duns Scotus, and Blessed Albertus Magnus. The arts also flourished, on account of the numerous churches and civil buildings. With the growth of the municipal prosperity, the pride of the citizens and their desire for independence also increased, and caused them to feel more dissatisfied with the sovereignty of the archbishop. This resulted in bitter feuds between the bishops and the city, which lasted for two centuries with varying fortunes. The first uprising occurred under Anno II, at Easter of the year 1074; the citizens rose against the archbishop, but were defeated within three days, and severely punished. They received important concessions from Archbishop Henry I of Molenark (1225–38) and his successor, the powerful Conrad of Hostaden (1238–1261), who laid the corner-stone of the cathedral. The bloody battle of Worringen in 1288, in which the citizens of Cologne allied with Brabant took prisoner Archbishop Siegfried of Westerburg (1274–97), resulted in an almost complete freedom for the city; to regain his liberty, the archbishop recognized the political independence of Cologne, but reserved certain rights, notably the administration of justice.

A long period of peace with the outside world followed. Cologne joined the Hanseatic League in the thirteenth century, and became an imperial free city in the fourteenth. On the other hand internal dissensions frequently disturbed the city. After the close of the twelfth century the government of the city was in the hands of patrician families, who filled all the offices in the city government with members of their own order. In time the craft organizations (guilds) increased in strength and demanded a share in the government. As early as 1370, in the uprising of the weavers, they gained the upper hand for a short time, but it was not until 1396 that the rule of the patricians was finally abolished. On 14 September of that year the new democratic constitution was adopted, in accordance with which only representatives of the guilds sat in the city council. The last act of the patricians was the foundation of the university (1388), which rapidly began to prosper. By their firmness and wisdom the new rulers maintained themselves against the patricians, against Archbishop Dietrich of Mörs (1419), and against Charles the Bold, who, in alliance with Archbishop Ruprecht, sought to bring the city again under archiepiscopal rule. It also suppressed domestic uprisings (for instance in 1481 and 1512). Throughout this period the city retained its place as the first city of the German Empire, in which learning, the fine arts, and the art of printing were vigorously cultivated.

In the religious upheavals of the sixteenth century Cologne remained true to Catholic doctrine, thanks chiefly to the activity of the university, where such men as Cochlaeus, Ortwin Gratianus, Jacob of Hoogstraeten, and others taught. Under their influence, the city council held fast to Catholic tradition and energetically opposed the new doctrines, which found many adherents among the people and the clergy. Cologne remained a stronghold of the old beliefs, and gave active support to the Counter-Reformation, which found earnest champions in Johannes Gropper, the Jesuits, Saint Peter Canisius, and others. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were a time of decadence for the city; its importance diminished especially after the Thirty Years War (1618–48) in which it was loyal to the emperor and the empire, and was never captured. The university eventually lost its prestige, because through over-caution it opposed the most justifiable reforms; trade was diverted to other channels; only its ecclesiastical glory remained to the city, which was governed by a narrow-minded class of tradesmen and often suffered from the dissensions between council and citizens (in 1679–86 and the bloody troubles caused by Nicholas Guelich). The outbreak of the French Revolution found it a community with but slight power of resistance. The French entered Cologne, 26 October, 1794, and the citizens were soon severely oppressed by requisitions, forced loans, and contributions. On 27 September, 1797, the old city constitution was finally annulled, the French administrative organization established, and the city made a part of the French department of the Roer of which Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen) was the capital. The university was discontinued in 1798; it had dragged out a miserable existence owing to the establishment of the University of Bonn and the confused policy of the last archbishop. After the downfall of French domination in Germany, Cologne was apportioned by the Congress of Vienna to the Kingdom of Prussia. It was made neither the seat of the government of the Rhenish Province, nor the seat of the university, but it was restored to its rank of metropolitan see, and in the nineteenth century, under Prussian rule became the third largest city of Prussia and attained unusual prosperity, economic, intellectual, and ecclesiastical.

Only brief ecclesiastical statistics can be given here. In 1907, besides the archbishop and assistant bishop, there were in Cologne 214 priests, of whom 24 were members of the cathedral chapter and 38 were parish priests, and 128 others engaged in pastoral occupations. There are 12 Dominicans and 9 Franciscans. The two deaneries of the city embrace 39 parish and 3 military churches; in addition to the 39 parish churches, there are 22 lesser churches and 26 chapels. Religious societies are numerous and powerful among more than 400 religious societies and brotherhoods we may mention: Societies of Saint Vincent, Saint Elizabeth, and Saint Charles Borromeo, Marian congregations for young men and for young women, rosary confraternities, Associations the Holy Childhood, Holy Family, of Christian Mothers, etc. Among the trades organization the most powerful are the four Catholic Gesellenvereine, with 4 hospices and 18 Catholic workingmens’ unions. The male religious orders and congregations are represented by Dominicans, Franciscans, Alexian Brothers, Brothers of Charity, and Brothers of Saint Francis; the female orders and congregations by Sisters of Saint Benedict, the Borromean Sisterhood, the Cellites, Sisters of Saint Dominic, Sisters of Saint Francis, Sisters of the Good Shepherd, Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus, the Ursuline Sisters, and Sisters of Saint Vincent; a total of 43 religious houses with about 1140 inmates. The Alexian Brothers, the Brothers of Charity, and the Brothers of Saint Francis, as well as almost all the female religious orders, conduct numerous charitable and educational institutions.

Among the churches of Cologne, the foremost is the cathedral, the greatest monument of Gothic architecture in Germany. Its cornerstone was laid by Archbishop Conrad of Hostaden, 14 August, 1248; the sanctuary was dedicated in 1322; the nave made ready for religious services in 1388; the southern tower was built to a height of about 180 feet in 1447; then the work of building was interrupted for almost four hundred years. During the French Revolution the cathedral was degraded to a hay barn. In the nineteenth century the work of building was resumed, thanks above all to the efforts of Sulpice Boisseree, who excited the enthusiasm of the Crown Prince, afterwards King Frederick William IV, for the completion of the work. The restoration was begun in 1823; in 1842 the Cathedral Building Society was founded, and generous contributions from all parts of Germany resulted. The interior was finished, 15 October, 1863, and opened for Divine service; and 15 October, 1880, the completion of the entire cathedral was appropriately celebrated in the presence of the German emperor. The whole edifice covers an area of about 7370 square yards; it has a nave 445 feet long, five aisles, and a transept 282 feet wide with three aisles; the height of the nave is about 202 feet, that of the two towers, 515 feet. Among the numerous works of art, the most famous are the picture (Dombild) painted by Stephen Lochner about 1450, the triptych over the high altar, the 96 choir seats of the sanctuary, and the shrine in which are kept the relics of the Three Kings in the treasury of the sacristy. The last is considered the most remarkable medieval example of the goldsmith’s art extant. Among the other churches of the city, the most noteworthy of those dating from the Romanesque period are Saint Gereon, Saint Ursula, Saint Mary in the Capitol, Saint Pantaleon, and the church of the Apostles; from the Transition and the Gothic periods, Saint Cunibert, Saint Mary in Lyskirchen, the church of the Minorites; from more recent times, the Jesuit church, Saint Mary Pantaleon, and Saint Mauritius. The city contains about 25 charitable institutions under Catholic management.

THE ARCHBISHOPRIC

According to ancient legend a disciple of Saint Peter was the first Bishop of Cologne, but the first historically authenticated bishop was Saint Maternus, who was present in 314 at the Synod of Arles. Among the earliest bishops the most prominent are: Euphrates, who took part in the Council of Sardica (344) and in 346 was deposed as a heretic by a general synod of Gaul; Saint Severinus (347–400), Saint Cunibert (623–63?), councillor of the Frankish kings Dagobert and Sigibert; Anno I (711–15), who brought the remains of Saint Lambert from Maastricht to Liège; Saint Agilulfus (747–51); Hildebold (785–819), chancellor under Charlemagne and, in 799, first metropolitan of Cologne, whose suffragan sees were Liège, Utrecht, Muenster, Bremen, Osnabrueck, and, after 829, Minden. During the vacancy of the archiepiscopal office (842–50) Bremen was cut off from the Archdiocese of Cologne, in spite of the protests of Gunthar (850–71). Willibert (870–89) assisted Ludwig the German to overcome Charles the Bald, by which action the archbishopric became finally a part of the German Empire. Under Hermann I (890–924) Bremen was definitively separated from Cologne. In 954 Bruno I (953–65) was made Duke of Lorraine by his brother, the Emperor Otto the Great; in this way the foundation was laid for the temporal power of the archbishopric of Cologne. For though Bruno’s successors did not inherit the ducal rank, they retained a considerable territory (the Kölngau, or district of Cologne), in time increased by the family possessions and acquisitions of many archbishops. Saint Heribert (999–1021) was very active in promoting the welfare of his diocese, was made chancellor for Italy by Otto III, and aided Henry II at the time of his expedition to Rome in 1004. Piligrim (1021–36), who accompanied Henry II and Conrad II on their expeditions to Italy, obtained for himself and for his successors the office of imperial chancellor for Italy. Hermann II (1036–56) was followed by Saint Anno II, who did much for the authority and honour of the See of Cologne; at the same time he was the first archbishop to come into open conflict with the city, now rapily growing in numbers and wealth.

As princes of the German Empire, the archbishops were very frequently involved in dissensions between popes and emperors, often to the injury of their Church, since they were frequently in opposition to the pope. Frederick I (1100–31) was the last Archbishop of Cologne to be invested with the episcopal ring and crosier; in 1111, during the three-days fight in the streets of Rome, he saved the Emperor Henry V from defeat, after his imprisonment of Pope Paschal II, but in 1114 abandoned the imperial party. His successor, Bruno II (1132–37), was again imperial chancellor for Italy, which office, after the incumbency of Arnold II of Wied (1151–56), was permanently attached to the Archbishop of Cologne. Rainald of Dassel (1159–67), the chancellor of Frederick Barbarossa, and Philip I of Heinsberg (1167–91) increased the prestige of the see; the latter prelate, after the fall of Henry the Lion, obtained as a fief for himself and his successors the western part of the Duchy of Saxony, under the title of Duke of Westphalia and Engern. One of the most energetic archbishops in the following years was Saint Engelbert. In his short reign (1216–21) he furthered the moral and religious life by several synods, and by the favour he showed the new orders of Franciscans and Dominicans; he also restored order within the limits of his see, and successfully opposed the continued efforts for civic independence. The long political conflict between the archbishops and the city, during which Conrad of Hostaden (1238–61) and Engelbert II of Falkenburg (1261–74) made many concessions was finally, as above stated, settled in favour of the city, under Siegfried of Westerburg (1274–97). The reconciliation of the archbishops with the city effected by Wikbold of Holte (1297–1304) brought with it increasing influence in the affairs of the German Empire. To the injury of his see, Henry II of Virneburg (1304–32) allied himself with Frederick the Handsome, while Walram of Juelich (1332–49) obtained many privileges from the Emperor Charles IV, whom he had raised to the imperial dignity against Louis of Bavaria. In his time the Black Death spread over Germany and entailed great misery. In 1356, under William of Gennep (1349–62), the dignity of imperial elector, recognized since about the middle of the thirteenth century as belonging to the archiepiscopal office, was formally acknowledged by the Golden Bull. Kuno of Falkenstein (1366–71), also Archbishop of Trier, added (1370) to the temporalities of the see the County of Arnsberg. After his resignation he was succeeded by Frederick III of Saarwerden (1370–1414), who adhered to Urban VI on the occasion of the Western Schism; after Urban’s death he followed a vacillating policy. His successor, Dietrich II of Mörs (1414–63), sought to make Cologne the strongest territorial power in Western Germany, but he was unfortunate in his political enterprises, and brought a heavy burden of debt on his see. Under him the city of Soest was lost to Cologne. After his death, and before the appointment of a new archbishop, the cathedral chapter, the nobility (Ritterschaft) and the cities of the archiepiscopal state (Erzstift) concluded an agreement (Erblandsvereinigung) with regard to the archbishop’s hereditary lands, whereby the prelate’s rights as temporal lord were considered limited in the archepiscopal State, whose territory, it must be remembered, did not coincide with the ecclesiastical limits of the archdiocese. This agreement was henceforth sworn to by each archbishop at his election. Ruprecht von der Pfalz (1463–80) squandered the revenues of the see, sought by force to gain control of the cities and castles previously mortgaged, and thereby entered into conflicts with the holders of the mortgages. Violence, arson, and devastation visited the diocese in consequence. In 1478 Ruprecht was captured and remained a prisoner until his death. His successor, Hermann IV of Hesse, devoted his energy to the restoration of order, paid a part of the public debt, and, by the diocesan synod of 1483, whose decrees he vigorously enforced, furthered the intellectual and moral elevation of clergy and people. Philip II of Daun (1508–15) walked in the footsteps of his predecessor.

The government of Hermann V of Wied (1515–47) brought trouble and disaster on his see. At the Diet of Worms he at first opposed the religious doctrines of Luther. He urged the banning of the Reformer and held a provincial synod in 1536; gradually, however, he turned away from the Catholic Faith, chose adherents of Luther for his counsellors, and allowed the new doctrines to be preached in his diocese. When he openly favoured the spread of Protestantism, he was suspended in 1546, and forced to resign (1547). By the advice of excellent men, such as Gropper, Billick, and others, Adolph III of Schauenburg (1546–56) took strong measures against the preachers brought in by Hermann, and published vigorous decrees against immoral priests. His brother Anton (1556–58) followed a similar course. Under Johann Gebhard of Mansfeld (1558–62) Utrecht ceased to be a suffragan of Cologne, and the Deanery of Zyfflich was incorporated with the newly founded See of Roermond. After the brief reign of Frederick IV of Wied (1562–67) and that of the vigorous Salentin of Isenburg (1567–77), who resigned because he did not wish to take priest’s orders, Gebhard II Truchsess of Waldburg, succeeded to the office. He followed the evil course of Hermann of Wied. At first loyal to the Church, he became a Calvinist in 1582, owing to his passion for Agnes von Mansfeld, and sought to Protestantize the see in 1583; he was put under the ban of the empire and deposed, and Duke Ernest of Bavaria chosen as his successor. With Protestant aid Gebhard sought to keep possession of his diocese. But the War of Cologne (Kölnischer Krieg), which lasted five years, and brought untold misery on the land, ended in victory for the Catholic party. These attempts of Hermann of Wied and Gebhard to alienate the archdiocese from the Catholic Faith led to the establishment of a permanent papal nunciature in Cologne which existed from 1584 to the extinction of the archiepiscopal State at the end of the eighteenth century (see NUNCIO; SECULARIZATION).

Ernest of Bavaria (1583–1612) was the first of the five princes of the house of Wittelsbach who held the Electorate of Cologne until 1761. Ferdinand of Bavaria (1612–50), Maximilian Henry (1650–88), Joseph Clemens (1688–1723), and Clemens Augustus I (1727–61) succeeded him. Following the tradition of their princely house, these five archbishops were intensely loyal to the Church, and upheld Catholicism in the archdiocese, which, however, had lost 122 parishes in consequence of the Reformation. However, in consequence of the repeated union of several bishoprics in the hands of these Bavarian prelates, the political administration of the territory was held to be of primary, its religious government of secondary, importance. Moreover, the foreign policy of these five Bavarian archbishops was not always fortunate. By their alliance with France, especially during the Spanish and Austrian Wars of Succession, they furthered the political dissolution of the old German Empire (begun in the Thirty Years War) and encouraged the anti-Hapsburg policy of France which aimed at the final overthrow of the German imperial power. Similarly, their friendly relations to France favoured the introduction of rationalism into Cologne. This spirit of opposition to the Church and to the authority of the popes had a still stronger hold upon Archbishop Maximilian Frederick of Königseck (1761–84). In 1771 he founded an academy at Bonn in opposition to the loyal Catholic University of Cologne, and in 1781 issued in favour of the new academy an order according to which attendance at the University of Cologne was punished by inability to hold any office, either ecclesiastical or civil, in the diocese. The last Elector of Cologne, Maximilian Francis of Austria (1785–1801), took part in the anti-papal Congress of Ems (q. v.), nominated Eulogius Schneider as professor in the Academy of Bonn, which he raised to the rank of a University in 1786, and instituted reforms similar to those enacted by his brother, the Emperor Joseph II, in Austria. As brother of Marie Antoinette, he was at first opposed to the French Revolution, but soon adopted a policy of inactivity which ultimately resulted in the loss of independence both by the city and the electorate. At the approach of the victorious French army the elector left his residence at Bonn, never to see it again. The French entered Cologne, 26 October, 1794, and Bonn, 8 November. The conquered territory between the Meuse, the Rhine, and the Moselle was divided into four departments governed by a civil commissioner at Mainz, and incorporated with France by the Peace of Luneville in 1801. In 1796 all the ecclesiastical property in the part of the archdiocese held by the French was seized by the civil authority; in 1802 all religious orders and congregations were suppressed, and their property confiscated. By the Concordat of 1801 between the Apostolic See and Napoleon I, nearly all of the former archdiocese on the left bank of the Rhine was given to the newly founded See of Aachen. The old ecclesiastical organization remained undisturbed in the archdiocesan territory on the right bank of the Rhine. After the death of Maximilian Francis (1801), the cathedral chapter, which had taken refuge in Arnsberg, chose the Austrian Archduke Anthony as his successor, but he never occupied his see, owing to Prussian opposition. In 1803 the remainder of the electorate was secularized, an inglorious end for the ancient Archbishopric of Cologne. The loss to the Catholic Church in Germany was great. The archbishopric, i.e., the territory in which the archbishop was also temporal ruler, included in its Rhenish territory alone (without Westphalia) 60 square miles and about 199,000 inhabitants (in 1797), of whom 180,000 were on the left bank of the Rhine.

In 1750 the archdiocese contained 860 parishes with as many parish churches, 300 benefices, 400 chapels, 42 collegiate chapters, 21 abbeys (10 Benedictine, 4 Premonstratensian, 7 Cistercian), 5 Benedictine provostships, 18 Minorite and 24 Franciscan monasteries, 2 Franciscan houses of the Third Order. There were also 20 Capuchin houses, 6 Dominican, 3 Carthusian, 11 Augustinian, 8 of Knights of the Cross, 9 Jesuit (suppressed in 1773), 2 Servite, and 2 Alexian. The Brothers of Saint Anthony, the Carmelites, the Zionites, the Brothers of Saint Martin had each one house. There were five establishments of the Teutonic Order and nine of the Knights of Malta. The female orders had a total of 146 nunneries (see below, Mooren, II1, 426 sqq.). The loss in costly gold and silver church plate, vestments and the treasures of the libraries and archives, is incalculable. When the disorders of the Napoleonic regime had passed, the archdiocese was re-established by Pius VII. Its territory had previously been made a part of Prussia by the Congress of Vienna, in 1815. On 16 July, 1821, by the Bull “De Salute animarum” the Archdiocese of Aachen was abolished, the church of St. Peter in Cologne was again made a metropolitan church, and the territories of the Archdiocese of Cologne defined anew, with its present boundaries, except for a few unimportant changes. It then included 44 deaneries and 685 parishes (536 on the left bank of the Rhine and 149 on the right bank). On the 20th of December, 1824, Ferdinand August von Spiegel was named by the pope as the first archbishop of the new see; on 20 May, 1825, he took charge of the ecclesiastical government, which had been carried on by the vicar capitular, Johann Hermann Joseph von Caspars zu Weiss, from 1801 till his death (1822), and after that time by Prothonotary Johann Wilhelm Schmitz. Archbishop von Spiegel’s administration (1824–35) was in many ways beneficial. He alleviated many evils which had crept in during the previous years and made serious efforts for the education of the clergy and for the reorganization of his diocese; nevertheless, he was too subservient to the Prussian Government, and entered into a secret agreement with it in regard to mixed marriages, contrary to the spirit of the ecclesiastical marriage laws. His successor, Clemens Augustus, Freiherr von Droste zu Vischering, who vigorously opposed the spread of the Hermesian heresy, soon came into conflict with the Prussian Government on the question of mixed marriages, as a result of which he was taken prisoner, 20 November, 1837, and confined in the castle of Minden. This event caused great excitement throughout Germany, and helped to revive the religious life and activity of the German Catholics. When Frederick William IV came to the throne, the archbishop resigned his office in favour of his coadjutor, Johann von Geissel, Bishop of Speyer. As archbishop (1845–64), he displayed a most auspicious activity and infused fresh religious vigour into his diocese. Great injury was done the Church of Cologne by the Prussian Kulturkampf. During its course Archbishop Paul Melchers (1866–85) was imprisoned by the Government in 1874 (till 9 October), and then was forced to leave his diocese. The number of priests fell from 1947 to about 1500, and many parishes remained for years without a priest. After the conclusion of peace between Rome and Prussia, Archbishop Melchers abdicated his see. His successors, Philip Krementz (1885–99; cardinal, 1893), Hubert Simar (1899–1902), and Anton Fischer (since 6 November, 1902; cardinal since 22 June, 1903) devoted themselves to repairing the evil done by the Kulturkampf and developing to a prosperous state the religious and ecclesiastical life of the diocese.

STATISTICS

The Archdiocese of Cologne includes the Prussian administrative districts of Cologne and Aachen, the greater part of the district of Düsseldorf and small portions of the districts of Coblenz, Trier, and Arnsberg, altogether, 4219 square miles, with about 2,700,000 Catholics (census of 1 December, 1900, 2,522,648). The parishes in 1907 numbered 917, with 51 deaneries; the priests included 1934 secular priests (of whom 214 were stationed in the cathedral city), 208 regulars, and about 60 priests from other dioceses. The metropolitan chapter consists of 1 cathedral, provost (Domprobst), 1 cathedral dean (Domdechant), 10 residential, and 4 honorary canons. The archbishop is chosen by the cathedral chapter, the Bishops of Trier, Münster, and Paderborn are his suffragans. Within the city of Cologne there are 39 parishes and 3 military churches grouped in two deaneries. In addition to the cathedral chapter there is a collegiate chapter at Aachen. The educational institutions under ecclesiastical control include the archiepiscopal seminary for priests at Cologne, with 83 students (1906–07), the Collegium Albertinum at Bonn (175 students), the Collegium Leoninum at Bonn (104 students), the archiepiscopal seminaries for boys at Neuss, Muenstereifel, Rheinbach, and Opladen, 4 high schools and boarding-colleges for boys, and 26 boarding-schools for girls (the latter conducted by female orders). For the higher education of the clergy there is the Catholic faculty of theology at the University of Bonn, with 14 ecclesiastical professors, in addition to the (Cologne) seminary for priests already mentioned. Ecclesiastical teachers are also employed at 102 secondary schools (gymnasia, technical gymnasia, high schools, academies, and Latin schools, etc.), and 5 Catholic teachers’ seminaries, at 42 Catholic girls’ high schools and 5 Catholic training schools for women teachers. The total attendance at all the intermediate and higher schools of the archdiocese averages almost 17,400 Catholic boys and 11,700 Catholic girls. The total attendance at the primary schools (Volksschulen) is 428,000 children in 11,560 classes. (For the educational relations between the Church and the State see PRUSSIA.)

The religious orders of men in the archdiocese have 42 establishments with about 1100 members, and the orders and congregations of women have 401 with 6200 sisters, there being in the cathedral city alone 43 religious houses with 1140 inmates. The following orders or congregations are represented: Benedictines (1 establishment), Dominicans (2), Franciscans (9), Camillians (1), Capuchins (2), Carthusians (1), Redemptorists (2), Trappists (1), Fathers of the Holy Ghost and Immaculate Heart of Mary (2), Alexian Brothers (9), Brothers of Charity (6), Brothers of Saint Francis (6), Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration (3), Borromean Sisters (18), Cellites (86) Sisters of Christ (4), Congregation of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Saint Peter Fourier (1), Handmaids of Christ (69), Sisters of Saint Dominic (10), Order of Saint Elizabeth (35), Sisters of Saint Francis (96), Ladies of the Good Shepherd (3), Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus (10), Carmelite Sisters (3), Daughters of the Holy Cross (15), Sisters of Christian Charity (4), Penitent Recollects (1), School Sisters of Notre Dame (2), Ursulines (9), Sisters of Saint Vincent (31). The orders of men are devoted partly to pastoral and mission work, partly to charitable work; the orders of women devote themselves almost entirely either to educational work (instruction and care of young girls in various establishments, sewing schools, girls’ high schools, and boarding-schools) or to charitable work in refuges, working-women’s homes, servant-girls’ homes, the care of the sick in hospitals, hospices, etc.

It is impossible to mention here all the numerous charities and organizations found within the limits of the archdiocese; complete statistics are given in M. Brandt’s book, “Die katholischen Wohlthätigkeits-Anstalten und Vereine sowie das katholischsociale Vereinswesen ins besondere in der Erzdiöcese Köln” (Cologne, 1896). In the cathedral city alone there are more than 400 religious societies and brotherhoods. The most important of the organizations and charitable institutions in the archdiocese which are not limited to a single parish are as follows: 182 congregations and 71 societies for young men, 160 Catholic working-men’s clubs, 74 Catholic journeymen’s associations (Gesellenvereine), 26 miners’ associations, 29 congregations and societies of merchants, 10 societies for women employed in stores, 55 homes and schools for working-women, 22 homes for the insane and idiots, 10 homes for servant girls, 9 refuges for fallen women, 90 orphanages; also the Elizabeth societies and 225 conferences of the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, the Saint Regis societies, and others.

The most important churches are the cathedral (Dom) of Cologne (see above), the cathedral of Aachen, the churches at Cologne mentioned above, the cathedral churches at Bonn and Essen, the church of Saint Quirinus in Neuss, the churches of the former Abbots of Werden, Knechtsteden, Cornelimünster, and Steinfeld, the double church in Schwarz-Rheindorf, etc.

A complete bibliography of the city by KRUDEWIG is given in Die Kunstdenkmaeler der Stadt Köln (Düsseldorf, 1906), I, Pt. I The most important works are: BIANCO, Die alte Universitaet Köln (Cologne, 1855), I; KEUSSEN, Die Matrikel der Universitaet Köln (Bonn, 1892); ENNEN, Frankreich und der Niederrhein oder Geschichte von Stadt und Kurstaat Köln siet dem 30 jahrigen Kriege (2 vols., Cologne, 1855–56); IDEM, Geschichte der Stadt Köln (5 vols., Cologne and Neuss, 1863–80); Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Köln, ed. by EENNEN and ECKERTZ (6 vols., Cologne, 1860–79); Chronikender deutschen Staedte, vols. XII-XIV (Leipzig, 1875–77); Mitteilungen aus dem Stadtarchiv von Köln (32 vols., Cologne, 1883–1904); Kölner Schreinsurkunden des 12. Jahrhunderts, ed. by HOENIGER (2 vols., Bonn, 1884–94); HOEHLBAUM-LAU, Das Buch Weinsberg, Kölner Denkwuerdigkeiten aus den 16. Jahrhundert (4 vols., Leipzig and Bonn, 1886–98); Köln und seine Bauten (Cologne, 1888); MOHR, Die Kirchen von Köln (Berlin, 1889); KORTH, Köln in Mittelalter (Cologne, 1891), good bibliography; STEIN, Akten zur Geschichte der Verfassung und Verwaltung der Stadt Köln in 14. und 15. Jahrhundert (2 vols., Bonn, 1893–95); MERLO, Kölnische Kuenstler in alter und neuer Zeit (Düsseldorf, 1895); SCHIEBLER AND ALDENHOVEN, Geschichte der Kölner Malerschule (2 vols. . with 100 photogravures, Luebeck, 1894–96); KNIPPING, Die Kölner Stadtrechnungen des Mittelalters (2 vols., Bonn, 1897–98); LAU, Die Entwicklung der kommunalen Verfassung und Verwaltung der Stadt Köln bis zum Jahre 1396 (Bonn, 1898); HELMKEN, Köln und seine Sehenswuerdigkeiten (20th ed., Cologne, 1903); H. v. LOESCH, Kölner Zunfturkunden (2 vols., Bonn, 1905); KEUSSEN, Historische Topographie der Stadt Köln in Mittelalter (Bonn, 1906); STEFFENS, Kölner Kirchenkalender fuer das Jahr 1907 (Cologne, 1907). For the cathedral consult: BOISSEREE, Geschichte und Beschreibung des Doms zu Köln (2nd ed., Munich, 1842); BOCK, Der Kunst- und Reliquienschatz des Kölner Doms (Cologne and Neuss, 1870); SCHMITZ, Der Dom zu Köln (150 tables, with text by ENNEN, Cologne, 1868–76); WIETHASE, Der Dom zu Köln (40 plates with text, Frankfurt, 1884–1889); HELMKEN, Der Dom zu Köln (4th ed., Cologne, 1899); LINDNER, Der Dom zu Köln (plates, Haarlem, 1904).

The older sources and works that treat of the Archdiocese of Cologne are given by WALTER in Das alte Erzstift und die Reichsstadt Köln (Bonn, 1866), 3–18. Full bibliographical references, especially for the individual archbishops, are found in the Handbuch der Erzdioecese Keoln (4th ed., Cologne, 1905), also the list of the assistant bishops, general vicars, and nuncios of Cologne. The most important works of reference are: BINTERIM AND MOOREN, Die alte und neue Erzdioecese Köln (4 vols., Mainz, 1828–30; 2d ed. in 2 vols., Düsseldorf, 1892–93); LACOMBLET, Urkundenbuch fuer die Geschichte des Niederrheins (4 vols., Düsseldorf, 1840–58); LACOMBLET, Archiv fuer die Geschichte des Niederrheins (7 vols., Düsseldorf, 1832–70); SIEBERTZ, Urkundenbuch fuer Landes- und Rechtsgeschichte des Herzogtums Westfalen (3 vols., Arnsberg, 1839–54); MERING AND REISCHERT, Die Bischoefe und Erzbischoefe von Köln (2 vols., Cologne, 1842–44); BINTERIM, Die geistlichen Gerichteinder Erzdioecese Köln (Düsseldorf, 1849); ENNEN, Geschichte der Reformation im Bereiche der alten Erzdioecese Köln (Cologne, 1849); KAMPSCHULTE, Kirchlich-politische Statistik des vormals zur Erzdioecese Köln gehoerigen Westfalen (Lippstadt, 1869); PODLECH, Geschichte der Erzdioecese Köln (Mainz, 1879); DUMONT, Descriptio Archidioecesis Coloniensis (Cologne, 1879); IDEM, Geschichte der Pfarreien der Erzdioecese Köln (Cologne, 1883- 1900), I-X; LEY, Die koelnische Kirchengeschichte im Anschluss an die Geschichte der koelnischen Bischoefe und Erzbischoefe (Cologne, 1883); Geschichtlicher Atlas der Rheinprovinz (Bonn, 1894–1901); KLEINERMANNS, Die Heiligen auf den bishoeflichen bzw. erzbischoeflichen Stuhle von Köln (Cologne, 1895), I; JANSEN, Die Herzogsgewalt der Erzbischoefe von Köln in Westfalen (Munich, 1895); KNIEPING, Die Regesten der Erzbischoefe von Köln im Mittelalter (vol. II., Bonn, 1900; vol. III in press, 1907); SAUERLAND, Urkunden und Regesten zur Geschichte der Rheinlande aus dem vatikanischen Archiv (vol. I-III., Bonn, 1902–05; vol. IV in press, 1907); KORTH, Die Patrocinien der Kirchen und Kapellen im Erzbistum Köln (Düsseldorf, 1904); Kunstdenkmaeler der Rheinproivinz (Düsseldorf, 1891-); Bau- und Kunstdenkmaeler von Westfalen (Paderborn, 1893-); WOLF, Aus Kurkoeln im 16. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1906); EWALD, Die Siegel der Erzbischoefe von Köln 948–1795 (Bonn, 1906); Westfaelisches Urkundenbuch, vol. III, Die Urkunden des kolnischen Westfalen vom Jahre 1200- 1300 (Muenster, 18__-1907). For the Reformation period see: DROUVEN, Die Reformation in der koelnischen Kirchenprovinz zur Zeit Hermanns V. von Wied (Bonn, 1876); LOSSEN, Der koelnische Krieg (I, Gotha, 1882; II, Munich, 1897), also Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland (Pt. I, Paderborn, 1895 and 1899; Pt. III, vols. I and II, Berlin, 1892 and 1894). The most important periodicals are: Annalen des historischen Vereins fuer den Niederrhein ins besondere die alte Erzdioecese Köln (at present 83 vols., Cologne, 1855-). Jahrbuecher des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinland (Bonn, 1842-); Westdeutsche Zeitschrift fuer Geschichte und Kunst (Trier, 1882-), with supplementary volumes.

JOSEPH LINS

University of Cologne

Though famous all through the Middle Ages for its cathedral and cloister schools and for eminent scholars—Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus—Cologne had no university until near the end of the fourteenth century, when Urban VI, at the instance of the Town Council, issued (21 May, 1388) the Bull of foundation. The university was inaugurated the following year with twenty-one magistri and 737 matriculated students. Further privileges were granted by Boniface IX (1389, 1394), Duke Wilhelm von Geldern (1396), and Emperor Frederick III (1442); while special favour was shown the university by Gregory XII (1406), Nicholas V (1447), and Pius II; the last-named Pope addressed his “Bull of Retractation” (In minoribus agentes) to the Rector and University of Cologne (26 April, 1463). The university was represented at the Councils of Constance and Basle, and was involved in the controversy regarding the authority of council and pope. It took sides with the antipope Felix V, but eventually submitted to Nicholas V. The Renaissance movement met with opposition at Cologne, though among its professors were the humanists Caesarius, Buschius, Glareanus, Gratius, Phrissemius, and Sobius. During the same period may be mentioned the theologians Arnold of Tongres and Hoogstraaten, O.P. All these were involved in the conflict which centred about Reuchlin (q.v.) and which did the university great harm. The “Epistolae obscurorum virorum” were directed against the theologians of Cologne. At the time of the Reformation, but few of the professors joined the Protestant movement; the university as a whole was strong in its defence of the Catholic Faith and some of its students, as Cochlaeus and Eck, were afterwards foremost champions of the Church. Failing on the other hand to introduce the reforms needed in its own work and organization, the university declined rapidly during the sixteenth century. The vicissitudes of war, lack at means, and withdrawal of its students reduced it to a nominal existence in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In 1786 the founding of the University of Bonn (q.v.) decided the fate of Cologne, which was unable to withstand its more vigorous rival. The French troops entered Cologne in October, 1794; in April, 1796, the university was closed.

RASHDALL, Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1895, II, 25); BIANCO, Die alte Universitaet Koeln (Cologne, 1855), KEUSSEN, Die Matrikel d. Universitaet Koeln 1389 bis 1559 (Bonn, 1892);, Die Universitaeten des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1885).

E.A. PACE

Bl. Colomba of Rieti

Born at Rieti in Umbria, Italy, 1467; died at Perugia, 1501. Blessed Colomba of Rieti is always called after her birthplace, though she actually spent the greater part of her life away from it. Her celebrity is based—as it was even in her lifetime—mainly on two things: the highly miraculous nature of her career from its very beginning, and her intense devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. She was one amongst a number of saintly Dominican women who seem to have been expressly raised up by God in protest against, and as a sharp contrast to, the irreligion and immorality prevalent in Italy during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. These women, nearly all of the Third Order, had an intense devotion to St. Catherine of Siena, and made it their aim to imitate her as nearly as possible. Many seculars, men as well as women, shared this devotion, amongst these being Ercole I, Duke of Ferrara, who had a deep admiration for Colomba and for some other holy Dominican religious, her contemporaries, the most notable of whom were Blessed Osanna of Mantua and Blessed Lucy of Narni. For the latter Ercole’s veneration was so great that he never rested until he had got her to come with some of her nuns to live in Ferrara, where he built her a convent and where she died after many troubles. She began when quite a girl to practise austere penances and to subsist almost entirely on the supernatural food of the Holy Eucharist, and continued this for the greater part of her life. At nineteen she joined the Dominican Tertiaries, of whom there were many in town, though still living at home; and she soon won the veneration of her fellow townspeople by her personal holiness as well as by some miracles that she worked. But Colomba was not destined to remain in Rieti. In 1488 she left home and went to Perugia, where the inhabitants received her as a saint, and in the course of time built her the convent of St. Catherine, in which she assembled all the Third Order Dominicanesses, who desired her as superior in spite of her youth. In 1494, when a terrible plague was raging in Perugia, she offered herself as victim for the city. The plague was stayed, but Colomba herself was struck down by the scourge. She recovered only to save her sanctity severly tried by widely spread calumnies, which reached Rome, whence a commssion was sent to examine into her life. She was treated for some time as an imposter, and desposed from her office of prioress; but finally her innocence triumphed. In 1495 Alexander VI, having heard of Colomba’s holiness and miracles from his son the Cardinal Caesar Borgia, who had been living in Perugia, went himself to the city and saw her. She is said to have gone into ecstasy at his feet, and also to have boldy told him of all personal sins. The pope was fully satisfied of her great sanctity and set the seal of approval on her mode of life. In the year of 1499 she was consulted by authorities who were examining into the manner, concerning the stigmata of Blessed Lucy of Narni, and spoke warmly in favour of their being genuine, and of her admiration for Blessed Lucy’s holiness. Her relics are still venerated at Perugia, and her feast is kept by her order on 20 May.

F.M. CAPES

Republic of Colombia

(Republic of Colombia; formerly United States of Colombia)

Colombia forms the north-west corner of the South American Continent. It is bounded on the north by the Caribbean Sea, on the east by Venezuela, on the south by Brazil and Peru, on the south-west by Ecuador. The Pacific Ocean bounds it on the west and on the north-west the Republic of Panama and the Gulf of Darien. Its area is variously calculated at from 450,000 to about 500,000 square miles, but exact data are not obtainable. Colombia has at least eleven active or dormant volcanoes, the tallest of which, Huila, rises to about 19,000 feet and seems to be the highest point in the country. Almost on the Caribbean shores are the mud-volcanoes of Turbaco. The republic is highly favoured by nature in most parts of its territory, and capable of producing nearly every staple. It is very rich in useful tropical plants. The animal kingdom, too, is far better represented than farther south along the Pacific coast. The climate shows all possible varieties, from the moist heat of the lowlands to the bitter cold of the mountain wastes.

Since 1870 no census of the population has been attempted. To-day the number of inhabitants is variously estimated, four millions being a likely conjecture. One estimate (made in 1904) gives 3,917,000 souls; another, two years later, 4,680,000, of which 4,083,000 for the sixteen departments, 120,000 for the federal district, and 427,000 for the intendancies. Four-fifths at least of this population resides in the mountainous western half, the eastern lowlands being mostly held by wild Indian bands. The number of aborigines is given at about 150,000, without reliable basis, however, for this estimate. The most populous city is Bogotá, situated at an altitude of 9000 feet above the sea, with 85,000 inhabitants; Medellin, in the department of Antioquia (4600 feet above the sea) comes next, with 50,000 souls, then Barranquilla, Colombia’s most active seaport, with 32,000 (later accounts say 55,000). Negroes and mulattoes are numerous, and mestizos form a large proportion of the people. In the mountains the pure Indian has been reduced by amalgamation to a small proportion of the inhabitants and most of the aboriginal stocks have completely disappeared as such. Near the Gulf of Maracaibo the Goajiros still maintain autonomy, but the Tayronas, Panches, Musos, are practically extinct. Around Bogotá there are descendants of the Chibchas (q.v.), a sedentary tribe once of considerable numerical importance, for aborigines.

HISTORY

The earliest information concerning the territory which was to become in the nineteenth century the Republic of Colombia goes back to the year 1500 and comes down to us from Rodrigo de Bastidas and Alonzo de Ojeda. But even a few months before these explorers, Christoval Guerra and Pero Alonzo Nino had coasted Venezuela and, possibly, the northern shores of Colombia, gathering pearls and gold. Bastidas saw the snowy range of Santa Marta in 1500, and Ojeda settled on the coast near by. The Spanish colonies on the Isthmus of Darien (since 1903, the Republic of Panama, but previously a province of Colombia) and the discovery of the South Sea by Balboa directed the course of explorations of Colombia to its north-western and Pacific sections. The banks of large rivers, Atrato, Cauca, and Magdalena, were also explored and conquered at an early period. The valleys, especially that of the Cauca, were inhabited by comparatively numerous agricultural tribes, who also gathered gold by washing and worked it into figures, ornaments, and sometimes vessels. Much of the precious metal was found in graves. The Indians of Antioquia, Ancerma, Cali, and Lile, though living in villages, were cannibals, and wars of extermination had to be waged against them. The languages of these peoples have wellnigh disappeared, as well as the tribes themselves, and their classification in four principal groups, Catios, Nutabes, Tahamies, and Yamacies (of which the first two held both banks of the Cauca), requires confirmation. In western Colombia the Spaniards penetrated to the northern confines of Ecuador (Pasto, Popayan) comparatively early, and there met other explorers from their own people coming up from Quito. This led to strife and even to bloodshed.

The valley of the Magdalena formed the natural route to the interior. The Indian tribes around, and to the south of, the Santa Marta Mountains (Chimilas, Panches, Tayronas, Musos) were of a sedentary and warlike character, and offered a protracted resistance. It seems that they belonged to the linguistic stock of the Chibcha (or Muysca), and considerable gold was found among them, chiefly in burial places. Up to 1536, Tamalameque (about 9 degrees N. lat.) had been the most southern point reached from Santa Marta. In the beginning of that year, however, an important expedition was set on foot under the command of Pedro Fernandez de Lugo, with the object of penetrating into the unknown mountains to the south. Lugo soon died, but his lieutenant Gonzalo Ximenes de Quesada persevered, and reached the plateau, where he found the numerous tribes of the Chibcha established in formal settlements, and rich in gold and in emeralds obtained from the country of the Musos where they are still obtained. By August, 1538, Cundinamarca (by which name the Chibcha range is mostly known) was occupied by Quesada after considerable warfare with the natives, and the city of Santa Fé de Bogotá was founded as capital of the “Kingdom of New Granada,” which continued the official designation of Colombia until its independence was achieved. Upon the conquest of the Chibcha country followed expeditions to the east and south-east, in quest of the “Gilded Man” (el Dorado) with little more than geographical results. These expeditions led towards the region now forming the Republic of Venezuela.

The establishment of a German administration in Venezuela, by the Welser family, in 1529, also led the Spaniards and Germans into Colombia from the East. Ambrosius Dalfinger (1529–32) reached Tamalameque and, in 1538, when Quesada was beginning to organize his recent conquest at Bogotá, he was surprised by the arrival of a force from Venezuela commanded by the German leader Nicolas Federmann. Shortly after this another body of Spaniards reached the plateau of Cundinamarca from the Cauca Valley. This was the expedition headed by Sebastian Belalcazar of Quito. Each of the three commanders having acted independently, each claimed the territory as his conquest, but Quesada succeeded in buying his rivals off, and remained master of the field, thus avoiding bloodshed.

New Granada, under its own audiencia established in 1563, formed part of the Spanish viceroyalty of Peru until 1718, was then severed from Peru for four years, then again placed under an audiencia, and finally, in 1751, constituted a separate viceroyalty. During the seventeenth century, the ports of the Colombian coast were exposed to the formidable attacks of pirates. In 1671 the notorious Morgan took Panama and sacked it, and the most horrible cruelties were committed upon its inhabitants. Two years later it was the turn of Santa Marta. In 1679 the French Baron de Pointe took and pillaged Cartagena (founded 1510). Religious strife, too, between the secular and some of the regular clergy, and between the bishops and the civil authorities, troubled Cartagena, Popayan, and other dioceses. Extreme measures of taxation, exorbitant duties, provoked a popular uprising in 1781. The country remained in a state of ferment, which was aggravated by the downfall of Spain before the power of Napoleon. Miranda made in 1806 an attempt at insurrection, directed in the first instance against Venezuela, but threatening New Granada as well, had it succeeded. On 20 July, 1810, a revolutionary junta met at Bogotá, and in the following year “The United Provinces of New Granada” were proclaimed. These embraced also Venezuela and Ecuador, and soon two parties appeared, among the revolutionists, so that, previous to 1816, three civil wars had taken place. Bolivar, who appeared on the scene in 1810, was unable to establish harmony. Spain could do almost nothing to recover its colonies until 1815, when a respectable force under General Morillo landed in Venezuela. this united the factions again, and for five years a war of extermination was carried on in the three states. During that period the Republic of Colombia was proclaimed, in 1819. The revolutionists suffered many reverses, for Morillo was an able military leader. Of the actions fought in this bloody war, that at Sogamoso (12 June, 1819) decided the fate of the remnants of the Spanish army, and the engagement at Carabobo, near Valencia in Venezuela (24 June, 1821), was the last of any consequence. The Republics of Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela became united under the name of Colombia. In 1829, however, Ecuador and Venezuela seceded, and Colombia was left alone.

In 1831 Colombia became “The Republic of New Granada.” Thirty years later it called itself “United States of Colombia.” In 1886, the “sovereign states” were reduced to departments of a “centralized republic” styled “The Republic of Colombia,” under which name it is known to exist to-day. No country of Spanish America has been, since its independence, so often and so violently disturbed, internally, as Colombia. With a single exception (Parra, 1876–80), every presidential term has been marked by one or more bloody revolutions. Panama seceded for a while, in 1856. The events of 1903 made the separation between Colombia and Panama definitive. Since 1904, conditions seem to have at last become more settled. Reorganization, after so many periods of disruption and anarchy, seems to be the aim of the present Government of Colombia.

Hardly was the territory now known as the Republic of Colombia discovered, when the Church, working in accord with the King of Spain, hastened to the natives. In spite of the honest intentions of the Spanish kings, their agents were in many cases obstacles to the religious progress of the country. What progress was attained was due to the efforts of the Dominican, Franciscan, Jesuit, and other missionaries. This great work was often opposed by the colonists and government officials who looked solely to their own worldly prosperity. The religious of the Society of Jesus, with whose history the name of the Colombian city of Cartagena is so gloriously associated (see PETER CLAVER, SAINT), were also the first during the colonial period to found colleges for secondary instruction; eight or ten colleges were opened in which the youth of the country, and the sons of the Spaniards, were educated. In the Jesuit College of Bogotá the first instruction in mathematics and physics was given. In the expulsion of the Jesuits by Charles III the Church in New Granada lost her principal and most efficacious aid to the civilization of the country, which was practically paralysed for many years. To this day the traveller may see the effects of this arbitrary act in the immense plains of the regions of the Casanare, converted in the space of one century into pasture lands for cattle, but which were once a source of great wealth, and which would have been even more so.

It is only within the last ten years that the Catholic Church, owing to the peace and liberty which she now enjoys, has turned her eyes once more to Casanare; a vicariate Apostolic has been erected there, governed by a bishop of the Order of St. Augustine, who with the members of his order labours among the savages and semi-savages of these plains.

PRESENT CONDITIONS

The legislative power of the nation is vested in a Congress consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Senators are elected for six years. Each senator had two substitutes elected with him. Every department is entitled to three senators, and the whole body is renewed, upon the completion of the term of service of one-third of its members, every two years. One representative and two substitutes correspond to a population of 50,000, and their term of office is four years. Congress, besides legislation, has power to interfere with the action of the executive in matters of contracts and treaties. The executive is headed by the president, who has a vice-president and a substitute (or designado); the last takes office in case both president and vice-president become incapacitated. While the presidential term has varied from six to four years, the actual incumbent (1908), Rafael Reyes, is in possession of the office for ten years. There is a cabinet of ministers and a consultative body called the “Council of State,” composed of six members with the vice-president at its head. The president appoints the members of the Supreme Court for life, or during good behaviour. The judicial districts have their superior as well as inferior courts. Courts of Commerce may be instituted when necessary, and trial by jury obtains in criminal cases. The Constitution of 1886, amended in 1904 and 1905, explicitly provides (Art. 38) that “the Catholic Apostolic Roman Religion is that of the Nation; the public authorities will protect it and cause it to be respected as an essential element of the social order. It being understood that the Catholic Church is not and shall not be official, and shall preserve its independence.” The next following article guarantees to all persons freedom from molestation “on account of religious opinions,” and Art. 40 lays it down that “the exercise of all cults not contrary to Christian morality or the laws is permitted.” A concordat, entered into between the Holy See and the Republic of Colombia in 1887, now regulates in detail the relations between Church and State. These relations are at present (1908) thoroughly cordial, while dissenters are in no way interfered with on account of their religious peculiarities. The ecclesiastical organization of Colombia consists of four provinces: Bogotá, with four suffragans, Ibague, Nueva Pamplona, Socorro, and Tunja; Cartagena, with two suffragans, Santa Marta and Panama; Medellin, with two suffragans, Antioquia and Manziales; and Popayan, with two suffragans, Garzon and Pasto. There are also two vicariates Apostolic: Casanare and Gajira; and three prefectures Apostolic: Caqueta, Piani di S. Martino, and Intendenza Orientale. (see BOGOTÁ, CARTAGENA, etc.)

Article 41 of the Constitution provides that “public education shall be organized and directed in accordance with the Catholic Religion. Primary instruction at the expense of the public funds shall be gratuitous and not obligatory.” There are no educational statistics attainable of any recent date. In 1897 it was stated there were 2026 colleges and primary schools with 143,076 pupils. Of private educational establishments no data exist. Only the faculties of medicine and natural sciences are in operation at the national capital. A School of Arts and Trades is conducted by the Salesians, and there are normal schools in five departments. Secondary institutions are almost exclusively in the hands of the Catholic clergy and religious corporations. The minister of public instruction is the official head of the department of education.

The material development of Colombia has necessarily been much retarded by the political disturbances which have occurred since the first quarter of the nineteenth century and have made its history a continuous succession of civil wars. In 1898 Colombia had 8600 miles of telegraph, but the service is very defective. Railroad lines are in operation with an aggregate length of 411 miles, the longest being only 65 miles. The metric system has been in use for weights and measures since 1857. Metallic currency has nearly disappeared, incontrovertible paper forming the circulate medium. The re-establishment of gold coinage has lately been proposed. The paper currency, in 1906, had lost 99 per cent of its nominal value, 10,000 Colombian pesos (paper currency) being equal to 100 dollars. It is hoped, however, that with internal peace these unfortunate conditions will rapidly change for the better, since Colombia has unlimited natural resources. The history of the foreign debt of this republic is a series of borrowings and attempted settlements of accumulated capital and interest, rendered impossible by political disturbances. The budget for 1905–1906 amounted to £4,203,823. There are no official or general statistics of either exports or imports. Partial data, however, may give some general idea of the principal articles of Colombian produce. The Colombian gold mines up to 1845 yielded £71,200,000. Another source states it at £115,000,000 up to 1886. The same authority (Restrepo) estimates the silver-production during the same period at £6,600,000. The average output of rock-salt from 1883 to 1897 has been 11,000 tons per year. The exploitation of the emerald mines in the Province of Musos yielded the Government, in 1904, £10,000, but the production was not always so high in former times. Among vegetable products coffee takes the first rank for export, but the annual figures have varied according to the political state of the country. Thus, in 1899, before the revolution, 254,410 bags of coffee were exported from Barranquilla. In the year following only 86,917. Peace being restored, 574,270 bags could be shipped from the same port in 1904. In the same year 24,000 tons of bananas left Barranquilla for the United States, and tobacco and india-rubber may soon figure largely in Colombian export lists.

For the periods embracing the struggle for independence see the bibliography to the articles: BOLIVIA, ECUADOR, and VENEZUELA, to which we add: BENEDETTI, Historia de Colombia (Lima, 1887); also a concise but quite fair sketch in the vol. Bresil of the Univers pittoresque (1838) by FAMIN, Colombie et Guyanes; PETRE, The Republic of Colombia (London, 1906); SCRUGGS, The Colombian and Venezuelan Republics (Boston, 1902).

On the protracted negotiations as to the Colombia—Costa Rica boundaries see FERNANDEZ, Coleccion de Documentos para la historia de Costa Rica (San Jose, 1881–1886). The North American Review (New York) for 1902 contains a paper by MORALES, The Political and Economical Situation of Colombia.

On the volcanoes of Colombia, STUBEL, Die Vulkanberge von Colombia (Dresden, 1906).

On the Panama question, JOHNSON, Four Centuries of the Panama Canal (New York, 1906). Of the numerous books of travels in Colombia in the first half of the last century may be mentioned HUMBOLDT, Relation historique de voyage aux regions equinoxiales du nouveau continent (Paris, 1816–22); Vues des Cordilleres, et monuments des peuples indigenes de l’Amerique (Paris, 1816); MOLLIEN, Voyage dans la republique de Colombia (Paris, 1824). For the political history of the past century, Constitucion del estado de Cartagena de Indias sancionada en 14 de Junie del ano de 1812, segundo de su Independencia (Cartagena, 1812); Constitucion de la republica de Colombia (Bogotá, 1888). In Spanish literature from the sixteenth century early exploration and colonization of Colombia is extensively treated, notably in ENCISO, Suma de geografia (1519, 1530, and 1549); GOMARA, Historia general de las Indias (Antwerp, 1554); HERRERA, Historia general &ca. (Madrid, 1601–15 and 1726–30; Antwerp, 1728). Colombian writers from the sixteenth century: DE QUESADA, Tres ratos de Suezca (1568); CASTELLANOS, Elegias de varones ilustres de Indias; PIEDRAHITA, Historia general de las conquistas del Nuevo Reyno de Granada (Antwerp, 1688); DE ZAMORA, Historia de la prouincia de San Antonio del Nuevo Reyno de Granada del orden de Predicadores (Barcelona, 1701); CASSANI, Historia de la provincia de la compania de Jesus del Nueva Reyno de Granada (Madrid, 1741); JULIAN, La Perla de la Merica (Madrid, 1787)—important especially on the Goajiros Indians. From the nineteenth century: Docum. ineditos de Indias and Documentos para la historia de Espana. Of the highest value for the extinct Indian tribes of the Rio Cauca and its valleys as well as for the west coast of Colombia in general, CIEZA DE LEON, Cronica del Peru (Part I, Antwerp, 1554); ANDAGOYA, Relacion de los sucesos de Pedrarias Davila, tr. in Hackluyt Soc., XXXIV.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Archdiocese of Colombo

The Archdiocese of Colombo, situated on the western seaboard of the Island of Ceylon, includes two of the nine provinces into which the island is divided, viz. the Western and the Northwestern. The history of the see begins in 1518, when Christianity was introduced by the Franciscans. The religion spread rapidly, the town and the surrounding districts were soon erected into a diocese, and Don Juan de Monteiro was created first Bishop of Colombo. This prelate received into the church Don Juan Dharmapala, the grandson of the Cingalese King Buwenekabahu VII. The young prince succeeded his grandfather in 1542. Six years after his accession, Colombo contained a Catholic population of 12,000, with two parish churches, Our Lady’s and St. Laurence’s, four monasteries or convents under the Cordeliers, Dominicans, Augustinians, and Capuchins, and a college conducted by the Jesuits.

In 1597 Don Juan Dharmapala died. By that time the Portuguese had established their authority throughout the whole island except in the Kingdom of Kandy in the centre of the island, and religion was free to develop in Jaffna and in the other parts of Ceylon. But peace was of short duration, for the Dutch arrived in the island and, after a struggle of more than fifty years, succeeded in obtaining possession of all the territory that had been held by the Portuguese; Colombo fell in 1656 and Jaffna in 1658. The new rulers made no secret of their attitude towards the Church, for in 1642 they concluded with the King of Kandy a treaty by which “all priests, friars and clergymen” were to be banished from Ceylon. The Reformed Church of Holland was declared established, and a series of severe penal enactments against Catholics followed. Catholic education was forbidden, Catholic worship abolished, and harbouring a priest was declared a capital offence. In 1796 Colombo was taken by the English, and one of their first acts was to repeal all the Dutch laws against the Catholics (1806); soon afterwards the rights restored to the Catholics of the United Kingdom by the Emancipation Act were conceded to their coreligionists in Ceylon.

During the Dutch period the ecclesiastical administration of the island had been in the hands of the Bishop of Cochin on the neighbouring continent; but in 1830 Gregory XVI constituted Ceylon a vicariate Apostolic and the first vicar Apostolic, Don Vicente de Rozario, was consecrated in 1836. In 1845 Propaganda found it necessary to increase the number of missionaries in the island, and sent the Sylvestrine Benedictines for that purpose. In 1847 Jaffna in the north of the island, was severed from the Vicariate of Colombo, and erected into a separate vicariate with Bishop H. Bettachini as vicar Apostolic. At his death in 1857, the northern vicariate was given over to the Oblates of Mary Immaculate who had arrived in Ceylon two years after the Benedictines. Bishop Semeria, O. M. I., was appointed Vicar Apostolic of Jaffna, while Bishop Bravi, O. S. B., succeeded Bishop Caetano Antonio (1843–57) as Vicar Apostolic of Colombo.

A further partition was made in 1883, when the southern vicariate was divided into two, Colombo and Kandy. The Benedictines retained the latter, the former being given to the Oblates, in whose hands it has since remained, and Bishop C. Bonjean, O. M. I., was transferred from Jaffna to Colombo. Three years later (1886) the hierarchy was established in Ceylon, and the above-mentioned Bishop of Colombo, Dr. Bonjean, was made metropolitan with two suffragan sees, Jaffna and Kandy. In 1893 two new dioceses were created and entrusted to the Jesuits, Galle in the South being severed from Colombo, and Trincomali in the East, separated from Jaffna. In the same year Bishop Melizan, O. M. I., was transferred from Jaffna to Colombo as successor to Bishop Bonjean who had died in 1892; Bishop Melizan was succeeded in 1905 by Bishop Antoine Coudert, O. M. I., from 1898 coadjutor, with right of succession.

According to the last census returns the total population of the archdiocese is 1,274,000, of whom 206,000 are Catholics. There are 100 missionaries, 91 Oblates and 9 secular priests, and 295 churches and chapels. The Cathedral of Santa Lucia, a fine building in the Renaissance style, has accommodations for 6000. Attached to the cathedral are an English school for boys and one for girls, the former with over a thousand pupils, being taught by the Brothers of the Christian Schools, while in the latter, the Sisters of the Good Shepherd give instruction to 500 girls. All the charitable institutions in the archdiocese, and many educational institutions of the archdiocese are in the hands of religious congregations. These are as follows: Brothers of Christian Schools, 47 engaged in teaching; native Brothers of St. Vincent de Paul, 20, teaching; Sisters of the Good Shepherd, 23, over schools and orphanages; Sisters of the Holy Family, 23, schools, orphanages, and hospitals; Franciscan Sisters (Missionaries of Mary), 49, school, orphanages, and hospitals; native Sisters of St. Francis Xavier, 117, teaching; native Sisters of St. Peter, 108, teaching. Three of the principal government hospitals have been entrusted to the sisters. A government reformatory for youthful offenders is in charge of the Oblates, the number of boys varying from 150 to 200. About the same number of old people are provided with a home by the Little Sisters of the Poor in Colombo. In the 397 schools of the archdiocese 35,520 children are educated. Of these schools 202 are for boys, with 20,826 pupils, and 195 for girls with 14,694 pupils. The management of the schools is entirely in the hands of the missionaries; but there is a government examination every year, on the results of which a grant is paid to the superintendent of schools. The archdiocese maintains for teachers of both sexes normal schools recognized by the Government. Higher education in English is provided for girls at the various convents in Colombo, and for boys at St. Joseph’s College (800 students) conducted by the Oblate Fathers. The training of aspirants for the priesthood is carried on in two seminaries: the preparatory seminary of St. Aloysius with 24 students and St. Bernard’s theological seminary with 20 students. There are 9 orphanages, 1 for boys and 8 for girls, which provide education for 673 orphans (104 boys and 569 girls). Two papers, both bi-weekly are published at the Colombo Catholic Press, the “Ceylon Catholic Messenger” in English, and the “Nanartha Pradipaya” in Cingalese. The management and editorial control of both papers are in the hands of the missionaries. A Cingalese monthly of a religious character is issued from the press of the boys’ orphanage. Colombo has conferences of St. Vincent de Paul and of the Ladies of Charity. The Bonjean Memorial Hall is the head-quarters of the Ceylon Catholic Union, established in 1902, with branches in all the principal parts of the island. A Catholic Club was opened in 1900.

Battandier, Ann. Pont. Cath. (1908); Catholic Directory (Madras, 1908); Ceylon Handbook and Directory (Colombo, 1908); Tennent, A History of Ceylon (London, 1860).

ANTOINE COURDERT.

Matteo Realdo Colombo

Italian anatomist and discoverer of the pulmonary circulation, b. at Cremona in 1516; d. at Rome, 1559. He studied medicine at Padua with Vesalius, became his assistant, and in 1544 his successor as lecturer on surgery and anatomy. In 1545 Cosimo de’Medici, who was reorganizing the University of Pisa, held out such inducements to Colombo that he became the first professor of anatomy there. Colombo occupied this post until 1548, when he received a call to the chair of anatomy in the Papal University at Rome. This he held until his death. During all his years of teaching at Padua, Pisa, and Rome, he continued to make original researches in anatomy. The results of his investigation were published under the title, “De Re Anatomicâ Libri XV” (Venice, 1559). The most important feature of this book is an accurate and complete description of the pulmonary circulation. Colombo say: “The blood is carried by the artery-like vein to the lungs, and being there made thin is brought back thence together with air by the vein-like artery to the left ventricle of the heart.” Colombo know that this was an original observation, for he adds: “This fact no one has hitherto observed or recorded in writing; yet, it may be most readily observed by any one.” Harvey, in his work, “On the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Animals,” quotes Colombo more than once and gives him credit for many original observations in anatomy. Apparently lest there should be any diminution of Harvey’s glory, English writers on the history of medicine have, as a rule, failed to give Colombo the credit which he deserves and which Harvey so readily accorded him. Colombo made as many as fourteen dissections in one year at Rome. Several hundred people sometimes attended his anatomical demonstrations, and cardinals, archbishops, and other high ecclesiastics were often present. Colombo is famous as a teacher of anatomy and physiology, and first used living animals to demonstrate various functions, especially the movements of the heart and lungs. He said one could learn more in an hour in this way than in three months from Galen. His book was dedicated to Pope Paul IV, of whom he was an intimate personal friend.

The best authority for Colombo’s work in anatomy is his De Re Anatomicâ (Venice, 1559; Paris, 1562). The most complete life is that by TOLLIN in Pflügers Archiv. XXI-XXII. In English there is a good sketch by FISHER, Annals of Anatomy and Surgery (Brooklyn, 1880).

JAMES J. WALSH

Colonia (1)

A titular see of Armenia. Procopius (De Ædif., III, iv) informs us that Justinian restored a fortress which had been captured by Pompey, then fortified it and called it Colonia. This city figures in the “Syneedemus” of Hierocles and in the “Notitiæ episcopatuum” as a suffragan of Sebaste, metropolis of Armenia Prima. Lequien (I, 429) mentions five bishops: Euphronius, later transferred to Nieopolis, a friend and correspondent of St. Basil; Eustathius in 458; St. John the Silent, who died a monk at St. Sabas, near Jerusalem, in 557; Proclus, exiled by the Emperor Justin in 518 as a Severian; Callinicus in 680 and 692. Bénay published in “Echos d’Orient” (IV, 93) a curious Byzantine inscription concerning a drungarius of Colonia. In the ninth century the city was the capital of a Byzantine theme. Its modern name is Koilu Hissar; it is the chief town of a caza in the vilayet of Sivas, and has about 1800 inhabitants, among them 600 Greeks, 200 Armenians, and a few Protestant and Catholic Armenians (Cuinet, Turquie d’Asie, I, 792). Another Colonia, later Taxara, situated in Cappadocia Tertia, was a suffragan of Mocessus; seven bishops are mentioned by Lequien (I, 413).

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Colonna

A celebrated family which played an important rôle in Italy during medieval and Renaissance times, and which still flourishes in several branches in Rome and Naples. It is commonly supposed to have been originally an offshoot of the Counts of Tusculum, deriving the family name from the castle of Colonna situated on a spur of the Alban hills, some five miles from Tusculum. The name makes its first appearance in authentic history in the person of Petrus de Columna, owner of Colonna, Monte Porzio, and Zagarolo, and claimant of Palestrina, whose castles were seized by Paschal II, A. D. 1101, in punishment of his lawless depradations. With the destruction of Tusculum by the Romans in 1191, the name of the ancient counts disappears forever, whilst the Colonna come prominently to the front. From the first their policy was anti-papal and Ghibelline, not so much from love of the emperors as from the desire to maintain towards the popes an attitude of quasi-independence. They exercised plenary jurisdiction over their vassals in matters civil and criminal and frequently contracted alliances with foreign potentates without consulting the wishes or interests of their sovereign. They were in perpetual feud with their Guelph neighbours, in particular with the rival house of the Orsini. They so frequently incurred the papal censures on account of their rebellious conduct, that it became the general but erroneous opinion of the Roman people that they yearly excommunication of the Colonna was one of the main purposes of the Bull “In Cœna Domini.” Nevertheless, members of the family were quite often appointed by friendly pontiffs to high offices of Church and State. Rarely were they without at least one representative in the Sacred College, and at one of the most critical junctures in the annals of the Church, the election to the papacy of Cardinal Odo Colonna, Martin V, put an end to the disastrous Western Schism. Twice in the course of its history this powerful house was threatened with annihilation (see VIII; VI), but on both occasions the restoration of its members was as speedy as their fall.

The long line of Colonnese cardinals was opened in 1192 when Giovanni the Elder was created Cardinal-Priest of S. Prisca by Celestine III. He was made Bishop of Sabina by Innocent III, and was employed on important legations to Germany, Spain, Sicily, and France. He was the powerful friend of St. Francis, and was largely instrumental in obtaining from the pope the approval of the Franciscan Rule. He is remembered at Amalfi for his munificence in building and endowing a spacious hospital. He died at Rome, 1209. Three years later Pope Innocent elevated to the cardinalate a nephew of the cardinal, known as Giovanni the Younger, Cardinal-Priest of S. Prassede. He was sent to the Orient as legate in 1217 and returned to Rome in 1222 bringing with him the Pillar of the Scourging, which remains to the present day in the chapel he built for it in his titular church. He also built and endowed two hospitals near the Lateran for the relief of the poor and of pilgrims. In 1240, after a fuitle attempt to reconcile Pope Gregory IX and Frederick II, the cardinal, as head of his family, together with the other Ghibellines of Rome, went over to the emperor and openly rebelled against the Holy See. He died in 1245. Matthew Paris (ad. an. 1244) describes him as “a vessel filled with pride and insolence; who, as he was the most illustrious and powerful in secular possessions of all the cardinals, was the most efficacious author and fosterer of discord between the emperor and the pope.”

As a punishment of their Ghibellinism, no scion of the house was admitted into the Sacred College until 1278, when the magnanimous Orsini pope, Nicholas III, the son of that Matteo Rosso who had razed all the Colonna strongholds in Rome, in token of amnesty elevated to the dignity of the purple Giacomo Colonna with the title of Cardinal-Deacon of S. Maria in Via Lata. About ten years later, Honorius IV created Pietro, nephew of Giacomo, Cardinal-Deacon of the Title of S. Eustachio. These were the two cardinals whose bitter quarrel with Boniface VIII ended so disastrously for that pontiff and for the prestige of the medieval papacy. Deposed and degraded in 1297, they were reinstated in their dignities and possessions by Clement V in 1305. Both died at Avignon, Giacomo in 1318, Pietro in 1326. These unruly cardinals continued the deeply religious traditions of their family, founding and endowing the hospital of S. Giacomo for incurables and the Franciscan convent of S. Silvestro in Capite, in which they deposed the remains of the saintly sister of Giacomo, the nun Beata Margarita. Their munificence as patrons of art is attested by many masterpieces in the Roman churches, notably Turrita’s mosaics in S. Maria Maggiore, pronounced by Gregorovius “the finest work of all the mosaic paintings in Rome.” The learned Cardinal Egidio Colonna well deserves a special article (see ). One year after Pietro’s death, his nephew Giovanni, a son of the noble Senator Stefano, whose immediate family remained faithful to the Holy See during the troublous times of Louis the Bavarian, whilst his kinsman Sciarra, led the schismatical party, was raised to the cardinalate by John XXII, with the title of S. Angelo. He was universally esteemed, especially by men of letters. He wrote the “Lives of the Roman Pontiffs from St. Peter to Boniface VIII.” At his death, 1348, his intimate friend, Petrarch, wrote the beautiful sonnet, “Rotta è l’alta Colonna.” At the beginning of the Great Schism Urban created two Colonna cardinals, Agapito and Stefano, but they both died shortly after. Then followed Odo Colonna, later Pope Martin V, who, in 1430 bestowed the purple upon his youthful nephew Prospero. The latter, becoming involved in the rebellion of his family against Eugene IV, was deprived of his benefices and sentenced to perpetual exile, but was reinstated by Nicholas V, and died in 1463, lauded by the Humanists as a Mæcenas of arts and letters. In the heated conclave of 1458 it was Prospero Colonna who decided the election of Piccolomini in the famous words, “I also vote for the Cardinal of Siena, and make him pope.”

Prospero’s nephew, Giovanni, was the representative of his family during the pontificates of Sixtus IV, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI, Pius III, and Julius II. Created Cardinal-Deacon of S. Maria in Aquiro in his twenty-fourth year by Pope Sixtus, he was committed to the Castle of Sant’ Angelo two years later, when that pontiff and the Colonna began their bitter feud. After an imprisonment of over a year, he regained his liberty. One cannot feel much sympathy with him in his misfortunes during the pontificate of the Borgia pope, who could not have been elected without his vote. When Alexander VI began his war of extermination against the Roman barons, Colonna, more fortunate than Cardinal Orsini, made his escape and did not return to Rome till the pope had passed away. He himself died in 1508. Although Julius II restored to the Colonna their possessions and dignities, and by the Pax Romana, 1511, put an end to the hereditary feuds of the rival houses, yet, their old-time position of quasi-independence was never again attained. The two secular heads of the family, Prospero and Fabrizio, acquired great fame as generals in the armies of the Church and of Charles V. Fabrizio’s daughter was the highly gifted Vittoria. Prospero’s nephew, Pompeo, was chosen to represent the family in the Church. He consented very reluctantly, for the sword was more congenial to him than the Breviary. He received a large accumulation of benefices, was created cardinal by Leo X, in 1517, and vice-chancellor by Clement VII. In return, he took the side of the emperor in his quarrel with the pope. On 20 Sept., 1526, took place the onslaught on Rome, and the desecration of St. Peter’s and the Vatican, which covers his memory with eternal infamy. He also joined with Constable Bourbon in the capture of Rome, May, 1527; but, horrified by the brutality of the sack of his native city, he did his best to shield his unfortunate countrymen within the walls of the Cancellaria. The indulgent Clement absolved and reinstated him three years later. He became viceroy of Naples and died in 1532. The good name of the house was redeemed by the next Colonnese cardinal, Marcantonio, who was carefully trained in piety and learning by the Franciscan friar, Felice Peretti, later Sixtus V. He was created Cardinal-Priest of SS. XII Apostoli, in 1565, closely imitated St. Charles Borromeo in establishing seminaries and restoring discipline, was librarian of the Vatican, fostered learning, and was extremely charitable to the poor. Before his death in 1597, his kinsman Ascanio Colonna was elevated to the purple by Sixtus V in 1586. Although he owed his cardinalate largely to the favour of Philip II, yet he did not permit his gratitude to extinguish his patriotism. It was his defection from the Spanish ranks at a critical moment during the conclave of 1592 that defeated the aspirations of Philip’s candidate, Cardinal Sanseverina and led to the election of Clement VIII. In his well-inown exclamation: “I see that God will not have Sanseverina, neither will Ascanio Colonna,” breathes the haughty spirit of his race. He died in 1608, making the Lateran his heir. Succeeding cardinals of the house of Colonna were Girolamo, created by Urban VIII in 1628, d. 1666; Carlo, created by Clement XI in 1706, d. 1739; Prospero, created by Clement XII in 1739, d. 1746; Girolamo, created by Benedict XIV 1743, d. 1763; Prospero, of the Sciarra branch, created simultaneously with his kinsman in 1743, d. Prefect of the Propaganda in 1765; finally, Marcantonio, created by Clement XIII in 1759, d. in 1803. Though all were conspicuous for learning and piety and for filling high office at the Roman court or in the most important dioceses of Italy, they need only a passing notice. The most illustrious lay prince of the Colonna was Marcantonio, who at the great sea-fight of Lepanto, 7 Oct., 1571, commanded the papal galleys and on his return to Rome was awarded a memorable triumph. To cement the friendship between the houses of Colonna and Orsini, Sixtus V married their chiefs to his nieces and ordained that they and their descendants should enjoy the dignity of Assistant Princes at the Pontifical Throne.

LITTA, Famiglie celebri italiane, s. v.; COPPI, Memorie Colonnesi (Rome, 1857), with genealogical tables; VON REUMONT, Beiträge zur ital. Gesch. (1857), V, 3–117, an excellent account; the histories of the city of Rome by VON REUMONT, GREGOROVIUS, GRISAR, etc.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN.

Egidio Colonna

(Ægidius a Colonna)

A Scholastic philosopher and theologian, b. about the middle of the thirteenth century, probably 1247, in Rome; hence the name ÆGIDIUS ROMANUS, or GILES OF ROME, by which name he is generally known; d. at Avignon, 22 Dec., 1316.

Having entered the Order of the Hermits of St. Augustine at Rome, he was sent to Paris for his philosophical and theological studies, and became there the disciple of Thomas Aquinas. Egidio Colonna was the first Augustinian appointed to teach in the University of Paris, and his deep learning earned for him the title of Doctor fundatissimus. In 1281, at the Thirty-sixth Council of Paris, in which several differences between bishops and mendicant orders were arranged, the he sided with the bishops against the regulars. Referring to this, a contemporary philosopher, Godfrey of Fontaines, mentioned him as the most renowned theologian of the whole city (qui modo melior de totâ villâ in omnibus reputatur). King Philip III entrusted to him the education of his son, who later, in 1285, ascended the throne as Philip IV. When the new king, after his coronation at Reims, entered Paris, Egidio gave the address of welcome in the name of the university, insisting on justice as the most important virtue of a king. (For the text, see Ossinger, in work cited below.) Some time before this several of his opinions had been found reprehensible by Archbishop Etienne Tempier of Paris, and in 1285 Pope Honorius IV asked him for a public retractation. This, however, was far from lessening his reputation, for in 1287 a decree of the general chapter of the Augustinians held in Florence, after remarking that Egidio’s doctrine “shines throughout the whole world” (venerabilis magistri nostri Ægidii doctrina mundum universum illustrat), commanded all members of the order to accept and defend all his opinions, written or to be written. After filling several important positions in his order he was elected superior-general in 1292. Three years later Pope Boniface VIII appointed him Archbishop of Bourges, France, although Jean de Savigny had already been designated for this see by Pope Celestine V. The French nobility protested on the ground that Colonna was an Italian, but his appointment was maintained and approved by the king. He was present at the Council of Vienne (1311–1312) in which the Order of Knights Templars was suppressed.

The writings of Egidio Colonna cover the fields of philosophy and theology. There is no complete edition of his works, but several treatises have been published separately. In Holy Scripture and theology he wrote commentaries on the “Hexaemeron,” the “Canticle of Canticles,” and the “Epistle to the Romans”; several “Opuscula” and “Quodlibeta,” various treatises, and especially commentaries on Peter the Lombard’s “Four Books of Sentences.” In philosophy, besides commentaries on almost all the works of Aristotle, he wrote several special treatises. But his main work is the treatise “De regimine principum,” written for, and dedicated to, his pupil, Philip IV. It passed through many editions (the first, Augsburg, 1473) and was translated into several languages. The Roman edition of 1607 contains a life of Egidio. The work is divided into three books: the first treats of the individual conduct of the king, the nature of his true happiness, the choice and acquisition of virtues, and the ruling of passions; the second deals with family life and the relations with wife, children, and servants; the third considers the State, its origin, and the proper mode of governing in times of peace and war. Egidio’s pedagogical writings have been published in German by Kaufmann (Freiburg, 1904).

The attitude of Egidio Colonna in the difficulties between Pope Boniface VIII and King Philip IV was long believed to have been favourable to the king. But the contrary is now certain, since it has been proved that he is the author of the treatise “De potestate ecclesiasticâ,” in which the rights of the pope are vindicated. The similarity between this treatise and the Bull “Unam Sanctam” seems to support the view taken by some writers that Egidio was the author of the Bull. He had already taken an active part in ending the discussions and controversies concerning the validity of Boniface’s election to the papacy. In his treatise “De renunciatione Papæ sive Apologia pro Bonifacio VIII” he shows the legitimacy of Celestine’s resignation and consequently of Boniface’s election. In philosophy and theology he generally follows the opinions of his master, St. Thomas, whose works he quotes as scripta communia; The “Defensorium seu Correctorium corruptorii librorum Sancti Thomæ Acquinatis” against the Franciscan William de la Mare of Oxford is by some attributed to Egidio; but this remains uncertain. Nevertheless, on many points he holds independent views and abandons the Thomistic doctrine to follow the opinions of St. Augustine and of the Franciscan School. He even errs in asserting that, before the fall, grace had not been given to Adam, an opinion which he wrongly attributes to St. Augustine. After the decree of the general chapter of 1287, mentioned above, the opinions of Egidio Colonna were generally accepted in the Augustinian Order. He thus became the founder of the Ægidian School. Among the most prominent representatives of this school must be mentioned Giocamo Capoccio of Viterbo (d. 1307) and Augustinus Triumphus (d. 1328), both contemporaries of Egidio, andd also students and professors in the University of Paris; Prosper of Reggio, Albert of Padua, Gerard of Siena, Henry of Frimar, Thomas of Strasburg-all in the first half of the fourteenth century. For some time after this other opinions prevailed in the Augustinian Order. But as late as the seventeenth century should be mentioned Raffaello Bonherba (d. 1681) who wrote “Disputationes totius philosophiæ . . . in quibus omnes philosophicæ inter D. Thomam et Scotum controversiæ principaliter cum doctrinâ nostri Ægidii Columnæ illustrantur” (Palermo, 1645, 1671); and Augustino Arpe (d. 704) who wrote “Summa totius theologiæ Ægidii Columnæ” (Bologna, 1701, and Genoa, 1704). Federico Nicolò Gavardi (d. 1715), the most important interpreter of Colonna, composed “Theologia exantiquata iuxta orthodoxam S. P. Augustini doctrinam ab Ægidio Columnâ doctoræ fundatissimo expositam . . .” (6 vols. fol., Naples and Rome, 1683–1696); this work was abridged by Anselm Hörmannseder in his “Hecatombe theologica” (Presburg, 1737). Benignus Sichrowsky (d. 1737) wrote also “Philosophia vindicata ad erroribus philosophorum gentilium iuxta doctrinam S. Augustini et B. Ægidii Columnæ” (Nuremberg, 1701).

OSSINGER, Bibl. Augustiniana (Ingolstadt and Vienna, 1768); and Chatelain, Chart. Univ. Parisiensis (Paris, 1889-), I, II, see Index; FÉRRET, La faculté de théol. de Paris et ses doct. les plus célèbres au moyen âge (Paris, 1896), III, 459–475; HURTER, Nomenclator (3d ed., Innsbruck, 1906), II, 481–486 and passim for Ægidian School; LAZARD, Gilles de Rome in Hist. litt. de la France (Paris, 1888), XXX, 423–566; MATTIOLO, Studio critico sopra Egidio Romano Colonna in Antologia Agostiniana (Rome, 1896), I; SCHOLZ, Ægidius von Rom (Stuttgart, 1902); WERNER, Die Scholastik des spät. M. A., III, Der Augustinismus des spät. M. A. (Vienna, 1863); SCHEEBEN in Kirchenlex., s. v. See also CHEVALIER, Rép. des sources hist. (2d ed., Paris, 1905), s. v. Gilles.

C.A. DUBRAY

Giovanni Paolo Colonna

Born at Bologna, 1637; died in the same city, 28 November, 1695. After studying under Agostino Fillipucci in his native city, Antonio Abbatini and Oragio Benevoli in Rome, Colonna became organist at the church of S. Apollinaris in the latter city. In 1659 he accepted the post of choir-master at the church of S. Petronio in Bologna. He not only was a charter member of the Accademia Filarmonica but founded a school of his own which has produced distinguished musicians, among them Giovanni Maria Buononcini. Colonna was one of the most noted church composers of the seventeenth century and has left a large number of works (masses, psalms, motets, litanies, antiphons, requiems, lamentations) for from one to eight voices with either organ or orchestra accompaniment. These compositions are but seldom performed at present, both on account of their not having the form or the spirit of the great period of church music, the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and because of the elaborate apparatus required for their performance.

RIEMANN, Musik Lexikon; ROCKSTRO, History of Music (New York, 1886); KORNMÜLLER, Kirchenmusikalisches Lexikon; WOOLDRIDGE, The Oxford History of Music (Oxford, 1901–05); GASPARI, Dei musicisti Bolognesi (Bologna, 1876–80).

JOSEPH OTTEN.

Vittoria Colonna

Italian poet, born at Marino, 1490; died at Rome, February 25, 1547. She was the daughter of Fabrizio Colonna, lord of various Roman fiefs and grand constable of Naples. Her mother, Agnese da Montefeltro, was a daughter of Federigo da Montefeltro, first Duke of Urbino. In 1509 Vittorio was married to Ferrante Francesco d’Avalos, Marquis of Pescara, a Neapolitan nobleman of Spanish origin, who was one of the chief generals of the Emperor Charles V. Pescara’s military career culminated in the victory of Pavia (24 February, 1525), after which he became involved in Morone’s conspiracy for the liberation of Italy, and was tempted from his allegiance to the emperor by the offer of the crown of Naples. Vittoria earnestly dissuaded him from this scheme, declaring (as her cousin, Cardinal Pompeo Colonna, tells us) that she “preferred to die the wife of a most brave marquis and a most upright general, than to live the consort of a king dishonoured with any stain of infamy.” Pescara died in the following November, leaving his young heir and cousin, Alfonso d’Avalos, Marchese del Vasto, under Vittorio’s care.

Vittoria henceforth devoted herself entirely to religion and literature. We find her usually in various monasteries, at Rome, Viterbo, and elsewhere, living in conventual simplicity, the centre of all that was noblest in the intellectual and spiritual life of the times. She had a peculiar genius for friendship, and the wonderful spiritual tie that united her to Michelangelo Buonarroti made the romance of that great artist’s life. Pietro Bembo, the literary dictator of the age, was among her most fervent admirers. She was closely in touch with Ghiberti, Contarini, Giovanni Morone, and all that group of men and women who were working for the reformation of the Church from within. For a while she had been drawn into the controversy concerning justification by faith, but was kept within the limits of orthodoxy by the influence of the beloved friend of her last years, Cardinal Reginald Pole, to whom she declared she owed her salvation. Her last wish was to be buried among the nuns of S. Anna de’ Funari at Rome; but it is doubtful whether her body ultimately rested there, or was removed to the side of her husband at San Domenico in Naples.

Vittoria is undoubtedly greater as a personality than as a poet. Her earlier “Rime,” which are mainly devoted to the glorification of her husband, are somewhat monotonous. Her later sonnets are almost exclusively religious, and strike a deeper note. A longer poem in terza-rima, the “Trionfo di Cristo” shows the influence of Dante and Savonarola, as well as that of Petrarch. Her latest and best biographer, Mrs. Jerrold, to whom we are indebted for a number of beautiful and faithful translations of Vittoria’s poetry, has drawn a suggestive analogy between it and the work of Christina Rossetti. Many of Vittoria’s letters, and a prose meditation upon the Passion of Christ, have also been preserved.

VISCONTI, Rime di Vittoria Colonna (Rome, 1840); LUZIO, Vittoria Colonna (Mantua, 1884); FERRERO AND MÜLLER, Carteggio di Vittoria Colonna, Marchesa di Pescara (Florence, 1892); REUMONT, tr. by MÜLLER AND FERRERO, Vittorio Colonna, Vita, Fede, e Poesia nel secolo decimosesto (Turin, 1892); TORDI, Vittoria Colonna in Orvieto (Perugia, 1895); JERROLD), Vittoria Colonna, with some account of her Friends and her Times (London and New York, 1906).

EDMUND G. GARDNER.

Colonnade

A number of columns symmetrically arranged in one or more rows. It is termed monostyle when of one row, polystyle when of many. If surrounding a building or court, it is called a peristyle; when projecting beyond the line of the building a portico. Sometimes it supports a building, sometimes a roof only. For ecclesiastical architecture the most famous specimen is the colonnade of St. Peter’s, erected 1665–67 by Bernini, with 284 columns and 162 statues of saints on balustrades (see THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, II, s. v. BERNINI).

ANDERSON AND SPIERS. The Architecture of Greece and Rome (London, 1903); GWILT, Encyclopedia of Architecture (London, 1881).

THOMAS H. POOLE

Colophon

A titular see of Asia Minor. It was one of the twelve Ionian cities, between Lebedos (ruins near Hypsili-Hissar) and Ephesus (Aya-Solouk). In Greek antiquity two sons of Codrus, King of Athens, established a colony there. It was the birthplace of the philosopher Xenophanes and the poet Mimnermus. It was destroyed by Lysimachus, one of the successors of Alexander. Notium served as the port, and in the neighbourhood was the village of Clarus, with its famous temple and oracle of Apollo Clarius, where Calchas vied with Mopsus in divinatory science. The cavalry of Colophon was renowned. Its pine-trees supplied a rosin or colophony highly valued for the strings of musical instruments. In Roman times Colophon lost its importance; the name was transferred to the site of Notium, and the latter name disappeared between the Peloponnesian War and the time of Cicero. The “Notitiæ episcopatuum” mentions Colophon or Colophone, as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century, as a suffragan of Ephesus. Lequien (I, 723) gives the names of only four Bishops: St. Sosthenes (I Cor., i, 1) and St. Tychicus (Tit., iii, 12) are merely legendary; Euthalius was present at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and Alexander was alive in 451. The ruins of the city are at the Castro of Ghiaour-Keui, an insignificant village in the vilayet or Smyrna, caza of Koush-Adasi.

CHANDLER, Travels in Asia Minor, XXXI; ARRUNDEL, Seven Churches in Asia, 303; TEXIER, Asie Mineure, 356; FONTRIER, in Musœon and Library of the Evangelical School at Smyrna (Greek), III, 187; SCHUCHHARDT, in Athen. Mitteil. (1886), 398.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Colorado

The thirty-fifth, in point of admission, of the United States of America. It lies between the 37th and 41st degrees of N. latitude and the 102nd and 109th degrees of W. longitude, the meridian lines making its shape a parallelogram as exact as the curvature of the earth will allow. When its original territorial limits were discussed it was suggested that the crest of the Rocky Mountains was a natural boundary, and it was on the reply of Colonel William Gilpin, who became its first governor, that railroads and political unity had superseded natural boundaries, that it was placed squarely across the divide and so has its mountain centre with a slope to either ocean.

After the Cliff-dwellers, its Indian tribes were the Utes and Arapahoes. It became part of French and Spanish America, and was covered by the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Texas cession (1850), and the cession from Mexico by the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (1848). Its area is 103,900 square miles.

The third of the State east of Denver is a part of the great plains, level and arid; The altitude at the base of the State capitol is exactly one mile; going east, it falls to about 4000 feet at the State line. Through the centre, north and south, runs the main Rocky Mountain range containing the highest peaks of these mountains, thirty-two of which exceed 14,000 feet and several so nearly the same height that it is a matter of dispute as to which is the highest, probably Mount Massive, 14,498 feet; On their western slope they form a plateau country. Between encircling ranges are natural parks (South, Middle, North, San Luis, Estes) at an altitude of about 9000 feet, which are notable stock-raising lands. The Rio Grande, Arkansas, and Platte Rivers all rise in this State, flowing south and east, and the Great Colorado River flowing west has its headwaters here. The Grand Cañon of the Arkansas, Mount of the Holy Cross, and the Garden of the Gods, are the principal scenic attractions.

CLIMATE

The climate is exceptionally dry, healthful, and invigorating. The summers are cool and the winters moderate; There is an average of 181 clear days out of 365. Manitou, Glenwood, and Sulphur Springs are noted sanatoria. The annual rainfall is low, but so widely variant in localities that no intelligible average can be stated; Extremes are 12 and 29 inches.

POPULATION

By the census of 1900 the population was 539,700: whites, 529,046; negroes, 8570; Indians, 1437; Chinese, 599. The estimate by the State Board of Health for 1906 was 615,570. The greatest number of immigrants are from States on the same parallel. There are many native-born citizens of Spanish descent in the southern counties. Representatives from every country in Europe are included among the population, but none localized in colonies to any extent; 88 per cent of the population are native-born; 4 per cent are illiterate; Denver, the State capital and largest city, has a population approximating 200,000. Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Leadville, Trinidad, and Greeley are the larger cities.

RESOURCES

Mining and agriculture are the principal industries. The manufacture of steel has been started, and commerce is incident to all other industries, hut the mine and ranch are the exploited features of the commonwealth; In both gold and silver, Colorado is the largest producer of any of the States. In 1906, gold to the value of $23,506,069, and 13,381,575 ounces of silver were mined. There was also a heavy production of lead, zinc, and iron. Coal underlies a very large area, much larger than in Pennsylvania; the output for 1906 being 11,240,078 tons bituminous and 68,343 tons anthracite. Cripple Creek, Ouray, and Leadville are the most active mining camps, but the mineral belt covers every mountain county from Routt in the north-west corner to the New Mexico line. The Georgetown district claims to produce the highest grade of silver ore mined in the United States.

The average wheat yield is about twenty-one bushels to the acre. East of the foothills is a deep loam overlying a gravel subsoil, and wherever water can be got the land is very productive. The western slope, including the valleys between the mountain ranges, has an even richer soil, especially adapted to fruit production. All the grains and fruits of the temperate zone are produced, but those crops which seem best adapted to local conditions are wheat, apples, potatoes, cantaloupes, and the sugar-beet. The value of the output of agriculture, dairy, and poultry for 1906 was $72,600,000; fruit, $7,000,000. Until recently no land not under ditch was considered safe to farm, the annual rainfall not ensuring a crop. But such land is now cultivated under scientific methods called “dry farming,” so that the value of this land in Eastern Colorado has doubled within the last three years. Nevertheless irrigation is the specific incident of Colorado farming; It has been studied to secure the most economic results, and ultimately no water will leave the State, all being caught and stored in reservoirs. In 1900 there were 7374 miles of main ditches covering by laterals 390 acres to the mile; The estimated value of the manufactures, outside of smelting, for 1906 is $15,000,000. Six railroad lines enter the State from the east and two cross its western boundary. Every town of any size in the State has railroad connexion. The railway mileage in 1905 was 5081.

EDUCATION

Public education with compulsory attendance is provided for the whole State, with a high school in every large town; The university, located at Boulder, is supported by an annual two-fifths of a mill State tax which gives it an ample foundation. It gives law, medical, engineering, and academic courses. In 1906 it had 840 students, besides 525 in the preparatory school. There are also the University of Denver (Methodist), Colorado College at Colorado Springs (secular), the Jesuit College of the Sacred Heart, and the Loretto Heights Academy at Denver. The State Normal School is at Greeley. Other schools are the Agricultural College at Fort Collins and the School of Mines at Golden, with special State institutions for the deaf and blind, The principal school support comes from the ownership of the 16th and 36th sections of each non-mineral township, the value of which is beyond accurate approximation, besides school district ownership of over $9,000,000. The total number of pupils enrolled in 1906 was 144,007. The teachers numbered 4600 and the schoolhouses 2010. The expenditure for that year was $4,486,226.78. The pupils attending parochial schools number 5905 students; in Catholic colleges, 261; girls in academies, 595; total youth under Catholic care 7574. There is a total of 537 sisters in charge of hospitals and schools.

HISTORY

Coronado probably crossed the south-east corner of the State in his celebrated expedition of 1541–2, and Francisco Escalante explored its southern border in 1776. The first immigration was Spanish from New Mexico, at Pueblo, Trinidad, and other places south of the Arkansas River. In 1806 Zebulon M. Pike crossed the plains on an official exploration and gave his name to Pike’s Peak. Long’s expedition was in 1819. John C. Fremont and Kit Carson explored the mountain passes in the forties. In 1858 gold was discovered in Cherry Creek, which led to the Pike’s Peak excitement and immigration of 1859. That year is the date of the first real settlement of the country by English-speaking people. Colorado was organized as a Territory in 1861, and admitted as a State in 1876, with a constitution formed in that year. This explains its sentimental title of “The Centennial State.” The State motto is Nil Sine Numine.

Colorado coming in as an organized territory just as the Civil War broke out, the question of loyalty or secession agitated the population, but the Union men were in overwhelming majority. The Territory contributed two regiments to the Union Army. Since 1876 the State has generally gone Republican, but being so large a producer of silver it supported the Democratic ticket so long as the double standard of money remained an issue. There have been two or three occasions since admission when the State has paid the price for encouraging innovations parading themselves as reforms. In 1894 Governor Davis H. Waite, elected as a Populist but really a Socialist, ordered out the State troops in opposition to the armed police of Denver; cannon were trained on the City Hall and only his yielding at the last moment prevented what threatened to be a serious civil revolution. Under his administration the militia were ordered out in the interest of the striking miners at Cripple Creek, and later in 1904 they were ordered to the same district under Governor Peabody in support of the mine-owners. Drastic deportations and vigilance-committee violence were committed by the State authorities, excusable, as they alleged, owing to the extreme conditions. This led to an exciting election in the fall of that year, in which Alva Adams, the Democratic candidate for governor, was undoubtedly elected and received his certificate, but was allowed to hold office only until a recount by the legislature was decided against him and Jesse McDonald, the Republican candidate for lieutenant-governor, was given the seat.

Woman suffrage was adopted by popular vote in 1893. It has since been in full operation, but its results for good have been nil. Only during the first few sessions were one, two, and, at most, three women elected to the legislature out of its 100 members. No woman has been elected to any State office except to that of superintendent of public instruction. Instead of being represented in conventions by nearly half, women delegates now are scarcely seen in such bodies. As a political factor they have not made either of the great parties stronger or weaker.

RELIGIOUS FACTORS

The State constitutes one diocese, with its see at Denver. Citizens of Spanish descent, about 20,000, are practically all Catholics, and there are 8,000 to 10,000 Catholic Austrians and Poles at Trinidad, Denver, and Pueblo. The Catholic population is estimated (1908) at about 100,000. Among the Catholics prominent in the development of Colorado may be mentioned Gen. Bela M. Hughes. the Democratic candidate for governor at the first State election; Casimiro Barela and James T. Smith. both in the legislature or executive departments of the State Government for over thirty years; Peter W. Breene and Francis Carney, who held the lieutenant-governorship; Senator H. A. W. Tabor, Hon. Bernard J. O’Connell of Georgetown, Martin Currigan, and John K. Mullen of Denver. John H. Reddin, an attorney of Denver, was the organizer of the Knights of Columbus in this State. The Catholic Church numerically exceeds any one of the Protestant denominations. The next in numbers is the Methodist, and then comes the Presbyterian. Although the State adjoins Utah there are very few Mormons.

Absolute freedom of worship is guaranteed by the Constitution, and there is apparently no disposition to infringe this law. In no State is there better feeling between the Church and non-Catholic denominations. The common law of Sunday prevails with no specific statutory change. In the cities the matter is left to local ordinance. Stores in all towns large and small are generally closed. In nearly all the cities liquor is sold under licence. In Colorado Springs, Boulder, and Greeley it is prohibited. In 1907 a local option law was passed allowing any city, ward, or precinct to prohibit all sales of liquor except by druggists on prescription. Little or no attempt is made in the large cities and the mountain towns to enforce the Sunday liquor law; but the reverse is the rule in most of the smaller towns in Eastern Colorado.

LEGAL OATHS

A statutory form of oath is prescribed: the affiant shall with his or her hand uplifted swear “by the ever living God.” It has been unchanged since the first revision of the statutes. Any person having conscientious scruples against taking an oath is allowed to solemnly affirm. Interrupting religious meetings by profane swearing is made a misdemeanour by statute. The use of profane language is everywhere prohibited by city or town ordinance.

The State Penitentiary is at Cañon City. Each county has its jail for confinement of persons held for trial or convicted of misdemeanours. There is a State School of Reform for boys and another for girls. The latter was created by an Act providing substantially that all its officers must be women, and has been as conspicuous for mismanagement as the school for boys has been for successful results. The legislature in 1907 created a Juvenile Court for the care of neglected children.

CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS AND BEQUESTS

Charitable Institutions of any sort may be incorporated under the Acts relating to corporations not organized for profit. Barring the question whether the old English statutes of mortmain would be held in force under a Colorado statute adopting, with limitations, the common law and Acts of the British Parliament prior to the fourth year of James I (1607), which point has never been decided in this State, there is no limitation on the power of such institutions to take property by deed or will and no limitations on the power of a testator to bequeath his property to them, except that neither husband nor wife can by will deprive the survivor of one half of his or her estate.

CHURCH PROPERTY EXEMPTIONS

Any church organization may incorporate under provisions relating to religious societies (Rev. Stats. of 1908, §§ 1018 to 1033); but title to Catholic Church property as a rule is held by the bishop and the parishes have ordinarily no need to organize under these laws. Churches, schools, hospitals, and cemeteries not organized for profit are exempt from taxation. Public aid to any sectarian purpose is prohibited by the Constitution. Clergymen are not in terms exempt from jury duty, but are always excused as a matter of custom; They are specifically exempt from military duty; Each branch of the legislature selects a chaplain who opens sessions with prayer; Christmas is a legal holiday; Good Friday is not; Confessions made to any clergyman or priest are protected against disclosure.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE

Marriage is a civil contract but may be performed by a clergyman of any denomination; The law of divorce is extremely loose. It may be granted for any of the usual statutory reasons, but the greatest abuse of the law is under the phrase called the sentimental cruelty clause, where the statute says it may be granted where either party has been guilty of acts of cruelty and that “such acts of cruelty may consist as well in the infliction of mental suffering as of bodily violence.” Under this clause any discontented man or wife can frame a complaint which will state a case for divorce. The number of divorces has greatly increased since the adoption of woman suffrage. No one thing has done more to strengthen the moral influence of the Catholic Church in this State and command respect and gather converts from the denominations than its firm stand against divorce.

The ratio of deaths by suicide in 1900 was one in every 84, or 1.18 per cent, and the statistics of the State Board of Health do not indicate any notable increase since 1900.

ROBERT S. MORRISON.

Colossæ

A titular see of Phrygia in Asia Minor, suppressed in 1894. Little is known about its history. The later name, Colassæ, is probably the old Phrygian form. Colossæ was at one time the chief city of South-Western Phrygia, lying on the trade-route from Sardis to Celænæ; it produced fine wool, the colour of which was called colossinus. The ruin of the city was brought about by the change of road system, the foundation of Laodicea, eleven miles distant, and severe earthquakes. It retained municipal independence, but at the time of Strabo (XII, viii, 4) it was “a small town.” It had its own coinage under the empire. St. Paul (probably about 61) addressed an epistle from Rome to the inhabitants of Colossæ, who had perhaps been evangelized by him. Colossæ was the home of his companions, Archippus and Philemon of his very dear sister, Appia, and of Onesimus and Epaphras, who probably founded the Church of Colossæ. The ruins of the city are visible near Chonæ, in the vilayet of Smyrna, on the left bank of the Lycus (Tehuruk Su); they include the acropolis, an aqueduct, theatre, etc. There is also a curious petrifying river, the Ak Su. Under the Byzantine Empire the territory of Colossæ rose again to importance, and a strong fortress was built (perhaps by Justinian) at Chonæ, three miles south-south-east of Colossæ. The centre of population long remained at the old site, but about the eighth century it was moved to a shelf of land beneath the castle. Chonæ (vulgar Greek Khonés, Turk. Honas) is still a little village, twelve miles east of Denizli; it has been rendered famous by its miraculous church of St. Michael. Colossæ was a suffragan of Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana. Besides St. Epaphras, two bishops are mentioned: Epiphanius in 451 and Cosmas in 692; Archippus and Philemon, especially the latter, are very doubtful. Chonæ was made an archbishopric about 858–60, and in some later “Notitiæ episcopatuum” appears as a metropolis without suffragans. Many titulars are known: Dositheus at Nicæ, in 787; Samuel, a friend of Photius, who sent him to Rome, was present at the Council of Constantinople in 866; Constantine, in 1028; Nicholas, in 1066 and 1080; in 1143 Nicetas, the godfather of the historian Nicetas Acominatus, who was born at Chonæ, as was his brother Michael, the famous Metropolitan of Athens.

LEQUIEN, I. 813; HAMILTON, Researches in Asia Minor (London, 1842), I, 507–14; RAMSAY, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 208–34; IDEM, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia (London and New York, 1905); LE CAMUS, Voyage aux sept Eglises; BONNET, Narratio de miraculo a Michaele archangelo Chonis patrato (Paris, 1880).

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Epistle to the Colossians

One of the four Captivity Epistles written by St. Paul during his first imprisonment in Rome—the other three being Ephesians, Philemon and Philippians. That they were written in prison is stated in the Epistles themselves. The writer mentions his “chain” and his “bonds” (Eph., vi, 20, Coloss., iv, 3; 18; Philip., i, 7, 13, 17); he names his fellow prisoners (Coloss., iv, 10; Philem., 23) he calls himself a prisoner (Eph., iii, 1; iv, 1; Philem., 9): “Paul an old man, and now a prisoner.” It was supposed by some that these letters were written during the two years’ captivity at Cæsarea; but it is now generally acknowledged (by all who admit their authenticity) that they were written during the years immediately following in Rome, during the time that “Paul was suffered to dwell by himself, with a soldier that kept him . . . And he remained two whole years in his own hired lodging; and he received all that came in to him” (Acts, xxviii, 16–30). As St. Paul had appealed to the emperor, he was handed over, to await his trial, to the prefect of the Prætorian Guard, who was at that time probably the famous Burrhus, the friend of Seneca. He allowed the Apostle to live near the imperial palace in what was known as custodia militaris, his right wrist being connected day and night, by means of a chain, to the left arm of a soldier, who was relieved at regular intervals (Conybeare, Howson, Lewin). It was in such circumstances that these Epistles were written, some time between A.D. 61 and 63. It cannot be objected that there is no mention in them of the earthquake spoken of by Tacitus and Eusebius as having destroyed Laodicea; for there is no evidence that its effects reached Colossæ, and Eusebius fixes the date later than these letters. Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon were written and dispatched at one and the same time, while Philippians was composed at a somewhat different period of the captivity. The first three are an very closely connected. Tychicus is the messenger in Eph., vi, 21 and Coloss., iv, 7, 8, 9. In the latter he is accompanied by Onesimus, in whose favour the Epistle to Philemon was written. In both Colossians and Philemon greetings are sent from Aristarchus, Mark, Epaphras, Luke, and Demas and there is the closest literary affinity between Ephesians and Colossians (see AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE below).

READERS ADDRESSED

Three cities are mentioned in Colossians, Colossæ (i, 2), Laodicea, and Hierapolis (iv, 13.) These were situated about 120 miles east from Ephesus in Phrygia, in Western Asia Minor, Colossæ and Laodicea being on the banks of the Lycus, a tributary of the Mæander. All three were within two or three hours’ walk from one another. Sir William Ramsay has shown that these towns lay altogether outside the routes followed by St. Paul in his missionary journeys; and it is inferred from Coloss., i, 4, 6, 7, 8 and ii, 1, that they were never visited by the Apostle himself. The great majority of the Colossian Christians appear to have been Gentile converts of Greek and Phrygian extraction (i, 26, 27; ii, 13), though it is probable that there was a small proportion of Jews living amongst them, as it is known that there were many scattered over the surrounding districts (Josephus, Ant., XII, iii, 4, and Lightfoot).

WHY WRITTEN

Colossians was written as a warning against certain false teachers, about whom St. Paul had probably heard from Epaphras, his “fellow-prisoner” and the founder of the Church of the Colossians. The most diverse opinions have been held regarding these seducers. They were called philosophers by Tertullian, Epicureans by St. Clement of Alexandria, Jews by Eichhorn, heathen followers of Pythagoras by Grotius. They have also been called Chaldean magicians, Judaizing Christians, Essenes, Ebionites, Cabbalists, Gnostics, or varying combinations of all these (see Jacquier, Histoire, I, 316; Cornely, Introduction, III, 514). The main outlines of their errors are, however, stated with sufficient clearness in the Epistle, which contains a two fold refutation of them: first, by a direct statement of the true doctrine on Christ, by which the very foundations of their erroneous teaching are shown to be baseless; and secondly, by a direct polemic in which is laid bare the hollowness of what they put forth under the specious name of “philosophy.” Here, philosophy in general is not condemned, but only the philosophy of those false teachers (Hort, Jud. Chr., 118). This was not “according to Christ,” but according to the “tradition of men,” and was in keeping only with the very alphabet of worldly speculation (kata ta stoicheia tou kosmou—see Gal, iv, 3). Josephus and Philo apply the word “philosophy” to Jewish teaching, and there can be no doubt that it was applied so in Coloss., ii; some of its details are given in 16–23: (1) The false teachers wished to introduce the observance of Sabbaths, new moons, and other such days. (2) They forbade the eating and drinking and even the very tasting and touching of certain things. (3) Under the false pretence of humility they inculcated the worship (threskeia) of angels, whom they regarded as equal or superior to Christ. The best modern commentators, Catholic and non-Catholic agree with St. Jerome that all these errors were of Jewish origin. The Essenes held the most exaggerated ideas on Sabbath observance and external purism, and they appear to have employed the names of the angels for magical purposes (Bel. Jud. II, vii, 2–13, Lightfoot, Col. and Dissertations). Many scholars are of opinion that the “elements of this world” (stoicheia tou kosmou) mean elemental spirits; as, at that time, many Jews held that all material things had special angels. In the Book of Henoch and the Book of Jubilees we read of angels of the stars, seasons months, days of the year, heat, cold, frost, hail, winds, clouds etc. Abbott (Eph. and Coloss., p. 248) says that “the term properly used of the elements ruled by these spirits might readily be applied to the spirits themselves, especially as there was no other convenient term.” At any rate angels play an important part in most of early apocryphal books of the Jews, e.g. in the two books just mentioned, the Book of the Secrets of Henoch, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, etc.

It may be noted in passing, that the words of the Epistle against the superstitious worship of angels cannot be taken as condemning the Catholic invocation of angels. Dr. T.K. Abbott, a candid non-Catholic scholar, has a very pertinent passage which bears on this point (Eph. and Coloss. p. 268): “Zonaras . . . says there was an ancient heresy of some who said that we should not call on Christ for help or access to God, but on the angels. . . . This latter view, however, would place Christ high above the angels, and therefore cannot have been that of Colossians, who required to be taught the superiority of Christ.” The objection sometimes brought from a passage of Theodoret on the Council of Laodicea, is clearly and completely refuted by Estius (Comm. in Coloss., II, 18). Another difficulty may be mentioned in connection with this portion of the Epistle. The statement that the vain philosophy was in accordance with “the tradition of men” is not any disparagement of Apostolic traditions, of which St. Paul himself speaks as follows: “Therefore brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our Epistle” (II Thess., ii, 14). “Now I praise you, brethren that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you” (I Cor., xi, 2.—See also II Thess., iii, 6; I Cor., vii, 17; xi, 23; xiv, 33; II Cor., i, 18; Cal., i, 8; Coloss., ii, 6, 7; II Tim., i, 13, 14; ii, 2; iii, 14; II John, i, 12; III John, 13). Finally, the very last verse, dealing with the errors (ii, 23) is considered one of the most difficult passages in the whole of the Scriptures. “Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in superstition and humility, and not sparing the body; not in any honour to the filling of the flesh.” The last words of this verse have given rise to a multitude of the most conflicting interpretations. They have been taken as a condemnation of bodily mortification, and as an exhortation to it. Modern commentators devote much space to an enumeration of the many opinions and to an exhaustive study of these words without any satisfactory result. There can be little doubt that the opinion of Hort, Haupt, and Peake (Exp. Greek Test., 535) is the right one, viz. that the correct reading of this verse became irrevocably lost, in transcription, in very early times.

CONTENTS

FIRST PART (1–2)

The Epistle consists of two parts the first two chapters being dogmatico-polemical and the last two practical or moral. In the first part the writer shows the absurdity of the errors by a direct statement of the supereminent dignity of Christ, by Whose blood we have the redemption of sins. He is the perfect image of the invisible God, begotten before all creatures. By Him and for Him were created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, spiritual as well as material, and by Him are all things upheld. He is the Head of the Church and He has reconciled all things through the blood of His cross, and the Colossians “also he hath reconciled . . . through death.” St. Paul, as the Apostle of the Gentiles and a prisoner for their sakes, exhorts them to hold fast to Christ in Whom the plenitude of the Godhead dwells, and not to allow themselves under the plausible name of philosophy, to be re-enslaved by Jewish traditions based on the Law of Moses, which was but the shadow of which Christ was the reality and which was abrogated by His coming. They are not to listen to vain and rudimentary speculations of the false teachers, nor are they to suffer themselves to be deluded by a specious plea of humility to put angels or demons on a level with Christ, the creator of all, the master of angels, and conqueror of demons.

SECOND PART (3–4)

In this portion of the Epistle St. Paul draws some practical lessons from the foregoing teaching. He appeals to them that as they are risen with Christ they should mind the things that are above; put off the old man and put on the new. In Christ there is to be neither Gentile nor Jew, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. The duties of wives and husbands, children and servants are next given. He recommends constant prayer and thanksgiving, and tells them to walk with wisdom towards them that are without, letting their speech be always in grace seasoned with salt, that they may know how to answer every man. After the final greeting the Apostle ends with: “The salutation of Paul with my own hand. Be mindful of my bands. Grace be with you. Amen.”

AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

The external evidence for the Epistle is so strong that even Davidson has gone to the extent of saying that “it was unanimously attested in ancient times.” Considering its brevity, controversial character, and the local and ephemeral nature of the errors dealt with, it is surprising how frequently it was used by early writers. There are traces of it in some of the Apostolic Fathers and it was known to the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas, to St. Polycarp, and Theophilus of Antioch. It was quoted by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, etc. From the Muratorian Fragment and early versions it is evident that it was contained in the very first collections of St. Paul’s Epistles. It was used as Scripture early in the second century, by Marcion, the Valentinians, and by other heretics mentioned in the “Philosophoumena”; and they would not have accepted it had it originated among their opponents after they broke away from the Church.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE

The Epistle claims to have been written by St. Paul, and the internal evidence shows close connection with Philippians (von Soden) and Philemon, which are admitted to be genuine letters of St. Paul. Renan concedes that it presents several traits which are opposed to the hypothesis of its being a forgery, and of this number is its connection with the Epistle to Philemon. It has to be noted, too, that the moral portion of the Epistle, consisting of the last two chapters has the closest affinity with similar portions of other Epistles, while the whole admirably fits in with the known details of St. Paul’s life, and throws considerable light upon them.

OBJECTIONS

As the historical evidence is much stronger than that for the majority of classical writings, it may be asked why its genuineness was ever called in question. It was never doubted until 1838, when Meyerhoff, followed by others, began to raise objections against it. It will be convenient to deal with these objections under the following four heads: (1) Style; (2) Christology; (3) Errors dealt with; and (4) Similarity to Ephesians.

(1) STYLE

(a) In general, on comparing the Epistle with Corinthians, Romans, and Galatians, it will be seen that the style, especially in the earlier part, is heavy and complicated. It contains no sudden questions, no crushing dilemmas, no vehement outbursts of sweeping Pauline eloquence. Some of the sentences are long and involved, and though the whole is set forth in a lofty and noble strain, the presentment is uniform and not quite in the manner, say, of Galatians. Hence it is objected that it could not have been written by St. Paul. But all this can be very naturally explained when it is borne in mind that the Epistle was written after several years of monotonous confinement, when Christianity had taken firm root, when the old type of Judaizer had become extinct and St. Paul’s position securely established. His advancing years also should be taken into account. It is unfair, moreover, to compare this Epistle, or but parts of it, with only certain portions of one or two of the earlier ones. There are long and involved sentences scattered throughout Romans, I and II Corinthians, and Galatians, and the generally admitted Epistle to the Philippians. It has also to be observed that many of the old Pauline expressions and methods of reasoning are most naturally and inextricably interwoven with the very tissue and substance of the Epistle. Ample proofs for all these statements and others throughout this article, are given in works mentioned in the bibliography. Dr. Sanday has voiced the opinion of fair-minded critics when he says that nobody can view the Epistle as a whole, without being impressed by its unbreakable unify and genuine Pauline character.

(b) Many of St. Paul’s favourite expressions are wanting. From eight to a dozen words not unfrequently used by him in earlier writings are absent from this short Epistle and about a dozen connecting particles, which he employs elsewhere, are also missing. One or two instances will show how such objections may readily be solved, with the aid of a concordance. The words dikaios, soteria and soteria are not found in the Epistle. Therefore, etc.—But dikaios is wanting both in I Cor. and I Thess.; nomos is not contained either in I Cor. or Gal.; nomos is not found at all in I Thess. or II Cor. In the same way (with regard to connecting particles) ara, which is not in this Epistle, is not found either in Philipp. or the first hundred verses of I Cor., a space much longer than the whole of the Epistle; ara oun, which is frequent in Romans, is not met with in I and II Cor. and only once in Gal. (See the details of the argument in Abbott and Jacquier.)

(c) It is objected that the Epistle contains many strange words, nowhere else used by St. Paul. That, however, is precisely what we should expect in an Epistle of St. Paul. Every Epistle written by him contains many words employed by him nowhere else. Alford gives a list of thirty-two apax legomena in this Epistle, and of these eighteen occur in the second chapter, where the errors are dealt with. The same thing occurs in the earlier Epistles, where the Apostle is speaking of new subjects or peculiar errors, and there apax legomena most abound. This Epistle does not show more than the ordinary proportion of new words and in this respect compares favourably with the genuine II Cor. Furthermore, the compound words found in the Epistle have their analogues in similar passages of the authentic Epistle to the Romans. It would be most absurd to bind down to a narrow and set vocabulary a writer of such intellectual vigour and literary versatility as St. Paul. The vocabulary of all writers changes with time, place, and subject-matter. Salmon, Mahaffy, and others have pointed out that similar changes of vocabulary occur in the writings of Xenophon, who was a traveller like St. Paul. Compare the earlier and later letters of Lord Acton (edited by Abbot Gasquet) or of Cardinal Newman.

(2) CHRISIOLOGY

It has objected that the exalted idea of Christ presented in the Epistle could not have been written by St. Paul. In answer to this it will be sufficient to quote the following passage from the genuine Epistle to the Philippians: “Who [Christ Jesus] being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant” (ii, 6, 7, etc. See Romans, i, 3, 4; Gr. text, viii, 3;I Cor., vii, 6; II Cor., viii, 9; Gal., iv, 6, etc.). That the Christology of the Epistle does not differ in any essential point from that of St. Paul’s other Epistles is seen from an impartial study of these latter. The subject has been scientifically worked out by Père Rose (Rev. bibl. 1903), M. Lépin (Jésus Messie, 341), Sanday (Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, lect. vii, Oxford, 1905), Knowling (The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, London, 1905), Lacey (The Historic Christ, London 1905), etc. Nor can the words (i, 24): I . . .”fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh, for his body, which is the church,” present any difficulty when it is remembered that he had just said that Christ had reconciled all through the blood of His cross, and that the correct meaning of antanaplero ta hysteremata ton thlipseon tou Christou en te sarki mou hyper tou somatos autou, ho estin he ekklesia is: “I am filling up those Christian sufferings that remain for me to endure for the sake of the Church of Christ,” etc. Compare II Cor., i, 5, “For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us” (ta pathemata tou Christou).

(3) ERRORS DEALT WITH

The objection under this heading need not detain us long. Some years ago it was frequently asserted that the errors combated in this Epistle were Gnostic errors of the second century, and that the Epistle was therefore written many years after St. Paul’s death. But this opinion is now considered, even by the most advanced critics, as exploded and antiquated. Nobody can read the writings of these Gnostics without becoming convinced that terms employed by them were used in a quite different sense from that attached to them in the Epistle. Baur himself appears to have had considerable misgivings on the point. The errors of Judaic Gnosticism, condemned in the Epistle, were quite embryonic when compared with the full-blown Greek Gnosticism of the second century (see Lightfoot, Coloss., etc.).

(4) SIMILARITY TO EPHESIANS

The principal objection to the Epistle is its great similarity to Ephesians. Davidson stated that out of 155 verses in the latter Epistle 78 were identical with Colossians. De Wette held that Ephesians was but a verbose amplification of Colossians. Baur thought Ephesians the superior letter, and Renan asked how can we suppose the Apostle spending his time in making a bald transcription of himself. But as Dr. Salmon pointed out, an Apostle might write a circular letter, that is, he might send to different places letters couched in identical words. Many theories have been elaborated to explain these undoubted resemblances. Ewald maintained that the substance was St. Paul’s, while the composition was left to Timothy. Weiss and Hitzig had recourse to a theory of interpolations. But the theory that has gained the greatest amount of notoriety is that of H.J. Holtzmann. In his “Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosser-Briefe “ (1872) he instituted a most elaborate and exhaustive comparison between the two Epistles. He took a number of passages which seemed to prove the priority of Ephesians and an equal number which were just as conclusive that Colossians was the earlier. The natural conclusion would be that all these similarities were due to the same author writing and dispatching these Epistles at one and the same time. But Holtzmann’s explanation was quite different. He supposed that St. Paul wrote a short epistle to the Colossians. From the study of this epistle a later writer composed the Epistle to the Ephesians. Then taking St. Paul’s short Epistle to the Colossians he made interpolations and additions to it from his own composition to the Ephesians and thus built up our present Epistle to the Ephesians, and that with such success that the thing was never suspected until the nineteenth century. This intricate and complicated theory did not gain a single adherent, even amongst the most advanced critical school. Hilgenfeld rejected it in 1873; but its best refutation is von Soden’s detailed criticism of 1885. He held that only about eight verses could be regarded as interpolations. Sanday in Smith’s “Dict. of the Bible” (I, 625) pointed out that von Soden’s lines of demarcation were purely imaginary, and Pfleiderer showed the inconsistency involved in his rejection of these verses. The results of these criticisms and of further study convinced von Soden, in 1891, that the whole Epistle was genuine, with the exception of a single verse—a verse now generally held to be genuine. In 1894 Jülicher stated that the best solution was to admit the authenticity of both Epistles, though he speaks more hesitatingly in “Encyc. Bibl.” 1889. J. Weiss made an abortive attempt to resuscitate Holtzmann’s moribund theory in 1900.

Whilst Holtzmann’s facts are incontestable, and only go to prove the community of authorship, his explanation (in which he seems to have lost faith) is rejected by scholars as artificial and unreal. It affords no explanation of many things connected with these Epistles. It does not explain how the early Christians allowed a genuine letter of St. Paul to become completely lost without trace or mention, for the sake of two forgeries of much later date. Each Epistle, taken by itself, shows such unity and connection of argument and language, that if the other were not in existence no one would have suspected the slightest degree of interpolation. The parts rejected as interpolations break the unity of argument and flow of ideas. Why should a forger, capable of writing the bulk of both Epistles, take the trouble to interpolate verses and half of his own production from one Epistle into the other, and that in quite a different connection? Besides, as Principal Salmond observes, there is not a dull sameness of style in both Epistles. Ephesians is round, full, rhythmical; Colossians more pointed, logical and concise. Ephesians has several references to the Old Testament; Colossians only one. There are different new words in each, and there are whole passages in the one and nothing like them found in the other.

The expressions supposed to have come from Colossians occur quite naturally in Ephesians, but by no means in the same context and connection, and vice versa. As Holtzmann’s hypothesis has completely broken down, his study of the Epistles shows such close relationship between them that there can be only one other possible explanation: that both are the genuine writings of one man, and that man was St. Paul. Paley, who wrote his “Horæ Paulinæ” in 1790, set forth this side of the argument long before these objections were thought of; and the fact that he can still be quoted, without qualification, in this connection, is the best proof of the futility of all such objections. He says (Horæ Paulinæ, London, 1790, 215):

Whoever writes two letters or discourses nearly upon the same subject and at no great distance of time but without any express recollection of what he had written before will find himself repeating some sentences in the very order of the words in which he had already used them; but he will more frequently find himself employing some principal terms, with the order inadvertently changed, or with the order disturbed by the intermixture of other words and phrases expressive of ideas rising up at the time, or in many instances repeating not single words, nor yet whole sentences, but parts and fragments of sentences. Of all these varieties the examination of our two epistles will furnish plain examples, and I should rely on this class of instances more than on the last, because although an impostor might transcribe into a forgery entire sentences and phrases, yet the dislocation of words, the partial recollection of phrases and sentences, the intermixture of new terms and new ideas with terms and ideas before used, which will appear in the examples that follow, and which are the natural products of writing produced under the circumstances in which these epistles are represented to have been composed—would not, I think, have occurred to the invention of a forger, nor, if they had occurred would they have been so easily executed. This studied variation was a refinement in forgery which I believe did not exist, or if we can suppose it to have been practised in the instances adduced below, why, it may be asked, was not the same art exercised upon those which we have collected in the preceding class?

He then goes on to illustrate all these points by numerous examples taken from all parts of these Epistles. ST. JEROME, Ep. cxxi, Ad Algas., q. x in Opera (Venice, 1766), I Pt. I, 878; CORNELY, Introd. (Paris, 1897), III; SALMON, Intro. to New Test. (London, 1897); JACQUIER, Histoire des Livres du Nouveau Test. (Paris, 1906), I; ESTIUS, Commentarius (Mainz, 1844); BISPING, Erklärung der Briefe an die Eph., Philip., Kol. (Münster, 1855); MCEVILLY, Exposition (Dublin, 1860); ALFORD, New Test. Critical and Exegetical Commentary (London, 1856); ELLICOTT, Critical and Grammatical Comm. (London, 1857); LIGHTFOOT, Colossians and Philemon (London, 1879); IDEM, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age (London, 1875); SANDAY in SMITH, Dict. of the Bible (London, 1893); VON SODEN, Die Briefe an die Kolosser, etc. (Leipzig, 1893); SALMOND, Ephesians; PEAKE, Colossians in Exp. Greek Test. (London, 1903). One of the best books on the subject is ABBOTT, Ephesians and Colossians. See also The International Critical Commentary, ed. CLARK (Edinburgh, 1907); HORT, Judaic Christianity (London, 1898).

C. AHERNE

Liturgical Colours

By a law of her liturgy the Church directs that the vestments worn by her sacred ministers, and the drapery used in the decoration of the altar should correspond in colour to that which is prescribed for the Office of the day. The colours thus sanctioned by the Church in connection with her public worship are called the liturgical colours. Here it will be enough to examine (1) their number; (2) the drapery and vestments affected by them; (3) their obligation; (4) their antiquity, and (5) their symbolism.

I. NUMBER

In the Roman Rite, since Pius V, colours are five in number, viz.: white, red, green, violet, and black. Rose colour is employed only on Lætare and Gaudete Sundays. Blue is prescribed in some dioceses of Spain for the Mass of the Immaculate Conception.

White is the colour proper to Trinity Sunday, the feasts of Our Lord, except those of His Passion, the feasts of the Blessed Virgin, angels, confessors, virgins and women, who are not martyrs, the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, the chief feast of St. John the Evangelist, the feast of the Chains and of the Chair of St. Peter, the Conversion of St. Paul, All Saints, to consecration of churches and altars, the anniversaries of the election and coronation of the pope and of the election and consecration of bishops; also for the octaves of these feasts and the Offices de tempore from Holy Saturday to the vigil of Pentecost; it is used for votive Masses when the feasts have white, and for the nuptial Mass; also in services in connection with the Blessed Sacrament, at the burial of children, in the administration of baptism, Holy Viaticum, and matrimony.

Red is used the week of Pentecost, on the feasts of Christ’s Passion and His Precious Blood, the Finding and Elevation of the Cross, the feasts of Apostles and martyrs; and in votive Masses of these feasts. It is used on Holy Innocents if the feast occur on Sunday and always on its octave.

Green is employed in Offices de tempore from the octave of the Epiphany to Septuagesima, and from the octave of Pentecost to Advent, except on ember-days and vigils during that time, and on Sundays occurring within an octave.

Violet is used during Advent and from Septuagesima to Easter, on vigils that are fast days, and on ember-days, except the vigil of Pentecost and the ember-days during the octave of Pentecost. Violet is also used for Mass on rogation-days, for votive Masses of the Passion and of penitential character, at the blessing of candles and of holy water. The stole used in the administration of penance and of extreme unction and in the first part of the baptismal ceremonies must be violet.

Black is used in offices for the dead, and on Good Friday.

II. AFFECTED VESTMENTS

The drapery and vestments affected by the law of liturgical colours are (a) the antependium of the altar, and as a matter of appropriateness, the tabernacle veil; (b) the burse and chalice veil; (c) maniple, stole, chasuble, cope, and humeral veil; (d) maniple, stole, tunic, and dalmatic of the sacred ministers, and also the broad stole and folded chasuble when employed. All these must correspond with the rules prescribing the use of each colour. The rubrical prescriptions regard the main or constitutive portion of each vestment, so that the borders or other ornamental accessories do not determine the quality of colour. Neither does the lining, but the Roman practice is to have it in harmony with the vestment itself, yellow however being generally adopted instead of pure white.

III. OBLIGATION

The obligation of using any particular colour begins with the First Vespers of the Office of which it is characteristic, or with the Matins if the Office has no First Vespers, and ceases as soon as the following Office begins. Vestments made of pure cloth of gold may be employed for red, white, and green colours (Decret. Authent., nn. 3145, 3646, ed. 1900); cloth of silver may be used instead of white. Multicoloured vestments cannot be used except for the predominant colour.

IV. ANTIQUITY

Benedict XIV (De Sacro Sacrificio Missæ I, VIII, n. 16) says that up to the fourth century white was the only liturgical colour in use. Other colours were introduced soon afterwards. Innocent III (d. 1216) is among the first to emphasize a distinction. He mentions four principal colours, white, red, green, black (De Sac. Alt. Mys., I, lxv) as of general use, and one, viz. violet, as occasionally employed. This latter was regularly used from the thirteenth century. An “Ordo Romanus” of the fourteenth century enumerates five. Between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries blue and yellow were common but they may not be used without very special authorization (Cong. of Rites, Sept., 1837).

V. SYMBOLISM

Outside of Rome uniformity of observance was effected in the second quarter of the nineteenth century by the abrogation of other uses. In the Western Church only the Ambrosian Rite (q.v.) retains its peculiar colours. Most of the Oriental rites have no prescribed liturgical colours. The Greek Rite (q.v.) alone has a fixed usage but even among them it is not of strict obligation. The Ruthenians follow the Roman regulation since 1891. The variety of liturgical colours in the Church arose from the mystical meaning attached to them. Thus white, the symbol of light, typifies innocence and purity, joy and glory; red, the language of fire and blood, indicates burning charity and the martyrs’ generous sacrifice; green, the hue of plants and trees, bespeaks the hope of life eternal; violet, the gloomy cast of the mortified, denotes affliction and melancholy; while black, the universal emblem of mourning, signifies the sorrow of death and the sombreness of the tomb.

LEGG, Notes on History of Liturgical Colours (London, 1882); VAN DER STAPPEN, De Cebratione Missæ (Mechlin. 1902),120–133; MACALISTER, Ecclesiastical Vestments (London, 1896): pp. 223–28; BRAUN, Die liturgirsche Gewandung (Freiburg im Br. 1907), pp. 728–60; GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (tr., St. Louis, 1902), 297–312; ROCK, Church of Our Fathers (2nd edition, London 1904), II, 213 sq.; WILPERT, Gewandung der Christen (Freiburg, 1898).

PATRICK MORRISROE.

Columba of Terryglass

A son of Crinthainn and a disciple of St. Finnian of Clonard. When the latter was in extremis, from the plague, Columba administered Holy Viaticum. Having completed his studies, he took charge of Caemban, Fintan, and Mocumin, who are numbered among the saints. He founded the celebrated monastery of Tirdaglas, or Terryglass, 548. It is said that he visited Tours and brought thence relics of St. Martin. He died of the plague, 13 December, 552, and was buried within the precincts of his own monastery at Terryglass. Some fifteen other saints of Ireland, bearing the name Columba, are mentioned in the Martyrology of Gorman.

COLUMBA EDMONDS.

St. Columba

Columba, Saint.—There are two saints of this name, virgins and martyrs.

St. Columba of Sens, who suffered towards the end of the third century, probably under the Emperor Aurelian. She is said to have been beheaded near a fountain called d’Azon; and the tradition is that her body was left by her murderers on the ground, until it was buried by a man called Aubertus, in thanksgiving for his restoration to sight on his invoking her. A chapel was afterwards built over her relics; and, later on, rose the Abbey of Sens, which at one time was a place of pilgrimage in her honor. She is also said to have been patroness of the parish church of Chevilly in the Diocese of Paris, but her whole history is somewhat legendary.

Butler, Lives of the Saints, IV, 592; Brullée, Histoire de l’Abbaye royale de Sens (1852), containing a rhymed life of the martyr published at Paris in 1660. This book was written partly in the hope of restoring popular devotion to St. Columba.

St. Columba, a Spanish nun, of whom it is related that she was beheaded by the Moors at the monastery of Tabanos in 853. Her body is said to have been thrown into the Guadalquivir, but was rescued by the Christians. Her relics were kept and venerated in Old Castile at two churches, the priory of St. Columba and the royal Abbey of Our Lady at Nagara.

F. M. CAPES.

St. Columba, Abbot of Iona

Abbot of Iona, b. at Garten, County Donegal, Ireland, 7 December, 521; d. 9 June, 597. He belonged to the Clan O’Donnell, and was of royal descent. His father’s name was Fedhlimdh and that of his mother Eithne. On his father’s side he was great-great-grandson of Niall of the Nine Hostages, an Irish king of the fourth century. His baptismal name was Colum, which signifies a dove, hence the latinized form Columba. It assumes another form in Colum-cille, the suffix meaning “of the Churches.” He was baptized at Tulach-Dubhglaise, now Temple-Douglas, by a priest named Cruithnechan, who afterwards became his tutor or foster-father. When sufficiently advanced in letters he entered the monastic school of Moville under St. Finnian who had studied at St. Ninian’s “Magnum Monasterium” on the shores of Galloway. Columba at Moville monastic life and received the diaconate. In the same place his sanctity first manifested itself by miracles. By his prayers, tradition says, he converted water into wine for the Holy Sacrifice (Adam., II, i). Having completed his training at Moville, he travelled southwards into Leinster, where he became a pupil of an aged bard named Gemman. On leaving him, Columba entered the monastery of Clonard, governed at that time by Finnian, a remarkable, like his namesake of Moville, for sanctity and learning. Here he imbibed the traditions of the Welsh Church, for Finnian had been trained in the schools of St. David. Here also he became one those twelve Clonard disciples known in subsequent history as the Twelve Apostles of Ireland. About this same time he was promoted to the priesthood by bishop Etchen of Clonfad. The story that St. Finnian wished Columba to be consecrated bishop, but through a mistake only priest’s orders were conferred, is regarded by competent authorities as the invention of a later age (Reeves, Adam., 226).

Another preceptor of Columba was St. Mobhi, whose monastery at Glasnevin was frequented by such famous men as St. Canice, St. Comgall, and St. Ciaran. A pestilence which devastated Ireland in 544 caused the dispersion of Mobhi’s disciples, and Columba returned to Ulster, the land of his kindred. The following years were marked by the foundation of several important monasteries, Derry, Durrow, and Kells. Derry and Durrow were always specially dear to Columba. While at Derry it is said that he planned a pilgrimage to Rome and Jerusalem, but did not proceed farther than Tours. Thence he brought a copy of those gospels that had lain on the bosom of St. Martin for the space of 100 years. This relic was deposited in Derry (Skene, Celtic Scotland, II, 483). Columba left Ireland and passed over into Scotland in 563. The motives for this migration have been frequently discussed. Bede simply says: “Venit de Hibernia . . . praedicaturus verbum Dei” (H. E., III, iv); Adarnnan: “pro Christo perigrinari volens enavigavit” (Praef., II). Later writers state that his departure was due to the fact that he had induced the clan Neill to rise and engage in battle against King Diarmait at Cooldrevny in 561. The reasons alleged for this action of Columba are: (1) The king’s violation of the right of sanctuary belonging to Columba’s person as a monk on the occasion of the murder of Prince Curnan, the saint’s kinsman; (2) Diarmait’s adverse judgment concerning the copy Columba had secretly made of St. Finnian’s psalter. Columba is said to have supported by his prayers the men of the North who were fighting while Finnian did the same for Diarmait’s men. The latter were defeated with a loss of three thousand. Columba’s conscience smote him, and he had recourse to his confessor, St. Molaise, who imposed this severe penance: to leave Ireland and preach the Gospel so as to gain as many souls to Christ as lives lost at Cooldrevny, and never more to look upon his native land. Some writers hold that these are legends invented by the bards and romancers of a later age, because there is no mention of them by the earliest authorities (O’Hanlon, Lives of the Ir. Saints, VI, 353). Cardinal Moran accepts no other motive than that assigned by Adamnan, “a desire to carry the Gospel to a pagan nation and to win souls to God.” (Lives ot Irish Saints in Great Britain, 67). Archbishop Healy, on the contrary, considers that the saint did incite to battle, and exclaims: “O felix culpa . . . which produced so much good both for Erin and Alba (Schools and Scholars, 311).

IONA

Columba was in his forty-fourth year when he departed from Ireland. He and his twelve companions crossed the sea in a currach of wickerwork covered with hides. They landed at Iona on the eve of Pentecost, 12 May, 563. The island, according to Irish authorities, was granted to the monastic colonists by King Conall of Dalriada, Columba’s kinsman. Bede attributes the gift to the Picts (Fowler, p. lxv). It was a convenient situation, being midway between his countrymen along the western coast and the Picts of Caledonia. He and his brethren proceeded at once to erect their humble dwellings, consisting of a church, refectory, and cells, constructed of wattles and rough planks. After spending some years among the Scots of Dalriada, Columba began the great work of his life, the conversion of the Northern Picts. Together with St. Comgall and St. Canice (Kenneth) he visited King Brude in his royal residence near Inverness. Admittance was refused to the missionaries, and the gates were closed and bolted, but before the sign of the cross the bolts flew back, the doors stood open, and the monks entered the castle. Awe-struck by so evident a miracle, the king listened to Columba with reverence; and was baptized. The people soon followed the example set them, and thus was inaugurated a movement that extended itself to the whole of Caledonia. Opposition was not wanting, and it came chiefly from the Druids, who officially represented the paganism of the nation.

The thirty-two remaining years of Columba’s life were mainly spent in preaching the Christian Faith to the inhabitants of the glens and wooded straths of Northern Scotland. His steps can be followed not only through the Great Glen, but eastwards also, into Aberdeenshire. The “Book of Deer” (p. 91) tells us how he and Drostan came, as God had shown them to Aberdour in Buchan, and how Bede, a Pict, who was high steward of Buchan, gave them the town in freedom forever. The preaching of the saint was confirmed by many miracles, and he provided for the instruction of his converts by the erection of numerous churches and monasteries. One of his journeys brought him to Glasgow, where he met St. Mungo, the apostle of Strathclyde. He frequently visited Ireland; in 570 he attended the synod of Drumceatt, in company with the Scottish King Aidan, whom shortly before he had inaugurated successor of Conall of Dalriada. When not engaged in missionary journeys, he always resided at Iona. Numerous strangers sought him there, and they received help for soul and body. From Iona he governed those numerous communities in Ireland and Caledonia, which regarded him as their father and founder. This accounts for the unique position occupied by the successors of Columba, who governed the entire province of the Northern Picts although they had received priest’s orders only. It was considered unbecoming that any successor in the office of Abbot of Iona should possess a dignity higher than of the founder. The bishops were regarded as being of a superior order, but subject nevertheless to the jurisdiction of the abbot. At Lindisfarne the monks reverted to the ordinary law and were subject to a bishop (Bede, H.E., xxvii).

Columba is said never to have spent an hour without study, prayer, or similar occupations. When at home he was frequently engaged in transcribing. On the eve of his death he was engaged in the work of transcription. It is stated that he wrote 300 books with his own hand, two of which, “The Book of Durrow” and the psalter called “The Cathach,” have been preserved to the present time. The psalter enclosed in a shrine, was originally carried into battle by the O’ Donnells as a pledge of victory. Several of his compositions in Latin and Irish have come down to us, the best known being the poem “Altus Prosator,” published in the “Liber Hymnorum,” and also in another form by the late Marquess of Bute. There is not sufficient evidence to prove that the rule attributed to him was really his work.

In the spring of 597 he knew that his end was approaching. On Saturday, 8 June, he ascended the hill overlooking his monastery and blessed for the last time the home so dear to him. That afternoon he was present at Vespers, and later, when the bell summoned the community to the midnight service, he forestalled the others and entered the church without assistance. But he sank before the altar, and in that place breathed forth his soul to God, surrounded by his disciples. This happened a little after midnight between the 8th and 9th of June, 597. He was in the seventy-seventh year of his age. The monks buried him within the monastic enclosure. After the lapse of a century or more his bones were disinterred and placed within a suitable shrine. But as Northmen and Danes more than once invaded the island, the relics of St. Columba were carried for purposes of safety into Ireland and deposited in the church of Downpatrick. Since the twelfth century history is silent regarding them. His books and garments were held in veneration at Iona, they were exposed and carried in procession, and were the means of working miracles (Adam., II, xlv). His feast is kept in Scotland and Ireland on the 9th of June. In the Scottish Province of st Andrews and Edinburgh there is a Mass and Office proper to the festival, which ranks as a double of the second class with an octave. He is patron of two Scottish dioceses Argyle and the Isles and Dunkeld. According to tradition St. Columba was tall and of dignified mien. Adamnan says: “He was angelic in appearance, graceful in speech, holy in work” (Praef., II). His voice was strong, sweet, and sonorous capable at times of being heard at a great distance. He inherited the ardent temperament and strong passions of his race. It has been sometimes said that he was of an angry and vindictive spirit not only because of his supposed part in the battle of Cooldrevny but also because of irritant related by Adamnan (II, xxiii sq. ) But the deeds that roused his indignation were wrongs done to others, and the retribution that overtook the perpetrators was rather predicted than actually invoked. Whatever faults were inherent in his nature he overcame and he stands before the world conspicuous for humiiity and charity not only towards has brethren, but towards strangers also. He was generous and warm-hearted, tender and kind even to dumb creatures. He was ever ready to sympathize with the joys and sorrows of others. His fasts and vigils were carried to a great extent. The stone pillow on which he slept is said to be still preserved in Iona. His chastity of body and purity of mind are extolled by all his biographers. Notwithstanding his wonderful austerities, Adamnan assures us he was beloved by all, “for a holy joyousness that ever beamed from his countenance revealed the gladness with which the Holy Spirit filled his soul.” (Praef., II.)

INFLUENCE, AND ATTITUDE TOWARDS ROME

He was not only a great missionary saint who won a whole kingdom to Christ, but he was a statesman, a scholar, a poet, and the founder of numerous churches and monasteries. His name is dear to Scotsmen and Irishmen alike. And because of his great and noble work even non-Catholics hold his memory in veneration. For the purposes of controversy it has been maintained some that St. Columba ignored papal supremacy, because he entered upon his mission without the pope’s authorization. Adamnan is silent on the subject; but his work is neither exhaustive as to Columba’s life, nor does it pretend to catalogue the implicit and explicit belief of his patron. Indeed, in those days a mandate from the pope was not deemed essential for the work which St. Columba undertook. This may be gathered from the words of St. Gregory the Great, relative to the neglect of the British clergy towards the pagan Saxons (Haddan and Stubbs, III, 10). Columba was a son of the Irish Church, which taught from the days of St. Patrick that matters of greater moment should be referred to the Holy See for settlement. St. Columbanus, Columba’s fellow-country-man and fellow-churchman, asked for papal judgment (judicium) on the Easter question; so did the bishops and abbots of Ireland. There is not the slightest evidence to prove that St. Columba differed on this point from his fellow-countryrnen. Moreover, the Stowe Missal, which, according to the best authority, represents the Mass of the Celtic Church during the early part of the seventh century, contains in its Canon prayers for the pope more emphatic than even those of the Roman Liturgy. To the further objection as to the supposed absence of the cultus of Our Lady, it may be pointed out that the same Stowe Missal contains before its Canon the invocation “Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis,” which epitomizes all Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin. As to the Easter difficulty Bede thus sums up the reasons for the discrepancy: “He [Columba] left successors distinguished for great charity, Divine love, and strict attention to the rules of discipline following indeed uncertain cycles in the computation of the great festival of Easter, because, far away as they were out of the world, no one had supplied them with the synodal decrees relating to the Paschal observance” (H.E., III, iv). As far as can be ascertained no proper symbolical representation of St. Columba exists. The few attempts that have been made are for the most part mistaken. A suitable pictorial representation would exhibit him, clothed in the habit and cowl usually worn by the Basilian or Benedictine monks, with Celtic tonsure and crosier. His identity could be best determined by showing him standing near the shell-strewn shore, with currach hard by, and the Celtic cross and ruins of lona in the background.

COLUMBA EDMONDS

St. Columbanus

Abbot of Luxeuil and Bobbio, born in West Leinster, Ireland, in 543; died at Bobbio, Italy, 21 November, 615.

His life was written by Jonas, an Italian monk of the Columban community, at Bobbio, c. 643. This author lived during the abbacy of Attala, Columbanus’s immediate successor, and his informants had been companions of the saint. Mabillon in the second volume of his “Acta Sanctorum O.S.B.” gives the life in full, together with an appendix on the miracles of the saint, written by an anonymous member of the Bobbio community.

Columbanus, whose birth took place the year St. Benedict died, was from childhood well instructed. He was handsome and prepossessing in appearance, and this exposed him to the shameless temptations of several of his countrywomen. He also had to struggle with his own temptations. At last he betook himself to a religious woman, who advised him thus:

Twelve years ago I fled from the world, and shut myself up in this cell. Hast thou forgotten Samson, David and Solomon, all led astray by the love of women? There is no safety for thee, young man, except in flight.

He thereupon decided to act on this advice and retire from the world. He encountered opposition, especially from his mother, who strove to detain him by casting herself before him on the threshhold of the door. But, conquering the feelings of natures he passed over the prostrate form and left his home forever. His first master was Sinell Abbot of Cluaninis in Lough Erne. Under his tuition he composed a commentary on the Psalms. He then betook himself to the celebrated monastery of Bangor on the coast of Down, which at that time had for its abbot St. Comgall. There he embraced the monastic state, and for many years led a life conspicuous for fervour, regularity, and learning. At about the age of forty he seemed to hear incessantly the voice of God bidding him preach the Gospel in foreign lands. At first his abbot declined to let him go, but at length he gave consent.

Columbanus set sail with twelve companions; their names have thus come down to us: St. Attala, Columbanus the Younger, Cummain, Domgal, Eogain, Eunan, St. Gall, Gurgano, Libran, Lua, Sigisbert and Waldoleno (Strokes, “Apennines,” p. 112). The little band passed over to Britain, landing probably on the Scottish coast. They remained but a short time in England, and then crossed over to France, where they arrived probably in 585. At once they began their apostolic mission. Wherever they went the people, were struck by their modesty, patience, and humility. France at that period needed such a band of monks and preachers. Owing partly to the incursions of barbarians, and partly due to the remissness of the clergy, vice and impiety were prevalent. Columbanus, by his holiness, zeal, and learning, was eminently fitted for the work that lay before him. He and his followers soon made their way to the court of Gontram, King of Burgundy. Jonas calls it the court of Sigisbert, King of Austrasia and Burgundy, but this is manifestly a blunder, for Sigisbert had been slain in 575. The fame of Columbanus had preceded him. Gontram gave him a gracious reception, inviting him to remain in his kingdom. The saint complied, and selected for his abode the half-ruined Roman fortress of Annegray in the solitudes of the Vosges Mountains. Here the abbot and his monks led the simplest of lives, their food oftentimes consisting of nothing but forest herbs, berries, and the bark of young trees. The fame of Columbanus’s sanctity drew crowds to his monastery. Many, both nobles and rustics, asked to be admitted into the community. Sick persons came to be cured through their prayers. But Columbanus loved solitude. Often he would withdrew to a cave seven miles distant, with a single companion, who acted as messenger between himself and his brothren. After a few years the ever-increasing number of his disciples oblige him to build another monastery. Columbanus accordingly obtained from King Gontram the Gallo-Roman castle named Luxeuil, some eight miles distant from Annegray. It was in a wild district, thickly covered with pine forests and brushwood. This foundation of the celebrated Abbey of Luxueil, took place in 590. But these two monasteries did not suffice for the numbers who came, and a third had to be erected at Fontaines. The superiors of these houses always remained subordinate to Columbanus. It is said this time, he was able to institute a perpetual service of praise, known as Laus perennis, by which choir succeded choir, both day and night (Montalembert, Monks of the West II, 405). For these flourishing communities he wrote his rule, which embodies the customs of Bangor and other Celtic monasteries.

For wellnigh twenty years Columbanus resided in France and during that time observed the unreformed paschal computation. But a dispute arose. The Frankish bishops were not too well disposed towards this stranger abbot, because of his ever-increasing influence, and at last they showed their hostility. They objected to his Celtic Easter and his exclusion of men as well as women from the precincts of his monasteries. The councils of Gaul held in the first half of the sixth century had given to bishops absolute authority over religious communities, even going so far as to order the abbots to appear periodically before their respective bishops to receive reproof or advice, as might be considered necessary. These enactments, being contrary to the custom of the Celtic monasteries, were readily accepted by Columbanus. In 602 the bishops assembled to judge him. He did not appear, lest, as he tells us, “he might contend in words,” but instead addressed a letter to the prelates in which he speaks with a strange mixture of freedom, reverence, and charity. In it he admonishes them to hold synods more frequently, and advises that they pay attention to matters equally important with that of the date of Easter. As to his paschal cycle he says: “I am not the author of this divergence. I came as a poor stranger into these parts for the cause of Christ, Our Saviour. One thing alone I ask of you, holy Fathers, permit me to live in silence in these forests, near the bones of seventeen of my brethren now dead.” When the Frankish bishops still insisted that the abbot was wrong, then, in obedience to St. Patrick’s canon, he laid the question before Pope St. Gregory. He dispatched two letters to that pontiff, but they never reached him, “through Satan’s intervention.” The third letter is extant, but no trace of an answer appears in St. Gregory’s correspondence, owing probably to the fact that the pope died in 604, about the time it reached Rome. In this letter he defends the Celtic custom with considerable freedom, but the tone is affectionate. He prays “the holy Pope, his Father,” to direct towards him “the strong support of his authority, to transmit the verdict of his favour.” Moreover, he apologizes “for presuming to argue as it were, with him who sits in the chair of Peter, Apostle and Bearer of the Keys.” He directed another epistle to Pope Boniface IV, in which he prays that, if it be not contrary to the Faith, he confirm the tradition of his elders, so that by the papal decision (judicium) he and his monks may be enabled to follow the rites of their ancestors. Before Pope Bonifice’s answer (which has been lost) was given, Columbanus was outside the jurisdiction of the Frankish bishops. As we hear no further accusation on the Easter question—not even in those brought against his successor, Eustasius of Luxeuil in 624—it would appear that after Columbanus had removed into Italy he gave up the Celtic Easter (cf. Acta SS. O.S.B., II, p. 7).

In addition to the Easter question Columbanus had to wage war against vice in the royal household. The young King Thierry, to whose kingdom Luxeuil belonged, was living a life of debauchery. He was completely in the hands of his grandmother, Queen Brunehault (Brunehild). On the death of King Gontram the succession passed to his nephew, Childebert II, son of Brunehault. At his death the latter left two sons, Theodebert II and Thierry II, both minors. Theodebert succeeded to Austrasia, Thierry to Burgundy, but Brunehault constituted herself their guardian, and held in her own power the governments of the two kingdoms. As she advanced in years she sacrificed everything to the passion of sovereinity, hence she encouraged Thierry in the practice concubinage in order that there might be no rival queen. Thierry, however, had a veneration for Columbanus, and often visited him. On these occasions the saint admonished and rebuked him, but in vain. Brunehault became enraged with Columbanus, stirred up the bishops and nobles to find fault with his rules regarding monastic enclosure. Finally, Thierry and his party went to Luxeuil and ordered the abbot to conform to the usages of the country. Columbanus refused, whereupon he was taken prisoner to Besancon to await further orders. Taking advantage of the absence of restraint he speedily returned to his monastery. On hearing this, Thierry and Brunehault sent soldiers to drive him back to Ireland. None but Irish monks were to accompany him. Accordingly, he was hurried to Nevers, made to embark on the Loire, and thus proceed to Nantes. At Tours he visited the tomb of St. Martin and sent a message to Thierry that within three years he and his children would perish. At Nantes, before the embarkation, he addressed a letter to his monks, full of affection. It is a memorial of the love and tenderness which existed in that otherwise austere and passionate soul. In it he desires all to obey Attala, whom he requests to abide with the community unless strife should arise on the Easter question. His letter concludes thus “They come to tell me the ship is ready. The end of my parchment compels me to finish my letter. Love is not orderly; it is this which has made it confused. Farewell, dear hearts of mine; pray for me that I may live in God.” As soon as they set sail, such a storm arose that ship was driven ashore. The captain would have nothing more to do with these holy men; they were thus free to go where they pleased. Columbanus made his way to the friendly King Clothaire at Soissons in Neustria where he was gladly welcomed. Clothaire in vain pressed him to remain in his territory. Columbanus left Neustria in 611 for the court of King Theodebert of Austrasia. At Metz he received an honourable welcome, and then proceeding to Mainz, he embarked upon the Rhine in order to reach the Suevi and Alamanni, to whom he wished to preach the Gospel. Ascending the river and its tributaries, the Aar and the Limmat, he came to the Lake of Zurich. Tuggen was chosen as a centre from which to evangelize, but the work was not successful. Instead of producing fruit, the zeal of Columbanus only excited persecution. In despair he resolved to pass on by way of Arbon to Bregenz on Lake Constance, where there were still some traces of Christianity. Here the saint found an oratory dedicated to St. Aurelia, into which the people had brought three brass images of their tutelary deities. He commanded St. Gall, who knew the language, to preach to the inhabitants, and many were converted. The images were destroyed, and Columbanus blessed the little church, placing the relics of St. Aurelia beneath the altar. A monastery was erected, and the brethren forthwith observed their regular life. After about a year, in consequence of another rising against the community, Columbanus resolved to cross the Alps into Italy. An additional reason for his departure was the fact that the arms of Thierry had prevailed against Theodebert, and thus the country on the banks of the Upper Rhine had become the property of his enemy.

On his arrival at Milan in 612, Columbanus met with a kindly welcome from King Agilulf and Queen Theodelinda. He immediately began to confute the Arians and wrote a treatise against their teaching, which has been lost. At the request of the king, he wrote a letter to Pope Boniface on the debated subject of “The Three Chapters.” These writings were considered to favour Nestorianism. Pope St. Gregory, however, tolerated in Lombardy those persons who defended them, among whom was King Agilulf. Columbanus would probably have taken no active part in this matter had not the king pressed him so to do. But on this occasion his zeal certainly outran his knowledge. The letter opens with all apology that a “foolish Scot” should be charged to write for a Lombard king. He acquaints the pope with the imputations brought against him, and he is particularly severe with the memory of Pope Vigilius. He entreats the pontiff to prove his orthodoxy and assemble a council. He says that his freedom of speech accords with the usage of his country. “Doubtless,” Montalembert remarks, “some of the expressions which he employs should be now regarded as disrespectful and justly rejected But in those young and vigorous times, faith and austerity could be more indulgent” (II, 440). On the other hand, the letter expresses the most affectionate and impassioned devotion to the Holy See. The whole, however, may be judged from this fragment: “We Irish, though dwelling at the far ends of the earth, are all disciples of St. Peter and St. Paul . . . Neither heretic, nor Jew, nor schismatic has ever been among us; but the Catholic Faith, Just as it was first delivered to us by yourselves, the successors of the Apostles, is held by us unchanged . . . we are bound [devincti] to the Chair of Peter, and although Rome is great and renowned, through that Chair alone is she looked on as great and illustrious among us . . . On account of the two Apostles of Christ, you [the pope] are almost celestial, and Rome is the head of the whole world, and of the Churches.” If zeal for orthodoxy caused him to overstep the limits of discretion, his real attitude towards Rome is sufficiently clear. He declares the pope to be: “his Lord and Father in Christ,” “The Chosen Watchman,” “The Prelate most dear to all the Faithful,” “The most beautiful Head of all the Churches of the whole of Europe,” “Pastor of Pastors,” “The Highest,” “The First,” “The First Pastor, set higher than all mortals,” “Raised near into all the Celestial Beings,” “Prince of the Leaders,” “His Father,” “His immediate Patron,” “The Steersman,” “The Pilot of the Spiritual Ship” (Allnatt, “Cathedra Petri,” 106).

But it was necessary that, in Italy, Columbanus should have a settled abode, so the king gave him a tract of land called Bobbio, between Milan and Genoa, near the River Trebbia, situated in a defile of the Apennines. On his way thither he taught the Faith in the town of Mombrione, which is called San Colombano to this day. Padre della Torre considers that the saint made two journeys into Italy, and that these have been confounded by Jonas. On the first occasion he went to Rome and received from Pope Gregory many sacred relics (Stokes, Apennines, 132). This may possibly explain the traditional spot in St. Peter’s, where St. Gregory and St. Columba are supposed to have met (Moran, Irish SS. in Great Britain,105). At Bobbio the saint repaired the half-ruined church of St. Peter, and erected his celebrated abbey, which for centuries was stronghold of orthodoxy in Northern Italy. Thither came Clothaire’s messengers inviting the aged abbot to return, now that his enemies were dead. But he could not go. He sent a request that the king would always protect his dear monks at Luxeuil. He prepared for death by retiring to his cave on the mountain-side overlooking the Trebbia, where, according to a tradition, he had dedicated an oratory to Our Lady (Montalembert, “Monks of the West,” II, 444). His body has been preserved in the abbey church at Bobbio, and many miracles are said to have been wrought there through his intercession. In 1482 the relics were placed in a new shrine and laid beneath the altar of the crypt, where they are still venerated. But the altar and shrine are once more to be restored, and for this end in 1907 all appeal was made by Cardinal Logue, and there is every prospect of the work being speedily accomplished. The sacristy at Bobbio possesses a portion of the skull of the saint, his knife, wooden cup, bell, and an ancient water vessel, formerly containing sacred relics and said to have been given him by St. Gregory. According to certain authorities, twelve teeth of the saint were taken from the tomb in the fifteenth century and kept in the treasury, but these have now disappeared (Stokes, Apennines, p. 183). St. Columbanus is named in the Roman Martyrology on 21 November, but his feast is kept by the Benedictines and throughout Ireland on 24 November. Among his principal miracles are: (1) procuring of food for a sick monk and curing the wife of his benefactor; (2) escape from hurt when surrounded by wolves; (3) obedience of a bear which evacuated a cave at his biddings; (4) producing a spring of water near his cave; (5) repletion of the Luxeuil granary when empty; (6) multiplication of bread and beer for his community; (7) curing of the sick monks, who rose from their beds at his request to reap the harvest; (8) giving sight to a blind man at Orleans; (9) destruction by his breath of a cauldron of beer prepared for a pagan festival; (10) taming a bear, and yoking it to a plough.

Like other men, Columbanus was not faultless. In the cause of God he was impetuous and even head-strong, for by nature he was eager, passionate, and dauntless. These qualities were both the source of his power and the cause of mistakes. But his virtues were very remarkable. He shared with other saints a great love for God’s creatures. As he walked in the woods, the birds would alight upon his shoulder that he might caress them and the squirrels would run down from the trees and nestle in the folds of his cowl. The fascination of his saintly personality drew numerous communities around him. That he possessed real affection for others is abundantly manifest in his letter to his brethren. Archbishop Healy eulogises him thus: “A man more holy, more chaste, more self-denying, a man with loftier aims and purer heart than Columbanus was never born in the Island of Saints” (Ireland’s Ancient Schools, 378). Regarding his attitude towards the Holy See, although with Celtic warmth and flow of words he could defend mere custom, there is nothing in his strongest expressions which implies that, in matters of faith, he for a moment doubted Rome’s supreme authority. His influence in Europe was due to the conversions he effected and to the rule that he composed. What gave rise to his apostolate? Possibly the restless energy of the Celtic character, which, not finding sufficient scope in Ireland, directed itself in the cause of Christ to foreign lands. It may be that the example and success of St. Columba in Caledonia stimulated him to similar exertions. The example, however, of Columbanus in the sixth century stands out as the prototype of missionary enterprise towards the countries of Europe, so eagerly follows up from England and Ireland by such men as Killian, Virgilius, Donatus, Wilfrid, Willibrord, Swithbert, and Boniface. If Columbanus abbey in Italy became a citadel of faith and learning, Luxeuil in France became the nursery of saints and apostles. From its walls went forth men who carried his rule, together with the Gospel, into France, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. There are said to have been sixty-three such apostles (Stokes, Forests of France, 254). These disciples of Columbanus are accredited with founding over one hundred different monasteries (ib., 74). The canton and town still bearing the name of St. Gall testify how well one disciple succeeded.

Columbanus has left us his own writings. They demonstrate that his attainments were of no mean order. He continued his literary studies till the very eve of his death. His works (Migne P.L. LXXX) include: (1) “Penitencial” which prescribes penances according to guilt, a useful guide in the absence of elaborate treatises on moral theology; (2) “Seventeen short Sermons”; (3) “Six Epistles”; (4) “Latin Poems”; (5) “A Monastic Rule.” This Last is much shorter than that of St. Benedict, consisting of only ten chapters. The first six of these treat of obedience, silence, food, poverty, humility, and chastity. In these there is much in common with the Benedictine code, except that the fasting is more rigorous. Chapter vii deals with the choir Offices. Sunday Martins in winter consisted of sevent-five psalms and twenty-five antiphone—three psalms to each antiphone. In spring and autumn these were reduced to thirty-six, and in summer to twenty-four, Fewer were said on week days. The day hours consisted of Terce, Sext, None, and Vespers. Three psalms were said at each of these Offices, except Vespers, when twelve psalms were said. Chapter x regulates penances for offences, and it is here that the Rule of St. Columbanus differs so widely from that of St. Benedict. Stripes or fasts were enjoined for the smallest faults. The habit of the monks consisted of a tunic of undyed wool, over which was worn the cuculla, or cowl, of the same material. A great deal of time was devoted to various kinds of manual labour. The Rule of St: Columbanus was approved of by the Council of Macon in 627, but it was destined before the close of the century to be superseded by that of St. Benedict. For several centuries in some of the greater monasteries the two rules were observed conjointly. In art St. Columbanus is represented bearded bearing the monastic cowl, he holds in his hand a book with an Irish satchel, and stands in the midst of wolves. Sometimes he is depicted in the attitude of taming a bear, or with sunbeams over his head (Husenheth, “Emblems,” p. 33).

COLUMBA EDMONDS

Christopher Columbus

(Italian CRISTOFORO COLOMBO; Spanish CRISTOVAL COLON.)

Born at Genoa, or on Genoese territory, probably 1451; died at Valladolid, Spain, 20 May 1506.

His family was respectable, but of limited means, so that the early education of Columbus was defective. Up to his arrival in Spain (1485) only one date has been preserved. His son Fernando, quoting from his father’s writings says that in February, 1467, he navigated the seas about “Tile” (probably Iceland). Columbus himself in a letter to King Ferdinand says that he began to navigate at the age of fourteen, though in the journal of his first voyage (no longer in existence), in 1493, he was said to have been on the sea twenty-three years, which would make him nineteen when he first became a mariner.

The early age at which he began his career as a sailor is not surprising for a native of Genoa, as the Genoese were most enterprising and daring seamen. Columbus is said in his early days to have been a corsair, especially in the war against the Moors, themselves merciless pirates. He is also supposed to have sailed as far south as the coast of Guinea before he was sixteen years of age. Certain it is that while quite young he became a thorough and practical navigator, and later acquired a fair knowledge of astronomy. He also gained a wide acquaintance with works on cosmography such as Ptolemy and the “Imago Mundi” of Cardinal d’Ailly, besides entering into communication with the cosmographers of his time. The fragment of a treatise written by him and called by his son Fernando “The Five Habitable Zones of the Earth” shows a degree of information unusual for a sailor of his day. As in the case of most of the documents relating to the life of Columbus the genuineness of the letters written in 1474 by Paolo Toscanelli, a renowned physicist of Florence, to Columbus and a member of the household of King Alfonso V of Portugal, has been attacked on the ground of the youth of Columbus, although they bears signs of authenticity. The experiences and researches referred to fit in satisfactorily with the subsequent achievements of Columbus. For the rest, the early part of Columbus’s life is interwoven with incidents, most of which are unsupported by evidence, though quite possible. His marriage about 1475 to a Portuguese lady whose name is given sometimes as Doña Felipa Moniz and sometimes as Doña Felipa Perestrella seems certain.

Columbus seems to have arrived in Portugal about 1471, although 1474 is also mentioned and supported by certain indications. He vainly tried to obtain the support of the King of Portugal for his scheme to discover the Far East by sailing westward, a scheme supposed to have been suggested by his brother Bartholomew, who is said to have been earning a livelihood at Lisbon by designing marine charts. Columbus went to Spain in 1485, and probably the first assistance he obtained there was from the Duke of Medina Celi, Don Luis de la Cerda, for whom he performed some services that brought him a compensation of 3000 maravedis in May, 1487. He lived about two years at the home of the duke and made unsuccessful endeavors to interest him in his scheme of maritime exploration. His attempts to secure the help of the Duke of Medina Sidonia were equally unproductive of results. No blame attaches to the noblemen for declining to undertake an enterprise which only rulers of nations could properly carry out. Between 1485 and 1488 Columbus began his relations with Doña Beatriz Enriquez de Arana, or Harana, of a good family of the city of Cordova, from which sprang his much beloved son Fernando, next to Christopher and his brother Bartholomew the most gifted of the Colombos.

Late in 1485 or early in 1486, Columbus appeared twice before the court to submit his plans and while the Duke of Medina Celi may have assisted him to some extent, the chief support came from the royal treasurer, Alonzo de Quintanilla, Friar Antonio de Marchena (confounded by Irving with Father Perez of La Rábida), and Diego de Deza, Bishop of Placencia. Columbus himself declared that these two priests were always his faithful friends. Marchena also obtained for him the valuable sympathy of Cardinal Gonzalez de Mendoza. Through the influence of these men the Government appointed a junta or commission of ecclesiastics that met at Salamanca late in 1486 or early in 1487, in the Dominican convent of San Esteban to investigate the scheme, which they finally rejected. The commission had no connection with the celebrated University of Salamanca, but was under the guidance of the prior of Prado. It seems that Columbus gave but scant and unsatisfactory information to the commission, probably through fear that his ideas might be improperly made use of and he be robbed of the glory and advantages that he expected to derive from his project. This may account for the rejection of his proposals. The prior of Prado was a Hieronymite, while Columbus was under the especial protection of the Dominicans. Among his early friends in Spain was Luis de Santangel, whom Irving calls “receiver of the ecclesiastical revenues of Aragon,” and who afterwards advanced to the queen the funds necessary for the first voyage. If Santangel was receiver of the church revenues and probably treasurer and administrator, it was the Church that furnished the means (17,000 ducats) for the admiral’s first voyage.

It would be unjust to blame King Ferdinand for declining the proposals of Columbus after the adverse report of the Salamanca commission, which was based upon objections drawn from Seneca and Ptolemy rather than upon the opinion of St. Augustine in the “De Civitate Dei.” The king was then preparing to deal the final blow to Moorish domination in Spain after the struggle of seven centuries, and his financial resources were taxed to the utmost. Moreover, he was not easily carried away by enthusiasm and, though we now recognize the practical value of the plans of Columbus, at the close of the fifteenth century it seemed dubious, to say the least, to a cool-headed ruler, wont to attend first to immediate necessities. The crushing of the Moorish power in the peninsula was then of greater moment than the search after distant lands for which, furthermore, there were not the means in the royal treasury. Under these conditions Columbus, always in financial straits himself and supported by the liberality of friends, bethought himself of the rulers of France and England. In 1488 his brother Bartholomew, as faithful as sagacious, tried to induce one or the other of them to accept the plans of Christopher, but failed. The idea was too novel to appeal to either. Henry VII of England was too cautious to entertain proposals from a comparatively unknown seafarer of a foreign nation, and Charles VIII of France was too much involved in Italian affairs. The prospect was disheartening. Nevertheless, Columbus, with the assistance of his friends, concluded to make another attempt in Spain. He proceeded to court again in 1491, taking with him his son Diego. The court being then in camp before Granada, the last Moorish stronghold, the time could not have been more inopportune. Another junta was called before Granada while the siege was going on, but the commission again reported unfavourably. This is not surprising, as Ferdinand of Aragon could not undertake schemes that would involve a great outlay, and divert his attention from the momentous task he was engaged in. Columbus always directed his proposals to the king and as yet the queen had taken no official notice of them, as she too was heart and soul in the enterprise destined to restore Spain wholly to Christian rule.

The junta before Granada took place towards the end of 1491, and its decision was such a blow to Columbus that he left the court and wandered away with his boy. Before leaving, however, he witnessed the fall of Granada, 2 January, 1492. His intention was to return to Cordova and then, perhaps, to go to France. On foot and reduced almost to beggary, he reached the Dominican convent of La Rábida probably in January, 1492. The prior was Father Juan Perez, the confessor of the queen, frequently confounded with Fray Antonio Marchena by historians of the nineteenth century, who also erroneously place the arrival of Columbus at La Rábida in the early part of his sojourn in Spain. Columbus begged the friar who acted as door-keeper to let his tired son rest at the convent over night. While he was pleading his cause the prior was standing near by and listening. Something struck him in the appearance of this man, with a foreign accent, who appeared to be superior to his actual condition. After providing for his immediate wants Father Perez took him to his cell, where Columbus told him all his aspirations and blighted hopes. The result was that Columbus and his son stayed at the convent as guests and Father Perez hurried to Santa Fe near Granada, for the purpose of inducing the queen to take a personal interest in the proposed undertaking of the Italian navigator.

Circumstances had changed with the fall of Granada, and the Dominican’s appeal was favourably received by Isabella who, in turn, influenced her husband. Columbus was called to court at once, and 20,000 maravedis were assigned him out of the queen’s private resources that he might appear in proper condition before the monarch. Some historians assert that Luis de Santangel decided the queen to espouse the cause of Columbus, but the credit seems rather to belong to the prior of La Rábida. The way had been well prepared by the other steadfast friends of Columbus, not improbably Cardinal Mendoza among others. At all events negotiations progressed so rapidly that on 17 April the first agreement with the Crown was signed, and on 30 April the second. Both show an unwise liberality on the part of the monarchs, who made the highest office in what was afterwards the West Indies hereditary in the family of Columbus. Preparations were immediately begun for the equipment of the expedition. The squadron with which Columbus set out on his first voyage consisted of three vessels—the Santa Maria, completely decked, which carried the flag of Columbus as admiral, the Pinta, and the Niña, both caravels, i.e. undecked, with cabins and forecastles. These three ships carried altogether 120 men. Two seamen of repute, Martín Alonso Pinzon and his brother Vicente Yanez Pinzon, well-to-do-residents of Palos commanded, the former the Pinta. the latter the Niña, and experienced pilots were placed on both ships. Before leaving, Columbus received the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist, at the hands (it is stated) of Father Juan Perez, the officers and crews of the little squadron following his example. On 3 August, 1492, the people of Palos with heavy hearts saw them depart on an expedition regarded by many as foolhardy.

Las Casas claims to have used the journal of Columbus’s first voyage, but he admits that he made an abridged copy of it. What and how much he left out, of course, is not known. But it is well to bear in mind that the journal, as published, is not the original in its entirety. The vessels touched at the Canaries, and then proceeded on the voyage. Conditions were most favourable. Hardly a wind ruffled the waters of the ocean. The dramatic incident of the mutiny, in which the discouragement of the crews is said to have culminated before land was discovered, is a pure invention. That there was dissatisfaction and grumbling at the failure to reach land seems to be certain, but no acts of insubordination are mentioned either by Columbus, his commentator Las Casas, or his son Fernando. Perhaps the most important event during the voyage was the observation, 17 September, by Columbus himself, of the declination of the magnetic needle, which Las Casas attributes to a motion of the polar star. The same author intimates that two distinct journals were kept by the admiral, “because he always represented [feigned] to the people that he was making little headway in order that the voyage should not seem long to them, so that he kept a record by two routes, the shorter being the fictitious one, and the longer the true one.” He must therefore either have kept two log-books, or he must have made two different entries in the same book. At any rate Las Casas seems to have had at his command both sets of data, since he gives them almost from day to day. This precautionary measure indicates that Columbus feared insubordination and even revolt on the part of the crews, but there is no evidence that any mutiny really broke out. Finally, at ten o’clock, p.m., 11 October, Columbus himself described a light which indicated land and was so recognized by the crew of his vessel. It reappeared several times, and Columbus felt sure that the shores so eagerly expected were near. At 2 A.M. on 12 October the land was seen plainly by one of the Pinta’s crew, and in the forenoon Columbus landed on what is now called Watling’s Island in the Bahama group, West Indies. The discoverers named the island San Salvador. The Indians inhabiting it belonged to the widespread Arawak stock and are said to have called the island Guanahani. Immediately after landing Columbus took possession of the island for the Spanish sovereigns.

The results of the first voyage, aside from the discovery of what the admiral regarded as being approaches to India and China, may be summed up as follows: partial recognition of the Bahamas; the discovery and exploration of a part of Cuba, and the establishment of a Spanish settlement on the coast of what is now the Island of Haiti or Santo Domingo. Cuba Columbus named Juana, and Santo Domingo, Hispaniola.

It was on the northern coast of the large island of Santo Domingo that Columbus met with the only serious mishap of the first voyage. Having established the nucleus of the first permanent Spanish settlement in the Indies, he left about three score men to hold it. The vicinity was comparatively well peopled by natives, Arawaks like those of the Bahamas, but slightly more advanced in culture. A few days previous to the foundation Martin Alonso Pinzon disappeared with the caravel Pinta which he commanded and only rejoined the admiral on 6 January, 1493, an act, to say the least, of disobedience, if not of treachery. The first settlement was officially established on Christmas Day, 1492, and hence christened “La Navidad.” On the same day the admiral’s ship ran aground. It was a total loss, and Columbus was reduced for the time being to the Niña, as the Pinta had temporarily deserted. Happily the natives were friendly. After ensuring, as well as he might, the safety of the little colony by the establishment of friendly relations with the Indians, Columbus left for Spain, where, after weathering a frightful storm during which he was again separated from the Pinta, he arrived at Palos, 15 March, 1493.

From the journal mentioned we also gather (what is not stated in the letters of Columbus) that while on the northern shores of Santo Domingo (Hispaniola) the admiral “learned that behind the Island Juana [Cuba] towards the South, there is another large island in which there is much more gold. They call that island Yamaye. . . . And that the island Española or the other island Yamaye was near the mainland, ten days distant by canoe, which might be sixty or seventy leagues, and that there the people were clothed [dressed].” Yamaye is Jamaica, and the mainland alluded to as sixty or seventy leagues distant to the south (by south the west is meant), or 150 to 175 English miles (the league, at that time, being counted at four millas of 3000 Spanish feet), was either Yucatan or Honduras. Hence the admiral brought the news of the existence of the American continent to Europe as early as 1493. That he believed the continent to be Eastern Asia does not diminish the importance of his information.

Columbus had been careful to load his ship with all manner of products of the newly discovered countries and he also took some of the natives. Whether, among the samples of the vegetable kingdom, tobacco was included, is not yet satisfactorily ascertained. Nor is it certain that, when upon his return he presented himself to the monarchs at Barcelona, an imposing public demonstration took place in his honour. That he was received with due distinction at court and that he displayed the proofs of his discovery can not be doubted. The best evidence of the high appreciation of the King and Queen of Spain is the fact, that the prerogatives granted to him were confirmed, and everything possible was done to enable him to continue his explorations. The fact that Columbus had found a country that appeared to be rich in precious metals was of the utmost importance. Spain was poor, having been robbed, ages before, of its metallic wealth by the Romans. As gold was needed the discovery of a new source of that precious metal made a strong impression on the people of Spain, and a rush to the new regions was inevitable.

Columbus started on his second voyage to the Indies from Cadiz, 25 September, 1493, with three large vessels and thirteen caravels, carrying in all about 1500 men. On his first trip, he had heard about other, smaller islands lying some distance south of Hispaniola, and said to be inhabited by ferocious tribes who had the advantage over the Arawaks of being intrepid seafarers, and who made constant war upon the inhabitants of the Greater Antilles and the Bahamas, carrying off women and children into captivity. They were believed to practice cannibalism. These were the Caribs and the reports about them were true, outside of some exaggerations and fables like the story of the Amazons. Previous to the arrival of Columbus the Caribs had driven the Arawaks steadily north, depopulated some of the smaller islands, and were sorely pressing the people of Hispaniola, parts of Cuba, Porto Rico, and even Jamaica. Columbus wished to learn more about these people. The helpless condition of the Arawaks made him eager to protect them against their enemies. The first land sighted, 3 November, was the island now known as Dominica, and almost at the same time that of Marie Galante was discovered. Geographically the second voyage resulted in the discovery of the Caribbean Islands (including the French Antilles), Jamaica, and minor groups. Columbus having obtained conclusive evidence of the ferocious customs of the Caribs, regarded them as dangerous to the settlements he proposed to make among the Arawaks and as obstacles to the Christianization and civilization of these Indians. The latter he intended to make use of as labourers, as he soon perceived that for some time to come European settlers would be too few in numbers and too new to the climate to take advantage of the resources of the island. The Caribs he purposed to convert eventually, but for the time being they must be considered as enemies, and according to the customs of the age, their captors had the right to reduce them to slavery. The Arawaks were to be treated in a conciliatory manner, as long as they did not show open hostility. Before long, however, there was a change in these relations.

After a rapid survey of Jamaica, Columbus hastened to the northern coast of Haiti, where he had planted the colony of La Navidad. To his surprise the little fort had disappeared. There were to be seen only smouldering ruins and some corpses which were identified as Spanish. The natives, previously so friendly, were shy, and upon being questioned were either mute or contradictory in their replies. It was finally ascertained that another tribe, living farther inland and hostile to those on the coast, had fallen upon the fort, killed most of the inmates, and burnt most of the buildings. Those who escaped had perished in their flight. But it also transpired that the coast people themselves had taken part in the massacre. Columbus, while outwardly on good terms with them, was on his guard and, in consequence of the aversion of his people to a site where only disaster had befallen them, moved some distance farther east and established on the coast the larger settlement of Isabella. This stood ten leagues to the east of Cape Monte Cristo, where the ruins are still to be seen.

The existence of gold on Haiti having been amply demonstrated on the first voyage, Columbus inaugurated a diligent search for places where it might be found. The gold trinkets worn by the Indians were washings or placeres, but mention is also made, on the first voyage, of quartz rock containing the precious metal. But it is likely that the yellow mineral was iron pyrites, probably gold-bearing but, in the backward state of metallurgy, worthless at the time. Soon after the settlement was made at Isabella the colonists began to complain that the mineral wealth of the newly discovered lands had been vastly exaggerated and one, who accompanied the expedition as expert in metallurgy, claimed that the larger nuggets held by the natives had been accumulated in the course of a long period of time. This very sensible supposition was unjustly criticized by Irving, for since Irving’s time it has been clearly proved that pieces of metal of unusual size and shape were often kept for generations by the Indians as fetishes.

A more important factor which disturbed the Spanish was the unhealthiness of the climate. The settlers had to go through the slow and often fatal process of acclimatization. Columbus himself suffered considerably from ill-health. Again, the island was not well provided with food suitable for the newcomers. The population, notwithstanding the exaggerations of Las Casas and others, was sparse. Isabella with its fifteen hundred Spanish immigrants was certainly the most populous settlement. At first there was no clash with the natives, but parties sent by Columbus into the interior came in contact with hostile tribes. For the protection of the colonists Columbus built in the interior a little fort called Santo Tomas. He also sent West Indian products and some Carib prisoners back to Spain in a vessel under the command of Antonio de Torres. Columbus suggested that the Caribs be sold as slaves in order that they might be instructed in the Christian Faith. This suggestion was not adopted by the Spanish monarchs, and the prisoners were treated as kindly in Spain as the friendly Arawaks who had been sent over.

The condition of affairs on Hispaniola (Haiti) was not promising. At Isabella and on the coast there was grumbling against the admiral, in which the Benedictine Father Buil (Boil) and the other priests joined, or which, at least, they did not discourage. In the interior there was trouble with the natives. The commander at Santo Tomas, Pedro Margarite, is usually accused of cruelty to the Indians, but Columbus himself in his Memorial of 30 January, 1494, commends the conduct of that officer. However, he had to send him reinforcements, which were commanded by Alonzo de Ojeda.

Anxiously following up his theory that the newly discovered islands were but outlying posts of Eastern Asia and that further explorations would soon lead him to the coast of China or to the Moluccas, Columbus, notwithstanding the precarious condition of the colony, left it in charge of his brother Diego and four counsellors (one of whom was Father Buil), and with three vessels set sail towards Cuba. During his absence of five months he explored parts of Cuba, discovered the Isle of Pines and several groups of smaller islands, and made the circuit of Jamaica, landing there almost every day. When he returned to Isabella (29 September, 1494), he was dangerously ill and in a stupor. Meanwhile his brother Bartholomew had arrived from Spain with a small squadron and supplies. He proved a welcome auxiliary to the weak Diego, but could not prevent serious trouble. Margarite, angered by interference with his administration in the interior, returned to the coast, and there was joined by Father Buil and other malcontents. They seized the three caravels that had arrived under the command of Bartholomew Columbus, and set sail in them for Spain to lay before the Government what they considered their grievances against Columbus and his administration.

That there was cause for complaint there seems to be no doubt, but it is almost impossible now to determine who was most at fault, Columbus or his accusers. He was certainly not as able an administrator as he was a navigator. Still, taking into consideration the difficulties, the novelty of the conditions, and the class of men Columbus had to handle, and placing over against this what he had already achieved on Haiti, there is not so much ground for criticism. The charges of cruelty against the natives are based upon rather suspicious authority, Las Casas being the principal source. There were errors and misdeeds on both sides, which, however, might not have brought about a crisis had not disappointment angered the settlers, who had based their expectations on the glowing reports of Columbus himself, and disposed them to attribute all their troubles to their opponents.

Before the return of Columbus to Isabella, Ojeda had repulsed an attempt of the natives to surprise Santo Tomas. Thereupon the Indians of various tribes of the interior now formed a confederation and threatened Isabella. Columbus, however, on his return, with the aid of firearms, sixteen horses, and about twenty blood-hounds easily broke up the Indian league. Ojeda captured the leader, and the policy of kindness hitherto pursued towards the natives was replaced by repression and chastisement. According to the customs of the times the prisoners of war were regarded as rebels, reduced to slavery, and five hundred of these were sent to Spain to be sold. It is certain that the condition of the Indians became much worse thereafter, that they were forced into unaccustomed labours, and that their numbers began to diminish rapidly. That these harsh measures were authorized by Columbus there can be no doubt.

While the Spanish monarchs in their dispatches to Columbus continued to show the same confidence and friendliness they could not help hearing the accusations made against him by Father Buil, Pedro Margarite, and the other malcontents, upon their return to Spain. It was clear that there were two factions among the Spaniards in Haiti, one headed by the admiral, the other composed of perhaps a majority of the settlers including ecclesiastics. Still the monarchs enjoined the colonists by letter to obey Columbus in everything and confirmed his authority and privileges. The incriminations, however, continued, and charges were made of nepotism and spoliation if royal revenue. There was probably some foundation for these charges, though also much wilful misrepresentation. Unable to ascertain the true condition of affairs, the sovereigns finally decided to send to the Indies a special commissioner to investigate and report. Their choice fell upon Juan de Aguado who had gone with Columbus on his first voyage and with whom he had always been on friendly terms. Aguado arrived at Isabella in October, 1495, while Columbus was absent on a journey of exploration across the island. No clash appears to have occurred between Aguado and Bartholomew Columbus, who was in charge of the colony during his brother’s absence, much less with the admiral himself upon the latter’s return. Soon after, reports of important gold discoveries came from a remote quarter of the island accompanied by specimens. The arrival of Aguado convinced Columbus of the necessity for his appearance in Spain and that new discoveries of gold would strengthen his position there. So he fitted out two ships, one for himself and one for Aguado, placing in them two hundred dissatisfied colonists, a captive Indian chief (who died on the voyage), and thirty Indian prisoners, and set sail for Spain on 10 March, 1496, leaving his brother Bartholomew at Isabella as temporary governor. As intercourse between Spain and the Indies was now carried on at almost regular intervals. Bartholomew was in communication with the mother country and was at least tacitly recognized as his brother’s substitute in the government of the Indies. Columbus reached Cadiz 11 June, 1496.

The story of his landing is quite dramatic. He is reported to have gone ashore, clothed in the Franciscan garb, and to have manifested a dejection which was wholly uncalled for. His health, it is true, was greatly impaired, and his companions bore the marks of great physical suffering. The impression created by their appearance was of course not favourable and tended to confirm the reports of the opponents of Columbus about the nature of the new country. This, as well as the disappointing results of the search for precious metals, did not fail to have its influence. The monarchs saw that the first enthusiastic reports had been exaggerated, and that the enterprise while possibly lucrative in the end, would entail large expenditures for some time to come. Bishop Fonseca, who was at the head of colonial affairs, urged that great caution should be exercised. What was imputed to Bishop Fonseca as jealousy was only the sincere desire of an honest functionary to guard the interests of the Crown without blocking the way of an enthusiastic but somewhat visionary genius who had been unsuccessful as an administrator. Later expressions (1505) of Columbus indicate that the personal relations to Fonseca were at the time far from unfriendly. But the fact that Columbus had proposed the enslaving of American natives and actually sent a number of them over to Spain had alienated the sympathy of the queen to a certain degree, and thus weakened his position at court.

Nevertheless, it was not difficult for Columbus to organize a third expedition. Columbus started on his third voyage from Seville with six vessels on 30 May, 1498. He directed his course more southward than before, owing to reports of a great land lying west and south of the Antilles and his belief that it was the continent of Asia. He touched at the Island of Madeira, and later at Gomera, one of the Canary Islands, whence he sent to Haiti three vessels. Sailing southward, he went to the Cape Verde Islands and, turning thence almost due west, arrived on 31 July 1498, in sight of what is now the Island of Trinidad which was so named by him. Opposite, on the other side of a turbulent channel, lay the lowlands of north-eastern South America. Alarmed by the turmoil caused by the meeting of the waters of the Orinoco (which empties through several channels into the Atlantic opposite Trinidad) with the Guiana current, Columbus kept close to the southern shore of Trinidad as far as its south-western extremity, where he found the water still more turbulent. He therefore gave that place the name of Boca del Drago, or Dragon’s Mouth. Before venturing into the seething waters Columbus crossed over to the mainland and cast anchor. He was under the impression that this was an island, but a vast stream of fresh water gave evidence of a continent. Columbus landed, he and his crew being thus the first Europeans to set foot on South American soil. The natives were friendly and gladly exchanged pearls for European trinkets. The discovery of pearls in American waters was important and very welcome.

A few days later, the admiral, setting sail again, was borne by the currents safely to the Island of Margarita, where he found the natives fishing for pearls, of which he obtained three bags by barter.

Some of the letters of Columbus concerning his third voyage are written in a tone of despondency. Owing to his physical condition, he viewed things with a discontent far from justifiable. And, as already said, his views of the geographical situation were somewhat fanciful. The great outpour opposite Trinidad he justly attributed to the emptying of a mighty river coming from the west, a river, so large that only a continent could afford its space. In this he was right, but in his eyes that continent was Asia, and the sources of that river must be on the highest point of the globe. He was confirmed in this idea by his belief that Trinidad was nearer the Equator than it actually is and that near the Equator the highest land on earth should be found. He thought also that the sources of the Orinoco lay in the Earthly Paradise and that the great river was one of the four streams that according to Scripture flowed from the Garden of Eden. He had no accurate knowledge of the form of the earth, and conjectured that it was pear-shaped.

On 15 August, fearing a lack of supplies, and suffering severely from what his biographers call gout and from impaired eyesight, he left his new discoveries and steered for Haiti. On 19 August he sighted that island some distance west of where the present capital of the Republic of Santo Domingo now stands. During his absence his brother Bartholomew had abandoned Isabella and established his head-quarters at Santo Domingo so called after his father Domenico. During the absence of Columbus events on Haiti had been far from satisfactory. His brother Bartholomew, who was then known as the adelantado, had to contend with several Indian outbreaks, which he subdued partly by force, partly by wise temporizing. These outbreaks were, at least in part, due to a change in the class of settlers by whom the colony was reinforced. The results of the first settlement far from justified the buoyant hopes based on the exaggerated reports of the first voyage, and the pendulum of public opinion swung back to the opposite extreme. The clamour of opposition to Columbus in the colonies and the discouraging reports greatly increased in Spain the disappointment with the new territorial acquisitions. That the climate was not healthful seemed proved by the appearance of Columbus and his companions on his return from the second voyage. Hence no one was willing to go to the newly discovered country, and convicts, suspects, and doubtful characters in general who were glad to escape the regulations of justice were the only reinforcements that could be obtained for the colony on Hispaniola. As a result there were conflicts with the aborigines, sedition in the colony, and finally open rebellion against the authority of the adelantado and his brother Diego. Columbus and his brothers were Italians, and this fact told against them among the malcontents and lower officials, but that it influenced the monarchs and the court authorities is a gratuitous charge.

As long as they had not a common leader Bartholomew had little to fear from the malcontents, who separated from the rest of the colony, and formed a settlement apart. They abused the Indians, thus causing almost uninterrupted trouble. However, they soon found a leader in the person of one Roldan, to whom the admiral had entrusted a prominent office in the colony. There must have been some cause for complaint against the government of Bartholomew and Diego, else Roldan could not have so increased the number of his followers as to make himself formidable to the brothers, undermining their authority at their own head-quarters and even among the garrison of Santo Domingo. Bartholomew was forced to compromise on unfavourable terms. So, when the admiral arrived from Spain he found the Spanish settlers on Haiti divided into two camps, the stronger of which, headed by Roldan, was hostile to his authority. That Roldan was an utterly unprincipled man, but energetic and above all, shrewd and artful, appears from the following incident. Soon after the arrival of Columbus the three caravels he had sent from Gomera with stores and ammunition struck the Haitian coast where Roldan had established himself. The latter represented to the commanders of the vessels that he was there by Columbus’s authority and easily obtained from them military stores as well as reinforcements in men. On their arrival shortly afterward at Santo Domingo the caravels were sent back to Spain by Columbus. Alarmed at the condition of affairs and his own importance, he informed the monarchs of his critical situation and asked for immediate help. Then he entered into negotiations with Roldan. The latter not only held full control in the settlement which he commanded, but had the sympathy of most of the military garrisons that Columbus and his brothers relied upon as well as the majority of the colonists. How Columbus and his brother could have made themselves so unpopular is explained in various ways. There was certainly much unjustifiable ill will against them, but there was also legitimate cause for discontent, which was adroitly exploited by Roldan and his followers.

Seeing himself almost powerless against his opponents on the island, the admiral stooped to a compromise. Roldan finally imposed his own conditions. He was reinstated in his office and all offenders were pardoned; and a number of them returned to Santo Domingo. Columbus also freed many of the Indian tribes from tribute, but in order still further to appease the former mutineers, he instituted the system of repartimientos, by which not only grants of land were made to the whites, but the Indians holding these lands or living on them were made perpetual serfs to the new owners, and full jurisdiction over life and property of these Indians became vested in the white settlers. This measure had the most disastrous effect on the aborigines, and Columbus has been severely blamed for it, but he was then in such straits that he had to go to any extreme to pacify his opponents until assistance could reach him from Spain. By the middle of the year 1500 peace apparently reigned again in the colony, though largely at the expense of the prestige and authority of Columbus.

Meanwhile reports and accusations had reached the court of Spain from both parties in Haiti. It became constantly more evident that Columbus was no longer master of the situation in the Indies, and that some steps were necessary to save the situation. It might be said that the Court had merely to support Columbus whether right or wrong. But the West Indian colony had grown, and its settlers had their connections and supporters in Spain, who claimed some attention and prudent consideration. The clergy who were familiar with the circumstances through personal experience for the most part disapproved of the management of affairs by Columbus and his brothers. Queen Isabella’s irritation at the sending of Indian captives for sale as slaves had by this time been allayed by a reminder of the custom then in vogue of enslaving captive rebels or prisoners of war addicted to specially inhuman customs, as was the case with the Caribs. Anxious to be just, the monarchs decided upon sending to Haiti an officer to investigate and to punish all offenders. This visitador was invested with full power, and was to have the same authority as the monarchs themselves for the time being, superseding Columbus himself, though the latter was the Viceroy of the Indies. The visita was a mode of procedure employed by the Spanish monarchs for the adjustment of critical matters, chiefly in the colonies. The visitador was selected irrespective of rank or office, solely from the standpoint of fitness, and not infrequently his mission was kept secret from the viceroy or other high official whose conduct he was sent to investigate; there are indications that sometimes he had summary power over life and death. A visita was a much dreaded measure, and for very good reasons.

The investigation in the West Indies was not called a visita at the time, but such it was in fact. The visitador chosen was Francisco de Bobadilla, of whom both Las Casas and Oviedo (friends and admirers of Columbus) speak in favourable terms. His instructions were, as his office required, general and his faculties, of course, discretionary; there is no need of supposing secret orders inimical to Columbus to explain what afterwards happened. The admiral was directed, in a letter addressed to him and entrusted to Bobadilla, to turn over to the latter, at least temporarily, the forts and all public property on the island. No blame can be attached to the monarchs for this measure. After an experiment of five years the administrative capacity of Columbus had failed to prove satisfactory. Yet, the vice-regal power had been vested in him as an hereditary right. To continue adhering to that clause of the original contract was impracticable, since the colony refused to pay heed to Columbus and his orders. Hence the suspension of the viceregal authority of Columbus was indefinitely prolonged, so that the office was reduced to a mere title and finally fell into disuse. The curtailment of revenue resulting from it was comparatively small, as all the emoluments proceeding from his other titles and prerogatives were left untouched. The tale of his being reduced to indigence is a baseless fabrication.

A man suddenly clothed with unusual and discretionary faculties is liable to be led astray by unexpected circumstances and tempted to go to extremes. Bobadilla had a right to expect implicit obedience to royal orders on the part of all and, above all, from Columbus as the chief servant of the Crown. When on 24 August, 1500, Bobadilla landed at Santo Domingo and demanded of Diego Columbus compliance with the royal orders, the latter declined to obey until directed by the admiral who was then absent. Bobadilla, possibly predisposed against Columbus and his brothers by the reports of others and by the sight of the bodies of Spaniards dangling from gibbets in full view of the port, considered the refusal of Diego as an act of direct insubordination. The action of Diego was certainly unwise and gave colour to an assumption that Columbus and his brothers considered themselves masters of the country. This implied rebellion and furnished a pretext to Bobadilla for measures unjustifiably harsh. As visitador he had absolute authority to do as he thought best, especially against the rebels, of whom Columbus appeared in his eyes as the chief.

Within a few days after the landing of Bobadilla, Diego and Bartholomew Columbus were imprisoned and put in irons. The admiral himself, who returned with the greatest possible speed, shared their fate. The three brothers were separated and kept in close confinement, but they could hear from their cells the imprecations of the people against their rule. Bobadilla charged them with being rebellious subjects and seized their private property to pay their personal debts. He liberated prisoners, reduced or abolished imposts, in short did all he could to place the new order of things in favourable contrast to the previous management. No explanation was offered to Columbus for the harsh treatment to which he was subjected, for a visitador had only to render account to the king or according to his special orders. Early in October, 1500, the three brothers, still in fetters, were placed on board ship, and sent to Spain, arriving at Cadiz at the end of the month. Their treatment while aboard seems to have been considerate; Villejo, the commander, offered to remove the manacles from Columbus’s hands and relieve him from the chains, an offer, however, which Columbus refused to accept. It seems, nevertheless, that he did not remain manacled, else he could not have written the long and piteous letter to the nurse of Prince Juan, recounting his misfortunes on the vessel. He dispatched this letter to the court at Granada before the reports of Bobadilla were sent.

The news of the arrival of Columbus as a prisoner was received with unfeigned indignation by the monarchs, who saw that their agent Bobadilla had abused the trust placed in him. The people also saw the injustice, and everything was done to relieve Columbus from his humiliating condition and assure him of the royal favour, that is, everything except to reinstate him as Governor of the Indies. This fact is mainly responsible for the accusation of duplicity and treachery which is made against King Ferdinand. Critics overlook the fact that in addition to the reasons already mentioned no new colonists could be obtained from Spain, if Columbus were to continue in office, and that the expedient of sending convicts to Haiti had failed disastrously. Moreover, the removal of Columbus was practically implied in the instructions and powers given to Bobadilla, and the conduct of the admiral during Aguado’s mission left no room for doubt that he would submit to the second investigation. He would have done so, but Bobadilla, anxious to make a display and angered at the delay of Diego Columbus, exceeded the spirit of his instructions, expecting thereby to rise in royal as well as in popular favour.

In regard to the former he soon found out his mistake. His successor in the governorship of Haiti was soon appointed in the person of Nicolas de Ovando. Bobadilla was condemned to restore to Columbus the property he had sequestered, and was recalled. The largest fleet sent to the Indies up to that time sailed under Ovando on 13 February, 1502. It is not without significance that 2500 people, some of high rank, flocked to the vessels that were to transport the new governor to the Indies. This shows that with the change in the administration of the colony faith in its future was restored among the Spanish people. By this time the mental condition of Columbus had become greatly impaired. While at court for eighteen months vainly attempting to obtain the restoration to a position for which he was becoming more and more unfitted, he was planning new schemes. Convinced that his third voyage had brought him nearer to Asia, he proposed to the monarchs a project to recover the Holy Sepulchre by the western route, that would have led him across South America to the Pacific Ocean. He fancied that the large river he had discovered west of Trinidad flowed in a direction opposite to its real course, and thought that by following it he could reach the Red Sea and thence cross over to Jerusalem. So preoccupied was he with these ideas that he made arrangements for depositing part of his revenue with the bank of Genoa to be used in the reconquest of the Holy Land. This alone disposes of the allegations that Columbus was left without resources after his liberation from captivity. He was enabled to maintain a position at court corresponding to his exalted rank, and favours and privileges were bestowed on both of his sons. The project of testing the views of Columbus in regard to direct communication with Asia was seriously considered, and finally a fourth voyage of exploration at the expense of the Spanish Government was conceded to Columbus. That there were some misgivings in regard to his physical and mental condition is intimated by the fact that he was given as companions his brother Bartholomew, who had great influence with him, and his favourite son Fernando. Four vessels carrying, besides these three and a representative of the Crown to receive any treasure that might be found, about 150 men, set sail from San Lucar early in May, 1502. Columbus was enjoined not to stop at Haiti, a wise measure, for had the admiral landed there so soon after the arrival of Ovando, there would have been danger of new disturbances. Disobeying these instructions, Columbus attempted to enter the port of Santo Domingo, but was refused admission. He gave proof of his knowledge and experience as a mariner by warning Ovando of an approaching hurricane, but was not listened to. He himself sheltered his vessels at some distance from the harbour. The punishment for disregarding the friendly warning came swiftly; the large fleet which had brought Ovando over was, on sailing for Spain, overtaken by the tempest, and twenty ships were lost, with them Bobadillo, Roldan, and the gold destined for the Crown. The admiral’s share of the gold obtained on Haiti, four thousand pieces directly sent to him by his representative on the island, was not lost, and on being delivered in Spain, was not confiscated. Hence it is difficult to see how Columbus could have been in need during the last years of his life.

The vessels of Columbus having suffered comparatively little from the tempest, he left the coast of Haiti in July, 1502, and was carried by wind and current to the coast of Honduras. From 30 July, 1502, to the end of the following April he coasted Central America beyond Colon to Cape Tiburon on the South American Continent. On his frequent landings he found traces of gold, heard reports of more civilized tribes of natives farther inland, and persistent statements about another ocean lying west and south of the land he was coasting, the latter being represented to him as a narrow strip dividing two vast seas. The mental condition of Columbus, coupled with his physical disabilities, prevented him from interpreting these important indications otherwise than as confirmations of his vague theories and fatal visions. Instead of sending an exploring party across the isthmus to satisfy himself of the truth of these reports, he accepted this testimony to the existence of a sea beyond, which he firmly believed to be the Indian Ocean, basing his confidence on a dream in which he had seen a strait he supposed to be the Strait of Malacca. As his crews were exasperated by the hardships and deceptions, his ships worn-eaten, and he himself emaciated, he turned back towards Haiti with what he thought to be the tidings of a near approach to the Asiatic continent. It had been a disastrous voyage; violent storms continually harassed the little squadron, two ships had been lost, and the treasure obtained far from compensated for the toil and the suffering endured. This was all the more exasperating when it became evident that a much richer reward could be obtained by penetrating inland, to which, however, Columbus would not or perhaps could not consent.

On 23 June, 1503, Columbus and his men, crowded on two almost sinking caravels, finally landed on the inhospitable coast of Jamaica. After dismantling his useless craft, and using the material for temporary shelter, he sent a boat to Haiti to ask for assistance and to dispatch thence to Spain a vessel with a pitiful letter giving a fantastic account of his sufferings which in itself gave evidence of an over-excited and disordered mind.

Ovando to whom Columbus’s request for help was delivered at Jaragua (Haiti) cannot be acquitted of unjustifiable delay in sending assistance to the shipwrecked and forsaken admiral. There is no foundation for assuming that he acted under the orders or in accordance with the wishes of the sovereigns. Columbus had become useless, the colonists in Haiti would not tolerate his presence there. The only practical course was to take him back to Spain directly and remove him forever from the lands the discovery of which had made him immortal. In spite of his many sufferings, Columbus was not utterly helpless. His greatest trouble came from the mutinous spirit of his men who roamed about, plundering and maltreating the natives, who, in consequence, became hostile and refused to furnish supplies. An eclipse of the moon predicted by Columbus finally brought them to terms and thus prevented starvation. Ovando, though informed of the admiral’s critical condition, did nothing for his relief except to permit Columbus’s representative in Haiti to fit out a caravel with stores at the admiral’s expense and send it to Jamaica; but even this tardy relief did not reach Columbus until June, 1504. He also permitted Mendez, who had been the chief messenger of Columbus to Haiti, to take passage for Spain, where he was to inform the sovereigns of the admiral’s forlorn condition. There seems to be no excuse for the conduct of Ovando on this occasion. The relief expedition finally organized in Haiti, after a tedious and somewhat dangerous voyage, landed the admiral and his companions in Spain, 7 November, 1504.

A few weeks later Queen Isabella died, and grave difficulties beset the king. Columbus, now in very feeble health, remained at Seville until May, 1505, when he was at last able to attend court at Valladolid. His reception by the king was decorous, but without warmth. His importunities to be restored to his position as governor were put off with future promises of redress, but no immediate steps were taken. The story of the utter destitution in which the admiral is said to have died is one of the many legends with which his biography has been distorted. Columbus is said to have been buried at Valladolid. His son Diego is authority for the statement that his remains were buried in the Carthusian Convent of Las Cuevas, Seville, within three years after his death. According to the records of the convent, the remains were given up for transportation to Haiti in 1536, though other documents placed this event in 1537. It is conjectured, however, that the removal did not take place till 1541, when the Cathedral of Santo Domingo was completed, though there are no records of this entombment. When, in 1795, Haiti passed under French control, Spanish authorities removed the supposed remains of Columbus to Havana. On the occupation of Cuba by the United States they were once more removed to Seville (1898).

Columbus was unquestionably a man of genius. He was a bold, skilful navigator, better acquainted with the principles of cosmography and astronomy than the average skipper of his time, a man of original ideas, fertile in his plans, and persistent in carrying them into execution. The impression he made on those with whom he came in contact even in the days of his poverty, such as Fray Juan Perez, the treasurer Luis de Santangel, the Duke of Medina Sidonia, and Queen Isabella herself, shows that he had great powers of persuasion and was possessed of personal magnetism. His success in overcoming the obstacles to his expeditions and surmounting the difficulties of his voyages exhibit him as a man of unusual resources and of unflinching determination.

Columbus was also of a deeply religious nature. Whatever influence scientific theories and the ambition for fame and wealth may have had over him, in advocating his enterprise he never failed to insist on the conversion of the pagan peoples that he would discover as one of the primary objects of his undertaking. Even when clouds had settled over his career, after his return as a prisoner from the lands he had discovered, he was ready to devote all his possessions and the remaining years of his life to set sail again for the purpose of rescuing Christ’s Sepulchre from the hands of the infidel.

OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COLUMBUS FAMILY

Other members of the Columbus family also acquired fame:

Diego. Diego, the first son of Christopher and heir to his titles and prerogatives, was born at Lisbon, 1476, and died at Montalvan, near Toledo, 23 February, 1526. He was made a page to Queen Isabella in 1492, and remained at court until 1508. Having obtained confirmation of the privileges originally conceded to his father (the title of viceroy of the newly discovered countries excepted) he went to Santo Domingo in 1509 as Admiral of the Indies and Governor of Hispaniola. The authority of Diego Velazquez as governor, however, had become too firmly established, and Diego was met by open and secret opposition, especially from the royal Audiencia. Visiting Spain in 1520 he was favourably received and new honours bestowed upon him. However, in 1523, he had to return again to Spain to answer charges against him. The remainder of his life was taken up by the suit of the heirs of Columbus against the royal treasury, a memorable legal contest only terminated in 1564. Diego seems to have been a man of no extraordinary attainments, but of considerable tenacity of character.

Ferdinand. Ferdinand, better known as Fernando Colon, second son of Christopher, by Doña Beatriz Enriquez, a lady of a noble family of Cordova in Spain, was born at Cordova, 15 August, 1488; died at Seville, 12 July 1539. As he was naturally far more gifted than his half-brother Diego, he was a favourite with his father, whom he accompanied on the last voyage. As early as 1498 Queen Isabella had made him one of her pages and Columbus in his will (1505) left him an ample income, which was subsequently increased by royal grants. Fernando had decided literary tastes and wrote well in Spanish. While it is stated that he wrote a history of the West Indies, there are now extant only two works by him: “Descripción y cosmografía de España,” a detailed geographical itinerary begun in 1517, published at Madrid in the “Boletin de la Real Sociedad geográfica” (1906–07); and the life of the admiral, his father, written about 1534, the Spanish original of which has been lost. It was published in an Italian translation by Ulloa in 1571 as “Vita dell’ ammiraglio,” and re-translated into Spanish by Barcia. “Historiadores primitivos de Indias” (Madrid, 1749). As might be expected this biography is sometimes partial, though Fernando often sides with the Spanish monarchs against his father. Of the highest value is the report by Fray Roman Pane on the customs of the Haitian Indians which is incorporated into the text. (See ARAWAKS.) Fernando left to the cathedral chapter of Seville a library of 20,000 volumes, a part of which still exists and is known as the Biblioteca Columbina.

Bartholomew. Bartholomew, elder brother of Christopher, born possibly in 1445 at Genoa; died at Santo Domingo, May, 1515. Like Christopher he became a seafarer at an early age. After his attempts to interest the Kings of France and England in his brother’s projects, his life was bound up with that of his brother. It was during his time that bloodhounds were introduced into the West Indies. He was a man of great energy and some military talent, and during Christopher’s last voyage took the leadership at critical moments. After 1506 he probably went to Rome and in 1509 back to the West Indies with his nephew Diego.

Diego. Diego, younger brother of Christopher and his companion on the second voyage, born probably at Genoa; died at Santo Domingo after 1509. After his release from chains in Spain (1500) he became a priest and returned to the West Indies in 1509.

The tract of CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS, De prima in mari Indico lustratione, was published with the Bellum Christianorum principum of ROBERT ABBOT OF SAINT-REMI (Basle, 1533).—Codice diplomatico-Colombo-Americano, ossia Raccolia di documenti spettanti a Cr. Col., etc. (Genoa, 1823); ANON., Cr. Col. aiutato dei minorite nella scoperta del nuovo mondo (Genoa, 1846); SANGUINETTI, Vita di Colombo (Genoa, 1846); BOSSI, Vita di Cr. Col. (Milan, 1818); SPOTORNO, Della origine e della patria di Cr. Col. (Geonoa, 1819); NAVARRETE, Coleccion de los viajes y descubrimientas . . . desde fines del siglo XV (Madrid, 1825), I, II; AVEZAC-MACAYA, Annee veritable de la naissance de Chr. Col. (Paris, 1873); ROSELLY DE LORGNES, Vie et voyages de Chr. Col. (Paris, 1804), from which was compiled by BARRY, Life of Chr. Col. (New York, 1869); COLUMBUS, FERDINAND, French tr. by MULLER, Hist. de la vie et des decouvertes de Chr. Col. (Paris, s.d.); MAJOR (tr.), Select Letters of Chr. Col. (London, 1847 and 1870); HARRISSE, Fernando Colon historiador de du padre (Seville, 1871); VIGNAUD, La maison d’Alba et les archives colombiennes (Paris, 1901); l’HAGON, La Patria dr Colon segun los documentos de las ordenes militares (Madrid, 1892); UZIELLO in Congresso geografico italiano; Atti for April, 1901, Tascanelli, Colombo e Vespucci (Milan, 1902); WINSOR, Christopher Columbus (Boston, 1891); ADAMS, Christopher Columbus, in Makers of America (New York, 1892); DURO, Colon y la Historia Postuma (Madrid, 1885); THACHER, Christopher Columbus: His Life, His Work, His Remains (3 vols., New York, 1903–1904); IRVING, Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (3 vols., New York, 1868); PETER MARTYR, Dr orbe nova (Alcala, 1530); LAS CASAS, Historia de las Indias in Documentas para la historia de Espana; OVIEDO, Hist. general (Madrid, 1850). The last three authors had personal intercourse with Columbus, and their works are the chief source of information concerning him. CLARKE, Christopher Columbus in The Am. Cath. Quart. Rev. (1892); SHEA, Columbus, This Century’s Estimate of His Life and Work (ibid.); U.S. CATH. HIST. SOC., The Cosmographier Introductio of Martin Waldseemuller (New York, 1908).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Diocese of Columbus

The Diocese of Columbus comprises that part of the State of Ohio, south of 40§41,’ lying between the Ohio River on the east and the Scioto River on the west, and also the Counties of Delaware, Franklin, and Morrow, twenty-nine counties of the eighty-eight into which the State of Ohio is divided; it contains 13,685 square miles. This portion of the State belonged originally to the Diocese of Cincinnati, and was recommended to Rome for erection as a see by the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council, of Baltimore, held in 1866. It was not until 3 March, 1868, that the official documents were issued erecting the diocese and naming as its first bishop Sylvester Horton Rosecrans who had been consecrated Auxiliary Bishop of Cincinnati and Titular Bishop of Pompeiopolis, 25 March, 1862. The portion of Ohio assigned to this diocese was in 1868 to a large extent but sparsely populated; no railroad had as yet penetrated some of the counties, and the bishop was forced to make many of the journeys on his visitations by stage, wagon, or steamboat. The Dominican Fathers were the earliest missionaries in Ohio, locating at St. Joseph’s, Perry County, in the early part of the nineteenth century, and from their number was chosen the first Bishop of Cincinnati, Edward Fenwick. The first place of Catholic worship in Ohio was at St. Joseph’s, Perry County. This chapel was built of logs and was blessed 6 December, 1818, by Rev. Edward Fenwick and his nephew, Rev. N.D. Young, both natives of Maryland, and receiving their jurisdiction from Bishop Flaget, who was then the only bishop between the Alleghenies and the Mississippi. The congregation consisted of ten families. An humble convent was built nearby, and its inmates were one American, N.D. Young, one Irishman, Thos. Martin, and one Belgian, Vincent De Rymacher. The second chapel erected in Ohio was also in this diocese, blessed in 1822, near what is now Danville. Knox County, then known as Sapp’s Settlement, a colony from near Cumberland, Maryland, many of its members direct descendants of the colonists of Lord Baltimore. This chapel was built of logs and was blessed by Dominican Fathers and the humble congregation ministered to by them. Within a few miles of this second Catholic settlement in Ohio is the college town of Gambier, seat of Kenyon College and the Episcopalian Seminary of the Diocese of Ohio, over which in 1868 presided , before his conversion, Dr. James Kent Stone, afterwards Father Fidelis of the Congregation of St. Paul of the Cross. From its walls have gone forth many illustrious men who in after-life turned their eyes to the Church, among them Bishop Rosecrans and his brother, General Rosecrans, Henry Richards, father of Rev. James Havens Richards, S.A., and William Richards.

In its early days the diocese was largely an agricultural district, the first settlers from Pennsylvania and Maryland being tillers of the soil. Later came the emigrants from Ireland and Germany, who were followed by priests of their native lands. At the present time mining and manufacturing have so far advanced as to predominate and control. Immigration has also added to the variety of races among the Catholic population, notably Poles, Hungarians, Greeks, Lithuanians, and Slavs may be found among the mining populations of the eastern and southern parts of the diocese; while Belgians are numerous among the workmen employed in the manufacture of glass, an industry that has risen of late years to prominence in Ohio, owing to the discovery of natural gas, which is an important feature in this business. The native-born descendants of the pioneer Catholics have taken a notable place in the walks of business and professional life, especially in the larger centres of population. The bishop and a large number of the clergy are natives of the State. All this has worked a decided change in the attitude of non-Catholics towards the Church and their Catholic fellow citizens.

Sylvester Horton Rosecrans, the first bishop, died 21 October, 1878. He was succeeded by John Ambrose Watterson, who was consecrated 8 August, 1880, and died 17 April, 1890. The next bishop was Henry Moeller, consecrated 25 August, 1900, promoted to the Archiepiscopal See of Areopolis and made Coadjutor to the Archbishop of Cincinnati , 27 April, 1903. The fourth bishop, James Joseph Hartley, was consecrated 25 February, 1904.

There are 142 priests—105 secular and 37 regular—in the diocese, with 34 brothers and 450 sisters. The total population of the diocese is about 1,000,000; of this number 80,000 are Catholics. The parishes number 75, with 45 parochial schools and 9361 pupils, 4520 boys and 4841 girls. There are two orphan asylums, with 460 orphans; a Convent of the Good Shepherd with 207 inmates; four hospitals, treating 4000 patients annually; a preparatory seminary, with 22 students; a theological seminary, “The Pontifical College Josephinum of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith,” with 161 students; a college, with 100 students; and three academies, with 430 pupils.

The Diocese of Columbus has given to the Church two bishops, Fitzgerald of Little Rock and Gallagher of Galveston; while the names of Henni, Archbishop of Milwaukee, Lamy, Archbishop of Santa Fé, De Goesbriand, Bishop of Burlington, Vermont, may be found on the baptismal registers of the early mission churches of the diocese. The State and nation also have received many a notable service, both in war and peace, from sons of the diocese. General Philip H. Sheridan was in his boyhood a resident of Somerset, Perry Co., the cradle of Catholicity in Ohio. General W. S. Rosecrans, brother of the first bishop of the diocese, both converts, General Don Carlos Buell, Generals Hugh and Charles Ewing of the Ewing family of Lancaster; Frank Hunt, Constitutional lawyer, Representative in Congress, and free trade advocate, J. A. MacGahan, Bulgaria’s liberator, whose remains were brought by the United States Government from Constantinople to Perry County, are a few of the names on the diocesan roll of honour.

HOWE, Historical Collections of Ohio (cincinnati, Ohio, 1900); American Catholic Historical Researches (Philadelphia, July, 1896); files of Catholic Telegraph (Cincinnati), and Catholic Columbian (Columbus); U.S. Catholic Magazine (Baltimore, January, 1847), The Catholic Church in Ohio.

L.W. MULHANE

Column

In architecture a round pillar, a cylindrical solid body, or a many-sided prism, the body of which is sometimes reeded or fluted, but practically cylindrical in shape, and which supports another body in a vertical direction. A column has, as its most essential portion, a long solid body, called the shaft, set vertically on a stylobate, or on a congeries of mouldings which forms its base, the shaft being surmounted by a more or less bulky mass, which forms its capital. Columns are distinguished by the names of the styles of architecture to which they belong; thus there are Hindu, Egyptian, Grecian, Roman, and Gothic columns. In classic architecture they are further distinguished by the name of the order to which they belong, as Doric, Ionic, Composite, or Tuscan columns. They may also be characterized by some pecularity of position, of construction, of form, or of ornament, as attached, twisted, cabled, etc. Columns are either insulated or attached. They are said to be attached or engaged when they form part of a wall, projecting one-half or more, but not the whole of their substance. Cabled or rudented columns are such as have their flutings filled with cables or astragals to about the third of the height. Carolitic columns have their shafts foliated. In the earliest columnar architecture, that of the Egyptians, and in the Greek Doric, there were no bases. Capitals, however, are universal, but are mainly decorative in character. In Grecian and Roman architecture the proportions are settled, and vary according to the order. The term is sometimes applied to the pillars or piers in Norman and Gothic architecture. In modern usage the term is applied to supports of iron or wood.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Diocese of Comacchio

(COMACLENSIS)

Diocese; suffragan of Ravenna. Comacchio is a town in the province of Ferrara in the Romagna, Italy, situated on islands near the mouths of the Po, and connected with the sea by a canal built by Cardinal Palotta. The ancient name of the town was Cymaclum. The first known Bishop of Comacchio was Pacatianus, present in 503 at a synod held in Rome under Pope Symmachus. St. Gregory the Great reckons the see among the suffragans of Ravenna. In 708 a certain Vincentius is mentioned as Bishop of Comacchio. In the seventh century Gregory, the youthful son of Isaac, Exarch of Ravenna, died at Comacchio in a monastery dedicated to St. Maurus, as is recorded in a Greek inscription. During the fifteenth century the town was held by the Venetians, but was retaken in 1509 by Alfonso II, Duke of Ferrara, and fortified by him. At the death of Alfonso in 1597, Comacchio, with the rest of the Duchy of Ferrara passed under the control of the Holy See. One of its bishops, Alfonso Pandolfo (1631), was a polished writer and poet, and established the Accademia dei Fluttuanti. In the vicinity of Comacchio is the ancient shrine of Santa Maria in Aula Regia, approached by a long portico of 142 arches, built in 1647 by the papal legate, Cardinal Giovanni Stefano Dongo. In 1708 Emperor Joseph I, on the pretence of having an ancient claim on the city seized Comacchio, which was, however, restored in 1724. In 1796 the town was occupied by the French. The famous Benedictine Abbey of Pomposa is in the Diocese of Comacchio. The diocese has a population of 40,630, with 114 parishes, 24 churches and oratories, 26 secular and 6 regular priests, 1 religious house of men, and 1 of women.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), II, 579; CORRADINUS, Relatio jurium sedis apost. in civit. Comaclensem (ROME, 1741); CHEVALIER, Topo-Bibl. (Paris, 1894–99), s. v.; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907).

U. BENIGNI

Comana

A titular see of Asia Minor. According to ancient geographers, Comana was situated in Cappadocia (Cataonia). Eustathius (Comment. ad Dionys., 694) surnames it Chryse, “Golden.” Another surname in epigraphy is Hieropolis, owing to a famous temple of the Syrian goddess Enyo or Ma. Strabo and Caesar visited it; the former (XI, 521; XII, 535, 537) enters into long details about its position on the Sarus (Seihoun), the temple and its hieroduli. St. Basiliscus was put to death at Comana and was buried there; according to Palladius, the historian of St. Chrysostom, he was bishop of the city, but this is very doubtful. Its bishop, Elpidius, was present at the Council of Nicaea, in 325. Leontius, a Semi-Arian, held the see in the time of the Emperor Jovian. Heraclius appeared at Chalcedon in 451: Comana was then a suffragan of Militene, the metropolis of Armenia Secunda; since then it figures as such in most of the “Notitiae episcopatuum” to the twelfth century. Two other bishops are known: Hormizes, or Mormisdas, about 458 (letter to the Emperor Leo; see also Photius, Biblioth., Cod. 51) and Theodorus at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, in 553. The ruins of Comana are visible ten miles north-west of Guksun (Cocussus), in the vilayet of Adana (Lequien, I, 447; Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, passim). Another Comana, suffragan of Neocaesarea, was situated in Pontus Polemiacus; it had also a temple of Ma and was surnamed Hierocaesarea. It was captured by Sulla, 83 B.C. Six bishops are mentioned by Lequien (I, 517); the first is St. Alexander the Charcoal-Seller, consecrated by St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker. This town is to-day Gomenek, or Gomanak, a village south-west of Neocaesarea (Niksar), in the vilayet of Sivas. Lequien (I, 1009) gives another Comana in Pamphylia Prima, suffragan of Side; the true name is Conana. Zoticus, who lived at the time of Montanus, was Bishop of Conana, or of Comama, not of Comana in Cappadocia. Cosmas of Conana appeared at Constantinople in 680. Conana is to-day Gunen, in the vilayet of Adana.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Diocese of Comayagua

The Diocese of Comayagua, suffragan to Guatemala, includes the entire Republic of Honduras in Central America, a territory of about 46,250 square miles, and a population (1902), exclusive of uncivilized Indians, of 684,400, mostly baptized Catholics. It also includes a group of islets in the Bay of Honduras (Ruatan, Bonacca, Utila, Barbareta, and Moret). The surface is mountainous, with many fertile plains and plateaux. Communication is difficult, as there are few good roads, but a railroad from Puerto Cortez to La Pimienta (sixty miles) is destined to reach the Pacific. The mineral wealth is great, and the trade in bananas very lucrative. The climate in the interior is usually healthy, but fevers are frequent along the low coast. The capital of the State, Tegucigalpa, has 17,000 inhabitants. The first missionaries were Franciscans, though the records of their labours have disappeared in the disastrous conflagrations that the wars of the nineteenth century visited on Comayagua, and in which the archives of the cathedral perished. The diocese was established in 1527 by Clement VII, and confirmed in 1539 by Paul III. It is supposed that Bishop Pedrasa, who went in that year to Trujillo, was the first bishop. Under the fourth, Jeronimo de Corella, Pius IV transferred (1561) the see to Nueva Valladolid, now Comayagua. The prosperous missions among the savage Indians on the north coast were broken up in 1601 by English pirates; colonists and missionaries were scattered, and the Indians (now about 90,000) relapsed into their original savagery. The revolution of 1821 did great damage to the Church. Before that time there were more than 300 ecclesiastical foundations, and public worship was everywhere carried on with dignity. The revolutionary Government confiscated the ecclesiastical property to the value of more than a million pesos, according to a presidential message of 1842. Since then parishes depended for public worship on precarious alms, and the clergy diminished in number. Nevertheless, tithes were still paid to the Church, and from them the bishop, the cathedral services, and the seminary were supported. The latter was open only to externs and only the sciences were taught; ecclesiastics and young men destined for the law were educated there together.

Between 1878 and 1880 the new president of Honduras, imposed by Guatemala, confiscated anew the ecclesiastical resources put together by the faithful, the parochial properties, residences of clergy and churches, abolished the tithes, and, to complete the ruin of the ecclesiastical order, suppressed in the university the courses of canon law and moral theology, and in the colleges even the study of Latin. These oppressive acts hampered greatly the proper formation of the clergy, public worship, and the administration of the diocese. Lately the seminary has been reopened, but despite the separation of Church and State the former is subject to many restrictions. The civil government is no longer hostile, but in its name provincial and local authorities exhibit no little hostility to the parish priests. The episcopal city, which has 8000 inhabitants, suffered much from the civil wars of the period of federation (1823–39) and has never regained its former size or prosperity. Bishop Joseph Maria Martinez Cabanas (1908) is the twenty-eighth or twenty-ninth of the line. The five parish priests of the Department of Comayagua represent the former cathedral canons, and assist the bishop on occasions; at his death they elect the vicar capitular. There are seventy secular priests, and no regulars; the Government has never tolerated the return of the latter since their expulsion (1821). There is a missionary on the northern coast and at Comayagua a Salesian Father. The wealthier classes of the diocese, with very few exceptions, are indifferent to religion. There are no parochial schools, as the people of the pueblos are unable to support them, after paying taxes for the public schools; moreover the clergy are unable to conduct them, being obliged at all times to move about from one small town to another and among the widely scattered villages and the mountains. (See HONDURAS; GUATEMALA.)

FELICIANO HERRERA

François Combefis

Patrologist, b. November, 1605, at Marmande in Guyenne; d. at Paris, 23 March, 1679. He made his preliminary studies in the Jesuit College at Bordeaux, and joined the Dominican Order in 1624. After finishing his theological course, he became professor of theology, and taught in several houses of his order. In 1640 he was transferred to Paris where the opportunities for research afforded by the libraries led him to abandon teaching and to undertake the publication of patristic texts. He published successively the works of Amphilochius of Iconium, of Methodius of Patara, and of Andreas of Crete, together with some hitherto unedited writings of St. John Chrysostom. In 1648 appeared his “Novum Auctarium Graeco-Latinae Bibliothecae Patrum” in two parts, exegitical and historico-dogmatic. The “Historia haeresis monothelitarum sanctaeque in cam sextae synodi actorum vindiciae,” which formed part of the historical section of this work, met with much opposition in Rome, principally because it was at variance with the opinions of Bellarmine and Baronius. The character of the work in which Combefis was engaged met so thoroughly the approval of the French clergy that in an assembly of the French bishops held in Paris, 1655, an annual subsidy was voted to enable him to carry on his publications, the sum voted being subsequently doubled. This generous action produced the most fruitful results, and the number of his publications increased every year. In 1656 he edited St. John Chrysostom’s “De educandis Liberis,” in 1660 a collection of Acts of the martyrs. In 1662 there appeared the “Bibliotheca Patrum Concionatoria,” or “Preachers’ Library of the Fathers,” a rich and comprehensive work, prepared in the most painstaking manner from all the available manuscripts, and containing a short historical account of all the authors whose names appeared in the work. Another important work, “Auctarium Novissimum Bibliothecae Patrum,” appeared at Paris in 1672. The three following years saw many publications from the pen of Combefis. In 1674 appeared “Ecclesiastes Graecus, i.e. illustrium Graecorum Patrum ac oratorum digesti sermones ac tractatus,” etc. In 1675 appeared “Theodoti Ancyrani adv. Nestorium liber et S. Germani patriarchae Constantinop. in S. Mariae Dormitionem et Translationem oratio historica,” and in the same year an edition of the works of Maximus Confessor in two volumes with a Latin translation. A third volume of the works of Maximus Confessor was ready when Combefis died. Perhaps the most important of the works of Combefis is his edition of St. Basil in two volumes, “Basilius magnus ex integro recensitus, textus ex fide optimorum codicum ubique castigatus, auctus, illustratus, haud incerta quandoque condectura emendatus. Versiones recognitae,” etc. (Paris, 1679). This is a work of the highest merit and shows the critical skill of Combefis at its best, though later surpassed by the famous Maurist edition (Paris, 1721–30). Besides these and several other critical editions of works of the Fathers, there are in existence some polemical works of Combefis which have little value for the present time. Though known to all the learned men of his time, and widely celebrated even in his lifetime for his great learning, Combefis always remained a mild and obedient monk.

PATRICK J. HEALY

Daniel Comboni

Missionary, b. 15 March, 1831 in Limone San Giovanni near Brescia, Italy; d. 10 Oct., 1881, at Khartoum. Educated in Mazza’s Institute, Verona, he learned, in addition to theology, several languages and medicine. Ordained priest in 1854, he was sent (1857) by Don Mazza to Central Africa, but returned (1859) because of ill health. After teaching in Mazza’s Institute from 1861–64 he published “Piano per la rigenerazione dell’ Africa” (Turin, 1864) and visited France, Spain, England, Germany, and Austria to collect funds. In Verona Comboni established (1867) his Istituto delle Missioni per la Nigrizia to educate priests and brothers for the missions, and the Istituto delle Pie Madri to supply female help; he also opened similar institutions in Cairo, Egypt, to acclimatize missionaries for the fever-stricken regions of Central Africa. Appointed (1872) Pro-vicar Apostolic of Central Africa (vicariate since 1846), embracing Nubia, Egyptian Sudan, and the territory south to the Lakes (with nearly 100,000,000 inhabitants) Comboni began his great work with only two missions, El-Obeid (Kordofan) and Khartoum. Others rapidly followed: Berber, Delen, Malbes (near El-Obeid). In 1877 Comboni was made Vicar Apostolic of Central Africa and titular Bishop of Claudiopolis. His death was pronounced a “great loss” by Leo XIII.

Comboni aroused the interest of Europe in negro missions, and journeyed five times from Africa to Europe to secure missionaries and funds. By means of his intimate acquaintance with the khedive and the Governor of the Sudan he effectually checked the slave-trade. Besides his “Quadro storico delle Scoperte Africane” (1880) he contributed material for scientific works, notably on geography. Mitterrutzner’s works on the Dinka and Bari dialects (Brixen, 1866, 1867) are based on Comboni’s manuscripts. He was a “language genius” (Cardinal Simeoni), master of six European tongues, of Arabic, and the dialects of the Dinka, Bari, and Nuba negroes. His “Istituto,” since 1894 the Congregation of the Sons of the Sacred Heart, continues his work in Central Africa. Mgr. Geyer (appointed vicar Apostolic in 1903) was assisted in 1907 by 29 priests, 23 brothers, and 35 sisters ministering to 11 churches, 9 schools, and 6 orphanages.

JOHN M. LENHART

St. Comgall

Founder and abbot of the great Irish monastery at Bangor, flourished in the sixth century. The year of his birth is uncertain, but according to the testimony of the Irish annals it must be placed between 510 and 520; his death is said to have occurred in 602 (“Annals of Tighernach” and “Chronicon Scotorum”), or 597 (Annals of Innisfallen). He was born in Dalaradia in Ulster near the place now known as Magheramorne in the present County Antrim. He seems to have served first as a soldier, and on his release from military service he is said to have studied at Clonard with St. Finnian, and at Clonmacnoise with St. Ciaran, who died in 549. We next find him in Ulster in an island on Lough Erne accompanied by a few friends following a very severe form of monastic life. He intended to go to Britain, but was dissuaded from this step by Lugidius, the bishop who ordained him, at whose advice he remained in Ireland and set himself to spread the monastic life throughout the country. The most famous of the Comgall is Bangor, situated in the present County Down, on the Southern shore of Belfast Lough and directly opposite to Carrickfergus. According to the Irish annals Bangor was founded not later than 552, though Ussher and most of the later writers on the subject assign the foundation to the year 555. According to Adamnan’s “Life of Columba,” there was a very close connection between Comgall and Columba though there does not appear to be sufficient authority for stating that Comgall was the disciple of Columba in any strict sense. He is said to have been the friend of St. Brendan, St. Cormac, St. Cainnech, and Finbarr of Moville. After intense suffering he received the Eucharist from St. Fiacra and expired in the monastery at Bangor.

Comgall belonged to what is known as the Second Order of Irish Saints. These flourished in the Irish Church during the sixth century. They were for the most part educated in Britain, or received their training from those who had grown up under the influence of the British Schools. They were the founders of the great Irish monastic schools, and contributed much to the spread of monasticism in the Irish Church. It is an interesting question how far Comgall, or men like him, had advanced in their establishments at Bangor and elsewhere in introducing the last stages of monasticism then developed on the Continent by St. Benedict. In other words, did St. Congall give his monks at Bangor a strict monastic rule resembling the Rule of St. Benedict? There has come down to us a Rule of St. Comgall in Irish, but the evidence would not warrant us in saying that as it stands at present it could be attributed to him. The fact, however, that Columbanus, a disciple of Comgall and himself a monk of Bangor, drew up for his Continental monasteries a “Regula Monachorum” wound lead us to believe that there had been a similar organization in Bangor in his time. This, however, is not conclusive, since Columbanus might have derived inspiration from the Benedictine Rule then widely spread over South-Western Europe. St. Comgall is mentioned in the “Life of Columbanus” by Jonas, as the superior of Bangor, under whom St. Columbanus had studied. He is also mentioned under 10 May, his feast-day in the “Felire” of Oengus the Culdee published by Whitley Stokes for the Henry Bradshaw Society (2nd ed.), and his name is commemorated in the Stowe Missal (MacCarthy), and in the Martyrology of Tallaght.

JAMES MACCAFFREY.

Commandments of God

Commandments of God, called also simply The Commandments, or Decalogue (Gr. deka, ten, and logos, a word), the Ten Words of Sayings, the latter name generally applied by the Greek Fathers; ten precepts bearing on the fundamental obligations of religion and morality and embodying the revealed expression of the Creator’s will in relation to man’s whole duty to God and to his fellow-creatures. They are found twice recorded in the Pentateuch, in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, but are given in an abridged form in the catechisms. Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai, and by him made the ground-work of the Mosaic Law. Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity—love of God and of the neighbour; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). He also simplified or interpreted them, e.g. by declaring unnecessary oaths equally unlawful with false, by condemning hatred and calumny as well as murder, by enjoining even love of enemies, and by condemning indulgence of evil desires as fraught with the same malice as adultery (Matthew 5). The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians.

There is no numerical division of the Commandments in the Books of Moses, but the injunctions are distinctly tenfold, and are found almost identical in both sources. The order, too, is the same except for the final prohibitions pronounced against concupiscence, that of Deuteronomy being adopted in preference to Exodus. A confusion, however, exists in the numbering, which is due to a difference of opinion concerning the initial precept on Divine worship. The system of numeration found in Catholic Bibles, based on the Hebrew text, was made by St. Augustine (fifth century) in his book of “Questions of Exodus” (“Quæstionum in Heptateuchum libri VII,” Bk. II, Question lxxi), and was adopted by the Council of Trent. It is followed also by the German Lutherans, except those of the school of Bucer. This arrangement makes the First Commandment relate to false worship and to the worship of false gods as to a single subject and a single class of sins to be guarded against—the reference to idols being regarded as mere application of the precept to adore but one God and the prohibition as directed against the particular offense of idolatry alone. According to this manner of reckoning, the injunction forbidding the use of the Lord’s Name in vain comes second in order; and the decimal number is safeguarded by making a division of the final precept on concupiscence—the Ninth pointing to sins of the flesh and the Tenth to desires for unlawful possession of goods. Another division has been adopted by the English and Helvetian Protestant churches on the authority of Philo Judæus, Josephus, Origen, and others, whereby two Commandments are made to cover the matter of worship, and thus the numbering of the rest is advanced one higher; and the Tenth embraces both the Ninth and Tenth of the Catholic division. It seems, however, as logical to separate at the end as to group at the beginning, for while one single object is aimed at under worship, two specifically different sins are forbidden under covetousness; if adultery and theft belong to two distinct species of moral wrong, the same must be said of the desire to commit these evils.

The Supreme Law-Giver begins by proclaiming His Name and His Titles to the obedience of the creature man: “I am the Lord, thy God . . .” The laws which follow have regard to God and His representatives on earth (first four) and to our fellow-man (last six).

Being the one true God, He alone is to be adored, and all rendering to creatures of the worship which belongs to Him falls under the ban of His displeasure; the making of “graven things” is condemned: not all pictures, images, and works of art, but such as are intended to be adored and served (First).

Associated with God in the minds of men and representing Him, is His Holy Name, which by the Second Commandment is declared worthy of all veneration and respect and its profanation reprobated.

And He claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy (Third).

Finally, parents being the natural providence of their offspring, invested with authority for their guidance and correction, and holding the place of God before them, the child is bidden to honour and respect them as His lawful representatives (Fourth).

The precepts which follow are meant to protect man in his natural rights against the injustice of his fellows.

His life is the object of the Fifth;

the honour of his body as well as the source of life, of the Sixth;

his lawful possessions, of the Seventh;

his good name, of the Eighth;

And in order to make him still more secure in the enjoyment of his rights, it is declared an offense against God to desire to wrong him, in his family rights by the Ninth;

and in his property rights by the Tenth.

This legislation expresses not only the Maker’s positive will, but the voice of nature as well—the laws which govern our being and are written more or less clearly in every human heart. The necessity of the written law is explained by the obscuring of the unwritten in men’s souls by sin. These Divine mandates are regarded as binding on every human creature, and their violation, with sufficient reflection and consent of the will, if the matter be grave, is considered a grievous or mortal offense against God. They have always been esteemed as the most precious rules of life and are the basis of all Christian legislation.

JOHN H. STAPLETON.

Commandments of the Church

We shall consider:

I. the nature of the Commandments of the Church in general;

II. the history of the Commandments of the Church;

III. their classification.

I. NATURE OF THESE COMMANDMENTS

The authority to enact laws obligatory on all the faithful belongs to the Church by the very nature of her constitution. Entrusted with the original deposit of Christian revelation, she is the appointed public organ and interpreter of that revelation for all time. For the effective discharge of her high office, she must be empowered to give to her laws the gravest sanction. These laws, when they bind universally, have for their object:

the definition or explanation of some doctrine, either by way of positive pronouncement or by the condemnation of opposing error;

the prescription of the time and manner in which a Divine law, more or less general and indeterminate, is to be observed, e.g. the precept obliging the faithful to receive the Holy Eucharist during the paschal season and to the Holy Eucharist during the paschal season and to confess their sins annually;

the defining of the sense of the moral law in its application to difficult cases of conscience, e.g. many of the decisions of the Roman Congregations;

some matter of mere discipline serving to safeguard the observance of the higher law, e.g. the Commandments to contribute to the support of one’s pastors (Vacant, Dict. de theol. cath., s.v.).

All these laws when binding on the faithful universally are truly commandments of the Church. In the technical sense, however, the table of these Commandments does not contain doctrinal pronouncements. Such an inclusion would render it too complex. The Commandments of the Church (in this restricted sense) are moral and ecclesiastical, and as a particular code of precepts are necessarily broad in character and limited in number.

II. HISTORY OF THE COMMANDMENTS

We outline here only in a general way the history of the form and number of the precepts of the Church. The discussion of the content of the several Commandments and of the penalties imposed by the Church for violation of these Commandments will be found under the various subjects to which they refer. We do not find in the early history of the Church any fixed and formal body of Church Commandments. As early, however, as the time of Constantine, especial insistence was put upon the obligation to hear Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, to receive the sacraments and to abstain from contracting marriage at certain seasons. In the seventh-century Penitentiary of Theodore of Canterbury we find penalties imposed on those who contemn the Sunday and fail to keep the fasts of the Church as well as legislation regarding the reception of the Eucharist; but no reference is here made to any precepts of the Church accepted in a particular sense. Neither do we discover such special reference in one of the short sermons addressed to neophytes and attributed to St. Boniface, but probably of later date, in which the hearers are urged to observe Sunday, pay tithes to the Church, observe the fasts, and receive at times the Holy Eucharist. In German books of popular instruction and devotion from the ninth century onwards special emphasis was laid on the obligation to discharge these duties. Particularly does this appear in the forms prepared for the examination of conscience. According to a work written at this time by Regino, Abbot of Prüm (d. 915), entitled “Libri duo de synodalibus causis et disciplinis,” the bishop in his visitation is, among other inquiries, to ask

if anyone has not kept the fast of Lent, or of the ember-days, or of the rogations, or that which may have been appointed by the bishop for the staying of any plague; if there by any one who has not gone to Holy Communion three time in the year, that is at Easter, Pentecost and Christmas; if there by any one who has withheld tithes from God and His saints; if there by anyone so perverse and so alienated from God as not to come to Church at least on Sundays; if there be anyone who has not gone to confession once in the year, that is at the beginning of Lent, and has not done penance for his sins (Hafner, Zur Geschichte der Kirchengebote, in Theologische Quartalschrift, LXXX, 104).

The insistence on the precepts here implied, and the fact that they were almost invariably grouped together in the books already referred to, had the inevitable effect of giving them a distinct character. They came to be regarded as special Commandments of the Church. Thus in a book of tracts of the thirteenth century attributed to Celestine V (though the authenticity of this work has been denied) a separate tractate is given to the precepts of the Church and is divided into four chapters, the first of which treats of fasting, the second of confession and paschal Communion, the third of interdicts on marriage, and the fourth of tithes. In the fourteenth century Ernest von Parduvitz, Archbishop of Prague, instructed his priests to explain in popular sermons the principal points of the catechism, the Our Father, the Creed, the Commandments of God and of the Church (Hafner, loc. cit., 115). A century later (1470) the catechism of Dietrick Coelde, the first, it is said, to be written in German, explicitly set forth that there were five Commandments of the Church. In his “Summa Theologica” (part I, tit. xvii, p. 12) St. Antoninus of Florence (1439) enumerates ten precepts of the Church universally binding on the faithful. These are: to observe certain feasts, to keep the prescribed fasts, to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, to confess once a year, to receive Holy Communion during paschal time, to pay tithes, to abstain from any act upon which an interdict has been placed entailing excommunication, to refrain also from any act interdicted under pain of excommunication latæ sententiæ, to avoid association with the excommunicated, finally not to attend Mass or other religious functions celebrated by a priest living in open concubinage. In the sixteenth century the Spanish canonist, Martin Aspilcueta (1586), gives a list of five principal precepts of obligation, to fast at certain prescribed times, to pay tithes, to go to confession once a year and to receive Holy Communion at Easter (Enchiridion, sive manuale confessariorum et poenitentium, Rome, 1588, ch. xxi, n. 1). At this time, owing to the prevalence of heresy, there appeared many popular works in defence of the authority of the Church and setting forth in a special manner her precepts. Such among others were the “Summa Doctrinæ Christianæ” (1555) of St. Peter Canisius and the “Doctrina Christiana” of Bellarmine (1589). It is plain, however, that the precepts of the Church, as a particular and distinct body of laws, were recognized long before the sixteenth century; the contention that they were first definitely formulated by St. Peter Canisius is unwarranted.

III. CLASSIFICATION

The Church is her supreme authority has defined nothing regarding the form and number of the Commandments of the Church. The Council of Trent while recommending in a general way in its twenty-fifth session the observance of these precepts says nothing regarding them as a particular body of laws. Neither is any specific mention made of them in the “Catechismus ad parochos” published by order of the council and known as the “Catechism of the Council of Trent” or “Roman Catechism.” We have seen that St. Antoninus of Florence enumerates ten such commandments while Martin Aspilcueta mentions only five. This last number is that given by St. Peter Canisius. According to this author the precepts of the Church are: To observe the feast days appointed by the Church; to hear Mass reverently on these feast days; to observe the fasts on the days during the seasons appointed; to confess to one’s pastor annually; to receive Holy Communion at least once a year and that around the feast of Easter. Owing undoubtedly to the influence of Canisius, the catechisms generally used at present throughout Germany and Austria-Hungary have adopted the above enumeration. The fourth precept has, however, been amended so as to allow of confession being made to any duly authorized priest.

In Spanish America the number of church precepts is also five; this being the number as we have seen, set down by Aspilcueta in the sixteenth century. Here, however, the First and Second commandment in the table of Canisius are combined into one, and the precept to pay tithes appears. It is to be noted, also, that the precept of annual confession is more specific; it enjoins that this confession be made in Lent, or before, if there be danger of death. (Synod of Mexico, 1585, Lib. I, tit. i, in Hardouin, Conc., X, 1596.) French and Italian catechists reckon six precepts of the church, the enumeration given by Bellarmine. According to this writer the Commandments of the Church are: To hear Mass on Sundays and Holy Days; to fast during Lent, on prescribed vigils, and the ember-days; to abstain from meat on Fridays and Saturdays; to go to confession once a year; to receive Holy Communion at Easter; to pay tithes; and finally not to solemnize marriage during the prohibited times.

The French catechisms, following that of Bossuet, omit the last two precepts, but retain the same number as that given by Bellarmine. This they do by making two Commandments cover the obligations to observe Sunday and the Holy Days, and two also regarding the obligations of fast and abstinence. It will be readily observed that the omission by French writers of the Commandment to pay tithes was owing to local conditions. In a “Catechism of Christian Doctrine” approved by Cardinal Vaughan and the bishops of England, six Commandments of the Church are enumerated. These are:

to keep the Sundays and Holy Days of obligation holy, by hearing Mass and resting from servile work;

to keep the days of fasting and abstinence appointed by the Church;

to go to confession at least once a year;

to receive the Blessed Sacrament at least once a year and that at Easter or thereabouts;

to contribute to the support of our pastors;

not to marry within a certain degree of kindred nor to solemnize marriage at the forbidden times.

This list is the same as that which the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1886) prescribed for the United States.

JOHN WEBSTER MELODY

Commemoration (in Liturgy)

The recital of a part of the Office or Mass assigned to a certain feast or day when the whole cannot be said. When two Offices fall on the same day and when, according to the rules of the rebrics, one of them cannot be transferred to another day, it is in part celebrated by way of a commemoration. Offices have different degrees of importance (doubles, semi-doubles, etc.) assigned them at their institution, and it is this that mainly determines precedence in cases of conflict.

At Mass a commemoration consists in saying the collect, Secret, and Post-Communion proper to the feast or day which is being commemorated. In the Office commemorations occur at Lauds and Vespers and consist in reciting the antiphons, with their versicles and responses, of the Benedictus and Magnificat respectively, adding in each case an oremus with the oration proper. These are called special commemorations as distinguished from the common, which are in the Office when the latter is of an inferior rite. These commemorative prayers of the Mass vary according to the season of the year. When two or more special commemorations have to be made, the order is determined by the rank or relative importance of the feasts and Offices. When two Offices fall on the same day there is said to be “occurrence”; and when the second Vespers of a preceding Office coincides with the first Vespers of the following there is “concurrence.” When one of the two occurring, or concurring, Offices is very solemn and the other relatively unimportant, all mention of the latter is omitted.

PATRICK MORRISROE

Commendatory Abbot

An ecclesiastic, or sometimes a layman, who holds an abbey that is, who draws its revenues and, if an ecclesiastic, may also have some jurisdiction, but does not exercise any authority over its inner monastic discipline. Originally only vacant abbeys, or such as were temporarily without an actual superior, were given in commendam, in the latter case only until an actual superior was elected or appointed. An abbey is held in commendam, i.e. provisorily, in distinction to one held in titulum, which is a permanent benefice.

As early as the time of Pope Gregory the Great (590–604) vacant abbeys were given in commendam to bishops who had been driven from their episcopal sees by the invading barbarians. The practice began to be seriously abused in the eighth century when the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish kings assumed the right to set commendatory abbots over monasteries that were occupied by religious communities. Often these commendatory abbots were laymen, vassals of the kings, or others who were authorized to draw the revenues and manage the temporal affairs of the monasteries in reward for military services. While the notorious Marozia was influential in Rome and Italy, and during the reigns of Henry IV of Germany, Philip I of France, William the Conqueror, William Rufus, Henry I and II of England, the abuse reached its climax. The most worthless persons were often made commendatory abbots, who in many cases brought about the temporal and spiritual ruin of the monasteries. When in 1122 the dispute concerning investiture was settled in favour of the church, the appointment of laymen as commendatory abbots and many other abuses were abolished. The abuses again increased while the popes resided at Avignon (1309–1377) and especially during the schism (1378–1417), when the popes, as well as the antipopes, gave numerous abbeys in commendam in order to increase the number of their adherents.

After the eighth century various attempts were made by popes and councils to regulate the appointment of commendatory abbots. Still, the abuses continued. Boniface VIII (1294–1303) decreed that a benefice with the cure of souls attached should be granted in commendam only in great necessity or when evident advantage would accrue to the Church, but never for more than six months (c. 15, VI, De elect., 1, 6). Clement V (1305–14) revoked benefices which had been granted by him in commendam at an earlier date (Extr. comm., c. 2, De praeb., 3, 2). The Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, cap. xxi, de Regularibus) determined that vacant monasteries should be bestowed only on pious and virtuous regulars, and that the principal or motherhouse of an order and the abbeys and priories founded immediately therefrom should no longer be granted in commendam. The succeeding Bull “Superna” of Gregory XIII, and the Constitution “Pastoralis” of Innocent X greatly checked the abuses, but did not abolish them entirely. Especially in France they continued to flourish to the detriment of the monasteries. Finally, the French Revolution and the general secularization of monasteries in the beginning of the eighteenth century destroyed the evil with the good. Since that time commendatory abbots have become very rare, and the former abuses have been abolished by wise regulations. There are still a few commendatory abbots among the cardinals; Pope Pius X himself was Commendatory Abbot of the Benedictine monastery at Subiaco near Rome.

The powers of a commendatory abbot are as follows: If the monastery is occupied by a religious community where there is a separate mensa abbatialis, i.e. where the abbot and the convent have each a separate income, the commendatory abbot, who must then be an ecclesiastic, has jurisdiction in foro externo over the members of the community and enjoys all the rights and privileges of an actual abbot, and if, as is generally the case, the monastery has a special superior, he is subject to the commendatory abbot as a claustral prior is subject to his actual abbot. If there is no separate mensa abbatialis, the power of the commendatory abbot extends only over the temporal affairs of the monastery. In case of vacant monasteries the commendatory abbot generally has all the rights and privileges of an actual abbot.

MICHAEL OTT

Giovanni Francesco Commendone

Cardinal and Papal Nuncio, born at Venice, 17 March, 1523; died at Padua, 26 Dec., 1584 After receiving a thorough education in the humanities and in jurisprudence at the University of Padua, he came to Rome in 1550. The ambassador of Venice presented him to Pope Julius III, who was so favourably impressed by the unusual learning of the youthful scholar that he appointed him one of his secretaries. After successfully performing various papal missions of minor importance, he accompanied Cardinal Legate Dandino to the Netherlands, whence Pope Julius III sent him in 1553 on an important mission to Queen Mary Tudor, who had just succeeded Edward VI on the English throne. He was to treat with the new queen concerning the restoration of the Catholic Faith in England. Accompanied by Penning, a servant and confidant of Cardinal Reginald Pole, Commendone arrived in London on 8 Aug., 1553. Though Mary Tudor was a loyal Catholic, she was surrounded at court by numerous opponents of papal authority, who made it extremely difficult for Commendone to obtain a secret interview with her. By chance he met John Lee, a relation of the Duke of Norfolk and an attendant at court, with whom he had become acquainted in italy, and Lee succeeded in arranging the interview. Mary received Commendone kindly, and expressed her desire to restore the Catholic Faith and to acknowledge the spiritual authority of the pope, but considered it prudent to act slowly on account of her powerful opponents, Commendone hastened to Rome, arriving there on 11 September, and informed the pope of the joyful news, at the same time handing him a personal letter from the queen. Commendone continued to hold the office of papal secretary under Paul IV, who esteemed him very highly and in return for his services appointed him Bishop of Zante in 1555. In the summer of 1556 he accompanied Cardinal Legate Scipione Rebiba on a papal mission to the Netherlands, to the courts of Emperor Charles V and King Philip II, the consort of Queen Mary of England. Commendone had received instructions to remain as nuncio at the court of Philip, but he was recalled to Rome soon after his arrival in the Netherlands. On 16 September of the same year the pope sent him as extraordinary legate to the Governments of Urbino, Ferrara, Venice, and Parma in order to obtain help against the Spanish troops who were occupying the Campagna and threatening Rome.

In 1560, when Pius IV determined to reopen the Council of Trent, Commendone was sent as legate to Germany to invite the Catholic and Protestant Estates to the council. He arrived in Vienna on 3 Jan., 1561, and after consulting with Emperor Ferdinand, set out on 14 January for Naumburg, where the Protestant Estates were holding a religious convention, He was accompanied by Delfino, Bishop of Lesina, who had been sent as papal nuncio to Ferdinand four months previously and was still at the imperial court. Having arrived at Naumburg on 28 January, they were admitted to the convention on 5 February and urged upon the assembled Protestant Estates the necessity of a Protestant representation at the Council of Trent in order to restore religious union, but all their efforts were of no avail. From Naumburg, Commendone traveled northward to invite the Estates of Northern Germany. He went by way of Leipzig and Magdeburg to Berlin, where he arrived on 19 February and was well received by Joachim of Münsterberg, the Elector of Brandenburg. Joachim spoke respectfully of the pope and the Catholic Church and expressed his desire for a religious reconciliation, but did not promise to appear at the council. Here Commendone met also the son of Joachim, the young Archbishop Sigismund of Magdeburg, who promised to appear at the council but did not keep his word. Leaving Berlin, Commendone visited Beeskow, Wolfenbüttel, Hanover, Hildesheim, Iburg, Paderborn, Cologne, Cleves, the Netherlands, and Aachen, inviting all the Estates he met in these places. From Aachen he turned to Lubeck with the intention of crossing the sea to invite Kings Frederick II of Denmark and Erie XIV of Sweden. The King of Denmark, however, refused to receive the legate, while the King of Sweden invited him to England, whither he had planned to go in the near future. Queen Elizabeth of England had forbidden the papal nuncio Hieronimo Martinengo to cross the English Channel when he was sent to invite the queen to the council, hence it was very improbable that she would allow Commendone to come to England. He therefore repaired to Antwerp, awaiting further instructions from Rome. Being recalled by the pope, he returned to Italy in Dec., 1561, by way of Lorraine and Western Germany. Although his mission was without any results as regards Protestant representation at the Council of Trent, still his spotless character and his strong and unselfish pleas for a return to Catholic unity made a deep impression upon many Protestant Estates. The numerous letters which Commendone wrote during this mission to St. Charles Borromeo present a sad but faithful picture of the ecclesiastical conditions in Germany during those times. These and others were published in “Miscellanea di Storia Italiana” (Turin, 1869, VI, 1–240).

In Jan., 1563, the legates of the Council of Trent sent Commendone to Emperor Ferdinand at Innsbruck, to treat with him regarding some demands which he had made upon the council in his “Libel of Reformation.” In October of the same year Pius IV sent him as legate to King Sigismund of Poland with instruction to induce this ruler to give political recognition to the Tridentine decrees. Yielding to the requests of Commendone and of Hosius, Bishop of Ermland, Sigismund not only enforced the Tridentine reforms, but also allowed the Jesuits, the most hated enemies of the Reformers, to enter Poland. While still in Poland, on the recommendation of St. Charles Borromeo, Commendone was created cardinal on 12 March, 1565. He remained in Poland until the death of Pius IV (9 Dec., 1565), and before returning to Italy he went as legate of the new pope, Pius V. to the Diet of Augsburg, which was opened by Maximilian II on 23 March, 1566. He had previously warned the emperor under pain of excommunication not to discuss religion at the diet. He also seized the opportunity to exhort the assembled Estates to carry into execution the Tridentine decrees. In Sept., 1568. Pius V sent him a second time as legate to Maximilian II. In muon with Biglia, the resident nuncio at Vienna, he was to induce the emperor to make no new religious concessions to the Protestant Estates of Lower Austria and to recall several concessions which he had already made. While engaged in this mission, Commendone was also empowered by a papal Brief dated 10 Oct., 1568, to make an apostolic visitation of the churches and monasteries of Germany and the adjacent provinces. An account of this visitation in the Dioceses of Passau and Salzburg in the year 1569 is published in “Studien und Mittheilungen aus dem Benedictiner und Cistercienser Orden” (Brünn, 1893, XIV, 385–398 and 567–589). In Nov., 1571, Pius V sent him as legate to the emperor and to King Sigismund of Poland in the interest of a crusade. After the death of King Sigismund, in 1572, he promoted the election of Henry, Duke of Anjou, as King of Poland, thereby incurring the displeasure of the emperor. Upon his return to Italy in 1573, Gregory XIII appointed him a member of the newly founded Congregatio Germanica, the purpose of which was to safeguard Catholic interests in Germany. He was so highly esteemed by the Sacred College that, when Gregory XIII fell dangerously ill, it was generally believed that Commendone would be elected pope, but he was outlived by Gregory.

GRAZIANI. Vita Commendoni Cardinalis (Paris, 1669), Fr. tr. by FLECHIER (Paris, 1671, and Lyons, 1702); The Cambridge Modern History (London and New York, 1907), II and (1905), III, passim; PALLAVICINO Istoria del Concilio di Trento (Rome, 1846), II, 13, 15, III, 24; PRISAC, Die Legaten Commendone und Capacini in Berlin (Neuss, 1846); REIMAN, Die Sendung des Nunzius Commendone nach Deutschl. im Jahre 1561 in Forschungen zur deutsch. Gesch. (Göttingen, 1867), 237–80; SUSTA, Die römische Kurie und das Konzil von Trient unter Pius IV. (Wien, 1904). I; SCHWARZ, Der Briefwechsel des K. Maximilian II mit Papst Pius V. (Paderborn, 1889); GRAZIANI. De scriptis invita Minerva, cum adnotationibus H. Lagomarsini (Florence, 1745–6).

MICHAEL OTT

Commentaries on the Bible

“To write a full history of exegesis,” says Farrar, “would require the space of many volumes.” Nor is this surprising when it is borne in mind that the number of commentaries on such a recent writer as Dante reached the grand total of thirteen hundred at the beginning of the twentieth century. As the ground to be covered is so extensive, only the barest outline can be given here. The bibliography at the end will enable the reader to pursue the subject further. We touch upon the salient points of Jewish, patristic, medieval, and modern (Catholic and non-Catholic) commentaries. We begin with the Jewish writers, and deal briefly with the Targums, Mishna, and Talmuds; for, though these cannot be regarded as Bible commentaries in the proper sense of the word, they naturally lead up to these latter. Those who require further information on this head may be referred to the special articles in THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, and to the works mentioned in the bibliography. Special attention is directed to the list of the best modern non-Catholic commentaries in English [V (3)]. The article is divided as follows:

I. Jewish Commentaries

II. Patristic

III. Medieval

IV. Modern Catholic

V. Non-Catholic

I. JEWISH COMMENTARIES

(1) PHILO

There was a story among the Jews in the Middle Ages to the effect that Aristotle accompanied Alexander the Great to Jerusalem, and, with characteristic Greek craftiness, obtained possession of the wisdom of Solomon, which he subsequently palmed off on his countrymen as his own. This accounted for everything that was good in Aristotle; the defects were the only thing peculiar to the philosopher. That Greek literature, in general, got its inspiration from Moses was an uncritical idea that dated back as far as Philo, the great Jewish writer of Alexandria. A visitor to Alexandria at the time when Christ was preaching in Galilee would find there and in its vicinity a million Jews using the Septuagint as their Bible, and could enter their magnificent Great Synagogue of which they were justly proud. Whoever had not seen it was not supposed to have beheld the glory of Israel. The members of their Sanhedrin, according to Sukkah, were seated on seventy-one golden thrones valued at tens of thousands of talents of gold; and the building was so vast that a flag had to be waved to show the people when to respond. At the head of this assembly, on the highest throne, was seated the alabarch, the brother of Philo. Philo himself was a man of wealth and learning, who mingled with all classes of men and frequented the theatre and the great library. Equally at home in the Septuagint and the Greek classics, he was struck and perplexed by the many beautiful and noble thoughts contained in the latter, which could bear comparison with many passages of the Bible. As this difficulty must have frequently presented itself to the minds of his coreligionists, he endeavoured to meet it by saying that all that was great in Socrates, Plato, etc. originated with Moses. He set about reconciling Pagan philosophy with the Old Testament, and for this purpose he made extensive use of the allegorical method of interpretation. Many passages of the Pentateuch were not intended to be taken literally. They were literally false, hut allegorically true. He did not hit upon the distinction, made later by St. Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic thinkers, between natural and revealed religion. The Bible contains not only revealed but also natural religion, free from error and with Divine sanction. Pagan systems may have natural religion highly developed, but with much concomitant error. Though this distinction did not occur to Philo, his exegesis served to tide over the difficulty for the time amongst the Hellenistic Jews, and had great influence on Origen and other Alexandrian Christian writers.

(2) THE TARGUMS

In order to get on the main lines of Jewish interpretation it is necessary to turn to the Holy Land. Farrar, in his “Life of Christ,” says that it has been suggested that when Christ visited the Temple, at twelve years of age, there may have been present among the doctors Jonathan ben Uzziel, once thought the author of the Yonathan Targum, and the venerable teachers Hillel and Shammai, the handers-on of the Mishna. The Targums (the most famous of which is that on the Pentateuch erroneously attributed to Onkelos, a misnomer for Aquila, according to Abrahams) were the only approach to anything like a commentary on the Bible before the time of Christ. They were interpretative translations or paraphrases from Hebrew into Aramaic for the use of the synagogues when, after the Exile, the people had lost the knowledge of Hebrew. It is doubtful whether any of them were committed to writing before the Christian Era. They are important as indicating the character of the Hebrew text used, and because they agree with the New Testament in interpreting certain passages Messianically which later Jews denied to have any Messianic bearing.

(3) THE MISHNA AND TALMUDS

Hillel and Shammai were the last “pair” of several generations of “pairs” of teachers. These pairs were the successors of the early scribes who lived after the Exile. These teachers are said to have handed down and expanded the Oral Law, which, according to the uncritical view of many Jews, began with Moses. This Oral Law, whose origin is buried in obscurity, consists of legal and liturgical interpretations and applications of the Pentateuch. As no part of it was written down, it was preserved by constant repetition (Mishna). On the destruction of Jerusalem several rabbis, learned in this Law, settled at Jamnia, near the sea, twenty-eight miles west of Jerusalem. Jamnia became the head-quarters of Jewish learning until 135. Then schools were opened at Sepphoris and Tiberias to the west of the Sea of Galilee. The rabbis comforted their countrymen by teaching that the study of the Law (Oral as well as Written) took the place of the sacrifices. They devoted their energies to arranging the Unwritten Torah, or Law. One of the most successful at this was Rabbi Akiba who took part in the revolt of Bar-Kokba, against the Romans, and lost his life (135). The work of systematization was completed and probably committed to writing by the Jewish patriarch at Tiberias, Rabbi Jehudah ha-Nasi “The Prince” (150–210). He was of noble birth, wealthy, learned, and is called by the Jews “Our Master the Saint” or simply Rabbi par excellence. The compilation made by this Rabbi is the Mishna. It is written in New Hebrew, and consists of six great divisions or orders, each division containing, on an average, about ten tractates, each tractate being made up of several chapters. The Mishna may be said to be a compilation of Jewish traditional moral theology, liturgy, law, etc. There were other traditions not embodied in the work of Rabbi, and these are called additional Mishna.

The discussions of later generations of rabbis all centred round the text of the Mishna. Interpreters or “speakers” laboured upon it both in Palestine and Babylonia (until 500), and the results are comprised in the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds. The word Talmud means teaching, doctrine. Each Talmud consists of two parts, the Mishna (in Hebrew), in sixty-three tractates, and an explanation of the same (Gemara), ten or twelve times as long. The explanatory portion of the Palestinian Talmud is written in Western Aramaic and that of the Babylonian Talmud in Eastern Aramaic, which is closely allied to Syriac or Mandaic. The passages in the Gemara containing additional Mishna are, however, given in New Hebrew. Only thirty-nine tractates of the Mishna have Gemara. The Talmud, then, consists of the Mishna (traditions from 450 B. C. till A. D. 200), together with a commentary thereon, Gemara, the latter being composed about A. D. 200–500. Next to the Bible the Babylonian Talmud is the great religious book of orthodox Jews, though the Palestinian Talmud is more highly prized by modern scholars. From the year 500 till the Middle Ages the rabbis (geonim) in Babylonia and elsewhere were engaged in commenting on the Talmud and reconciling it with the Bible. A list of such commentaries is given in “The Jewish Encyclopedia.”

(4) THE MIDRASHIM

Simultaneously with the Mishna and Talmud there grew up a number of Midrashim, or commentaries on the Bible. some of these were legalistic, like the Gemara of the Talmud but the most important were of an edifying, homiletic character (Midrash Haggadah). These latter are important for the corroborative light which they throw on the language of the New Testament. The Gospel of St. John is seen to be steeped in early Jewish phraseology, and the words of Ps. cix, “The Lord said to my Lord,” etc. are in one place applied to the Messias, as they are in St. Matthew, though Rashi and later Jews deprived them of their Messianic sense by applying them to Abraham.

(5) KARAITE COMMENTATORS

When the nature of the Talmud and other such writings is considered, it is not surprising that they produced a violent reaction against Rabbinism even among the Jews themselves. In spite of the few gems of thought scattered through it at long intervals, there is nothing in any literature so entirely uninviting as the Talmud. The opposition to these “traditions of men” finally took shape. Anan ben David, a prominent Babylonian Jew in the eighth century, rejected Rabbinism for the written Old Testament and became the founder of the sect known a Karaites (a word indicating their preference for the written Bible). This schism produced great energy and ability on both sides. The principal Karaite Bible commentators were Mahavendi (ninth century); Abul-Faraj Harun (ninth century), exegete and Hebrew grammarian; Solomon ben Yerucham (tenth century); Sahal-ben Mazliach (died 950), Hebrew grammarian and lexicographer; Joseph al-Bazir (died 930); Japhet ben Ali, the greatest Karaite commentator of the tenth century; and Judah Hadassi (died 1160).

(6) MIDDLE AGES

Saadiah of Fayûm (died 892), the most powerful writer against the Karaites, translated the Bible into Arabic and added notes. Besides commentaries on the Bible, Saadiah wrote a systematic treatise bringing revealed religion into harmony with Greek philosophy. He thus became the forerunner of Maimonides and the Catholic Schoolmen. Solomon ben Isaac, called Rashi (born 1040) wrote very popular explanations of the Talmud and the Bible. Abraham Ibn Ezra of Toledo (died 1168) had a good knowledge of Oriental languages and wrote learned commentaries on the Old Testament. He was the first to maintain that Isaias contains the work of two prophets. Moses Maimonides (died 1204), the greatest Jewish scholar of the Middle Ages, of whom his coreligionists said that “from Moses to Moses there was none like Moses,” wrote his “Guide to the Perplexed,” which was read by St. Thomas. He was a great admirer of Aristotle, who was to him the representative of natural knowledge as the Bible was of the supernatural. There were the two Kimchis, especially David (died 1235) of Narbonne, who was a celebrated grammarian, lexicographer, and commentator inclined to the literal sense. He was followed by Nachmanides of Catalonia (died 1270), a doctor of medicine who wrote commentaries of a cabbalistic tendency; Immanuel of Rome (born 1270); and the Karaites Aaron ben Joseph (1294), and Aaron ben Elias (fourteenth century).

(7) MODERN

Isaac Abarbanel (born Lisbon, 1437; died Venice, 1508) was a statesman and scholar. None of his predecessors came so near the modern ideal of a commentator as he did. He prefixed general introductions to each book, and was the first Jew to make extensive use of Christian commentaries. Elias Levita (died 1549) and Azarias de Rossi (died 1577) have also to be mentioned. Moses Mendelssohn of Berlin (died 1786), a friend of Lessing, translated the Pentateuch into German. His commentaries (in hebrew) are close, learned, critical, and acute. He has had much influence in modernizing Jewish methods. Mendelssohn has been followed by Wessely, Jaroslaw, Homberg, Euchel, Friedlander, Hertz, Herxheimer, Philippson, etc., called “Biurists,” or expositors. The modern liberal school among the Jews is represented by Munk, Luzzato, Zunz, Geiger, Fürst, etc. In past ages the Jews attributed both the Written and the Unwritten Torahs to Moses; some modern Jews seem disposed to deny that he had anything to do with either.

II. PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES

The history of Christian exegesis may be roughly divided into three periods: the Age of the Fathers, the Age of Catenæ and Scholia (seventh to sixteenth century), and the Age of Modern Commentaries (sixteenth to twentieth century). Most of the patristic commentaries are in the form of homilies, or discourses to the faithful, and range over the whole of Scripture. There are two schools of interpretation, that of Alexandria and that of Antioch.

(1) ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL

The chief writers of the Alexandrian School were Pantænus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Didymus the blind priest, Cyril of Alexandria, and Pierius. To these may be added St. Ambrose, who, in a moderate degree, adopted their system. Its chief characteristic was the allegorical method. This was doubtless, founded on passages in the Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul, but it received a strong impulse from the writings of Alexandrian Jews, especially of Philo. The great representative of this school was Origen (died 254). From his very earliest years Origen manifested such extraordinary marks of piety and genius that he was held in the very highest reverence by his father, himself a saint and martyr. Origen became the master of many great saints and scholars, one of the most celebrated being St. Gregory Thaumaturgus; he was known as the “Adamantine” on account of his incessant application to study, writing, lecturing, and works of piety. He frequently kept seven amanuenses actively employed; it was said he became the author of 6000 works (Epiphanius, Hær., lxiv, 63); according to St. Jerome, who reduced the number to 2000 (Contra. Rufin., ii, 22), he left more writings than any man could read in a lifetime (Ep. xxxiii, ad Paulam). Besides his great labours on the Hexapla he wrote scholia, homilies, and commentaries on the Old and the New Testament. In his scholia he gave short explanations of difficult passages after the manner of his contemporaries, the annotators of the Greek classics. Most of the scholia, in which he chiefly sought the literal sense, are unfortunately lost, but it is supposed that their substance is embodied in the writings of St. John Chrysostom and other Fathers. In his other works Origen pushed the allegorical interpretation to the utmost extreme. In spite of this, however, his writings were of great value, and with the exception of St. Augustine, no writer of ancient times had such influence. It is lamentable that this great man fell into serious error on the origin of souls, the eternity of hell, etc.

(2) ANTIOCHENE SCHOOL

The writers of the Antiochene School disliked the allegorical method, and sought almost exclusively the literal, primary, or historical sense of Holy Scripture. The principal writers of this school were St. Lucian, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon, Eudoxius, Theognis of Nicæa, Asterius, Arius the heresiarch, Diodorus of Antioch (Bishop of Tarsus), and his three great pupils, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodore’s brother Polychromius, and St. John Chrysostom. With these may be counted St. Ephraem on account of his preference for the literal sense. The great representatives of this school were Diodorus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and St. John Chrysostom. Diodorus, who died Bishop of Tarsus (394), followed the literal to the exclusion of the mystical or allegorical sense. Theodore was born at Antioch, in 347, became Bishop of Mopsuestia, and died in the communion of the Church, 429. He was a powerful thinker, but an obscure and prolix writer. He felt intense dislike for the mystical sense, and explained the Scriptures in an extremely literal and almost rationalistic manner. His pupil, Nestorius, became a founder of heresy; the Nestorians translated his books into Syriac and regarded Theodore as their great “Doctor.” This made Catholics suspicious of his writings, which were finally condemned after the famous controversy on The Three Chapters. Theodore’s commentary on St. John’s Gospel, in Syriac, has recently been published, with a Latin translation, by a Catholic scholar. Dr. Chabot. St. John Chrysostom, priest of Antioch, became Patriarch of Constantinople in 398. As an interpreter of Holy Scripture he stands in the very first rank of the Fathers. He left homilies on most of the books of the Old and the New Testament. There is nothing in the whole of antiquity to equal his writings on St. Matthew’s Gospel and St. Paul’s Epistles. When St. Thomas Aquinas was asked by one of his brethren whether he would not like to be the owner of Paris, so that he could dispose of it to the King of France and with the proceeds promote the good works of his order, he answered that he would prefer to be the possessor of Chrysostom’s “Super Matthæum.” This reply may be taken as the true expression of the high admiration in which the writings of St. Chrysostom have ever been held in the Church. St. Isidore of Pelusium said of him that if the Apostle St. Paul could have used Attic speech he would have explained his own Epistles in the identical words of St. John Chrysostom.

(3) INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL

The other Fathers combined what was best in both these systems, some learning more to the allegorical and some to the literal sense. The principal were Isidore of Pelusium, Theodoret, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrosiaster, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, and Pelagius. St. Jerome, perhaps the greatest Biblical scholar of ancient times, besides his famous translations of the Scripture, and other works, left many useful commentaries, some of great merit. In others he departed too much from the literal meaning of the text. In the hurry of composition he did not always sufficiently indicate when he was quoting from different authors. and this, according to Richard Simon, accounts for his apparent discrepancies.

III. MEDIEVAL COMMENTARIES

The medieval writers were content to draw from the rich treasures left them by their predecessors. Their commentaries consisted, for the most part, of passages from the Fathers, which they connected together as in a chain, catena (q. v.). We cannot give more than the names of the principal writers, with the century after each. Though they are not all known as catenists they may be regarded as such, for all practical purposes.

(1) GREEK CATENISTS

Procopius of Gaza (sixth century) was one of the first to write a catena. He was followed by St. Maximus, Martyr (seventh), St. John Damascene (eighth), Olympiodorus (tenth), Œcumenius (tenth), Nicetas of Constantinople (eleventh), Theophylactus, Archbishop in Bulgaria (eleventh), Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth), and the writers of anonymous catenæ edited by Cramer and Cardinal Mai.

(2) LATIN CATENISTS, SCHOLIASTS, ETC.

The principal Latin commentators of this period were the Venerable Bede, Walafrid Strabo, Anselm of Laon, Hugh of Saint-Cher, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Nicholas de Lyra. The Venerable Bede (seventh to eighth century), a good Greek and Hebrew scholar, wrote a useful commentary on most of the books of the Old and the New Testament. It is in reality a catena of passages from Greek and Latin Fathers judiciously selected and digested. Walafrid Strabo (ninth century), a Benedictine, wrote the “Glossa Ordinaria” on the entire Bible. It is a brief explanation of the literal and mystical sense, based on Rabanus Maurus and other Latin writers, and was one of the most popular works during the Middle Ages, being as well known as “The Sentences” of Peter Lombard. Anselm, Dean of Laon, and professor at Paris (twelfth century), wrote the “Glossa Interlinearis,” so called because the explanation was inserted between the lines of the Vulgate. The Dominican cardinal, Hugh of Saint-Cher (Hugo de Sancto Caro, thirteenth century), besides his famous “Concordance,” composed a short commentary on the whole of the Scriptures, explaining the literal, allegorical, analogical, and moral sense of the text. His work was called “Postillæ,” i. e. post illa (verba textus), because the explanation followed the words of the text. St. Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century) left commentaries on Job, Psalms, Epistles of St. Paul, and was the author of the well-known “Catena Aurea” on the Gospels. This consists of quotations from over eighty Greek and Latin Fathers. He throws much light on the literal sense and is most happy in illustrating difficult points by parallel passages from other parts of the Bible. Nicholas de Lyra (thirteenth century), a converted Jew, joined the Franciscans in 1291, and brought to the service of the Church his great knowledge of Hebrew and rabbinical learning. He wrote short notes or “Postillæ” on the entire Bible, and set forth the literal meaning with great ability, especially of the books written in Hebrew. This work was most popular, and in frequent use during the late Middle Ages, and Luther was indebted to it for his display of learning. A great impulse was given to exegetical studies by the Council of Vienne which decreed, in 1311, that chairs of Hebrew, Chaldean, and Arabic should be established at Paris, Oxford, Bologna, and Salamanca.

Besides the great writers already mentioned the following are some of the principal exegetes, many of them Benedictines, from patristic times till the Council of Trent: Cassiodorus (sixth century); St. Isidore of Seville (seventh); St. Julian of Toledo (seventh); Alcuin (eighth); Rabanus Maurus (ninth); Druthmar (ninth); Remigius of Auxerre (ninth); St. Bruno of Würzburg, a distinguished Greek and Hebrew scholar; St. Bruno, founder of the Carthusians (eleventh); Gilbert of Poirée; St. Rupert (twelfth); Alexander of Hales (thirteenth); Albertus Magnus (thirteenth); Paul of Burgos (fourteenth to fifteenth); Alphonsus Tostatus of Avila (fifteenth); Ludolph of Saxony; and Dionysius the Carthusian, who wrote a pious commentary on the whole of the Bible; Jacobus Faber Stapulensis (fifteenth to sixteenth); Gagnæus (fifteenth to sixteenth). Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan (sixteenth) wrote in a scientific spirit, but have been justly blamed for some rash opinions.

IV. MODERN CATHOLIC COMMENTARIES

The influx of Greek scholars into Italy on the fall of Constantinople, the Christian and anti-Christian Renaissance, the invention of printing, the controversial excitement caused by the rise of Protestantism, and the publication of polyglot Bibles by Cardinal Ximenes and others, gave renewed interest to the study of the Bible among Catholic scholars. Controversy showed them the necessity of devoting more attention to the literal meaning of the text, according to the wise principle laid down by St. Thomas in the beginning of his “Summa Theologica.”

It was then that the sons of St. Ignatius, who founded his order in 1534, stepped into the front rank to repel the attacks on the Church. The Ratio Studiorum of the Jesuits made it incumbent on their professors of Scripture to acquire a mastery of Greek, Hebrew, and other Oriental languages. Salmeron, one of the first companions of St. Ignatius, and the pope’s theologian at the Council of Trent, was a distinguished Hebrew scholar and voluminous commentator. Bellarmine, one of the first Christians to write a Hebrew grammar, composed a valuable commentary on the Psalms, giving an exposition of the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Vulgate texts. It was published as part of Cornelius a Lapide’s commentary on the whole Bible. Cornelius a Lapide, S. J. (born 1566), was a native of the Low Countries, and was well versed in Greek and Hebrew. During forty years he devoted himself to teaching and to the composition of his great work, which has been highly praised by Protestants as well as Catholics. Maldonatus, a Spanish Jesuit, born 1584, wrote commentaries on Isaias, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles (Song of Solomon), and Ecclesiastes. His best work, however, is his Latin commentary on the Four Gospels, which is generally acknowledged to be one of the best ever written. When Maldonatus was teaching at the University of Paris the hall was filled with eager students before the lecture began, and he had frequently to speak in the open air. Great as was the merit of the work of Maldonatus, it was equalled by the commentary on the Epistles by Estius (born at Gorcum, Holland, 1542), a secular priest, and superior of the College at Douai. These two works are still of the greatest help to the student. Many other Jesuits were the authors of valuable exegetical works, e.g.: Francis Ribera of Castile (born 1514); Cardinal Toletus of Cordova (born 1532); Manuel Sa (died 1596); Bonfrère of Dinant (born 1573); Mariana of Talavera (born 1537); Alcazar of Seville (born 1554); Barradius “the Apostle of Portugal”; Sáhchez of Alcalá (died 1628); Serarius of Lorraine (died 1609); Lorinus of Avignon (born 1559); Tirinus of Antwerp (born 1580); Menochius of Pavia; Pereira of Valencia (died 1610); and Pineda of Seville.

The Jesuits were rivalled by Arias Montanus (died 1598), the editor of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible; Sixtus of Siena, O. P. (died 1569); John Wild (Ferus), O. S. F.; Dominic Soto, O. P. (died 1560); Masius (died 1573); Jansen of Ghent (died 1576); Génébrard of Cluny (died 1597); Agellius (died 1608); Luke of Bruges (died 1619); Calasius, O. S. F. (died 620); Malvenda, O. P. (died 1628); Jansen of Ypres; Simeon de Muis (died 1644); Jean Morin, Oratorian (died 1659); Isaac Le Maistre (de Sacy); John Sylveira, Carmelite (died 1687); Bossuet (died 1704); Richard Simon, Oratorian (died 1712); Calmet, Oratorian, who wrote a valuable dictionary of the Bible, of which there is an English translation, and a highly esteemed commentary on all the books of Scripture (died 1757); Louis de Carrières, Oratorian (died 1717); Piconio, Capuchin (died 1709); Lamy, Oratorian (died 1715); Guarin, O. S. B. (died 1729); Houbigant, Oratorian (died 1783); Smits, Recollect (1770); Le Long, Oratorian (died 1721); Brentano (died 1797). During the nineteenth century the following were a few of the Catholic writers on the Bible: Scholz, Hug, Jahn, Le Hir, Allioli, Mayer, van Essen, Glaire, Beelim Haneberg, Meignan, Reithmayr, Patrizi, Loch, Bisping (his commentary on the New Testament styled “excellent” by Vigouroux), Corluy, Fillion, Lesêtre, Trochon (Introductions and Comm. on Old and New Test., “La Sainte Bible,” 27 vols.), Schegg, Bacuez, Kenrick, McEvilly, Arnauld, Schanz (a most valuable work, in German, on the Gospels), Fouard, Maas, Vigouroux (works of Introduction), Ward, McIntyre, etc. Catholics have also published important scientifical books. There is the great Latin “Cursus” on the whole of the Bible by the Jesuit Fathers, Cornely, Knabenbauer, and Hummelauer. The writings of Lagrange (Les Juges), Condamin (Isaïe), Calmes (Saint Jean), Van Hoonacker (Les Douze Petits Prophètes), etc., are all valuable works. For a list of modern Catholic publications on the Scripture, the reader may be referred to the “Revue biblique,” edited by Lagrange (Jerusalem and Paris), and the “Biblische Zeitschrift,’ published by Herder (Freiburg im Breisgau). For further information concerning the principal Catholic commentators see respective articles.

V. NON-CATHOLIC COMMENTARIES

(1) IN GENERAL

The commentaries of the first Reformers, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Zwingli, etc., are mostly controversial, and are now seldom quoted by scholars. Their immediate successors were too energetically engaged in polemics among themselves to devote much time to regular works of exegesis. The following wrote on Holy Scripture during the 17th and 18th centuries. Lutherans: Gerhard; Geier; Calov; S. Schmid; J. H. Michaelis; Lange. Calvinists: Drusius; Louis de Dieu (great Oriental scholar); Cappel; Bochart; Cocceius; Vitringa. Socinians: John Crell and Jonas Schlichting. Arminians: Hugo Grotius (a man of great erudition); Limbroch; John le Clerc (rationalistic). English Writers: Brian Walton (London Polyglot), John Lightfoot (Horæ Heb. et Talm.), both mines of learning; Pearson, etc., editors of “Critici Sacri” (compiled from the best Continental writers, Catholic and Protestant); Mayer; S. Clarke (brief judicious notes); Wells; Gill; John Wesley; Dodd; W. Lowth; R. Lowth; and the editors of the Reformer’s Bible. During the nineteenth century: Priestly (1803); Burder (1809); D’Oyly and Mant (1820); A. Clarke (1826, learned); Boothroyd (1823, Hebrew scholar); Thomas Scott (1822, popular); Matthew Henry (1827, a practical comm. on Old and New Test.); Bloomfield (Greek Test., with Eng. notes, 1832, good for the time); Kuinoel (Philological Comm. on New Test., 1828); Oldshausen (1839); Haevernick (1845); Baumgarten (1859); Tholuck (1843); Trench (Parables, Sermon on the Mount, Miracles, N. T. Syn.—very useful); “The Speakers Commentary” (still valuable); Alford (Greek Test., with critical and exeg. comm., 1856, good); Franz Delitzsch (1870), Ebrard Hengstenberg (1869); Wordsworth (The Greek Test., with notes, 1877); Keil; Ellicott (Epp. of St. Paul, highly esteemed); Conybeare and Howson (St. Paul, containing much useful information); Lange, together with Schroeder, Fay, Cassel, Bacher, Zoeckler, Moll, etc. (Old and N. Test., 1864–78); Lewin (St. Paul, 1878); Beet; Cook; Gloag; Perowne; Bishop Lightfoot (Epp. of St. Paul); Westcott. There were many commentaries published at Cambridge, Oxford, London, etc. (see publishers’ catalogues, and notices in “Expositor,” “Expository Times,” and “Journal of Theological Studies”). Other writers are Farrar, A. B. Davidson, Fausset, Plummer, Plumptre, Salmon, Swete, Bruce, Dods, Stanley, Driver, Kirkpatrick, Sanday, Green, Hovey, Robinson, Schaff, Briggs, Moore, Gould, etc. “The International Critical Commentary” is a work by many distinguished American and English scholars. There are also the Bible dictionaries of Kitto, Smith, and Hastings. Many of these works, especially the later ones, are valuable for their scientific method, though not of equal value for their views or conclusions. [See below (3) The best modern (non-C.) Commentaries in English.

(2) RATIONALISTIC COMMENTARIES

The English deists, Lord Herbert of Cherbury (died 1648), Hobbes, Blount, Toland, Lord Shaftesbury (died 1713), Mandeville, Collins, Woolston (1731), Tindal, Morgan, Chubb, Lord Bolingbroke (died 1751), Annet, and David Hume (died 1776), while admitting the existence of God, rejected the supernatural, and made desperate attacks on different parts of the Old and the New Testament. They were ably refuted by such men as Newton, Cudworth, Boyle, Bentley, Lesley, Locke, Ibbot, Whiston, S. Clarke, Sherlock, Chandler, Gilbert West, George Lord Lytton, Waterland, Foster, Warburton, Leland, Law, Lardner, Watt, Butler. These replies were so effective that in England deism practically died with Hume. In the meantime, unfortunately, the opinions of the English rationalists were disseminated on the Continent by Voltaire and others. In Germany the ground was prepared by the philosophy of Christian Wolff and the writings of his disciple Semler. Great scandal was caused by the posthumous writings of Raimarus, which were published by Lessing between 1774–78 (The Fragments of Wolfenbüttel). Lessing pretended that he discovered the manuscript in the ducal library of Wolfenbüttel and that the author was unknown. According to the “Fragments,” Moses, Christ, and the Apostles were impostors. Lessing was vigorously attacked, especially by Götze; but Lessing, instead of meeting his opponent’s arguments, with great literary skill turned him to ridicule. The rationalists, however, soon realized that the Scriptures had too genuine a ring to be treated as the results of imposture. Eichhorn, in his “Introd. to the Old Test.” (1789), maintained that the Scriptures were genuine productions, but that, as the Jews saw the intervention of God in the most ordinary natural occurrences, the miracles should be explained naturally, and he proceeded to show how. Paulus (1761–1850), following the lead of Eichhorn, applied to the Gospels the naturalistic method of explaining miracles. When Paulus was a boy, his father’s mind became deranged, he constantly saw his deceased wife and other ministering angels, and he perceived miracles everywhere. After a time the young Paulus began to shake off this nightmare and amused himself by taking advantage of his father’s weakness, and playing practical jokes upon him. He grew up with the most bitter dislike for everything supernatural, and his judgment became almost as warped as that of his father, but in the opposite direction. The Apostles and early Christians appeared to him to be people just like his worthy parent, and he thought that they distorted natural facts through the medium of their excited imaginations. This led him to give a naturalistic explanation of the Gospel miracles.

The common sense of the German rationalists soon perceived, however, that if the authenticity of the Sacred Books were admitted, with Eichhorn and Paulus, the naturalistic explanation of these two writers was quite as absurd as the impostor system of Raimarus. In order to do away with the supernatural it was necessary to get rid of the authenticity of the books; and to this the observations of Richard Simon and Astruc readily lent themselves. G. L Bauer, Heyne (died 1812), and Creuzer denied the authenticity of the greater portion of the Pentateuch and compared it to the mythology of the Greeks and Romans. The greatest advocate of such views was de Wette (1780–1849), a pupil of Paulus, of the hollowness of whose method he soon became convinced. In his “Introd. to the Old Test.” (1806) he maintained that the miraculous narratives of the Old Testament were but popular legends, which, in passing from mouth to mouth, in the course of centuries, became transformed and transfused with the marvellous and the supernatural, and were finally committed to writing in perfectly good faith. Strauss (1808–74), in his “Das Leben Jesu” (1835) applied this mythical explanation to the Gospels. He showed most clearly, that if with Paulus the Gospels are allowed to be authentic, the attempt to explain the miracles naturally breaks down completely. Strauss rejected the authenticity and regarded the miraculous accounts in the Gospels as naive legends, the productions of the pious imaginations of the early generations of Christians. The views of Strauss were severely criticized by the Catholics, Kuhn, Mack, Hug, and Sepp, and by the Protestants Neander, Tholuck, Ullman, Lange, Ewald, Riggenbach, Weiss, and Keim. Baur especially, the founder of the Tübingen School, proved that Strauss ran counter to the most clearly established facts of early Christian history, and showed the folly of denying the historical existence of Christ and His transcendent personality. Even Strauss lost all confidence in his own system. Baur, unfortunately, originated a theory which was for a time in great vogue, but which was afterwards abandoned by the majority of critics. He held that the New Testament contains the writings of two antagonistic parties amongst the Apostles and early Christians. His principal followers were Zeller, Schwegler, Planck, Köslin, Ritsch, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Tobler, Keim, Hosten, some of whom, however, emancipated themselves from their master.

Besides the writers already mentioned, the following wrote in a rationalistic spirit: Ernesti (died 1781), Semler (1791), Berthold (1822), the Rosenmüllers, Crusius (1843), Bertheau, De Wette, Hupfeld, Ewald, Thenius, Fritzsche, Justi, Gesenius (died 1842), Longerke, Bleek, Bunsen (1860), Umbreit, Kleinert, Knobel, Nicolas, Hirzel, Kuenen, J. C. K. von Hoffmann, Hitzig (died 1875), Schulz (1869), B. Weiss, Renan, Tuch, H. A. W. Meyer (and his continuators Huther, Luneman, Dusterdieck, Brückner, etc.), Wellhausen, Wieseler, Jülicher, Beyschlag, H. Holtzmann, and his collaborators Schmiedel, von Soden, etc. Holtzmann, while practically admitting the authenticity of the Gospels, especially of St. Mark, endeavours to explain away the miracles. He approaches the subject with his mind made up that miracles do not happen, and he tries to get rid of them by cleverly attempting to show that they are merely echoes of Old Testament miracle stories. In this he is quite as unsuccessful as Paulus, who saw in them only the counterpart of the distorted imaginings of his unfortunate father. Holtzmann is severely taken to task by several writers in the “International Critical Commentary.” The attempt to get rid of the supernatural has completely failed; but the activity of so many acute minds has thrown great light on the language and literature of the Bible.

(3) THE BEST MODERN (NON-CATHOLIC) COMMENTARIES IN ENGLISH

There is a very useful list of such commentaries in “The Expository Times” (vol. XIV, Jan. and Feb., 1903, 151, 203), by Henry Bond, Librarian of Woolwich. It is the result of opinions which he obtained from many of the most renowned English scholars. The number of votes given for the different works is printed after each name; but no name appears on the list unless it received more than five votes. The editor, Dr. James Hastings, added judicious notes and observations (270, 358). The following list is based, in great measure, on these papers, supplemented from other sources. The works are distinguished as follows: (e) excellent; (g) good; (f) fair. Some of those marked (g) and (f) were excellent for the time in which they were published; and they may still be regarded as serviceable. The characterization of each is, of course, from the non-Catholic point of view.

OLD TESTAMENT

Introduction: Driver, “Introd. to the Literature of the Old Test.,” written from a “Higher Critical” standpoint; on the other side is the powerful book by Orr, “The Problem of the Old Testament” (London, 1906). Both contain ample literatures.—Genesis: Skinner, in “International Critical Commentary”; Spurrell (g) (notes on the text); Delitzsch (g), and Dillmann (g); Dods in “Handbook Series.”—Exodus: There is, at present, no first-class commentary on Exod.; Kennedy in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Chadwick (g).—Leviticus: Stenning in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Kalish (g) the best in English; Driver and White (f) in Polychrome Bible; Ginsburg (London); Kellog (f) (London).—Numbers: Buchanan Gray (e) in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Kittell, “History of the Hebrews”; there is little else to refer to, as the others are out of date.—Deuteronomy: Driver (e) in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Harper (g).—Josue: Smith in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Maclear (f).—Judges: Moore (e) in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Watson (f); Lias (f).—Ruth: Briggs in “Int. Crit. Comm..”—Samuel: Smith (e) in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Kirkpatrick (e).—Kings: Brown in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Lumby, an excellent popular work.—Chronicles (Paralip.): Curtis in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; also his article in Hastings, “Dict. of the Bible”; Bennett (g); Barnes (g).—Esdras and Nehemias: Batten in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Ryle’s is an excellent popular commentary; Adeney (f).—Esther: Paton in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Lange (f); Adeney (f).—Job: There appears to be no first-rate students’ commentary on Job; Davidson’s is an excellent popular book; earlier works of Driver, Gibson, and Cox are fair.—Psalms: Briggs (e) in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Delitzsch (e); Kirkpatrick (e); Perowne (g); Cheyne (f).—Proverbs: Toy (e) in “Int. Crit. Comm.”—Ecclesiastes: Barton (e) in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Strong (e); Tyler (g); Plumptre, a good popular comm.; Delitzsch (f); Wright (f).—Song of Solomon (Canticles): Briggs in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Harper, a valuable work; Ginsburg (f).—Isaias: Driver and Gray in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Smith (e); Delitzsch (g); Cheyne (f).—Jeremias: Kirkpatrick in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Streane an excellent popular work; that of Ball and Bennett is good; Orelli (f).—Lamentations: Briggs in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Streane and Adeney, good popular books.—Ezechiel: Cooke and Burney in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Cobern (g); Toy (f) in “Polychrome Bible”; Davidson (e), an excellent popular commentary.—Daniel: Peters in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Kennedy (g); Bevan (g); Driver has a first-class popular commentary.—Amos and Osee: Harper (e) in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; three excellent popular works are by Smith, Driver, and Cheyne.—Other Minor Prophets: Smith, etc., in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Smith (e); Davidson (g), and Perowne (g); Orelli (f); Dods, “Post-exilian Prophets,” in Handbook Series; Low (g); Zechariah (g); Pusey (f).

NEW TESTAMENT

Introduction: Salmon, “Introd. to the New Test.,” an excellent book; Westcott, “Canon of the New Test.” (7th ed., 1896); Lightfoot. “Essays on Supernatural Religion” (1893), a powerful reply to the attacks of an anonymous rationalist on the New Test.; also his “Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,” and Biblical Essays; Ramsay, “St. Paul the Traveller,” “Was Christ born in Bethlehem?,” etc.; Harnack, “St. Luke the Physician,” defends the authenticity of the Gospel and Acts; Hawkins, “Horæ Synopticæ.” Text: “Variorum New Test.”; Weymouth, “The Resultant Greek Test.,” showing the Greek readings of eleven great editions; Westcott and Hort, “The New Test. in Greek,” vol. II, Introd.; Salmon, “Some Criticism of the Text” (1897), a criticism of Westcott and Hort; “The Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the New Test.” (Oxford, 1897); Kenyon, “Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts,” an invaluable book; also his “Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the New Test.” (1901); Hammond, “Outlines of Text. Crit. applied to N. Test.” (Oxford); Nestle (also tr.), and the exhaustive work by von Soden (both in German).—St. Matthew’s Gospel: Allen (e) in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Meyer (e), one of the older works, but still used, Dr. Hastings says, by some of the finest scholars, who keep it always near at hand; Bruce (g) in “Exp. Greek Test.”; Alford (f); Morison (g); Carr (g); “Camb. Greek Test.”—St. Mark: Swete (e); Gould (g) in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Hort (g) Lindsay, an excellent little book.—St. Luke: Plummer (e) in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Wright (g), “St. Luke’s Gospel in Greek”; Godet (g); Farrar (g).—St. John: Westcott (e) in “Speaker’s Comm.,” the most highly praised of all the commentaries on St. John’s Gospel; Bernard in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Godet (g); Milligan and Moulton (g); Dods in “Exp. Gr. Test.” (g); Reith (g).

Acts: Knowling (e), “Exp. Gr. Test.,” one of the best commentaries on Acts in any language; Turner in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Rendall (g); Lumby (g); Rackham (g); Page (g).—Romans: Sanday and Headlam (e) in “Int. Crit. Comm.,” one of the best commentaries in existence on Romans, rendering all other English commentaries superfluous.—I Corinthians: Robertson and Walker in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Evans (g) in “Speaker’s Comm.”; Findlay (g) in “Exp. Greek Test.”; Edwards (g); Ellicott (g); Godet (f); Massie in Century Bible (g).—II Corinthians: Meyer (g), in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Bernard (g) in “Exp. Greek Test.”; Waite (g) in “Speaker’s Commentary.”—Galatians: Lightfoot (e) (London, 1874), a masterpiece of exegesis; Burton in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Rendall (g) in “Exp. Greek. Test.”; ELlicott (g); Ramsay (g); Sanday (g).—Ephesians: Abbott (e) in “Int. Crit. Comm.” (Edinburgh); Armitage Robinson (e); Macpherson (g); Ellicott (g); Salmond (g) in” Exp. Greek Test.”; Alford (f) (London); Meyer (f); Miller, good but daring.—Philippians and Philemon: Lightfoot (e), another masterpiece; Vincent (e) in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Ellicott (f); Moule (g), “Philippian Studies,” and in “Camb. Greek Test.”—Colossians: Lightfoot (e), another great work; Abbott (e) in “Int. Crit. Comm.” (in the same volume as Ephesians); Peake (g) in “Exp. Greek Test.”; Maclaren (g); Ellicott (f); Findlay (f) in “Pulpit Comm.”; Moule (g), “Colossian Studies”—Thessalonians: Milligan (e), highly esteemed; Frame in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Ellicott (e); Meyer and Alford (f); Findlay (e); Denney (g); Mason (g).—Pastoral Epistles: Lock in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Ellicott (e); Bernard (g) in “Camb. Greek Test.”; Meyer (f); Lilley (g) in “Handbook Series”; to these must be added the valuable book by James, “The Genuineness and Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles” (1906).—Hebrews: Westcott (e), on a level with Lightfoot, the greatest work on Hebrews; Nairne in “Int. Crit. Comm.” Davidson (g); Farrar (g).—Ep. of St. James: Mayor (e); Ropes in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Alford and Meyer (f); Plumptre (g).—Epp. of St. Peter and St. Jude: Bigg (e) in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Hort (e), a splendid fragment; Masterman (g), “I Peter “; Salmon (g), “I Peter” in “Popular Commentary.”—Epp. of St. John: Westcott (e), another of his great works; Haupt (g) and Huther (g); Watson (g), “I John.”—Revelation (Apocalypse): Swete (e), the greatest commentary on the Apocalypse; Charles in “Int. Crit. Comm.”; Mulligan (e); Simeox (g); Hort (e).

Jewish Commentators. ABRAHAMS, Short History of Jewish Literature (London, 1906); GRAETZ, History of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1891–98); OESTERLEY AND BOX, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue (London, 1907); BACHER, Bible Exegesis in Jewish Encyc.; SCHECHTER, Talmud in Hist. Dict. Bib.; FARRAR, History of Interpretation (London, 1886); VON SCHÜRER, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1902). Patristic Commentaries.—BARDENHEWER, Gesch. der altkirchlichen Litteratur (Freiburg, 1902–3); IDEM, Patroloqie (1894: Fr. tr., Paris, 1899); TURNER in HAST., Dict. of the Bible, extra vol.; EHRHARD, Altchr. Litteratur (Freiburg, 1900). Later Commentators.—CALMET, Dict. Bib., I; DIXON, General Introd. to the S. Scriptures (Dublin, 1872), II; GIGOT, General introd. to the Holy Scriptures (New York, 1900); RICHARD SIMON, Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du N. T. (Rotterdam. 1689); HORNE, Introd. to the Scriptures (London, 1834), II; HURTER, Nomenclator; VIGOUROUX, Manuel biblique (Paris, 1882); IDEM, Les Livres saints et la critique rationaliste (Paris, 1886), II.

C. AHERNE

Philippe de Commines

(Also COMINES or COMYNES).

French historian and statesman, b. in Flanders probably before 1447; d. at the Château d’Argenton, France, about 1511. He was the son of Colard van den Clyte, chief bailiff of Flanders for the Duke of Burgundy, and of Marguerite d’Armuyden. His family owned the signiory of Commines on the Lys, and some of his ancestors had been aldermen of Ypres. He was brought up as a knight, spoke Flemish and French, but complains that he had never learned Latin-in the course of his travels he had learned Italian. In 1464 Commines was presented at the court of the Duke of Burgundy in Lille and became squire to the duke’s son, the Count of Charolais, afterwards Charles the Bold. From 1464 to 1472 he was in the service of Charles, took part in his expeditions, and in 1465 was present at the battle of Monthéry. After the death of Philip the Good he was made chamberlain to the new Duke of Burgundy (1467). During the interview held at Péronne (1468) Commines was taken into Charles the Bold’s confidence and then turned to Louis XI whom he secretly informed of his master’s intentions. He nevertheless remained in the service of Charles who entrusted him with various missions to the governor of Calais (1470), to Brittany, and to Spain (1471). Nevertheless, on 8 August, 1472, he suddenly abandoned Charles the Bold during the duke’s expedition in Normandy and went to Ponts-de-Cé to join Louis XI. The latter loaded him with favours and estates, and in 1473 arranged his marriage with Hèléne de Chambes, a wealthy heiress whose dowry was the seigniory of Argenton in Poitou. Commines now became one of the king’s confidants and chief diplomatic agents.

However, after the death of Charles the Bold, the frankness with which Commines urged moderation upon the king aroused passing disfavour, but in 1478 Louis XI appointed him to conduct some difficult negotiations with the princes of Italy. After the conspiracy of the Pazzi he saved the power of the Medici, allies of France, who were threatened by the pope and the dukes of Milan; in 1479 he protected the young Duke of Savoy against Lodovico il Moro, and in 1481 succeeded in maintining French influence in Savoy. Upon the death of Louis XI, however, in 1483, at which event he was present, Commines permitted himself, however, to be drawn into the faction of the Duke of Orleans and conspired against the regent, Anne of Beaujeu. In 1487 he was arrested, confined at Loches in one of the iron cages used by Louis XI, and afterwards banished by Parliament to his own estates; he was also deprived of his principality of Talmont which was reclaimed by the La Trémoille family. In 1491 he returned to court and, although opposed to the expedition of Charles VIII into Italy, he nevertheless accompanied it and was sent to Venice, where he was utterly powerless to prevent the intrigues that culminated in the league against Charles VIII (1495). After the battle of Fornovo, he returned to Venice and Milan, where he was totally unsuccessful.

On the accession of Louis XII in 1498, Commines, for some unknown reason, lost caste at court and only reappeared there in 1505, thanks to the influence of Anne of Brittany. His “Mémoires” give but meagre information as to himself and leave many points in doubt; even the exact dates of his birth and death are uncertain, and but little is known of the part he played at Péronne, of his defection in 1472, his retirement at the accession of Louis XII, and of other matters. The “Mémoires” constitute a political history of Europe from 1464 to 1498 and, according to the preface, are material intended exclusively for the use of Angelo Cato, Archbishop of Vienne, who was to write a Latin history of Louis XI. The first part of the work, dealing with the period between 1464 and 1483, was prepared between 1489 and 1491, that containing the account of the reign of Charles VIII being completed in 1498. Commines is rather analytic than graphic, devotes himself more to ascertaining the causes of events than to describing the events themselves; his language seems inferior to his thought and his style is abrupt and periphrastic. The thought bears the impress of the realistic politics of the Renaissance, but the manner of expression is still medieval. The work has been preserved in manuscript and in sixteenth-century editions, the first edition being that of Galliot du Pré (Paris, 1524, fol.). A manuscript, written about 1530, and recovered by de Mandrot, is the only one containing the complete text. The chief editions are those of Mlle Dupont in the publications of the Societé de l’Histoire de France (Paris, 1847, 3 vols.), Chantelauze (Paris, 1881), and de Mandrot (Paris, 1903, 2 vols). Commines’ tomb, on which is a kneeling figure of him and also one of his wife, Hélène de Chambes, is preserved in the Louvre.

Introduction to the editions of MLLE DUPONT and DE MAUDROT; KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, Lettres et négotiations de Philippe de Commines (Brussels, 1874); FIERVILLE, Documents inedits sur Philippe de Commines (Paris, 1881); CHANTELAUZE, Philippe de Commynes in the Correspondant (1880–81); SCOBLE, tr. in Bohn’s Library of French Memoirs (London, 1865), I, II. Commines’ tomb is reproduced in PETIT DE JULLEVILLE, Histoire de la littérature française (Paris, 1896), II, 330.

LOUIS BRÉHIER

Commissariat of the Holy Land

In the Order of Friars Minor the territory or district assigned to a commissary, whose duty it is to collect alms for the maintenance of the Holy Places in Palestine committed to the care of the Friars Minor; also, in a more restricted sense, the convent where the aforesaid commissary resides. The commissary, who is always a member of the order, receives his appointment by letters patent from the minister general, to whom he is bound to transmit every year a detailed account of the alms received. These aims may not, under any circumstances, without express permission of the Holy See, be applied to other purposes, however pious and meritorious, under grave ecclesiastical penalties. The alms taken up by the bishops at the annual collections for the Holy Land are conveyed to the custos in Jerusalem through the commissary in whose district the dioceses of the bishops are situated. There are at present forty commissariats throughout the Christian world. The most ancient is that of Naples, founded in 1333, when Robert of Anjou redeemed the Holy Places from the Sultan of Egypt. In English-speaking countries there are seven—three in the united States, one in Canada, one in Great Britain, one in Ireland, and one in Australia. The Commissariat of the United States was founded in 1882, and the commissary resides in the new convent of Mount St. Sepulchre, Washington, D. C. In 1902, commissariats were erected in California and at St. Louis.

Conspectus Omnium Missionum Ord. FF. Minorum exhibitus Capitulo Gererali Romœ habito die 30 Maii, 1903 (Rome, 1903); Regula et Constitutiones Generales Fratr. Minorum (Rome, 1897); several Bulls and Briefs issued at different periods by the Holy See, of which the following are the principal SIXTUS V, Nostri pastoralis (13 Dec., 1589); PAUL V. Cœlestis Regis (22 Jan., 1618); URBAN VIII, Alias a felicis (18 June, 1634) in Bull. Rom., XV, 320 sqq.; BENEDICT XIV, Emanarunt nuper (20 Aug., 1743) in Bullar. Benedict. XIV (Prato, 1845), I, 313; Pius VI, Inter cætera (31 July, 1778) in Bull. Rom. Cont. (Turin), VI, pt. I 505; LEO XIII, Salvatoris (26 Dec., 1887). See also S. C. S. Officii (28 June, 1876); S. C. Prop. Fide (20 Feb., 1891) in Collectanea S. C. Prop., n. 1632, 1638.

GREGORY CLEARY

Commissary Apostolic

(Lat. Commissarius Apostolicus)

A commissary is one who has received power from a Legitimate superior authority to pass judgment in a certain cause or to take informations concerning it. When such a delegate has been appointed by the pope, he is called a commissary Apostolic.

The custom of appointing such commissaries by the Holy See is a very ancient one. A noteworthy instance is the commission issued to St. Cryil of Alexandria by Pope Celestine I, in the early part of the fifth Century, by which that holy patriarch was empowered to judge Nestorius in the pope’s name. English history furnishes, among other instances, that of the commission which constituted Cardinals Wolsey and Campeggio papal representatives for the judicial hearing of the divorce case of Henry VIII. Sometimes Apostolic commissions are constituted permanently by the Holy See. Such are the various Roman congregations presided over by the cardinals. The full extent of the authority of commissaries Apostolic must be learnt from the diploma of their appointment. The usual powers which they possess, however, are defined in the common law of the Church. Commissaries are empowered not only for judicial but also for executive purposes. When a papal commission mentions explicitly certain persons and certain things as subject to the authority of a commissary, and then adds in general that “other persons and other things” (quidam alii et res aliœ) are also included, it is understood that the latter phrase refers only to persons and things of equal or lower importance than those that are expressly named, and under no circumstances can the commissary’s power extend to what is higher or more dignified (Cap. xv, de rescript.). If a bishop be appointed commissary Apostolic in matters that already belong to his ordinary jurisdiction, he does not thereby receive a delegated jurisdiction superadded to that which he already possessed; such an Apostolic commission is said to excite, not to alter, the prelate’s ordinary jurisdiction.

As a commissary Apostolic is a delegate of the Holy See, an appeal may be made to the pope against his judgments or administrative acts. When several commissaries have been appointed for the same case, they are to act together as one; but if, owing to death or any other cause, one or other of the commissaries should be hindered from acting, the remaining members have full power to execute their commission. In case the commissaries be two in number and they disagree in the judgment to be given, the matter must be decided by the Holy See. A commissary Apostolic has the power to subdelegate another person for the cause committed to him, unless it has been expressly stated in his diploma that, owing to the importance of the matter at issue, he is to exercise jurisdiction personally. By the plenitude of his power, the pope can constitute a layman commissary Apostolic for ecclesiastical affairs, but according to the common law only prelates or clerics of the higher orders should receive such a commission (Lib. Sext., c. II, de rescr., 1, 3). The Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, c. xvi, de Ref.) prescribes that each bishop should transmit to the Holy See the names of four persons capable of receiving such delegation for his diocese. It has consequently become customary for the pope to choose commissaries Apostolic from the locality where they are to investigate or pass judgment or execute a mandate.

HUMPHREY, Urbs a Orbis (London, 1899); ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dict. de droit canon. (Paris, 1901), I; PIGNATELLI, Consult. Canon. (Venice, 1894), IX.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING

Ecclesiastical Commissions

Ecclesiastical Commissions are bodies of ecclesiastics juridically established and to whom are committed certain specified functions or charges. They are:

I. Pontifical;

II. Roman Prelatitial;

III. Diocesan.

I. Pontifical commissions are special committees of cardinals created by the pope for some particular purpose, e. g. for the proper interpretation and defence of Sacred Scripture (see BIBLICAL COMMISSION), for historical studies (see ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY), for the codification of the canon law (see LAW), for the supervision, correction, etc. of the liturgical books of the Roman Church, e. g. the Breviary, Missal, Pontifical, Ritual, etc. (see BREVIARY; LITURGY), for the restoration and perfection of ecclesiastical music (see GREGORIAN CHANT), for the reunion of dissenting churches (see EASTERN CHURCH), for the preservation of the Faith (see ITALY; ROME).

II. Prelatitial commissions are composed of Roman prelates, secretaries, consultors, etc., and may be presided over by a cardinal. Such, e. g., are the Commission of Sacred Archæology (see ARCHÆOLOGY), for the preservation and illustration of the Christian antiquities of Rome, the commission for the administration of Peter’s-pence (q.v.), and the Palatine Commission (established by Leo XIII) for the settlement of controversies or lawsuits between the personnel of the Vatican or other papal residences. Most of these commissions, however, are attached to the Roman Congregations, as special departments or sections, and are described in the article CONGREGATIONS, ROMAN, e. g. the Liturgical Commission attached to the Congregation of Rites; the commissions for the examination of episcopal reports, for the revision and correction of the liturgical books of the Eastern Church (q. v.), and for the examination of religious institutes in Propaganda territory, all three attached to the Congregation of Propaganda; for the examination of new religious institutes attached to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars; for the selection of bishops in Italy (now suppressed and its attributions vested in the Congregation of the Inquisition).

III. The diocesan commissions provided for by general ecclesiastical law are four: the commission for seminaries (in two sections for spiritual and temporal concerns, respectively), according to the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, cap. xviii, De ref.), for which see SEMINARY, ECCLESIASTICAL; the commission of examiners of the clergy (see EXAMINERS, SYNODAL), to aid in the control of all competition for vacant parochial benefices; the commission on sacred music (Motu proprio of Pius X, 22 Nov., 1903) for the improvement of the character and execution of ecclesiastical music in the churches; a vigilance committee (Consilium a vigilantia) for the repression of modernism (Pius X, “Pascendi Dominici Gregis,” 8 Sept., 1907). In many dioceses of England there exist diocesan school commissions or associations. There exists also in England (since 1853) for each diocese a commission of investigation for criminal and disciplinary causes of ecclesiastics (Taunton, 210–213); a similar commission for the dioceses of the United States, established by Propaganda in 1878, was abrogated in 1884 in favour of a new form of procedure, detailed in the Instruction of that year, “Cum Magnopere.” For Ireland see “Acta et Decreta,” by the Synod of Maynooth (1900), p. 75; and for Scotland, Taunton, op. cit., 214–20. The scope, authority, and attributions of these bodies are described either in the pontifical documents that create them, or in the legislation pertaining to the Roman congregations, or in the common ecclesiastical law and its authoritative interpretations.

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (Paris 1899); BAUMGARTEN, Der Papst, die Regierung und Verwaltung der heiligen Kirche in Rom (Munich, 1904); TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), 209–22.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN.

Commodianus

A Christian poet, the date of whose birth is uncertain, but generally placed at about the middle of the third century, or between the end of Diocletian’s persecution and the issuing of the edict of Maxentius (305–11). It has lately been asserted, however, that Commodianus lived under Julian or even in the middle of the fifth century. He is not known outside of his own writings except through a notice by Gennadius, “De Viris Illustribus” (ch. xv), and the condemnation of Pseudo-Gelasius, who prohibits the reading of his books (“De Libris recipiendis et non recipiendis,” in Migne, P. L., LIX, 163) Gennadius seems to draw his information chiefly from the works themselves, and claims that Commodianus imitated Tertullian, Lactantius, and Papias. From two passages in his manuscripts it was gleaned that Commodianus came from Gaza in Palestine and had been invested with the episcopal dignity, but the first of these passages has a very uncertain meaning, and the second has been attributed to the mistake of a copyist. Commodianus declares that he is not a “doctor,” which has led to the belief that he was a layman. He styles himself “mendicant of Christ,” mendicus Christi, but that could also mean “one who implores Christ” or “one who begs for Christ.” What is certain, however, is that, after various religious experiences, such as associating with pagans and practising the occult sciences, and probably conforming to the religious doctrines and rites of the Jews, he adopted Christianity, having been converted by reading the Bible.

His works are a collection of ‘Instructions” and a “Carmen apologeticum.” The former consists of eighty acrostic, or abecedarian, essays, divided into two books. The plan of this work and the Biblical quotations introduced therein reveal the influence of St. Cyprian’s “Testimonia.” The first book is against the Jews and pagans, the second being addressed to different categories of the faithful: catechumens, baptized Christians, penitents, matrones, clerks, priests, and bishops. In parts its tone is decidedly satirical. The author is manifestly engrossed with ethics, and recommends alms-deeds above all else. The “Carmen apologeticum” has a misleading title, thanks to Pitra, its first editor (1852). It may be divided into four parts: a preamble (1–88); a résumé of the doctrine on God and Christ (89–578); a demonstration of the necessity of faith for salvation (379–790); and a description of the end of the world (791–1060). It is principally this picture that has made the name of Commodianus famous. According to it the Christians are a prey to a seventh persecution—the number is symbolical and indicates the last persecution. The Goths surprise and destroy Rome. Suddenly Nero, the Antichrist of the West, reappears, recaptures Rome from the Goths, associates himself with two Cæsars and maltreats the Christians for three and a half years. Then a second Antichrist, the man from Persia, comes from the East, conquers Nero, burns Rome, establishes himself in Judea, and works wonders. But God, with an army of the blessed. advances from beyond Persia in a triumphal march; Antichrist is overcome, and Christ and His saints settle in Jerusalem. To learn what follows we must consult the “Instructions” (II, 1–4). First of all the elect rise from the dead and for 1000 years lead lives of pleasure and happiness. At the end of that time the world is destroyed by fire, Christ appears, and all the dead arise for the Last Judgment, which leads either to the joys of Paradise or the pains of Hell.

The sources of Commodianus’s information were the Bible—principally the Apocalypse, the Prophets, and the Fourth Book of Esdras—the Sibylline oracles, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Cyprian, and Lactantius. From Terence, Lucretius, Horace, Cicero, and most of all from Virgil, he borrows modes of expression. His theology is not reliable; besides Millenarianism, he seems to profess Monarchianism and Patripassianism, two heresies in regard to the Trinity. His language is not only crude, but incorrect, and it would be a mistake to seek in Commodianus the origin of versification based on accent. Although unacquainted with prosody, he tries to write in dactylic hexameter, and succeeds in only 63 out of more than 2000 verses. However, his shortcomings are somewhat atoned for by his use of parallelism, rhyme, and the acrostic, and the regular division of his verses; moreover, in spite of its defects, his work is decidedly energetic. He has well-defined formulæ, he conjures up magnificent pictures, and among the many artists and writers who have attempted a portrayal of the end of the world, Commodianus occupies a prominent place. His works have been edited by Ludwig (Leipzig, 1877–78) and by Dombart (Vienna, 1877, in “Corpus scriptorum eccles. latinorum,” XV). The poem against Marcio, attributed by some critics to Commodianus, is the work of an imitator.

SCHANZ, Geschichte der römischen Literatur in the Handbuch der klassischen, Altertumswissenschaft of VON MÜLLER (Munich, 1905), VIII, pt. III, 427–36; MONCEAUX, Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne (Paris, 1905), III, 451–89; BREWER, Kommodian von Gaza, ein arelatensischer Laiendichter aus der Mitte des fünften Jahrhunderts (Paderborn, 1906)—the thesis implied in this title is very uncertain, see Revue critique d’histoire et de littérature (Paris, 1907), II, 199.

PAUL LEJAY

Commodus

(MARCUS AURELIUS COMMODUS ANTONINUS).

Roman Emperor, born 161; died at Rome, 31 December, 192. He was the son of Marcus Aurelius and Anna Faustina, and was the first among the Roman emperors to enjoy the distinction of being born in the purple.

His reign, 180–193, was the turning-point in the greatness of Rome. Some historians have attempted to exonerate Commodus from the charge of innate depravity and to attribute the failure of his career to weakness of character and vicious associates. It is, however, undeniable that a condition, which resulted in the slow but inevitable destruction of the Roman power, was brought about by the lack of capacity and evil life of Commodus, coupled with the overcentralization in Roman administration by which, since the time of Augustus, the most absolute power in the State and religious affairs had been gradually vested in the person of the emperor.

Every stage in the career of Commodus was marked by greed and suspicion, producing, as might be expected in those times, wholesale confiscation and numerous murders. One result of his cruel policy was to divert attention for a time from the Christians and to lead to a partial cessation of persecution. No edicts were issued against the Christians who, though persecuted by the proconsuls in some provinces, enjoyed a period of respite and comparative immunity from pursuit. There were many Christians at the court of Commodus and in the person of Marcia, the concubine or morganatic wife of the emperor, they had a powerful advocate through whose kind offices on one occasion many Christian prisoners were released from the mines in Sardinia. Commodus was murdered by strangling, one of the conspirators being Marcia. There is no evidence that the Christians were in any way connected with his death.

The works of Dio Cassius, Herodian, Aurelius Victor, and Eutropius, and the Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ are the principal pagan sources. Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Eusebius are the principal Christian sources. The Roman histories of Gibbon, Merivale, Duruy, and Schiller should also be consulted.

PATRICK J. HEALY.

Brethren of the Common Life

A community founded by Geert De Groote, of rich burgher stock, born at Deventer in Gelderland in 1340; died 1384. Having read at Cologne, at the Sorbonne, and at Prague, he took orders and obtained preferment—a canon’s stall at Utrecht and another at Aachen. His relations with the German Gottesfreunde and the writings of Ruysbroek, who later became his friend, gradually inclined him to mysticism, and on recovering from an illness in 1373 he resigned his prebends, bestowed his goods on the Carthusians of Arnheim, and lived in solitude for seven years. Then, feeling himself constrained to go forth and preach, he went from place to place calling men to repentance, proclaiming the beauty of Divine love, and bewailing the relaxation of ecclesiastical discipline and the degradation of the clergy. The effect of his sermons was marvellous; thousands hung on his lips. “The towns,” says Moll, “were filled with devotees; you might know them by their silence, their ecstasies during Mass, their mean attire, their eyes, flaming or full of sweetness.” A little band of these attached themselves to Groote and became his fellow-workers, thus becoming the first “Brethren of the Common Life.” The reformer, of course, was opposed by the clerks whose evil lives he denounced, but the cry of heresy was raised in vain against one who was no less zealous for purity of faith than for purity of morals. The best of the secular clergy enrolled themselves in his brotherhood, which in due course was approved by the Holy See. Groote, however, did not live long enough to perfect the work he had begun. He died in 1384, and was succeeded by Florence Radewyns, who two years later founded the famous monastery of Windesheim which was thenceforth the centre of the new association.

The Confraternity of the Common Life resembled in several respects the Beghard and Beguine communities which had flourished two centuries earlier and were then decadent. The members took no vows, neither asked nor received alms; their first aim was to cultivate the interior life, and they worked for their daily bread. The houses of the brothers and sisters alike occupied themselves exclusively with literature and education, and priests also with preaching. When Groote began, learning in the Netherlands was as rare as virtue; the University of Louvain had not yet been founded, and the fame of the schools of Liège was only a memory. Save for a clerk here and there who had studied at Paris or Cologne, there were no scholars in the land; even amongst the higher clergy there were many who were ignorant of Latin, and the burgher was quite content if when his children left school they were able to read and write. Groote determined to change all this, and his disciples accomplished much. Through their unflagging toil in the scriptorium and afterwards at the press they were able to multiply their spiritual writings and to scatter them broadcast throughout the land, instinct with the spirit of the “Imitation.” Amongst them are to be found the choicest flowers of fifteenth-century Flemish prose. The Brethren spared no pains to obtain good masters, if necessary from foreign parts, for their schools, which became centres of spiritual and intellectual life; amongst those whom they trained or who were associated with them were men like Thomas à Kempis, Dierick Maertens, Gabriel Biel, and the Dutch Pope Adrian VI.

Before the fifteenth century closed, the Brethren of the Common Life had studded all Germany and the Netherlands with schools in which the teaching was given for the love of God alone. Gradually the course, at first elementary, embraced the humanities, philosophy, and theology. The religious orders looked askance at these Brethren, who were neither monks nor friars, but the Brethren found protectors in Popes Eugenius IV, Pius II, and Sixtus IV. The great Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa had been their pupil and became their stanch protector and benefactor. He was likewise the patron of Rudolph Agricola, who in his youth at Zwolle had sat at the feet of Thomas à Kempis; and so the Brethren of the Common Life, through Cusa and Agricola, influenced Erasmus and other adepts in the New Learning. More than half of the crowded schools—in 1500 Deventer counted over two thousand students—were swept away in the religious troubles of the sixteenth century. Others languished until the French Revolution, while the rise of universities, the creation of diocesan seminaries, and the competition of new teaching orders gradually extinguished the schools that regarded Deventer and Windesheim as their parent establishments. A life of De Groote is to be found among the works of Thomas à Kempis.

DELPRAT, Over de Broederschap van Groot (Utrecht, 1830); KETTLEWELL, Thomas à Kempis and the Brothers of the Common Life (London, 1882).

ERNEST GILLIAT-SMITH.

Philosophy of Common Sense

The term common sense designates (1) a special faculty, the sensus communis of the Aristotelean and Scholastic philosophy; (2) the sum of original principles found in all normal minds; (3) the ability to judge and reason in accordance with those principles (recta ratio, good sense). It is the second of these meanings that is implied in the philosophy of common sense—a meaning well expressed by Fenelon when he identifies common sense with “those general ideas or notions which I can neither contradict nor examine, but according to which I examine and decide on everything; so that I smile rather than answer whenever anything is proposed to me that obviously runs counter to those unchangeable ideas” (De l’existence de Dieu, p. XXII, c. ii). The philosophy of common sense sometimes called Scottish philosophy from the nationality of its exponents (though not all Scottish philosophers were adherents of the Common Sense School), represents one phase of the reaction against the idealism of Berkeley and Hume which in Germany was represented by Kant. The doctrine of ideas, which Locke had adopted from Descartes, had been made use of by Berkeley as the foundation of his theory of pure idealism, which resolved the external world into ideas, without external reality, but directly impressed on the mind by Divine power. Hume, on the other hand, had contended that there was no ground for assuming the existence of any mental substance as the subjective recipient of impressions and ideas, all that we know of mind being a succession of states produced by experience. Thus, between the two, both subject and object disappeared, and philosophy ended in mere scepticism.

Thomas Reid (1710–1796), whose dissent from Locke’s doctrine of ideas had been to some extent anticipated by Francis Hutcheson (1694–1746), set out to vindicate the common sense, or natural judgement, of mankind, by which the real existence of both subject and object is held to be directly known (natural realism). He argued that if it cannot be proved that there is any real external world or continuously existing mind, the true conclusion is not that these have no existence or are unknowable, but that our consciousness of them is an ultimate fact, which neither needs nor is capable of proof, but is itself the ground of all proof. “All knowledge and all science must be built upon principles that are self-evident; and of such principles every man who has common sense is a competent judge” (Works, ed. 1863, p. 422). Dugald Stewart (1753–1828), who followed Reid’s method without serious modification, was more precise, and gave greater prominence than Reid to his doctrine of “suggestion,” or the association of ideas. Dr. Thomas Brook (1778–1820), while accepting Reid’s main principal, carried the analysis of the phenomena of perception further than either Reid or Stewart, resolving some of their first principles into elements of experience, particularly in his treatment of the notion of causality. Sir James Mackintosh (1765–1832) adopted the principles of common sense, but accepted the utilitarian criterion of morality, held by the school of Hartly, and applied the analytic method to the moral faculty which Reid had taken to be “an original power in man.” Sir William Hamilton (1788–1856) illustrated the prin- ciple of common sense with wider learning and greater philosophical acumen than any of his predecessors. He was much influenced by Kant, and he introduced into his system distinctions which the Common Sense School had not recognized. While professing himself a natural realist, he held a somewhat extreme doctrine of the relativity of knowledge. His comments on Reid indicate many ambiguities and inaccuracies on the part of that author. James Oswald (1727–1793) made use of Reid’s principles in support of religious belief, and James Beattie (1735–1803) in defence of the existence of a moral faculty.

The common sense philosophy, adopting the Baconian method of “interrogation,” or analysis, rejects, as contrary to the universal convictions of mankind, the notion of ideas as a tertium quid intervening between the object perceived and the perceiving subject. All knowledge comes by way of sensation; and the reality of the external object is implied in sensation, together with the metaphysical principle of the existence of bodily and mental substance, of causality, and of design and intelligence in causation. What sensation is in itself it is impossible to say; it is an ultimate fact, and cannot be described or defined. But sensations are clearly not images or ideas of the objects which cause them; there is no resemblance between the pain of a wound and the point of a sword. Reid and his successors insist on the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, the former (extension, figure, hardness, etc.) being “suggested” by sensations as essentially belonging to the object perceived, and the latter (as colour, taste, smell, etc.) being no more than sensations in the subject arising from qualities of the object which are only accidental or contingent. Hamilton, however, subdivides secondary qualities into secondary and secundo-primary, a distinction now generally considered to be ill-founded. The mental powers are divided into intellectual and active, a distinction corresponding to the peripatetic classification of cognitive and appetitive. All cognition has thus an intellectual element, and takes place by way of suggestion, or association (a theory in which Reid was anticipated by Hutcheson). In cognition the mind is partly active and partly passive; the notion that it is a mere receptacle for ideas is rejected. Consciousness is regarded by Reid as a separate faculty, somewhat resembling the scholastic sensus communis; Brown and Hamilton dissent from this view, holding “consciousness” to be merely a general expression for the fundamental condition of all mental activity. The idea of causality, which implies the universal necessity of causation, cannot be educed from experience, since necessity (as opposed to mere invariableness) cannot be known by experience; it is therefore an original principle in the mind. In like manner, the will is known immediately as free; its freedom is not susceptible of proof but is intuitively recognized; and it is from the consciousness of will-power in ourselves that we derive our notion of causation. Brown, however, while accepting Reid’s intuitional view of the idea of causality, inclines towards Hume in his definition of causation as no more than invariable sequence; he also differs from Reid in making will a modification of desire or appetite. The belief in the uniformity of nature, on which all scientific discovery is based, is held by Reid to be an original principle in the mind. Conscience, or the moral sense, is taken to be an original faculty by the Common Sense School in general, with the exception of Mackintosh, who derives the so-called faculty in great measure from the influence of social experience upon the will.

The psychological analysis of this school is valuable; but its main principle has been considerably weakened by contact with Kantian criticism and the evolutionist doctrine, and with Hamilton lost much of its polemical effectiveness. “The philosophy of Common Sense, devised by Reid as a safeguard against Scepticism and Idealism, was so transmuted by Hamilton as to lead back again to the conclusion that nothing can be known, and consequently that nothing can be affirmed or denied, beyond the fleeting phenomena of consciousness” (Laurie, Scottish Philosophy, p. 291). In France, Royer-Collard (1763–1845) introduced the principles of the Scottish School; Jouffroy (1796–1842) translated the works of Reid; and Cousin (1792–1867) in his “Philosophie ecossaise” praised Reid’s philosophy in the highest terms. It may be safely said that the materialistic tendency of French speculation was checked by the influences derived from the philosophy of common sense.

Hutchenson, Essay on the Passions and Affections (London, 1728). Idem, Metaphysical Synopsis (London, 1742). Idem, System of Moral Phil. (Glasgow, 1755). Reid, Works, with preface, notes, and dissertation by Hamilton (Edinburgh, 1846); new ed. by Mansel (1863). Buffier, Premieres Verites (tr. London, 1781), “with a detection of the plagiarism, concealment, and ingratitude of Drs. Reid, Beattie, and Oswald.” Jouffroy, Oeuvres completes de Reid (Paris, 1829). Oswald, Appeal to Common Sense (Edinburgh, 1768). Beattie, Essay on Truth (Aberdeen, 1770). Idem, Elements of Moral Science (1790). Priestly, Examination of Reid, etc. (London, 1774). Stewart, Complete Works (Cambridge, Mass., 1829–31); ed. with additions and memoir by Sir W. Hamilton and completed by Veitch (Edinburgh, 1858). Brown, Inquiry into Relation of Cause and Effect (Edinburgh, 1804). Idem, Lectures on the Phil. of the Human Mind (Edinburgh, 1820). Mackintosh, On the Progress of Ethical Philosophy in Encyc. Brit. (1830); ed. with preface by Whewell (Philadelphia, 1832). Idem, two papers in Edinburgh Review, XXVII, XXXVI. Hamilton, Lectures, ed. Mansel and Veitch (London, Edinburgh, and Boston, 1860). Idem, Essays in Edinburgh Review (1829–30–32). Idem, Metaphysics, ed. Bowen (Cambridge, Mass., 1870); see Mill, Exam. of Hamilton’s Philosophy (London, 1865). McCosh, Scottish Philosophy (London, 1875). Seth (A. S. Pringle-Pattison), Scottish Philosophy (Edinburgh and London, 1885 and 1900). Ferrier, Reid and the Philosophy of Common Sense (1847) in Ferrier’s Works (Edinburgh and London, 1883), III, 407; see also Maher, Psychology (London, 1903), 33, 49, 102 sqq. James, Pragmatism (London and New York, 1907), lect v. Laurie, Scottish Philosophy in its National Development (London and Glasgow, 1902).

A.B. SHARPE

Martyrs of the Paris Commune

The secular priests and the religious who were murdered in Paris, in May 1871, on account of their sacred calling. They may be divided into three groups:

those who on the 24th of May were executed within the prison of La Roquette;

the Dominican Fathers, who, on the following day, were shot down at the Barrière d’ Italie;

the priests and religious who, on the 26th of May were massacred at Belleville.

The revolutionary party which took possession of the city after the siege of Paris by the Prussians began, in the last days of March, to arrest the priests and religious to whom personal character or official position gave a certain prominence. No reason was given for these arbitrary measures, except the hatred with which the leaders of the Commune regarded the Catholic Church and her ministers.

(1) At the head of the first group of martyrs is the Archbishop of Paris, Monseigneur Georges Darboy, to whom the discomforts of his prison life were peculiarly trying on account of his feeble health. His fellow sufferers were: the Abbé Duguerry, curé of the important parish of La Madeleine, an old man, well-advanced in years, but bright and vigorous; the Abbé Allard, a secular priest, who had rendered good service to the wounded during the siege, and two Jesuit Fathers Ducoudray and Clerc. The first was rector of the Ecole Sainte-Geneviève, a well known preparatory school for the army: the second had been a distinguished naval officer; both were gifted and holymen. To these five ecclesiastics was added a magistrate, Senator Bonjean. After several weeks of confinement, first in the prison or Mazas, then at La Roquette, these six prisoners were executed on 24 May. There was no pretense made of judging them, neither was any accusation brought against them. This revolutionary party still held possession of the east of Paris, but the regular army, whose headquarters were at Versailles, was fast approaching, and the leaders of the Commune, made desperate by failure, wished to inflict what evil they could on an enemy they no longer hoped to conquer. The priests had, one and all, endured their captivity with patience and dignity the Jesuits, their letters prove it, had no illusions as to their probable fate, Archbishop Darboy and the Abbé Deguerry were more sanguine. “What have they to gain by killing us? What harm have we done them?” often said the latter. The execution took place in the evening. The archbishop absolved his companions who were calm and recollected. They were told to stand against a wall, within the precincts of the prison, and here they were shot down at close quarters by twenty men, enlisted for the purpose. The archbishop’s hand was raised to give a last blessing: “Here take my blessing,” said one of the murders and by discharging his gun he give the signal for the execution.

(2) The Dominican Fathers, who perished the following day 25 May, belonged to the College of Arcueil, close to Paris. Their superior was Father Captier, who founded the college and under whose government it had prospered. With him were for religious of his order: Fathers Bourard, Delhorme Cottrault, and Chatagneret, and eight laymen, who belonged to the college, either as professors or as servants. They were arrested on the 19th of May and imprisoned in the outlying fort of Bicêtre, where they suffered from hunger and thirst. On the 25th of May they were transferred from Bicêtre to a prison within the city, situated on the Avenue d’ Italie. The excitement and anarchy that reigned in Paris, and the insults that were levelled at the prisoners as they were led from one prison to another prepared them for the worst; they made their confession and prepared for death. Towards five in the afternoon, they were commanded to go into the street one by one: Father Captier, whose strong faith sustained his companion’s courage, turned to them: “Let us go, my friends, for the sake of God.” The street was filled with armed men who discharged their guns at the prisoners as they passed. Father Captier was mortally wounded; his companions fell here and there; some were killed on the spot; others lingered on till their assassins put them out of their pain. Their dead bodies remained for twenty-four hours on the ground, exposed to an insult; only the next morning, when the troops from Versailles had conquered the Commune, were they claimed by the victims’ friends and conveyed to Arcuil.

(3) The third group of martyrs perished on the 26th of May; the revolutionists were now driven back by the steady advance of the regular troops, and only the heights of Belleville were still in the possession of the Commune. Over fifty prisoners were taken from the prison of La Roquette and conducted on foot to this last stronghold of the revolution. Among them were eleven ecclesiastics: three Jesuits, four members of the Congregation of the Sacred Heart and Mary, three secular priests, and one seminarist. All displayed heroic courage, the best known among them was Father Olivaint, rector of the Jesuit house of the Rue de Sèvres, who thirsted for martyrdom. After a painful journey through the streets, which were filled with an infuriated rabble, the prisoner were into an enclosure, called the cite Vincennes, on the height os Belleville. Here they were hacked to pieces by a crowd of men, women, and even children. There was no attempt to organize a regular execution like the one at La Raquette; the massacre lasted an hour, and most of the bodies were disfigured beyond recognition. Only a few hours later the regular troops forced their way to La Roquette, delivered the prioners that still remained there, and took possession of Belleville, the stronghold of Commune.

BARBARA DE COURSON

Communicatio Idiomatum

(“Communication of Idioms”).

A technical expression in the theology of the Incarnation. It means that the properties of the Divine Word can be ascribed to the man Christ, and that the properties of the man Christ can be predicated of the Word. The language of Scripture and of the Fathers shows that such a mutual interexchange of predicates is legitimate; in this article its source and the rules determining its use will be briefly considered.

I. SOURCE

The source of the communicatio idiomatum is not to be found in the close moral union between Christ and God as maintained by the Nestorians, nor in Christ’s fullness of grace and supernatural gifts, nor, again, in the fact that the Word owns the human nature of Christ by right of creation. God the Father and the Holy Ghost have the same right and interest as the Son in all created things except in the human nature of Jesus Christ. This the Son by Assumption has made His own in a way that is not theirs, i.e., by the incommunicable property of personal union. In Christ there is one person with two natures, the human and the Divine. In ordinary language all the properties of a subject are predicated of its person; consequently the properties of Christ’s two natures must be predicated of his one person, since they have only one subject of predication. He Who is the Word of God on account of His eternal generation is also the subject of human properties; and He Who is the man Christ on account of having assumed human nature is the subject of Divine attributes. Christ is God; God is man.

II. USE

The communicatio idiomatum is based on the oneness of person subsisting in the two natures of Jesus Christ. Hence it can be used as long as both the subject and the predicate of a sentence stand for the person of Jesus Christ, or present a common subject of predication. For in this case we simply affirm that He Who subsists in the Divine nature and possesses certain Divine properties is the same as He Who subsists in the human nature and possesses certain human properties. The following considerations will show the application of this principle more in detail:

(1) In general, concrete terms stand for the person: hence, statements interchanging the Divine and human properties of Christ are, generally speaking, correct if both their subjects and predicates be concrete terms. We may safely say, “God is man,” though we must observer certain cautions:

The concrete human names of Christ describe His person according to His human nature. They presuppose the Incarnation, and their application to Christ previously to the completion of the hypostatic union would involve the Nestorian view that Christ’s human nature had its own subsistence. Consequently, such expressions as “man became God” are to be avoided.

Concrete terms used reduplicatively emphasize the nature rather than the person. The statement “God as God has suffered” means that God according to His Divine nature has suffered; needless to say, such statements are false.

Certain expressions, though correct in themselves, are for extrinsic reasons, inadmissible; the statement “One of the Trinity was crucified” was misapplied in a Monophysite sense and was therefore forbidden by Pope Hormisdas; the Arians misinterpreted the words “Christ is a creature”; both Arians and Nestorians misused the expressions “Christ had a beginning” and “Christ is less than the Father” or “less than God”; the Docetists abused the terms “incorporeal” and “impassible.”

(2) Abstract terms generally stand for their respective nature. Now in Christ there are two natures. Hence statements interchanging the Divine and human properties of Christ are, generally speaking, incorrect if their subject and predicate, either one or both, be abstract terms. We cannot say “the Divinity is mortal,” or, “the humanity is increated.” The following cautions, however, must be added:

Aside from the personal relations in God there is no real distinction admissible in Him. Hence abstract names and attributes of God, though standing formally for the Divine nature, imply really also the Divine persons. Absolutely speaking, we may replace a concrete Divine name by its corresponding abstract one and still keep the communication idiomatum. Thus we may say “Omnipotence was crucified,” in the sense that He Who is omnipotent (Omnipotence) is the same as He Who was crucified. But such expressions are liable to be misunderstood and great care must be exercised in their use.

There is less danger in the use of those abstract terms which express attributes appropriated to the Second person of the Trinity. We may say “Eternal Wisdom became man.”

There is no communicatio idiomatum between the two natures of Christ, or between the Word and the human nature as such or its parts. The fundamental error of the Ubiquitists consists in predicating of the human nature or of humanity the properties of the Divine nature. We cannot say that “the Word is the humanity,” and still less that “the Word is the soul” or “the body of Christ.”

(3) In statements which interchange the Divine and the human properties of Christ, care must be taken not to deny or destroy one of Christ’s natures or its properties. This is apt to be done:

In negative sentences: though it be true that Christ did not die according to His Divine nature, we cannot say, “Christ did not die,” without impairing His human nature;

in exclusive sentences: if we say “Christ is only God” or “Christ is only man,” we destroy either His human or His Divine nature;

in the use of ambiguous terms: the Arians, the Nestorians, and the Adoptionists misused the term “servant,” inferring from the expression, “Christ is the servant of God,” conclusions agreeing with their respective heresies.

(For the use of the communicatio idiomatum in a wider sense, i.e. as applied to the Body of Christ and the Sacramental Species, see EUCHARIST. See also INCARNATION; JESUS CHRIST.)

A.J. MAAS

Communion-Antiphon

The term Communion (Communio) is used, not only for the reception of the Holy Eucharist, but also as a shortened form for the antiphon (Antiphone ad Communionem) that was originally sung while the people were receiving the Blessed Sacrament, but which has now been displaced, so as to follow that moment. In the Ambrosian Rite this antiphon is called the Transitorium, apparently because the celebrant after Communion goes over (transit) to the Epistle side of the altar to read it. It is the fourth and last of the changeable parts of the Mass (Proprium) sung by the choir (Introit, Gradual, Offertory, Communion), and is at least as old as the fourth century. In St. Augustine’s time (d. 430), together with the Offertory Antiphon, it had lately been introduced into Africa; he wrote a treatise (Contra Hilarium) to defend their use (Duchesne, Origines, 166, 179). But the present Communion is only a fragment of the older chant. It was originally a psalm, with the Gloria Patri, preceded and concluded by an antiphon. The First Roman Ordo (about 770) contains the direction: “As soon as the pontiff begins to give Communion in the Senatorium [where the most distinguished people stood] at once the choir begins the antiphon for the Communion, singing it alternately with the subdeacons; and they go until all the people have received Communion. Then the pontiff makes a sign to them to sing the Gloria Patri; and so, when they have repeated the antiphon [repetito versu] they stop” (ed. Atchley, 144). This is the first definite rubric we have about the Communio. It shows us that it was to be sung while the celebrant goes around to Communicate the people; and that it consisted of a psalm, sung alternately with its antiphon, as were, at that time, also the Introit and Offertory. So also Micrologus (Bernold of Constance, d. 1100) says that when the people Communicate, “meanwhile the antiphon is sung which takes its name from the Communion, to which a psalm must be added with its Gloria Patri if need be” (ch. xviii in Migne, P.L., CLI, 973 sq.). It was, then, like the other three parts that make up the Proprium of the choir, a chant to be sung so as to fill up the time while the clergy were engaged in some action.

The two changes in its history are that it has been removed to its place after the Communion and has been shortened. Its postponement began in the twelfth century. Abbot Rupert of Deutz (d. 1135) says: “The chant that we call the Communion, which we sing after the heavenly food, is a thanksgiving” (De div. off., II, xviii, in Migne, P.L., CLXX, 13 sq.), and Durandus: “The antiphon, which is called Post-communion by many because it is sung after the Communion . . .” (Rationale, IV, 56). But he goes on to describe the final collect as that which “is properly called Post-communion” (ib., 57) There are other instances of this antiphon occasionally being called Post-Communion. The reason of its removal seems to have been, on the one hand, the place of the Agnus Dei, which at that time began to be sung during the Communion, and to be repeated thrice, thus taking up more time (Gihr, Messopfer, 671); on the other hand, the gradual lessening of the number of communicants at high Mass. Its shortened form is part of the curtailing of all the prayers of the Mass that was the result of the multiplication of low Masses. Only in requiems have we a remnant of the older form. Here after the first verse (Lux æterna) follows an antiphon (Cum sanctis tuis), then the “Requiem æternam”—last vestige of the psalm—and the antiphon is repeated. Otherwise the Communion is always one short antiphon, sung by the choir immediately after the Agnus Dei, and said by the celebrant after the Communion. It is generally a verse from Holy Scripture, referring, not to the Holy Eucharist, but rather to the feast which is celebrated or to the special season (de tempore) or to the purpose (in votives) for which the Mass is offered. But not seldom it is a text taken from some other source, or specially composed for this use. It is always said by the priest at the altar. Since the common use of low Mass, in which he substitutes the choir’s part himself, the rule is that the priest also says whatever is sung by them. As soon as he has arranged the chalice and paten in the middle of the altar (at high Mass the subdeacon does this, and takes them to the credence-table) he goes with joined hands to the Missal, which has been replaced at the Epistle side, and there, the hands still joined, reads the Communion from the Proprium. He then comes back to the middle for the Dominus vobiscum before the Post-Communion.

“Rubricæ Generales,” XIII, 1; “Ritus cel.”, XI, 1; ATCHLEY, “Ordo Romanus Primus” (London, 1905); BENEDICT XIV, “De SS. Missæ Sacrificio,” II, xxiv; GIHR, “Das heilige Messopfer” (Freiburg im Br., 1897), II, §71,706–708; DUCHESNE, “Origines du culte chrétien” (2nd ed., Paris, 1898), 166, 179; DE HERDT, “S. Liturgie Praxis” (9th ed., Louvain, 1894), 389–390, 480–483; MORAN, “Essays on the Origin, Doctrine” and “Discipline of the Early Irish Church” (Dublin 1864) 165–66; also “P.L.” LXX, 580.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Communion-Bench

An adaptation of the sanctuary guard or altar rail. Standing in front of this barrier, in a space called the chancel, or pectoral, the faithful were wont in early times to receive Holy Communion, the men taking the Consecrated Bread into their hands and the women receiving it on a white cloth, called the domenical, while deacons administered the Precious Blood which each took through a reed of gold or silver. About the twelfth century when the custom arose of receiving under one kind only, the priests placed the small Hosts on the tongues of the communicants at the chancel-rail. Later on, about the fifteenth century the practice was introduced of receiving Holy Communion kneeling, and so the altar-rail gradually came to assume a form better suited to its modern use, and like what it is at present (Bourassé, Dict. D’Arch. Paris, 1851). When large crowd approach the altar on special occasions so that the ordinary accommodation for receiving is not adequate, a row of prie-Dieu or benches provided with Communion cloths or cards, with a lighted candle at the end of each row, may be arranged around the chancel. (Cong. of Rites, Decr. 3086, Nov. ed.)

PATRICK MORRISROE.

Communion of Children

In order to get some insight into the historical aspect of this subject it will be useful to dwell upon (1) the ancient practice, and (2) the present discipline of the Church in regard to the Communion of children.

I. ANCIENT PRACTICE

It is now well established that in the early days of Christianity it was not uncommon for infants to receive Communion immediately after they were baptized. Among others St. Cyprian (Lib. de Lapsis, c. xxv) makes reference to the practice. In the East the custom was pretty universal, and even to this day exists in some places, but in the West infant Communion was not so general. Here, moreover, it was restricted to the occasions of baptism and dangerous illness. Probably it originated in a mistaken notion of the absolute necessity of the Blessed Eucharist for salvation, founded on the words of St. John (vi, 54). In the reign of Charlemagne an edict was published by a Council of Tours (813) prohibiting the reception by young children of Communion unless they were in danger of death (Zaccaria, Bibl. Rit., II, p. 161) and Odo, Bishop of Paris, renewed this prohibition in 1175. Still the custom died hard, for we find traces of it in Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacr., I, c. 20) and Martène (De Ant. Ecc. Rit., I bk., I, c. 15) alleges that it had not altogether disappeared in his own day. The manner of Communicating infants was by dipping the finger in the consecrated chalice and then applying it to the tongue of the child. This would seem to imply that it was only the Precious Blood that was administered, but evidence is not wanting to show that the other Consecrated Species was also given in similar circumstances (cf. Sebastiano Giribaldi, Op. Mor., I, c. 72). That infants and children not yet come to the use of reason may not only validly but even fruitfully receive the Blessed Eucharist is now the universally received opinion, but it is opposed to Catholic teaching to hold that this sacrament is necessary for their salvation (Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, can. iv).

II. PRESENT DISCIPLINE

The existing legislation with regard to the Communion of children has been definitely settled by the Fourth Lateran Council, which was afterwards confirmed by the authority of the Council of Trent. According to its provisions children may not be admitted to the Blessed Eucharist until they have attained to years of discretion, but when this period is reached then they are bound to receive this sacrament. When may they be said to have attained the age of discretion? In the best-supported view of theologians this phrase means, not the attainment of a definite number of years, but rather the arrival at a certain stage in mental development, when children become able to discern the Eucharistic from ordinary bread, to realize in some measure the dignity and excellence of the Sacrament of the Altar, to believe in the Real Presence, and adore Christ under the sacramental veils. De Lugo (De Euch., disp. xiii, n. 36, Ben. XIV, De Syn., vii) says that if children are observed to assist at Mass with devotion and attention it is a sign that they are come to this discretion.

Thus it is seen that a keener religious sense, so to speak, is demanded for the reception of Communion than for confession. Moreover, it is agreed that children in danger of death ought to be admitted to Communion even though they may not have the same degree of fitness that would be required in ordinary circumstances. In answer to a question as to whether a certain episcopal ordinance should be upheld that fixed a definite age-limit under which children could not be admitted to First Communion, the Congregation of the Council replied in the affirmative, provided, however, that those children adjudged to have reached the discretion required by the Councils of Lateran and Trent might not be excluded (21 July, 1888). This reply bears out the interpretation already given of “the years of discretion” and it may be said in the words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent (pt. II, c. iv, q. 63) that “no one can better determine the age at which the sacred mysteries should be given to young children than their parents and confessor.”

The duty of preparing candidates for First Communion is the most important that can fall to the lot of a pastor (O’Kane, Rubrics of Rom. Rit., p. 391). This is amply recognized by the Church in every country, for almost every diocese has its statutes regulating with scrupulous exactness all the preliminaries of this sacred and solemn event (cf. Decr. of III Plen. Balt., no. 217, 218, etc.). A long course of religious instruction is usually prescribed while the moral training and virtuous formation of the mind is also urgently insisted upon. In regard to First Communion it may he observed:

(1) that it should take place during pascal time;

(2) that it should be received as a rule in the parochial church, unless the consent of the pastor is had for receiving it elsewhere;

(3) that no effort should be spared to fix the occasion indelibly on the mind of the young communicant; and

(4) that for this purpose the Mass at which it is received should be celebrated with special solemnity, boys and girls being suitably attired and assigned to separate sections of the church.

A short address may be given in this case immediately before the distribution of Communion (De Herdt, Praxis Lit., I, 277; Rom. Rit., De Euch., t. XXIII). The decree “Sacra Tridentina Synodus,” published Dec., 1905, about daily Communion applies to all persons, young and old, who have made their First Communion (Anal. Eccl., 1906, p. 833).

In addition to the ordinary handbooks on Christian doctrine, see also: De LUGO, De Sanct. Euch. Sacr., disp. xiii; LIGUORI, Theol. Mor., I, lib. VI; LEHMKUHL, Theol. Mor. Comp., II; GASPARRI, Tract. Can. de Euch., II; GIHR, L’Eucharistie.

PATRICK MORRISROE.

The Communion of Saints

(communio sanctorum, κοινωνία σγίων, fellowship of, or with, the saints).

The doctrine expressed in the second clause of the ninth article in the received text of the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe . . . the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints.” This, probably the latest, addition to the old Roman Symbol is found in:

the Gallican Liturgy of the seventh century (P.L., LXXII, 349, 597);

in some letters of the Pseudo-Augustine (P. L., XXXIX, 2189, 2191, 2194), now credited to St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 543);

in the “De Spiritu Sancto” (P. L., LXII, 11), ascribed to Faustus of Riez (c. 460);

in the “Explanatio Symboli” (P. L., LII, 871) of Nicetas of Remesiana (c. 400); and

in two documents of uncertain date, the “Fides Hieronymi,” and an Armenian confession.

On these facts critics have built various theories. Some hold the addition to be a protest against Vigilantius, who condemned the veneration of the saints; and he connects that protest with Faustus in Southern Gaul and probably also with Nicetas in Pannonia, who was influenced by the “Catecheses” of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Others see in it at first a reaction against the separatism of the Donatists, therefore an African and Augustinian conception bearing only on church membership, the higher meaning of fellowship with the departed saints having been introduced later by Faustus. Still others think that it originated, with an anti-Donatist meaning, in Armenia, whence it passed to Pannonia, Gaul, the British Isles, Spain, etc., gathering new meanings in the course of its travels till it finally resulted in the Catholic synthesis of medieval theologians. These and many other conjectures leave undisturbed the traditional doctrine, according to which the communion of saints, wheresoever it was introduced into the Creed, is the natural outgrowth of Scriptural teaching, and chiefly of the baptismal formula; still the value of the dogma does not rest on the solution of that historical problem.

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are called saints by reason of their destination and of their partaking of the fruits of the Redemption (I Cor., i, 2-Greek Text). The damned are thus excluded from the communion of saints. The living, even if they do not belong to the body of the true Church, share in it according to the measure of their union with Christ and with the soul of the Church. St. Thomas teaches (III:8:4) that the angels, though not redeemed, enter the communion of saints because they come under Christ’s power and receive of His gratia capitis. The solidarity itself implies a variety of inter-relations: within the Church Militant, not only the participation in the same faith, sacraments, and government, but also a mutual exchange of examples, prayers, merits, and satisfactions; between the Church on earth on the one hand, and purgatory and heaven on the other, suffrages, invocation, intercession, veneration. These connotations belong here only in so far as they integrate the transcendent idea of spiritual solidarity between all the children of God. Thus understood, the communion of saints, though formally defined only in its particular bearings (Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, decrees on purgatory; on the invocation, veneration, and relics of saints and of sacred images; on indulgences), is, nevertheless, dogma commonly taught and accepted in the Church. It is true that the Catechism of the Council of Trent (Pt. I, ch. x) seems at first sight to limit to the living the bearing of the phrase contained in the Creed, but by making the communion of saints an exponent and function, as it were, of the preceding clause, “the Holy Catholic Church,” it really extends to what it calls the Church’s “constituent parts, one gone before, the other following every day”; the broad principle it enunciates thus: “every pious and holy action done by one belongs and is profitable to all, through charity which seeketh not her own.”

In this vast Catholic conception rationalists see not only a late creation, but also an ill-disguised reversion to a lower religious type, a purely mechanical process of justification, the substitution of impersonal moral value in lieu of personal responsibility. Such statements are met best, by the presentation of the dogma in its Scriptural basis and its theological formulation. The first spare yet clear outline of the communion of saints is found in the “kingdom of God” of the Synoptics, not the individualistic creation of Harnack nor the purely eschatological conception of Loisy, but an organic whole (Matt., xiii, 31), which embraces in the bonds of charity (Matt., xxii, 39) all the children of God (Matt., xix, 28; Luke, xx, 36) on earth and in heaven (Matt., vi, 20), the angels themselves joining in that fraternity of souls (Luke, xv, 10). One cannot read the parables of the kingdom (Matt., xiii) without perceiving its corporate nature and the continuity which links together the kingdom in our midst and the kingdom to come. The nature of that communion, called by St. John a fellowship with one another (“a fellowship with us”—I John, i, 3) because it is a fellowship with the Father, and with his Son,” and compared by him to the organic and vital union of the vine and its branches (John, xv), stands out in bold relief in the Pauline conception of the mystical body. Repeatedly St. Paul speaks of the one body whose head is Christ (Col., i, 18), whose energizing principle is charity (Eph., iv, 16), whose members are the saints, not only of this world, but also of the world to come (Eph., I, 20; Heb., xii, 22). In that communion there is no loss of individuality, yet such an interdependence that the saints are “members one of another” (Rom., xii, 5), not only sharing the same blessings (I Cor., xii, 13) and exchanging good offices (ibid., xii, 25) and prayers (Eph., vi, 18), but also partaking of the same corporate life, for “the whole body . . . by what every joint supplieth . . . maketh increase . . . unto the edifying of itself in charity” (Eph., iv, 16).

Recent well-known researches in Christian epigraphy have brought out clear and abundant proof of the principal manifestations of the communion of saints in the early Church. Similar evidence, is to be found in the Apostolic Fathers with an occasional allusion to the Pauline conception. For an attempt at the formulation of the dogma we have to come down to the Alexandrian School. Clement of Alexandria shows the “gnostic’s” ultimate relations with the angels (Strom., VI, xii, 10) and the departed souls (ibid., VIII, xii, 78); and he all but formulates the thesaurus ecclesiae in his presentation of the vicarious martyrdom, not of Christ alone, but also of the Apostles and other martyrs (ibid., IV, xii, 87). Origen enlarges, almost to exaggeration, on the idea of vicarious martyrdom (Exhort. ad martyr., ch. 1) and of communion between man and angels (De orat., xxxi); and accounts for it by the unifying power of Christ’s Redemption), ut caelestibus terrena sociaret (In Levit., hom. iv) and the force of charity, stranger in heaven than upon earth (De orat., xi). With St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom the communion of saints has become an obvious tenet used as an answer to such popular objections as these: what, need of a communion with others? (Basil, Ep. cciii) another has sinned and I shall atone? (Chrysostom, Hom. i, de poenit.). St. John Damascene has only to collect the sayings of the Fathers in order to support the dogma of the invocation of the saints and the prayers for the dead.

But the complete presentation of the dogma comes from the later Fathers. After the statements of Tertullian, speaking of “common hope, fear, joy, sorrow, and suffering” (De poenit., ix and x); of St. Cyprian, explicitly setting forth the communion of merits (De lapsis, xvii); of St. Hilary, giving the Eucharistic Communion as a means and symbol of the communion of saints (in Ps. lxiv, 14), we come to the teaching of Ambrose and St. Augustine. From the former, the thesaurus ecclesiae, the best practical test of the reunion of saints, receives a definite explanation (De poenit., I, xv; De officiis, I, xix). In the transcendent view of the Church taken by the latter (Enchir., lvi) the communion of saints, though never so called by him, is a necessity; to the Civitas Dei must needs correspond the unitas caritatis (De unitate eccl., ii), which embraces in an effective union the saints and angels in heaven (Enarr. in Psalmos, XXXVI, iii, 4), the just on earth (De bapt., III, xvii), and in a lower degree, the sinners themselves, the putrida membra of the mystic body; only the declared heretics, schismatics, and apostates are excluded from the society, though not from the prayers, of the saints (Serm. cxxxvii). The Augustinian concept, though somewhat obscured in the catechetical expositions of the Creed by the Carlovingian and later theologians (P. L., XCIX, CI, CVIII, CX, CLII, CLXXXVI), takes its place in the medieval synthesis of Peter Lombard, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, etc.

Influenced no doubt by early writers like Yvo of Chartres (P. L., CLXII, 6061), Abelard (P. L. CLXXXIII, 630), and probably Alexander of Hales (III, Q. lxix, a, 1), St. Thomas (Expos. in symb. 10) reads in the neuter the phrase of the Creed, communio sanctorum (participation of spiritual goods), but apart from the point of grammar his conception of the dogma is thorough. General principle; the merits of Christ are communicated to all, and the merits of each one are communicated to the others (ibid.). The manner of participation: both objective and intentional, in radice operis, ex intentione facientis (Supp., 71:1). The measure: the degree of charity (Expos. in symb., 10). The benefits communicated: not the sacraments alone but, the superabundant merits of Christ and the saints forming the thesaurus ecclesia (ibid. and Quodlib., II, Q. viii, a. 16). The participants: the three parts of the Church (Expos. in symb., 9); consequently the faithful on earth exchanging merits and satisfactions (I-II:113:6, and Suppl., 13:2), the souls in purgatory profiting by the suffrages of the living and the intercession of the saints (Suppl., 71), the saints themselves receiving honour and giving intercession (II-II:83:4, II-II:83:11, III:25:6), and also the angels, as noted above. Later Scholastics and post-Reformation theologians have added little to the Thomistic presentation of the dogma. They worked rather around than into it, defending such points as were attacked by heretics, showing the religious, ethical, and social value of the Catholic conception; and they introduced the distinction between the body and the soul of the Church, between actual membership and membership in desire, completing the theory of the relations between church membership and the communion of saints which had already been outlined by St. Optatus of Mileve and St. Augustine at the time of the Donatist controversy. One may regret the plan adopted by the Schoolmen afforded no comprehensive view of the whole dogma, bur rather scattered the various components of it through a vast synthesis. This accounts for the fact that a compact exposition of the communion of saints is to be sought less in the works of our standard theologians than in our catechetical, apologetic, pastoral, and even ascetic literature. It may also partly explain, without excusing them, the gross misrepresentations noticed above.

IN THE ANGLO-SAXON CHURCH

That the Anglo-Saxons held the doctrine of the communion of saints may be judged from the following account given by Lingard in his “History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church.” They received the practice of venerating the saints, he says, together with the rudiments the Christian religion; and they manifested their devotion to them both in public and private worship: in public, by celebrating the anniversaries of individual saints, and keeping annually the feast of All-Hallows as a solemnity of the first class; and in their private devotions, by observing the instructions to worship God and then to “pray, first to Saint Mary, and the holy apostles, and the holy martyrs, and all God’s saints, that they would intercede for them to God.” In this way they learned to look up to the saints in heaven with feelings of confidence and affection, to consider them as friends and protectors, and to implore their aid in the hour of distress, with the hope that God would grant to the patron what he might otherwise refuse to the supplicant.

Like all other Christians, the Anglo-Saxons held in special veneration “the most holy mother of God, the perpetual virgin Saint Mary” (Beatissima Dei genitrix et perpetua virgo.-Bede, Hom. in Purif.). Her praises were sung by the Saxon poets; hymns in her honour were chanted in the public service; churches and altars were placed under her patronage; miraculous cures were ascribed to her; and four annual feasts were observed commemorating the principal events of her mortal life: her nativity, the Annunciation, her purification, and assumption. Next to the Blessed Virgin in the devotion was Saint Peter, whom Christ had chosen for the leader of the Apostles and to whom he had given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, “with the chief exercise of judicial power in the Church, to the end that all might know that whosoever should separate himself from the unity of Peter’s faith or of Peter’s fellowship, that man could never attain absolution from the bonds of sin, nor admission through the gates of the heavenly kingdom” (Bede). These words of the Venerable Bede refer, it is true, to Peter’s successors as well as to Peter himself, but they also evidence the veneration of Anglo-Saxons for the Prince of the Apostles, a veneration which they manifested in the number of churches dedicated to his memory, in the pilgrimages made to his tomb, and by the presents sent to the church in which his remains rested and to the bishop who sat in his chair. Particular honours were paid also to Saints Gregory and Augustine, to whom they were chiefly indebted for their knowledge of Christianity. They called Gregory their “foster-father in Christ” and themselves “his foster-children in baptism”; and spoke of Augustine as “the first to bring to them the doctrine of faith, the sacrament of baptism, and the knowledge of their heavenly country.” While these saints were honoured by the whole people, each separate nation revered the memory of its own apostle. Thus Saint Aidan in Northumbria, Saint Birinus in Wessex, and Saint Felix in East Anglia were venerated as the protectors of the countries which had been the scenes of their labours. All the saints so far mentioned were of foreign extraction; but the Anglo-Saxons soon extended their devotion to men who had been born and educated among them and who by their virtues and zeal in propagating Christianity had merited the honours of sanctity.

This account of the devotion of the Anglo-Saxons to those whom they looked up to as their friends and protectors in heaven is necessarily brief, but it is amply sufficient to show that they believed and loved the doctrine of the communion of saints.

PROTESTANT VIEWS

Sporadic errors against special points of the communion of saints are pointed out by the Synod of Gangra (Mansi, II, 1103), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (P. G., XXXIII, 1116), St. Epiphanius (ibid., XLII, 504), Asteritis Amasensis (ibid., XL, 332), and St. Jerome (P. L., XXIII, 362). From the forty-second proposition condemned, and the twenty-ninth question asked, by Martin V at Constance (Denzinger, nos. 518 and 573), we also know that Wyclif and Hus had gone far towards denying the dogma itself. But the communion of saints became a direct issue only at the time of the Reformation. The Lutheran churches, although commonly adopting the Apostles’ Creed, still in their original confessions, either pass over in silence the communion of saints or explain it as the Church’s “union with Jesus Christ in the one true faith” (Luther’s Small Catechism), or as “the congregation of saints and true believers” (Augsburg Confession, ibid., III, 12), carefully excluding, if not the memory, at least the invocation of the saints, because Scripture “propoundeth unto us one Christ, the Mediator, Propitiatory, High-Priest, and Intercessor” (ibid., III, 26). The Reformed churches generally maintain the Lutheran identification of the communion of saints with the body of believers but do not limit its meaning to that body. Calvin (Inst. chret., IV, 1, 3) insists that the phrase of the Creed is more than a definition of the Church; it conveys the meaning of such a fellowship that whatever benefits God bestows upon the believers should mutually communicate to one another. That view is followed in the Heidelberg Catechism, emphasized in the Gallican Confession, wherein communion is made to mean the efforts of believers to mutually strengthen themselves in the fear of God. Zwingli in his articles admits an exchange of prayers between the faithful and hesitates to condemn prayers for the dead, rejecting only the saints’ intercession as injurious to Christ. Both the Scotch and Second Helvetic Confessions bring together the Militant and the Triumphant Church, but whereas the former is silent on the signification of the fact, the latter says that they hold communion with each other: “nihilominus habent illae inter sese communionem, vel conjunctionem.”

The double and often conflicting influence of Luther and Calvin, with a lingering memory of Catholic orthodoxy, is felt in the Anglican Confessions. On this point the Thirty-nine Articles are decidedly Lutheran, rejecting as they do “the Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints,” because they see in it “a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.” On the other hand, the Westminster Confession, while ignoring the Suffering and the Triumphant Church, goes beyond the Calvinistic view and falls little short of the Catholic doctrine with regard to the faithful on earth, who, it says, “being united to one another in love, have communion in each other’s gifts and graces.” In the United States, the Methodist Articles of Religion, 1784, as well as the Reformed Episcopal Articles of Religion, 1875, follow the teachings of the Thirty-nine Articles, whereas the teaching of the Westminster Confession is adopted in the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, 1688, and in the Confession of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 1829. Protestant theologians, just as Protestant confessions, waver between the Lutheran and the Calvinistic view.

The cause of the perversion by Protestants of the traditional concept of communion of saints is not to be found in the alleged lack of Scriptural and early Christian evidence in favour of that concept; well-informed Protestant writers have long since ceased to press that argument. Nor is there any force in the oft-repeated argument that the Catholic dogma detracts from Christ’s mediatorship, for it is plain, as St. Thomas had already shown (Suppl., 72:2, ad 1), that the ministerial mediatorship of the saints does not detract from, but only enhances, the magisterial mediatorship of Christ. Some writers have traced that perversion to the Protestant concept of the Church as an aggregation of souls and a multitude of units bound together by a community of faith and pursuit and by the ties of Christian sympathy, but in no way organized or interdependent as members of the same body. This explanation is defective because the Protestant concept of the Church is a fact parallel to, but in no way causative of, their view of the communion of saints. The true cause must be found elsewhere. As early as 1519, Luther, the better to defend his condemned theses on the papacy, used the clause of the Creed to show that the communion of saints, and not the papacy, was the Church: “non ut aligui somniant, credo ecclesiam esse praelatum . . . sed . . . communionem sanctorum.” This was simply playing on the words of the Symbol. At that time Luther still held the traditional communion of saints, little dreaming that he would one day give it up. But he did give it up when he formulated his theory on justification. The substitution of the Protestant motto, “Christ for all and each one for himself.” In place of the old axiom of Hugh of St. Victor, “Singula sint omnium et omina singulorum” (each for all and all for each—P. L., CLXXV. 416), is a logical outcome of their concept of justification; not an interior renovation of the soul, nor a veritable regeneration from a common Father, the second Adam, nor yet an incorporation with Christ, the head of the mystical body, but an essentially individualistic act of fiducial faith. In such a theology there is obviously no room for that reciprocal action of the saints, that corporate circulation of spiritual blessings through the members of the same family, that domesticity and saintly citizenship which lies at the very core of the Catholic communion of saints. Justification and the communion of saints go hand in hand. The efforts which are being made towards reviving in Protestantism the old and still cherished dogma of the communion of saints must remain futile unless the true doctrine of justification be also restored. (See DEAD, PRAYERS FOR THE; JUSTIFICATION; SAINTS.)

Besides references in the text, see NATALIS ALEXANDER, Theol. dogm. et moral. secundum ordinem Catech. Trid. (Paris, 1714); FOURGEZ, Le Symbole des Apôtres exposé et défendu (Paris, 1861); BÉRINGER, Les Indulgences (Paris, 1890), I, 20; MOEHLER, tr. FELCOURT, Apologie du christianisme (Paris, s.d.), II, 380; TYRRELL, The Mystical Body in Hard Sayings (New York, 1902); WISEMAN, Principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church (New York, s.d.); DE WAAL, Il simbolo apostolico illustrato dalle iscrizions dei primi secoli (Rome, 1896); KIRSCH, Die Lehre von der Gemeinschaft der Heiligen (Mainz, 1900); MORIN, Sanctorum Communionem in Rev. d’hist. et litt. relig. (1904); BERNARD and BOUR, Communion des Saints in Dict. de théol. cath. BAREILLE, Le Symbole in Le Catéchisme Romain (Montrejeau, 1906), II, 648. Also dogmatic theologies of SCHOUPPE, JUNGMANN, HURTER, PAQUET, etc., and sermons of NEWMAN, MANNING, MONSABRÉ, etc.

J. F. SOLLIER

Communion of the Sick

This differs from ordinary Communion as to the class of persons to whom it is administered, as to the dispositions with which it may be received, and as to the place and ceremonies of administration. In her anxious solicitude for the spiritual welfare of her children the Church earnestly desires that those who are unable through illness to receive the Blessed Eucharist in the usual way at the altar, should not be deprived of the consolations of this sacrament, and, accordingly, she exhorts her pastors to satisfy always the pious desires, not only of all who are stricken with a dangerous sickness and require strength to prepare them for the final struggle, but also of those who may wish to comply with the paschal precept and cannot do so in church, and, in fine, of everyone who hungers after this life-giving bread even from mere devotion. When Communion is administered to persons in danger of death and likely to receive it for the last time it is called the Viaticum. With this form of Communion there is no need to deal at present, as everything concerning it will be treated afterwards in its own place (see VIATICUM). The present article is concerned with Communion which is given to persons in their own houses who, though not dangerously ill, yet are so physically indisposed that they cannot without very grave inconvenience go to church to receive in the ordinary way. In the first place, then, the pastor is bound to minister Communion in their homes to such as have to fulfil their paschal duty and cannot do so in church owing to illness. The pastor’s obligation in the matter is not, of course, purely personal, and hence it can be discharged vicariously. Again he is bound, though not so strictly, to satisfy the reasonable desires of all sick persons who are confined to their homes by infirmity of any kind and who wish to receive the Blessed Eucharist. The Roman Ritual observes that these pious wishes should be especially gratified on the occasion of a solemn festival or other celebration of the kind (Tit. IV, cap. iv).

DISPOSITIONS

The sick who desire to receive Communion out of mere devotion were hitherto bound to receive it before tasting any food or drink. Even those who had to fulfil their paschal duty and who could not fast up to a suitable hour in the morning would not be exempted from the obligation of fasting, according to many theologians. A recent Instruction of the Congregation of the Council, dated 7 December, 1906, has modified very considerably the regulations hitherto prevailing in regard to the obligation of observing the natural fast from the previous midnight, as far at least as the sick are concerned. In accordance with the provisions of this new decree all persons confined to their homes by reason of indisposition may be Communicated even though not fasting, provided (1) that they have been sick for a month; (2) that they have medical testimony as to their inability to fast; (3) that there is no certain hope of a speedy recovery; and (4) that only liquid food is taken. When these specified conditions are present Communion may be given once or twice a week to those who live in houses where Mass is celebrated daily, as in convents, and once or twice a month to others not so placed. It is unnecessary to observe that the same dispositions of soul are required in the sick as in all other persons for the fruitful reception of Holy Communion.

CEREMONIES

The Roman Ritual (Tit. IV, c. iv) prescribes, in detail, all the ceremonies to be observed when Communion is given to the sick. The manner of carrying the Blessed Sacrament and of administering it is accurately described. The Consecrated Species should be borne with all due honour, reverence, and dignity, in solemn procession, with lights, and all the other customary formalities. This, however, is according to the general law of the Church. Many countries, at the present day, in which this solemn and public conveyance of the Blessed Sacrament is not possible, have obtained an Apostolic indult in virtue of which the Sacred Species may be carried privately and without any pomp or external ceremonial (Second Plen. Counc. of Balt., n. 264), but it must always be enclosed in a silver box or pyx, which should be securely fastened around the person. Other cases of exception are also recognized (Ben. XIV, “Inter Unigenas”). Whilst carrying the Blessed Sacrament in this private manner, the priest need not wear any sacred vestment, but in the actual administration he should wear at least a stole, soutane, and surplice (cong. Of Rites, n. 2650). The sick chamber should be neatly and chastely arranged. Near the bed there ought to be a table covered with a white cloth, with a crucifix, two candles, small vessel of clean water, Holy Water and sprinkler, and communion-card. It only remains to say that the form used in giving Communion in private houses should be the usual one, the Accipe frater or soror, etc. being restricted to the administration of the Viaticum.

Rit. Rom., De Com. Inf., Tit. IV, Cap. iv; CATALANI, Commentarium in Rit. Rom. (Rome, 1850), I; BARUFFALDI, Rit. Rom. Com. Inf. (Florence, 1847); O’KANE, Notes on Rubrics of Rom. Rit. (Dublin, 1867); VAN DER STAPPEN, De Adm. Sacr. (Mechlin, 1902); GASPARRI, Tract. Can. de Euch. (Freiburg, 1896), II; GIHR, L’Eucharistic.

PATRICK MORRISROE.

Communion under Both Kinds

Communion under one kind is the reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the species or appearance of bread alone, or of wine alone, Communion under two or both kinds, the distinct reception under the two or both species, sub utraque specie, at the same time. In the present article we shall treat the subject under the following heads:

I. Catholic Doctrine and Modern Discipline;

II. History of Disciplinary Variations;

III. Theological Speculation.

I. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND MODERN DISCIPLINE

(1) Under this head the following points are to be noted: (a) In reference to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the communion, under both kinds, of the celebrating priest belongs at least to the integrity, and, according to some theologians, to the essence, of the sacrificial rite, and may not therefore be omitted without violating the sacrificial precept of Christ: “Do this for a commemoration of me” (Luke, xxii, 19). This is taught implicitly by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, c. i; XXII, c. i). (b) There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI, c. i.) (c) By reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone; nor, as regards the fruits of the sacrament, is the communicant under one kind deprived of any grace necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. XXI, c., iii). (d) In reference to the sacraments generally, apart from their substance, salva eorum substantia, i.e. apart from what has been strictly determined by Divine institution or precept, the Church has authority to determine or modify the rites and usages employed in their administration, according as she judges it expedient for the greater profit of the recipients or the better protections of the sacraments themselves against irreverence. Hence “although the usage of Communion under two kinds was not infrequent in the early ages [ab initio] of the Christian religion, yet, the custom in this respect having changed almost universally [latissime] in the course of time, holy mother the Church, mindful of her authority in the administration of the Sacraments, and influenced by weighty and just reasons, has approved the custom of communicating under one kind, and decreed it to have the force of a law, which may not be set aside or changed but by the Church’s own authority” (Trent, Sess. XXI, c. ii). Not only, therefore, is Communion under both kinds not obligatory on the faithful, but the chalice is strictly forbidden by ecclesiastical law to any but the celebrating priest. These decrees of the Council of Trent were directed against the Reformers of the sixteenth century, who, on the strength of John, vi, 54, Matt., xxvi, 27, and Luke, xxii, 17, 19, enforced in most cases by a denial of the Real Presence and of the Sacrifice of the Mass, maintained the existence of a Divine precept obliging the faithful to receive under both kinds, and denounced the Catholic practice of withholding the cup from the laity as a sacrilegious mutilation of the sacrament. A century earlier the Hussites, particularly the party of the Calixtines, had asserted the same doctrine, without denying, however, the Real Presence or the Sacrifice of the Mass, and on the strength principally of John, vi, 54; and the Council of Constance in its thirteenth session (1415) had already condemned their position and affirmed the binding force of the existing discipline in terms practically identical with those of Trent (see decree approved by Martin V, 1418, in Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 585). It is to be observed that neither council introduced any new legislation on the subject; both were content with declarirg that the existing custom had already acquired the force of law. A few privileged exceptions to the law and a few instances of express dispensation, occurring later, will be noticed betow (II).

(2) Regarding the merits of the Utraquist controversy, if we assume the doctrinal points involved—viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds, the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species, and the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary, and is to be decided by a reference to the two fold purpose to be attained, of safeguarding the reverence due to this most august sacrament and of facilitating and encouraging its frequent and fervent reception. Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends. The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers—the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar “weighty and just reasons” against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it. Of the doctrinal points mentioned above, the only one that need be discussed here is the question of the existence or non-existence of a Divine precept imposing Communion sub utraque. Of the texts brought forward by Utraquists in proof of such a precept, the command, “Drink ye all of this” (Matt., xxvi, 27), and its equivalent in St. Luke (xxii, 17, i.e. supposing the reference here to be to the Eucharistic and not to the paschal cup), cannot fairly be held to apply to any but those present those on the occasion, and to them only for that particular occasion. Were one to insist that Christ’s action in administering Holy Communion under both kinds to the Apostles at the Last Supper was intended to lay down a law for all future recipients, he should for the same reason insist that several other temporary and accidental circumstances connected with the first celebration of the Eucharist (e.g. the preceding paschal rites, the use of unleavened bread, the taking of the Sacred Species by the recipients themselves) were likewise intended to be obligatory for all future celebrations. The institution under both kinds, or the separate consecration of the bread and wine, belongs essentially, in Catholic opinion, to the sacrificial, as distinct from the sacramental, character of the Eucharist; and when Christ in the words “Do this for a commemoration of me” (Luke, xxii, 19), gave to the Apostles both the command and the power to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, they understood Him merely to impose upon them and their successors in the priesthood the obligation of sacrificing sub utraque. This obligation the Church has rigorously observed.

In John, vi, 54, Christ says: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” but in verses 52 and 59 he attributes life eternal to the eating of “this bread” (which is “my flesh for the life of the world,” without mention of the drinking of His blood: “if anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever.” Now the Utraquist interpretation would suppose that in verse 54 Christ meant to emphasize the distinction between the mode of reception “by eating” and the mode of reception “by drinking,” and to include both modes distinctly in the precept He imposes. But such literalism, extravagant in any connection, would result in this case in putting verse 54 in opposition to 52 and 59, interpreted in the same rigid way. From which we may infer that whatever special significance attached to the form of expression employed in verse 54, Christ did not have recourse to that form for the purpose of promulgating a law of Communion sub utraque. The twofold expression is employed by Christ in order to heighten the realism of the promise—to emphasize more vividly the reality of the Eucharistic presence, and to convey the idea that His Body and Blood were to be the perfect spiritual aliment, the food and drink, of the faithful. In the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist this meaning is fully verified. Christ is really and integrally received under either kind; and from the sacramental point of view it is altogether immaterial whether this perfect reception takes place after the analogy in the natural order of solid or of liquid food alone, or after the analogy of both combined (cf. III below). In I Cor., xi, 28, to which Utraquists sometimes appeal, St. Paul is concerned with the preparation required for a worthy reception of the Eucharist. His mention of both species, “the bread and chalice,” is merely incidental, and implies nothing more than the bare fact that Communion under both kinds was the prevailing usage in Apostolic times. From the verse immediately preceding (27) a difficulty might be raised against the dogmatic presuppositions of the great majority of Utraquists, and an argument advanced in proof of the Catholic doctrine of the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species. “Whosoever,” says the Apostle, “shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord” i.e. whoever receives either unworthily is guilty of both. But it is unnecessary to insist on this argument in defence of the Catholic position. We are justified in concluding that the N.T. contains no proof of the existence of a Divine precept binding the faithful to Communicate under both kinds. It will appear, further, from the following historical survey, that the Church has never recognized the existence of such a precept.

II. HISTORY OF DISCIPLINARY VARIATIONS

FROM THE FIRST TO THE TWELFTH CENTURY

It may be stated as a general fact, that down to the twelfth century, in the West as well as in the East, public Communion in the churches was ordinarily administered and received under both kinds. That such was the practice in Apostolic times is implied in I Cor., xi, 28 (see above), nor does the abbreviated reference to the “breaking of bread” in the Acts of the Apostles (ii, 46) prove anything to the contrary. The witness to the same effect for the sub-Apostolic and subsequent ages are too numerous, and the fact itself too clearly beyond dispute, to require that the evidence should be cited here. But side by side with the regular liturgical usage of Communion sub utraque, there existed from the earlist times the custom of communicating in certain cases under one kind alone. This custom is exemplified (1) in the not infrequent practice of private domestic Communion, portion of the Eucharistic bread being brought by the faithful to their homes and there reserved for this purpose; (2) in the Communion of the sick, which was usually administered under the species of bread alone; (3) Communion of children which was usually given, even in the churches under the species of wine alone, but sometimes under the species of bread alone but sometimes under the species of bread alone; (4) in the Communion under the species of bread alone at the Mass of the Presanctified, and as an optional practice, in some churches on ordinary occasions. To these examples may be added (5) the practice of the intinctio panis, i.e. the dipping of the consecrated bread in the Precious Blood and its administration per modum cibi. We will notice briefly the history of each of these divergent practices.

(1) During the third century, in Africa at least, as we learn from Tertullian and St. Cyprian, the practice on the part of the faithful of bringing to their homes and reserving for private Communion a portion of the Eucharistic bread, would appear to have been universal. Tertullian refers to this private domestic Communion as a commonplace in Christian life, and makes it the basis of an argument, addressed to his wife against second marriage with an infidel in case of his own death: “Non sciet maritus quid secreto ante omnem cibum gustes et si sciverit esse panem, non illum credet esse qui dicitur?” (Ad Uxor. c. v, P.L. I, 1296). There can be question here only of the species of bread, and the same is true of the two stories told by St. Cyprian: the one of a man who before Communion, had attended an idolatrous function, and on retiring from the altar and opening his hand in which he had taken and carried the Sacred Species, found nothing in it but ashes; the other of a woman who “cum arcam suam, in qua Domini sanctum fuit, manibus indignis tentasset aperire igne inde surgente deterrita est” (De Lapsis, 26, P.L., IV, 486). This custom owed its origin most probably to the dangers and uncertainties to which Christians were subject in times of persecution, but we have it on the authority of St. Basil (Ep. xciii, P.G., XXXII, 485) that in the fourth century, when the persecutions had ceased, it continued to be a general practice in Alexandria and Egypt; and on the authority of St. Jerome (Ep. xlviii, 15, P.L. XXII, 506) that it still existed at Rome towards the end of same century. It is impossible to say at what precise period the practice disappeared. The many obvious objections against it would seem to have led to its abolition in the West without the need of formal legislation. The third canon attributed to the Council of Saragossa (380) and the fourteenth canon of the Council of Toledo (400), excommunicating those who do not consume in the church the Eucharist received from the priest (Hefele, Conciliengesch., I, 744; II, 79), were directed against the Priscillianists (who refused to consume any portion of the Eucharistic bread in the church), and do not seem to have been intended to prohibit the practice of reserving a portion for private Communion at home. In the East the practice continued long after its disappearance in the West, and in the eighth century the faithful were able to avail themselves of it as a means of avoiding association with the Iconoclastic heretics (Pargoire, L’Eglise byzantine, Paris, 1905, p. 339 sq.). It had already been adopted by the anchorites, as St. Basil (loc. cit.) tells us, and continued to be a feature of anchoretic life as late as the ninth century (see Theodore Studita (d. 826), Ep. i, 57, ii, 209, in P.G. XCIX, 1115, 1661).

(2) That Communion of the sick under the species of bread alone was the ordinary usage at Alexandria in the middle of the third century is proved by the account of the death-bed Communion of the old man Serapion as told by Eusebius (H.E., VI, xliv, in P.G. XX, 629), on the authority of Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264). It is recorded of St. Basil that he received Holy Communion several times on the day of his death, and under the species of bread alone, as may be inferred from the biographer’s words (Vita Basilii, iv, P.G. XXIX, 315). We have it on the authority of Paulinus, secretary and biographer of St. Ambrose, that the saint on his death bed received from St. Honoratus of Vercelli “Domini corpus, quo accepto, ubi glutivit, emisit spiritum, bonum viaticum secum ferens” (Vita Ambr., 47, P.L., XIV, 43). These testimonies are sufficient to establish the fact that, in the early centuries, reservation of the Eucharist for the sick and dying, of which the Council of Nicaea (325) speaks (can. xiii) as “the ancient and canonical rule,” was usual under one kind. The reservation of the species of wine for use as the Viaticum would have involved so many practical difficulties that, in the absence of clear evidence on the subject, we may feel sure that it was never the general practice. We are told by St. Justin Martyr (Apol., I, 67, P.G., VI, 429) that on Sundays, after the celebration of the Sacrifice, the Eucharistic elements were received by all present and carried by the deacons to those absent. But this would have been possible only in small and compact communities, and that it was not a general custom and did not long survive may be inferred from the fact that no subsequent mention of it is to be found. St. Jerome (Ep. cxxv, 20, P.L., XXII, 1085) speaks of St. Exuperitus of Toulouse, “qui corpus Domini canistro vimineo, sanguinem portat in vitro,” but this example of a private devotional practice, which is also exceptional in its way, throws no light on the usage of communion for the sick. It is recorded in the life of St. Mary of Egypt (21 sq., P.L. LXXIII, 686) that the Abbot Zosimos brought Communion under both kinds to her solitary retreat in the desert, and in later times there are several examples of dying persons communicating sub utraque. But everything leads us to suppose that such Communions, as a rule, were administered in connection with Mass, celebrated in the house of the sick person or in the immediate vicinity and this supposition is strongly confirmed by the well-known fact that the sick were sometimes carried to the church for the purpose of receiving both the Eucharist and Extreme Unction (see Chardon, Hist. Du Sacrem. de l’Eucharistie, c. v, Migne, Theol. Cursus Completus, XX, 282). It is to be noted, finally, that the sick who could not consume the Host were allowed to receive under the species of wine alone (Council of Toledo, 675, can. ii, Mansi, XI, 143–4).

(3) It was the practice in the Early Church to give the Holy Eucharist to children even before they attained the use of reason. It is implied by St. Cyprian (De Lapsis, 25, P.L., IV, 484) that the chalice alone was offered to them; and St. Augustine, in his incidental references to child Communion, speaks of it as administered under either species (Ep. ccxvii, 5, P.L. XXXIII, 984 sq.), or under the species of wine alone (Opus Imp., II, 30, P.L., XLV, 1154). St. Paulinus of Nola, speaking of newly-baptized children, states that the priest “cruda salutiteris imbuit ora cibis” (Ep. xxxii, 5, P.L., LXI, 333), which is applicable only to the species of wine. In the East also, in some churches at least, children, especially suckling infants, communicated under the species of wine alone (see Dom Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Ritibus, I, xiv, Gasparri, Tract. canon. SS. Eucharista, II, n. 1121). There are examples, on the other hand, both in the Western and Eastern Churches, of Communion administered to children under the species of bread alone. Thus the Council of Macon (586) decreed that the fragments of consecrated bread remaining over after the Sunday communion were to be consumed by children (innocentes) brought to the church for that purpose on the following Wednesday or Friday (Labbe-Cossart VI, 675); and Evagrius (d. 594) tells us that a similar custom existed at Constantinople from ancient times (Hist. Eccl., IV, 36, P.G., LXXXVI. 2769).

(4) The Mass of the Presanctified, in which the essence of the sacrifice as such is wanting, admits of Communion only under the species of bread. The custom of celebrating in this manner was introduced in the East by the Council of Laodicea in the fourth century (can. xlix) and confirmed by the Second Council in Trullo in 692 (Hefele, op. cit., I, 772). It was the rule for all fast days during Lent, and the faithful were in the habit of receiving at it (Pargoire, op. cit, p. 341 sq.). This custom is still maintained in the East (Gasparri, op. cit., n. 68). In the West the Mass of the Presanctified, celebrated only on Good Friday, is mentioned in the Gelasian Sacramentary (P. L, LXXIV, 1105) and in later sources, and in the beginning the faithful used to communicate at it. Apart from the Class of the Presanctified the faithful were sometimes allowed to receive under the species of bread alone, even at the public Communion in the church. From an incident recorded by Sozomen (H.E., VIII, v, P.L., LXVII, 1528 sq.) as having occurred at Constantinople in the time of St. John Chrysostom, it would seem to follow that the reception of the consecrated bread alone was sufficent to satisfy the requirements of the then existing discipline. The point of the story is, that the unconverted wife of a converted Macedonian heretic, being compelled by her husband to communicate in the Catholic Church, secretly substituted at the moment of reception a piece of ordinary bread, which her servant had brought for the purpose, but was balked in her deceitful design by a miracle, which petrified the bread with the marks of her teeth upon it. In the West, as is clear from St. Leo the Great (Serm. xlii, 5, P.L., LIV, 279 sq.), the Manichaeans at Rome, towards the middle of the fifth century, sometimes succeeded in communicating fraudulently in the Catholic Church: “ore indigno corpus Christi accipiunt, sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant.” This sacrilega simulatio on the part of the heretics would have been impossible, unless it was customary at the time for at least some of the faithful to receive under one kind alone. That those detected in this simulatio are ordered by St. Leo to be excluded altogether from Communion, implies no reprobation on the merits of Communion under one kind; and the same is true of the decree attributed by Gratian to Pope Gelasius, “aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur” (De Consec., D. II, c. xii, P.L., CLXXXVII, 1736). In the monastic rule attributed to St. Columbanus (d. 615) it is prescribed that novices and those not properly instructed “ad calicem non accedant” (P.L., LXXX, 220). This also seems to imply the usage in some cases of Communion under one kind; and, as a further instance of divergence in this direction from Communion strictly sub utraque, may be mentioned the practice, introduced about this time, of substituting for consecrated wine, in the Communion of the faithful, ordinary wine into which a few drops of the consecrated wine had been poured. According to the “Ordo Romanus Primus,” which in its present form dates from the ninth century, this usage was followed at the pontifical Mass in Rome (see Mabillon, P.L., LXXVIII, 875, 882, 903). It was adopted also in several other churches (Dom Martène, op. cit., I, ix). Some theologians of the period held with Amalarius of Metz; (d. 837) (De Eccl. off., I, 15, P.L., CV, 1032) that in this case the common wine received a certain consecration by the infusion of the consecrated drops; but the majority, including St. Bernard (Ep. lxix, 2, P.L., CLXXXII, 181), denied that there was any consecration in the proper sense, or that the reception of this chalice was strictly speaking the reception of the Precious Blood.

(5) The practice of the intinctio Panis, mentioned above, which is the last disciplinary variation to be noticed during this period, was already forbidden by the Council of Braga in 675 (Mansi, XI, 155), but, as from the “Micrologus” (xix, P.L., CLI, 989 sq.), was reintroduced in the eleventh century. It was condemned once more by the Council of Clermont (1095) under the presidency of Urban II, but with the limitation “nisi per necessitatem et per cautelam” (Mansi, XX, 818). The exception “per cautelam” allows the intinctio when it might be necessary as a precaution against the spilling of the Precious Blood, but the later prohibition of Paschal II (Ep. 535, P.L. .CLXIII, 442) makes an exception only in “parvulis ac omnino infirmis qui panem absorbere non possunt.” Notwithstanding these prohibitions the practice survived in many places, as we learn from Robert Pulleyn (d. 1146; Sent. VIII, iii, P.L., CLXXXVI, 964), who condemns it. Its prohibition is renewed as late as 1175 by a Council of London or Westminster (Hefele, op. cit., v, 688). There is no evidence of the intinctio in the East during the first ten centuries, but its existence in the eleventh century is one of the grounds of reproach advanced by Cardinal Humbert (d. 1061) against the Greeks. (Adv. Grec. calumnias, 33, B.L., CXLII, 967 sq.). According to Dom Martène (d.1739) the practice still existed in the East in his own time (op. cit., I, 13); while th custom of pouring some of the Precious Blood on the consecrated bread, which was then dried by heating and reserved during a whole year for the Communion of the sick, may be considered as a kind of intinctio. This latter custom was prohibited by Benedict XIV for the Italo-Greeks in 1752, but the usage, where it existed among them, of receiving the Host on a spoon with some drops of the Precious Blood, was allowed to be retained (Gasparri, op. cit., II, 1177).

It is abundantly clear from this brief survey of disciplinary variations during the first twelve centuries that church never regarded Communion under both kinds as a matter of Divine precept.

SINCE THE TWELFTH CENTURY

The final suppression of intinctio was followed in the thirteenth century by the gradual abolition for the laity of Communion under the species of wine. The desuetude of the chalice was not yet universal in St. Thomas’ time (d. 1274): “provide in quibusdam ecclesiis observatur,” he says “ut populo sanguis sumendus non detur, sed solum a sacerdote sumatur” (Summa, III, Q. lxxx, a. 12). The Council of Lambeth (1281) directs that wine is to be received by the priest alone, and non-consecrated wine is to be received by the faithful (Mansi, XXIV, 405). It is impossible to say exactly when the new custom became universal or when, by the Church’s approval, it acquired the force of law. But such was already the case long the outbreak of the Hussite disturbances, as is clear from the decree of the Council of Constance (see I above). The Council of Basle granted (1433) the use of the chalice to the Calixtines of Bohemia under certain conditions, the chief of which was acknowledgment of Christ’s integral presence under either kind. This concession, which had never been approved by any pope, was positively revoked in 1462 by the Nuncio Fantini on the order of Pius II. The Council of Trent while defining the points already mentioned, referred to the pope the decision of the question whether the urgent petition of the German emperor to have the use of the chalice allowed in his dominions be granted; and in 1564 Pius IV authorized some German bishops to permit it in their dioceses, provided certain conditions were fulfilled. But, owing to the inconveniences that were found to result, this concession was withdrawn in the following year. Benedict XIV states (De Missae Sacrif. II, xxii. n. 32) that in his time the kings of France had the privilege of communicating sub utraque at their coronation and on their death-bed. In the eighteenth century the deacon and subdeacon officiating at High Mass in the Church of Saint-Denis, Paris, on Sundays and solemn feasts, and at Cluny on all feasts of obligation, were allowed to receive sub utraque (Benedict XIV, loc. cit.) The only surviving example of this privilege is in the case of the deacon and subdeacon officiating in the solemn Mass of the pope.

III. THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION

The definition of the Council of Trent, to the effect that the communicant under one kind is deprived of no grace necessary for salvation (see I), was intended merely to negative the Utraquist contention, and is not to be understood as implying that Communion under one kind involves incompleteness of sacramental causality or a curtailment of sacramental grace. The council had no thought of deciding this point, which had been held to be an open question by theologians since the twelfth century and has continued to be treated as such down to our own day. Without attempting to sketch the history of the discussion, we will state here very briefly the ultimate form which the question has assumed and the opposing answers that have been given.

It is a recognized principle in sacramental theology that the sacraments cause what they signify, and the present discussion turns upon the interpretation of this principle in reference to the Holy Eucharist. Does the principle mean, not merely that the external rites are intended to signify, in a sufficiently distinctive way, the special graces they were instituted to confer, but that their efficiency in the production of grace is measured by the decree of clearness (where decrees are admissible) with which the sacramental signification is expressed? In the Eucharist grace is symbolized as spiritual refection or aliment, after the analogy of corporal nourishment; and this signification is admittedly expressed with greater clearness in the distinct reception of both species than in Communion in one kind. Are we to hold, therefore, that Communion sub utraque, being a more perfect symbol of a complete refection, conters a fuller degree of sacramental grace than Communion under one kind, or in other words, that by Divine institution there is a twofold causality or two distinct lines of causality in the Eucharist, corresponding to the two modes of reception, and that both lines of causality are required for the complete production of its fruits? A minority of the great theologians have answered this question in the affirmative, e.g. Vasquez (in III, Q. lxxx, a.12, disp. ccxv, c.ii), De Lugo (De Sac Euch. disp. xii, iii, 68 sq.), the Salmanticenses (De. Euch. Sac., disp. x, 52 sq.) Arguing on the lines indicated these theologians hold that per se Communion under both kinds confers more grace than Communion under one kind, and admit that the modern discipline of the Church withdraws this opportunity of more abundant grace from the faithful. But in doing so it inflicts they maintain, no notable spiritual privation, withholding no grace that is even remotely necessary for salvation; while, indirectly, the many advantages resulting from this discipline, particularly the increased reverence for the sacrament which it secures and the additional opportunities for frequent Communion which it provides, more than make up for whatever loss is involved. The majority of the theologians, however, rightly deny that Communion under one kind involves per se any loss or curtailment of sacramental grace. St. Thomas (III, Q. lxxx, a. 12, ad 3) and St. Bonaventure (In Sent. IV, XI, punct. ii, a. 1, q. 2) may fairly be claimed for this view, which is defended by Cajetan (In III, q. lxxx, a. 12, II), Dominicus Soto (In Sent. IV, XII, q. i.a. 12, II), Bellarmine (De Sac. Euch., IV, 33), Suarez (In III, q. lxxix, a. 8, disp. lxiii, VI, 8, sq.), Sylvius (In III, q. lxxx, a. 12, q. 2), Gonet (De Sac. Euch. disp. viii, 4, 11, 69), and a host of later writers. While admitting that the sacraments cause what they signify, these theologians deny that the extent of their causality is dependent on the mode or degree of perfection in which this signification is realized, or that there is any ground for distinguishing a twofold causality in the Eucharist depending on the twofold manner of reception. There is all the more reason for denying this in the case of the Holy Eucharist, since both the Body and Blood of Christ are really present and the complete refection intended by Christ are really received, under either species alone; and since, moreover, in the production of whatever grace is given, in additon to the grace of mere presence the more important cause is Christ Himself in His sacred humanity personally present in the recipient. Must we hold that Christ limited the grace-giving efficacy of His invisible presence so as to make it dependent on the accidental mode in which that presence is visibly symbolized rather than on the presence itself? Or that He curtailed the spiritually nutritive effects of what is de facto complete as an aliment and, as such, is sufficiently symbolized by either species, merely because the physical analogy in the manner of reception is not reproduced as literally and completely as it might be? Even in the natural order we do not always insist on the distinction between eating and drinking in reference to our bodily refection, and in the spiritual and supernatural sphere, where there is question of the soul’s refection by Divine grace, it is surely an overstraining of the law of sacramental symbolism to urge that distinction as insistently as do theologians of the first opinion. Such briefly is the line of argument by which the common opinion is supported. It only remains to add that in this opinion the reception of the chalice may augment, per accidens, the grace of the sacrament, by securing a longer continuance of the species and thereby of the Real Presence, and by helping to prolong or renew the fervent dispositions of the recipient.

P. J. TONER.

Communism

(Lat. communis.)

In its more general signification communism refers to any social system in which all property, or at least all productive property, is owned by the group, or community, instead of by individuals. Thus understood it comprises communistic anarchism, socialism, and communism in the strict sense. Communistic anarchism (as distinguished from the philosophic variety) would abolish not only private property, but political government. Socialism means the collective ownership and management not of all property, but only of the material agencies of production. Communism in the strict sense demands that both production-goods, such as land, railways, and factories, and consumption-goods, such as dwellings, furniture, food, and clothing, should be the property of the whole community. Previous to the middle of the nineteenth century the term was used in its more general sense, even by socialists. Marx and Engels called the celebrated document in which they gave to socialism its first “scientific” expression, the “Communist Manifesto.” They could scarcely do otherwise, since the word Socialism was used for the first time in the year 1833, in England. Before long, however, most of the followers of the new movement preferred to call their economic creed Socialism and themselves Socialists. To-day no socialist who believes that individuals should be allowed to retain ownership of consumption-goods would class himself as a communist. Hence the word is at present pretty generally employed in the narrower sense. Its use to designate merely common ownership of capital is for the most part confined to the uninformed, and to those who seek to injure socialism by giving it a bad name.

Communism in the strict sense is also distinguished from socialism by the fact that it usually connotes a greater degree of common life. In the words of the Rev. W.D.P. Bliss, “socialism puts its emphasis on common production and distribution; communism, on life in common” (“Handbook of Socialism,” p. 12). Communism aims, therefore, at a greater measure of equality than socialism. It would obtain more uniformity in the matter of marriage, education, food, clothing, dwellings, and the general life of the community. Hence the various attempts that have been made by small groups of persons living a common life to establish common ownership of industry and common enjoyment of its products, have generally been described as experiments in communism. In fact socialism, in its proper sense of ownership and operation of capital-instruments by the entire democratic State, has never been tried anywhere. This calls to mind the further distinction that communism, even as a present-day ideal, implies the organization of industry and life by small federated communities, rather than by a centralized State. William Morris thus distinguishes them, and hopes that socialism will finally develop into communism (“Modern Socialism,” edited by R.C.K. Ensor, p. 88). Combining all these notes into a formal definition, we might say that complete communism means the common ownership of both industry and its products by small federated communities, living a common life.

HISTORY

The earliest operation of the communistic principle of which we have any record, took place in Crete about 1300 B. C. All the citizens were educated by the State in a uniform way, and all ate at the public tables. According to tradition, it was this experiment that moved Lycurgus to set up his celebrated regime in Sparta. Under his rule, Plutarch informs us, there was a common system of education, gymnastics, and military training for all the youth of both sexes. Public meals and public sleeping apartments were provided for all the citizens. The land was redistributed so that all had equal shares. Although marriage existed, it was modified by a certain degree of promiscuity in the interest of race-culture. The principles of equality and common life were also enforced in many other matters. As Plutarch says, “no man was at liberty to live as he pleased, the city being like one great camp where all had their stated allowance.” In several other respects, however, the regime of Lycurgus fell short of normal communism: though the land was equally distributed it was privately owned; the political system was not a democracy but a limited monarchy, and later an oligarchy; and the privileges of citizenship and equality were not enjoyed by the entire population. The Helots, who performed all the disagreeable work, were slaves in the worst sense of that term. Indeed, the purpose of the whole organization was military and political rather than economic and social. As Lycurgus was inspired by the Cretan experiment, so Plato was impressed by the achievement of Lycurgus. His “Republic” describes an ideal commonwealth in which there was to be community of property, meals, and even of women. The State was to control education, marriage, births, the occupation of the citizens, and the distribution and enjoyment of goods. It would enforce perfect equality of conditions and careers for all citizens and for both sexes. Plato’s motive in outlining this imaginary social order was individual welfare, not State aggrandizement. He wanted to call the attention of the world to a State which was unique in that it was not composed of two classes constantly at war with each other, the rich and the poor. But his model commonwealth was to have slaves.

The communistic principle governed for a time the lives of the first Christians of Jerusalem. In the fourth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles we learn that none of the brethren called anything that he possessed his own; that those who had houses and lands sold them and laid the price at the feet of the Apostles, who distributed “to everyone according as he had need.” Inasmuch as they made no distinction between citizens and slaves, these primitive Christians were in advance of the communism of Plato. Their communism was, moreover, entirely voluntary and spontaneous. The words of St. Peter to Ananias prove that individual Christians were quite free to retain their private property. Finally, the arrangement did not long continue, nor was it adopted by any of the other Christian bodies outside of Jerusalem. Hence the assertion that Christianity was in the beginning communistic is a gross exaggeration. And the claim that certain Fathers of the Church, notably Ambrose, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostum, and Jerome, condemned all private property and advocated communism, is likewise unwarranted. Most of the religious, that is, ascetic and monastic orders and communities which have existed, both within and without the Christian fold, exhibit some of the features of communism. The Buddhist monks in India, the Essenes in Judea, and the Therapeutæ in Egypt, all excluded private ownership and led a common life. The religious communities of the Catholic Church have always practised common ownership of goods, both productive (whenever they possessed these) and non-productive. Their communism differs, however, from that of the economic communists in that its primary object is not and never has been social reform or a more just distribution of goods. The spiritual improvement of the individual member and the better fulfilment of their charitable mission, such as instructing the young or caring for the sick and infirm, are the ends that they have chiefly sought. These communities insist, moreover, that their mode of life is adapted only to the few. For these reasons we find them always apart from the world, making no attempt to bring in any considerable portion of those without, and observing celibacy. One important feature of economic communism is wanting to nearly all religious communities, namely, common ownership and management of the material agents of production from which they derive their sustenance. In this respect they are more akin to wage-earning bodies than to communistic organizations.

During the Middle Ages communism was held, and in various degrees practised, by several heretical sects. In this they professed to imitate the example of the primitive Christians. Their communism was, therefore, like that of the monastic orders, religious rather than economic. On the other hand, the motive of the religious orders was Christ’s counsel to seek perfection. Chief among the communistic heretical sects were: the Catharists, the Apostolics, the Brothers and Sisters of the Free Spirit, the Hussites, the Moravians, and the Anabaptists. None of them presents facts of any great importance to the student of communism. The next notable event in the history of communism is the appearance of St. Thomas More’s “Utopia” (1516). The purpose of this romantic account of an ideal commonwealth was economic, not military or religious. The withdrawal of large tracts of land from cultivation to be used for sheep-raising, the curtailment of the tenant’s rights to the common, and the rise in rents had already begun to produce that insecurity, poverty, and pauperism which later on became so distressing in England, and which still constitute a most perplexing problem. By way of contrast to these conditions, More drew his ideal picture of the State of Utopia. In his conception of industrial conditions, needs, and tendencies, More was ages ahead of his time. “I can have,” he says, “no other notion of all the other governments that I see or know than that they are a conspiracy of the rich, who on pretence of managing the public only pursue their private ends, and devise all the ways and arts they can find out: first, that they may without danger preserve all that they have so ill acquired, and then that they may engage the poor to toil and labour for them at as low rates as possible, and oppress them as much as they please.” This reads more like an outburst from some radical reformer of the twentieth century than the testimony of a state chancellor of the early sixteenth. In “Utopia” all goods are held and enjoyed in common, and all meals are taken at the public tables. But there is no community of wives. The disagreeable work is done by slaves, but the slaves are all convicted criminals. Concerning both the family and the dignity and rights of the individual, “Utopia” is, therefore, on higher ground than the “Republic.” There are several other descriptions of ideal States which owe their inspiration to “Utopia.” The most important are: “Oceana” (1656) by James Harrington; “The City of the Sun” (1625) by Thomas Campanella (q.v.); and Francis Bacon’s “New Atlantis” (1629). None of them has been nearly so widely read nor so influential as their prototype. Campanella, who was a Dominican monk, represents the authorities of “The City of the Sun” as compelling the best-developed women to mate with the best-developed men, in order that the children may be as perfect as possible. Children are to be trained by the State not by the parents, for they “are bred for the preservation of the species and not for individual pleasure.”

The comprehensive criticism of, and revolt against social institutions carried on by French writers in the eighteenth century naturally included theories for the reconstruction of the economic order. Gabriel de Mably (Doutes proposés aux philosophes économiques, 1768) who seems to have borrowed partly from Plato and partly from Rousseau, declared that community of goods would secure equality of condition and the highest welfare of the race; but he shrank from advocating this as a practical remedy for the ills of his own time. Morelly (Code de la nature, 1755) agreed with Rousseau that all social evils were due to institutions, and urged the ownership and management of all property and industry by the State. Both de Mably and Morelly were apostate priests. Morelly’s views were adopted by one of the French Revolutionists, F. N. Baboeuf, who was the first modern to take practical steps toward the formation of a communistic society. His plans included compulsory labour on the part of all, and public distribution of the product according to individual needs. To convert his theories into reality, he founded the “Society of Equals” (1796) and projected an armed insurrection; but the conspirators were soon betrayed and their leader guillotined (1797). Count Henri de Saint-Simon, whose theories received their final shape in his “Nouveau Christianisme” (1825), did not demand common ownership of all property. Hence he is looked upon as the first socialist rather than as a communist. He was the first to emphasize the division of modern society into employers and workingmen, and the first to advocate a reconstruction of the industrial and political order on the basis of labour and in the particular interest of the working classes. According to his view, the State should become the directer of industry, assigning tasks in proportion to capacity and rewards in proportion to work. He is also a socialist rather than a communist in his desire that reforms should be brought about by the central Government, instead of by local authority or voluntary associations. Charles Fourier (Traité de l’association domestique-agricole, 1822) did not even ask for the abolition of all capital. Yet he was more of a communist than Saint-Simon because his plans were to be carried out by the local communities, to which he gave the name of “phalanxes,” and because the members were to live a common life. All would dwell in one large building called the “phalansterie.” Tasks were to be assigned with some regard to the preferences of the individual, but there were to be frequent changes of occupation. Every worker would get a minimum wage adequate to a comfortable livelihood. The surplus product would be divided among labour, capital, and talent, but in such a way that those doing the most disagreeable work would obtain the highest compensation. Marriage would be terminable by the parties themselves. An attempt to establish a phalanx at Versailles in 1832 resulted in complete failure.

Etienne Cabet drew up a communistic programme in his “Voyage en Icarie” (1840), which was modelled upon the work of Sir Thomas More. He would abolish private property and private education, but not marriage nor the family life. Goods were to be produced and distributed by the community as a whole, and there was to be complete equality among all its members. In 1848 he emigrated with a band of his disciples to America, and established the community of Icaria in Texas. In 1849 they moved to the abandoned Mormon settlement of Nauvoo, Illinois. Here the community prospered for several years, until the usual solvent appeared in the shape of internal dissension. In 1856 the small minority that sided with Cabet settled at Cheltenham, near St. Louis, while the greater number moved to Southern Iowa, where they established a new community to which they gave the old name of Icaria. The latter settlement flourished until 1878, when there began a final series of disruptions, secessions, and migrations. The last band of Icarians was dissolved in 1895. At that time the community numbered only twenty-one members; in Nauvoo there were five hundred. Icaria has been called “the most typical experiment ever made in democratic communism” and “more wonderful than any other similar colony, in that it endured so long without any dogmatic basis.” The Icarians practised no religion. In his “Organisation du travail” (1840) Louis Blanc demanded that the State establish national workshops, with a view to ultimate State ownership and management of all production. After the Revolution of 1848 the French Government did introduce several national workshops, but it made no honest effort to conduct them according to the ideas of M. Blanc. They were all unsuccessful and short-lived. Like Saint-Simon, Louis Blanc was a socialist rather than a communist in his theories of social reorganization, property, and individual freedom. From his time forward all the important theories and movements concerning the reorganization of society, in the other countries of Europe as well as in France, fall properly under the head of socialism. The remainder of the history of communism describes events that occurred in the United States. In his “American Communities” William A. Hinds enumerates some thirty-five different associations in which communistic principles were either partially or wholly put into operation.

COMMUNISTIC SOCIETIES IN THE UNITED STATES

The Ephrata Community (Pennsylvania) was, with two unimportant exceptions, the earliest. It was founded in 1732 by Conrad Beissel, a German, who had for some years led the life of a religious hermit. Three men and two women who shared his views on the Sabbath were permitted to join him, and thus the six became a community. The members held property in common, laboured in common, lived in common, and observed complete equality of conditions. They regarded celibacy as preferable to the wedded state, and during the early years of the community the majority remained unmarried. Their primary aim, therefore, was religious and spiritual instead of social and economic. The community never had more than three hundred members; in 1900 it had only seventeen.

The most important communistic organization in the United States is that of the Shakers. Their first community was founded at Mt. Lebanon, N. Y., in 1787. At present there are thirty-five separate communities with a total membership of one thousand; once they aggregated five thousand. Like the Ephratans, the Shakers are a religious sect and live a community life for a religious purpose. The founders of their first American settlement were a band of English Quakers to whom the name Shakers was given because of their bodily agitations under the supposed influence of spiritual forces in their religious meetings. In the Shaker communities property is held in common (except in the ease of members who have not reached the Third, or Senior Order), meals are taken in common, there is a common hour for rising, modes of dress are uniform, and there are minute rules governing manners and conduct generally. While all members are on a footing of equality, the government is hierarchical rather than democratic. They make confession of sin before entering, observe celibacy, abstain from alcoholic drinks, discourage the use of tobacco, and endeavour to avoid “all worldly usages, manners, customs, loves and affections, which interpose between the individual citizen of the heavenly kingdom and his duties and privileges therein.” Owing to its principles and practices, Shaker communism is as little suited to the generality of men as monasticism. Their membership is recruited mostly through religious revivals and the reception of homeless children. Nevertheless the community has not been a complete failure as regards those who have remained faithful to its life. “For more than a hundred years,” they maintain, “they have lived prosperous, contented, happy lives, making their land bloom like the fairest garden; and during all these years have never spent among themselves a penny for police, for lawyers, for judges, for poor-houses, for penal institutions or any like ‘improvements’ of the outside world.”

Two communities that had a considerable resemblance to each other were the Harmonists, established in Pennsylvania in 1805 by George Rapp, and the Separatists of Zoar, founded in 1818 by Joseph Baumeler in Ohio. Both communities were German, were religious rather than economic, held the same religious views, and practised celibacy. Early in their history the Separatists abandoned celibacy, but continued to regard it as a higher state than marriage. The Harmonists had at one time one thousand members, but by the year 1900 dissensions had reduced them to nine. The Separatists never numbered more than five hundred. They ceased to exist as a community in 1898. The New Harmony Community was established in 1825 on land in Indiana that had once been occupied by the Harmonists. Its founder was Robert Owen, a Welshman, who had managed with remarkable success the New Lanark mills in Scotland. He was the first to introduce the ten-hour day into factories and to refuse to employ very young children and pauper children. He also established the first infant schools in England. He made the village of New Lanark a model of good order, temperance, thrift, comfort, and contentment. He was a humanitarian and reformer who did not shrink from large sacrifices on behalf of his theories. Encouraged by the success of his efforts at New Lanark, and believing that men were good by nature and needed only the proper environment to become virtuous, strong, intelligent, and contented, he began to dream of a communism that should be world-wide. He would have all persons gathered into villages of between three hundred and two thousand souls, each of whom was to have from one-half to one and one-half acres of land. The dwellings of each village would be arranged in a parallelogram, with common kitchens, eating-houses, and schools in the centre. Individual property was to be abolished. Such were the plans that he intended to try for the first time in the community of New Harmony. Before the end of its first year this community had nine hundred souls and thirty thousand acres of land. Before two years had passed dissensions had arisen, two new communities had been formed by seceders, and the original community had been dissolved. Several other communistic settlements which owed their existence to the teaching and example of Owen, were established in different States, but none of them outlived New Harmony. Like the latter, they all expressly rejected any religious basis. This seems to have been one of the chief reasons for their early dissolution. Toward the end of his life Owen gave up his materialistic notions, and admitted the supreme importance of spiritual forces in the formation of sound character.

The Oneida Community of Oneida, N. Y., was founded in 1848 by J. H. Noyes. Its purpose was primarily religious, “the establishment of the kingdom of God.” At one period it had five hundred members. For more than thirty years its members practised not only community of property and of life generally, but also of women, through their so-called “complex marriages.” The rearing of children was partly a parental but chiefly a community function. In deference to public sentiment outside, the practice of “complex marriage” was in 1879 discontinued. They then divided themselves into two classes, “the married and the celibate, both legitimate but the last preferred.” However, nearly all of them got married within a very short time. In 1881 the community was converted into a joint-stock company, the members owning individual shares. Financially, the new corporation has been a success, but most of its common-life features disappeared with “complex marriage.”

Between 1840 and 1850 some thirty communities modelled upon the phalanxes of Fourier were established in different parts of the United States. Only one lasted longer than six years, and the great majority disappeared within three years. Their rise was due chiefly to the writings and efforts of an exceptionally able, cultured, and enthusiastic group of writers which included Horace Greeley, Albert Brisbane, George Ripley, Parke Goodwin, William Henry Channing, Charles A. Dana, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Elizabeth Peabody. The most notable of these experiments was the one at Brook Farm. Although it took the form of a joint-stock company, paying five per cent interest, it exemplified the principles of communism in many particulars. The industries were managed by the community and all the members took turns at the various tasks; all received the same wages, all were guaranteed support for themselves and their dependents, and all enjoyed the same advantages in the matter of food, clothing, and dwellings. For the first two years (1841–43) the life was charming; but the enterprise was not a success financially. In 1844 the organization was converted into a Fourieristic phalanx, which had an unsuccessful existence of a few brief months. Brook Farm failed thus early because it had too many philosophers and too few “hard-fisted toilers.”

The Amana Community (Iowa) was begun in 1855 by a band of Germans who called themselves “True Inspirationists,” on account of their belief that the inspiration of the Apostolic age is still vouchsafed to Christians. Their distinctive religious tenets reach back to the Pietists of the seventeenth century, but as an organization they began at Hesse, Germany, in 1714. They came to America to escape religious persecution, not to practise communism. According to their own testimony, the communistic feature was introduced solely as a means to a better Christian life. The community tolerates marriage but prefers celibacy. Those who marry suffer a decline in social standing, and are compelled to wait for some time before they can regain their former position. One of their “Rules for Daily Life” reads thus: “Fly from the society of woman-kind as much as possible, as a very highly dangerous magnet and magical fire.” The families live separately, but eat in groups of from thirty-five to fifty. All property belongs to the community. In order the better to achieve their supreme purpose- and the imitation of Christ- life is very simple, and barren not only of luxury but of any considerable enjoyment. The Amana Community has for a long time been the largest community in existence, numbering between seventeen and eighteen hundred members. During sixty years the members of this community have lived in peace, comfort, and contentment, having neither lawyers, sheriffs, nor beggars.

None of the other communistic settlements of America presents features worthy of special mention. Of all the experiments made only the Amana Community and the Shakers survive. Societies like the Co-operative Brotherhood and the Equality Commonwealth of the State of Washington are examples of co-operation, or at most of socialism. Besides, they are all very young and very small.

GENERALIZATIONS DRAWN FROM COMMUNISTIC EXPERIMENTS

The history of communistic societies suggests some interesting and important generalizations.

FIRST:

All but three of the American communities, namely those founded by Robert Owen, the Icarians, and the Fourieristic experiments, and absolutely all that enjoyed any measure of success, were organized primarily for religious ends under strong religious influences, and were maintained on a basis of definite religious convictions and practices. Many of their founders were looked upon as prophets. The religious bond seems to have been the one force capable of holding them together at critical moments of their history. Mr. Hinds, who is himself a firm believer in communism, admits that there must be unity of belief either for or against religion. The importance of the spiritual and ascetic elements is further shown by the fact that nearly all the more successful communities either enjoined, or at least preferred, celibacy. If communism needs the ascetic element to this extent it is evidently unsuited for general adoption.

SECOND:

It would seem that where religion and asceticism are not among the primary ends, community of wives as well as of property easily suggests itself to communists as a normal and logical feature of their system. Even Campanella declared that “all private property is acquired and improved for the reason that each one of us by himself has his own home and wife and children.” Speaking of the decline of the Oneida Community, Mr. Hinds says: “The first step out of communism was taken when ‘mine and thine’ were applied to husband and wife; then followed naturally an exclusive interest in children; then the desire to accumulate individual property for their present and future use.” The founder of this community was of opinion that if the ordinary principles of marriage are maintained, communistic associations will present greater temptations to unlawful love than ordinary society. Communism therefore seems to face the Scylla of celibacy and the Charybdis of promiscuity.

THIRD:

All the American communities except those founded by Owen, were composed of picked and select souls who were filled with enthusiasm and willing to make great sacrifices for their ideal. Owen admitted recruits indiscriminately, but keenly regretted it afterwards; for he recognized it as one of the chief causes of premature failure. Moreover, the other communities separated themselves from and discouraged contact with the outside world. Most of the deserters were members who had violated this injunction, and become enamoured of worldly ways.

FOURTH:

The success attained by the American communities was in a very large measure due to exceptionally able, enthusiastic, and magnetic leaders. As soon as these were removed from leadership their communities almost invariably began to decline rapidly. This fact and the facts mentioned in the last paragraph add weight to the conclusions drawn from the first two, namely that communism is utterly unsuited to the majority.

FIFTH:

It is possible for small groups of choice spirits, especially when actuated by motives of religion and asceticism, to maintain for more than a century a communistic organization in contentment and prosperity. The proportion of laziness is smaller and the problem of getting work done simpler than is commonly assumed. And the habit of common life does seem to root out a considerable amount of human selfishness.

FINALLY:

The complete equality sought by communism is a well-meant but mistaken interpretation of the great moral truths, that, as persons and in the sight of God, all human beings are equal; and that all have essentially the same needs and the same ultimate destiny. In so far as they are embodied in the principle of common ownership, these truths have found varied expressions in various countries and civilizations. Many economic historians maintain that common ownership was everywhere the earliest form of land tenure. It still prevails after a fashion in the country districts of Russia. Within the last half-century, the sphere of common or public ownership has been greatly extended throughout almost all of the Western world, and it is certain to receive still wider expansion in the future. Nevertheless, the verdict of experience, the nature of man, and the attitude of the Church, all assure us that complete communism will never be adopted by any considerable section of any people. While the Church sanctions the principle of voluntary communism for the few who have a vocation to the religious life, she condemns universal, compulsory, or legally enforced communism, inasmuch as she maintains the natural right of every individual to possess private property. She has reprobated communism more specifically in the Encyclical “Rerum Novarum” of Pope Leo XIII. For the theories condemned in that document under the name of socialism certainly include communism as described in these pages. See COLLECTIVISM, SOCIALISM; PROPERTY.

PLATO, Republic (London, 1892); CATHREIN, Socialism, tr. from the German by GETTELMANN (New York, 1904); PÖHLMANN, Geschichte des antiken Communismus und Sozialismus (Munich, 1893–1901); CAPART, La propriété individuelle et le collectivisme (Namur, 1898); KAUTSKY, Communism in Central Europe at the Time of the Reformation (London. 1897); MORLEY, Ideal Commonwealths (London, 1885), comprising PLUTARCH’S Lycurgus, MORE’S Utopia, BACON’S New Atlantis, CAMPANELLA’S, City of the Sun, and HALL’S Mundus alter et idem; HARRINGTON, Commonwealth of Oceana (London, 1887); LICHTENBERGER, Le socialisme au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1895); ELY, French and German Socialism (New York, 1883); NORDHOFF, Communistic Societies of the United States (New York, 1875); WOOLSEY, Communism and Socialism (New York, 1880); HINDS, American Communities (Chicago, 1902); STAMHAMMER, Bibl. des Sozialismus und Communismus (Jena, 1893–1900).

JOHN A. RYAN.

Diocese of Como

DIOCESE OF COMO (COMENSIS).

Como is an important town in the province of Lombardy (Northern Italy), picturesquely situated on Lake Como, the ancient Lacus Larius. The city is of Celtic origin and was called Comum. In 195 B.C. it became a Romany colony. Destroyed by the Rhaetian Gauls, it was reconstructed by Pompeius Strabo and called Novocomm. It shared the vicissitudes of the surrounding region. In the tenth century the Bishops of Como were also its temporal lords. In the eleventh century the city became a free commune. In 1153 Como was devastated by the Milanese on account of its attachment to Frederick Barbarossa, who rebuilt the city in 1158. Then followed the rule of the Rusca family. In 1355 Franchin Rusca freely ceded the town to the Visconti, from which time it shared the fortune of the Duchy of Milan. Como is now the centre of the silk industry in Italy, and according to the census of 1901 had a population of 38,902. It has been the birthplace of many famous men, among them the elder and the younger Pliny, the historian Paulus Jovius, Pope Innocent XI, and the physicist Volta. Local legend credits the conversion of Como to the apostolate of St. Hermagoras of Aquileia (died c. 70). Until 1528 Como was, indeed, a suffragan of Aquileia (later of Venice) and followed the Aquileian Rite. The first known bishop was St. Felix, ordained by St. Ambrose in 379, and it is not improbable that he was the first bishop. Many Bishops of Como are venerated as saints: St. Probinus (391); St. Amantius (420); St. Abundius (450), sent as legate to the Council of Chalcedon by St. Leo the Great; St. Consul (469); St. Exuperantius (495); St. Eusebius (512); St. Eutychius (525); St. Euplius (532); St. Flavianus (535); St. Prosper (560); St. John Orcus (565); St. Agrippinus (568); St. Rubianus (586); St. Martinianus (615); St. Victorinus (628), opponent of Arianism as propagated by the Lombards; Alberico (1010), founder of the Abbey of Sant’Abondio; Rainaldo (1061), expelled by Henry IV for his loyalty to Gregory VII; Guglielmo della Torre (1204), builder of many churches and founder of a hospital; Benedetto Asinaga (1328), who fled from the persecution of the Rusca, Lords of Como; Lucchino Borsano (1396), who began the new cathedral; the learned reformer, Gian Antonio Volpi (1559). The cathedral of Como is a splendid monument of Christian art. It was begun in 1396, and was completed only in 1595; later the cupola and some small chapels were added (1730–44). In 1528 Como was placed under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Milan. The diocese has a population of 340,000, has 325 parishes, 3 religious houses of men and 12 of women.

U. BENIGNI

Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement

A Catholic secret society which included among its members many Catholic celebrities of the seventeenth century. It was founded in March, 1630, at the Convent of the Capuchins in the Faubourg Saint-Honore by Henri de Levis, Duc de Ventadour, who had just escorted his wife to the Convent of Mont-Carmel; Henri de Pichery, officer of Louis XIII’s household; Jacques Adhemar de Monteil de Grignan, a future bishop, and Philippe d’Angoumois, the Capuchin. Amongst those who soon joined it, should be mentioned Pere Suffren, a Jesuit, confessor to Louis XIII and Marie de’ Medici; the son and grandson of Coligny, the Protestant admiral, and Charles de Condren, General of the Oratorians. In 1631 this association was called the Company of the Most Blessed Sacrament. It was organized under the authority of a board composed of nine members, changed every three months, and which included a superior, usually a layman, and a spiritual director who was a priest. The associates met weekly and their organization was simultaneously a pious confraternity, a charitable society, and a militant association for the defence of the Church.

The company was an absolutely secret one. Louis XIII covertly encouraged it but it never wished to have the letters patent that would have rendered it legal. Archbishop Gondi of Paris refused his blessing to the company although, in 1631, Louis XIII wrote him a personal letter requesting him to confer it. The Brief obtained from the pope in 1633 by the Count de Brassan, one of the members, was of no importance and the company, eager to secure a new one, was granted only a few indulgences which it would not accept, as it did not wish to be treated as a simple confraternity. Guido Bagni, nuncio from 1645 to 1656 often attended the sessions of the company but its existence was never regularly acknowledged by an official document from Rome. The rule of secrecy obliged members “not to speak of the company to those who do not belong to it and never to make known the names of the individuals composing it. New members were elected by the board and it was soon decided that no congréganiste, i.e. member of a lay congregation directed by ecclesiastics, could be eligible. Matters of an especially delicate nature were not discussed at the weekly meetings, these being frequently attended by a hundred members, but were reserved for the investigation of the board. The company printed nothing and the keeping of written minutes was conducted with the utmost caution. There were fifty important branches outside of Paris, about thirty being unknown even to the bishops. Among other members were the Prince de Conti, the Marechal de Schomberg, the Baron de Renty, Magistrates Lamoignon, de Mesnes, and Le Fèvre d’Ormesson; Alain de Solminihac, Bishop of Cahors, now declared Venerable; St. Vincent de Paul, Olier, and Bossuet. The association laboured zealously to correct abuses among the clergy and in monastery to insure good behaviour in the churches, to procure missions for country parishes, and it had the honour of urging the establishment of a Seminary of Foreign Missions for the evangelizing of infidels. It also endeavoured to reform the morals of the laity by encouraging effective crusade of the Marquis de Salignae-Fénelon against duelling. Moreover, it was interested in the care of the poor, the improvement of hospitals, and the administration of galleys and prisons; and that the poor might have legal advice, it created today known as the secrétariats du peuple. It protected the fraternities of shoemakers and tailors organized by the Baron de Renty and assisted St. Vincent de Paul in most of his undertakings. In 1652 when Louis XIV, conqueror of the Fonde re-entered Paris and the city was flood with peasants, fugitive religious, hungry priests, the members of the company multiplied their generous deeds, demanded alms from their fellow-members outside of Paris, sent priests to hear the confessions of the sick decimated by war, founded parish societies for the relief of the poor, and established at Paris a general storehouse stocked with provisions, clothing, and agricultural implements to be distributed among the impoverished peasants. At that time the company spent 380,000 livres (equal 300,000 dollars) in charity each year. Finally, it was instrumental in bringing about the ordinance establishing the General Hospital where Christophe du Plessis, the magistrate, and St. Vincent de Paul organized the hospitals for mendicants.

Even those historians to whom the secret character of this association is obnoxious, give due credit to its admirable charities, but they attack its action in regard to Protestants. The company laboured diligently to increase conversions and organized the preaching of missions for Protestants in Lorraine, Dauphine, and Limousin and founded establishments in Paris, Sedan, Metz, and Puy for young converts from Protestantism. Moreover, it strove to suppress the outrages perpetrated by Protestants against the Catholic religion and opposed the oppression of Catholics by Protestants in a Protestant city like La Rochelle. Finally, without seeking the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the Company nevertheless remained constantly on the alert, lest any concession be made to Protestants beyond what the formal text of the edict demanded and its members sent documents to Jean Filleau, a Poitiers lawyer, who for twenty-five years issued “Catholic decisions” from a juridical point of view, on the interpretation of the Edict of Nantes. The protestation of the general assembly of the clergy in 1656 against the infringement of the edict by Protestants, was the outgrowth of a long documental work prepared by the members. In 1660, Lechassier who was Maître des Comptes and also one of the company, forwarded to all the country branches a questionnaire, i.e. a series of questions soaked with a view to helping the inquiry, of thirty-one articles on the infringement of the Edict of Nantes by Protestants. The answers were collected by Forbin-Janson, Bishop of Digne, who took active part in the assembly of clergy, the result being that commissaries were sent into the provinces for the purpose of setting right these abuses. But, in its own turn, the company violated the Edict of Nantes (of which Art. 27 declared Huguenots wholly eligible to public office), and, by secret manoeuvring, one day prevented twenty-five young Protestants from being received as attorneys at the Parlement of Paris. “The members thought they were doing right,” explained Père de la Briere “nevertheless, if we consider not their intention, but the very nature of their act and of their procedure, it is impossible to doubt that they were guilty of an iniquity.” According to the testimony of Père Rapin and the Count d’Argenson, these proceedings of the Company were the starting-point of the policy that was to culminate in 1685 in the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

The year 1660 witnessed the decline of the company. In consequence of incidents that had occurred at Caen, it was vigorously attacked in a libel by Charles du Four, Abbot of Aulnay, and denounced to Cardinal Mazarin by François Harlay de Champvallon Archbishop of Rouen. On 13 December, 1660, the members held a last general meeting at which, amid expressions of regret and deep emotion, it was decided to suspend their Thursday sessions and to add “ten or twelve elders” to the members of the board so that the company might continue to act provisionally; then these elders and the board selected eight individuals who were to correspond with the country branches one of the eight being Bossuet. On 13 December, 1660, Parliament issued a decree prohibiting all illicit assemblies, confraternities, congregations, and communities but Lamoignon, a member of the company and the first president, succeeded in preventing it from being designated by name. It seems that the meeting of the board and the elders held regularly enough in 1664 to be instrumental in obtaining the interdiction of “Tartuffe,” ceased almost altogether in 1665. The General Hospital and the Seminary of Foreign Missiors continued to exist as magnificent legacies of this association which Mazarin and many hostile historians who came after him, scornfully called the “Cabal of Devotees.”

GEORGES GOYAU

Compensation

Compensation, as considered in the present article denotes the price paid for human exertion or labour. Wherever men have been free to sell their labour they have regarded its compensation as a matter that involved questions of right and wrong. This conviction has been shared by mankind generally, at least in Christian countries. At the beginning of the fourth century, the Emperor Diocletian issued an edict which fixed the maximum prices for the sale of all goods, and appointed a legal schedule of wages for nineteen different classes of workingmen. In the preamble of the edict the emperor declares that his motive is to establish justice among his people (Levasseur, “Classes ouvrières avant 1789,” I, 112–114). Throughout the Middle Ages and down almost to the beginning of the nineteenth century, there was considerable legal regulation of wages in most of the countries of Europe. This practice indicated a belief that the compensation of labour ought to be brought under the rule of law and fairness, as these legislators conceived fair dealing.

The Fathers of the Church implicitly asserted the right of the labourer to sufficient compensation for the maintenance of his life when they declared that God wished the earth to be the common heritage of all men, and when they denounced as robbers the rich who refused to share their surplus goods with the needy. The theologians and canonists of the Middle Ages held that all commodities should be sold at that price which the social estimate regarded as just; but they insisted that in arriving at this estimate the community ought to take into account the utility, the scarcity, and the cost of production of the commodity. Inasmuch as the cost of production at that time was chiefly labour-cost, or wages, a just price for goods would necessarily include a just price for the labour that produced the goods. St. Thomas reflects the common view when he says that labour as well as goods should bring a just price (Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. cxiv, a. 1). Langenstein, in the fourteenth century, is more specific; for he declares that anyone can ascertain the just price of the wares that he has to sell by referring to the cost of living of one in his station in life (De Contractibus, Pt. I, cap. xii). Since the seller of the goods was generally the maker of them also, Langenstein’s rule was equivalent to the doctrine that the compensation of the master-workman should be sufficient to furnish him a decent livelihood. And we know that his remuneration did not differ greatly from that of the journeyman. From the meagre accounts that have come down to us, we are probably justified in concluding, with Professor Brants, that these standards of compensation and the methods of enforcing them generally secured to the medieval labourer a livelihood which the notions of the time regarded as becoming (Théories économiques aux xiiie et xive siècles, p. 123). At the beginning of the seventeenth century we find such writers as Molina and Bonacina asserting that the customary compensation of a place is, generally speaking, just compensation, and assuming that the worker has a right to a living from his labour.

To-day Catholic teaching on compensation is quite precise as regards the just minimum. It may be summarized in these words of Pope Leo XIII in the famous Encyclical “Rerum Novarum” (15 May, 1891), on the condition of the working classes: “there is a dictate of nature more ancient and more imperious than any bargain between man and man, that the remuneration must be sufficient to support the wage-earner in reasonable and frugal comfort. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions, because an employer or contractor will give him no better, he is the victim of fraud and injustice.” Shortly after the Encyclical appeared, Cardinal Goossens, the Archbishop of Mechlin, asked the Holy See whether an employer would do wrong who should pay a wage sufficient for the sustenance of the labourer himself but not for that of his family. An unofficial response came through Cardinal Zigliara, saying that such conduct would not be contrary to justice, but that it might sometimes violate charity, or natural righteousness—i. e. reasonable gratitiide. As a consequence of the teaching of Leo XIII, there has been widespread discussion, and there exists an immense literature among the Catholics of Europe and America concerning the minimum just wage. The present Catholic position may be summarized somewhat as follows: First, all writers of authority agree that the employer who can reasonably afford it is morally obliged to give all his employees compensation sufficient for decent individual maintenance, and his adult male employees the equivalent of a decent living not only for themselves but for their families; but not all place the latter part of the obligation under the head of strict justice. Second, some writers base this doctrine of a minimum just wage upon the principle of just price, according to which compensation should be equivalent to labour, while others declare that it is implicitly contained in the natural right of the labourer to obtain a decent livelihood in the only way that is open to him, namely, through his labour-contract and in the form of wages. The latter is undoubtedly the view of Leo XIII, as is evident from these words of the Encyclical: “It follows that each one has a right to procure what is required in order to live; and the poor can procure it in no other way than by work and wages.”

Authoritative Catholic teaching does not go beyond the ethical minimum, nor declare what is completely just compensation. It admits that full and exact justice will frequently award the worker more than the minimum equivalent of decent living, but it has made no attempt to define precisely this larger justice with regard to any class of wage-earners. And wisely so; for, owing to the many distinct factors of distribution involved, the matter is exceedingly complicated and difficult. Chief among these factors are from the side of the employer, energy expended, risk undergone, and interest on his capital; from the side of the labourer, needs, productivity, efforts, sacrifices, and skill; and from the side of the consumer, fair prices. In any completely just system of compensation and distribution all these elements would be given weight; hut in what proportion? Should the man who produces more than his fellow-worker always receive a larger reward, regardless of the effort that he has made? Should skill be more highly compensated than work that is degrading and disagreeable? Even if all men were agreed as to the different factors of distribution and their relative importance, from the side of capital and labour, there would remain the problem of justice to the consumer. For example, ought a part of the benefits arising from improvements in the productive processes to go to him? or should they all be appropriated by the agents of production? Pope Leo XIII showed is practical wisdom when, instead of dealing in detail with this question, he insisted strongly on the practice of arbitration. When wage-disputes are submitted to fair arbitration, all the criteria and factors of distribution above enumerated are usually taken into account, and accorded weight in conformity with practical justice. This is not, indeed, the same as ideal justice but in most cases it will approximate that goal as closely as is feasible in a world that is not absolutely perfect.

LEVASSEUR, Les classes Ouvrières en France avant 1789 (Paris, 1900); CAPART, La propriété individuelle et le collectivisme (Namur, 1898); BRANTS, Les théories économiques aux xiiie et xive siècles (Paris, 1895); GARNIER, De l’idée du juste prix (Paris, 1900); ASHLEY, English Economic History (London, 1893); PALGRAVE, Dictionary of Political Economy (New York, 1891), s. v. Government Regulation of Industry; LEO XIII, Encyclical, Rerum Novarum; VERMEERSCH, Quœstiones de Justitiâ (Bruges, 1901); POTTIER, De Jure et Justitiâ (Liège, 1900); MEYER ET AL., Die soziale Frage, reprinted from the Stimmen aus Maria-Laach; RYAN, A Living Wage (New York, 1906).

JOHN A. RYAN.

Occult Compensation

An extra-legal manner of recovering from loss or damage; the taking, by stealth and on one’s private authority, of the value or equivalent of one’s goods from a person who refuses to meet the demands of justice.

Considered strictly from the standpoint of commutative justice, although this proceeding may have on the surface all the appearance of theft, it is in reality the farthest removed from such. As defined, it implies a debtor who is able, but unwilling, to restore what he holds unjustly and a creditor who has an opportunity to recover possession of what is his own certain due. Since the effect as well as the purpose is solely to make a wrong cease, the transfer brought about by this method of self-protection is manifestly in keeping with equity and right. Thus occult compensation is based on the right of self-defence. It is clear that such dealing-out of justice to oneself without the sanction of public authority may become a course gravely prejudicial to public and social order and open to all manner of abuses and dangers. But the evil is no less real and pernicious, if, while avoiding this extreme, one runs to the opposite, and denies principles which safeguard natural rights of the individual and protect the weak against the constant danger of oppression from the strong. Catholic moralists steer clear of these two extremes and teach that it is licit, under certain conditions and with certain precautions, to have recourse to occult compensation.

In Doctor Bouquillon’s scholarly article in the “Catholic University Bulletin” (1896), II, 50–61, it is proved not only that the doctrine is sound and reasonable, but that “it has been accepted by philosophers and jurists, as far, even, as the terminology in which it has been formulated by our theologians; that it has always been substantially the same since the days of St. Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria, though in the course of time it has gained in clearness, and that when writings capable of pernicious influence have appeared they have been carefully weeded out.”

The requisite conditions may be reduced to three. First, the right of the creditor must be certain. Then respect for law and order demands that the authority of the law should be invoked whenever it is possible and recourse to established justice does not involve difficulties and losses out of all proportion with the gain to be derived. When laws operating through the regular channels fail to protect and are helpless to remove the evil of injustice, respect for them should not prevent one from taking one’s own by extraordinary means. Finally, provision should be made against the event of a later settlement by the debtor or his lawful heirs, which would necessitate restitution; and every reasonable effort should be made to avoid scandal or other evils of accusations, distrust, etc., to which cause may be given through ignorance of the moral value of such methods. When the danger to the community is thus minimized as far as it is humanly possible, legal justice honoured as far as it is entitled to honour, and the necessity of justice and right urgent, it is lawful in conscience, according to our accredited moralists, to avail oneself of the theory of occult compensation. It remains, however, that such cases are rare, that it is still more rarely within the competence of the ordinary individual to decide his own case without the advice of a prudent and disinterested counsellor, and that occult compensation should never be advised save in exceptional circumstances, on account of its potency for havoc in the hands of the ignorant or unscrupulous. But disregard for any or all of these precautions, while offending against legal, does not violate commutative justice, nor entail the duty of restitution, if the essential right is present.

LIGUORI, Theol. Mor. (Paris, 1845), Lib. IV, 521; DE LUGO, Disputat. de just. et jure (Paris, 1868), 16; SCAVINI, Theol. Mor. Univers., de Restitut. (Paris, 1867); BALLERINI, Opus Theol. Mor., De just. et jure (Prato, 1890); LEHMKUHL, Theol. Mor. Spec., De virtut. mor. (Freiburg, 1896); NOLDIN, Summa Theol. Mor., De sept. Decal. Prœc. (Innsbruck, 1906); GENICOT, Theol. Mor. Institut., De just. et jure (Louvain, 1905); SABETTI-BARRETT, Theol. Mor., De just. et jure (New York, 1906); KONINGS, Theol. Mor., De jure et just. (New York, 1877).

JOHN H. STAPLETON.

Privilege of Competency

(Lat. Privilegium Competentiœ)

(1) The competency of a cleric means his right to proper sustenance. When a parochial church has been incorporated with a collegiate institution or monastery and a vicar has been appointed to the cure of souls in the parish, the possessors of the benefice are obliged to give him the needful salary. Nor can the right to this competency be done away with by agreement. If a private contract be made by which a less sum is to be accepted, it will not bind the successor of the contracting vicar. Even if the contract be approved by public authority, it is not binding unless an amount sufficient for the proper support of the pastor be stipulated. The right to competency also has place when several simple benefices are united with a parish church. If the endowment is not sufficient for the necessary number of pastors, then recourse is to be had to firstfruits, tithes, and collections among the parishioners (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, c. xiii, de Ref.). It is the duty of the bishop to see that those who have the care of souls be provided with proper support. By the privilege of competency, the goods of a cleric, burdened with debt, cannot be attached or sold without leaving him sufficient means of support (Cap. 3, x., III, 23). A cleric loses this privilege, however, if he fraudulently contracts unnecessary debts, in abuse of the privilege. The civil law in some countries recognizes this right of competency. In Austria, while the property of a benefice cannot be attached, the revenues can, but only to such an extent that at least 300 or 210 florins, according to the rank of the benefice, must remain intact. In Germany, whatever is necessary for exercising the ministry is free from attachment. The civil laws of the United States and Great Britain make no exception for clerics.

(2) The term competency is also used for the sum total of the rights belonging to any ecclesiastical dignitary, as of the pope, bishops, etc. Objectively, such competency is determined by the various functions to which it extends, such as ordination, matrimony, and so forth.

AICHNER, Compend. Jur. Eccl. (Brixen, 1895); FERRARIS, Biblioth. Prompta Canon. (Rome, 1886), II; LAURENTIUS, Instit. Jur. Eccl. (Freiburg, 1903).

WILLIAM H. W FANNING.

Complin

The term Complin (Compline) is derived from the Latin completorium, complement, and has been given to this particular Hour because Complin is, as it were, the completion of all the Hours of the day: the close of the day. The word was first used in this sense about the beginning of the sixth century by St. Benedict in his Rule (cc. xvi, xvii, xviii, and xlii), and he even uses the verb complere to signify Complin: “Omnes ergo in unum positi compleant”; “et exuentes a completorio” (xlii). The Hour of Complin, such as it now appears in the Roman Breviary, may be divided into several parts, viz.: the beginning or introduction, the psalmody, with its usual accompaniment of anthems, the hymn, the capitulum, the response, the evangelical canticle, the prayer, and the benediction.

The origin of Complin has recently given rise to considerable discussion among liturgists. General opinion, which is also that of Bäumer and Batiffol, ascribes the origin of this Hour to St. Benedict, in the beginning of the sixth century. It was St. Benedict who first gave it this name; he decided also that this Hour should consist of three psalms (4, 90, and 133) to be said without anthems, the hymn, the lesson, the versicle Kyrie eleison, the benediction, and the dismissal (ch. xvii and xviii). But Father Pargoire and, later still, A. Vandepitte oppose this opinion and seek a more ancient origin for this Hour. A text in Callinicus (between 447 and 450), first introduced in Father Pargoire’s argument, informs us that between Vespers and the night Office there was celebrated in the East a canonical Hour called in this text prothypnia, because it preceded the first sleep, being nothing but what the Greeks of to-day call apodeipnon, on account of the meal it follows. However, in the thirty-seventh question of his rules, St. Basil, also, speaks of an intermediate Hour between Vespers and the night Office. Father Pargoire therefore disputes the assertion that St. Benedict was the originator of Complin, being rather disposed to trace its source to St. Basil. In the article mentioned Father Vandepitte confirms these conclusions; nevertheless he states, in the clearest terms, that it was not in Cæsarea in 375, but in his retreat in Pontus (358–362), that Basil established Complin, which Hour did not exist prior to his time, that is, until shortly after the middle of the fourth century. Dom Plaine also traced the source of Complin back to the fourth century, finding mention of it in a passage in Eusebius and in another in St. Ambrose, and also in Cassian. These passages have been critically examined, and Fathers Pargoire and Vandepitte have proved that before St. Basil’s time the custom of reciting Complin was unknown. At any rate, even if these texts do not express all that Dom Plaine says they do, at least they bear witness to the private custom of saying a prayer before retiring to rest. If this was not the canonical Hour of Complin, it was certainly a preliminary step towards it. The same writers reject the opinion of Ladeuze and Dom Besse, both of whom believe that Complin had a place in the Rule of St. Pachomius, which would mean that it originated still earlier in the fourth century. It is not necessary to enter into this discussion, but it might be possible to conciliate these different sentiments by stating that, if it be an established fact that St. Basil instituted and organized the Hour of Complin for the East, as St. Benedict did for the West, there existed as early as the days of St. Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria the custom of reciting a prayer before sleep, in which practice we find the most remote origin of our Complin. But let the result of this discussion be what it may, it cannot be denied that St. Benedict invested the Hour of Complin with its liturgical character and arrangement, which were preserved in the Benedictine Order and almost completely adopted by the Roman Church; it is hardly to be believed, as Dom Plaine maintains, that the Hour of Complin, at least such as it now exists in the Roman Breviary, antedated the Benedictine Office. In default of other proof, it may be noted that the Benedictine Office gives evidence of a less advanced liturgical condition, as we have seen that it consists of a few very simple elements. The Roman Office of Complin is richer and more complicated. To the simple Benedictine psalmody—modified, however, by the insertion of a fourth psalm (30), “In te Domine speravi”—it adds the solemn introduction of a benediction with a reading [perhaps the spiritual reading which, in St. Benedict, precedes Complin (ch. xlii of the Rule)], and the confession and absolution of faults. But what endows the Roman Complin with a distinctive character and greater solemnity is, to say nothing of the ending, the addition of the beautiful response, In manus tuas, Domine, with the evangelical canticle Nunc Dimittis and its anthem, which is very characteristic. It is really difficult to understand why St. Benedict, whose liturgical taste favoured solemnity in the Office, should have sacrificed these elements, especially the evangelical canticle. By way of liturgical variety the service of initium noctis may also be studied in the Celtic Liturgy (see CELTIC RITE), such as it is read in the Bangor Antiphonary, its plan being set forth by Warren and by Bishop. Under the title of Apodeipnon (after meals), the Greeks have an Hour that corresponds to our Latin Complin; it is very long and complicated, and its description may be seen in Father Pétridès’ article, cited below. This Apodeipnon, or Grand Apodeipnon, appears in an abridged form, or Small Apodeipnon.

NOTES

PARGOIRE, Prime et complies in Rev. d’hist. et de littér. relig. (1898), III, 281–288, 456–467; VANDEPITTE, Saint Basile et l’origine de complies in Rev. Augustinienne (1903), II, 258–264; PARGOIRE and PÉTRIDÈS in Dict. d’arch. et de liturgie, s. v. Apodeipnon, I, 2579–2589; DOM PLAINE, La Génèse historique des Heures in Rev. Anglo-romaine, I, 593; IDEM, De officii seu cursus Romani origine in Studien u. Mittheilungen (1899), X, 364–397; BÄUMER, Histoire du Bréviaire, tr. BIRON, I, 135, 147–149 and passim; BATIFFOL, Histoire du bréviaire romain, 35; LADEUZE, Etude sur le cénobitisme pakhomien pendant le IVe siècle et la première moitié du Ve (Louvain, 1898), 288; BESSE, Les Moines d’Orient antérieurs au concile de Chalcédoine (Paris, 1900), 333; BISHOP, A Service Book of the Seventh Century in The Church Quarterly Review (January, 1894), XXXVII, 347; CABROL, Le Livre de la Prière antique, 224.

FERNAND CABROL.

Compostela

A famous city of Spain, situated on an eminence between the Sar (the Sars of Pomponius Mela) and Sarela. At a very remote period this hill was crowned by a Celtic castle, known as Liberum Donum, according to twelfth century, “Historia Compostelana” (cf. Welsh llwybr, “way,” and don, “tower,” “castle.” Compostela overlooks two Roman roads; the Celto-Roman name was probably Liberodunum). It has been an archiepiscopal see since 1120, but as the successor to the ancient See of Iria its episcopal rank dates certainly from the fourth, probably from the first, century of our era.

ETYMOLOGY

The name Compostela does not appear before the tenth century. In a document of 912 it is said of the monastery of St. Martin, near the cathedral: quod situm est in urbe Compostella. King Ferdinand I in a privilege of 10 March, 1063, apropos of St. James the Great, says: cujus corpus requiescit Gallecia in urbe Compostella. Three years previous a council held in the cathedral is called Compostellanum. From this the name is in frequent use and gradually usurps the names familiar to previous centuries; locus sanctus, arcis marmoreis, ecclesia, or civitas sancti Jacobi. The name seems to be a diminutive of composta, “established,” in reference to the stronghold (civitatella) of the city. Similar diminutives abound in the Middle Ages. The cité of Paris, the city of London, the Tolétula of Toledo, the Almudena, diminutive of Almedina, in Madrid and in Palma (Majorca), recall the former distinction between the territory without the walls and the city (civitas) properly so called. The episcopal city of the Island of Minorca (in Romano-Punic, Iamo) yet retains its medieval name Ciutadilla.

THE SEE OF COMPOSTELA

Its history may be divided into two periods, before and after its elevation (1120) to the metropolitan dignity.

THE BISHOPRIC

The Sar swollen by the Sarela flows onward from Com- postela some fifteen or sixteen miles until it joins the Ulla, and empties into the sea at Padron (Patronus), a hamlet which has borne that name since the ninth century in memory of the fact that it was the landing—place of the galley which bore to Gallicia the body of the Apostle St. James the Great. Here stood in those days the city of Iria, capital of the Gallician Caporos, as may be seen from its Roman ruins, especially the inscriptions, some of which are contemporary with the beginning of the Christian Era. Pomponius Mela, who lived in the reign of Emperor Claudius, i. e at the time of St. James’s martyrdom, says that the Sar enters the ocean near the Tower of Augustus (Turris Augusti); the foundations of the latter are still recognizable an the outer harbour of Iria. In the reign of Vespasian the cognomen Flavia was added; as Iria Flavia it appears in the Geography of Ptolemy. According to a very probable tradition, it was here that the Apostle St. James the Great preached the Christian religion and founded an episcopal see. This tradition was already widespread in the year 700, when St. Aldhelm, Abbot of Malmesbury, later Bishop of Sherborne, wrote as follows (P.L., LXXXIX, 293):

Hic quoque Jacobus, cretus genitore vetusto

Delubrum sancto defendit tegmine celsum;

Qui, clamante pio ponti de margine Christo,

Linquehat proprium panda cum puppe parentem.

Primitus Hispanas convertit dogmate gentes,

Barbara divinis convertens agmina dictis,

Quae priscos dudum ritus et lurida fana,

Daemonis horrendi deceptae fraude, colebant;

Plurima hic praesul patravit signa stupendus

Quae nunc in chartis scribuntur rite quadratis.

(Here also James, born of an ancient sire, protects the lofty shrine with a holy roof—he who, when dear Christ called him from the Seashore, left his own father with the curved ship. He, at the first did convert the Spanish peoples by his teaching, turning towards God’s word the barbarous hordes that had long practised primitive rites and worshipped at the shrines of darkness, being deceived by the craft of the evil one. Here did the wonderful bishop perform many portents, which are now set down in order upon our fourfold chart.) The list of the bishops of Iria known to us from their presence at councils and from other authentic sources begins with the year 400. They are: Ortigius . . . , Andreas (572), Dominicus, Samuel, . . . , Gotumarus (646), Vincibilis, Ildulfus Felix (683), Selva, Leosindus . . . , Theudemirus (808?), Adaulfus I (843), and Adaulfus II (851–79). Under the last-named the city was destroyed by Norman pirates, on which occasion both bishop and chapter took refuge behind the strong walls of Compostela. Soon they petitioned King Ordono II and Pope Nicholas I to permit them to transfer the see from Iria to Compostela, near the sepulchre and church of St. James. Both pope and king consented on condition, however, that the honour of the see should be divided between the two places. From the second half of the ninth century therefore the bishops of this see are known indiscriminately as Irienses or Sancti Jacobi, even ecclesiae apostolicae sancti Jacobi, finally as Compostellani. At the end of the eleventh century, through reverence for the body and the sepulchre of St James, Urban II withdrew from Iria its episcopal rank and transferred the see in its entirety to Compostela. At the same time he exempted it from the authority of the metropolitan and made it immediately subject to the Holy See. . This is evident from the Bull of 5 Dec., 1095, in favour of the Cluniac bishop, Dalmatius, present at the famous Council of Clermont.

THE METROPOLITAN SEE

Thenceforth the see grew in importance, likewise its magnificent Romanesque church, modelled on that of Puy in France, and frequented by pilgrims from all parts of Christendom. Like the cathedral of Toledo after the reconquest (1085), it became the principal centre of the political renaissance of Catholic Spain and its self-assertion against Moslem power. Pope Callistus II recognized the great merits of Diego Gelmírez, Bishop of Compostela, and in view of the reconquest of much Portuguese territory, and the near recovery of its freedom by Merida, the ancient metropolis of Lusitania (Portugal), confided to him the perpetual administration of that archdiocese, whereby Compostela became a metropolitan see. Since then it has been occupied by many illustrious men, not a few of whom were raised to the cardinalitial dignity (Gams,( “Series episcoporum ecclesiae Catholicae,” Ratisbon, 1873; Eubel, “Hierarchia catholica medii aevi,” Munster, 1898). The Bull of Callistus II (26 Feb., 1120) clothed the metropolitan of Compostela with authority over the following dioceses of the ancient Provincia Lusitana: Salamanca, Avila, Coria, Ciudad Rodrigo, Plasencia, Badajoz—(in Spain); Idanha (Guarda), Lamego, Lisbon, Evora, Osonova (Silves)—in Portugal beyond the Duero. Though Compostela lost the Portuguese dioceses, 10 Nov., 1399, when Lisbon was made an archbishopric, it acquired in return Astorga, Lugo, Mondonedo, Orense, Tuy, and Zamora. The Concordat of 1851 left it with only five: Lugo, Mondonedo, Orense, Oviedo and Tuy. The list of the councils of Compostela may be seen in the aforesaid work of Gams, and their text in Mansi or Aguirre. One of the most important is the provincial council which asserted the innocence of the Templars within its jurisdiction; another, held 29 Oct., 1310, anticipated in its fourth canon the action of the Council of London (Oct., 1329) under Simon of Mepham, Arcbbishop of Canterbury in decreeing the yearly celebration of the feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin throughout the province of Compostela on the eighth of December. Among those who have occupied the See of Compostela may be mentioned: St. Rosendus (970–77); St. Peter de Mononcio (986–1000) probably the author of the Salve Regina; Diego Peláez (1070–88), who began the reconstrucion of the cathedral; Diego Gelmírez (1100–42?), the first Archbishop of Compostela, and who continued the work of Bishop Peláez; Pedro Muñoz (1207–11), who finished the cathedral; Cardinal Miguel Payá y Rico (1874–85), who had the honour of discovering in a crypt behind the high altar of the cathedral the sepulchre and the relics of the Apostle St. James.

The sepulchre of St. James and questions relating thereto are treated in the article ST. JAMES THE GREATER. It will suffice to mention here the document which confirms better than any other the history and the authenticity of this sacred relic of the primitive Christian life of Spain, i.e. the solemn Bull of Leo XIII (1 Nov., 1884) in which he confirms the declaration of Cardinal Payá, Archbishop of Compostela, concerning the identity of the bodies of the Apostle St. James the Greater and his disciples Athanasius and Theodorus.

F. FITA

Compromise (in Canon Law)

Compromise, in a general sense, is a mutual promise or contract of two parties in controversy to refer their differences to the decision of arbitrators. Compromise (Lat. Compromissum) may take place either in elections or in other matters in which dispute arises. In the latter case it may be effected either by law or by option. If the arbiter holds his positiOn by prescription of law, ex jure, the compromise is by law or necessary; if by agreement of the parties, the compromise is by option or voluntary (arbiter compromissarius). In compromise by law the arbiter juris is compelled to take the office; his sentence can be appealed from; but he has coercive power over all and can examine and punish. Whereas in compromise by option the voluntary arbiter is free to undertake the office; there is no appeal from his decision, for the parties freely bind themselves to abide by it; he can only take cognizance of the case; and his duties and powers are defined, conferred and imposed by the parties who have freely chosen him. According to Roman law, and also the old canon law (jus vetus), there was no appeal from the decision of the voluntary arbiter. Later canon law, however, admits of an extrajudicial appeal (provocatio ad causam), especially if there be manifest injustice in the decision. If more than one arbiter be appointed, the number should be an odd one. The subject of compromise can only be such matter as lies within the disposition of the contesting parties. Hence causes beyond the disposal of private parties cannot be made the subject of compromise, as, e. g., criminal causes, matrimonial causes properly so called, causes reserved by law to the supreme courts.

Compromise in elections consists in a commission given by the body of electors to one or several persons to designate the elected person in the place of all. This compromise, in order to be valid, must be the act of all the electors, unless it results from a pontifical declaration. It is not necessary that the compromissarii thus chosen belong to the chapter (q. v.) or to the body of electors; they must, however, be clerics, as laymen cannot exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction and are expressly excluded from elections by law. The electors can posit conditions which must be fulfilled by the arbiters, if they are not against the general canon law. If such conditions are legitimate, they must be fulfilled under penalty of nullity of the compromise or of the election thus performed. In all absolute and unconditioned compromise the arbiters are bound only by the general laws of procedure to be observed in elections. If the person thus designated by the compromissarii be qualified and worthy, and the form and the limits of the compromise be observed, the electors must abide by the result of this decision.

PERMANEDER in Kirchenlex., III, 778; FERRARIS, Prompta Bibliotheca (Rome, 1885), I, s. v. Arbiter, Arbitrator; TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), s. v. Arbiter.

LEO GANS.

St. Conal

(Or Conall).

An Irish bishop who flourished in the second half of the fifth century and ruled over the church of Drum, County Roscommon, the place being subsequently named Drumconnell, after St. Conal. Colgan and his copyists inaccurately locate his church at Kilconnell in County Galway, but is is now certain that the church of which St. Conal was bishop was south of Boyle, and, as a matter of fact, the saint is known as “Blessed Conal of Drum.” The error of ascribing Kilconnell and Aughrim, County Galway, as foundations of St. Conal can also be dissipated by a reference to the life of St. Attracta, wherein it is recorded that she came to the neighbourhood of Boyle in order to build a cell near the church of her uterine brother, St. Conal, but was dissuaded from her project by St. Dachonna of Eas Dachonna, now Assylin, at the bidding of the saint. We read that St. Attracta prophesied that the episcopal churches of St. Conal (Drumconnell) and St. Dachonna (Eas Dachonna) would in after days be reduced to poverty, owing to the fame of a new monastic establishment. This prophecy was strikingly fulfilled, inasmuch as Drum and Assylin soon after ceased to be episcopal sees, while in 1148 the great Cistercian Abbey of Boyle (q.v.) was founded St. Conal died about the year 500, and his feast is celebrated on 18 March, though some assign 9 February as the date.

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

St. Conan

Bishop of the Isle of Man, died January, 684; an Irish missionary, also known as Mochonna. He is not to be confounded with St. Conindrius, who is said to have been a disciple of St. Patrick, and to have lived to be a very advanced age (17 November, 560). The Bollandists place St. Conan amongst the early bishops of Man, and Colgan gives an account of his life and labours. Unfortunately the history of the Isle of Man in the fifth and sixth centuries is very obscure, and it is difficult to get at definite facts, yet St. Conan, or Mochonna, who is also described as “Bishop of Inis-Patrick” left a distinct impress of his zeal for souls in Manxland. Some authorities give the date of his death as 26 January, but Colgan, quoting from the ancient Irish martyrologies, gives 13 January, on which day St. ConanUs feast is observed. There are also several minor Irish saints of the same name, including St. Conan of Assaroe (8 March), and St. Conan of Ballinamore (26 April).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

Concelebration

Concelebration is the rite by which several priests say Mass together, all consecrating the same bread and wine. It was once common in both East and West. As late as the ninth century priests stood around their bishop and “consented to his sacrifice” (Corp. Jur. Can., Decr. Grat., Pars III, dist. I, cap. 59). The rite of Concelebration was modified at Rome (perhaps in the time of Pope Zephyrinus, 202–218) so that each priest should consecrate a separate host (the deacons holding these in patens or corporals); but they all consecrated the same chalice (“Ordo Rom. I,” 48; see also Dechusne, “Liber Pont.,” I, 139 and 246). In the sixth century this rite was observed on all station days; by the eighth century it remained only for the greatest feasts, Easter, Christmas, Whitsunday, and St. Peter (“Ordo Rom. I,” 48; Duchesne, “Origines,” 167). On other days the priests assisted but did not concelebrate. Innocent III (1198–1216) says that in his time the cardinals concelebrate with the pope on certain feasts (De Saer. Altar. Myst. in Migne, P.L., CCXVII, IV, 25). Durandus, who denied the possibility of such a rite (Rationale Div. Off., IV, d. xiii, q. 3) is refuted by Cardinal Bona (Rer. Liturg., I, xviii, 9). St. Thomas defends its theological correctness (Summa Theol., III:82:2). Concelebration is still common in all the Eastern Churches both Catholic and schismatic. In these, on any greater feast day, the bishop says the holy liturgy surrounded by his priests, who consecrate with him and receive Holy Communion from him, of course under both kinds. So also, at any time, if several priests wish to celebrate on the same day, they may do so together.

In the Latin Church the rite survives only at the ordination of priests and bishops. [Note: Concelebration was fully restored to the Latin Church after the Second Vatican Council.] The newly-ordained priests say the Offertory prayers and the whole Canon, including the words of consecration, aloud with the bishop, kneeling around him. The words of consecration especially must be said “slowly and rather loud” and “at the same moment with the pontiff” (Pont. Rom., do Ord. Presb., rubric). They must say the words significative, that is with the intention of consecrating (Benedict XIV, de SS. Missæ Sacr., III, xvi, 6), and must be careful not to say them before, but exactly with, the bishop (op. cit., loc. cit., 7). They receive Holy Communion under one kind. The same rite is used at a bishops consecration, except that in this case the new bishop communicates with the consecrator under both kinds (Pont. Rom., de Cons. Electi in Episc., rubric in the text).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Diocese of Concepción

(SANCTISSIMÆ CONCEPTIONIS DE CHILE)

Located in the Republic of Chile, suffragan to Santiago de Chile. The diocese embraces the provinces of Aranco, Bío-Bío, Concepción, Nuble, Maule, Linares, and Malleco, comprising an area of 27,901 square miles. The Bull of erection was issued by Pius IV, 22 May, 1563, since which time, with the exception of the period between 1818–32 when the see was vacant, a bishop has always had his seat at Concepción. Among the institutions of the diocese may be mentioned an orphan asylum and a missionary college under the Capuchins.

In the diocese there are represented ten religious congregations of men and seven of women, among the latter the Sisters of Providence, Sisters of Mercy, Sisters of Christian Charity, who have a novitiate and college, Sisters of the Good Shepherd, and Sisters of the Sacred Heart; they number in all 393. The diocese has a Catholic population of 835,790, with 52 parishes, 190 priests, 91 secular and 99 regular, 135 churches and chapels. In addition to the college and seminary there are nine Catholic schools with an attendance of 2550 pupils. (See (CHILE)

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. Cath. (Paris, 1908); Ann. Eccl. (Rome, 1908).

F. M. RUDGE

Conceptionists

A branch of the Order of Saint Clare, founded by Beatriz de Silva. Isabel, the daughter of Edward, King of Portugal, having married John II (1406–1454) of Castile, took her kinswoman, Beatriz de Silva, sister of James I, Count of Portalegre, with her. The beautiful Beatriz, however, aroused the suspicion and jealousy of the queen, and was imprisoned. Escaping, she fled to the Sisters of St. Dominic at Toledo, where she lived about forty years. Her veneration for the Immaculate Conception of Mary inspired her to found, with twelve companions, a special order in honour of Mary’s privilege. Queen Isabella gave her the castle of Galliana in 1484. The sisters followed the Cistercian rule, reciting the Office of the Blessed Virgin in addition. Beatriz died 1 Sept., 1490, at the age of sixty-six.

Through the influence of Ximnenes de Cisneros, the famous Archbishop of Toledo, the Conceptionists were subordinated to the Franciscans, and in 1501 they adopted the rules of the Order of Saint Clare, modified with the authorization of Alexander VI. Julius II sanctioned them anew in 1506; Quiñonez, provincial of the Franciscans of Castile, and later general of the entire order, drew up their constitution in 1516. The second convent was founded at Torrigo, another at Madrid in 1512, and one at Assisi in the same year. Maria Theresa of Austria, daughter of Philip IV of Spain, summoned them to the Faubourg Saint-Germain at Paris, where the Sisters of Saint Clare adopted their rules, which were again modified by a Brief of Clement X. The Conceptionists wear a white habit and scapular with a blue cloak, and an image of the Blessed Virgin on their habit. The celebrated Maria de Agreda (q. v ), author of “The Mystical City of God,” was a Conceptionist. The Conceptionist congregation is at present spread widely throughout Spain and Belgium.

HÉLYOT, Hist. des ordres monastiques, VII, 334–39; WADDING, Annales Min. (Rome, 1736), XV, 451, XVI; HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen der kath. Kirche (Paderborn, 1907), II, 488 sqq.; Acta Ordinis Min. (1907), XVI, 347 sqq.; Hist. abrégée de l’ordre de Ste Claire d’Assise (Lyons and Paris, 1906), II, 259 sqq.

MICHAEL BIHL.

Industrial Conciliation

Industrial Conciliation is the discussion and adjustment of mutual differences by employers and employees or their representatives. Arbitration (q. v.) implies the submission of such differences to a body in which the authoritative decision is rendered by a disinterested person. In mediation a disinterested person strives either to bring the parties together for conciliation or to induce them to make such mutual concessions as will lead to an agreement. The term, “boards of conciliation,” describes not merely committees of employers and employees, but also those appointed by the civil authority, and by private associations. The two latter are primarily concerned with the work of mediation.

In France conciliation has been practised since 1806 by the conseils de prudhommes, or committees of experts. These are composed of equal numbers of employers and employees, and are legally authorized to interpret existing labour contracts and adjust minor grievances. Within this limited field they have been quite successful. Five-sixths of the strikes that were settled by the French Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1892, during the first ten years of its existence, were disposed of by the method of conciliation. For the last thirty-five years conciliation has practically eliminated strikes from the manufactured iron and steel trade in the north of England. Recourse was had to conciliation in 506 of the 788 disputes that were adjusted by boards of conciliation and arbitration throughout England in the year 1903. In the United States about half the States have boards of conciliation and arbitration, while the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Commissioner of Labour are directed by the federal law of 1898 to endeavour to bring about conciliation or arbitration whenever they are appealed to by one of the parties to any dispute which threatens seriously to interfere with interstate commerce. Only five of the State boards have accomplished anything worthy of notice, and these five have settled relatively few disputes—mostly by conciliation. The national board has recently given promise of a considerable measure of usefulness. Boards of conciliation composed jointly of employers and employees have adjusted a large number of important differences in many industries—for example, in the shoe industry, the building trades, and the coal mines of the East and the Middle West. Conciliation has also had considerable success through the mediation of prominent citizens, and of bodies like the Civic Federation.

The importance of conciliation finds recognition in the recommendation of Pope Leo XIII (Encyclical on the Condition of Labour, “Rerum Novarum,” 15 May, 1891) that masters and workmen should unite in joint associations, and select capable committees for the decision of disputes. This method is highly consonant with Christian peace and Christian charity. Its chief advantages over arbitration are that it brings the two parties together in friendly and informal discussion, teaches each to appreciate the position and rights of the other, and results in a decision that is more willingly accepted and more faithfully observed. There are, however, two important situations in which conciliation can have but slight success: first, where compulsory arbitration is in vogue; second, where the employees have not sufficient economic strength to inflict considerable damage upon their employer through the alternative of a strike. The experience of Western Australia and New Zealand seems to prove the first contention (cf. Clark, The Labour Movement in Australasia, p. 161), while the second seems established by the fact that conciliation was practically unknown before the era of labour unions, and that it has still very little application in unorganized trades. On the other hand, the first step towards conciliation, namely, discussion of differences on an equal plane, becomes quite feasible as soon as each side realizes the strength of the other. When they treat each other as equals and as reasonable men, they easily reach an agreement. Conciliation then becomes much more frequent than voluntary arbitration indeed, it renders the latter method almost superfluous. The labour unions are committed to it, and seem to prefer it to arbitration. John Mitchell sees in the trade agreement, which is essentially the method of conciliation, the greatest hope for industrial peace in America (Organized Labour, p. 354), and Professor T. S. Adams thinks that America will follow the same line of development as England, where conciliation has already produced conditions of industrial peace which are almost entirely satisfactory (Labour Problems, pp. 312, 314, 319). Not the least of the influences making for the extension of conciliation in the United States is public sentiment, which threatens to establish the alternative of compulsory arbitration.

HATCH, Bulletin of the U. S. Bureau of Labor, No. 60; ADAMS AND SUMNER, Labor Problems (New York, 1905), viii; BOLEN. Getting a Living (New York, 1903), xxvii; MITCHELL, Organized Labor (Philadelphia, 1903), xxxix; WEBB, Industrial Democracy (London, New York, and Bombay, 1897), pt. I, iii; Final Report of U. S. industrial Commission, pp. 833–847; GILMAN, Methods of Industrial Peace (New York, 1904); ANTOINE, Cours d’économie sociale (Paris, 1899), 467–470; TURMAN, Activitis sociales (Paris, 1907).

JOHN A. RYAN.

Daniello Concina

Dominican preacher, controversialist and theologian, b. at Clauzetto or San Daniele, small places in the Italian province of Friuli, 20 October, 1687; d. at Venice, 21 February, 1756. On the completion of his early studies at the Jesuit college at Görz Austria, he entered the Dominican Order making his religious profession in March 1708, in the convent of Sts. Martin and Rose. After studying philosophy three years, he was sent to study theology in the convent of the Holy Rosary at Venice, where he spent eight years under the direction of the fathers of his order, Andruisso and Zanchio. In 1717 he was appointed to the chair of philosophy, and later to that of theology, in the convent of Forli. About this time he began to attract attention as a preacher. He confined himself at first to the smaller places, but his success soon brought him to the pulpits of the chief cities of Italy; and he preached the Lenten sermons seven times in the principal churches of Rome.

Concina’s literary activity was confined chiefly to moral topics. His career as a theologian and controversialist began with the publication of his first book, “Commentarius historico apologeticus,” etc. (Venice, 1736, 1745), in which be refuted the opinion, then recently adopted by the Bollandists, that St. Dominic had borrowed his ideas and form of religious poverty from St. Francis. While engaged in the sharp controversy aroused by this work, he entered into another concerning the Lenten fast, which was not closed until Benedict XIV issued (30 May, 1741) the Encyclical, “Non ambigimus” which was favourable to Concina’s contention. Shortly afterwards he published his “Storia del probabilismo e rigorismo” (Venice, 1743), a work composed of theological, moral, and critical dissertations. Being directed against the Jesuits, it naturally gave rise to a large controversial literature. The work was highly praised by some notably by Benedict XIV, but among others it met with a very unfavourable reception. The Fathers of the Society of Jesus, the recognized champions of probable opinions in matters of conscience, were not slow in defending their position. The controversy reached a climax when Concina published under the auspices of Benedict XIV, his “Theologia christiana dogmatico-moralis” (12 vols. in 4to, Rome and Venice, 1749–51). The Jesuits appealed to the pope to have it condemned on the ground that it contained errors and was very injurious to the Society. A commission of theologians was then appointed to examine the work, with the result that Concina was requested to prefix to the subsequent edition a declaration dictated by the pope. This declaration, which was practically a summary of the petition of condemnation made by his opponents, appeared in the edition of 1752, but that work itself showed no changes of importance, except the addition of one chapter to the preface in which the author protested that he had always entertained the sincerest regard for the Society of Jesus, that as private theologian he refuted opinions which he considered lax, regardless of authorship, and that if he had erred in any way or done any wrong, he was ready to make a full retractation (cf. Theol. Christ., ch. xiii in praef. t. 1, p. cxxiv).

In his “Theologia christiana” Concina found occasion to pay to the Society as a whole a glowing tribute. Many of its writers are spoken of by him in terms of high esteem. In Italy he promoted the publication of a moral theology by the French Jesuit Gabriel Antoine, which Benedict XIV ordered to be taught in the College of the Propaganda. The truth is, he was an ardent probabiliorist, and from his point of view many of the opinions of the probabilists were lax and pernicious. In refuting them he at times undoubtedly censured their authors too severely and spoke with an excessive asperity. It must be admitted, however, that he placed a salutary, if disagreeable, restraint upon the new thought of the time. Today it is readily seen that some of the authors whom he attacked favoured a dangerous laxism. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that many of his views are now considered severe, some classing him among the rigorists. That Concina was a theologian of no mean order is evidenced by the fact that Benedict XIV appointed him consultor of several Congregations. Moreover, in his work “De Synodo Dioecesana,” as also in his Encyclical “Libentissime” of 10 June 1745, the pope refers to Concina as an authority on the question of the Lenten fast. Concina is the author of about forty works, several of which are believed to be still in Italian libraries awaiting an editor.

COULON in Dict. de théol. cath., III, 675–707; PUNKES in Kirchenlex., III, 811; SANDELLIUS, De Danielis Concinae vitâ et scriptis commentarius in Introd. to Theol. christ. (Rome, 1773); Koch, Dan. Concina und die sogennanten reinen Pönalgesetze in Theologische Quartalschrift, 1904, 401–424; DE CONCINA, Vita del Padre Daniello Concina in Monum. Ord. Praed. Hist., XIV, 298.

JOSEPH SCHROEDER

Conclave

(Lat. cum, with, and clavis, key; a place that may be securely closed)

The closed room or hall specially set aside and prepared for the cardinals when electing a pope; also the assembly of the cardinals for the canonical execution of this purpose. In its present form the conclave dates from the end of the thirteenth century. Earlier methods of filling the See of Peter are treated in the article . In this article will be considered: (I) the history of the actual method of papal election; (II) the ceremonial itself.

I. HISTORY OF THE CONCLAVE

In 1271 the election that ended with the choice of Gregory X at Viterbo had lasted over two years and nine months when the local authorities, weary of the delay, shut up the cardinals within narrow limits and thus hastened the desired election (Raynald, Ann. Eccl., ad ad. 1271). The new pope endeavoured to obviate for the future such scandalous delay by the law of the conclave, which, almost in spite of the cardinals, he promulgated at the fifth session of the Second Council of Lyons in 1764 (Hefele, Hist. des Conciles, IX, 29). It is the first occasion on which we meet with the word conclave in connection with papal elections. (For its use in English literature see Murray’s “Oxford Dictionary,” s. v., and for its medieval use Du Cange, Glossar. med. et infimæ Latinitatis, s. v.) The provisions of his Constitution “Ubi Periculum” were stringent. When a pope died, the cardinals with him were to wait ten days for their absent brethren. Then, each with a single servant, lay or cleric, they were to assemble in the palace where the pope was at his death, or, if that were impossible, the nearest city not under interdict, in the bishop’s house or some other suitable place. All were to assemble in one room (conclave), without partition or hanging, and live in common. This room and another retired chamber, to which they might go freely, were to be so closed in that no one could go in or out unobserved, nor anyone from without speak secretly with any cardinal. And if anyone from without had aught to say, it must be on the business of the election and with the knowledge of all the cardinals present. No cardinal might send out any message, whether verbal or written, under pain of excommunication. There was to be a window through which food could be admitted. If after three days the cardinals did not arrive at a decision, they were to receive for the next five days only one dish at their noon and evening meals. If these five days elapsed without an election, only bread, wine, and water should be their fare. During the election they might receive nothing from the papal treasury, nor introduce any other business unless some urgent necessity arose imperilling the Church or its possessions. If any cardinal neglected to enter, or left the enclosure for any reason other than sickness, the election was to go on without him. But his health restored, he might re-enter the conclave and take up the business where he found it. The rulers of the city where the conclave was held should see to it that all the papal prescriptions concerning enclosure of the cardinals were observed. Those who disregarded the laws of the conclave or tampered with its liberty, besides incurring other punishments, were ipso facto excommunicated.

The stringency of these regulations at once aroused opposition; yet the first elections held in conclave proved that the principle was right. The first conclave lasted only a day and the next but seven days. Unfortunately there were three popes in the very year succeeding the death of Gregory X (1276). The second, Adrian V, did not live long enough to incorporate in an authoritative act his openly expressed opinion of the conclave. Pope John XX lived only long enough to suspend officially the “Ubi Periculum.” Immediately the protracted elections recommenced. In the eighteen years intervening between the suspension of the law of the conclave in 1276 and its resumption in 1294 there were several vacancies of from six to nine months; that which preceded the election of Celestine V lasted two years and nine months. About the only notable act of the latter pope was to restore the conclave. Boniface VIII confirmed the action of his predecessor and ordered the “Ubi Periculum” of Gregory X to be incorporated in the canon law (c. 3, in VI°, I, 6), since which time all papal elections have taken place in conclave. Pope Gregory XI in 1378 empowered the cardinals (for that occasion only) to proceed to an election outside of conclave, but they did not do so. The Council of Constance (1417) modified the rules of the conclave to such an extent that the cardinals of the three “obediences” took part in it as well as six prelates from each of the five nations. This precedent (which however resulted happily in the election of the Roman, Martin V) is perhaps the reason why Julius II (1512), Paul III (1542), Pius IV (1561), and Pius IX (1870) provided that in case of their death during an ecumenical council the election of the new pope should be in the hands of the cardinals, not in those of the council. Pius IV by the Bull “In Eligendis” (1562) provided that the election might take place either in or out of the conclave, but this was revoked by Gregory XIII. This liberty of action is found again in the legislation (1798) of Pius VI (Quum nos superiore anno) which leaves it in the power of the cardinals to modify the rules of the conclave touching enclosure, etc. Again Pius IX by the Bull “In hac sublimi” (23 August, 1871) allowed a majority of the cardinals to dispense with the traditional enclosure. Other important documents of Pius IX dealing with the conclave are his Constitutions “Licet per Apostolicas Litteras” (8 September, 1874) and “Consulturi” (10 October, 1877), also his “Regolamento da osservarsi dal S. Collegio in occasione della vacanza dell’Apostolica Sede” (10 January, 1878).

As a matter of fact these precautions, taken in view of the danger of interference by secular governments, have so far been unnecessary, and elections of popes take place as they always did since the law of the conclave became finally effective. Many popes have legislated on this subject, either to confirm the actions of their predecessors or to define (or add to) previous legislation. Clement V decreed that the conclave must take place in the diocese in which the pope dies (Ne Romani, 1310) and also that all cardinals, whether excommunicated or interdicted, provided they were not deposed, should have the right to vote. Clement VI (1351) permitted a slight amelioration in the fare and in the strict practice of common life. In the sixteenth century Julius II (1505) by the Bull “Cum tam divino” declared invalid any simoniacal election of a pope. Following the example of Pope Symmachus (499), Paul IV, by the Bull “Cum Secundum” (1558), denounced and forbade all cabals and intrigues during the lifetime of a pope. The aforesaid Constitution of Pius IV “In Eligendis” (1562) is a codification and re-enactment of all the laws pertaining to the conclave since the time of Gregory X. In it he insists forcibly on the enclosure, which had come to be rather carelessly observed. The finally directive legislation on the conclave is that of Gregory XV. In his short reign (1621–1623) he published two Bulls, “Æterni Patris” (1621), and “Decet Romanum Pontificem” (1622), followed by a Cæremoniale for the papal election (Bullar. Luxemb., III, 444 sqq.). Every detail of the conclave is described in these documents. Subsequent legislation has either confirmed these measures, e.g. the “Romani Pontificis” of Urban VIII (1625), or regulated the expenditure of money on the papal obsequies, e.g. the Brief of Alexander VIII (1690), or determined their order, e.g. the “Chirografo” of Clement XII (1732). The more recent legislation of Pius VI, Pius VII, and Pius IX provides for all contingencies of interference by secular powers. Pius VI (who designated a Catholic country in which the majority of the cardinals happened to be) and Pius IX (who left the matter to the judgment of the Sacred College) allowed the widest liberty as to the place of the conclave.

II. CEREMONIAL OF THE CONCLAVE

Immediately on the death of a pope the cardinal camerlengo who, as representative of the Sacred College, assumes charge of the papal household, verifies by a judicial act the death of the pontiff. In the presence of the household he strikes the forehead of the dead pope three times with a silver mallet, calling him by his baptismal name. The fisherman’s ring and the papal seals are then broken. A notary draws up the act which is the legal evidence of the pope’s death. The obsequies last nine days. Meanwhile the cardinals have been notified of the impending election and those resident in Rome (in Curia) await their absent brethren, assisting in the meantime at the functions for the deceased pontiff. All cardinals, and they alone, have the right to vote in the conclave; they must, however, be legitimately appointed, have the use of reason, and be present in person, not through a procurator or by letter. This right is acknowledged even if they are subject to ecclesiastical censures (e.g. excommunication), or if the solemn ceremonies of their “creation” have yet to be performed. During the aforesaid nine days, and until the election of a successor, all cardinals appear with uncovered rochets, just as all have canopies over their seats at the conclave, to show that the supreme authority is in the hands of the whole College. The cardinal camerlengo is assisted by the heads of the three cardinalitial orders, known as the “Capita Ordinum” (cardinal-bishops, -priests, -deacons). There are frequent meetings, or “congregations,” of these four cardinals to determine every detail both of the obsequies of the pope and of the preparations for the conclave. All matters of importance are referred to the general congregations, which since 1870 are held in the Vatican. The cardinal dean (always the Bishop of Ostia) presides over these congregations, in which the cardinals take rank and precedence from the date of their elevation to the purple. Formerly they had also to provide for the government of the Papal States and to repress frequent disorders during the interregnum. In the first of these congregations the various Constitutions which govern the conclave are read and the cardinals take an oath to observe them. Then, in the following days, the various officers of the conclave, the conclavists, confessors, and physicians, servants of various kinds, are examined or appointed by a special commission. Each cardinal has a right to take into the conclave a secretary and a servant, the secretary being usually an ecclesiastic. In case of illness a third conclavist may be allowed, with agreement of the general congregation. All are equally sworn to secrecy and also not to hinder the election. After the conclave certain honorary distinctions and pecuniary emoluments are awarded to the conclavists.

Meanwhile a conclave, formerly a large room, now a large part of the Vatican palace, including two or three floors, is walled off, and the space divided into apartments, each with three or four small rooms or cells, in each of which are a crucifix, a bed, a table and a few chairs. Access to the conclave is free through one door only, locked from without by the Marshal of the Conclave (formerly a member of the Savelli, since 1721 of the Chigi, family), and from within by the cardinal camerlengo. There are four openings provided for the passage of food and other necessaries, guarded from within and without, on the exterior by the authority of the marshal and major-domo, on the interior by the prelate assigned to this duty by the three cardinals mentioned above, representative of the three cardinalitial orders. Once the conclave begins the door is not again opened until the election is announced, except to admit a cardinal who is late in arriving. All communication with the outside is strictly forbidden under pain of loss of office and ipso facto excommunication. A cardinal may leave the conclave in case of sickness (certified under oath by a phisician) and return; not so a conclavist. It may be noted at once, with Wernz, that a papal election held outside of a properly organized conclave is canonically null and void.

Within, the cardinals live with their conclavists in the cells. Formerly every cardinal had to provide his own food, which was carried in state by his men-in-waiting to one of the four openings nearest the cell of the prelate. Since 1878 the kitchen is a part of the conclave. Though all meals are taken in private they are served from a common quarter, but great care is taken to prevent written communication by this way. The cells of the cardinals are covered with cloth, purple if they are of the last pope’s “creation,” green if not. When they wish to be undisturbed they close the door of their cell, the frame-work of which is in the shape of a St. Andrew’s cross. The conclave opens officially on the evening of the tenth day after the pope’s decease, unless another day has been assigned. Every precaution is observed to exclude those who have no right within the enclosure, and also unnecessary communication with the outside. Papal legislation has long since forbidden the once customary “capitulations,” or ante-election agreements binding on the new pope; it is also forbidden to cardinals to treat of the papal succession among themselves during the pope’s lifetime; the pope may, however, treat of the matter with the cardinals. Absolutely necessary modifications of the conclave legislation, during the conclave itself, are temporary only. All true cardinals, as stated, may enter the conclave, but those only who have received deacon’s orders have a right to vote, unless they have received a special indult from the late pope. Cardinals who have been preconized, but not yet elevated to the purple, are entitled by a decision of St. Pius V (1571) both to be present and to vote.

Including the cardinals, prelates, and conclavists, there are perhaps two hundred and fifty persons in the enclosure. The government of the conclave is in the hands of the cardinal camerlengo and of the three representative cardinals who succeed one another in order of seniority every three days. About seven or eight o’clock on the morning of the eleventh day the cardinals assemble in the Pauline Chapel and assist at the Mass of the cardinal dean. Formerly they wore the special garment of the conclave, called the crocea. They receive Communion from the hands of the cardinal dean, and listen to a Latin allocution on their obligations to select the most worthy person for the Chair of Peter. After Mass they retire for a few moments, and then assemble in the Sistine Chapel, where the actual voting takes place. There six candles are lighted on the altar on which rest the paten and chalice to be used in voting. Over the chair of each cardinal is a baldachinum. The papal throne is removed. Before each chair is also a small writing desk. When ready to vote they enter the Sistine Chapel accompanied by their conclavists bearing their portfolios and writing materials. Prayers are said by the bishop sacristan; the ballots are distributed and then all are excluded except the cardinals, one of whom bolts the door.

Though since Urban VI (1378–89) none but a cardinal has been elected pope, no law reserves to the cardinals alone this right. Strictly speaking, any male Christian who has reached the use of reason can be chosen—not, however, a heretic, a schismatic, or a notorious simonist. Since 14 January, 1505 (Julius II, “Cum tam divino”) a simoniacal election is canonically invalid, as being a true and indisputable act of heresy (Wernz, “Jus Decret.,” II, 658, 662; see “Hist. Pol. Blätter,” 1898, 1900, and Sägmüller, “Lehrbuch d. Kirchenrechts,” 1900, I, 215).

There are four possible forms of election: scrutinium, compromissum, accessus, quasi-inspiratio. The usual form is that of scrutinium, or secret ballot, and in it the successful candidate requires a two-thirds vote exclusive of his own. When there is a close vote, and only then, the ballot of the pope-elect, which, like all the others, is distinguishable by a text of Scripture written on one of its outside folds, is opened to make sure that he did not vote for himself. Each cardinal deposits his vote in the chalice on the altar and at the same time takes the prescribed oath: “Testor Christum Dominum qui me judicaturus est me eligere quem secundum Deum judice eligi debere et quod idem in accessu præstabo”-”I call to witness the Lord Christ, Who will be my judge, that I am electing the one whom according to God I think ought to be elected,” etc. (For the form of the oath see Lucius Lector, “Le Conclave,” 615, 618.) The ballot reads: “Ego, Cardinalis N., eligo in summum Pontificem R. D. meum D. Card. N.”

For this election by secret ballot three cardinals (scrutatores) are chosen by lot each time to preside over the operation of voting, three others (revisores) to control the count of their colleagues, and still three others (infirmarii) to collect the ballots of the sick and absent cardinals. If the sick cardinals cannot attend the balloting, then the three infirmarii go to their cells and bring back their votes in a box to the three cardinals presiding, who count them and put them in the chalice with the others. Then, all the ballots having been shaken up and counted, if the number agrees with the number of electors, the chalice is brought to the table and the ballots, on the outside of which appear the names of the candidates, are passed from hand to hand to the third cardinal who reads the names aloud. All present are provided with lists on which the names of all the cardinals appear, and it is customary for the cardinals to check off the votes as they are read. Then the three cardinal revisors verify the result which is proclaimed as definite.

If, upon the first ballot, no candidate receives the necessary two-thirds vote, recourse is often had to the form of voting known as accessus. At the election of Pius X (Rev. des Deux Mondes, 15 March, 1904, p. 275) the cardinal dean did not allow the accessus, though it is a recognized usage of conclaves, regulated by Gregory XI, designed primarily to hasten elections, and usually considered to favour the chances of the candidate who has the most votes. It consists practically of a second ballot. All use the ordinary blanks again, with this difference, that if the elector wishes his vote to count for his first choice he writes Accedo nomini; if he changes his vote he introduces the name of his latest choice. Then the two series of ballots have to be compared and identified by the text on the reverse face of the ballot, so as to prevent a double vote for the same candidate by any elector. When the required two-thirds are not obtained, the ballots are consumed in a stove whose chimney extends through a window of the Sistine Chapel. When there is no election, straw is mixed with the ballots to show by its thick smoke (sfumata) to those waiting outside that there has been no election. There are always two votes taken every day, in the morning and in the evening; they occupy from two to three hours each. When the voting is over one of the cardinals opens the door outside of which are gathered the conclavists, and all retire to their cells. Other forms of election, made almost impossible by the legislation of Gregory XV, are known as quasi-inspiration and compromise. The former supposes that before a given session there had been no agreement among the cardinals and that then one of the cardinals, addressing the assembly, proposes the name of a candidate with the words Ego eligo (I elect, etc.), whereupon all the cardinals, as though moved by the Holy Spirit, proclaim aloud the same candidate, saying Ego eligo, etc. An election by compromise supposes that after a long and hopeless contest the cardinals unanimously delegate a certain number of their body to make a choice. It has not been employed since the fourteenth century.

When a candidate has obtained the required two-thirds vote in a scrutiny or ballot (the choice, since Adrian VI, 1522, falling on one present and invariably on an Italian cardinal), the cardinal dean proceeds to ask him whether he will accept the election and by what name he wishes to be known. Since the time of John XII (955–64; Sägmüller says Sergius IV, 1009–1012) each pope takes a new name in imitation of St. Peter’s change of name (see Knöpfler, “Die Namensänderung der Päpste” in “Compte rendu du congrés internat. cath. à Fribourg,” 1897, sec. v, 158 sqq.). The doors have previously been opened by the secretary of the conclave; the masters of ceremonies are present, and formal cognizance is taken of the pope’s answers. Immediately the masters of ceremonies lower the canopies of all the cardinals’ chairs save that of the pope-elect, and he is conducted to a neighbouring room where he is clothed in the papal garments (immantatio). The cardinals then advance and pay him the first “obedience,” or homage (adoratio). The pope then either confirms or appoints the cardinal camerlengo, who puts upon his finger the Fisherman’s Ring. Then follows the proclamation to the people made by the senior cardinal-deacon, formerly from the central balcony of St. Peter’s overlooking the great Piazza, but since 1870 in St. Peter’s itself. The conclave then usually terminates, the masons remove the temporary walls, and the cardinals retire to their various lodgings in the city, awaiting a reassembling for the second and third adoratio and for the solemn enthroning. If the pope happens not to be a bishop, he must be consecrated at once and, according to immemorial tradition, by the Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia. If already a bishop, there takes place only the solemn benedictio or blessing. However, he enjoys full jurisdiction from the moment of his election. On the following Sunday or Holy Day takes place, at the hands of the senior cardinal-deacon, the papal “coronation” from which day the new pope dates the years of his pontificate. The last act is the formal taking possession (possessio) of the Lateran Church, omitted since 1870. For the so-called Veto, occasionally exercised in the past by the Catholic Powers (Spain, Austria, France), see RIGHT OF EXCLUSION.

The actually valid legislation concerning the conclave is found in all manuals of canon law, e.g. WERNZ, Jus. Decret. (Rome, 1899), II, 653–665; SÄGMÜLLER, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1900), 313–19; HERGENRÖTHER- HOLWECK, Lehrbuch des cath. Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1903), 268–73; LAURENTIUS, Instit. jur. eccl. (Freiburg, 1903), nos. 99–103; cf. BOUIX, De Curiâ Romanâ, 120, and De Papâ, III, 341–44.-The history of the conclave and its ceremonial use fully described in the (illustrated) work of LUCIUS LECTOR (Mgr. Guthlin), Le Conclave (Paris, 1894). It replaces advantageously the earlier work of VANEL on the history of the conclaves (Paris, 1689; 3rd ed., Cologne, 1703). English descriptions like those of TROLLOPE (London, 1876) and CARTWRIGHT (Edinburgh, 1868) are generally unreliable, being largely inspired by the anti-papal histories of conclaves written by the mendacious and inexact GREGORIO LETI (s.1., 1667, 1716), and the inaccurate and maliciously gossipy PETRUCCELLI DELLA GATTINA (Brussles, 1865). See Dublin Reviewd (1868), XI, 374–91, and Civiltá Cattolica (1877), I, 574–85; also CREIGHTON in Academy (1877), XI, 66. See La nouvelle législation du conclave in Université cath. (Lyons, 1892), 5–47, and TEELING, The Development of the Conclave in The Dolphin (Philadelphia, 1908). For a catalogue of studies (often documentary) on special conclaves, see CLEROTI, Bibliografia di Roma papale e medievale (Rome, 1893). The conclave that elected Pius X is described by an eyewitness (Un Témoin), said to be Cardinal Mathieu, in Revue des Deux Mondes, 15 March, 1904. See other valuable recent literature in the articles , and RIGHT OF EXCLUSION.

AUSTIN DOWLING

Concordances of the Bible

Concordances of the Bible are verbal indexes to the Bible, or lists of Biblical words arranged alphabetically with indications to enable the inquirer to find the passages of the Bible where the words occur. Some simply indicate the passages; but a really good concordance quotes enough of a passage to recall it to the memory of one familiar with it. Sometimes concordance is used in reference to alphabetical indexes of Biblical subjects, which guide one to all the passages of the Bible referring to the subject in question; but as commonly employed in English the word denotes a purely verbal concordance, a text-finder. Such a work is a useful and, in fact, indispensable, help to every student of the Bible. Its principal use is to enable him to locate any text he remembers, or to locate and get accurately any text vaguely remembered, if but one important word of it be recalled. Concordances in the original tongues are ever in the hand of the expert student in his exegetical and critical studies, aiding him indirectly by their indications to ascertain the various shades of meaning which the same or cognate words may take on, and thus, for example, to prove helpful in the construction of the theology of a writer or an epoch; to trace the history of words and thus obtain a clue to the development of the doctrines connected with them, or the changes of thought and feeling that have taken place; to collate the vocabulary of a writer or a document, and thus to gather evidence for determining the authorship or date of disputed writings; to trace the history of a character, a race, a town, etc.; and for various other purposes which each student discovers for himself in the course of his studies. This article aims to be historical, but also, in part, practical, by indicating the best helps of this kind.

I. LATIN

Verbal concordances of the Bible are the invention of the Dominican friars. The text which served as basis of their work was naturally that of the Vulgate, the Bible of the Middle Ages. The first concordance, completed in 1230, was undertaken under the guidance of Hugo, or Hugues, de Saint-Cher (Hugo de Sancto Charo), afterwards a cardinal, assisted, it is said, by 500 fellow-Dominicans. It contained no quotations, and was purely an index to passages where a word was found. These were indicated by book and chapter (the division into chapters had recently been invented by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury) but not by verses, which were only introduced by Robert Estienne in 1545. In lieu of verses, Hugo divided the chapters into seven almost equal parts, indicated by the letters of the alphabet, a, b, c, etc. This beginning of concordances was very imperfect, as it gave merely a list of passages, and no idea of what the passages contained. It was of little service to preachers, therefore; accordingly, in order to make it valuable for them, three English Dominicans added (1250–1252) the complete quotations of the passages indicated. This completeness of quotation is not aimed at in the present concordances, for lack of space; it is likely, therefore, that the passages indicated were far fewer than those found in a complete concordance of to-day. The work was somewhat abridged, by retaining only the essential words of a quotation, in the concordance of Conrad of Halberstadt, a Dominican (1310), which obtained great success on account of its more convenient form. The first concordance to be printed, it appeared in 1470 at Strasburg, and reached a second edition in 1475. The larger work from which it was abridged was printed at Nuremberg in 1485. Another Dominican, John Stoicowic, or John of Ragusa, finding it necessary in his controversies to show the Biblical usage of nisi, ex, and per, which were omitted from the previous concordances, began (c. 1435) the compilation of nearly all the indeclinable words of Scripture; the task was completed and perfected by others and finally added as an appendix to the concordance of Conrad of Halberstadt in the work of Sebastian Brant published at Basle in 1496. Brant’s work was frequently republished and in various cities. It served as the basis of the concordance published in 1555 by Robert Estienne (Stephens), the distinguished French Protestant scholar and printer. Estienne added proper names, supplied omissions, mingled the indeclinable words with the others in alphabetical order, and gave the indications to all passages by verse as well as by chapter, in all these respects bringing his work much closer to the present model. Since then many different Latin concordances have been published of which it will suffice to mention Plantinus’ “Concordantiæ Bibliorum juxta recognitionem Clementinam” (Antwerp, 1599), which was the first made according to the authorized Latin text; “Repertorium Biblicum . . . studio . . . Patrum Ordinis S. Benedicti, Monasterii Wessofontani” (Augsburg, 1751); “Concordantiæ Script. Sac.,” by Dutripon, in two immense volumes, the most useful of all Latin concordances, which gives enough of every text to make complete sense (Paris, 1838; seventh ed. 1880; an edition of the same by G. Tonini, at Prado, 1861, recognized as nearly complete); Coornaert’s, intended for the use of preachers (Bruges, 1892); the “Concordantiarum S. Scripturæ Manuale,” by H. de Raze, Ed. de Lachaud, and J.-B. Flandrin (13th ed., Paris, 1895), which, however, gives rather a choice of texts than a complete concordance; “Concordantiarum Universæ Scripturæ Sacræ Thesaurus,” by Fathers Peultier, Etienne, and Gantois (Paris, 1902). No Latin concordance gives the Hebrew or Greek equivalent of the Latin words but Peter Mintert’s “Lexicon Græco-Latinum” of the N. T. is a concordance as well as a lexicon, giving the Latin equivalent of the Greek and, in the case of Septuagint words, the Hebrew equivalent also (Frankfort, 1728).

II. HEBREW

The first Hebrew concordance was the work of a Jew, Mordecai or Isaac Nathan, begun in 1438 and finished in 1448. It was inspired by the Latin concordances to aid in defence of Judaism, and was printed in Venice in 1523. An improved edition of it by a Franciscan monk, Marius de Calasio, was published in 1621 and 1622 in four volumes. Both these works were several times reprinted, while another Hebrew concordance of the sixteenth century, by Elias Levita, said to surpass Nathan’s in many respects, remained in manuscript. Nathan and Calasio arranged the words according to the Hebrew roots, the derivatives following simply according to the order in which they occur in the Hebrew books; the Buxtorfs, father and son, introduced order into the derivatives by a grammatical classification of the verbs and nouns. Their work (Basle, 1632) also contained many new words and passages previously omitted, and an appendix of all the Chaldaic words in the O. T.; Baer’s edition of Buxtorf (1847) added certain particles. Fürst’s concordance (Leipzig, 1840) was for a long time the standard. It corrected Buxtorf and brought it nearer to completeness, printed all Hebrew words with the vowel-points, and perfected the order of the derivatives. Every word is explained in Hebrew and Latin. Fürst excludes, however, the proper nouns, the pronouns, and most of the indeclinable particles, and makes many involuntary omissions and errors; his classification of roots is sometimes fanciful. “The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldaic Concordance” (London, 1843; third edition, 1866) is still very useful. The most comprehensive Hebrew concordance ever published is that of Mandelkern (Leipzig, 1896), who rectified the errors of his predecessors and supplied omitted references. Though his own work has been shown to be frequently imperfect, still it is almost complete, and by far the best of Hebrew concordances. An abridged edition of it was published in 1900.

III. GREEK SEPTUAGINT

The first was that of Conrad Kircher (Frankfort, 1607); Tromm’s, published at Amsterdam, 1718, had reference not only to the Sept., but also to the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion; it remained the standard till our own day, when it gave way to Hatch and Redpath’s “Concordance to the Septuagint and other Greek Versions of the Old Testament” (Oxford, 1892–97). This is a beautiful work and is commonly considered about as perfect as present scholarship permits. It includes a concordance to the deutero-canonical books and the O. T. Apocrypha, and to the remains of the versions which form part of Origen’s Hexapla. The Hebrew equivalents of the Greek, when known, are also given. References to proper names are omitted, which, however, are added in a supplement published in 1900. We must await a truly critical edition of the Sept., nevertheless, before we can have the final, perfect concordance. Bagster’s “Handy Concordance to the Septuagint” (London, 1887) gives simply the references, without quotations.

IV. GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

The earliest concordances to the Greek New Testament are those of Birken or Betulius (Basle, 1546), Henry Estienne (Paris, 1594), and Erasmus Schmid (Wittenberg, 1638), whose work was twice revised and republished. During the latter half of the nineteenth century the standard N. T. concordance was that of Bruder (Leipzig, 1842; 4th ed., 1888). Its main defect is that it was practically based on the textus receptus, though it aims, in its latest editions to give also the chief variants. The best, beyond doubt, is Moulton and Geden’s “Concordance to the Greek Testament,” according to the text of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, and the English Revisers (Edinburgh and New York, 1897). This includes all the marginal readings. In the ease of a reading being in dispute among these authorities, the fact is pointed out. The Hebrew equivalents of all quotations in the N. T. are given; the relation of the Greek N. T. words to the Septuagint and other O. T. Greek versions, as well as to classical usage, is indicated. Two other useful concordances, especially for those not very familiar with the Greek, are “Englishman’s Greek Concordance to the New Testament,” by G. V. Wigram (London, 1839, 2d ed. 1844), and Hudson’s “Critical Greek and English Concordance of the N. T.” (Boston, 1875), which contains references to the chief variant readings.

V. SYRIAC

Charles Schaaf’s “Lexicon Syriacum” (Leyden, 1709) practically serves the purpose of a concordance to the Peshito version.

VI. ENGLISH

The earliest concordances in English were published in the middle of the sixteenth century, the first by T. Gybson in 1535 (for N. T. only), and the second in 1550 by John Marbeck. The most famous belongs to the eighteenth century and is the work of Alexander Cruden. First published in 1738, it reached several editions in his own lifetime and has been re-edited and reprinted repeatedly till the present day. Abridgments have been published which sometimes endeavour to pass for the complete work. Cruden’s work is not really a complete concordance, and omits especially many references to proper names, but his last edition had one virtue, lacking in the best concordances of our day, which commends it to Catholics especially, namely, its concordance to the deutero-canonical, or so-called apocryphal, books of the Old Testament, which, however, is usually not reprinted. With this exception, it is far surpassed by the three great concordances of our own day, those of Young, Strong, and Walker. R. Young’s “Analytical Concordance to the Bible” (Edinburgh, 1879–84), an almost complete concordance, has the great virtue of indicating the Hebrew, Chaldaic, or Greek original of the English word, and distinguishing the various meanings that may underlie the same word. Strong’s “Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible” (New York, 1894) has reference only to the English text; for that it can hardly be improved, as it is extremely rare to find a text missing from Strong. As a text-finder, it is unsurpassed; but it lacks the special advantages of Young’s signalized above. It contains also a comparative concordance between the Authorized and Revised English versions, useful for a study of the changes introduced. Its real bulk and weight, however, render it a rather formidable book to handle. Walker’s “Comprehensive Concordance to the Holy Scriptures” (Boston, 1894) is a volume of convenient size, and almost as complete as Strong’s. An excellent “Complete Concordance to the Revised Version of the New Testament,” by J. A. Thoms, was published in London, 1884. The works of Wigram and Hudson on the Greek N. T. are also very useful to the English reader.

No concordance to the English Catholic Bible has been published, and it can hardly be said that one is much needed, except for the deutero-canonical books; the late concordances in English suffice, with the exception noted, for the needs of any intelligent reader. For concordances in other modern languages, consult the articles of Mangenot and Kaulen.

MANGENOT in VIGOUROUX, Dict. de La Bible (Paris, 1897), s. v. Concordances de La Bible; KAULEN in Kirchenlex., s. v. Bibelconcordanzen, prints specimens of many concordances. To these two articles we are indebted for most of our facts regarding the earlier concordances. HAZARD, Introduction to WALKER, Comprehensive Concordance (Boston, 1894); BACHER in Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1903), s. v. Concordances.

JOHN F. FENLON

Concordat

DEFINITION

Canonists and publicists do not agree about the nature of a concordat and, consequently, vary much in the definition they give. The various theories will be explained later, but for the sake of orderly discussion at least a nominal definition will be premised. In general, a concordat means an agreement, or union of wills, on some matter. But as soon as we attempt to define this general notion more clearly a difficulty arises. Agreement of wills may be had in many ways: in friendship, in regard to privileges, in a bilateral contract, etc. Prescinding for the present from the exact nature of a concordat, and without giving an exact definition, we may say that a concordat is a law, ecclesiastical and civil, made for a certain country in regard to matters which in some way concern both Church and State, a law, moreover, possessing the force of a treaty entered into by both the ecclesiastical and civil power and to a certain extent binding upon both. The full meaning of the terms employed will be explained below.

Purpose

The purpose of a concordat is to terminate, or to avert, dissension between the Church and the civil powers. This is evident from history. During the first three centuries, when the civil authority was bent upon the total ruin and destruction of the Church, concordats were out of the question. After the era of persecution was over, and, with the exception of some temporary usurpations and outrages, the Christian Emperors of Rome generally recognized and defended the rights of the Church, concordats were unnecessary. This state of affairs continued until the end of the eleventh century, when there arose the strife about investitures which was settled in 1122 by the Concordat of Worms, or Pactum Callixtinum, between Callistus II (q. v.) and Henry V. This may be called the first concordat, unless the agreement of London (1107) is reckoned, as it may be, among the number of concordats. The contest between Boniface VIII and Philip the Fair, at the end of the thirteenth century, opened the way for still further disagreements between the Church, which strove to preserve its rights inviolate, and those civil powers which sought to usurp them. These disagreements gave rise to various concordats. Before the eighteenth century there were six (or seven if the London agreement of 1107 be counted); during the eighteenth century there were fifteen, and in the nineteenth century a much larger number (see SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCORDATS, below).

It is to be noted that De Angelis, who is followed by Giobbio and in part by Cavagnis, does not consider the Pactum Callixtinum a concordat, because in it Callistus II made no concession of any importance to the emperor. This reason, however, as Wernz well observes, is false. For, according to the best authorities on the Pactum Callixtinum, the pope granted to Henry V several important concessions, permitting the emperor to assist at episcopal elections and to exact from bishops-elect in Germany and from consecrated bishops in other parts of the empire (i. e. in Burgundy and Italy) not merely the oath of simple loyalty but even that of vassalage, by which the rights and liberties of the Church were considerably restricted. Cavagnis likewise remarks about the first concordat with Portugal, in 1288, that it is rather a decree of the pope in which, after hearing the bishops and the royal plenipotentiaries, he decided what should be allowed, what denied, out of the powers which the King claimed on the ground either of privilege or of custom. Granting all this, it does not seem to follow that such an act could not be called a concordat; for it is by no means evident that mutual concessions are essential to the very nature of a concordat. An agreement may very well exist without mutual concessions-a principle especially in accord with the view of those authorities (including Cavagnis) who see in every concordat a strictly bilateral contract; for the due rights of either party can properly be recognized and established by any contract properly so called. Hence it is plain that concordats have in general been made in order to end a disagreement and restore harmony. Not always, however; for concordats have at times been made when there was no actual disagreement to be settled-solely for the purpose of preventing disagreements in the future and of rendering more secure and permanent the welfare of the Church in some State. This was done between Pius IX and Garcia Morena, President of Ecuador in 1862.

With regard to the necessity of concordats two extreme opinions are to be avoided. Concordats are not absolutely necessary; neither are they harmful to the Church or civil society. Assuredly it were to be desired that the Church should never need concordats, and should always find in civil rulers devoted children, or at least such as would use all diligence in caring for the spiritual welfare of their Catholic subjects, and would religiously respect their rights. But, unfortunately, the contrary too often occurs. Hence the Church, to avoid a greater evil, has often had to promise to forego this or that natural right of her own in order to secure from the State a promise to refrain from further encroachment upon ecclesiastical rights.

Matter or Object of a Concordat

The matter, or the objects, treated of in a concordat may be spiritual, mixed, or temporal.

Spiritual matters are those that belong purely to the spiritual order, or are connected with it: for example, matters pertaining to the liturgy. Thus, in some concordats there has been question of inserting the name of the emperor in the Canon (q. v.) and of singing after the Divine Office the formula: “Domine, salvam fac rempublicam,” or “Domine, salvos fac consules,” or “Domine, salvos fac præsides eius” (cf. art. 8, of the Concordat of 1801; arts. 23, 24 of the Concordat with Costa Rica and Guatemala, 1853; arts. 15, with Haiti, 1860; art. 21, with Ecuador, 1862; arts. 22, 23, with Nicaragua and San Salvador, 1863). In like manner there is frequent mention of nominating bishops, of the establishment and bestowal of parishes, or of prescribing special regulations for the promotion of clerics to Holy orders or to ecclesiastical dignities, so as to prevent, for example, the number of clerics from becoming too large (cf. art. 5, Concordat with Spain, 1737; C. iv, Concordat with Sicily, 1741), and so on.

Mixed matters are those which belong, though under different aspects, both to the temporal and spiritual orders, and are subject to both authorities, such as public education, marriage, etc.

Temporal matters are such as of their own nature do not belong to the spiritual order. In some concordats the Church has allowed rulers to impose taxes not only on the private possessions of clerics, but also on ecclesiastical property; so the Roman Pontiff has at times given up his claims on account of certain ecclesiastical properties damaged in the course of civil or religious turmoil. Examples of each of these occur in the Concordat with Columbia, in 1887. It is to be noted that, when the pope absolutely surrenders temporal possessions of the Church, as in art. 29 of this concordat, such possessions no longer remain under the ownership or jurisdiction of the Church or subject to it. When, however, he merely permits such property to be taxed (as in art. 6 of the Colombian Concordat, art. 18 or art. 19 of that with Costa Rica, in 1853) then the property remains in the ownership of the Church, which does not acknowledge in the State any inherent right to impose taxes of this kind, but rather implies the contrary by the very concession.

The Contracting Parties

It is clear that only those persons in Church or State are competent to enter into a concordat who in their respective spheres have the right of making treaties, and indeed of enacting laws. Hence, absolutely speaking, bishops, as true rulers of the Church vested with authority to make laws strictly so called, can also make concordats on all matters falling within their jurisdiction. In past ages they have often exercised this right; a concordat was made between the bishops of Portugal and King Diniz in 1288, and confirmed by Nicholas IV in 1289. In 1273 one was made between the bishops of Norway and Magnus VI (IV), by which the bishops renounced the right of electing the king as long as there were legitimate heirs of the blood, and the king on his part bound himself to prevent the royal officials from interfering with the free exercise of ecclesiastical authority. This concordat was confirmed in the following year by Gregory X in the Second Council of Lyons. Many other concordats made by bishops might be mentioned; for example, between the bishops of Portugal and King Manuel, confirmed by Leo X in 1516. Candido Mendes de Almeida, in his “Jus Civile Ecclesiasticum Brasilicum Vetus et Recens,” enumerates eighteen concordats made between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries by the Kings of Portugal with the clergy of the kingdom, for the settlement of serious controversies. At the present time bishops do not possess the power of making concordats; it is reserved to the pope. The reason for this reservation is that concordats deal not with one question only, but with the settlement of all ecclesiastical matters in a particular country; such a wide field of affairs manifestly constitutes a causa major, and as such is reserved exclusively for the judgment of the Roman Pontiff. Moreover, in recent concordats concessions have almost always been made contrary to the ordinary canon law, and such concessions can be made only by the pope. It should also be noted that governments desirous of entering into a concordat with the Church prefer to deal with the pope, so as to have a regulation by which all the bishops will be bound. The Roman Pontiff in making a concordat acts in his capacity as pontiff, and not as a civil ruler; and this was the case even before he was despoiled of his temporal sovereignty. Hence, in making a concordat, he acts as pope and, as Supreme Ruler and Pastor of the Universal Church, exercises the supreme and full authority of his primacy.

On the part of the State those competent to make concordats are supreme legislators or chief magistrates-an emperor, king, or president, acting alone, where the supreme authority is plenary and unrestricted; acting with the consent of the representative body, where such consent is constitutionally necessary for legislation. Wernz (Jus Decret., I, 166) remarks: “The Apostolic See, to avoid the risk of open mockery, usually enters into solemn undertakings only where a civil government is under no obligation to seek the consent of a representative body, or where there can be no reasonable doubt that such consent will be granted.” It is also to be remembered that the Roman Pontiff makes concordats with governments only in their civil capacity, even when such governments are non-Catholic. Hence it cannot be supposed that a concordat with the Tsar of Russia or the King of Prussia is made with either of these potentates as with the supreme spiritual head of a schismatic or Protestant sect.

Nature of Concordats

To explain the nature of concordats three theories have been proposed:

(a) The legal theory, that advanced by the regalists;

(b) The compact theory, which regards a concordat as a bilateral contract;

(c) The privilege theory, according to which a concordat has the force of a privilege on the part of the Roman Pontiff, but of an obligation on the part of the civil ruler.

Before explaining and examining these theories in detail, it is well to note first of all that the name given to each theory should not be understood as if the authors of the various opinions considered all the articles of a concordat as possessing equal force. Those who defend the privilege theory do not maintain that no article in any concordat ever imposed an obligation of justice on the Roman Pontiff. On the other hand, those who defend the compact theory do not assert that the Roman Pontiff is bound in the same way by all the articles of every concordat. These theories have been named, as Wernz points out, from the feature most prominent in each. It is clear, then, that authors who defend the privilege theory maintain, in the last resort, no more than this: that, in respect to the greater part of their matter, concordats must be classed as privileges granted by the Roman Pontiff. Nevertheless, as this subject matter of a concordat is not necessarily homogeneous (the unity of a concordat being merely extrinsic and accidental) it follows that although the term privilege may be applied to a concordat taken as a whole, it cannot necessarily be used of every clause in the same.

(a) The Legalist Theory does not admit that concordats have the force of a bilateral contract, because the State is above the Church and, being the supreme society, cannot make such an agreement with an inferior or subordinate body. Concordats are valid, however, because they are civil laws passed by the State in regard to the Church. It follows from this view that concordats may always be revoked by the State, but not by the Pontiff; as far as the Church is concerned they are mere privileges revocable at the will of the civil ruler. This theory is held in our days more or less strictly by various governments and many writers, chief of whom is Hinschius.

(b) The Compact Theory, as we have said, makes of the concordat a bilateral compact. It must be observed, however, that the advocates of this view are divided among themselves. Some hold strenuously that the Roman Pontiff can make no change whatsoever, not even validly, in regard to anything which he has conceded in a concordat. The chief writer of this school is Schulte, an ex-Catholic, who openly bases his views of concordats on his assumption of the perfect co-ordination and equality of Church and State, just as the legalist theory is founded on the subordination of the ecclesiastical and the civil power. Others, among whom we may enumerate De Angelis, Cavagnis, and Fink, while upholding the compact theory, so explain it as to fully accord with strict Catholic teaching on the constitution of the Church. A concordat, in their opinion, is a bilateral compact, but not in the strict sense of the term. Indeed they so limit and weaken the force of a contract as applied to a concordat that at times they seem to be maintaining the view of those who hold that a concordat is to be considered as a privilege rather than a real contract.

(c) The Privilege Theory, according to which concordats, if we regard their general character and the bulk of their contents, lack for the most part the force of a true contract, and are to be considered as imposing an obligation on the civil power alone, while on the part of the Church they are merely privileges or concessions granted by the Roman Pontiffs.

This view, which counts among its recent staunch defenders Cardinal Tarquini, seems to rest upon surer grounds than the others. Before advancing the arguments in its favour, it would be well to examine the position of its opponents. It is evident that the advocates of the first, or legalist, theory build all their arguments upon the supposition that the Church is subject to the State, of which it forms but a department, just as any other body is subject to the whole of which it is a part and from which, consequently, it depends. This view we find expressly maintained by Hinschius, who says: “The theory that asserts that a concordat possesses the force of a contract seems untenable, notwithstanding the vast numbers of its followers. According to the modern civil law the authority of the State over all matters falling within its sphere is omnipotent, and Christian Churches which exist within the territory of any State are subject to that State in just the same manner as are private corporations or individuals.” Hammerstein, in his clever refutation of these errors (De Ecclesiâ et Statu juridice consideratis, Trier, p. 211) says that this “sphere,” within which the State is said to be omnipotent, may be understood in a juridical or a geographical sense, i. e. as signifying the limits either of the State’s rights or of its geographical possessions. If taken in the first sense, the grandiose words of Hinschius become puerile, if in the second sense, then Hinschius is advocating a legal enormity. For if the word sphere be taken to signify “extent of authority,” the assertion of Hinschius means nothing more than that the State can, within the limits of its own rights and authority, do what it will. And it needed no philosopher to proclaim this, since it is abundantly evident that anyone can do all whatsoever he can do. If, on the other hand, sphere be taken in the sense of “geographical extension,” Hinschius is maintaining that the State may, within the bounds of its own territory, perpetrate any crime it chooses. To quote Hammerstein, “We have said that the phrase, ‘the State’s sphere,’ can be understood to mean geographical extension. In this case, the teaching of the Prussian canonist, Hinschius, when taken in the concrete, practically comes to this,-that within the territory of the Kingdom of Prussia the Prussian government can, without any injustice whatever, behead, burn alive, or spoil of their property all whomsoever it pleases and because it pleases; and why? Because the Prussian government is-omnipotent! Surely a wonderful system of jurisprudence!” Moreover, it is noteworthy that the very principle which this school of writers assume as the basis of their argument, namely that no true compact can exist between a sovereign power and its subordinates (whence they argue that between the civil and the ecclesiastical authorities no compact can exist entailing strict obligations upon the former), this fundamental principle is not only false in itself but is contradicted by their own theories. For they maintain that a strict compact can be made between ruler and ruled, whereby the authority of the former may be diminished, or even partially or wholly abolished.

Those who claim that concordats are to be considered as bilateral contracts in the strictest sense of the word experience in trying to maintain their assertion the same difficulty as the followers of the legalist theory. They, too, have recourse to a false principle, that of the perfect co-ordination and equality of Church and State. It does not fall within the scope of this article to show the falsity of this assumption; suffice to say in passing, that the co-ordination or subordination of societies among themselves is to he determined by the co-ordination or subordination of the ends for the attainment of which said societies were instituted; now the end the Church has to attain is superior to that of any other society.

The arguments of those who hold that concordats are bilateral contracts, though only in the broad sense of the term, are based upon their language and diplomatic form. For they argue that these clearly show that the popes themselves regarded concordats as concessions to which were annexed the binding force of a compact, and that in making them they intended to bind themselves by them sometimes to the extent of declaring null and void whatever they themselves or their successors should do in contravention of anything contained in their concordats. An example in point is the concordat between Leo X and Francis I of France. Furthermore, it is claimed that the popes often have referred to concordats, directly or equivalently, as bilateral contracts, or agreements carrying with them a strict obligation. Thus Fink, in his work “De Concordatis” (Louvain, 1879), when summing up his argument says: “In the estimation of the Holy See, concordats are solemn agreements with regard to the management of ecclesiastical affairs, entered into by the supreme authorities, ecclesiastical and civil, of the respective countries; they are possessed of the full efficacy of a strict obligation, and have the force of a compact binding both contracting parties, after the manner of international treaties. Besides the obligation of justice, the binding force of a concordat is strengthened by a solemn promise made by each party for himself and his successors to observe forever faithfully and inviolably all that has been agreed upon. Unless, then, by mutual consent, no concordat can be broken without violating every principle of justice and jeopardizing all other private and public contracts.” Other arguments are drawn from expressions occurring in the diplomatic correspondence of the Papal Secretary of State. As a matter of fact, much of what we have just given from Fink is to be found not in papal documents themselves, but in the correspondence of the Secretariate of State. Lastly, the advocates of this form of the compact theory assert that the common opinion among canonists is also in their favour. But, with all due respect to the learned scholars who hold and defend the opinion, the argument drawn from the form of the concordat has but little weight. For it is not at all rare for an act to be clothed with a form which, though, perhaps, less adapted to the nature of the act itself, yet in no way changes that nature. For example, the formula of absolution in the Greek Church is deprecatory, yet this form of entreaty in no way changes the judicial nature of the pronouncement. So, too, Gregory VII deposed Henry IV by a form of deprecation, yet it cannot be denied that the judgment passed was truly condemnatory. So also a religious before his solemn profession may renounce all his possessions under the form of a will, which form endures even after his profession, while the nature of the act is essentially changed, since there no longer exists that voluntas ambulatoria which a last will and testament of its nature requires. Nor are the arguments drawn now and then from solemn promises any stronger. For the pope often calls certain concessions mentioned in concordats “privileges,” “indults,” etc., etc., and at times speaks even more precisely, asserting that he will in no way interfere in the doing of this or that. If at times the stricter formulæ are employed, as in the concordat between Leo X and Francis I (a formula which seems to be the strictest of all and decrees as null and void whatever to the contrary is attempted by subsequent pontiffs), they are employed, as Palmieri notes in the first edition of his treatise “De Romano Pontifice,” first, that the pope may testify to his firm purpose of observing, in as far as he may, the points mentioned in the concordat: secondly, because of the scope of the instrument itself, which is similar to an agreement entered into by a father and his disobedient children. In such reconciliations it often happens that a formula is used between a father and a child still under his jurisdiction which verbally signifies a bilateral contract, but which in point of fact is employed for the sole purpose of manifesting the leniency and liberality of the father. Thirdly, very often such formulæ are employed because of the unity of the act itself. That this is true, is evident because at times there are articles which bind the pope in justice, and also because by a concordat a civil ruler (i. e. in the case of a concordat drawn up with a Catholic prince) is really and truly bound by obedience to the Roman Pontiff. Hence, although the latter is bound to his promise only through fidelity to his word, it was deemed advisable to use a common form which, as in the case of bilateral contracts, implies a mutual obligation, the nature and interpretation of which is sufficiently evident from the nature and tenor of the concordat itself. It is also to be noted that emphatic phrases such as those above mentioned, employed with a view to express the firm determination of the legislator, are not at all rare; so, for instance, there is sometimes attached to a code of laws a clause derogatory of all future laws, v. g. “by virtue of this unchangeable constitution which is to endure forever.” Yet no one claims that a subsequent legislator is bound by such a clause, nor that he cannot abrogate the constitution in whole or in part. That the popes admit that concordats are identical with bilateral contracts, is not wholly true. For they are rarely called such, the ordinary expression being that they have the force of a bilateral contract-something entirely different. For (as Baldi notes in his excellent work on concordats, “De Naturâ et Indole Concordatorum) all such technical phrases as, “to have the same binding force as a treaty,” “to be a species of contract,” “to partake of the nature of a privilege,” “to resemble a gift”-all these signify nothing else than participation in, and not identity with, the nature of all of these. Just as when the law declares, “The admission of postulation has the force of confirmation,” it is legitimate to conclude, “therefore admission of postulation is not confirmation but participates in and approaches to, as far as its nature allows, the nature of confirmation. Again, it argues nothing against the opinion held in the article that concordats are sometimes expressly designated bilateral agreements or contracts (perhaps once: to wit, in the letter of Leo XIII, dated 16 Feb., 1892, to the bishops and faithful of France), since in such cases it is evident that the pope wished only to observe all the conventionalities of concordats-in so far at least as duty permitted. It was not the pope’s intention to define and determine the exact essence of a concordat, but rather to manifest his mind on the matter in question, and give assurance that he, on his part, would not violate the articles agreed upon. Relative to this matter Wernz says: “Pius X praised Bonald because he brought to his notice the nature and peculiar characteristic of these agreements or indults.” Then, too, Leo XIII earnestly recommended that the question of concordats be seriously and thoroughly looked into. Surely the praise of Pius and the recommendation of Leo would have been utterly foolish if the theory of bilateral contracts had been evidently and unquestionably adopted by the Apostolic See.

Of less value is the argument drawn from individual phrases occurring occasionally in diplomatic correspondence. For, apart from the fact that never, perhaps, in these diplomatic notes is a concordat said to be identical with a bilateral contract, it must also be granted, and that without evasion, that the weakest kind of argument is that drawn from one or another phrase used by some Cardinal Secretary of State, or some Apostolic Nuncio in a single diplomatic note. For the admission is not forced upon us that these phrases are the best that under the circumstances could be chosen. It is also false that the treaty theory is more commonly held by theologians and canonists. For neither is this true of the modern canonists, while it is absolutely false of those of earlier date, very many of whom (as Baldi clearly proves in his erudite commentary on concordats already cited) held the opinion advanced in this paper. This opinion, it must be noted, is based on two principles: first, that ecclesiastical and civil society are not co-ordinate; secondly, that the power of the Roman Pontiff can be neither alienated nor diminished. On this point Wernz wisely remarks: “If the co-ordination of Church and State be urged as an argument, then the treaty theory is founded either on an error, or on a pure fiction lacking all objective reality.” (Cf. Sägmuller, “Lehrbuch des kath. Kirchenrechts,” 89 sqq.) Hence it follows that it is utterly impossible to call a concordat an international treaty in the real and true sense of the word (cf. a pamphlet anonymously edited in Rome, 1872, under the title: “Della Natura e carattere essenziale dei Concordati,” whose author was Cardinal Cagiano de Azevedo). Neither can the concordat be classed with international treaties, since the latter are entered upon by two societies each perfect in itself and both equal. The Church, on the other hand, is neither subordinate to, nor equal to, the State, but is in a true sense its superior. Hence, also, it follows that concordats are not bilateral contracts; since for such a contract three things are essentially required:

(a) the consent of two parties to the same thing;

(b) which imposes upon each an obligation of commutative justice;

(c) so that the obligation of one party is the cause of a right in the other, and one obligation is to the other as effect to cause.

But a strict right arising from commutative justice is altogether independent not only of the other contracting party, but also, generally speaking, of public authority. Hence, no one can lawfully or validly take such a right away from me against my will. Moreover, it cannot be said that concordats impose on the pontiff an obligation which is the cause of a right in the other party, and of such a right as can be neither lawfully nor validly recalled. For certainly, in this hypothesis, a succeeding pontiff could not do as much as his predecessor; he would receive a lessened power, not that which Peter received from Christ to be transmitted to his successors for the government of the church. And this surely cannot be, since each succeeding pontiff receives his power not from his dead predecessor, but from God himself, who always gives the selfsame, as he has said once for all to Peter and his successors: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church . . . Feed my lambs . . . I will give to thee the keys.” Therefore a succeeding pontiff is not bound by the compacts of his predecessor as by a bilateral contract giving such a strict right of commutative justice that if he violate the agreement without cause his act is invalid. And neither is the pontiff who has made such compacts so bound by them, for he is not the master of that fullness of power which is the primacy, but only its administrator, so that he cannot alienate or lessen it. Nor can you argue that by concordats, which are bilateral contracts, not the power of the supreme pontiff, but only its exercise, is diminished. For what is that power which can never be exercised, or which, if exercised, remains without effect? And such would be the case, for even if the pontiff wished he could not act validly, and therefore his power would be lessened. And hence the Roman pontiff must retain the fullness of power and jurisdiction over those questions which are settled in a concordat. This is what Cardinal Antonelli, Secretary of State, maintained in his diplomatic correspondence, when the Kingdom of Portugal complained that the pontiff had violated the concordat.

Does the pontiff then contract no obligation in concordats? Assuredly he contracts an obligation; and they do an injury to Cardinal Tarquini who think that he held the opposite. For, although he does not mention this obligation in his definition of concordats, he certainly admits it when explaining his meaning. But this obligation is one of fidelity, not of justice, an obligation which makes a violation of the concordat without just cause an unlawful act, but not an invalid act. His Eminence Cardinal Francis Satolli explains with his usual depth and clearness the nature of the obligation which a pontiff is under of observing a concordat. His little work, of great authority, bears the title, “Prima principia de Concordatis.” The learned author begins his investigation with the following reasoning from St. Thomas, I, xxi, 1, ad 3. The Angelic Doctor, asking whether justice exists in God, puts this objection to himself: The act of justice consists in the payment of a debt; but God is a debtor to no one, therefore it would seem that justice does not exist in God. To solve this difficulty the Holy Doctor first lays down the principle: to every one is due what is his own. He then inquires what one may call his own, and establishes that one’s own is that which is for him, as a slave is his master’s, precisely because, inasmuch as he is a slave, he is for his master. In the name debt, therefore, concludes the Angelic Doctor, is simplified a relation of exigency or necessity in a thing referring it to that for which it exists. Considering this relation more thoroughly, you will see that it is twofold: a relation by which a creature is for another creature and all creatures for God. Since this relation is twofold, there is also a twofold debt in the Divine plan; one by which a thing is due to God, the other by which a thing is due to the creature, and in both ways, says St. Thomas, God can make payment. For it is due to God that what the wisdom of his will has decreed should be fulfilled in creatures, as it is due to the creature that what has been ordained for it it should possess. Thus it is due to man that other animals should supply his needs. But this second debt depends on the first, since a thing is due to creatures because it is ordained for them through the relations established by the Divine wisdom. Wherefore, since God pays a debt to his creatures in this way only, he does not become his creatures’ debtor, but the justice of God always looks to His own propriety, and by it he renders to himself what is His due. The author then passes to the Church and applies to her this argument. For to the Church also is due that the mission of her infallible and holy teaching power and manifestation of the saving quality of Christ’s religion be accomplished in every State throughout the world. It is likewise due to the various States and their rulers that they have what is properly theirs. But this debt depends on the first in every relation between the Church, or Holy See, and a State; for it would be absurd were not all things ordered according to the relations established by the Divine wisdom, that is, to maintain religion, and to further the last end of all human life. The debt which the Church pays in tending to her supernatural end is one of justice, but of a justice which looks to the propriety of the Church herself, that is of the Holy See, a justice which renders to itself what is its due. In purely temporal matters the Church must observe the debt of justice such as temporal matters require, for in these she is not a superior nor is her spiritual end in question. But in all matters which pertain to the supernatural end of the Church, she can be under no obligation of strict debt to the State, but rather her obligation is to herself and to the spiritual purpose of her existence. And thus, generally speaking, she will be a debtor to States, through compact, since she owes to herself what her wisdom and never-failing desire for the spiritual good of mankind has shown her to be necessary.

But to present briefly what can certainly be said about concordats; concordats, as they have in fact often been agreed upon, often impose upon the Roman Pontiff a true obligation of commutative justice towards the state. This happens when a concordat is concluded about purely temporal matters, for instance, when the Church cedes some of her temporal possessions, or when she renounces some temporal or historical right. Such was the case in the concordat concluded between Urban VIII and the emperor, Ferdinand II, King of Bohemia; for in this instance the pope ceded some ecclesiastical possessions upon receiving others from Ferdinand in compensation; such, too, was the concordat with Colombia, in 1887, art. 29. But we must bear in mind that in such concordats the pope follows the common laws of contracts; therefore, if a contract be extorted from him by fraud or intimidation, or if the matter of the concordat be illicit, he or his successor can annul that contract, and such action is quite licit and valid. Moreover, if the matter of the concordat is illicit, the pope is evidently obliged to rescind the contract. Thus when Henry V had, by means of fear and fraud, urged Paschal II into certain points of agreement, this pope recalled those concessions in the First Council of the Lateran, on the 18th of March of the year 1112, because the entire council proclaimed that the concessions made to Henry were illicit-not a privilegium, but a pravilegium, as the council expressed it. Thus, too, if a pope should make over to someone temporal possessions without a just cause, his successor can evidently cancel such a contract validly, because a pope is only the administrator, and not the owner, of ecclesiastical possessions.

In concordats the Roman pontiff often grants secular rulers real privileges and indults; for the pontiff expressly declares that he is granting an indult, a privilege-that he is conceding this or that particular point, that he is making such or such a concession, or granting a favour. Instances of this kind may be found in the concordat with the Two Sicilies, of the year 1741, c. viii, art. 1, in another with the Two Sicilies of 1818, art. 28, in a concordat with Costa Rica, of 1853, art. 7; in a concordat with Haiti, of 1860, art. 4; in a concordat with Austria, of 1855, art. 25; with Ecuador, of 1863, art. 13, etc. Now if, as the “Corpus Juris Canonici,” regula juris 16 in Sexto, has it, it is becoming that no favour granted by a sovereign should be recalled, it is fully evident from what we said above that this rule should hold good all the more when a privilege is granted in a form so solemn as that used in concordats; nor is it merely becoming for the pope not to recall such concessions, but he has an obligation of observing those very articles which contain the privileges. This follows from what we said already, and this the popes themselves affirm, sometimes, indeed, in rather stringent terms. Nevertheless, from the explanations given above it is evident that these terms of affirmation must be understood to signify merely that the pope is binding himself in so far as he is capable of binding himself; but whilst, in such concordats, he can bind himself in fidelity, he cannot bind himself in commutative justice; therefore, in those terms in which he affirms his obligation he binds himself in fidelity, but not in justice. And in fact, the popes have been much more scrupulously faithful in keeping these promises than the civil rulers themselves were, although the latter had taken upon themselves a real obligation of justice.

In the second edition of his celebrated work “De Romano Pontifice” (Prato, 1891), Palmieri maintains that, even if concordats were strictly bilateral contracts, nevertheless the power of the pope over them would not be lessened on that account. But although Palmieri is quite justly acknowledged as easily the foremost authority on ecclesiastical matters, both on account of his universal experience and his intellectual acumen, nevertheless, in this case his position seems to be untenable. In the first edition of the same work (Rome, 1877) he maintained that concordats are not bilateral contracts in the strict sense of the term; and he bases his argument for the opinion laid down in the second edition on the supposition that the obligation of a bilateral contract impedes, or renders illicit, any action of the pope against the provisions of the contract, but that, nevertheless, such action would still be valid. But this supposition is not true, unless we use the term bilateral contract in its widest sense; but this would be a question about the meaning of words, and would not touch the point at issue. But if we really mean to use the term, bilateral contract, in its obvious meaning, we must certainly hold that such a contract renders any action against its provisions null and void. The learned author adduces two instances, taken from the contract of buying and selling and from the engagement to marry, to prove his assertion; but neither of these two cases is to the point. For the engagement to marry, as Palmieri himself admits, is a bilateral contract, consisting in the mutual promise of future marriage; and yet, if, for instance, the bridegroom marries some other woman, his action is merely illicit, but not invalid. A sale of goods is likewise a bilateral contract, and it is completed only by handing over the article in question to the buyer; and yet, if the seller hands over to someone else the article that was already sold, the transfer of the article in question remains valid, even though the seller is bound to make good the damages caused to the first buyer. Therefore the two cases adduced by Palmieri prove nothing; for a bilateral contract renders invalid those actions merely which have the same subject-matter, and in so far only as they have the same subject-matter, as the contract itself. Thus it is evident that the engagement to marry, being a bilateral contract, renders null and void any new espousals, because the subject-matter is the same; but it does not render invalid a marriage with some other person, because marriage is quite another kind of contract. The case is similar in the contract of buying and selling: even if the buyer and seller have agreed and concluded the sale, so long as no transfer has taken place, that contract does certainly not render the seller incapable of making a valid transfer of the goods in question to some other buyer; but it undoubtedly deprives the seller of the power of selling the goods validly a second time, unless the transfer of the goods follows the sale. (Cf. De Lugo, “De justitiâ et iure,” disp. xxvi, 163 sqq.)

So far we have been considering concordats in their relation to the pope; the secular rulers on their part are bound in commutative justice by many articles of a concordat, unless an exception be proved. But on Christian rulers all the articles of a concordat impose an additional obligation of obedience; for, as Tarquini testifies, a concordat may be rightly defined as “a particular ecclesiastical law for a certain country, enacted by the authority of the sovereign pontiff at the request of the ruler of that country, and strengthened by the special obligation, which that ruler takes upon himself, to observe its provisions forever.”

Effect of Concordats

From all this it follows naturally that, since an obligation devolves upon the contracting parties, the terms of the concordat should be faithfully carried out and rigidly adhered to. Neither party, then, may without consulting the other refuse, except for grave reasons, to abide by the terms agreed upon. Moreover, in view of the fact that concordats have the force of ecclesiastical laws, they at once annul all laws and special customs that make for the contrary. All other laws, however, i. e. those which do not clash with the letter or spirit of the particular concordats, still hold; for concordats, barring of course those provisions which are especially mentioned, so far from making the jus commune inoperative, re-establish its validity. This is clear from the fact that the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff, when at the urgent request of a civil ruler he yields a point, or waives in certain cases the claims of the law of the Church, is obviously to insist on the duty of respecting and observing the ecclesiastical laws in all other details. Further, just as all other laws when properly promulgated bind the people, so concordats, inasmuch as they take on the form of civil laws are binding on the citizens of the country, and particularly the state officials; so much so that any infringement of them is equivalent to a violation of the civil laws. And rightly so, for concordats are promulgated as laws emanating from the power vested in the State as well as that in the Church. The sovereign Pontiff gives publicity to the terms through his cardinals assembled in consistory, and through a special Bull; the civil authority through the customary channels, i. e. in the legal way in which other state laws should and usually are promulgated.

Interpretation and Annulment of Concordats

Since it may very easily happen that from time to time a dispute or a disagreement may arise between the contracting parties as to the meaning that should be assigned to the articles agreed upon in the concordat, it seems advisable to determine how the controversy should be settled in the event of such a difficulty.

In the first place there can be no question that every effort should be made to settle the dispute amicably, a precaution that is founded upon the motives that lead to the formation of a concordat-namely, that of terminating if not forestalling all disputes. Consequently, it would be in direct opposition to the nature of the concordat if it should itself prove a fresh reason for misunderstandings. Its very nature, then, makes it imperative that in the event of a disagreement arising touching the meaning to be attached to the concordat, the question should as far as possible be settled without any rupture of friendly relations; and assuredly the Church has never been found wanting in her efforts to further this end. This precaution, it should be added, has often been taken in framing the concordats themselves. For example, in the concordat drawn up by Pius IX with the Emperor Francis Joseph I of Austria, in the year 1855, the following words were appended to art. 35: “Should, however, any difficulty arise in the future, His Holiness and His Imperial Majesty shall consult with each other that the question may be amicably decided.” The very same words occur in the 13th art. of the concordat drawn up by the same pope with William I of Würtemberg, in the year 1857; so, too, in the 24th art. of that entered into by the same pope with Frederick I, Grand Duke of Baden in 1859; and again in the 24th art. of the concordat ratified with the President of Ecuador. Other instances of a similar nature could be cited. Since this clause, once it is subjoined to a concordat, becomes a part of the agreement and consequently assumes the nature of a papal as well as a civil law, it must be kept to the letter, so long, of course, as it is normally possible to do so.

True as all this is, it would be erroneous to maintain that both parties must concur in determining the meaning of a given clause or article. For he is the lawful interpreter who in the matter in question is the authoritative lawgiver. Now the pope always retains his jurisdiction and legislative power over matters that are wholly or partially of a spiritual nature, nor can he transmit the power to another. Consequently, the Sovereign Pontiff always remains the authoritative interpreter. It is plain, then, that should a discussion arise, and the civil authorities refuse their consent to a reasonable adjustment, the Church, in virtue of her higher judicial power, may exercise this right of annulling the concordat. It is clear, too, that, should the Church at any time pledge herself in the event of some future misunderstanding to discuss the situation with the civil authorities in order to bring about an amicable settlement, such an act must be looked upon as supererogatory; for when the Church waives any of her claims she makes a concession to the State, seeing that the highest community enjoys the right of settling a discussion even though the inferior body withholds its consent.

It may be well to subjoin a few canons that shall serve as guides in interpreting the various articles of a concordat. Evidently, the meaning of those articles which import a bilateral or unilateral contract must be judged by the laws that determine the exact scope of contracts, while the meaning of clauses that bear upon the granting of a privilege must be decided by an appeal to the laws for the interpretation of privileges. In its workings, however, the competent judge of a concordat is nowadays the Sacred Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. Far less, of course, is the State justified in rescinding concessions granted at the time the concordat was drawn up. For it frequently happens that the State promises to do only what it is already bound to by some pre-existing obligation; or at times the discussion turns on certain matters which the Church, by virtue of the indirect power she has over the State, enjoins, or again on temporal affairs of which the State had handed over to the Church full and absolute dominion. In the last case this forfeiture of dominion cannot be revoked, and for two reasons: first, because these gifts are usually compensatory for confiscated property-e. g., governments which had seized upon a considerable amount of ecclesiastical property have time and again promised in the concordats to endow seminaries, church fabrics, etc.-and secondly, because any gift once bestowed on an equal or a superior, even though it be purely gratuitous, may not be revoked, as such an act would be an exercise of jurisdiction which it cannot employ except against a subject. All, however, acknowledge that the Church may lawfully and justly refuse to abide by a concordat in all those circumstances which would permit or even oblige one to break a contract. Should there be question of privileges or indults granted by the pope in a concordat, it follows logically from what we have said that, given a just and adequate reason, they may validly and licitly be rescinded; if there be no reason, then such an action would still be valid, though not licit. It must be remembered, though, that the popes exercise their authority only for the gravest reasons, and after all the solemn formalities of the Roman Curia have been duly observed. Yet, should the pope rescind these privileges, he would not ordinarily be bound to make any compensation to the State, as compensation is strictly obligatory only where the privileges revoked are those technically called onerosa (see PRIVILEGE). Concordats, however, are not of this nature. All this applies with greater force to concessions wrung from the pope through chicanery, threats, or open violence, or which exceed the papal prerogative. Again, if it is a question of dominion over temporal goods that has passed from the Church to the State, the Church, it is clear, may not revoke this concession, although a spontaneous grant may be withdrawn.

TARQUINI, Institutiones juris can., I, tit. iv: Appendix de concordatis; PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht (Ratisbon, 1850), III, 58; SCHULTE, Die Lehre von den Quellen etc. 435 sqq.; WERNZ, Jus Decr. (Rome, 1905), I, 166 sq.; MOULART, L’Eglise et l’Etat (Louvain, 1887), 583 sqq; AZEVEDO, Della natura e carattere essenziale dei Concordati (Rome, 1872); FINK De Concordatis (Louvain, 1879); RADINI-TEDESCHI, Chiesa e Stato in ordine ai Concordati (Milan, 1887); TURINAZ, Les Concordats et l’obligation réciproque qu’ils imposent (Paris, 1888); SATOLLI, Prima principia . . . de Concordatis (Rome, 1888); ONCLAIR, La question des Concordats in Rev. Cath. des Institutions et du Droit for Oct., 1889; CAVAGNIS, Institutiones juris publici eccl. (Freiburg im Br., 1903); HAMMERSTEIN, De Ecclesiâ et Statu juridice consideratis (Trier, 1886); DE BONALD, Deux questions sur le Concordat de 1801 (Paris, 1801); LIBERATORE, La Chiesa e lo Stato (Naples, 1872), iii, arts. 13, 14; ID., Del diritto pubblico eccl. (Prato, 1887), iv, art. 8; DE LUISE, De jure publico Eccl. Cath. (Paris, 1877), V; BALDI, De nativâ et peculiari indole Concordatorum (Rome, 1883); GIOBBIO, I Concordati (Monza, 1900); SMITH, Elements of Eccl. Law (New York, 1878), 51 sqq.

BENEDETTO OJETTI.

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCORDATS

Before the Eighteenth Century (1) The Concordat of Worms, or Pactum Calixtinum, 23 September, 1122, between Pope Callistus II and the Emperor Henry V, confirmed by the First Lateran Council, terminated the long investiture quarrel. The following were its chief provisions:

(a) The elections of bishops and abbots should take place in the presence of the emperor.

(b) Contested elections, according to one opinion, should be decided by the emperor, who had only to ask the advice of the metropolitan and his suffragans; according to another opinion, the decision rested with the provincial synod, the emperor merely assuring the execution of the synod’s judgment.

(c) The emperor renounced the right of spiritual investiture with ring and crosier and received instead the right of lay investiture with the sceptre, a sign of temporal, but not of spiritual, authority. In Germany the prelate should receive investiture with the sceptre before consecration, but in other countries after consecration.

(d) The emperor promised to protect the Roman Church and restore the possessions of the Holy See.

(e) The pope agreed not to disturb those who had been on the side of the emperor during the controversy.

(2) Concordats with Portugal: one in 1288 between the bishops of Portugal and King Diniz after a violent persecution of the Church in that country, and ratified by Nicholas IV in 1289; another in 1516, between the Portuguese bishops and King Manuel the Fortunate, afterwards confirmed by Pope Leo X.

(3) The Concordat of 1516 between Leo X and Francis I of France, confirmed by the Fifth Lateran Council, was a result of the long controversy between the Holy See and the French Government over the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges. Besides abolishing the Pragmatic Sanction, the terms of this concordat;

(a) gave to the king the fight of presentation to bishoprics, abbeys, and priories;

(b) the concordat, however, maintained the pope’s right of confirmation, devolution (i. e. the right to appoint of his own choice, if the king did not present a candidate within the required time), and the reservation of bishoprics made vacant by the death of the incumbents while at the papal court.

(c) It contained also stipulations concerning the anuates and other matters.

(4) The Concordat of Vienna was the outcome of the efforts on the part of the princes of the German Empire to put an end, at least in Germany, to the conflict between Eugene IV and the Council of Basle. After some negotiations Eugene issued four Bulls (Feb., 1447) which together constitute the so-called Concordat of the Princes. The first was a promise of a new council; the second contained a provisional acceptance of certain decrees of the Council of Basle; and the third and fourth dealt with the details of the agreement. Eugene IV died shortly after this and Nicholas V, his successor, confirmed the four Bulls. But a certain number of the princes being still unsatisfied, Frederick III thought it time to intervene. At a diet held at Aschaffenburg, he ordered the universal recognition of Nicholas V as lawful pope, and on 17 February, 1448, the Concordat of Vienna was agreed upon by the emperor and the papal legate, Carvajal. It was confirmed by Nicholas V on 19 March of the same year, and was subsequently recognized as the ecclesiastical code for Germany. Its principal terms were the following:

(a) The election of bishops was to be free from all interference, though the pope should have the right of confirmation; and for good reasons and with the advice of the cardinals he could appoint a more worthy and suitable person than the one elected;

(b) In the six odd months of the year vacant canonries and non-elective benefices were at the disposal of the pope; at other times these vacancies should be filled by the ordinary.

(c) The concordat also treated of the amount and payment of the annates.

(5) The Concordat with Bohemia in 1630 was negotiated for that country between Urban VIII and the Emperor Ferdinand II; it followed on the re-establishment of the Catholic religion in Bohemia after the campaign directed by Ferdinand against the heretics. By its terms the Church renounced the goods that had been alienated during the progress of the heresy and received compensation from the revenues derived from a tax on salt which was levied for her benefit,

Eighteenth Century

Twelve concordats were made during the eighteenth century. Five of these with Sardinia: the first, in 1727, between Pope Benedict XIII and Victor Amadeus II confirmed the right possessed by the House of Savoy of immediate nomination to ecclesiastical offices; three between Benedict XIV and King Charles Emmanuel III (1741, 1742, 1750); the fifth in 1770 between Clement XIV and Charles Emmanuel III. Two were made with Spain, one in 1737 between Clement XII and Philip V, another in 1753 between Benedict XIV and King Ferdinand VI; one with the Two Sicilies in 1741, between Benedict XIV and Charles III; one with the Duchy of Milan in 1757, between Benedict XIV and the Empress Maria Teresa; one with Milan and Mantua in 1784, between Pius VI and the Emperor Joseph II; one in 1778 with Portugal; and one with Poland in 1736 between Clement XII and King Augustus III.

Nineteenth Century

The following were the most important concordats of the nineteenth century:

(1) The Concordat of 1801, to which a special article is devoted.

(2) The concordat between Louis XVIII and Pius VII in 1817, intended to re-establish the Concordat of 1516, abrogate the Organic Articles, and re-erect the suppressed bishoprics, but never carried out.

(3) The Concordat of Bavaria in 1817, concluded for Pius VII and Maximilian Joseph by Cardinal Consalvi and Baron von Höffelin. It dealt with the administration of church property, a new circumscription of dioceses, the erection of chapters, and especially nominations to ecclesiastical offices. An addition made by the State, and bearing a relation to the Bavarian concordat similar to that of the Organic Articles to the Concordat of 1801, gave rise to much dispute. In 1871 the Liberals tried in vain to have this concordat rejected.

(4) The Concordat with Sardinia in 1817, between Pope Pius VII and King Victor Emmanuel I. It reduced the number of bishoprics to three (Turin, Genoa, Vercelli), and contained regulations concerning the establishment of seminaries and chapters, etc.

(5) The Concordat with Prussia in 1821, concluded with the Holy See through Prince von Hardenberg, the chancellor. King Frederick William III on 23 August, 1821, recognized it as a law binding on Prussian Catholics. It contains the circumscription of the archbishoprics and bishoprics, and regulations concerning the erection of dioceses and chapters, the qualities of candidates, the taxation of episcopal and archiepiscopal churches by the Apostolic Camera, etc.

(6) The Concordat of the Upper Rhine Provinces in 1821, consisting of a papal Bull issued by Pius VII and accepted by the King of Würtemberg, the Grand Duke of Baden, the Elector of Hesse, the Grand Duke of Hesse, the Duke of Nassau, the free city of Frankfort, the Grand Duke of Mainz, the Dukes of Saxony and Oldenburg, the Prince of Waldeck, and the Hanseatic cities, Bremen and Lübeck. By this concordat the bishoprics were divided among the provinces as follows: Freiburg im Breisgau, the metropolis, was the see for Baden; Rottenburg for Würtemberg; Mains for Hesse-Darmstadt; Fulda for Kurhesse and Saxe-Weimar; Limburg for Nassau; and Frankfort.

(7) The Concordat with Belgium in 1827. It extended the provisions of the Concordat of 1801 (q. v.) to Belgium.

(8) The Concordat with the Upper Rhine Provinces in 1827 between Leo XII and the above-mentioned provinces. It contained agreements on the election of bishops, the processus informativus, the holding of a second election when the first had not been canonical or the person elected had not the necessary qualities, the institution of chapters, the establishment of seminaries, etc.

(9) The Concordat of Hanover, agreed upon between Pius VII and George IV, King of England and of Hanover, but published 26 August, 1824, by Leo XII in the Bull “Impensa Romanorum Pontificum sollicitudo.” It contained decisions concerning the erection and support of the bishopric and chapter of Hildesheim, and the suspension of the state support of the Bishopric of Osnabrück. Both of these dioceses were placed directly under the Holy See; the concordat dealt also with the election and consecration of the bishop, the processus informativus, the institution of the cathedral chapter, and taxation by the Apostolic Camera.

(10) The Concordat of Oldenburg, arranged 5 January, 1830, between the Prince-Bishop of Ermeland as executor of the papal Bull “De salute animarum” and von Brandenstein, the Minister of State. It dealt with the distribution of parishes, the founding of certain canonries by the grand duke, and the establishment of a special ecclesiastical court in the Diocese of Münster.

(11) A concordat with Austria, concluded 18 August, 1855, b y Cardinal Viale Prela and the Prince-Bishop Joseph Othmar von Rauscher. It was ratified by the emperor 25 September and by the pope 3 November, but in 1870 was rejected by the Government.

(12) A concordat with Austria, 8 July, 1881, concerning the establishment of the hierarchy in Bosnia-Hersegovina.

(13) A concordat with Russia, concluded 3 August, 1847, published by Pius IX on 3 July, 1848. It was concerned with the dioceses of Russia and Poland and the episcopal rights;

(14) A concordat with Spain, 16 March, 1851, on the support of the Catholic religion, protection of episcopal rights, circumscription of dioceses, abolishment of exempt dioceses, constitution of chapters, establishment of seminaries, the right of the monarch to appoint to ecclesiastical offices, and the right of the Church to acquire property.

(15) A concordat with Spain, 25 November, 1859, supplementary to the Concordat of 1851.

(16) Concordat with Switzerland, 26 March, 1828. The episcopal see was transferred from Basle to Soleure.

(17) Concordat with Switzerland, 7 November, 1845, relative to the Diocese of St. Gall;

(18) Concordat with the Two Sicilies, 1834, between Pope Gregory XVI and King Ferdinand II, on the personal immunity of clerics.

(19) Concordat with Sardinia 1841, also on the immunity of clerics.

(20) Concordat with Tuscany, 1851, on ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the administration of church property,

(21) Concordat with San Salvador, 22 April, 1862. Among other provisions, the Catholic religion was declared the State religion, but other cults permitted; education was placed under the supervision of the bishops; the censorship of books by the bishop was recognized and upheld by the State; unrestricted communication with the pope was guaranteed to clergy and laity; tithes were abolished, the expenses of worship to be defrayed by the State; the president was given the right of patronage and of nominating to all bishoprics, and of appointing to six canonries; new dioceses should be erected by the pope and new parishes by the bishop. The bishop might introduce religious orders and communities; the vicar capitular should be chosen by the chapter according to the provisions of the Council of Trent; the ecclesiastical courts were recognized only for purely spiritual matters, temporal matters to be subject to the civil jurisdiction; the right to acquire and possess property was guaranteed to the Church; the confiscation of church property and the arbitrary union or suppression of benefices by the State was forbidden; the right to tax church property was ceded to the State; the prayer for the republic was granted, also the so-called privilegia castrensia, In matters not mentioned in the concordat the ordinary discipline of the Church should be observed.

(22) The concordat with Guatemala, 7 Oct., 1852, that with Honduras, 22 April, 1862, that with Nicaragua, 2 November, 1861, were similar to the concordat with San Salvador.

(23) Concordat with Venezuela, 26 July, 1862.

(24) Concordat with Ecuador, 29 May, 1851, similar to the Concordat with San Salvador.

(25) Concordat with Hayti and the West Indies, 28 March, 1860.

(26) Concordat with Colombia, 1887.

RENARD in Dict. de théol. catholique, s. v.; HERGENRÖTHER in Kirchenlex., s. v.-For concordats with Spain: HERGENRÖTHER, Spaniens Verhandlungen mit dem römischen Stuhle in Archiv f. katholischen Kirchenrecht, X.-For concordats with Central America: SENTIS, Die Concordate des römischen Stuhles mit den Republiken Centralamerikas in Archiv f. katholischen Kirchenrecht, XII, 225; NUSSI, Quinquaginta Conventiones de Rebus Ecclesiasticis inter S. Sedem et Civilem Potestatem variis formis init (Rome, 1869); IDEM, Conventiones . . . init sub Pontificatu . . . Leonis PP. XIII (Rome, 1893).

LEO A. KELLY

The French Concordat of 1801

This name is given to the convention of the 26th Messidor, year IX (July 16, 1802), whereby Pope Pius VII and Bonaparte, First Consul, re-established the Catholic Church in France. Bonaparte understood that the restoration of religious peace was above all things necessary for the peace of the country. The hostility of the Vendeans to the new state of affairs which resulted from the Revolution was due chiefly to the fact that their Catholic consciences were outraged by the Revolutionary laws. Of the 136 sees of ancient France a certain number had lost their titulars by death; the titulars of many others had been forced to emigrate. In Paris the Cathedral of Notre-Dame and the church of St-Sulpice were in the possession of “constitutional” clergy; Royer, a “constitutional” bishop, had taken the place of Mgr. de Juigné, the lawful Archbishop of Paris, an émigré; even in the churches which the Catholics had recovered, the rites of the “Theophilanthropists” and those of the “Decadi” were also celebrated. The nation suffered from this religious anarchy, and the wishes of the people coincided with Bonaparte’s projected policy to restore the Catholic Church and Catholic worship to their normal condition in France.

I. THE FIRST ADVANCES

On the 25th of June, 1800, Bonaparte, after his victory at Marengo, passed through Vercelli, where he paid a visit to Cardinal Martiniana, bishop of that city. He asked that prelate to go to Rome and inform Pius VII that Bonaparte wished to make him a present of thirty million French Catholics; that the first consul desired to reorganize the French dioceses, while lessening their number; that the émigré bishops should be induced to resign their sees; that France should have a new clergy untrammelled by past political conditions; that the pope’s spiritual jurisdiction in France should be restored. Martiniana faithfully reported these words to Pius VII. It was only a few months before that Pius VI had died at Valence, a prisoner of revolutionary France. Pius VII, when elected at Venice, had announced his accession to the legitimate government of Louis XVIII, not to that of the Republic; and now Bonaparte, the representative of this de facto government, was making overtures of peace to the Holy See on the very morrow of his great victory. His action naturally caused the greatest surprise at Rome. The difficulties in the way, however, were very serious. They arose, chiefly;

(1) from the susceptibilities of the émigré bishops, from the future Louis XVIII, and from Cardinal Maury, who was suspicious of any attempt at reconciliation between the Roman Church and the new France;

(2) from the susceptibilities of the former revolutionaries, now the courtiers of Napoleon, but still imbued with the irreligious philosophy of the eighteenth century.

The distinctive mark of the negotiations, taken as a whole, is the fact that the French bishops, whether still abroad or returned to their own country, had no heart whatever in them. The concordat as finally arranged practically ignored their existence.

II. THE THREE PHASES OF THE NEGOTIATIONS

FIRST PHASE (5 NOVEMBER, 1800–10 MARCH, 1801)

Spina, titular Archbishop of Corinth, accompanied by Caselli, General of the Servites, arrived in Paris, on 5 November, 1800. Bernier, who had been parish priest of Saint-Laud, at Angers, and famous for the part he had played in the wars of La Vendée, was instructed by Bonaparte to confer with Spina. Four proposals for a concordat were submitted in turn to the pope’s representative, who felt that he had no right to sign them without referring them to the Holy See. Finally, after numerous delays, for which Talleyrand was responsible, a fifth proposal, written by Napoleon himself, was brought to Rome, on 10 March, by the courier Palmoni.

SECOND PHASE (10 MARCH, 1801–6 JUNE, 1801)

Cacault, member of the Corps Legislatif, appointed as minister plenipotentiary to the Holy See, reached Rome on 8 April, 1801. He had received instructions from Napoleon to treat the pope as if he had 200,000 men. He was a good Christian, and anxious to bring the work of the concordat to a successful issue. What Bonaparte wished, however, was the immediate acceptance by Rome of his plan of the concordat; on the other hand, the cardinals to whom Pius VII had submitted it took two months to study it. On 12 May, 1801, the very day on which Napoleon, at Malmaison, was complaining to Spina of the slowness of the Holy See, the cardinals to whom the proposed concordat had been submitted sent yet another proposal to Paris. But, before this last proposal had reached its destination, Cacault received an ultimatum from Talleyrand, to the effect that he must leave Rome if, after an interval of five days, the concordat proposed by Bonaparte had not been signed by Pius VII. All might, even then, have been broken off, had the situation not been saved by Cacault. He left Rome, leaving his secretary Artaud there, but suggested to the Holy See the idea of sending Consalvi himself, Secretary of State to Pius VII, to treat with Bonaparte. On 6 June, 1801, Artaud and Consalvi left Rome in the same carriage.

THIRD PHASE (6 JUNE, 1801–15 JULY, 1801)

Consalvi, after an audience with Bonaparte, discussed the various points of the proposed concordat with Bernier, and on 12 July they had reached an agreement. Bonaparte thereupon instructed his brother Joseph, Cretet, councillor of state, and Bernier to sign the concordat with Consalvi, Spina, and Caselli. During the day of the 13th, Bernier sent Consalvi a minute, adding: “Here is what they will propose to you at first; read it well, examine everything, despair of nothing.” Between this minute and the proposal concerning which Consalvi and Bernier had come to the agreement of the day before, there were certain remarkable differences with regard to the publicity of worship; a clause relative to married priests, and always rejected by Consalvi, was inserted; the clauses relating to seminaries, to chapters, and that of the profession of the Catholic Faith by the consuls, to which the Holy See attached great importance were suppressed. Consalvi received the impression—he expresses it in his “Memoirs,” written in 1812—that the French Government intended to deceive him by substituting a fresh text for the text he had accepted; and d’Haussonville, in his book, “The Roman Church and the First Empire,” has formally impugned the good faith of Bonaparte’s representatives. Bernier’s aforementioned note of 13 July, recently discovered by Cardinal Mathieu, asking Consalvi to “read” and “examine” carefully, proves that the French Government did not intend any deception; nevertheless, the presentation of this new draft reopened the whole question. Talleyrand had taken the initiative in this matter; for twenty consecutive hours Bonaparte’s three plenipotentiaries and those of the Holy See carried on their discussion. The plan on which they finally agreed was thrown into the fire by Bonaparte, who that evening, at dinner, gave way to a violent fit of anger against Consalvi. Finally, on 15 July, a conference of twelve hours ended in a definite agreement; on the 16th Bonaparte approved of it. Pius VII, on his part, after consultation with the cardinals, sanctioned this arrangement, 11 August; on 10 September the signatures were exchanged, and on 18 April, 1802, Bonaparte caused the publication of the concordat and the reconciliation of France with the Church to be solemnly celebrated in the cathedral of Notre-Dame at Paris.

III. THE STIPULATIONS OF THE CONCORDAT

The French Government by the concordat recognized the Catholic religion as the religion of the great majority of Frenchmen. The phrase was no longer as in former times, the religion of the State. But it was a question of a personal profession of Catholicism on the part of the Consuls of the Republic. The Holy See had insisted on this mention, and it was only on this condition that the pope agreed to grant to the State police power in the matter of public worship. This question had been one of the most troublesome that arose during the course of the deliberations. In the matter of these police powers it had been agreed after many difficulties that the following should stand as Article I of the concordat: “The Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Religion shall be freely exercised in France. Its worship shall be public while conforming to such police regulations as the government shall consider necessary to public tranquillity.” The pope agreed to a fresh circumscription of the French dioceses. When this subsequently took place, of the 136 sees only 60 were retained. The pope promised to inform the actual titulars of the dioceses that he should expect from them every sacrifice, even that of their sees.

According to Articles 4 and 5 the French Government was to present the new bishops, but the pope was to give them canonical institution. (See PRESENTATION; INSTITUTION, CANONICAL; NOMINATION.) The bishops were to appoint as parish priests such persons only as were acceptable to the Government (Art. 9); the latter, in turn, stipulated that such churches as had not been alienated, and were necessary for worship, would be placed “at the disposition” of the bishops (Art. 12).

The Church agreed not to trouble the consciences of those citizens who, during the Revolution, had become possessed of ecclesiastical property (Art. 13); on the other hand the Government promised the bishops and parish priests a fitting maintenance (sustentationem, Art. 14).

Such were the principal stipulations of the concordat. Certain of its articles have been fully discussed, particularly by canonists and jurists, notably Articles 5, 12, and 14, relating to the nomination of bishops, the use of churches, and the maintenance of the clergy. Moreover, the law known as “The Organic Articles” (see ARTICLES, THE ORGANIC), promulgated in April, 1802, and always upheld by later French governments in spite of the protest of the pope, made immediately after its publication, has in various ways infringed on the spirit of the concordat and given rise during the nineteenth century to frequent disputes between Church and State in France.

IV. RESULT OF THE CONCORDAT

The concordat, notwithstanding the addition of the Organic Articles, must be credited with having restored peace to the consciences of the French people on the very morrow of the Revolution. To it also was due the reorganization of Catholicism in France, under the protection of the Holy See. It was also of great moment in the history of the Church. Only a few years after Josephinism and Febronianism had disputed the pope’s rights to govern the Church, the Papacy and the Revolution, in the persons of Pius VII and Napoleon, came to an understanding which gave France a new episcopate and marked the final defeat of Gallicanism.

V. FATE OP THE CONCORDAT

The French law of 9 December, 1905, on the Separation of Church and State, against which Pius X protested in his Allocution of 11 December, 1905, was based on the principle that the State of France should no longer recognize the Catholic Church, but only distinct associations cultuelles, i. e. associations formed in each parish for the purpose of worship “in accordance with the rules governing the organization of worship in general.” In case of the non-formation of such associations destined to take over the property, real and personal, of the churches or fabriques (see BUILDINGS, ECCLESIASTICAL; FABRICA ECCLESIÆ), this property was to be forever lost to the Church and to be turned over by decree to the charitable establishments of the respective communes. By the Encyclical “Gravissimo Officii,” of 10 August, 1906, the pope forbade the formation of these associations cultuelles or associations for worship. Rome feared that they would furnish the State with a pretext for interfering with the internal life of the Church, and would offer to the laity a constant temptation to control the religious life of the parish. Thereupon, the State applied strictly the aforementioned law, considered the fabriques, i. e. the hitherto legally-recognized churches, as no longer existing, and, in the absence of associations cultuelles to take up their inheritance, gave over all their property to charitable establishments (établissements de bienfaisance). Exception was made for the church edifices actually used for worship; at the same time nothing was done concerning the numberless legal questions that arise apropos of these edifices, e. g. right of ownership, right of use, repairs, etc. At the present writing, therefore (end of 1908), the Church of France, stripped of all her property, is barely tolerated in her religious edifices, and has only a precarious enjoyment of them. On the other hand, since ecclesiastical authority has forbidden the only kind of corporations (associations cultuelles) which the State recognizes as authorized to collect funds for purposes of worship, the Church has no means of putting together in a legal and regular way such funds or capital as may be required for the ordinary needs of public worship. Thus the churches of France live from day to day; neither the parish nor the diocese can own any fund, however small, which the parish priest or the bishop is free to hand down to his successors; all this because the State stubbornly insists that only the above-described associations cultuelles (which it knows are impossible for French Catholics) shall be clothed with the right of ownership for purposes of worship. Though the present condition is necessarily a transitory one, it appears, unfortunately, to offer one permanent element, i. e. the certain loss of all the property once belonging to the fabriques. The worst enemies of the French clergy must admit that, in order to safeguard its principles, the Church which they accuse of avarice has sacrificed without hesitation all its temporal goods. (See CONCORDAT; FRANCE; CONSALVI, ERCOLE; PIUS VII; NAPOLEON BONAPARTE.)

SECHÉ, Les origines du Concordat (2 vols., Paris, 1894); SICARD, L’Ancien clergé de France (Paris, 1903), III; GOYAU, Les origines populaires du Concordat in Autour du catholicisme social (Paris, 1906); LANZAC LABORIE, Paris sous Napoléon (Paris,1905 and 1907); BOULAY DE LA MEURTHE, Documents sur la négociation du Concordat (Paris, 1891–97); MATHIEU, Le Concordat de 1801 (Paris, 1903); RINIERI, La diplomatie Pontificale au XIXe siècle; Le Concordat entre Pie VII et le Premier Consul, tr. into Fr. by VERDIER (Paris, 1903).—The last two works have really given an entirely new version of the history of the third phase of the negotiations, thanks to the fresh documents unknown to former historians, D’HAUSSONVILLE, CRÉTINEAU-JOLY, and THEINER.—OLLIVIER, Nouveau manuel de droit ecclésiastique français (Paris, 1886); CROUZIL, Le Concordat de 1801 (Paris, 1904); BAUDRILLART, Quatre cents ans de Concordat (Paris, 1905); DE BROGLIE, Le Concordat (Paris, 1893); PERRAUD, La discussion concordataire (Paris, 1892); SÉVESTRE, Le Concordat (2d ed., Paris, 1906), the best documentary work.—D’HAUSSONVILLE, Après la séparation (Paris, 1906); GABRIEL AUBRAY, La solution libératrice (Paris 1906); JENOUVRIER, Exposé de la situation légale de l’église en France (Paris, 1906); LAMARZELLE ET TAUDIÈRE, Commentaire de la loi du 9 Décembre, 1905 (Paris 1906); see also HOGAN, Church and State in France in Am. Cath. Quart. Rev. (1892), 333 sqq.; PARSONS, The Third French Republic as a Persecutor of the Church, ibid. (1899), 1 sqq.; BODLEY, The Church in France (London, 1906).

GEORGES GOYAU

Diocese of Concordia (Concordia Veneta)

(CONCORDIA VENETA, or JULIA; CONCORDIENSIS).

Suffragan of Venice. Concordia is an ancient Venetian city, called by the Romans Colonia Concordia, and is situated between the Rivers Tagliamento and Livenza, not far from the Adriatic. Today there remain of the city only ruins and the ancient cathedral. During the fifth century the city was destroyed by Attila and again in 606 by the Lombards, after which it was never rebuilt. The eighty-nine martyrs of Concordia, who were put to death under Diocletian, are held in great veneration. Its first known bishop is Clarissimus, who, at a provincial synod of Aquileia in 579, helped to prolong the Schism of the Three Chapters; this council was attended by Augustinus, later Bishop of Concordia, who in 590 signed the petition presented by the schismatics to Emperor Mauricius. Bishop Johannes transferred the episcopal residence to Caorle (606), retaining, however, the title of Concordia. The medieval bishops seem to have resided near the ancient cathedral, and to have wielded temporal power, which, however, they were unable to retain. In 1587, during the episcopate of Matteo Sanudo, the episcopal residence was definitely transferred to Portogruaro. The diocese has a population of 258,315, with 129 parishes, 231 churches and chapels, 264 secular and 2 regular priests, 9 religious houses of women, and a Collegio di Pio X for African missions.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), X, 417–75; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 418–23: DEGANI, La Diocesi di Concordia, notizie e documenti (San Vito, 1880); ZAMBALDI, Monumenti storici di Concordia (San Vito, 1840).

U. BENIGNI.

Diocese of Concordia (Corcondiensis in America)

(CONCORDIENSIS IN AMERICA.)

The Diocese of Concordia was erected 2 August, 1887, and is situated in the northwestern part of Kansas, U.S.A. It is bounded on the west by Colorado; on the north, by Nebraska; east, by the east lines of Washington, Riley, Geary, Dickinson; on the south, by the south lines of Dickinson, Saline, Ellsworth, Russell, Ellis, Trego, Gove, Logan, and Wallace Counties. Area, 26,685 sq. miles.

In 1886 the Diocese of Leavenworth, Kansas, was divided into three new sees, Leavenworth, Wichita, and Concordia. On 9 August, 1887, the Rev. Richard Scannell of Nashville, Tennessee, was nominated first Bishop of Concordia; and governed the see until 30 January, 1891, when he was transferred to Omaha. The Bishop of Wichita, Kansas, then became administrator of Concordia, and it was not until 1897 that a bishop was again appointed in the person of the Rev. T.J. Butler of Chicago, who died in Rome, however, 17 July, 1897, before receiving episcopal consecration. On 21 September, 1898, the Very Rev. John F. Cunningham, Vicar-General of the Diocese of Leavenworth, was consecrated in that city, Bishop of Concordia. Born in 1842, in the County Kerry, Ireland, he made his studies at St. Benedict’s College, Atchison, Kansas, and at St. Francis’ Seminary, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and was ordained priest at Leavenworth, 8 August, 1865. After his consecration he devoted himself to the multiplication of schools and institutions of learning and charity. The cathedral of Concordia, a stone structure of Gothic architecture, dedicated in 1902, took the place of a modest little church erected by the Rev. Louis Mollier in 1874.

In 1884 a boarding-school for young ladies under the supervision of the Sisters of St. Joseph was established near the cathedral. It has since moved to the imposing edifice known as the Nazareth Academy. It is the mother-house and novitiate of these sisters, who have branch houses, missions, and schools in Kansas, Illinois, Nebraska, Michigan, and Missouri. The old academy has been turned into a hospital. The Capuchin Fathers, who settled early in the western part of the diocese in and about Victoria, have built many churches and schools and have monasteries at Hays City, Munjor, and Victoria. They have also worked efficiently among the Russian immigrants of that portion of the diocese, aided by the Sisters of St. Agnes.

From 1898 to 1907, 45 churches and 20 schools were built, exclusive of the opening of many new missions and stations. There are 51 secular and 15 religious priests, attending 91 churches, 30 stations, and 4 chapels. The children in the parochial schools number about 2482. Two academies, at Concordia and Abilene, have about 135 pupils. The Catholic population of the diocese is 26,125.

A. T. ENNIS

Concubinage

At the present day, the state—more or less permanent—of a man and woman living together in illicit intercourse. In its strict sense it is used of those unions only in which the man and the woman are free from any obligation arising from a vow, the state of matrimony or Holy Orders, or the fact of relationship or affinity; it is immaterial whether the parties dwell together or not, the repetition or continuance of illicit relations between the same persons being the essential element.

However, the meaning conveyed by the term has not always been the same; in the Old Testament, for instance, a legitimate spouse, if of an inferior social grade, or a bondwoman, is often given the appellation of concubine, not to call in question the validity of her marriage, but to indicate that she did not share in her husband’s rank or property nor in the administration of the household to the same extent as the principal wife. From Genesis 21:9–14, we see that her dismissal and that of her children was permissible. But in those Scriptural times, when polygamy was permitted or at least tolerated, such a concubine was not the only marriage partner. Thus Lia and Rachel, the first two spouses of Jacob, had the full social standing of wives, while Bala and Zelpha, both bondwomen, were his concubines, married for the purpose of bearing children for Rachel and Lia (Genesis 30:3, 9, 13). Here, therefore, the main difference between the state of legitimate marriage properly so called and that of legitimate concubinage is to be found in the disparity of rank which characterized the latter.

The meaning of the term in Roman law, and consequently in early ecclesiastical records and writings, was much the same; a concubine was a quasi-wife, recognized by law if there was no legal wife. She was usually of a lower social grade than her husband, and her children, though not considered the equals of those of the legal wife (uxor) were nevertheless termed natural (naturales) to distinguish them from spurious offsprings (spurii). For this legitimate concubinage the Roman law did not require the intention of the two parties to remain together until death as man and wife; the Lex Julia and the Papia Poppæa allowing both temporary and permanent concubinage. The former was always condemned as immoral by the Church, who excluded from the ranks of her catechumens all who adopted this mode of living, unless they abandoned their illicit temporal, or converted it into lawful permanent, wedlock. Permanent concubinage, though it lacked the ordinary legal forms and was not recognized by the civil law as a legal marriage, had in it no element of immorality. It was a real marriage, including the intention and consent of both parties to form a lifelong union. This the Church allowed from the beginning, while Pope Callistus I broke through the barrier of state law, and raised to the dignity of Christian marriage permanent unions between slave and free, and even those between slave and slave (contubernium).

The Council of Toledo, held in 400, in its seventeenth canon legislates as follows for laymen (for ecclesiastical regulations on this head with regard to clerics see CELIBACY): after pronouncing sentence of excommunication against any who in addition to a wife keep a concubine, it says: “But if a man has no wife, but a concubine instead of a wife, let him not be refused communion; only let him be content to be united with one woman, whether wife or concubine” (Can. “Is qui,” dist. xxxiv; Mansi, III, col. 1001). The refractory are to be excommunicated until such time as they shall obey and do penance.

With the destruction of the Roman Empire and the consequent decline of knowledge of the Roman law, its institution of legitimate concubinage fell into disuse, and concubinage came more and more to have only the modern significance, that of a permanent illicit union, and as such was variously proceeded against by the Church. The clandestine marriages which gradually came to be tolerated in the Middle Ages, as they lacked the formality of a public sanction by the Church, can be considered as a species of legitimate concubinage. The Council of Trent (1545–1563), Sess. XXIV, chap. i, not only renewed the old ecclesiastical penalties against concubinage, but added fresh ones, also forbade and rendered null and void all clandestine unions, thus forever doing away with even the appearance of legitimate concubinage. From that time the modern invidious idea of the term alone obtains. The decrees of Trent, however, were in force only in countries strictly Catholic; the new marriage law (Ne temere) of Pius X (1908) extends the prohibition against clandestine marriages to Catholics the world over.

NOLDIN, Summa theologi moralis: de sexto (6th ed., Innsbruck, 1906); Dict. de droit canonique, s. v. Concubinage (Paris, 1901); Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini, ed. RICHTER (Leipzig, 1853); WANDINGER in Kirchenlex (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1891); DOLHAGARAY in Dict. de théol cath. (Paris, 1906).

H.A. GAYNOR

Concupiscence

In its widest acceptation, concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason. To understand how the sensuous and the rational appetite can be opposed, it should be borne in mind that their natural objects are altogether different. The object of the former is the gratification of the senses; the object of the latter is the good of the entire human nature and consists in the subordination of reason to God, its supreme good and ultimate end. But the lower appetite is of itself unrestrained, so as to pursue sensuous gratifications independently of the understanding and without regard to the good of the higher faculties. Hence desires contrary to the real good and order of reason may, and often do, rise in it, previous to the attention of the mind, and once risen, dispose the bodily organs to the pursuit and solicit the will to consent, while they more or less hinder reason from considering their lawfulness or unlawfulness. This is concupiscence in its strict and specific sense. As long, however, as deliberation is not completely impeded, the rational will is able to resist such desires and withhold consent, though it be not capable of crushing the effects they produce in the body, and though its freedom and dominion be to some extent diminished. If, in fact, the will resists, a struggle ensues, the sensuous appetite rebelliously demanding its gratification, reason, on the contrary, clinging to its own spiritual interests and asserting it control. “The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.”

From the explanation given, it is plain that the opposition between appetite and reason is natural in man, and that, though it be an imperfection, it is not a corruption of human nature. Nor have the inordinate desires (actual concupiscence) or the proneness to them (habitual concupiscence) the nature of sin; for sin, being the free and deliberate transgression of the law of God, can be only in the rational will; though it be true that they are temptations to sin, becoming the stronger and the more frequent the oftener they have been indulged. As thus far considered they are only sinful objects and antecedent causes of sinful transgressions; they contract the malice of sin only when consent is given by the will; not as though their nature were changed, but because they are adopted and completed by the will and so share its malice. Hence the distinction of concupiscence antecedent and concupiscence consequent to the consent of the will; the latter is sinful, the former is not. The first parents were free from concupiscence, so that their sensuous appetite was perfectly subject to reason; and this freedom they were to transmit to posterity provided they observed the commandment of God. A short but important statement of the Catholic doctrine on this point may be quoted from Peter the Deacon, a Greek, who was sent to Rome to bear witness to the Faith of the East: “Our belief is that Adam came from the hands of his Creator good and free from the assaults of the flesh” (Lib. de Incarn., c. vi). In our first parents, however, this complete dominion of reason over appetite was no natural perfection or acquirement, but a preternatural gift of God, that is, a gift not due to human nature; no was it, on the other hand, the essence of their original justice, which consisted in sanctifying grace; it was but a complement added to the latter by the Divine bounty. By the sin of Adam freedom from concupiscence was forfeited not only for himself, but also for all his posterity with the exception of the Blessed Virgin by special privilege. Human nature was deprived of both its preternatural and supernatural gifts and graces, the lower appetite began to lust against the spirit, and evil habits, contracted by personal sins, wrought disorder in the body, obscured the mind, and weakened the power of the will, without, however, destroying its freedom. Hence that lamentable condition of which St. Paul complains when he writes:

I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: but I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Rom., vii, 21–25)

Christ by His death redeemed mankind from sin and its bondage. In baptism the guilt of original sin is wiped out and the soul is cleansed and justified again by the infusion of sanctifying grace. But freedom from concupiscence is not restored to man, any more than immortality; abundant grace, however, is given him, by which he may obtain the victory over rebellious sense and deserve life everlasting. The Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially Luther, proposed new views respecting concupiscence. They adopted as fundamental to their theology the following propositions:

Original justice with all its gifts and graces was due to man as an integral part of his nature;

concupiscence is of itself sinful, and being the sinful corruption of human nature caused by Adam’s transgression and inherited by all his descendants, is the very essence of original sin;

baptism, since it does not extinguish concupiscence, does not really remit the guilt of original sin, but only effects that it is no longer imputed to man and no longer draws down condemnation on him. This position is held also by the Anglican Church in its Thirty-nine Articles and its Book of Common Prayer.

The Catholic Church condemns these doctrines as erroneous or heretical. The Council of Trent (Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man. As to concupiscence the council declares that it remains in those that are baptized in order that they may struggle for the victory, but does no harm to those who resist it by the grace of God, and that it is called sin by St. Paul, not because it is sin formally and in the proper sense, but because it sprang from sin and incites to sin. Later on Pius V, by the Bull “Ex omnibus affictionibus” (1 Oct., 1567), Gregory XIII, by the Bull “Provisions Nostrae” (29 Jan., 15798), Urban VIII, by the Bull “In eminenti” (6 March, 1641), condemned the propositions of Bajus (21, 23, 24, 26), Clement XI, by the Constitution “Unigenitus,” those of Quesnel (34, 35); and finally Pius VI, by the Bull “Auctorem fidei” (28 Aug., 1794), those of the Synod of Pistoja (16), which maintained that the gifts and graces bestowed on Adam and constituting his original justice were not supernatural but due to human nature. (See GRACE, JUSTIFICATION, SIN.) JOHN J. MING

Concursus

Concursus is a special competitive examination prescribed in canon law for all aspirants to certain ecclesiastical offices to which is attached the cure of souls. There were no parish priests, properly speaking, during the first three hundred years of the Christian Era. A single church erected in the residential city of the bishop was the centre to which people living in city and country repaired on Sundays and festivals to hear Mass, receive instruction, and approach the Sacraments. Gradual growth in church-membership called for the erection of additional churches to accommodate the faithful. In these churches sacred functions were conducted by priests residing at the cathedrals. Consequently, the cathedral was the only parish in each diocese and the bishop, as chief pastor, exercised the care of souls throughout the diocese. A similar reason led to the organization of rural parishes during the course of the fourth century. With one or two exceptions, parishes were not organized in cities before the year 1000. The first step towards the establishment of city parishes, was taken in the Council of Limoges (1032). The amicable settlement of disputes involving a departure from the old regime paved the way for the organization of city parishes in France. Italy was not slow in following the example of France. (Lupi, “De parochis ante annum Christi millesimum,” Bergamo, 1788; Muratori, “Dissert. de parœciis et plebibus” in “Antiq. Ital.,” VI, 359; Nardi, “Dei parrochi, opera di antichità sacra,” Pesaro, 1829–30; Drouyn, “L’histoire paroissiale” in “Rev. Cath. de Bordeaux,” 1881, III, 233, and “Bull. hist. arch. du dioc. Dijon,” 1887, V, 225; Zorell, “Die Entwickelung des Parochialsystems” in “Archiv für kath. Kirchenrecht,” 1902–3.) Departures from traditional methods gradually took place in other countries until the organization of city and country parishes became general throughout the Church (see PARISH).

The new regime paved the way for the admission of a general principle whereby ecclesiastical benefices, especially those of major importance, with cure of souls or parochial responsibility attached, were conferred on none save those duly qualified to hold them (see BENEFICE). Conscientious recognition of this principle was repeatedly inculcated, e. g. by Alexander III, Innocent III, and Gregory X. So long as ecclesiastics were not ordained absolutely, but for some specific office in each diocese, the canonical examinations for orders served naturally as a criterion to determine appointments to benefices. In time, however, this ancient method of ordination fell into decay, and under Innocent III (1198–1216) separate examinations were inaugurated as the most satisfactory method of making appointments to benefices that carried with them the cure of souls (beneficia curata). In order to attain greater security in providing for the salvation of souls, the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, ch. xviii) obliged bishops to assign to each parish a permanent parish priest who would know his parishioners. The better to realize this design, the same council instituted the concursus, a competitive examination given to candidates seeking appointment as pastors of (canonical) parishes. According to the Tridentine legislation, bishops must designate a day for this examination. At the specified time, such as have signified their intention of undergoing this test are examined by the bishop or his vicar-general and by no less than three synodal examiners (q. v.). The bishop is required to appoint the one he judges most worthy among those passing a satisfactory examination.

Though the Tridentine regulations are quite clear, some canonists claimed that failure to observe them rendered appointments illicit, not invalid, while others held that bishops were not bound to appoint the most worthy candidate, but merely one passing a creditable examination. To dissipate such errors Pius V issued the Constitution “In conferendis” (18 May, 1567). Later on, to forestall the possibility of groundless appeals on the part of dissatisfied competitors, as well as to ensure strict justice to candidates, Clement XI issued (18 Jan., 1721) a decree regarding the manner of conducting examinations, and the manner of dealing with those entering appeals against the decision of the examiners or the appointment of the bishop. However, Clement XI’s regulations occasioned various complaints, and to remedy these difficulties, as well as to complete ecclesiastical legislation concerning the concursus, Benedict XIV issued the important Constitution, “Cum illud” (14 Dec., 1742). A survey of the various stages of ecclesiastical legislation on this question will naturally exhibit a fair summary of its leading points.

In the first place, appointments to canonically erected parishes are null when no concursus has been held, unless the Tridentine legislation has been abrogated by long usage or special permission of the Holy see. Questions and answers pertaining to a concursus must be committed to writing. The matter of the examination is taken from theology (moral and dogmatic), liturgy, and ecclesiastical law, and is chiefly of a practical character. A Lesson in catechism and a brief sermon may be prepared by the candidates. All competitors are examined in the same place and at the same time. The bishop is not justified in appointing simply a worthy competitor, but is obliged to choose the candidate he deems the most worthy among those approved by the examiners, whose office is exhausted when they have attested the worthiness (idoneitas) of the various competitors. The examiners, however, are bound to consider, not only the learning, but also the age, prudence, integrity, past services, and other qualifications of competitors. Candidates not appointed are at liberty to enter an appeal to the metropolitan, and then to the Holy See, but this does not suspend meanwhile the execution of the episcopal decision. The judge to whom such an appeal is made must base his decision on the proceedings of the concursus already held; this precludes a second concursus or the introduction of additional evidence. While this is the general ecclesiastical law, certain exceptions must be noted. This law does not cover appointments to parishes where the incumbent is not permanently installed nor to parishes whose revenues are not sufficient to justify such proceedings as a concursus involves. Nor, according to the common law, is a concursus advisable when the bishop, after hearing the advice of the synodal examiners, apprehends serious disorders in case a concursus were to take place.

The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884) decreed that in the United States one in every ten parishes of a diocese should become a permanent rectorship. To inaugurate this plan, the council ruled that the establishment of such rectorships, and the appointment of incumbents thereunto should take place no later than three years after the promulgation of its decrees. Bishops were allowed to name permanent rectors for the first time without a concursus, though they were required to seek the advice of their consultors. Thereafter the appointments of such rectors are null unless a concursus takes place. In a special case the bishop may waive the concursus in favour of an ecclesiastic whose learning is well known or whose services to religion are noteworthy, provided the advice of the synodal or pro-synodal examiners is taken. (Conc. Plen. Balt. III, ch. vi, nos. 40 sqq.) The method of conducting a concursus in this country is substantially the same as that prescribed by the general law of the Church. Candidates for admission to a concursus must have creditably exercised the ministry in a diocese no less than ten years, and, during that time, must have given evidence of ability to direct the temporal and spiritual affairs of a parish. Bishops are obliged to appoint the most worthy of the competitors. Examiners should approve all worthy candidates. The right of determining the most worthy of those approved is vested in the bishop. Appeals (q. v.) and the method of treating them are subject to the general ecclesiastical law. Finally, where circumstances militate against the feasibility of a concursus as often as a permanent rectorship is to be filled, the Holy See has tolerated or allowed the holding, under the conditions already specified, of general annual examinations, to determine the standing of candidates in ecclesiastical science, while judgment concerning the other necessary qualifications is given whenever a permanent rectorship is vacated. Those passing the examination once are counted worthy, in point of learning, for appointment to any permanent rectorship falling vacant within a given period, usually not more than six years, after such an examination. Should they wish to enjoy a like title after that period, success in another examination is required.

Canada has no permanent rectorship. As a consequence, the manner of appointing rectors of parishes is subject to the discretion of the bishops. (Gignac, Comp. Juris eccl. ad usum cleri Canadensis, Quebec, 1901, De Personis, p. 355.) In England no concursus is held to determine appointments to permanent rectorships (Taunton, The Law of the Church, London, 1906, p. 231). According to the decree of the Synod of Maynooth held in 1900, legislation similar to that of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore was adopted for determining appointments to parishes in the various dioceses of Ireland. Since 1895 the law of the concursus obtains also in the Commonwealth of Australia (Second Plen. Council of Australia, No. 47 sqq.). The acts of diocesan and provincial councils, sessions of Roman Congregations, and papal conclaves testify that the Tridentine legislation concerning the concursus has long prevailed in Italy. The same regulations were introduced into Spain and Portugal in the sixteenth century; they obtain also in South America. While the observance of the law was general throughout France before the middle of the seventeenth century, changed conditions long since led to its abrogation in that country (Duballet, Journal de droit canon., 1891, 452–74). In Belgium the Synod of Mechlin (1570) adopted the Tridentine regulations, but since then, save for Liège, the earlier freedom of episcopal collation has returned (Vering, 471). At present, German, Austrian, Hungarian, and Prussian bishops base their appreciation of a candidate’s learning on the results of general examinations at regular intervals. Exception being made for minor differences, the above-described regulations govern the examinations in those countries. The consideration of other necessary qualifications is made whenever a vacancy occurs and an appointment follows. While in other places bishops may use their own discretion in appointing rectors, the Holy See bespeaks even in such places all possible conformity to the spirit of the Tridentrne law. It may be added that in Austria, since Joseph II, the State has insisted on the parochial concursus, and has embodied it in art. 24 of the Concordat.

SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1887), I, 647; BAART Legal Formulary (New York, 1898), 100 sqq.; TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), 227–31; OJETTI, Synopsis Rerum Moralium et juris pontificii (Prato, 1904); LESÊTRE, La paroisse (Paris, 1906); DIENDORFER in Kirchenlex., s. v. Concurs; LINGG, Gesch. des tridentinischen Pfarrconcurses (Bamberg, 1880); BOUIX, De Parocho (Paris, 1855), 355; Analecta juris pontif. (Paris, 1867), 969; Archiv f. kath. Kirchenrecht, II, 385; VERING, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts.

J. D. O’NEILL.

Charles-Marie de la Condamine

Explorer and physicist, b. at Paris, 28 January, 1701; d. there 4 February, 1774. After a brief military career he turned to scientific pursuits and explored the coasts of Africa and Asia Minor on the Mediterranean. In 1735, he was selected to direct an expedition to the equatorial regions of South America in order to determine the form of the earth by measuring a meridian and thus establishing the flattening of our globe towards the poles. His companions were Pierre Bouguer and Louis Godin des Odonais. Two officers of the Spanish marine, Jorge Juan and Antonio de Ulloa, represented the Government of Spain on the voyage and also made independent observations in the interior. Condamine went to Ecuador and there began his labours, making a fairly accurate triangulation of the mountainous parts and the western sections of Ecuador. On this occasion he discovered that tall mountains deflect the pendulum by their attraction. He remained eight years in South America, then returned to France, where he was chosen member of the Academy of Sciences and of the French Academy and received the cross of Saint Lazarus. While Condamine on account of his ambition and inclination to controversy was a disagreeable character, as an explorer and physicist he stands very high. The topographical work performed by him or under his direction suffered from the relative imperfections of the instruments in use in his time, but the results obtained were astonishing. Not only in physiography and physical geography, but in other branches also his expedition opened a new perspective to investigation. It was the starting point for more extensive explorations of tropical America. The countries he visited became and remained thereafter, classical ground in the annals of natural science. It is claimed that he introduced caoutchouc into Europe, and he also tried to introduce inoculation for smallpox in France.

Interest in Condamine centring in his South American work, books on that expedition become the prominent source of information regarding the most important period of his life; especially his own writings, chief of which were: Journal du voyage fait par ordre du Roi à l’équateur (Paris, 1751); Relation abrégée d’un voyage dans l’intérieur de l’Amérique méridionale (Paris, 1745; 2d ed., 1778); Histoire des pyramides de Quito (Paris, 1751). Frequent references are found in the works of HUMBOLDT, also, DE ULLOA AND JUAN, Relación histórica del viage á la América Meridional hecho de orden de S. Mag. para medir algunos grados de meridiano terrestre (Madrid, 1748).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Etienne Bonnot de Condillac

A French philosopher, born at Grenoble, 30 September, 1715; died near Beaugency (Loiret), 3 August, 1780. He was the brother of the Abbé de Mably and was himself Abbé of Mureaux. Thanks to the resources of his benefice, he was able to follow his natural inclinations and devote himself wholly to study, for which purpose he retired into solitude. About 1755 he was chosen preceptor of the Duke of Parma, the grandson of Louis XV, for whom he wrote his “Cours d’études.” The education of the prince being completed, Condillac was elected in 1768 to succeed the Abbé d’Olivet as a member of the French Academy. He was present but once at the sessions—on the day of his reception—and then retired to his estate of Flux near Beaugency where he spent the remainder of his days.

From an intellectual point of view, Condillac’s life may be divided into two periods. During the first he simply developed the theories of Locke. He published in 1746 his “Essai sur l’ origine des connaissances humaines” which is a summary of Locke’s “Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” and in 1749 his “Traité des systemes” wherein he attacks the innate ideas and abstract systems of Descartes, Malebranche, Leibniz, Spinoza, and Boursier. The latter period, devoted to more original work, begins with the “Traité des sensations” in 1754, the central idea of which is to renew the human understanding by a fundamental analysis of the first data of mental experience in man’s conscious life. In 1755 he published his “Traité des animaux,” a sequel to the “Traité des sensations”; and then his “Cours d’études” which includes “Grammaire,” “L’Art d’écrire,” “L’Art de raisonner,” “L’Art de penser,” “L’histoire générale des hommes et des empires,” edited in 13 vols., Parma, 1769–1773. This was placed on the Index in 1836. In 1776 appeared his book on “Le commerce et le gouvernement considérés relativement l’un à l’autre” in which he exposes his principles of the right to property and his theory of economics. In 1780, a few months before his death, he published his “Logique,” an elementary treatise composed at the request of the council of public instruction of Poland. His “Langue des calculs” was published unfinished only after his death in the first complete edition of his works (23 vols., Paris, 1798).

Condillac starts with Locke’s empiricism, but Locke, he thinks, did not go deeply enough into the problem of the origin of human knowledge. According to Locke our knowledge has a two-fold source, sensation and reflection; according to Condillac, not only all our ideas, but even all our mental operations and faculties spring from sensation alone as their ultimate source; all are merely different stages or forms in the development of sensation (sensations transformées). He illustrates his theory by the hypothesis of a statue, which, inert at the beginning, is supposed to acquire, one by one, the senses, from the most elementary, smell, to the most perfect, touch. With this last sense and its impression of resistance, the stature which had been previously mere odour, taste, colour, etc., now acquires the distinction between the self and non-self. When it has all the senses, it has also the whole mental life. From sensation considered as representative spring all the faculties of the understanding. Attention is nothing but an exclusive sensation. When the object is present the impression is called actual sensation; the impression which remains after the disappearance of the object is called memory. Comparison is nothing more than a double attention; we cannot compare two objects or perceive two sensations without remarking that they are similar or dissimilar; to perceive similarities or differences is to judge; to reason is to draw a judgment from another judgment wherein it was contained. Moreover, all sensation is essentially affective, that is, painful or pleasant; under this aspect it is the source of all our active faculties. Need is the pain which results from the privation of an object whose presence is demanded by nature or habit; need directs all our energies towards this object; this very direction is what we call desire; desire as a dominant habit or passion; will is nothing but absolute desire, a desire made more energetic and more permanent through hope. What we call substance is simply the collection of sensations. What we call the ego is simply the collection of our sensations. Is there behind these sensations a something which supports them? We do not know. We express and summarize our sensations by means of words; we give the same name to all the individual object which we judge to be similar; this name is what we call a general idea. Through general ideas or names we bring order into our knowledge; and this is precisely the purpose of reasoning and it is what constitutes science. Good reasoning, therefore, consists essentially in speaking well. Ultimately the work of human thought is to pass from the confused and complex content of the primitive sensations to clear and simple concepts; the essential and the unique method is analysis based on the principle of identity, and the perfect analytical method is the mathematical method. To reason is to calculate; what we call progress in ideas is only progress in expression. A science is only a well-constructed language, une langue bien faite, that is, simple, with signs precisely determined according to the laws of analogy. The primitive form of language is the language of action which is innate in us, synthetical and confused. Under pressure of the need of communication between men, these actions are interpreted as signs, decomposed, analyzed, and the spoken language takes the place of the language of action.

Condillac’s theory of education is based on the idea that the child in its development must repeat the various states through which the race has passed—an idea which, with certain modifications, still survives. Another of his principles, more widely received at present, is that the educative process must be shaped in accordance with natural development. He also insists on the necessity of establishing a connection between the various items of knowledge, and of training the judgment rather than burdening the memory. The study of history holds a large place in his system, and religion is of paramount importance. He insists that the prince, for whom the “Course d’études” was written shall be more thoroughly instructed in matters of religion than the subjects whom he is later to govern. On the other hand, Condillac has been justly criticized for his attempt to make the child a logician and psychologist, even a metaphysician, before he has mastered the elements of grammar—a mistake which is obviously due to his error concerning the origin of ideas. The system of Condillac ends, therefore, in sensualistic empiricism, nominalism, and agnosticism.

If Condillac’s works evince a certain precision of thought and vigour of reasoning they clearly betray a lack of observation and of the sense of reality. Most of the time he is blinded by the tendency to reduce all processes of thought to a single method, all ideas and principles to a single source. This tendency is well exemplified in his hypothesis of the statue. He supposes it to be mere passivity; and by this very supposition, instead of a man he makes it a machine or, as Cousin says, a sensible corpse. He attempts to reduce everything to mere sensation or impression, and in reality every step in what he calls a transformation is made under the influence of an activity and a principle which dominate and interpret this sensation, but which Condillac confounds with it. It is the operation of this activity and principle essentially distinct from sensation, that enables him to speak of attention, comparison, judgment, and personality. An attempt has been made to show that Condillac was the forerunner, in psychology, ethics, and sociology of the English school represented by Mill, Bain, and Spencer (Dewaule, Condillac et la psychologie anglaise contemporaine, Paris, 1892); but this view seems to overlook the influence of Locke upon his successors in England and the traditional tendency of English philosophical thought (cf. Picavet in Revue philosophique, XXXIX, p. 215).

G. M. SAUVAGE

Condition

(Lat. conditio, from condo, to bring, or put, together; sometimes, on account of a somewhat similar derivative from condicere, confused with this) is that which is necessary or at least conducive to the actual operation of a cause, though in itself, with respect to the particular effect of which it is the condition, possessing in no sense the nature of causality. Thus the notion of a condition is not that of a real principle such as actually gives existence to the effect produced (which is the case in the notion of cause); but rather of a circumstance, or set of circumstances, in which the cause readily acts, or in which alone it can act. Thus a sufficient light is a condition of my writing, though it in no sense is, as I myself am, the cause of the act of writing. The writing is the effect of the writer, and not of the light by which it was performed. A condition is also to be distinguished from an occasion, which latter imports no more than an event, or thing, by reason of the presence of which any other event, or thing, takes place—as, for example, the passage of the king in state is the occasion of my removing my hat—while the action, or actual operation, of the cause is absolutely dependent upon the presence of this particular one, or of some condition. Condition is, for this reason, distinguished, with respect to the operation of any particular cause,

as the condition sine quâ non, or condition without the presence of which this cause is wholly inoperative, and

as the condition simply such—when some one of several possible ones is necessary to the actual operation of the cause.

To the former class belong such conditions as can be supplied by no others, such as, for example, that of the combustion of wood. A fire will not burn wood unless applied to it. The application of the fire to the wood is said to be a condition sine quâ non of the burning of the wood by the fire. A condition may further be considered in one of two different forms, either as preparing, disposing, or applying the causality of a cause towards its exercise in the production of an effect, or as removing some obstacle that hinders the action of the cause. This latter form of condition is sometimes known as the causa removens prohibens. The blinds of a room must be drawn up in order that the sunlight may enter and illuminate the objects in it. It is to be noted that this is really a condition, and not a cause, of the event considered. The illumination of the objects in the room is the effect of the sunlight entering it. This same distinction appears in the “necessary,” or “sufficient” conditions, much employed in mathematical science. A sufficient condition is one in which, when the antecedent is present, it is always followed by the consequent. A necessary condition is one in which the consequent never exists unless this particular antecedent be given. Some modern systems of Philosophy regard condition in the sense of what in the Scholastic view would be called accidental modification. Thus Kant upholds the assertion that time and space condition, or are the conditions of, our experience, as a priori forms. In this sense also, Hegel makes the conditioned entity equivalent to the finite entity; as it would indeed also be considered in Scholastic thought. That which has accidents, or is conditioned in the sense of limitations or definition, is necessarily, as contingent, in sharp distinction to the absolute. John Stuart Mill would have the framework, or complete setting in which anything exists accounted as its conditions; and all the necessary antecedents, or conditions, the cause of the thing. Thus it would be conditioned by its complex relationships—again an accidental modification in the Scholastic sense. We consequently find, in modern philosophical usage generally, and especially since Hamilton’s theory of the Unconditioned was formulated, that the “conditioned” and the “unconditioned” are used as equivalents of the “necessary” and “contingent” of the Schoolmen, in the sense that the “necessary” entity is conceived of as absolute of all determination other than its own aseity, while all “contingent” entity is defined and limited by a composition in which one of the factors is potentiality. Hamilton’s philosophy of the Unconditioned works out curiously in the department of ontology. His views were first given to the world in the form of an article in the Edinburgh Review (October, 1829), in which he criticized the philosophy of Cousin with regard to the knowledge of the Absolute. Victor Cousin maintained that we possess an immediate knowledge of the Unconditioned, Absolute, or Infinite in consciousness. According to Hamilton, the Unconditioned is either the unconditionally limited or the unconditionally unlimited. In either case the Unconditioned is unthinkable. For all human knowledge is relative, in that, “of existence, absolutely and in itself, we know nothing” (Met., Lect. viii). As a consequence of this doctrine of the relativity of knowledge, it follows that we are incapable of knowing that which is unconditioned by relativity. “The mind can conceive, and consequently can know only the limited, and the conditionally limited.” “Conditional limitation,” he says again (Logic, Lect. v) “is the fundamental law of the possibility of thought.” Hence, while the Unconditioned may exist, we cannot know it by experience, intuition, or reasoning. Hamilton undertakes to explain his doctrine by the illustration of the whole and the part. It is impossible to conceive a whole to which addition may not be made, a part from which something may not be taken away. Hence the two extreme unconditionates are such, that neither can be conceived as possible, but one of them must be admitted as necessary. Of this, the Unconditioned, we have no notion either negative or positive. It is not an object of thought. From such considerations it follows that we cannot conclude either as to the existence or non-existence of the Absolute. On the other hand, while our knowledge is of the limited, related, and finite, our belief may go out to that which has none of these characteristics. Though we cannot know, we may believe—and, by reason of a supernatural revelation, if such be given, must believe—in the existence of the Unconditioned as above and beyond all that which is conceivable by us. Mill very carefully examines Hamilton’s use of the word inconceivable, and finds that it is applied in three senses, in one of which all that is inexplicable, including the first principles, is held to be inconceivable. The same doctrine was advanced, in a slightly modified form, by Dean Mansel, in the Bampton Lecture of 1858. Whatever knowledge we are capable of acquiring of the Unconditioned is negative. As we can rationally, therefore, form no positive notion or concept of God, our reason must be helped and supplemented by our faith in revelation. Both Mansel’s and Hamilton’s expositions of the doctrine of relativity are in reality assertions of rational, or philosophical, agnosticism.

Thus, while professing to be theists, writers of this stamp are not properly to be accounted such in the strictly philosophical sense. The rational agnosticism that lies at the base of their theistic system, necessitating, as it does, an appeal to faith and revelation, vitiates it as a philosophy. The thesis advanced by them may, however, be criticized and amended in the following manner. It is true that the entire content of the Universe must be regarded, in comparison with its Creator, as limited or conditioned. It does not therefore follow that no rational inference can be drawn from the conditioned to the Absolute. On the contrary, the nerve of the theistic inference, tacitly, if not expressly, presupposed in all forms of the theistic argument, lies in the Thomistic distinction between the Necessary and the possible (or contingent). The existence of contingent beings, limited or conditioned things, postulates the existence of the Necessary Being, the one Unlimited and Unconditioned Thing. The argument in its developed form may be seen in the article THEISM. But it may be here pointed out that the inference from the contingent to the Necessary—necessitated, as it is, by the normal psychological action of the discursive reason—presupposes certain principles which are not always kept clearly in view. The Scholastic synthesis recognizes the reality of the contingent. It asserts that the human intelligence can rise above the phenomena of sense-perception to the actual substance that provides a basis and offers a rational explanation, at the same time psychological and ontological, of and for these. And it is in the changes and alterations of “substance” (see HYLOMORPHISM) that it perceives the essential contingency of all created things. From this perception it rises, by a strictly argumentative process, to the assertion of the Necessary or Unconditioned—and this with no appeal either to revelation or to faith. The knowledge of the Unconditioned thus reached is of two kinds: firstly, that the Unconditioned is, and that its existence is necessarily to be inferred from the existence of the possible or contingent (conditioned); secondly, that, as Unconditioned, or Necessary, the conceptions that we possess of it are to be found principally by the way of the negation of imperfections. Thus the Unconditioned, with regard to time, is Eternal; with regard to space, Unlimited, Infinite, Omnipresent; with regard to power, Omnipotent; and so on through the categories, removing the imperfections and asserting the plenitude of perfection. The argument may be found stated in the “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas (I:2:3) where it is given as the third way of knowing Utrum Deus sit.

FRANCIS AVELING

Thomas Conecte

Carmelite reformer, b. at Rennes towards the end of the fourteenth century; d. at Rome, 1433. He joined the Carmelites and distinguished himself by indiscreet zeal. He preached with much success at Cambrai, Tournai, Arras, etc., in his sermons vehemently denouncing the prevailing fashions in female headgear, with the result that those who dressed thus at his sermons despoiled themselves forthwith of their ornaments; gamblers also burned their playing cards and dices. Having inveighed against the disedifying life of certain priests, he had to seek safety in flight. He now strove to reform his own order, for which purpose he went to Italy, where with some others he introduced a strict observance in the convent near Florence, which gradually developed into the Congregation of Mantua. He visited this latter convent in 1432 and thence proceeded to Venice, and finally to Rome, where the manners of the Curia provoked anew his violent language and occasioned a charge of conspiracy against the pope. Apprehended at the instigation of the procurator and of Cardinal de la Roche-Taille, protector of the order, he was condemned as a heretic and publicly burned. It was said that Eugene IV was afterwards sorry for this sentence, which, if not unjust, was certainly too severe; but this does not justify certain Carmelite authors considering him a saint, as several whom Bale quotes have done.

Conecte is supposed to have written De Reformationequoedam Monita, alluded to by NICHOLAS KENTON; cf. ARGENTRÆUS, Histor. Britanniæ minoris, II, cap. xlii; DE S. ETIENNE, Bibliotheca Carmel., S.V.

B. ZIMMERMAN

Ecclesiastical Conferences

Ecclesiastical Conferences are meetings of clerics for the purpose of discussing, in general, matters pertaining to their state of life, and, in particular, questions of moral theology and liturgy.

HISTORICAL SKETCH

The origin of ecclesiastical conferences has been sought in the assemblies of hermits of the Egyptian deserts. As early as the third century, it was customary for these anchorites to meet together to discuss matters relating to asceticism and the eremitical life. When, later on, monasteries were instituted, somewhat similar conferences were held among the monks. There seems, however, to be little in common between these monastic assemblies and the pastoral collations, or conferences, of the present time. The more direct source of the latter are the quasi-synodal meetings of the clergy ordained by various decrees of the ninth century. such as those of Hincmar of Reims and Riculfus of Sion in Switzerland, and the Capitularies of Charlemagne. Such assemblies were looked upon as supplements of, or pendants to, the diocesan synods, and were intended principally for those of the clergy who found it difficult or impossible to assist at the regular synods. These clerics were ordered to meet at a convenient place, in their various districts, under the presidency of the dean or archdeacon, and their assemblies were called Calendœ, because held on the first of the month. Other terms applied to such meetings were consistories, sessions, and capitular conferences. We find them prescribed in England by the Council of Exeter in 1131 and the Council of London in 1237. In the sixteenth century ecclesiastical conferences received a new impulse. St. Ignatius Loyola prescribed them in his constitution (1540) for members of his order. Later, Clement VIII and Urban VIII commanded that all houses of the regular clergy have conferences twice a week on matters pertaining to moral theology and Holy Scripture. The main promoter of conferences among the secular clergy was St. Charles Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan, who treated of them specifically in a synod at Milan in 1565, when introducing the reforms decreed by the Council of Trent. Cardinal Borromeo ordered that the conferences be held monthly, and that they be presided over by the vicar forane or dean. Gradually the custom spread through the various ecclesiastical provinces; and at present these meetings are held in accordance with laws promulgated in plenary or provincial councils or synods. Many of the popes have strongly urged on the bishops of various countries the necessity and utility of the conferences, and Innocent XIII commanded that when bishops make their visit to Rome (ad limina) they should report, among other things. whether clergy conferences are held in their dioceses. There seems, howevcr, to be no general law of the Church which makes these ecclesiastical meetings obligatory.

DIOCESAN LAWS

The holding of conferences has been introduced among the clergy of all English-speaking countries, in virtue of ordinances promulgated at councils or synods. Thus the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (1866) declares: “As an adjunct to diocesan synods and in lieu of their frequent celebration, let there be theological conferences of the priests, which will preserve the rudiments of the sacred science in the minds of all, promote a healthy and uniform method for the direction of souls, dispel mental inertia, and afford an opportunity for eliminating abuses. We greatly desire that these conferences he held four times a year by priests who can conveniently meet; and in the rural districts at least twice a year. All who have care of souls, whether seculars or regulars, should attend them” (No. 68). The Third Plenary Council (1884) treats in title v of the education of the clergy and devotes the fifth chapter to theological collations or conferences. It quotes the words of Pope Benedict XIV: “Some priests who are at first admirable directors of souls later lose their previous knowledge of moral theology, by neglect of study. so that from being masters of the science they can scarcely be called novices in it, since they retain only confused and imperfect recollections of its first rudiments.” In consequence, the Fathers of Baltimore renew the decree of the previous plenary council as to the frequency of these conferences, and, after declaring them obligatory on all having care of souls, they add: “Nor can those confessors consider themselves exempt, who, although not attached to any certain church, hear the confessions of religious women in their convents or of laymen in public churches. those who frequently absent themselves without legitimate cause and the permission of the Ordinary should be punished.” The Second Council of Quebec (1854) declares (Decr. 14): “Ecclesiastical conferences will promote zeal and love for study. Every one knows how useful they are for increasing mutual charity among priests and for instructing and confirming them in sacred doctrine. We desire all, especially those who have pastoral duties to assist at them faithfully according to the method and time prescribed by their bishops.”

For Ireland the National Synod of Thurles (1850) ordained: “Since what the pastors have learnt as scholars can easily be forgotten, unless it be called to memory by use, we recommend that theological conferences be held according to custom, at least four times a year. In them such questions as pertain to practice should be especially treated.” We find the following decree (No. 6) emanating from the First provincial Council of Australia (1844): “We ordain that theological conferences be held in every deanery, at least three times a year, where it can be done without great inconvenience.” In 1852, the First Provincial Council of Westminster (Decr. 24) made the following rules for England: “We desire most earnestly that conferences on moral questions or on other theological or liturgical matters be held in all dioceses at certain stated times. According to locality, let the bishops determine, whether the whole clergy of the diocese should convene together under the bishop’s presidency, or whether a number of conferences be held in different vicariates under the presidency of the vicars forane. The obligation to attend these conferences and take part in them is binding on all secular priests and on all regulars (saving their rights) having cure of souls.” As to regulars, we have the following provision in the “Romanos Pontifices” of Leo XIII: “We declare that all rectors of missions, by reason of their office, must assist at the conferences of the clergy; and we also decree and command that there be present likewise the vicars and other regulars, having the usual missionary faculties, who reside in small communities.” It will be noticed that the pope simply “declares” religious rectors to have an obligation to assist at the conferences, for this is in accordance with common law; but as he derogates from that law in prescribing that other regular missionaries who dwell in small communities should also attend, he uses the words decree and command. The pope gives the reason why he makes the distinction between regulars inhabiting large and small communities; the former have their own domestic conferences, the latter either do not have them at all, or they are not likely to be fruitful.

SUBJECT MATTER OF CONFERENCES

Among the questions to be answered by bishops at the visit ad limina is: “Are conferences held on moral theology or cases of conscience, and also on sacred rites? How often are they held, who attend them, and what results are obtained from them?” It is evident from this question that the main matters to be discussed are those pertaining to moral theology and liturgy. If these be given proper consideration, other subjects may also be considered, such as questions of dogmatic theology, canon law, Biblical science, and similar things. According to the prescriptions of St. Charles Borromeo, a case of conscience should be proposed at these meetings and each one present should, in turn, be asked his opinion. After this, the presiding officer makes a short summary and gives his decision. The Third Council of Baltimore wishes that questions be proposed by the bishops on matters of discipline and doctrine. Cases of conscience are to be solved in writing by all who attend: but only two, chosen by lot, are to read their solutions. Questions on Sacred Scripture, dogmatic theology, canon law, and sacred liturgy are to be answered by those who have been appointed for the purpose at the previous conference. The Provincial Council of Tuam, Ireland (1817), obliges all who cannot attend the meeting to send their solution of the cases in writing. The First Council of Quebec made a similar decree. The Council of Westminster requires that all who come should be prepared to respond to questions concerning the matters proposed. The Provincial Council of the English, Dutch, and Danish colonies (1854) prescribes that the dean send the solution of the cases either to the bishop or to some priest whom the latter shall designate. Among the decrees of the First Council of Westminster (No. 24) is the following: “The conferences are obliged to send to the bishop the solutions of the cases or the conclusions reached, to be examined and corrected by him. Each bishop in his own diocese is to determine the method to be observed and the matters to be considered in the conferences.” Pius IX wrote as follows to the bishops of Austria in 1856: “Let conferences, especially concerning moral theology and sacred rites, be instituted by you, which all the priests should attend and bring in writing the explanation of a question proposed by you. They should also discuss, for such length of time as you may prescribe, matters connected with moral theology and ritual practice, after some one of the priests has delivered a discourse on the particular obligations of the sacerdotal order.”

Acta et Decreta Conc. Recentior. Coll. Lacensis (Freiburg, 1875), III, s. v. Collationes; LUCIDI, De Visit. S. Liminum (Rome, 1899), I; ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dict. du droit Canon. (Paris, 1901), I; THOMASSIN, Vetus ac nova eccl. discipl., pt. II, bk. III, ch. lxxiv and lxxvi; SCHNEEMANN in Kirchenlex., s. v.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

Confession

(Lat. confessio).

Originally used to designate the burial-place of a confessor or martyr (known also as a memoria or martyrion), this term gradually came to have a variety of applications: the altar erected over the grave; the underground cubiculum which contained the tomb; the high altar of the basilica erected over the confession; later on in the Middle Ages the basilica itself (Joan. Bar., De invent. s. Sabini); and finally the new resting-place to which the remains of a martyr had been transferred (Ruinart, II, 35). In case of translation the relics of a martyr were deposited in a crypt below the high altar, or in a hollow space beneath the altar, behind a transenna or pierced marble screen such as were used in the catacombs. Thus the tomb was left accessible to the faithful who wished to touch the shrine with cloths brandea) to be venerated in their turn as “relics.” In the Roman church of St. Clemente the urn containing the remains of St. Clement and St. Ignatius of Antioch is visible behind such a transenna. Later still the term confession was adopted for the hollow reliquary in an altar (Ordo Rom. de dedic. altaris). The oil from the numerous lamps kept lighted in a confession was considered as a relic. Among the most famous subterranean confessions of Rome are those in the churches of S. Martino al Monti; S. Lorenzo fuori le Mure, containing the bodies of St. Laurence and St. Stephen; S. Prassede containing the bodies of the two sisters Sts. Praxedes and Pudentiana. The most celebrated confession is that of St. Peter. Over the tomb of the Apostle Pope St. Anacletus built a memoria, which Constantine when building his basilica replaced with the Confession of St. Peter. Behind the brass statues of Sts. Peter and Paul is the niche over the grated floor which covers the tomb. In this niche is the gold coffer, the work of Benvenuto Cellini which contains the palliums to be sent to archbishops de corpore b. Petri according to the Constitution “Rerum ecclesiasticarum” of Benedict XIV (12 Aug., 1748). All through the Middle Ages the palliums after being blessed were let down through the grating on to the tomb of the Apostle, where they remained for a whole night (Phillips, Kirchenrecht, V, 624, n. 61). During the restoration of the present basilica in 1594 the floor gave way, revealing the tomb of St. Peter and on it the golden cross weighing 150 pounds placed there by Constantine, and inscribed with his own and his mother’s names.

F.M. RUDGE

Confessor

(1) ETYMOLOGY AND PRIMITIVE MEANING

The word confessor is derived from the Latin confiteri, to confess, to profess, but it is not found in writers of the classical period, having been first used by the Christians. With them it was a title of honour to designate those brave champions of the Faith who had confessed Christ publicly in time of persecution and had been punished with imprisonment, torture, exile, or labour in the mines, remaining faithful in their confession until the end of their lives. The title thus distinguished them from the martyrs, who were so called because they underwent death for the Faith. The first clear evidence of the distinction just spoken of is found in an epitaph which is recorded by De Rossi (Bullettino di archeologia cristiana, 1864, p. 30): “A Domino coronati sunt beati confessores comites martyrum Aurelius Diogenes confessor et Valeria Felicissima vivi in Deo fecerunt” [The blessed confessors, companions of the martyrs, have been crowned by the Lord. Aurelius Diogenes, confessor, and Valeria Felicissima, put up (this monument) during their lifetime]. Among writers St. Cyprian is the first in whose works it occurs (Ep. xxxxvii): “Is demum confessor illustris et verus est de quo post-modum non erubescit Ecclesia sed gloriatur” (That confessor, indeed, is illustrious and true for whom the Church does not afterwards blush, but of whom she boasts); he shows in the passage that suffering alone for the Faith did not merit the title of confessor unless perseverance to the end had followed. In this meaning the title is of more frequent occurrence in the Christian writers of the fourth century. Sidonius Apollinaris (Carmen, xvii), to quote one instance, writes, “Sed confessorem virtutum signa sequuntur” (But signs of power follow the confessor). A similar use may be verified in Lactantius, “De morte persecut.,” xxxv; St. Jerome, Ep. Ixxxii, 7; Prudentius, Peri steph., 55, etc.

(2) LATER MEANING

After the middle of the fourth century we find confessor used to designate those men of remarkable virtue and knowledge who confessed the Faith of Christ before the world by the practice of the most heroic virtue, by their writings and preachings, and in consequence began to be objects of veneration, had chapels (martyria) erected in their honour, which in the previous centuries had been the especial privilege of the martyrs. In the Eastern Church the first confessors who received a public cultus were the abbots St. Anthony and St. Hilarion, also St. Philogonus and St. Athanasius. In the West Pope St. Silvester was so venerated even before St. Martin of Tours, as can be shown from the “Kalendarium” published by Fouteau—a document which is certainly of the time of Pope Liberius (cf. “Praenotata” in the aforesaid “Kalendarium,” iv).

(3) MODERN MEANING

Since the time when the Roman pontiffs reserved to themselves definite decision in causes of canonization and beatification, the title of confessor (pontiff, non-pontiff, doctor) belongs only to those men who have distinguished themselves by heroic virtue which God has approved by miracles, and who have been solemnly adjudged this title by the Church and proposed by her to the faithful as objects of their veneration. (See MARTYRS; PERSECUTIONS; BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION. For the office of confessor in the Sacrament of Penance see PENANCE, SACRAMENT OF.)

CAMILLUS BECCARI.

Confirmation

A sacrament in which the Holy Ghost is given to those already baptized in order to make them strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ.

It has been variously designated: bebaiosis or confirmatio, a making fast or sure; teleiosis or consummatio, a perfecting or completing, as expressing its relation to baptism. With reference to its effect it is the “Sacrament of the Holy Ghost,” the “Sacrament of the Seal” (signaculum, sigillum, sphragis). From the external rite it is known as the “imposition of hands” (epithesis cheiron), or as “anointing with chrism” (unctio, chrismatio, chrisma, myron). The names at present in use are, for the Western Church, confirmatio, and for the Greek, to myron.

I. PRESENT PRACTICE AND DOCTRINE

RITE

In the Western Church the sacrament is usually administered by the bishop. At the beginning of the ceremony there is a general imposition of hands, the bishop meantime praying that the Holy Ghost may come down upon those who have already been regenerated: “send forth upon them thy sevenfold Spirit the Holy Paraclete.” He then anoints the forehead of each with chrism saying: “I sign thee with the sign of the cross and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Finally. he gives each a slight blow on the cheek saying: “peace be with thee.” A prayer is added that the Holy Spirit may dwell in the hearts of those who have been confirmed, and the rite closes with the bishop’s blessing.

The Eastern Church omits the imposition of hands and the prayer at the beginning, and accompanies the anointing with the words: “the sign [or seal] of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” These several actions symbolize the nature and purpose of the sacrament: the anointing signifies the strength given for the spiritual conflict; the balsam contained in the chrism, the fragrance of virtue and the good odor of Christ; the sign of the cross on the forehead, the courage to confess Christ, before all men; the imposition of hands and the blow on the cheek, enrollment in the service of Christ which brings true peace to the soul. (Cf. St. Thomas, III:72:4).

MINISTER

The bishop alone is the ordinary minister of confirmation. This is expressly declared by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, De Conf., C. iii). A bishop confirms validly even those who are not his own subjects; but to confirm licitly in another diocese he must secure the permission of the bishop of that diocese. Simple priests may be the extraordinary ministers of the sacrament under certain conditions. In such cases, however, the priest cannot wear pontifical vestments, and he is obliged to use chrism blessed by a Catholic bishop. In the Greek Church, confirmation is given by simple priests without special delegation, and their ministration is accepted by the Western Church as valid. They must, however, use chrism blessed by a patriarch.

MATTER AND FORM

There has been much discussion among theologians as to what constitutes the essential matter of this sacrament. Some, e.g. Aureolus and Petavius, held that it consists in the imposition of hands. Others, with St. Thomas, Bellarmine, and Maldonatus, maintain that it is the anointing with chrism. According to a third opinion (Morinus, Tapper) either anointing or imposition of hands suffices. Finally, the most generally accepted view is that the anointing and the imposition of hands conjointly are the matter. The “imposition,” however, is not that with which the rite begins but the laying on of hands which takes place in the act of anointing. As Peter the Lombard declares: Pontifex per impositionem manus confirmandos ungit in fronte (IV Sent., dist. xxxiii, n. 1; cf. De Augustinis, “De re sacramentaria,” 2d ed,, Rome, 1889, I). The chrism employed must be a mixture of olive oil and balsam consecrated by a bishop. (For the manner of this consecration and for other details, historical and liturgical, see CHRISM.) The difference regarding the form of the sacrament, i.e. the words essential for confirmation, has been indicated above in the description of the rite. The validity of both the Latin and the Greek form is unquestionable. Additional details are given below in the historical outline.

RECIPIENT

Confirmation can be conferred only on those who have already been baptized and have not yet been confirmed. As St. Thomas says:

Confirmation is to baptism what growth is to generation. Now it is clear that a man cannot advance to a perfect age unless he has first been born; in like manner, unless he has first been baptized he cannot receive the Sacrament of Confirmation (ST III:72:6).

They should also be in the state of grace; for the Holy Ghost is not given for the purpose of taking away sin but of conferring additional grace. This condition, however, refers only to lawful reception; the sacrament is validly received even by those in mortal sin. In the early ages of the Church, confirmation was part of the rite of initiation, and consequently was administered immediately after baptism. When, however, baptism came to be conferred by simple priests, the two ceremonies were separated in the Western Church. Further, when infant baptism became customary, confirmation was not administered until the child had attained the use of reason. This is the present practice, though there is considerable latitude as to the precise age. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says that the sacrament can be administered to all persons after baptism, but that this is not expedient before the use of reason; and adds that it is most fitting that the sacrament be deferred until the child is seven years old, “for Confirmation has not been instituted as necessary for salvation, but that by virtue thereof we might be found well armed and prepared when called upon to fight for the faith of Christ, and for this kind of conflict no one will consider children, who are still without the use of reason, to be qualified.” (Pt. II, ch. iii, 18.) Such, in fact, is the general usage in the Western Church. Under certain circumstances, however, as, for instance, danger of death, or when the opportunity of receiving the sacrament is but rarely offered, even younger children may be confirmed. In the Greek Church and in Spain, infants are now, as in earlier times, confirmed immediately after baptism. Leo XIII, writing 22 June, 1897, to the Bishop of Marseilles, commends most heartily the practice of confirming children before their first communion as being more in accord with the ancient usage of the Church.

EFFECTS

Confirmation imparts

an increase of sanctifying grace which makes the recipient a “perfect Christian”;

a special sacramental grace consisting in the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost and notably in the strength and courage to confess boldly the name of Christ;

an indelible character by reason of which the sacrament cannot be received again by the same person.

A further consequence is the spiritual relationship which the person confirming and the sponsor contract with the recipient and with the recipient’s parents. This relationship constitutes a diriment impediment (see IMPEDIMENTS) to marriage. It does not arise between the minister of the sacrament and the sponsor nor between the sponsors themselves.

NECESSITY

Regarding the obligation of receiving the sacrament, it is admitted that confirmation is not necessary as an indispensable means of salvation (necessitate medii).

On the other hand, its reception is obligatory (necessitate præcepti) “for all those who are able to understand and fulfill the Commandments of God and of the Church. This is especially true of those who suffer persecution on account of their religion or are exposed to grievous temptations against faith or are in danger of death. The more serious the danger so much greater is the need of protecting oneself.” (Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 250.) As to the gravity of the obligation, opinions differ, some theologians holding that an unconfirmed person would commit mortal sin if he refused the sacrament, others that the sin would be at most venial unless the refusal implied contempt for the sacrament. Apart, however, from such controversies the importance of confirmation as a means of grace is so obvious that no earnest Christian will neglect it, and in particular that Christian parents will not fail to see that their children are confirmed.

SPONSORS

The Church prescribes under pain of grievous sin that a sponsor, or godparent, shall stand for the person confirmed. The sponsor should be at least fourteen years of age, of the same sex as the candidate, should have already received the Sacrament of Confirmation, and be well instructed in the Catholic Faith. From this office are excluded the father and mother of the candidate, members of a religious order (unless the candidate be a religious), public sinners, and those who are under public ban of interdict or excommunication. Except in case of necessity the baptismal godparent cannot serve as sponsor for the same person in confirmation. Where the opposite practice obtains, it should, according to a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 16 Feb., 1884, be gradually done away with. The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (1866) declared that each candidate should have a sponsor, or that at least two godfathers should stand for the boys and two godmothers for the girls (n. 253). See also prescriptions of the First Council of Westminster. Formerly it was customary for the sponsor to place his or her right foot upon the foot of the candidate during the administration of the sacrament; the present usage is that the sponsor’s right hand should be placed upon the right shoulder of the candidate. The Holy Office decreed, 16 June, 1884, that no sponsor could stand for more than two candidates except in case of necessity. The custom of giving a new name to the candidate is not obligatory; but it has the sanction of several synodal decrees during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Fifth Council of Milan, under St. Charles Borromeo, insisted that a candidate whose name was “vile, ridiculous, or quite unbecoming for a Christian” should receive another at Confirmation” (cf. Martène).

It is clear from the diversity of practice at the present day, that there is much uncertainty as to the doctrine concerning confirmation. It is certain that the sacrament is validly and lawfully administered in the Church; but this does not solve the theological questions regarding its institution, matter, form, and minister. At the time of the Council of Trent the difficulty was felt to be so great that the assembled Fathers contented themselves with only a few canons on the subject. They defined that confirmation was not “a vain ceremony but a true and proper sacrament”; and that it was not “in olden days nothing but a sort of catechism in which those who were entering upon youth gave an account of their faith in the face of the Church” (can. i). They did not define anything specific about the institution by Christ; though in treating of the sacraments in general they had already defined that “all the sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ our Lord” (Sess. VII, can. i). Nothing whatever was said about the form of words to be used; and regarding the matter they merely condemned any one who should maintain “that they who ascribe any virtue to the sacred chrism of confirmation offer an outrage to the Holy Ghost” (can. ii). The third and last canon defined that the “ordinary” minister of the sacrament is a bishop only, and not any simple priest. This guarded language, so different from the definite canons on some of the other sacraments, shows that the council had no intention of deciding the questions at issue among theologians regarding the time and manner of the institution by Christ (direct or indirect institution), the matter (imposition of hands or anointing, or both), the form (“I sign thee,” etc., or “the seal,” etc.), and the minister (bishop or priest). Elsewhere (Sess. VII, can. ix) the council defined that in confirmation a character is imprinted in the soul, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible sign on account of which the sacrament cannot be repeated; and again (Sess. XXIII) the council declared that “bishops are superior to priests; they administer the Sacrament of Confirmation; they ordain the ministers of the Church; and they can perform many other things over which functions others of an inferior rank have no power.” Concerning the administration of the sacrament from the earliest times of the Church, the decree of the Inquisition (Lamentabili sane, 3 July, 1907) condemns the proposition (44): “There is no proof that the rite of the Sacrament of Confirmation was employed by the Apostles; the formal distinction, therefore, between the two sacraments, Baptism and Confirmation, does not belong to the history of Christianity.” The institution of the sacrament has also been the subject of much discussion as will appear from the following account.

II. HISTORY

The Sacrament of Confirmation is a striking instance of the development of doctrine and ritual in the Church. We can, indeed, detect much more than the mere germs of it in Holy Scripture; but we must not expect to find there an exact description of the ceremony as at present performed, or a complete solution of the various theological questions which have since arisen. It is only from the Fathers and the Schoolmen that we can gather information on these heads.

(1) CONFIRMATION IN THE BIBLE

We read in the Acts of the Apostles (viii, 14–17) that after the Samaritan converts had been baptized by Philip the deacon, the Apostles “sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; for he was not yet come upon any of them, but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” Again (xix, 1–6): St. Paul “came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples; and he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John’s baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance . . . Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.” From these two passages we learn that in the earliest ages of the Church there was a rite, distinct from baptism, in which the Holy Ghost was conferred by the imposition of hands (dia tes epitheseos ton cheiron ton Apostolon), and that the power to perform this ceremony was not implied in the power to baptize. No distinct mention is made as to the origin of this rite; but Christ promised the gift of the Holy Ghost and conferred it. Again, no express mention is made of anointing with chrism; but we note that the idea of unction is commonly associated with the giving of the Holy Ghost. Christ (Luke, iv, 18) applies to Himself the words of Isaias (lxi, 1): “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, wherefore he hath anointed me to preach the gospel.” St. Peter (Acts, x, 38) speaks of “Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost.” St. John tells the faithful: “You have the unction (chrisma) from the Holy One, and know all things”; and again: “Let the unction [chrisma], which you have received from him, abide in you” (I Ep., ii, 20, 27). A striking passage, which was made much use of by the Fathers and the Schoolmen, is that of St. Paul: “He that confirmeth [ho de bebaion] us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God, who also hath sealed [sphragisamenos] us, and given us the pledge [arrabona] of the Spirit in our hearts” (II Cor., i, 20, 21). No mention is made of any particular words accompanying the imposition of hands on either of the occasions on which the ceremony is described; but as the act of imposing hands was performed for various purposes, some prayer indicating the special purpose may have been used: “Peter and John . . . prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost.” Further, such expressions as “signing” and “sealing” may be taken as referring to the character impressed by the sacrament: “You were signed [esphragisthete] with the holy Spirit of promise”; “Grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby you are sealed [esphragisthete] unto the day of redemption” (Eph., i, 13; iv, 30). See also the passage from II Cor. quoted above. Again, in the Epistle to the Hebrews (vi, 1–4) the writer reproaches those whom he addresses for falling back into their primitive imperfect knowledge of Christian truth; “whereas for the time you ought to be masters, you have need to be taught again what are the first elements of the words of God” (Heb., v, 12). He exhorts them: “leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect, not laying again the foundation . . . of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands,” and speaks of them as those who have been “once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost.” It is clear that reference is made here to the ceremony of Christian initiation: baptism and the imposition of hands whereby the Holy Ghost was conferred, just as in Acts, ii, 38. The ceremony is considered to be so well known to the faithful that no further description is necessary. This account of the practice and teaching of the Apostles proves that the ceremony was no mere examination of those already baptized, no mere profession of faith or renewal of baptismal vows. Nor was it something specially conferred upon the Samaritans and Ephesians. What was done to them was an instance of what was generally bestowed. Nor was it a mere bestowal of charismata; the Holy Ghost sometimes produced extraordinary effects (speaking with divers tongues, etc.), but these were not necessarily the result of His being given. The practice and teaching of the Church at the present day preserve the primitive type: the imposition of hands, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the privileges of the episcopate. What further elements were handed down by tradition will be seen presently.

(2) CHURCH FATHERS

In passing from Holy Scripture to the Fathers we naturally expect to find more definite answers to the various questions regarding the sacrament. From both their practice and their teaching we learn that the Church made use of a rite distinct from baptism; that this consisted of imposition of hands, anointing, and accompanying words; that by this rite the Holy Ghost was conferred upon those already baptized, and a mark or seal impressed upon their souls; that, as a rule, in the West the minister was a bishop, whereas in the East he might be a simple priest. The Fathers considered that the rites of initiation (baptism, confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist) were instituted by Christ, but they did not enter into any minute discussion as to the time, place, and manner of the institution, at least of the second of these rites. In examining the testimonies of the Fathers we should note that the word confirmation is not used to designate this sacrament during the first four centuries; but we meet with various other terms and phrases which quite clearly refer to it. Thus, it is styled “imposition of hands” (manuum impositio, cheirothesia), “unction,” “chrism,” “sealing,” etc. Before the time of Tertullian the Fathers do not make any explicit mention of confirmation as distinct from baptism. The fact that the two sacraments were conferred together may account for this silence. Tertullian (De Bapt., vi) is the first to distinguish clearly the three acts of initiation: “After having come out of the laver, we are anointed thoroughly with a blessed unction [perungimur benedictâ unctione] according to the ancient rule . . . The unction runs bodily over us, but profits spiritually. . . . Next to this, the hand is laid upon us through the blessing, calling upon and inviting the Holy Spirit [dehinc manus imponitur per benedictionem advocans et invitans Spiriturn Sanctum],” Again (De resurr, carnis, n, 8): “The flesh is washed that the soul may be made stainless. The flesh is anointed [ungitur] that the soul may be consecrated. The flesh is sealed [signatur] that the soul may be fortified. The flesh is overshadowed by the imposition of hands that the soul may be illuminated by the Spirit, The flesh is fed by the Body and Blood of Christ that the soul may be fattened of God.” And (Adv, Marcion., i, n. 14): “But He [Christ], indeed even at the present time, neither rejected the water of the Creator with which He washes clean His own, nor the oil with which He anoints His own; . . . nor the bread with which He makes present [repræsentat] His own very body, needing even in His own sacraments the beggarly elements of the Creator,” Tertullian also tells how the devil, imitating the rites of Christian initiation, sprinkles some and signs them as his soldiers on the forehead (signat illic in frontibus milites suos—De Præscript., xl).

Another great African Father speaks with equal clearness of confirmation, “Two sacraments,” says St. Cyprian, “preside over the perfect birth of a Christian, the one regenerating the man, which is baptism, the other communicating to him the Holy Spirit” (Epist. lxxii), “Anointed also must he be who is baptized, in order that having received the chrism, that is the unction, he may be anointed of God” (Epist. lxx), “It was not fitting that [the Samaritans] should be baptized again, but only what was wanting, that was done by Peter and John; that prayer being made for them and hands imposed, the Holy Ghost should be invoked and poured forth upon them. Which also is now done among us; so that they who are baptized in the Church are presented to the bishops [prelates] of the Church, and by our prayer and imposition of hands, they receive the Holy Ghost and are perfected with the seal [signaculo] of the Lord” (Epist. lxxiii), “Moreover, a person is not born by the imposition of hands, when he receives the Holy Ghost, but in baptism; that being already born he may receive the Spirit, as was done in the first man Adam. For God first formed him and breathed into his face the breath of life. For the Spirit cannot be received except there is first one to receive it. But the birth of Christians is in baptism” (Epist. lxxiv). Pope St, Cornelius complains that Novatus, after having been baptized on his sickbed, “did not receive the other things which ought to be partaken of according to the rule of the Church—to be sealed, that is, by the bishop [sphragisthenai ypo tou episkopou] and not having received this, how did he receive the Holy Ghost?” (Euseb., H.E., vi, xliii). In the fourth and fifth centuries the testimonies are naturally more frequent and clear. St. Hilary speaks of “the sacraments of baptism and of the Spirit”; and he says that “the favor and gift of the Holy Spirit were, when the work of the Law ceased, to be given by the imposition of hands and prayer” (In Matt., c. iv, c. xiv). St. Cyril of Jerusalem is the great Eastern authority on the subject, and his testimony is all the more important because he devoted several of his “Catecheses” to the instruction of catechumens in the three sacraments which they were to receive on being initiated into the Christian mysteries. Nothing could be clearer than his language: “To you also after you had come up from the pool of the sacred streams, was given the chrism [unction], the emblem of that wherewith Christ was anointed; and this is the Holy Ghost . . . This holy ointment is no longer plain ointment nor so as to say common, after the invocation, but Christ’s gift; and by the presence of His Godhead, it causes in us the Holy Ghost, This symbolically anoints thy forehead, and thy other senses; and the body indeed is anointed with visible ointment, but the soul is sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit. . . . To you not in figure but in truth, because ye were in truth anointed by the Spirit” (Cat. Myst., iii). And in the seventeenth catechesis on the Holy Ghost, speaks of the visit of Peter and John to communicate to the Samaritans the gift of the Holy Ghost by prayer and the imposition of hands. Forget not the Holy Ghost,” he says to the catechumens, “at the moment of your enlightenment; He is ready to mark your soul with His seal [sphragisai] . . . He will give you the heavenly and divine seal [sphragisai] which makes the devils tremble; He will arm you for the fight; He will give you strength.” Christ, says St, Optatus of Mileve, “went down into the water, not that there was what could be cleansed in God, but the water ought to go before the oil that was to supervene, in order to initiate and in order to fill up the mysteries of baptism; having been washed whilst He was held in John’s hands, the order of the mystery is followed. . . . Heaven is opened whilst the Father anoints; the spiritual oil in the image of the Dove immediately descended and rested on His head, and poured on it oil, whence He took the name of Christ, when He was anointed by God the Father; to whom that the imposition of hands might not seem to have been wanting, the voice of God is heard from a cloud, saying, This is my Son, of whom I have thought well; hear ye him” (De schism, Donat., I, iv, n. 7).

St. Ephraem Syrus speaks of “the Sacraments of Chrism and Baptism” (Serm. xxvii); “oil also for a most sweet unguent, wherewith they who already have been initiated by baptism are sealed, and put on the armour of the Holy Spirit” (In Joel.) St. Ambrose addressing the catechumens who had already been baptized and anointed, says: “Thou hast received the spiritual seal, the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding. . . . Keep what thou hast received. God the Father has sealed thee; Christ the Lord has confirmed thee; and the Spirit has given the pledge in thy heart, as thou hast learned from what is read in the Apostle” (De myst., c. vii, n. 42). The writer of the “De Sacramentis” (Inter Op. Ambros., lib. III, c. ii, n. 8) says that after the baptismal immersion “the spiritual seal [signaculum] follows . . . when at the invocation of the bishop [sacerdotis] the Holy Ghost is infused.” The Council of Elvira decreed that those who had been baptized privately in case of necessity should afterwards be taken to the bishop “to be made perfect by the imposition of hands” (can. xxxviii, Labbe, I, 974). And the Council of Laodicea: “Those who have been converted from the heresies . . . are not to be received before they anathematize every heresy . . . and then after that, those who were called faithful among them, having learned the creeds of the faith, and having been anointed with the holy chrism, shall so communicate of the holy mystery” (can. vii). “Those who are enlightened must after baptism be anointed with the heavenly chrism, and be partakers of the kingdom of Christ” (can. xlviii, Labbe, I, col. 1497). The Council of Constantinople (381): “We receive the Arians, and Macedonians . . . upon their giving in written statements and anathematizing every heresy. . . . Having first sealed them with the holy ointment upon the forehead, and eyes, and nostrils, and mouth, and ears, and sealing them we say, ‘ The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost”‘ (can. vii, Labbe, II, col. 952). St. Augustine explains how the coming of the Holy Ghost was companied with the gift of tongues in the first ages of the Church. “These were miracles suited to the times. . . .

Is it now expected that they upon whom hands are laid, should speak with tongues? Or when we imposed our hand upon these children, did each of you wait to see whether they would speak with tongues? and when he saw that they did not speak with tongues, was any of you so perverse of heart as to say ‘These have not received the Holy Ghost?”‘ (In Ep, Joan,, tr, vi), He also speaks in the same way about anointing: the sacrament of chrism “is in the genus of visible signs, sacrosanct like baptism” (Contra litt, Petil., II, cap, civ, in P. L., XLI, col. 342; see Serm, ccxxvii, Ad Infantes in P, L., XXXVII, col. 1100; De Trin., XV, n, 46 in P. L., XL, col. 1093); “Of Christ it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, how God anointed Him with the Holy Ghost, not indeed with visible oil, but with the gift of grace, which is signified by that visible unction wherewith the Church anoints the baptized.” The most explicit passage is in the letter of Pope Innocent I to Decentius: “As regards the sealing of infants, it is clear that it is not lawful for it to be done by anyone but a bishop [non ab aliis quam ab episcopo fieri licere]. For presbyters, though they be priests of the second rank (second priests), have not attained to the summit of the pontificate. That this pontificate is the right of bishops only—to wit: that they may seal or deliver the Spirit, the Paraclete is demonstrated not merely by ecclesiastical usage, but also by that portion of the Acts of the Apostles wherein it is declared that Peter and John were sent to give the Holy Ghost to those who had already been baptized. For when presbyters baptize, whether with or without the presence of the bishop, they may anoint the baptized with chrism, provided it be previously consecrated by a bishop, but not sign the forehead with that oil, which is a right reserved to bishops [episcopis] only, when they give the Spirit, the Paraclete. The words, however, I cannot name, for fear of seeming to betray rather than to reply to the point on which you have consulted me,” Saint Leo in his fourth sermon on Christ’s Nativity says to the faithful: “Having been regenerated by water and the Holy Ghost, you have received the chrism of salvation and the seal of eternal life” (chrisma salutis et signaculum vitae æternæ,—P. L., LIV, col. 207), The Blessed Theodoret commenting on the first chapter of the Canticle of Canticles says: “Bring to thy recollection the holy rite of initiation, in which they who are perfected after the renunciation of the tyrant and the acknowledgment of the King, receive as a kind of royal seal the chrism of the spiritual unction (sphragida tina basiliken . . . tou pneumatikou myron to chrisma) as made partakers in that typical ointment of the invisible grace of the Holy Spirit” (P. G., LXXXI, 60).

Among the homilies formerly attributed to Eusebius of Emesa, but now admitted to be the work of some bishop of Southern Gaul in the fifth century, is a long homily for Whitsunday: “The Holy Ghost who comes down with a life-giving descent upon the waters of baptism, in the font bestows beauty unto innocence, in confirmation grants an increase unto grace. Because we have to walk during our whole life in the midst of invisible enemies and dangers, we are in baptism regenerated unto life, after baptism we are confirmed for the battle; in baptism we are cleansed, after baptism we are strengthened. . . . confirmation arms and furnishes weapons to those who are reserved for the wrestlings and contests of this world” (Bib. Max., SS. PP., VI, p. 649), These passages suffice to show the doctrine and practice of the Church during the patristic age,

(3) EARLY MIDDLE AGES

After the great Trinitarian and Christological controversies had been decided, and the doctrine of Divine grace had been defined, the Church was able to devote attention to questions regarding the sacraments, the means of grace. At the same time, the sacramentaries were being drawn up, fixing the various rites in use, With precision of practice came greater precision and completeness of doctrine. “Chrisma,” says St. Isidore of Seville, “is in Latin, called ‘unctio’ and from it Christ receives His name, and man is sanctified after the laver [lavacrum]; for as in baptism remission of sins is given, so by anointing [unctio] the sanctification of the Spirit is conferred. The imposition of hands takes place in order that the Holy Spirit, being called by the blessing, may be invited [per benedictionem advocatus invitetur Spiritus Sanctus]; for after the bodies have been cleansed and blessed, then does the Paraclete willingly come down from the Father” (Etym., VI, c.xix in P.L., LXXXII, col. 256). The great Anglo-Saxon lights of the early Middle Ages are equally explicit. “The confirmation of the newly baptized,” says Lingard (Anglo-Saxon Church, I, p. 296), “was made an important part of the bishop’s duty. We repeatedly read of journeys undertaken by St. Cuthbert chiefly with this object. . . . Children were brought to him for confirmation from the secluded parts of the country; and he ministered to those who had been recently born again in Christ the grace of the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands, ‘placing his hand on the head of each, and anointing them with the chrism which he had blessed (manum imponens super caput singulorum, liniens unctione consecratâ quam benedixerat; Beda, “Vita Cuth.,” c. xxix, xxxii in P.L., XCIV, Oper. Min., p. 277).” Alcuin also in his letter to Odwin describes how the neophyte, after the reception of baptism and the Eucharist, prepares to receive the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands. “Last of all by the imposition of the hands by the chief priest [summo sacerdote] he receives the Spirit of the seven-fold grace to be strengthened by the Holy Spirit to fight against others” (De bapt. cæremon. in P.L., CI, col. 614). It will be observed that in all these passages imposition of hands is mentioned; St. Isidore and St. Bede mention anointing also. These may be taken as typical examples; the best authorities of this age combine the two ceremonies. As to the form of words used the greatest variety prevailed. The words accompanying the imposition of hands were generally a prayer calling upon God to send down the Holy Ghost and confer upon the neophytes the seven gifts. In the Gregorian Sacramentary no words at all are assigned to the anointing; but it is clear that the anointing must be taken in connection with the words belonging to the imposition of hands. Where special words are assigned they sometimes resemble the Greek formulary (signum Christi in vitam æternam, etc.), or are indicative, like the present formula (signo, consigno, confirmo), or imperative (accipe signum, etc.), or deprecatory (confirmet vos Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, etc.). St. Isidore is clearly in favor of a prayer: “We can receive the Holy Ghost, but we cannot give Him: that He may be given, we call upon God” (De Off. Eccl., II, c. xxvi in P.L., LXXXIII, col. 823). In contrast with this diversity as to the form there is complete agreement that the sole minister is a bishop. Of course this refers only to the Western Church. The writers appeal to the Acts of the Apostles (e.g. St. Isidore, “De Off. Eccl.,” II, c. xxvi; St. Bede, “In Act. Apost.” in P.L., XCII, col. 961; “Vit. Cuth.,” c. xxix); but they do not examine the reason why the power is reserved to the bishops, nor do they discuss the question of the time and mode of the institution of the sacrament.

(4) SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY

The teaching of the Schoolmen shows a marked advance upon that of the early Middle Ages. The decision as to the number of the sacraments involved the clear distinction of confirmation from baptism; and at the same time the more exact definition of what constitutes a sacrament led to the discussion of the institution of confirmation, its matter and form, minister, and effects, especially the character impressed. We can follow the development through the labors of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, St. Anselm his successor, Abelard, Hugh of St. Victor, Peter Lombard (Sent., IV, dist. vii); then branching out into the two distinct schools of Dominicans (Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas) and Franciscans (Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, and Duns Scotus). As we shall see, the clearness with which the various questions were set forth by no means produced unanimity; rather it served to bring out the uncertainty with regard to them all. The writers start from the fact that there was in the Church a ceremony of anointing with chrism accompanied with the words: “I sign thee with the sign of the cross,” etc.; this ceremony was performed by a bishop only, and could not be repeated. When they came to examine the doctrine underlying this practice they all admitted that it was a sacrament, though in the earlier writers the word sacrament had not yet acquired a distinct technical meaning. So strongly did they insist upon the principle Lex orandi, lex credendi, that they took for granted that the anointing must be the matter, and the words “I sign thee,” etc., the form, and that no one but a bishop could be the valid minister. But when they came to justify this doctrine by the authority of Scripture they encountered the difficulty that no mention is made there either of the anointing or of the words; indeed nothing is said of the institution of the sacrament at all. What could be the meaning of this silence? How could it be explained?

(a) The institution of the sacrament

Regarding the institution there were three opinions. The Dominican School taught that Christ Himself was the immediate author of confirmation. Earlier writers (e.g. Hugh of St. Victor, “De Sacram.,” ii, and Peter Lombard, “Sent.,” IV, dist. vii) held that it was instituted by the Holy Ghost through the instrumentality of the Apostles. The Franciscans also maintained that the Holy Ghost was the author, but that He acted either through the Apostles or through the Church after the death of the Apostles. St. Thomas says,

Concerning the institution of this sacrament, there are two opinions: some say that it was instituted neither by Christ nor by His Apostles, but later on in the course of time at a certain council [Meaux, 845; this was the opinion of Alexander of Hales, Summ., iv, q. 9, m.], whereas others said that it was instituted by the Apostles. But this cannot be the case, because the institution of a sacrament belongs to the power of excellence which is proper to Christ alone. And therefore we must hold that Christ instituted this sacrament, not by showing it [exhibendo] but by promising it, according to the text (John, xvi, 7), “If I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.” And this because in this sacrament the fullness of the Holy Ghost is given, which was not to be given before Christ’s resurrection and ascension, according to the text (John, vii, 39), “As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” ((ST III:72:1).

It will be noticed that the Angelic Doctor hesitates a little about the direct institution by Christ (non exhibendo, sed promittendo). In his earlier work (In Sent., IV, dist. vii, q. 1) he had said plainly that Christ had instituted the sacrament and had Himself administered it (Matt., xix). In this opinion the saint was still under the influence of his master, Albert, who went so far as to hold that Christ had specified the chrism and the words, “I sign thee,” etc. (In Sent., IV, dist. vii, a. 2). The opinion of Alexander of Hales, referred to by St. Thomas, was as follows: the Apostles conferred the Holy Ghost by mere imposition of hands; this rite, which was not properly a sacrament, was continued until the ninth century, when the Holy Ghost inspired the Fathers of the Council of Meaux in the choice of the matter and form, and endowed these with sacramental efficacy (Spiritu Sancto instigante et virtutem sanctificandi præstante), He was led to this extraordinary view (which he states as merely personal) by the fact that no mention is made in Holy Scripture either of the chrism or of the words; and as these were undoubtedly the matter and the form they could only have been introduced by Divine authority His disciple, St. Bonaventure, agreed in rejecting the institution by Christ or His Apostles, and in attributing it to the Holy Ghost; but he set back the time to the age of “the successors of the Apostles” (In Sent., IV, dist. vii, art. 1). However, like his friendly rival St. Thomas, he also modified his view in a later work viloquium, p. vi. c. 4) where he says that Christ instituted all the sacraments, though in different ways; “some by hinting at them and initiating them [insinuando et initiando], as confirmation and extreme unction.” Scotus seems to have felt the weight of the authority of the Dominican opinion, for he does not express himself clearly in favor of the views of his own order. He says that the rite was instituted by God (Jesus Christ? the Holy Ghost?); that it was instituted when Christ pronounced the words, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” or on the day of Pentecost, but this may refer not to the rite but to the thing signified, viz. the gift of the Holy Ghost (In Sent., IV, dist. vii, q. 1; dist. ii, q. 1). The Fathers of the Council of Trent, as said above, did not expressly decide the question, but as they defined that all the sacraments were instituted by Christ, the Dominican teaching has prevailed. We shall see. however, that this is capable of many different meanings.

(b) The question of matter and form

The question of the institution of the sacrament is intimately bound up with the determination of the matter and form. All agreed that these consisted of the anointing (including the act of placing the hand upon the candidate) and the words, “I sign thee,” or “I confirm thee,” etc. Were this action and these words of Divine, or of Apostolic, or of merely ecclesiastical origin? St. Albertus held that both were ordained by Christ Himself; others that they were the work of the Church; but the common opinion was that they were of Apostolic origin. St. Thomas was of opinion that the Apostles actually made use of chrism and the words, Consigno te, etc., and that they did so by Christ’s command. The silence of Scripture need not surprise us, he says, “for the Apostles observed many things in the administration of the sacraments which are not handed down by the Scriptures” (ST III:72:3).

(c) The reservation of the rite to the bishops

In proof of the reservation of the rite to bishops the Schoolmen appeal to the example of Acts, viii; and they go on to explain that as the sacrament is a sort of completion of baptism it is fitting that it should be conferred by “one who has the highest power [summam potestatem] in the Church” (St. Thomas, III:72:11). They were aware, however, that in the primitive Church simple priests sometimes administered the sacrament. This they accounted for by the fewness of bishops, and they recognized that the validity of such administration (unlike the case of Holy orders) is a mere matter of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. “The pope holds the fullness of power in the Church, whence he can confer upon certain of the inferior orders things which belong to the higher orders. . . . And out of the fullness of this power the blessed pope Gregory granted that simple priests conferred this sacrament” (St. Thomas, III:72:11).

(5) THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

The Council of Trent did not decide the questions discussed by the Schoolmen. But the definition that “all the sacraments were instituted by Christ” (Sess. VII, can. i), excluded the opinion that the Holy Ghost was the author of confirmation. Still, nothing was said about the mode of institution—whether immediate or mediate, generic or specific. The post-Tridintine theologians have almost unanimously taught that Christ Himself was the immediate author of all the sacraments, and so of confirmation (cf. De Lugo, “De Sacram. in Gen.,” disp. vii, sect. 1; Tournely, “De Sacram. in Gen.,” q. v, a. 1). “But the historical studies of the seventeenth century obliged authors to restrict the action of Christ in the institution of the sacraments to the determination of the spiritual effect, leaving the choice of the rite to the Apostles and the Church.” (Pourrat, La théologie sacramentaire, p. 313.) That is to say, in the case of confirmation, Christ bestowed upon the Apostles the power of giving the Holy Ghost, but He did not specify the ceremony by which this gift should be conferred; the Apostles and the Church, acting under Divine guidance, fixed upon the imposition of hands, the anointing, and the appropriate words. Further information on this important and difficult question will be found in the article SACRAMENTS.

III. CONFIRMATION IN THE BRITISH AND IRISH CHURCHES

In his famous “Confession” (p. clxxxiv) St. Patrick refers to himself as the first to administer confirmation in Ireland. The term here used (populi consummatio; cf. St. Cyprian, ut signaculo dominico consummentur, Ep. lxxiii, no. 9) is rendered by nocosmad, cosmait (confirmabat, confirmatio) in a very ancient Irish homily on St. Patrick found in the fourteenth century, “Leabar Breac.” In the same work (II, 550–51) a Latin preface to an ancient Irish chronological tract says: Debemus scire quo tempore Patriacius sanctus episcopus atque præceptor maximus Scotorum inchoavit . . . sanctificare et consecrare , , , et consummare, i.e. “we ought to know at what time Patrick, the holy bishop and greatest teacher of the Irish, began to come to Ireland . . . to sanctify and ordain and confirm.” From the same “Leabar Breac” Sylvester Malone quotes the following account of confirmation which exhibits an accurate belief on the part of the Irish Church: “Confirmation or chrism is the perfection of baptism, not that they are not distinct and different. Confirmation could not be given in the absence of baptism; nor do the effects of baptism depend on confirmation, nor are they lost till death. Just as the natural birth takes place at once so does the spiritual regeneration in like manner, but it finds, however, its perfection in confirmation” (Church History of Ireland, Dublin, 1880, I, p. 149). It is in the light of these venerable texts, which quite probably antedate the year 1000, that we must interpret the well-known reference of St. Bernard to the temporary disuse of confirmation in Ireland (Vita Malachiæ), c. iv, in Acta SS., Nov., 1I, 145). He relates that St. Malachy (b. about 1095) introduced the practices of the Holy Roman Church into all the churches of Ireland, and mentions especially “the most wholesome usage of confession, the sacrament of confirmation and the contract of marriage, all of which were either unknown or neglected.” These Malachy restored (de novo instituit). The Welsh laws of Hywel Dda suppose for children of seven years and upwards a religious ceremony of laying on of hands that can hardly be anything else than confirmation. Moreover, the Welsh term for this sacrament, Bedydd Esgob, i.e. bishop’s baptism, implies that it was always performed by a bishop and was a complement (consummatio) of baptism. Gerald Barry notes that the whole people of Wales were more eager than any other nation to obtain episcopal confirmation and the chrism by which the Spirit was given.

The practice in England has already been illustrated by facts from the life of St. Cuthbert. One of the oldest ordines, or prescriptions for administering the sacrament, is found in the Pontifical of Egbert, Archbishop of York (d. 766). The rite is practically the same as that used at present; the form, however, is: “receive the sign of the holy cross with the chrism of salvation in Christ Jesus unto life everlasting.” Among the rubrics are: modo ligandi sunt, i.e. the head of the person confirmed is to be bound with a fillet; and modo communicandi sunt de sacrificio, i.e. they are to receive Holy Communion (Martène). It was especially during the thirteenth century that vigorous measures were taken to secure the proper administration of the sacrament. In general, the councils and synods direct the priests to admonish the people regarding the confirmation of their children. The age limit, however, varies considerably. Thus the Synod of Worcester (1240) decreed that parents who neglected to have their child confirmed within a year after birth should be forbidden to enter the church. The Synod of Exeter (1287) enacted that children should be confirmed within three years from birth, otherwise the parents were to fast on bread and water until they complied with the law. At the Synod of Durham (12177? Cf. Wilkins, Ioc. cit. below) the time was extended to the seventh year. Other statutes were: that no one should be admitted to Holy Communion who had not been confirmed (Council of Lambeth, 1281); that neither father nor mother nor stepparent should act as sponsor (London, 1200); that children to be confirmed must bring “fillets or bands of sufficient length and width,” and that they must be brought to the church the third day after confirmation to have their foreheads washed by the priest out of reverence for the holy chrism (Oxford, 1222); that a male sponsor should stand for the boys and a female sponsor for the girls (Provincial Synod of Scotland, 1225); that adults must confess before being confirmed (Constitution of St. Edmund of Canterbury, about 1236). Several of the above-named synods emphasize the fact that confirmation produces spiritual cognation and that the sacrament cannot be received more than once. The legislation of the Synod of Exeter is especially full and detailed (see Wilkins, Concilia Magnæ Brittanniæ et Hiberniæ, London, 1734). Among the decrees issued in Ireland after the Reformation may be cited: no one other than a bishop should administer confirmation; the Holy See had not delegated this episcopal function to any one (Synod of Armagh, 1614); the faithful should be taught that confirmation cannot be reiterated and that its reception should be preceded by sacramental confession (Synod of Tuam, 1632).

IV. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES

Previous to the establishment of the hierarchy, many Catholics in North America died without having received confirmation. In some portions of what is now the United States the sacrament was administered by bishops from the neighboring French and Spanish possessions; in others, by missionary priests with delegation from the Holy See. Bishop Cabezas de Altimirano of Santiago de Cuba, on his visitation of Florida, confirmed (25 March, 1606) a large number, probably the first administration of the sacrament in the United States territory. In 1655, Don Diego de Rebolledo, Governor of Florida, urged the King of Spain to ask the pope to make St. Augustine an episcopal see, or to make Florida a vicariate Apostolic so that there might be a local superior and that the faithful might receive the Sacrament of Confirmation; but nothing came of the petition. Bishop Calderon of Santiago visited Florida in 1647 and confirmed 13,152 persons, including Indians and whites. Other instances are the visitations of Bishop de Velasco (1735–6) and Bishop Morel (1763). Subsequently, Dr. Peter Camps, missionary Apostolic, received from Rome special faculties for confirmation. In New Mexico, during the seventeenth century, the custos of the Franciscans confirmed by delegation from Leo X and Adrian VI. In 1760, Bishop Tamaron of Durango visited the missions of New Mexico and confirmed 11,271 persons. Bishop Tejada of Guadalajara administered (1759) confirmation at San Fernando, now San Antonio, Texas, and Bishop de Pontbriand at Ft. Presentation (Ogdensburg, N.Y.) in 1752. The need of a bishop to administer the sacrament in Maryland and Pennsylvania was urged by Bishop Challoner in a report to the Propaganda, 2 Aug., 1763. Writing to his agent at Rome, Rev. Dr. Stonor, 12 Sept., 1766, he says: “there be so many thousands there that live and die without Confirmation”; and in another letter, 4 June, 1771: “It is a lamentable thing that such a multitude have to live and die always deprived of the Sacrament of Confirmation.” Cardinal Castelli wrote, 7 Sept., 1771, to Bishop Briand of Quebec asking him to supply the need of the Catholics in Maryland and Pennsylvania. In 1783 the clergy petitioned Rome for the appointment of a superior with the necessary faculties “that our faithful living in many dangers, may be no longer deprived of the Sacrament of Confirmation. . . .” On 6 June, 1784, Pius VI appointed Rev. John Carroll as superior of the mission and empowered him to administer confirmation (Shea, Life and Times of Archbishop Carroll, New York, 1888; cf. Hughes in Am. Eccl. Review, XXVIII, 23).

V. CONFIRMATION AMONG NON-CATHOLICS

The Protestant Reformers, influenced by their rejection of all that could not be clearly proved from Scripture and by their doctrine of justification by faith only, refused to admit that confirmation was a sacrament (Luther, De Capt. Babyl., VII, p. 501). According to the Confession of Augsburg, it was instituted by the Church, and it has not the promise of the grace of God. Melanchthon (Loci Comm., p. 48) taught that it was a vain ceremony, and was formerly nothing but a catechism in which those who were approaching adolescence gave an account of their faith before the Church; and that the minister was not a bishop only, but any priest whatsoever (Lib. Ref. ad Colonien.). These four points were condemned by the Council of Trent (supra I; cf. A. Theiner, Acta Genuina SS. OEcum. Conc. Trid., I, p. 383 sqq.). Nevertheless the Lutheran Churches retain some sort of confirmation to the present day. It consists of the examination of the candidate in Christian doctrine by the pastors or members of the consistory, and the renewal by the candidate of the profession of faith made for him at the time of his baptism by his godparents. How the pastors properly ordained can alone be said to “give” confirmation does not appear. The Anglican Church holds that “Confirmation is not to be counted for a sacrament of the Gospel . . . for it has not the like nature of sacraments [sacramentorum eandem rationem] with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for it has not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God” (Art. xxv). But, like the Lutheran Churches, it retains “the Confirmation of children, by examining them of their knowledge in their articles of faith and joining thereto the prayers of the Church for them” (Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments, p. 300). The rite of confirmation has undergone various changes in the different prayer books (see BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER). From these it can be seen how the Anglican Church has varied between the complete rejection of the Catholic doctrine and practice, and a near approach to these. Testimonies could easily be quoted for either of these opinions. The wording of Art. xxv left a loophole which the Ritualistic party has made good use of. Even some Catholics, as stated above, have admitted that confirmation “has not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God”; the imposition of hands, the anointing, and the words used being all of them “ordained of” the Apostles of the Church.

T. B. SCANNELL.

Confiteor

The Confiteor (so called from the first word, confiteor, I confess) is a general confession of sins; it is used in the Roman Rite at the beginning of Mass and on various other occasions as a preparation for the reception of some grace.

HISTORY OF THE CONFITEOR

It is first heard of as the preparation for sacramental confession and as part of the preparation for Mass. Both the original Eastern liturgies begin with a confession of sin made by the celebrant (for the Antiochene Rite see Brightman, Eastern Liturgies, p.31, and for the Alexandrine Rite, ibid.,116). The first Roman sacramentaries and ordos tell us nothing about this preparation; they all describe the Mass as beginning at the Introit. The Confiteor in some form was probably from an early date one of the private prayers said by the celebrant in the sacristy before he began Mass. But the “Sixth Roman Ordo” (Mabillon, Museum Italicum, II, 70–76), written apparently in the tenth or eleventh century, tells us that at the beginning of Mass the pontiff “bowing down prays to God for forgiveness of his sins” (ibid., p.71). So by the eleventh century the preparation is already made at the altar. In the “Canonical Rule” of Chrodegang of Metz (d. 743) the questions put by the priest to the penitent before confession contain a form that suggests our Confiteor: “First of all prostrate yourself humbly in the sight of God . . . and pray Blessed Mary with the holy Apostles and Martyrs and Confessors to pray to the Lord for you (Chrodeg. Met., “Reg. Canon.,” cap. xxxii, in P.L., LXXXIX, 1072). So also Egbert of York (d. 766) gives a short form that is the germ of our present prayer: “Say to him to whom you wish to confess your sins: through my fault that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed.” In answer the confessor says almost exactly our Misereatur (Bona, “Rerum liturg.,” Bk. II, ii, v). But it is in Micrologus (Bernold of Constance, d. 1100) that we first find the Confiteor quoted as part of the introduction of the Mass. The form here is: “Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, istis Sanctis et omnibus Sanctis et tibi frater, quia peccavi in cogitatione, in lucutione, in opere, in pollutione mentis et corporis. Ideo precor te, ora pro me.” The Misereatur and Indulgentiam follow, the former slightly different, but the latter exactly as we have it now (De eccl. observ., xxiii, in P.L., CLI, 992). In the “Ordo Romanus XIV” (by Cardinal James Cajetan in the fourteenth century, Mabillon, op. cit., II, 246–443) we find our Confiteor exactly, but for the slight modification: “Quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, delectatione, consensu, verbo et opere” (ib., p. 329). The Third Council of Ravenna (1314, Hardouin, Coll. Conc., VII, 1389) orders in its Rubric xv our Confiteor, word for word, to be used throughout that province. The form, and especially the list of saints invoked, varies considerably in the Middle Ages. Cardinal Bona (Rerum liturg. libri duo, II, 5–7) quotes a number of such forms. In many Missals it is shorter than ours: “Confiteor Deo, beatae Mariæ, omnibus sanctis et vobis” (so the Sarum Missal, ed. Dickinson Burntisland, 1861- 1883). In the Missal of Paul III (1534–1549) it is: “Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, B. Mariæ semper Virgini, B. Petro et omnibus Sanctis et vobis Fratres, quia peccavi, meâ culpâ: precor vos orare pro me” (Bona, loc. cit.). Since the edition of Pius V (1566–1572) our present form is the only one to be used throughout the Roman Rite, with the exceptions of the Carthusian, Carmelite, and Dominican Offices, whose Missals, having been proved to have existed for more than 200 years, are still allowed. These three forms are quite short, and contain only one “meâ culpâ”; the Dominicans invoke, besides the Blessed Virgin, St. Dominic. Moreover, some other orders have the privilege of adding the name of their founder after that of St. Paul (the Franciscans for instance), and the local patron is inserted at the same place in a few local uses. Otherwise the Confiteor must always be said exactly as it is in the Roman Missal (S.R.C.,13 February, 1666, Benedict XIV, De SS. Missae Sacr., II, iii, 11,12).

USE OF THE CONFITEOR

The prayer is said sometimes as a double form of mutual confession, first by the celebrant to the people and then by the people to him, and sometimes only once, as a single form. As a double form it is used:

as part of the introductory prayers of Mass said before the priest goes up to the altar, after the Psalm “Judica me” (Ritus celebrandi, III, 7–9);

in the public recital of the Divine Office as part of the Preces at Prime (so that it is omitted on doubles and in octaves), and always in the beginning of Complin (Rubr. Gen. Brev., XV, 2, and XVIII, 1).

As a single form it occurs:

during Mass, a second time, if anyone receives Holy Communion besides the celebrant;

when Holy Communion is given outside of Mass (Rituale Rom., Tit. I, ch. ii, 1);

before the administration of extreme unction (when it may be said in Latin or in the vulgar tongue.—Rituale Rom., Tit. V, ch. ii, 6);

before the Apostolic blessing is given to a dying person (ibid., Tit. V, ch. vi, 6);

the Ritual further directs that penitents should begin their confession by saying the Confiteor either in Latin or in their own language, or at least begin with these words: “Confiteor Deo omnipotenti et tibi pater” (Tit. III, ch. i, 14);

lastly the “Cæremoniale Episcoporum” ordains that when a bishop sings high Mass, the deacon should sing the Confiteor after the sermon; the preacher then reads out the Indulgence given by the bishop, and the bishop adds a modified form of the Misereatur (in which he again invokes the saints named in the Confiteor), the Indulgentiam, and finally his blessing. This is the normal ceremony for the publication of Indulgences (Cær. Episc., I, ch. xxii, 4; II, ch. xxxix, 1–4).

RITE OF THE CONFITEOR

The form of words is too well known to need quotation. When it is used as a double form, the celebrant first makes his confession, using the words vobis fratres and vos fratres, the servers or ministers say the Misereatur in the singular (tui, peccatis tuis), and then make their confession addressed to the priest (tibi pater, te pater). He says the Misereatur in the plural (Misereatur vestri, etc.), and finally, making the sign of the cross, adds the short prayer Indulgentiam. Both the Misereatur and the Indulgentiam are answered with “Amen.” When used as a single form the priest’s confession is left out, the deacon, or server, says the Confiteor (tibi pater, etc.), the celebrant responds with the Misereatur and Indulgentiam. A person saying the prayer alone (for instance, in the private recital of the Divine Office says the Confietor leaving out the clauses tibi pater or vobis fratres, etc., altogether, and changes the answer to Misereatur nostri and peccatis nostris. Before Communion at high Mass and before the promulgation of Indulgences the Confiteor is sung by the deacon to the tone given in the “Cæremoniale Episcoporum” (II, ch. xxxix, 1). The Misereatur and Indulgentiam are never sung. “Roman Missal, Breviary, Ritual Cæremoniale Episcoporum,” loc. cit.; MABILLON, “Museum Italicum” (Paris, 1689) loc. cit.: BONA, “Rerum Liturgicarum Libri Duo” (Rome, 1671). Bk. II ch. ii, pp. 288–292; BENEDICT XIV, “De SS. Missæ Sacrificio,.” Bk. II, ch. iii, 4–11; GIHR, “Das heilige Messopfer “(Freiburg im Br., 1897), II §34, pp. 326–334, tr. “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” (St. Louis, 1902).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Confraternity (Sodality)

(Lat. confraternitas, confratria)

A confraternity or sodality is a voluntary association of the faithful, established and guided by competent ecclesiastical authority for the promotion of special works of Christian charity or piety. The name is sometimes applied to pious unions, but the latter differ from confraternities inasmuch as they need not be canonically erected and they regard rather the good of the neighbour than the personal sanctification of the members. Confraternities are divided into those properly so called and those to which the name has been extended. Both are erected by canonical authority, but the former have a more precise organization, with rights and duties regulated by ecclesiastical law, and their members often wear a peculiar costume and recite the Office in common. When a confraternity has received the authority to aggregate to itself sodalities erected in other localities and to communicate its advantages to them, it is called an archconfraternity.

Pious associations of laymen existed in very ancient times at Constantinople and Alexandria. In France, in the eighth and ninth centuries, the laws of the Carlovingians mention confraternities and guilds. But the first confraternity in the modern and proper sense of the word is said to have been founded at Paris by Bishop Odo who died in 1208. It was under the invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Various other congregations, as of the Gonfalon, of the Holy Trinity, of the Scapular, etc., were founded between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. From the latter century onwards, these pious associations have multiplied greatly. Indulgences are communicated to confraternities either directly by the pope or through the bishops, unless the association be aggregated to an archconfraternity (it may not be aggregated to more than one) through which it participates in the latter’s privilege. If the aggregation be not made according to the prescribed formula, the Indulgences are not communicated. The directors of confraternities are appointed or approved by the bishop, or in the churches of regulars by the regular superior. Only after such appointment can the director apply the Indulgences to the objects which he blesses, and he cannot subdelegate this power without special faculty. The reception of members must be carried out by the appointed person. The observance of the rules is not binding in conscience nor does their neglect deprive a person of membership, though in the latter case the Indulgences would not be obtained. The loss of all its members for a short time does not dissolve a confraternity, and by the reception of new members the Indulgences may again be gained. The dissolution, translation, and visitation of confraternities belong to the ordinary. The canon law governing these associations is found in the Constitution of Clement VIII (7 Dec., 1604) with some modification made later by the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences.

LAURENTIUS, Institutiones Juris Ecclesiastici (Freiburg, 1903); BERINGER, Les Indulgences (Fr. tr., Paris, 1905): BOUIX, De Episcopo (Paris, 1889), II.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

Confucianism

By Confucianism is meant the complex system of moral, social, political, and religious teaching built up by Confucius on the ancient Chinese traditions, and perpetuated as the State religion down to the present day. Confucianism aims at making not simply the man of virtue, but the man of learning and of good manners. The perfect man must combine the qualities of saint, scholar, and gentleman. Confucianism is a religion without positive revelation, with a minimum of dogmatic teaching, whose popular worship is centered in offerings to the dead, in which the notion of duty is extended beyond the sphere of morals proper so as to embrace almost every detail of daily life.

I. THE TEACHER, CONFUCIUS

The chief exponent of this remarkable religion was K’ung-tze, or K’ung-fu-tze, latinized by the early Jesuit missionaries into Confucius. Confucius was born in 551 B.C., in what was then the feudal state of Lu, now included in the modern province of Shan-tung. His parents, while not wealthy, belonged to the superior class. His father was a warrior, distinguished no less for his deeds of valour than for his noble ancestry. Confucius was a mere boy when his father died. From childhood he showed a great aptitude for study, and though, in order to support himself and his mother, he had to labour in his early years as a hired servant in a noble family, he managed to find time to pursue his favourite studies. He made such progress that at the age of twenty-two years he opened a school to which many were attracted by the fame of his learning. His ability and faithful service merited for him promotion to the office of minister of justice. Under his wise administration the State attained to a degree of prosperity and moral order that it had never seen before. But through the intrigues of rival states the Marquis of Lu was led to prefer ignoble pleasures to the preservation of good government. Confucius tried by sound advice to bring his liege lord back to the path of duty, but in vain. He thereupon resigned his high position at the cost of personal ease and comfort, and left the state. For thirteen years, accompanied by faithful disciples, he went about from one state to another, seeking a ruler who would give heed to his counsels. Many were the privations he suffered. More than once he ran imminent risk of being waylaid and killed by his enemies, but his courage and confidence in the providential character of his mission never deserted him. At last he returned to Lu, where he spent the last five years of his long life encouraging others to the study and practice of virtue, and edifying all by his noble example. He died in the year 478 B.C., in the seventy-fourth year of his age. His lifetime almost exactly coincided with that of Buddha, who died two years earlier at the age of eighty.

That Confucius possessed a noble, commanding personality, there can be little doubt. It is shown by his recorded traits of character, by his lofty moral teachings, by the high-minded men that he trained to continue his life-work. In their enthusiastic love and admiration, they declared him the greatest of men, the sage without flaw, the perfect man. That he himself did not make any pretension to possess virtue and wisdom in their fullness is shown by his own recorded sayings. He was conscious of his shortcomings, and this consciousness he made no attempt to keep concealed. But of his love of virtue and wisdom there can be no question. He is described in “Analects,” VII, 18, as one “who in the eager pursuit of knowledge, forgot his food, and in the joy of attaining to it forgot his sorrow.” Whatever in the traditional records of the past, whether history, lyric poems, or rites and ceremonies, was edifying and conducive to virtue, he sought out with untiring zeal and made known to his disciples. He was a man of affectionate nature, sympathetic, and most considerate towards others. He loved his worthy disciples dearly, and won in turn their undying devotion. He was modest and unaffected in his bearing, inclined to gravity, yet possessing a natural cheerfulness that rarely deserted him. Schooled to adversity from childhood, he learned to find contentment and serenity of mind even where ordinary comforts were lacking. He was very fond of vocal and instrumental music, and often sang, accompanying his voice with the lute. His sense of humour is revealed in a criticism he once made of some boisterous singing “Why use an ox-knife,” he said, “to kill a fowl?”

Confucius is often held up as the type of the virtuous man without religion. His teachings, it is alleged, were chiefly ethical, in which one looks in vain for retribution in the next life as a sanction of right conduct. Now an acquaintance with the ancient religion of China and with Confucian texts reveals the emptiness of the assertion that Confucius was devoid of religious thought and feeling. He was religious after the manner of religious men of his age and land. In not appealing to rewards and punishments in the life to come, he was simply following the example of his illustrious Chinese predecessors, whose religious belief did not include this element of future retribution. The Chinese classics that were ancient even in the time of Confucius have nothing to say of hell, but have much to say of the rewards and punishments meted out in the present life by the all-seeing Heaven. There are numbers of texts that show plainly that he did not depart from the traditional belief in the supreme Heaven-god and subordinate spirits, in Divine providence and retribution, and in the conscious existence of souls after death. These religious convictions on his part found expression in many recorded acts of piety and worship.

II. THE CONFUCIAN TEXTS

As Confucianism in its broad sense embraces not only the immediate teaching of Confucius, but also the traditional records customs, and rites to which he gave the sanction of his approval, and which today rest largely upon his authority, there are reckoned among the Confucian texts several that even in his day were venerated as sacred heirlooms of the past. The texts are divided into two categories, known as the “King” (Classics), and the “Shuh” (Books). The texts of the “King,” which stand first in importance, are commonly reckoned as five, but sometimes as six.

The first of these is the “Shao-king” (Book of History), a religious and moral work, tracing the hand of Providence in a series of great events of past history, and inculcating the lesson that the Heaven-god gives prosperity and length of days only to the virtuous ruler who has the true welfare of the people at heart. Its unity of composition may well bring its time of publication down to the sixth century B.C., though the sources on which the earlier chapters are based may be almost contemporaneous with the events related.

The second “King” is the so-called “She-king” (Book of Songs), often spoken of as the “Odes.” Of its 305 short lyric poems some belong to the time of the Shang dynasty (1766–1123 B.C.), the remaining, and perhaps larger, part to the first five centuries of the dynasty of Chow, that is, down to about 600 B.C.

The third “King” is the so-called “Y-king” (Book of Changes), an enigmatic treatise on the art of divining with the stalks of a native plant, which after being thrown give different indications according as they conform to one or another of the sixty-four hexagrams made up of three broken and three unbroken lines. The short explanations which accompany them, in large measure arbitrary and fantastic, are assigned to the time of Wan and his illustrious son Wu, founders of the Chow dynasty (1122 B.C.). Since the time of Confucius, the work has been more than doubled by a series of appendixes, ten in number, of which eight are attributed to Confucius. Only a small portion of these, however, are probably authentic.

The fourth “King” is the “Li-ki” (Book of Rites). In its present form it dates from the second century of our era, being a compilation from a vast number of documents, most of which date from the earlier part of the Chow dynasty. It gives rules of conduct down to the minute details for religious acts of worship, court functions, social and family relations, dress—in short, for every sphere of human action. It remains today the authoritative guide of correct conduct for every cultivated Chinese. In the “Li-ki” are many of Confucius’s reputed sayings and two long treatises composed by disciples, which may be said to reflect with substantial accuracy the sayings and teachings of the master. One of these is the treatise known as the “Chung-yung” (Doctrine of the Mean). It forms Book XXVIII of the “Li-ki,” and is one of its most valuable treatises. It consists of a collection of sayings of Confucius characterizing the man of perfect virtue. The other treatise, forming Book XXXIX of the “Li-ki,” is the so-called “Ta-hio” (Great Learning). It purports to be descriptions of the virtuous ruler by the disciple Tsang-tze, based on the teachings of the master. The fifth “King” is the short historical treatise known as the “Ch’un-ts’ew” (Spring and Autumn), said to have been written by the hand of Confucius himself. It consists of a connected series of bare annals of the state of Lu for the years 722–484 B.C. To these five “Kings” belongs a sixth, the so-called “Hiao-king” (Book of Filial Piety). The Chinese attribute its composition to Confucius, but in the opinion of critical scholars, it is the product of the school of his disciple, Tsang-tze.

Mention has just been made of the two treatises, the “Doctrine of the Mean” and the “Great Learning,” embodied in the “Li-ki.” In the eleventh century of our era, these two works were united with other Confucian texts, constituting what is known as the “Sze-shuh” (Four Books). First of these is the “Lun-yu” (Analects). It is a work in twenty short chapters, showing what manner of man Confucius was in his daily life, and recording many of his striking sayings on moral and historical topics. It seems to embody the authentic testimony of his disciples written by one of the next generation.

The second place in the “Shuh” is given to the “Book of Mencius.” Mencius (Meng-tze), was not an immediate disciple of the master. He lived a century later. He acquired great fame as an exponent of Confucian teaching. His sayings, chiefly on moral topics, were treasured up by disciples, and published in his name. Third and fourth in order of the “Shuh” come the “Great Learning” and the “Doctrine of the Mean.”

For our earliest knowledge of the contents of these Confucian texts, we are indebted to the painstaking researches of the Jesuit missionaries in China during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, who, with an heroic zeal for the spread of Christ’s kingdom united a diligence and proficiency in the study of Chinese customs, literature, and history that have laid succeeding scholars under lasting obligation. Among these we may mention Fathers Prémare, Régis, Lacharme, Gaubil, Noël, Ignacio da Costa, by whom most of the Confucian texts were translated and elucidated with great erudition. It was but natural that their pioneer studies in so difficult a field should be destined to give place to the more accurate and complete monuments of modern scholarship. But even here they have worthy representatives in such scholars as Father Zottoli and Henri Cordier, whose Chinese studies give evidence of vast erudition. The Confucian texts have been made available to English readers by Professor Legge. Besides his monumental work in seven volumes, entitled “The Chinese Classics” and his version of the “Ch’un ts’ew,” he has given the revised translations of the “Shuh,” “She,” “Ta-hio,” “Y,” and “Li-Ki” in Volumes III, XVI, XXVII, and XXVIII of “The Sacred Books of the East.”

III. THE DOCTRINE

A. RELIGIOUS GROUNDWORK

The religion of ancient China, to which Confucius gave his reverent adhesion was a form of nature-worship very closely approaching to monotheism. While numerous spirits associated with natural phenomena were recognized—spirits of mountains and rivers, of land and grain, of the four quarters of the heavens, the sun, moon, and stars—they were all subordinated to the supreme Heaven-god, T’ien (Heaven) also called Ti (Lord), or Shang-ti (Supreme Lord). All other spirits were but his ministers, acting in obedience to his will. T’ien was the upholder of the moral law, exercising a benign providence over men. Nothing done in secret could escape his all-seeing eye. His punishment for evil deeds took the form either of calamities and early death, or of misfortune laid up for the children of the evil-doer. In numerous passages of the “Shao-” and “She-king,” we find this belief asserting itself as a motive to right conduct. That it was not ignored by Confucius himself is shown by his recorded saying, that “he who offends against Heaven has no one to whom he can pray.” Another quasi-religious motive to the practice of virtue was the belief that the souls of the departed relatives were largely dependent for their happiness on the conduct of their living descendants. It was taught that children owed it as a duty to their dead parents to contribute to their glory and happiness by lives of virtue. To judge from the sayings of Confucius that have been preserved, he did not disregard these motives to right conduct, but he laid chief stress on the love of virtue for its own sake. The principles of morality and their concrete application to the varied relations of life were embodied in the sacred texts, which in turn represented the teachings of the great sages of the past raised up by Heaven to instruct mankind. These teachings were not inspired, nor were they revealed, yet they were infallible. The sages were born with wisdom meant by Heaven to enlighten the children of men. It was thus a wisdom that was providential, rather than supernatural. The notion of Divine positive revelation is absent from the Chinese texts. To follow the path of duty as laid down in the authoritative rules of conduct was within the reach of all men, provided that their nature, good at birth, was not hopelessly spoiled by vicious influences. Confucius held the traditional view that all men are born good. Of anything like original sin there is not a trace in his teaching. He seems to have failed to recognize even the existence of vicious hereditary tendencies. In his view, what spoiled men was bad environment, evil example, an inexcusable yielding to evil appetites that everyone by right use of his natural powers could and ought to control. Moral downfall caused by suggestions of evil spirits had no place in his system. Nor is there any notion of Divine grace to strengthen the will and enlighten the mind in the struggle with evil. There are one or two allusions to prayer, but nothing to show that daily prayer was recommended to the aspirant after perfection.

B. HELPS TO VIRTUE

In Confucianism the helps to the cultivation of virtue are natural and providential, nothing more. But in this development of moral perfection Confucius sought to enkindle in others the enthusiastic love of virtue that he felt himself. To make oneself as good as possible, this was with him the main business of life. Everything that was conducive to the practice of goodness was to be eagerly sought and made use of. To this end right knowledge was to be held indispensable. Like Socrates, Confucius taught that vice sprang from ignorance and that knowledge led unfailingly to virtue. The knowledge on which he insisted was not purely scientific learning, but an edifying acquaintance with the sacred texts and the rules of virtue and propriety. Another factor on which he laid great stress was the influence of good example. He loved to hold up to the admiration of his disciples the heroes and sages of the past, an acquaintance with whose noble deeds and sayings he sought to promote by insisting on the study of the ancient classics. Many of his recorded sayings are eulogies of these valiant men of virtue. Nor did he fail to recognize the value of good, high-minded companions. His motto was, to associate with the truly great and to make friends of the most virtuous. Besides association with the good, Confucius urged on his disciples the importance of always welcoming the fraternal correction of one’s faults. Then, too, the daily examination of conscience was inculcated. As a further aid to the formation of a virtuous character, he valued highly a certain amount of self-discipline. He recognized the danger, especially in the young, of falling into habits of softness and love of ease. Hence he insisted on a virile indifference to effeminate comforts. In the art of music he also recognized a powerful aid to enkindle enthusiasm for the practice of virtue. He taught his pupils the “Odes” and other edifying songs, which they sang together to the accompaniment of lutes and harps. This together with the magnetism of his personal influence lent a strong emotional quality to his teaching.

C. FUNDAMENTAL VIRTUES

As a foundation for the life of perfect goodness, Confucius insisted chiefly on the four virtues of sincerity, benevolence, filial piety, and propriety. Sincerity was with him a cardinal virtue. As used by him it meant more than a mere social relation. To be truthful and straightforward in speech, faithful to one’s promises, conscientious in the discharge of one’s duties to others—this was included in sincerity and something more. The sincere man in Confucius’s eyes was the man whose conduct was always based on the love of virtue, and who in consequence sought to observe the rules of right conduct in his heart as well as in outward actions, when alone as well as in the presence of others. Benevolence, showing itself in a kindly regard for the welfare of others and in a readiness to help them in times of need, was also a fundamental element in Confucius’s teaching. It was viewed as the characteristic trait of the good man. Mencius, the illustrious exponent of Confucianism, has the remarkable statement: “Benevolence is man” (VII, 16). In the sayings of Confucius we find the Golden Rule in its negative form enunciated several times. In “Analects,” XV, 13, we read that when a disciple asked him for a guiding principle for all conduct, the master answered: “Is not mutual goodwill such a principle? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” This is strikingly like the form of the Golden Rule found in the first chapter of the “Teaching of the Apostles”—”All things soever that you would not have done to yourself, do not do to another”; also in Tobias, iv, 16, where it appears for the first time in Sacred Scripture. He did not approve the principle held by Lao-tze that injury should be repaid with kindness. His motto was “Requite injury with justice, and kindness with kindness” (Analects, XIV, 36). He seems to have viewed the question from the practical and legal standpoint of social order. “To repay kindness with kindness,” he says elsewhere, “acts as an encouragement to the people. To requite injury with injury acts as a warning” (Li-ki, XXIX, 11). The third fundamental virtue in the Confucian system is filial piety. In the “Hiao-king,” Confucius is recorded as saying: “Filial piety is the root of all virtue.”—”Of all the actions of man there are none greater than those of filial piety.” To the Chinese then as now, filial piety prompted the son to love and respect his parents, contribute to their comfort, bring happiness and honour to their name, by honourable success in life. But at the same time it carried that devotion to a degree that was excessive and faulty. In consequence of the patriarchal system there prevailing, filial piety included the obligation of sons to live after marriage under the same roof with the father and to give him a childlike obedience as long as he lived. The will of the parents was declared to be supreme even to the extent that if the son’s wife failed to please them he was obliged to divorce her, though it cut him to the heart. If a dutiful son found himself compelled to admonish a wayward father he was taught to give the correction with the utmost meekness; though the parent might beat him till the blood flowed he was not to show any resentment. The father did not forfeit his right to filial respect, no matter how great his wickedness. Another virtue of primary importance in the Confucian system is “propriety.” It embraces the whole sphere of human conduct, prompting the superior man always to do the right thing in the right place. It finds expression in the so-called rules of ceremony, which are not confined to religious rites and rules of moral conduct, but extend to the bewildering mass of conventional customs and usages by which Chinese etiquette is regulated. They were distinguished even in Confucius’s day by the three hundred greater, and the three thousand lesser, rules of ceremony, all of which had to be carefully learned as a guide to right conduct. The conventional usages as well as the rules of moral conduct brought with them the sense of obligation resting primarily on the authority of the sage-kings and in the last analysis on the will of Heaven. To neglect or deviate from them was equivalent to an act of impiety.

D. RITES

In the “Li-ki,” the chief ceremonial observances are declared to be six: capping, marriage mourning rites, sacrifices, feasts, and interviews. It will be enough to treat briefly of the first four. They have persisted with little change down to the present day. Capping was a joyous ceremony, wherein the son was honoured on reaching his twentieth year. In the presence of relatives and invited guests, the father conferred on his son a special name and a square cornered cap as distinguishing marks of his mature manhood. It was accompanied with a feast. The marriage ceremony was of great importance. To marry with the view of having male children was a grave duty on the part of every son. This was necessary to keep up the patriarchal system and to provide for ancestral worship in after years. The rule as laid down in the “Li-ki” was, that a young man should marry at the age of thirty and a young woman at twenty. The proposal and acceptance pertained not to the young parties directly interested, but to their parents. The preliminary arrangements were made by a go between after it was ascertained by divination that the signs of the proposed union were auspicious. The parties could not be of the same surname, nor related within the fifth degree of kindred. On the day of the wedding the young groom in his best attire came to the house of the bride and led her out to his carriage, in which she rode to his father’s home. There he received her, surrounded by the joyous guests. Cups improvised by cutting a melon in halves were filled with sweet spirits and handed to the bride and groom. By taking a sip from each, they signified that they were united in wedlock. The bride thus became a member of the family of her parents-in-law, subject, like her husband, to their authority. Monogamy was encouraged as the ideal condition, but the maintenance of secondary wives known as concubines was not forbidden. It was recommended when the true wife failed to bear male children and was too much loved to be divorced. There were seven causes justifying the repudiation of a wife besides infidelity, and one of these was the absence of male offspring. The mourning rites were likewise of supreme importance. Their exposition takes up the greater part of the “Li-ki.” They were most elaborate, varying greatly in details and length of observance, according to the rank and relationship of the deceased. The mourning rites for the father were the most impressive of all. For the first three days, the son, clad in sackcloth of coarse white hemp, fasted, and leaped, and wailed. After the burial, for which there were minute prescriptions, the son had to wear the mourning sackcloth for twenty-seven months, emaciating his body with scanty food, and living in a rude hut erected for the purpose near the grave. In the “Analects,” Confucius is said to have condemned with indignation the suggestion of a disciple that the period of the mourning rites might well be shortened to one year. Another class of rites of supreme importance were the sacrifices. They are repeatedly mentioned in the Confucian texts, where instructions are given for their proper celebration. From the Chinese notion of sacrifice the idea of propitiation through blood is entirely absent. It is nothing more than a food-offering expressing the reverent homage of the worshippers, a solemn feast to do honour to the spirit guests, who are invited and are thought to enjoy the entertainment. Meat and drink of great variety are provided. There is also vocal and instrumental music, and pantomimic dancing. The officiating ministers are not priests, but heads of families, the feudal lords, and above all, the king. There is no priesthood in Confucianism.

The worship of the people at large is practically confined to the so-called ancestor-worship. Some think it is hardly proper to call it worship, consisting as it does of feasts in honour of dead relatives. In the days of Confucius, as at present, there was in every family home, from the palace of the king himself down to the humble cabin of the peasant, a chamber or closet called the ancestral shrine, where wooden tablets were reverently kept, inscribed with the names of deceased parents, grandparents, and more remote ancestors. At stated intervals offerings of fruit, wine, and cooked meats were set before these tablets, which the ancestral spirits were fancied to make their temporary resting-place. There was, besides, a public honouring by each local clan of the common ancestors twice a year, in spring and autumn. This was an elaborate banquet with music and solemn dances, to which the dead ancestors were summoned, and in which they were believed to participate along with the living members of the clan. More elaborate and magnificent still were the great triennial and quinquennial feasts given by the king to his ghostly ancestors. This feasting of the dead by families and clans was restricted to such as were united with the living by ties of relationship. There were, however, a few public benefactors whose memory was revered by all the people and to whom offerings of food were made. Confucius himself came be to honoured after death, being regarded as the greatest of public benefactors. Even today in China this religious veneration of the master is faithfully maintained. In the Imperial College in Peking there is a shrine where the tablets of Confucius and his principal disciples are preserved. Twice a year, in spring and autumn, the emperor goes there in state and solemnly presents food-offerings with a prayerful address expressing his gratitude and devotion.

In the fourth book of the “Li-ki” reference is made to the sacrifices which the people were accustomed to offer to the “spirits of the ground,” that is to the spirits presiding over the local fields. In the worship of spirits of higher rank, however, the people seem to have taken no active part. This was the concern of their highest representatives, the feudal lords and the king. Each feudal lord offered sacrifice for himself and his subjects to the subordinate spirits supposed to have especial care of his territory. It was the prerogative of the king alone to sacrifice to the spirits, both great and small, of the whole realm, particularly to Heaven and Earth. Several sacrifices of this kind were offered every year. The most important were those at the winter and summer solstice in which Heaven and Earth were respectively worshipped. To account for this anomaly we must bear in mind that sacrifice, as viewed by the Chinese, is a feast to the spirit guests, and that according to their notion of propriety the highest deities should be feted only by the highest representatives of the living. They saw a fitness in the custom that only the king, the Son of Heaven, should, in his own behalf and in behalf of his people, make solemn offering to Heaven. And so it is today. The sacrificial worship of Heaven and Earth is celebrated only by the emperor, with the assistance, indeed, of a small army of attendants, and with a magnificence of ceremonial that is astonishing to behold. To pray privately to Heaven and burn incense to him was a legitimate way for the individual to show his piety to the highest deity, and this is still practised, generally at the full moon.

E. POLITICS

Confucius knew but one form of government, the traditional monarchy of his native land. It was the extension of the patriarchal system to the entire nation. The king exercised an absolute authority over his subjects, as the father over his children. He ruled by right Divine. He was providentially set up by Heaven to enlighten the people by wise laws and to lead them to goodness by his example and authority. Hence his title, the “Son of Heaven.” To merit this title he should reflect the virtue of Heaven. It was only the high-minded king that won Heaven’s favour and was rewarded with prosperity. The unworthy king lost Divine assistance and came to naught. The Confucian texts abound in lessons and warnings on this subject of right government. The value of good example in the ruler is emphasized most strongly. The principle is asserted again and again, that the people cannot fail to practise virtue and to prosper when the ruler sets the high example of right conduct. On the other hand the implication is conveyed in more than one place that when crime and misery abound, the cause is to be sought in the unworthy king and his unprincipled ministers.

IV. HISTORY OF CONFUCIANISM

It is doubtless this uncompromising attitude of Confucianism towards vicious self-seeking rulers of the people that all but caused its extinction towards the end of the third century B.C. In the year 213 B.C., the subverter of the Chow dynasty, Shi Hwang-ti, promulgated the decree that all Confucian books, excepting the “Y-king,” should be destroyed. The penalty of death was threatened against all scholars who should be found possessing the proscribed books or teaching them to others. Hundreds of Confucian scholars would not comply with the edict, and were buried alive. When the repeal came under the Han dynasty, in 191 B.C., the work of extermination was wellnigh complete. Gradually, however, copies more or less damaged were brought to light, and the Confucian texts were restored to their place of honour. Generations of scholars have devoted their best years to the elucidation of the “King” and “Shuh,” with the result that an enormous literature has clustered around them. As the State religion of China, Confucianism has exercised a profound influence on the life of the nation. This influence has been little affected by the lower classes of Taoism and Buddhism, both of which, as popular cults, began to flourish in China towards the end of the first century of our era. In the gross idolatry of these cults the ignorant found a satisfaction for their religious cravings that was not afforded by the religion of the State. But in thus embracing Taoism and Buddhism they did not cease to be Confucianists. These cults were and are nothing more than accretions on the Confucian beliefs and customs of the lower classes, forms of popular devotion clinging like parasites to the ancestral religion. The educated Chinese despises both Buddhist and Taoist superstitions. But while nominally professing Confucianism pure and simple, not a few hold rationalistic views regarding the spirit world. In number the Confucianists amount to about three hundred millions.

V. CONFUCIANISM VERSUS CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION

In Confucianism there is much to admire. It has taught a noble conception of the supreme Heaven-god. It has inculcated a remarkably high standard of morality. It has prompted, as far as it knew how, the refining influence of literary education and of polite conduct. But it stands today encumbered with the serious defects that characterize the imperfect civilization of its early development. The association of T’ien with innumerable nature-spirits, spirits of sun, moon, and stars, of hills and fields and rivers, the superstitious use of divination by means of stalks and tortoise shells, and the crude notion that the higher spirits, together with the souls of the dead, are regaled by splendid banquets and food-offerings, cannot stand the test of intelligent modern criticism. Nor can a religion answer fully to the religious needs of the heart which withdraws from the active participation of the people the solemn worship of the deity, which has little use of prayer, which recognizes no such thing as grace, which has no definite teaching in regard to the future life. As a social system it has lifted the Chinese to an intermediate grade of culture, but has blocked for ages all further progress. In its rigid insistence on rites and customs that tend to perpetuate the patriarchal system with its attendant evils of polygamy and divorce, of excessive seclusion and repression of women, of an undue hampering of individual freedom, Confucianism stands in painful contrast with progressive Christian civilization.

CHARLES F. AIKEN

Congo Independent State and Congo Missions

(CONGO INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONGO MISSIONS)

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following account of the Congo Independent State was written before the annexation of the State by the Belgian Government. Belgium’s right to take over the Congo and the successive steps which have led up to the annexation will be found treated under sections II and VII. On 20 August, 1908, the Chamber of Deputies approved the treaty of annexation, and on 9 September following the treaty was adopted by the Belgian Senate. By this agreement the Belgian Government took over the Independent State, including the Domaine de la Couronne, with all its rights and obligations. Among other trusts the government guaranteed certain allowances to Prince Albert and Princess Clementine, and created two funds, one, $9,100,000 to be expended in Belgium for public works, and another of $10,000,000 to be paid to the king and his successors in fifteen annuities and used for objects connected with the Congo. The present article deals with the Independent State—both in its interior organization and international position—as it was down to the time of the annexation.]

I. EXPLORATION; FOUNDING OF THE STATE

America has not been without a share in the discovery of the Congo Free State. It was James Gordon Bennett, the proprietor of the “New York Herald,” who (October, 1879) engaged (Sir) Henry Morton Stanley to undertake his voyage through Africa to find the lost explorer, David Livingstone. Americans, therefore, may a claim a part in the honour of a discovery which has changed our geographical notions and opened a new country to civilization. Congo had been considered an arid, uninhabited desert; Stanley found there rich forests, an immense river, vast lakes, and millions of human being to be civilized. Further, the United States was the first power (22 April, 1884) that recognized the flag of the International Association as that of a friendly state. There are (1908) in Africa four Congo states: the French German, Portuguese, and the Independent, or Free, State. It is this last which, more than the others, deserves particular attention. It was here that the plenipotentiaries, gathered at Berlin (24 Feb., 1885), hoped to see realized their ideal of generous freedom and civilizing humanity. Leopold II ascended the throne of Belgium in 1865. A man of undoubted genius and erudition, of large ideas and tenacious will, he was also inspired with great ambitions. Even before becoming king, in his speeches to the Senate (9 Apr., 1853; 7 Feb., 1860; 31 March, 1861) he expressed the desire to see his country rely on her own resources and extend her empire beyond the seas. Ascending to the throne, he found himself ruler of a country that was so small that it was scarcely visible on the map of the world, and it was only natural that he should conceive the hope of one day ruling a more extended dominion. He therefore set his heart on obtaining the Congo for his people; nor was this his first effort to realize his ambition; it was perhaps the seventh or eighth attempt he had made a Belgian colonization. Briefly, the successive stages of the foundation of the Congo Free State were as follows: As a consequence of the expeditions (1840; 1 May, 1873) of Livingstone and Stanley, public attention began to be drawn to Central Africa, and Leopold II divined the greatest possibilities of the newly-discovered country. On 12 Sept., 1876, he called a Conférence Géographique at Brussels, which gave birth to the association for the exploration and civilization of Central Africa commonly called the International African Association. This was divided into different national committees, each charged with the task of promoting the common cause. The Belgian committee was founded on 6 Nov., 1876; King Leopold assisted at its foundation and delivered a remarkable speech. The Belgian was the only committee which displayed any serious activity. It collected a sum of 100,000 dollars, five times as great as the united collections of all the others, and took the leading part in the organization of the first expedition. The expedition naturally followed the route which had already been traced by Livingstone, i. e., it moved from east to west. It was a failure, however, and many lives were sacrificed in vain. In January, 1878, the news came that Stanley had crossed right through Central Africa, from the Zanzibar Coast to the mouth of the Congo River, whose upper course he was the first to discover during the course of the journey. It was then that Leopold conceived an idea of sending out an expedition which should start from the western coast and explore the country. While others were content to applaud Stanley or to listen to his interesting narratives, the King of Belgium resolved to employ the explorer to further his designs, which were not merely commercial or political, but sincerely humanitarian as well. At the very moment Stanley set foot on European ground, envoys were waiting for him at Marseilles. The king succeeded in gaining him for his purpose, and then proceeded to found (Nov., 1878) a society afterwards called the International Congo Association. In the name of this association, in which Leopold was the principal through hidden agent, Stanley’s little party, counting only thirteen white men, set out. It was not the only expedition intent on planting a European flag on this virgin soil; at the same time a French and a Portuguese mission were also on their way. Toward the end of 1879 Stanley reached a non-Portuguese territory on the right bank of the Congo River and founded there the post of Vivi. Moving slowly up the river he came at last to the Pool. The Brazza mission was already there, and the French flag was planted on the right bank. The French had not crossed the river, however, and the Portuguese expedition had stopped at the Upper Kwango, thus leaving the country to the interior open to the future colony. During this journey, Stanley concluded many treaties with the native chiefs, by which they were to submit to the suzerainty of the Association, founded a certain number of ports in the north toward the equator, and in the south in the Kassai district, and actually set up a government which was soon semi-officially recognized. In Oct., 1882, France tacitly acknowledged the capacity of the Association to enjoy international rights (see letter of M. Duclerc, president of the Council, to Leopold II). The United States (22 April, 1884) and Germany (8 Nov., of the same year) recognized in a more explicit manner the flag of the Association as that of a friendly State. A week later (15 Nov. 1884) the famous Berlin Conference was opened. The object of this conference, which included delegates from fourteen nations, is stated clearly in the heading which serves as preamble to the act containing the collection of decisions and called “l’Act Général de Berlin.” It runs as follows: “Wishing to regulate, in a spirit of mutual good understanding, the conditions most favourable to the development of commerce and civilization in certain parts of Africa, and to assure to all nations the advantage of free navigation on the two principal African rivers [Congo and Niger] which flow into the Atlantic; desirous on the other hand of forestalling any misunderstandings or disputes which new acts of occupation on the African coast might cause in the future; concerned also with the measures to be taken for increasing the welfare both material and moral of the native races . . .” During the intervals between the meetings of the conference M. Strauch worked had to win for the flag of the International Association official recognition by all the powers represented; his efforts were successful, and Leopold, as founder of the association, was able to officially communicate the fact to the conference at its second last meeting (23 Feb., 1885). The plenipotentiaries then expressed their high appreciation of the work done by the king; at the same time they welcomed the birth of the new state, thus founded. At the final meeting of the conference, the Berlin Act was accepted by the Association, which was then hailed by Bismark as “one of the principal guardians of the work which they had in view.” The moment had now arrived for Leopold to show himself. Hitherto he had worked through various societies which had finally developed into the International Association; he was the moving spirit of them all. He now came forward in the name of this Association, and receiving from the Belgian Chamber (vote of Chamber of Representatives, 28 April, 1885; vote of the Senate, 30 April, 1885) the necessary authorization he announced to the various powers on 1 August, 1885, and the days following, “that the possessions of the International Association would henceforth form and be called the Independent State of Congo.” He further declared himself sovereign of this State. It was understood that the only constitutional bond of union between Belgium and the Independent State of Congo was the person of the king. Thus was founded the Independent State. Leopold can justly regard it as his own creation. Nevertheless it is only fair to recognize the part taken in the work by some Belgian statesmen. Without the recognition of the Powers the Independent Congo State could not have won a secure position, and this recognition was obtained through the brilliant diplomacy of Mr. E. Banning and of Baron Lambermont at Berlin. Without the authorization of the Belgian Chambers Leopold could not have occupied a new throne; it was M. Beernaert, then prime minister, who obtained this authorization, and he is therefore justly regarded as “one of the statesmen who have contributed most to unite the destinies of Congo and of Belgium” (Leroy-Beaulieu, “De la colonisation,” 352).

II. INTERNATIONAL AND POLITICAL SITUATION

RECOGNITION BY THE POWERS

The international position held by the Independent State results directly from the friendly recognition of the powers accorded by treaty to the International Association, from which sprang the Independent State. Following, in chronological order, are the names of the contracting Powers and the dates of the treaties: United States of America (22 April, 1884); German Empire (8 Nov., 1884); Austria-Hungary (24 Dec., 1884); The Netherlands (27 Dec., 1884); Spain (7 Jan., 1885); France and Russia (5 Feb., 1885); Sweden and Norway (10 Feb., 1885); Portugal (14 Feb., 1885); Belgium and Denmark (28 Feb., 1885); Turkey (25 Jun., 1885); Switzerland, (19 Nov., 1885); Republic of Liberia (15 Dec., 1885); Japan (9 July., 1900).

NEUTRALITY OF THE CONGO

By the General Act of Berlin (ch. iii) the Powers has agreed to respect a political neutrality in the Congo Basin. They allowed all Powers having possessions there to put their territories under the power of this neutrality. Availing itself of this privilege, the Independent State, 1 Aug., 1885, declared its perpetual neutrality. This declaration was afterwards repeated, 19 Dec., 1894, on the occasion of certain changes of frontier.

OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE ACT OF BERLIN

In declaring its adhesion to the Act of Berlin (24 Feb., 1885), the Independent State contracted certain commercial, political, and other obligations which we shall briefly describe.

(a) Freedom of Commerce.—All nations were to have perfect freedom in commercial enterprise; the subjects of all flags were to be treated with perfect equality and be at liberty to engage in all kinds of transport; there was to be freedom of traffic on all coasts, rivers, and lakes of the Congo, and the harbours were to be open; free transport and free transit were to be allowed to merchandise, save only such taxes or duties as might be required to defray the expense entailed in the interest of commerce (subsequently, by an agreement made at Brussels, 2 July, 1890, an import duty of ten percent maximum might be imposed); finally no monopoly or privilege or a commercial nature might be granted.

(b) Protection of Natives, Missionaries, Travellers.—The powers signing the Act bound themselves to care for the native peoples, their moral and material welfare, and co-operate in suppressing slavery and especially the slave trade. They bound themselves to protect and assist, “without regard to distinctions of nationality or of creed, all religious, scientific, philanthropic establishments or enterprises, formed or organized for such ends, or calculated to instruct the inhabitants and make them understand and appreciate the advantages of civilization.” In particular, Christian missionaries, men with scientific ends in view, and explorers, together with their escorts, were to be the objects of special protection (Article 6).

(c) Freedom of Religious Worship.—“Liberty of conscience and religious toleration are expressly guaranteed to natives as well as to other subjects and to foreigners. The free and public exercise of all forms of worship, the right of erecting religious edifices, and of organizing missions belonging to all creeds shall not be submitted to any restriction or restraint” (ibidem).

(d) Postal Conventions.—The terms of the Universal postal union, revised at Paris, 1 Jan., 1878 (Art. 7) were to be observed in the Congo Basin; there were officially accepted by the Independent State, 17 Sept., 1885. In like manner, 13 Sept., 1886, the additional Postal Act of Lisbon was adopted, on 19 June, 1892, the Universal Postal Convention of Washington, and on 26 May, 1906, that of Rome.

(e) Mediation and Arbitration.—In case serious disagreements should occur over the territories where commercial freedom was allowed, the Powers signing the act bound themselves “before having recourse to arms, to seek the intervention of one or several friendly Powers.” In such a case the Powers reserved to themselves the right of having recourse to arbitration (Art. 12).

CONDITIONS OF THE ACT OF BRUSSELS

The Slave Trade and Traffic in Spirits.—On 2 July, 1890, on proposal of England, an international conference met at Brussels. A general act was proposed and signed by all the Powers that formerly had passed the Berlin Act, and also by the Independent State. By this the signatory Powers bound themselves to take measures to prevent the slave trade and to restrict the traffic in spirits in the zone lying between 20° N. lat. and 22° S. lat. Within this territory the distillation of liquor or importation thereof was forbidden in regions where the use of such liquor was not yet common. In the other parts where it was already in use a heavy import duty was imposed. This duty was fixed by the convention of 8 June, 1899, at seventy francs per hectolitre, fifty percent alcohol (about $1.57 a gallon), for a period of six years; an equivalent excise duty was laid on the manufacture of such liquors.

RIGHT OF PREFERENCE OF FRANCE

Apart from the general provisions which govern its dealings with the Powers, the Independent State, owing to certain conventions, has special relations with France and Belgium. We shall treat first of those concerning France, comprised in the famous, but often badly explained, “Right of Preference.” On 23 April, 1884, Colonel Strauch, President of the International Association, declared in a letter to Jules Ferry that if, owing to unseen circumstances and contrary to its intention, the Association was compelled in the future to sell its possessions, it would consider itself obliged to give preference of purchase to France. On the following day the French minister officially acknowledged the letter and added that in the name of the French government he bound himself to respect the established relations and the free territories of the Association. Thus the right was constituted. Writing, however, on 22 April, 1887, to Bourée, minister of France at Brussels, Baron von Eetvelde declared that the Association never meant or intended that this right accorded to France should be to the prejudice of Belgium of which Leopold II was king. In his letter of 29 April, Bourée replied that this interpretation had come to his notice, but said nothing more. When in 1895 the question of the cession of the Independent State to Belgium was raised, it seemed prudent to negotiate with France. As a consequence the convention of 5 Feb., 1895, was made between France and Belgium; France, on the one hand, agreed not to oppose the cession, and on the other secured a favourable determination of borders in Congo. On the same date, by another convention, the Belgian Government, already acting as a successor to the Independent State, recognized the right of preference of France to the purchase of these territories, in case of a complete or partial exchange, concession, or lease to another Power. It declared besides that it would never give up gratuitously either the whole or a part of these said possessions. It is quite clear, therefore, (1) that the right of preference is simply one of pre-emption, i. e., in case of alienation on terms of sale, negotiations must first be entered into with France; (2) that France recognized in 1895 the priority of Belgium in this respect, or at least consented not to deny Belgium the right of preference.

BELGIUM’S RIGHT TO TAKE OVER THE CONGO

The Belgian Act of 28 April, 1885, had declared: “the union between Belgium and the new state of Congo will be exclusively personal.” This could not, however, prevent the subsequent gift on the part of the king, nor could it take from Belgium the right of accepting such a donation. By his will, dated 2 August, 1889, which was placed in the hands of M. Beernaert, who communicated it to the Chambers, Leopold II was to leave as a legacy to his country all sovereign rights over the Independent State of the Congo. He added, besides, that should the Belgian Government wish to take over the Congo before this time, he would be happy to see it accomplished during his lifetime. An agreement was next entered into, 3 July, 1890, by which Belgium was to advance to the Congo twenty-five million francs, five millions at once and the remaining twenty at the rate of two millions a year. Six months after the expiration of the ten years (18 Feb., 1901) Belgium might, if it wished, annex the Independent State, with all the possessions, rights, and emoluments belonging to this sovereignty, providing it assumed the outstanding obligations of the State to third parties, “the king expressly refusing all indemnification for the personal sacrifices he had made.” On 5 Aug., 1894, the king-sovereign announced that he was prepared to put at the immediate disposal of Belgium his possessions in the Congo. Following this announcement a treaty of annexation was concluded, 8 Jan., 1895, between the Belgian government and the independent state, subject to the approval of the Chambers. This was given 12 Feb., 1895, but was withdrawn, 19 June, and the treaty annulled by mutual consent, 12 Sept., 1895. However, a new loan confirmed Belgium’s option for 1901.

When this date arrived, Baron Van Eetvelde, minister of the State of Congo, addressed (28 March, 1901) a dispatch to the chief minister of the Belgian cabinet, Count de Smet de Naeyer, to the effect that possibly the moment had not yet arrived for Belgium to take over the Congo State; and that if this were so, in view of the letter of 5 August, 1889, and the existing ties between Belgium and the Congo, it would, perhaps, be neither politic nor useful to fix a new term for the right of option. A further communication, 22 May, 1901, emphasized the right held by Belgium, in virtue of the above-mentioned letter and the legacy of the king. It added that in case the right of annexation were unexercised, but not relinquished, Belgium ought to renounce, during such extension of her option, the payment of interest and the repayment of capital due to her. At the same time the Independent State declared its readiness to submit to annexation. M. Beernaert now proposed to annex the Congo, thus opposing the Government project of 28 March, 1901, namely, to suspend the repayment of the capital lent, and the payment of the interest. The king, by letter addressed 11 June, 1901, to M. Woeste, member of the Chamber, personally took part in the question. Only three items of this letter are public: the first clearly pointed out that the moment was inopportune for annexation; the second stated that in relation to the Congo Belgium should remain in the position she held in consequence of the Convention of 1890; the third enumerated the proofs of the attachment which the king had for his country. Thus came about the Belgian law of 14 Aug., 1901, which renounced the repayment of the loans and the interest thereon until such a time as Belgium should surrender the right of annexation—a right which she declared she wished to preserve. From the examination of these acts it seems certain that Belgium has an incontestable right to take over the Congo during the lifetime of the king. That certain prominent politicians, in a preliminary discussion in 1906, seemed to have ignored this right, was doubtless only the effect of a surprise. When, however, as on 3 June, 1906, the king-sovereign in a letter to the secretaries-general of the Independent State, added to his will a codicil which seemed to impose on Belgium the obligation of respecting (besides the engagements entered into with third parties) certain royal foundations, the amendment was not acceptable to the Chambers. The minister then stated that these wishes on the part of the king were not imposed as conditions, but were only earnest recommendations. On 14 Dec., 1906, the house moved that while it desired for the Congo the advantages of civilization it was not unmindful of Belgium’s rights; furthermore, that the question of taking over the Congo should be settled with the least possible delay.

THE TERRITORY

The declarations of neutrality, together with the friendly treaties by which the united Powers of Germany, France, Portugal, etc., recognized the State, determined roughly its frontiers. Greater precision resulted from the treaty with England of 12 May, 1894. With France, owing to some difficulties which arose, five treaties were made, the last being signed 25 May, 1894. Treaties still have to be made with Germany to settle the Lake Kivu question and with Portugal about the Lake Dilolo region. With the exception of a narrow border-zone to the east near Lake Albert Edward, situated in the Nile Basin, nearly all the territory in the State belongs to the Congo Basin, which is about 1,158,300 sq. m., which is equivalent to a square having a side of three hundred leagues, or to seventy-five times the area of Belgium, or five times that of France. It is bounded on the north and north-west by French Congo and the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan; on the east by British East Africa (Uganda Protectorate) and German East Africa; on the south-east and south by Rhodesia and Portuguese Angola; and on the west by the Atlantic Ocean (which gives it about twenty-two miles of coastline) and the Portuguese territory of Cabinda. The State stretches from a little above 5° N. lat. to below 13° S. lat. and from 12° to between 31°-32° E. Long., the most easterly point being on the Upper Nile.

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE INDEPENDENT STATE

PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY

The general aspect of the State has often been compared to a huge cup. To the west lie the Crystal Mountains; to the south-east, the long chain of the Mituba bordering on the plateaux of Ka-Tanga, from which descend the streams of Lualaba, Luapala, etc., whose waters unite to form the Congo River. This vast central depression, divided into several terraces, rests on alternate strata of granite and gneiss. Lacustral settings (grit and clayey schists) are often found, as well as laterite. The innumerable rivers of the Congo are rocky in their upper courses and cut their way by rapids from one terrace to another, until, on the great alleuvial plains of the centre, they form an immense network of from 9,000 to 11,000 miles of navigable water-ways and spread out fan-like from Leopoldville. The principle tributaries of the Congo are the Ubanghi and Welle to the north; the Kassai-Sankuru, Lomami, etc., to the south. Beyond Stanley Pool are the famous falls, which, by preventing continuous river-traffic necessitated the railroad (about 270 miles, a journey of two day), binding Leopoldville to the seaport of Matadi (the highest point of the Congo Estuary reached by streamers). The falls of the Upper River will likewise be doubled by railroads. In fact, a trunk line to Stanley Falls has been completed, and another, to the “Gates of Hell” commenced. Others in the direction of the Nile, of the Katanga, and of the English and Portuguese railways have been determined upon.

There are two seasons in the Lower Congo, the dry and the rainy. In the centre the climate, always warm and rainy, produced a vast equatorial forest of green trees and jungle. In these regions much cocoa, coffee, copal, nut- and palm-oil, and above all, caoutchouc are produced. Besides the elephant, hunted to excess, the fauna of the country include the antelope, monkey, zebra (which is hoped to domesticate), okapi, hippopotamus, and crocodile. There are also found termites, ants, mosquitoes, and the terrible tsé-tsé which causes the sleeping sickness. With regard to mineral wealth, Katanga gives promise of an immense amount of malachite copper (2 million tons, valued at $800,000,000, according to the official report of Jan., 1908), much tin (20 million tons, valued at $16,000,000 along the Lualaba): also iron magnitite and oligist. Gold also has been found in the mines of Kambobe, while those of Kilo (Aruwimi) produced 8841.25 oz. Troy ($170,000) in 1905.

ETHNOGRAPHY AND POPULATION

Three indigenous races are found in the Congo Basin. The Azandé, who seem to belong to the Nigritian races, inhabit the north-east frontier. The aboriginal pygmies are found in the centre, mingled with the rest, but especially in the region of the great forest. The larger part of the peoples belong to the Bantu family.The population is probably about 20 millions, although other estimates from twelve to thirty millions have been given.

LANGUAGE

The language of the Blacks is, radically, the agglutinative speech of the Bantu peoples, i. e., it forms its words without fusion or alteration. It is divided into over forty very different dialects. The language is rich, rational, philosophic, and betokens a much higher level of civilization than do the morals and customs of this wretched race. In Lower Congo contact with the Portuguese has influenced the ideas and habits of the Blacks; it has taught them the commercial value of certain products, such as caoutchouc, and brought them under the enervating influence of alcohol; here the race has degenerated. In Upper Congo the Arab influence has introduced by violence both slavery and habits of industry. The pernicious practice of inhaling the fumes of hemp has come also with Arab domination. In the centre of the country the race remains more pure.

POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

Present native customs show traces of a former supremacy of one chief over the others. There are unmistakable signs both of vassalage and of suzerainty. The tribes are ruled by a chief (mfumu), whose authority, however, is checked by the presence of a council of elders. The succession to the chieftaincy is hereditary, but not in the direct line of male descent. While only males can occupy the throne, the succession passes not to the son, but in the collateral line to the brother and then to the son of the daughter. Other information on ethnographic questions is given under VIII. MISSIONS IN THE CONGO.

COMMERCE

Some figures with regard to the commerce of the Congo may be given here. In 1887 when a total of the exportations of the Independent State was first made, the figure was about $396,088. This we may compare with the figures of subsequent years:—1890, $1,648,439; 1895, $2,188,603; 1900, $9,475,480; 1905, $10,000,432; 1906, $11,655,566. Caoutchouc represents the greater part of this output. Its value was, in 1905, $8,751,180 (19,938,975 lbs.). The value of ivory (472,260 lbs)for the same year was $967,554; palm nuts (11,355,529 lbs), $302,817; palm oil (4,335,229 lbs.), $220,678. Import statistics date only from the establishment of import duties in the second quarter of 1892. We append some dates and figures:—1893, $1,835,020; 1895, $2,137,169; 1900, $4,944,821; 1905, $4,015,072; 1906, $4,295,517. These figures represent largely Belgian commerce. In 1906 the Congo’s exports to Belgium reached $10,860,939; the imports from Belgium were $3,057,058. Imports from the United States did not exceed $6000.

IV. WHEN AND BY WHAT RIGHT THE CONGO STATE WAS CREATED

How did the Congo State arise? The question is not an easy one to answer. Certain authors, the mouthpieces of the State, regard the Independent State as the natural heir of the petty chiefs who governed the various Congolese tribes. They maintain that through the treaties made with these chiefs the supreme power passed from native to European hands. This is a thesis easy to formulate, but impossible to defend. For in fact an international treaty supposes the existence of two nations. Now it may be admitted that the Congolese had, at the period in question, a political organization—though this point has been doubted by some; at any rate the International Association was at the time surely nothing more than a private company. Again, when the native chiefs agreed to put their mark on the bottom of a treaty in exchange for a few pieces of cloth, did they realize what they were doing? Did they realize that they were veritably abdicating, and not simply authorizing some European to settle on their land? A recent defender of the position stated above has gone so far as to imagine that Stanley improvised on the Congo coast a course of international law for the use of the native chiefs. For this Stanley had neither time nor means at his disposal, and he would have found it difficult to do so through an interpreter. Further, even if the chiefs did wish to transfer their authority, could they have done so without the consent of their tribes? Lastly, the treaties in question were nearly all made with chiefs who inhabited the present French Congo; they affected only a very small part of the present Congo State.

Others say that the Independent State was created by the Berlin Conference. This hypothesis is also unacceptable. What right had this Conference over the Congo Basin? The plenipotentiaries claimed none; what they wished to do was not created new states, but to make the Powers, present and future, holding interests in central Africa, accept a regime of free trade. As a matter of fact it was during the intervals between the meetings of the Conference that the Independent State had its flag recognized by the different Powers one after another. The Conference, as such, only congratulated the State. It supplied the means of existence, but it did not create it. M. Cattier (Droit et administration de l’Etat Indépendant, p. 43) is rightly of the opinion that the Independent State owes its origin to an act of occupation. but was this lawful? Doubtless it was. First the land was a prey to the most revolting savage cruelties, even to cannibalism; second, it was ravaged by ceaseless intestine wars and by the slave trade; third, it denied strangers the protection of the jus gentium, or law of nations. In such a case the common good of mankind sanctioned the imposition of a state of order and security, and hence the creation of a civilizing power. The Powers represented at the Berlin Conference gave the king-sovereign a free hand in the political occupation of the Congo Basin, while the treaties made with the native chiefs and the victories won over the Arabs likewise contributed to this end. But it was only when this occupation grew sufficiently effective (about 1895) that the embryonic polity of 1885 became in a true sense the Independent State. It is carefully to be noted that the occupation above referred to did nothing more than transfer the political authority; it did not modify or affect any private rights, e. g., property rights.

V. INTERIOR ORGANIZATIONS

LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE POWER

Leopold II exercises over his Congolese subjects a sovereignty which makes him the most absolute monarch in the world; he governs them by his sole and uncontrolled will. He gives all important orders, constitutes the whole administration, and is the source of all authority in his African kingdom. He has established the Congo Central Government at Brussels. While reserving himself the supreme legislative power, he has, since 1 Sept., 1894, confided to the secretary of state the direction of the Central Government. This official can enact measures (Arrêtés du Secrétaire d’Etat) which have the force of laws. When he is absent his place is taken by three secretaries-general, who, acting in concert, possess his power; as a matter of fact, since the period of office of Baron Van Eetvelde there has been no secretary of state. Further, the sovereign-king instituted (16 April, 1889) at Brussels a Conseil Supérieur, which acts as a high court of justice and gives advice on such questions as the king submits for consideration. His Majesty names the members of this council. In the Congo territory itself a governor-general is at the head of the administration. He possesses a restricted legislative power and can make police regulations and the like. The state capital is at Boma. The country is divided into fourteen districts, governed by the commissaires, and these are subdivided into zones and secteurs which are under the authority of the chefs de zone, chefs de secteur.

JUDICIAL POWER

For the administration of civil and criminal cases there are five lower courts, each composed of a judge, and officier du ministère public (procureur d’Etat) to represent the people, and a greffier; there is also a court of appeal composed of a president, two judges, an officier du ministère public (procureur général), and a greffier. In places where there is no regular court the officier du ministère public (who must be a doctor in law) can, within certain limits, exercise a summary jurisdiction. Finally, the native chiefs (mfumu) have certain judicial powers over their own peoples. The repression of crimes, or, in the terminology of Congo law, infractions, which include even such offenses as that of murder (see Code Pénal d l’Etat Indép.), is further confided to local courts, appointed by the governor-general and composed (at least normally) of a judge, who need not have have studied law (very often he is the commissaire), and an officier du ministère public (substitute) who must be a doctor in law. There are also military courts (conseil de guerre, conseil de guerre d’appel). At the head of this administration of justice is the conseil supérieur de Bruxelles, which constitutes the cour de cassation. The judges and officers of justice are not appointed for life, but are all removable; the governor-general possesses a sort of supremacy both in their nomination and supervision.

DOMANIAL POLICY

At first (1885–1891) the State favoured private initiative and claimed for itself no monopoly. Later on (since 1892), anxious to increase its resources, and hearing of the vast wealth of rubber and ivory in the Upper Congo, it inaugurated a regime of monopoly. Invoking an ordinance of 5 July, 1885, which had declared that “the unoccupied lands must be considered as belonging to the State,” it invalidated all acts of occupation made, whether by natives or strangers, after this date. It then put in practice a system of proprietorship and exploitation of the soil and its products. We add here a short resumé of the extremely complex legislation now in force:

(a) Concerning the Natives.—The decrees profess respect for all native occupation “such as it existed before 5 July, 1885.” Hitherto no adequate or serious inquiry has determined the rights which the natives possessed in virtue of this occupation. Does the State admit that they now have a true proprietary right to any part whatever of the soil? It is impossible to say. At any rate, they may not, without authorization of the governor-general, dispose of their lands to a third party. The natives may continue, then, to inhabit their plots of land where they plant msnioc; in addition by virtue of the reform decrees of 1906 each village has been allotted an area triple the size of that which it previously inhabited and cultivated. The natives are full possessors of the products of the lands thus cultivated. Further, if they formerly enjoyed any certain use of any woods or forests they may still retain that use.

(b) Concerning the Non-Natives.—The rights above-mentioned being safeguarded, all the rest of the Congo State has been declared property of the State; it is consequently at the absolute disposition of the sovereign-king, who has distributed it thus: (1) One-third constitutes the Domaine National, administered by a council of six charged with the task of developing its revenues. These revenues are intended to cover the ordinary budget expenses, to pay off the public debt, to form a reserve fund, and to serve certain purposes of public utility for the Congo State and for Belgium. (2) One-ninth, selected in the richest part of the country, forms the Domaine de la Courone. It is the private property of the king who, however, has the intention of giving it eventually to some institutions of public utility, and in the meantime desires that its revenues should create and subsidize certain works and institutions for the general good, whether in the State or in Belgium. Six mines, hereafter to be selected, also belong to the Domaine, which is administered by a committee. Hitherto both of these territories have been administered (en régie) by the employees of the State. (3) The rest of the territory constitutes the Terres Domaniales, which the state reserves to itself to sell, to let, or to grant as it pleases. All alienation or letting of these lands must, to avoid nullity, be ratified within six months by the king. Of these public lands about one third have been granted or alienated, principally to concessionary companies. The grants of use, however, far exceed the alienations, and they give to the companies in question the monopoly of exploitation. In the greater number of these companies the state owns half the stock.

FISCAL SYSTEM

(1) The State subjects non-natives to direct and personal taxes similar to those in Europe. As a consequence of the Brussels Conference (2 July, 1890), a customs duty was laid on all imports. The exports custom duty on rubber (0.65 franc per kilogram—about 6 cents per pound) and ivory (1 to 2.1 francs per kilogram—about 9 cts to 17 cts per pound) forms one of the principal sources of revenue of the State.

(2) The natives are subject to conscription. Since the reforms of 1906 the annual contingent to be supplied is divided into two sections, one of which goes to the army and the other furnishes labourers for the public works. The soldiers serve for seven years, the workmen for five. Further, the natives who are not so engaged are subject to a poll tax affecting every adult, male or female. This tax varies from 6 to 24 fr. (about $1.20 to $4.80) a year; it may be paid in money, in kind (food-stuffs as a rule), or in personal labour. Every year the commissaire draws up for the different villages tables of equivalence between money, kind, and labour, which must, since the last reforms, be publicly exhibited. The personal labour demanded may not exceed in duration a total of forty hours a month—hence the phrase “forty hours’ tax.” For this labour the natives receive a certain remuneration—by “an act of pure condescension” according to the latest decrees. The annual income and outlay of the State are about $30,000,000 fr. (roughly $6,000,000. The products of the Domaine National together with taxes paid in kind represent 16,500,000 fr. The remuneration paid (in kind) to the natives amounts to 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 fr.

VI. CRITICISMS OF THE CONGO

For some years past the Independent State has been the object of very severe criticism, particularly on the part of the Congo Reform Association, directed by Mr. E. D. Morel. We do not presume to judge intentions; nevertheless, this hostility, directed against only one of the four Congos, and that one dependent on a people powerless to defend itself, creates in Belgium painful feelings of surprise. Grave accusations have been made against the French Congo; the German Parliament in the name of humanity has heard earnest protests against excesses in the German Congo; and it is not likely, if a commission were to traverse Rhodesia, that it would have nothing but eulogies to record. Why then single out one country, and that a defenseless one? It seems but fair, also, to remark that one cannot justly compare a colony in its beginnings with a colony established more than a century ago. The early history of the colonies has ever been a sad one, as is instanced by Macaulay’s account of Warren Hastings and the British occupation of India. On the other hand wrong does not justify wrong. The standard of a government should be absolute justice, and it is from this point of view that the wrongs imputed to the Congo administration will be considered. The accusations fall under two heads: (1) infidelity to the promises given to the civilized Powers; (2) injustice toward the Congolese.

(1) BREACH OF FAITH

The land system inaugurated in 1891 is said to be incompatible with the commercial freedom stipulated for at Berlin, in particular with Article 5, which forbade the granting of monopolies, and any privileges in commercial matters. The Independent State denies the charge of infidelity: “There is no ‘commerce’ in selling the product of one’s own land. We do no more than that. The monopolies we accord are not commercial.” In support of this view the opinions of jurists of different countries are adduced. These were consulted, especially in 1892, and included professor Westlake and Sir Horace Davy, the latter an English judge and member of the Privy Council.

(2) INHUMAN TREATMENT OF THE NATIVES

This accusation appeals to Christian people; it touches the principles of humanity. The Congo State is accused of oppressing, instead of civilizing, the Congo, and charges of atrocious cruelty have been brought. So grave were these that King Leopold thought it wise to establish an International Commission of Inquiry with unlimited authority to investigate the condition of the natives. The decree of 23 July, 1904, entrusted this important duty to M. Janssens (General Advocate of the Court of Cassation of Belgium) as president of the commission, Baron Nisco, an Italian (Temporary President of the Boma Tribunal of Appeal), and Doctor de Schumacher (Counsellor of State and Chief of the Department of Justice of the Canton of Lucerne, Switzerland). The commission arrived at Boma, 5 October, 1904. They concluded their investigation 13 Feb., 1905, and on the 21st of the same month embarked for Europe. The report was made public, 5 Nov., 1905, in the official bulletin of the Independent State, and is obviously the most serious item in the question we are now discussing. We must except, however, the chapter dealing with the missionaries. In this the commission departed from their habitual prudence and their expressions here—as is commonly stated—do not accurately represent their judgment. According to this report one cannot directly charge the Independent State with responsibility for cruelties inflicted upon individuals. There are doubtless isolated crimes, but these are punished. There are also in involuntary consequences of governmental measures, but these unhappy effects were not foreseen. Such were the delegation of powers to the agents of companies; the giving of firearms to black sentinels; the failure to distinguish between military demonstrations to prevent rebellion and war operations to repress a revolt. Moreover the report drew attention to grave abuses in the recruiting of laborers, in the imposition of compulsory labour on the native, in the land regime, and in the organization of justice.

Following the publication of this, the king named a Reform Commission, whose work resulted in certain recommendations drawn up by the Secretaries-General of the State. These the king accepted and embodied in the Reform Decrees of 3 June, 1906.

It would be premature at this time to forecast the probable influence of these reforms on the general situation in the Congo; we are too near the events. Impartial history will distinguish the good from the evil, and fix the responsibilities. It may be said that the Report recognized, on the part of the Independent State, the splendid campaign against the Arabs, signalized by many deeds of heroism, which put an end to the slave trade, and rendered its resuscitation almost impossible. To the intestine wars between the chiefs have succeeded, almost everywhere, peace and security. The use of the flail and of alcohol have been rigorously prohibited, and the cannibal tribes can but very rarely find an opportunity of indulging their savage instincts. Finally it may be observed that in this whole affair Belgium is in no way responsible; this is an opinion expressed by two ministers of the British Government (see debates of the British Parliament for 27 Feb. and 3 March, 19808). Belgium as a whole has remained aloof from the African project, and the methods adopted were not known to it. If, indeed, the Congo Government had appealed with more simplicity and frankness to the religious sentiments of the Belgian people; if it had taken care to proclaim a programme of Christian civilization, it would have kindled more enthusiasm among them, and evoked more sympathy. In that case also it would have found more easily the men capable of contributing to a work of such supreme moral importance.

VII. FUTURE OF THE CONGO STATE

By a vote of 14 Dec., 1906, the Belgian Chamber of Representatives expressed its willingness to consider as soon as possible the question of annexation. A commission of eighteen was immediately charged with making a draft of proposed colonial law. When M. de Trooz succeeded M. de Smet de Naeyer as prime minister, he announced his intention of rapidly brining about the transfer of the Congo State to Belgium. During August, 1907, the Belgian and the Congo Governments each named four plenipotentiaries to draw up the treaty of annexation. A praiseworthy activity was displayed. The commission of eighteen adopted on first reading a tentative body of laws: the plenipotentiaries agreed to sign a treaty. The treaty however was not well received by the public; the Liberal Left unanimously declared they could not accept it. The principal difficulty, it seems, was the clause in the Treaty of Cession which assures the perpetuity of the Domaine de la Couronne. It is true that the revenues of this Domaine were to be disposed in a generous way; yet many representatives refused to bind the mother country to the maintenance of a foundation which had merely been earnestly recommended. In the meantime M. de Trooz died. M. Schollaert, his successor, pronounced in favour of annexation, and his declaration before the Chamber gave promise of more acceptable conditions of annexation. An additional clause introduced by his into the treaty greatly improved the situation.

VIII. MISSIONS IN THE CONGO

ANCIENT

The evangelization of the Congo began as early as 1484, when Diego Cam discovered the mouth of the Congo River, known as Zaire until the seventeenth century. Cam’s naval chaplain set himself at once to preach the “good news” to the natives, and won to the Faith the chief of the Sogno, a village on the right bank of the Congo, where he first landed. Some of the inhabitants of this village accompanied Cam on his return voyage and were solemnly baptized at the court of John II of Portugal. Later, the head chief of the Banza-Congo (Outeiro, the present San Salvador) asked King John for missionaries. Three were sent (whether they were Dominicans or Franciscans or members of a Lisbon chapter we do not know); they finally baptized the head chief and many other subordinate ones at Banza-Congo, in a wooden structure called the Church of the Holy Cross. In 1518, a grandson of this chief, known as Henry, who had been ordained in Portugal, was made titular bishop of Utica, and appointed by Leo X Vicar Apostolic of Congo. Unfortunately, he died before quitting Europe. He is the only native bishop Congo has ever had.

From the beginning the Portuguese undertook to introduce Portuguese customs in Congo. The petty chiefs became kings with Portuguese names; their secretaries of state headed public documents thus: “We, Alphonso [or Diego] by the grace of God king of Congo and of Ilungo, of Cacongo, of Ngoyo, of the lands above and below the Zaire, Lord of the Amboados and of Angola . . . and of the Conquest [sic] of Parizon . . .” The chiefs for the most part could do no more than put their mark on these documents. One of them imitated the feudal system and divided his kingdom into seigniories, duchies, etc. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, a native chief, Alvarez II, sent one of his relatives, a marquis, as his representative to the papal court. The ambassador arrived in Rome in a dying condition, and expired the day after his arrival, the eve of the Epiphany, 1608. Paul V, who personally assisted the ambassador in his last moments, gave him a magnificent state funeral, and erected to his memory a monument at St. Mary Major’s. Later, Urban VIII had a superb mausoleum erected to him by Bernini; it still stands at the entrance to the choir of the basilica. The Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, and Jesuits were the first missionaries of the Congo. In spite of the promising beginnings, their labours, though trying, were rather fruitless. In the seventeenth century, the Jesuits had two colleges, one at Loanda, another, of minor importance, at San Salvador. On the whole, religion never took firm root, and was early brought into discredit by the vices and the slave-trading of the Portuguese. It has managed, however, to linger on in Portuguese Congo to our days. While the Portuguese always confined themselves to the Lower Congo, as early as the seventeenth century the missionaries had traversed the course of the Zaire, and a seventeenth-century map has been discovered which traces the river according to data supplied by them. From this it would seem that Stanley has not the distinction of being the first white man to explore the Upper Congo.

MODERN

French and Portuguese Congo On 20 May, 1716, Clement XI created the episcopal see of Santa Cruz do Reino de Angola. The residence was at first at San Salvador, but later on was transferred to Loanda. The Portuguese bishop of this town has under his jurisdiction about twenty priests. It is through this see that the ancient and modern missions of Congo are united (see ANGOLA). The first modern missionaries were the Fathers of the Holy Ghost (mother-house at Paris). Towards the middle of the nineteenth century this flourishing congregation of missionaries had the spiritual care of all the West African coast from the Senegal to the Orange River, with the exception of the Diocese of Loanda. They still have charge of all French Congo and of Portuguese Congo (Loanda excepted).

(1) French Congo.—The Fathers of the Holy Ghost have here three vicariate:—(a) Gabon, founded in 1842 and confided to them in 1845. Mgr. Adam is vicar Apostolic; 12 residences; mission staff, 42 priests, 21 brothers, 1 native priest, 7 native brothers and 41 catechists. (b) Loango River (Lower French Congo), founded, 24 Nov., 1886; pro-vicar Apostolic, Mgr. Dérouet; 6 residences; mission staff, 18 priests, 11 brothers, 1 native priest, 8 native seminarians, 17 native brothers, and 60 catechists. (c) Ubanghi (Upper French Congo), founded, 14 Oct., 1890; vicar Apostolic, is Mgr. Augouard; 7 residences; mission staff, 24 priests, 16 brothers, and 14 catechists. The Christians of these three vicariate number about 40,000, of whom more than half are catechumens.

(2) Portuguese Congo.—This has a prefecture Apostolic dating from 26 June, 1640. The Capuchins administered it until 1834, when the mission was abandoned. A pontifical decree of 1 Sept., 1865, re-estabished it and entrusted it to the Fathers of the Holy ghost; 4 residences, 11 priests, 11 brothers, 12 native seminarists, 10 native brothers, and 24 catechists; Christians about 7,000. These figures represent the condition of the missions of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost in March, 1906.

(3) The Free State.—Charles George Gordon, the hero of Khartoum, a Presbyterian, was among the first to draw the attention of Leopold II to the need of establishing numerous Catholic missions in his African kingdom. At the beginning of 1884, some days before his departure for the Sudan, Gordon was chosen General Administrator of the Stations of the International Association, and in this quality had an interview with Leopold, towards the end of which Gordon remarked: “Sire, we have forgotten the principle thing—the missionaries.” “Oh, I have already considered the question,” said Leopold. “The Association gives help and protection to all missionaries; further, it has given a subsidy to the missionaries of the Bible Society, to the Baptists, . . .” “Yes,” replied Gordon, “but you must also send Roman missionaries, many Roman missionaries” (Revue Générale, 1185, P. 116). From 24 Feb., 1878, there was at the extreme east of the Congo State a pro-vicariate Apostolic for the Upper Congo. This became, in 1880, a vicariate, and was served by the White Fathers of Cardinal Lavigerie (q. v.). But after the establishment of the new State in 1885, Leopold persuaded the Holy See to reserve the Catholic evangelization of his African dominion to Belgian missionaries. Cardinal Lavigerie did not, however, abandon this post of honour but founded a Belgian branch of his institute which, by pontifical Brief of 30 Dec., 1886, was placed in charge of the vicariate of the Upper Congo. Its activities are confined to the Independent State, vicar Apostolic, Mgr. Roelens. An African seminary was founded at Louvain (1886) and was placed under the direction of Canon Forget, professor of theology at the University of Louvain. The difficulties attached to such an enterprise soon made themselves felt, and it was found impossible to carry it on without the help of some religious institute. The aid of the young but already flourishing Congregation of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart of Mary (known as the Congregation of Scheutveld, after the mother-house at Scheutveld, near Brussels), had already been sought in 1876, and they were again appealed to in 1884. Though the mission in China and Mongolia absorbed nearly all their strength, they determined (1886–87) to assist the Congo. In 1888 they took over the African seminary and on 11 May of the same year Leo XIII created the immense vicariate Apostolic (present incumbent, Mgr. Van Ronslé) of the Belgian Congo, which he committed to their care. On 26 July, 1901, a part of this territory was detached , though still left in their charge, to form a new prefecture Apostolic of the Upper Kassai; pref. Ap. (1908) is Mgr. Henri Cambier.

Towards the end of 1891, the Belgian Jesuits, already overburdened with two foreign missions, undertook to send a body of missionaries to the Congo. They were placed in charge of a portion of the Belgian Congo vicariate; on 31 Jan., 1903, their mission became the prefecture Apostolic of Kwango. The superior and pref. Ap. (1908) is the Rev. Julian Banchaert, S. J. There are also a prefecture Apostolic: Welle, founded 12 May, 1898, Premonstratensians of the Abbey of Tongerloo (pref. Ap., Rev. M. I. Derikx), and a vicariate Apostolic: Stanley Falls, founded as a prefecture, 3 Aug., 1904, Priests of the Sacred Heart (vic. Ap. Rev. G. Grison). There are other missionaries in the Belgian vicariate who, although having no autonomous territory, nevertheless render very important service in the evangelization of the country. Among these are the Trappists and the Redemptorists. The former went from the Abbey of Westmalle in 1894, hoping to acquire in Africa, by the foundation of agricultural colonies, a civilizing influence similar to that of the medieval Benedictines. Their first efforts in the Lower Congo were fruitless; later they established themselves in the Upper Congo beyond the confluence of the Congo and the Ruki, almost on the Equator. Their principles post is at Bamania. The Redemptorists have succeeded the secular priests at Matadi in the evangelization of the town and of the railway employees. In 1905–06, the Mill Hill missionaries (English) accepted two posts in the Upper Congo. The Vicariate Apostolic at Sudan administered by the White Fathers, has under its jurisdiction a portion of the Congo State; vicar Apostolic Mgr. H. L. Bozin. In May, 1907, the Fathers of the Holy Ghost were engaged as chaplains to the second railway section of the Great Lakes.

The numerous sisters of various religious institutes who have devoted their fortunes and their lives to the moral education of the Congolese women do an amount of good beyond all praise. The Sisters of Charity of Jesus and Mary (Ghent Institute) were the first to enter on this arduous mission. They are found in the districts evangelized by the Fathers of Scheutveld and are assisted by the Franciscan Sisters from Gooreind, Antwerp province. The Missionary Sisters of the Precious Blood (Natal, Holland) are employed in the mission of the Trappist fathers. The Congregation of Our Lady of Africa (White Sisters) devote themselves to the natives in the Vicariate of Upper Congo. In the Prefecture of Kwango the Notre Dame Sisters (Namur) are established; in Welle, the Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Mary (Berlaerlez-Lierre). For statistics see below the table of Catholic missions.

(4) German East Africa.—The German possessions occupy but a very small part of the Congo Basin. There are three vicariates in charge of the White Fathers: South Nyanza under Mgr. J. J. Hirth; Unymuezi under Mgr. F. Gerboin; Tanganyika under Mgr. L. Le Chaptois. In addition, there is the vicariate of Central Zanzibar, in charge of the Fathers of the Holy Ghost, under Mgr. F. X. Vogt. Finally, the Vicariate of South Zanzibar, or Dar es Salaam, in charge of the Bavarian Congregation of St. Odile, under Mgr. T. Spreiter.

Non-Catholic Missions.—There are very few of these in the French Congo. We may mention the two missions of Ogowe, formerly held by the American Presbyterians, and now by the Paris Evangelical Missions. Quite recently a Swedish mission has been established in Loango. In Portuguese Congo, the Methodists have nine missions. Six missionary societies devote themselves to the evangelization of German East Africa, viz: the Evangelical Missionary Society for German East Africa, the Pagan Missionary Society, the Community of Brothers, and the Evangelical Missionary Society of Leipzig; and two English, viz.: the Universities Mission to Central Africa and the Church Missionary Society. In the Congo Independent State there are many Protestant Missions. The longest established is the English Baptist Missionary Society, Lower Congo (1877). In 1879 there followed the Livingstone Inland Mission; Lutheran Svenska or Swedish Mission (1883); Bishop Taylor’s Self-Supporting Mission (1886); Congo Balolo Mission (1889); International Missionary Alliance (1889); American Southern Presbyterian Mission (1891); Arnot Scotch Presbyterian Mission (1891); Seventh Day Baptist (1893). In 1897 there were 56 stations with 221 mission workers of both sexes.

THE NATIVES

The irreligion and ignorance of the Congolese have often been exaggerated and misrepresented. They are not so debased as many pretend. They recognize a supreme God, Creator of all things, but they seem very largely to ignore His immediate Providence and His interventions in the affairs of this world. They believe in the existence of spirits, and admit to a metempsychosis more or less happy in a future life. Their worship is a species of gross fetishism, propagated by the sorcerers, whose influence is very great and often most pernicious. These sorcerers are the “wise men” of the Congo; they are consulted about everything. If misfortune comes or crime is committed, it is to them that recourse must be had, and whoever is designated by them as the cause of the evil must pass through the test of fire or of casque (poison drink). The State forbids such tests under most severe penalties. Superstitious fears and slavish attachments to amulets are the chief obstacles to conversion. Others are the practice of polygamy, largely due to the custom which prevents the wife from having any relations with her husband during the period of lactation—from two to three years—lest she should make her child unhappy; the cannibalism which exists in certain parts; ingrained habits of idleness; gross egoism; the worship of might as confounded with right—in short that sum of differences which separates, as by an abyss, the essentially pagan soul of the Congolese from the Christian conception of right and wrong which the missioners try to impart. The excesses and the evil example of the Europeans themselves render the missionary’s even more difficult. Add to this the abuse which, in the district where the rubber trade flourishes, or in the neighbourhood of towns, imposes a hard task of from fifteen to twenty days per month of forced labour instead of the forty hours fixed by the law; the unfortunate division between the Christian churches and the acts of petty opposition consequent thereon—and the problem is still further complicated. Nor is all ended when the Congolese is converted; he must be continually urged to hold fast to the gift he has received, for his fickleness is very great. Often he imagines that his obligation to remain a Christian ceases with the contract which binds him to a mission or to the service of Europeans. In the eastern part of Upper Congo the Arabs, who frequently make slave raids, have managed to win over to their religion many of the intelligent tribes of the Bakusus. These proselytes regard all their workmen as slaves for life; they are immoral, fanatic, and very hostile to the Gospel.

The noble work of evangelization in the Congo, however, is far from being fruitless. As formerly under the Portuguese rule, so today the missionaries find souls in which their teaching takes firm root. Mgr. Augougard gives the example of a catechist of the tribe of Babois who, seeing the resources of the mission failing, undertook to feed and clothe the children of his school with the profits of his sewing-machine. The most intelligent part of the population inhabits the Domaine de la Couronne and is well disposed toward Christianity. Until 1908 these people were shut off from all immediate missionary influence; they were evangelized, however, by some of their countrymen who had become Christians while serving in the army. Many travelled long distances to see and speak with Catholic missionaries, and both men and women, nothing daunted, undertook perilous journeys in order to reach the missionary stations. It is not surprising therefore that the missionaries have been received everywhere with enthusiasm, and that the natives have offered to build their simple habitations and schools.

THE MANNER OF EVANGELIZING

Guided by experience, the present missionaries confer baptism only on those who have been well-instructed and well-tested. Their chief reliance is placed on the education of the young. Hence in the stations they have founded schools where religion is taught along with the trades. For the Catholics it is the religious, both men and women, who have devoted themselves to this work; among the Protestants, Mrs. Bentley deserves the highest praise for the intelligent direction she has given to the trade instruction. The fermes-chapelles, of which mention is often made, are rural schools where, under the guidance of certain picked pupils, the young Congolese are taught agriculture. The missionary who regularly visits these posts supplies the farm implements and the seeds; the chief who grants the use of his plot of ground still retains his title to the property; while the pupils, who form a sort of community around a little chapel, have the usufruct. A wise law of the State places at the disposal of charitable and philanthropic institutions the orphans and abandoned children, who are very numerous in the Congo. Hitherto the Catholics (with the exception of one Protestant mission) have been the only missioners to claim them. The catechists render very valuable service to the missionaries; they are always selected from among the cleverest and best trained of the young native Christians. The sleeping-sickness has given rise to several hospitals, or lazarettes, conducted by the missionaries. Both Protestant and Catholic missions have established printing presses; that of the Catholics is at Kisantu. To facilitate transportation the Protestants have four steamers, and the Catholics two. In respect to the relations between the missions and the civil power we may cite the convention concluded May, 1906, between the Holy See and the State. The latter agreed to grant certain lands to the missions, in return for which it stipulated for the opening and maintenance of schools and religious services in the principle centres. Both agreed to maintain harmony between their respective subjects, and to regulate amicably all differences. In 1907 the White Fathers possessed a school for catechists with 73 pupils, a petit séminaire with 14 pupils, and a grand séminaire with one pupil. The resources of the Catholic missionaries are mostly derived from private charity. Many Protestant missions are every richly endowed.

I-VII.—FOR THE HISTORY OF THE CONGO BEFORE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE.—PIGAFETTA, Le Congo, La véridique description du royaume Africain, from the Latin ed. of 1598 (Brussels, 1883); CAVAZZI, Historische Beschreibung der in dem unternoccidentalischen Mohrenland legende drei Konigreichen Congo, Mataba und Angola und der jetzigen Apostolichen Missionen, So von denen PP. Capucinen, daselbst verzichtet wurden (München, 1694); MILNE EDWARDS, Investigacões geographicas das portuguezes (Lisbon, 1879); STANLEY, Through the Dark Continent (1879); Idem, The Congo: Its Past History, Present Development, and Future Commercial Prospects (1884); Idem, England and the Congo and Manchester Trade, and the Works and Aims of the International Association (Manchester, 1884); Idem, Cinq années au Congo (Fr. tr. GERARD, Brussels, 1886); de SANTOS e SILVA, Esbaco historico da Congo e Loanau nos tempos modernos. Contenda uma resenha das costumes e vocabulario dos indigenos Cabinda (Lisbon, 1888); WERNER, A Visit to Stanley’s Rear-Guard at Major Bartley’s camp on the Aruhwini, with an Account of River Life on the Congo (London, 1889); LIVINGSTONE, Missionary Travels and Researchers in South Africa, including a Sketch of Sixteen Years Residence in the Interior of Africa (London); HORE, Tanganyka, Eleven Years in Central Africa (London, 1892); JUNKER, Travels in Africa, tr. by Keene (London, 1890, 1892); Glave, Six Years of Adventure in Congoland, preface by STANLEY (London, 1893); STANLEY, In Darkest Africa (1890).

SINCE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INDEPENDENT STATE.—(a) Impartial:—WAUTERS, Resumé des principaux faits de l’histoire de l’oeuvre africaine (Brussels, 1878–87); Alexis, Le Congo Belge illustré ou l’Etat Indépendant du Congo (Liège, 1892); LALLEMAND, L’oeuvre Congolaise. Esquisse historique et geographique (Brussels, 1897); Etudes ethnologiques et ethnographiques sur les populations du Congo. Questionnaire ethnographique, published by the Museum of the Independent State (Brussels, 1898); Questionnaire ethnographique et sociologique, published by the Museum of the Indep. State (Brussels, 1898); MILLE, Au Congo Belge, avec des notes et des documents récents relatifs au Congo Français (Paris, 1899); PHILIPS, An Account of the Congo Independent State (Philadelphia, 1899); BLANCHARD, Formation et constitution l’Etat Indépendant du Congo (Paris, 1899); WAUTERS L’Etat Indépendant du Congo (Brussels, 1899); Manuel du voyaguer et du résident au Congo, rédigé sous la direction du Colonel Donny (Brussels, 1900); SPEYER, Comment nous gouvernerons le Congo (Brussels, 1902); VERMEERSCH, La Question Congolaise; Les destinées du Congo Belge (Brussels, 1906); LOUWERS, Eléments du droit de l’Etat Indépendant du Congo; BOULGER, The Congo State, or the Growth of Civilization in Central Africa (Londom, 1898); CATTIER, Droit et administration de l’Etat Indépendant du Congo (Brussels, 1898); Bulletin officiel de l’Etat Indépendant du Congo; Rapport au Roi Souverain (June, 1906); Rapport de la Commission d’enquête (Oct., 1905); MAC DOUNEL, King Leopold II (London, 1905); GEIL, A Yankee in Pygmyland (LONDON, 1905); Etat Indépendant du Congo. Département de l’Intérieur. Recuil administratif (Brussels, 1907); STARR, The Truth about the Congo (Chicago, 1907).

(b) Favourable to the State:—DROOGMANS, Le Congo. 4 Conférences publiques (Brussels, 1894); L’Etat Indépendant du Congo à l’exposition de Bruxelles—Tervueren (1897); GILSON, GOFFERT, etc., L’oeuvre coloniale du roi en Afrique, résultats de 20 ans (Brussels, 1898); GOFFART, Traité méthodique de géographie du Congo, etc. (Antwerp, 1898). The reviews: La Belgique Coloniale; La Belgique Maritime, et Coloniale; Le Congo Belge (Brussels. See also NYS, The Independent State of the Congo and the International Law (Brussels, 1903); DESCHAMPS, New Africa (London, 1903); La Vérité sur le Congo (Brussels, 1902–06); WACK, The Story of the Congo Free State (New York, 1905); Histoire militaire du Congo (Brussels, 1906); CASTELEIN, L’Etat du Congo (1907).

(c) Rather Hostile:—ETIENNE, Le Congo et l’acte général de Berlin in Revue Politique, XXXVIII; MOREL, Affairs of West Africa (London, 1902); MARK TWAIN, King Leopold’s Soliloquy; A Defense of His Congo Rule (Boston, 1905); BOURNE, Civilisation in Congoland (London, 1903); MILLE, Le Congo Léopoldien (Paris, 1906); CATTIER, Etude sur le situation de l’Etat Indépendant du Congo (Brussels); MOREL, Red Rubber: The Story of the Red Rubber Slave Trade Flourishing in the Year of Grace, 1906 (London, 1906).

VIII.—FOR MISSIONS: BENTLEY, Pioneering on the Congo (London, 1900); de PIERPONT, Au Congo et aux Indes (Brussels, 1906); de DEKKEN, Deux and au Congo (1900); BETHUNE, Les missions cath. d’Afrique (1889); NAYZAN, Fetishism in West Africa (London, 1904); Les missions cath. d’Afrique; Dark Africa and the Way Out; A Scheme for Civilizing and Evangelizing the Dark Continent (London, 1902); BURCKHARDT, Les missions évangéliques (Lausanne, 1888); BAESTEN, Les jésuites au Congo (1548–1759) in Précis historiques (Brussels, 1892, 1893, 1895, 1896); Missions catholiques du Congo. Aperçu sur certaines questions traitées dans la réunion tenue à Leopoldville en Fév, 1907 (Kisantu); Missiones catholicae curâ S. Congregationis de Prop. Fidei descriptae (Rome, 1907); VAN STRAELEN, Missions cath. et protest. au Congo (Brussels, 1898); See also the reviews: Les Missions belges (Brussels, 1898—); Missions en chine et au Congo (Scheut-lez-Bruxelles, 1898—); Le mouvement des missions cath. au Congo (Brussels, 1888—).

A. VERMEERSCH.

Congregatio de Auxiliis

A commission established by Pope Clement VIII to settle the theological controversy regarding grace which arose between the Dominicans and the Jesuits towards the close of the sixteenth century. Vast as was the subject of that controversy, its principle question, and the one that gave its name to the whole dispute, concerned the help (auxilia) afforded by grace; while the crucial point was the reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom. We know on the one hand that the efficacious grace given for the performance of an action obtains, infallibly, man’s consent and that action takes place. On the other hand it is certain that in so acting, man is free. Hence the question: How can these two things—the infallible result and liberty—be harmonized? The Dominicans solved the difficulty by their theory of physical premotion and predetermination; grace is efficacious when, in addition to the assistance necessary for an action, it gives a physical impulsion by means of which God determines and applies our faculties to the action. The Jesuits found the explanation in that mediate knowledge (scientia media) whereby God knows, in the objective reality of things what a man, in any circumstances in which he might be placed, would do. Foreseeing, for instance, that a man would correspond freely with grace A, and that he, freely, would not correspond with grace B, God, desirous of man’s conversion, gives him grace A. This is efficacious grace. The Dominicans declared that the Jesuits conceded too much to free will, and so tended toward Pelagianism. In turn, the Jesuits complained that the Dominicans did not sufficiently safeguard human liberty, and seemed in consequence to lean towards Calvinism.

The controversy is usually supposed to have begun in the year 1581, when the Jesuit Prudencio de Montemayor defended certain theses on grace which were vigorously attacked by the Dominican Domingo Baûez. That this debate took place is certain, but the text of the Jesuit’s these have never been published. As to those which were reported to the Inquisition, neither Montemayer nor any other Jesuit ever acknowledged them as his. The controversy went on for six years, passing through three phases—in Louvain, in Spain, and in Rome. At Louvain was the famous Michel Baius, whose propositions were condemned by the Church. The Jesuit (afterwards Cardinal) Francisco de Toledo, authorized by Gregory XIII, had obliged Baius, in 1580, to retract his errors in presence of the entire university. Baius thereupon conceived a deep aversion for the Jesuits and determined to have revenge. During the Lent of 1597, he, with some of his colleagues, extracted from the notebooks of certain students who were disciples of the Jesuits, thirty-four propositions, many of them plainly erroneous, and asked the university to condemn “these Jesuit doctrines.” Learning of this scheme, Leonard Lessius, the most distinguished theologian of the Society in the Low Countries and the special object of Baius’ attacks, drew up another list of thirty-four propositions containing the genuine doctrine of the Jesuits, presented them to the dean of the university, and asked for a hearing before some of the professors, in order to show how different his teaching was from that which was ascribed to him. The request was not granted. The university published, 9 September, 1587, a condemnation of the first thirty-four propositions. At once, throughout Belgium, the Jesuits were called heretics and Lutherans. The university urged the bishop of the Low Countries and the other universities to endorse the censure, and this in fact was done by some of the prelates and in particular the University of Douai. In view of these measures, the Belgian provincial of the Society, Francis Coster, issued a protest against the action of those who, without letting the Jesuits be heard, accused them of heresy. Lessius also published a statement to the effect that the university professors had misrepresented the Jesuit doctrine. The professors replied with warmth. To clear up the issues Lessius, at the insistence of the Archbishop of Mechlin, formulated six antitheses, or brief statements, embodying the doctrine of the Jesuits relative to the matter of the condemned propositions, the third and fourth antithesis bearing upon the main problem, i.e., efficacious grace. The discussion was kept up on both sides for a year longer, until the papal nuncio succeeded in softening its asperities. He reminded the contestants that definitive judgment in such matters belonged to the Holy see and he forwarded to Sixtus V the principal publications of both parties with a petition for a final decision. This however, was not rendered; a controversy on the same lines had been started at Salamanca, and attention now centered on Spain, where the two discussions were merged into one.

In 1588 the Spanish Jesuit Luis de Molina published at Lisbon his “Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiæ donis,” in which he explained efficacious grace on the basis of scientia media. Baûez, the Dominican professor at Salamanca, informed the Archduke Albert, Viceroy of Portugal, that the work contained certainly thirteen provisions which the Spanish Inquisition had censured. The archduke forbade the sale of the book and sent a copy to Salamanca. Baûez examined it and reported to the archduke that out of the thirteen propositions nine were held by Molina and that in consequence the book ought not to be circulated. He also noted the passages which, as he thought, contained the errors. Albert referred his comments to Molina who drew up the rejoinder. As the book had been approved by the Inquisition in Portugal, and its sale permitted by the Councils of Portugal and of Castille and Aragon it was thought proper to print at the end the replies of Molina; with these the work appeared in 1589. The Dominicans attacked it on the grounds that Molina and all the Jesuits denied efficacious grace. The latter replied that such a denial was impossible on the part of any Catholic. What they, the Jesuits, attacked, was the Dominican theory of predetermination, which they regarded as inc ompatible with human freedom. The debates continued for five years and, in 1594, became public and turbulent at Valladolid, where Antonio de Padilla, S.J., and Diego Nuûo, O.P., defended their respective positions. Similar encounters took place at Salamanca, Saragossa, Cordova, and other Spanish cities. In view of the disturbances thus created, Clement VIII took the matter into his own hands and ordered both parties to refrain from further discussion and await the decision of the Apostolic See.

The pope then asked an expression of opinion from various universities and distinguished theologians of Spain. Between 1594 and 1597 twelve reports were submitted; by the three universities of Salamanca, Alcalç, and Sigüenza; by the bishops of Coria, Sigovia, Plasencia, Cartagena and Mondoñedo, by Serra, Miguel Salon (Augustinian Friar), Castro (Canon of Toledo), and Luis Coloma, Prior of the Augustinians at Valladolid. There were also forwarded to Rome some statements in explanation and defense of the Jesuit and of the Dominican theory. Clement VIII appointed a commission under the presidency of Cardinals Madrucci and Aragone, which began its labours 2 Jan., 1598, and on 19 March handed in the result condemning Molina’s book. Displeased at their haste in treating a question of such importance, the pope ordered them to go over the work again, keeping in view the documents sent from Spain. Though the examination of these would have required several years, the commission reported again in November and insisted on the condemnation of Molina. Thereupon Clement VIII ordered the generals of the Dominicans and the Jesuits, respectively, to appear with some of their theologians before the commission, explain their doctrines, and settle their differences. In obedience to this command both general began (22 February, 1599) before the commission a series of conferences which lasted through that year. Bellarmine, created cardinal in March, was admitted to the sessions. Little, however, was accomplished, the Dominicans aiming at criticism of Molina rather than exposition of their own views. The death of Cardinal Madrucci interrupted these conferences, and Clement VIII, seeing that no solution was to be reached on these lines, determined to have the matter discussed in his presence. At the first debate, 19 March, 1602, the pope presided, with Cardinal Borghese (later Paul V) and Arragone assisting, as well as the members of the former commission and various theologians summoned by the pope. Sixty-eight sessions were thus held (1602–1605).

Clement VIII died 5 March, 1605, and after the brief reign of Leo IX, Paul V ascended the papal throne. In his presence seventeen debates took place. The Dominicans were represented by Diego Alvarez and Tomçs de Lemos; the Jesuits by Gregoria de Valencia, Pedro de Arrubal, Fernando de Bastida and Juan de Salas. Finally, after twenty years of discussion public and private, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes. The pope’s decree communicated (5 September, 1607) to both Dominicans and Jesuits, allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, and commanded them to await, as loyal sons of the Church, the final decision of the Apostolic See. That decision, however, has not been reached, and both orders, consequently, maintain their respective theories, just as any other theological opinion is held. The long controversy has aroused considerable feeling, and the pope, aiming at the restoration of peace and charity between the religious orders, forbade by a decree of the Inquisition (1 December, 1611) the publication of any book concerning efficacious grace until further action by the Holy See. The prohibition remained in force during the greater part of the seventeenth century. (See also Augustine of Hippo; Baius; Baûez; Grace, Controversies on; Molina; Thomism.)

Aug. Leblanc (pseudon. of Hyacinthe Serry, O.P.), Historia Congregationum de auxiliis divinæ gratiæ sub Summis Pontificibus Clement VIII et Paulo V (Louvain, 1700); Theodorus Eleutherius (pseudon. of Livinius de Meyer, S.J.), Historia controversarium de divinæ gratiæ auxiliis sub Summis Pontificibus Clement VIII et Paulo V (Venice, 1742); Schneeman, Die Entstehung u. weitere Entwicklung der thomischtisch-molinistischen Controverse (Freiburg, 1789; also in Latin, tr. Freiburg, 1881); de Régnon, Baûez et Molina (Paris, 1883); Billuart, Le thomisme triomphant; Apologie du thomisme triomphant (Liege, 1731); Gaurad, Thomisme et Molinisme (Toulouse, 1890); Dummermuth, S. Thomas et doctrina praemotionis physicæ (Paris, 1886); Frins, S. Thomæ Aquin. doctrina de cooperatione Dei (Paris, 1892); Dummermuth, Defensio doctinæ S. Thomæ, a reply to Frins (Louvain 1895).

ANTONIO ASTRAIN.

Congregationalism

The retention by the Anglican State Church of the prelatical form of government and of many Catholic rites and ceremonies offensive to genuine Protestants resulted in the formation of innumerable Puritan factions, with varying degrees of radicalism. The violent measures adopted by Elizabeth and the Stuarts to enforce conformity caused the more timid and moderate of the Puritans to remain in communion with the State Church, though keeping up to the present day an incessant protest against “popish tendencies”; but the more advanced and daring of their leaders began to perceive that there was no place for them in a Church governed by a hierarchy and enslaved to the civil power. To many of them, Geneva was the realization of Christ’s kingdom on earth, and, influenced by the example of neighbouring Scotland, they began to form churches on the model of Presbyterianism (q.v.). Many, however, who had withdrawn from the “tyranny” of the episcopate, were loath to submit to the dominion of presbyteries and formed themselves into religious communities acknowledging “no head, priest, prophet or king save Christ.” These dissenters were known as “Independents” and in spite of fines, imprisonments, and the execution of at least five of their leaders, they increased steadily in numbers and influence, until they played a conspicuous part in the revolution that cost Charles I his crown and life. The earliest literary exponent of Independence was Robert Brown, from whom the dissenters were nicknamed Brownists. Brown was born in 1550, of a good family, in Rutlandshire, and studied at Cambridge. About 1580 he began to circulate pamphlets in which the State Church was denounced in unmeasured terms and the duty was inculcated of separating from communion with it. The godly were not to look to the State for the reform of the Church; they must set about it themselves on the Apostolic model. Brown defines the Church as a “company or number of Christians or believers, who, by a willing covenant made with their God, are under the government of God and Christ, and keep his laws in one holy communion.” This new gospel attracted numerous adherents. A congregation was formed in Norwich which grew rapidly. Summoned before the bishop’s court, Brown escaped the consequences of his zeal through the intervention of his powerful relation, Lord Burghley, and, with his followers, migrated to Holland, the common refuge of the persecuted reformers of all Europe. The Netherlands were soon flooded with refugees from England, and large congregations were established in the principal cities. The most flourishing Independent Church was that of Leyden under the direction of John Robinson. It was to this congregation that the “Pilgrim Fathers” belonged, who in 1620 set sail in the Mayflower for the New World.

The successful establishment of the New England colonies was an event of the utmost importance in the development of Congregationalism, a term preferred by the American Puritans to Independency and gradually adopted by their coreligionists in Great Britain. Not only was a safe haven now opened to the fugitives from persecution, but the example of orderly communities based entirely on congregational principles, “without pope, prelate, presbytery, prince or parliament,” was a complete refutation of the charge advanced by Anglicans and Presbyterians that Independency meant anarchy and chaos, civil and religious. In the Massachusetts settlements, “the New England way,” as it was termed, developed, not indeed without strifes and dissensions, but without external molestation. They formed, from the Puritan standpoint, the veritable kingdom of the saints; and the slightest expression of dissent from the Gospel was punished by the ministers was punished with scourging, exile, and even death. The importance of stamping out Nonconformity in the American colonies did not escape the vigilance of Archbishop Laud; he had concerted measures with Charles I for imposing the episcopacy upon them, when war broke out between the king and the Parliament. During the Civil War in England, though few in number compared with the Presbyterians, they grew in importance through the ability of their leaders, notably of Oliver Cromwell who gained for them the ascendency in the army and the Commonwealth. In the Westminster Assembly convened by the Long Parliament in 1643, Independency was ably represented by five ministers, Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, Jeremiah Burroughs, William Bridge and Sidrach Simpson, known as “The Five Dissenting Brethren,” and ten or eleven laymen. They all took a prominent part in the debates of the Assembly, pleading strongly for toleration at the hands of the Presbyterian majority. They adopted the doctrinal articles of the Westminster Confession with slight modifications; but as there could be no basis of agreement between them and the Presbyterians regarding church government, a meeting of “elders and messengers” of “the Congregational churches” was held at the Savoy in 1658 and drew up the famous “Savoy Declaration,” which was also accepted in New England and long remained as authoritative as such a document could be in a denomination which, theoretically, rejected all authority. From this Declaration we obtain a clear idea of the Congregationalist notion of the Church.

The elect are called individually by the Lord, but “those thus called (through the ministry of the word by His Spirit) he commandeth to walk together in particular Societies or Churches, for their mutual edification and the due performance of that Public Worship which He requireth of them in this world.” Each of these particular churches is the Church in the full sense of the term and is not subject to any outside jurisdiction. The officers of the church, pastors, teachers, elders, and deacons, are “chosen by the common suffrage of the church itself, and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of that church, if there be any before constituted therein”; the essence of the call consists in election by the Church. To preserve harmony, no person ought to be added to the Church without the consent of the Church itself. The Church has power to admonish and excommunicate disorderly members, but this power of censure “is to be exercised only towards particular members of each church as such.” “In case of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or administration, wherein either the churches in general are concerned, or any one church, in their peace, union, and edification, or any member or members of any church are injured in or by any proceeding in censures not agreeable to truth and order, it is according to the mind of Christ that many churches holding one communion together do by their messengers meet in a Synod or Council to consider and give their advice in or about that matter in difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned: Howbeit, these Synods so assembled are not entrusted with any church power properly so called, or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures, either over any churches or persons, or to impose their determination on the churches or officers.” If any person, for specified reasons, be dissatisfied with his church, “he, consulting with the church, or the officer or officers thereof, may peaceably depart from the communion of the church wherewith he hath so walked, to join himself to some other church.” Finally it is stated that “churches gathered and walking according to the mind of Christ, judging other churches (though less pure) to be true churches, may receive unto occasional communion with them such members of these churches as are credibly testified to be godly and to live without offense.”

Such are the main principles of Congregationalism regarding the constitution of the church; in doctrine the Congregational teachers were, for the most part, strictly Calvinistic. Independent ascendency came to an abrupt close at the death of Cromwell and the restoration of Charles II. The Presbyterians, who had seated the Stuart on his throne, might hope for his favour; there was slight prospect that he would tolerate the democratic tenets of Congregationalism. As a matter of fact Charles and his servile parliament persecuted both forms of dissent. A succession of severe edicts, the Corporation Act, 1661, the Act of Uniformity, 1662, the Conventicle Act, 1663, renewed, 1670, the Five-Mile Act, 1665, and the Test Act, 1673, made existence almost impossible to Nonconformists of all shades of belief. Yet in spite of persecution, they held out until the eighteenth century brought toleration and finally freedom. It is characteristic of the Puritans that, notwithstanding the sufferings they had undergone they spurned the indulgence offered by James II, because it tolerated popery; in fact, they were more zealous than the rest of the nation in driving James from the throne. The exclusion of Dissenters from the British universities created a serious problem for the Congregationalists as well as for the Catholics; to the sacrifices which these and other denominations out of communion with the State Church made for the maintenance of academies and colleges conducted according to their respective principles, England, like America, owes that great boon so essential to the well-being of civilized nations, freedom of education. During the eighteenth century, while the clergy of the Established Church, educated and maintained by the State, were notoriously incapable and apathetic, whatever there was of spiritual energy in the nation emanated from the denominational colleges.

CONGREGATIONAL UNIONS

The Congregational churches were at their best while the pressure of persecution served to cement them; this removed, the absence of organization left them an easy prey to the inroads of rationalism and infidelity. Before the end of the eighteenth century many of them lapsed into Unitarianism, alike in England and America. A new problem was thus forced upon them, viz. how to maintain the unity of the denomination without consciously violating their fundamental doctrine of the entire independence of each particular church. “A Congregational Union of England and Wales,” formed in 1833 and revised in 1871, issued a “Declaration of the Faith, Church Order, and Discipline of the Congregational or Independent Dissenters,” and provided for annual meetings and a president who should hold office for a year. American Congregationalism has always been of a more organic character. While persisting in emphasizing the complete independence of particular churches, it has made ample provision, at the expense of consistency, for holding the denomination together. No minister is admitted except upon approval of the clerical “association” to which he must belong. To be acknowledged as Congregationalist, a new community must be received into fellowship by the churches of its district. Should a church fall into serious error, or tolerate and uphold notorious scandals, the other churches may withdraw their fellowship, and it ceases to be recognized as Congregationalist. If a minister is found guilty of gross heresy or evil life, a council summoned to examine his case may, if necessary, withdraw from him the fellowship of the churches. The statements of Henry M. Dexter, D.D., the historian of his sect (“American Encyclopedia,” s.v. “Congregationalism”), prove that there is a marked contrast between Congregational theory and practice. The Congregationalists have been very active in home and foreign mission work and possess eight theological seminaries in the United States, viz. Andover, Massachusetts; Atlanta, Georgia; Bangor, Maine; New Haven and Hartford, Connecticut; Oberlin, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois; and the Pacific, Berkeley, California. Since 1871 national councils, composed of delegates from all the States of the Union, are convened every third year. “The Congregational Handbook for 1907” gives the following statistics of the denomination in America: Churches 5931; ministers 5933; members 668,736. Included in this count are Cuba with 6 ministers and 636 members and Porto Rico with 3 ministers and 50 members. In England and Wales the statistics for 1907 were: sittings 1,801,447; communicants 498,953; ministers 3197; local preachers 5603. The efforts made in recent years to find a basis for some kind of corporate union between the Congregationalists, the Methodist Protestants, and the United Brethren in Christ have not been successful.

Walker, A History of the Congregational Churches in the United States (New York, 1894); Idem, The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism (ibid., 1893); Dexter, The Congregationalism of the last 300 years, as seen in its Literature (ibid., 1880). Each of these works contains a good bibliography.

J.F. LOUGHLIN

Congregational Singing

In his Instruction on sacred music, commonly referred to as the Motu Proprio (22 Nov., 1903), Pius X says (no. 3): “Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of Gregorian chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times.” These words suggest a brief treatment of congregational singing with respect to (a) its ancient use, (b) its formal prohibition and gradual decay, (c) its present-day revival, (d) the character which that revival may assume.

(a) The first testimony is found in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians (v, 19): “Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual canticles, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord.” Cardinal Bona finds in these words a witness to the fact that “from the very beginnings of the Church, psalms and hymns were sung in the assembly of the faithful,” and understands them to refer to an alternated chant (mutuo et alterno cantu). McEvilly in his “Commentary” applies them to public and private meetings. St Augustine (Ep. cxix, ch. xviii) says: “As to the singing of psalms and hymns, we have the proofs, the examples, and the instructions of the Lord Himself, and of the Apostles.” (Cf. also Col., iii, 16; I Cor., xiv, 26.) In the ancient congregational singing both sexes took part; the words of St. Paul imposing silence on women in church being interpreted to refer only to exhorting or instructing. Duchesne describes how the earliest worship of the Christians was parallel to that, not of the Temple of the Jews at Jerusalem, but of the local synagogues, the Christians borrowing thence their four elements of Divine service-the lections, the chants (of the Psalter), the homilies, and the prayers. In treating of the Syrian Liturgy of the fourth century, he makes up a composite picture from the 23rd catechetical discourse of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (about the year 347), the Apostolic Constitutions (II, 57; VIII, 5–15), and the homilies of St. John Chrysostom, and describes the Divine service (Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution, London, 1903, p. 57–64), and incidentally shows the part the congregation took in the singing.

(b) A council held at Laodicea in the fourth century decreed (can. xv), that “besides the appointed singers who mount the ambo and sing from the book, others shall not sing in the Church.” Cardinal Bona (Rerum Liturg., Bk. I, ch. xxv, sec. 19) explains that this canon was issued because the unskillful singing of the people interfered with the decorous performance of the chant. The decree was not accepted everywhere, as Bona shows. With respect to France, he also remarks that the custom of popular (congregational) song ceased a few years after Caesarius; for the Second Synod of Tours decreed “that the laity, whether in vigils or at Masses, should not presume to stand with the clergy near the altar whereon the Sacred Mysteries are celebrated, and that the chancel should be reserved to the choirs of singing clerics.” Hereupon Sala notes (no. 4) that “this custom still obtains, nevertheless, in the Eastern Church; and in many places in the Western Church, very remote from cities, and therefore tenacious of older customs and less influenced by newer ones, the people learn the ecclesiastical chant and sing it together with the clergy.” Many causes, doubtless, combined to bring about the present lamentable silence of our congregations, amongst which the most prominent was probably the one mentioned by Bona as having occasioned the decree of the Council of Laodicea. That the cause was not, as Dickinson thinks, “the steady progress of ritualism and the growth of sacerdotal ideas,” which “inevitably deprived the people of all initiative in the worship, and concentrated the offices of public devotion, including that of song, in the hands of the clergy” (Music in the History of the Western Church, New York, 1902, p. 48), may be inferred from the efforts of ecclesiastical authority to revive the older custom of congregational singing, as well be seen under (c).

(c) The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (1866) expressed (no. 380) its earnest wish that the rudiments of Gregorian chant should be taught in the parish schools, in order that “the number of those who can sing the chant well having increased more and more, gradually the greater part, at least, of the people should, after the fashion still existing in some places of the Primitive Church, learn to sing Vespers and the like together with the sacred ministers and the choir.” The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884) repeats (no. 119) the words of the Second Council, prefacing them with denuo confirmemus.

(d) The words of the quoted councils and of the pope imply a restoration of congregational singing through instruction in Gregorian chant, and therefore clearly refer to the strictly liturgical offices such as solemn or high Mass, Vespers, Benediction (after the Tantum Ergo has begun). Congregational singing at low Mass and at other services in the church, not strictly “liturgical” in ceremonial character, has always obtained, more or less, in our churches. With respect to the strictly liturgical services, it is to be hoped that the congregation may be instructed sufficiently to sing, besides the responses to the celebrant (especially those of the Preface), the ordinary (i.e. the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Benedictus, Agnus Dei) of the Mass in plain chant; leaving the Introit, Gradual or Tract, sequence (if there be one), Offertory, and Communion to the choir; the Psalms and hymns at Vespers, leaving the antiphons to the choir. The singing might well be made to alternate between congregation and choir. Perosi made a strong plea to the musical congress of Padua (June, 1907) for such congregational singing of the Credo (cf. Civilta Cattolica, 6 July, 1907). (See CHOIR; MUSIC; SINGING, CHORAL.)

WAGNER, Origine et Developpement du Chant Liturgigue, tr. BOUR (Tournai, 1904). 14 sqq. Gives a good summary of the history of the earliest congregational singing. Two articles in the American Ecclesiastical Review (July, 1892, 19–29, and August, 1892, 120–133) give history, references, limits of vernacular singing, and methods of training. See also Manual Church Music (quarterly) (December, 1905), 21–33 for methods; also DICKINSON, Music in the History of the Western Church, 223, 242, 376 for congregational singing in Protestant churches.

H.T. HENRY

Catholic Congresses

One of the remarkable and important manifestations of the social and religious life of the present day are gatherings of Catholics in general public conferences. This is the case both when these assemblies consist of delegates representing the entire Catholic population of a country or nation meeting to express opinions concerning matters close to its heart; or when they consist simply of the members of some one Catholic association who have come together for the advancement of the particular aims of the society. Taken collectively, these congresses prove that the life of the Catholic Church of the present day is not confined to Church devotions; that not merely individual classes and circles, but all Catholics, men of every rank and of every degree of culture, of all callings, all ages, and of all nations have been quickened to an unheard-of extent by the ecclesiastical movement of the nineteenth century, and gladly co-operate with it. This movement in Catholic life has been made possible by the development of travelling facilities, the multiplication of social interests, and also by the political freedom of modern nations. But Catholics would probably not have made use of these aids in such large measure if they had not been stirred up by extraordinary zeal.

I. HISTORY

The first large Congress was held by the Catholics of Germany. In the year of political revolutions, 1848, they founded throughout Germany local Catholic associations, called “Piusvereine” after Pope Pius IX, the Catholics of Mainz taking the lead. Their object was to stimulate Catholics to make use of the favourable moment to free the Church from dependence on the State. In accordance with an agreement made by a number of distinguished Catholics at the festivities held to celebrate the completion of a portion of the cathedral of Cologne, August, 1848, these associations met in convention at Mainz, 3–6 October of the same year. In the neighbouring city of Frankfort the German Diet was in session. Only a few weeks before, this body had decided to separate the schools from the Church, in spite of the opposing votes of the Catholic deputies, and had filled the Catholic people with a deep distrust of the Frankfort Assembly. A large part of the Catholic members of the Diet went to Mainz, and expressed their views, thus directing widespread attention to the convention and arousing the enthusiasm of its members, which reached its highest pitch when one of the deputies, Wilhelm Emanuel von Ketteler, the parish priest of Hopsten, arose and urged the Congress to give their attention to social as well as religious questions. Thenceforth the General German Catholic Congresses had a distinctive character impressed upon them. It became their mission to prove and intensify the devotion of German Catholics to their Church, to defend the rights of the Church and the liberties of Catholics as citizens, to preserve the Christian character of the schools, and to further the Christian spirit in society. At first the congress met semi-annually; after 1850, it met annually in a German or Austrian city. From the start it regarded the development of German Catholic societies into a power in national affairs as one of the most important means of gaining its ends. Consequently the Congress gave its attention not only to the “Piusvereine” but also interested itself in all other Catholic societies, e. g. the St. Vincent de Paul Conferences, the Gesellenvereine (journeymen’s unions), the reading-circles, the students’ corps, etc., and also encouraged the founding of important new associations, such as the societies in aid of German emigrants, the St. Boniface Association, the St. Augustine Association for the development of the Catholic press, and others. The end sought was to combine the general assemblies of as many of these societies as possible with that of the “Piusvereine,” or to secure their convening at the same time and place. Thus the Catholic Congress became in a few years and is still an annual general meeting for the majority of German Catholic societies. This appears from the programme of every German Catholic Congress. As long as the Catholic Congress was principally a representative general meeting of Catholic societies, its proceedings were chiefly discussions and debates and the number of those who attended was relatively small. This was the case in the first decade of its existence. Still even at this time one or more public mass-meetings were held at each Congress, in order to arouse the interest of the Catholic population of the place of assembly and its vicinity. The most celebrated address of the first decade was made in 1849 at Ratisbon by Dollinger on the “Independence of the Church.” The most important of the early German Catholic Congresses was the session held at Vienna, 1853.

Owing to epidemics and political difficulties up to 1858 the congress met irregularly and the attendance decreased so that its future appeared doubtful. After 1858, however, the congress rose again in importance while at the same time its character gradually changed. It became a general assembly of German Catholics, and the attendance greatly increased. In these changed conditions the public sessions devoted to oratorical addresses from distinguished speakers as well as the private sessions for deliberation grew in importance. In these years Catholic Germany could boast of several very eloquent orators, the best among whom were Moufang, Heinrich, and Haffner, theologians of Mainz, and after these Lindau, a merchant of Heidelberg. The participation by the Catholic nobility in the meetings made them socially more impressive. The most striking speech of this period was made at Aachen in 1862 by Moufang on the “Duties of Catholic Men.” Among the subjects debated the school and education aroused the most feeling; in connexion with these great discussions great attention was given, under the guidance of Dr. Hülskamp, editor of “The Literarischer Handweiser,” to the development of the press and popular literature. Since the Frankfort Congress of 1863 the labour question has occupied more and more of the attention of the assembly.

The hope awakened in the hearts of Catholics by the apparently victorious progress of the Catholic movement in Western Europe gave special inspiration to the gatherings of these years. A similar congress was held by the Swiss Catholics; a more important development was the resolve of the Belgian Catholics, instigated by the success of the German Catholic Congress near them at Aachen, to hold Catholic congresses for Belgium and to invite the most distinguished Catholic men of the entire world to participate. The intention was to form a central point for the Catholic movement of Western Europe and to give it a perpetual organization, making it an international movement, so that in the future Catholics of all nations could work together. The chief organizer of the preparatory plans was Ducpétiaux. The first Belgian congress was held at Mechlin, 18–22 August, 1863, and was a great success. The most prominent champions of the Church in Europe attended the Belgian Congresses: Montalembert, Prince Albert de Broglie, Cardinals Wiseman and Manning, the two Reichenspergers (August and Peter) and Kölping, the Abbé Mermillod; representing the United States were Bishop Fitzpatrick, of Boston, and L. Silliman Ives, of New York. Reports on the Catholic life and work of every country were presented: much time was devoted to the discussion of social questions, and decided differences of opinion were expressed. The most brilliant success was achieved by two discourses by Montalembert on “A Free Church in a Free State.” A second congress took place in September of the next year, and the intention was to hold yearly meetings; but already the first clouds of internal conflict among Catholics began to appear. According to their views on political liberalism and modern science, men’s minds drifted apart. Henceforth Catholics could not be gathered together for a common meeting. The only later congress was held at Mechlin in 1867; the Swiss assemblies also ceased after a short time, so that soon the German Catholic Congresses were the only large assemblies of the kind. At the Bamberg Congress, 1868, a standing Central Committee was formed, which gave a permanent form of organization to the German Catholic gathering.

DEVELOPMENT IN FRANCE

Towards the end of the sixties a third period of progressive development began, due to the increasing interest of Catholics in social problems and the growth of the spirit of association among Catholic workmen. In Belgium, in 1867, it was decided to form a union of all workmen’s associations in order to systematize their development and growth. A standing committee was formed, and a first congress was called to meet at Mons in 1871. Its object was to strengthen and aid the movement for organization among workingmen, and at the same time to give it a Christian character and to enable workingmen to make their views and wishes effective. The work grew rapidly in importance; up to 1875 the president was Clément Bivort, and over 50,000 workingmen were connected with it. The most successful congress was that held in 1875 at Mechlin. After this, the organization declined, partly it would seem, because, instead of following purely practical economic ends, under French influence politics were introduced; so much weight was raid on the religious element that social interests did not receive their due, because the members were not agreed as to the intervention of the State in socio-economic activities, and because sufficient consideration was not given to the growing independence of workingmen. A Catholic workingmen’s movement also sprang up in the great German industrial region of the Lower Rhine; this did not grow into a national convention, but it exerted its influence at the meetings of the general Catholic Congress, especially at the one held at Düsseldorf, 1869. In France there was formed an “Union des associations ouvrières catholiques” for the purpose of promoting all Catholic efforts and “to develop a race of Christian workingmen’s families for the Church and State.”

The first congress of this association was held at Nevers, 1871, but it never grew to much importance, although a permanent central office was founded, and special committees were appointed to encourage sports, clubs for study, etc. The association laid undue stress on the cultivation of religious life, and did nothing to develop social economics in connexion with politics and but little for the class interests of workingmen; it was hardly more than a confraternity. In Northern France it succeeded owing to personal influence. The “Cercles d’ouvriers catholiques,” founded by the Comte de Mun in 1873, were much more successful. De Mun desired to unite in these cercles the best mechanical and agricultural labourers, to bring them under the influence of educated practical Catholic gentlemen, so that, led by the latter, the workingmen might exert a social and political influence in the world of labour. At the same time he wished the organization to frame and advocate a distinct plan of social reforms. From 1875 the work of advocating reforms fell chiefly to the annual sessions which were composed of the delegates of the “Secretariates” of the circles, the deputies from all the circles of the province, and Catholic dignitaries who were interested in social questions. The sessions for deliberation had an average attendance of from three to four hundred members, and the public meetings were often attended by several thousand persons. The assemblies were managed by the Comte de Mun, assisted by the Marquis de la Tour du Pin, M. de la Guillonnière, and M. Florroy. These meetings and the work of the various circles first spread among French Catholics correct conceptions of social problems. The practical social results became, however, gradually smaller. With the help of the congress De Mun gradually worked out a complete social programme; by means of industrial associations, with perfect freedom of organization, laws were to be obtained granting to the working classes proper representation in the political bodies of the country, effective measures were to be taken to aid workmen by means of insurance and the regulation of wages, their corporal and mental well-being were to be protected by Sunday rest, limitation of working-hours, etc.; compulsory arbitration in disputes between masters and workmen was to be legally enforced. The programme is noteworthy because it included reform of taxation, and also because it aimed to aid agricultural labourers as well as mechanics. De Mun’s main mistake was, that he refused on principle to allow the workingmen to organize independently, and permitted only organizations common to workingmen and employers. Although apparently the congresses just described and the societies connected with them were the proofs of the growth in strength of the economic movement, yet in their first development they did not advance far enough to be able to impress their character upon the Catholic congresses of the third period. This was defined by the further growth of the general Catholic conventions. After the successful settlement of the differences in the Church by the Vatican Council, in consequence of the Kulturkampf, the German Catholic Congresses regained their former importance with a religious enthusiasm never before witnessed. At the same time the French Catholics also started general congresses.

During the siege of Paris by the Germans, a committee had been formed in the city to protect Catholic interests against the danger from anti-religious and revolutionary sects. In a circular of 25 August, 1872, this committee proposed that all forms of Catholic associations of the country and all French Catholic organizations should create a general representative body for the purpose of defending their common interests. This circular led to the convening of the first “Congrès des comités catholiques” at Paris, 1872, and the sessions of this body were held annually until 1892. They were originally presided over by M. Bailloud, their founder, afterwards by Senator Chesnelong. The congress, divided into different sections, busied itself with purely religious questions, with teaching, education, the press, and social subjects. A large part of the attention of these assemblies was given to the non-governmental schools, and much was done for them. On the other hand, the incessant and vehement agitation of the assemblies against free, obligatory, lay instruction had no apparent effect. The French, like the German congresses, received strong encouragement from the pope, and the bishops ardently promoted them. Nevertheless, owing to its composition, the French congress never attained the importance of the German assemblage. Although intended to be a union of all the Catholic forces of France, it drew together only the Monarchists. For although its constitution excluded politics, nevertheless, as the circular of August, 1872, said, it supported the Conservative candidates as a matter of course. The connexion with the Royalists made the congress unfruitful also in social questions; its social political position was not sufficiently advanced, and it offended the classes that were fighting their way up. When it became evident that the Royalist party had failed, the congress declined with it. The sessions ceased when Leo XIII, on receiving the congratulatory telegram of the congress of 1892, expressed the hope that, following his wishes, they should uphold the Republican constitution. The place of the former organization was taken by the “Congrès nationaux catholiques.” The first session, held at Reims, was a preparatory one; this was followed by two congresses at Paris, 1897 and 1898. Both their organization and aim were the same as those of the congress of the “Comités catholiques,” but the political views held were different; the meetings were gatherings or “Ralliés,” that is, of Royalists who had become Republicans and of Christian Democrats. The history of this organization is, briefly, that of the “Ralliés” movement, and it went to pieces with the latter. A working together in the congress of those who were democrats from honest conviction, the politically indifferent “New Catholics,” and the “Ralliés,” or “Constitutional Righters,” who obeyed the papal command against inclination and conviction, proved to be impossible. The “Christian Democrats” met separately, in 1896 and 1897, at Lyons and received the blessing of Leo XIII. But it was found that the views of the members were too divergent to make a continuation of these assemblies profitable. The meetings of the “Cercles d’ouvriers” also came to an end through the failure of the “Ralliés” or “Constitutional Right.” From the decade 1880–90 these circles, like those of the “Union des associations ouvrières,” were gradually transformed by their leaders into pious confraternities, and the clergy sought to control them more than was wise, making the members feel like irresponsible children. Most of the members of the circles were Royalists, and few of them obeyed the suggestion of the pope as sincerely as did De Mun. In 1892 the congress assembled for the last time; but even before this, of the 1200 still existing circles, a part had combined with the new diocesan organizations, and a part with the “Association catholique de la jeunesse française.”

FOURTH PERIOD OF DEVELOPMENT

The fourth and latest period in the development of the Catholic Congresses dates from the last years of the nineteenth century. About 1890, the year when the “People’s Union [Volksverein] of Catholic Germany” was founded, the Catholic social movement reached its full strength and became the leading factor among German Catholic societies. Its influence was well shown by the multiplying of Catholic societies in all directions; it shaped the form and aims of organization, checked the spirit of particularism, induced the societies to combine in a united body, and brought thousands of new members into the branch associations, while directing Catholic organization more and more toward practical social work. The meetings of the congresses are the tangible sign of this social movement; their increase in strength and influence is furthered by the growing interest of the civilized world in all kinds of congresses. It is owing to the centralized, many-sided propaganda of the well-organized “Volksverein,” with its 600,000 members, that the German Catholic Congresses have been so successful. The aims of the societies are limited to social work of a practical character, and the annual meetings are held on one of the five days of the session of the Catholic Congress and at the same place. Since the Mannheim Congress of 1892 the meetings of the congresses have been attended by larger numbers of workmen than any other such conventions in Europe, from twenty-five thousand to forty thousand being present at the sessions, the number at a single session often reaching ten thousand persons. In Austria after two decades of hard struggle Christian socialism finally reached success. After 1867 it was for a long time almost impossible to hold a Catholic convention in Austria; now a General Catholic Congress is held every other year, while numerous assemblies convene in the different states forming the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy; the general congress of November, 1907, attained nearly as much influence over public opinion as the German Congress; a speech of Burgomaster Luegers of Vienna started the “high-school movement” which has since greatly agitated Austria. Since 1900 a Catholic Congress has been held annually in Hungary; in Spain since 1889 Catholic assemblies have met from time to time; in Switzerland, after suspension for a generation, the first general congress was held in 1903 on the basis of an excellent organization. In 1908 the Danish Catholics of the Copenhagen district met for the first time to discuss their school interests. Before this, in 1886 and 1889, they had met for anniversary celebrations, the first time, in 1886, in conjunction with representatives from Sweden and Norway. About the close of the nineteenth century a congress was held in Italy representing all the Catholic organizations of that country. Not only among the above-named great nations of Europe has Catholic zeal led to the meeting of general congresses, but on both sides of the ocean hardly a year passes in which the Catholics of some country do not unite in a public congress.

However numerous and large these assemblies, whether general or special, have been, they do not represent the whole number of Catholics who take an interest in social reorganization. Catholics have taken a prominent part in many movements which have an interdenominational, universal Christian, or neutral character, because this form of organization can lead to better results. Among these may be mentioned the “Christian Trade Unions” of Germany, the “Christian Farmers’ Unions” of Germany and Austria, and the “Société d’économie sociale et union de la paix sociale” of France, founded by Le Play, in 1856, with annual congresses since 1882. A German branch is the “Gesellschaft für sozial Reform” (founded 1890), which gives its attention largely to scientific investigations, but has at times also had much influence on legislation; besides these may be cited the “Workingmen’s Gardens,” founded in 1897 by Abbé Lemire, with international congresses in 1903 and 1906; the work of the “Raiffeisen Bank” (international assemblies at Tarbes, 1897, and Paris, 1900); the “Anti-Duelling Society,” founded by Prince Löwenstein, the last international convention being held at Budapest, 1908; and the association for suppressing public vice, which held an international congress in 1908.

II. INTERNATIONAL CONGRESSES

The forerunner of the international congresses of the present was the Mechlin general congress of 1863–64. Since then international Catholic congresses of general scope have been abandoned as unlikely to be profitable, and it has been sufficient, especially as between Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, to invite a few foreign representatives. It was only by limiting the scope of discussion to a few topics, especially religious, that it has been possible to hold Catholic congresses of an international character. Among the best known of these assemblies is the “Eucharistic Congress,” the aim of which is to increase and deepen the love of Christ in every way tolerated by the Church: by general communions, general adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, and discussion of the best means of increasing devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. Between its sessions the Eucharistic League endeavours to promote and intensify Eucharistic devotion in the various dioceses in which it is organized. Nineteen of these meetings have been held since the first in Lille in 1881, most of them being preponderatingly French, the inspiration of the first coming from Mgr. de Ségur. The first to attract the attention of the Catholic world was that held at Jerusalem in 1893, and they have since grown more solemn and influential. A general congress was held at Rome, 1905, another at Metz, 1907, and one in London 9–13 September, 1908. Both Leo XIII and Pius X manifested great interest in these congresses. Less successful, however, was the attempt of Leo XIII, by means of international congresses, to make the Third Order of St. Francis once more a great socio-religious influence. After he had indicated his plan of Christian social politics in his encyclical “Novarum rerum,” he hoped to change the Third Order of St. Francis from a purely pious organization into an instrument for the regeneration of society such as it had been in the thirteenth century. For a time efforts were made, especially in France, to carry out this ambition of the pope. A committee met at Valdes-Bois, July, 1893, at the call of the Minister-General of the Franciscans, and under the presidency of Léon Harmel a plan of action was drawn up: several meetings were held in France, and in 1900 an international congress met at Rome. After this the movement came to an end. The political-social scientists, who were too much absorbed in their political schemes, were unable to grasp the grandeur of the pontiff’s idea, and the Tertiaries clung to their accustomed exercises and preferred to remain a pious confraternity rather than to transform themselves into a world-wide religious and social organization.

For a time the Congress of Catholic Savants had nearly as successful a career as the Eucharistic Congress. This was also of French origin, and founded by Mgr. d’Hulst, rector of the Institut Catholique at Paris, in pursuance of a suggestion of Canon Duilhé de Saint-Projet. The founders meant to prove to mankind that Catholics, instead of being opposed to science, were vigorously active in scientific work; to show the harmony of faith and science, and to stimulate the slackened interest of Catholics in science. The plan of the congress was, therefore, largely apologetic; it received the approval of Leo XIII, and from 1888 the sessions were triennial. The first two meetings, at Paris, had an attendance, respectively, of 1605 and 2494 persons; the third congress, at Brussels, 2518; the fourth, at Fribourg, in Switzerland, 3007; the fifth, at Munich, 3367; a sixth was to be held at Rome, 1903, but it did not take place. Originally this congress was divided into six sections; theology, philosophy, law, history, natural sciences, anthropology; four more were added later; exegesis, philology, biology, and Christian art. The character of the international congress of Catholic physicians which met at Rome, 1900, was largely religious.

International meetings are also held by the “Association catholique internationale pour la protection de la jeune flue,” a society that looks after young girls who are seeking employment, guards them from dangers, and aids in their training and secures employment for them. It was founded by a Swiss lady, Frau von Reynold, 1896–97. Up to 1897 the sessions were at Fribourg, Switzerland; 1900, at Paris; 1902, at Munich; and in 1906, again at Paris. Fribourg, Switzerland, is the headquarters of the society. Ten countries are represented in it, among them Argentina, South America. Each national society holds its own annual meeting; the French branch, formed in 1898, alternately in the provinces and at Paris; the German, founded 1905, at the session of the Strasburg Catholic Congress in connexion with the Charities Congress. Among national Catholic assemblages may be also included the so-called “Social Week” started by the “Volksverein” (People’s Union) of Catholic Germany. Its sessions were held annually, 1892–1900, with the exception of 1897, in different places. About a week was given to an introduction to practical social work. The original attendance of 582 in time rose to about 1000. The sessions were devoted not to discussions, but to instructive lectures and the answering of questions, thus making what might be called a popular travelling school. But a week was too short a period of instruction, and the constant change of place made it difficult to obtain good teachers, consequently a permanent home was given to the association at München-Gladbach, and the annual session was made a two months’ course in political economy. A limited number of men and women selected by a committee of the “Volksverein” assisted at these lectures. Since 1904 the shorter courses, in improved form, have been resumed in addition to the longer ones, and the attendance has largely increased. The French Catholics were the first to imitate this example, holding a similar assembly at Lyons in 1904; since then sessions have been held at various places, that of 1907 being at Amiens, and the next at Marseilles. The best of their national economists give their assistance; the programme differs from the German in as much as the topics treated are not exclusively practical, but that the lectures include the philosophical and religious premises of modern social politics, and the part Christians should take in political life. The movement spread to the other Romance countries during 1906–08, and also to Belgium and Holland, and made great progress, thanks to the efforts of Professor Toniolo in organizing a social-science week at Pisa, followed by a larger meeting at Pistoja in October and another at Valencia in December, 1907. In France, Spain, and Italy, this social-science week will hereafter be held according to a joint programme.

III. NATIONAL CATHOLIC CONGRESSES

FRANCE

Since 1898 the French Catholics have held provincial conventions in place of general congresses, and since the separation of Church and State, these have given place to diocesan conferences. Such gatherings have been held in about half of the dioceses, the most important being those of the Archdiocese of Paris. Their aim is to unite all Catholic social societies, especially those for the young which in many dioceses have a large membership. In results they are not as effective as general Catholic congresses, but they seem rather to tend to supply what has hitherto been lacking in France, a steady and even attention to details, as the Volksverein has done in Germany, eloquent orations giving place to quiet, practical work. This would be an important result. On the other hand, it is possible that the inclination of the French to overburden even socio-political societies with religious issues, to give them a denominational aspect, and place them under strict clerical control, may be kept alive by the diocesan societies. Before this the impulse to permanent organization came from a congress, whereas now the bishop or an ecclesiastic commissioned by him is the head of the diocesan committee, and the parish priest of the parish committee.

RELIGIOUS CONGRESSES

In certain French dioceses e. g. at Paris, 1902–1908, special diocesan Eucharistic Congresses have been held. A “Congrès national de l’œuvre des Catéchismes” was held at Paris under the presidency of Mgr. Amette, Archbishop of Paris, 24–26 February, 1908. Seventy dioceses were officially represented, and the attendance was over 2000. It was reported that 20,000 lay catechists, chiefly women, voluntarily assisted the French clergy in the religious instruction of the young. These teachers are united in an archconfraternity, publish a periodical, and receive special preparatory training. Charitable and social care of the families of the pupils is united with the catechetical work.

SOCIOLOGICAL CONGRESSES

The “Union des associations ouvrières catholiques” has held, since 1871, annual meetings attended by about 500 delegates. The “Association catholique de la jeunesse française,” founded in 1886 by Robert de Roquefeuil, which aims to gather together the Catholic youth of the country, in order to strengthen them in their Faith and to train them to do their duty in the struggle for the reorganization of French society in a Christian spirit, has held several hundred interesting meetings. They have served in part to spread a more thorough knowledge of certain social truths or of certain important problems of religious life; but they have principally made known the work of the “Jeunesse catholique” throughout France. Their assemblies which took up the first mentioned class of subjects were held at Châlons, 1903, where trusts were discussed; at Arras, 1904, which discussed mutual benefit schemes; at Albi, 1905, regulations governing the labour of youthful workmen was the topic; and at Angers, 1908, the agrarian movement. The treatment of these problems at these conventions was excellent. The meetings held to amuse interest in the membership were chiefly provincial, only a few being national assemblies. The growth of the association is best shown by the national conventions: Angers, 1887, 17 groups having 782 members were represented; Besançon, 1898, 25 groups with 16,000 members; Bordeaux, 1907, 180 groups with 75,000 members. There has been a great increase since the meeting at Besançon, chiefly by the admission of young mechanics and farm labourers as well as of the student class. The association has placed itself in all things under the guidance of the Church authorities, consequently, its social as well as its religious activities rest on a denominational basis without any further enunciation of principles, and it has always been very favourably regarded both by the bishops and the Roman authorities. The “Jeunesse catholique” has not been undisturbed by the political troubles of French Catholics. At the congress of Grenoble, 1892, it accepted unconditionally the advice of Leo XIII, but declared at the same time that, in accordance with its statutes, the association had nothing to do with party conflicts. Some of the groups, however, still adhere to the Monarchists. Fortunately, these differences of opinion have not checked the development of the society, the religious and social influence of which on the youth of France is not equalled by that of any other organization.

About the close of the nineteenth century Marc Sangnier and some of his friends founded the society called the “Sillon” (the Furrow). Convinced that in future democracy, which they took as their ideal, would rule the State and society, and desiring to prevent its degeneration under bad and godless leaders, while hoping to keep it from turning against the Church, these young men resolved to build up a democratic constituency of high-minded Christians devoted to the Church and well-informed on political and social questions. The idealism characteristic of the “Sillon” has gained for it the respect of the working-classes. In the beginning the tendencies of the society were not clear, as was shown in the first four general meetings: Paris, 1902; Tours, 1903; Lyons, 1904; Paris, 1905. More definiteness of plan was evident at the later gatherings, Paris, 1906; Orléans, 1907; and especially at Paris, 1908, giving promise that the “Sillon” would develop into a socio-political party taking an active part in national politics. This explains why it asserted its independence of the bishops and intention always to support any political measure that may aid in improving the condition of the working-classes, and especially all efforts aiming at thorough social regeneration and a genuinely democratic form of society and government. Only in this way, it is held, will the workman be able to obtain an equal share of the material, intellectual, and moral possessions belonging to the whole nation. Collectivism is absolutely rejected by the association. The growth of the “Sillon” into an independent socio-political party, its refusal to be “avant tout catholique” aroused the distrust of some of the bishops. Consequently the clergy held back from it. Nevertheless, the membership did not fall off. The first congress represented 45 members; the second, 300; the third, 800; the fourth, 1100; the fifth, 1500; the sixth, 1896. The “Fédération gymnastique et sportive des patronages catholiques de France” intended to aid all Catholic societies in honour of a local saint by arranging sports for the members of the patronage has held annual meetings since 1898 when the federation began in a union of 13 patronages; the number is now 450, representing 50,000 young people in all parts of France.

POLITICAL CONGRESSES

The “Action libérale populaire,” founded by M. Piou on the basis of the Associations Law of 1901, is a political association led by him with much skill and energy. Its task is to defend civil rights derived from the Constitution in all legal ways, to promote reform in law-making by energetic work at elections, to develop or create anew sociological influence and methods, and to improve the lot of the workingman. Only Catholics are members, but it claims that it is not a “Catholic party.” Its first general session convened at Paris, December, 1904, with 900 delegates representing 648 comitiés or branches and 150,000 members. The statistics for the following years are as follows: Paris, 1905, 1400 delegates from 1000 comités with 200,000 members; Lyons, 1906, 1600 delegates representing 1500 comités and 225,000 members: Bordeaux, 1907, 1740 comités with 250,000 members. The proceedings of all four congresses were of great interest. The society, conducted by a central committee, is divided into provincial and town committees which, though controlled by the general committee, are allowed much independence of action. Besides assiduous efforts to educate the voter the society has turned its attention more and more to practical sociological work, as the discussions held at the various congresses show. The reactionary methods which so greatly damaged the Monarchists have never been adopted. However, the growth of the association has not equalled expectations, because at the first election which took place after its establishment (1906), while the “Action libérale” did not disappoint its friends, the parties of the Right, without the aid of which it could not succeed, were completely defeated at the polls. Besides, the distrust of many Frenchmen was aroused because in order to gain numerical strength it admitted as members many who, until their reception into its ranks, had been known as opponents of the Republic.

THE WOMEN’S MOVEMENT

The “Ligue patriotique des Françaises,” formed in 1901, to collect funds for the election expenses of the candidates of the “Action libérale populaire,” aims to arouse interest among women in the efforts of the “Action” to defend civil liberty and to promote sociological activity. Since then the league has declared that it does not pursue political ends. The movement had as its leaders such able women as the Baroness Reille, Mademoiselle Frossard, Mademoiselle de Valette, and others, and in 1908 the league numbered 700 branches with 328,000 members, 28,000 more than in 1906. The league holds numerous district sessions and an annual general meeting. At the last two annual sessions at Lourdes, 2000 women attended. The addresses and discussions at these conventions show that the attention of the league is more and more fixed on attaining practical social ends. This, however, is made more difficult by the mistaken conception that all Catholic Frenchwomen, because they are Catholics, should belong to the league; consequently, the programme lacks definiteness, and many problems are taken up in a hesitating and incomplete manner. Moreover, this policy prevents a correct perception of the sociological character of the organizations in question and their accommodation to the needs of the workingman. They are turned too much into the direction of charitable and benevolent activities. The work of the league in social economics is as yet only in its infancy. The “Jeanne d’Arc” Federation aims to unite all Catholic women of France who take up questions of social betterment, in an annual assembly for exchange of views and combined effort. Since 1901 a well-attended annual meeting has been held at Paris, but so far has resulted only in an interchange of opinion and resolutions. This is due to the fact that the federation has no regular and recognized authority over the manifold associations affiliated in it.

EDUCATIONAL CONGRESSES

Up to 1908 three congresses of French priests had been held: Saint-Quentin, 1895; Reims, 1897; Bourges, 1898. The first, which differed in aims from those following, met at the suggestion of Léon Harmel and confined itself to considering the share the clergy should take in the efforts to better present social conditions. The attendance was about two hundred. The two following congresses called by the Abbé Lemire, supported by the Abbés Dabry, Naudet., Gibier, Lacroix, had an attendance of from six hundred to eight hundred persons. Questions touching the sacerdotal life were discussed: training of the clergy; continuation of clerical studies; activity in the cure of souls; organization to secure a continuous succession of clergy; priests’ unions; mutual aid societies, etc. The conventions were presided over by bishops, Leo XIII sent his blessing, and the influence on the younger clergy was excellent. There was much opposition to them, however, on the part of some of the bishops and some of the older clergy, and especially on the part of the Conservatives in politics. The “Congrès de l’Alliance des grands-séminaires” met at Paris, 21–22, July, 1908, the questions taken up were mainly the preparatory training of the clergy in letters and in ascetic life. Conventions of delegates of the teachers of higher and elementary schools not under State control, the “Syndicats et associations de l’enseignement libre,” met: at Bordeaux, 1906; Poitiers, 1907; Paris, 1908. At Paris, the delegates represented 2300 teachers belonging to teachers’ unions and 3000 not connected with such organizations, from a teaching force of 20,000. Among the subject discussed were pedagogical questions, school-organization, instruction in industrial and high schools, matters of professional interest. The association of Catholic Lawyers has met yearly since 1876, the first session being held at Lyons, that of 1907 at Angers. Those legal questions are taken up which, at the moment, are of practical importance for the continuance of the Church as an organized society, for its endowment sand institutions. The “Alliance des maisons d’éducation chrétienne” aims to secure for independent schools those advantages which a centralized organization confers on those under State control. Up to 1908 the annual sessions were organized by Abbé Ragon, Professor at the Catholic Institute of Paris. The subjects discussed are methods of instruction and school organization. The Alliance originally represented 75 schools; the number rose to 600, but on account of the law of 1901, which reduced the number of schools independent of the State, those in the Alliance fell to 500 in 1908.

GERMANY

Up to 1908, fifty-five congresses have been held, the last, 1908, at Düsseldorf, those previous met at: Mannheim, 1902; Cologne, 1903; Ratisbon, 1904; Strasburg, 1905; Essen, 1906; Würzburg, 1907. The Central Committee, formed in 1868, superintends the preparations for the sessions and directs the conventions. When the Kulturkampf began the committee was dissolved, and its work was done by Prince Karl Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg, the “Standing commissioner of the Catholic Congress.” In 1898 a new committee was formed, Count Clemens Droste-Vischering being chairman. The president of the congress changes every year, and the most distinguished representatives of Catholicism in Germany and the leading members of the nobility are regularly selected for the presidency, which office is always held by a layman. On the other hand the chairman of the committee of arrangements is always the bishop of the diocese in which the coming session is to be held. Each congress lasts five days, the meeting being held in August. A number of Catholic societies, especially the Volksverein, founded 1901, the St. Augustine Association for the Development of the Catholic Press, founded 1877, at the second Catholic congress at Würzburg, and the Catholic Students’ societies, founded 1867, take advantage of the occasion to hold their own conventions at the same time and place. In addition to the sessions of the General Catholic Congress, in 1850 arrangements were made for diocesan conventions; these, however, seldom meet. Conventions are more common for the various Prussian provinces and the different states of the confederation, e. g. for Silesia, Bavaria, and the last held for Würtemberg at Ulm, 1901. Early in 1904, by order of the Archbishop of Cologne, all the charitable societies and those for social betterment of the diocese were federated, the first convention of this general organization meeting in May, 1904. The first congress of the “Bonifacius Association” was held 8–9 July, 1908, at Paderborn; the object of the society is to collect funds for Catholic churches and schools among Germans scattered abroad, for the Scandinavian mission, and to aid the religious needs of the Catholics.

SOCIAL CONGRESSES

General conventions are held of the “Arbeiterwohl” (Society for Bettering the Condition of the Working-Classes); “Society of Catholic Manufacturers and Friends of Workingmen,” founded in 1905; and “Society for Social Culture and Communal Betterment,” founded 1880 with the aid of Franz Brandts, Hitze, etc. At the last-named general assembly held annually all members can take part in the discussions of the questions brought up. A congress of the “Volksverein” has been held annually since 1890 in connexion with the General Catholic Congress. At these sessions, open to all, annual reports and explanation of the object of the union are given. The president of these annual congresses was generally Franz Brandts of München-Gladbach, and the chief speakers Gröber, Trimborne, and Lieber. Under the direction and leadership of Mgr. Werthmann of Freiburg, Baden, the Association for Charitable Work has met annually as a national assembly since 1896, when it convened at Schwäbisch-Gmünd. The session of 1907 was at Hildesheim, the next, the thirteenth, at Ravensburg. Reports of committees and addresses are alternately made at the sessions. The Congress for Charitable Work came into existence through the sociological activity of the “Volksverein”; its aim being to show that Catholic charities should be more extensively guided by sociological considerations, and that they stand in need of closer union and greater zeal. In 1897 a “Union of Charitable Societies” grew out of this congress; the Union is divided into local and provincial societies under the direction of a well-organized central management which, without interfering with the subordinate organizations, exerts on them a beneficial influence. Especially important are its training courses; the local and provincial societies also frequently bold district and diocesan conventions. A reorganization of the St. Vincent de Paul societies has been broached, the societies for the protection of young girls, and the women’s movement have also received encouragement from this charitable organization. The United Catholic Workingmen’s Union has its head-quarters at Berlin. Although the greater number of organized Catholic workmen are members of trade unions not denominational in character, an effort has been made, since the end of the nineteenth century, to unite other Catholic workmen in a denominational union. This work has been done chiefly among the East German workmen and in the Diocese of Trier. Conventions of delegates have been held annually since 1898, the eleventh having taken place in 1908. The Union of the Associations of Catholic Wage-earning Women and Girls is a branch of the one just mentioned. Four congresses have been held, the fourth in 1908. The Catholic Association for German Young Men was formed to exert religious influence on boys who have left school and are apprentices until they are prepared to enter a workingmen’s union. So far, not over twenty per cent of Catholic apprentices have joined the union. To remedy this it has been proposed to give a more social character to the union, and to form diocesan and a national union, and to convene the presidents of all the branch unions throughout Germany in a general meeting. The first of these general conventions was held in 1896; followed by four others, up to 1899; then the assemblies lapsed until 1905, when, through the efforts of the “Arbeiterwohl” (Society for Bettering the Condition of the Working-Classes) the union was reorganized, and a general meeting held at Cologne. Future sessions are to be held triennially.

The “Association of Catholic Women” was founded at the Congress for Charitable Work held at Frankfort, 1903. Two meetings have been held: Frankfort, 1904; Munich, 1906. Its weakness, so far, has been a lack of definiteness in its aims, for, although an offshoot of the “Charitasverband” (Charitable Union), it has been influenced, more or less, by the general women’s movement in Germany and its tendencies, which deal less with sociological problems than with the general interests of the sex. It works for sociological improvement through charity; for the education of women; and in the interests of wage-earning women and women outside of the family circle.

The “Catholic Teachers’ Union” in Germany, comprising male teachers of primary and middle schools, was founded in 1899, at Bochum. It numbers 19,000 members, and thirteen conventions, semi-annual as a rule, have been held; latterly it has met at Strasburg, Berlin, and Breslau. The union is made up of sixteen branches which meet, generally, once a year. Würtemberg has formed a union of its own. The “Union of Catholic Women Teachers of Germany,” founded in 1885, developed slowly until 1891. Thirteen conventions have been held, the last three in Strasburg, Bochum, and Munich. It is composed of teachers, both of the primary and higher schools for girls; in 1903 it organized a section of the teachers in middle and higher girls’ schools which holds special sessions during the meeting of the general convention. The “Union of the Associations of Catholic Merchants,” with head-quarters at Essen, founded in 1877, has 20,000 members; its delegates hold a meeting a few days before the General Catholic Congress and at another place. The union of the Catholic Students’ Corps who do not wear colours, has held regular annual conventions since 1866, the sessions convened in a different university town each year with the exception of 1906, when Wiesbaden was chosen. Some sixty societies are thus united; as many societies belong to the union of Catholic Students’ Corps in which are included also some Swiss and Austrian organizations. The St. Cecilia Society was founded in 1868 to promote interest in Church music. The eighteenth general assembly took place at Eichstätt in 1908.

POLITICAL CONGRESSES

As political congresses, up to 1907, should be mentioned the general meetings of the “Windthorstbund,” the first session of which was held at Essen, 1895. Their object was to interest young Catholics in politics so as to insure constant recruits for the Centre Party. The membership increasing, it was formed into unions. Since 1897 an annual convention of delegates has met. At Wiesbaden, 1907, it was decided that, in accordance with its statutes and the party it represented, the local unions could not have a denominational character, consequently some of them withdrew from the association.

EDUCATIONAL CONGRESSES

The Association of Catholic Lawyers, held two meetings without achieving success, and was merged, 1907, with the “Görres Association” for the encouragement of science in Catholic Germany, founded 1876, at Coblenz. Since this first general session, the latter society has held annual sessions in other cities. Its importance lies in the discussions of its different sections. At first, these treated topics in philosophy and history, only of late other sections have been added for the natural sciences, law, and archæology. At times, there are two meetings with lectures for larger audiences, which are attended by members and their guests. A general meeting of the “Association for Christian Art” has taken place annually, the object of which is to encourage Catholic artists and develop religious art. The “Catholic Press Club,” largely a Bavarian association is intended to encourage Catholic journals, Catholic popular libraries, and Catholic culture. Its annual meetings are held at Munich.

DENMARK

In 1886 various Catholic communities, with delegates from Norway and Sweden, united to celebrate the eight-hundredth anniversary of the martyrdom of King Canute (Knut) by a festival at Odense. Some two hundred persons attended, and the exercises were largely religious. In 1889 a meeting was held at Randers to celebrate the seven hundredth anniversary of the canonization of St. Kjeld, the attendance being entirely Danish. In 1908 the Catholics of Copenhagen and its vicinity met to discuss questions concerning the Church and schools for all Denmark. Seven conferences of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul have been held since 1885.

SWITZERLAND

Besides the general assemblies of the nineteenth century mentioned above, two sessions of a General Catholic Congress, in imitation of the German Congress, have been held in Switzerland: Lucerne, 27–29 September, 1903; Freiburg, 22–25 September, 1906. At Lucerne it was resolved to unite all Catholic associations into one organization, of which the Swiss “Volksverein” (People’s Union) was to be the nucleus. This arrangement held until 1905. The central committee of the “Volksverein” now forms the standing committee of the Catholic Congresses, and all Catholic societies of Switzerland, charitable, social, and religious, societies to further education, culture, women’s, and trades’ unions are affiliated with it. The general organization is divided into cantonal unions, of which several meet annually. Special mention should be made of the first Swiss congress of the Sacred Heart of Jesus at Einsiedeln, 20–21 August, 1907. At the suggestion of Bishop Mermillod international conferences of those interested in political movements for social betterment met annually at Freiburg, Switzerland, 1883–93, to discuss the principles underlying modern political economy. A similar meeting was held here, 20–22 October, 1903; the discussions concerned Christian Socialism in the different countries, trade unions, women’s work, and the international protection of labourers. Practical courses in sociology were held at: Lucerne, 1896; Zurich, 1898, and 1904; in 1894 a “Congrès d’étude et de propagande” was held at Freiburg for the French Swiss; after this, these assemblies were adopted by the French Catholics.

AUSTRIA (INCLUDING BOHEMIA)

Up to 1867 the Austrian General Congress formed part of the German Congress; since this date six independent Austrian congresses have met, the last at Vienna, 16–19 November, 1907. The organization is similar to the German, consequently, the annual meetings of various other societies are held at the same time as the important “Pius Verein” for the development of the Catholic press. Besides the General Congress there are various national congresses:

(1) The first congress for Northern Bohemia was held in 1887; the fourth, 1890; after a long intermission the fifth, 1904; the sixth, 1906.

(2) The first congress for Lower Austria met, 1894; the second, 1898; the third, 1903; this was followed, 1905, by a meeting of delegates of the Catholic societies of the crown lands; a national assembly was held in 1908.

(3) The first Slovenian congress was held in 1892; the second, 1900.

(4) A Czech congress wa held in 1907 with an attendance of about 30,000 persons.

In 1903 the “Union of Catholic Benevolent Societies of the Austrian Empire” was founded; a charity congress met at Vienna, 1901; a second at Graz, 1903; a third at Linz, 1906. The second assembly brought about the formation of the Charity Union for the whole empire. This union includes the benevolent associations of the different crown lands without, however, lessening their independence, and the latter include the individual societies of each part of the empire. Besides the general congress, the imperial organization, in accordance with its statutes, holds semi-annually a convention to which the provincial unions send delegates. During the last decade a number of various other assemblies have been held in Austria, among them a congress for priests, one session; a congress for the veneration of the Blessed Virgin, St. Poelten, 1901; Prague, 1905, etc.

HUNGARY

Six Catholic congresses have been held in Hungary since 1900, the first at Stuhlweissenburg, the four following at Budapest, the last, 1907, at Fünfkirchen. The language used is Magyar, but the language spoken at the place of meeting receives recognition. The perpetual president is Count Johanni Zichy, Jr., president of the Central Union of the Catholic Societies of Hungary. Up to 1908 the meetings of the congress mainly discussed the press and the needs of Catholic young men. At the last meeting a Catholic Federation, similar to the Volksverein of Germany, was founded. Some of the bishops are greatly interested in the congresses and their results.

BELGIUM

In Belgium a large number of societies hold conventions, but owing to the many divisions of Catholic associations statistics are not available.

HOLLAND

Each diocese of Holland holds a convention from time to time of all its Catholic organizations; the agricultural associations as well as societies for schools, religious or social purposes, are included, but each society holds its own sessions and also joins in a general meeting of all. The “Sociological Week” has been held three times in the last few years. The bishop of the diocese controls the organization.

SPAIN

Since 1889 six Catholic congresses have been held, the last in 1903. Lately more attention has been paid to social improvement, especially by means of sociological associations; consequently, the scheme of the Sociological Week is developing. The International Marian Congress met at Lyons, 1900, at Einseideln, 1906, and at Saragossa, Sept., 1908.

ARGENTINA

Up to 1908 two Catholic congresses were held at Buenos Aires, one, 15–30 August, 1884; the other, 20–28 October, 1907. The first aroused great enthusiasm, but the results were meagre. The second had an attendance of about 350 delegates, the president being Dr. Emil Lamarca. Its chief aim was to found a Catholic daily newspaper. Besides this a Catholic Education League was organized to reform the school-laws.

IV. IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES

In English-speaking countries the term “congress” is usually applied only to gatherings of an important national character, hence the assemblies in the United States of such bodies as the Federation of Catholic Societies, the Central Verein, the Staats-verbund, the Catholic Young Men’s National Union, the Catholic Total Abstinence Union, and other associations are treated under their separate titles.

In England, meetings are held annually of the Catholic Truth Society, founded in 1872 by Cardinal Vaughan, at which paper are read on various subjects connected with Catholic interests. The Catholic Truth Society of Ireland, organized in 1903, has also done excellent work by its conventions and the diffusion of sound Catholic literature in popular form (see TRUTH SOCIETIES, CATHOLIC). Federations for the defence of Catholic interests have been formed in the dioceses of Salford, Westminster, and Leeds. This federation movement has done much to organize the Catholic forces, and has been characterized by the number of popular gatherings which it has promoted especially in connexion with the defence of Catholic education. The Catholic Union of Great Britain which represents an influential body of English Catholics; the Catholic Association, to promote Catholic organization and organizes social gatherings; the Catholic Young Men’s Society (founded in 1854); the Catholic Education Council, established by the bishops of Great Britain in 1905; the Conference of Catholic Colleges, founded by Cardinal Vaughan in 1896, and other bodies representing Catholic education hold annual or occasional conventions. Conferences for specific social or religious purposes are held by such bodies as the Catholic Guardians Association (charitable), the League of the Cross (temperance), the Guild of Our Lady of Ransom (conversion of England). Diocesan or local conventions are found especially in London and Lancashire. The Catholics of Birmingham have held an annual reunion for over half a century. Catholic women are being effectively organized by the Catholic Women’s League, founded by Miss Fletcher, London, 1907, with branches in the provinces.

The most imposing religious convocation England has seen since pre-Reformation times was the international congress of the Eucharistic League held in London, 9–13 September, 1908. Vincenzo Vannutelli, Cardinal-Bishop of Palestrina, presided as the legate of the pope—the first occasion on which so exalted a representative of the Holy See had appeared in England since the days of Reginald Pole. France and Germany, as well as all the English-speaking countries, were represented by such a gathering of cardinals as is seldom seen outside of Rome. More than one hundred archbishops, bishops, and mitred abbots, from all parts of the world—even the great missionary fields of Central Africa, Cape Colony, India, Burma, with thousands of the laity, were also in attendance. The religious functions took place in Westminster Cathedral, where, on one of the mornings during the congress, by special permission of the pope, a high Mass according to the Greek Rite was sung.

THE UNITED STATES

There have been two congresses of Catholic laymen held in the United States. In conjunction with the celebration of the centenary of the establishment of the hierarchy of the United States by Pius VII in 1789, and the dedication of the Catholic University, at Washington, the first Catholic Congress of the United States met in Baltimore, Maryland, on November 11 and 12, 1889. The delegates were selected by the bishops of the various dioceses and were in the main representative of a certain percentage of the Catholic population in each. About twelve hundred delegates were present. In preparation for the gathering a meeting had been held in Chicago the previous May attended by Archbishop Ireland of St. Paul and Messrs. Henry J. Spaunhorst, of St. Louis, William J. Onahan, of Chicago, and Henry F. Brownson, of Detroit. The objects proposed for the congress were the closer union of all the members of the Catholic body in the country, increased activity of the laity in aid of the clergy in religious work, and a declaration of views on the important questions of the hour, and for the assistance and relief of the poorer classes of society. Cardinal Gibbons, considering the congress as in some sense part of the religious function taking place at the centenary celebration in Baltimore, deemed it desirable that the papers to be read during its sessions should first be submitted to an advisory committee of the hierarchy and named as such committee: Archbishop Ireland (chairman) and Bishops Gilmour, of Cleveland, Maes of Covington, Ryan, of Buffalo, Harkins, of Providence, and Foley, of Detroit. A committee on Organization, consisting of Messrs. Onahan, Spaunhorst, D. A. Rudd, of Cincinnati, J. D. Keiley, of Brooklyn, and Dr. John Gilmary Shea, the historian, was authorized to issue a call for the congress and to organize it; and a Committee on Papers—Messrs. Brownson, Peter L. Foy, of St. Louis, and M. J. Harson, of Providence—to prepare the work for the several sessions.

Beginning with a solemn pontifical Mass at the cathedral on the morning of 11 November, celebrated by Archbishop Corrigan of New York, and at which Archbishop Gross of Oregon preached, the sessions of the congress were opened in the Concordia Opera House, former Governor John Lee Carroll, of Maryland, presiding. The Most Rev. Archbishop Francesco Satolli, representing the pope, Cardinals Taschereau of Quebec, Gibbons of Baltimore, with representatives of the English and Irish hierarchy, and from Mexico, with many of the bishops of the United States, in addition to the lay delegates, were present. The pope, through Cardinal Rampolla, sent his blessing to the congress, and at the first session addresses were made by Cardinal Gibbons, the Rev. James Nugent of Liverpool, England, Daniel Dougherty, Francis Kernan, Honoré Mercier, Premier of Quebec, followed by the formal papers of the programme: “Catholic Congresses,” by Dr. John Gilmary Shea; “Lay Action of the Church,” by Henry F. Brownson; and “The Independence of the Holy See,” by Charles J. Bonaparte. On the second day, the first paper, “Archbishop Carroll as a Statesman,” was read by Honoré Mercier, Premier of Quebec, and at its conclusion a formal resolution sending greetings to the people of Quebec was adopted. Mgr. Gadd who represented Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, then tendered the greetings of that prelate and the English hierarchy to the congress, and Peter L. Foy, of St. Louis, read the fourth regular paper, “The New Social Order,” which dealt with philanthropic movements in general. Other papers read were “Education: the rights and duties of the State, the Church, and the Parent in that Regard,” by Edmund F. Dunne, of Florida; “The Catholic Periodical Press,” by George Deering Wolf of Norristown, Pennsylvania; “Societies,” by Henry J. Spaunhorst, of St. Louis; “Catholic American Literature,” by Condé B. Pallen, of St. Louis; “Temperance,” by John H. Campbell, of Philadelphia; “Sunday Observance,” by Manly Tello, of Cleveland; “Labour and Capital,” by William Richards, of Washington; “What Catholics have Done in the Last Hundred Years,” by Richard H. Clarke, of New York; “Church Music,” by Heman Allen, of Chicago.

The resolutions adopted rejoiced in the progress of the Church, advocated sound Catholic education, denounced Mormonism, divorce, and secret societies; Nihilism, Socialism, and Communism; commended Catholic charitable, social, and benevolent societies, the support of the Catholic press, Sunday observance; and pledged loyalty and devotion to the pope and demanded the temporal freedom of the Holy See. It was resolved to hold the next congress during the Columbian celebration of 1892, and in the concluding address of the congress Archbishop Ireland said:—“ I am overjoyed to see so many laymen, overjoyed to listen to such magnificent discourses and such grand papers, and to have realized that there is among our Catholics in America so much talent, so much strong faith. As one of your bishops I am ashamed of myself that I was not conscious before this of the power existing in the midst of the laity, and that I have not done anything to bring it out. But one thing I will do with God’s help. In the future I shall do all I can to bring out this power.”

SECOND CONGRESS

The sessions of the Second Catholic Congress of the United States were held at Chicago on 4, 5, and 6 September, 1893, as incidental to the World’s Congresses Auxiliary of the Columbus Exposition and World’s Fair of that year. Archbishop Feehan of Chicago and William J. Onahan were president and secretary of the committee on organization, by which it was decided that three topics should be treated during the sessions: “The Social Question as outlined by Leo XIII in his encyclical ‘Rerum Novarum,” “Catholic Education,” and “The Independence of the Holy See.” No discussion of the papers was allowed, but each was submitted to its proper section for consideration. Archbishop Feehan opened the congress, and President Bonney, of the World’s Congress Auxiliary, welcomed the delegates “on behalf of the World’s Exposition and the fifty million non-Catholics who loved justice and religious liberty.” Cardinal Gibbons also spoke, and on the second day Archbishop Satolli, who represented the pope at the World’s Exposition, greeted the congress in the name of the Holy Father. Other visitors were Archbishop Redwood of Australia, and Count de Kaefstein of Austria. Letters from Cardinals Vaughan and Logue were read.

Judge Morgan J. O’Brien, of New York, presided over the sessions during which these papers were read: “The Relations of the Catholic Church in the Social, Civil, and Political Institutions of the United States,” Edgar H. Gans, of Baltimore; “Civil Government and the Catholic Citizen,” Walter George Smith, of Philadelphia; “The Independence of the Holy See,” Martin P. Morris, of Washington; “Columbus, His Mission and Character,” Richard H. Clarke, of New York; “Isabella the Catholic,” Mary J. Onahan, of Chicago; “The Colonization of the American Continent,” George Parsons Lathrop, of New York; “The Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Condition of Labor,” H. C. Semple, of Montgomery, Alabama; “The Rights of Labour and the Duties of Capital,” Edward O. Brown, of Chicago, and the Rev. Dr. William Barry of Dorchester, England; “Pauperism, the Cause and the Remedy,” Dr. Thomas Dwight, of Boston, and Miss M. T. Elder of New Orleans; “Public and Private Charities,” Charles A. Wingerer, of Wheeling, Thomas F. Ring of Boston, R. R. Elliott of Detroit, and the Rev. Francis Maguire of Albany; “Workingmen’s Organizations and Societies for Young Men,” Warren T. Mosher of Youngstown; “Trade Combinations and Arbitration,” Robert M. Douglas, Greensboro; “Temperance,” the Rev. James M. Cleary; “Women’s Work in Religious Communities,” F. M. Edselas; “Women in the Middle Ages,” Anna T. Sadlier; “Life Insurance and Pension Funds for Wage Workers,” John P. Lauth, of Chicago; “Immigration and Colonization,” the Rev. M. J. Callahan, of New York; “The Need of Catholic Colleges,” Maurice Francis Egan.

AUSTRALIA

Two congresses have been held by the Catholics of Australasia, the first at Sydney in September, 1900, and the second at Melbourne in October, 1904. The first congress followed immediately after the dedication of St. Mary’s cathedral, Sydney, on 9 September, 1900, at which Cardinal Moran presided, and three archbishops, eight bishops, two hundred priests, with the Governors of New South Wales, Queensland, New Guinea, and a great congregation of the laity were present. The congress received its impetus from Rome, as affording Catholics an opportunity to manifest their faith and devotion at the close of the nineteenth century; to make non-Catholics understand more about their religion; to answer calumnies such as were made current in the Dreyfus case; to urge a reform of divorce laws; and to promote harmonious relations between capital and labour. In opening the congress Cardinal Moran spoke on “The Catholic Church in the Nineteenth Century,” using the progress of Catholicism in the United States as an illustration. The sessions of the congress, which lasted a week, were held in the cathedral and the topics treated included social questions, Catholic apologetics, education, science, and sacred art, ethnology and statistics, history and the Catholic missions.

The second congress met in Cathedral Hall, Melbourne, 24 to 31 October, 1904, the Most Rev. Thomas J. Carr, Archbishop of Melbourne, presiding, and the gathering was made one of the details of the local celebration of the golden jubilee of the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Its delegates included bishops, priests, and laymen not only from all the States of the Commonwealth, but also from New Zealand and the islands of the Pacific. The topics discussed in the various sections were Marian and religious: Education, History, and Missions, Charitable Organizations, Social Questions, Sacred Art, Science, Christian Woman, Medical Questions, and the Catholic Newspaper. Perhaps the most practical outcome of the gathering was the establishment of the Catholic Truth Society of Australia.

Souvenir Volume of the Centennial Celebration and Catholic Congress (Detroit, 1889); Benziger’s Catholic Family Almanac (New York, 1894); Catholic News (New York); Freeman’s Journal (Sydney); Advocate (Melbourne), contemporaneous files; Proceedings of the Second Australasian Catholic Congress (Melbourne, 1894).

MAY, Geschichte der general Versammlungen der katholischen Deutschlands (Cologne, 1904); BRIÜK, Geschichte der katolischen Kirche im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Münster, 1905); Catholic Social Work in Germany in The Dublin Review (London, July, 1908).

MARTIN SPAHN

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Congrua

Congrua (i. e. CONGRUA PORTIO), a canonical term to designate the lowest sum proper for the yearly income of a cleric. It is sometimes used in the same sense as competency (q. v.). Owing to the many charges to which a benefice is liable, it became necessary for the ecclesiastical authority to decree that first and foremost the proper sustenance of the holder of the benefice should be provided for, and that a minimum revenue should be determined, below which his income was not to fall. This was all the more necessary in cases where benefices had been incorporated with monasteries or collegiate churches. Very often the curate of such incorporated benefices received only one-sixteenth of the revenue. To remedy this abuse a number of ordinances were passed which reserved to the person having cure of souls a decent subsistence. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, c. iv, de Ref.) leaves the determination of the congrua to the judgment of the bishop. This sum must, of course, vary with the fluctuation of values at different times. It must not be so parsimoniously fixed as to provide for the beneficiary the mere necessaries of life. To be a proper income in accordance with the dignity of his state, it should likewise be sufficient to enable him to dispense moderate hospitality and almsgiving and supply himself with books, etc. The Council of Trent did not determine the amount of the congrua. It suggested, however, that about one-third of the revenue of the benefice should be assigned to the vicar. When the benefice can not furnish a proper sustenance, it is the duty of the bishop to see that several benefices be united or that the deficit be made up from other sources, as tithes, collections, etc. If these means fail, the benefice must be suppressed. It is to be noted that in determining the congrua the bishop can not take into consideration emoluments that are uncertain, such as offerings at funerals or marriages, or Mass stipends; nor what the vicar might earn by his labour; nor what he receives from his patrimony; for these are not fruits of the benefice. When the congrua has been fixed for a certain benefice, it is always presumed to be sufficient, unless it be proved to have been lessened. Hence, if the beneficiary declare the congrua to be insufficient, especially when it has sufficed for his predecessors, the burden of proof rests on him. If the congrua had been sufficient at the time a pension was reserved to another from the fruits of the benefice and later became insufficient, the amount necessary to provide proper sustenance must be taken from the pension, for those who have cure of souls are to be preferred to pensioners. Even a curate who is removable and a temporary vicar are to have a congrua assigned to them. Although, in speaking of the congrua, authors generally limit the question to the inferior clergy, yet all rectors of churches, hence also bishops, are entitled to it. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, cap. xiii) declared that a cathedral church whose revenue did not exceed one thousand scudi (about one thousand dollars) should not be burdened with pensions or reservations. The bishop is entitled to an income that will allow him to live according to his dignity. If he have a coadjutor, the ordinary must provide a congrua for him. In many European countries, where church property has passed into the possession of the State, the civil laws have determined the congrua of the clergy more or less liberally. Such laws are yet in force in Austria and Germany, and until the end of 1905 existed in France. The salary for rectors of churches in the United States, fixed by plenary or diocesan synods, has nothing in common with the canonical congrua.

FERRARIS, Bibliotheca Canonica (Rome, 1886), II; MARTINI, Zur Congrua-Frage in =8Csterreich (Graz, 1883); ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dict. du Droit Can. (Paris, 1901); VERING, Lehrbuch des kath. orient. und prot. Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1893). 424, 647, 793; BUCHBERGER, Kirchl. Handlex. (Munich, 1908), s. v.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING

Congruism

(congrua, suitable, adapted)

Congruism is the term by which theologians denote a theory according to which the efficacy of efficacious grace (see GRACE) is due, at least in part, to the fact that the grace is given in circumstances favourable to its operation, i. e. “congruous” in that sense. The distinction between gratia congrua and gratia incongrua is found in St. Augustine where he speaks of the elect as congruenter vocati (Ad Simplicianum, Bk. I, Q. ii, no. 13). The system known as Congruism was developed by eminent Jesuit theologians at the close of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth. All Molinists regard actual grace as being really identified with supernatural action, actual grace of will, technically called inspiration, being an act of will. This act invariably begins necessarily, and may become free at a certain point in its duration; so, however, that, should it become free, there will be no complete break in the individuality, but only a modification of the action; the original necessary motion continuing in a modified form after the point where freedom commences has been reached. An actual grace of will which is merely sufficient never gets beyond this point. Whenever the motion does get beyond and become free, it is called an efficacious grace; the term being applied, not merely to the second stage of the action, wherein it is free, but even to the first stage, wherein it was necessary, with a tendency, however, to continue after the crucial point where freedom begins. This tendency to continue as a free act is found in the grace which remains merely sufficient, in the sense that the second, or free, stage may be, but is not, reached in that case; whereas, in the case of efficacious grace, the second or free stage is actually attained.

Hereupon the question arises: what is the precise reason why, of two motions which may be supposed to be similar in every respect as far as their intrinsic constitution is concerned- be of the same intensity as well as of the same kind- does not last beyond the critical point where freedom begins, whereas the other does? It is of the essence of Molinism that this is due in part to the will itself continuing to act under the Divine grace or not continuing. To which Bellarmine adds that grace which proves efficacious is given by God to one who, He foresees, will use it freely; whereas He foresees no less surely, when giving a grace which remains merely sufficient, that it will not last in the recipient beyond the initial or necessary stage of its duration. Congruism further insists that the motion passes into the free stage when the circumstances are comparatively favourable (congruous) to it; but when they are comparatively adverse (not congruous), it will not continue, at least as a rule. The circumstances are to be deemed favourable or unfavourable not absolutely, but comparatively, that is, in proportion to the intensity of the grace; for it is plain that, no matter how adverse they may be, God can overcome them by a strong impulse of grace such as would not be needed in other less stubborn cases; and, vice versa, very powerful Divine impulses may fail where the temptation to sin is very great. Not that in the necessary stage of the motion there is not sufficient energy, as we may say, to continue, always supposing freedom; or that it is not within the competence of the will, when the crucial point has been reached, to discontinue the motion which is congruous or to continue that which is not so. The will can continue to act or can abstain in either case; as a rule, however, it continues to act when the circumstances are favourable to that precise form and intensity of motion, thereby becoming efficacious; and does not continue when the circumstances are unfavourable, thereby proving a merely sufficient grace.

To anyone who reflects on the way in which the will is influenced by motives it must be obvious that any movement or tendency that may arise towards a particular object, whether good or evil, is more or less likely to continue according as it harmonizes or conflicts with other motions or tendencies towards objects which are incompatible with the first. The whole theory of reflection or meditation is based on this truth. Concomitant states, in sympathy with the motions of grace, make the favourable or congruous circumstances in which these motions operate; just as a tendency towards vice, if accompanied by other appetites favourable to its working, must be deemed congruous or fortunate as regards the circumstances in which it intervenes. Jansenists, Augustinians, Molinists, Determinists, all should and do agree, therefore, in admitting the strengthening influence of a number of confluent motions and, conversely, the weakening effect on any tendency of a simultaneous tendency in an opposite direction. So far all are Congruists; the difference being that whereas Jansenists and Determinists do not admit that the will is free to resist the stronger combination of motives; and while Augustinians proclaim this in words but seem to deny it in reality; all Molinists maintain that the will can effectually cease to tend towards an object, even though it should be proposed as more perfect than what is seen to be incompatible with it; provided always this more perfect object is not presented as absolutely or infinitely perfect in every way. The will is likely to be drawn, and almost invariably is drawn, by the stronger, i. e. more congruous, motive; it is not, however, drawn of necessity, nor even quite invariably, if Molinism is true. In this, which is the only psychologically intelligible sense of Congruism, Molina, Lessius, and all their followers were Congruists just as much as Suarez or Bellarmine.

All true Molinists admit and contend that, antecedently to the concession of grace, whether merely sufficient or efficacious, God knows by scientia media whether it will actually result in the free action for which it is given, or will remain inefficacious though sufficient. All likewise admit and proclaim that a specially benevolent Providence is exercised towards the recipient of grace when, with His knowledge of conditional results, God gives graces which He foresees to be efficacious, rather than others which He foresees would be inefficacious and which He is free to give. Bellarmine (De Gratiâ et Lib. Arbitrio, Bk. I, ch. xii) seems to accuse Molina, unjustly, of not admitting this latter point. Difference of opinion among Molinists is manifested only when they proceed to inquire into the cause of the Divine selection: whether it is due to any antecedent decree of predestination which God means to carry out at all costs, selecting purposely to this end only such graces as He foresees to prove efficacious, and passing over or omitting to select, no less purposely, such as he foresees would be without result if given. Suarez holds that the selection of graces which are foreseen to prove efficacious is consequent on and necessitated by such an antecedent decree, whereby all, and only, those who will actually be saved were infallibly predestined to salvation, and this antecedently to any foreknowledge, whether of their actual or merely conditional correspondence with the graces they may receive. The great body of the theologians of the Society of Jesus, as well as of other followers of Molina, while admitting that individuals, such as St. Paul, may be, and have been, predestined in that way, do not regard it as the only, or even the ordinary, course of Divine Providence. (See PREDESTINATION.)

Though this difference of opinion has really nothing to do with Congruism, it is probably the main reason why Billuart and other opponents of Molinism have maintained that Suarez and Bellarmine differ from Molina and Lessius not merely as regards predestination, but also as regards the nature of efficacious grace; that the opinion of Suarez is the only true Congruism as distinguished from the pure Molinism of the others; and that Congruism in this sense was made obligatory on all the schools of the Society by Acquaviva, the fifth general (1613). The precise bearing of his decree has been rather hotly disputed, Father Schneemann, Cardinal Mazella, and others maintaining that it did not in any way command a departure from the teaching of Molina. Père de Regnon candidly, and rightly, admits that it did; not as regards the nature of efficacious grace but only as regards predestination. (See CONGREGATIO DE AUXILIIS; GRACE; PREDESTINATION; MOLINA; SUAREZ.)

On Congruism proper the best author is probably SUAREZ, De Gratiâ, Bk. V, ch. xxi, nos. 4 sqq.; IDEM, ibid., Appendix Prior, De verâ intelligentiâ, etc.; IDEM, Opusc. I de auxiliis, etc., Bk. III, ch. xiv. Of recent writers see MAZZELLA, De Gratiâ Christi (3rd ed., Rome, 1882), nos. 677 sqq.; CH. PESCH, De Gratiâ (Freiburg, 1897), Prop. xxii; SCHNEEMANN, Controversiarum de Div. Gratiâ, etc. (Freiburg, 1881), sect. 1, no. 16; LAHOUSSE, De Gratiâ Divinâ, nos. 213 sqq.; DE REGNON, Bañez et. Molina (Paris, 1883), Bk. II, sect. 8.- the predestination aspect see FRANZELIN, De Deo Uno (Rome, 1876), Th. lv, lix-lxvi; BILLOT, De Deo (Prato, 1893), pp. 268 sqq.- to whether Congruism is or implies a departure from the principles of Molina, and on the bearing of Acquaviva’s decree see on the one side BELLARMINE, De Gratiâ et Lib. Arb., Bk. I, ch. xii, xiii; BILLUART, De Gratiâ, diss. v, art. 2, sect. 3; GRAVESON, )Epistolœ theol.-hist.-polemicœ (Bassano, 1785), Classis I, n.1, pp. 5 sqq.; GAZZANIGA, De Gratiâ, Pt. I, diss. v, ch. ii, no. 110. For the views of the other side see MAZELLA, op. cit., nos. 717 sqq.; SCHIFFINI, De Gratiâ (Freiburg, 1901), IV, no. 275; SCHNEEMANN, Controversiarum, etc., sect. 16; DE REGNON, op. cit., loc. cit.

WALTER MCDONALD.

Conimbricenses

(Or Collegium Conimbricenses).

The name by which Jesuits of the University of Coimbra in Portugal were known. On the register of the college at various times appeared the names of two hundred Jesuits including professors and students. Toward the end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth, voluminous commentaries on the philosophical writings of Aristotle went forth from the university. These commentaries were dictations to the students by the professors and as such were not intended for publication. Still they were actually published, but fraudulently. In order to interpret and disown incorrect and unauthorized editions, Father Claudius Acquaviva, the General of the Society of Jesus, assigned Father Peter Fonseca, the provincial of the Portuguese province, the task of supervising the revision of these commentaries for publication. Father Fonseca was widely known as the Aristotle of Portugal. The different treatises appeared in the following order:

“Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Jesu in octo libros physicorum Aristotelis Stagyritæ” (Coimbra, 1591);

“Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Jesu in quattuor libros physicorum Aristotelis de Coelo” (Coimbra, 1592);

Commentarii etc. in libros meteorum Aristotelis Stagyritæ (Coimbra, 1592);

Commentarii etc. in libros Aristotelis qui parva naturalia appelantur (Coimbra, 1592);

Commentarii etc. in libros Ethicorum Aristotelis ad Nichomachum aliquot Cursus Conimbricensis disputationes in quibus præcipua quaedam Ethicæ disciplinæ capita continentur (Coimbra, 1595);

Commentarii etc. in duos libros Aristotelis de generatione et coruptione” (Coimbra, 1595);

Commentarii etc. in tres libros Aristotelis de Animâ (Coimbra, 1592). This treatise was published after the death of Father Emmanuel Golz (whom Father Fonseca had commissioned to publish the earlier volumes by Father Comas Maggalliano (Magalhæns). To it he added a treatise of Father Balthazaar Alvarez “De Animâ Separatâ” and his own work “Tractatio aliquot problematum ad quinque Sensus Spectantium.”

Commentarii etc. in universam dialecticam nunc primum (ed. Venice, 1606).

To this last treatise was prefixed a forward disowning any connection whatever with the work published at Frankfurt in 1604 and claiming to be the “Commentarii Conimbricenses.” The portion of the preface referred to is substantially the following: “Before we could finish the task entrusted to us of editing our Logic, to which we were bound by many promises, certain German publishers fraudulently brought out a work professing to be from us, abounding in errors and inaccuracies which were really their own. They also substituted for our commentaries certain glosses gotten furtively. It is true these writings thrity years previously were the work of one of our professors not indeed intended for publication. They were the fruit of his zeal and he never dreamed they would appear in print. The last treatise was prepared fro printing by Father Sebastian Couto. The entire eight parts formed five qaurto volumes, enjoyed a wide circulation, and appeared in many editions, the best known being those of Lyon, Lisbon, and Colgne. The Commentaries are in flowing Latin and are supplemented by reliable explanations of the text and exhaustive discussion of the system of Aristotle. Karl Werner says that the Jesuits of Coimbra gave the world a masterpiece, whose equal is yet to be seen and which has received the admiration it deserves. Father de Backer gives an exact list of all the editions. The later ones have added the Greek text of Aristotle. Langhorst in Kirchenlex., s.v.; Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., II; Braga, Historia da Universidade de Coimbra (Lisbon, 1892–1902).

JOHN J. CASSIDY.

Giles de Coninck

(Also called Regius).

Jesuit theologian, b. 20 Dec., 1571, at Bailleul in French Flanders; d. 31 May, 1633, at Louvain. At the age of twenty-one he entered the Society of Jesus. During his course of studies at Louvain he had Lessius among his professors, and became the worthy successor of his illustrious teacher in the chair of scholastic theology, which he held for eighteen years. St. Alphonsus considers Coninck a moral theologian of distinction. Though de Lugo impugned his views on many questions, he is acknowledged to have rendered considerable services to moral theology. His style is concise, clear, and direct: on several points his writings are exhaustive. Coninck’s principal works are:

“Commentariorum ac disputationum in universam doctrinam D. Thomæ,” etc. (Antwerp, 1616; enlarged and revised 1619, 1624; Lyons 1619, 1624, 1625, 1643; Rouen, 1630. The last edition was among the Jesuit works condemned to be torn and burnt by an act of parliament of Rouen, 12 Feb., 1762).

“De Moralitate, naturâ et effectibus actuum supernaturalium.” etc. (Antwerp, 1623; Lyons, 1623; Paris, 1624. The author is said to have left very ample additions intended to appear in the subsequent editions of the work. Father Müllendorff assures his readers that this treatise may be recommended to the theologians even of today).

“Responsio ad dissertationem impugnantem absolutionem moribundi sensibus destituti,” etc. (Antwerp, 1625):

Disputationes theolgicæ” (Antwerp, 1645, published posthumously, though finished twelve years before the author’s death).

Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1892), I, 361; Müllendorff in Kirchenlex., III, 947; Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la c. de J., II, 1369 sq.

A.J. MAAS

Connecticut

This State, comprising an area of substantially 5000 square miles, was one of the thirteen colonies which, in 1776, declared their independence from England. It was among the first to ratify the Federal Constitution under which, in 1789, the republic known as the United States of America established its present form of government. The population enrolled in the census of 1900 was 908,420, and in 1908 undoubtedly exceeded 1,000,000, the increase being in the cities, while the rural communities barely held their own. Manufacturing industries, rather than agricultural or commercial, are the principal resources of the State.

EARLY SETTLERS

The first English settlement was established on the Connecticut River at Windsor by traders from the Plymouth Colony in 1633. In the same year the Dutch from New Amsterdam had sailed up the river and erected a trading house and fort where the city of Hartford now stands, a few miles below Windsor. The Dutch soon after withdrew, leaving the English to establish the first permanent settlements within the boundaries of Connecticut. Saybrook, at the mouth of th Connecticut River, was settled by the English in 1636, and New Haven by colonists from Massachusetts Bay in 1638. In 1664 the New Haven Colony, then comprising the various settlements along the coast, was forced to unite with those in the Connecticut valley, thus forming one commonwealth thereafter known as Connecticut.

On 24 January, 1639, settlers of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield then “cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining” united in the adoption of the first written constitution known in history. The “Fundimental Orders,” as they were called, established a Christian commonwealth, and provided for the election of a governor and other magistrates, together with a General Court having both legislative and judicial powers. This General Court consisted of deputies who were to be Freemen elected from the several towns. The towns named above were each to send four deputies, and other towns thereafter added to the jurisdiction were to send such numbers as the court should judge meet, to be reasonably proportioned to the number of Freemen in each town. In 1661 Governor Winthrop was sent to England to petition the king for a charter confirming such privileges and liberties as were necessary for the permanent welfare of the colony. He secured from the reigning sovereign, Charles II, a most liberal charter which remained the organic law of the commonwealth until the adoption of the present State Constitution in 1818, almost half a century after the State had severed its allegiance to the English Crown. This charter conferred upon the people of the colony the right to elect their own governor and other officers, and the largest measure of self-government. It is of interest to note the territorial boundaries of the colony set forth in the charter. It was bounded on the east by Narragansett Bay, on the north by the line of the Massachusetts Plantation, and on the south by the sea. It was to extend to the west in longitude with the line of the Massachusetts Colony to the South Sea “on the west part with the islands there adjoining.”

In 1786 Connecticut ceded to the United States all its public land, reserving, however, about three and a half million acres in what is now the State of Ohio. This was known for many years as the “Connecticut Reserve” or “Western Reserve.” The legislature granted some five hundred thousand acres of the reservation to the citizens of the towns of Danbury, Fairfield, Norwalk, New London, and Groton to indemnify them for special losses during the War of the Revolution when these towns were burned by the British troops. The grant was afterwards known as the “Fire Lands.” In 1795 a committee was appointed to dispose of the reservation. It was sold to a syndicate organized to effect the purchase for $1,200,000. The income from this fund is devoted to the support of common schools, and the State Constitution declares it shall never be directed to any other purpose.

The present Constitution was adopted in 1818. Under its provisions the town is the basis of representation in the lower house of the legislature rather than population. This has brought about, by the growth of the larger cities and towns, a most undemocratic form of government. The cities of New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport, each having a population of more than 100,000, have only two representatives in the lower house, while a large number of towns with a population of less than 1000 have the same number of representatives. In 1902 a constitutional convention was held in the hope that this inequitable system of representation would be corrected. The convention was so constituted, however, as to make any hope of a radical change of the system of representation impossible. The convention numbered 167 delegates, one from each town. The constitution finally proposed by this convention made but a slight change in the basis of representation, and was rejected by the people when submitted for their ratification.

The early settlers of Connecticut were for the most part English of the upper middle class. Their ministers, many of them, had been clergymen of the Established Church who had been deprived of their English livings for non-conformity. Their devoted congregations followed them across the Atlantic and founded the settlement at Massachusetts Bay. From thence came chiefly the first emigrants, attracted by the fertile soil of the Connecticut valley and the sequestered harbours along the Sound. Before the War of the Revolution, however, Ireland had contributed quite a noticeable percentage to the population of the various settlements. This seems to be established from the considerable number of Irish names disclosed in the official military documents of that period. The vast majority of the population, however, remained distinctively English of Puritan origin until the great emigration set in from Ireland, prompted by the disastrous famine in 1846. There is also a considerable German element distributed pretty evenly throughout the State. Since the close of the Civil War French Canadians have come down from the Province of Quebec, and have settled more numerously in the eastern part of the State where they have found employment in the manufacturing towns. More recently the Italians, in large numbers, have located in the cities and larger towns. New Haven, alone, it is estimated, has an Italian population of upwards of 20,000. Russian Jews have also become very numerous, principally in the cities, while Scandinavians, Lithuanians, and Greeks are becoming an increasingly prominent element of the urban population. In common with all the other States of the Atlantic seaboard, while the language and customs of the Anglo-Saxon are still overwhelmingly dominant, the strain of English blood is becoming more and more attenuated with the passing of each decade. In colonial times and during the earlier days of the Republic, Connecticut occupied a place of distinction and commanding influence among her sister commonwealths. At the close of the War of the Revolution she was the eighth in respect to population among the thirteen States that formed the Union, having by the census of 1790, 238,141 souls. She furnished, however, 31,959 soldiers to armies of the Revolution, thus exceeding by 5281 the number furnished by Virginia, then the most populous of all the States, and having at that time more than three times the population of Connecticut. In this respect Connecticut was surpassed only by Massachusetts, which furnished 67,097 soldiers, from a population of 475,257 souls.

RELIGIOUS POLITY

The planters of the Connecticut River towns, in formulating their first constitution in 1639, were all of them Puritans of the sect subsequently known throughout all of the New England States as Congregationalists. The distinctive theory of their ecclesiastical polity regarded each congregation as a self-governing body, with power to formulate its own creed and prescribe its own conditions of membership. They repudiated all allegiance to any central ecclesiastical authority, and the various congregations or churches, as they were then called, were independent and self-governing, bound to each other by ties of fellowship and community of interest, rather than by canons prescribed by any superior ecclesiastical authority. (See CONGREGATIONALISM.) There was from the very first, however, the most intimate relation between the churches and the civil authority. Church membership was an indispensable qualification for civil office, and for the exercise of the rights of Freemen. In the preamble of their first constitution they declared that they were entering into a combination or confederation “to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also the discipline of the churches which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced among us.” Freedom of religious worship, as now understood and demanded everywhere in America, was a principle to which they accorded but scant and reluctant acceptance. For a century and a half Congregationalism was the established religion supported by public taxation. Other Christian sects were merely tolerated. Not until the adoption of the Constitution of 1818 did the principle of true religious freedom receive governmental recognition. It was then declared that it being the duty of all men to worship the Supreme Being, and to render their worship in the mode most consistent with the dictates of their consciences, that no person should by law be compelled to join or support, be classed with, or associated to any congregation, church or religious association. It was further declared that every society or denomination of Christians should have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights, and privileges. Among such powers was specified authority in such denominations to support and maintain ministers or teachers, and to build and repair houses for public worship by a tax on the members of such society only, to be laid by a majority vote of the legal voters assembled at any society meeting warned and held according to law or in any mariner. It was further provided that any person might separate himself from the society or denomination of Christians to which he belonged by leaving a written notice to that effect with the clerk of the society, and should thereupon cease to be liable for any future expenses incurred by such society. This power of taxation has for many years ceased to be exercised by the constituent societies of any of the denominations, which are now usually maintained by pew rents, voluntary offerings, and the income of specific charitable trusts where such exist.

The observance of Sunday has always been strictly provided for by law. The statutes now in force had their origin about the beginning of the eighteenth century. They forbid any secular business or labour, except works of necessity or mercy, the keeping open of any shop, warehouse, or manufacturing establishment, the exposing of any property for sale, or the engaging in any sport on Sunday, and the person offending may be fined not to exceed fifty dollars. These statutes also provide that any person who is present at any concert of music, dancing, or other public diversion on Sunday, or the evening thereof, may be fined not more than four dollars. The keeping open of saloons and sale of liquor on Sunday is also prohibited under severe penalties. These laws still have public opinion strongly in their favour, and are in consequence pretty generally respected and enforced. Special laws allow the running of railway trains and trolley cars on Sundays during such hours and with such frequency as the State railroad commissioners may, from time to time, prescribe.

All judges and magistrates, clerks of courts, and certain other officials in special cases are empowered by statute to administer oaths. An oath of faithful performance is usually required from the incumbent before entering upon the duties of any public office. Administrators and others when making return of the duties they have performed are required to make oath that the duties have been faithfully performed or that the return they make thereof is true and correct. The ceremonial of the oath universally employed is by raising the right hand in the presence of the magistrate administering it, who recites the statutory form, always beginning with the words “You solemnly swear,” and ending with the invocation “So help you God.” For many years the statutes have permitted any person having conscientious scruples to affirm in lieu of being sworn. Such persons “solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare,” “upon the pains and penalties of perjury.” If the authority administering the oath shall have reason to believe that any other ceremony will be more binding upon the conscience of a witness, he may permit or require any other ceremony to e used.

Statutes against blasphemy and profanity have been in existence since the settlement of the colony, and in the seventeenth century these crimes were severely punished. The statutes now in force are traced to legislation of 1642 and 1650, and provide that one who shall blaspheme against God, either person of the Holy Trinity, the Christian religion, or the holy Scriptures, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars and imprisoned not more than one year, and bound to his good behaviour. One who shall use any profane oath or wickedly curse another shall be fined one dollar.

It has always been the custom to open each daily session of both houses of the General Assembly with prayer, and chaplains are appointed by each body whose salaries are fixed by law. It is still the custom to open each term of the Supreme and Superior courts with prayer. The clerk invites some clergyman to perform that office, and pays him an honorarium which is taxed in the regular expenses of the court. The great festival of Christmas received little recognition among the Congregationalists of Connecticut and the other New England States until the latter half of the nineteenth century. Almost from the settlement of the colony it was the custom for the governor to proclaim a day of thanksgiving in the late autumn to be observed as a religious holiday. It was originally intended to be and is still considered as a sort of harvest festival, and has long been esteemed in Connecticut as a day for family reunions and feasting. It was not until Episcopalians or, still later, Catholics became such prominent factors in the population that the 25th of December was declared by statute to be a legal holiday. Good Friday, as such, has never been made a legal holiday. The earlier settlers and their descendants were accustomed to observe a day in the early spring, proclaimed by legal authority as a day of fasting and prayer. For many years now it has been the custom for the governor to select Good Friday for the annual spring fast. Thus Christmas and Good Friday have in recent years received somewhat indirectly the recognition of civil authority. No statutes have been enacted, however, to compel their observance, and the statutes relating to Sunday observance are in no way applicable to these days. No other holy days of the Church are recognized in any manner by the law.

No privilege under the law attaches in any way to communications made to a priest under the seal of confession. As yet such privilege extends only to communications between a lawyer and his client, which the common law of England has always protected. It may be doubted if a law extending such privilege to priests or indeed to clergymen of any denomination could be passed through the legislature as at present constituted. No instance, however, exists, certainly in recent years, where an attempt has been made in any court of justice to compel a priest to disclose any knowledge which came to him through the confessional, and it is quite certain that public opinion would strongly disapprove any such attempt.

ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS

The statutes of Connecticut contain quite elaborate provisions regulating ecclesiastical societies and the incorporation of churches. Many of those still in force were originally passed when the Congregational denomination was practically the State religion, and its various ecclesiastical societies had power to lay taxes for their support. Originally such a society was distinct from the church, constituting a separate organization. Individuals might be legal members of the society and not members of the church. This condition still remains in many communities, although, as before stated, one may escape liability of taxation by withdrawing from the society. It would be legally possible for an ecclesiastical society to be incorporated under these laws for the purpose of maintaining a church in communion with the Catholic Church. In early times before statutes were enacted for the organization and government of these societies, the several towns had the functions of ecclesiastical societies.

In recent years special statutory provisions have been made for the government of other denominations. Prior to 1866, when a law was passed having special reference to the Catholic Church, the title to most of its property was vested in the bishop and his successors. In that year an act was passed by the legislature providing for the organization of a corporation in connexion with any Catholic church or congregation. Such corporation consists of the bishop and vicar-general of the diocese, the pastor and two laymen of the congregation. The lay members are appointed annually by the ex-officio or clerical members. Such corporation is empowered to hold all property conveyed to it for the purpose of maintaining religious worship according to the doctrine, discipline, and ritual of the Catholic Church, and for the support of the educational or charitable institutions of that church. A restriction exists to the effect that no one incorporated church or congregation may possess an amount of property, except church buildings, parsonages, school-houses, asylums and cemeteries, the annual income of which exceeds three thousand dollars. Such corporation shall at all times be subject to the general laws and discipline of the Catholic Church, and shall hold and enjoy its franchise solely for the purposes above mentioned. Upon a forfeiture of its franchise or surrender of its charter its property vests in the bishop and his successors, in trust for such congregation. This law has in the main worked with entire satisfaction. Property of various religious orders is usually legally vested in a corporation either specially chartered or organized under the general laws of the State where the mother-house of the community is located.

TAX EXEMPTION

In the general statute providing for exemption from taxation are included buildings exclusively occupied as colleges, academies, churches, public school-houses, or infirmaries, and parsonages of any ecclesiastical society to the value of five thousand dollars, while used solely as such. So also are buildings belonging to and used exclusively for scientific, literary, benevolent or ecclesiastical societies. Clergymen are not exempt under the law from liability to perform jury duty or rendering military service. They are, however, rarely if ever found in a jury panel, for the reason that it is not customary to place their names on the lists from which jurors are drawn.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE

The laws relating to marriage require that no persons shall be married until one of them under oath shall inform the registrar of the town in which the marriage is to be celebrated of the name, age, colour, occupation, birthplace, residence and condition (whether single, widowed, or divorced) of each. The registrar thereupon issues a certificate that the parties have complied with the provisions of law, which certificate is a license to any person authorized to celebrate marriage, to join them in marriage in that town. No such certificate shall be issued if either party is a minor without the written consent of the parent or guardian of such minor. The person celebrating the marriage is required to certify that fact upon the license, stating the time and place of such marriage, and return the same to the registrar before or during the first week of the month following the marriage. If be fails to do so he is liable to a fine of ten dollars. All judges and justices of the peace and ordained or licensed clergymen belonging to the State or any other State, so long as they continue in the work of the ministry, may join persons in marriage. A clergyman in solemnizing marriage is regarded in the law as a public officer, and his acts in that capacity are prima facie evidence of his character. Any person who attempts to join persons in marriage, knowing that he is not authorized so to do, may be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Divorces are granted by the superior court on any of the following grounds: adultery; fraudulent contract; wilful desertion for three years with total neglect of duty; seven years’ absence, whereabouts unknown, habitual intemperance; intolerable cruelty; sentence to imprisonment for life, or for any infamous crime involving a violation of conjugal duty punishable by imprisonment in the State’s prison. The General Assembly may pass an act dissolving a marriage so far as its civic relation is concerned, but in recent years applications to that body have been regarded with disfavour and are very exceptional. Notwithstanding the fact that the judges have in recent years been increasingly vigilant in requiring strict proof of the facts upon which, under the law, a divorce may be adjudged, the number of divorces has alarmingly increased.

CHARITIES AND EXCISE

The State is well supplied with hospitals and orphan asylums. The former, located in all of the principal cities, are, most of them, controlled by secular corporations, but in Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven, Catholic hospitals have been established in recent years. All hospitals, secular and Catholic, receive liberal annual grants from the State. Several orphan asylums are supported by the charity of non-Catholics, while the St. Francis Asylum, located in New Haven, provides for the needs of the Catholic population. County houses for dependent children who would otherwise have to be committed to the town poorhouses are established by law in each county and supported by public grants.

For many years the sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors has been regulated by a law which secures local option to each city and town. On petition of twenty-five legal voters of any town a secret ballot must be held at the next annual election on the question of licence or no licence. Unless the vote is in the affirmative the sale of liquor in that town is absolutely prohibited, except by a public agent for limited purposes of necessity. Licences are granted by the county commissioners. The licence fee in towns of over 3000 inhabitants is $450, and in other towns $250. The business of the licencees is very strictly regulated by law, and their places must be closed from twelve o’clock at night until five the next morning, and on Sundays and all days on which any public election is held.

There is one State prison, located at Wethersfield, a reformatory for boys at Meriden, and an industrial school for girls at Middletown. No reformatory for adult convicts has yet been established in the State, though the matter has received legislative sanction, and the establishment of such a reformatory will doubtless be accomplished.

The statute of wills has been in force from the establishment of the colony. All persons of sound mind above eighteen years of age may dispose of their estate by will. A will must be in writing, subscribed by the testator, and attested by three witnesses, each of them subscribing in his presence.

The common law of public and charitable uses has always been in force in Connecticut. Grants for the “maintenance of the ministry of the Gospel,” of schools of learning, the relief of the poor, the maintenance of any cemetery or lot therein, or monuments thereon, are especially declared to be within the law of charitable uses.

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES

New Haven, the principal city, having a population in 1900 of 108,027, and in 1908 estimated to be upwards of 125,000, is chiefly noted as being the seat of Yale University. The college from which this university has grown was chartered as a collegiate school by the Colonial Assembly in 1701, and first opened at Saybrook a town at the mouth of the Connecticut River. Its promoters were the leading Congregational ministers of the colony, nearly all of whom had been graduated at Harvard College which had been founded at Cambridge by the General Court of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay in 1636. In 1718 the college was transferred to New Haven where the first building was erected, and where it took the name of Yale College on account of a donation of books and money of the value of about £800, made by Elihu Yale. Yale was born near Boston in 1648, but on his maturity removed to England where he died in 1721, never having returned to the colonies. The declared intention of the founders of the College was to educate young men for the ministry of the Congregational sect, then, and for many years after, the established religion of the colony. It received from time to time substantial grants from the Colonial Assembly, and the only one of its ancient group of buildings still remaining, and recently restored, was erected with funds granted for that purpose by the legislature. In 1715 it received a new charter.

To the original college other faculties and departments have from time to time been added. In 1812 a school of medicine was established; in 1822, theology; in 1824, law; in 1847, a school of science, now known as the Sheffield Scientific School; in 1868, a school of fine arts; in 1894, a department of music, and in 1900, a forest school. These several schools and departments, together with the Peabody Museum of Natural History, founded in 1866, and the Winchester Observatory in 1871, together constitute Yale University. More than 3,000 students are enrolled in all of its departments, and its various faculties number 320 professors and instructors. Its libraries contain about 500,000 volumes. In 1907 its property and funds amounted to nearly nine millions of dollars in value, and it expended in that year more than one million dollars in its operations. Yale has long since ceased to be denominational or sectarian in its character and influence, and has become substantially a secular institution. Upwards of 300 Catholics are numbered among its students, and several among the instructors.

Other colleges in the State are Trinity, established in Hartford, the capital of the State, by the Episcopalians in 1824, which has 200 students, and Wesleyan University at Middletown, chartered in 1831, and under the control of the Methodist Episcopalians. This institution has about 350 students, and thirty-five professors and instructors. There is no State university, as such, although a school of agriculture was established by the State in the town of Mansfield in 1881, upon the bequest of Augustus Storrs. This institution now receives the income of the various grants from the United States to Connecticut for the maintenance of colleges for instruction in agriculture and the mechanic arts, and is duly incorporated as the Connecticut Agricultural College. It has an enrollment of about 140 students, with twenty-eight professors and instructors. The Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University maintains advanced courses in civil, mechanical, electrical, and mining engineering, which are pursued by large numbers of students.

In the State system of public schools, high schools are maintained in all cities and considerable towns, and district or grammar schools are conveniently accessible to every child in the State. The public schools have a total enrollment of 163,141 pupils, with 4,281 teachers. The total amount expended for the maintenance of these schools, including expenditures for new buildings and repairs, was for the year 1905, $3,795,259. Besides the State schools, good schools of the grammar grade are maintained in most of the larger Catholic parishes. There are 75 of these parochial schools in the State, with 31,877 pupils, and 714 teachers. The teachers are almost exclusively members of various sisterhoods. The establishment of these parochial schools has cost the Catholic population of the State $3,290,700, and the annual cost of their maintenance has reached the sum of $475,355. These schools receive no aid from the State or other public funds.

CHURCH STATISTICS

The See of Hartford was erected 18 September, 1843, with jurisdiction over the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island. These States had formerly been included in the Diocese of Boston. The first Bishop of Hartford was the Right Reverend William Taylor, who, with his successors, maintained the episcopal residence in the city of Providence until 1872, when Rhode Island was set apart as the Diocese of Providence, and Bishop McFarland then took up his residence in Hartford. In 1835 a census taken by Bishop Fenwick of Boston found about 720 Catholics in Connecticut, and in 1844 Catholics numbered 4817. In 1890 they had increased to 152,945, outnumbering the communicants of all Protestant denominations by more than 5000. In 1899 the Catholic population in Connecticut exceeded 250,000, and in 1908 had reached 395,354, with a remaining non-Catholic population of 725,000. Neither the coloured nor the Indian races contribute appreciably to this number. For the most part the Catholics of Connecticut are of Irish ancestry, largely augmented by the German, Italian, French Canadian, and Polish immigrations of recent years. Comparatively few trace their ancestry to the early settlers of the colony, and these generally are converts or belong to the families of converts. The number of conversions has been slowly but steadily increasing, but the enormous growth of the Catholic Church in Connecticut is still chiefly due to the great tide of immigration from European countries during the last half-century.

The Congregationalists are the most numerous of the Protestant denominations, having, according to the religious census taken in 1890, 59,154 members. The same census disclosed 26,652 Protestant Episcopalians, 29,411 Methodists, and 22,372 Baptists. It is notable that of Presbyterians, probably in other parts of the United States one of the most numerous of the Protestant bodies, there were in Connecticut at the time of the taking of this census only 1680 communicants.

HOLLISTER, History of Connecticut (New Haven, 1855), II; LIVERMORE, Republic of New Haven (Baltimore, 1886); BARBER, Connecticut Historical Collections (New Haven, 1836); TRUMBULL, History of Connecticut (New London, 1898), II; Colonial Records of Connecticut, eds. TRUMBULL and HOADLEY (Hartford, 1850–1890), XV; New Haven Colonial Records ed. HOADLEY (Hartford, 1857–8), II; O’DONNELL, History of the Diocese of Hartford (Boston, 1900).

JAMES HENRY WEBB

John Connolly

Second Bishop of New York, U.S.A., b. at Slane, Co. Meath, Ireland, 1750; d. New York, 6 February, 1825. He joined the Dominican Order in early youth and was sent to Rome, where, after ordination to the priesthood, he became professor at St. Clement’s, theologian of the Minerva, agent of the Irish Bishops, and Prior of St. Clement’s. Both Pius VI and Pius VII held him in high esteem. By his influence he saved the Irish, Scotch, and English colleges and his own convent, church, and library from being plundered by the French invaders. He was nominated Bishop of New York as successor to Bishop Concanen, who had desired his appointment in the first instance. He was consecrated in Rome, 6 November, 1814, but did not reach New York until 24 November, 1815. Despite advanced years and untoward circumstances, he did the fruitful work of both bishop and missionary almost to the day of his death. The diocese then included all New York and part of New Jersey, for which there were only four priests. He built several churches, founded an orphan asylum, and introduced the Sisters of Charity. Actively interested in religious progress throughout the country, he advocated the idea of a diocese in every state as the best means of promoting the cause of the Church.

BAYLEY, A Brief Sketch of the Hist. of the Cath. Ch. on the Island of New York (New York, 1853); DE COURCY AND SHEA, History of the Cath. Ch. in the U.S. (New York, 1856); CLARKE, Lives of the Deceased Bishops (New York, 1872), I, 192; Catholic Miscellany (Charleston), files 1824 and 1825 passim.

VICTOR F. O’DANIEL

Pope Conon

Date of birth unknown; d., after a long illness, 21 September, 687. The son, seemingly, of an officer in the Thracesian troop, he was educated in Sicily and ordained priest at Rome. His age, venerable appearance, and simple character caused the clergy and soldiery of Rome, who were in disagreement, to put aside their respective candidates and to elect him as pope. He was consecrated (21 October, 686) after notice of his election had been sent to the Exarch of Ravenna, or after it had been confirmed by him (see BENEDICT I-X, POPES, under BENEDICT II). He received the Irish missionaries, St. Kilian and his companions, consecrated Kilian bishop, and commissioned him and the others to preach the Faith in Franconia. (Vita S. Kiliani, in Canisius, Lect. Antiquæ, III, 175–180.) He was in favour with the savage Emperor Justinian II who informed him that he had recovered the Acts of the Sixth General Council, by which, he wrote, it was his intention to abide. Justinian also remitted certain taxes and dues owing to the imperial exchequer from several papal patrimonies.

Acta SS., 8 July, II, 612 sq.; DUCHESNE ed., Liber Pontificalis, I, 368 sq.; MANN, Lives of the Popes, I, pt. II, 72 sq.

HORACE K. MANN.

Conradin of Bornada

(Or CONRADIN OF BRESCIA)

Dominican preacher, b. in the latter part of the fourteenth century; d. at Bologna, 1 November, 1429. His parents, noble and wealthy Brescians, were devoted adherents of the Church in a time of many ills, including the great Western Schism. They gave their son a careful education and sent him, at the age of sixteen, to study civil and canon law at the University of Padua. There for five years amid the perils of the unbridled licence and moral disorders of the times, the youth was conspicuous for both talent and virtue, winning the esteem of his masters and compelling the respect of his fellow-students. He entered the Dominican Order at Padua in 1419, and was speedily found to be a model of religious observance. After his ordination his zeal found fruitful expression in his eloquent preaching. He was made prior of Brescia and shortly afterwards, by appointment of the master general, prior of the convent of St. Dominic at Bologna, where he was to restore strict observance. During a visitation of the black plague he displayed heroic zeal and intrepidity in ministering to the stricken people. Amid political upheavals, when bologna under the influence of the Bentivogli had revolted against papal authority, Conradin took a firm stand against the conduct of the misguided populace. For publishing the papal interdict, which they had incurred but which they had disregarded, he was twice seized and imprisoned, suffering many indignities and cruelties. His courageous bearing and constant mediation finally prevailed, however, and peace was restored. Pope Martin V, in recognition of his services, sought to create him a cardinal, but the humble servant of God resolutely declined the honour. The plague breaking out anew, Conradin fell a victim to his charity and died in the midst of his heroic ministrations. His early biographers generally refer to him as Blessed.

JOHN R. VOLZ.

Bl. Conrad of Ascoli

Friar Minor and missionary, b. at Ascoli in the March of Ancona in 1234; d. there, 19 April, 1289. He belonged to the noble family of Milliano and from his earliest years made penance the predominating element of his life. He entered the Order of Friars Minor at Ascoli together with his townsman and lifelong friend, Girolamo d’Ascoli, afterwards minister general, and later pope under the title of Nicholas IV. Having completed his studies at Perugia, Conrad was sent to Rome to teach theology. Later he obtained permission to go to Africa, where he preached with much fruit through the different provinces of Libya and worked numerous miracles. He was recalled from Africa to go on a mission to the King of France, then at war with Spain, and subsequently he became lector of theology at Paris. When not engaged in teaching, Conrad preached to the people or ministered to the sick in hospitals. In 1288 he was summoned to Rome by the new pope, Nicholas IV, who wished to make him cardinal, but Conrad died on the way after reaching his native city, being then fifty-five years of age. Nicholas IV was deeply grieved at the loss of his saintly friend, on whose counsel and zeal he had counted so much, and declared that Conrad’s death was a great loss to the Church. The people of Ascoli erected a splendid tomb over the remains of Blessed Conrad. In 1371, when his body was removed to the new church of the Franciscans, it was found incorrupt and gave forth a sweet odour. Pius VI approved the cultus of Blessed Conrad. His feast is kept in the Order of Friars Minor on 19 April.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Conrad of Hochstadt

(CONRAD OF HOSTADEN)

Archbishop of Cologne and Imperial Elector (1238–1261), and son of Count Lothar of Hochstadt and Mathilde of Vianden, date of birth unknown; d. 28 September, 1261. Nothing is known of his early youth. In 1216 he became beneficiary of the parish of Wevelinghoven near Dusseldorf; in 1226 he was canon and, some years later, provost of the cathedral of Cologne. After the death of Henry of Molenark (26 March, 1238) the cathedral chapter elected Conrad Archbishop of Cologne. He received the archiepiscopal insignia from the Emperor Frederic II at Brescia in August of the same year. The following year, 28 October, he was ordained priest and consecrated archbishop by Ludolf of Munster.

During the first few months of his reign the new archbishop was on the side of the emperor in his conflict with Pope Gregory IX, but for unknown reasons went over to the papal party shortly after the emperor’s excommunication (12 March, 1239). The whole temporal administration of Conrad was a series of struggles with some neighbouring princes and with the citizens of Cologne, who refused to acknowledge the temporal sovereignty of the archbishop over their city. Conrad was generally victorious, but his often treacherous manner of warfare has left many dark spots on his reputation. When Pope Innocent IV deposed Frederic II (17 July, 1245), it was chiefly due to the influence of Conrad that the pope’s candidate, Henry Raspe, Landgrave of Thuringia, was elected king, and when Henry died after a short reign of seven months (17 February, 1247), it was again the influence of Conrad that placed the crown on the head of the youthful William of Holland.

In recognition of these services, Pope Innocent made him Apostolic legate in Germany (14 March, 1249), an office which had become vacant by the death of Archbishop Sifrit of Mainz, five days previously. The clergy and laity of Mainz desired to have the powerful Conrad of Cologne as their new archbishop. Conrad seems to have secretly encouraged them, but for diplomatic reasons referred them to the pope, who kindly but firmly refused to place the two most important ecclesiastical provinces of Germany under the power of one man. Shortly after this decision the hitherto friendly relations between Pope Innocent IV and the archbishop ceased, and in April, 1250, the Apostolic legation in Germany was committed to Peter, Bishop of Albano. At the same time began Conrad’s estrangement from King William, which finally led to open rebellion. With all the means of a powerful and unscrupulous prince, Conrad attempted to dethrone William and would probably have been successful had not the king’s premature death made the intrigues of the archbishop unnecessary. After the death of King William (28 January, 1256), Conrad played an important but despicable role in the election of the new king. For a large sum he sold his vote to Richard of Cornwall, brother of Henry III of England, and crowned him at Aachen, 17 May, 1257. This was the last important act of Conrad. He is buried in the cathedral of Cologne, of which he laid the corner-stone, 15 August, 1248.

MICHAEL OTT

Conrad of Leonberg

(Leontorius)

A Cistercian monk and Humanist, b. at Leonberg in Swabia in 1460; d. at Engenthal near Basle after 1520. He took vows at the Cistercian monastery of Maulbronn in the Neckar district, which, unlike most other Cistercian monasteries of those times, was then enjoying its golden age. In 1490 he became secretary to the general of his order. When the German Humanists began to revive the study of the Latin and Greek classics, as Conrad deplored the barbarous Latin in which the scholastic philosophers and theologians of Germany were expounding the doctrine of their great masters, he was in full accord with their endeavours to restore the classical Latinity of the Ciceronian Age. He also, by word and example, encouraged the study of Greek, but was especially attracted by the great Hebrew scholar Reuchlin (d. 1522) who inspired Conrad with his own enthusiasm for the study of Hebrew. Like Reuchlin, his friend and teacher, Conrad was convinced of the necessity of Hebrew for a thorough understanding of the Holy Scriptures, and became one of the few great Hebrew scholars of his time. He was in correspondence with the best writers in sacred and profane literature, and was highly esteemed by the learned men of his period. For a time he appears to have been engaged as proof-reader in the celebrated printing-office of Amerbach at Basle. Besides writing numerous Latin poems, orations, and epistles, he published (Basle, 1506–8) the Latin Bible with the “Postilla” and “Moralitates” of the Oxford Franciscan Nicolas de Lyra, together with the “Additiones” of Paul of Burgos (d. 1435) and the “Replicæ” of Mathias Thoring (d. 1469).

WION, Lignum Vitæ (Venice, 1595), I, 78; HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1907), II, 949; HAGEN, Deutschlands literarische Verhältnisse im Reformations-Zeitalter (Erlangen, 1841), I, 151.

MICHAEL OTT

Conrad of Marburg

Confessor of Saint Elizabeth of Thuringia and papal inquisitor, b. at or near Marburg, Germany, in the second half of the twelfth century; d. 30 July, 1233. His contemporaries called him Magister, a proof that he had finished the course of studies at some university, perhaps Paris or Bologna. According to the Thuringian court-chaplain Berthold, and Cæsarius of Heisterbach, he was probably a secular priest, therefore neither a Dominican, as Hausrath states, nor a Franciscan, as is asserted by Henke and others. Papal letters and contemporary chroniclers describe Conrad as a man of much ability, large theological learning, great eloquence, ardent zeal in defence of the purity of Catholic Faith, and a severe ascetic. They also agree as to the sternness of his character. He is first heard of as a vigorous preacher of the crusade proclaimed in 1213 by Innocent III. The death of Innocent and the consequent relaxation of interest in the crusade, did not dampen the ardour of Conrad, while, in addition, he was charged with various important commissions. Honorius III authorized him (1219) to adjust the differences of the convent of Nihenburg with the Duke of Saxony and the Count of Askanien. The abbot of Hayna, the provost of St. Stephen, Mainz, and Conrad were appointed in 1227 papal commissioners for the separation of Marburg from the parish of Oberweimar. The synod of Mainz (1225) had issued several decrees for the improvement of the clergy and Conrad was intrusted with their execution; he was also charged with the reform of certain convents, as Nordhausen. In 1232 he describes himself as visitator monasteriorum in Alemanniâ. In the course of these labours Conrad became acquainted with the Landgrave Ludwig of Thuringia and his wife, St. Elizabeth. The prince held Conrad in high esteem, and the latter exercised great influence at the Thuringian court, being authorized by Ludwig to appoint to all ecclesiastical offices in the gift of the landgrave. This power of appointing to ecclesiastical livings was confirmed (12 June, 1227) by Gregory IX (Mon. Germ. Hist.: Epistolæ Sæc XIII, ed. Rodenberg, I, 276, n. 361).

In 1225, after the recall of the Franciscan Rodeger, Conrad became the spiritual director and confessor of the pious landgravine. He treated her with the same severity that he used against himself, a procedure in accordance with her own wishes. At times, however, he checked her pious zeal and forbade excessive mortifications. Conrad has been often blamed, quite unjustly, for the direction, in keeping with the custom of the time, which he imparted to the soul of St. Elizabeth. After the death of St. Elizabeth on 19 November, 1231, Conrad was deputed, with the Archbishop of Mainz and the Abbot of Eberbach, to examine witnesses concerning her life and the miracles attributed to her intercession. He also wrote for the process of canonization a short life of St. Elizabeth. In his later years Conrad was very active in Germany as papal inquisitor. The heresies of the Catharists and the Waldenses were spreading throughout the land; to Catharism, in particular, was owing the fantastic sect of the Luciferians (see Michael, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, II, 266). From the beginning fo the thirteenth century the German ecclesiastical authority, in union with the civil power, had proceedeed vigorously against all heresies. The conflict in which Conrad had so large a share was waged according to the medieval views of public right and welfare. The first process in which he took part was that directed against Heinrich Minnike, Provost of Goslar. In 1224 after a trial that lasted two years, Minnike was declared guilty of heresy, delivered to the secular arm, and perished at the stake. In the following years Conrad preached with great vigour against the heretics and was warmly praised and encouraged to greater zeal by Gregory IX in a letter of 1227. The Archbishops of Trier and of Mainz both wrote to the pope in 1231 in praise of the extraordinary activity of Conrad and reported his triumphs over several heretical leaders. Thereupon Pope Gregory conferred on Conrad (11 October, 1231) the extensive authority of papal inquisitor, the first such officer appointed in Germany. At the same time the pope released Conrad from the obligation of following the ordinary canonical procedure (te a cognitionibus causarum habere volumus excusatum) and authorized him to proceed resolutely against heretics as he throught best, but with due observance of the papal decrees on the subject.

In the exercise of this authority, even according to the sympathetic accounts of contemporary annalists, Conrad proved too severe and harsh. His assistants, Conrad Dorso, a Dominican lay brother, and John, a layman, were ignorant fanatics unqualified for such work. Conrad believed too easily the declarations of persons accused of heresy; on the strength of their statements, and without further investigation, others were arrested and treated as heretics. The accused either confessed their guilt and had their heads shaved for penance, or denied their guilt, were delivered as obstinate heretics to the secular arm, and perished at the stake. How great was the number of victims cannot now be ascertained. In western Germany a general panic followed the appearance of this severe judge of heretics, who did not fear to summon before his tribunal powerful nobles, suspected of heresy, among such the Count of Sayn. The count appealed to the Archbishop of Mainz who convened a synod of his suffragans (25 July, 1233), at which King Henry also assisted. Both the bishops and the influential nobles were generally ill-disposed towards Conrad, who was present at the synod, and it was found impossible to prove the charge of heresy against the Count of Sayn. Thereupon Conrad undertook, in the exercise of his papal commission, to preach a crusade against heretic nobles. Shortly afterwards (30 July, 1233) both he and his companion, the Franciscan Gerhard Lutzelkolb, were murdered while returning to Marburg. He was buried in Marburg near St. Elizabeth. Despite the unfavourable action of the synod of Mainz, Gregory IX extended his protection to the memory of the deceased inquisitor and insisted that severe punishment be meted out to his murderers.

HENKE, Konrad von Marburg, Beichtvater der hl. Elisabeth und Inquisitor (Marburg, 1861); HAUSRATH, Der Ketzermeister Konrad von Marburg, in Kleine Schriften (Leipzig, 1883), 137–233; BECK, Konrad von Marburg, Inquisitor in Deutschland (Breslau, 1871); KALTER, Konrad von Marburg und die Inquisition in Deutschland (Prague, 1882); MICHAEL, Gesch. das deutschen Volkes (Freiburg, 1899), II, 109, 206 sqq.; 318 sqq.; HUYSKENS, zum 700. Geburtstage der hl. Elisabeth von Thüringen, Studien über die Quell. ihrer Gesch. in Histor. Jahrb. (1907), XXVIII, 499 sqq., 729 sqq.

J.P. KIRSCH

Bl. Conrad of Offida

Friar Minor, b. at Offida, a little town in the March of Ancona, c. 1241; d. at Bastia in Umbria, 12 December, 1306. When barely fourteen years old he entered the Order of Friars Minor at Ascoli, and was making rapid progress in the study of sacred sciences, when an internal voice called him to humbler offices of the religious life. He therefore abandoned his studies with the consent of his superiors, and for many years was employed as cook and questor. His superiors subsequently had him ordained and sent him forth to preach. His impassioned sermons touched the hearts of the most hardened. Conrad modelled his life after that of his seraphic father, St. Francis. He was especially zealous for the observance of poverty. During his long religious life he always wore the same habit and always went barefoot, without sandals. The early legend declares that Conrad’s guardian angel was the same that had formerly fulfilled this office for St. Francis, and that Blessed Giles came back to earth to teach him the mysteries of contemplation. When Brother Leo, the companion and confessor of St. Francis, was dying, he sent for Conrad and made him the depositary of his writings. Conrad was allied with Angelo Clareno and intimately united with John of La Penna, John of Parma, Peter of John Olivi, Peter of Monticello, and others of the “Spirituals.” In 1294 he obtained permission from Celestine V to separate from the main body of the order and found the Celestines by whom the rule of St. Francis was observed in all its purity. When this congregation was suppressed by Boniface VIII, Conrad immediately returned under the authority of the superiors of the order. The letter written in 1295 by Peter of John Olivi to Blessed Conrad in which the legitimacy of Boniface VIII’s election is defended, has been edited by Ignatius Jeiler (Historisches Jahrbuch, III, 649). During a course of missions he was giving at Bastia, he passed away at the age of about sixty-five years and was buried in that place. Fifty-six years later his remains were carried off by the Perugians and buried at San Francesco. They now repose beside those of Blessed Giles in the choir of the cathedral at Perugia. Pius VII in 1817 ratified the cultus of Blessed Conrad. His feast is kept in the Order of Friars Minor on 19 December.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

St. Conrad of Piacenza

Hermit of the Third Order of St. Francis, date of birth uncertain; died at Noto in Sicily, 19 February, 1351. He belonged to one of the noblest families of Piacenza, and having married when he was quite young, led a virtuous and God-fearing life. On one occasion, when he was engaged in his usual pastime of hunting, he ordered his attendants to fire some brushwood in which game had taken refuge. The prevailing wind caused the flames to spread rapidly, and the surrounding fields and forest were soon in a state of conflagration. A mendicant, who happened to be found near the place where the fire had originated, was accused of being the author. He was imprisoned, tried, and condemned to death. As the poor man was being led to execution, Conrad, stricken with remorse, made open confession of his guilt; and in order to repair the damage of which he had been the cause, was obliged to sell all his possessions. Thus reduced to poverty, Conrad retired to a lonely hermitage some distance from Piacenza, while his wife entered the Order of Poor Clares. Later he went to Rome, and thence to Sicily, where for thirty years he lived a most austere and penitential life and worked numerous miracles. He is especially invoked for the cure of hernia. In 1515 Leo X permitted the town of Noto to celebrate his feast, which permission was later extended by Urban VIII to the whole Order of St. Francis. Though bearing the title of saint, Conrad was never formally canonized. His feast is kept in the Franciscan Order on 19 February.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Conrad of Saxony

(Also called CONRADUS SAXO, CONRAD OF BRUNSWICK, or CONRADUS HOLYINGER).

Friar Minor and ascetical writer, date and place of birth uncertain; d. at Bologna in 1279. Holyinger is perhaps his family name. The error has been made by some of confounding Conrad of Saxony with another person of the same name who suffered for the Faith in 1284, whereas it is certain that they were two distinct individuals, though belonging to the same province of the order in Germany. Conrad became provincial minister of the province of Saxony in 1245, and for sixteen years ruled the province with much zeal and prudence. While on his way to the general chapter of 1279, he was attacked with a grievous illness and died at Bologna in the same year.

The writings of Conrad of Saxony include several sermons and the “Speculum Beatæ Mariæ Virginis”; the latter, at times erroneously attributed to St. Bonaventure, has recently been edited by the Friars Minor at Quaracchi. The preface to this excellent edition of the “Speculum” contains a brief sketch of the life of Conrad of Saxony and a critical estimate of his other writings.

Speculum B. M. V. Fr. Conradi a Saxonia (Quaracchi, 1904); Analecta Franciscana (Quaracchi, 1887), II, 69, 83.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Conrad of Urach

Cardinal-Bishop of Porto and Santa Rufina; born about 1180; d. 1227. At an early age he became canon of the church of St. Lambert, the cathedral of Liège. In 1199 he entered the Cistercian monastery of Villers in Belgium, of which he soon became prior and, in 1209, abbot. In 1214 he was chosen Abbot of Clairvaux and, in 1217, Abbot of Cîteaux and general of his order. Pope Honorius III created him cardinal, 8 January, 1219, and charged him with two important legations, one in France (1220–23), to suppress the Albigenses; the other in Germany (1224–26), to preach and arrange the crusade which Frederick II had vowed to undertake. After the death of Honorius III the cardinals agreed to elect him pope, but he refused the dignity. The Cistercians venerate him as Blessed (30 September).

MICHAEL OTT

Conrad of Utrecht

Bishop; born in Swabia at an unknown date; killed at Utrecht, 14 April, 1099. Before becoming bishop he was chamberlain of Archbishop Anno II of Cologne and, for a time, tutor of Prince Henry, the future Emperor Henry IV. When the excommunicated Bishop William of Utrecht died in 1076, the emperor gave the episcopal See of Utrecht to Conrad, who, like his predecessor, sided with Henry IV in his conflicts with Gregory VII, and at the Synod of Brixen in 1080 even condemned the pope as a heretic. The contemporary annalist, Lambert of Hersfeld, calls Conrad a schismatic bishop, unworthy of holding an episcopal see. In a battle with Robert, Count of Flanders, Conrad was defeated, afterwards taken captive and compelled to yield part of South Holland to Robert. This territorial loss of the bishop was compensated by the emperor, who, in 1077, gave him the district of Stavoren in Friesland, and in 1086 added the two other Frisian districts, Ostergau and Westergau. Conrad is the founder and architect of the collegiate church of Notre-Dame at Utrecht. He was assassinated, shortly after completing the Holy Sacrifice, by his Frisian architect whom he had discharged, and who, in the opinion of some, was instigated by a certain nobleman whose domains Conrad held unjustly. He is said to have written the discourse “Pro Imperatore contra Papam,” and to have delivered it at the Synod of Gerstungen in 1085. It is inserted by Aventinus (d. 1534) in his “Vita Henrici IV” and by Goldast (d. 1606) in his “Pro Henrico IV imperatore.” Hefele (Conciliengeschichte, V, 180, note) is of the opinion that the discourse is falsely attributed to Conrad of Utrecht, and that Aventinus himself is the author.

Ruperti Chronicon in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., VIII, 278.

MICHAEL OTT

Florence Conry

Or Florence Conroy; in Irish Flaithri O’Maolconaire (O’Mulconry).

Archbishop of Tuam, patriot, theologian and founder of the Irish (Franciscan) College of St. Anthony at Louvain, born in Galway, 1560; died at Madrid, 18 Nov., 1629. His early studies were made on the Continent, in the Netherlands, and in Spain; at Salamanca he joined the Franciscans. In 1588 he was appointed provincial of the order in Ireland and as such sailed with the Spanish Armada; we have no details as to the manner of his escape from the disaster which overtook that ill-fated expedition. At all times active in the interest of his native land he was again sent to Ireland, this time by Clement VIII, to aid with counsel and influence the Irish and their Spanish allies during the last struggle of Hugh O’Neill (Tyrone’s Rebellion) for the independence of Ireland. After the disaster of Kinsale (1601) he accompanied Hugh Roe O’Donnell (Prince of Tyrconnell) to Spain in the hope of interesting anew the Spanish Court. But the great chieftain soon died at Simancus, being assisted on his death-bed by Father Conry (Four Masters, ad an. 1602) who also accompanied the remains to their last resting place in the Franciscan church at Valladolid. Conry was deeply interested in the welfare of the Irish College at Salamanca (q. v.). When the native Irish chieftains, the Earl of Tyrone (Hugh O’Neill) and the Earl of Tyrconnell (Rory O’Donnell, brother of Hugh Roe), fled from Ireland in 1607, Conry proved a devoted friend in their exile and accompanied them to Rome. For the so-called “Revelations” of Christopher St. Laurence, Baron of Howth, implicating Father Conry and the principal Irish in an imaginary plot to seize Dublin Castle and raise a new rebellion just previous to the “Flight of the Earls” see Meehan (cited below), pp. 67–73. At Rome Father Conry was consecrated Archbishop of Tuam in 1609 by Cardinal Maffeo Barberini (later Urban VIII), always a warm friend of the persecuted Irish Catholics. In 1614 Conry wrote from Vallidolid a vigorous remonstrance to the Catholic members of the Irish parliament for their cowardly adhesion to the Bill of Attainder that deprived of their estates the fugitive Irish earls and their adherents and vested six whole counties of Ulster in the English Crown. Meehan says of this document that it is “stamped in its every line with the impress of a great mind” (Fate and Fortunes of the Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnell, Dublin, 1886, 3d ed., pp.262, 395).

In 1616 Archbishop Conry founded at Louvain for Irish Franciscan youth the College of St. Anthony of Pauda, principally with means furnished by Princess Isabella, wife of Archduke Albert, and the daughter of Philip the Second. The archbishop was himself the foremost member of this famous Irish Franciscan house of studies whence came a long line of erudite and virtuous historians and archaeologists (O’Clery, Colgan, Hugh Ward, Francis Walsh, and others: cf. V. DeBuck, “L’archeologie, irlandaise, au couvent de Saint-Antoine de Padoue a Louvain,” Paris, 1869), and where the most active Irish printing press on the Continent was long in operation. One of the earliest works of Conry was a translation form Spanish into very pure Irish of a catechism known as “The Mirror of Christian Life,” printed at Louvain in 1626, but probably current in manuscript at an earlier date, both in Ireland and among the Irish troops in the Netherlands; this was composed, as he says himself, “out of charity for the souls of the Gael.” As Archbishop of Tuam, Conry never took possession of his see, owing to the royal proclamations of 1606, 1614, 1623, commanding all bishops and priests, under the gravest penalties, to quit the kingdom. But he governed Tuam through vicars-general and continued to live principally at St. Anthony’s in Louvain, not improbably on the bounty of the King of Spain, as was the case of many Irish ecclesiastics of the time. His influence in Irish matters at the royal court was always considerable; thus, as late as 1618 we find him presenting to the Council of Spain Philip O’Sullivan Beare’s “Relation of Ireland and the number of Irish therein,” and in the following year his own “Statement of the Severities Practised by England against the Irish Catholics.” Like his fellow-Franciscan, Luke Wadding, and Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Armagh, he was ever at the disposition of his exiled countrymen. He communicated (1610) to the Council of Spain, a translation of the original (Irish) statement of one Francis Maguire concerning his observations in the “State of Virginia,” between 1608 and 1610, a curious and unique document of the earliest English settlements in the New World and the life and habits of the Indian tribes (Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Boston, 1890, I, 392–99).

Archbishop Conry was a profound scholastic theologian, very learned especially in the writings of St. Augustine, all of whose works he read seven times, while those pertaining to grace he read some twenty times. In the interpretation of the more difficult passages he frequently had recourse to prayer and fasting. At Louvain he sat at the feet of Baius, and was also a friend of Jansenius (died 1638). He had , however, by his own efforts arrived independently at conclusions concerning the teaching of St. Augustine on grace andble character of the sufferings of such unbaptized children. His “Peregrinus Jerichontinus, h. e. de natura humana feliciter instituta, infeliciter lapsa, miserabiter vulnerata, misericorditer restaurata” (ed. Thady MacNamara, Paris, 1641) treats of original sin, the grace of Christ, free will, etc., the “Pilgrim of Jerico” being human nature itself, the robber Satan, the good Samaritan, Our Lord. Hunter says that this edition was owing to Arnauld, and that the same ardent Jansenist is possibly the author of the (Paris, 1645) French version. Conry wrote also other works expository of the teaching and opinions of the great Doctor of Grace, e.g. “de gratia Christi” (Paris, 1646); “De flagellis justorum” (Paris, 1644); “De Augustini sensu circa b. Mariae Virginis conceptionem” (Antwerp, 1619). In 1654 his body was brought back from Madrid and buried in the collegiate chapel of St. Anthony’s, near the high altar, where an epitaph by Nicolas Aylmer recorded his virtues, learning and love of country:—

Ordinis altus honor, fidei patriaeque honos,

Pontificum merito laude perenne jubar.

Thomas Darcey Magee says of this patriotic scholar: “He is the leading figure in a class of exiled Catholic churchmen who were of a great service to religion and letters and not seldom powerful allies of their country. From the founding of a college to the composition of a catechism he shrank from no labour that could, according to his convictions, benefit the people of his native land.”

Ware-Harris, Writers of Ireland (Dublin, 1739–45), Rapin, Hist. du Jansenisme ed. Domenech (Paris, 1861); Hurter, Nomenclator, 253; Meehan, The Fate and Fortunes of Hugh O’Neill, Earl of Tyrone, and Rory O’Donel, Earl of Tyrconnel, their Flight from Ireland and Death in the Exile (Dublin, 1886); Harold, Life of Luke Wadding, preface to the Epitome Annalium (Rome, 1662); Renehan, Collections of Irish Church History (Dublin, 1861), I, 399, 400; O’Cleary, Life of Hugh Roe O’Donnell, ed. Murphy (Dublin, 1895), cxlv, cxlix, cliii; Jeiler in Kirchenlex., III, 949; Moran, Spicilegium, Ossorience (Dublin, 1874–85), I, 162; Magee, Lives of the Irish Writers of the Seventeenth Century (Dublin, 1848), 13–24.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Ercole Consalvi

Cardinal and statesman, b. in Rome, 8 June, 1757; d. there, 24 January, 1824.

FAMILY

His ancestors belonged to the noble family of the Brunacci in Pisa, one of whom settled in the town of Toscanella in the Papal States about the middle of the seventeenth century. The grandfather of the cardinal, Gregorio Brunacci, inherited from Ercole Consalvi of Rome a large fortune on condition of taking the name and arms of the Consalvi family. In this way Gregorio Brunacci became Marchese Gregorio Consalvi, with residence in Rome.

EDUCATION (1766–1782)

At the age of nine, Ercole Consalvi was placed in the college of the Scolopii or Brothers of the Pious Schools at Urbino, where he remained from 1766 to 1771. From 1771 to 1776 he was in the seminary of Frascati, where he finished his studies in rhetoric, philosophy and theology; it was there also that he gained the powerful protection of the Cardinal, Duke of York, Bishop of Frascati. The years from 1776 to 1782 were devoted to the studies of jurisprudence and ecclesiastical history in the Academia Ecclesiastica of Rome, where he had among other professors the Jesuit scholar, Zaccaria.

SERVICE UNDER PIUS VI (1783–1799)

He then entered on his public career. Named private chamberlain by Pius VI in April, 1783, in 1786 he was made Ponente del buon governo, i.e. member of a congregation charged with the direction of municipal affairs. Appointed in 1787 secretary of the congregation commissioned to administer the Ospizio of San Michele a Ripa, in 1790 he became Votante di Segnatura, or member of a high court of appeals, and in 1792 obtained the nomination of Uditore di Rota, or member of the high court of justice. He was made assessor in 1796 of a military commission established by Pius VI for the purpose of preventing revolutionary disturbances and intervention of the French Directory in the Papal States. In this latter capacity he accomplished his work with such tact, prudence, and foresight that no serious troubles arose, which could have served as an excuse for an invasion of Rome by the armies of the French Republic.

Unfortunately on 28 December, 1797, the French general Duphot was killed in Rome; he was himself largely to blame, and the event took place without the slightest fault of the Papal Government. Still it was used as a pretext for the occupation of the city. On 10 February, 1798, General Berthier entered Rome with an army, and five days afterwards the pope was deprived of his temporal sovereignty, and a Roman republic proclaimed. Consalvi, having been assessor of the military commission, was placed first on the list of those who were to be handed over to the French Government. He was arrested, imprisoned in the fortress of Sant’ Angelo, sent to Civitavecchia en route to Cayenne, French Guiana, brought back to the castle of Sant’ Angelo, and then sent to Terracina, whence he was finally permitted to repair to Naples.

Consalvi thus recovered his personal liberty; but he disliked to remain in Naples, and wished rather to join Pius VI, who shortly after the occupation of Rome was taken from his capital and held a captive in a Carthusian monastery near Florence. Having obtained permission from the Neapolitan Government, he went by sea to Leghorn and thence to Florence, where he made two visits to the pope; his wish to remain with the pontiff was frustrated by the French envoy at Florence. Towards the end of September, 1798, he took up his residence in Venice.

SERVICE UNDER PIUS VII (1799–1823)

After the death of Pius VI at Valence in France, 29 August, 1799, the cardinals assembled in Venice for the conclave, and Consalvi was chosen secretary by an almost unanimous vote. He had a large share in securing the election of Cardinal Chiaramonti, Bishop of Imola (14 March, 1800). The new pope, Pius VII (1800–23), soon appointed Consalvi pro-secretary of state; and thus Consalvi accompanied the pope to Rome, where they arrived 3 July, 1800. Shortly before, the pope had recovered possession of the Papal States, which were then partly under the control of Austria and partly under that of Naples.

On 11 August, 1800, Consalvi was made cardinal and appointed definitively secretary of state. In this capacity he first endeavoured to restore better conditions in the Papal States. He abolished the custom of furnishing food to the people at low prices, introduced free trade, withdrew from circulation all depreciated money, and admitted a large number of laymen to Government offices. He did much to embellish Rome and to make it an art-centre by designing public promenades along the Tiber, restoring the ancient monuments, and filling the museums with statues unearthed by excavations made under his direction.

In his negotiations with the various courts or Governments of Europe he was ever watchful in safeguarding the interests of the Holy See, both temporal and spiritual, the latter especially, in which the pope as the head of Christendom was primarily concerned. In this respect he rendered an incalculable service to religion in signing the French Concordat. The negotiations commenced for that purpose by Monsignor Spina, Archbishop of Corinth, and Father Caselli, former Superior General of the Servites, seemed to lag; in order not to interrupt them completely Consalvi was sent to Paris in June, 1801. Long and painful discussions followed with Napoleon Bonaparte, then First Consul of the French Republic, or his commissioners, until finally, on the 15th of July, the Concordat was signed by the papal and the French commissioners, and afterwards ratified by the pope and the French Government.

Consalvi left immediately for Rome, where he arrived on the 6th of August. With what are known as the “Organic Articles,” added by the French Government to the Concordat, Consalvi had nothing to do; on the contrary he condemned them unequivocally as destructive of the Concordat, of which they pretended to be commentaries. He was also prominent in the negotiations that preceded the Italian Concordat, concluded with the Cisalpine Republic on the 16th of September, 1803.

When Napoleon was proclaimed emperor in 1804, Consalvi urged Pius VII to accept Bonaparte’s invitation to crown him as the new sovereign of France and during the pope’s absence (November, 1804, to May, 1805) Consalvi acted as his representative to the entire satisfaction of his master. When the discussions between Napoleon and Pius VII commenced, Consalvi was blamed for the refusal of the pope to consider himself a vassal of the French emperor. The suspicions of Napoleon were confided to Cardinal Fesch, then French ambassador at Rome; and the dismissal of Consalvi was insisted upon. Consalvi, hoping to secure peace for his master, asked repeatedly to be relieved; but only after long hesitation did the pope consent to the demand. Consalvi left the secretariate of state on 17 June, 1806, but was often consulted privately on matters of importance.

The imperial persecution of the pope reached its climax with the annexation of the Papal States to the French Empire (20 June, 1809) and the deportation of the pope to Savona during the night of 5–6 July. Consalvi was forced to depart from Rome, 10 December following; in company with Cardinal di Pietro he journeyed to Paris, where he arrived 20 February, 1810. There he lived in retirement as much as possible, and refused a pension of 30,000 francs assigned to him by the French Government.

On the occasion of Napoleon’s marriage to the Archduchess Marie Louise of Austria, Consalvi with twelve other cardinals declined to assist at the civil and religious ceremony, held 1–2 April, 1810, though he was present at the semi-solemn reception at Saint-Cloud, 31 March, and went also to the Tuileries in Paris for the great reception, on 3 April. He did not wish to appear as approving the second marriage of Napoleon, as long as the pope had not pronounced on the validity of the first. Napoleon was so incensed at his action, that he expelled him with the other cardinals of like sentiments from the Tuileries on 3 April, and in the first moment of passion gave orders to have him shot. However, he modified his rash judgment and decreed that Consalvi and the twelve other cardinals should be deprived of their property and of their cardinalitial dignity. From that moment these princes of the Church were compelled to wear black garments, whence their name of “black cardinals,” and on 11 June they were all banished to various cities of France. Consalvi was sent to Reims; it was there in his enforced retirement that he wrote his memoirs.

Set free on 26 January, 1813, he hastened to Pius VII, then at Fontainebleau. At his suggestion the pope retracted (24 March) the concessions made to Napoleon in a Brief from Savona and in a new concordat agreed upon at Fontainebleau; as a consequence Consalvi was restricted in his free intercourse with the pope. When Pius VII left Fontainebleau for Italy (23 January, 1814) Consalvi followed a few days afterwards, at first under a military escort as far as Beziers. Having heard of Napoleon’s abdication in Fontainebleau (11 April, 1814) he asked for a passport and rejoined Pius VII in Italy. He was at once reappointed secretary of state by papal letter written from Foligno, 19 May, 1814.

Before taking office Consalvi went to Paris for the purpose of claming from the allied Powers of Europe the restoration of the Papal States under the sovereignty of the pope. With the same object in view he went also to England, and assisted afterwards at the Congress of Vienna (September, 1814, to June, 1815). He was successful in his negotiations, and obtained the restitution of all papal territory such as it had been before the French Revolution, with the exception of Avignon, Venaissin, and a small strip of land in the legation of Ferrara.

After his return to Rome Consalvi continued to work for the welfare of the Papal States and of the Church. He abolished the ancient privileges of the nobility and of the papal cities, devised a new plan of administration for the papal territory, readjusted the finances, prepared a new civil and criminal code of laws, reorganized the system of education, and provided for public safety. He continued the elaboration of his plans for the embellishment of Rome and the improvement of the Campagna; he endeavoured, as already said, to make Rome a centre of art, and extended his protection to such famous artists as Canova and Thorwaldsen. At the same time he maintained with firmness the rights and sovereignty of the pope.

When in 1817 the Carbonari tried to bring about a rebellion, a few of their leaders were prosecuted, banished, or imprisoned; and in 1821 a Bull was issued against these disturbers. During this period several concordats or similar agreements were concluded with foreign Powers: with Bavaria in 1817, with Prussia and the princes of the Upper Rhine in 1821, with Hanover in 1823, with Victor Emmanuel of Sardinia in 1817, with King Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies in 1818. The French Concordat concluded in 1817 with King Louis XVIII never received legal force in France; hence that of 1801 continued in existence.

RETIREMENT AND DEATH (1823–1824)

The career of Consalvi came to an end with the death of Pius VII (20 August, 1823). After his retirement his thoughts were devoted to the erection of a monument at St. Peter’s in honour of his former master; only a few months afterwards he was carried himself to his tomb in San Lorenzo, while his heart was taken to the Pantheon. Appropriate monuments were erected to his memory in both places.

APPRECIATION

Ercole Consalvi is to be regarded as one of the greatest statesmen who has ever served the papal court; his eminent qualities were at all times apparent during the great trials of the papacy. If not always successful in his enterprises, it was largely because of the scarcity of means at his disposal and the prejudices of his age. The purity of his life was the more admired because in his position he had to mingle much with a worldly society. He was devoted to works of charity and religion; the poor knew him as their friend, and in his exercises of devotion he was most punctual.

Finally he was very unselfish and disinterested. He served the pope and the Church loyally without looking for personal advantage. He never asked for a position, except for that of Uditore di Rota, which appeared desirable owing to the studies he had made and the great opportunities it offered for travelling during the vacation months. The many gifts, pensions, or legacies, offered him, and at times persistently, by friends, admirers, and patrons, were invariably declined. All in all, both for the work he accomplished and for his personal character, Consalvi is one of the purest glories of the Church of Rome.

CRÉTINEAU-JOLY, Mémoires du Cardinal Consalvi, ed. DROCHON (Paris, 1895); WISEMAN, Recollections of the Last Four Popes (London, 1858); RINIERI, La diplomazia pontificia nelsecolo XIX (Rome, 1902); IDEM, Il congresso di Vienna e la Santa Sede (Rome, 1904); THEINER, Histoire des deux concordate (Paris, 1869); ARTAUD, Histoire du Pape Pie VII (Paris, 1837); WERNER in Kirchenlex. (Freiburg, 1884), s.v.; NIELSEN in Realencyk. f. prof. Theol., s.v.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Consanguinity (in Canon Law)

Consanguinity is a diriment impediment of marriage as far as the fourth degree of kinship inclusive. The term consanguinity here means, within certain limitations defined by the law of nature, the positive law of God, or the supreme authority of State or Church, the blood-relationship (cognatio naturalis), or the natural bond between persons descended from the same stock. In view of the recognized descent of all men from one common stock, there is a general blood-relationship between all men; hence the limitation mentioned has reference to the nearest root or source of consanguinity. This bond or union of blood takes place in one case through the descent of one person from the other; this is called the direct line. In another case it takes place because the common blood is drawn from a common root, the same ancestor, from whom both persons descend, though they do not descend one from the other, and are therefore not in a direct but in a transverse or collateral line. By the law of nature, it is universally conceded, marriage is prohibited between parent and child, for the reverential relation between them is recognized as incompatible with the equality of relations engendered by the bond of marriage. The universal sentiment of peoples is likewise opposed to marriage between all persons related in any degree in the direct line, thus between grandparent and grandchild.

HISTORY OF IMPEDIMENT

Because of the acknowledged derivation of the human race from the common progenitors, Adam and Eve, it is difficult to accept the opinion of some theologians that the marriage of brother and sister is against the law of nature; otherwise the propagation of the human race would have begun by violation of the natural law. It is readily understood that, considering the freedom of intercourse between such persons, some effort would soon be made (in the interest of the social welfare) to prevent early corruption within the close family circle by placing a bar to the hope of marriage. Hence among all peoples there has arisen a natural repugnance to the marriage of brother and sister. Some theologians suppose herein a positive Divine law, but it is not easy to point out any such early Divine enactment. Abraham married Sarah who was his sister by his father, though of a different mother (Gen., xi; cf. Gen. xx, 12). Marriage was allowed at Athens with half-sisters by the same father (Plutarch, Cim., iv; Themist., xxxii), with half-sisters by the same mother at Sparta (Philo, De Special. Leg., tr. Yonge, III, 306), and with full-sisters in Egypt (Diodorus Siculus, I, 27) and Persia, as illustrated in the well-known instances of the Ptolemies in the former, and of Cambyses in the latter, country (Herodian, III, 31). For a good summary of non-Christian customs in this respect see Melody, “Marriage of Near Kin” in “Catholic University Bulletin” (Washington, Jan., 1903, pp. 40–60).

In the earlier history of the human race there was a tendency in a family group to keep marriages of its members within the group. Of this we have examples in the marriage of Isaac and Rebecca (Gen., xxiv) and Jacob and Lia-Rachel (ibid., xxix). We know from Exodus, vi, 20, that Amram took Jochabed, his father’s sister, to wife, and she bore him Aaron and Moses. The Mosaic Law, however, introduced important modifications into the arrangements of marriage or carnal intercourse between near relations by blood as also by affinity; these modifications were founded mainly upon the sharpened instincts of human nature and the importance of guarding against the dangers of corruption from the intimacy of very near relations, which prompted the cutting off all hope of covering past impurity by subsequent marriage. Undoubtedly this danger increased the instinctive natural repugnance to marriage between those connected by the closest ties of blood and family affection. These prohibitions relating to consanguinity, between a man and the “flesh of his flesh,” are contained mainly in Lev., xviii, 7–13, and xx, 17, 19. Specific prohibitions are here made with regard to marriage or carnal intercourse with a mother, granddaughter, aunt by blood on either side, sister, or half-sister, whether “born at home or abroad.” This expression has generally been understood as equivalent to “in or out of wedlock.” Yet, as late as David’s time, the language of Thamar towards her half-brother Amnon (II K., xiii, 13) seems to imply the possibility of their union with consent of their father, perhaps because he was also king (for a contrary opinion see Wernz, Jus. Decretalium, Rome, 1894, II, 634). Some theologians held the daughters of Lot (Gen., xix, 30–38) somewhat excusable because they thought that the human race had been swallowed up by fire, and could be continued through their father alone (Kenrick, De Imped. Matr., ch. v, p. 318).

In early Roman times marriage of cousins was not allowed, though it was not infrequent after the Second Punic War. Marriage between uncle and niece was unlawful among Romans. Consanguinity in the direct line, to any extent, was recognized by the Church as an impediment to marriage. Worthy of notice is the declaration by Nicholas I (858–67) in his letter to the Bulgarians, that “between those persons who are related as parents and children marriage cannot be contracted, as between father and daughter, grandfather and granddaughter, or mother and son, grandmother and grandson, and so on indefinitely.” Billuart, however, calls attention to the fact that Innocent III, without distinction of lines, allows indiscriminately infidels converted to Christianity to retain their wives who are blood-relations in the second degree. Other theologians take it for granted that this declaration of Innocent III has no reference to the direct line. In the early ages the Church accepted the collateral degrees put forward by the State as an impediment to marriage. St. Ambrose (Ep. lx in P. L., XVI, 1185) and St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XV, xvi) approved the law of Theodosius which forbade (c. 384) the marriage of cousins. This law was retained in the Western Church, though it was revoked (400), at least in the East, by Arcadius, for which reason, doubtless, the text of the law has been lost. The Code of Justinian permitted the marriage of first cousins (consobrini), but the Greek Church in 692 (Second Trullan Synod, can. liv) condemned such marriages, and, according to Balsamon, even those of second cousins (sobrini).

This discipline continued throughout the Church till the eighth century. We then meet with the canon (c. 16, C. 55, q. 2), attributed to various popes and embodied in a letter of Gregory III (732), which forbids marriage among the Germans to the seventh degree of consanguinity. Wernz (Jus Decretal., IV, p. 624), says that at this date so severe a prohibition cannot be based on the canonical computation, but rather on that of the Roman law; it is, therefore, no proof of so early an acceptance by the Church of the Germanic computation. For a fuller exposition of the theory that the canonical computation is borrowed from the Germanic system see Von Scherer, “Handbuch des Kirchenrechts” (Graz, 1898), II, 291, and the excellent exposé of Wernz, “Jus Decretalium,” IV, 616–25, especially p. 621, where he sets forth with moderation both the free and original action of the Church in establishing the degrees within which it was forbidden relations to marry and her natural tendency, so often exhibited in other matters, to accept whatever was good or useful in the manners and institutions of newly converted peoples. Von Scherer calls attention (op. cit., II, 296–9) to the influence of the ninth-century Pseudo-Isidore (and the canonical collections based on him, e. g. the “Decretum” of Burchard) in familiarizing the West with the Germanic computation, and says that it does not appear in any genuine papal decretals before Alexander II, and that its exact character is not yet thoroughly ascertained. The Roman canonist De Angelis (Prælectiones Jur. Can., Bk. III, tit. xiv) holds rightly that the computation of degrees was originally the same as that of the Roman civil law for inheritance. He states that in the eleventh century Alexander II (c. 2, C. 35, q. 5) adopted the now usual system of computation, which established for collateral consanguinity the principle that persons were remote from one another by as many degrees as they are remote from the common stock, omitting the common stock (Wernz, however, op. cit., IV, 623, believes that this system, de facto the Germanic computation was adopted at some earlier period, though doubtless not so early as Gasparri maintains). In this way the degrees of relationship were determined by the number of generations on one side only; while in the Roman civil system the number of degrees resulted from the sum of the generations on both sides. In the Roman system (computatio Romana civilis) first cousins would be in the fourth degree, while in the new computation they would be in the second degree of consanguinity. This, as is seen, would extend the impediment of consanguinity.

Some have called the new computation Germanic (computatio Germanica) because it has a similarity to the peculiar Germanic system of determining inheritance, and whose technical terms were borrowed from the seven joints of the body (on both sides) from the neck to the finger-tips. But Santi-Leitner calls attention (ed. 1905, III, 241, against Gasparri) to various discrepancies between the ecclesiastical (computatio canonica) and the Germanic systems which often led the newly-converted Franks and other Germans to oppose the system of the Church. The latter system was more directly connected with the natural relations of marriage, and Alexander II (1061–73) treated it as peculiarly ecclesiastical law (c. 2, C. 35, q. 5) and threatened severely all advocates of a return to the Roman, or civil, calculation. The reception and extension of this severe discipline regarding the impediment of consanguinity came about gradually and by custom, says Wernz, from the sixth and seventh centuries (when first the third and then the fourth degree, i. e. respectively second and third cousins was the limit) to the eleventh and twelfth centuries; in the eleventh century the controversy of St. Peter Damian (“De parentelæ gradibus” in P. L., XLIV, 191 sqq.) with the Roman legists of Ravenna, decided in his favour by Alexander II, helped to fix the popular view in the sense of extreme strictness. It is, however, doubtful whether the sixth and seventh degrees of consanguinity were ever a diriment impediment, at least everywhere. It is not improbable that even the fifth was only a preventive impediment (Wernz, op. cit., IV, 626). While in the twelfth century the theory of the remote degrees was strictly maintained by canonists, councils, and popes, in practice marriages ignorantly contracted within them were healed by dispensation or dissimulation (Wernz, loc. cit.). Finally, in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) Innocent III restricted consanguinity as a diriment impediment to the fourth degree. He explains that it was found difficult to carry out the extension to further degrees. in those days of imperfect registration it was, of course, often impossible to ascertain the distant degrees of relationship. (For a defence of his illustrative reference to the current theory of the “four bodily humours,” borrowed from the ancient physiology, see Santi-Leitner, op. cit. III, 248; cf. Wernz, op. cit., IV, 629.)

Gregory I (590–604), if the letter in question be truly his, granted to the newly converted Anglo-Saxons restriction of the impediment to the fourth degree of consanguinity (c. 20, C. 35, qq. 2, 3); Paul III restricted it to the second degree for American Indians (Zitelli, Apparat. Jur. Eccl., 405), and also for natives of the Philippines. Benedict XIV (Letter “Æstas Anni,” 11 Oct., 1757) states that the Roman pontiffs have never granted dispensation from the first degree of collateral consanguinity (brothers and sisters). For converted infidels it is recognized that the Church does not insist upon annulment of marriages beyond this first degree of consanguinity. (For further details of the history of ecclesiastical legislation concerning this impediment see Esmein, “Le mariage en droit canonique,” Paris, 1891, I, 335–56; II, 258, 345; Santi-Leitner, op. cit. below, 247–48; and Wernz, “Jus Decretal,” II, 614 sqq.)

MOTIVES OF IMPEDIMENT

The Church was prompted by various reasons first to recognize the prohibitive legislation of the Roman State and then to extend the impediment of consanguinity beyond the limits of the civil legislation. The welfare of the social order, according to St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XV, xvi) and St. Thomas (Suppl. Q. liii, a. 3), demanded the widest possible extension of friendship and love among all humankind, to which desirable aim the intermarriage of close blood-relations was opposed; this was especially true in the first half of the Middle Ages, when the best interests of society required the unification of the numerous tribes and peoples which had settled on the soil of the Roman Empire. By overthrowing the barriers between inimical families and races, ruinous internecine warfare was diminished and greater peace and harmony secured among the newly-converted Christians. In the moral order the prohibition of marriage between near relations served as a barrier against early corruption among young persons of either sex brought habitually into close intimacy with one another; it tended also to strengthen the natural feeling of respect for closely related persons (St. Thomas, II-II, Q. cliv, a. 9; St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, XV, x). Nature itself seemed to abhor the marriage of close kin, since such unions are often childless and their offspring seem subject to grave physical and mental weakness (epilepsy, deaf-muteness, weak eyes, nervous diseases), and incur easily and transmit the defects, physical or moral, of their parents, especially when the interbreeding of blood-relations is repeated (Santi-Leitner, op. cit., IV, 252; Huth, “The Marriage of Near Kin, considered with respect to the Law of Nations, the results of Experience and the teachings of Biology,” London, 1875; Surbled, “La morale dans ses rapports avec la médecine et l’hygiène,” Paris, 1892, II, 245–55; Eschbach, “Disputat. physiologico-theolog.,” 99 sqq.; Luckock, “The History of Marriage, Jewish and Christian, in relation to divorce and certain forbidden degrees,” London, 1894; Esmein, “Le mariage en droit canonique,” Paris, 1891, I, 337, sqq.; see also Wernz, op. cit. IV, 686–37, and the Encyclical of Gregory XVI, 22 Nov., 1836).

MODE OF CALCULATION

In calculating the degree of consanguinity special attention must be paid to three things, the line, the degree, and the stock or root. The stock, or root, is the common ancestor, or the person, male or female, from whom descend as from the nearest common bond the persons whose blood-relationship is to be determined. The degree is the distance of one person from the other in regard to blood-relationship. The line is the classified series of persons descending from the common stock through one or more generations. The line is direct when the series of persons descend one from the other, as father and son, grandfather and grandchild. The line is transverse, or collateral, when the blood-relations spring from a common stock, yet do not descend one from the other but form different branches side by side, as two brothers, two nephews. This collateral line is equal or unequal according as these persons derive equally or unequally from the same stock or root. The blood-relationship is computed according to the distance from the stock whence it is derived, and this is the rule by which the degrees or steps of consanguinity are determined.

In the direct line the Roman civil and the canon law agree on the principle that there are as many degrees as generations; hence as many degrees as there are persons, omitting the stock or root. A son is one degree from his father, a grandchild two degrees from the grandfather. In the computation of the degrees of the transverse or collateral line there is a serious difference between the Roman civil and the canon law. The civil law founded its degrees upon the number of generations, the number of degrees being equal to the number of generations; thus between brothers there are two degrees as there are two generations; between first cousins four degrees, corresponding to the four generations. The degrees are calculated easily in the civil law by summing up the number of persons in each line, omitting the common ancestor. Except for marriage, the canon law follows regularly the computation of the civil law, e. g. in the question of inheritance. But the Canon law, in the collateral line of consanguinity, computes for marriage one series only of generations, and if the series are unequal, only the longer one. Hence the principle of canon law that in the transverse or collateral line there are as many degrees of consanguinity as there are persons in the longer series, omitting the common stock or root. If the two series are equal, the distance is the number of degrees of either from the common stock. Thus brother and sister are in the first degree, first cousins in the second degree; uncle and niece in the second degree because the niece is two degrees from the grandfather who is the common stock. Thus if Caius has two sons, Titius and Sempronius, and Sempronius has a son and grandchild, the relationship of the grandchild of Sempronius to Titius is in the third degree, because this grandchild is distant three degrees from the common stock, Caius. This rule holds if the common stock should only be one person; thus half-brothers and half-sisters, that is from either father or mother, are in the first degree. Children of the same father and mother are called german, as from the common germ; those of the same mother and not of the same father are called uterine, as from the same womb; and children of the same father and different mother are called blood-children. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of any member of the series does not modify the relationship as a bar to marriage.

For civil effects the civil law’s computation of degrees must be known. In most European countries the law follows mainly the computation of the Roman civil law. In England, since the Reformation, the Levitical law has been recognized as the standard by which to determine the prohibitions of marriage. For Catholics everywhere, as Alexander II decreed (c. 2, C. 35, q. 5), the ecclesiastical calculation (computatio canonica) must be followed for the direct question of the lawfulness of marriage. Clement V, in the Council of Vienne (1311), decreed that any one who knowingly contracted marriage within the forbidden degrees should by the fact incur excommunication, though not reserved; this penalty has ceased since the Bull “Apostolicæ Sedis” of Pius IX (1869). The Council of Trent (1563) required the absolute separation of those who knowingly contracted marriage within the prohibited degrees, and denied all hope of obtaining a dispensation, especially if the attempted marriage had been consummated. But in this regard the practice of the Church, probably on account of the recognition of such marriages by the State, and the consequent difficulty of enforcing the dissolution of illicit unions, has tended towards greater leniency. The Council of Trent, it is true (Sess. XXIV, c. v, De ref., matr.), made no changes in the existing legislation, despite the wishes of many for a reduction of the limits of the impediment (Theiner, Acta Conc. Trid., Leipzig, 1874, 336, 342). Such reduction would in all probability have been discussed at the Vatican Council (1870), had it not been interrupted (Lämmer, Zur Codification des can. Rechts, Freiburg, 1899, 137, sqq., and Martin, Coll. docum. Conc. Vat., p. 162 sqq.).

In the Uniat Eastern Churches, the marriage of blood-relations is forbidden in the collateral line to the seventh civil degree, 1. e. second cousins touching third, but in that degree is only preventive, not diriment (Wernz, IV, 627). Among the Italo-Greeks, however, the Maronites, and the Syrians the legislation of the Roman Church obtains (Benedict XIV, Etsi Pastorails, 26 May, 1742; Synod of Mount Lebanon, 1736; Synod. Sciarf. Syror., 1888). In the schismatic Churches of the East all marriages of relations in the direct line are prohibited; in the collateral line the seventh (civil) degree is the limit of prohibition; the remotest degree, however, is only a preventive impediment. In the National Greek Church, since 1873, marriage is forbidden within the sixth (civil) degree, i. e. second cousins; in Russia, since 1870, within the fourth (civil) degree, i. e. first cousins (cf. Zhishman, Eherecht d. oriental. Kirche, Vienna, 1864, and Milas, Das Kirchenrecht der morgenländ. Kirche, Mostar, 1897).

DISPENSATION FROM THE IMPEDIMENT

Whatever dispensing power is available resides principally in the supreme authority of the Church, namely the Apostolic See. The pope generally exercises his power of dispensing through the Roman Congregations. For public dispensations (in foro externo) the Dataria (see ROMAN CURIA) is the ordinary medium for so-called Catholic countries; the Sacra Penitentiaria for cases of conscience (occult impediments) and of late for the cases of the poor. The Congregation of Propaganda is the medium for countries dependent on it, e. g. Great Britain and its dependencies and the United States. This power of dispensation with the right to subdelegate is often delegated to bishops, vicars Apostolic, and others having pastoral authority over souls. In whatever is forbidden by the law of nature there is no dispensation. In the direct line of consanguinity Nicholas I supposes that there is no room for dispensation. However, in cases of infidels when one or both are converted, while it is to be held that marriages within the first degree of the direct line are invalid, in all others the Holy See has to be consulted. The Holy See has the supreme right in doubtful cases to determine what may or may not be forbidden by the law of nature or by the Divine positive law. Benedict XIV, as already said, emphasized the fact that the popes had never granted a dispensation for a marriage between brother and sister, even where the union might have occurred without a knowledge of the relationship on the part of the contracting persons.

Consanguinity may be duplicated as arising from two sources: first, from two roots, e. g. two brothers marrying two women who are cousins; the children of each brother will be related to those of the other in the second degree on the father’s side, and in the third degree on the mother’s side; second, from one root, but when the descendants intermarry. hence, where there is a double consanguinity, there is a double impediment which must be expressed in the petition for dispensation; and should there be a more extensive duplication by still further intermarriages, all the forbidden degrees resulting from the blood-relationship should be mentioned in seeking dispensation. In the petition for dispensation, both series in the collateral consanguinity must be mentioned, though this is not necessary for validity of the dispensation. A special proviso is made when dispensation is sought from collateral consanguinity. It must be mentioned, even for validity, if the one part is next of kin to the root or common ancestor and the other within the forbidden degrees; the sex of the next of kin should also be mentioned, because of the greater difficulty of the dispensation for a nephew to marry his aunt. If the farthest should be in the fifth degree, there is even in that case no prohibition of marriage. The impediment of marriage arises also from any carnal intercourse, even outside of marriage, to the fourth degree of consanguinity. To consanguinity within the prohibited degrees may he added the gravamen of the crime of incest. If the incest were committed in the hope of facilitating the grant of a dispensation, this circumstance must be mentioned in the petition for dispensation; mention is also required if an attempt at marriage had been made, even if not consummated.

CIVIL LEGISLATION

In the Eastern Church the Quinisext Council (692) forbade, as we have seen, marriages between first cousins. In the eighth century Emperors Leo and Constantine confirmed this decree and forbade alliances between persons in the sixth degree of consanguinity according to the computation of the Roman civil law, i. e. between the grandchildren of brothers and sisters, and still later in the seventh degree of the same computation. This holds to-day in the Greek Church. The question of consanguinity is important in determining civil rights, which are mainly under control of the State, though illegitimacy often produces ecclesiastical disbarments (see BIRTH). The hindrances to marriage based on consanguinity vary considerably in different States. In Germany consanguinity is a bar only in the direct line, and between brothers and sisters. In France uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, are forbidden to intermarry, but dispensation may be granted by the head of the State. The prohibition does not extend to this relationship arising from an illegitimate union. Even in the most conservative Catholic countries, there is a tendency to limit the impediment of consanguinity. In England the statutes of Henry VIII, repealed in part by Edward VI and wholly by Phillip and Mary, were revived in Elizabeth’s first year, the provision being that “no prohibition, God’s law except, shall trouble or impeach any marriage outside Levitical law.” The ecclesiastical interpretation was that consanguinity was an impediment to marriage as far as the third degree of civil computation. A man might not marry his aunt, or his niece, but might marry his first cousin. Relationship by the half-blood was put on the same footing as the full-blood, and illegitimate consanguinity was treated as equivalent to legitimate blood relationship. The courts regarded marriages within the forbidden degree as voidable rather than void, but such marriages were declared void by an act of 5 and 6 William IV (1835). In the United States all the States prohibit marriage between lineal descendants; most of them prohibit marriages between uncle and niece, nephew and aunt, and between first cousins (Desmond, The Church and the Law, Chicago, 1898, C. X).

GENEALOGICAL TABLE

We subjoin a genealogical table which exhibits the various degrees of consanguinity according to a custom in use in the Western Church since the seventh century (Isidore of Seville). This will be a useful guide in determining the extent of the impediment of affinity. Affinity from a true marriage is a diriment impediment to the fourth degree of consanguinity of the deceased spouse; according to the ecclesiastical law a widower may not marry any of his deceased wife’s blood-relations as far as the fourth degree inclusively, nor a widow her deceased husband’s blood-relations. There is a modification if the affinity be one arising from illicit intercourse.

TABLE OF CONSANGUINITY

ON THE FATHER’S SIDE ON THE MOTHER’S SIDE

4——

Their

great—grand—children

——4——

Their

grand—children

——4——

Their

children

——4——

Great—great—uncle/

aunt

——4——

Great—great—grand—father/

mother

——4——

Great—great—uncle/

aunt

——4——

Their

children

——4——

Their

grand—children

——4

Their

great—grand—children

4——

Their

great—grand—children

——3——

Their

grand—children

——3——

Their

children

——3——

Great—uncle/

aunt

——3——

Great—grand—father/

mother

——3——

Great—uncle/

aunt

——3——

Their

children

——3——

Their

grand—children

——4

Their

great—grand—children

4——

Their

children

——3——

Second

cousins

——2——

First

cousins

——2——

Uncle

Aunt

——2——

Grand—father/

mother

——2——

Uncle

Aunt

——2——

First

cousins

——3——

Second

cousins

——4

Their

children

4——

Great—grand—nephew/

niece

——3——

Grand—nephew/

niece

——2——

Nephew

Niece

——1——

Brother

Half—brother

——1——

Father

Mother

John

Mary

——1——

Sister

Half—sister

——2——

Nephew

Niece

——3——

Grand—nephew/

niece

——4

Great

grand—nephew/

ni

1

Son

Daughter

2

Grandson

Grand—daughter

3

Great—grand—children

4

Great—great—grand—children

Conscience

I. THE NAME

In English we have done with a Latin word what neither the Latins nor the French have done: we have doubled the term, making “conscience” stand for the moral department and leaving “consciousness” for the universal field of objects about which we become aware. In Cicero we have to depend upon the context for the specific limitation to the ethical area, as in the sentence: “mea mihi conscientia pluris est quam omnium sermo” (Att., XII, xxviii, 2). Sir W. Hamilton has discussed how far we can be said to be conscious of the outer objects which we know, and how far “consciousness” ought to be held a term restricted to states of self or self-consciousness. (See Thiele, Die Philosophie des Selbstbewusstseins, Berlin, 1895.) In the two words Bewusstsein and Gewissen the Germans have made a serviceable distinction answering to our “consciousness” and “conscience.” The ancients mostly neglected such a discrimination. The Greeks often used phronesis where we should use “conscience,” but the two terms are far from coincident. They also used suneidesis, which occurs repeatedly for the purpose in hand both in the Old and the New Testament. The Hebrews had no formal psychology, though Delitzsch has endeavoured to find one in Scripture. There the heart often stands for conscience.

II. ORIGIN OF CONSCIENCE IN THE RACE AND IN THE INDIVIDUAL

Of anthropologists some do and some do not accept the Biblical account of man’s origin; and the former class, admitting that Adam’s descendants might soon have lost the traces of their higher descent, are willing to hear, with no pledge of endorsing, what the latter class have to say on the assumption of the human development even from an animal ancestry, and on the further assumption that in the use of evidences they may neglect sequence of time and place. It is not maintained by any serious student that the Darwinian pedigree is certainly accurate: it has the value of a diagram giving some notion of the lines along which forces are supposed to have acted. Not, then, as accepting for fact, but as using it for a very limited purpose, we may give a characteristic sketch of ethical development as suggested in the last chapter of Dr. L. T. Hobhouse’s “Morals in Evolution.” It is a conjectural story, very like what other anthropologists offer for what it is worth and not for fully certified science.

Ethics is conduct or regulated life; and regulation has a crude beginning in the lowest animal life as a response to stimulus, as reflex action, as useful adaptation to environment. Thus the amoeba doubles itself round its food in the water and lives; it propagates by self-division. At another stage in the animal series we find blind impulses for the benefit of life and its propagation taking a more complex shape, until something like instinctive purpose is displayed. Useful actions are performed, not apparently pleasurable in themselves, yet with good in the sequel which cannot have been foreseen. The care of the animal for its young, the provision for the need of its future offspring is a kind of foreshadowed sense of duty. St. Thomas is bold to follow the terminology of Roman lawyers, and to assert a sort of morality in the pairing and the propagating of the higher animals: “ius naturale est quod natura omnia animalia docuit.” (It is the natural law which nature has taught all animals.—”In IV Sent.,” dist. xxxiii, a. 1, art. 4.) Customs are formed under the pressures and the interactions of actual living. they are fixed by heredity, and they await the analysis and the improvements of nascent reason. With the advent of man, in his rudest state—however he came to be in that state, whether by ascent or descent—there dawns a conscience, which, in the development theory, will have to pass through many stages. At first its categories of right and wrong are in a very fluid condition, keeping no fixed form, and easily intermixing, as in the chaos of a child’s dreams, fancies, illusions, and fictions. The requirements of social life, which becomes the great moralizer of social action, are continually changing, and with them ethics varies its adaptations. As society advances, its ethics improves. “The lines on which custom is formed are determined in each society by the pressures, the thousand interactions of those forces of individual character and social relationship, which never cease remoulding until they have made men’s loves and hates, their hopes and fears for themselves and their children, their dread of unseen agencies, their jealousies, their resentments, their antipathies, their sociability and dim sense of mutual dependence all their qualities good and bad, selfish and sympathetic, social and anti-social.” (Op. cit., Vol. II, p. 262.) The grasp of experience widens and power of analysis increases, till, in a people like the Greeks, we come upon thinkers who can distinctly reflect on human conduct, and can put in practice the gnothi seauton (know thyself), so that henceforth the method of ethics is secured for all times, with indefinite scope left for its better and better application. “Here we have reached the level of philosophical or spiritual religions, systems which seek to concentrate all experience in one focus, and to illuminate all morality from one centre, thought, as ever, becoming more comprehensive as it becomes more explicit.” (ibid., p. 266.)

What is said of the race is applied to the individual, as in him customary rules acquire ethical character by the recognition of distinct principles and ideals, all tending to a final unity or goal, which for the mere evolutionist is left very indeterminate, but for the Christian has adequate definition in a perfect possession of God by knowledge and love, without the contingency of further lapses from duty. To come to the fullness of knowledge possible in this world is for the individual a process of growth. The brain at first has not the organization which would enable it to be the instrument of rational thought: probably it is a necessity of our mind’s nature that we should not start with the fully formed brain but that the first elements of knowledge should be gathered with the gradations of the developing structure. In the morally good family the child slowly learns right conduct by imitation, by instruction, by sanction in the way of rewards and punishments. Bain exaggerates the predominance of the last named element as the source whence the sense of obligation comes, and therein he is like Shaftesbury (Inquiry, II, n. 1), who sees in conscience only the reprover. This view is favoured also by Carlyle in his “Essay on Characteristics,” and by Dr. Mackenzie in his “Manual of Ethics” (3rd ed., III, 14), where we read: “I should prefer to say simply that conscience is a feeling of pain accompanying and resulting from our non-conformity to principle.” Newman also has put the stress on the reproving office of conscience. Carlyle says we should not observe that we had a conscience if we had never offended. Green thinks that ethical theory is mostly of negative use for conduct. (Prolegomena to Ethics, IV, 1.) It is better to keep in view both sides of the truth and say that the mind ethically developed comes to a sense of satisfaction in right doing and of dissatisfaction in wrongdoing, and that the rewards and the punishments judiciously assigned to the young have for their purpose, as Aristotle puts it, to teach the teachable how to find pleasure in what ought to please and displeasure in what ought to displease. The immature mind must be given external sanctions before it can reach the inward. Its earliest glimmering of duty cannot be clear light: it begins by distinguishing conduct as nice or as nasty and naughty: as approved or disapproved by parents and teachers, behind whom in a dim way stands the oft-mentioned God, conceived, not only in an anthropomorphic, but in a nepiomorphic way, not correct yet more correct than Caliban’s speculations about Setebos. The perception of sin in the genuine sense is gradually formed until the age which we roughly designate as the seventh year, and henceforth the agent enters upon the awful career of responsibility according to the dictates of conscience. On grounds not ethical but scholastically theological, St. Thomas explains a theory that the unbaptized person at the dawn of reason goes through a first crisis in moral discrimination which turns simply on the acceptance or rejection of God, and entails mortal sin in case of failure. (I-II:89:6)

III. WHAT CONSCIENCE IS IN THE SOUL OF MAN?

It is often a good maxim not to mind for a time how a thing came to be, but to see what it actually is. To do so in regard to conscience before we take up the history of philosophy in its regard is wise policy, for it will give us some clear doctrine upon which to lay hold, while we travel through a region perplexed by much confusion of thought. The following points are cardinal:

The natural conscience is no distinct faculty, but the one intellect of a man inasmuch as it considers right and wrong in conduct, aided meanwhile by a good will, by the use of the emotions, by the practical experience of living, and by all external helps that are to the purpose.

The natural conscience of the Christian is known by him to act not alone, but under the enlightenment and the impulse derived from revelation and grace in a strictly supernatural order.

As to the order of nature, which does not exist but which might have existed, St. Thomas (I-II:109:3) teaches that both for the knowledge of God and for the knowledge of moral duty, men such as we are would require some assistance from God to make their knowledge sufficiently extensive, clear, constant, effective, and relatively adequate; and especially to put it within reach of those who are much engrossed with the cares of material life. It would be absurd to suppose that in the order of nature God could be debarred from any revelation of Himself, and would leave Himself to be searched for quite irresponsively.

Being a practical thing, conscience depends in large measure for its correctness upon the good use of it and on proper care taken to heed its deliverances, cultivate its powers, and frustrate its enemies.

Even where due diligence is employed conscience will err sometimes, but its inculpable mistakes will be admitted by God to be not blameworthy. These are so many principles needed to steady us as we tread some of the ways of ethical history, where pitfalls are many.

IV. THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONSCIENCE CONSIDERED HISTORICALLY

(1) In pre-Christian times

The earliest written testimonies that we can consult tell us of recognized principles in morals, and if we confine our attention to the good which we find and neglect for the present the inconstancy and the admixture of many evils, we shall experience a satisfaction in the history. The Persians stood for virtue against vice in their support of Ahura Mazda against Ahriman; and it was an excellence of theirs to rise above “independent ethics” to the conception of God as the rewarder and the punisher. They even touched the doctrine of Christ’s saying, “What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” when to the question, what is the worth of the whole creation displayed before us, the Zend-Avesta has the reply: “the man therein who is delivered from evil in thought, word, and deed: he is the most valuable object on earth.” Here conscience was clearly enlightened. Of the moral virtues among the Persians truthfulness was conspicuous. Herodotus says that the youth were taught “to ride and shoot with the bow,” and “to speak the truth.” The unveracious Greeks, who admired the wiles of an Odysseus, were surprised at Persian veracity (Herodotus, I, 136, 138); and it may be that Herodotus is not fair on this head to Darius (III, 72). The Hindus in the Vedas do not rise high, but in Brahminism there is something more spiritual, and still more in the Buddhist reform on its best side, considered apart from the pessimistic view of life upon which its false asceticism was grounded. Buddhism had ten prohibitive commandments: three concerning the body, forbidding murder, theft, and unchastity; four concerning speech, forbidding lying, slander, abusive language, and vain conversation; and three concerning the mind internally, covetousness, malicious thoughts, and the doubting spirit. The Egyptians show the workings of conscience. In the “Book of the Dead” we find an examination of conscience, or rather profession of innocence, before the Supreme Judge after death. Two confessions are given enunciating most of the virtues (chap. cxxv): reverence for God; duties to the dead; charity to neighbours; duties of superiors and subjects; care for human life and limb; chastity, honesty, truthfulness, and avoidance of slander; freedom from covetousness. The Assyro-Babylonian monuments offer us many items on the favourable side; nor could the people whence issued the Code of Hammurabi, at a date anterior to the Mosaic legislation by perhaps seven hundred years, be ethically undeveloped. If the Code of Hammurabi has no precepts of reverence to God corresponding with the first three Commandments of the Mosaic Law, at least its preface contains a recognition of God’s supremacy. In China Confucius (c. 500 B. C.), in connection with an idea of heaven, delivered a high morality; and Mencius (c. 300 B. C.) developed this code of uprightness and benevolence as “Heaven’s appointment.” Greek ethics began to pass from its gnomic condition when Socrates fixed attention on the gnothi seauton in the interests of moral reflection. Soon followed Aristotle, who put the science on a lasting basis, with the great drawback of neglecting the theistic side and consequently the full doctrine of obligation. Neither for “obligation” nor for “conscience” had the Greeks a fixed term. Still the pleasures of a good conscience and the pains of an evil one were well set forth in the fragments collected by Stobaeus peri tou suneidotos. Penandros, asked what was true freedom, answered: “a good conscience” (Gaisford’s Stobaeus, vol. I, p. 429).

(2) In the Christian Fathers

The patristic treatment of ethics joined together Holy Scripture and the classical authors of paganism; no system was reached, but each Father did what was characteristic. Tertullian was a lawyer and spoke in legal terms: especially his Montanism urged him to inquire which were the mortal sins, and thus he started for future investigators a good line of inquiry. Clement of Alexandria was allegoric and mystic: a combiner of Orientalism, Hellenism, Judaism, and Christianity in their bearing on the several virtues and vices. The apologists, in defending the Christian character, dwelt on the marks of ethical conduct. St. Justin attributed this excellence to the Divine Logos, and thought that to Him, through Moses, the pagan philosophers were indebted (Apol., I, xliv). Similarly Origen accounted for pre-Christian examples of Christian virtue. As a Roman skilled in legal administration St. Ambrose was largely guided by Latin versions of Greek ethics, as is very well illustrated by his imitation in style of Cicero’s “De Officiis,” which he made the title of his own work. He discusses honestum et utile (I, ix); decorum, or to prepon as exhibited in Holy Scripture (x); various degrees of goodness, mediocre and perfect, in connection with the text, “if thou wilt be perfect” (xi); the passions of hot youth (xvii). Subsequent chapters dwell on the various virtues, as fortitude in war and its allied quality, courage in martyrdom (xl, xli). The second book opens with a discussion of beatitude, and then returns to the different virtues. It is the pupil of St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, who is, perhaps, the most important of the Fathers in the development of the Christian doctrine of conscience, not so much on account of his frequent discourses about moral subjects, as because of the Platonism which he drank in before his conversion, and afterwards got rid of only by degrees. The abiding result to the Scholastic system was that many writers traced their ethics and theology more or less to innate ideas, or innate dispositions, or Divine illuminations, after the example of St. Augustine. Even in St. Thomas, who was so distinctly an Aristotelean empiricist, some fancy that they detect occasional remnants of Augustinianism on its Platonic side.

Before leaving the Fathers we may mention St. Basil as one who illustrates a theorizing attitude. He was sound enough in recognizing sin to be graver and less grave; yet in the stress of argument against some persons who seemed to admit only the worst offenses against God to be real sins, he ventured without approving of Stoic doctrine, to point out a sort of equality in all sin, so far as all sin is a disobedience to God (Hom. de Justitia Dei, v-viii). Later Abelard and recently Dr. Schell abused this suggestion. But it has had no influence in any way like that of St. Augustine’s Platonism, of which a specimen may be seen in St. Bonaventure, when he is treating precisely of conscience, in a passage very useful as shedding light on a subsequent part of this article. Some habits, he says, are acquired, some innate as regards knowledge of singulars and knowledge of universals. “Quum enim ad cognitionem duo concurrant necessario, videlicet praesentia cognoscibilis et lumen quo mediante de illo judicamus, habitus cognoscitivi sunt quodammodo nobis innati ratione luminis animo inditi; sunt etiam acquisiti ratione speciei”—”For as two things necessarily concur for cognition, namely, the presence of something cognoscible, and the light by which we judge concerning it, cognoscitive habits are in a certain sense innate, by reason of the light wherewith the mind is endowed; and they are also acquired, by reason of the species.” (“Comment. in II Lib. Sent.,” dist. xxxix, art. 1, Q. ii. Cf. St. Thomas, “De Veritate,” Q. xi, art. 1: “Principia dicuntur innata quae statim lumine intellectus agentis cognoscuntur per species a sensibus abstractas.”—Principles are called innate when they are known at once by the light of the active intellect through the species abstracted from the senses.) Then comes the very noticeable and easily misunderstood addition a little later: “si quae sunt cognoscibilia per sui essentiam, non per speciem, respectu talium poterit dici conscientia esse habitus simpliciter innatus, utpote respectu upote respectu hujus quod est Deum amare et timere; Deus enim non cognoscitur per similitudinem a sensu, immo ‘Dei notitia naturaliter est nobis inserta,’ sicut dicit Augustinus”—”if there are some things cognoscible through their very essence and not through the species, conscience, with regard to such things, may be called a habit simply innate, as, for example, with regard to loving and serving God; for God is not known by sense through an image; rather, ‘the knowledge of God is implanted in us by nature,’ as Augustine says” (“In Joan.,” Tract. cvi, n. 4; “Confess.,” X, xx, xxix; “De Lib. Arbitr.,” I, xiv, xxxi; “De Mor. Eccl.,” iii, iv; “De Trin.,” XIII, iii, vi; “Joan. Dam. de Fide,” I, i, iii). We must remember that St. Bonaventure is not only a theologian but also a mystic, supposing in man oculus carnis, oculus rationis and oculus contemplationis (the eye of the flesh, the eye of reason, and the eye of contemplation); and that he so seriously regards man’s power to prove by arguments the existence of God as to devote his labour to explaining that logical conviction is consistent with faith in the same existence (Comm. in III Sent., dist. xxiv, art. 1, Q. iv). All these matters are highly significant for those who take up any thorough examination of the question as to what the Scholastics thought about man having a conscience by his very nature as a rational being. The point recurs frequently in Scholastic literature, to which we must next turn.

In Scholastic times

It will help to make intelligible the subtle and variable theories which follow, if it be premised that the Scholastics are apt to puzzle readers by mixing up with their philosophy of reason a real or apparent apriorism, which is called Augustinianism, Platonism, or Mysticism.

As a rule, to which Durandus with some others was an exception, the Schoolmen regarded created causes as unable to issue in any definite act unless applied or stimulated by God, the Prime Mover: whence came the Thomistic doctrine of proemotio physica even for the intellect and the will, and the simple concursus of the non-Thomists.

Furthermore they supposed some powers to be potential and passive, that is, to need a creative determinant received into them as their complement: of which kind a prominent example was the intellectus possibilis informed by the species intelligibilis, and another instance was in relation to conscience, the synteresis. (St. Thomas, De Verit., Q. xvi, art. 1, ad 13.)

First principles or habits inherent in intellect and will were clearly traced by St. Thomas to an origin in experience and abstraction; but others spoke more ambiguously or even contradictorily; St. Thomas himself, in isolated passages, might seem to afford material for the priorist to utilize in favour of innate forms. But the Thomistic explanation of appetitus innatus, as contrasted with elicitus, saves the situation.

Abelard, in his “Ethics,” or “Nosce Teipsum,” does not plunge us into these depths, and yet he taught such an indwelling of the Holy Ghost in virtuous pagans as too unrestrictedly to make their virtues to be Christian. He placed morality so much in the inward act that he denied the morality of the outward, and sin he placed not in the objectively disordered deed but in contempt for God, in which opinion he was imitated by Prof. Schell. Moreover he opened a way to wrong opinions by calling free will “the free judgment about the will.” In his errors, however, he was not so wholly astray as careless reading might lead some to infer. It was with Alexander of Hales that discussions which some will regard as the tedious minutiae of Scholastic speculation began. The origin lay in the introduction from St. Jerome (in Ezech., I, Bk. I, ch. 1) of the term synteresis or synderesis. There the commentator, having treated three of the mystic animals in the Prophecy as symbolizing respectively three Platonic powers of the soul—to epithumetikon (the appetitive), to thumikon (the irascible), and to logikon (the rational)—uses the fourth animal, the eagle, to represent what he calls sunteresis. The last, according to the texts employed by him to describe it, is a supernatural knowledge: it is the Spirit Who groans in man (Rom., viii, 26), the Spirit who alone knows what is in man (I Cor., ii, 11), the Spirit who with the body and the soul forms the Pauline trichotomy of I Thess., v, 23. Alexander of Hales neglects this limitation to the supernatural, and takes synteresis as neither a potentia alone, nor a habitus alone but a potentia habitualis, something native, essential, indestructible in the soul, yet liable to be obscured and baffled. It resides both in the intelligence and in the will: it is identified with conscience, not indeed on its lower side, as it is deliberative and makes concrete applications, but on its higher side as it is wholly general in principle, intuitive, a lumen innatum in the intellect and a native inclination to good in the will, voluntas naturalis non deliberativa (Summa Theologica I-II:71 to I-II:77). St. Bonaventure, the pupil, follows on the same lines in his “Commentarium in II Sent.” (dist. xxxix), with the difference that he locates the synteresis as calor et pondus in the will only distinguishing it from the conscience in the practical intellect, which he calls an innate habit—”rationale iudicatorium, habitus cognoscitivus moralium principiorum”—“a rational judgment, a habit cognoscitive of moral principles.” Unlike Alexander he retains the name conscience for descent to particulars: “conscientia non solum consistit in universali sed etiam descendit ad particularia deliberativa”—”conscience not only consists in the universal but also descends to deliberative particulars.” As regards general principles in the conscience, the habits are innate: while as regards particular applications, they are acquired (II Sent., dist xxxix, art. 1, Q; ii).

As forming a transition from the Franciscan to the Dominican School we may take one whom the Servite Order can at least claim as a great patron, though he seems not to have joined their body, Henry of Ghent. He places conscience in the intellect, not in the affective part—”non ad affectivam pertinet”—by which the Scholastics meant generally the will without special reference to feeling or emotion as distinguished in the modern sense from will. While Nicholas of Cusa described the Divine illumination as acting in blind-born man (virtus illuminati coecinati qui per fidem visum acquirit), Henry of Ghent required only assistances to human sight. Therefore he supposed:

an influentia generalis Dei to apprehend concrete objects and to generalize thence ideas and principles;

a light of faith;

a lumen speciale wherewith was known the sincera et limpida veritas rerum by chosen men only, who saw things in their Divine exemplars but not God Himself;

the lumen gloriæ to see God.

For our purpose we specially note this: “conscientia ad partem animae cognitivam non pertinet, sed ad affectivam”—”conscience belongs not to the cognitive part of the mind, but to the affective” (Quodlibet., I, xviii). St. Thomas, leading the Dominicans, places synteresis not in the will but in the intellect, and he applies the term conscience to the concrete determinations of the general principle which the synteresis furnishes: “By conscience the knowledge given through synteresis is applied to particular actions.” (“De Verit.,” Q. xvii, a. 2.; Cf. Summa Theologica, Q. lxxix, a. 13; “III Sent.,” dist. xiv, a. 1, Q. ii; “Contra Gent.,” II, 59.) Albertus agrees with St. Thomas in assigning to the intellect the synteresis, which he unfortunately derives from syn and hoerere (haerens in aliquo) (Summa Theol., Pt. II, Q. xcix, memb. 2, 3; Summa de Creaturis, Pt. II, Q. lxix, a. 1). Yet he does not deny all place to the will: “Est rationis practicae . . . non sine voluntate naturali, sed nihil est voluntatis deliberativae (Summa Theol., Pt. II, Q. xcix, memb. 1). The preference of the Franciscan School for the prominence of will, and the preference of the Thomistic School for the prominence of intellect is characteristic. (See Scotus, IV Sent., dist. xlix, Q. iv.) Often this preference is less significant than it seems. Fouillée, the great defender of the idée force—idea as the active principle—allows in a controversy with Spencer that feeling and will may be involved in the idea. Having shown how Scholasticism began its research into conscience as a fixed terminology, we must leave the matter there, adding only three heads under which occasion was given for serious errors outside the Catholic tradition:

While St. Augustine did excellent service in developing the doctrine of grace, he never so clearly defined the exact character of the supernatural as to approach the precision which was given through the condemnation of propositions taught by Baius and Jansenius; and in consequence his doctrine of original sin remained unsatisfactory. When Alexander of Hales, without distinction of natural and supernatural, introduced among the Scholastics the words of St. Jerome about synteresis as scintilla conscientia, and called it lumen innatum, he helped to perpetuate the Augustinian obscurity.

As regards the intellect, several Scholastics inclined to the Arabian doctrine of intellectus agens, or to the Aristotelean doctrine of the Divine nous higher than the human soul and not perishable with it. Roger Bacon called the intellectus agens a distinct substance. Allied with this went Exemplarism, or the doctrine of archetypic ideas and the supposed knowledge of things in these Divine ideas. [Compare the prolepseis emphutoi of the Stoics, which were universals, koinai ennoiai]. Henry of Ghent distinguished in man a double knowledge: “primum exemplar rei est species eius universalis causata a re: secundum est ars divina, continens rerum ideales rationes”—”the first exemplar of a thing is universal species of it caused by the thing: the second is the Divine Art containing the ideal reasons (rationes) of things” (Theol., I, 2, n. 15). Of the former he says: “per tale exemplar acquisitum certa et infallibilis notitia veritatis est omnino impossibilis”—”through such an acquired exemplar, certain and infallible knowledge of truth is utterly impossible” (n. 17); and of the latter: “illi soli certam veritatem valent agnoscere qui earn in exemplari (aeterno) valent aspicere, quod non omnes valent”—”they alone can know certain truth who can behold it in the (eternal) exemplar, which not all can do” (I, 1, n. 21;). The perplexity was further increased when some, with Occam, asserted a confused intuition of things singular as opposed to the clearer idea got by the process of abstraction: “Cognitio singularis abstractiva praesupponit intuitivam ejusdem objecti”—”abstractive cognition of a singular presupposes intuitive cognition of the same object” (Quodlib., I, Q. xiii). Scotus also has taught the confused intuition of the singulars. Here was much occasion for perplexity on the intellectual side, about the knowledge of general principles in ethics and their application when the priority of the general to the particular was in question.

The will also was a source of obscurity. Descartes supposed the free will of God to have determined what for conscience was to be right and what wrong, and he placed the act of volition in an affirmation of the judgment. Scotus did not go thus far, but some Scotists exaggerated the determining power of Divine will, especially so as to leave it to the choice of God indefinitely to enlarge a creature’s natural faculties in a way that made it hard to distinguish the natural from the supernatural. Connected with the philosophy of the will in matters of conscience is another statement open to controversy, namely, that the will can tend to any good object in particular only by reason of its universal tendency to the good. This is what Alexander of Hales means by synteresis as it exists in the will, when he says that it is not an inactive habit but a habit in some sense active of itself, or a general tendency, disposition, bias, weight, or virtuality. With this we might contrast Kant’s pure noumenal will, good apart from all determinedly good objects.

Anti-Scholastic Schools

The history of ethics outside the Scholastic domain, so far as it is antagonistic, has its extremes in Monism or Pantheism on the one side and in Materialism on the other.

Spinoza

Spinoza is a type of the Pantheistic opposition. His views are erroneous inasmuch as they regard all things in the light of a fated necessity, with no free will in either God or man; no preventable evil in the natural course of things; no purposed good of creation; no individual destiny or immortality for the responsible agent: indeed no strict responsibility and no strict retribution by reward or punishment. On the other hand many of Spinoza’s sayings if lifted into the theistic region, may be transformed into something noble. The theist, taking up Spinoza’s phraseology in a converted sense, may, under this new interpretation, view all passionate action, all sinful choice, as an “inadequate idea of things,” as “the preference of a part to the detriment of the whole,” while all virtue is seen as an “adequate idea” taking in man’s “full relation to himself as a whole, to human society and to God.” Again, Spinoza’s amor Dei intellectualis becomes finally, when duly corrected, the Beatific Vision, after having been the darker understanding of God enjoyed by Holy men before death, who love all objects in reference to God. Spinoza was not an antinomian in conduct; he recommended and practiced virtues. He was better than his philosophy on its bad side, and worse than his philosophy on its good side after it has been improved by Christian interpretation.

Hobbes

Hobbes stands for ethics on a Materialistic basis. Tracing all human action to self-love, he had to explain the generous virtues as the more respectable exhibitions of that quality when modified by social life. He set various schools of antagonistic thought devising hypotheses to account for disinterested action in man. The Cambridge Platonists unsatisfactorily attacked him on the principle of their eponymous philosopher, supposing the innate noemata to rule the empirical aisthemata by the aid of what Henry More called a “boniform faculty,” which tasted “the sweetness and savour of virtue.” This calling in of a special faculty had imitators outside the Platonic School; for example in Hutcheson, who had recourse to Divine “implantations” of benevolent disposition and moral sense, which remind us somewhat of synteresis as imperfectly described by Alexander of Hales. A robust reliance on reason to prove ethical truth as it proved mathematical truths, by inspection and analysis, characterized the opposition which Dr. Samuel Clarke presented to Hobbes. It was a fashion of the age to treat philosophy with mathematical rigour; but very different was the “geometrical ethics” of Spinoza, the necessarian, from that of Descartes, the libertarian, who thought that God’s free will chose even the ultimate reasons of right and wrong and might have chosen otherwise. If Hobbes has his representatives in the Utilitarians, the Cambridge Platonists have their representatives in more or less of the school of which T. H. Green is a leading light. A universal infinite mind seeks to realize itself finitely in each human mind or brain, which therefore must seek to free itself from the bondage of mere natural causality and rise to the liberty of the spirit, to a complete self-realization in the infinite Self and after its pattern. What this pattern ultimately is Green cannot say; but he holds that our way towards it at present is through the recognized virtues of European civilization, together with the cultivation of science and art. In the like spirit G.E. Moore finds the ascertainable objects that at present can be called “good in themselves” to be social intercourse and aesthetic delight.

Kant

Kant may stand midway between the Pantheistic and the purely Empirical ethics. On the one side he limited our knowledge, strictly so called, of things good to sense-experiences; but on the other he allowed a practical, regulative system of ideas lifting us up to God. Duty as referred to Divine commands was religion, not ethics: it was religion, not ethics, to regard moral precepts in the light of the commands of God. In ethics these were restricted to the autonomous aspect, that is, to the aspect of them under which the will of each man was its own legislator. Man, the noumenon, not the phenomenon, was his own lawgiver and his own end so far as morality went: anything beyond was outside ethics proper. Again, the objects prescribed as good or forbidden as bad did not enter in among the constituents of ethical quality: they were only extrinsic conditions. The whole of morality intrinsically was in the good will as pure from all content or object of a definite kind, from all definite inclination to benevolence and as deriving its whole dignity from respect for the moral law simply as a moral law, self-imposed, and at the same time universalized for all other autonomous individuals of the rational order. For each moral agent as noumenal willed that the maxim of his conduct should become a principle for all moral agents.

We have to be careful how in practice we impute consequences to men who hold false theories of conscience. In our historical sketch we have found Spinoza a necessarian or fatalist; but he believed in effort and exhortation as aids to good life. We have seen Kant assert the non-morality of Divine precept and of the objective fitness of things, but he found a place for both these elements in his system. Similarly Paulsen gives in the body of his work a mundane ethics quite unaffected by his metaphysical principles as stated in his preface to Book II. Luther logically might be inferred to be a thorough antinomian: he declared the human will to be enslaved, with a natural freedom only for civic duties; he taught a theory of justification which was in spite of evil deeds; he called nature radically corrupt and forcibly held captive by the lusts of the flesh; he regarded divine grace as a due and necessary complement to human nature, which as constituted by mere body and soul was a nature depraved; his justification was by faith, not only without works, but even in spite of evil works which were not imputed. Nevertheless he asserted that the good tree of the faith-justified man must bring forth good works; he condemned vice most bitterly, and exhorted men to virtue. Hence Protestants can depict a Luther simply the preacher of good, while Catholics may regard simply the preacher of evil. Luther has both sides.

V. CONSCIENCE IN ITS PRACTICAL WORKING

The supremacy of conscience

The supremacy of conscience is a great theme of discourse. “Were its might equal to its right,” says Butler, “it would rule the world.” With Kant we could say that conscience is autonomously supreme, if against Kant we added that thereby we meant only that every duty must be brought home to the individual by his own individual conscience, and is to this extent imposed by it; so that even he who follows authority contrary to his own private judgment should do so on his own private conviction that the former has the better claim. If the Church stands between God and conscience, then in another sense also the conscience is between God and the Church. Unless a man is conscientiously submissive to the Catholic Church his subjection is not really a matter of inner morality but is mechanical obedience.

Conscience as a matter of education and perfectibility

As in all other concerns of education, so in the training of conscience we must use the several means. As a check on individual caprice, especially in youth, we must consult the best living authorities and the best traditions of the past. At the same time that we are recipient our own active faculties must exert themselves in the pursuit with a keen outlook for the chances of error. Really unavoidable mistakes will not count against us; but many errors are remotely, when not proximately, preventable. From all our blunders we should learn a lesson. The diligent examiner and corrector of his own conscience has it in his power, by long diligence to reach a great delicacy and responsiveness to the call of duty and of higher virtue, whereas the negligent, and still more the perverse, may in some sense become dead to conscience. The hardening of the heart and the bad power to put light for darkness and darkness for light are results which may be achieved with only too much ease. Even the best criteria will leave residual perplexities for which provision has to be made in an ethical theory of probabilities which will be explained in the article PROBABILISM. Suffice it to say here that the theory leaves intact the old rule that a man in so acting must judge that he certainly is allowed thus to act, even though sometimes it might be more commendable to do otherwise. In inferring something to be permissible, the extremes of scrupulosity and of laxity have to be avoided.

The approvals and reprovals of conscience

The office of conscience is sometimes treated under too narrow a conception. Some writers, after the manner of Socrates when he spoke of his doemon as rather a restrainer than a promoter of action, assign to conscience the office of forbidding, as others assign to law and government the negative duty of checking invasion upon individual liberty. Shaftesbury (Inquiry II, 2, 1) regards conscience as the consciousness of wrongdoing, not of rightdoing. Carlyle in his “Essay on Characteristics” asserts that we should have no sense of having a conscience but for the fact that we have sinned; with which view we may compare Green’s idea about a reasoned system of ethics (Proleg., Bk. IV, ch. ii, sect. 311) that its use is negative “to provide a safeguard against the pretext which in a speculative age some inadequate and misapplied theories may afford our selfishness rather than in the way of pointing out duties previously ignored.” Others say that an ethics of conscience should no more be hortatory than art should be didactic. Mackenzie (Ethics, 3rd ed., Bk. III, ch. I, sect. 14) prefers to say simply that “conscience is a feeling of pain accompanying and resulting from nonconformity to principle.” The suggestion which, by way of contrary, these remarks offer is that we should use conscience largely as an approving and an instigating and an inspiring agency to advance us in the right way. We should not in morals copy the physicists, who deny all attractive force and limit force to vis a tergo, a push from behind. Nor must we think that the positive side of conscience is exhausted in urging obligations: it may go on in spite of Kant, beyond duty to works of supererogation. Of course there is a theory which denies the existence of such works on the principle that every one is simply bound to the better and the best if he feels himself equal to the heroic achievement. This philosophy would lay it down that he who can renounce all and give it to the poor is simply obliged to do so, though a less generous nature is not bound, and may take advantage—if it be an advantage—of its own inferiority. Not such was the way in which Christ put the case: He said hypothetically, “if thou wilt be perfect,” and His follower St. Peter said to Ananias “Was not [thy land] thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? . . . Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” (Acts, v, 4.) We have, then, a sphere of duty and beyond that a sphere of free virtue, and we include both under the domain of conscience. It is objected that only a prig considers the approving side of his conscience, but that is true only of the priggish manner, not of the thing itself; for a sound mind may very well seek the joy which comes from a faithful, generous heart, and make it an effort of conscience that outstrips duty to aim at higher perfection, not under the false persuasion that only after duty has been fulfilled does merit begin, but under the true conviction that duty is meritorious, and that so also is goodness in excess of duty. Not that the eye is to be too narrowly fixed on rewards: these are included, while virtue for virtue’s sake and for the sake of God is carefully cultivated.

JOHN RICKABY.

Hendrik Conscience

A Flemish novelist, b. at Antwerp, 3 December, 1812; d. at Brussels, 10 September, 1883. His father was French and his mother Flemish. Until the age of seven Conscience was a cripple, and was constantly under the care of his mother who used to tell him wonderful tales of fairies and angels. Little by little, however, he grew stronger, and was able to take part in the games of other children, but, as soon as he could read, books were his favourite companions. In fact, it was by reading that he mainly educated himself, for his schooling was limited to what would be considered to-day as the elementary grade. In 1830 he was a tutor in the Delin School, to some degree a fashionable institution of Antwerp, but at the very beginning of the struggle for independence he resigned his position and entered the army as a private.

His military service, which lasted six years, brought him into contact with the peasants of the northern part of Belgium, and gave him an opportunity to study their manners, their customs, and to see the attractive sides of their character, rough as it is on the surface. After leaving the army he was successively connected with the local administration of Antwerp, the academy of the same city, and, in 1857, with the local administration of Courtrui. In 1868 he was appointed commissioner of the royal museums of painting and sculpture. He had taught Flemish to the sons of King Leopold I, and in 1868 refused the chair of Flemish literature in the University of Ghent. In 1869 he became a member of the Royal Academy of Belgium.

While in the army Conscience began to write, but in French. In 1837, following the advice of his friend Jan Delaet, he made up his mind to write in Flemish, an idiom which was then considered too rude for literary composition. In this language he published his first novel, “The Wonderful Year,” and six months later a volume of verse and prose, “Phantazij.” These two highly romantic productions, where everything, romance, style, and even language, lay open to criticism, were failures. Conscience, however, was in no way dismayed and took in hand another work. This time his efforts were crowned with success. When, in 1838, “The Lion of Flanders” appeared, it enriched Flemish literature with a masterpiece. After this success he never ceased writing. His complete works embrace more than a hundred volumes.

Conscience got his inspiration from three main sources: the fatherland, the family, and loyalty to the Church. His conception of art is an idealistic one, though he gives a vivid account of the realities of life. His avowed purpose was always to inspire the people with a love for the good and the beautiful. He possesses to a high degree the sense of the dramatic and pathetic; he has a wonderful power of grasping the picturesque side of things, and often renders it with a rare felicity of expression. His works enjoyed a great vogue, and have been translated into most of the European languages. Several English editions appeared in London, Edinburg, and Baltimore. Among his historical novels “The Lion of Flanders” and “Jacob van Artevelde” are considered his best achievements; among his studies of life and manners the most successful were “Siska van Roosemael” and “The Blessing of Being Rich”; among his village tales the best known are “The Conscript” and “Baas Gasendonck.” The city of Antwerp raised a monument to this famous son, which was unveiled some weeks before his death.

P. J. MARIQUE.

Consciousness

(Lat. conscientia; Ger. Bewusstsein) cannot, strictly speaking, be defined. In its widest sense it includes all our sensations, thoughts, feelings, and volitions—in fact the sum total of our mental life. We indicate the meaning of the term best by contrasting conscious life with the unconscious state of a swoon, or of deep, dreamless sleep. We are said to be conscious of mental states when we are alive to them, or are aware of them in any degree. The term self-conscious is employed to denote the higher or more reflective form of knowledge, in which we formally recognize our states as our own. Consciousness in the wide sense has come to be recognized in modern times as the subject-matter of a special science, psychology; or, more definitely, phenomenal or empirical psychology. The investigation of the facts of consciousness, viewed as phenomena of the human mind, their observation, description, and analysis, their classification, the study of the conditions of their growth and development, the laws exhibited in their manifestation, and, in general, the explanation of the more complex mental operations and products by their reduction to more elementary states and processes, is held to be the business of the scientific psychologist at the present day.

HISTORY

The scientific or systematic study of the phenomena of consciousness is modern. Particular mental operations, however, attracted the attention of acute thinkers from ancient times. Some of the phenomena connected with volition, such as motive, intention, choice, and the like, owing to their ethical importance, were elaborately investigated and described by early Christian moralists; whilst some of our cognitive operations were a subject of interest to the earliest Greek philosophers in their speculations on the problem of human knowledge. The common character, however, of all branches of philosophy in the ancient world, was objective, an inquiry into the nature of being and becoming in general, and of certain forms of being in particular. Even when epistemological questions, investigations into the nature of knowing, were undertaken, as e. g. by the School of Democritus, there seems to have been very little effort made to test the theories by careful comparison with the actual experience of our consciousness. Accordingly, crude hypotheses received a considerable amount of support. The great difference between ancient and modern methods of investigating the human mind will be best seen by comparing Aristotle’s “De Anima” and any modern treatise such as William James’ “Principles of Psychology.” Although there is plenty of evidence of inductive inquiry in the Greek philosopher’s book, it is mainly of an objective character; and whilst there are incidentally acute observations on the operations of the senses and the constitution of some mental states, the bulk of the treatise is either physiological or metaphysical. On the other hand the aim of the modern inquirer throughout is the diligent study by introspection of different forms of consciousness, and the explanation of all complex forms of consciousness by resolving them into their simplest elements. The Schoolmen, in the main, followed the lines of the Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle. There is a striking uniformity in the tractate “De Anima” in the hands of each successive writer throughout the whole of the Middle Ages. The object and conditions of the operations of the cognitive and appetitive faculties of the soul, the constitution of species, the character of the distinction between the soul and its faculties, the connexion of soul and body, the inner nature of the soul, its origin and destiny are discussed in each treatise from the twelfth to the sixteenth century; whilst the method of argument throughout rests rather on an ontological analysis of our concepts of the various phenomena than on painstaking introspective study of the character of our mental activities themselves.

However, as time went on, the importance of certain problems of Christian theology, not so vividly realized by the ancients, compelled a more searching observation of consciousness and helped on the subjective movement. Free will, responsibility, intention, consent, repentance, and conscience acquired a significance unknown to the old pagan world. This procured an increasingly copious treatment of these subjects from the moral theologians. The difficulties surrounding the relations between sensuous and intellectual knowledge evoked more systematic treatment in successive controversies. Certain questions in ascetical and mystical theology also necessitated more direct appeal to strictly psychological investigation among the later Schoolmen. Still, it must be admitted that the careful inductive observation and analysis of our consciousness, so characteristic of modern psychological literature, occupies a relatively small space in the classical De animâ of the medieval schools. The nature of our mental states and processes is usually assumed to be so obvious that detailed description is needless, and the main part of the writer’s energy is devoted to metaphysical argument. Locke’s “Essay Concerning Human Understanding” (1690) and the writings of Thomas Hobbes (1588- 1679), both of which combine with confused and superficial metaphysics much acute observation and genuinely scientific attempts at analysis of various mental states, inaugurated the systematic inductive study of the phenomena of the mind which has grown into the modern science of consciousness, the empirical or phenomenal psychology of the present day. In Great Britain the idealism of Berkeley, which resolved the seemingly independent material world into a series of ideas awakened by God in the mind, and the scepticism of Hume, which professed to carry the analysis still farther, dissolving the mind itself into a cluster of states of consciousness, focused philosophical speculation more and more on the analytic study of mental phenomena, and gave rise to the Associationist School. This came at last virtually to identify all philosophy with psychology. Reid and Stewart, the ablest representatives of the Scotch School, whilst opposing Hume’s teaching with a better psychology, still strengthened by their method the same tendency. Meantime, on the Continent, Descartes’ system of methodic doubt, which would reduce all philosophical assumptions to his ultimate cogito, ergo sum, furthered the subjective movement of speculation from another side, for it planted the seed of the sundry modern philosophies of consciousness, destined to be evolved along various lines by Fichte, Schelling, and Hartmann.

Such being in outline the history of modern speculation in regard to human consciousness, the question of primary interest here is: Viewed from the standpoint of Catholic theological and philosophical teaching, what estimate is to be formed of this modern psychological method, and of the modern science of the phenomena of consciousness? It seems to the present writer that the method of careful industrious observation of the activities of the mind, the accurate description and classification of the various forms of consciousness, and the effort to analyse complex mental products into their simplest elements, and to trace the laws of the growth and development of our several faculties, constitute a sound rational procedure which is as deserving of commendation as the employment of sound scientific method in any other branch of knowledge. Further, since the only natural means of acquiring information respecting the inner nature of the soul is by the investigation of its activities, the scientific study of the facts of consciousness is a necessary preliminary at the present day to any satisfactory metaphysics of the soul. Assuredly no philosophy of the human soul which ignores the results of scientific observation and experiment applied to the phenomena of consciousness can to-day claim assent to its teaching with much hope of success. On the other hand, most English-speaking psychologists since the time of Locke, partly through excessive devotion to the study of these phenomena, partly through contempt for metaphysics, seem to have fallen into the error of forgetting that the main ground for interest in the study of our mental activities lies in the hope that we may draw from them inferences as to the inner constitution of the being, subject, or agent from which these activities proceed. This error has made the science of consciousness, in the hands of many writers, a “psychology without a soul.” This is, of course, no necessary consequence of the method. With respect to the relation between the study of consciousness and philosophy in general, Catholic thinkers would, for the most part, hold that a diligent investigation of the various forms of our cognitive consciousness must be undertaken as one of the first steps in philosophy; that one’s own conscious existence must be the ultimate fact in every philosophical system; and that the veracity of our cognitive faculties, when carefully scrutinized, must be the ultimate postulate in every sound theory of cognition. But the prospect of constructing a general philosophy of consciousness on idealistic lines that will harmonize with sundry theological doctrines which the Church has stamped with her authority, does not seem promising. At the same time, although much of our dogmatic theology has been formulated in the technical language of the Aristotelean physics and metaphysics, and though it would be, to say the least, extremely difficult to disentangle the Divinely revealed religious element from the human and imperfect vehicle by which it is communicated, yet it is most important to remember that the conceptions of Aristotelean metaphysics are no more part of Divine Revelation than are the hypotheses of Aristotelean physics; and that the technical language with its philosophical associations and implications in which many of our theological doctrines are clothed, is a human instrument, subject to alteration and correction.

QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS

The term psychophysics is employed to denote a branch of experimental psychology which seeks to establish quantitative laws describing the general relations of intensity exhibited in various kinds of conscious states under certain conditions. Elaborate experiments and ingenious instruments have been devised by Weber, Fechner, Wundt, and others for the purpose of measuring the strength of the stimulus needed to awaken the sensations of the several senses, the quantity of variation in the stimulus required to produce a consciously distinguishable sensation, and so to discover a minimum increment or unit of consciousness: also to measure the exact duration of particular conscious processes, the “reaction-time” or interval between the stimulation of a sense-organ and the performance of a responsive movement, and similar facts. These results have been stated in certain approximate laws. The best established of these is the Weber-Fechner generalization, which enunciates the general fact that the stimulus of a sensation must be increased in geometrical progression in order that the intensity of the resulting sensation be augmented in arithmetical progression. The law is true, however, only of certain kinds of sensation and within limits. Whilst these attempts to reach quantitative measurement—characteristic of the exact sciences—in the study of consciousness have not been directly very fruitful in new results, they have nevertheless been indirectly valuable in stimulating the pursuit of greater accuracy and precision in all methods of observing and registering the phenomena of consciousness.

SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS

A most important form of consciousness from both a philosophical and a psychological point of view is self-consciousness. By this is understood the mind’s consciousness of its operations as its own. Out of this cognition combined with memory of the past emerges the knowledge of our own abiding personality. We not only have conscious states like the lower animals, but we can reflect upon these states, recognize them as our own, and at the same time distinguish them from the permanent self of which they are the transitory modifications. Viewed as the form of consciousness by which we study our own states, this inner activity is called introspection. It is the chief instrument employed in the building up of the science of psychology, and it is one of the many differentiae which separate the human from the animal mind. It has sometimes been spoken of as an “internal sense,” the proper object of which is the phenomena of consciousness, as that of the external senses is the phenomena of physical nature. Introspection is, however, merely the function of the intellect applied to the observation of our own mental life. The peculiar reflective activity exhibited in all forms of self-consciousness has led modern psychologists who defend the spirituality of the soul, increasingly to insist on this operation of the human mind as a main argument against materialism. The cruder form of materialism advocated in the nineteenth century by Broussais, Vogt, Moleschott, and at times by Huxley, which maintained that thought is merely a “product,” “secretion,” or “function” of the brain, is shown to be untenable by a brief consideration of any form of consciousness. All “secretions” and “products” of material agents of which we have experience, are substances which occupy space, are observable by the external senses, and continue to exist when unobserved. But all states of consciousness are non-spatial; they cannot be observed by the senses, and they exist only as we are conscious of them—their esse is percipi. Similarly “functions” of material agents are, in the last resort, resolvable into movements of portions of matter. But states of consciousness are not movements any more than they are “secretions” of matter. The contention, however, that all states of consciousness, though not “secretions” or “products” of matter, are yet forms of activity which have their ultimate source in the brain and are intrinsically and absolutely dependent on the latter is not disposed of by this reasoning.

To meet this objection, attention is directed to the form of intellectual activity exhibited in reflective self-consciousness. In this process there is recognition of complete identity between the knowing agent and the object which is known; the ego is at once subject and object. This feature of our mental life has been adduced in evidence of the immateriality of the soul by former writers, but under the title of an argument from the unity of consciousness it has been stated in perhaps its most effective form by Lotze. The phrase “continuity of consciousness” has been employed to designate the apparent connectedness which characterizes our inner experience, and the term “stream” of consciousness has been popularized by Professor James as an apt designation of our conscious life as a whole. Strictly speaking, this continuity does not pertain to the “states” or phenomena of consciousness. One obviously large class of interruptions is to be found in the nightly suspension of consciousness during sleep. The connecting continuity is really in the underlying subject of consciousness. It is only through the reality of a permanent, abiding principle or being which endures the same whilst the transitory states come and go that the past experience can be linked with the present, and the apparent unity and continuity of our inner life be preserved. The effort to explain the seeming continuity of our mental existence has, in the form of the problem of personal identity, proved a hopeless crux to all schools of philosophy which decline to admit the reality of some permanent principle such as the human soul is conceived to be in the Scholastic philosophy. John Stuart Mill, adhering to the principles of Hume, was driven to the conclusion that the human mind is merely “a series of states of consciousness aware of itself as a series.” This has been rightly termed by James “the definite bankruptcy” of the Associationist theory of the human mind. James’ own account of the ego as “a stream of consciousness” in which “each passing thought” is the only “thinker” is not much more satisfactory.

ABNORMAL FORMS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

In processes of self-conscious activity the relative prominence of the self and the states varies much. When the mind is keenly interested in some external event, e. g. a race, the notice of self may be diminished almost to zero. On the other hand, in efforts of difficult self-restraint and deliberate reflection, the consciousness of the ego reaches its highest level. Besides this experience of the varying degrees of the obtrusiveness of the self, we are all conscious at times of trains of thought taking place automatically within us, which seem to possess a certain independence of the main current of our mental life. Whilst going through some familiar intellectual operation with more or less attention, our mind may at the same time be occupied in working out a second series of thoughts connected and coherent in themselves, yet quite separate from the other process in which our intellect is engaged. These secondary “split-off” processes of thought may, in certain rare cases, develop into very distinct, consistent, and protracted streams of consciousness; and they may occasionally become so complete in themselves and so isolated from the main current of our mental life, as to possess at least a superficial appearance of being the outcome of a separate personality. We have here the phenomenon of the so-called “double ego.” Sometimes the sections or fragments of one fairly consistent stream of consciousness alternate in succession with the sections of another current, and we have the alleged “mutations of the ego,” in which two or more distinct personalities seem to occupy the same body in turn. Sometimes the second stream of thought appears to run on concomitantly with the main current of conscious experience, though so shut off as only to manifest its existence occasionally. These parallel currents of mental life have been adduced by some writers in support of an hypothesis of concomitant “multiple personalities.” The psychological literature dealing with these phenomena is very large. Here it suffices to observe in passing that all these phenomena belong to morbid mental life, that their nature and origin are admittedly extremely obscure, and that the cases in which the ego or subject of one stream of consciousness has absolutely no knowledge or memory of the experiences of the other, are extremely few and very doubtful. The careful and industrious observations, however, which are being collected in this field of mental pathology are valuable for many purposes; and even if they have not so far thrown much light on the problem of the inner nature of the soul, at all events they stimulate effort towards an important knowledge of the nervous conditions of mental processes, and they ought ultimately to prove fruitful for the study of mental disease.

Reverie, dreams, and somnambulistic experiences are forms of consciousness mediating between normal life and the eccentric species of mentality we have just been discussing. One particular form of abnormal consciousness which has attracted much attention is that exhibited in hypnotism (q. v.). The type of consciousness presented here is in many respects similar to that of somnambulism. The main feature in which it differs is that the hypnotic state is artificially induced and that the subject of this state remains in a condition of rapport or special relation with the hypnotizer of such a kind that he is singularly susceptible to the suggestions of the latter. One feature of the hypnotic state in common with some types of somnambulism and certain forms of the “split-off” streams of consciousness consists in the fact that experiences which occurred in a previous section of the particular abnormal state, though quite forgotten during the succeeding normal consciousness, may be remembered during a return of the abnormal state. These and some other kindred facts have given rise to much speculation as to the nature of mental life below the “threshold” or “margin” of consciousness. Certain writers have adopted the hypothesis of a “subliminal,” in addition to our ordinary “supraliminal,” consciousness, and ascribe a somewhat mystic character to this former. Some assume a universal, pantheistic, subliminal consciousness continuous with the subliminal consciousness of the individual. Of this universal mind they maintain that each particular mind is but a part. The question, indeed, as to the existence and nature of unconscious mental operations in individual minds has been in one shape or another the subject of controversy from the time of Leibniz. That during our normal conscious existence obscure, subconscious mental processes, at best but faintly recognizable, do take place, is indisputable. That latent activities of the soul which are strictly unconscious, can be truly mental or intellectual operations is the point in debate. Whatever conclusions be adopted with respect to those various problems, the discussion of them has established beyond doubt the fact that our normal consciousness of everyday life is profoundly affected by subconscious processes of the soul which themselves escape our notice. (See PERSONALITY; PSYCHOLOGY; SOUL.)

MICHAEL MAHER.

Consecration

Consecration, in general, is an act by which a thing is separated from a common and profane to a sacred use, or by which a person or thing is dedicated to the service and worship of God by prayers, rites, and ceremonies. The custom of consecrating persons to the Divine service and things to serve in the worship of God may be traced to the remotest times. We find rites of consecration mentioned in the early cult of the Egyptians and other pagan nations. Among the Semitic tribes it consisted in the threefold act of separating, sanctifying, or purifying, and devoting or offering to the Deity. In the Hebrew Law we find it applied to the entire people whom Moses, by a solemn act of consecration, designates as the People of God. As described in the Book of Exodus (xxiv), the rite used on this occasion consisted

of the erection of an altar and twelve memorial stones (to represent the twelve tribes);

of the selection of twelve youths to perform the burnt-offering of the holocaust;

Moses read the covenant, and the people made their profession of obedience;

Moses sprinkled upon the people the blood reserved from the holocaust.

Later on we read of the consecration of the priests—Aaron and his sons (Exod., xxix)—who had been previously elected (Exod., xxviii). Here we have the act of consecration consisting of purifying, investing, and anointing (Lev., viii) as a preparation for their offering public sacrifice. The placing of the meat in their hands (Exod., xxix) was considered an essential part of the ceremony of consecration, whence the expression filling the hand has been considered identical with consecrating. As to the oil used in this consecration, we find the particulars in Exodus (xxx, 23, 24; xxxvii, 29). Distinct from the priestly consecration is that of the Levites (Num., iii, 6) who represent the first-born of all the tribes. The rite of their consecration is described in Numbers, viii. Another kind of personal consecration among the Hebrews was that of the Nazarites (Num., vi). It implied the voluntary separation from certain things, dedication to God, and a vow of special sanctity. Similarly, the rites of consecration of objects—such as temples, altars, firstfruits, spoils of war, etc.—are minutely described in the Old Testament. Among the Romans whatever was devoted to the worship of their gods (fields, animals, etc.) was said to be consecrated, and the objects which pertained intimately to their worship (temples, altars, etc.) were said to be dedicated. These words were, however, often used indiscriminately, and in both cases it was understood that the object once consecrated or dedicated remained sacred in perpetuum.

The Church distinguishes consecration from blessing, both in regard to persons and to things. Hence the Roman Pontifical treats of the consecration of a bishop and of the blessing of an abbot, of the blessing of a corner-stone and the consecration of a church or altar. In both, the persons or things pass from a common, or profane, order to a new state, and become the subjects or the instruments of Divine protection. At a consecration the ceremonies are more solemn and elaborate than at a blessing. The ordinary minister of a consecration is a bishop, whilst the ordinary minister of a blessing is a priest. At every consecration the holy oils are used; at a blessing customarily on holy water. The new state to which consecration elevates persons or things is permanent, and the rite can never be repeated, which is not the case at a blessing; the graces attached to consecration are more numerous and efficacious than those attached to a blessing; the profanation of a consecrated person or thing carries with it a new species of sin, namely sacrilege, which the profanation of a blessed person or thing does not always do.

Of consecration proper the Roman Pontifical contains one of persons, that is of a bishop, and four of things, that is, of a fixed altar, of an altar-stone, of a church, and of a chalice and paten. The consecration of a church is also called its dedication (q.v.) in accordance with the distinction between consecration and dedication among the ancient Romans pointed out above. To these might be probably added confirmation and Holy orders, for which, however, the Roman Pontifical, because they are distinct sacraments, has retained their proper names. If we except the consecration of a bishop, which is a sacrament—although there is a question among theologians, whether the sacrament and the character imprinted by it are distinct from the sacrament and character of the priesthood, or only a certain extension of the sacerdotal sacrament and character—all the other consecrations are sacramentals. These are inanimate things which are not susceptible of Divine grace, but are a medium of its communication, since by their consecration they acquire a certain spiritual power by which they are rendered in perpetuum fit and suitable for Divine worship. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theol., III:83:3, ad 3 and 4.)

In the Eastern Churches the prayers at the consecration of altars and sacred vessels are of the same import as those used in the Latin Church, and they are accompanied by the sign of the cross and the anointing with holy oils (Renaudot, “Liturgiarum Orient. Collectio,” I, Ad benedictiones). At the consecration of a bishop, the Orientals hold, with the Latins, that the essence consists in the laying-on of hands, and they entirely omit the anointing with holy oils (Morinus, De sacris Ecclesiæ ordinationibus, Pars III, Appendis).

When we speak of consecration without any special qualification, we ordinarily understand it as the act by which, in the celebration of Holy Mass, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. It is called transubstantiation, for in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine do not remain, but the entire substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine is changed into His blood, the species or outward semblance of bread and wine along remaining. This change is produced in virtue of the words: This is my body and This is my blood, or This is the chalice of my blood, pronounced by the priest assuming the person of Christ and using the same ceremonies that Christ used at the Last Supper. That this is the essential form has been the constant belief and teaching of both the Eastern and Western Churches (Renaudot, “Liturgiarum Orientalium Collection,” I, i).

I. CONSECRATION OF A BISHOP

The consecration of a bishop marks the plenitude of the priesthood, and it is probable that on this account the “Pontificale Romanum” places the ceremony of episcopal consecration immediately after that of the ordination of priests, Tit. XIII, “De consecratione electi in Episcopum.” Episcopal jurisdiction is acquired by the act of election and confirmation or by definite appointment, whilst the fullness of the priestly power itself is obtained in consecration, as the completion of hierarchical orders. Formerly the consecration of a suffragan bishop was performed jure communi by the metropolitan of the province, who could delegate another bishop. An archbishop was consecrated by one of his suffragans, the senior being usually selected. If the bishop-elect was not a suffragan of any ecclesiastical province, the nearest bishop performed the ceremony. According to the present discipline of the Church the office of consecrator is reserved to the Roman pontiff, who performs the consecration in person or delegates it to another (Benedict XIV, Const. “In postremo,” 10 October 1756, sect. 17). If the consecration takes place in Rome, and the bishop-elect receives the permission to choose the consecrator, he must select a cardinal who is a bishop, or one of the four titular Latin patriarchs residing in Rome. If they refuse to perform the ceremony, he may choose any archbishop or bishop. A suffragan, however, is obliged to select the metropolitan of his province, if the latter be in Rome (ibidem). In Rome the consecration takes place in a consecrated church or in the papal chapel (Cong. Sac. Rit., Decr. V of the lates idit., no date). If the consecration is to take place outside of Rome, and Apostolic commission is sent to the bishop-elect, in which the Roman pontiff grants him the faculty of choosing any bishop having communion with the Holy See to consecrate him and administer the oath, a pledge of obedience and respect to the Apostolic See. Besides the consecrator, the ancient canons and the general practice of the Church require two assistant bishops. This is not of Divine but of Apostolic institution (Santi, “Praelectiones Juris Canonici,” Vol. I, Tit. vi, n. 49), and hence in cases of necessity, when it is impossible to procure three bishops, the places of the two assistant bishops may, by Apostolic favour, be filled by priests, who should be dignitaries (Cong. Sac. Rit., 16 July, 1605). These priests must observe the rubrics of the “Pontificale Romanum” with regard to the imposition of hands and the kiss of peace (Cong. Sac. Rit., 9 June, 1853). Benedict XIV (De Synod. Cioec., Lib. XIII, cap. xiii, n. 2sqq.) holds that the consecration of a bishop, when the consecrator is assisted by one priest, although the Apostolic Brief required two assistant priests, is valid although illicit. In missionary countries the consecrator may perform the ceremony without the assistance even of priests (Zitelli, “Apparatus Juris Ecclesiastici,” Lib. I, Tit. i, sect. iv). The selection of the assistant bishops or priests is left to the consecrator, whose choice is, however, understood to be in harmony, with the wishes of the bishop-elect (Martinucci, Lib. VII, cap. iv, n. 5).

The day of consecration should be a Sunday or the feast of an Apostle, that is to say a dies natalitia, and not merely a day which commemorates some event of his life, e.g. the Conversion of St. Paul. Since in liturgy Evangelists are regarded as Apostles (Cong. Sac. Rit., 17 July, 1706) their feast days may be selected. The choice of any other day must be ratified by special indult of the Holy See. Outside of Rome the consecration out to be performed, if it can be conveniently done, in the cathedral of the diocese, and within the province of the bishop-elect; the latter may, however, select any church or chapel for the ceremony. A bishop must be consecrated before the expiration of three months after his election or appointment. If it is delayed beyond this time without sufficient reason, the bishop is obliged to relinquish the revenues to which he is entitled; if it is delayed six months, he may be deprived of his episcopal see (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXIII, cap. ii, De Reform). Titular bishops forfeit their right of episcopal dignity unless they are consecrated within six months of their appointment (Benedict XIV, Const. “Quum a nobis,” 4 Aug., 1747, sect. Hæc sane). According to the ancient canons, both the consecrator and the bishop-elect are expected to observe the day preceding the consecration as a fast day.

The ceremony of consecration of a bishop is one of the most splendid and impressive known to the Church. It may be divided into four parts: The preludes, the consecration proper, the presentation of the insignia, and the conclusion. It takes place during mass celebrated by both the consecrator and the bishop-elect. For this purpose a separate altar is erected for the bishop-elect near the altar at which the consecrator celebrates Mass, either in a side chapel, or in the sanctuary, or just outside of it.

PRELUDES

The consecrator is vested in full pontificals of the colour of the Mass of the day; the assistant bishops, in amice, stole, and cope of the same colour, and a white linen or damask mitre; the bishop-elect in amice, alb, cincture, white stole crossed on the breast, and cope and biretta. The consecrator is seated on a faldstool placed on the predella of the altar, facing the bishop-elect, who sits between the assistant bishops, upon a seat placed on the sanctuary floor. The senior assistant bishop presents the elect to the consecrator, after which the Apostolic commission is called for and read. Then the elect, kneeling before the consecrator, takes an oath in which he promises to be obedient to the Holy See, to promote its rights, honours, privileges, and authority, visit the City of Rome at stated times, render an account of his whole pastoral office to the pope, execute all Apostolic mandates, and preserve inviolable all the possessions of his Church. Then follows the examination, in which seventeen questions concerning the canons of the Church and articles of faith are proposed, to which the elect answers, “I will,” and “I do believe,” respectively, each time rising slightly and uncovering his head. Mass is now begun at the foot of the consecratorUs altar and continued down to “Oremus. Aufer a nobis” inclusively. The elect is then led by the assistant bishop to the side altar, at which, having been clad in his pontifical vestments, he continues the Mass, simultaneously with the consecrator, down to the last verse of the Gradual, Tract, or Sequence exclusively, without any change in the liturgy, except that the collect for the elect is added to the prayer of the day under one conclusion. The elect is again presented to the consecrator, who sets forth the duties and powers of a bishop: “It behooves a bishop to judge, interpret, consecrate, offer, baptize and confirm.” The clergy and the faithful are then invited to pray that God may bestow the abundance of His grace on the elect. The Litany of the Saints is now recited or chanted, while the elect lies prostrate on the floor of the sanctuary and all the others knell.

CONSECRATION

The consecrator, aided by the assistant bishops, takes the book of the Gospels and, opening it, places it on the neck and shoulders of the elect, so that the bottom of the page be next to the electUs head, and the book is held in this manner by one of the clergy until it is to be given to the elect after the presentation of the ring. This rite is found in all the ancient rituals—Latin, Greek and Syriac—though in early times it seems not to have been universal among the Latins. Now follows the imposition of hands, which, according to the common opinion, is the essence of the consecration. Both the consecrator and the assistant bishops place both hands, to express the plenitude of the power conferred and of the grace asked for, on the head of the elect, saying, “Receive the Holy Ghost”—without restriction and with all His gifts, as the simple formula indicates. Theologians do not agree as to whether the communication of the gift of the Holy Ghost is directly implied in these words, but the prayers which follow seem to determine the imposition of hands by which the grace and power of the episcopacy is signified and conferred. In the Greek ritual the prayer which accompanies the imposition of hands is clearly the form. The “Veni, Creator Spiritus” is sung, during which the consecrator first makes the sign of the cross with holy chrism on the crown or tonsure of the new bishop and then anoints the rest of the crown. That this unction is to symbolize the gifts of the Holy Ghost with which the Church desires a bishop to be filled, is evident from the prayer which follows, “May constancy of faith, purity of love, sincerity of peace abound in him.” The anointing of the hands of the bishop in the form of a cross, and afterwards of the entire palms, then follows. This unction indicates the powers that are given to him. The consecrator then makes thrice the sign of the cross over the hands thus anointed and prays: “Whatsoever thou shalt bless, may it be blessed; and whatsoever thou shalt sanctify may it be sanctified; and may the imposition of this consecrated hand and thumb be profitable in all things to salvation.” The hands of the bishop are then joined, the right resting on the left, and placed in a linen cloth which is suspended from his neck.

PRESENTATION OF THE EPISCOPAL INSIGNIA

The crosier is then blessed and handed to the bishop, who receives it between the index and middle fingers, the hands remaining joined. The consecrator at the same time admonishes him, as the Ritual indicates, that the true character of the ecclesiastical shepherd is to temper the exercise of justice with meekness, and not to neglect strictness of discipline through love of tranquility. The consecrator then blesses the ring and places it on the third finger of the bishopUs right hand, reminding the latter that it is the symbol of fidelity which he owes to Holy Church. The book of the Gospels is taken from the bishopUs shoulders and handed to him, with the command to go and preach to the people committed to his care. He then receives the kiss of peace from the consecrator and the assistant bishops, and the latter conduct him to his altar, where the crown of his head is cleansed with crumbs of bread, and his hair is adjusted. Afterwards the bishop washes his hands, and both he and the consecrator, at their respective altars, continue the Mass as usual, down to the prayer of the Offertory inclusively. After the Offertory the new bishop is led to the consecratorUs altar where he presents to the latter two lighted torches, two loaves of bread, and two small barrels of wince. This offering is a relic of ancient discipline, according to which the faithful made their offerings on such occasions for the support of the clergy and other purposes connected with religion. From the Offertory to the Communion the bishop stands at the Epistle side of the consecratorUs altar and recites the acts together with the latter everything as indicated in the Missal. After the consecrator has consumed one-half of the Host which he consecrated at Mass, and partaken of one-half of the Precious Blood together with the particle of the consecrated Host that was dropped into the chalice, he Communicates the bishop by giving him, first, the other half of the consecrated Host, and then the Precious Blood remaining in the chalice. Both take the ablutions from different chalices, after which the new bishop goes to the Gospel side of the consecratorUs altar, and with the consecrator continues the Mass down to the blessing inclusively. The consecrator then blesses the mitre and places it on the head of the bishop, referring to its mystical signification and a helmet of protection and salvation, that the wearer of it may seem terrible to the opponents of truth and be their sturdy adversary. The gloves are then blessed and put on the hands of the bishop, referring to the action of Jacob, who, having his hands covered with the skins of kids, implored and received the paternal blessing. In like manner the consecrator prays that the wearer of the gloves may deserve to implore and receive the blessings of Divine grace by means of the saving Host offered by his hands.

CONCLUSION

The new bishop is then enthroned on the faldstool on the predella, from which the consecrator has risen, or, if the ceremony be performed in the cathedral of the new bishop, on the usual episcopal throne. The Te Deum is now intoned by the consecrator, and while the hymn is being sung the new bishop is led by the assistant bishops through the church, that he bay bless the people. Having returned to the altar—or to the throne of his own cathedral—the bishop gives the final solemn blessing as usual. The consecrator and assistant bishops move toward the Gospel corner of the altar and face the Epistle side; the new bishop goes to the Epistle corner, and there, with mitre and crosier, facing the consecrator, makes a genuflection and chants “Ad multos annos.” He proceeds to the middle of the predella and performs the same ceremony, chanting in a higher tone of voice. After this the consecrator and assistant bishops receive him to the kiss of peace. Accompanied by the assistant bishops, he returns to his altar, reciting the Gospel of St. John. All then lay aside their vestments and depart in peace.

II. CONSECRATION OF A FIXED ALTAR

At the consecration of a church at least one fixed altar must be consecrated. Altars, permanent structures of stone, may be consecrated at other times, but only in churches that have been consecrated or at least solemnly blessed. We have instances in which a simply priest has performed this rite. Walafridus Strabo, in the Life of St. Gall (ch. vi), says that St. Columban, at that time being a priest, having dedicated the church of St. Aurelia at Bregenz on the Lake of Constance, anointed the altar, deposited the relics of St. Aurelia under it, and celebrated Mass on it. But according to the present discipline of the Church, the ordinary minister of its consecration is the diocesan bishop. Without the permission of the ordinary, a bishop of another diocese cannot licitly consecrate an altar, although without such permission the consecration would be valid. One and the same bishop must perform the rite from the beginning to the end. An altar may be consecrated on any day of the year, but a Sunday or feast day is to be preferred (Pontificale Romanum). It is difficult to determine when the rite used at present was introduced. To the essentials of consecration reference is made as early as the sixth century by the Council of Agde (506): “Altars are to be consecrated not only by the chrism, but with the sacerdotal blessing”; and by St. Caesarius of Arles (d. about 542) in a sermon delivered at the consecration of an altar: “We have today consecrated an altar, the stone of which was blessed or anointed” (Migne, P.L., LXVII, Serm. ccxxx).

The ceremonies of the exposition of the relics on the evening before the day of consecration, the keeping of the vigil, the blessing of the Gregorian water, the sprinkling of the altar, and the translation of the relics to the church are the same as those described at the consecration of a church (see IV, below). When the relics have been carried to the church, the consecrator anoints with holy chrism, at the four corners, the sepulchre of the altar (see ALTAR), in which the relics are to be enclosed, thereby sanctifying the cavity in which the venerated remains of the martyrs are to rest, and then reverently places therein the case containing the relics and incenses them. Having anointed with holy chrism the nether side of the small slab that is to cover the sepulchre, he spreads blessed cement over the ledge of the sepulchre on the inside and fits the slab into the cavity, after which he anoints the upper side of the slab and the altar-table near it. He then incenses the altar, first, on every side—right, left, front and on top—whilst the chanters sing the antiphon “Stetit angelus”; secondly, in the form of a cross on the top, in the middle, and at the four corners, thirdly, whilst going round the altar three times. After the third incensation, the censer is given to a priest, vested in surplice, who, till the end of the consecration, continues going around the altar, incensing it on all sides, save when the bishop uses the censer. The incense symbolizes the sweet odour of prayer which is to ascend from the altar to heaven, whilst the fullness of the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is to descend on the altar and the faithful, is indicated by the prayers recited after the three unctions which follow. The consecrator then anoints the table of the altar at the middle of the four corners, twice with the oil of catechumens, and the third time with holy chrism. After each unction he goes round the altar once, incensing it continuously, the first and second time passing by the Epistle side, and third time by the Gospel side. Finally, as if to indicate the complete sanctification of the altar, he pours and spreads over its table the oil of catechumens and holy chrism together, rubbing the holy oils over it with his right hand, whilst the chanters sing the appropriate antiphon, “Behold the smell of my son is as the smell of a plentiful field,” etc. (Gen., xxvii, 27, 28). When the church is consecrated at the same time, the twelve crosses on the inner walls are now anointed with holy chrism and incensed. The consecrator then blesses the incense and sprinkles it with holy water. Then he forms it into five crosses, each consisting of five grains, on the table of the altar, in the middle and at the four corners. Over each cross of incense he places a cross made of thin wax taper. The ends of each cross are lighted and with them the incense is burned an consumed. This ceremony symbolizes the true sacrifice which is thereafter to be offered on the altar; and it indicates that our prayers must be fervent and animated by true and lively faith if they are to be acceptable to God and efficacious against our spiritual enemies. Finally, the bishop traces with holy chrism a cross on the front of the altar and on the juncture of the table and the base on which it rests at the four corners, as if to join them together, to indicate that this altar is to be in future a firmly fixed and constant source of grace to all who with faith approach it. Then follow the blessings of the altar-cloths, vases, and ornaments of the altar, the celebration of Mass, and the publication of the Indulgences, as at the end of the consecration of a church.

LOSS OF CONSECRATION

An altar loses its consecration: (1) when the table of the altar is broken into two or more large pieces; (2) when at the corner of the table that portion which the consecrator anointed with holy oil is broken off; (3) when several large stones of the support of the table are removed; (4) when one of the columns which support the table at the corners is removed; (5) if for any reason whatever the table is removed from the support, or only raised from it—e.g., to renew the cement; (6) by the removal of the relics, or by the fracture or removal, by chance or design, of the small cover, or slab, placed over the cavity containing the relics. (See also HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN ALTAR.).

III. CONSECRATION OF AN ALTAR-STONE

Mass must be celebrated either on an altar which has been consecrated or on a consecrated altar-stone, or portable altar (Rubr. Gen. Miss., XX). Its consecration is a less solemn function than the consecration of an altar. It may take place on any day of the year in the morning, as, after its consecration. Mass must be celebrated upon it the same day. If several stones are consecrated, it suffices to celebrate Mass on one of the altars so consecrated. The ceremony may take place in the church, sacristy, or any other suitable place.

The cavity for the relics is made on the top of the stone, usually near its front edge. It may be in the centre of the stone, but never on its front edge (Cong. Sac. Rit., 13 June, 1899). Relics of two martyrs with three grains of incense, are placed immediately (i.e. without a reliquary) in its cavity, which is closed with a small slab of natural stone fitting exactly upon the opening. The Cong Sac. Rit (16 Feb., 1906) declared that for valid consecration it suffices to have enclosed in the cavity the relics of one martyr. The Pontifical makes no mention of the blessing of the cement with which the slab is secured, but the Cong. Sac. Rit. (10 May, 1890) prescribes it.

Ordinarily, only a bishop may consecrate an altar-stone, but by pontifical privilege some abbots have this faculty for altar-stones used in their own churches. The Holy See frequently grants this privilege to priests labouring in missionary countries. The bishops of the United States have the faculty of delegating priests to perform the function by virtue of the “Facultates Extraordinariae,” C, VI. The relics are not exposed, nor are Matins and Lauds recited on the evening before the consecration; neither is the vigil kept. The ceremonies are similar to those used at the consecration of an altar. Hence the blessing of the Gregorian water, the sprinkling and incensation, the anointing with holy chrism and the oil of catechumens, the burning of incense and the offering of the Holy sacrifice, take place; and the symbolical meanings of these ceremonies are the same as those given at the consecration of an altar.

IV. CONSECRATION OF A CHURCH

By a decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII), Mass should not be celebrated in any place except a consecrated or blessed church. Hence it is the wish of the Church that at least cathedrals and parish churches be solemnly consecrated, and that smaller churches be blessed (Cong. Sac. Rit., 7 Aug., 1875), but any church and public or semi-public oratory may be consecrated (Cong. Sac. Rit., 5 June, 1899). Both by consecration and by blessing a church is dedicated to Divine worship, which forbids its use for common or profane purposes. Consecration is a rite reserved to a bishop, who by the solemn anointing with holy chrism, and in the prescribed form, dedicates a building to the service of God, thereby raising it in perpetuum to a higher order, removing it from the malign influence of Satan, and rendering it a place in which favours are more graciously granted by God (Pontificale Romanum). The blessing of a church is a less solemn rite, which may be performed by a priest delegated by the diocesan bishop. It consists in the sprinkling with holy water and the recital of prayers, thus making it a sacred place, though not necessarily in perpetuum. Consecration differs from mere blessing in this, that it imprints an indelible mark (St. Thomas, II-II:34:3) on the building by reason of which it may never be transferred to common or profane uses.

The consecration of churches dates probably from Apostolic times and is, in a sense, a continuation of the Jewish rite instituted by Solomon. Some authors attribute its origin to Pope St. Evaristus (d. 105), but it is more probable that he merely promulgated formally as a law what had been the custom before his time, or prescribed that a church cannot be consecrated without the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice. That churches were consecrated before peace had been granted to the Church would appear not only from the life of St. Cecilia (Roman Breviary, 22 November), who prayed for a cessation from hostilities against the Christians in order that her home might be consecrated as a church by St. Urban I (222–230), but also from the life of St. Marcellus (308–309), who appears to have actually consecrated a church in the home of St. Lucina (Roman Breviary, 16 January). Before the time of Constantine the consecration of churches was, on account of the persecutions, necessarily private, but after the conversion of that emperor it became a solemn public rite, as appears from Eusebius of Cæsarea (Hist. Eccl., X): “After these things a spectacle earnestly prayed for and much desired by us all appeared, viz. the solemnization of the festival of the dedication of churches throughout every city, and the consecration of newly-built oratories.” The passage clearly indicates that churches were consecrated before, and that accordingly the anniversaries of the dedication might now be publicly celebrated.

It is difficult to determine in what the rite of consecration consisted in early times. Many sermons preached on these occasions are still extant, and we find occasional notices of the vigil kept before the consecration, of the translation of the relics, and of the tracing of the Greek and the Latin alphabet on the pavement of the church. The relics were not always the whole body of a saint or even large portions of it, but sometimes merely articles with which the martyr came in contact. Churches were sometimes consecrated without depositing relics. Some ancient forms of consecration prescribe that the Host consecrated by the bishop be deposited. Often only the Greek alphabet or the Latin was written twice; and sometimes to the Greek and Latin the Hebrew alphabet was added (Martène, De Antiquis Ecclesiæ Ritibus, II). The rite does not appear to have always been one and the same, but the essential element of the ceremony—namely, the actual separation of any building from common to a sacred use, which would be the first religious act in the process of initiating and appropriating it to a Divine use—was always called its consecration. In allusion to this fact the first beginning of anything is often styled its dedication (Bingham, Origines sive Antiquit. Eccles., VIII, ix, sect. 1), which word the Roman Pontifical uses in this place only—”De Ecclesiæ Dedicatione seu Consecratione”—elsewhere the word consecratio only is used. It cannot be definitely decided when the rite of consecration in use at present began to be employed. The Pontifical of Egbert, Archbishop of York (733–767), bears a striking resemblance to it.

The ordinary minister of consecration is the diocesan bishop. He may, however, delegate another bishop to perform this function. A bishop of another diocese cannot licitly consecrate a church without the permission of the diocesan bishop, although without such permission the church would be validly consecrated. A priest cannot perform this rite unless he be delegated in a special manner by the Roman pontiff (Benedict XIV, Const. “Ex tuis precibus,” 16 November 1748, xxx2). To consecrate a church licitly it is necessary to consecrate a fixed altar in the same church, which altar ordinarily ought to be in the main on (Cong. Sac. Rit., 19 Sept., 1665). If this altar is already consecrated, one of the side altars may be consecrated (Cong. Sac. Rit., 31 Aug., 1872). If all the altars of a church are already consecrated, it cannot be licitly consecrated except by special Apostolic indult. One and the same bishop must consecrate both the church and the altar (Cong. Sac. Rit., 3 March, 1866). Although the consecration of the altar may for some reason be invalid, yet the church remains consecrated (Cong. Sac. Rit., 17 June, 1843). The essence of the consecration of a church consists in the anointing of the twelve crosses on the inner walls with the form: “Sancificetur et consecretur hoc templum,” etc. If before this ceremony the consecrator should become incapacitated for finishing the function, the whole rite must be repeated from the beginning (Cong. Sac. Rit., 12 April, 1614). The church should stand free on all sides so that the bishop may pass around it. If there be obstructions at only some points, the church may be consecrated (Cong. Sac. Rit., 19 September, 1665), but if the obstructions be of such a nature that the exterior walls cannot be reached, the church may not be consecrated without a special Apostolic indult (Cong. Sac. Rit., 22 February, 1888). On the walls inside the church twelve crosses must be painted, or (if they are made of stone or metal) attached to the walls. These crosses are not to be of wood or of any fragile material. They must never be removed (Cong. Sac. Rit., 18 February, 1696), and documents failing, they serve to prove that the church has been consecrated. Under each cross a bracket holding a candle is affixed.

The consecration may take place on any day of the year, but a Sunday or feast day is to be preferred (Pontificale Romanum). The consecrator and those who ask for the consecration (Van der Stappen, III, quæst. 32, iii, says, “all the parishioners, if it be a parish church”; Bernardk, “Le Pontifical,” II, p. 7, only the clergy attached to the church; Marc, “Institutiones Morales,” I, n. 1221 nota 2!, only the parish priest, if he alone asked) are obliged to observe the day before the consecration as a day of fasting and abstinence. If the consecration takes place on Monday, the fast is observed on the preceding Saturday. On the evening preceding the day of consecration, the consecrating bishop places in a reliquary the relics of the martyrs, which are to be placed in the altar, three grains of incense, and an attestation written on parchment. The Cong. Sac. Rit., 16 February, 1906, declared that for the valid consecration it suffices to have enclosed the relics of one martyr. The reliquary is then placed in an urn or in the tabernacle of an altar in a nearby church or oratory, or in an adjacent room or the sacristy. At least two candles are kept burning before these relics during the night, and Matins and Lauds de communi plurimorum martyrum or of the proper Office of the martyrs whose relics have been placed in the reliquary, are sung or recited. At the beginning of the consecration on the next day the candles under the crosses on the walls are lighted. After this the bishop and the clergy go to the place in which the relics of the martyrs were deposited the evening before , the church meanwhile being left in charge of a deacon. Whilst the bishop is being vested the Seven Penitential Psalms are recited, after which all proceed to the main entrance of the church, where, remaining outside, the bishop blesses the water. The bishop then goes three times round the outside of the church, the first time sprinkling the upper part of the walls, the second time the lower part, and the third time on a level with his face. After each circuit the bishop strikes the door with the base of his crosier and says, “Lift up your gates, ye princes, and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in.” Three times the deacon within the church asks, “Who is this King of Glory?” Twice the bishop answers, “The Lord, strong and mighty; the Lord mighty in battle”; and the third time he says, “The Lord of Armies, He is the King of Glory.” This triple sprinkling and circuit of the walls, according to Bl. Yves of Chartres (Sermo de Sacramentis Dedicationis), symbolizes the triple immersion at holy baptism, the consecration of the soul as the spiritual temple of God, to which the material bears a certain analogy.

The bishop and his attendants now enter the church, leaving the clergy and the people outside, and the door is closed. The chanters sing the “Veni, Creator Spiritus” and chant or recite the Litany of the Saints. After this, whilst the canticle “Benedictus” is being chanted, the bishop traces with the point of his crosier, in the ashes spread on the floor, first, the Greek alphabet, beginning at the left side of the church door and proceeding to the Epistle corner of the church near the altar, then the Latin alphabet, beginning at the right side of the church door and proceeding to the Gospel corner of the church near the altar. The “Liber Sacramentorum” of St. Gregory I and the “Pontifical” of Egbert, Archbishop of York, attest the antiquity of this ceremony, which symbolized the instruction given to the newly baptized in the elements of faith and piety. The crossing of the two lines points to the cross, that is Christ crucified, as the principal dogma of the Christian religion. The Greek and Latin languages represent the Jews and Gentiles respectively. The Greek alphabet is written first because the Jews were first called to the Christian Faith. The bishop then blesses the Gregorian water, a mixture of water, salt, ashes, and wine, prescribed by St. Gregory I to be used at the consecration of a church (P.L., LXXVIII, 152 sqq.). After this he goes to the main door of the church and with the point of the crosier traces a cross on the upper part and another on the lower part of the door inside. The ingredients of this water are to recall to our mind the legal purifications and the sacrifices of the Jewish people, the wine taking the place of the blood. The symbolism of this mixture is explained by authors in various manners. The cross traced on the door is to be, as it were, a guard lest the work of redemption in the church be thwarted by the malignant influences from without. The bishop now traces, with the Gregorian water, five crosses on the altar and then sprinkles the support and tables of the altar seven times, passing round it seven times, whilst the chanters sing or recite the Psalm “Miserere.” He then sprinkles the walls in the interior of the church three times, first the lower part, then on a level with his face, and lastly, the upper part, after which he sprinkles the floor of the church in the form of a cross, passing from the altar in the middle of the church. Having returned to the middle of the church, he sprinkles with one swing each time the floor before him, behind him, at his left, and at his right.

The bishop, clergy, and laity then go to the place in which the relics repose and in solemn procession carry them to the church. Before entering the relics are borne round the outside of the church, whilst the clergy and people repeat “Lord, have mercy on us.” Having returned to the church door, the bishop gives a suitable exhortation to the people and addresses the founder of the church. Then one of the clergy reads the two decrees of the Council of Trent from the Pontifical. The bishop next anoints with holy chrism, three times, the pillar on each side of the door, after which the clergy and the laity enter the church, and the consecration of the altar takes place. (See II above.) Finally, the twelve crosss on the interior walls are anointed with holy chrism and incensed by the bishop; the altar-cloths, vases, and ornaments of the church and altar are blessed, and solemn or low Mass is celebrated by the bishop. If he be too fatigued, he may appoint a priest to celebrate a high Mass in his stead. If more than one altar has been consecrated, it will suffice to celebrate Mass on the principal one (Cong. Sac. Rit., 22 February, 1888). At the end of the Mass an Indulgence of one year is published, which may be gained by all who visit the church on the day of consecration. At the same time another Indulgence which may be gained in the same manner on the anniversary of the consecration is published. If the latter Indulgence is granted by a cardinal in his titular church or in his diocese, it may be of two hundred days; if by an archbishop, of one hundred days; if by a bishop, of fifty days, in their respective dioceses. (S.C. Indulg., 28 Aug., 1903).

The anniversary of the consecration is kept solemnly as a double of the first class with an octave each recurring year, until the church falls into ruin or is profaned. In order to avoid the inconveniences likely to arise from its clashing with other solemnities, the bishop is empowered to appoint, in the act of consecration, another day for the anniversary, provided such day be not a double feast of the first or second class in the Universal Church, a privileged Sunday, or a local feast of the first class (Cong. Sac. Rit., 4 Feb., 1896), or a day of Advent or Lent (Cong. Sac. Rit., 12 June, 1660). Should the bishop fail to do so, or defer making such arrangement, the anniversary must be kept on the recurring actual day, or recourse must be had to the Apostolic See (Gardellini, Adnot. super Decr. dat. 6 Sept., 1834).

Besides the anniversary of the consecration of individual or parish churches, the anniversary of the consecration of the cathedral of a diocese is celebrated as a double of the first class with an octave by the secular clergy living within the limits of the cathedral city; the secular clergy living outside the cathedral city celebrate it as a double of the first class without an octave, the regular clergy living within the limits of the cathedral city celebrate it as a double of the second class without an octave; the regular clergy outside the cathedral city are not obliged to celebrate it in any manner (Cong. Sac. Rit., 9 July, 1895). In some dioceses the simultaneous celebration on a fixed day of the consecration of all the churches of a diocese, irrespective of the fact that some of the churches are not consecrated, is granted by special indult. In this case individual consecrated churches are not allowed to celebrate the anniversary of the consecration of their respective churches. This day of common celebration is a double of the first class for all the clergy in the diocese, with this distinction, that it is a primary feast for those attached to consecrated churches and a secondary feast for the others (Cong. Sac. Rit., 24 March, 1900).

LOSS OF CONSECRATION

From the axiom in cannon law “Consecratio adhæret parietibus Eccelesiæ,” it follows that a church loses its consecration (1) when the walls of the church are totally or in greater part simultaneously demolished; (2) when the inner walls are totally or in greater part simultaneously destroyed by fire; (3) when an addition is made to the walls of the church in length, breadth, or height, greater than the original walls.

V. CONSECRATION OF A CHALICE AND PATEN

The ordinary minister of the consecration of the chalice and paten used at Mass is a bishop. In missionary countries some priests, by Apostolic indult, have the privilege of consecrating these sacred vessels. The bishops of the United States have the faculty of delegating priests for performing this rite by virtue of the Facultates Extraordinariæ, C, VI. These two altar vessels must be consecrated before they can be used at the altar. They are always consecrated at the same time, because both are indispensable at the celebration of Mass, the paten for holding the Body of Christ and the chalice for containing the Precious Blood. Chalices which were formerly used for the offerings of wine made by the faithful, for the ornamentation of the altar, and at the administration of baptism, to give to the newly baptized a symbolical beverage composed of milk and honey, were not consecrated. The same is true of the patens used at present at the Communion of the faithful to prevent consecrated Particles from falling to the floor.

Chalices and patens may be consecrated on any day of the year and at any hour, without solemnity, although in many places this rite takes place after Mass and at the altar. First the paten is consecrated, probably because it is to hold the Sacred Host, which is consecrated before the Precious Blood, and because the species of bread is always mentioned before the species of wine. The function begins with an address to the faithful, or at least to the attendants, exhorting them to implore the blessing of God on the action the consecrator is about to perform. This is followed by a prayer that God may render the rite efficacious, after which the consecrator anoints the paten twice with holy chrism, from rim to rim, in the form of a cross, and rubs the oils over the whole upper side of it, reciting at the same time the consercratory form. The same ceremony with a special address, prayer, and form, is performed over the chalice, except that the consecrator anoints the inside of the chalice twice from rim to rim, and rubs the oil all over the inside of the cup. The consecrator then recites a prayer in which allusion is made to the symbolical meaning of the chalice and paten, the former of which , according to Benedict XIV (De Sacrificio Missæ, Sect. i, n 31), represents the tomb in which the body of Christ was laid, and the latter the stone with which the tomb was closed. Finally, he sprinkles both vessels with holy water, saying nothing.

It is difficult to determine when the Church began to consecrate chalices and patens. Some liturgists are of the opinion that the custom of doing so goes back to the time of St. Sixtus I (d. 127), who, by a decree, forbade any other than those constituted in Sacred orders to touch the sacred vessels (Rom. Breviary, 16 April). Even if this decree is authentic, it would probably only prove that the prohibition was made out of respect due to the vessels which contained the Sacred Species. Other refer to a passage of St. Ambrose (d. 397) in which he says that the vasa Ecclesiæ initiata may be sold for the relief of the poor. Commentators interpret initiata to mean not consecrata, but rather usa, or vessels which had been used for the sacred mysteries. The ancient canons and decrees decide the material of which chalices and patens must be made, but they do not say a word of the consecration, although they treat the consecration of churches, altars, bishops, etc.; hence we may conclude that chalices and patens were not consecrated by a special form before the thirteenth century.

LOSS OF CONSECRATION

The chalice and paten lose their consecration (1) when they are regilt; (2) when they become battered or broken to such an extent that it would be unbecoming to use them; (3) when the slightest slit or break appears in the chalice near the bottom; not so, however, if the break be near the upper part, so that without fear of spilling its contents consecration can take place in it; (4) when a break appears in the paten so large that particles may fall through it.

A.J. SCHULTE

Consent (in Canon Law)

Consent is the deliberate agreement required of those concerned in legal transactions in order to legalize such actions. Words, deeds, writing, or silence hear witness to the existence of this consent. Completeness of consent is gauged not so much by the preliminaries of transactions as by their ratification, which is the psychological development of incipient consent, and gives consistency to legal transactions. The consent necessary to constitute contracts must be internal, external, mutual, and deliberate. Some authorities claim that contracts formed without any intention on the part of the contracting parties to oblige themselves are valid; others more rightly maintain the contrary, since the very essence of contracts embodies obligation. Consequently, whoever is unprepared to admit this obligation is in no position to make a contract. Two possible suppositions here present themselves. In the first the promise and intention of not assuming any obligation concern the same object under the same respect. Promises made in this way are utterly meaningless. In the second supposition the promise and intention of waiving the obligation refer to the same object under different respects. In such cases it is necessary to ascertain which of these two contrary tendencies of the will is dominant. If the intention of making a contract possess greater efficacy, the obligation thereunto corresponding unquestionably holds good. On the contrary, if the intention of accepting no obligation prevail, no contract can be formed. Finally, if one intention is just as efficacious as another, the formation of a contract would then involve quest for an unattainable result. Contracts made by individuals having absolutely no intention of abiding by the obligation connected therewith are altogether invalid, and the parties thus fictitiously contracting are bound to indemnify those whose interests thereby suffer. The contract in question must always be capable of begetting an obligation. It is not impossible to find genuine consent which is worthless for giving consistency to contracts either because it is nullified beforehand by positive law or because it is the result of error, fraud, or fear (see CONTRACT).

Error affecting the very nature of the contract, or concerning the substance of the object in question or a naturally substantial quality of the object, or one considered indispensable by the contracting parties, vitiates consent and invalidates contracts. Error regarding an accidental quality of the contract, or pertaining to the motive underlying the contract, or to its material object, is insufficient to vitiate consent or nullify contracts. In like manner fraud, whether introduced by one of the contracting parties or by an extern, for the sake of provoking consent in the other party, counteracts consent as often as such fraud circumscribes the nature of the contract, the substance of the object at stake, or a quality naturally substantiated in that object or esteemed as substantial by the one upon whom the fraud is perpetrated. As often as accidental fraud induces another, in some measure, to consent, he is at liberty to rescind the contract, provided it is naturally dissoluble. In general, grave fear lawfully superinduced does not militate against consent in the will, and therefore renders contracts neither invalid nor rescindable. On the other hand, while fear unlawfully superinduced to extort consent does not invalidate contracts, it gives the intimidated party the liberty of rescinding them. According to the civil law of the United States, no contract is binding without the mutual assent of both parties. They must assent at the same time and to the same thing. This mutual assent consists of an offer by one party and its acceptance by another. When the offer is verbal, and the time allowed for acceptance is not mentioned, the offer must be immediately accepted to constitute a contract. In case the offer and acceptance are written and pass through the mail, the contract is complete when the acceptance is mailed, provided the party accepting has received no notice of the withdrawal of the offer before mailing his letter. As far as the validity of matrimony is concerned, genuine, internal, personal consent of both parties, covering the present and indicated by external signs, is unquestionably required. While internal consent must be complemented by some external manifestation, words are by no means necessary. The Congregation of the Inquisition (22 August, 1860) decided that marriages are entirely valid when the ceremony takes place in the presence of witnesses and according to the custom of the country in a manner which indicates that the contracting parties here and now mutually agree to enter wedlock. At the same time, if one or both contracting parties have no present intention of marrying in circumstances such as those outlined, they can make no marriage contract. The required matrimonial consent signified by proxy does not militate against the validity of the marriage contract. This consent must include the material object of the matrimonial contract, which material object is the mutual right of one party to the body of the other, a right that carries with it every prerogative vested therein by the laws of nature. It is not necessary, however, that the intention of parties to a marriage contract should be explicitly directed to all its conditions or circumstances. On the contrary, an intention implicitly thereunto directed is entirely sufficient for all practical intents and purposes. Hence, as often as marriageable parties intend to contract marriage in the way in which men and women ordinarily understand that agreement, or according to the way in which it was instituted by the Author of this sacrament, they exhibit consent sufficient to render their marriage contract entirely valid, provided nothing essential is positively excluded by a counter intention usurping the place of the chief, indispensable intention in entering matrimony. While marriage contracts are null unless based on the consent of those concerned, it is usually very difficult to establish the actual absence of this consent so as to satisfy the judge in a matrimonial court, once the marriage ceremony has really taken place. (For the renewal of consent in the case of invalid marriages, see REVALIDATION, and for the consent requisite for espousals, see ESPOUSALS.) While in canon law the consent of parents is not necessary to validate the marriages of their children, it is usually required to render such marriages legitimate. [For the civil law concerning the consent of parents in France (modified 1907), Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Canada, etc., see MARRIAGE.]

In the United States the common law exacts no solemnity to validate matrimonial consent. In many of the States, however, special statutes carrying a penalty require certain conditions for the legitimacy of such consent. Common law regards marriage as a civil contract for which consent alone is essential. It demands no legal forms, nor religious solemnities, nor special mode of proof. According to common law, consent indicated by words covering the present, whether consummation follows or not, or by words pertaining to the future together with consummation, constitutes a valid marriage. In New York, Illinois, and Rhode Island words pertaining to the future, even with subsequent consummation, no longer render a marriage valid. Even without explicit proof of words implying consent, cohabitation, acknowledgment of a marriage by the parties concerned, reception of such parties as husband and wife by relatives, friends, or society, are sufficient to establish a valid marriage.

Canon law requires the consent of cathedral chapters to lend validity to certain official acts of bishops. In general, this consent is necessary in such matters as usually involve a serious obligation or the possibility of a notable damage, or in matters which simultaneously pertain to bishops and their chapters. Nevertheless, unwritten law can narrow the rights of chapters and widen the liberty of bishops in these matters unless circumstances conspire to stamp particular measures as unreasonable. In like manner, unwritten law may exact the consent of chapters in matters of secondary importance, a requirement sometimes enjoined by special statutes. When immediate action is necessary, and it is impossible to convoke their chapters, bishops may proceed validly without the chapters’ consent. Inasmuch as there are no cathedral chapters in the United States, diocesan consultors constitute the advisory board of the bishops. The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore specifies several instances in which the bishops, though not obliged to abide by the advice of their consultors, are bound to seek such advice, else their acts in such cases are liable to nullification.

For consent in its relation to sinful acts, see SIN, and for the consent of the legislative authority in the formation of consuetudinary law, see CUSTOM.

OJETTI, Synopsis rerum moralium et juris pontificii (Prato, 1904); Instructio Pastoralis Eyestettensis (Freiburg, 1902), index, s. v. Consensus; HEINER, Grundriss des kath. Eherechts (Münster, 1905), index, s. v. Konsens; HERGENRÖTHER-HOLLWECK, Lehrbuck des kath. Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1905), index, s. v. Consensus; PERMANEDER in Kirchenlex., III, 956 sqq., and in general all manuals and dictionaries of canon, civil (Roman), and national legislations. For the history of consent in all that pertains to the marriage contract, ESMEIN, Le Mariage en droit canonique (Paris, 1891), II, in index s. v. Consentement.

J. D. O’NEILL.

Consentius

The name of a fifth-century Gallo-Roman family, three of whose representatives are known in history:

(1) CONSENTIUS OF NARBONNE, clarissimus, “who combined the honour of a prefecture with philosophy,” was a correspondent of Sidonius Apollinaris, who dedicated to him a poem on Narbonne. He used all metres—iambic, elegiac, hendecasyllabic, and the hexameter—and wrote in Greek as well as in Latin. His poems are redolent of flowers and thyme (Sidonius, Carm., xxiii, 20, and 234–240; Epist., III, 6; VIII, 4; IX, 15). However, these praises must not he taken too literally, as Sidonius counted among his friends thirty men who were similarly gifted. The authors of the “Histoire littéraire de la France” make a distinction between the Consentius to whom the poem was dedicated and Consentius the epistolary author, maintaining the former to have been the father of the latter.

(2) CONSENTIUS, father of the former, a native of Narbonne and a poet, a contemporary of Valentinian, and son-in-law of Flavius Valens Jovinus, consul in 367.

(3) CONSENTIUS, a Gallic grammarian, was the author of two treatises, which are perhaps the fragments of a complete grammar: one on the noun and the verb, much used during the Carlovingian period, and the other on barbarisms and metaplasm. An edition of these treatises has been published by Keil in “Grammatici Latini” (Leipzig), vol. V, p. 336.

Histoire littéraire de la France (Paris. 1735), II, 249–50, 431- 33, 653–56; TEUFFEL, Geschichte der römischen Literatur (Leipzig, 1890); KEIL, Grammatici Latini (1885), V. 338, 404.

PAUL LEJAY

Conservator

(From Lat. conservare)

A Conservator is a judge delegated by the pope to defend certain privileged classes of persons—as universities, religious orders, chapters, the poor—from manifest or notorious injury or violence, without recourse to a judicial process. Conservators were appointed as early as the thirteenth century. Innocent IV presupposes their existence in the decree (c. 15, de off. et pot. jud., del. I, 14, in VIº) from which we first learn their power. Owing to abuses and complaints the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. v, de ref.) limited their jurisdiction, but new controversies, often recurring, caused Clement VIII, Gregory XV, and Innocent X to define their privileges more precisely. Troubles continuing to arise, especially concerning the conservators of religious orders, Clement XIII (23 April, 1762) decreed that in missionary countries such officials should no longer be chosen, but that all controversies should be referred to the Holy See. From that time forth conservators fell into practical desuetude. According to law, these officials were to be chosen from among the prelates or dignitaries of cathedral and collegiate churches; later from the synodal judges. When a conservator had been chosen by regulars he could not be removed for five years without cause. He had no jurisdiction in cases that required juridical examination. While he took cognizance of all complaints against regulars, he had no authority to receive those of the regulars against others unless they were notorious. In the latter case the conservator decided the question summarily. He could punish with ecclesiastical penalties even high church dignitaries who interfered with his duties. His power was limited, however, to the one diocese in which be had been elected, nor could the same conservator have power in several dioceses.

ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dict. de droit can. (3d ed., Paris, 1901), I; WERNZ. Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899), II; BOUIX, De Jure Regular. (3d ed., Paris, 1883), II.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

Papal Consistory

I. DEFINITION

During the Roman imperial epoch the term consistorium (Lat. con-sistere, to stand together) was used to designate the sacred council of the emperors. In time it came to designate the senate of the Roman pontiff, that is, “the assemblage of the Cardinals in council around the Pope” (Innocent III to the Bishop of Ely and the Archdeacon of Norwich, in 1212; see Gonzalez, “Commentaria in textus decretalium Gregorii IX,” III, vii, 108).

II. ORIGIN AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

The origin of the papal consistory is closely connected with the history of the Roman presbytery or body of the Roman clergy. In the old Roman presbyterium there were deacons, in charge of the ecclesiastical temporalities in the various regions of Rome; priests, at the head of the principal churches of the city, called tituli; and (at least by the eighth century) the bishops of the dioceses in the neighborhood of Rome. The cardinals of today (divided likewise into the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons) have succeeded the members of the ancient presbytery not only in the offices attaching to these three grades, though with somewhat different functions, but also, and chiefly, in the capacity of assisting the pope in the management of ecclesiastical affairs.

From the earliest Christian times the popes were wont to confer with the Roman presbytery on matters affecting the interests of the Church. From a letter of Pope Cornelius (254–255) to St. Cyprian we learn that he had summoned his presbytery before agreeing to the reconciliation of three schismatics. Likewise, Pope Liberius (352–363) informed the Roman clergy about the course of action he had deemed advisable to take during his exile. Pope Siricius (384–398) condemned the heresy of Jovinian after having convoked his presbytery. How far the more prominent members of the Roman clergy, eventually called cardinals, were being gradually entrusted with the management of ecclesiastical affairs is shown by the action of Leo IV and John VIII in the ninth century. The former ordered that the Roman cardinals should meet twice a week in the Sacred Palace to provide for the administration of the churches, look after the discipline of the clergy, and decide the cases of laymen. The latter ordered them to meet at least twice a month in order to take cognizance of and decide cases of clerics and laymen brought before the pope’s tribunal. For many centuries, however, the Roman presbytery did not form the senate of the popes to the exclusion of all other clerics, at least in matters of greater importance. These matters were discussed and decided in the Roman council, which, though admitting the Roman clergy to an active part, consisted chiefly of bishops summoned by the pope from the greater part of Italy, as well as of other bishops who happened to be in Rome at the time. These councils were very frequent until the beginning of the twelfth century. Thenceforth, the popes held them more rarely finding it difficult to convoke them as often as the ever increasing volume of business demanded. In their stead the popes transacted the affairs brought before their court in the presence and with the assistance of the Roman cardinals, who about the same time had grown in dignity and importance, owing to the fact that the right o electing the pope now rested in them exclusively. Thus the Sacred College of Cardinals, assembled in consistory, became the chief organ of the supreme and universal government of the Church.

At first, matters of judicial as well as of administrative character were referred to the consistory. In course of time, however, the former were transferred to the Tribunal of the Sacred Rota. The “Corpus Juris” contains many of the decisions given by the popes in consistory, as is evidenced by the frequent formula de fratrun nostrorum consilio (with the advice of our brethren). The papal consistory has continued ever since to act as the supreme council of the popes, though it lost much of its importance when in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the Roman Congregations were instituted. The amount of business brought before the Holy See had gradually increased to such a vast extent that it had to be divided among several particular committees of cardinals. These committees were at first temporary but gradually became permanent, and to each of them a definite kind of ecclesiastical affairs was assigned. These permanent committees came to be known as congregations. The first of them was instituted by Paul III, others by Pius IV and Pius V, but most of them owe their origin to Sixtus V. Once the Roman Congregations, embracing in their scope almost the whole range of ecclesiastical affairs, were instituted, it was but natural that the papal consistory should lose in importance. However, it did not go into desuetude altogether; it continued to be held, but more rarely, and only in the form which me proceed to describe.

III. PRESENT PRACTICE

Consistories are of three kinds: secret or ordinary, public or extraordinary and semi-public.

(1) The secret consistory is so called because no one save the pope and the cardinals is present at its deliberations. Formerly it was customary for the pope, soon after entering the hall of consistory, to confer singly with the cardinals on such personal matters as they wished to bring before him, and it was only after this audience was over that nobles and prelates were excluded from the hall. But at the present day this audience is omitted. The consistory is frequently opened with an address, or allocution, in which the pope often reviews the condition of the Church in general or in some particular country, pointing out what deserves praise or needs to be condemned. Such allocutions are afterwards given to the public in order that the world at large may know the mind of the pope on these matters. At the end of the allocution the creation of new cardinals takes place. The pope announces the names of those whom he intends to raise to the cardinalate, and asks the cardinals for their opinion; the cardinals remove their caps as a sign of consent, and the pope proceeds immediately to the formal appointment. It is also in the secret consistory that the cardinals receive from the pope the cardinal’s ring, are appointed to some titular church or deaconry, exercise the option of passing from one titular church to another, and of ascending from the order of deacons and priests to the order of priests and bishops respectively. It is also here that the pope appoints the camerlengo and the Vice-Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church, and performs the ceremony of “closing” and “opening” the mouth of the new cardinals. To this consistory belong also the appointments of bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs, the transfers of these dignitaries from one see to another, the appointments of coadjutors, the creation and announcement of new dioceses, the division and union of dioceses already existing. But the etails are not discussed in the consistory itself. All the previous consultations that are required in order that the pope may come to a prudent conclusion have taken place in a congregation called consistorial, and the pope in the consistory itself only gives his decision. There are some sees whose bishops are appointed through a Brief outside the consistory. Such are those in territories depending on the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, and others as necessity may require. These appointments are merely promulgated in the secret consistory. At the end of the consistory the advocates called consistorial are admitted to request, with the usual formalities, the pallium for newly appointed archbishops; their petition is granted immediately, but the conferring of the pallium takes place later.

(2) The public consistory is so called because persons foreign to the Sacred College of Cardinals, such as Apostolic prothonotaries, the auditors of the Sacred Rota, and other prelates are called to it. Laymen also, who have made previous application, are permitted to be present. Formerly, in this consistory the pope used to give solemn reception to kings, princes, and ambassadors; but this is no longer the custom. In the public consistory the pope performs the ceremony of delivering the red hat to the newly created cardinals. Moreover, the consistorial advocates plead here the causes of beatification and canonization. These pleadings are of two kinds. In the first permission is asked that the ordinary process of beatification or canonization may be introduced, or continued, or brought to completion. The second has reference only to causes of canonization. For in accordance with the practice of the Holy See, even after it has been conclusively proved that the miracles required for canonization have been performed through the intercession of one declared blessed, the honours of a saint are not decreed to him, unless the question as to whether canonization should take place has been treated in three consistories: secret, public, and semi-public. In the secret consistory the pope asks the opinions of the cardinals, who express it singly by answering placet or non placet (aye or no). In the public consistory one of the consistorial advocates pleads the cause and a prelate answers in the pope’s name, inviting all to pray in order that the pope may be enlightened on the subject. The final voting takes place in the semi-public consistory.

(3) The semi-public consistory is so called because, besides the cardinals, bishops also take part in it. To this consistory the bishops residing within one hundred miles of Rome are summoned, while invitations are sent to all the other bishops of Italy; moreover, titular patriarchs and archbishops and bishops who live in Rome, as well as bishops who happen to be sojourning there at the time, are likewise present. After all the Fathers have expressed their opinions on the subject, the pope closes the assembly with an address on the following canonization. With regard to the time for holding the consistories, the old practice of assembling them at fixed intervals has passed out of use and today they meet, as occasion demands, at the pope’s wish.

Hilling, Procedure at the Roman Curia (New York, 1907); Baart, The Roman Court (New York, 1895); Humphrey, Urbs et Orbis; or The Pope as Bishop and as Pontiff (London, 1899); Smith, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1895), I, 270; Hergenr”ther-Hollweck, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Freiburg im Br., 1905), 292; Von Scherer, Handbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Graz, 1886), I, 481; Andr’-Wagner Dict. de Droit Canon. (Paris 1901), I, 555; Wernz, Jus Decretalium (Rome 1906), II, 394; Cohellius, Notitia Cardinalatus (Rome, 1653); Lega, De Judiciis Ecclesiasticis (Rome, 1898), II, 253.

HECTOR PAPI

Cuthbert Constable

(Formerly TUNSTALL)

Date of birth uncertain; d. 27 March, 1746. He was the son of Francis Tunstall of Wycliffe Hall, Yorkshire, England, and Cicely, daughter of John Constable, second Viscount Dunbar. When in 1718 he succeeded, on the death of his uncle, the last Viscount Dunbar, to the estates of Burton Constable, he changed his surname from Tunstall to Constable. He was educated at Douai and subsequently studied medicine at Montpellier, where he took the degree of Doctor of Medicine. He formed a large collection of books and MSS. at Burton Constable, and in other ways was a constant patron of Catholic literature, assisting Bishop Challoner by lending him documents for the “Memoirs of Missionary Priests,” and Dodd, by contributing to the expenses of the “History of the Church of England.” He also maintained friendly relations with non-Catholic scholars; and among the Burton Constable papers are two volumes of his correspondence with Mr. Nicholson of University College, Oxford, and the well-known antiquary, Thomas Hearne. His correspondence with the former was chiefly concerned with particulars for the biography of Abraham Woodhead, for whom he had a great veneration. His only publication is a life of Woodhead prefixed to his edition of “The Third Part of the Brief Account of Church Government,” written by that author (London, 1736). Gillow (Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 549) states that even this was largely taken from Nicholson, but is valuable for the complete Woodhead bibliography. The other works enumerated by Gillow (loc. cit.) are not by Constable, but were MSS. in his collection. The collection itself was sold by auction in 1889, some of the MSS. being purchased by Lord Herries and added to his collection at Everingham. Constable was twice married, first to Amy, daughter of Hugh, third Lord Clifford, by whom he had three children, William, Cicely, and Winifred, and secondly to Elizabeth Heneage, by whom he had one son, Marmaduke, who inherited the estate of Wycliffe and resumed the family name of Tunstall.

EDWIN BURTON

John Constable

(Alias Lacey).

Controversialist (pen-name Clerophilus Alethes), b. in Lincolnshire, 10 November, 1676 or 1678; d. 28 March, 1743. In 1695 he entered the Society of Jesus. For many years he served the Fitzherbert family at Swinnerton, where he is buried. Constable’s chief controversial opponents were:

the Abbé Courayer (1681–1776; Dict. Nat. Biog. XII, 328) who championed Anglican orders, came over to England in 1728, was lionized, and eventually buried in the cloisters of Westminster; and

Charles Dodd vere Hugh Tootell, who wrote with a prejudice against Jesuits.

The chief writings of Constable are:

“Remarks on Courayer’s Book in Defense of English Ordinations, wherein their invalidity is fully proved,” an answer to Courayer’s “Dissertations” of 1723;

“The Stratagem Discovered to show that Courayer writes ‘Booty,’ and is only a sham defender of these ordinations,” by “Clerophilus Alethes” (8vo, 1729), against Rev. Trapp’s “Defense of the Church of England”;

“Doctrine of Antiquity concerning the Eucharist” by “Clerophilus Alethes” (8vo, 1736);

“Specimen of Amendments proposed to the Complier of ‘The Church History of England’“, by “Clerophilus Alethes” (12mo, 1741);

“Advice to the Author of ‘The Church History of England’“, manuscript at Stonyhurst.

Gillow enumerates a few other writings by Constable. Oliver, Collectanea S.J., 73; Foley, Records S.J., III, 207; VII (i), 159; Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la C. de J., II col. 1374; Gillow, Dict. of Eng. Cath., I, 552, sqq.; Cooper in Dict. Nat. Biog., XII, 36.

PATRICK RYAN

Constance

(Lat. Constantia, Ger. Konstanz or Constanz, Czechic name Kostnitz).

Formerly the seat of a diocese. Constance, a very ancient town situated where the River Rhine flows out of the Bodensee (between the Bodensee and the Untersee) in the south-eastern part of the Grand Duchy of Baden, was originally a village of lake-dwellers which under Roman rule was fortified by Constantius Chlorus in 304. Christianity seems to have been introduced into Constance and the neighbouring country by Roman legionaries as early as the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. The episcopal see was first at Vindonissa, the present Windisch in the Canton of Aargau in Switzerland. It is not known when this see was erected. The first bishop of whom history has preserved any record is Bubulcus who was present at the Burgundian Synod of Epaon in 517. (Mansi, Ampl. Coll. Conc., VIII, 565.) He was succeeded by Grammatius, who attended a Frankish synod at Clermont in 535 (ibid., VIII, 863), one at Orléans in 541 (ibid., IX, 120), and a third at Orléans in 549 (ibid., IX, 136). After this time history makes no further mention of the Diocese of Vindonissa. Since, however, the neighbouring city of Constance is for the first time mentioned as an episcopal see about this time, it becomes almost a certainty that from Vindonissa the see was transferred to Constance. The episcopal catalogues of Constance designate Maximus as the first and Rudolph as the second bishop, but nothing further is known about them. Walafrid Strabo, in his “Vita S. Galli,” speaks of certain Gaudentius as Bishop of Constance, after whose death (c. 613) the bishopric was offered to St. Gall who, however, refused the dignity and recommended his disciple John in his stead. The sermon which St. Gall preached at John’s consecration is still extant (H. Canisius, “Antiquæ Lectiones,” edited by Basnage, “Thesaurus monum. eccl. et hist.,” Antwerp, 1725, I, 785). Nothing is known of Marcian, Boso, Gangolf, Fidelis, and Rudolph, who are generally designated as successors of John.

The limits of the Diocese of Constance were fixed during the seventh century. The river Iller separated it from the Diocese of Augsburg. From the influx of the Iller into the Danube the boundary turned towards the north-west past Gmünd, across the Neckar, north of Marbach, thence south-westerly till it reached the Rhine south of Breisach (Altbreisach). It followed the Rhine upward to the influx of the Aar, then up this river to the St. Gotthard, whence it turned north-easterly across Canton St. Gall to the source of the Iller. The dioceses surrounding it were Augsburg, Speyer, Strasburg, Basle, Lausanne, Chur, and (since 742) Würzburg. There was not a diocese in Germany which surpassed Constance either in area or population. It belonged to the province of Besançon until it became a suffragan of Mainz in 747. With few changes it retained the above-mentioned dimensions till the time of the Reformation. In the year 1435 the diocese had 17,060 priests, 1760 parishes, and 350 monasteries and convents. During the eighth and ninth centuries the bishops of Constance repeatedly infringed upon the rights of the Abbots of Reichenau and St. Gall and sometimes combined the abbatial with the episcopal dignity. Bishop Sidonius (746–760) was instrumental in the unjust deposition and imprisonment of St. Othmar, the Abbot of St. Gall, in 758 or 759 (Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, III, 596). Most bishops of the tenth century were great and holy men. Solomon III (890–919) had previously (885) been imperial chancellor and was equally beloved as Abbot of Reichenau and St. Gall and as Bishop of Constance. St. Conrad (934–975) was a great friend of the poor, made three pilgrimages to the Holy Land, built three new churches and renovated many old ones. He was canonized in 1123 and became patron of the diocese. St. Gebhard II (979–995) founded the Abbey of Petershausen in 983, began to be honoured as a saint soon after his death, and became patron of the city of Constance. During the conflict between Pope Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV, concerning the right of investiture, the episcopal See of Constance was occupied by Otto I (1071–1086), who sided with the emperor and was excommunicated because he took part in the deposition of Gregory VII at the Synod of Worms (1076). His successor Gebhard III (1084–1110) was an intrepid defender of the papal rights against Henry V, became Vicar Apostolic for Germany under Urban II (Mansi, Ampl. Coll. Conc., XX, 666 and 715), consecrated the new cathedral at Constance in 1089, held a synod in 1094, at which wholesome ecclesiastical reforms were decreed, and with the consent of the pope freed Henry V from the ban in 1095. During the papal conflicts with the Emperors Frederick I and Frederick II the bishops sided with the emperors until Bishop Henry I, von Thann (1233–1248) returned to papal allegiance in 1246. Bishop Rudolph von Montfort (1322–1334) supported Pope John XXII in his struggle against Louis the Bavarian until 1332, when he joined the party of the emperor. His successor Nicholas, von Kreuzlingen (1334–1344), sided with the popes. While the Council of Constance was in session (1414–1418) the episcopal see of Constance was occupied by Otto III, von Hochberg (1411–1434). From the thirteenth century the bishops of Constance were princes of the German Empire. Their territory, as temporal rulers, extended over twenty-two German (about 482 English) square miles, with a population of about 50,000, and lasted until it was divided between Baden and Switzerland in 1802.

The decline of the diocese begins with the Protestant Reformation. The Swiss Cantons Zurich, Bern, St. Gall, Schaffhausen, and Thurgau were first to adopt the new doctrine (Zwinglianism). They were followed in 1526 by the city of Constance and in 1534 by the Duchy of Würtemberg. Baden became Protestant in 1556, but here the Catholic religion was restored in 1571. The old Faith was also slowly restored in the city of Constance from 1548 when that city came under Austrian rule. From 1526 the bishops of Constance resided at Meersburg. Despite the great losses sustained during the Reformation, the diocese in 1750 still numbered 3774 secular priests, 2764 monks, 3147 nuns, and a Catholic population of 891,948. In 1814 the portion of the diocese situated on Swiss territory was detached and apportioned to the Swiss dioceses of Chur, Basle, and St. Gall. After the death of Bishop Karl Theodor von Dalberg in 1817, the portion of the diocese lying in Würtemberg came under the jurisdiction of the vicar-general of Ellwangen-Rottenburg, and all the Bavarian territory was attached to the Diocese of Augsburg. In 1821 Pope Pius VII dissolved the Diocese of Constance and joined its remaining territory to the newly erected Archdiocese of Freiburg. The most important rulers of the diocese since the Reformation were: Cardinal Marcus Sitticus von Hohenems (Altemps), 1561–1589; Cardinal Andrew of Austria (1589–1600), Jacob Fugger (1604–1626), Karl Theodor von Dalberg (1810–1817) and his Vicar-General Heinrich Ignaz von Wessenberg. The last two espoused the doctrine of Febronius. Dalberg joined the Freemasons and the Illuminati, of whose real tendendcies he was ignorant, and Wessenberg was heart and soul for the anti-ecclesiastical reforms of Emperor Joseph II.

The city of Constance received municipal rights in 780, became a free imperial city in 1192 and was one of the largest and most flourishing cities of Germany during the Middle Ages. Its population is said to have exceeded 40,000. Here the famous Peace of Constance, a treaty between Barbarossa and the Lombard cities was declared in 1183 and an imperial diet was convened by Maximilian I in 1507. Commercially it was highly important on account of its manufacture of choice linen the famous tela di Costanza which was known throughout Europe. Its ecclesiastical renown it owes to the fact that it was the seat of perhaps the largest diocese in Germany and that from 1414–18 the Sixteenth Ecumenical Council was celebrated there. For joining the Smalkaldic League and refusing to accept the Interim of Augsburg in 1548, it was deprived of its privileges as a free and imperial city and given to Austria by Emperor Charles V. It was unsuccessfully besieged by the Swedes in 1633, pillaged by the French (1740–45), and finally joined to Baden in 1805. Its population in 1900 consisted of 15,917 Catholics, 711 Old Catholics, and 565 Jews.

Merck, Chronik des Bisthums Konstanz (Constance, 1627); Neugart, Episcopatus Constantiensis (to 1306), (St. Blasien, 1803 and Freiburg, 1862); Idem, Codex Diplomaticus (St. Blasien, 1791–5); Ladewig, Regesta Episcoporum Constantiensium (in German) von Bubulcus bis Thomas Berlower, 517–1496 (Innsbruck, 1886–90); Ludwig, Die Konstanzer Geschichtsschreibung bis zum 18. Jahrh. (Strasburg, 1894). For the city of Constance: Eiselein, Geschichte und Beschreibung der Stadt Konstanz (Constance 1851); Beyerle, Konstanz im 30-jährigen Krieg (1900); Idem, Grundeigenthumsverhältnisse und Bürgerrecht im mittelalterlichen Konstanz (1900–02).

MICHAEL OTT

Council of Constance

A (partly) ecumenical council held at Constance, now in the Grand Duchy of Baden, from 5 Nov., 1414, to 22 April, 1418. Its forty-five general sessions were devoted to three chief purposes:

(I) The Extinction of the So-Called Western Schism;

(II) The Reformation of Ecclesiastical Government and Life;

(III) The Repression of Heresy.

The article will also take up:

(IV) Attendance at the Council; General Considerations.

I. THE EXTINCTION OF THE SO-CALLED WESTERN SCHISM

In its attempt to restore to the Church her immemorial unity of headship the Council of Pisa in 1409 had only added to the confusion and scandal that afflicted all Christendom since 1378 (see WESTERN SCHISM). There were now three popes, the two deposed by the council (Gregory XII and Benedict XIII) and its own creation, Alexander V; the latter soon died (3 May, 1410) and was succeeded by Cardinal Baldassare Cossa as John XXIII. Obedient to a decree of the Council of Pisa that ordered a general council every three years, this pope convoked such an assembly at Rome for April, 1412, but with so little success that it was prorogued and again convoked for the beginning of 1413; its only important decree was a condemnation of the writings of Wyclif. In the meantime the treachery and violence of Ladislaus of Naples made John XXIII quite dependent politically on the new Emperor-elect Sigismund whose anxiety for a general council on German territory was finally satisfied by the pope, then an exile from Rome. He convoked it from Lodi, 9 December, 1413, for 1 November, 1414, at Constance, a free city of the empire, on Lake Constance. It was solemnly opened 5 November in the cathedral of Constance, where all the public sessions were held. The first public session took place 16 November under the presidency of John XXIII, and for a while it considered itself a continuation of the Council of Pisa, and John XXIII the sole legitimate pope. It was soon evident, however, that many members of the new assembly (comparatively few bishops, many doctors of theology and of canon and civil law, procurators of bishops, deputies of universities, cathedral chapters, provosts, etc., agents and representatives of princes, etc.) favoured strongly the voluntary abdication of all three popes. This was also the idea of Emperor Sigismund (q. v;) present since Christmas Eve, 1414, and destined to exercise a profound and continuous influence on the course of the council in his character of imperial protector of the Church; The French deputies especially urged this solution of the intolerable crisis, under the leadership of Pierre d’Ailly (Cardinal and Bishop of Cambrai), Guillaume Fillastre (Cardinal and Bishop of San Marco), and Jean Charlier de Gerson, chancellor of the University of Paris, representative of the French king, and known with d’Ailly, as “the soul of the council.” The Italian bishops who had accompanied John XXIII in large numbers and stood for his legitimacy were soon rendered helpless by new methods of discussion and voting. Early in January, 1415, envoys of Benedict XIII appeared, but only to propose a personal meeting at Nice of their pope and the emperor. Towards the end of the month Gregory XII (Angelo Corrario) offered, through his representatives, to resign, on condition that the other popes did the same. The execution of this project, henceforth the main object of the council, was long delayed for reasons that will appear below. Pressure was at once brought to bear on John XXIII by Emperor Sigismund and by the non-Italian members. His resistance was finally broken by the resolution of the members to vote by “nations” and not by persons. The legality of this measure, an imitation of the “nations” of the universities, was more than questionable, but during February, 1415, it was carried through and thenceforth accepted in practice, though never authorized by any formal decree of the council (Finke, Forschungen, 31–33) and opposed by d’Ailly and Fillastre, who wanted, indeed, a considerable enlargement of the voting body, by the inclusion of professors (doctors) of theology, parish priests, etc., but not the abandonment of the traditional individual vote; the former was willing to compromise on a vote according to ecclesiastical provinces. The vote by nations was in great measure the work of the English, German, and French members, but the Italians did not long resist, and on this basis the council’s work was organized and executed as follows: By each of the four nations represented at the council, i.e. Germans (with whom were counted the few Poles, Hungarians, Danes, and Scandinavians), English, French, and Italians, several deputies, ecclesiastical and lay, were appointed to represent the entire membership of the nation present at Constance. These national deputies met separately under a president of their own choice, but changed from month to month. Their decisions were reached by a majority vote, and were then communicated to the General Congregation of all four nations in which the vote of a majority (three) was decisive; There seems also to have been (Finke, Forschungen, 36–37) an important general committee appointed by the nations to prepare the subjects of discussion for the individual nations, and to act generally as intermediary. At the seventh session (2 May, 1415) the right to vote apart was withdrawn from the cardinals; henceforth they could only vote like other individuai deputies in the meetings of their respective nations. The Roman Church, therefore, was not represented as such, while the small English nation (20 deputies, 3 bishops) was equal in influence to the entire Italian representation, as individuals about one-half the council. The decisions of the general congregations were presented at the public sessions of the council and there promulgated, unanimously, as conciliar decrees.

While these measures were being taken John XXIII grew daily more suspicious of the council. Nevertheless, and partly in consequence of a fierce anonymous attack, from an Italian source, on his life and character, he promised under oath (2 March, 1415) to resign. On 20 March, however, he secretly fled from Constance and took refuge at Schaffhausen on territory of his friend Frederick, Duke of Austria-Tyrol. This step filled the council with consternation, for it threatened both its existence and its authority. Emperor Sigismund, however, held together the wavering assembly. Then followed the public sessions (third to fifth) of 26 and 30 March and 5 April out of which came the famous decrees “Articles of Constance,” long a chief argument of Gallicanism (q. v.). As finally adopted in the fifth session they were five in number and declared that the council, legitimately called in the Holy Spirit, is a general council, represents the whole Church Militant, has its authority directly from God; and that in all that pertains to faith, the extinction of the schism and reformation in head and members, every Christian, even the pope, is bound to obey it; that in case of refusal to obey the council all recalcitrant Christians (even the pope) are subject to ecclesiastical punishment and in case of necessity to other (civil) sanctions; that without the consent of the council Pope John cannot call away from Constance the Roman Curia and its officials, whose absence might compel the closing of the council or hinder its work; that all censures inflicted since his departure by the pope on members and supporters of the council are void, and that Pope John and the members of the council have hitherto enjoyed full liberty. In the meantime (29 March, 1415) the English, German, and French nations had agreed to four articles, in the first two of which was expressed the complete supremacy of the council over the pope; these two were incorporated in the aforesaid articles of the fifth session. It has been maintained that these decrees were meant only for the extraordinary situation which then faced the council; they express, nevertheless, the well-known persuasion of the majority of the peculiar ecclesiastical representation at Constance that the council, independently of the pope, was the final depository of supreme ecclesiastical authority; indeed, by virtue of these decrees they proceeded at once to judge and depose John XXIII, hitherto for them the legitimate pope. It is to be noted that of the twelve cardinals present at Constance only seven or eight assisted at the fifth session, and they solely to avoid scandal (among the absent was d’Ailly). Nor would any cardinal announce these decrees; that office fell to a bishop, Andrew of Posen. The emperor was present at their promulgation, also 200 members, mostly doctors, etc. These decrees it must be remembered, though adopted at Basle and often quoted by the disciples of Gallicanism and other opponents of papal supremacy, were formulated and accepted at Constance amid quite unusual circumstances, in much haste, and in quasi despair at the threatened failure of the long-desired general council; they ran counter to the immemorial praxis of the Church, and substituted for its Divine constitution the will of the multitude or at best a kind of theological parliamentarism. They were never approved by the Apostolic See (Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, Paderborn, 1897, I, 489–98) and were almost at once implicitly rejected by Martin V (Mansi, Coll. Conc., XXVIII, 200). The rest of March, and the months of April and May were consumed in a tragic conflict of the council with John XXIII. He did not withdraw his resignation, but posited conditions that the council refused; he called away from Constance several cardinals and members of the Curia, who were soon, however, obliged to return; put forth a plea of lack of liberty; complained to the King of France concerning the method of voting, as well as his treatment by the council and the emperor; and finally fled from Schaffhausen to Lauenburg, giving the council reason to fear either his final escape from imperial reach or the withdrawal of the Italian representatives. The pope soon fled again, this time to Freiburg in the Breisgau, and thence to Breisach on the Rhine, but was soon compelled to return to Freiburg, whence eventually (17 May) he was brought by deputies of the council to the vicinity of Constance, and there held prisoner, while the council proceeded to his trial. He had exhausted all means of resistance, and was morally vanquished. Unwilling to undergo the ordeal of the impending trial he renounced all right of defence and threw himself on the mercy of the council. He was deposed in the twelfth session (29 Mar, 1415), not for heresy but for notorious simony, abetting of schism, and scandalous life, having already been suspended by the council in the tenth session (14 May). Two days later he ratified under oath the action of the council and was condemned to indefinite imprisonment in the custody of the emperor. He was held successively in the castles of Gottlieben, Heidelberg, and Mannheim, but was eventually released, for a heavy ransom, with the help of Martin V, and in 1419 died at Florence as Cardinal-Bishop of Tusculum. (For a fuller treatment of the charges against him, see JOHN XXIII.) The promised resignation of Gregory XII was now in order, and was accomplished with the dignity to be expected from the pope usually considered by Catholic historians the legitimate occupant of. the See of Peter, though at this time his obedience had practically vanished, being confined to Rimini and a few German dioceses. Through his protector and plenipotentiary, Carlo Malatesta, Lord of Rimini, he posited as conditions that the council should be reconvoked by himself, and that in the session which accepted his resignation neither Baldassare Cossa nor any representative of him should preside. The council agreed to these conditions. The fourteenth session (4 July, 1415) had, therefore, for its president the Emperor Sigismund, whereby it appeared, as the supporters of Gregory wished it to appear, that hitherto the council was an assembly convoked by the civil authority. The famous Dominican Cardinal John of Ragusa (Johannes Dominici), friend and adviser of Gregory XII, and since 19 Dec., 1414, the pope’s representative at Constance, convoked anew the council in the pope’s name and authorized its future acts. The reunion of both obediences (Gregory XII and John XXIII) was then proclaimed, whereupon the Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia (Viviers) assumed the presidency, and Malatesta pronounced, in the name of Gregory, the latter’s abdication of all right whatsoever to the papacy. Gregory confirmed these acts in the seventeenth session (14 July) and was himself confirmed as Cardinal-Bishop of Porto, Dean of the Sacred College and perpetual Legate of Ancona, in which position he died (18 Oct., 1417) at Recanati, in his ninetieth year in the odour of sanctity. From the fourteenth session, in which he convoked the council, it is considered by many with Phillips (Kirchenrecht, I, 256) a legitimate general council.

There remained now to obtain the resignation of Benedict XIII (Pedro de Luna). For this purpose, and because he insisted on personal dealings with himself, Emperor Sigismund and deputies of the council went to Perpignan, then Spanish territory, to confer with him, but the stubborn old man, despite his pretended willingness to resign, was not to be moved (Sept.-Oct., 1415) from the claims he had so persistently and amid so great vicissitudes defended. Soon, however, he was abandoned by the Rings of Aragon, Castile, and Navarre, hitherto his chief supporters. By the Treaty of Narbonne (13 Dec., 1415), they bound themselves to co-operate with the Council of Constance for the deposition of Benedict and the election of a new pope. St. Vincent Ferrer (q. v.) hitherto the main support of Benedict, and his confessor, now gave him up as a perjurer; the council confirmed (4 Feb., 1416) the articles of Narbonne, the immediate execution of which was retarded, among other causes, by the flight of Benedict (13 Nov., 1415) from the fortress of Perpignan to the inaccessible rock of Peñiscola on the sea-coast near Valencia, where he died in 1423, maintaining to the end his good right (see LUNA, PEDRO DE).

Various causes, as just said, held back the appearance of the Spanish deputies at the council. Finally they arrived at Constance for the twenty-first session (15 Oct., 1416) and were thenceforth counted as the fifth nation (Fromme, Die spanische Nation und das Konzil von Konstanz, Münster, 1896). The next eight months were largely taken up with complicated canonical procedure destined to compel the abdication or justify the deposition of Benedict XIII, who in the meantime had excommunicated solemnly his former royal adherents and with a courage worthy of a better cause maintained that Holy Church, the Ark of Noe, was now on the wave-worn peak of Peñiscola, in the little group of a few thousand souls who yet clung to his shadowy authority, and not at Constance. He was finally deposed in the thirty-seventh session (26 July, 1417) as guilty of perjury, a schismatic, and a heretic; his private life and priestly character, unlike those of John XXIII, were never assailed. The Western Schism was thus at an end, after nearly forty years of disastrous life; one pope (Gregory XII) had voluntarily abdicated; another (John XXIII) had been suspended and then deposed, but had submitted in canonical form; the third claimant (Benedict XIII) was cut off from the body of the Church, “a pope without a Church, a shepherd without a flock” (Hergenröther-Kirsch). It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter, there reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council.

The canonical irregularities of the council seem less blameworthy when to this practical vacancy of the papal chair we add the universal disgust and weariness at the continuance of the so-called schism, despite all imaginable efforts to restore to the Church its unity of headship, the justified fear of new complications, the imminent peril of Catholic doctrine and discipline amid the temporary wreckage of the traditional authority of the Apostolic See, and the rapid growth of false teachings equally ruinous to Church and State.

ELECTION OF MARTIN V

Under the circumstances the usual form of papal election by the cardinals alone (see CONCLAVE) was impossible, if only for the strongly inimical feeling of the majority of the council, which held them responsible not only for the horrors of the schism, but also for many of the administrative abuses of the Roman Curia (see below), the immediate correction of which seemed to not a few of no less importance, to say the least, than the election of a pope. This object was not obscured by minor dissensions, e.g. concerning the rightful rank of the Spanish nation, the number of votes of the Aragonese and Castilians, respectively, the right of the English to constitute a nation, etc. The French, Spanish, and Italian nations desired an immediate papal election; a Church without a head was a monstrosity, said d’Ailly. Under Bishop Robert of Salisbury the English held stoutly for the reforms that seemed imperative in the administration of the papacy and the Curia; Emperor Sigismund was foremost among the Germans for the same cause, and was ready to take violent measures in its interest. But Robert of Salisbury died, and curiously enough, it was by another English bishop, Henry of Winchester, then on his way to Palestine, and a near relative of the King of England, that the antagonistic measures of papal election and curial reform were reconciled in favour of the priority of the former, but with satisfactory assurance, among other points, that the new pope would at once undertake a serious reform of all abuses; that those reforms would be at once proclaimed by the council on which all the nations agreed; and that the manner of the imminent papal election should be left to a special commission. Among the five reform decrees passed at once by the council in its thirty-ninth session (9 Oct., 1417) was the famous “Frequens” which provided for a general council every ten years; the next two, however, were to be convoked by the pope after five and seven years respectively, the first of them at Pavia.

In the fortieth session finally (30 Oct.) was discussed the manner of the new papal election. The council decreed that for this occasion to the twenty-three cardinals should be added thirty deputies of the council (six from each nation) making a body of fifty-three electors. Another decree of this session provided for the immediate and serious attention of the new pope to eighteen points concerning reformatio in capite et Curia Romana. The forty-first session (8 Nov.) provided for the details of the election and for this purpose had the Bull of Clement VI (6 Dec., 1351) read. That afternoon the electors assembled in conclave and after three days chose for the pope the Roman Cardinal Odo Colonna, who took the name of Martin V (q. v.). He was only a subdeacon, and so was successively made deacon, priest, and bishop (Fromme, “Die Wahl Martins V.,” in “Röm. Quartalschrift,” 1896). His coronation took place 21 November, 1417. At its forty-fifth session he solemnly closed the council (22 April, 1418), whereupon, declining invitations to Avignon or to some German city, he returned to Italy and after a short stay in Florence, entered Rome, 28 Sept., 1420, and took up his residence in the Vatican, thereby restoring to the See of Peter its ancient rights and prestige in Christendom.

II. REFORMATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT AND LIFE

The long absence of the popes from Rome in the fourteenth century, entailing the economical and political ruin of the ancient Patrimony of Peter; the many grave abuses directly or indirectly connected with the administration of French popes at Avignon; the general civil disorders of the time (Hundred Years War, Condottieri, etc.), and other causes, had created, long before the Council of Constance, an earnest demand for a reformation of ecclesiastical conditions. The writings of theologians and canonists and the utterances of several popular saints (St. Bridget of Sweden, St. Catherine of Siena) are alone enough to show how well justified was this universal demand (Rocquain). In the minds of many members of the council this reformation, as already stated, was of equal importance with the closing of the schism; and to some, especially to the Germans, it seemed to overshadow even the need of a head for the Church. It was precisely the pope and the cardinals, they argued, whose administration most needed reform, and now, when both were weakest and for the first time in their history had felt the mastery of the theologians and canonists, seemed to this party the psychological moment to write these reforms into the common ecclesiastical law, whence they could not easily be expunged. Since July, 1415, there had been a reform commission of thirty-five members; a new one of twenty-five members had been appointed after the entry of the Spanish nation in October, 1416. During its long career many memorials were presented to the council concerning every imaginable abuse. In its general congregations and sessions bitter reproaches were often uttered on the same themes. The academic equality of many of the members, the prostrate condition of ecclesiastical headship, the peculiar freedom of discussion in the “nation” meetings, and other causes made this council a unique forum for the discussion of all points and methods of reformation. More would certainly have been accomplished had the learned men and the zealous preachers been able to reach some degree of unanimity as to the importance and order of the reforms called for, and had there been more general anxiety for personal reformation and less passion in denouncing the past abuses of papal and curial administration. The Germans (Avisamenta nationis germanicæ) and the English were ardent for a reformation of the Roman Curia, so that a new, holy, and just pope would find his way made straight before him. The former asserted that for 150 years the popes had ceased to govern with that justice which for twelve centuries had characterized them. The cardinals, they said, had loved riches too much, and ecclesiastical synods had been neglected. These were the true causes, according to them, of the corruption of the clergy, the decay of good studies, the ruin of churches and abbeys. Reforms had been promised at Pisa, but what had become of these promises? As a matter of fact, however, the reforms most loudly called for meant the restoration to the bishops of their ancient freedom in the collation of benefices, also a notable diminution in the various dues and assessments payable to Rome from the ecclesiastical properties and revenues of the various nations, which for several reasons had been growing in number and size during the previous century, and were not always unjustified or inequitable. We have already seen that it was much against their will that the Germans agreed to a papal election before receiving full satisfaction in the matter of the aforesaid reforms. The day after his coronation Martin V appointed a (third) reform commission, but its members showed no more unanimity than their predecessors in the same office. The new pope declared that he was ready to accept any propositions that were unanimously agreed on. Eventually, after much discussion and various suggestions seven points were agreed to in the forty-third session (21 March, 1418). All exemptions granted during the synod were withdrawn, and in the future should be granted with difficulty; unions and incorporations of benefices were likewise to be diminished; the pope agreed to renounce the revenues of vacant benefices; all simony was forbidden, likewise the custom of dispensing beneficed persons from the obligation of taking orders; the papal right to impose tithes on clergy and churches was sensibly restricted; ecclesiastics must henceforth wear the dress of their order (Mansi, Conc., XXVII, 1114–77). Other reforms were left to the initiative of each nation which provided for them by special concordats, a term said to have been here used for the first time. The German Concordat (including Poland, Hungary, and Scandinavia) and that with France, Spain, and Italy, ran for five years; the English Concordat was indefinite (for the details see Mansi, op. cit., XXVII, 1189 sqq., and Hübler, Die Konstanzer Reform und die Konkordate von 1418, Leipzig, 1867). The number of cardinals was fixed at twenty-four, and they were to be taken proportionately from the great nations. Stricter regulation was also agreed on for papal reservations, annates, commendams, Indulgences, etc. Nevertheless, in a papal consistory (10 March, 1418), Martin V rejected any right of appeal from the Apostolic See to a future council, and asserted the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff as Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth in all questions of Catholic Faith (Nulli fas est a supremo judice, videlicet Apostolicâ sede seu Rom. Pontif. Jesu Christi vicario in terris appellare aut illius judicium in causis fidei, quæ tamquam majores ad ipsum et sedem Apostolicam deferendæ sunt, declinare, Mansi, Conc., XXVIII, 200). Von Funk has shown (op. cit., 489 sqq.), that the oft-maintained confirmation of the decrees of Constance by Martin V, in the last session of the council (omnia et singula determinata et decreta in materiis fldei per præsens concilium conciliariter et non aliter nec alio modo) must be understood only of a specific case (Falkenberg, see below), and not of any notable part of, much less of all, the decrees of Constance. It is true that in the Bull “Inter Cunctas,” 22 Feb., 1418, apropos of the Wycliffites and Hussites, he calls for a formal approval of the decrees of Constance in favorem fidet a salutem animarum, but these words are easily understood of the council’s action against the aforesaid heresies and its efforts to restore to the Church a certain head. In particular the famous five articles of the fifth session, establishing the supremacy of the council, never received papal confirmation (Hergenröther-Kirsch, II, 862, and Baudrillart, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1219–23). For a refutation of the Gallican claim that these decrees possess a dogmatic character, see GALLICANISM. Nevertheless, the Council of Constance is usually reckoned the Sixteenth General Council; some, as stated above, acknowledge it as such after the fourteenth session (reconvocation by Gregory XII); others again (Salembier) after the thirty-fifth session (adherence of the Spanish nation); Hefele only in the final sessions (forty-second to forty-fifth) under Martin V. No papal approbation of it was ever meant to confirm its anti-papal acts; thus Eugene IV (22 July, 1446) approved the council, with due reserve of the rights, dignity, and supremacy of the Apostolic See (absque tamen præjudicio juris dignitatis et præeminentiæ Sedis Apostolicæ). See Bouix, “De papa, ubi et de concilio oecumenico” (Paris, 1869), and Salembier (below), 313–23.

III. THE REPRESSION OF HERESY

At various times the council dealt with current heresies, among them those of John Wyclif and John Hus.

CONDEMNATION OF FORTY-FIVE WYCLIFFITE PROPOSITIONS

In the eighth session it was question of Wyclif, whose writings had already been condemned at the Council of Rome (1412–13) under John XXIII. In this session forty-five propositions of Wyclif, already condemned by the universities of Paris and Prague, were censured as heretical, and in a later session another long list of 260 errors. All his writings were ordered to be burned and his body was condemned to be dug up and cast out of consecrated ground (this was not done until 1428 under Bishop Robert Fleming of Lincoln). In 1418 Martin V, by the aforesaid Bull “Inter Cunctas,” approved the action of the council (Mansi, op. cit., XXVII, 1210 sq.; see WYCLIFFITES).

CONDEMNATION AND EXECUTION OF JOHN HUS

Since 1408 John Hus, an eloquent preacher of Prague, had openly taught the Wycliffite heresies. By his ardent zeal for ecclesiastical reforms on the basis of Wyclif’s teachings, his patriotic insistence on the purity of Bohemian faith and his assertion of Bohemian nationalism, he had gone rapidly to the front as a leader of his nation, then deeply embittered against the Germans dominant in the political and academic life of Bohemia. Since 1412 he had been banished from Prague, but was only the more dangerous, by his fiery discourse and his writings, among the highly excited Bohemians, who mostly saw in him the flower of their national genius, and were otherwise embittered against a clergy which then offered too many elements of weakness to the attacks of such reformers as John Hus and his friend and admirer Jerome (Hieronymus) of Prague. The errors of Hus concerned chiefly the nature of the Church (only the predestined), the papal headship, the rule of faith (Scripture and the law of Christ), Communion under both kinds (q. v. also HUSSITES), auricular confession (unnecessary), civil authority (dependent among Christians on state of grace). More than once (e. g. 1411) Hus had appealed to a general council, and when at the opening of the Council of Constance Emperor Sigismund and King Wenceslaus of Bohemia urged him to present himself, he was not unwilling; it was made up, he knew, of ardent reformers, and he could hope by his eloquence to convert them to his own intense faith in the ideas of Wyclif. He left Prague, 11 October, 1414, in the company of three Bohemian nobles and assured of a safe-conduct (salvus conductus) from Emperor Sigismund. They entered Constance 3 November, where Hus took up his residence in a private house, and where (5 November) the safe-conduct was delivered to him. The day after his arrival he appeared before John XXIII, who treated him courteously, removed the censures of excommunication and interdict, but forbade him to say Mass or to preach, also to appear at public ecclesiastical functions (his thoroughly heretical and even revolutionary doctrines were long notorious and, as said above, had already been condemned at Rome). He appeared again before the pope and the cardinals, 28 November, declared himself innocent of a single error, and said he was ready to retract and do penance if convicted of any. He had continued, however, to violate the papal prohibition, said Mass daily and preached to the people present. Consequently he was the same day arrested, by order of the Bishop of Constance, and a little later (6 December) placed in the Dominican convent. On complaining of the unsanitary condition of his place of confinement he was transferred to the castle of Gottlieben, and later to the Franciscan convent at Constance (June, 1415). His examination went on during April and May, and was conducted by d’Ailly and Fillastre; in the meantime he carried on an extensive correspondence, wrote various treatises, and replied to the charges of his opponents. His Bohemian friends protested against the arrest of Hus, and exhibited the emperor’s safe-conduct (but only after the arrest). Sigismund was at first wroth over the arrest, but later (1 Jan., 1415) declared that he would not prevent the council from dealing according to law with persons accused of heresy. The aforesaid condemnation (4 May) of the forty-five propositions of Wyclif fore-shadowed the fate of Hus, despite the protests of Bohemians and Poles against his severe incarceration, the slanders against Bohemian faith, the delay of justice, secrecy of the proceedings, and the violation of the imperial safe-conduct (Raynaldus, ad an. 1414, no. 10). The public trial took place on 5, 7, and 8 June, 1415; extracts from his works were read, witnesses were heard. He denied some of the teachings attributed to him, defended others, notably opinions of Wyclif, declared that no Bohemian was a heretic, etc. He refused all formulæ of submission, again declared himself conscious of no error, nor, as he said, had any been proved against him from the Scriptures. He declared that he would not condemn the truth, nor perjure himself. His books were burned by order of the council (24 June). New efforts to obtain a retractation proved fruitless. He was brought for final sentence before the fifteenth session (6 July, 1415), at which the emperor assisted, and on which occasion thirty propositions, taken mostly from the work of Hus “On the Church” (De Ecclesiâ), were read publicly. He refused to retract anything and so was condemned as a heretic, deposed, and degraded, and handed over to the secular arm, which in turn condemned him to perish at the stake, at that time the usual legal punishment of convicted heretics. He suffered that cruel death with self-possession and courage and when about to expire cried out, it is said: “Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on us!” His ashes were thrown into the Rhine. Owing largely to the dramatic circumstances of his death, he became at once the hero of Bohemian patriotism and the martyr-saint of multitudes in Bohemia and elsewhere who shared his demagogic and revolutionary principles. They were surely incompatible with either the ecclesiastical or the civil order of the time, and would at any period have bred both religious and civil anarchy, had they been put into practice. As to the safe-conduct of the emperor, we must distinguish, says Dr. von Funk (Kirchengeschichte, 3d ed., Freiburg, 1902, p. 495, and the more recent literature there quoted; also “Der Katholik,” 1898, LXXVIII, 186–90, and K. Müller, non-Catholic, in the “Hist. Vierteljahrschrift,” 1898, 41–86) between the arrest of Hus at Constance and his execution. The former act was always accounted in Bohemia a violation of the safe-conduct and a breach of faith on the emperor’s part; on the other hand they knew well, and so did Hus, that the safe-conduct was only a guarantee against illegal violence and could not protect him from the sentence of his legitimate judges. (On the death penalty for heresy, see Ficker, “Die gesetzliche Einführung der Todestrafe für Häresie” in “Mittheil. d. Inst. f. oest. Geschichtsforschung,” 1888, 177 sqq., and Havet, “L’hérésie et le bras séculier au moyen âge jusqu’au XIIIe siècle,” Paris, 1881; see also Gosselin, “Temporal Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,” I, 85–89). In the medieval German codes known as the Sachsenspiegel (about 1225) and the Schwabenspiegel (about 1275), heresy is already punishable with the stake. It is not true that the council declared that no faith should be kept with a heretic (see Pallavicino, “Hist. Conc. Trid.,” XII, 15, 8; Höfler in “Hist. polit. Blätter,” IV, 421, and Hefele, “Conciliengesch.,” VII, 227, also Baudrillart, op. cit., II, 1217). In the following year Jerome (Hieronymus) of Prague, the friend of Hus, suffered the same fate at Constance. He had come voluntarily to the council in April, 1415, but soon fled the city; afterwards, mindful of the fate of Hus, he obtained from the council a safe-conduct to return for his defence. He did not appear, however, and was soon seized in Bavaria and brought in chains to Constance. In September, 1415, he abjured the forty-five propositions of Wyclif and the thirty of Hus, but did not regain his freedom, as his sincerity was suspected, and new charges were made against him. Finally, he was brought before the council, 23 May, 1416, one year after his arrest. This time he solemnly withdrew his abjuration as a sinful act and compelled by fear, and proclaimed Hus a holy and upright man. He was forthwith condemned as a heretic in the twenty-first session (30 May, 1416) and perished at the stake with no less courage than Hus. The humanist Poggio was an eyewitness of his death, and his letter to Leonardo of Arezzo, describing the scene, may be seen in Hefele, “Conciliengesch.,” VII, 280 sqq. The death of both Hus and Jerome of Prague affected strongly other humanists of the time; Æneas Sylvius (later Pius II) said that they went to their deaths as men invited to a banquet. The immediate consequences were grave enough, i. e. the long Utraquist wars. For an equitable criticism of the defects in the trials of both Hus and Jerome see Baudrillart in “Dict. de théol. cath.,” II, 1216–17. (See also HUSSITES.)

JEAN PETIT (JOHANNES PARVUS) AND JOHANN VON FOLKENBERG

The question of the licity of tyrannicide occupied the attention of the council. The Franciscan Jean Petit (Parvus) had publicly defended (in nine theses) the Duke of Burgundy for his share in the murder of Louis d’Orléans (23 Nov., 1407), on the ground that any subject might kill or cause to be killed a tyrannical ruler (Kervyn de Lettenhove, Jean sans peur et l’apologie du tyrannicide, Brussels, 1861). After several years of discussion this thesis was condemned at Paris in 1414 by the bishop, the inquisitor, and the university. The Duke of Burgundy appealed to the Roman See. At Constance the matter was discussed in the fifteenth session (6 July, 1415); many French doctors were eager for the formal condemnation of Petit and his theses, but his Franciscan brethren defended him in a common memorial; the council finally was content with condemning in a general way the proposition that, regardless of his oath and without awaiting a judicial sentence, any vassal or subject might licitly kill, or cause to be killed, a tyrant. Quite similar was the case of Johann von Falkenberg, a German Dominican, who had maintained in a violent work against the King of Poland that it was allowed to kill him and all other Poles (Mansi, Conc., XXVII, 765). Many demanded with much earnestness the condemnation of Falkenberg, but no definite sentence was pronounced, despite the ardent discussions (see TYRANNICIDE), not even in the forty-fifth (last) session when the Poles urged it on Martin V; he declared that in matters of faith he would approve only what had been decided by the holy general council conciliariter, i. e. by the whole council and not by one or more nations. As noted above, these words of the pope refer only to the particular (Falkenberg) matter before him and not to all the decrees of the council, even in matters of faith.

IV. ATTENDANCE AT THE COUNCIL; GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Owing to its long duration the attendance at the council varied much. The highest figures reached were: 29 cardinals, 3 patriarchs, 33 archbishops, 150 bishops, 100 abbots, 50 provosts, 300 doctors (mostly of theology). It was calculated that some 5000 monks and friars were present and in all about 18,000 ecclesiastics. The visitors are variously reckoned from 50,000 to 100,000 or more. Many European sovereigns and princes were present, invited by the emperor, among them (besides Emperor Sigismund and his suite) the Electors Ludwig von der Pfalz and Rudolph of Saxony, the Dukes of Bavaria, Austria, Saxony, Schleswig, Mecklenburg, Lorraine, and Teck, the Margrave of Brandenburg, also the ambassadors of the Kings of France, England, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Naples, and the Spanish kingdoms. Towards the end the Greek emperor, Michael Palæologus, was also present (19 Feb., 1418, with 19 Greek bishops). In some respects the council resembled more a modern Catholic congress than a traditional ecclesiastical synod. The numerous princes and nobles by their tournaments and splendid amusements; the merchants by their rich and curious wares; the travellers by their number and importance; the fringe of fakirs and mountebanks found at all popular gatherings, made Constance for the time the cynosure of all Europe and even of the Greek world. There is, of course, no reason to wonder that in so motley a throng, suddenly gathered from all quarters, moral disorders and loose living should have manifested themselves. Quite apart from the reliability or animus of some gossipy chroniclers, the council was directly responsible only for its own acts and not for the life of the city of Constance. It must also be remembered that in one way or another unforeseen events and situations protracted the council beyond all ordinary prevision. Among these were: the flight of John XXIII; the lengthy process of Benedict XIII; the general jealousy and dislike of the cardinals, and in turn, the natural efforts of the latter to save the ecclesiastical constitution from thorough ruin at the unhappiest moment for the papal authority, hitherto its corner-stone; the passionate longing for a public canonical purification of Catholicism from its acknowledged abuses and excrescences (in the head and in the Roman Curia). We need not wonder that at the end of his remarkable diary of the council, Cardinal Guillaume Fillastre wrote as follows (Finke ed., Forschungen und Quellen, p. 242): “Hoc Constantiense concilium . . . omnibus quæ precesserunt generalibus conciliis fuit in congregando difficilius, in progressu singularius, mirabilius et periculosius, et tempore diuturnius,” i. e. no previous council was gotten together with so much difficulty, or ran a career so unique, marvellous and perilous, or lasted so long. From an ecclesiastical point of view, the Council of Constance may truly be said to close the medieval and to open the modern period. It was an anti-climax for the all-dominant medieval papacy, while in Sigismund (Emperor-elect, King of Hungary, heir of Bohemia, etc.) for the last time appears a pale image of the ideal office of the medieval empire. The language of its orators and its “Acta” exhibits a certain dawn of Humanism (Finke) while there for the first time modern nationalism, quite different from its medieval prototype, comes to the front, dominates the entire situation, menaces even the immemorial unity of the Church, and begins its long career of discordant relations with the central administration of Catholicism (see GALLICANISM; JOHANN HONTHEIM). Not a few elements of the later ecclesiastical revolution under Luther are already visibly present at Constance. The German nation in particular remained grievously discontented with the local results of the second of the great reform councils (Pisa, Constance, Basle), and throughout the fifteenth century sought variously, but with little success, to realize the demands put forth at the Council of Constance. [See EUGENE IV; MARTIN V; SIGISMUND, EMPEROR; F. Rocquain, “La cour de Rome et l’esprit de réforme avant Luther” (Paris, 1900), also Pastor (see below), and Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” etc. POPE; PRIMACY; REFORMATION; CHURCH; TRENT, COUNCIL OF; VATICAN, COUNCILS OF THE.]

Acts of the Council- chief collection of the Acts of the council and pertinent documents is that of VON DER HARDT, in six folio volumes, Magnum oecumenicum Constantiense concilium (Frankfort and Leipzig, 1692–1700), whence they passed into HARDOUIN (VIII) and MANSI (XXVII-XXVIII). All former editions, however, of these Acts and documents are in many ways imperfect and uncritically edited, and must give way to the (partly finished) edition of HEINRICH FINKE, Acta Concilii Constantiensis I. (Münster, 1896), from 1410 to 1414; Acta Aragonensia (1907); cf. Zur Kritik der Akten, etc., in his Forschungen und Quellen (below), 52–68; also NOËL VALOIS, in preface to Vol. III of La France et le grand schisme d’Occident (Paris, 1901). Many important documents are in RAYNALDUS, Ann. Eccl., ad ann. 1414–18; see also for important correspondence and other documents MARTÈNE AND DURAND, Thesaurus novus anecd., II, and DÖLLINGER, Beiträge zur Gesch. des XV-XVI. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1863), II. Cf. Deutsche Reichstagsakten, IV-XI, from 1400 to 1438 (Munich and Gotha, 1878–1900), a very important collection of civil and ecclesiastical interest; also the writings of PIERRE D’AILLY and GERSON.

Modern Histories of the Council- (Calvinist), Hist. du Concile de Constance (2nd ed., Amsterdam, 1727); ROYKO (Josephinist), Gesch. der grossen allg. Kirchenversammlung zu Costnitz (Prague and Vienna 1782); WESSENBERG (Febronian), Die grossen Kirchenversammlungen des XV. und XVI. Jahrhunderts (Constance, 1840); CREIGHTON (non-Catholic), A History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation, I: The Great Schism and the Council of Constance (London, 1882). Excellent Catholic accounts: TOSTI, Storia del Concilio di Costanza (Naples, 1883); HEFELE, Conciliengeseh., VII. 26, 66 sqq.; PASTOR, History of the Popes, Vol. I, bk. II; SALEMBIER, Le grand schisme d’Occident (Paris, 1902). 291–416, has good literature of the subject; MARMOR, Das Konzil zu Constanz (ibid., 1898): BLIEMETZRIEDER, Das Generalkonzil zu Constanz (1904).

Diaries and Chronicles- most important of the contemporary accounts of the council is the Diary of GUILLAUME FILLASTRE, Cardinal, of San Marco, and a leading spirit during the entire council. Dr. Finke says (p. 77) that it is throughout trustworthy and exact (it has been edited by him from Vatican Manuscripts 4173 and 4175, in Forschungen und Quellen (below), 163–242). Among the chroniclers of the council are THEODORICUS (DIETERICH) DE VRIE, an Osnabrück Augustinian, De consolations Ecclesiae, seu Hist. Conc. Const., in the first volume of VON DER HARDT; THEODORICUS (DIETERICH) VON NIEM, a well-informed but partial and vindictive writer, De schismate libri III ed. ERLER (Leipzig, 1890), ID., Nemus unionis (Basle, 1566). and ID., Historia de vitâ Johannis XXIII, in the second volume of VON DER HARDT; ULRICH VON RICHENTHAL, Chronik des Konstanzer Konzils, ed. M. R. BUCK, in Bibl. d. litterär. Vereins in Stuttgart (Tübingen, 1882). Vol. CLVIII.

Lives of Prominent Participants- Geschichte Kaiser Sigismunds (Hamburg, 1838–45); JEEP, Gerson, Wicliff und Hess (Göttingen, 1857); LOSERTH, J. Huss und Wiciif (Prague, 1884); SCHWAB, Johannes Gerson (Würzburg, 1858); MASSON, Jean Gerson (Lyons, 1894); SALEMBIER, Petrus de Alliaco (Lille. 1886); TSCHACKERT, Peter von Ailli (Gotha, 1877); FAGES, Hist. de Saint Vincent Ferrier (2nd ed., Louvain, 1901).

Special Dissertations-, Die Entstehung der konziliaren Theorie (Rome, 1893); BESS, Studien z. Gesch. des Konstanzer Koncils (1891), I;, Les délégués des universités françaises au Concile de Constance in Revue des Bibliothèques (Paris, 1892); also his Désolation des églises, des monastères et des hôpitaux de France durant la guerre de cent ans (Paris, 1889); FINKE, Forschungen und Quellen zur Geschichte des Konstanzer Konzils (Paderborn, 1889); IDEM, Bilder vom Konstanzer Konzil in the Almanach of the Bad. Hist. Commission for 1903; KEPPLER, Die Politik des Kardinalskollegiums in Konstanz (Münster, 1899); F. MÜLLER, Der Kampf um die Autorität auf dem Konzil zu Konstans (Berlin, 1860); SIEBEKING, Die Organisation u. Geschäftsordnung des Costnitzer Konsils (Leipzig, 1875), and STUHR, Die Organisation u. Geschäftsordnung des Pisaner u. Konst. Konsils (Schwerin, 1891); TRUTTMANN, Das Konklave auf dem Konzil zu Constanz (Freiburg, 1899).

Encyclopedia Articles-ÜPPER in Kirchenlex. VII 978–1006; VOIGT-BESS in HAUCK, Realencykl. XI, 30–34; ZELLER in Kirckliches Handlexikon (Munich, 1908), II, 470 sqq., BAUDRILLART in Dict. de théol. cath. (Paris, 1908), II, 1200–24.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Constantia

A titular see of Arabia and suffragan of Bostra. It figures in Hierocles’ “Synecdemus” about 533, in the “Notitiæ episcopatuum” of Anastasius I, Patriarch of Antioch, in the sixth century, and in Georgius Cyprius’ “Descriptio orbis Romani” in the beginning of the seventh century. Two bishops only are known: Chilon, present at Constantinople in 381 (Mansi, Coll. Con., III, 569; Lequien, II, 865, says wrongly at Nicæa in 325), and Solemus at Chalcedon in 451 (Mansi, VII, 168). Eubel mentions (I, 211) three Latin bishops of Constantia in Ph nicia during the fourteenth century; this city is otherwise unknown and may be our Arabian see. Waddington (Inscriptions grecques et latines . . . Syrie, 575) has identified with much likelihood Constantia with Brâk, north of Ledja, in Trachonitis. Brâk had a special era, and inscriptions prove that it had been embellished by Constantine, whence it took its name Constantia (also Constantine, or Constantiana). The ruins are rather important. There have recently settled on this site some Circassian immigrants. Constantia in Arabia is not to be confounded with Constantia, a suffragan see of Amida in Mesopotamia; Constantia, or Tella, a renowned Jacobite bishopric whose ruins are at Viran-Shehir, half-way between Mardin and Edessa; nor with Constantia, or Salamis, metropolis of Cyprus.

Revue biblique (1898), VII, 96–100, 283–285.

S. VAILHÉ

Pope Constantine

Consecrated 25 March, 708; d. 9 April, 715; a Syrian, the son of John, and “a remarkably affable man.” The first half of his reign was marked by a cruel famine in Rome, the second by an extraordinary abundance. For some time he had trouble with Felix, Archbishop of Ravenna, whom he had himself consecrated. Relying on the secular power, the new bishop refused to offer the pope due obedience. It was only after he had tasted of dire misfortune that Felix submitted. Constantine received as pilgrims two Anglo-Saxon kings, Coenred of Mercia and Offa of the East Saxons. They both received the tonsure in Rome and embraced the monastic life. (Bede, Hist. eccl., V, xix, xx.) St. Egwin, Bishop of Worcester, went to Rome along with them and obtained from the pope various privileges for his monastery of Evesham. (“Chron. Abbat. de Evesham,” in R. S.; “St. Egwin and his Abbey of Evesham,” London, 1904.) The extant documents regarding this monastery which bear this pope’s name are all spurious. (They are to be found in Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils,” III, 281.) But his privilege for the monasteries of Bermondsey and Woking (ibid., 276) may be genuine.

In 692 the Emperor Justinian II had caused to assemble the so-called Quinisext or Trullan Council. At this assembly, which was attended only by Greek bishops, 102 canons were passed, many of which established customs opposed to those of Rome. By canon xiii the celibacy of the Greek secular clergy became a thing of the past; and by canon xxxvi, a further step was taken in the direction of rendering the Patriarch of constantinople quite independent of the Holy See. Justinian made every effort to secure the adhesion of the popes to these decrees. But one after another they all refused. At length he sent an order to Constantine to repair to Constantinople. Leaving behind him, according to the custom at the time, the archpriest, the archdeacon, and the Primicerius, or chief of the notaries, to govern the Church in his absence, he set sail for the East (709) with a number of bishops and clergy. Wherever his vessel touched, he was, by Justinian’s orders, received with as much honour as the emperor himself. He entered Constantinople in triumph, and at Justinian’s request crossed over to Nicomedia, where he was then residing. Strange to say, this cruel prince received the pope with the greatest honour, prostrating himself before him and kissing his feet. After receiving Holy Communion at the hands of the pope, he renewed all the privileges of the Roman Church. Exactly what passed between them on the subject of the Quinisext Council is not known. It would appear, however, that Constantine approved those canons which were not opposed to the true Faith or to sound morals, and that with this qualified approval of his council the emperor was content.

Soon after Constantine’s return to Rome (Oct., 711), Justinian II was dethroned by Philippicus Bardanes. The new emperor strove to revive Monothelism, and sent a letter to the pope which the latter caused to be examined in a synod and condemned. Further, as the emperor burnt the Acts of the Sixth General Council, restored to the diptychs the names which that council had caused to be erased, re-erected their images, and removed the representation of the council which was hanging in front of the palace, the pope and the people of Rome placed in the portico of St. Peter’s a series of representations of the six general councils, and refused to place the new emperor’s name on their charters or their money. They also declined to place his statue, according to custom, in the official chapel of St. Cæsarius on the Palatine, the site of which has just been discovered (1907), or to pray for him in the Canon of the Mass. To punish the Romans for these daring measures, a new duke was sent to Rome, and they would no doubt have had much to suffer but for the opportune deposition of Philippicus by the orthodox Anastasius (Whitsun Eve, 713). The new emperor made haste to dispatch to Rome, through the Exarch Scholasticus, a letter in which he professed his orthodoxy and his adhesion to the Sixth General Council, which had condemned Monothelism. Constantine also received a letter from John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, acknowledging that the “apostolical pre-eminence of the Pope is to the whole Church, what the head is to the body,” and that “according to the canons he is the head of the Christian priesthood.” John assured the pope that, while cooperating with the Emperor Philippicus, he had always been orthodox at heart, and that the decree, drawn up at the council in which the heretical emperor had hoped to re-establish Monothelism (712), was really orthodox in sense, although not apparently so in words. (See John’s letter in the epilogue of the Deacon Agatho, in Mansi, “Coll. Conc.,” XII, 192.)

Among other distinguished men who came to Rome in the days of Constantine was Benedict, Archbishop of Milan. He came not only to pray at the shrines of the Apostles, for he was a man of such remarkable holiness that he was distinguished for it in all Italy (Paul the Deacon, Hist., VI, xxix), but also to discuss with the pope as to whose immediate jurisdiction belonged the Church of Pavia. At one time, certainly in the fifth century, the bishops of Pavia were subject to the bishops of Milan and were consecrated by them. For some reason, perhaps because the Lombards made Pavia their capital, its bishops had ceased to be dependent on those of Milan, and had become directly subject to the popes. Accordingly, when it had been proved to Benedict that for some long time at least they had been consecrated at Rome, he definitely surrendered his claim to jurisdiction over them. The visit of a pope to a city at any distance from Rome being so comparatively rare, the people of several places at which Constantine touched in his journey to and from Constantinople were only too pleased to be able to avail themselves of the opportunity of getting him to consecrate a bishop for them. It is on record that he consecrated twelve in this way, and, at the customary times and places, no less than sixty-four.

Lib. pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, 389; Mann, Lives of the Popes (London, St. Louis, 1902), I, pt. II, 127 sqq.

HORACE K. MANN.

Diocese of Constantine (Cirta)

DIOCESE OF CONSTANTINE (CONSTANTINIANA).

Comprises the present arrondissement of Constantine in Algeria. It was separated from the Diocese of Algiers 25 July, 1866. A pontifical Brief, dated 1867, authorized its bishop to adopt the title of Bishop of Constantine and Hippo.

The city of Cirta, which took in the fourth century the name of its restorer, Constantine, and in which this emperor built two churches, was an episcopal see from the second century up to the time of the Mussulman invasion. The Bishops Agapius and Secundinus, the soldier AEmilianus, and the virgins Tertulla and Antonia were martyred there under Valerian (253–60). A Latin inscription cut in the rocks at the entrance to the Rummel Pass (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum: Africa, 7924) mentions Sts. Marian and James as martyrs either at Cirta or Lambesa during the same persecution. Within the territory now comprising the Diocese of Constantine there were, in the fifth century, 195 dioceses, whose titles and episcopal lists have been published by Mgr. Toulotte, among them the Diocese Of Hippo, governed by St. Augustine in the fifth century. On 30 August, 1842, Mgr. Dupuch, Bishop of Algiers, brought the right arm of St. Augustine from Pavia to Hippo, and the anniversary of the translation of this precious relic is celebrated annually. A new basilica erected on the hill of Hippo, purchased by Mgr. Lavigerie in 1880, was consecrated 11 March, 1900. Prior to the enforcement of the law of 1901, there were in the diocese Lazarists, the Little Brothers of Mary, and the White Fathers; at present only the latter remain. In 1900 the diocese contained 2 foundling asylums, 22 infant asylums, 2 boys’ orphanages, 4 girls’ orphanages, 3 industrial schools, 2 houses of shelter, 13 hospitals and hospices, 7 dispensaries, and 15 houses of religious who care for the sick. At the close of 1905 (end of the period under the Concordat) the diocese had a population of 137,041; 5 pastorates, 67 succursal parishes (mission churches), and 17 curacies remunerated by the State.

GEORGES GOYAU

Constantine Africanus

A medieval medical writer and teacher; born c. 1015; died c. 1087. His name, Africanus, comes from the place of his nativity, Carthage in Africa. Early in life he devoted himself to the study of medicine, and as was the custom of the times made distant journeys, some of which brought him into the Far East. He became familiar with the Oriental languages and studied Arabian literature very deeply. His studies in Arabian medicine taught him many things unknown to his Western contemporaries. On his return to Cartage this led to great jealousy on the part of his professional brethren and to so much unpleasantness, for he is even said to have been accused of practicing magic, that he gladly accepted the position of secretary of the Emperor Constantine Monomachus in Reggio, a small town near Byzantium. While in Salerno Constantine became a professor of medicine and attracted widespread attention. He remained but a few years in this position, however, and gave up his honors and his worldly goods to become a Benedictine in the monastery of Monte Cassino. He was received with open arms by the Abbot Desiderius, one of the most learned men o the time, who afterwards became Pope Victor III. Nearly twenty years of Constantine’s life were spent at Monte Cassino. He occupied himself with the writing of books, being stimulated thereto by Desiderius who was his most intimate friend. His best-known work is the so-called “Liber Pantegni,” which is really a translation of the “Khitaab el Maleki” of Ali Ben el-Abbas. This book he dedicated to Desiderius. He also wrote some original works, but it has been found so difficult to separate what is undoubtedly genuine from what came to be attributed to him in time, that there is no certainty as to his original contributions to medicine. With Constantine begins the second epoch of the Salernitan School of Medicine, especially notable for its translation of all the great writes on medicine, Greek as well as Arabian, and for original work of a high order. Many of the distinguished professors of the twelfth century at Salerno were proud to proclaim Constantine as their master. Of the Many editions of his works the chief is that of Basle (in fol., 1536).

JAMES J. WALSH

Constantine the Great

Constantine the Great. His coins give his name as M., or more frequently as C., Flavius Valerius Constantinus. He was born at Naissus, now Nisch in Servia [Nis, Serbia—Ed.], the son of a Roman officer, Constantius, who later became Roman Emperor, and St. Helena, a woman of humble extraction but remarkable character and unusual ability. The date of his birth is not certain, being given as early as 274 and as late as 288. After his father’s elevation to the dignity of Caesar we find him at the court of Diocletian and later (305) fighting under Galerius on the Danube. When, on the resignation of his father Constantius was made Augustus, the new Emperor of the West asked Galerius, the Eastern Emperor, to let Constantine, whom he had not seen for a long time, return to his father’s court. This was reluctantly granted. Constantine joined his father, under whom he had just time to distinguish himself in Britain before death carried off Constantius (25 July, 306). Constantine was immediately proclaimed Caesar by his troops, and his title was acknowledged by Galerius somewhat hesitatingly. This event was the first break in Diocletian’s scheme of a four-headed empire (tetrarchy) and was soon followed by the proclamation in Rome of Maxentius, the son of Maximian, a tyrant and profligate, as Caesar, October, 306.

During the wars between Maxentius and the Emperors Severus and Galerius, Constantine remained inactive in his provinces. The attempt which the old Emperors Diocletian and Maximian made, at Carmentum in 307, to restore order in the empire having failed, the promotion of Licinius to the position of Augustus, the assumption of the imperial title by Maximinus Daia, and Maxentius’ claim to be sole emperor (April, 308), led to the proclamation of Constantine as Augustus. Constantine, having the most efficient army, was acknowledged as such by Galerius, who was fighting against Maximinus in the East, as well as by Licinius.

So far Constantine, who was at this time defending his own frontier against the Germans, had taken no part in the quarrels of the other claimants to the throne. But when, in 311, Galerius, the eldest Augustus and the most violent persecutor of the Christians, had died a miserable death, after cancelling his edicts against the Christians, and when Maxentius, after throwing down Constantine’s statues, proclaimed him a tyrant, the latter saw that war was inevitable. Though his army was far inferior to that of Maxentius, numbering according to various statements from 25,000 to 100,000 men, while Maxentius disposed of fully 190,000, he did not hesitate to march rapidly into Italy (spring of 312). After storming Susa and almost annihilating a powerful army near Turin, he continued his march southward. At Verona he met a hostile army under the prefect of Maxentius’ guard, Ruricius, who shut himself up in the fortress. While besieging the city Constantine, with a detachment of his army, boldly assailed a fresh force of the enemy coming to the relief of the besieged fortress and completely defeated it. The surrender of Verona was the consequence. In spite of the overwhelming numbers of his enemy (an estimated 100,000 in Maxentius’ army against 20,000 in Constantine’s army) the emperor confidently marched forward to Rome. A vision had assured him that he should conquer in the sign of the Christ, and his warriors carried Christ’s monogram on their shields, though the majority of them were pagans. The opposing forces met near the bridge over the Tiber called the Milvian Bridge, and here Maxentius’ troops suffered a complete defeat, the tyrant himself losing his life in the Tiber (28 October, 312). Of his gratitude to the God of the Christians the victor immediately gave convincing proof; the Christian worship was henceforth tolerated throughout the empire (Edict of Milan, early in 313). His enemies he treated with the greatest magnanimity; no bloody executions followed the victory of the Milvian Bridge. Constantine stayed in Rome but a short time after his victory. Proceeding to Milan (end of 312, or beginning of 313) he met his colleague the Augustus Licinius, married his sister to him, secured his protection for the Christians in the East, and promised him support against Maximinus Daia. The last, a bigoted pagan and a cruel tyrant, who persecuted the Christians even after Galerius’ death, was now defeated by Licinius, whose soldiers, by his orders, had invoked the God of the Christians on the battle-field (30 April, 313). Maximinus, in his turn, implored the God of the Christians, but died of a painful disease in the following autumn.

Of all Diocletian’s tetrarchs Licinius was now the only survivor. His treachery soon compelled Constantine to make war on him. Pushing forward with his wonted impetuosity, the emperor struck him a decisive blow at Cibalae (8 October, 314). But Licinius was able to recover himself, and the battle fought between the two rivals at Castra Jarba (November, 314) left the two armies in such a position that both parties thought it best to make peace. For ten years the peace lasted, but when, about 322, Licinius, not content with openly professing paganism, began to persecute the Christians, while at the same time he treated with contempt Constantine’s undoubted rights and privileges, the outbreak of war was certain, and Constantine gathered an army of 125,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry, besides a fleet of 200 vessels to gain control of the Bosporus. Licinius, on the other hand, by leaving the eastern boundaries of the empire undefended succeeded in collecting an even more numerous army, made up of 150,000 infantry and 15,000 cavalry, while his fleet consisted of no fewer than 350 ships. The opposing armies met at Adrianople, 3 July, 324, and Constantine’s well disciplined troops defeated and put to flight the less disciplined forces of Licinius. Licinius strengthened the garrison of Byzantium so that an attack seemed likely to result in failure and the only hope of taking the fortress lay in a blockade and famine. This required the assistance of Constantine’s fleet, but his opponent’s ships barred the way. A sea fight at the entrance to the Dardanelles was indecisive, and Constantine’s detachment retired to Elains, where it joined the bulk of his fleet. When the fleet of the Licinian admiral Abantus pursued on the following day, it was overtaken by a violent storm which destroyed 130 ships and 5000 men. Constantine crossed the Bosporus, leaving a sufficient corps to maintain the blockade of Byzantium, and overtook his opponent’s main body at Chrysopolis, near Chalcedon. Again he inflicted on him a crushing defeat, killing 25,000 men and scattering the greater part of the remainder. Licinius with 30,000 men escaped to Nicomedia. But he now saw that further resistance was useless. He surrendered at discretion, and his noble-hearted conqueror spared his life. But when, in the following year (325), Licinius renewed his treacherous practices he was condemned to death by the Roman Senate and executed.

Henceforth, Constantine was sole master of the Roman Empire. Shortly after the defeat of Licinius, Constantine determined to make Constantinople the future capital of the empire, and with his usual energy he took every measure to enlarge, strengthen, and beautify it. For the next ten years of his reign he devoted himself to promoting the moral, political, and economical welfare of his possessions and made dispositions for the future government of the empire. While he placed his nephews, Dalmatius and Hannibalianus in charge of lesser provinces, he designated his sons Constantius, Constantine, and Constans as the future rulers of the empire. Not long before his end, the hostile movement of the Persian king, Shâpûr, again summoned him into the field. When he was about to march against the enemy he was seized with an illness of which he died in May, 337, after receiving baptism.

Charles G. Herbermann.

Historical Appreciation.—Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State. It is true that the deeper reasons for this change are to be found in the religious movement of the time, but these reasons were hardly imperative, as the Christians formed only a small portion of the population, being a fifth part in the West and the half of the population in a large section of the East. Constantine’s decision depended less on general conditions than on a personal act; his personality, therefore, deserves careful consideration.

Long before this, belief in the old polytheism had been shaken; in more stolid natures, as Diocletian, it showed its strength only in the form of superstition, magic, and divination. The world was fully ripe for monotheism or its modified form, henotheism, but this monotheism offered itself in varied guises, under the forms of various Oriental religions: in the worship of the sun, in the veneration of Mithras, in Judaism, and in Christianity. Whoever wished to avoid making a violent break with the past and his surroundings sought out some Oriental form of worship which did not demand from him too severe a sacrifice; in such cases Christianity naturally came last. Probably many of the more noble-minded recognized the truth contained in Judaism and Christianity, but believed that they could appropriate it without being obliged on that account to renounce the beauty of other worships. Such a man was the Emperor Alexander Severus; another thus minded was Aurelian, whose opinions were confirmed by Christians like Paul of Samosata. Not only Gnostics and other heretics, but Christians who considered themselves faithful, held in a measure to the worship of the sun. Leo the Great in his day says that it was the custom of many Christians to stand on the steps of the church of St. Peter and pay homage to the sun by obeisance and prayers (cf. Euseb. Alexand. in Mai, “Nov. Patr. Bibl.,” 11, 523; Augustine, “Enarratio in Ps. x”; Leo I, Serm. xxvi). When such conditions prevailed it is easy to understand that many of the emperors yielded to the delusion that they could unite all their subjects in the adoration of the one sun-god who combined in himself the Father-God of the Christians and the much-worshipped Mithras; thus the empire could be founded anew on unity of religion. Even Constantine, as will be shown farther on, for a time cherished this mistaken belief. It looks almost as though the last persecutions of the Christians were directed more against all irreconcilables and extremists than against the great body of Christians. The policy of the emperors was not a consistent one; Diocletian was at first friendly towards Christianity; even its grimmest foe, Julian, wavered. Caesar Constantius, Constantine’s father, protected the Christians during a most cruel persecution.

Constantine grew up under the influence of his father’s ideas. He was the son of Constantius Chlorus by his first, informal marriage, called concubinatus, with Helena, a woman of inferior birth. For a short time Constantine had been compelled to stay at the court of Galerius, and had evidently not received a good impression from his surroundings there. When Diocletian retired, Constantius advanced from the position of Caesar to that of Augustus, and the army, against the wishes of the other emperors, raised the young Constantine to the vacant position. Right here was seen at once how unsuccessful would be the artificial system of division of the empire and succession to the throne by which Diocletian sought to frustrate the overweening power of the Praetorian Guard. Diocletian’s personality is full of contradictions; he was just as crude in his religious feelings as he was shrewd and far-seeing in state affairs; a man of autocratic nature, but one who, under certain circumstances, voluntarily set bounds to himself. He began a reconstruction of the empire, which Constantine completed. The existence of the empire was threatened by many serious evils, the lack of national and religious unity, its financial and military weakness. Consequently the system of taxation had to be accommodated to the revived economic barter system. The taxes bore most heavily on the peasants, the peasant communities, and the landed proprietors; increasingly heavy compulsory service was also laid on those engaged in industrial pursuits, and they were therefore combined into state guilds. The army was strengthened, the troops on the frontier being increased to 360,000 men. In addition, the tribes living on the frontiers were taken into the pay of the State as allies, many cities were fortified, and new fortresses and garrisons were established, bringing soldiers and civilians more into contact, contrary to the old Roman axiom. When a frontier was endangered the household troops took the field. This body of soldiers, known as palatini, comitatenses, which had taken the place of the Praetorian Guard, numbered not quite 200,000 men (sometimes given as 194,500). A good postal service maintained constant communication between the different parts of the empire. The civil and military administration were, perhaps, somewhat more sharply divided than before, but an equally increased importance was laid on the military capacity of all state officials. Service at court was termed militia, “military service.” Over all, like to a god, was enthroned the emperor, and the imperial dignity was surrounded by a halo, a sacredness, a ceremonial, which was borrowed from the Oriental theocracies. The East from the earliest times had been a favourable soil for theocratic government; each ruler was believed by his people to be in direct communication with the godhead, and the law of the State was regarded as revealed law. In the same manner the emperors allowed themselves to be venerated as holy oracles and deities, and everything connected with them was called sacred. Instead of imperial, the word sacred had now always to be used. A large court-retinue, elaborate court-ceremonials, and an ostentatious court-costume made access to the emperor more difficult. Whoever wished to approach the head of the State must first pass through many ante-rooms and prostrate himself before the emperor as before a divinity. As the old Roman population had no liking for such ceremonial, the emperors showed a constantly increasing preference for the East, where monotheism held almost undisputed sway, and where, besides, economic conditions were better. Rome was no longer able to control the whole of the great empire with its peculiar civilizations.

In all directions new and vigorous national forces began to show themselves. Only two policies were possible: either to give way to the various national movements, or to take a firm stand on the foundation of antiquity, to revive old Roman principles, the ancient military severity, and the patriotism of Old Rome. Several emperors had tried to follow this latter course, but in vain. It was just as impossible to bring men back to the old simplicity as to make them return to the old pagan beliefs and to the national form of worship. Consequently, the empire had to identify itself with the progressive movement, employ as far as possible the existing resources of national life, exercise tolerance, make concessions to the new religious tendencies, and receive the Germanic tribes into the empire. This conviction constantly spread, especially as Constantine’s father had obtained good results therefrom. In Gaul, Britain, and Spain, where Constantius Chlorus ruled, peace and contentment prevailed, and the prosperity of the provinces visibly increased, while in the East prosperity was undermined by the existing confusion and instability. But it was especially in the western part of the empire that the veneration of Mithras predominated. Would it not be possible to gather all the different nationalities around his altars? Could not Sol Deus Invictus, to whom even Constantine dedicated his coins for a long time, or Sol Mithras Deus Invictus, venerated by Diocletian and Galerius, become the supreme god of the empire? Constantine may have pondered over this. Nor had he absolutely rejected the thought even after a miraculous event had strongly influenced him in favour of the God of the Christians.

In deciding for Christianity he was no doubt also influenced by reasons of conscience—reasons resulting from the impression made on every unprejudiced person both by the Christians and by the moral force of Christianity, and from the practical knowledge which the emperors had of the Christian military officers and state officials. These reasons are, however, not mentioned in history, which gives the chief prominence to a miraculous event. Before Constantine advanced against his rival Maxentius, according to ancient custom he summoned the haruspices, who prophesied disaster; so reports a pagan panegyrist. But when the gods would not aid him, continues this writer, one particular god urged him on, for Constantine had close relations with the divinity itself. Under what form this connection with the deity manifested itself is told by Lactantius (De mort. persec., ch. xliv) and Eusebius (Vita Const., I, xxvi-xxxi). He saw, according to the one in a dream, according to the other in a vision, a heavenly manifestation, a brilliant light in which he believed he descried the cross or the monogram of Christ. Strengthened by this apparition, he advanced courageously to battle, defeated his rival and won the supreme power. It was the result that gave to this vision its full importance, for when the emperor afterwards reflected on the event it was clear to him that the cross bore the inscription: HOC VINCES (in this sign wilt thou conquer). A monogram combining the first letters, X and P, of the name of Christ (CHRISTOS), a form that cannot be proved to have been used by Christians before, was made one of the tokens of the standard and placed upon the Labarum (q. v.). In addition, this ensign was placed in the hand of a statue of the emperor at Rome, the pedestal of which bore the inscription: “By the aid of this salutary token of strength I have freed my city from the yoke of tyranny and restored to the Roman Senate and People the ancient splendour and glory.” Directly after his victory Constantine granted tolerance to the Christians and next year (313) took a further step in their favour. In 313 Licinius and he issued at Milan the famous joint edict of tolerance. This declared that the two emperors had deliberated as to what would be advantageous for the security and welfare of the empire and had, above all, taken into consideration the service which man owed to the “deity.” Therefore they had decided to grant Christians and all others freedom in the exercise of religion. Everyone might follow that religion which he considered the best. They hoped that “the deity enthroned in heaven” would grant favour and protection to the emperors and their subjects. This was in itself quite enough to throw the pagans into the greatest astonishment. When the wording of the edict is carefully examined there is clear evidence of an effort to express the new thought in a manner too unmistakable to leave any doubt. The edict contains more than the belief, to which Galerius at the end had given voice, that the persecutions were useless, and it granted the Christians freedom of worship, while at the same time it endeavoured not to affront the pagans. Without doubt the term deity was deliberately chosen, for it does not exclude a heathen interpretation. The cautious expression probably originated in the imperial chancery, where pagan conceptions and pagan forms of expression still lasted for a long time. Nevertheless the change from the bloody persecution of Christianity to the toleration of it, a step which implied its recognition, may have startled many heathens and may have excited in them the same astonishment that a German would feel if an emperor who was a Social Democrat were to seize the reins of government. The foundations of the State would seem to such a one to rock. The Christians also may have been taken aback. Before this, it is true, it had occurred to Melito of Sardes (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV, xxxiii) that the emperor might some day become a Christian, but Tertullian had thought otherwise, and had written (Apol., xxi) the memorable sentence: “Sed et Caesares credidissent super Christo, si aut Caesares non essent saeculo necessarii, aut si et Christiani potuissent esse Caesares” (But the Caesars also would have believed in Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary to the world or if Christians too could have been Caesars). The same opinion was held by St. Justin (I, xii, II, xv). That the empire should become Christian seemed to Justin and many others an impossibility, and they were just as little in the wrong as the optimists were in the right. At all events, a happy day now dawned for the Christians. They must have felt as did the persecuted in the time of the French Revolution when Robespierre finally fell and the Reign of Terror was over. The feeling of emancipation from danger is touchingly expressed in the treatise ascribed to Lactantius (De mortibus persecut., in P. L., VII, 52), concerning the ways in which death overtook the persecutors. It says: “We should now give thanks to the Lord, Who has gathered together the flock that was devastated by ravening wolves, Who has exterminated the wild beasts which drove it from the pasture. Where is now the swarming multitude of our enemies, where the hangmen of Diocletian and Maximian? God has swept them from the earth; let us therefore celebrate His triumph with joy; let us observe the victory of the Lord with songs of praise, and honour Him with prayer day and night, so that the peace which we have received again after ten years of misery may be preserved to us.” The imprisoned Christians were released from the prisons and mines, and were received by their brethren in the Faith with acclamations of joy; the churches were again filled, and those who had fallen away sought forgiveness.

For a time it seemed as if merely tolerance and equality were to prevail. Constantine showed equal favour to both religious. As pontifex maximus he watched over the heathen worship and protected its rights. The one thing he did was to suppress divination and magic; this the heathen emperors had also at times sought to do. Thus, in 320, the emperor forbade the diviners or haruspices to enter a private house under pain of death. Whoever by entreaty or promise of payment persuaded a haruspex to break this law, that man’s property should be confiscated and he himself should be burned to death. Informers were to be rewarded. Whoever desired to practise heathen usages must do so openly. He must go to the public altars and sacred places, and there observe traditional forms of worship. “We do not forbid,” said the emperor, “the observance of the old usages in the light of day.” And in an ordinance of the same year, intended for the Roman city prefects, Constantine directed that if lightning struck an imperial palace, or a public building, the haruspices were to seek out according to ancient custom what the sign might signify, and their interpretation was to be written down and reported to the emperor. It was also permitted to private individuals to make use of this old custom, but in following this observance they must abstain from the forbidden sacrificia domestica. A general prohibition of the family sacrifice cannot be deduced from this, although in 341 Constantine’s son Constantius refers to such an interdict by his father (Cod. Theod., XVI, x, 2). A prohibition of this kind would have had the most severe and far-reaching results, for most sacrifices were private ones. And how could it have been carried out while public sacrifices were still customary? In the dedication of Constantinople in 330 a ceremonial half pagan, half Christian was used. The chariot of the sun-god was set in the market-place, and over its head was placed the Cross of Christ, while the Kyrie Eleison was sung. Shortly before his death Constantine confirmed the privileges of the priests of the ancient gods. Many other actions of his have also the appearance of half-measures, as if he himself had wavered and had always held in reality to some form of syncretistic religion. Thus he commanded the heathen troops to make use of a prayer in which any monotheist could join, and which ran thus: “We acknowledge thee alone as god and king, we call upon thee as our helper. From thee have we received the victory, by thee have we overcome the foe. To thee we owe that good which we have received up to now, from thee do we hope for it in the future. To thee we offer our entreaties and implore thee that thou wilt preserve to us our emperor Constantine and his god-fearing sons for many years uninjured and victorious.” The emperor went at least one step further when he withdrew his statue from the pagan temples, forbade the repair of temples that had fallen into decay, and suppressed offensive forms of worship. But these measures did not go beyond the syncretistic tendency which Constantine had shown for a long time. Yet he must have perceived more and more clearly that syncretism was impossible.

In the same way religious freedom and tolerance could not continue as a form of equality, the age was not ready for such a conception. It is true that Christian writers defended religious liberty; thus Tertullian said that religion forbids religious compulsion (Non est religionis cogere religionem quae sponte suscipi debet non vi.—”Ad Scapulam,” near the close); and Lactantius, moreover, declared: “In order to defend religion man must be willing to die, but not to kill.” Origen also took up the cause of freedom. Most probably oppression and persecution had made men realize that to have one’s way of thinking, one’s conception of the world and of life, dictated to him was a mischief-working compulsion. In contrast to the smothering violence of the ancient State, and to the power and custom of public opinion, the Christians were the defenders of freedom, but not of individual subjective freedom, nor of freedom of conscience as understood today. And even if the Church had recognized this form of freedom, the State could not have remained tolerant. Without realizing the full import of his actions, Constantine granted the Church one privilege after another. As early as 313 the Church obtained immunity for its ecclesiastics, including freedom from taxation and compulsory service, and from obligatory state offices—such for example as the curial dignity, which was a heavy burden. The Church further obtained the right to inherit property, and Constantine moreover placed Sunday under the protection of the State. It is true that the believers in Mithras also observed Sunday as well as Christmas. Consequently Constantine speaks not of the day of the Lord, but of the everlasting day of the sun. According to Eusebius, the heathen also were obliged on this day to go out into the open country and together raise their hands and repeat the prayer already mentioned, a prayer without any marked Christian character (Vita Const., IV, xx). The emperor granted many privileges to the Church for the reason that it took care of the poor and was active in benevolence. Perhaps he showed his Christian tendencies most pronouncedly in removing the legal disabilities which, since the time of Augustus, had rested on celibacy, leaving in existence only the leges decimarioe, and in recognizing an extensive ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But it should not be forgotten that the Jewish communities had also their own jurisdiction, exemptions, and immunities, even if in a more limited degree. A law of 318 denied the competence of civil courts if in a suit an appeal was made to the court of a Christian bishop. Even after a suit had begun before the civil court, it would still be permissible for one of the parties to transfer it to the bishop’s court. If both parties had been granted a legal hearing, the decision of the bishop was to be binding. A law of 333 commanded the state officials to enforce the decisions of the bishops, a bishop’s testimony should be considered sufficient by all judges and no witness was to be summoned after a bishop had testified. These concessions were so far-reaching that the Church itself felt the great increase of its jurisdiction as a constraint. Later emperors limited this jurisdiction to cases of voluntary submission by both parties to the episcopal court.

Constantine did much for children, slaves, and women, those weaker members of society whom the old Roman law had treated harshly. But in this he only continued what earlier emperors, under the influence of Stoicism, had begun before him, and he left to his successors the actual work of their emancipation. Thus some emperors who reigned before Constantine had forbidden the exposure of children, although without success, as exposed children or foundlings were readily adopted, because they could be used for many purposes. The Christians especially exerted themselves to get possession of such foundlings, and consequently Constantine issued no direct prohibition of exposure, although the Christians regarded exposure as equal to murder; he commanded, instead, that foundlings should belong to the finder, and did not permit the parents to claim the children they had exposed. Those who took such children obtained a property right in them and could make quite an extensive use of this; they were allowed to sell and enslave foundlings, until Justinian prohibited such enslaving under any guise. Even in the time of St. Chrysostom parents mutilated their children for the sake of gain. When suffering from famine or debt, many parents could only obtain relief by selling their children if they did not wish to sell themselves. All later laws against such practices availed as little as those against emasculation and pandering. St. Ambrose vividly depicts the sad spectacle of children being sold by their fathers, under pressure of creditors, or by the creditors themselves. All the many forms of institutions for feeding and supporting children and the poor were of little avail. Constantine himself established asylums for foundlings; yet he recognized the right of parents to sell their children, and only excepted older children. He ruled that children who had been sold could be bought back in contradistinction to children who had been exposed; but this ruling was of no avail if the children were taken into a foreign country. Valentinian, therefore, prohibited the traffic in human beings with foreign lands. The laws forbidding such practices continually multiplied, but the greater part of the burden of saving the children fell on the Church.

Constantine was the first to prohibit the abduction of girls. The abductor and those who aided him by influencing the girl were threatened with severe punishment. In harmony with the views of the Church, Constantine rendered divorce more difficult, he made no changes where the divorce was agreed to by both parties, but imposed severe conditions when the demand for separation came from one side only. A man could put away his wife for adultery, poisoning, and pandering, and retain her dowry, but if he discarded her for any other cause, he was to return the dowry and was forbidden to marry again. If, nevertheless, he remarried, the discarded wife had the right to enter his house and take everything which the new wife had brought him. Constantine increased the severity of the earlier law forbidding the concubinage of a free woman with a slave, and the Church did not regard this measure with disfavour. On the other hand, his retention of the distinctions of rank in the marriage law was clearly contrary to the views of the Church. The Church rejected all class distinctions in marriage, and regarded informal marriages (the so-called concubinatus) as true marriages, in so far as they were lasting and monogamous. Constantine, however, increased the difficulties of the concubinatus, and forbade senators and the higher officials in the State and in the pagan priesthoods to contract such unions with women of lower rank (feminoe humiles), thus making it impossible for them to marry women belonging to the lower classes, although his own mother was of inferior rank. But in other respects the emperor showed his mother, Helena, the greatest deference. Other concubinatus besides those mentioned were placed at a disadvantage in regard to property, and the rights of inheritance of the children and the concubines were restricted. Constantine, however, encouraged the emancipation of slaves and enacted that manumission in the church should have the same force as the public manumission before State officials and by will (321). Neither the Christian nor the heathen emperors permitted slaves to seek their freedom without authorization of law, the Christian rulers sought to ameliorate slavery by limiting the power of corporal punishment; the master was allowed only to use a rod or to send a slave to prison, and the owner was not liable to punishment even if the slave died under these circumstances. But if death resulted from the use of clubs, stones, weapons or instruments of torture, the person who caused the death was to be treated as a murderer. As will be seen below, Constantine was himself obliged to observe this law when he sought to get rid of Licinianus. A criminal was no longer to be branded in the face, but only on the feet, as the human face was fashioned in the likeness of God.

When these laws are compared with the ordinances of those earlier emperors who were of humane disposition, they do not go far beyond the older regulations. In everything not referring to religion Constantine followed in the footsteps of Diocletian. In spite of all unfortunate experiences, he adhered to the artificial division of the empire, tried for a long time to avoid a breach with Licinius, and divided the empire among his sons. On the other hand, the imperial power was increased by receiving a religious consecration. The Church tolerated the cult of the emperor under many forms. It was permitted to speak of the divinity of the emperor, of the sacred palace, the sacred chamber and of the altar of the emperor, without being considered on this account an idolater. From this point of view Constantine’s religious change was relatively trifling; it consisted of little more than the renunciation of a formality. For what his predecessors had aimed to attain by the use of all their authority and at the cost of incessant bloodshed, was in truth only the recognition of their own divinity; Constantine gained this end, though he renounced the offering of sacrifices to himself. Some bishops, blinded by the splendour of the court, even went so far as to laud the emperor as an angel of God, as a sacred being, and to prophesy that he would, like the Son of God, reign in heaven. It has consequently been asserted that Constantine favoured Christianity merely from political motives, and he has been regarded as an enlightened despot who made use of religion only to advance his policy. He certainly cannot be acquitted of grasping ambition. Where the policy of the State required, he could be cruel. Even after his conversion he caused the execution of his brother-in-law Licinius, and of the latter’s son, as well as of Crispus his own son by his first marriage, and of his wife Fausta. He quarrelled with his colleague Licinius about their religious policy, and in 323 defeated him in a bloody battle; Licinius surrendered on the promise of personal safety; notwithstanding this, half a year later he was strangled by order of Constantine. During the joint reign Licinianus, the son of Licinius, and Crispus, the son of Constantine, had been the two Caesars. Both were gradually set aside; Crispus was executed on the charge of immorality made against him by Constantine’s second wife, Fausta. The charge was false, as Constantine learned from his mother, Helena, after the deed was done. In punishment Fausta was suffocated in a superheated bath. The young Licinianus was flogged to death. Because Licinianus was not the son of his sister, but of a slave-woman, Constantine treated him as a slave. In this way Constantine evaded his own law regarding the mutilation of slaves After reading these cruelties it is hard to believe that the same emperor could at times have mild and tender impulses; but human nature is full of contradictions.

Constantine was liberal to prodigality, was generous in almsgiving, and adorned the Christian churches magnificently. He paid more attention to literature and art than we might expect from an emperor of this period, although this was partly due to vanity, as is proved by his appreciation of the dedication of literary works to him. It is likely that he practiced the fine arts himself, and he frequently preached to those around him. No doubt he was endowed with a strong religious sense, was sincerely pious, and delighted to be represented in an attitude of prayer, with his eyes raised to heaven. In his palace he had a chapel to which he was fond of retiring, and where he read the Bible and prayed. “Every day,” Eusebius tells us, “at a fixed hour he shut himself up in the most secluded part of the palace, as if to assist at the Sacred Mysteries, and there commune with God alone ardently beseeching Him, on bended knees, for his necessities.” As a catechumen he was not permitted to assist at the sacred Eucharistic mysteries. He remained a catechumen to the end of his life, but not because he lacked conviction nor because, owing to his passionate disposition, he desired to lead a pagan life. He obeyed as strictly as possible the precepts of Christianity, observing especially the virtue of chastity, which his parents had impressed upon him; he respected celibacy, freed it from legal disadvantages, sought to elevate morality, and punished with great severity the offenses against morals which the pagan worship bad encouraged. He brought up his children as Christians. Thus his life became more and more Christian, and thus gradually turned away from the feeble syncretism which at times he seemed to favour. The God of the Christians was indeed a jealous God who tolerated no other gods beside him. The Church could never acknowledge that she stood on the same plane with other religious bodies, she conquered for herself one domain after another.

Constantine himself preferred the company of Christian bishops to that of pagan priests. The emperor frequently invited the bishops to court, gave them the use of the imperial postal service, invited them to his table, called them his brothers, and when they had suffered for the Faith, kissed their scars. While he chose bishops for his counsellors, they, on the other hand, often requested his intervention—e. g. shortly after 313, in the Donatist dispute. For many years he worried himself with the Arian trouble, and in this, it may be said, he went beyond the limits of the allowable, for example, when he dictated whom Athanasius should admit to the Church and whom he was to exclude. Still he avoided any direct interference with dogma, and only sought to carry out what the proper authorities—the synods—decided. When he appeared at an oecumenical council, it was not so much to influence the deliberation and the decision as to show his strong interest and to impress the heathen. He banished bishops only to avoid strife and discord, that is, for reasons of state. He opposed Athanasius because he was led to believe that Athanasius desired to detain the corn-ships which were intended for Constantinople; Constantine’s alarm can be understood when we bear in mind how powerful the patriarchs eventually became. When at last he felt the approach of death he received baptism, declaring to the bishops who had assembled around him that, after the example of Christ, he had desired to receive the saving seal in the Jordan, but that God had ordained otherwise, and he would no longer delay baptism. Laying aside the purple, the emperor, in the white robe of a neophyte, peacefully and almost joyfully awaited the end.

Of Constantine’s sons the eldest, Constantine II, showed decided leanings to heathenism, and his coins bear many pagan emblems; the second and favourite son, Constantius, was a more pronounced Christian, but it was Arian Christianity to which he adhered. Constantius was an unwavering opponent of paganism; he closed all the temples and forbade sacrifices under pain of death. His maxim was: “Cesset superstitio; sacrificiorum aboleatur insania” (Let superstition cease; let the folly of sacrifices be abolished). Their successors had recourse to religious persecution against heretics and pagans. Their laws (Cod. Theod., XVI, v) had an unfavourable influence on the Middle Ages and were the basis of the much-abused Inquisition. (See PERSECUTIONS; CONSTANTINOPLE; ROMAN EMPIRE.)

GEORG GRUPP.

Constantinople

(Gr. Konstantinoupolis; city of Constantine)

Capital, formerly of the Byzantine, now of the Ottoman, Empire.

THE MODERN CITY

Constantinople occupies one of the most beautiful and advantageous sites in the world, uniting as it does Europe with Asia and putting in communication the Black Sea and all Southern Russia with the greater part of Europe and Asia, and even with distant America. It is surrounded by water on all sides except the west, which is protected by walls. Its sea front is about eight miles in length. The air is generally pure, and the climate very temperate. Constantinople forms a special district (sanitary cordon) divided into three principal sections, two in Europe and one in Asia. The two European sections are Stamboul (ancient Byzantium), whose suburbs border the Sea of Marmora; Galata and Pera, more or less Europeanized quarters, with many villages rising in rows along the green hills that look down on the Golden Horn and the Bosporus. The Asiatic section is Scutari (Turk. Uskudar; Chrysopolis) and Kadi-Keui (Chalcedon), with their extensive suburbs on the Asiatic shore of the Bosporus, the pleasant coasts of the Gulf of Nicomedia, and the Isles of the Princes. The city is divided into ten quarters or circles, each with its own municipality. The population is estimated (1908) at 1,200,000 inhabitants, four-fifths of whom are in Europe. There are about 600,000 Turks or other Mussulmans; the remainder include, in order of numerical importance, Greeks, Armenians, Jews, and foreigners of various nationalities.

The Bosporus separates Europe from Asia; it is about eighteen miles long and varies in width from about half a mile to a mile and a half. The Golden Horn separates Stamboul from Galata and Pera, extends inland for about four and one-half miles and ends abruptly at the Valley of the Sweet Waters beyond Eyoub. Two wooden bridges unite Galata with Stamboul, which latter section is mostly inhabited by Turks, and still preserves its ancient ramparts with their towers and gates.

The chief monuments of the city are: St. Sophia, the magnificent church built in the first half of the sixth century by the Emperor Justinian, now a mosque; about 2000 other mosques (e.g. the Suleimanieh, the Ahmedieh, the Bayazidieh, Mohammed’s mosque, etc.); many ancient churches; beautiful fountains; imposing “turbés,” or tombs of sultans and other great personages; the Seraskierat or war office, with its enormous tower; the Tcharshi, or bazaar (more than 10,000 merchants); Yedi-Kouleh or the Seven Towers Castle, where ambassadors and other men of note were often imprisoned; the palace of the public debt; the large post office; the old seraglio of the sultans. The imperial museum has a remarkable collection of sarcophagi and another of cuneiform texts. In the Galata section the Genoese Tower (over 150 feet) attracts attention, as in Pera the residences of the ambassadors. Beyond, on the European shore of the Bosporus are the large palaces of Dolma-Baghtché and Tcheragan, also the Yildiz Kiosk, the residence of the reigning sultan. On the Asiatic shore are the palace of Beylerbey, many beautiful mosques, and the great Mussulman cemetery at Scutari, the Selimieh barracks (largest in the world), the magnificent new school of medicine, quite close to which is the little port of Haïdar-Pasha, whence starts the railway line to Bagdad.

EARLY HISTORY OF BYZANTIUM

Constantinople was founded c. 658 B. C. by a Greek colony from Megara; the site was then occupied by the Thracian village of Lygos. The chief of the Megarian expedition was Byzas, after whom the city was naturally called Byzantion (Lat. Byzantium). Despite its perfect situation, the colony did not prosper at first; it suffered much during the Medic wars, chiefly from the satraps of Darius and Xerxes. Later on, its control was disputed by Lacedæmonians and Athenians; for two years (341–339 B. C.) it held out against Philip of Macedon. It succeeded in maintaining its independence even against victorious Rome, was granted the title and rights of an allied city, and its ambassadors were accorded at Rome the same honours as those given to allied kings; it enjoyed, moreover, all transit duties on the Bosporus. Cicero defended it in the Roman Senate, and put an end to the exactions of Piso. Later on, the Roman emperors entrusted the government of the city to prætors, at once civil and military magistrates, who maintained, however, the earlier democratic forms of government. For a while Vespasian placed it under the Governor of Mæsia. The city continued prosperous to the reign of Septimius Severus, when it sided with his rival, Peseennius Niger. After a siege of three years (193–196) Severus razed to the ground its walls and public monuments, and made it subject to Perinthus or Heraclea in Thrace. But he soon forgave this resistance, restored its former privileges, built there the baths of Zeuxippus, and began the hippodrome. It was devastated again by the soldiers of Gallienus in 262, but was rebuilt almost at once. In the long war between Constantine and Licinius (314–323) it embraced the fortunes of the latter, but, after his defeat at Chrysopolis (Scutari), submitted to the victor.

THE CHRISTIAN CITY

It has quite lately been established that Byzantium received its new name of Constantinople as early as the end of 324 (Centénaire de la société nationale des antiquaires de France, Paris, 1904, p. 281 sqq.). Nevertheless, the solemn inauguration of the new city did not occur until 11 May, 330; only after this date did the Court and Government settle permanently in the new capital. It was soon filled with sumptuous edifices like those of Rome; like the latter it was situated on seven hills and divided into fourteen regions; in the matter of privileges also it was similar to Rome. Among the new public buildings were a senate house, forums, a capitol, circuses, porticoes, many churches (particularly that of the Holy Apostles destined to be the burial-place of the emperors). The most beautiful statues of antiquity were gathered from various parts of the empire to adorn its public places. In general the other cities of the Roman world were stripped to embellish the “New Rome,” destined henceforth to surpass them all in greatness and magnificence. Traces of Christianity do not appear here before the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. In 212 Tertullian commemorates the joy of the Christians at the defeat of Pescennius Niger (“Ad Scapulam,” iii: “Cæcilius Capella in illo exitu Byzantino: Christiani gaudete”). About 190, an Antitrinitarian heretic, Theodotus the Currier, a native of Byzantium, was expelled from the Roman Church (“Phiosophoumena , VIII, xxxv; St. Epiphanius, “Adv. Hær.,” liv). A probably reliable tradition makes the Byzantine Church a suffragan of Heraclea in Thrace at the beginning of the third century. In the fifth century we meet with a spurious document attributed to a certain Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre at the end of the third century, according to which the Church of Byzantium was founded by the Apostle St. Andrew, its first bishop being his disciple Stachys (cf. Rom., xvi, 9). The intention of the forger is plain: in this way the Church of Rome is made inferior to that of Constantinople, St. Andrew having been chosen an Apostle by Jesus before his brother St. Peter, the founder of the Roman Church.

The first historically known Bishop of Byzantium is St. Metrophanes (306–314), though the see had perhaps been occupied during the third century. It was at first subject to the metropolitan authority of Heraclea, and remained so, at least canonically, until 381, when the Second Ecumenical Council (can. iii) gave the Bishop of Constantinople the first place after the Bishop of Rome. (For the exact meaning of this canon see Hefele, Hist. des Counciles, tr., Leclercq, Paris, 1908, II, 24–27.) Fuller details are given in Fischer, “De patriarcharum Constantinopolitanorum” catalogis (Leipzig, 1894); Schermann, “Prophetenund Apostellegenden nebst Jüngerkatalogen des Dorotheus und verwandter Texte” (Leipzig, 1907); Vailhé, “Origines de l’Eglise de Constantinople” in “Echos d’Orient” (Paris, 1907), 287–295.

Constantine had chosen this city as the new capital of the Roman Empire, but owing to his wars and the needs of the State, he rarely resided there. His successors were even more frequently absent. Constantius, Julian, Jovian, and Valens are found more habitually on the Danube or the Euphrates than on the Bosporus; they reside more regularly in Antioch than in New Rome. It was only under Theodosius the Great (379–95) that Constantinople assumed definitive rank as capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. However, its ambitious prelates did not wait so long to forecast the future greatness of the new city. In 339 Eusebius, and in 360 Eudoxius, quitted the great Sees of Nicomedia and Antioch for what was yet, canonically, a simple bishopric. Both the city and its inhabitants suffered much during the Arian controversies; the Arian heretics held possession of the Church for forty years. Honourable mention is due to two of its bishops: St. Alexander, whose resistance and prayers were crowned by the sudden death of Arius in Constantinople; and St. Paul the Confessor, a martyr for the Faith. We must add the eighty martyrs put to death simultaneously by Emperor Valens. St. Gregory of Nazianzus restored religious peace in this Church early in the reign of the aforesaid Theodosius. From the council of 381 may be said to date the ecclesiastical fortunes of Constantinople. Its bishop began thenceforth to claim and to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the six provinces of Thrace, hitherto subject to Heraclea, and soon over the twenty-two provinces of Asia Minor and Pontus, originally subject to Ephesus and Cæsarea. These rights of supremacy, though usurped, were acknowledged by the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451), from which time the bishops of Constantinople ruled over about 420 dioceses. In 431 began an almost continuous conflict with the Roman Church, that was crowned with success in 733, when an Iconoclast emperor withdrew from the jurisdiction of Rome all ecclesiastical Illyricum, i. e. more than a hundred dioceses. About the end of the ninth century, when Photius broke with the Roman Church, his own patriarchate included 624 dioceses (51 metropolitan sees, 51 exempt archbishoprics, and 522 suffragan bishoprics). At that time the Roman Church certainly did not govern so great a number of sees. At this period, moreover, by its missionaries and its political influence, Constantinople attracted to Christianity the Slav nations, Serbs, Russians, Moravians, and Bulgars, and obtained in these northern lands a strong support against the Roman and Frankish West.

This ecclesiastical prosperity coincided with the political and municipal grandeur of the city. At the death of Theodosius the Great (395), when the Roman Empire was divided into two parts, Constantinople remained the centre and capital of the Eastern Empire. The Western Empire was destined soon to fall before the onslaughts of the barbarians. While its provinces were held by uncouth German tribes, Constantinople alone remained to represent Christian civilization and the greatness of the Roman name. Simultaneously the city was enlarged and embellished, particularly under Theodosius II, Justinian, Heraclius, and Basil the Macedonian. In 413 it reached its actual (1908) size on the right bank of the Golden Horn, under the city prefect, Anthemius. In 625 Heraclius added the famous quarter of Blachernæ with its venerated church of the Blessed Virgin, whose image was considered as the palladium of the city. The circumference of the walls was then (and still is) eleven or twelve miles. They were often rebuilt, especially under Tiberius III (c. 700), Anastasius II (714), Leo III (740), Nicephorus I (803), Theophilus (831), Michael VIII (1262), Andronicus II (1316), John VII (between 1431–1444). To protect the territory of Thrace from the invasions of the barbarians, Anastasius I, in the early part of the sixth century, built a great wall about fifty miles in length and about twenty feet in breadth from Silistria to the Lake of Derkoi. The ramparts of Constantinople had many gates: the principal one was the Golden Gate, the terminus of the Triumphal Way. On the Sea of Marmora numerous havens gave shelter to boats and barques; the present unique port of the Golden Horn had not yet been created. The strongly fortified Great Palace was a real town. Other splendid palaces adorned the city (Boucoleon, Chalké, Blachernæ); many graced the European and Asiatic suburbs. Hundreds of churches and monasteries, thousands of clerics, of monks, and nuns, attested an intensely religious life. The church of St. Sophia alone, the glory of Justinian’s reign, owned 365 estates. How vast these domains were may be judged from a law of Heraclius (627) that established 625 clerics as the number necessary for the service of St. Sophia. The little church of Blachernæ had 75 endowed clerics. The names of at least 463 churches are known, 64 of which were dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. As early as 536, 68 superiors of local monasteries were present at a council in the city.

So many rich churches and monasteries, imperial or private palaces, not to speak of the luxury of the court and the great imperial dignitaries, naturally excited the covetousness of barbarian peoples. Constantinople had, therefore, to sustain numberless sieges; it was attacked in 378 by the Goths, by the Avars and Persians during the reign of Heraclius (610–41), by the Arabs during the reign of Constantine Pogonatus (668–85), and again by the Arabs under Moslemeh in 717; many times also by Bulgarians, Patzinaks, Russians, and Khazars. But the city always defied its besiegers, thanks to the solidity of its walls, often to the valour of its soldiers, but chiefly to the gold that it distributed in profusion. More grievous, perhaps, were the domestic conflicts that broke out in almost every new reign: the quarrels between the Blue and Green factions that clamoured for imperial favour in the races of the hippodrome; the conflagrations and earthquakes that sometimes levelled the city with the ground, e.g. the conflagration that broke out during the Nika revolt (532), on which occasion Justinian nearly lost his throne, more than 80,000 persons were killed, and fire destroyed the greater part of the city.

HERESY AND SCHISM

When Photius (d. 891) began the schism consummated by Michael Cærularius in 1054, the Byzantine Church had, since the death of Emperor Constantine in 337, been formally out of communion with the Roman Church during 248 years (55 years on account of Arianism, 11 on account of the condemnation of St. John Chrysostom, 35 on account of Zeno’s Henoticon, 41 on account of Monothelism, 90 on account of Iconoclasm, 16 on account of the adulterous marriage of Constantine VI). On the whole, therefore, Constantinople had been out of communion with the Apostolic See one out of every two years. During this period nineteen patriarchs of Constantinople were open heretics, some of them quite famous, e.g. Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eudoxius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Acacius, Sergius, Pyrrhus. On the other hand must be mentioned several orthodox bishops, e.g. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Flavian, St. Germanus, St. Tarasius, St. Methodius, and St. Ignatius, the opponent of Photius, whose virtues and literary fame compensate for the scandalous heterodoxy of their confrères. Nor can we omit illustrious monks and hymnographers like St. Romanus (Melodus), the greatest liturgical poet of the Byzantine Church, St. Maximus Confessor, St Theodore, the noble abbot of the famous monastery of Studium (Stoudion), and many others who suffered martyrdom during the reigns of Iconoclast emperors.

Many councils were held in Constantinople, sometimes against heresies, sometimes in favour of them. Chief among these councils are: the ecumenical councils of 381, 553, 681, and 869; the Trullan Council (692), very important for the history of canonical legislation; the councils of 712 and 878 which ratified, respectively, Monothelism and the revolt of Photius against Rome. The schism of Photius was not at once followed by its worst consequences. The learned but ambitious patriarch was yet living when union with the Roman Church was re-established by Emperor Leo the Wise in 886; he obliged Photius to quit the patriarchal throne. From that time to the patriarchate of Michael Cærularius (1043–1049), in spite of the Filioque question, relations with the papacy were generally cordial. There were indeed, at the beginning of the tenth century, some difficulties caused by the emperor’s fourth marriage, but in this conflict both the opposing patriarchs attempted to obtain from the Roman Church justification of their conduct. It was only under Michael Cærularius that the schismatic condition was finally confirmed, almost without any apparent motive and only through the bad will of this patriarch. After long and sharp disputes between the two Churches, the pope’s legates, with the approbation of the imperial court, deposited, 15 July, 1054, on the altar of St. Sophia the Bull of excommunication against the patriarch. This act resulted in a popular revolution. Five days later Michael Cærularius replied by excommunicating the pope and the “azymite” Latins. The weak-minded and lewd emperor, Constantine Monomachus, dared not resist the all-powerful patriarch. It must be noted, however, that, unhappily, the idea of schism had long been familiar to the minds and hearts of the Greeks. The first period of the schism was coeval, especially at Constantinople, with a remarkable literary revival, inaugurated as early as the tenth century by the Macedonian dynasty and carried to its perfection under the Comneni and the Palæologi. This revival, unfortunately, did not affect favourably the morality of the population, being chiefly an unconscious return to models of antiquity, indeed a kind of neo-paganism. We owe to it, however, beautiful works in literature, architecture, and painting.

IMPERIAL SUCCESSION; CRUSADES; LATIN EMPIRE OF CONSTANTINOPLE

After the division of the Roman Empire in 395, Constantinople beheld the passage of many great dynasties: that of Theodosius, prolonged by adoption until 602; that of Heraclius, from 610 to 711, with intrusion of several usurpers; that of Leo the Isaurian, from 717 to 802; the Amorium dynasty from 820 to 867; that of Basil the Macedonian from 867 to 1057; finally from 1081 to the Frankish conquest in 1204, that of the Comneni and the Angeli. Succession, of course, was not always regular; even in the legitimate dynasties murder and cruelty, it is well known, often marked the accession of an emperor. Sometimes the streets of the capital were on the same day decked with flowers and drenched with blood. Nevertheless, till the middle of the eleventh century, the empire held its own in Asia Minor against the Arabs. The latter were now gradually supplanted by their coreligionists, the Turks, who, towards the end of that century, occupied most of the Asiatic peninsula and set up their capital at Nicæa, not far from Constantinople. Then began the Crusades, that great overflow of the West towards the East, started by the pious wish of all Christian Europe to deliver the Holy Sepulchre. Constantinople saw the crusaders for the first time in 1096. The contact between the two civilizations was not cordial; the Greeks gave generally to the crusaders an unkindly reception. They looked on them as enemies no less than the Turks, except that the crusaders, marching in the name of Christ and backed by all the strength of the West, appeared much more dangerous than the Mussulman Turks. On the other hand the Franks were only too ready to treat the Greeks as mere unbelievers, and, but for the opposition of the popes, would have begun the Crusades with the capture of Constantinople.

These sad quarrels and the fratricidal conflicts of Christian nations lasted nearly a century, until in 1182 Emperor Andronicus Comnenus, a ferocious tyrant, ordered a general massacre of the Latins in his capital. In 1190 the Greek patriarch, Dositheus, solemnly promised indulgences to any Greek who would murder a Latin. These facts, together with the selfish views of the Venetians and the domestic divisions of the Greeks, were enough to provoke a conflict. The Greek Emperor Alexius III had dethroned his brother and stripped his nephew of all rights (1195); the latter sought a shelter in the West (1201), and, together with his brother-in-law, Emperor Philip of Swabia, with Venice, and Boniface of Montferrat (chief of the projected crusade), he turned aside the Fourth Crusade and directed the knights, first to the siege of Zara in Dalmatia, and afterwards to Constantinople. In spite of the formal veto of Innocent III, the crusaders laid siege to the city, which soon surrendered (17 July, 1203). Emperor Alexius III took flight. His brother, Isaac Angelus, was taken from prison and crowned emperor, with his son Alexius IV. The crusaders had hoped that the new emperors would keep their promises and reunite the two Churches; confident of this they wrote to Innocent III (August, 1203) to justify their behaviour. But the imperial promise was not kept; indeed, it could not be executed. In November, 1205, Alexius IV broke off all relations with the crusaders. Thereupon the hostility between the Greeks and the Latins was in almost daily evidence; brawls and conflagrations were continually taking place. Alexius IV and his father were dethroned and put to death (February, 1204) by a usurper who took the name of Alexius V Murtzuphlos. The latter made haste to put his capital in a state of defence, whereupon the crusaders began a second siege. After several onslaughts the city was taken (12 and 13 April, 1204) amid scenes of great cruelty; the slaughter was followed by an unbridled plunder of the countless treasures heaped up during so many centuries by the Byzantine emperors. The holy relics especially excited the covetousness of the Latin clerics; Villehardouin asserts that there were but few cities in the West that received no sacred booty from this pillage. The official booty alone, according to the same historian, amounted to about eleven millions of dollars whose purchasing power was then of course much greater than at this day. The following 9 May, Baldwin, Count of Flanders, became emperor; Boniface of Montferrat obtained Thessalonica and Macedonia; the knights, various feudal fees; Venice, the islands and those regions of the empire that assured her maritime supremacy. This new Latin Empire, organized according to feudal law, never took deep root. It was unable to hold its own against the Greeks (who had immediately created two empires in Asia, at Nicæa and at Trebizond, a despotate in Epirus and other small States) nor against the Bulgarians, Comans, and Serbs. After a much-disturbed existence it disappeared in 1261, and Constantinople became again the centre of Greek power with Michael Palæologus as emperor.

LATIN PATRIARCHATE

Together with the Latin Empire a Latin patriarchate had been established in 1204 at Constantinople, on which occasion the Greek patriarch took refuge at Nicæa. Notwithstanding the missions of Cardinal Benedict a Sancta Susanna (1205–1207) and Pelagius of Albano (1213), negotiations, and even persecutions, the Latins failed to induce all their Greek subjects to acknowledge the authority of the pope. In its best days the Latin patriarchate never numbered more than twenty-two archbishoprics and fifty-nine suffragan bishoprics, situated in Europe, in the islands, and even in Asia Minor. However, the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople outlived the Latin Empire, after the fall of which the Latin patriarchs resided in Greece or in Italy. From 1302 the Holy See reserved to itself the appointment to this office and united with the patriarchate first the Archbishopric of Candia, later the Bishopric of Negropont; this was still the situation as late as 1463. A consistorial decree of 1497 reserved this high title to cardinals; the rule, however, was subject to many exceptions. In modern times a contrary practice has prevailed; the Latin titular Patriarch of Constantinople ceases to bear this title only on entrance to the Sacred College. Of course, after the fall of the Latin or Frankish Empire in 1261, the Latin patriarch could not deal directly with the Catholics of Constantinople; they were committed to the care of patriarchal vicars, simple priests chosen usually among the superiors of religious orders resident in the city, Observantine or Conventual Franciscans, and Dominicans. This lasted until 1651, when the Latin patriarch was allowed by the sultan to have in Constantinople a patriarchal suffragan bishop, who was free to administer the diocese in the name of the patriarch. Finally, in 1772, the Holy See suppressed the office of patriarchal suffragan an appointed patriarchal vicars Apostolic, which system is yet in existence.

RESTORATION OF GREEK EMPIRE; EFFORTS AT REUNION OF THE CHURCHES

Having anticipated a little we may here take up the thread of our narrative. By the recovery of Constantinople in 1261, Michael Palæologus had drawn on himself the enmity of some Western princes, especially of Charles of Anjou, brother of St. Louis and heir to the rights of the aforesaid Latin emperors of Constantinople. To forestall the crusade with which he was threatened, the Greek emperor opened negotiations with the pope and accepted the union of the Churches. It was proclaimed at the Ecumenical Council of Lyons in 1274, and was confirmed at Constantinople by several particular councils held under the Greek patriarch, John Beccus, a sincere Catholic. It was not, however, accepted by the Greek people who remained always inimical to the West, and, on the emperor’s death in 1282, it was rejected at a council held in the Blachernæ church. Thenceforth the rulers of Constantinople had to reckon with the ambitious claims of Charles of Valois, brother of Philip the Fair, and of other Latin pretenders to the imperial crown. The city itself was remit by the theological disputes of Barlaamites and Palamists arising from Hesychasm (q. v.), also by the domestic dissensions of the imperial family during the reigns of the two Andronici, John Palæologus, and John Cantacuzene. With the aid of Turkish mercenaries John Cantacuzene (the hope of the Palamists) withstood the legitimate emperor and conquered the city.

The Byzantine Empire was now in face of its last and greatest peril. The smaller Greek Empire of Trebizond controlled since 1204 a part of its Asiatic provinces. The Fourth Crusade had caused almost all the islands and a great part of its possessions in Europe to fall into the hands of the Venetians, Genoese, Pisans, and local dynasts. It feared most, however, the new empire of the Osmanlis that was rapidly overflowing all Asia Minor. The Osmanlis were originally a small Turkish tribe of Khorassan; in the thirteenth century they had settled near Dorylæum (Eski-Shehir), whence they gradually annexed all the sultanates and principalities of the Seljuk Turks and others. As early as 1326 Brusa in Bithynia had become the centre of their power. A Genoese fleet soon conveyed their army into Europe, where they took Gallipoli in 1397. Thenceforth, while the popes were especially anxious to save the Greek East and Constantinople, the Byzantines, excited by their priests and monks, appeared daily more hostile to the West and exhausted their opportunities in useless theological disputes. The memorable defeat of the Serbs and Bulgarians at Kossovo in 1389, and that of the crusaders at Nicopolis in 1396, seemed to indicate the hopelessness of the Byzantine cause, when the Mongol invasion of Timur-Leng (Tamerlane) and the defeat of Sultan Bayazid at Angora in 1402 combined to assure another half-century of existence to the doomed empire.

Scarcely had Manuel II heard of the Turkish disaster when he pulled down the mosque in his capital and abandoned his negotiations at Rome, where he had initiated proposals of peace, but only for political reasons. However, the Turkish power had not been destroyed on the plain of Angora. From June to September, 1422, Sultan Murad II laid siege to Constantinople, which he nearly captured. Though finally repulsed, the Turks tightened daily their control over all approaches to the city, which only a new crusade could have relieved. At the Council of Florence, therefore (1439), the Greeks again declared themselves Catholics. This formal reunion, however, imposed by the emperor and again rejected by the Greek nation, could not in the beginning be proclaimed even at Constantinople, in spite of the election of a patriarch favourable to Rome, and of Western promises to help the Greeks with men and money. Mark of Ephesus and after him Gennadius Scholarius were omnipotent with clergy and people, and infused into them fresh hatred of the Latins. Nevertheless, the promised crusade took place under the direction of Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini. János Hunyady and Iskender-Beg (Scanderbeg) performed miracles of valour, but in vain. The crusaders were completely defeated at Varna in 1444, and nothing was left to Constantinople but to perish honourably. The reunion with Rome, as accepted at Florence, was at last proclaimed officially in St. Sophia by Cardinal Isidore, Metropolitan of Kiev (12 Dec., 1452). It was thus fated that Emperor Constantine Dragases, the last heir of the great Constantine, was to die in the Catholic Faith.

FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE; CAPITAL OF OTTOMAN EMPIRE

When the tragic hour struck, the emperor had only about 7000 men, including all foreign succour. Since March, 1453, the Turks, to the number of 200,000, had invested the city; the preceding year they had built on the Bosporus the redoubtable fortress of Rumeli-Hissar. Their fleet also held the entrance to the Dardanelles, but was prevented from entering the Golden Horn by a strong iron chain that barred its mouth. But Mohammed II caused seventy of his ships to slide on greased planks behind Galata; in this way they entered the Golden Horn (22 April). He then cast across it a bridge of boats broad enough to allow the passage of five soldiers abreast, while his troops, constantly renewed, kept up without ceasing their attacks by land. Eventually the defenders were exhausted by the toils of a continuous and hopeless conflict, while their ranks grew steadily thinner through death or wounds. The population gave no help and was content to taunt the Latins, while waiting for the miracle of Heaven that was to save them. Finally, 29 May, 1453, about 4 o’clock in the morning, a furious assault of the Turks broke down the walls and gates of the city, and the besiegers burst in from every side. Emperor Constantine fell like a hero at the gate of St. Romanus. St. Sophia was immediately transformed into a mosque, and during three days the unhappy city was abandoned to unspeakable excesses of cruelty and debauchery. The next year, at the demand of the sultan himself, Gennadius Scholarius, Rome’s haughty adversary, was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople, and soon the Greek Church was reestablished, almost in its former position.

Thus was granted the sacrilegious prayer of so many Greeks, blinded by unreasoning hate, that henceforth, not the tiara, but the turban should rule in the city of Constantine. Even the name of the city was changed. The Turks call it officially (in Arabic) Der-es-Saadet, Door of Happiness, or (chiefly on coins) Konstantinieh. Their usual name for it is Stamboul, or rather Istamboul, a corruption of the Greek expression eis ten polin (pronounced stimboli), perhaps under the influence of a form, Islamboul, which could pass for “the city of Islam.” Most of the churches, like St. Sophia, were gradually converted into mosques. This was the fate of SS. Sergius and Bacchus—a beautiful monument built by Justinian, commonly called “the little St. Sophia”; of the church of the monastery of Khora, whose splendid mosaics and pictures, mostly of the fourteenth century, are among the principal curiosities of the city; of the churches of the celebrated Pantocrator and Studium monasteries, etc. Other churches were demolished and replaced by various buildings; thus the church of the Holy Apostles gave way to the great mosque built by the conquering Sultan Mohammed II. The imperial tombs in this church were violated; some of their gigantic red porphyry sarcophagi were taken to the church of St. Irene. The latter is the only church taken from the Greeks that has not been changed into a mosque or demolished; it became, and is yet an arsenal, or rather a museum of ancient weapons.

The sultans in turn endowed their new capital with many beautiful monuments. Mohammed II built the castle of Yedi-Kouleh, the Tchinili-Kiosk (now a museum), the mosques of Cheik Bokhari, of the Janizaries, of Kassim-Pasha, of Eyoub, where every sultan at his accession is obliged to be girt with the sword of Othman, etc. Bayazid II built the Bayazidieh (1458). Soliman the Magnificent built the Suleimanieh, the most beautiful Turkish monument in Constantinople. His architect Sinan constructed fifty other mosques in the empire. Ahmed I built (1610) the Ahmedieh on the foundations of the imperial Great Palace, a pretty fountain near St. Sophia, etc. The buildings of the old seraglio at Seraglio Point are also of Turkish origin; nothing is left of the Byzantine imperial palaces that once stood there. The Blachernæ palace has also disappeared; its church was accidentally burned in the seventeenth century. Not far distant are the important ruins of the palace of the Porphyrogenitus. When the Turks took Constantinople, the hippodrome was already in ruinous decay. There remain yet three precious monuments of ancient imperial splendour: the Egyptian obelisk brought thither by Theodosius the Great, the Serpentine Column brought from Delphi by Constantine, and the Byzantine monument known as the Walled-up Column. Near them has been constructed, on the plans and at the expense of the German Emperor, William II, a fountain in Byzantine style. The Turks have also respected some other relics of antiquity, especially the columns of Constantine, Marcian, Theodosius, and Arcadius, the aqueduct of Valens, and many of the great subterraneous cisterns.

THE TURKISH CITY

This is not the place to narrate the later history of the city, so often the scene of sanguinary events, revolts of the Janizaries, palace-revolutions, etc. In 1826 Mahmud II suppressed the redoubtable prætorians, but the tragic domestic revolutions go on as before. In 1807 a British fleet threatened the city, which was courageously defended by Sultan Selim III and the French ambassador, General Sebastiani. In 1854 Anglo-French armies encamped at Constantinople before and after the Crimean expedition against Russia. In 1878 the Russians advanced to San Stefano, a little village in the European suburbs, and dictated there the treaty of that name. In 1821 the Greek patriarch, Gregory V, with many bishops and laymen, was hanged on the occasion of the outbreak of the Greek War for Independence. In 1895–1896 the capital, as well as the provinces, saw many Armenians massacred by the Kurds, with the complicity, or rather by order of the Government. Even the dreadful physical catastrophes of former times have been renewed; great conflagrations in 1864 and 1870 destroyed entire quarters at Stamboul and Pera. In the latter place many thousands of lives were lost (most of the houses are built of timber). In 1894 an earthquake laid low a great part of the Bazaar and killed several thousand persons. The city is now undergoing a slow process of cleansing; it is lit by gas, and there are some tramways in its streets, most of which are still very narrow and dirty, and are at all times obstructed by vagrant dogs. A cable railway joins Galata to Pera.

NATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS STATISTICS

The population, we have already said, is (1908) at least 1,000,000, perhaps 1,200,000; Turkish statistics are very uncertain. The Turks seem to form about three-fifths of this population. There are more than 2000 mosques, near which are generally found elementary schools for boys and even for girls; often also medressehs or Mussulman theological schools. The tekkés are Mussulman monasteries for dervishes of various orders. Superior instruction is given at the Lyceum of Galata Seraglio. It has about 1200 pupils (mostly Mussulmans), and instruction is given in both Turkish and French. Efforts are being made to transform this college into a university. There are also about 20 secondary schools, a university of law, a school of medicine, military schools, and other professional and special schools. The libraries annexed to the great mosques contain precious Eastern manuscripts. There are many Turkish hospitals, several of which are in charge of Catholic Sisters of Charity, an asylum for the poor, a Pasteur institute, and other charitable foundations. The Persian Mussulmans, generally Shiites, have their own religious organization, with a hospital at Stamboul, conducted by Sisters of Charity. The Jewish population increases rapidly, and is of two kinds: the Spanish Jews who came to Turkey in the sixteenth century when expelled from Spain, and still speak a bad Spanish; others, who came and still come from Russia, Rumania, Austria, Germany, etc. The latter often obtain good situations; not so the former, whose social status is low and unhappy. There is also among the Jews of the city a diversity of rites, synagogues, schools. and works of beneficence. The Christians seem to number over 300,000. If we except an insignificant body of Jacobites and their bishop, the rest may be divided as Monophysites, Protestants, Orthodox Greeks, and Catholics. The Monophysites are Armenians, who call themselves Gregorians, after their apostle, St. Gregory Illuminator. They number about 100,000, with a patriarch resident at Koum-Kapou (Stamboul), many churches, 53 elementary schools, 2 colleges, a large charitable establishment at Yédi-Kouleh, etc.

Protestantism is represented by English, American, German, and other foreign colonies, also by about one thousand Armenian converts. Its chief institutions, apart from several churches, are the Bible house at Stamboul with its branches (homes for sailors and foreign girls), Robert College at Rumeli-Hissar on the Bosporus (a large American school founded in 1863, with about 600 pupils), and a high school for girls at Scutari. There are also some elementary Protestant schools and a special mission for the Jews, finally an English and a German hospital. The Schismatic Greeks who call themselves Orthodox, number about 150,000, some thousands of whom are Hellenes, i. e. subjects of the Kingdom of Greece. The Ecumenical patriarch, who resides in the Fanar (Greek quarter, along the Golden Horn),is the bishop of the diocese (there are metropolites at Kadi-Keui and at Makri-Keui, the latter with the title of Derki). He is aided in the administration of his office by the Great Protosyncellus. There are 40 parishes, 12 of which are first class, 11 second class, and 17 third class. The principal churches prefer instead of a simple priest, a titular bishop or chorepiscopus: they are five in number. Recent statistics show 72 schools, 64 of which give elementary and middle, and 8 superior teaching. Amon the higher schools are included the so-called Great National School in the Fanar (said to date from the Middle Ages), the commercial and theological schools at Halki, etc. The theological school is a seminary for future bishops of the Greek Church. These Greek schools have 398 teachers and 13,217 pupils; the elementary schools have 10,665 pupils, and the superior schools 2562. We may add that many Greek boys and girls, also Armenians, are taught in foreign schools, chiefly in those of the French religious congregations and at Robert College. The Greeks have a large charitable establishment at Balekli and an orphanage. Quite important also are their various associations (syollogi), the principal one being the important learned body known as the Literary Greek Society, with a rich library. The libraries of the Metochion, of the Holy Sepulchre, and the theological school at Halki are also remarkable for their manuscripts. For the general organization of the Greek Schismatics, see GREEK CHURCH. The Russians have at Constantinople 3 monasteries, a school, a hospital, and an archæological institute, with a rich library. The Serbs and Rumanians have also their national establishments. There are in the capital about 15,000 Bulgarians. They are considered schismatics by the Greek Church, from which they have completely separated. Their exarch, who has jurisdiction over all native Bulgarians and those of European Turkey, resides at Chichli (pronounced shishli), where there are also a seminary, a school, and a hospital for Bulgarians. His cathedral is at Balata, Stamboul.

CATHOLIC LIFE AND STATISTICS

The Catholics include those of the Roman or Latin Rite, and others of Eastern rites often called Uniats. Among the latter, the Catholic Armenians deserve most attention; they number about 5000. Their patriarch resides at Pera, and to their special organization belong: 6 elementary and 3 middle schools, also a large charitable establishment for orphans and for poor or sick people. They have four congregations conducted as follows: The Mechitarists of Vienna have 2 residences, 19 monks; the Mechitarists of Venice, 1 residence, 8 monks; the Antonines, 1 residence, 8 monks; Sisters of the Immaculate Conception, 3 residences, about 100 nuns. The Melchites or Arabic-speaking Syrians of Byzantine Rite have a church with 3 priests, one of whom acts as vicar of his patriarch for all affairs of the “nation” that come before the Sublime Porte. The Catholic patriarchs of the Chaldeans and the Syrians are similarly represented by vicars to whom are subject the few faithful of their rites present in the city. The Catholic Greeks, few in number as yet, are subject to the Apostolic delegate; they have two parishes, at Koum-Kapou (Stamboul) and Kadi-Keui, conducted by the Assumptionists, and a mission at Pera, conducted by the Fathers of the Holy Trinity. The former have also missions for the Greeks at Cæsarea in Cappadocia and at Peramos in the Peninsula of Cyzicus; the latter at Malgara and Daoudili in Thrace. The Catholic Bulgarians have at Galata their archbishop and one priest. The Catholic Georgians are few and are subject to the Apostolic delegate; most of them belong to the Latin or the Armenian Rite.

The Catholics of the Latin Rite, as already stated, are ruled by an Apostolic vicar. Though a titular archbishop he enjoys ordinary jurisdiction and since 1868 is Apostolic delegate for the Catholics of Eastern Rites. He resides at Pancaldi and has there his procathedral. His authority is not acknowledged by the Sublime Porte and he is obliged to use the French embassy in his relations with the Turkish Government. The limits of his vicariate are: in Europe the Vicariate of Sofia, the Archdioceses of Uscub and Durazzo, and the Apostolic Delegation of Athens; in Asia, the Diocese of Tiraspol, the Apostolic Delegations of Mesopotamia and Aleppo, and the Archbishopric of Smyrna. The Latin Catholics subject to him must number (1908) between 30,000 and 35,000, about 22,000 of whom are at Constantinople. Other principal centres are, in Europe: Salonica, Gallipoli, Cavalla, Monastir, Rodosto, Dede-Aghatch, and Adrianople, with about 6000 souls; in Asia: Brusa, Ismid, Adampol, Zongoul-Dagh, Dardanelles, Eski-Shehir, Angora, Trebizond, Samsoun, and Erzeroum with about 3000 souls. Most Latin Catholics are of foreign nationalities and come from Greece, Italy, France, Austria, etc.

Almost all the religious works of the Apostolic vicariate are conducted by religious orders or congregations. The secular clergy counts only about ten members; they possess the two parishes of Pancaldi (pro-cathedral) and the Dardanelles. There are fourteen parishes (five principal) in Constantinople and its suburbs. Outside the capital, the vicariate comprises 7 other parishes and 23 missionary stations. There are several seminaries, but none for the vicariate itself: a Greek preparatory seminary at Koum-Kapou (Stamboul), a Bulgarian preparatory seminary at Kara-Aghatch (Adrianople), a Greek-Bulgarian theological seminary at Kadi-Keui, conducted by the Assumptionists, with respectively 30, 35, and 10 pupils; the Eastern Seminary, preparatory and theological, founded at Pera in 1889 by French Capuchins for Latin and Eastern Rite pupils of every Eastern diocese, with 45 to 50 pupils; the preparatory Seraphic Seminary conducted since 1894 at San Stefano by Austrian Capuchins, 30 pupils; a Bulgarian preparatory and theological seminary at Zeitenlik (Salonica), conducted by the Lazarists, 58 pupils. Eighty elementary or middle schools are conducted by the aforesaid religious congregations. There are 74 primary and boarding schools, for boys or girls, with 11,400 pupils (7030 girls and 4370 boys), 6 (properly so called) colleges for boys with 1410 pupils and a commercial institute. Moreover, 600 male and female orphans are trained in 6 orphanages. A professional school has just been founded. More than half of these schools are situated in Constantinople or its suburbs. Many of the pupils are not Catholics, and many are Mussulmans or Jews. There is at Feri-Keui a large and beautiful cemetery.

CATHOLIC ORDERS AND CONGREGATIONS

Orders of Men

Augustinians of the Assumption, 13 residences, 51 priests (including 6 of Greek and 6 of Slav Rite), and 28 students or lay brothers, 3 seminaries, 6 parishes, 7 schools. French Capuchins, 2 residences, 59 monks (25 students and 10 lay brothers). 1 seminary, 1 scholasticate, and the church of St. Louis, parish of the French embassy. Austrian Capuchins, 1 residence, with 1 parish, 1 seminary and 1 novitiate, 10 monks. Italian Capuchins, 3 residences, 8 priests, and 4 lay brothers. Conventuals, 6 residences, 5 parishes, 21 priests, and 10 lay brothers. Franciscans, 4 residences, 2 parishes, with 10 priests and 6 lay brothers. Dominicans, 3 residences, 1 parish, 9 priests, and 3 lay brothers. Georgian Benedictines of the Immaculate Conception, 3 residences, 2 parishes 1 school, with 13 religious (2 priests of Georgian Rite). Jesuits, 6 residences, 42 religious, about 20 priests, 9 schools. Austrian Lazarists, 1 residence, 1 college, 12 religious. French Lazarists, 7 residences, 71 religious (56 priests), 2 colleges, 1 seminary, several schools, 1 parish. Greek Fathers of the Holy Trinity of Pera, 3 residences, 6 priests, 3 schools. Polish Resurrectionists, 3 residences, about 30 religious (12 priests, several of the Slav Rite), 1 college. Brothers of the Christian Schools, 150 brothers, 10 residences, 1 college, 1 commercial and 10 elementary schools. Brothers of Ploermel, 10 brothers, aiding the Assumptionists in their schools. Marist Brothers, 8 residences, 4 schools, 46 brothers, aid other religious in 4 more schools. Italian Salesians of Dom Bosco, 1 technical school.

Orders of Women

Carmelites, 6 nuns. Dominican Sisters of Mondovi, 2 schools, 14 nuns. Sisters of Charity, 17 establishments, 210 nuns; they conduct among others three Turkish hospitals, the Persian, French, Italian, and Austrian hospitals, 2 asylums, 7 orphanages, 13 schools. Franciscan Sisters of Calais, 1 residence, 10 sisters for care of sick people at home. Franciscan Sisters of Gemona (Italy), 4 residences, 30 sisters, 5 schools. Sisters of the Immaculate Conception of Ivrea (Italy), 3 residences, 35 sisters, 1 hospital, 2 schools. Sisters of the Immaculate Conception of Lourdes, 1 residence, 14 sisters, for the adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament and care of sick people. Oblates of the Assumption, 8 residences, 94 sisters, 7 schools, 1 hospital, 1 novitiate for native girls. Oblates of the Assumption of Nîmes, 15 sisters, 3 schools. Little Sisters of the Poor, 1 asylum, 16 sisters. Sisters of St. Joseph of the Apparition, 2 residences, 30 sisters, 2 schools. Sisters of St. Joseph of Lyons, 3 residences, 39 sisters, 3 schools, 1 hospital. Sisters of Our Lady of Sion, 120 sisters, 2 residences, 2 boarding, and 2 elementary schools. Georgian Servants of Our Lady, 2 residences, 2 schools, 15 sisters. Bulgarian Eucharistine Sisters, 5 residences with schools, 30 sisters. Resurrectionist Sisters, 5 sisters, 1 school. Missionary Sisters of the Most Holy Heart of Mary, 8 sisters, 1 hospital. Most of these residences have dispensaries, with a physician, where remedies are supplied gratuitously to the poor. To the works of these congregations must be added pious works conducted by lay persons: St. Vincent de Paul Conferences (6 at Constantinople); the Sympnia, an association which conducts a school for Catholic Hellenes, with 90 pupils, various associations and brotherhoods, etc.

THE CHRISTIAN CITY

COUSIN, Histoire de Constantinople depuis Justinien jusqu’à la fin de l’empire (8 vols., Paris, 1671–1674); HUTTON, Constantinople (London 1900); BARTH, Constantinople (Paris, 1903); DU CANGE, Constantinopolis christiana in De Byzantin histori scriptoribus (Paris, 1687), XXII; BANDURI, Imperium orientale sive antiquitates Constantinopolitan (2 vol. fol., Venice, 1729); MORDTMANN, Esquisse topographique de Constantinople (Lille, 1892); VON HAMMER, Constantinopolis und der Bosporos (Budapest, 1822); BYZANTIOS, Constantinople (Greek, Athens, 1851); CONSTANTIOS, Constantiniade ou description de Constantinople ancienne et moderne (Constantinople, 1846); RICHTER, Quellen der byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte (Vienna, 1897); GEDEON, Constantinople in BOUTYRAS (Greek), Dictionary of History and Geography (Constantinople, 1881), III, 929–1121; RIANT Exuvi sacr Constantinopolitan (Geneva, 1877); BOUVY, Souvenirs chrétiens de Constantinople (Paris, 1896); CUPERUS, Tractatus pr liminaris de patriarchis Constantinopolitanis in Acta SS., ed. PALMÉ, August, I, vi-ix, 1–272; LEQUIEN, Oriens christianus (Paris, 1740), I, 1–350, III, 793–836; GEDEON, Patriarchikoi pinakes (Constantinople, 1887).

SIEGES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

GERLAND, Geschichte des lateinischen Kaiserreiches von Konstantinopel (Hamburg, 1904); KRAUSE, Die Eroberungen von Konstantinopel im 13. und 15. Jahrhundert (Halle, 1850); PEARS, The Fall of Constantinople, being the Story of the Fourth Crusade (London, 1885); IDEM, The Destruction of the Greek Empire and the Story of the Capture of Constantinople by the Turks (London, 1903); STAMATIADES, History of the Capture of Byzantium by the Franks and of Their Domination (Greek, Athens, 1885); KALLIGAS, Essays on Byzantine History from the Former to the Latter Capture of Constantinople (Greek, Athens, 1894); VLASTO, Les derniers jours de Constantinople en 1453 (Paris, 1883); POUJOULAT, Histoire de La conquête et de l’occupation de Constantinople par les Latins (Tours, 1855); D’OUTREMANN, Constantinopolis Belgica sive de rebus gestis a Balduino et Henrico, imperatoribus Constantinopolis (Tournai, 1643); MORDTMANN, Belagerung und Eroberung Konstantinopels durch die Turken im Jahre 1453 (Stuttgart, 1858); VAST, Le siège et la prise de Constantinople d’après des documents nouveaux in Revue historique, XIII 1–40.

MODERN RELIGIOUS STATISTICS

VAILHÉ, Constantinople in Dict. de théol. cath., III, 1307–1519; CUINET, La Turquie d’Asie (Paris, 1894), IV, 589–705; Missiones catholic (Rome, 1907), pp. 137–140; PIOLET, Les missions catholiques françaises au XIXe siècle, I. 39–142, 149–184; BELIN, Histoire de la Latinité de Constantinople (Paris, 1904); HILAIRE DE BARANTON, La France catholique en Orient (Paris, 1902); Almanach à l’usage des familles catholiques de Constantinople (1901–1906).

For extensive bibliographies see: CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl. (Montbéliard, 1904), I, 780–787; KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur (Munich, 1897), 1068–1144; VAILHÉ in Dict. de théol. cath., III, 1515–1519.

S. VAILHÉ

Councils of Constantinople

Constantinople, Councils of.—A. GENERAL COUNCILS Four general councils of the Church were held in this city.

I. THE FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (Second General Council) . . . was called in May, 381, by Emperor Theodosius, to provide for a Catholic succession in the patriarchal See of Constantinople, to confirm the Nicene Faith, to reconcile the Semi-Arians with the Church, and to put an end to the Macedonian heresy. Originally it was only a council of the Orient; the arguments of Baronius (ad an. 381, nos. 19, 20) to prove that it was called by Pope Damasus are invalid (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, Paris, 1908, II, 4). It was attended by 150 Catholic and 36 heretical (Semi-Arian, Macedonian) bishops, and was presided over by Meletius of Antioch; after his death, by the successive Patriarchs of Constantinople, St. Gregory Nazianzen and Nectarius. Its first measure was to confirm St. Gregory Nazianzen as Bishop of Constantinople. The Acts of the council have almost entirely disappeared, and its proceedings are known chiefly through the accounts of the ecclesiastical historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. There is good reason to believe that it drew up a formal treatise (tomos) on the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, also against Apollinarianism; this important document has been lost, with the exception of the first canon of the council and its famous creed (Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum). The latter is traditionally held to be an enlargement of the Nicene Creed, with emphasis on the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. It seems, however, to be of earlier origin, and was probably composed (369–73) by St. Cyril of Jerusalem as an expression of the faith of that Church (Bois), though its adoption by this council gave it special authority, both as a baptismal creed and as a theological formula. Recently Harnack (Realencyklopadie fur prot. Theol. and Kirche, 3rd ed., XI, 12–28) has maintained, on apparently inconclusive grounds, that not till after the Council of Chalcedon (451) was this creed (a Jerusalem formula with Nicene additions) attributed to the Fathers of this council. At Chalcedon, indeed, it was twice recited and appears twice in the Acts of that council; it was also read and accepted at the Sixth General Council, held at Constantinople in 680 (see below). The very ancient Latin version of its text (Mansi, Coll. Conc., III, 567) is by Dionysius Exiguus.

The Greeks recognize seven canons, but the oldest Latin versions have only four; the other three are very probably (Hefele) later additions. The first canon is an important dogmatic condemnation of all shades of Arianism, also of Macedonianism and Apollinarianism. The second canon renews the Nicene legislation imposing upon the bishops the observance of diocesan and patriarchal limits. The fourth canon declares invalid the consecration of Maximus, the Cynic philosopher and rival of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, as Bishop of Constantinople. The famous third canon declares that because Constantinople is New Rome the bishop of that city should have a preeminence of honor after the Bishop of Old Rome. Baronius wrongly maintained the non-authenticity of this canon, while some medieval Greeks maintained (an equally erroneous thesis) that it declared the bishop of the royal city in all things the equal of the pope. The purely human reason of Rome’s ancient authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Apostolic See, which always based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. Nor did Rome easily acknowledge this unjustifiable reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East. It was rejected by the papal legates at Chalcedon. St. Leo the Great (Ep. cvi in P. L., LIV, 1003, 1005) declared that this canon had never been submitted to the Apostolic See and that it was a violation of the Nicene order. At the Eighth General Council in 869 the Roman legates (Mansi, XVI, 174) acknowledged Constantinople as second in patriarchal rank. In 1215, at the Fourth Lateran Council (op. cit., XXII, 991), this was formally admitted for the new Latin patriarch, and in 1439, at the Council of Florence, for the Greek patriarch (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, II, 25–27). The Roman correctores of Gratian (1582), at dist. xxii, c. 3, insert the words: “canon hic ex its est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recipit.”

At the close of the council Emperor Theodosius issued an imperial decree (30 July) declaring that the churches should be restored to those bishops who confessed the equal Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who held communion with Nectarius of Constantinople and other important Oriental prelates whom he named. The ecumenical character of this council seems to date, among the Greeks, from the Council of Chalcedon (451). According to Photius (Mansi, III, 596) Pope Damasus approved it, but if any part of the council were approved by this pope it could have been only the aforesaid creed. In the latter half of the fifth century the successors of Leo the Great are silent as to this council. Its mention in the so-called “Decretum Gelasii,” towards the end of the fifth century, is not original but a later insertion in that text (Hefele). Gregory the Great, following the example of Vigilius and Pelagius II, recognized it as one of the four general councils, but only in its dogmatic utterances (P. G., LXXVII, 468, 893). (See SEMI-ARIANISM; MACEDONIANS; GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, SAINT; LEO I, SAINT, POPE; THEODOSIUS THE GREAT.

HEFELE, Conciliengesch. (Freiburg, 1875), II, 1–33; Eng. tr. (Edinburgh, 1876), vol. II; and LECLERCQ’s Fr. tr. (Paris, 1908), II, 1–48. Non-Catholic: BURN, Introduction to the Creeds and The Te Deum (London, 1899); HORT, Two Dissertations, etc. (London, 1876): II, The Constantinopolitan Creed and Other Creeds of the Fourth Century (London, 1876); BRIGHT, Canons of the First Four General Councils (Oxford, 1892); BETHUNE, The Homoousios in the Constantinopolitan Creed (London, 1905).

II. THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (Fifth General Council) . . . was held at Constantinople (5 May-2 June, 553), having been called by Emperor Justinian. It was attended mostly by Oriental bishops; only six Western (African) bishops were present. The president was Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople. This assembly was in reality only the last phase of the long and violent conflict inaugurated by the edict of Justinian in 543 against Origenism (P. G., LXXXVI, 945–90). The emperor was persuaded that Nestorianism continued to draw its strength from the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428), Theodoret of Cyrus (d. 457), and Ibas of Edessa (d. 457), also from the personal esteem in which the first two of these ecclesiastical writers were yet held by many. The events which led to this council will be narrated more fully in the articles VIGILIUS, POPE and in THREE CHAPTERS; only a brief account will be given here.

From 25 Jan., 547, Pope Vigilius was forcibly detained in the royal city; he had originally refused to participate in the condemnation of the Three Chapters (i.e. brief statements of anathema upon Theodore of Mopsuestia and his writings, upon Theodoret of Cyrus and his writings against St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Council of Ephesus, and upon the letter written by Ibas of Edessa to Maris, Bishop of Hardaschir in Persia). Later (by his “Judicatum,” 11 April, 548) Vigilius had condemned the Three Chapters (the doctrine in question being really censurable), but he expressly maintained the authority of the Council of Chalcedon (451) wherein Theodoret and Ibas-but after the condemnation of Nestorius-had been restored to their places; in the West much discontent was called forth by this step which seemed a weakening before the civil power in purely ecclesiastical matters and an injustice to men long dead and judged by God; it was ‘all the more objectionable as the Western mind had no accurate knowledge of the theological situation among the Greeks of that day. In consequence of this Vigilius had persuaded Justinian to return the aforesaid papal document and to proclaim a truce on all sides until a general council could be called to decide these controversies. Both the emperor and the Greek bishops violated this promise of neutrality; the former, in particular, publishing (551) his famous edict, ‘OµoXoyla rijr alo-rews, condemning anew the Three Chapters, and refusing to withdraw the same.

For his dignified protest Vigilius thereupon suffered various personal indignities at the hands of the civil authority and nearly lost his life; he retired finally to Chalcedon, in the very church of St. Euphemia where the great council had been held, whence he informed the Christian world of the state of affairs. Soon the Oriental bishops sought reconciliation with him, induced him to return to the city, and withdrew all that had hitherto been done against the Three Chapters; the new patriarch, Eutychius, successor to Mennas, whose weakness and subserviency were the immediate cause of all this violence and confusion, presented (6 Jan., 553) his profession of faith to Vigilius and, in union with other Oriental bishops, urged the calling of a general council under the presidency of the pope. Vigilius was willing, but proposed that it should be held either in Italy or in Sicily, in order to secure the attendance of Western bishops. To this Justinian would not agree, but proposed, instead, a kind of commission made up of delegates from each of the great patriarchates; Vigilius suggested that an equal number be chosen from the East and the West; but this was not acceptable to the emperor, who thereupon opened the council by his own authority on the date and in the manner mentioned above. Vigilius refused to participate, not only on account of the overwhelming proportion of Oriental bishops, but also from fear of violence; moreover, none of his predecessors had ever taken part personally in an Oriental council. To this decision he was faithful, though he expressed his willingness to give an independent judgment on the matters at issue. Eight sessions were held, the result of which was the final condemnation of the Three Chapters by the 165 bishops present at the last session (2 June, 553), in fourteen anathematisms similar to the thirteen previously issued by Justinian.

In the meantime Vigilius had sent to the emperor (14 May) a document known as the first “Constituturn” (Mansi, IX, 61–106), signed by himself and sixteen, mostly Western, bishops, in which sixty heretical propositions of Theodore of Mopsuestia were condemned, and, in five anathematisms, his Christological teachings repudiated; it was forbidden, however, to condemn his person, or to proceed further in condemnation of the writings or the person of Theodoret, or of the letter of Ibas. It seemed indeed, under the circumstances, no easy task to denounce fittingly the certain errors of the great Antiochene theologian and his followers and yet uphold the reputation and authority of the Council of Chalcedon, which had been content with obtaining the essentials of submission from all sympathizers with Nestorius, but for that very reason had never been forgiven by the Monophysite opponents of Nestorius and his heresy, who were now in league with the numerous enemies of Origen, and until the death (548) of Theodora had enjoyed the support of that influential empress.

The decisions of the council were executed with a violence in keeping with its conduct, though the ardently hoped for reconciliation of the Monophysites did not follow. Vigilius, together with other opponents of the imperial will, as registered by the subservient court-prelates, seems to have been banished (Hefele, II, 905), together with the faithful bishops and ecclesiastics of his suite, either to Upper Egypt or to an island in the Propontis. Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second “Constitutum” of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 414–20, 457–88; cf. Hefele, II, 905–11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. Here, indeed, despite the additional recognition of it by Pelagius I (555–60), the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an oecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; the former yielding only towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter (Aquileia-Grado) protracted its resistance to about 700 (Hefele, op. cit., II, 911–27). (For an equitable appreciation of the conduct of Vigilius see, besides the article VIGILIUs, the judgment of Bois, in Diet. de theol. cath., II, 1238–39.) The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites.

The original Greek Acts of the council are lost, but there is extant a very old Latin version, probably contemporary and made for the use of Vigilius, certainly quoted by his successor Pelagius I. The Baluze edition is reprinted in Mansi, “Coll. Conc.,” IX, 163 sqq. In the next General Council of Constantinople (680) it was found that the original Acts of the Fifth Council had been tampered with (Hefele, op. cit., II, 855–58) in favor of Monothelism; nor is it certain that in their present shape we have them in their original completeness (ibid., pp. 859–60). This has. a bearing on the much disputed question concerning the condemnation of Origenism at this council. Hefele, moved by the antiquity and persistency of the reports of Origen’s condemnation, maintains (p. 861) with Cardinal Noris, that in it Origen was condemned, but only en passant, and that his name in the eleventh anathema is not an interpolation.

The chief sources are the writings of the contemporary Western (African) FACUNDUS OF HERMIANE, Pro defens. trium capit.; Liber contra Mutianum; and Epist. fidei cath.-all in P. L., LXVII, 527 sqq.; and the Carthaginian deacon FULGENTIUS FERRANDUS, Epist. ad Pelagium et Anatol. in P. L., LXVII, 921 sqq. See PUNKES, Papst Vigilius and der Dreikapitelslrcit (Munich, 1864); VINCENZI, In S. Greg. Miss. et Origen scripta et doctr. nova recensio, cum. append. de actin Vicecum concilii (Rome, 1865); DUCHESNE, Vigile et Pelage in Revue des quest. hilt. (Louvain, 1884), XXXVI, 369, with reply of CHAMARD, ibid., XXXVII, 540, and the counter-reply of DUCHESNE, ibid., 579; LfvEQUE, Etude sur le pape Vigile (Amiens, 1887); KNECHT, Die Religionspolitik Kaiser Justinians I. (Wurzburg, 1896); DIEKAMP, Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten im VI. Jahrhundert (Munster, 1899).

III. THE THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (Sixth General Council) . . . was summoned in 678 by Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, with a view of restoring between East and West the religious harmony that had been troubled by the Monothelistic controversies, and particularly by the violence of his predecessor Constans II, whose imperial edict, known as the “Typus” (648–49) was a practical suppression of the orthodox truth. Owing to the desire of Pope Agatho to obtain the adhesion of his Western brethren, the papal legates did not arrive at Constantinople until late in 680. The council, attended in the beginning by 100 bishops, later by 174, was opened 7 Nov., 680, in a domed hall (trullus) of the imperial palace and was presided over by the (three) papal legates who brought to the council a long dogmatic letter of Pope Agatho and another of similar import from a Roman synod held in the spring of 680. They were read in the second session. Both letters, the pope’s in particular, insist on the faith of the Apostolic See as the living and stainless tradition of the Apostles of Christ, assured by the promises of Christ, witnessed by all the popes in their capacity of successors to the Petrine privilege of confirming the brethren, and therefore finally authoritative for the Universal Church.

The greater part of the eighteen sessions was devoted to an examination of the Scriptural and patristic passages bearing on the question of one or two wills, one or two operations, in Christ. George, Patriarch of Constantinople, soon yielded to the evidence of the orthodox teaching concerning the two wills and two operations in Christ, but Macarius of Antioch, “almost the only certain representative of Monothelism since the nine propositions of Cyrus of Alexandria” (Chapman), resisted to the end, and was finally anathematized and deposed for “not consenting to the tenor of the orthodox letters sent by Agatho the most holy pope of Rome,” i.e., that in each of the two natures (human and Divine) of Christ there is a perfect operation and a perfect will, against which the Monothelites had taught that there was but one operation and one will (Isla ivgpyeia BeasapLK) quite in consonance with the Monophysite confusion of the two natures in Christ. In the thirteenth session (28 March, 681) after anathematizing the chief Monothelite heretics mentioned in the aforesaid letter of Pope Agatho, i.e. Sergius of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and Theodore of Pharan, the council added: “And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was Pope of Elder Rome, be with them cast out of the Holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things and confirmed his wicked dogmas.”A similar condemnation of Pope Honorius occurs in the dogmatic decree of the final session (16 Sept., 681), which was signed by the legates and the emperor. Reference is here made to the famous letter of Honorius to Sergius of Constantinople about 634, around which has arisen (especially before and during the Vatican Council) so large a controversial literature. It had been invoked three times in previous sessions of the council in question by the stubborn Monothelite Macarius of Antioch, and had been publicly read in the twelfth session together with the letter of Sergius to which it replied. On that occasion a second letter of Honorius to Sergius was also read, of which only a fragment has survived. (For the question of this pope’s orthodoxy, see Pope Honorius I; Infallibility; Monothelites.)

There has been in the past, owing to Gallicanism and the opponents of papal infallibility, much controversy concerning the proper sense of this council’s condemnation of Pope Honorius, the theory (Baronius, Damberger) of a falsification of the Acts being now quite abandoned (Hefele, III, 299–313). Some have maintained, with Pennacchi, that he was indeed condemned as a heretic, but that the Oriental bishops of the council misunderstood the thoroughly orthodox (and dogmatic) letter of Honorius; others, with Hefele, that the council condemned the heretically sounding expressions of the pope (though his doctrine was really orthodox); others finally, with Chapman (see below), that he was condemned “because he did not, as he should have done, declare authoritatively the Petrine tradition of the Roman Church. To that tradition he had made no appeal but had merely approved and enlarged upon the half-hearted compromise of Sergius. . . . Neither the pope nor the council consider that Honorius had compromised the purity of the Roman tradition, for he had never claimed to represent it. Therefore, just as today we judge the letters of Pope Honorius by the Vatican definition and deny them to be ex cathedra, because they do not define any doctrine and impose it upon the whole Church, so the Christians of the seventh century judged the same letters by the custom of their day, and saw that they did not claim what papal letters were wont to claim, viz., to speak with the mouth of Peter in the name of Roman tradition” (Chapman).

The letter of the council to Pope Leo, asking, after the traditional manner, for confirmation of its Acts, while including again the name of Honorius among the condemned Monothelites, lays a remarkable stress on the magisterial office of the Roman Church, as, in general, the documents of the Sixth General Council favor strongly the inerrancy of the See of Peter. “The Council “, says Dom Chapman, “accepts the letter in which the Pope defined the faith. It deposes those who refused to accept it. It asks [the pope] to confirm its decisions. The Bishops and Emperor declare that they have seen the letter to contain the doctrine of the Fathers. Agatho speaks with the voice of Peter himself; from Rome the law had gone forth as out of Sion; Peter had kept the faith unaltered.” Pope Agatho died during the council and was succeeded by Leo II, who confirmed (683) the decrees against Monothelism, and expressed himself even more harshly than the council towards the memory of Honorius (Hefele, Chapman), though he laid stress chiefly on the neglect of that pope to set forth the traditional teaching of the Apostolic See, whose spotless faith he treasonably tried to overthrow (or, as the Greek may be translated, permitted to be overthrown).

The Acts of the Council are in the eleventh volume of MANSI, Coll. Conc. The most complete presentation of its history is in HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1877), III, 249–313, see also the English tr. (Edinburgh, 1876-), and for the later bibliography the French tr. of LECLERCQ (Paris 1907); SCHNEEMAN, Studien caber die Honoriusf rage (Freiburg, 1864); PENNACCHI, De Honorii I Rom. Pontif. causd in Conc. VI (Rome, 1870); HERGENROTHER-KIRSCH, Kirchengesch. (4th ed., Freiburg, 1904), I, 633–38• MARSHALL, Honorius and Liberius in Am. Cath Quarterly Rev. (Philadelphia, 1894), XIX, 82–92; BOTTALLA, Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and History (London, 1864); DOLLINGER (Old Catholic), Fables respecting the Popes in the Middle Ages, American ed. of the Papstfabeln (New York, 1872), 223–48; CHAPMAN, The Condemnation of Pope Honorius in Dublin Review for 1907, and reprinted by the LONDON CATH. TRUTH SOCIETY, 1907; GRISAR in Kirchenlex., VI, 230 sqq. For the extensive Honorius literature, see CHEVALIER, Bio-bibl., s.v.

IV. THE FOURTH COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (Eighth General Council) . . . was opened, 5 Oct., 869, in the Cathedral of Saint Sophia, under the presidency of the legates of Adrian II. During the preceding decade grave irregularities had occurred at Constantinople, among them the deposition of the Patriarch Ignatius and the intrusion of Photius, whose violent measures against the Roman Church culminated in the attempted deposition (867) of Nicholas I. The accession in that year of a new emperor, Basil the Macedonian, changed the situation, political and ecclesiastical. Photius was interned in a monastery; Ignatius was recalled, and friendly relations were resumed with the Apostolic See. Both Ignatius and Basil sent representatives to Rome asking for a general council. After holding a Roman synod (June, 869) in which Photius was again condemned, the pope sent to Constantinople three legates to preside in his name over the council. Besides the Patriarch of Constantinople there were present the representatives of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem and, towards the end, also the representatives of the Patriarch of Alexandria. The attendance of Ignatian bishops was small enough in the beginning; indeed there were never more than 102 bishops present.

The legates were asked to exhibit their commission, which they did; then they presented to the members of the council the famous formula (libellus) of Pope Hormisdas (514–23), binding its signatories “to follow in everything the Apostolic See of Rome and teach all its laws . . . in which communion is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” The Fathers of the council were required to sign this document, which had originally been drawn up to close the Acacian schism. The earlier sessions were occupied with the reading of important documents, the reconciliation of Ignatian bishops who had fallen away to Photius, the exclusion of some Photian prelates, and the refutation of the false statements of two former envoys of Photius to Rome. In the fifth session Photius himself unwillingly appeared, but when questioned observed a deep silence or answered only in a few brief words, pretending blasphemously to imitate the attitude and speech of Christ before Caiphas and Pilate. Through his representatives he was given another hearing in the next session; they appealed to the canons as above the pope. In the seventh session he appeared again, this time with his consecrator George Asbestas. They appealed, as before, to the ancient canons, refused to recognize the presence or authority of the Roman legates, and rejected the authority of the Roman Church, though they offered to render an account to the emperor. As Photius would not renounce his usurped claim and recognize the rightful patriarch Ignatius, the former Roman excommunications of him were renewed by the council, and he was banished to a monastery on the Bosporus, whence he did not cease to denounce the council as a triumph of lying and impiety, and by a very active correspondence kept up the courage of his followers, until in 877 the death of Ignatius opened the way for his return to power. Iconoclasm, in its last remnants, and the interference of the civil authority in ecclesiastical affairs were denounced by the council. The tenth and last session was held in the presence of the emperor, his son Constantine, the Bulgarian king, Michael, and the ambassadors of Emperor Louis II.

The twenty-seven canons of this council deal partly with the situation created by Photius and partly with general points of discipline or abuses. The decrees of Nicholas I and Adrian II against Photius and in favour of Ignatius were read and confirmed, the Photian clerics deposed, and those ordained by Photius reduced to lay communion. The council issued an Encyclical to all the faithful, and wrote to the pope requesting his confirmation of its Acts. The papal legates signed its decrees, but with reservation of the papal action. Here, for the first time, Rome recognized the ancient claim of Constantinople to the second place among the five great patriarchates. Greek pride, however, was offended by the compulsory signature of the aforesaid Roman formulary of reconciliation, and in a subsequent conference of Greek ecclesiastical and civil authorities the newly-converted Bulgarians were declared subject to the Patriarchate of Constantinople and not to Rome. Though restored by the Apostolic See, Ignatius proved ungrateful, and in this important matter sided with the other Eastern patriarchs in consummating, for political reasons, a notable injustice; the territory henceforth known as Bulgaria was in reality part of the ancient Illyria that had always belonged to the Roman patriarchate until the Iconoclast Leo III (718–41) violently withdrew it and made it subject to Constantinople. Ignatius very soon consecrated an archbishop for the Bulgarians and sent thither many Greek missionaries, whereupon the Latin bishops and priests were obliged to retire. On their way home the papal legates were plundered and imprisoned; they had, however, given to the care of Anastasius, Librarian of the Roman Church (present as a member of the Frankish embassy) most of the submission-signatures of the Greek bishops. We owe to him the Latin version of these documents and a copy of the Greek Acts of the council which he also translated and to which is due most of our documentary knowledge of the proceedings. It was in vain that Adrian II and his successor threatened Ignatius with severe penalties if he did not withdraw from Bulgaria his Greek bishops and priests. The Roman Church never regained the vast regions she then lost. (See PHOTIUS; IGNATIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE; NICHOLAS I.)

HERGENROTHER, Photius (Ratisbon, 1867–69), I, 373 sqq., 505 sqq., and vol. II; IDEM, Monumenta Grccca ad Photium ejusque historiam pertinentia (Ratisbon, 1869); Tosxi, Storia dell’ origin dello scisma greco (Florence, 1856); HEFELE, Conciliengesch. (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1877), IV, 436 sqq.; MILMAN (Protestant), History of Latin Christianity, Bk. V, ch. iv; NoRDEN (Protestant), Papsttum and Byzanz (Berlin, 1903); FoRTESCUE, The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907), 156–61.

B. PARTICULAR COUNCILS OF CONSTANTINOPLE I. In the summer of 382 a council of the Oriental bishops, convoked by Theodosius, met in the imperial city. We still have its important profession of faith, often wrongly attributed to the Second General Council (i.e. at Constantinople in the preceding year), exhibiting the doctrinal agreement of all the Christian churches; also two canons (v and vi) wrongly put among the canons of the Second General Council [Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, Paris, 1907, II (i), 53–56]. In the summer of the next year (383) Theodosius convoked another council, with the hope of uniting all factions and parties among the Christians on the basis of a general acceptance of the teachings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. He met with a qualified success (Socrates, V, 10; Hefele-Leclercq, op. cit., 63–65); among the most stubborn of those who resisted was Eunomius (see Eunomianism).

II. The council, held in 692, under Justinian II is generally known as the Council in Trullo, because it was held in the same domed hall where the Sixth General Council had met (see above). Both the Fifth and the Sixth General Councils had omitted to draw up disciplinary canons, and as this council was intended to complete both in this respect, it also took the name of Quinisext (Concilium Quinisextum, Divo-Sos 7rEPegKTn), i.e. Fifth-Sixth. It was attended by 215 bishops, all Orientals. Basil of Gortyna in Illyria, however, belonged to the Roman patriarchate and called himself papal legate, though no evidence is extant of his right to use a title that in the East served to clothe the decrees with Roman authority. In fact, the West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council, in large measure reaffirmations of earlier canons. Most of the new canons exhibit an inimical attitude towards Churches not in disciplinary accord with Constantinople, especially the Western Churches. Their customs are anathematized and “every little detail of difference is remembered to be condemned” (Fortescue). Canon iii of Constantinople (381) and canon xxviii of Chalcedon (451) are renewed, the heresy of Honorius is again condemned (can. i), and marriage with a heretic is invalid because Rome says it is merely unlawful; Rome had recognized fifty of the Apostolic Canons; therefore the other thirty-five obtain recognition from this council, and as inspired teaching (see Apostolic Canons).

In the matter of celibacy the Greek prelates are not content to let the Roman Church follow its own discipline, but insist on making a rule (for the whole Church) that all clerics except bishops may continue in wedlock, while they excommunicate anyone who tries to separate a priest or deacon from his wife, and any cleric who leaves his wife because he is ordained (can. iii, vi, xii, xiii, xlviii). The Orthodox Greek Church holds this council an ecumenical one, and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. In the West St. Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a reprobate synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an erratic one. Dr. Fortescue rightly says (op. cit. below, p. 96) that intolerance of all other customs with the wish to make the whole Christian world conform to its own local practices has always been and still is a characteristic note of the Byzantine Church. For the attitude of the popes, substantially identical, in face of the various attempts to obtain their approval of these canons, see Hefele, “Conciliengesch.” (III, 345–48).

III. In 754 the Iconoclast Emperor Constantine V called in the imperial city a council of 338 bishops. Through cowardice and servility they approved the heretical attitude of the emperor and his father Leo III, also the arguments of the Iconoclast party and their measures against the defenders of the sacred images. They anathematized St. Germanus of Constantinople and St. John Damascene, and denounced the orthodox as idolaters, etc.; at the same time they resented the spoliation of the churches under pretext of destroying images (see Iconoclasm).

IV. For the three Photian synods of 861 (deposition of Ignatius), 867 (attempted deposition of Nicholas I), and 879 (recognition of Photius as lawful patriarch), recognized by the Greeks as Eighth General Council in opposition to the council of 869–70, which they continue to abominate, see Photius.

V. In 1639 and 1672 councils were held by the Orthodox Greeks at Constantinople condemnatory of the Calvinistic confession of Cyril Lucaris and his followers. [See Semnoz, “Les dernieres annees du patr. Cyrille Lucar” in “Ethos d’Orient” (1903), VI, 97–117, and Fortescue, “Orthodox Eastern Church” (London, 1907), 267].

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Rite of Constantinople

(Also BYZANTINE RITE.)

The Liturgies, Divine Office, forms for the administration of sacraments and for various blessings, sacramentals, and exorcisms, of the Church of Constantinople, which is now, after the Roman Rite, by far the most widely spread in the world. With one insignificant exception—the Liturgy of St. James is used once a year at Jerusalem and Zakynthos (Zacynthus)—it is followed exclusively by all Orthodox Churches, by the Melkites (Melchites) in Syria and Egypt, the Uniats in the Balkans and the Italo-Greeks in Calabria, Apulia, Sicily, and Corsica. So that more than a hundred millions of Christians perform their devotions according to the Rite of Constantinople.

I. HISTORY

This is not one of the original parent-rites. It is derived from that of Antioch. Even apart from the external evidence a comparison of the two liturgies will show that Constantinople follows Antioch in the disposition of the parts. There are two original Eastern types of liturgy: that of Alexandria, in which the great Intercession comes before the Consecration, and that of Antioch, in which it follows after the Epiklesis. The Byzantine use in both its Liturgies (of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom) follows exactly the order of Antioch. A number of other parallels make the fact of this derivation clear from internal evidence, as it is from external witness. The tradition of the Church of Constantinople ascribes the oldest of its two Liturgies to St. Basil the Great (d. 379), Metropolitan of Cæsarea in Cappadocia. This tradition is confirmed by contemporary evidence. It is certain that St. Basil made a reformation of the Liturgy of his Church, and that the Byzantine service called after him represents his reformed Liturgy in its chief parts, although it has undergone further modification since his time. St. Basil himself speaks on several occasions of the changes he made in the services of Cæsarea. He writes to the clergy of Neo-Cæsarea in Pontus to complain of opposition against himself on account of the new way of singing psalms introduced by his authority (Ep. Basilii, cvii, Patr. Gr., XXXII, 763). St. Gregory of Nazianzos (Nazianzen, d. 390) says that Basil had reformed the order of prayers (euchon diataxis—Orat. xx, P. G., XXXV, 761). Gregory of Nyssa (died c. 395) compares his brother Basil with Samuel because he “carefully arranged the form of the Service” (Hierourgia, In laudem fr. Bas., P. G., XLVI, 808). Prokios (Proclus) of Constantinople (d. 446) writes: “When the great Basil . . . saw the carelessness and degeneracy of men who feared the length of the Liturgy—not as if he thought it too long—he shortened its form, so as to remove the weariness of the clergy and assistants” (De traditione divinæ Missæ, P. G., XLV, 849).

The first question that presents itself is: What rite was it that Basil modified and shortened? Certainly it was that used at Cæsarea before his time. And this was a local form of the great Antiochene use, doubtless with many local variations and additions. That the original rite that stands at the head of this line of development is that of Antioch is proved from the disposition of the present Liturgy of St. Basil, to which we have already referred; from the fact that, before the rise of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Antioch was the head of the Churches of Asia Minor as well as of Syria (and invariably in the East the patriarchal see gives the norm in liturgical matters, followed and then gradually modified by its suffragan Churches); and lastly by the absence of any other source. At the head of all Eastern rites stand the uses of Antioch and Alexandria. Lesser and later Churches do not invent an entirely new service for themselves, but form their practice on the model of one of these two. Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor in liturgical matters derive from Antioch, just as Egypt, Abyssinia, and Nubia do from Alexandria. The two Antiochene liturgies now extant are;

(1) that of the Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions and

(2) parallel to it in every way, the Greek Liturgy of St. James (see ANTIOCHENE LITURGY).

These are the starting-points of the development we can follow. But it is not to be supposed that St. Basil had before him either of these services, as they now stand, when he made the changes in question. In the first place, his source is rather the Liturgy of St. James than that of the Apostolic Constitutions. There are parallels to both in the Basilian Rite; but the likeness is much greater to that of St. James. From the beginning of the Eucharistic prayer (Vere dignum et justum est, our Preface) to the dismissal, Basil’s order is almost exactly that of James. But the now extant Liturgy of St. James (in Brightman, “Liturgies Eastern and Western,” 31–68) has itself been considerably modified in later years. Its earlier part especially (the Liturgy of the Catechumens and the Offertory) is certainly later than the time of St. Basil. In any case, then, we must go back to the original Antiochene Rite as the source. But neither was this the immediate origin of the reform. It must be remembered that all living rites are subject to gradual modification through use. The outline and frame remain; into this frame new prayers are fitted. As a general rule liturgies keep the disposition of their parts, but tend to change the text of the prayers. St. Basil took as the basis of his reform the use of Cæsarea in the fourth century. There is reason to believe that that use, while retaining the essential order of the original Antiochene service, had already considerably modified various parts, especially the actual prayers. We have seen, for instance, that Basil shortened the Liturgy. But the service that bears his name is not at all shorter than the present one of St. James. We may, then, suppose that by his time the Liturgy of Cæsarea had been considerably lengthened by additional prayers (this is the common development of Liturgies). When we say, then, that the rite of Constantinople that bears his name is the Liturgy of St. James as modified by St. Basil, it must be understood that Basil is rather the chief turning-point in its development than the only author of the change. It had already passed through a period of development before his time, and it has developed further since. Nevertheless, St. Basil and his reform of the rite of his own city are the starting-point of the special use of Constantinople. A comparison of the present Liturgy of St. Basil with earlier allusions shows that in its chief parts it is really the service composed by him. Peter the Deacon, who was sent by the Scythian monks to Pope Hormisdas to defend a famous formula they had drawn up (“One of the Trinity was crucified”) about the year 512, writes: “The blessed Basil, Bishop of Cæsarea, says in the prayer of the holy altar which is used by nearly the whole East: Give, oh Lord, strength and protection; make the bad good, we pray, keep the good in their virtue; for Thou canst do all things, and no one can withstand Thee; Thou dost save whom Thou wilt and no one can hinder Thy will” (Petri diac. Ep. ad Fulgent, vii, 25, in P. L., LXV, 449). This is a compilation of three texts in the Basilian Liturgy: Keep the good in their virtue; make the bad good by thy mercy (Brightman, op. cit., pp. 333–334); the words: Give, O Lord, strength and protection come several times at the beginning of prayers; and the last words are an acclamation made by the choir or people at the end of several (Renaudot, I, p. xxxvii). The Life of St. Basil ascribed to Amphilochios (P.G., XXIX, 301, 302) quotes as composed by him the beginning of the Introduction-prayer and that of the Elevation exactly as they are in the existing Liturgy (Brightman, 319, 341). The Second Council of Nicæa (787) says: “As all priests of the holy Liturgy know, Basil says in the prayer of the Divine Anaphora: We approach with confidence to the holy altar . . ..” The prayer is the one that follows the Anamnesis in St. Basil’s Liturgy (Brightman, p. 329. Cf. Hardouin, IV, p. 371).

From these and similar indications we conclude that the Liturgy of St. Basil in its oldest extant form is substantially authentic, namely, from the beginning of the Anaphora to the Communion. The Mass of the Catechumens and the Offertory prayers have developed since his death. St. Gregory Nazianzen, in describing the saint’s famous encounter with Valens at Cæsarea, in 372, describes the Offertory as a simpler rite, accompanied with psalms sung by the people but without an audible Offertory prayer (Greg. Naz., Or., xliii, 52, P. G., XXXVI, 561). This oldest form of the Basilian Liturgy is contained in a manuscript of the Barberini Library of about the year 800 (MS., III, 55, reprinted in Brightman, 309–344). The Liturgy of St. Basil now used in the Orthodox and Melkite (or Melchite) Churches (Euchologion, Venice, 1898, pp. 75–97; Brightman, 400–411) is printed after that of St. Chrysostom and differs from it only in the prayers said by the priest, chiefly in the Anaphora; it has received further unimportant modifications. It is probable that even before the time of St. John Chrysostom the Liturgy of Basil was used at Constantinople. We have seen that Peter the Deacon mentions that it was “used by nearly the whole East.” It would seem that the importance of the See of Cæsarea (even beyond its own exarchy), the fame of St. Basil, and the practical convenience of this short Liturgy led to its adoption by many Churches in Asia and Syria. The “East” in Peter the Deacon’s remark would probably mean the Roman Prefecture of the East (Præfectura Orientis) that included Thrace. Moreover, when St. Gregory of Nazianzos came to Constantinople to administer that diocese (381) he found in use there a Liturgy that was practically the same as the one he had known at home in Cappadocia. His Sixth Oration (P. G., XXXV, 721 sq.) was held in Cappadocia, his Thirty-eighth (P. G., XXXVI, 311) at Constantinople. In both he refers to and quotes the Eucharistic prayer that his hearers know. A comparison of the two texts shows that the prayer is the same. This proves that, at any rate in its most important element, the liturgy used at the capital was that of Cappadocia—the one that St. Basil used as a basis of his reform. It would therefore be most natural that the reform too should in time be adopted at Constantinople. But it would seem that before Chrysostom this Basilian Rite (according to the universal rule) had received further development and additions at Constantinople. It has been suggested that the oldest form of the Nestorian Liturgy is the original Byzantine Rite, the one that St. Chrysostom found in use when he became patriarch (Probst, “Lit. des IV. Jahrhts.,” 413).

The next epoch in the history of the Byzantine Rite is the reform of St. John Chrysostom (d. 407). He not only further modified the Rite of Basil, but left both his own reformed Liturgy and the unreformed Basilian one itself, as the exclusive uses of Constantinople. St. John became Patriarch of Constantinople in 397; he reigned there till 403, was then banished, but came back in the same year; was banished again in 404, and died in exile in 407. The tradition of his Church says that during the time of his patriarchate he composed from the Basilian Liturgy a shorter form that is the one still in common use throughout the Orthodox Church. The same text of Proklos (Proclus) quoted above continues: “Not long afterwards our father, John Chrysostom, zealous for the salvation of his flock as a shepherd should be, considering the carelessness of human nature, thoroughly rooted up every diabolical objection. He therefore left out a great part and shortened all the forms lest anyone . . . stay away from this Apostolic and Divine Institution,” etc. He would, then, have treated St. Basil’s rite exactly as Basil treated the older rite of Cæsarea. There is no reason to doubt this tradition in the main issue. A comparison of the Liturgy of Chrysostom with that of Basil will show that it follows the same order and is shortened considerably in the text of the prayers; a further comparison of its text with the numerous allusions to the rite of the Holy Eucharist in Chrysostom’s homilies will show that the oldest form we have of the Liturgy agrees substantially with the one he describes (Brightman, 530–534). But it is also certain that the modern Liturgy of St. Chrysostom has received considerable modifications and additions since his time. In order to reconstruct the rite used by him we must take away from the present Liturgy all the Preparation of the Offerings (Proskomide), the ritual of the Little and Great Entrances, and the Creed. The service began with the bishop’s greeting, “Peace to all,” and the answer, “And with thy spirit.” The lessons followed from the Prophets and Apostles, and the deacon read the Gospel. After the Gospel the bishop or a priest preached a homily, and the prayer over the catechumens was said. Originally it had been followed by a prayer over penitents, but Nektarios (381–397) had abolished the discipline of public penance, so in St. Chrysostom’s Liturgy this prayer is left out. Then came a prayer for the faithful (baptized) and the dismissal of the catechumens. St. Chrysostom mentions a new ritual for the Offertory: the choir accompanied the bishop and formed a solemn procession to bring the bread and wine from the prothesis to the altar (Hom. xxxvi, in I Cor., vi, P. G., LXI, 313). Nevertheless the present ceremonies and the Cherubic Chant that accompany the Great Entrance are a later development (Brightman, op. cit., 530). The Kiss of Peace apparently preceded the Offertory in Chrysostom’s time (Brightman, op. cit., 522, Probst, op. cit., 208). The Eucharistic prayer began, as everywhere, with the dialogue: “Lift up your hearts” etc. This prayer, which is clearly an abbreviated form of that in the Basilian Rite, is certainly authentically of St. Chrysostom. It is apparently chiefly in reference to it that Proklos says that he has shortened the older rite. The Sanctus was sung by the people as now. The ceremonies performed by the deacon at the words of Institution are a later addition. Probst thinks that the original Epiklesis of St. Chrysostom ended at the words “Send thy Holy Spirit down on us and on these gifts spread before us” (Brightman, op. cit., 386), and that the continuation (especially the disconnected interruption: God be merciful to me a sinner, now inserted into the Epiklesis; Maltzew, “Die Liturgien” etc., Berlin, 1894, p. 88) are a later addition (op. cit., 414). The Intercession followed at once, beginning with a memory of the saints. The prayer for the dead came before that for the living (ibid., 216–415). The Eucharistic prayer ended with a doxology to which the people answered, Amen; and then the bishop greeted them with the text, “The mercy of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ be with all of you” (Tit., ii, 13), to which they answered: “And with thy spirit,” as usual. The Lord’s Prayer followed, introduced by a short litany spoken by the deacon and followed by the well-known doxology: “For thine is the kingdom” etc. This ending was added to the Our Father in the Codex of the New Testament used by St. Chrysostom (cf. Hom. xix in P. G., LVII, 282). Another greeting (Peace to all) with its answer introduced the manual acts, first an Elevation with the words “Holy things for the holy” etc., the Breaking of Bread and the Communion under both kinds. In Chrysostom’s time it seems that people received either kind separately, drinking from the chalice. A short prayer of thanksgiving ended the Liturgy. That is the rite as we see it in the saint’s homilies (cf. Probst., op. cit., 156–202, 202–226). It is true that most of these homilies were preached at Antioch (387–397) before he went to Constantinople. It would seem, then, that the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom was in great part that of his time at Antioch, and that he introduced it at the capital when he became patriarch. We have seen from Peter the Deacon that St. Basil’s Rite was used by “nearly the whole East.” There is, then, no difficulty in supposing that it had penetrated to Antioch and was already abridged there into the “Liturgy of Chrysostom” before that saint brought this abridged form to Constantinople.

It was this Chrysostom Liturgy that gradually became the common Eucharistic service of Constantinople, and that spread throughout the Orthodox world, as the city that had adopted it became more and more the acknowledged head of Eastern Christendom. It did not completely displace the older rite of St. Basil, but reduced its use to a very few days in the year on which it is still said (see below, under II). Meanwhile the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom itself underwent further modification. The oldest form of it now extant is in the same manuscript of the Barberini Library that contains St. Basil’s Liturgy. In this the elaborate rite of the Proskomide has not yet been added, but it has already received additions since the time of the saint whose name it bears. The Trisagion (Holy God, Holy Strong One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us) at the Little Entrance is said to have been revealed to Proklos of Constantinople (434–47, St. John Dam., De Fide Orth., III, 10); this probably gives the date of its insertion into the Liturgy. The Cherubikon that accompanies the Great Entrance was apparently added by Justin II (565–78, Brightman, op. cit., 532), and the Creed that follows, just before the beginning of the Anaphora, is also ascribed to him (Joannis Biclarensis Chronicon, P. L., LXXII, 863). Since the Barberini Euchologion (ninth cent.) the Preparation of the Offerings (proskomide) at the credence-table (called prothesis) gradually developed into the elaborate rite that now accompanies it. Brightman (op. cit., 539–552) gives a series of documents from which the evolution of this rite may be traced from the ninth to the sixteenth century.

These are the two Liturgies of Constantinople, the older one of St. Basil, now said on only a few days, and the later shortened one of St. Chrysostom that is in common use. There remains the third, the Liturgy of the Presanctified (ton proegiasmenon). This service, that in the Latin Church now occurs only on Good Friday, was at one time used on the aliturgical days of Lent everywhere (see ALITURGICAL DAYS and Duchesne, Origines, 222, 238). This is still the practice of the Eastern Churches. The Paschal Chronicle (see CHRONICON PASCHALE) of the year 645 (P. G., XCII) mentions the Presanctified Liturgy, and the fifty-second canon of the Second Trullan Council (692) orders: “On all days of the fast of forty days, except Saturdays and Sundays and the day of the Holy Annunciation, the Liturgy of the Presanctified shall be celebrated.” The essence of this Liturgy is simply that the Blessed Sacrament that has been consecrated on the preceding Sunday, and is reserved in the tabernacle (artophorion) under both kinds, is taken out and distributed as Communion. It is now always celebrated at the end of Vespers (hesperinos), which form its first part. The lessons are read as usual, and the litanies sung; the catechumens are dismissed, and then, the whole Anaphora being naturally omitted, Communion is given; the blessing and dismissal follow. A great part of the rite is simply taken from the corresponding parts of St. Chrysostom’s Liturgy. The present form, then, is a comparatively late one that supposes the normal Liturgies of Constantinople. It has been attributed to various persons—St. James, St. Peter, St. Basil, St. Germanos I of Constantinople (715–30), and so on (Brightman, op. cit., p. xciii). But in the service books it is now officially ascribed to St. Gregory Dialogos (Pope Gregory I). It is impossible to say how this certainly mistaken ascription began. The Greek legend is that, when he was apocrisiarius at Constantinople (578), seeing that the Greeks had no fixed rite for this Communion-service, he composed this one for them.

The origin of the Divine Office and of the rites for sacraments and sacramentals in the Byzantine Church is more difficult to trace. Here too we have now the result of a long and gradual development; and the starting-point of that development is certainly the use of Antioch. But there are no names that stand out as clearly as do those of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom in the history of the Liturgy. We may perhaps find the trace of a similar action on their part in the case of the Office. The new way of singing psalms introduced by St. Basil (Ep. cvii, see above) would in the first place affect the canonical Hours. It was the manner of singing psalms antiphonally, that is alternately by two choirs, to which we are accustomed, that had already been introduced at Antioch in the time of the Patriarch Leontios (Leontius, 344–57; Theodoret, H. E., II, xxiv). We find one or two other allusions to reforms in various rites among the works of St. Chrysostom; thus he desires people to accompany funerals by singing psalms (Hom. iv, in Ep. ad Hebr., P. G., LXIII, 43) etc.

With regard to the Divine Office especially, it has the same general principles in East and West from a very early age (see BREVIARY). Essentially it consists in psalm-singing. Its first and most important part is the Night-watch (pannychis, our Nocturns); at dawn the orthros (Lauds) was sung; during the day the people met again at the third, sixth, and ninth hours, and at sunset for the hesperinos (Vespers). Besides the psalms these Offices contained lessons from the Bible and collects. A peculiarity of the Antiochene use was the “Gloria in excelsis” sung at the Orthros (Ps.-Athan., De Virg., xx, P. G., XXVIII, 276); the evening hymn, Phos ilaron, still sung in the Byzantine Rite at the Hesperinos and attributed to Athenogenes (in the second cent.), is quoted by St. Basil (De Spir. Sancto, lxxiii, P. G., XXXII, 205). Egeria of Aquitaine, the pilgrim to Jerusalem, gives a vivid description of the Office as sung there according to Antioch in the fourth century [“S. Silviæ (sic) peregrin.,” ed. Gamurrini, Rome, 1887]. To this series of Hours two were added in the fourth century. John Cassian (Instit., III, iv) describes the addition of Prime by the monks of Palestine, and St. Basil refers (loc. cit.) to Complin (apodeipnon) as the monks’ evening prayer. Prime and Complin, then, were originally private prayers said by monks in addition to the official Hours. The Antiochene manner of keeping this Office was famous all over the East. Flavian of Antioch in 387 softened the heart of Theodosius (after the outrage to the statues) by making his clerks sing to him “the suppliant chants of Antioch” (Sozom., H. E., VII, xxiii). And St. John Chrysostom, as soon as he comes to Constantinople, introduces the methods of Antioch in keeping the canonical Hours (16, VIII, 8). Eventually the eastern Office admits short services (mesoorai) between the day Hours, and between Vespers and Complin. Into this frame a number of famous poets have fitted a long succession of canons (unmetrical hymns); of these poets St. Romanos the singer (sixth cent.), St. Cosmas the singer (eighth cent.), St. John Damascene (c. 780), St. Theodore of Studion (d. 826), etc., are the most famous (see BYZANTINE LITERATURE, sub-title IV. Ecclesiastical etc.). St. Sabas (d. 532) and St. John Damascene eventually arranged the Office for the whole year, though, like the Liturgy, it has undergone further development since, till it acquired its present form (see below).

II. THE BYZANTINE RITE AT THE PRESENT TIME

The Rite of Constantinople now used throughout the Orthodox Church does not maintain any principle of uniformity in language. In various countries the same prayers and forms are translated (with unimportant variations) into what is supposed to be more or less the vulgar tongue. As a matter of fact, however, it is only in Rumania that the liturgical language is the same as that of the people. Greek (from which all the others are translated) is used at Constantinople, in Macedonia (by the Patriarchists), Greece, by Greek monks in Palestine and Syria, by nearly all Orthodox in Egypt; Arabic in parts of Syria, Palestine, and by a few churches in Egypt; Old Slavonic throughout Russia, in Bulgaria, and by all Exarchists, in Czernagora, Servia, and by the Orthodox in Austria and Hungary; and Rumanian by the Church of that country. These four are the principal languages. Later Russian missions use Esthonian, Lettish, and German in the Baltic provinces, Finnish and Tatar in Finland and Siberia, Chinese, and Japanese. (Brightman, op. cit., LXXXI-LXXXII). Although the Liturgy has been translated into English (see Hapgood, op. cit. in bibliography), a translation is never used in any church of the Greek Rite. The Uniats use Greek at Constantinople, in Italy, and partially in Syria and Egypt, Arabic chiefly in these countries, Old Slavonic in Slav lands, and Rumanian in Rumania. It is curious to note that in spite of this great diversity of languages the ordinary Orthodox layman no more understands his Liturgy than if it were in Greek. Old Slavonic and the semi-classical Arabic in which it is sung are dead languages.

THE CALENDAR

It is well known that the Orthodox still use the Julian Calendar (Old Style). By this time (1908) they are thirteen days behind us. Their liturgical year begins on 1 September, “the beginning of the Indict, that is of the new year.” On 15 November begins the first of their four great fasts, the “fast of Christ’s birth” that lasts till Christmas (25 December). The fast of Easter begins on the Monday after the sixth Sunday before Easter, and they abstain from flesh-meat after the seventh Sunday before the feast (our Sexagesima). The fast of the Apostles lasts from the day after the first Sunday after Pentecost (their All Saints’ Day) till 28 June, the fast of the Mother of God from 1 August to 14 August. Throughout this year fall a great number of feasts. The great cycles are the same as ours—Christmas, followed by a Memory of the Mother of God on 26 December, then St. Stephen on 27 December, etc. Easter, Ascension Day, and Whitsunday follow as with us. Many of the other feasts are the same as ours, though often with different names. They divide them into three categories, feasts of our Lord (heortai despotikai), of the Mother of God (theometrikai), and of the saints (ton hagion). They count the “Holy meeting” (with St. Simeon, 2 February), the Annunciation (25 March), the Awakening of Lazarus (Saturday before Palm Sunday), etc., as feasts of Our Lord. The chief feasts of Our Lady are her birthday (8 September), Presentation in the Temple (21 November), Conception (9 December), Falling-asleep (koimesis, 15 August), and the Keeping of her Robe at the Blachernæ (at Constantinople, 2 July). Feasts are further divided according to their solemnity into three classes: great, middle, and less days. Easter of course stands alone as greatest of all. It is “The Feast” (he heorte, al-id); there are twelve other very great days and twelve great ones. Certain chief saints (the Apostles, the three holy hierarchs—Sts. Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom—30 January, the holy and equal-to-the-Apostles Sovereigns, Constantine and Helen, etc.) have middle feasts; all the others are lesser ones. The Sundays are named after the subject of their Gospel; the first Sunday of Lent is the feast of Orthodoxy (after Iconoclasm), the Saturdays before Meatless Sunday (our Sexagesima) and Whitsunday are All Souls’ days. Our Trinity Sunday is their All Saints. Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year are days of abstinence (Fortescue, “Orth. Eastern Church,” 398–401).

SERVICE-BOOKS

The Byzantine Rite has no such compendiums as our Missal and Breviary; it is contained in a number of loosely arranged books. They are: the Typikon), a perpetual calendar containing full directions for all feasts and all possible coincidences. The (Euchologion) contains the priest’s part of the Hesperinos, Orthros, the three Liturgies, and other sacraments and sacramentals. The Triodion contains the variable parts of the Liturgy and Divine Office (except the psalms, Epistles, and Gospels) for the movable days from the tenth Sunday before Easter to Holy Saturday. Tbe Pentekostarion continues the Triodion from Easter Day to the first Sunday after Pentecost (All Saints’ Sunday). The Oktoechos gives the Offices of the Sundays for the rest of the year (arranged according to the eight modes to which they are sung—okto echoi) and the Parakletike is for the weekdays. The twelve Menaias, one for each month, contain the Proper of Saints; the Menologion is a shortened version of the Menaia, and the Horologion contains the choir’s part of the day Hours. The Psalter (psalterion), Gospel (enaggelion), and Apostle (apostolos—Epistles and Acts) contain the parts of the Bible read (Fortescue, “Orth. E. Ch.,” 401–402; Nilles, “Kal. Man.,” XLIV-LVI; Kattenbusch, “Confessionskunde,” I, 478–486).

THE ALTAR, VESTMENTS AND SACRED VESSELS

A church of the Byzantine Rite should have only one altar. In a few very large ones there are side-chapels with altars, and the Uniats sometimes copy the Latin multitude of altars in one church; this in an abuse that is not consistent with their rite. The altar (he hagia trapeza) stands in the middle of the sanctuary (ierateion); it is covered to the ground with a linen cloth over which is laid a silk or velvet covering. The Euchologion, a folded antimension, and perhaps one or two other instruments used in the Liturgy are laid on it; nothing else. [See ALTAR (IN THE GREEK CHURCH).] Behind the altar, round the apse, are seats for priests with the bishop’s throne in the middle (in every church). On the north side of the altar stands a large credence-table (prothesis); the first part of the Liturgy is said here. On the south side is the diakonikon, a sort of sacristy where vessels and vestments are kept; but it is in no way walled off from the rest of the sanctuary. The sanctuary is divided from the rest of the church by the ikonostasis (eikonostasis, picture-screen), a great screen stretching across the whole width and reaching high up to the roof (see sub-title The Iconostasis s.v. HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN ALTAR). On the outside it is covered with a great number of pictures of Christ and the saints, arranged in a more or less determined order (Christ always to the right of the royal doors and the Bl. Virgin on the left), before which rows of lamps are hung. The ikonostasis has three doors, the “royal door” in the middle, the deacon’s door to the south (right hand as one enters the church), and another door to the north. Between the royal door and the deacon’s door the bishop has another throne facing the people. Immediately outside the ikonostasis is the choir. A great part of the services take place here. In the body of the church the people stand (there are no seats as a rule); then comes the narthex, a passage across the church at the west end, from which one enters by doors into the nave. Most of the funeral rites and other services take place in the narthex. Churches are roofed as a rule by a succession of low cupolas, often five (if the church is cross-shaped). In Russia there is generally a belfry. The vestments were once the same as the Latin ones, though now they look very different. It is a curious case of parallel evolution. The bishop wears over his cassock the sticharion our alb; it is often of silk and coloured; then the epitrachelion, a stole of which the two ends are sewn together and hang straight down in front, with a loop through which the head is passed. The sticharion and epitrachelion are held together by the zone (girdle), a narrow belt of stuff with clasps. Over the wrists he wears the epimanikia, cuffs or gloves with the part for the hand cut off. From the girdle the epigonation, a diamond-shaped piece of stuff, stiffened with cardboard, hangs down to the right knee. Lastly, he wears over all the sakkos, a vestment like our dalmatic. Over the sakkos comes the . This is a great pallium of silk embroidered with crosses. There is also a smaller omophorion for some rites. He has a pectoral cross, an enkolpion (a medal containing a relic), a mitre formed of metal and shaped like an imperial crown, and a dikanikion, or crosier, shorter than ours and ending in two serpents between which is a cross. To give his blessing in the Liturgy he uses the trikerion in his right and the dikerion in his left hand. These are a triple and double candlestick with candles. The priest wears the sticharion, epitrachelion, zone, and epimanikia. If he is a dignitary he wears the epigonation and (in Russia) the mitre also. Instead of a sakkos he has a phainolion, our chasuble, but reaching to the feet behind and at the sides, and cut away in front (see CHASUBLE and illustrations). The deacon wears the sticharion and epimanikia, but no girdle. His stole is called an orarion; it is pinned to the left shoulder and hangs straight down, except that he winds it around his body and over the right shoulder at the Communion. It is embroidered with the word “HAGIOS” three times. A very common abuse (among Melkites too) is for other servers to wear the orarion. This is expressly forbidden by the Council of Laodicea (c. 360, can. xxii). The Byzantine Rite has no sequence of liturgical colours. They generally use black for funerals, otherwise any colours for any day. The vessels used for the holy Liturgy are the chalice and paten (diskos), which latter is much larger than ours and has a foot to stand it (it is never put on the chalice), the asteriskos (a cross of bent metal that stands over the paten to prevent the veil from touching the holy bread), the spoon (labis) for giving Communion, the spear (logche) to cut up the bread, and the fan (hripidion) which the deacon waves over the Blessed Sacrament—this is a flat piece of metal shaped like an angel’s head with six wings and a handle. The antimension) is a kind of corporal containing relics that is spread out at the beginning of the Liturgy. It is really a portable altar. The Holy Bread (always leavened of course) is made as a flat loaf marked in squares to be cut up during the Proskomide with the letters IC. XC. NI. KA. (Iesous Christos nika). In the diakonikon a vessel is kept with hot water for the Liturgy (Fortescue, op. cit., 403–409; “Echos d’Orient,” V, 129–139; R. Storff, “Die griech. Liturg.,” 13–14).

CHURCH MUSIC

The singing in the Byzantine Rite is always unaccompanied. No musical instrument of any kind may be used in their churches. They have a plain chant of eight modes that correspond to ours, except that they are numbered differently; the four authentic modes (Doric, Phrygian, Lydian, and Mixolydian—our 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th) come first, then the Plagal modes (our 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th). But their scales are different. Whereas our plainsong is strictly diatonic, theirs is enharmonic with variable intervals. They always sing in unison and frequently change the mode in the middle of a chant. One singer (generally a boy) sings the dominant (to ison) of the mode to the sound of A continuously, while the rest execute their elaborate pneums (see PLAIN CHANT). The result is generally—to our ears—unmelodious and strange, though in some cases a carefully trained choir produces a fine effect. One of the best is that of St. Anne’s (Melkite) College at Jerusalem, trained by the French Pères Blancs. One of these, Père Rebours, has written an exhaustive and practical treatise of their chant (“Traité de psaltique” etc.; see bibliography). In Russia and lately, to some extent, in the metropolitan church of Athens they sing figured music in parts of a very stately and beautiful kind. It is probably the most beautiful and suitable church music in the world.

THE HOLY LITURGY

The present use of the Byzantine Rite confines the older Liturgy of St. Basil to the Sundays in Lent (except Palm Sunday), Maundy Thursday, and Holy Saturday, also the eves of Christmas and the Epiphany, and St. Basil’s feast (1 January). On all other days on which the Liturgy is celebrated they use that of St. Chrysostom. But on the weekdays in Lent (except Saturdays) they may not consecrate, so they use for them the Liturgy of the Presanctified. An Orthodox priest does not celebrate every day, but as a rule only on Sundays and feast-days. the Uniats, however, in this, as in many other ways, imitate the Latin custom. They also have a curious principle that the altar as well as the celebrant must be fasting, that is to say that it must not have been used already on the same day. So there is only one Liturgy a day in an Orthodox Church. Where many priests are present they concelebrate, all saying the Anaphora together over the same offerings. This happens nearly always when a bishop celebrates; he is surrounded by his priests, who celebrate with him. The Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, as being the one commonly used, is always printed first in the Euchologia. It is the framework into which the others are fitted and the greater part of the Liturgy is always said according to this form. After it are printed the prayers of St. Basil (always much longer) which are substituted for some of the usual ones when his rite is used, and then the variants of the Liturgy of the Presanctified. The Liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom, then, differing only in a certain number of the prayers, may be described together.

The first rubric directs that the celebrant must be reconciled to all men, keep his heart from evil thoughts, and be fasting since midnight. At the appointed hour (usually immediately after None) the celebrant and deacon (who communicates and must therefore also be fasting) say the preparatory prayers before the ikonostasis (Brightman, op. cit., 353–354), kiss the holy ikons, and go into the diakonikon. Here they vest, the celebrant blessing each vestment as it is put on, say certain prayers, and wash their hands, saying verses 6–12 of Ps. xxv (“Lavabo inter innocentes” etc., op. cit., 354–356). Then the first part of the Liturgy, the Preparation of the Offering (proskomide) begins at the credence table (prothesis). The loaves of bread (generally five) are marked in divisions as described above under the caption Altar, etc. The celebrant cuts away with the holy lance the parts marked IC. XC. NI. KA., and says: “The Lamb of God is sacrificed.” These parts are then called the Lamb. The deacon pours wine and warm water into the chalice. Other parts of the bread are cut away in honour of the All-holy Theotokos, nine for various saints, and others for the bishop, Orthodox clergy, and various people for whom he wishes to pray. This rite is accompanied by many prayers, the particles (prosphorai) are arranged on the diskos (paten) by the Lamb (that of the Theotokos on the right, because of the verse “The Queen stands at thy right hand.” A long rubric explains all this), covered with the asteriskos and veils, and the offerings are repeatedly incensed. The deacon then incenses the prothesis, altar, sanctuary, nave, and the celebrant. (A detailed account of the now elaborate rite of the Proskomide is given in the “Echos d’Orient,” III, 65–78.) They then go to the altar, kiss the Gospel on it and the deacon holding up his orarion says: It is time to sacrifice to the Lord. Here begin the Litanies (ektenai or synaptai). The doors of the ikonostasis are opened, and the deacon goes out through the north door. Standing before the royal doors he chants the Great Litany, praying for peace, the Church, the patriarch or synod (in Orthodox countries for the sovereign and his family), the city, travellers, etc., etc. To each clause the choir answer “Kyrie eleison.” Then follows the first antiphon (on Sundays Ps. cii), and the celebrant at the altar says a prayer. The Short Litany is sung in the same way (the clauses are different, Brightman, op. cit., 362–375) with an antiphon and prayer, and then a third litany; on Sundays the third antiphon is the Beatitudes.

THE LITTLE ENTRANCE

Here follows the Little Entrance. The deacon has gone back to the celebrant’s side. They come out through the north door in procession, the deacon holding the book of the Gospels, with acolytes bearing candles. The troparia (short hymns) are sung, ending with the Trisagion: “Holy God, Holy Strong One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us” (three times); then “Glory be to the Father,” etc. “As it was in the beginning,” etc.—and again “Holy God,” etc. Meanwhile the celebrant says other prayers. A reader sings the Epistle; a Gradual is sung; the deacon sings the Gospel, having incensed the book; more prayers follow. Then come prayers for the catechumens, and they are dismissed by the deacon: “All catechumens go out. Catechumens go out. All catechumens go away. Not one of the catechumens [shall stay].”—Of course nowadays there are no catechumens. The prayers for the catechumens bring us to the first variant between the two Liturgies. The one said by the celebrant is different (and, as an exception, shorter) in St. Basil’s rite (Brightman, op. cit., 374 and 401). The deacon says, “All the faithful again and again pray to the Lord in peace,” and repeats several times the curious exclamation “Wisdom!” (sophia) that occurs repeatedly in the Byzantine Rite—before the Gospel he says “Wisdom! Upright!”—sophia. orthoi., meaning that the people should stand up.

THE LITURGY OF THE FAITHFUL

The Liturgy of the Faithful begins here. Prayers for the faithful follow (different in the two rites, Brightman, op. cit., 375–377 and 400–401); and then comes the dramatic moment of the Liturgy, the Great Entrance. The celebrant and deacon go to the prothesis, the offerings are incensed. The deacon covers his shoulders with the great veil (see AER) and takes the diskos (paten) with the bread; the thurible hangs from his hand; the celebrant follows with the chalice. Acolytes go in front and form a solemn procession. Meanwhile the choir sings the Cherubic Hymn (Cheroubikos hymnos): “Let us, who mystically represent the Cherubim, and who sing to the Life-giving Trinity the thrice holy hymn, put away all earthly cares so as to receive the King of all things [here the procession comes out through the north door] escorted by the army of angels. Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.” The procession goes meanwhile all round the church and enters the sanctuary by the royal doors. The Cherubic Hymn has a very elaborate and effective melody (Rebours, op. cit., 156–164) with almost endless pneums. This ceremony, with its allusion to the entrance of the “King of all things” before the offerings are consecrated, is a curious instance of a dramatic representation that anticipates the real moment of the Consecration. After some more prayers at the altar, different in the two liturgies, the deacon cries out, “The doors! The doors! Let us attend in wisdom,” and the doors of the ikonostasis are shut. The Creed is then sung.

THE ANAPHORA (CANON)

Here begins the Anaphora (Canon). There is first a dialogue, “Lift up your hearts” etc., as with us, and the celebrant begins the Eucharistic prayer: “It is meet and just to sing to Thee, to bless Thee, praise Thee and give thanks to Thee in all places. . . .” The form in St. Basil’s Rite is much longer. It is not said aloud, but at the end he lifts up his voice and says: “Crying, singing, proclaiming the hymn of victory and saying:”—and the choir sings “Holy, Holy, Holy” etc., as in our Mass. Very soon, after a short prayer (considerably longer in St. Basil’s Rite) the celebrant comes to the words of Institution. He lifts up his Voice and sings: “Take and eat: this is my Body that is broken for you for the forgiveness of sins”; and through the Ikonostasis the choir answers “Amen.” Then: “Drink ye all of this, this is my Blood of the New Testament that is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.” R. Amen—as before. The Orthodox, as is known, do not believe that these words consecrate, so they go straight on to the Anamnesis, and a special rubric in their Euchologion (ed. Venice, 1898, p. 63) warns them not to make any reverence here. The Uniats, on the other hand, make a profound reverence after each form. The Anamnesis (our “Unde et memores”) again is longer in the Basilian Liturgy. The Epiklesis follows. The deacon invites the celebrant in each case: “Bless, sir, the holy bread [or wine].” The two forms (of Basil and Chrysostom) may stand as specimens of the principle of abbreviation that distinguishes the later rite. In St. Basil’s Liturgy it is: “We pray and beseech thee, O Holy of Holy ones, that according to the mercy of thy favour thy Holy Spirit come down on us and on these present gifts to bless them, sanctify them and to make. . . .” (Chrysostom: “Send down thy Holy Spirit on us and on these present gifts. . . .”). Then, after an irrelevant interpolation, with two verses from Ps. 1about the celebrant’s own soul, he continues (Basil): “this bread the precious Body itself of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Chrys.: “and make this bread the precious Body of thy Christ”). Deacon: “Amen. Bless, Sir, the holy chalice.” Celebrant (Basil): “But this chalice the Precious Blood itself of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Chrys.: “And what it is in this Chalice the precious Blood of Thy Christ”). Deacon: “Amen. Bless, Sir, both.” Celebrant (Basil): “That was shed for the life and salvation of the world” (Chrys.: “Changing it by thy Holy Spirit”). Deacon: “Amen. Amen. Amen.” Both then make a deep prostration, and the deacon waves the ripidion (fan) over the Blessed Sacrament. This ceremony, now interpreted mystically as a symbol of adoring angels, was certainly once a practical precaution. They have no pall over the chalice and there is a danger of flies. The waving of the ripidion occurs several times during the Liturgy. In the Byzantine Rite, as in all the Antiochene family of liturgies, the Intercession follows at this point. First comes a memory of saints; the deacon then reads the Diptychs of the Dead, and the celebrant says a prayer into which he may introduce the names of any of the faithful departed for whom he wishes to pray. Prayers for the living follow (in Russia for the second time occur the names of “Our Orthodox and Christ-loving Lord Nicholas, Czar and Autocrat of all the Russias” and of all his “right-believing and God-fearing” family), with the names of the patriarch (or Synod) and metropolitan, and the ending; “and all [masc.] and all [fem.]” kai panton kai pason. The deacon then reads the Diptychs of the Living; more prayers for them follow. Here ends the Anaphora. The celebrant blesses the people: “The mercy of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ be with all of you.” Choir: “And with thy spirit.” And the deacon goes out to his place before the ikonostasis and reads a litany, praying for various spiritual and temporal favours, to each clause of which the choir answers: “Kyrie eleison “, and at the last clause—“Having prayed in the union of faith and in the communion of the Holy Ghost, let us commend ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ, our God.” To Thee, O Lord (Soi, Kyrie).—Meanwhile the celebrant says a long prayer silently. The people sing the Lord’s Prayer, and the celebrant adds the clause: For Thine is the Kingdom” etc. The Inclination follows. The deacon says, “Bow your heads to the Lord” (our “Humiliate capita vestra Domino”); they answer, “To Thee, O Lord,” and the celebrant says the Prayer of Inclination (different in the two Liturgies). The preparation for Communion begins here. The deacon winds his orarion (stole) around his body, the curtain of the royal doors (they have besides the doors a curtain that is continually drawn backward and forward during the Liturgy) is drawn back, and the celebrant elevates the Holy Eucharist saying, “Holy things for the holy,” to which the answer is: “One only is holy, one only is Lord, Jesus Christ in the glory of God the Father. Amen.” The Communion hymn (koinonikon) of the day is sung, and the Communion begins. While the clergy Communicate in the Sanctuary a sermon is sometimes preached. The celebrant breaks the Holy Bread into four parts, as it is marked, and arranges them on the diskos thus:—

I S

N I K A

X S (Where I=Iota, S=Sigma)

He puts the fraction marked (IOTA-SIGMA) into the chalice, and the deacon again pours into it a little warm water (the use of warm water is a very old peculiarity of this rite).The part marked (CHI-SIGMA) is divided into as many parts as there are priests and deacons to Communicate. Meanwhile, prayers are said; those about to Communicate ask pardon of their offences against each other. The celebrant says, “Behold I draw near to our immortal King” etc., and receives Holy Communion in the form of bread, saying: The precious and all-holy Body of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is given to me N. priest [or bishop] for the forgiveness of my sins and for life everlasting.” Then he says, “Deacon, approach.” and gives him Communion with the same form (To thee N. deacon etc.). The celebrant then drinks of the chalice with a corresponding form—The precious and all-holy Blood—and communicates the deacon as before. After Communion each says silently a very beautiful prayer—I believe, Lord, and I confess that Thou art in very truth Christ, the Son of the living God etc. (Brightman, op. cit., 394.) The rest of the clergy are Communicated from the portion marked (IOTA-SIGMA), that has been put into the chalice and is therefore soaked in the consecrated wine, with one form (The precious and all-holy Body and Blood). The celebrant divides the portions marked NI and KA, and the deacon puts them into the chalice with a sponge. The doors are opened and the deacon says, “Draw near in the fear of God and with faith.” The celebrant comes down to the doors with the chalice and the spoon and communicates the people with the Holy Bread dipped in the chalice, and with one form, as before. The people stand to receive Communion (the Byzantine Rite knows practically no kneeling at all). Finally, the deacon puts all the remaining particles into the chalice and carries it back to the prothesis. Those other particles (prosphora) originally cut off from the bread have lain on the diskos (paten) since the proskomide. It has been a great question whether they are consecrated or not. The Orthodox now say that they are not, and the deacon puts them into the chalice after the Communion. It is obviously a question of the celebrant’s intention. The Uniat priests are told to consecrate them too, and in their Liturgy the people receive in Communion (Fortescue, op. cit., 417; “Echos d’Orient,” III, 71–73).

DISMISSAL

Here begins the Dismissal. The deacon unwinds his orarion, goes back to the choir before the ikonostasis, and says a short litany again with the choir. He then goes to the prothesis and consumes all that is left of the Holy Eucharist with the prosphora. Meanwhile, some of the bread originally cut up at the Prothesis has remained there all the time. This is now brought to the celebrant, blessed by him, and given to the people as a sacramental (the French pain bénit—see ANTIDORON). After some more prayers the celebrant and deacon go to the diakonikon, the doors are shut, they take off their vestments, and the Liturgy is over. The whole service is very much longer than our Mass. It lasts about two hours. It should be noted that all the time that the choir are singing or litanies being said the priest is saying other prayers silently (mystikos). The Byzantine Rite has no provision for low Mass. As they say the Liturgy only on Sundays and feast-days, they have less need for such a rite. In cases of necessity, where there is no deacon, the celebrant supplies his part as best he can. The Uniats, who have begun to celebrate every day, have evolved a kind of low Liturgy; and at the Greek College at Rome they have a number of little manuscript books containing an arrangement for celebrating with a priest and one lay server only. But in the Levant, at any rate, the Liturgy is always sung, and incense is always used; so that the minimum of persons required for the Liturgy is a celebrant, server, and one other man who forms the choir.

LITURGY OF THE PRESANCTIFIED

The Liturgy of the Presanctified is fitted into the general framework of St. Chrysostom’s Rite. It is usually celebrated on Wednesdays and Fridays in the first six weeks of Lent, and on all the days of Holy Week, except Maundy Thursday and Easter Eve which have the real Liturgy (of St. Basil). On other days in Lent there is no liturgical service at all. On the Sunday before more loaves (prosphorai) are used than otherwise. The same rite of preparation is made over all. After the Elevation the celebrant dips the other prosphoras into the chalice with the spoon, and places it in another chalice in the tabernacle (artophorion) kept for this purpose. The Liturgy of the Presanctified is said after Vespers (hesperinos), which forms its first part. There is of course no further Proskomide, but the preparatory prayers are said by celebrant and deacon as usual. The Great Litany is introduced into the middle of Vespers. The hymn phos ilaron (see below) is sung as usual, and the lessons are read. The prayers for catechumens and their dismissal follow. The Great Entrance is made with the already consecrated offerings, and a changed form of the Cherubic Hymn is sung (Maltzew, “Die Liturgien,” 149). The curtain of the royal doors is half-drawn across, the whole Anaphora is omitted, and they go on at once to the Short Litany before the Lord’s Prayer. The Lord’s Prayer, Inclination, and Elevation with the form: “The presanctified Holy Things to the holy” follow. Wine and warm water are poured into the chalice, but not, of course, consecrated. Communion is given with one form only. The Blessed Sacrament already dipped in consecrated wine is now dipped in unconsecrated wine. The celebrant drinks of this wine after his Communion without any prayer. The Liturgy ends as usual (with different forms in some parts), and the deacon consumes what is left of the Holy Eucharist (unless some of it is again reserved for the next Presanctified Liturgy and the wine in the Chalice. This is the merest outline of the rite. Its earlier part is inextricably joined to the Vespers (Maltzew, op. cit., 121–158).

THE DIVINE OFFICE

The Divine Office is very long and complicated. When sung in choir it lasts about eight hours. It is said entirely only by monks. Secular priests say part of it, as their devotion dictates. The Uniats frequently apply to Rome to know what to do, and the answer is always: Servetur consuetudo, by which is meant that their secular clergy should say as much of the Office as is customary. It is impossible for them to say it all. The Office is divided into the hours named above (under Service-books) which correspond to ours, with additional short hours (mesoora) intermediate between Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and Vespers. It is made up of psalms, lessons, prayers, and especially of a great number of hymns in rhythmical prose. The Psalter is divided into twenty parts called kathismata, each of which is made up of three sections (staseis). The whole Psalter is sung every week. The most important of the many kinds of hymns are the following: A canon (kanon) is made up of nine odes corresponding to the nine canticles (of Moses, Ex., xv, 1–19; Deut., xxxii, 1–43; of Anna, I Kings, ii, 1–10; Hab., iii, 2–19; Is., xxvi, 9–20; Jonas, ii, 2–10; the Benedicite, Magnificat, and Benedictus) sung at Lauds. Of these canticles the second is sung only in Lent; therefore most canons have no second ode. Each ode is supposed to correspond more or less to its canticle. Thus the sixth ode will generally contain a reference to Jona’s whale. Otherwise the canon is always about the feast on which it is sung, and much ingenuity is expended in forcing some connexion between the event of the day and the allusions in the canticles. The odes are further divided into a heirmos and troparia of any number, from three to twenty or more. The heirmos sets the tune for each ode (see PLAIN CHANT), and the troparia follow it. The last troparion of each ode always refers to Our Lady and is called theotokion. The odes often make an acrostic in their initial letters; sometimes they are alphabetic. In long canons a poem is intercalated in the middle during which people may sit (they stand for nearly the whole Office); it is called theotokion. Three troparia form an kathisma (“house,” cf. Italian stanza). The canons for the weekdays are in the Oktoechos, those for immovable feasts in the Menaias, for movable ones in the Triodion and Pentekostarion (see above under Service-books). One of the most famous of all is St. John Damascene’s Golden Canon for Easter Day (translated by Dr. J. M. Neale in his “Hymns of the Eastern Church,” 4th ed., London, pp. 30–44). Other kinds of chant are the kontakion, a short poem about the feast, the stichos a versicle, generally from a psalm (like our antiphons), which introduces a sticheron, or hymn sung at Matins and Vespers. An idiomelon is a troparion that has its own melody, instead of following a heirmos (for other kinds of chant see Nilles, “Kalend. Man.,” pp. lvii-lxix, and the example he gives from the feast of the Transfiguration, 6 August). The Great Doxology (doxologia) is our “Gloria in excelsis,” the small one our “Gloria Patri.” The (“standing hymn”) is a complete Office in honour of Our Lady and of her Annunciation. It has all the Hours and is made up of psalms, odes, etc., like other Offices. It is sung very solemnly on the Saturday before the second Sunday before Easter; and they sing parts of it every Friday evening and Saturday morning in Lent. It is always sung standing. The Hymnos Akathistos is printed at the end of the Horologion. P. de Meester, O.S.B., has edited it with an Italian translation (Akolouthia tou akathistou hymnou.—Officio dell’ inno acatisto, Rome, 1903). At the end of Vespers every day is sung the famous phos ilaron, as the evening light disappears, and the lamps are lit:—

Hail, gladdening Light, of his pure glory poured

Who is the immortal Father, heavenly, blest,

Holiest of Holies, Jesus Christ, Our Lord.

Now we are come to the sun’s hour of rest,

The lights of evening round us shine,

We hymn the Father, Son and Holy Spirit divine,

Worthiest art Thou at all times to be sung

With undefiled tongue,

Son of our God, giver of life alone.

Therefore in all the world, thy glories, Lord, they own.—Keble’s translation in the “Hymns, Ancient and Modern,” No. 18.

The Seven Great Mysteries (Sacraments) There are, lastly, services for the administration of the Seven Great Mysteries (the Seven Sacraments) that are printed in the Euchologion after the liturgies (ed. cit., pp. 136–288).

Baptism

Baptism is always conferred by immersion (the Orthodox have grave doubts as to the validity of baptism by infusion. See Fortescue, Orth. E. Church, p. 420). The child is anointed all over its body and dipped three times with its face towards the east. The form is: “The servant of God N. is baptized in the name of the Father, Amen, and of the Son, Amen, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.”

Confirmation

Confirmation follows at once and is conferred by priests (the Holy See recognizes this confirmation as valid and neither rebaptizes nor reconfirms converts from Orthodoxy). The whole body is again anointed with chrism (to hagion hyron) prepared very elaborately with fifty-five various substances by the cumenical patriarch on Maundy Thursday (Fortescue, op. cit., 425–426). The form is: “The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Euch., 136–144). The Orthodox never rebaptize when they are sure of the validity of former baptism; but they reconfirm continually. Confirmation has become the usual rite of admittance into their Church, even in the case of apostates who have already been confirmed orthodoxly.

Holy Communion

The pious Orthodox layman Communicates as a rule only four times a year, at Christmas, Easter, Whitsunday, and the Falling Asleep of the Mother of God (15 August). The Blessed Sacrament is reserved for the sick in the artophorion, (or ierophylakion) under both kinds more or less, that is to say it has been dipped into the chalice and allowed to dry. It is given to the sick with a spoon and with the usual form (see above under Holy Liturgy). They have no tradition of reverence for the reserved Eucharist.

Penance

Penance (metanoia) is administered rarely, usually on the same occasions as Holy Communion. They have no confessionals. The ghostly father (pneumatikos) sits before the ikonostasis under the picture of Our Lord, the penitent kneels before him (one of the rare cases of kneeling is in this rite), and several prayers are said, to which the choir answers “Kyrie eleison.” The “choir” is always the penitent himself. Then the ghostly father is directed to say “in a Cheerful voice: Brother, be not ashamed that you come before God and before me, for you do not confess to me but to God who is present here.” He asks the penitent his sins, says that only God can forgive him, but that Christ gave this power to his Apostles saying: “Whose sins ye shall forgive,” etc., and absolves him with a deprecatory form in a long prayer in which occur the words: “May this same God, through me a sinner, forgive you all now and for ever.” (Euch., pp. 221–223.)

Holy Order

Holy Order (cheirotonia) is given by laying on the right hand only. The form is (for deacons): “The grace of God, that always strengthens the weak and fills the empty, appoints the most religious sub-deacon N. to be deacon. Let us then pray for him that the grace of the Holy Ghost may come to him.” Long prayers follow, with allusions to St. Stephen and the diaconate; the bishop vests the new deacon, giving him an orarion and a ripidion. For priests and bishops there is the same form, with the obvious variants, “the most religious deacon N. to be priest,” or “the most religious elect N. to be Metropolitan of the holy Metropolis N.” (nearly all their bishops have the title Metropolitan), and the subjects receive their vestments and instruments. Priests and bishops concelebrate at once with the ordainer (Euch., 160–181). The Orthodox believe that the grace of Holy orders may perish through heresy or schism, so they generally reordain converts (the Russian Church has officially refused to do this, Fortescue, op. cit., 423–424).

Matrimony

Matrimony (gamos) is often called the “crowning” (stephanoma) from the practice of crowning the spouses (Euch., 238–252). They wear these crowns for a week, and have a special service for taking them off again (Euch., 252).

The Anointing of the Sick

The Anointing of the Sick (euchelaion) is administered (when possible) by seven priests. The oil contains as a rule wine, in memory of the Good Samaritan. It is blessed by a priest just before it is used. They use a very long form invoking the all-holy Theotokos, the “moneyless physicians” Sts. Cosmas and Damian, and other saints. They anoint the forehead, chin, cheeks, hands, nostrils, and breast with a brush. Each priest present does the same (Euch., 260–288). The service is, as usual, very long. They anoint people who are only slightly ill, (they very much resent our name: Extreme Unction), and in Russia on Maundy Thursday the Metropolitans of Moscow and Novgorod anoint everyone who presents himself, as a preparation for Holy Communion (Echos d’Orient, II, 193–203).

SACRAMENTALS

There are many Sacramentals. People are sometimes anointed with the oil taken from a lamp that burns before a holy icon (occasionally with the form for confirmation: “The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost”). They have besides the antidoron another kind of blessed bread—the kolyba eaten in honour of some saint or in memory of the dead. On the Epiphany (“The Holy Lights”—ta hagia phota) there is a solemn blessing of the waters. They have a great number of exorcisms, very stern laws of fasting (involving abstinence from many things besides flesh meat), and blessings for all manner of things. These are to be found in the Euchologion. Preaching was till lately almost a lost art in the Orthodox Church; now a revival of it has begun (Gelzer, Geistliches u. Weltliches, etc., 76–82). There is a long funeral service (Euch., ed. cit., 393–470). For all these rites (except the Liturgy) a priest does not wear all his vestments but (over his cassock) the epitrachelion and phainolion. The high black hat without a brim (kalemeukion) worn by all priests of this rite is well known. It is worn with vestments as well as in ordinary life. Bishops and dignitaries have a black veil over it. All clerks wear long hair and a beard. For a more detailed account of all these rites see “Orth. Eastern Church,” pp. 418–428.

The Orthodox Service-books in Greek are published at their official press (ho phoinix) at Venice (various dates: the Euchologion quoted here, 1898); the Uniat ones at Rome (Propaganda). There is also an Athenian edition; and the Churches that use translations have published their versions. Provost ALEXIOS MALTZEW (of the Russian Embassy church at Berlin) has edited all the books in Old Slavonic with a parallel German translation and notes (Berlin, 1892); RENAUDOT, Liturgiarum orientalium collectio (2d ed., 2 vols., Frankfort, 1847); NEALE, The Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement, St. Chrysostom, St Basil (London, 1875, in Greek); another volume contains The Translations of the Primitive Liturgies of St. Mark, etc.; ROBERTSON, The Divine Liturgies of Our Fathers among the Saints John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and that of the Presanctified (Greek and English, London 1894); DE MEESTER, La divine liturgie de S. Jean Chrysostome (Greek and French, Paris, 1907); iHe theia leitourgia, periechousa ton esperinon, k.t.1. (Athens, 1894); CHARON, Les saintes et divines Liturgies, etc. (Beirut, 1904); STORFF, Die griechiechen Liturgien, XLI of THALHOFER, Bibliothek der Kirchenväter (Kempten, 1877); Kitãb al-liturgiãt al-ilahiyyeh (Melchite Use in Arabic, Beirut, 1899); GOAR, Euchologion, sive Rituale Gr corum (2nd ed., Venice, 1720); PROBST, Liturgie der drei ersten christlichen Jahrhunderte (Tübingen, 1870); ANON., Liturgie des vierten Jahrhunderts und deren Reform (Münster, 1893); KATTENBUSCH, Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Konfessionskunde: Die orthodoxe anatolische Kirche (Freiburg im Br., 1892); NILLES, Kalendarium manuale utriusque ecclesi (2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1896–97); PRINCE MAX OF SAXONY, Pr lectiones de Liturgiis orientalibus (Freiburg im Br., 1908), I; HAPGOOD, Service-Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic (Gr co-Russian) Church (Boston and New York, 1906); ALLATIUS, De libris et rebus eccl. Gr corum (Cologne, 1646); CLUGNET, Dictionnaire grec-français des noms liturgiques en usage dans l’église grecque (Paris, 1895); ARCHATZIKAKI, Etudes sur les principales Fêtes chrétiennes dans l’ancienne Eglise d’Orient (Geneva, 1904); DE MEESTER, Officio dell’ inno acatisto (Greek and Italian, Rome, 1903); GELZER, Geistliches und Weltliches aus dem türkisch-griechischen Orient (Leipzig, 1900); GAISSER, Le système musical de l’Eglise grecque (Maredsous, 1901); REBOURS, Traitê de psaltique. Théorie et pratique du chant dans l’Eglise grecque (Paris, 1906); FORTESCUE, The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Ecclesiastical Constitutions

The term constitution denotes, in general, the make-up of a body, either physical or moral. Used in reference to civil or religious societies, the word, in the singular, signifies the fundamental law determining their governing, legislative, and executive organism; in the plural it denotes the enactments, ordinances, and laws issued by the supreme authority to further the object of the society. In legal language the term constitutiones denotes only church ordinances, civil ordinances being termed leges, laws. The constitutiones ecclesiastic have in common with the leges civiles the binding power derived from the authority of their framers, but they differ from them as the Church differs from civil society, viz, in their origin, object, and Sanction. Civil laws are enactments of a power directly human and only Divine in its first cause; their primary object is the furtherance of temporal welfare; and their sanction, temporal penalties. Ecclesiastical constitutions, on the other hand, emanate from an authority directly of Divine institution; their ultimate object is to promote the salvation of souls in the Kingdom of God on earth; their sanction consists in spiritual penalties.

In the total complex of laws bearing on matters spiritual, ecclesiastical constitutions stand midway between the Divine and the natural law. The Divine law is contained in the Scriptures interpreted by living, authoritative tradition, e.g. the Ten Commandments, the constitutions of the Church, the administration of the sacraments. Natural law rests on the dictates of human reason, e.g. the law of Self-preservation, obedience to authority, Divine worship. Both the Divine and the natural laws are often insufficiently determined; the Church expounds them and adapts them to particular times, places, and persons. Chief among ecclesiastical constitutions are the ordinances emanating from general councils (see COUNCILS, GENERAL, X, XI) and from the Apostolic See (see CONSTITUTIONS, PAPAL); these are the constitutiones ecclesiastic in the strictest sense of the term. Episcopal constitutions are issued by bishops either Singly or assembled in synods, e.g. the constitutions of the ten provincial and three plenary councils of Baltimore, which have adapted the ancient constitutions of the Universal Church to the peculiar national and political situation of the United States of America.

J. WILHELM

Papal Constitutions

(Latin constituere, to establish, to decree.)

Papal Constitutions are ordinations issued by the Roman pontiffs and binding those for whom they are issued, whether they be for all the faithful or for special classes or individuals. From the earliest times, the Christians of the whole world have consulted the popes on all matters pertaining to faith, morals, and discipline. The earliest instance is the well-known appeal from Corinth to Pope Clement I, during the lifetime of St. John the Apostle, in the first century of the Christian Era. From that time on, requests for decisions on various ecclesiastical matters were addressed to the Holy See from all parts of the known world, and the answers that were received were reverenced as proceeding from the mouth of Christ’s chief Apostle and His vicar on earth. The fact that the decrees of Church councils, whether general, provincial, or even diocesan, were anciently as a rule forwarded to the pope for his revision or confirmation, gave occasion for many papal constitutions during the early ages. After the time of Constantine the Great, owing to the greater liberty allowed to the Church, such intercourse with the Apostolic See became more frequent and more open. St. Jerome, in the fourth century (Ep. cxxiii), testifies to the number of responses requested of the sovereign pontiff from both the Eastern and the Western Church during the time he acted as secretary to Pope Damasus. That these papal responses soon began to constitute an important section of canon law, is evident from statements in the letters of various Roman pontiffs. The decretalia and constituta of the Apostolic See were recognized as laws or as interpretations of existing canons binding the particular Churches to their observance. The fact that cumenical councils required the papal confirmation before their decrees were valid (a principle expressly admitted by the early councils themselves) tended not a little to direct the attention of all Christians to the fullness of jurisdiction residing in the successor of St. Peter. Hence the professions of faith sent to the popes by newly elected bishops and by emperors on their succession to the throne.

Turning to the strictly canonical aspect of the case, the word constitution is derived from con (cum) and statuendo, and therefore means a common statute. It is consequently synonomous in most respects with law. In fact, a papal constitution is a legal enactment of the ruler of the Church, just as a civil law is a decree emanating from a secular prince. Reiffenstuel declares that the difference of name between ecclesiastical and civil statutes is very proper, since a secular ruler derives his authority immediately from the people, and hence it is really the people who make the laws, while the pope receives his power immediately from God and is himself the source whence all Church regulations proceed. As a matter of fact, however, while it is true that ecclesiastical laws are generally denominated “constitutions,” yet they are occasionally designated as “laws” in canonical jurisprudence (e. g. Can. Leges Ecclesiæ, 3, Q. 6). It must not be supposed, however, that even in ecclesiastical usage the word constitution is restricted to papal ordinances; it is also employed for conciliar, synodal, and episcopal mandates, though more rarely in later times. The name canon is generally, though not exclusively, given to conciliar decrees (see CANONS, ECCLESIASTICAL). Letters emanating from the pope, though all designated constitutions, receive more specific names according to their form and their subject matter. As to their form, pontifical constitutions may be either Bulls or Briefs. The former are used for the more important and permanent decrees and begin: Pius (or name of pope) Episcopus, Servus servorum Dei; the latter are headed by the name of the ruling pontiff: Pius PP. X. Pope Leo XIII (29 Dec., 1878) made some changes in the exterior form of papal Bulls (see BULLS AND BRIEFS). As to subject-matter, the term constitution, if used in a restricted sense, denotes some statute which the Vicar of Christ issues in solemn form either to the whole Christian world or to part of it, with the intention of permanently binding those to whom it is addressed. When the papal letters are addressed to the bishops of the entire Church, they are denominated Encyclicals. This is the most usual form employed by the popes for treating questions of doctrine and discipline. When pontifical enactments take the form of responses they are called decretal epistles. If they be issued motu proprio (that is without a request having been made to the Holy See), they are called decreta, though this name has also a more general significance (see DECREES). Ordinances issued to individuals concerning matters of minor or transient importance are called Rescripts (see RESCRIPTS, PAPAL).

Before issuing constitutions the pope usually takes counsel with his advisers. These counsellors have varied in the different stages of church history. During the first eleven centuries, the Roman presbyterate and the suburbicarian bishops were formed into councils by the pope whenever he wished to investigate matters of doctrine or discipline. The synodal letters, or constitutions, issuing from these assemblies owed their importance and binding force to the primatial jurisdiction of the throne of Peter, for these gatherings were not cumenical councils in any sense of the word. History records a long list of these Roman councils from the second to the eleventh century. The papal constitutions issued at the close of their celebration were as various as the subject-matter of the councils. The paschal question, the baptism of heretics, the heresies of Sabellius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and others, the restoration of patriarchs and bishops to their sees, ordinances concerning the monastic state, the election of the pope, the right of investiture—all found treatment and decision in these Roman councils and gave occasion to important pontifical constitutions. These rulings were reverenced as law throughout the Universal Church, East and West, and constitute an important witness to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. After the eleventh century, these Roman councils grew more infrequent and finally ceased altogether. This was owing to the importance gradually accruing to the cardinals, who succeeded the Roman presbyterate as the senate of the pope. Consistories of the cardinal-bishops, -priests, and -deacons were held twice and then thrice a week in the Apostolic Palace; and to these consistories the pontiff proposed the questions submitted to the Holy See before he drew up his constitution deciding them. The consistory was the ordinary tribunal and audience of the pope for the transaction of all the business of the Universal Church. (See CARDINAL) From the sixteenth century to our own time, a third period in the methods of government and counsel is to be distinguished. The rise of the Sacred Roman Congregations, with their separate tribunals, their consultors, and trained officials, has brought about a change in the preparation of papal constitutions. It is to these congregations that the pope looks for aid in preparing the subject-matter of his letters to the Church. (See ROMAN CONGREGATIONS.)

The binding force of pontifical constitutions, even without the acceptance of the Church, is beyond question. The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ. That this includes the power of making obligatory laws is evident. Moreover, that the popes have the intention of binding the faithful directly and immediately is plain from the mandatory form of their constitutions. Bishops, therefore, are not at liberty to accept or refuse papal enactments because, in their judgment, they are ill-suited to the times. Still less can the lower clergy or the civil power (see EXEQUATUR; PLACET) possess any authority to declare pontifical constitutions invalid or prevent their due promulgation. The Gallican opinions to the contrary are no longer tenable after the decrees of the Council of the Vatican (Sess. IV, ch. iii). If a papal constitution, published in Rome for the whole Church, were not formally promulgated in a particular region, the faithful would nevertheless be bound by it, if it concerned faith or morals. If it referred to matters of discipline only, its observance would not be urgent, not because of any defect in its binding force, but solely because in such circumstances the pope is presumed to have suspended the obligation for the time being. This leads to the question of the proper promulgation (q. v.) of papal laws (see LAW). The common teaching now is that promulgation in Rome makes them obligatory for the whole world. The method employed is to affix the decrees at the portals of St. Peter’s, of St. John Lateran, of the Apostolic Chancery and in the Piazza de’ Fiori.

SMITH, Elem. of Eccl. Law (New York, 1895), I; AICHNER, Comp. Jur. Eccl. (Brixen, 1895); REIFFENSTUEL, Jus Can. Universum (Paris, 1864).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Consubstantiation

This heretical doctrine is an attempt to hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without admitting Transubstantiation. According to it, the substance of Christ’s Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine. Hence the word Consubstantiation. How the two substances can coexist is variously explained. The most subtle theory is that, just as God the Son took to Himself a human body without in any way destroying its substance, so does He in the Blessed Sacrament assume the nature of bread. Hence the theory is also called “Impanation,” a term founded on the analogy of Incarnation.

The subject cannot be treated adequately except in connection with the general doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Here it will be sufficient to trace briefly the history of the heresy. In the earliest ages of the Church Christ’s words, “This is my body,” were understood by the faithful in their simple, natural sense. In the course of time discussion arose as to whether they were to be taken literally or figuratively; and when it was settled that they were to be taken literally in the sense that Christ is really and truly present, the question of the manner of this presence began to be agitated. The controversy from the ninth to the twelfth century, after which time the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist by the change of the entire substance of bread and wine into His Body and Blood, was fully indicated as Catholic dogma. In its first phase it turned on the question whether the Body was the historical body of Christ, the very body which was born, crucified, and risen. This is maintained by Paschasius Radbert and denied by Ratramnus in the middle of the ninth century. What concerns us here more closely is the next stage of the controversy, when Berengarius (1000–1088) denied, if not the Real Presence, at least any change of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood. He maintained that “the consecrated Bread, retaining its substance, is the Body of Christ, that is, not losing anything which it was, but assuming something which it was not” (panis sacratus in altari, salvâ suâ substantiâ, est corpus Christi, non amittens quod erat sed assumens quod non erat-Cf. Martène and Durand, “Thesaurus Novus Anecd.,” IV, col 105). It is clear that he rejected Transubstantiation; but what sort of presence he admitted would seem to have varied at different periods of his long career. His opinions were condemned at various councils held at Rome (1050, 1059, 1078, 1079), Vercelli (1050), Poitiers (1074), though both Pope Alexander II and St. Gregory VII treated him with marked consideration. His principal opponents If were Lanfranc, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury (De Corpore et Sanguine Domini adversus Berengarium Turonensem), Durandus of Troarn (q. v.), Guitmundus of Aversa, and Hugh of Langres. Although it cannot be said that Berengarius found many adherents during his lifetime, yet his heresy did not die with him. It was maintained by Wyclif (Trialog, IV, 6, 10) and Luther (Walch, XX 1228), and is the view of the High Church party among the Anglicans at the present time. Besides the councils above-mentioned, it was condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Council of Constance, (1418—“The substance of the material bread and in like manner the substance of the material wine remain in the Sacrament of the altar,” and the first of the condemned propositions of Wyclif), and the Council of Trent (1551).

Berengarius and his modern followers have appealed chiefly to reason and the Fathers in support of their opinions. That Transubstantiation is not contrary to reason, and was at least implicitly taught by the Fathers, is shown in the article TRANSUBSTANTIATION. In the discussions of the Father about the two natures in the one Person the analogy between the Incarnation and the Eucharist was frequently referred to, this led to the expression of views favoring Impanation. But after the definitive victory of St. Cyril’s doctrine, the analogy was seen to be deceptive. (See Batiffol, Etudes d’histoire, etc., 2nd series, p. 319 sqq.) The great Schoolmen unanimously rejected Consubstantiation, but they differed in their reasons for doing so. Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure, maintained that the words, “This is my body,” disproved it; while Alexander of Hales, Scotus, Durandus, Occam, and Pierre d’Ailly declared that it was not inconsistent with Scripture, and could only be disproved by the authority of the Fathers and the teaching of the Church (Turmel, Hist. de la théol. posit., I, 313 sqq.). This line of argument has been a stumbling block to Anglican writers, who have quoted some of the Schoolmen in support of their erroneous opinions on the Eucharist; e.g. Pusey, “The Doctrine of the Real Presence” (1855).

In addition to the works mentioned, see HARPER, Peace through the Truth, (London, 1866), I; FRANZELIN, De SS Euch. (Rome, 1873), thes. xiv; SCWANE, Dogmengeschichte (Freiburg im Br., 1882), III; VERNET in Dict. de théol. cath. s.v. Bérénguer de Tours; STREBER in Kirchenlex, s.v. Consubstantatio; HEDLEY, The Holy Eucharist (1907); WAGGETT, The Holy Eucharist (Anglican, London, 1906); GORE, The Body of Christ (London, 1907).

T. B. SCANNELL.

Diocesan Consultors

Diocesan consultors are a certain number of priests in each diocese of the United States who act as official advisers of the bishop in certain matters pertaining to the administration of the diocese. As a body they take the place of the cathedral chapter as established elsewhere by the general law of the Church. Their appointment was recommended (1866) by the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. The Third Plenary Council (1884) decreed that they should be constituted a diocesan council, and defined their particular rights and duties.

MANNER OF APPOINTMENT

The diocesan consultors, it was decreed (n. 18), should be six, or at least four, in number. Where neither number is possible, there should be at least two. They hold office for three years; but they may be reappointed or selected at the expiration of each term. The manner of their election consists in the appointment by the bishop alone of half of their number, and of the other half by the bishop also, after having taken the vote of the clergy. All the clergy exercising the sacred ministry in the diocese send, in writing, to the bishop three names for every consultor to be elected. From the names thus proposed the bishop selects those whom he judges most fit for the office. At stated periods they are convened and presided over by the bishop, four times, or at least twice, a year, and, as occasion requires, monthly. In case of the death resignation, or removal of a consultor, the bishop appoints his successor with the advice of the other consultors.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES

The diocesan council has certain rights and duties: (A) when the see is filled, and (B) when it is vacant.

(A) When the see is filled, the bishop is bound to ask the advice of the diocesan consultors:

(1) For convoking and promulgating a diocesan synod;

(2) for dividing missions or parishes;

(3) for giving over a mission or parish to a religious community;

(4) for appointing deputies for the diocesan seminary;

(5) for appointing a new diocesan consultor and synodal examiners to conduct the examination for vacant parishes;

(6) for alienating church property, when the sum exceeds five thousand dollars;

(7) for determining what missions are to be made parishes with irremovable rectors and appointing the first irremovable rectors in the diocese;

(8) for fixing the pension of an irremovable rector who has resigned or who has been removed for cause;

(9) for determining, out of synod, the salary of rectors.

In all these cases the consultors give their opinion collectively, i. e. in a body, and by secret ballot if they deem proper. The bishop, however, although bound to seek their advice in these matters, is not obliged to follow it.

(B) When the see is vacant:

(1) the administrator must follow the same procedure, i. e. he must ask the opinion of the diocesan consultors in the above-stated cases.

(2) The expiration of the three-year term of the consultors within the period of the vacancy does not affect their tenure of office. They remain in office until the accession of the new bishop who, within six months from his consecration, should hold a new election of diocesan consultors.

(3) In the election of a new bishop the council of 1884 conceded a voice to the consultors, as representatives of the clergy of the diocese. Together with the irremovable rectors they meet within thirty days after the vacancy occurs under the presidency of the archbishop of the province, or, if he be hindered, of a suffragan deputed by him. If the vacancy be that of the archbishopric the senior suffragan presides, or one deputed by him. The voting is by secret ballot. Three candidates are selected whose names are sent to the S. Cong. de Propagandâ Fide, and to the other bishops of the province, who meet, within ten days, to approve or disapprove of the candidates presented by the consultors and irremovable rectors. The bishops send their own list to Rome. The pope may reject both lists and appoint as bishop some one who is on neither.

(4) When there is a question of selecting a coadjutor with the right of succession the consultors with the irremovable rectors have a voice just as in the election of a new bishop.

(5) This is also the case where a new diocese is formed out of one or more existing dioceses. In that case, only the irremovable rectors within the limits of the new diocese join with the consultors of the older diocese or dioceses. (See BALTIMORE, PLENARY COUNCILS OF.)

Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (Baltimore, 1866); Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (Baltimore, 1884), nos. 17–22; SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1886); MEEHAN, Comp. Jur. Canonici (Rochester, New York, 1899); NILLES, Comment. in Conc. Plen. Balt. (Innsbruck. 1888), III.

JOSEPH F. MOONEY.

Philippe du Contant de la Molette

Theologian and Biblical scholar, born at Côte-Saint-André, in Dauphiné, France, 29 August, 1737; died on the scaffold during The Terror, 1793. He studied at the Sorbonne, and, in 1765, defended a thesis on Job, in six languages. Louis XV was so well pleased that he allowed him to pass the examinations for the licentiate without the required delays, a privilege, however, which de la Molette did not use. Later on, he became Vicar-General of the Diocese of Vienne, France. As a Biblical author, he shows great erudition and is well versed in the Oriental languages, but be lacks originality, and his criticism is often misleading. His works, all published in Paris, are the following. “Essai sur l’Ecriture Sainte, ou Tableau historique des avantages que l’on peut tirer des langues orientales pour la parfaite intelligence des Livres Saints” (1775); “Nouvelle méthode pour entrer dans le vrai sens de l’Ecriture sainte” (1777); “La Genèse expliquée d’après les textes primitifs,” etc. (1777), 3 vols., a work intended especially as a refutation of Voltaire; “L’Exode expliqué,” 3 vols. (1780); the thesis that he had defended in 1765 is printed in the beginning of this work; “Les Psaumes expliqués,” etc., 3 vols. (1781); “Traité sur la poésie et la musique des Hébreux” (1781), a continuation of the preceding; “Le Lévitique expliqué,” 2 vols. (1785). He had also done considerable work as a preparation for a “Nouvelle Bible polyglotte,” but it is doubtful whether he ever published it.

FELLER, Biog. Univ., s. v.; MANGENOT in VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s. v.

R. BUTIN

Gasparo Contarini

Venetian statesman and cardinal, born 16 October, 1483, of an ancient and noble family in Venice; died at Bologna, 24 August, 1542. He received his elementary training in his native city; and afterwards, from 1501 to 1509, he frequented the University of Padua, where he studied Greek, mathematics, Aristotelean philosophy, and theology. He was a close student and acquired the reputation of a great philosopher. After his return to Venice he became, like all the sons of patrician families, a member of the Great Council, and afterwards was named to a commission which administered the debt of the republic. In September, 1520, he was appointed orator or ambassador to the court of the Emperor Charles V (1519–56), with instructions to defend the alliance of his Government with Francis I of France (1515–47), and to prevent all hostile measures of the emperor. In Worms, where he arrived in April, 1521, he heard much about Luther and his errors; but, not being concerned with the matter, he refrained from all interference, and never saw Luther nor spoke to him. From Worms he went with the imperial court to the Netherlands, thence to England, and finally to Spain. In August, 1525, he returned to Venice. A report of his experiences was presented to the Senate 16 November following. During his absence he was named “Savio di terra ferma,” i. e. president of a commission charged with the affairs of the Continental possessions of Venice, and he assumed the duties of this office. In 1527 he represented the Republic of Venice in the Congress of Ferrara, where the Duke of Ferrara joined the league, formed against the Emperor Charles V, between France and several states of Italy. In 1528 he was sent as ambassador to the court of Clement VII (1523–34), with instructions to retain the pope in the above-mentioned league, and to defend the action of the republic in withholding from the pope the cities of Ravenna and Cervia, seized during the late invasion of the Constable Bourbon. Contarini failed in both objects. Venice was forced not only to surrender the aforesaid cities, but also to make peace with the emperor; it was concluded through Contarini in January, 1530, at Bologna. On 24 February following, Contarini assisted at the solemn coronation of Charles V in Bologna, and then returned to Venice, where he presented the usual report to the Senate on 9 March. In compensation for his services he was appointed to several high positions in the government of the republic, and ultimately became a member of the Senate.

Contarini was created cardinal by Paul III in 1535. He accepted the honour and went to Rome (Oct., 1535). He used his influence with the pope to suppress abuses in the papal government and to secure virtuous men for the Sacred College. Contarini was the president of a commission appointed by the pope in 1536 to submit plans for a reform of evils in the Roman Curia or in other parts of the Church. It was largely due to him that, early in 1537, the commission could present its programme, the “Consilium de emendandâ ecclesiâ.” He advised the pope not to abuse the great jurisdiction placed in his hands; and encouraged his friends among the bishops to take appropriate measures for discipline and good order in their dioceses, setting an example in his own Diocese of Cividale di Belluno, to which he was appointed in October, 1536. St. Ignatius acknowledged that Contarini was largely responsible for the papal approbation of his society (1540). At the desire of Charles V, Contarini was sent as papal legate to Germany in 1541, and took part in the conference held at Ratisbon between Catholics and Protestants in hope of conciliating the latter. As it gradually became evident that the differences in doctrine could not be bridged over, the conference was broken off; Contarini remitted the final decision of all articles of faith to the pope, and returned to Rome. In January, 1542, he was appointed cardinal legate at Bologna, where, after a few months, death put an end to his career. His remains were interred, first in the church of San Petronio, then transferred to the church of the monastery of San Proculo, and finally, in December, 1565, to the family tomb in a chapel of the church of Santa Maria dell’ Orto in Venice.

Contarini’s principal works are the following:

(1) “Libri duo de immortalitate animæ’;

(2) “De officio episcopi libri duo”;

(3) “De magistratibus et republicâ Venetorum libri V”;

(4) “Compendii primæ philosophiæ libri VIII”;

(5) “De potestate Pontificis”;

(6) “De elementis libri V”;

(7) “Confutatio articulorum seu quæstionum Lutheri”;

(8) “De libero arbitrio”;

(9) “Conciliorum magis illustrium summa”;

(10) “De Sacramentis christianæ legis et catholicæ ecclesiæ libri IV”;

(11) “De justificatione”;

(12) “Cathechismus”;

(13) “De Prædestinatione”;

(14) “Scholia in epistolas divi Pauli.”

In many of these writings Contarini touched upon the questions raised by Luther and other Reformers; in stating the Catholic view, however, he was not always fortunate. Thus, in describing the process of justification, he attributes the result largely to faith—not to faith with incipient charity in the Catholic sense, but to faith in the sense of confidence. However, he departs again from the Protestant view by including in the preparatory stage a real breaking away from sin and turning to good, a repentance and detestation of sin. Thus also, in describing the essence or the causa formalis of justification, he requires not only the supernatural quality inherent in the soul, by which man is constituted just, but, in addition to that, the outward imputation of the merits of Christ, believed to be necessary owing to the deficiency of our nature. It would be unjust, nevertheless, to class Contarini among the partisans of the Reformation. The above-mentioned views were taken only in part from the teaching of the Protestants; as yet the Church had given no definite decision on these matters. Moreover, Contarini wished always to remain a Catholic; at the Conference of Ratisbon he protested repeatedly, that he would sanction nothing contrary to the Catholic teaching, and he left the final decision of all matters of faith to the pope.

DITTRICH, Regesten und Briefe des Cardinals Gasparo Contarini (Braunsberg, 1881); IDEM, Gasparo Contarini, eine Monographie (Braunsberg, 1885); PASTOR in Kirchenlex. (Freiburg im Br., 1884), s. v.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Giovanni Contarini

Italian painter of the Venetian School, born at Venice about 1549; died in 1605. Contarini was a contemporary of Jacopo Palma called Palma Giovine. He was a great student of the works of Tintoretto and Titian and is declared to have been an exact imitator of Titian. According to an old story he was so extremely accurate in his portraits that on “sending home one he had taken of Marco Dolce his dogs began to fawn upon it mistaking it for their master.” Contarini’s work is extremely mannered, soft and sweet, but distinguished by beautiful, rich colouring and executed very much on the lines of Titian’s painting. His finest picture is in the Louvre, having been removed from the ducal palace at Venice, and represents the Virgin and Child with St. Mark and St. Sebastian, and the Doge of Venice, Marino Grimani, kneeling before them. Other paintings of his are in the galleries at Berlin, Florence, Milan, and Vienna, and in many of the churches at Venice. He painted easel-pictures of mythological subjects, which are treated with propriety and discretion but are peculiarly lacking in force and strength; in many of the palaces in Venice he decorated ceilings. Some years of his life were passed at the court of the Emperor Rudolf II, with whom he was a great favourite and by whom he was knighted. His work has been described by one writer as a “combination of sugar, cream, mulberry juice, sunbeam and velvet,” but the criticism is a little unjust and one or two of his works, for example the “Resurrection” in the church of San Francesco di Paolo at Venice, can claim to be masterly. This picture is certainly a fine piece of colouring, well composed and well carried out.

The chief authority is CARLO RIDOLFI, Venetian Artists (Venice, 1648); BRINTON, The Renaissance in Italian Art (London, 1898); KUGLER, The Italian Schools of Painting (London, 1900).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON.

Contemplation

The idea of contemplation is so intimately connected with that of mystical theology that one cannot be clearly explained independent of the other; hence we shall here set forth what mystical theology is.

PRELIMINARY DEFINITIONS

Those supernatural acts or states which no effort or labour on our part can succeed in producing, even in the slightest degree or for a single instant, are called mystical. The making of an act of contrition and the reciting of a Hail Mary are supernatural acts, but when one wishes to produce them grace is never refused; hence they are not mystical acts. But to see one’s guardian angel, which does not in the least depend on one’s own efforts, is a mystical act. To have very ardent sentiments of Divine love is not, in itself, proof that one is in a mystical state, because such love can be produced, at least feebly and for an instant, by our own efforts. The preceding definition is equivalent to that given by St. Teresa in the beginning of her second letter to Father Rodriquez Alvarez. Mystical theology is the science that studies mystical states; it is above all a science based on observation. Mystical theology is frequently confounded with ascetic theology; the latter, however, treats of the virtues. Ascetical writers discuss also the subject of prayer, but they confine themselves to prayer that is not mystical.

Mystical states are called, first, supernatural or infused, by which we mean manifestly supernatural or infused; secondly, extraordinary, indicating that the intellect operates in new way, one which our efforts cannot bring about; thirdly, passive, to show that the soul receives something and is conscious of receiving it. The exact term would be passivo-active, since our activity responds to this reception just as it does in the exercise of our bodily senses. By way of distinction ordinary prayer is called active. The word mystical has been much abused. It has at length come to be applied to all religious sentiments that are somewhat ardent and, indeed, even to simple poetic sentiments. The foregoing definition gives the restricted and theological sense of the word.

ORDINARY PRAYER AND ACQUIRED CONTEMPLATION

First of all, a word as to ordinary prayer, which comprises these four degrees:

vocal prayer;

meditation, also called methodical prayer, or prayer of reflection, in which may be included meditative reading;

affective prayer;

prayer of simplicity, or of simple gaze.

Only the last two degrees (also called prayers of the heart) will be considered, as they border on the mystical states. Mental prayer in which the affective acts are numerous, and which consists much more largely of them than of reflections and reasoning, is called affective. Prayer of simplicity is mental prayer in which, first, reasoning is largely replaced by intuition; second, affections and resolutions, though not absent, are only slightly varied and expressed in a few words. To say that the multiplicity of acts has entirely disappeared would be a harmful exaggeration, for they are only notably diminished. In both of these states, but especially in the second, there is one dominant thought or sentiment which recurs constantly and easily (although with little or no development) amid many other thoughts, beneficial or otherwise. This main thought is not continuous but keeps returning frequently and spontaneously. A like fact may be observed in the natural order. The mother who watches over the cradle of her child thinks lovingly of him and does so without reflection and amid interruptions. These prayers differ from meditation only as greater from lesser and are applied to the same subjects. Nevertheless the prayer of simplicity often has a tendency to simplify itself, even respect to its object. It leads one to think chiefly of God and of His presence, but in a confused manner. This particular state, which is nearer than others to the mystical states, is called the prayer of amorous attention to God. Those who bring the charge of idleness against these different states always have an exaggerated idea of them. The prayer of simplicity is not to meditation what inactive is to action, though it might appear to be at times, but what uniformity is to variety and intuition to reasoning.

A soul is known to be called to one of these degrees when it succeeds therein, and does so with ease, and when it derives profit from it. The call of God becomes even clearer if this soul have first, a persistent attraction to this kind of prayer; second, a want of facility and distaste for meditation. Three rules of conduct for those who show these signs are admitted by all authors:

When, during prayer, one feels neither a relish nor facility for certain acts one should not force oneself to produce them, but be content with affective prayer or the prayer of simplicity (which, by hypothesis, can succeed); to do otherwise would be to thwart Divine action.

If, on the contrary, during prayer, one feels the facility for certain acts, one should yield to this inclination instead of obstinately striving to remain immovable like the Quietists. Indeed, even the full use of our faculties is not superfluous in helping us to reach God.

Outside of prayer, properly so called, one should profit on all occasions either to get instruction or to arouse the will and thus make up what prayer itself may lack.

Many texts relative to the prayer of simplicity are found in the works of St. Jane de Chantal, who, together with St. Francis of Sales, founded the Order of the Visitation. She complained of the opposition that many well-disposed minds offered to this kind of prayer. By ancient writers the prayer of simplicity is called acquired, active, or ordinary contemplation. St. Alphonsus Liguori, echoing his predecessors, defines it thus: “At the end of a certain time ordinary meditation produces what is called acquired contemplation, which consists in seeing at a simple glance the truths which could previously be discovered only through prolonged discourse” (Homo apostolicus, Appendix I, No. 7).

HIGHER CONTEMPLATION

To distinguish it from acquired contemplation mystical union is called intuitive, passive, extraordinary, or higher contemplation. St. Teresa designates it simply as contemplation, without any qualification. Mystical graces may be divided into two groups, according to the nature of the object contemplated. The states of the first group are characterized by the fact that it is God, and God only, who manifests Himself; these are called mystical union. In the second group the manifestation is of a created object, as, for example, when one beholds the humanity of Christ or an angel or a future event, etc. These are visions (of created things) and revelations. To these belong miraculous bodily phenomena which are sometimes observed in ecstatics.

There are four degrees or stages of mystical union. They are here taken just as St. Teresa has described them with the greatest clearness in her “Life” and principally in her “Interior Castle”:

incomplete mystical union, or the prayer of quiet (from the Latin quies, quiet; which expresses the impression experienced in this state);

the full, or semi-ecstatic, union, which St. Teresa sometimes calls the prayer of union (in her “Life” she also makes use of the term entire union, entera unión, ch. xvii);

ecstatic union, or ecstasy; and

transforming or deifying union, or spiritual marriage (properly) of the soul with God.

The first three are states of the same grace, viz. the weak, medium, and the energetic. It will be seen that the transforming union differs from these specifically and not merely in intensity.

MYSTICAL UNION

The preceding ideas may be more precisely stated by indicated the easily discernible lines of demarcation. Mystical union will be called

spiritual quiet when the Divine action is still too weak to prevent distractions: in a word, when the imagination still retains a certain liberty;

full union when its strength is so great that the soul is fully occupied with the Divine object, whilst, on the other hand, the senses continue to act (under these conditions, by makeing a greater or less effort, one can cease from prayer);

ecstasy when communications with the external world are severed or nearly so (in this event one can no longer make voluntary movement nor energy from the state at will).

Between these well-defined types there are imperceptible transitions as between the colours blue, green, and yellow. Mystics use many other appellations: silence, supernatural sleep, spiritual inebriation, etc. These are not real degrees, but rather ways of being in the four preceding degrees. St. Teresa sometimes designates the weak prayer of quiet as supernatural recollection.

TRANSFORMING UNION

As regards transforming union, or spiritual marriage, it is here sufficient to say that it consists in the habitual consciousness of a mysterious grace which all shall possess in heaven: the anticipation of the Divine nature. The soul is conscious of the Divine assistance in its superior supernatural operations, those of the intellect and the will. Spiritual marriage differs from spiritual espousals inasmuch as the first of these states is permanent and the second only transitory.

CHARACTERS OF MYSTICAL UNION

The different states of mystical union possess twelve characters. The first two are the most important; the first because it denotes the basis of this grace, the other because it represents its physiognomy.

FIRST CHARACTER: THE PRESENCE FELT

(a) The real difference between mystical union and the recollection of ordinary prayer is that, in the former, God is not satisfied with helping us to think of Him and reminding us of that presence.

(b) However, in the lower degrees (spiritual quiet) God does this in a rather obscure way. The more elevated the order of the union the clearer the manifestation. The obscurity just mentioned is a source of interior suffering to beginners. During the period of spiritual quiet they instinctively believe in the preceding doctrine, but afterwards, because of their preconceived ideas, they begin to reason and relapse into hesitation and the fear of going astray. The remedy lies in providing them with a learned director or a book that treats these matters clearly. By experimental knowledge it is understood that which comes from the object itself and makes it known not only as possible but as existing, and in such and such conditions. This is the case with mystical union: God is therein perceived as well as conceived. Hence, in mystical union, we have experimental knowledge of God and of His presence, but it does not at all follow that this knowledge is of the same nature as the Beatific Vision. The angels, the souls of the departed, and devils know one another experimentally but in an inferior way to that in which God will be manifested to us in heaven. Theologians express this principle by saying that it is a knowledge by impressed or intelligible species.

SECOND CHARACTER: INTERIOR POSSESSION

(a) In states inferior to ecstasy one cannot say that he sees God, unless indeed in exceptional cases. Nor is one instinctively led to use the word see.

(b) On the contrary, what constitutes the common basis of all the degrees of mystical union is that the spiritual impression by which God manifests His presence makes that presence felt in the way of an interior something with which the soul is penetrated; it is a sensation of absorption, of fusion, of immersion.

(c) For the sake of greater clearness the sensation one experiences may be designated as interior touch. This very clear expression of spiritual sensation is used by Scaramelli (Directoire mystique, Tr. iii, no. 26) and had already been resorted to by Father de la Reguera (Praxis theologiae mysticae, vol. I, no. 735). The following comparison will aid us in forming an exact idea of the physiognomy of mystical union. We may say that it is in a precisely similar way that we feel the presence of our body when we remain perfectly immobile and close our eyes. If we know that our body is present, it is not because we see it or have been told of the fact. It is the result of a special sensation (coenaesthesis), an interior impression, very simple and yet impossible to analyse. Thus it is that in mystical union we feel God within us and in a very simple way. The soul absorbed in mystical union that is not too elevated may be said to resemble a man placed near one of his friends in an impenetrably dark place and in utter silence He neither sees nor hears his friend whose hand he holds within his own, but through means of touch, he feels his presence. He thus remains thinking of his friend and loving him, although amid distractions.

The foregoing statements concerning the first two characters always appear unquestionably true to those who have received mystical grace but, on the contrary, they are often a source of amazement to the profane. For those who will admit them, at least provisionally the difficulties of mystical union are overcome and what is to follow will not be very mysterious.

The ten characters remaining are the consequences or concomitants of the first two.

THIRD CHARACTER

Mystical union cannot be produced at will. It is this character that was useful above in defining all mystical states. It may also be added that these states cannot be augmented nor their manner of being changed. By remaining immobile and being content with interior acts of the will one cannot cause these graces to cease. It will be seen farther on that the only means to this end lies in resuming bodily activity.

FOURTH CHARACTER

The knowledge of God in mystical union is obscure and confused; hence the expression to enter into Divine obscurity or into Divine darkness. In ecstasy one has intellectual visions of the Divinity, and the loftier these become, the more they surpass our understanding. Then is reached blinding contemplation, a mixture of light and darkness. The great darkness is the name given tot he contemplation of such Divine attributes are never shared by any creature, for instance, infinity, eternity, immutability, etc.

FIFTH CHARACTER

Like all else that borders on the Divine nature this mode of communication is only half comprehensible and it is called mystical because it indicates a mystery. This character and the preceding one are a source of anxiety to beginners, as they imagine that no state is Divine and certain unless they understand it perfectly and without anyone’s help.

SIXTH CHARACTER

In mystical union the contemplation of God is produced neither by reasoning nor by the consideration of creatures nor still by interior images of the sensible order. We have seen that it has an altogether different cause. In the natural state our thinking is always accompanied by images, and it is the same in ordinary prayer, because supernatural operations of an ordinary character resemble those of nature. But in mystical contemplation a change takes place. St. John of the Cross is constantly reverting to this point. It has been said that the acts of the imagination are not the cause of the contemplation; however, they may at least accompany it. Most frequently it is in distractions that the imagination manifests itself, and St. Teresa declared that for this evil she found no remedy (Life, ch. xvii). We shall designate as constitutive acts of mystical union those which necessarily belong to this state, such as thinking of God, relishing Him and loving Him; and by way of distinction we shall denote as additional acts such acts, other than distractions, as are not proper to mystical union, that is to say, are neither its cause nor its consequences. This term indicates that an addition, whether voluntary or not, is made to Divine action. Thus, to recite a Hail Mary during spiritual quiet or to give oneself up to a consideration of death would be to perform additional acts, because they are not essential to the existence of spiritual quiet. These definitions will prove useful later on. But even now they will permit us to explain certain abbreviations of language, often indulged in by mystics, of which many erroneous interpretations have been made, misunderstanding having resulted from what was left unexpressed. Thus it has been said: “Often in supernatural prayer there are no more acts”; or “One must not fear therein to suppress all acts”; whereas what should have been said was this: “There are no more additional acts.” Taken literally, these abridged phrases do not differ from those of the Quietists. St. Teresa was suddenly enlightened in her way of perfection by reading in a book this phrase, though it is inaccurate: “In spiritual quiet one can think of nothing” (Life, ch. xxiii). But others would not have discerned the true value of the expression. In like manner it was said: “The will only is united”; by which was meant that the mind adds no further reasoning and that thenceforth it makes itself forgotten or else that it retains the liberty of producing additional acts; then it seems as if it were not united. But in future these expressions that require long explanations will be avoided.

SEVENTH CHARACTER

There are continual fluctuations. Mystical union does not retain the same degree of intensity for five minutes, buts its average intensity may be the same for a notable length of time.

EIGHTH CHARACTER

Mystical union demands much less labour than meditation, and the more elevated the state the less the effort required, in ecstasy there being none whatever. St. Teresa compares the soul that progresses in these states to a gardener who takes less and less trouble to water his garden (Life, ch. xi). In the prayer of quiet the labour does not consist in procuring the prayer itself; God alone can give that, but first in combating distractions; second, in occasionally producing additional acts; third, if the quiet be weak, in suppressing the ennui caused by incomplete absorption which very often one is disinclined to perfect by something else.

NINTH CHARACTER

Mystical union is accompanied by sentiments of love, tranquillity, and pleasure. In spiritual quiet these sentiments are not always very ardent although sometimes the reverse is the case and there is spiritual jubilation and inebriation.

TENTH CHARACTER

Mystical union is accompanied, and often in a very visible manner, by an impulse towards the different virtues. This fact (which St. Teresa constantly repeats) is the more sensible in proportion as the prayer is more elevated. In private, far from leading to pride these graces always produce humility.

ELEVENTH CHARACTER

Mystical union acts upon the body. This fact is evident in ecstasy (q.v.) and enters into its definition. First, in this state the senses have little or no action; second, the members of the body are usually motionless; third, respiration almost ceases; fourth, vital heat seems to disappear, especially from the extremities. In a word, all is as if the soul loses in vital force and motor activity all that it gains on the side of Divine union. The law of continuity shows us that these phenomena must occur, although in a lesser degree, in those states that are inferior to ecstasy. At what moment do they begin? Often during spiritual quiet, and this seems to be the case mainly with persons of weak temperament. Since this spiritual quiet is somewhat opposed to bodily movements the latter must react reciprocally in order to diminish this quiet. Experience confirms this conjecture. If one begins to walk read, or look to right and left, one feels the Divine action diminishing; therefore to resume bodily activity is a practical means of ending the mystical union.

TWELFTH CHARACTER

Mystical union to some extent hinders the production of some interior acts which, in ordinary prayer, could be produced at will. This is what is known as the suspension of the powers of the soul. In ecstasy this fact is most evident and is also experienced in actual quiet, one of those states inferior to ecstasy, being one of the phenomena that have most occupied mystics and been the cause of the greatest anxiety to beginners. Those acts which have been termed additional, and which would likewise be voluntary, are what are hampered by this suspension, hence it is usually an obstacle to vocal prayers and pious reflections.

To sum up: as a general rule, the mystical state has a tendency to exclude all that is foreign to it and especially whatever proceeds from our own assiduity, our own effort. Sometimes, however, God makes exceptions. Concerning suspension there are three rules of conduct identical with those already given for the prayer of simplicity (see above). If a director suspects that a person has attained unto the prayer of quiet he can most frequently decide the case by questioning him on the twelve characters just enumerated.

THE TWO NIGHTS OF THE SOUL

There is an intermediate state not yet mentioned, a frequent transition between ordinary prayer and spiritual quiet. St. John of the Cross, who was the first to describe it clearly, called it the night of sense or first night of the soul. If we abide by appearances, that is to say, by what we immediately observe in ourselves, this state is a prayer of simplicity but with characteristics, two especially, which make it a thing apart. It is bitter, and it is almost solely upon God that the simple gaze is incessantly riveted. Five elements are included in this distressing state: there is first, an habitual aridity; second, an undeveloped, confused idea of God, recurring with singular persistency and independently of the will; third, the sad and constant need of a closer union with God; fourth, a continual action of God’s grace to detach us from all sensible things and impart a distaste for them, whence the name, “night of sense” (the soul may struggle against this action of grace); fifth, there is a hidden element which consists in this: God begins to exercise over the soul the action characteristic of the prayer of quiet, but He does it so gently that one may be unconscious of it. Hence it is spiritual quiet in the latent, disguised state, and it is only by verifying the analogy of effects that one comes to know it. St. John of the Cross speaks of the second night of the soul as the night of the mind. It is nothing more than union of the mystical states inferior to spiritual marriage but regarded as including the to spiritual marriage but regarded as including the element of gloom and therefore as producing suffering.

We can now form a compact idea of the development of mystical union in the soul. It is a tree the seed of which is first concealed in the earth and the roots that are secretly put forth in darkness constitute the night of sense. Fro these a frail stem springs up into the light and this is spiritual quiet. The tree grows and becomes successively full union and ecstasy. Finally, in spiritual marriage it attains the end of its development and then especially it bears flowers and fruit. This harmony existing between the states of mystical union is a fact of noteworthy importance.

REVELATIONS AND VISIONS (OF CREATURES)

There are three kinds of speech: exterior, which is received by the ear, and interior, which is subdivided into imaginative and intellectual. The last is a communication of thoughts without words.

There are three similar kinds of visions. Many details of these different graces will be found in the works of St. Teresa. What are known as private and particular revelations are those contained neither in the Bible nor in the deposit of Apostolic tradition. The Church does not oblige us to believe in them, but it is prudent not to reject them lightly when they are affirmed by saints. Nevertheless it is certain that many saints were deceived and that their revelations contradict one another. What follows will explain the reason of this. Revelations and visions are subject to many illusions which shall be briefly set forth. First, like Jonas at Ninive, the seer may regard as absolute a prediction that was only conditional, or commit some other error in interpreting it. Second, when the vision represents a scene from the life or Passion of Christ, historic accuracy is often only approximate; otherwise God would lower Himself to the rank of a professor of history and archeology. He wishes to sanctify the soul, not to satisfy our curiosity. The seer, however, may believe that the reproduction is exact; hence the want of agreement between revelations concerning the life of Jesus Christ. Third, during the vision personal activity may be so mingled with the Divine action that answers in the sense desired seemed to be received. In fact, during prayer vivid imaginations may go so far as to produce revelations and visions out of whole cloth without any evil intent. Fourth, sometimes, in his desire to explain it, the seer afterwards unconsciously alters a genuine revelation. Fifth, amanuenses and editors take deplorable liberties in revising, so that the text is not always authentic. Some revelations are even absolutely false because: first, in describing their prayer, certain persons lie most audaciously; second, amongst those afflicted with neuropathy there are inventors who, in perfectly good faith, imagine to be real facts things that have never occurred; third, the devil may to a certain degree, counterfeit Divine visions; fourth, amongst writers there are genuine forgers who are responsible for political prophecies, hence the profusion of absurd predictions.

Illusions in the matter of revelations often have a serious consequence, as they usually instigate to exterior acts, such as teaching a doctrine, propagating a new devotion, prophesying, launching into an enterprise that entails expense. There would be no evil to fear if these impulses came from God, but it is entirely otherwise when they do not come from God, which is much more frequently the case and is difficult of discernment. On the contrary there is naught to fear from mystical union. It impels solely towards Divine love and the practice of solid virtue. There would be equal security in the impossible supposition that the state of prayer was only an imitation of mystical union, for then the tendencies would be exactly the same. This supposition is called impossible because St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross keep repeating that the devil cannot imitate nor even understand mystical union. Neither can our mind and imagination reproduce the combination of the twelve characters described above.

What has been said shows us the importance of not confounding mystical union with revelations. Not only are these states of a different nature but they must also be differently estimated. Because ignorant of this distinction many persons fall into one of these two extremes: first, if they know the danger of revelations, they extend their severe judgment to mystical union and thus turn certain souls from an excellent path; second, if on the contrary, they are reasonably persuaded of the security and tranquillity of mystical union, they wrongly extend this favourable judgment to revelations and drive certain souls into a dangerous path.

When God so wills He can impart to him who receives a revelation the full certainty that is real and wholly Divine. Otherwise one would not have had the right to believe the Prophets of the Old Testament. Scripture ordained that they distinguished from false prophets. For instance, the envoys of God performed miracles or uttered prophecies the realization of which was verified. In order to judge private revelations in a more or less probable way, two kinds of information must be obtained. First, one should ascertain the qualities or defects, from a natural, ascetic, or mystical point of view, of the person having revelations. When the one in question has been canonized the investigation has already been made by the Church. Second, one should be acquainted with the qualities and defects of the revelation itself and with its various circumstances, favourable or otherwise. To judge of ecstasies one should be actuated by the same principles, the two chief points to settle being: first, in what the soul is absorbed whilst thus deprived of the senses, and whether it is captivated by knowledge of a higher order and transported by an immense love; second, what degree of virtue it possessed before reaching this state and what great progress it made afterwards. If the result of the investigation be favourable the probabilities are on the side of Divine ecstasy, as neither the devil nor disease can work the imagination up to this pitch.

There are several rules of conduct in connection with revelations but we shall give only the two most important.

The first relates to the director. If the revelation or the vision has for its sole effect the augmenting of the love of the seer for God, Christ, or the saints, nothing prevents these facts from being provisionally considered Divine; but if, on the contrary, the seer be impelled to certain undertakings or if he wish that his prediction should be firmly believed, he should be told: “You must admit that you cannot be believed simply upon your word, consequently give signs that your revelations come from God and from Him alone.” As a rule this request remains unanswered. Note the prudence of the Church in regard to certain feasts of devotions which she has instituted in consequence of private revelations. The revelation was only the occasion of the measure taken. The Church declares that such a devotion is reasonable but she does not guarantee the revelation that suggested it.

The second rule concerns the seer. In the beginning, at least, he is gently to do his utmost to repulse the revelations and to turn his thoughts away from them. He is to accept them only after a prudent director will have decided that he may place a certain amount of confidence n them. This doctrine, which seems severe, is nevertheless taught forcibly by many saints, such as St. Ignatius (Acta SS., 31 July, Préliminaires, no. 614), St. Philip Neri (ibid., 26 May, 2nd life, no. 375), St. John of the Cross (Assent, Bk. II, ch. xi, xvi, xvii, and xxiv), St. Teresa, and St. Alphonsus Ligouri (Homo Apost., Appendix I, no. 23), for the reason that there is danger of illusions. With even greater reason, revelations and visions (of created objects) should be neither desired nor requested. On the other hand, many passages in St. Teresa and other mystics prove that mystical union may be desired and asked for, provided it be done humbly and with resignation to God’s will. The reason is that this union has no disadvantages but presents great advantages for sanctification (see THEOLOGY, under sub-title Mystical).

St. Teresa far excels all writers that preceded her on the subject of contemplation. In their descriptions those prior to her confined themselves to generalities. Exception must be made in favour of Blessed Angela de Foligno, Ruysbroeck and the Venerable Marina d’Escobsar as regards the subject of ecstasies. St. Teresa was likewise the first to give a clear, accurate, and detailed classification. Before her time hardly anything was described except ecstasies and revelations. The lower degrees required ore delicate observation than had been devoted to them before her day. After St. Teresa the first place for careful observation of these matters belongs to St. John of the Cross. But his classifications are confused. St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross are also greatly superior to subsequent authors who have been satisfied to repeat them, with comments.

AUG. POULAIN

Contemplative Life

A life ordered in view of contemplation; a way of living especially adapted to lead to and facilitate contemplation, while it excludes all other preoccupations and intents. To seek to know and love God more and more is a duty incumbent on every Christian and should be his chief pursuit, and in this wide sense the Christian and the contemplative lives are synonymous. This duty, however, admits of various degrees in its fulfillment. Many give into it only a part of their time and attention, either from lack of piety or because of other duties; others attempt to blend harmoniously the contemplative life with active ministry, i.e. the care of souls, which, undertaken from a motive of supernatural charity, can be made compatible with the inner life. Others again, who have the will and the means, aim at accomplishing the duty of contemplation to the utmost perfection, and give up all occupations inconsistent with it, or which, on account of man’s limited abilities, of their nature would impede it. The custom has prevailed of applying the term “contemplative” only to the life led by the latter.

Contemplation, the object of contemplative life, is defined as the complacent, loving gaze of the soul on Divine truth already known and apprehended by the intellect assisted and enlightened by Divine grace. This definition shows the two chief differences between the contemplation of the Christian ascetic and the merely scientific research of the theologian.

The contemplative, in his investigation of Divine things, is actuated by love for those things, and to increase this love is his ultimate purpose, as well as the firstfruits of his contemplation; in other words the theological virtue of charity is the mainspring as well as the outcome of the act of contemplation.

Again, the contemplative does not rely on the natural powers of his intellect in his endeavors to gain cognizance of the truth, but knowing that human reason is limited and weak, especially when inquiring into things supernatural, he seeks aid from above by prayer, and by the practice of all Christian virtues and strives to fit his soul for the grace he desires.

The act of contemplation, imperfect as it needs be, is of all human acts one of the most sublime, one of those which render the greatest honor to God, bring the greatest good to the soul, and enable it most efficaciously to become a means of salvation and manifold blessing to others. According to St. Bernard (De Consider., lib. I, c. vii), it is the highest form of human worship, as it is essentially an act of adoration and of utter self-surrender of man’s whole being. The soul in contemplation is a soul lying prostrate before God, convinced of and confessing its own nothingness, and His worthiness to receive all love and glory and honor and blessings from those He has created. It is a soul lost in admiration and love of the Eternal Beauty, the sight of which though but a feeble reflection, fill it with a joy naught else in the world can give—a joy which, far more eloquently than speech, testifies that the soul rates that Beauty above all other beauties, and finds in It the completion of all its desires. It is the jubilant worship of the whole heart, mind, and soul, the worship “in spirit and in truth” of the “true adorers,” such as the Father seeks to adore Him (John, iv, 23). By contemplative life, however, is not meant a life passed entirely in contemplation. On earth an act of contemplation cannot be of long duration, except in the case of an extraordinary privilege granted by Divine power. The weakness of our bodily senses and the natural instability of our minds and hearts, together with the exigencies of life, render it impossible for us to fix our attention for long on one object. This is true with regard to earthly or material things; it is still more true in matters pertaining to the supernatural order. Only in Heaven shall the understanding be strengthened so as to waver no more, but adhere unceasingly to Him who made it. Hence it is rare to find souls capable of leading a life of contemplation without occasionally engaging their mental or physical activity in earthy or material things. The combination, of the two lives, of which Catholic hagiology affords such striking and glorious examples, is, as a general rule, and for persons of ordinary attainments, a matter of considerable difficulty. Exterior action, with the solicitude and cares attendant on it, tends naturally to absorb the attention; the soul is thereby hampered in its efforts to ascend to the higher regions of contemplation, as its energy, capacity, and power of application are usually too limited to allow it to carry on together such different pursuits with success. If this is true with regard to those even who are working for God and are engaged in enterprises undertaken for the furtherance of His interests, it is all the more true of those who are toiling with no other direct end than to procure their subsistence and their temporal well-being. This is why those who have wished to give themselves up to contemplation and reach an eminent degree of mystical union with God have habitually withdrawn from the crowd and have abandoned all other pursuits, to lead a retired life entirely consecrated to the purpose of contemplation. It is evident that such a life can be led nowhere so safely and so easily as in those monastic orders which make it their special object. The rules of those orders supply their members with every means necessary and useful for the purpose, and safeguard them from all exterior obstacles. Foremost among these means must be reckoned the vows, which are great barriers raised against the inroads of the three great evils devastating the world (I John, ii, 16). Poverty frees the contemplative from the cares inherent to the possession and administration of temporal goods, from the moral dangers that follow in the wake of wealth, and from that insatiable greed for gain which so lowers and materializes the mind. Chastity frees him from the bondage of married life with its solicitude so “dividing” to the heart and mind, to use the Apostle’s expression (I Cor., vii, 33), and so apt to confine man’s sympathy and action within a narrow circle. By the same virtue also he obtains that cleanness of heart which enables him to see God (Matth., v, 8). Obedience, without which community-life is impossible, frees him from the anxiety of having to determine what course to take amidst the ever-shifting circumstances of life. The stability which the vow gives to the contemplative’s purpose by placing him in a fixed state with set duties and obligations is also an inestimable advantage, as it saves him from natural inconsistency, the blight of so many undertakings.

Silence is of course the proper element of the contemplative soul, since to converse with God and men at the same time is hardly possible. Moreover, conversing unnecessarily is apt to give rise to numberless thoughts, fancies, and desires alien to the duties and purpose of contemplative life, which assail the soul at the hour of prayer and distract it from God. It is no wonder, then, that monastic legislators and guardians of regular discipline should always have laid such stress on the enforcing of silence, strenuously enforcing its observance and punishing transgression with special severity. This silence, if not perpetual, must embrace at least the greatest part of the contemplative’s life. Solitude is the home of silence, and its surest safeguard. Moreover, it cuts to the root of one of the strongest of man’s selfish propensities, the desire to make a figure before the world, to win admiration and applause, or at least to attract attention, to be thought and spoken of. “Manifest thyself to the world” (John, vii, 4) says the demon of vainglory; but the Spirit of God holds another language (Matt., vi). Solitude may be twofold: the seclusion of the cloister, which implies restriction of intercourse with the outer world; and the eremitic confinement of the cell, a practice which varies in different orders.

Religious life, being essentially a life of self-denial and self-sacrifice, must provide an effectual antidote to every form of self-seeking, and the rules of contemplative orders especially are admirably framed so as to thwart and mortify every selfish instinct; vigils, fasts, austerity in food, clothing, etc., and often manual labour tame the flesh, and thus help the soul to keep in subjection its worst enemy. Contemplatives, in short, forego many transient pleasures, many satisfactions sweet to nature, all that the world holds most dear; but they gain in return a liberty for the soul which enables it to rise without hindrance to the thought and love of God. Though God Himself is the chief object and study of their meditation, He is not the only one. His works, His dealings with men, all that reveals Him in the province of grace or of nature is lawfully open to the contemplative’s investigation. The development of the Divine plan in the growth of the Church and in the history of nations, the wondrous workings of grace and the guidance of Providence in the lives of individual souls, the marvels and beauty of creation, the writings of the saints and sages of Christendom, and above all, the Holy Scriptures form an inexhaustible storehouse, whence the contemplative can draw food for contemplation.

The great function assumed by contemplatives, as has already been said, is the worship of God. When living in community, they perform this sacred office in a public, official way, assembling at stated hours of the day and night to offer to the Almighty “the sacrifice of Praise” (Psalm. xlix, 14, 23; see Office, Divine). Their chief work then is what St. Benedict (Rule, xliii) Call emphatically God’s work (opus Dei), i.e. the solemn chanting of Divine praise, in which the tongue gives utterance to he admiration of the intellect and to the love of the heart. And this is done in the name of the Church and of all mankind. Not only does contemplation glorify God, but it is most beneficial to the soul itself. Nothing brings the soul into such close union with God, and union with God is the source of all saintliness. Never so well as when contemplating the perfections of God and the grandeur of His works does man see his own imperfections and failings, the vileness of sin, and the paltriness and futility of so many of his labours and undertakings; and thus nothing so grounds him in humility, the prop and the bulwark of every other virtue.

Love for God necessarily breeds love for our fellow-men, all children of the same Father; and the two loves keep pace with each other in their growth. Hence it follows that contemplative life is eminently conducive to increase of charity for others. The heart is enlarged, affection is deepened, sympathy becomes more keen, because the mind is enlightened as to the worth of an immortal soul in God’s eyes. And although of the two great commandments given by Christ (Matt., xxii, 37 sqq.)—love of God and love for our neighbor—the first is exemplified more markedly in contemplative orders, and the second in active orders, contemplatives must and do have in their hearts a strong and true love for others, but they realize that love in their deeds. The principal means contemplatives have of proving their love for others are prayer and penance. By prayer they draw down from Heaven on struggling and suffering humanity manifold graces, light, strength, courage and comfort, blessings for time and for eternity. By penance they strive to atone for the offenses of sinful humanity, to appease God’s wrath and ward off its direful effects, by giving vicarious satisfaction to the demands of His justice. Their lives of perpetual abnegation and privation, of hardship cheerfully endured, of self-inflicted suffering, joined to the sufferings of their Divine Master and Model help to repair the evil men do and obtain God’s mercy for the evildoers. They plead and make reparation for all men. This twofold ministry carried on within the narrow precincts of a monastery knows no other limits to its effects than the bounds of earth and the needs of mankind. Or rather that ministry extends further still its sphere of action, for the dead as well as the living benefit by it. (See also MONASTICISM).

ST. THOMAS, Summa Theol., II-II, Q. clxxix-clxxxii; SUAREZ, Tract. de Oratione, lib II, c, ix sqq; IDEM, De varietate religionum, lib., I,c.v, vi; DENYS THE CARTHUSIAN, De contemplatione; La vie contemplative: son role apostolique (Montreuil-sur-Mer, 1898); DIVINE, Manual of Mystical Theology (London, 1903).

EDMUND GURDON.

Vincent Contenson

Dominican theologian and preacher, born at Altivillare (Gers), Diocese of Condon, France, 1641; died Creil-sur-Oise, 26 December, 1674. His epitaph in the church of that place described him as “in years a youth, mature in wisdom and in virtue venerable.” Despite his short life, he gave proof in his writings of considerable learning and won remarkable popularity by his pulpit utterances. He was seventeen years old when he entered the Order of Preachers. After teaching philosophy for a time at Albi, and theology at Toulouse, he began a career of preaching as brilliant as it was brief. He was stricken in the pulpit at Creil, where he was giving a mission. His reputation as a theologian rests on a work entitled “Theologia Mentis et Cordis,” published posthumously at Lyons in nine volumes, 1681; second edition, 1687. His life is found in the fifth volume of the “Histoire des hommes illustres de l’ordre de Saint Dominique,” by Père Touron. The peculiar merit of his theology consists in an attempt to get away from the prevailing dry reasoning of Scholasticism and, while retaining the accuracy and solidity of its method, to embellish it with illustrations and images borrowed from the Fathers, that appeal to the heart as well as the mind. This pious and learned compilation has not yet lost its value and utility for students and preachers.

ROSE. NEW GEN. BIOGR. DICT. (LONDON, 1848); MORERI, GR. DICT. HIST. (PARIS, 1759). JOHN H. STAPLETON

JOHN H. STAPLETON

Continence

Continence may be defined as abstinence from even the licit gratifications of marriage. It is a form of the virtue of temperance, though Aristotle did not accord it this high character since it involved a conflict with wrong desires—an element, in the mind of the philosopher, foreign to the content of a virtue in the strict sense. Continence, it is seen, has a more restricted significance than chastity, since the latter finds place in the condition of marriage. The abstinence we are discussing, then, belongs to the state of celibacy, though clearly the notion of this latter does not necessarily involve that of continence.

PRACTICE

In considering its practice we regard continence as a state of life. Though among savages and barbarians every one, as a rule, seeks to contract an early marriage, yet even among these peoples continence is frequently practiced by those who discharge the public duties of religion. Thus according to authorities cited by Westmarck, the male wizards of Patagonia embraced a life of continence, as did the priests of the Mosquito Islands and of ancient Mexico. According to Chinese law such condition of abstinence is made obligatory upon all priests, Buddhist or Taoist. Among the Greeks continence was required of several orders of priests and priestesses, as it was of the vestals among the Romans. The continence extensively observed among the Essenes, the Manichaeans, and some of the Gnostics, though not confined to a priestly class, was reckoned the means to a greater sanctification. Such widespread practice offers evidence of an instinctive feeling that the indulgence of our sensual nature is in a measure degrading, and that it is particularly incompatible with the perfect purity that should characterize one consecrated to the worship of the All Holy. That the attitude of a number of sects towards the lower side of human nature has taken on a character of unreasonable, and even absurd, severity is clear. This is observed especially in the case of the Manichaeans and branches of the Gnostics in the past and of the Shakers and other unimportant communities in our time. The law of the Catholic Church imposing a state of continence upon its ministers and upon its religious orders of men and women is set forth in the articles CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY; RELIGIOUS LIFE; and VIRGINITY.

Two general objections are frequently urged against the state of continence. First, it is said that the condition of continence is detrimental to the well-being of the individual. In such a statement, it will be frequently found, continence is understood as an unchaste celibacy, and such surely is not only a moral but a physical evil most pernicious. Certain it is, however, that the self-sacrifice and control involved in true continence finds fruitage in a greater measure of moral power. The words of Jesus Christ (Matt., xix, 12) may be here appealed to. Moreover, the abstinence of which we speak is a condition of increased physical vigor and energy. Of this many savages are not unmindful; for among a number of these continence is imposed upon the braves during times of war as a means of fostering and strengthening their daring and courage. A second objection rests upon considerations of the social good. It is contended that a state of continence means failure to discharge the social obligation of conserving the species. But such an obligation falls, not upon every member of the community, but upon society at large, and is amply discharged though there be individual exceptions. Indeed the non-fulfillment of this duty is never threatened by a too general observance of sexual abstinence. On the contrary it is only the unlawful gratification of carnal passion that can menace the due growth of population. But it may be said that the practice of continence withdraws form the function of reproduction the worthier members of society-those whose possible offspring would be the most desirable citizens of the State. This contention, however, overlooks the social service of the example set by such observance-a service which, in view of the duty incumbent upon every individual of society of observing absolute chastity for periods of greater or less duration, is of highest value.

JOHN WEBSTER MELODY

Contingent

(Lat. contingere, to happen)

Aside from its secondary and more obvious meaning (as, for instance, its qualification of the predicable accident, of a class of modal propositions, and so on), the primary and technically philosophical use of the term is for one of the supreme divisions of being, that is, contingent being, as distinguished from necessary being. In this connexion the meaning of the term may be considered objectively, and the genesis of the idea subjectively.

OBJECTIVELY

Objectively (ontologically) the contingent may be viewed:

(1) in the purely ideal or possible order, and it is then the conceptual note or notes between which and existence in the actual order there is no contradiction, and which consequently admits of, though it does not demand, actualization. It is thus coextensive with possible being and is called the absolutely contingent.

(2) Considered in the order of actual existence, the contingent is that being whose essence, as such, does not include existence and which, therefore, does not, as such, demand existence but is indifferent to be or not to be. This is called relatively contingent and the term is usually employed in this sense. Every finite existent being is thus contingent, though likewise hypothetically necessary, in that having existence it cannot at the same time and under the same aspect not have it; inasmuch, too, as it is determined by proximately, and hence relatively, necessitated antecedents.

(3) In regard to its subject—be this substance or accident—contingency may relate to action as well as to existence, and it then signifies that the subject (agent) is as yet undetermined, either intrinsically, as in the free agent, or extrinsically, as are necessitated causes.

(4) Since the essence of the contingent does not contain the reason of its existence, that reason must be sought in an outside efficient cause, which cause, if in turn contingent, must show reason for its existence in some other antecedent cause, and so on until ultimately a being is reached whose essence includes existence, a first cause whose existence is underived, a being which is necessary and absolute.

This argument from contingent to the necessary being is not, as Kant maintained, the well-known ontological argument formulated by St. Anselm and others to prove the existence of God. The latter argument passes illogically from the ideal concept of the infinite to the objective actual existence of the infinite, while the argument from contingent (finite) to the necessary (infinite) being, proceeds from the objective actual contingent (dependent, conditioned) to the existence of an adequate cause thereof. The inference is based on an objective application of the principle of causality and involves no leap from a subjective phenomenon (idea) to an objective realized content. The argument supposes, it is true, the real existence of contingent being and that existence is denied by many thinkers, notably by pantheists. materialists, and determinists generally. Kant reduces both contingency and necessity to mere mental forms or categories under which the mind views the world of phenomena but which it has no means of knowing to be objective. Necessary being, therefore, ontologically and objectively precedes the contingent, since the latter has the sole ultimate reason both of its intrinsic consistency (possibility) and of its actual existence in the former—actus absolute prœcedit potentiam. In the order, however, of man’s knowledge, the contingent falls primarily under experience.

SUBJECTIVELY

Like every other concept, that of the contingent is originally derived from external and internal experience. Adverting to the changes occurring in the world of sensuous phenomena and to the interdependencies thereof, the intellect easily, almost intuitively, discerns that, while the given events are the necessitated consequences of similarly necessitated antecedents, each number of the series, by the very fact of its being thus conditioned, does not contain within itself the adequate ground of its existence. The intellect having spontaneously abstracted this note of dependence and ontologically reflecting thereon sees its application to every finite subject not only existent but likewise possible; sees, at least by an easy process of reasoning, that no such subject contains within itself the reason why it exists, under the precise limitations of substance and accidents which it actually possesses. However, to assure this concept and to discern precisely and explicitly the contingency of the finite and the consequent indifference of its essence to exist or not to exist, the sciences, physical and biological, are called to testify; and each declares the dependence and conditionality of its respective object-sphere and attests that all things observed and searched into have a borrowed existence. This idea of contingency is then further assured by the witness of consciousness to the conditioned, and hence contingent, character of its own states, a testimony which is reconfirmed by the facts of birth and death.

Against this statement of the genesis of the contingency-concept it may be objected that experience does not extend beyond the field of sensuous phenomena. On the other hand, however, the intellect, motived by the principle of sufficient reason, discerns the underlying noumenon, or essence of things material, Kant to the contrary notwithstanding, at least sufficiently to pronounce with certitude on their essential conditionateness and contingency. But it is urged by materialistic monists that the underlying substrate of the sensuous world is one homogeneous, eternal, necessary being, essentially involving existence. To this objection it may be answered that no finite thing, much less a finite material being, can contain the ultimate reason of its existence. The definite limitations, spatial, integral, positional, etc., and the inertia of the hypothetical primordial matter shows that it is conditioned by some limiting and determining cause, while its passage from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous state, into which it is supposed to have evolved in the actual universe, equally demands an extraneous active agency. It should, however, be noted that the argument from contingent to necessary being does not explicitly prove the existence of God. A further analysis of the objective concept is necessarily required in order to show that the latter concept includes that of underivedness (aseitas) and that this in turn includes completeness, absence of any potentiality for further perfection (actus purus), hence infinitude. The failure to note this limitation of the argument seems to have led Kant to deny its validity.

BALMES, Fundamental Philosophy (New York, 1864); DRISCOLL, Christian Philosophy—God (New York, 1904); AVELING, The God of Philosophy (St. Louis and London, 1906); EISLER, Würterbuch der phil. Begriffe (Berlin, 1904); BLANC, Dictionnaire de philosophie (Paris, 1906); URRABURU, Institutiones Phil. (Valladolid, 1899).

F. P. SIEGFRIED

Contract

(Latin contractus; Old French contract; Modern French contrat; Italian contratto).

I. THE CANONICAL AND MORALIST DOCTRINE

The canonical and moralist doctrine on this subject is a development of that contained in the Roman civil law. In Roman law a mere agreement between two parties to give, do, or refrain from doing something was a nude pact (pactum nudum) which gave rise to no civil obligation, and no action lay to enforce it. It needed to be clothed in some investitive fact which the law recognized in order to give rise to a civil obligation which should be enforced at law. Not that the nude pact was considered to be destitute of all binding force; it gave rise to a natural obligation, and it might afford ground for a legal exception. A man of honour would keep his engagements even if he knew that the law could not be invoked to compel him to do so. Moral theology, being the science of Christian conduct, could not be satisfied with the mere legal view of the effect of an agreement. If the agreement had all other requisites for a valid contract, moral theology must necessarily consider it to be binding, even though it was a nude pact and could not be enforced in the courts of law. Canon law made this moral attitude its own. In the Decretals of Gregory IX it is expressly laid down that pacts, however nude, must be kept, and that a strenuous endeavour must be made to put in execution what one has promised. It thus came to pass that nude pacts could be enforced in the Christian courts, and the Church’s legislation served eventually to break down the rigid formalism of Roman law, and to prepare the way for the more equitable law of contract which all Christian nations now possess.

In the canonical and moral doctrine there is hardly room for the distinction between a nude pact, or mere agreement, and a contract. The Roman jurist’s definition of the former is frequently used by canonists to define contract. They say that a contract is the consent of two or more persons to the same proposal; or, bringing out a little more definitely the effect and object of a contract, they define it to be an agreement by which two or more persons mutually bind themselves to give, do, or abstain from something. From the moralist’s point of view, then, every agreement seriously entered into by those who are capable of contracting with reference to some lawful object is a contract, whether such agreement can be enforced in the civil courts or not. The intention of the parties is looked at, and if they seriously intended to bind themselves, there is a contractual relation between them. This doctrine, however, gives rise to a question of some importance. The Church fully admits and defends the right of the State to make laws for the temporal well-being of its citizens. All States require certain formalities for the validity of certain actions. Last wills and testaments are a familiar example, and although they are not strictly contracts, yet the principle is the same and they will serve for an example of what is meant. A deed, the only formal contract of English law, is another example. A will destitute of the requisite formalities is null and void at law; but what is the effect of such a voiding law in the forum of conscience? This question has been much debated among moralists. Some have maintained that such a law is binding in the internal as well as in the external forum, so that a formal contract, destitute of the formalities required by law, is null and void in conscience as it is in law. Others adopted the contrary opinion, and held that the want of formality only affected the external forum of civil law, and left intact the natural obligation arising from a contract. The common opinion takes a middle course. It holds that the want of formality, though it makes the contract void in the eyes of the law, renders it only voidable in the forum of conscience; so that, until one of the parties moves to set the contract aside, it remains valid, and anyone deriving benefit under it may enjoy his benefit in peace. If, however, the party interested moves to set it aside, and does so effectively by having recourse to the court of law if necessary, both must then abide by the law which makes the contract void and of no effect.

There are four essential elements in a contract:

consent of the parties,

contractual capacity in them,

determinate and lawful subject-matter, and

a lawful consideration.

The contract is formed by the mutual consent of the parties, which must be real, not feigned, and manifested so that each may know that the other party consents. There is no difficulty about the outward manifestation of consent when the parties enter into the contract in each other’s presence. But when the parties are not present to each other, and the contract is made by letter or telegraph, it sometimes becomes a question of importance as to when and how the contract is effected. Is the contract entered into when the offeree signifies his consent by posting a letter of acceptance to the offeror, or is the knowledge of his acceptance required to complete the contract? All that is required by the nature of a contract is that there should be mutually manifested agreement of the two wills. There will be such agreement when one of the parties makes an offer to the other, and this one manifests his acceptance of the offer by posting a letter or by sending a telegram. There is then consent of two wills to the proposal, and so there is a contract. Mutual consent to the same proposal may be hindered by a mistake of one of the parties. Such mistakes are not infrequently caused by the fraud or misrepresentation of the other party. If the mistake is substantial, so that at least one of the parties thinks that the subject-matter of the contract is quite other than it really is, there will be no true consent, and no contract. Similarly, if there be a mistake about the nature of the contract proposed (as, if one party intends to sell while the other only means to borrow) there is no agreement of wills. Mistake about the mere quality of the subject-matter of the contract is accidental, not substantial, and in spite of it there may be substantial agreement between the parties. If, however, such a mistake has been caused by the fraud or misrepresentation of the other party to the contract, and the party deceived would not otherwise have entered into it, it is only fair that the deceived party should be able to protect himself from injury by retiring from the agreement. Contracts, then, entered into because of accidental mistake which was induced by the fraud or misrepresentation of the other party, will be rescindable at the option of the party deceived. The consent of the parties must be deliberate and free, for a perfect and grave obligation cannot arise from consent which is not deliberate or free. Hence we must see what the influence of fear is upon the validity of a contract. If the fear goes to the length of depriving one of the parties of the use of reason, he cannot, while in that state, give a valid consent, and the contract will be null and void. Fear, however, does not ordinarily produce such extreme effects; it leaves a man with the natural use of his reason and capable of consenting or withholding his consent. Even grave fear, then, does not of itself invalidate a contract, but if it is unjustly caused by the other party to the contract with a view to forcing him who is under its influence to consent, the injured party may withdraw from the contract. Some contracts, such as marriage, thus entered into under the influence of grave fear unjustly caused by the other party to the contract with the intention of compelling consent, are made invalid by canon law. Some authorities even hold that all such contracts are invalid by natural law, but the opinion is at most only probable. A person must have the use of reason in order to give valid consent to a contract, and his contractual capacity must not have been taken away by law. Those who have not yet attained the use of reason, imbeciles, and those who are perfectly drunk so that they do not know what they are doing, are incapable of contracting by the law of nature. Minors are to a certain extent restricted in their contractual capacity by English and American law. Practically, their contracts are voidable except those for necessaries. Married women were formerly incapable of entering into a valid contract, but in England since 1882 their disability has been removed, and in most of the States of the Union the same doctrine begins to prevail. Religious persons are to a greater or less extent, according as they are under solemn or simple vows, incapable of entering into a binding contract. Corporations and companies are limited in their contractual capacity by their nature or by the articles of association.

The subject-matter of a contract must be definite and certain, it must be possible, and it must be honest. A contract cannot be a bond of iniquity, and so an agreement to commit sin is null and void. Some theologians maintain that when, in execution of a contract, a sinful action has been performed, a right is acquired to receive the price agreed upon. The opinion seems at any rate probable. If the contract is not sinful in itself, but voided by positive law, it will be valid until it is set aside by the party interested, as was said above concerning informal contracts. When persons enter into a contract, each party promises to give, do, or forbear something in favour of the other. The benefit which thus immediately arises from the contract, and which is the cause of it, is called the consideration in English law. It is a necessary element in a contract, and if it is wanting the contract is null on account of the failure of a necessary condition in the agreement. The courts of civil law will not enforce a simple contract unless there be a valuable consideration in it; mere motives of affection or moral duty will not suffice. This rule, however, only affects legal obligations; it has nothing to do with obligations in conscience. A valid contract imposes on the contracting parties an obligation of justice to act conscientiously according to the terms of the agreement. They will be bound to perform not only what they expressly agreed to do, but whatever the law, or custom, or usage prescribes in the circumstances. The obligation arising from a contract will cease when the contract has been executed, when a new one has been substituted for the old one by the free consent of the parties, when the parties mutually and freely withdraw from the contract. When one of the parties fails in what he promised, the other will, as a rule, be free. A contract may be concluded not absolutely but conditionally on the happening of some uncertain and future event. In this case the conditional contract imposes on the parties the obligation of waiting for the event, and in case it happens the contract becomes binding on them without renewal of consent. On the other hand, a contract is sometimes entered into and begins to bind at once; but the parties agree that it shall cease to bind on the happening of a certain event. This is called a condition subsequent, while the former is a condition precedent.

T. SLATER.

II. IN CIVIL JURISPRUDENCE

In civil law, a contract is defined as the union of several persons in a coincident expression of will by which their legal relations are determined. This “co-incident expression” consists of an agreement and promise enforceable in law, and “on the face of the matter capable of having legal effects,” “an act in the law” “whereby two or more persons capable of contracting,” “of doing acts in the law,” “declare their consent as to any act or thing to be done or forborne by some or one of those persons for the use of the others or other of them” (Pollock, “Principles of Contract,” 3rd Amer. ed., New York, 1906, 58, 1, 2, 3), the intention implied by the consent being that from the agreement and promise shall arise “duties and rights which can be dealt with by a court of justice” (ibid.). Thus, while every contract is an agreement, not every agreement is a contract. A mutual consent of two persons to walk out together, or to dine together, would be an agreement, and yet not what in jurisprudence is known as a contract. For such consent contemplates the producing of no legal right, or of any duty which is a legal obligation. Subject only to these or similar explanations may be properly adopted the time-honoured definition of contract as understood in English law, a definition commended by Chancellor Kent (“Commentaries on American Law,” II, 449, note b) for its “neatness and precision,” namely, “an agreement of two or more persons upon sufficient consideration to do or not to do a particular thing.”

KINDS OF CONTRACT

The Roman civil law defined contracts as real (re), verbal (verbis), literal (litteris), or consensual (consensu). A real contract was one, such as loan or pledge, which was not perfected until something had passed from one of the parties to the other. A verbal contract (verborum obligatio), or stipulation, was perfected by a spoken formula. This formula consisted of a question by one of the parties and an exactly corresponding answer by the other. Thus: Quinque aureos mihi dare spondes? Spondeo, or Promittis? Promitto, i.e. “Do you agree (or promise) to give me five pieces of gold?” “I agree,” or “I promise.” The similarity may be noted of this to the modern form for administering an affidavit or for taking the acknowledgment of a written legal instrument. A literal contract was perfected by a written acknowledgment of debt and was used chiefly in the instance of a loan of money. Consensual contracts were those of which sale would be an example, which might be perfected by consent, and to which no particular form was essential. In the English law the principal division of contracts is into those by writing under seal (called specialties), and those known as simple contracts; and there are also “contracts by matter of record,” such as a recognizance or judgment by confession, contracts in court, which need no further description. Simple contracts include all contracts written, but not under seal or of record, and all verbal contracts.

A person may contract in person or by an agent. “The tendency of modern times,” remarks Holland (op. cit., 118), “is towards the fullest recognition of the principles proclaimed in the canon law, potest quis per alium quod potest facere per se ipsum, qui facit per alium est perinde ac si faciat per se ipsum,” i.e. one may do through another whatever one is free to do by himself, or an act done through another is equivalent to an act done by oneself.

REQUISITES OF CONTRACT

According to Roman law, such a contract as that of sale required a justa causa, namely, a good legal reason. According to English law, simple contracts require a valuable consideration, in like manner as by Roman law there was needed a justa causa. By that law, informal contracts which had no justa causa were ineffectual (Poste, op. cit., 334). Stipulations irregular in form were termed nuda pacta, i. e. mere agreements, to which the ancient law attached no obligation. The Roman jurisprudence let some engagements rest on the mere integrity of the parties who contracted them, thinking it more conducive to the cultivation of virtue to leave some things to the good faith and probity of mankind than to subject everything to the compulsory authority of the law.

As the civil-law jurist admitted the moral obligation of good faith and probity, so an eminent English judge concedes that “by the law of nature” every man ought to fulfil his engagements. But it is equally true,” he continues, “that the law of this country supplies no means nor affords any remedy to compel the performance of any agreement made without sufficient consideration.” “Such agreement,” he adds, “is nudum pactum ex quo non oritur actio,” a mere agreement giving rise to no action at law, the learned judge conceding that this understanding of the maxim may (as it certainly does) differ from its sense in the Roman law. A moral consideration has been said to be “nothing in law.” The moral obligation of a contract is of “an imperfect kind,” to quote an eminent American jurist, “addressed to the conscience of the parties under the solemn admonitions of accountability to the Supreme Being” (Story, “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” 5th ed., Boston, 1891, Section 1380), but not to an earthly court of justice. With these doctrines of the Roman and of the English law we may compare the Scottish law, according to which no consideration is essential to a legal obligation, “an obligation undertaken deliberately though gratuitously being binding.” “This,” adds Mackenzie (op. cit., 233) “is in conformity with the canon law by which every paction produceth action et omne verbum de ore fideli cadit in debitum,” i.e. every word of a faithful man is equivalent to a debt.

In the Roman law, fulfilment of the legal solemnities of the verbal contract was deemed to indicate such an intention of contracting a valid and effectual obligation, as to dispense with proof of any justa causa. In the English law it is not any verbal formality, but the solemnity of writing and sealing which dispenses with proof of that valuable consideration in modern English law analogous to the old Roman justa causa, and, as a general proposition, essential to the validity of simple contracts, although in the exceptional instance of negotiable paper always presumed, and in favour of certain holders conclusively. This consideration is described generally as the matter accepted or agreed upon as the equivalent for which the promise is made. And one promise would be a legal consideration for another. But the English law infers what a man chooses to bargain for to be of some value to him, and therefore does not allow the adequacy of the consideration to be inquired into. The consideration must, however, “be of some value in contemplation of law.” A promise, for instance, to abstain from doing what the promisor has no right to do, is a promise of no value, and therefore no consideration for a contract. No obligation can by English law result from an agreement “immoral in a legal sense.” By this is meant not only that it is morally wrong, but that according to the common understanding of reasonable men it would be a scandal for a court of justice to treat it as lawful or indifferent, though it may not come within any positive prohibition or penalty. The civil-law authority, Pothier, instances a promise by an officer to pay a soldier for fighting “a soldier of another regiment.” If the officer pay, he has no legal claim for recovery of this consideration given and received for a wrongful act, and, on the other hand, the soldier, if he fight before receiving the agreed consideration, acquires no legal claim for it against the officer (Pothier, op. cit., 23). No one is under a legal duty to fulfil a promise to do an act opposed to the policy of the law. But there are not wanting instances of contracts opposed to the policy of the law which yet conflict with no moral law.

A contract induced by what in law is deemed to be fraud may be rescinded at the election of the party defrauded. But “general fraudulent conduct,” or “general dishonesty of purpose,” or mere “intention and design to deceive” is not sufficient unless these evil acts and qualities have been connected with a particular transaction, were the ground on which it took place, and gave rise to the contract. In the instance of a sale, the seller was, by the Roman civil law, held to an implied warranty that the thing sold was “free from such defects as made it unfit for the use for which it was intended” (Mackenzie, op. cit., 236). By the English law there is, if the thing be sold for a fair price and be at the time of sale in the possession of the seller, an implied warranty of title, but of quality there is no implied warranty, except as to food sold for domestic use. “The writers of the moral law,” observes Chancellor Kent, “hold it to be the duty of the seller to disclose the defects which are within his knowledge. But the common law is not quite so strict. If the defects in the article sold be open equally to the observation of both parties, the law does not require the vendor to aid and assist the observation of the vendee” (Kent, op. cit., II, 484).

Respecting what may be termed generally “motives and inducements” (ibid., 487) of a contract, the same authority cites Pothier as in accord with the doctrine of English law, “that though misrepresentation or fraud will invalidate the contract of sale, the mere concealment of material knowledge which the one party has touching the thing sold and which the other does not possess, may affect the conscience, but will not destroy the contract, for that would unduly restrict the freedom of commerce; and parties must at their own risk inform themselves of the commodities they deal in” (op. cit., 491). In a note, Cicero is referred to as favouring the view that conscience forbids the concealment, the commentator adding, “It is a little singular, however, that some of the best ethical writers, under the Christian Dispensation should complain of the moral lessons of Cicero, as being too austere in their texture, and too sublime in speculation for actual use” (ibid., note d). As fraud, so coercion, termed in English law duress, or the threat of it, constitutes a valid defense to fulfilment of a contract.

STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS

A certain French ordonnance of 1667 has been thought to have, perhaps, suggested the English statute of 1689, which recites its purpose to be “prevention of many fraudulent practices which are commonly endeavoured to be upheld by perjury and subornation of perjury.” Accordingly, the statute requires that certain contracts be in writing, and those for sales of “goods, wares or merchandise of over ten pounds price” in writing, or that there be a part-delivery or part-payment. This enactment, known as the Statute of Frauds, has, with numerous variations, been embodied in statutes in the United States (except in Louisiana), carrying, to quote from the American commentator, “its influence through the whole body of our civil jurisprudence” (Kent, op. cit., 494, note a).

By the early Roman law many contracts were enforceable by legal action after any lapse of time however long. But, to quote the Institutes, “Sacrae constitutiones. . . . actionibus certos fines dederunt” (the imperial constitutions assigned fixed limits to actions), so that, after certain prescribed periods, no legal remedy would be provided to enforce the obligation of contracts (“The Institutes of Justinian,” Bk. IV, tit. xii; Bk. II, tit. vi). Such positive restrictions on the legal remedy are in English law contained in enactments known as Statutes of Limitation (Blackstone, op. cit., Bk. III, 307). One ancient English statute fixed for limitation of certain actions the time of the coming of King John from Ireland, another statute the coronation of Henry III (Blackstone, op. cit., Bk. III, 188). But modern statutes, as well in England as throughout the United States, limit the remedy to certain periods from the time of entering into contracts, adopting the manner of the Roman constitutions. The legal maxim Leges vigilantibus non dormientibus subveniunt (the laws aid the vigilant, not the careless) is applicable to private suitors (Blackstone, op. cit.). But nullum tempos occurrit regi (no time runs against the king), and therefore, unless specially mentioned, the government is not included within the restrictions of a statute of limitations. According to ancient English legal conceptions these statutes ought not to bind the king, for the reason that he “is always busied for the public good, and therefore has not leisure to assert his right within the times limited to subjects” (ibid., Bk. I, 247).

INVIOLABILITY OF CONTRACTS

To secure inviolability of contracts, the Constitution of the United States (Art. 1, Sect. 10) provides that no State shall pass a “law impairing the obligation of contracts.” By obligation is meant that legal obligation which exists “wherever the municipal law recognizes an absolute duty to perform a contract.” And the word contract being used in this clause of the Constitution without qualification, the protection of the Constitution is not confined to executory contracts, but embraces also executed contracts, such as a grant which, because it amounts to an extinguishment of the right of the party, implies a contract not to reassert the right. And the Constitution also protects even state charters granted to private persons for private purposes, whether these be literary, charitable, religious, or commercial. (See also DONATION.)

CHARLES W. SLOANE.

The Social Contract

Du Contrat Social, ou Principes du droit politique, is the title of a work written by J.J. Rousseau and published in 1762. From the time of his stay at Venice, about 1741, Rousseau had in mind a large treatise dealing with “Les institutions politiques.” The Contrat Social is but a fragment of this treatise.

CONTENTS OF THE BOOK

BOOK I

The Contrat Social is divided into four books. The first treats of the formation of societies and the social contract. Social order is a sacred right which is at the foundation of all other rights. It does not come from nature. The family is the most ancient and the most natural of all societies; but this association of parents and children, necessary as long as these cannot provide for themselves, is maintained afterwards only by convention. Some philosophers have said that among men some are born for slavery, others for domination; but they confound cause and effect; if some are slaves by nature, it is because there have been slaves against nature. Again, social order is not based on force, for the strongest is not strong enough to retain at all times his supremacy unless he transforms force into right, and obedience into duty. But in that case right would change places with force. If it is necessary to obey because of force, there is no need of obeying because of duty; and if one is not forced to obey there is no longer any obligation.

All legitimate authority among men is based on an agreement. This argument, according to Grotius, has its foundation in the right of a people to alienate its freedom. But to alienate is to give or to sell. A man does not give himself; at most he sells himself for a living; but for what should a people sell itself. To give itself gratuitously would be an act of folly and therefore null and void. Moreover, even if a man has the right to give himself, he has no right to give his children who are born men and free. Grotius, again, in order to legitimize slavery, appeals to the right of the conqueror to kill the conquered or to spare his life at the price of his freedom. But war is a relation between State and State, and not between man and man. It gives the right to kill soldiers so long as they are armed, but, once they have laid down their arms, there remain only men and no one has the right to kill them; besides, no one has the right to enslave men. The words slavery and right are contradictory.

The social order originates in an altogether primitive and unanimous agreement. When men in the state of nature have reached that stage where the individual is unable to cope with adverse forces, they are compelled to change their way of living. They cannot create new forces, but they can unite their individual energies and thus overcome the obstacles to life. The fundamental problem is, then, “to find a form of association which defends and protects with the whole common energy, the person and property of each associate, and by which each individual associate, uniting himself to all, still obeys only himself and remains as free as before.” The solution is a contract by which each one puts in common his person and all his forces under the supreme direction of the “general will.” Where results a moral and collective body formed of as many members as there are persons in the community. In this body the condition is equal for all, since each gives himself wholly; the union is perfect, since each gives himself unreservedly; and finally, each, giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody. This body is called the “State or Sovereign”; the members, who, taken together, form “the people” are the “citizens” as participating in the supreme authority, and “subjects” as subjected to the laws. By this contract man passes from the natural to the civil state, from instinct to morality and justice. He loses his natural freedom and his unlimited right to all that he attempts or is able to do, but he gains civil liberty and the ownership of all that he possesses by becoming the acknowledged trustee of a part of the public property.

BOOK II

The second book deals with sovereignty and its rights. Sovereignty, or the general will, is inalienable, for the will cannot be transmitted; it is indivisible, since it is essentially general; it is infallible and always right. It is determined and limited in its power by the common interest; it acts through laws. Law is the decision of the general will in regard to some object of common interest. But though the general will is always right and always desires what is good, its judgment is not always enlightened, and consequently does not always see wherein the common good lies; hence the necessity of the legislator. But the legislator has, of himself, no authority; he is only a guide. He drafts and proposes laws, but the people alone (that is, the sovereign or general will) has authority to make and impose them.

BOOK III

The third book treats of government and its exercise. In the State it is not sufficient to make laws, it is also necessary to enforce them. Although the sovereign or general will has the legislative power, it cannot exercise by itself the executive power. It needs a special agent, intermediary between the subjects and the sovereign, which applies the laws under the direction of the general will. This is precisely the part of the Government which is the minister of the sovereign and not sovereign itself. The one or the several magistrates who form the Government are only the trustees of the executive powers; they are the officers of the sovereign, and their office is not the result of a contract, but a charge laid upon them; they receive from the sovereign the orders which they transmit to the people, and the sovereign can at will limit, modify, or revoke this power.

The three principal forms of government are: democracy, a government by the whole, or the greater part, of the people; aristocracy, government by a few; monarchy, government by one.

Democracy is in practice impossible. It demands conditions too numerous and virtues too difficult for the whole people. “If there were a people of gods, its government would be democratic, so perfect a government is not for men.”

Aristocracy may be natural, hereditary, or elective. The first is found only among simple and primitive people; the second is the worst of all governments; the third, where the power is given to the wisest, to those who have more time for public affairs, is the best and the most natural of all governments whenever it is certain that those who wield power will use it for the public welfare and not for their own interest.

No government is more vigorous than monarchy; but it presents great dangers; if the end is not the public welfare, the whole energy of the administration is concentrated for the detriment of the State. Kings seek to be absolute, and offices are given to intriguers.

Theoretically, a government simple and pure in form is the best; practically, it must be combined with, and controlled by, elements borrowed from other forms. Also, it is to be remarked that not every form of government is equally suitable to every country; but the government of each country must be adapted to the character of its people. “All things being equal, the best form of government for a country is the one under which the citizens, without any outside means, without naturalization or colonies, increase and multiply.” In order to prevent any usurpation on the part of the government, some fixed and periodical meetings of the people must be determined by law, during which all executive power is suspended, and all authority is in the hands of the people. In these meetings the people will decide two questions: “Whether it pleases the sovereign to preserve the present form of government, and whether it pleases the people to continue the administration in the hands of those who are actually in charge.” Intermediary between the sovereign authority and the Government there is sometimes another power, that of the deputies or representatives. The general will, however, cannot be represented any more than it can be alienated; the deputies are not representatives of the people, but its commissioners; they cannot decide anything definitively; hence, any law which is not ratified by the people is null. The institution of the Government, therefore, is not based on a contract between the people and the magistrates; it is a law. Those who hold power are the officers, not the masters, of the people; they have not to make a contract, but to obey; by fulfilling their functions they simply discharge their duties as citizens.

BOOK IV

In the fourth book, Rousseau speaks of certain social institutions. The general will is indestructible; it expresses itself through elections. As to different modes of elections and institutions, such as tribunate, dictatorship, censure, etc., the history of the ancient republics of Rome and Greece, of Sparta especially, can teach us something about their value. Religion is at the very foundation of the State. At all times it has occupied a large place in the life of the people. The Christianity of the Gospel is a holy religion, but by teaching detachment from earthly things it conflicts with the social spirit. It produces men who fulfil their duties with indifference, and soldiers who know how to die rather than how to win. It is important for the State that each citizen should have a religion that will help him to love his duty; but the dogmas of this religion are of no concern to the State except in so far as they are related to morality or duties towards others. There must be, therefore, in the State a religion of which the sovereign shall determine the articles, not as dogmas of religion, but as sentiments of sociability. Whosoever does not accept them may be banished, not as impious, but as unsociable; and whosoever, after having accepted them, will not act according to them shall be punished by death. These articles shall be few and precise; existence of the Divinity, powerful, intelligent, good, and provident; future life, happiness of the just; chastisement of the wicked; sanctity of the social contract and the laws; these are the positive dogmas. There is also one negative dogma: Whosoever shall say, “Outside of the Church there is no salvation,” ought to be banished from the State.

CRITIQUE OF THE BOOK

The influence of this book was immense. Rousseau owes much indeed to Hobbes and Locke, and to Montesquieu’s Esprit des lois, published fourteen years before; but, by the extreme prominence given to the ideas of popular sovereignty, of liberty and equality, and especially by his highly coloured style, his short and concise formula, he put within the common reach principles and concepts which had hitherto been confined to scientific exposition. The book gave expression to ideas and feelings which, at a time of political and social unrest, were growing in the popular mind. It would be interesting to determine how far Rousseau influenced the framing of various modern constitutions; at any rate, he furnished the French Revolution with its philosophy, and his principles direct the actual political life of France. His book, says Mallet du Pan, was “the Koran of the Revolutionists,” and Carlyle rightly calls Rousseau “the Evangelist of the French Revolution.” The orators of the Constituante quoted its sentences and formulae, and if it may be believed that Rousseau would have condemned the massacres and violences of 1793, the Jacobins, nevertheless, looked to his principles for the justification of their acts.

It is quite intelligible that the Contrat Social should have come to be considered by some as the gospel of freedom and democracy, by others as the code of revolution and anarchy. That it contains serious contradictions is undeniable. For instance, Rousseau assigns as the essential basis of the general will the unanimous consent of the people, yet he assumes that this general will is expressed in the plurality of suffrages; he affirms that parents have no right to engage their children by a contract, and yet children from their birth will be subject to the primitive contract; he affirms that a man has no right to alienate himself, yet he bases the social contract essentially on the total alienation of personal rights and personality in favour of the community. If there are some true considerations and reflections in this book—as, for instance, on slavery and the dignity of man, on the adaptation of the divers forms of government to the character of the people, etc.—its fundamental principles—the origin of society, absolute freedom and absolute equality of all—are false and unnatural.

He bases society on a convention, ignoring the fact and truth so clearly shown both by psychology and history that man is a being essentially social, and that, as Bonald says, the “law of sociability is as natural to man as the law of gravitation to physical bodies.” He affirms as a first principle that all men are born free. He calls the natural state a state of instinct, and he defines natural freedom as the unlimited right of each to do whatever he can. He opposes to this natural state and freedom the civil state which he calls the state of justice and morality, and civil liberty, which is freedom limited by the general will. This evidently implies that man is born an animal with force as its power and instinct as its guide, and not an intelligent and free being. Rousseau forgets that, if natural freedom is power to act, it is at the same time an activity subjected to a rule and discipline determined by the very object and conditions of human life; that if all men are born with a right to freedom, they are also born with a duty to direct this freedom; that, if all are born equally free—in the fundamental sense that all have the same essential right to live a human life and to attain human perfection—still, this very right is determined in its mode of exercise for each individual by special laws and conditions; in a word, that the natural state of man is both freedom and discipline in the individual as well as in the social life. Rousseau’s conception of freedom leads him directly to an individualism and a naturalism which have no limits save those of brute force itself.

Again, he declares that all men are born naturally equal. Now this principle is true if it is understood in the sense of a specific equality, the foundation of human dignity. Every man has the right, equal in all, to be treated as a man, to be respected in his personal dignity as a man, to be protected and helped by authority in his effort towards perfection. But the principle is fundamentally false, if, as interpreted by Rousseau, it means individual equality. The son is not individually equal to his father, nor the infant to the adult, nor the dull to the intelligent, nor the poor to the rich, in individual needs, rights, or special duties. The natural relations between individual men, their reciprocal duties and rights, involve both equality and hierarchy. The basis of social relations is not absolute individual independence and arbitrary will, but freedom exercised with respect for authority. By his interpretation of this principle, Rousseau leads to a false individualism which ends in anarchy.

Rousseau maintains that society arises through the total alienation of the personality and rights of each associate; hence, for the absolute individualism of nature he substitutes an absolute socialism in the civil state. It is the general will which is the ultimate source and supreme criterion of justice, morality, property, and religion. Then we have, in spite of all the explanations advanced by Rousseau, the suppression of personality, the reign of force and caprice, the tyranny of the multitude, the despotism of the crowd, the destruction of true freedom, morality, and society. The French Revolution was the realization of these principles. Society has not its foundation in the free alienation of personality and rights, but in the natural union of all personalities, or, rather, families, with a view to reach their perfection. Society is not the source of duties and rights of families or individuals, but the protector and helper of families and individuals in the fulfilment of their duties and rights; its existence is commanded, its authority is limited, by this very end. Society is not formed from elements all individually equal, but is organized from graduated elements. These degrees of authority, however, in the social organization are not by nature the exclusive possession of anybody, but accessible to the capacities and the efforts of all. Society is made up of authority and subjects; and this authority, while it may be determined in its subject and manner of exercise by the people, has not its foundation in their will, but in human nature itself as God created it.

G.M. SAUVAGE

Contrition

(Lat. contritio—a breaking of something hardened).

In Holy Writ nothing is more common than exhortations to repentance: “I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ezech., xxxiii, 11); “Except you do penance you shall all likewise perish” (Luke, xiii, 5; cf. Matt., xii, 41). At times this repentance includes exterior acts of satisfaction (Ps. vi, 7 sqq.); it always implies a recognition of wrong done to God, a detestation of the evil wrought, and a desire to turn from evil and do good. This is clearly expressed in Ps. 1 (5–14): “For I know my iniquity . . . To thee only have I sinned, and have done evil before thee. . . . Turn away thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. Create a clean heart in me,” etc. More clearly does this appear in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican (Luke, xviii, 13), and more clearly still in the story of the prodigal (Luke, xv, 11–32): “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee: I am not worthy to be called thy son.”

NATURE OF CONTRITION

This interior repentance has been called by theologians “contrition.” It is defined explicitly by the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, ch. iv de Contritione): “a sorrow of soul and a hatred of sin committed, with a firm purpose of not sinning in the future.” The word contrition itself in a moral sense is not of frequent occurrence in Scripture (cf. Ps. 1, 19). Etymologically it implies a breaking of something that has become hardened. St. Thomas Aquinas in his Commentary on the Master of the Sentences thus explains its peculiar use: “Since it is requisite for the remission of sin that a man cast away entirely the liking for sin which implies a sort of continuity and solidity in his mind, the act which obtains forgiveness is termed by a figure of speech ‘contrition’“ (In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xvii; cf. Supplem. III, Q. i, a. 1). This sorrow of soul is not merely speculative sorrow for wrong done, remorse of conscience, or a resolve to amend; it is a real pain and bitterness of soul together with a hatred and horror for sin committed; and this hatred for sin leads to the resolve to sin no more. The early Christian writers in speaking of the nature of contrition sometimes insist on the feeling of sorrow, sometimes on the detestation of the wrong committed (Augustine in P.L., XXXVII, 1901, 1902; Chrysostom, P.G., XLVII, 409, 410). Augustine includes both when writing: “Compunctus corde non solet dici nisi stimulus peccatorum in dolore pœ;nitendi” (P.L., Vol. VI of Augustine, col. 1440). Nearly all the medieval theologians hold that contrition is based principally on the detestation of sin. This detestation presupposes a knowledge of the heinousness of sin, and this knowledge begets sorrow and pain of soul. “A sin is committed by the consent, so it is blotted out by the dissent of the rational will; hence contrition is essentially sorrow. But it should be noted that sorrow has a twofold signification—dissent of the will and the consequent feeling; the former is of the essence of contrition, the latter is its effect” (Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xvi, Pt. I, art. 1). [See also St. Thomas Aquinas, Comment. in Lib. Sent. IV; Billuart (De Sac. Pœ;nit., Diss. iv, art. 1) seems to hold the opposite opinion.]

NECESSITY OF CONTRITION

Until the time of the Reformation no theologian ever thought of denying the necessity of contrition for the forgiveness of sin. But with the coming of Luther and his doctrine of justification by faith alone the absolute necessity of contrition was excluded as by a natural consequence. Leo X in the famous Bull “Exsurge” [Denzinger, no. 751 (635)] condemned the following Lutheran position: “By no means believe that you are forgiven on account of your contrition, but because of Christ’s words, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt loose,’ etc. On this account I say, that if you receive the priest’s absolution, believe firmly that you are absolved, and trulyabsolved you will be, let the contrition be as it may.” Luther could not deny that in every true conversion there was grief of soul, but he asserted that this was the result of the grace of God poured into the soul at the time of justification, etc. (for this discussion see Vacant, Dict. de théol. cath., s.v. Contrition.) Catholic writers have always taught the necessity of contrition for the forgiveness of sin, and they have insisted that such necessity arises (a) from the very nature of repentance as well as (b) from the positive command of God. (a) ‘They point out that the sentence of Christ in Luke, xiii, 5, is final: “Except you do penance,” etc., and from the Fathers they cite passages such as the following from Cyprian, “De Lapsis,” no. 32: “Do penance in full, give proof of the sorrow that comes from a grieving and lamenting soul . . . they who do away with repentance for sin, close the door to satisfaction.” Scholastic doctors laid down the satisfaction’ principle, “No one can begin a new life who does not repent him of the old” (Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xvi, Pt. II, art. 1, Q. ii, also ex professo, ibid., Pt. I, art. I, Q. iii), and when asked the reason why, they point out the absolute incongruity of turning to God and clinging to sin, which is hostile to God’s law. The Council of Trent, mindful of the tradition of the ages, defined (Sess. XlV. ch. iv de Contritione) that “contrition has always been necessary for obtaining forgiveness of sin.” (b) The positive command of God is also clear in the premises. The Baptist sounded the note of preparation for the coming of the Messias: “Make straight his paths”; and, as a consequence “they went out to him and were baptized confessing their sins.” The first preaching of Jesus is described in the words: “Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”; and the Apostles, in their first sermons to the people, warn them to “do penance and be baptized for the remission of their sins” (Acts, ii, 38). The Fathers followed up with like exhortation (Clement in P.G., I, 341; Hermas iii P.G., II, 894; Tertullian in P.L., II).

PERFECT AND IMPERFECT CONTRITION

Catholic teaching distinguishes a twofold hatred of sin; one, perfect contrition, rings from the love of God Who has been grievously offended; the other, imperfect contrition, arises principally from some other motives, such as loss of heaven, fear of hell, the heinousness of sin, etc. (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, ch. iv de Contritione). For the doctrine of imperfect contrition see ATTRITION.

QUALITIES

In accord with Catholic tradition contrition, whether it be perfect or imperfect, must be at once (a) interior, (b) supernatural, (c) universal, and (d) sovereign.

(A) INTERIOR

Contrition must be real and sincere sorrow of heart, and not merely an external manifestation of repentance. The Old Testament Prophets laid particular stress on the necessity of hearty repentance. The Psalmist says that God despises not the “contrite heart” (Ps. I, 19), and the call to Israel was, “Be converted to me with all your heart . . . and rend your hearts, and not your garments” (Joel, ii, 12 sq). Holy Job did penance in sackcloth and ashes because he reprehended himself in sorrow of soul (Job, xiii, 6). The contrition adjudged necessary by Chris and his Apostles was no mere formality, but the sincere expression of the sorrowing soul (Luke, xiv, 11–32; Luke, xviii, 13); and the grief of the woman in the house of the Pharisee merited forgiveness because “she loved much.” The exhortations to penance found everywhere in the Fathers have no uncertain sound (Cyprian, De Lapsis, P.L., IV; Chrysostom, De compunctione, P.G., XLVII, 393 sqq.), and the Scholastic doctors from Peter Lombard on insist on the same sincerity in repentance (Peter Lombard, Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xvi, no. 1).

(B) SUPERNATURAL

In accordance with Catholic teaching contrition ought to be prompted by God’s grace and aroused by motives which spring from faith, as opposed to merely natural motives, such as loss of honour, fortune, and the like (Chemnitz, Exam. Concil. Trid., Pt. II, De Poenit.). In th e Old Testament it is God who gives a “new heart” and who puts a “new spirit)” into the children of Israel (Ezech., xxxvi, 25–29); and for a clean heart the Psalmist prays in the Miserere (Ps. 1, 11 sqq.). St. Peter told those to whom he preached in the first days after Pentecost that God the Father had raised up Christ “to give repentance to Israel” (Acts, v, 30 sq.). St. Paul in advising Timothy insists on dealing gently and kindly with those who resist the truth, “if peradventure God may give them full repentance” (II Tim., ii, 24–25). In the days of the Pelagian heresy Augustine insisted on the supernaturalness of contrition, when he writes, “That we turn away from God is our doing, and this is the bad will; but to turn back to God we are unable unless He arouse and help us, and this is the good will.” Some of the Scholastic doctors, notably Scotus, Cajetan, and after them Suarez (De Poenit., Disp. iii, sect. vi), asked speculatively whether man if left to himself could elicit a true act of contrition, but no theologian ever taught that makes for forgiveness of sin in the present economy of God could be inspired by merely natural motives. On the contrary, all the doctors have insisted on the absolute necessity of grace for contrition that disposes to forgiveness (Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xiv, Pt. I, art. II, Q. iii; also dist. xvii, Pt. I, art. I, Q. iii; cf. St. Thomas, In Lib. Sent. IV). In keeping with this teaching of the Scriptures and the doctors, the Council of Trent defined; “If anyone say that without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and without His aid a man can repent in the way that is necessary for obtaining the grace of justification, let him be anathema.”

(C) UNIVERSAL

The Council of Trent defined that real contrition includes “a firm purpose of not sinning in the future”; consequently he who repents must resolve to avoid all sin. This doctrine is intimately bound up with the Catholic teaching concerning grace and repentance. There is no forgiveness without sorrow of soul, and forgiveness is always accompanied by God’s grace; grace cannot coexist with sin; and, as a consequence, one sin cannot be forgiven while another remains for which their is no repentance. This is the clear teaching of the Bible. The Prophet urged men to turn to God with their whole heart (Joel, ii, 12 sq.), and Christ tells the doctor of the law that we must love God with our whole mind, our whole strength (Luke, x, 27). Ezechiel insists that a man must “turn from his evil ways” if he wish to live. The Scholastics inquired rather subtly into this question when they asked whether or not there must be a special act of contrition for every serious sin, and whether, in order to be forgiven, one must remember at the moment all grievous transgressions. To both questions they answered in the negative, judging that an act of sorrow which implicitly included all his sins would be sufficient.

(D) SOVEREIGN

The Council of Trent insists that true contrition includes the firm will never to sin again, so that no mater what evil may come, such evil must be preferred to sin. This doctrine is surely Christ’s: “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?” Theologians have discussed at great length whether or not contrition which must be sovereign appretiative, i.e., in regarding sin as the greatest possible evil, must also be sovereign in degree and in intensity. The decision has generally been that sorrow need not be sovereign “intensively,” for intensity makes no change in the substance of an act (Ballerini, Opus Morale: De Contritione; Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xxi, Pt. I, art. II, Q. i).

CONTRITION IN THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE

Contrition is not only a moral virtue, but the Council of Trent defined that it is a “part,” nay more, quasi materia, in the Sacrament of Penance. “The (quasi) matter of this sacrament consists of the acts of the penitent himself, namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction. These, inasmuch as they are by God’s institution required in the penitent for the integrity of the sacrament and for the full and perfect remission of sin, are for this reason called parts of penance. “In consequence of this decree of Trent theologians teach that sorrow for sin must be in some sense sacramental. La Croix went so far as to say that sorrow must be aroused with a view of going to confession, but this seems to be asking too much; most theologians think with Schieler-Heuser (Theory and Practice of Confession, p. 113) that it is sufficient if the sorrow coexist in any way with the confession and is referred to it. Hence the precept of the Roman Ritual, “After the confessor has heard the confession he should try by earnest exhortation to move the penitent to contrition” (Schieler-Heuser, op. cit., p. 111 sqq.).

PERFECT CONTRITION WITHOUT THE SACRAMENT

Regarding that contrition which has for its motive the love of God, the Council of Trent declares: “The Council further teaches that, though contrition may sometimes be made perfect by charity and may reconcile men to God before the actual reception of this sacrament, still the reconciliation is not to be ascribed to the contrition apart from the desire for the sacrament which it includes.” The following proposition (no. 32) taken from Baius was condemned by Gregory XIII: “That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always conjoined with forgiveness of sins.” Perfect contrition, with the desire of receiving the Sacrament of Penance, restores the sinner to grace at once. This is certainly the teaching of the Scholastic doctors (Peter Lombard in P.L., CXCII, 885; St. Thomas, In Lib. Sent. IV, ibid.; St. Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, ibid.). This doctrine they derived from Holy Writ. Scripture certainly ascribes to charity and the love of God the power to take away sin: “He that loveth me shall be loved by My Father”; “Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much.” Since the act of perfect contrition implies necessarily this same love of God, theologians have ascribed to perfect contrition what Scripture teaches belongs to charity. Nor is this strange, for in the Old Covenant there was some way of recovering God’ grace once man had sinned. God wills not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ezech., xxxiii, 11). This total turning to God corresponds to our idea of perfect contrition; and if under the Old Law love sufficed for the pardon of the sinner, surely the coming of Christ and the institution of the Sacrament of Penance cannot be supposed to have increased the difficulty of obtaining forgiveness. That the earlier Fathers taught the efficacy of sorrow for the remission of sins is very clear (Clement in P.G., I, 341 sqq.; and Hermas in P.G., II, 894 sqq.; Chrysostom in P.G., XLIX, 285 sqq.) and this is particularly noticeable in all the commentaries on Luke, vii, 47. The Venerable Bede writes (P.L., XCII, 425): “What is love but fire; what is sin but rust? Hence it is said, many sins are forgiven her because she hat loved much, as though to say, she hath burned away entirely the rust of sin, because she is inflamed with the fire of love.” Theologians have inquired with much learning as to the kind of love that justifies with the Sacrament of Penance. All are agreed that pure, or disinterested, love (amor benevolentiæ, amor amicitiæ) suffices; when there is question of interested, or selfish, love (amor concupiscentia) theologians hold that purely selfish love is not sufficient. When on furthermore asks what must be the formal motive in perfect love, there seems to be no real unanimity among the doctors. Some say that where there is perfect love God is loved for His great goodness alone; other, basing their contention on Scripture, think that the love of gratitude (amor gratitudinis) is quite sufficient, because God’s benevolence and love towards men are intimately united, nay, inseparable from His Divine perfections (Hurter, Theol. Dog., Thesis ccxlv, Scholion iii, no 3; Schieler-Heuser, op. cit., pp. 77 sq.).

OBLIGATION OF ELICITING THE ACT OF CONTRITION

In the very nature of things the sinner must repent before he can be reconciled with God (Sess. XIV, ch. iv, de Contritione, Fuit quovis tempore, etc.). Therefore he who has fallen into grievous sin must either make an act of perfect contrition or supplement the imperfect contrition by receiving the Sacrament of Penance; otherwise reconciliation with God is impossible. This obligation urges under pain of sin when there is danger of death. In danger of death, therefore, if a priest be not at hand to administer the sacrament, the sinner must make an effort to elicit an act of perfect contrition. The obligation of perfect contrition is also urgent whensoever one has to exercise some act for which a state of grace is necessary and the Sacrament of Penance is not accessible. Theologians have questions how long a man may remain in the state of sin, without making an effort to elicit an act of perfect contrition. They seem agreed that such neglect must have extended over considerable time, but what constitutes a considerable time they find it hard to determine (Schieler-Hauser, op. cit., pp. 83 sqq.). Probably the rule of St. Alphonsus Liguori will aid the solution: “The duty of making an act of contrition is urgent when one is obliged to make an act of love” (Sabetti, Theologia Moralis: de necess. contritionis, no. 731; Ballerine, Opus Morale: de contritione).

CHRISTIAN PESCH, Prælectiones Dogmaticæ (Freiburg, 1897), VII; HUNTER, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology (New York, 1896); St. Thomas, In Sent. IV, dist. xvii, Q. ii, a 1, sol. 1; SUAREZ, De Pænitentiâ, disp. iv, sect. iii, a,2; BELLARMINE, De Controversiis, Bk. II, De sacramento pænitentiæ; SALMATICENSES, Cursus Theologicus: de pænitientiâ (Paris, 1883), XX; DENIFLE, Luther und Luthertum in der ersten Entwicklung (Mainz, 1906), I, 229 sqq., II, 454, 517, 618 sq.; COLLET in MIGNE, Theologiæ Cursus Completus (Paris, 1840), XXII; PALMIERI, De Pænitentiâ (Rome, 1879; Prato, 1896); PETAVIUS, Dogmata Theologica: de pænitentiâ (Paris, 1867).

EDWARD J. HANNA

Contumacy (in Canon Law)

Contumacy, or contempt of court, is an obstinate disobedience of the lawful orders of a court. Simple disobedience does not constitute contumacy. Such crime springs only from unequivocal and stubborn resistance to the reiterated or peremptory orders of a legitimate court, and implies contempt or denial of its authority. The general law of the Church demands that the citation, or order to appear, be repeated three times (in the United States twice) before proceedings declaratory of contumacy take place. A peremptory citation, stating that the one replaces the three, satisfies the law. Contumacy may arise not only from disobedience to the citation proper, but also from contempt of any order of a lawful court. Contumacy is commonly divided into true and presumptive. True contumacy takes place when it is certain that the citation was served, and the defendant without just cause fails to obey the terms of such citation. Presumptive contumacy occurs when there is a strong presumption, though it is not certain, that the citation was served. The law holds this presumption equivalent to a moral certitude of service of citation. The defendant becomes guilty of contumacy if, when lawfully cited, he fails to appear before the judge, or if he secludes himself, or in any way prevents the service of citation. The plaintiff incurs the guilt of contumacy by failure to appear before the court at the specified time. And the defendant or plaintiff may be proceeded against on the charge of contempt, if either rashly withdraws from the trial, or disobeys a special precept of the judge, or refuses to answer the charges of the other party. A witness becomes guilty of contumacy by disobeying the summons or by refusal to testify in the cause at issue.

All causes excusing appearance in court exempt from contempt of court. The following, among others, produce such effects:

(1) ill-health;

(2) absence on public affairs;

(3) summons to a higher court;

(4) inclement weather;

(5) unsafety of place to which cited.

These and like causes, if known to the judge, render null and void any sentence pronounced by him in such circumstances. But if they be unknown to the judge at the time of sentence, the condemned, on motion, must be reinstated in the position held by him prior to the sentence. Contumacy should never be held equivalent to a juridical confession of guilt. It cannot therefore dispense with the trial, but only makes it lawful to proceed in the absence of the party guilty of contumacy as though he were present (Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, no. 313). Contempt of court, being an act of resistance to legitimate authority, is a crime, and therefore punishable. The chief penalties are:

(1) The trial proceeds in the absence of the contumacious person, and presumably to his detriment;

(2) presumption of guilt, but not sufficient for conviction;

(3) a pecuniary fine at the discretion of the judge;

(4) suspension;

(5) excommunication may be inflicted, and if the contumacious party be not absolved within one year he may be proceeded against as suspected of heresy (Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, ch. iii de Ref.);

(6) loss of the right of appeal from a definitive sentence, in all cases of true contumacy.

Presumptive contumacy does not carry this penalty. Before inflicting penalties the guilt of contumacy must be established by legal proof. The accused must be cited to answer the charge of contumacy, which must be prosecuted according to the procedure established and laid down in the law. SANTI-LEITNER, Prœlectiones Juris Canonici (New York, 1905); SMITH, Ecclesiastical Trials (New York, 1887), II, 1010–1025; BAART, Legal Formulary (New York, 1898). 324–330; FERRARIS, Prompta Bibliotheca, s. v.; ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dict. de droit can. (3rd ed., Paris, 1901), I, 563; TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906). s. v.

JAMES H. DRISCOLL.

Adam Contzen

Economist and exegete, b. in 1573 (according to Sommervogel in 1575), at Montjoie in the Dutchy of Jülich, which is now part of the Rhine province of Prussia; d. 19 June, 1635, at Munich. He entered the Society of Jesus at Trier in 1595, was professor of philosophy in the University of Würzburg in 1606, and was transferred to the University of Mainz in 1610, where he occupied the chair of Holy Scripture for more than ten years. He had a share in the organization of the University of Molsheim, in Alsace, of which he was chancellor, 1622–1623. Contzen was a learned and versatile writer in theological controversy, in political economy, and in the interpretation of Scriptures. He defended the controversial works of Cardinal Bellarmine against the attacks of Professor Pareus of Heidelberg, and when the latter sought to unite the Calvinists and the Lutherans against the Catholics, Contzen demonstrated the impractical nature of the project in his work, “De unione et synodo Evangelicorum,” and showed the only way of restoring peace to the German nation in his important work “De Pace Germaniæ libri duo, prioe de falsâ, alter de verâ” (Mainz, 1616). This work was twice reprinted in Cologne, in 1642 and in 1685. His ideas on the restoration of peace were further developed in the works occasioned by the centenary of the Reformation, one of which, Jubilum Jubilorum” was published (1618) in Latin and German. His most interesting work, which marks him as a thinker in advance of his age, “Politicorum lib. X,” was published in Mainz in 1621 and 1629. The book has been called an “Anti-Macchiavelli” because the author describes the ruler of a Christian commonwealth in accordance with the principals of Revelation. In the questions of political and national economy which he discusses he advocates the reform of taxation, the freeing of the soil from excessive burdens, state ownership of certain industries for the purposes of revenue, indirect taxation of objects of luxury, a combination of the protective system with free trade, and state aid for popular associations. The Elector Macmillan of Bavaria was so impressed by the ability shown in this work that he chose Contzen for his confessor. During his residence in Munich, which began in 1623, he completed and published his commentary on the four Gospels, and on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans, the Corinthians, and the Galatians. He also wrote a political novel, “Methodus doctrinæ civilis, seu Abissini regis Historia,” in which he showed the practical working of his political theories.

Brischar, P. Adam Contzen, ein Ireniker und Nationalökonom des 17 Jahrhunderts (Würzburg, 1879); Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la c. de J., II, s.v.; Striber in Kirchenlex., s.v.

B. GULDNER

Convent

(Lat. conventus).

Originally signified an assembly of Roman citizens in the provinces for purposes of administration and justice. In the history of monasticism the word has two distinct technical meanings:

A religious community of either sex when spoken of in its corporate capacity. The word was first used in this sense when the eremitical life began to be combined with the cenobitical. The hermits of an Eastern laura, living in separate cells grouped around that of their common superior, when spoken of collectively, were called a conventus. In Western monasticism the term came into general use from the very beginning and the technical phrase abbas et conventus signifies to this day the entire community of a monastic establishment.

The buildings in which resides a community of either sex. In this sense the word denotes more properly the home of a strictly monastic order, and is not correctly used to designate the home of what is called a congregation. In addition to these technical meanings, the word has also a popular signification at the present day, by which it is made to mean in particular the abode of female religious, just as monastery denotes that of men, though in reality the two words are interchangeable. In the present article the word is taken chiefly in its popular sense. The treatment, moreover, is limited to those features which are common to all, or nearly all, convents, while peculiarities due to the special purpose, rule, or occupation of each religious order are explained in the pertinent article.

CONVENT LIFE

The life lived by the inmates of a convent naturally varies in its details, according to the particular object for which it has been founded, or the special circumstances of time and place by which it is affected. Convents are often roughly divided into two classes, strictly enclosed and unenclosed, but with regard to the convents existing at the present day this division, though correct as far as it goes, it not a very satisfactory one, because both classes are capable of subdivision, and, on account of the varied kinds of work undertaken by the nuns, these subdivisions overlap one another. Thus, of the strictly enclosed communities, some are purely contemplative, other mainly active (i.e. engaged in educational or rescue work), while other again combine the two. Similarly, of the unenclosed orders, some are purely active (i.e. undertaking educational, parochial, hospital, or other work), and others unite the contemplative with the active life, without, however, being strictly enclosed. As a general deduction it may be stated that the contemplative life, in which women are actuated by a desire to save their own souls and the souls of other by their lives of prayer, seclusion, and mortification, was the idea of the older orders, while the distinctive note of the more modern congregations is that of active work amongst others and the relief of their bodily wants.

With regard to the educational work of the convents, it may here be stated that this includes the teaching of both elementary and secondary schools, as well as the training of teachers for such schools and higher education. The hospital and nursing work comprises the management of hospitals, bother general and for special classes of patients, as well as the nursing of both rich and poor in their own homes. Rescue work includes the conduct of penitentiaries, orphanages, and homes for the aged poor. A few convents make special provision for the reception of guests, for retreats and other spiritual purposes, and a large proportion of them receive boarders at moderate charges. Some, mostly of enclosed communities, have undertaken the work of Perpetual Adoration, while others devote themselves to ecclesiastical embroidery and the making of church vestments. This particular kind of work has always been characteristic of English nuns, whose embroidery, known as the opus anglicanum, was famous in medieval times (Matthew Paris, Rolls, ed., IV, an. 1246). The ordinary routine of life in a nunnery has always corresponded approximately with that of a monastery. The nunUs day is divided between the choir, the workroom, the schoolroom, the refectory, the recreation room, the cell, and, with the active orders, the outside work, in periodical rotation. Idleness or lack of occupation is never permitted. The earliest rules for nuns, as well as the most modern, all prescribe labour of some useful kind. The medieval nuns could always read and write Latin, and they also employed themselves in transcribing and illuminating sacred books, and in many of the fine arts, the cultivation of which they consecrated to the service of God. The convents thus were always homes of industry, and just as formerly they played no small part in the spread of civilization, so now they are almost indispensable handmaids to the cause of the Catholic Church.

UNFOUNDED CALUMNIES

It is not necessary here to refute the many base and vile charges that have from time to time been brought against the conventual system; a mere general reference to them is sufficient, for the evidence of the salutary work done by convents and the gruits of the lives of the nuns are in themselves ample refutation. In the past there have been “anti-convent” and “convent-inspection” societies, as well as the lectures of “escaped nuns” and literature in abundance of the “Maria Monk” type, and they may be expected to crop up again periodically in the future. These may and do for a time hamper the work of the nuns and cause a certain amount of disquietude in some quarters, but it is a significant fact that, whatever excitement they may raise for the time being, the agitation always dies down again as suddenly as it arises, and its harmful effects never appear to leave behind them any lasting results, except perhaps an increased interest in, and respect for, the conventual life that has been vilified.

LEGISLATION AS TO CONVENTS

Canon law contains a large and important section relating to the establishment and government of convents. The privileges of such as are exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, the appointment of confessors for the nuns, and the duties of the same, the regulations of the Church concerning enclosure, and the admission and testing of candidates, the nature and obligations of the vows, the limits of the powers of superiors, and the conditions regarding the erection of new convents are among the many points of detail legislated for. One or two points may be alluded to here. The law of the Church requires that no new convent be established, whether it be one that is exempt from episcopal jurisdiction or not, without the consent of the bishop of the diocese; for what is technically called canonical erection further formalities, including approbation from Rome, have to be complied with. All confessors for nuns must be specially approved by the bishop, even those of convents that are exempt from his ordinary jurisdiction, and the bishop has also to provide that all nuns can have access two or three times in the year to an “extraordinary” confessor, other than their usual one. The bishop also is obliged periodically to visit and inspect all the convents in his diocese, excepting those that are exempt, at the time of which visitation every nun must be free to see him privately in order to make any complaints or suggestions that she may wish. With regard to the admission of postulants the law provides for every precaution being taken, on the one hand, to prevent coercion and, on the other, to safeguard the community from being obliged to receive those about whose vocation there may be any doubt. Physical fitness on the part of a candidate is in most orders an indispensable condition, thought there are some which admit women of delicate health; but, once admitted and professed, the tract becomes reciprocal, and while the nun undertakes to keep her vows, the convent, on its side, is bound to provide her with lodging, food, and clothing, and to maintain her in sickness or in health (see NOVITIATE; VOW).

DOWRY

With regard to the dowry required of a nun, the customs and rules of the different orders vary much according to circumstances. Some convents, on account of their poverty, are obliged to insist upon it, and, generally speaking, most expect their members to bring some contribution to the general fund. A convent that is rich will often dispense with the dowry in the case of a highly promising candidate, but it must always depend upon particular circumstances. The minimum amount of the dowry required is generally fixed by the rule or constitutions of the convent or order.

OFFICE

In most of the older contemplative orders the choir nuns are bound to rthe whole Divine Office in choir. In only a very few of the English convents, e.g. Cistercians, Dominicans, and Poor Clares, do the nuns rise in the night for Matins and Lauds; in the others these Offices are generally said in the evening “by anticipation.” In some there are other additional offices recited daily; thus the Cistercians and the Poor Clares say the Office of Our Lady and that of the Dead every day, and the Brigittines say the latter thrice in the week, as well as an Office of the Holy Ghost. Almost all the active orders, both enclosed and unenclosed, use the Office of Our Lady, but some, like the Sisters of Charity, are not bound to the recitation of any Office at all.

LAY SISTERS

In most orders the nuns are divided into choir sisters and lay sisters. The latter are usually employed in the household duties and other manual work. They take the usual vows and are as truly religious as the choir nuns, but they are not bound to the choir Office, though they often attend the choir at the time of Office and recite certain prayers in the vernacular. There is always a distinction between their habit and that of the choir nuns, sometimes very slight and sometimes strongly marked. In some orders where the choir sisters are enclosed the lay sisters are not; but in others they are as strictly enclosed as the choir nuns. Several orders have, by their rule, no lay sisters, among them being the Sisters of Notre Dame, the Sisters of Charity, the Sisters of Bon Secours, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and the Poor Servants of the Mother of God.

CONVENTUAL BUILDINGS

The internal arrangement of a properly constituted convent is, for the most part, similar to that of a monastery for men (see ABBEY and MONASTERY), but from poverty and other obvious causes, many convents have had to be established in already-existing ordinary dwelling-houses, which do not always lend themselves to ideal adaption. (See CLOISTER; DOWER OF RELIGIOUS; NUN; OFFICE; SCHOOLS.)

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Convent Schools (Great Britain)

Convent education is treated here not historically but as it is at the present day, and, by the way of introduction, it may be briefly stated that the idea of including the education of the young amongst the occupations of a religious community is practically as old as that of the religious life for women itself. From the earliest times it was customary in England for children to be educated in convents, and we know that the nuns who went forth from Wimborne in the eighth century to help St. Boniface in his work of evangelizing Saxony, established convent schools wherever they went, in which a very high standard of scholarship was attained. Stray remarks in Chaucer and other medieval writers likewise reveal the fact that the English convent schools of the Middle Ages compared favourably with schools for the other sex. But all this came to an end at the Reformation, so far as England was concerned; and, save for one notable exception, English convent education had practically to start afresh in the nineteenth century. The exception referred to was the bar Convent at York, belonging to the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose foundress, Mary Ward, was the pioneer of religious congregations devoted to the education of English girls. The bar Convent was established in 1686, and in spite of penal laws, Protestant persecution, no-popery riots, and even, on more than one occasion, the imprisonment of the nuns for their faith, the work of the convent has continued from that day to this, and with its hundred and eighty houses in different parts of the English-speaking world, the Institute of the B. V. M. has long held a foremost place amongst the teaching orders of the Church.

The opening of numerous convents in England during the latter half of the nineteenth century has produced correspondingly numerous convent schools, in many of which, be it noted, Protestant as well as Catholic girls (especially in day and elementary schools) have been and are still being educated. The foundation of training colleges for Catholic teachers, the demand for teachers with academic qualifications, the move in favour of Government inspection with the consequent official recognition of convent schools, and the more recent advance in the way of higher education for Catholic women, have all combined to raise the standard of convent education; and the leading teaching orders have proved equal to the demand made upon their capabilities and energy. The convents stand foremost in the work they have done for religion and education, and they have turned out hundreds of girls, not only educated in the highest sense of the word but also truly religious.

Although in its widest sense the term “Convent Schools” may be taken to include all those, of whatever kind, in which the work of education is undertaken by female religious—such as primary or elementary schools (whether mixed or for girls only), reformatory and industrial schools—it is only proposed in this article to deal with secondary schools, i.e. day or boarding schools for the upper and middle classes, training colleges for Catholic schoolmistresses, and colleges for the higher education of women, these being more closely connected with convent life itself.

SECONDARY EDUCATION

Almost all convent secondary schools are under Government inspection. This gives them the status of being “recognized” by the Board of Education, regulates their course of studies, and ensures unity of method and efficiency. Some are also in receipt of a State aid-grant, which places certain restrictions upon their methods of management. Where no grant is accepted the nuns are more independent as regards the admission and refusal of pupils. The aim of all religious orders engaged in secondary education for girls is, whilst making every effort to keep abreast of modern requirements with regard to scholastic efficiency, to give also the additional advantage of a thorough religious training, so that parents may have no reason to fear that by securing the latter for their children they are sacrificing the greater temporal advantages that might be obtained at a Protestant school. The system of Government inspection and recognition by the Board of Education, with or without the State aid-grant, secures the necessary degree of efficiency, whilst he general character and reputation of the various communities by which the schools are conducted sufficiently guarantees the religious side of their educational work. Government inspectors and public examiners have frequently testified to the excellent moral tone and atmosphere of convent schools and to the cordial relations existing between teachers and pupils, no less than to the high teaching ability of the nuns themselves. The fact that education in its truest sense means something more than mere book-learning is nowhere more fully realized than in the convent school, and results all tend to prove that the religious and moral training imparted in such establishments has in no way acted as a hindrance to the more technical side of educational work. It has sometimes been said that the standard of scholarship attained is not so high in Catholic as in non-Catholic schools of the same class, but however true this may have been in the past, the general levelling up that has taken place during the last ten or twenty years has rendered the reproach an idle one now. The public examination lists of recent years afford ample proof that the leading convent schools are equal in efficiency to all others.

The range of studies pursued in convent secondary schools is a wide one. It includes religious knowledge, English in all its branches, French, Latin, mathematics, science, drawing, needlework, class-singing, and drilling, while such subjects as music, singing, dancing, Greek, German, Italian, elocution, shorthand, book-keeping, dressmaking, cooking, etc., are generally taught as optional extras. Pupils are entered for the Oxford and Cambridge Local Examinations, the Higher Locals, the Higher and Lower Certificates of the Oxford and Cambridge Joint Examination Board, the Matriculation Examinations of the London and Liverpool Universities, as well as for those of the College of Preceptors, the Incorporated Society of Musicians, the Royal academy of Music, and the South Kensington School of Art. School buildings and accommodations are of the most up-to-date pattern—one of the necessary conditions for Government recognition. Physical development is provided for by means of hockey, croquet, tennis, cycling, swimming, and gymnastics, according to the particular circumstances of each school.

All the leading educational communities make a special point of having their teachers properly trained and fully qualified. This again is a sine quâ non for official recognition, and the Order in Council of 1902, concerning the registration of secondary teachers, gave fresh impetus to the work of training teachers for convent schools. The principal teaching orders send their subjects usually to one or other of the two Catholic training colleges for secondary teachers (St. Mary’s Hall, Liverpool, and Cavendish Squar e, London), or else have them qualify by obtaining one or more of the following: the teaching diploma of the Cambridge Teachers’ Training Syndicate, the Oxford diploma for teachers, Women’s Honours in Modern Languages (Oxford), the Women’s diploma for the Oxford B. A. degree, the LL. A. diploma of St. Andrew’s University, the Licentiateship of the College of Preceptors, the Higher Certificate of the Oxford and Cambridge Joint Board, the Higher Local Certificate of Oxford or Cambridge, or a degree at one of the universities that grant degrees to women, e.g. London, Liverpool, or Dublin. Foreign languages are in most cases taught by natives, and in the teaching of many of the special subjects the religious are assisted by extern professors holding the highest qualifications. From these few facts it will be evident that the convent schools of England are adequately keeping pace with the times and that in point of efficiency they are in no way behind non-Catholic schools of the same class, while the facilities that have ben recently brought into existence for the advanced education of Catholic women, religious as well as secular, at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge point to a still higher degree of efficiency for the future.

There are at the present over two hundred Catholic secondary schools in England under the care of representatives of about sixty different religious orders. Chief among these may be mentioned the English Institute of the B. V. M., with six such schools, the Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus (eight schools), the Faithful Companions of Jesus (fourteen), the Sisters of Notre Dame of Namur (eighteen), the Religious of St. Andrew (One), the Religious of the Sacred Heart (eight), the Sisters of Mercy (eleven), the Servites (three), and the Ursulines of different congregations (twenty-three). Some of the best known and most successful of these schools are those at York and Cambridge (Inst. Of B. V. M.); Mayfield, St. Leonard’s, Preston, Harrogate, and Cavendish Square, London (Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus); Isleworth, Liverpool, Birkenhead, and Clarendon Square, London (Faithful Companions); Liverpool (Mount Pleasant), Northampton, and Norwich (Notre Dame); Streatham (St. Andrew’s); Stamford Hill (Servites); and St. Ursula’s, Oxford. Many of these secondary schools have attached to them pupil teachers’ centres, where valuable preliminary work in the training of elementary schoolmistresses is done, and many of them serve also as “practising schools” in which the students of Catholic and other training colleges give their model lessons in the presence of their instructors and the Government inspectors. The pass and honours lists of the various public examinations in recent years show a very high percentage of candidates from the convent schools and prove conclusively that as far as results go they are fully equal to the best secondary schools under non-Catholic management.

TRAINING COLLEGES

The training colleges are of two kinds—those for the training of primary or elementary schoolmistresses, and those for teachers in secondary schools. Both kinds are under the care of the religious orders. All the Catholic training colleges are recognized by government, and in those for primary teachers the students whose expenses are assisted by a Government grant are known as “King’s Scholars,” their selection as such being dependent upon a competitive examination under Government auspices. There are six recognized training colleges for primary teachers, Mount Pleasant, Liverpool (under the Sisters of Notre Dame); St. Charles’ Square, London and Newcastle-on-Tyne (Religious of the Sacred Heart); Southampton (Nuns of La Sainte Union); Salford (Faithful Companions); and Hull (Sisters of Mercy). In all of these the Government syllabus is followed and the Board of Education certificate is granted after two years’ successful teaching in one school, subsequent to the completion of the course at the college. An important part of the training consists in the “criticism lessons,” which are given by the students in some secondary school connected with the training college under the direction of the “Mistress of Method,” and which are criticized then and there by her as well as by the other students in turn. The best known and largest of these training colleges, which was also the first to be established, is that of Mount Pleasant, Liverpool, under the Sisters of Notre Dame of Namur. It was opened in 1856 with twenty-one students and now numbers one hundred and sixty King’s Scholars. It has been (1905) officially affiliated to the Liverpool University and a limited number of its students are allowed to follow the arts or science degree course of the university after the usual two years’ Government course has been completed. The whole of the preliminary and certain subjects of the intermediate course can be done at Mount Pleasant under the sisters, which reduces the time of residence required for obtaining the degree. Although this is quite an innovation, it speaks well for the college that five out of the first six sent in obtained the B. A. degree in the minimum period of time.

The training colleges for secondary teachers are St. Mary’s Hall, Liverpool, attached to Notre Dame, Mount Pleasant, and established in 1898; and Cavendish Square, London, under the Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus, opened in 1895. Both of these are recognized by the Board of Education as well as by the Teachers, Syndicate of the Cambridge University; and the teachers’ diploma of that university, necessary for “registration,” is granted to successful students at the end of the course. Many of the other teaching orders send their subjects to these colleges, where while following the usual course with other students, special arrangements are made for them to carry out the duties of their religious life and to follow their own rule as far as possible. The theoretical studies include history and methods of education, logic, psychology, ethics, school management, and hygiene, tested by a written examination; and the practical work, taken in the secondary schools attached to the two colleges, is awarded the diploma after one year’s practice and a test lesson given before a Government inspector. The syllabus of the Cambridge Syndicate is followed in all subjects except philosophy, for which a course of Catholic philosophy is allowed to be substituted.

Hitherto only Catholic students have been admitted to these colleges, but regulations issued by the Board of Education (which came into force September 1908) require that no qualified student applying for admission may be rejected, if there is room, on the score of religion. The Catholic hierarchy have protested against this and memorialized the prime minster, but the authorities adhere to their decision and rule that no training college failing to comply with these regulations will in future be recognized. The Catholic training colleges had therefore to face the alternative of the introduction of non-Catholic students to the exclusion of Catholics, where numbers are limited, or serious monetary loss through the withdrawal of the State-aided King’s Scholars.

HIGHER EDUCATION FOR WOMEN

The higher education of women, in connection with convents, is hardly out of the experimental stage. The university class in the Notre Dame Training College and its affiliation to the Liverpool University have already been mentioned. Up to 1895 Catholics were prohibited (by ecclesiastical authority) from entering the older residential universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the removal in that year of the prohibition favoured men only. Women had to wait still longer; but this restriction was taken away in June 1907, by a decree from Rome, which sanctions under certain condition the opening of houses for women, both secular and religious, at Oxford and Cambridge, to enable them to secure the advantages of a university education. The Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus were the first community to avail themselves of this concession. They have opened a convent at Oxford, recognized and licensed by the University authorities, where twenty secular students and an unlimited number of religious may reside whilst following the university course. St. Ursula’s convent, also at Oxford, likewise receives ladies and religious desirous of reading for honours in modern languages or for the B. A. degree examination, which they may do either by attending the university lectures, or by means of private tuition in the convent itself. Women are not eligible for degrees, either at Oxford or at Cambridge, but they are allowed to attend almost all the university lectures and sit for the degree examinations, receiving if successful a diploma instead of the degree itself. It is proposed to establish at Cambridge a college for Catholic women, similar to those of Newnham and Girton, which will probably, in accordance with the desires of Propaganda, be placed under the charge of one of the principal teaching orders. A committee to carry out the project has the Archbishop of Westminster at its head.

SECONDARY EDUCATION IN IRELAND AND SCOTLAND

The convent schools of Ireland and Scotland compare favourably with those of England, and their general character, scope, and conditions being practically similar, they need no further description here. There are in Scotland about ten different orders engaged in secondary education, with upwards of twenty schools under their care, besides two training colleges—one at Glasgow for primary teachers, under the Sisters of Notre Dame, and the other at Edinburgh for secondary teachers, conducted by the Sisters of Mercy. In Ireland the chief teaching orders are the Institute of the B. V. M. (with thirteen convent schools), the Faithful Companions of Jesus (with three schools), the Dominicans, Ursulines, and the St. Louis Nuns, each with several prominent secondary schools. The equivalent in Ireland of recognition and inspection by the Board of Education is the “Intermediate system,” introduced in 1878, which produces practically the same results and has been adopted by most of the religious institutes engaged in secondary education. This system arranges examinations and awards medals, money prizes, and exhibitions. Catholic girls wishing to pursue a higher course after completing that of the Intermediate System, have had to take the examinations and degrees of the “Royal University of Ireland.” To meet the demand several orders have colleges under their care in Dublin, the most prominent and successful being Loreto College, belonging to the Institute of the B. V. M., and the Dominican college. The Irish educational authorities do not insist on the formal training of secondary teachers; consequently each religious institute is responsible for the training of its own members. The results, however, of their work prove that this is no less thorough and efficient than that obtainable at one of the recognized English training colleges.

There is very little published literature on this subject, but scattered information can be had in ECKENSTEIN, Women under Monasticism (Cambridge, 1896), for the educational work of medieval convents, and STEELE, The Convents of Great Britain (London, 1902), for particulars as to the teaching orders of the present day. Some information may also be found in various articles in The Crucible (Oxford, quarterly, 1905–08) and in the Catholic Directory (London, 1908). The foregoing article has been compiled chiefly from unpublished information supplied by the superiors of the principal teaching orders working in England.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Order of Friars Minor Conventuals

This is one of the three separate bodies, forming with the Friars Minor and the Capuchins what is commonly called the First Order of St. Francis. All three bodies to-day follow the rule of the Friars Minor, but whereas the Friars Minor and the Capuchins profess this rule pure and simple, differing only accidentally in their particular constitutions, the Conventuals observe it with certain dispensations lawfully accorded.

There has been some difference of opinion as to the origin of the name “Conventual.” Innocent IV decreed (Bull “Cum tamquam veri,” 5 April, 1250) that Franciscan churches where convents existed might be called Conventual churches, and some have maintained that the name “Conventual” was first given to the religious residing in such convents. Others, however, assert that the word Conventualis was used to distinguish the inmates of large convents from those who lived more after the manner of hermits. In any event it seems safe to assert that the term Conventual was not used to signify a distinct section of the Order of Friars Minor in any official document prior to 1431. Since that time, and more especially since 1517, this term has been employed to designate that branch of the Franciscan Order which has accepted dispensations from the substantial observance of the rule in regard to poverty. It may be noted, however, that the name “Conventual” has not been restricted to the Franciscan Order. Thus the statutes of the Camaldolese approved by Leo X distinguish between the Conventuals and the Observants in that order, and St. Pius V (Bull “Superioribus mensibus,” 16 April, 1567) says: “That which we have decreed for the Conventuals of the Order of St. Francis we decree likewise for the Conventuals of other orders.”

Although all the religious professing the rule of the Friars Minor continued to form one body under the same head for over three hundred years (1209–10 to 1517), it is well known that even during the lifetime of St. Francis a division had shown itself in the ranks of the friars, some favouring a relaxation in the rigour of the rule, especially as regards the observance of poverty, and others desiring to adhere to its literal strictness. The tendency towards relaxation became more marked after the death of the Seraphic founder (1226), and was encouraged by his successor, Brother Elias. The latter, a man of great ability, but whose religious ideals differed vastly from those of St. Francis, even oppressed such as opposed his views. The long and deplorable controversy which followed-a controversy which called forth a mass of remarkable writings and even affected imperial politics-resulted in two parties being formed within the order, the Zelanti, who were zealous for the strict observance of the rule and who were afterwards named Observants, and the fratres de communitate who had adopted certain mitigations and who gradually came to be called Conventuals. In spite of the fact that a cleavage had been gradually developing between these two branches from at least the middle of the fourteenth century, it was only in 1415 at the Council of Constance that the Church authoritatively recognized this division in the order. Hence the Holy See decreed that all the friars who died before that council may not be termed either Observants or Conventuals, but simply Friars Minor (see Decrees of 25 Sept., 1723; 11 Dec., 1723; and 26 Feb., 1737). Notwithstanding this division of the order formally sanctioned in 1415 by the Council of Constance, both Observants and Conventuals continued to form one body under the same head until 1517.

In the latter year Leo X called a general chapter of the whole order at Rome, with a view to effecting a complete reunion between the Observants and Conventuals. The former acceded to the wish of the sovereign pontiff but requested permission to observe the rule without any dispensation; the latter declared they did not wish for the union if it entailed their renouncing the dispensations they had received from the Holy See. Leo X thereupon incorporated with the Observants (Bull “Ite et vos in vineam meam,” 29 May, 1517) all the Franciscan friars who wished to observe the rule without dispensation, abolishing the different denominations of Clareni, Colletani, etc.; he decreed that the members of the great family thus united should be called simply Friars Minor of St. Francis, or Friars Minor of the Regular Observance, and should have precedence over the Conventuals; he moreover conferred upon them the right of electing the minister general, who was to bear the title of Minister General of the Whole Order of Friars Minor, and to have the exclusive use of the ancient seal of the order as the legitimate successor of St. Francis. On the other hand, those who continued to live under dispensations were constituted a separate body with the name of Conventuals (Bulls “Omnipotens Deus,” 12 June, 1517, and “Licet Alias,” 6 Dec., 1517) and given the right to elect a master general of their own, whose election, however, had to be confirmed by the Minister General of the Friars Minor. The latter appears never to have availed himiself of this right, and the Conventuals may be regarded as an entirely independent order from 1517, but it was not until 1580 that they obtained a special cardinal protector of their own. Some years later the masters general of the order began to call themselves “Ministers General.” Father Evangelist Pelleo, elected fifteenth master general in 1587, was the first to take this title, which has been generally accorded to his forty-nine successors even in Apostolic letters, though the ordinance of Leo X was neverally formally revoked. Under Sixtus V (1587) the Conventuals attempted to dispute the right of the Minister General of the Friars Minor to the title “Minister General of the Whole Order,” but were unsuccessful. They renewed their efforts under Clement VIII (1593 and 1602) but with no greater success. In 1625 they again reopened the question, which was discussed for nearly six years. On 22 March, 1631, the right of the Minister General of the Friars Minor to the title in dispute was solemnly confirmed by the Sacred Congregation of Rules, and Benedict XIII by a Bull of 21 July, 1728, imposed perpetual silence upon the contestants.

In 1565 the Conventuals accepted the Tridentine indult allowing mendicant orders to own property corporately, and their chapter held at Florence in that year drew up statutes contining several important reforms which Pius IV subsequently approved (Bull “Sedis Apostolicæ,” 17 Sept., 1565). Three years later St. Pius V (Bull “Ad Extirpandos,” 8 June, 1568) sought to enforce a stricter observance of the vow of poverty and of the community life among the Conventuals, and the superiors of the order immediately enacted statutes conformable to his desires, which the pope approved “Bull “Illa nos cura,” 23 July, 1568). In 1625 new constitutions were adopted by the Conventuals which superseded all preceding ones. These constitutions, which were subsequently promulgated by Urban VIII (Bull “Militantes Ecclesiæ,” 5 May, 1628), are known as the “Constitutiones Urbanæ” and are of primary importance, since at their profession the Conventuals vow to observe the Rule of St. Francis in accordance with them, that is to say, by admitting the duly authorized dispensations therein set forth (see “Constitutiones Urbanæ ordinis fratrum Minorum Sti. Francisci Conventualium,” Assisi, 1803). It would therefore be no less false than unjust to regard the Conventuals as less observant of the obligations contracted by their profession than the Friars Minor and Capuchins, since they are not bound by all the obligations assumed by either of the latter. The institution of several communities and even provinces of Reformed Conventuals, more especially between 1562 and 1668 (see “Constituzioni generali de’ frati riformati de’ Minori Conventuali da osservarsi per tutta la riforma, fatte per ordine del Capitulo generale de’ Minori Conventuali celebrato in Orvieto Panno 1611”), affords interesting proof of the vitality of the order, which for the rest has possessed many men of eminent virtue and has rendered important services to the Church.

St. Joseph of Cupertino (d. 1663), one of the greatest saints of the seventeenth century, and Bl. Bonaventure of Potenza (d. 1711) were both Conventuals, and the beatification of several other members of the order is now under way. The Conventuals have, moreover, given three popes to the Church: Sixtus IV (1471–84), Sixtus V (1585–90), and Clement XIV (1769–74), besides a number of cardinals and other distinguished prelates. Among the eminent theologians and scholars the order has produced, the names of Mastrius, Pagi, Brancati, Papini, Sbaralea, and Eubel are perhaps most familiar. The Conventuals enjoy the privilege of guarding the tomb of St. Francis at Assisi and that of St. Anthony at Padua, and they furnish the penitantiaries to the Vatican Basilica and to the sanctuary at Loreto. At Rome they possess the famous church and convent of the Twelve Apostles, and it is here that their general resides. The habit of the Conventuals which was formerly gray is now black-whence they are sometimes called by the people the “Black Franciscans,” in contrast to the Friars Minor and Capuchins, whose habit is brown; it consists of a serge tunic fastened around the waist with a thin white cord with three knots; to the large cape, which is round in front and pointed behind, a small hood is attached. Unlike the Friars Minor and the Capuchins, the Conventuals wear birettas and shoes.

In 1517 the Conventuals formed only about a sixth part of the order. After their separation from the Friars Minor, the number of Conventuals diminished considerably. In Spain Cardinal Ximenes was instrumental in depriving them of their convents, which were given to the Friars Minor. Clement VII, 11 June, 1524, ordered the Provincial of the Friars Minor of Burgos to bring back to the Regular Observance all the Conventuals in the Kingdom of Navarre, and St. Pius V, 16 April, 1567, commanded all the Conventuals in Spain to embrace the Regular Observance. Like measures were adopted, 30 October, 1567, in regard to Portugal, where as in Flanders and in Denmark all the Conventuals gradually passed over to the Friars Minor. In France all their provinces save three joined the main branch of the order. Nevertheless the Conventuals continued to prosper in other countries. In Italy and Germany they suffered fewer losses than elsewhere. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries they increased very much, for in 1770 they possessed some 31 provinces with 966 convents. In France alone they had 48 convents and numbered 330 religious. In 1771, 8 convents in France including the great convent in Paris, which had since 1517 been subject to the Minister General of the Friars Minor, passed over to the Conventuals, giving them a total of 2620 religious in France alone, but twenty years later their number there had fallen to 1544. Since the revolutionary epoch the order lost more than 1000 houses, principally in France, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany. At present (1907) it is divided into 26 provinces. Of these 12 are in Italy, the others being those of Malta; Gallicia, Russia and Lithuania; Strasburg, comprising Bavaria and Switzerland; Liège, comprising Belgium and Holland; Austria and Styria; Bohemia, with Moravia and Silesia; Hungary and Transylvania; Spain; the United States; Rumania, with the mission of Moldavia; and the Orient, with the mission of Constantinople. The mission of Moldavia, which is one of the oldest in the Seraphic Order, comprises 10 convents with parishes, in which there are 28 missionaries governed by an archbishop belonging to the order. There are also 10 convents and 28 missionaries connected with the mission at Constantinople, where the Apostolic delegate is a Conventual. The order has recently made new foundations in England and Denmark. According to the latest available official statistics (1899), the Conventuals numbered in all some 1500 religious.

At least two Conventual missionaries were labouring in the United States in the early forties, but the establishment of the order there may be said to date from 1850. In 1907 there were two flourishing provinces of the order in the United States, the province of the Immaculate Conception which numbers thirteen convents and houses, those at Syracuse, Louisville, Trenton, Camden, Hoboken, Albany, and Terre Haute being the most important; and the province of St. Anthony of Padua, the members of which are Poles, and which has ten convents and houses in the Dioceses of Baltimore, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Detroit, Harrisburg, Hartford, and Springfield.

The Conventuals were not affected by the Apostolic Constitution “Felicitate quâdam” of Leo XIII (4 Oct., 1897) by which the different special reforms into which the Observants had become divided since 1517 were reunited under the name of Friars Minor, but like the Capuchins (who were constituted a separate body in 1619) they still remain an independent order. Leo XIII, however, expressly confirmed the right of precedence accorded to the Friars Minor by Leo X.

WADDING, Annales Min. (Rome, 1736), XVI, 41–69; SBARALEA, Bullarium Franciscanum (Rome, 1759), I, 338–39; HÉLYOT, Dict. des ordres religieux (Paris, 1859) in MIGNE, Encycl., 1st series, XX, 1104–12; TOSSINIANENSI, Hist. Seraph. Religionis libri tres (Venice, 1580) II, 149; DE GUBERNATIS, Orbis Seraphicus (Lyons, 1685), II, lib. IX; VAN DEN HAUTE, Brevis Hist. Ord. Min. (Rome, 1777), Tr. ii; PATREM, Tableau synoptique de l’hist. de tout l’Ordre Séraphique (Paris, 1879), ch. ii, 48–51; HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1907), II, 380–87; PALOMES, Dei Frati Minori e delle loro denominazioni (Palermo, 1897), 1–60; DE KERVAL, S. Francois d’Assise et l’Ordre Séraphique (Paris, 1898), Pt. II, ch. ii; CARMICHAEL, The Franciscan Families in Irish Eccles. Record (March, 1904), 235–254.

PASCHAL ROBINSON

Diocese of Conversano

DIOCESE OF CONVERSANO (CUPERSANENSIS)

Suffragan to Bari. Conversano, situated in the province of Bari, in Apulia (Southern Italy), is the ancient Cupersanum, a city of the Peucetians. Its history is practically that of Apulia. After the invasion of the Normans, it was for a while the seat of a duchy; later, however, it became a fief of the dukes of Atri. The first bishop whose date is certain was Hilarius, present at the Roman synod of 501. Local tradition, however, preserves the name of a previous bishop, Simplicius, who died in 492. No other names are recorded up to the episcopate of Leo, mentioned in a document of 1088. Other bishops worthy of mention were: the Cistercian Stefano (c. 1266); Giovanni de Gropi (c. 1283); Antonio Guidotti (d. 1433); Paolo de Torcoli, who died in the odour of sanctity in 1482; Romolo de’ Valenti (d. 1579); Giuseppe Palermo (who was appointed 1658), Andrea Brancaccia (1681). The diocese has a population of 95,521, with 7 parishes, 130 churches and chapels, 132 secular and 8 regular priests, 2 religious houses of men and 8 of women.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XXI, 40–45; Ann. Eccl. (Rome, 1907), 423–24; MOREA, Il Chartularium di San Benedetto di Conversano (Monte Cassino, 1893), 815–1266

U. BENIGNI

Conversi

Lay brothers in a religious order. The term was originally applied to those who, in adult life, voluntarily renounced the world and entered a religious order to do penance and to lead a life of greater perfection. The renouncing of the world was known as the conversio a sæculo, which had as its object a reform or change of life, the conversio morum, hence conversi or the “converted.” The conversi were thus distinguished from the oblati or those who, as children, were presented or offered (oblati) by their parents to the religious life and were placed in a monastery to receive proper religious instruction and to be educated in profane knowledge. In the eleventh century St. John Gualbert, founder of the Benedictine congregation known as the Vallisumbrosani, introduced for the first time a distinction between the fratres conversi, or lay brothers, and priests, or choir religious. For among the conversi there were not seldom those who were either entirely illiterate, or who in the world had led a life of public scandal, or had been notorious criminals, and while on the one hand it was unjust that such should be debarred from the means of doing penance in the cloister and from the other benefits of the religious life, they were at the same time hardly to be considered fit subjects for the reception of Sacred orders. They were thus received into the order for the purpose of engaging in manual labour and occasionally for directing the temporal affairs of the monastery. In modern canonical usage the term conversus is synonymous, or nearly so, with that of lay brother. What has been said of religious orders of men can, in general, be applied equally to those of women, though the distinction between conversæ, or lay sisters, and choir religious does not appear to have been introduced before the twelfth century. As a rule, the conversi wear a habit different from that of the choir religious; but the essential obligations of the vows and of the monastic life in general are alike for all. (See LAY BROTHER and OBLATI.)

KAULEN in Kirchenlex., s. v. For the large share of these conversi, or lay brothers, in the development of medieval agriculture, monastic administration, etc. see HOFFMANN, Das Konverseninstitut des Cisterzienserordens (Freiburg, Switzerland, 1905).

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Conversion

(From the classical Latin converto, depon. convertor, whence conversio, change, etc.).

In the Latin Vulgate (Acts 15:3), in patristic (St. Augustine, Civ. Dei, VIII, xxiv), and in later ecclesiastical Latin, conversion refers to a moral change, a turning or returning to God and to the true religion, in which sense it has passed into our modern languages. (For example, the “conversions” of St. Paul, of Constantine the Great, and of St. Augustine.) In the Middle Ages the word conversion was often used in the sense of forsaking the world to enter the religious state. Thus St. Bernard speaks of his conversion. The return of the sinner to a life of virtue is also called a conversion. More commonly do we speak of the conversion of an infidel to the true religion, and most commonly of the conversion of a schismatic or heretic to the Catholic Church.

Every man is bound by the natural law to seek the true religion, embrace it when found, and conform his life to its principles and precepts. And it is a dogma of the Church defined by the Vatican Council that man is able by the natural light of reason to arrive at the certain knowledge of the existence of the one true God. our Creator and Lord. The same council teaches that faith is a gift of God necessary for salvation, that it is an act of the intellect commanded by the will, and that it is a supernatural act. The act of faith then is an act of the understanding, whereby we firmly hold as true whatever God has revealed, not because of its intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, has revealed it. It is in itself an act of the understanding, but it requires the influence of the will which moves the intellect to assent. For many of the truths of revelation, being mysteries, are to some extent obscure. Yet, it is not a blind act, since the fact that God has spoken is not merely probable but certain. The evidences for the fact of revelation are not, however. the motive of faith; they are the grounds which render revelation credible, that is to say, they make it certain that God has spoken. And since faith is necessary for salvation, that we may comply with the duty of embracing the true Faith and persevering in it, God by His only-begotten Son has instituted the Church and has adorned it with obvious marks so that it may be known by all men as the guardian and teacher of revealed truth. These marks (or notes) of credibility belong to the Catholic Church alone. Nay, the Church itself by its admirable propagation, sublime sanctity, and inexhaustible fecundity, by its Catholic unity and invincible stability, is a great and perpetual motive of credibility and irrefragable testimony of its Divine mission (see Conc. Vatic., De Fide, cap. 3).

The first step, therefore, in the normal process of conversion is the investigation and examination of the credentials of the Church, which often is a painful labor lasting for years. The external grace which draws a man’s attention to the Church and causes him to begin his inquiry is as various and manifold as there are individual inquirers. It may even be something to one’s temporal advantage, which was the case with Henry IV of France. It may be the interest aroused in a great historical personage, such as Innocent III, in the case of Friedrich von Hurter. Whatever may have been the initial motive. if the study be pursued with an open mind, we hold that it will lead to the knowledge of the true Church, i.e. to this certain conclusion: The Catholic Church is the true Church. This intellectual conviction. however, is not yet the act of faith. One may hesitate, or refuse to take the next step, which is the “good will to believe” (pius credulitatis affectus). And this leads to the third and final act, the act of faith itself: I believe what the Church teaches because God has revealed it. These three acts, especially the last, are, in accordance with Catholic teaching, supernatural acts. Then follows baptism by which the believer is formally received into the body of the Church. (See BAPTISM, VII, VIII.)

Since the duty of embracing the true religion is of natural and positive Divine right, it is evident that no civil law can forbid the fulfilling of this duty, nor should any temporal considerations be allowed to interfere with a duty on which depends the soul’s salvation. And because all are bound to enter the Church, it follows that the Church has a right to receive all who apply for reception, of whatever age, sex, or condition they may be. Nay, in virtue of the Divine command to preach the Gospel to every creature, the Church is strictly bound to receive them, and no earthly authority can forbid the exercise of this duty. To the Church alone it belongs to lay down the conditions for reception and to inquire into the interior dispositions of him who presents himself for admission into her bosom. The conditions are, knowledge and profession of the Catholic Faith and the resolve to live in accordance with it. The right to admit converts into the Church belongs strictly speaking to the bishop. Usually all priests exercising the sacred ministry receive faculties for reconciling heretics. When conditional baptism is administered, sacramental confession is also required from the convert. It is the law clearly laid down in the Acts of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. The order of proceedings is as follows:

first, abjuration of heresy or profession of faith;

second, conditional baptism;

third, sacramental confession and conditional absolution. (Tit. V, Cap. II, n. 240.)

Force, violence, or fraud may not be employed to bring about the conversion of an unbeliever. Such means would be sinful. The natural law, the law of Christ, the nature of faith, the teaching and practice of the Church forbid such means. Credere voluntatis est, to believe depends upon the free will, says St. Thomas (II-II:10:8), and the minister of baptism, before administering the sacrament, is obliged to ask the question, “Wilt thou be baptized”? And only after having received the answer, “I will,” may he proceed with the sacred rite. The Church also forbids the baptism of children of unbaptized parents without the consent of the latter, unless the children have been cast away by their parents, or are in imminent danger of death. For the Church has no jurisdiction over the unbaptized, nor does the State possess the power of using temporal means in spiritual things. The punishments formerly decreed against apostates were not intended to coerce men to accept outwardly what they did not believe in their hearts, but to atone for a crime (see the article of St. Thomas, loc. cit.). The medieval legislation, both ecclesiastical and secular, clearly distinguished between the punishment to be inflicted for the crime of apostasy and the means of instruction to be used in order to bring about the resipiscence of the apostate. As Bishop von Ketteler says, “The punishment inflicted by the Church upon heretics in comparatively few cases was not based upon the false principle that conviction could be forced upon the mind by external means, but upon the truth that by baptism the Christian has assumed obligations the fulfillment of which could be insisted upon. This punishment was only inflicted in particular cases and upon public and formal heretics.” Convert parents like other Catholics are obliged to have their children baptized and educated in the Catholic religion.

The Constitution of the United States of America proclaims complete separation of Church and State and guarantees full liberty of conscience. In consequence the laws of these States place no hindrance whatever in the way of conversions. It may also be said that on the whole the American people are socially tolerant towards converts. No wonder that in this country’s conversions are comparatively more numerous than in most others. In the British Empire too, since the days of Catholic Emancipation in 1829, liberty of conscience prevails in theory as well as in practice, although there exists both in England and Scotland an established Church. Catholic disabilities have been almost entirely removed. Catholics are only excluded from the throne and from a few of the highest offices of the State. In Germany after the Reformation the tyrannical principle cujus regio, illius religio was proclaimed, in virtue of which the sovereign for the time being could impose his religion upon his subjects. He exercised the power both to forbid conversions to the Catholic Church, and to compel apostasy from it. In present-day Germany, liberty of conscience is the law of the land. And although some union of Church and State exists, conversion does not involve any disabilities or the loss of any civil or political rights. Formerly, however, most of the states prescribed the age before which conversions were not lawful, which was either fourteen or sixteen, or even eighteen. In Saxony, Brunswick, and Mecklenburg, the public exercise of the Catholic religion historically was subjected to vexatious interference. In Russia the Orthodox Church is the State religion. Other denominations are only tolerated. Under the czars, conversion from the Orthodox Church to Catholicism was followed by grievous disabilities. By the ukase of 1905 certain rights and liberties were granted to other denominations. The publication of the ukase was immediately followed by the return to the Catholic Church of many Eastern Catholics who had been forced into schism by persecution. The Scandinavian countries were very intolerant till about the middle of the nineteenth century. Denmark gave liberty to the Catholic Church in 1849, Sweden and Norway in 1860.

B. GULDNER

Convocation of the English Clergy

The technical name given in the Church of England to what corresponds in some respects to a provincial synod, though in other respects it differs widely from it. The two ecclesiastical provinces of Canterbury and York have each their Convocation, but that of Canterbury is the more important, and is spoken of as “Convocation” par excellence. The history of its external constitution is continuous down to the present time and is bound up with the development of English constitutional history; its powers and independence, however, were lost at the Reformation; its organization, retained as a mere form for many years, has been utilized of late to give expression to the opinions entertained by the clergy as a body upon questions of the day. Thus it exercises influence, but has no power. The authority of the Crown asserted at the Reformation is still supreme and intact.

The history of Convocation may be divided into five periods: (1) Before 1295; (2) From 1295 until the Reformation; (3) The Reformation period; (4) The post-Reformation period; (5) Modern times.

(1) BEFORE 1295

Previous to 1295 the Church in England had assembled in diocesan and provincial synods to regulate disciplinary and other matters interesting the body of the clergy. Moreover the archbishops, bishops, abbots, and priors used to take their place in the national council on account of the estates they held in chief (in capite) of the Crown. But the beneficed clergy took no part in it. The increasing frequency of royal appeals for money grants and the unwillingness of the bishops to be responsible for allowing them had brought Stephen Langton, as early as 1225, to summon proctors of cathedral, collegiate, and conventual churches to attend his provincial synod, and gradually that representative principle became part of the system of Convocation. The failure of the irregular attempt of Edward I to convoke the clergy at Northampton led him to issue (1283) a writ to the Archbishop with a view to Convocation meeting in London in that same year, and at that meeting a “benevolence” was duly voted. The form of writ used in 1283 is the same in form as that still in use, and the instructions issued on that occasion by the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Peckham, still embody the existing constitution of Convocation, so that, with the exception of the disappearance of the monastic representatives, the external organization of Convocation remains unchanged.

(2) AFTER 1295

In addition to the Baronage and Commons of the realm we find, after 1295, a representative body of the beneficed clergy summoned to attend personally in Parliament, the summons being conveyed by the insertion, in the bishop’s writ of summons to Parliament, of the proemunientes clause. That summons was the beginning of a new phase in the long struggle waged by the Crown on the subject of the taxation of the clergy. It was to facilitate the obtaining of money grants that Edward I endeavoured once more to unite representatives of the clergy and laity in one deliberative assembly, composed on the basis of temporal property. To have countenanced the attempt would have been to recognize the Crown’s claim to tax church property, and the clergy insisted upon their constitutional right of making their money grants in Convocation. The struggle between the Crown and the clergy continued until 1337, when the Crown gave way, though retaining the proemunientes clause in the bishop’s writ of summons. Authorities differ as to whether the Parliamentary proctors of the clergy sat in the Lower House or in the Upper House; most probably they sat and voted in the Lower House.

The question of the exact relation of Convocation to the newer Parliamentary representatives of the clergy is obscure; nor is the obscurity lessened by the fact that the proctors of the clergy for Convocation were frequently the same persons as the proctors of the clergy for Parliament. Two opinions have found defenders: the first, that the older ecclesiastical council fused with the Parliamentary representatives of the clergy; the other, that by the process of gradual decay of Parliamentary representation of the clergy, part of their rights passed to the ecclesiastical councils, thus giving rise to the historical connexion between the Convocations and Parliament. The latter view, ably advocated by Stubbs, at present holds the field.

The division of Convocation into an Upper and a Lower House came about gradually, and was not formed, as is sometimes supposed, on the model of the two Houses of Parliament. In 1296 the members of Convocation resolved themselves for deliberative purposes into four groups: bishops, monastic representatives, dignitaries, and proctors of the clergy. Eventually Convocation came to open with a joint session presided over by the archbishop, after which the bishops and abbots remained to deliberate as the Upper House, while the rest withdrew to deliberate as the Lower House.

The objection of the clergy to sitting in Parliament lessened indeed their influence over that body; at the same time they secured the right of meeting when Parliament met, and that right of meeting involved the right of petitioning and to some extent of legislating for themselves. That idea of Convocation as the clerical parliament had important consequences; the right to tax church property was successfully maintained; but the clergy could neither elect nor be elected to the House of Commons, and to this day a person in Holy orders is ineligible for Parliament. At the same time the legislation of Convocation was binding on the clergy only and not upon the laity.

(3) THE REFORMATION PERIOD

Convocation lost its independence and most of its powers by the Act of Submission [25 Hen. VIII (1533–4), c. 19], which enacts that Convocation can only meet by royal command, and that without royal leave and licence no new canons, constitutions, or ordinances may be made. This act was repealed in Queen Mary’s reign, but revived by 1 Eliz. (1558–9), and still remains in full force. The climax of Convocation’s degradation was reached when, after the Act of Supremacy (1534), Thomas Cromwell, the representative of Henry VIII, though a layman, asserted his right to preside, a right never subsequently exercised.

(4) POST-REFORMATION PERIOD

The Act of Submission of Henry VIII was stringently interpreted by the judges at a committee before the Lords in Parliament (in 8 Jac., 1) as forbidding, even after obtaining royal assent, any canon (a) against the prerogative of the king; (b) against common law; (c) against any statute law; or (d) against any custom of the realm. The loss of legislative independence paved the way for the loss of taxing powers, which were finally renounced in 1665, the right of voting at Parliamentary elections being obtained in return. The power of Convocation of dealing with cases of heresy has been exercised but rarely, and then to no purpose. It continued to be convoked at the beginning of each Parliament, but its sittings were interrupted from 1640 to 1660, to be resumed after the Restoration. In 1689, in view of the opposition of the clergy to the Toleration Act of William and Mary, no summons was issued to Convocation. The Commons, however, protested against the innovation, and their petition had its effect; at the same time Archbishop Tillotson, and to some extent his successor Tenison, met the difficulties of the situation by refusing to allow any deliberations. Convocation was summoned, met, and was prorogued. Parties were formed, and claims were made, insisting upon the independence of the Lower House on the analogy of the House of Commons. Atterbury led the malcontents; Wake, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, Kennet, Hoadley, and Gibson led the defence. The question was really a political one. Toryism dominated the Lower House; Liberalism, alike in politics and theology, pervaded the Upper House. Permission to deliberate led to trouble in 1701, and prorogation followed. The Bangorian Controversy arising out of Hoadly’s sermon led to similar results in 1717. The opposition of the Lower House was worn out by repeated prorogations immediately following the opening session, and with the exception of the discussions allowed in 1741 and 1742, Convocation ceased to be a deliberative body until 1854.

(5) MODERN TIMES

The old organization had survived, and many earnest Anglicans of the early nineteenth century, anxious to revive the synodal life of the Anglican Church, sought and obtained the relaxation of the customary immediate prorogation. A brief session was authorized in 1854. (The example was followed by York in 1859.) The action of Convocation as a deliberative body began in 1861, when, at its own request, the Crown licensed it to amend the twenty-ninth of the canons of 1603 on the subject of sponsors, and although no result followed, new canons were passed in 1865, 1887, and again in 1892.

Apart from such general authorizations the Crown also possesses the right to submit definite business to the consideration of Convocation. This is done by “Special Letters of Business,” a method used in 1872, and again in 1907, in submitting the reports of the ritual commissioners to its consideration.

The House of Laymen, which first met in connexion with the Convocation of Canterbury in 1886 (York, 1892), is an assembly unknown to law. As at present constituted the two Convocations of Canterbury and York are summoned by the archbishops on the instruction of the king when Parliament is summoned. Each possesses an Upper and a Lower House; the Upper House, presided over by the archbishops, consists of the diocesan bishops; the Lower House is composed of deans, archdeacons, a proctor for each chapter, and proctors for the beneficed clergy, two from each diocese in the province of Canterbury, two from each archdeaconry in the province of York. The Lower House elects a prolocutor who, on being presented to the archbishop and approved by him, presides over the deliberations of the Lower House, and communicates the results to the Upper house. The stately ceremonial of Catholic days has been preserved for the opening session of Convocation, together with the use of the Latin tongue.

GIBSON, Synodus Anglicana (1702), ed. CARDWELL (London, 1854); WAKE, The Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods (London, 1697); KENNET, Ecclesiastical Synods (London, 1701); HOADLEY, A History of English Councils and Convocation and of the Clergy sitting in Parliament (London, 1701); TREVOR, The Convocation of the Two Provinces (London, 1852); LATHBURY, A History of the Convocation of the Church of England (2nd ed., London, 1853); JOYCE, England’s Sacred Synods (London, 1853); LINGARD, History of England, passim; STUBBS, The Constitutional History of England (London, 1878); IDEM, Select Charters (8th ed., London, 1895); MAKOWER, The Constitutional History and Constitution of the Church of England, tr. from German (London, 1895); PHILLIMORE, The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England (2nd ed, London, 1895) GEE AND HARDY, Documents Illustrative of English Church History (London, 1896); HENSON, Our National Church (London, 1908).

EDWARD MYERS

Henry Conwell

Second Bishop of Philadelphia, U.S.A., b. at Moneymore, County Derry, Ireland, in 1745; d. at Philadelphia, 22 April, 1842. After the death of Bishop Egan, in 1814, the Bishopric of Philadelphia was offered successively to the Rev. Ambrose Marechal and to the Very Rev. Louis de Barth, the administrator, but both these clergymen, deterred by the contumacious attitude of the trustees of St. Mary’s church, returned the Bulls; whereupon the Holy See appointed (26 Nov., 1819) Henry Conwell, parish priest of Dungannon and Vicar-General of Armagh, Ireland, who imprudently accepted a task too heavy for his seventy four years. He had made his studies in the Irish College at Paris, where his family had founded a burse. He was universally beloved by his people and the clergy, and an ineffectual attempt was made to retain him in Ireland. He was consecrated in London by Bishop Poynter, 24 Aug., 1820, and arrived in Philadelphia, 2 Dec., bringing with him a young priest named Keenan, subsequently for many years pastor at Lancaster. The seeds of future troubles had been sown during the vacancy, when the administrator, without demanding credentials, stationed at St. Mary’s the brilliant but demagogic and unpriestly Rev. William Hogan, who had so ingratiated himself with the board of trustees that when, on 12 Dec., the bishop revoked his faculties, a schism ensued which lasted for many years. For details of the quarrel, the reader is referred to J. Gilmary Shea’s “History of the Catholic Church in the United States” (see below). Bishop Conwell conducted the controversy with dignity, but in the course of it, through desire of peace, committed two errors of judgment. The first was the recalling to the diocese and appointing as vicar-general of William Vincent Harold, a Dominican whom his predecessor had dismissed. Contrary to the bishop’s expectation, the return of Harold complicated the situation. It was a more serious mistake that on 9 Oct., 1826, he capitulated to the trustees, yielding to them the right of determining salaries and of vetoing his appointments. Highly displeased at this surrender of episcopal rights, the Holy See appointed an administrator and summoned the bishop to Rome. His explanations were pronounced unsatisfactory and he was forbidden to return to his see. He did return to Philadelphia and received permission to perform episcopal functions, without interfering in matters of administration. In 1830 Francis Patrick Kenrick arrived as coadjutor and administrator, and Bishop Conwell spent his remaining years in seclusion and prayer.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Archdiocese of Conza

(COMPSANA)

Archdiocese with the perpetual administration of Campagna (Campaniensis). Conza, a city of the province of Avellino, Southern Italy, on the River Ofanto (the ancient Aufidus), was formerly called Compsa, and belonged to the Hirpini, allies of the Samnites during their wars with the Romans. It was captured in 213 B.C. by Fabius Maximus and was made a Roman colony. During the Second Punic War it was betrayed to Hannibal (214 B.C.) and opened the way to Capua. The city was twice destroyed by earthquakes (980, 1694), and was at one time nearly abandoned. The first known Bishop of Conza is Pelagius, who was present at the Roman synod of 743 held under Pope Zachary. The see was raised to the rank of an archbishopric under Alexander II or Gregory VII (i.e. between 1061 and 1085), having previously been a suffragan of Salerno. Among the bishops worthy of mention is the Blessed Erberto (1169). The bishops resided either in their feudal stronghold of San Menna, at Campagna, or at Sant’ Angelo de’ Lombardi, the present episcopal residence. The Diocese of Campagna was erected by Clement VII, 19 June, 1525; the see was vacant from 1793 to 1818, when it was placed under Conza. The dioceses together have a population of 123,000, with 37 parishes, 230 churches and chapels, 232 secular and 10 regular priests, 3 religious houses of men and 5 of women.

CAPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XX, 531; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 424–26.

U. BENIGNI

Vicariate Apostolic of Cooktown

The Vicariate Apostolic of Cooktown comprises North Queensland, Australia, from 16°30’ south latitude to Cape York, and from the Pacific Coast to the boundary of Northern Territory. It was formed out of the Diocese of Brisbane, as a pro-vicariate in 1876, was first entrusted to Italian priests, who subsequently withdrew, and, in 1882, to the Irish Augustinians (Father John Hutchinson, Pro-Vicar). In 1887 the mission was created a vicariate apostolic, and Dr. Hutchinson was appointed its first vicar. He died 28 October, 1897, and was succeeded by the Right Rev. James D. Murray, consecrated 3 July, 1898. The administrative centre of the vicariate is at Cairns.

STATISTICS TO CLOSE OF 1907

Parochial districts, 7; stations, 32; churches, 18; regular priests, 11; nuns, 24; boarding school, 1; primary schools, 3; children attending Catholic schools, 470; Catholic population, about 6000.

MORAN, History of the Catholic Church in Australasia (Sydney, s.d.): Australasian Catholic Directory (Sydney, 1908).

HENRY W. CLEARY

William Henry Coombes

Born 8 May, 1767; died 15 November, 1850. He passed his early years at Meadgate, Somersetshire, England, the property and for many years the residence of his uncle, Rev. William Coombes (d. 18 April, 1822), of Douai College, Grand-Vicar of the Western District. Young Coombes went to Douai at the age of twelve, was ordained in 1791, and during the French Revolution escaped (October, 1793) from Dourlens to England. He was a doctor of theology and co-operated earnestly with Bishop Douglass at Old Hall seminary as professor and vice-president. From 1810 he served the mission of Shepton Mallet till 1849, when he retired to Downside monastery, where he died. He is described as a spiritual and self-denying priest, an eminent scholar and theologian. His chief works are: “Sacred Eloquence; being Discourses from the Writings of Sts. Basil and Chrysostom, with the Letters of St. Eucherius of Lyons” (London, 1798); “Escape from France; with an account of the English Poor Clares from Aire, and a narrative of the sufferings and death of Pius VI” (London, 1799); “Life of St. Francis de Sales, from the French of Marsollier” (Shepton Mallet, 1812); “Spiritual Entertainments of St. Francis de Sales” (Taunton, 1814); “The Essence of Religious Controversy” (1827); “Life of St. Jane Frances de Chantal” (London, 1830). There survive certain other writings by Coombes on religious and political themes.

OLIVER, Collectanea, 272; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I. 558; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., XII, 109.

PATRICK RYAN

Copacavana

(Also called COPACABANA)

A village of about four hundred people, Indians chiefly, on the shore of Lake Titicaca, province of Omasuyos, in northern Bolivia. It is the location of a famous sanctuary dedicated to Our Lady of Carmel, and of a convent of Franciscan Recollects. During the wars of independence it was despoiled of most of its rich ornaments and gifts, and ruthless plundering by faithless custodians in the course of political disturbances has further contributed to impoverish it. The edifices, originally very handsome, are in a state of sad neglect. It is a shrine for pilgrims from Bolivia and southern Peru, and on 6 August the feast of its patron saint is frequented by thousands. Before 1534 Copacavana was an outpost of Inca occupation and perhaps the only one on Bolivian soil of any prominence. The Incas held it as the key to the very ancient shrine and oracle on the Island of Titicaca, which they had adopted as a place of worship, yielding to the veneration in which it stood among the Aymara from time almost immemorial. There were at Copacavana minor shrines, in which the ceremonial of the Incas was observed with that of the original inhabitants. When the Spaniards first visited the Islands of Titicaca and Loati, in 1534 and 1538, the primitive cults were abandoned and the Dominicans made Copacavana the centre of their missions. Secular priests then replaced them at the instigation of the Viceroy Francisco de Toledo, and finally the mission and its annexes were entrusted to the Augustinians in 1589.

In 1582 an Indian from Copacavana, struck by the sight of the statues of the Blessed Virgin which he saw in some of the churches at La Paz, tried to make one himself, and after many failures, succeeded in producing one of fair workmanship for an untrained native, and it was placed at Copacavana as the statue of the tutelar protectress of the community. Many miracles have been attributed to it, and its fame has spread far beyond the limits of its surroundings. It is kept in a special chapel, where the Indians are untiring in their devotions. The jewels with which it is adorned are perhaps the only ones in the church that have not been replaced by modern imitations. During the uprising of the Indians in 1781, while the church itself was desecrated, the “Camarin,” as the chapel is called, remained untouched and exempt from spoliation. Copacavana is the scene of often repulsively boisterous Indian celebrations. On the 2d of February and 6th of August, Church festivals furnish the pretext for Indian dances that the clergy have not yet been able entirely to reform. The mixture of the old Pagan with the Christian is interesting, although a source of mortification to the Bolivian clergy, who are as yet unable to modify it. Copacavana is surrounded by pre-Columbian ruins of considerable interest.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Cope

(Known in Latin as pluviale or cappa), a vestment which may most conveniently be described as a long liturgical mantle, open in front and fastened at the breast with a band or clasp. As existing monuments show, whether we look at pictorial representations or at the copes of early date which still survive, there has been remarkably little change in the character of the vestment from the earliest ages. Then as now it was made of a piece of silk or cloth of semicircular shape, and, as it is important to note, it differed from the earlier form of chasuble only in this, that in the chasuble the straight edges were sewn together in front while in the cope they were left open. The most conspicuous external modification which the cope has undergone, during the past thousand years and more, lies in a certain divergence in the shape of the hood, a feature which, after all, is not in any way an essential part of the vestment. In some early examples we find only a triangular hood, which was no doubt intended to of practical utility in covering the head in processions, etc. But with the lapse of time the hood has into a mere ornamental appendage, and it is quite commonly represented by a sort of shield of embroidery, artificially stiffened and sometimes adorned with a fringe, the whole being fastened by buttons or by some other device to the back of the below the broad orphrey which usually forms an upper border to the whole. The fact that in many early chasubles, as depicted in the drawings of the eighth and ninth centuries, we see clear traces of a primitive hood, thus bearing out the explicit statement upon the point of Isidore of Beville, strongly confirms the view that in their origin cope and chasuble were identical, the chasuble being only a cope with its edges sewn together.

HISTORY

The earliest mention of a cappa seems to meet us in Gregory of Tours, and in the “Miracula” of St. Furseus where it seems to mean a cloak with a hood. So from a letter written in 787 by Theodemar, Abbot of Monte Cassino, in answer to a question of Charlemagne about the dress of the monk (see Mon. Germ. Hist.: Epist. Carol., II, 512) we learn that what in Gaul was styled cuculla (cowl) was known to the Cassinese monks as cappa. Moreover the word occurs more than once in Alcuin’s correspondence, apparently as denoting a garment for everyday wear. When Alcuin twice observes about a which was sent him, that he meant to wear it always at Mass, we may probably infer that such garments at this date were not distinctively liturgical owing to anything in their material or construction, but that they were set aside for the use of the altar at the choice of the owner, who might equally well have used them as part of his ordinary attire. In the case of the chasuble the process of liturgical specialization, if we may so call it, was completed at a comparatively early date, and before the end of the ninth century the maker of a probably knew quite well in most cases whether he intended his handiwork for a Mass vestment or for an everyday outer garment. But in the case of a cappa, or cope, this period of specialization seems to have been delayed until much later. The two hundred capp or cope, which we read in a Saint-Riquier inventory in the year 801, a number increased to 377 by the year 831, were, we believe, mere cloaks, for the most part of rude material and destined for common wear. It may be that their use in choir was believed to add to the decorum and solemnity of the Divine Office, especially in the winter season. In 831 one of the Saint-Riquier copes is specially mentioned as being of chestnut colour and and embroidered with gold. This, no doubt, implies use by a dignitary, but it does not prove that it was as yet regarded as a sacred vestment. In fact, if we follow the conclusions of Mr. Edmund Bishop (Dublin Review, Jan., 1897), who was the first to sift the evidence thoroughly, it was not until the twelfth century that the cope, made of rich material, was in general use in the ceremonies of the Church, at which time it had come to be regarded as the special vestment of cantors. Still, an ornamental cope was even then considered a vestment that might be used by any member of the clergy from the highest to the lowest, in fact even by one who was only about to be tonsured. Amongst monks it was the practice to vest the whole community, except, of course, the celebrant and the sacred ministers, in copes at high Mass on the greatest festivals, whereas on feasts of somewhat lower grade, the community were usually vested in albs. In this movement the Netherlands, France, and Germany had taken the lead, as we learn from extant inventories. For example, already in 870, in the Abbey of Saint Trond we find “thirty-three precious copes of silk” as against only twelve chasubles, and it was clearly the Cluny practice in the latter part of the tenth century to vest all the monks in copes during high Mass on the great feasts, though in England the regulations of St. Dunstan and St. Æthelwold show no signs of any such observance. The custom spread to the secular canons of such cathedrals as Rouen, and cantors nearly everywhere used copes of silk as their own peculiar adornment in the exercise of their functions.

Meanwhile the old cappa nigra, or cappa choralis, a choir cope of black stuff, open or partly open in front, and commonly provided with a hood, still continued in use. It was worn at Divine Office by the clergy of cathedral and collegiate churches and also by many religious, as, for example, it is retained by the Dominicans during thc winter months down to the present day. (See COSTUME, CLERICAL.) No doubt the “copes” of the friars, to which we find so many references in the Wycliffite literature and in the writings of Chaucer and Langland, designate their open mantles, which were, we may say, part of their full dress, though not always black in colour. On the other hand we may note that the cappa clausa, or close cope, was simply a cope or cape sewn up in front for common outdoor use. “The wearing of this,” says Mr. Bishop, (loc. cit., p. 24), “instead of the ‘cappa scisssa,’ the same cope not sewn up, is again and again enjoined on the clergy by synods and statutes during the late Middle Ages.” The cappa magna, now worn according to Roman usage by cardinals, bishops, and certain specially privileged prelates on occasions of ceremony, is not strictly a liturgical vestment, but is only a glorified cappa choralis, or choir cope. Its colour for cardinals is ordinarily red, and for bishops violet. It is ample in volume and provided with a long train and a disproportionately large hood, the lining of which last, ermine in winter and silk in summer, is made to show like a tippet across the breast. Further we must note the papal mantum, which differs little from an ordinary cope except that it is red in colour and somewhat longer. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries the immantatio, or bestowal of the mantum on the newly elected pope, was regarded as specially symbolical of investiture with papal authority. “Investio te de-papatu romano ut pr sis urbi et orbi” were the words used in conferring it (I invest thee with the Roman papacy, that thou rule over the city and the world).

MODERN USE

Under all these different forms the cope has not substantially changed its character or shape. It was a vestment for processions, and one worn by all ranks of the clergy when assisting at a function, but never employed by the priest and his sacred ministers in offering the Holy Sacrifice. At the present day it is still, as the “Cæremoniale” directs, worn by cantors on certain festal occasions in the solemn Office; but it is also the vestment assigned to the celebrant, whether priest or bishop, in almost all functions in which the chasuble is not used, for example in processions, in the greater blessings and consecrations, at solemn Vespers and Lauds, in giving Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, at the absolutions and burial of the dead, at the Asperges before Mass, etc. At a pontifical high Mass it is worn by the assistant priest who especially attends upon the bishop. As regards colour the cope follows that of the day, and it may be made of any rich or becoming material. Owing to its ample dimensions and unvarying shape, ancient copes are preserved to us in proportionately greater numbers than other vestments and provide the finest specimens of medieval embroidery we possess. Among these the Syon Cope in the South Kensington Museum, London, and the Ascoli Cope are remarkable as representing the highest excellence of that specially English thirteenth-century embroidery known as the opus anglicanum. We are also indebted to the use of copes for some magnificent specimens of the jeweller’s craft. The brooch or clasp, meant to fasten the cope in front, and variously called morse, pectoral, bottone, etc., was an object often in the highest degree precious and costly. The work which was the foundation of all the fortunes of Benvenuto Cellini was the magnificent morse which he made for Pope Clement VII. (See CELLINI, BENVENUTO.) Some admirable examples of these clasps still survive.

Besides the minor articles which are devoted to this subject in the ecclesiastical encyclopedias and works on archeology, we may note the exhaustive work of BRAUN, Die liturgische Gewandung (Frieburg, 1907), 306–358, also the very thorough discussion of EDMUND BISHOP in Dublin Review (Jan., 1897), 17–38; and THALHOFER, Lilurgik, I, 887. For some magnificent illustrations of copes, see especially DE FARCY, La Broderie, (Angers, 1890), and also ROHAULT DE FLEURY, La Messe (Paris, 1889), 1889), VIII, 1–17.

HERBERT THURSTON

University of Copenhagen

It was founded by a Bull which Sixtus IV issued 19 June, 1475, at the request of King Christian I. This Bull authorized the primate, the Archbishop of Lund, to establish a university in any place selected by the king; and the latter, by letters patent of 4 Oct., 1478, laid the foundation at Copenhagen. The Bishop, Dean, and Provost of Roskild and the Dean of Copenhagen were appointed conservators. The statutes, drawn up by the Archbishop of Lund and promulgated 28 Nov., 1479, followed closely those of Cologne. From Cologne also the new university received its first professors. The most distinguished among these, before the Reformation, was the Carmelite, Povel Helgesen (Paul Helia, q. v.) writer of important controversial and historical works. Both he and Bishop Lage Urne, chancellor of the university, vigorously opposed the advances of Protestantism in Denmark. The university suffered severely during the religious upheaval, but was reorganized under King Christian III by the Lutheran theologian, Johann Bugenhagen (1539), called for that purpose from Wittenberg. In the conflagration of 1728 the university buildings were almost totally destroyed, but were at once restored by King Christian VI (1732). Notable among the professors during the modern period are Holberg, Oehlenschlager, Rask, Madvig, and Oersted. The university comprises at present the faculties of theology, law, medicine, philosophy, and sciences, with 97 professors and about 2000 students. The library contains 350,000 volumes and 6500 manuscripts.

RASHDALL, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1895), II, 291; MATZEN, Kiobenhavns Universitets, Retshistorie (Copenhagen, 1879); RORDAM, Kiobenhavns Universitets historie fra 1537 til 1621 (Copenhagen, 1868–74).

E. A. PACE.

Nicolaus Copernicus

Copernicus, NICOLAUS, latinized form of NICLAS KOPPERNIGK, the name of the founder of the heliocentric planetary theory; b. at Thorn, February 19, 1473, d. at Frauenburg, May 24, 1543, both places being in what is now Prussian territory.

Whether the family came originally from Silesia or from Poland, certain it is that his father Niclas, a merchant, emigrated from Krakow to Thorn, and married the sister of Lucas Watzelrode, later Prince-Bishop of Ermland. Of the four children the oldest and youngest, Andreas and Nicolaus, adopted the clerical career, while the older girl became a Cistercian nun and Abbess of Culm, and the younger married. The whole family belonged to the Third Order of St. Dominic. Nicolaus was hardly ten years old when his father died. His uncle, Lucas, however, took charge of the children and gave the boys a university training.

Nicolaus Nicolai de Thorunia was matriculated in Krakow in 1491, where he studied classics, mathematics, drawings, and perspective. Professor Blar, who represented astronomy, belonged to the school of Ptolemy. The bishop, himself a former student of Bologna, sent the boys to Italy. In 1497 Nicolaus was enrolled in the University of Bologna as of German nationality and a student in canon law. He also studied Greek and became a disciple of Novara, then professor of astronomy. To obtain for his nephews the necessary support, the bishop procured their election as canons by the chapter of Frauenburg (1497–1498).

In the spring of 1500 the brothers went from Bologna to Rome for the jubilee. According to George Joachim, surnamed “Rheticus” (because a native of Feldkirch, in ancient Rhaetia) and his friend Achilles Gasser, Copernicus gave astronomical lectures in the Eternal City, and it was there that he awoke to his vocation of founding a new astronomy. The brothers obtained from the chapter of Frauenburg a two years’ leave of absence to continue their studies. From 1501 to 1503 Nicolaus was in Padua and Ferrara studying medicine and jurisprudence. In Ferrara he took his degree of Doctor of Canon Law but no document is found of his graduating in medicine. His proficiency in that profession was, however, later evinced by his renown as a physician at the episcopal court of Heilsberg, where his uncle resided.

After his university studies Copernicus practised medicine for six years (1506–1512) at Heilsberg, being sought by bishops and princes, but especially by the poor, whom he served gratis. There is no document to show that Copernicus ever received higher orders. His medical practice, which was only private, would not speak against him being a priest, and the fact that in 1537 King Sigismund of Poland put his name on the list of four candidates for the vacant episcopal seat of Ermland, makes it probable that, at least in later life, he had entered the priesthood. After the death of his uncle, in 1512, Copernicus went to Frauenburg for the election of the new bishop, and remained there until 1516, when he was nominated administrator of the diocesan castle of Allenstein. His term of four years being over, he returned to the chapter in Frauenburg. Three years later the bishop died, and Copernicus became administrator of the diocese. While the quiet life at Heilsberg had left him enough leisure to publish a Latin translation of the Greek letters of Theophylactus (1509), his public offices gradually drew him into the study of finance. In 1522 he wrote a memorandum on monetary reforms, which five years later grew into a Latin treatise. It was so highly thought of that the King of Poland substantially accepted it (1528), and Copernicus was nominated deputy counsellor on the financial regulations of Prussia (1522–29).

These various offices, however, could not distract the genius of Copernicus from the main thought of his life. The towers of Heilsberg, of Allenstein, and of Frauenburg became so many observatories, and his great work “on the Revolutions of the Celestial Bodies” bears testimony to his unremitting observations of sun, moon, and planets. His reputation was such that as early as 1514 the Lateran Council, convoked by Leo X, asked through Bishop Paul of Fossombrone, for his opinion on the reform of the ecclesiastical calendar. His answer was, that the length of the year and of the months and the motions of the sun and moon were not yet sufficiently known to attempt a reform. The incident, however, spurred him on as he himself writes to Paul III, to make more accurate observations; and these actually served, seventy years later, as a basis for the working out of the Gregorian calendar.

Twenty-five years after his university career, he had finished his great work, at least in his own mind, but hesitated a long time, whether to publish it or to imitate the Pythagoreans, who transmitted the mysteries of their philosophy only orally to their own disciples for fear of exposing them to the contempt of the multitude. His friends who had become interested in the new theory prevailed on him to write at least an abstract for them, manuscript copies of which have been discovered in Vienna (1873) and Stockholm (1878). In this commentary Copernicus stated his theory in the form of seven axioms, reserving the mathematical part for the Principal work. This was in 1531, or twelve years before his death. From this on the doctrine of the heliocentric system began to spread. In 1533 Albert Widmanstadt lectured before Pope Clement VII on the Copernican solar system. His reward consisted in a Greek codex which is preserved in the State library of Munich. Three years later Copernicus was urged by Cardinal Schonberg, then Archbishop of Capua, in a letter, dated at Rome, 1 November, 1536, to publish his discovery, or at least to have a copy made at the cardinal’s expense. But all the urging of friends was in vain, until a younger man was providentially sent to his side.

It was George Joachim Rheticus who quitted his chair of mathematics in Wittenberg in order to spend two years at the feet of the new master (1539–41). Hardly ten weeks after his arrival in Frauenburg he sent a “First Narration” of the new solar system to his scientific friend Schöner in Nuremberg, in the form of a letter of sixty-six pages, which was soon after printed in Danzig (1540) and Basle (1541). Rheticus next obtained for publication the manuscript of a preliminary chapter of the great work on plane and spherical trigonometry. Finally Copernicus, feeling the weight of his sixty-eight years, yielded, as he writes to Paul III, to the entreaties of Cardinal Schönberg, of Bishop Giese of Culm, and of other learned men to surrender his manuscripts for publication. Bishop Giese charged Rheticus, as the ablest disciple of the great master, with the task of editing the work. The intention of the latter was to take the manuscript to Wittenberg and have it published at the university but owing to the hostility prevailing there against the Copernican system, only the chapter on trigonometry was printed (1542). The two copies of the “First Narration” and of the treatise on trigonometry, which Rheticus presented to his friend Dr. Gasser, then practising medicine in Feldkirch, may be seen in the Vatican Library (Palat. IV, 585) Rheticus then turned to Schöner in Nuremberg, who, together with Osiander, accepted the charge and engaged the printing-house of Petreius in the same city. In the meanwhile Rheticus tried to resume his chair in Wittenberg, but on account of his Copernican views had to resign (1542) and turned to Leipzig (1543). He was thus prevented from giving his personal attention to the edition, nor was the author himself able to superintend it. Copernicus became paralyzed on the right side and weakened in memory and mind many days before his death. The first copy of the “Six Books on the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbits” was handed to him the very day he died. Fortunately for him, he could not see what Osiander had done. This reformer, knowing the attitude of Luther and Melanchthon against the heliocentric system, introduced the word “Hypothesis” on the title page, and without adding his own name, replaced the preface of Copernicus by another strongly contrasting in spirit with that of Copernicus. The preface of Osiander warns the reader not to expect anything certain from astronomy, nor to accept its hypothesis as true, ne stultior ab hac disciplinâ discedat, quam accesserit. The dedication to Pope Paul III was, however, retained, and the text of the work remained intact, as was ascertained later when access was had to the original manuscript, now in the family library of the Counts Nostitz in Prague.

Opposition was first raised against the Copernican system by Protestant theologians for Biblical reasons and strange to say it has continued, at least sporadically, to our own days. A list of many of their Pamphlets is enumerated by Beckmann. On the Catholic side opposition only commenced seventy-three years later, when it was occasioned by Galileo. On 5 March, 1616, the work of Copernicus was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index “until corrected,” and in 1620 these corrections were indicated. Nine sentences, by which the heliocentric system was represented as certain, had to be either omitted or changed. This done, the reading of the book was allowed. In 1758 the book of Copernicus disappeared from the revised Index of Benedict XIV. New editions were issued in Basle (1566) by Rheticus; in Amsterdam (1617) by Müller of Göttingen, in Warsaw (1854) an edition de luxe with Polish translation and the real preface of Copernicus; and the latest (5th) in Thorn (1873) by the Copernicus Society, on the four hundredth anniversary of the author’s birthday, with all the corrections of the text, made by Copernicus, given as foot-notes. A monument by Thorwaldsen was erected to Copernicus in Warsaw (1830), and another by Tieck at Thorn (1853). Rheticus, Clavius, and others called Copernicus the second Ptolemy, and his book the second “Almagest.” His genius appears in the fact that he grasped the truth centuries before it could be proved. If he had precursors they are to be compared to those of Columbus. What is most significant in the character of Copernicus is this, that while he did not shrink from demolishing a scientific system consecrated by a thousand years’ universal acceptance, he set his face against the reformers of religion. For supplementary information see the article GALILEO.

BECKMANN, a series of articles on Copernicus in Zeitschrift f. die Gesch. und Alterthumskunde Ermlands, II-III; HIPLER, Nicolaus Copernicus und Martin Luther (1868) . . .

J. G. HAGEN.

François Edouard Joachim Coppée

Poet, dramatist and novelist, b. at Paris, 26 January, 1842; d. 23 May, 1908. His father, a clerk in the war department, gave him the example of a true Christian life. He studied for a few years at the Lycée Saint-Louis, but his family being in straightened circumstances, he left the school before graduating to aid in their support. He completed his education by private study, spending long hours in the Library Ste-Genevieve, after a hard day’s work. In 1863, he joined the group of poets later celebrated under the name of the “Parnassiens,” and three years later published his first collection of verses, “le Reliquaire,” soon followed by “Intimités.” His first play “Le Passant,” was produced in 1869. Through the influence of Princesse Mathilde, he was appointed assistant-librarian at the senate, a sinecure which allowed him to devote himself to literature. From 1871 to 1885 he was librarian at the Comédie Française. In 1876 he received the cross of the Legion of Honour, and was elected to the French Academy in 1884, succeeding Laprade, another poet whose talent did no little honour to the Catholic Faith. The works of Coppée come under four classes: narrative poems, dramas, novels and short stories. The narrative poems, including “Le Reliquaire” (1866), “Intimites” (1868), “Les Humbles” (1872), “Contes en Vers” (1880), and “Les Poèmes Modernes” (1867–69), present picturesque studies of contemporary life, the sentimental realism of which is entirely free from coarseness or triviality. He wrote a great number of plays in verse, chief among which are: “Le Passant” (1869), “Le Luthier de Cremone” (1876), “Severo Torelli” (1883), which is regarded as his dramatic masterpiece, “Les Jacobites” (1885), “Pour La Couronne” (1895), “Fais ce que Dois” (1871), and “Le Pater,” a play dealing with an episode of the Commune; long forbidden by the Government, it obtained a great success in 1890. His drama is remarkable for its lofty and generous ideals, while its technique shows a constant effort to combine the theory of romanticism with the demands of modern theories. His works in prose comprise several novels: “Henriette” (1889); “Une idylle pendant le siege” (1874); “Les vrais riches” (1898); “Rivales” (1893); “le Coupable” (1897), and many short stories “Contes en prose” (1882); “Vingt contes nouveaux” (1883); “Contes rapides” (1889). The short stories are the most popular part of his works. Simplicity, truth and vividness in the portrayal of familiar scenes, constitute the charm that has so endeared the author to readers the world over. In “La Bonne Souffrance,” written in 1898, after a serious illness that brought him back to the religious faith of his childhood, there are elements of great strength and sweetness. The last years of his life were saddened by cruel sufferings endured with patience. He was a modest man and led a quiet simple life. He was always ready to help those who struggle through life in obscurity. He gave to the French Academy, in 1907, a sum yielding $200 annually to be used as a prize for young poets.

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Coptos

A titular see of Upper Egypt. It was the chief town of the Nomos of Harawî (Two Hawks), and was once politically important, but under the eleventh dynasty it was overshadowed by Thebes. Its principal god was Manou, with an Isis and an Horus infant; the remains of their temple were explored by Flinders Petrie in 1894. Coptos was at the starting-point of the two great routes leading to the coast of the Red Sea, the one towards the port Tââou (Myoshormos), the other more southerly, towards the port of Shashirît (Berenice). Under the Pharaohs the whole trade of southern Egypt with the Red Sea passed over these two roads; under the Ptolemies, and in Roman and Byzantine times, merchants followed the same roads for purposes of barter with the coasts of Zanzibar, Southern Arabia, India, and the Far East. Coptos was most prosperous under the Antonines; it was captured in 292 by Diocletian after a long siege, but soon recovered its former standing. In the sixth century it was called Justinianopolis. The see was suffragan of Ptolemais in Thebais Secunda. Five bishops are known (Lequien, II, 607): Theodorus, a partisan of Meletius; Phoebammon in 431; Sabinus in 451; Vincent, author of the “Canonical Solutions,” preserved in an Arabic translation and highly esteemed by the Copts; Moyses, who wrote the panegyric of Vincent. Under the caliphs and the sultans Koptos remained one of the chief cities of Said. In 1176 its Christian inhabitants raised the standard of revolt against the Mussulmans, but were promptly suppressed by El Adel, brother of Saleh ed-Din (Saladin), who hanged nearly 3000 on the trees around the city. In the thirteenth century there were still in this region numerous monasteries. Coptos was ruined in the sixteenth century by the Turkish conquest. It is to-day a village called Kebt, or Keft, with about 2500 inhabitants, subject to the mudirieh of Keneh; it is situated near the right bank of the Nile, between Denderah (Tynteris) and Karnak (Thebes), about 620 miles from Cairo.

SMITH, Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Geogr. (London, 1878), I, 666.

S. VAILHÉ

Claude-Godefroi Coquart

Missionary and army chaplain, b. in Pays de Caux, France, 20 February, 1706; d. at Chicoutini, Canada, 4 July, 1765. He began his novitiate in the Jesuit college at Paris, 20 May, 1726, studied at the College of Louis le Grand and at La Flèch, and was professor at Arras and Hesdin. In 1740 he set out for Canada, and in the following year, journeyed with Verendrye to Fort La Reine. He probably returned with Verendrye when that explorer was compelled to resign his position as commandant in the North-West. From 1746 to 1757 Father Coquart laboured on the Saguenay mission and later at Quebec. After the conquest of Canada, he attempted to settle a few Jesuits in Acadia, but the English authorities forced them to leave. He then resumed his labors in the Saguenay region, where he closed his missionary career. He has left an Abnaki grammar and dictionary. In the Jesuit Relations (Thwaites ed., LXIX) is a memoir written by him for the Intendant of Canada, in which he describes the so-called “King’s Posts” of Eastern Canada with practical observations and suggestions that make it a valuable document for economic study.

Rochemonteix, Les Jésuites de la Nouvelle-France au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1906), I, iii; Thwaites, ed., Jesuit Relations (Cleveland, 1896–1901), LXIX, 289,290. Pilling, Bibliography of the Algonquian Languages (Washington, 1891), 94; Bois, Notice sur Rév. Claude Godfroid Coquart (copy in library of Wis. Hist. Society); Sadlier, An Historic Spot on the Catholic World (1893), LIX, 309, seq.; Prud’homme, Revue Canadienne (1897), 81–92; Brown, The Two Missionary Priests at Mackinac; Idem, St. Anne’s Parish Register at Michillimackinac (Chicago, 1889).

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Coracesium

A titular see of Asia Minor. According to Ptolemy (V, 5, 3), this town was not in Cilicia Tracheia, but in Roman Pamphylia. It had belonged to Isauria according to the pre-Roman ethnic system, and from A.D. 74 was probably included in Lycia-Pamphylia. Its port was the chief centre of the famous Cilician pirates: there Diodorus Tryphon was killed by Antiochus VII, and the pirates utterly destroyed by Pompey, who levelled their fortress. Coracesium became a suffragan of Side, metropolis of Pamphylia Prima. Lequien (I, 1007) mentions only four bishops, the first having been present at the Council of Constantinople (381), the last at the Council of Constantinople in 681; but the see is still mentioned in the “Notitiæ episcopatuum” as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century. Coracesium is now a little town with about 2000 inhabitants (500 Greeks), the chief centre of a caza in the vilayet of Konia. Its Turkish name is Alaya. The Armenians have completely disappeared, though the town was a very important one in the time of the Rupens. There are curious ruins, walls, ancient tombs, and other remains of antiquity, and many romantic stories are associated with it.

BEAUFORT, Caramania (London, 1847); CUINET, Turquie d’Asie, I, 867–870; ALISHAN, Sissouan (Venice, 1899), 368 sq., with illustrations.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Ambrose Corbie

Corbie, Ambrose, (Corby or Corbington), b. near Durham, 7 Dec., 1604; d. at Rome, 11 April, 1649. He was the fourth son of Gerald Corbie and his wife Isabella Richardson, exiles for the Faith. Of their children, Ambrose, Ralph, and Robert, having become Jesuits (Richard died as a student at St-Omers, and the two surviving daughters, Mary and Catherine, became Benedictine nuns at Brussels), the parents by mutual agreement entered religion. The father entered the Society of Jesus as a lay brother in 1628, and having reconciled his father Ralph (aged 100) to the Church, died at Watten, 17 Sept., 1637. The mother, in 1633, was professed a Benedictine at Ghent and died a centenarian, 25 Dec., 1652. Ambrose at the age of 12 entered St-Omers, going thence (1622) to the English college, Rome. He entered the Society of Jesus at Watten in 1627, and in 1641 was professed. Having taught with some success for some years at St-Omers, and been minister at Ghent in 1645, he was appointed confessor at the English college, Rome, where he died in his forty-fifth year. His works are;

“Certamen Triplex” etc., the history of the martyrdom of three English Jesuit priests: Thomas Holland, his own brother Ralph Corbie (see below), and Henry Morse (Antwerp, 1645, 12mo), with three engraved portraits; reprinted, Munich, 1646, 12mo); English translation by E. T. Scargill under the title of “The Threefold Conflict” etc.; ed. W. T. Turnbull (London, 1858, 8vo).

Account of his family; English version in Foley, “Records,” III, 64.

“Vita et morte del Fratello Tomaso Stilintono [i.e. Stillington alias Olgethorpe] novitio Inglese della Compagnia de Gesu morto in Messina, 15 Sept., 1617”; (manuscript at Stonyhurst College; see Hist. MSS. Comm.,”

3rd Report, 338, tr. and ed. Foley, “Records,” III, 15 sqq. Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la c. de J., II, 1410; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 563.

Ralph (called at times Corbington), Venerable, brother of the above; martyr-priest, b. 25 March, 1598, near Dublin; d. 7 September, 1644. From the age of five he spent his childhood in the north of England, then going over seas he studied at Saint-Omer, Seville, and Valladolid, where he was ordained. Having become a Jesuit about 1626, he came to England about 1631 and laboured at Durham. He was seized by the Parliamentarians at Hamsterley, 8 July, 1644, when clothed in his Mass vestments, conveyed to London, and committed to Newgate (22 July) with his friend John Duckett, a secular priest. At their trial (Old Bailey, 4 September), they both admitted their priesthood, were condemned to death, and executed at Tyburn, 7 September. Stonyhurst has a relic of Father Corbie; for the Duke of Gueldres’ attestation in 1650 of other relics, see Foley’s “Records S.J.,” I, 564; the “Certamen” portrait is reproduced in “Records,” VII, (I), 168; for his letters see vol. III, 69 sqq., of the same work. The Corbie alias, according to Foley [op. cit., VII (II), 898] was Carlington or Carlton.

Tanner, Societas Jesu militans, 122; Challoner, Missionary Priests (1742), II, 278; Dodd, Church History, III, 111; Oliver, Collectanea S.J., 674; Foley, Records S.J., III, 59–98, 151 sqq; VI, 299; VII (I), 167; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 564; Cooper in Dict. Nat. Biog., XII, 209; Certamen Triplex (Antwerp, 1645).

PATRICK RYAN.

Monastery of Corbie

(Also CORBEY)

A Benedictine abbey in Picardy, in the Diocese of Amiens, dedicated to Sts. Peter and Paul. It was founded in 657 by Saint Bathilde, widow of Clovis II, and both she and her son Clotaire III endowed it richly with lands and privileges. The latter were subsequently confirmed by Popes Benedict III and Nicholas I. The first monks came from Luxeuil, Theodefrid being the first abbot. Under St. Adelhard, the ninth abbot, the monastic school of Corbie attained great celebrity and about the same time it sent forth a colony to found the abbey of Corvey in Saxony. In 1137 a fire destroyed the monastic buildings but they were rebuilt on a larger scale. Commendatory abbots were introduced in 1550, amongst those that held the benefice being Cardinal Mazarin. The somewhat drooping fortunes of the abbey were revived in 1618, when it was one of the first to be incorporated into the new Congregation of Saint-Maur. At its suppression in 1790 the buildings were partly demolished, but the church remains to this day, with its imposing portal and western towers. One of the most famous scholars produced by Corbie was Paschasius Radbert (d. 865), the first to write a comprehensive treatise on the Blessed Sacrament. In the controversy to which this work gave rise, his chief opponent was Ratramnus, one of his own monks, whose views, however, are at variance with Catholic teaching; both treatises are printed in Migne, P. L., CXX-CXXI. The library of Corbie, rich and extensive, was removed to Saint-Germain-des-Prés in 1624.

MABILLON, Lives of St. Bathilde and Bl. Theodefrid in Acta Sanctorum O.S.B sæc. II. (Venice, 1733); SAINTE-MARTHE, Gallia Christiana (Paris, 1728), X, 1263; MIGNE, Dict. des abbayes (Paris, 1856); SEITERS in Kirchenlex, III, 1088–89; CHEVALIER, Topo-bibliogr. (Paris, 1894–99), 793–94, good bibliography. A view of the abbey, as it was before suppression, is given in DELACOURT AND DELISLE, Monasticon Gallicanum (Paris, 1871), II, pl. 76.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

St. Corbinian

Bishop of Freising, in Bavaria, born about 680 at Chatres near Melun, France; died 8 September, 730. His feast is celebrated 8 September, translation, 20 November; emblem, a bear. Nothing is known of his youth. His father, Waldekiso, died before the birth of Corbinian. After the death of his mother, Corbiniana, he lived as a hermit at the church of Saint-Germain at Chatres. With some of his disciples he went to Rome in 716 (709). Here he was consecrated bishop, given the pallium, and sent to preach, which he did with great success in the vicinity of his former home. In 723 (716) he again visited Rome, with the intention of resigning. The pope would not listen to his request. On his return trip Corbinian came to Mais in Tyrol, where he was induced by messengers of Duke Grimoald to go to Bavaria, and settle at Freising. The dates of the Roman journeys are somewhat confused, but the people of Freising seem to consider 724 as the date of CorbinianUs arrival, for in 1724 was celebrated the tenth, and in 1824 the eleventh centenary of the existence of the diocese. On account of the incestuous marriage of Grimoald, his apparent repentance, and subsequent relapse, Corbinian left Freising, but returned in 729 (725), on the invitation of Huebert, CrimoaldUs successor, and continued his apostolic labours. His body was buried at Freising, then transferred to Mais, and in 769 brought back to Freising by Bishop Aribo, who also wrote his life. St. Corbinian was a man of zeal, and of strong feeling, not to say temper, and exercised great influence over all with whom he came in contact.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

James Andrew Corcoran

Theologian, editor, and Orientalist, b. at Charleston, South Carolina, U.S.A., 30 March, 1820; d. at Philadelphia, 16 July, 1889. In his fourteenth year he was sent to the College of Propaganda, Rome, where he made a brilliant course and was ordained priest 21 December, 1842. He was the first native of the Carolinas who received priestly orders. He remained a year longer in Rome to complete his studies and was made doctor in sacred theology. He read with ease the literatures and dialects of Western and Northern Europe, spoke Latin as fluently as his native tongue, and acquired that thorough mastery of the idiom which distinguishes the text of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. In addition, he was a profound Semitic scholar, with a special predilection for Syriac. On the death of Bishop England in 1842 he was recalled to Charleston, where he taught in the seminary, doing parochial work in the meantime, and in conjunction with Dr. Lynch edited the “United States Catholic Miscellany,” the first distinctively Catholic literary periodical published in the United States. His position as a Catholic editor naturally involved him in many controversies, one being on the life and teachings of Martin Luther, for which Dr. Corcoran procured from Europe an abundance of Lutherana. He had made great headway with the preparation of a life of Luther, when in 1861 his manuscript and library were destroyed by fire. During the Civil War his sympathies were with the South, and the end of the struggle found him rector of a parish at Wilmington, North Carolina, where he proved his fidelity to pastoral duty during an epidemic of cholera which decimated his little flock. He was made secretary to the Baltimore Provincial Councils of 1855 and 1858; also secretary in chief at the Second Plenary Council of 1866. He was one of the editors of the complete works of Bishop England. In 1868 he was chosen by the unanimous voice of the American hierarchy as their theologian on the commission preparatory to the Vatican Council. He was assigned to the doctrinal commission presided over by Cardinal Billio. During the debates on papal infallibility, a doctrine which he firmly held, he drew up for Archbishop Spalding the famous “Spalding Formula,” destined as an olive-branch, in which the doctrine is rather implied than flatly stated. But those were no days for compromises. While at the council, Bishop Wood of Philadelphia, his school-fellow at the Propaganda, perfected arrangements by which Dr. Corcoran took a theological chair in the newly-opened seminary at Overbrook, near Philadelphia. This position he retained until death, declining, on the plea of advancing years, a call to the Catholic University at Washington. In 1876 the “American Catholic Quarterly Review” was founded, and Dr. Corcoran was made chief editor. His able articles and book notices were the principal source of its success. (For a list of his contributions see General Index of the Review, Philadelphia, 1900, p. 15.) In 1883, when the archbishops of the United States were invited to Rome to prepare for the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, they took Dr. Corcoran with them as secretary, and, at their request, he was permitted to be present and take notes at the sessions held with the three cardinals appointed by Pope Leo XIII as a special commission. The following year he was made a domestic prelate and assisted as secretary at the Plenary Council. That Monsignor Corcoran did not bequeath to posterity works of any great size is explained by the circumstances of his life. He was too busy a man to devote himself to literary pursuits. A great part of his time was occupied with his immense correspondence. He may be said to have been weighted down with “the solicitude of all the Churches,” for such was the confidence which the bishops and clergy reposed in his judgment, that they sought his counsel on all difficult points of theology and canon law. He was apparently unconscious of his great gifts, claiming no superiority, and was extremely affable. His love for the Church, and his loyal adhesion to all her doctrines, were patent in all he said or wrote.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Michael Corcoran

Soldier, b. at Carrowkeel, County Sligo, Ireland, 21 September, 1827; d. at Fairfax Court House, Virginia, U.S.A., 22 December, 1863. His father was an army pensioner, and he himself joined the Royal Irish Constabulary when nineteen years of age. He resigned after three years’ service and emigrated to New York in August, 1849. Here he soon became a leader among his fellow-countrymen. He enlisted as a private in the Sixty-Ninth Regiment of the State Militia, a command composed of Catholics of Irish birth or descent, and rose from rank to rank until he was elected colonel, 25 August, 1859. The next year the Prince of Wales (afterwards King Edward VII of England) visited New York, and in the military parade given in his honour Colonel Corcoran refused to order the Sixty-Ninth Regiment to join. For this act of military disobedience he was placed under arrest by the State authorities and ordered before a court martial. The trial created much excitement all over the country, his Irish countrymen enthusiastically applauding his course, and the case was pending when the Civil War broke out. The proceedings were immediately quashed, and the Sixty-Ninth, with overflowing ranks, was one of the first regiments to march, with Corcoran at its head, 23 April, 1861, to the defence of the Union. It participated with special gallantry in the first Battle of Bull Run, 21 July, 1861, in which action Colonel Corcoran was wounded and taken prisoner. He was kept in the Confederate prisons for thirteen months and then exchanged in August, 1862. His return to the North brought him a series of popular ovations and testimonials. He was commissioned a brigadier-general, at once raised a brigade of four regiments, which was called the Irish Legion, and, taking command of it, rejoined the army in Virginia in November, 1862. During the following year the Legion participated in several minor engagements, and while in camp at Fairfax Court House, Virginia, General Corcoran was thrown from his horse and died the same day from the effects of the accident.

CONYNGHAM, The Irish Brigade and Its Campaigns (Boston, 1869); CRIMMINS, Irish American Historical Miscellany (New York, 1905); The Irish American (New York), The Pilot (Boston); contemporary files; CAVANAGH, Memoirs of Gen. Thomas Francis Meagher (Worcester, 1892).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Confraternities of the Cord

Pious associations of the faithful, the members of which wear a cord or cincture in honour of a saint, to keep in mind some special grace or favour which they hope to obtain through his intercession. Among Oriental peoples, and especially among the Jews, whose priests and prophets wore a cincture, the wearing of a belt or girdle dates back to very ancient times. Christ himself commanded his Apostles to have their loins girded. In the early Church virgins wore a cincture as a sign and emblem of purity, and hence it has always been considered a symbol of chastity as well as of mortification and humility. The wearing of a cord or cincture in honour of a saint is of very ancient origin, and we find the first mention of it in the life of St. Monica. In the Middle Ages cinctures were also worn by the faithful in hounour of saints, though no confraternities were formally established, and the wearing of a cincture in honour of St. Michael was general throughout France. Later on, ecclesiastical authority set apart special formulae for the blessing of cinctures in honour of the Most Precious Blood, Our Lady, St. Francis of Paul, and St. Philomena. There are in the Church three archconfraternities and one confraternity the members of which wear a cord or cincture.

(1) THE ARCHCONFRATERNITY OF OUR LADY OF CONSOLATION, OR OF THE BLACK LEATHERN BELT OF ST. MONICA, ST. AUGUSTINE, AND ST. NICHOLAS OF TOLENTINO

According to an old tradition, St. Monica in a vision received a black leathern belt from the Blessed Virgin, who assured the holy widow that she would take under her special protection all those who wore it in her honour. St. Monica related this vision to St. Ambrose and St. Simplicianus; both saints put on a leathern belt, and St. Ambrose is said to have girded St. Augustine with it at his baptism. Later on it was adopted by the Hermits of St. Augustine as a distinctive part of their habit. When, after the canonization of St. Nicholas of Tolentino, it came into general use among the faithful, Eugene IV in 1439 erected the Confraternity of the Cincture of St. Monica, St. Augustine, and St. Nicholas of Tolentino, in the church of St. James at Bologna. In 1590 Thaddeus of Perugia, General of the Augustinians, united this confraternity and that of Our Lady of Consolation (founded in 1318 or, according to others, in 1495) into one confraternity, which union was confirmed by Gregory XIII in his Bull “Ad ea” (15 July, 1575). The same pope raised this confraternity to the rank of an archconfraternity and enriched it with many Indulgences. He further ordained that all confraternities of the black leathern belt should be aggregated to the archconfraternity at Bologna, in order to share its privileges and Indulgences. The principal feast of this confraternity is the Sunday within the octave of the feast of St. Augustine (28 August). The members are obliged to wear a black leathern belt, to recite daily thirteen Paters and Aves and the Salve Regina, and to fast on the vigil of the feast of St. Augustine. For the erection of and reception into this archconfraternity special faculties must be had from the general of the Sugustinians.

(2) ARCHCONFRATERNITY OF THE CORD OF ST. FRANCIS

After his conversion St. Francis girded himself with a rough cord in memory of the cords with which Christ had been bound during His Passion, and a white girdle with three knots cam subsequently to form part of the Franciscan habit. According to Wadding, St. Dominic received the cord from St. Francis and always wore it under his habit out of devotion to the saint, his example being followed by many of the faithful. In his Bull “Ex supernae dispositionis” (19 November, 1585), Sixtus V erected the Archconfraternity of the Cord of St. Francis in the basilica of the Sacro Convento at Assisi, enriching it with many Indulgences, and conferred upon the minister general of the Conventuals the power of erecting confraternities of the Cord of St. Francis in the churches of his own order and of aggregating them to the archconfraternity at Assisi. The same pope, in his Bull “Divinae caritatis” (29 August, 1587), granted new Indulgences to the archconfraternity and empowered the minister general of the Friars Minor to erect confraternities of the Cord of St. Francis in the churches of his own order in those places where they are no Conventuals. Paul V, in his Bull “Cum certas” (2 March, 1607), and “Nuper archiconfraternitati” (11 March, 1607) revoked all spiritual favours hitherto conceded to the archconfraternity and enriched it with new and more ample Indulgences. Both these Bulls were confirmed by the Brief of Clement X, “Dudum felicis” (13 July, 1673). Finally, Benedict XIII in his Constitution “Sacrosancti apostolatus” (30 September, 1724), conceded to the minister general of the Conventuals authority to erect confraternities of the Cord of St. Francis in churches not belonging to his own order in those places where there are no Franciscans. New privileges and Indulgences were conceded to the archconfraternity by two decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences dated 22 March, 1879, and 26 May, 1883. Besides the ordinary requirements necessary for the gaining of all plenary and partial Indulgences, the wearing of the cord and enrollment in the records of the archconfraternity are the only conditions imposed on the members.

(3) ARCHCONFRATERNITY OF THE CORD OF ST. JOSEPH

The miraculous cure of an Augustinian nun at Antwerp in 1657 from a grievous illness, through the wearing of a cord in honour of St. Joseph gave rise to the pious practice of wearing it to obtain the grace of purity through his intercession. The devotion soon spread over many countries of Europe, and in the last century was revived at Rome in the church of San Rocco and in that of San Nicolo at Verona. Pius IX, in a rescript dated 19 September, 1859, approved a special formula for the blessing of the Cord of St. Joseph, and in his Brief “Expositum nobis nuper” (14 March, 1862) enriched the confraternity with many indulgences. In 1860 several new Indulgences were granted to the confraternity erected in the church of San Nicolo at Verona and by the Brief “Universi Dominici gregis,” 23 September, 1862, the Confraternity of the Cord of St. Joseph was raised to an archconfraternity. The members are obliged to wear a cord having seven knots, and are exhorted to recite daily seven Glorias in honour of St. Joseph. Confraternities of the Cord of St. Joseph much be aggregated to the archconfraternity in the church of San Rocco at Rome in order to enjoy its spiritual favours and Indulgences.

(4) CONFRATERNITY OF THE CORD OF ST. THOMAS

It is related in the life of St. Thomas Aquinas that, as a reward for his overcoming a temptation against purity, he was girded with a cord by angels, and that in consequence he was never again tempted against this virtue. This cord is still preserved in the church at Chieri near Turin. Soon after the saint’s death many of the faithful began to wear a cord in honour of St. Thomas, to obtain the grace of purity through his intercession. In the seventeenth century societies were formed at different universities, the student members of which wore a cord in honour of St. Thomas, hoping through his intercession to be protected from the dangers to which youth is generally exposed. The first Confraternity of the Cord of St. Thomas was erected at the University of Louvain by the Belgian Dominican Francis Deuwerders, and numbered among its members all the professors and students of the faculty of theology and many of the faithful. Thence it spread to Maastricht, Vienna, and many other cities of Europe. Innocent X sanctioned this new confraternity by a Brief dated 22 March, 1652. The members are required to have their names enrolled, to wear a cord with fifteen knots, and to recite daily fifteen Ave Marias in honour of St. Thomas. For the erection of and reception into this confraternity special faculties must be had from the superior general of the Dominicans. Its Indulgences and privileges are contained in the great Bull of Benedict XIII, “Pretiosus” (26 April, 1727, sect. 9) and in the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences (8 May, 1844). (See ARCHCONFRATERNITY.)

MOCCHEGIANI, Collectio Indulgentiarum (Quaracchi, 1897), 1018–24, 1026–35; BERINGER, Die Ablasse (11th ed., Paderborn, 1895), 722–23, 712–14; SCHNEIDER, Rescripta Authentica S. Cong. Indulg. (Ratisbon, 1885), 505 sqq. 432–35; IDEM, Decreta Authentica S. Cong. Indulg. ab a. 1669–1882) Ratisbon, 1883); IDEM, Die Ablasse, ihr Wesen und Gebrauch (8th ed., Paderborn, 1884), 479–481, 540, 579, 705, 730; LOCHERER, Vollstandiger Inbegriff der Gnaden und Ablasse der Erzbruderschaft Mariae vom Troste (10th ed., Ratisbon, 1890); PRENDERGAST, The Cord of St. Francis (12th ed., Dublin, 1885); GAUDENTIUS, Ablass-und Bruderschaftsbuch (2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1687), 300–307; SEGUR, Der seraphische Gurtel (2nd ed., Mainz, 1878); DEUWERDERS, Militia angelica S. Thomae (Louvain, 1679); La milice angelique, sa nature, ses conseils, pratiques, prieres (Paris, 1869); SCUPOLI, Il giglio della purita (3rd ed., Rome, 1878): ESSER, Der hl. Thomas als Patron der Unschuld in der ihm geweihten Gurtelbruderschaft (Ratisbon, 1883); Entstehung und Zweck der Erzbruderschaft vom Gurtel des hl. Joseph (Innsbruck, 1875); S. Josephs Gurtel (3rd ed., Vienna, 1881).

FERDINAND HECKMANN.

Giulio Cesare Cordara

Historian and littérateur, b. at Alessandra in Piedmont, Italy, 14 Dec., 1704; died there 6 March, 1785. The scion of an illustrious and ancient family that came originally from Nice, young Cordara studied at Rome under the Jesuits, and became a Jesuit himself at the age of fourteen. Subsequently he taught in various colleges of the order, soon acquiring a great reputation not only for knowledge of general literature, but especially for proficiency in poetry, rhetoric, and history. A brilliant discourse on Pope Gregory XIII, the founder of the Roman College, and a satire on the Cabalists of the day, won for him admission into the Academy of the Arcadians. Several poetical works of his appeared under the pen name of Pameno Cassio. He was in high favor with the exiled Stuarts, then residing in Rome, on account of an allegorical drama, “La Morte di Nice,” which he composed in honor of the titular King James III, and a history in Latin of the expedition into Scotland of Charles Edward Stuart, Prince of Wales, which some of his admirers look upon as his most finished production. His satires on “The Literary Spirit of the Times,” published in 1737, are of a high order of merit. In them he pillories a class of contemporary writers who arrogated to themselves the literary censorship of their day, condemned the classification of the sciences and the methods of instruction then in vogue, and even the accepted principles of taste. A seventh and revised edition was brought out at Augsburg in 1764. But the work by which he is perhaps best known is “The History of the Society of Jesus,” Sixth Part, in two volumes, the first published in Rome in 1750, the second posthumously, by Father Raggazzini in 1859, over a century later. This work was a continuation of the history of the Society of Jesus by Orlandini, Saccini, and Juvency, and embraced the period of Mutius Vitelleschi, 1616–1633. It is in Latin and remarkable for the elegance, purity, and dignity of its style. He is also the author of a history of the German College in Rome, which contains a list of its distinguished alumni (Rome, 1770). When the Society of Jesus was suppressed, Cordara, who had been a member for more than half a century, withdrew from Rome to Turin, and later to Alessandria, where the King of Sardinia had allowed some members of the Society to live unmolested. Notwithstanding his advanced age and his new mode of life, Cordara continued his literary labours and published much in prose and verse. Sommervogel enumerates more than sixty works, large and small, of which he is the author. The citizens of his native town erected a marble statue to his memory, in the church of the Barnabites where he was interred.

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., II, 1411–1432; de Backer, I, 369–74; III, 2097–8; Michaud, Biog. Univ. (Paris, nouvelle éd., s.d.), IX, 90; Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1895), V, 376; Carayon, Bibliographie Historique de la c. de J. (Paris, 1864, 249.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Charles Cordell

English missionary priest, b. 5 October, 1720; d. at Newcastle-on-Tyne, 26 January, 1791. He was the son of Charles Cordell and Hannah Darrell, of the well-known family of Scotney Castle and Calehill, Kent, and was educated first at “Dame Alice’s School,” Fernyhalgh, afterwards at Douai, where, in 1739, he began his course of philosophy. Having been ordained priest, he left the college 10 June, 1748, for England, where he served the mission at Arundel (1748–55), Rounday, in Yorkshire, the Isle of Man, and finally Newcastle-on-Tyne (1765–91). In 1778 the presidency of the English college at Saint-Omer was offered to him, but he would not accept it. He was a scholarly, book-loving man, of some note as a preacher. In politics he remained a stanch Jacobite. He published many translations and one original pamphlet, “A Letter to the Author of a Book called ‘A Candid and Impartial Sketch of the Life and Government of Pope Clement XIV’“ (1785). The translations include “The Divine Office for the Use of the Laity” (4 vols., Sheffield, 1763; 2d ed., 2 vols., Newcastle, 1780); Bergier’s “Deism Self-refuted” (1775); Caraccioli’s “Life of Pope Clement XIV” (1776); Letters of Pope Clement XIV (2 vols., 1777); Fronsletin’s “Travels of Reason” (1781); Fleury’s “Manners of the Christians” (1786) and “Manners of the Israelites” (1786); “Larger Historical Catechism” (1786); and “Short Historical Catechism” (1786).

KIRK, Biographies (Early Nineteenth Cent.) (London, 1908); Catholic Miscellany (1826), VI, 387; Notes and Queries, 3d series, X, 330, 383; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885), I, 565; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog. (London, 1887). XII, 213.

EDWIN BURTON

Balthasar Cordier

(Corderius)

Exegete and editor of patristic works, b. at Antwerp, 7 June, 1592; d. at Rome, 24 June, 1650. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1612, and after teaching Greek, moral theology, and Sacred Scripture, devoted himself to translating and editing MSS. of Greek catenæ and other works of the Greek Fathers, for which he searched the libraries of Europe.

He published the following: (1) Catena sexaginta quinque Patrum græcorum in S. Lucam” (Antwerp, 1628); (2) Catena Patrum græcorum in S. Joannem” (Antwerp, 1630); (3) Joannis Philoponi in cap. I Geneseos . . . libri septem” (Antwerp, 1630); (4) S. Cyrilli apologiæ morales” (Vienna, 1630);(5) Opera S. Dionysii Areopagitæ cum S. Maximi scholiis” (Antwerp, 1634); (6) Expositio Patrum græcorum in Psalmos” (Antwerp, 1643–46); (7) Symbolæ in Matthæum” (2 vols., of which, however, only the second is by him; Toulouse, 1646–47); (8) S. Dorothei archimandritæ institutiones asceticæ” (Antwerp, 1646); (9) S. P. N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandini homiliæ XIX in Jeremiam” (Antwerp, 1648)—in this case as in a few others, his critical acumen was at fault; these homilies are Origen’s. He is also the author of a commentary on the Book of Job, “Job Illustratus” (Antwerp, 1646; reprinted in Migne’s Cursus S. Scripturæ.” XIII and XIV, and in Campon’s edition of Cornelius a Lapide).

Sommervogel, Biblioth. de la c. de J., II, 1438, s. v.; Hurter, Nomenclator.

F. BECHTEL

Diocese of Cordova (Cordubensis)

DIOCESE OF CORDOVA (CORDUBENSIS)

Diocese in Spain, formerly suffragan of Toledo, since 1851 of Seville. It includes the province of the same name, with the exception of a few parishes that pertain to the Archdiocese of Seville, while in return Cordova takes a portion of the civil province of Badajoz. The Gospel, it is believed, was preached there in the Apostolic period, it being very probable that Apostles St. James the Greater and St. Paul, while preaching in various cities of Spain may have sent thither some of their disciples; Cordova (Colonia Patricia) was then the chief city of Bætica, and the centre of Andalusian life. The name of the apostolic founder the of the See of Cordova is unknown, as the oldest extant documents do not antedate the third century. The conditions of the Christian religion in this early period were quite similar to those which obtained elsewhere in the Roman Empire—persecution, suspicion, denunciation, enforced profession of idolatry, etc. Many illustrious martyrs, Faustus, Januarius, and others, suffered at Cordova; their relics were afterwards eagerly sought by the other churches of Spain, and even in Gaul and elsewhere. The earliest known bishop (though not the founder of the see) is Severus, about 279; he was followed by Gratus and Berosus. In 294 the famous Hosius became Bishop of Cordova and immortalized it by his resistance to Arianism. Fifteen bishops governed the see from the death of Hosius in 357 to 693, from which period to 839 no bishops are known. All ecclesiastical records, doubtless, perished in the course of the Arab domination that began in 711. During this time, the faithful could, it is true, worship freely, and retained their churches and property on condition of paying a tribute for every parish, cathedral, and monastery; frequently such tribute was increased at the will of the conqueror, and often the living had to pay for the dead. Many of the faithful then fled to Northern Spain; others took refuge in the monasteries of Sierras, and thus the number of Christians shrank eventually to small proportions.

In 786 the Arab caliph, Abd-er Rahman I, began the construction of the great mosque of Cordova, now the cathedral, and compelled many Christians to take part in the preparation of the site and foundations. Though they suffered many vexations, the Christians continued to enjoy freedom of worship, and this tolerant attitude of the ameers seduced not a few Christians from their original allegiance. Both Christians and Arabs co-operated at this time to make Cordova a flourishing city, the elegant refinement of which was unequalled in Europe. Under Abd-er Rahman II there came a change in the attitude of the Arab rulers, and a fierce persecution ensued, during which many Christians were accused of abusing the memory of Mohammed, of entering mosques, and of conspiracy against the Government. Saracen fanaticism ran high. Among the martyrs of this period are Perfectus, Flora, Maria, numerous nuns of the monastery of Tabana in the Sierras, also Aurelius, Sabiniana, Abundius, Amator, and others; the names of more than thirty are known. The most famous of these martyrs is St. Eulogius, priest and abbot, who was in 858 chosen Archbishop of Toledo. For his encouragement of the confessors by his writings, “Memoriale sanctorum,” “Apologeticus sanctorum martyrum,” “Documentum martyrii,” “Epistolæ,” he was eventually put to death in 859. His life was written (P.L., CXV, 705–32) by Paulus Alvarus, a Scriptural scholar and theologian, who was not a martyr, Baudissin notwithstanding (Eulogius und Alvarus, Leipzig, 1872). With slight interruptions this persecution continued under succeeding bishops, Saul (850) and Valentius (662); it co-operated with the Anthropomorphite heresy of Hostegesis and other causes to bring about a gap of a century and a half in the list of the bishops of Cordova. In 962 Abd-er Rahman III was succeeded by his son Al-Hakim. Owing to the peace which the Christians of Cordova then enjoyed, some knowledge of their condition has been preserved, among other things the name of their bishop, Joannes, also the fact that, at that period, the citizens of Cordova, Arabs, Christians, and Jews, enjoyed so high a degree of literary culture that the city was known as the New Athens. From all quarters came students eager to drink at its founts of knowledge. Among the men afterwards famous who studied at Cordova were the scholarly monk Gerbert, destined to sit on the Chair of Peter as Sylvester II (999–1003), the Jewish rabbis Moses and Maimonides, and the famous Spanish-Arabian commentator on Aristotle, Averroes (Bourret, De Scholâ Cordubæ christianâ sub Omiaditarum imperio, Paris, 1853). On account of the wretched administration of the successors of Add-er Rahman III, the invasion of the Almohades (1097), and the continuous peninsular warfare between Moslem and Christian, little is known of the episcopal succession in Cordova from the time of Bishop Joannes (988) to the reconquest of the city by the Christians under St. Ferdinand III (1236). The long period (524 years) of humiliation of the Church of Cordova now came to an end, and a new epoch of prosperity and Christian religious service began which was inaugurated by the piety and generosity of the saintly conquistador (Haines, Christianity and Islam in Spain, London, 1889, 756–1031). Reference has already been made to the conversion of the mosque into a cathedral; several parishes were also established, and spacious convents were built for various religious orders, Dominicans, Franciscans, Mercedarians. A cathedral chapter was established, some of the earlier Christian churches were restored, and some mosques were converted into churches. The diocese, that in the earlier Hispano-Roman period had been very large, began to expand again and had added to it many cities of the Archdiocese of Seville, which was yet in the power of the Moors. The newly acquired territory was soon occupied by Christian knights and Christian families, owing to the privileges and franchises granted by St. Ferdinand to such colonists. Bishop Lope de Fitero, who was consecrated about 1237, began a new episcopal series which has remained unbroken, the bishop consecrated in 1898 being his seventy-third successor.

Since the expulsion of the Moriscos and Jews at the end of the fifteenth century, the Catholic worship alone has been exercised in the diocese, if individuals belonging to a few sects are excepted. It is true that since the eighteenth century the religious fervour of the Catholics of Cordova has considerably diminished, owing to the assimilation by the civil laws of the liberal principles of the French Revolution, the legalized usurpation of ecclesiastical property, and a positivism nourished by the literature, the theatre, and the free press of the day. There remains, nevertheless, much of the Catholic charity and zeal which distinguished the centuries after the reconquest, when bishops, clergy, and faithful rivalled one another in generous endowment of hospitals, asylums, and schools, and placed at the disposal of the Church a rich patrimony capable of supporting a numerous clergy and a continuous and splendid public worship. A steady sectarian propaganda, a lowering of the moral tone, and religious ignorance have made many Cordovans quite lax in their Catholic practice; nevertheless, they do not at all wish to appear as deserting the Catholic Faith. The palace of the bishop faces the former mosque, and in it are located ed all the administrative offices of the diocese. The cathedral clergy is composed of twenty canons, fifteen beneficed clergymen, and five ecclesiastics charged with various duties. There are 124 parishes, about 500 priests, and 269 churches and chapels. The population of the diocese is about 430,000; that of the city in 1900 was 58,275. The following religious orders and congregations have houses in the city: Jesuits, Carmelites, Capuchins, Dominicans, Trinitarians, Salesians, and Diocesan Missionaries of the Sacred Heart of Mary, the last named founded in 1876. In four or five other places in the diocese there are also religious houses, among them convents of Franciscans and Augustinians.

In the near vicinity of Cordova is the solitude (desierto) of Our Lady of Belén, a monastery of (fourteen) anchorites under a common rule and leading a very austere life; they do not take sacred orders, and are governed by a brother superior (hermano mayor); their spiritual director is a secular priest. The Salesian Fathers alone are engaged in teaching; the other orders devote themselves to the contemplative life or conduct public worship. There are seventy-seven religious communities of women, of which twenty-seven are in Cordova and the rest scattered throughout the diocese. They number in all 1106 sisters. Some lead the contemplative life, others devote themselves to teaching or to works of charity. The twelve charitable institutions are cared for by 145 Sisters of Charity; among such institutions in the city are four homes for the aged, two refuges for young girls, a hospital for the insane, a hospital for chronic diseases with 239 patients, a boys’ orphan asylum with 425 inmates, and a foundling asylum containing 131 children. There is also a charitable restaurant (Comedor de la Caridad) in charge of six brothers, which provides good and abundant food for workingmen and poor families at very modest prices. The religious educational institutes of the city for both sexes number twelve, and the pupils attending them 2023. The college of the Salesian Fathers has 325 boys. Outside of Cordova there are several educational and charitable institutions. The Grand Seminary of San Pelagio at Cordova was founded in the sixteenth century of Dr. Maurticio Pazos y Figueroa, and enlarged in the eighteenth by Cardinal Salazar. It has fifteen professors and 125 ecclesiastical students. Attached to the various parishes are many lay confraternities devoted to works of charity, or to the support of public worship. Of the early synods held at Cordova, two are important, those of 839 and 852. The Acts of the former were first printed by Flórez (España sagrada, XV; Hefele, IV, 99). It was held against fanatical heretics, probably from Northern Africa, and known as “Casiani,” who professed loose doctrines regarding marriage, rejected veneration of relics, demanded more rigour in fasting, declared unclean certain foods, insisted on receiving the Eucharistic Host each in his own hand, etc. The synod of 852 reproved those Christians who voluntarily sought the occasion of martyrdom and declared that such had no right to the veneration due to martyrs (Mansi, XIV, 970; Hefele, IV, 179).

DE LA FUENTE, Hist. ec.ca de España (Madrid, 1872–75); GAMS, Kirchengeschichte von Spanien (Ratisbon, 1862 sqq.); GOMEZ BRAVO, Catálogo de los obispos de Córdoba (Cordova, 1778); SANCHEZ DE FERIA, Palestra sagrada, etc. (Cordova, 17820; RAMIREZ DE LAS CASAS-DEZA, Indicador Cordobés, etc. (Cordova, 1837); RUANO, Hist. general de Córdoba (Cordova, 1761) 1 vol.; two in manuscript; MORALES (ed.), Eulogi Cordubensis Opera (Alcalá, 1574) in P.L., CXV, 703–960; Boletin ec.co de la diócesis de Córdoba (Cordova, 1858–1907); REDEL, San Rafael en Córdoba (Cordova, 1889); RAMIREZ DE ARELLANO, Paseos por Córdoba (Cordova, 1875).

MANUEL GARCIA OSUNA

Diocese of Cordova (Cordubensis in America)

Cordova, Diocese of (Cordubensis in America), in the Argentine Republic, suffragan of Buenos Aires. It was created in 1570, but was vacant from 1819 to 1830, and again from 1841 to 1858. It has 46 parishes, 49 churches and chapels, and, by reason of its vast extent (it includes the two states of Cordova and Rioja, which in 1895 had about 570,000 souls), has two auxiliary bishops. The population of the episcopal city is 53,000; one of the two national universities, the second oldest in the New World (1573), is located there, also a national observatory, and a meteorological bureau.

Juan de Cordova

Born 1503, at Cordova in Andalusia, Spain, of noble parents; d. 1595 at Oaxaca, Mexico. It is not certain whether Córdova was his family name, or whether he assumed it from his native city after he became a Dominican. He first embraced a military career, serving in Flanders as ensign. He then went to Mexico, and accompanied Coronado to New Mexico in 1540–42. In 1543 he entered the Dominican Order at Mexico, and was sent to Oaxaca in 1548, where he acquired the Zapotecan idiom and ministered to the Indians. He was named provincial in 1568. Brought up under military discipline, he administered as provincial with such rigour and severity, that there were many complaints against him to the chapter that congregated at Yanhuitlan in 1570. He refused to comply with the admonitions of his superiors and change his methods, and was accordingly suspended. With the exclamation: “Benedictus Deus!” he received the notification of his deposition, and, declining the interference of the Viceroy Enr=EDquez in his favour, retired to his convent at Tlacochauaya in Oaxaca, where he died after twenty-five years spent in retirement and in the study of the Zapotecan language and the customs of the natives. His knowledge of the language was thorough, and he composed a “Vocabulario de la Lengua Zapoteca, ó Diccionario Hispano-Zapoteco” (Mexico, 1571, or, according to Ycazbalceta, 1578). The “Arte en Lengua Zapoteca” appeared in 1578 at Mexico. Besides the linguistic part, this book contains a short but valuable note on the rites and superstitions of the Zapotecan Indians, and an equally important account of their method of reckoning time, which has been republished by Manuel Orozco y Berra.

DAVILA PADILLA, Hist. de la Fundacion y Discurso &ca. (Madrid,1596); BURGOA,Geográfica Descripcion(Mexic0,1674); LEON Y PINELO, Epitome &ca. (Madrid, 1737–1738); ANTONIO, Bibliotheca hispana nova (Madrid, 1733–1738); BERISTAIN, Biblioteca &ca. (1883); YCAZBALCETA, Bibliografia mexicana (Mexico, 1886).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Core, Dathan, and Abiron

Leaders of a revolt against Moses and Aaron (Num., xvi). Core was the son of Isaar, of the Caathite family of Levites; Dathan and Abiron were the sons of Eliab, the son of Phallu, of the tribe of Ruben. A fourth leader is mentioned, Hon, the son of Pheleth, likewise a Rubenite; but as the name does not again appear, a corruption of the text is rightly suspected. Core was the head of the rebellion, whence it is called the sedition of Core (Num., xvi, 49; xxvi, 9; xxvii, 3; Jude, 11), and the rebels are styled the congregation of Core (Num., xvi, 40; Ecclus., xlv, 22). The rebel faction consisted of three parties with different motives and different aims. Many of the people were not yet reconciled to the exclusive priesthood instituted at Sinai, and desired the restoration of the old order, in which the priestly functions were exercised by the oldest member of each family. The non-Aaronic Levites bore it ill that the prerogatives of the priesthood should be confined to the family of Aaron, while they occupied the position of mere servants, and they demanded that they also be admitted to exercise priestly functions. Lastly the Rubenites were aggrieved because their tribe was deprived of the leadership, which naturally should belong to it as being descended from the oldest son of Jacob. But all were animated by jealousy of the power of the house of Amram, in which the civil and religious authority was concentrated, and all aimed at its overthrow. The two first parties, however, desired the removal of Moses from power, only in so far as he was an obstacle to the realization of their claims, whereas with the Rubenites this removal was the main object. In the account of the revolt neither time nor place is mentioned. But it must have occurred shortly after leaving Sinai, when the Aaronic priesthood was still a recent institution. It probably took place at Cades, after the attempt to penetrate into the Promised Land had ended disastrously near Horma (Num., xiv, 40 sqq.), and the people had begun to realize that there was no escape from the sentence condemning them to wander forty years in the desert. The taunting words of Dathan and Abiron (Num., xvi, 13, 14) point to such a situation. Core and two hundred and fifty leading men of different tribes (cf. Num., xxvii, 3)—Dathan and Abiron for some unknown reason were not with them—went to Moses and demanded the abolition of the exclusive priesthood. “Enough for you,” they said; “all the congregation consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is with them: why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?” Moses directed them to bring their censers (fire-pans) on the morrow to offer incense with Aaron before the Lord; the Lord would choose between them. When the next day Core and his two hundred and fifty companions offered incense before the door of the tabernacle, they were destroyed by fire from the Lord. In the meanwhile Moses went to the dwellings of Dathan and Abiron, who had refused to obey his summons to appear before him, and warned the people to depart from the tents of Core, Dathan, and Abiron, lest they should share the dreadful punishment about to be inflicted on the two last. Hardly had he done speaking when the earth broke asunder and swallowed Dathan and Abiron and their households and all the men that appertained to Core. The sons of Core did not perish, however (Num., xxvi, 10, 11), and later we find their descendants among the singers (I Par., vi, 37; II Par., xx, 19; Pss. xli, xliii, xlviii, lxxxiii, lxxxiv, lxxxvi, lxxxvii), or among the door-keepers of the temple (I Par., ix, 19; xxvi, 1, 19). Moses ordered the censers of Core and his companions to be beaten into plates and fastened to the altar as a warning to those who would usurp the priesthood.

The critical school sees in the story of this rebellion a clumsy combination of three distinct narratives; one relating a revolt under Dathan and Abiron against the civil authority of Moses; another containing an account of a rising of representatives of the people under Core, who is not a Levite, against the ecclesiastical authority of the tribe of Levi; and a third, which is merely a retouched version of the second, telling of the struggle of the non-Aaronic Levites under Core, who is now a Levite, against the exclusive priesthood vested in the family of Aaron. But it may be asked what possible object a redactor could have had in combining the narrative of a rebellion against civil authority with another having for its moral to warn against usurpation of the priesthood. The story presents nothing improbable. We need not search deeply into history to find similar examples of parties with different, or even conflicting interests, uniting for a common end. It may, it is true, be resolved into two fairly complete narratives. But many an historical account can thus be divided by using the arbitrary methods here applied, picking out sentences or parts of sentences here and there and rejecting as later additions whatever militates against division. The literary argument is too weak and too uncertain to base a theory upon it.

HUMMELAUER, Comm. in Num. (Paris, 1899), 129 sq.; PALIS in Dict. de la Bib., II, 969. For the critical view: SELBIE, in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bib., III, 11 sq.; GRAY, Comm. Num. (New York, 1903), 186 sq.; DRIVER, Lit. Old Test. (6th ed., New York, 1897), 63 sq.

F. BECHTEL

Vicariate Apostolic of Corea

Vicariate apostolic, coextensive with the Empire of Corea; it was created a distinct vicariate Apostolic, 9 September, 1831. But for nearly half a century before that time Corea had many fervent Catholics. In a manner perhaps unique in the annals of the Church, the Faith was introduced there without preaching and before any missionaries had penetrated the country. The educated people, more eager for new knowledge the more their country was jealously closed, procured through the annual embassy to Peking all the books possible upon science, literature, etc. Some Christian books fell into their hands, and, the grace of God aiding, they recognized the truth. One of them, Ni-seung-houn, undertook in 1784 the journey to Peking and was baptized there, under the name of Peter. Upon his return he baptized his companions, who, like himself, were men of learning and high position. That their faith was firm, events proved. In 1791 Paul Youn and Jacques Kouen sealed their belief with their blood for having refused to offer sacrifice upon the occasion of the death of their relatives. Connected by reason of its origin with the Church of Peking, Corea was dependent upon that vicariate until 1831. About the year 1794, a Chinese priest, Father Jacques Tjyou, was sent to Corea. Upon his arrival he found about 4000 faithful. After seven years of a heroic and fruitful ministry he was arrested and put to death, 31 May, 1801. Before and after him numerous Christians suffered martyrdom with admirable fortitude. Among them particular mention is due to the married couple, Jean Ryou and Luthgarde Ni. Shaken and decimated by the tempest, and deprived of its priests, the Christian religion was preserved by the zeal of the fervent people, voluntary catechists, who rallied the dispersed, and made unheard-of efforts to obtain pastors from the Bishop of Peking or the sovereign pontiff. It was at this time that the vicariate Apostolic was established, and confided to the Society of Foreign Missions of Paris. The first vicar Apostolic named, Mgr. Bruguière, came from the mission of Siam. He started upon his journey in 1832, suffered incredible hardships in passing through China and Mongolia, and died in Tatary, just as he was completing arrangements to enter the country of his mission. His companion, Father Maubant, succeeded in crossing the northern frontier by way of Eui-tjyou, and in January, 1836, entered the closed country. The following year Father Chasten joined him there, and, a little later, the new vicar Apostolic, Mgr. Imbert. Under their ministration Christianity soon flourished. All this went on with the greatest secrecy; the least indiscretion would have caused all to be lost. The edicts proscribing Christianity remained as rigorous as ever, and all, both pastors and flock, lived as upon the eve of battle, preparing themselves for martyrdom.

The persecution broke out in 1839, many Christians were arrested, tortured, and put to death; the missionaries were hunted without mercy. Mgr. Imbert was the first to be taken, and, thinking that the capture of his two companions would cause the persecution to cease, he directed them to deliver themselves up; they responded heroically to the call, and all three were beheaded, 21 September, 1839. It was not until 1845 that a new bishop, Mgr. Ferréol, succeeded in entering Corea; he brought with him a young missionary and also the first Corean priest, André Kim, who had made his studies at Macao, and who was taken and executed the following year. His cause, and those of the Venerable Mgrs. Imbert, Maubant, and Chastan, and of the principal Corean martyrs, eighty-two in all, were introduced in the Roman Court by a decree of 24 September, 1857. The country remained more firmly closed than ever, the Christian religion more severely proscribed, and the entrance of apostolic workers more perilous and difficult. Admission to Corea was most often accomplished by way of the sea, a Chinese barque bringing the missionaries with great secrecy to the coast of Corea, where a Corean ship, under cover of the darkness, would go to meet them. Father Maistre spent ten years in vain attempts and useless expeditions before he was able to set foot in Corea. Notwithstanding these difficulties, and numerous local persecutions, during twenty years the mission prospered. In 1866 it counted upwards of 25,000 faithful, two bishops, and ten missionaries. A terrible persecution then broke out, the two bishops and seven missionaries were taken and executed: Mgr. Berneux, vicar Apostolic, with Fathers Beaulieu, Dorie, and de Bretenières (8 March); Father Pourthié, pro-vicar, and Father Petitnicolas (10 March); and Mgr. Daveluy, the coadjutor, with Fathers Aumaître and Huin (30 March). Numbers of the laity also suffered martyrdom, while other perished of distress and hunger in the mountains. The process, or formal declaration, of the martyrdom of the two bishops, of the seven missionaries, and of twenty of the principal Christians, was sent in 1901 to the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The three surviving missionaries, unable to maintain themselves in the country, were obliged to return to China. This persecution, which occurred during the second year of the reign of the emperor who abdicated in 1907, was not precisely his fault. During his minority the power was exercised by his father, known under the name of Tai-ouen-koun, prince-regent. Of a suspicious and violent character, the regent believed that the extermination of the Catholics in Corea was the best policy to follow. Later he recognized his mistake and repented of it.

A French attempt, known as the Kang-hoa expedition, made to avenge the murder of the French missionaries, was not prosecuted with sufficient vigour, and merely served to revive the persecution which lasted as long as the regent remained in power. In 1876, after an interval of ten years, the new vicar Apostolic, Mgr. Ridel, succeeded in sending two missionaries to Corea; he himself entered the following year with two others. But after some months of sojourn in Seoul his retreat became known and he was thrown into prison. Upon the demand of the French minister to Peking, the Corean Government consented to send him back to China; in 1879, Father Deguette, arrested in turn, was also sent back after several months of captivity. The bloody era was closed; nevertheless the missionaries were obliged to continue their life of seclusion. Liberty came to them only with the treaty of commerce, concluded with the different Powers towards the year 1884. Upon their return in 1876 they found but 10,000 Christians; since then this number has grown from year to year. The Catholic Coreans numbered in 1885, 14,039; 1890, 17,577; 1895, 25,998; 1900, 42,441; 1905, 58,593; and in 1907, 63,340. From 1876 dates the spread of the ordinary mission-labours which the persecution had not permitted to develop.

In 1888 the Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres were called to take charge of the orphanages. In each district some chapels have been built, with residences for the missionaries. In 1892 a seminary was built at Ryong-saun near Seoul. The quasi-cathedral church of Seoul was solemnly consecrated 29 May, 1898. The parish schools have been opened anew, or organized upon a better footing. It has even been possible to open in the great centres a few schools for girls, a thing which Corean usage would never before have permitted. In 1875 the missionaries published a dictionary and a grammar in French and Corean. The movable type then cast has served as a standard for all that is used to-day. The mission possesses a printing-house for the publication of Corean Catholic books, and of a weekly Corean Catholic newspaper, founded in 1906, which counts more than 4000 subscribers. As a striking event of this period may be noted the conversion to Catholicism of the princess, the mother of the emperor and the true wife of the terrible regent. Christian in her heart even before the persecution of 1866, she was baptized and confirmed 11 October, 1896, but in great secrecy and unknown even to those about her. The following year she received, under the same conditions, the Sacraments of Penance and of Holy Eucharist, and died piously 8 January, 1898. The Vicars Apostolic of Corea have been: Barthélémy Bruguière (1831–35); Laurent-Marie-Joseph Imbert (1837–39); Jean-Joseph Ferréol (1843–53); Siméon-François Berneux (1854–66); Marie-Antoine Nicolas Daveluy (1857–66); Félix Clair Ridel (1870–84); Jean-Marie-Gustave Blanc (1884–90); Gustave-Charles-Marie Mutel (1890-).

The following statistics show the state of the missions in 1907: 1 bishop; 46 French missionaries; 10 Corean priests; 11 French sisters; 41 Corean sisters; 72 schools for boys, with 1,014 pupils; 6 schools for girls, with 191 pupils; 2 orphanages, with 28 boys and 261 girls; 379 orphans placed in families; 2 pharmacies; 1 seminary, with 22 preparatory students and 9 theological students; 48 churches or chapels; 48 districts; 931 Christian parishes; 63,340 baptized Christians; 5,503 catechumens under instruction.

(See map of China.)

DALLET, Hist. de l’Église de Corée (Paris, 1874); PICHON, Vie de Mgr. Berneux (Le Mans, 1868); SALMON, Vie de Mgr. Daveluy (Paris, 1883); D’HULST, Vie de Just de Bretenières (Paris, 1895); BAUDRY, Vie de Henri Dorie (1867); DEYDOU, Bernard Louis Beaulieu (Bordeaux, 1894); DÉSIRÉ, Vie de M. A. Petitnicolas (1891); RAMAYET, Vie de M. L. Huin (Langres, 1893); PIACENTINI, Mgr. Ridel (Lyons, 1890); RIDEL, Ma captivité; Annals of the Propagation of the Faith (annual); PIOLET, Les missions catholiques françaises, III.

G. MUTEL

Archdiocese of Corfu

ARCHDIOCESE OF CORFU.

Corfu is one of the Ionian Islands, at the entrance of the Adriatic, opposite the Albanian coast, from which it is separated by a narrow channel. Its modern name is an Italian corruption for Korphoi (pronounced Corfu), the Byzantine Greek name for the chief town of the island. The ancient name for both island and city was Cercyra or Corcyra. This has been identified with the Homeric Scheria, where reigned Alcinous, king of the Phaeacians, the host of Ulysses, and Nausicaa’s father. In 735 B.C. the island received Corinthian colonists led by Chersicrates. Its navy and trade increased to such an extent that as early as 664 B.C. it could wage war upon Corinth. During the Peloponnesian War, when allied with the Athenians, Corfu fitted out 120 ships and overcame its suzerain. But internal strife soon caused the decay of its power; while the people sided with the Athenians, the aristocracy were helped by the Corinthians. From the rule of the Macedonians Corfu passed to that of the Romans. Under the Byzantines it became practically the capital of the Ionian Islands and of the neighbouring cities in Epirus (Preveza, Buthrotum, etc.), and signalized itself by courageous conflicts with Dalmatians, Bulgars, and Saracens. About the end of the twelfth century it formed a duchy under the despots of Epirus. Charles of Anjou, King of Naples, conquered it in 1274. It recovered its independence by expelling the Neapolitan garrison and took refuge in the protectorate of Venice. After the capture of Constantinople, Mohammed II sent an army which laid unsuccessful siege to Corfu to punish it for having helped Buthrotum. Solyman II was equally unsuccessful, though he took away 16,000 prisoners. In 1716 Ahmed III was also driven back, the inhabitants being helped by the Saxon general Matthias Schulenburg and inspired by a monk who led the way bearing an uplifted cross. For a brief while, together with Venice (1791), Corfu came under French rule, and was then successively conquered by the Turks and the Russians (1799). The Seven Islands were united in a republic under a Turkish and Russian protectorate. The Treaty of Tilsit gave them again to the French in 1807, but in 1809 the islands, with the exception of Corfu, fell into the power of England. In 1815 the United States of the Ionian Islands were put under the protectorate of Great Britain, with Corfu as capital and residence of the governor. On 8 March, 1864, the islands were annexed to Greece, and since this time Corfu (Gr. Kerkyra), with Paxos, Santa Maura (Leukas), and Ithaca, etc. have formed a nomarchy or province of the kingdom.

The island has a mild, salubrious climate. It is hilly, with rather barren valleys, and produces corn and oil. Brimstone and marble are among its exports. The whole population is about 70,000. Italian is still much used, together with Greek, chiefly among the Catholic population. The city of Corfu is situated on the eastern coast and boasts of a broad and good port. It exhibits ruins of a temple of Poseidon, a cenotaph of Menecrates, and a statue of Schulenburg. In 1861 the late Empress Elizabeth of Austria built there, in the purest Greek style, her magnificent palace, the Achilleion, named after a colossal statue of Achilles on one of the terraces of the park; this palace has been bought by the Emperor of Germany. The population of the city is about 17,000; 5000 Jews, 4000 Catholics, the rest orthodox Greeks.

According to legend the Church of Corfu was founded by St. Jason, a disciple of St. Paul, but the first known bishop is Apollodorus, present at Nicaea in 325. It was at first a suffragan of Nicopolis in Epirus Vetus, but in the Middle Ages was made a metropolis. Since 1900 it has again become a simple bishopric. (See “Echos d’Orient,” III, 285 sqq.) Among its distinguished prelates were St. Arsenius, a tenth-century author of homilies, and Georgius Bardanes, in the thirteenth century, a fiery adversary of the Latins. (See Lequien, II, 145.) The island honours as its patron the celebrated St. Spyridon, whose relics lie in the Greek cathedral. Since the thirteenth century Corfu has also been a Catholic archiepiscopal see. The archdiocese includes Paxos, Antipaxos, other islets, and several localities in Epirus, between Parga and Sasino; the Catholics, however, have almost completely disappeared except in Corfu. There is but one parish, with six churches or chapels, and some ten priests. The Sisters of Our Lady of Compassion conduct a school and an orphanage. (For the episcopal list see Lequien, III, 877, completed by Gams, 399, and Eubel, I, 217, II, 152.) Among the archbishops, the famous Benedictine Cardinal, Angelo Maria Quirini, who died in Italy in 1759, deserves mention.

MARMORA, Historia di Corfù (Venice, 1672); QUIRINI, Primordia Corcyrae (Lecce, 1725; Briscia, 1738); MOUSTOXYDES, Illustrazioni Corciresi (Milan, 1811); Delle cose Corciresi (Corfu, 1848); RIEMANN, Corfou (Paris, 1879); LAMPROS, kerkyraika anekdota (Athens, 1882); HIDROMENOS, Synoptike historia tes anekdota (Corfu, 1895); JERVIS, History of Corfu (London, 1852); CLAPARÈDE, Corfou et les Corfiotes (Paris, 1900).

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Diocese of Coria

(CAURIA; CAURIENSIS)

Diocese in Spain, suffragan of Toledo; it includes nearly the entire province of Céceres, with the exception of a few parishes that belong to the Diocese of Salamanca. The first mention of a Diocese of Coria is in 589 when its bishop, Jacintus, subscribed the acts of the Third Council of Toledo. Under Visigothic rule Coria was a suffragan of Merida. During the Arab conquest the episcopal list was continued by means of titular bishops; one of them, Jacobus, appears among the prelates who assisted at the consecration of the church of Compostela in 876. After the reconquest of the city (1142) Alfonso VII turned the mosque into a cathedral, and had it reconstructed in honour of the Blessed Virgin and all the saints.

The first bishop of the new series was Iñigo Navarrón. The statistics for 1906 were: Catholics, 171,041; priests, 250; parishes, 124; churches, 159; chapels, 186.

FLÓREZ. España Sagr. (Madrid, 1759), XIV, 52–61; DÁVILA in Teatro de las Iglesias de España (Madrid, 1647), II, 433–76.

EDUARDO DE HINOJOSA

Corinth

(CORINTHUS)

A titular archiepiscopal see of Greece. The origin of Corinth belongs to prehistoric legend. About 1100 B.C. this city, delivered from the Argives by the Dorian invasion, became the centre of the Heracleid rule in Peloponnesus; at this time it waged successful wars against neighbouring cities, including Athens. A little later, under the tyranny of the Bacchiadae (750–657 B.C.), it founded many colonies, among them Corcyra and Syracuse. About 657 B.C. a revolution substituted for tyranny a government based on popular election; from that time Corinth took no great part in Greek history, except as the scene of the Isthmian games and by the transit duty it imposed on all goods passing by its citadel. Its name is scarcely mentioned during the Medic wars, and after beginning the Peloponnesian war (432–404) it handed the direction of it over to Sparta and later on abandoned its ally. The foreign policy of this submissive vassal of Philip (later the federal centre, but not the inspirer, of the Achaean league) was never positive and domestic; its true glory was its luxury, riches, and artistic culture. It gave its name to the third and most ornamental of the orders of Greek architecture. Corinth was captured and plundered by Mummius (146 B.C.), restored and embellished again by Caesar and Hadrian, and ravaged in turn by the Heruli, Visigoths, and Slavs. In 1205 it was captured by the French, who gave it up to the Venetians, by whom it was held, excepting brief intervals, until 1715. The Turks left it in 1821, and in 1858, after a severe earthquake, it was transferred to the western shore of the gulf. The new town, in the provinces of Argolis and Corinthia, has about 4500 inhabitants, and exports dried currants, oil, corn, and silk. The ancient site is now occupied by a wretched village, Palaeo-Corinthos, or Old Corinth, with five churches, probably built where temples had formerly stood. Near by are the lofty Acropolis (Acro-Corinthus) and ruins of a temple and amphitheatre. The ship canal between the bay of Corinth and the gulf of AEgina, about four miles in length, was opened 8 November, 1893; it had been begun by Nero, and is in great part cut through the solid rock.

St. Paul preached successfully at Corinth, where he lived in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (Acts, xviii, 1), where Silas and Timothy soon joined him. After his departure he was replaced by Apollo, who had been sent from Ephesus by Priscilla. The Apostle visited Corinth at least once more. He wrote to the Corinthians in 57 from Ephesus, and then from Macedonia in the same year, or in 58. The famous letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthian church (about 96) exhibits the earliest evidence concerning the ecclesiastical primacy of the Roman Church. Besides St. Apollo, Lequien (II, 155) mentions forty-three bishops: among them, St. Sosthenes (?), the disciple of St. Paul, St. Dionysius; Paul, brother of St. Peter, Bishop of Argos in the tenth century; St. Athanasius, in the same century; George, or Gregory, a commentator of liturgical hymns. Corinth was the metropolis of all Hellas. After the Byzantine emperors had violently withdrawn Illyricum from Papal direction, Corinth appears as a metropolis with seven suffragan sees; at the beginning of the eighteenth century there were only two united in one title. Since 1890 Corinth, for the Greeks, has been a simple bishopric, but the first in rank, Athens being the sole archbishopric of the Kingdom of Greece. Lequien (III, 883) mentions twenty Latin prelates from 1210 to 1700, the later ones being only titular. But Eubel (I, 218; II, 152) mentions twenty-two archbishops for the period from 1212 to 1476.

LEBAS AND FOUCART, Inscriptions du Péloponnèse; BEULÉ, L’art grec avant Périclès; PERROT AND CHIPIEZ, Hist. de l’art dans l’antiquité; SPON, Voyage d’Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grèce et du Levant (Amsterdam, 1679), II, 223 sq.; SMITH, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (London, 1878), I, 674–86.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Epistles to the Corinthians

INTRODUCTORY

St. Paul Founds the Church at Corinth

St. Paul’s first visit to Europe is graphically described by St. Luke (Acts, xvi-xviii). When he reached Troas, at the northwest corner of Asia Minor, on his second great missionary journey in company with Timothy and Silvanus, or Silas (who was a “prophet” and had the confidence of The Twelve), he met St. Luke, probably for the first time. At Troas he had a vision of “a man of Macedonia standing and beseeching him, and saying: Pass over in to Macedonia and help us.” In response to this appeal he proceeded to Philippi in Macedonia, where he made many converts, but was cruelly beaten with rods according to the Roman custom. After comforting the brethren he travelled southward to Thessalonica, where some of the Jews “believed, and of those that served God, and of the Gentiles a great multitude, and of noble women not a few. But the Jews, moved with envy, and taking unto them some wicked men of the vulgar sort set the city in an uproar . . . And they stirred up the people and the rulers of the city hearing these things. But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night to Ber£a. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews, and many of them believed, and of honourable women that were Gentiles and of men not a few.” But unbelieving Jews from Thessalonica came to Ber£a “stirring up and troubling the multitude.” “And immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go to the sea; but Silas and Timothy remained there. And they that conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens”—then reduced to the position of an old university town. At Athens he preached his famous philosophical discourse in the Areopagus. Only a few were converted, amongst these being St. Dionysius the Areopagite. Some of his frivolous hearers mocked him. Others said that that was enough for the present; they would listen to more another time.

He appears to have been very disappointed with Athens He did not visit it again, and it is never mentioned in his letters. The disappointed and solitary Apostle left Athens and travelled westwards, a distance of forty-five miles, to Corinth, then the capital of Greece. The fearful scourging at Philippi coming not very long after he had been stoned and left for dead at Lystra, together with his ill-treatment by the Jews, as described in II Cor., must have greatly weakened him. As we are not to suppose that he, any more than his Master, was miraculously saved from pain and its effects, it was with physical pain, nervousness, and misgiving that the lonely Apostle entered this great pagan city, that had a bad name for profligacy throughout the Roman world. To act the Corinthian was synonymous with leading a loose life. Corinth, which had been destroyed by the Romans, was re-established as a colony by Julius Cesar 46 B.C., and made the capital of the Roman Province of Achaia by Augustus. It was built on the southern extremity of the isthmus connecting the mainland with the Morea, and was on the great line of traffic between East and West. Its two magnificent harbours, one at each side of the isthmus, were crowded with shipping and were the scenes of constant bustle and activity. Corinth was filled with Greeks, Romans, Syrians, Egyptians, and Jews, many of the last having lately come from Rome on account of their expulsion by Claudius; and its streets were thronged by tens of thousands of slaves. Crowds, too, came from all parts every four years to be present at the Isthmian games. On the summit of the hill to the south of the city was the infamous temple of Venus, with its thousand female devotees dedicated to a life of shame.

It was to this centre of traffic, excitement, wealth, and vice that St. Paul came, probably about the end of A.D. 51; and here he spent upwards of eighteen months of his Apostolic career. He took up his residence with two Christian Jews, Aquila and his wife Priscilla (refugees from Rome), because they were of the same trade as himself. Like all Jews he had learnt a trade in his youth, and in their house he supported himself by working at this trade, viz., that of tentmaker, as he had determined not to receive any support from the money-loving Corinthians. He began by preaching in the synagogue every Sabbath; “and he persuaded the Jews and the Greeks “. Of this period he says that he was with them “in weakness, and fear, and much trembling.” The ill-usage he had received was still fresh in his memory, as, writing a month or two later to the Thessalonians, he recalls how he had been “shamefully treated at Philippi.” But when he was joined by Silas and Timothy, who brought him pecuniary aid from Macedonia, he became more bold and confident, and “was earnest in testifying to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. But they gainsaying and blaspheming, he shook his garments and said to them: “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” He then began to preach in the house of Titus Justus, adjoining the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, and his family, and several of the Corinthians were converted and baptized. Amongst these were Caius, Stephanas, and his household, and the house of Fortunatus and Achaicus, “the firstfruits of Achaia” (I Cor., i, 14, 16, xvi, 15). The growing opposition of the Jews, however, and the wicked state of the city had a depressing influence upon him; but “the Lord said to Paul in the night, by a vision: Do not fear, but speak; and hold not thy peace, because I am with thee; and no man shall set upon thee to hurt thee; for I have much people in this city. And he stayed there a year and six months, teaching among them the word of God” (Acts, xviii, 9–11). Many were converted; some of them noble, wealthy, and learned, but the great majority neither learned, nor powerful, nor noble (I Cor., i, 26). During this long period the Faith was planted not only in Corinth but in other portions of Achaia, especially in Cenchreæ, the eastern port. At length the unbelieving Jews, seeing the ever-increasing crowd of Christians frequenting the house of Titus Justus, next door to their synagogue, became furious, and rose up with one accord and dragged St. Paul before the newly-appointed Proconsul of Achaia, Gallio, the brother of Seneca (A.D. 54). Gallio, perceiving that it was a question of religion, refused to listen to them. The crowd, seeing this and supposing that it was a dispute between Greeks and Jews, fell upon the ring-leader of the latter (Sosthenes, who succeeded Crispus as ruler of the synagogue) and gave him a sound beating in the very sight of the judgment seat; but Gallio pretended not to notice. His treatment must have cowed the Jews, and St. Paul “stayed yet many days.” Cornely is of opinion that at this time he made his journey as far as Illyricum, and that his first visit to them “in sorrow” was when he returned. Others with greater probability place it later. St Paul, at last taking leave of the brethren, travelled as far as Ephesus with Priscilla and Aquila. Leaving them there he went on to Jerusalem and came back by Antioch, Galatia, and Phrygia, where he confirmed all the disciples. After having thus traversed the “upper coasts” he returned to Ephesus, which he made his head-quarters for nearly three years. It was towards the end of that period that the First Epistle was written.

Authenticity of the Epistles

Little need be said on this point. The historical and internal evidence that they were written by St. Paul is so overwhelmingly strong that their authenticity has been frankly admitted by every distinguished writer of the most advanced critical schools. They were contained in the first collections of St. Paul’s Epistles, and were quoted as Scripture by early Christian writers. They were referred to as authorities by the early heretics and translated into many languages in the middle of the second century. The unique personality of St. Paul is impressed upon their every page. Baur, the rationalistic founder of the Tübingen School, and his followers, held the two to the Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans to be unassailable. One or two hypercritical writers, of little weight, brought some futile objections against them; but these were scarcely meant to be taken seriously; they were refuted and brushed aside by such an ultra writer as Kuenen. Schmiedel, one of the most advanced modern critics, says (Hand-Kommentar, Leipzig, 1893, p. 51) that unless better arguments can be adduced against them the two Epistles must be acknowledged to be genuine writings of St. Paul. The Second Epistle was known from the very earliest times. There is a trace of it in that portion of “The Ascension of Isaiah” which dates back to the first century (Knowling, “The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ,” p. 58; Charles, “The Ascension of Isaiah,” pp. 34, 150). It was known to St Polycarp, to the writerof the Epistle to Diognetus, to Athenagoras, Theophilus, the heretics Basilides and Marcion. In the second half of the second century it was so widely used that it is unnecessary to give quotations.

THE FIRST EPISTLE

Why Written

During the years that St. Paul was at Ephesus he must have frequently heard from Corinth, as it was distant only 250 miles, and people were constantly passing to and fro. A ship sailing at the rate of four miles an hour would cover the distance in three days, though on one unpropitious occasion it took Cicero over a fortnight (Ep. vi, 8, 9). By degrees the news reached Ephesus that some of the Corinthians were drifting back into their former vices. Alford and others infer from the words of II Cor., xii, 20, 21; xiii, 1, “Behold this is the third time that I come to you,” that he made a flying visit to check these abuses. Others suppose that this coming meant by letter. Be this as it may, it is generally held that he wrote them a brief note (now lost) telling them “not to associate with fornicators,” asking them to make collection for the poor brethren at Jerusalem, and giving them an account of his intention of visiting them before going on to Macedonia, and of returning to them again from that place. News which he heard later from the household of Chloe and others made him change his plan, and for this he was accused by his enemies of want of steadiness of purpose (II Cor., i, 17). The accounts which he received caused him great anxiety. Abuses, bickerings, and party strife had grown up amongst them. The party cries were: “I am of Paul; I am of Apollo [Apollos]; I am of Cephas; I am of Christ.” These parties, in all likelihood, originated as follows: During St. Paul’s circular tour from Ephesus to Jerusalem, Antioch, Galatia, Phrygia, and back to Ephesus, “a certain Jew, named Apollo, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus, one mighty in the scriptures, and being fervent in spirit, spoke, and taught diligently the things that are of Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John.” Priscilla and Aquila fully instructed him in the Christian Faith. In accordance with his desire he received letters of recommendation to the disciples at Corinth. “Who, when he was come, helped them very much who had believed. For with much vigor he convinced the Jews openly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ” (Acts, xviii, 27, 28). He remained at Corinth about two years, but, being unwilling to be made the centre of strife, he joined St. Paul at Ephesus. From the inspired words of St. Luke, no mean judge, we may take it that in learning and eloquence Apollo was on a par with the greatest of his contemporaries, and that in intellectual powers he was not inferior to Jews like Josephus and Philo. He is likely to have known the latter, who was a prominent member of the Jewish community in his native city of Alexandria, and had died only fourteen years before; and his deep interest in Holy Scripture would certainly have led him to study the works of Philo. The eloquence of Apollo, and his powerful applications of the Old Testament to the Messias, captivated the intellectual Greeks, especially the more educated. That, they thought, was true wisdom. They began to make invidious comparisons between him and St. Paul who on account of his experience at Athens, had purposely confined himself to what we should call solid catechetical instruction. The Greeks dearly loved to belong to some particular school of philosophy; so the admirers of Apollo laid claim to a deeper perception of wisdom and boasted that they belonged to the Christian school of the great Alexandrian preacher. The majority, on the other hand, prided themselves on their intimate connection with their Apostle. It was not zeal for the honour of their teachers that really prompted either of these parties, but a spirit of pride which made them seek to put themselves above their fellows, and prevented them from humbly thanking God for the grace of being Christians. About this time there came from the East some who had possibly heard St. Peter preach. These regarded the others as their spiritual inferiors; they themselves belonged to Cephas, the Prince of the Apostles. Commentators are of opinion that this party spirit did not go so deep as to constitute formal schism or heresy. They all met together for prayer and the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries; but there were hot disputes and many breaches of fraternal charity. The Fathers mention only three parties; but the text obviously implies that there was another party the members of which said, “I am of Christ.” This view is now held by several Catholics, and by many non-Catholics. What was the nature of this party it is difficult to determine. It has been suggested that a few of those who were specially endowed with spiritual gifts, or charismata, boasted that they were above the others, as they were in direct communication with Christ. Another explanation is that they had seen Christ in the flesh, or that they claimed to follow His example in their reverence for the Law of Moses. At any rate, the statement, “I am of Christ,” seemed to make Christ a mere party name, and to imply that the others were not Christians in the genuine and perfect sense of the word.

St. Paul, hearing of this state of things, sent Timothy together with Erastus (probably the “treasurer of the city” of Corinth—Rom., xvi, 23) round by Macedonia, to put things in order. Soon after they left, Stephanas and other delegates came with a letter from the Corinthians. This letter contained some self-glorification and requested the Apostle to give a solution to several serious difficulties which they proposed to him; but it made no mention of their shortcomings. By this time he had become fully aware of the grave state of affairs amongst them. Besides party strife, some made light of sins of impurity. One man had gone to the extent of marrying his stepmother, his father being still alive, a crime unheard of amongst the pagans. So far were they from showing horror that they treated him in a friendly manner and allowed him to be present at their meetings. As matters were too pressing to wait for the arrival of Timothy, St. Paul at once wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians and sent it by Titus about Easter A.D. 57.

Importance of the First Epistle

This is generally regarded as the greatest of the writings of St. Paul by reason of the magnificence and beauty of its style and the variety and importance of its contents. So splendid is its style that it has given rise to the conjecture that St. Paul took lessons in oratory at Ephesus; but this is highly improbable. St. Paul’s was not the type of eloquence to be moulded by mechanical rules; his was the kind of genius that produces literature on which rules of rhetoric are based. If the Corinthians were impressed by the eloquence of Apollo, they could not help feeling, when they heard and read this Epistle, that here was an author capable of bearing comparison not only with Apollo, but with the best that they could boast in Greek literature, of which they were so justly proud. Scholars of all schools are loud in its praise. The striking similes, figures of speech, and telling sentences of the Epistle have passed into the literatures of the world. Plummer, in Smith’s “Dict. of the Bible,” says that chapters xiii and xv are among the most sublime passages, not only in the Bible, but in all literature.

But this Epistle is great not only for its style but also for the variety and importance of its doctrinal teaching. In no other Epistle does St. Paul treat of so many different subjects; and the doctrines which are touched upon (in many eases only incidentally) are important as showing what he and Silvanus, a disciple and trusted delegate of the older Apostles, taught the early Christians. In some of his letters he had to defend his Apostolate and the freedom of Christians from the Law of Moses against heretical teachers; but be never had to defend himself against his bitterest enemies, the judaizers, for his teaching on Christ and the principal points of doctrine contained in these two Epistles, the obvious reason being that his teaching must have been in perfect harmony with that of The Twelve. He distinctly states in ch. xv, 11, “For whether I, or they [The Twelve Apostles], so we preach, and so you have believed.”

Divisions of the First Epistle

Instead of giving a formal summary of the contents of the Epistle, it may be more useful to give the teaching of the Apostle, in his own words, classified under various heads, following, in general, the order of the Creed. With regard to arrangement, it may be stated, in passing, that the Epistle is divided into two parts. In the first six chapters he rebukes them for their faults and corrects abuses: (1) He shows the absurdity of their divisions and bickerings; (2) deals with the scandalous case of incest; (3) their lawsuits before pagans; and (4) the want of sufficient horror of impurity in some of them. In the second part (the remaining ten chapters) he solves the difficulties which they proposed to him and lays down various regulations for their conduct. He deals with questions relating to (1) marriage, (2) virginity, (3) the use of things offered to idols, (4) proper decorum in church and the celebration of the Eucharist, (5) spiritual gifts, or Charismata, (6) the Resurrection, (7) the collections for the poor of Jerusalem.

Its Teaching

God the Father (passim)

“Yet there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by him” (viii, 6). Compare II Cor., xiii, 13: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all.” (Bengel, quoted by Bernard, calls this an egregium testimonium to the Blessed Trinity.)

Jesus Christ

(1) “Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ” (i, 3). “You are called unto the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (i, 9). “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (i, 24). “We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory, which none of the princes of this world knew; for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory” (ii, 7, 8). “But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God” (vi, 11—see also i, 2, 4, 7, 9 13; iii, 5, 11; vi, 11; xii, 4–6). (2) “The word of the cross to them that are saved is the power of God” (i, 18). “We preach Christ crucified, unto them that are called Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (i, 23, 24). “But of him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and justice, and sanctification and redemption” (i, 30). “For I judged myself not to know any thing among you, but Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (ii, 3). “For Christ our pasch is sacrificed” (v, 7). “For you are bought with a great price” (vi, 20—cf. i, 13, 17; vii, 23; viii, 11, 12.) (3) The following passage probably contains fragments of an early creed: “The gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received. . . . For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures: and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures: and that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven. Then was he seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time” (xv, 1–8). “Have not I seen Christ Jesus our Lord?” (ix, 1). “And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (xv, 14). “But now Christ is risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that sleep” (xv, 20—cf. vi, 14). (4) “Waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (i, 7). “That the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v, 5). “He that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge not before the time; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise from God” (iv, 4, 5).

The Holy Ghost

“Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but the same God” (xii, 4–6). “But to us God hath revealed them, by his Spirit. The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God . . . the things that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God” (ii, 10, 11—cf. ii, 12–14, 16). “Know you not, that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (iii, 16). “But you are washed, but you are sanctified . . . in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God” (vi, 11). “Or know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own? . . . Glorify and bear God in your body” (vi, 19, 20). “But all these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will” (xii, 11). “For in one Spirit were we all baptized unto one body” (xii, 13). “Yet by the Spirit he speaketh mysteries” (xiv, 2).

The Holy Catholic Church

“The head of every man is Christ” (xi, 3).

Unity

“Is Christ divided?” (i, 13). “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment” (i, 10). He devotes four chapters to the reprehension of their divisions, which did not really amount to anything constituting formal schism or heresy. They met in common for prayer and the participation of the Blessed Eucharist. “Know you not that you [the Christian body] are the temple of God . . . but if any man violate the temple of God [by pulling it to pieces], him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are” (iii, 16, 17). “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free” (xii, 12, 13). [Here follows the allegory of the body and its members, xii, 14–25.] “Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member” (xii, 27). “And God hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets . . . Are all apostles?” (xii, 28–31). “For God is not the God of dissension, but of peace: as also I teach in all the Churches of the saints” (xiv, 33). “I have sent you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful in the Lord, who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus: as I teach everywhere in every church” (iv, 17). “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the church of God” (xi, 16). “The gospel which I preached to you . . . and wherein you stand; by which also you are [being] saved, if you hold fast after the manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain” (xv, 1–2). “For whether I, or they [The Twelve Apostles], so we preach, and so you have believed” (xv, 11). “The churches of Asia salute you” (xvi, 19).

Old Testament Types

“Now all these things happened to them in figure: and they are written for our correction” (x, 11).

Authority

“What will you? shall I come to you with a rod; or in charity, and in the spirit of meekness?” (iv, 21). “Now concerning the collections. . . . as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye also” (xvi, 1).

Power of excommunication

“I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved” (v, 3–5).

Jews and pagans exempt from Church’s jurisdiction

“For what have I to do to judge them that are without . . . For them that are without, God will judge” (v, 12, 13).

Sanctity

“For the temple of God is holy, which you are” (iii, 17). “Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ” (vi, 15). “Your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost . . . Glorify and bear God in your body” (vi, 19, 20—cf. vi, 11, etc.).

Grace

“God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able, but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it” (x, 13). “Grace be to you . . .” (i, 3). “But by the grace of God, I am what I am; and his grace in me hath not been void, but I have laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God with me” (xv, 10).

Virtuous life necessary for salvation

“Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate . . . nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, . . . shall possess the kingdom of God” (vi, 9, 10). This, like a dominant note, rings clear through all the Epistles of St. Paul as in the teaching of his Divine Master. “But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway” (ix, 27). “Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall” (x, 12). “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast and unmoveable; always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord” (xv, 58). “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, do manfully, and be strengthened” (xvi, 13). “Do all to the glory of God” (x, 31). “Be without offence to the Jews, and to the Gentiles, and to the church of God” (x, 32). “Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ” (xi, 1).

Resurrection of the body and life everlasting

“For God hath raised up the Lord, and he will raise us up also by his power” (vi, 14). “And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.” “For star differeth from star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption. It is sown in dishonour, it shall rise in glory.” “Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again.” “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise again incorruptible.” (See all of ch. xv.) “We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known” (xiii, 12).

Baptism

“Were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (i, 13). “I baptized also the household of Stephanus” (I, 16). “For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body” (xii, 13). “But you are washed [apelousasthe] but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God” (vi, 11).

Eucharist

“The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? . . . But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils . . . You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord and the chalice of devils” (x, 16–21). “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body . . . In like manner also the chalice; etc. . . . Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. . . . For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord” (xi, 23–29). On the words of consecration see the two able articles by Dr. A.R. Eagar in “The Expositor,” March and April, 1908.

Marriage

Its use. Marriage good, but celibacy better.—The marriage of divorced persons forbidden.—Second marriage allowed to Christians; but single state preferable for those who have the gift from God. (vii, 1–8.) Pauline Dispensation: a Christian is not bound to remain single if his pagan partner is unwilling to live with him (vii, 12–15).

Virginity

It is not wrong to marry; but preferable to remain single—St. Paul’s example—“He that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well; and he that giveth her not doth better. (vii, 25–40.)

Principles of moral theology

In ch. vii; and following chapters St. Paul solves several difficult cases of conscience, some of them of a very delicate nature, falling under what we should now call the tractatus de sexto (sc. præcepto decalogi). He would, doubtless, have preferred to be free from the necessity of having to enter into such disagreeable subjects; but as the welfare of souls required it, he felt it incumbent upon him, as part of his Apostolic office, to deal with the matter. It is in the same spirit that pastors of souls have acted ever since. If so many difficulties arose in a few years in one town, it was inevitable that numerous complicated cases should occur in the course of centuries amongst peoples belonging to every degree of barbarism and civilization; and to these questions the Church was rightly expected to give a helpful answer; hence the growth of moral theology.

THE SECOND EPISTLE

The Second Epistle was written a few months after the First, in which St. Paul had stated that he intended to go round by Macedonia. He set out on this journey sooner than he had anticipated, on account of the disturbance at Ephesus caused by Demetrius and the votaries of Diana of the Ephesians. He travelled northwards as far as Troas, and after waiting some time for Titus, whom he expected to meet on his way back from Corinth, whither he had carried the First Epistle, he set sail for Macedonia and went on to Philippi. Here he met Titus and Timothy. The news that Titus brought him from Corinth was for the most part of a cheering character. The great majority were loyal to their Apostle. They were sorry for their faults; they had obeyed his injunctions regarding the public sinner, and the man himself had deeply repented. We hear no more of the parties of Paul, Apollo, and Cephas, though the letter appears to contain one reference to the fourth party. His friends, who had expected a visit from himself, were deeply grieved at his not coming as he had promised; a few who were his enemies, probably judaizers, sought to take advantage of this to undermine his authority by discovering in this a clear proof of fickleness of mind and instability of purpose; they said that his unwillingness to receive support betrayed want of affection; that he used threatening language when at a safe distance, but was in fact a coward who was mild and conciliating when present; that they were foolish to let themselves be led by one who made the rather enormous pretension to be an Apostle of Christ, when he was nothing of the kind, and was in reality, both naturally and supernaturally, inferior to men they could name. This news filled the soul of St. Paul with the deepest emotion. He purposely delayed in Macedonia, and sent them this Epistle to prepare them better for his coming and to counteract the evil influence of his opponents. It was sent by Titus and two others, one of whom, it is almost certain, was St. Luke. The circumstances under which the Epistle was written can be best gathered from the text itself. We can easily imagine the effect produced when it was read for the first time to the assembled Christians at Corinth, by Titus, or in the sonorous tones of the Evangelist St. Luke. The news that their great Apostle had sent them another letter rapidly spread through the city; the previous one had been such a masterly production that all were eager to listen to this. The great bulk of the expectant congregation were his enthusiastic admirers, but a few came to criticize, especially one man, a Jew, who had recently arrived with letters of recommendation, and was endeavouring to supplant St. Paul. He said he was an Apostle (not of The Twelve, but of the kind mentioned in the Didache). He was a man of dignified presence, as he spoke slightingly of St. Paul’s insignificant appearance. He was skilled in philosophy and polished in speech, and he insinuated that St. Paul was wanting in both. He knew little or nothing of St. Paul except by hearsay, as he accused him of want of determination, of cowardice, and unworthy motives, things belied by every fact of St. Paul s history. The latter might terrify others by letters, but he would not frighten him. This man comes to the assembly expecting to be attacked and prepared to attack in turn. As the letter is being read, ever and anon small dark clouds appear on the horizon; but when, in the second part, the Epistle has quieted down into a calm exhortation to almsgiving, this man is congratulating himself on his easy escape, and is already picking holes in what he has heard. Then, suddenly as upon the army of Sisara, the storm breaks upon him; lightnings strike, thunder upbraids. He is beaten down by the deluge, and his influence is swept out of existence by the irresistible torrent. At any rate, he is never heard of again. These two Epistles as effectively destroyed St. Paul’s opponents at Corinth, as the Epistle to the Galatians annihilated the judaizers in Asia Minor.

Style

This Epistle, though not written with the same degree of care and polish as the First, is more varied and spontaneous in style. Erasmus says that it would take all the ingenuity of a skilled rhetorician to explain the multitude of its strophes and figures. It was written with great emotion and intensity of feeling, and some of its sudden outbursts reach the highest levels of eloquence. It gives a deeper insight than any other of his writings into the character and personal history of St. Paul. With Cornely, we may call it his “Apologia pro Vitâ Suâ,” a fact which makes it one of the most interesting of the writings of the New Testament. Erasmus described it as follows: “Now it bubbles up as a limpid fountain; soon it rushes down as a roaring torrent carrying all before it; then it flows peacefully and gently along. Now it widens out as into a broad and tranquil lake. Yonder it gets lost to view, and suddenly reappears in quite a different direction, when it is seen meandering and winding along, now deflecting to the right, now to the left; then making a wider loop and occasionally doubling back upon itself.

Divisions of the Epistle

It consists of three parts. In the first of these (chapters i to vii, incl.), after (1) introduction, (2) the Apostle shows that his change of plan is not due to lightness of purpose but for the good of the people, and his teaching not mutable; (3) he did not wish to come again in sorrow. The repentant sinner, the cause of his sorrow, to be now reconciled. (4) His great affection for them. (5) He does not require, like others, letters of recommendation. They, as Christians, are his commendatory letters. (6) He writes with authority, not on account of arrogance, but because of the greatness of the ministry with which he was entrusted, as compared with the ministry of Moses. Those who refuse to listen have the veil over their hearts, like the carnal Jews. (7) He endeavours to please Christ Who showed His love by dying for all, and will reward His servants. (8) Moving exhortation.

The second part (chapters viii and ix) relates to the collections for the poor Christians at Jerusalem. (1) He praises the Macedonians for their ready generosity in giving out of their poverty. He exhorts the Corinthians to follow their example in imitation of Christ Who, being rich, became poor for our sakes. (2) He sends Titus and two others to make the collections and to remove all grounds of calumny that he was enriching himself. (3) He has boasted of them in Macedonia that they began before others. (4) A man shall reap in proportion as he sows. God loves the cheerful giver and is able to repay. Giving not only relieves the poor brethren but causes thanksgiving to God and prayers for benefactors.

The third part (last four chapters) is directed against the pseudo-Apostles. (1) He is bold towards some who think he acts from worldly motives. He has powerful arms from God for humbling such and punishing their disobedience. Some say he terrifies by letters which are weighty and strong; but has bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.” Let such a one understand that such as he is in his Epistle, so will he be when present. (2) He will not pretend, as they do, to be greater than he is, nor wilt he exalt himself by other men’s labours. (3) He asks pardon for talking like a worldly-minded man. It is to counteract the influence of the pseudo-Apostles. He jealously guards the Corinthians lest they be deceived as Eve was by the serpent. (4) If the new-comers brought them anything better in the way of religion, he could understand their submission to their dictatorship. (5) He is not inferior to those superlative Apostles. If his speech is rude, his knowledge is not. He humbled himself amongst them, and did not exact support in order to gain them. The false Apostles profess a like disinterestedness; but they are deceitful workmen transforming themselves into Apostles of Jesus Christ. And no wonder: for Satan transformed himself into an angel of light, and they imitate their master. They make false insinuations against the Apostle. (6) He, too, will glory a little (speaking like a foolish worldly person, in order to confound them). They boast of natural advantages. He is not inferior to them in any; but he far surpasses them in his sufferings for the propagation of the Gospel, in his supernatural gifts, and in the miraculous proofs of his Apostleship at Corinth, “in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” The Corinthians have all that other Churches had except the burden of his support. He asks them to pardon him that injury. Neither he nor Titus nor any other of his friends over-reached them. He writes thus lest he should come again in sorrow. He threatens the unrepentant.

Unity of the Second Epistle

Whilst the Pauline authorship is universally acknowledged, the same cannot be said for its unity. Some critics hold that it consists of two Epistles, or portion of Epistles, by St. Paul; that the first nine chapters belong to one Epistle, and the last four to another. As these two sections are held to have been written by St. Paul, there appears to be nothing in this view that can be said to be in opposition to the Catholic doctrine of inspiration. But the hypothesis is very far from being proved. Nay more, on account of the arguments that can be alleged against it, it can scarcely be regarded as probable. The principal objection against the unity of the Epistle is the difference of tone in the two sections. This is well stated and answered by the Catholic scholar Hug (“Introduction,” tr. by Wait, London, 1827 p. 392): “It is moreover objected how different is the tone of the first part, mild, amiable, affectionate, whereas the third part is severe, vehement, and irrespectively castigatory. But who on this account would divide Demosthenes’ oration De Coronâ into two parts, because in the more general defence placidity and circumspection predominate while on the other hand, in abashing and chastising the accuser, in the parallel between him and Æschines, words of bitter irony gush out impetuously and fall like rain in a storm.” This argument is referred to with approval by Meyer, Cornely, and Jacquier. Others save explained the difference of tone by supposing that when the first nine chapters were finished fresh news of a disagreeable kind arrived from Corinth, and that this led St. Paul to add the last four chapters. In the same way the parenthetical section (vi, 14, vii, 2), which seems to have been inserted as an afterthought, can be explained. It was added, according to Bernard, to prevent a misconception of the expression used in vi, 11, 13, “our heart is enlarged . . . be you also enlarged,” which in the O. T. had the bad meaning of being too free with infidels. St. Paul’s manner of writing has also to be taken into account. In this, as in his other Epistles he speaks as a preacher who now addresses one portion of his congregation, now another, as if they were the only persons present, and that without fear of being misunderstood. Dr. Bernard thinks that the difference of tone can be sufficiently accounted for on the supposition that the letter was written at different sittings, and that the writer was in a different mood owing to ill-health or other circumstances. The other objections brought against the unity of the Epistle are ably refuted by the same author, whose argument may be briefly summarized as follows: the last section, it is said, begins very abruptly, and is loosely connected with the previous one by the particle de. But there are several other instances in the Epistles of St. Paul where transition is made in precisely the same way. On the last part, it is objected, people in open rebellion are denounced, whereas that is not the case in the first portion. Still, there is clear reference in the first section to persons who accused him of being fickle, arrogant, brave at a distance, etc. One of the strongest arguments against the integrity is that there are several verses in the first nine chapters which seem to presuppose an equal number of passages in the second, and the contention is that the last section is a portion of an earlier Epistle. But on closer examination of each passage this connection is seen to be only apparent. On the other hand, there are at least as many passages in the last part which clearly and unmistakably look back to and presuppose verses in the first. It is remarkable, moreover, that the only extant fragments of the supposed two Epistles should fit so well. It has also been urged that the First Epistle is not “painful” enough to account for statements in the Second. But a close examination of i, 11, 14; ii, 6; iii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 18; iv, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19; v, etc., of the First Epistle, will show that this objection is quite unfounded. The linguistic unity between the two portions of the Epistle is very great; and many examples can be given to show that the two sections were always integral portions of one whole. The evidence afforded by early manuscripts, translations, and quotations points strongly in the same direction.

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH AT CORINTH AS EXHIBITED IN THE TWO EPISTLES

There is nothing in either Epistle which enables us to say what was the precise nature of the organization of the Church at Corinth. In I Cor., xii, 28, we read: “And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that [the gift of] miracles; then the graces [charismata] of healings, helps, governments [or wise counsels], kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. Are all apostles? . . . Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing?” From the whole context it is clear that this passage is nothing else than an enumeration of extraordinary gifts, and that it has no bearing whatsoever on church government. The word apostle is probably used here in its broad sense, not as meaning the Apostles of Jesus Christ, but the apostles of the Church. If it is meant to include the former, then the reference is not to their ruling power, but to their supernatural gifts, upon which the whole argument turns. St. Paul thanked God that he spoke with all their tongues Barnabas is called an apostle (Acts, xiv, 4, 13). In II Cor., viii, 23, St. Paul calls his messengers “the apostles of the churches.” (Compare Rom., xvi, 7; Apoc., ii, 2.) The Didache, or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” which is probably a work of the first century, has the statement that if an apostle remains till the third day claiming support, he is to be regarded as a false prophet. It also says that every true teacher and true prophet is worthy of his support; and it gives one of the rules for detecting a false prophet. “Prophets and doctors” are referred to in Acts, xiii, 1. It is extremely probable that St. Paul had organized the Church at Corinth during his long stay there as carefully as he had previously done in Galatia (“and when they had ordained to them priests in every church”—Acts, xiv, 22) and in Ephesus “wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops”—Acts, xx, 7, 28). We have these statements on the authority of the author of the Acts, now admitted, even by Harnack, to be St. Luke, the companion of the Apostle. St. Paul had spent six or eight times as long at Corinth as he had at Philippi, yet we find him writing to the latter place: “Paul and Timothy . . . to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” (Phil., i, 1—cf. I Thess., v, 12). The principal office of the bishops and deacons was, according to the Didache, to consecrate the Blessed Eucharist. It is only by accident, as it were, on account of abuses, that St. Paul speaks, in the First Epistle, of the form of consecration used at Corinth, and which is substantially the same as that given in the Gospels. Had the abuses not arisen, it seems clear that he would not have referred to the Eucharist. He says nothing of it in the Second Epistle. In that case there would not be wanting those who would have loudly asserted that the Corinthians “knew nothing of it,” and, by implication, that the Apostle’s mind had not yet developed to that extent. But as he speaks so clearly we may take it as certain, too, that the ministers of the Eucharist were the same as in other places. There is no evidence that it was ever consecrated without a bishop or priest. These, with the deacons, were the regular ministers in each place, under the immediate jurisdiction of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. From all this we may conclude that the Church in Achaia was as regularly organized as the earlier Churches of Galatia, Ephesus, and the neighbouring Province of Macedonia, or as in the Church of Crete (Tit., i, 5). There were “bishops” (which word certainly meant priests and perhaps also our modern bishops) and deacons. Later on, Timothy, and Titus, and others were appointed over these “bishops,” priests, and deacons, and were monarchical bishops in the modern sense of the word. Other such bishops succeeded the Apostles. (See BISHOP.)

The usual Introductions such as CORNELY, JACQUIER, SALMON, BELSER, ZAHN; BERNARD, Second Corinthians in Expositor’s Greek Testament (London, 1903); FINDLAY, First Epistle to the Corinthians in Exp. Gr. Test. (London, 1900); RICKABY, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians (London, 1898); KENNEDY, Second and Third Corinthians (London, 1900); ALFORD, The Greek Test. (London, 1855), II; ROBERTSON in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible; Lives of St. Paul by FARRAR, CONYBEARE and HOWSON, LEWIN, FOUARD; MCEVILLY, An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul (3rd ed., Dublin, 1875) CORNELY, Commentarius (Paris, 1890). See also the commentaries of ESTIUS, BISPING, MAIER, LOCH, REISCHL, DRACH, STEENKISTE. The critical commentary of SCHMIEDEL, Die Briefe an die Korinther in Hand Kommentar (Leipzig, 1893); LIGHTFOOT, Biblical Essays, Notes on Epistles of St. Paul (notes on seven chapters of First Cor.—London, 1895); ROBERTSON, Corinthians in The International Critical Commentary (Cambridge, 1908).

C. AHERNE

Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis

French mathematician, born at Paris, in 1792; died in the same city, 1843. He entered the Ecole Polytechnique in 1808, and later continued his studies at the Ecole des Ponts et Chaussées. Though determined to become an engineer, he did not enter upon the practice of his profession, but became instead, in the year 1816, a tutor in mathematical analysis and mechanics at the Ecole Polytechnique. In 1838 he succeeded Dulong as director of studies in the same school. He became a member of the Académie des Sciences in 1836. Coriolis was a man of much ability, but his delicate health prevented him from doing justice to his powers. He was a successful educator and together with Gen. Poncelet was one of the pioneers of reform in the methods of teaching mechanics. While engaged in teaching, he at the same time carried on his researches in theoretical and applied mechanics. The theorem enunciated by him regarding relative motions has found numerous applications, particularly in the case of motions taking place on the surface of the earth: as, for example, the deviation towards the east of falling bodies, the apparent rotation of the plane of vibration of a pendulum, etc. Coriolis was the author of “Calcul de l’effet des machines” (1829), which was reprinted in 1844 with the title “Traité de la mécanique des corps solides,” and of “Théorie mathématique du jeu de billard” (1835). He also published a number of articles, notably in the “Dictionnaire de l’industrie.”

MARIE, Hist. des sciences math. et phys. (Paris, 1888), XII, 190.

HENRY M. BROCK

Diocese of Cork

(Corcagia, Corcagiensis).

In Ireland, suffragan of Cashel. St. Finbarr was the founder and first bishop of this see. He was born about the middle of the sixth century at Rathculleen, six miles north of Bandon, and educated in Leinster. Having spent some time on “a green island” in Gougane Barra, he founded a monastery and a school at Lough Eirc, the name given to the marshy expansion of the river Lee, on which the city is built, and from which both city and diocese derive the name Cork (corcagh, “marsh”). This monastery seems to have been erected on the elevated plateau to the south of the city, now known as the Rock, close by the palace of the Protestant bishop. Soon many students flocked thither from various parts. They and those interested in them rapidly took possession of the large island in the marsh beneath, built on it and so gave birth to a city which now numbers over 70,000 inhabitants, and is the residence of the saint’s episcopal successor.

The limits of the territory over which St. Finbarr ruled cannot be accurately defined today. A fact, however, not generally recognized by historians enables us to conclude that the boundaries were sufficiently clear even in the most ancient times. Finbarr’s father was chief metal-worker to Tigherneach, chief of Ui Eachach Mumhan. As the saint advanced in years he was venerated as a patron by the entire sept, and so obtained spiritual jurisdiction over their wide territories. The eastern and western limits were respectively Cork and Mizzen Head, and there are arguments to show that the northern and southern were the Avonmore (Blackwater) and the ocean. In the Synod of Rathbreasail (1110) these are also named as the limits of the Diocese of Cork, whence it would appear that the sept lands and the diocese were coterminous, as was the case with St. Faughnan’s Diocese of Ross, which coincides with the lands of the O’Driscolls; and that of St. Munchin, Limerick, with those of Ui Fighente, in later times O’Donovans. At some period after the twelfth century part of the territory between the Lee and Blackwater to the north was detached in favour of the neighbouring Diocese of Cloyne; the land of the O’Driscolls had been already erected into the Diocese of Ross; and today Cork is approximately bounded on the north by the city and suburbs, and the River Lee as far as Gougane Barra, on the east by Cork Harbour, on the south by the Diocese of Ross and the ocean, and on the west by Bantry Bay.

The church and monastery founded by St. Finbarr were naturally the centre of the diocese till the sixteenth century. For many years the successor to the first abbot was also bishop of the diocese. Other churches and monasteries, however, grew up in the city itself and in the territories over which he ruled. In a document dated 1199, in which Innocent III confirms to the Bishop of Cork his various privileges, mention is made of eight churches in the city, the first being Sancta Maria in Monte, doubtless St. Mary’s, Shandon, close by which stands the Catholic cathedral of today. Two centuries later (1309), in the will of John de Wychedon, we find the names of no fewer than fifteen churches, all in the city, four of them bearing names such as “Lepers of Dilby,” “Lepers of Glenamore”; but a hundred years after this (1462), in a charter of Edward IV, we find only eleven churches mentioned of the churches in country districts during this long period we have no definite account. The Carmelites were introduced into Kinsale in 1334 by Robert Balrain; much earlier, in the seventh century, we find mention of Saint Gobban, abbot of a monastery of regular canons in the same town. In Bantry Dermot O’Sullivan Beare built a convent for Franciscans about 1463, and McCarthy Lauder had done likewise at Balymacadane on the Bandon Road in 1460. Tracton Abbey, two miles west from Carrigaline, was begun in 1224, and the great monastery of Kilcrea, five miles west of Cork, was founded by MacCarthy Mor in 1466, who is interred in the middle of the choir.

At the Reformation, when Bishop Bennett was deprived of the temporalities of the see (1535), such of the churches as remained passed into Protestant hands. Among others the old church of St. Finbarr, called Gill Abbey, after a famous bishop of the twelfth century (1152–72), seems to have remained in some form till 1725. At that date it was removed to make room for a more modern building, which in turn has been succeeded by the present Protestant cathedral. After the Sequestration the Catholics had perforce to rest contented with very humble “Mass-houses,” as contemporary accounts describe them. In the reports given by government officials in 1731 we find many of them put down as huts; and the addition “built since George the 1st” applied to the names of many more. The existing churches of the diocese have been erected in recent years on, or near, the sites of these last monuments of persecution. In the five parishes into which the city is divided there are thirteen public churches, besides private oratories and chapels attached to institutions. In each of the thirty parishes in country districts there are one, two, or three churches, according to the population, all of recent erection, and built in a manner that befits the great mysteries they enclose. Of the city parishes two—that called the North, or St. Mary’s, and that of Sts. Peter and Paul—are held by the bishop. In the former stands the pro-cathedral, begun by Dr. Moylan in 1729, a red sandstone structure, overlooked by a magnificent tower of the same material, due to the energy of a well-known Cork priest.

The lists of successors to St. Finbarr in the bishopric vary considerably with the different authorities. The present (1908) occupant of the see is described as the 59th, or the 105th, from the first bishop. The latter number seems to be the more correct, though somewhat too large. Two have been raised to the altars of the Church—St. Nessan and Blessed Thaddeus McCarthy. The veneration of the former dates from ancient times, that of the latter from 1492, when he died a pilgrim at Ivrea in Piedmont, Italy. First appointed Bishop of Ross, and expelled therefrom on a false charge, he was nominated to the united Dioceses of Cork and Cloyne. Unable to occupy the see owing to the opposition of the Geraldines, etc., he journeyed to Rome, won his cause, but died amid wonderful evidences of sanctity on the return journey. The decree of his beatification was published in 1895. Giolla Aedh O’Muighin (1152–72) was a famous bishop. He practically refounded the old monastery of St. Finbarr; like his great predecessor he belonged to a Connacht clan. The Four Masters speak of him as “the tower of the virginity and wisdom of the time.”

Three centuries after his death (1430), at the instance of the Bishop of Cloyne, the two Dioceses of Cork and Cloyne were united, and remained thus for three hundred years (1747). During the seventeenth century the united bishoprics were more than once governed by vicars apostolic. This occurred in 1614–22, and again in 1666–76. During the same period Catholic citizens of Cork were more than once expelled for their religion; frequently the Catholics of the province were forbidden to live in walled towns or fortified places (1644, 56, 72). In 1693, on the representation of King James, the administration of Ross was given to the reigning Bishop Sleyne. It seems to have remained in the hands of his successors until 1747, when it passed into the jurisdiction of the newly enfranchised Bishopric of St. Colman.

The Diocese of Cork possessed a chapter, with twelve prebendaries and the usual dignitaries. Though re-established by Dr. Delaney in 1858–59, it dates from the twelfth century; naturally it ceased to exist during the years of persecution. The religious orders and congregations in the diocese are eight in number: Augustinians (second foundation, Red Abbey, in fifteenth century); Dominicans (first foundation Abbey of the Island, 1229); Friars Minor (first foundation near Wise’s Hill, 1214); Carmelites (Kinsale); Franciscan Capuchins; Vincentians; Fathers of Charity; Society of African Missions, the last four being quite modern foundations. There are in addition two teaching orders of men, the Christian and Presentation Brothers, besides 11 communities of nuns; the latter are: Presentation (4 houses), Ursulines (2 houses), Sisters of Mercy (4 houses), Sisters of Charity (4 houses), Good Shepherd (1 house), French Sisters of Charity (2 houses), Sisters of Marie Réparatrice (1 house), Bon Secours (1 house), Sisters of the Poor (1 house), Sisters of the Assumption (1 house), the last nursing the poor in their own homes.

At the census of 1891 the Catholic population of the diocese numbered 178,461. They are attended by one bishop and 114 priests, who administer 35 parishes, of which 5 are in the city. Kilcrea Abbey and Gougane Barra are the best preserved among the early monuments of the diocese. A great part of the former still stands. The latter is an island on which are the ruins of a square court, with walls fourteen feet thick, in which are eight cells or cloisters rudely arched over. Each of the cells is ten feet deep by seven broad, and the court fifty feet square. It was here that St. Finbarr prepared himself by prayer and seclusion in the lonely shadows of the mountains that surround the lake for the great work of founding a city and a diocese.

BRADY, Episcopal Succession in England, Ireland, and Scotland (Rome, 1876), II, 78–98; Archæolopical Journal (Cork), passim; SMITH, Cork (1750, new ed. 1815), with Notes by CROKER and CAULFIELD (Cork, 1893); TUCKEY, Cork Remembrances (Cork, 1837); LYNCH, Cambrensis Eversus (1662), passim; O’DONOVAN (ed.), Annals of the Four Masters, passim; CUSACK, History of the City and County (Dublin, 1875); GIBSON, Hist. of the County and City of Cork (London, 1861).

P. SEXTON.

School of Cork

The monastic School of Cork had a wide reputation, especially in the seventh and eighth centuries. The name is derived from the Irish corcagh, which means a marsh, for in ancient times the floods of the River Lee covered the low ground on which most of the present city of Cork was afterwards built. The founder of the School and Diocese of Cork was Barra or Bairre (Barry), more commonly called Finbarr the Fair-haired. His family belonged to the Hy Brinin Ratha, a tribe that dwelt on the eastern shore of Lough Corrib, in the County Galway; but his father, a skilful cerd, or certified worker in brass, was forced to migrate to Hy Liathain, in the west of the County Cork, where the saint was born about the middle of the sixth century. His chief teacher was a certain MacCuirp, or Curporius, who himself, it is said, had been a student under St. Gregory the Great in Rome. To perfect himself in the science of the saints, Barra retired to a hermitage in a small island of the lonely lake which still bears his name, Gougane Barra. Callanan’s splendid poem in praise of the romantic beauty of this lake has made its name familiar to all Irishmen. From Gougane Barra, it would appear, Barra returned to his native territory, where he founded some dozen churches before he finally established himself near the marsh of Lough Eirc (Eirce), which appears to have been the original name of the place. There he founded a monastic school about 620, which in a short time attracted a multitude of students and produced many great scholars. The Irish “Life of Finbarr” gives the names of a dozen of these holy and learned men, who in turn became founders of churches and schools in the South of Ireland. The most distinguished of them was St. Colman Mac Ua Cluasaigh, Ferlegind or professor in the School of Cork about the year 664.

At that time all Ireland was devastated by a terrible yellow plague which carried off two-thirds of the population. There was a prevalent idea that the pestilence could not, or at least did not, extend beyond nine waves from the shore. So Colman and his pupils wisely resolved to migrate from their monastery in the marshes of Cork to one of the islands in the high sea. Being a poet and a holy man he composed a poem, mostly in Irish, committing himself and his pupils to the protection of God and His saints, especially the patron saints of Erin. As they sought their island refuge the students chanted the poem verse by verse, each one reciting his own stanza until it was finished, and then they began again. Fortunately most of this poem still survives, and is printed in the “Leabhar Imuin” or “Book of Hymns” (edited by J. H. Todd, Dublin, 1855–69). The language is of the most archaic type of Gaelic, and is interspersed here and there with phrases mostly taken from Scripture but made to rhyme with each other as the Gaelic lines themselves do. The School of Cork continued to flourish for many centuries, even after the Danes had established themselves there, in 874 we find recorded the death of a “Scribe of Cork,” and in 891 we are told of the death of a certain son of Connudh, “a scribe, wise man, bishop and abbot of Cork.” In 1134 the ancient monastery and School of Cork, which had fallen into decay, were refounded by the celebrated Cormac MacCarthy, King of Munster. (See FINBARR, SAINT.)

TODD, Book of Hymns (Dublin, 1869), II; HEALY, Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1890); Latin Lives of St. Finbarr, ed. CAULFIELD (London, 1864); O HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints, 25 Sept.; FORBES in Dict. of Christ. Biog., I, 266 sq.; LANIGAN, Eccl. Hist. of Ireland (Dublin, 1829), II, 314 sqq.

JOHN HEALY

Maurus Corker

An English Benedictine, born in 1636 in Yorkshire; died 22 December, 1715, at Paddington near London. His baptismal name, James, he exchanged for Maurus when he entered the order. On 23 April, 1656, he took vows at the English Benedictine Abbey of Lamspringe near Hildesheim, in Germany, and returned to England as missionary in 1665. Being accused by Titus Oates of implication in “the Popish Plot” he was imprisoned in Newgate, but was acquitted of treason by a London jury, 18 July, 1679. Hereupon he was arraigned for being a priest and sentenced to death, 17 January, 1680. Through influential friends he was granted a reprieve and detained in Newgate. While thus confined he is said to have reconciled more than a thousand Protestants to the Faith. One of his fellow-prisoners at Newgate was the saintly Oliver Plunket, Archbishop of Armagh, with whom he formed an intimate friendship, and whom he prepared for his martyrdom, which took place, 15 June, 1681. Some very interesting correspondence which was carried on in prison between these two confessors of the Faith was published in the “Irish Ecclesiastical Record” (Sept., 1883). On the accession of James II in 1685, Father Corker was released and kept at the court as resident ambassador of Prince-Bishop Ferdinand of Bavaria, the Elector of Cologne. In 1687 he erected the little convent of St. John at Clerkenwell, where religious services were held for the public, but which was destroyed by a mob, 11 November, 1688, during the revolt against King James. Father Corker himself was obliged to seek refuge on the continent. In 1691 he was made Abbot of Cismar near Lübeck and, two years later, of Lamspringe, where he had made his religious profession. In 1696 he resigned as abbot and returned to England to continue his missionary labours. He is the author of various pamphlets proving the innocence of those condemned for implication in the fictitious “Popish Plot.”

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of Eng. Cath. s. v.; WELDON, Chronicle of the English Benedictine Monks (London, 1881), 219, etc.; CHALLONER, Memoirs of Missionary Priests (Derby, 1843) II; MORAN, in Irish Eccl. Record, IV, 613 sq.; TAUNTON, The English Black Monks of St. Benedict (London, 1898), II, passim; SPILLMANN, Die Blutzeugen aus den Tagen der Titus Oates Verschwörung (Freiburg im Br., 1901), 135 sq.

MICHAEL OTT

Cormac MacCuilenan

(836–908).

An Irish bishop and King of Cashel, Cormac MacCquilenan was of the race of Eoghanact, of Southern Ireland, and in his early years received a good education in one of the Irish schools. He was ordained priest, and afterwards appointed Bishop of Cashel. In the year 900 he became, on account of his descent, King of Cashel, and thus were combined in his person the two offices of spiritual and temporal ruler of Leth Moga, as the southern portion of Ireland was called. The ardri (high king), Flann, assisted by the King of Leinster, led his forces into the Southern Province (906), and was met by the Munstermen under Cormac at Moylena (Tullamore). The ardri suffered a signal defeat. Later on, however (908) Flann, assisted by Ceorbhall, King of Leinster, and Cathal, King of Connaught, returned to the attack, apparently because Cormac, instigated by Flaherty, Abbot of Inniscathay, had claimed tribute from Leinster, and had even signified his intention of assuming the position of ardri. The battle was fought at the present Ballymoon; the Munstermen suffered a complete defeat and Cormac was killed in the battle. An Irish Glossary called “Sanas Chormaic,” containing etymologies and explanations of over 1400 Irish words has come down to us. Though, etymologically, the work is of little value, yet on account of the light it throws upon many ancient Irish customs and institutions it is of great importance to the historian. The “Glossary of Cormac” is said to be only a part of the “Saltair Chaisil,” also attributed to Cormac. This work, if it ever existed, has disappeared, or, as W. Stokes thinks, it is more likely that at best the “Saltair Chaisil” was only a collection of transcripts of manuscripts from the hands of different writers. The above-mentioned “Sanas Chormaic,” or “Cormac’s Glossary,” was translated and annotated by John O’Donovan and edited by W. Stokes (Calcutta, 1868). See Stokes, “Three Irish Glossaries” (London, 1862).

O’DONOVAN, The Annals of Ireland (Dublin), I, II; O’CURRY, Manuscript Materials of Irish History (Dublin, 1873); O’DONOVAN ed., Books of Rights in Publications of Celtic Society; WEBB, Compendium of Irish Biography (Dublin, 1878); D’ALTON, History of Ireland (Dublin, 1903), I.

JAMES MACCAFFREY.

Elena Lucrezia Piscopia Cornaro

A learned Italian woman of noble descent, born at Venice, 5 June, 1646; died at Padua, 26 July, 1684. Her father, Giovanni Battista Cornaro, was Procurator of St. Mark’s. At the age of seven she began the study of Latin and Greek under distinguished instructors, and soon became proficient in these languages. She also mastered Hebrew, Spanish, French, and Arabic, earning the title of “Oraculum Septilingue.” Her later studies included mathematics, philosophy, and theology. In 1665 she took the habit of a Benedictine Oblate without, however, becoming a nun. In compliance with her father’s wishes she entered the University of Padua and after a brilliant course of study received the doctorate in philosophy. The degree was conferred 25 June, 1678, in the cathedral of Padua in presence of many persons eminent for learning and rank. Elena was a member of various academies and was esteemed throughout Europe for her attainments and virtues. The last seven years of her life were devoted to study and charity. She was buried in the church of Santa Giustina at Padua and her statue was placed in the university. Her writings, published at Parma in 1688, include academic discourses, translations, and devotional treatises. In 1685 the University of Padua caused a medal to be struck in her honour. In 1895 Abbess Mathilda Pynsent of the English Benedictine Nuns in Rome had Elena’s tomb opened, the remains placed in a new casket, and a suitable tablet inscribed to her memory.

Biographies (in Italian) by DEZA (Venice, 1686); LUPIS (Venice, 1689); BACCHINI (Parma, 1688); more recently, DE SANTI (Rome, 1899); ABBESS PYNSENT, Life of Helen Lucretia Cornaro (Rome, 1896). For an account of the bibliography see Civiltà Cattolica (Rome, 1898–1899), 17th series vols. IV, V; BAILEY, A Daughter of the Doges in Amer. Cath. Quart. Review (Philadelphia, 1896), XXI, 820.

E. A. PACE

Jean-Baptiste Corneille

French painter, etcher, and engraver, b. at Paris between 1646 and 1649; d. there, 12 April, 1695. He was the youngest son of Michel Corneille of Orléans, and brother of the younger Michel. He is known as “the younger, Corneille.” His devoted father was his teacher and painstakingly prepared the youth for his future successes as an historical painter. In 1664 he won the second prize and in 1668 the first prize of the academy. He then went to study in Rome and, on his return in 1675 was received into the Royal Academy, painting for his reception-picture the “Punishment of Busiris by Hercules,” now one of the notable canvases in the Louvre. He painted in some of the Paris churches and in 1679 finished his “Deliverance of St. Peter from Prison” for the Cathedral of Notre-Dame. With Jacques Vouet he was employed on the decorations of the Tuileries. In 1692 he was appointed professor in the academy.

His style, like his brother’s, was that of the school of the Desiderosi, but Jean was somewhat inferior to the younger Michel in composition and drawing. Many of the paintings of this excellent artist were engraved by contemporaries, a few by the great Mariette, and Jean himself engraved and etched plates after his own designs and finished pictures, and after the Carracci. His work with acid and the burin was spirited and exhibited his thorough mastery of technic. He commenced and finished his plates after the manner of Agostino Carracci. His most important plates were: “Bust of Michelangelo,” “St. Bernard,” “Mercury in the Air,” and “St. John in the Wilderness” (after Annibale Carracci).

For bibliography, see article CORNEILLE, MICHEL (the Younger).

LEIGH HUNT

Michel Corneille (the Younger)

French painter, etcher and engraver, b. in Paris in 1642; d. at the Gobelins manufactory at Paris, 16 August, 1708. He was the son of an artist, Michel Corneille of Orléans, and on this account is sometimes called the “younger Michel.” He is also and more commonly known as the “elder Corneille” (Corneille l’Aîné), to distinguish him from a younger brother, Jean-Baptiste Corneille, also a painter. His father was the first and the most indefatigable of his teachers; his other masters were Mignard and the celebrated Lebrun. Devoting himself wholly to historical painting, Michel won the Academy Prize and went to Rome on the king’s pension; but feeling his genius hampered by the restrictions of the prize, he gave up the money so that he might study the antique in his own way. Coming under the then powerful influence of the Eclectics, he studied with the Carracci and modelled his style on theirs. In 1663 he returned to Paris and was elected a member of the Royal Academy, his picture on entering being “Our Lord’s Appearance to St. Peter after His Resurrection.” In 1673 he became an adjunct, and, in 1690, a full, professor in the Academy.

Corneille painted for the king at Versailles, Meudon, and Fontainebleau, and decorated in fresco many of the great Paris churches, notably Notre-Dame, the church of the Capuchins, and the chapel of Saint-Grégoire in the Invalides. His style, reminiscent of the old masters, is the conventional style of the Eclectics; his drawing is remarkably careful and exact, the expression on the faces of his religious subjects is dignified and noble, the management of chiaroscuro excellent, and the composition harmonious, but suggestive of the Venetian School. From his insufficient knowledge of the composition of pigments, the colour in many of his pictures has suffered such a change that it is to-day disagreeable; but the artist possessed a good colour-sense, and contemporary records go to prove that his colour was refined and pleasing. He etched and engraved over a hundred plates in a bold and free style, for he was a master of the line; but he subsequently spoiled the effect by too much and too precise work with the graver. A dishonest dealer put Raphael’s name on some of Michel Corneille’s plates, and for a long time no one disputed their attribution to the great master. For many years Corneille resided at the Gobelins manufactory, and was sometimes called “Corneille des Gobelins.” Among his paintings are a “Repose in Egypt,” now in the Louvre, and a “Baptism of Constantine,” in the museum at Bordeaux. Among his more important etched and engraved works are: “The Nativity”; “Flight into Egypt”; “Abraham journeying with Lot” (wrongly ascribed to Raphael), and “Jacob wrestling with the Angel,” a plate after Annibale Caracci.

Mémoires inédits sur la vie et les ouvrages de l’Académie royale de peinture (Paris, 1884); Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon (Berlin, 1870); DURRIEN, La peinture à l’exposition de primitifs français (Paris, 1904).

LEIGH HUNT

Michel Corneille (the Elder)

French painter, etcher, and engraver, b. in Orléans about 1601; d. at Paris, 1664. He was one of many who studied with that celebrated master, Simon Vouet, who exerted a despotic influence over the French School, and impressed his artistic personality so strongly on all his pupils. Michel devoted himself to historical paintings, and was one of the twelve original members of the Royal Academy at its foundation in 1648. He became its rector in 1656. He was an excellent colourist—in this more Venetian than French—and his early style resembled that of Simon Vouet; later his work had all the merits and all the faults of the post-Raphaelite, or decadent, “sweet,” school of Italian art, showing the far-reaching influence of the Carracci. He was long employed in the decoration of churches in Paris, his masterpiece being the celebrated “St. Paul and St. Barnabas at Lystra,” painted for the Cathedral of Notre-Dame. His etched and engraved work differed very little from that of the Carracci and of his two sons. It was chiefly reproductive. Notable examples are the “Murder of the Innocents,” after Raphael, and the “Virgin Suckling the Infant Jesus,” after Lodovico Carracci.

MEYER, Geschichte der französischen Malerei (Leipzig, 1867); see, also, bibliography under CORNEILLE, MICHEL (the Younger).

LEIGH HUNT

Pierre Corneille

A French dramatist, b. at Rouen, 6 June, 1606; d. at Paris, 1 October, 1684. His father, Pierre Corneille, was avocat du roi and maître des eaux et forêts in the Vicomté of Rouen. His mother, Marthe Lepesant, belonged to an old family of Normandy. He was educated at the Jesuit college in Rouen, studied law at Caen, and was admitted to the Bar in 1624. Four years later he was granted the office of Advocate to the Admiralty. Although the duties of his charge allowed him leisure enough to follow his poetical vocation, he soon quitted the Bar and went to Paris, in 1629. The first comedy he produced, “Mélite” (1629), met with so great a success that he resolved to write for the stage. Other plays followed rapidly: “Clitandre” (1632), “La Veuve,” “La galerie du palais” (1633), “La suivante,” “La place royale” (1634), “Méée” (1635), “L’illusion comique” (1636). Cardinal Richelieu, who took a great interest in dramatic matters and was even the writer of several plays, realized that the young author had some talent and enrolled him, in 1633, among “the five authors,” whose functions consisted in revising and polishing the plays written by the great politician. Corneille was too independent a genius to get along with the autocratic playwright; he was dismissed, in 1635, because he had no esprit de suite, and returned to Rouen.

The year 1636 saw the production of “Le Cid,” which marked the beginning of a new epoch in the French drama. Its remarkable success aroused Richelieu’s anger and jealousy to such a degree that the French Academy, which was so much indebted to the great cardinal, was obliged to crtiicize the play in a public pamphlet, known as “Les sentiments de l’Académie sur le Cid,” written, under command, by Chapelain. The public, however, admired “Le Cid” none the less, and, as Boileau said, “all Paris saw Rodrigue with the same eyes as Chimène.” After a silence of four years Corneille brought out “Horace” and “Cinna” (1640). The poet was then in full possession of his talent and from this time to the year 1651 produced a series of plays, most of which are masterpieces: “Polyeucte,” a Christian tragedy, perhaps the most perfect of Corneille’s plays; “Pompée”; “Le Menteur” (1643), a comedy; “Théodore, vierge et martyre,” a very poor drama which failed; “La suite du menteur” (1645); “Rodogune” (1646); “Héraclius” (1647); “Andromède” (1650); “Don Sanche d’Aragon” (1650); “Nicomède” (1651).

Corneille was elected to the French Academy in 1647. After “Pertharite” (1653), which was a decided failure, he resolved to quit the stage, and in his retreat at Rouen began to translate the “Imitation of Christ” at the solicitation of Queen Anne of Austria. A few years later, yielding to Fouquet’s entreaties, he began again to write plays: “Œdipe” (1659), “Sertorius” (1662), “Sophonisbe” (1663), “Othon” (1664), “Agésilas” (1666), “Attila” (1667), “Tite et Bérénice” (1670), “Pulchérie” (1672), “Suréna” (1674), which, in spite of a few sparks of genius, show too well the decline of a once powerful playwright. Besides his plays Corneille wrote in prose “Discours sur l’art dramatique et examens” (1660), and contributed several poems to the “Guirlande de Julie.” Corneille was a true Christian. For years he served as churchwarden of the church of Saint-Sauveur in Rouen, and discharged his duties most religiously. Towards the end of his life he sold the house in which he was born to give a dowry to his daughter, who entered the Order of Saint Dominic. In all his dramas he constantly pursued a lofty ideal, showing men “as they should be,” and representing characters whose heroism, sense of duty, and readiness to self-sacrifice contain lessons of highest morality. The standard text of Corneille’s works is the edition of Marty-Laveaux (2 vols., Paris, 1862–68).

PICOT, La bibliographie cornélienne (Paris, 1876); TASCHEREAU, Histoire de la vie et des ouvrages de Pierre Corneille (Paris, 1855); SAINTE-BEUVE, Portraits littéraires (1829), I; NISARD, Histoire de la littérature française (1844), II; GUIZOT, Corneille et son temps (1852); GODEFROY, Lexique comparé de la langue de Corneille (Paris, 1862); FAGUET, Le dix-septième siècle (1880); BRUNETIÈRE in La grande encyc., s.v.; IDEM, Les époques du théâtre français; PETIT DE JULLEVILLE, Histoire de la langue et de la littérature française (Paris, 1897), IV, 863–945.

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Jacob Cornelisz

Also called Jacob van Amsterdam or van Oostzann, and at times confounded with a Walter van Assen, a Dutch painter of the first third of the sixteenth century. Nothing certain is known regarding the life of Cornelisz nor of his relations to other artists. He was one of the last painters of the Netherlands who showed no traces of Italian influence; however, his pupil, Jan van Scorel, is regarded as the first “Romanist.” In composition Cornelisz was natural and expressed agreeable feeling in the manner of the old Flemish school; his colours are rich and warm; his backgrounds display an attractive landscape. But besides mistakes in drawing, an ugly realism often detracts from his work. Pictures are extant which it is certain he painted in the years 1506–30. A small yet attractive altar-piece in Berlin represents in the foreground the Madonna and Child with angels playing musical instruments, while the background shows a landscape; on the wings are depicted St. Augustine, St. Barbara, and the donor; the outer sides of the wings show St. Anne and St. Elizabeth. An altar-piece in the Belvedere at Vienna, representing St. Jerome, is full of force, variety, and religious feeling. St. Jerome is drawing a thorn out of the foot of a lion; the landscape in the background shows scenes from the life of the saint; on the outside of the doors is the Mass of St. Gregory. One of the most important works of Cornelisz is the “Triumph of Religion,” or the “Adoration of the Trinity,” at Cassel. At Antwerp there is an altar-piece of the Virgin with angels; another, representing the Crucifixion, is at Cologne. A “Nativity” at Naples and an “Adoration of the Magi” at Verona are carefully executed paintings. Both Berlin and the archiepiscopal museum at Antwerp possess canvases representing the Adoration of the Magi; a painting of the same subject is in private possession at The Hague. The figure of Christ and the drapery of Mary Magdalen are not pleasing in a picture at Cassel of the Risen Christ, painted by Cornelisz in his earliest period. Another canvas of a later date shows Saul and the Witch of Endor.

WAAGEN, Handbuch der deutschen und niederländischen Malerschulen (Stuttgart, 1862), I; SCHMIDT, Kunstchronik, XV; BODE, Repertorium, IV; SCHEIBLER, Gemälde des Jakob Cornelisz von Amsterdam in Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen (1882); FRANTZ, Geschichte der christlichen Malerei (Freiburg im Br., 1894), II.

G. GIETMANN

Cornelius

(Kornelios)

A centurion of the Italic cohort, whose conversion at Cæsarea with his household is related in Acts 10. The Roman name Cornelius would indicate that he was either a member of the distinguished gens Cornelia, or a descendant of one of its freedmen—most likely the latter. The cohort in which he was centurion was probably the Cohors II Italica civium Romanorum, which a recently discovered inscription proves to have been stationed in Syria before A.D. 69.

The description of Cornelius as “a religious man, and fearing God. . . . , giving much alms to the people” [i.e. the Jews (cf. 10:22)], shows that he was one of those gentiles commonly, though incorrectly, called proselytes of the gate, who worshipped the one true God and observed some of the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law, but who were not affiliated to the Jewish community by circumcision. He was certainly not a full proselyte (Acts 10:28, 34 sq., 45; 11:3).

The baptism of Cornelius is an important event in the history of the Early Church. The gates of the Church, within which thus far only those who were circumcised and observed the Law of Moses had been admitted, were now thrown open to the uncircumcised Gentiles without the obligation of submitting to the Jewish ceremonial laws. The innovation was disapproved by the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem (Acts 11:2, 3); but when Peter had related his own and Cornelius’s vision and how the Holy Ghost had come down upon the new converts, opposition ceased (Acts 11:4–18) except on the part of a few extremists. The matter was finally settled at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).

According to one tradition Cornelius became Bishop of Cæsarea; according to another, Bishop of Scepsis in Mysia.

RAMSAY, Cornelius and the Italic Cohort in Expositor (1896), 194 sq.; Acta SS., Feb., I, 279 sq.; BARONIUS, Annales ad an. 41, n. 2; P. G., I, 1049; CXIV, 1287; P. L., XXIII, 265.

F. BECHTEL

Pope Cornelius

Martyr (251 to 253).

We may accept the statement of the Liberian catalogue that he reigned two years, three months, and ten days, for Lipsius, Lightfoot, and Harnack have shown that this list is a first-rate authority for this date. His predecessor, Fabian, was put to death by Decius, 20 January, 250. About the beginning of March, 251 the persecution slackened, owing to the absence of the emperor, against whom two rivals had arisen. It was possible to assemble sixteen bishops at Rome, and Cornelius was elected though against his will (Cyprian, Ep. lv, 24), “by the judgment of God and of Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the vote of the people then present, by the consent of aged priests and of good men, at a time when no one had been made before him, when the place of Fabian, that is the place of Peter, and the step of the sacerdotal chair were vacant.” “What fortitude in his acceptance of the episcopate, what strength of mind, what firmness of faith, that he took his seat intrepid in the sacerdotal chair, at a time when the tyrant in his hatred of bishops was making unspeakable threats, when he heard with far more patience that a rival prince was arising against him, than that a bishop of God was appointed at Rome” (ibid., 9). Is he not, asks St. Cyprian, to be numbered among the glorious confessors and martyrs who sat so long awaiting the sword or the cross or the stake and every other torture?

A few weeks later the Roman priest Novatian made himself antipope, and the whole Christian world was convulsed by the schism at Rome. But the adhesion of St. Cyprian secured to Cornelius the hundred bishops of Africa, and the influence of St. Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, brought the East within a few months to a right decision. In Italy itself the pope got together a synod of sixty bishops. (See .) Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, seems to have wavered. Three letters to him from Cornelius were known to Eusebius, who gives extracts from one of them (Hist. Eccl., VI, xliii), in which the pope details the faults in Novatian’s election and conduct with considerable bitterness. We incidentally learn that in the Roman Church there were forty-six priests, seven deacons, seven subdeacons, forty-two acolytes, fifty-two ostiarii, and over one thousand five hundred widows and persons in distress. From this Burnet estimated the number of Christians in Rome at fifty thousand, so also Gibbon; but Benson and Harnack think this figure possibly too large. Pope Fabian had made seven regions; it appears that each had one deacon, one subdeacon and six acolytes. Of the letters of Cornelius to Cyprian two have come down to us, together with nine from Cyprian to the pope. Mgr. Merrati has shown that in the true text the letters of Cornelius are in the colloquial “vulgar-Latin” of the day, and not in the more classical style affected by the ex-orator Cyprian and the learned philosopher Novatian. Cornelius sanctioned the milder measures proposed by St. Cyprian and accepted by his Carthaginian council of 251 for the restoration to communion, after varying forms of penance, of those who had fallen during the Decian persecution (see ).

At the beginning of 252 a new persecution suddenly broke out. Cornelius was exiled to Centumcellæ (Civita Vecchia). There were no defections among the Roman Christians; all were confessors. The pope “led his brethren in confession,” writes Cyprian (Ep. lx, ad Corn.), with a manifest reference to the confession of St. Peter. “With one heart and one voice the whole Roman Church confessed. Then was seen, dearest Brother, that faith which the blessed Apostle praised in you (Rom., i, 8); even then he foresaw in spirit your glorious fortitude and firm strength.” In June Cornelius died a martyr, as St. Cyprian repeatedly calls him. The Liberian catalogue has ibi cum gloriâ dormicionem accepit, and this may mean that he died of the rigours of his banishment, though later accounts say that he was beheaded. St. Jerome says that Cornelius and Cyprian suffered on the same day in different years, and his careless statement has been generally followed. The feast of St. Cyprian was in fact kept at Rome at the tomb of Cornelius, for the fourth century “Depositio Martirum” has “XVIII kl octob Cypriani Africæ Romæ celebratur in Callisti.” St. Cornelius was not buried in the chapel of the popes, but in an adjoining catacomb, perhaps that of a branch of the noble Cornelii. His inscription is in Latin: CORNELIUS* MARTYR* whereas those of Fabian and Lucius are in Greek (Northcote and Brownlow, “Roma sotteranea,” I, vi). His feast is kept with that of St. Cyprian on 14 September, possibly the day of his translation from Centumcellæ to the catacombs.

The two Latin letters will be found in all editions of Cyprian. A better text is in Mercati, D’alcuni muori sussidi per la critica del texto di S. Cipriano (Rome, 1899). They will be found with the fragments in Coustant, Epp. Rom. Pontt. and in Routh, Reliquæ Sacræ. There is a spurious letter to St. Cyprian in the appendix to his works, another to Lupicinus of Vienne, and two more were forged by Pseudo-Isidore. All these will be found in the collections of councils and in Migne. The pseudo-Cyprianic Ad Novatianum is attributed to Cornelius by Nelke, Die Chronol. der Correspondenz Cyprians (Thorn, 1902); but it is by an unknown contemporary. On Cornelius see Tillemont, III; Acta SS. 14 Sept.; Benson, Cyprian (London, 1897). The Acta of St. Cornelius are valueless.

JOHN CHAPMAN

Peter Cornelius

Later when ennobled, VON CORNELIUS

Born at Düsseldorf, 23 September, 1783; died at Berlin, 6 March, 1867. In 1811 he went to Rome, where he stayed until 1819. Returning home he became director of the Academy of Fine Arts at Düsseldorf; while at Düsseldorf he also executed works on a large scale for the Crown-Prince of Bavaria, later Louis I. In 1825 Cornelius was appointed director of the Academy at Munich, and for a long time Louis I of Bavaria was his liberal patron. After fifteen years, however, misunderstandings and the envy of detractors obliged Cornelius to accept the position offered him by Frederick IV of Prussia as director of the Academy of Fine Arts at Berlin, which office he retained until his death. Cornelius early developed poetic imagination, great energy, courage for large undertakings, and technical skill. He felt himself called to accomplish great tasks, and soon occupied himself with a large theme, the illustration of Goethe’s “Faust.” The publication of the first six sheets furnished Cornelius with the means for his first visit to Rome. Here he joined the Italian colony of German artists, the so-called “Nazarene painters,” and was powerfully stimulated both by working with them and by their enthusiasm for a new school of German-Christian art. This intercourse, however, entailed no loss of his independence and native force. He drew the remaining six pictures for “Faust,” illustrated the “Romeo and Juliet” of Shakespeare, whose works just at this period were becoming better known in Germany, and filled by the rising national spirit of his country made drawings for the old German epic, the “Niebelungenlied.”

While at Rome his longing to express great conceptions in fresco-painting on a large scale had its first opportunity of fulfilment. The Prussian ambassador, Bartholdy, gave a commission to the German painters for the decoration of his house on Monte Pincio with frescoes from the Old-Testament story of Joseph; through Bartholdy’s influence the same painters received an order from the Marchese Massimi to paint frescoes from the works of Ariosto, Tasso, and Dante in his villa near the Lateran. Some of these frescoes have a deservedly high reputation, as: “Joseph before Pharao,” “Joseph and his Brethren,” “Dante before Peter, James, and John,” as well as other groups in the cartoons for scenes in Paradise. Three of the Dante cartoons were completed, but one of them has since vanished. The superiority of Cornelius to the entire circle of his artist-friends, Overbeck included, became so clear to men like Niebuhr and Prince Louis of Bavaria that the two positions above-mentioned, at Düsseldorf and Munich, were offered him. No longer hampered by material cares or artistic limitations, Cornelius had now full opportunity and a fine field for the carrying out of his ideals. A commanding place in the artistic world of his own country was a long time assured him, and the attainment of his hopes for the development of art on a heroic scale in Germany seemed near. The first ten years of his life in Düsseldorf and Munich as a professor and working artist formed a period of great renown and success.

As director Cornelius took up with vigour the reorganization of the art academies of Munich and Düsseldorf, but his influence in the latter city was not permanent. After he had made Munich his permanent residence and most of his friends had followed him there, the academy at Düsseldorf, under the direction of Schadow, pursued other aims, one of the main differences being that the scheme of developing painting in fresco on a heroic scale was abandoned. At the same time Cornelius did not find at Munich all the assistants he had wished; above all Overbeck had not followed him. Besides this the pupils did not meet the great problems of painting in fresco with skill equal to his; he was also not able to obtain in every case competent teachers for the theoretical instruction in the subsidiary sciences which at that time he held to be absolutely essential. Moreover, the favour of the king was too extreme to be permanent, nor could it fail to arouse envy. After 1820 Cornelius and his pupils decorated two halls and an entrance chamber of the Glyptothek at Munich, a building intended for the exhibition of ancient sculpture. The subjects were, for the two halls, the gods and heroes of classic antiquity and, for the entrance chamber, the history of primitive man, the compositions being based on Greek mythology. The selection gave the artist the opportunity of presenting beautiful forms, strong action, and lofty ideals; at the same time he could make use of symbolical allusions as they are conceived by Dante.

Cornelius has been called a poet and thinker; the loftiness and unity of conception displayed by these frescoes justify the assertion. The mastery of the difficult proportion of space shown is astonishing; the surfaces seem to have been planned for the frescoes and not the frescoes for the spaces. On the other hand, the inequality of execution especially in regard to colour is very striking. Cornelius allowed great liberty to his unequally gifted pupils; still much of the work, especially what he painted himself, is excellently carried out, as: “The Fall of Troy,” “The Judges of the Lower World,” “Eros with an Eagle,” and “Eros with Cerberus.” It must be acknowledged that Cornelius was not strong in colour, although his frescoes from the life of Joseph in the Villa Bartholdy are in all particulars satisfactory. King Louis I allowed him to make only the drawings for the loggias of the Pinakothek; the execution of the work was entrusted to Clemens Zimmermann. In these designs Cornelius gave in an unconstrained manner, yet one full of thought and imagination, the history of German and Italian painting. He hoped to have an opportunity in the new church, the “Ludwigskirche,” to create a Christian epic which should be a Divine Comedy in colour, but to his bitter disappointment he was only commissioned to decorate the choir and transept. The subject chosen for delineation was the Christian conception of the Creation, Redemption, and the Last Judgment; the gigantic fresco of the Judgment, containing 2500 square feet, was painted by Cornelius himself (1836–39). Parts of the fresco show great merit in composition and drawing; a reverent composure and the avoidance of repellent nudity distinguish the painting from Michelangelo’s “Judgment” on the altar wall of the Sistine Chapel. The colour scheme, it must be acknowledged, is somewhat lacking in harmony, and the light in the church is unfavourable. King Louis saw the fresco under peculiarly unfortunate circumstances, and Cornelius fell into disgrace.

In 1841 he went to Berlin where the art-loving Frederick William IV became his unwavering patron. While at Berlin he drew for the royal mausoleum planned by the king the celebrated cartoons: “Christ Conquering Sin,” intended for the east wall of a cloister designed in connexion with a new cathedral; “Christ Conquering Death,” for the west wall of the cloister; “Christ in His Church,” for the south wall, and “Christ at the End of the World,” taken from the imagery of the Apocalypse, for the north wall. In harmony with the scheme of the cartoons is the painting for the apse of the intended cathedral, “Mankind Awaiting the Day of Judgment,” completed by Cornelius in 1856. During his residence at Berlin Cornelius produced his most mature work as a draughtsman; his designs were at all times so complete that they were not certain to gain by execution in colour. The cartoons for the royal mausoleum, of which the one for the north wall was on the scale of the intended fresco, met fairly undisputed approval. His work as head of the German School at Rome and as leader in Germany of aspiring artists gives Cornelius the position of a pioneer of the nineteenth century in asserting high ideals and in developing technic on the heroic scale.

H. GRIMM, Neue Essais (Berlin, 1865); VON WOLZOGEN, Peter von Cornelius (Berlin, 1867); RIEGEL, Cornelius, der Meister der deutschen Malerei (Hanover, 1870); FÖRSTER, Peter von Cornelius, ein Gedenkbuch (Berlin, 1874); CARRIÈRE, in Neuer Plutarch (Leipzig, 1880); ECKERT, Peter Cornelius (Bielefeld, 1906), gives on p. 131 a complete bibliography.

G. GIETMANN

Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide

(Cornelis Cornelissen van den Steen)

Flemish Jesuit and exegete, b. at Bocholt, in Flemish Limburg, 18 December, 1567; d. at Rome, 12 March, 1637. He studied humanities and philosophy at the Jesuit colleges of Maestricht and Cologne, theology first, for half a year, at the University of Douai, and afterwards for four years at Louvain; he entered the Society of Jesus, 11 June, 1592, and, after two years’ noviciate and another year of theology, was ordained priest 24 December, 1595. After teaching philosophy for half a year, he was made professor of Holy Scripture at Louvain in 1596 and next year of Hebrew also. Twenty years later, in 1616, he was called to Rome in the same capacity, where, on the 3rd of November, he assumed the office which he filled with such renown for many years after. The latter years of his life, however, he seems to have devoted exclusively to finishing and correcting his celebrated commentaries. He was a sincerely pious and zealous priest and an exemplary religious. During his professorship at Louvain he liked to spend his holidays preaching and administering the sacraments, especially at the pilgrimage of Scherpenheuvel (Montaigu). With moving simplicity and truth he portrayed himself in an emotional prayer to the Prophets at the end of his commentary on Daniel: “For nearly thirty years I suffer with and for you with gladness the continual martyrdom of religious life, the martyrdom of illness, the martyrdom of study and writing; obtain for me also, I beseech you, to crown all, the fourth martyrdom, of blood. For you I have spent my vital and animal spirits; I will spend my blood too.” With his brethren in religion at Rome he enjoyed so high a reputation for sanctity that, when he died, they gave him a separate burial place, in order to be the more certain of finding his bones when eventually, as they hoped, he should receive the honour of beatification.

Cornelius a Lapide wrote ample commentaries on all the books of the Catholic Canon of Scripture, with the exception only of Job and the Psalms. Even before leaving Flanders, he edited the “Commentaries in omnes divi Pauli epistolas” (1614) and, “in Pentateuchum” (1616), both at Antwerp. The commentaries on the Greater and Lesser Prophets, on the Acts of the Apostles, the Canonical Epistles and the Apocalypse, Ecclesiasticus and the Proverbs, followed later on. The rest were edited only after his death; but all of them have been several times re-edited, both separately and collectively. Of the Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul he himself was permitted to see at least eleven editions. The complete series, with Job and the Psalms added by other hands, appeared at Antwerp, 1681, 1714; at Venice, 1717, 1740, 1798; at Cologne, 1732; at Turin, 1838; at Lyons, 1839–42, 1865 and 1866; at Malta, 1843–46; at Naples, 1854; at Lyons and Paris, 1855 and 1856; at Milan, 1857; at Paris, 1859–63. The best-mentioned edition has been enriched by Crampon and Péronne with annotations from more recent interpreters. All these commentaries are on a very large scale. They explain not only the literal, but also the allegorical, tropological, and anagogical sense of the sacred text, and furnish a large number of quotations from the Fathers and the later interpreters of Holy Writ during the Middle Ages. Like most of his predecessors and contemporaries, a Lapide intends to serve not only the historical and scientific study of the Bible, but, even more, the purposes of pious meditation, and especially of pulpit exposition. An extract from the commentary on the Acts appeared in 1737 at Tyrnau, under the title: “Effigies Sancti Pauli, sive idea vitæ apostolicæ.” A large work in 4 vols., “Les trésors de Cornelius a Lapide: extraits de ses commentaires de l’écriture sainte à l’usage des prédicateurs, des communautés et des familles chrétiennes,” by the Abbé Barbier, was published at Le Mans and Paris, 1856, re-edited at Paris, 1859, 1872, 1876, 1885, 1896; and an Italian translation of the same by F. M. Faber, appeared at Parma, 1869–70, in 10 vols., 16 mo.

These numerous editions show how highly these works are estimated by Catholics. But Protestant voices have joined in the appreciation. G. H. Goetzius (Leipzig, 1699) wrote an academical dissertation, “Exercitatio theologica de Cornelii a Lapide Commentariis in Sacram Scripturam,” in which he praises the Jesuit author as the most important of Catholic Scriptural writers. An English translation of the complete commentaries was undertaken by the Rev. Thomas W. Moseman, an Anglican clergyman, under the title, “The great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide” (London, 1876-). A manuscript in the Vatican Library contains an Arabic translation of the Commentary on the Apocalypse, by Yusuf ibn Girgis (beginning of the eighteenth century). The same Maronite writer is said to have translated the Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul.

Terwecoren, Cornelius a Lapide in Collection de précis historiques (Brussels, 1857), 610–14, 636–45; De Backer and Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J. (Brussels and Paris, 1893), IV, 1511–26; IX (1900), 573.

JOHN P. VAN KASTEREN.

Karl Josef Rudolph Cornely

German biblical scholar and Jesuit, b. 19 April, 1830, at Breyell in Germany; d. at Treves, 3 March, 1908. On the completion of his classical studies he matriculated at Münster in Westphalia to study philosophy and theology. In 1852 he joined the Society of Jesus. Recognizing his abilities, his superiors determined to give him the best possible training both practical and theoretical. Consequently, his novitiate finished, he took a two years’ course of scholastic philosophy at Paderborn and Bonn and another year of sacred and profane oratory. Then he was sent to Feldkirch to teach Latin, Greek, and German, and to preside at the disputations of the students of philosophy from 1857 to 1859. After this practical experience he returned to Paderhorn to go through the necessary course of dogmatic and moral theology previous to his ordination in 1860. The next years he devoted to special study of the Scriptural sciences in Germany, at Ghazir near Beirut, in Egypt and in Paris, and by dint of hard labour acquired an extensive knowledge of Syriac, Arabic, Samaritan, and Aramaic. After five years thus spent in special work he was recalled to Maria-Laach, the theologate of the Society, to review his varied acquirements in the light of dogmatic theology and to prepare his theses for the final examination and the degree of Doctor in the Society. After the customary third year spent in study and the practice of the exercises and the Institute of St. Ignatius, he was appointed professor of scripture and Oriental languages at Maria-Laach.

When the Jesuits founded the periodical “Stimmen aus Maria-Laach,” Father Cornely became at first a regular contributor and then its editor from 1872 to 1879. His style is remarkable for clearness and vigor and compares favorably with the great German classics. The ring in indignation and irony in his articles against the Old Catholics, on the Protestant Association, and on political hypocrisy finds its explanation in the unwarranted attacks and in the relentless persecution of the Church and of the order to which he belonged. The expulsion of the Jesuits from Germany in 1872 interrupted his career as a professor and rendered the task of the editor extremely difficult. With three or four of his brethren he took up his residence at Terveuren near Brussels, and although many of his collaborators and the rich library of Maria-Laach were scattered about in different places, he succeeded not only in maintaining the periodical on its former level but also strengthening and widening its influence on Catholic Germany. Most of the men who contributed from that time on to the “Stimmen” were won and trained by the magnetic personality of Cornely, who frequently inspired and always carefully revised the papers, thus securing uniformity of tone and tendency. An important stage in the development of the “Stimmen” was marked by the appearance of the first supplements (Ergänzungshefte), in 1876. This new departure was occasioned by the numerous philosophic writings of Father Tilman Pesch. They could not all be published in the “Stimmen” without altering the general character of the periodical and sacrificing the interest of some classes of readers. They might, of course, have been published separately in book form. But Cornely was of the opinion that a series of supplements to a widely read review would reach larger numbers and would in a manner offset the numerous non-Catholic publications of a similar character. The supplements embody the most varied scholarship: theology, philosophy, literature, and science.

To quicken the interest of his countrymen in the missionary work of the Church, Father Cornely founded in 1873 “Die katholischen Missionen.” Intended for German readers this magazine was above all to describe the labours and successes of the German missionary and to give the history, the geography, and the ethnographic features of the German missions in foreign countries. In the beginning Cornely took the lion’s share of work upon himself. Soon, however, the labour was thus divided: Cornely wrote the reports on Europe and Australia; Baumgartner reported on Asia; Kreiten on Africa; and von Hummelauer on America. In 1879 Cornely was appointed professor of exegesis at the Gregorian university in Rome. Here he planned and wrote the first volumes of the “Cursus Scripturæ Sacræ,” a complete biblical encyclopedia, the largest publication of its kind in modern Catholic literature. To carry out a plan so vast required the combined efforts of many scholars. Cornely himself undertook to write the general and special introductions and the commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul. Even this task he could not complete, although he discontinued lecturing in 1889 to devote all his energies to the greatest work of his laborious life. Among his writings are:- Introductio generalis in U. T. libros sacros” (Paris, 1893);- Introductio specialis in historicos V. T. libros” (Paris, 1897);- Introductio specialis in didacticos et propheticos V. T. libros” (Paris, 1897);- Introductio specialis in singulos N. T. libros” (Paris, 1897);- Historicæ et criticæ Introductionis in U. T. libros Compendium” (Paris, 1900);- Synopses omnium librorum sacrorum” (Paris, 1899);- Psalmorum synopses” (Paris, 1899);—Analyses librorum sacrorum N. T.” (Paris, 1888);- Commentarium in priorem ep. ad Corinthios” (Paris, 1890);- Commentarius in epistolas ad Cor. alterum et ad Galatas” (Paris, 1892);- Commentarius in ep. ad Romanos” (Paris, 1896);- Leben des sel. Petrus Faber” (Freiburg, 1900);- Leben des sel. Spinola” (Mainz, 1868).

Baumgartner, Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, LXXXIV, IV, 357.

PETER SCHWEITZER

Nicolas Cornet

French theologian, born at Amiens, 1572; died at Paris, 1663. He studied at the Jesuit college of his native place, took the doctorate of theology at the University of Paris, 1626, and soon became president of the Collège de Navarre and syndic of the Sorbonne or faculty of theology. In this latter capacity he reported to the assembly of the Sorbonne, 1649, seven propositions, two taken from Arnauld’s “Fréquente Communion” and five from the “Augustinus” of Jansenius. In spite of strong opposition created by members of the faculty who, with Saint-Amour, appealed to Parliament and by Jansenists like De Bourseis in “Propositiones de gratiâ in Sorbonnæ facultate prope diem examinandæ, propositæ Cal. Junii 1649,” and Arnauld in “Considérations sur l’entreprise faite par M. Cornet, syndic de la faculté, en l’assemblée de Juillet 1649,” he succeeded in having the Assembly of the Clergy of 1650 denounce the five propositions of the “Augustinus” to Pope Innocent X, who condemned them, 31 May, 1653 (Denzinger, Enchiridion, nos. 1092 (966) sqq.). Maligned by Jansenist writers like Hermant, Cornet was held in high esteem by Richelieu and Mazarin. His eulogy was pronounced by no less a personage than Bossuet himself (Oraison funèbre de Messire Nicolas Cornet). He left no writings, but is said to have collaborated with Richelieu on the “Méthodes de controverse.”

RAPIN, Mémoires (Paris, 1865); SAINTE-BEUVE, Port-Royal (Paris, 1871); ROHRBACHER, Histoire universelle (Paris, 1885), XI, 9, 150.

J. F. SOLLIER.

Cornice

A cornice is the uppermost division of the entablature, the representative of the roof, of an order, consisting of projecting mouldings and blocks, usually divisible into bed-moulding, corona, and gutter. In classic architecture each of the orders has its peculiar cornice. Any moulded projection which crowns or finishes the part to which it is affixed, as the coping of a facade, the moulding that runs round an apartment under the ceiling, or surmounts a door, window, etc.

ANDERSON AND SPIERS, Arch. of Greece and Rome (London, 1903); ROSENGARTEN, Architectural Styles (New York, 1901); REBER, Ancient Art (New York, London, 1904); STURGIS, Dict. of Arch. and Building (New York, 1904); PARKER, Glossary of Arch. (London, 1845); GWILT, Ency. of Arch. (New York, Bombay, 1903).

THOMAS H. POOLE.

Abbey of Cornillon

Founded by Albero, Bishop of Liége, in 1124, three years after St. Norbert had formed the Premonstratensian Order. The abbey was intended for Canons Regular of Prémontré who had been sent from the Abbey of Floreffe near Namur; it stood on the right bank of the Meuse on an elevation called Mont Cornillon which overlooked the city of Liége. In the early years of the order all Norbertine abbeys were double abbeys, that is to say, the canons lived on one side of the church and the Norbertine nuns, who had charge of the hospital for women, dwelt on the other side. Where an abbey stood on an elevation, as was the case at Cornillon, both the nunnery and the hospital were erected at the foot of the hill. St. Juliana of Cornillon (born 1193; died 1258), whose name is connected with the institution of the feast of Corpus Christi was a nun of this convent. The first abbot of Cornillon was Blessed Lucas, one of St. Norbert’s disciples, a learned and holy religious, some of whose writings have been published in the “Bibliotheca Magna Patrum,” and also by Migne. The Bishop of Liége, wishing to build a fortress on the heights of Cornillon, gave in 1288, in exchange to the Norbertine canons, another Place in his episcopal city where the abbey, now called Beaurepart (Bellus Reditus), stood until it was suppressed by the French Republic in 1796. All the religious refused to take the oath of allegiance to the Republic; some were exiled and one was put to death. The abbey was declared to be of public utility, consequently it was not sold; for a time it served as an arsenal and for other government purposes, but by decree of 11 June, 1809, Napoleon gave the abbey to the Bishop of Liége, as the bishop’s residence and diocesan seminary. Where the Abbey of Mont Cornillon originally stood the Little Sisters of the Poor have erected a home for old people, and close to the home, but below, at the foot of the hill, the former convent is now inhabited by Carmelite nuns. Part of the church of the nuns has remained as it was when St. Juliana of Cornillon prayed in it and was favoured with visions which led to the institution of the feast of Corpus Christi.

HUGO, Annal. Prœm. (Nantes, 1734–36); DARIS, Histoire de Liège (Liege, 1868–85).

F. M. GEUDENS.

Giovanni Maria Cornoldi

Professor, author, and preacher, born at Venice, 29 Sept., 1822; d. at Rome, 18 Jan., 1892. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1840 and taught philosophy at Bressanone and Padua for many years. From 1880 until his death he belonged to the editorial staff of the “Civiltà Cattolica,” at Rome and often preached at the church of the Gesù. He was an ardent disciple of St. Thomas and wrote many works in explanation of his doctrine and in refutation of Rosminianism. His “Lezioni di Filosofia” (Rome 1872) was translated into Latin by Cardinal Agostini under the title “Institutiones Philosophicæ ad mentem divi Thomæ Aquinatis.” In addition to his purely philosophical writings he published a commentary on the “Divina Commedia” of Dante, illustrated from philosophy and theology. He founded academies in honour of St. Thomas at Bologna and at Rome and established two periodicals, “La Scienza Italiana” and the journal of the “Accademia di. S. Tommaso.” He was a man of great amiability, zealous and fervent in religious life.

Civilità Cattolica, 1892, I, 348–352, gives a full list of his writings; Hurter, Nomenclator.

JOHN CORBETT

Francisco Vasquez de Coronado

Explorer, b. at Salamanca, Spain, 1510; d. in Mexico, 1553. He went to Mexico before 1538, and is said to have been a favourite of the viceroy Don Antonio de Mendoza, who appointed him Governor of New Galicia in 1538. In the year following, on the strength of the statements of Cabeza de Vaca and other vague reports, the viceroy sent Father Marcos of Nizza with the negro or Moor Estévanico to reconnoitre towards the north. The friar coming back with the news that sedentary Indians had been met beyond what are now the limits of Mexico, an expedition was determined upon and Coronado was made commander.

One of the chief objects of this expedition seems to have been to free Mexico from an idle and unruly element. Hence exaggerated accounts of the northern regions, of the culture of their inhabitants, and of their mineral resources, were purposely spread abroad. Whether or not Coronado knew of this object is not stated. The expedition collected at Compostella on the Pacific coast, and consisted of about 300 Spaniards and 1000 Indians, with 1000 horses and six swivel guns (pedereros). There were also a number of sheep and some cattle, and everything indicated that the intention was not only to explore but to colonize. In the course of two years Coronado visited almost every New Mexico pueblo then inhabited. The first of the pueblo groups touched was what is now called Zuñi, which had become known to the Spaniards through Father Marcos of Nizza the year previous under the name of “Cibola.” The first engagement took place about 7 July, at the village of Hauicu of the Zuñi group. Coronado was wounded, but the pueblo taken. After that, only one other conflict with Pueblo Indians occurred, viz., near Bernalillo, in New Mexico, on the Rio Grande, in March, 1541. The conduct of Coronado towards the Indians during the whole campaign was humane and he secured their respect and sympathy. New Mexico and Arizona (which he explored as far as the Colorado River) disappointed the expectations of the Spaniards. The wealth in metals supposed to exist there was not found, the inhabited regions were partly barren, and the population less numerous than it had been represented. While Coronado was establishing himself at Zuñi, another expedition, by sea, under the command of Hernando de Alarçon, reached the mouth of the Colorado and explored the course of the river for about two hundred miles inland, but found it impossible to communicate with Coronado, and returned to the Mexican coast.

While at the pueblo of Pecos, south-east of the present city of Santa Fé, the Spaniards had been told glowing stories of metallic riches among a tribe called Quivira, said to dwell beyond the great eastern plains. These tales were reported by an Indian from the plains, a captive among the Pecos tribe. Coronado set out for Quivira on 23 April, 1541, with part of his forces, and wandered as far as the confines of Arkansas, then northward as far as southern Nebraska, finding none but nomadic Indians, except at the farthest point reached by him, where the Quivira Indians lived in more stable settlements of houses, round in shape and built of wood, with roofs of grass. They cultivated corn, and the only trace of metal was a piece of native copper which they had obtained from afar. After an absence of six months Coronado returned to New Mexico on the Rio Grande, and while there suffered a fall from his horse, which injured his head seriously. Henceforward he lost energy. His people also were discouraged and, while some were in favour of remaining in New Mexico, the majority clamoured to return to New Spain. In April, 1542, the homeward march was resumed. There remained in the country only Fray Juan de Padilla, a lay brother, Fray Luis, and a Portugese soldier, Docampo. Coronado reported to the Viceroy Mendoza, who was highly incensed at the failure of his plan to rid New Spain of undesirable elements. Although Coronado was not punished for what was looked upon as disobedience to orders, he fell into a mild disgrace and died in comparative obscurity, leaving a widow and eight children. The reports on his expedition are of the greatest importance for the geography, and more particularly ethnography, of the south-western part of North America. They were not so well appreciated at the time as they are now, when the “March” of Coronado is looked upon as one of the most important explorations in America during the sixteenth century.

For documentary material see WINSHIP in Fourteenth Annual Repdort of the U. S. Bureau of Ethnology (Washington, 1906), with Sp. texts and tr.; IDEM, The Journal of Coronado in The Trailmakers (New York, 1904); GOMARA, Historia general de las Indias (Medina del Campo, 1553); OVIEDO, Historia general y natural (Madrid, 1850); HERRERA, Historia general (Madrid, 1601); MOTA PADILLA, Historia de la Nueva Galicia (Mexico, 1870, though written in 1742); DAVIS, Coronado’s March; BANDELIER, Introduction to Studies Among the Sedentary Indians of New Mexico; IDEM, Report on the Ruins of the Pueblo of Pecos (Boston, 1883); IDEM, Final Report (Boston, 1888 and 1890); IDEM, Documentary History of Zuñi

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Coronation

The subject will be treated under the following headings:

(I) The Emperors at Constantinople;

(II) Visigothic and Celtic Elements;

(III) The English Coronation Orders;

(IV) The Western Empire and the Roman Pontifical;

(V) Other Ceremonials.

I. THE EMPERORS AT CONSTANTINOPLE

“A coronation rite,” it has been well said, “is ideally the process of the creation of the monarch, even though in course of time, through a change in the theory of succession, it may come to be rather the ratification of an accomplished fact than the means of its accomplishment” (Brightman, Byzantine Coronations, 359). In the light of this very true remark it will be needful to trace the coronation ceremonies back to a time earlier than the introduction of any ecclesiastical ritual. Down to the reign of Constantine it may be said that coronation, properly speaking, there was none, for it was he who first brought the regal diadem into prominence. Yet certain features about the accession of the emperors in this early period deserve attention. In the first place, theoretically at least, the emperor was elected. Normally, the senate voted and the people, or more commonly the army, acclaimed and in that way ratified the choice. No doubt this procedure was often anticipated and the result was assured before any forms were gone through. But the forms were not dispensed with, and even when the senate or the army had exercised an influence which was decisive, the people met and acclaimed in more or less formal comitia. In spite, however, of the principle of election, the emperor was often able to exercise a predominant voice in the election of his successor or his colleague, as he could also create his wife “Augusta.” At this period the more distinctive imperial insignia were “the purple,” that is the paludamentum (or chlamys) of the general in the field, emblematic of the supreme military authority, for the emperor was sole imperator; and secondly, the laurel wreath. The more or less violent clothing of the new emperor in the paludamentum often constituted a sort of investiture. On his part the promise of a largess to the soldiers, and sometimes to the people, became the equivalent of a formal acceptance of the election.

A new order of things was brought about by Constantine’s assumption of the diadem (see Sickel, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, VII, 513–534). Constantine wore it habitually during life (caput exornans perpetuo diademate, says Aurelius Victor, Ep. lx), and after death it adorned his corpse. In this way the diadem became the primary symbol of sovereignty, but without at first any prescription of forms according to which it should be conferred. When Julian was proclaimed emperor by his troops in 360, they hoisted him standing upon a shield, a ceremony they seemed to have learned from the German recruits in their ranks, and then a standard-bearer took off the torque, or gold necklace, which he wore and set it upon Julian’s head. No other crowning seems to have taken place, but soon after we find the emperor at Vienne wearing a gorgeous diadem set with jewels. In the case of Valentinian (364) and his son Gratian (367) we have equally mention of a crown assumed amid profuse acclamations of the assembled army. In each ease, also, the newly-elected sovereign made a speech and promised a largess to the troops, which Julian fixed at five gold pieces and a pound of silver to each man. Informal as the proceedings in all these cases seem to have been, most of the elements so far mentioned took a permanent place in the coronation ceremonial which was ultimately evolved. Even the Teutonic practice of hoisting upon a buckler (see Tacitus, Ann., XV, 29) though rarely mentioned explicitly, was probably maintained for a considerable time, for it certainly was observed in the election of Anastasius (491) and Justin II (565), and the miniature of the election of David in a tenth-century psalter at Paris, in which he is represented standing upon a buckler supported by young men while another sets a diadem on his head, implies that this ceremony was generally familiar at a later date. The diadem, though the military torque after the analogy of Julian’s election was often retained as well, was and continued to be the symbol of supreme power, and along with it, from the time of Constantine onward, went the ceremony of “adoration” of the monarch by prostration.

The next epoch-making change seems to have been the introduction of the Patriarch of Constantinople to set the diadem upon the head of the elected sovereign. The date at which this first took place is disputed, for we cannot altogether ignore the alleged dream of Theodosius I who saw himself crowned by a bishop (Theodoret, Hist. Eccl., VI, vi), but Sickel (loc. cit., p. 517; cf. Gibbon, ch. xxxvi) holds that the Patriarch Anatolius in 450 crowned Marcian and by that act originated a ceremony which became of the greatest possible significance in the later conception of kingship. At first there seems to have been no idea of lending any religious character to this investiture; and the selection of the patriarch may possibly have been due simply to the desire to preclude jealousy and to avoid giving offence to more powerful claimants of the honour. But already in 473, when Leo II was crowned in the lifetime of his grandfather, we find the Patriarch Acacius not only figuring in the ceremony but reciting a prayer before the imposition of the diadem. If it was Leo’s grandfather and not Acacius who actually imposed it, that is only on account of the accepted rule, that the reigning emperor in his lifetime is alone the fount of honour whenever he chooses to commit any portion of his authority to colleague or consort. Following close upon the first intervention of the patriarch, the ecclesiastical element in the coronation ceremonial rapidly develops. At the election of Anastasius (491) the patriarch is present at the assembly of the senate and notables when they make their formal choice, and the book of the Holy Gospels is exposed in their midst (Const. Porph., De Cær., I, 92). The coronation does not take place in a sacred building, but an oath is taken by the emperor to govern justly and another written oath is exacted of him by the patriarch that he will keep the Faith entire and introduce no novelty into the Church. Then after the emperor had donned a portion of the regalia, the patriarch made a prayer, and the “Kyrie eleison” (possibly an ektene or litany) being said, put upon his sovereign the imperial chlamys and the jewelled crown. The acclamations also which accompany and follow the emperor’s speech with its promises of the usual largess, are pronouncedly religious in character; for example “God will preserve a Christian Emperor! These are common prayers! These are the prayers of the world! Lord help the pious! Holy Lord uplift Thy world! . . . God be with you!” Moreover at the conclusion of the ceremony the emperor went straight to St. Sophia, putting off his crown and offering it at the altar.

The first emperor to be crowned in church was Phocas in 602, and although our records of procedure are somewhat defective, no doubt can be felt that from this time forth the whole ceremonial assumed a formal and religious character. The rite is contained in the “Euchologium,” the earliest extant manuscript, dating from about 795. There is a partial clothing with the insignia in the metatorium before the ceremony begins, but the ritual centres in the conferring of the chlamys and crown. Before each of these is imposed the patriarch reads in silence an impressive prayer closely analogous in spirit to what we find in the Western orders at a later date. For example the prayer over the chlamys begins thus: “O Lord, our God, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who through Samuel the prophet didst choose David Thy servant to be king over Thy people Israel; do Thou now also hear the supplication of us unworthy and behold from Thy dwelling place Thy faithful servant N. whom Thou hast been pleased to set as king over Thy holy nation, which Thou didst purchase with the precious blood of Thine only-begotten Son: vouchsafe to anoint him with the oil of gladness, endue him with power from on high, put upon his head a crown of pure gold, grant him long life,” etc. After the crowning the people cry out, “Holy, holy, holy” and “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace,” three times. Then Holy Communion is given to the emperor from the reserved Sacrament, or perhaps even the Mass of the Presanctified is celebrated. After which all the standards and halberds are dipped and raised again, and the senators and clergy prostrate in adoration.

One cannot help suspecting that the choice of this particular moment, when the emperor has just received the Sacred Host, for the act of adoration may have been motived by some foresight of possible conscientious objections about performing such adoration merely to the emperor’s person. The rite of prostration, though introduced by Constantine, was probably not unaffected by lingering memories of the pagan apotheosis of the Cæsars. Finally, after the adoration came the laudes (see ACCLAMATIONS) or acta as they were called in the East aktoleogein was the technical word). The cantors cried “Glory be to God in the highest. . . . This is the great day of the Lord. This is the day of the life of the Romans,” and so on for many verses, the people repeating each once or thrice. After which “Many, many, many.” R. “Many years, for many years.” “Long years to you, N. and N., autocrats of the Romans.” R. “Many years to you” and so forth with much repetition. Finally, the emperor leaves the church wearing his crown and going to the metatorium seats himself upon his throne while the dignitaries (axiomata) come and do homage by kissing his knees. Although the prayer over the chlamys begs God to “anoint him with the oil of gladness” the early euchologia contain no mention of any rite of unction, and it seems tolerably certain that this was not introduced in the East until the twelfth century (Brightman, loc. cit., 383–386). Even when adopted, the unction was confined to making the sign of the cross with chrism upon the monarch’s head. The introduction of this new feature seems to have been accompanied with other changes which are found in the later Byzantine coronations. The investiture with the purple chlamys altogether disappears, but two distinct prayers or blessings are retained, between which are inserted both the unction and the crowning. Finally, we may notice that the emperor is to some extent treated as an ecclesiastic, for he wears a mandyas, or cope, and discharges the functions of a deputatus, which is, or was, the Greek equivalent of one of our minor orders.

II. VISIGOTHIC AND CELTIC ELEMENTS

Turning now to the inauguration rite of early kingships in the West the first traces of a coronation order seem to be found in Spain and in Great Britain. Some of the Spanish councils speak copiously, though vaguely, of the election of kings (Migne, P. L., LXXXIV, 385, 396, 426), and while in the first half of the seventh century there is no mention of unction but only of a profession of faith and promise of just government on the part of the king with a corresponding oath of fealty on the art of his subjects, towards the close of the same century we have the clearest evidence that the Visigothic kings on their accession were solemnly anointed by the Bishop of Toledo. When in 672 the oil was poured upon the head of the kneeling King Wamba a cloud of vapour arose (evaporatio quædam fumo similis in modum columnæ, Julian, Historia, c. iv; Migne, P. L., XCVI, 766) which was regarded by those present as a supernatural portent. For the rest we know little of this early Spanish coronation rite beyond the fact that it was a religious ceremony and that the king undertook certain obligations towards his people. It is chiefly interesting as supplying the earliest known examples of the unction. Whether this ceremony was instituted by the Spanish bishops in imitation of what they read in the Old Testament concerning the unction of Saul, David, and Solomon (I Kings, x and xvi; III Kings, i) or whether they themselves derived it from some early Christian tradition it seems impossible now to decide.

In view of what has been written of late about the close liturgical relations between Spain and England, via Celtic, i. e. probably Irish, channels (see Bishop in Journ. of Theol. Stud., VIII, 278), it is natural to pass from Spain to the earliest coronations in the British Isles. The statement of Gildas (c. 530?) cannot be ignored, when, speaking of the desolation and corruption of manners in Britain, he says: “ungebantur reges non per Deum, sed qui ceteris crudeliores exstarent, et paulo post ab unctoribus non pro veri examinatione trucidabantur, aliis electis trucioribus” (De Excidio, ch. xxi; Mommsen, 37). Again, in his commentary on the First Book of Kings (x, 1) St. Gregory the Great certainly seems to speak as if the rite of the unction of kings was practised in his time (Migne, P. L., LXXIX, 278). “Ungatur caput regis,” he says, “quia spirituali gratiâ mens est replenda doctoris.” It may conceivably be that these passages are only metaphorical, but they at least show a familiarity with the conception which might at any moment find expression in actual practice. At the same time no record exists of the use of unction in the earliest Scottish coronations. Gathering up scattered traditions, the Marquess of Bute gives the following ceremonial as representing in all probability the rite of “ordination” of a Celtic king, say the Lord of the Isles, in the seventh and eighth centuries. There was a gathering of the principal people of the nation including, if possible, seven priests. The new ruler was elected unless a tanist (a lieutenant with right of succession) had been elected already. The king was clad in white and Mass was celebrated down to the Gospel. After the Gospel the king was made to set his right foot in the foot-print of Fergus Mor Mac Erca, the impression of which was cut in stone; there he took an oath to preserve all the ancient customs of the country and to leave the succession to the tanist. His father’s sword or some other sword was then placed in one of his hands and a white rod in the other, with suitable exhortations. After this a bard or herald rehearsed his genealogy. Re-entering the church seven prayers were recited over him by, if possible, as many priests, one at least of these prayers being called the Benediction, during which he who offered it laid his hand upon the king’s head. The Mass was then finished and the king probably Communicated. At the conclusion of the whole he gave a feast and distributed a largess (Bute, Scottish Coronations, 34). It will be noticed that here, as in the earlier Spanish ritual, there is no mention of a crown or diadem, and though the unction which is so prominent a feature in the Spanish ceremony is apparently lacking, still our information is too fragmentary to enable us to speak with confidence, more especially in view of the casual utterance of Gildas.

III. THE ENGLISH CORONATION ORDERS

But of all detailed ceremonials for the investiture of a monarch the earliest which has been preserved to us in a complete form is one of English origin. It is known as the Egbertine Order, because the best-known manuscript in which it is contained is an Anglo-Saxon codex which professes to be a copy of the Pontifical of Archbishop Egbert of York (732–766). We cannot in such a case be secure against the possibility of subsequent interpolations, for the Egbert Pontifical, now at Paris (Manuscript Latin 10, 575), is only of the tenth century, but the character of the coronation order itself is quite consistent with an early date. Moreover the same ritual occurs in other early manuscripts, and fragments of it are found embedded in Continental orders such as that for the coronation of Queen Judith (856). Nearly everything in this Egbertine Order is of interest and we may analyse it rather closely. At the head we find the title: Missa pro regibus in die benedictionis ejus (sic). Being, as the title says, a Mass, it begins with a “proper” Introit, collect, lesson from Leviticus (xxvi, 6–9), Gradual, and Gospel (Matt., xxii, 15 sq.). Then occurs the rubric: “the blessing upon a newly-elected king,” upon which follow three prayers of moderate length beginning respectively: “Te invocamus, Domine sancte,” etc.; “Deus qui populis tuis,” etc.; and “In diebus ejus oriatur omnibus æquitas,” etc. The second of these prayers, which still remains practically unchanged in the coronation order used at the accession of King Edward VII, may be quoted here as a specimen:—

“O God, who providest for Thy people by Thy power and rulest over them in love; grant unto this Thy servant Edward our King, the spirit of wisdom and government, that being devoted unto Thee with all his heart, he may so wisely govern this kingdom, that in his time Thy Church and people may continue in safety and prosperity, and that, persevering in good works unto the end, he may through Thy mercy come to Thine everlasting Kingdom; through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Lord. Amen.”

It is worth noting that we have no reason to believe that this prayer or others occurring in the Egbertine Order is necessarily of English origin. On the contrary it seems to have been adapted out of one for the pope occurring in the Gregorian Sacramentary which begins: Deus qui populis tuis indulgentiâ consulis, and an intermediate form was used at the coronation of Charles the Bald as King of Lotharingia in 869. After the three prayers we meet the rubric: “Here he shall pour oil upon his head from a horn, with the antiphon: Unxerunt Salomonem, etc., and the Psalm Domine in virtute tuâ, etc. (Ps. xx). Let one of the bishops say the prayer while the others anoint him.”

The prayer referred to is the Deus electorum fortitudo, some phrases of which still remain in the prayer now said immediately before the unction. The same Deus electorum fortitudo is found in the coronation order of Queen Judith, who was anointed queen by Hincmar, Bishop of Reims, in 856. It contains allusions to the olive-branch brought by the dove to the ark and to the anointing of Aaron and of the kings of Israel and thus shows itself to have been originally designed for some such purpose as a prayer of unction. Then follows another rubric: “Here all the bishops with the magnates [principibus] put the sceptre into his hand.” Some of the texts, however, omit this last rubric and write simply Benedictio; and to say the truth the short sentences which follow are very much of the nature of acclamations of benediction, such as we have already quoted from some of the Byzantine orders, though they are a little longer in form and could certainly not have been repeated in Latin by the Anglo-Saxon populace or even the magnates. The people’s share in this function is probably indicated by the simple “Amen” which follows each clause. There are sixteen of these brief clauses and then the rubric announces: “Here a staff is put into his hand,” whereupon another prayer of moderate length is said which is followed by a prayer of blessing, vague and somewhat extravagant in language, preceded by the rubric: “Here let all the bishops take the helmet and set it upon his head.” The simultaneous crowning by several hands is rather a noteworthy feature in the ceremony and it is curious that although in the later “Liber Regalis” and other orders the archbishop is named as alone imposing the crown, the illuminations in medieval chronicles and romances almost invariably represent the crown as being put on by at least two bishops standing on either side. After this prayer follows what is perhaps the most interesting rubric of the whole order, though unfortunately even with the aid of our three different manuscripts we cannot restore the text of the latter part with any great degree of confidence. “And all the people shall say three times with the bishops and priests: ‘May King N. live for ever. Amen, Amen, Amen.’ Then shall the whole people come to kiss the prince; and he shall be strengthened on his throne by this [i. e. the following] blessing.” Accordingly before the Mass is suffered to proceed another solemn prayer is said, Deus perpetuitatis auctor, which in the Egbert Pontifical is emphasized by a preceding rubric: “Let them say the seventh prayer over the King.” Now the prayer in question is really the eighth, and undoubtedly this fact coupled with traces of marginal numbering which reveal themselves in the Egbert Pontifical lends probability to Lord Bute’s theory that this series of prayers betrays Celtic influences and was originally destined for the seven priests whose presence was supposed in the Celtic ritual. The eighth prayer, as he thinks that of the unction, is shown on this hypothesis to be an interpolation of somewhat later date. After this last prayer, Deus perpetuitatis auctor, the Mass is resumed. The Mass prayers are Roman and the same Mass prayers are attached to the very early coronation order which Mgr. Magistretti has printed from an Ambrosian pontifical of the ninth century and which he pronounces to be also indisputably Roman. It seems probable enough that we are here again in the presence of the same sort of compromise between Celtic and Roman elements which we find in the Stowe Missal (see CELTIC RITE). At the conclusion of the Mass we find the following rubric—it may perhaps be an interpolation of later date than the rest of the order—and we may here see the King’s first proclamation to his people:—

“It is rightful conduct in a king newly ordained to make these three behests [præcepta] to his people.

“First, that the Church of God and all Christian folk should keep true peace at all times. Amen.

“The second is that he should forbid all robbery and all unrighteous things to all orders. Amen.

“The third is that he should enjoin in all dooms justice and mercy, that the gracious and merciful God, of His everlasting mercy, may show pardon to us all. Amen.”

It is probable that in this triple division of the primitive oath we have the explanation of a feature which still survives in the English coronation service. Before the king three naked swords are carried, two pointed and one without a point, which is hence known as curtana, the sword cut short. The first two swords were known to medieval writers as the sword of the clergy and the sword of justice. They represent the king’s two promises, to defend the Church (not, as certain Anglican writers have unwarrantably supposed, to coerce and punish the Church) and to punish evildoers. The third, without a point, most aptly symbolizes the mercy with which, as the sovereign himself is taught to hope for mercy, all his justice is to be tempered. We have evidence that these three swords were known in English ceremonial as early as Richard I (1189), while the form of oath just cited remained in use until a century later. Upon this oath something more will need to be said.

Towards the end of the tenth century we find that a new coronation order was in use in England. It incorporated most of the Egbertine Order but it added much new matter. Various considerations show that it was an attempt to imitate the imperial coronation of the Carlovingian monarchs on the Continent, and our knowledge of the imperial state assumed by King Eadgar strongly suggests that it is to be assigned to the date of his deferred coronation (973). Another modification took place shortly after the Conquest and is probably to be traced to Norman influences which made themselves felt in Church and State. But the most important English order is that introduced at the coronation of Edward II, in 1307, and known as that of the “Liber Regalis.” It lasted practically unaltered through the Reformation period and though translated into English upon the accession of James I it was not substantially modified until the coronation of his grandson James II, and it may be said even at the present day to form the substance of the ritual by which the monarchs of Great Britain are crowned. While it contained many prayers in common with those used in the imperial coronation of the Western Empire and those of the existing “Pontificale Romanum” it also preserved many distinctive features. A short synopsis of it will be serviceable.

After the sovereign had been solemnly brought to Westminster Abbey church and had made an offering at the altar, he was conducted to a raised platform erected for the purpose and there he was presented to the people, who, on a short address from one of the bishops, signified by acclamations their assent to the coronation. Then the king was interrogated by the archbishop as to his willingness to observe the laws, customs, and liberties granted by St. Edward the Confessor, and he was required to promise peace to the Church and justice to his people, all which he confirmed by an oath taken upon the altar. Next they proceeded to the unction, which was introduced by the Veni Creator and the litanies, during which the king remained prostrate on his face. For the unction the king was seated and his hand, breast, shoulder-blades, and joints of the arms were all anointed with the oil of catechumens, an anthem and several long prayers being recited the while. Finally his head was anointed, first with the oil of catechumens and afterwards with chrism. The next stage in the ceremony was the dressing and investiture of the monarch. A tunic (colobium sindonis) was put upon him with sandals upon his feet and spurs. Then he was girded with a sword and received the armillæ, a sort of stole put about the neck and tied to his arms at the elbows. These were followed by the pallium, or cloak, formerly the equivalent of the chlamys, or purple paludamentum, and fastened by a clasp over the right shoulder, but now represented in English coronations by a sort of mantle like a cope. Then the crown was blessed by a special prayer, Deus tuorum corona fidelium, and imposed by the archbishop with two other prayers. This was followed by the blessing and conferring of the ring and finally the sceptre and rod were presented, also with prayers. A further long blessing was pronounced when the king was conducted to the throne there to receive the homage of the peers. Then if there was no queen consort to be crowned, Mass began immediately, a Mass with “proper” prayers and preface and a special benediction given by the archbishop before the Agnus Dei. After the Credo the king again went to the altar and offered bread and wine and a mark of gold. The kiss of peace was brought to the king at his throne but he went humbly to the altar to Communicate, after which he received a draught of wine from St. Edward’s stone chalice. At the end the king was conducted to the shrine of St. Edward where he made an offering of his crown.

As already remarked, the service for the coronation of the King of England even in modern times remains substantially the same, though English has been substituted for Latin and though many transpositions and modifications have been introduced in the prayers and ceremonies, all distinctively Roman expressions being studiously suppressed. The Mass of course gives place to the communion service of the Book of Common Prayer, but the sovereign still offers bread and wine as well as gold, and down to the coronation of Queen Victoria even the “proper” preface was retained. Indeed its omission and other omissions and changes introduced for the first time in the coronation of King Edward VII were prompted only by the desire to abbreviate a very long service. The most serious alteration in the medieval form is of course in the oath. Since the time of William III the king has sworn to maintain “the Protestant Reformed Religion established by Law”—a phrase which has always been a thorn in the side of those advanced Ritualists who contend that the Church of England has never been Protestant. Moreover since the interrogative form is used, this description is uttered by the Archbishop of Canterbury before the Lords and Commons and the representatives of the whole English Church. On the other hand one clause in the interrogation still stands as it did. The king is asked, “Will you to your power cause Law and Justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgments?” To which he replies, “I will”—a promise which differs but slightly from the undertaking made in the oldest Egbertine Order. After the archbishop’s questions have all been answered the king advances to the “Altar,” as it is still called, and takes this solemn oath upon the Bible lying there: “The things which I have here before promised I will perform and keep, so help me God.” The coronation oath, it should be noticed, must be carefully distinguished from “the Protestant Declaration,” which the sovereign by a still unrepealed clause of the Bill of Rights (1689) is required to make on the first day of his first Parliament. In this declaration Transubstantiation and other Catholic doctrines are repudiated and the Mass declared idolatrous. When, as sometimes has happened, the coronation ceremony precedes the first meeting of Parliament, the declaration against Transubstantiation has to be made in the course of the coronation ceremony. The only new element introduced into the English rite since the Reformation is the presenting of the Bible to the sovereign. This like the Protestant Declaration dates from the coronation of William and Mary.

IV. THE WESTERN EMPIRE AND THE ROMAN PONTIFICAL

There is so much general similarity between the English coronation order in its perfected form and that used for the coronation of the Emperor and the King of the Romans that it will not be necessary to treat this section in great detail. The fact undoubtedly is, though Anglican liturgists ignore it as far as possible, that at each of the early modifications of the English ritual, more especially that under King Eadgar, the imperial ceremonial was freely imitated (see Thurston, Coronation Ceremonial, 18–23 sqq.). But owing to the accidental preservation of so many English documents there is no coronation ceremonial in the world the history of which is so well known to us as that of England and we have consequently given it the preference in order of treatment. Apart from Spanish examples, the earliest definite instance of unction of a Christian sovereign seems to be that of Pepin, who was first crowned by St. Boniface, the papal legate at Soissons in 752, and again, together with his sons Charles and Carloman and his wife Bertha, by Pope Stephen at St-Denis, Sunday, 28 July, 754. Charlemagne was solemnly crowned at St. Peter’s in Rome by Pope Leo III, on Christmas Day, 800. The statement of a Greek chronicler that he was anointed from head to foot is probably a mere blunder or gross exaggeration. Despite the efforts of Dr. Diemand (Das Ceremoniell der Kaiserkrönungen) to classify the various Ordines for the coronation of the emperor and to trace the stages of their development, the subject remains intricate and obscure. We may be content to note rapidly the elements of its complete form.

The ceremony was assumed to take place at Rome, as by right it should, and the first incident was the solemn entry of the emperor into Rome, which should if possible take place on a Sunday or festival. He was met in state outside the walls and escorted to St. Peter’s. Next came the reception by the pope, who sat enthroned and surrounded by his cardinals at the head of the steps before St. Peter’s, and there the emperor, after kissing the pope’s foot, took the coronation oath (Diemand, 108–123), which in its earliest form ran as follows: “In the name of Christ I, N., the Emperor, promise, undertake and protest in the presence of God and Blessed Peter the Apostle, that I will be the protector and defender of the Holy Roman Church in all ways that I can be of help [in omnibus utilitatibus] so far as I shall he supported by the Divine aid, according to my knowledge and ability.” This undertaking, which at first was clearly not an oath in form, was afterwards strengthened by a number of added clauses, for instance by the words, “I swear upon these Holy Gospels,” or again by an explicit promise of fealty to the reigning pope by name and to his successors. There was here also perhaps a prayer of blessing spoken as the emperor was escorted into the church. At one time this was followed by a sort of examination into the fitness of the candidate (scrutinium), but this disappeared in the later Ordines. He was then received and in a sense enrolled among the canons of St. Peter’s and prepared for the anointing. The unction was introduced by the litany and performed by the Bishop of Ostia, who only anointed the right arm and the back between the shoulders with the oil of catechumens. Two prayers follow, both of which have found their way into the English order, though one of them occurs in a contracted form and is used only for conferring the ring. All this took place before the beginning of Mass, but in the later forms of the imperial ordo the next item of the coronation service, the bestowal of the insignia and notably of the crown, took place after the Gradual, being thus inserted in the Mass itself. The order in which the insignia were delivered varied much, and in the later forms a mitre was given to the emperor before the crown, and the sceptre was accompanied with an orb. This last had no place in the medieval English ceremony. After the giving of the insignia the Laudes, or acclamations, were sung and then the Gospel was chanted and the Mass resumed its course. The whole ceremony concluded with a solemn procession to the Lateran and a state banquet.

The form used in Germany for the coronation of the King of the Romans retains much in common with the imperial order, but it bears a still closer resemblance to what is known as the “second” English ritual, viz.: that used for the Anglo-Saxon King Eadgar. The fact, as Dr. Diemand points out, seems to have been that the Egbertine Order was reinforced by imperial elements borrowed from abroad, and thus acquired a certain reputation as the most elaborate form for the crowning of a king. Hence it came to be largely copied on the Continent and in that way we find unmistakable traces of prayers originally written for Anglo-Saxon kings travelling into Central Europe and even as far south as Milan. The ordo inscribed “De Benedictione et Coronatione Regis,” which is still extant in the “Pontificale Romanum,” bears much resemblance to the forms just described used for the coronation of the emperor. For example the scrutinium occurs in this form: The king is presented to the consecrating archbishop by two bishops, who petition that he may be crowned, and who, when themselves interrogated as to his fitness, reply that they know him to be a worthy and proper person. The oath follows, also the litany with prostration, and then the anointing on the arm and between the shoulders. Then, after Mass has been begun and brought as far as the Gradual, the king kneeling at the altar-steps receives successively sword, crown, and sceptre, each accompanied with appropriate prayers. Finally the king is solemnly enthroned, the Te Deum sung, and the remainder of the Mass follows. A similar, but generally somewhat shorter, rite is observed in the coronation of a queen consort. The prayers often differ from those used for the king and the insignia are naturally fewer.

V. OTHER CEREMONIALS

In earlier ages almost every country under monarchical government had a coronation ceremony of its own and this was nearly always distinguished by some peculiar features. For example in Aragon the king was expected to pass the preceding night in the church with a purpose which was evidently analogous to that of the knight’s vigil spent in the watching of his arms. In Scotland again the right of regal unction and coronation was accorded (1329) in a Bull of Pope John XXII (the crown having previously been regarded rather as a civil ornament) in which the privilege was burdened with the condition that the king should take an oath that he would do his utmost to extirpate from his dominions all whom the Church should denounce as heretics. As a remote consequence of this James VI, the infant son of Queen Mary, or rather Morton, the Regent, in his name, took an oath “to root out all heresy and enemies to the true worship of God that shall be convicted by the true kirk of God of the aforesaid crimes”; the principal among these crimes being the “ydolatre of the odious and blasphemous mass.” At present, however, the investiture of sovereigns with the insignia of their office by a religious ceremony is by no means universal, and it is curious that in Spain, a most Catholic country in full diplomatic relations with the Holy See, no such religious ceremony is now in use. Of European countries we may note that the rite followed in France in the fourteenth and subsequent centuries was almost identical in substance with that of the English “Liber Regalis” (see the careful comparison in Dewick’s “The Order of Coronation of Charles V,” pp. xvi sqq.). The most important differences were first the privilege of the French king, a privilege not shared by his consort, of Communicating under both species, and secondly the use of the oil from the Sainte Ampoule, an oil which according to universal belief had been miraculously brought from heaven by an angel, or a dove, for the baptism of Clovis. This oil down to the Revolution was kept in the Abbey of Reims. The abbot brought the Sainte Ampoule to the coronation and by means of a golden needle a drop of its contents was extracted and mixed with chrism. With this mixture the king was anointed first on the head, then on the breast, and finally on the back and on the joints of the arms. It seems clear that this privilege of the French king provoked imitation in England, and a letter of Pope John XXII has recently been brought to light returning a guarded answer to an application of Edward II who wished to be anointed with certain oil said to have been revealed by Our Blessed Lady to St. Thomas of Canterbury.

It would take us too far to enter into any details as to the ceremonial formerly observed in the coronation of the Kings of Hungary, Bohemia, and Poland, but a word may be added about one of the most splendid of the coronation orders still maintained, namely that of the czar, which always takes place at Moscow. The service begins after the Proscomedy, or Offertory, by a solemn procession in which the emperor enters the church and is conducted to his throne. The lifting upon a shield which was long retained in the old Greek ritual of Constantinople is not now used at Moscow. After the emperor has recited the Nicene Creed as a profession of faith, and after an invocation of the Holy Ghost and litany, the emperor assumes the purple chlamys and then the crown is presented to him. He takes it and puts it on his head himself, while the metropolitan says, “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, Amen,” and then the metropolitan makes the following short address: “Most God-fearing, absolute and mighty Lord, Emperor of all the Russias, this visible and tangible adornment of thy head is an eloquent symbol that thou as the head of the whole Russian people art invisibly crowned by the King of kings, Christ, with a most ample blessing, seeing that He bestows upon thee entire authority over His people.” This is followed by the delivery of the sceptre and orb, each with addresses. Then the queen is crowned, the emperor for a moment putting his own crown on the head of the empress before he invests her with that which properly belongs to her. This is followed by the proclamation of the emperor’s style and by a general act of homage. The Liturgy is then celebrated, and after the Communion hymn (koinonikon) the royal gates of the sanctuary are opened, the emperor is invited to approach, and there, near the entrance, standing on the cloth of gold, the emperor and empress are anointed. In the case of the emperor the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, ears, breast, and the hands on both sides, are all touched with oil but in the case of the empress the unction is confined to the forehead only. Then the emperor passes within the royal gates and receives both the Eucharistic species as a priest does, separately. The empress, however, remains outside, and receives only, as the Greek laity usually do, by intinction.

General.—THALHOFER in Kirchenlex., s. v. Krönung; Venables

in Dict. Christ. Ant., s. vv. Coronation and Crown. MARTÈNE, De Antiquis Ecclesiæ Ritibus (Venice, 1783), II, 201–241; CATALANI, Cæremoniale Romanum (Rome, 1750), I, 85–145; Pontificale Romanum (Rome, 1736) I 369–417.

Particular Rites.—Byzantine.—SICKEL, Das byzantinische Krönungsrecht bis zum 10. Jahrhundert in Byzantinische Zeitschrift (Leipzig, 1898) VII; BRIGHTMAN, Byzantine Imperial Coronations in Journ. of theol. Studies (1901), II, 359–392. Spanish.—FÉROTIN, Monumenta Ecclesiæ Liturgica (Paris, 1904), IV, 498–505. Celtic.—BUTE, Scottish Coronations (London, 1902); COOPER Four Scottish Coronations (Aberdeen, 1902, Eccles. Society); KINLOCH, Scottish Coronations in The Dublin Review (1902). English.—MASKELL, Monumenta Ritualia Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ (Oxford, 1882), II; WORDSWORTH, The Manner of Coronation of King Charles I (London, 1892). The vast number of publications produced on the coronation of Edward VII cannot be mentioned here but among the more important are WICKHAM-LEGG, English Coronation Records (London, 1901); WORDSWORTH, Three English Coronation Orders (London, 1901); MACLEANE, The Great Solemnity (London, 1902); THURSTON, The Coronation Ceremonial (London, 1902), and in Nineteenth Century (March. 1902), and in The Month (June, July, 1902); WILSON, The English Coronation Orders in Jour. of Theol. Studies (July, 1901). Imperial Coronations.—DIEMAND, Das Ceremoniell der Kaiserkrönungen (Munich, 1894); WAITZ, Die Formeln der deutschen Königs- und der römischen Kaiserkrönung (Göttingen, 1871); SCHWARZER, Die Ordines der Kaiserkrönung. Miscellaneous.—DEWICK, The Order of Coronation of Charles V (Henry Bradshaw Society, 1899); MALTZEW, Bitt- Dank- und Weihe-Gottesdienste (Berlin, 1897). 1–61; HAASE, Die Königs-Krönungen in Oberitalien (Strasburg, 1901); MAGISTRETTI, Pontificale Ambrosianum (Milan, 1897).

HERBERT THURSTON

Gregorio Nuñez Coronel

A distinguished theologian, writer, and preacher, b. in Portugal, about 1548; d. about 1620. At an early age he entered the Order of St. Augustine in one of its many houses in his native land. He manifested, during the course of his studies, great powers of research and a ready grasp of the most abstruse problems of philosophy and theology. Soon after his ordination to the priesthood he became famous as a profound theologian and master of sacred eloquence. When his fame was at its zenith, he left Portugal and was appointed by the Duke of Savoy chaplain and preacher to his court. He came to Rome by order of his superiors, and there took the degree of Doctor of Divinity. Coronel taught theology for many years in the Eternal City with credit to himself and honour to his order. At this time the controversy about the efficacy of Divine grace and free will between the Jesuits and Dominicans was at its height. The reigning pontiff, Clement VIII, established the famous Congregatio de Auxiliis to decide the points at issue, and Coronel was appointed by the pope to the onerous and invidious position of secretary. He was continued in this office by Pope Clement’s successor, Paul V. As a reward for his services to the congregation, he was offered a bishopric. This he declined, saying that at his age—he was then sixty—honours and responsibilities were rather to be laid down than assumed. He attended the general chapter of his order, held at Rome in 1620, as definitor of the Sardinian province. Coronel’s principal works are: “Libri decem de verâ Christi Ecclesiâ” (Rome, 1594); “Libri sex de optimo reipublicæ statu” (Rome, 1597); “De traditionibus apostolicis” (Rome, 1597). A history of the Congregatio de Auxiliis, in manuscript, is preserved in the Angelica Library in Rome.

ELSSIUS, Encomiasticon Augustinianum (Brussels, 1654); OSSINGER, Bibliotheca Augustiniana (Ingoldstadt, 1768); LANTERI, Postrema sæcula sex religionis Augustinianæ (Rome, 1860); BARBOSA AND NARDUCCI, Catalogus manuscriptorum Bibliothecæ Angelicæ (Rome, 1893); BARDON, Monastici Augustiniani Crusenii continuatio (Valladolid, 1903).

J. A. KNOWLES.

Juan Coronel

Born 1569, in Spain; died 1651, at Mérida, Mexico. He made his academic studies at the University of Alcalá de Henares, and joined the Franciscans of the province of Castile. He was sent to Yucatan, Mexico, in 1590, and there so familiarized himself with the Maya language that he was able to teach it, the historian Cogolludo being one of his pupils. Cogolludo says he wrote a Maya grammar (Arte) that was printed in Mexico, of which, however, nothing else is known. A catechism in Maya: “Doctrina cristiana en lengua Maya,” was published at Mexico in 1620, and in the same year there appeared in print, also at Mexico, “Discursos predicables y tratados espirituales en lengua Maya.” Both are exceedingly rare. Father Coronel was one of the foremost teachers of the Indians of Yucatan in the seventeenth century. He was a strict Observant for sixty-seven years, always travelling barefooted. His great austerity impeded his election to the office of Provincial of the Franciscan Order in Yucatan.

COGOLLUDO, Historia de Yucatan (Madrid, 1688; Mérida, 1842); BERISTAIN, Biblioteca hispano-americana (Mexico, 1816; Amecameca, 1883); SQUIER, Monograph, etc. (New York, 1861); he merely copies BERISTAIN.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Corporal

(From Latin corpus, body).

A square white linen cloth, now usually somewhat smaller than the breadth of an altar, upon which the Sacred Host and chalice are placed during the celebration of Mass. Although formal evidence is wanting, it may fairly be assumed that something in the nature of a corporal has been in use since the earliest days of Christianity. Naturally it is difficult in the early stages to distinguish the corporal from the altar-cloth, and a passage of St. Optatus (c. 375), which asks, “What Christian is unaware that in celebrating the Sacred Mysteries the wood [of the altar] is covered with a linen cloth?” (ipsa ligna linteamine cooperiri, Optatus, VI, ed. Ziwsa, p. 145), leaves us in doubt which he is referring to. This is probably the earliest direct testimony; for the statement of the “Liber Pontificalis,” “He [Pope Sylvester] decreed that the Sacrifice should not be celebrated upon a silken or dyed cloth, but only on linen, sprung from the earth, as the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ was buried in a clean linen shroud” (Mommsen, p. 51), cannot be relied upon. Still, the ideas expressed in this passage are found in an authentic letter of St. Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. i, 123) and again in the “Expositio” of St. Germanus of Paris in the sixth century (P. L., LXXII, 93). Indeed they lasted through the Middle Ages, as the verses attributed to Hildebert (P. L., CLXXI, 1194) sufficiently show:

Ara crucis, tumulique calix, lapidisque patena,

Sindonis officium candida byssus habet.

It is quite probable that in the early centuries only one linen cloth was used which served both for altar-cloth and corporal, this being of large size and doubled back to cover the chalice. Much doubt must be felt as to the original use of certain cloths of figured linen in the treasury of Monza which Barbier de Montault sought to identify as corporals. The corporal was described as palla corporalis, or velamen dominic mens , or opertorium dominici corporis, etc.; and it seems generally to have been of linen, though we hear of altar-cloths of silk (Greg. of Tours, “Hist. Franc.,” VII, 22; X, 16), or of purple (Paulus Silentiarius, “Descr. S. Sophi “, p. 758; a coloured miniature in the tenth-century Benedictional of St. thelwold also seemns to show a purple altar-covering), or of cloth-of-gold (Chrysostom in Matt., Hom.1). In some of these cases it seems difficult to decide whether altar-cloth or corporal is meant. However, there is no doubt that a clear distinction had established itself in Carlovingian times or even earlier. Thus, in the tenth century, Regino of Prüm (De Disc. Eccl., cap. cxviii) quotes a council of Reims as having decreed “that the corporal [corporale] upon which the Holy Sacrifice was offered must be of the finest and purest linen without admixture of any other fibre, because Our Saviour’s Body was wrapped not in silk, but in clean linen.” He adds that the corporal was never to remain on the altar, but was to be put in the Missal [Sacramentorum libro] or shut up with the chalice and paten in some clean receptacle. And when it was washed, it was to be washed first of all by a priest, deacon, or subdeacon in the church itself, in a place or a vessel specially reserved for this, because it had been impregnated with the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Afterwards it might be sent to the laundry and treated like other linen. The suggestion as to keeping the corporal between the leaves of the Missal is interesting because it shows that it cannot, even in the tenth century, have always been of that extravagant size which might be inferred from the description in the “Second Roman Ordo” (cap. ix), where the deacon and an assistant deacon are represented as folding it up between them. Still it was big enough at this period to allow of its being bent back to cover the chalice, and thus serve the purpose of our present pall. This is done by the Carthusians to this day, who use no pall and have no proper elevation of the chalice. As regards the size of the corporal, some change may have taken place when it ceased to be usual for the people to bring loaves to the altar, for there was no longer need of a large cloth to fold back over them and cover them. Anyway, it is in the eleventh and twelfth centuries that the practice, of doubling the corporal over the chalice gave place to a new plan of using a second (folded) corporal to cover the mouth of the chalice when required. The question is debated in some detail in one of the letters of St. Anselm, who quite approves of the arrangement (P. L., CLVIII, 550); and a hundred years later we find Pope Innocent III stating, “there are two kinds of palls or corporals, as they are called [duplex est palla qu dicitur corporale] one which the deacon spreads out upon the altar, the other which he places folded upon the mouth of the chalice” (De Sacrif. Miss , II, 56). The essential unity of the pall and the corporal is further shown by the fact that the special blessing which both palls and corporals must always receive before use designates the two as “linteamen ad tegendum involvendumque Corpus et Sanguinem D.N.J.C.,” i.e. to cover and enfold the Body and Blood of Christ. This special blessing for corporals and palls is alluded to even in the Celtic liturgical documents of the seventh century, and the actual form now prescribed by the modern Roman Pontifical is found almost in the same words in the Spanish “Liber Ordinum” of about the same early date. According to existing liturgical rules, the corporal must not be ornamented with embroidery, and must be made entirely of pure white linen, though there seem to have been many medieval exceptions to this law. It is not to be left to lie open upon the altar, but when not in use is to be folded and put away in a burse, or “corporas-case,” as it was commonly called in pre-Reformation England. Upon these burses much ornamentation is lavished, and this has been the case since medieval times, as many existing examples survive to show. The corporal is now usually folded twice in length and twice in breadth, so that when folded it still forms a small square. At an earlier period, when it was larger and was used to cover the chalice as well, it was commonly folded four times in length and thrice in breadth. This practice is still followed by some of the older religious orders. The corporal and pall have to pass through a triple washing at the hands of a priest, or at least a subdeacon, before they may be sent to a laundry. Also, when they are in use they may not be handled by any but the clergy, or sacristans to whom special permission is given.

STREBER in Kirchenlexikon, III, 1105–1107; THALHOFER, Liturgik, I, 777–781; VAN DER STAPPEN, Sacra Liturgia (Mechlin, 1902), III, 102–110; GIHR, The Mass, tr. (Freiburg, 1902), 281–264; BARBIER DE MONTAULT, Le Mobilier Eccl siastique; ROHAULT DE FLEURY, La Messe (Paris, 1888), VI, 197–204; Dict. Christ. Antiq., s.v. Corporal; ATCHLEY in St. Paul’s Eccles. Soc. Transactions (1900), IV, 156–160; BARBIER DE MONTAULT in Bulletin Monumental (1882). 583–630.

HERBERT THURSTON

Corporation

(Lat. corpus, a body)

A corporation is an association recognized by civil law and regarded in all ordinary transactions as an individual. It is an artificial person. Chief Justice Marshall of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, in the course of a formal judicial utterance, thus defined the term corporation: “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and, if the expression may be allowed, individuality; properties by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered as the same, and may act as a single individual. They enable a corporation to manage its own affairs, and to hold property without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity of perpetual conveyances for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of men, in succession, with qualities and capacities, that corporations were invented, and are in use. By these means, a perpetual succession of individuals are capable of acting for the promotion of the particular object, like one immortal being.”

Chancellor Kent of New York, one of the most famous jurists of modern times, defines a corporation as “a franchise possessed by one or more individuals, who subsist, as a body politic, under a special denomination, and are vested, by the policy of the law, with the capacity of perpetual succession, and of acting in several respects, however numerous the associations may he, as a single individual. The object of the institution is to enable the members to act by one united will, and to continue their joint powers and property in the same body, undisturbed by the change of members, and without the necessity of perpetual conveyances, as the rights of members pass from one individual to another. All the individuals composing a corporation and their successors, are considered in law as but one person, capable, under an artificial form, of taking and conveying property, contracting debts and duties, and of enjoying a variety of civil and political rights. One of the peculiar properties of a corporation is the power of perpetual succession; for, in judgment of law, it is capable of indefinite duration. The rights and privileges of the corporation do not determine, or vary upon the death or change of any of the individual members. They continue as long as the corporation endures.”

ANCIENT CORPORATIONS

Among the ancient Greeks a kind of association called etairia corresponded in its characteristics very closely with the modern corporation. Solon is said to have encouraged the formation of such bodies, and in his legislation permitted them to be instituted freely and to engage in any transactions not contrary to law. The Roman prototype of the corporation as it came into existence under the common law of England, and from England was transplanted into America, was the collegium. This kind of association, called also corpus, was required to consist of at least three persons (Dig., L, tit. xvi), and persons who had regularly and legally constituted a collegium were said corpus habere (to have a body), i. e. to have been, as we say, duly incorporated. The persons who formed a collegium were called collegœ or sodales. The word collegium derived from con, “with,” and lego, “to select,” had the literal meaning of an aggregation of persons united in any office or for any common purpose. In the later days of the Roman Republic corporation was used in documents relating to public law in the same sense as collegium. The word societas seems to have been used as a term corresponding to our word partnership. A collegium possessed the legal right of holding property in common. Its members had a common treasury and could sue and be sued by their syndicus or actor. According to the Roman law, that which was due to the collegium was not due to individuals composing it; that which was an indebtedness of the collegium was not the debt of individuals. The property of the collegium was liable to be seized and sold for its debts. The term universitas is used by the Roman law writers in the same sense as collegium. The application of universitas to an academic or literary institution is first found in a Decretal of one of the popes establishing a medieval university for the teaching of religion, literature, science, and the arts. A collegium or universitas was, under the Roman law, managed by its officers and agents under regulations established by the corporate body itself, and these regulations might be such as were agreed upon by the members, subject only to the limitation that they were not contrary to the public law.

A lawfully constituted collegium was termed legitimum. Associations attempting to act as a collegium, when not duly authorized, were called collegia illicita. It seems that no particular Roman law defined the mode in which collegia were regularly to be formed. They appear to have been formed by the voluntary association of individuals according to some general legal authority. Some of these ancient Roman corporations resembled the guilds of medieval times, such as the collegia fabrorum, collegia pistorum, etc.; others were of a religious nature such as the collegia pontificum, augurum. According to Ulpian a universitas, though reduced to a single member, was still considered a universitas; for the remaining member thereof possessed all the rights and privileges of the universitas, and used the name by which it was originally known. When a new member was taken into a collegium, he was said co-optari, and the members of an association into which he was introduced were said, with respect to him, recipere in collegium. The chief public corporation of ancient Rome was the municipium. Municipia possessed all of the characteristic powers of ordinary corporations together with the right of local government. It is stated by Plutarch that corporations were introduced into the Roman system of legislation by Numa. That sovereign, upon his accession to the throne, noted that great public disorder existed in the city of Rome by reason of the contentions between the rival factions of Sabines and Romans; and for the purpose of protecting the State against tumult, divided each of these factions into many smaller ones by creating collegia for each of the professions and for each of the manual occupations.

CLASSIFICATION

Under the English law corporations are distinguished in the first place as being either aggregate or sole. A corporation aggregate consists of several persons united in a society and maintained by a perpetual succession of members. A corporation sole consists of one person only, and the successors of that person in some particular station or office. The King of England is a corporation sole; so is a bishop; and in the Church of England every parson and vicar is, in view of the law, a corporation sole. The laws of the United States have rarely recognized any sole corporation, but “the Catholic Bishop of Chicago,” now Archbishop, was, many years ago, created a corporation sole by a special act of the legislature of the State of Illinois. In Maryland the Archbishop of Baltimore holds all Church property as a corporation sole. Similarly in the several Catholic dioceses of California, the bishop or archbishop is a corporation sole, and since 1897 such is the case in Massachusetts for the Archdiocese of Boston (H. J. Desmond, The Church and the Law, Chicago. 1898, 72, 73). Under certain circumstances the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (Acta et Decreta, no. 267) urged each bishop and archbishop of the United States to have himself constituted a corporation sole (see PROPERTY, ECCLESIASTICAL).

A further division of corporations, either sole or aggregate, recognized by the law of England, is that of ecclesiastical corporations and lay corporations. Ecclesiastical corporations are those whose members are persons devoted to spiritual affairs, such as bishops, archdeacons, parsons, and vicars. Prior to the reign of Edward VI, deans and chapters, priors and convents, abbots and monks were ecclesiastical corporations aggregate. Lay corporations are of two kinds, civil and eleemosynary. Civil are such as exist for the safeguarding and administration of temporal affairs. As Blackstone says, the king is made a corporation to prevent in general the possibility of an interregnum and to preserve the possessions of the Crown entire; for immediately upon the demise of one king his successor is considered in law as having full possession of the regal dignity and privileges. Examples of other lay corporations are those which are created to govern towns or districts such as the corporation known as the City of London; others have been created for the conduct of manufacturing and commercial enterprises, for the diffusion of learning, and for scientific research. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are examples of corporations created for the advancement of learning. Eleemosynary corporations are defined by Blackstone to be such as are constituted for the perpetual distribution of free alms or bounty of the founder thereof to such persons as such founder may have designated. Of this kind are all hospitals for the maintenance of the poor, sick, and impotent.

CREATION

Under the common law of England corporations depended for their existence upon a charter (Lat. charta, a paper) granted by the king. Corporations which had existed so long a time that “the memory of man ran not to the contrary” were said to exist by prescription; but that considerate doctrine was based upon the theory that the corporation had at one time received a charter, which, in course of time and by reason of the vicissitudes of human affairs, had been lost. When the religious revolution of the sixteenth century occurred, most of the religious houses of England were corporations by prescription, because they were so ancient that their original charters, if there were any, had disappeared. The rights of a corporation by prescription, however, are quite as valid at common law as are the rights of those which can exhibit a charter. Instances of corporations interesting to American people are those created by letters patent from the King of England to the London Company, under which the original settlements of the New England coast were made; and the charter to the Virginia Company, under which the shores of Virginia were first colonized by Englishmen.

NAME

Under the Roman law as well as under the English common law a corporation must, necessarily, have a name, and by that name alone it must appear in court and must conduct all of its transactions. Such a name is said by Blackstone to be for a corporation, “the very being of its constitution.” The name of incorporation is said by Sir Edward Coke to be its proper name or name of baptism.

ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS

Ecclesiastical corporations as such, are not recognized by the laws of the United States or of the several States constituting the Union. Under the American system of law, corporations are either public or private, public corporations being those that are erected for the purposes of local government, such as municipal corporations for the government of cities. The term private corporations includes all others, religious, literary, charitable, manufacturing, insurance, banking, and railroad corporations. In the various States of the Union corporations were formerly created by charter granted by the legislature. In the greater number of the States at the present time private corporations are created by the voluntary act of individuals who associate themselves together and make a public declaration of their intention to become a body corporate and take such action in conformity with general rules laid down by legislation. Charters of incorporation granted by the legislatures of the States to private corporations are considered as executed contracts within the protection of Article 1, Section 10, of the Constitution of the United States, by which it is declared that “no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.” This was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case entitled “The Trustees of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward” (Wheaton’s Reports, Vol. 4, p. 518). In many States the right to amend, modify, or repeal a charter was usually reserved in the charter itself. Such a provision is now incorporated into the constitutions of many of the States.

POWER OF CORPORATIONS

The principal characteristic of a corporation at common law was that it was vested with the privilege of perpetuity, that is, it was said to have perpetual succession. At the present time in the greater number of American States the general legislation providing for the creation, of corporations expressly designates a fixed term during which a corporation may exist. The second of the original powers of corporations which is still maintained, is to sue or to be sued, implead, or to be impleaded, grant or receive, by its corporate name and to do all other acts as natural persons may. The third privilege was to purchase lands and to hold them for the benefit of the members of the corporation and their successors. This right was largely modified by the statutes of mortmain (q. v.) in England and has been strictly regulated and greatly limited by American legislation. The fourth original power possessed by corporations was that of having a common seal. As was said by the ancient law writers of England, a corporation, being an invisible body, cannot manifest its intentions by any personal act or by speech, and therefore can act and speak only by its common seal. In modern times many corporations are expressly authorized by legislation to act without using a seal, and the decisions of the courts have generally held, at least in modern times, that a corporation was bound by implication in many cases where its acts had not been attested by the corporate seal. The fifth privilege of a corporation, which has existed from time immemorial and still exists, is that of making by-laws or providing statutes for the regulation of its own affairs; and these are binding upon the corporation and its members unless contrary to the law of the land. This right was allowed by the Law of the Twelve Tables at Rome.

PRIVILEGES AND DISABILITIES

A corporation must always appear by attorney or agent (the actor or syndicus of the Roman law) for it cannot appear in person; being, as Sir Edward Coke says, invisible and existing only in contemplation of the law. Under the strict construction of its legal quality the courts of England originally held that a corporation could not be held liable for any action based upon tortious conduct; that is, a corporation could not be held liable for personal injuries inflicted by the wrongful act or culpable neglect of its agents. It is now held however, both in England and America, that a corporation is liable in damages for any wrong committed by its servants or agents when acting within the scope of the duties which properly devolve upon them. The doctrine designated by the term ultra vires is that which governs the courts in limiting the liability of a corporation to acts which are expressly authorized by its charter, or acts which are defined by its original articles of institution to be within the scope of its corporate operations. This doctrine is sound because it would be contrary to public policy to hold that a corporation had the right to do any act or to undertake any course of transactions which was not within the scope of the powers which it originally declared itself as possessing. However, the application of this doctrine is so restricted by the courts as not to allow corporate officers to use the doctrine as a cloak for deeds not equitable in their nature. It is construed strictly by the courts as a shield and is not allowed to operate as a sword.

VISITATION

The necessity of supervision over corporate acts being generally acknowledged, it was held at common law that every corporation had, necessarily, a visitor. As Blackstone well says, “Corporations, being composed of individuals, subject to human frailties, are liable as well as private persons, to deviate from the end of their institution. And for that reason the law has provided proper persons to visit, inquire into and correct all irregularities that arise in such corporations, either sole or aggregate, and whether ecclesiastical, civil or eleemosynary.” Prior to the religious revolution of the sixteenth century the pope was the visitor of the archbishops and metropolitans. In respect to all lay corporations, the founder, his heirs, or assigns are the visitors under the English system. In the various States of the American Union visitors of corporations are practically unknown; the supervision of private corporations being vested in courts of equity. In England the king is considered as the visitor for all civil corporations, and this jurisdiction is exercised through the Court of King’s Bench.

DISSOLUTION

Any member of a corporation may be disfranchised, that is, he may lose his membership in the corporation by acting in such manner as to forfeit his rights under a provision of the by-laws; or he may resign from the corporation by his own voluntary act. A resignation by parole, if entered upon the records and accepted by the corporation, is sufficient. The corporation itself may be dissolved and in such case, at common law, debts due from a corporation were wholly extinguished ipso facto by such dissolution; and in this respect the common law concurred with the maxim of the civil law which declared that the members of a corporation in respect to its property rights and credits had no individual rights therein: “si quid universitati debetur; singulis non debetur; nec, quod debet universitas, singuli debent” (Pandects, III, 4, 7).

The method of dissolution under the common law was;

(1) by an act of Parliament;

(2) in the case of a corporation aggregate, by the death of all its members;

(3) by surrender of its franchise into the hands of the king through voluntary action of the corporation;

(4) by the forfeiture of its corporate rights through negligence or through non-user or abuse of its franchise.

The franchises, as the English law termed the privileges which corporations enjoyed, were considered a trust lodged in the corporation for the general benefit of society, and to allow such privileges to be abused or to discontinue the exercise of such franchise was held to be a fault punishable according to its degree and, in extreme cases, punishable by extinction of corporate existence. The regular course adopted for the punishment of corporations or their dissolution is to proceed by what is termed a writ of quo warranto, which means that a representative of the State presents to some competent tribunal a petition reciting abuses, wrongs, or culpable non-action of a corporate body, prays for its dissolution, and demands that a writ issue from the court requiring the corporation to show “by what warrant” it presumes to exist and to act as a corporation. Upon a proper showing by petition, the court issues its writ quo warranto; that is, the court issues a document requiring the corporation to present to such court the facts which the corporation deems sufficient to warrant its continued existence. Upon a trial of the issues involved, if it be found that the corporation is amenable to public discipline, it may be amerced or its extinction may be decreed. Proceedings by quo warranto still have a place in the law of England and also in the laws of the various American States, although such proceedings have been greatly modified by statute. Students of history will recall the great public agitation caused during the reign of King Charles II by the institution of proceedings in quo warranto against the city of London. Judgment, however, was rendered by a competent tribunal against the city of London, and it is probable that, according to a strict construction of the law, the proceedings were justified. After the English revolution which seated William and Mary upon the throne, the judgment against the city of London was reversed by an Act of Parliament. In all civilized countries bodies politic, similar in nature and quality to English and American corporations, exist. As these have many special characteristics imparted to them by the legislation of the various countries in which they exist, no attempt to describe them is made in this article.

BALDWIN, Modern Political Institutions (Boston, 1898), 141 sqq.; BLACKSTONE, Commentaries upon the Laws of England, ed. SHARSWOOD, (Philadelphia, 1875), I, xviii; KENT, Commentaries upon American Law (Boston, 1854), I, 526, and note, II, 268 sq.; MOMMSEN, History of Rome (New York, 1896), II, 65, V, 374; MACKENZIE, Roman Law (London, 1898), 160–163; SOHM, Institutes of Roman Law (Oxford, 1892), 106; Decision of U. S. Supreme Court, Dartmouth College v. Woodward in IV Wheatons Reports (New York, 1819), 518, 636; MINOR, Institutes (Charlottesville, Virginia, 1882), I, 541; ELLIOTT, Corporations (Indianapolis, Indiana, 1900), i; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiq. (London, 1875).

JOHN W. WILLIS.

Corporation Act of 1661

The Corporation Act of 1661 belongs to the general category of test acts, designed for the express purpose of restricting public offices to members of the Church of England. Though commonly spoken of as one of the “Penal Laws,” and enumerated by Butler in his “Historical Account of the Laws against the Roman Catholics of England,” it was not directly aimed against them, but against the Presbyterians. It was passed in December, 1661, the year after the Restoration, technically 13 Charles II. Parliament was at that time entirely reactionary. The Cavaliers were in power, and they aimed at nothing short of restoring England to its state before the time of the Commonwealth. It required all the prudence of the Earl of Clarendon, the chancellor, to restrain them. The Corporation Act represents the limit to which he was prepared to go in endeavouring to restrict the power of the Presbyterians. They were influentially represented in the government of cities and boroughs throughout the country, and this act was designed to dispossess them. It provided that no person could be legally elected to any office relating to the government of a city or corporation, unless he had within the previous twelve months received the sacrament of “the Lord’s Supper” according to the rites of the Church of England. He was also commanded to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, to swear belief in the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, and to renounce the Covenant. In default of these requisites the election was to be void. A somewhat similar act passed twelve years later, known as the Test Act, prescribed for all officers, civil and military, further stringent conditions, including a declaration against Transubstantiation. These two acts operated very prejudicially on Catholics, forming an important part of the general Penal Code which kept them out of public life. In later times the number, even of non-Catholics, who qualified for civil and military posts in accordance with their provisions was very small, and an “Act of Indemnity” used to be passed annually, to relieve those who had not done so from the penalties incurred. There was no expression in this act limiting its operation to the case of Protestants; yet on the only occasion when a Catholic ventured to ask for a share in the Indemnity, it was refused on the ground of the act not being applicable to him. (Butler, op. cit., 19.) The Corporation Act remained nominally in force throughout the eighteenth century. It was eventually repealed in 1828, the year before Catholic Emancipation.

BERNARD WARD.

Feast of Corpus Christi

(FEAST OF THE BODY OF CHRIST)

This feast is celebrated in the Latin Church on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday to solemnly commemorate the institution of the Holy Eucharist.

Of Maundy Thursday, which commemorates this great event, mention is made as Natalis Calicis (Birth of the Chalice) in the Calendar of Polemius (448) for the 24th of March, the 25th of March being in some places considered as the day of the death of Christ. This day, however, was in Holy Week, a season of sadness, during which the minds of the faithful are expected to be occupied with thoughts of the Lord’s Passion. Moreover, so many other functions took place on this day that the principal event was almost lost sight of. This is mentioned as the chief reason for the introduction of the new feast, in the Bull “Transiturus.”

The instrument in the hand of Divine Providence was St. Juliana of Mont Cornillon, in Belgium. She was born in 1193 at Retines near Liège. Orphaned at an early age, she was educated by the Augustinian nuns of Mont Cornillon. Here she in time made her religious profession and later became superioress. Intrigues of various kinds several time drove her from her convent. She died 5 April, 1258, at the House of the Cistercian nuns at Fosses, and was buried at Villiers.

Juliana, from her early youth, had a great veneration for the Blessed Sacrament, and always longed for a special feast in its honour. This desire is said to have been increased by a vision of the Church under the appearance of the full moon having one dark spot, which signified the absence of such a solemnity. She made known her ideas to Robert de Thorete, then Bishop of Liège, to the learned Dominican Hugh, later cardinal legate in the Netherlands, and to Jacques Pantaléon, at that time Archdeacon of Liège, afterwards Bishop of Verdun, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and finally Pope Urban IV. Bishop Robert was favourably impressed, and, since bishops as yet had the right of ordering feasts for their dioceses, he called a synod in 1246 and ordered the celebration to be held in the following year, also, that a monk named John should write the Office for the occasion. The decree is preserved in Binterim (Denkwürdigkeiten, V, 1, 276), together with parts of the Office.

Bishop Robert did not live to see the execution of his order, for he died 16 October, 1246; but the feast was celebrated for the first time by the canons of St. Martin at Liège. Jacques Pantaléon became pope 29 August, 1261. The recluse Eve, with whom Juliana had spent some time, and who was also a fervent adorer of the Holy Eucharist, now urged Henry of Guelders, Bishop of Liège, to request the pope to extend the celebration to the entire world. Urban IV, always an admirer of the feast, published the Bull “Transiturus” (8 September, 1264), in which, after having extolled the love of Our Saviour as expressed in the Holy Eucharist, he ordered the annual celebration of Corpus Christi in the Thursday next after Trinity Sunday, at the same time granting many indulgences to the faithful for the attendance at Mass and at the Office. This Office, composed at the request of the pope by the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas, is one of the most beautiful in the Roman Breviary and has been admired even by Protestants.

The death of Pope Urban IV (2 October, 1264), shortly after the publication of the decree, somewhat impeded the spread of the festival. Clement V again took the matter in hand and, at the General Council of Vienne (1311), once more ordered the adoption of the feast. He published a new decree which embodied that of Urban IV. John XXII, successor of Clement V, urged its observance.

Neither decree speaks of the theophoric procession as a feature of the celebration. This procession, already held in some places, was endowed with indulgences by Popes Martin V and Eugene IV.

The feast had been accepted in 1306 at Cologne; Worms adopted it in 1315; Strasburg in 1316. In England it was introduced from Belgium between 1320 and 1325. In the United States and some other countries the solemnity is held on the Sunday after Trinity.

In the Greek Church the feast of Corpus Christi is known in the calendars of the Syrians, Armenians, Copts, Melchites, and the Ruthenians of Galicia, Calabria, and Sicily.

GUÉRANGER, The Liturgical Year (tr. Worcester, s.d.); BUTLER, Feast and Fasts; KELLNER, Heortologie (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1906); Der Katholic (Aug., 1898), 151; BÄUMER Gesch. des Breviers (Freiburg, 1895).

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Corpus Juris Canonici

I. DEFINITION

The term corpus here denotes a collection of documents; corpus juris, a collection of laws, especially if they are placed in systematic order. It may signify also an official and complete collection of a legislation made by the legislative power, comprising all the laws which are in force in a country or society. The term, although it never received legal sanction in either Roman or canon law, being merely the phraseology of the learned, is used in the above sense when the “Corpus Juris Civilis” of the Roman Christian emperors is meant. The expression corpus juris may also mean, not the collection of laws itself, but the legislation of a society considered as a whole. Hence Benedict XIV could rightly say that the collection of his Bulls formed part of the corpus juris (Jam fere sextus, 1746). We cannot better explain the signification of the term corpus juris canonici than by showing the successive meanings which were assigned to it in the past and which it usually bears at the present day. Under the name of “corpus canonum” were designated the collection of Dionysius Exiguus and the “Collectio Anselmo dedicata” (see below). The “Decree” of Gratian is already called “Corpus Juris Canonici” by a glossator of the twelfth century, and Innocent IV calls by this name the “Decretals” of Gregory IX (Ad expediendos, 9 Sept., 1253). Since the second half of the thirteenth century, Corpus Juris Canonici in contradistinction to Corpus Juris Civilis, or Roman law, generally denoted the following collections:

(1) the “Decretals” of Gregory IX;

(2) those of Boniface VIII (Sixth Book of the Decretals);

(3) those of Clement V (Clementinæ) i. e. the collections which at that time, with the “Decree” of Gratian, were taught and explained at the universities.

At the present day, under the above title are commonly understood these three collections with the addition of the “Decree” of Gratian, the “Extravagantes” of John XXII, and the “Extravagantes Communes.”

Thus understood, the term dates back to the sixteenth century and was officially sanctioned by Gregory XIII (Cum pro munere, 1 July, 1580). The earliest editions of these texts printed under the now usual title of “Corpus Juris Canonici,” date from the end of the sixteenth century (Frankfort, 8vo, 1586; Paris, fol., 1587). In the strict sense of the word the Church does not possess a corpus juris clausum, i. e. a collection of laws to which new ones cannot be added. The Council of Basle (Sess. XXIII, ch. vi) and the decree of the Congregation “Super statu regularium” (25 Jan., 1848) do not speak of a corpus clausum; the first refers to reservationibus in corpore juris expresse clausis, that is, reservations of ecclesiastical benefices contained in the “Corpus Juris,” especially in the “Liber Sextus” of Boniface VIII, to the exclusion of those held in the “Extravagantes” described below, and at that time not comprised in the “Corpus Juris Canonici”; the second speaks of cuilibet privilegio, licet in corpore juris clauso et confirmato, i. e. of privileges not only granted by the Holy See but also inserted in the official collections of canon law.

II. PRINCIPAL CANONICAL COLLECTIONS

We shall briefly sketch the history of the earliest collections of canons, and shall add a brief description of the “Corpus Juris Canonici” as it is now understood. The history of canon law is generally divided into three periods. The first extends to the “Decree” of Gratian, i. e. to the middle of the twelfth century (jus antiquum); the second reaches to the Council of Trent (jus novum); the third includes the latest enactments since the Council of Trent inclusively (jus novissimum).

(1) Jus antiquum

The most ancient collections of canonical legislation are certain very early pseudo-Apostolic documents: for instance, the Didache ton dodeka apostolon or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” which dates from the end of the first or the beginning of the second century; the Apostolic Church Ordinance; the “Didascalia,” or “Teaching of the Apostles” (third century); the Apostolic Canons (see CANONS, APOSTOLIC); and Apostolic Constitutions. These collections have never had any official value, no more than any other collection of this first period. It was in the East, after the Edict of Milan (313), that arose the first systematic collections. We cannot so designate the chronological collections of the canons of the councils of the fourth and fifth centuries (314–451); the oldest systematic collection, made by an unknown author in 535, has not come down. The most important collections of this epoch are the Synagoge kanonon, or the collection of John the Scholastic (Joannes Scholasticus), compiled at Antioch about 550, and the Nomocanons, or compilations of civil laws affecting religious matters (nomos) and ecclesiastical laws (kanon). One such mixed collection is dated in the sixth century and has been erroneously attributed to John the Scholastic; another of the seventh century was rewritten and much enlarged by the schismatical patriarch Photius (883). In the Western Church three collections of canons have exercised an influence far beyond the limits of the country in which they were composed; they are the “Collectio Dionysiana,” the lengthy Irish collection (Hibernensis), and the “Decretals” of Pseudo-Isidore. The “Dionysiana,” also called “Corpus canonum,” “Corpus codicis canonum,” was the work of Dionysius Exiguus who died between the years 540 and 555; it contains his Latin translation of the canons of the councils of the Eastern Church and a collection of (38) papal letters (Epistolæ decretales) dating from the reign of Pope Siricius (384–398) to that of Anastasius II (died 498). The authority of this Italian collection, at once quite considerable at Rome and in Italy, was greatly increased after Adrian I had sent to Charlemagne (774) a modified and enlarged copy of the collection, thenceforth known as the “Collectio Dionysio-Hadriana,” and the Synod of Aachen (802) accepted it as the “Codex Canonum” of the immense Empire of the Franks.

The lengthy Irish collection of canons, compiled in the eighth century, influenced both Gaul and Italy. The latter country possessed, moreover, two fifth-century Latin translations of the Greek synods (the collection erroneously called “Isidoriana” or “Hispana,” and the “Collectio Prisca”); also an important collection of pontifical and imperial documents (the “Avellana,” compiled in the pontificate of Gregory the Great, 590–604). Africa possessed a collection of 105, or more exactly 94, canons, compiled about 419; also the “Breviatio Canonum,” or digest of the canons of the councils by Fulgentius Ferrandus (died c. 546), and the “Concordia Canonum” of Cresconius, an adaptation of the “Dionysiana” (about 690). In Gaul are found, at the beginning of the sixth century, the “Statuta Ecclesiæ antiqua,” erroneously attributed to Africa, and, among many other collections the “Quesnelliana” (end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century) and the “Dacheriana” (about 800), both so called from the names of their editors, Paschase Quesnel and d’Achéry. Spain possessed the “Capitula Martini,” compiled about 572 by Martin, Bishop of Braga, and a “Codex canonum” or “Collectio Hispana” dating from about 633, attributed in the ninth century to St. Isidore of Seville. In the ninth century arose several apocryphal collections, viz, those of Benedictus Levita, of Isidorus Mercator (also Peccator or Mercatus), and the “Capitula Angilramni.” An examination of the controversies which these three collections give rise to will be found elsewhere (see FALSE DECRETALS). The Pseudo-Isidorian collection, the authenticity of which was for a long time admitted, has exercised considerable influence on ecclesiastical discipline, without however modifying it in its essential principles. Among the numerous collections of a later date, we may mention the “Collectio Anselmo dedicata,” compiled in Italy at the end of the ninth century, the “Libellus de ecclesiasticis disciplinis” of Regino of Prum (died 915); the “Collectarium canonum” of Burchard of Worms (died 1025); the collection of the younger St. Anselm of Lucca, compiled towards the end of the eleventh century; the “Collectio trium partium,” the “Decretum” and the “Panormia” of Yves of Chartres (died 1115 or 1117); the “Liber de misericordiâ et justitiâ” of Algerus of Liège, who died in 1132—all collections which Gratian made use of in the compilation of his “Decretum.” The aforesaid collections and others are described more fully in the article CANONS, COLLECTIONS OF ANCIENT.

(2) Jus novum and Corpus juris canonici

It was about 1150 that the Camaldolese monk, Gratian, professor of theology at the University of Bologna, to obviate the difficulties which beset the study of practical, external theology (theologia practica externa), i. e. canon law, composed the work entitled by himself “Concordia discordantium canonum,” but called by others “Nova collectio,” “Decreta,” “Corpus juris canonici,” also “Decretum Gratiani,” the latter being now the commonly accepted name. In spite of its great reputation the “Decretum” has never been recognized by the Church as an official collection. It is divided into three parts (ministeria, negotia, sacramenta). The first part is divided into 101 distinctions (distinctiones), the first 20 of which form an introduction to the general principles of canon Law (tractatus decretalium); the remainder constitutes a tractatus ordinandorum, relative to ecclesiastical persons and function. The second part contains 36 causes (causœ), divided into questions (quœstiones), and treat of ecclesiastical administration and marriage; the third question of the 33rd causa treats of the Sacrament of Penance and is divided into 7 distinctions. The third part, entitled “De consecratione,” treats of the sacraments and other sacred things and contains 5 distinctions. Each distinction or question contains dicta Gratiani, or maxims of Gratian, and canones. Gratian himself raises questions and brings forward difficulties, which he answers by quoting auctoritates, i. e. canons of councils, decretals of the popes, texts of the Scripture or of the Fathers. These are the canones; the entire remaining portion, even the summaries of the canons and the chronological indications, are called the maxims or dicta Gratiani. It is to be noted that many auctoritates have been inserted in the “Decretum” by authors of a later date. These are the Paleœ, so called from Paucapalea, the name of the principal commentator on the “Decretum.” The Roman revisers of the sixteenth century (1566–82) corrected the text of the “Decree” and added many critical notes designated by the words Correctores Romani.

the “Decretum” is quoted by indicating the number of the canon and that of the distinction or of the cause and the question. To differentiate the distinctions of the first part from those of the third, question of the 33rd cause of the second part and those of the third part, the words de Pœn., i. e. de Pœnitentiâ, and de Cons., i. e. de Consecratione are added to the latter. For instance, “c. 1. d. XI” indicates the first part of the “Decree.” distinction XI, canon 1; “c. 1., de Pœn., d. VI,” refers to the second part, 33rd cause, question 3, distinction VI, canon 1; “c. 8, de Cons., d. II” refers to the third part, distinction II, canon 8; “c. 8, C. XII, q. 3” refers to the second part, cause XII, question 3, canon 8. Sometimes, especially in the case of well-known and much-quoted canons, the first words are also indicated, e. g., c. Si quis suadente diabolo, C. XVII, q. 4, i. e. the 29th canon of the second part, cause XVII, question 4. Occasionally the first words alone are quoted. In both cases, to find the canon it is necessary to consult the alphabetical tables (printed in all editions of Gratian) that contain the first words of every canon.

The general laws of a Later date than the “Decree” of Gratian have been called “Extravagantes,” i. e. laws not contained in Gratian’s “Decree” (Vagantes extra Decretum). These were soon brought together in new collections, five of which (Quinque compilationes antiquæ) possessed a special authority. Two of them, namely the third and the fifth, are the most ancient official compilations of the Roman Church (see DECRETALS, PAPAL). Among other compilations at the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century the following deserve special attention: “Appendix concilii Lateranensis III”; the collections known as “Bambergensis” (Bamberg), “Lipsiensis” (Leipzig), “Casselana” (Cassel) “Halensis” (Halle), and “Lucensis” (Lucca), so named from the libraries it which the manuscripts of these collections were found; the collection of the Italian Benedictine Rainerus Pomposianus, that of the English canonist Gilbert (Collectio Gilberti), that of his countryman Alanus, professor at Bologna (Collectio Alani), and that of the Spaniard Bernard of Compostella. But soon the new era of official collections began to dawn. In 1230 Gregory IX ordered St. Raymund of Pennafort to make a new collection, which is called the “Decretals of Gregory IX” (Decretales Gregorii IX). To this collection he gave force of law by the Bull “Rex pacificus,” 5 Sept., 1234. This collection is also known to canonists as the “Liber extra,” i. e. extra Decretum Gratiani. Boniface VIII published a similar code 3 March, 1298, called the “Sixth Book of the Decretals” (Liber Sextus). John XXII added to it the last official collection of Canon law, the “Liber septimus Decretalium,” better known under the title of “Constitutiones Clementis V,” or simply “Clementinæ” (Quoniam nulla, 25 Oct., 1317). Later on the canonists added to the manuscripts of the “Decretals” the most important constitutions of succeeding popes. These were soon known and quoted as “Extravagantes,” i. e. twenty constitutions of John XXII himself, and those of other popes to 1484. In the Paris edition of the canonical collections (1499–1505) Jean Chappuis drew them up in the form since then universally accepted, and kept for the first the name “Extravagantes Joannis XXII,” and called the others, “Extravagantes communes,” i. e. commonly met with in the manuscripts of the “Decretals” (see DECRETALS, PAPAL).

The “Corpus Juris Canonici” was now, indeed, complete, but it contained collections of widely different juridical value. Considered as collections, the “Decree” of Gratian, the “Extravagantes Joannis XXII,” and the “Extravagantes communes” have not, and never had, a legal value, but the documents which they contain may possess and, as a matter of fact, often do possess, very great authority. Moreover, custom has even given to several apocryphal canons of the “Decree” of Gratian the force of law. The other collections are official, and consist of legislative decisions still binding, unless abrogated by subsequent legislation. The collections of Gregory IX (Libri quinque Decretalium) and of Boniface VIII (Liber Sextus) are moreover exclusive. The former, indeed, abrogated all the laws contained in the aforesaid compilations subsequent to the “Decree” of Gratian. Several authors, however, have maintained, but wrongly, that it abrogated also all the ancient laws which had not been incorporated in Gratian. The second abrogated all the laws passed at a later date than the “Decretals” of Gregory IX and not included in itself. Each of these three collections is considered as one collection (collectio una), i. e. one of which all the decisions have the same value, even if they appear to contain antinomies. It is to be noted, however, that, in cases of contradiction, the decisions of the collections of later date invalidate those found in a collection of an earlier date.

The “Decretals” of Gregory IX, those of Boniface VIII, and the “Clementinæ’ are divided uniformly into five books (liber), the books into titles (titulus), the titles into chapters (caput), and treat successively of jurisdiction (judex), procedure (judicium), the clergy (clerus), marriage (connubium), and delinquencies (crimen). The rubrics, i. e. the summaries of the various titles, have the force of law, if they contain a complete meaning; on the other hand, the summaries of the chapters have not this juridical value. It is customary to quote these collections by indicating the number of the chapter, the title of the collection, the heading of the title, the number of the book and the title. The “Decretals” of Gregory IX are indicated by the letter “X,” i. e. extra Decretum Gratiani; the “Sixth Book” or “Decretals” of Boniface VIII by “in VIº” i. e. “in Sexto”; the “Clementines” by “in Clem.,” i. e. “in Clementinis.” For instance: “c. 2, X, De pactis, I, 35,” refers to the second chapter of the “Decretals” of Gregory IX, first book, title 35; “c. 2, in VIº, De hæreticis, V, 2,” refers to the second chapter of the “Decretals” of Boniface VIII, fifth book, title. 2; “c. 2, in Clem., De testibus, II, 8,” refers to the second chapter of the “Clementines,” second book, title 8. If there is only one chapter in a title, or if the last chapter is quoted, these passages are indicated by “c. unic.,” and “c. ult.,” i. e. “caput. unicum” and “caput ultimum.” Sometimes also the indication of the number of the chapters is replaced by the first words of the chapter, as for instance: c. Odoardus. In such cases the number of the chapter may be found in the index-tables printed in all the editions. The “Extravagantes Communes” are divided and quoted in the same manner as the “Decretals,” and the collection is indicated by the abbreviation: “Extrav. Commun.” For instance: “c. 1 (or unicum, or Ambitiosæ), Extrav. Commun., De rebus Ecclesiæ non alienandis, III, 4,” refers to the first chapter (the only chapter) in book III, title 4 of the “Extravagantes Communes.” This collection omits the usual “Liber IV” which treats of marriage. The “Extravagantes of John XXII” are divided only into titles and chapters. They are indicated by the abbreviation, “Extrav. Joan. XXII.” For instance: “c. 2, Extrav. Joan. XXII, De verborum significatione XIV” refers to the second chapter of the fourteenth title of this collection.

Principal editions

Very soon after the invention of printing editions of the “Corpus Juris,” with or without the gloss (comments of canonists) were published. We have already mentioned the importance of the Paris edition (1499–1505) for the two collections of “Extravagantes.” This edition includes the gloss. The last edition with the gloss is that of Lyons. (1671). Though the Council of Trent did not order a revision of the text of the canonical collections, St. Pius V appointed (1566) a commission to prepare a new edition of the “Corpus Juris Canonici.” This commission devoted itself especially to the correction of the text of the “Decree” of Gratian and of its gloss. Gregory XIII (“Cum pro munere,” 1 July, 1580; “Emendationem,” 2 June, 1582) decreed that no change was to be made in the revised text. This edition of the “Corpus” appeared at Rome in 1582, in œdibus populi Romani, and serves as exemplar for all subsequent editions. The best-known, previous to the nineteenth century, are those of the brothers Pithou (Paris, 1687), Freiesleben (Prague, 1728), and the Protestant canonist Böhmer (Halle-Magdeburg, 1747). It is to be noted that the text of the latter edition differs from that of the Roman edition of 1582, and does not therefore possess practical utility. The edition of Richter (Leipzig, 1833–39) avoids this defect and is valuable for its critical notes. The edition of Friedberg (Leipzig, 1879–81) does not reproduce the text of the Roman edition for the “Decree” of Gratian, but gives the Roman text of the other collections. it is the best and most critical edition.

(3) Jus novissimum

After the Council of Trent, an attempt to secure a new official collection of church laws was made about 1580, when Gregory XIII charged three cardinals with the task. The work continued during the pontificate of Sixtus V, was accomplished under Clement VIII, and was printed (Rome, 1598) as: “Sanctissimi Domini nostri Clementis papæ VIII Decretales,” sometimes also “Septimus liber Decretalium.” This collection, never approved either by Clement VIII or by Paul V, was recently edited (Freiburg, 1870) by Sentis. In 1557 an Italian canonist, Paul Lancelottus, attempted unsuccessfully to secure from Paul IV, for the four books of his “Institutiones juris canonici” (Rome, 1563), an authority equal to that which its model, the “Institutiones” of Emperor Justinian, once enjoyed in the Roman Empire. A private individual, Pierre Mathieu of Lyons, also wrote a “Liber septimus Decretalium,” inserted in the appendix to the Frankfort (1590) edition of the “Corpus Juris Canonici.” This work was put on the Index. The sources of modern Canon law must be looked for in the disciplinary canons of the Council of Trent (see TRENT, COUNCIL OF), in the collections of papal Bulls (see BULLARIUM), of general and local councils, and in the collections of the decisions and answers of the Roman Congregations (see CONGREGATIONS, ROMAN). However, the ancient “Corpus Juris Canonici” forms yet the basis of the actual canonical legislation. The present position is not without grave inconveniences. At the Vatican Council several bishops asked for a new codification of the canon law, and since then several canonists have attempted to compile treatises in the form of a full code of canonical legislation, e. g. de Luise (1873), Pillet (1890), Pezzani (1894), Deshayes (1894), Collomiati (1898–1901). Finally Pius X determined to undertake this work by his decree “Arduum sane munus” (19 March, 1904), and named a commission of cardinals to compile a new “Corpus Juris Canonici” on the model of the codes of civil law. (See LAW.)

LAURIN, Introductio in corpus juris canonici (Freiburg, 1889); SCHNEIDER, Die Lehre von den Kirchenrechtsquellen (2nd ed., Ratisbon, 1892); TARDIF, Histoire des sources du droit canonique (Paris, 1887); GALLANDI, De vetustis canonum collectionibus dissertationum sylloge (Mentz, 1790); VOELLUS AND JUSTELLUS, Bibliotheca juris canonici veteris (Paris, 1661); MAASSEN, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des kanonischen Rechts im Abendlande bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters (Graz, 1870); SCHULTE, Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf die Gegenwart (Stuttgart, 1875–1880); SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1881), I, 62 sqq.; SCHERER, Handbueh des Kirchenrechts (Graz, 1886), I, 178 sq.; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1898), I, 272, seq.; SÄGMÜLLER, Lehrbuck des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1900–1904), 104 sqq.; TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), 258, 274, 336, 354, 355, etc.

A. VAN HOVE

Fraternal Correction

Fraternal correction is here taken to mean the admonishing of one’s neighbor by a private individual with the purpose of reforming him or, if possible, preventing his sinful indulgence. This is clearly distinguishable from an official disciplining, whose mouthpiece is a judge or other like superior, whose object is the punishment of one found to be guilty, and whose motive is not so directly the individual advantage of the offender as the furtherance of the common good. That there is, upon occasion and with due regard to circumstances, an obligation to administer fraternal correction there can be no doubt. This is a conclusion not only deducible from the natural law binding us to love and to assist one another, but also explicitly contained in positive precept such as the inculcation of Christ: “If thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother” (Matthew 18:15). Given a sufficiently grave condition of spiritual distress calling for succour in this way, this commandment may exact fulfilment under pain of mortal sin. This is reckoned to be so only when

the delinquency to be corrected or prevented is a grievous one;

there is no good reason to believe that the sinner will adequately provide for himself;

there is a well-founded expectation that the admonition will be heeded;

there is no one else just as well fitted for this work of Christian charity and likely to undertake it;

there is no special trouble or disadvantage accruing to the reformer as a result of his zeal.

Practically, however, individuals without any official capacity are seldom impeachable as having seriously transgressed the law in this matter because it is but rarely one finds the coalition of circumstances just enumerated. Of course the reproof is to be administered privately, i.e. directly to the delinquent and not in the presence of others. This is plainly the method appointed by Christ in the words just cited and only as a remedy for obduracy is any other contemplated by Him. Still there are occasions upon which one might lawfully proceed in a different way. For instance

when the offence is a public one;

when it makes for the prejudice of a third party or perhaps even the entire community;

when it can only be condignly dealt with by the authority of a superior paternally exercised;

when a public rebuke is necessary to preclude scandal: sitness the withstanding of Peter by Paul mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians (2:11–14);

when the offender has already in advance relinquished whatever right he possessed to have his good name safeguarded, as is the custom in some religious bodies.

The obligation of fraternal correction, so far as private persons go, does not obtain, generally speaking, for the case of one who violates a law through invincible ignorance. The obvious reason is that there is then no immunity for it is their duty to instruct their subordinates. Every one, however, whether having an official competency or not, is bound to give the admonition when the sin, committed though it be from ignorance, is hurtful to the offender or a third party or is the occasion of scandal.

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Correctories

Correctories are the text-forms of the Latin Vulgate resulting from the critical emendation as practised during the course of the thirteenth century. Owing to the carelessness of transcribers, the conjectural corrections of critics, the insertion of glosses and paraphrases, and especially to the preference for readings found in the earlier Latin versions, the text of St. Jerome was corrupted at an early date. About 550 Cassiodorus made an attempt at restoring the purity of the Latin text. Charlemagne entrusted the same labour to Alcuin, who presented his royal patron with a corrected copy in 801. Similar attempts were repeated by Theodulphus Bishop of Orleans [787(?)- 821], Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury (1070–1089), Stephen Harding, Abbot of Cîteaux (1109–1134), and Deacon Nicolaus Maniacoria (about the beginning of the thirteenth century). At this period the need of a revised Latin text of the Vulgate became more imperative than ever. When, towards the end of the twelfth century, the schools of Paris were organized into the university and its various faculties adopted the same reference texts, the faculty of theology, too, adhered to a uniform text of the Latin Bible. It cannot be ascertained at present whether this adoption was owing to the chance prevalence of a certain manuscript or to the critical work of theologians, whether it was the effect of an official choice of the university or of a prevailing custom; at any rate, the almost general adoption of this text threw into oblivion a great number of genuine readings which had been current in the preceding centuries, and perpetuated a text, uniform, indeed, but very corrupt. This is the so-called “Biblia Parisiensis,” or Paris Bible; no copy is known to exist in our days. The thirteenth century reacted against this evil by a series of correctories. Father Denifle enumerates as many as thirteen groups, but it is more convenient to reduce then to three classes: the Dominican, the Franciscan, and the allied correctories.

DOMINICAN CORRECTORIES

The general chapter of the Dominicans held in 1236 connects a corrected text of the Latin Bible with the members of the province of France; it ordained that all Bibles should be conformed to this. Little more is known of this work but the following correctories are more noted:

(1) The “Biblia Senonensis,” or the Bible of Sens, is not the Paris Bible as approved of by the Archbishop of Sens, nor is it a particular text adopted by the ecclesiastical authority of that city, but it is a correction of the Paris Bible prepared by the Dominican Fathers residing there. Whatever be the value of this correctory, it did not meet with the approval of the Dominican Order, as may be inferred from an ordination of the general chapter held in Paris, 1256. Quotations from it found in the “Correctorium Sorbonicum” resemble the readings of the Latin manuscript No. 17 in the National Library, Paris. The fathers of Sens failed to produce a satisfactory text because they were too sparing in their emendation of the Paris Bible.

(2) Hugues of Saint-Cher tried to restore the primitive text of the Latin Vulgate, which in his day was practically identical with the Paris Bible, by removing its glosses and all foreign accretions. But instead of having recourse to the manuscripts of St. Jerome’s text he compared the Paris Bible with the original Hebrew and Greek readings, thus furnishing a new version rather than a correctory. Roger Bacon calls his work “the worst corruption, the destruction of the text of God.” Eight manuscripts of Hugues’ correctory are still extant.

(3) Theobald is the name of the Dominican Father who is usually connected with the next correction of the Latin Vulgate text, which appeared about 1248. The text of this too resembles that of the Latin manuscript No. 17 in the National Library, Paris, and is thus related to the “Correctorium Senonense.” It may be identical with the “Correctio Parisiensis secunda,” quoted in the “Correctorium Sorbonicum.”

(4) Another correctory was prepared about 1256 in the Dominican convent of Saint-Jacques, Paris. The manuscript thus corrected contains a text as bad as, if not worse than the Bible of Paris, the readings of which were carried into the new correctory. The principles of Hugues of Saint-Cher were followed by the correctors, who marked in red the words to be omitted, and added marginal notes to explain changes and suggest variants. They are more copious in the Old Testament than in the New. The autograph is preserved in the National Library, Paris, Manuscripts lat. 16,719–16,722.

FRANCISCAN CORRECTORIES

The great Franciscan writer, Roger Bacon, was the first to formulate the true principles which ought to guide the correction of the Latin Vulgate; his religious brethren endeavoured to apply them, though not always successfully.

(1) The “Correctorium Sorbonicum,” probably the work of William of Brittany, derives its name from the fact that the thirteenth-century manuscript in which the emendations were made belonged to the Library of the Sorbonne, though at present it is kept in the National Library, Paris, Manuscript lat. 15554, fol. 147–253. The marginal and interlinear glosses are derived from the Paris Bible and the correctory of the Dominican Father Theobald; the make-up of the work imitates the Dominican correctories.

(2) The “Correctorium Vaticanum” owes its name to the circumstance that its first known manuscript was the Cod. Vaticanus lat. 3466, though at present eight other copies are known, belonging to the thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century. Its author is William de Mara, of Oxford, a disciple of Roger Bacon, whose principles and methods he follows. Though acquainted with several Latin and Hebrew manuscripts, the Targum, the commentaries of Rashi, and the original texts, he relied more on the authority of the early manuscripts of St. Jerome’s text. There are some faults in the correctory, resulting mainly from the author’s limited knowledge of Greek.

(3) Gérard de Huy was a faithful follower of Roger Bacon’s principles; the old Latin manuscripts and the readings of the Fathers are his first authority, and only when they disagree does he have recourse to the original texts. Unfortunately he knew no Latin manuscripts older than those of the ninth and tenth centuries containing a text of Alcuin’s recension. But Gérard knew the history of the versions and the origin of the textual corruptions of the Sacred Scriptures. He corrected the Paris Bible and gave an account of his emendations in his marginal notes.

(4) Two more Franciscan correctories must be noted: Manuscript 61 (Toulouse), of the fifteenth century, reproduces the correctory of Gérard de Buxo, of Avignon, a work rather exegetical than critical in character; Manuscript 28 (Einsiedeln), of the beginning of the fourteenth century, contains the work of John of Cologne.

ALLIED CORRECTORIES

Mangenot mentions six other groups of correctories which have not been fully investigated as yet. Two of them are allied to the Dominican correctory of the convent of Saint-Jacques; one is represented by the Manuscript lat. 15,554, fol. 1–146, National Library, Paris; the other by Cod. Laurent., Plut., XXV, sin., cod. 4, fol. 101–107 (Florence), and by Manuscript 131, fol. 1, Arsenal, Paris. Two other groups are allied to the Franciscan correctories; one, represented by Cod. 141, lat. class. I, fol. 121–390, Marciana (Venice), depends on William de Mara and Gérard de Huy; the other, found in Manuscript 82, Borges. (Rome), depends on Gérard de Huy. Finally two very brief correctories are to be found in Manuscript 492, Antoniana, Padua, and in Manuscript Cent. I, 47, fol. 127, Nürenberg.

MANGENOT in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Correctoires; DENIFLE, Die Handschriften der Bibel-Correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts in Archiv für Literatur und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters (Freiburg, 1888), IV, 263–311, 471–601; SAMUEL BERGER, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du moyen âge (Paris, 1893); IDEM, Quam notitiam linguœ hebraicœ habuerint Christiani medii œvi temporibus in Gallia (Paris, 1893); DÖDERLEIN, Von Correctoriis biblicis in Literarisches Musœum (Altdorf, 1778), I. 1; II, 177; III, 344; VERCELLONE, Dissertazioni academiche (Rome, 1864); KAULEN, Geschichte der Vulgata (Mainz, 1868), 244–278; GREGORY, Prolegomena (Leipzig, 1904), III, 973.

A. J. MAAS

Michael Augustine Corrigan

Third Archbishop of New York, b. 13 August, 1839, at Newark, New Jersey, d. at New York, 5 May, 1900. His parents were natives of Ireland. After graduating at Mt. St. Mary’s College, Emmittsburg, Md, in 1859, he entered the College of the Propaganda at Rome, and was one of the twelve students with whom the North American College was opened there, 8 December, 1859. He was ordained priest at Rome, 19 September, 1863, and received there the degree of Doctor of Divinity in 1864. Returning to his native diocese in September, 1864, he was successively professor of dogmatic theology and of Scripture, vice-president and president of Seton Hall College and Seminary, and vicar-general of the diocese until 1873, when on 4 May he was consecrated Bishop of Newark. His administration, during the seven years of its continuance, was characterized by unceasing and successful efforts to bring the regulation of the spiritual and temporal affairs of the diocese into strict accordance with the prescriptions and recommendations of the plenary councils of the Church in the United States that had been held previous to his accession to the episcopacy.

The declining health of Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, requiring the appointment of a coadjutor, the young Bishop of Newark was named, 1 October, 1880, titular Archbishop of Petra, with the right of succession for New York, and on the death of Cardinal McCloskey in October, 1885, he assumed charge. Having taken an active part in the proceedings of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884) as the representative of the cardinal, his first important act as archbishop was to convoke a synod of the diocese, in November, 1886, to carry into effect the decrees of the council. The considerable changes made by the council in the status of the clergy and its provisions for the administration of the dioceses of the United States as to their subordinate officials, were adopted. A new theological seminary, to replace that of St. Joseph’s, Troy, was built at Dunwoodie, and opened September, 1896. The unfinished towers of St. Patrick’s Cathedral were completed. The Orphan Asylums on Fifth and Madison Avenues were transferred to a new suburban location at Kingsbridge. The construction of the Lady Chapel of the cathedral, through funds donated by a generous Catholic family, was begun.

During the municipal election of 1886 Archbishop Corrigan deemed it his duty to disapprove the socialistic character of the writings and addresses of one of the candidates for the mayoralty. This brought about the most disturbing incident, perhaps, of the archbishop’s administration, the difference between himself and a prominent member of his clergy, the Rev. Dr. Edward McGlynn, rector of St. Stephen’s Church, New York city, occasioned by the latter’s advocacy of opinions which the archbishop believed were not in accord with Catholic teaching on the subject of the rights of property. The controversy began in 1886 with the clergyman’s appearance on the public platform, in behalf of one of the candidates for mayor, who stood for certain novel economic theories, and led to the privation of his pastoral office. Not complying afterwards with the order of the Pope, Leo XIII, to proceed to Rome, he incurred the sentence of excommunication.

There resulted some commotion in ecclesiastical and other circles, accentuated later (1892) by a new phase which the Catholic School question assumed in its relation to the State. A period of much public discussion and excitement followed which, however, began to subside rapidly when Dr. McGlynn was relieved of the censure by the Apostolic Delegate, then Archbishop Satolli, and obeyed the summons of the Holy Father. In 1894 Archbishop Corrigan appointed Dr. McGlynn pastor of St. Mary’s Church, Newburgh, where he remained until his death in 1901.

On May 4th, 1898, Archbishop Corrigan celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of his episcopal consecration. Laymen, priests, and many prominent Catholics assembled to testify to his virtues as an ecclesiastic and as a citizen. He made his last ad limina Apostolorum in 1900. Two years afterwards, returning from a confirmation visit to the Bahamas, he contracted a cold, which, aggravated by an accident, caused his death on May 5th of the same year. The manifestation of sentiments of respect and affection on that event was not only local but national. From the beginning of his episcopate in New York, he was obliged to face the problem of the great influx of foreign, especially Italian, immigration and its religious requirements. He had to guide and direct the charitable and educational interests of his diocese which rapidly and widely expanded during his administration. Through the seventeen years of his rule he was instrumental in the increase of the churches, chapels, and stations of the archdiocese by one hundred and eighty-eight, of the clergy by two hundred and eighty-four, of schools by seventy-five. His scholarship was deep and wide extending to every branch of ecclesiastical learning; his piety marked but unobtrusive; his methods gentle but firm. His devotion, his zeal, and his unceasing labours in behalf of religion make him a conspicuous figure in the history of the American Church of the nineteenth century. The only literary production that his busy life as a priest and bishop permitted him to publish was a “Register of the Clergy laboring in the Archdiocese of New York from early missions to 1885,” which he compiled for the “Historical Records and studies” of the United States Catholic History Society (Jan., 1889, sqq.).

Cathedral Library Association, Memorial of Most Rev. Archbishop Corrigan, Third Archbishop of New York (New York, 1902); Flynn, The Cath. Ch. In New Jersey (Morristown, 1904); Smith, The Cath. Ch. In New York (New York, 1908); Reuss, Biog. Cycl. Of the Cath. Hierarchy of U.S. (Milwaukee, 1898) Farley, The History of St. Patrick’s Cathedral (New York, 1908).

JOSEPH F. MOONEY.

Sir Dominic Corrigan

Physician, b. 1802, in Dublin, Ireland; d. there, 1880; distinguished for his original observations in heart disease, a special type of pulse being named after him. The son of a poor shopkeeper, his early education was obtained at Maynooth, which then had a department for secular students apart from the ecclesiastical seminary. He was attracted to the study of medicine by the physician in attendance. After several years of medical study in Dublin he followed the prevailing custom of the time and went to Edinburgh where he received his degree as M.D. in 1825. After his return to Dublin he was appointed physician to the Jervis Street Hospital, which had but six medical beds. During the next four years he studied certain forms of heart disease to such good purpose that he recast the teaching of diseases of the aortic valves. His article on “Permanent Patency of the Aortic Valves” appeared in the Edinburgh “Medical and Surgical Journal” for April, 1832. He was eminently successful as a teacher of medicine. In 1842 the London College of Surgeons conferred on him its diploma. In 1849 he received from the University of Dublin the honorary degree of M. D. He was known as a very hard-working physician, and his self-sacrificing devotion during the famine fever years made him famous. His “Lectures on Fevers” (Dublin, 1853) are a valuable contribution to our knowledge of this subject. He was created a baronet partly as a reward for his services as Commissioner of Education for many years. He was a member of Parliament in the Liberal interest for five years after 1869. He was defeated for re-election in 1874 by the liquor interest which he had antagonized by supporting the Sunday Closing Bill. He was President of the Royal Zoological Society of Dublin, of the Dublin Pathological Society, of the Dublin Pharmaceutical Society, and was five times elected President of the College of Physicians in Dublin, an unprecedented honour. His work on heart disease stamps him as a great original investigator in medicine. Trousseau, the French clinician, proposed that aortic heart disease should be called Corrigan’s disease.

Sketches in Brit. Med. Journal and The Lancet (1880); WALSH, Makers of Modern Medicine (New York, 1907).

JAMES J. WALSH

Corsica

The third island of the Mediterranean in point of size, only Sicily and Sardinia being of greater extent. The distance from the French seaport Antibes, on the Riviera, to Calvi, the port of Corsica nearest to France, is one hundred and eleven miles. There is a brisk commerce between Leghorn, in Italy, and Bastia, in Corsica, the voyage being made in five hours.

The island is mountainous and well watered, a large part being covered with forests and almost impenetrable thickets called maquis. The climate is mild on the coast, but cold in elevated regions. The area of Corsica is 3367 square miles, the population 300,000. Both the natives of the interior and those of the coast, whose ancestors were Italians, are nearly all Catholics. The island was early visited by the Phoenicians and the Phocians who established colonies there. For a time it belonged to Carthage, but was taken by the Romans, who retained possession from 260 B. C. to the end of the fifth century of the Christian Era. But they never subdued the mountain tribes of the interior, and even in the time of Gregory I (590–604) there were many heathens in Corsica, which long retained its early reputation as a wild and unhospitable island. On the fall of the Western Empire (476) Corsica was taken by the Vandals, but was recovered by Belisarius, only to be captured by the Goths under Totila. Eventually, however, it became subject to the exarchs of Ravenna, and remained a Byzantine possession until the eighth century. At the end of the sixth and the beginning of the seventh century the Roman Church owned large landed estates in Corsica. By the Donation of Pepin the Short (754–55) the island came under the civil sovereignty of the popes (Liber Pontif., ed. Duchesne, I, 498; II, 104, note 35). From the eighth to the eleventh century it was frequently plundered by Saracen pirates. Pisa then set up a claim of overlordship which was soon disputed by Genoa. In 1300 the latter made good its claim to the civil and ecclesiastical influence hitherto exercised by Pisa, and despite numerous revolutions (Sampiero, 1567; Baron Neuhof, 1729; Paoli, 1755) held at least a nominal authority until 1768. In that year Genoa ceded Corsica to France, since which time the island has remained a French province. Ajaccio, its chief town, is historically famous as the birthplace of Napoleon Bonaparte.

It has been asserted that Christianity was introduced into Corsica in Apostolic times. Ughelli, in his “Italia Sacra,” says of Mariana, one of the oldest settlements: “It received the Catholic Faith, and has had its own pastors, ever since the times of the Apostles”; but this would be difficult to establish. Another tradition which finds favour with historians is, that Christianity was spread in the island by confessors of the Faith exiled thither (Hergenröther, I, in French tr., Paris, 1901, p. 297). The Bollandists say the country was entirely Christian in A. D. 439. It gave saints and martyrs to the Church; Mgr. de la Foata, in his “Recherches” (see bibliography infra), cites the names of three Corsican Friars Minor of the Observance, Bernardino Alberti, Franceschino Mucchieli. Teofilo Designorio, whose virtues had been authoritatively declared heroic, and also claims as Corsicans St. Laurina, virgin and martyr, whose festival was celebrated as a first-class feast in the ancient Diocese of Aleria, St. Parthoeus, martyr, saint Vindemialis and St. Florentius. It is said, also, that St. Julia was a Corsican.

We have seen that before and after 600 Corsica was in close dependence on the Apostolic See, and always remained so, (see Cappelletti, Le Chiese d’Italia, XVI, 307 sqq.). In 1077 Gregory VII named as his vicarius for Corsica the Bishop of Pisa. In 1092 Pope Urban II made its bishops suffragans of the Archbishop of Pisa. In 1133 Innocent II, having granted the pallium to the Archbishop of Genoa, gave him for suffragans the Corsican Bishops of Mariana, Nebbio, and Accia, the Archbishop of Pisa retaining as suffragans the sees of Ajaccio, Aleria, and Sagona. The Bishoprics of Mariana and Accia were united, 30 January, 1563. About 1580 the Blessed Alexander Sauli (q. v.), known as the “Apostle of Corsica” awoke the islanders to a more earnest religious life and founded a seminary on the model of those decreed by the Council of Trent. At the time of the French Revolution there were five dioceses in Corsica: Mariana and Accia, Nebbio, Aleria, Sagona, and Ajaccio. A decree of 12 July, 1790, of the National Assembly at Paris, whose members had voted the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, reduced these five bishoprics to one, giving to Bastia the pastoral care of the whole island. On 8 May, 1791, the election of the Constitutional bishop took place. The choice of the electors fell upon the canon Ignatius Francis Guasco, Vicar-General of Mariana, and Provost of the Cathedral. He, however, made a public and solemn recantation 22 December, 1794. The Concordat of 1801, between the Holy See and the French Republic, which officially restored Catholic worship in France, made of Corsica a single diocese with Ajaccio as its episcopal city. St. Euphrasius, bishop and martyr, is the patron of the diocese. Sts. Julia and Devota were declared patronesses of the island by decree of the S. C. of Rites, 5 August, 1809, and 14 March, 1820. The “Directorium Cleri” of the diocese for 1907 states that there are in Corsica one bishop and five hundred and ninety-seven priests, professors, directors, and chaplains. There are one vicar-general, eight titular canons, twenty-nine honorary canons, five archpriests, thirteen parishes of the first class, forty-eight of the second class, and three hundred and thirty-three chapels. Parochial councils, composed of members of the laity, assist the parish priests, since the suppression of the former boards of trustees by the separation of Church and State. In Ajaccio there was, until recently, a diocesan seminary, but the students were dispersed on account of the non-acceptance by Pope Pius X of the so-called “Law of Separation.” At the time it ceased to exist, it had thirty-eight students and ten candidates for the priesthood. Every newly ordained priest is required to present himself yearly for five consecutive years for examination in ecclesiastical sciences before a special committee. The degrees in theology may dispense from several or all of these examinations, but a young priest is never admitted to the parish ministry without having passed an examination of this kind. In Corsica there are numerous charitable and pious brotherhoods, founded in the days of Italian rule. Several of these associations assemble in their own chapels. The churches are usually of the Italian style of architecture and sometimes richly adorned. The Society for the Propagation of the Faith is directed by a diocesan committee instituted 13 February, 1859. The St. Vincent de Paul Society has two conferences. An Association for free Catholic schools is supported by the subscriptions of the faithful, who also provide for the needs of Catholic worship. Before the suppression of the religious orders there were in Corsica one house of the Jesuits, six Franciscan, one Dominican, and five Capuchin monasteries, and one house of the Oblates of Mary. These, as well as the schools of the Christian Brothers and all convent schools, have been closed by the Government. There are still six convents of nuns. In consequence of the new laws of France, the Catholic Church in Corsica, a poor country, is confronted with a crisis: the people, habituated to look to the State for the support of public worship, must now adopt new methods and make many sacrifices for the maintenance of religion.

PIETRO FELCE (or PETRUS CYRNOEUS), Chronicle of the year 1490 in MURATORI, Italicarum Rerum Scriptores, by DELLA GROSSA, CECCALDI, and MONTEGGIANI, Chronicles, continued to 1590 by FILIPPINI, and tr. into French by LETTERON (Bastia); GAUDIN, Voyage en Corse (latter half of the eighteenth century); RENUCCI, Storia di Corsica (Bastia, 1834); ROBIQUET, Recherches . . . sur la Corse (Paris, 1835); FRIESS, Histoire des Corses (Bastia, 1852); GREGOROVIUS, Histoire des Corses, a French tr. of the German work (Stuttgart and Tübingen, 1854), by LUCCIANA; GIAMARCHI, Vita politica di Pasquale Paoli (Bastia, 1858); GALETTI, Histoire illustrée de la Corse (Paris, 1863); BOURDE, En Corse; Correspondance de 1887 (Paris); D’ORNANO, La Corse militaire (Paris); Bulletin de la Société des Sciences historiques et naturelles de la Corse (periodical, Bastia; a magazine of valuable documents for Corsican history); DE LA FOATA, Recherches et notes diverses sur l’histoire de l’église de Corse (Bastia, 1895); ORTOLAN, Diplomate et Soldat; Mgr. Casanelli d’Istria, Evêque d’Ajaccio (Paris, 1900); CORTONA, Hist. de la Corse (Paris, 1906); POLI, La Corse dans l’antiquité et dans le haut moyen âge (Paris, 1907).

ALEXANDRE GUASCO.

Hernando Cortés

Conqueror of Mexico, born at Medellin in Spain c. 1485; died at Castilleja de la Cuesta near Seville, 2 December, 1547.

He was married first to Catalina Xuares, from which marriage there was no issue, and, after her death, to Doña Juana de Zuñiga, niece of the Duke of Bejar. From this union there sprang four children, one son (Martín) and three daughters. His parents were Martín Cortés de Monroy and Catalina Pizarro Altamirano, both of honourable extraction, belonging to the middle class of nobility, but not wealthy.

They sent their son to school at Salamanca when he was fourteen years of age, but study was irksome to him, his restless and ambitious temper chafed under restraint, and he returned home much to the displeasure of his parents. As he was the only son, they looked upon him as their hope and future support, and had wished that he would adopt the profession of the law. Dissatisfied at home Cortés turned his eyes to the newly discovered Western world, and after an unsuccessful attempt to embark for the West Indies with Ovando, succeeded in reaching Española in a craft commanded by one Quintero, who signalized himself during the voyage by trying to deceive his superiors and reach the New World before them in order to secure personal advantages. It may be that the example of Quintero was a school for Cortés in his subsequent career. The life Cortés led in the Antilles was that of the military man of his time, with intervals of rest on such estates as he gradually acquired. He was a favourite of both Ovando and Velazquez, but he quarrelled with the latter, deceived him and made him a mortal enemy. The consequences were very serious, for Velazquez was Governor of Cuba and a man of influence at court. The conduct of Cortés during his stay in the Antilles (1504–1519) revealed, besides military aptitude (which he had small opportunity of displaying), shrewdness, daring (in his dealings with Velazquez), and no excess of scruples in morals.

In 1517 Cordova reached the coast of Yucatan, while commanding a modest expedition despatched by Velazquez. He was mortally wounded and only a remnant of his crew reached Cuba again, bringing back news of the superior culture of the people they had met. Another expedition was determined upon, and was carried out the year following under the leadership of Grijalva. It touched the coast of Mexico, and brought home metallic objects and evidences of superior culture. Ere Grijalva had come back, Velazquez determined to send a third and more numerous squadron to the Mexican coast. Cortés, then one of Velazquez’s favourites, was named as the commander, a choice which created no little envy. Cortés entered into the enterprise with zeal and energy, sacrificing with too much ostentation a considerable part of his fortune to equip the expedition. Eleven vessels were brought together, manned with well-armed men, and horses and artillery were embarked. At the last moment Velazquez, whose suspicions were aroused by the action of Cortés, instigated by his surroundings, attempted to prevent the departure. It was too late; Cortés, after the example set by Quintero, slipped away from the Cuban coast and thus began the conquest of Mexico. His life from the time he sailed on his momentous undertaking in 1519 is so intimately linked with the history of Mexico, that the reader may be referred for additional details to the articles MEXICO, AZTECS, and PEDRO DE ALVARADO.

As a soldier Cortés put to use in Mexico the Indian mode of warfare he had observed in the Antilles, and it enabled him to achieve an unbroken success in the open field. Indian defensive tactics from buildings and walls were new to him, but he quickly saw both their strong and their weak points, and his reduction of the island settlement of Tonochtitlan was no small feat. He recognized at an early date the Indian method of proceeding by decoy and ambush, and this led to his success against the tribe of Tlaxcals. He was very quick in detecting devices and stratagems, even in time of apparent peace, and in adapting and executing measures to defeat them. One of the most remarkable instances is what has been called the “massacre of Cholula.” When Cortés was at the large Indian settlement of Tlaxcals and had perfected an alliance with that people, some Indians from the neighbouring tribe of Cholula urged him to visit their home. He was warned not to go, since the visitors did not express the wish of their kindred, who were bitterly opposed to dealing with the Spaniards. Though unacquainted with the character of the natives, he marched to Cholula, but noticed that a trap was being set for him. He prevented the outbreak by an attack on the Indians, and after a short struggle forced them into submission.

The most daring of his exploits, and one that may be qualified as absolutely reckless although successful, was his march on Narvaez who, with a more superior force of Spaniards, had landed on the gulf coast with orders from Velazquez, not only to supersede Cortés, but to capture him and bring him to trial in Cuba for disobedience and treason towards the governor. Leaving only one hundred and forty men under Alvarado to hold an Indian settlement of twenty thousand souls, he set out against Narvaez, who had nine hundred soldiers, while Cortés, reinforced as he approached the coast, mustered about two hundred and sixty. With these he surprised his antagonist and took him prisoner. The move was a desperate one, as the sequel proved. But the secret of his success lay in his marvellously quick movements, for which Narvaez was not prepared, as well as in his rapid return to the plateau, by which he surprised the Indians who held Alvarado and his people at their mercy. The desperate defense of the Spaniards in the absence of Cortés would have been unavailing had the latter not moved with such celerity. In contrast with that lightning- like quickness, but equally well adapted to the necessities of the case, was the methodical investment and capture of the lake settlement, showing the fertility of the conqueror’s mind in suiting his tactics to altered conditions.

To these military accomplishments Cortés joined an unusual perspicacity in penetrating the general situation in aboriginal Mexico. He saw, soon after landing at Vera Cruz, the looseness of the bonds by which the Indian tribes were connected, and yet his keen perception remained at fault in that he did not appreciate (nor could he, from the standpoint of the times, understand) Indian tribal organization. The sway the tribes of the table-land and interior lake-basin held over many of their neighbours appeared to him (judging from European and Asiatic models) as an evidence of a consolidated empire; the offices of superior rank held by chiefs, as parts of an organized hierarchy or feudal lordships; and the head war-chief a hereditary autocrat. Of the nature of tribal society he had not, and could not have, any idea. While, therefore, his attempts at winning tribes leagued with the Mexican confederacy over to the Spanish cause were usually successful, he was less fortunate in his relations with the Mexicans themselves. His seizure of the person of Montezuma, the head war-chief of the confederates, did not have the expected result. Led by the belief that Montezuma was a supreme ruler, hence the pivot of a state, Cortés confidently hoped to control the Mexican tribe and its confederates through his captive. The seizure itself appears as an act of singular daring, and Cortés and his men were astonished at the ease with which it was executed, and the lack of opposition on the part of the Indians; but they did not know that their prisoner was of so little importance. He was an elected officer, who could be replaced without trouble, and the tribal council, supported by the medicine men and gtuided by their oracular utterances, were the real heads of the confederacy. The general outbreak against the Spaniards began after Montezuma’s successor had been installed; until then hostile manifestations were limited to blockading Alvarado.

For the sake of policy, Cortés was, in general, far from cruel towards the Indians. He allowed Cuauhtemotzin to be tortured in order to force him to reveal the whereabouts of his supposed hidden treasures. Such acts were not uncommon at that period, and every nation was at times guilty of them. This cruelty was, however, useless, because the greater part of the Mexican treasures had already passed into the hands of the Spaniards. The execution of Cuauhtemotzin on the journey to Honduras was another instance of the misconception by Cortés of Indian conditions. It is not at all unlikely that the Mexican chieftain was party to a plan to exterminate the Spaniards while they were floundering through the forests and swamps, but even if this were so, his execution was not necessary. By restraint the same object might have been achieved. But Cortés had an exaggerated conception of the power and influence of Cuauhtemotzin’s office, as he had in the case of Montezuma. To the Indians as a mass he was kind. He recognized that their preservation would insure eventual prosperity for the Spaniards, provided the Indians gradually accepted European ideas. Therefore he regarded the Church as the main instrument for the education of the Indian. But he was far from sharing in the dreams of Las Casas. His relations with the clergy were very cordial, he did all he could to introduce missionaries, and even Las Casas mentions him favourably. It has been intimated that the kind treatment of the Mexican natives by Cortés was part of a deeply-laid plan to use his conquest of Mexico for selfish and treasonable purposes, for Cortés was not always the faithful subject. This leads us to consider his relations to the Crown of Spain and a few points of his private character.

The impression has prevailed that Cortés was treated by the Spanish Government with base ingratitude. It is true that a few years after 1521 an unfavourable change took place in his relations with the Emperor Charles V and his government. The change never led to an absolute break, but it caused a gradual curtailing of his power which Cortés felt very keenly. While lavishly contributing his own means at the outset, Cortés made his conquest avowedly as a Spanish subject, for and in behalf of Spain and its monarch. Mexico became a Spanish colony through his instrumentality, but it was the duty of the Spanish Government to care for it. Cortés personally was not ungenerously rewarded, but he speedily complained of insufficient compensation to himself and his comrades. Thinking himself beyond reach of restraint, he disobeyed many of the orders of the Crown, and, what was more imprudent, said so in a letter to the emperor, dated 15 October, 1524 (Ycazbalceta, “Documentos para la Historia de México,” Mexico, 1858, I). In this letter Cortés, besides recalling in a rather abrupt manner that the conquest of Mexico was due to him alone, deliberately acknowledges his disobedience in terms which could not fail to create a most unfavourable impression. Soon after the capture of the Indian settlement the Crown, as was its prerogative, in 1522 sent to Mexico officers to investigate the condition of affairs, and to report on the conduct of Cortés. To this he could not obaject, as it was an established custom. The commissioner, Tapia, charged with the investigation, was so hampered, however, by the officers of Cortés that he did not even reach the valley of Mexico, but returned without carrying out his orders. Cortés himself, while keeping at a distance, treated him with the utmost courtesy, but rendered all action on his part impossible. A second commissioner, Luis Ponce de León, was sent in 1526 with discretionary and very dangerous powers. He died at Mexico soon after his arrival, in a manner that leaves little doubt of foul play, although Prescott discredits it. But Prescott had not then the documentary material since unearthed. A number of minor charges were brought against the conqueror, and they appear to have been substantiated. They could not fail to create grave suspicion, because they presented the picture of a conspiracy, the object of which was to make Cortés the independent ruler of Mexico. Under such circumstances the least that could be expected was the elimination of Cortés from the government of the new province. The situation was a very critical one for the Crown. Cortés held the country and its resources, and controlled a body of officers and men who had, in 1520, expressed to the emperor in writing their admiration for their captain, and dwelt in the strongest terms on the obligations under which his achievements had placed the mother country. It is true, in case of a clash, Spain might have counted upon the support of the inhabitants of the Antilles, but the military reputation of Cortés had become so great that the selection of a leader against him would have been very embarrassing. Hence a conflict had to be avoided as long as possible. Cortés’ position was gradually undermined, titles and honours were conferred upon him, but not the administrative authority he coveted. At the same time his attention was insensibly directed to explorations outside of America, to the much-desired Moluccas or Spice Islands.

At a time when there was almost a certainty, in court circles in Spain, of an intended rebellion by Cortés, a charge was brought against him that cast a fatal blight upon his character and plans. He was accused of the murder of his first wife. Prescott makes light of the accusation, but his opinion has little weight because, as above stated, evidence has since been discovered which was beyond his reach. This evidence leaves no doubt that Catalina Xuarez was strangled by her husband. The proceedings of the investigation were kept secret. No report, either exonerating or condemning Cortés, was published. Had the Government declared him innocent, it would have greatly increased his popularity; had it declared him a criminal, a crisis would have been precipitated by the accused and his party. Silence was the only safe policy. But that silence is a strong indication that grave danger was apprehended from his influence. It is curious that, after the conquest of the Mexicans had been consummated, but more particularly after the sinister deeds above mentioned, success seems to have abandoned his banner. Excluded from the government of Mexico, his eyes were turned to further exploration. Don Antonio de Mendoza, first viceroy of New Spain, was looked upon by Cortés as his enemy, but the accusation that he opposed and hampered Cortés in nearly every one of his new interprises is not justified. It was the latter who, at once, opened a violent campaign against everybody who approached what he considered his new domain. He found grave faults with every measure, and resorted to statements that were utterly baseless. Thus his attack upon Father Marcos of Nizza, charging him with having attributed to himself the discovery of New Mexico while in reality he, Cortés, had been the discoverer, is so groundless that it appears almost ridiculous. Every expedition set on foot by Cortés in the Pacific either failed absolutely or produced meagre, unsatisfactory results. Soured by these failures which stood in flagrant contrast to the brilliant success of his early efforts, Cortés became a chronic complainant. He saw his influence gone, his prestige waning. The Government could not forget the proofs of unreliability which the conqueror of Mexico had given when he thought himself master of the situation. The emperor finally permitted him to join the great expedition against Algiers in 1541. It may be that had the advice of Cortés been followed that undertaking would have had a less disastrous end; but he was not even consulted. The enterprise failed, and the conqueror of Mexico did not long survive the failure.

Cortés was a good writer. His letters to the emperor, on the conquest, deserve to be classed among the best Spanish documents of the period. They are, of course, coloured so as to place his own achievements in relief, but, withal, he keeps within bounds and does not exaggerate, except in matters of Indian civilization and the numbers of population as implied by the size of the settlements. Even there he uses comparatives only, judging from outward appearances and from impressions. His first letter is lost, and the one from the municipality of Vera Cruz has to take its place. It was published for the first time in volume IV of “Documentos para la Historia de España,” and subsequently reprinted. The “Segunda Carta de Relacion,” bearing the date of 30 Oct., 1520, appeared in print at Seville in 1522. The “Carta tercera,” 15 May, 1522, appeared at Seville in 1523. The fourth, 20 October, 1524, was printed at Toledo in 1525. The fifth, on the Honduras expedition, is contained in volume IV of the “Documentos para la Hist. de España.” The important letter mentioned in the text has been published under the heading of “Carta inédita de Cortés” by Ycazbalceta. A great number of minor documents, either by Cortés or others, for or against him, are dispersed through the voluminous collection above cited and through the “Colección de Documentos de Indias,” as well as in tyhe “Documentos para la Historia de México” of Ycazbalceta. Of his letters on the conquest there are a number of reprints and translations into various languages.

See articles on and MEXICO for the bulk of literature on the conquest of Mexico and the part played by Cortés in it. PETER MARTYR and especially OVIEDO were contemporaries; their statements therefore deserve particular attention, although absolute impartiality and reliability cannot be expected. On the sinister occurrence of the death of Ponce de León and of Catalina Xuarez the Documentos de Indias contain the authentic investigations. The early life of Cortés is described at length in a fragment from the sixteenth century, De Rebus Gestiis Ferdinand Cortesii, author unknown, published by YCAZBALCETA in his Documentos, I, first series. BERNAL DIAZ DEL CASTILLO gives many very valuable data on Cortés, but he must be classed among writers on the conquest.

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Giovanni Andrea Cortese

(His name in the Benedictine Order was Gregorio).

Cardinal and monastic reformer, b. 1483 at Modena; d. 21 Sept., 1548. After receiving a training in the Humanities at Modena under the learned Cistercian Varino of Piacenza, he devoted himself to the study of jurisprudence for five years, first at Bologna, then at Padua, and was graduated as doctor of laws at the early age of seventeen. His thorough knowledge of the Latin and Greek languages induced Cardinal Giovanni de’ Medici, the future Pope Leo X, to take him into his service and afterwards appoint him legal auditor in the Curia. Desirous of leading a more quiet life, Cortese resigned this office and in 1507 entered the Benedictine monastery of Polirone near Mantua, one of the most flourishing abbeys of the recently founded Cassinese Congregation. When Cardinal Giovanni de’ Medici heard that his former auditor had become a monk, he addressed a letter to him expressing his surprise and his displeasure at the step which Cortese had taken and urging him to leave the monastery and resume his former occupation in Rome. In his answer to the cardinal’s letter Cortese points out the great dangers which beset his soul when he was still engaged in worldly pursuits, and speaks of the interior happiness which he experienced while chanting the Divine praises and applying himself to the study of Holy Scripture. When in 1513 Giovanni de’ Medici ascended the papal throne as Leo X,Cortese sent him a letter of congratulation in which, however, he did not omit to remind the new pontiff of his duty to begin at last that general reform of which the Church stood in extreme need. Like many other saintly and learned men of the time, Cortese was deeply grieved at the indifference manifested by many ecclesiastical dignitaries towards a wholesome internal reform of the Church. It is due to his untiring zeal that the Benedictine reform, which had recently been inaugurated in Italy by the Cassinese Congregation, was carried through, and that, with the return of monastic discipline, the Benedictine monasteries of Italy again became seats of that learning for which they had been so famous in the past.

In 1516 Augustin de Grimaldi, Bishop of Grasse and abbot of the monastery of Lérins, united his monastery with the Cassinese Congregation, and, upon the bishop’s request, Cortese and a few others were sent thither to assist in introducing the Cassinese reform. Here Cortese devoted himself to literary pursuits, and in order to promote the study of the Humanities he founded an academy where he and other learned members of the monastery educated the French youth, thus becoming instrumental in transplanting to French soil the literary Humanistic movement. The moral and literary reform of Lérins was assured when in 1524 Cortese was elected its abbot. His health, however, was greatly impaired during his sojourn at Lérins, so that in 1527 he considered a change of climate indispensable and asked the superior of the congregation for permission to return to Italy. As a result, he was appointed Abbot of St. Peter’s at Modena; a year later, Abbot of St. Peter’s at Perugia; and in 1537 Abbot of the famous San Giorgio Maggiore at Venice. Cortese was now considered one of the most learned men in Italy and had regular correspondence with the greatest scholars in Europe. He counted among his friends Gasparo Contarini, Reginald Pole, Jacopo Sadoleto, Pietro Bembo, Gian Matteo Giberti, and many other Humanists and ecclesiastical dignitaries. The garden of San Giorgio was the place where these pious and learned discussions were held to which the Florentine scholar Brucciolo refers in his dialogues on moral philosophy. In 1536 Pope Paul III made him a member of the committee of nine ecclesiastics who were to draw up a statement of those ecclesiastical abuses which called most loudly for reform. Soon after, he was appointed Apostolic visitor for the whole of Italy and, somewhat later, was sent to Germany to take part in the theological disputation at Worms in 1540, but became sick on the journey and was obliged to remain in Italy. Meanwhile (1538) he became Abbot of San Benedetto in Polirone, then the most important monastery of the Cassinese Congregation. A few times, moreover, he was chosen visitor general of his congregation. Finally, 2 June, 1542, Pope Paul III created him cardinal-priest and appointed him a member of the committee of cardinals for the preparation of the Council of Trent. Towards the end of the same year he became Bishop of Urbino. During the five years of his cardinalate he was an esteemed friend and adviser of Paul III, and used all his influence to bring about that reform of the Church for which the better sort of ecclesiastics had been clamouring many years.

Cortese was one of the best-known writers of his times. He was master of such a finished style that the classically trained Cardinal Bembo and others did not hesitate to class him among the most elegant Latin writers of this Humanistic period. His principal works are epistles, poems, a treatise proving that St. Peter was in Rome, a Latin translation of the New Testament from the Greek texts, a historical work on the destruction of Genoa, etc. All his extant works were collected and edited with a biography of the author by the Benedictine Bishop Gradenigo of Ceneda in two volumes (Padua, 1774).

PRANDI, Elogio storico del Cardinale Gregorio Cortese (Pavia, 1788); ANSAR, Vie de Grégoire Cortes, bén., évêque d’Urbin et cardinal (Paris, 1786); DITTRICH in Kirchenlex.; ZIEGELBAUER, Hist. Lit. O. S. B., III, 339–344; CIACONIUS-OLDOINUS, Vitæ et res gestæ Pontificum Rom. et S. R. E. Cardinalium (Rome, 1677), III, 683 sqq.; HURTER, Nomenclator (Freiburg, 1899), IV, 1278 sq.

MICHAEL OTT

Diocese of Cortona

DIOCESE OF CORTONA (CORTONENSIS)

Immediately subject to the Holy See. Cortona is a small city in the province of Arezzo, Tuscany, Central Italy, situated on a commanding hill, and overlooking the Lake of Perugia. Its cyclopean walls, still in great part preserved, are said to be 3000 years old. It is certainly very ancient, was one of the twelve cities of Etruria, and in its neighbourhood many ruins and Etruscan tombs are still to be found. Cortona took part in all the wars against Rome, until 310 B.C., when Fabius Rullianus defeated the Etruscans and took Perugia which, thereupon, with other cities, made peace with Rome. Later it was destroyed by the Lombards but was soon rebuilt. In the fourteenth century it was governed by the Casali, and became afterwards part of the great Duchy of Tuscany. Many famous men were born or lived in Cortona: Brother Elias (Elia Coppi), the famous companion of St. Francis of Assisi, and later Vicar-General of the Franciscan Order; Cardinals Egidio Boni and Silvio Passerini; the painter Luca Signorelli; the architect and painter Pietro Berrettini (Pietro da Cortona). One of the glories of the city is St. Margaret of Cortona (1248–97). She was born at Laviano (Alviano) in the Diocese of Chiusi, and formed an evil relation with a nobleman of the vicinity. On discovering his body after he had met a violent death, she repented suddenly, and after a public penance, retired to Cortona, where she took the habit of a Tertiary of St. Francis and devoted her life to works of penance and charity. There still exist at Cortona religious works due to her zeal. Leo X permitted her veneration at Cortona, and Urban VIII extended the privilege to the Franciscan Order. Benedict XIII canonized her in 1728. Her body rests in a beautiful sarcophagus in the church dedicated to her at Cortona. It is not known whether Cortona was an episcopal see previous to its destruction by the Lombards. From that time until 1325 it belonged to the Diocese of Arezzo. In that year, at the request of Guglielmo Casali, John XXII raised Cortona to episcopal rank, as a reward for the fidelity of its Guelph populace, Arezzo remaining Ghibelline. The first bishop was Rainerio Ubertini. Other bishops were Luca Grazio, who was a distinguished member of the Council of Florence (1438); Matteo Concini (1560) and Gerolamo Gaddi (1562) were present at the Council of Trent. The cathedral and the other churches of Cortona possess numerous works of art, especially paintings of the school of Luca Signorelli and of Fra Angelico. The diocese has 50 parishes, 60 churches and oratories, 85 secular and 36 regular priests, 30,200 inhabitants, 6 religious houses of men, and 6 of women.

U. BENIGNI

Abbey of Corvey

(Also called NEW CORBIE)

A Benedictine monastery in the Diocese of Paderborn, in Westphalia, founded c. 820 from Corbie in Picardy, by the Emperor Louis the Pious and St. Adelhard, Abbot of the older Corbie, from which the new foundation derived its name. Corvey soon became famous, and its abbots ranked as princes of the empire. In its school were cultivated all the arts and sciences, and it produced many celebrated scholars. To it the world is indebted for the preservation of the first five books of the “Annals” of Tacitus. From its cloisters went forth a stream of missionaries who evangelised Northern Europe, chief amongst them being St. Ansgar, the Apostle of Scandinavia. Here, too, Widukind is believed to have written his history of the Saxons (see SAXONS), and the “Annales Corbenjenses,” which issued from the same scriptorium, figure largely in the “Monumenta Germaniæ” collected by Pertz. (These “Annales” must not be confounded with the forged “Chronicon Corbejense” which appeared in the nineteenth century.) The school of Corvey declined after the fifteenth century, but the abbey itself continued until 1803, when it was secularized and given to the family of Oranje-Nassau. The famous abbey library has long since been dispersed.

WIGAND, Die corvey’schen Geschichtsquellen (Leipzig, 1841); ZIEGELBAUER, Hist. Lit. O.S.B. (Augsburg, 1754); PERTZ, Mon. Germ. Hist.: Scriptores (Hanover, 1839)III; MIGNE,Dict. des Abbayes (Paris, 1856); ENCK, Kirchenlex., III, 1143–51; CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894–99); JANSEN, Wibald von Stablo und Corvey (Berlin, 1854).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Corycus

A titular see of Cilicia Trachæa in Asia Minor. It was the port of Seleucia, where, in 191 B.C., the fleet of Antiochus the Great was defeated by the Romans. In the Roman times it preserved its ancient laws; the emperors usually kept a fleet there to watch over the pirates. Justinian restored the public baths and a hospital. Alexius Comnenus re-equipped the fortress, which had been dismantled. Soon after Corycus was conquered by the Armenians, who held it till the middle of the fourteenth century, when it was occupied temporarily by the Turks, and for a time played an important part. Peter I, King of Cyprus, captured it in 1361. From 1448 or 1454 it belonged alternately to the Karamanlis, the Egyptians, the Karamanlis a second time, and finally to the Osmanlis. The ruins of the city are at Ghorghos, twenty-eight miles north-east of Selefke (Seleucia), in the vilayet of Adana. Among them are a triumphal arch, a beautiful Christian tomb, sarcophagi, etc. The two medieval castles, one on the shore, the other in an islet, connected by a ruined pier, are partially preserved; the former was reputed impregnable. Three churches are also found, one decorated with frescoes. About two miles from the cape is the famous Corycian cavern, 886 feet long, 65 wide, from 98 to 228 high. Near this castle are many other smaller but curious grottoes, a temple of Zeus, and a little church with Byzantine paintings, converted into a mosque. About ten miles north of Ghorghos exists another large grotto with thirteen curious bas-reliefs hewn in the rock. The city figures in the “Synecdemus” of Hierocles, and about 840 in Parthey’s “Notitia Prima”; it was suffragan of Tarsus. Lequien (II, 879) mentions five Greek bishops from 381 to 680; another is known from an inscription (Waddington, Inscriptions . . . d’Asie mineure, 341). One Latin Bishop, Gerardus, was present at a council of Antioch about 1136; four are known in the fourteenth century (Lequien, III, 1197; Eubel, I, 218).

CUINET, Turquie d’Asie, II, 73; ALISHAN, Sissouan (Venice, 1899), 393–409.

S. VAILHÉ

Corydallus

A titular see of Asia Minor. Korydallos, later also Korydalla, was a city in Lycia. In Roman times it struck coins. It figures in the “Notitiæ episcopatuum” as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century as a suffragan of Myra. Lequien (I, 979) mentions only four bishops: Alexander, spoken of in St. Basil’s letter ccxviii, Palladius in 451 and 458, Leo in 787, and Eustratius in 879. Corydallus has not as yet been identified. There was a see of the same name in Pamphylia, suffragan to Perge (see Lequien, I, 1031).

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Juan de la Cosa

Navigator and cartographer, according to tradition b. in 1460 at Sta. Maria del Puerto (Santona), on the Bay of Biscay, Spain, and hence called JUAN BISCAYNO, d. on the coast of the Gulf of Uraba, 28 February, 1510. He passed his life from earliest childhood on the ocean. From the waters of his native country, which he knew thoroughly, he soon ventured onto the coast of Western Africa, which was at that time the goal of so many Spanish expeditions. When Columbus in 1492 made preparations for his voyage to the west, Juan de la Cosa had attained such reputation, that the great discoverer engaged him, together with his ship Santa Maria, and in spite of a passing estrangement between them, he secured de la Cosa’s services as cartographer for his second expedition in 1493–96. In 1499 Juan de la Cosa joined as first pilot the expedition of Alonso de Ojeda and Vespucci, and was with them amongst the first to set foot on the South American Continent on the Gulf of Paria. At the same time the coast from Essequibo to the Cape Vela was explored. Immediately after his return he designed his chart of the whole world, which is of the utmost importance for the history of the discovery of America. Later in the same year, or early in 1501, he continued his discoveries along the South American coast to the Isthmus of Panama, and returned in 1502 to Haiti. When the Spanish court found soon afterwards that the Portuguese had made several incursions into the newly discovered country, Queen Isabella sent Juan de la Cosa at the head of a delegation to Portugal, to remonstrate. He was nominated alguazil major, and in 1504–05 was commander of an expedition to the Pearl Islands and the Gulf of Uraba to found settlements there. At the same time he visited Jamaica and Haiti. Another voyage undertaken 1507–08 with Martin de los Reyes and Juan Correa as pilots had the same object in view. In 1509 for the seventh and last time Juan de la Cosa started for the New World. He carried two hundred colonists on three ships and on reaching Haiti he placed himself under the command of Ojeda, who added another ship with one hundred settlers to the expedition. After having decided an old frontier-dispute between Ojeda and Nicuesa, they went with Pizarro into Ojeda’s territory and landed at Cartagena against the warnings of Cosa, who proposed to disembark on the more peaceful coast of the Gulf of Uraba. They were attacked by the natives and de la Cosa was killed.

Juan de la Cosa made several charts of which one, the famous chart of the world is still preserved. It is the oldest representation of the New World. Of special interest is the outline of Cuba, which Columbus never believed to be an island. Walkenaer and Alexander von Humboldt were the first to point out the great importance of this chart. It is now in the Museo Naval in Madrid. Reproductions of it are given by Humboldt in his “Atlas géographique et physique”; by Jomard in his “Collection des Monuments,” tab. XVI; by Winsor, in his “History of America,” III (London, 1888), and by Kretschmer; “Die Entdeckung Americas” (Berlin, 1892), Atlas, table VII. A facsimile was published in Madrid, 1892.

OTTO HARTIG

Archdiocese of Cosenza

(COSENTINA).

An archdiocese immediately subject to the Holy See. Cosenza is a city in the province of Calabria, Southern Italy, at the confluence of the Crati and the Busento. It was known to the ancients as Cosentia, and was the capital of Bruttium. It was conquered (338 B.C.) by Alexander of Epirus, uncle of Alexander the Great. Later it adhered to King Pyrrhus, when he invaded Italy. Between 278–176 B.C. both Lucania and Bruttium acknowledged the supremacy of Rome. Alaric besieged the city (A.D. 410), but died there the same year and was buried in the bed of the Busento at its confluence with the Crati. In 902 Cosenza was pillaged by the Saracens, who were later expelled by the Normans but regained possession of the city in 1004. In 1130 Cosenza became the capital of Calabria Citeriore, now Cosenza, and thenceforth shared the vicissitudes of the Kingdom of Naples. Among its famous citizens may be mentioned the savant Gian Vincenzo Gravina, co-founder with Queen Christina of Sweden of the Roman Academy of the Arcadia in 1656 (see ACADEMIES, ROMAN). The city suffered much from earthquakes, especially in 1184, 1658, and 1783.

The Gospel was first preached in Cosenza by missionaries from Reggio; its earliest known bishop is Palumbus, a correspondent (599) of St. Gregory the Great. Cosenza was raised to the dignity of an archbishopric about 1050. Among the best known Archbishops of Cosenza have been: Ruffo, who perished in the earthquake of 1184; the Cistercian Martino (1285), a prolific but uncritical writer; Pirro Caracciolo (1452), the friend of St. Francis of Paula; Bartolommeo Fleury, who died at Rome (1495) in Castle Sant’ Angelo, where he had been imprisoned for forgery of pontifical documents; Taddeo, later Cardinal, Gaddi (1535), who obtained from Paul IV the privilege by which the cathedral canons of Cosenza wear the choir habit of the Vatican basilica; and Guiseppe Maria Sanfelice (1650), frequently charged by the Holy See with diplomatic missions.

The diocese has a population of 159,500, with 109 parishes, 264 churches and chapels, 200 secular and 16 regular priests, 2 religious houses of men and 5 of women.

CAPPELLETTI, La Chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XXI, 285; SPIRITI, Memoire degli scrittori Cosentini (Naples, 1750); Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 429.

U. BENIGNI

Henry Cosgrove

Second Bishop of Davenport, Iowa, U.S.A., born 19 December, 1834, at Williamsport, Pennsylvania; died at Davenport, 23 December, 1906. He was the first native of the United States appointed to a see west of the Mississippi. In 1845 he emigrated to Iowa with his parents from Pennsylvania. He was ordained a priest 27 August, 1857, and became pastor of St. Marguerite’s church, Davenport, in 1861. After the death of Bishop McMullen of Davenport he was administrator of the see, for which he was consecrated 20 July, 1884.

REUSS, Biog. Encyc. of the Cath. Hierarchy of U.S. (Milwaukee, 1898); The Messenger (New York, Jan., 1907).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Edmund Cosin

(The name is also written COSYN.)

Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, England. The dates of his birth and death are uncertain. He was born in Bedfordshire and entered King’s Hall, Cambridge, as a Bible clerk, receiving the degrees of B.A. early in 1535, M.A. in 1541, and B.S. in 1547. He held the living of Grendon, Northamptonshire, which was in the gift of King’s Hall, from 21 September, 1538, to November, 1541, and successively, fellowships of King’s Hall, St. Catharine’s Hall, and of Trinity College. Early in Queen Mary’s reign he was elected Master of St. Catharine’s, which brought him as gifts from the Crown the Norfolk rectories of St. Edmund, North Lynn (1533), Fakenham (1555), and the Norfolk vicarages of Caistor Holy Trinity, and of Oxburgh (1554). He was presented to the rectory of Thorpland by Trinity College in the following year. He was also chaplain to Bishop Bonner of London and assistant to Michael Dunning, the Chancellor of the Diocese of Norwich. In 1558 he was elected Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge but being a Catholic he refused to conform to the Elizabethan heresies, and hence in 1560 was forced to resign all his preferments and went in 1564 to live in retirement in Caius College, Cambridge. Four years later, summoned to answer before the Lords of the Council to a charge of non-conformity, he went into exile rather than foreswear his faith. He was living on the Continent in 1576 but no further definite records of his career are available.

LEE in Dict. Nat. Biog., XII, s.v.; STRYPE, Memorials, III, i, 80; BLOMEFIELD, Norfolk.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Cosmas

(Called HAGIOPOLITES or COSMAS OF JERUSALEM).

A hymn-writer of the Greek Church in the eighth century, was the foster-brother of St. John of Damascus. The teacher of the two boys was an elderly Sicilian, also named Cosmas, who had been freed from slavery by St. John’s father. St. John and Cosmas went from Damascus to Jerusalem, where both became monks in the monastery of St. Sabas near that city. Cosmas, however, left the monastery in 743, when he was appointed Bishop of Maiuma, the port of ancient Gaza on the southern coast of Phoenicia. The Greek Church observes his feast on 14 October. As a learned prose-author Cosmas wrote comments on the poems of Gregory of Nazianzus; as a poet he is regarded by the Greek Church with great admiration. It considers Cosmas and St. John of Damascus the best representatives of the later Greek classical ymnology, the most characteristic examples of which are the artistic liturgical chants known as “canons.” The hymns of Cosmas were originally intended to add to the interest of he services at Jerusalem, but through the influence of Constantinople their use became universal in the Orthodox Greek Church. It is not certain, however, that all the hymns ascribed to Cosmas in the Greek liturgical books were really his compositions, especially as his teacher of the same name was also a hymn writer. Collections of hymns, varying in number, are attributed to Cosmas, and may be found in Migne, P.G., XCVIII, 459–524, and in Christ-Paranikas, “Anthologia graeca carminum christianorum” (Leipzig, 1871), 161–204. For the above-mentioned notes or scholia on the poems of Gregory of Nazianzus see Mai, “Spicilegium Romanum,” II, Pt. II, 1–375, and Migne, P.G., XXXVIII, 339–679.

KRUMBACHER, Gesch. der byzantinischen Literatur (2d ed., Munich, 1896), 674 sqq.

ANTON BAUMSTARK.

Sts. Cosmas and Damian

Early Christian physicians and martyrs whose feast is celebrated on 27 September. They were twins, born in Arabia, and practised the art of healing in the seaport Ægea, now Ayash (Ajass), on the Gulf of Iskanderun in Cilicia, Asia Minor, and attained a great reputation. They accepted no pay for their services and were, therefore, called anargyroi, “the silverless.” In this way they brought many to the Catholic Faith. When the Diocletian persecution began, the Prefect Lysias had Cosmas and Damian arrested, and ordered them to recant. They remained constant under torture, in a miraculous manner suffered no injury from water, fire, air, nor on the cross, and were finally beheaded with the sword. Their three brothers, Anthimus, Leontius, and Euprepius died as martyrs with them. The execution took place 27 September, probably in the year 287. At a later date a number of fables grew up about them, connected in part with their relics. The remains of the martyrs were buried in the city of Cyrus in Syria; the Emperor Justinian I (527–565) sumptuously restored the city in their honour. Having been cured of a dangerous illness by the intercession of Cosmas and Damian, Justinian, in gratitude for their aid, rebuilt and adorned their church at Constantinople, and it became a celebrated place of pilgrimage. At Rome Pope Felix IV (526–530) erected a church in their honour, the mosaics of which are still among the most valuable art remains of the city. The Greek Church celebrates the feast of Saints Cosmas and Damian on 1 July, 17 October, and 1 November, and venerates three pairs of saints of the same name and profession. Cosmas and Damian are regarded as the patrons of physicians and surgeons and are sometimes represented with medical emblems. They are invoked in the Canon of the Mass and in the Litany of the Saints.

Acta SS., 27 Sept.; SCHLEYER in Kirchenlex.; ALOIS, Das Leben und Wirken d. hl. Cosmas und Damian, Patrone der Aerzte (Vienna, 1876); DEUBNER, Kosmas und Damian (Leipzig, 1907).

GABRIEL MEIER.

Cosmas Indicopleustes

(COSMAS THE INDIAN VOYAGER)

A Greek traveller and geographer of the first half of the sixth century, b. at Alexandria, Egypt. Cosmas probably received only an elementary education, as he was intended for a mercantile life, and in his earlier years was engaged in business pursuits. It may be, however, that by further study he increased his knowledge, since his notes and observations show more than ordinary training. His business took him to the regions lying south of Egypt, the farthest point of his travels in this direction being Cape Guardafui. He traversed the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf, and gathered information about lands lying far to the East; but it is not certain that he actually visited India. In his later years he entered the monastery of Raithu on the Peninsula of Sinai. If it be necessary to suppose, as some investigators assert, that Cosmas was at any time a Nestorian, it would appear from his work, the “Christian Topography,” that, at least towards the close of his life, he returned to the orthodox faith. While an inmate of the monastery he wrote the “Topography” above mentioned, a work which gives him a position of importance among the geographers of the early Middle Ages.

The “Christian Topography” has been preserved in two manuscript copies, one in the Laurentian Library at Florence, and the other in the Vatican. In the second half of the seventeenth century Isaac Vossius, Emeric Bigot, and Melchisédech Thévenot first made the work known in a fragmentary way by publishing extracts from it. The first complete and critical edition, accompanied by a Latin translation, was issued by Bernard de Montfaucon in his “Collectio nova patrum et scriptorum græcorum (Paris, 1707), II, 113–345. The “Topography” was also printed by Galandi in his “Bibliotheca veterum patrum” (Venice, 1776), and in Migne, P.G. (Paris, 1864), LXXXVIII, 51–476. A French translation of the most important parts is found in Charton, “Voyageurs anciens et modernes” (Paris, 1855); a complete English translation, with notes and a critical introduction, was issued for the Hakluyt Society by J. W. McCrindle (London, 1897). The work is divided into twelve books and contains a description of the universe, as Cosmas constructed it in his imagination, and an account of those regions which he had visited, or concerning which he had gathered information. According to Cosmas the world is a rectangular structure in two sections, their length much greater than their breadth, and corresponding in form and proportions to the Tabernacle of the Old Testament. The base is formed by the surface of the earth, around which flows the ocean; on the other side of the ocean lies another—unknown—continent, from which rise the walls that support the firmament above. The stars are carried by the angels in a circle around the firmament. Above the firmament springs a vault which separates the heaven of the blessed from the world beneath. The theory that there is an antipodes, says Cosmas, is a doctrine to be rejected. The earth rises towards the north and ends in a cone-shaped mountain behind which the sun continues its wanderings during the night, and the nights are long or short according as the position of the sun is near the base or the summit of the mountain.

This curious attempt to harmonize a childish Biblical exegesis with ordinary phenomena and the current opinions of the time is at least superior to the extraordinary geographical hypotheses of that day. Aside from the fact that the theories of Cosmas exercised no influence, they are not of sufficient importance to affect the genuine worth of several portions of the “Topography.” The value of these passages rests on the methodical conscientiousness of the simple merchant, as it is seen, for example, in the careful copy of the so-called Inscription of Adulis (Monumentum Adulitanum) which has been preserved to Greek epigraphy only in the copy of Cosmas. Cosmas, with the aid of his travelling companion, Menas, took a copy of it in 522 for the governor of the Christian king Elesbaan of Abyssinia, retaining a replica for himself. Of equal importance is the information he collected concerning Zanzibar and the Indian Ocean, and what he learned as to the trade of Abyssinia with the interior of Africa and of Egypt with the East. The best-known and most celebrated part of the “Topography” is the description, in the ninth book, of Ceylon and of the plants and animals of India. The work also gives much valuable information concerning the extension of Christianity in his day. The Vatican manuscript of the “Christian Topography” has explanatory maps and sketches, either made by Cosmas himself or prepared under his direction; they are of value as the first efforts of patristic geography. Four other writings of Cosmas are unfortunately lost: a cosmography, an astronomical treatise, and commentaries on the Canticles and the Psalms.

MARINELLI, La geografia e i padri della chiesa (Rome, 1883); GELZER, Kosmas der Indienfahrer in Jahrbuch für protestantische Theologie (Leipzig, 1883), IX, 105–141; KRETSCHMER, Die physische Erdkunde im christlichen Mittelalter (Vienna, 1889); BEAZLEY, The Dawn of Modern Geography (London, 1897); KRUMBACHER, Gesch. der byzantinischen Litt. (2nd ed., Munich, 1897), 412–14; STRZYGOWSKI, Der Bilderkreis des griech. Phnysiologus, des Kosmas Indicopleustes, etc., in Byzantinisches Archiv (Leipzig, 1899).

OTTO HARTIG

Cosmas of Prague

Bohemian historian, b. about 1045, at Prague, Bohemia; d. there, 21 October, 1125. He belonged to a knightly family, received his first instruction in the schools of Prague, and studied grammar and dialectics at Liège under the direction of a renowned master named Franco. At Liège he acquired good literary taste and that acquaintance with the classics which is evident throughout his work. While still young he entered ecclesiastical life at Prague, but was not ordained priest until 11 June, 1099, at Gran, Hungary. In due time he became a member of the cathedral chapter of St. Vitus in Prague, and ultimately its dean. According to a general custom of the age, while still a minor cleric, he was married to one Bozetecha, by whom he had a son named Henry or Zdic, afterwards Bishop of Olmütz. With the Bishops of Prague, Gebhard, Cosmas, and Hermann, he was on terms of great intimacy, and often accompanied them on their travels; he likewise enjoyed the esteem and the confidence of the rulers of Bohemia. Cosmas wrote in Latin a “Chronica Bohemorum,” or historia of Bohemia from the earliest times to 1125. The work consists of three books; the first brings the narrative to 1038, the second to 1092, the third to 1125. For the early part he relied almost exclusively on popular tradition, since there was no previous work on the subject. For the other parts he drew from the testimony of eyewitnesses, from his own experience, or from monuments and written documents. As an historian, Cosmas is generally truthful and conscientious; he distinguishes between what is certain and what is based only on rumours or tradition. The style is pleasing, and the character-sketches are vivid. Owing to these qualities, and also to the fact that he was the first writer of Bohemian history, he is called the Herodotus of Bohemia. The work was edited repeatedly: Freher, “Scriptores rerum bohemicarum” (Hanover, 1602, 1607, 1620); Mencke, “Scriptores rerum Germ.: Saxon.” (Leipzig, 1728), I; Pelzl and Dobrowsky; “Scriptores rerum bohemicarum” (Prague, 1783); Koepke, “Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.” (Hanover, 1851), IX; also in Migne, P.L., CLXVI; Emler and Tomek, “Fontes rerum bohemicarum” (Prague, 1874), II.

KOEPKE, Prolegomena to his edition of Cosmas in Mon. Germ. Hist., and MIGNE, P.L.; BOROWY in Kirchenlex. (Freiburg im Br., 1884), III; POTTHAST, Bibliotheca medii oevi (Berlin, 1896), I; CHEVALIER, Bio-bibl. (Paris, 1905), I.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Cosmati Mosaic

(Gr. kosmos)

A peculiar style of inlaid ornamental mosaic introduced into the decorative art of Europe during the twelfth century, by a marble-worker named Laurentius, a native of Anagni, a small hill-town thirty-seven miles east-south-east of Rome. Laurentius acquired his craft from Greek masters and for a time followed their method of work, but early in his career, freeing himself from Byzantine traditions and influences, he worked along original lines and evolved a new style of decorative mosaic, vigorous in colour and design, which he invariably employed in conjunction with plain or sculptored marble surfaces, making it a decorative accessary to some architectural feature. As a rule he used white or light-coloured marbles for his backgrounds; these he inlaid with squares, parallelograms, and circles of darker marble, porphyry, or serpentine, surrounding them with ribbons of mosaic composed of coloured and gold-glass tesseræ. These harlequinads he separated one from another with marble mouldings, carvings, and flat bands, and further enriched them with mosaic. His earliest recorded work was executed for a church at Fabieri in 1190, and the earliest existing example is to be seen in the church of Ara Coeli at Rome. It consists of an epistle and gospel ambo, a chair, screen, and pavement. In much of his work he was assisted by his son, Jacobus, who was not only a sculptor and mosaic-worker, but also an architect of ability, as witness the architectural alterations carried out by him in the cathedral of Cività Castellana, a foreshadowing of the Renaissance. This was a work in which other members of his family took part, and they were all followers of the craft for four generations. Those attaining eminence in their art are named in the following genealogical epitome: Laurentius (1140–1210); Jacobus (1165–1234); Luca (1221–1240); Jacobus (1213–1293); Deodatus (1225–1294); Johannes (1231–1303). Their noted Cosmatesque mosaics are to be seen in the Roman churches of SS. Alessio e Bonifacio, S. Sabba, S. Cesareo, S. Giovanni a Porta Latina, S. Maria in Cosmedin, S. Balbina, S. Maria sopra Minerva, S. Maria Maggiore, and in the cloister of S. Scholastica at Subiaco, the basilica of St. Magus at Anagni, the duomo of Cività Castellana, and the ruined shrine of St. Edward the Confessor in Westminster Abbey.

DE MONTAULT, Généalogie d’artistes italiens; COLEMAN, Cosmati Mosaicin The Architectural Record (New York, June, 1902), XII; PARKER, The Archæology of Rome (Oxford, 1876), Pt. XI; DE ROSSI, Delle altre famiglie di marmorarii romani (Rome, 1870).

CARYL COLEMAN

Cosmogony

By this term is understood an account of how the universe (cosmos) came into being (gonia—gegona = I have become). It differs from cosmology, or the science of the universe, in this: that the latter aims at understanding the actual composition and governing laws of the universe as it now exists; while the former answers the question as to how it first came to be. The Christian Faith accounts for the origin of the universe by creation ex nihilo of the matter out of which the universe arose, and the preservatio, or maintenance, of Providence according to which it developed into what it now is. Modern science has propounded many theories as to how the primieval gaseous substance evolved into the present harmony of the universe. These theories may be called scientific cosmogonies; and the account of the origin of the world given in Genesis, i and ii, is styled cosmogony. The word cosmogony is, however, usually applied to mythic accounts of the world’s origin current among the peoples of antiquity and the more modern races which have not been touched by recent scientific methods. In this article the word is understood only in this latter sense. In treating the strange admixture of psuedo-scientific speculations and religious ideas which the human mind, unassisted by revelation, elaborated to account for the existence and harmony of the universe, we are forced at first to follow only the chronological order. The different accounts given of the origin of the heavens and the earth are at first sight so irreconcilable, so fanciful that no other order of treatment seems possible; but an attempt will be made in the conclusion to sum up and systematize the various ideas enumerated, to trace the various lines along which past thought and fancy developed to some great central principles, and thus to show the unity which underlies even this confusing diversity. As modern scholarship seems to suggest the Euphrates valley as the cradle of all civilization, the cosmogonies there in vogue shall be treated first; although Egyptian ideas on this subject can be traced to an antiquity at least as remote as that of the earliest Babylonian cosmogonies known to us.

BABYLONIAN

Two different Assyro-Babylonian cosmogonies have come down to us. The longer one is known under the name of Creation Epos or “Enuma elish,” the words with which it begins. The shorter one is commonly known as the Bilingual Account of creation because, on the fragmentary tablet on which it is written, the Semitic Babylonian is accompanied by a Sumerian version.

(A) THE CREATION EPOS

A good summary of this cosmogony had been known since the sixth century of the Christian era, through Damascus (the Athenian neo-Platonist who emigrated to Persia when Justinian suppressed the schools of Athens), as follows: “The Babylonians, passing over in silence the one-principle of the universe, constitute two, Tauthe and Apason, making Apason the husband of Tauthe and calling her the mother of the gods. And from these proceeds an only-begotten son, Moumis, who, I consider, is nought else but the intelligible world proceeding from the two principles. From them another progeny is likewise produced, Dache and Dachos, and also a third, Kisaré and Assoros, from which last three other proceed, Anos, and Illinos, and Aos. And to Aos and Dauke a son is born called Belos of whom they say that he is the creator of the world [demiurgus].”The Assyrian original upon which this summary is based was first discovered and published by G. Smith, in 1875, from seven fragmentary tablets in the British Museum. It has been translated by a number of scholars, and recently (London, 1903), with the addition of numerous fragments, by L. W. King of the same museum. it opens as follows:—When on high the heavens were not uttered,

Below the earth bore not yet a name;

The ocean primeval was their begetter,

Mummu Tiamtu the parent of all of them.

Their waters were mixed together in one and

Fields not yet marked, marshes not yet seen [?]

When of the gods there existed still none

None bore any name, the fates [not yet settled]

Then came into being the gods [in order?]

Lamu and Lahamu went forth [as the first?]

Great were the ages. . . .

Ansar and Kisar were produced, and over them

Long grew the days, there appeared

The god Anu, their son . . .

The Greek copyist had evidently mistaken LACHOS for DACHOS, but otherwise the two accounts tally exactly; Apason is Apsu the Ocean; Tauthe is Tiamtu, as Assyrian labializes the nasal; Lache and Lachos are likewise Lamu and Lahamu; Kissare, Assoras, Anos, Illinos, and Aos correspond to Kisar and Ansar, Anu, Enlil, and Ea or Ae. Damascius considered Moumis the son of Tiamtu. But in the Babylonian text Mummu seems to have Tiamat in apposition, and the particle muallidati is in the feminine, yet on a later fragment Mummu does figure as the son of Tiamat, and Damascius’ statement seems correct. In any case, they began with a double, purely material, principle Apsu and Tiamet, male and female, probably personifying the mass of salt and sweet water “mixed together in one.” Out of all these things even the gods arise, their birth is in reality the gradual differentiation of the as yet undifferentiated, undetermined, undivided watery ALL. The meaning of Ansar and Kisar is plain; they are personified ideals: Above and Below. The meaning of Lahmu and Lahamu is not so clear. Popular mythology speaks of the Lahmu as monsters and demons, spirits of evil, and their progeny sides with Tiamat as the mother of chaos; yet on the other hand, they cannot be evil in themselves, for the good gods, Anu, Bel, and Ea, are their children. It has been suggested with great probability that Lahmu and Lahamu are the personifications of Dawn and Twilight.—In the watery chaos, first the light breaks; an above and a below begin to be, and the result is Anu, Bel, and Ea—Sky, Earth, and Water. But this process of development is not to proceed unopposed, nor are the powers (gods) of order peacefully to conquer the power of Chaos. This war is mythologically described in the great Epos. Tiamat creates a brood of monsters to fight on her side, puts Kingu, her husband, at the head, gives him the tablets of fate in his bosom, thereby giving him supreme power. Ea hears of this plot, tells Ansar, his father, who asks Anu to interfere, but in vain. Ea is likewise applied to, but without result. At last Ea’s son Marduk, at the request of the gods, becomes their champion and conquers the Dragon of Chaos. Cutting the lifeless body of the dragon in two he makes of the one half the expanse of the heavens, thereby preventing the waters above from coming down; out of the other the earth. He then firmly fixes the stars, arranging the constellations of the zodiac, creates the moon, “sets him as a creature of night, to make known the days monthly without failing.” After this Marduk’s “heart urged him, and he made cunning plans, and he opened his mouth and said to Ae: “Let me gather my blood and let me [take my] bone, let me set up a man, and let the man . . . let me make then men dwelling . . .” The gods praise Marduk’s work and they applaud him with fifty names; each god transferring to Marduk his own function and dignity. Marduk, then, is the real Demiurgus or world-creator, a dignity, however, which was not originally his. The political success of Marduk’s city, Babylon, necessitated this god’s rise in rank in the Pantheon; this was ingeniously contrived by inventing the legend of all the gods voluntarily ceding their place to him because he had conquered the Dragon of Chaos, Tiamat. This part of the cosmogony, therefore, probably does not date back before 2000 B.C. It is quite likely, however, that some story of a struggle with a monster of evil and disorder is of much greater antiquity. In any case this cosmogony is sharply characterized because in it the cosmos arises out of a struggle between Chaos and Order, good and evil. It must, however, not be forgotten that both good and bad gods alike are the progeny of Apsu and Tiamat.

(B) THE BILINGUAL CREATION STORY

The Bilingual Creation Story was found on a tablet in Sippar by Rassam in 1882. It consists of three columns, the central column being Semitic, the first and third being Sumerian, every line and sentence being cut in two by the intervening Semitic version. It is really an incantation, for purification; unfortunately this tablet is mutilated, and the connection of this temple ritual with an account of the origin of the world is not quite clear. At the end of the tablet, a second incantation beings, of which only the words, “The star . . . long chariot of heaven” are left—sufficient to show that these tablets belonged to an astronomical or scientific series. The cosmogony begins, as is usual with cosmogonies, by thinking away all things in the world. It is remarkable that the empty void is expressed by first thinking away civilization, temples, gardens, houses, cities; the ancient cities are even given by name: “Nippur had not been built, E-Kura [its temple] had not been constructed. Erech had not been built, E-ana had not been constructed.” The Abyss had not been made; Eridu [the oldest of all cities, once in the Persian Gulf], with its foundation in the deep [the abyss], had not been constructed, the foundation of the house of the gods was not laid—the whole of the lands was sea. When within the sea there was a stream, on that day Eridu was made, Esagila [its temple] constructed—Esagila, which the god Lugalduazaga founded within the abyss—Babylon he built, Esagila [a counterpart of the Esagila of Eridu] was completed. He created the gods; the Anunnaki [tutelary spirits of the earth] created the glorious city together with him. The seat of their heart’s journey he proclaimed on high. Marduk bound together a foundation [amu] upon the waters. He made dust and cast it over the foundation, that the gods might sit in a pleasant place. He made mankind. Aruru [the goddess of Sippar] made the seed of mankind with him.”Marduk then creates the animals, the plants, the city, the state, Nippur, Erech, and their temples. Lugalduazaga is considered to be another name for Marduk. In the text it is doubtful whether the Anunnaki were created by Marduk or whether they were assistant-creators with Marduk. The latter seems preferable. The meaning of “he bound together a foundation” because of the uncertainty about the word amu. The ancients thought the earth to be like a section of a hollow ball floating on the great waters, convex side upwards. Marduk is here forming his rough skeleton of the earth as a raft on the waters, and he fills it up with soil or clay dust according to the text. This cosmogony is probably not so ancient as that of the Creation Epos, because it makes Marduk sole creator without reference even to Anu or Ea. It is remarkable that man is created before animals and plants, and scholars have not failed to draw attention to a similar statement in Genesis ii, 7–9. Furthermore, the Tigris and the Euphrates are named in this cosmogony: “He made them and set them in their place—well proclaimed he their name.,” which also reminds one of the mention of the rivers in the same chapter of Genesis. Some remote connection is of course possible.

EGYPTIAN

The fundamental ideas of Egyptian cosmogonies can be gathered from the Book of the Dead, chapter xvii, which goes back to the eleventh dynasty (c. 2560 B.C.). Cosmogonic speculations in greater detail can be found in the funeral inscriptions of Seti I, in the Valley of the Dead near Thebes (ca. 1400 B.C.), nor are they wanting in texts on monuments and papyri down to late in the Ptolemaic period. But according to Brugsch, Egyptian thought was but little subject to change even during the scores of centuries and more during which it is known to us. In the beginning there was neither heaven nor earth. Shoreless waters, covered with thick darkness, filled the world-space. These primeval waters are called Nun, and they were said to contain the male and female germs and the beginning of the future world. From the very first there dwelt in this watery proto-matter a divine source or proto-soul which pervaded and penetrated its as yet not differentiated parts. This penetration was so absolute that this soul became almost identical with the matter it pervaded. The divine proto-soul then felt a desire for creative activity and this will, personified as the god Thot, brought the universe into being; whereas the image of the universe had previously formed itself in the eyes of Thot. The word of Thot brought movement into the still watery substance of Nun—movement both conscious and purposeful. Nun now began to differentiate itself—i.e., its qualities became manifest in a cosmogonic ogdoad of deities (four pairs, male and female); Nun and Nunet, Heh and Hehet, Keke and Keket, Nenu and Nenut. Nun and Nunet represent the begetting and bearing Proto-Matter-Soul; Heh and Hehet are rather difficult ideas to grasp, perhaps active and passive infinity would be a good expression. This infinity is mostly conceived in relation to time, and is consequently equivalent to, and often described by the Greek Aion; as infinity of form it resembles Eros. Keke and Keket are the abysmal darkness, the Erebos of the Egyptians. Nenu and Nenut symbolize rest; the two other names or titles of Nenu, Gohr and Hems, embody the same idea—to settle or lie down, to cease from work. Contrary to the Babylonian idea of war with the Dragon of Chaos, tranquility is, in Egypt, a principle of progress. All united, these divinities of the ogdoad form the beginnings and are the fathers and mothers of all things. Pictorially, they are indicated by figures of four men and women; the men carry a frog; the women a serpent’s head on their shoulders. The frog and serpent represent the first elements of animal creation; the unaccounted for appearance and disappearance of frogs in marshes seemed like a sort of spontaneous generation of animal life out of stagnant water; the serpent periodically shedding its skin was a symbol of the yearly renewal of nature. The male figures are colored blue, to signify water the begetter of all things; the female are flesh-colored to signify the life produced. These cosmognic gods then transform the invisible divine will of Thot into a visible universe, harmoniously welded together. The first act of a creation is the formation of an egg, which rises upon the hands of Heh and Hehet out of the proto-matter. Out of the egg arises the god of light, Râ, the immediate cause of life in this world. Now this universe was conceived as being both the house and the body of God, divinity not dwelling in, but being identical with, the cosmic All.

This universe, however, was formed by concurrence of nine divine things, i.e., the great Ennead of the Gods: (1) Shu, the dry air of the day; (2) Tafnut, the night air, pregnant with the rays of the waxing moon; (3) Keb, the god of the earth, or soil; (4) Nut, the goddess of the heavens above, (5) Osiris, the moist or fructifying element;(6) Isis, the maternal or conceiving force of the earth; (7) Set, the gods of evil and contradiction—the destructive force in nature, opposing the light, moisture and fertility of the earth—in popular mythology the brother-enemy of Osiris and Isis; (8) Horus, popularly conceived as the divine child of Isis and Osiris, living nature in the circle of perpetual rejuvenescence; (9) Nephthys, the boundary spirit or horizon, the world-limit or the strand of the endless sea.

Parallel with these quasi-scientific explanations of the universe, the popular mind attributed to its divinities a share in the cosmogony. In Upper Egypt, the egg-productive energy gave first rise to a divinity, Chnum, the potter who shapes the egg on his wheel; in lower Egypt, Ptah, the artificer, becomes the creator of the egg. Sometimes, however, a divine bird is required to lay it. Not unfrequently the cosmogonic functions of the egg are attributed to a lotus-bud. In one of the inscriptions of Denderah, Pharao hands a lotus flower to the solar deity, saying: “I hand thee the flower which arose in the beginning, the glorious lily on the great sea. Thou camest forth in the city of Chmun out of its leaves, and thou didst give light to the earth, till then wrapped in darkness.”

On the one hand, Râ is not merely the enlightener, but the personal creator of the world, the Lord, infinite in his being, the Master Everlasting, who was before all things; none is like unto him. He suspended the heavens above that he might dwell therein; he laid the foundations of the earth that it might sustain his form; he created the deep, that he might be hidden in the lower spheres, he the noble youth, came forth out of Nun. This personification of the spirits of light in the sun-god Râ could evoke real sublimity of thought and expression, so much so that, for a little while, the idea reached a quasi-monotheism under Amenophis III and IV. On the other hand the amplitude of the divine titles of each local deity plays havoc with cosmogonic consistency, thus Ptah in Memphis is ruler of infinity (Heh) and Lord of Eternity (Tet), Mim Amum, Lord of Infinity, lasting for eternity; Hathor of Denderah, Mistress of Infinity and Creatrix of Eternity; Hathor and Horus are mother and father to Horsamuti, a phase of Râ the sun-god, and similar fancies.

IRANIAN

In considering these cosmogonies we must distinguish a threefold phase of development: (a) The ancient Iranian phase as given in the Avesta, the Yasnas, and the Vendidads. Without entering into the much-disputed question of the date of the Avesta, it may be safely said that these oldest cosmogonies go back to about 1000 B.C.(b) The later Iranian or early Persian phase, as contained in orthodox Pahlavi literature, the Bundahis and the Mainochired. (c) Heterodox Iranian opinion among schismatic sects, as the Zervanites, Gayomarthiya, Rivayets, and others. We shall find the dualism, which is the great characteristic of Iranian thought, showing a gradual tendency toward monism, and its primeval simplicity transformed into fanciful intricacy without, however, losing the loftiness of its first ideas.

Although we possess no full systematic expositions of the views of the ancient Iranians on the origins of the universe, yet scattered passages in the Avesta leave no doubt that at the beginning of all things they postulated a twofold principle: good and evil. At the head indeed of all creation stands Ahura Mazda, a purely spiritual being, who is distinctly and expressly styled “Creator of the World” of spirit and matter. Yet in the older books the idea of the unity of origin of the universe is far from having come to maturity; so in the Gathas a distinct dualism is taught. At the end of Yasna xviii, Zarathrustra asks: “Do thou, Ahura Mazda, teach me from thyself, that I may declare it forth, through what the primeval world arose.” And in Yasna xxx comes the answer: “Thus are the primeval spirits who, as a pair—yet each independent in his action—have been formed of old. They are [these two spiritual principles] a better thing and a worse thing as to thought, word, and deed. When the two spirits came together at the first to make life and non-life, and to determine how the world a last should be made, [then there was] for the wicked the worst life and for the holy the best state of mind. He who was the evil one chose the evil, but the bountiful spirit chose righteous ness.” Ahura Mazda, or, as the name later became abbreviated, Ormuzd, the Wise Lord, is the good spirit, or Spento Mainyu; the Evil One is Anro Mainyu, the destroying spirit later known as Ahriman. The absolute dualism of the above passage is unmistakable; in the beginning was Good and Evil; the good became as it were incarnate in Ormuzd, the evil in Ahriman. The name Ahriman, however, does not actually occur in this Yasna. This dualism gradually softened as centuries went on, and Ormuzd was repeatedly and emphatically designated as the Creator. Thus Yasna i, 1 (which is of considerably later date than Yasna, xxx): “I confess and I proclaim Ahura Mazda, the creator, the radiant, the glorious, who sends his joy-creating grace afar, who made us and who fashioned us, who nourished us and protected us, who is the Spento Mainyu.” But whenever Ormuzd, the source of all good, produces what is good, the evil produces its opposite, therewith to destroy Ormuzd’s creation. Ahriman, therefore, became only a secondary, or counter-creator. This is thus expressed in Fargardi of the Vendidad: “The first of good lands which I, Ahura Mazda created was Iran-Veg, thereupon came Anro Mainyu, who is all death, and he counter-created the serpent in the river, and the winter, the work of demons. The second of good lands which I created was the plain of Sogdiana. Thereupon came Anro Mainyu, who is all death, and he counter-created the locust, bringing death unto cattle and plants.” No less than sixteen such creations and counter-creations are thus enumerated: Ahriman counter-creates plunder, sin, ants and ant-hills, unbelief, tears and wailing, idolatry, pride, impurity, burial of the dead, the cooking of corpses, abnormal issues, excessive heat, and bitter cold. From this enumeration of Ahriman’s work one gathers that he and his good adversary were originally personified principles, and this personification led to their being accounted real spiritual beings. Sometimes this personification was so materialized as to lead to the ascription of a body to Ormuzd, but this was of some aerial substance invisible even to the celestials. Besides these two world-creators we meet in the Avesta four elementary beings, or rather attributes of Ormuzd, called Thwasha, or Infinite Space, Zrvan Akarana or Endless Time, Anaghra raocao and Temao, or Beginningless Light and Darkness. These personified abstractions—Space, Time, Light and Darkness—are co-eternal with Ormuzd and Ahriman; they do not create, but the constitute the receptacle, the source, and the twofold material of creation.

Later Parthian speculations on the origins of the universe are found in the Bumdahis, a Pahlavi commentary on the Avesta, which may date from the Sassanids, but in its present form cannot be earlier than the seventh century of the Christian Era. Ormuzd is here described as in endless light and all-wise; but Ahriman in endless darkness and lacking in knowledge. Light and darkness seem to have been identified with Ormuzd and Ahriman in an earlier period, according to Porphyrius and Plutarch. Ormuzd and Ahriman both produced their own creatures, which remain apart in a spiritual or ideal state for 3000 years; for Ahriman is unaware of the existence of Ormuzd and his good creation. After this begins Ahriman’s opposition to the work of Ormuzd, with the understanding, however, that the period of the evil influence would not exceed 9000 years, and only the middle 3000 years would see Ahriman successful. By pronouncing a mysterious spell, Ormuzd throws Ahriman into a state of confusion for second 3000 years. Meanwhile, Ormuzd creates the archangels and the material universe with sun, moon, and stars; Ahriman produces the devas, or evil spirits, and helped by them, he throws himself upon the good creation to destroy it. The six divisions of creation—the sky, water, earth, plants, and animals, and men—suffer the attacks of the devas. The primeval ox, symbolizing the later animal world, is slain, and so is Gayomard, representing humanity. Yet, though Gayomard dies, his offsp[ring lives. After many purifications by archangels, the Rivas plant, begotten of him, grows up. This plant contains both man and woman; when their bodies have sufficiently developed they receive “the breath spiritually into them, which is the soul”: for Ahura Mazda said that “the soul isw created before, and the body after, for him who was created.” And Ahura Mazda said to them, you are man, you are the ancestry of the world.” A story is told of that first pair, whether Mashya and Mashyana, or, as elsewhere given, Yima and his wife, similar to that of Adam’s sin in paradise; a similarity can also be found in Ahura Mazda creating the world in six stages, but there is nothing to show that the Bible is the borrower, in fact the contrary is most probable. In the Mainochired a further stage in Persian cosmogonies is reached. There the light is distinctly named as the matter out of which the universe is created, and zrvan, or endless time, is no longer considered an attribute of Ormuzd, but is an independent fundamental being, which pronounces its blessings and joy over the creation which Ormuzd produces. So chapter vii: “The creator Ahura produced these creatures and creation, the archangels and the spirit of wisdom from that which is his own splendour and with the blessings of endless time. For this reason unlimited time is undecaying and immortal, painless and hungerless, thirstless and undisturbed; for ever and ever no one will be able to overpower it or make it not all-over-ruling in his own affairs. And Ahriman, the wicked, counter-created the devas and drugs [demons and fiends] and the rest of the things of corruption.” He made a treaty with Ormuzd for 9000 years, during which things must remain as they are. But after 9000 years Ahriman will be utterly impotent. Srosh, the angel of obedience, will smite Aeshun, the attacking demon. Mithra, the angel of sunlight, and Zrvan Akarana, Time-without-end, and the angel of justice and providence, will smite the creation of Ahriman, and Ahura Mazda will again become undisturbed as in the beginning. Cosmology perhaps, rather than cosmogony, is contained in chapter xliv: Sky, and earth, and water, and what are contained therein are like the egg of a bird. By Ahura Mazda, the creator, the sky is arranged above the earth like an egg, and the semblance of the earth in the midst of the sky is just like the yolk within the egg; the water within the earth and the sky is such as the white of the egg.” This of course must not be understood as a sort of early evolutionary theory; it merely indicates the shape of the universe as conceived by the Persians.

Iranian dualism then was never quite consistent, not even in the Avesta. In the Mainochired it makes indeed an attempt at monism in personifying Zrvan, out of which creation comes, and by which creation is blessed, but the inconsistencies of the system finally brought forth a number of unorthodox sects. Each of these sects solved the problem of unity versus plurality in its own way. Some, as the Gayomarthiya, those indicated in Firdosi’s book of kings, and the author of the Vajarkart, practically believed in an eternal almighty creator of heaven and earth, much in the same sense as Christians do. Ahriman, at first a primeval being coeval with Ormuzd, is transformed into the Parsee equivalent for Satan. Other reached a sort of monism by making either Thwasha (Space) or Zrvan (Time) the origin of all things, even of Ormuzd and Ahriman. That Thwasha was once the head of the Iranian pantheon is perhaps indicated by so early a witness as Herodotus (I, cxxxi), and much later by Damascius. Zrvan, as the source of all things amongst the Persians, is attested by many of the Fathers (Theod. Mops, Moses of Chorene), by Elznik and Elisius. At this point the origin of all things was conceived in various fantastical ways. According to some (Rivajets, Cod. XII), Time created Water and Fire, and when these came together, Ormuzd arose. According to others, Time for 1000 years yearned to bring forth a son, and offered sacrifice for that purpose, but then doubted; Ormuzd was conceived as fruit of the sacrifice, Ahriman as fruit of the doubt—and similar fancies which strongly suggest Indian influence. It is remarkable, however, that Ormuzd remains throughout the foremost and immediate creator of the cosmos or world as it now is, and as far as it is good. It is remarkable also that Iranian cosmogonies are not devoid of a noble ethical strain, however much they may have changed during the course of ages.

INDIAN

These cosmogonies are so manifold and so bewildering in their fantastic variety that only the oldest and most purely Indian can be referred to, and the main outlines indicated. As ethical dualism is the characteristic of Iranian thought, so is idealistic pantheism of the thought of India. In Indian cosmogonies more than elsewhere we have to distinguish between philosophic speculation and popular religion, which each in its way influenced their conception of the origin of the world. The oldest cosmogonies must naturally be sought in the Rig-Veda. The age of these sacred books is largely a matter of controversy, but their origin can be roughly assigned to a date earlier than 1000 B.C. Among the 1028 hymns of the Rig-Veda, none is so famous as cxxix of Book X, of which a translation was given by Max Müller forty years ago. This translation, though metrical, is remarkably literal, and contains the best exposition of ancient Indian thought on this subject. It runs as follows:

Nor Aught nor Naught existed; yon bright sky

Was not, nor heaven’s broad woof outstretched above.

What covered all? what sheltered? what concealed?

Was it the water’s fathomless abyss?

There was not death—yet there was naught immortal.

There was no confine betwixt day and night;

The Only One breathed breathless by itself,

Other than it there nothing since has been.

Darkness there was and all at first was veiled

In gloom profound—an ocean without light—The Germ that still laid covered in the husk

Burst forth, one nature, from the fervent heat.

Then first came Love upon it, the new Spring

Of mind—yea, poets in their hearts discerned,

Pondering, this bond between created things

And uncreated. Comes this spark from the earth

Piercing and all pervading, or from heaven?

Then seeds were sown and mighty powers arose—Nature below and power and Will above—Who knows the secret? Who proclaimed it here?

Whence, whence this manifold creation sprang?

The gods themselves came later into being—Who knows from whence this great creation sprang?

He from whom all this great creation came,

Whether his will created or was mute,

The Most-High Seer that is in highest heaven

He knows it—or perchance even he knows not.”

If, however, we divest this and similar Indian effusions (Rig-V. X, cxc, lxxii) of their poetical garb and set aside the agnostic touch in the last line their cosmogony is philosophically conceived as follows: The first principle of all being is Tad (i.e., the absolutely indefinite That), this unites in itself all spiritual and material elements of the world. Tad is an idea obtained only by absolute abstraction, for it possesses only one quality, viz. that of vitality. From Tad the universe proceeds by evolution. This evolution is introduced by Tapas, i.e., the intensity of self-contemplation or introspection—self-love, one would almost translate. This is the spiritual progress by which Tad for the first time leaves his inaction. Then there arises in Tad, kama, or the desire, the will, the purpose to create. Tad has therefore evolved into a conscious act of the will, that is Manas has begun, thereby Tad has ceased to be unconscious and has completely left his state of inactivity. There further arises, in consequence of Tapas, Ritam, i.e., the highest law or causality. The production of the world through the intelligent will of a personal creator is, at least with regard to the first stages of evolution, unknown to these hymns. Yet a universe without any regular connection of phenomena seemed unthinkable, hence this principle of causality was postulated previous to all cosmic evolution, and in this sense Ritam was the first thing to arise out of Tad previous to the universe. But all Ritam must have its Satyam, or counterpart in actuality. In theistic phraseology this would mean that all creation must have its archetype in the Divine Mind, and that to create is nothing but the realization of this archetype as distinct from God. According to Indian thought the force of their ground principle, will or kama, was not blind activity, but bound by Ritam, or Supreme Law. The world therefore was not the result of chance and thus their philosophers culd establish connection between their spoeculation and popular religion. Now there arose out of Tad the lements of the material world: the moist primeval matter, the space to surround it, and darkness to fill the space. Time was not reckoned among the elements, as in some Iranian cosmogonies; it was but the measure of changing phenomena. material evolutions having so far proceeded, the first cosmic cycle of gods makes its appearance: Aditi and his Adityas. From Aditi, or Infinity, united to Daksha, or Spirit Force, the Adityas take their origin. The highest among them is Varuna (ouranos), the world-creator in popular religion. These work together to bring about the present cosmos. The first things produced by separating the primeval waters is light, then follow darkness, day and night; and thus time begins. By differentiation of the primeval matter, sun, moon, and earth arise; by differentiation of space, the realms of heaven, earth, and ether. Thus:—Tad (intellectual process) = Protoplasm (material process)

Tapas = Darkness

Kama = Place

Manas = Alternation of Time

Ritam = Division of Space

Satyam = Great World Bodies

Another development, or rather another nomenclature for the same cosmological principles, makes Brahma the source of all things. Brahma is Tad, or the impersonal, unconscious All-Soul. This word Brahma, from meaning originally sacred sacrificial food, came to be used for the Supreme being out of which the universe comes and unto which it returns. In later days Atman, or Highest Self, becomes the starting point of Indian cosmogonies.

A curious feature, especially in later cosmogonic ideas, is the power of sacrifice, to which even the evolution of the universe is due; in fact sacrificial food is the very material out of which the world is made. This is brought out in one of the latest hymns of the Rig-Veda (Book X, xc, the so-called Song of Purusha) and often in the Upanishads. Purusha is one more designation of the Supreme Being. On his spiritual side he is often identified with Brahma and Atman, on his material side he is the proto-matter out of which the world is made. Out of Parusha’s mouth proceed Indra and Agni. Indra in popular religion becomes the world-creator, as also Varuna the king. Some references to King Varuna are of singular sublimity (Artharva-Veda, IV, xvi): “If two persons sit together and scheme, King Varuna is there as a third, and knows it. Both this earth here belong to King Varuna and also yonder broad sky, whose boundaries are far away. The oceans are the loins of Varuna, yet he is hidden in a small drop of water. He that should flee beyond the heavens would not be free from King Varuna. King Varuna sees through all that is between heaven and earth and all that is beyond. He has counted the winkings of man’s eyes; the world is in his hands as the dice in the hands of a player.” In the mind of the people, the impersonal abstractions of pantheism became individual and conceived as an intensely personal creator. On the other hand, the most grotesque, and often coarse conceptions arose as to the physical process of the world’s production. As intermediary being, or stages, were mentioned seed, or an egg, or a tree, or the lotus-bud; different animals such as a boar, a fish, a turtle; or sexual intercourse. The most common theory is that of the egg (Chand, br., V, xix): “This all was in the beginning non-existent, only Tad existed, Tad became transformed, it became an egg, this lay there for a year; then it divided itself in two, the two halves of the shell were silver and gold. The Gold is the Heaven, the Silver, the Earth, and what was born is the Sun. “Not infrequent are the incarnations of the deity in animals. Brahmanspati, the personification of the creative power of Brahma, or Prajapati, or Vishnu, became incarnate in a boar or a turtle; and similar fancies. In the Artharva-Veda, especially XIX, 53, 54, another fundamental cosmogonic being or personification enters, which is unknown to the earliest Indian speculations, viz.: Time; it occurs here and there in the Rig-Veda, but in Ath.-Veda, xix, Kala has risen to the first place of all, and even Brahma and Tapas proceed from it. The rise in Kala’s dignity was prepared already in the Upanishads (Maitri-Up., VI, xiv), where Kala and Akala, time and not-time, are two forms of Brahma, after he had produced the world or rather the sun as the first thing in the universe.

PHOENICIAN

Almost all we know of Phoenician cosmogonies is derived from a late source, Philo Byblios (born A.D. 42), transmitted to us by Eusebius in his “Praeparatio Evangelica.” Philo, however, only claimed to have translated a late copy of an ancient Phoenician author called Sanchoniathon. This statement, though believed by Eusebius and by Porphyrius before him (De abst., II, 56) is rejected as a literary fraud by many modern, especially German, scholars. Philo is supposed to have pretended to use an extremely ancient source merely to bolster up his theory that all mythology was deified ancient history. The great controversy that has raged round the name of Sanchoniathon cannot be gone into, but in reading this cosmogony it must throughout be borne in mind that, instead of being the exposition of very early Canaanitish ideas, it may possibly be a manipulated account of that cosmopolitan mixture of ideas which was current in Syria about A.D. 100. The beginning of all things, according to this account, was air moved by a breath of wind and dark chaos black as Erebus. This windy chaos was eternal, infinite. But when this breath yearned over its own elements, and confusion arose, this was called Desire. This Desire was the origin of all creation, and though it knew not its own creation, out of its self-embrace arose Mot, a slimy or watery substance out of which all created germs were produced. Animal life without sensation came first; out of this came being endowed with intelligence which were called Zophesamin, “overseers of heaven.” Mot had a shape like that of an egg, out of which came forth sun, moon, and stars. The air being thus illumined, owing to the glow of the sea and land, winds were formed, and clouds and an vast downpour of the heavenly waters took place. By the heat of the sun, things were made to split off from one another and, being projected on high, clashed with one another, caused thunder and lightning, and thus awoke the above-mentioned intelligent beings, who took fright and began to stir on the earth, and in the sea as males and females. Not unlike this is the cosmogony given by Damscius on the authority of Eudemos. Before all things was Time, then Desire, then Darkness. Out of the union of Desire and Darkness was born Air (masc.) and Breath (fem.), Air representing pure thought, and Breath the prototype of life proceeding therefrom by motion. Out of Air and Breath came forth the cosmic egg. According to the cosmogony given by the same writer on the authority of Mochos, Ether and Air generated Oulomos (world-time, sæculum), Chousoros (artificer, creative energy), and the cosmic egg; and Damscius expressly states that, according to the Phoenicians, world-time is the first principle containing all in itself. The origin of mankind is described as the birth of Æon and Protogonos from the wind Colpias and the woman Baau, (said to mean “night”).

GREEK

The cosmogonies are far too numerous and divergent to allow one simple description embracing all. Only some prominent cosmogonies can be indicated, and some of the points common to all. Homer seems to have taken the universe as he found it without inquiring further, but from Iliad XIV, verse 201, one gathers that Oceanus is origin, and Thetys mother of all; from verse 244 that Nyx (Night) has power even over Oceanus; hence Darkness, Water, and Motherhood seem the three stages of his cosmogony. The fragments of Orphic cosmogonies given by Eudemos, and Plato, and Lydus do not quite agree, but at least Night, Oceanus, and Thetys are elementary beings, and the first of them in order of existence was probably Night. A more detailed cosmogony of great antiquity is to be found in Hesiod’s “Theogony” (about 800 B.C.) in verses 160 sqq., which C. A. Elton translated as follows:—“First Chaos was, then ample-bosomed Earth,

The sea immovable for evermore

Of those immortals who the snow-topped heights

Inhabit of Olympus, or the gloom

Of Tartarus, in the broad-tracked ground’s abyss.

Love then arose, most beautiful amongst

The deathless deities; restless, he

Of every god and every mortal man

Unnerves the limbs; dissolves the wiser breast

By reason steeled and quells the very soul.

From Chaos, Erebos, and ebon Night;

From Night the Day sprang forth and shining air

Whom to the love of Erebos she gave.

Earth first produced the heaven and all the stars,

She brought the lofty mountains forth,

And next the sea . . . Then, with Heaven

Consorting, Ocean from her bosom burst

With its deep eddying waters.”

Chaos, then, is the starting-point of Hesiod’s cosmogony. Chaos, however, must probably not be understood as “primeval matter” without harmony and order, but rather as the “empty void” or “place in the abstract.” To Hesiod chaos cannot have lost its original meaning (from cha in chasko; chasma “chasm,” etc). Hesiod, then, starts at infinite space; other Greeks take time, or chronos as a starting point. The cosmogony of Pherecydes (544 B.C.) claims a high place among Greek theories as to the origin of the world, because of the prominence given to Zeus, a personal spiritual being, as the origin of all things. Zeus and Chronos and Chthonia have always been and are the three first beginnings; but the One I would consider before the Two, and the Two after the One. Then Chronos produced himself out of fire, air, and water, these I take to be the Three Logical Elements and out of them arose a numerous progeny of gods divided into five parts or a pentecosmos. Pherecydes’ cosmogony has come down to us in some other slightly modified forms but Zeus is ever at the head. He seems also to have known of a primeval battle between Chronos and Ophioneus, but how it fills in with his cosmogony we know not. Chthonia seems to be the moist Proto-matter, neither dry earth nor sea, out of which Ge, or the earth, is created. The stages of his cosmogony are therefore God, Time, Matter—all three first principles, yet God is in some sense first; God, when feeling a desire to create, changes himself into love so that he can bring forth a Cosmos, i. e, a well-ordered world, out of contraries, bringing its elements into agreement and friendship. A noble idea, truly, only falling short of the Christian idea in conceiving time and matter as eternal, Zeus thus being maker or fashioner, not creator, of heaven and earth.

A cosmogony of almost the same date is that of Epimenides, which seems in flat contradiction to that of Pherecydes, for it postulates two first principles not originating from Unity: Air and Night. Out of these arise Tartarus etc. Later Orphic chronologies begin some with Chronos, others with Water and Earth, some with Apeiros Hyle. In the last stage of the Greek cosmogony the egg plays an important part, either as evolutionary stage, as embryonic state of the earth, or merely to indicate the shape of the Cosmos.

We possess no ancient Etruscan or Latin cosmogonies, but it is certain that the god Janus was a cosmogonic deity; though Jupiter was summus, the highest god, Janus was primus, the first of the gods, and as such he received sacrifice before even Jupiter. This ancient reminiscence of Janus as creator is made use of in Ovid’s “Metamorphoses,” but in how far so late a writer represents early speculations we know not. Janus is perhaps the Latin equivalent of the Greek Chaos as the origin of all things. Janus is said to be not only initium mundi, but mundus itself, the all-embracing.

SUMMARY OF ANCIENT COSMOGONIES

Common to all is the effort to explain the origin of the world by as few elementary beings as possible. In order to arrive at the origin of all things, man began by abstraction from the actual differentiation of being which he saw around him to obtain some simple element underlying all. Mere abstractions, however, or reduction from the compound to the simple, did not suffice, but some intelligent causality was demanded by the intellect of man. Hence personification plays a great rôle in every cosmogony, and the actual function of creating, or rather forming and arranging the world as it now is, is ascribed to one intelligent personality; every people worshipped some deity, be he then Marduk or Varuna, or Bel or Ahura-Mazda, or Zeus or Janus. No ancient cosmogony, however, rose to the pure concept of creation out of nothing by an infinite spirit; for none succeeded in eliminating matter or its phenomena all together, and conceiving a subsistent Intelligence which could create both matter and spirit. The first steps in this process of abstraction are simple enough and common to most cosmogonies; once upon a time there were no men or beasts, nor plants; no stars nor sky, no mountains or valleys, and neither dry land nor sea. Then only proto-matter remained. Some cosmogonies stopped here and were frankly materialistic; it probably depended on climate surroundings what they conceived the proto-matter to be, whether clay or water, or air, or fire, or light (conceived as substances). Other cosmogonies carried the process of abstraction farther. The variations between light and darkness, day and night, season and season cannot always have been, hence these also were abstracted from; naught therefore remained except Darkness, Night, and Eternity. By thinking away all special localities in the universe, only Place remained in the abstract, or the Void. By thinking away all differences in the mental and spiritual sphere naught remained but force in general. Force, Place, Time, and Darkness became personified cosmogonic elements. Some were able to abstract even from Force; to them, only Place, Time, and Darkness remained. Some rightly argued that Time was but the measure of phenomena, and that by abstracting from phenomena, Time ceased to be. To them only Space and Darkness remained; but then Darkness was conceived as the fluid filling the vessel of Space, and therefore could be extracted from, and only the Void remained. All these ideas actually occur in different cosmogonies. Chaos is empty space; Chronos, Zrvan, Heh, abstract time; Nux, the unchangeable quintessence of time; Zeus, Tad, Ahura Mazda, Thot are spirit forces. Those cosmogonies which do not go so far as to personify space or time or darkness, but stopped short at the idea of some proto-substance, were faced by the problem whether this primeval substance was spirit, or matter, or both. Some answered, both, as the Egyptians (Nun) and later Indians (Purusha); some answered that spirit was first, as some Babylonian thinkers (Anu) most Indian thinkers (Tad, Brahma, Atman), and the Iranians (Ahura, Ahriman); some answered that matter was first, as Babylonians (Apsu Tiamat), Persians, and Egyptians (Light, Râ), Phoenicians (Air), Etruscans (Æther). Thus ancient thought wandered through the whole range of possible theories, not, however, guided by mere caprice, but forced to some conclusion which seemed to them inevitable. With regard to the immediate process according to which this world was produced, freer scope was given to unbridled fancy. Yet even here the analogy with the production of life in nature was the guiding principle, the world was produced as life comes from life by animal generation, or as the tree comes out of the seed, or as the egg is laid by the bird. These imaginations are often combined in a grotesque ensemble, against the complexity of which appear in greater relief the majesty and simplicity of the words: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

COSMOGONIES OF MORE MODERN RACES

Amongst more modern myths of the world’s origin the Norse and the American cosmogonies call for comment.

THE NORSE COSMOGONIES

The Norse Cosmogonies are the only remnant of ancient German ideas on this subject, for the so-called “Prayer of Wessobrunn,” a fragment ascribed to the eighth or ninth century, is too short to give us any information beyond the belief in the existence of one almighty god, and with him a multitude of divine spirits, before the world was. It is, moreover, uncertain whether the Wessobrunner fragment represents pure Germanic thought uninfluenced by Christianity. The Norse cosmogonies are contained in the Edda; the more ancient one in the Volupsa of the Poetic Edda, the younger one in the Gylfaginning of the Prose Edda. It is sometimes said that these cosmogonies so clearly betray the influence of arctic climate that they can in no sense belong to the Southern Germans. This, however, is unconvincing, as it is unknown where precisely the Germans lived previous to their immigration into Europe, and what was the climate of Northern Europe and Asia when these sagas first grew up. In the third verse of “The Sybil’s Song,” of Volupsa, the cosmogony begins:—There was a time when only Ymir was,

Nor sand, nor sea, nor briny waves,

Nay earth existed not, nor heavens above.

A yawning space without a spot of green

Until the vaults were raised of all

By Buri’s sons creating noble Midgard.

Then shone the Southern Sun on stony mountains,

And from the very soil the herbs were sprouting.

And yet the Southern Sun, the helpmate of the Moon,

Bridled heaven’s steeds with her right hand,

For it was unknown as yet where she should dwell,

Nor knew the moon the power he possessed,

The Stars were ignorant of their abode.

Then went the Powers all to sit in Judgment

The all-holy gods held thereupon their council,

To Night and to the waning moon gave names.

They gave to Morn and Noon their calling

To Afternoon and Eve, whereby to reckon years.

The Sybil further chants how Aesir met on Ida’s plane, built altars and temples, lit the blazing furnace, and forged their tools. The creation of dwarves is then related in detail, and finally the creation of man. Three Aesir, great and kind, went to the world and found in utter weakness Ask and Embla, the first human pair. Spirits they possessed, but sense had none; No blood, nor strength to move, not goodly colour.Life gave Oden, Sense gave Hoenir, Blood gave Lodur and goodly colour. This cosmogony is explained, enlarged, and slightly modified in the Gylfaginning, of Gylfa’s deception. The lengthy account can be summed up as follows:

There are three stages of development: (a) the rise of the three fundamental beings in times primeval, Muspelheim or the southern realm of Light; Niflheim or the northern realm of Darkness, and between them the Ginnunga Gap, or yawning cleft. Muspelheim existed first, and Niflheim is secondary in the order of being, but how either arose the cosmogony does not explain. In the northern realm there existed a well, called Hwergelmir, from which proceeded twelve torments, called together Elivagar, or ice stream. This stream, flowing into the Ginnunga Gap formed the cosmogonic being Ymir. At first this was a lifeless mass, but this mass develops under the influence of Adhumla, represented as a cow licking the ice, being a figure for the Thawing Warmth.(b) Out of Ymir, the Frost Giants, or Hrimturses, arise, and the fundamental gods; out of Adhumka arose Odin, Vili, and Ve; or Odin, Vili, and Ve were the sons of Bör, who married Bestla, daughter of the Frost Giant Bölthorn. (c) Odin, Vili, and Ve slay the monster Ymir, throw his body into the Ginnunga Gap, and out of his limbs form the visible universe, or the Midgard, out of his skull the vault of heaven, out of his brains, the clouds, out of his blood, the seas, and so on. Then they build the Burgh of the gods, Asgard; they order the course of the stars and create the Dwarfs. Lastly, the first man and woman are created, Ask and Embla, whom Odin found as weak and miserable being on the seashore.

These Norse cosmogonies differ from the more ancient cosmogonies in this: that they do not really go back to the first beginning of all things, but presuppose the existence of a twofold world—one South the other North—and only account for the formation of this present world in the space between both. They agree with most other cosmogonies in ascribing the actual formation of this cosmos to one (Odin) or more (Odin, with Vili and Ve as destroyers of Chaos) intelligent personal beings or gods.

AMERICAN COSMOGONIES

American Cosmogonies have been preserved in fair number. The early missionaries to America, especially those to Mexico, Central America, and South America were strongly impressed by the monotheistic character of Indian speculations, ascribing this world and its phenomena to one omnipresent spiritual being, called in one place the “Great Spirit,” in another place Viracocha, in another Hunabku, elsewhere Quetzacoatl, etc. Yet, concurrently with these true religions and philosophic ideas, there existed a number of apparently puerile traditions concerning the beginning of things. But again these childish fancies were but the clothing of general cosmogonic ideas. According to the Ottawas and other northern Algonquins, a raft was floating on the shoreless waters. Upon this raft were a number of animals with Michabo, the Giant Rabbit, as their chief. As they were without land to live on, Michabo, the Giant Rabbit, made first the beaver, and then the otter, that they should dive and bring up a piece of mud. As they failed, Wajashk, the female muskrat, at her own request is allowed to dive. When she had remained below for a day and a night, she floated to the surface as dead, but they found in one of her claws a little clod of mud. Michabo, endowed with creative power, kneads this little bit of soil until he makes it grow into an island, a mountain, a country, nay this world in which we live. He shoots his arrows in the ground and transfixes them with other arrows, thus creating trees with stems and branches. Some say he created man from the dead bodies of certain animals, others that he married the muskrat and thus begat the ancestors of the human race. It has been suggested that in the name “Michabo,” there lies concealed another word, viz. “Michi Waban,” the great Dawn, or the great East. The word, Wajashk, likewise, probably contains the word “Ajishki,” or mud. The story would then mean: When the great light in the east shone upon the primeval waters, dry land in ever-increasing extent appeared above the surface, and the rays of the sun, piercing the soil, brought forth the trees, and the action of the light on the slime brought forth man.

Closely similar to this cosmogony is that of the Iroquois. In the beginning the heavens above were peopled with celestial beings, and the wide ocean below with monsters of the deep. Then Ataensic, a divine being, fell through a rift ion the sky into the primeval waters. The turtle offered her his back as a resting place. Then some animal brought her a little clay, out of which she produced dry land. Ataensic gave birth to a daughter who, though a virgin, gave birth to twins, Tawiscara and Joskeha. This daughter having died in childbirth, the daughter, being buried, imparts fertility to the soil. A mortal battle is raged between the two brothers, Joskeha, the good, and Tawiscara, the evil one. The latter is overcome, flies to the West, and becomes the god of the dead. Joskeha creates first the animals and then man. Ataensic is said to mean “She-who-is-in-the-water,” i.e., the dry land in the midst of the ocean; Joskeha is the growing light or dawn, Tawiscara, the growing twilight, or darkness. The Quiche of Guatemala have left us in their sacred book, “Popol Vuh” the most detailed cosmogony of central America. The universe consisted of the endless ocean and the twilight brooding over it. Then the creator took counsel with his helpmate to produce the world. Though described as pair of gods, male and female, this pair is conceived of as a unity of being, male and female being but different aspects of the Deity. This creator is called by every conceivable name, even with names proper to other deities. Thus he is called Heart of the Universe, which is a special title of the god Hurakan, or of Gukumatz, the feathered serpent. He is evidently conceived of as the All-in-one, as Hunabku, from whom men and gods descend. This Creator uttered the word Earth, and the land began to rise out of the waters. As often as God called a thing so often it entered into reality. Then God takes counsel with the lesser gods who, apparently, he has meanwhile created, how to fashion man. They first created him out of clay, then of wood, and finally out of maize. The first two attempts failed, the third succeeded. The monkeys are the surviving remnants of the second unsuccessful endeavor.

Very weird are the cosmogonies of the ancient Mexicans. They are characterized by the strong influence of dualism, the universe being in the throes of a perpetual contest of good and evil. The infinite deity has four sons, the black and the red Tezcatlipoca, and Quetzalcoatl, and Huitzilopochtli. These four brothers consulted together about the creation of things. The actual work fell to the lot of Quetzalcoatl and Huitzilopochtli. They made fire, then half the sun, the heavens, and the waters, and a certain great fish therein with the name Cipactli. From its flesh was formed the solid earth and the first man and woman, Cipactonal and Oxomuco. The half-sun created by Quetzalcoatl lighted the world but poorly, and the four gods consulted once more to add another half to it. Tezcatlipoca did not wait for their decision, but transformed himself into the sun. But after thirteen times fifty-two years, Quetzalcoatl seized a great stick, and with a blow knocked Tezcatlipoca from the sky into the waters, and became the sun himself. Four times the earth was destroyed in this struggle. Quetzalcoatl is at present triumphant, but Tezcatlipoca is only biding his time. This cosmogonic episode of war between brothers runs through other North American accounts as, e.g., Tawiscara and Joskeha amongst the Iroquois, and is prominent in the Egyptian cosmogony.

The noblest account of the world’s origin was found amongst the Maya of Yucatan, who ascribed all to an immaterial, invisible god, Hunabku, father of Itzamna, the personification of the heavenly fire. Similarly, the ancient Aymara ascribed all to Viracocha (Foam-of-the-sea—the colour white, the Spaniards, as white-skins, being called viracochas). This Viracocha, or white one, was the creator and possessor of all things. All things were his, and he was everywhere, the Incas built him no temples. Ere son or moon was made, he rose from the bosom of the lake Titicaca and presided over the building of the ancient cities. He created the luminaries and placed them in the sky, and peopled the earth with inhabitants. But, journeying from the lake westward, he was attacked by the creatures he had made. Scorning the contest with the work of his own hands, he only hurled lightning over hillside and forest, and when his creatures repented he became reconciled and taught them all things. Viracocha was the divine light, symbolized by, but not identical with, the sun. One can hardly refrain from a comparison with Khu-n-Aten, the solar disk of Amenhotep’s foreign worship introduced into Egypt some three thousand years before the religious revival of the Incas of Peru.

Lukas, Die grundideen in den Kosmogonien der alten Völker (1893); Lagrange, Etudes sur les religions sémitiques (2d ed., Paris, 1905), 366–441; Von Orelli, Algem. Religionsgeschichte (Bonn, 1899); Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (Leipzig, 1891); Darmestetter, Ormuzd et Ahriman (Paris, 1877); Hopkins, The Religions of India, (Boston, 1895); Windelband, History of Ancient Philosophy, (tr. London, 1900); Meyer, Die eddische Kosmogonie (Freiburg im Br., 1891); Idem, Mythologie der Germanen (Strasburg, 1903); Häbler, Religion d. mittl. Amerika (Münster, 1899); Brinton, Religions of Prim. Peoples (Philadelphia, 1897); Idem, American Hero Myths, (Philadelphia, 1892); Idem, Myths of the New World, 1868).

J.P. ARENDZEN

Cosmology

ORIGIN OF COSMOLOGY

METHOD

DIVISION OF COSMOLOGY

The first cause of the material universe

The constituent causes of the world

The final cause of the material universe

From its Greek etymology (kósmos world; lógos, knowledge or science) the word cosmology means the science of the world. It ought, therefore, to include in its scope the study of the whole material universe: that is to say, of inorganic substances, of plants, of animals, and of man himself. But, as a matter of fact, the wide range indicated by the etymology of the word has been narrowed in the actual meaning. In our day cosmology is a branch of philosophical study, and therefore excludes from its investigation whatever forms the object of the natural sciences. While the sciences of physics and biology seek the proximate causes of corporal phenomena, the laws that govern them, and the wonderful harmony resulting therefrom, cosmology aims to discover the deeper and remoter causes which neither observation nor experiment immediately reveals. This special purpose restricts in many ways the field of cosmology. There is another limitation not less important. Man’s unique position in the universe makes him the object of a special philosophical study, viz. psychology, or anthropology; and, in consequence, that portion of the corporeal world with which these sciences deal has been cut off from the domain of cosmology properly so called.

There is a tendency at present to restrict the field still further; and limit it to what is known as inorganic creation. Psychology being by its very definition the study of human fife considered in its first principle and in the totality of its phenomena, its investigations ought to comprise, it would seem, the threefold life of man, vegetative, animal, and rational. And, indeed, the inter-dependence of these three lives in the one living human being appears to justify the enlargement demanded nowadays by many authors of note for the psychological field. Hence for those who accept this view, cosmology has nothing to do with organic life but is reduced to “a philosophical study of the inorganic world.” Such, in our opinion, is the best definition that can be given. At the same time it should be remarked that many philosophers still favour a broader definition, which would include not only the mineral kingdom but also living things considered in a general way. In German-speaking countries cosmology, as a rule, is known as Naturphilosophie, i.e. philosophy of nature.

Under this name, philosophers usually understand a study of the universe along the lines of one of the foregoing definitions. Scientists, on the other hand, give a more scientific turn to this philosophy of nature, transforming it into a sort of general physics with an occasional excursion into the realm of sensitive and intellectual life. A notable instance is the work of Prof. Ostwald, “Vorlesungen über Naturphilosophie” (Leipzig, 1902).

The word itself is of recent origin. It was first used by Wolff when, in 1730, he entitled one of his works “Cosmologia Generalis” (Frankfort and Leipzig). In this treatise the author studies especially the laws of motion, the relations that exist among things in nature, the contingency of the universe, the harmony of nature, the necessity of postulating a God to explain the origin of the cosmos and its manifestation of purpose. Because of the advance the natural sciences were then making, Wolff omitted from his philosophic study of nature the purely scientific portion which till then had been closely allied with it. The cosmology of the ancients and especially of Aristotle was simply a branch of physics. The “Physics” of Aristotle treats of corporeal beings in as far as they are subject to motion. The work is divided into two parts:

General physics, which embraces the general principles governing corporeal being. It treats of local motion and its various kinds; the origin of substantial compounds; changes in quality; changes in quantity by increase and decrease; and changes arising from motion in place, on which Aristotle hinges our notions of the infinite, of time, and of space.

Special physics which deals with the various classes of beings: terrestrial bodies, celestial bodies, and man.

It is the first part of this work that comes nearest to what we mean by cosmology. The Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, as a rule, follow the path marked out for them by Aristotle. Cosmological subjects, properly so called, have no reserved place in philosophical study, and are generally treated as a part of physics. In our own time, philosophers employ the words “cosmology” and “philosophy of nature” to designate the philosophic study of the corporeal world.

Cosmology is the natural complement of the special sciences. It begins where they leave off, and its domain is quite distinct from theirs. The scientist determines the immediate cause of the phenomena observed in the mineral or the organic world: he formulates their laws, and builds these into a synthesis with the help of certain general theories, such as those of light, of heat, and of electricity. The cosmologist, on the other hand, seeks the ultimate causes, not off this or that class of beings or of phenomena, but of the whole material universe. He inquires into the constituent nature of corporeal beings, their destiny, and their first cause. It is clear that these larger problems are quite beyond the range and purpose of the various sciences, each of which is by its method confined to its own particular subject. Nevertheless, cosmology must borrow, and borrow largely, from the data of science, since the causes which it studies are not directly perceptible; they can be known only through phenomena which are their more or less faithful manifestations. It is on these that cosmology must rest in order to pass upward from cause to cause till the ultimate cause is reached. Since, then, it is the role of the natural sciences to analyze and classify the properties and phenomena of nature, cosmology is obliged to draw very freely upon those sciences and to neglect none of their definitive results. In a word, the cosmological method is essentially a posteriori. Descartes and his school followed a different, even an opposite, course. Being a mathematician above all else, he applies to cosmology the principles of mathematics, and as mathematics sets out from the simplest propositions and travels along the road of deduction to the most complex truths, so Descartes, starting from extension as the primordial and universal property of matter, in fact its very essence, ends by ascribing to all bodies in nature whatever extension implies and by eliminating from them whatever it excludes. This a priori method, being essentially deductive is anti-scientific; and is based, moreover, on a false supposition, since extension is only one of the many properties of matter, not its essence. As Leibniz pointed out, extension presupposes something extended, just as a repetition presupposes something to be repeated. Philosophers, therefore, have almost entirely abandoned this method; with the exception perhaps of the Idealistic Pantheists of whom we shall speak presently.

Cosmology, as most philosophers understand it, has a threefold problem to solve: Whence this corporeal world? What is it? Why is it? Hence its three parts, concerned respectively with

the primordial efficient cause of the cosmos;

its actual constituent causes;

its final cause.

THE FIRST CAUSE OF THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE

Geology, go back as it may and as far as it may in the scientific history of the earth, must ever remain face to face with a fact that calls for explanation, viz. the existence of matter itself. Even if it could decisively prove Laplace’s hypothesis, according to which all portions of this universe, earth, sun, and the whole stellar system, originally made up a single nebular class, there would still remain the very reasonable question, whence came this mass and what was its origin? Now this is precisely the question cosmology asks; and in seeking the answer it has riven rise to many systems which can always be brought under one of the following headings:

(a) Monism;

(b) the theory of Transitive Emanation;

(c) Creationism.

(a) Monism

The Monist theory is that all beings in the world are but one and the same necessary and eternal substance having within itself the sufficient reason of its existence; while the seeming diversity of things and their attributes, are but the various manifestations and evolutions of this single substance. Pantheism identifies the world with the Divine Being. This Being is ceaselessly in process of evolution; which, however, in no wise disturbs the universal identity of things. The Pantheist is either an Idealist or a Realist according to the view he takes of the nature and character of the original substance. If that substance is real he is styled a Realist, and such were Erigena, Amalric, David of Dinant, Giordano Bruno, and Spinoza. But if the original substance is something ideal, e.g. the Ego, the Absolute, the Concept, he is styled an idealist, and such were Hegel, Schelling, and Fichte. Kraus and Tiberghien support the Pantheistic view: God is in the world and the world is in God, although they are not identical. Schopenhauer devised a form of Pantheism which is known as Panthelism. According to his view the motive force of the whole universe is a single blind will. Hartmann goes a step farther and says the world is but the constant evolution of the unconscious: hence the name Panhylism. Modern Materialists, such as Büchner, Häckel, Baruch, as well as the old Greek Atomists, Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus, consider all the activities of the universe as so many purely material phenomena arising from one necessary and eternal substance. Lastly, according to the supporters of the Immanent Emanation theory, the Divine Being develops within itself so that it is continually identifying itself with the beings it evolves, or that come forth from it, just as the grub maintains its substantial identity throughout its transformation into chrysalis and butterfly. It is clear that such a theory hardly differs from Pantheism

(b) Transitive Emanation

In the Transitive Emanation theory all beings issue from the Divine Substance much in the same way as new fruits appear on the parent tree without changing its substance and without diminishing its productive power.

(c) Creationism

Creationism is the view held by the generality of spiritualistic philosophers. The universe through its endless transformations reveals its contingency: that is to say, its existence is not a necessity: therefore it must have received its existence from some other being. This first cause must be a necessary and independent one, unless we admit an infinite series of dependent causes and so leave unsolved the problem of the world’s existence. God has, therefore, drawn all things from nothingness by the free act of His Almighty Will; in a word, He has made them out of nothing, since any other explanation, e.g. Emanationism, which implies a real intrinsic change in God, is incompatible with the immutability, necessity, and absolute perfection of the Divine Being.

THE CONSTITUENT CAUSES OF THE WORLD

The composition of corporeal beings is also the subject of much discussion. There are actually four systems of note, each promising to solve this delicate problem: Mechanism; Hylomorphism (the Scholastic system); Dynamic Atomism; and Dynamism proper.

(a) Mechanism

The characteristic tendency of Mechanism, i.e. of the mechanical theory, is to disregard all qualitative difference in natural phenomena and to emphasize their quantitative differences. That is to say, in this system the constituent matter of all corporeal beings is everywhere the same and is essentially homogeneous; all the forces animating it are of the same nature; they are simply modes of local motion. Furthermore, there is no internal principle of finality; in the world everything is determined by mechanical laws. To explain all cosmic phenomena, nothing is needed but mass and motion; so that all the differences observable between corporeal beings are merely differences in the amount of matter and motion. Mechanism appeals especially to the law of the correlation of forces in nature and of the mechanical equivalent of heat. Heat, we know, does work; but it consumes itself in proportion to its own activity. In like manner mechanical causes produce heat and grow weaker in proportion to the intensity of their effect. So it is with all corporeal energy; one form may be substituted for another, but the quantity of the new force will be always equivalent to the quantity of the force that has disappeared. Having in this way identified mechanical force with motion, the holders of this theory felt authorized to unify all forces and reduce them to local motion; and it was then an easy step to consider substance as homogeneous since its only use is to serve as a background for phenomena. Other arguments are drawn from chemistry, especially from the facts of isomerism, polymerism, and allotropism.

The mechanical theory is of ancient origin. Amongst its earliest partisans were Thales, Anaximander, and Heraclitus, whose chief concern was to prove the derivation of the world from one simple primitive substance. Empedocles, however, held out for four elements—air, earth, water, fire. But Democritus, and later Epicurus, suppressed this distinction between the elements, proclaimed the essential homogeneity of matter, and referred the variety of natural phenomena to differences of motion. After the time of Epicurus (270 B.C.), this system disappeared from philosophical thought for eighteen centuries. Restored by Descartes it soon won the favour of most scientists, and it is still dominant in scientific research. The Cartesian philosophy was a restatement of the two basic principles of the old theory, the homogeneity of nature and the reduction of all forces to terms of motion; but it got new vigour by contact with the natural sciences, especially physics and chemistry; hence the name Atomism (q.v.) by which it is usually known. It should, however, be noted that there are two Atomisms, the one purely chemical, the other philosophical. According to the former all simple bodies are made up of atoms, i.e. of particles so small that no chemical force known to us can divide them, but which have all the properties of visible bodies. Atoms form groups of two or four or sometimes more; these small tenacious groups, known as chemical molecules coalesce in physical molecules, and from these in turn are built up the material bodies we see around us. The material body thus results from a progressive aggregation of molecules, and the very smallest portion of it that is endowed with the properties of the compound contains many atoms of various species, since by definition the compound results from the union of numerous elements. On this atomic theory, independent as such of all philosophical systems, was grafted during the last century that philosophical Atomism which, while ascribing to all atoms the same nature, differentiates them only by varying amounts of mass and motion.

(b) Dynamism

Another explanation of the material world is offered by Dynamism. If Mechanism attributes extension to matter and complete passivity to corporeal substances, Dynamism sees in the world only simple forces, unextended, yet essentially active. There is nothing strange in the antithesis of these two systems. The Dynamism of Leibniz—it was he who propounded it—was but a reaction against the Mechanism of Descartes. To these two matrix-ideas of unextended, active forces the majority of Dynamists add the principle of actio in distans. They soon found out that points without extension can touch only by completely merging the one with the other, and on their own hypothesis the points in contact would amount to nothing more than a mathematical point which could never give us even the illusion of apparent extension. To avoid this pitfall, the Dynamists bethought them of considering all bodies as aggregates of force unextended indeed but separated by intervals from one another. Conceived by Leibniz, who held the monads to be dowered with all immanent activity, this system has been amended and modernized by Father Boscovich, Kant, Father Palmieri, Father Carbonelle, Hirn, and Father Leroy. On the whole it has found few supporters; scientists as a rule prefer the mechanical view. It would seem, however, that a reaction towards it has set in since the discovery of the radioactivity of matter. The property manifested by a considerable number of bodies of emitting at ordinary temperatures a seemingly inexhaustible quantity of electric rays suggests the idea that matter is a focus of energy which tends to diffuse itself in space. But in point of fact there are only two arguments in favour of Dynamism. One is drawn from the difficulties of grasping the concept of extension; the other from the fact that all we know of matter comes to us through its action on our organs of sense; hence the inference that force is the only thing existing apart from ourselves.

(c) Hylomorphism

Between these two extremes stands the Scholastic theory, known as Hylomorphism, or theory of matter and form (húle, matter; morphé, form), also as the Aristotelean theory, and later as the Thomistic theory from the name of its principal defender in the Middle Ages. Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), who was its author, gave it a large place in his treatises on physics and on metaphysics. It was discussed during centuries in the Peripatetic and neo-Platonic schools and in the schools of Constantinople and Athens; but from the sixth century to the twelfth, though its essential principles survived, it was an insignificant factor in philosophic thought. An exception, however, must be made in favour of Avicenna in the East (980–1037) and of Averroes in Spain (1126–1198), both famous commentators on the Aristotelean encyclopedia. In the thirteenth century, the Golden Age of Scholasticism, the system was restored, thanks to a number of Latin translations, and its long-forgotten treasures were brought to light by daring prospectors, such as Alexander of Hales, St. Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, and Henry of Ghent. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the cosmological theory, and indeed the whole Scholastic system, suffered a decline which lasted till the nineteenth century, though during the interval it found ardent supporters in some of the religious orders. The restoration movement began about the middle of the nineteenth century with the works of Kleutgen (1811–1883); Sanseverino (1811–1865), and Liberatore (1810–1892); but it was especially owing to the impulse given it by the famous Encyclical of Leo XIII, “Æterni Patris” (1879), that Scholasticism regained its place of honour beside the great modern systems.

The Scholastic theory can be summed up in the following propositions:

Bodies both elementary and compound have an essential unity; they differ specifically, and are by their very nature extended;

they possess powers or energies both passive and active which spring from their substantial nature and are inseparable from it;

they have an immanent tendency toward certain special ends to be realized by the exercise of their native energies.

The basic principle of this cosmology is that of immanent finality. The corporeal world is a masterpiece of order and harmony. In spite of ceaseless transformations, every species of body, simple and composite alike, reappears again and again with its characteristic properties to further the well-being of the individual and of the universe as a whole. Now this constant and harmonious co-operation of innumerable causes acting under conditions the most diverse can only be explained, say the Scholastics, by admitting in the material agents themselves fixed and permanent principles of order. The universe must therefore be composed of specific natures, i.e. of beings which by their constitution and properties are really adapted to the ends they have to attain. Substance and its distinctive energies form a whole which is completely subordinated to its appointed destiny; so that if serious alterations, such as chemical combinations, succeed in affecting these properties and in marring the harmony that ought to exist between them and their substantial base, the being so affected must put on a new nature in harmony with its new state. There takes place, in other words, what the Scholastics call a substantial transformation. But this implies that an essential portion of the original being must persist throughout the change, and be carried over into the final result, otherwise transformation would involve the annihilation of the first being and the production of the second out of nothing. On the other hand, if we hold that during the process the being in question does not lose its own specific difference in exchange for another, it would be illogical to speak of a transformation, since a change which preserves the substantial integrity of the being can never have as its result the production of a new being. All bodies, then, that are subject to such a change must contain, in spite of their unity, two constituent principles. The one is a specifying or determining principle whence spring the actuality and distinguishing marks of the body itself; and it is this principle which is born and dies at every step in the deeper transformations of matter. It is called substantial form. The other, the indeterminate complement of this, is the substratum which receives the various essential forms; and it is called first matter. These are the fundamental ideas in the Scholastic theory. As a system it is not at every point the direct antithesis of the two other systems outlined above. It is true that, while Mechanism claims that the properties of bodies are nothing but local motion, the Scholastics admit the existence of qualities properly so called in all bodies, i.e. accidental determinations, fixed and destined for action. These properties are generated with the new substance; they cling to it indissolubly during its existence and they are its natural manifestation. But, on the other hand, the Scholastics concede to the mechanical theory that local motion plays a large part in the world, that it is the accompaniment and the measure of every exertion of material force. Hence they give Mechanism credit for assigning a quantitative value to the phenomena of nature by measuring the movement proportionate to each; while, on their side, they explain the activity at work in each case by taking into account the qualitative elements as well as the kinetic. Again, with the mechanical theory the Scholastic recognizes in every corporeal being an essential principle of passivity, of inertia, divisibility, and extension—in a word, of all the properties so highly prized by Mechanism; this principle is first matter. But the Scholastic theory adds a substantial form, i.e. a determining principle and a root-cause of the activities and peculiar tendencies displayed by each individual body.

A similar partial agreement exists between Scholasticism and Dynamism. In the hylomorphic constitution of bodies the dynamic element has a preponderating role, represented by the substantial form; but since the corporeal being does not appear to be a source of energy pure and simple, the dynamic element is joined with first matter, of which passivity and extension are the natural outcome.

(d) Dynamic Atomism

A fourth and last system is called Dynamic Atomism. The only real difference between it and Mechanism lies in the fact that it attributes to bodies forces distinct from local motion; but at the same time it maintains that they are purely mechanical forces. Matter, it asserts, is homogeneous and the atom incapable of transformation. This theory, proposed by Martin and Tongiorgi, and upheld nowadays by certain scientists, is a transition between the mechanical and the Scholastic system. Its partisans, in fact, are persuaded that a theory which denies the reality of qualitative energies inherent in matter and reduces them to local motion thereby makes the true explanation of natural phenomena impossible and hands over the universe to the whims of chance. Some Dynamists, therefore, to meet the obvious requirements of order in the world, seek in substance itself the reasons of its secondary principles of activity. But in this hypothesis it seems rather hard not to admit, as the Scholastics maintain, that diversity of substance is the only explanation of the constancy observed in the accidental differences of things.

THE FINAL CAUSE OF THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE

The last problem that cosmology attempts to solve is that of the final cause. It is intimately bound up with that of the first cause. Materialists like Hackel and Büchner, who refuse to see in the universe a plan or a purpose, can assign no goal to cosmic evolution. In their opinion, just as the world, during its eternal past, has undergone countless variations in form, so during its eternal future it is destined to ceaseless change. The laws of mechanics, the chance encounter of atoms and molecules, the capricious play of natural forces following no preconceived aim, will determine the number, nature, and form of the states through which matter is to pass. Pantheists and all who identify God with matter share as a rule the same view. For them the condition of the world is but the fatal result of purposeless evolution; so that the world is its own end or rather is itself the term of its existence and activity.

Those who believe in the existence of a personal God can never admit that an all-wise being created without a purpose. And since a perfect and independent being can have no other than himself as the final aim of his action, it follows that the ultimate end of creation is to manifest the glory of the Creator, man being the intermediary, and, as it were, the high-priest of the material world. The welfare of man himself is the secondary purpose of creation. According to St. Thomas the world is a vast hierarchy of which inorganic matter is the base and man the summit. The mineral order ministers to the vegetable and this in turn to the animal, while man finds in all these the satisfaction of his needs and the adornment of his earthly life. Above all he finds in the material universe and in the service it renders him a means of rising to perfect happiness in the possession of God.

D. NYS

Francesco Cossa

Known sometimes as DEL COSSA, Italian painter of the school of Ferrara, b. about 1430; d. probably at Ferrara, 1485. Cossa is noted especially for his fresco work. The first record we have of him is in 1456 when he was an assistant to his father, Cristofano del Cossa, at that time employed in painting the carvings and statues on the high altar in the chapel of the bishop’s palace at Ferrara. Cossa after this worked in conjunction with Cosimo Tura, decorating the summer retreat known as the Schifanoia, and of the frescoes which remain, three can be safely ascribed to him. They illustrate the manners and dress of the period and are rich in architectural details, somewhat less decorative and less fantastic than those of Tura, but stronger and grander than the latter’s work. Considering himself, however, insufficiently remunerated by Duke Borso, Cossa left Ferrara for Bologna in 1470, where he obtained many commissions under the Bentivogli. Here he painted his two masterpieces, one, the Virgin and Child with two saints and a portrait of Alberto de’Catanei, produced in 1474; the other, the fresco of the Madonna del Baracano, representing the Virgin and Child with the portraits of Giovanni Bentivoglio and Maria Vinziguerra, painted in 1472. In these works Cossa reveals himself as a painter of great power and originality, stately in his conceptions, grand and massive in portraiture, broad in modelling, simple and severe in composition. In the National Gallery there is a fine picture by him representing St. Vincent Ferrer, an “Annunciation,” in the Dresden collection, which has been attributed to Pollajuolo, and a fine profile portrait at Locko Park near Derby, said to represent Duke Ercole I of Ferrara. He executed some glass paintings in Bologna, the best of which is a beautiful circular window, in the church of San Giovanni in Monte, representing St. John in Patmos; this bears his signature.

BRINTON, The Renaissance in Italian Art (London, 1898); KUGLER, The Italian Schools of Painting (London, 1900); MALVASIA, Felsina Pittrice (Bologna, 1678); MASINI, Bologna Perlastrata (Bologna, 1666); Guida di Bologna (1782).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Lorenzo Costa

Ferrarese painter, b. at Ferrara in 1460; d. at Mantua in 1535. He is believed to have been a pupil of either Tura or Cossa. At the age of twenty-three Costa established himself at Bologna, under the patronage of the Bentivogli family, in the same workshop as Francia. The two men were much influenced by each other; Francia worked as a goldsmith, but Costa had the greater imagination, wider knowledge, and more perfect skill in drawing. It is probable that his coming to Bologna was the cause of Francia’s change of craft, and that but for this friendship the greater man would have remained all his life a goldsmith. Costa’s earliest work in Bologna is the fresco in San Giacomo Maggiore (1480); his greatest, the altar-piece in San Giovanni in Monti (1497). The two friends united in painting the altar-piece for the church of the Misericordia, the centre and upper part of which still remain in Bologna, while the predella by Costa is at Milan. They worked for the same patrons, decorated the same walls of palace, church, and oratory, and both suffered when Bentivogli was driven from Bologna in 1509, and his palace became a heap of ruins. Costa then passed into the service of the Gonzaga family at Mantua. His work can be well studied in Bologna, but there are pictures by him also in Milan, Berlin, London, and Paris. His early frescoes are in the Schifanoia in Ferrara, and some of his latest in the Schalcheria Castle at Mantua. He himself engraved more than one plate after his pictures. His paintings are very much in the style of those by Francia, but the subjects are treated in a freer and more picturesque manner. The colouring is always energetic, the heads of the figures well modelled and full of expression, the architectural backgrounds rich, varied, and accurate, and the perspective thoughtful and well planned. The draperies in Costa’s work are far less than those in Francia’s, and fall in easy and not in rigid folds.

MALVASIA, Felsina Pittrice (Bologna, 1678); ORLANDI, Abbecedario Pittorico (Bologna, 1719); ORETTI, unpublished Notebooks in the Arciginnasio Library, Bologna; WILLIAMSON, Francia in Burlington Fine Arts Club’s Catalogue (1894); BRYAN, Dict. of Painters and Engravers (New York, 1903), s.v.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Giovanni Domenico Costadoni

Frequently known as Dom Anselmo, his name in religion, an Italian Camaldolese monk, historian, and theologian, b. 6 October, 1714, at Venice; d.23 January, 1785, in the same city. The son of a rich merchant, he sacrificed at an early date his prospects of success in the world and took the religious habit at St. Michael’s monastery, situated on the island of Murano in the Venetian lagoon. Here he studied philosophy and theology with more than usual success. At the age of twentythree he revealed his literary ability in a letter (Lettera critica) written in defense of certain Camaldolese writers, who had been attacked by Giusto Fontanini in his “Library of Italian Eloquence.” Costadoni subsequently collaborated for eighteen years with the learned Mittarelli in the publication of the “Annales Camaldulenses” (Venice, 1755–73). Some archæological papers due to his pen, such as “Dissertazione sopra il pesce come simbolo degli antichi cristiani,” were published in the voluminous collection of historical essays edited by Calogerà, a monk of the same order. His works also include: “Avvisi ed istruzioni pratiche intorno ai principali doveri de’ regolari” (Faenza, 1770; Venice, 1771); “Lettere consolatorie” (Venice, 1775); “Lettere sopra questione teologiche” (Venice, 1773). Costadoni’s unpublished manuscripts were transferred, after his death, to St. Gregory’s monastery at Rome, by order of the Camaldolese abbot, Mauro Cappellari (later Pope Gregory XVI).

MANDELLI, Della vita e degli scritti di A. Costadoni (Venice, 1787); PICOT, Mémoires (Paris, 1855), V, 470; HURTER, Nomenclator, III, 376.

N.A. WEBER

Republic of Costa Rica

A narrow isthmus between Panama in the east and the Republic of Nicaragua in the north, the Caribbean Sea on the north-east and the Pacific Ocean on the south-west. Between latitudes north 9° and 11° and longitude west of Greenwich 83° and 86°; its area is calculated as 18,400 square miles; the population in 1905 is given as 334,307 besides 3500 Indians. The principal city is San José, the capital, with 24,500 inhabitants; next comes Cartago with 7800, then Heredia with 7151. There are two ports on the Atlantic and two on the Pacific coast. Mountain chains traverse the territory in many directions, but the principle one runs through the whole length from north-west to south-east. Its tallest peak is called “Pico Blanco” and rises to 11,800 feet above sea level. Costa Rica has six, partly active volcanoes, among which the tallest (Irazu) rises to a height of 11,600 feet and has been dormant for many years. The surface is in general very much broken, the mountains are eruptive or volcanic, and sedimentary deposits abut against them at a lower level. Many streams, some of which are navigable for a short distance, water the territory. The Pacific coast has two handsome gulfs; Nicoya in the north, and the Golfo Dulce near the frontier of Panama.

The climate is tropical. There are but two seasons: winter or the dry, and summer or the wet, season. Altitude and climate divide the country into three zones, the hot that rises from the shores on both sides to about 3000 feet; the temperate (between 3000 and 7500), and the cold higher up. Snowfalls, even on the highest summits are very rare; the mean temperature of the hot season is stated as varying between 72° and 82° Fahr.; of the temperate zone, from 57° to 78 degrees. Mahogany, cedar, rosewood, and other precious woods for building and decorative purposes are scattered throughout its forests, also dye-woods. Medicinal plants are numerous, and india rubber of the species called Castilloa elastica. Among resinous plants copal and Myroxylum, producing Peru and tolu balsams, abound. The chief agricultural products are coffee, banana, tobacco, cocoa. Cotton and indigo are also raised. Most of the cultivated plants were imported from Europe by the Spaniards. Nearly if not all larger animals of the torrid zones of America are found. To entomologists Costa Rica is a rich field. There are mine fields of gold, silver, copper and lead. Gold was discovered as recently as Columbus’ last voyage in 1502, and the number of gold ornaments found in the hands of the Indians, as well as the auriferous sands of the rivers gave the newly discovered country the name Costa Rica, “the rich coast.” In 1815 the rich gold district of Monte del Aquacate was first brought to notice by Bishop Garcia of Nicaragua and Leon. No general mining statistics exist. Mining laws are rather confused, being a mixture of former Spanish ordinances with modern amendments. But mining machinery is imported free of duty and neither the Government nor municipalities levy any taxes on mining property.

Costa Rica became independent of Spain in 1821 and was a member of the Central American confederacy from 1824 to 1848 when that confederacy was dissolved. In 1870–71 a constitution was adopted which has been modified repeatedly since. The executive head of the republic is a president, but there have been several dictators. The president is elected for four years, indirectly through electors chosen by the people, and cannot serve a second term. He is assisted by four secretaries. There is no vice-president. In case of the inability of the president to discharge his duties, he is replaced by one of the three persons designated by Congress, at the first session in each presidential term. Congress consists of only one house. Its members are also indirectly chosen by the people for four years, one member for every 8000 inhabitants, and one-half elected every two years. Members of the supreme court of justice are appointed by Congress. The territory is divided politically into five provinces, at the head of each of which is the governor appointed by the president. Costa Rica has a civil code, a code of civil procedure, and since 1888, a judiciary law. Trial by jury takes place only in criminal cases.

By the Constitution, art. 51., “The Catholic Apostolic Roman is the religion of the state which contributes to its maintenance without impeding the exercise in the republic of any other religion not opposed to universal morality and good behavior” (buenas costumbres). By the Concordat (7 Oct., 1852) the jurisdiction previously exercised from the time of the Spanish occupation by the ecclesiastical authorities in litigations involving the Church possessions or in the temporal rights of the Church, passed over to the civil tribunals, but it was stipulated at the same time that, in the courts of the second and the third instance, legal trial of criminal cases involving priests required the assistance as judicial assessors of ecclesiastics nominated by the bishop. In 1908, no Apostolic delegate having been appointed for Costa Rica since the year 1882, Pius X communicated to the republic his wish to reestablish the delegation there. The republic’s representative at the Vatican answered that the government welcomed the idea, and begged His Holiness to give the new delegate the character of envoy to the republic, to which the pope assented. The envoy-extraordinary and Apostolic delegate named was Mgr. Giovanni Cagliera, titular archbishop of Sebaste.

Up to 1850 the bishop of Leon (Nicaragua) was also administrator of Costa Rica. The first Bishop of Costa Rica, Anselmo Liorente y Lafuente, was consecrated in Guatemala, 7 September, 1851, and installed 5 January, 1852. Bishop B. A. Thiel (b. at Elberfeld, 1850; d. at San José, 1901), a Lazarist, who was professor of theology in Ecuador, and banished for defending the Jesuits, was appointed Bishop of San José in 1880. He was an explorer, a student of Indian languages, and the founder of an ethnographic and biological museum in San José. He translated a number of religious works from German into Spanish and wrote “Idiomas de los Indios”; “Vaijes” (1897) and “Datos chronol. para la Hist. ec.ca de Costa Rica.” There are forty-two parishes in the republic. The St. Vincent de Paul conferences are very active. in 1899 they had 1396 members. In San José there are six. Women’s St. Vincent de Paul auxiliaries are organized in nearly all the cities. In 1899 they distributed $26,208. Since the Plenary Council of Latin America (1899) sponsalia (see BETROTHAL ) to be valid must be publicly recorded. In 1890 the public treasury contributed 19,404 pesos to the support of the Church. Primary education is free and compulsory. Its immediate direction belongs to the municipality; the national executive, however, reserves the right of general supervision. Article 53 of the Constitution permits every Costa Rican to give or receive what instruction he pleases in any educational establishment not supported by public funds. The budget of public instruction rose from 137,677.77 in 1890 to 235,203 pesos in 1902, when there were six higher schools, one normal schools, and 306 primary schools, the latter, with 17,746 pupils.

After Costa Rica was discovered by Columbus in 1502, Diego de Niceusa attempted to colonize it in 1509, but it was fourteen years later when Francisco Hernandez made a settlement in the country, and its conquest was only gradually perfected after 1526. Several tribes of the isthmus spoke a language allied to that of the Chibcha of Columbia. Among these, it seems that the Talamancas and Guaymis were the most prominent. The former held the eastern coast, extending to the boundary with Nicaragua, the latter lived mostly in what is now the Republic of Panama. A tribe, to which the Spanish name Valientes has been given, also belonged to Costa Rica. In culture, especially in the working of gold and silver, the Guaymis resembled the Chibcha. All these aborigines were grouped in small independent tribes, and their resistance to the European invaders was protracted rather by natural obstacles than through actual power. During Spanish colonial times, Costa Rica had sixty-two successive rulers—governors (adelantados), etc., and was regarded as a province of Guatemala.

THEIL, La Iglesia Cattolica en Costa Rica in Revista de c. L. en el Siglo XIX (San José, 1902); For the earliest period of discovery and Spanish colonization of Costa Rica, the letters of Columbus are indispensable. Additional information is given in NAVARETTE, Coleccion de Viajes y Descumbrimientos (Madrid, 1829). OVIEDO, Hist. general (Madrid, 1850); GOMARA, Historia general de las Indias (Antwerp, 1554); FERNÁNDEZ, Historia de Costa Rica durante la dominación español (Madrid, 1889); MOLINA, Bosquejo de Costa Rica (London, 1851); CALVO, República de Costa Rica (San José, 1887); PERALTA, Costa Rica, Nicaragua y Panamá en el siglo XVI (Madrid and Paris, 1883); Idem, Costa Rica y Columbia de 1573 á 1881 (Madrid, 1886); VILLAVICENCIO, Repúlica de Costa Rica (San José, 1886); PITTIER, Apuntamientos sobre el Clima y Geografia de la República de Costa Rica (San José, 1890); MORELOT, Voyage dans l’Amérique centrale (Paris, 1859); BELLY, A travers l’Amérique centrale (Paris, 1872); WAGNER, Die Republik von Costa Rica in central Amerika (Leipzig, 1856); VON SCHERZER, Wanderungen durch die Mittelamerikanischen Freistaaten (Brunswick, 1857); FROEBEL, Aus Amerika (Leipzig, 1857–58); SQUIER, The States of Central America (New York, 1858); The numerous official reports by the Government and counsular reports of U. S. officials; Bureau of American Republics, Costa Rica (Washington, 1892). On Linguistics: LUDEWIG, Literature of American Aboriginal Languages (London, 1858); BRINTON, The American Race (New York, 1891); FERNÁNDEZ, Documentos para la hist. de Costa Rica (San Jose, 1881–86); DÁVILA, Teatro ecca de la primitiva Iglesia de las Indias occid. (Madrid, 1649).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Francis Coster

Theologian, born at Mechlin, 16 June, 1532 (1531); died at Brussels, 16 December, 1619. He was received into the Society of Jesus by St. Ignatius, 7 November, 1552. While still a young man he was sent to Cologne to lecture on Sacred Scripture and astronomy. His reputation as a professor was established within a very short time, and on the 10th of December, 1564, the university of Cologne conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and Theology. He was ever ready to defend the teaching of the Catholic Church, which at this period was engaged in the struggle with heresy, and by word and by writing he brought many back to the true fold. He was for two terms provincial of the province of Belgium, for one term provincial of that of the Rhine, and assisted at three general congregations of his order. The catalogue of his writings (De Backer, I, 218) mentions forty-two titles. They include works on ascetical subjects, meditations on the Blessed Virgin, and sermons on the Gospel for each Sunday of the year. Probably the most famous was his “Enchiridion controversiarum præcipuarum nostri temporis de Religione” (Cologne, 1585, 1587, 1589, 1593). This was afterwards revised and enlarged by its author in 1596, 1605, 1608; and was translated into various languages. To each of the attacks made upon it by Protestant writers, such as Philip Marbach, Franciscus Gommar, Lucas Osiander, Coster gave an able reply. His works directed against these opponents are entitled: “Liber de Ecclesiâ contra Franciscum Gommarum” (Cologne, 1604); “Apologia adversus Lucæ Osiandri hæretici lutherani refutationum octo propositionum catholicarum” (Cologne, 1606); “Annotationes in N. T. et in præcipua loca, quæ rapi possent in controversiam” (Antwerp, 1614).

HURTER, Nomen. Lit., I, 299; DE BACKER, Bibl. des Ecrivains de la c. de J.; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c. de J., II, 1510; ROSE, St. Ignatius Loyola and Early Jesuits, 342, 343.

G. E. KELLY.

Clerical Costume

To discuss the question of ecclesiastical costume in any detail would be impossible in an article like the present. No topic has formed the subject of so many synodal enactments, and in almost every country and every order of the clergy we find distinctive features which might call for special treatment. Only the broad outlines can therefore be dealt with here. It may be noted, however, that the more prominent items of clerical attire, e.g. Biretta; Mantelletta; etc., have separate articles assigned to them.

HISTORY

It seems that in the early centuries of Christianity no distinctive dress was adopted by ecclesiastics. Many indications point to this conclusion, e.g. the lacerna, or birrus, and (civil) dalmatic, associated with the martyrdom of St. Cyprian. The most explicit testimony is that afforded by a letter of Pope Celestine in 428 to certain bishops of Gaul, in which he rebukes them for wearing attire which made them conspicuous, and lays down the rule that “we [the bishops and clergy] should be distinguished from the common people [plebe] by our learning, not by our clothes; by our conduct, not by our dress; by cleanness of mind, not by the care we spend upon our person” (Mansi, “Concilia,” IV, 465). In the East it would seem to have been the custom for ascetics and philosophers, whether Christian or not to affect a special habit, but the Christian clergy generally did not profess asceticism in this distinctive way, and were content to wear the birrus (byros) like the laity about them. This usage a canon of the Council of Gangra (340), especially when it is taken in conjunction with other facts (cf. Sozomen, III, 14), distinctly approves. “If any man,” says the council, “uses the pallium [cloak] upon account of an ascetic life, and, as if there be some holiness in that, condemns those who with reverence use the birrus and other garments that are commonly worn, let him be anathema” (Hefele-Leclercq, “Hist. des Conc.,” I, 1037). At the other extremity of Christendom the documents that survive concerning St. Patrick and other early Celtic bishops present them to us as habitually dressed in the casula (chasuble), which was at that time not a distinctively liturgical attire, but simply an outer garment commonly worn by the humbler classes. In the sixth and following centuries we find that in Rome and in countries near Rome the civil dress of the clergy began markedly to differ from that of the laity, the reason probably being that the former adhered to the old Roman type of costume with its long tunic and voluminous cloak, representing the toga, whereas the laity were increasingly inclined to adopt the short tunic, with breeches and mantle, of the gens braccata, i.e. the Northern barbarians, who were now the masters of Italy. Probably this Roman influence made itself felt to some extent throughout Western Christendom.

The canons of the Council of Braga in Portugal (572) required the clergy to wear a vestis talaris, or tunic, reaching to the feet, and even in far-off Britain we find indications, both among the Celts and Anglo-Saxons, that undraped lower limbs were not regarded as seemly in the clergy, at any rate during their service at the altar. During the same period synodal decrees became gradually more frequent, restraining in various ways the tendency of the clergy to adopt the current fashion of worldly attire. By a German council of 742, priests and deacons are bidden to wear habitually not the sagum, or short military cloak, but the casula (chasuble), which even then had not become an exclusively liturgical dress. Perhaps the most interesting and significant enactment of this period is a letter of Pope John VIII (c. 875) admonishing the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to see that their clergy wore due ecclesiastical attire, and quoting the example of the English clergy in Rome who, on the eve of St. Gregory’s feast, had given up their short cloaks and adopted the long Roman tunic reaching to the feet: “Apostolicæ sententia usque adeo Sedis prævaluit, ut voluntarie omnes Anglorum clerici, sub ipsis vigiliis S. Gregorii, laicalem et sinuosum, sed et curtum, habitum deponentes, talares tunicas Romanas induerent” (Jaffé-Wattenbach, Reg. RR. PP. 2995). In the East the distinction between lay and clerical costume was somewhat slower in developing than in the West, probably because the influence of the Teutonic invaders was less acutely felt. In Justinian’s legislation it seems clear that a distinctive dress was recognized as belonging to monks, but there is nothing to show that any similar distinction applied to the clergy at large. The Trullan council, however, in 691 prescribed that all who were enrolled among the clergy should use at all times the robes (stolais) appointed for those of their profession, under pain of excommunication for a week. Furthermore from the eighth century onwards we find almost universally numerous canons passed to restrain clerics from wearing rich dresses, bright colours, and extravagant ornaments. In Germany, at Aachen, in 816 the cuculla was forbidden them, as being distinctive of monks. On the other hand, at Metz, in 888, the laity were forbidden to wear the copes (cappas) belonging to the clergy, while in another synod presbyters were enjoined to wear their stoles always, as an indication of their priesthood. Such a bishop as St. Hugh of Lincoln still complied with this rule in the twelfth century but at the present day the practice is peculiar to the Holy Father alone.

In the later Middle Ages the dress of the clergy was regulated by the canon law, the jus commune of the Church at large, but with many supplementary enactments passed by local synods. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) laid down the principle that clerics must wear garments closed in front and free from extravagance as to length (Clausa deferant desuper indumenta nimiâ brevitate vel longitudine non notanda.—Mansi, XXII, 1006). Ornamental appendages, cloth of red or green colour, brooches (fibulœ) to fasten their cloaks, and the wearing of sleeved copes (cappœ manicatœ), either at Office or at other times, are all forbidden by the same enactment. In England, the synod held under Cardinal Langton, in 1222, required that dignitaries and ordinary priests should be seen abroad becomingly attired in the “ecclesiastical habit,” and should use “closed copes” (Mansi, XXII, 1161). These cappœ clausœ seem to be prescribed as an addition to the habitus clericalis, and were perhaps now imposed upon the ordinary secular clergy for the first time. In 1237 the national council, held under the presidency of the Legate Otho, declared that lay folk were scandalized at the dress of the clergy, which was not clerical at all, but more suited to knights (non clericalis sed potius militaris). Offenders in future were to be punished, and the bishops were to see that all in sacred orders used garments of fitting length and wore closed copes. Somewhat later the legatine council under Ottoboni insisted that all ecclesiastics, whether in Sacred orders or not, were to wear clothes of fitting length, coming at any rate below the middle of the shin (saltem ultra tibiarum medium attingentes). Further, all priests and beneficed clergy were to wear closed copes, except when on a journey, or for some other just reason (Wilkins, “Concilia,” II, 4). Severe penalties were enacted against transgressors, but they do not seem to have produced any lasting effect, for numerous other decrees on the same subject were passed in England at a later date, notably in 1281 and in 1342. The proper dress of the medieval clergy was therefore the vestis talaris, and over this priests and dignitaries were bidden to wear the cappa clausa. The former of these must have been a sort of cassock, but made like a tunic, i. e. not opening, and buttoning down the front. The wearing of the closed cope was no doubt often evaded by the secular clergy. Such writers as Chaucer and Langland seem to lay so much emphasis upon the copes of the friars that it is difficult to believe that this mantle, resembling a liturgical cope, but partly at least sewn up in front, was as commonly worn by secular priests. That the cope was often of considerable length may be gathered from a passage in “Piers Plowman’s Crede”:—His cope that biclypped him, wel clene was it folden,

Of double-worstede y-dyght, doun to the hele.

It would seem that the closed cope has a modern representative in the cappa magna of cardinals and bishops, and also in the chimere (etymologically descended from the Italian zimarra), the loose mantle now worn by the Anglican episcopate to which the well known lawn sleeves are attached. The wearing of a separate head-dress, or “coif,” seems to have been prohibited to the inferior orders of the clergy except when on a journey; but of course doctors of theology and some other graduates had their caps of honour. Besides these we hear of the “liripipe,” a sort of broad tippet or scarf sometimes drawn over the head, sometimes worn hanging loose on the shoulders. The dress of the clergy in other countries did not probably differ very greatly from that of medieval England. As already said, innumerable decrees were everywhere passed in provincial synods restraining extravagances, for every eccentric fashion—the peaked shoes, the parti-coloured dress, the headgear of flowers, the inordinately tight hose, etc.—was liable to find imitators among the clergy. One article of costume which occurs repeatedly on brasses and other funeral monuments, both in England and abroad, is the “almuce,” a fur-lined tippet and hood, still retained at Rome and elsewhere by the canons of cathedral and collegiate churches, and now practically confined to them. Formerly the almuce was worn by university graduates, and many other orders of the clergy. It is probably only a warmer variant of the hood, which almost everywhere survives as part of a university academical costume, and which is the familiar adjunct of the surplice for Anglican clergymen when, officiating in the sanctuary. It will be readily understood that the indescribably cold and draughty condition of our old cathedrals rendered some such furred protection for the head and neck almost a necessity during the long hours of the night Offices. Naturally, the richness and amplitude of the fur lining varied in some measure with the dignity of the wearer. In funeral monuments the almuce is found constantly associated with the cope, also primarily a choir vestment.

MODERN USAGE

The modern and more centralized legislation regarding clerical costume may be considered to begin with a constitution of Sixtus V, in 1589, insisting under the severest penalties that all clerics, even those in minor orders, should uniformly wear the vestis talaris and go tonsured. Offenders were to lose all title to their benefices or any other emolument which they held. Another edict issued under Urban VIII, in 1624, goes into greater detail. It directs that the cassock should be confined with a cincture, and that the cloak worn over it should normally, like the cassock, fall as low as the ankles. The under-dress, the hose included, should be modest, and dark in colour. All embroidery and lace upon collar or cuffs is forbidden. The hat shall be of approved shape, and a simple cord or ribbon shall form its only ornament. Infringements of these regulations are to be punished with a pecuniary fine. Another important Roman decree, issued in 1708, forbade clerics to wear a perruque covering any part of the forehead or ears and, while admitting the use of shorter garments when on a journey, required such garments in all cases to extend below the knees and to exhibit no eccentricities, such as large buttons and huge pockets. In 1725 Pope Benedict XIII made the wearing of lay costume by an ecclesiastic an offence of the most serious kind, which not only, according to the Bull of Sixtus V, entailed the forfeiture of all emoluments, but denied absolution to those delinquents who did not spontaneously surrender their benefices if they had been guilty of this offence. It would seem that this extreme rigour has never been upheld in practice by the Roman Congregations with whom the execution of such decrees ultimately lies. Mgr. Barbier de Montault, for example, remarks that, although infractions of the law of ecclesiastical costume are by no means allowed to pass with impunity, and though “the Sacred Congregation of the Council is wont to support the decrees of bishops which insist upon the wearing of the cassock, still so far as concerns the question of punishment it answers ‘Let the bishop proceed with moderation” (B. de Montault, “Le Costume” etc., I, 45). In English-speaking countries where the wearing of the tonsure is not obligatory, the rules affecting the costume of ecclesiastics are less rigid. The decrees on the subject of the First Synod of Westminster and the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore are in practical agreement. The latter says (§ 77), “We wish therefore and enjoin that all keep the law of the Church, and that when at home or when engaged in the sanctuary they should always wear the cassock [vestis talaris] which is proper to the clergy. When they go abroad for duty or relaxation, or when upon a journey, they may use a shorter dress, but still one that is black in colour, and which reaches to the knees, so as to distinguish it from lay costume. We enjoin upon our priests as a matter of strict precept, that both at home and abroad, and whether they are residing in their own diocese or outside of it, they should wear the Roman collar.” The general introduction of the use of bicycles among the clergy has brought about a somewhat laxer practice regarding the length of the upper garments worn out of doors and the Second Synod of Maynooth (1900) has recently found it necessary to insist, for Ireland, upon certain restrictions in this matter.

BARBIER DE MONTAULT, Le Costume et les usages ecclésiastiques (2 vols., Paris, 1902)—a work which goes into much detail regarding the costume appropriate to the clergy of various grades; PUNKES in Kirchenlez., s. v. Kleider, VII, 751; EBERL, ibid., s. v. Standespflichten, XI, 718; CHEETHAM in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. v. Dress; LACEY in Transactions of St. Paul’s Ecclesiological Society, IV; BINTERIM, Denkwürdigkeiten, III, Pt. II, 385; FERRARIS, Bibliotheca, s. v. Habitus; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1906), II, Pt. I, 266–272; DRUITT, Manual of Costume (London, 1906); MACKLIN, The Brasses of England (London, 1907), 100–130.

HERBERT THURSTON.

Maria Cosway

Miniature-painter, born in Florence, Italy, 1759; died at Lodi, 5 January, 1835. Her maiden name was Hadfield, her father being an Englishman. She showed great talent in drawing at an early age, and when only nineteen was elected a member of the Academy of Fine Arts in her native city, where she had been educated at a Visitation convent. Her father dying in 1778 she went to England, at the invitation of her friend, Angelica Kauffman, who introduced her to society. She then met Richard Cosway, regarded as one of the most remarkable miniature-painters of the eighteenth century, whom she married in London, 18 January, 1781. In that year she first exhibited at the Academy, continuing to do so down to 1801, but her oil pictures, mythological and allegorical in subject, were not works of specially high merit, although they showed signs of genius. She was no mean exponent of the art of miniature-painting, however, and many of her copies of her husband’s works are noteworthy. Her Sunday evening concerts in London are often mentioned by Horace Walpole and other writers of the day. She was passionately attached to her husband, and after his death disposed of his art treasures and went to Italy. Prior to his decease, Mrs. Cosway, bad started in Lyons a school for girls at the earnest request of Cardinal Fesch, but in 1811, owing to the war, this was closed. In the following year she made a similar effort in Italy, acquiring a convent at Lodi, where she established her teachers from Lyons. Cosway repeatedly helped her in her scheme and gave her considerable sums of money towards it. After his decease she made her home in Lodi, bought the buildings outright, attached them to the neighbouring church, and merged the little teaching community she had established in that of the Dames Inglesi, a branch of which Francis I desired to establish in Italy. For her generosity the Emperor in 1834 created her a Baroness of the Austrian Empire and gave her a grant of arms. She devoted the whole of her time and means to her school. She is buried in the neighbouring church. The municipality erected a bust to her memory, and the school which she founded and endowed is still a flourishing institution for the education of girls. In the dining-room of it she erected a replica of the monument to the memory of her husband that she had Westmacott put up in Marylebone Church, London. In the library are preserved many of her husband’s works together with books and furniture which had belonged to Cosway, and papers relative to her own and her husband’s life. Her sister, Charlotte, married William Combe, the author of the “Tour of Dr. Syntax.”

WILLIAMSON, Richard Cosway, R. A., Miniature Painter (London, 1897; new ed. 1905).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON.

Jean-Baptiste Cotelier

(COTELERIUS)

Patristic scholar and theologian, born December, 1629, at Nîmes; died 19 August, 1686, at Paris; The early education of this very gifted man was under the personal direction of his father, at one time a minister of the Reformed Church, but later a convert to Catholicity. So rapid was his progress in learning that he could fluently interpret the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek before the General Assembly of the French clergy at Mantes (1641). On the same occasion he showed his proficiency in mathematics, and made such a favourable impression on the clergy that they increased his father’s pension from 600 to 1000 livres. To this sum 300 livres were added for the purchase of books; During the period of his theological studies at Paris (1641–47), Cotelier’s brilliant intellectual qualities procured for him an introduction to the king (1644); He graduated as bachelor in theology in 1647 at the Sorbonne, of which he became a member in 1648, though he never received priestly ordination; In 1654, he accompanied Archbishop d’Aubusson de la Feuillade of Embrun to his diocese and became his counsellor. He returned, in 1659, to Paris and again devoted himself to study. With the philologist Du Cange he was commissioned in 1667 by Minister Colbert to investigate and catalogue the Greek manuscripts of the Royal Library. In 1676 he was appointed professor of the Greek language in the Collège Royal at Paris.

The editions of ancient writings prepared by Cotelier were, in chronological order:

(1) “Homiliæ quatuor in Psalmos et interpretatio prophetiæ Danielis, græce et latine” (Paris, 1661). He attributed these unpublished homilies to St. John Chrysostom; other critics, owing to the diversity of style, hold a different opinion.

(2) “SS. Patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt, Barnabæ, Clementis, Hermæ, Ignatii, Polycarpi opera edita et non edita, vera et supposita, græce et latine, cum notis” (Paris, 1672). This excellent edition is Cotelier’s principal work. From its title was derived the designation of Apostolic Fathers for the earliest non-inspired Christian writers. Most of the copies of the work were consumed by a conflagration in the Collège Montaigu at Paris. Two revised editions were published by Leclerc (Clericus), one at Antwerp (1698), the other at Amsterdam (1724). Reprints of this last edition are found in Migne, P. G., I, II, V.

(3) “Ecclesiæ Græcæ Monumenta, græce et latine” (Paris, 1677, 1681, 1686). The third volume of this series was published two days before the author’s death.

He had collected materials for a fourth volume which was edited (1688) by the Maurists, Pouget, Montfaucon, and Lopin, and is sometimes known as “Analecta Græca.” Cotelier also left several volumes of manuscripts, which bear chiefly on Christian antiquity and are still preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. He was an extremely accurate scholar, of a modest and retiring nature and kindly disposition.

BALUZE, Letter to Bigot, in COTELIER-LECLERC, Patres Apostolici (Amsterdam, 1724). I, after the preface; NICÉRON. Mèmoires, IV, 243–49; VON HEFELE in Kirchenlex., s. v.; HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1893), II, 471–74.

N. A. WEBER.

Cotenna

A titular see of Asia Minor. Strabo (XII, 570) mentions the Katenneis in Pisidia adjoining Selge (now Sürk) and the tribe of Homonades (east and north of Trogitis, Séidi Shéihr Lake). Their city must be identified with the modern village of Godena or Gudene, on the Alaghir Tchai, in the vilayet of Konia. An inscription has been found showing that the people called themselves Kotenneis, so that the true name of the town was Kotenna. Hierocles mentions it as Kotana in Pamphylia. It appears as Kotaina in Parthey’s “Notitiæ episcopatuum,” X and XIII, twelfth or thirteenth century, as a suffragan of Side. Six bishops are known: Hesychius in 381, Acacius in 431, Eugenius or Eusebius in 451, Flavianus in 536, Cosmas in 680, Macarius in 879. It has been said that the Kotenneis are the same as the Etenneis, mentioned by Polybius, V, 73, as living in Pisidia above Side, and who struck coins in the Roman times. The native name may have been Hetenneis, and the tribe afterwards divided into at least two districts, the northern taking the name Etenneis while the southern preferred Kotenneis. There was another see called Etenna or something similar. A third district was perhaps also called Banaba or Manaua; for in 680 Cosmas appears as Bishop of “Kotenna and Manaua.”

RAMSAY, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor (London, 1890), 418; LEQUIEN, Oriens christianus, I, 1009.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Cotiæum

A titular see of Asia Minor. Kotiaion according to its coins, better Cotyaion, the city of Cotys, was an ancient city of Phrygia Salutaris. Æsop is said to have been born there. It was a centre of heresy from the second century onwards. Socrates (IV, xxviii) speaks of its Novatian bishop. At first a simple suffragan of Synnada, it became an autocephalous archbishopric, probably in the eighth century, and about the tenth appears as a metropolis with three suffragan sees, which were later increased to thirteen (?). Lequien (I, 851) mentions ten bishops, the last in the fourteenth century. The first is Cyrus, sent thither by Theodosius II, after four bishops had been slain by the inhabitants. The town preserves some ancient ruins, a Byzantine castle and church. It was taken and plundered by Timur-Leng (Tamerlane) in 1402. It is now the chief town of a sanjak in the vilayet of Brusa, and is called by the Turks Kutaya. It has about 22,000 inhabitants, including 4000 Greeks, 2300 Armenians, 700 Catholic Armenians, and a few Latins; it contains two schools. It is also the see of a non-Catholic Armenian bishop. During late centuries Kutaya has been renowned for its Turkish earthenware, of which fine specimens may be seen at the Imperial Museum in Constantinople.

CUINET, Turquie d’Asie, IV, 201–205; RAMSAY, Asia Minor, 144, 436; IDEM, Early Christian Monuments in Phrygia, in The Expositor (1888, 1889); IDEM, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, passim.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Pierre Coton

A celebrated French Jesuit, born 7 March, 1564, at Néronde in Forez; died 19 March, 1626, at Paris. He studied law at Paris and Bourges, entered the Society of Jesus at the age of twenty-five, and was sent to Milan to study philosophy. Here he became acquainted with St. Charles Borromeo. On his return to his native country he preached with remarkable success at Roanne, Avignon, Nîmes, Grenoble, and Marseilles; An acquaintance with Henry IV of France soon ripened into friendship, and the Archbishopric of Arles being vacant, the king offered it to Father Coton, who refused the honour. The king having recalled the exiled Jesuits to France, their enemies could not pardon the influence Father Coton had in bringing this about, and an attempt was made to assassinate him. Some writers have pretended that Father Coton was not above suspicion on the doctrine of regicide, and when Henry IV was assassinated, they accused Father Coton of defending Ravaillac, the king’s murderer. But if his enemies at court had any knowledge that he held such views they failed to make it public.

Father Coton had for two years previous to the death of Henry been confessor to his son, the young Dauphin. In 1610 the biting satire “Anti-Coton, où est prouvé que les Jésuites sont coupables du parricide d’Henri IV” was followed by many pamphlets for and against the Society. It was an easy task for Father Coton to defend himself against these calumnies and produce proofs of his innocence, but very difficult for the author of the libel, who was said to be Pierre Dumoulin, a Protestant minister of Charenton, and an associate of the Calvinists, to substantiate any statement that he had advanced. Father Coton was continued in his capacity as confessor to the new king, Louis XIII, which duty he discharged until 1617, when he left the court at the age of fifty-four and withdrew to the novitiate at Lyons. He then traversed the provinces of the South as a missionary, and went to Milan, Loreto, and Rome to fulfil the vows the reigning king had made to the Blessed Virgin, St. Charles, and St. Peter. He returned to France as provincial of the Society and preached at Paris in the church of S. Gervaise, whither the king and the whole court flocked to hear him. Just at this period a book published by Santarelli, an Italian Jesuit, who attributed to the pope the power of deposing kings who were guilty of certain crimes, and under such circumstances of absolving their subjects from their allegiance, was the object of severe attacks from the many enemies of the Society of Jesus in France.

The doctrines which Santarelli expounded had been unwisely accepted in the Middle Ages, and were still further professed by the Ultramontane theologians, although they had become impossible in practice. This book, which in Italy was received in its true light, was in Paris, under the rule of Richelieu, construed into a provocation to regicide and rebellion. These false views were attributed to every member of the Society, and the Parliament demanded that all Jesuits residing in France should be called upon to sign a protestation disavowing all the doctrines contained in Santarelli’s treatise. Father Coton was ill at the time, and the news conveyed to him aggravated his condition. On his death-bed he was visited by an envoy of Parliament, who informed him of the condemnation pronounced against Santarelli and the severe measures that threatened his brethren. The dying Jesuit murmured: “Is it possible that I who have served so faithfully the Kings of France should be looked upon at last as guilty of treason and a disturber of the peace?” His “Institution catholique” and “Genève plagiaire” are controversial works, as also his “Sacrifice de la Messe.” For his other works see De Backer, 1st ed;, II, p. 149.

ROVERIUS, De Vita P. Petri Cotoni (Lyons, 1660); D’ORLÉANS, La Vie du P. Pierre Coton (Paris, 1688); PRAT, Recherches hist. et crit. sur la c. de Jésus en France, du temps du P. Coton (Lyons, 1876); SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c. de J., II, 1539; B. N., The Jesuits, Their Foundation and History, I, 325–328; CLEMENTE, History of the Society of Jesus, I.

G. E. KELLY.

Diocese of Cotrone

(COTRONENSIS)

Cotrone is a suffragan diocese of Reggio. Cotrone is a city of the province of Catanzaro, in Calabria, Southern Italy, on the Ionian Sea. It is the ancient Croton, an Achæan colony founded c. 707 B. C., and long one of the most flourishing cities of Magna Græcia. Its inhabitants were famous for their physical strength, and for the simple sobriety of their lives. It was the birthplace of Milo, the famous athlete, and it was at Croton that Pythagoras founded his school. In 380 B. C. the city was taken by Dionysius the Elder of Syracuse and in 296 B. C. by Agathocles. Later it was pillaged by Pyrrhus. In the Second Punic War it was seized by Hannibal, but some time later became a Roman colony. About A. D. 550, it was unsuccessfully besieged by Totila, King of the Goths, and at a later date became a part of the Byzantine Empire. About 870 it was taken and sacked by the Saracens, who put to death the bishop and many people who had taken refuge in the cathedral. Later on it was conquered by Normans and thenceforth shared the fate of the Kingdom of Naples.

According to local legend the Gospel was preached there by St. Dionysius the Areopagite. Its first known bishop was Flavianus, during whose episcopate occurred the siege of the city by Totila. Other bishops were: Theodosios (642); Petrus (680); Theotimus (790); and Nicephorus (870). Worthy of note are: Antonio Sebastiano Minturno (1565), a polished writer and poet; the Spanish Dominican, Juan Lopez (1595); the Theatine, Tommaso dai Monti (1599), famous for his zeal; and Niceforo Melisseno Commeno (1628), who had previously rendered signal service to the Holy See in the Orient and in France. The diocese has a population of 14,000, with 10 parishes, 29 churches and chapels, 24 secular priests, and 5 religious orders of women.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1844), XXI, 187; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907); LENORMANT, La Grande Grèce (Paris, 1881–83).

U. BENIGNI.

Robert de Coucy

A medieval French master-builder and son of a master-builder of the same name, born at Reims (or Coucy, according to some authorities); died at Reims in 1311; In 1263 he was appointed successor to Hugues Libergier as director of the work of building the church of Saint-Nicaise at Reims, and between this date and 1279 he constructed the choir chapels, and part of the transept; the church was afterwards destroyed during the Revolution. Some good illustrations of this building, begun in 1229 and considered one of the best Gothic churches of the great period in France, have been preserved; A nearly contemporary chronicle of the Abbey of Saint-Nicaise says that “Hugo Libergiers pronaon ecclesiæ perfecit. Robert de Coucy caput ecclesiæ construxit.” After the death of his father, Robert de Coucy had also chief charge of the work on the cathedral at Reims, which was rebuilt after its destruction by fire in 1210. The new cathedral was begun in 1211, and the choir, constructed by Robert de Coucy the elder, was completed in 1241; The cathedral was built on a simple plan of a vast choir, no transepts, and a rather narrow nave. Viollet-le-Duc says: “This building has all the strength of the cathedral of Chartres without its heaviness; in short it combines the essential requirements of artistic beauty, power and grace; it is, besides, built of fine materials cunningly put together, and there is found in all its parts a painstaking care and a skill very rare at a period when men built with great rapidity and often with inadequate resources.” In a labyrinth, or representation of a maze, which formerly existed in the pavement of the nave of the cathedral were effigies of the architects of the edifice from its foundation up to 1382; among these effigies, according to tradition, were those of the two Robert de Coucys, father and son. In the cloister of the Abbey of Saint-Denis at Reims Félibien noted the gravestone of Robert de Coucy, “Maistre de Notre-Daine et de Saint-Nicaise, qui trépassa en l’an 1311.”

MARLOT, Histoire de La ville de Reims (Lille, 1666; Reims, 1842–45), I, 636; LÜBKE, History of Art (1880), I, 529; REBER, History of Mediœval Art (New York, 1897), 498; GWILT AND PAPWORTH, Encyc. of Architecture (London and New York, 1903), 1132; MELIZIA, Lives of Celebrated Architects, I, 155; LETHABY, Mediœval Art (London and New York, 1904), 247; La qrande encyclopédie, s. v. de Coucy; MARSHALL, Cathedral Cities of France, 48–49.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Frederic René Coudert

Born in New York, 1 March, 1832; died at Washington, D. C., 20 December, 1903. He graduated from Columbia College in his native city in 1850, and on his majority was admitted to practice in the courts. He became a leader of the Bar, being learned in the science of the law and skilled in its art and practice. During the controversy concerning American and British seal fisheries in the Bering Sea, and in the controversy concerning the disputed boundary between Venezuela and British Columbia, he acted as legal adviser for the United States Government. He was an orator not only in English, but also in the French, Spanish, and Italian languages, and was gifted with a manner and style singularly attractive, with ready wit and power of sarcasm. He bore testimony to his political principles in periods of strain and controversy. He consented in 1876 to visit Louisiana for the purpose of urging the “Returning Board” of that politically distracted State to act justly respecting election returns which were to determine the presidential succession, and in 1892 and again in 1893 he was a prominent opponent of the courses taken by his own political party. Politics he seemed to regard as a means for carrying into effect certain principles, not as a means of office-seeking. He declined the Russian mission, a judgeship of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, and a justiceship of the Supreme Court of the United States. He accepted (and it was the only public office he ever held) the inconspicuous and unsalaried membership in the Board of Education of the City of New York. As a Catholic he was always loyal to the Church; as the son of a French refugee he never forgot France. On two subjects he declared himself to be sensitive: the Bark of Peter and the land of his ancestors.

Addresses by Frederic H. Coudert (New York and London, 1905); Annual Reports of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (New York, 1905); U. S. Cath. Hist. Soc. Records and Studies (New York, 1904).

CHARLES W. SLOANE

General Councils

This subject will be treated under the following heads:

Definition

Classification

Historical Sketch

The Pope and General Councils

Composition of General Councils

Right of participation

Requisite number of members

Papal headship the formal element of Councils

Factors in the Pope’s Co-operation with the Council

Convocation

Direction

Confirmation

Business Methods

The facts

The theory

Infallibility of General Councils;

Correlation of Papal and Conciliary Infallibility

Infallibility Restricted to Unanimous Findings

Promulgation

Is a Council above the Pope?

Has a General Council Power to Depose a Pope?

I. DEFINITION

Councils are legally convened assemblies of ecclesiastical dignitaries and theological experts for the purpose of discussing and regulating matters of church doctrine and discipline. The terms council and synod are synonymous, although in the oldest Christian literature the ordinary meetings for worship are also called synods, and diocesan synods are not properly councils because they are only convened for deliberation. Councils unlawfully assembled are termed conciliabula, conventicula, and even latrocinia, i.e. “robber synods.” The constituent elements of an ecclesiastical council are the following:

A legally convened meeting

of members of the hierarchy,

for the purpose of carrying out their judicial and doctrinal functions,

by means of deliberation in common

resulting in regulations and decrees invested with the authority of the whole assembly.

All these elements result from an analysis of the fact that councils are a concentration of the ruling powers of the Church for decisive action. The first condition is that such concentration conform to the constitution of the Church: it must be started by the head of the forces that are to move and to act, e.g. by the metropolitan if the action is limited to one province. The actors themselves are necessarily the leaders of the Church in their double capacity of judges and teachers, for the proper object of conciliar activity is the settling of questions of faith and discipline. When they assemble for other purposes, either at regular times or in extraordinary circumstances, in order to deliberate on current questions of administration or on concerted action in emergencies, their meetings are not called councils but simply meetings, or assemblies, of bishops. Deliberation, with free discussion and ventilation of private views, is another essential note in the notion of councils. They are the mind of the Church in action, the sensus ecclesiae taking form and shape in the mould of dogmatic definition and authoritative decrees. The contrast of conflicting opinions, their actual clash necessarily precedes the final triumph of faith. Lastly, in a council’s decisions we see the highest expression of authority of which its members are capable within the sphere of their jurisdiction, with the added strength and weight resulting from the combined action of the whole body.

II. CLASSIFICATION

Councils are, then, from their nature, a common effort of the Church, or part of the Church, for self-preservation and self-defence. They appear at her very origin, in the time of the Apostles at Jerusalem, and throughout her whole history whenever faith or morals or discipline are seriously threatened. Although their object is always the same, the circumstances under which they meet impart to them a great variety, which renders a classification necessary. Taking territorial extension for a basis, seven kinds of synods are distinguished.

Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.

The second rank is held by the general synods of the East or of the West, composed of but one-half of the episcopate. The Synod Of Constantinople (381) was originally only an Eastern general synod, at which were present the four patriarchs of the East (viz. of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), with many metropolitans and bishops. It ranks as Ecumenical because its decrees were ultimately received in the West also.

Patriarchal, national, and primatial councils represent a whole patriarchate, a whole nation, or the several provinces subject to a primate. Of such councils we have frequent examples in Latin Africa, where the metropolitan and ordinary bishops used to meet under the Primate of Carthage, in Spain, under the Primate of Toledo, and in earlier times in Syria, under the Metropolitan—later Patriarch—of Antioch.

Provincial councils bring together the suffragan bishops of the metropolitan of an ecclesiastical province and other dignitaries entitled to participate.

Diocesan synods consist of the clergy of the diocese and are presided over by the bishop or the vicar-general.

A peculiar kind of council used to be held at Constantinople, it consisted of bishops from any part of the world who happened to be at the time in that imperial city. Hence the name synodoi enoemousai “visitors’ synods.”

Lastly there have been mixed synods, in which both civil and ecclesiastical dignitaries met to settle secular as well as ecclesiastical matters. They were frequent at the beginning of the Middle Ages in France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. In England even abbesses were occasionally present at such mixed councils. Sometimes, not always, the clergy and laity voted in separate chambers.

Although it is in the nature of councils to represent either the whole or part of the Church organism yet we find many councils simply consisting of a number of bishops brought together from different countries for some special purpose, regardless of any territorial or hierarchical connection. They were most frequent in the fourth century, when the metropolitan and patriarchal circumscriptions were still imperfect, and questions of faith and discipline manifold. Not a few of them, summoned by emperors or bishops in opposition to the lawful authorities (such as that of Antioch in 341), were positively irregular, and acted for evil rather than good. Councils of this kind may be compared to the meetings of bishops of our own times; decrees passed in them had no binding power on any but the subjects of the bishops present, they were important manifestations of the sensus ecclesiae (mind of the Church) rather than judicial or legislative bodies. But precisely as expressing the mind of the Church they often acquired a far-reaching influence due, either to their internal soundness, or to the authority of their framers, or to both.

It should be noted that the terms concilia plenaria, universalia, OR generalia are, or used to be, applied indiscriminately to all synods not confined to a single province; in the Middle Ages, even provincial synods, as compared to diocesan, received these names. Down to the late Middle Ages all papal synods to which a certain number of bishops from different countries had been summoned were regularly styled plenary, general, or universal synods. In earlier times, before the separation of East and West, councils to which several distant patriarchates or exarchates sent representatives, were described absolutely as “plenary councils of the universal church.” These terms are applied by St. Augustine to the Council of Arles (314), at which only Western bishops were present. In the same way the council of Constantinople (382), in a letter to Pope Damasus, calls the council held in the same town the year before (381) “an Ecumenical synod” i.e. a synod representing the oikoumene, the whole inhabited world as known to the Greeks and Romans, because all the Eastern patriarchates, though no Western, took part in it. The synod of 381 could not, at that time, be termed Ecumenical in the strict sense now in use, because it still lacked the formal confirmation of the Apostolic See. As a matter of fact, the Greeks themselves did not put this council on a par with those of Nicaea and Ephesus until its confirmation at the Synod of Chalcedon, and the Latins acknowledged its authority only in the sixth century.

III. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

The present article deals chiefly with the theological and canonical questions concerning councils which are Ecumenical in the strict sense above defined. Special articles give the history of each important synod under the head of the city or see where it was held. In order, however, to supply the reader with a basis of fact for the discussion of principles which is to follow, a list is subjoined of the twenty Ecumenical councils with a brief statement of the purpose of each.

FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: NICAEA I (325)

The Council of Nicaea lasted two months and twelve days. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were present. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, assisted as legate of Pope Sylvester. The Emperor Constantine was also present. To this council we owe The Creed (Symbolum) of Nicaea, defining against Arius the true Divinity of the Son of God (homoousios), and the fixing of the date for keeping Easter (against the Quartodecimans).

SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: CONSTANTINOPLE I (381)

The First General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Damasus and the Emperor Theodosius I, was attended by 150 bishops. It was directed against the followers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. To the above-mentioned Nicene Creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.

THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: EPHESUS (431)

The Council of Ephesus, of more than 200 bishops, presided over by St. Cyril of Alexandria representing Pope Celestine I, defined the true personal unity of Christ, declared Mary the Mother of God (theotokos) against Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and renewed the condemnation of Pelagius.

FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: CHALCEDON (451)

The Council of Chalcedon—150 bishops under Pope Leo the Great and the Emperor Marcian—defined the two natures (Divine and human) in Christ against Eutyches, who was excommunicated.

FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: CONSTANTINOPLE II (553)

The Second General Council of Constantinople, of 165 bishops under Pope Vigilius and Emperor Justinian I, condemned the errors of Origen and certain writings (The Three Chapters) of Theodoret, of Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia and of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa; it further confirmed the first four general councils, especially that of Chalcedon whose authority was contested by some heretics.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: CONSTANTINOPLE III (680–681)

The Third General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Agatho and the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, was attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch, 174 bishops, and the emperor. It put an end to Monothelitism by defining two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. It anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.

SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: NICAEA II (787)

The Second Council of Nicaea was convoked by Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene, under Pope Adrian I, and was presided over by the legates of Pope Adrian; it regulated the veneration of holy images. Between 300 and 367 bishops assisted.

EIGHTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: CONSTANTINOPLE IV (869)

The Fourth General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Adrian II and Emperor Basil numbering 102 bishops, 3 papal legates, and 4 patriarchs, consigned to the flames the Acts of an irregular council (conciliabulum) brought together by Photius against Pope Nicholas and Ignatius the legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople; it condemned Photius who had unlawfully seized the patriarchal dignity. The Photian Schism, however, triumphed in the Greek Church, and no other general council took place in the East.

NINTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: LATERAN I (1123)

The First Lateran Council, the first held at Rome, met under Pope Callistus II. About 900 bishops and abbots assisted. It abolished the right claimed by lay princes, of investiture with ring and crosier to ecclesiastical benefices and dealt with church discipline and the recovery of the Holy Land from the infidels.

TENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: LATERAN II (1139)

The Second Lateran Council was held at Rome under Pope Innocent II, with an attendance of about 1000 prelates and the Emperor Conrad. Its object was to put an end to the errors of Arnold of Brescia.

ELEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: LATERAN III (1179)

The Third Lateran Council took place under Pope Alexander III, Frederick I being emperor. There were 302 bishops present. It condemned the Albigenses and Waldenses and issued numerous decrees for the reformation of morals.

TWELFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: LATERAN IV (1215)

The Fourth Lateran Council was held under Innocent III. There were present the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, 71 archbishops, 412 bishops, and 800 abbots the Primate of the Maronites, and St. Dominic. It issued an enlarged creed (symbol) against the Albigenses (Firmiter credimus), condemned the Trinitarian errors of Abbot Joachim, and published 70 important reformatory decrees. This is the most important council of the Middle Ages, and it marks the culminating point of ecclesiastical life and papal power.

THIRTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: LYONS I (1245)

The First General Council of Lyons was presided over by Innocent IV; the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Aquileia (Venice), 140 bishops, Baldwin II, Emperor of the East, and St. Louis, King of France, assisted. It excommunicated and deposed Emperor Frederick II and directed a new crusade, under the command of St. Louis, against the Saracens and Mongols.

FOURTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: LYONS II (1274)

The Second General Council of Lyons was held by Pope Gregory X, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Constantinople, 15 cardinals, 500 bishops, and more than 1000 other dignitaries. It effected a temporary reunion of the Greek Church with Rome. The word filioque was added to the symbol of Constantinople and means were sought for recovering Palestine from the Turks. It also laid down the rules for papal elections.

FIFTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: VIENNE (1311–1313)

The Council of Vienne was held in that town in France by order of Clement V, the first of the Avignon popes. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, 300 bishops (114 according to some authorities), and 3 kings—Philip IV of France, Edward II of England, and James II of Aragon—were present. The synod dealt with the crimes and errors imputed to the Knights Templars, the Fraticelli, the Beghards, and the Beguines, with projects of a new crusade, the reformation of the clergy, and the teaching of Oriental languages in the universities.

SIXTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: CONSTANCE (1414–1418)

The Council of Constance was held during the great Schism of the West, with the object of ending the divisions in the Church. It became legitimate only when Gregory XI had formally convoked it. Owing to this circumstance it succeeded in putting an end to the schism by the election of Pope Martin V, which the Council of Pisa (1403) had failed to accomplish on account of its illegality. The rightful pope confirmed the former decrees of the synod against Wyclif and Hus. This council is thus ecumenical only in its last sessions (XLII-XLV inclusive) and with respect to the decrees of earlier sessions approved by Martin V.

SEVENTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: BASLE/FERRARA/FLORENCE (1431–1439)

The Council of Basle met first in that town, Eugene IV being pope, and Sigismund Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Its object was the religious pacification of Bohemia. Quarrels with the pope having arisen, the council was transferred first to Ferrara (1438), then to Florence (1439), where a short-lived union with the Greek Church was effected, the Greeks accepting the council’s definition of controverted points. The Council of Basle is only ecumenical till the end of the twenty-fifth session, and of its decrees Eugene IV approved only such as dealt with the extirpation of heresy, the peace of Christendom, and the reform of the Church, and which at the same time did not derogate from the rights of the Holy See. (See also the Council of Florence.)

EIGHTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: LATERAN V (1512–1517)

The Fifth Lateran Council sat from 1512 to 1517 under Popes Julius II and Leo X, the emperor being Maximilian I. Fifteen cardinals and about eighty archbishops and bishops took part in it. Its decrees are chiefly disciplinary. A new crusade against the Turks was also planned, but came to naught, owing to the religious upheaval in Germany caused by Luther.

NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: TRENT (1545–1563)

The Council of Trent lasted eighteen years (1545–1563) under five popes: Paul III, Julius III, Marcellus II, Paul IV and Pius IV, and under the Emperors Charles V and Ferdinand. There were present 5 cardinal legates of the Holy See, 3 patriarchs, 33 archbishops, 235 bishops, 7 abbots, 7 generals of monastic orders, and 160 doctors of divinity. It was convoked to examine and condemn the errors promulgated by Luther and other Reformers, and to reform the discipline of the Church. Of all councils it lasted longest, issued the largest number of dogmatic and reformatory decrees, and produced the most beneficial results.

TWENTIETH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: VATICAN I (1869–1870)

The Vatican Council was summoned by Pius IX. It met 8 December, 1869, and lasted till 18 July, 1870, when it was adjourned; it is still (1908) unfinished. There were present 6 archbishop-princes, 49 cardinals, 11 patriarchs, 680 archbishops and bishops, 28 abbots, 29 generals of orders, in all 803. Besides important canons relating to the Faith and the constitution of the Church, the council decreed the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra, i.e. when as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

IV. THE POPE AND GENERAL COUNCILS

The relations between the pope and general councils must be exactly defined to arrive at a just conception of the functions of councils in the Church, of their rights and duties, and of their authority. The traditional phrase, “the council represents the Church,” associated with the modern notion of representative assemblies, is apt to lead to a serious misconception of the bishops’ function in general synods. The nation’s deputies receive their power from their electors and are bound to protect and promote their electors’ interests; in the modern democratic State they are directly created by, and out of, the people’s own power. The bishops in council, on the contrary, hold no power, no commission, or delegation, from the people. All their powers, orders, jurisdiction, and membership in the council, come to them from above—directly from the pope, ultimately from God. What the episcopate in council does represent is the Divinely instituted magisterium, the teaching and governing power of the Church; the interests it defends are those of the depositum fidei, of the revealed rules of faith and morals, i.e. the interests of God.

The council is, then, the assessor of the supreme teacher and judge sitting on the Chair of Peter by Divine appointment; its operation is essentially co-operation—the common action of the members with their head—and therefore necessarily rises or falls in value, according to the measure of its connection with the pope. A council in opposition to the pope is not representative of the whole Church, for it neither represents the pope who opposes it, nor the absent bishops, who cannot act beyond the limits of their dioceses except through the pope. A council not only acting independently of the Vicar of Christ, but sitting in judgment over him, is unthinkable in the constitution of the Church; in fact, such assemblies have only taken place in times of great constitutional disturbances, when either there was no pope or the rightful pope was indistinguishable from antipopes. In such abnormal times the safety of the Church becomes the supreme law, and the first duty of the abandoned flock is to find a new shepherd, under whose direction the existing evils may be remedied.

In normal times, when according to the Divine constitution of the Church, the pope rules in the fullness of his power, the function of councils is to support and strengthen his rule on occasions of extraordinary difficulties arising from heresies schisms, relaxed discipline, or external foes. General councils have no part in the ordinary normal government of the Church. This principle is confirmed by the fact that during nineteen centuries of Church life only twenty Ecumenical councils took place. It is further illustrated by the complete failure of the decree issued in the thirty-ninth session of the Council of Constance (then without a rightful head) to the effect that general councils should meet frequently and at regular intervals, the very first synod summoned at Pavia for the year 1423 could not be held for want of responses to the summons. It is thus evident that general councils are not qualified to issue independently of the pope, dogmatic or disciplinary canons binding on the whole Church. As a matter of fact, the older councils, especially those of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451), were not convened to decide on questions of faith still open, but to give additional weight to, and secure the execution of, papal decisions previously issued and regarded as fully authoritative. The other consequence of the same principle is that the bishops in council assembled are not commissioned, as are our modern parliaments, to control and limit the power of the sovereign, or head of the State, although circumstances may arise in which it would be, their right and duty firmly to expostulate with the pope on certain of his acts or measures. The severe strictures of the Sixth General Council on Pope Honorius I may be cited as a case in point.

V. COMPOSITION OF GENERAL COUNCILS

(A) RIGHT OF PARTICIPATION

The right to be present and to act at general councils belongs in the first place and logically to the bishops actually exercising the episcopal office. In the earlier councils there appear also the chorepiscopi (country-bishops), who, according to the better opinion, were neither true bishops nor an order interposed between bishops and priests, but priests invested with a jurisdiction smaller than the episcopal but larger than the sacerdotal. They were ordained by the bishop and charged with the administration of a certain district in his diocese. They had the power of conferring minor orders, and even the subdiaconate. Titular bishops, i.e. bishops not ruling a diocese, had equal rights with other bishops at the Vatican Council (1869–70), where 117 of them were present. Their claim lies in the fact that their order, the episcopal consecration, entitles them, jure divino, to take part in the administration of the Church, and that a general council seems to afford a proper sphere for the exercise of a right which the want of a proper diocese keeps in abeyance. Dignitaries who hold episcopal or quasi-episcopal jurisdiction without being bishops—such as cardinal-priests, cardinal-deacons, abbots nullius, mitred abbots of whole orders or congregations of monasteries, generals of clerks regular, mendicant and monastic orders—were allowed to vote at the Vatican Council. Their title is based on positive canon law: at the early councils such votes were not admitted, but from the seventh century down to the end of the Middle Ages the contrary practice gradually prevailed, and has since become an acquired right. Priests and deacons frequently cast decisive votes in the name of absent bishops whom they represented; at the Council of Trent, however, such procurators were admitted only with great limitations,and at the Vatican Council they were even excluded from the council hall. Besides voting members, every council admits, as consultors a number of doctors in theology and canon law. In the Council of Constance the consultors were allowed to vote. Other clerics have always been admitted as notaries. Lay people may be, and have been, present at councils for various reasons, but never as voters. They gave advice, made complaints, assented to decisions, and occasionally also signed the decrees. Since the Roman emperors had accepted Christianity, they assisted either personally or through deputies (commissarii). Constantine the Great was present in person at the First General Council, Theodosius II sent his representatives to the third, and Emperor Marcian sent his to the fourth, at the sixth session of which himself and the Empress Pulcheria assisted personally. Constantine Pogonatus was present at the sixth, the Empress Irene and her son Constantine Porphyrogenitus only sent their representative to the seventh, whereas Emperor Basil, the Macedonian, assisted at the eighth, sometimes in person, sometimes through his deputies. Only the Second and the Fifth General Synods were held in the absence of the emperors or imperial commissaries, but both Theodosius the Great and Justinian were at Constantinople while the councils were sitting, and kept up constant intercourse with them. In the West the attendance of kings, even at provincial synods, was of frequent occurrence. The motive and object of the royal presence were to protect the synods, to heighten their authority, to lay before them the needs of particular Christian states and countries.

This laudable and legitimate co-operation led by degrees to interference with the pope’s rights in conciliar matters. The Eastern Emperor Michael claimed the right to summon councils without obtaining the pope’s consent, and to take part in them personally or by proxy. But Pope Nicholas I resisted the pretensions of Emperor Michael, pointing out to him, in a letter (865), that his imperial predecessors had only been present at general synods dealing with matters of faith, and from that fact drew the conclusion that all other synods should be held without the emperor’s or his commissaries’ presence. A few years later the Eighth General Synod (Can. xvii, Hefele, IV, 421) declared it false that no synod could be held without the emperor’s presence the emperors had only been present at general councils—and that it was not right for secular princes to witness the condemnation of ecclesiastics (at provincial synods). As early as the fourth century the bishops greatly complained of the action of Constantine the Great in imposing his commissary on the Synod of Tyre (335). In the West, however, secular princes were present even at national synods, e.g. Sisenand, King of the Spanish Visigoths, was at the Fourth Council of Toledo (636) and King Chintilian at the fifth (638); Charlemagne assisted at the Council of Frankfort (794) and two Anglo Saxon kings at the Synod of Whitby (Collatio Pharenes) in 664. But step by step Rome established the principle that no royal commissary may be present at any council except a general one, in which “faith, reformation, and peace” are in question.

(B) REQUISITE NUMBER OF MEMBERS

The number of bishops present required to constitute an Ecumenical council cannot be strictly defined, nor need it be so deigned, for ecumenicity chiefly depends on co-operation with the head of the Church, and only secondarily on the number of co-operators. It is physically impossible to bring together all the bishops of the world, nor is there any standard by which to determine even an approximate number, or proportion, of prelates necessary to secure ecumenicity. All should be invited, no one should be debarred, a somewhat considerable number of representatives of the several provinces and countries should be actually present; this may be laid down as a practicable theory. But the ancient Church did not conform to this theory. As a rule only the patriarchs and metropolitans received a direct summons to appear with a certain number of their suffragans. At Ephesus and Chalcedon the time between the convocation and the meeting of the council was too short to allow of the Western bishops being invited. As a rule, but very few Western bishops were personally present at any of the first eight general synods. Occasionally, e.g. at the sixth, their absence was remedied by sending deputies with precise instructions arrived at in a previous council held in the West. What gives those Eastern synods their Ecumenical character is the co-operation of the pope as head of the universal, and, especially, of the Western, Church. This circumstance, so remarkably prominent in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, affords the best proof that, in the sense of the Church, the essential constituent element of ecumenicity is less the proportion of bishops present to bishops absent than the organic connection of the council with the head of the Church.

(C) PAPAL HEADSHIP THE FORMAL ELEMENT OF COUNCILS

It is the action of the pope that makes the councils ecumenical. That action is the exercise of his office of supreme teacher and ruler of the Church. Its necessity results from the fact that no authority is commensurate with the whole Church except that of the pope; he alone can bind all the faithful. Its sufficiency is equally manifest: when the pope has spoken ex cathedra to make his own the decisions of any council, regardless of the number of its members nothing further can be wanted to make them binding on the whole Church. The earliest enunciation of the principle is found in the letter of the Council of Sardica (313) to Pope Julius I, and was often quoted, since the beginning of the fifth century, as the (Nicaean) canon concerning the necessity of papal co-operation in all the more important conciliary Acts. The Church historian Socrates (Hist. Eccl., II, xvii) makes Pope Julius say, in reference to the Council of Antioch (341), that the law of the Church (kanon) forbids “the churches to pass laws contrary to the judgement of the Bishop of Rome” and Sozomen (III, x) likewise declares “it to be a holy law not to attribute any value to things done without the judgment of the Bishop of Rome.” The letter of Julius here quoted by both Socrates and Sozomen directly refers to an existing ecclesiastical custom and, in particular, to a single important case (the deposition of a patriarch), but the underlying principle is as stated.

Papal co-operation may be of several degrees: to be effective in stamping a council as universal it must amount to taking over responsibility for its decisions by giving them formal confirmation. The Synod of Constantinople (381) in which the Nicene Creed received its present form—the one used at Mass—had in itself no claim to be Ecumenical. Before Pope Damasus and the Western bishops had seen its full Acts they condemned certain of its proceedings at an Italian synod, but on receiving the Acts, Damasus, so we are told by Photius, confirmed them. Photius, however, is only right with regard to the Creed, or Symbol of Faith: the canons of this council were still rejected by Leo the Great and even by Gregory the Great (about 600). A proof that the Creed of Constantinople enjoyed papal sanction may be drawn from the way in which the Roman legates at the Fourth General Synod (Chalcedon, 451) allowed, without any protest, appeals to this Creed, while at the same time they energetically protested against the canons of the council. It was on account of the papal approbation of the Creed that, in the sixth century, Popes Vigilius, Pelagius II, and Gregory the Great declared this council Ecumenical, although Gregory still refused to sanction its canons. The First Synod of Constantinople presents, then, an instance of a minimum of papal co-operation impressing on a particular council the mark of universality. The normal co-operation, however, requires on the part of the head of the Church more than a post-factum acknowledgment.

The pope’s office and the council’s function in the organization of the Church require that the pope should call the council together, preside over and direct its labours, and finally promulgate its decrees to the universal Church as expressing the mind of the whole teaching body guided by the Holy Ghost. Instances of such normal, natural, perfect co-operation occur in the five Lateran councils, which were presided over by the pope in person; the personal presence of the highest authority in the Church, his direction of the deliberations, and approbation of the decrees, stamp the conciliary proceedings throughout as the function of the Magisterium Ecclesiae in its most authoritative form. Councils in which the pope is represented by legates are, indeed, also representative of the whole teaching body of the Church, but the representation is not absolute or adequate, is no real concentration of its whole authority. They act in the name, but not with the whole power, of the teaching Church, and their decrees become universally binding only through an act, either antecedent or consequent, of the pope. The difference between councils presided over personally and by proxy is marked in the form in which their decrees are promulgated: when the pope has been present the decrees are published in his own name with the additional formula: sacro approbante Concilio; when papal legates have presided the decrees are attributed to the synod (S. Synodus declarat, definit, decernit)

VI. FACTORS IN THE POPE’S CO-OPERATION WITH THE COUNCIL

We have seen that no council is Ecumenical unless the pope has made it his own by co-operation, which admits of a minimum and a maximum consequently of various degrees of perfection. Catholic writers could have saved themselves much trouble if they had always based their apologetics on the simple and evident principle of a sufficient minimum of papal co- operation, instead of endeavouring to prove, at all costs, that a maximum is both required in principle and demonstrable in history. The three factors constituting the solidarity of pope and council are the convocation, direction, and confirmation of the council by the pope- but it is not essential that each and all of these factors should always be present in full perfection.

(A) CONVOCATION

The juridical convocation of a council implies something more than an invitation addressed to all the bishops of the world to meet in council, viz.: the act by which in law the bishops are bound to take part in the council, and the council itself is constituted a legitimate tribunal for dealing with Church affairs. Logically, and in the nature of the thing, the right of convocation belongs to the pope alone. Yet the convocation, in the loose sense of invitation to meet, of the first eight general synods, was regularly issued by the Christian emperors, whose dominion was coextensive with the Church, or at least with the Eastern part of it, which was then alone convened. The imperial letters of convocation to the Councils of Ephesus (Hardouin, I, 1343) and of Chalcedon (Hardouin, II, 42) show that the emperors acted as protectors of the Church, believing it their duty to further by every means in their power the welfare of their charge. Nor is it possible in every case to prove that they acted at the formal instigation of the pope; it even seems that the emperors more than once followed none but their own initiative for convening the council and fixing its place of meeting. It is, however. evident that the Christian emperors cannot have acted thus without the consent, actual or presumed of the pope. Otherwise their conduct had been neither lawful nor wise. As a matter of fact, none of the eight Eastern Ecumenical synods, with the exception, perhaps, of the fifth, was summoned by the emperor in opposition to the pope. As regards the fifth, the conduct of the emperor caused the legality of the council to be questioned—a proof that the mind of the Church required the pope’s consent for the lawfulness of councils. As regards most of these eight synods, particularly that of Ephesus, the previous consent of the pope, actual or presumed, is manifest. Regarding the convocation of the Council of Chalcedon, the Emperor Marcian did not quite fall in with the wishes of Pope Leo I as to the time and place of its meeting, but he did not claim an absolute right to have his will, nor did the pope acknowledge such a right. On the contrary, as Leo I explains in his letters (Epp. lxxxix, xc, ed. Ballerini), he only submitted to the imperial arrangements because he was unwilling to interfere with Marcian’s well-meant endeavours.

It is still more evident that convocation by the emperors did not imply on their part the claim to constitute the council juridically, that is, to give it power to sit as an authorized tribunal for Church affairs. Such a claim has never been put forward. The expressions jubere and keleuein, occasionally used in the wording of the convocation, do not necessarily convey the notion of strict orders not to be resisted; they also have the meaning of exhorting, inducing, bidding. The juridical constitution of the council could only emanate, and in fact always did emanate, from the Apostolic See. As the necessity of the bishops’ meeting in council was dictated rather by the distressful condition of the Church than by positive orders, the pope contented himself with authorizing the council and this he effected by sending his legates to preside over and direct the work of the assembled prelates. The Emperor Marcian in his first letter to Leo I declares that the success of the intended synod depends on his—the pope’s—authorization, and Leo, not Marcian, is later called the auctor synodi without any restrictive qualification, especially at the time of the “Three Chapters” dispute, where the extension of the synod’s authority was called in question. The law therefore, at that period was the same as it is now as far as essentials are concerned: the pope is the sole convener of the council as an authoritative juridical assembly. The difference lies in the circumstance that the pope left to the emperor the execution of the convocation and the necessary measures for rendering the meeting possible and surrounding it with the éclat due to its dignity in Church and State. The material, or business, part of the councils being thus entirely in the hands of the emperors, it was to be expected that the pope was sometimes induced—if not forced—by circumstances to make his authorization suit the imperial wishes and arrangements.

After studying the principles it is well to see how they worked out in fact. Hence the following historical summary of the convocation of the first eight general councils:

(1) Eusebius (Vita Constantini, III, vi) informs us that the writs of convocation to the First General Synod were issued by Emperor Constantine, but as not one of those writs has come down to us, it remains doubtful whether or not they mentioned any previous consultation with the pope. It is, however, an undeniable fact that the Sixth General Synod (680) plainly affirmed that the Council of Nicaea had been convened by the emperor and Pope Sylvester (Mansi, Coll. Conc., XI, 661). The same statement appears in the life of Sylvester found in the “Liber Pontificalis,” but this evidence need not be pressed, the evidence from the council being, from the circumstances in which it was given, of sufficient strength to carry the point. For the Sixth General Council took place in Constantinople, at a time when the bishops of the imperial city already attempted to rival the bishops of Old Rome, and the vast majority of its members were Greeks; their statement is therefore entirely free from the suspicion of Western ambition or prejudice and must be accepted as a true presentment of fact. Rufinus, in his continuation of Eusebius’ history (I, 1) says that the emperor summoned the synod ex sacerdotum sententia (on the advice of the clergy)- it is but fair to suppose that if he consulted several prelates he did not omit to consult with the head of all.

(2) The Second General Synod (381) was not, at first, intended to be Ecumenical; it only became so because it was accepted in the West, as has been shown above. It was not summoned by Pope Damasus as is often contended, for the assertion that the assembled bishops professed to have met in consequence of a letter of the pope to Theodosius the Great is based on a confusion. The document here brought in as evidence refers to the synod of the following year which was indeed summoned at the instigation of the pope and the Synod of Aquileia, but was not an Ecumenical synod.

(3) The Third General Council (Ephesus, 431) was convoked by Emperor Theodosius II and his Western colleague Valentinian III- this is evident from the Acts of the council. It is equally evident that Pope Celestine I gave his consent, for he wrote (15 May, 431) to Theodosius that he could not appear in person at the synod, but that he would send his representatives. And in his epistle of 8 May to the synod itself, he insists on the duty of the bishops present to hold fast to the orthodox faith, expects them to accede to the sentence he has already pronounced on Nestorius, and adds that he has sent his legates to execute that sentence at Ephesus. The members of the council acknowledge the papal directions and orders, not only the papal consent, in the wording of their solemn condemnation of Nestorius: “Urged by the Canons and conforming to the Letter of our most holy Father and fellow servant Celestine the Roman bishop, we have framed this sorrowful sentence against Nestorius.” They express the same sentiment where they say that “the epistle of the Apostolic See (to Cyril, communicated to the council) already contains a judgment and a rule psepho kai typou on the case of Nestorius” and that they—the bishops in council—have executed that ruling. All this manifests the bishops’ conviction that the pope was the moving and quickening spirit of the synod.

(4) How the Fourth General Synod (Chalcedon, 451) was brought together is set forth in several writings of Pope Leo I and Emperors Theodosius II and Marcian. Immediately after the Robber Synod, Leo asked Theodosius to prepare a council composed of bishops from all parts of the world, to meet, preferably, in Italy. He repeated the same request, first made 13 October, 449, on the following feast of Christmas, and prevailed on the Western Emperor Valentinian III together with his empress and his mother, to support it at the Byzantine Court. Once more (in July, 450) Leo renewed his request, adding, however that the council might be dispensed with if all the bishops were to make a profession of the orthodox faith without being united in council. About this time Theodosius II died and was succeeded by his sister, St. Pulcheria, and her husband Marcian. Both at once informed the pope of their willingness to summon the council, Marcian specially asking him to state in writing whether he could assist at the synod in person or through his legates, so that the necessary writs of convocation might be issued to the Eastern bishops. By that time, however, the situation had greatly improved in the Eastern Church- nearly all the bishops who had taken part in the Robber Synod had now repented of their aberration and signed, in union with their orthodox colleagues, the “Epistola dogmatica” of Leo to Flavian, by this act rendering the need of a council less urgent. Besides, the Huns were just then invading the West, preventing many Latin bishops, whose presence at the council was most desirable, from leaving their flocks to undertake the long journey to Chalcedon. Other motives induced the pope to postpone the synod, e.g. the fear that it might be made the occasion by the bishops of Constantinople to improve their hierarchical position, a fear well justified by subsequent events. But Marcian had already summoned the synod, and Leo therefore gave his instructions as to the business to be transacted. He was then entitled to say, in a letter to the bishops who had been at the council that the synod had been brought together “ex praecepto christianorum principum et ex consensu apostolicae sedis” (by order of the Christian princes and with the consent of the Apostolic See). The emperor himself wrote to Leo that the synod had been held by his authority (te auctore), and the bishops of Moesia, in a letter to the Byzantine Emperor Leo, said: “At Chalcedon many bishops assembled by order of Leo, the Roman pontiff, who is the true head of the bishops.”

(5) The Fifth General Synod was planned by Justinian I with the consent of Pope Vigilius (q.v.), but on account of the emperor’s dogmatic pretensions, quarrels arose and the pope refused to be present, although repeatedly invited. His Constitutum of 14 May 553, to the effect that he could not consent to anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret, led to open opposition between pope and council. In the end all was righted by Vigilius approving the synodal decrees.

(6, 7, 8) These three synods were each and all called by the emperors of the time with the consent and assistance of the Apostolic See.

(B) DIRECTION

The direction or presidency of councils belongs to the pope by the same right as their convocation and constitution. Were a council directed in its deliberations and acts by anyone independent of the pope and acting entirely on his own responsibility, such a council could not be the pope’s own in any sense: the defect could only be made good by a consequent formal act of the pope accepting responsibility for its decisions. In point of fact, papal legates presided over all the Eastern councils, which from their beginning were legally constituted. The reader will obtain a clearer insight into this point of conciliar proceedings from a concrete example, taken from Hefele’s introduction to his “History of the Councils”:

Pope Adrian II sent his legates to the Eighth Ecumenical Synod (787) with an express declaration to the Emperor Basil that they were to act as presidents of the council. The legates, Bishop Donatus of Ostia, Bishop Stephen of Nepesina, and the deacon Marinus of Rome, read the papal rescript to the synod. Not the slightest objection was raised. Their names took precedence in all protocols; they determined the duration of the several sessions, gave leave to make speeches and to read documents and to admit other persons, they put the leading questions, etc. In short, their presidency in the first five sessions cannot be disputed. But at the sixth session Emperor Basil was present with his two sons, Constantine and Leo, and, as the Acts relate, received the presidency. These same Acts, however, at once clearly distinguish the emperor and his sons from the synod when, after naming them they continue: conveniente sanctâ ac universali synodo (the holy and universal synod now meeting), thus disassociating the lay ruler from the council proper. The names of the papal legates continue to appear first among the members of the synod, and it is they who in those latter sessions determine the matters for discussion, subscribe the Acts before anyone else, expressly as presidents of the synod, whereas the emperor, to show clearly that he did not consider himself the president, would only subscribe after all the bishops. The papal legates begged him to put his and his son’s names at the head of the list, but he stoutly refused and only consented at last, to write his name after those of the papal legates and of the Eastern patriarchs, but before those of the bishops. Consequently Pope Adrian II, in a letter to the emperor, praises him for not having assisted at the council as a judge (judex), but merely as a witness and protector (conscius et obsecundator).

The imperial commissaries present at the synod acted even less as presidents than the emperor himself. They signed the reports of the several sessions only after the representatives of the patriarchs though before the bishops; their names are absent from the signatures of the Acts. On the other hand it may be contended that the Eastern patriarchs Ignatius of Constantinople, and the representatives of the other Eastern patriarchs, in some degree participated in the presidency: their names are constantly associated with those of the Roman legates and clearly distinguished from those of the other metropolitans and bishops. They, as it were, form with the papal legates a board of directors, fix with him the order of proceedings, determine who shall be heard, subscribe, like the legates, before the emperor and are entered in the reports of the several sessions before the imperial commissaries. All this being granted, the fact still remains that the papal legates unmistakably hold the first place, for they are always named first and sign first, and—a detail of great importance—for the final subscription they use the formula: huic sanctae et universali synodo praesidens (presiding over this holy and universal synod), while Ignatius of Constantinople and the representatives of the other patriarchs claim no presidency but word their subscription thus: suscipiens et omnibus quae ab ea judicata et scripta sunt concordans et definiens subscripsi (receiving this holy and universal synod and agreeing with all it has judged and written, and defining I have signed). If, on the one hand, this form of subscription differs from that of the president, it differs no less, on the other, from that of the bishops. These, like the emperor, have without exception used the formula: suscipiens (synodum) subscripsi (receiving the synod I have signed), omitting the otherwise customary definiens, which was used to mark a decisive vote (votum decisivum).

Hefele gives similar documentary accounts of the first eight general synods, showing that papal legates always presided over them when occupied in their proper business of deciding questions on faith and discipline. The exclusive right of the pope in this matter was generally acknowledged. Thus, the Emperor Theodosius II says, in his edict addressed to the Council of Ephesus, that he had sent Count Candidian to represent him, but that this imperial commissary was to take no part in dogmatic disputes since “it was unlawful for one who is not enrolled in the lists of the most holy bishops to mingle in ecclesiastical inquiries.” The Council of Chalcedon acknowledged that Pope Leo, by his legates, presided over it as “the head over the members.” At Nicaea, Hosius, Vitus and Vincentius, as papal legates, signed before all other members of the council. The right of presiding and directing implies that the pope, if he chooses to make a full use of his powers, can determine the subject matter to be dealt with by the council, prescribe rules for conducting the debates, and generally order the whole business as seems best to him. Hence no conciliar decree is legitimate if carried under protest—or even without the positive consent—of the pope or his legates. The consent of the legates alone, acting without a special order from the pope, is not sufficient to make conciliar decrees at once perfect and operative; what is necessary is the pope’s own consent. For this reason no decree can become legitimate and null in law on account of pressure brought to bear on the assembly by the presiding pope, or by papal legates acting on his orders. Such pressure and restriction of liberty, proceeding from the internal, natural principle of order through the use of lawful power, does not amount to external, unnatural coercion, and, therefore, does not invalidate the Acts due to its exercise.

Examples of councils working at high pressure, if the expression may be used, without spoiling their output, are of frequent occurrence. Most of the early councils were convened to execute decisions already finally fixed by the pope, no choice being left the assembled Fathers to arrive at another decision. They were forced to conform their judgment to that of Rome, with or without discussion. Should papal pressure go beyond the limits of the council’s dignity and of the importance of the matters under discussion the effect would be, not the invalidation of the council’s decrees, but the paralysing of its moral influence and practical usefulness. On the other hand, the fact that a synod is, or has been, acting under the leadership of its Divinely appointed head, is the best guarantee of its freedom from unnatural disturbances, such as intrigues from below or coercion from above. In the same way violent interference with the papal leadership is the grossest attack on the council’s natural freedom. Thus the Robber Synod of Ephesus (449), though intended to be general and at first duly authorized by the presence of papal legates, was declared invalid and null by those same legates at Chalcedon 451), because the prejudiced Emperor Theodosius II had removed the representatives of the pope, and entrusted the direction of the council to Dioscurus of Alexandria.

(C) CONFIRMATION

Confirmation of the conciliar decrees is the third factor in the pope’s necessary co-operation with the council. The council does not represent the teaching Church till the visible head of the Church has given his approval, for, unapproved, it is but a headless, soulless, impersonal body, unable to give its decisions the binding force of laws for the whole Church, or the finality of judicial sentences With the papal approval, on the contrary, the council’s pronouncements represent the fullest effort of the teaching and ruling Church, a judicium plenissimum beyond which no power can go. Confirmation being the final touch of perfection, the seal of authority, and the very life of conciliar decrees, it is necessary that it should be a personal act of the highest authority, for the highest authority cannot be delegated. So much for the principle, or the question of right. When we look for its practical working throughout the history of councils, we find great diversity in the way it has been applied under the influence of varying circumstances.

Councils over which the pope presides in person require no further formal confirmation on his part, for their decisions formally include his own as the body includes the soul. The Vatican Council of 1869–70 offers an example in point.

Councils over which the pope presides through his legates are not identified with himself in the same degree as the former. They constitute separate, dependent, representative tribunals, whose findings only become final through ratification by the authority for which they act. Such is the theory. In practice, however, the papal confirmation is, or may be, presumed in the following cases:

When the council is convened for the express purpose of carrying out a papal decision previously arrived at, as was the case with most of the early synods; or when the legates give their consent in virtue of a special public instruction emanating from the pope; in these circumstances the papal ratification pre-exists, is implied in the conciliar decision, and need not be formally renewed after the council. It may, however, be superadded ad abundantiam, as, e.g. the confirmation of the Council of Chalcedon by Leo I.

The necessary consent of the Apostolic See may also be presumed when, as generally at the Council of Trent, the legates have personal instructions from the pope on each particular question coming up for decision, and act conformably, i.e. if they allow no decision to be taken unless the pope’s consent has previously been obtained.

Supposing a council actually composed of the greater part of the episcopate, concurring freely in a unanimous decision and thus bearing unexceptional witness to the mind and sense of the whole Church: The pope, whose office it is to voice infallibly the mind of the Church, would be obliged by the very nature of his office, to adopt the council’s decision, and consequently his confirmation, ratification, or approbation could be presumed, and a formal expression of it dispensed with. But even then his approbation, presumed or expressed, is juridically the constituent factor of the decision’s perfection.

The express ratification in due form is at all times, when not absolutely necessary, at least desirable and useful in many respects:

It gives the conciliar proceedings their natural and lawful complement, the keystone which closes and crowns the arch for strength and beauty; it brings to the front the majesty and significance of the supreme head of the Church.

Presumed consent can but rarely apply with the same efficacy to each and all of the decisions of an important council. A solemn papal ratification puts them all on the same level and removes all possible doubt.

Lastly the papal ratification formally promulgates the sentence of the council as an article of faith to be known and accepted by all the faithful; it brings to light and public view the intrinsic ecumenicity of the council- it is the natural, official, indisputable criterion, or test, of the perfect legality of the conciliar transactions or conclusions. If we bear in mind the numerous disturbing elements at work in and around an Ecumenical council, the conflicting religious, political, scientific, and personal interests contending for supremacy, or at least eager to secure some advantage, we can easily realize the necessity of a papal ratification to crush the endless chicanery which otherwise would endanger the success and efficacy of the highest tribunal of the Church. Even they who refuse to see in the papal confirmation an authentic testimony and sentence, declaring infallibly the ecumenicity of the council and its decrees to be a dogmatic fact, must admit that it is a sanative act and supplies possible defects and shortcomings; the Ecumenical authority of the pope is sufficient to impart validity and infallibility to the decrees he makes his own by officially ratifying them. This was done by Pope Vigilius for the Fifth General Synod. Sufficient proof for the sanatory efficacy of the papal ratification lies in the absolute sovereignty of the pope and in the infallibility of his ex-cathedra pronouncements. Should it be argued, however, that the sentence of an Ecumenical council is the only absolute, final, and infallible sentence even then, and then more than ever, the papal ratification would be necessary. For in the transactions of an Ecumenical council the pope plays the principal part, and if any deficiency in his action, especially in the exercise of his own special prerogatives, were apparent, the labours of the council would be in vain. The faithful hesitate to accept as infallible guides of their faith documents not authenticated by the seal of the fisherman, or the Apostolic See, which now wields the authority of St. Peter and of Christ. Leo II beautifully expresses these ideas in his ratification of the Sixth General Council: “Because this great and universal synod has most fully proclaimed the definition of the right faith, which the Apostolic See of St. Peter the Apostle, whose office we, though unequal to it, are holding, also reverently receives: therefore we also, and through our office this Apostolic See, consent to, and confirm, by the authority of Blessed Peter, those things which have been defined, as being finally set by he Lord Himself on the solid rock which is Christ.”

No event in the history of the Church better illustrates the necessity and the importance of papal co-operation and, in particular, confirmation, than the controversies which in the sixth century raged about the Three Chapters. The Three Chapters were the condemnation (1) of Theodore of Mopsuestia, his person, and his writings; (2) of Theodoret’s writings against Cyril and the Council of Ephesus; (3) of a letter from Ibas to Maris the Persian, also against Cyril and the council. Theodore anticipated the heresy of Nestorius; Ibas and Theodoret were indeed restored at Chalcedon, but only after they had given orthodox explanations and shown that they were free from Nestorianism. The two points in debate were: (1) Did the Council of Chalcedon acknowledge the orthodoxy of the said Three Chapters? (2) How, i.e. by what test, is the point to be settled? Now the two contending parties agreed in the principle of the test: the approbation of the council stands or falls with the approbation of the pope’s legates and of Pope Leo I himself. Defenders of the Chapters, e.g. Ferrandus the Deacon and Facundus of Hermiane, put forward as their chief argument (prima et immobilis ratio) the fact that Leo had approved. Their opponents never questioned the principle but denied the alleged fact, basing their denial on Leo’s epistle to Maximus of Antioch in which they read: “Si quid sane ab his fratribus quos ad S. Synodum vice mea, praeter id quod ad causam fidei pertinebat gestum fuerit, nullius erit firmitatis” (If indeed anything not pertaining to the cause of faith should have been settled by the brethren I sent to the Holy Synod to hold my place, it shall be of no force). The point of doctrine (causa fidei) referred to is the heresy of Eutyches; the Three Chapters refer to that of Nestorius, or rather to certain persons and writings connected with it.

The bishops of the council, assembled at Constantinople in 533 for the purpose of putting an end to the Three Chapters controversy, addressed to Pope Vigilius two Confessions, the first with the Patriarch Mennas, the second with his successor Eutychius, in which, to establish their orthodoxy, they profess that they firmly hold to the four general synods as approved by the Apostolic See and by the popes. Thus we read in the Confessio of Mennas: “But also the letters of Pope Leo of blessed memory and the Constitution of the Apostolic See issued in support of the Faith and of the authority (firmitas) of the aforesaid four synods, we promise to follow and observe in all points and we anathematize any man, who on any occasion or altercation should attempt to nullify our promises.” And in the Confessio of Eutychius: “Suscipimus autem et amplectimur epistolas praesulum Romance Sedis Apostolicae, tam aliorum quam Leonis sanctae memoriae de fide scriptas et de quattuor sanctis conciliis vel de uno eorum” (We receive and embrace the letters of the bishops of the Apostolic Roman See, those of others as well as of Leo of holy memory, concerning the Faith and the four holy synods or any of them).

VII. BUSINESS METHODS

The way in which councils transact business now demands our attention. Here as in most things, there is an ideal which is never completely realized in practice.

(A) THE FACTS

It has been sufficiently shown in the foregoing section that the pope, either in person or by deputy, directed the transaction of conciliar business. But when we look for a fixed order or set of rules regulating the proceedings we have to come down to the Vatican Council to find an official Ordo concilii ecumenici and a Methodus servanda in prima sessione, etc. In all earlier councils the management of affairs was left to the Fathers and adjusted by them to the particular objects and circumstances of the council. The so-called Ordo celebrandi Concilii Tridentini is a compilation posterior to the council, written by the conciliar secretary, A. Massarelli; it is a record of what has been done not a rule of what should be done. Some fixed rules were, however, already established at the reform councils of the fifteenth century as a substitute for the absent directing power of the pope. The substance of these rulings is given in the “Caeremoniale Romanum” of Augustinus Patritius (d. 1496). The institution of “congregations” dates from the Council of Constance (1415). At earlier councils all the meetings of the Fathers were called indiscriminately sessiones or actiones, but since Constance the term session has been restricted to the solemn meetings at which the final votes are given while all meetings for the purpose of consultation or provisory voting are termed congregations.

The distinction between general and particular congregations likewise dates from Constance, where, however, the particular congregations assumed a form different in spirit and composition from the practice of earlier and later councils. They were simply separate assemblies of the “nations” (first four, then five) present at the council; their deliberations went to form national votes which were presented in the general assembly, whose decisions conformed to a majority of such votes. The particular congregations of more recent councils were merely consultative assemblies (committees commissions) brought together by appointment or invitation in order to deliberate on special matters. At Trent there were congregations of prelates and congregations of theologians, both partly for dogma, partly for discipline. The congregations of prelates were either “deputations,” i.e. committees of specially chosen experts, or conciliary groups, usually three into which the council divided for the purpose of facilitating discussion.

The official ordo of the Vatican Council confirmed the Tridentine practice, leaving, however, to the initiative of the prelates the formation of groups of a more private character. The voting by “nations,” peculiar to the reform councils, has also been abandoned in favour of the traditional voting by individuals (capita). At the Vatican Council there were seven “commissions” consisting of theologians from all countries, appointed a year before the actual meeting of the assembly. Their duty was to prepare the various matters to be laid before the council. The object of these congregations is sufficiently described by their titles: (1) Congregatio cardinalitia directrix; (2) Commissio caeremoniarum, (3) politico-ecclesiastica; (4) pro ecclesiis et missionibus Orientis; (5) pro Regularibus; (6) theologica dogmatica; (7) pro disciplina ecclesiastica (i.e. a general directive cardinalitial congregation, and several commissions for ceremonies, politico-ecclesiastical affairs, the churches and missions of the Orient, the regular orders, dogmatic theology, ecclesiastical discipline). On the basis of their labours were worked out the schemata (drafts of decrees) to be discussed by the council. Within the council itself there were seven “deputations”: (1) Pro recipiendis et expendendis Patrum propositionibus (appointed by the pope to examine the propositions of the Fathers); (2) Judices excusationum (Judges of excuses); (3) Judices querelarum et controversiarum (to settle questions of precedence and such like); (4) deputatio pro rebus ad fidem pertinentibus (on matters pertaining to faith); (5) deputatio pro rebus disciplinae ecclesiasticae (on ecclesiastical discipline); (6) pro rebus ordinum regularium (on religious orders); (7) pro rebus ritus orientalis et apostolicis missionibus (Oriental rites and Apostolic missions).

All these deputations, except the first, were chosen by the council. Objections and amendments to the proposed schemata had to be handed in in writing to the responsible deputation which considered the matter and modified the schema accordingly. Anyone desiring further to improve the modified draft had to obtain from the legates permission to propose his amendments in a speech, after which he put them down in writing. If, however, ten prelates decided that the matter had been sufficiently debated, leave for speaking was refused. At this stage the amendments were collected and examined by the synodal congregation, then again laid before the general congregation to be voted on severally. The votes for admission or rejection were expressed by the prelates standing or remaining seated. Next the schema, reformed in accordance with these votes, was submitted to a general congregation for approval or disapproval in toto. In case a majority of placets were given for it, it was accepted in a last solemn public session, after a final vote of placet or non placet (“it pleases,” or “it does not please”).

(B) THE THEORY

The principle which directs the practical working of a council is the perfect, or best possible, realization of its object, viz. a final judgment on questions of faith and morals, invested with the authority and majesty of the whole teaching body of the Church. To this end some means are absolutely necessary, others are only desirable as adding perfection to the result. We deal first with these latter means, which may be called the ideal elements of the council:

The presence of all the bishops of the world is an ideal not to be realized, but the presence of a very great majority is desirable for many reasons. A quasi-complete council has the advantage of being a real representation of the whole Church, while a sparsely attended one is only so in law, i.e. the few members present legally represent the many absent, but only represent their juridical power, their ordinary power not being representable. Thus for every bishop absent there is absent an authentic witness of the Faith as it is in his diocese.

A free and exhaustive discussion of all objections.

An appeal to the universal belief—if existing—witnessed to by all the bishops in council. This, if realized, would render all further discussion superfluous.

Unanimity in the final vote, the result either of the universal faith as testified to by the Fathers, or of conviction gained in the debates. It is evident that these four elements in the working of a council generally contribute to its ideal perfection, but it is not less evident that they are not essential to its substance, to its conciliary effectiveness. If they were necessary many acknowledged councils and decrees would lose their intrinsic authority, because one or other or all of these conditions were wanting. Again, there is no standard by which to determine whether or not the number of assisting bishops was sufficient and the debates have been exhaustive- nor do the Acts of the councils always inform us of the unanimity of the final decisions or of the way in which it was obtained. Were each and all of these four elements essential to an authoritative council no such council could have been held, in many cases, when it was none the less urgently required by the necessities of the Church. Authors who insist on the ideal perfection of councils only succeed in undermining their authority, which is, perhaps, the object they aim at. Their fundamental error is a false notion of the nature of councils. They conceive of the function of the council as a witnessing to, and teaching of, the generally accepted faith- whereas it is essentially a juridical function, the action of judges as well as of witnesses of the Faith. This leads us to consider the essential elements in conciliar action.

From the notion that the council is a court of judges the following inferences may be drawn:

The bishops, in giving their judgment, are directed only by their personal conviction of its rectitude; no previous consent of all the faithful or of the whole episcopate is required. In unity with their head they are one solid college of judges authoritatively constituted for united, decisive action—a body entirely different from a body of simple witnesses.

This being admitted, the assembled college assumes a representation of their colleagues who were called but failed to take their seats, provided the number of those actually present is not altogether inadequate for the matter in hand. Hence their resolutions are rightly said to rest on universal consent: universali consensu constituta, as the formula runs.

Further, on the same supposition, the college of judges is subject to the rule obtaining in all assemblies constituted for framing a judicial sentence or a common resolution, due regard being paid to the special relations, in the present instance, between the head and the members of the college: the co-operative verdict embodies the opinion of the majority, including the head, and in law stands for the verdict of the whole assembly, it is communi sensu constitutum (established by common consent). A majority verdict, even headed by papal legates, if disconnected from the personal action of the pope, still falls short of a perfect, authoritative pronouncement of the whole Church, and cannot claim infallibility. Were the verdict unanimous, it would still be imperfect and fallible, if it did not receive the papal approbation. The verdict of a majority, therefore, not endorsed by the pope, has no binding force on either the dissentient members present or the absent members, nor is the pope bound in any way to endorse it. Its only value is that it justifies the pope, in case he approves it, to say that he confirms the decision of a council, or gives his own decision sacro approbante concilio (with the consent of the council). This he could not say if he annulled a decision taken by a majority including his legates, or if he gave a casting vote between two equal parties. A unanimous conciliary decision, as distinct from a simple majority decision, may under certain circumstances, be, in a way, binding on the pope and compel his approbation—by the compelling power, not of a superior authority, but of the Catholic truth shining forth in the witnessing of the whole Church. To exert such power the council’s decision must be clearly and unmistakably the reflex of the faith of all the absent bishops and of the faithful.

To gain an adequate conception of the council at work it should be viewed under its twofold aspect of judging and witnessing. In relation to the faithful the conciliar assembly is primarily a judge who pronounces a verdict conjointly with the pope, and, at the same time, acts more or less as witness in the case. Its position is similar to that of St. Paul towards the first Christians: quod accepistis a me per multos testes. In relation to the pope the council is but an assembly of authentic witnesses and competent counsellors whose influence on the papal sentence is that of the mass of evidence which they represent or of the preparatory judgment which they pronounce, it is the only way in which numbers of judges can influence one another. Such influence lessens neither the dignity nor the efficiency of any of the judges- on the other hand it is never required, in councils or elsewhere, to make their verdict unassailable. The Vatican Council, not excluding the fourth session in which papal infallibility was defined, comes nearer than any former council to the ideal perfection just described. It was composed of the greatest number of bishops, both absolutely and in proportion to the totality of bishops in the Church; it allowed and exercised the right of discussion to an extent perhaps never witnessed before; it appealed to a general tradition, present and past, containing the effective principle of the doctrine under discussion, viz. the duty of submitting in obedience to the Holy See and of conforming to its teaching; lastly it gave its final definition with absolute unanimity, and secured the greatest majority—nine-tenths—for its preparatory judgment.

VIII. INFALLIBILITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS

All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost. Such was the mind of the Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts, xv, 28), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us). This formula and the dogma it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element. From the earliest times they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by the Church. Emperor Constantine saw in the decrees of Nicaea “a Divine commandment” and Athanasius wrote to the bishops of Africa: “What God has spoken through the Council of Nicaea endureth for ever.” St. Ambrose (Ep. xxi) pronounces himself ready to die by the sword rather than give up the Nicene decrees, and Pope Leo the Great expressly declares that “whoso resists the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon cannot be numbered among Catholics” (Ep. lxxviii, ad Leonem Augustum). In the same epistle he says that the decrees of Chalcedon were framed instruente Spiritu Sancto, i.e. under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. How the same doctrine was embodied in many professions of faith may be seen in Denzinger’s (ed. Stahl) “Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum,” under the heading (index) “Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum” (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience). The Scripture texts on which this unshaken belief is based are, among others: “But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth . . .” John xvi, 13) “Behold I am with you [teaching] all days even to the consummation of the world” (Matt., xxviii, 20), “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it [i.e. the Church]” (Matt., xvi, 18).

IX. PAPAL AND CONCILIAR INFALLIBILITY

Papal and conciliar infallibility are correlated but not identical. A council’s decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council’s infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope’s infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions. This accounts for the fact that, before the Vatican decree concerning the supreme pontiff’s ex-cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to be infallible even by those who denied the papal infallibility; it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of the papal privilege that it is not necessarily implied in the infallibility of councils, and the claims that it can be proved separately and independently on its proper merits. The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecumenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ’s co-workers for the salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth for which they are striving. His presence, by cementing the unity of the assembly into one body—His own mystical body—gives it the necessary completeness, and makes up for any defect possibly arising from the physical absence of a certain number of bishops. The same presence strengthens the action of the pope, so that, as mouthpiece of the council, he can say in truth, “it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us,” and consequently can, and does, put the seal of infallibility on the conciliar decree irrespective of his own personal infallibility.

Some important consequences flow from these principles. Conciliar decrees approved by the pope have a double guarantee of infallibility: their own and that of the infallible pope. The council’s dignity is, therefore, not diminished, but increased, by the definition of papal infallibility, nor does that definition imply a “circular demonstration” by which the council would make the pope infallible and the pope would render the same service to the council. It should however, be borne in mind that the council without the pope has no guarantee of infallibility, therefore the conciliar and the papal infallibilities are not two separate and addible units, but one unit with single or double excellence. An infallible statement of Divine truth is the voice of Christ speaking through the mouth of the visible head of His mystical body or in unison, in chorus, with all its members. The united voice of the whole Church has a solemnity, impressiveness, and effectiveness, an external, circumstantial weight, which is wanting in simple ex-cathedra pronouncements. It works its way into the minds and hearts of the faithful with almost irresistible force, because in the universal harmony each individual believer hears his own voice, is carried away by the powerful rhythm, and moved as by a Divine spell to follow the leaders. Again, the bishops who have personally contributed to the definitions have, in that fact, an incentive to zeal in publishing them and enforcing them in their dioceses; nay the council itself is an effective beginning of its execution or enforcement in practice. For this reason alone, the holding of most Eastern councils was a moral necessity- the great distance between East and West, the difficulty of communication, the often keen opposition of the Orientals to Old Rome made a solemn promulgation of the definitions on the spot more than desirable. No aids to effectiveness were to be neglected in that centre of heresies.

These considerations further account for the great esteem in which conciliar definitions have always been held in the Church, and for the great authority they universally enjoyed without any detriment to, or diminution of, the authority of the Apostolic See. From of old it has been customary to place side by side, in the rule of faith, the authority of the councils and that of the popes as substantially the same. Thus, we read in the formula, or profession of faith imposed by Pope Hormisdas (514–23) on the Eastern bishops implicated in the schism of Acacius: “The first [step towards] salvation is to keep the rule of orthodox [rectae] faith and in no wise to deviate from the constitutions of the Fathers [i.e. councils]. But the words of Our Lord to St. Peter (Thou art Peter . . . ) cannot be passed over, for what He said has been verified by the events, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without spot or stain. Wishing by no means to be separated from this hope and faith, and following the constitutions of the Fathers, we anathematize all heresies, especially the heretic Nestorius, in his time Bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned in the Council of Ephesus by Blessed Celestine, Pope of Rome, and by Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria . . . We declare and approve all the letters of Leo, Pope, which he wrote concerning the Christian religion, as we have stated before, following in all things the Apostolic See and professing [praedicantes] all its constitutions. And therefore I hope to be worthy to be with you [the pope] in the one communion which this Apostolic See professes, in which lies the entire, veracious, and peaceful solidity of the Christian religion. . . .” It should be noted that in this formula the infallibility of the Apostolic See is the centre from which radiates the infallibility of the councils.

X. SUBJECT MATTER OF INFALLIBILITY

The subject matter of infallibility, or supreme judicial authority, is found in the definitions and decrees of councils, and in them alone, to the exclusion of the theological, scientific, or historical reasons upon which they are built up. These represent too much of the human element, of transient mentalities, of personal interests to claim the promise of infallibility made to the Church as a whole; it is the sense of the unchanging Church that is infallible, not the sense of individual churchmen of any age or excellence, and that sense finds expression only in the conclusions of the council approved by the pope. Decisions referring to dogma were called in the East diatyposeis (constitutions, statutes); those concerned with discipline were termed kanones (canons, rules), often with the addition of tes eutaxias (of discipline, or good order). The expressions thesmoi and horoi apply to both, and the short formulae of condemnation were known as anathematismoi (anathemas).

In the West no careful distinction of terms was observed: canones and decreta signify both dogmatic and disciplinary decisions. The Council of Trent styled its disciplinary edicts decreta de reformatione; its dogmatic definitions decreta, without qualification, where they positively assert the points of faith then in dispute, and canones when, in imitation of the ancient anathematisms, they imposed an on those that refused assent to the defined propositions. An opinion too absurd to require refutation pretends that only these latter canons (with the attached anathemas) contain the peremptory judgment of the council demanding unquestioned submission. Equally absurd is the opinion, sometimes recklessly advanced, that the Tridentine capita are no more than explanations of the canones, not proper definitions; the council itself, at the beginning and end of each chapter, declares them to contain the rule of faith. Thus Session XIII begins: “The Holy Synod forbids to all the faithful in future to believe, teach, or preach concerning the Holy Eucharist otherwise than is explained and defined in the present decree,” and it ends: “As, however, it is not enough to speak the truth without discovering and refuting error, it has pleased the Holy Synod to subjoin the following canons, so that all, now knowing the Catholic doctrine, may also understand what heresies they have to beware against and avoid.” The same remark applies to the chapters of the Vatican Council in its two Constitutions, as appears from the concluding words of the proemium of the first Constitution and from the initial phrases of most chapters. All that may be conceded is that the chapters of both councils contain the doctrina catholica, i.e. the authorized teaching of the Church, but not always and invariably dogmata formalia, i.e. propositions of faith defined as such.

XI. PROMULGATION

Promulgation of conciliar decrees is necessary because they are laws, and no law is binding until it has been brought unmistakably to the knowledge of all it intends to bind. The decrees are usually promulgated in the name of the synod itself; in cases of the pope presiding in person they have also been published in the form of papal decrees with the formula: sacrâ universali synodo approbante. This was done first at the Third Lateran Council, then at the Fourth and Fifth Lateran, and also partly at the Council of Constance.

XII. IS A COUNCIL ABOVE A POPE?

The Councils of Constance and of Basle affirmed with great emphasis that an Ecumenical council is superior in authority to the pope, and French theologians have adopted that proposition as one of the famous four Gallican Liberties. Other theologians affirmed, and still affirm, that the pope is above any general council. The leading exponents of the Gallican doctrine are: Dupin (1657–1719), professor at the Sorbonne in Paris (“Dissertatio de concilii generalis supra Romanum Pontificem auctoritate,” in his book on the ancient discipline of the Church, “De antiquâ Ecclesiae disciplinâ dissertationes historicae”); and Natalis Alexander, 0.P. (1639–1724), in the ninth volume of his great “Historia Ecclesiastica” (Diss. iv ad saeculum XV). On the other side Lucius Ferraris (Bibliotheca Canonica, s.v. Concilium) and Roncaglia, editor and corrector of Natalis Alexander’s history, stoutly defend the papal superiority. Hefele, after carefully weighing the main arguments of the Gallicans (viz. that Pope Martin V approved the declaration of the Council of Constance, and Pope Eugene IV the identical declaration of the Council of Basle, affirming the superiority of an Ecumenical synod over the pope), concluded that both popes, in the interests of peace, approved of the councils in general terms which might imply an approbation of the point in question, but that neither Martin nor Eugene ever intended to acknowledge the superiority of a council over the pope. (See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 50–54)

The principles hitherto set forth supply a complete solution to the controversy. General councils represent the Church; the pope therefore stands to them in the same relation as he stands to the Church. But that relation is one of neither superiority nor inferiority, but of intrinsic cohesion: the pope is neither above nor below the Church, but in it as the centre is in the circle, as intellect and will are in the soul. By taking our stand on the Scriptural doctrine that the Church is the mystical body of Christ of which the pope is the visible head, we see at once that a council apart from the pope is but a lifeless trunk, a “rump parliament,” no matter how well attended it be.

XIII. CAN A COUNCIL DEPOSE THE POPE?

This question is a legitimate one, for in the history of the Church circumstances have arisen in which several pretenders contended for papal authority and councils were called upon to remove certain claimants. The Councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope on two main grounds:

ob mores (for his conduct or behaviour, e.g. his resistance to the synod)

ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy).

In point of fact, however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience.

But the question assumes another aspect when a number of claimants pretend to be the rightful occupants of the Apostolic See, and the right of each is doubtful. In such a case the council, according to Bellarmine (Disputationes, II xix, de Conciliis) has a right to examine the several claims and to depose the pretenders whose claims are unfounded. This was done at the Synod of Constance. But during this process of examination the synod is not yet Ecumenical; it only becomes so the moment the rightful pope assents to its proceedings. It is evident that this is no instance of a legitimate pope being deposed by a legitimate council, but simply the removal of pretender by those on whom he wishes to impose will.

Not even John XXIII could have been deposed at Constance, had his election not been doubtful and himself suspected of heresy. John XXIII, moreover, abdicated and by his abdication made his removal from the Apostolic See lawful. In all controversies and complaints regarding Rome the rule laid down by the Eighth General Synod should never be lost sight of: “If a universal synod be assembled and any ambiguity or controversy arise concerning the Holy Church of the Romans, the question should be examined and solved with due reverence and veneration, in a spirit of mutual helpfulness; no sentence should be audaciously pronounced against the supreme pontiff of the elder Rome” (can. xxi. Hefele, IV, 421–22).

SCHEEBEN wrote copiously and learnedly in defence of the Vatican Council; his article in the Kirchenlexicon, written in 1883, contains the marrow of his previous writings, while HEFELE’S History of the Councils is the standard work on the subject. For a deeper study of the councils a good collection of the Acta Conciliorum is indispensable. The first ever printed was the very imperfect one of MERLIN (Paris, 1523). A second and richer collection, by the Belgian Franciscan PETER CRABBE, appeared in 1538 at Cologne, in 3 vols. Completer editions were published as time went on: SURIUS (Cologne, 1567, 5. vols.); BOLANUS (Venice, 1585, 5 vols.); BINIUS (Cologne, 1606), with historical and explanatory notes from Baronius—republished 1618, and in Paris, 1636, in 9 vols.; the Roman collection of general councils with Greek text, arranged by the Jesuit SIRMOND (1608—1612), in 4 vols.—each council is preceded by a short history. On Bellarmine’s advice Sirmond omitted the Acts of the Synod of Basle. This Roman collection is the foundation of all that followed. First among these is the Paris Collectio Regia, in 37 vols. (1644). Then comes the still completer collection of the Jesuits LABBE and COSSART (Paris, 1674), in 17 folio vols., to which BALUZE added a supplementary volume (Paris, 1683 and 1707). Most French authors quote from LABBE-BALUZE. Yet another and better edition is due to the Jesuit HARDOUIN; it is of all the most perfect and serviceable. MANSI—later Archbishop of Lucca, his native town—with the help of many Italian scholars, brought out a new collection of 31 volumes, which, had it been finished, would have surpassed all its predecessors in merit. Unfortunately it only comes down to the fifteenth century, and, being unfinished, has no indexes. To fill this gap, WELTER, a Paris publisher, took up (1900) the new collection proposed (1870) by V . Palme. To a facsimile reprint of the 31 volumes of MANSI (Florence, Venice, 1757–1797) he added 19 supplementary volumes, furnishing the necessary indexes, etc. The Acta et Decreta sacrorum conciliorum recentiorum Collectio Lacensis (Freiburg im Br.,1870–90), published by the Jesuits of Maria-Laach, extends from 1682 to 1869. An English translation of HEFELE’S standard History of the Christian Councils, by W. R. CLARK, was commenced in 1871 (Edinburgh and London); a French translation by the Benedictines of Farnborough is also in course of publication (Paris, 1907). Among the latest authors treating of councils are WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899), I, II; OJETTI, Synopsis rerum moralium et juris canonici, s. v. Concilium.

J. WILHELM

Evangelical Counsels

Or COUNSELS OF PERFECTION).

Christ in the Gospels laid down certain rules of life and conduct which must be practiced by every one of His followers as the necessary condition for attaining to everlasting life. These precepts of the Gospel practically consist of the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, of the Old Law, interpreted in the sense of the New. Besides these precepts which must be observed by all under pain of eternal damnation, He also taught certain principles which He expressly stated were not to be considered as binding upon all, or as necessary conditions without which heaven could not be attained, but rather as counsels for those who desired to do more than the minimum and to aim at Christian perfection, so far as that can be obtained here upon earth. Thus (Matt., xix, 16 sq.) when the young man asked Him what he should do to obtain eternal life, Christ bade him to “keep the commandments.” That was all that was necessary in the strict sense of the word, and by thus keeping the commands which God had given eternal life could be obtained. But when the young man pressed further, Christ told him: “If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor.” So again, in the same chapter, He speaks of “eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven,” and added, “He that can receive it, let him receive it.”

This distinction between the precepts of the Gospel, which are binding on all, and the counsels, which are the subject of the vocation of the comparatively few, has ever been maintained by the Catholic Church. It has been denied by heretics in all ages, and especially by many Protestants in the sixteenth and following centuries, on the ground that, inasmuch as all Christians are at all times bound, if they would keep God’s Commandments, to do their utmost, and even so will fall short of perfect obedience, no distinction between precepts and counsels can rightly be made. The opponents of the Catholic doctrine base their opposition on such texts as Luke, xvii, 10, “When ye have done all that is commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants.” It is impossible, they say, to keep the Commandments adequately. To teach further “counsels” involves either the absurdity of advising what is far beyond all human capacity, or else the impiety of minimizing the commands of Almighty God. The Catholic doctrine, however, founded, as we have seen, upon the words of Christ in the Gospel, is also supported by St. Paul. In I Cor., vii, for instance, he not only presses home the duty incumbent on all Christians of keeping free from all sins of the flesh, and of fulfilling the obligations of the married state, if they have taken those obligations upon themselves, but also gives his “counsel” in favour of the unmarried state and of perfect chastity, on the ground that it is thus more possible to serve God with an undivided allegiance. Indeed, the danger in the Early Church, and even in Apostolic times, was not that the “counsels” would be neglected or denied, but that they should be exalted into commands of universal obligation, “forbidding to marry” (I Tim., iv, 3), and imposing poverty as a duty on all.

The difference between a precept and a counsel lies in this, that the precept is a matter of necessity while the counsel is left to the free choice of the person to whom it is proposed. It is fitting, therefore, that the New Law, which is a law of liberty, should contain counsels of this kind, which would have been out of place in the Old Law, which was a law of servitude. The precepts of the New Law have for their scope the ordinance of those matters which are essential for the obtaining of life eternal—the gift which it is the special object of the New Law to place within the reach of its followers. But the counsels show the means by which that same end may be reached yet more certainly and expeditiously. Man is, in this life, placed between the good things of this world and the good things of eternity, in such a way that the more he inclines to the first the more he alienates himself from the second. A man who is wholly given up to this world, finding in it the end and object of his existence, loses altogether the goods of eternity, of which he has no appreciation. So in like manner, the man who is wholly detached from this world, and whose thoughts are wholly bent on the realities of the world above, is taking the shortest way to obtain possession of that on which his heart is fixed. The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light, but the case is reversed if a larger view be taken.

Now the principal good things of this world easily divide themselves into three classes. There are the riches which make life easy and pleasant, there are the pleasures of the flesh which appeal to the appetites, and, lastly, there are honours and positions of authority which delight the self-love of the individual. These three matters, in themselves often innocent and not forbidden to the devout Christian, may yet, even when no kind of sin is involved, hold back the soul from its true aim and vocation, and delay it from becoming entirely conformed to the will of God. It is, therefore, the object of the three counsels of perfection to free the soul from these hindrances. The soul may indeed be saved and heaven attained without following the counsels; but that end will be reached more easily and with greater certainty, if the counsels be accepted and the soul does not wholly confine herself to doing that which is definitely commanded. On the other hand, there are, no doubt, individual cases in which it may be actually necessary for a person, owing to particular circumstances, to follow one or more of the counsels, and one may easily conceive a case in which the adoption of the religious life might seem, humanly speaking, the only way in which a particular soul could be saved. Such cases, however, are always of an exceptional character. As there are three great hindrances to the higher life, so also the counsels are three, one to oppose each. The love of riches is opposed by the counsel of poverty; the pleasures of the flesh, even the lawful pleasures of holy matrimony, are excluded by the counsel of chastity; while the desire for worldly power and honour is met by the counsel of holy obedience. Abstinence from unlawful indulgence in any of these directions is forbidden to all Christians as a matter of precept. The further voluntary abstinence from what is in itself lawful is the subject of the counsels, and such abstinence is not in itself meritorious, but only becomes so when it is done for the sake of Christ, and in order to be more free to serve Him.

To sum up: it is possible to be rich, and married, and held in honour by all men, and yet keep the Commandments and to enter heaven. Christ’s advice is, if we would make sure of everlasting life and desire to conform ourselves perfectly to the Divine will, that we should sell our possessions and give the proceeds to others who are in need, that we should live a life of chastity for the Gospel’s sake, and, finally, should not seek honours or commands, but place ourselves under obedience. These are the Evangelical Counsels, and the things which are counselled are not set forward so much as good in themselves, as in the light of means to an end and as the surest and quickest way of obtaining everlasting life. (See ASCETICISM; MONASTICISM; RELIGIOUS ORDERS.)

All writers on dogmatic or moral theology touch on the subject more or less directly. The following especially may be consulted: ST. THOMAS, Summa Theol., I-II, Q. cviii; II-II, Q. cxxiv; SUAREZ, Opera (ed. 1858), XV, p. 38; MIGNE, Dict. d’ascéticisme, s.v.; MALDONATUS, Commentary on Matt. xix.

ARTHUR S. BARNES

Counterpoint

(Lat. contrapunctum; Ger. Kontrapunkt; Fr. contrepoint; It. contrapunto). From punctum, “point”—as a note was formerly called in music—and contra, “against”; originally, punctum contra punctum, or nota contra notam—“point against point,” or note against note.”

The term counterpoint originated in the fourteenth century, though the art designated by it had been practiced for several centuries previous. The desire for harmony, that is , the simultaneous sounding with the cantus firmus, tenor, or theme, of one or more voices on different intervals, first found expression in the so-called diaphony or “Organum” of Hucbald (840–930 or 932). [H.E. Woolridge in his “Oxford History of Music” (1901), vol. I, p. 61, quotes from a treatise “De divisione naturae,” by Scotus Erigena (d. 880), a passage, describing the organum, which would indicate that diaphony, even in the contrary motion, was in use in England previous to Hucbald’s innovation, though proof of its general use in the British Isles is wanting.]

In the twelfth century, in France, the custom arose, and became general among singers of improvising one or more independent melodies above the liturgical melody, or cantus firmus. This was known as déchant, or discantus. In England the gymel, or cantus gemellus (twin song), flourished at an even earlier date. The gymel consisted in adding the interval of the third both above and below the cantus firmus. Later, the third below was transposed an octave higher, giving rise to the falso-bordone, faux-bourdon, or false bass. All these sporadic attempts at polyphony culminated, in the fourteenth century, in the addition of different melodies to the cantus firmus in accordance with well-formulated laws of counterpoint which are still valid at the present day. The aim was the perfect integrity and independence of the various melodies in their flow, from which, of course, resulted passing dissonances, but these were continually solved into consonances on the accented notes of the measure. During the course of the following century contrapuntal skill reached unprecedented heights among both the numerous masters of the Netherlands and those of England; but it served its highest purpose and bore its ripest fruit in the Roman school of the sixteenth century. The polyphony for four, five, six, eight, or more parts, produced in the century, with its prevailing consonance and unifying and life-giving principle, the cantus firmus (generally a Gregorian melody), is, in a sense, an image of the congregation of the Church itself. We have unity in variety: each voice singing its own melody and still harmonizing with every other voice, just as every member of the Church aspires to the same ideal according to his own nature and capacity. When monody came into fashion at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventh century, the study and practice of counterpoint was almost entirely neglected, but it received a new and wonderful development at the hands of Handel and Bach. For a time contrapuntal art served masters other than the Church and her liturgy, but with the revived observance of her laws in regard to music, and with the study and revival during the past sixty years, of her greatest musical treasures, counterpoint in accordance with its original principles, has come into its own again and is bearing fruit as it did of yore.

Ambras, Geschichte der Musik (Leipzig, 1881), III; Riemann, Handbuch der Musikgeschichte (Leipzig, 1907), II, pt. I; Haller, Kompositionslehre (Ratisbon, 1890), Kehm, Lehre vom Contrapunkt (Berlin, 2883).

JOSEPH OTTEN

The Counter-Reformation

The subject will be considered under the following heads:

I. Significance of the term

II. Low ebb of Catholic fortunes

III. St. Ignatius and the Jesuits, pioneers of the new movement

IV. The Council of Trent

V. Three great reforming popes

VI. The missions

VII. Progress in European States

VIII. Ecclesiastical literature

IX. Close of the period and retrospect.

I. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TERM

The term Counter-Reformation denotes the period of Catholic revival from the pontificate of Pope Pius IV in 1560 to the close of the Thirty Years’ War, 1648. The name, though long in use among Protestant historians, has only recently been introduced into Catholic handbooks. The consequence is that it already has a meaning and an application, for which a word with a different nuance should perhaps have been chosen. For in the first place the name suggests that the Catholic movement came after the Protestant; whereas in truth the reform originally began in the Catholic Church, and Luther was a Catholic Reformer before he became a Protestant. By becoming a Protestant Reformer, he did indeed hinder the progress of the Catholic reformation, but he did not stop it. It continued to gain headway in the Catholic South until it was strong enough to meet and roll back the movement from the North. Even if our Catholic reform had been altogether posterior to the Protestant, we could not admit that our reform movement owed its motive power or its line of action to the latter, in the way that modern reform movements among Orientals are due to the influence of European thought. For the principles of the Protestant Reformation are to Catholics principles leading to deformation and to the perpetuation of abuses, such as the subservience of Church to State, or the marriage of the clergy, to say nothing of doctrinal error. Both the continuance and correction of the same abuse cannot be due to the same movement. Moreover, it will be seen that the Catholic reform was not even originally due to reaction from Protestantism, in the way In which inert nations are sometimes spurred by initial defeats to increased energy, which In the end may even make them victorious. Though this reaction undoubtedly had its effect on certain Catholic reformers, it had little or no influence on the leaders or on the best representatives of the movement, as, for instance, on St. Ignatius, its pioneer, or on St. Philip Neri and St.Vincent de Paul, exemplars of its maturity.

Another point to be noticed is that, though we assign certain dates for the beginning and end of the period under consideration, there has never been any break in the striving of the Church against the heresies which arose in the sixteenth century. In this sense the Counter-Reformation began in the time of Luther and is not even yet closed. But while the points of similarity between this period and those which preceded and followed it might be dwelt upon at some length, and must occasionally be called to mind, there is no reason for rejecting the term, or for denying that it corresponds with a real and important historical period. Historical periods, it will be remembered, are never sharply cut off, during the actual course of events, from what goes before and comes after, as they are described in books; for history in the concrete is always continuous. In this case the limits of the period are to be measured not by reversals of reforming policy and methods, but by the increased or decreased energy with which such reformation is pursued. When there is intense zeal on the part of many for making reforms, then is the “period” of reform. Similarly this “period” ceases when such zeal becomes rare, or only mediocre in intensity, even though it does really continue here and there in some individuals or classes. It would be a misrepresentation of the heroes of the Counter-Reformation to describe their reforms as having differed from those of the older opponents of Protestantism, except in degree, in earnestness, thoroughness, adaptability to altered circumstances, etc. Their predecessors had been clear in the condemnation and punishment of error. They had preached, pleaded, threatened, even fought, but they did not remodel their ways seriously everywhere, in small things and in great. They did not institute new and vast schemes of education, or alter the constitutions of their States. They did not succeed in awakening the enthusiasm of their party, or in encouraging whole classes to make heroic sacrifices, or heroic efforts. But there did come a time when there was such heroism on a large scale, when whole classes, as for instance episcopates, new religious orders, and even the laity (as in England during the persecutions), were filled with enthusiasm; when martyrs were numerous; when great writers, preachers, and leaders abounded; when education was attended to from the highest motives and with the greatest interest; when the old duties of life were discharged with an alertness, a faith, a meaning which were new; when for a time Catholic rulers and whole States rose superior to considerations of self-interest.

The span of time during which this enthusiasm lasted may be justly considered as an historical period, and it is that which we call the period of the Counter-Reformation. It may also be well to note at the outset that this period is the harder to follow, not only because of its continuity with previous and succeeding periods, but also because it did not commence or end at the same time in any two countries, and in each land began, grew strong, and died away, through different causes, in different ways and degrees, and at different times. Broadly considered, however, the dates assigned above will be shown to be perfectly accurate.

II. LOW EBB OF CATHOLIC FORTUNES

“From the time of St. Peter there has not been a pontificate so unfortunate as mine. How I regret the past! Pray for me.” Such were the sad words of Pope Paul IV to Father Laynez, as he lay dying in August, 1559 (Oliver Manare, Commentarius de rebus Soc. Jesu, Florence, 1886, 125). It never looks darker, it is said, than just before dawn; the prospects of Catholicism at that moment did indeed seem gloomy to the watchers in the Vatican. Luigi Mocenigo, Venetian ambassador at Rome, sent thence to the seignory this report on the situation: “In many countries, obedience to the pope has almost ceased, and matters are becoming so critical that, if God does not interfere, they will soon be desperate . . . Germany . . . leaves little hope of being cured. Poland is in almost as hopeless a state. The disorders which have just lately taken place in France and Spain are too well known for me to speak of them, and the Kingdom of England . . . after returning a short time since to her old obedience, has again fallen into heresy. Thus the spiritual power of the pope is so straitened that the only remedy is a council summoned by the common consent of all princes. Unless this reduces the affairs of religion to order, a grave calamity is to be feared.” Another Venetian diplomatist (and these men were reckoned among the most acute of their day) wrote not long after, that Cardinal Morone, when leaving for the council, told him that “there was no hope” (Albéri, Relazioni degli ambasciatori Veneti, 1859, II, iv, 22, 82). Though Morone’s prophecy was soon falsified the events about to be described, his words must be considered as conclusive proof that even the bravest and best-informed in Rome regarded the situation with profound discouragement, and it will be worth while to seek an explanation by going back to Mocenigo’s words. At the same time, without attempting an account of the Reformation itself, notice may be taken of what had hitherto been done in order to stem the religious revolution.

GERMANY

Even before the Protestant Reformation the holding of synods and provincial councils had been frequent, and they had always been attentive to points requiring reform. After it, the popes had sent thither a succession of legates and nuncios, such as Aleander, Campeggio, Cajetan, Contarini, Morone, who had upon the whole been men of conspicuous sincerity, vigour, and prudence. There had also been found among the German Catholics many men of splendid eloquence and zeal, of holy life and ceaseless labour, such as Tetzel, Johann von Eck, Miltitz, Nausea, Jerome Emser, Julius Pflug, Johann Gropper, who had striven courageously and most effectively on the Catholic side. The Emperor Charles V (q.v.) had laboured upon the whole with marked devotion in favour of Catholicism, though his Italian policy, it is true, had frequently been repugnant to the wishes and the interests of the Roman pontiffs. But now he was gone, and his successors, Philip II of Spain and Ferdinand of Austria, whether their energy and devotion or the power which they wielded be considered, were far inferior to him as champions and protectors of Catholicism. There had, of course, been some, indeed many, improvements on the Catholic side. The German episcopate, once so worthless, now numbered many noble characters, of whom Otto von Truchsess, Bishop of Augsburg and afterwards cardinal, was the most brilliant representative. The Dominican and Franciscan friars had showed from the first to advantage; always ready to meet the foe, they everywhere encouraged and strengthened the men of their own side, and prevented many defections (see N. Paulus, Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampf gegen Luther, 1903). The first Jesuits too had won many notable successes. Thus while on the one hand it was evident that there was still life in the Church of Germany, while there was no intrinsic impossibility in carrying further the good that had begun, on the whole the outlook was as dark as the retrospect. No bulwark against Protestantism had yet been found. Attempts to conclude a “religious peace” or an “Interim,” at the various diets of Nuremberg, Speyer, Ratisbon, and Augsburg seemed to effect nothing better than to give the Protestants breathing time for fresh organization, and so prepare the way for new attacks and victories. The Turks were pressing on Hungary and Austria from the south-east; the French, allying themselves with the Reformers, had invaded the German West, and had annexed the “three bishoprics” Metz, Verdun, and Toul. Charles had then made large sacrifices to get the Protestants to agree to “the religious peace of Augsburg” (1555), in order to combine all forces against France. The alliance was made, but was unsuccessful; the French retained their conquests; Charles retreated; the power of Catholic Germany seemed to be under an eclipse. Mocenigo might well say that “Germany leaves little hope of being cured.”

POLAND

“Poland is in almost as hopeless a state.” Protestantism had latterly gained ground rapidly. In 1555 a “national synod” had been held, which had requested the marriage of priests, Communion under both kinds, Mass in Polish, the abolishment of “annates.” Such demands had but too often proved the forerunners of a lapse to Protestantism, and in fact in 1557 the weak King Sigismund Augustus had allowed “liberty” of conscience in Danzig and some other towns. There were waverers even among the clergy and the bishops, like James Uchanski, Archbishop of Gnesen and Primate of Poland in 1562. Fortunately the evil was not yet deeply rooted in the country. There had been no sweeping confiscations of church property, nor apostasies among the actual rulers. The great bishop and cardinal, Stanislas Hosius, was rising to fame, and behind him stood a number of zealous clergy, who would in due time renew the face of the Church; Still for the moment the state of the country was very serious. (See Krause, Die Reformation und Gegenreform. im ehemaligen Königreiche Polen, Posen, 1901.)

FRANCE AND SPAIN

“The disorders in France and Spain are too well known for me to speak of them.” The first open revolt of the Huguenots, styled the Tumulte d’Amboise, had taken place just before Mocenigo wrote. Hitherto, France though allying herself with the heretics of Germany, had preserved her own religious peace. But the converts to Protestantism were numerous and well organized, and counted not a few of the highest nobility and of the blood royal, especially princes of the House of Bourbon, to which the crown was destined to fall ere very long. The ruling sovereign, Francis II, was but a boy, and though for the moment the House of Lorraine and the family of the Guises brought victory to the Catholics, the position was one of evident danger, and was soon to result in a long series of wars of religion.

The troubles of Spain were in a sense rather foreign than domestic. It was true that there had been some defections, as Enzinas (Dryander), Servetus, and Valdez. Though not numerous, these had been sufficient to cause much alarm and suspicion, so much so that the Archbishop of Toledo himself, Bartolomé Carranza (q.v.) was put on his trial. (Cf. Schäfer, “Gesch. des spanischen Protestantismus,” Gütersloh, 1902; Menendez y Pelayo, “Historia de los heterodoxos Españoles,” Madrid, 1880–82.) The proceedings lasted a long term of years, but in the end nothing could be proved against him. There was also danger from the Moriscoes. But what gave most cause for anxiety to serious thinkers was the linking of the Netherlands, Naples and so many parts of Italy to the Spaniards. The latter were everywhere unpopular, and the Reformers were beginning, especially in the Netherlands, to pose as patriots, with results very unfortunate for Catholicism. For instance, King Philip had arranged with the Holy See in 1569 for certain changes in the Flemish sees. Mechlin, Cambrai, and Utrecht were made archbishoprics, and fourteen smaller districts were formed into bishoprics. This measure, wise and commendable in itself, was badly received when it came from Spanish rulers. The redistribution of benefices, which had to be made in order to endow the new sees, caused complaints which grew constantly louder, and in the end proved one of the chief causes of the revolt of the Netherlands.

ENGLAND

Of all the countries of Europe none changed sides with such appalling facility as England. At first she had seemed the least likely of any to revolt. She had been peaceful and contented; the observance of the canons compared favourably with that in many other countries; her king was emphatically on the side of the Church, until “the Gospel light first shined in Boleyn’s eyes.” Then it was found that the absolute power of the sovereign was easily greater than any other force in the realm. There were some glorious martyrs (see FISHER; HOUGHTON; MORE) and, in general, sufficient resistance to show that the country, as a whole, clung to its old faith, and would never have changed but for force. When that force was applied, the change was shamefully rapid and complete. When Queen Mary gained the upper hand, there was remarkably little difficulty found in the much more arduous task of restoring the old order, in spite of the church property, which had been confiscated, and had already been redistributed into thousands of hands. Only about two years were available for the actual restoration of the Church, and though the work was carried out in a way that was not very conciliating, yet the Marian establishment proved itself more stable, when tried in the fire of Elizabeth’s persecution, than the ancient Church when attacked by King Henry. In neither case, however, could the Church withstand the power of the Crown; and again the resistance, though sufficient to be reckoned a magnificent protest against the royal tyranny, was entirely inadequate to hinder the dictates of the Tudor sovereign and her powerful ministers. The Marian reaction movement should not be reckoned under the Counter-Reformation proper, for it was in effect almost entirely a restoration of old methods and old ideas, and derived its force from the old religious feelings of the land. These had lain dormant while beaten down by overwhelming force, but rose again as soon as that repression ceased.

SCOTLAND AND IRELAND

These countries were probably included by Mocenigo under England, though their condition was in reality widely different. Scotland, unlike England, was perhaps of all countries in Europe the most likely to take up the Reformation. Bloody and incessant feuds had sadly demoralized monastic life, and rendered church government extremely difficult, while the rough barons had intruded their illegitimate children into a large number of the livings, abbacies, and episcopal sees. Yet Scotland resisted for a generation the reformation which Henry and Edward strove with all their might to impose upon her. Elizabeth’s efforts were more subtle and more successful. Mary of Guise, Queen Regent of Scotland, relied almost entirely upon the French arms for the maintenance of royal and religious authority. It was represented to the nobility that this was an insult and an injury to those on whom the government of Scotland should naturally have fallen, the House of Hamilton and the nobility of the land. Moreover the Calvinists in France had won over many young Scottish soldiers and students in Paris, notably the Earl of Arran who stood but two or three steps from the throne. The revolution took place, and though the regent might have held her own if England had been neutral, there could be no doubt as to the issue when Elizabeth actively supported the rebels with money, men, and ships. The ninth clause of the Treaty of Edinburgh (6 July, 1560) stipulated that “the matter of religion be passed over in silence,” which in effect left to the Scottish Protestants, with England at their back, absolute power to do what they liked. The estates of the Church were seized by the laity, and (except in the inaccessible North) every vestige of Catholic observance was forcibly banished from the land. It was the last national revolt from the Church, and was the more lamentable because of Scotland’s previous constancy.

As to Ireland, Rome probably knew nothing except the darkest features. The Marian bishops and indeed all the Anglo-Irish of the Pale had thrown in their lot with Elizabeth, though she had as yet made few changes. Officially the state of Ireland seemed as bad as that of England. Communication with the Irish beyond the Pale was most difficult to keep up; it had probably not yet been opened.

SCANDINAVIA AND ITALY

Mocenigo said nothing of these nations. The former was so far away from Roman influence that the Counter-Reformation never reached it. Of the latter he would surely have given a better account than of any other European nation. A couple of generations back, when the pagan Renaissance was at its height, it might have been, or at least seemed, otherwise. There was then corruption in high places, as everyone could see, but the miseries of war had checked the spread of luxury, which had not permeated far down among the people, and better conditions resulted (Cantù, Gli eretici d’Italia, Turin, 1865–67). At every papal election better men were chosen, and the College of Cardinals certainly contained more enlightened reformers than could be found in any other body. Aleander, Contarini, Morone, Pole, Sadolet may be named as good examples of their class. There were many admirable prelates like Gian Matteo Giberti, Bishop of Verona. Moreover, several new and efficient religious orders had lately come into existence, the Capuchins, Theatines, and Barnabites, while St. Jerome Emiliani had formed the Clerics Regular known as the Somaschi.

Pope Paul IV (Giovanni Pietro Caraffa) was himself a representative of the best traditions of the Italian Church immediately before the Council of Trent. He was holy and sincere, business-like and energetic, as he had proved before his elevation to the papacy. But the virtues of a great reformer are not always the virtues most needed in a ruler. Like St. Pius V, on certain occasions, Paul IV was sometimes rash in having recourse to medieval methods. His Bull against nepotism was a reform of the utmost importance, yet he was betrayed, in a great measure by nepotism, into the fatal war against Spain (1557–58), the misfortunes and disturbances of which affected the cause of Catholicism so adversely throughout Western Europe. Because of this war Mary Tudor’s reign closed in gloom, the Netherlands were distracted, intercourse with the pope was practically intermitted for England, Flanders, and Spain, and the Reformers in France maintained that the evils of the time were due to the ambition of the popes. As soon as the Peace of Paris was concluded, In 1559, the evils which had hitherto been working unperceived became evident. While England fell away, followed by Scotland, France and the Netherlands were found to be deeply infected by heresy; the Holy See had either no representatives in those countries to combat the evil, or they were so out of favour as to have little or no power. This explains the words of Paul IV on his death-bed, quoted above, which so vividly describe the unfortunate condition of the Church at this moment.

III. ST. IGNATIUS AND THE JESUITS, PIONEERS OF THE NEW MOVEMENT

But though Paul IV did not advert to it, the Catholic reaction had already made considerable progress. The number of great men among the cardinals, and the foundation of the Capuchins, Theatines, and other orders, have already been mentioned as symptomatic of the improvement. Then there appeared Ignatius and the Jesuits, so conspicuous in the new movement. And here it may be well to notice how very different the evolution of the Protestant Reformers (even of those who were most conscientious) was from that of the vocation of this Catholic leader. The monk Luther and many like him began by denouncing abuses. The abuses were serious, no doubt, but from the nature of the case abuses in matters or of matters themselves holy and laudable. Yet so violent did the accusers become that they gradually forgot any good there was connected with the object decried, though the good perhaps in reality far outweighed the evil. Then came attacks upon the persons who maintained or defended the thing impugned, or who failed to make the changes demanded, and they were almost always declared to have virtually or actually betrayed or deserted the Church itself. Finally the reformer, setting himself up as the true standard of orthodoxy, fell to self-exaltation, and at last rebelled and separated from the Church, which he had originally intended to serve.

The soldier, Ignatius, in the enforced leisure after his wound at Pampeluna (1521) bethought himself of serving Christ as a captain. The idea slowly took possession of him and aroused a lofty spiritual ambition. The imitation and service of Christ were to be most thorough. He would first educate himself as well as his age would allow, become a priest, induce the best of his companions to join him, and then go to the Holy Land and imitate the Saviour’s life as literally and exactly as possible. This was a humble but sublime ideal, capable of appealing to and satisfying the most earnest souls, and sure to lead to great efforts. There was no preoccupation here about the reform of abuses, nor indeed any temporal concern whatever, even the most praiseworthy. For twelve years Ignatius, now a middle-aged man, laboured at the education and the sanctification of himself and of the few followers who threw in their lot with him, and the plan would have been completed as it had been conceived, had not war with the Turks kept him and his companions waiting for several months at Venice, unable to proceed to Palestine. Then he turned to Rome, which he reached in November, 1537, and never left again. The services of his small band of companions were soon in great request; they were the “handy men” of the hour, with heads and hearts ready for any work. In a short time they had been heard of and seen everywhere. Though few in number they had carried the Gospel to Abyssinia, India, and China, the ends of the known world. They had faced and fought the most redoubted heretics; they had preached to the poor and tended the sick in the darkest purlieus of the manufacturing cities. They had not indeed as yet the great colleges which afterwards made them famous, nor did people feel their force as a corporate body, but this only made their position as the pioneers, or advance guard of the Church, the more noteworthy. If so few preachers could do so much, their calls on others to join in the struggle roused multitudes to confidence, energy, and fresh efforts. (See SOCIETY OF JESUS.)

IV. THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

The Council had been originally summoned in the year 1537, and sixteen sessions were held during the next fourteen years. In 1552 it was prorogued for the third or fourth time, and so serious were the quarrels throughout Europe that its conclusion was almost despaired of. “The only remedy,” said Mocenigo, “is a council summoned by the common consent of all princes.” Yet there was small chance that the factious, overbearing princes of those days would give up their own views and interests. Still, for the common good, it had to be attempted, and when the bishops met again in 1561 they came with hearts resolved to do their utmost. But “the consent of all the princes” was not easy to obtain. If they had known of Elizabeth’s secret dealings with the French Court (Foreign Calendars, 1561, nn. 682, 684), they might have put a very sinister interpretation on the proposals with which the Cardinal of Lorraine and other Gallicans were constantly interrupting the progress of business. At last Cardinal Morone and the Cardinal of Lorraine paid personal visits to the emperor and the pope. A better understanding between the clerical and the state parties ensued, and so the council was concluded, with much more expedition and satisfaction than had seemed possible. While the politicians had been squabbling, the theologians had been doing their work well, and when the decrees came to be promulgated, there was general admiration at the amount of definition that had been accomplished. Though there had been so many rumours of quarrels and divisions, the points on which all were agreed were surprisingly numerous and formed a striking contrast to the contradictions and feuds among the Protestant sects, which were becoming ever more conspicuous and bitter. No council that had ever been held had pronounced so clearly nor on so many useful points. Moreover, the Catholic bishops and representatives of various countries had come to know one another as never before, and when they separated they returned to their flocks with a new perception of the unity of the Church, and edified by the sincere holiness of her hierarchy. From this time we find that a certain readiness for compromise, and apprehension of change, which was once widespread, has passed away. Though, for instance, many had wished the laity to receive the Chalice, in order to stay further defections, and though the council and the Holy See had allowed it for certain countries, it was now found that the concession was unnecessary, and it was not made use of. The decrees, at least those which regarded doctrine, were everywhere received with approval. The disciplinary decrees, on the other hand, were not accepted without serious qualifications by the Catholic sovereigns. Spain withheld “the privileges of the Spanish Crown”; France at first refused them altogether as inconsistent with the Gallican Liberties, a refusal significant of the danger of Regalism which was to beset the Church of France for generations to come. [Cf. besides the decrees of the council (Rome, 1564, et soep.), the valuable publication of the Görres Society, “Concilium Tridentinum, Diariorum, actorum, epistularum, Tractatuum nova collectio,” I, “Diariorum pars prima,” ed. S. Merkle (Freiburg, 1901), and “Actorum pars prima,” ed. S Ehses (Freiburg, 1904).]

V. THREE GREAT REFORMING POPES

The popes are as a rule, and from the nature of their position, extremely conservative, but it was characteristic of the Counter-Reformation that after the Council of Trent three popes of great reforming energy should be elected in close succession.

(1) ST. PIUS V

The great achievement of this pope was the example which he gave of heroic virtue. In the language of the day, “he made his palace into a monastery, and was himself a model of penance, asceticism, and prayer.” He inspired all about him with his own high views, and new life and strength were soon seen in all parts of the papal administration. Many and notorious had been the corruptions which had crept in during the reigns of the easy-going humanistic popes who had preceded him. They had indeed passed severe laws, after the fashion of the time, hoping to maintain good order by occasional severities and the constant dread of heavy penalties, but with lax administration such a method of government produced deplorable results. Pius V applied the laws with an unflinching regularity to rich and noble, as well as to mean and poor. His rigour and vigour were sometimes excessive, no doubt, but this would not have seemed very reprehensible in those days. There had been a popular outcry for “reform in the head as well as in the members,” but it had seemed hopeless to expect it, considering the strong conservative traditions of the Roman Court. Now that the seemingly unattainable had been accomplished, occasional excesses in the manner of its attainment were easily forgiven, if they were not actually relished, as signs of the thoroughness with which the desired change had been made. Esteem for the papacy rose, papal nuncios and legates faced with firmness the powerful sovereigns to whom they were sent, and strove with dignity for the correction of abuses. Reforms were more easily accepted by inferiors when superiors had already embraced them. Even Protestants mentioned Pope Pius with respect. Bacon spoke of “that excellent Pope , whom I wonder his successors have not declared a saint” (“Of a Holy War,” in his Works, ed. of 1838, I, 523; the words however are put into the mouth of another). Though the forces against Pope St. Pius were powerful, and the general position was everywhere so critical that extreme caution might have seemed the best policy, his fearless enforcement of existing church law was on the whole wonderfully successful. Thus, though his Bull excommunicating and depriving Elizabeth (1670) was in one sense ill-timed and a failure, on the other hand its results in the spiritual sphere were admirable. It broke the English Catholics of their subservience to Elizabeth’s tyranny over their consciences in a way which no milder measure could have done.

(2) GREGORY XIII

Gregory XIII became a leader of the reform movement by virtue of qualities very different from those of his predecessor. He was a kindly, sociable man, who had risen to fame as a lecturer on canon law, and his successes were due to his zeal for education, piety, and the machinery of government, rather than to anything magnetic or inspiring in his personal influence. He was bountiful in his support of the Jesuit missions, and in his grants to seminaries and colleges. The German, English, and Greek colleges, and many others owe him their foundation Bulls, and much of their funds. He sent out missionaries at his own expense to all parts of the world. Though he had no great genius for politics, he had an admirable secretary, Ptolomeo Galli, Cardinal of Como, whose papers remain to this day models of perspicacity and order. Standing nunciatures were now established at Catholic courts in lieu of the old special envoys (Vienna, 1581; Cologne, 1584), and with the happiest results. Thus, when Gebhard Truchsess (q.v.) the Archbishop of Cologne, turned Protestant and tried (1582) to carry over his electorate with him, the nuncios on all sides organized a vigorous counterattack, which was completely successful. Since then Cologne has been a tower of strength to the Catholicism of North-Western Europe. The reform of the Calendar was another piece of large-minded and far-sighted office work, if it may be so described, which reflected much credit on the pope who organized it. Gregory was also most generous in granting Indulgences, and he encouraged works of piety on a large scale. He took an active part in the celebration of the Holy Year of Jubilee in 1575, and the pilgrims, who had flocked in thousands to the Eternal City returned to spread throughout Europe the satisfaction they had felt at the sight of the good pontiff performing in person the long religious ceremonies, leading processions, or tending poor pilgrims with his own hands.

(3) SIXTUS V

Like Pius V, Gregory XIII was too much of an enthusiast for abstract theories and medieval practices to be an ideal ruler; he was also a poor financier, and, like many other good lawyers, was somewhat deficient in practical judgment. It was exactly on these points that his successor, Sixtus V, was strong. Where Gregory, at the end of his reign, was crippled by debts and unable to restrain the bandits, who dominated the country up to the gates of Rome, Sixtus, by dint of good management, was soon one of the richest of popes, whose word was law in every corner of his States. He finished St. Peter’s, and erected the obelisk of Nero before it. He built the Vatican Library and that wing of the palace, which the popes have inhabited ever since, while he practically rebuilt the Quirinal and Lateran Palaces. He constructed the aqueduct known as the Aqua Felice, the Via Sistina, the hospital of San Girolamo and other buildings, though his reign only lasted five and a half years. Sixtus was large-minded, strong, and practical, a man who did not fear to grapple with the greatest problems, and under him the delays (reputed to be perpetual) of the Eternal City seemed to be changing to briskness, almost precipitation.

As the Council of Trent had given Catholics, just when they most needed it, an irrefragable testimony to the unity and catholicity of their Faith, so these three pontiffs, with their varying excellences, showed that the papacy possessed all the qualifications which the faithful expected in their leaders, virtues which afterwards repeated themselves (though not quite so often or so frequently) in succeeding popes, especially in Clement VIII, Paul V, and Urban VIII. Now at all events, the tide of the Counter-Reformation was running in full flood, and nowhere can its course and strength be better studied than in the missions.

VI. THE MISSIONS

While persecution and war, politics and inveterate custom, hampered progress in Europe, the wide continents of America, Asia, and Africa offered a freer outlet for the spiritual energy of the new movement. Beginning with St. Francis Xavier (q.v.), there are among the Jesuits alone quite a multitude of apostles and martyrs, confessors and preachers of the first order. In India and China, Antonio Criminale, Roberto de’ Nobili, Ridolfo Acquaviva, Matteo Ricci, Adam Schall. In Japan, after Padre Valignano’s great successes, ensued the terrible persecution in which there perished by heroic death almost eighty Jesuits, to say nothing of others. Abyssinia and the Congo were evangelized by Fathers Nunez, Baretto, and Sylveira. In North America there were heroic struggles to convert the Indians (see BRÉBEUF; LALLEMANT), and in South America, St. Peter Claver’s work for the slaves from Africa and the reductions of Paraguay. The Franciscan and Dominican friars and the secular clergy were in the field before the Jesuits in Central America (where Las Casas has left an unperishing name); elsewhere also they were soon in the front rank. Later on in the period there are St. Vincent de Paul (q.v.) and his zealous apostolic followers and (1622) the Roman Congregation “De Propaganda Fide,” with its organized missionaries (see PROPAGANDA, COLLEGE OF).

In order to appreciate the connexion of the aforesaid names with the movement under consideration, we must remember that these apostles were not only showing forth in their heroic labours and sufferings the true nature of the Counter-Reformation; they were also winning many new converts to it by their preaching, while their letters raised to the highest pitch the enthusiasm of generous souls at home (see Cros, “St. François Xavier, Sa vie et Ses lettres,” Paris, 1900; also “Lettres Edifiantes et Curieuses,” 34 vols., Paris, 1717, sqq.).

VII. PROGRESS IN EUROPEAN STATES

Whilst in distant lands the new spirit found to some extent a free field, its progress in Europe was very largely dependent on the varying fortunes of the Catholic and Protestant political powers. Here it will only be possible to indicate the chief stages in that progress, and it must be remembered that controversies have arisen at one time or another even about the leading facts.

GERMANY AND AUSTRIA

Here it is evident that in the first named country the losses of the Catholics did not cease with the Religious Peace of Augsburg in 1555. The Protestants, as the occasion arose, had not hesitated to avail themselves of religious troubles in various episcopal sees and had possessed themselves of two archbishoprics (Magdeburg and Bremen), and of 12 important bishoprics. It was only by recourse to arms that Cologne was saved in 1583; and the freedom of Strasburg and Aachen was in grave danger. There were also many defections among the lesser princes, and so long as Maximilian II (1564–76) was emperor, his Protestant proclivities prevented the Catholics from acting with the vigour and authority which became their number and their cause. For the alarming condition of Northern Germany about 1600 see “Röm. Quartalschrift” (1900), p. 385 sqq. So serious did the general position become, that St. Peter Canisius (q.v.) rhetorically compared the Catholic countries of Bavaria and the Tyrol to the two tribes of Israel, which alone were saved while all the others were carried off captive (see O. Braunsberger, Canisii Epistulæ et Acta, Freiburg, 1896–1905, I-IV). Indeed, Albert V of Bavaria (1550–79) seemed almost the only Catholic prince who could make head against the Protestants. He used his authority freely to exclude Protestants from posts of trust, etc., an example afterwards imitated by other Catholic princes (see Knöpfler, Die Kelchbewegung in Bayern unter Albrecht V, Munich, 1901). There was more satisfactory progress among the Catholics themselves. A new generation of bishops was growing up. Though it was impossible to put an immediate end to the abuses of “patronage” practised by the nobility and the princes, the proportion of men chosen for their capacity and virtues had everywhere increased. Otto von Truchsess, Bishop of Augsburg, has been mentioned, and with him may be classed Julius Echter von Mespelbrunn, Bishop of Würzburg (said to have reconciled some 60,000 souls), Cardinal Klessel, Archbishop of Vienna, Theodore von Fürstenberg, Ernst von Mengersdorf, Dietrich von Raitenau, of Paderborn, Bamberg, and Salzburg respectively, and many others. They were truly “columns of the church,” whose influence was felt far beyond the limits of their dioceses. Far-reaching, too, were the good results effected by the Catholic writers, Tanner, Gretscher (Gretser), Laymann, Contzen, and by preachers and missionaries, especially Canisius, called the malleus hoereticorum, and other Jesuits and Dominicans. The Jesuit colleges also increased steadily and were productive of great and permanent good.

At last with the reign of Rudolph II as emperor (1576–1612) came the occasion for the Counter-Reformation in Germany and Austria. Wherever the House of Hapsburg had influence the Catholic princes and lords began to exercise the same right of reformation (Reformationsrecht, Jus reformandi) in behalf of the Church, which the Protestants had hitherto used against her. But the latter ere long became suspicious. In 1608 they joined in an offensive and defensive “union” which the Catholics answered by their “League.” In this way the opposing parties soon drifted into the Thirty Years War (q.v.) which lasted from 1618 to 1648. Though the Catholic allies commenced at the greatest disadvantage, they gradually won the upper hand. By the end of 1631 they seemed so secure of their superiority, that Ferdinand II by his “Restitutionsedict” (Edict of Restitution) recalled the Church lands seized by Protestants since the Religious Peace of Augsburg in 1555, and in particular the aforesaid two archbishoprics and twelve bishoprics. The political power of the Catholics now stood at the highest point it reached during the Counter-Reformation. But a reaction soon set in; France and Sweden joined hands with the Protestants, and the Catholics had neither the enthusiasm nor the unity of purpose to maintain their advantage. The Peace of Münster and Osnabrück, in 1648, disastrous and humiliating as it was for Germany politically, was also most injurious to Catholicism. (See WESTPHALIA, TREATY OF.) Church lands were freely secularized and distributed, as the price of peace, to lay lords who practically had the right of dictating to their subjects the religion they might profess. The secular authorities, even in Catholic countries, claimed and exercised a right of placet in the choice of bishops, which was in the long run most injurious. Amid the distractions of war, the deceits of victory, and the miseries of defeat, the fervour of the Counter-Reformation had evaporated.

FRANCE

If the Counter-Reformation had much to fear and to suffer from the politics of secular princes, it was from France that it had most to dread. The wars of Francis I with the Emperor Charles V had given the Reformation an occasion for spreading. France had been the chief difficulty at the Council of Trent. In France the struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism was carried on with great bitterness and cruelty. Though the eventual victory of the Counter-Reformation was very extensive, it was nowhere later in coming; nowhere had there been such danger of a great disaster. This was due to the closeness of the connexion of Church with State. In virtue of the so-called Gallican Liberties (q.v.) the king and nobles exercised undue influence over the appointment of bishops, abbots, and clergy, and ecclesiastical administration in general. But the later rulers of the House of Valois, as also Catherine de’ Medici were miserably wanting in principle, and all efforts at reform under such leaders ended in turmoil and strife. Margaret of Valois, sister of Francis I, had favoured Protestantism, and it soon infected the House of Bourbon (Kings of Navarre), into which she had married, and which claimed the succession to the French throne. Henry II had shamelessly allied himself with Protestant powers abroad, while he burned heretics at home. Heresy spread among the princes of the blood and the highest nobility, who drew their retainers after them. Hence the numberless quarrels and the seven bloody “Wars of Religion” (1562, 1567, 1569, 1573, 1577, 1580, 1587–93). Both sides were cruel, but the barbarities of the Calvinists were especially revolting to Catholic feelings. In battle the Catholics were generally victorious, but in the negotiations for peace the Protestants gained more and more concessions. This was in great measure due to the unprincipled “see-saw” policy of Catherine de’ Medici (q.v.), who cynically inclined first to one side, then to another. At last Henry III having assassinated the Catholic leaders of the House of Guise, was himself assassinated and the throne was claimed by Henry of Navarre. But as he was a Huguenot, the Catholic people of France would not accept him, and the war dragged on, with disastrous effects to French power, until Henry IV became a Catholic in 1593, and was absolved by Pope Clement VIII in 1595. France recovered with wonderful rapidity on the restoration of peace, and it was now that the Catholic revival began in earnest, reaching its highest point in the following reign.

Clement VIII had laid down four principal conditions for absolving King Henry:

the heir to the throne must be educated as a Catholic;

a convent or monastery was to be established in every province in reparation for the numbers which had been destroyed;

Catholic worship must be introduced even into Huguenot towns;

the Council of Trent must be proclaimed.

The Counter-Reformation in France may be said to have followed the lines here laid down. Thus:

Louis XIII, the son and heir of Henry IV, was educated by Père Coton (q.v.), and it was through him that most of the good traditions of the French kings in exercising their ecclesiastical patronage took shape. He was also remarkable, perhaps almost singular, among the old French kings for the purity of his domestic relations. Thus, though he died comparatively young, and though he was completely eclipsed by his omnipotent prime minister Richelieu, he was no unfit person to preside over and to protect a movement of religious reform.

That reform reached its highest development in the multiplication of religious congregations and orders. In his “Mémoires” Richelieu says of the reign of Louis XIII, “Le vrai siècle de Saint Louis était revenu, qui commença à peupler ce royaume de maisons religieuses.” The most distinguished founder and director of such congregations was St. Vincent de Paul, whose religious organizations, beginning in 1617, reached such astonishing extension in the period immediately following. Besides these, there were the foundations or reforms of Saint-Maur (Benedictine); Port-Royal; Brothers of Charity; Congregation of Notre Dame (1607); of the Visitation (1610); the Ursulines (1612); the French Oratory by Cardinal de Berulle. Moreover the Barnabites, Capuchins, and Carmelites developed new provinces, and established many new houses. St. Peter Fourier founded the Canons Regular of St. Saviour. The Jesuits, who had previously had only thirteen colleges, now increased greatly both in numbers and influence, but amid many contradictions and acrimonious controversies with the University and the Parlement of Paris. The Society, however, was effectively supported by the Crown, and at Paris the Collège de Clermont, afterwards Louis-le-Grand, became one of the chief centres of the Counter-Reformation.

The re-establishment of Catholicism in the districts left under the power of the Huguenots through the Edict of Nantes(1598) proceeded slowly and was attended with difficulty. But the French monarchs had many reasons for exacting obedience from their often insubordinate Protestant subjects. Eventually La Rochelle, after a celebrated siege, was reduced by force (1628). Though their quasi-independence was now gone, and with it their political importance, the Counter-Reformation did not lead to the abolition of religious liberty for the Huguenots, which was fully confirmed by the Edict of Nimes in 1629.

There was much reluctance to admit the Council of Trent, and an obstinate insistence on the Gallican Liberties which proved eventually a calamity for the French Church.

On the one hand we find great names among the bishops of this period, such as St. Francis of Sales, Cardinals de Berulle and de la Rochefoucauld, Honoré de Laurens, Archbishop of Embrun, Philippe de Cospéan, Bishop of Nantes. Synods were frequent, the education of the priests was much improved. In 1642 St. Vincent of Paul opened the Collège des Bons Enfants, which served as a model for seminaries in many other dioceses; while M. Olier between 1642 and 1645 carried into execution his idea of the Grand Séminaire of Saint Sulpice. The clergy in general reached so high a level that the period may be regarded as one of the brightest in the history of the Gallican Church. On the other hand the great influence of the State and of the nobility in the selection of abbots and bishops, especially for the highest and most wealthy sees, could not but be injurious. We sometimes hear of prelates, like the Cardinal de Retz, who were a shame to their order, and still more of worldly prelates, like the Cardinal Richelieu, who though not proved to be immoral, lowered the ideals of ecclesiastical devotion to the Church, which had given the Counter-Reformation so much of its first vigour. Other weak points in the progress of the Counter-Reformation in France may be studied in the careers of Edmond Richer and of the Abbé of Saint Cyran, Du Verger de la Hauranne, and in the rise of the Jansenists. (See JANSENISM.)

SPAIN AND PORTUGAL

Turning now to Spain and Portugal, we see the Counter-Reformation winning here its most signal spiritual victories. There can be no question that the saints of Spain who flourished at this period, the theologians, canonists, and spiritual writers whom it educated, were more remarkable than those produced by any other country, e.g. St. Ignatius, St. Teresa, St. Francis Borgia, St. John of God, St. Peter of Alcántara, St. John of the Cross, St. Francis of Solano, John of Avila, Maldonado, Navarro, Salmeron, Toleto, Gregory of Valencia, Sanchez, Suarez, Juan a Santo Tomaso, Ripalda, Barbosa. These form a galaxy of brilliant names, which in their sphere have never been surpassed. The Spanish and Portuguese colonies in South America and the East Indies were also ennobled by missionaries, whose heroism, self-devotion, and energy were beyond compare. Starting from Las Casas, whose chief achievements, however, belong to an earlier period, mention must be made of the reductions of Paraguay and the first missions to the Philippines, while the majority of the spiritual labourers in India, China, and Japan were also furnished by the Spanish Peninsula. But here again, as in France, it was in great measure the absolutism of the Crown which prevented the triumph of the new movement from being as complete and permanent as it might have been. A series of second-rate sovereigns, an indifferent bureaucratic government, slavery, and a very bad colonial system, brought on the premature decay not only of the temporal, but also of the spiritual, greatness of these countries. Though the Inquisition was established in several European countries, it was more active in Spain than elsewhere.

ITALY

This country had from the first been ready for the Counter-Reformation, and in the papacy and the Council of Trent had, as it were, opened the field to reform. Nowhere did the course of the movement progress more uniformly, or last longer. This is best seen in the papal Curia, where the College of Cardinals continued to be thoroughly representative of the best talent and virtue in the Church and where the Sacred Congregations worked with an efficiency and steadfastness never known before. But in truth, wherever it is possible to look into the religious life of the nation, a remarkably high level of fervour will be recognized. St. Charles Borromeo did not lack followers among the bishops, as the great names of Sirleto, Paleotto, Arrigoni, Rusticucci, and many others testify. The detailed accounts that have come down to us of the Jubilees of 1575 and 1600, give us a glimpse of a whole community sensible to, and familiar with, works of piety and charity on a very large scale. Among the new congregations of this period mention should be made of the Scolopii, founded in 1600 by St. Joseph of Calasanza (Calasanctius). The most serious set-back was the quarrel of Paul V with Venice, 1606 to 1607, and the constant friction with unsympathetic Spanish rulers of Milan, and of the Two Sicilies, about the immunities of the clergy and the administration of ecclesiastical property. In the former case the pope may have precipitated the quarrel by the vigour with which he took extreme measures. But when the hostilities had commenced the Venetians showed an ominous tendency to ally themselves with the Gallicans and even with English heretics. The quarrel, however, only lasted one year. Such men as Paolo Sarpi and Antonio de Dominis were found but seldom. The “Index Librorum Prohibitorum” of 1564 may appropriately be mentioned here, though it applies to and illustrates all countries.

ENGLAND

Turning now to England we find the spirit of the Counter-Reformation suddenly bursting into most vigorous life at the preaching of Blessed Edmund Campion in 1580. The organization of the mission was due to the magnanimous soul of Cardinal Alien, whose noble sentiment oportet meliora non ezpectare sed facere (Letters, p. 367) conceived as it was in the face of overwhelming persecution, gives us the measure of his lofty spirit. “This Church here,” wrote Campion, “shall never fail, so long as priests and pastors shall be found for the sheep, rage man or devil never so much.” So it fell out. Allen’s seminary, first at Douai, then at Reims, sent forth, year after year, its small quota of missionaries, and the Jesuits, with the lesser seminaries, added a few more. It was an heroic struggle, for no persecution can be heavier than that of the law remorselessly applied in a law-loving country. But the courage of the whole Catholic body (numerically small) rose to the occasion, and if there were many failures, as also some serious quarrels and scandals, there was an astonishingly high average of courage and perseverance. In time their worst persecutors died off, and calmer days ensued, but at the close of the period the Puritans were renewing Elizabeth’s cruelties, and priests’ blood was flowing almost as fast as ever. This same religious enthusiasm manifested itself during the last decade or so of the period, in the foundation of new convents, orders, etc., on the Continent. The movement roughly corresponded with the similar movement in France. The name of Mary Ward (q.v.) is one of the most noteworthy in England. The mission of the English Jesuits to Maryland (q.v.) in spite of home trials is another manifestation of the same spirit.

IRELAND

During Elizabeth’s reign the Irish ware almost always engaged in a struggle for life against the ever increasing forces of the English “planters.” Sometimes they had their hour of victory, but there never had been time for reform. The process of the Irish martyrs claims about a hundred sufferers in this reign headed by Dermod O’Hurley, Archbishop of Cashel. There were also many missionaries of note, the earliest of whom was David Wolfe, S.J., sent by Pope Pius V; there were also several heroic bishops like Richard Creagh of Armagh, and many notable Franciscans and Jesuits.

But it was not until the comparative peace under King James that it was possible to fill up the gaps in the episcopate, to found colleges on the Continent, at Paris, Salamanca, Lisbon, Douai, etc. (only one or two had commenced earlier), to organize anew the religious orders (especially the Franciscans). The old life revived in many secluded sanctuaries at home: synods were actually held at Kilkenny, Dublin, and Armagh, and elsewhere literary life was reawakening. (See FOUR MASTERS; WADDING, LUKE.) There were many notable bishops like Peter Lombard, David Rothe, etc. Though the persecution never wholly ceased (Bishop Cornelius O’Devany, 1612, and some sixty others were martyred during this period), the Counter-Reformation made great progress, and there were moments when it seemed about to triumph, as, for example, in 1625 and 1641–49. But at the close of the period Cromwell was to blot out with cruelties worse than those of the Tudors all the good that had been accomplished.

SCOTLAND AND SCANDINAVIA

The Counter-Reformation can hardly be said to have affected Scotland and Scandinavia, so complete had been the victory of Protestantism. Yet while Queen Mary reigned in Scotland there had been renewed signs of life. Fathers de Gouda, Edmund Hay, James Gordon, S.J., Bishop Leslie, and Ninian Winzet are the more notable names of this period. Mention must also be made of John Ogilvie, S. J., martyred in 1615, and the heroic resistance made by many Catholic nobles to the tyranny of the Kirk. There was no local ecclesiastical superior or government, the mission depending directly on the Holy See till 1653; but there were some small Scottish colleges for the secular clergy at Rome, Douai, Paris, and Madrid. In Scandinavia the fall of Catholicism did not come about in a day or a generation—Father Possevin, S.J., as also several papal nuncios strove hard to avert it—but the Counter-Reformation as a movement did not reach any of its peoples.

THE NETHERLANDS

In the Netherlands every effort was made to exterminate Catholicism in the United Provinces, which had revolted from Spain, contrary to the repeated promises of the Prince of Orange. Still considerable numbers retained their faith—their spiritual needs being cared for by missionaries—though it was impossible to keep up the ancient hierarchy. In Catholic Flanders the revival ran a more or less uniformly prosperous course. Amongst the great prelates and writers of this period were Lindanus, Bishop of Roermond, Justus Lipsius, Leonard Lessius, Cornelius a Lapide, Martin Becan, Thomas Stapleton (an Englishman), etc. But the controversies occasioned by Baius form a less pleasant episode, and the wars at the end of this period were most injurious. Campaigns and battles ruined the country, and the final terms of peace notably reduced its power.

POLAND

In this country there was a long struggle between Catholicism, which was held by the Crown and the people, and Protestantism, which filtered in from the neighbouring Protestant countries and universities, and was affected by many of the faction-loving nobles and the merchants. Catholicism at last gained the decided upper hand, through the efforts of Stanislas Hosius and other bishops, preachers like Scarga, and the Jesuit colleges. King Sigismund II and Wladislaus IV, co-operating with a series of very active and able papal nuncios, ensured the Church’s victory; the Protestants, however, still retained much power.

VIII. ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE

The high spirit of this period manifested itself in literature in many characteristic forms. The age was one of the greatest for theology the world has ever known. It suffices to recall the names of Bellarmine, Baronius, Suarez, Vasquez, Petavius, and many others who have been alluded to already. More characteristic still were the writers on personal or interior reform, foremost among them St. Ignatius, whose “Spiritual Exercises,” for their profound spiritual and practical wisdom, must be placed in a class apart. Similarly distinguished writers were St. Francis of Sales (declared, in 1877, a Doctor of the Church), St. Teresa, Scupoli, Blosius, Louis of Granada, M. Olier, Alfonso Rodriguez. The teachings of the Church were set forth In the admirable catechisms of Canisius (1555–60) and of the Council of Trent (1566). To the same period belong the revised editions of the Vulgate (1590–98), the Roman Breviary (1568), the Roman Missal (1570), the Roman Martyrology (1582), the Corpus Juris Canonici (1582), the Decretum of Gratian (1582). Father Campion’s “Decem Rationes” (1581) and Father Person’s “Christian Directory,” exercised an extensive influence, doctrinal and religious, on contemporary opinion, which was also deeply affected by the religious poems of Tasso and Calderon, of Southwell and Crashaw. The music of the age also partook in the revival, as is testified by the great name of Palestrina and the pleasant memories of the exercises of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri.

IX. CLOSE OF THE PERIOD AND RETROSPECT

It has been said before that a period of fervour and zeal comes to an end when that zeal dies down to mediocrity in many countries, or among the large majority of people. This had taken place by the year 1648. In Germany the period is generally said to close in 1618, but elsewhere, i.e. in France and in Ireland, the tide of fervour was still flowing in many places, while in Rome and Italy it was still fairly strong. But this does not prevent our regarding the broad movement as having spent itself. Though the level of education had risen, the diminution in the number of men of genius was marked. There were but few new foundations; some great missions (Japan, Abyssinia, the Congo) were given up or in full decline, though others still were growing and flourishing. And the reason was that the interior fervour, the enthusiasm had cooled down. The same thing was true also about the Protestants. An age of fair mediocrity had taken the place of the fiercely keen ardour of the previous century. In this there was no wonder. It is the ordinary course of human nature to slacken down after unusual effort, to wax cool after an effervescence of excitement. What was not ordinary, what was on the contrary one of the strangest things in the history of the world, was the display of life and vigour which had been given by the Church just when she seemed to be about to fall behind, and to be beaten out of the field by her rivals. Under such circumstances the Counter-Reformation may be regarded as one of the most striking proofs of the inherent vitality of the Church which Providence has ever vouchsafed, only to be paralleled by her triumph over the persecutions of the Roman Empire, the invasions of the Barbarians, or the subversive forces of the French Revolution.

This wide-spreading subject has occasioned an immense literature, no adequate account of which can be given here, though its classifications may be followed by referring to THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, where the various persons and subjects mentioned above are treated in detail. Very few writers, however, have studied the broad but subtle influence of ideas, in virtue of which this revival originated, passed from land to land, grew, flourished and failed. No Catholic writer has described the whole movement with adequate fullness. (1) The best contemporary witnesses were the Roman nuncios, whose special business it was to study these subjects and to report upon them. But few of their papers are however yet published, except those relating to Germany. The reports of the nuncios to Germany (Nunziaturberichte aus Deutschland) are being edited (since 1892) partly by the Prussian and Austrian Historical Institutes at Rome and partly by the Görres Gesellschaft; DE HINOJOSA, Los despachos de la diplomacia pontificia en Espana (Madrid, 1896); CAUCHIE, Instructions générales aux nonces de Flandre, 1535–1596; POLLEN, Papal Negotiations with Mary Queen of Scots, 1561–1567 (London, 1901); HÜBNER, Sixte-Quint (Paris, 1870); PASTOR, History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages; JANSSEN, History of the German People, with criticisms of MAURENBRECHER, Gesch. der Kathol. Reformation (1880, only one volume published), and counter criticism by DITTRICH in Jahrbuch der Görres Ges., ii, 610. There are several monographs on the details of the progress, first of the Reformation, then of the Counter-Reformation, in particular parts of Germany, e.g. WIEDEMANN, Gesch. der Reformation und Gegenreformation im Lande unter der Enns (5 vols., 1879–86); others by GINDELY (Bohemia) KELLER (Westphalia), LOSERTH (Austria), MAYER (Switzerland), MEYER (Schleswig), etc.; DUHR, Gesch. der Jesuiten in der Ländern deutscher Zunge (1907); DROYSEN, Gesch. der Gegenreformation (1903, in ONCKEN, Allgemeine Geschichte). French history is the hardest to follow. Consult VICOMTE DE MEAUX, Luttes religieuses en France (Paris, 1879), and La réforme et la politique Fracçaise en Europe, jusqu’ à la paix de Westphalie (Paris, 1889); PERRENS, L’église et l’état en France sous Henri IV (1873); COUZARD, Une ambassade à Rome sous Henri IV (1902); PRAT, Recherches sur la C. de Jésus du temps du P. Coton, 1564-1626 (1876); CHENON, La Cour de Rome et la réforme cath. in LAVISSE AND RAMBAUD, Histoire Générale (Paris, 1897), V. A more objective treatment of the period is to be desired. For the ecclesiastical writers of the period, see HURTER, Nomenclator; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c. de J. (1890–1900); HILGERS, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher (Freiburg, 1904).

J.H. POLLEN

Court (in Scripture)

I. OPEN SPACE

The word court, in the English Bible, corresponds to the Hebrew haçer enclosed space. The latter is used to designate: (1) an encampment of nomads; (2) a space protected by a stockade or palisades, or by a rampart of stones or earth, hence a village; (3) the court-yards of the houses or temples. In the first sense the Hebrew term is, in the D.V., rendered in various ways: “castle” (Gen., xxv, 16), “cities of the desert” (Is., xlii, 11), “private places” (i. e. places of ambush near the settlements, Ps. ix, 8). The word village usually expresses the second meaning (Lev., xxv, 31; Jos., xiii, xv, xvi, etc.; I Par., iv, 33, etc. However, in Ex., viii, 13, village is a mistranslation for court-yard). In connexion with this sense it may not be amiss to notice that the Hebrew word, either in the form Haçer, or in the slightly different form Haçor was not infrequently used in proper names. One of the first encampments of the Hebrews after their departure from the foot of Mount Sinai was at a place called Haseroth (Num, xi, 34). There was a Chanaanite city of Asor near the waters of Merom (Jos., xi, 5; Josephus, Ant. Jud., V, v, 1); this city, taken and burned by Josue (Jos., xi, 10, 11), was allotted to the tribe of Nephtali (Jos., xix, 36), but probably rebuilt by the Chanaanites (Judges, iv, 2), fortified by Solomon (III K., ix, 15), and seized by Theglathphalasar (IV K., xv, 29). This Asor or Aser was, according to the Greek text, the native place of Tobias (Tob., i, 2), and at a short distance from it Jonathan Machabeus defeated the army of Demetrius (I Mach., xi, 67). We read (Jos., xv, 23) of another Asor, called Esron, in Jos., xv, 3, and Hesron, xv, 25 on the southern frontier of Juda. The same text (xv, 25) even mentions in the same borders a New Asor. A third Asor existed, at least after the Captivity, near Jerusalem, in the territory of Benjamin (II Esd., xi, 33). Among the compound proper names may be mentioned: Hasar Adar (D. V., “the town called Adar,” Num., xxxiv, 4); Asergadda (Jos., xv, 27); Hasersusa or Hasarsusim (Jos., xix, 5; I Par., iv, 31); Hasar Enon (D. V., “court of Enan,” Ez., xlvii, 17; xlviii, 1; “village of Enan,” Num., xxxiv, 9, 10); Hasersual or Hasarsuhal (Jos., xv, 28; xix, 3; II Esd., xi, 27; I Par., iv, 28); Hasar hattikhon (D. V., “the house of Tichon,” Ez, xlvii, 16); Baalhasor (II K., xiii, 23); Enhasor (Jos., xix, 37).

The recent excavations in Syria and Palestine, as well as the modern customs inherited from olden times, give precise indications concerning the house-courts, not seldom alluded to in Holy Writ. When, as occurs frequently, the house does not open directly on the street, there is a first court-yard extending between the outer wall and the building. From this outer court an entrance doorway leads into the inner court, around which the various apartments are located. The inner court sometimes contains in the centre a well (II K., xvii, 18) or a fountain surrounded with fine trees; the walls, porches, and verandas are usually covered with vines and creepers, and an awning may be stretched overhead to keep off the sun. From the narration of the Passion we may infer that such was the arrangement in the high-priest’s house. While Jesus was being tried in one of the halls, the servants and ministers had gathered around a fire of coals in the inner court; thither Peter came to warm himself, and there he denied his Master. From the judgment-hall, Jesus turning (Luke, xxii, 61) could easily look outside (Matt., xxvi, 69) on Peter. Then the latter, smitten with remorse, betook himself to the outer court (Mark, xiv, 68; D. V., “before the court,” a literal translation of the awkward Latin rendering: ante atrium), there to weep freely. Royal residences displayed, on a larger scale and in a more elaborate way, a similar general arrangement. The Bible speaks of the courts of the palaces of Solomon (III K., vii, 9, etc.), Ezechias (IV K., xx, 4), and Sedecias (Jer., xxxii, 2, 12; xxxiii, 1; xxxvi, 20; xxxviii, 6), as well as those of Assuerus at Susan (Esth., ii, 11; iv, 11; v, 2; etc.) and of Seleucus at Tyre (II Mach., iv, 46). In connexion with sacred places, courts are most frequently mentioned. We learn from Ex., xxxviii, 9 sq. that the place of meeting in the wilderness was a court, a hundred cubits long and fifty cubits wide, encompassed by pillars supporting hangings of fine twisted linen. The sacred precincts contained, besides the tabernacle and its furniture, the altar of holocausts and the brazen layer (Ex., xl, 6, 7). Still more famous are Solomon’s constructions. All the buildings erected by this prince on Mount Sion were surrounded by a wall encompassing what may be styled “the greater court.” Southernmost in the lowest court were the public balls, namely: the “house of the forest of Libanus,” the “Porch of pillars,” and the throne-hall; farther in from the throne-hall (III K., vii, 8, Heb. text) and on a higher level another court, called “middle court,” IV K., xx, 4 (Heb.; D. V., “the middle of the court”), contained the king’s mansion and the house built for Pharao’s daughter (III K., vii, 8). North of the middle court, on the top of the hill, was the “inner court” (III K., vi, 36), also called “upper court” (Jer., xxxvi, 10) and “court of the priests” (II Par., iv, 9). No information is supplied by the Sacred Text about the extent and form of this latter court. Judging, however, from the second and third temples, it would seem to have been rectangular; the rabbis say that it measured 135 (N. to S.) by 187 (E. to W.) cubits; but these figures, obtained from the traditions concerning the second temple, can claim no certainty. The floor of the inner court was paved with stones (II Par., vii, 3; IV K., xvi, 17, has no reference to this point; pavement in the English Bibles ought to be understood here: stone basement). The descriptions of III K. and II Par. mention no gates, but some must have existed; one, very likely, on the south side, connecting the temple court with the middle court, and others probably on the north and east sides for the accommodation of the people. At any rate, that some time before the Exile there were gates is evidenced by such passages as Jer., xxxviii, 14; IV K., xxv, 18 (cf. Jer., lii, 24). An eastern gate is said (I Par., ix, 18) to have existed; it was called “the king’s gate.” To Joatham is attributed (IV K., xv, 35) the construction of “the highest gate of the house of the Lord,” most probably the same as the “upper gate of Benjamin” of Jer., xx, 2, or the “new gate” of Jer., xxvi, 10, xxxvi, 10, and perhaps also the “gate of the altar” of Ez., viii, 5; all these passages point out a gate on the north side. Within the inner court were the temple proper, the altar of holocausts, the brazen sea, and layers. All the walls encircling these various courts “were made of three rows of hewn stones and one row of cedar beams” (III K., vii, 12). Modern archæologists are inclined to attribute to the son of David these courses of huge stones which may be seen in various places of the walls of the Haram esh-Sherif. We possess little information concerning the second temple; but there are reasons to believe that, with the exception of the temple-house, which was certainly smaller, the arrangement and dimensions were about the same as those of Solomon’s temple. In Herod’s time the temple area was extended towards the north, according to some; towards the south, in the opinion of others, so that the outer court had probably the same form and dimensions as the actual Haram. This court was surrounded by a high wall covered with spikes. Along the walls on the inside, north, west, and east (Solomon’s Porch), were double porticoes, and on the south a triple portico, the “royal porch.” Eight gates gave access from the outside: four on the west, two on the south (Huldah gates), one on the east, and one on the north (Tadhi gate); between the gates, along the outer walls, halls and chambers had been erected, among which we may mention the Beth-Din, or meeting-place of the Sanhedrin. Within this outer court, towards the north, a wall forty cubits high, limited the inner court. All around this wall extended a terrace (the hel) ten cubits wide and reached by a flight of fourteen steps. A stone parapet, about a cubit high, encircled the inner edge of the hel, to which thirteen openings gave access; on the parapets tablets warned, under penalty of death, the non-Jews against trespassing. From the hel nine gates and stairways led the Israelites into the inner courts. On the inside, along the walls, twenty-five cubits high (the ground was some fifteen cubits higher than the court of the Gentiles), ran porticoes, and cells for sundry purposes had been erected between the gates. The walls of the inner court encompassed two distinct spaces: the eastern part, called “the women’s court,” which, among other things, contained the boxes for the various collections; thence a gate, preceded by a flight of fifteen steps, led to the western part, or “men’s court.” There a balustrade separated the “priests’ court,” containing the temple proper and the altar of holocausts and all their appurtenances, from the place assigned to the lay people.

II. ATTENDANCE OF A KING

In the English Bible the word court is occasionally used also to mean the retinue of a person of high rank and authority (Gen., xlv, 16; IV K., vii, 9; Esth., xi, 3). It then stands generally for the Hebrew word hel, “house,” the only word which, in the sacred language, might in some instances, receive the sense with which we are now concerned. The Latin Bible in such places usually has the noun aula, and once in the N. T. exercitus (Luke, xxiii, 11). Although mention of a court is seldom made in connexion with the kings of Israel and Juda, they nevertheless naturally had their court, consisting, besides their family and body-guard, of counsellors, secretaries, recorders, chancellors, ministers, superintendents of public works, governors of the house, even the high dignitaries of the temple. Glowing descriptions are given of the splendour of the court of such kings as David (II K., xxiii; I Par., xi) and Solomon (Cant., iii, 7, 8); they furnished to later Jewish writers the colours wherewith to describe the glory of the palace of God. For Yahweh is king, not only over Israel, but over the whole world, and as becomes a king, he must have his court. This is constituted by the innumerable host of the angels, ever ready to do his will. Several (seven, in the received text) unceasingly stand in His presence; legions of seraphim surround his throne, as a body-guard; thousands of heavenly spirits form his council (Tob., xii, 15; Is., vi, 2, 6; Pss. lxxxii, lxxxix). Ecclesiastical writers, developing this idea, oftentimes describe the heavenly court, made up not only of the angels, but also of the host of all those blessed souls who enjoy the beatific vision. On the other hand the courts of the Temple have sometimes been regarded by mystic writers as a figure of the souls striving for Christian perfection: the brazen layer represents the purifying penance, whereas the altar of holocausts signifies Christian mortification and its necessary sacrifices.

JOSEPHUS, Bell. Jud., V, v; IDEM, Ant. Jud., VI, ii, iv, XIV. iv, xi; Talmud, tr. MIDDOTH (Amsterdam, 1690–1703), V; WILSON, WARREN, etc., The Recovery of Jerusalem (London. 1870); STADE, Gesch. des Volkes Israel (1888); DE VOGÜÉ, Le temple de Jérusalem (Paris, 1864); PERROT AND CHIPIEZ, Histoire de l’art dans l’antiquité (Paris), IV; VINCENT, Canaan d’après l’ exploration récente (Paris, 1907); Revue biblique internat., II, VII, etc.

CHARLES L. SOUVAY

William Courtenay

Archbishop of Canterbury, born in the parish of St. Martin’s, Exeter, England, c. 1342; died at Maidstone, 31 July, 1396; was the son of Hugh Courtenay, Earl of Devon, and Margaret, daughter of Humphrey Bohun, Earl of Hereford. He studied at Oxford, where he took the degree of D.C.L. In 1367 he was elected chancellor of the university. On this occasion the university successfully resisted the Bishop of Lincoln’s claim to the right of confirming its choice, and later Courtenay obtained from Urban V a Bull declaring a chancellor’s election valid without the confirmation of the diocesan. After holding prebends in the churches of Exeter, Wells, and York, he was elected Bishop of Hereford and consecrated, 17 March, 1370. As bishop his support was given to the Prince of Wales and Bishop Wykeham against the anti-clerical movement led by John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and later his efforts to suppress the Lollards were unceasing. In the Convocation of 1373 he strongly opposed the granting of a subsidy to the king until the latter should try to remedy the evils then afflicting the Church. Courtenay was transferred to the See of London, 12 Sept., 1375. In 1377 Pope Gregory XI issued a Bull of excommunication against the Florentines, and Courtenay published it at Paul’s Cross. The result was that the Florentines in London were attacked by the populace; the magistrates had to interfere, and the king extended his protection to the foreigners. Courtenay was accused of violating the law by publishing the Bull. When called upon to retract what he had published, his answer was made through an official, who declared from the pulpit that the bishop’s words had been misunderstood, and there the matter ended. When the Convocation was summoned in 1377, the archbishop, in the interests of John of Gaunt, omitted to summon the Bishop of Winchester. Courtenay protested against this and succeeded in getting Wykeham’s rights recognized. Then followed his attempts to repress the Lollards, and Wyclif was cited to appear before the archbishop at St. Paul’s. Wyclif came accompanied by John of Gaunt, who insisted upon a seat being provided for the accused; an altercation ensued which resulted in the court breaking up in confusion. Courtenay’s authority alone restrained the citizens from using violence towards Lancaster. Again, in obedience to the pope, 18 Dec., he summoned Wyclif, but nothing came of the summons, and the Lollards continued to increase in numbers and influence. Some think that about this time the pope offered to create Courtenay a cardinal; whether this was so or not, he was never raised to that dignity, but on 30 July, 1381, he became Archbishop of Canterbury. Then followed his appointment to the chancellorship of the kingdom 10 Aug., 1382, an office which he shortly afterwards resigned (18 Nov., 1382).

Urged by Parliament he again turned his attention to the Lollards, calling a council which condemned their heretical opinions. Rigge, the Chancellor of Oxford and a leading Lollard, retracted and sued for pardon on his knees, but on his return to the university continued as before. The Oxford Lollards were finally brought to submission on 18 Nov., when the recantation of their leaders was received at St. Frideswide’s. The archbishop then obtained a statute commanding sheriffs and other officers of the king to imprison heretics when certified as such by a bishop. Though this law was repealed the next year, he still had the royal sanction allowing bishops to detain heretics in their own prisons. After the subjugation of Oxford he turned to Leicester (1389), placed the town under an interdict, and in the end received the recantation of the leaders. About 1382 he began a general visitation of his province and met with much opposition; his interference was appealed against by the Bishops of Exeter and Salisbury, though both finally submitted. The Benedictine abbots also organized a strong opposition to his proposed visitation of Gloucester College, Oxford (1389); on his arrival he was treated with due respect, but they so firmly refused to acknowledge his right that he abandoned his design. Though a strong defender of the rights of the Church in England, he was always true and loyal to the pope. He so fearlessly condemned the extravagance of the king that he once (1385) had to take refuge in Devonshire to escape the royal anger. When the relations between king and Parliament became so strained as almost to lead to war, it was Courtenay who acted as mediator and averted the danger. He was first buried at Maidstone, where he had founded the College of St. Mary and All Saints; afterwards his body was removed to Canterbury and buried, in the king’s presence, at the feet of the Black Prince, near the shrine of St. Thomas.

Munimenta Academica, ed. ANSTEY (London, 1868), I, 229; Fasciculi Zizoniorum, ed. SHIRLEY (London, 1858), xxix, 272–5, 304–9, 356, 493: HOOK, Lives of Archbishops of Canterbury (London, 1860–73), IV, 315–98; STUBBS, Constitutional History of England (London, 1857–80), II, 428–38, 460–88; III, 330, 356; FOXE, Acts and Monuments (London, 1684) I, 495–500; GREEN, History of the English People (London, 1895), II, 339–46.

G.E. HIND.

Ecclesiastical Courts

I. JUDICIAL POWER IN THE CHURCH

In instituting the Church as a perfect society, distinct from the civil power and entirely independent of it, Christ gave her legislative, judicial, and executive power to be exercised over her members without any interference on the part of civil society. It does not fall within our scope to prove that the Church is a perfect society, consequently endowed with the above-mentioned power. If one admits the Divine institution of the Church, and the authenticity and authority of the Gospels, he must acknowledge that Christ so constituted His Church as to enable her rulers to make laws and regulations for the faithful conducive to the attainment of eternal happiness. Moreover, as John XXII (1316–34) wisely remarks: “It would he folly to make laws unless there were some one to enforce them” (Cap. un. de Judiciis, II, 1, in Extravag. Comm.). It is evident, therefore, that Christ in conferring legislative power upon the Church also gave judicial and coercive power. In proof of this we have, besides theological arguments, the practice of the Church which explicitly claimed such power, as well in the beginning (II Cor., x, 8; xiii, 2 sqq., etc.) as during the subsequent centuries of her existence; and, moreover, made frequent use of it. Suffice it to recall the institution of canonical penances, the constitutions and laws of so many pontiffs and councils, containing not only positive enactments, but also sanctions to be incurred ipso facto by the rebellious and obstinate, or to be inflicted upon them at the discretion of ecclesiastical superiors.

Now the infliction of punishment certainly presupposes evidence of the crime, since, according to the natural law, no one should be condemned until his guilt has been established. Hence the Church, in making use of her powers of legislation and coercion, must have also exercised judicial power. It is, moreover, historically evident that the Church often exercised these powers either through the Roman pontiff alone, by the agency of his delegates, or through councils, individual bishops, or other judges, ordinary or delegated. St. Paul plainly refers to a perfect judicial procedure when he cautions his disciple Timothy (I Tim., v, 19) not to receive an accusation against a priest except in the presence of two or three witnesses. In the next century, Marcion, after being expelled from the clergy, vainly appealed to the Apostolic See for restoration to his office. In the trial, degradation, and excommunication of Paul of Samosata by the Council of Antioch (c. 268) we meet with a formal ecclesiastical trial. The Council of Elvira (c. 300) threatens with excommunication every accuser of a bishop, a priest, or a deacon who fails to prove his charge. The Third Council of Carthage (397) discusses regulations regarding appeals, and the Fourth Council of Carthage (398) prescribes the manner in which bishops are to exercise judicial authority. Finally, in the Apostolic Constitutions, which certainly are representative of the ancient practice of the Church, we find that certain days are set for conducting trials; the mode of procedure and other details are also clearly set forth. For later periods evidence abounds.

II. THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THIS POWER

In the early centuries, when the Christians were still few in number; when their new faith and new moral life constrained the followers of Christ to carry out all His precepts (especially the one by which He wished them to be distinguished from all other men in this period); and when there existed, generally, among the faithful one heart and one soul, it was Customary, in case a controversy arose, to appear before the bishop and accept his decision. This was in accordance with the grave admonition of St. Paul (I Cor., vi, 1), who urged the faithful not to appear as litigants before the civil courts. Though in such cases the bishops often assumed the rôle of friendly arbiters rather than strict judges, we should not infer that they never conducted a strict trial. Tertullian (Apol., xxxix) furnishes us with information on this point in these words addressed to the pagans: “Ibidem [in ecclesiâ] etiam exhortationes castigationes et censura divina: nam et judicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud certos de Dei conspectu,” i. e. the Church is wont to warn and punish, is a Divinely appointed censor, whose weighty decisions are accepted as rendered in the presence of God. Many similar utterances from the Fathers and the councils could easily be cited. It was, of course, impossible for the ecclesiastical magistrates (the bishops) to make use at that time of the legal solemnities introduced at a later period. Though rather summary, the judicial proceedings of the primitive episcopal tribunals were trials in the strict sense of the word. In the work of Bishop Fessler concerning the early history of canonical procedure (Der kanonische Process . . . in der vorjustinianischen Periode, Vienna, 1860) may be found details of interest concerning the ecclesiastical trials of Montanus, Origen, Fortunatus, Paul of Samosata, Athanasius, and others.

When the Christians obtained control of the civil power of Rome, the reasons that moved St. Paul to persuade or command the faithful to avoid the civil tribunals were, of course, no longer pertinent. Gradually the Church allowed the faithful to submit their differences either to ecclesiastical or to civil tribunals. From the beginning of the new era the bishops shared with the secular magistrates the power of settling the disputes of the faithful. Constantine the Great published two constitutions (321, 331) wherein he not only permits laymen to have their cases tried before their bishops, but also decrees that all cases which until then were wont to be tried by the prætorian, i. e. by the civil, law should, when once settled before the episcopal courts, be considered as finally adjudicated. It was rightly established, however, that not all cases could be submitted to the civil courts, nor could all persons have recourse to them. To decide a controversy the judge must first have jurisdiction over the matters in question and the parties engaged in the controversy. A private individual, for instance, could not hand down a decision, nor could he compel others to abide by it. In the case of a secular judge, his jurisdiction comes from the civil authority. In purely spiritual matters the latter is powerless, since God has committed them exclusively to the Church. In this domain the civil power has neither legislative nor judicial authority. Whatever, therefore, concerns the Faith, Divine worship, the sacraments, or ecclesiastical discipline is foreign to the civil order. With regard to such matters the Church has ever asserted her exclusive judicial authority [c. 1, dist. 96; c. 8, de arbitriis, X. (I, 43); c. 2, de judiciis, X. (II, 1)). This solemn contention of the ecclesiastical power was recognized and confirmed by the Roman emperors in their civil constitutions [Cod. Theod., de religione (XVI, 2), an. 399; VII, De episcop. audientiâ, C. (I, 4)]. Likewise, not all persons are to be judged by secular courts. The Church could not permit her clergy to be judged by laymen; it would be utterly unbecoming for persons of superior dignity to submit themselves to their inferiors for judgment. The clergy, therefore, were exempt from civil jurisdiction, and this ancient rule was sanctioned by custom and confirmed by written laws. On this point the Church has always taken a firm stand; concessions have been wrung from her only where greater evils were to be avoided. Thus, in Christian antiquity, a Council of Aquileia condemned the bishop, Palladius, for demanding a civil trial, and a Council of Mileve decreed that clerics who strive to bring their lawsuits or disputes before secular judges should be deprived of their clerical dignity and removed from their offices. Innocent III reprehended the Archbishop of Pisa [c. 12, De foro competenti, X. (II, 2)] for maintaining that at least in temporal matters a cleric could renounce his right of exemption and appear before a secular court. Such action, said Innocent, was unlawful even when the conflicting parties agreed to submit the matter to civil magistrates. The ecclesiastical exemption was not a personal privilege; it belonged to the entire ecclesiastical body and could not be renounced by individuals.

Matters purely spiritual, as explained above, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of ecclesiastical law. In addition to these there were in the past, and are still, cases in which the natural and spiritual elements are so conjoined, as Lega remarks in his excellent work “De judiciis ecclesiasticis,” that they take on juridically another nature and give rise to different rights. To make this clearer, the author, in addition to the example drawn from certain effects of matrimony, borrows from the ancient canonists the illustration of a contract entered into by lay persons and confirmed by oath. Here, to the obligation of justice is added that of religion, and we easily recognize a twofold juridical element, bringing the matter in question, at least as far as the value or execution of the contract is concerned, within the ecclesiastical as well as the civil domain. Were it a question only of the value of the oath, the matter would, of course, be a purely spiritual one. There is another order of cases in which the issues are purely temporal. Over these the Church never claimed an essential right to the exclusion of civil power. Even in the Middle Ages she recognized the principle that ecclesiastical judges are incompetent in such cases unless urgent necessity or custom should require otherwise. If, in medieval times, the Church exercised jurisdiction in regard to the temporal concerns of orphans, widows, or other persons of unfortunate condition, no equitable mind will see therein a usurpation of civil jurisdiction on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities. The true and adequate explanation lies in the peculiar necessities of the age, the deficient administration of justice, and the undue power exercised by the rich and mighty. Rather does it redound to the honour of the Church that she then assumed the defence of the poor against the wealthy and powerful, and came to the aid of those who were deprived of all human help. It must also be mentioned that in medieval and later times ecclesiastical magistrates were often vested with civil power legitimately acquired, and exercised it, not as ecclesiastics, but as civil magistrates.

III. THE SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL POWER IN THE CHURCH

Since the judicial power flows from the legislative, it is clear that the former resides primarily and chiefly in those who possess the latter. The common welfare, evidently, does not require that every person endowed with legislative power in a social organization should therefore enjoy the fullness of such power; so also it is obvious that not every one possessed of judicial power in a society has at once the right to exercise it upon all members of that society. It was this exigency of the common welfare that made it necessary to fix the limits of the jurisdiction of magistrates even in civil societies. We know, for instance, that in primitive Roman society there was in every district one magistrate who was supreme, and who had undivided jurisdiction in the province allotted to him, but none beyond its limits (Bks. 1 and 9, De off. proc., D. (I, 16)]. This first limitation of the magistrate’s power was based on territory; later on there followed another limitation based on the importance, or “quantity,” of the case or controversy. Hence, in later Roman law the plaintiff had to inquire not only what territory came under the jurisdiction of his judge, but also what “quantity,” or gravity of matter [Bk. 19 sq., 1, De jurisdict., D. (II, 1)]. In later times these principles have been retained and even partially increased and extended by our civil codes; they serve even yet to justify many special courts, e.g. courts for aqueducts, for commercial disputes, etc. These various arrangements are not altogether foreign to ecclesiastical law; indeed, in many cases it has adopted them outright. Thus, it is not only by Divine disposition that the Roman pontiff is the supreme judge in the Universal Church—as he is also its sovereign legislator—and that the bishops are the law-givers and judges in their respective dioceses; but it is also by ecclesiastical ruling that certain cases are reserved to the Roman pontiff. These were first called by Innocent I (401–17), in his epistle to Victricius of Rouen, causœ majores (greater cases); other cases are reserved to the bishops, to the exclusion of inferior magistrates and judges; and others, finally, to the various Roman Congregations. It was likewise by ecclesiastical law that in former times certain matters were reserved to provincial councils, particularly in the African Church (Concil. Hipponense, 393); this custom, however, was never sanctioned by a general law.

Many facts go to prove that this limitation of ecclesiastical authority, a necessary consequence of the primacy conferred by Christ on Peter and his successors, was introduced in the earliest ages of the Church; a brief mention of some will suffice. About the year 96, we find the celebrated letter of the Corinthians to St. Clement of Rome, of which Eusebius makes mention (Hist. eccl., III, xv), and which he calls “in every respect excellent and praiseworthy.” This letter disclosed to St. Clement the causes of the discords in Corinth and asked for a remedy. In the second century the Montanists brought their grievances before the Roman pontiff; deceived at first, he restored them to their standing in the Church, hut later condemned them. Many other similar occurrences could be enumerated; let it suffice to mention the letter of Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, in which he clears himself before Pope Julius I (337–52) and makes profession of his faith; also the letter of the Arian Bishops, Valens and Ursacius, in which they retract their accusations against Athanasius and sue for pardon. In ecclesiastical law, cases affecting civil rulers or cardinals, also criminal cases of bishops, are still reserved exclusively to the Roman pontiff. In the Church, however, judicial authority is vested (by Divine right) not only in the Roman pontiff and the bishops, but in others also, though in a more or less restricted form. In former times, there was the provincial council, with judicial authority in not a few cases, also the court of the archdeacon, distinct from that of the bishop, and with these the courts of inferior judges, whose authority was based on custom or, more generally, on privilege. In place of these earlier judges we have now the vicars-general (q. v.), who, however, constitute but one court with their bishop and judge-delegates, representative either of bishops or, more particularly, of the sovereign pontiff.

IV. CLASSIFICATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS

In every society courts may be classified in two ways, according to the twofold manner in which justice may be administered. Thus it may happen that in a certain society the administration of justice is so established that a controversy is not ended by one sentence, but several appeals may be made. The defendant, if unwilling to abide by the decision of the first tribunal, may then appeal from a lower to a higher court, and this appeal may be renewed as often as the law allows it; thus there may be two, three, or even more courts wherein a case may be tried. It may also happen that any given controversy must be settled by one judicial sentence, even though diverse tribunals exist, because the cases, on account of their “quantity”—to use the terminology of the Roman law—i. e. on account of their varying importance, come under the cognizance of various judges and tribunals. In this case separate tribunals are so arranged that there exists a highest and a lowest, between which there may be a third or even several other tribunals. Or again a mixed system may prevail, in which are found both systems of regulating the administration of justice.

In the Church it is precisely this last intermediate system that prevails. For, as we have already seen, there are certain causœ majores reserved to the judgment of the Roman pontiff exclusively; and as he has no superior there can be no higher court of appeal, nor, indeed, is it becoming that his judgment be reconsidered by any other, much less that it be revised. In these cases, therefore, there can be but one court of judgment. Nevertheless it may be well to remark here that, as the Roman pontiff does not generally judge personally, but through delegates who give sentence in his name, he usually allows a hearing of the case by different judges, if it should happen that one of the contending parties, not satisfied with the first judgment, requests this revision from the pontiff himself. All other ecclesiastical cases, however, in which inferior courts give judgment admit of an appeal to higher ecclesiastical authority, and one may appeal not once only, but twice. Hence in ecclesiastical law there are, generally speaking, three courts of judgment, neither more nor less. This assertion admits of one exception, viz., when there is question of the validity of a marriage, or of similarly important matters, appeal to a fourth court is then at times admitted. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, however, vicars-general succeeded the archdeacons, and after the Council of Trent, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the archdeacons’ courts ceased to exist. Consequently the first ecclesiastical court is now regularly that of the bishop or of his vicar-general. The second court is that of the metropolitan. But if it should happen that the bishop who gave judgment in the first court is himself the metropolitan or an exempt bishop, or if the case was, in the first instance, brought before a provincial council, then the tribunal of first appeal is none other than the tribunal of second and last appeal, and this is always and for all parties the tribunal of the Roman pontiff. In this case, therefore, only two appeals are possible. This is the provision made by the common law, though sometimes an approved custom—more frequently an express privilege—provides differently. Thus, for instance, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire the ecclesiastical court of Prague is the court of appeal for the Archdioceses of Vienna and Salzburg; for Prague it is Ohmütz; for Olmütz, Vienna. So, too, in Latin America, if the first two sentences do not agree, an appeal may be taken in the third instance to the bishop who resides nearest to the one who first gave judgment. This was decreed by Leo XIII in his Encyclical “Trans Oceanum,” 18 April, 1897. It must be borne in mind, however, that, owing to the special pre-eminence of the Roman pontiff, an appeal may always be made from the tribunal of an inferior judge to his tribunal immediately, thus passing over the intermediate courts, to which, according to the general rules, the appeal must otherwise be directed.

What has been said above applies to the ecclesiastical discipline now in force. It must be added that in the Eastern Church the title of metropolitan is generally, though not always, a merely honorary title, the metropolitan power being almost entirely in the hands of the patriarch himself; it is consequently to him that an appeal lies from the judgment of the bishop. With regard to the ancient ecclesiastical discipline it is worthy of remark that in former times an appeal was allowed from the tribunal of the metropolitan to that of the primate or patriarch. Actually, with exception of the Primate of Hungary in certain cases, this primate’s court no longer exists. Where appeals are possible, the courts are said to be subordinate one to the other, and are so in fact; hence, for instance, a metropolitan court can, by a genuine order or mandate, require such data from the inferior court as may seem to it necessary for a proper cognizance of the case. Here we must carefully note the difference which oftentimes exists between subordinate courts in ecclesiastical and in civil law. In the latter the superior court frequently exercises a certain, true, disciplinary power over the inferior court, either by instituting an inquiry into its proceedings, or by delegating a substitute, if the inferior judge should be prevented from exercising his office or should be found incapable. All this is foreign to ecclesiastical law, in which the courts of suffragan sees are subject to the metropolitan court in such matters only as regard the appeal actually before the metropolitan. In all other matters the episcopal courts are quite independent of metropolitan authority. Other courts, however, whether metropolitan or episcopal, are in no way subordinate, but are entirely independent of one another, though this does not relieve them from the obligation of mutual assistance. Thus it may often happen that the administration of justice in one locality necessitates proceedings in the territory of another judge. Should this happen, the court which has the case in hand may request the court of the locality in which some proceeding necessary to the administration of justice or to a proper cognizance of the case must be instituted (e.g. the examination of witnesses or the execution of a summons) to see to its performance. And the court to which such a petition has been addressed through requisitional letters by another court is obliged to render this subsidium iuris, or legal assistance, unless the request be evidently unlawful. But the obligation arises, not from the authority of the court requesting assistance, but from the authority of the common law, which so ordains. This is evidently just, for all such courts are courts of one ecclesiastical society, the one Catholic Church, whose welfare demands that in it justice be rightly administered.

V. CONSTITUTION OF THE COURTS

In ecclesiastical law the Roman pontiff and the bishops, as also the metropolitans in cases of appeal, likewise all those who in their own right (ordinario iure) exercise judicial power in the Church, may pronounce sentence personally in all cases brought before their tribunal. They may also, if they think fit, entrust the hearing of the case to judges delegated by them; and they may thus delegate, not only one person, but also several, either—to use the canonical terms—in solidum or collegialiter. If they were delegated in solidum, or severally, then he who first took the case in hand must examine it and pronounce judgment. But if they are to proceed collegialiter, we have a true college of judges, in which, therefore, everything is to be observed which the law prescribes and the nature of things demands in the exercise of collegiate acts. We have many examples, both in ancient and modern times, of judges who had thus to proceed as a college. We have already made mention of the ancient discipline that prevailed, principally in the African Church, and according to which certain graver cases were to be referred to provincial councils. This regulation was retained, partially at least, by the Council of Trent. It decreed that the more important criminal cases of bishops should be reserved to the pope, whilst those of lesser importance are left to the cognizance of provincial councils. This is also the origin of the celebrated tribunal called the Rota Romana.

The Roman congregations themselves are simply collegiate courts whenever they exercise judicial authority. In not a few dioceses the so-called Officialatus (Officialités) exist, which also administer justice as a college. Gregory XVI erected in the various dioceses of the States of the Church courts for criminal cases which were truly collegiate bodies and proceeded as such; though herein the pope acted, not as pope, but as temporal sovereign. Hence this case does not properly belong to canon law. In these courts the number of judges is not definitely fixed, though there are usually, besides the president, two or four judges, seldom more than six. Therefore it is generally the rule that the number of judges be uneven, as the case might otherwise often be left undecided. A majority of votes decides, especially in giving sentence; if the votes for both sides are equal the case (per se) remains undecided. In this event, however, it is often provided that the vote of the president shall be decisive, or that the case shall be decided in favour of the defendant and not of the plaintiff, unless the case be a privileged one, v.g., if the validity of a marriage is in question. What the powers of the president are in a college of judges must be gathered from the decree which established the court in question, or also from the latter’s practice and tradition. It is to be noted that sometimes a court resembles a college of judges without being such in fact. Thus a bishop can order his vicar-general in giving judgment in certain cases, particularly in those of greater moment, to appoint assessors, whose counsel he must hear before pronouncing sentence. In this case it is evident that there is no real college of judges, as only the vicar-general can pronounce sentence; still the case must be examined by the assessors, who can and ought to manifest to the judge all which they think may conduce to a just sentence.

The Judge

It is evident that in every trial the judge has the leading rôle, whether this judge be an individual or a college, and his obligation is to apply the law between the two contending parties or to pronounce what is conformable to established right and equity; and as his office is to see to the execution of the law, he has the right to require from the contending parties reverence and obedience. For this same reason he is empowered to do whatever is necessary to make his jurisdiction effective, and therefore to use moderate coercion towards obtaining the same end. This coercion can be exercised not only against the contending parties, if they are disobedient, but also against others who have an accessary part in the trial, e.g. the procurators and advocates. In his capacity as a public person the judge is worthy of public confidence: hence the presumption is in his favour that the legal formalities have been properly observed in his judicial proceedings, and that what he testifies to as judge is true. Canon law commonly requires that in ecclesiastical tribunals there shall be other persons present besides the judge: thus there are always a notary and a defender of the marriage bond in matrimonial cases, and a fiscal promoter (promotor fiscalis) in the great majority of criminal cases. Ordinarily other persons are admitted, not by mandate, but through permission of the law, for the rapid and better administration of justice, v.g. assessors and auditors.

The Notary (actuarius)

The Notary, whose presence was decreed by Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council [cap. 38, c. 11 de probat., X. (II 19)], is a public person whose obligation it is to transcribe with fidelity the acts of the case. As this office is merely that of a clerk, and does not include any judicial power or jurisdiction, it may be held in ecclesiastical courts even by a layman. Still, clerics are not excluded from this office, nor does cap. 8, “Ne clerici vel monachi,” etc., X. (III, 50) contradict this, as there it is a question only of clerics who hold such office for the sake of pecuniary profit; nor is the contrary affirmation of Fagnani of any weight, as it is not supported by conclusive reasons. This is shown also by the actual practice of ecclesiastical courts. It is sufficient here to call to mind the notaries of ancient times who wrote down the acts of the martyrs, those who were employed in the councils, and still more the class of the prothonotaries, who have recently been divided by Pius X (21 Feb., 1905) into four classes, and rank among the highest prelates.

The Auditor

The Auditor is sometimes a delegated judge, to whom is entrusted a certain amount of jurisdiction, v.g. the formal opening of a case (contestatio litis); in the practice of the present day he would be called an instructing judge. He may also be an ordinary official to whom has been assigned, but without any jurisdiction, a part of the proceedings, e.g. the simple examination of the witnesses; he is then properly called auditor. It follows from all this that the duties and powers of the auditor must be deduced from the mandate itself. It was customary to have auditors even in the Middle Ages, especially in the Roman Curia, and there still remains some vestige of this office in the auditors of thee Rota Romana, who after the time of Gregory IX formed a special college (Durandus, in Speculum).

Assesor

The title of assessor has also a twofold meaning, i. e., he may be a judge in a collegiate tribunal (Dig. I, 22; Cod. I, 51), or one who assists the presiding judge in interpreting the law. In the latter meaning assessors are simply advisers of the judge, who aid him to obtain a full knowledge of the case and by their advice help him to decide justly.

There are some other inferior ministers of the judge in an ecclesiastical court, whose names it will be sufficient to mention, e.g. the apparitores, tabelliones, cursores (sheriffs, reporters, messengers), etc., according to the different customs of the courts.

Fiscal Promoter

After having spoken of the judges and of those who assist them in the administration of justice in the different courts, it is necessary to say a few words on the fiscal promoter (promotor fiscalis), since he plays an important part, especially in criminal cases. Although not on the side of the judge, as, by public authority, he rather takes the place of accuser or public prosecutor, still he contributes greatly to the end for which the courts were established. The fiscal promoter (fiscus, public treasury)—though perhaps, if we attend to the most important part of his office, a better title would be promoter of justice “—is a person who, constituted by ecclesiastical authority, exercises in the ecclesiastical courts and in his own name the office of a public prosecutor, especially in criminal cases (Instr. S. C. Episc. et Reg., 11 Jan., 1880, art. 13). If we wish to include in the definition all that is comprehended in his office, he might be defined as a public person legitimately appointed to defend the rights of his church, especially in court. Périès, in his article “Le procureur fiscal ou promoteur” (Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques, April, 1897), rightly says that the whole office of the fiscal promoter may be summed up in three points: solicitude for the observance of discipline, particularly among the clergy; attendance at the processes of beatification and Canonization in episcopal courts; and defence of the validity of marriage and of religious profession. All these functions, it is true, are not always carried out by one and the same person; they are all, however, included in the full idea of the promoter fiscalis, for it is this official’s duty to defend the rights of the Church, the decency of Divine service, the dignity of the clergy, the holiness of matrimony, and perseverance in the perfect state of life.

It is unnecessary here to say more about the plaintiff and the defendant in ecclesiastical courts, or about the persons appointed to assist both, e.g. advocates and procurators.

VI. THE COMPETENCE OF ECCLESIASTICAL JUDGES

As already explained, there are different kinds of judges and courts in the ecclesiastical forum. Nevertheless contending parties cannot choose their judge; the trial must be conducted by the proper judge (proprius judex), i. e. by one who can exert his jurisdiction against the accused: in other words, he must be a competent judge. Moreover, as thee accused is brought to court against his will, it is further necessary that the judge leave the power to summon him and oblige him to appear. There are four chief titles by which an accused party comes under thee jurisdiction of a certain judge: residence or domicile, contract, situation of object in dispute, place of crime committed. It is self-evident that, if in the civil courts it was necessary for the proper administration of justice to place territorial limitations to the exercise of jurisdiction, this same restriction was much more necessary in canon law, since the jurisdiction of the Church extends to the entire world. Otherwise great confusion would have resulted and the administration of justice itself would have suffered, since it would have been very difficult to hear many cases if, as is often the case, the persons and matters concerned were at a great distance from the court. For this reason the famous principle of the Roman law: “He who acts as judge out of his district can be disobeyed with impunity” [extra territorium jus dicenti impune non paretur, § 20, De jurisdict., D. (II, I)], adopted also by modern civil codes, was accepted in canon law. This territorial character of certain courts affects not only persons, but also things (res) and rights (jura); competent judges, therefore, have power not only over persons, but also over things situated in their territory. In both civil and criminal cases, therefore, all persons are subject to the judge of their place of residence (judex domicilii). This residential forum is considered the most natural of all, therefore the ordinary and general forum for all cases, so that a person may be summoned to trial by the judge within whose jurisdiction he resides, whether the offence was committed within that territory or not. Hence it is accepted that the jurisdiction of such a judge always concurs with the jurisdiction of any other judge or any other forum.

A person may also “acquire” forum, i. e. become subject to trial in any place by reason of a crime committed there; in other words, his own act brings him within thee jurisdiction of a judge of a given place who can punish him, and of whom he would otherwise be independent. It is easy to see the reasonableness of this; for it is just that where a person has given scandal by his bad conduct he should there make amends for it by accepting the deserved punishment. Again it is much easier to establish the fact and inquire into the authorship of a crime in the very place where it has been committed. Thus a person who makes a contract in a certain place thereby acquires right of forum in the same place, though not one of its citizens nor in any sense a resident, provided, of course, he be present in that locality (c. 1, § 3, De foro competenti, II, 2, in 6º), it being much easier to adjudicate disputes about a contract in the place where it was entered into. Finally the possessor of a chattel (res) may be summoned before the judge of the territory where the object in question is situated, because it is only natural that where a chattel is in question (actio realis), precisely such chattel, and not the person, should be taken chiefly into consideration; thereby, also, the trial becomes more easy and rapid. In addition there are other (extraordinary) ways by which a person can obtain “right of forum” in a certain place; it will suffice to indicate them briefly. Besides the “forum” that everybody is considered to have in the Roman Curia, there is also the “forum” granted by reason of the prorogation or suspension of a case, to which should be added the prevention (quashing of indictment) and transfer of a case.

VII. ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEDURE

Two methods of judicial procedure are recognized in canon law: one ordinary, also called full and solemn; the other simple, extraordinary, and summary. In the ordinary procedure all the solemnities prescribed by the law are observed. These are described in the second book of the “Decretals” of Gregory IX, devoted entirely to the conduct of ecclesiastical courts. They may be summarized as follows:—The party intending to bring suit must first send to the judge a written petition manifesting his intention, and setting forth his claim. If the judge thinks the claim reasonable and therefore worthy of a hearing, he issues a summons (citatio) calling the accused before his court. In modern civil codes a private citizen can oblige his fellow-citizen to present himself before the judge for the examination of a case. Though found in the Roman law of the Twelve Tables, the canon law does not recognize in the private individual any such right, and holds to the later procedure of Roman law, that dates from Ulpian and Paulus, and was afterwards confirmed by the laws of Justinian. According to this procedure, the summoning of the accused implies power of jurisdiction, and must therefore proceed from the judge himself. Generally an ecclesiastical judge ought not to be satisfied with one summons; it should be repeated three times before the accused can be considered contumacious. However, if in the summons itself it be clearly stated that it must be considered as final, a repetition of the summons is not necessary. The defendant, being summoned, must appear before the judge, and, unless the case be a criminal one, instituted to bring about the legal punishment of the guilty party, or one of certain other exceptional cases, he may, after hearing the cause of the summons, immediately enter a counterplea against the plaintiff before the same judge.

When the defendant is summoned, whether it be his wish to enter a counter-plea or not, he must appear along with the plaintiff before the judge, and within the time fixed by the latter. When they have come before the judge, the plaintiff states clearly and precisely what he demands of the defendant, and the defendant on his part either admits the justice of the plaintiff’s demand, in which case he must make complete satisfaction, or he denies it (at least in part), and makes known his wish to contest the matter judicially; we then have a contested case (liz contestata). Such a contestation accomplishes two things: first, it fixes precisely the object of the trial, and, second, the parties bind themselves by a quasi-contract to prosecute the trial, and agree from that moment to accept all the obligations imposed by the sentence, including the obligation of the condemned party to make payment: in a word, they agree to abide by the legitimate finding of the court. Then follows the “oath of calumny” (juramentum calumniœ), i. e. if demanded by either party. This oath covers the entire case, and can therefore be taken but once in the course of the same trial. Its object is the credibility which both plaintiff and defendant are anxious to maintain, convinced as each is that he has a just case. By this oath each party affirms that he will continue the trial solely for the purpose of litigation, and not of calumny; he promises, moreover, to observe good faith throughout the proceedings. To this oath is added another, namely, to tell the truth, and also an oath of malice or fraud (juramentum malitiœ). This latter would not be called for with reference to the entire case, but only to some part of the proceedings, if ever a presumption arose against one of the litigants as acting from malice or fraud. In modern canonical procedure the “oath of calumny” is no longer called for. At this stage, the judge fixes a period within which the parties must set forth their arguments in defence of their rights; this period can easily be extended by the judge at the request of one of the parties, should he declare that he has not yet been able to produce all his evidence. Thereupon the case is argued, and the judge must weigh all the evidence brought forward by the contestants, whether this evidence be written or oral. If after this the parties, on being questioned, answer that they have no further arguments to make, the judge declares that the time for producing evidence is closed. The aforesaid judicial interrogatory and declaration are known as the conclusio in causâ, or the last act of the judicial hearing of the case, and with it expires the time allowed for submission of evidence.

To this period of argumentation succeeds the interval during which the judge studies and weighs the arguments advanced. During this time the judge may ask the parties to supply declarations and explanations of their evidence, If, in spite of this, the judge is unable to form a morally certain judgment as to the rights of the plaintiff or of the defendant, he must request that the proceedings be supplemented by further proofs; if, notwithstanding, the case is still doubtful, he must decide that the plaintiff has not established his claim. If, on the other hand, the judge can arrive at a decision from the proceedings and from the evidence adduced, he must legally acquit or condemn the defendant by a definitive sentence, this being precisely the legal decision of the judge concerning the case proposed by the litigants. What has been said thus far holds good for a solemn ecclesiastical trial. In a summary trial, as already stated, some of these solemnities may be omitted. To begin with, the formal written petition may be omitted. The plaintiff may present his petition orally, and the chancellor of the court makes record of it in the acts of the proceedings. Nor are three judicial summons required; one suffices, even though it be not expressly stated that it must be considered peremptory and final. The solemn declaration of mutual purpose to pursue the case to a legal ending is likewise omitted, being implicitly contained in the articles on which the mutual argumentation of the case is based. The proceedings may continue even on days when the court would not otherwise sit (tempore feriato). As far as possible, all postponements (dilationes) are avoided. The formal declaration of the judge that the hearing is closed is not necessary, and sentence may be pronounced without the usual solenen formalities; it must, however, be written, and the parties must have previously been cited by at least one summons.

Those things, however, which are demanded in all trials by the natural law or the common usage of nations must not be omitted in this summary trial. The promise under oath to speak the truth is never dispensed with. Each litigant may present a full argumentation (positiones et articuli) of his case, and may produce his evidence. Finally, the judicial interrogatory of thee two parties cannot be omitted, whether it takes place at the request of the litigants, or because the judge considers it his duty. Summary proceedings are commonly entered upon for one of two reasons: either because the cases are of such a nature as to demand prompt settlement (alimony or necessary support, marriage cases, and many cases of ecclesiastics, e.g. elections, offices and benefices); or because the cases are of minor importance, slight and easily remediable injuries, comparable to civil lawsuits for trifling debts. In all such cases the judge is allowed to base his sentence on evidence somewhat less conclusive than would be called for in cases of greater importance (semiplena probatio). Summary procedure is now frequently employed in criminal cases of clerics; the canon law, however, by an instruction of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars (11 June, 1880), restricts its use to countries whose bishops have formally obtained the right to proceed according to said instruction, originally granted to the bishops of France. In 1883 the Congregation of Propaganda extended its use to the bishops of the United States of America. (See also the decrees of the First Plenary Council of South America, art. 965–991.)

It may be asked, finally, what influence has the Roman law exercised on the canonical procedure described above? It is certain, on the one hand (Fessler, op. cit.), that the judicial procedure of the canon law was already quite elaborate in form when, early in the sixth century, the Emperor Justinian published his “Institutes,” “Digest,” and “Code.” On the other hand, it is very evident that Roman law, and particularly that of Justinian, has exercised a very great influence upon canon law; it is universally admitted as one of the subsidiary sources (fontes) of canon law, especially in court procedure. The canon law, however, has wisely perfected certain enactments of the Roman law. Thus, the right of provisional possession, institutum possessorium in the Roman law, was amplified and highly developed by canon law, which gave additional legal protection in the case of actual possession obtained by injunction (interdictum) of the magistrate. The possessory interdict (unde vi), it is well known, was granted by Roman law for immovable objects only; the canon law extended it to movable objects, and even to abstract rights (jura incorporalia). Moreover, whereas by Roman law only a strictly legal suit (actio spolii) was open to a person despoiled of his goods, the canon law allowed him an additional plea in equity (exceptio spolii). In addition, in the Roman law, a suit lay only against the despoiler (spoliantem) or the one who ordered or approved the act (spolium mandantem, ratihabentem), whereas the canon law permitted the entering of suit against any third person found in possession of the plaintiff’s goods, whether such detention were in good faith or not.

PÉRIÈS, La procédure can. mod. dans les causes discip. et crim. (Paris, 1898); BOUIX, De judiciis eccl. (Paris, 1855); MOLITOR, Ueber canon. Gerichtsverf. gegen Kleriker (1856); MÜNCHEN, Canon. Gerichtsverf. (2d ed., Cologne, 1874); FOURNIER, Les officialités au moyen âge (Paris, 1850); FESSLER, Der canon. Process nach seinen positiven Grundl. und seiner ält. hist. Entwick. in der vorjustinianischen Periode (Vienna. 1860); PIERANTONELLI, Praxis fori eccl. (Rome, 1883); LEGA, De judiciis eccl. (2d ed., Rome, 1905); KELLER, Der röm. Zivilprozess (Leipzig, 1855); ENDEMANN, Das Zivilprozessverf. nach kanon. Lehre (Berlin, 1890).

BENEDETTO OJETTI.

Jean Cousin

French painter, sculptor, etcher, engraver, and geometrician, born at Soucy, near Sens, 1500; died at Sens before 1593, probably in 1590. Cousin began his long art-life in his native town with the study of glass-painting under Hympe and Grassot. At the same time he was diligently applying himself to this branch of art, wherein he was to become a master, the young man became a great student of mathematics and published a successful book on the subject. He also wrote on geometry in his student days. In 1530 Cousin finished the beautiful windows for the Sens cathedral, the subject chosen being the “Legend of St. Eutropius.” He had also painted the windows of many of the noble châteaux in and around the city. The latest date on any of his Sens work, 1530, points to this as the year he went to Paris, where he began work as a goldsmith; but the amount and kind of his productions in the precious metals are alike unknown.

In Paris Cousin continued his eminent career as a glass-painter, and his masterpiece, the windows of the Sainte-Chapelle in Vincennes, are considered the finest examples of glass-painting in all France. He subsequently devoted himself to painting in oil, and is said to be the first Frenchman to use the “new medium.” For this and other reasons Cousin has been called “The Founder of the French School”; but his work in oil, while graceful, refined, reserved, and even classically severe, is more that of an Italian “Eclectic” than of a “founder of a national school.” Pictures attributed to him, all of much merit, are found in several of the large European collections, but, excepting “The Last Judgment,” none is known to be authentic. “The Last Judgment” is fine in composition, noble in conception. and beautiful and harmonious in colour, strongly suggesting Correggio. For a Long time this masterpiece, which won him the name of the “French Michelangelo,” lay neglected in the sacristy of the church of the Minims, Vincennes, until it was rescued by a priest and became one of the important works in the Louvre. It is also celebrated for being the first French picture to be engraved.

In the sixteenth century Cousin’s renown came from his historical and glass-paintings; to-day he is best known as an illustrator of books. He made many fine designs for woodcuts and often executed them himself. The “Bible,” published in 1596 by Le Clerc, and the “Metamorphoses” and “Epistles” of Ovid (1566 and 1571 respectively) contain his most celebrated work as an illustrator. Cousin etched and engraved many plates after the manner of Mazzuola of Parma, to whom the invention of etching has been ascribed; but he excels all his contemporaries in facility of execution and classical breadth and simplicity of idea and feeling. His etched work approaches in excellence the oil-paintings of the great masters. Cousin’s sculptures are full of strength and dignity. The mausoleum of Admiral Philippe de Chabot is the best piece of French sculpture of the sixteenth century; the strikingly beautiful tomb of Louis de Brezé (Rouen) is another celebrated achievement. In addition to his early writings on mathematics, he published, in 1560, a learned treatise on perspective, and, in 1571, an excellent work on portrait-painting. During his life Cousin successfully pursued every branch of the fine arts, and enjoyed the favour of, and worked for four kings of France: Henry II, Francis II, Charles IX, and Henry III. Among his paintings, in addition to the “Last Judgment,” mention should be made of the miniatures in the prayer book of Henry II now in the Bibliothèque Nationale; among his etchings and engravings, the “Annunciation” and the “Conversion of St. Paul”; among his woodcuts, the “Entrée de Henry II et Catherine de Médicis à Rouen” (1551).

FIRMIN-DIDOT, Etude sur Jean Cousin (Paris, 1872); PATTISON, The World’s Painters since Leonardo (New York, 1906).

LEIGH HUNT.

Charles-Edmond-Henride Coussemaker

French historian of music, b. at Bailleul, department of Nord, France, 19 April, 1805; d. at Lille, 10 January, 1876. Coussemaker rendered great service to musical science by bringing to the notice of students the early development and history of harmony and counterpoint, as shown by the treatment of these divisions of music in that section of the “Musica Enchiriadis” in which diaphony is treated. This he did in a work on Huebald, who lived from about 840 to 930, was a monk of the monastery of Saint-Amand, and wrote the “Enchiriadis” as well as other works on music. While pursuing his law studies in Paris, Coussemaker studied singing under Pellegrini and Payer and harmony under Reicha. Even after entering upon his career as a lawyer at Douai, he took a course in counterpoint under Victor Lefebvre. His early ambition to become a composer, especially of church music, did not produce permanent results, as most of his productions in that field remain in manuscript. while acting as judge at Bergues, Hazebrouck, Cambrai, Dunkerque, and Lille successively, he pursued studies and made researches which resulted in works of the highest historical importance and of permanent value. His writings have had an important part in the revival of true church music that began some sixty years ago, and in the restoration, which has not yet reached its culmination, of the chant. The pioneer nature of Coussemaker’s labours in many fields explains and condones to some extent the fact that he was not always correct in his deductions. Thus his assertion (Histoire de l’harmonie, c. ii, pp. 158–159) that the neums “have their origin in the accents of the Latin language,” an assumption which became the basis for the so-called oratorical rhythm in plain chant, was disproved long ago by the mensuralist school of chant rhythm and, more recently, by the Rev. J. Thibaut in his work “Origine byzantine de la notation neumatique de l’église latine” (Paris, 1907). Coussemaker’s most noted musico-historical works are: “Mémoires sur Hucbald” (1841); “Histoire de l’harmonie au moyen âge” (1852); “Les harmonistes des XII et XIII siècles” (1864); “(Euvres complètes du trouvère Adam de la Halle” (1872); “Joannis Tinctoris Tractatus de Musica,” and his collection in four volumes, intended to be a continuation of Gerbert’s “Scriptores,” of writings by medieval authors entitled: “Scriptorum de musica medii aevi nova series a Gerbertino altera” (1866–76). Besides these, Coussemaker published numerous essays and magazine articles on historical, technical, and aesthetic questions in regard to music.

JOSEPH OTTEN

Pierre Coustant

A learned Benedictine of the Congregation of Saint-Maur, b. at Compiègne, France, 30 April, 1654; d. at the Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, near Paris, 18 October, 1721. After receiving his classical education in the Jesuit College at Compiègne, he entered the Benedictine monastery of Saint-Rémi at Reims as novice at the age of seventeen, and took vows on 12 August, 1672. He made his philosophical and theological studies partly at Saint-Rémi, partly at the monastery of Saint-Médard in Soissons whither he was sent to study philosophy under François Lamy. In 1681 his superiors sent him to the Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés to assist his confrère Thomas Blampin in editing the works of St. Augustine. Coustant’s chief contribution to this publication, which remains the best edition of St. Augustine’s works, consisted in the separating of the spurious from the genuine writings. He also aided his fellow Benedictines Edmond Martène and Robert Morel in making the indexes for the fourth volume containing the commentaries on the Psalms. In an appendix to the fifth volume he collected all the spurious homilies and traced them to their true sources.

The learning and acumen which Coustant displayed in his share of the edition of St. Augustine’s works did not remain unnoticed by the Abbot General of the Maurist congregation. When Mabillon suggested a new edition of the works of St. Hilary of Poitiers, it was Coustant whom the abbot general selected for this difficult undertaking. There was before this time practically only one edition of this great Gallic Doctor of the Church, namely the defective and uncritical one published by Erasmus (Basle, 1523). The subsequent editions of Miraeus (Paris 1544), Lipsius (Basle, 1550), Grynaeus (Basle, 1570), Gillotius (Paris 1572), and the one issued by the Paris Typographical Society in 1605 were little more than reprints of the Erasmian text. After making himself thoroughly conversant with St. Hilary’s terminology and train of thought, Coustant compared numerous manuscripts with a view to restoring the original text. In an extensive general preface he proved the Catholicity of Hilary’s doctrine concerning the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary, the Holy Eucharist, Grace, the Last Judgment, the Holy Trinity, and other Catholic dogmas. The preface is followed by two biographical sketches of the saint, the former of which was composed by Coustant himself from the writings of Hilary, while the latter is a reproduction of the life written by Fortunatus of Poitiers. Each treatise is preceded by a special preface stating its occasion and purpose, and the time when it was written. Difficult and obscure passages are explained in foot-notes. This edition of St. Hilary is a model work of its kind and ranks as one of the most esteemed literary productions of the Maurist Congregation. It was published in one folio volume at Paris in 1693 and bears the title: “Sancti Hilarii Pictavorum episcopi opera ad manuscriptos codices gallicanos, romanos, belgicos, nec non ad veteres editiones castigata, aliquot aueta opusculis,” etc. The work was published with a few additions by Scipio Maffei (Verona, 1730) and by Migne, P.L., IX and X.

Coustant’s love for study did not prevent him from being an exemplary monk. Though often overwhelmed with work, he was punctual in attending the common religious exercises and found time for private works of piety. After completing the edition of St. Hilary’s works he requested his superiors to release him temporarily from literary labours and to allow him to devote more of his time to prayer and meditation. The wish was granted, though not as he expected. He was appointed prior of the monastery of Nogent-sous-Coucy. After three years he was, upon his own urgent request, relieved from the priorate and returned to Saint-Germain-des-Prés. For some time he worked on the new edition of the Maurist Breviary; then he assisted his confrère Claude Guesnié in making the elaborate general index in the works of St. Augustine.

Immediately upon the publication of St. Augustine’s works in 1700, Coustant was entrusted by his superiors with the editing of a complete collection of the letters of the popes from St. Clement I to Innocent III (c. 88–1216). To understand the colossal labour which such an undertaking entailed, it must be borne in mind that very little had been done in this direction before. There were, indeed, the papal decretals from Clement I to Gregory VII, collected by Cardinal Antonio Caraffa and published by Antonio d’Aquino in 1591, but they were incomplete and their chronological order was frequently incorrect. There were also the “Annales” of Baronius and the “Concilia antiqua Galliae” of the Jesuit Jacques Sirmond and other works containing scattered letters of the popes; but no one had ever attempted to make a complete collection of papal letters, much less to sift the spurious from the authentic, to restore the original texts and to order the letters chronologically.

After devoting more than twenty years to this gigantic undertaking, Coustant was able to publish the first volume in 1721. It contains the letters from the year 67 to the year 440, and is entitled “Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Clemente I usque ad Innocentium III, quotquot reperiri potuerunt . . .” (Paris 1721). In the extensive preface perhaps of 150 pages Coustant explains the origin, meaning and extent of the papal primacy and critically examines the existing collections of canons and papal letters. The letters of each pope are preceded by a historical introduction and furnished with copious notes, while the spurious letters are collected in the appendix. Coustant had gathered a large amount of material for succeeding volumes, but he died the same year in which the first volume was published. Simon Mopinot, who had assisted Coustant in the preparation of the first volume, was entrusted with the continuation of the work, but he also died (11 October, 1724) before another volume was ready for publication. About twelve years later, Ursin Durand undertook to continue the work; in his case the Jansenistic disorders in which he became involved prevented the publication of the material he had prepared. Finally the French Revolution and the dissolution of the Maurist Congregation gave the death-blow to the great undertaking. A new edition of Coustant’s volume was brought out by Schönemann (Göttingen, 1796); a continuation, based chiefly on Coustant’s manuscripts and containing the papal letters from 461–521, was published by Thiel (Braunsberg, 1867). There are extant in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris fourteen large folio volumes containing the material gathered by Coustant and his Benedictine continuators. Coustant also took part in the controversy occasioned by Mabillon’s “De Re Diplomatica” between the Jesuit Germon and the Maurist Benedictines. In two able treatises he defends himself and his confrères against Germon who disputed the genuineness of some sources used in the Benedictine edition of the works of St. Hilary and St. Augustine.

TASSIN, Histoire Littéraire de la congrégation de Saint-Maur (Brussels, 1770), 417 sqq.; PEZ, Bibliotheca Benedictino-Mauriana (Augsburg, 1716, 345 sqq.; LE CERF, Bibliothèque historique et critique des auteurs de la congr. de Saint-Maur(The Hague, 1726) 62 sqq.; MOPINOT in Journal des savants (Paris, January, 1722); HERBST in Theologische Quartalschrift (Tübingen, 1833) 438 sqq.; SDRALEK, ibid.(1880) 222 sqq.; KERKER in Kirchenlex., s. v.: KUKULA in Wiener Sitzungs-berichte (1890, 1893, 1898); VALENTI, Los Benedictinos de S. Mauro (Palma Mallorca, 1899), 199; HURTER, Nomenclator, II, 1103 sqq.

MICHAEL OTT

Nicolas Coustou

French sculptor, b. at Lyons, 9 January, 1658; d. at Paris, 1 May, 1733. He was the son of a wood-carver, from whom he received his first instruction in art. At the age of eighteen he went to Paris, and studied under the tutorship of his uncle, the sculptor Coysevox. On the occasion of Colbert’s last visit to the Royal Academy, Coustou received from his hands the gold medal for sculpture (Colbert prize), which enabled him to go to Rome as a pensioner from 1683 to 1686. Here he applied himself especially to the study of Michelangelo and Algardi, hoping to unite in his own work the strength of the one and the grace of the other. On his return he settled in Paris, and showed his independence by declining to submit to the decrees of the ruling school of sculpture. The design made by him for a public monument being refused, he appealed directly to the king, who decided in his favour and awarded him the commission. Nicolas was joined by his younger brother Guillaume, also a sculptor, whom he admitted to a share in his labours, so that it is not always easy to ascribe particular works definitely to one or the other. In 1720 Nicolas was appointed rector of the academy of painting and sculpture and held his post until his death, shortly before which he was also made chancellor of the academy. Coysevox and the Coustous formed a school in French sculpture and were distinguished by grace, naturalness and truth to life. Many of the works of Nicholas were destroyed in the fury of the Revolution, but a number still remain. Chief among them are the “Union of the Seine and Marne”; the “Huntsman Resting” (called in French “Berger Chasseur”); “Daphne Pursued by Apollo.” All of these are now in the garden of the Tuileries; further, the statues of Julius Caesar and Louis XV in the Louvre, and the “Descent From the Cross” in the choir of Notre-Dame, Paris, one of his best efforts. There are also statues by Coustou at Versailles and Marly. A good terra-cotta bust of him by his brother Guillaume is in the Louvre.

M. L. HANDLEY.

Diocese of Coutances

DIOCESE OF COUTANCES (CONSTANTIENSIS)

The Diocese of Coutances comprises the entire department of La Manche and is a suffragan of the Archbishopric of Rouen. It was enlarged in 1802 by the addition of the former Diocese of Avranches and of two archdeaconries from the Diocese of Bayeux; since 1854 its bishops have held the title of Bishop of Countances and Avranches.

The Diocese of Coutances

The catalogue of the bishops of Coutances, as it was made out about the end of the eleventh century, gives as the first bishops St. Ereptiolus and St. Exuperatus (fourth century). Leontianus, the first bishop historically known, attended the Council of Orleans in 511. Coutances counted among its prelates Saint Lô (Lautro), prominent in the great councils of the middle of the sixth century; St. Rumpharius, apostle of Barfleur (d. about 586); St. Frémond (Frodemundus), who, assisted by Thierry III, founded a monastery and a church in honour of the Blessed Virgin in 679 at Ham, near Valognes; Blessed Geoffroy de Monthray (1049–1093), friend of William the Conqueror, whose episcopate was signalized by the building of the cathedral of Coutances, to which purpose he devoted large sums of money that he had gathered in Apulia, and also by the founding of the Benedictine Abbeys of Lessay, Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte, and Montebourg, and of the canonries of Cherbourg; Hugues de Morville (1202–1238), organizer of charities in the diocese and founder in 1209 of the celebrated Hôtel-Dieu of Coutances; Philibert de Montjeu (1424–1439), who presided over the deputation of theologians sent by the Council of Basle to the Bohemians and Moravians in order to reconcile them to the Church, and Giuliano della Rovere (1476–1478), afterwards pope under the name of Julius II. The account book of Thomas Marest, curé of Saint-Nicolas of Coutances (1397–1433) is very interesting for the history of social life during the Hundred Years’ War. The Huguenots took possession of the city in 1562, but were banished in 1575. Through the efrorts of the venerable Père Eudes the cathedral of Coutances was the first church in the world to have an altar dedicated to the Sacred Heart.

The Diocese of Avranches

Nepos, the first bishop known to history, assisted at the Council of Orléans in 511. Among its bishops Avranches included: St. Pair, or Paternus (d. 565), a great founder of monasteries, notably that of Sessiacum, near Granville, which took the name of Saint-Pair; St. Leodovaldus (second half of sixth century); St. Ragertrannus, Abbot of Jumiè (about 682); St. Aubert, who in 708 founded the Abbey of Mont Saint-Michel; Robert Ceneau (1533–1569), author of numerous works against the Calvinists; and Pierre-Daniel Huet (1689–1699), a celebrated savant who assisted Bossuet in educating the son of Louis XIV and directed the publication of the Delphin edition of the classics. Between 865 and 990, in the troubled period caused by the victories of the Bretons and the incursions of the Normans, the archbishops of Rouen were titulars of the See of Avranches. In the Middle Ages the bishops of Avranches were at the same time barons of Avranches, barons of Saint-Philbert-sur-Rilles, and proprietors of numerous domains in England and Jersey. The school of Avranches, in which Lanfranc taught and Anselm studied, was famous in the eleventh century. The cathedral where, in September, 1171, Henry II of England swore before the legates of Alexander III that he was entirely innocent of the murder of St. Thomas Becket was a beautiful monument of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It collapsed during the Revolution. (See .)

The Diocese of Coutances and Avranches honours in a special way St. Pientia (Pience), put to death in the third century for having facilitated the burial of St. Nicasius, the apostle of Vexin, and conspicuously honoured in the litrugy of Avranches; St. Floxel, born in the district of Cotentin, and martyred at the beginning of the fourth century; St. Scubilio, companion of the bishop St. Pair, and founder of the monastery of Mandane on Mont Tombe (subsequently Mont Saint-Michel); Sts. Sénier, Gaud, and Fragaise, monks of Sessiacum; St. Germanus of Scotland, who, in the fifth century, evangelized the Saxon colonies of the district of Bessin; St. Severus, the shepherd (sixth century), who was perhaps Bishop of Avranches; the monk St. Marcouf (sixth century), founder of an abbey called after him, and whose name is borne by an island to which he retired each Lent for extraordinary mortification; St. Hélier, disciple of St. Marcouf, beheaded in a grotto at Jersey; St. Ortaire, Abbot of Landelles (end of sixth century); St. Paternus of Coutances, monk at Sessiacum, then at Sens and finally assassinated (eighth century); St. Leo of Carentan, born about 810, a protégé of Louis the Debonair and martyred at Bayonne; the English hermit St. Clair (ninth century); St. Guillaume Firmat (eleventh century), hermit, pilgrim to the Orient, and patron of the collegiate church of Mortain; Blessed Thomas Hélie of Biville, chaplain to St. Louis (thirteenth century); Julie Postel, known in religion as Sœur Marie-Madeleine (1756–1846), a native of Barfleur, declared Venerable in 1897.

Many men worthy of mention in ecclesiastical history were natives of this diocese: Alexandre de Villedieu (thirteenth century), canon of Avranches and author of a Latin grammar universally studied during the Middle Ages; the learned but visionary Guillaume Postel (d. 1581), professor of mathematics and Oriental languages in the Collège de France; the Franciscan friar Feuardent (1539–1610), prominent in the Wars of the League; Cardinal du Perron (1556–1618), who converted Henry IV; the Calvinistic publicist Benjamin Basnage (1580–1652); the physician Hamon (1618–1687), well known in the history of Jansenism; Jean de Launoy (1603–1678), celebrated for his critical work in ecclesiastical history; Marie des Vallées, the demoniac (d. 1656), who made a great sensation in her day and whose sayings were gathered into four volumes by the Venerable Père Eudes, who had exorcised her; the Abbé de Beauvais (1731–1790) and the Jesuit Neuville (1693–1774), both great preachers; the Abbé de Saint-Pierre (1658–1743), author of the “Paix perpétuelle,” and the Eudist Le Franc, superior of the Coutances seminary in the eighteenth century and the first Catholic publicist to write against Freemasonry.

Before the enforcement of the law of 1901 there were in the diocese Oratorians, Sulpicians, Eudists, and a local congregation of Brothers of Mercy of the Christian Schools, founded in 1842 (mother-house at Montebourg), and there are Trappists still at Bricquebec. The diocese includes several congregations of women: the Tertiary Sisters of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, founded in 1686; the Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, founded in the seventeenth century by Père du Pont, a Eudist, and in 1783 placed under the patronage of the Sacred Heart, being the oldest French congregation known by that title; the Sisters of Mercy of the Christian Schools, founded in 1802 at Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte by the Venerable Sœur Postel. Diocesan missionaries are installed at Biville, near the tomb of Blessed Thomas Hélie, a much frequented place of pilgrimage.

In 1900 the diocese included in religious institutions, 28 infant schools, 1 orphanage for boys and girls, 3 boys’ orphanages, 24 girls’ orphanages, 6 industrial schools, 35 hospitals, hospices, and asylums; 30 houses of nursing sisters, and 3 insane asylums. The statistics for the end of 1905 (close of the Concordat period) indicate a population of 491,372, with 61 pastorates, 612 succursal parishes (mission churches), and 284 curacies, then remunerated by the State.

Gallia Christiana (ed. nova, 1759), XI, 466–509, 562–3, 863–911, 983, and Instrumenta, 105–24, 217–82. L’Histoire chronologique des évêques d’Avranches de maitre Julien Nicole (1669) and L’Histoire ecclesiastique du diocèse de Coutances, also written in the seventeenth century by RENÉ TOUSTAIN DE BILLY (1643–1709), curé of Mesnil-Opac, are works of sufficient historic value to have been republished in our day, the first by Beaurepaire, the second by Héron (Rouen, 1884–6). LECANU, Histoire du diocèse de Coutances et Avranches (Coutances, 1877); PIGEON, Le diocèse d’Avranches (Coutances, 1890); IDEM, Vies des saints du diocèse de Coutances et Avranches (Avranches, 1892, 1898); LE CACHIEUX, Essai historique sur l’Hôtel-Dieu de Coutances (Paris, 1895); DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux, II, 221–4, 236–40; CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl., 816–818, 286–7.

GEORGES GOYAU.

Louis-Charles Couturier

Abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Saint-Pierre at Solesmes and President of the French Congregation of Benedictines; b. 12 May, 1817, at Chemillé-sur-Dôme in the Diocese of Tours; d. 29 October, 1890, at Solesmes. He was educated at the petit séminaire of Combrée in Anjou and at the grand séminaire of Angers, and was ordained priest 12 March, 1842. After teaching history at Combrée from 1836 to 1854, he entered, in the latter year, the Benedictine monastery of Saint-Pierre at Solesmes, then newly restored by Dom Guéranger. His religious zeal and ascetical learning endeared him to the latter, who appointed him master of novices one month after his profession, and towards the end of 1861 made him prior of the monastery. As prior, Couturier was so esteemed that on the death of Guéranger he was unanimously elected Abbot of Saint-Pierre (11 February, 1875). Pius IX appointed him consultor of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and granted him and his successors the privilege of wearing the cappa magna.

Couturier was a worthy successor of the great Guéranger. Despite the persecutions of the French Government, which turned the reign of Couturier into a veritable martyrdom for the abbot and his community, the monks of Solesmes not only upheld but even enhanced the high prestige for piety and learning which they had gained during the rule of Guéranger . Couturier and his monks were forcibly expelled from their monastery by the French Government on 6 November, 1880, and, having attempted to reoccupy it, they were driven out a second time on 29 March, 1882. During the remainder of Couturier’s life the community lived in three separate houses in the town of Solesmes, using the parochial church as their abbey church. Nevertheless the community continued to flourish. By word and example Abbot Couturier encouraged the numerous learned writers among his monks, and contributed to the spread of the Benedictine Order by restoring old and deserted monasteries and by fostering the foundations made by Guéranger. On 28 March, 1876, he raised the priory of St. Mary Magdalene at Marseilles to the dignity of an abbey; in 1880 he restored and repeopled the monastery of Silos in Spain; in July, 1889, he established the priory of Saint-Paul at Wisques, in the Diocese of Arras; and on 15 September, 1890, shortly before his death, he reopened the ancient monastery of Glanfeuil in the Diocese of Angers, deserted since the beginning of the French Revolution in 1789. His literary labours are confined chiefly to his collaboration in the publication of “Les Actes des Martyrs,” a French translation of the Acts of the martyrs from the beginning of the Christian Era to our times. The third edition of the work appeared in four volumes (Paris, 1900).

HOUTIN, Dom Couturier, abbé de Solesmes (Angers, 1899); BABIN in Revue Bénédictine (Maredsous, 1890), VII, 578–588; Bibliographie des Bénédictins de la congrégation de France (Paris, 1906), s. v.

MICHAEL OTT

Diego Covarruvias

(Or COVARRUBIAS Y LEYVA)

Born in Toledo, Spain, 25 July, 1512; died in Madrid, 27 Sept., 1577. According to his biography by Schott (in the Geneva, 1679, edition of Covarruvias), his maternal grandfather was the architect of the Toledo cathedral. His master in law, both canonical and civil, was the famous Martin Aspilcueta (q.v.), who was wont to glory in having such a disciple. At the age of twenty-one, Covarruvias was appointed professor of canon law in the University of Salamanca. Later on he was entrusted with the work of reforming that institution, already venerable for its age, and the legislation which he drew up looking to this end remained in effect long after his time. Such was the recognized eminence of his legal science that he was styled the Bartholo of Spain. His vast legal learning was always set forth with a peculiar beauty of diction and lucidity of style, says Von Scherer (see below). His genius was universal, and embraced all the sciences subsidiary to, and illustrative of, the science of law. If report be true, the large library of Oviedo, where at the age of twenty-six he became professor, did not contain a single volume which he had not richly annotated. In 1549 Covarruvias was designated by Charles V for the archiepiscopal See of San Domingo in the New World, whither, however, he never went. Eleven years later he was made Bishop of Ciudad Rodrigo in Spain. In this capacity he attended the Council of Trent, where, according to the statement of his nephew, conjointly with Cardinal Ugo Buoncompagni (afterwards Gregory XIII), he was authorized to formulate the famous reform-decrees (De Reformatione) of the council. Pressure of other duties having prevented Cardinal Buoncompagni from doing his part of the work, the task devolved upon Covarruvias alone. The text of these far-reaching decrees, therefore, formally approved by the council, we apparently owe to him. (Von Scherer, in Kirchenlexikon, III, 1170, doubts the accuracy of this tradition.) Having returned to Spain, Covarruvias was in 1565 transferred to the See of Segovia. Up to this time his extraordinary talents had been discovered in matters more or less scholastic only; they were hereafter to reveal themselves also in practical affairs of state. Appointed in 1572 a member of the Council of Castile, he was two years later raised to the presidency of the Council of State. In the discharge of this office he was eminently successful. While president of the Council of State he was nominated by Philip II for the Bishopric of Cuenca, but death prevented him from assuming the duties of this new see. The principal work of Covarruvias is his “Variarum resolutionum ex jure pontificio regio et cæsareo libri IV.” He wrote also on testaments, betrothal and marriage, oaths, excommunication, prescription, restitution, etc. Quite distinct in character from his other productions is his numismatic treatise, “Veterum numismatum collatio cum his quæ modo expenduntur,” etc. (1594). His complete works have been several times edited, the Antwerp edition (5 vols., 1762) being the best. Among his manuscripts have been found notes on the Council of Trent, a treatise on punishments (De poenis) and an historical tract, “Catalogo de los reyes de España y de otras cosas,” etc.

HURTER, Nomenclator, I, 38; ANTONIO, Bibl. Hisp. nova (Madrid, 1783), I, 276–79; SCHULTE, Gesch. d. Quellen u. Lit. des can. Rechts (1880), III, 721.

JOHN WEBSTER MELODY

Covenanters

The name given to the subscribers (practically the whole Scottish nation) of the two Covenants, the National Covenant of 1638 and the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643. Though the covenants as national bonds ceased with the conquest of Scotland by Cromwell, a number continued to uphold them right through the period following the Restoration, and these too are known as Covenanters. The object of the Covenants was to band the whole nation together in defense of its religion against the attempts of the king to impose upon it an episcopal system of church government and a new and less anti-Roman liturgy. The struggle that ensued was a struggle for supremacy, viz.: as to who should have the last word, the King or the Kirk, in deciding the religion of the country. How this struggle arose must first be briefly explained.

The causes of this Protestant conflict between Church and State must be sought in the circumstances of the Scottish Reformation. (For a summary of the history of the Scottish reformation down to 1601 see ch. ii of Gardiner’s “History of England.”) Owing to the fact that Scotland, unlike England, has accepted Protestantism, not at the dictates of her rulers, but in opposition to them, the reformation was not merely an ecclesiastical revolution, but a rebellion. It was, therefore, perhaps no mere chance that made the Scottish nation, under the guidance of John Knox and later Andrew Melville, adopt that form of Protestantism which was, in its doctrine, farthest removed from Rome, to which their French regents adhered, and which in its theory of church government was most democratic. Presbyterianism meant the subordination of the State to the Kirk, as Melville plainly told James VI at Cupar in 1596, on the famous occasion when he seized his sovereign by the sleeve and called him “God’s silly vassal.” In the church, king and beggar were on an equal footing and of equal importance; king or beggar might equally and without distinction be excommunicated, and be submitted to a degrading ceremonial if he wished to be released from the censure; in this system the preacher was supreme. The civil power was to be the secular arm, the instrument, of the Kirk, and was required to inflict the penalties which the preacher imposed on such as contemned the censure and discipline of the Church. The Kirk, therefore, believed that the Presbyterian system, with its preachers, lay elders, and deacons, kirk sessions, synods, and general assemblies, was the one, Divinely appointed means to salvation, claimed to be absolute and supreme. Such a theory of the Divine right of Presbytery was not likely to meet with the approval of the kings of the Stuart line with their exaggerated idea of their own right Divine and prerogative. Nor could a church where the ministers and their elders in the kirk assemblies judged, censured, and punished all offenders high or low, craftsman or nobleman, be pleasing to an aristocracy that looked with feudal contempt on all forms of labour. Both noble and king were therefore anxious to humble the ministers and deprive them of some of their influence. James VI was soon taught the spirit of the Presbyterian clergy; in 1592 he was compelled formally to sanction the establishment of Presbytery; he was threatened with rebellion if he failed to rule according to the Gospel as interpreted by the ministers. If his kingly authority was to endure, James saw that he must seek for some means by which he could check their excessive claims. He first tried to draw together the two separate representative institutions in Scotland—the Parliament, representing the king and the nobility, and the General Assembly, representing the Kirk and the majority of the nation—by granting the clergy a vote in Parliament. Owing, however, to the hostility of clergy and nobility, the scheme fell through. James now adopted that policy which was to be so fruitful of disaster;he determined to re-introduce episcopacy in Scotland as the only possible means of brining the clergy to submit to his own authority. He had already gone some way towards accomplishing his object when his accession to the English throne still further strengthened his resolve. For he considered the assimilation of the two Churches both in their form of government and in their doctrine essential to the furtherance of his great design, the union of the two kingdoms.

By 1612, James had succeeded in carrying out the first part of his policy, the re-establishment of diocesan episcopacy. Before his death he had also gone a long way towards effecting changes in the ritual and doctrine of Presbyterianism. On Black Saturday, 4 Aug., 1621, the Five Articles of Perth were ratified by the Estates. Imposed as these were upon an unwilling nation by means of a packed Assembly and Parliament, they were to be the source of much trouble and bloodshed in Scotland. Distrust of their rulers, hatred of bishops, and hatred of all ecclesiastical changes was the legacy bequeathed by James to his son. James had sowed the wind, and Charles I was soon to reap the whirlwind. Charles’ very first action, his “matching himself with the daughter of Heth,” i.e., France (see Leighton, “Sion’s Plea against Prelacy” quoted by Gardiner, “Hist. of England, ed. 1884, VII, 146), aroused suspicion as to his orthodoxy, and in the light of that suspicion every act of his religious policy was interpreted, wrongly we know, as some subtle means of favoring popery. His wisest course would have been to annul the hated Five Articles of Perth, which to Scotchmen were but so many injunctions to commit idolatry. In spite of concessions, however, he let it be known that the articles were to remain (Row, Historie of the Kirk of Scotland, p. 340; Balfour, Annals, II, 142; Privy Council Register, N. S., I, 91–93). Further, he took the unwise step of increasing the powers of the bishops; five were given a place in the Privy Council; and the Archbishop Spottiswoode was made President of the Exchequer and ordered as Primate to take precedence of every other subject. This proceeding not only roused the indignation of Protestants, who in the words of Row, considered bishops “bellie-gods,” but it further offended the aristocracy, who felt themselves thus slighted. But a persecution of the Kirk and its preachers would not have brought about as rebellion. Charles could always count on his subservient bishops, and on the nobles ever willing to humble the ministers. But he now took a step which alienated his only allies. James had always been careful to keep the nobles on his side by lavish grants of the old church lands. By the Act of Revocation, which passed the Privy Seal, 12 October, 1625 (Privy Council Register I, 193), Charles I touched the pockets of the nobility, raised at once a serious opposition, and led the barons to form an alliance with the Kirk against the common enemy, the king. It was a fatal step and proved “the ground-stone of all the mischief that followed after, both to this king’s government and family (Balfour, Annals, II, 128). Thus, before he had set foot in Scotland, Charles had offended every class of his people. His visit to Scotland made matters worse; Scotchmen were horrified to see at the coronation service such “popish rags” as “white rochets and white sleeves and copes of gold having blue silk to their foot” worn by the presiding bishops which “bred great fear of inbringing of popery” (Spaulding, Hist. of the Troubles in England and Scotland, 1624–45, I, 36). Acts, too, were passed through Parliament which plainly showed the king’s determination to change the ecclesiastical system of Scotland. Scotland was therefore ready for an explosion.

The spark was the New Service Book. Both Charles and Laud had been shocked at the bare walls and pillars of the churches, all clad with dust, sweepings, and cobwebs; at the trafficking which went on in the Scottish churches; at the lengthy “conceived prayers” often spoken by ignorant men and not infrequently as seditious as the sermons (Baillie, O. S. B., writing in 1627, cited by William Kintoch, “Studies in Scottish Ecclesiastical History,” pp. 23, 24; also, “Large Declaration,” p. 16). The king desired to have decency, orderliness, uniformity. Hence he ordered a new service book, prepared by himself and Laud, to be adopted by Scotland. The imposition of the New Service Book was a piece of sheer despotism on the part of the king; it had no ecclesiastical sanction whatever, for the General Assembly, and even the bishops as a body, had not been consulted; neither had it any lay authority, for it had not the approval of Parliament; it went counter to all the religious feeling of the majority of the Scottish people; it offended their national sentiment, for it was English. Rowe summed up the objections to it by calling it a “Popish-English-Scotish-Mass-Service-Book” (op. cit., p. 398). There could, therefore, be very little doubt as to how Scotland would receive the new liturgy. The famous riot at St. Giles, Edinburgh, 23 July, 1637 (account of it in the King’s “Large Declaration,” and Gordon’s “Hist. of Scots Affairs,” I, 7), when at the solemn inauguration of the new service, somebody, probably a woman, threw the stool at the deacon’s head, was but an indication of the general feeling of the country. From all classes and ranks, and from every part of the country except the north-east, the petitions came pouring into the Council for the withdrawal of the liturgy. Every attempt to enforce the prayer book led to a riot. In a word, the resistance was general. The Council was powerless. It was suggested therefore that each of the four orders—nobles, lairds, burghers, and ministers—should choose four commissioners to represent them and transact business with the Council, and that then the crowd of petitioners should return to their homes. Accordingly, four committees, or “Tables” (Row, pp. 465,6) were chosen, the petitioners dispersed, and the riots in Edinburgh ceased. But this arrangement also gave the opposition the one thing necessary for a successful action, a government. The sixteen could, if only united, direct the mobs effectively. The effect of having a guiding hand was at once seen. The demands of the supplicants became more definite and peremptory and on 21 December the Tables presented the Council a collective “Supplication” which not only demanded the recall of the liturgy, but, further, the removal of the bishops from the council on the ground that, as they were parties in the case, they should not be judges (Balfour, Annals, II, 244–5: Rothes, Relation, etc., pp. 26 sqq., gives an account of the formation of the “Tables”). The supplicants, in other words, look upon the quarrel between king and subjects as a lawsuit.

Charles’ answer to the “Supplication” was read at Sterling, on 19 February, 1638. He defended the prayer book and declared all protesting meetings illegal and treasonable. A counter proclamation had been deliberately prepared by the supplicants and no sooner had the king’s answer been read than Lords Home and Lindsay, in the name of the four orders, lodged a formal protestation. The same form was gone through in Linlithgow and Edinburgh. By these formal protestations, the petitioners were virtually setting up a government against the government, and as there was no middle party to appeal to, it became necessary to prove to the king that the supplicants, and not he, had the nation behind them. The means was ready to hand. The nobility and gentry of Scotland had been in the habit for entering into “bands” for mutual protection. Archibald Johnson of Warristoun is said to have suggested that such a band or covenant now be adopted, but not as heretofore by nobles and lairds only, but by the whole Scottish people; it was to be a national covenant, taking as its basis the Negative Confession of Faith which had been drawn up by the order of James VI in 1581. The great document was composed. After reciting the reason of the band, that the innovations and evils contained in the supplications had no warrant in the word of God, they promise and swear to continue in the profession and obedience of the aforesaid religion, that we shall defend the same, and resist all those contrary errors and corruptions, according to our vocation, and to the uttermost of that power which God has put in our hands all the days of our life.” Yet, whilst uttering oaths that seem scarcely compatible with loyalty to the king, they likewise promised and swore that we shall, to the utmost of our power with our means and lives, stand to the defense of our dread sovereign, his person and authority, in defense of the foresaid true religion, liberties and laws of the kingdom” (Large Declaration, p. 57), and they further swore to mutual defense and assistance. In these professions of loyalty, the Covenanters, for so we must now call the supplicants, were probably sincere; during the whole course of the struggle the great majority never wished to touch the throne, they only wished to carry out their own idea of the strictly limited nature of the king’s authority. Charles was the king, and they would obey, if he did as they commanded.

The success of the Covenant was great and immediate. It was completed on 28 February and carried for signature to Greyfriars church. Tradition tells how the parchment was unrolled on a tombstone in the churchyard and how the people came in crowds weeping with emotion to sign the band. This strange seen was soon witnessed in almost every parish in Scotland, if we except the Highlands and the North-East. Several copies of the Covenant were distributed for signature. “Gentlemen and noblemen carried copies of it in portmantles and pockets requiring subscriptions thereunto, and using their utmost endeavours with their friends in private for to subscribe.” “And such was the zeal of many subscribers, that for a while many subscribed with tears on their cheeks” and it is even said that some did draw their blood, and use it in place of ink to underwrite their name” (Gordon, Scots Affairs, I, 46). Not all, however, were willing subscribers to the Covenant. For many persuasion was sufficient to make them join the cause; other required rougher treatment. All those who refused to sign were not only looked upon as ungodly, but as traitors to their country, as ready to help the foreign invader. And as the greater that the number of subscribers grew, the more imperious they were in exacting subscriptions from others who refused to subscribe, so that by degrees they proceeded to contumelies and reproaches, and some were threatened and beaten who durst refuse, especially in the greatest cities” (Ibid, p. 45). No blood, however, was shed until the outbreak of the war. Ministers who refused to sign were silenced, ill-treated, and driven from their homes. Toleration and freedom of conscience was hated by both parties and by none more fanatically than the Scottish Presbyterians. Scotland was in truth a covenanted nation. A few great land-owners, a few of the clergy, especially the Doctors of Aberdeen who feared that their quiet studies and intellectual freedom would be overwhelmed, stood aloof from the movement. Many, no doubt, signed in ignorance of what they were doing, some because they were frightened, but more still because they were swayed by an overpowering excitement and frenzy. Neither side could now retreat, but Charles was not ready for war. So to gain time he made a show of concession and promised a General Assembly. The Assembly met at Glasgow 21 Nov., and immediately brought matters to a head. It attacked the bishops, accusing them of all manner of crimes; in consequence Hamilton, as commissioner, dissolved it. Nothing daunted, the Assembly then resolved that it was entitled to remain in session and competent to judge the bishops, and it proceeded to pull down the whole ecclesiastical edifice built up by James and Charles. The Service Book, Book of Canons, the Articles of Perth were swept away; the episcopacy was declared forever abolished and all assemblies held under episcopal jurisdiction were null and void; the bishops were all ejected and some excommunicated; Presbyterian government was again establis hed.

War was now inevitable. In spite of their protestations of loyalty, the Covenanters had practically set up a theory in opposition to the monarchy. The question at issue, as Charles pointed out in his proclamation, was whether he was to be king or not? Toleration was the only basis of compromise possible; but toleration was deemed a heresy by both parties, and hence there was no other course but to fight it out. In two short wars, known as the Bishops’ Wars, the Covenanters in arms brought the king to his knees, and for the next ten years Charles was only nominally sovereign of Scotland. A united nation could not be made to change its religion at the command of a king. The triumph of the Covenants, however, was destined to be short-lived. The outbreak of the Civil War in England was soon to break the Covenanting party in twain. Men were to be divided between their allegiance to monarchy and their allegiance to the Covenant. Scotchmen in spite of their past actions still firmly adhered to the monarchical form of government, and there cannot be much doubt that they would much rather have acted as mediators between the king and his Parliament than have interfered actively. But the royalist successes of 1643 alarmed them. Presbyterianism would not endure long in Scotland if Charles won. For this reason the majority of the nation sided with the Parliament, but it was with reluctance that the Covenanters agreed to give the English brotherly assistance. This assistance they were determined to give only on one condition, namely that England should reform its religion according to the Scottish pattern. To this end England and Scotland entered into the Solemn League and Covenant (17 Aug., 1643). It would have been well for Scotland if she had never entered the League to enforce her own church system on England. If she had been satisfied with a simple alliance and assistance, all would have been well. But by materially helping the English Parliament to win at Marsten Moor she had helped to place the decision of affairs of state in the hands of the army, which was predominantly Independent, and hated presbyters as much as bishops.If the Scotch had recrossed the Tweed in 1646 and had left the Parliament and the army to fight out for themselves the question of ecclesiastical government, England would not have interfered with their religion; but the Covenanters thought it their duty to extirpate idolatry and Baal-worship and establish the true religion in England, and so came in conflict with those who wielded the sword. The result was that England not only did not become Presbyterian, but Scotland herself became a conquered country. In military matters the Covenanters were successful in England, but in their own country they were sorely tried for a year (1644) by the brilliant career of Montrose (an account of the career of Montrose in given in A. Lang, Hist. of Scot., III, v). On account of the nature of the troops engaged, the encounters were fought with a vindictive ferocity unknown in the English part of the Civil War. Not only was the number of slain very great, but both sides slaked their thirst for vengeance in plunder, murder, and wholesale massacres. In this respect the Covenanters must bear the greater share of the blame. The Catholic Celts whom Montrose led undoubtedly committed outrages, especially against their personal enemies the Campbells, during the winter campaigns of Inverlochy (Patrick Gordon, Britane’s Distemper, pp. 95 sqq.), but restrained by Montrose, they never perpetrated such perfidy as the Covenanters after Philiphaugh, and the slaughter of three hundred women, “married wives of the Irish.” Montrose’s success and the fact that he was a leader of Scoto-Irish lashed the hatred of the preachers into fury. They raved for the blood of the Malignants. The preachers, with a fanaticism revoltingly blasphemous, and as ferocious as that of Islam, believed that more blood must be shed to propitiate the Deity (Balfour, Annals, III, 311).

The victory of Philiphaugh (13 Sept., 1645), removed the immediate danger to the Covenanters and likewise extinguished the last glimmer of hope for the Royalist cause, which had suffered irreparable defeat a few weeks earlier at Naseby. But the very triumph of the Parliamentary forces in England was fatal to the cause of the Solemn League and Covenant. The victory had been gained by the army which was not Presbyterian but independent, and capable now of resisting the infliction of an intolerant and tyrannical church government upon itself and upon England. When, therefore, the Scottish army recrossed the Tweed, February, 1647, it was with its main purpose unfulfilled. England had not been thoroughly reformed; heresy, especially in the army, was still rampant. The Solemn League and Covenant had been a failure, and the Scots had fought in vain. Worse than this, the Covenanters themselves were divided. The success of the Covenant had been due to the alliance between the Kirk and the nobility. The latter had joined the cause from jealousy of the authority of the bishops and from fear of the loss of their estates by the Act of Revocation. But now, bishops there were none, and the nobility were still in the possession of their estates. Since the causes for further cooperation were thus wanting, the feudal instincts of the nobility, love of monarchical government, contempt for the lower orders to which the majority of the Kirk belonged, naturally reasserted themselves. To this must be added their intense jealousy of Argyll, who owed his influence to the support he gave the Kirk. a Royalist part began thus to be formed among the Covenanters. The cleavage in their ranks was shown in the dispute over the question of the surrender of Charles I to the Parliament (1646). Hamilton had pressed the Estates to give the king honour and shelter in Scotland, but Argyll, backed by the preachers, opposed him. There must be no uncovenanted king in Scotland. The breach was widened when Charles fell into the hands of the heretical army. To many, it now seemed best to support the king, for if the army should prove successful, Presbyterianism would be lost. Accordingly Scottish commissioners Loudoun, Lanark, and Lauderdale visited Charles at Carisbrooke and signed the hopeless and foolish “Engagement” (27 Dec. 1647). In Scotland the Engagers had a large following,and a majority in the Estates. In the Parliament the Hamiltonian party could carry all before it and was ready to take immediate action for the king. But the Kirk, with Argyll and some ten nobles, remained immovably on the other side. They would not defile themselves by making common cause with the uncovenanted. The preachers cursed and thundered against the Engagers and the levies that were being raised for an invasion of England. Scotland thus divided against itself had not much chance against the veterans of Cromwell and Lambert. After Preston, Wigan, and Warrington (17–19 Aug., 1648) the Scottish Royalist forces were no more. The destruction of Hamilton’s force was a triumph for the Kirk and the anti-Engagers. But an event now occurred that once more divided the nation. On 30 January, 1649, Charles I was executed. Scotchmen of whatever party looked upon the deed as a crime and as a national insult. The day after the news reached Scotland, they proclaimed Charles II king, not only of Scotland, but of England and Ireland. The acceptance of Charles II, however, had been saddled with the condition that he should pledge himself to the two Covenants. After some hesitation, and after the failure of all his hopes to use Ireland as the basis of an invasion of England Charles II swore to the Covenants, 11 June, 1650.

To the more extreme portion of the Covenanters, this agreement with the king seemed hypocrisy, an insult to Heaven. They knew he was no true convert to the Covenants, that he had no intention of keeping them, that he had perjured himself, and they refused to have dealings with the king. Argyll with the more moderate wing, still anxious to avoid a definite rupture with the extremists, had perforce to make concessions to these feelings; he made the unfortunate prince walk through the very depths of humiliation (Peterkin, Records, p. 599). This split was to prove fatal. Only a united Scotland could have defeated Cromwell. Instead, to propitiate the Deity, Charles was kept apart from the army, and while every available man was wanted to meet the soldiers of Cromwell, the fanatics were “purging” the army of all Royalists and Malignants (op cit. p. 623). To allow them to fight would be to court disaster. How could Jehovah give victory to the children of Israel, if they fought side by side with the idolatrous Amalekites? The purgings of the army went merrily on daily, and the preachers promised in God’s name a victory over the erroneous and blasphemous sectaries. Like the Scots Cromwell also looked upon war as an appeal to the god of battle, and the judgment was delivered at Dunbar, 3 Sept., 1650. “Surely it’s probable the Kirk had done their do. I believe their king will set up upon his own score now.” This was Cromwell’s comment upon his victory, and he was right. The route of Dunbar destroyed the ascendancy of the Covenanters. The preachers had promised victory, but Jehovah had sent them defeat. The extremists, under such leaders as Johnston of Warristoun, James Guthrie, and Patrick Gillespie, attributing their defeat to the unholy alliance with the Malignants grew in vehemence and presented to the Committee of the Estates (30 Oct., 1650) a “Remonstrance” arraigning the whole policy of Argyll’s government and refusing to accept Charles as their king “till he should give satisfactory evidence of his real change” (ibid.). Seeing his power gone with the “Remonstrants” or “Protesters,” Argyll determined definitely to go over to the king; Malignant and Covenanter had joined hands. In answer to the Remonstrance, the Committee of Estates passed, 25 November, a resolution con demning it and resolved to crown Charles at Scone. On 1 January, 1651, the coronation took place. Cromwell’s answer was the battle or Worcester, 3 September, 1651. For nine years Scotland was a conquered country kept under by the military saints. It was a sad time for the Presbyterians. The English soldiers allowed all Protestants, as long as they did not disturb the peace, to worship in their own way. In October, 1651, Monk forbade the preachers to impose oaths and covenants on the lieges, and prohibited civil magistrates from molesting excommunicated persons, or seizing their goods, or boycotting them. Lest the Remonstrants or the Revolutioners, who all the while with increasing bitterness quarrelled as to who was the true inheritor of the Covenants, should cause trouble to the commonwealth, the General Assembly was broken up (July, 1653), and all such assemblies forbidden for the future (Kirkton, Secret and True History of the Church of Scotland, p. 54).

Dunbar, Worcester, and the Cromwellian domination destroyed the ascendancy of the Covenanters. But not on that account did the extreme wing, the Remonstrants, abate a jot of their pretensions; they still believed in the eternally binding force of the two Covenants. On the other hand, neither had the king fully learned the lesson from his father’s fate. Like him he considered it his right to force his ecclesiastical views upon his people. Episcopacy was restored, but without the prayerbook, and the meetings of the synods were forbidden. Partly because he had the support of the nobility and gentry, partly because even many Presbyterians had wearied of the strife, and party because of his dishonesty Charles succeeded in gaining his ends, but at the cost of straining to the utmost his relations with his subjects. It only required the attempt of James II to introduce hated Catholicism into the country to sweep the Stuarts forever from the throne of Scotland. The history of the Covenanters from the Restoration to the Revolution is a history of fierce persecution varied with occasional milder treatment to win the weaker members to the moderate side. As the Covenanters would no longer meet in the churches, they began to meet in their own homes and have private conventicles. Against these proceedings an act was passed (1663) declaring preaching by “ousted” ministers seditious, and it was rigorously enforced by quartering soldiers under Sir James Turner in the houses of recusants. (For Turner’s methods, see Lauderdale papers, II, 82.) Driven from their homes the Covenanters took to holding their gatherings in the open air, in distant glens, known as field-meetings, or conventicles. The Pentland Rising (1666) was the result of these measures and proved to the Government that its severities had been unsuccessful. On the advice of Lauderdale, Charles issued Letters of Indulgence, June, 1669, and again in August, 1672, allowing such “ousted ministers as had lived peaceably and orderly to return to their livings” (Woodrow, Hist. of the Sufferings, etc. II, 130). These indulgences were disastrous to the Conventiclers, for many of the ministers yielded and conformed. Stung by the secessions the remnant became more irreconcilable; their sermons were simply political party orations denunciatory of kings and bishops. They were especially wroth against the indulged ministers; they broke into their houses; bullied and tortured them to force them to swear that they would cease from their ministrations. These Lauderdale determined to crush by a persecution of utmost severity. Soldiers were quartered in the disaffected districts (the West and South-West), ministers were imprisoned, and finally, as conventicles still increased, a band of half-savage highlanders, “The Highland Host” (Lauderdale Papers, III, 93 sqq.) was let loose on the wretched inhabitants of the Western Lowlands, where they marauded and plundered at will.

The Covenanters now became reckless and wild, for again torn asunder by the “cess” controversy (a dispute arose as to whether it was lawful to pay the tax or “cess” raised for an unlawful object, the carrying on of a Government persecuting the true Kirk) they were but a remnant of the once powerful Kirk, and every year became less capable of effective resistance. They patrolled the country in arms protecting conventicles; and their leaders, Welsh, Cameron and others, went about as “soldiers of Christ,” organizing rebellion, even murdering the soldiers of Claverhouse, who was engaged in dispersing the conventicles. The murder of Archbishop Sharpe (2 May, 1679), regarded by them as a glorious action and inspired by the spirit of God, was the signal for a general rising in the Western Lowlands. In Rutherglen they publicly burnt the Acts of the Government which had overthrown the Covenants, and at Louden Hill, or Drumclog, defeated the troops under Claverhouse. It was therefore deemed necessary to send a strong force under Monmouth to suppress the rebellion. At Bothwell Bridge (22 June, 1679) the insurgents were utterly defeated. There followed a third Act of Indulgence which again cut deep into the rank of the Covenanters. But in spite of persecutions and secessions a minority continued faithful to the Covenant and the fundamental principles of Presbyterianism. Under the leadership of Richard Cameron and Donald Cargill, and styling themselves the “Society People,” they continued to defy the royal authority. At Sanquhar they published a declaration, 22 June 1680, (Wodrow, III, 213) disowning the king on the ground of his “perjury and breach of covenant to God and his Kirk.” At a conventicle held at Torwood (1680) Cargill solemnly excommunicated the king, the Duke of York, Monmouth, and others (ibid, III, 219). These proceedings served no further purpose than to embitter parties and make the Government all the more determined to extirpate the sect. But what roused the Government more than anything else was the “Apologetical Declaration” (ibid, IV, 148) of October, 1684, inspired by Renwick who had taken up the standard of Cameron. The document threatened that anyone connected with the Government, if caught, would be judged and punished according to his offenses. These threats were carried out by the Cameronians or Renwickites; they attacked and slew dragoons, and punished such of the conformist ministers as they could get hold of. It was at this period that the “killing time” properly began. Courts of justice were dispensed with and officers having commissions from the Council were empowered to execute anyone who refused to take the oath of abjuration of the Declaration. With the accession of James II to the English throne the persecution waxed fiercer. An act was passed which made attendance at field-coventicles a capital offense. Claverhouse carried out his instructions faithfully, may were summarily executed, while many more were shipped off to the American plantations. The last victim for the Covenant was James Renwick (Jan., 1688). His followers kept to their principles and even at the Revolution they refused to accept an uncovenanted king; one last brief day of triumph and vengeance they had, when they “rabbled” the conformist curates. The day of the Covenants had long since passed. How much the ancient spirit of Presbyterianism was broken was clearly seen by the subservient letter in which James was thanked for the Indulgence of 1687, for allowing all “to serve God after their own way and manner” (Wodrow, IV, 428, note). The majority had learned to submit to compromise, and thus at the Revolution the Scottish nation forgot the Covenants and was allowed to retain Presbyterianism. The strife of a century between Kirk and State had come to an end. Both sides in the struggle had in fact won and lost. The king had been defeated in his attempt to dictate the religion of his subjects; Presbyterianism became the established religion. But it had been equally proved that the subjugation of the State to the Church, the supremacy, political as well as ecclesiastical, of the Kirk, was an impossibility. In this the Covenants had failed.

Lang, A History of Scotland (Edinburgh and London, 1904), vol. III; Hume Brown, History of Scotland (Cambridge, 1905), vol II; Burton, History of Scotland (Edinburgh and London, 1870), vols. VI and VII; Mathieson, Politics and Religion in Scotland (Glasgow, 1902); Steven, History of the Scottish Church (Edinburgh, 1894–96).—Contemporary authorities: Row, History of the Kirk of Scotland (1558–1637) (Wodrow Society, 1841); Balfour, Annals of Scotland (to 1652) (Edinburgh, 1824); Baillie, Letters and Journal s (1637–1662) (Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh, 1828–29); Gordon, History of Scots Affairs from 1637 to 1641 (Spaulding Club, Aberdeen, 1841); Peterkin, Records of the Kirk of Scotland (from 1638) (Edinburgh, 1837); Wodrow, The History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland from the Restoration to the Revolution (Glasgow, 1830); Kirkton, The Secret and True History of the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1837); Lauderdale Papers (1639–1679) (Camden Society, London, 1884–85).

NOEL J. CAMPBELL

Covetousness

Generally, an unreasonable desire for what we do not possess. In this sense, it differs from concupiscence only in the implied notion of non-possession, and thus may cover all things which are sought after inordinately. Classified under this general head, we may have covetousness of honours, or pride; of the flesh, or concupiscence properly so called; of riches, or covetousness proper (Lat. avaritia), or avarice. When covetousness of the flesh or of wealth has for its object that which is already the lawful possession of another, it falls under the ban of the Ninth or Tenth Commandment of God; and such desires, wilfully indulged, partake, as we are told by the Lord (Matt., v), in their malice, of the nature of the external acts themselves. For he who deliberately desires the possession of another manUs lawful wife or goods has already in his heart committed the sin of adultery or theft. In its specific meaning, covetousness looks to riches in themselves, whether of money or of property, whether possessed or not, and pertains less to their acquisition than to their possession or accumulation. Thus defined, it is numbered among the sins which are called capital, because it is, as St. Paul says (Tim., vi), a radix omnium peccatorum.

The capital sin of covetousness is in reality rather a vice or inclination to sin, which is sinful only in that it proceeds from the unholy condition of original sin in which we are born, and because it leads us into sin. And so far is the desire—natural in us all—to acquire and hold possessions from being reproved as offensive by God, that, if kept within the bounds of reason and justice and resisted triumphantly in its inordinate cravings, it is positively meritorious. Even when indulged, covetousness is not a grievous sin, except in certain conditions which involve offence of God or the neighbour, e.g. when one is prepared to employ, or does actually employ, illicit or unjust means to satisfy the desire of riches, holds to them in defiance of the strict demands of justice or charity, makes them the end rather than the means of happiness, or suffers them to interfere seriously with oneUs bounden duty to God or man. Nourished and developed into an unrestricted habit, it becomes the fruitful mother of all manner of perfidy, heartlessness and unrest.

JOHN H. STAPLETON.

Diocese of Covington

(COVINGTONENSIS)

Comprises that part of Kentucky, U. S. A., lying east of the Kentucky River, and of the western limits of Carroll, Owen, Franklin, Woodford, Jessamine, Garrard, Rockcastle, Laurel, and Whitley Counties, an area of 17,286 square miles. It was established 29 July, 1853, by the division of the Diocese of Louisville, then embracing the whole State of Kentucky. This portion of the State had been ministered to by a body of clergy conspicuous for ability, learning, and devotion to duty. White Sulphur, the first organized congregation in this jurisdiction, rejoiced in the zealous administration of a Kenrick, who in later years graced the metropolitan See of Baltimore, and of a Reynolds, destined to become successor of the great Bishop England of Charleston. Lexington was growing into an important parish under the watchful guidance of Rev. John McGill, afterwards Bishop of Richmond, Virginia. All of the clergy manifested in their lives the glorious traditions of Flaget, Badin, David, and Nerinckx, whose successors they were. Catholic immigration has been almost exclusively confined to two nationalities: German and Irish. The former compose a large majority of the Catholic population of the cities and towns along the Ohio River, while the latter have sought the interior of the diocese. In Covington and Newport German Catholics predominate, while in Lexington, Frankfort, and Paris, the Irish are in the majority. Lying south of Mason and Dixon’s Line, although rich in raw material, the diocese has been handicapped by a lack of industrial and mineral development. Within its confines there is a total population of about 900,000, of whom 54,423 are Catholic. The attitude of non-Catholics is uniformly respectful, considerate, and kind.

BISHOPS

(1) The choice of the Holy See for the first bishop of the new diocese fell upon the Rev. GEORGE ALOYSIUS CARRELL, S. J., rector of St. Francis Xavier’s Church, Cincinnati. He was born in Philadelphia, 13 June, 1803, ordained priest 20 December, 1827, and entered the Society of Jesus 19 August, 1835. He was consecrated 1 November, 1853, at Cincinnati. The burden resting on the shoulders of the new bishop of a diocese sparsely settled by 8000 Catholics, without influence or material resources, was a heavy one; but at his death (25 Sept., 1868), after fourteen years of zealous labours, he left it thoroughly organized with a Catholic population three times as great as he found there, a self-sacrificing clergy, a devoted people, and many educational and eleemosynary institutions.

(2) The second bishop, AUGUSTUS MARIE TOEBBE, was born 15 January, 1829, at Meppen, Hanover, Germany, and ordained priest 14 September, 1854, at Cincinnati. He was consecrated 9 January, 1870, and died 2 May, 1884. He contributed largely to the increase of the parishes of the diocese and the growth of Catholicism.

(3) CAMILLUS PAUL MAES, his successor, was born in Belgium, 13 March, 1846, studied at the American College, Louvain, for the Diocese of Detroit, where he was chancellor when appointed to the See of Covington. He was consecrated 25 January, 1885, and soon cleared off a diocesan debt of $150,000. He next undertook to replace the old cathedral, rapidly tottering to decay, with a magnificent Gothic pile in the most prominent part of the city. Bishop Maes also found time to care for the remote population dwelling in the mountainous parts of the diocese. Few people of the diocese were blessed with an abundance of wealth. James Walsh was a conspicuous benefactor, who made possible the first parochial school, and later enabled Bishop Maes to begin the erection of the cathedral. His son, Nicholas Walsh, followed generously in the footsteps of his father. Mrs. Mary Howard Preston, a zealous convert, gave the necessary funds to start the great work of the missions to non-Catholics in Eastern Kentucky.

STATISTICS

The Catholic population (1908) is 54,423 (10,162 families). The clergy number 77 (68 secular, 9 regular). There are 74 churches, 38 stations, and 9 chapels; 3 orphan asylums (204 inmates); 2 hospitals (2962 patients); 2 homes for aged poor (351 inmates); 7 female academies (1491 pupils); 37 parochial schools (7782 pupils, of these 3744 are in Covington).

The religious communities in the diocese include: Men—Benedictine Fathers, five charges, and the Marist Brothers. Women—Sisters of St. Benedict, Sisters of Charity, Sisters of St. Francis, Sisters of the Poor, Sisters of the Good Shepherd, Sisters of Notre Dame, Sisters of Providence, Loretto Sisters, Visitation Nuns.

MAES, Life of Rev. Charles Nerinckx (Cincinnati, 1880); IDEM, Golden Jubilee of the Diocese of Covington (Pastoral Letter, Nov., 1903); WEBB, The Centenary of Catholicity in Kentucky (Louisville, 1884); SPALDING, Life of Benedict-Joseph Flaget (Louisville, 1852); IDEM, Sketches of Early Cath. Missions in Kentucky (Louisville, 1844).

JAMES L. GOREY.

Cowl

(koukoulion, cucullus, cuculla, cucullio.—Ducange, “Gloss.,” s.v.).

A hood worn in many religious orders. The name was originally used for a kind of bag in which grocers sold their wares (ibid.), then for an article of dress that was like it in shape. The lacerna or byrrhus (our cope), the usual cloak for outdoor wear until far into the Middle Ages, had a cowl fixed behind, that could be drawn over the head. So also had the poenula (chasuble—Wilpert, “Gewandung der Christen,” pp. 13, 45, etc.; Braun, “Liturg. Gewandung,” pp. 240, 348). Juvenal (VI, 118) and Martial (XI, 98) refer to the cucullus of the lacerna. Sozomen says that monks covered their heads with a hood called cucullus (H.E., III, xiii), and Palladius disciples of Pachomius (Hist. Laus., XIII). Both St. Jerome (Ep. xxii, ad Eustochium) and Cassian (De habitu mon., I, iv) refer to it as part of a monkUs dress. St. Benedict ordered two kinds of cowls for his monks, a warm one for winter and a light one for summer (Regula S. Ben., lv). The cowl became a great cloak with a hood. Benedict of Anagni forbade his monks to wear one that came below the knees (Ardo, Vita Ben. Anian., xl). The Benedictines, Cistercians, and all the old monastic orders now use the cowl, a great mantle with a good that can be thrown back over the shoulders, as a ceremonial dress for choir; the Franciscans have a smaller hood fixed to their habit; canons wear it on their mozzetta, and bishops and cardinals on the cappa. With the Augustinians and Servites it is still a separate hood not attached to anything. Ducange (S.v.) says the name is a diminutive of casula—“quasi minor cella.” A cowl fixed to a cloak is still commonly worn in Tyrol, parts of Austria and Hungary, etc. Cucullata congregatio occurs occasionally as a general name for monastic orders (Ducange). The colour of the cowl is that of the habit, black among Benedictines, white with the Cistercians, etc.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Michiel Coxcie

Coxcie, Michiel. Flemish painter, imitator of Raphael, known as the Flemish Raphael; b. at Mechlin, 1499; d. there 1592. There are several spellings for his name: Cocxie, Coxcie, Coxis, Coxcien. Coxcyen. He was a pupil of his father, and afterwards studied under Van Orley, with whom he visited Rome in 1532, where he made the acquaintance of Vasari. There he married his first wife, Ida van Hasselt, with whom he returned to Mechlin, in 1539, and the same year became a member of the Academy of that place. In 1561 he was in Brussels, and after that back in Mechlin, where, at the age of seventy, in 1560, he married his second wife, Jeanne van Schelle. By his first wife he had three children, Anne, a sculptor, William, and Raphael, painters; by his second, two sons, Michiel, a painter, and Conrad, Coxcie painted several large works for the Emperor Charles V and for Philip II, King of Spain, to whom he was court painter. He designed thirty-two subjects from the fable of Cupid and Psyche, which were engraved, and, in conjunction with Van Orley, he directed the execution of some tapestry made from the designs of Raphael. He copied part of the great Van Eyck altar-piece for Philip II of Spain, and portions of his copy are in Berlin and Munich and the remainder in Ghent. Several of his paintings are to be seen at Brussels, Antwerp, Bruges, Berlin, Madrid, St, Petersburg, and Vienna. In his paintings he bestowed special care on the figures of women, and they are well modelled and invariably graceful. In male figures he too often exaggerated the anatomy and selected awkward and unreasonable attitudes. His composition is very Italian in character, sometimes too academic in line and grouping, but agreeable in effect. His best works are signed and dated and are remarkable for their splendid colouring and harmonious result.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Charles-Antoine Coysevox

A distinguished French sculptor, b. at Lyons, 29 Sept., 1640; d. at Paris, 10 Oct., 1720; he belonged to a family originally from Spain. At the age of seventeen he executed a much admired Madonna. In 1671 he was employed by Louis XIV on various sculptures at Versailles and at Marly. He was elected a member of the Academy in 1676, and had among his pupils his two nephews, Nicolas and Guillaume Coustou. Coysevox made two bronze statues of Louis XIV, the “Charlemagne” at Saint-Louis des Invalides, and other famous works, but his most famous is probably “La Renommée” at the entrance of the Tuileries—two winged horses bearing Mercury and Fame. Napoleon is said to have delighted in the sculptor’s fancy that the horse of Mercury should have a bridle, but not that of Fame. Coysevox also produced some fine sepulchral monuments for the churches of Paris. We owe him a special debt for his contemporary portraits.

LÜBKE, History of Sculpture, tr. BENNETT (London, 1878); DILKE, French Architects and Sculptors of the XVIII Century (London, 1900).

M. L. HANDLEY

Lorenzo Cozza

Friar Minor, cardinal, and theologian, b. at San Lorenzo near Bolsena, 31 March, 1654; d. at Rome, 18 January, 1729. He filled the position of lector at Naples and Viterbo, where he became guardian of the convent. Cardinal Sacchetti chose Cozza as his confessor and adviser, thus giving rise to a friendship that lasted through life. While in the Orient, whither he had been sent as superior of the Franciscan monastery in Jerusalem, Cozza found leisure to compose several important works, and as legate of the supreme pontiff he reconciled the Maronites and the Patriarch Jacobus Petrus of Antioch, who had long been at variance with the Holy See. In 1715 he returned to Rome, in 1723 was elected minister general, and on 9 December, 1726, was made cardinal by Benedict XIII. The remaining years of his life were passed at Rome in quiet and study in the little convent of St. Bartholomew on the Island. His writings include “Historia polemica de Græcorum schismate” (Rome, 1719–20); “Commentarii historico-dogmatici” (Rome, 1707); and “Terra Sancta vindicata a calumniis,” the last still unpublished.

MARCELLINO DA CIVEZZA, Saggio di Bibliografia Sanfrancescana (Prato, 1879), 129–130, n. 166; GOLUBOVICH, Serie dei Superiori di Terra Santa (Jerusalem, 1898), 98, n. 168; HURTER, Nomenclator, II, 1001; CARDELLA, Memorie storiche dei cardinali della S. Romana Chiesa (Rome, 1792), VIII, 223.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Giuseppe Cozza-Luzi

Italian savant, Abbot of the Basilian monastery of Grottaferrata near Rome; b. 24 Dec., 1837, at Bolsena in the Province of Rome: d. there 1 June, 1905. In early youth he entered the ancient monastery of which he became abbot in 1882. Pius IX was attracted by his scholarship, as was later Leo XIII. In 1898 he was freed from all official cares and devoted himself thenceforth to his beloved studies. He won distinction by his edition of several ancient Vatican MSS., and was also learned in the history of art and in archæology. Under his direction was executed the phototype edition of the Codex Vaticanus, (Vetus et Novum Testamentum e Cod. Vaticano 1209 phototyp., 5 vols. fol., Rome, 1889), also a Vatican codex of the Prophets (ibid., 1889), and from a Vatican MS. the miniatures of Giulio Clovio to Dante’s “Paradiso.” Nearly all the copies of these artistic publications perished at the burning of the Danesi establishment in Rome. Together with the well-known Scriptural scholar, Carlo Vercellone, he supervised the printing of the Greek text of the Codex Vaticanus, in five volumes (Rome, 1868–81); he also edited other Scriptural MSS., e.g. the Greek codex of Daniel in the Chigi Library at Rome. His most important scientific work was the publication of some fragments of the “Geography” of Strabo (Rome, 1884), originally discovered by Cardinal Mai, who was, however, unaware of their importance. We owe also to Cozza-Luzi the publication of the eighth and ninth volumes of Mai’s “Nova Bibliotheca Patrum,” and a part of the cardinal’s correspondence.

Among the theological treatises of Cozza-Luzi is an important study on the evidence of the Greek liturgies to the papal supremacy (De Rom. Pont. auctorit. doctrinali testim. liturg. ecclesiæ græcæ, Rome, 1870). He wrote also on the antiquities of his native Bolsena, on the cathedral of Orvieto, the Vatican collection of Assyrian antiquities, etc. Among his more interesting publications is an edition of the Greek version of St. Gregory the Great’s account of St. Benedict (Historia S. P. N. Benedicti a Pontif. Gregorio I descripta et a Zacharia græce reddita, Tivoli, 1880). Many of his writings are scattered in various Italian periodicals, ecclesiastical and historical. Though possessed of a strong intellect and a broad culture he often lacked scientific accuracy and it is regrettable that no organic plan dominated his numerous studious researches. As yet there exists no biography of him.

Onoranze rese a Giuseppe Cozza-Luzi (Rome, 1898) contains a list of his principal writings.

U. BENIGNI

Cracow

(Pol. Krakow; Latin Cracoviensis).

The Prince-Bishopric that comprises the western portion of Galacia in Austria, and borders on the diocese of Kielce in Russian Poland, Breslau in Prussia, Tarnow in Galacia, and Zips in Hungary.

It has long been disputed at what time the Diocese of Cracow was created. It was already in existence in the year 1000; for at that time, Poppo, its bishop, was made a suffragan to Radzym (the Latin St. Gaudentius) the first Archbishop of Gnesen (Thietmar Chronicon, IV, in P.L. CXXXIX, 1226). Fr. Augustine Arndt, S. J. (Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie, XIV, 45–47, Innsbruck, 1890) adduces some reasons in support of the opinion that the Diocese of Cracow was founded by the Polish King Mieceslaw I as early as 984, and that Poppo, who had ben tutor to Duke Henry of Bavaria until 983, became its first bishop, but most authorities agree that it was not created until 1000 or shortly before. There are extant five lists of the bishops of Cracow. The oldest was complied about 1266 (Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script, XIX, 608), the second before 1347 (Mon. hist. Polon, III, 801); the others are of a later date. During the invasion of the Bohemians in 1039, and the succeeding period of anarchy, all ecclesiastical documents were lost, and the names and the dates of the bishops of Cracow, up to Bishop Aaron (1046–1059) are very unreliable. Prochorus and Proculpus, who are mentioned in the lists as predecessors of Poppo, are entirely legendary. Three of the bishops of Cracow are publicly venerated: St. Stanislaus Szczepanowski (1072–1079), who suffered martyrdom at the hands of King Boleslaw, canonized in 1253, patron of Poland, and of the Dioceses of Cracow and Posen; Blessed Vincent Kadlubeck, (108–1214), the earliest Polish historian of Poland, resigned his see and entered the Cistercian monastery of Jedrzejow in 1218, died 8 March, 1223, beatified 1764; John Prandotha (1242–1266), who drove the heretical Flagellants from his diocese, and was venerated until the seventeenth century, when his veneration ceased, owing to a misinterpretation of the Bull “De cultu servorum Dei,” issued by Urban VII, 5 July, 1634. Other renown bishops were: Matthæus (1143–1165) a historian; Zbigniew Olesnicki (1423–1455), a great statesman and fearless opponent of the Hussites, created cardinal in 1439; and George Radziwill (1591–1600), founder of seminaries and hospitals.

Originally the diocese of Cracow seems to have comprised the towns of Sandomir, Cracow, and Lublin, and the castellanies of Sieradz, Spicimir, Rozpoza, Lenczyc, and Wolborg; but its area underwent various changes. From the year 1443 to 1795 the bishops of Cracow were at the same time sovereign dukes of Severia, a territory situated between Silesia and Cracow. Before the first partition of Poland in 1772 the Diocese of Cracow composed the whole of Little Poland, Sieradz, a large portion of Silesia, and part of the present Diocese of Zips (Scepusium). In 1772 it lost its territory south of the Vistula (Dioecesis Cisvistulana), which in 1783 constituted the new Diocese of Tarnow. In 1790 the new Diocese of Lublin and in 1805 the new Diocese of Kielce were severed from its remaining territory. Pope Pius VII made Cracow an exempt diocese in 1815 and restored to it a portion of the Diocese of Kielce in 1817, which portion, however, was returned to Kielce in 1846, so that then the Diocese of Cracow was confined to the city Cracow and two deaneries south of the Vistula. From 1871 to 1879 the diocese was ruled by administrators. Under Albin Dunajewski, who became bishop in 1879, it was somewhat enlarged toward the south, in 1880, and again in 1886. In 1889 it was made a prince-bishopric, and a year later, Prince-Bishop Dunajewski was raised to the cardinalate. John Puzyna de Koziel was made Prince-Bishop of Cracow in 1895, and Anatole Nowak auxiliary bishop in 1900. The diocese numbers 197 parishes, 181 vicariates, 457 diocesan and 223 regular priests, 850,000 Catholics, 4000 Protestants, and 60,000 Jews. The Emperor of Austria has the privilege of appointing the prince-bishop after consulting with the bishops of Galacia. The cathedral chapter includes 3 prelates (dean, scholasticus, and custos) and 6 canons. The most important educational institution in the diocese is Cracow University (Uniwersitet Jagiellonski), founded by Casmir the Great in 1364 and approved by Pope Urban V the same year. The diocese also has an ecclesiastical seminary, various colleges, and minor institutions of learning. The cathedral of Cracow is one of the most venerable structures in Europe. Here lie buried most of the Polish kings, the two national heroes, Kosciukso, and Poniakowski, the greatest Polish poet, Mickiewicz, and many other noble sons of Poland; here also are preserved the relics of St. Stanislaus (see above). It is of Gothic architecture, originally built probably by Mieceslaw I about 966, where now stands the church of St. Michael and where St. Stanislaus suffered martyrdom; rebuilt on its present site by Ladislaus Herman, King of Poland (1083–1102); restored by Nanker Oksza, Bishop of Cracow (1320–1326); rebuilt in the eighteenth century in borocco style; and renovated from 1886–1901. It contains the beautiful chapel of Sigmund, the best specimen of Renaissance style in Eastern Europe, built by Bartolommeo da Firenze in the sixteenth century and renovated in 1894. The Church of St, Mary, a Gothic structure built 1226–1397 and restored in the fourteenth century, has on its high altar a large Gothic wood carving representing the death of the Virgin Mary, the masterpiece of Veit Stoss.

The chief charitable institution is the Archconfraternity of Mercy, founded by Jesuit Peter Skargo (d. 1618), which distributes arms to the poor, and is the owner of a monte-de-piété. There are also: another monte-de-piété, an asylum for old men and women, three orphan asylums, and insane asylum, various hospitals and workhouses. All these establishments are subject to the diocesan authorities. The Catholic press is represented by two dailies, two weeklies edited by priests, three monthlies published by religious, and two monthly magazines of high literary standard. They are all in Polish.

The following religious orders and congregations of men are engaged in parish, educational, or charitable work: Augustinians, Brothers of Mercy, Camaldolese, Canons Regular of the Lateran, Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre, Carmelites, Discalced Carmeli tes (2 houses), Capuchans, Cistercians (Abbey of Mogila), Conventual Franciscans, Observant Franciscans (here called Bernadines; 3 houses), Reformed Franciscans (3 houses), Dominicans, Hermits of St. Paul, Jesuits (2 houses), Lazarists (3 houses). Piarists, Resurrectionists, Salesians, Servite Tertiaries, Ursulines, Sisters of St. Albert, Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo, Sisters of St. Felix, Sisters of the Holy Family, Sisters of the Mother of Mercy, Sisters of Nazareth, Sisters of the Presentation, Vincentian Sisters, Servants of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Monumenta Poloniæ hist. vetustissima (Lemberg, 1872), II, 189 and (Cracow, 1878), III, 313–376; Malecki, The Original Ecclesiastical Conditions of Poland (Lemberg, 1875), in Polish; Starowolski, Vitæ antistitum Cracoviensium (Cracow, 1655); Roepell, Geschi chte Polens (Hamburg, 1840); Chotkowski in Die katholische Kirche unsere Zeit und ihre Diener (Munich, 1900), II, 527–533; Neher in Kirchenlex, s. v. Krakau.

Michael Ott.

The University of Cracow.—The first documentary evidence regarding the scheme that King Casimir the Great conceived of establishing a university dates from 1362. Urban V favored the plan, and King Casimir issued the charter of the university, 12 May, 1364. It was modelled after the schools of Padua and Bologna, consequently the faculty of law and the study of Roman law held first place. The pope gave his approval, 1 September, 1364, but excluded theology. Casimir’s school however, was refounded during the reign of Jagiello and Hedwig of the house of Anjou. The consent of Boniface IX was given, 11 February, 1397, and King Jagiello signed the charter, 26 July, 1400. The university now included all four faculties and was, therefore, patterned on that of Paris. The first chancellor was Bishop Peter Wysz of Cracow, who also gave the opening lecture. The first professors were Bohemians, Germans, and Poles, most of whom had been trained at Prague. In the first year, the number of matriculated students was 205; in the course of the fifteenth century it rose to 500.

The university took an active part in the ecclesiastical controversies of the fifteenth century and showed itself a strong supporter of the conciliar doctrine: concilium supra papam (i.e., a council is above the pope). It maintained nevertheless a strictly Catholic position during the Hussite troubles. In the struggle between the Nominalists and the Realists it took but little part, Realism having an almost exclusive sway at the school. Still the effect on the university of the active intercourse with the West was, at the time, but slight and transient. King Jagiello died in 1434; in the period following, the university was controlled by its powerful chancellor, Zbigniew Olesnicki, who was also Bishop of Cracow from 1423 to 1455. A circle of learned men who followed the new tendencies gathered around him. Among these scholars was Poland’s great historian, Dlugozs. At the time of the Council of Basil, the university and its chancellor were partisans of the council, and Olesnicki even accepted the cardinalate from Felix V. After the Union of Florence, Olesnicki went over to the side of Nicholas V, but the university did not submit to the control of the Church until 1449. The age of Olesnicki was one of great scholars, among whom were: the physician and astronomer, Martin Krol; the decretalist, Johann Elgot; the theologians Benedict Hesse and Jacobus of Paradyz. St. John Cantius, student and later professor of theology, was distinguished for virtue even more than learning. He was born at Kenty, 1397; died, 1473; was canonized by Clement XIII, 1767; his feast is observed 20 October. Olesnicki showed favour to men who were not Poles, suppressed the Hussite tendencies with a firm hand, and was very generous to the university. He died in 1455.

The causes which finally brought the university into line with the new tendencies were various. Poland was then the great power of Eastern Europe, the court of Casimir of the Jagellon dynasty was a brilliant one, and Cracow was a very rich city. It was therefore, not surprising that many famous men were drawn to this centre. From 1470 to 1496 Callimachus was preceptor in the royal household. Attracted by the fame of Callimachus, Conrad Celtes, the celebrated Humanist, made his appearance at Cracow before the end of the century. Printing also soon had its representatives here; towards the close of the fifteenth century, Haller established his press in Cracow and began his patronage of arts and letters. In this way the number of those who followed the new humanistic tendencies of the West continually increased, but unfortunately there was also an increase in profligacy. In 1492, John I Albert, the pupil and friend of Callimachus, ascended the throne of Poland; he did not, however, fulfill the expectations excited by him. Callimachus died in 1496; as time went on the seed which he and Celtes had sown produced its fruit, as is shown in Rhagius Sommerfeld, also called Æsticampianus, and in Heinrich Bevel. Thus, at the opening of the sixteenth century, the classic writers were more and more read, at first outside the lecturerooms of the university, in the students’ halls. In 1520 the study of Greek was introduced to the university, the professors being Constanzo Claretti, Wenzel of Hirschberg, and Libanus. Hebrew was also taught, in spite of the opposition to the “Judaizers,” and the notorious Italian, Francesco Stancari, arrived at Cracow in 1546.

Decline of the University.—In the midst of this progress, signs of decay were visible, thought the decline did not originate in the university itself. The national policies of Poland, the founding of the universities of Wittenberg and Frankfort-on-the-Oder, and a strong anti-German tendency, caused the university of Cracow to lose its original cosmopolitan character and become rather a national Polish university; thus a gradual decline ensued. Nevertheless it maintained during this period a remarkably high standing. Such scholars as Martin Krol, Martin Bylica, and finally Adelburt Brudzewski made the school famous as a seat of astronomical studies, while the name of Nicholas Copernicus, the pupil of Brudzewski, sheds upon it undying lustre. Elementary studies we taught, consequently students of from fourteen to sixteen years of age entered from Hungary, Moravia, Silesia, Prussia, and the provinces of the Polish crown. At first the students lived in private houses, but gradually halls were established in which “commons” were provided, and a clerical dress was worn. The expenses of these halls were covered by the fees which the students paid for board, matriculation, room, rent, and fuel. The rector of the university was chosen by a committee of doctors and masters. Up to 1419 a rector was chosen for the whole year, but from this date till 1778 one was selected for each semester. Other officers were: the curators who watched over the rights and privileges of the university, the procurator and notarius, and the consiliarii who had to decide in case of an appeal. From the start the professors lived together in colleges, and were divided according to faculties. They had a common table, decided as to the reception of members, and bestowed the positions of canon and prebend, of which each faculty, with the exception of the medical, had often as many as twelve at its disposal. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the fortunes of the university sank to a very low ebb. J. Górski, in his “Apology” (1581), and Petrycy give as the chief reasons for this the utter insubordination of the students, complete indifference of the professors to the advances of learning in the West, and lack of means for the support of the university. Above all, there arose after the opening of the seventeenth century, a bitter conflict on the part of the university against the Jesuits, who on the strength of their constitutional privileges, had opened schools in Cracow, Posen, Lemberg, and other places, to protect Polish youth against the advances of Protestantism. The university, however, appealed to a privilege, the jus exclusionis, and demanded the closing of the Jesuit institutions. For nearly one hundred and fifty years this conflict was carried on with incredible tenacity. The common people, nobility, clergy, kings, bishops, and popes were drawn into it, and the struggle ended in the discomfiture of the Jesuits (cf. Zaleski, Jezuici ev Polsic, II, III). When towards the close of the eighteenth century, national misfortune overtook the country, and the three Partitions of Poland put an end to polish freedom, the life of the university came to a complete standstill. It is true that Bishop Stoltyk, and after him the energetic Koltataj, undertook a thorough reform by breaking with the medieval routine and giving prominence to the natural sciences. But the political conditions in the decades following these efforts were unfavorable to quiet and serious study.

Modern Times.—After Cracow had become, in 1846, a part of the Austrian Empire, the central Government at Vienna endeavoured to make the university more German, but did nothing to improve it. A new era did not open for the school until 1861, when Francis Joseph I permitted Polish to be again used as the language of instruction and official life and the Government allowed a new building to be erected for the university. The number of professors and students now increased each year. While, in 1853, there were only 47 professors, of whom 37 were regular professors, 2 assistant professors and 8 docents, in 1900, the fifth centennial of the university, there were 103 professors; of this number, 48 were regular, 36 assistant professors, and 19 docents and lecturers. In 1907 the professors numbered 115. In 1853 there were 153 students; in 1893, 1320; in 1907, over 2700. The university library contains 250,000 works in 330,000 volumes; 5500 manuscripts in 7000 volumes (some of them very valuable and as yet unpublished); about 10,000 coins and 1200 atlases. The university has a college of the physical sciences, and a medical college for anatomical and physiological lectures; the medical school is entirely modern in its equipment and possesses very fine collections. There are also surgical, gynæcological and ophthalmic clinics, besides one for internal and nervous diseases: an agricultural institute is in the process of construction. Among the distinguished scholars connected with the university (1908) are: Professor Obszewski, the discoverer of a new method of liquefying gases, the surgeon Professor Kader, and Professor Wicherkiweicz, the oculist.

Codex diplomaticus Univ. Cracov. (Cracow, 1870–84); Liber diligentiarum (Cracow, 1886); Album studiosorum Univ. Cracov. (Cracow, 1887); Acta restoralia (Cracow, 1893–97), I, II; Radyminski, Fasti Univ. Cracov. 1658, in Ms. Cod. Jagell., 225; Idem, Annales usque ad ann. 1660 in Ms. Cod. Jagell., 226; Stoltykowicz, O Stanie Academii Krakowkiej (On the Condition of the Cracow Academy) (Cracow, 1810); Muczkowski, Mieszkania i postpowania uczniow Krakowskich (Residences and Customs of the Cracow Students) (Craco w, 1842); Lukasczwicz, Historya szkol w Koronie i W. Ks. Litewskiem (History of the Schools of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania) (Posen, 1849–51); Brandowski, Zalozenie Uniw. Krakowskiego (Founding of the Cracow University) (Cracow, 1873); Fijalek, Studya da dziejow Uniw. Jagiellon’skiego. Srednie wieki i Odrodzenie—History of the Jagellon University in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance Period (Cracow, 1900).

OSCAR RUDSKI.

Pearl Mary Teresa Craigie

Better known, under the pseudonym which first won her fame, as JOHN OLIVER HOBBES.

English novelist, dramatist, and convert; b. 3 November, 1867; d. 13 August, 1906. She was the eldest daughter of John Morgan Richards, a successful man of business in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A., and of Laura Hortense Arnold, a lady of distinguished colonial descent. Her father came of an intensely Calvinistic stock long settled in and about New York and New Jersey; and her grandfather, the Rev. James Richards, D.D., was a preacher and theological writer of some distinction in his time. In February, 1887, before she had completed her twentieth year, Miss Richards was married to Mr. Reginald Walpole Craigie, an English gentleman of good connections. The union, however, proved an uncongenial one, and Mrs. Craigie soon sought and obtained a legal separation with the right to the custody of her child. In 1892, as the result, it would seem, of much private and independent reflection, she was received into the Church. She had begun to turn her thoughts seriously to literature some time before this event; for already in 1891 she had ventured before the public under the pseudonym which she insisted on retaining long after her identity was known, and challenged the puzzled critics by a book to which she gave the unconventional title of “Some Emotions and a Moral.” Success waited upon her from the start: “The Sinner’s Comedy” (1892); “A Study in Temptations” (1893); “A Bundle of Life” (1894); “The Gods, Some Mortals, and Lord Wickenham” (1895); “The Herb Moon” (1896); “The School for Saints” (1897); “Robert Orange” (1900); “A Serious Wooing” (1901); “Love and the Soul Hunters” (1902); “The Vineyard” (1904); “The Flute of Pan” (1905); “The Dream and the Business” (published after her death of 1906);—these with plays like “Journeys End in Lovers Meeting: Proverb,” in one act, written for Miss Ellen Terry (1894); “the Ambassador,” produced at the St. James’s theatre in London (1898); “Osbern and Ursyne,” a tragedy in three acts, published in the “Anglo-Saxon Review” (1899); “A Repentance,” a drama in one act, produced at the St. James’s Theatre and afterwards at Carisbrooke Castle (1899); “The Wisdom of the Wise,” produced at the St. James’s theatre (1900); and “The Bishop’s Move” (1902), of which she was author only in part, represent the sum of her considered work, the output she preferred to be judged by. As she grew older in the wisdom of her art, the religious quality which seems to lie inevitably behind all her theory of life emerged more and more into prominence. It reached its height in “The School for Saints” and its sequel “Robert Orange.” Whether in literary form or in artistic intention she never rose beyond the achievement of these two books. They are intensely serious, intensely human, and almost too religious; yet they are modern and alive. Mrs. Craigie was in the full enjoyment of a well deserved fame, yet hardly at the acme of her powers, when death came to her suddenly from heart disease.

CORNELIUS CLIFFORD

Richard Crashaw

Poet, Cambridge scholar and convert; d. 1649. The date of his birth is uncertain. All that can be affirmed positively is that he was the only child of a one-time famous Puritan divine, William Crashaw, by a first marriage, and that he was born in London, probably not earlier than the year 1613. Of the mother nothing is known except that she died in her child’s infancy, while his father was one of the preachers in the Temple; and not even her family name has been preserved to us. William Crashaw, the father, was born in Yorkshire of a prosperous stock, which had been settled for some generations in or about Handsworth, a place some few miles to the east of the present town of Sheffield. He was a man of unchallenged repute for learning in his day, an argumentative but eloquent preacher, strong in his Protestantism, and fierce in his denunciation of “Romish falsifications” and “besotted Jesuitries.” He married a second time in 1619, and was once more made a widower in the following year. Richard, the future poet, could scarcely have been more than a child of six when this event took place; but the relations between the boy and his step-mother, brief as they must have been, were affectionate to an unusual degree. She was but four and twenty when she died in child-birth early in October, 1620, and she was buried in Whitechapel. No other details of this period of Crashaw’s life have come down to us, but the few to which reference has been made make it abundantly evident that neither his poetic gifts nor the strange bias which he afterwards displayed for the more mystical side of Christianity can be explained altogether by heredity or even by early environment.

Owing to the elder Crashaw’s fame as a Temple preacher and the scarcely less notable distinction which must have attached to him as a hard-hitting Protestant pamphleteer, it was only natural that, in the then state of public opinion, a career should in time be opened to his promising son. On the nomination of Sir Randolph Crewe and Sir Henry Yelverton, the latter one of the judges of the King’s Bench, the boy was placed on a foundation in the Charterhouse School where he was brought under the influence of Robert Brooke, a master of high ideals and great practical success. The elder Crashaw died in 1626, leaving his son unprovided for; but the influence of his friends was exerted in the boy’s behalf, and on 6 July, 1631, some five years after his father’s death, Richard entered Pembroke Hall in Cambridge. He did not formally matriculate as a scholar until 26 March of the following year, when he succeeded in getting elected to a pensionership. That he had lived for some time at Pembroke previous to his actual election on one of the foundations there seems to be proved by the poems composed on the death of William Herrys (or Harris) which took place in October, 1631. Life at Cambridge was not niggardly to Crashaw in spite of the improvidence which led him to deplete his uncertain resources by spending his little all on books. From this time forth books and friends and religion were to make up the staple of existence for him.

It is significant of the essential aloofness of his spirit, during even the chief formative years of his life, that his poems contain no reference to his early London house or to his family. Brooke, his kindly Charterhouse master, however, he commemorates more than once in affectionate terms both in Latin and in English; and the ties of university friendship seem ever to have been strong with him. Benjamin Laney, the Master of Pembrooke, a man of Laudian views, who came into his own, after the Cromwellian troubles were over, by being appointed successively to the Sees of Peterborough, Lincoln, and Ely; John Tournay, the High Churchman, tutor of his college, who was refused a divinity degree because of his temerity in attacking the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone; Nicholas Ferrer, the enthusiast who dreamed of reviving the cenobitical idea in the Anglican Church in his home at Little Gidding; Cosin, the Royalist master of Peterhouse; John Beaumont, the author of “Psyche”; and most characteristic of all, perhaps tenderest of all, and certainly not the least notable of the “Metaphysicians,” the poet, Abraham Cowley—these were the intimates who watched the ripening of those Cambridge years during which Crashaw achieved his titles to permanent fame. His feeling for the remote and more learned sense of words, which accounts in part for the defects as well as for the felicities of his poetic style, had manifested itself early in his academic career; and he had been but a short while at the university before he was known as an adept in five languages. His knowledge of Greek and Latin was above the average, even for a generation distinguished in no small degree for its classical scholarship, and one famous line on the Miracle of the Marriage Feast of Cana in his “Epigrammatum Sacrorum Liber,” issued from the University Press in 1634, will probably be quoted as long as the Latin tongue retains its spell over Western Christianity: “Nympha pudica Deum vidit, et erubuit.” (The conscious water saw its Lord, and blushed.) Cf. Aaron Hill’s translation, 1688–1750. The year in which the “Epigrammatum Sacrorum Liber” appeared was the year in which Crashaw took his bachelor’s degree. He could scarcely have been more than twenty-one at the time, and two years later, possibly on the promise of a more lucrative fellowship, he joined his friend Dr. Cosin at Peterhouse and proceeded M.A. in 1638.

For the details of his life during the next ten or eleven years we are indebted largely to the conjectures of the late Dr. Grosart, based upon the chance statements of his friends and an entry here and there in registers and diplomatic correspondence; that it was a life sincerely devoted to religious meditations is proved by the prevailing note of his poetry and by a quaintly significant remark or two of the unknown friend who wrote the original preface to the “Steps to the Temple.” That writer calls him “Herbert’s second, but equall, who hath retriv’d Poetry of late, and returned it up to its Primitive use; Let it bound back to heaven gates, whence it came.” And he goes on to tell us how the “divine poet” had passed his life “in St. Maries Church neere St. Peter’s Colledge; there he lodged under Tertullian’s roofe of Angels; there he made his nest more gladly than David’s Swallow neere the house of God, where, like a primitive Saint, he offered more prayers in the night than others usually offer in the day; there he penned these Poems, Steps for happy soules to climbe heaven by.” Cambridge was at this time the home, not only of “thorough” or Royalist principles in politics, but of Laudian ventures in Anglicanism; and it was only to be expected, that, when the Puritan storm broke at last in the guise of civil war, Crashaw and his friends should be among the first to suffer from its fury. The poet joined the king at Oxford sometime after March, 1643; there he remained but a short while. When next we hear from him it is as an impecunious scholar in great distress in Paris where his friend Cowley unexpectedly discovered him and obtained for him an introduction to Queen Henrietta Maria. Cowley went to Paris as secretary to Lord Jermyn in 1646; but some time before this—the date and immediate circumstances of the event are entirely unknown—Crashaw had become dissatisfied with Anglican Christianity and had made his submission to the Roman See.

Through the intervention of Queen Henrietta he obtained an honourable post in the great household of Cardinal Palotta. It is pathetic to have to note that the conscience of the man who had suffered so much to win for himself the grace of a consistent creed was scandalized at the spectacle of inconsistency afforded by the curious lives of some of his new-found Italian fellow-believers. Difficulties multiplied for him, and it was said that his life was threatened. (“Pope Alexander the Seventh and the College of Cardinals,” edited for the Camden Society, 1867, and quoted by Canon Beeching in Tutin’s edition of the “Poems,” Introduction, pp. XXX-XXXI). The kindly cardinal, however, interested himself in his behalf and obtained for him a more congenial post in the shape of a minor benefice at the shrine of Loretto. He was “inducted” on the 24th of April, 1649, and there some four weeks later he died, suddenly it would seem, from heat-apoplexy brought on by his exertions during a pilgrimage.

His place in English literature may be said to be fixed now for all time. If he is not the most important, he is at any rate not the least distinguished of that remarkable group of Caroline lyrists described so unsympathetically, it might even be said so ineptly, by Dr. Johnson, as belonging to the Metaphysical School. Like Herbert and Donne and Cowley, he is in love with the smaller graces of life and the profounder truths of religion, while he seems forever preoccupied with the secret architecture of things. He has, in his better moments of inspiration, a rare and singularly felicitous gift of epithet and phrase, as when he addresses St. Teresa in the famous outburst of religious enthusiasm that marks the close of the “Apology”:—O thou undaunted daughter of desires!

By all thy dower of lights and fires;

By all the eagle in thee, all the dove;

By all thy lives and deaths of love;

By thy large draughts of intellectual day,

And by thy thirsts of love more large than they;

By all thy brim-filled bowls of fierce desire,

And by thy last morning’s draughts of liquid fire;

By the full kingdom of that final kiss

That seized thy parting soul, and seal’d thee His

-or when he bespeaks for the ideal wife in the justly famed “Wishes to his (supposed) Mistress.”

Whate’er delight,

Can make Day’s forehead bright,

Or give down to the wings of Night.

If his predilection is for those wanton arabesques of rhythm in which fancy seems suddenly to become crystallized as wit, on the other hand his lyric gift too often becomes merely elaborate and flags because he is forever in quest of a surprise. In addition to the collections of his verse referred to above, he wrote a group of sacred songs under the title of “Carmen Deo Nostro” which he dedicated to his friend and patron, Lady Denbigh, but which was not published until three years after his death, and another group of occasional pieces which he called “The Delights of the Muses” (1648).

GILFILLAN, The Life and Poetry of Richard Crashaw, a biographical essay prefixed to his edition of the poems (Edinburgh, 1857); FULLER, Worthies’ Library, ed. Grosart, first printed in 1872–1873, and supplemented in 1887–1888 by collation with the British Museum MS. (Addit. MS 33319); Dict. Nat. Biog. s. v.; BEECHING, Introduction, prefixed to the edition of the poems edited by J. R. Tutin (London, The Muses Library; no date); Steps to the Temple, Delights of the Muses and other Poems, ed. WALLER (Cambridge, 1904); WOOD, Fasti Oxon., ii, 4; COLERIDGE, Literary Recollections (1836).

CORNELIUS CLIFFORD

Jean Crasset

Ascetical writer, b. at Dieppe, France, 3 January, 1618; d. at Paris, 4 January, 1692. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1638, became professor of humanities and philosophy, was director for twenty-three years of a famous sodality of men connected with the professed house of the Jesuits in Paris, and was also a successful preacher. Crasset is the author of many ascetical works, among which are: “Methode d’oraison”; “Considérationes chrétiennes pour tous les jours de l’année”; “La chrétienne in soli tude”; Dissertation sur les oracles des Sibylles,” which was vigorously attacked; “Entretiens pour la jeunesse.” He also published in 1689 a “Historie de l’eglise du japon” which has been translated into several languages but which is considered inferior to that of Charlevoix. Crasset’s history was scarcely original, for it was drawn in great part from the work which Father Solier had issued in 1627; he merely retouched the style and continued the narrative from 1624 to 1658. The objection is made that the work lacks precision, is heavy, and is crowded with details. The author attributed the origin of the persecution of 1597 to the imprudence of the friars in making their religious ceremonies public. There is a posthumous work of his entitled “La foy victorieuse de l’infidélite et du libertinage.” On 9 September, 1656, the Bishop of Orléans issued an interdict against him for having in one of his sermons charged several ecclesiastics with sustaining the propositions condemned by the Bull of Innocent X, “Cum occasione” (31 May, 1653). The interdict was removed in the following February.

Feller, Biog. univ. (Paris, 1837); De Backer, Bibliothéque de la c. de J. (1st series, Liége, 1853).

T.J. CAMPBELL

Mrs. Augustus Craven

(PAULINE-MARIE-ARMANDE-AGLAE-FERRON DE LA FERRONNAYS).

Born 12 April, 1808, in London; died in Paris, 1 April, 1891. Her parents, Comte Auguste-Marie de la Ferronnays, of old Breton stock, and Marie-Charlotte-Albertine de Sourches de Montsoreau, likewise of ancient family, had undergone all the miseries attendant on the emigration during the French Revolution, including the loss of estates. Their attachment to the Duc de Berri brought about their return to France, followed shortly afterwards by the appointment of M. de la Ferronnays as ambassador to St. Petersburg, where he continued for eight years. In 1827 he returned to France as Minister of Foreign Affairs to Charles X, and Pauline was introduced into the brilliant society of the Restoration. In 1830 her father was given the post of ambassador to Rome, where he was accompanied by his family. It was probably in Naples that she met Augustus Craven, son of Keppel Craven and grandson of the Margravine of Anspach, who in 1830 had been appointed attaché to the British Legation at Naples. Their marriage was celebrated 24 August, 1834, in the chapel of the Acton Palace, Naples, and a few days afterwards Augustus Craven was received into the Church. In 1836 Mr. and Mrs. Craven returned to England, whence they went successively to Lisbon, Brussels (1838), and Stuttgart (1843), where Mr. Craven held diplomatic appointments. Up to this time Mrs. Craven’s life had been intimately bound up with those of her immediate family, whom the world has come to know and love in the pages of “Le Récit d’une Soeur.” She took a keen interest in English politics, and in 1851 wrote a protest against an attack in the House of Commons on conventual life as it was being revived in England.

In 1851 Mr. Craven made an unsuccessful stand for Parliament, which caused him severe financial losses. In 1853 the Cravens took up their residence at Naples in the Palazzino Chiatamone, or as it came to be called, the Casa Craven, formerly occupied by Mr. Craven’s father, who had died in 1851. During the years that followed, this became the centre of the brilliant Neapolitan society depicted in Mrs. Craven’s “Le mot de l’énigme.” By 1864 she had arranged the mass of materials for “Le Récit d’une Soeur,” and had begun “Anne Severin.” “Le Récit” appeared in January, 1866. In March, 1868, the first part of “Anne Severin” began in “Le Correspondant,” and Lady Fullerton commenced the translation.

The winters of 1868–69 and 1869–70 were spent in Rome, and at the Craven apartments numbers of distinguished people met, among them many of the prelates present at the Vatican Council. Mrs. Craven’s best known novel, “Fleurange,” appeared in 1872 simultaneously at Paris in “Le Correspondant” and at New York in English through the efforts of Father Hecker in “The Catholic World.” This work was crowned by the Academy. It was followed in 1874 by “Le mot de l’énigme.” In the same year Mrs. Craven’s answer to Gladstone’s article in the “Contemporary Review,” entitled “Ritualism and Ritual,” and his subsequent pamphlet, appeared in “Le Correspondant” on the same day as Cardinal Newman’s “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk.”

After 1870 Mrs. Craven’s life was spent chiefly in Paris, varied by lengthy visits to English friends, and more particularly to Monabri, the beautiful chalet of Princess Sayn Wittgenstein, between Lausanne and Ouchy, where the Empress Augusta was also a frequent guest. The life of Natalie Narischkin, on which Mrs. Craven had long been at work, appeared in 1876. Mr. Craven died at Monabri, 4 October, 1884, and was buried at Boury. During the remaining seven years of Mrs. Craven’s life she was busy with various articles for reviews, but chiefly with her last novel, “Le Valbriant,” and the life of her friend, Lady Georgiana Fullerton, published in 1888, and adapted by Father Coleridge in his life. On 5 June, 1890, she was attacked by a species of paralysis, which after ten months, during which she was deprived of speech, resulted in her death.

F.M. RUDGE

Gaspar de Crayer

Flemish painter, b. at Antwerp, 1582; d. at Ghent, 1669. He was a pupil of Raphael van Coxcie, but speedily surpassed his master, and was appointed painter to the Governor of the Low Countries at Brussels, was given a considerable pension, and employed in the churches and public edifices of that place. He resigned his position, however, and removed to Ghent, where he painted his most celebrated works. Of his picture of the “Centurion and Christ,” painted for the refectory of the abbey at Afflinghem, Rubens is said to have declared: “Crayer, nobody will surpass you.” He was one of the most eminent Flemish painters, and, although not a man of profound genius, was a perfect draughtsman and an admirable colourist. His compositions are simple, correct, and pleasing, his colouring clear and fresh, comparable only in his own school to that of Van Dyck. In many of his important works he employed De Vadder and Achtschellinck to paint the landscapes, he himself being responsible for the composition and figures. His chief work is the “Death of the Virgin” in Madrid, and his principal portrait is that of the Cardinal Infant Don Ferdinand, brother of the King of Spain, on horseback. There are several of his paintings at Brussels, three in Ghent, one at Antwerp, and others at Amsterdam, Munich, Nancy, Paris, St. Petersburg, and Rotterdam. His portrait was painted by Van Dyck and engraved by Pontius, and he himself is said to have been responsible for more than one woodcut.

CONWAY, Early Flemish Artists (London, 1887); PASSAVANT, Les peintres de l’école flamande (Ghent, 1842); KUGLER, Handbuch der Geschichte der Malerei (Berlin, 1837); WAAGEN, Handbook of Flemish Painting (London, 1860); HOUSSAYE, L’Histoire de la peinture flamande (Paris, 1848); CROWE AND CAVALCASELLE, Early Flemish Painters (London, 1857).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Richard Creagh

Archbishop of Armagh, Ireland, b. at Limerick early in the sixteenth century; d. in the Tower of London, in 1585. The son of a merchant, he followed the same calling in his youth and made many voyages to Spain. A providential escape from shipwreck led him to embrace a religious life, and after some years of study abroad he was ordained priest. Returning to Ireland, he taught school for a time at Limerick. He refused nominations for the Sees of Limerick and Cashel, but the Papal nuncio, David Wolfe, determined to conquer his humility, named him for the primacy when it became vacant, and would accept no refusal. Creagh was consecrated at Rome, and in 1564 returned to Ireland as Archbishop of Armagh. Shane O’Neill was then the most potent of the Ulster chiefs. From the first he and Creagh disagreed. O’Neill hated England; Creagh preached loyalty to England in the cathedral of Armagh, even in his presence. O’Neill retorted by burning down the cathedral. Creagh then cursed him and refused to absolve him because he had put a priest to death. Shane retaliated by threatening the life of the primate, and by declaring publicly that there was no one on earth he hated so much, except the Queen of England, whom he confessed he hated more. In spite of all this, Creagh was arrested and imprisoned by the English. Twice he escaped, but he was retaken and in 1567 lodged in the Tower of London, and kept there till his death. From his repeated examinations before the English Privy Council his enmity to Shane O’Neill and his unwavering loyalty to England were made plain. But his steadfastness in the Faith and his great popularity in Ireland were considered crimes, and in consequence the Council refused to set him free. Not content with this his moral character was assailed. The daughter of his jailer was urged to charge him with having assaulted her. The charge was investigated in public court, where the girl retracted, declaring her accusation absolutely false. It has been said that Creagh was poisoned in prison, and this, whether true or false, was believed at the time of his death. His grand-nephew, Peter Creagh, was Bishop of Cork about 1676. He was imprisoned for two years in consequence of the false accusations of Titus Oates, but acquitted (1682), was transferred to the Archdiocese of Tuam in 1686. He followed James II to the Continent, was appointed Archbishop of Dublin in 1693, but was never able to return and take possession. He became Coadjutor Bishop of Strasburg, where he died (July, 1705).

E. A. D’ALTON.

Creation

(Latin creatio.)

I. DEFINITION

Like other words of the same ending, the term creation signifies both an action and the object or effect thereof. Thus, in the latter sense, we speak of the “kingdoms of creation,” “the whole creation,” and so on. In the former sense the word sometimes stands for productive activity generally (e.g. to create joy, trouble, etc.), but more especially for a higher order of such efficiency (e.g. artistic creation). In technically theological and philosophical use it expresses the act whereby God brings the entire substance of a thing into existence from a state of non-existence—productio totius substantiâ ex nihilo sui et subjecti. In every kind of production the specific effect had as such no previous existence, and may therefore be said to have been educed ex nihilo sui—from a state of non-existence—so far as its specific character is concerned (e. g. a statue out of crude marble); but what is peculiar to creation is the entire absence of any prior subject-matter—ex nihilo subjecti. It is therefore likewise the production totius substantiæ—of the entire substance. The preposition ex, “out of,” in the above definition does not, of course, imply that nihil, “nothing,” is to be conceived as the material out of which a thing is made—materia ex quâ—a misconception which has given rise to the puerile objection against the possibility of creation conveyed by the phrase, ex nihilo nihil fit—“nothing comes of nothing.” The ex means (a) the negation of prejacent material, out of which the product might otherwise be conceived to proceed, and (b) the order of succession, viz., existence after non-existence. It follows, therefore, that;

creation is not a change or transformation, since the latter process includes an actual underlying pre-existent subject that passes from one real state to another real state, which subject creation positively excludes;

it is not a procession within the Deity, like the inward emission of the Divine Persons, since its term is extrinsic to God;

it is not an emanation from the Divine Substance, since the latter is utterly indivisible;

it is an act which, while it abides within its cause (God), has its term or effect distinct therefrom; formally immanent, it is virtually transitive;

including, as it does, no motion, and hence no successiveness, it is an instantaneous operation;

its immediate term is the substance of the effect, the “accidents” (q. v.) being “con-created”;

since the word creation in its passive sense expresses the term or object of the creative act, or, more strictly, the object in its entitative dependence on the Creator, it follows that, as this dependence is essential, and hence inamissible, the creative act once placed is coextensive in duration with the creature’s existence.

However, as thus continuous, it is called conservation, an act, therefore, which is nothing else than the unceasing influx of the creative cause upon the existence of the creature. Inasmuch as that influx is felt immediately on the creature’s activity, it is called concurrence. Creation, conservation, and concurrence are, therefore, really identical and only notionally distinguished. Other characteristics there are, the more important of which will come out in what follows.

II. HISTORY OF THE IDEA

1. The idea of creation thus outlined is intrinsically consistent. Given a personal First Cause possessing infinite power and wisdom, creative productivity would a priori be necessarily one of His perfections, i.e. absolute independence of the external limitations imposed by a material subject whereon to exert His efficiency. Besides, the fecundity which organic creatures possess, and which, in the present supposition, would be derived from that First Cause, must be found typically and eminently in its source. But creative productivity is just the transcendent exemplar of organic fecundity. Therefore, a priori, we should look for it in the First Cause. How the creature is produced, how something comes from nothing, is of course quite unimaginable by us, and extremely difficult to conceive. But this is scarcely less true of any other mode of production. The intimate nexus between cause and effect is in every case hard to understand. The fact, however, of such a connexion is not denied except by a few theorists; and even they continually admit it in practice. Consequently the indistinctness of the notion of creation is no valid reason for doubting its inner coherence. Moreover, though the idea of creation is not, of course, based upon immediate experience, it is the product of the mind’s endeavour, aided by the principle of sufficient reason, to interpret experience. Creation, as will presently appear, is the only consistent solution that has ever been given to the problem of the world’s origin.

2. On the other hand, though the idea of creation is self-consistent and naturally attainable by the mind interpreting the world in the light of the principle of causality, nevertheless such is not its actual source. The conception has a distinctly theological origin. The early Christian writers, learning from Revelation that the world was produced from nothing, and seeing the necessity of having a term to designate such an act chose the word creare, which theretofore had been used to express any form of production, e. g. creare consulem (Cicero). The theological usage afterwards passed into modern language. Probably the idea of creation never entered the human mind apart from Revelation. Though some of the pagan philosophers attained to a relatively high conception of God as the supreme ruler of the world, they seem never to have drawn the next logical inference of His being the absolute cause of all finite existence. The truth of creation, while not a mystery—not supernatural in its very nature (quoad essentiam)—is supernatural in the mode of its manifestation (quoud modum). Implicitly natural, it is explicitly revealed. The distinct conception of his created origin which primitive man, as described in Genesis, must have received from his Creator was gradually obscured and finally lost to the majority of his descendants when moral corruption had darkened their understanding; and they substituted for the Creator the fantastic agencies conjured up by polytheism, dualism, and pantheism. The overarching sky was conceived of as divine, and the heavenly bodies and natural phenomena as its children. In the East this gradually gave rise to the identification of God with nature. Whatever exists is but the manifestation of the One—i.e. Brahma. In the West the forces of the universe were separately deified, and a more or less esoteric conception of the Supreme Being as the father of the gods and of man was feebly held by some of the Egyptians and probably by the Greek and Roman sages and priests. The Creator, however, did not leave Himself without witness in the race of men. The descendants of Sem and Abraham, of Isaac and Jacob, preserved the idea of creation clear and pure; and from the opening verse of Genesis to the closing book of the Old Testament the doctrine of creation runs unmistakably outlined and absolutely undefiled by any extraneous element. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In this, the first, sentence of the Bible we see the fountain-head of the stream which is carried over to the new order by the declaration of the mother of the Machabees: “Son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing” (II Mach., vii, 28). One has only to compare the Mosaic account of the creative work with that recently discovered on the clay tablets unearthed from the ruins of Babylon to discern the immense difference between the unadulterated revealed tradition and the puerile story of the cosmogony corrupted by polytheistic myths. Between the Hebrew and the Chaldean account there is just sufficient similarity to warrant the supposition that both are versions of some antecedent record or tradition; but no one can avoid the conviction that the Biblical account represents the pure, even if incomplete, truth, while the Babylonian story is both legendary and fragmentary (Smith, “Chaldean Account of Genesis,” New York, 1875). Throughout the New Testament, wherein God’s creative activity is seen to merge with the redemptive, the same idea is continuous, now reaffirmed to the Greek pagan in explicit forms, now recalled to the Hebrew believer by expressions that presuppose it too obvious and fully admitted to need explicit reiteration.

3. The extra-canonical books of the Jews, notably the Book of Henoch and the Fourth Book of Esdras, repeat and expand the teaching of the Old Testament on creation; the Fathers and Doctors of the early Church in the East and West everywhere proclaim the same doctrine, confirming it by philosophical arguments in their controversies with Paganism, Gnosticism and Manichæism; while the early Roman symbols, that of Nicæa and those of Constantinople repeat, in practically unvarying phrase, the universal Christian belief “in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.”

4. After the controversy with Paganism and the Oriental heresies had waned, and with the awakening of a new intellectual life through the introduction of Aristotle into the Western schools, the doctrine of creation was set forth in greater detail. The revival of Manichæism by the Cathari (q. v.) and the Albigenses called for a more explicit expression of the contents of the Church’s belief regarding creation. ‘This was formulated by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 [Denzinger, “Enchiridion,” 428 (355)]. The council teaches the unicity of the creative principle—unus solus Deus; the fact of creation out of nothing (the nature of creation is here for the first time, doubtless through the influence of the schools, designated by the formula, condidit ex nihilo); its object (the visible and invisible, the spiritual and material world, and man); its temporal character (ab initio temporis); the origin of evil from the fact of free will.

5. The conflict with the false dualism and the emanationism introduced into the schools by the Arabian philosophers, especially Avicenna (1036) and Averroes (1198), brought out the more philosophically elaborated doctrine of creation found in the works of the greater Scholastics, such as Blessed Albert, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure. The Aristotelean theory of causes is here made use of as a defining instrument in the synthesis which is suggested by the well-known distich:—Efficiens causa Deus est, formalis idea,

Finalis bonitas, materialis hyle

(Albert. Magn., Summa, I, Tr. xiii; Q. liv, Vol. XXXI, p. 551 of Bosquet ed., Paris, 1895). On these lines the Schoolmen built their system, embracing the relation of the world to God as its efficient cause, the continuance of creation in God’s conservation thereof and His concurrence with every phase of the creature’s activity; the conception of the Divine idea as the archetypal cause of creation; the doctrine that God is moved to create (speaking by analogy with the finite will) by His own goodness, to which He gives expression in creation in order that the rational creature recognizing it may be led to love it and, by a corresponding mental and moral adjustment thereto in the present life, may attain to its complete fruition in the life to come; in other words that the Divine goodness and love is the source and final cause of creation both active and passive. Thus the application, by a constantly sustained analogy of the three causes—efficient, final, and formal (archetypal)—results in the Scholastic philosophy of creation. There being no previously existing material cause (hyle) of creation, the application of the fourth cause appears in the Scholastic theory on potency and materia prima, the radical and undifferentiated constituent of nature.

6. The idea of creation developed by the Scholastics passed without substantial change along that current of modern thought which preserved the essential elements of the Theistic-Christian world-view—that of Descartes, Malebranche, Leibniz—and of course along the continuous stream of traditional teaching within the Catholic Church. In the opposing current it disappears with Spinoza, and gives way to realistic Pantheism; with Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, its place is taken by some phase of varying idealistic Pantheism; while in our own day Agnosticism (Spencer), materialistic Monism (Hackel), and spiritualistic Monism (Neo-Hegelianism and the New Theology) have been put forward as substitutes. Amongst recent Catholic theologians there is a practically uniform tendency to interpret the traditional and Scriptural data as postulating the creative act to account for the origin of unembodied spirits (the angels), of the primordial matter of the universe, and of the human soul. The development of the universe, the introduction of plant and animal life, the formation of the first human bodies can be explained by the administrative or formative activity of God, an activity which is sometimes called second creation (secunda creatio), and does not demand the creative act as such. Catholic philosophers develop the purely rational arguments for these same positions, except for the origin of the angelic world, which of course lies beyond the sphere of philosophy. The remainder of this article will offer a summary of the aforesaid theological and philosophical positions and their bases.

III. ARGUMENTS FOR CREATION

1. For the doctrine of the Church on the origin of the spiritual world the reader is referred to the article ANGEL.

2. That the material of which the universe is composed was created out of nothing is the implicit, rather than specifically explicit, statement of the Bible. The Scriptural teaching on God and the relation of the universe to Him unmistakably affirms creation. God alone is declared to be underived, self-existent (Ex., iii, 14), and in comparison with Him all things else are as nothing (Wisdom, xi, 23; Is., xl, 17). God is said to be the beginning and end of all things (Is., xlviii, 12; Apoc., i, 8); all things else are from Him, and by Him, and in Him (Rom., xi, 36; I Cor., viii, 6; Coloss., i, 16). God is the absolute and independent sovereign (Ps. xlix, 12, and Is., xliv, 24; Heb., i, 10). That these texts equivalently assert that God is the Creator of all things finite is too obvious to call for further comment. The most explicit Scriptural statement respecting the created origin of the universe is found in the first verse of Genesis: “In the beginning God created heaven and earthy.” The objects here designated evidently comprise the material universe; whether the originative act is to be understood as specifically creative, depends upon the meaning of the Hebrew verb bara. On this point the following interpretations by unimpeachable authority may be adduced. Gesenius says: “The use of this verb [bara] in Kal, the conjugation here employed, is entirely different from its primary signification (to cut, shape, fashion); it signifies rather the new production of a thing than the shaping or elaborating of the pre-existing material. That the first verse of Genesis teaches that the original creation of the world in its rude and chaotic state was from nothing while the remaining part of the chapter teaches the elaboration and distribution of the matter thus created, the connection of the whole section shows sufficiently clearly” (Thesaurus, p. 357 b). Mühlan and Volck in the new edition of Gesenius’ “Handwörterbuch” say: “Bara is used only of Divine creation and never with an accusative of the material.” Dillmann (Gen., c. i) notes: “The Hebrews use only the conjugation Piel (intensative) in speaking of human ‘forming’ or ‘shaping,’ while on the other hand they use only Kal in speaking of creation of God.” Delitzsch says: (Gen., p. 91) “The word bara in its etymology does not exclude a previous material. lilt has, as the use of Kal shows, the fundamental idea of cutting or hewing. But as In other languages words which define creation by God have the same etymological idea at their root, so bara has acquired the idiomatic meaning of a divine creating, which, whether in the kingdom of nature, or of history, or of the spirit, calls into being that which hitherto had no existence. Bara never appears as the word for human creation, differing in this from the synonyms asah, yatzar, yalad, which are used both of men and of God; it is never used with an accusative of the material, and even from this it follows that it defines the divine creative act as one without any limitations, and its result, as to its proper material, as entirely new; and, as to its first cause, entirely the creation of divine power.” Again Kalisch observes (Gen., p. 1): “God called the universe into being out of nothing; not out of formless matter coeval with Himself” (Geikie, Hours with the Bible, I, 16).

3. The patristic teaching as to the created origin of the world is too explicit and well known to require citation here. The few ambiguous expressions occurring in the works of Origen and Tertullian are more than counterbalanced by other unmistakable declarations of these same writers, while their at most exceptional divergencies are as nothing in comparison with the unanimous and continuous teaching of the other Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

4. Approaching the problem of origin from the purely rational side, we find the field preoccupied almost from the beginning of the history of philosophy by two directly opposite solutions: one maintaining that the world-matter is self-existent, underived from any extraneous source, and hence eternal; the world has therefore attained its present complex condition by a gradual evolutionary process from an original, simple, undifferentiated state (materialistic Monism); the other asserting that the world is derived from an extraneous cause, either by emanation from or evolution of the Divine being (Pantheism) or by creation (Creationism). Creationism, though an essentially philosophical solution, is never found divorced from Revelation. Materialistic Monism includes a varying number of philosophies; but all agree in maintaining that the world-matter is eternal, unproduced, and absolutely indestructible. They differ in that some attribute the formation of the universe to chance (the ancient Atomists), others to a sort of ubiquitous cosmical life or world-soul (Anaxagoras, Plato, Panpsychists, Fechner, Lotze, Paulsen), others to forces essentially inherent in matter (Feuerbach, Büchner, Häckel). Against materialistic Monism Catholic philosophers (Creationists) argue thus: The world-matter is not self-existent; for what is self-existent is essentially necessary, immutable, absolute, infinite. But the world-matter is not necessary; its essence as such furnishes no reason why it should exist rather than not exist, nor why it is definitely determined as to number, extension, and space. It is not immutable, for it undergoes incessant change; not absolute, since it depends upon the natural forces which condition its states; not infinite as to extent, since, being extended, it is numerable, and hence finite; nor infinite in active power, since it is inert and essentially limited by external stimulation. The aggregate of natural forces must also be finite, otherwise there could be no change, no laws of inertia, no constancy and equivalence of energy. The world-substance is not eternal. For that substance must be conceived either as possessing eternal motion or not. If eternally active it would have passed through an infinite number of changes, which is self-contradictory. Moreover, the supposed evolutionary process would not have begun so late as geology teaches that it did, and would long since have come to an end, i. e. to a static equilibrium of forces according to the law of entropy. If the primal matter was not endowed with an eternal activity, evolution could not have begun—not from within, the law of inertia forbidding; nor from without, since the materialistic hypothesis admits no extraneous cause. Moreover, since chance is no cause, but the negation thereof, some reason must be assigned for the differentiation of the original material into the various chemical elements and compounds. That reason may be supposed. either intrinsic or extrinsic to the primary matter. If intrinsic, it does not explain why just these elements (or compounds) in kind and number become differentiated; if extrinsic, the supposition contradicts the very basis of materialism which negates transmaterial agency.

A similar line of argument may be used to prove the impossibility of explaining, on the materialistic hypothesis, the order prevailing everywhere throughout the universe. To the counter argument that, given an infinite series of atomic arrangements, the present order must needs result, it may be answered:

the origin of both atoms and motion still remains unexplained;

an infinite series of combinations would demand infinite time, while geology indicates a limited time for the earth’s formation;

some sort of order might result from a chance concurrence of atoms, but no constant and universal order;

the present order presupposes some disposition of the elements for this rather than another order.

Now the question still remains: Whence came precisely this disposition, and why did not the atoms concur in a way unfavourable to a continuous evolution, since the number of possible arrangements of an infinite number of atoms must be infinite?

The hypothesis of a world-soul exhibits another coup of inconsistencies. If the universe were “informed” by a principle of life, there would not be that essential difference between inanimate and animate bodies which both science and philosophy establish; inanimate bodies would manifest signs of life, such as spontaneous and immanent activity, organs, etc. The materialistic principle, “No matter without force, no force without matter” (Büchner), though, with some obvious qualification, true as to its first part, is untrue as to its second. Force is the proximate principle of action, and may be or not be, but it is not of necessity conjoined with matter. The principle of action in man is not intrinsically dependent on matter.—For the development of these and more serious arguments against materialistic Monism see “Institutiones Philosophiæ Naturalis,” by Willems or Pesch.

Pantheistic differs from materialistic Monism in asserting a being, in some sense unitary, which unfolds itself in the material universe and in human consciousness. That such a being is called “God” is an obvious misuse of language. Moreover, God is indivisible, spiritual, eternal, necessary, immutable, omnipresent, absolute, and cannot, therefore, “evolve” into a universe of matter which possesses just the contrary attributes. For a like reason bodies cannot be modes, either real (Spinoza) or logical (Hegel), of the divine substance. Since, then, the world-material is not self-existent, but produced, and that not from some antecedent material (for such a supposition would only defer and not solve the problem); since, moreover, the world-substance has not emanated from the divine nature, it follows that it must have been produced by some extraneous cause, from no pre-existing materia, i. e. it must have been created. That that extraneous cause is God, the self-existent, necessary, absolute, infinite, and consequently personal Deity, is proved from the finality and order manifest in the cosmos that has developed from the original material, which order demands an efficient and a directive cause of supreme if not infinite intelligence; and from the further fact that the creative act can proceed only from a truly infinite and therefore personal agent, as will be shown towards the end of this article.

To the question: In what condition was the world-matter created, whether homogeneous or differentiated into various specific substances? neither Revelation nor science gives answer. Until lately the practically universal opinion of Catholic philosophers favoured an original essential differentiation of the elements. Since, however, the tendency of physico-chemical experimentation and inference now points with some probability to a radical homogeneity of matter, and since philosophy is bound to reduce the world to its fewest and simplest principles, the opinion seems justified that the original matter was created actually undifferentiated, but with inherent potency toward elemental and, subsequently, compound diversification through the action, reaction, and grouping of the ultimate particles.

When—probably through some such processes as are suggested by the well-known nebular hypothesis (Kant, Laplace) and by the inductions of geology—the material universe was disposed for the simplest forms of life, then God said: “Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done” (Gen., i, 11)—the work of the third creative day. At a subsequent, “God created the great whales and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind” (ib., 21)—the work of the fifth day. And again, “God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind” (ib., 24, 25)—part of the work of the sixth day. In these simple words the inspired author of Genesis describes the advent of life, plant and animal, on our earth. It does not fall within the scope of the present article to discuss the various meanings that have been assigned to “the days of creation.” Suffice it to say that Catholic exegetes are allowed the widest liberty of interpretation compatible with the obvious substance and purport of the sacred narrative, viz., that God is “the creator of heaven and earth.” Accordingly, we find some theologians following St. Augustine (In Gen. ad litt., I), that the six days signify only a logical (not a real) succession, i. e. in the order in which the creative works were manifested to the angels. Others interpret the days as indefinite cosmical periods. Others, though these are at present a vanishing number, still follow the literal interpretation. An immense amount of time, patient research, and ingenuity has been spent in the task of harmonizing the successive stages of terrestrial evolution, as deciphered by geologists from the records of the rocks, with the Mosaic narrative; but the highest tribute to the success of these efforts is that they more or less graphically corroborate what must be already a priori certain and evident, at least to the believer, that between the truth of Revelation and the truth of science there is, and can be, no discord. But whatever may be thought of the effort to vindicate in detail the parallelism claimed to exist between the geological succession of living forms and the order described in the Bible, it is certain that some general parallelism exists; that the testimony of the strata corroborates the story of the Book, according to which the lowliest forms of plant life, “the green herb,” appeared first, then the higher, “the seed-bearing tree,” followed in turn by the simpler animal types, the water creature and the winged fowl, and finally by the highest organisms, “the beasts of the earth and the cattle.”

IV. CREATION AND EVOLUTION

If now, from the general interpretation of the Biblical account of creation, we turn to the biologico-philosophical problems which it suggests, and which revert to it for what solution it may have to offer, we find Catholic thinkers exercising an equally large liberty of speculation. “Considered in connection with the entire account of creation,” says a recent eminent Jesuit exegete, “the words of Genesis cited above proximately maintain nothing else than that the earth with all that it contains and bears, together with the plant and animal kingdoms, has not produced itself nor is the work of chance; but owes its existence to the power of God. However, in what particular manner the plant and animal kingdoms received their existence: whether all species were created simultaneously or only a few which were destined to give life to others: whether only one fruitful seed was placed on mother earth, which under the influence of natural causes developed into the first plants, and another infused into the waters gave birth to the first animals—all this the Book of Genesis leaves to our own investigation and to the revelations of science, if indeed science is able at all to give a final and unquestionable decision. In other words, the article of faith contained in Genesis remains firm and intact even if one explains the manner in which the different species originated according to the principle of the theory of evolution” (Knabenbauer, “Stimmen aus Maria-Laach,” XIII, 74; cf. Muckermann, “Attitude of Catholics towards Darwinism and Evolution,” 78.) The two general biological problems connected with the Biblical cosmogony are the origin of life and the succession of organisms. Concerning both these problems all that Catholic Faith teaches is that the beginnings of plant and animal life are due in some way to the productive power of God. Whether, with St. Augustine and St. Thomas, one hold that only the primordial elements, endowed with dispositions and powers (rationes seminales) for development, were created in the strict sense of the term, and the rest of nature—plant and animal life—was gradually evolved according to a fixed order of natural operation under the supreme guidance of the Divine Administration (Harper, “Metaphysics of the School,” II, 746); or whether, with other Fathers and Doctors of the School, one hold that life and the classes of living beings—orders, families, genera, species—were each and all, or only some few, strictly and immediately created by God—whichever of these extreme views he may deem more rational and better motived, the Catholic thinker is left perfectly free by his faith to select. It is well known that the theory of spontaneous generation of certain animalculæ, worms, insects, etc. was held by theologians and philosophers alike until comparatively recent times, until, indeed, experimental evidence demonstrated the opposite thesis. The establishment of the universal truth of biogenesis (q. v.), omne vivum ex vivo, was then seen to corroborate the teaching of the Bible, that life, plant and animal, is due to the Divine productive agency. Since the characteristics of living substance are contrary to those of the non-living substance, the characteristics of life being spontaneity and immanent activity, those of inanimate matter being inertia and transitive activity, the Divine efficiency, to which the origin and differentiation of life are ascribed, has received the distinctive name of administration. The idea conveyed by the latter term is thus explained by a philosopher who has drawn it out from the suggestion supplied by St. Thomas. (De Potentiâ, Q. iv.) Though God can operate as He does in the creative act, without the cooperation of the creature, it is absolutely impossible for the creature to elicit even the smallest act without the co-operation of the Creator. Now the Divine Administration includes this and more, two things, namely, as regards the present subject. The one is the constant order, the natural laws, of the universe. Thus, e.g., that all living things should be ordinately propagated by seed belongs to the Divine Administration. The second, which may be called exceptional, relates to the initial organisms, the first plant, fish, bird, and beast, upon which hereditary propagation must have subsequently succeeded. That these original pairs should have been evolved out of the potency of matter without parentage—that the matter, otherwise incapable of the task, should have been proximately disposed for such evolution—belongs to a special Divine Administration. In other words, God must have been the sole efficient cause—utilizing, of course, the material cause—of the organization requisite, and hence may strictly be said to have formed such pairs, and in particular the human body, out of the pre-existent matter (Harper, op. cit., 743). It need hardly be said that the distinctions between creation and co-operation, administration and formation, are not to be considered as subjectively realized in God. They are only so many aspects which the analytical mind must take note of in the fundamental and essential relation of dependence—contingency—in which the creature stands to the First Cause. For a sympathetic account of the relation of Evolutionism to Creationism, the reader may be referred to Muckermann (who has popularized Wasmann’s technical illustrations of specific transformations among the ant-guests), Harper, Mivart, Guibert, Didiot, Farges, etc., mentioned in the bibliography below. A more vigorous criticism of Evolutionism is to be found in the works of Gerard, Gutberlet, Pesch, Willems, Hunter, Thein, and Hughes.

V. FINAL CAUSE OF CREATION

Since the production of something from nothing, the bridging of the chasm between non-existence and existence demands infinite power, and since the reason for the action of an infinite being must lie within that being Himself, the primary subjective motive of creation must be the Creator’s love of His own intrinsic goodness. The love of that absolute good is conceived by us as “inducing” the Creator to give it an extrinsic embodiment (creation in its passive sense, the universe). The type-idea according to which this embodiment is constructed must exist within the Creator’s intelligence and as such is called the “exemplary” or archetypal cause of creation (passive). The objective realization hereof is the absolute final objective end, or final cause, of creation. In the material universe this realization, exhibited in the purposiveness of each individual part conspiring to the purposiveness of the whole, remains imperfect and is but a vestige of the original design. In the rational creature it reaches a certain completeness, inasmuch as man’s personality, with its intellectual and volitional endowments, is a sort of (analogous) “image” of the Creator, and, as such, a more perfect realization of the creative plan. Moreover, in man’s consciousness the creative purpose comes to explicit manifestation and reflective recognition. His intelligent reaction thereon by reverential attitude and orderly conduct realizes the absolutely final purpose of creation, the actual “formal glorifying” of the Creator, so far as that is possible in the present life. But even as the orderly or normal activity of the individual organisms and subordinate parts of the universe develop and complete those organisms and parts, so man’s rational conduct perfects him and, as a consequence, results in a state of happiness, the full complement whereof is attainable, however, only in a life beyond the present. This completion and happiness of man are said to be the relatively ultimate end of creation, and thereby the creative plan is absolutely completed, the Creator finally explicitly formally glorified by the return of the creation, carried up by and in man to conscious inter-communion with the Source and End of the creative act. Lactantius thus sums up the hierarchy of finality in creation: “The world was made that we might be born. We were born that we might know God. We know Him that we may worship Him. We worship Him that we may earn immortality. We are rewarded with immortality that, being like unto the angels, we may serve Our Father and Lord forever, and be the eternal kingdom of God” (Instit., VII, vi). When man is said to be the (relatively) ultimate end of creation, this obviously does not exclude other coexistent and subordinate purposes.

VI. CREATION THE PREROGATIVE OF GOD ALONE

The Fourth Lateran Council defined that “God is the sole principle of all things visible and invisible, the creator of all” [Denzinger, op. cit., 428 (355)]; and the Bible throughout ascribes the creative act to Him alone: “I am the Lord, that make all things . . . and there is none with me” (Is., xliv, 24; cf. xl, 25; Ps cxxxv, 4). As to the question, whether it is intrinsically possible for a creature to be endowed with creative power, theologians answer with a distinction.

(1) No creature can possibly be a principal cause of creation. This is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers. The philosophical reasons are:

the creative act, being absolutely independent of material and instrument, supposes an absolutely independent subject (agent);

the term of the creative act is the complete substance of the effect (spiritual or material), and the act can extend indefinitely to whatever is intrinsically possible, while the act of the created agent reaches only to the accidents, or partial constituents, of bodies, and is definitely limited in range;

the creative act produces its effects by will alone; it is immanent, while its term is extraneous; it is as unlimited as is the extent of will power; it is instantaneous. No finite cause can thus operate.

(2) Some theologians (Peter the Lombard and Suarez) have thought that a creature might be used by God as an instrumental cause of creation. The general opinion, however, is to the contrary, on the ground that since creation excludes materia ex quâ there is no subject whereon the dispositive influence of an instrument could be exerted.

God was absolutely free to create or not to create, and to create the present or any possible world. This is an article of Catholic Faith defined by the Vatican Council (Can., De Deo Creante, v). It is the explicit teaching of Scripture, God “worketh all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph., i, 11), and of the Fathers generally. It is an obvious rational deduction from the infinitude and absolute self-sufficiency of God. The creative act, as a subjective aspect of the Divine Will, is necessary, but the external positing of a term is free. This doctrine of creative freedom excludes the exaggerated optimism of Leibniz and others, who held that God was bound to create the best possible world. The Divine act must be perfect, but the effect need not, and indeed cannot, be absolutely perfect; the creature being necessarily finite, a more perfect creature is always possible and creatable by infinite power. The world is the very best possible for the Creator’s purpose; it is relatively, not absolutely, perfect. (See OPTIMISM.)

VII. THE WORLD WAS CREATED IN TIME, NOT FROM ETERNITY

The Vatican Council defined that God created ab initio temporis. The opening words of Genesis, “In the beginning God created,” are re-echoed in similar phrases throughout the Bible. The Fathers reiterate the same teaching. As to the question, whether eternal creation is intrinsically possible, St. Thomas, in his solicitude that infidels might have no ground to cavil with the arguments which believers assign for the temporal origin of creation (passive), says: “That the world has not always existed is held by faith alone, and cannot be demonstrated” (Summa, I, Q. xlvi, a. 2). St. Bonaventure and many others maintain that the inherent impossibility of eternal creation is demonstrable. Arguments too subtle for discussion here are adduced by both sides of the controversy.

VIII. SPECULATIVE AND PRACTICAL POSITION OF THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION

From what has been said it follows that belief “in God the Creator of heaven and earth” is the theoretical basis of all religious and theological truth, the real foundation underlying all other truths concerning God, and the objective principle whence all other truths proceed. The Incarnation completes in the supernatural order the creative purpose and plan by the Divine Personal Idea, the Word, assuming to Himself man’s nature, wherein the natural order of creation is synthesized, and thus carrying back completely the whole creation to its origin and end. The Redemption, the Church, and the sacramental system are obviously the extension of the Incarnation, and so, through the medium of the latter mystery, follow from creation. The proposition that the Infinite is the absolutely primary source of all other reality is also the first philosophical truth, not of course in our order of attainment but in itself. All created being, truth, goodness, beauty, perfection are eminently contained in the Creator’s essence, conceptually in His creative intelligence, potentially in His creative omnipotence, and are determined to their measure of actual objective existence by the creative will. The real distinction of the finite from the Infinite opposes every form of exaggerated monism, while the entitative contingency and dependence of the creature on the Creator refutes an exaggerated dualism. A rational mediating dualistic monism is based on the truth of creation. Lastly, the end and purpose of creation sets before man the first ideal and norm of life; and thus the final reason of the distinction between right and wrong conduct is found in the conformity of the one and the difformity of the other with the orginal exemplar in the Creator’s mind. Acting up to his complete nature, man is at once self-consistent and accordant proximately with the created copy and hence mediately accordant with the original pattern in the eternal design of his Creator.

(See COSMOLOGY, COSMOGONY, EVOLUTION, GOD, LIFE, MAN, SOUL, WORLD, MATERIALISM, PANTHEISM.)

HARPER, Metaphysics of the School (New York, 1881), II; MIVART, Lessons from Nature (New York, 1876); ID., Genesis of Species (New York, 1871); GUIBERT, Les origines, tr. In the Beginning (New York, 1901); GERARD. Evolutionary Philosophy and Common Sense (London, 1902); MUCKERMANN, Attitude of the Catholics towards Darwinism and Evolution (St. Louis, 1906); HUGHES, Principles of Anthropology and Biology (New York, 1890); CLERKE, Modern Cosmogonies (London, 1905); THEIN, Christian Anthropology (New York, 1881); VAUGHAN, Faith and Folly (London, 1901); HUNTER, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology (New York 1906), II; WILHELM AND SCANNELL, Manual of Catholic theology (New York, 1890), I; McCOSH, Realistic Philosophy (New York, 1881); WALLACE, Darwinism (New York, 1881); SHIELDS, Ultimate Philosophy (New York, 1905), III; CROLL Basis of Evolution (London, 1890); WILLEMS, institutiones Philosophiæ (Treves, 1906) II; PESCH, Welträtsel (Freiburg, 1907); Prælectiones Philosophiæ Naturalis (Freiburg, 1897); DIDIOT, Contribution philosophique à l’étude des sciences (Lille, 1902); GUTBERLET, Apologetik (Münster, 1895); Der Mensch (Münster, 1905); MERCIER, La psychologie, (Louvain, 1905); FARGES, La vie et l’évolution des espèces (Paris, 1894); PESCH, Prælectiones Dogmaticæ; De Deo Creante (Freiburg, 1895); VAN NOORT, De Deo Creante (Amsterdam, 1903); PINARD in Dict. de théol. cath., s. v.—the most thorough and best documented monograph on the subject.

F.P. SIEGFRIED

Creationism

(Lat. creatio).

(1) In the widest sense, the doctrine that the material of the universe was created by God out of no pre-existing subject. It is thus opposed to all forms of Pantheism.

(2) Less widely, the doctrine that the various species of living beings were immediately and directly created or produced by God, and are not therefore the product of an evolutionary process. It is thus opposed to Transformism.

(3) In a restricted but more usual sense, the doctrine that the individual human soul is the immediate effect of God’s creative act. It is thus opposed to Traducianism. The first two acceptations of the term are treated in the article CREATION; the third alone is here considered. The proposition that the human soul is immediately created by God is a corollary of the soul’s spirituality. Certain psychical phenomena, viz. intellectual and volitional—especially when they regard immaterial objects—indicate that their radical principle subsists essentially and intrinsically independent of the purely corporeal organism. This transmaterial subsistence supposes a corresponding mode of origin; for that the soul must have had a beginning follows obviously from its finitude and contingency. That origin cannot be:

by way of emanation from God, as Pantheists declare, since the Divine substance, being absolutely simple, cannot be subject to any emissional process;

nor by spiritual generation from the souls of parents—as the German theologian Frohschammer (1821–1893) maintained—because human souls, being essentially and integrally simple and indivisible, can give forth no spiritual germs or reproductive elements;

still less by physical generation (as corporeal Traducianists suppose), since such a mode of production plainly conflicts both with the essential simplicity and the spirituality of the soul.

The only other intelligible source of the soul’s existence is God; and since the characteristic and exclusive act of the Divine Cause is creation, the soul must owe its origin to that operation. As regards the time when the individual soul is created, philosophical speculation varies. The ancient Platonic doctrine of the pre-natal existence of souls and their subsequent incarceration in bodies may be passed over as poetic fiction and not scientific theory. The same may be said of the ancient hypothesis of transmigration, which, however, still survives in Buddhism and is revived by recent Theosophy. Besides being entirely gratuitous, metempsychosis rests on a false view which conceives of body and soul as only accidentally, not essentially, combined in the unity of the human person. The traditional philosophy of the Church holds that the rational soul is created at the moment when it is infused into the new organism. St. Thomas, following Aristotle’s embryology, taught that the human foetus passes through progressive stages of formation wherein it is successively animated by the vegetative, sensitive, and rational principles, each succeeding form summing up virtually the potencies of its predecessor. Accordingly, the rational soul is created when the antecedent principles of life have rendered the foetus an appropriate organism for rational life, though some time is required after birth before the sensory organs are sufficiently developed to assist in the functions of intelligence. In this view the embryonic history of man is an epitome of the stages through which the upward march of life on our globe is now held by palæontologists to have passed. On the other hand, most neo-Scholastics hold that the rational soul is created and infused into the incipient human being at the moment of conception. It should be noted that the doctrine of Creationism is not an appeal to the supernatural or the “miraculous” to account for a natural effect. The creation of the soul by the First Cause, when second causes have posited the pertinent conditions, falls within the order of nature; it is a so-called “law of nature,” not an interference therewith, as is the case in a miracle.

So much for the philosphical or purely rational aspect of Creationism; as regards the theological, it should be noted that while none of the Fathers maintained Traducianism—the parental generation of the soul—as a certainty, some of them, notably St. Augustine, at the outbreak of Pelagianism, began to doubt the creation by god of the individual soul (there was never any doubt as to the created origin of the souls of Adam and Eve), and to incline to the opposite opinion, which seemed to facilitate the explanation of the transmission of original sin. Thus, writing to St. Jerome, St. Augustine says: “If that opinion of the creation of new souls is not opposed to this established article of faith [sc. original sin] let it be also mine; if it is, let it not be thine” (Ep. clxvi, n.25). Theodorus Abucara (Opusc. xxxv), Macarius (Hom. xxx), and St. Gregory of Nyssa (De Opif., Hom., c. xxix) favoured this view. Amongst the Scholastics there were no defenders of Traducianism. Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacr., VII, c. xii) and Alexander of Hales (Summa, I, Q. lx, mem. 2, a. 3) alone characterize Creationism as the more probable opinion; all the other Schoolmen hold it as certain and differ only in regard to the censure that should be attached to the opposite error. Thus Peter Lombard simply says: “The Catholic Church teaches that souls are created at their infusion into the body” (Sent. II, d. xviii); while St. Thomas is more emphatic: “It is heretical to say that the intellectual soul is transmitted by process of generation” (I, Q. cxviii, a. 2). For the rest, the following citation from the Angelic Doctor sums up the diverse opinions: “Regarding this question various opinions were expressed in antiquity. Some held that the soul of a child is produced by the soul of the parent just as the body is generated by the parent-body. Others maintained that all souls are created apart, moreover that they are united with their respective bodies, either by their own volition or by the command and action of God. Others again, declared that the soul in the moment of its creation is infused into the body. Though for a time these several views were upheld, and though it was doubtful which came nearest the truth (as appears from Augustine’s commentary on Gen., x, and from his books on the origin of the soul), the Church subsequently condemned the first two and approved the third” (De Potentiâ, Q. iii, a. 9). Others (e.g. Gregory of Valencia) speak of Generationism as “certainly erroneous,” or (e.g. Estius) as maxime temerarius. It should, however, be noted that while there are no such explicit definitions authoritatively put forth by the Church as would warrant our calling the doctrine of Creationism de fide, nevertheless, as a recent eminent theologian observes, “there can be no doubt as to which view is favoured by ecclesiastical authority” (Pesch, Præl. Dogm., V, 3, p. 66). Leo IX (1050), in the symbol presented to the Bishop Peter for subscription, lays down: “I believe and profess that the soul is not a part of God, but is created out of nothing, and that, without baptism, it is in original sin” (Denzinger, Enchir., n. 296). That the soul sinned in its pre-existent state, and on that account was incarcerated in the body, is a fiction which has been repeatedly condemned by the Church. Divested of this fiction, the theory that the soul exists prior to its infusion into the organism, while not explicitly reprobated, is obviously opposed to the doctrine of the Church, according to which souls are multiplied correspondingly with the multiplication of human organisms (Conc. Lat. V, in Denzinger, op. cit., 621). But whether the rational soul is infused into the organism at conception, as the modern opinion holds, or some weeks subsequently, as the Scholastics suppose (St. Thomas, Q. i a. 2, ad 2), is an open question with theologians (Kleutgen, Phil. d. Vorzeit, II, 657). (See also MAN; METEMPSYCHOSIS; SOUL; TRADUCIANISM.)

MAHER, Psychology (New York, 1903); MIVART, Origin of Human Reason (London, 1889); DRISCOLL, The Soul (New York, 1898); MERCIER, La Psychologie (Louvain, 1905); GUTBERLET, Psychologie (Munich, 1896).

F.P. SIEGFRIED

Credence

(Or Credence-Table).

A small table of wood, marble, or other suitable material placed within the sanctuary of a church and near the wall at the Epistle side, for the purpose of holding the cruets, acolytes’ candles, and other utensils required for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice. The credence, properly so called, is contemplated only in connexion with solemn Masses; on it the chalice, paten, corporal, and veil are placed from the beginning of the Mass until the Offertory. When a bishop celebrates, it should be of larger dimensions than usual, the ordinary size being about forty inches long, twenty broad, and thirty-six high. On very solemn festivals it should be covered with a linen cloth extending to the ground on all sides, on less solemn occasions the cloth should not extend so far, while on days of simple rite it should merely cover the superficies. For low Masses the rubrics contemplate a niche or bracket in the wall, or some small arrangement for holding the cruets, finger-bowl, and towel, but custom now favours the use of a credence-table.

Cæremoniale Episcoporum, I, xii sq.; Rubr. Gen. Miss., XX; VAN DER STAPPEN, De Missæ Celebratione (Mechlin, 1902).

PATRICK MORRISROE.

Lorenzo di Credi

Florentine painter, b. at Florence, 1459; d. there, 1537. Vasari gives his family name as Sciarpelloni, but his original name seems to have been Barducci. He was a pupil first of the goldsmith Credi, from whom he took his name, and then of the sculptor Verrocchio, having as fellow-pupils Perugino and Leonardo da Vinci. To the latter painter Lorenzo attached himself in terms of friendship, and he copied the manner of Leonardo with great success. When Verrocchio went to Venice to cast the bronze equestrian statue of Colleoni, he left to Lorenzo the entire administration of all his affairs, and in his will charged him to complete the statue, which he had been unable to finish, adding the following remark: “Because he has the ability to finish it properly.” Leonardo was, however, instructed by the Venetians to complete the figure. Di Credi was a devout follower of Savonarola and a man of deeply religious character. He was an eminent portrait-painter, and his religious pictures were in great demand for the churches and convents of Florence and the neighbourhood. One of the finest is at Pistoja, originally painted for the hospital of the Ceppo. The portrait of Verrocchio is at Florence. Other examples are at Berlin, Dresden, London, Paris, Rome, and Turin. They are all remarkable for their magnificence of colour, exquisite composition, but extraordinary rigidity of drapery, the folds having the appearance of metal work in many cases and revealing the original training as a goldsmith which the artist received. He died at the age of seventy-eight in his own house in Florence, near Santa Maria Nuova, and was buried in San Pietro Maggiore. A little while before his death he bequeathed to the hospital of Santa Maria Nuova a farm which he had purchased at Casciano. He was said to have been a very slow painter, but took immense pains in the execution of all he did, prepared and ground all his own colours, and finished his paintings with exquisite refinement and care.

VASARI, Vite dei pittori (1550); BOTTARI, Note alle vite dei pittori (Rome, 1767–72); IDEM, Lettere Pittoriche (Rome, 1754–59); IDEM, Dialoghi (Lucca, 1754); unpublished MSS. of ORETTI at Bologna; BRYAN, Dict. of Painters and Engravers (New York, London, 1903); BURLINGTON FINE ARTS CLUB, Catalogues.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Cree

(A contraction of Cristino or Kenisteno, their Ojibwa name, of uncertain meaning; they commonly called themselves simply Eythinyuwuk, men).

The largest and most important Indian tribe of Canada, and one of the largest north of Mexico. They are part of the great Algonquin stock and closely related to their southern neighbours, the Ojibwa, although only remotely cognate to the Blackfeet, farther to the west. Until confined to reservations their various bands held most of the extensive territory about Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba, the lower Red and Saskatchewan, and eastward to the country of the Maskegon about Hudson Bay, from whom they are hardly to be distinguished. Most of their former territory is now included in the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Assiniboia, and Saskatchewan. Their chief alliance was with the Assiniboin; their wars were with the Sioux, Blackfeet, and northern Tinneh tribes. With both French and English they have generally been on friendly terms. When first known to the Jesuit missionaries, about the year 1650, the Cree lived farther to the south-east, but, on obtaining firearms from the English trading posts established on Hudson Bay some twenty years later, they pushed out into the open plains in search of buffalo. They drove the Blackfeet before them, and at the same time began a war of invasion and extermination against the weaker Tinneh tribes, as far even as the Mackenzie River and the Rocky Mountains. A great small-pox epidemic in 1781 so far reduced their numbers that they retired south of Churchill River, which has since remained the extreme limit of their claims in that direction.

In physique and intelligence the Cree do not differ markedly from the general Indian type, but are perhaps slightly below the general “plains” standard. Mackenzie, who knew them before they had been greatly modified by contact with whites, describes them (1790) as naturally generous, good-tempered, and honest. Their primitive weapons and utensils were fashioned from stone, bone, and horn. They used the canoe of birch-bark, and the tipi of buffalo skins. They had no agriculture or pottery-art, but their women were expert skin-dressers and workers in porcupine quills. For their food they depended upon fishing, hunting, and gathering of wild roots and fruits. Wild plums and cherries were pounded, dried, and preserved in rawhide bags or boxes. Buffalo meat was cut into strips and dried in the sun for immediate use, or was pounded, covered with melted grease, and kept in skin bags as pemmican for winter. Two pounds of this was a sufficient day’s rations for a man. Their clothing was of dressed skills; their ornamentation and style of hair-cut varied in different bands. Their dead were buried in the ground under a mound of stones, instead of being placed upon scaffolds or in the branches of trees, as was done by the Sioux and others. In accordance with general Indian customs, the personal belongings of the decreased were buried with him or destroyed near the grave. Polygamy was common, and a man might marry two sisters at once from the same family. There was no trace of the clan system, as was known among the eastern and southern tribes. They sacrificed to a number of gods, their principal myths centring about a supernatural hero called Wisukatcak. They were also great believers in conjurations and witchcraft, and had an influential order of priesthood in four degrees. Their great religious ceremony was the annual Sun Dance. Their two main divisions were distinguished as Wood and Plain Cree, each of which was again subdivided by bands differentiated by slight peculiarities of dialect and custom. With these were sometimes included the Muskegon, under the name of Swampy Cree. On account of the wide extent of the former Cree, the early estimates of the Cree populations vary widely greatly. They number now about 15,000, of whom two-thirds are located upon reservations in Ma nitoba.

The earliest missionaries in the Cree country were the French Jesuits, who accompanied the commander Verendrye in his explorations of the Saskatchewan and Missouri River region from 1731 to 1742. Chief among these were Father Nicholas Gonnor, Charles Mesaiger, and Jean Aulneau. No attempt was made at this time to found permanent mission settlements, and the work thus begun was allowed to lapse in consequence of the withdrawal of the French from Canada until after the establishment of the Red River colony by Lord Selkirk. In 1818 Father Joseph Norbert Provencher and Sèvére Dumoulin established the first regular mission station at St. Boniface, opposite the present city of Winnipeg. In 1822 Father Provencher was made bishop, with jurisdiction over all of Rupert’s Land and the Northwest Territories, and at once proceeded to organize a systematic mission work throughout the whole vast region. Upon his death in 1853 he was succeeded by the noted Oblate Father Alexander Taché, who had come out eight years before. Among other distinguished workers in the same field, all Oblates, may be noted Father Albert Lacombe, author of a monumental grammar and dictionary of the Cree language, besides a number of religious and other translations; Father Valentine Végréville, founder of five missions and author of a manuscript grammar and dictionary of the Cree language, Father John Thibault; and Father Emile Petitot, better known for his great work among the remote Tinneh and Eskimo tribes. The Fathers were sisters of the Order of Gray Nuns. Protestant work was begun by the Episcopalian Rev. John west, as chaplain for the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1820, the Wesleyan Methodists and Presbyterians coming later. The most distinguished Protestant worker was the Wesleyan Rev. James Evan (1840–1861), inventor of the Cree syllabary, which for half a century has been in successful use in the tribe for literary purposes for all denominations. Of the whole number of Cree officially reported as Christian the majority are Catholic and rank high in morality.

Bryce, Hudson’s Bay Company (1900); Canadian Indian Reports; Thwaites, Jesuit Relations (Cleveland, 1896–1901; Lacombe, Dict. des Cris (1874); Mackenzie, Voyages (1802); McLean, Canadian Savage Folk (1896); Petitot, in Journal Roy. Geog. Soc. (1883); Pilli ng, Bibl. of the Algonquian Languages (1891); Richardson, Arctic Expedition (1861).

JAMES MOONEY

Creed

(Latin credo, I believe).

In general, a form of belief. The work, however, as applied to religious belief has received a variety of meanings, two of which are specially important. (1) It signifies the entire body of beliefs held by the adherents of a given religion; and in this sense it is equivalent doctrine or to faith where the latter is used in its objective meaning. Such is its signification in expressions like “the conflict of creeds,” “charitable works irrespective of creed,” “the ethics of conformity of creed,” etc. (2) In a somewhat narrower sense, a creed is a summary of the principal articles of faith professed by church or community of believers. Thus by the “creeds of Christendom” are understood those formulations of the Christian faith which at various times have been drawn up and accepted by one or the other of the Christian churches. The Latins designate the creed in this sense by the name symbolum which means either a sign (symbolon) or a collection (symbole). A creed, then, would be the distinctive mark of those who hold a given belief, or a formula made up of the principal articles of that belief. A “profession of faith” is enjoined by the Church on special occasions, as at the consecration of a bishop; while the phrase “confession of faith” is commonly applied to Protestant formularies, such as the “Augsburg Confession,” the “Confession of Basle,” etc. It should be noted, however, that the role of Faith is not identical with creed, but, in its formal signification, means the norm or standard by which one ascertains what doctrines are to be believed.

The principal creeds of the Catholic Church, The Apostles,’ Athanasian, and the Nicene, are treated in special articles which enter into the historical details and the content of each. The liturgical use of the Creed is also explained in a separate article. For the present purpose it is chiefly important to indicate the function of the creed in the life of religion and especially in the work of the Catholic Church. That the teachings of Christianity were to be cast in some definite form is evidently implied in the commission given the Apostles (Matt. xxviii, 19–20). Since they were to teach all nations to observe whatsoever Christ had commanded, and since this teaching was to carry the weight of authority, not merely of opinion, it was necessary to formulate at last the essential doctrines. Such formulation was all the more needful because Christianity was destined for all men and for all ages. To preserve unity of belief itself was quite clearly stated. The creed, therefore, is fundamentally an authoritative declaration of the truths that are to be believed.

The Church, moreover, was organized as a visible society (see CHURCH). Its members were called on not only to hold fast the teaching they had received, but also to express their beliefs. As St. Paul says: “With her heart we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation” (Romans x, 10). Nor is the Apostle content with vague or indefinite statements; he insists that his followers shall “hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me in faith” (II Tim. i, 13), “embracing that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he (the bishop) may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers (Titus i, 9). Hence we can understand that a profession of faith was required of those who were to be baptized, as in the case of the eunuch (Acts viii, 37); in fact the baptismal formula prescribed by Christ himself is an expression of faith in the Blessed Trinity. Apart then from the question regarding the composition of the Apostles’ Creed, it is clear that from the beginning, and even before the New Testament had been written, some doctrinal formula, however concise, would have been employed both to secure uniformity in teaching and to place beyond doubt the belief of those who were admitted into the Church.

Along with the diffusion of Christianity there sprang up in the course of time various heretical views regarding the doctrines of faith. It thus became necessary to define the truth of revelation more clearly. The creed, in consequence, underwent modification, not by the introduction of new doctrines, but by the expression of the traditional belief in terms that left no room for error or misunderstanding. In this way the “Filioque” was added to the Nicene and the Tridentine Profession forth in full and definite statements the Catholic Faith on those points especially which the Reformers of the sixteenth century had assailed. At other times the circumstances required that special formulas should be drawn up in order to have the teaching of the Church explicitly stated and accepted; such was the profession of faith prescribed For the Greeks by Gregory XIII and that which Urban VIII and Benedict XIV prescribed for the Orientals(cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion). The creed therefore, is to be regarded not as a lifeless formula, but rather as a manifestation of the Church’s vitality. As these formulas preserve intact the faith once delivered to the saints, they are also an effectual means of warding off the incessant attacks of error.

On the other hand it should be remarked that the authoritative promulgation of a creed and its acceptance imply no infringement of the rights of reason. The mind tents naturally to express itself and especially to utter its thought in the form of language. Such expression, again, results in greater clearness and a firmer possession of the mental content. Whoever, then, really believes in the truths of Christianity cannot consistently object to such manifestation of his belief as the use of the creed implies It is also obviously illogical to condemn this use on the ground that is makes religion simply an affair of repeating or subscribing empty formulas. The Church insists that the internal belief is the essential element, but this must find its outward expression. While the duty of believing rests on each individual, there are further obligations resulting from the social organization of the Church. Not only is each member obliged to refrain from what would weaken the faith of his fellow-believers, he is also bound, so far as he is able, to uphold and quicken their belief, The profession of his faith as set forth in the creed is at once an object-lesson in loyalty and a means of strengthening the bonds which unite the followers of Christ in “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

Such motives are plainly of no avail where the selection of his beliefs is left to the individual. He may, of course, adopt a series of articles or propositions and call it a creed; but it remains his private possession, and any attempt on this part to demonstrate its correctness can only result in disagreement. But the attempt itself would be inconsistent, since he must concede to every one else the same right in the matter of framing a creed. The final consequence must be, therefore, that faith is reduced to the level of views, opinions, or theories such as are entertained on purely scientific matters. Hence it is not easy to explain, on the basis of consistence, the action of the Protestant Reformers. Had the principle of private judgment been fully and strictly carried out, the formulation of creeds would have been unnecessary and, logically, impossible. The subsequent course of events has shown how little was to be accomplished by confession of faith, once the essential element of authority was rejected, From the inevitable multiplication of creeds has developed, in large measure, that demand for a “creedless Gospel” which contrasts so strongly with the claim that the Bible is the sole rule and the only source of faith. (See DOGMA, FAITH, PROTESTANTISM.)

DENZINGER, Enchiridion (Freiburg, 1908); MOHLER, Symbolism (NEW YORK, 1984); DUNLOP, Account of All the Ends and Uses of Creeds and Confessions of Faith, etc. (London, 1724); BUTLER, An Historical and Literary Account of the Formularies, etc., (London, 1816); SCHAFF, The History of the Creeds of Christendom (London, 1878); GRANDMAISON, L’Estasticite des formules de Foi in Etudes 1898; CALKINS, Creeds and Tests of Church Membership in Andover Review (1890), 13; STERRETT, the Ethics of Creed Conformity (1890), ibid.

GEORGE J. LUCAS

Liturgical Use of Creeds

The public use of creeds began in connection with baptism, in the Traditio and Redditio symboli, as a preparation for that sacrament, and in the preliminary interrogations. This use is found as early as the “Canons” of Hippolytus and the “Catecheses” of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and is so universal as to be probably of still earlier date. (Cf. Acts, viii, 37.) The recitation of the Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Creed at the Eucharist seems to have begun, according to Theodore the Reader, at Antioch under Peter the Fuller in 471 (though James of Edessa says that it was adopted as soon as it was composed), and to have been adopted at Constantinople by the Patriarch Timotheus in 511. Both intended to protest, as Monophysites, against Chalcedonian “innovations,” but in spite of this heretical origin the practice spread, though Rome did not finally adopt it until the eleventh century. The Nicene Creed is the only one in use in the Eastern Churches, whether Orthodox, Monophysite, or Nestorian, or in the corresponding Uniat bodies, though the East Syrians, both Nestorian and Uniat have a variant of their own (see EAST SYRIAN RITE) which may have been originally understood in a Nestorian sense, and the Copts and Abyssinians have also a shortened form for use at baptism. The Roman Rite, besides the Nicene Creed, which it recites only at Mass, uses also the Apostles’ Creed and the so-called Athanasian. These three creeds have been retained in the Anglican Rite. The following is the use of creeds in various rites:

BAPTISM

Roman: Apostles’ Creed in full, followed by a shortened creed in interrogative form.

Ambrosian, Gallican, and Mozarabic: nearly the same.

Celtic: either the Apostles’ creed in full or a shortened form, both as interrogatives.

Anglican, complete Apostles’ Creed in interrogative form.

Orthodox Eastern: Nicene Creed in full in the preliminary euchai eis to poiesai katechoumenon.

West Syrian (Jacobite, Syrian Uniat, and Maronite) and Armenian: Nicene Creed in full.

East Syrian: variant of Nicene Creed in a similar position to that which it holds in the Eucharist, on the model of which the baptismal service is constructed.

Coptic and Æthiopic: a short confession of faith in the Trinity, the Resurrection, and the Church.

EUCHARIST

All rites use the Nicene Creed, though in different positions, as part of the declaration of fellowship (of which the Kiss of Peace is another part) with which the Missa Fidelium begins. This aspect is removal of the Pax to another position. The positions are:

Immediately after the Gospel: Roman, Celtic, Anglican, Armenian.

After the Offertory, but quite unconnected with the Pax: Ambrosian. There is good reason to think that the Ambrosian Pax originally came, not as now in the Roman position, but at the beginning of the Offertory.

After dismissal of catechumens and Offertory, but before the Pax: Coptic, Greek St. James, West Syrian, East Syrian.

After dismissal, Offertory and Pax: Orthodox Eastern. (Byzantine), Greek St. Mark.

After the Consecration, during the Fraction: Mozarabic. This last seems to follow the use ordered by the Emperor Justin at Constantinople, that the Creed should be said before the Pater Noster at Mass, but it is probably of much later introduction.

THE DIVINE OFFICE

Roman: Apostles’ Creed at the beginning of Matins and Prime, ferially with preces in the course of Prime and Compline, and at the end of Compline. Athanasian on Sundays at Prime. The earliest mention of this is in the “Capitulare” of Hayto, Bishop of Basle, c. 820. Many Roman derivatives (e.g. the Sarum) said the Athanasian daily at Prime. The monastic rites and the French breviaries of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries mostly follow the Roman practice.

Ambrosian: the Apostles’ Creed in the course of Prime and Compline, the Athanasian daily at Prime.

Mozarabic: The Nicene Creed at Prime on Sundays and festivals. This was ordered by the Council of Toledo of 589.

Celtic: The Apostles’ Creed is given with the Pater Noster in the “Bangor Antiphoner,” and at the end of the sketch service in the “Book of Mulling,” but there is no evidence how it was used.

Anglican: The Apostles’ Creed is said with preces at morning and evening prayer, daily, except that on thirteen fast-days (roughly, once a month, and on Trinity Sunday) the Athanasian takes its place at morning prayer.

Byzantine: Nicene Creed at the Midnight Office (mesonyktikon) after the Psalms, except on Sundays, and at the Little Compline (apodeipnon mikron) after the Great Doxology.

East Syrian: Nicene Creed at the end of the morning and evening services.

Coptic: At the “Offering of the Morning Incense,” at Lauds, Compline, and the “Prayer of the Curtain.”

OTHER USES

Other uses of creeds are:

The Ambrosian uses either the Apostles’ or Athanasian Creed in the “Ordo Commendationis Animae.”

The Celtic used either the full Apostles’ Creed or a shortened confession of faith in the Trinity, eternal life, and the Resurrection (both forms are found) before the unction of the sick.

The Anglican uses the Apostles’ Creed in an interrogative form (as at baptism) the visitation of the sick.

The Mozarabic introduces a three-fold repetition of a Spanish variant of the Apostles’ Creed into a “Sermo ad populum” before the Epistle at Mass on Palm Sunday, which is the ancient Traditio Symboli.

The Byzantine has a recitation, megalophonos of the Nicene Creed in answer to the question , kai ti pisteueis at the consecration of bishops. This is followed by two more elaborate confessions of faith, resembling the “Interrogatio” at the same service in the Roman Pontifical.

In the Roman ordination of priests the Apostles’ Creed is recited just before the Accipe Spiritum Sanctum.

At the beginning of the coronation of the Russian emperor he is required to recite the Nicene Creed in token of orthodoxy.

HENRY JENNER

Creeks

An important confederacy of Indian tribes and tribal remnants, chiefly of Muskogian stock, formerly holding the greater portion of Central and Southern Georgia and Alabama, but now settled in Eastern Oklahoma. The name by which they are commonly known was originally applied not to the Indians, but to their home territory, i.e. “the Creek Country.” The dominant tribe is the Maskoki (Muscogee), who constitute about one-half of the whole body. Besides these there are Hichitee, Koasati, and Yuchi, each with a distinct language; there are also several smaller broken tribes. The Seminole, too, are originally a separated band of Creeks. According to traditional and linguistic evidence, the Muscogee and their cognate tribes had in ancient times lived west of the Mississippi River, but they were found settled in Georgia and Alabama as early as 1540 by De Soto, who crossed their territory from east to west. In the colonial period they held the balance of power between the English of Carolina on the one side and the Spaniards and French of Florida and Louisiana on the other. Their most constant alliance was with the English, whose traders supplied them with guns, and it was chiefly by this means that the English accomplished the utter destruction of the flourishing Franciscan missions of upper Florida in 1702–8. In the final inroad, 1400 of the Christianized mission Indians were carried off and distributed as slaves among the English of Carolina and their savage allies. This unfortunate outcome of more than a century of devoted missionary effort was due to the short-sighted policy of the Spaniards, who refused guns to their own Indians, even in the face of threatened invasion. The Creeks adhered to the English side in the war of the Revolution, but made a treaty of peace with the United States in 1790. English instigation in the War of 1812 led to another war with the Creeks in 1813–14, in which they suffered such heavy losses that they were obliged to purchase peace by the surrender of half their remaining territory. Other land-cessions followed in quick succession until, in 1832, they sold their last acre east of the Mississippi and were removed to a new home in the Indian Territory, where they were permitted to organize an autonomous government under the name of the Creek Nation. In 1906, by previous treaty agreement, this Indian government was formally dissolved, the Indians being admitted to citizen-rights and their country incorporated into the new State of Oklahoma. They number now about 10,000 souls, besides half as many more “freedmen,” descendants of their former negro slaves.

In their old homes the Creeks were a sedentary and agricultural, but brave and warlike, people. Their houses were well constructed of logs, and their villages were regularly built around a central square devoted to public games and ceremonies, chief of which was the great annual Buskita, or Creek Corn Dance, when every fire in the settlement was extinguished and solemnly relighted from a new sacred fire kindled by means of friction. There was no recognized central authority, but neighbouring or closely cognate villages commonly acted together. They had the clan system, intermarriage within the clan being strictly prohibited. No systematic mission work was attempted among them until after their removal to the Territory, when a beginning was made by the Presbyterians. A few of their children are now attending the neighbouring Catholic mission schools.

JAMES MOONEY

Creighton University

An institution located at Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A., and conducted by the Jesuit Fathers. It comprises high school and college departments, a free classical day college, and schools of medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, and law. The faculty numbered 104 members in 1907–8. There is no charge for tuition in the high school and college departments. The attendance at the university is about 800, divided among the different departments as follows: Liberal Arts, 360; Medicine, 178; Law, 51; Pharmacy, 105; Dentistry, 107. The Medical College free dispensary treats between 3000 and 4000 annually; the Dental College Infirmary, 400 or 500.

Creighton University was the first free Catholic college founded in the United States. Edward Creighton, after whom it was named, had proposed during his life to establish a free school for higher education, but he died intestate, before making provision for carrying out his project. His wife, Mary Lucretia Creighton, inheriting his fortune, determined to carry out his intention. She died 23 Jan., 1876, but her will made a bequest, which in the settlement of the estate amounted to about $200,000, one-fourth of which was devoted to the grounds and building, the balance being reserved for foundation. In accordance with the terms of this will, the executors, 1 July, 1878, conveyed the entire property and securities in trust to the Rt. Rev. James O’Connor, Bishop of Omaha. On 27 February, 1879, the Legislature of Nebraska passed an act to provide for the incorporation of universities under certain circumstances. The district Court then permitted Bishop O’Connor to turn over his trust to a corporation called the Creighton University, and he appointed five members of the Society of Jesus as the Board of Trustees, 14 August, 1879. Creighton College as such was not incorporated and the name merely represented what was left in trust by Mrs. Creighton. When the Creighton University accepted the trust, the endowment fund amounted to about $147,500. Mrs. Sarah Emily Creighton, who died 3 Sept., 1888, wife of John A. Creighton, bequeathed to Creighton University a business block, according to the same terms and conditions as were designated in the bequest of her sister, Mrs. Mary Lucretia Creighton. During 1900 John A. Creighton, desirous of making the university an institution fully equipped for its educational work, generously offered means for the completion of the college buildings. The School of Medicine was founded 30 May, 1892, and the School of Law in October, 1904. The Edward Creighton Institute, erected in 1905, is now the home of the Law Department. The Dental School, opened in 1905, is located with the Law School. The School of Pharmacy, a distinct department of the university since 1 February, 1905, took possession of its splendidly equipped new addition to the Medical Building in September, 1908.

Edward Creighton was born 31 Aug., 1820, in Belmont County, Ohio, near the present town of Barnesville; and died 5 Nov., 1874. John A. Creighton was born 15 Oct., 1831, in Licking County, Ohio, and died 7 Feb., 1907. He was educated at St. Joseph’s College, Somerset, Ohio, under the Dominican Fathers, and for these teachers he always retained a feeling of gratitude. Though desirous of becoming a civil engineer, he was obliged to shorten his course of study by the necessity of earning a livelihood. He married Sarah Emily Wareham of Dayton; and her sister, Mary Lucretia, became the wife of Edward Creighton. Both these men were remarkable for courage, enterprise, and a strong sense of justice. John was one of the first members of the “Vigilance Committee” which effectually freed Montana of the desperadoes who made life and property insecure in that territory. Both also made their start in life by constructing roads and telegraph lines in the West and South; John was moreover actively engaged in mining, stock-raising, and investments in land. He left by will large bequests to Creighton University, the Creighton Memorial Hospital and other Catholic institutions in which he was interested during life. Though these sums were somewhat lessened by litigation and compromise with contestants, the university received nearly a million and a quarter dollars, the Hospital nearly a quarter of a million, and the other institutions smaller amounts. The entire revenue-producing property of the university approximates two millions and a quarter, exclusive of its buildings, grounds and equipment. The hospital takes care of about 2400 patients a year, of whom more than half are non-Catholics, and one-third absolutely free. John Creighton was honoured by Leo XIII with the order of St. Gregory and later with the title of Count of the Papal States. In 1900 he received the Laetare Medal from the University of Notre Dame.

M.P. DOWLING

Henri-Joseph Crelier

Swiss Catholic priest, Hebrew scholar and Biblical exegete; b. at Bure, 16 October, 1816; d. at Bressancourt, France, 22 April 1889. From 1845 to 1855 he was professor at the college of Porrentruy (Switzerland); later he became chaplain of the Religious of the Sacred Heart at Besancon, France, and devoted his leisure hours to the study of Sacred Scripture. He was subsequently appointed pastor of the church of Rebeuvelier, and finally of Bressancourt, where he died. He left many works on Sacred Scripture, some of which have a special value. Among these we note: “Les psaumes traduits littéralement sur le texte hébreu avec un commentaire” (Paris, 1858); “Le livre de Job vengé des interprétations fausses et impies de M.E. Renan” (Paris, 1860); “Le Cantique des cantiques vengé des interprétations fausses et impies de M.E. Renan” (Paris, 1861); “M. Renan guerroyant contre le surnaturel” (Paris, 1863); “M. E. Renan trahissant le Christ par un roman,” etc. (Paris, 1864). To the “Commentaries on the Bible,” published by Lethielleux, he contributed the Acts of the Apostles (1883), Exodus (1886), Leviticus (1886) Genesis (1889).

LEVESQUE in Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s.v.

R. BUTIN

Diocese of Crema

(CREMENSIS.)

Suffragan to Milan. Crema is a ciy of the province of Cremona, Lombardy, Northern Italy, situated between the Rivers Adda and the Oglio, in a marshy region. It was built by inhabitants of various cites of the Insubres, who fled thither during the Lombard invasion of Italy. Crema fell eventually under Lombard rule and shared the vicissitudes of that monarchy. Crema was one of the first cities to organize as a commune. It joined the Lombard League, and was therefore destroyed, first by Frederick Barbarossa and later by the inhabitants of Cremona and Lodi. It afterwards acknowledged the rule of the Torriani and of the Visconti of Milan, for a while also that of the Benzoni. It finally became subject to the Republic of Venice. It belonged to the Diocese of Lodi until 1580, when it was made a see and a suffragan of Milan. Among the most noted of its bishops was the zealous Marcantonio Zolli. The diocese has a population of 58,000, with 53 parishes, 65 churches and chapels, 174 secular and 4 regular priests, 1 religious house of men and 7 of women.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d’Italia (Venice, 1857), XII, 241–75; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 432–33; BARBIERI,Compendio cronologico della storia di Crema (Crema, 1888).

U. BENIGNI

Cremation

I. HISTORY

The custom of burning the bodies of the dead dates back to very early times. The Pre-Canaanites practised it until the introduction of inhumation among them along with the civilization of the Semitic people about 2500 B.C. History reveals no trace of incineration among the Jewish people, except in extraordinary circumstances of war and pestilence. It was likewise unknown, in practice at least, to the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians; or to the inhabitants of Asia Minor—the Carians, Lydians, and Phrygians. The Babylonians, according to Herodotus, embalmed their dead, and the Persians punished capitally such as attempted cremation, special regulations being followed in the purification of fire so desecrated. The Greeks and Romans varied in their practice according to their views of the after life; those who believed in a future existence analogous to the present buried their dead, even leaving food in the tomb for nourishment and enjoyment of the departed; such as, on the other hand, held the opinion that on the decay of the body life was continued in the shade or image, practised cremation, the more expeditiously to speed the dead to the land of shadows. But the practice of cremating never entirely superseded what Cicero tells us (De Leg., II, xxii) was the older rite among the Roman people. Indeed the Cornelian gens, one of the most cultured in Rome, had, with the single exception of Sulla, never permitted the burning of their dead. By the fifth century of the Christian Era, owing in great part to the rapid progress of Christianity, the practice of cremation had entirely ceased.

The Christians never burned their dead, but followed from earliest days the practice of the Semitic race and the personal example of their Divine Founder. It is recorded that in times of persecution many risked their lives to recover the bodies of martyrs for the holy rites of Christian burial. The pagans, to destroy faith in the resurrection of the body, often cast the corpses of martyred Christians into the flames, fondly believing thus to render impossible the resurrection of the body. What Christian faith has ever held in this regard is clearly put by the third-century writer Minucius Felix, in his dialogue “Octavius,” refuting the assertion that cremation made this resurrection an impossibility: “Nor do we fear, as you suppose, any harm from the [mode of] sepulture, but we adhere to the old, and better, custom” (“Nec, ut creditis, ullum damnum sepulturae timemus sed veterem et meliorem consuetudinem humandi frequentamus”—P.L., III, 362).

II. CHURCH LEGISLATION

(1) In the Middle Ages

In all the legislation of the Church the placing of the body in the earth or tomb was a part of Christian burial. In the acts of the Council of Braga (Hardouin, III, 352), in the year 563, while we read that bodies of the dead are by no means to be buried within the basilicas where rest the remains of Apostles and martyrs, we are told that they may be buried without the wall; and that if cities have long forbidden the interment of the dead within their walls, with much greater right should the reverence due the holy martyrs claim this privilege. The same may be seen in the canons of other councils—e.g. of Nantes, between the seventh and ninth centuries; of Mainz, in the ninth century; of Tribur, in the ninth century. This legislation evidently supposes the long-standing custom of burial such as the Church practises to-day, and shows that in the sixth century, in other places than Rome, where even to-day the old law of the Twelve Tables exerts a moral influence, the Church had so far conquered the prejudice of the past as to have gained the privilege of burying her dead within the city walls and within the enclosure of the churchyard. Once in the course of the Middle Ages did there seem to be on the part of some a retrogression to the pagan ideals, and as a consequence Boniface VIII, on 21 February, 1300, in the sixth year of his pontificate, promulgated a law which was in substance as follows: They were ipso facto excommunicated who disembowelled bodies of the dead or inhumanly boiled them to separate the flesh from the bones, with a view to transportation for burial in their native land. “Detestandae feritatis abusum,” he calls it, and it was practised in case of those of noble rank who had died outside of their own territory and had expressed a wish to be buried at their place of birth. He speaks of it as an abomination in the sight of God and horrifying to the minds of the faithful, decreeing that, thereafter, such bodies are either to be conveyed whole to the spot chosen or buried at the place of death until, in the course of nature, the bones can be removed for burial elsewhere. Those who were party to these enormities either as the cause or agent of their occurrence were to incur excommunication reserved to the Holy See, while the body thus inhumanly treated could not afterward be given ecclesiastical burial (“Extrav. Comm.,” Lib. III, Tit. vi, c. i.).

(2) Decrees of Roman Congregations

This rigid adherence to the principles of the early teaching of the Church may be seen in the later decrees of the Roman Congregations. The Vicar Apostolic of Viznagapatam, in the year 1884, proposed the following difficulty to the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda: The bodies of two neophytes had been cremated, the parents testifying that there had been no idolatrous ceremonies. Should the missioners in such cases protest against what is considered a privilege of caste, or may the following present practice be tolerated?—If a pagan seeks baptism at the hour of death, the missioner grants it, without questioning what mode of sepulture is to be given the body after death, persuaded that the pagan parents will make no account of his desire to be buried, not cremated. The answer was: “You must not approve of cremation, but remain passive in the matter and confer baptism; be careful also to instruct your people according to the principles which you set forth” (Cremationem approbare non debes, sed passive te habeas, collato semper baptismate, et populos instruendos cures juxta ea quae a te exponuntur). This was given on 27 September, 1884. In 1886 another decree forbade membership in cremation societies and declared the unlawfulness of demanding cremation for one=1Cs own body or that of another. On 15 December in the same year a third decree was issued of more or less the same tenor, and finally on 27 July, 1892, the Archbishop of Freiburg, among other questions, asked whether it was lawful to cooperate in the cremation of bodies either by command or counsel, or to take part as doctor, official, or labourer working in the crematory. It was answered that formal co-operation, the assent of the will to the deed, is never allowed, either by command or counsel. Material co-operation, the mere aiding in the physical act, may be tolerated on condition

that cremation be not looked upon as a distinctive mark of a Masonic sect;

that there be nothing in it which of itself, directly and solely, expresses reprobation of Catholic doctrine and approbation of a sect;

if it be not clear that the officials and others have been assigned or invited to take part in contempt of the Catholic Religion.

And whereas, under the above restrictions, co-operators are to be left in good faith, they must always be warned not to intend co-operation in the cremation. (See “Collectanea S.C.P.F.,” nn. 1608, 1609; “Acta S. Sedis,” XXV, 63; “Am. Eccl. Rev.,” XII, 499.)

(3) Motives of this Legislation

The legislation of the Church in forbidding cremation rests on strong motives; for cremation in the majority of cases to-day is knit up with circumstances that make of it a public profession of irreligion and materialism. It was the Freemasons who first obtained official recognition of this practice from various governments. The campaign opened in Italy, the first attempts being made by Brunetti, at Padua, in 1873. Numerous societies were founded after this, at Dresden, Zurich, London, Paris. In the last city a crematory was established at Pere Lachaise, on the passing of the law of 1889 dealing with freedom of funeral rites. The Church has opposed from the beginning a practice which has been used chiefly by the enemies of the Christian Faith. Reasons based on the spirit of Christian charity and the plain interests of humanity have but strengthened her in her opposition. She holds it unseemly that the human body, once the living temple of God, the instrument of heavenly virtue, sanctified so often by the sacraments, should finally be subjected to a treatment that filial piety, conjugal and fraternal love, or even mere friendship seems to revolt against as inhuman. Another argument against cremation, and drawn from medico-legal sources, lies in this: That cremation destroys all signs of violence or traces of poison, and makes examination impossible, whereas a judicial autopsy is always possible after inhumation, even of some months.

Is cremation a sign of culture?

The report of the French Cremation Society of 1905 has the following: “There exist in Europe 90 crematories . . . and the number of incinerations is above 125,000.” In France there are 3 crematories, in the United Stated 29, in Great Britain 12, in Italy 30, in Germany 9, in Switzerland 4, in Sweden 2, in Denmark, Canada, the Argentine Republic, Australia, one each. “Let us not number here the appliances of Tokio, let us not speak of the pyres raised in the Indies, in China, in Siam, in Cambogia, at all points of the Asiatic Continent, from time immemorial Asia has burned her dead.” At first sight 125,000 seems a large number; but a glance at the Paris statistics will help us to realize its true value. From 1889 to 1905 there were 73,330 cremations in Paris. Only 3484 were by request; 37,082 were hospital debris; 32,757 were embryos. Of the requested cremations there were 216 in 1894, 354 in 1904—an increase in ten years of 138—not a large number, and it serves to prove than even Paris is progressing in the use of cremation very slowly indeed.

The arguments in favor of cremation may be reduced to a few heads:

it will prevent the corruption of the soil;

drinking water will be safeguarded against contamination;

corruption of the air will be avoided in localities bordering on cemeteries, with a consequent lessening of the danger of infection in times of epidemic.

In answer it has been urged that cemeteries are not a cause of the infection of the air. In any well-ordered cemetery putrefaction takes place six or seven feet below the surface. In the open air, with abundance of oxygen, corruption proceeds more quickly, with continuous discharge of noxious gases in large quantities highly deleterious to health, but it is not so in the grave. Mantegazza, a celebrated bacteriologist, has shown (“Civilta Cattolica,” Ser. IX, Vols. X-XII) that, where there is but a small supply of oxygen, bodies will decompose without the emanation of any odour whatever. Often, too, the human body is so reduced before death that in the earth it suffers little or no corruption at all, but is first mummified and then slowly reduced to dust. Again, earth-pressure prevents chemical decomposition to a great extent, producing in the place of gas a liquid which enters into various combinations with the materials in the soil, without the slightest danger to the living. Earth is a powerful agent of disinfection. Even with noxious gases to escape in any quantity, they would be absorbed on their way upwards, so that a very small part would ever reach the surface, or were the soil not fit for absorption (as was said to be the case at Pere-Lachaise, Paris) the process would be taken up by the vegetable matter on the surface. It is held, also, that it is no more true to say that cemeteries are a menace to water wells. Charnock, Delacroix, and Dalton have proved that of three parts of rain water only one penetrates the soil, the other two either evaporating or flowing into rivers. Now corpses in cemeteries are not so placed as to form continuous strata, but a moderate distance intervenes between any two bodies or rows of bodies. Of the third part of rain, then, which penetrates the soil of a graveyard a very little will touch the bodies at all, and what does will not all reach the water streams, but will be absorbed by the earth, so that the remaining drops that would ultimately trickle into the stream would have absolutely no effect, were the stream large or small. Two experiments have proved this. The doctors above mentioned selected a tank 6=AB feet high, filled it with sand, and for many months filtered through it sewer water taken from the drainage pipes of Paris. The water received at the bottom of the vessel was always found pure, clear and drinkable. A like experiment was made with a smaller vessel with like results. To anticipate the difficulty, that what held for an experiment with small quantities would prove untrue were the amount of water very great, a large tract of ground near Genvillers was inundated for many months with the same putrid and reeking waters of the Seine after they had passed through the sewers of Paris. The result was the same. Wells were dug in the inundated portion, and the water was again found pure and clear, purer, as it chanced, than that of other wells outside the boundary of the place of experiments. In like manner, the waters in the cemeteries of Leipzig, Hanover, Dresden, and Berlin were examined and found purer and freer from organic matter than the well of the town. In conclusion, it must be remembered that there is nothing directly opposed to any dogma of the Church in the practice of cremation, and that, if ever the leaders of this sinister movement so far control the governments of the world as to make this custom universal, it would not be a lapse in the faith confided to her were she obliged to conform.

In addition to the authorities cited in the body of this article, consult Corpus Juris Canonici; HARDOUIN, Coll. Conc., VI, 443; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium, III, 465; HOWE, Studies in the Civil Law, 302.

WILLIAM DEVLIN.

Diocese of Cremona

DIOCESE OF CREMONA (CREMONENSIS)

Suffragan of Milan. Cremona is a city (31,661 in 1901) in the Province of Lombardy, Italy, on the left bank of the Po. It was built by the Cenomanni Gauls, but later became a Roman colony and a frontier fortress; it succumbed, however, to Hannibal. After the victory of Octavian over Antony, the territory was divided among the veterans of the conqueror. Caius Vitellius defended it unsuccessfully against Vespasian, by whom it was pillaged, but it rose again from its ruins. About A.D. 600 Cremona, until then Byzantine, was captured by the Lombard king, Agilulf. Under the Emperors Otto (I-III) its bishops acquired temporal sovereignty, but in 900 the people expelled Bishop Olderico and adopted a republican form of government. The emperor Henry IV (1056–1106), however, confirmed Bishop Landulf in all imperial grants made to his predecessors. On the other hand Henry V (1106–25) restored to the people their communal rights. Thenceforth Cremona became a citadel of Ghibellinism and was greatly favoured by Frederic Barbarossa and Frederick II, though for the same reason frequently at war with the neighbouring cities. In later medieval times it had many lords or “tyrants,” the Pallavicini, the Bovara, the Cavalcabo, the Visconti, the Sforza, until it became part of the Duchy of Milan (1328). In 1702 it was taken by imperial troops, and in 1796 and 1800 fell into the hands of the French.

The people of Cremona venerate St. Sabinus as their first missionary and first bishop; he is said to have lived in the first century of our era. Among the better-known early bishops are St. Syrinus (c. 340), a valiant apologist of the Faith against the Arians, and St. Silvinus (733); the latter is held in great veneration. Liudprand of Cremona was sent (946) as ambassador to Constantinople by the Emperor Otto II, and is the most famous historical writer of the tenth century. Other important bishops were Gualtiero (1096), in whose time the cathedral was begun; Sicardo (1185), author of a chronicle; Cacciaconte da Somma (1261), under whom was erected the belfry of the cathedral; Nicolo Sfondrati (1560), later Pope Gregory XIV; his nephew Paolo (1607); also the zealous and charitable Omobono di Offredi (1791). The cathedral of Cremona is a splendid specimen of Romanesque architecture, dates from the beginning of the twelfth century, and is noted for its facade in alternate courses of red and white marble. It possesses many famous paintings and sculptures. Its two marble pulpits were brought thither from the suppressed church of the Olivetans. Near the cathedral is the baptistery (1167), surrounded by ranges of narrow Lombard arches, and bearing aloft an octagonal cupola. The famous brick campanile, known as the Torrazzo, built in 1283 as a peace monument, is 396 feet high and is said to be the tallest in Italy. An ancient saying runs: Unus Petrus in Roma, una turris in Cremona (One Peter in Rome, one Tower in Cremona). Other noteworthy churches are those of Sant’Agata and Sant’Agostino, the latter externally Gothic, while its interior is Renaissance. San Pietro and San Michele are believed to date from the time of the Lombard Queen Theodolinda (c. 590). There are many industries at Cremona, especially silk manufactures; in the history of music it is known as the birthplace of four famous makers of violins: Amati, Guarneri, Stradivari, and Malpighi.

The population of the diocese is 350,000; it has 345 parishes, 530 churches and chapels, 536 secular and 38 regular clergy, 9 houses of religious men, and 77 of women. It has also 15 educational institutions.

U. BENIGNI

François de Crépieul

Jesuit missionary in Canada and vicar Apostolic for the Montagnais Indians; b. at Arras, France, 16 March, 1638; d. at Quebec in 1702. As a youth he studied in the Jesuit college of his native town and in that of Douai, becoming a member of the order at Tournay in 1659. He continued his studies at Lille and Douai, taught at Lille and Cambrai, and in 1670 sailed for Canada. Upon the completion of his theological studies in the college of Quebec, he was assigned in October, 1671, to the Tadousac region, where, with untiring devotion and great success he toiled among the Montagnais and Algonquin tribes for twenty-eight years. Writing to his brethren he tells them that the life of a Montagnais missionary is a tedious and prolonged martyrdom, and that his journeys and the cabins of the savages are truly schools of patience, penance, and resignation. For the benefit of his fellow missionaries Crépieul wrote a series of instructions embodying the results of his long service among the Indians, which are interesting and practical. These observations are given in the sixty-third volume of Thwaites’ “Relations.” In 1696 or 1697 he was appointed vicar Apostolic for the Montagnais and, on the discontinuance of the mission a few years later, repaired to Quebec, where he spent the rest of his life. Dablon, Superior of all the missions in Canada, styles him “a veritable apostle.”

ROCHEMONTEIX, Les Jésuites et la Nouvelle-France au XVIIe siècle (Paris, 1895–96), a most interesting account of this devoted and successful missionary; THWAITES, Relations, LVI, 301. 302; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c. de J., II, 1652, I; PILLING, Bibliography of the Algonquian Languages (Washington, 1891), 98, 99.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Crescens

Crescens, a companion of St. Paul during his second Roman captivity, appears but once in the New Testament, when he is mentioned as having left the Apostle to go into Galatia: “Make haste to come to me quickly,” St. Paul writes to Timothy, “for Demas hath left me, loving this world, and is gone to Thessalonica, Crescens into Galatia, Titus into Dalmatia” (II Tim., iv, 8–10). All commentators agree in ranking Crescens with Titus rather than with Demas, and in seeing here, therefore, a reference to a missionary journey into Galatia. This term, in New Testament times, might mean either Gaul or the Roman province of Galatia in Asia Minor, where St. Paul had laboured so much; and here it has been interpreted in either sense. In the other passages where it occurs in the New Testament, however, it denotes Galatia, and most probably it would be so understood here by Timothy, especially as the other regions mentioned are likewise to the east of Rome. Moreover, St. Paul might easily have a reason for sending a disciple to visit his old Churches in Galatia, while there is no proof that he had an active interest in Gaul. Accordingly, the earliest tradition (Apost. Constit., VII, 46) represents Crescens as a bishop of the Churches in Galatia. Later traditions, on the other hand, locate him as Bishop of Vienne in Gaul, also at Mainz on the Rhine. But the earliest traditions of Gaul itself know nothing of this disciple of the Apostle as a founder of their Churches, and the belief seems to have arisen later from the desire of an Apostolic origin. The claims of Vienne have been most strongly urged; but they are based upon the mistaken identification of its first bishop, Crescens, who lived in the third century, with the disciple of St. Paul. As little can be said for Mainz. The reading of certain manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Ephræmi), which have Gallia instead of Galatia, has also been advanced in favour of Gaul; but the traditional reading is supported by the great mass of manuscript evidence. Crescens is mentioned as one of the Seventy Disciples of Christ by the Pseudo-Dorotheus, which has no authority. His martyrdom in Galatia, under Trajan, commemorated on 27 June by the Roman Martyrology, lacks the confirmation of older Martyrologies. The Greek Church honours him on 30 July.

TILLEMONT, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire ecclésiastique (Paris, 1701), I,312,584–587; DUCHESNE, Les fastes épiscopaux de l’ancienne Gaule (Paris, 1894), I, 151–155.

JOHN F. FENLON

Crescentius

The name of several leaders of the Roman aristocracy in the tenth century, during their opposition to the imperial government of the time.

CRESCENTIUS THE ELDER

With the disappearance of the Carlovingian dynasty the papal government of Rome lost its most powerful protector, and the Romans took matters into their own hands. Out of the local aristocracy there arose a powerful family, which assumed the practical charge of all governmental affairs in Rome, controlled the nominations to the papal throne, and held the power for many years. At the beginning of the tenth century the family was represented by Theophylactus, vestararius or high dignitary of the papal palace and the pontifical government, by his wife Theodora, and their two daughters Marozia and Theodora. Theophylactus had the titles of Consul and Senator of the Romans. Crescentius the Elder was a descendant of this family, being a son of Theodora, the daughter of Theophylactus. According to the records, he took a hand in Roman affairs for the first time in 974. At the death of Pope John XIII (965–72), who was a brother of Crescentius, the Emperor Otto I (936–73) designated as his successor the Cardinal-Deacon Benedict, who took the name Benedict VI (972–74). The Romans bore the constant interference of the emperor in the papal elections with ill-concealed indignation. About a year after the death of Otto I, when his successor Otto II (973–83) was engaged in wars at home, they rebelled against the imperial regime under the headship of Crescentius. The unfortunate Pope Benedict VI was dethroned, thrown into the Castle of Sant’ Angelo, and strangled there in July, 974. The deacon Franco, a Roman, son of Ferrucius, was chosen to succeed, and took the name of Boniface VII (974). The protests of the imperial envoy Sicco were of no avail against this manifestation of national aspirations on the part of the Romans. Soon, however, the imperial party gained the upper hand; Pope Boniface VII was forced to flee to Constantinople; Benedict VII (974–83) was chosen in his place, and Crescentius disappeared for a time. In all likelihood he took an active part in the restoration of Boniface VII in 984. After the death of the Emperor Otto II (December, 983) the anti- imperial party believed that the time had come for reasserting itself. In April, 984, Boniface VII returned from Constantinople and took possession of Rome. Pope John XIV (983–84), who had been appointed by the Emperor Otto II, was imprisoned in the Castle of Sant’ Angelo, where he perished about four months afterwards, and Boniface VII (984–85) ruled again as pope up to the time of his death in July, 985. His protector Crescentius towards the end of his life, whether before or after the restoration of Boniface VII is uncertain, took the monastic habit in the monastery of St. Alexius on the Aventine, where he died, 7 July, 984, and was buried within the cloister. The epitaph on his tomb (Armellini, Le Chiese di Roma, 586) is still visible.

CRESCENTIUS THE YOUNGER

The aspirations of the Roman aristocracy did not vanish with the death of the older Crescentius. The latter left a son, also called Crescentius, who after the death of Boniface VII took the reins of power in his hands. Circumstances seemed to be particularly favourable. The Emperor Otto III (985–96) was still a child, and the empress mother, Theophano, although an energetic princess, was absent from Rome. Crescentius the Younger took the title of Patricius Romanorum, by which he meant to express that he was ruler in Rome, though not altogether independent of the imperial authority; he considered himself as a lieutenant of the emperor. It is quite likely that the election of Pope John XV (985–96), who succeeded Boniface VII, was accomplished with the participation of Crescentius, although the particulars of that election are unknown. In some of the official documents of the time, issued by the pope, the name of Crescentius and his title of Patricius appear together with the name of John XV; and for a number of years Crescentius exercised his authority apparently without opposition. When the Empress Theophano came to Rome in 989, she conducted herself as empress and sovereign, while leaving Crescentius his subordinate position. Meanwhile the young Emperor Otto III assumed the reins of government, and in 996 made his first journey to Italy, induced by various considerations, especially by the appeals of Pope John XV. However, death overtook the pope at the beginning of April, 996, before Otto reached Rome; it was at Pavia that the emperor was apprised of the fact. As the Romans and their leader, Crescentius, did not care at this time to nominate a successor to the deceased pope, they sent a delegation to the emperor with the request that he provide a suitable candidate for the Roman See. Otto III was at Ravenna when the delegates from Rome arrived. After a consultation with his counsellors he chose his own cousin, Bruno, a young ecclesiastic, only twenty-three years of age, who seemed to have the necessary qualifications. Early in May he was consecrated at Rome as Gregory V (996–99), being the first pope of German nationality. A few weeks afterwards Otto III himself was crowned in Rome by the new pope (21 May) in the basilica of St. Peter. On the 25th of the same month the pope and the emperor held in St. Peter’s a synod, which was at the same time a high court of justice. The rebellious Romans, including Crescentius, who had embittered the last years of the pontificate of Pope John XV, were summoned to give an account of their doings. The result was that a certain number, among them Crescentius, were sentenced to banishment. Pope Gregory V, who wished to inaugurate his pontificate with acts of mercy, pleaded for the guilty, and the emperor withdrew his sentence of exile. Crescentius was deprived of his title of Patricius, but was permitted to live in retirement at Rome.

The clemency shown to Crescentius by the pope was repaid with deeds of violence. Only a few months after the departure of the emperor for Germany a revolt broke out in Rome under the leadership of Crescentius. The foreign pope and the many foreign officers installed throughout the Papal States were offensive in the sight of the Romans. The rebellion succeeded so well that in September, 996, the pope was forced to flee with only a few attendants. At Pavia he held a synod in February, 996, in which he pronounced sentence of excommunication against Crescentius, the usurper and invader of the Church of Rome. Crescentius, far from being moved by these proceedings against him, completed his work of rebellion by appointing an antipope, Philagathus, Bishop of Piacenza, who had just returned from an embassy to Constantinople on behalf of Emperor Otto III. Born in Calabria, Philagathus was a Greek, and owed his elevation to the episcopacy to the Empress Theophano and her son, but was willing to betray his master. In April, 997, he assumed the title of Pope John XVI (996–98). In February, 998, Otto III returned to Rome with Pope Gregory V and took possession of the city without much difficulty. The antipope sought safety in flight, while Crescentius shut himself up in the Castle of Sant’ Angelo. The unfortunate John XVI was soon captured by the emissaries of the emperor; his nose and ears were cut off, his eyes and tongue were torn out, and in this pitiable condition he was made to ride backwards on an ass. At the intercession of St. Nilus, one of his countrymen, his life was spared, and he lived until 1013. Towards the end of April the Castle of Sant’ Angelo was taken; Crescentius was made prisoner and executed and his corpse hung on a gibbet erected on Monte Mario. Afterwards his remains were interred in the church of S. Pancrazio on the Janiculum.

JOHN CRESCENTIUS

Son of Crescentius the Younger-Early in 1001 a revolt broke out in Rome against Otto III, who now permanently resided in the Eternal City. The emperor and Pope Silvester II (999–1003), the first pope of French nationality, were compelled to flee; it is quite likely that John Crescentius was the prime mover of the rebellion. At any rate, after this he assumed supreme authority in Rome, and after the death of the Emperor Otto III (24 January, 1002) took the title of Patricius Romanorum. Pope Silvester II was permitted to return to Rome, but had little to do with the temporal government. The same is true of his three immediate successors: John XVII (1003), John XVIII (1003–09), and Sergius IV (1009–12), all of whom were appointed through the influence of John Crescentius. The patricius himself died in the spring of the year 1012, and with him the Crescentii disappeared from the history of Rome.

DUCHESNE, Les premiere temps de l’état pontifical (Paris, 1898); GREGOROVIUS, Gesch. der Stadt Rom. (Stuttgart, 1890), III, IV; GIESEBRECHT, Gesch. der deutschen Kaiserzeit (Leipzig, 1881), I; HEFELE, Conciliengesch. (Freiburg, 1879), IV; GRITZ in Kirchenlex., s.v.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Giovanni Mario Crescimbeni

Italian historian of literature, chronicler, and poet, b. in Macerata, 9 Oct., 1663; d. 8 March 1728. He was educated at Rome for the law, but gave most of his time to poetry and literature. In 1679 he was made doctor of laws, and in 1705 Clement XI named him canon of Santa Maria in Cosmedin. A few years later (1719) the same pontiff appointed him archpriest and in the same year he was ordained to the priesthood.

Crescimbeni composed tragedies and rime of various kinds, and translated into Italian verse two books of Lucan’s “Pharsalia.” His prose is superior to his verse, and it is especially as a literary critic that he is known. His special studies in Italian literature helped to pave the way for the general histories of that subject. His greatest work, “Dell’ Istoria della volgar poesia” (6 vols., Rome, 1698), was one of the best productions of its kind and is still of considerable value. In it he treats of the origin and development of Italian poetry, appreciates the works of the one hundred chief Italian poets, arranges the poets in chronological order, and discusses the art and kinds of poetry. This huge work was followed in 1702 by the “Commentarii intorno alla sua Istoria della volgar poesia,” in 5 volumes, which was at first undertaken to supersede the “Istoria”; but since this had met with such favour, the new work became a supplement to it.

Crescimbeni will also be remembered as one of the founders of the Academy of “Arcadia, conversatione di belle lettere,” over which he presided from its foundation in 1690 to the time of his death. “Arcadia” was a kind of pastoral republic, whose members included the leading scholars and poets of Italy who strove to root out the perverted taste of the seventeenth century in matters of art and literature, and to introduce a simpler and more natural style into Italian prose and poetry. The society grew out of a somewhat similar society which had been patronized by Queen Christine of Sweden (d. 1689), who had taken up her residence in Rome. “Arcadia” grew in importance and numbers; “Colonies” were established in the principal Italian cities; and its influence extended even beyond the borders of Italy. The members assumed shepherds’ names, and took as their device a Pan’s pipes surrounded by laurels. (See ACADEMIES, ROMAN.)

The Life of Crescimbeni, with a list of his works edited and inedited, written by a contemporary, Francesco Mancurti, is in the final edition of the “Istoria” (Venice, 1730–1731), VI, 213 sq. This biographical article also gives much information on the history of the “Arcadia.” The rime were edited in Rome in 1695, and more completely in 1723.

JOSEPH DUNN

Cresconius

(Or CRISCONIUS)

A Latin canonist of uncertain date and place, flourished probably in the latter half of the seventh century, though it may have been at the end of the sixth or even in the eighth century. He was probably a bishop of the African Church. We owe to Cresconius a collection of canons, known as “Concordia canonum,” inclusive of the Apostolic Canons (see CANONS, APOSTOLIC), nearly all the canons of the fourth and fifth century councils, and many papal decretals from the end of the fourth to the end of the fifth century. The content is taken from the collection of Dionysius Exiguus, but the division into titles (301) is copied from the “breviatio canonum” of Fulgentius Ferrandus, a sixth-century deacon of Carthage. In many manuscripts the text of Cresconius is preceded by an index or table of contents (breviarium) of the titles, first edited in 1588 by Pithou. In its entirety the work was first published by Voellus and Justellus in the appendix (33–112) to their “bibliotheca Juris canonici” (Paris, 1661), and is in P.L., LXXXVIII, 829 sqq. One of its best manuscripts, the tenth-century “Vallicellianus” (Rome), has a note in which Cresconius is declared the author of a metrical account of the “bella et victorias” of the “Patricius” Johannes in Africa over the Saracens. This was formerly interpreted to mean the African victory of the Byzantine “Patricius Johannes” in 697, hence the usual date of Cresconius. Some, however, hold that the poem in question is the “Johannis” of Flavius Cresconius Corippus, a Latin poet of about 550, and on this basis identify him with our canonist, thus placing the latter in the sixth century. Others (with Maassen, p. 810) while admitting that the poem in question can be none other than the “Johannis” of the aforesaid Latin poet (unknown to Fabricius, and first edited by Mazzuchelli, Milan, 1820), maintain that it has been wrongly attributed to our Cresconius, and that it cannot therefore aid in fixing his date. The “Concordia canonum” was much used as a handy manual of ecclesiastical legislation by the churches of Africa and Gaul as late as the tenth century. Few of its manuscripts postdate that period.

JOHN WEBSTER MELODY

Hugh Paulinus Serenus Cressy

Doctor of Theology and English Benedictine monk, b. at Thorpe-Salvin, Yorkshire, about 1605; d. at East Grinstead, Sussex, 10 August, 1674. He was the son of Hugh Cressy by Margery, daughter of Thomas d’Oylie, a London physician belonging to the old Oxford family of that name. Educated first at Wakefield Grammar school, when fourteen years old he went to Oxford (1619) where he took the degree of B.A. in 1623 and that of M.A. in 1627. He was elected a Fellow of Merton College and took orders in the Established Church. Leaving Oxford he became chaplain, first to Thomas, Lord Wentworth, and afterwards to Lucius Cary, Lord Falkland, with whom he went to Ireland in 1638. During his sojourn in Ireland he was appointed Dean of Leighlin, but returned to England the following year (1639). A canonry in the collegiate church of Windsor, which he received in 1642, he was never able to enjoy, owing to the disturbed state of the country; the following year (1643) his patron, Lord Falkland, was killed at Newbury. Cressy then attached himself to Charles Berkeley, afterwards Lord Falmouth, and travelled with him through several Catholic countries of Europe; this experience resulted in his conversion to the Catholic Faith at Rome in 1646. From Rome he went to Paris where he received further instruction from Henry Holden, a doctor of the Sorbonne. He then wrote his “Exomologesis” (Paris, 1647), a work in which he published to the world the motives which led him to change his religion.

After becoming a Catholic Cressy’s first inclination was to be a Carthusian monk; this intention was set aside and he joined the English Congregation of the Order of St. Benedict at St. Gregory’s, Douai, but so poor was he at the time that Queen Henrietta Maria provided him with money for his journey; he was professed at St. Gregory’s, 22 August, 1649. From 1651 to 1652 he acted as chaplain to the Benedictine nuns in Paris, returned to Douai (1653–60), and was then sent to the mission in England, residing at Somerset House as one of the chaplains to Charles the Second’s queen. In the English Benedictine Congregation he held the office of definitor of the province in 1666 and was appointed the titular cathedral prior of Rochester in 1669. His last years were spent with the Caryll family at East Grinstead, Sussex, where he died in his sixty-eighth year. The moderate party in the Church of England respected him as a prudent and learned man, and when Dr. Stillingfleet charged him with credulity and want of historical judgment, his defence was taken up by Anthony Wood who commended him for “his grave and good style, proper for an ecclesiastical historian” and spoke of him as one who “doth mostly quote his author and leaves what he says to the judgment of his readers.” Cressy’s “Church History of Brittany or England, from the Beginning of Christianity to the Norman Conquest” (Rouen, 1668) brings the narrative down to about the middle of the fourteenth century. A second part, “From the Conquest Downwards,” was discovered at Douai in 1856, but is yet in MS. (Gillow). His other works are: Appendix to “Exomologesis” (Paris, 1647); “Arbor virtutum, a MS. preserved at Ugbrooke, Devonshire”; “The Scale (or Ladder) of Perfection” by Walter Hilton, ed. Cressy (London, 1659); “Sancta Sophia” by Ven. Fr. Aug. Baker, ed. Cressy (Douai, 1657); “Certain Patterns of Devout Exercises” (Douai, 1657); “Roman Catholic Doctrines no Novelties” (1633); “A Non Est Inventus” (London, 1662); “A Letter to an English Gentleman concerning Bishop Morley” (London, 1662); “Sixteen Revelations of Divine Love,” from an ancient copy (1670); “Fanaticism Fanatically Imputed to the Catholic Church by Dr. Stillingfleet” (1672); “First Question: Why Are You a Catholic?” etc. (London, 1672); “An Answer to Part of Dr. Stillingfleet’s Book intitul’d Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome” (1674); “An Epistle Apologetical of S.C. to a Person of Honour” (1674); “An Abridgment of the Book called ‘The Cloud of Unknowing’ by Maurice Chauncey” (MS.).

G.E. HIND

Joseph Creswell

(vere Arthur)

Controversialist, b. 1577 of Yorkshire stock in London; d. about 1623. His widowed mother married William Lacey, who, after her death, was ordained priest and martyred (22 August, 1582) at York. Creswell joined the Society of Jesus at Rome, 11 Oct., 1583, having previously studied at Reims and at the Roman College. Having been rector (1589–1592) after Father Persons at the English College, Rome, he also succeeded Persons as vice-prefect for the English Jesuit interests in Spain. Creswell’s character and conduct in connection with his difficulties over the seminaries in Seville and Valladolid, and his controversies about the Benedictine vocations have been severely criticized (Cf. Camm, Life of Ven. John Roberts, and Polen, The Month, London, Sept.-Oct., 1899). Father Creswell had considerable intercourse with Sir Charles Cornwallis, the English resident at Madrid, till the Powder Plot, when Creswell was summoned to Rome. Sent to Belgium in 1614, he was at St-Omer in 1630, and in 1621 was made rector of Ghent. His chief works are:- A Latin treatise, “De Vitâ Beatâ”;- “Exemplar Literarun ad Cecilium (sive Burleigh),” 1592, under the pseudonym “John Perne,” against Elizabeth’s proclamation of 29 Nov., 1591;—“Vida y Martyrio del P. Henrique Valpolo” (Madrid, 1596);—treatise against James First’s (1610) proclamation (4to, St-Omer, 1611);- “Meditations upon the Rosary” (St-Omer, 1620);- translation into Spanish, under the name “Peter Manrique” of Father William Bathe’s “Preparation for Administering Penance and the Eucharist” (Milan, 1614);—translation into English and Spanish, under initials N. T. of Salvian’s “Quis dives salvus?” (St-Omer, 1618); “Relacion de Inglaterra,” Ms X, 14, National Library, Madrid;- memoir for Philip III of Spain on affairs of the Society;—“Responsio at Calumnias.” Stonyhurst Library, Letters, Vatican archives (Lettere di particolari, I, 1).

Foley, Records, VI and VII; Oliver, Collectanea S. J.; Douay diaries, p. xclx; Butler, memoirs, II, 224; Sommervogel, Bibliothèque, II, 1656; Cooper in Dict. Nat. Biog., XIII, 73.

PATRICK RYAN

Joseph Crétin

First Bishop of St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A., b. at Montluel, department of Ain, France, 19 December, 1799; d. at St. Paul, Minnesota, 22 February, 1857. He made his preparatory studies in the Petits séminaires of Meximieux (Ain) and L’Argentière (Rhône), his studies of philosophy at Alix (Rhône), and of theology in the seminary of Saint-Sulpice, Paris. He was ordained priest 20 December, 1823, and soon afterward was appointed vicar in the parish at Ferney, once the home of Voltaire, and eventually became its parish priest. He built there a new and beautiful church with funds largely gathered by himself on a tour through France, founded a college for boys, and revived the Catholic Faith among his parishioners, many of whom had become indifferent towards it, owing to the surviving influence of “the philosopher” and the close proximity of the Protestant cantons of Switzerland. But Crétin longed for a larger field of activity; at one time he thought earnestly of going as a missionary to China. His perplexities in that regard were solved by the advent of Bishop Loras, first bishop of Dubuque, Iowa, who arrived in France in 1838 in search of priests for his Western diocese. Crétin was one of the few who volunteered and on 16 August, 1838, he secretly left his parish, embarked at Le Havre with Bishop Loras, and landed in New York in October of the same year. The winter of 1838–39 was spent in St. Louis, Missouri, and on his arrival in Dubuque, 18 April, 1839, he was at once appointed vicar-general of the new diocese. For over eleven years he exercised his priestly ministry in these new and unopened regions, dividing his time chiefly between Dubuque Iowa, Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, and the Winnebago Indians in the neighborhood of Fort Atkinson, Winnieshiek Co., Iowa. Only once, in 1847, did he absent himself, when he made a trip to Europe in the interest of his missions. In 1850, St. Paul, Minnesota, became the seat of a new diocese. Crétin was appointed its first bishop, and went to France, to be consecrated, 26 January, 1851, at Belley by Bishop Devie, who had ordained him to the priesthood.

After having obtained some donations and several ecclesiastics for his new diocese, he returned to America and arrived in St. Paul, 2 July, 1851. The same evening he made his first appearance in the log chapel of St. Paul, his first cathedral, and gave his first episcopal blessing to his flock. Within less than five months a large brick building was completed, which served as a school, a residence, and a second cathedral. Another structure, begun in 1855, was finished after his death, and serves as the cathedral of St. Paul. In 1853 a hospital was built; during the same year, and again in 1856 he bought land for cemetery purposes. For the instruction of children he introduced, in 1851, a community of the Sisters of St. Joseph, and in 1855, the Brothers of the Holy Family. He also planned the erection of a seminary, and always eagerly fostered vocations for the priesthood, keeping at his residence seminarians in their last period of preparation. He supported likewise the cause of temperance not only by personal example, but also by organizing, in January, 1852, the Catholic Temperance Society of St. Paul, the first of its kind in Minnesota. Another work to which he applied himself was that of Catholic colonization. With an eye to the future he endeavored to provide for the growth of his diocese by bringing Catholic immigrants from European countries to the fertile plains of Minnesota. Withal he did not neglect his ministerial and pastoral office. He was often alone in St. Paul without the help of priest, and at times travelled through the vast extent of his diocese bestowing on his people the consolations of religion. Bishop Crétin’s memory is held in esteem and veneration, especially by the old settlers of St. Paul.

Most of the material for Bishop Crétin’s life is still unpublished. The above details are from letters written by him and other documents in possession of The St. Paul Catholic Historical Society. A few documents and references on the subject are found in Acta et Dicta (St. Paul, 1907) I, No. 1; The Diocese of St. Paul (St. Paul, 1901); Ravoux, Mémoires (St. Paul, 1892); De Cailly, Memoirs of Bishop Loras (New York, 1897); O’Gorman, History of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1895); Thebaud, Forty Years in the U. S. (New York, 1904), 274–275; Reuss, Biog. Cyclo. of the Cath. Hierarchy in the U. S. (Milwaukee, 1898); Shea, Hist. of the Cath. Ch. in the U. S. (New York, 1904).

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Jacques Crétineau-Joly

Journalist and historian; b. at Fontenay-le-Comte, Vendee, France, 23 Sept., 1803; d. at Vincennes near Paris, 1 Jan., 1875. At first he studied theology at the seminary of Saint-Sulpice, Paris, but, feeling that he had no vocation, he left after a stay of three years, during which he had received the tonsure. He was now in his twentieth year; he quickly obtained the professorship of philosophy at the college in his native town, but soon resigned the position on account of ill-health, and went in 1823 to Rome, as companion and private secretary to the French ambassador, the Duke of Laval-Montmorency.

In 1826 he published at Rome “Chants romains,” which contained poor verses of an irreligious character. After his return home in 1828 he issued a number of volumes of poems and dramas, as “Les trappistes” (Angoulême, 1828), “Inspirations poetiques” (Angoulême, 1833), and other poems, all of which proved, however, that he was no poet. He accomplished much more as a polemical journalist in the struggle against the liberalism, which, after the revolution of July, directed the State during the reign of the Duke of Orleans as Louis-Philippe. Being a Vendean he was an enthusiastic adherent of the hereditary royal house, and with fiery zeal defended its rights in several Legitimist newspapers of which he was editor. In 1837 he went to reside in Paris in order to devote himself to historical research concerning the history of Vendee, but in 1839 he added for a time to these labours the editing of “L’Europe monarchique,” a newspaper devoted to the interests of the Bourbons. Before this he had published two writings on Vendee: “Episodes des guerres de la Vendee (1834) and “Histoire des generaux et chefs vendeens” (1838). He now combined the two, made use of a large number of sources until then unknown, and issued his most important work: “Histoire de la Vendee militaire” (Paris, 1840–41), 4 vols; the fifth edition appeared in 1865. Although he did not lay sufficient weight on the religious side of these struggles, the work brought him reputation on account of the animated descriptions, the clear arrangement of the great mass of material, the correctness and painstaking care in the use of authorities. It must be acknowledged that he was by no means scrupulous how he obtained his materials and in the prosecution of the narrative he was constantly influenced by practical considerations, for history had no value to him except as a storehouse of weapons against the foe of the moment.

His reputation outside of France was gained largely by his religious-political writings. the most important of these is his great history of the Society of Jesus: “Histoire religieuse, politique et littéraire de la Compagnie de Jesus” issued at Paris, 1844–46, in 6 vols.; German translation, 1845, 3d ed., 1851. The work was written under the auspices of the Society and was drawn from authentic and unpublished sources; it is an excellent apology for the much abused Society, although at times it shows a lack of critical judgment and of moderation in treating the subject. A companion volume was his much discussed work: “Clément XIV et les Jésuites” (Paris, 1847, 3d ed., 1848). To this Theiner wrote a rejoinder on behalf of Pope Pius IX, and Ravignon one on behalf of the Society, whereupon Crétineau-Joly, after making careful research and in agreement with the pope, published “L’église romaine en face de la Révolution” (1859, 2 vols.; 2d ed., 1863), a work which testifies to his unwavering fidelity to the Catholic Church. His other writings generally treat some burning question of the day and possess, therefore, less general interest.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur

A French agriculturist, b. at Caen, France, 1731; d. at Sarcelles, near Paris, 1813. At the age of sixteen he went to England, whence in 1754 he emigrated to America, and for many years resided on a farm. In 1780 he was obliged to return to France to settle some of his affairs, and when he went to New York to take passage he was arrested by the English on suspicion of being a spy. After being in confinement for several months he was released and permitted to proceed on his journey unmolested. During his stay in his native land he succeeded in interesting the farmers of Normandy in the cultivation of the potato, and its culture was taken up by them. After a stay of about three years he once more came to America. It was largely due to his description of the wonderful productiveness of the land that several hundred of his countrymen emigrated to America. They established a colony in Pennsylvania, which for a time flourished. It was at last destroyed by the savages and its inhabitants massacred. The American Revolution having come to a close, Crèvecoeur was appointed consul at New York by the French Government, in which capacity he served for a long term. It was while occupying this post that he assisted in the founding of St. Peter’s, the first Catholic church in the city, and served as one of its first trustees. He is the author of the following works: “Lettres d’un cultivateur américain” (1784); “Voyage dans la haute Pennsylvanie et dans l’état de New York” (1801). These works have been translated into English and German, and are admired for the beauty of their style. They were very popular throughout France.

DE COURCY AND SHEA, Hist. of Cath. Ch. in U. S. (New York, 1856); FINOTTI, Bib. Cath. Am. (New York, 1872); Cyclop. Am. Biog., II, 8.

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE

Crib

(Greek phatne; Latin praesepe, praesepium.)

The crib or manger in which the Infant Saviour was laid after his birth is properly that place in the stable or khan where food for domestic animals is put, formed probably of the same material out of which the grotto itself is hewn. A very ancient tradition avers that an ass and an ox were in the stable when Christ was born. The tradition bears an allusion to Isaias (i, 3): “The ox knoweth his owner and the ass his master’s crib”; and is probably founded on the words of the Prophet Habacuc (iii, 2) which in the Septuagint version read: “In the midst of two animals thou shalt be known,” instead of “In the midst of years” etc. as St. Jerome rightly translated the original Hebrew. Be this as it may, what pertains to the crib we may consider in the present article under three separate headings: (I) The Basilica of the Nativity and the Grotto of the Nativity at Bethlehem; (II) The relics of the crib preserved at St. Mary Major’s in Rome; (III) Devotion to the crib.

I. Bethlehem is situated on two hills and is 2361 feet above the level of the sea. The western hill is the Bethlehem of Scripture; whilst on the eastern elevation is situated the Basilica of the Nativity erected over the grotto. We may imagine, then, that the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph, there being “no room for them in the inn,” left the town and came to the cave or stable on the eastern hill which served as a place of refuge for shepherds and their flocks against the inclemency of the weather. We are not concerned here with the controversies both as regards the historicity of St. Luke’s narrative of the birth of Christ and as regards the actual site of the Grotto of the Nativity. Suffice it to say that there appears to be no sufficient reason for abandoning the very ancient and unbroken tradition which attests the authenticity of the place of the crib now venerated. From the earliest times, moreover, ecclesiastical writers bear witness to this tradition. Thus St. Justin, who died a martyr in 165, says that “Having failed to find any lodging in the town, Joseph sought shelter in a neighbouring cavern of Bethlehem” (Dial. c. Tryph., 70). About half a century later, Origen writes: “If any one desires to satisfy himself without appealing either to the prophecy of Micheas, or to the history of the Christ as written by his disciples, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, let him know that, in accordance with the Gospel narrative, at Bethlehem is shown the grotto where he first saw the light” (C. Cels. I, 51).

St. Helena first converted the grotto into a chapel and adorned it with costly marble and other precious ornaments. The first basilica erected over the crypt is due most probably to the devotion and munificence of her son Constantine, of whom Eusebius says that “The emperor himself, eclipsing even the magnificence of his mother’s design, adorned the same place in a truly regal style” (Vita Const., III, 43). Both the grotto itself and the basilica have undergone numerous restorations and modifications made necessary in the course of centuries by the ravages of war and invasion; but, at the present time, little remains of the splendid mosaics and paintings described in detail by Quaeresimus and other writers. The Crypt of the Nativity is reached from the upper church by a double flight of stairs leading from the north side of the choir of the basilica to the grotto below, and converging at the place where according to tradition the Infant Saviour was born. The exact spot is marked by a star cut out of stone, surrounding which are the words:

HIC DE VIRGINE MARIA JESUS CHRISTUS NATUS EST.

A short distance to the southwest is the manger itself where Christ was laid and where, as tradition asserts, he was adored by the Magi. In 1873 the grotto was plundered by the Greeks and everything of value, including two paintings by Murillo and Maello respectively, was carried off. No restitution of the stolen treasures has since been made.

II. The relics of the crib that are preserved at St. Mary Major’s in Rome were probably brought there from the Holy Land during the pontificate of Pope Theodore (640–649), who was himself a native of Palestine, and who was well aware of the dangers of plunder and pillage to which they were exposed at the hands of the Mussulmans and other marauders. We find at all events that the basilica erected by Liberius on the Esquiline first received the name of Sancta Maria ad Praesepe under Pope Theodore. During the pontificate of Hadrian I the first altar was erected in the basilica, and in the course of succeeding centuries the place where the relics are preserved came to be visited by the devout faithful from all parts of the Christian world. At the present time the remains of the crib preserved at St. Mary Major’s consist of five pieces of board which, as a result of the investigation conducted by Father Lais, sub-director of the Vatican Observatory, during the restorations of 1893 were found to be taken from a sycamore tree of which there are several varieties in the Holy Land. Two of the pieces, which like the other three, must have been originally much longer than they are at present, stood upright in the form of an X, upon which three other pieces rested, supported by a sixth piece, which, however, is missing, placed across the base of the upper angle of the X. We may conclude from this that these pieces of wood were properly speaking mere supports for the manger itself, which was probably made from the soft limestone of which the cave was formed. The rich reliquary, adorned with bas-reliefs and statuettes, which at present contains the relics of the crib was presented by the Duchess of Villa Hermosa in 1830. Pius IV (1559–65) restored the high altar upon which the relics are solemnly exposed for the veneration of the faithful yearly on the eve of Christmas.

III. Devotion to the crib is no doubt of very ancient origin; but it remained for St. Francis of Assisi to popularize it and to give to it the tangible form in which it is known at the present time. When St. Francis visited Rome in 1223, he made known to Pope Honorius III the plans he had conceived of making a scenic representation of the place of the Nativity. The pope listened gladly to the details of the project and gave it his sanction. Leaving Rome, St. Francis arrived at Greccio on Christmas Eve, when, through the aid of his friend Giovanni Velita, he constructed a crib and grouped around it figures of the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph, the ass, the ox, and the shepherds who came to adore the new-born Saviour. He acted as deacon at the midnight Mass. The legend relates that having sung the words of the Gospel “and they laid him in a manger” he knelt down to meditate briefly on the sublime mystery of the Incarnation, and there appeared in his arms a child surrounded by a brilliant light. A painting by Giotto representing St. Francis celebrating Christmas at Greccio is preserved in the Basilica of St. Francis at Assisi. Devotion to the crib has since spread throughout the Christian world. Yearly, from the eve of Christmas until the day of the octave of Epiphany, a crib representing the birthplace of Christ is shown in all Catholic churches in order to remind the faithful of the mystery of the Incarnation and to recall according to tradition and the Gospel narrative the historical events connected with the birth of the Redeemer. The old Franciscan church of Ara Coeli possesses perhaps one of the largest and most beautiful cribs in the world. In this crib the famous Santo Bambino di Ara Coeli is exposed from the eve of Christmas to the feast of the Epiphany. The Santo Bambino is a figure carved out of wood representing the new-born Saviour. It is said to have come from the Holy Land, and in the course of time it has been bedecked with numerous jewels of great value. It is carried in procession yearly on the feast of the Epiphany by the Minister General of the Friars Minor who solemnly blesses the city with it from the top of the high flight of stairs that lead to the main entrance of Ara Coeli.

MEISTERMANN, A New Guide to the Holy Land, tr. (London, 1907), 221–234; CHANDLERY, Pilgrim Walks in Rome (New York and London, 1903), 107–108; LESETRE in Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1899), XII, s. v. Creche; Analecta Juris Pontificii, January, 1895, II, 74, 75; MISLIN, Die Heiligen Orte (Vienna, 1860) II, 655 sq.; BIANCHINI, De Translatione Sacrarum Cunabularum ac Praesepii Domini.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Impediment of Crime

An Impediment of Crime nullifies marriage according to ecclesiastical law, and arises from adultery and homicide separately or together. The Roman civil law prohibited the marriage of a man with a widow with whom he had committed adultery during the lifetime of her husband. There is serious doubt (Decretum, Gratiani, Pt. II, c. xxxi, q. 41) whether the Church ever accepted this law. Ecclesiastical law since the twelfth century certainly supposes other circumstances in such adultery in order that it may effect a nullification of the marriage.

According to the actual law (Decretal. Greg. IX, Lib. 4 X tit. 7: De eo qui duxit. Cap. i, Propositum—Cap. vi, Significasti) there are two cases in which an adulterer may not marry one with whom the crime was committed:

(1) When the adulterer promises to the partner in guilt marriage after the death of the other’s legitimate spouse;

(2) When the two attempted marriage and this was consummated during the lifetime of a legitimate spouse.

Hence neither adultery alone without promise of marriage nor the promise of marriage without adultery forms a diriment, or nullifying, impediment. The promise must be accepted, and if it precede the adultery, must not have been recalled before the sin. Silence alone is not sufficient evidence of the acceptance of the promise. The adultery to which the promise is attached must be formal and known by both. If Titus should corrupt a woman who believed him to be free, he could marry her after his wife’s death, even if he attempted marriage with her during his wife’s life, provided she were unaware of his marriage.

Affected ignorance, certainly, and, most probably, crass ignorance does not excuse from the sin or its penalties. The adultery must be consummated, but it is not required that the promise united to the sin should be absolute, nor, most probably, that it should be sincere, because the impediment does not depend upon the value of the promise, which is essentially null, and because a fictitious promise, if apparently true, is naturally inductive to the sin; and this the Church, by establishing such an impediment, strives to prevent as far as possible. In regard to the impediment, it is indifferent whether the promise precede or follow the adultery, if both occur during the marriage. If the promise were made during the life of a first spouse, and the adultery were committed during the life of a second, the impediment would be doubtful. It is well to note that a promise of two persons to marry after the death of a legitimate spouse is recognized as criminal and null, even if confirmed by oath and made without any thought of adultery.

One murdering a spouse to marry another cannot contract marriage with this other;

(1) when there was co-operation in the murder for the purpose of this marriage,

(2) when, without co-operation in the murder, adultery was committed by them, and the murder committed for the sole purpose of their contracting marriage.

Thus, if the homicide is apart from adultery, both must concur in this murder. If the adultery occurs with the homicide, it suffices that one of the guilty should take part in the murder. In both cases one at least must intend to marry the other. That the adultery and homicide, apart or joined, form a diriment impediment certain conditions are necessary:

(1) the homicide must take place; an attempt to kill or the infliction of a wound not mortal would not entail it;

(2) the homicide must be of the spouse of one of those who wish to be married; so, when the homicide is apart from the adultery, both must be accomplices by a physical or moral action which influences the murder, either by a command or previous approval.

Approval of the event after its occurrence does not suffice, as also if the former command or approval had been recalled. The intention of marriage need not have been mentioned, where there was cooperation in the homicide. In the public ecclesiastical court credence is not given to the murderer of a spouse, who may deny the intention of marrying one with whom adulterous intercourse was held. This impediment holds if only one of the parties is a Christian. The Church claims the right to legislate for her children in their relations with infidels. The impediment is incurred even if not known. The Church may dispense from it, as the impediment is established by her authority. In the case of public homicide, however, whether due to only one or both of the parties, the pope never dispenses (Laurentius, no. 659).

Crime, from a canonical standpoint, at times carries with it its own legal punishment, at others it awaits the decision of a court. Thus we have seen its effect in causing an impediment to marriage. For certain crimes determined by ecclesiastical law, the “right of patronage” may be lost to the guilty party or, in some cases, to his heirs; ecclesiastical benefices may also be lost to the holder when guilty of a crime determined in the law. Homicide, fornication, or adultery, however would not necessarily deprive a cleric of his benefice, dignity, or office, though he may be deposed by his superior in punishment of these or similar crimes. Unless the law is explicit in determining such privation as resulting from the fact, a legal investigation is required for the punishment. (See IMPEDIMENTS; ADULTERY; HOMICIDE; MURDER.)

BENEDICT XIV, Bullarium, I, 9, cxiii (Prato, 1839–46); CRAISSON, Manuale Jur. Can. (8th ed., Poitiers, 1892), III, II, art. xiv; WAGNER, Dict. de droit canon. (Paris, 1901), s. v.; FEIJE, De imped. et disp. matr. (4th ed., Louvain, 1893); ROSSET, De sacramento matrimonii (St. Jean de Maurienne, 1895), III; HEINER, Grundriss des katholischen Eherechts (Münster, 1905), 151 sqq.—For the history of this impediment see FREISEN, Geschichte des kanonischen Eherechts bis zum Verfall der Glossenliteratur (Tübingen, 1888), 615 sqq.; ESMEIN, Le mariage en droit canonique (Paris, 1891), I, 384 sqq. and passim.

R. L. BURTSELL.

Diocese of Crisium

A Græco-Slavonic Rite diocese in Croatia.

Crisium is the Latin name of a little town some miles north-east of Agram (Zagreb), on the Glagovnitza. Its Croatian name is Krizevac (pronounced Krizhevatz); Slavic, Kriz; Hungarian, Körös; German, Kreuz. It has 4,000 inhabitants; trade of cattle, wood, and wine.

About the year 1600 numerous Serbs emigrated from Servia and Bosnia to Croatia, where they found coreligionists, known to historians since the fourteenth century as Wallachians. The emigrants soon took the same name. Some of them were converted to Catholicism through the efforts of Dimitrovich, Latin Bishop of Agram, who granted their leader, the monk Simeon Vratania, the monastery of St. Michael on Mount Marzha, near Ivanitz. In 1611 Simeon was appointed bishop of all the Catholic Serbs; he remained a staunch friend of Rome, as did his successors and their flock, in spite of defections caused by the schismatic Servian propaganda and conflicts with the Bishops of Agram. They bore the title “Episcopus Platæcensis” from Platæa in Bœotia, while the government called their see “Episcopatus Svidnicensis,” a name that has not yet been explained satisfactorily. In 1671 Bishop Paul Zorcic accepted for himself and his successors the position of vicar-general of the Bishop of Agram for the Catholics of the Slavonic Rite. It was not until 16 June, 1777, that Pius VI re-established the Uniat diocese with the title “Episcopatus Crisiensis.” Since then its bishops have resided at Krizevac; as stated above, they first resided at Mount Marzha, but after 1690 had no settled abode, on account of the persecutions caused by the schismatic Serbs.

The list of the bishops is given by Nilles in his “Symbolæ,” p. lxxxiii (index), 765–69. The Græco-Slavonic Uniat Diocese of Krizevac, suffragan of the Latin Archbishop of Agram, includes to-day 20,700 Catholics, in 23 Servian and Ruthenian parishes situated in Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, and the county of Bács-Bodrog in Hungary. The languages spoken are Croatian, Ruthenian, and Hungarian; the liturgical language is of course Slavonic. There are 28 secular priests, 30 churches, 22 with a resident priest, and 2 chapels. The schismatics number 225,000; there are also in this territory 17,000 Calvinists, 47 Lutherans, and 7,000 Jews.

NILLES, Symbolœ ad illustrandam historiam ecclesiœ orientalis (Innsbruck, 1885), 703–775; LAPASICH, Karlovac. Poviest i mjestopis grada i okolice (Agram, 1879); Missiones Catholicœ (Rome, 1907), 796.

S. VAILHÉ

St. Crispina

A martyr of Africa who suffered during the Diocletian persecution; b. at Thagara in the Province of Africa; d. by beheading at Thebeste in Numidia, 5 December, 304. Crispina belonged to a distinguished family and was a wealthy matron with children. At the time of the persecution she was brought before the proconsul Anulinus; on being ordered to sacrifice to the gods she declared she honoured only one God. Her head was shaved at the command of the judge, and she was exposed to public mockery, but she remained steadfast in the Faith and was not moved even by the tears of her children. When condemned to death, she thanked God and offered her head with joy for execution. The Acts of her martyrdom, written not long after the event, form a valuable historical document of the period of the persecution. The day of St. Crispina’s death was observed in the time of St. Augustine; in his sermons Augustine repeatedly mentions her name, as well known in Africa and worthy to be held in the same veneration as the names of St. Agnes and St. Thecla. Ruinart in his collection of the Acts of the martyrs gives the account of her examination.

BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 5 Dec.; PIO FRANCHI DE’ CAVALIERI, in Studi et Testi (Rome, 1902), IX, gives a new edition of the Acts; BOISSIER, Melanges (Paris, 1903), 383 sq.; ALLARD, Histoire des Persecutions, IV, 443 sq.

GABRIEL MEIER

Sts. Crispin and Crispinian

Martyrs of the Early Church who were beheaded during the reign of Diocletian; the date of their execution is given as 25 October, 285 or 286. It is stated that they were brothers, but the fact has not been positively proved. The legend relates that they were Romans of distinguished descent who went as missionaries of the Christian Faith to Gaul and chose Soissons as their field of labour. In imitation of St. Paul they worked with their hands, making shoes, and earned enough by their trade to support themselves and also to aid the poor. During the Diocletian persecution they were brought before Maximianus Herculius whom Diocletian had appointed co-emperor. At first Maximianus sought to turn them from their faith by alternate promises and threats. But they replied: “Thy threats do not terrify us, for Christ is our life, and death is our gain. Thy rank and possessions are nought to us, for we have long before this sacrificed the like for the sake of Christ and rejoice in what we have done. If thou shouldst acknowledge and love Christ thou wouldst give not only all the treasures of this life, but even the glory of thy crown itself in order through the exercise of compassion to win eternal life.” When Maximianus saw that his efforts were of no avail, he gave Crispin and Crispinian into the hands of the governor Rictiovarus (Rictius Varus), a most cruel persecutor of the Christians. Under the order of Rictiovarus they were stretched on the rack, thongs were cut from their flesh, and awls were driven under their finger-nails. A millstone was then fastened about the neck of each, and they were thrown into the Aisne, but they were able to swim to the opposite bank of the river. In the same manner they suffered no harm from a great fire in which Rictiovarus, in despair, sought death himself. Afterwards the two saints were beheaded at the command of Maximianus.

This is the story of the legend which the Bollandists have incorporated in their great collection; the same account is found in various breviaries. The narrative says that a large church was built over the graves of the two saints, consequently the legend could not have arisen until a later age; it contains, moreover, many details that have little probability or historical worth and seems to have been compiled from various fabulous sources. In the sixth century a stately basilica was erected at Soissons over the graves of these saints, and St. Eligius, a famous goldsmith, made a costly shrine for the head of St. Crispinian. Some of the relics of Crispin and Crispinian were carried to Rome and placed in the church of San Lorenzo in Panisperna. Other relics of the saints were given by Charlemagne to the cathedral, dedicated to Crispin and Crispinian, which he founded at Osnabrück. Crispin and Crispinian are the patron saints of shoemakers, saddlers, and tanners. Their feast falls on 25 October.

Acta SS., Oct., XI, 495–540; BARING-GOULD, Lives of the Saints, XII, 628; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints. 25 October; Bio-Bibl. s. v.

GABRIEL MEIER.

Bl. Crispin of Viterbo

Friar Minor Capuchin; b. at Viterbo in 1668; d. at Rome, 19 May, 1750. When he was five years old, his pious mother took him to a sanctuary of the Blessed Virgin, a short distance from Viterbo, where she consecrated him to the Mother of God and placed him under her special protection. The child grew beyond his years in virtue and science of the saints; so that the townsfold of Viterbo were wont to call him il Santarello, the little saint. As Crispin one day saw the Capuchin novices walking in procession, God inspired him with the desire to embrace the religious life. He was shortly afterwards received into the Francisan Order as a simple lay brother. Having been employed for some time as cook in the convent at Viterbo, he was sent to Tolfa, a town not far distant from Civita Becchia, to fulfil the same office. Thence he was sent to Rome and finally to Albano. Here Crispin was visited by the men of the world, by bishops and cardinals, and even by the pope himself, who always took delight in conversing with the humble lay brother. It was Crispin’s constant endeavour to imitate the virtues of his patron, St. Felix of Cantalice, whom he had chosen as his model of perfectiona t the beginning of his religious life. Like St. Felix, he used to call himself the ass or beat of burden of the Capuchins, and, having on one occasion been asked by a stranger why he went bare-headed, Crispin answered jocosely, that “an ass does not wear a hat.” Enfeebled by old age and by his numerous austerities, he was sent to Rome by his superiors, there to end his holy life. His body, which even at the present time is still in a remarkable state of preservation, rests under one of the side altars in the church of the Capuchin Fathers in Rome. Blessed Crispin was solemnly beatified by Pope Pius VII in 1806. His feat is celebrated only by the Capuchins.

LEO, Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the Three Orders of St. Francis (Taunton, 1886), II, 280–85.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Biblical Criticism

Biblical criticism in its fullest comprehension is the examination of the literary origins and historical values of the books composing the Bible, with the state in which these exist at the present day.

Since the sacred Scriptures have come down in a great variety of copies and ancient versions, showing more or less divergence of text, it is the province of that department of Biblical criticism which is called , or lower, to study these documents with a view to arriving at the purest possible text of the sacred books. The name higher criticism was first employed by the German Biblical scholar Eichhorn, in the second edition of his “Einleitung,” appearing in 1787. It is not, as supposed by some, an arrogant denomination, assuming superior wisdom, but it has come into use because this sort of criticism deals with the larger aspects of Bible study; viz., with the authorship, date, composition, and authority of whole books or large sections, as distinguished from the discussion of textual minutiæ, which is the sphere of the lower, or textual, criticism. (See separate article TEXTUAL CRITICISM).

Taken in this limited sense, Biblical criticism, in the light of modern philological, historical, and archæological science, and by methods which are recent in their development, subjects to severe tests the previously accepted and traditional views on the human authorship, the time and manner of composition, of the sacred writings, and discriminates as to their objective historical value. In reaching its results it sets more store on evidences internal to the books than on external traditions or attestations, and its undeniable effect is to depreciate tradition in a great measure, so that there exists a sharply-drawn line between the exegetes of the critical and those of the traditional school. In the process by which the critics arrive at their conclusions there is a divergence of attitude towards the supernatural element in Holy Writ. Those of the rationalistic wing ignore, and at least tacitly deny, inspiration in the theological meaning of the term, and without any doctrinal preoccupations, except some hostile to the supernatural, proceed to apply critical tests to the Scriptures, in the same manner as if they were merely human productions. Moderate critics of Protestant persuasion—a school that predominates in Great Britain—hold to inspiration and revelation, though with a freedom incompatible with Catholic orthodoxy. Catholic Biblical critics, while taking as postulates the plenary inspiration and the inerrancy of the sacred Writings, admit in a large measure the literary and historical conclusions reached by non-Catholic workers in this field, and maintain that these are not excluded by Catholic faith. With the exception of Abbé Loisy and his followers, no Catholic scholar has claimed autonomy or complete independence for criticism, all proceeding on the principle that it cannot validly, and may not lawfully, contradict the established dogmatic teaching of the Church. Its Christian exponents insist that a reverent criticism is quite within its rights in sifting the elements which enter into human aspects of the Bible, as a means of a better understanding of the written word, since its component parts were given their form by men in certain historical environments and under some of the limitations of their age and place, and since, moreover, inspiration does not dispense with ordinary human industry and methods in literary composition. (See INSPIRATION.)

Higher Criticism may be called a science, though its processes and results do not admit of nicety of control and demonstration, as its principles are of the moral-psychological order. Hence its conclusions, even in the most favourable circumstances, attain to no greater force than what arises from a convergence of probabilities, begetting a moral conviction. While some attempts have been made to elaborate a system of canons for the higher criticism, it has not, and probably never will have, a strictly defined and generally accepted code of principles and rules. Some broad principles, however, are universally admitted by critical scholars. A fundamental one is that a literary work always betrays the imprint of the age and environment in which it was produced; another is that a plurality of authors is proved by well-marked differences of diction and style, at least when these coincide with distinctions in view-point or discrepancies in a double treatment of the same subject. A third received canon holds to a radical dissimilarity between ancient Semitic and modern Occidental, or Aryan, methods of composition.

HISTORY

BEFORE THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

The early ecclesiastical writers were unconscious of nearly all the problems to which criticism has given rise. Their attention was concentrated on the Divine content and authority of sacred Scripture, and, looking almost exclusively at the Divine side, they deemed as of trifling account questions of authorship, date, composition, accepting unreservedly for these points such traditions as the Jewish Church had handed down, all the more readily that Christ Himself seemed to have given various of these traditions His supreme confirmation. As for the N. T., tradition was the determining factor here too. As exceptions we may note that Origen concluded partly from internal evidence that St. Paul could scarcely have written the Epistle to the Hebrews, and his disciple Dionysius adduced linguistic grounds for rejecting the Apocalypse as a work of St. John. The Fathers saw in every sentence of the Scripture a pregnant oracle of God. Apparent contradictions and other difficulties were solved without taking possible human imperfection into view. Only in a few isolated passages does St. Jerome seem to hint at such in connexion with history. Except in regard to the preservation of the sacred text there was nothing to elicit a critical view of the Bible in the age of the Fathers, and this applies also to the Scholastic period. Even the Humanist movement preceding the Reformation gave no impulse to the critical spirit beyond fostering the study of the Scriptures in their original languages. It was not a Humanist, but the erratic Reformer Carlstadt, who first broke with tradition on the authorship of an inspired book by declaring that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch, because the account of his death is in the same style as the rest of his book. But though Carlstadt adduced a critical argument he cannot be styled a critic. Hobbes (1651), Pereyre (1655), Spinoza (1670) attacked the Mosaic authorship, but merely incidentally, in works in which anything like a systematic criticism found no place. A French priest, Richard Simon (1638–1712), was the first who subjected the general questions concerning the Bible to a treatment which was at once comprehensive in scope and scientific in method. Simon is the forerunner of modern Biblical criticism. The broadening opportunities for the study of Oriental languages, a keen and methodical mind, probably, too, a reaction against the rigid view of the Bible which reigned amongst both Catholics and Protestants of the age were the factors which produced Simon’s first great work, the “Histoire critique du Vieux Testament’s, which was published in 1678. In this he called attention to the double narratives and variation of style in the Pentateuch, and thence deduced that, aside from the legal portion, which Moses himself had written down, much of the remaining matter was the work of several inspired annalists, a class to whom are due the later historical books, and who in subsequent generations added touches to the inspired histories by their predecessors. This theory did not survive its author, but the use of internal evidence by which Simon arrived at it entitles him to be called the father of Biblical criticism. His novel view of the Mosaic books excited only condemnation, and his critical work, being an isolated effort which did not win the support of a school, found appreciation only in recent times. A continuously developing higher criticism was not to begin till the middle of the eighteenth century. But a capital distinction is to be made between criticism as applied to the Old and as applied to the New Testament. The two have followed different courses. O. T. criticism has been developed along the lines of linguistic and historic research. Philosophico-religious prejudices have been kept in the background. But in respect to the N. T., criticism began as the outgrowth of philosophic speculations of a distinctly anti-Christian character and, as exercised by rationalists and liberal Protestants, has not yet freed itself from the sway of such a priori principles, though it has tended to grow more positive—that is, more genuinely critical—in its methods.

SINCE THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

(1) OLD-TESTAMENT CRITICISM OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

In 1753 Jean Astruc, a French Catholic physician of considerable note, published a little book, “Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il paraît que Moïse s’est servi pour composer le livre de la Genèse,” in which he conjectured, from the alternating use of two names of God in the Hebrew Genesis, that Moses had incorporated therein two pre-existing documents, one of which employed Elohim and the other Jehovah. The idea attracted little attention till it was taken up by a German scholar, who, however, claims to have made the discovery independently. This was Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, the author of an Introduction to the O. T., issued 1780–83, and distinguished by vigour and scientific acumen. Eichhorn was indebted not a little to his friend Herder, the noted German littérateur, and the two conjointly originated the critical habit of looking upon the O. T. as a collection of Oriental literature whose several parts are to be read and interpreted as the productions of the Semitic genius. Eichhorn greatly developed Astruc’s hypothesis by observing that the Elohim and Jehovah sections of Genesis bear other characteristics, and by extending the analysis thus derived to the whole Pentateuch. But the German savant was not so orthodox an adherent of the Mosaic authorship as was Astruc, since he left to the Hebrew legislator a very uncertain part of the work. When Eichhorn composed his “Introduction” he was somewhat influenced by free-thinking views which later became very pronounced. His criticism, therefore, had as its antecedents not only Astruc’s fruitful conjecture and Herder’s poetic insight into Oriental literature, but also eighteenth-century German rationalism. This was in part native to the soil, but it drew much nurture from the ideas of the English Deists and Sceptics, who flourished towards the end of the seventeenth century and in the first part of the eighteenth. Such authors as Blount (1654–93) and Collins (1676–1729) had impugned miracles and prophecy and in general the authority of the O.T. writings. The standpoint of the German Orientalist Reimarus was that of the English Deists; the whole drift of his “Wolfenbüttel Fragments,” first appearing 1774–78, is one of antagonism to the supernatural. Lessing (1729–81), his literary executor, without departing so offensively from the path of orthodoxy, defended the fullest freedom of discussion in theological matters. Contemporary with Lessing was J. S. Semler, who rejected inspiration, attributed a mythical character to episodes in O.T. historical books, and, on lines parallel to Lessing’s philosophy of religion, distinguished in Scripture elements of permanent and others of transitory and negligible value.

Eichhorn is the first typical representative of modern Biblical criticism, the especial home of which has been Germany. He gave the first impulse to the literary analysis of the Scriptures, applying it not only to the Pentateuch, but also to Isaias and other portions of the O. T. Outside of Germany the views of Eichhorn and his school found little currency. Yet it was a Catholic priest of Scottish origin, Alexander Geddes (1737–1802), who broached a theory of the origin of the Five Books (to which he attached Josue) exceeding in boldness either Simon’s or Eichhorn ‘s. This was the well-known “Fragment” hypothesis, which reduced the Pentateuch to a collection of fragmentary sections partly of Mosaic origin, but put together in the reign of Solomon. Geddes’ opinion was introduced into Germany in 1805 by Vater. For the fuller account of this and later stages of the criticism of the Pentateuch the reader is referred to the article under that heading. With some essays of a young scholar, De Wette, which were published 1805–07, properly began the historical criticism of the Bible. De Wette joined to the evidences supplied by vocabulary and style (i. e. those of literary criticism) arguments drawn from history, as contained in the sacred narratives themselves, and the discoveries of antiquarian research. He refused to find anything but legend and poetry in the Pentateuch, though he granted it a unity of plan, and a development in accordance with his conception of Israel’s history, thus laying the foundation for the leading hypothesis of the present day. De Wette’s ideas also furnished the basis for the Supplement-theory, systematized later by Bleek and others. He was the first to attack the historical character of the books of Paralipomenon, or Chronicles. Bleek (1793–1859), Ewald (1803–75), and the Catholic Movers (1806–56), while following critical methods, opposed the purely negative criticism of De Wette and his school, and sought to save the authenticity of some Mosaic books and Davidic psalms by sacrificing that of others. Bleek revived, and brought into prominence, the conclusion of Geddes, that the book of Josue is in close literary connexion with the first five books of the Bible, and thenceforth the idea of a Hexateuch, or sixfold work, has been maintained by advanced exegetes. Hupfeld, in 1853, found four instead of three documents in the Pentateuch, viz., the first Elohist, comprising the priestly law, a second Elohist (hitherto unsuspected except by a forgotten investigator, Ilgen), the Jehovist, and the Deuteronomist. He allowed to none of these a Mosaic origin. With Hupfeld’s view the idea of one large source, or Grundschrift, supplemented by smaller ones, began to give place to the “Document” hypothesis. Meanwhile these conclusions, so subversive of ancient traditions regarding the Five Books, were stoutly contested by a number of German scholars, prominent among whom stood Ranke, Hävernick, Hengstenberg, and Keil, among Protestants; and Jahn, Hug, Herbst, and Welte, representing Catholic learning. These, while refusing to allow the testimony of Jewish tradition to be ruled out of court as invalid against internal evidence, were compelled to employ the methods of their adversaries in defending the time-honoured views. The questions were agitated only in countries where Protestantism predominated, and, among these, in England the conservative views were strongly entrenched.

The critical dissection of books was and is accomplished on the ground of diversity of vocabulary and style, the phenomena of double narratives of the same event varying from each other, it is claimed, to the extent of discrepancy, and differences of religious conceptions. The critics appeal for confirmation of this literary analysis to the historical books. For example, Moses could not have enacted an elaborate ritual legislation for a people leading a nomad life in the desert, especially since we find (say the critics) no trace of its observance in the earliest periods of Israel’s settled existence. These and like tests are applied to nearly every book of the O. T., and result in conclusions which, if allowed, profoundly modify the traditional beliefs regarding the authorship and integrity of these Scriptures, and are incompatible with any strict notion of their inerrancy.

The Hegelian principle of evolution has undoubtedly influenced German criticism, and indirectly Biblical criticism in general. Applied to religion, it has powerfully helped to beget a tendency to regard the religion of Israel as evolved by processes not transcending nature, from a polytheistic worship of the elements to a spiritual and ethical monotheism. This theory was first elaborated by Abram Kuenen, a Dutch theologian, in his “Religion of Israel” (1869–70). Without being essential to, it harmonizes with the current system of Pentateuchal criticism, sometimes called “the Development Hypothesis,” but better known as “the Grafian.” This hypothesis is accepted to-day by the great body of non-Catholic Biblical scholarship. It makes the Pentateuch a growth formed by the piecing and interlacing together of documents representing distinct epochs. Of these the oldest is the Jehovistic, or J, dating from the ninth century B.C.; E, the Elohistic work, was composed a little later. These elements are prophetic in spirit and narrative in matter. D, the Deuteronomic Code, was the organ and instrument of the prophetic reform under Josias; it appeared 621 B.C.P, the great document containing the Priestly Code, was drawn up after the Babylonian Exile, and is the outcome of the sacerdotal and ritual formalism distinguishing the restored Jewish community; it therefore dates from the fifth century B.C. This ingenious and coherent hypothesis was formulated first by E. Reuss of the University of Strasburg, but presented to the public many years later (1866) by his disciple H. K. Graf. It was skilfully elaborated by Julius Wellhausen, professor (in 1908) at the University of Göttingen, in works published in 1883 and 1889 (“Prolegomena to the History of Israel” and “Composition of the Hexateuch and the Historical Books of the O. T.”), and to-day it dominates the critical treatment of the Hexateuch. The shifting of the Priestly Code (formerly called the First Elohist) from the earliest to the latest in time, a characteristic of the Grafian system, has had a marked influence on the drift of O. T. criticism in general, notably with regard to the books of Paralipomenon. It has reversed the chronological order of the prophetical and priestly elements running through the greater part of the O. T.

Only within the last two decades has higher criticism made notable progress in English-speaking lands, and this has been rendered possible by the moderation of its leading spokesman there. Foremost among these semi-orthodox critics of the O. T. is Professor Driver of Oxford, whose “Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament” first appeared in 1891. W. Robertson Smith in “The Old Testament and the Jewish Church” had previously (1880), though less systematically, presented the Grafian hypothesis to the English-speaking world. The results of British conservative criticism are embodied in Hastings’ “Dictionary of the Bible,” while the radical wing in England is represented by the “Encyclopædia Biblica” edited by Professors Cheyne and Black. In America most of the conclusions of German criticism have found advocates in Professors C.H. Briggs (“The Bible, the Church and Reason,” 1892; “Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch,” 1893), H.P. Smith, and C.H. Toy.

The higher criticism claims to have discerned great inequalities in the value of those portions of the O. T. which are historical in form. In the same book we may find, it asserts, myth, legend, and material of real historical worth, the last of these elements being abundant in Judges and the Books of Kings, though even here a careful sifting must be used. In parts of the Hexateuch, especially in the priestly document and the cognate Paralipomenon writing, history is freely idealized, and existing institutions are projected artificially into the remote past. Esther, Tobias, Judith, Jonas, and portions of II Machabees belong to the class of Jewish Haggadah, or moralizing fictions. The Psalms have few if any compositions by David; they are the religious poetry of Israel. Isaias is a composite, containing messages of prophets widely separated in time and circumstances. The prophets spoke and wrote primarily in view of definite contemporary situations. Job is an epic, and Canticles a pastoral drama. The book of Daniel is an apocalypse of the Machabean period, describing history of the past and present under the semblance of visions of the future. To conclude this outline of the critical results, the human element in Scripture is given prominence and represented as clothed with the imperfections, limitations, and errors of the times of its origin; many books are exhibited as the products of successive literary accretions, excluding any unity of authorship; in fact, for most of the histories, the unknown writers retire into the shadow to give place to the unifying labours of the equally unknown “redactor” or “redactors.”

(2) THE REACTION AGAINST CRITICISM

This has been aided by the antithesis between the conclusions of certain Assyriologists of note (viz., A. H. Sayce and F. Hommel) and the prevailing school of criticism. Recent discoveries in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Persia prove that a developed civilization existed in Western Asia in times contemporary with Abraham, and earlier. (See BABYLONIA; ASSYRIA.) The inference drawn by the above scientists (Sayce, “Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments,” 1895; Hommel, “Ancient Hebrew Tradition,” tr., 1897) is that the elaborate ritual and legal code of the Israelites could well have been framed by Moses. They charge the critics with not taking Oriental discoveries sufficiently into account, and argue that, since the monuments confirm the substantial truth of some of the historical books, a presumption is raised in favour of the veracity of Hebrew literature in general. The historical character of the narratives is upheld by other considerations of a more minute and technical nature. In America the old views of the Bible were defended with zeal and learning by Dr. William H. Green, of Princeton, author of a series of Biblical works extending from 1863 to 1899; also by E.C. Bissel and W. L. Baxter. In Great Britain the conservatives have been represented in recent times by Alfred Cave, J.J. Lias, and others. In Germany, J. K. F. Keil, who died in 1888, was the last exegete of international name who stood without compromise for tradition. But a contemporary group of Protestant German theologians and Orientalists have championed the claims of the O. T. as a Divinely inspired literature, whose narratives, on the whole, are worthy of belief. Prominent among these are Dr. F. E. König of Bonn (“Neue Prinzipien der alttestamentlichen Kritik,” 1902, “Bibel-Babel Frage und die wissenschaftliche Methode,” 1904); Julius Böhm, a pastor; Dr. Samuel Oettli, professor at Greifswald. The resistance to the so-called scientific criticism in Germany has been greatly stimulated by the radical positions recently taken by some Assyriologists, beginning with a lecture delivered in 1902 before the German court by Friedrich Delitzsch. The still-continuing discussion it provoked is known as the Bibel-Babel controversy. Delitzsch, Jensen, and their followers contend that the Bible stories of the Creation, the Fall, the Deluge, etc. were borrowed by the Hebrews from Babylonia, where they existed in their pure and original form. This school relegates all the events and personages of Genesis to the region of myths and attributes a Chaldean origin to the Jewish conception of Paradise and Sheol, angels and devils. Of still more recent beginning and extravagant character is the theory of astral myths defended by Stucken, Winckler, and Jeremias, according to which the narrations not only of the Pentateuch, but of large portions of the later books as well, represent in human guise merely the nature and movements of the heavenly bodies.

In replying to the critical systems, conservatives, both Catholic and Protestant, re-enforce the argument from Jewish and Christian traditions by methods borrowed from their opponents; linguistic distinctions are countered by linguistic arguments, and the traditionists also employ the process of comparing the data of one book with another, in an endeavour to bring all into harmony. Not the methods so much as the conclusions of criticism are impugned. The difference is largely one of interpretation. However, the conservatives complain that the critics arbitrarily rule out as interpolations or late comments passages which are unfavourable to their hypotheses. The advocates of tradition also charge the opposite school with being swayed by purely subjective fancies, and in the case of the more advanced criticism, by philosophico-religious prejudices. Moreover, they assert that such a piecemeal formation of a book by successive strata, as is alleged for many parts of the O. T. is without analogy in the history of literature. The Catholic criticism of the O. T. will be described in a separate section of this article.

(3) NEW-TESTAMENT CRITICISM OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

Before the eighteenth century N. T. criticism did not go beyond that of the Latin and Greek texts, if we except the ancient remarks on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse already noticed. When the German Rationalism of the eighteenth century, in imitation of the English Deism of the seventeenth, had discarded the supernatural, the N. T. became the first object of a systematic attack. Reimarus (1094–1768) assailed the motives of its writers and cast aspersions on the honesty of Jesus Himself. J.S. Semler (1725–91) used the greatest latitude in discussing the origin and credibility of the sacred Scriptures, arguing that these subjects should be dealt with without regard to any Divine content. Semler was the first to question the authenticity of N. T. books from a critical standpoint. His exegetical principles, if admitted, would largely destroy the authority of the Gospels. Paulus (1761–1851), professor at Jena and Heidelberg, granted the genuineness of the Gospels, and their authors’ honesty of purpose, but taught that in narrating the miraculous and supernatural the Apostles and Evangelists recorded their delusions, and that all the alleged superhuman occurrences are to be explained by merely natural causes. Eichhorn, the pioneer of modern German criticism, carried his inquiries into the field of the N. T. and, beginning with 1794, proposed a theory to explain the similarities and differences of the Synoptic Gospels, i. e. Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Some phases of what is now known as “the Synoptic Problem” were examined by Griesbach as early as 1776, and again, in 1781, by a posthumous essay of Lessing treating of the Evangelists “considered simply as human historians.” The problem was first clearly formulated by Lachmann in 1835. The dangerous tendencies of the rationalistic writers were ably combated by J. L. Hug, a Catholic exegete, whose “Introduction to the N. T.” was completed in 1808. Schleiermacher (1768–1834) was the earliest of those German theologians who acknowledge the religious force of the sacred writings, but imperil their authority by a free and independent treatment of their origin and historical contents; his view of the N. T. was influenced by Semler’s criticisms. Somewhat akin to Schleiermacher’s attitude is that of De Wette, but his conclusions are often negative and doubtful. The Evangelistic school of Protestant German commentators, represented earliest by Guericke, Olshausen, Neander, and Bleek, were in the main adherents to the genuineness and truthfulness of the Gospels, though influenced by the mediating or mystico-rationalistic tendencies of Schleiermacher. As N. T. scholars they belong between 1823 and 1859.

The “Life of Jesus” by David Friedrich Strauss, which appeared in 1835, marked a new departure of view with regard to the N. T., and made a great sensation. Strauss was an Hegelian and one for whom the “ideas’ obscured the objective facts, while it rested upon them. He held that the orthodox conception of Christ was the creature of the ardent Messianic hopes of the Jewish-Christians of the primitive Church, who imagined that Jesus fulfilled the O. T. prophecies, and who, soon after His death, invested His personality and the whole tenor of His life with mythical qualities, in which there was nothing but a bare kernel of objective truth, viz., the existence of a rabbi named Jesus, who was a man of extraordinary spiritual power and penetration, and who had gathered about him a band of disciples. Echoes of these ideas are to be found in Renan’s “Vie de Jésus.” Strauss’s relatively refined philosophy of religion was more in the spirit of the age than the moribund, crude naturalism of Paulus, though it only substituted one form of rationalism for another. The “Life of Jesus” soon called forth refutations, but in the advanced circles of German thought the finishing stroke was not given to it until Ferdinand Christian Baur, the founder of the Tübingen, or “Tendency,” school of exegesis and criticism, published the mature fruit of his speculation under the title “Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi,” in 1845. Baur, like Strauss, was a disciple of Hegel, but had taken from that philosopher a different key to the significance of the N. T., viz., the principle of the evolution of all truth through the conciliation of contradictions. He taught that the N. T. is the outcome of an antagonism between Jewish, or Petrine, and Pauline tendencies in the primitive Church. The Pauline concept of Christianity—one of a philosophic and universal order—is represented by the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians, which alone Baur admitted as the certainly authentic works of St. Paul. The Apocalypse was composed in direct opposition to the spirit of the Pauline writings. The above works were written before A. D. 70. Between 70 and 140 appeared St. Matthew’s Gospel, Petrine in character; St. Luke’s Gospel, Pauline, though retouched in a conciliatory spirit; Acts, adapted similarly to St. Luke; and latest the Gospel of St. Mark, also of an irenic type. This second period is one of transition between antagonism and complete reconciliation. This latter is the note of the third period, reaching to about A. D. 170, which produced the Gospel and Epistles bearing the name of St. John, and the pastoral Epistles, which therefore cannot have come from St. Paul. The scheme excluded the authenticity of all the Gospels. Baur’s theory has not survived except in the very mitigated form seen in the works of Hilgenfeld and Pfleiderer. Nevertheless, aside from his philosophic assumptions, the principles and methods of Baur have left a deep impress on later N. T. criticism. He first practised on a consistent and developed plan the habit of scrutinizing the sacred documents themselves for evidences of the times which gave them birth, and led the way in the present critical trend towards a division of the N. T. into Judaistic, Pauline, and Johannine elements.

The Tübingen ideas evoked a reaction against their destructive and purely rationalistic conclusions. This movement has been twofold: on one side it is orthodox Protestant, though critical in its method; this section is the natural continuation of the earlier Evangelistic exegesis, and counts as its ablest representatives Zahn, B. Weiss, and Godet; the other branch is partly the outgrowth of the Schleiermacher school and acknowledges as its founder Albert Ritschl, whose defection from the Tübingen group (1857) proved a serious blow to Baur’s system. The Ritschlian theology insists on the religious value of the N. T., especially in the impression its picture of Christ makes on the individual soul, and on the other hand allows a free rein to the boldest and most searching criticism of the origin and historical worth of the N. T. books, in a blind mystic confidence that nothing that criticism can do will impair their religious value. The indifference of the Ritschlians to the consequences of criticism is also shown towards the miraculous element in our Lord’s life and in the N. T. in general. This tendency is very manifest among other contemporary German critics, who, while influenced by Ritschlianism, belong rather to the “scientific” and evolutionary school. Holtzmann, Bousset, Jülicher, Harnack, Schmiedel by critical procedure eliminate from the Gospels, or at least call into doubt, all the miraculous elements, and reduce the Divinity of Christ to a moral, pre-eminent sonship to God, and yet, by a strange inconsequence, exalt the saving and enlightening power of His personality. This latest school, however, admit dates which approach much nearer to the traditional ones than to those of Baur. Harnack, besides affirming the genuineness of all the Pauline Epistles except the pastoral ones, and of Mark and Luke, places the Synoptic Gospels between A. D. 65 and 93, and fixes the year 110 as the latest limit for the Gospel and Epistles of St. John and the Apocalypse.

In Great Britain, N. T. criticism with few exceptions has been moderate and, on the whole, conservative. Excellent service has been done in the defence of contested books by the British divines J. B. Lightfoot, B. F. Westcott, W. H. Sanday, and others. Holland has produced a small group of radical critics, Van Manen, Pierson, Loman, who, with Steck in Germany, have revived Bruno Bauer’s total denial of authenticity to St. Paul’s Letters. In France and French Switzerland conservatism has been the keynote of the Protestant scholars Pressensé and Godet; a rationalizing evolutionism that of Sabatier. Abbé Loisy’s work will be spoken of below.

A brief summary of the situation of particular books in contemporary non-Catholic criticism follows:

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

The prevalent critical solution of the problem they present is the “two-document” hypothesis, which explains what is common to all of them by supposing that Matthew and Luke drew from the very early Gospel bearing St. Mark’s name or an anterior Apostolic document on which Mark is based, and refers the material which is common to Matthew and Luke only to a primitive Aramaic source compiled by one or more immediate disciples of Christ, possibly St. Matthew. St. Luke’s Gospel is recognized as authentic; our canonical Mark as at least virtually so.

ACTS

The integrity and entire genuineness of the Acts of the Apostles have been assailed by a few recent critics: Hilgenfeld, Spitta, Clemen. They would analyze the work into a number of sections, by different authors, including St. Luke, rearranged by successive editors, and containing materials varying much in value. No conscious falsification was used, but legendary narratives crept in. These critics are by no means unanimous as to particulars.

EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL

Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians are acknowledged by all serious scholars to be authentic writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles. About Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, and Philemon there is diversity of opinion. First Thessalonians is generally admitted to be genuine, but the Pauline authorship of the second letter of that name is strongly contested. The weight of non-Catholic critical opinion is against the authenticity of the pastoral Epistles, viz., the two to Timothy and the one to Titus. The Epistle to the Hebrews is assigned to an Alexandrian Jewish convert, contemporary, or almost so, with St. Paul, and a disciple of his teaching. This is also the view of Catholic exegetes of the new school. First Peter is generally held to be the work of that Apostle, but the composition of Second Peter is placed in the second century, even some Catholics inclining to this date. The question whether the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude are from the pens of the Apostles of those names is variously answered outside the Church.

THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS

The authenticity and authority of St. John’s Gospel form the great battlefield of present N. T. criticism. They had been attacked as early as 1792 by a certain Evanson. The majority of contemporary critics incline to Harnack’s view, which is that the Fourth Gospel was composed by John the Presbyter or the “elder” referred to in a fragment by Papias, and asserted by the Harnackians to be distinct from the Apostle and a disciple of the latter. He wrote in the beginning of the second century. Loisy attributes it to an unknown writer of the second century who had no affiliations with St. John. But the historical value of this Evangel is the more vital aspect of the question. The German school of criticism characterizes the Gospel as theology and symbolism, not history; Loisy agrees with them. The Apostolic authorship and historicity of the Fourth Gospel have been vindicated by such critical scholars as Sanday, Stanton, and Drummond in England, and Zahn and B. Weiss in Germany. Orthodox Catholic exegetes, while always holding to the Catholic tradition of the Johannine authorship and historical quality of the Fourth Gospel, admit that St. John’s theology indicates reflection and a development over and beyond that of the Synoptists. The first Epistle of St. John is universally admitted to be by the same hand as the Gospel. The criticism of Apocalypse is still in an immature stage. There is much diversity of view as to its author, the Anglican school inclining to St. John. It has been recently proposed that the book is a Jewish apocalypse retouched by a Christian; so Vischer, Harnack. Nearly all critics acknowledge that there is much apocalyptic element in it, admitting that some of its visions in a veiled manner depict historical situations under the guise of events to come.

(4) THE CRITICAL MOVEMENT WITHIN THE CHURCH

OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM

France, the country of Richard Simon and Astruc, has been also that of the beginning of the present-day Catholic criticism. François Lenormant, a distinguished Catholic Orientalist, in the preface to his “Origines de l’histoire d’après la Bible et les traditions des peuples Orientaux” (1880–84), declared no longer tenable the traditional unity of authorship for the Pentateuch, and admitted as demonstrated that the fundamental sources of its first four books were a Jehovist and Elohist document, each inspired and united by a “final redactor.” Minor discordances exist between them. The earlier chapters of Genesis contain mythical and legendary elements common to Semitic peoples, which in the hands of the inspired writers became the “figured vestments of eternal truths.” The same preface bespeaks entire liberty for the critic in the matter of dates and authors. Lenormant’s work was placed on the Index, 19 December, 1887. The basis of his literary analysis was supplied by the conclusions of higher criticism, up to that time unaccepted, at least publicly, by any Catholic savant. E. Reuss, a liberal Protestant professor at the university of Strasburg, had published at Paris, in 1879, “L’Histoire Sainte et la Loi; Pentateuque et Josué.” In 1883 appeared Wellhausen’s influential “Prolegomena to the History of Israel,” re-edited in 1889 under the title, “Composition of the Hexateuch and the Historical Books of the O. T.”

Alfred Loisy, then professor of Sacred Scripture at the Institut Catholique of Paris, in his inaugural lecture for the course of 1892–93 made a clear-cut plea for the exercise of criticism in the study of the human side of the Bible (“Enseignement Biblique,” Nov.-Dec., 1892; reprinted in “Les études bibliques,” 1894). In an essay which appeared in 1893, Loisy discussed the “Biblical Question,” reasserted the right of Catholic science to treat critically the general aspects of Holy Scripture and also its interpretations, and rejected its absolute inerrancy, while holding to its total inspiration. The historical portions offer data which have only a “relative truth,” i. e. with reference to the age in which they were written. The author enumerated conclusions of the criticism which he regarded as fixed; these included the non-Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the unhistorical character of the first chapters of Genesis, the development of Biblical doctrine. Early in the same year Mgr. d’Hulst, rector of the Institut Catholique of Paris, had drawn acute attention to the progress of critical ideas in Catholic scientific circles by an article in the “Correspondant” of 25 January, 1893, entitled “La Question Biblique,” in which he expressed the opinion that the admission of inaccuracies in Scripture is theologically tenable. The discussion of these questions was the occasion of the encyclical “Providentissimus Deus,” issued by Leo XIII, 18 November, 1893, in which the total inerrancy of the Bible was declared to be the necessary consequence of its inspiration. The unwarranted concessions of Catholic writers to rationalistic criticism and the exclusive use of internal arguments against historical authority were condemned as contrary to correct principles of criticism. Sound Biblical criticism was commended. Similar commendation was given in the Apostolic letter. “Vigilantiæ,” establishing the Biblical Commission, 30 October, 1902.

In a paper read before the Catholic Scientific Congress of Fribourg, 1897 (Revue Biblique, January, 1898), Father M. J. Lagrange, superior of the Dominican school of Biblical studies at Jerusalem, defended a literary analysis and an evolution of the Pentateuch which are substantially identical with those of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis. He distinguished between the tradition that Moses was the historical author or founder of the Pentateuch, which he retained, and the tradition of the Mosaic literary authorship, which he abandoned. Like Loisy, the learned Dominican maintained that the literary methods of the ancient Orient are sharply differentiated from those of our civilization. During the last decade a considerable number of Catholic Biblical scholars have coalesced into what has been called the “progressive” school. Naturally disagreeing somewhat in details, they agree in holding

(a) the composite texture and progressive formation of a number of sacred books, and in abandoning therefore their traditional unity of authorship;

(b) in allowing a theological and moral development in the O. T.;

(c) in admitting an extensive tacit insertion of popular traditions and written sources, which contain unhistorical statements.

Nevertheless these exegetes hold firmly to the objective truth of the essential and larger lines of the history of the Old Dispensation as embodied in the Bible. They assert that in general the question of the literary procedure of Biblical writers is not one of faith. Their position has met with repeated attacks by Catholic adherents of the conservative school, who have combated them with arguments drawn chiefly from the irreconcilability of the new views with the Catholic dogmatic tradition of inspiration and inerrancy as witnessed, it is alleged, in the N. T., the Fathers, the teachings of the councils of Trent and the Vatican, and particularly the encyclical of Leo XIII. (See INSPIRATION). The principal adversaries of the advanced conclusions are the Jesuits Delattre (Autour de la question biblique, 1904), Brucker (contributions to the “Etudes” between 1894 and 1905), Fontaine, Fonck, Pesch, (De Inspiratione Sac. Scrip., 1906), Murillo, Billot; also Professor Hoberg and Abbé Mangenot (L’Authenticité du Pentateuque, 1907).

The Biblical Commission, whose decisions have now the force of acts of the Roman Congregations, declared, 13 February, 1905, that the fallibility of implicit citations in the Bible might be admitted, provided solid arguments prove that they are really citations, and that the sacred writer does not adopt them as his own. The Commission conceded on 23 June, 1905, that some passages may be historical in appearance only, always saving the sense and judgment of the Church. On 27 June, 1906, the commission declared that the arguments alleged by critics do not disprove the substantial authorship of the Pentateuch by Moses. This decision has necessarily modified the attitude of such Catholic writers and teachers as favoured in a greater or less degree the conclusions of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis. The decree of the Inquisition “Lamentabili” (3 July, 1907) and the encyclical “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” (8 September, 1907) reasserted against the Modernists the sound, Catholic principles to be followed in the study of Sacred Scripture.

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM

Catholic scholars who were willing to accept some of the critical theories have drawn a line of distinction between the criticism of the Old and that of the New Testament, not only because of the greater delicacy of the latter field, but because they recognize that the documents of the Old and New Dispensations were produced under quite different conditions. In the province of N. T. higher criticism Catholics have defended the traditional authenticity, integrity, and veracity of the books in question. Some exegetes admit in a slight measure divergencies in the Evangelical narratives, and the employment of older documents by at least two of the Synoptic writers. As to the “Synoptic problem,” it is allowed that at least St. Luke utilized St. Mark’s Gospel; so Batiffol, Minocchi, Lagrange, Loisy, Bonaccorsi, Gigot. Unduly influenced by contemporary German criticism, Abbé Loisy has in recent times broken with the orthodox traditions of N. T. exegesis. In a reply to Harnack’s “What is Christianity?” he defended Catholic dogma as an evolution with its roots in the Primitive Church, but made dangerous concessions regarding Christ’s claim to Divinity, His Messianic vocation, knowledge, miracles, and Resurrection (“L’Evangile et l’Eglise,” 1902; “Autour d’un petit livre,” 1903). In “Le Quatrième Evangile” (1903) Loisy rejects the Johannine authorship and the historicity of the Fourth Gospel, both of which were affirmed by the Biblical Commission (29 May, 1907). His system virtually severs the Catholic Faith from its historical credentials as found in the. N. T., and the above works have been condemned by the Congregation of the Index. They have drawn out a number of refutations from Catholic apologists, such as the Abbé Lepin’s “Jésus Messie et Fils de Dieu” (1904). More recently Loisy published a work on the Synoptic Gospels (Les évangiles synoptiques, 1908) in which he follows the most extravagant rationalistic criticism. Loisy was excommunicated 7 March, 1908. As has been remarked, the Church warmly recommends the exercise of criticism according to sound principles unbiased by rationalistic presuppositions, but it must condemn undue deference to heterodox writers and any conclusions at variance with revealed truth. When doubt arises about the permissibility of hypotheses, it is for ecclesiastical authority to decide how far they consist with the deposit of faith or are expedient to the welfare of religion.

(Catholic authors are marked with an asterisk.) From a conservative standpoint: VIGOUROUX*, Les livres saints et la critique rationaliste (Paris, 1886); LIAS, Elements of Biblical Criticism (London, 1893); BLOMFIELD, The Old Testament and the New Criticism (London, 1893); BEATTIE Radical Criticism (Chicago, 1895); ANDERSON, The Bible and Modern Criticism (London, 1902); HÖPFL*, Die höhere Bibelkritik (2nd ed., Paderborn, 1905); art. Criticism in HASTING, Dict. of Christ and the Gospels.

From a critical standpoint: CHEYNE, Founders of O. T. Criticism (New York, 1893); ZENOS, Elements of the Higher Criticism (New York, 1895); NASH, Hist. of the Higher Criticism of the N. T. (New York, 1900); CARPENTER, The Bible in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1903); DRIVER AND KIRKPATRICK, The Higher Criticism (London, 1905); GIGOT*, Higher Criticism of the Bible, in New York Review, March, 1906-April, 1907.

Irenic: GRANNAN*, Higher Criticism and the Bible, in Am. Cath. Quart. Rev., July. 1894; MCFAYDEN, O. T. Criticism and the Christian Church (New York, 1903); PETERS*, Die grundsätzliche Stellung der katholische Kirche zur Bibelforschung (Paderborn, 1905).

GEORGE J. REID

Criticism Textual—The object of textual criticism is to restore as nearly as possible the original text of a work the autograph of which has been lost. In this textual criticism differs from higher criticism, whose aim is to investigate the sources of a literary work, study its composition, determine its date and trace its influence and various transformations throughout the ages.

A. NECESSITY AND PROCESSES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Textual criticism has no application except in regard to a work whose original does not exist; for, if extant, it could easily be reproduced in photogravure, or published, once it had been correctly deciphered. But no autograph of the inspired writings has been transmitted to us, any more than have the originals of profane works of the same era. The ancients had not that superstitious veneration for original manuscripts which we have to-day. In very early times the Jews were wont to destroy the sacred books no longer in use, either by burying them with the remains of holy personages or by hiding them in what was called a ghenizah. This explains why the Hebrew Bibles are, comparatively speaking, not very ancient, although the Jews always made a practice of writing the Holy Books on skin or parchment. In the first centuries of the Christian era the Greeks and Latins generally used papyrus, a material that quickly wears out and falls to pieces. It was not until the fourth century that parchment was commonly used, and it is also from that time that our oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint and the New Testament date. Nothing short of a continuous miracle could have brought the text of the inspired writers down to us without alteration or corruption, and Divine Providence, who exercises, as it were, an economy of the supernatural, and never needlessly multiplies prodigies, did not will such a miracle. Indeed it is a material impossibility to transcribe absolutely without error the whole of a long work; and a priori one may be sure, that no two copies of the same original will be alike in every detail. A typical example of this is furnished by the Augsburg Confession, presented to the Emperor Charles V on the evening of 25 June, 1530, in both Latin and German. It was printed in September of the same year and published two months later by its author, Melanchthon; thirty-five copies of it are known to have been made in the second half of the year 1530, nine of them by signers of the Confession. But, as the two originals are lost, and the copies do not agree either with one another or with the first editions, we are not sure of having the authentic text in its minutest details. From which example it is easy to appreciate the necessity of textual criticism in the case of works so ancient and so often transcribed as the books of the Bible.

Corruptions introduced by copyists may be divided into two classes: involuntary errors, and those which are either wholly or partly intentional. To these different causes are due the observed variations between manuscripts.

(A) INVOLUNTARY ERRORS

Involuntary Errors may be distinguished as those of sight, hearing, and memory, respectively. Sight readily confounds similar letters and words. Thus, as can be seen in the pictured example, similar letters are easily interchanged in square Hebrew, Greek uncial and Greek cursive writing.

When the exemplar is written stichometrically, the eye of the copyist is apt to skip one or several lines. To this class of errors belongs the very frequent phenomenon of homoeoteleuton, i.e. omission of a passage which has an ending exactly like another passage which comes next before or after it. A similar thing happens when several phrases beginning with the same words come together. Secondly, errors of hearing are of common occurrence when one writes from dictation. But even with the exemplar before him, a copyist gets into the habit of pronouncing in a low tone, or to himself, the phrase he is transcribing, and thus is likely to mistake one word for another which sounds like it. This explains numberless cases of “itacism” met with in Greek manuscripts, especially the continual interchange of hymeis and hemeis. Lastly, an error of memory occurs when, instead of writing down the passage just read to him, the copyist unconsciously substitutes some other, familiar, text which he knows by heart, or when he is influenced by the remembrance of a parallel passage. Errors of this kind are most frequent in the transcription of the Gospels.

(B) ERRORS WHOLLY OR PARTLY INTENTIONAL

Deliberate corruption of the Sacred Text has always been rather rare, Marcion’s case being exceptional. Hort [IntroductiOn (1896), p. 282] is of the opinion that even among the unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes.” Nevertheless it is true that the scribe often selects from various readings that which favours either his own individual opinion or the doctrine that is just then more generally accepted. It also happens that, in perfectly good faith, he changes passages which seem to him corrupt because he fails to understand them, that he adds a word which he deems necessary for the elucidation of the meaning, that he substitutes a more correct grammatical form, or what he considers a more exact expression, and that he harmonizes parallel passages. Thus it is that the shorter form of the Lord’s Prayer in Luke, xi, 2–4, is in almost all Greek manuscripts lengthened out in accordance with Matthew, vi, 9–13. Most errors of this kind proceed from inserting in the text marginal notes which, in the copy to be transcribed, were but variants, explanations, parallel passages, simple remarks, or perhaps the conjectures of some studious reader. All critics have observed the predilection of copyists for the most verbose texts and their tendency to complete citations that are too brief; hence it is that an interpolation stands a far better chance of being perpetuated than an omission.

From the foregoing it is easy to understand how numerous would be the readings of a text transcribed as often as the Bible, and, as only one reading of any given passage can represent the original, it follows that all the others are necessarily faulty. Mill estimated the variants of the New Testament at 30,000, and since the discovery of so many manuscripts unknown to Mill this number has greatly increased. Of course by far the greater number of these variants are in unimportant details, as, for instance, orthographic peculiarities, inverted words, and the like. Again, many others are totally improbable, or else have such slight warrant as not to deserve even cursory notice. Hort (Introduction, 2) estimates that a reasonable doubt does not affect more than the sixtieth part of the words: “In this second estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former; so that the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.” Perhaps the same thing might be said of the Vulgate; but in regard to the primitive Hebrew text and the Septuagint version there is a great deal more doubt.

We have said that the object of textual criticism is to restore a work to what it was upon leaving the hands of its author. But it is, absolutely speaking, possible that the author himself may have issued more than one edition of his work. This hypothesis was made for Jeremias, in order to explain the differences between the Greek and Hebrew texts; for St. Luke, so as to account for the variations between the “Codex Bezæ” and other Greek manuscripts in the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles; and for other writers. These hypotheses may be insufficiently founded, but, as they are neither absurd nor impossible, they are not to be rejected a priori.

B. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM

In order to re-establish a text in all its purity, or at least to eliminate as far as possible, its successive falsifications, it is necessary to consult and weigh all the evidence. And this may be divided into: external, or that furnished by documents reproducing the text in whole or in part, in the original or in a translation—diplomatic evidence—and internal, or that resulting from the examination of the text itself independently of its extrinsic attestation—paradiplomatic evidence. We shall consider them separately.

1. EXTERNAL (DIPLOMATIC) EVIDENCE

The evidence for a work of which the original manuscript is lost is furnished by;

(a) copies, (manuscripts),

(b) versions, and

(c) quotations.

These three do not always exist simultaneously, and the order in which they are here enumerated does not indicate their relative authority.

(A) MANUSCRIPTS

In regard to the copies of ancient works three things are to be considered, namely:

(i) age,

(ii) value, and

(iii) genealogy; and we shall add a word on

(iv) critical nomenclature, or notation.

(I) AGE

Age is sometimes indicated by a note in the manuscript itself; but the date, when not suspected of falsification, may simply be transcribed from the exemplar. However, as dated manuscripts are usually not very old, recourse must be had to various palæographic indications which generally determine with sufficient accuracy the age of Greek and Latin manuscripts. Hebrew palæography, though more uncertain, presents fewer difficulties, inasmuch as Hebrew manuscripts are not so old. Besides, the exact age of a copy is, after all, only of minor importance, as it is quite possible that an ancient manuscript may be very corrupt while a later one, copied from a better exemplar, may come nearer to the primitive text. However, other things being equal, the presumption is naturally in favour of the more ancient document, since it is connected with the original by fewer intervening links and consequently has been exposed to fewer possibilities of error.

(II) VALUE

It is more important to ascertain the relative value than the age of a manuscript. Some evidences inspire but little confidence, because they have frequently been found to be defective, while others are readily accepted because critical examination has in every instance shown them to be veracious and exact. But how is the critic to discriminate? Prior to examination, the readings of a text are divided into three or four classes: the certainly or probably true, the doubtful, and the certainly or probably false. A manuscript is rated good or excellent when it presents in general true readings and contains few or none that are certainly false; under contrary conditions it is considered mediocre or worthless. Needless to add, the intrinsic excellence of a manuscript is not measured according to the greater or less care exercised by the scribes; a manuscript may teem with copyist’s errors, though it be made from a very correct exemplar; and one transcribed from a defective exemplar may, considered merely as a copy, be quite faultless.

(III) GENEALOGY

The genealogy of documents, from a critical view-point, is most interesting and important. As soon as it is proved that a manuscript, no matter what its antiquity, is simply a copy of another existing manuscript, the former should evidently disappear from the list of authorities, since its particular testimony is of no value in establishing the primitive text. This, for instance, is what happened to the “Codex Sangermanensis” (E of the Pauline Epistles) when it was proved to be a defective copy of the “Codex Claromontanus” (D of the Pauline Epistles). Now, if a text were preserved in ten manuscripts, nine of which had sprung from a common ancestor, we would not therefore have ten independent testimonies but two, as the first nine would count for only one, and could not, therefore, outweigh the tenth, unless it were shown that the common exemplar of the nine was a better one than that from which the tenth was taken. The consequences of this principle are obvious, and the advantage and necessity of grouping the testimonies for a text into families is readily understood. It might be supposed that the critic would be mainly guided in his researches by the birthplace of a manuscript; but the ancient manuscripts often travelled a great deal, and their nationality is rarely known with certainty. Thus, many are of the opinion that the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus emanated from Cæsarea in Palestine, while others maintain that they were written in Egypt, and Hort inclines to the belief that they were copied in the West, probably in Rome (see CODEX VATICANUS; CODEX SINAITICUS). Hence the critics’ chief guide in this matter should be the careful comparison of manuscripts, upon the principle that identical readings point to a common source, and when the identity between two or more manuscripts is constant—especially in exceptional and eccentric variants—the identity of the exemplar is established. But this investigation encounters two difficulties. A first, and a very embarrassing, complication arises from the mixture of texts. There are but few texts that are pure; that is to say, that are taken from a single exemplar. The ancient scribes were nearly all to a certain extent editors, and made their choice from among the variants of the different exemplars. Moreover, the correctors or the readers often introduced, either on the margin or between the lines, new readings which were subsequently embodied in the text of the manuscript thus corrected. In such a case the genealogy of a manuscript is liable to become very complicated. It also sometimes happens that two manuscripts which are closely related in certain books are totally unrelated in others. As a matter of fact, the separate books of the Bible, in ancient times, used to be copied each upon its own roll of papyrus, and when they came to be copied from these separate rolls upon sheets of parchment, and bound together in one enormous “codex,” texts belonging to quite different families might very possibly be placed together. All these facts explain why critics frequently disagree in determining genealogical groupings. (On this subject consult Hort, “Introduction,” pp. 39–69: “Genealogical Evidence.”)

(IV) CRITICAL NOMENCLATURE, OR NOTATION

When the copies of a text are not numerous each editor assigns them whatever conventional symbols he may choose; this was for a long time the case with the editions of the original Greek and Hebrew, of the Septuagint and the Vulgate, not to mention other versions. But when, as nowadays, the number of manuscripts becomes greatly increased, it is necessary to adopt a uniform notation in order to avoid confusion.

Hebrew manuscripts are usually designated by the figures assigned them by Kennicott and De Rossi. But this system has the disadvantage of not being continuous, the series of figures recommencing three times: Kennicott MSS., De Rossi MSS., and other MSS. catalogued by De Rossi, but not belonging to his collection. Another serious inconvenience arises from the fact that the manuscripts not included in the three preceding lists have remained without symbol, and can only be indicated by mentioning the number of the catalogue in which they are described.

The notation of Greek manuscripts of the Septuagint is almost the same as that adopted by Holmes and Parsons in their Oxford edition 1798–1827. These two scholars designated the uncials by Roman figures (from I to XIII) and the cursives by Arabic figures (from 14 to 311). But their list was very defective, as certain manuscripts were counted twice, while others which were numbered among the cursives were uncials either wholly or in part, etc. For cursives the Holmes-Parsons notation is still retained; the uncials, including those found since, are designated by Latin capitals; but no symbols have been assigned to recently discovered cursives. (See the complete list in Swete, “An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek,” Cambridge, 1902, p. 120–170.)

The nomenclature of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament also leaves much to be desired. Wetstein, the author of the usual notation, designates uncials by letters and cursives by Arabic figures. His list was continued by Birch and by Scholz, and afterwards by Scrivener, independently, by Gregory. The same letters answer for many manuscripts, hence the necessity of distinguishing indices, thus Dev=“Codex Bezæ,” Dpaul=Codex Claromontanus, etc. Moreover, the series of figures recommences four times (Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul, Apocalypse), so that a cursive containing all the books of the New Testament must be designated by four different numbers accompanied by their index. Thus the MS. of the British Museum “Addit. 17469” is for Scrivener 584ev, 228ac, 269pau, 97apoc (i.e. the 584th MS. of the Gospel on his list, the 228th of Acts, etc.), and for Gregory 498ev, 198act, 255paul, 97apoc. To remedy this confusion Von Soden lays down as a principle that uncials should not have a different notation from the cursives and that each manuscript should be designated by a single abbreviation. Hence he assigns to each manuscript an Arabic figure preceded by one of the three Greek initial letters, epsilon, alpha, or delta, according as it contains the Gospels only (euaggelion), or does not contain the Gospels (apostolos), or contains both the Gospels and some other part of the New Testament (diatheke). The number is chosen so as to indicate the approximate age of the manuscript. This notation is unquestionably better than the other; the main point is to secure its universal acceptance, without which endless confusion will arise.

For the Vulgate the most famous manuscripts are designated either by a conventional name or its abbreviation (am=“Amiatinus,” fuld=“Fuldensis”); the other manuscripts have no generally admitted symbol. (The present nomenclature is altogether imperfect and deficient. Critics should come to terms and settle upon special symbols for the genealogical groupings for manuscripts which are as yet almost entirely deprived of them. On this subject see the present writer’s article, “Manuscrits bibliques” in Vigouroux, “Dict. de la Bible,” IV, 666–698).

(B) VERSIONS

The importance of the ancient versions in the textual criticism of the Sacred Books arises from the fact that the versions are often far anterior to the most ancient manuscripts. Thus the translation of the Septuagint antedated by ten or twelve centuries the oldest copies of the Hebrew text that have come down to us. And for the New Testament the Italic and the Peshito versions are of the second century, and the Coptic of the third, while the “Vaticanus’ and the “Sinaiticus,” which are our oldest manuscripts, date only from the fourth. These translations, moreover, made on the initiative and under the superintendence of the ecclesiastical authorities, or at least approved and sanctioned by the Churches that made public use of them, have undoubtedly followed the exemplars which were esteemed the best and most correct; and this is a guarantee in favour of the purity of the text they represent. Unfortunately, the use of versions in textual criticism offers numerous and sometimes insurmountable difficulties. First of all, unless the version be quite literal and scrupulously faithful, one is often at a loss to determine with certainty which reading it represents. And besides, we have few or no ancient versions edited according to the exigencies of rigorous criticism; the manuscripts of these versions differ from one another considerably, and it is often hard to trace the primitive reading. When there have been several versions in the same language, as is the case, for example, in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic, it is seldom that one version has not in the long run reacted on the other. Again, the different copies of a version have frequently been retouched or corrected according to the original, and at various epochs some sort of recensions have been made. The case of the Septuagint is well enough known by what St. Jerome tells of it, and by the examination of the manuscripts themselves, which offer a striking diversity. For these various reasons the use of the versions in textual criticism is rather a delicate matter, and many critics try to evade the difficulty by not taking them into account. But in this they are decidedly wrong, and later it will be shown to what use the Septuagint version may be put in the reconstruction of the primitive text of the Old Testament.

(C) QUOTATIONS

That the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament, the Septuagint and the Vulgate has profited by quotations from the Fathers is beyond question; but in using this authority there is need of caution and reserve. Very often Biblical texts are quoted from memory, and many writers have the habit of quoting inaccurately. In his Prolegomena to the eighth edition of Tischendorf (pp. 1141–1142), Gregory gives three very instructive examples on this subject. Charles Hodge, the author of highly esteemed commentaries, when informed that his quotation from Genesis, iii, 15, “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head,” was a serious inaccuracy, refused to change it on the ground that his translation had passed into use. In his history of the Vulgate the learned Kaulen twice quoted the well-known saying of St. Augustine, once accurately: “verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sentientiæ,” and once inaccurately: “verborum tenacior cum sermonis perspicuitate.” Finally, out of nine quotations from John, iii, 3–5, made by Jeremy Taylor, the celebrated theologian, only two agree, and not one of the nine gives the words of the Anglican version which the author meant to follow. Surely we should not look for greater rigour or accuracy from the Fathers, many of whom lacked the critical spirit. Furthermore, it should be noted that the text of our editions is not always to be depended upon. We know that copyists, when transcribing the works of the Fathers, whether Greek or Latin, frequently substitute for Biblical quotations that form of text with which they are most familiar, and even the editors of former times were not very scrupulous in this respect. Would anyone have suspected that in the edition of the commentary of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the fourth Gospel, published by Pusey in 1872, the text of St. John, instead of being reproduced from St. Cyril’s manuscript, is borrowed from the New Testament printed at Oxford? From this standpoint the edition of the Latin Fathers undertaken in Austria and that of the ante-Nicene Greek Fathers published at Berlin, are worthy of entire confidence. Quotatations have a greater value in the eyes of the critic when a commentary fully guarantees the text; and the authority of a quotation is highest when a writer whose reputation for critical habits is well established, such as Origen or St. Jerome, formally attests that a given reading was to be found in the best or most ancient manuscripts of his time. It is obvious that such evidence overrules that furnished by a simple manuscript of the same epoch.

(2) INTERNAL OR PARADIPLOMATIC EVIDENCE

It frequently happens that the testimony of documents is uncertain because it is discordant, but even when it is unanimous, it may he open to suspicion because it leads to improbable or impossible results. It is then that internal evidence must be resorted to, and, although of itself it seldom suffices for a firm decision, it nevertheless corroborates, and sometimes modifies, the verdict of the documents. The rules of internal criticism are simply the axioms of good sense, whose application calls for large experience and consummate judgment to ward off the danger of arbitrariness amid subjectivism. We shall briefly formulate and expound the most important of these rules.

Rule 1. Among several variants that is to be preferred which best agrees with the context and most closely conforms to the style and mental habits of the author.—This rule is thus explained by Hort (“The New Testament in the Original Greek,” Introduction, London, 1896, p. 20): “The decision may be made either by an immediate and as it were intuitive judgment, or by weighing cautiously various elements which go to make up what is called sense, such as conformity to grammar and congruity to the purport of the rest of the sentence and of the larger context; to which may rightly be added congruity to the usual style of the author and to his matter in other passages. The process may take the form either of simply comparing two or more rival readings under these heads, and giving the preference to that which appears to have the advantage, or of rejecting a reading absolutely for violation of one or more of the congruities, or of adopting a reading absolutely for perfection of congruity.” The application of this rule rarely produces certainty; it usually leads only to a presumption, more or less strong, which the documentary evidence confirms or annuls as the case may be. It would be sophistical to suppose that the ancient authors are always consistent with themselves, always correct in their language and happy in their expressions. The reader is all too liable to imagine that he penetrates their thought, and to make them talk as he himself would have talked on a like occasion. It is but a step from this to conjectural criticism which has been so much abused.

Rule 2. Among several readings that is preferable which explains all others and is explained by none.—Gregory, in his “Prolegomena” (8th critical ed. of the New Testament by Tischendorf, p. 63), says apropos of this rule: “Hoc si latiore vel latissimo sensu accipietur, omnium regularum principium haberi poterit; sed est ejusmodi quod alius aliter jure quidem suo, ut cuique videtur, definiat sequaturque.” It is, in fact, subject to arbitrary applications, which only proves that it must be employed with prudence and circumspection.

Rule 3. The more difficult reading is also the more probable.—“Proclivi scriptioni pr stat ardua” (Bengel).—Although it may seem entirely paradoxical, this rule is, in a certain measure, founded on reason, and those who have contested it most vigorously, like Wetstein, have been obliged to replace it with something similar. But it is true only on condition that the clause be added, all other things being equal; else we should have to prefer the barbarisms and absurdities of copyists solely because they are more difficult to understand than the correct expression or the intelligently turned phrase. Indeed copyists never change their text merely for the pleasure of rendering it obscure or of corrupting it; on the contrary, they rather try to explain or correct it. Hence a harsh expression, an irregular phrase, and an unlooked-for thought are possibly primitive, but always, as we have said, on this condition: ceteris paribus. Nor must it be forgotten that the difficulty of the reading may arise from other causes, such as the ignorance of the scribe or the defects of the exemplar which he copies.

Rule 4. The shortest reading is, in general, the best.—“Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate penitus destituatur, præferenda est verbosiori. Librarii enim multo proniores ad addendum fuerunt, quam ad omittendum (Griesbach).” The reason given by Griesbach, author of this rule, is confirmed by experience. But it should not be too generally applied; if certain copyists are inclined to put in an insufficiently authorized interpolation, others, in their haste to finish the task, are either deliberately or unknowingly guilty of omissions or abbreviations.

We see that the rules of internal criticism, in so far as they can be of any use, are suggested by common sense. Other norms formulated by certain critics are based on nothing but their own imaginations. Such is the following proposed by Griesbach: “Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspectâ merito habetur quæ orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifeste præ ceteris favet.” It would then follow that the variants suspected of heresy have all the probabilities in their favour, and that heretics were more careful of the integrity of the sacred text than were the orthodox. History and reason combined protest against this paradox.

C. CONJECTURAL CRITICISM

As a principle, conjectural criticism is not inadmissible. In fact it is possible that in all existing documents, manuscripts, versions, and quotations, there are primitive errors which can only be corrected by conjecture. The phrase primitive errors is here used to denote those that were committed by the scribe himself in dictated works or that crept into one of the first copies on which depend all the documents that have come down to us. Scrivener, therefore, seems too positive when he writes (“Introduction,” 1894, Vol. II, p. 244): “It is now agreed among competent judges that Conjectural Emendation must never be resorted to even in passages of acknowledged difficulty; the absence of proof that a reading proposed to be substituted for the common one is actually supported by some trustworthy document being of itself a fatal objection to our receiving it.”Many critics would not go thus far, as there are passages that remain doubtful even after the efforts of documentary criticism have been exhausted, and we cannot see why it should be forbidden to seek a remedy in conjectural criticism. Thus Hort justly remarks (“Introduction,” 1896, p. 71): “The evidence for corruption is often irresistible, imposing on an editor the duty of indicating the presumned unsoundness of the text, although he may be wholly unable to propose any endurable way of correcting it, or have to offer only suggestions in which he cannot place full confidence.” But he adds that, in the New Testament, the rôle of conjectural emendation is extremely weak, because of the abundance and variety of documentary evidence, and he agrees with Scrivener in admitting that the conjectures presented are often entirely arbitrary, almost always unfortunate, and of such a nature as to satisfy only their own inventor. To sum up, conjectural criticism should only be applied as a last resort, after every other means has been exhausted, and then only with prudent scepticism.

D. APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES AND PROCESSES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM

It remains briefly to explain the modifications which the principles of textual criticism undergo in their application to Biblical texts, to enumerate the chief critical editions, and to indicate the methods followed by the editors. We shall here speak only of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and of the Greek text of the New.

1. HEBREW TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

(A) THE CRITICAL APPARATUS

The number of Hebrew manuscripts is very great. Kennicott (“Dissertatio generalis in Vet. Test. hebraicum,” Oxford, 1780) and De Rossi (“Vaniæ lectiones Vet. Testamenti,” Parma, 1784–88) have catalogued over 1300. Since their day this figure has greatly increased, thanks to discoveries made in Egypt, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and above all in the Crimea. Unfortunately, for the reason given above under A. Necessity and Processes, the Hebrew manuscripts are comparatively recent; none is anterior to the tenth century or at any rate the ninth. The “Codex Babylonicus” of the Prophets, now at St. Petersburg and bearing the date 916, generally passes for the oldest. According to Ginsburg, however, the manuscript numbered “Oriental 4445” of the British Museum dates back to the middle of the ninth century. But the dates inscribed on certain manuscripts are not to be trusted. (See on this subject, Neubauer, “Earliest MSS. of the Old Testament” in “Studia Biblica,” III, Oxford, 1891, pp. 22–36.) When the Hebrew manuscripts are compared with one another, it is amazing to find how strong a resemblance exists. Kennicott and De Rossi, who collected the variants, found hardly any of importance. This fact produces at first a favourable impression, and we are inclined to believe that it is very easy to restore the primitive text of the Hebrew Bible, so carefully have the copyists performed their task. But this impression is modified when we consider that the manuscripts agree even in material imperfections and in the most conspicuous errors. Thus they all present, in the same places, letters that are larger or smaller than usual, that are placed above or below the line, that are inverted, and sometimes unfinished or broken. Again, here and there, and precisely in the same places, may be noticed spaces indicating a hiatus; finally, on certain words or letters are points intended to annul them. (See Cornill, “Einleitung in die Kanon. Bücher des A. T.,” 5th ed., Tübingen, 1905, p. 310.) All these phenomena led Spinoza to suspect, and enabled Paul de Lagarde to prove (Anmerkungen zur griechischen Uebersetzung der Proverbien, 1863, pp. 1, 2) that all the Hebrew manuscripts known come down from a single copy of which they reproduce even the faults and imperfections. This theory is now generally accepted, and the opposition it has met has only served to make its truth clearer. It has even been made more specific and has been proved to the extent of showing that the actual text of our manuscripts was established and, so to speak, canonized between the first and second century of our era, in an epoch, that is, when, after the destruction of the Temple and the downfall of the Jewish nation, all Judaism was reduced to one school. In fact, this text does net differ from that which St. Jerome used for the Vulgate, Origen for his Hexapla, and Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotus for their versions of the Old Testament, although it is far removed from the text followed in the Septuagint.

As centuries elapsed between the composition of the various books of the Old Testament and the determining of the Massoretic text, it is but likely that more or less serious modifications were introduced, the more so as, in the interval, there had occurred two events particularly favourable to textual corruption, namely a change in writing—the old Ph nician having given way to the square Hebrew—and a change in spelling, consisting, for example, of the separation of words formerly united and in the frequent and rather irregular use of matres lectionis. The variants that supervened may be accounted for by comparing parallel parts of Samuel and Kings with the Paralipomena, and above all by collating passages twice reproduced in the Bible, such as Ps. xvii (xviii) with II Sam., xxii, or Is., xxxvi-xxxix, with II Kings, xviii, 17-xx, 19. [See Touzard, “De la conservation du texte hébreu” in “Revue biblique,” VI (1897), 31–47, 185–206; VII (1898), 511–524; VIII (1899), 83–108.]

An evident consequence of what has just been said is that the comparison of extant manuscripts enlightens us on the Massoretic, but not on the primitive text. On the latter subject the Mishna and, for still stronger reasons, the remainder of the Talmud cannot teach us anything, as they were subsequent to the constitution of the Massoretic text; nor can the Targums, for the same reason and because they may have since been retouched. Therefore, outside of the Massoretic text, our only guides are the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint version. The Samaritan Pentateuch offers us an independent recension of the Hebrew text, dating from the fourth century before our era, that is, from an epoch in which the Samaritans, under their high-priest Manasseh, separated from the Jews; and this recension is not suspected of any important modifications except the rather inoffensive, harmless one of substituting Mount Gerizim for Mount Hebal in Deut., xxvii, 4. As to the Septuagint version, we know that it was begun, if not completed, about 280 B. C. To Paul de Lagarde especially belongs the credit of drawing the attention of scholars to the value of the Septuagint for a critical edition of the Hebrew Bible.

(B) CRITICAL EDITIONS OF THE HEBREW TEXT

After the publication of the Psalms at Bologna in 1477, of the Pentateuch at Bologna in 1432, of the Prophets at Soncino in 1485, and of the Hagiographa at Naples in 1487, the entire Old Testament appeared at Soncino (1488), at Naples (1491–93), at Brescia (1494), at Pesaro (1511–17), and at Alcala (1514–17). Then, between 1516 and 1568, came the four Rabbinic Bibles of Venice. It is the second, edited by Jacob ben Chayim and printed by Bomberg in 1524–1525, that is generally looked upon as containing the textus receptus (received text). The list of the innumerable editions which followed is given by Pick in his “History of the Printed Editions of the Old Testament” in “Hebraica” (1892–1893), IX, pp. 47–116. For the most important editions see Ginsburg, “Introduction to the Massoretic-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible” (London, 1897), 779–976. The editions most frequently reprinted are probably those of Van der Hoogt, Hahn, and Theile; but all these older editions are now supplanted by those of Baer and Delitzsch, Ginsburg, and Kittel, which are considered more correct. The Baer and Delitzsch Bible appeared in fascicles at Leipzig, between 1869 and 1895, and is not yet complete; the entire Pentateuch except Genesis is wanting. Ginsburg, author of the “Introduction” mentioned above, has published an edition in two volumes (London, 1894). Finally, Kittel, who had called attention to the necessity of a new edition (Ueber die Notwendigkeit und Möglichkeit einer neuen Ausgabe der hebraïschen Bibel, Leipzig, 1902) has just published one (Leipzig, 1905–06) with the assistance of several collaborators, Ryssel, Driver, and others. Almost all the editions thus far mentioned reproduce the textus receptus by correcting the typographical errors and indicating the interesting variants; all adhere to the Massoretic text, that is, to the text adopted by the rabbis between the first and second centuries of our era, and found in all the Hebrew manuscripts. A group of German, English, and American scholars, under the direction of Haupt, have undertaken an edition which claims to go back to the primitive text of the sacred authors. Of the twenty parts of this Bible, appearing in Leipzig, Baltimore, and London, and generally known under the name of the “Polychrome Bible “ sixteen have already been published: Genesis (Ball, 1896), Leviticus (Driver, 1894), Numbers (Paterson, 1900), Joshua (Bennett, 1895), Judges (Moore, 1900), Samuel (Budde, 1894), Kings (Stade, 1904), Isaiah (Cheyne, 1899), Jeremiah (Cornill, 1895), Ezekiel (Toy, 1899), Psalms (Wellhausen, 1895), Proverbs (Kautzsch, 1901), Job (Siegfried, 1893), Daniel (Kamphausen, 1896), Ezra-Nehemiah (Guthe, 1901), and Chronicles (Kittel, 1895); Deuteronomy (Smith) is in press. It is needless to state that, like all who have thus far endeavoured to restore the primitive text of certain books, the editors of the “Polychrome Bible” allow a broad margin for subjective and conjectural criticism.

2. GREEK TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

(A) USE OF THE CRITICAL APPARATUS

The greatest difficulty confronting the editor of the New Testament is the endless variety of the documents at his disposal. The number of manuscripts increases so rapidly that no list is absolutely complete. The latest, “Die Schriften des N. T.” (Berlin, 1902), by Von Soden, enumerates 2328 distinct manuscripts outside of lectionaries (Gospels and Epistles), and exclusive of about 30 numbers added in an appendix, 30 October, 1902. It must be acknowledged that many of these texts are but fragments of chapters or even of verses. This enormous mass of manuscripts is still but imperfectly studied, and some copies are scarcely known except as figuring in the catalogues. The great uncials themselves are not yet all collated, and many of them have but lately been rendered accessible to critics. The genealogical classification, above all, is far from complete. and many fundamental points are still under discussion. The text of the principal versions and of the patristic quotations is far from being satisfactorily edited, and the genealogical relationship of all these sources of information is not yet determined. These varied difficulties explain the lack of agreement on the part of editors and the want of conformity in the critical editions published down to the present day.

(B) BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CRITICAL EDITIONS AND PRINCIPLES FOLLOWED BY EDITORS

The first New Testament published in Greek is that which forms the fifth volume of the Polyglot of Alcala, the printing of which was finished 10 January, 1514, but which was not delivered to the public until 1520. Meanwhile, early in 1516, Erasmus had published his rapidly completed edition at Basle. The edition that issued from the press of Aldus at Venice in 1518 is simply a reproduction of that of Erasmus, but Robert Estienne’s editions published in 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551, the first three at Paris and the fourth at Geneva, although founded on the text of the Polyglot of Alcala, presented variants from about fifteen manuscripts, and into the last, that of 1551, was introduced the division of verses now in use. Theodore Beza’s ten editions which appeared between 1565 and 1611 differ but little from the last of Robert Estienne’s. The Elzevir brothers, Bonaventure and Abraham, printers at Leyden, followed Estienne and Beza very closely; their small editions of 1624 and 1633, so convenient and so highly appreciated by book-lovers, furnish what has been agreed upon as the textus receptus.—“Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus” (Edition of 1633). It must suffice to mention here the editions of Courcelles (Amsterdam, 1658) and of Fell (Oxford, 1675), both of which adhere pretty closely to the textus receptus of Elzevir, and those of Walton (London, 1657) and of Mill (Oxford, 1707), which reproduce in substance the text of Estienne, but enrich it by the addition of variants resulting from the collation of numerous manuscripts. The principal editors who followed—Wetstein (Amsterdam, 1751–1752), Matthæi (Moscow, 1782–1788), Birch (Copenhagen, 1788), and the two Catholics, Alter (Vienna, 1786–1787), and Scholz (Leipzig, 1830–1836) are noted chiefly for the abundance of new manuscripts which they discovered and collated. But we must here limit ourselves to an appreciation of the latest and best-known editors, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort.

In his second edition (1796–1806) Griesbach, applying the theory that had previously been suggested by Bengel and subsequently developed by Semler, distinguished three great families of texts: the Alexandrian family represented by the codices A, B, C, by the Coptic versions and the quotations of Origen; the Western family, represented by D of the Gospels and the Acts, by the bilingual codices, the Latin versions, and the Latin Fathers; and lastly the Byzantine family, represented by the mass of other manuscripts and by the Greek Fathers from the fourth century onward. Agreement between two of these families would have been decisive; but, unfortunately, Griesbach’s classification is questioned by many, and it has been proved that the agreement between Origen and the so-called Alexandrian family is largely imaginary. Lachmann (Berlin, 1842–1850) endeavoured to reconstruct his text on too narrow a basis. He took account of only the great uncials, many of which were then either entirely unknown or imperfectly known, and of the ancient Latin versions. In his choice of readings the editor adopted the majority opinion, but reserved to himself the conjectural amendment of the text thus established—a defective method which his successor Tregelles has not sufficiently avoided. The latter’s edition (1857–1872), the work of a lifetime, was completed by his friends. Tischendorf contributed no less than eight editions of the New Testament in Greek, but the differences among them are decidedly marked. According to Scrivener (Introduction, II, 283) the seventh edition differs from the third in 1296 places, and in 595 it goes back to the received text. After the discovery of the “Sinaiticus,’ which he had the honour of finding and publishing, his eighth edition disagreed with the preceding one in 3369 places. Such an amount of variation can only inspire distrust. Nor did the edition contributed by Westcott and Hort (The New Testament in the Original Greek, Cambridge and London, 1881) win universal approval, because, after eliminating in turn each of the great families of documents which they designate respectively as Syrian, Western, and Alexandrian, the editors rely almost exclusively on the “Neutral” text, which is only represented by the “Vaticanus” and the “Sinaiticus,” and, in case of disagreement between the two great codices, by the “Vaticanus” alone. The excessive preponderance thus given to a single manuscript was criticized in a special manner by Scrivener (Introduction, II, 284–297). Finally, the edition announced by Von Soden (Die Schriften des N. T. in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt) gave rise to lively controversies even before it appeared. (See “Zeitschrift fur neutest. Wissensehaft,” 1907, VIII, 34–47, 110–124, 234–237.) All this would seem to indicate that, for some time to come, we shall not have a definite edition of the Greek New Testament.

The encyclopedias and dictionaries of the Bible have no special article on textual criticism which deals in a particular manner with Biblical texts, but most of the Introductions to Scripture dedicate one or several chapters to this subject; e. g., UBALDI, Introductio (5th ed., Rome, 1901), II, 484–615 (De criticâ verbali sacrorum textuum); CORNELY, Introductio (Paris. 1885), I, 496–509 (De usu critico textuum primigeniorum et versionum antiquarum); GREGORY, Prolegomena to 8th ed. of TISCHENDORF (Leipzig, 1884–1894); SCRIVENER, Introduction (4th ed., London 1894) II, 175–301; NESTLE, Einführung in das griech. N. T. (2nd ed., 1899) and HOLTZMANN, Einleitung in das N. T. (Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1892).

The following may be mentioned as monographs: PORTER, Principles of Textual Criticism (Belfast, 1848); DAVIDSON, A Treatise of Biblical Criticism (1853); HAMMOND, Outlines of Textual Criticism (2nd ed., 1878); MILLER, Textual Guide (London, 1885); HORT, The N.T. in the Original Greek: lntroduction (2nd ed., London 1896). Although, like several of the preceding, this last work aims chiefly at the criticism of the New Testament, the entire second part (pp. 19–72, The Methods of Textual Criticism) discusses general questions. On (b) Versions and (c) Quotations under B. General Principles, cf. BEBB, The Evidence of Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of the Books of the New Testament in II of the Oxford Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica.

F. PRAT.

Historical Criticism

Historical criticism is the art of distinguishing the true from the false concerning facts of the past. It has for its object both the documents which have been handed down to us and the facts themselves. We may distinguish three kinds of historical sources: written documents, unwritten evidence; and tradition. As further means of reaching a knowledge of the facts there are three processes of indirect research, viz.: negative argument, conjecture, and a priori argument.

It may be said at once that the study of sources and the use of indirect processes will avail little for proper criticism if one is not guided chiefly by an ardent love of truth such as will prevent him from turning aside from the object in view through any prejudice, religious, national, or domestic, that might trouble his judgment. The rôle of the critic differs much from that of an advocate. He must, moreover, consider that he has to fulfil at once the duties of an examining magistrate and an expert juryman, for whom elementary probity, to say nothing of their oath, makes it a conscientious duty to decide only on the fullest possible knowledge of the details of the matter submitted to their examination, and in keeping with the conclusion which they have drawn from these details; guarding themselves at the same time against all personal feeling either of affection or of hatred respecting the litigants. But inexorable impartiality is not enough; the critic should also possess a fund of that natural logic known as common sense, which enables us to estimate correctly, neither more nor less, the value of a conclusion in strict keeping with given premises. If, moreover, the investigator be acute and shrewd, so that he discerns at a glance the elements of evidence offered by the various kinds of information before him, which elements often appear quite meaningless to the untrained observer, we may consider him thoroughly fitted for the task of critic. He must now proceed to familiarize himself with the historical method, i. e. with the rules of the art of historical criticism. In the remainder of this article we shall present a brief résumé of these rules apropos of the various kinds of documents and processes which the historian employs in determining the relative degree of certainty which attaches to the facts that engage his attention.

WRITTEN DOCUMENTS

There are two kinds of written documents. Some are drawn up by ecclesiastical or civil authority, and are known as public documents; others, emanating from private individuals and possessing no official guarantee, are known as private documents. Public or private, however, all such documents raise at once three preliminary questions:

(1) authenticity and integrity;

(2) meaning;

(3) authority.

AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY

Does the document which confronts us as a source of information really belong to the time and the author claimed for it, and do we possess it in the shape in which it left that author’s hand? There is little or no difficulty in the case of a document printed during the author’s lifetime, and given at once a wide distribution. It is otherwise when, as often happens, the document is both ancient and in manuscript. The so-called auxiliary sciences of history, i. e. palæography, diplomatics, epigraphy, numismatics, sigillography, or sphragistics, furnish practical rules that generally suffice to determine approximately the age of a manuscript. In this preliminary stage of research we are greatly aided by the nature of the material on which the manuscript is written, e. g. papyrus, parchment, cotton or rag paper; by the system of abbreviations employed, character of the hand-writing, ornamentation, and other details that vary according to countries and epochs. It is rare that a document claiming to be an original or an autograph, when submitted to such a series of tests, leaves room for reasonable doubt regarding its authenticity or non-authenticity. More frequently, however, ancient documents survive only in the form of copies, or copies of copies, and their verification thus becomes more complicated. We must pass judgment on each manuscript and compare the manuscripts with one another. This comparison enables us, on the one hand, to fix their age (approximately) by the rules of palæography; on the other, it reveals a number of variant readings. In this way it becomes possible to designate some as belonging to one “family,” i. e. as transcribed from one original model, and thus eventually to reconstruct, more or less perfectly, the primitive text as it left the author’s hand. Such labour (merely preliminary, after all, to the question of authenticity), were every one forced to perform it, would deter most students of historical science at the very outset. It becomes, however, daily less necessary. Men specially devoted to this important and arduous branch of criticism, and of a literary probity beyond suspicion, have published and continue to publish, with the generous aid of their governments and of learned societies, more or less extensive editions of ancient historical sources which place at our disposal, one might almost say more advantageously, the manuscripts themselves. In the prefaces of these scholarly publications all the known manuscripts of each document are carefully described, classified, and often partially represented in facsimile, thereby enabling us to verify the palæographic features of the manuscript in question. The edition itself is usually made after one of the principal manuscripts; moreover, on each page we find an exact summary (sometimes in apparently excessive detail) of all the variant readings found in the other manuscripts of the text. With such helps the authenticity of a work or of a text may be discussed without searching all the libraries of Europe or tiring one’s eyes in deciphering the more or less legible handwriting of the Middle Ages.

The manuscripts once counted and classified, we must examine whether all, even the most ancient, bear the name of the author to whom the work is generally attributed. If it be lacking in the oldest, and be found only in those of a later date, especially if the name offered by the earlier manuscripts differ from that given by later copyists, we may rightly doubt the fidelity of the transcription. Such doubt will often occur apropos of a passage not met in the oldest manuscripts, but only in the more recent, or vice versa. Unless we can otherwise explain this divergency, we are naturally justified in suspecting an interpolation or a mutilation in the later manuscripts. While the authenticity of a work may be proved by the agreement of all its manuscripts, it is possible further to confirm it by the testimony of ancient writers who quote the work under the same title, and as a work of the same author; such quotations are especially helpful if they are rather extensive and correspond well to the text as found in the manuscripts. On the other hand, if one or several of such quoted passages are not met with in the manuscript, or if they be not reproduced in identical terms, there is reason to believe that we have not before us the document quoted by ancient writers or at least that our copy has suffered notably from the negligence or bad faith of those who transcribed it. To these signs of authenticity, called extrinsic because they are based on testimony foreign to the author’s own work, may be added certain intrinsic signs based on an examination of the work itself. When dealing with official and public acts care must be taken to see that not only the handwriting, but also the opening and closing formulæ, the titles of persons, the manner of noting dates, and other similar corroborative indications conform to the known customs of the age to which the document is attributed. Amid so many means of verification it is extremely difficult for a forgery to escape detection. Words and phraseology furnish another test. Each century possesses its own peculiar diction, and amid so many pitfalls of this nature it is scarcely possible for the forger to cloak successfully his misdeed. This is also true for the style of each particular author. In general, especially in the case of the great writers, each one has his own peculiar stamp by which he is easily recognized, or which at least prevents us from attributing to the same pen compositions quite unequal in style. In the application of this rule, no doubt, care should be taken not to exaggerate. A writer varies his tone and his language according to the subject of which be treats, the nature of his literary composition, and the class of readers whom he addresses. Nevertheless an acute and practised mind will have little difficulty in recognizing among the various works of a given author certain qualities which betray at once the character of the writer and his style or habitual manner of writing. Another and a surer means for the detection of positive forgery or the alteration of a document is the commission of anachronisms in facts or dates, the mention in a work of persons, institutions, or customs that are certainly of a later date than the period to which it claims to belong; akin to this are plagiarism and the servile imitation of more recent writers.

MEANING

The critic must now make the best possible use of the written sources at his disposal, i. e. he must understand them well, which is not always an easy matter. His difficulty may arise from the obscurity of certain words, from their grammatical form, or from their grouping in the phrase he seeks to interpret. As to the sense of the individual words it is supremely important that the critic should be able to read the documents in the language in which they were written rather than in translations. Doubtless there are excellent translations, and they may he very helpful; but it is always dangerous to trust them blindly. The scholar who enters conscientiously upon the work of critic will always feel it a strict duty to warn his readers whenever he quotes a text from a translation. It is well known that to interpret a term correctly it is not enough to know its meaning at a particular epoch, which we are accustomed to regard as classic, in the language to which it belongs. We need only open any large Latin lexicon, e. g. Forcellini’s or Freund’s (especially if we keep in view the corresponding page of the Latin “Glossarium” of Du Cange), to appreciate at once the very remarkable modifications of meaning undergone by Latin terms in different periods of the language, either from the substitution of new meanings for older ones or by the concurrent use of both old and new. In his efforts to fix the age of a text the critic will, therefore, be occasionally obliged to exclude a meaning that had not yet arisen, or had ceased to be in use when the text in question was composed; sometimes he will be left in a condition of uncertainty or suspense, and obliged to abstain from conclusions agreeable enough but unsafe. Again, in order to grasp correctly the sense of a text it becomes necessary to understand the political or religious opinions of the author, the peculiar institutions of his age and country, the general character of his style, the matters which he treats, and the circumstances under which he speaks. These things considered a general expression may take on quite a particular sense which it would be disastrous for the critic to overlook. Often these details can only be understood from the context of the passage under discussion. In general, whenever there is occasion to verify the exactness of a quotation made in support of a thesis, it is prudent to read the entire chapter whence it is taken, sometimes even to read the whole work. An individual testimony, isolated from all its surroundings in an author’s work, seems often quite decisive, yet when we read the work itself our faith in the value of the argument based on such partial quotation is either very much shaken or else disappears entirely.

AUTHORITY

What is now the value of a text rightly understood? Every historical statement or testimony naturally suggests two questions: Has the witness in question a proper knowledge of the fact concerning which he is called to testify? And if so, is he altogether sincere in his deposition? On an impartial answer to these questions depends the degree of confidence to be accorded to his testimony.

Concerning the knowledge of the witness we may ask: Did he live at the time when, and in the place where, the fact occurred, and was he so circumstanced that he could know it? Or, at least, are we sure that he obtained his information from a good source? The more guarantees he gives in this respect the more, all else being equal, does he prove himself trustworthy. As to the question of sincerity it is not enough to be satisfied that the witness did not wish to utter a deliberate lie; if it could be reasonably shown that he had a personal interest in warping the truth, grave suspicions would be raised as to the veracity of all his statements. Cases of formal and wilful mendacity in historical sources may be regarded as rare. Much more frequently prejudice or passion secretly pervert the natural sincerity of a man who really respects himself and esteems the respect of others. It is possible, and that with a certain good faith, to deceive both one’s self and others. It is the duty of the critic to enumerate and weigh all the influences which may have altered more or less the sincerity of a witness—personal likes or dislikes, social or oratorical proprieties, self-esteem or vanity, as well as the influences which may affect the clearness of a writer’s memory or the uprightness of his will. It by no means follows that the authority of a witness is always weakened by the process described above; often quite the contrary happens. When a witness has overcome influences that usually powerfully affect a man’s mind and dissuade him from yielding to the natural love of truth, there is no longer any reason to doubt his veracity. Moreover, when he asserts a fact unfavourable to the religious or political cause which he otherwise defends with ardour; when he thus gains no particular advantage, but on the contrary subjects himself to serious disadvantage; in a word, whenever his statements or avowals are in manifest opposition to his interests, his prejudices, and his inclinations, it is clear that his evidence is far weightier than that of a perfectly disinterested man. Again, the preceding considerations apply not only to the immediate witnesses of the fact in question, but also to all the intermediaries through whom their evidence is transmitted to us. The trustworthiness of the latter must be established as well as that of the authorities to which they appeal.

Given the necessity of observing so much caution in the use of historical texts, it may appear very difficult to reach complete certainty regarding the facts of history. How may we be sure, especially in dealing with ancient times, that our witness presents every desirable guarantee? Often he is scarcely known to us, or quite anonymous. How many facts, once held to be established, have been eliminated from the pages of history. And for how many more must we indefinitely suspend our judgment for lack of sufficiently convincing authority. Historical certitude would indeed be difficult to reach if for each fact we had but one isolated piece of evidence. Full certainty would then be possible only when it could be shown that the character and position of a witness were such as to preclude any reasonable doubt as to the exactness of his statements. But if the veracity of the witness is guaranteed only by negative data, i. e. if we are merely aware no known circumstances warrant us in suspecting carelessness or bad faith, there arises in us a more or less vague belief, such as we easily accord to any quite unknown person who seriously relates an event which he says he has seen, while on our part we have no reason to suppose either that he himself is deceived or that he is deceiving us. Strictly speaking, our belief in such a witness cannot be called a halting faith. On the other hand it differs considerably from a belief that is based on more solid foundations. We shall not, therefore, be much surprised if the occurrence be later described in an entirely different manner, nor shall we object to abandoning our former belief when better informed by more reliable witnesses. Were it otherwise, our passions would be to blame for causing us to hold to a belief, flattering perhaps, but unsupported by sufficient evidence. We frankly admit, therefore, the possibility of a more or less wavering mental adhesion to facts that rest on a single testimony and whose value we are unable properly to appreciate. It is otherwise in the case of facts confirmed by several witnesses placed in entirely different conditions. It is very difficult, nay generally speaking morally impossible, that three, four, or even more persons, not subject to any common influence, should be deceived in the same manner, or should be parties to the same deception. When, therefore, we find a fact established by several statements or narratives taken from different sources, yet all concordant, there is scarcely any further room for reasonable doubt as to the entire truth of the fact. At this stage, however, we must be very certain that the historical sources are truly different. Ten or twenty writers who copy the narrative of an ancient author, without any new source of knowledge at their disposal, in general add nothing to the authority of him from whom they have gleaned their information. They are but echoes of an original testimony, already well known. It may happen, however, and the case is by no means rare, that narratives based on different sources exhibit more or less disagreement. How then shall we form our judgment?

Right here an important distinction is necessary. The various narratives of a fact often exhibit a perfect harmony as to substance, their divergence appearing only in matters of detail upon which information was had with greater difficulty. In such cases the partial disagreement of the witnesses, far from lessening their authority regarding the principal fact serves to confirm it; disagreement of this kind shows on the one hand an absence of collusion, and on the other a reliance of witnesses on certain sources of information common to all. There is, however, an exception. It may happen that several writers, whose veracity we are otherwise justified in suspecting, agree in narrating with much precision of detail a fact favourable to their common likes and dislikes. They either report it as eye-witnesses or they declare that they reproduce faithfully the narrative of such witnesses. In dealing with writers of this character the critic must examine carefully all their statements, down to the minutest detail; often a very insignificant circumstance will reveal the deception. We may recall here the ingenious questioning by which Daniel saved the life and reputation of Susanna (Dan., xiii, 52–60). Similar means are often employed with success in the law courts to overthrow clever systems of defence built up by culprits, or to convict a party who has suborned false witnesses in the interest of a bad cause. Occasionally such measures might be advantageously applied in the conduct of historical examinations. Let us suppose that there exists a conflict of opinion about the substance of a fact, and that it has been found impossible to reconcile the witnesses. it is clear that they disagree. At this point, evidently, we must cease to insist on their absolute value and weigh them one against the other. Keeping always in view the circumstances of time, place, and personal position of the different witnesses, we must seek to ascertain in which of them the conditions of knowledge and veracity appear to predominate; this examination will determine the measure of confidence to be reposed in them, and, consequently, the degree of certainty or probability that attaches to the fact they narrate. Frequently, though no indispensable preliminary of mental conviction, a careful comparison of more or less discordant versions of a fact or an event will reveal in the rejected witnesses the very sources or causes of their errors, and thereby exhibit in much clearer light the complete solution of problems whose data seemed at first sight confused and contradictory.

UNWRITTEN TESTIMONY

To hang a man, a clever examining magistrate does not always need one line of his writing. Silent witnesses have often convicted a criminal more efficaciously than positive accusers. The most insignificant object left by him on the scene of his crime, another found in his possession, an uncommon degree of prodigality, a hundred other equally trifling tokens, lay bare very often the most ingeniously planned schemes for avoiding detection by the law. Even so in the science of history. Here nothing is negligible or unimportant. Monuments of architecture, objects of plastic art, coins, weapons, implements of labour, household utensils, material objects of every kind may in one way or another furnish us precious information. Certain classes of historical sources have long since attained the dignity of special auxiliary sciences. Such are heraldry, or armorial science; glyptics, which deals with engraved stones; ceramics, or the study of pottery in all its epochs. To these we may add numismatics, sigillography, and especially linguistics, not so much for a surer interpretation of the texts as for procuring data from which may be conclusively established the origins of peoples and their migrations. Archæology, in its broadest sense, comprises all these sciences; in its most restricted sense it is confined to objects which are beyond their scope. Truly it is a vast province that here spreads out before the historical pioneer, and he needs much erudition, acumen, and tact to venture therein. Fortunately, as with manuscripts and inscriptions, it is no longer necessary for the historical student to possess a thorough knowledge of all these auxiliary sciences before entering on his proper task. For most of them there exist excellent special works in which we may easily find any archæological details needful in the discussion of an historical question. It is to these works and to the advice of men learned in such matters that we must have recourse in order to solve the two preliminary questions regarding all evidence, written and unwritten: that of authenticity or provenance, and that of meaning, i. e., in archæological remains, the use to which the objects discovered were once put. In dealing with unwritten evidence these questions are more delicate; similarly the rules for our guidance are much more difficult, both to formulate and to apply. It is here, particularly, that shrewdness and acumen, and the prophetic insight that comes of long practice, offer help more important by far than the most exact rules. It is only by dint of observation and comparison that we learn eventually to distinguish with accuracy. These preliminaries once satisfied, we enter on the task of historical criticism properly speaking. Through it these precious relics of the past are called to shed light on certain writings, to confirm their evidence, to reveal a fact not committed to them; more frequently they furnish a sure basis of conjecture whence eventually follow discoveries of great importance. Here, however, and it cannot be repeated too often, the path of the historical student is perilous indeed. The misadventures of amateur archæologists, whether in the matter of pretended discoveries or in dissertations based on them, have provoked no little raillery, not only among severely just professional critics, but also among romancers and dramatic writers. As already stated, it is especially by the judicious use of conjecture that we obtain from these silent witnesses such information as it is in their power to furnish. For more specific treatment of this powerful but delicate instrument of historical criticism we refer the reader to a subsequent section of this article: CONJECTURE IN HISTORY.

TRADITION

Every student of history must eventually face a problem very embarrassing for a conscientious scholar. Facts appear which have left no trace in any writing or contemporary monument. Buried in obscurity for centuries they suddenly appear in full publicity and are accepted as incontrovertible. Everyone repeats the story, often with minute detail, though no one is able to offer any credible evidence of the trustworthiness of the current statement or narrative. It is then said that such facts rest on the evidence known as oral or popular tradition. What degree of confidence is due to this popular tradition? Its originators are quite unknown to us as are also the many intermediaries who have passed it down to the time when we are first cognizant of it. How may we obtain a guarantee of the veracity of the original witnesses and then of their successors? Perhaps a rather natural comparison will help us to a clear solution of this question. We may note at once a striking analogy between tradition concerning the past and public rumour about present events. There are in both cases numberless intermediary and anonymous witnesses, concordant as to the substance of the facts, but as to the details often quite contradictory of one another; in both cases also there is an identical ignorance concerning the original witnesses; in both cases, finally, many instances in which the current information was verified and many others in which it was found to be altogether false. Let us suppose the case of a prudent man deeply interested in knowing precisely what is happening in a distant country; one who, moreover, takes much pains to be well informed. What does he do when he learns by public rumour of an important event said to have occurred in the place in which he is interested? Does he accept blindly every detail thus bruited abroad? On the other hand, does he pay no attention whatever to rumour? He does neither. He gathers eagerly the various narratives current and compares them with one another, notes their points of agreement, and their elements of divergence. Nor does he conclude in haste. He suspends his judgment, seeks to procure official reports, writes to his friends who are on the spot to learn from them reliable news, i. e. confirmation of the facts on which men agree, solutions of the difficulties which arise from discordant versions of the event. Possibly he has no confidence in the persons charged with drawing up the official reports; possibly, too, he cannot correspond with his friends, owing to the interruption of communications by reason of war or other causes. In a word, if such a man found himself dependent on public rumour alone he would remain indefinitely in a state of doubt, content with a more or less probable knowledge until some more certain source of information offered.

Why should we not deal similarly with popular tradition? It appeals in just this way to our attention and we have the same motives for mistrusting it. More than once it has been helpful to judicious critics and pointed the way to important discoveries which they would never have made with the sole aid of written documents or monuments. Let us look at the matter in another way. Have not all students of historical documents come frequently across the same peculiar, one might say capricious admixture of true and false which meets us at every step in the case of popular traditions? It would be equally rash on the one hand to reject all tradition and place faith only in written testimony or contemporary monuments, and on the other to accord to tradition an implicit confidence merely because it was not formally contradicted by other historical data, though it received from them no confirmation. The historian should collect with care the popular traditions of the countries and epochs he is treating, compare them with one another, and determine their value in the light of other information scientifically acquired. Should this light, too, eventually fail him, he must wait patiently until fresh discoveries renew it, content in the meantime with such measure of probability as tradition affords. In this way the already acquired historical wealth will be retained, yet no danger run of exaggerating its value, or, finally, of casting suspicion on its trustworthiness by incorporating with it false or doubtful statements.

THE NEGATIVE ARGUMENT

The negative argument in history is that which is drawn from the silence of contemporary or quasi-contemporary documents concerning a given fact. The great masters of historical science have often used it with success in their refutation of historical errors, sometimes long intrenched in popular belief. It is to be noted that on such occasions they have always held firmly to two principles: first, that the author whose silence is invoked as a proof of the falsity of a given fact, could not have been ignorant of it had it really occurred as related; second, that if he were not ignorant of the fact, he would not have failed to speak of it in the work before us. The greater the certainty of these two points, the stronger is the negative argument. Whenever all doubt in regard to them is removed, we are quite right in holding that a writer’s silence concerning a fact in question is equivalent to a formal denial of its truth. There is nothing more rational than this process of reasoning; it is daily employed in our courts of justice. How often is a legal line of attack or defence broken by purely negative evidence. Honourable men are brought before a judicial tribunal who would certainly, in the hypothesis of their truth, have knowledge of the facts alleged by one of the contending parties. If they affirm that they have no knowledge of them, their depositions are rightly considered positive proofs of the falsity of the allegations. Now, evidence of this kind does not differ substantially from the negative argument in the above conditions. In one case, it is true, the witnesses formally state that they know nothing, while in the other we learn as much from their silence. Nevertheless this silence, in the given circumstances, is as significant as a positive assertion.

There are, nevertheless, some who claim that a negative argument can never prevail against a formal text. But this assertion is not even admissible respecting a contemporary text. If the writer to whom it belongs does not offer an absolute and incontestable guarantee of knowledge and veracity, his authority may be very much weakened or even destroyed by the silence of a more reliable and more prudent writer. It often happens in courts of law that the deposition of an eye or ear-witness is questioned, or even rejected, in view of the deposition of some other witness, equally well-placed to see and hear all that occurred, but who yet declares that he neither saw anything nor heard anything. Mabillon was certainly wrong in maintaining that the negative argument could never be used unless one had before him all the works of all the authors of the time when the event happened. On the contrary, a single work of a single author may in certain cases furnish a very sound negative argument. Launoy, on the other hand, is equally wrong in maintaining that the universal silence of writers for a period of about two centuries furnishes a sufficient proof of the falsity of facts not mentioned by them; it is quite possible that no author of this period was morally bound by the nature of his subject-matter to state such facts. In this case the silence of such authors is by no means equivalent to a denial. But, it is objected, in order to raise a doubt as to a fact related by later writers, have not the best critics often relied on this universal silence of historians for some considerable time? This is true, but the epoch in question was one already carefully studied and conscientiously described by several historians. Moreover, the disputed fact, if true, would necessarily have been so public, and such, in kind and importance, that neither ignorance nor wilful omission could be posited for all these historians. We have here, therefore, the two conditions needed to make inexplicable the silence of these authors; consequently, the negative argument loses none of its strength, and is powerful in proportion to the number of silent witnesses. Of course, this line of argument does not apply in the case of some obscure detail, which may easily have been unknown to, or little remarked by some contemporary authors and quite neglected by others; nor, more particularly, does it apply to an epoch of which few monuments are extant, especially few historical writings. In the latter case, the fact of a universal silence on the part of all writers for a considerable period, may, indeed, weaken the certainty of a fact; in reality we do no more than ascertain thereby the absence of all positive evidence in its favour, other than a tradition of uncertain origin. However, once the lack of information is admitted, it is not permissible to advance a step further and present the silence of documents as proof of the falsity of the fact. Their silence in this case is not the negative argument as described above.

The rule laid down in the preceding paragraphs seems to lack no element of precision and practical advantage. But in applying it to ancient times some caution is necessary. In an age of widespread publicity like our own, no important event can occur in any part of the civilized world without being immediately known everywhere and to all. Its principal details, indeed, are at once so fixed in the memory of all interested parties that they will not easily be effaced within a long period. It is astonishing to see how easily some modern writers forget that the former conditions of mankind were very different. They seek to establish an irrefutable negative argument on the hypothesis that a given public fact of importance could not have been unknown to a certain person of education and refinement who lived shortly afterwards. Such writers might learn to be more cautious by recalling a series of curious historical facts. It is enough to remind our readers that when St. Augustine was created auxiliary Bishop of Hippo (391) he did not know, on his own avowal, that the sixth canon of the Council of Nice (325) forbade any consecration of this kind.

CONJECTURE IN HISTORY

Conjecture or hypothesis occurs in history when the study of documents leads us to suspect, beyond the facts which they directly reveal, other facts, so closely related to them that from a knowledge of the former we may proceed to that of the latter. Such facts are most frequently related as cause and effect. Let an important event happen. How shall we explain it? How was it brought about? Evidently by another fact or a group of other facts which constitute its cause or sufficient reason. These new facts are revealed in no historical documents, or at least no one has hitherto perceived them. At once the investigator sees that here it is possible to discover more than is known from the extant documents. With this hope he begins to read extensively, to set afoot various researches, to interrogate in every sense a great many works and all the monuments relating to the fact with which he has been keenly impressed, to study the persons concerned in it, or the age in which it took place; all this in order to recover the often almost invisible thread which connects this fact with details that were originally unnoticed or set aside as unimportant. Absorbed in intense meditation, sometimes made needless through a sudden illuminating insight which reveals at once the right path, he seeks with earnestness the truth that the positive evidence before him still withholds; he passes from one hypothesis to another; he calls to his aid all the treasures of his memory; thus reinforced he turns again to the study of the documents, and collects with minute care every hint or indication that may avail to demonstrate their accuracy or falsity. From such close verification it sometimes appears that the path first struck out was misleading and must be abandoned; often the investigator is led by this hard toil to modify more or less his original ideas; on the other hand, he sometimes meets with striking confirmation of them. Feeble rays which seemed at first quite uncertain grow in power and number until they seem a torch that pours a flood of light before which all uncertainty must vanish. In this way, also, many new aspects are revealed to the enraptured eyes of the investigator and make known to him a vast field of knowledge of the highest interest.

As already stated conjecture enables us to conclude from effect to cause, but it may also follow an inverse method and help us to conclude from cause to effect. This process, however, is generally less reliable in historical research, and calls for more caution and reserve than when it is applied to physical facts. In the latter case the agents are necessary causes; once their mode of operation is known it is possible to predict with almost absolute certainty their results in given conditions, and conjecture avails us merely to arouse the idea of an effect certain to follow, but which we have not yet seen produced. Moreover, generally speaking, in the physical sciences it is easy to imagine a variety of methods by which an hypothesis may be tried and its accuracy verified. In historical science the situation is not quite the same. It deals largely with the moral laws that regulate the actions of free beings, and these are far from being as invariable in their application as physical laws. Much caution is therefore requisite before risking any judgment as to what a man must have done in given circumstances, all the more as his acts may have been influenced by the free acts of others, or by a number of accidental circumstances now unknown to us, but which may have notably modified in a given case the ideas and ordinary sentiments of the person in question. Prudence is not less necessary when the hypothesis is principally based on analogy; i. e. when, to complete our knowledge concerning a fact, certain details of which are not known to us from historical documents, we have recourse to another fact strikingly similar to the one under consideration and conclude thence, in favour of the first, to a similarity of details that are known to us with certainty only in respect of the second fact. Nevertheless we must not reject absolutely this method of investigation; skilfully treated it may render valuable service. A conjecture appeals to the mind all the more convincingly when it solves at once a number of problems hitherto obscure and lacking correlation. Frequently enough, a given hypothesis, taken separately, yields only slight probability. On the other hand, full certitude often results from the moral convergence of several plausible solutions, all of which point in the same direction. Let it be added that in historical research we shall not easily obtain too many hints nor exceed the limit in verification; also that we must be ever watchful against our own preconceptions that easily tempt us to exaggerate the strength of a conclusion favourable to our hypothesis. Nor must we refuse to consider the arguments that tend to weaken or eliminate the latter. On the contrary, it is precisely these arguments that we must study with most care and sift in every sense so that, given their truth, we may abandon opportunely our too seductive conjecture, or at least modify it, again and again if needful, until eventually it acquire such accuracy and precision as to satisfy the most exacting, and be admitted by all as a scientific acquisition both new and solid. A final recommendation, meant to forewarn against the seductions of historical conjecture certain adventurous and inexperienced writers, will not be out of place here. Let them not yield to an illusion only too common among their kind, namely that by their imaginative power and their genius they are destined to advance notably the cause of historical science without acquiring by hard and painful schooling that large and varied and accurate knowledge which men call erudition. Not every learned historian makes brilliant discoveries on the basis of lucky hypotheses; but learning is generally requisite for such discoveries. In historical scholarship, as in all other walks of life, toil and patience are the usual price of success.

THE A PRIORI ARGUMENT

Historical criticism has at its disposition one other source of truth, the a priori argument, a delicate weapon, indeed, but very useful when confided to a well-trained hand. As used in history, this argument is based on the intrinsic nature of a fact, leaving aside for the time being all evidence for or against it. In presence of the fact thus bared of all extrinsic relations the a priori process undertakes to show that it does or does not conform to the general laws which regulate the world. These laws fall into three principal classes. The first comprises fundamental or metaphysical laws, e. g. the principle of contradiction, according to which there cannot co-exist in the same subject elements absolutely contradictory of one another, also the principle of causality, according to which no being exists without a cause or sufficient reason for its existence. The second class includes physical laws which govern the phenomena of the world of nature and the activity of the beings which compose it. To this class also belong the laws which govern spiritual natures and faculties that are independent, or in as far as they are independent, of the action of free will. The third class, finally, comprises the moral laws that govern the activity of free beings, considered as such. No one who has acquired, under good guidance, a little experience of the human heart, will deny the existence of this class of laws, i. e. that in given conditions and under certain influences we can forecast in free beings certain habitual activities. Thus, one well-ascertained moral law is that no man will love and follow evil for itself, save only when it appears to him in the guise of good; another such law is that a man, unless he be a monster of perversity, will naturally tell the truth if he have absolutely no interest in lying.

In what way, now, can these three classes of laws, rightly considered, help us to pronounce on the truth of an historic fact? First, if the fact in question present absolutely contradictory and irreconcilable details it must evidently be rejected without further examination. However, it must be clearly proved that there really is such absolute and irreconcilable contradiction between details presented for simultaneous acceptance. It is important, moreover, to ascertain with certainty whether the contradiction affects the substance of the fact, or only accidental circumstances wrongly connected with it in the imagination of the witness, as frequently happens with popular traditions. In such cases it is only details that need to be rejected, precisely as is done when dealing with more or less conflicting testimonies. Physical impossibility, i. e. manifest opposition between well known laws of nature and an historical statement, is also a conclusive argument against the acceptance of such a statement. Non-believers to the contrary notwithstanding, the possibility of miraculous intervention never seriously troubles at this point the judgment of Catholic critics. They know quite well when to admit, in a particular case, such a possibility. Nor are these cases very frequent. They are also aware that for the acceptance of miracles they must require a far greater amount of evidence than when it is question of purely natural facts. We have in the Catholic process of canonization (see BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION) an excellent example of the manner in which the proof of miracles is handled by the tribunal which Catholics most respect. It may not be superfluous to add that prudence suggests a certain hesitation or reserve when the physical impossibility of a fact is in question. The laws of nature are not all so thoroughly understood that we run no danger of confounding a strange or new fact with one utterly impossible. The treatment of moral laws is something more delicate, since they are less absolute in application than physical laws. The mysteries of liberty are even more hidden than those of material nature. Consequently, before asserting the moral impossibility of a fact it is well to consider attentively whether there be not some circumstance, however trivial, which may have accidentally exercised on a given person an influence capable of making him act in a manner opposed to the habitual current of his ideas and sentiments. Such exceptions to moral laws, very rare in the multitude, appear more frequently among individuals. Care must be taken, however, not to admit them without grave reason. It is in support of, or in opposition to a conjecture that the a priori argument is mostly used; frequently enough conjecture is confounded with it. Indeed, it is often through the effort to reproduce mentally what certain persons in given conditions must have done, that we finally hit on what they did do; the next step is the collection of more precise evidence such as may confirm and establish quite satisfactorily the truth that we first saw with the eye of the imagination. We should always remember, however, that mere possibility or non-repugnance must not be considered the equivalent of positive probability, any more than mere ignorance of the causes of a fact is equivalent to its improbability, still less its impossibility, when it is sufficiently attested by direct evidence. Superficial or passionate minds are very much exposed to this kind of confusion.

In formulating, as has been done above, the proper rules for the guidance of the mind in its search after historical truth, it should be repeated that the mind must bring to this pursuit certain preliminary qualities and dispositions indicated at the beginning of this article, the first and most essential of which is a sincere and constant love of truth. Nothing can take the place of this sentiment. It is the rule of rules, the vital and efficient principle in all the processes of criticism. Without it they are quite sterile.

DE SMEDT, Principes de La critique historique (Liège, Paris, 1884); BERNHEIM, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode (Leipzig, 1894); LANGLOIS et SEIGNOBOS, Introduction aux études historiques (Paris, 1899). BUTLER, The Modern Critical and Historical School, its methods and tendencies. Dublin Review (London. 1898).

CH. DE SMEDT.

Carlo Crivelli

Italian painter. Little is known of his life, and his b. and d. are usually reckoned by his earliest and latest signed pictures, 1468–93. He may have been a pupil of Antonio and Bartolommeo Murano. Crivelli worked entirely in tempora, of which he was a master. He early attained a style of his own and his pictures, though sometimes stiff, are decorative and beautiful in colouring. He could not compose, in the modern sense, but was lavish in his treatment of single figures. Architectural features were often introduced by him and life-like fruits and flowers are placed in vivid relief against beautifully finished marbles. Crivelli, it would seem, worked for twenty-two years in cities lying within the Marches of Ancona, especially near Ascoli. He signed himself “Crivellus” and after 1490, when he was knighted by Ferdinand II of Naples, added “miles” to his signature. The cathedral of Ascoli has a “Virgin and Child” dated 1493. Among his earliest work is the altar-piece of San Silvestro, Massa, signed and dated 1468, while the “Coronation of the Virgin” (1493) in the Oggione Collection, Milan, is probably the latest. The National Gallery, London, has a number of Crivelli’s paintings and the galleries of the Continent are also well supplied. His work is best seen in a half light and at a little distance. His more elaborated pictures are: “Madonna and Child,” 1476, altar-piece for San Domenico, Ascoli (National Gallery, London); “The Dead Christ” (National Gallery); “Pietà” (Cathedral, Ascoli); “Madonna and Saints,” 1491 (Berlin); “St. Francis of Assisi” (Brussels); “Pietà” (Vatican); “Virgin and Saints” (Lateran).

RUSHFORTH, Carlo Crivelli (London, 1900); BLANC, Histoire des peintres de tous les écoles (Paris, 1877).

LEIGH HUNT

Croagh Patrick

A mountain looking out on the Atlantic ocean from the southern shore of Clew Bay, in the County Mayo, and called “the Sinai of Ireland.” In pagan times it was known as Cruachan Aigli. It rises in a perfect cone to a height of 2510 feet. The account given below is taken from sources that post-date the saint’s death by three hundred years. There are, however, good reasons to believe that the traditions they embody are genuine, St. Patrick was careworn and fatigued when he came to this remote part of the country. He longed to retire for a while to refresh his soul in solitude, and for that purpose on the Saturday before Ash Wednesday in the year 441, he betook himself to the mountain top. Here he spent the days of Lent, chastising his body with fasts, pouring out his heart to God, and entreating Him with prolonged importunity and with tears that the Faith may not fail in the land of Erin. The “Book of Armagh mentions that God summoned all the saints of Erin, past, present and future, to appear before their father in the Faith to comfort him with a vision of the teeming harvest his labours would produce, and to join him in blessing their kinsmen and their country. The “Tripartite Life” relates that when Patrick was on Cruachan Aigli in 441, word was brought to him that a new pope ruled the Church in Rome. The new pope was St. Leo the Great, who was consecrated on the 29th of September, 440. Patrick, as soon as he heard it, dispatched one of his disciples named Munis to bear his filial homage to the Vicar of Christ, to render an account of his labours and his teaching, and to beg a blessing for the infant church in Ireland. The ‘Annals of Clonmacnoise” relate that Munis came back from Rome bearing sacred relics which the pope had given him for the altars that Patrick was erecting every where through the country. ‘I’he same event is briefly referred to in tile “Annals of Ulster,” under date of 441: “Leo ordained forty-second bishop of the Church of Rome; and Patrick the bishop was approved in the Catholic Faith.” It adds a special glory to Croagh Patrick that its first tribute of homage from the Irish Church to the Chair of Peter was sent from its hoary summit. From that sacred spot on Holy Saturday, Patrick with outstretched hands solemnly blessed the men of Erin that they might cling to the Faith, and the land of Erin that no poisonous reptile might infest it. Then, refreshed with divine grace and comforted with the assurance that his labours would fructify forever, he came down from the mountain to celebrate Easter with the little flock he had left at Aughagower.

From the days of the saint himself pilgrims began to do penance oil his holy mountain. References to them are found in many pages of the annals of the country. It is recorded that in the year 1113, on the night of tile 17th of March, during a thunderstorm, thirty of the pilgrims perished on the summit. The “Annals of Boyle” relate that Hugh O’Connor, King of Connaught, who came to the throne in the year 1225, cut off the hands and the feet of an outlaw who dared to molest a pilgrim on his way to Croagh Patrick. The following document of Eugene IV, dated. 28 September, 1432, shows how this ancient pilgrimage was recognized and honored in Rome. “A relaxation of two years and two quarantines of enjoined penance, under the usual conditions, to those penitents who visit and give alms for the repair of the chapel of St. Patrick, on the mountain which is called Croagh Patrick whither resorts a great multitude of persons to venerate St. Patrick the Sunday before the feast of St. Peter’s Chains” (Calendar etc., of Papal Registers, Vol. IV). From St. Patrick’s own time there had been some sort of a little chapel on the summit.

The “Tripartite Life” relates that, the apostle himself celebrated Mass on the mountain, from which we infer that he had an altar and a place to shelter it. For several centuries the Archbishops of Armagh laid claim to the chapel on the grounds that it was founded by St. Patrick and that they were his successors; but the Archbishops of Tuam contended that it belonged to their jurisdiction. Finally, Pope Honorius III On the 30th of July, 1216 assigned it to the Archbishop of Tuam (Calendar Pap. Reg., Vol. 1). But in penal times when Murrisk Abbey at the mountain’s base was dismantled, the venerable relic on the summit was demolished. Still the pilgrims never ceased to go there. It was not, however, till 1905 that the chapel on the heights was rebuilt, and then on the 30th of July, Archbishop Healy dedicated it to St. Patrick in the presence of many pilgrims. The day of annual pilgrimage from time immemorial had been the last Sunday in July. On that day about twenty Masses are celebrated within the little chapel while often there have been more than 20,000 persons kneeling without.

HEALY, “The Life and Writings of St. Patrick” (Dublin, 1905); BURY, “St. Patrick, His Place in History” (London, 1905); MORBURY, “St. Patrick, Apostle of Ireland” (London, 1900); FLEMING, “Life of St. Patrick” (London, 1905); THURSTON, in “The Month” (Nov., 1905); MORAN in “The Irish Theological Quarterly” (April, 1907).

MICHAEL MACDONALD

Croatia

With Slavonia, an autonomous state. It is bounded on the north by the Danube and the Drave; on the east by Servia; on the south by the Save; and on the west by Styria, the River Kupa, and the Adriatic Sea from Fiume (Rieka) in the north-west to Obrovac on the Dalmatian frontier.

HISTORY

The name Croatia is derived from that of a people called Croats (Hrvat, Chrobatos) i.e. “the nation ready to defend its home and rights,” whose migration from Southwestern Russia and Galicia of to-day—then known as “White Croatia” or “Great Croatia” (Velika Hrvatska)—towards the old Illyricum and Dalmatia began in the early part of the fifth century. There were several migrations at different times. The people settled during the first half of the sixth century in Pannonia Inferior, now Lower Hungary, and on the eastern banks of the Danube. Here they struggled for their very existence against the Avars, a bloodthirsty people, and then crossed the Drave to Pannonia Superior and Dalmatia, provinces of the Roman Empire, to which they gave the name of Croatia. From 610 to 641 the Croats established their settlements on a firm basis. From that time forward they suffered various vicissitudes owing to the constantly changing political life. The provinces occupied by the Croats were already peopled by Illyrian and Celtic tribes as Roman domains. Friendly terms were maintained, however, and together they made war against the common enemy, the Avars, conquered them and finally established their own state. The executive head of the Croats was the “ban” a title still in use, and he had unlimited power as leader and governor of the people. Heraclius, the Byzantine emperor, was compelled to abandon his provinces in the western part of the Balkan Peninsula. At that time the Croats occupied the following provinces: Illyricum Liburnia, Pannonia, Dalmatia, and a part of Histria, now known respectively as Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, Istria, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Their kinsmen, the Serbs, settled in Montenegro, Northern Albania, Old Servia, and the western part of the Servian Kingdom. The cities of Zara (Zadar or Jadera), Trau (Trogir or Tragurion), Spalato (Spljet), and Ragusa (Dubrovnik), on the Dalmatian coast, and the islands Veglia (Krk) and Arbe (Rab or Absorus), in the Adriatic, remained Latin in character. Elsewhere, however, the assimilative power of the Croats was stronger and the Latin race disappeared.

Chrisitianity flourished in Illyria, Dalmatia, and the other provinces before the coming of the Croats. At the time of migration the Croats were heathens; they did not accept Christianity until the seventh century, when they and the Serbs were baptized by priests of the Roman Church. The Croats promised the pope to live in peace with other nations and he, in turn, to help them in case an enemy invaded their territory. Pope John IV (640–42) sent the Abbot Martin to the Croatians, and St. Martin I commissioned John of Ravenna to evangelize this vigorous and adventurous nation. He created John Archbishop of Salona (Solin), a city of Roman culture, whence, owing to the invasion of the Croats, many moved to the neighbouring Spalato. Here John laboured also, and the imperial mausoleum in the palace of Diocletian was converted by the people into a Christian temple. Cyril and Methodius came in 863, devised a special alphabet (the Glagolitic for the translation of the Gospels and liturgical books into the Old Slavonic tongue), and spread Christianity through the western part of the Balkan Peninsula. Even before this time bishops resided at Salona (Solin), Nona (Nin), Narona (Mostar), Epidaurus (Ragusa Vecchia), Siscia (Sisak), Mursia (Osjek), and Syrmium (Mitrovica).

During the eighth century Croatia was divided into several provinces, the principal of which were the independent territories of White and Red Croatia and the Banatus Sisciensis et Syrmiensis. The progress of the people attracted the attention of Charlemagne, who occupied Histria in 788 and Northern Croatia in 792. In the year 800, when he was crowned in Rome, the Croats sent a representative. The rule of Louis the Pious (814–40), whose government was in the hands of favourites, was unfortunate in its consequences for Croats. Their struggle for freedom lasted from 879 until 925, when the people elected their own king, Thomislav, on the field of Duvno before the cathedral. He was crowned by the legate of John X. The boundaries of the kingdom were, on the north, the Danube and the Drave; on the east, the River Drina; on the west and south, the Adriatic. The reigns of Zvonimir and Peter Kreshimir, successors of Thomislav, are glorious in the records of Croatian history, and both Church and State became firmly established. Native rulers reigned until 1102, when the last, Peter Svachich, died in defence of his county, and Croatia offered the crown to King Coloman of Hungary. The Croats, represented by twelve deputies, administered the oath and stipulated that the new monarch should observe the Constitution and rights of the Croats, exercise the judicial power only when on Croatian soil, and allow no Hungarian to settle upon Croatian territory. This agreement was only partially kept. Croatia was ruled by the Arpád dynasty from 1102 to 1301, but was not made a part of Hungary. The monarchs never resided permanently in Croatia, but were represented by bans, who as supreme administrators of the kingdom, convened the legislature, exercised the highest judicial power in the State, and commanded the army. The national “sabor regulated the coinage and silver. The Arpád rulers introduced the feudal system in opposition to public opinion, reorganized the nobility, and gave the lands taken from the peasants (kmet) to the holders of titles. During the reign of Croatian rulers the Church flourished. The primas (primate) held the office of chancellor of State and the bishops were the principal advisers, spiritual and temporal, of the kings. There were nine bishoprics. Under the Arpád rulers, a change was made, and new sees were erected suffragan to the ecclesiastical province of Hungary. The following religious orders were represented in the kingdom: the Benedictines, favoured by Croatian rulers, Cistercians, Dominicans, Franciscans, Templars, Hermits of St. Paul, or White Friars. Literature, both secular and ecclesiastical made much progress and the arts were cultivated.

Andrew, the last of the Arpáds, died while making preparations for war against the Croats and their ban, Paul Shubich, who had declared for Charles Robert of Anjou, nephew of the King of Naples, as King of Croatia, Bosnia, and Dalmatia. Charles was crowned in the church of St. Stephen in Agram (Zagreb), the capital of the state, by Archbishop Gregory. The family of Anjou occupied the throne of Croatia from 1301 to 1386, mainly through the support of Pope Boniface VIII. Charles as a ruler was an absolutist and adopted French methods in conducting the army and the judiciary, and in raising money. His son, Louis the Great (D. 11 Nov., 1382), waged war against Venice. He became King of Poland 17 November, 1370. Upon the recommendation of Urban V, Louis appointed his relative, Charles Drachki, Ban of Croatia, and then set out to capture Naples from Queen Joanna. At his death he was succeeded on the throne of Croatia by his daughter Mary, who reigned conjointly with her consort Sigismund of Brandenburg, son of Emperor Charles IV, and later emperor. During Mary’s reign there was great hostility among the people both towards her and Elizabeth, her mother. Foremost in the opposition were John Palizna, prior of the Knights of St. John, Paul Horvat, the saintly and patriotic Bishop of Agram (Zagreb), and the bishop’s brother, John. Declaring that a woman had no right to the Croatian throne, Bishop Horvat offered the crown to Charles III Dratchki, King of Naples. Charles accepted, was crowned by Bishop Horvat at Stuhlweissenburg in the presence of Mary and Elizabeth, but was murdered at Buda, Hungary, thirty-seven days later (24 Feb., 1386), by Elizabeth’s hired assassin. Civil war followed. Sigismund (1387–1409) was taken captive by Ivan Horvat, and fresh difficulties arose with the Turks in the eastern part of the Balkan Peninsula. The coronation of Ladislaus, King of Naples, at Zara, 5 August, 1393, did not result in peace. Internal discord existed among the Frankopani, Zrinski, Gorjanski, Blagaji, Kurjakovici, etc. Gregory XII organized a crusade in Siena to help Sigismund, and Ladislaus, seeing that he could not hold his ground on the Eastern Adriadic, sold Dalmatia to Venice for 1000,000 ducats, the agreement being signed in the church of S. Silvestro, 9 July 1409.

In the fourteenth century there were in Croatia three archbishoprics and seventeen dioceses, subdivided into archdeaconries and parishes. At the beginning of the century the See of Bosnia was transferred to Djakovo. Each diocese had an average of four or five hundred parishes in addition to chapters and collegiate churches. Blessed Augustine of Gazotich was bishop of Agram. Marc’ Antonio de Dominis, famed for his learning, was Bishop of Zengg (Senj.) The religious orders were in a flourishing condition, especially the Knights of St. John (“Cruciferi”) who exerted great influence upon the people. St. John Capistran, defender of Belgrade, died at the monastery of Ilok, Croatia, 23 October, 1456, and was canonized in 1690. The missal was translated into Croatian, and copies are preserved to-day in some of the libraries.

In Sigismund’s time, Croatia was severly tried by the wars with Venice, and those against the Turks, who invaded Croatian territory in 1414–15. From that until 1838, when the Turks were finally repulsed at Cetin, the struggle was continuous. The Bans Nicholas and John Frankopani and Matko Talovac were the first in the field against the Sultan Murad II. Sigismund was succeeded by his son-in-law Archduke Albert of Austria, who died in 1439 at a critical period. His wife, though civil war was raging, took control of the Government in 1439, and her son, Ladislaus Posthumus was nominal ruler until 1457. After the fall of Constantinople (1453) and the occupation of Bosnia ten years later by the Turks, the Turks were repulsed on the Croatian frontier and Western culture was saved to posterity. The following centuries show bloody records of constant struggles against the Turks. Yakub, Pasha of Bosnia, eager to enslave Catholic Balkan, invaded Croatia in 1493. He was met by the Croatian forces under Ban Derenchin on the field of Krbava. The Croats were defeated and left the flower of their nobility on the field. In 1513, however, the Turkish army was defeated by the Ban Bishop Peter Berislavich, and Leo X, upon receiving the news of victory, sent the warrior-bishop a blessed saber. Bishop Berislavich’s appeal to Charles V was unheeded, and the former was killed in the battle of Korenica (1520). His death was a terrible blow to the Antemurale Christianitatis, as the pope and emperor styled the Croats in their letters. Then followed the conflicts of Jajce (1521, 1525), Kllis (1524), Mohacs (1526), and Vienna (1529) which Solyman II atempted to take. He was badly defeated, however, and returned to Constantinople with thousands of Christians, who became either slaves or soldiers (Janizaries). The pashas in Bosnia in retaliation for the defeat, pillaged the country and slew the Christians.

After the defeat Mohacs where King Louis and so many of his warriors were slain, the Croatians elected, at Cetin, New Year’s Day, 1527, Ferdinand of Austria as king. The Hapsburg rule was thus begun, Croatia subsequently having the same rulers as Austria. The king took an oath to defend the rights and boundaries of his new kingdom, a promise which was never fully observed, and the hopes of the national heroes Simeon Bakatch, Bishop of Zagreb and Krsto Frankopan failed of fulfillment. The latter fell at Varazdin while the former died of grief. Profiting by the indifference of Ferdinand, the Turks took the fortress of Jajce and Klis in 1536 as well as a large part of Eastern Croatia. With Reliquiae reliquiarum regni Croatiae! for a battle-cry, the climax of the struggle was reached at Siget, where Niklas Zrinski met the Turks, under Solyman, with 700 picked men. Having fired the city behind them they made an onslaught in which they all perished. The Turks left 20,000 on the field. Solyman died two days later and a shameful peace was concluded by Maximilian. Neglected and misruled, the people rose under Mathias Gubec. They failed and Gubec was put to death with a red hot crown of iron. Ever ready to take advantage of internal strife, Ferhad Pasha defeated General Auersperg at the River Radonja, in 1575. Rudolf, who succeeded Maximilian (1576), had little interest in the welfare of the State. Hassan Pasha Predojevich crossed the Kupa, took the fortress of Bihac, and planned an attack on Sisak. He was met by Jurak and Fintich, canons of Agram, and Ban Bakatch, with an army. The Turks were defeated and lost 18,000 men.

Among the apostles of the Reformation in Croatia were the Ungnad family and George Zrinski who established a printing plant for the purpose of spreading their teaching. The Croats, however, were not won over to Luther’s doctrine. Catholicity was too firmly rooted and Anthony Dalmatin and Stephen Istranin preached the new creed in vain. When asked, at a meeting of the Sabor, to grant toleration to Protestantism, Ban Bakatch made answer: “I prefer rather to break off relations with the Hungarian Crown than to allow this pest to spread.” Conflicts occurred with the Turks at Novi Zrinj (1664), and at ST. Gothatd. The miseries and oppression of the people led to an uprising under Peter Zrinski and Krsto Frankopani against the German military rule. Leopold, however, beheaded the leaders, 30 April, 1671, at Wiener Neustadt, imprisoned their children, and confiscated their possessions. Despite the injustices done the people the struggle against the Turks was heroically continued under Stojan Jankovich and Elias Smiljanich in Dalmatia, Friar Luke Imbrisimovich in Slavonia, and Father Mark Mesich in Lika-Krbava. A division of Turkey and the expulsion of the Turks from the Balkan Peninsula and Constantinople was prevented in 1688 by Louis XIV. The council of war in Vienna established the Military Frontier between Turkey and Croatia; every male Croat was obliged to serve in the army at his own expense and to be ready at any moment. This organization was dissolved in 1873.

In 1712 the Croatian Sabor accepted the Pragmatic Sanction, by which Charles VI secured the succession to his daughter Maria Theresa. In the Thirty Years War and the Seven years War between Maria Theresa and Frederick the Great the Croats took a prominent part. During the reign of Leopold I (1658–1705) hundreds of families of the Schismatic Greek Church had entered Croatia as refugees from Turkish rule. Jealousy existed between the Catholics of the country and the newcomers because the rulers did not favour any but the Catholic religion. In 1777 Maria Theresa secured the erection of a diocese for the Uniat Greeks, with the Eastern Rite and the Old Slavonic Liturgy. She hoped in this way to bring about union with Rome, but the breach was only widened. Education reached a high standard in the sixteenth century under the Hermits of St. Paul. Later on the Jesuits became their co-workers in the field. They established an excellent institution in Zagreb. The Croatian youth also attended the universities at Rome, Padua, and Bologna.

The absolutist, Joseph II (1780–90), who succeeded Maria Theresa, failed in his reforms, though he stopped at nothing in his attempts to carry them out. In Croatia he suppressed religious orders, confiscated monasteries and seminaries, and hampered the progress of education. To save the mother-tongue a reaction against Latin began in 1835, and the native speech was revived in church, university, and street. In 1809 Napoleon, having conquered Croatia, set up the Kingdom of Illyria, a union of all the Croatian provinces, under French control. In the first half of the nineteenth century, as an outgrowth of the revival of the language, a vigorous nationalizing movement began under Louis Gaj. Representatives of the people, 300 in number, demanded of the king the same rights for Croatia as those possessed by Hungary: independence under the king; the election of the ban by the people and his presentation for the king’s approval; the ban was to be ex-offficio president of Croatian cabinet and responsible to the Sabor, at its annual meeting; the Croatian army with its head was to take an oath of fidelity to the king; the military Frontier to be abolished; and Croatian made the official tongue. The only point gained was the appointment , as ban, of Joseph Jellachich. In 1848 the revolution broke out. Jellachich saved the throne for the Hapsburg family, but further enslaved his country in doing so. The Croatian Generals Davidovich and Vukasovich distinguished themselves in the war against Italy in 1866. In 1878 Generals Francis and Ivan Philoppovich occupied Bosnia with Croatian regiments.

On 21 July, 1868, a compromise was effected between Croatia and Hungary. Croatia, Slavonia, the Military Frontier, and Dalmatia constitute a separate body; Fiume (Rieka) and its district were left condominium, with two representatives in the Croatian Sabor. The military Frontier had been suppressed and part was annexed to Transylvania in 1851; part to Hungary in 1872; and part to Croatia-Slavonia in 1881. Dalmatia remained separate, with eleven representatives in the Austrian parliament (Reichsrath). Croatia has autonomy in administrative, educational, and judicial affairs. The national legislative body is the Sabor; the executive body, the Royal Croatioan-Slavonian-Dalmatian Government. The Head of Croatia-Slavonia is the ban, appointed by the king upon the recommendation of the Hungarian prime minister, responsible to the Sabor. All State business in common with Hungary is regulated in the Hungarian-Croatian Parliament in Budapest. There are also executive ministries for the administration of national affars, with separate departments for Croatian interests. The Croatian Minister stands as a mediator between the King of Croatia and the Croatian Government. He is a member of the Hungarian cabinet and is responsible to the Hungarian Parliament. Croatia is represented in the House of Magnates by three delegates; in the House of Representatives by forty delegates. On Delegations for National Affairs Croatia-Slavonia is represented by one member from the Upper House and four from the Lower.

EDUCATION AND RELIGION

There is a university at Zagreb with three faculties: philosophy, theology, and law; an agricultural academy; and an academy founded and endowed by Bishop Strossmayer. There are twenty-five high schools and gymnasia each with eight grades, and over a thousand public schools of five grades, all supported by the Government, with the exception of some private institutions.

Ecclesiastically Croatia constitutes one province, erected by the Bull “Auctorem omnium” of Pius IX on 11 Dec., 1852. The archiepiscopal see is at Agram (Zagreb), and there are three suffragan dioceses: Djakovo, Senj-Modrus, and Kreuz (Krizevci) (Uniat Greek). Theoretically the relations between Church and State are regulated by a concordat of 18 Aug., 1852; but this is practically disregarded. Civil marriage is not recognized and ecclesiastical regulations are in force. Of the population of 2,186,410, 71 per cent. is Catholic; 26 per cent. Schismatic Greek; 1.6 per cent. Protestant; and 1 per cent. Jewish. Freedom of worship is guaranteed by State law. Religious instruction is given in the schools under Government supervision, the State paying such teachers and supplying textbooks out of the public revenues. Churches are incorporated under the name of the parish or community to which they belong, subject to the requirements of canon law. Church property is taxed, but the clergy are exempt from military and jury service. They are also subject to the civil penal law, have the power to make wills but not witness to them, and can dispose of their personal property according to canon law. Cemeteries are regulated by ecclesiastical and civil law, each denomination having its own. Religious orders may be established with the consent of the Church and State; the Franciscans, Capuchins, Jesuits, and Salvatorians are represented. Bishops are nominated by the king on the recommendation of the Government, and appointed by the pope. Canons are appointed by the king on the recommendation of the Government, and the latter appoints the irremovable rectors from the terna, i.e. from three names proposed, or regardless of the terna. Each diocese has its own seminary. The Catholic press has a number of weekly, and a few daily, papers.

CAUSES OF EMIGRATION

The people are overtaxed. Industry and commerce are handicapped by the centralization of common carriers and by a transportation tariff upon export goods. The import and export tariffs are unjustly apportioned, and agriculture and stock-raising are unprofitable except for domestic purposes. State monoplies prevent free commerce, and bureaucracy hampers the development of trade and the comfort of the people. The land is generally cultivated and is rich in forests. Quicksilver, gold, copper, iron, coal, coal oil and sulphur are found, but the production is small. The rivers are navigable, and there are excellent roads, but the railroads have not kept pace with the needs of the people.

In the United States there are over 200,000 Croats distributed in all sections, working in mines, factories, and upon farms. Many of these are well-to-do. The immigration began in the early part of the nineteenth century and numbers fought in the Civil War. There are about 250 Croatian societies under the patronage of various saints. Owing to the scarcity of native priests the number of parishes is small, only twelve in number (1908) and four parochial schools. It must be remembered, however, that the first Croatian priest came to the United States only ten years ago, while the people had been coming in large numbers for thirty years, with no one to look after their spiritual needs. The Croatian parishes which have been organized are:-Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Rankin, Pennsylvania; St. Nicholas, Alleghany, Pennsylvania; St. Rock, Johnstown, Pennsylvania; St. Paul, Cleveland, Ohio; St. Joseh, St. Louis, Missouri; St. John, Calumet, Michigan; St. John, Kansas city, Kansas; Assumption of B. V. M., Chicago, Illinois; Sts. Peter and Paul (Greek Uniat), Chicago, Ills.; Sts. Peter and Paul, Great Falls, Montana; St. Mary of Grace, Steelton, Pennsylvania; Church of the Nativity, San Francisco, California.

“Academia scientarum et artium: Documenta historiae croaticae periodum antiquam illustrantia” (Agram, 1877); KUKUIJEVICH, “Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae” (Agram, 1874, 1876); LUCICH, “De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae, libri sex (St. Mark’s Library, Venice); THENIER, “Vetera monumenta Slavorum meridionalium” (Rome, Agram, 1863, 1875) TKALCICH, “Monumenta historiae” (Agram, 1896); FERMENDZIN, “Acta Bosniae” (Agram, 1892); KRCELICH, “De regnis Dalmatiae, Croatiae et Slavoniae” (Agram, 1770); FARLATI, “Illyricum Sacrum” (Venice, 1751, 1801); SVEAR, “Ogledalo Illiriuma” (Agram, 1839, 1842); TKALICH, “Hrvatska povjestnica” (Agram, 1861); LJUBICH, “Pregled hrvatske povjesti” (Fiume, 1864); SMICIKLAS, “Hrvarska poviest” (Agram, 1899, sq.); RACKI, “u rodovima akademije” (Agram); HORN, “La Hongrie et la Croatie” (Paris, 1907); PLIVERICH, “Beitrage” (Agram, 1886); MACAULAY, “Edinburgh Review” (April, 1842); “Statesman’s Year Book” (1908).

M. D. KRMPOTIĆ.

Giovanni Croce

Composer, b. at Chioggia near Venice in 1557; d. 15 May, 1609. Under the tutelage at Venice of Gioseffo Zarlino, Croce became one of the most noted composers of the Venetian School. After entering the priesthood he was attached to the church of Santa Maria Formosa. In 1593 he was given charge of the choir boys at San Marco with the title of vice-director. On the death of Baltazzaro Donati, 13 July, 1603, Croce became his successor as choirmaster. He wrote a great deal of secular music in the forms particularly cultivated in his time, such as the madrigal and the canzonetta, but his chief productions are those destined for the Church. Their characteristics are clarity of form and a devotional spirit. Many of his compositions form part of Proske’s “Musica Divina” and Lueck’s collection contains three motets; “O sacrum convivium,” “Cantate Domino,” and “Exaudi Deus.”

AMBROS, Geschichte der Musik (Leipzig, 1881); KORNMÜLLER, Lexikon der kirchlichen Tonkunst (Ratisbon, 1895), Pt. II, p. 66. CAFFI, Storia della Musica Sacra (Venice, 1854–55), I, 200, 206.

JOSEPH OTTEN

Croia

A titular see of Albania. Croia (pronounced Kruya, Albanian, “Spring”) stands on the site of Eriboea, a town mentioned by Ptolemy (III, xiii, 13, 41). Georgius Acropolites (lxix) mentions it as a fortress in 1251. A decree of the Venetian senate gave it in 1343 to Marco Barbarigo and his wife. In 1395 it was held by the Castriots (Mas-Latrie, Trésor de chronologie, 1773), and it was the birthplace of the Lion of Albania, the national hero, George Castriota or Scanderbeg (d. 17 Jan., 1468). It was captured by Mohammed II 14 June, 1478, and the whole population was slaughtered together with the Venetian garrison, except the few who embraced Mohammedanism. Since the thirteenth century Croia has been a Latin suffragan of Dyrrachium (Durazzo). Farlati (Illyricum sacrum, VII, 411–432) mentions fourteen bishops from 1286 to 1694 (Gams,( 404; Lequien, III, 955, incomplete); Eubel (I, 224; II, 156) adds four names and corrects some data. Croia is to-day the chief town of a kaimakamlik in the vilayet of Scutari, with about 10,000 inhabitants, all Mussulmans. The Venetian citadel, 1500 feet above the sea, is still preserved together with Turkish guns and bells dating from the days of Skanderbeg. Croia is renowned among the Bektashi dervishes for the tombs of many of their saints.

HOPF, Chroniques gréco-romanes; DEGRAND, Souvenirs de la Haute-Albanie (Paris, 1901), 215–227.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Jean Croiset

Croiset, Jean, ascetical writer, b. at Marseilles, 1656; d. at Avignon, January 31, 1738. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1677, and was for a long time rector of the novitiate at Avignon, which he governed with great wisdom. He became famous as a director of consciences, and as a writer of many spiritual books which have been translated into several languages. His “Devotion to the Sacred Heart” appears to have been the first of his publications. He wrote also: “Retreats for Each Day of the Month”; “The Lives of the Saints for Each Day of the Year,” in eighteen volumes, in the last of which is “The Life of Our Lord” and “The Life of the Blessed Virgin”; “The Model of Youth”; “Spiritual Illusions”; “Dialogues on Worldly Dangers”; “Parallel of the Morals of Our Age, with the Morality of Christ,” etc. He also published collections of prayers. De Backer accuses Lamennais of having plagiarized from Croiset in his little work called “Guide du jeune age.” Feller attributes a book of meditations also to Croiset. He is regarded as one of the great masters of the spiritual life.

T. J. CAMPBELL

Thomas William Croke

Archbishop of Cashel, Ireland, b. near Mallow, Co. Cork, 24 May, 1824; d. at Thurles, 22 July, 1902. His early studies were made at the Irish College, Paris, and his theological course was completed at Rome. Returning to Ireland he was made one of the professors at St. Patrick’s College, Carlow, and then did mission work at Charleville in his native diocese from 1849 to 1858. They were the years of misery following the great famine, and the suffering of the people from their economic and political misfortunes intensified the national leanings that were a marked characteristic of his whole career and which made him to his fellow-countrymen the ideal of the patriot priest. He was a zealous follower of O’Connell in the Repeal Era, and when the prestige of The Liberator waned, sided with the Young Ireland party.

Appointed president of St. Coleman’s College, Fermoy, in 1858, Dr. Croke administered this office satisfactorily for seven years, followed by five equally successful years as pastor of Doneraile, and was then appointed bishop of Auckland, Australia. He was consecrated in Rome by Cardinal Cullen and took part in the concluding sessions of the Vatican Council. Returning to Ireland for a brief visit, he went by way of the United States to take possession of his See of Auckland. During the succeeding four years his government of the diocese was marked by great spiritual and material progress. In 1874 Archbishop Leahy of Cashel died, and at the request of the Irish hierarchy Bishop Croke was appointed to fill the vacancy. His return to Ireland gave the greatest satisfaction to the people, who immediately hailed him as the unquestioned and safe ecclesiastical leader in national politics that Archbishop MacHale of Tuam had been for the previous generation. He at once resumed his former active interest in political affairs and became a strong supporter of the Home Rule movement under the leadership of Isaac Butt. In the more advanced agrarian projects of the Land League days he was side by side with Charles Stewart Parnell in popular leadership, and was the main restraining influence when the ultra-radical element, infuriated by the new coercion laws of British officialism, broke out with the “No Rent” and other revolutionary manifestos. He made several visits to Rome in defence of the popular cause and to oppose the attempts of British diplomacy to enlist the direct intervention of the influence of the Vatican against the Irish Nationalists, the justice of whose efforts he vigorously championed. After the fall of Parnell and the confusion and factional strife that followed he withdrew in a measure from active participation in politics, but never lost his enthusiasm for the cause of Irish national regeneration.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

William Crolly

Archbishop of Armagh, b. at Ballykilbeg, near Downpatrick, 8 June, 1780; d. 6 April, 1849. At fourteen he was sent to a classical school in Downpatrick, conducted by Rev. Mr. Nelson, a Unitarian minister, as there were no Catholic schools in the north of Ireland. In November, 1801, he went to Maynooth, and obtained first place in dogmatic theology in 1806. At Pentecost of the same year he was ordained priest by Dr. Troy, Archbishop of Dublin, and for six years lectured in logic, metaphysics, and ethics. In 1812 he took charge of the parish of Belfast, which comprised not only the entire town but also a district more than thirty miles in extent. On being appointed Bishop of Down and Connor in 1825, he induced the Holy See to change the episcopal parish from Downpatrick to Belfast, the real centre of the diocese. During the ten years he spent as bishop of this see he built a large church in almost every parish, and founded St. Malachy’s Seminary. Owing to the dearth of Catholic schools, Dr. Crolly was obliged to allow Catholic children to attend Protestant schools, a course of action which caused a fierce controversy after his death. In 1835 he was appointed to the archdiocese of Armagh. Up to his time no primate had been allowed to reside in that town, but he lived alternately there and in Drogheda, where most of the primates had dwelt in penal times. His first care was to found St. Patrick’s Seminary in Armagh, which was opened in 1838. His great work however, was the foundation of the cathedral, which was not completed till twenty-four years after his death. Having with great difficulty acquired a site on an historic hill by the side of the town, he laid the foundation stone on St. Patrick’s Day, 1840, amid a vast assemblage of clergy and laity. The work of construction went steadily on until the famine years, and the primate visited several cities in Ireland, making an appeal in person. The famine, however, stopped the progress of the work. When the question of the Queen’s colleges arose, the primate was one of those bishops who looked favourably on the project. It is certain, however, that if he had lived till the Synod of Thurles, in which these colleges were formally condemned as pernicious to the Faith, he would have laid aside his own private opinions on this subject, and submitted to the decision of the Holy See. He died in Drogheda of the cholera, on Good Friday (6 April), 1849, and was buried on Easter Sunday in the centre of the choir of the still unfinished cathedral of Armagh. A collection of the “Select Sermons” of the primate was published shortly after his death.

A. COLEMAN

Cronan

Name of several Irish saints.

ST. CRONAN MOCHUA

Founder of the See of Balla, subsequently merged into that of Tuam, Ireland, flourished in the period 596–637, d. 30 March, 637, but his Acts are more or less of a legendary character. However, it would appear that he was educated at Bangor, under St. Comgall, and founded a monastery at Gael, among the Feara Rois of Louth and Monaghan, whence he migrated to Fore and Tehilly. Passing through Hy Many, he journeyed to Connacht, in 616, and founded the church and Abbey of Balla, of which he was first abbot-bishop. Numerous miracles are recorded of St. Cronan Mochua, and are minutely described in his Irish life. His feast is celebrated on 30 March, though, through a misconception, his Acts are given by the Bollandists under date of 1 January.

ST. CRONAN, ABBOT

Abbot-Bishop and Patron of Roscrea, a see afterwards incorporated in that of Killaloe, Ireland; b. in the territory of Ely O’Carroll; d. 28 April 640. After spending his youth in Connacht, he returned to his native district about the year 610 and founded Abbey Roscrea, where he established a famous school. Previously he settled at a place known as Sean Ros or Loch Cre, a wooded morass far from the haunts of men; in fact, it was utterly wild, so much so, that St. Cronan abandoned it and moved to the wood of Cre, that is Ros cre, County Tipperary. Like those of so many other Irish saints the Acts of St. Cronan abound in miracles. The most surprising, perhaps, is the legend as to the transcribing of the Four Gospels by one of his monks, named Dimma. It appears that Dimma could only undertake one day’s task, from sunrise to sunset. St. Cronan, however, bade him write, and then Dimma set to work, never ceasing till he had finished the Four Gospels, the sun continuing to shine for the space of forty days and forty nights—the scribe himself being unconscious that the work occupied more than one day. Whatever may be thought of this legend, it is certain that a magnificent Evangelistarium, known as the “Book of Dimma,” was for centuries preserved in St. Cronan’s Abbey at Roscrea, and is now in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. The scribe, Dimma MacNathi, signs his name at the conclusion of each of the Gospels, and he has been identified with Dimma, subsequently Bishop of Connor, who is mentioned with St. Cronan in the letter of Pope John IV in 640, in regard to Pelagianism in Ireland, but this identification cannot be sustained. The case containing the “Book of Dimma” was richly gilt by order of O’Carroll, Lord of Ely, in the twelfth century. Notwithstanding the conflicting statements arising from the number of contemporary Irish saints bearing the name Cronan, it is more than probable that St. Cronan of Roscrea, as les Petits Bollandistes say, lived as late as the year 640, and his death occurred on 28 April of that year. His feast is celebrated on 28 April and as such is included in all the Irish calendars, as also in the Kalendar of Drummond.

OTHER SAINTS NAMED CRONAN

A number of other saints of this name find a place in Irish calendars. The three most important are St. Cronan Mochua, of Clashmore (10 February); St. Cronan, Abbot of Clonmacnoise (18 July); and St. Cronan, Abbot of Moville (7 September). Another saint frequently quoted as of this name is really St. Cuaran (Cuaranus Sapiens), whose feast occurs on 9 February. There is also a St. Cronan Mochua of Sliabh Eibhlem (4 May).

ST. CRONAN MOCHUA: COLGAN, Acts of SS. Hib. (Louvain, 1645); BUTLER, Lives of the Saints; Acta Sanctorum, Jan. I and III; TODD AND REEVES, Martyrology of Donegal (Dublin, 1864); O’HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints (Dublin, 1875), III; KNOX, Notes on the Dioceses of Tuam (1904); WHITLEY STOKES, Anecdota Oxonien. (1890). Acta SS., III, 28 April; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, IV; O’HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints (Dublin, 1875), IV; GILBERT, National Manuscripts of Ireland (1884); Les Petits Bollandistes (Paris, 1880), V; LANIGAN, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (Dublin, 1829), III; HEALY, Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars (4th ed., Dublin 1902)

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

Crosier

(Or PASTORAL STAFF).

The crosier is an ecclesiastical ornament which is conferred on bishops at their consecration and on mitred abbots at their investiture, and which is used by these prelates in performing certain solemn functions. It is sometimes stated that archbishops do not use the crosier. This is not so, the truth being that in addition to the pastoral staff they have also the right to have the archiepiscopal cross borne before them within the territory of their jurisdiction. According to present-day usage the Roman pontiff does not use the crosier. That this practice is now a departure from primitive discipline is now thoroughly established, for in the early representations of the popes found on tablets, coins, and other monuments, the crosier is to be seen (Kraus, Geschichte der christlichen Kunst, II, 500). But in the eleventh century this must have disappeared, since Innocent III (d. 1216) intimates that it no longer prevailed (Epistola ad Patr. Const.). As a reason why the pope does not use crosier symbolists allege the giving by St. Peter of his staff to one of his disciples in order to raise a dead companion to life. The pastoral staff will here be treated under: (1) the symbolism of the crosier; (2) its origin and antiquity; (3) early forms and subsequent artistic development.

(1) SYMBOLISM

The crosier is symbol of authority and jurisdiction. This idea is clearly expressed in the words of the Roman Pontifical with which the staff is presented to the bishop elect: “Accipe baculum pastoralis officii; et sis in corrigendis vitiis pie s viens, judicium sine irâ tenens, in fovendis virtutibus auditorum animos mulcens, in tranquillitate severitatis censuram non deserens” (Pont. Rom. 77). It is then, as Durandus (Rationale Divin. Off., III, xv) says, borne by prelates to signify their authority to correct vices, stimulate piety, administer punishment, and thus rule and govern with a gentleness that is tempered with severity. The same author goes on to say that, as the rod of Moses was the seal and emblem of his Divine commission as well as the instrument of the miracles he wrought, so is the episcopal staff the symbol of that doctrinal and disciplinary power of bishops in virtue of which they may sustain the weak and faltering, confirm the wavering in faith, and lead back the erring ones into the true fold. Barbosa (Pastoralis Sollicitudinis, etc., Tit. I, ch. v) alluding to the prevalent form of the staff, says that the end is sharp and pointed wherewith to prick and goad the slothful, the middle is straight to signify righteous rule, while the head is bent or crooked in order to draw in and attract souls to the ways of God. Bona (Rerum liturgic., I, xxiv) says the crosier is to bishops what the sceptre is to kings. In deference to this symbolism bishops always carry the crosier with the crook turned outwards, while inferior prelates hold it with the head reversed. Moreover, the crosiers of abbots are not so large as episcopal crosiers, and are covered with a veil when the bishop is present.

(2) ORIGIN

The origin of the pastoral staff is at times associated with the shepherd’s crook. Whether the usage was borrowed from this source is doubtful. Some writers trace an affinity with the lituus, or rod used by the Roman augurs in their divinations, while others again ace in the crosier an adaptation of the ordinary walking-sticks which were used for support on journeys and in churches before the introduction of seats (Catalani, Pont. Rom., Proleg., xx). At all events, it came at a very early date to be one of the principal insignia of the episcopal office. Just how soon is not easily determined, since in the early pas- sages of the Fathers in which the word occurs it cannot be ascertained whether it is to be taken literally or metaphorically (see I Cor., iv, 21) or whether it designates an ecclesiastical ornament at all. In liturgical usage it probably goes back to the fifth century (Kirchenlex., s. v. Hirtenstab). Mention of it is made in a letter of Pope Celestine I(d. 432) to the Bishops of Vienne and Narbonne. Staffs have indeed been found in the catacombs that date from the fourth century but their ceremonial character has not been established. The first unequivocal reference to the crosier as a liturgical instrument occurs in the twenty-seventh canon of the Council of Toledo (633). At present it is employed by bishops whenever they perform solemn pontifical functions, by right in their own dioceses and by privilege outside, and by inferior prelates whenever they are privileged to exercise pontifical functions.

(3) FORM AND DEVELOPMENT

The evolution of the staff is of interest. Ecclesiologists distinguish three early forms. The first was a rod of wood bent or crooked at the top and pointed at the lower end. This is the oldest form and was known as the pedum. The second had, instead of the crook, a knob which was often surmounted by a cross, and was called the ferula or cambuta. It was sometimes borne by popes. In the third form the top consisted of a crux decussata, or Greek T, the arms of the cross being often so twisted as to represent two serpents opposed. This, known as the crocia, was borne by abbots and bishops of the Eastern Rite. The original material was generally cypress-wood, often cased or inlaid with gold or silver. Later on the staffs were made of solid ivory, gold, silver, and enamelled metal. From the many specimens preserved in churches as well as from the representations in old sculptures, paintings, and miniatures, some idea may be formed of the artistic development of the staff and of the perfection it attained. In the cathedral of Bruges is preserved the crosier of St. Malo, a bishop of the sixth century. The staff consists of several pieces of ivory jointed together by twelve copper strips; but the volute is modern (Reusens, Elém. d’arch. chr t., I, 504). The eleventh and twelfth centuries witness an elaborate display of most exquisite ornamentation bestowed on the head of the staff. The volute often terminated in a dragon impaled by a cross, or in some other allegorical figure whilst a wealth of floral decoration filled up the curve. In the thirteenth century the spaces between the spirals of the crocketed volute were filled religious subjects, statues of saints, and scenes from the animal and vegetable kingdoms, while in those of the Gothic form the knob was set in precious stones and embellished with a wreath of allegorical ornamentation Quite a number of these rich and valuable efforts of artistic skill have come down to us, and one or more may be seen in almost every old cathedral of England and the Continent. Oxford possesses three very old and interesting patterns, that preserved at New College having belonged to William of Wykeham. St. Peter’s staff is said to be preserved in the cathedral of Trier. The legend may he seen in Barbosa (Pastoralis Sollicitudinis, etc., Tit. I, ch. v). As crosier of an abbess see article ABBESS.

BONA, Rerum liturgicarum libri duo (Turin, 1745), I, xxiv; CATALANI, Pontificale Romanum (Rome, 1850). I, Prolegomena xx; MART NE, De antiquis ecclesi ritibus (Antwerp, 1784, I, viii; REUSENS, El ments d’arch. chrét. (Dublin, 1885) I, 502; II, 453; LEROSEY, Manuel liturgique (Paris, 1890), I, 258 MACALISTER, Ecclesiastical Vestments (London, 1896), 56, 124; PUGIN, Glossary of Ecclesiastical Onament (London, 1868); KRAUS, Gesch. der christl. Kunst (Freiburg im Br., 1897) I, 522, II, 500; DE FLEURY, La Messe (Paris, 1889), VIII, 75–110; BOCK, Gesch. der liturg. Gew nder (Bonn. 1856–62), II, 218 sq.; CAHIER, Mélanges d’archéol. (Paris, 1886), IV, 139.

PATRICK MORRISROE.

The Crosiers

Or Canons Regular of the Holy Cross).

A religious order, founded by Théodore de Celles, who, after following the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa on the Crusade, obtained a canonry in the Cathedral of St. Lambert of Liège. On the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (14 Sept., 1211), Théodore with four of his fellow-canons pronounced his religious vows before the Bishop of Liège. Having received from him the church of St. Theobald at Claire-Lieu, near Huy, de Celles founded there the first convent of the order. Pope Innocent III verbally approved the new order in 1215, and Pope Honorius III gave his written approbation, which was confirmed by Innocent IV on the feast of the Finding of the Holy Cross (3 May, 1248). The new institution soon extended to France, the Netherlands, Germany, and also to England. The Canons of the Holy Cross preached to the Albigenses with St. Dominic. Albert, Bishop of Prague, took several Crosiers and other monks with him to Livonia, where a great many of them gained the glory of martyrdom (1246). Some other Fathers accompanied St. Louis on his journey to the Holy Land in 1248. After returning, he enabled them to build the main convent of the order in Paris. The Canons of the Holy Cross practise both interior and exterior self-denial, in order to imitate the Savior crucified. Contemplating Christ’s passion they try to sanctify themselves, and, preaching the mysteries of the Cross, they endeavor to save others, inducing them to follow in the footsteps of the Man of Sorrows.

The order formerly possessed about ninety convents, nineteen of which were in England. These latter were destroyed during the troublesome times of the sixteenth century. The Dutch houses were despoiled at the time of the Reformation. Only two of them were spared. Finally, the French Revolution expelled the Crosiers from France and Belgium. The two remaining convents in Holland (at St. Agatha and Uden in North Brabant) were likewise doomed to extinction by King William, who ordered them not to admit novices. His successor, however, retracted this interdict (14 Sept., 1840), and, from that time, the order commenced to flourish again. From these convents three large branches were founded in Belgium, at Diest (1845); at Maeseyck (1854); at Hannut (1904); while the convent at Uden has been totally renewed (1905), and the mother-house at St. Agatha restored (1907). In 1857 the master general of the order sent some missionaries to Bay Settlement, Wisconsin, U. S. A., but the undertaking failed on account of insuperable difficulties. Pope Urban VIII gave to the master general, August Neerius, and his successors, the privileges of purple, crosier-staff, mitre, and pontificalia, together with some other exceptional favours (1630). Pope Leo X added the special faculty of blessing rosaries or chaplets, so that on a rosary indulgenced by Crosiers 500 days of indulgence are to be gained each time a Pater or Ave is said. The indulgence is also applicable to the souls in purgatory (Gregory XVI, decrees of 15 Sept., 1842; 13 July, 1845; Pius IX, 9 Jan., 1848). Pope Pius X decreed that both the Crosier and the Dominican Indulgences may be gained together on condition that a whole chaplet is said.

After one year of probation the Crosier novice enters into the order by a simple but perpetual profession; the solemn profession follows three years thereafter. The priests and the professed clerics wear a white tunic, over which is a black scapular; a short black mantle (mozetta) and a hood of the same colour complete their costume. Upon the breast of the scapular a cross is sewed, the upright bar of which is red, and the cross-bar white. A prior presides over each convent, and the order is governed by a master general, elected for life, fifty-two having ruled from the foundation to 1908. As their particular patroness the Crosiers venerate St. Odilia, a companion of St. Ursula, who is said to have appeared in Paris to a lay brother of the order, named Jean de Novellan (1387), after which her relics were found at Cologne and brought to the mother-house at Huy. A great many pilgrims visit the churches of the Crosiers during the octave of St. Odilia’s feast (18 July), in order to obtain her protection, and to be cured from ophthalmy, and water blessed in honor of St. Odilia is sent on request by the Crosiers all over the world. The life of the Crosier Fathers is both contemplative and active. They give missions, retreats, and assist the secular clergy when asked. They also educate young men aspiring to the priesthood in their colleges.

JANSEN in Kirchenlex., s.v.; VERDUC, Vie de Pere Theodore de Celles (Perigueux, 1632); GODEFR. A LIT., Explanatio constitutionum O. fratrum Cruciferorum (Cologne, 1632); HERMANS, Annales canonicorum regularium s. Aug. Ord. S. crucis (Hertogenbosch, 1858); Regula et constitutiones Fr. Ordinis canonici s. crucis (St. Michael’s, 1868); RUSSEL, Chronicon Ordinis s. crucis (Cologne, 1635).

H. YZERMANS

Cross and Crucifix

Cross and Crucifix, the.—For greater clearness and convenience the article under this general heading will be divided, to correspond as nearly as possible with three broad aspects of the subject, into three principal sections, each of which will again be divided into subsections, as follows:

I. ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CROSS: (1) Primitive Cruciorm Signs; (2) The Cross as an Instrument of Punishment in the Ancient World; (3) The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ; (4) Gradual Development of the Cross in Christian Art; (5) Later Development of the Crucifix.

II. THE TRUE CROSS AND REPRESENTATIONS OF IT AS OBJECTS OF DEVOTION: (1) Growth of the Christian Cult; (2) Catholic Doctrine on the Veneration of the Cross; (3) Relics of the True Cross; (4) Principal Feasts of the Cross.

III. CROSS AND CRUCIFIX IN LITURGY: (1) Material Objects in Liturgical Use; (2) Liturgical Forms Connected with Them; (3) Festivals Commemorative of the Holy Cross; (4) Rite of the “Adoration”; (5) The Cross as a Manual Sign of Blessing; (6) Dedications of Churches, etc. to the Holy Cross; (7) The Cross in Religious Orders and in the Crusades; (8) The Cross outside of the Catholic Church.

I. ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CROSS

I. PRIMITIVE CRUCIFORM SIGNS

The sign of the cross, represented in its simplest form by a crossing of two lines at right angles, greatly antedates, in both the East and the West, the introduction of Christianity. It goes back to a very remote period of human civilization. In fact, some have sought to attach to the widespread use of this sign, a real ethnographic importance. It is true that in the sign of the cross the decorative and geometrical concept, obtained by a juxtaposition of lines pleasing to the sight, is remarkably prominent; nevertheless, the cross was originally not a mere means or object of ornament, and from the earliest times had certainly another—i.e. symbolico-religious—significance. The primitive form of the cross seems to have been that of the so-called “gamma” cross (crux gammata), better known to Orientalists and students of prehistoric archæology by its Sanskrit name, swastika.

At successive periods this was modified, becoming curved at the extremities, or adding to them more complex lines or ornamental points, which latter also meet at the central intersection. The swastika is a sacred sign in India, and is very ancient and widespread throughout the East. It has a solemn meaning among both Brahmins and Buddhists, though the elder Burnouf (“Le lotus de la bonne loi, traduit du sanscrit,” p. 625; Journ. Asiatic Soc. of Great Britain, VI, 454) believes it more common among the latter than among the former. It seems to have represented the apparatus used at one time by the fathers of the human race in kindling fire; and for this reason it was the symbol of living flame, of sacred fire, whose mother is Maia, the personification of productive power (Burnouf, La science des religions). It is also, according to Milani, a symbol of the sun (Bertrand, La religion des Gaulois, p. 159), and seems to denote its daily rotation. Others have seen in it the mystic representation of lightning or of the god of the tempest, and even the emblem of the Aryan pantheon and the primitive Aryan civilization. Emile Burnouf (op. cit., p. 625), taking the Sanskrit word literally, divided it into the particles su-asti-ka, equivalents of the Greek eu-estike. In this way, especially through the adverbial particle, it would mean “sign of benediction,” or “of good omen” (svasti), also “of health” or “life.” The particle ka seems to have been used in a causative sense (Burnouf, Dictionnaire sanscrit-français, 1866). The swastika sign was very widespread throughout the Orient, the seat of the oldest civilizations. The Buddhist inscriptions carved in certain caves of Western India are usually preceded or closed by this sacred sign (Thomas Edward, “The Indian Swastika,” 1880; Philip Greg, “On the Meaning and Origin of the Fylfot and Swastika”). The celebrated excavations of Schliemann at Hissarlik on the site of ancient Troy brought to light numerous examples of the swastika: on spindle-racks, on a cube, sometimes attached to an animal, and even cut upon the womb of a female idol, a detail also noticeable on a small statue of the goddess Athis. The swastika sign is seen on Hittite monuments, e.g. on a cylinder (“The monuments of the Hittites” in “Transactions of the Soc. of Bibl. Archæology,” VII, 2, p. 259. For its presence on Galatian and Bithynian monuments, see Guillaume and Perrot, “Exploration archéologique de la Galatie et de la Bithynie,” Atlas, Pl. IX). We find it also on the coins of Lycia and of Gaza in Palestine. In the Island of Cyprus it is found on earthenware vessels. It originally represents, as again at Athens and Mycenæ, a flying bird. In Greece we have specimens of it on urns and vases of Botia, on an Attic vase representing a Gorgon, on coins of Corinth (Raoul-Rochette, “Mém. de l’acad. des inscr.,” XVI, pt. II, 302 sqq.; “Hercule assyrien,” 377–380; Minervini in “Bull. arch. Napolit.,” Ser. 2, II, 178–179), and in the treasury of Orchomenus. It seems to have been unknown in Assyria, in Phnicia, and in Egypt. In the West it is most frequently found in Etruria. It appears on a cinerary urn of Chiusi, and on the fibula found in the famous Etruscan tomb at Cere (Grifi, Mon. di Cere, Pl. VI, no. 1). There are many such emblems on the urns found at Capanna di Corneto, Bolsena, and Vetulonia; also in a Samnite tomb at Capua, where it appears in the centre of the tunic of the person there depicted (Minervini, Bull. arch. Napolit., ser. 2, Pl. II, 178–179) This sign is also found in Pompeian mosaics, on Italo-Grecian vases, on coins of Syracuse in Sicily (Raoul-Rochette, “Mém. de l’acad. des inscr.” Pl. XVI, pt. II, 302 sqq.; Minervini, “Bull. arch. Nap.,” ser. 2, Pl. II, p. 178–179); finally among the ancient Germans, on a rock-carving in Sweden, on a few Celtic stones in Scotland, and on a Celtic stone discovered in the County of Norfolk, England, and now in the British Museum. The swastika, appears in an epitaph on a pagan tombstone of Tebessa in Roman Africa (Annuaire de la Société de Constantine, 1858–59, 205, 87), on a mosaic of the ignispicium (Ennio Quirino Visconti, Opere varie, ed. Milan, I, 141, sqq.), and in a Greek votive inscription at Porto. In the last monument the swastika is imperfect in form, and resembles a Phnician letter. We shall explain below the value and symbolical meaning of this crux gammata when found on Christian monuments. But the swastika is not the only sign of this kind known to antiquity. Cruciform objects have been found in Assyria. The statutes of Kings Asurnazirpal and Sansirauman, now in the British Museum, have cruciform jewels about the neck (Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, II, pl. IV). Cruciform earrings were found by Father Delattre in Punic tombs at Carthage.

Another symbol which has been connected with the cross is the ansated cross (crux ansata) of the ancient Egyptians, wrongly called the “ansated key of the Nile.” It often appears as a symbolic sign in the hands of the goddess Sekhet. From the earliest times also it appears among the hieroglyphic signs symbolic of life or of the living, and was transliterated into Greek as Anse (Ansa). But the meaning of this sign is very obscure (Da Morgan, Recherches sur les origines de l’Egypte, 1896–98); perhaps it was originally, like the swastika, an astronomical sign. The ansated cross is found on many and various monuments of Egypt (Prisse d’Avennes, L’art Egyptien, 404). In later times the Egyptian Christians (Copts), attracted by its form, and perhaps by its symbolism, adopted it as the emblem of the cross (Gayet, “Les monuments coptes du Musée de Boulaq” in “Mémoires de le mission française du Caire,” VIII, fasc. III, 1889, p. 18, pl. XXXI-XXXII and LXX-LXXI), (For further information regarding the resemblance between the cross and the oldest symbolic signs see G. de Mortillet, “Le signe de la croix avant le christianisme,” Paris, 1866; Letronne, “La croix ansée égyptienne” in “Mémoires de l’académie des inscriptions,” XVI, pt. II, 1846, p. 236–84; L. Müller, “Ueber Sterne, Kreuze und Kränze als religiöse Symbole der alten Kulturvölker,” Copenhagen, 1865; W. W. Blake, “The Cross, Ancient and Modern” New York, 1888; Ansault, “Mémoire sur le culte de la croix avant Jésus-Christ,” Paris, 1891.) We may add that some have claimed to find the cross on Grecian monuments in the letter (chi), which, sometimes in conjunction with (rho), represented on coins the initial letters of the Greek word chrysoun, “gold,” or other words indicative of the value of the coin, or the name of the coiner (Madden, “History of Jewish Coinage,” London, 1864, 83–87; Eckhel, “Doctrina nummorum,” VIII, 89; F. X. Kraus, “Real-Encyklopädie der christlichen Alterthümer,” II, 224–225). We shall return, later on, to these letters.

In the bronze age we meet in different parts of Europe a more accurate representation of the cross, as conceived in Christian art, and in this shape it was soon widely diffused. This more precise characterization coincides with a corresponding general change in customs and beliefs. The cross is now met with, in various forms, on many objects: fibulas, cinctures, earthenware fragments, and on the bottom of drinking vessels. De Mortillet is of opinion that such use of the sign was not merely ornamental, but rather a symbol of consecration, especially in the case of objects pertaining to burial. In the proto-Etruscan cemetery of Golasecca every tomb has a vase with a cross engraved on it. True crosses of more or less artistic design have been found in Tiryns, at Mycenæ, in Crete, and on a fibula from Vulci. These pre-Christian figures of the cross have misled many writers to see in them types and symbols of the manner in which Jesus Christ was to expiate our sins. Such inferences are unwarranted, being contrary to the just rules of criticism and to the exact interpretation of ancient monuments.

II. THE CROSS AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PUNISHMENT IN THE ANCIENT WORLD

The crucifixion of living persons was not practised among the Hebrews; capital punishment among them consisted in being stoned to death, e.g. the protomartyr Stephen (Acts, vii, 57, 58). But when Palestine became Roman territory the cross was introduced as a form of punishment, more particularly for those who could not prove their Roman citizenship; later on it was reserved for thieves and malefactors (Josephus, Antiq., XX, vi, 2; Bell. Jud., II, xii, 6; XIV, 9; V, xi, 1). Though not infrequent in the East, it was but rarely that the Greeks made use of it. It is mentioned by Demosthenes (c. Mid.) and by Plato (Rep., II, 5; also Gorgias). The stake and the gibbet were more common, the criminal being suspended on them or bound to them, but not nailed. Certain Greeks who had befriended the Carthaginians were crucified near Motya by order of Dionysius of Syracuse (Diodor. Sic., XIV, 53). Both in Greece and in the East the cross was a customary punishment of brigands (Hermann, Grundsätze und Anwendung des Strafrechts, Göttingen, 1885, 83). It was at Rome, however, that from early republican times the cross was most frequently used as an instrument of punishment, and amid circumstances of great severity and even cruelty. It was particularly the punishment for slaves found guilty of any serious crime. Hence in two places (Pro Cluent., 66; I Philipp., ii), Cicero calls it simply “servile supplicium” the punishment of slaves—more explicitly (In Verr., 66), “servitutis extremum summumque supplicium”—the final and most terrible punishment of slaves. Hüschke, however (Die Multa), does not admit that it was originally a servile punishment. It was inflicted also, as Cicero tells us (XIII Phil., xii; Verr., V, xxvii), on provincials convicted of brigandage. It is certain, however, that it was absolutely forbidden to inflict this degrading and infamous punishment on a Roman citizen (Cic., Verr. Act., I, 5; II, 3, 5; III, 2, 24, 26; IV, 10 sqq.; V, 28, 52, 61, 66); moreover, an illegal application of this punishment would have constituted a violation of the leges sacratæ. Concerning a slave, the master might act in one of two ways; he might condemn the slave arbitrarily (Horace, Sat. iii; Juvenal, Sat. vi, 219), or he might turn him over to the triumvir capitalis, a magistrate whose duty it was to look after capital punishment.

The legal immunity of the Roman citizen was somewhat modified when the poorer citizens (humiliores) were declared subject to the punishment of the cross (Paul., “Sent.,” V, xxii, 1; Sueton., “Galba,” ix; Quintil., VIII, iv). The punishment of the cross was regularly inflicted for such grave crimes as highway robbery and piracy (Petron., lxxii; Flor., III, xix), for public accusation of his master by a slave (delatio domini), or for a vow made against his masters prosperity (de salute dominorum, see Capitolin., Pertinax, ix; Herodian, V, ii; Paul., “Sent.,” V, xxi, 4), for sedition and tumult (Paul., Fr. xxxviii; Digest. “De Pnis,” XLVIII, 19, and “Sent.,” V, 221; Dion., V, 52; Josephus, “Antiq.,” XIII, xxii, and “Bell. Jud.,” II, iii), for false witness, in which case the guilty party was sometimes condemned to wild beasts (ad bestias, Paul., “Sent.,” V, xxiii, 1), and on fugitive slaves, who who sometimes burned alive (Fr. xxxviii, S. 1; Digest. “De Pnis,” XLVIII, xix). According to Roman custom, the penalty of crucifixion was always preceded by scourging (virgis cædere, Prud., “Enchirid.,” xli, 1); after this preliminary punishment, the condemned person had to carry the cross, or at least the transverse beam of it, to the place of execution (Plut., “Tard. dei vind.,” ix, “Artemid.,” II, xli), exposed to the jibes and insults of the people (Joseph., “Antiq.,” XIX, iii; Plaut., “Most.,” I, 1, 52; Dion., VII, 69). On arrival at the place of execution the cross was uplifted (Cic., Verr., V, lxvi). Soon the sufferer, entirely naked, was bound to it with cords (Plin., “Hist. Nat.,” XXVIII, iv; Auson., “Id.,” VI, 60; Lucan, VI, 543, 547), indicated in Latin by the expressions agere, dare, ferre, or tollere in crucem. He was then, as Plautus tells us, fastened with four nails to the wood of the cross (“Lact.,” IV, 13; Senec., “Vita beat.,” 19; Tert., “Adv. Jud.,” x; Justus Lipsius “ De Cruce,” II, vii; xli-ii). Finally, a placard called the titulus bearing the name of the condemned man and his sentence, was placed at the top of the cross (Euseb., “Hist. Eccl,” V, 1; Suet., Caligula,” xxxviii and “Domit.” x; Matt., xxvii, 37; John, xix, 19). Slaves were crucified outside of Rome in a place called Sessorium, beyond the Esquiline Gate; their execution was entrusted to the carnifex servorum (Tacit., “Ann.,” II, 32; XV, 60; XIV, 33; Plut., “Galba,” ix; Plaut., “Pseudol.,” 13, V, 98). Eventually this wretched locality became a forest of crosses (Loiseleur, Des peines), while the bodies of the victims were the pray of vultures and other rapacious birds (Horace, “Epod.,” V, 99, and the scholia of Crusius; Plin., “Hist. Nat.,” XXXVI, cvii). It often happened that the condemned man did not die of hunger or thirst, but lingered on the cross for several days (Isid., V, 27; Senec., Epist. ci). To shorten his punishment therefore, and lessen his terrible sufferings, his legs were were sometimes broken (crurifragium, crura frangere; Cic., XIII Philipp., xii). This custom, exceptional among the Romans, was common with the Jews. In this way it was possible to take down the corpse on the very evening of the execution (Tert., “Adv. Jud.,” x; Isid., V, xxvii; Lactant., IV, xvi). Among the Romans, on the contrary, the corpse could not be taken down, unless such removal had been specially authorized in the sentence of death. The corpse might also be buried if the sentence permitted (Valer. Max., vi, 2; Senec., “Controv.,” VIII, iv; Cic., “Tusc.,” I, 43; Catull., cvi, 1; Horace, “Epod.,” I, 16–48; Prudent., “Peristephanon,” I, 65; Petron., lxi sqq.).

The punishment of the cross remained in force throughout the Roman Empire until the first half of the fourth century. In the early part of his reign Constantine continued to inflict the penalty of the cross (affigere patibulo) on slaves guilty of delatio domini, i.e. of denouncing their masters (Cod. Th. ad leg. Jul. magist.). Later on he abolished this infamous punishment, in memory and in honour of the Passion of Jesus Christ (Eus., “Hist. Eccl.,” I, viii; Schol. Juvenal., XIV, 78; Niceph., VII, 46; Cassiod., “Hist. Trip.,” I, 9; Codex Theod., IX, 5, 18). Thereafter, this punishment was very rarely inflicted (Eus., “Hist. Eccl.,” IV, xxxv; Pacat., “Paneg.,” xliv). Towards the fifth century the furca, or gibbet, was substituted for the cross (Pio Franchi de’ Cavalieri, “Della forca sostituita alla croce” in “Nuovo bulletino di archeologia cristiana,” 1907, nos. 1–3, 63 sqq.).

The penalty of the cross goes back probably to the arbor infelix, or unhappy tree, spoken of by Cicero (Pro, Rabir., iii sqq.) and by Livy, apropos of the condemnation of Horatius after the murder of his sister. According to Hüschke (Die Multa, 190) the magistrates known as duoviri perduellionis pronounced this penalty (cf. Liv., I, 266), styled also infelix lignem (Senec., Ep. ci; Plin., XVI, xxvi; XXIV, ix; Macrob., II, xvi). This primitive form of crucifixion on trees was long in use, as Justus Lipsius notes (“De cruce,” I, ii, 5; Tert., “Apol.,” VIII, xvi; and “Martyrol. Paphnut.” 25 Sept.). Such a tree was known as a cross (crux). On an ancient vase we see Prometheus bound to a beam which serves the purpose of a cross. A somewhat different form is seen on an ancient cist at Præneste (Palestrina), upon which Andromeda is represented nude, and bound by the feet to an instrument of punishment like a military yoke—i.e. two parallel, perpendicular stakes, surmounted by a transverse bar. Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end. Mæcenas (Seneca, Epist. xvii, 1, 10) calls it acuta crux; it could also be called crux simplex. To this upright pole a transverse bar was afterwards added to which the sufferer was fastened with nails or cords, and thus remained until he died, whence the expression cruci figere or affigere (Tac., “Ann.,” XV, xliv; Potron., “Satyr.,” iii) The cross, especially in the earlier times, was generally low. it was elevated only in exceptional cases, particularly whom it was desired to make the punishment more exemplary or when the crime was exceptionally serious. Suetonius (Galba, ix) tells us that Galba did this in the case of a certain criminal for whom he caused to be made a very high cross painted white—“multo præter cætteras altiorem et dealbatam statui crucem jussit.”

Lastly, we may note, in regard to the material form of the cross that somewhat different ideas prevailed in Greece and Italy. The cross, mentioned even in the Old Testament, is called in Hebrew, ‘êç, i.e. “wood,” a word often translated crux by St. Jerome (Gen., xl, 19; Jos., viii, 29; Esther, v, 14; viii, 7; ix, 25). In Greek it is called , which Burnouf would derive from the Sanskrit stâvora. The word was however frequently used in a broad sense. Speaking of Promotheus nailad to Mount Caucasus, Lucian uses the substantive and the verbs and , the latter being derived from which also signifies a cross. In the same way the rock to which Andromeda was fastened is called crux, or cross. The Latin word crux was applied to the simple pole, and indicated directly the nature and purpose of this instrument, being derived from the verb crucio, “to torment,” “to torture” (Isid., Or., V, xvii, 33; Forcellini, s. vv. Crucio, Crux). It is also to be noted that the word furca must have been at least partially equivalent to crux. In fact the identification of those two words is constant in the legal diction of Justinian (Fr. xxviii, 15; Fr, xxxviii, S. 2; Digest. “De pnis,” xlviii, 19).

III. THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS CHRIST

Among the Romans the cross never had the symbolical meaning which it had in the ancient Orient; they regarded solely as a material instrument of punishment. There are in the Old Testament clear allusions to the Cross and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Thus the Greek lefter (tau or thau) appears in Ezechiel (ix, 4), according to St. Jerome and other Fathers, as a solemn symbol of the Cross of Christ—“Mark Thau upon the foreheads of the men that sigh.” The only other symbol of crucifixion indicated in the Old Testament is the brazen serpent in the Book of Numbers (xxi, 8–9). Christ Himself thus interpreted the passage: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up” (John, iii, 14). The Psalmist predicts the piercing of the hands and the feet (Ps. xxi. 17). This was a true prophecy, inasmuch as it could not be conceived from any custom then existing; the practice of nailing the condemned to a T-shaped cross being, as we have seen, at that time exclusively Western. The cross on which Jesus Christ was nailed was of the kind known as immissa, which means that the vertical trunk extended a certain height above the transverse beam; it was thus higher than the crosses of the two thieves, his crime being judged a graver one, according to St. John Chrysostom (Homil. v, c. i., on I Corinth.). The earliest Christian Fathers who speak of the Cross describe it as thus constructed. We gather as much from St. Matthew (xxvii, 37), where he tells us that the titulus, or inscription containing the cause of His death, was placed , “over,” the head of Jesus Christ (cf. Luke, xxiii, 38; John, xix, 19). St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., II, xxiv) says that the Cross had five extremities: two in its length, two in its breadth, and the fifth a projection (habitus) in the middle—“Fines et summitates habet quinque, duas in longitudine, duas in latitudine, unam in medio.” St. Augustine agrees with him: “Erat latitudo in qua porrectæ sunt manus longitudo a terrâ surgens, in quâ erat corpus infixum; altitudo ab illo divexo ligno sursum quod imminet” (Enarr. in Ps. ciii; Serm. i, 44) and in other passages quoted by Zöckler (Das Kreuz, 1875, pp. 430, 431).

Nonnus confirms the statement that Jesus Christ was crucified on a quadrilateral cross ( ). St. Irenæus, in the passage cited above says that the Cross had a fifth extremity, on which the Crucified One was seated. St. Justin calls it a horn, and compares it to the horn of a rhinoceros (Dialogus cum Tryphone, xci). Tertullian calls it sedilus excessus, a projecting seat, or shelf (Ad. Nat., I, xii). This little seat (equuleus) prevented the weight of the body from completely tearing the nail-pierced hands, and it helped to support the sufferer. It has never been indicated, however, in representations of the Crucifixion. On the Cross of Christ was placed the titulus, as to the wording of which the Four Evangelists do not agree. St. Matthew (xxvii, 37) gives, “This is Jesus the King of the Jews”; St. Mark (xv, 26) “The King of the Jews”; St. Luke (xxiii, 38), “This is the King of the Jews”; St. John, an eyewitness (xix, 19), “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” In representations of the Crucifixion there often appears beneath the feet a wooden support (, suppedaneum); that it ever existed is very doubtful. The first express mention of it occurs in Gregory of Tours (De Gloriâ Martyrum, vi). St. Cyprian, Theodoret, and Rufinus hint at it.

A microscopic examination of the fragments of the Cross scattered through the world in the form of relics reveals the fact that it was made from a pine-tree (Rohault de Fleury, “Mémoire sur les instruments de la Passion,” Paris, 1870, 63). According to an ancient, but somewhat dubious, tradition the Cross of Jesus Christ measured in length very nearly 189 inches (4.80 metres), from 90½ to 102½ inches (2.30 to 2.60 metres). As noted by the Evangelists, two thieves were crucified, one on either side of Christ. Their crosses must have resembled the one on which He suffered; in Christian art and tradition they generally appear lower (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. i, xxvi, on I Cor.; on Rom., v, 5). A large portion of the cross of the good thief (traditionally known as Dismas) is preserved at Rome in the altar of the Chapel of the Relics at Santa Croce in Gerusalemme.

The historical narrative of the Passion and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, as found in the Four Gospels, agrees exactly with all we have set down above concerning this form of punishment. Jesus Christ was condemned for the crime of sedition and tumult, as were also some of the Apostles (Malalas, “Chronogr.,” X, p. 256). His Crucifixion was preceded by the Scourging.

He then bore His Cross to the place of punishment. Finally the legs of Jesus would have been broken, according to the custom of Palestine, in order to permit of burial that very evening, had not the soldiers, on approaching Him, seen that He was already dead (John, xix, 32, 33). Besides, in ancient Christian art and tradition, the Crucifixion of Christ appears as done with four nails, not with three, according to the usage of the more recent Christian art (see below).

IV. GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CROSS IN CHRISTIAN ART

Since by His holy sacrificial death upon the Cross Christ sanctified this former instrument of shame and ignominy, it must have very soon become in the eyes of the faithful a sacred symbol of the Passion, consequently a sign of protection and defence (St. Paulinus of Nola, “Carm. in Natal. S. Felicis,” XI, 612; Prudent., “Adv. Symm.,” I, 486). It is not, therefore, altogether strange or inconceivable that, from the beginning of the new religion, the cross should have appeared in Christian homes as an object of religious veneration, although no such monument of the earliest Christian art has been preserved. Early in the third century Clement of Alexandria (“Strom.,” VI, in P. G., IX, 305) speaks of the Cross as tou Kyriakou semeiou typon, i.e. signum Christi, “the symbol of the Lord” (St. Augustine, Tract. cxvii, “In Joan.”; De Rossi, “Bull. d’arch. crist,” 1863, 35, and “De titulis christianis Carthaginiensibus” in Pitra, “Spicilegium Solesmense,” IV, 503). The cross, therefore, appears at an early date as an element of the liturgical life of the faithful, and to such an extent that in the first half of the third century Tertullian could publicly designate the Christian body as “crucis religiosi,” i.e. devotees of the Cross (Apol., c. xvi, P. G., I, 365–66). St. Gregory of Tours tells us (De Miraculis S. Martini, I, 80) that in his time Christians habitually had recourse to the sign of the cross. St. Augustine says that by the sign of the cross and the invocation of the Name of Jesus all things are sanctified and consecrated to God. In the earliest Christian life, as can be seen from the metaphorical language of the primitive faithful, the cross was the symbol of the principal Christian virtue, i.e. mortification or victory over the passions, and suffering for Christ’s sake and in union with Him (Matt., x, 38; xvi, 24; Mark, viii, 34; Luke, ix, 23; xiv, 27; Gal., ii, 19; vi, 12, 14; v, 24). In the Epistles of St. Paul the cross is synonymous with the Passion of Christ (Ephes., ii, 16; Heb., xii, 2) even with the Gospel, and with religion itself (I Cor., i, 18; Phil., iii, 18). Very soon the sign of the cross was the sign of the Christian. It is, moreover, very probable that reference to this sign is made in the Apocalypse (vii, 2): “And I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, having the sign of the living God.”

It is from this original Christian worship of the cross that arose the custom of making on one’s forehead the sign of the cross. Tertullian says: “Frontem crucis signaculo terimus” (De Cor. mil. iii), i.e. “We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross.” The practice was so general about the year 200, according to the same writer, that the Christians of his time were wont to sign themselves with the cross before undertaking any action. He says that it is not commanded in Holy Scripture, but is a matter of Christian tradition, like certain other practices that are confirmed by long usage and the spirit of faith in which they are kept. A certain Scriptural authority for the sign of the cross has been sought by some in a few texts rather freely interpreted, especially in the above-mentioned words of Ezechiel (ix, 4), “Mark Thau upon the foreheads of the men that sigh, and mourn for all the abominations that are committed in the midst thereof,” also in several expressions of the Apocalypse (vii, 3; ix, 4; xiv, 1). It would seem that in very early Christian times the sign of the cross was made with the thumb of the right hand (St. John Chrys., Hom. ad pop. Antioch. xi; St. Jerome, Ep. ad Eustochium; a practice still in use among the faithful during Mass, e.g. at the reading of the Gospel) and generally on the forehead; gradually, by reason of its symbolism, this sign was made on other parts of the body, with particularized intention (St. Ambrose, De Isaac et animâ, Migne, P. L., XIV, 501–34). Afterwards these different signs of the cross were united in one large sign such as we now make. In the Western Church the hand was carried from the left to the right shoulder; in the Eastern Church, on the contrary, it was brought from the right shoulder to the left, the sign being made with three fingers. This apparently slight difference was one of the (remote) causes of the fatal Eastern Schism.

It is probable, though we have no historical evidence for it, that the primitive Christians used the cross to distinguish one another from the pagans in ordinary social intercourse. The latter called the Christians “cross-worshippers,” and ironically added, “id colunt quod merentur,” i.e. they worship that which they deserve. The Christian apologists, such as Tertullian (Apol., xvi; Ad. Nationes, xii) and Minucius Felix (Octavius, lx, xii, xxviii), felicitously replied to the pagan taunt by showing that their persecutors themselves adored cruciform objects. Such observations throw light on a peculiar fact of primitive Christian life, i.e. the almost total absence from Christian monuments of the period of persecutions of the plain, unadorned cross (E. Reusens, “Eléments d’archéologie chrétienne” 1st ed., 110). The truculent sarcasms of the heathens prevented the faithful from openly displaying this sign of salvation. When the early Christians did represent the sign of the cross on their monuments, nearly all sepulchral in character, they felt obliged to disguise it in some artistic and symbolical way. One of the oldest of the symbols of the cross is the anchor. Originally a symbol of hope in general, the anchor takes on in this way a much higher meaning: that of hope based on the Cross of Christ. The similarity of the anchor to the cross made the former an admirable Christian symbol. Another cruciform symbol of the early Christians, though not very common and of a somewhat later date, is the trident, some examples of which are seen on sepulchral slabs in the cemetery of Callistus. In one inscription from that cemetery the symbolism of the trident is even more subtle and evident, the instrument standing erect as the mainmast of a ship entering port, symbolical of the Christian soul saved by the Cross of Christ. We must note, too, the use of this peculiar symbol in the third century in the region of Tauric Chersonesus (the Crimea) on coins of Totorses, King of the Bosporus, dated 270, 296, and 303 (De Hochne, “Déscription du musée Kotschonbey,” II, 348, 360, 416; Cavedoni, “Appendice alle ricerche critiche intorno alle med. Costantiniane,” 18, 19—an extract from the “Opuscoli litterari e religiosi di Modena” in “Bull. arch. Napolit.,” ser. 2, anno VII, 32). We shall speak again of this sign apropos of the dolphin. On a picture in the Crypts of Lucina, artistically unique and very ancient, there seems to be an allusion to the Cross. Turned towards the altar are two doves gazing at a small tree. The scene appears to represent an image of souls loosed from the bonds of the body and saved by the power of the Cross (De Rossi, Roma Sotterranea Cristiana, I, PL. XII).

Before passing to the study of other, more or less disguised, forms of the cross, e.g. various monograms of the name of Christ, it may be well to say a word of various known forms of the cross on primitive monuments of Christian art, some of which we shall meet with in our early study of the said monograms.—The crux decussata or decussated cross, so called from its resemblance to the Roman decussis or symbol for the numeral 10, is in shape like the Greek letter chi; it is also known as St. Andrew’s Cross, because that Apostle is said to have suffered martyrdom on such cross, his hands and feet bound to its four arms (Sandini, Hist. Apostol., 130). The crux commissa, or gallows-shaped cross, is, according to some, the one on which Jesus Christ died. In order to explain the traditional longitudinal extension of the Cross, which makes it resemble the crux immissa, it is asserted that this extension is only apparent, and is really only the titulus crucis, the inscription mentioned in the Gospels. This form of the cross (crux commissa) is probably represented by the Greek letter tau , and is identical with the “sign” mentioned in the text of Ezechiel (ix, 4) already quoted. Tertullian comments (Contra Marc., III, xxii) as follows on this text: “The Greek letter and our Latin letter T are the true form of the cross, which, according to the Prophet, will be imprinted on our foreheads in the true Jerusalem.” Specimens of this veiled form of the cross are met with on the monuments of the Roman catacombs, a very fine one, e.g., in an epitaph of the third century found in the cemetery of St. Callistus, which reads IRE T NE (De Rossi, “Bulletino d’archeologia cristiana,” 1863, 35). In the same cemetery a sarcophagus exhibits clearly the gallows-cross formed by the intersection of the letters T and V in the monogram of a proper name carved in the centre of the cartella, or label. This second letter (V) was also figurative of the cross, as is evident from the inscriptions scratched on rock-surfaces at Mount Sinai (Lenormant, “Sur l’origine chrétienne des inscriptions sinaïtiques,” 26, 27; De Rossi, loc. cit.). A monogram of a proper name (perhaps Marturius), discovered by Armellini on the Via Latina, shows the crux commissa above the intersection of the letters. Other monograms show similar forms. (De Rossi, “Bulletino d’archeologia cristiana,” 1867, page 13, fig. 10, and page 14). It had been attempted to establish a connection between this form and the crux ansata of the Egyptians, mentioned above; but we see no reason for this (cf. Letronne, Matériaux pour l’histoire du christianisme en Egypte, en Nubie, et en Abyssinie). It would seem that St. Anthony bore a cross in the form of tau on his cloak, and that it was Egyptian in origin. Such a cross is still used by the Antonine monks of Vienne in Dauphiny, and appear on their churches and on the monuments of art belonging to the order. St. Zeno of Verona, who in the second half of the fourth century was bishop of that city, relates that he caused a cross in form of a tau to be placed on the highest point of a basilica. There was also another motive for choosing the letter T as symbolical of the cross. As, in Greek, this letter stands for 300 that number in Apostolic times was taken as a symbol of the instrument of our salvation. The symbolism was carried farther, and the number 318 became a symbol of Christ and His Cross: the letter (iota) being equal to 10, and (eta) to 8 in Greek (Allard, “Le symbolisme chrétien d’après Prudence” in “Revue de l’art chrétien,” 1885; Hefele, Ed. Ep. St. Barnabæ, ix).

The cross most commonly referred to and most usually depicted on Christian monuments of all ages is that called the crux immissa, or crux capitata (i.e. the vertical trunk extending beyond the transverse beam). It was on a cross such as this that Christ actually died, and not, as some would maintain, on a crux commissa. And this opinion is largely supported by the testimony of the writers we have quoted. The crux immissa is that which is usually known as the Latin cross, in which the transverse beam is usually set two-thirds of the way up the vertical. The equilateral, or Greek cross, adopted by the East and by Russia, has the transverse set half-way up the vertical.

Both the Latin and Greek crosses play an important part in the architectural and decorative styles of church buildings during the fourth and subsequent centuries. The church of Santa Croce at Ravenna, is in the form of a Latin cross; and on the pillars of a church built by Bishop Paulinus at Tyre in the fourth century the cross is carved in the Latin way. The façade of the Catholicon at Athens shows a large Latin cross. And this style of cross was adopted by West and East until the schism occurred between the two churches. Indeed, at Constantinople the church of the Apostles, the first church of S. Sophia, consecrated by Constantine, those of the monastery of St. John at Studium, of St. Demetrius at Salonica, of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, as well as many churches at Athens, are in the form of the Latin cross; and it appears in the decorations of capitals, balustrades, and mosaics. In the far-off lands of the Picts, the Bretons, and the Saxons, it was carved on stones and rocks, with elaborate and complex Runic decorations. And even in the Catholicon at Athens, crosses no less lavishly ornamented are to be found. In out-of-the-way places in Scotland, too, it has been discovered (cf. Dictionnaire de 1’Académie des Beaux-Arts, V, 38).

The Greek cross appears at intervals and rarely on monuments during the early Christian centuries. The Crypts of Lucina, in the Catacomb of St. Callistus, yield an inscription which had been placed on a double grave or sepulchre, with the names ROUPHINA: EIRENE. Beneath this is seen the equilateral cross—disguised image of the gibbet on which the Redeemer died (De Rossi, Rom. Scott.,I, p. 333, Pl. XVIII). It is to be found also painted into the mantle of Moses in a fresco from the Catacomb of St. Saturninus on the Via Salaria Nuova, (Perret, Cat. de Rome, III, Pl. VI). In later times it is to be seen in a mosaic of a church at Paris built in the days of King Childebert (Lenoir, Statistique monumentale de Paris) and carved on the pedestals of the columns in the basilica of Constantine in the Agro Verano; also on the roofs and pillars of churches, to denote their consecration. More often, as we might expect, we find it on the façades of the Byzantine basilicas and in their adornments, such as altars, iconastases, sacred curtains for the enclosure, thrones, ambones and sacerdotal vestments. When the Emperor Justinian erected the church of Santa Sophia at Constantinople, with the aid of the architects Artemius of Tralles, and Isidore of Miletus, a new architectural type was created which became the model for all churches subsequently built within the Byzantine Empire, and the Greek cross inscribed in a square thus became their typical ground-plan. Perhaps, too the church of the Twelve Apostles may have been built upon this plan, as a famous epigram of St. Gregory Nazianzen would seem to indicate. There are other forms of cross, such as the crux gammata, the crux florida, or flowering cross, the pectoral cross, and the patriarchal cross. But these are noteworthy rather for their various uses in art and liturgy than for any peculiarity of style.

The complete and characteristic form of Christ’s monogram is obtained by the superposition of the two initial Greek letters, chi and rho, of the name CHRISTOS. This is inexactly called the Constantinian monogram, although it was in use before the days of Constantine. It gained this name, however, because in his day it came much into fashion, and derived a triumphal signification from the fact that the emperor placed it on his new standard, i.e. the Labarum (Marucchi, “Di una pregevole ed inedita inscrizione cristiana” in “Studi in Italia,” anno VI, II, 1883). Older, but less complete, forms of this are made up of the crux decussata accompanied by a defective letter T, differing only slightly from the letter I, or encircled by a crown. These forms, which were used principally in the third century present a striking resemblance to a cross, but all of them are manifest allusions or symbols.

Another symbol largely employed during the third and fourth centuries, the swastika already spoken of at some length, still more closely resembles the cross. On monuments dating within the Christian Era it is known as the crux gammata, because it is made by joining four gammas at their bases. Many fantastic significations have been attached to the use of this sign on Christian monuments, and some have even gone so far as to conclude from it that Christianity is nothing but a descendant of the ancient religions and myths of the people of India, Persia, and Asia generally; then these theorists go on to point out the close relationship that exists between Christianity, on the one hand, Buddhism and other Oriental religions, on the other. At the very least they insist upon seeing some relation between the symbolical concepts of the ancient religions and those of Christianity. Such was the opinion held by Emile Burnouf (cf. Revue des Deux Mondes, 15 August, 1868, p. 874). De Rossi ably refuted this opinion, and showed the real value of this symbol on Christian monuments (Bull. d’ arch. crist., 1868, 88–91). It is fairly common on the Christian monuments of Rome, being found on some sepulchral inscriptions, besides occurring twice, painted, on the Good Shepherd’s tunic in an arcosolium in the Catacomb of St. Generosa in the Via Portuensis, and again on the tunic of the fossor Diogenes (the original epitaph is no longer extant. In the catacomb of St. Domitilla in the Via Ardeatina. Outside of Rome it is less frequent. There is one example in an inscription found at Chiusi (see Cavedoni, Ragguaglio di due antichi cimiteri di Chiusi). A stone in the museum at Bergamo bears the monogram joined to the gamma cross, but it would seem to be of Roman origin. Another in the Mannheim Museum, with the name of a certain Hugdulfus, belongs to the fifth or sixth century. In a sarcophagus at Milan belonging to the fourth century it is repeated over and over again, but evidently as a mere ornamental motive (see Allegranza, Mon. di Milano, 74).

De Rossi (Rom. Sott. Crist., II, 318) made researches into the chronology of this symbol, and the examples of it to be found in the catacombs at Rome, and he observed that it was seldom or never used until it took the place of the anchor, i.e. about the first half of the third century, whence he inferred that, not being of ancient tradition, it came into fashion as the result of studied choice rather than as a primitive symbol linking the beginnings of Christianity with Asiatic traditions. Its genesis is reflex and studied, not primitive and spontaneous. It is well known how anxiously the early Christians sought out means whereby they could at once portray and conceal the Cross of Christ. That in this way they should have discovered and adopted the crux gammata, is easily intelligible, and it is explained not merely by what has already been said, but also by the similarity between the Greek character gamma and the Phnician character tan. The latter has been famous since Apostolic times as a symbol of the Cross of Christ and of the Redemption (cf. Barnabæ Epist., ix, 9).

The so-called Constantinian monogram prevailed during the whole of the fourth century, assuming various forms, and combining with the apocalyptic letters , but ever approaching more and more closely to the form of the cross pure and simple. In the latter part of that century what is known as the “monogrammatic cross” makes its appearance; it closely resembles the plain cross, and foreshadows its complete triumph in Christian art. The early years of the fifth century are of the highest importance in this development, because it was then that the undisguised cross first appears. As we have seen, such was the diffidence induced, and the habit of caution enforced, by three centuries of persecution, that the faithful had hesitated all that time to display the sign of Redemption openly and publicly. Constantine by the Edict of Milan had given definitive peace to the Church; yet, for another century the faithful did not judge it opportune to abandon the use of the Constantinian monogram in one or other of its many forms But the fifth century marks the period when Christian art broke away from old fears, and, secure in its triumph, displayed before the world, now become Christian also, the sign of its redemption. To bring about so profound a change in the artistic traditions of Christianity, besides the altered condition of the Church in the eyes of the Roman State, two facts of great importance played a part: the miraculous apparition of the Cross to Constantine and the finding of the Holy Wood.

Constantine having declared war on Maxentius had invaded Italy. During the campaign which ensued he is said to have seen in the heavens one day a luminous cross together with the words EN-TOUTOI-NIKA(In this conquer.) During the night that followed that day, he saw again, in sleep the same cross, and Christ, appearing with it, admonished him to place it on his standards. Thus the Labarum took its origin, and under this glorious banner Constantine overcame his adversary near the Milvian Bridge, on 28 October, 312 (see CONSTANTINE THE GREAT).

The second event was of even greater importance. In the year 326 the mother of Constantine, Helena, then about 80 years old, having journeyed to Jerusalem, undertook to rid the Holy Sepulchre of the mound of earth heaped upon and around it, and to destroy the pagan buildings that profaned its site, Some revelations which she had received gave her confidence that she would discover the Saviour’s Tomb and His Cross. The work was carried on diligently, with the co-operation of St. Macarius, bishop of the city. The Jews had hidden the Cross in a ditch or well, and covered it over with stones, so that the faithful might not come and venerate it. Only a chosen few among the Jews knew the exact spot where it had been hidden, and one of them, named Judas, touched by Divine inspiration, pointed it out to the excavators, for which act he was highly praised by St. Helena. Judas afterwards became a Christian saint, and is honoured under the name of Cyriacus. During the excavation three crosses were found, but because the titulus was detached from the Cross of Christ, there was no means of identifying it. Following an inspiration from on high, Macarius caused the three crosses to be carried, one after the other, to the bedside of a worthy woman who was at the point of death. The touch of the other two was of no avail; but on touching that upon which Christ had died the woman got suddenly well again. From a letter of St. Paulinus to Severus inserted in the Breviary of Paris it would appear that St. Helena. herself had sought by means of a miracle to discover which was the True Cross and that she caused a man already dead and buried to be carried to the spot, whereupon, by contact with the third cross, he came to life. From yet another tradition, related by St.Ambrose, it would seem that the titulus, or inscription, had remained fastened to the Cross.

After the happy discovery, St. Helena and Constantine erected a magnificent basilica over the Holy Sepulchre, and that is the reason why the church bore the name of St. Constantinus. The precise spot of the finding was covered by the atrium of the basilica, and there the Cross was set up in an oratory, as appears in the restoration executed by de Vogüé. When this noble basilica had been destroyed by the infidels, Arculfus, in the seventh century, enumerated four buildings upon the Holy Places around Golgotha, and one of them was the “Church of the Invention” or “of the Finding.” This church was attributed by him and by topographers of later times to Constantine. The Frankish monks of Mount Olivet, writing to Leo III, style it St. Constantinus. Perhaps the oratory built by Constantine suffered less at the hands of the Persians than the other buildings, and so could still retain the name and style of Martyrium Constantinianum. (See De Rossi, Bull. d’ arch. crist., 1865, 88.)

A portion of the True Cross remained at Jerusalem enclosed in a silver reliquary; the remainder, with the nails, must have been sent to Constantine, and it must have been this second portion that he caused to be enclosed in the statue of himself which was set on a porphyry column in the Forum at Constantinople; Socrates, the historian, relates that this statue was to make the city impregnable. One of the nails was fastened to the emperor’s helmet, and one to his horse’s bridle, bringing to pass, according to many of the Fathers, what had been written by Zacharias the Prophet: “In that day that which is upon the bridle of the horse shall be holy to the Lord” (Zach., xiv, 20). Another of the nails was used later in the Iron Crown of Lombardy preserved in the treasury of the cathedral of Monza. Eusebius in his Life of Constantine, describing the work of excavating and building on the site of the Holy Sepulchre, does not speak of the True Cross. In the story of a journey to Jerusalem made in 333 (Itinerarium Burdigalense) the various tombs and the basilica of Constantine are referred to, but no mention is made of the True Cross. The earliest reference to it is in the “Catecheses” of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (P. G., XXXIII, 468, 686, 776) written in the year 348, or at least twenty years after the supposed discovery.

In this tradition of the “Invention,” or discovery of the True Cross, not a word is said as to the smaller portions of it scattered up and down the world. The story, as it has reached us, has been admitted, since the beginning of the fifth century, by all ecclesiastical writers, with, however, many more or less important variations. By many critics the tradition of the finding of the Cross through the work of St. Helena. in the vicinity of Calvary has been held to be mere legend without any historical reality these critics relying chiefly upon the silence of Eusebius, who tells of all else that St. Helena did in Jerusalem, but says nothing about her finding the Cross. Still, however difficult it may be to explain this silence, it would be unsound to annihilate with a negative argument a universal tradition dating from the fifth century. The wonders related in the Syriac book “Doctrina. Addai” (sixth century) and in the legend of the Jew Cyriacus, who is said to have been inspired to reveal to St. Helena, the place where the Cross was buried, are responsible at least in part for the common beliefs of the faithful on this matter. These beliefs are universally held to be apocryphal. (See Duchesne, Lib. Pont., I, p. cviii.) However that may be, the testimony of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem from 350 or 351, who was on the spot a very few years after the event took place, and was a contemporary of Eusebius of Cæsarea, is explicit and formal as to the finding of the Cross at Jerusalem during the reign of Constantine this testimony is contained in a letter to the Emperor Constantius (P. G. XXXIII, 52, 1167; and cf. 686, 687). It is true that the authenticity of this letter is questioned, but without solid grounds. St. Ambrose (De obit. Theod., 45–48 in P.L., XVI, 401) and Rufinus (Hist. eccl., I, viii in P. L., XXI, 476) bear witness to the fact of the finding. Silvia of Aquitaine (Peregrinatio ad loca sancta, ed. Gamurrini, Rome 1888. p. 76) assures us that in her time the feast of the Finding was commemorated on Calvary, that event having naturally become the occasion of a special feast under the name of “The Invention of the Holy Cross.” The feast dates from very early times at Jerusalem, and it was gradually introduced into other Churches. Papebroch (Acta SS., 3 May) tells us that it did not become general until about the year 720. In the Latin Church it is kept on the 3rd of May; the Greek Church keeps it on the 14th of September the same day as the Exaltation, another feast of very remote origin, supposed to have been instituted at Jerusalem to commemorate the dedication of the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre (335) and thence introduced at Rome.

Constantine’s vision of the Cross, and perhaps another apparition which took place in Jerusalem in 346, would seem to have been commemorated in this same feast. But its chief glory is its connection with the restoration of the True Cross to the Church of Jerusalem, after it had been carried away by the Persian king, Chosroes (Khusrau) II, the conqueror of Phocas, when he captured and sacked the Holy City. This Chosroes was afterwards vanquished by the Emperor Heraclius II and in 628 was assassinated by his own son Siroes (Shirva), who restored the Cross to Heraclius. It was then carried in triumph to Constantinople and thence, in the Spring of the year 629, to Jerusalem. Heraclius, who wished to carry the Holy Cross upon his own shoulders on this occasion, found it extremely heavy, but when, upon the advice of the Patriarch Zacharias, he laid aside his crown and imperial robe of state, the sacred burden became light, and he was able to carry it to the church. In the following year Heraclius was conquered by the Mahommedans, and in 647 Jerusalem was taken by them.

In reference to this feast the Paris Breviary associates with the memory of Heraclius that of St. Louis of France, who, on 14 September, 1241 barefoot and divested of his royal robes, carried the fragment of the Holy Cross sent to him by the Templars, who had received it as a pledge from Baldwin. This fragment escaped destruction during the Revolution and is still preserved at Paris. There, also, is preserved the incombustible cross left to the abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés by the Princess Anna Gonzaga, together with two portions of the Nails. Very soon after the discovery of the True Cross its wood was cut up into small relics and quickly scattered throughout the Christian World. We know this from the writings of St. Ambrose, of St. Paulinus of Nola, of Sulpicius Severus, of Rufinus, and, among the Greeks, of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret (cf. Duchesne, “Lib, Pont.,” I, p. cvii; Marucchi “Basiliques de Rome,” 1902, 348 sq.; Pennacchi, “De Inventâ Ierosolymis Constantino magno Imp. Cruce D. N. I. C.,” Rome, 1892; Baronius, “Annales Eccl,,” ad an. 336, Lucca, 1739, IV, 178). Many portions of it are preserved in Santa Croce in Gerusalemme at Rome, and in Notre-Dame at Paris (cf. Rohault de Fleury, “Mémoire,” 45–163; Gosselin, Notice historique sur la Sainte Couronne et les autres Instruments de la Passion de Note-Dame de Paris,” Paris, 1828; Sauvage, “Documents sur les reliques de la, Vrai Croix,” Rouen, 1893). St. Paulinus in one of his letters refers to the redintegration of the Cross, i.e. that it never grew smaller in size, no matter how many pieces were detached from it. And the same St. Paulinus received from Jerusalem a relic of the Cross enclosed in a golden tube, but so small that it was almost an atom, “in segmento pene atomo hastulæ brevis munimentum præsentis et pignus æternæ salutis” (Epist. xxxi ad Severum).

The historical detail we have been considering sufficiently accounts for appearance of the cross on monuments dating from the end of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth century, In an arcosolium in the Catacomb of St. Callistus a cross composed of flowers and foliage with two doves at its base is still partially disguised, but begins to be more easily recognizable (cf. De Rossi, Rom. Sott., III, Pl. XII). Especially in Africa, where Christianity had made more rapid progress, the cross began to appear openly during the course of the fourth century; The most ancient text we have relating to a carved cross dates from later than A.D. 362. The cross was used on the coinage of Christian princes and peoples with the superscription, Salus Mundi. The “adoration” of the Cross, which up to this time had been restricted to private cult, now began to assume a public and solemn character. At the end of the fourth century Christian poets were already writing, “Flecte genu lignumque Crucis venerabile adora.” The second Council of Nicæa, among other precepts that deal with images, lays down that the Cross should receive an adoration of honour, “honorariam adorationem.” (See TRUE CROSS.) To the pagans who taunted them with being as much idolaters as they accused the pagans of being towards their gods, they replied that they took their stand on the nature of the cult they that it was not latria, but a relative worship, and the material symbol only served to raise their minds to the Divine Type, Jesus Christ Crucified (cf. Tert., “Apol,” xvi; Minucius Felix, “Octav.,” ix-xii). Wherefore St. Ambrose, speaking on the veneration of the Cross, thought it opportune to explain the idea: “Let us adore Christ, our King, who hung upon the wood, and not the wood” (Regem Christum qui pependit in 1igno . . . non lignum.—“In obit. Theodosii,” xlvi). The Western Church observes the solemn public veneration (called the “Adoration”) on Good Friday. In the Gregorian Sacramentary we read: “Venit Pontifexet et adoratam deosculatur.” In the Eastern Church the special veneration of the Cross is performed on the Third Sunday in Lent (Kyriake tes stauroproskyneseos “Sunday of the Cross-veneration”) and during the week that follows it. The gradual spread of the devotion to the Cross incidentally occasioned abuses in the piety of the faithful. Indeed, we learn from the edicts of Valentinian and Theodosius that the cross was at times set up in very unseemly places. The evil-minded, the ignorant, and all those who practiced spells, charms, and other such superstitions perverted the widespread devotion to their own corrupt uses. To deceive the faithful and turn their piety into lucre, these people associated the sign of the cross with their superstitious and magical symbols, winning thereby the confidence and trust of their dupes. To all this corruption of the religious idea the teachers of the Church opposed themselves, exhorting the faithful to true piety and to beware of superstitious talismans (cf. St. John Chrysostom, Hom. vii in Epist. ad Coloss., vii, and elsewhere; De Rossi, “Bull. d’archeol. crist.” 1869, 62–64).

The distribution of portions of the wood of the Cross led to the making of a remarkable number of crosses from the fourth century onwards, many of which have come down to us. Known under the names of encolpia and pectoral crosses they often served to enclose fragments of the True Cross; they were merely crosses worn on the breast out of devotion-”To wear upon the breast a cross, hung from the neck, with the Sacred Wood, or with relics of saints, which is what they call an encolpium” (Anastasius Bibliothecarius on Act. V of VIII Dec. Counc.). On the origin and use of pectoral crosses see Giovanni Scandella, “Considerazioni sopra un encolpio eneo rinvenuto in Corfu” (Trieste, 1854). St. John Chrysostom, in his polemic against Jews and Gentiles, wherein he panegyrizes the triumph of the Cross, testifies that whosoever, man or woman possessed a relic of it had it enclosed in gold and wore it around the neck (St. John Chrysostom, ed. Montfaucon, I, 571). St. Macrina (d. 379) sister of St. Gregory Nazianzen, wore an iron cross on her breast; we do not really know its shape; perhaps it was the monogrammatic one taken by her brother from her dead body. Among the belongings of Maria, the daughter of Stilicho and wife of Honorius, laid away together with her body in the Vatican basilica, and found there in 1544, there were counted no fewer than ten small crosses in gold adorned with emeralds and gems, as may be seen in the illustrations preserved by Lucio Fauno (Antich. Rom., V, x). In the Kircherian Museum there is a small gold cross, hollowed for relics, and dating from the fifth century. It has a ring attached to it for securing it around the neck, and it seems to have had grapevine ornamentation at the extremities. A very beautiful cross, described by De Rossi and by him attributed to the sixth century, was found in a tomb in the Agro Verano at Rome (Bull. d’arch. Crist., 1863, 33–38). The general characteristic of these more ancient crosses is their simplicity and lack of inscription, in contrast to those of the Byzantine era and times later than the sixth century. Among the most noteworthy is the staurotheca of St. Gregory the Great (590–604), preserved at Monza, which is really a pectoral cross (cf. Bugatti, “Memorie di S. Celso,” 174 sq.; Borgia, “De Cruce Veliternâ,” pp. cxxxiii sqq.). Scandella (op. cit.) points out that St. Gregory is the first to mention the cruciform shape given to these golden reliquaries. But, as we have seen, they date from much earlier times, as is proved by the one found in the Agro Verano, among others. Some writers go too far in wishing to push their antiquity back to the beginning of the fourth century. They base their opinion on documents in the acts of the martyrs under Diocletian. In those of the martyrdom of St. Procopius we read that he caused a gold pectoral cross to be made, and that there appeared on it miraculously in Hebrew letters the names Emmanuel, Michael, Gabriel. The Bollandists, however, reject these acts, which they demonstrate to be of little authority (Acta SS., July, II, p. 554). In the history of St. Eustratius and other martyrs of Lesser Armenia, it is related that a soldier named Orestes was recognized to be a Christian because, during some military manœuvres, a certain movement of his body displayed the fact that he wore a golden cross on his breast (cf. Aringhi, Rom. Subt., II, 545); but even this history is far from being entirely accurate.

The recent opening of the famous treasury of the Sancta Sanctorum near the Lateran has restored to our possession some objects of the highest value in connection with the wood of the Holy Cross, and bearing on our knowledge of crosses containing particles of the Holy Wood, and of churches built in the fifth and sixth centuries in its honour. Among the objects found in this treasury was a votive cross of about the fifth century, inlaid with large gems, a cruciform wooden box with a sliding lid bearing the words (light, life), and lastly, a gold cross ornamented with cloisonnés enamels. The first of these is most important because it belongs to the same period (if not to an even earlier one) as the famous cross of Justin II, of the sixth century, preserved in the treasury at St. Peter’s, and which contains a relic of the True Cross set in jewels. It was held, up to the present, to be the oldest cross extant in a precious metal (De Waal in “Römische Quartalschrift,” VII, 1893, 245 sq.; Molinier, “Hist. générale des arts; L’orfèvrerie religieuse et civile,” Paris, 1901, vol. IV, pt. I, p. 37). This cross, containing relics of the Holy Cross, was discovered by Pope Sergius I (687–701) in the sacristy of St. Peter’s basilica (cf. Duchesne, Lib. Pont., I, 347, s. v. Sergius) in a sealed silver case. It contained a jewelled cross enclosing a piece of the True Cross, and dates, perhaps, from the fifth century.

Enamelled crosses of this nature, an inheritance of Byzantine art, do not date earlier than the sixth century. The oldest example of this type we have is a fragment of the reliquary adorned with cloisonnés enamels in which a fragment of the cross was carried to Poitiers between 565 and 575 (cf. Molinier, op. cit.; Barbier de Montault, “Le trésor de la Sainte Croix de Poitiers,” 1883). Of later date are the Cross of Victory at Limburg near Aachen. Charlemagne’s cross, and that of St. Stephen at Vienna. Besides these we have in Italy the enamelled cross of Cosenza (eleventh century) the Gaeta cross, also in enamel, crosses in the Christian section of the Vatican Museum, and the celebrated cross of Velletri (eighth or tenth century) adorned with precious gems and enamel, and discussed by Cardinal Stefano Borgia in his work, “De Cruce Veliternâ.”

The world-wide devotion to the Cross and its relics during the fifth and succeeding centuries was so great that even the iconoclast Emperors of the East in their suppression of the cult of images had to respect that of the Cross (cf. Banduri, “Numism. imp.” II, p.702 sq.; Niceph., “Hist. Eccl.,” XVIII, liv). This cult of the Cross called forth the building of many Churches and oratories wherein to treasure its precious relics. The church of S. Croce at Ravenna was built by Galla Placidia before the year 450 “in honorem sanctæ crucis Domini, a quâ habet et nomen et formam” (Muratori, Script. rer. ital., I, Pl. II, p.544a). Pope Symmachus (498–514; cf. Duchesne, “Lib. Pont.,” 261 s. v. Symmachus, no. 79) built an oratory of the Holy Cross behind the baptistery at St. Peter’s, and placed in it a jewelled gold cross containing a relic of the True Cross. Pope Hilarius (461–468) did the like at the Lateran, building an oratory communicating with the baptistery, and placing in it a similar cross (Duchesne. op. cit., I, 242: “ubi lignum posuit dominicum, crucem auream cum gemmis quæ pens. lib. XX”).

The unvarying characteristic style of cross in the fifth and sixth centuries is for the most part decked with flowers, palms, and foliage, sometimes sprouting from the root of the cross itself, or adorned with gems and precious stones. Sometimes on two small chains hanging from the arms of the cross one sees the apocalyptic letters Alpha, Omega, and over them were hung small lamps or candles. On the mosaics in the church of St. Felix at Nola, St. Paulinus caused to be written: “Cerne coronatam domini super atria Christi stare crucem” (Ep, xxxii, 12, ad Sever.). A flowered and jewelled cross is that painted on the baptistery of the Catacomb of Ponzianus on the Via Portuensis (cf. Bottari, Rorn. Sott,, P1. XLIV). The cross is also displayed on the mosaic in the baptistery built by Galla Placidia, in the church of San Vitale, and in Sant’ Apollinare in Classe, at Ravenna, and over a ciborium from St. Sophia at Constantinople. In 1867, at Berezov Islands, on the River Sosswa, in Siberia, there was found a silver plate, or liturgical paten, of Syrian workmanship, which now belongs to Count Gregory Stroganov. In the centre of it is a cross standing on a terrestrial globe studded with stars; on either side stands an angel with a staff in his left hand, the right being raised in adoration; four rivers flow from its base and indicate that the scene is in Paradise. Some learned Russians attribute the plate to the ninth century, but De Rossi, more correctly, places it in the seventh century. In these same centuries the cross was of frequent use in liturgical rites and processions of great solemnity. It was carried in the churches where the stations were; the bearer of it was called draconarius, and the cross itself stationalis. These crosses were often very costly (cf. Bottari, Rom. Sott., Pl. XLIV), the most famous being the cross of Ravenna and that of Velletri.

The sign of the cross was made at liturgical functions over persons and things, sometimes with five fingers extended, to represent the Five Wounds of Christ sometimes with three, in sign of the Persons of the Trinity, and sometimes with only one, symbolical of the unity of God. For the blessing of the chalice and oblations Leo IV prescribed that two fingers be extended and thumb placed beneath them. This is the only true sign of the Trinitarian Cross. The pope warmly recommended his clergy to make this sign with care, else their blessing would be fruitless. The action was accompanied by the solemn formula, “In nomine Patris, etc.” Another use of the cross was in the solemn dedication of churches (see ALPHABET; CONSECRATION). The bishop who performed the ceremony wrote the alphabet in Latin and Greek on the floor of the church along two straight lines crossing in the form of the Roman decussis. The letter X, which in the land-plottings of the Roman augurs represented, with its two component lines, the cardo maximus and the decumanus maximus, was the same decussis used by the Roman agrimensores, in their surveys of farms, to indicate boundaries. This sign was appropriate to Christ by its cruciform shape and by its identity in shape with the initial letter of His name, Christos, in Greek. For this reason it was one of the genuine forms of the signum Christi.

The use of the cross became so widespread in the fifth and following centuries that anything like a complete enumeration of the monuments on which it appears is well nigh impossible. Suffice it to say that there is hardly a remnant of antiquity dating from this century, whether lowly and mean or noble and grand, which does not bear the sign. In proof of this we shall give here a cursory enumeration. It is quite frequent on sepulchral monuments, on the imperial urns at Constantinople, on the plaster of the loculi (resting-places) in the catacombs, especially of Rome, in a painting in a Christian cemetery at Alexandria in Egypt, on a mosaic at Boville near Rome, on an inscription for a tomb made in the form of a cross and now in the museum at Marseilles, on the interior walls of sepulchral chambers, on the front of marble sarcophagi dating from the fifth century. In these last instances it is common to see the cross surmounted by the monogram and surrounded by a laurel wreath (e.g. the sarcophagi at Arles, and in the Lateran Museum). A very fine specimen was found recently in excavations in St. Domitilla’s Catacomb on the Ostian Way; it is a symbolical picture of souls freed from the trammels of the body, and saved by means of the Cross, which has two doves on its arms, while armed guards are asleep at its base. Lastly, in England, crosses have been found on sepulchral monuments. So universal was its use by the faithful that they put it even on household utensils, on medals of devotion, on pottery lamps, spoons, cups, plates, glassware on clasps dating from Merovingian times, on inscriptions and votive offerings, on seals made in the form of a cross, on toys representing animals, on ivory combs, on the seals of wine-jars, on reliquary boxes, and even on water-pipes. In objects of liturgical use we meet it on Biblical codices, on vestments, pallia, on leaden thongs inscribed with exorcising formulæs and it was signed on the foreheads of catechumens and candidates for confirmation. The architectural details of churches and basilicas were ornamented with crosses; the façades, the marble slabs, the transoms, the pillars, the capitals, the keystones of arches, the altar-tables, the bishops’ thrones, the diptychs, and the bells were also ornamented in the same way. In the artistic monuments the so-called cruciform nimbus around Our Saviour’s head is well known. The cross appears over His head, and near that of the orante, as in the oil-stocks of Santo Menna. It is also to be met with on monuments of a symbolical nature: on the rocks whence flow the four celestial rivers the cross finds its place; on the vase and on the symbolical ship, on the head of the tempting serpent, and even on the lion in Daniel’s den.

When Christianity had become the official religion of the empire, it was natural that the cross should be carved on public monuments. In fact it was from the first used to purify and sanctify monuments and temples originally pagan; it was prefixed to signatures and to inscriptions placed on public work; it was borne by consuls on their sceptres, the first to do so being Basil the Younger (A.D. 541—cf. Gori, Thes. diptych., II, Pl. XX). It was cut in marble quarries and in brickyards, and on the gates of cities (cf. de Vogüé, Syrie Centrale; Architecture du VII siécle).

At Rome there is still to be seen on the Gate of St. Sebastian the figure of a Greek cross surrounded by a circle with the invocations: In and around Bologna it was usual to set the sign of salvation in the public streets. According to tradition, these crosses are very ancient, and four of them date from the time of St. Petronius. Some of them were restored in the ninth and tenth centuries (cf. Giovanni Gozzadini, Delle croci monumentali che erano nelle vie di Bologna nel secolo xiii).

The cross also played an important part in heraldry and diplomatic science. The former does not directly come within our scope; of the second we shall give the briefest outlines. Crosses are to be found on documents of early medieval times and, being placed at the head of a deed, were equivalent to an invocation of heaven, whether they were plain or ornamental. They were at times placed before signatures, and they have even been equilavalent to signatures in themselves. Indeed, from the tenth century we find, under contracts, roughly-made crosses that have all the appearance of being intended as signatures. Thus did Hugh Capet, Robert Capet, Henry I, and Philip I sign their official documents. This usage declined in the thirteenth century and appeared again in the fifteenth. In our own day the cross is reserved as the attestation-mark of illiterate people. A cross was characteristic of the signature of Apostolic notaries, but this was carefully designed, not rapidly written. In the early Middle Ages crosses were decorated with even greater magnifìcence. In the centre were to be seen medallions representing the Lamb of God, Christ, or the saints. Such is the case in the Velletri cross and that which Justin II gave to St. Peter’s, mentioned above, and again in the silver cross of Agnello at Ravenna (cf. Ciampini, Vet. mon., II, Pl. XIV). All this kind of decoration displays the substitution of some more or less complete symbol for the figure of Christ on the cross, of which we are about to speak.

It may be well to give here a list of works bearing on the departments of the subject just treated, and containing illustrations which it has not been opportune to quote in the foregoing part of the article: STOCKBAUER, Kunstgeschichte desKreuzes (Schaffhause, 1870); GRIMOUARD DE SAINT-LAURENT, lconographie de la Croix et du Crucifix in Ann. archéol., XXVI, XXVII; MARTIGNY, Dictionnaire des antiquités chrétiennes, s. v. Crucifix; BAYET, Recherches pour savir à l’histoire de la peinture . . . en orient (Paris, 1879): MÜNZ, Les mosaïques chrétiennes de l’Italie (l’oratoire de Jeann VII) in Rev. archéol.,1877, II; LABARTE, Histoire des arts industriels, II; KRAUS, Real-Encyklopädie der christliche. Alterhümer (Freiburg, 1882).

LATER DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRUCIFIX

We have seen the progressive steps—artistic, symbolical, and allegorical—through which the representation of the Cross passed from the first centuries down to the Middle Ages and we have seen some of the reasons which prevented Christian art from making an earlier display of the figure of the cross. Now the cross, as it was seen during all this time was only a symbol of the Divine Victim and not a direct representation. We can thus more easily understand, then how much more circumspection was necessary in proceeding to a direct portrayal of the Lord’s actual Crucifixion. Although in the fifth century the cross began to appear on public monuments, it was not for a century afterwards that the figure on the cross was shown; and not until the close of the fifth, or even the middle of the sixth century, did it appear without disguise. But from the sixth century onward we find many images—not allegorical, but historical and realistic of the crucified Saviour. To proceed in order, we will first examine the rare allusions, as it were, to the Crucifixion in Christian art down to the sixth century, and then look at the productions of that art in the later period.

Seeing that the cross was the symbol of an ignominious death, the repugnance of the early Christians to any representation of Christ’s torments and ignominy is easily understood. On a few sarcophagi of the fifth century (e.g. one in the Lateran, no. 171) scenes from the Passion are shown, but so treated as to show none of the shame and horror attaching to that instrument of death which was, as St. Paul says, “to the Jews a scandal, and to the Gentiles foolishness.” Yet, from the first ages Christians were loth to deprive themselves altogether of the image of their crucified Redeemer, though, for the reasons already stated and because of the “Discipline of the Secret” (q. v.), they could not represent the scene openly. The Council of Elvira, c. 300, decreed that what was to be adored ought not to be used in mural decoration. Wherefore recourse was had to allegory and to veiled forms, as in the case of the cross itself, (Cf. Bréhier, Les origines du Crucifix dans l’art religieux, Paris, 1904.) One of the most ancient allegories of the Crucifixion is considered to be that of the lamb lying at the foot of the anchor—symbols respectively of the Cross and of Christ. A very ancient inscription in the Crypt of Lucina, in the Catacombs of St. Callistus, shows this picture, which is otherwise somewhat rare (cf. De Rossi, Rom. Sott. Christ., I, Pl. XX). The same symbol was still in use at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century. In the description of the mosaics in the basilica of St. Felix at Nola, St. Paulinus shows us the same cross in connection with the mystical lamb, evidently an allusion to the Crucifixion, and he adds the well-known verse: “Sub cruce sanguineâ niveus stat Christus in agno”

We saw above that the trident was a veiled image of the cross. In the Catacomb of St. Callistus we have a more complicated study; the mystical dolphin is twined around the trident—very expressive symbol of the Crucifixion. The early Christians in their artistic labours did not disdain to draw upon the symbols and allegories of pagan mythology, as long as these were not contrary to Christian faith and morals. In the Catacomb of St. Callistus a sarcophagus, dating from the third century, was found, the front of which shows Ulysses tied to the mast while he listens to the song of the Sirens; near him are his companions, who with ears filled with wax, cannot hear the alluring song. All this is symboliccal of the Cross, and of the Crucified, who has closed against the seductions of evil the ears of the faithful during their voyage over the treacherous sea of life in the ship which will bring them to the harbour of salvation. Such is the interpretation given by St. Maximus of Turin in the homily read on Good Friday (S. Maximi opera, Rome, 1874, 151. Cf. De Rossi, Rom. Sott., I, 344–345 Pl. XXX, 5). A very important monument belonging to the beginning of the third century shows the Crucifixion openly. This would seem to contradict what we have said above, but it should be remembered that this is the work of pagan, and not of Christian, hands (cf. De Rossi, Bull, d’arch, crist., 1863, 72, and 1867, 75), and therefore it has no real value as a proof among purely Christian works. On a beam in the Pdagogioum on the Palatine there was discovered a graffito on the plaster, showing a man with an ass’s head, and clad in a perizoma (or short loin-cloth) and fastened to a crux immissa (regular Latin cross). Near by there is another man in an attitude of prayer with the legend Alexamenos sebetai theon, i.e., “Alexamenos adores God.” This graffito is now to be seen in the Kircherian Museum in Rome, and is but an impious caricature in mockery of the Christian Alexamenos, drawn by one of his pagan comrades of the Paedagogioum. (See the article entitled Ass.) In fact Tertullian tells us that in his day, i.e. precisely at the time when this caricature was made. Christians were accused of adoring an ass’s head, “Somniatis caput asininum esse Deum nostrum” (Apol., xvi; Ad Nat., I, ii). And Minucius Felix confirms this (Octav., ix). The Palatine graffito is also important as showing that the Christians used the crucifix in their private devotions at least as early as the third century. It would not have been possible for Alexamenos’ companion to trace the graffito of a crucified person clad in the perizoma (which was contrary to Roman usage) if he had not seen some such figure made use of by the Christians. Professor Haupt sought to identify it as a caricature of a worshipper of the Egyptian god Seth, the Typho of the Greeks, but his explanatian was refuted by Kraus. Recently, a similar opinion has been put forth by Wünsch, who takes his stand on the letter Y which is placed near the crucified figure, and which has also been found on a tablet relating to the worship of Seth; he therefore concludes that Alexamenos of the graffito belonged to the Sethian sect. (With reference to the Alexamenos graffito, which certainly has a bearing on the crucifix and its use by the early Christians, see Raffaele Garucci, “Un crocifisso graffito da mano pagana nella casa dei Cesari sul Palatino,” Rome, 1857; Ferdinand Becker, “Das Spott-Crucifix der römischen Kaiserpaläste,” Breslau, 1866; Kraus, “Das Spott-Crucifix vom Palatin,” Freiburg im Breisgau, 1872; Visconti, “Di un nuovo graffito palatino relativo al cristiano Alessameno,” Rome, 1870; Visconti and Lanciani, “Guida del Palatino,” 1873, p. 86; De Rossi, “Rom. Sott. Crist.,” 1877, pp. 353–354; Wünsch, ed., “Setianische Verfluchungstafeln aus Rom,” Leipzig, 1898, p. 110 sqq.; Vigouroux, “Les livres saints et la critique rationaliste,” I, 94–102.) The crucifix and representations of the Crucifixion became general after the sixth century, on manuscripts, then on private monuments, and finally even on public monuments. But its appearance on monuments up to about the eighth century surely indicates such monuments to be works of private zeal and devotion, or, at least, not clearly and decidedly public. As a matter of fact, it is noteworthy that, in the year 692, i.e. at the end of the seventh century the Quinisext Council of Constantinople, called the Trullan, ordered the symbolical and allegorical treatment to be laid aside. The earliest MS. bearing a representation of Christ crucified is in a miniature of a Syriac codex of the Gospels dating from A.D. 586 (Codex Syriacus, 56), written by the scribe Rabula, and which is in the Laurentian Library at Florence. Therein the figure of Christ is robed (Assemani, Biblioth. Laurent. Medic. catalog., Pl. XXIII, p. 194). Other images of the crucifix belong to the sixth century. Gregory of Tours, in his work “De Gloriâ Martyrum,” I, xxv, speaks of a crucifix robed in a colobium, or tunic, which in his day was publicly venerated at Narbonne in the church of St. Genesius, and which he considered a profanation—so far was the public cult of the crucifix from having become general up to that time. A cross belonging to the sixth century is to be found in the treasury at Monza, on which the image of the Saviour is wrought in enamel (cf. Mozzoni, “Tavole cronologiche-critiche della stor. eccl: secolo VII,” 79), and which seems to be identical with that given by St. Gregory the Great to Theodolinda, Queen of the Lombards. We know also that he gave a cross to Recared, King of the Visigoths, and to others (cf. S. Gregorii Lib. III, Epist. xxxii; Lib. IX, Epist. cxxii; Lib. XIII, Epist. xlii; Lib. XIV, Epist. xii).

It is certain, then, that the custom of displaying the Redeemer on the Cross began with the close of the sixth century, especially on encolpia, yet such examples of the crucifix are rare. As an example, we have a Byzantine encolpion, with a Greek inscription, which was erroneously thought to have been discovered in the Roman Catacombs in 1662, and about which the renowned Leo Allatius has written learnedly (cf. “Codice Chigiano,” VI; Fea, “Miscellanea filol. critica,’ 282). The little metal vases at Monza, in which was carried to Queen Theodolinda the oil from the Holy Places, show clearly how the repugnance to effigies of Christ lasted well into the sixth century. In the scene of the Crucifixion thereon depicted, the two thieves alone are seen with arms extended, in the attitude of crucifixion, but without a cross, while Christ appears as an orante, with a nimbus, ascending among the clouds, and in all the majesty of glory, above a cross under a decoration of flowers. (Cf. Mozzoni, op. cit., 77, 84.) In the same manner, on another monument, we see the cross between two archangels while the bust of Christ is shown above. Another very important monument of this century, and perhaps dating even from the preceding one, is the Crucifixion carved on the wooden doors at S. Sabina on the Aventine Hill, at Rome. The Crucified Christ, stripped of His garments, and on a, cross, but not nailed to the cross, and between two thieves, is shown as an orante, and the scene of the Crucifixion is, to a, certain extent, artistically veiled. The carving is roughly done, but the work has become of great importance, owing to recent studies thereon, wherefore we shall briefly indicate the various writings dealing with it: Grisar, “Analecta Romana,” 427 sqq.; Berthier, “La Porte de Sainte-Sabine à Rome; Etude archéologique” (Fribourg, Switzerland, 1892); Pératé, “L’Archéologie chrétienne” in “Bibliothèque de l’ensiegnement des beaux arts” (Paris, 1892, pp. 330–36); Bertram, “Die Thüren von Sta. Sabina in Rom: das Vorbild der Bernwards Thüren am Dom zu Hildesheim” (Fribourg, Switzerland, 1892); Ehrhard, “Die altchristliche Prachtthüre der Basilika Sta. Sabina in Rom” in “Der Katholik,” LXXIX (1892), 444 sqq., 538 sqq.; “Civiltà Cattolica,” IV (1892), 68–89; “‘Römische Quartalschrift,” VII (1893), 102; “Analecta Bollandiana,” XIII (1894), 53; Forret and Müller, “Kreuz und Kreuzigung Christi in ihrer Kunstentwicklung” (Strasburg, 1894), 15, Pl. II and Pl, III; Strzygowski, “Das Berliner Moses-relief und die Thüren von Sta. Sabina. in Rom” in “Jahrbuch der königl. preussischen Kunstsammlungen,” XVI (1893), 65–81; Ehrhard, “Prachtthüre von S. Sabina in Rom und die Domthüre von Spalato” in “Ephemeris Spalatensis” (1894), 9 sqq.: Grisar, “Kreuz und Kreuzigung auf der altchristl. Thüre von S. Sabina in Rom (Rome, 1894); Dobbert, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Crucifixes” in “Jahrb. der preuss. Kunstsammlungen,” I (1880), 41–50.

To this same period belongs a crucifix at Mount Athos (see Smith’s “Dictionary of Christian Antiquities,” London, 1875, I, 514), as well as an ivory in the British Museum. Christ is shown wearing only a loin-cloth: He appears as if alive; and not suffering physical pain. To the left, Judas is seen hanged; and below is the purse of money. In the following century the Crucifixion is still sometimes represented with the restrictions we have noticed, for instance, in the mosaic made in 642 by Pope Theodore in S. Stefano Rotondo, Rome. There, between Sts. Primas and Felician, the cross is to be seen, with the bust of the Saviour just above it. In the same seventh century, also, the scene of the Crucifixion is shown in all its historic reality in the crypt of St. Valentine’s Catacomb on the Via Flaminia (cf. Marucchi, La cripta sepolcrale di S. Valentino, Rome, 1878). Bosio saw it in the sixteenth century, and it was then in a better state of preservation than it is to-day (Bosio, Roma Sott., III, lxv). Christ crucified appears between Our Lady and St. John and is clad in a long, flowing tunic (colobium), and fastened by four nails, as was the ancient tradition, and as Gregory of Tours teaches: “Clavorum ergo dominicorum gratiâ quod quatuor fuerint hæc est ratio: duo sunt affixi in palmis, et duo in plantis”“ (“De Gloriâ Martyrum,” I, vi, in P.L., XXI, 710).

The last objections and obstacles to the realistic reproduction of the Crucifixion disappeared in the beginning of the eighth century. In the oratory built by Pope John VII in the Vatican, A.D. 705, the crucifix was represented realistically in mosaic. But the figure was robed, as we may learn from the drawings made by Grimaldi in the time of Paul V, when the oratory was pulled down to make room for the modern façade. Part of such a mosaic still exists in the grottoes at the Vatican similar in treatment to that of John VII. Belonging to the same century, though dating a little later, is the image of the Crucified discovered a few years ago in the apse of the old church of S. Maria Antiqua in the Roman Forum. This remarkable picture, now happily recovered, was visible for a little while in the month of May, 1702, and is mentioned in the diary of Valesio. It dates from the time of Pope St. Paul I (757–768), and stands in a niche above the altar. The figure is draped in a long tunic of a greyish-blue colour, is very lifelike, and has wide-open eyes. The soldier Longinus is in the act of wounding the side of Christ with the lance. On either hand are Mary and John; between them and the Cross stands a soldier with a sponge and a vessel filled with vinegar; above the Cross the sun and moon dim their rays.

Another interesting picture is that in the crypt of SS. Giovanni e Paolo at Rome, in their dwellinghouse on the Celian Hill. It is Byzantine in style and shows the crucifix. In the ninth century the crucifix of Leo IV is of importance (840–847). It is a stripped figure with a perizoma and four nails are used. A similar figure is in the paintings of S. Stefano alla Cappella. To the same century belongs a diptych from the monastery of Rambona of about the year 898, and now in the Vatican Library (Buonarroti, “Osservazioni sopra alcune frammenti di vetro,” Florence, 1716, 257–283, and P. Germano da s. Stanislao, “La casa celimontana, dei SS. Giovanni e Paolo,” Rome, 1895). To bring this list to a close we may mention an eleventh-century diptych in the cathedral of Tournai, a twelfth-century Roman cross preserved at the Porte de Halle, at Brussels, and an enameled crucifix in the Spitzer collection.

Here we bring our researches to an end, the field of Christian archæology not extending further. In the artistic treatment of the crucifix there are two periods: the first, which dates from the sixth to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; and the second, dating from that time to our own day. We shall here treat only of the former, touching lightly on the latter. In the first period the Crucified is shown adhering to the cross, not hanging forward from it; He is alive and shows no sign of physical suffering; He is clad in a long, flowing, sleaveless tunic (colobium), which reaches the knees. The head is erect, and surrounded by a nimbus, and bears a royal crown. The figure is fastened to the wood with four nails (cf. Garrucci, “Storia dell’ arte crist.,” III, fig. 139 and p. 61; Marucchi, op. cit., and “Il cimitero e la basilica di S. Valentino,” Rome, 1890; Forrer and Müller, op. cit., 20, Pl, III, fig. 6). In a word, it is not Christ suffering, but Christ triumphing and glorious on the Cross. Moreover, Christian art for a long time objected to stripping Christ of his garments, and the traditional colobium, or tunic, remained until the ninth century. In the East the robed Christ was preserved to a much later date. Again in miniatures from the ninth century the figure is robed, and stands erect on the cross and on the suppedaneum.

The scene of the Crucifixion, especially after the eighth century, includes the presence of the two thieves, the centurion who pierced Christ’s side, the soldier with the sponge, the Blessed Virgin and St. John. Mary is never shown weeping and afflicted, as became the custom in later ages, but standing erect near the cross, as St. Ambrose says, in his funeral oration on Valentinian: “I read of her standing; I do not read of her weeping.” Moreover, on either side of the Cross the sun and the moon, often with human faces, veil their brightness, being placed there to typify the two natures of Christ, the sun, the Divine, and the moon, the human (cf. St. Gregory the Great, Homily ii in Evang.). At the foot of the Cross the female figures are symbolical of the Church and the Synagogue, the one receiving the Saviouir’s blood in a cup, the other veiled and discrowned, holding in her hand a torn banner. With the tenth century realism began to play a part in Christian art, and the colobium becomes a shorter garment, reaching from the waist to the knees (perizoma). In the “Hortus deliciarum” in the “album” belonging to the Abbess Herrada of Landsberg in the twelfth the colobium is short, and approaches the form of the perizoma. From the eleventh century in the East, and from the Gothic period in the West, the head droops onto the breast (cf. Borgia, De Cruce Veliternâ, 191), the crown of thorns is introduced, the arms are bent back, the body is twisted, the face is wrung with agony, and blood flows from the wounds. In the thirteenth century complete realism is reached by the substitution of one nail in the feet, instead of two, as in the old tradition, and the resulting crossing of the legs. All this was done from artistic motives, to bring about a more moving and devotional pose. The living and triumphant Christ gives place to a Christ dead, in all the humiliation of His Passion, the agony of His death being even accentuated. This manner of treatment was afterwards generalized by the schools of Cimabue and Giotto. In conclusion it may be noted that the custom of placing the crucifix over the altar does not date from earlier than the eleventh century. (See CROSS AND CRUCIFIX IN LITURGY.)

On the crux gammata (swastika) on Christian monuments and its relation to similar signs on pre-Christian monuments in the East: MÜNTER. Sinnbilder der alten Christen, 73–85; LETRONNE. Annali dell’ Istit. di Corr. Arch. (1843). 122; ROCHETTE, Mém. del’ académie des inscriptions, pl. II, 302 sq.; MINERVINI, Bull. Arch. Nap., Ser. 2, II, 178, 179; CAVEDONI, Ragguaglio di due antichi cimiteri di Chiusi, 70; GARRUCCI, Vetri (2d ed.). 242, 243; MÜNZ, Archäologische Bemerkungen über das Kreuz, 25. 26.

Works of reference on the crucifix and its various forms in general: JUSTUS LIPSIUS, De Cruce libri tres (Antwerp, 1595); GRETSER, De Cruce Christi rebusque ad eam pertinentibus (Ingoldstadt, 1595–1605); BOSIUS, Cruz triumphans et gloriosa (Antwerp. 1617. folio); BARTHOLINUS, De Cruce Christi hypomnemata (Copenhagen, 1651): ALGER. History of the Cross (Boston, 1858); MÜNZ. Archäologische Bemerkungen über das Kreuz Christi (Frankfort, 1867); STOCKBAUER, Kunstgeschichte des Kreuzes (Schaffhausen, 1870); ZÖCKLER, Das Kreuz Christi (Gütersloh, 1875).

ORAZIO MARUCCHI.

II. THE TRUE CROSS AND REPRESENTATIONS OF IT AS OBJECTS OF DEVOTION

I. GROWTH OF THE CHRISTIAN CULT

The Cross to which Christ had been nailed, and on which He had died, became for Christians, quite naturally and logically, the object of a special respect and worship. St. Paul says, in I Cor., i, 17: “For Christ sent me not to baptize; but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void”; in Gal., ii, 19: “With Christ I am nailed to the cross”; in Eph., ii, 16: Christ. . . .”might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross”; in Phil., iii, 18: “For many walk . . . enemies of the cross of Christ”; in Col., ii, 14: “Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross”; and in Gal., vi, 14: “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.”

It seems clear, therefore, that for St. Paul the Cross of Christ was not only a precious remembrance of Christ’s sufferings and death, but also a symbol closely associated with His sacrifice and the mystery of the Passion. It was, moreover, natural that it should be venerated and become an object of a cult with the Christians who had been saved by it. Of such a cult in the Primitive Church we have definite and sufficiently numerous evidences. Tertullian meets the objection that Christians adore the cross by answering with an argumentum ad hominem, not by a denial. Another apologist, Minucius Felix, replies to the same objection. Lastly we may recall the famous caricature of Alexamenos, for which see the article Ass. From all this it appears that the pagans, without further consideration of the matter, believed that the Christians adored the cross; and that the apologists either answered indirectly, or contented themselves with saying that they do not adore the cross, without denying that a certain form of veneration was paid to it.

It is also an accepted belief that in the decorations of the catacombs there have been found, if not the cross itself, at least more or less veiled allusions to the holy symbol. A detailed treatment of this and other historical evidence for the early prevalence of the cult will be found in ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CROSS AND CRUCIFIX.

This cult became more extensive than ever after the discovery of the Holy Places and of the True Cross. Since the time when Jerusalem had been laid waste and ruined in the wars of the Romans, especially since Hadrian had founded upon the ruins his colony of Ælia Capitolina, the places consecrated by the Passion, Death, and Burial of Christ had been profaned and, it would seem, deserted. Under Constantine, after peace had been vouchsafed to the Church, Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, caused excavations to be made (about A.D. 327, it is believed) in order to ascertain the location of these holy sites. That of Calvary was identified, as well as that of the Holy Sepulchre; it was in the course of these excavations that the wood of the Cross was recovered. It was recognized as authentic, and for it was built a chapel or oratory, which is mentioned by Eusebius, also by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and Silvia (Etheria). From A.D. 347, that is to say, twenty years after these excavations, the same St. Cyril, in his discourses (or catecheses) delivered in these very places (iv, 10; x, 14; xiii, 4) speaks of this sacred wood. An inscription of A.D. 359, found at Tixter, in the neighbourhood of Sétif in Mauretania, mentions in an enumeration of relics, a fragment of the True Cross (Roman Miscellanies, X, 441). For a full discussion of the legend of St. Helena, see ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CROSS AND CRUCIFIX; see also ST. HELENA. Silvia’s recital (Peregrinatio Etheriae), which is of indisputable authenticity, tells how the sacred wood was venerated in Jerusalem about A.D. 380. On Good Friday, at eight o’clock in the morning, the faithful and the monks assemble in the chapel of the Cross (built on a, site hard by Calvary), and at this spot the ceremony of the adoration takes place. The bishop is seated on his chair; before him is a table covered with a cloth; the deacons are standing around him. The silver-gilt reliquary is brought and opened and the sacred wood of the Cross, with the Title, is placed on the table. The bishop stretches out his hand over the holy relic, and the deacons keep watch with him while the faithful and catechumens defile, one by one, before the table, bow, and kiss the Cross; they touch the Cross and the Title with forehead and eyes, but it is forbidden to touch them with the hands. This minute watchfulness was not unnecessary, for it has been told in fact how one day one of the faithful, making as though to kiss the Cross, was so unscrupulous as to bite off a piece of it, which he carried off as a relic. It is the duty of the deacons to prevent the repetition of such a crime. St. Cyril, who also tells of this ceremony, makes his account much more brief but adds the important detail, that relics of the True Cross have been distributed all over the world. He adds some information as to the silver reliquary which contained the True Cross. (See Cabrol, La Peregrinatio ad loca sancta, 105.) In several other passages of the same work Silvia (also called Egeria, Echeria, Eiheria, and Etheria) speaks to us of this chapel of the Cross (built between the basilicas of the Anastasis and the Martyrion) which plays so great a part in the paschal liturgy of Jerusalem.

A law of Theodosius and of Valentinian III (Cod. Justin., I, tit. vii) forbade under the gravest penalties any painting, carving, or engraving of the cross on pavements, so that this august sign of our salvation might not be trodden under foot. This law was revised by the Trullan Council, A.D. 691 (canon lxxii). Julian the Apostate, on the other hand, according to St. Cyril of Alexandria (Contra Julian., vi, in Opp., VI), made it a crime for Christians to adore the wood of the Cross, to trace its form upon their foreheads, and to engrave it over the entrances of their homes. St. John Chrysostom more than once in his writings makes allusion to the adoration of the cross; one citation will suffice: “Kings removing their diadems take up the cross, the symbol of their Saviour’s death; on the purple, the cross; in their prayers, the cross; on their armour, the cross; on the holy table, the cross; throughout the universe, the cross. The cross shines brighter than the sun.” These quotations from St. Chrysostom may be found in the authorities to be named at the end of this article. At the same time, pilgrimages to the holy places became more frequent, and especially for the purpose of following the example set by St. Helena in venerating the True Cross. Saint Jerome, describing the pilgrimage of St. Paula to the Holy Places, tells us that “prostrate before the Cross, she adored it as though she had seen the Saviour hanging upon it” (Ep. cviii). It is a remarkable fact that even the Iconoclasts, who fought with such zeal against images and representations in relief, made an exception in the case of the cross. Thus we find the image of the cross on the coins of the Iconoclastic emperors, Leo the Isaurian, Constantine Copronymus, Leo IV, Nicephorus, Michael II, and Theophilus (cf. Banduri, Numism. Imperat. Rom., II). Sometimes this cult involved abuses. Thus we are told of the Staurolaters, or those who adore the cross; the Chazingarii (from chazus, cross), a sect of Armenians who adore the cross. The Second Council of Nicæa (A.D. 787), held for the purpose of reforming abuses and putting an end to the disputes of Iconoclasm, fixed, once for all, the Catholic doctrine and discipline on this point. It defined that the veneration of the faithful was due to the form “of the precious and vivifying cross,” as well as to images or representations of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the saints. But the council points out that we must not render to these objects the cult of latria, “which, according to the teaching of the faith, belongs to the Divine nature alone. . . . The honour paid to the image passes to the prototype; and he who adores the image, adores the person whom it represents. Thus the doctrine of our holy fathers obtains in all its force: the tradition of the Holy Catholic Church which from one end of the earth to the other has received the gospel.” This decree was renewed at the Eighth cumenical Council at Constantinople, in 869 (can. iii). The council clearly distinguishes between the “salutation” (aspasmos) and “veneration” (proskynesis) due to the cross, and the “true adoration” (alethine latreia), which should not be paid to it. Theodore the Studite, the great adversary of the Iconoclasts, also makes a very exact distinction between the adoratio relativa (proskynesis schetike) and adoration properly so called.

II. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE ON THE VENERATION OF THE CROSS

In passing to a detailed examination of the Catholic doctrine on this subject of the cult due to the Cross, it will be well to notice the theories of Brock, the Abbé Ansault, le Mortillet, and others who pretend to have discovered that cult among the pagans before the time of Christ. For a demonstration of the purely Christian origin of the Christian devotion the reader is referred to ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CROSS AND CRUCIFIX. See also the works of Harlay, Lafargue, and others cited at the end of this section. With reference, in particular, to the ansated cross of Egypt, Letronne, Raoul-Rochette, and Lajard discuss with much learning the symbolism of that simple hieroglyphic of life, in which the Christians of Egypt seem to have recognized an anticipatory revelation of the Christian Cross, and which they employed in their monuments. According to the text of the Second Council of Nicæa cited above, the cult of the Cross is based upon the same principles as that of relics and images in general, although, to be sure, the True Cross holds the highest place in dignity among all relics. The observation of Petavius (XV, xiii, 1) should be noted here: that this cult must be considered as not belonging to the substance of religion, but as being one of the adiaphora, or things not absolutely necessary to salvation. Indeed, while it is of faith that this cult is useful, lawful, even pious and worthy of praise and of encouragement, and while we are not permitted to speak against it as something pernicious, still it is one of those devotional practices which the church can encourage, or restrain, or stop, according to circumstances. This explains how the veneration of images was forbidden to the Jews by that text of Exodus (xx, 4 sqq.) which has been so grossly abused by Iconoclasts and Protestants: “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God,” etc. It also explains the fact that in the first ages of Christianity, when converts from paganism were so numerous, and the impression of idol-worship was so fresh, the Church found it advisable not to permit the development of this cult of images; but later, when that danger had disappeared, when Christian traditions and Christian instinct had gained strength, the cult developed more freely. Again, it should be noted that the cult of images and relics is not that of latria, which is the adoration due to God alone, but is, as the Second Council of Nicæa teaches, a relative veneration paid to the image or relic and referring to that which it represents. Precisely this same doctrine is repeated in Sess. XXV of the Council of Trent: “Images are not to be worshipped because it is believed that some divinity or power resides in them and that they must be worshipped on that account, or because we ought to ask anything of them, or because we should put our trust in them, as was done by the gentiles of old who placed their hope in idols but because the honour which is shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent; so that through the images which we kiss, and before which we kneel, we may adore Christ, and venerate the saints, whose resemblances they bear.” (See also IMAGES.)

This clear doctrine, which cuts short every objection, is also that taught by Bellarmine, by Bossuet, and by Petavius. It must be said, however, that this view was not always so clearly taught. Following Bl. Albertus Magnus and Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure St. Thomas, and a, section of the Schoolmen who appear to have overlooked the Second Council of Nicæa teach that the worship rendered to the Cross and the image of Christ is that of latria, but with a distinction: the same worship is due to the image and its exemplar but the exemplar is honoured for Himself (or for itself), with an absolute worship; the image because of its exemplar, with a relative worship. The object of the adoration is the same, primary in regard to the exemplar and secondary in regard to the image. To the image of Christ, then, we owe a worship of latria as well as to His Person. The image, in fact, is morally one with its prototype, and, thus considered, if a lesser degree of worship be rendered to the image, that worship must reach the exemplar lessened in degree. Against this theory an attack has recently been made in “The Tablet,” the opinion attributed to the Thomists being sharply combated. Its adversaries have endeavoured to prove that the image of Christ should be venerated but with a lesser degree of honour than its exemplar.

The cult paid to it, they say, is simply analogous to the cult of latria, but in its nature different and inferior. No image of Christ, then, should be honoured with the worship of latria, and, moreover, the term “relative latria,” invented by the Thomists, ought to be banished from theological language as equivocal and dangerous.—Of these opinions the former rests chiefly upon consideration of pure reason, the latter upon ecclesiastical tradition, notably upon the Second Council of Nicæa and its confirmation by the Fourth Council of Constantinople and upon the decree of the Council of Trent.

III. RELICS OF THE TRUE CROSS

The testimony of Silvia (Etheria) proves how highly these relics were prized, while St. Cyril of Jerusalem, her contemporary, testifies as explicitly that “the whole inhabited earth is full of relics of the wood of the Cross.” In 1889 two French archæologists, Letaille and Audollent, discovered in the district of Sétif an inscription of the year 359 in which, among other relics, is mentioned the sacred wood of the Cross (de ligno crucis et de terrâ promissionis ubi natus est Christus). Another inscription, from Rasgunia (Cape Matifu), somewhat earlier in date than the preceding, mentions another relic of the Cross (“sancto ligno salvatoris adlato.”—See Duchesne in Acad. des inscr., Paris, 6 December, 1889; Morel, “Les missions catholiques,” 25 March, 1890, p.156; Catech. iv in P. G., XXXIII, 469; cf. also ibid., 800; Procopius, “De Bello Persico,” II, xi). St. John Chrysostom tells us that fragments of the True Cross are kept in golden reliquaries, which men reverently wear upon their persons.

The passage in the “Peregrinatio” which treats of this devotion has already been cited. St. Paulinus of Nola, some years later, sends to Sulpicius Severus a fragment of the True Cross with these words: “Receive a great gift in a little [compass]; and take, in [this] almost atomic segment of a short dart, an armament [against the perils] of the present and a pledge of everlasting safety” (Epist. xxxi, n.1. P. L., LXI, 325). About 455 Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem, sends to Pope St. Leo a fragment of the precious wood (S. Leonis Epist. cxxxix, P. L., LIV, 1108). The “Liber Pontificalis,” if we are to accept the authenticity of its statement, tells us that, in the pontificate of St. Sylvester, Constantine presented to the Sessorian basilica (Santa Croce in Gerusalemme) in Rome a portion of the True Cross (Duchesne Liber Pontif., I, 80; cf. 78, 178, 179, 195). Later, under St. Hilary (461–68) and under Symmachus (498–514) we are again told that fragments of the True Cross are enclosed in altars (op. cit., I, 242 sq. and 261 sq.). About the year 500 Avitus, Bishop of Vienne, asks for a portion of the Cross from the Patriarch of Jerusalem (P.L., LIX, 236, 239).

It is known that Radegunda, Queen of the Franks, having retired to Poitiers, obtained from the Emperor Justin II, in 569, a remarkable relic of the True Cross. A solemn feast was celebrated on this occasion, and the monastery founded by the queen at Poitiers received from that moment the name of Holy Cross. It was also upon this occasion that Venantius Fortunatus, Bishop of Poitiers, and a celebrated poet of the period, composed the hymn “Vexilla Regis” which is still sung at feasts of the Cross in the Latin Rite. St. Gregory I sent, a little later, a portion of the Cross to Theodolinda, Queen of the Lombards (Ep. xiv, 12), and another to Recared, the first Catholic King of Spain (Ep. ix, 122). In 690, under Sergius I, a casket was found containing a relic of the True Cross which had been sent to John III (560–74) by the Emperor Justin II (cf. Borgia, “De Cruce Vaticanâ,”Rome, 1779, p. 63, and Duchesne, “Liber Pontificalis,” I, 374, 378). We will not give in detail the history of other relics of the Cross (see the works of Gretser and the articles of Kraus and Bäumer quoted in the bibliography). The work of Rohault de Fleury, “Mémoire sur les instruments de la Passion” (Paris, 1870), deserves more prolonged attention; its author has sought out with great care and learning all the relics of the True Cross, drawn up a catalogue of them, and, thanks to this labour, he has succeeded in showing that, in spite of what various Protestant or Rationalistic authors have pretended, the fragments of the Cross brought together again would not only not “be comparable in bulk to a battleship,” but would not reach one-third that of a cross which has been supposed to have been three or four metres in height, with transverse branch of two metres (see above; under I), proportions not at all abnormal (op. cit., 97–179). Here is the the calculation of this savant: Supposing the Cross to have been of pine-wood, as is believed by the savants who have made a special study of the subject, and giving it a weight of about seventy-five kilograms, we find that the volume of this cross was 178,000,000 cubic millimetres. Now the total known volume of the True Cross, according to the finding of M. Rohault de Fleury, amounts to above 4,000 000 cubic millimetres, allowing the missing part to be as big as we will, the lost parts or the parts the existence of which has been overlooked, we still find ourselves far short of 178,000,000 cubic millimetres, which should make up the True Cross.

IV. PRINCIPAL FEASTS OF THE CROSS

The Feast of the Cross like so many other liturgical feasts, had its origin at Jerusalem, and is connected with the commemoration of the Finding of the Cross and the building, by Constantine, of churches upon the sites of the Holy Sepulchre and Calvary. In 335 the dedication of these churches was celebrated with great solemnity by the bishops who had assisted at the Council of Tyre, and a great number of other bishops. This dedication took place on the 13th and 14th of September. This feast of the dedication, which was known by the name of the Encnia, was most solemn; it was on an equal footing with those of the Epiphany and Easter. The description of it should be read m the “Peregrinatio,” which is of great value upon this subject of liturgical origins. This solemnity attracted to Jerusalem a great number of monks, from Mesopotamia, from Syria, from Egypt, from the Thebaïd, and from other provinces, besides laity of both sexes. Not fewer than forty or fifty bishops would journey from their dioceses to be present at Jerusalem for the event. The feast was considered as of obligation, “and he thinks himself guilty of a grave sin who during this period does not attend the great solemnity.” It lasted eight days. In Jerusalem, then, this feast bore an entirely local character. It passed, like so many other feasts, to Constantinople and thence to Rome. There was also an endeavour to give it a local feeling, and the church of “The Holy Cross in Jerusalem” as intended, as its name indicates, to recall the memory of the church at Jerusalem bearing the same dedication.

The feast of the Exaltation of the Cross sprang into existence at Rome at the end of the seventh century. Allusion is made to it during the pontificate of Sergius I (687–701) but, as Dom Bäumer observes, the very terms of the text (Lib. Pontif., I, 374, 378) show that the feast already existed. It is, then, inexact, as has often been pointed out, to attribute the introduction of it to this pope. The Gallican churches, which, at the period here referred to, do not yet know of this feast of the 14th September, have another on the 3rd of May of the same signification. It seems to have been introduced there in the seventh century, for ancient Gallican documents, such as the Lectionary of Luxeuil, do not mention it; Gregory of Tours also seems to ignore it. According to Mgr. Duchesne, the date seems to have been borrowed from the legend of the Finding of the Holy Cross (Lib. Pontif., I, p. cviii). Later, when the Gallican and Roman Liturgies were combined, a distinct character was given to each feast, so as to avoid sacrificing either. The 3rd of May was called the feast of the Invention of the Cross, and it commemorated in a special manner Saint Helena’s discovery of the sacred wood of the Cross; the 14th of September, the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, commemorated above all the circumstances in which Heraclius recovered from the Persians the True Cross, which they had carried off. Nevertheless, it appears from the history of the two feasts, which we have just examined, that that of the 13th and 14th of September is the older, and that the commemoration of the Finding of the Cross was at first combined with it.

The Good Friday ceremony of the Adoration of the Cross also had its origin in Jerusalem, as we have seen, and is a faithful reproduction of the rites of Adoration of the Cross of the fourth century in Jerusalem which have been described above, in accordance with the description of the author of the “Peregrinatio.” This worship paid to the Cross in Jerusalem on Good Friday soon became general. Gregory of Tours speaks of the Wednesday and Friday consecrated the Cross-probably the Wednesday and Friday of Holy Week. (Cf. Greg., De Gloriâ Mart. I, v.) The most ancient adoration of the Cross in Church is described in the “Ordo Romanus” generally attributed to Saint Gregory. It is performed, according to this “Ordo,” just as it is nowadays, after a series of responsory prayers. The cross is prepared before the altar; priests, deacons, subdeacons, clerics of the inferior grades, and lastly the people, each one comes in his turn; they salute the cross, during the singing of the anthem, “Ecce lignum crucis in quo salus mundi pependit. Venite, adoremus” (Behold the wood of the cross on which the salvation of the world did hang. Come, let us adore) and then Ps. cxviii. (See Mabillon, Mus. Ital., Paris, 1689, II, 23.) The Latin Church has kept until to-day the same liturgical features in the ceremony of Good Friday, added to it is the song of the Improperia and the hymn of the Cross, “Pange, lingua, gloriosi lauream certaminis.”

Besides the Adoration of the Cross on Good Friday and the September feast, the Greeks have still another feast of the Adoration of the Cross on the 1st of August as well as on the third Sunday in Lent. It is probable that Gregory the Great was acquainted with this feast during his stay in Constantinople, and that the station of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, on Lætare Sunday (the fourth Sunday in Lent), is a souvenir, or a timid effort at imitation, of the Byzantine solemnity.

On the theology of the subject, ST. THOMAS, Summa Theot., III, Q. xxv, aa. 3 and 4, with which cf. Idolatry, the controversy in The Tablet from 22 June to 21 Sept., 1907. PETAVIUS, De Incarnat. XV, xv-xviii; BELLARMINE, De Imaginibus Sanctorum, II, xxiv; THEODORE THE STUDITE, Adv. Iconomachos in P.G., XCIX. For the controversy in the time of Charlemagne, GONDI OF ORLÉANS, De Cultu Imaginum. P. L. . CVI, 305 sq.,; DUNGAL, Liber adversus Claudium Taurinensem, P. L., CV, 457 sq.; AMALARIUS, Des officiis eccls,. I, xvi, P. L., CV, 1028 sq.; PSEUDO-ALCUIN, Officia et Oratt. de Cruce, P.L., CI, 1207 sq.; RABANUS MAURUS, De Laudibus S. Crucis, P L. CVII, 133; SCOTUS ERIUGENA, De Christo Crucifixo, P.L,. CXLI, 345.

On the cult of the cross in pre-Christian times: BROCK, The Cross, Heathen and Christian (London, 1880). criticized by DE HARLEY in Dict. . apol. de la foi catholique (Paris, 1891), 670–678; DE HARLEY, Prétendue origine païenne de la Croix in La Controverse (1882) IV, 705–32; cf. La Croix et le Crucifix, ibid. (1887), IX. 386–404, and La croix chez les Chinois, ibid. (1886), VII, 589; BRING-MOUTON, De Notâ Christianismi Ambiguâ Cruce (London, 1745); SAINT FÉLIX-MAUREMONT, De la croix considérée comme signe hiéroglyphique d’adoration et de salut in Bullelin de la soc. archéol. du midi de la France (1836–37), III, 183, LAJARD, Observations sur l’origine et la signification du symbole appelé la croiz ansée in Mémoires de l’acad. des inscr. (1846); RAPP, Das Labarum u. der Sonnencultus in Jahrb. (Bonn, 1866), XXXIX, XL; MÜLLER, Ueber Sterne, Kreuze, u. Kränze als religiöse Symbole der alten Kulturvölker (Copenhagen, 1865); MORTILLET, Le signe de la croix avant le christianisme (Paris, 1886)-cf. Nuova Antologia (1867), 797, 805, and Revue Celtique (1866), 297; VERTUS, Du culte de la croix avant J.-C. in Annuaire de la Soc. Hist. Archéol, de Château-Thierry (1873, 1874) IX, 135–194; BUNSEN, Das Symbol des Kreuzes bei alten Nationen u. die Entstehung des Kreuz-Symbo’s des christlichen Kirche (Berlin, 1876); HOCHART, Le symbole de la croix in Ann. de la fac. litt. de Bordeaux (1886); ROBIOU, Observations sur les signes hiéroglyphiques qui peuvent rappeler la figure de la Croix in Science cath. (1890), IV 465–471; ANSAULT, Le culte de la croix avant J.-C. (Paris, 1889); ID., Mémoire sur le culte de la croix avant J.-C. (Paris, 1891); LAFARGUE, Le culte de la croix avant J.-C. in Rev. cath. De Bordeaux (1891). XIII, 321–330; Pre-Christian Cross in Ed. Rev. (1870) CXXXI, 222; MEYER. Die Gesch. des Kreuzholzes von Christus in Abhandl. philos.-philol. bayer. Akad. (1882), XVI, 101, 116.

On crosses in general: BORGIA, De Cruce Vaticanâ (Rome, 1774); ID., De Cruce Veliternâ (Rome, 1780); GRETSER, De Cruce Christi (2 vols. 40, Ingoldstadt, 1600 and 4th ed. of the same enlarged. in Opp. Omnia (1618); BOSIO, Crux triumphans et Gloriosa (Antwerp, 1617); DECKER, De Staurolatriâ Romanâ (Hanover, 1617); BASILIUS, De Veterum Christianorum Ritibus (Rome, 1647); SCHLICHTER, De Cruce apud Judæus, Christianos et Gentiles signo Salutis (Halle,1732); ZACCARIA, Dissert. de Inventione S. Crucis in GORI, Symbol. Litt., X, 65 sq.; PAPEBROCHI, De Inventione S. Crucis in Acta SS., 3 May, i sqq; LIPSIUS, De Cruce libri 111 (40, Antwerp, 1593); ZÖCKLER, Das Kreuz Christi (Gütersloh, 1775); ZIEGELBAUER, Historia didactica de S. Crucis Cultu et Veneratione in Ord. D. Benedicti (Vienna, 1746); WISEMAN, Four Lectures on the Offices and Ceremonies of Holy Week (London, 1839) 11–114; HOUSSAYE, Les cérémonies de la Semaine Saint . . . culte de la croix in Rev. Des Questions Historiques (1878), XXIII, 472 sq.; The Sign of the Cross in the Early Church in The Dub. Rev. (1851), XX, 113; BERNARDAKIS, Le culte de la Croix in chez les Grecs in Echos d’Orient (1902), 193–202; REVIUS, De cultu Crucis (Leyden, 1851); ALGER, History of the Cross (Boston, 1858); BERJEAU, History of the Cross (London, 1863); ROHAULT DE FLEURY, Mémoires sur les instruments de la passion (Paris, 1870); NESTLE, De Sanctâ Cruce (Berlin, 1889).

On the Finding of the Cross in particular: PAPEBROCH in Acta SS., 3 May; CABROL, Etude sur la Peregrinatio Silviæ (Paris, 1895) 103–105; HOLDEN, Inventio S. Crucis (Leipzig, 1889); COMBS, tr. By LUIGI CAPPADELTA, The Finding of the Cross (London, 1907); STALEY, The Liturgical Year, an Explanation of the Origin, History and Significance of the Festival Days and Fasting Days of the English Church (London, 1907), 101–103; DUCHESNE, tr. McClure, Christian Worship (London, 1904), 274 sq., and cf. ID. Liber Pontificalis, I, 374, 378; FEASEY, Ancient English Holy Week Ceremonial (London, 1897), 114 sq.

See also BÄUMER in Kirchlex., s. vv. Kreuz, Kreuzerfindung, Kreuzpartikel; MARRUCHI, in Dict. de la Bible, s.v. Croix; SCHULTE in Realencyk für prot. Theol., s. vv. Kreuz u. Kreuzigung, Kreuzauffindung, Kreuzeszeichen.

For Additional bibliography see BÄUMER and above all CHEVALIER, Topo.-Bibl., s.v. Croix.

FERNAND CABROL.

III. CROSS AND CRUCIFIX IN LITURGY

I. MATERIAL OBJECTS IN LITURGICAL USE

A. THE ALTAR-CROSS

As a permanent adjunct to the altar, the cross or crucifix can hardly be traced farther back than the thirteenth century. The third canon of the Second Council of Tours (567), “ut corpus Domini in altario non in imaginario ordine sed sub crucis titulo componatur,” which has sometimes been appealed to prove the early existence of an altar-cross, almost certainly refers to the arrangement of the particles of the Host upon the corporal. They were to be arranged in the form of a cross and not according to any fanciful idea, of the celebrant (see Hefele, Conciliengeschichte). On the other hand, Innocent III at the beginning of the thirteenth century in his treatise on thee Mass says plainly, “a cross is set upon the altar, in the middle between two candlesticks,” but even this probably refers only to the actual duration of the Holy Sacrifice. . From the ninth to the eleventh century the rule is several times repeated: “Let nothing be placed on the altar except a chest with relics of saints or perhaps the four gospels or a pyx with the Lord’s Body for the viaticum of the sick (cf. Thiers, Sur les principaux autels des églises, 129 sqq.). This no doubt was understood to exclude even the crucifix from the altar, and it is certain that in various liturgical ivory carvings of the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries no cross is shown. At the same time it should be noted that the ciborium, or canopy over the altar, was often surmounted by a plain cross, and also that the coronæ, or ornamental circular frames which were suspended from the inner side of the ciborium, frequently had a cross hanging down in their midst. Some auch coronæ are explicitly referred to in the “Liber Pontificalis” during the ninth century. The best-known existing example is the corona of

Recesvinthus now at the Musée de Cluny, Paris, in which the pendent cross is set with large gems. The papal chronicle just referred to also mentions a silver cross which was erected not over, but close beside, the high altar of St. Peter’s in the time of Leo III (795–816): “‘There also he made the cross of purest silver, gilded, which stands beside the high altar, and which weighs 22 pounds” (Lib. Pont., Leo III, c. lxxxvii). It is probable that when the cross was first introduced as an ornament for the altar it was most commonly plain and without any figure of Our Saviour. Such is the cross which a well-known Anglo-Saxon manuscript represents King Cnut as presenting to Hyde Abbey, Winchester. But the association of the figure of Christ with the cross was familiar in England as early as 678, when Benedict Biscop brought a painting of the Crucifixion from Rome (Bede, Hist. Abb., §99), and we can hardly doubt that a people capable of producing such sculptural work as the stone crosses at Ruthwell and Bewcastle, or the Franks’ casket, would soon have attempted the same subject in the solid. We know at any rate that a gold crucifix was found in the tomb of St. Edward the Confessor, and a crucifix is mentioned in one of the later Lives of St. Dunstan. That such objects were sometimes used for the altar seems highly probable.

Still, Innocent III speaks only of a cross, and it is certain that for several centuries later neither cross nor crucifix were left upon the altar except at Mass time. Even so late as the beginning of the sixteenth century an engraving in the Guinta “Corpus Juris” shows the altar-crucifix being carried in at High Mass by the celebrant, while in many French dioceses this or some similar custom lasted down to the time of Claude de Vert (Explication, IV, 31). At present the Cæremoniale Episcoporum assumes the permanency of the crucifix on the altar, with its attendant candlesticks [see ALTAR-CRUCIFIX, under ALTAR (IN LITURGY)].

B. THE PROCESSIONAL CROSS

When Bede tells us that St. Augustine of England and his companions came before Ethelbert “carrying a silver cross for a standard” (veniebant crucem pro vexillo ferentes argenteam) while they said the litanies, he probably touched upon the fundamental idea of the processional cross. Its use seems to have been general in early times and it is so mentioned in the Roman “Ordines” as to suggest that one belonged to each church. An interesting specimen of the twelfth century still survives in the Cross of Cong, preserved in the museum of the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin. This is made of oak covered with copper plates, but much decoration is added in the form of gold filigreework. It lacks most of the shaft, but is two feet six inches high, and one foot six inches across the arms. In the centre is a boss of rock crystal, which formerly enshrined a relic of the True Cross, and an inscription tells us that it was made for Turloch O’Conor, King of Ireland (1123). It seems never to have had any figure of Christ, but other processional crosses of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries are for the most part true crucifixes. In a great number of cases the shaft was removable, and the upper portion could be set in a stand to be used as an altar-cross. Indeed it seems not impossible that this was the actual origin of the altar-cross employed during Mass (Rohault de Fleury, La Meese, V, 123–140). Just as the seven candlesticks carried before the pope in Rome were deposited before or behind the altar, and probably developed into the six altar-candlesticks (seven, it will be remembered, when a bishop celebrates) with which we are now familiar, so the processional cross seems also to have first been left in a stand near the altar and ultimately to have taken its place upon the altar itself. To this day the ritual books of the Church seem to assume that the handle of the processional cross is detachable, for in the funeral of infants it is laid down that the cross is to be carried without its handle. All Christians are supposed to be the followers of Christ, hence in procession the crucifix is carried first, with the figure turned in the direction in which the procession is moving.

C. ARCHIEPISCOPAL AND PAPAL CROSS

It is not easy to determine with certainty at what period the archiepiscopal cross came into separate use. It was probably at first only an ordinary processional cross. In the tenth “Ordo Romanus” we read of a subdeacon who is set aside to carry the crux papalis. If this specially papal cross had been in existence for some time it is likely that it was imitated by patriarchs and metropolitans as a mark of dignity which went with the pallium. In the twelfth century the archbishop’s cross was generally recognized, and in the dispute regarding the primacy between the Archbishops of Canterbury and York the right to carry their cross before them played a prominent part. In 1125 Pope Honorius II admonished the Southern bishops of England that they should allow Archbishop Thurstan of York crucem ante se deferre juxta antiquam consuetudiem. In all ecclesiastical functions archbishop in his own province has a right tn be preceded by his cross-bearer with cross displayed. Hence an archbishop when solemnly giving his blessing gives it with head uncovered out of reverence for the cross which is held before him. An ordinary bishop, who is not privileged to have such a cross, blesses the people with his mitre on. As regards form, both the papal and the archiepiscopal cross consists in practice of a simple crucifix mounted upon a staff, the material being silver or silver gilt. The crosses with double and triple bars, which are sometimes termed distinctively archiepiscopal, patriarchal, or papal crosses, have for the most part only a heraldic existence (see Barbier de Montault, La croix à deux croisillons, 1883). An archiepiscopal cross is borne with the figure turned towards the archbishop.

D. PECTORAL CROSSES

These objects seem originally to have been little more than costly ornaments upon which much artistic skill was lavished and which usually contained relics. A jewel of this kind which belonged to Queen Theodelinda at the end of the sixth century is still preserved in the treasury of Monza. .Another of much later date, but wrought with wonderful enamels, was found in the tomb of Queen Dagmar and is at Copenhagen. When the present Queen Alexandra came to England in 1863 to marry the then Prince of Wales, she was presented with a facsimile of this jewel containing, among other relics, a fragment of the True Cross. Such encolpia were probably at first worn by bishops not as insignia of rank, but as objects of devotion. For example, a famous and beautiful jewel of this kind was found in the tomb of St. Cuthbert and is now at Durham. When they contained relics they often came later on to be enclosed in processional crosses. This no doubt was the case with the Cross of Cong, mentioned above, upon which we read in Irish characters the Latin verse: Hac cruce crux tegitur qua passus conditor orbis.- See Journ. Soc. Antiq. Ireland, vol. XXXI (1901). As a liturgical cross, and part of the ordinary episcopal insignia, the pectoral cross is of quite modern date. No word is said regarding it in the first edition of the “Cæremoniale Episcoporum” of 1600, but later editions speak of it, and its liturgical character is fully recognized by all modern rubricians. It is worn bishops at Mass and solemn functions, and also forms part of their ordinary walking-dress. It is usually a plain Latin cross of gold suspended round the neck by a gold chain or a cord of silk and gold. Its use seems gradually to have been introduced during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in imitation of the pectoral cross which we know to have been regularly worn by the popes from a much earlier date. Certain metropolitans (e. g. the Patriarch of Lisbon and the Archbishop of Armagh) are accustomed to wear a cross with two bars or transoms (Anal. Jur. Pont., 1896, 344). The privilege of wearing a pectoral cross has also been conceded to certain canons.

E. CONSECRATION CROSSES

These are the twelve crosses, usually merely painted on the wall, which mark the places where the church walls have been anointed with chrism in a properly consecrated church. A candle-bracket should be inserted immediately below. Some of these consecration crosses are even yet distinguishable on the walls of old churches which go back to the Romanesque period. The Carlovingian oratory in Nimeguen preserves, perhaps, the most ancient known example. In other cases e. g. at Fürstenfeld, some of the old Romanesque candle- brackets also remain. Owing to the number of unctions, it was not infrequently the custom to place these consecration crosses on shields, each borne by one of the twelve Apostles. In the Sainte Chapelle at Paris, built by St. Louis in the thirteenth century, we find twelve statues of the Apostles carrying discs cases, used for this purpose. In England it was the custom to mark twelve consecration crosses on the outside walls of the church as well as twelve on the inside. The Roman Pontifical only prescribes the latter. (See CONSECRATION.) Salisbury cathedral still preserves some remarkable examples of consecration crosses. At Ottery St. Mary, Devon, the old crosses are carved in high relief on shields borne by angels within moulded panels, a quatrefoil in a square. Those inside have marks of the remains of iron brackets for candles or a lamp. (See, on English examples, Middleton in “Archæologia,” XLVIII, 1885.)

F. CHURCHYARD OR MONUMENTAL CROSSES

In the contemporary life of St. Willibald (born c. 700) we have a significant mention of the Anglo-Saxon custom of erecting a cross instead of a church as a rendezvous for prayer. Many ancient stone crosses still surviving in England are probably witnesses to the practice, and the conjecture of Prof. Baldwin Browne (Arts in Anglo-Saxon England), that the cross and graveyard often preceded the church in date, has much to recommend it. Certain it is that the earliest known forms for blessing a cemetery (q. v.) contain five blessings pronounced at the four points of the compass one in the centre, thus forming a cross, while crosses were later on planted in the ground at each of these places. Throughout the Middle Ages, both in England and on the Continent, there seems always to have been one principal churchyard cross. This was commonly an object of great importance in the Palm Sunday procession when it was saluted with prostrations or gunuflexions by the whole assembly. There was also a scattering of boughs and flowers, and the cross was often decorated with garlands or box. For this reason it was often called crux buxata (cf. Gasquet, Parish Life, 1906, pp. 171–4). Many beautiful churchyard crosses are still preserved in England, France, and Germany; the most remarkable English examples being perhaps those of Ampney Crucis, near Cirencester, and Bag Enderby, Lincolnshire. The famous ancient Northumbrian crosses at Bewcastle and Ruthwell (which English scholars still assign to the seventh and eighth centuries, despite the plea for a much later date put forward by Prof. A. S. Cook of Yale) may possibly have been principal churchyard crosses. The fact that they were probably memorial crosses as well does not exclude this.

When St. Aldhelm died in 709, his body had to be transported fifty miles to Malmesbury, and at each stage of seven miles, where the body rested for the night, a cross was afterwards erected. These crosses were still standing in the twelfth century (William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pont., 383). An even more famous example of such memorial crosses, but of much later date, is supplied by the removal of the body of Eleanor, Queen of Edward I, from Lincoln to London. Several of these crosses in a more or less mutilated form exist at the present day. The most famous of the series, however, Charing (? Chère Reine) Cross in London, is a modern reconstruction. The route followed by the body of St. Louis of France on its way to St. Denis was similarly honoured, and it seems probable that a large number of wayside crosses originated in this manner. No stronger testimony of the early connection of the cross with the cemetery could be desired than the directions given by St. Cuthbert for his own burial: “Cum autem Deus susceperit animam meam, sepelite me in hâc mansione juxta oratorium meum ad meridiem, contra orientalem plagam sanctæ crucis quam ibidem erexi” (Bede, Vita S. Cuthberti).

G. ROOD, ROOD-SCREEN, AND ROOD-LOFT

From very early times it seems to have been not unusual to introduce a plain cross in such a way into the mosaics of the apse or of the main arch (Truimphbogen) as to dominate the church. Notable examples may be found at S. Apollinare in Classe at Ravenna, at S. Pudenziana in Rome, and at the Lateran basilica. There are also, as already noticed, incontestable examples both of crosses surmounting the ciborium over the altar, and of the large crosses suspended, with or without a corona, from the under side of the ciborium. It must, however, be pronounced very doubtful whether the rood, which in so many churches of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries occupied the great arch, can be regarded as a development of this idea. This point will be more fully treated under ROOD-SCREEN. It will be sufficient to notice here that in the thirteenth century a practice grew up of screening off the choir from the nave of the greater churches by a structure broad enough to admit a narrow bridge or gallery spanning the chancel arch and most commonly adorned by a great crucifix with the figures of Our Lady and St. John. The rood-loft of the cathedral of Sens, as described by J. B. Thiers (Traité sur les jubés) affords a valuable hint of how this process was effected. It consisted, he tells us, of two stone pulpits quite separate from each other, supported by columns, and with a crucifix between them, each having an entrance on the choir side and an exit down into the nave, on either side of the principal door of the choir. From this it seems probable that the two ambos (q. v.) from which the Gospel and Epistle were sung in earlier times became gradually connected by a continuous gallery upon which was erected a great crucifix, and that in this way we may trace the development of the rood-loft, or jubé, which was so conspicuous a feature in later medieval architecture. There can at least be no doubt that this loft was used on certain occasions of ceremony for reading the Epistle and Gospel and for making announcements to the people. The great rood above the rood-screen was saluted by the whole procession, as they re-entered the church on Palm Sunday, with the words: Ave Rex noster.

H. ABSOLUTION CROSSES

These have already been spoken of in the article CHRISTIAN BURIAL. They seem for the most part to have been rude crosses of lead laid upon the breast of the corpse. It is only in some few examples, of which the most important is that of Bishop Godfrey of Chichester (1088), that a formula of absolution is found inscribed upon them entire. We may infer that the practice in the West was always in some measure irregular, and it is only the absolution paper which is uniformly placed in the hand or on the breast of the corpse in the Eastern Church, which explains them and gives them a certain imporance as a liturgical development.

J. CROSSES ON VESTMENTS, ETC.

Rubrical law now requires that most of the vestments, as well as some other objects more immediately devoted to the service of the altar, should be marked with cross. Speaking generally this is a comparatively modern development. For example, the great majority of stoles and maniples of the Middle Ages do not exhibit this feature. At the same time Dr. Wickham Legg goes much too far when he says without qualification that such crosses were not used in pre-Reformation times. For example the stole of St. Thomas of Canterbury preserved at Sens has three crosses, one in the middle end one at each extremity, just as a modern stole would have. That the archiepiscopal pallium, like the Greek (see RITE OF CONSTANTINOPLE) was always marked with crosses, is not disputed. The large cross conspicuous upon most modern chasubles, which appears behind in the French type and in front in the Roman, does not seem to have been originally adopted with any symbolic purpose. It probably came into existence accidentally for sartorial reasons, the orphreys having been so arranged in a sort of Y-cross to conceal the seams. But the idea, once suggested to the eye, was retained, and various symbolical reasons were found for it. In somewhat of the same way a cross was marked in the Missal before the Canon. and this the priest was directed to kiss when beginning this portion of the Mass; probably this cross first arose from an illumination of the initial T, in the words: Te igitur clementissime Pater. As Innocent III writes, “Et forte divinâ factum est providentiâ ut ab eâ literâ T [tau] canon inciperet quæ sui formâ signum crucis ostendit et exprimit in figurâ”; and Beleth further comments, “Unde profecto est, quod istic crucis imago adpingi debeat” (See Ebner, Quellen und Forschungen, 445 sqq.). The tradition is perpetuated in the picture of the Crucifixion which precedes the Canon in every modern Missal. The five crosses commonly marked on altar-atones depend closely on the rite of the consecration of an altar.

K. CROSSES FOR PRIVATE DEVOTION

These may all be held to wear a liturgical aspect in so far as the Church, in the “Rituale,” provides a form for their blessing, and presupposes that such a cross should be placed in the hands of the dying. The crosses which surmount the Stations of the Cross, and to which the Indulgences are directly attached may also be noticed. In the Greek Church a little wooden cross is used for the blessing of holy water, and is dipped into it in the course of the ceremony.

II. LITURGICAL FORMS CONNECTED WITH THE MATERIAL OBJECTS

A. BLESSING OF CONSECRATION CROSSES

The “Pontificale Romanum” directs that towards the close of the dedication ceremony the twelve consecration crosses previously marked upon the walls of the church, three upon each wall, are to be each anointed by the bishop with chrism, the following form of words being spoken over each: “May this Temple be hallowed + and consecrated + in the name of the Father + and of the Son + and of the Holy Ghost + in honour of God and the glorious Virgin Mary and of all the Saints, to the name and memory of Saint N. Peace be to thee.” This is prescribed in practically identical terms in English pontificals of the tenth century; and the Pontifical of Egbert (? 768) describes the anointing of the walls, though it does not give the words or the form. What is more, an analogous ceremony must have existed in the Celtic Church from a very early date, for a liturgical fragment in the Leabar Breac describes how the bishop with two priests is to go round the outside of the church marking crosses upon the “tel-columns” with his knife, while the three other priests do the same within (see Olden in “Trans. St. Paul’s Eccles. Soc.,” IV, 103). In this case, however, the use of chrism is not mentioned. From this Celtic practice the Anglo-Saxon and Sarum uses seem to have derived the custom of affixing consecration crosses outside the church as well as within.

B. CONSECRATION OF THE ALTAR

In the consecration of an altar, also, crosses are to be marked in chrism upon the altar-slab with almost the same form of words as that used for the walls. This practice may equally claim Celtic analogues, whose antiquity is shown by the fact that the altar to be consecrated must have been of wood. The Tract in the “Leabar Breac” says: “The bishop marks four crosses with his knife on the four corners of the altar, and he marks three crosses over the middle of the altar, a cross over the middle on the east to the edge, and a cross over the middle on the west to the edge, and a cross exactly over the middle.” This makes seven crosses, but the Roman usage for many centuries has provided five only.

C. PONTIFICAL BLESSINGS OF CROSSES

The consecration crosses on the walls of churches and on altars are clearly not substantive and independent objects of cultus; the blessing they receive is only a detail in a longer ceremony. But the “Pontificale Romanum” supplies a solemn form of episcopal blessing for a cross, under the title, Benedictio novæ Crucis, which, besides containing several prayers of considerable length, includes a consecratory preface and is accompanied with the use of incense. At the conclusion of the ceremony we find the rubric: “Tum Pontifex, flexis ante crucem genibus, ipsam devote adorat et osculatur.” This rite is of great antiquity, and many of the prayers occur in identical terms in pontificals of the tenth century or earlier, e. g. in the Benedictional of Archbishop Robert (Henry Bradshaw Soc.). But in the ancient ceremony the cross was first washed with holy water and then anointed with chrism precisely as in the form for the blessing of bells (see BELLS). For cemetery crosses in this connection, see CEMETERY.

D. BLESSINGS OF CROSSES IN THE RITUAL

The “Rituale Romanum” (tit. VIII, cap. xxiv) supplies an ordinary blessing for a cross which may be used by any priest. It consists only of a short prayer, with a second prayer whose use is optional, and only holy water is used; but the same rubric directing the priest to kneel and “devoutly adore and kiss the cross” is added, which we have just noticed in the solemn episcopal benediction. Furthermore, the Ritual, in an appendix, reprints the longer form from the Pontifical under the heading: “Benedictiones reservatæ, ab episcopo vel sacerdotibus facultatem habentibus faciendæ.” It may be noted that St. Louis, King of France, regarded it as unseemly that crosses and statues should be set up for veneration without being previously blessed. He accordingly ordered search to be made for a form of blessing in the ancient episcopal ceremonials. The form was found and duly used first of all in St. Louis’ own private chapel; but the incident seems to suggest that the practice of blessing such objects had partly fallen into desuetude. (See Galfridus, De Bello Loco, cap. xxxvi.)

E. BLESSINGS OF CROSSES FOR INDULGENCES ETC.

The indulgences most commonly attached to crosses, crucifixes, etc., are: first, the so-called “Apostolic Indulgences,” which are the same as those attached to objects blessed by the Holy Father in person. These are numerous and, amongst other things, entitle the possessor who has habitually worn or used such a cross to a plenary indulgence at the hour of death; secondly, the indulgences of the Stations of the Cross, which under certain conditions may be gained by the sick and others unable to visit a church upon the recitation of twenty Paters, Aves, and Glorias before the indulgenced cross which they must hold in their hand; thirdly, the so-called “Bona Mors” indulgence for the use of priests, enabling the priest by the use of this cross to communicate a plenary indulgence to any dying person who is in the requisite dispositions to receive it; Special faculties are needed to communicate such indulgences to crosses, etc., though in the case of the “Apostolic Indulgences” these faculties are easily obtained. The only blessing required is the making of a simple sign of the cross over the crucifix or other object with the intention of imparting the indulgence. For further details, the reader must be referred to the article INDULGENCES and to such treatises upon indulgences as those of Beringer, “Les Indulgences” or of Mocchegiani, “Collectio Indulgentiarum” (Quaracchi, 1897). (See also BLESSINGS.)

III. FESTIVALS OF THE HOLY CROSS

A. The Invention of the Holy Cross.—This is now kept by the Western Church upon 3 May, but so far as our somewhat uncertain data allow us to judge, the real date of St.Helena’s discovery was 14 September, 326. Upon this same day, 14 September, took place the dedication of Constantine’s two churches, that of the Anastasis and that of Golgotha Ad Crucem, both upon Calvary, within the precincts of the present church of the Holy Sepulchre. The portion of the Holy Cross preserved in Jerusalem afterwards fell into the hands of the Persians, but was recovered by the Emperor Heraclius, and, if we may trust our authorities, was solemnly brought back to Jerusalem on 3 May, 629. This day, strangely enough, seems to have attracted special attention among Celtic liturgists in the West and, though disregarded in the East, has passed through Celtic channels (we meet it first in the Lectionary of Silos and in the Bobbio Missal) into general recognition under the mistaken title of “Invention of the Cross.” Curiously enough the Greek Church keeps a feast of the apparition of the Cross to St. Cyril of Jerusalem on 7 May, though that of 3 May is unknown in the East. (3) B. The Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, 14 September, though apparently introduced into the West somewhat later than the so-called “Invention” on 3 May, seems to preserve the true date of the discovery of the Cross by St. Helena. This festival has always been kept in the East, and especially at Jerusalem, on that day, under the name of , i. e. “elevation” which probably meant originally the “bringing to light.”

(5) C. Other Feasts of the Cross.-We might in some sense regard such a festival as that of the Holy Lance and Nails as a festival of the Cross, but it should perhaps rather be grouped with feasts of the Passion. In the East, however, we find other celebrations strictly connected with the Cross. For example, on 1 August the Greeks commemorate the taking of the relic of the Holy Cross from the palace in Constantinople to the church of St. Sophia, and on 7 May, as we have seen, they recall an apparition of the Cross to St. Cyril of Jerusalem. The Armenians, on the other hand, observe one principal feast of the Cross, under the name Chatz, which occurs in autumn almost immediately after the feast of the Assumption. It is counted as one of the seven principal feasts of the year, is preceded by a week’s fast, and followed by an octave or its Armenian equivalent. See also ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CROSS AND CRUCIFIX.

IV. THE “ADORATION”

From a theological standpoint this is treated above under ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CROSS AND CRUCIFIX. (See also LATRIA.) As a liturgical function the veneration of the Cross on Good Friday must no doubt be traced back, as Amalarius already in the ninth century correctly divined, to the practice of honouring the relic of the True Cross at Jerusalem which is described in detail in the “Pilgrimage of Etheria,” c. 380 (see TRUE CROSS.) The ceremony came to prevail everywhere where relics of the True Cross existed, and by a very natural development, where relics failed any ordinary cross supplied their place as an object of cultus. As Amalarius again sensibly remarks, “although every church cannot have such a relic, still the virtue of the Holy True Cross is not wanting in those crosses which are made in imitation of it.” Neither was this veneration, in the case at any rate, of relics of the True Cross, confined to Good Friday. St. Gregory of Tours uses language which may possibly imply that in Jerusalem the True Cross was honoured every Wednesday and Friday. It is certain that at Constantinople a Sunday in Mid-Lent, the first of August, and the 14th of September were similarly privileged. Even from early times there was no hesitation about using the word adoratio. Thus, St. Paulinus of Nola, writing of the great Jerusalem relic (c. 410), declares that the bishop offered it to the people for worship (crucem quotannis adorandam populo promit), and first adored it himself. (See P. L., LXI, 325.) A curious practice was also introduced of anointing the cross, or, on occasion, any image or picture, with balm (balsamo) before presenting it for the veneration of the faithful. This custom was transferred to Rome, and we hear much of it in connection with the very ancient reliquary of the True Cross and also the supposed miraculous portrait of Our Saviour (acheiropoieta, i. e. not made by the hand of man) preserved in the Sancta Sanctorum of the Lateran, both of which recently, together with a multitude of other objects, have been examined and reported on by papal permission (see Grisar Die römische Kapelle Sancta Sanctorum und ihr Schatz, Freíburg, 1908, 91, 92). The objects mentioned were completely covered in part with solidified balm. Pope Adrian I, in vindicating the veneration of images to Charlemagne, mentions this use of balm and defends it (Mansi, Concilia, XIII, 778). The ceremony of the adoration of the Cross on Good Friday must have spread through the West in the seventh and eighth centuries, for it appears in the Gelasian Sacramentary and is presupposed in the Gregorian Antiphonarium. Both in Anglo-Saxon England and in the England of the later Middle Ages the “Creeping to the Cross” was a ceremony which made a deep impression on the popular mind. St. Louis of France: and other pious princes dressed themselves in haircloth and crept to the cross barefoot. At present, instead of creeping to the cross on hands and knees, three profound double genuflexions are made before kissing the feet of the crucifix, and the sacred ministers remove their shoes when performing the ceremony. The collection now commonly made on this occasion for the support of the Holy Places seems also to date from medieval times.

V. MANUAL SIGN OF THE CROSS

For the Figure of the Cross as a Manual Sign of Blessing the reader must be referred to the article SIGN OF THE CROSS, also subtitles (4) of ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CROSS and (1) of TRUE CROSS.

VI. DEDICATIONS OF CHURCHES, ETC. TO THE HOLY CROSS

Possibly one of the earliest dedications to the Cross, if we put aside Constantine’s church upon Calvary known in Etheria’s time as Ad Crucem and also the Sessorian basilica which was its Roman counterpart, was the monastery erected at Poitiers by St. Rhadegund in the sixth century. In behalf of this foundation the saint begged and obtained a relic of the True Cross from the Emperor Justin II at Constantinople.

The bringing of the relic to Poitiers was the occasion of the composition of the two famous hymns by Venantius Fortunatus, “Vexilla regis” and “Pange, lingua, gloriosi prælium certaminis.” In England perhaps the most famous monastery bearing this dedication was the Holy Cross Abbey at Waltham, founded by King Harold. At present about sixty ancient English churches are dedicated to the Holy Cross, while twenty more bear the same dedication in the distinctively-English form of “Holy Rood.” The famous Holyrood Palace in Edinburgh, once occupied by Mary Queen of Scots, derives its name from a monastery of the Holy Rood upon the site of which it was erected, and its church, now in ruins, was originally the church of the monks.

VII. THE CROSS IN RELIGIOUS ORDERS AND IN THE CRUSADES

Although the older orders were earnest in conforming to the general usage of the Church as regards the veneration of the Cross, no distinctive cultus seems to be attributable to the monasteries. The practice of carrying a crucifix as part of the ordinary religious habit seems to be of comparatively modern date. It is significant that, although in most modern congregations of nuns the bestowal of the crucifix is a prominent feature of the ceremony of profession, the service in the Roman Pontifical, “De Benedictione et Consecratione Virginum,” knows nothing of it. It provides for the giving of rings and crosses but not of crucifixes. Probably much of the stimulus given to devotion to the crucifix may be traced ultimately to Franciscan influences, and it is not mere coincidence that the development in art of the agonized and thorn-crowned type of figure upon the Cross coincides more or less exactly with the great Franciscan revival of the thirteenth century. Somewhat earlier than the time of Francis an Italian Order of crociferi (cross-bearers), distinguished by carrying as part of their costume a plain cross of wood or metal, was founded in the neighbourhood of Bologna to tend the sick, and several other orders, particularly one established shortly afterwards in the Netherlands and still surviving, have since borne the same or a similar name. In the case of the Military Orders, for example, that of St. John of Jerusalem or Knights Hospitallers, the cross impressed upon their habit has gradually become distinctive of the order. It seems to have been originally only the badge of the crusaders, who wore a red cross upon their right shoulders as a token of the obligation they had taken upon themselves. The Roman Pontifical still contains the ceremonial for the blessing and imposition of the cross upon those who set out for the aid und defence of the Christian Faith or for the recovery of the Holy Land. After the cross has been blessed the bishop imposes it upon the candidate with the words: “Receive the sign of the cross, in the Name of the Father + and of the Son + and of the Holy Ghost + in token of the Cross, Passion, and Death of Christ, for the defence of thy body and thy soul, that by the favour of the Divine Goodness when thy journey is accomplished thou mayest return to thy family safe and amended [salvus et emendatus]. Through Christ Our Lord, Amen.” The crosses conferred by sovereigns in connection with various orders of knighthood may probably be traced to the same idea.

The various types of cross have rather to do with heraldry or art than with the history of Christianity. The names and shapes of the more common varieties can best be gathered from the annexed table. For the vast majority the form is purely conventional and artificial. Their divergence from the normal type is a mere freak of fancy and corresponds to no attempt to reproduce the shape of the gibbet on which Our Saviour died, or to convey any symbolical meaning. The crux ansata, or cross with a handle, and the crux gammata, or “fylfot,” are much more ancient than Christianity. (See in ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CROSS, (1) Primitive Cruciform Signs.) The chrismon, or chi-rho, has already been mentioned as the earliest forms in which the cross appear in Christian art [Section I (4)]. The forms which it took varied considerably and it is difficult to classify them chronologically. -With regard to the great Celtic stone crosses, particularly in Ireland, we may note the tendency conspicuous in so many specimens to surround the cross with in a circle. It is just conceivable that there is foundation for regarding this circle as derived from the loop of the Egyptian crux ansata.

VIII. THE CROSS OUTSIDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

(8) The Cross outside of the Catholic Church.-In the Russian Church the conventional form in which the cross is usually shown is in fact a three-barred cross, of which the upper bar represents the title of the cross, the second the arms, and the lowest, which is always inclined at an angle, the suppedaneum or foot-rest. In England it may be said that in the early years of Elizabeth’s reign a clean sweep was made of the crosses so long venerated by the people. All the roods were ordered to be pulled down, and the crosses were removed from the altars, or rather the communion-tables which replaced the altars. The only check in this movement was the fact that the queen herself, for some rather obscure reason, insisted at first on retaining the crucifix in her own private chapel. The presence of a crucifix or even a plain cross upon the altar was long held to be illegal in virtue of the “Ornaments Rubrics.” In recent years, however, there has been a notable reaction, and crosses, or even crucifixes, are quite commonly seen upon the altar of Anglican churches. Again, in the reredos recently erected in St. Paul’s Cathedral in London a large crucifix, with the figures of St. Mary and St. John, forms the most conspicuous feature. In Lutheran churches there has always been much tolerance for the crucifix either upon or behind the altar.

It would not be easy to provide an adequate bibliography for the very wide field covered by this article. A few works may be mentioned of a more general kind.—BÄUMER in Kirchenlex., VII, 1054–1088; QUILLIET in Dict. da théol. cath., III, 2339–2363; HOPPENOT, Le crucifix dans l’histoire (Lille, 1900); SEYMOUR, The Cross in Tradition, History and Art (New York, 1898).-Both these last works are very comprehensive in scope, but unfortunately quite uncritical.—STEVENS, The Cross in the Life and Literature of the Anglo-Saxons (New York, 1904). ROHAULT DE FLEURY, La Messe (Paris, 1885), specially valuable tor its illustrations of liturgical crosses; KRAUS, Geschichte der christlichen Kunst (Freiburg, 1895–1908); COX AND HARVEY, English Church Furniture (London, 1907); BINTERIM, Denkwürdigkeiten, IV, Part I, 496 sqq.; MARTÈNE, De Antiquis Ecclesiæ Ritibus; THEIRS, Dissertation sur les principaux autels et sur les jubés (Paris, 1688).

HERBERT THURSTON.

Cross-Bearer

The cleric or minister who carries the processional cross, that is, a crucifix provided with a long staff or handle. An archbishop’s cross is borne with the figure of the crucifix towards the prelate, but in all other cases the figure should be turned forward. The cross-bearer should, whenever possible, be a cleric (Council of Milan, seventeenth century), but in lay processions the most worthy of the laity should be selected for the office. In the more solemn processions such as those of the Blessed Sacrament, Palm Sunday, and Candlemas Day, the cross should be borne by a subdeacon vested in amice, alb, and tunic; on less solemn occasions by a clerk in surplice. The staff is held with both hands so that the figure is well above the head. The cross-bearer and the two acolytes by whom he is accompanied on the more solemn occasions should walk at the head of the procession, except when the thurifer is there, and should not make any reverences whilst engaged in this function.

Cæremoniale Episcoporum, passim; DE HERDT, Praxis Liturgiæ Sucræ (Louvain, 1904), III, 318; LE VAVASSEUR, Cérémonial Romain (Paris, 1876), I, 680.

PATRICK MORRISROE.

Brothers of the Cross of Jesus

A congregation founded in 1820 at Lyons, France, by Father C.M. Bochard, Doctor of the Sorbonne, Vicar-General of the Diocese of Lyons. Father Bochard was the first superior general (1820–34). He had as successors the Rev. Father Corsiain (1834–65) and the Rev. Father Bernard (1865–74). Until then the direction of the principal houses was entrusted to Fathers who were members of the congregation. In 1873 Bishop Richard of Belley, afterwards (Cardinal and Archbishop of Paris, employed the Fathers as parish priests and the congregation was henceforward composed of Brothers only. The superiors general from this epoch, have been the Reverend Bros. Pierre-Joseph (1873–85), Lucien (1885–98), and Firmin (1898—).

The name of the congregation indicates its distinctive spirit. It grew during the nineteenth century in eastern France and in Switzerland, until the persecution of 1903, which destroyed nearly all its establishments. Brother Firmin, Superior General, sent Brother Evariste with 32 religious to establish a province in North America, under the patronage of the Right Rev. A. A Blais, Bishop of Rimouski, Canada. The institution, incorporated in Canada by a bill of the Legislative Assembly of Quebec (May, 1905), possesses at Rimouski, a “house of formation” novitiate and scholasticate), where the young members of the congregation are taught all the high-school branches and the commercial courses both English and French. At the request of the Most Rev. L.P.A. Langevin, Arcbishop of St. Boniface, Manitoba, the institution has opened, since 1904, the colleges of St-Jean-Baptiste and of St-Pierre, Joly, Manitoba.

BROTHER CHARLES

Transcibed by Wm Stuart French, Jr

Johann Crotus

(Properly Johannes Jäger, hence often called VENATOR, “hunter,” but more commonly, in grecized form, CROTUS, “archer’).

German Humanist, b. at Dornheim, in Thuringia, c. 1480; d. probably at Halle, c. 1539. From the name of his birthplace he received the latinized appellation Rubianus and is generally known as Crotus Rubianus. At the age of eighteen he went to the University of Erfurt, then the chief centre of German Humanism, where he obtained his baccalaureate degree in 1500. Friendship with Conrad Mutianus and Ulrich von Hutten led him from being an upholder of Scholasticism to become an enthusiastic partisan of Humanism and a violent opponent of the older learning. In 1505 he induced von Hutten to leave the monastery of Fulda, but in 1506 came back with the latter from Cologne to Erfurt, where in 1508 Crotus obtained a degree of Master of Arts. After this he was absent from Erfurt for a short time as tutor to Count von Henneberg, but by 1509 he had again returned to his studies and in 1510 was the head of the monastery school at Fulda. He now formed close relations with Reuchlin and Reuchlin’s supporters in Cologne; about 1514 he was for a short time in Cologne, but soon returned to Fulda where he was ordained priest and obtained a small benefice. About 1515 he wrote the larger part of the “Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum”; the letters composed by him are the most violent in character, full of venom and stinging scorn against Scholasticism and monasticism. In 1517 he settled in Bologna as tutor of the Fuchs brothers, and during his stay at this city, up to 1519, he studied successively jurisprudence and theology. Before leaving Italy he went in company with Eoban Hesse to Rome (1519) in order to observe for himself the “see of corruption.” While in Bologna he had become acquainted with Luther’s writings and actions, learned of the violent stand he had taken and approved it as the beginning of a greatly needed reform of the Church; apparently also he had a share in the anonymous broadsides which appeared in Germany. From 1520 he was again in Erfurt where he was made rector of the university, and here in 1521 he gave Luther a warm greeting when the latter passed through Erfurt on his way to Worms. Soon after this Crotus returned to Fulda where Melancthon visited him in 1524. In the same year Crotus entered the service of Duke Albrecht of Prussia at Königsberg and endeavoured to justify the duke’s withdrawal from the old Faith in a pamphlet directed against the new master of the Teutonic Order entitled “Chirstliche Vermahnung” (1526).

Weary of his position at Königsburg as early as 1529, he went first, in 1530, to Leipzig, and soon afterwards to Halle; here Crotus accepted service under Cardinal Albrecht of Brandenburg as councillor and received a canonry. As a genuine Humanist Crotus had for a long time felt disgusted with the public disturbance and bitter polemics that resulted from the Lutheran movement; he was still more dissatisfied with the grave disorder in morals and religion. Thus in Halle, probably through the influence of its canons, he positively returned to Catholicism, which he seems, however, never to have abandoned consciously. The first clear notice of this change of views is the “Apologia, qua respondetur temeritati calumniatorum non verentium confictis criminibus in populare odium protrahere reverendissimum in Christo patrem et dominum Albertum.” (Leptzig, 1531). The “Apologia” contained a positive denial of the accusations made by Alexander Crosner or Luther that Cardinal Albrecht, in the persecution of the new doctrine and in his opposition to granting the cup to the laity, had acted with extreme cruelty and lack of consideration. Crotus showed that the Reformation had resulted in the sanctioning of all kinds of immorality and blasphemy, and that where the “Antipopes” ruled, those of other beliefs were cruelly oppressed, denounced by spies and persecuted. Various pamphlets, chiefly anonymous, were issued in reply to the “Apologia” and the author was violently attacked by Justus Jonas and other of his former friends. After this Luther always gave the name of Dr. Kröte (toad) to his one-time adherent, the dreaded opponent in former days of Scholasticism and monasticism. Suspicion was often thrown on the motives for the inner change in Crotus. His connexion with the Church was attributed to desire for princely favour and greed of gain. But there can be no doubt that his resolution was a deliberate one and that he belonged to Luther’s party only so long as he hoped in this way to attain a reform of the Church.

As soon as there was a formal break with the Church and the pretended reform movement produced only anarchy in religion and morals, he turned his back on it without giving a thought to the hatred of his friends of earlier days. In a letter dated 1532 to Duke Albrecht he states his religious views clearly: “with the help of God he intends to remain in communion with the Church and allow all innovations to pass over like a disagreeable smoke.” Crotus appears to have spent the last years of his life entirely at Halle, but nothing positive is known on the subject. Most probably Georg Witzel urged him at different times to write again in defence of the Church, and he seems, indeed, to have made an effort to do this. But afterwards we hear that the position, “unworthy of a man,” in which he was placed, did not permit him to take up his pen on behalf of religion. It is not entirely certain whether his canonry or his character of official in the service of Cardinal Albrecht laid these limitations on him. Yet he apparently had an important influence on the writings of others as, e.g. on those of Witzel. Crotus himself as a humanist of strong intellectual tastes, preferred above all the quiet of his study. It may be that the revolutionary tumult in religious and social life took from him both the desire and the strength to use the pen which had formerly so unmercifully scourged the weaknesses of his opponents. He seems, however, to have influenced the religious demeanour of his master, Cardinal Albrecht, in the cardinal’s later years. The last scanty information concerning Crotus reaches to the year 1539; his death occurred, if not in this year, certainly not much later.

KAMPSCHULTE, Die Universität Erfurt in ihrem Verhältnis su dem Humanismus und der Reformation, (Trier, 1858–60), I, 197 sqq.; II, 43, sqq.; IDEM, De Joanno Croto Rubiano (Bonn, 1862); RXSS, Die Convertiten seit der Reformation (Freiburg, 1866), I, 95–122; EINERT, Crotus Rubianus: ein Beitrag zur Gesch des Humanismus in Thüringen in Zeitschrift für Gesch und Altertumskunde Thüringens, new ser., IV, 1–75; REDLICH, Cardinal Albrecht von Brandenburg und das neue Stift zu Halle (Mainz, 1900), 55–69; WELTE in Kirchenlex., III, 1206 sqq.; KNOD, Deutsche Studenten in Bologna (Berlin, 1899), 463 sqq.

JOSEPH SAUER

Franciscan Crown

(Or Seraphic Rosary.)

A Rosary consisting of seven decades in commemoration of the seven joys of the Blessed Virgin (the Annunciation, Visitation, Birth of our Lord, Adoration of the Magi, Finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple, the Resurrection of Our Lord, and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin and her Coronation in heaven), in use among the members of the three orders of St. Francis.

The Franciscan Crown dates back to the year 1422. Wadding tells us that a young novice who had that year been received into the Franciscan Order had, previous to his reception, been accustomed to adorn a statue of the Blessed Virgin with a wreath of fresh and beautiful flowers as a mark of his piety and devotion. Not being able to continue this practice in the novitiate, he decided to return to the world. The Blessed Virgin appeared to him and prevented him from carrying out his purpose. She then instructed him how, by reciting daily a rosary of seven decades in honour of her seven joys, he might weave a crown that would be more pleasing to her than the material wreath of flowers he had been wont to place on her statue. From that time the practice of reciting the crown of the seven joys became general in the order.

The manner of reciting the Franciscan Rosary is as follows: The Apostles’ Creed, the Our Father, and three Hail Marys having been said as usual, the mystery to be meditated upon is introduced after the word Jesus of the first Hail Mary of each decade, thus: “Jesus, whom thou didst joyfully conceive,” “Jesus, whom thou didst joyfully carry to Elizabeth,” and so on for the remaining five decades, which are given in most manuals of Franciscan devotion. At the end of the seventh decade two Hail Marys are added to complete the number of years (72) that the Blessed Virgin is said to have lived on earth.

There are other ways of reciting the Crown but the one given seems to be in more general use. The plenary Indulgence attached to the recitation of the Franciscan Crown, and applicable to the dead, may be gained as often as the crown is recited.

It is not required that the beads be blessed, or in fact that beads be used at all, since the Indulgence is not attached to the material rosary, but to the recitation of the prayers as such. In 1905 Pope Pius X, in response to the petition of the Procurator General of the Friars Minor, enriched the Franciscan Crown with several new Indulgences that may be gained by all the faithful. Those who assist at a public recitation of the Franciscan Crown participate in all the Indulgences attached to the Seraphic Rosary that are gained by the members of the Franciscan Order. It is required, however, that beads be used and that they be blessed by a priest having the proper faculties. A translation of the pontifical Brief is given in “St. Anthony’s Almanac” for 1909.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Crown of Thorns

Although Our Saviour’s Crown of Thorns is mentioned by three Evangelists and is often alluded to by the early Christian Fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others, there are comparatively few writers of the first six centuries who speak of it as a relic known to be still in existence and venerated by the faithful. It is remarkable that St. Jerome, who expatiates upon the Cross, the Title, and the Nails discovered by St. Helena (Tobler, Itinera Hierosolym., II, 36), says nothing either of the Lance or of the Crown of Thorns, and the silence of Andreas of Crete in the eighth century is even more surprising. Still there are some exceptions. St. Paulinus of Nola, writing after 409, refers to “the thorns with which Our Saviour was crowned” as relics held in honour along with the Cross to which He was nailed and the pillar at which He was scourged (Ep. ad Macar. in Migne, P. L., LXI, 407). Cassiodorus (c. 570), when commenting on Ps. lxxxvi, speaks of the Crown of Thorns among the other relics which are the glory of the earthly Jerusalem. “There,” he says, “we may behold the thorny crown, which was only set upon the head of Our Redeemer in order that all the thorns of the world might be gathered together and broken” (Migne, P. L., LXX, 621). When Gregory of Tours (“De gloriâ mart.” in “Mon. Germ. Hist.: Scrip. Merov.,” I, 492) avers that the thorns in the Crown still looked green, a freshness which was miraculously renewed each day, he does not much strengthen the historical testimony for the authenticity of the relic, but the “Breviarius,” and the “Itinerary” of Antoninus of Piacenza, both of the sixth century, clearly state that the Crown of Thorns was at that period shown in the church upon Mount Sion (Geyer, Itinera Hierosolymitana, 154 and 174). From these fragments of evidence and others of later date—the “Pilgrimage” of the monk Bernard shows that the relic was still at Mount Sion in 870—it is certain that what purported to be the Crown of Thorns was venerated at Jerusalem for several hundred years.

If we may adopt the conclusion of M. de Mély, the whole Crown was only transferred to Byzantium about 1063, although it seems that smaller portions must have been presented to the Eastern emperors at an earlier date. In any case Justinian, who died in 565, is stated to have given a thorn to St. Germanus, Bishop of Paris, which was long preserved at Saint-Germain-des-Prés, while the Empress Irene, in 798 or 802, sent Charlemagne several thorns which were deposited by him at Aachen. Eight of these are known to have been there at the consecration of the basilica of Aachen by Pope Leo III, and the subsequent history of several of them can be traced without difficulty. Four were given to Saint-Corneille of Compiègne in 877 by Charles the Bald. One was sent by Hugh the Great to the Anglo-Saxon King Athelstan in 927 on the occasion of certain marriage negotiations, and eventually found its way to Malmesbury Abbey. Another was presented to a Spanish princess about 1160, and again another was taken to Andechs in Germany in the year 1200.

In 1238 Baldwin II, the Latin Emperor of Constantinople, anxious to obtain support for his tottering empire, offered the Crown of Thorns to St. Louis, King of France. It was then actually in the hands of the Venetians as security for a heavy loan, but it was redeemed and conveyed to Paris where St. Louis built the Sainte-Chapelle (completed 1248) for its reception. There the great relic remained until the Revolution, when, after finding a home for a while in the Bibliothèque Nationale, it was eventually restored to the Church and was deposited in the Cathedral of Notre-Dame in 1806. Ninety years later (in 1896) a magnificent new reliquary of rock crystal was made for it, covered for two- thirds of its circumference with a silver case splendidly wrought and jewelled. The Crown thus preserved consists only of a circlet of rushes, without any trace of thorns. Authorities are agreed that a sort of helmet of thorns must have been platted by the Roman soldiers, this band of rushes being employed to hold the thorns together. It seems likely according to M. De Mély, that already at the time when the circlet was brought to Paris the sixty or seventy thorns, which seem to have been afterwards distributed by St. Louis and his successors, had been separated from the band of rushes and were kept in a different reliquary. None of these now remain at Paris. Some small fragments of rush are also preserved apart from the sainte Couronne at Paris, e. g. at Arras and at Lyons. With regard to the origin and character of the thorns, both tradition and existing remains suggest that they must have come from the bush botanically known as Zizyphus spina Christi, more popularly, the jujube-tree. This reaches the height of fifteen or twenty feet and is found growing in abundance by the wayside around Jerusalem. The crooked branches of this shrub are armed with thorns growing in pairs, a straight spine and a curved one commonly occurring together at each point. The relic preserved in the Capella della Spina at Pisa, as well as that at Trier, which though their early history is doubtful and obscure, are among the largest in size, afford a good illustration of this peculiarity.

That all the reputed holy thorns of which notice has survived cannot by any possibility be authentic will be disputed by no one. M. de Mély has been able to enumerate more than 700 such relics. The statement in one medieval obituary that Peter de Averio gave to the cathedral of Angers “unam de spinis quae fuit apposita coronae spinae nostri Redemptoris” (de Mély, p. 362), meaning seemingly a thorn which has touched the real Crown of Thorns, throws a flood of light upon the probable origin of many such relics. Again, even in comparatively modern times it is not always easy to trace the history of these objects of devotion, which were often divided and thus multiplied. Two “holy thorns” are at present venerated, the one at St. Michael’s church in Ghent, the other at Stonyhurst College, both professing, upon what seems quite satisfactory evidence, to be the thorn given by Mary Queen of Scots to Thomas Percy Earl of Northumberland (see “The Month,” April, 1882, 540–556). Finally, it should be pointed out that the appearance of the Crown of Thorns in art, notably upon the head of Christ in representations of the Crucifixion, is posterior to the time of St. Louis and the building of the Sainte-Chapelle. Some archaeologists have professed to discover a figure of the Crown of Thorns in the circle which sometimes surrounds the emblem on early Christian sarcophagi, but it seems to be quite as probable that this is only meant for a laurel-wreath.

The only recent and authoritative study of the whole subject is that of De Mély, forming the third volume of RIANT, Exuviae Constantinopolitanae (Paris, 1904).

HERBERT THURSTON

Abbey of Croyland

(Or Crowland.)

A monastery of the Benedictine Order in Lincolnshire, sixteen miles from Stamford and thirteen from Peterborough. It was founded in memory of St. Guthlac, early in the eighth century, by Ethelbald, King of Mercia, but was entirely destroyed and the community slaughtered by the Danes in 866. Refounded in the reign of King Edred, it was again destroyed by fire in 1091, but rebuilt about twenty years later by Abbot Joffrid. In 1170 the greater part of the abbey and church was once more burnt down and once more rebuilt, under Abbot Edward. From this time the history of Croyland was one of growing and almost unbroken prosperity down to the time of the Dissolution. Richly endowed by royal and noble visitors to the shrine of St. Guthlac, it became one of the most opulent of East Anglian abbeys; and owning to its isolated position in the heart of the fen country, its security and peace were comparatively undisturbed during the great civil wars and other national troubles. The first abbot (in Ethelbald’s reign) is said to have been Kenulph, a monk of Evesham; and one of the most notable was Ingulphus, who ruled from 1075 to 1109, and whose pseudo-chronicle was long considered the chief authority for the history of the abbey, though it is now acknowledged to be a compilation of the fifteenth century. At the time of the Dissolution the abbot was John Welles, or Bridges, who with his twenty-seven monks subscribed to the Royal Supremacy in 1534, and five years later surrendered his house to the king. The revenue of the abbey at this time has been variously estimated at 1083 and 1217 pounds. The site and buildings were granted in Edward VI s reign to Edward Lord Clinton, and afterwards came into the possession of the Hunter family. The remains of the abbey were fortified by the Royalists in 1643, and besieged and taken by Cromwell in May of that year. The abbey church comprised a nave of nine bays with aisles, 183 feet long by 87 wide, an apsidal choir of five bays 90 feet long, a central tower and detached bell-tower at the east end. The existing remains consist of the north aisle, still used (as it was from the earliest times) as the parish church; the splendid west front, the lower (twelfth century) and the upper part (fourteenth century) elaborately decorated with arcading and statues, it is thought in imitation of Wells cathedral; and a few piers and arches of the nave. Much careful restoration and repair has been carried out since 1860, under Sir Gilbert Scott, Mr. J.L. Pearson, and other eminent architects.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Cruelty to Animals

PAGAN ANTIQUITY

The first ethical writers of pagan antiquity to advocate the duty of kindness towards the brute creation were Pythagoras and Empedocles. Holding the doctrine of metempsychosis, or the transmigration of human souls into the bodies of lower animals after death, these philosophers taught that animals share in human rights, and that it is a crime to kill them. These ideas, together with an appreciation of the services rendered by domestic animals to man, found some expression in early Roman legislation. The error of ascribing human rights to animals is condemned by Cicero (De Finibus, Book III, xx).

Old Testament

The Old Testament inculcates kindness towards animals. The Jews were forbidden to muzzle the ox that treads out the corn (Deuteronomy 25:4) or to yolk together an ox and an ass (Deuteronomy 22:10). Some other texts which are frequently quoted as instances are not so much to recommend kind treatment of animals as to insist upon duties of neighbourly goodwill. The prohibition against seething the kid in its mother’s milk, a process in which there is no cruelty at all, and the one against taking a mother-bird with her young, seem to have a religious rather than a humanitarian significance.

New Testament

The New Testament is almost silent on this subject. Even when St. Paul cites the Mosaic prohibition against muzzling the ox, he brushes aside the literal in favour of a symbolic signification (I Cor. 9:9 sq.). The Fathers of the Church insist but little on this point of duty. Nevertheless, Christian teaching and practice from the beginning resect in a general way the Scriptural ideal of righteousness which is expressed in the words: “The just regardeth the lives of his beasts: but the bowels of the wicked are cruel” (Proverbs 12:10). The hagiological literature of monastic life in the Middle Ages, which so largely formed and guided the moral sentiment of the Christian world, as Lecky sets forth with ample evidence, “represents one of the most striking efforts made in Christendom to inculcate a feeling of kindness and pity towards the brute creation” (History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne, II, 161 sqq.). This considerate feeling was a characteristic of many holy personages, even before St. Francis of Assisi and some of his followers carried it to a degree that seems almost incredible.

The Scholastics

The scholastic theologians condemn the infliction of needless suffering on animals, chiefly because of the injurious effects on the character of the perpetrator. Thus St. Thomas, in his Summa Contra Gentiles (Book II, 112), after refuting the error that it is not lawful to take the lives of brutes, explains the import of the above-mentioned texts of Scripture. He says that these prohibitions are issued either

lest anyone by exercising cruelty towards brutes may become cruel also towards men; or, because an injury to brutes may result in loss to the owner, or on account of some symbolic signification.

Elsewhere ( I-II:102:6 ad 8um) he states that God’s purpose in recommending kind treatment of the brute creation is to dispose men to pity and tenderness for one another. While the scholastics rest their condemnation of cruelty to animals on its demoralizing influence, their general teaching concerning the nature of man’s rights and duties furnishes principles which have but to be applied in order to establish the direct and essential sinfulness of cruelty to the animal world, irrespective of the results of such conduct on the character of those who practise it.

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Catholic ethics has been criticized by some zoophilists because it refuses to admit that animals have rights. But it is indisputable that, when properly understood and fairly judged, Catholic doctrine—though it does not concede rights to the brute creation—denounces cruelty to animals as vigorously and as logically as do those moralists who make our duty in this respect the correlative of a right in the animals.

In order to establish a binding obligation to avoid the wanton infliction of pain on the brutes, it is not necessary to acknowledge any right inherent in them. Our duty in this respect is part of our duty towards God. From the juristic standpoint the visible world with which man comes in contact is divided into persons and non-persons. For the latter term the word “things” is usually employed. Only a person, that is, a being possessed of reason and self-control, can be the subject of rights and duties; or, to express the same idea in terms more familiar to adherents of other schools of thought, only beings who are ends in themselves, and may not be treated as mere means to the perfection of other beings, can possess rights. Rights and duties are moral ties which can exist only in a moral being, or person. Beings that may be treated simply as means to the perfection of persons can have no rights, and to this category the brute creation belongs. In the Divine plan of the universe the lower creatures are subordinated to the welfare of man.

But while these animals are, in contradistinction to persons, classed as things, it is none the less true that between them and the non-sentient world there exists a profound difference of nature which we are bound to consider in our treatment of them. The very essence of the moral law is that we respect and obey the order established by the Creator. Now, the animal is a nobler manifestation of His power and goodness than the lower forms of material existence. In imparting to the brute creation a sentient nature capable of suffering—a nature which the animal shares in common with ourselves—God placed on our dominion over them a restriction which does not exist with regard to our dominion over the non-sentient world. We are bound to act towards them in a manner conformable to their nature. We may lawfully use them for our reasonable wants and welfare, even though such employment of them necessarily inflicts pain upon them. But the wanton infliction of pain is not the satisfaction of any reasonable need, and, being an outrage against the Divinely established order, is therefore sinful. This principle, by which, at least in the abstract, we may solve the problem of the lawfulness of vivisection and other cognate questions, is tersely put by Zigliara:

The service of man is the end appointed by the Creator for brute animals. When, therefore, man, with no reasonable purpose, treats the brute cruelly he does wrong, not because he violates the right of the brute, but because his action conflicts with the order and the design of the Creator (Philosophia Moralis, 9th ed., Rome, p. 136).

With more feeling, but with no less exactness, the late Cardinal Manning expressed the same doctrine:

It is perfectly true that obligations and duties are between moral persons, and therefore the lower animals are not susceptible of the moral obligations which we owe to one another; but we owe a seven-fold obligation to the Creator of those animals. Our obligation and moral duty is to Him who made them and if we wish to know the limit and the broad outline of our obligation, I say at once it is His nature and His perfections, and among these perfections one is, most profoundly, that of Eternal Mercy. And therefore, although a poor mule or a poor horse is not, indeed, a moral person, yet the Lord and Maker of the mule is the highest Lawgiver, and His nature is a law unto Himself. And in giving a dominion over His creatures to man, He gave it subject to the condition that it should be used in conformity to His perfections which is His own law, and therefore our law (The Zoophilist, London, 1 April, 1887).

While Catholic ethical doctrine insists upon the merciful treatment of animals, it does not place kindness towards them on the same plane of duty as benevolence towards our fellow-men. Nor does it approve of unduly magnifying, to the neglect of higher duties, our obligations concerning animals. Excessive fondness for them is no sure index of moral worth; it may be carried to un-Christian excess; and it can coexist with grave laxity in far more important matters. There are many imitators of Schopenhauer, who loved his dog and hated his kind.

JAMES J. FOX.

Cruet

A small vessel used for containing the wine and water required for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Two are always employed. The Roman Missal (Rubricæ Gen., XX) directs that they should be made of glass. This is the most suitable material because easily cleaned, and its transparency obviates danger of confounding the water and wine. Other materials, however, are used, such as gold, silver, and other precious metals. In this case it is advisable to have a V (Vinum) on the wine and an A (aqua) on the water cruet, so that one may be easily distinguished from the other. In shape nothing is prescribed, but the vessels should have a good firm base on which to stand securely and a fairly wide neck so as to admit of being easily cleansed. They should have a cover to keep away flies and insects. Formerly the wine for the Holy Sacrifice was brought by the faithful in a jar-shaped vessel. It was then received by the deacon and poured into the chalice, a vestige of which custom is still observable at the consecration of a bishop.

PATRICK MORRISROE

Bull of the Crusade

A Bull granting indulgences to those who took part in the wars against the infidels. These indulgences were similar to those which, as far back as the eleventh century, had been granted to the faithful of the Spanish Mark who took part in the work of building churches and monasteries, or who gave alms to be devoted to this purpose. The first of these Crusade Bulls which concerned Spain was that of Urban II to the Counts Berenguer Ramón de Barcelona and Armengal de Besalú in 1089 at the time of the reconquest of Tarragona, and that of Gelasius II to Alfonso I of Aragon, when he undertook to reconquer Saragossa in 1118. Clement IV in 1265 issued a general Bull for the whole of Spain, when the Kings of Aragon and Castile joined in the expedition against Murcia. In the course of time these pontifical concessions became more and more frequent; in the reign of the Catholic kings alone they were granted in 1478, 1479, 1481, 1482, 1485, 1494, 1503, and 1505, and were continued during the following reigns, that granted by Gregory XIII in 1573 being renewed by his successors.

The alms given by the faithful in response to this Bull, which were at first used exclusively for carrying on the war against the infidels, were afterwards used for the construction and repair of churches and other pious works; sometimes they were also used to defray expenses of the State. The Cortes of Valladolid of 1523 and that of Madrid of 1592 petitioned that this money should not be used for any other purpose than that for which it had originally been intended by the donors, but, notwithstanding the provisions made by Philip III in compliance with this request, the abuse already mentioned continued. After 1847 the funds derived from this source were devoted to the endowment of churches and the clergy, this disposition being ratified by a law in 1849 and in the Concordat of 1851, still in force.

In virtue of the concessions granted by this Bull, the faithful of the Spanish dominions who had fulfilled the necessary conditions could gain the plenary indulgence, granted to those who fought for the reconquest of the Holy Land and to those who went to Rome in the year of Jubilee, provided they went to confession and received Holy Communion. They enjoyed also the privilege of being absolved twice of sins and censures reserved to the Holy See and the ordinary, except open heresy, and others concerning ecclesiastics; to have vows which could not be fulfilled without difficulty commuted by their confessor, unless failure to fulfil them would be to the disadvantage of another; also simple vows of perpetual chastity, of religious profession, and of pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Those who visited five churches or altars, or the same altar five times, and prayed for the intentions of the Crusade, could gain the indulgences granted to those who visited the stations in Rome. The Bull, moreover, permitted the faithful of the Spanish dominions to eat meat on all the days of Lent and other days of fast and abstinence, except Ash Wednesday, the Fridays of Lent, the last four days of Holy Week, and the vigils of the feasts of the Nativity, Pentecost, the Assumption, and Sts. Peter and Paul.

MENDO, Bullæ Sacræ Cruciatæ Dilucidatio (Madrid, 1651); LLAMAZARES, Historia de la Bula de la Santa Cruzada (Madrid, 1860); SALCES, Explicación de la Bula de la Santa Cruzada (Madrid, 1881); GOTTLOB, Kreuzablass und Almosenablass (Stuttgart, 1906), 195–246.

EDUARDO DE HINOJOSA

Crusades

The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.

The origin of the word may be traced to the cross made of cloth and worn as a badge on the outer garment of those who took part in these enterprises. Medieval writers use the terms crux (pro cruce transmarina, Charter of 1284, cited by Du Cange s.v. crux), croisement (Joinville), croiserie (Monstrelet), etc. Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication. The wars waged by the Spaniards against the Moors constituted a continual crusade from the eleventh to the sixteenth century; in the north of Europe crusades were organized against the Prussians and Lithuanians; the extermination of the Albigensian heresy was due to a crusade, and, in the thirteenth century the popes preached crusades against John Lackland and Frederick II. But modern literature has abused the word by applying it to all wars of a religious character, as, for instance, the expedition of Heraclius against the Persians in the seventh century and the conquest of Saxony by Charlemagne.

The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc. Of all these wars undertaken in the name of Christendom, the most important were the Eastern Crusades, which are the only ones treated in this article.

DIVISION

It has been customary to describe the Crusades as eight in number:

the first, 1095–1101;

the second, headed by Louis VII, 1145–47;

the third, conducted by Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur-de-Lion, 1188–92;

the fourth, during which Constantinople was taken, 1204;

the fifth, which included the conquest of Damietta, 1217;

the sixth, in which Frederick II took part (1228–29); also Thibaud de Champagne and Richard of Cornwall (1239);

the seventh, led by St. Louis, 1249–52;

the eighth, also under St. Louis, 1270.

This division is arbitrary and excludes many important expeditions, among them those of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In reality the Crusades continued until the end of the seventeenth century, the crusade of Lepanto occurring in 1571, that of Hungary in 1664, and the crusade of the Duke of Burgundy to Candia, in 1669. A more scientific division is based on the history of the Christian settlements in the East; therefore the subject will be considered in the following order:

I. Origin of the Crusades; II. Foundation of Christian states in the East; III. First destruction of the Christian states (1144–87); IV. Attempts to restore the Christian states and the crusade against Saint-Jean d’Acre (1192–98); V. The crusade against Constantinople (1204); VI. The thirteenth-century crusades (1217–52); VII. Final loss of the Christian colonies of the East (1254–91); VIII. The fourteenth-century crusade and the Ottoman invasion; IX. The crusade in the fifteenth century; X. Modifications and survival of the idea of the crusade.

I. ORIGIN OF THE CRUSADES

The origin of the Crusades is directly traceable to the moral and political condition of Western Christendom in the eleventh century. At that time Europe was divided into numerous states whose sovereigns were absorbed in tedious and petty territorial disputes while the emperor, in theory the temporal head of Christendom, was wasting his strength in the quarrel over Investitures. The popes alone had maintained a just estimate of Christian unity; they realized to what extent the interests of Europe were threatened by the Byzantine Empire and the Mohammedan tribes, and they alone had a foreign policy whose traditions were formed under Leo IX and Gregory VII. The reform effected in the Church and the papacy through the influence of the monks of Cluny had increased the prestige of the Roman pontiff in the eyes of all Christian nations; hence none but the pope could inaugurate the international movement that culminated in the Crusades. But despite his eminent authority the pope could never have persuaded the Western peoples to arm themselves for the conquest of the Holy Land had not the immemorial relations between Syria and the West favoured his design. Europeans listened to the voice of Urban II because their own inclination and historic traditions impelled them towards the Holy Sepulchre.

From the end of the fifth century there had been no break in their intercourse with the Orient. In the early Christian period colonies of Syrians had introduced the religious ideas, art, and culture of the East into the large cities of Gaul and Italy. The Western Christians in turn journeyed in large numbers to Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, either to visit the Holy Places or to follow the ascetic life among the monks of the Thebaid or Sinai. There is still extant the itinerary of a pilgrimage from Bordeaux to Jerusalem, dated 333; in 385 St. Jerome and St. Paula founded the first Latin monasteries at Bethlehem. Even the Barbarian invasion did not seem to dampen the ardour for pilgrimages to the East. The Itinerary of St. Silvia (Etheria) shows the organization of these expeditions, which were directed by clerics and escorted by armed troops. In the year 600, St. Gregory the Great had a hospice erected in Jerusalem for the accommodation of pilgrims, sent alms to the monks of Mount Sinai (“Vita Gregorii” in “Acta SS.,” March 11, 132), and, although the deplorable condition of Eastern Christendom after the Arab invasion rendered this intercourse more difficult, it did not by any means cease.

As early as the eighth century Anglo-Saxons underwent the greatest hardships to visit Jerusalem. The journey of St. Willibald, Bishop of Eichstädt, took seven years (722–29) and furnishes an idea of the varied and severe trials to which pilgrims were subject (Itiner. Latina, 1, 241–283). After their conquest of the West, the Carolingians endeavoured to improve the condition of the Latins settled in the East; in 762 Pepin the Short entered into negotiations with the Caliph of Bagdad. In Rome, on 30 November, 800, the very day on which Leo III invoked the arbitration of Charlemagne, ambassadors from Haroun al-Raschid delivered to the King of the Franks the keys of the Holy Sepulchre, the banner of Jersualem, and some precious relics (Einhard, “Annales,” ad an. 800, in “Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.,” I, 187); this was an acknowledgment of the Frankish protectorate over the Christians of Jerusalem. That churches and monasteries were built at Charlemagne’s expense is attested by a sort of a census of the monasteries of Jerusalem dated 808 (“Commemoratio de Casis Dei” in “Itiner. Hieros.,” I, 209). In 870, at the time of the pilgrimage of Bernard the Monk (Itiner. Hierosol., I, 314), these institutions were still very prosperous, and it has been abundantly proved that alms were sent regularly from the West to the Holy Land. In the tenth century, just when the political and social order of Europe was most troubled, knights, bishops, and abbots, actuated by devotion and a taste for adventure, were wont to visit Jerusalem and pray at the Holy Sepulchre without being molested by the Mohammedans. Suddenly, in 1009, Hakem, the Fatimite Caliph of Egypt, in a fit of madness ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all the Christian establishments in Jerusalem. For years thereafter Christians were cruelly persecuted. (See the recital of an eyewitness, Iahja of Antioch, in Schlumberger’s “Epopée byzantine,” II, 442.) In 1027 the Frankish protectorate was overthrown and replaced by that of the Byzantine emperors, to whose diplomacy was due the reconstruction of the Holy Sepulchre. The Christian quarter was even surrounded by a wall, and some Amalfi merchants, vassals of the Greek emperors, built hospices in Jerusalem for pilgrims, e.g. the Hospital of St. John, cradle of the Order of Hospitallers.

Instead of diminishing, the enthusiasm of Western Christians for the pilgrimage to Jerusalem seemed rather to increase during the eleventh century. Not only princes, bishops, and knights, but even men and women of the humbler classes undertook the holy journey (Radulphus Glaber, IV, vi). Whole armies of pilgrims traversed Europe, and in the valley of the Danube hospices were established where they could replenish their provisions. In 1026 Richard, Abbot of Saint-Vannes, led 700 pilgrims into Palestine at the expense of Richard II, Duke of Normandy. In 1065 over 12,000 Germans who had crossed Europe under the command of Günther, Bishop of Bamberg, while on their way through Palestine had to seek shelter in a ruined fortress, where they defended themselves against a troop of Bedouins (Lambert of Hersfeld, in “Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.,” V, 168). Thus it is evident that at the close of the eleventh century the route to Palestine was familiar enough to Western Christians who looked upon the Holy Sepulchre as the most venerable of relics and were ready to brave any peril in order to visit it. The memory of Charlemagne’s protectorate still lived, and a trace of it is to be found in the medieval legend of this emperor’s journey to Palestine (Gaston Paris in “Romania,” 1880, p. 23).

The rise of the Seljukian Turks, however, compromised the safety of pilgrims and even threatened the independence of the Byzantine Empire and of all Christendom. In 1070 Jerusalem was taken, and in 1091 Diogenes, the Greek emperor, was defeated and made captive at Mantzikert. Asia Minor and all of Syria became the prey of the Turks. Antioch succumbed in 1084, and by 1092 not one of the great metropolitan sees of Asia remained in the possession of the Christians. Although separated from the communion of Rome since the schism of Michael Cærularius (1054), the emperors of Constantinople implored the assistance of the popes; in 1073 letters were exchanged on the subject between Michael VII and Gregory VII. The pope seriously contemplated leading a force of 50,000 men to the East in order to re-establish Christian unity, repulse the Turks, and rescue the Holy Sepulchre. But the idea of the crusade constituted only a part of this magnificent plan. (The letters of Gregory VII are in P.L., CXLVIII, 300, 325, 329, 386; cf. Riant’s critical discussion in Archives de l’Orient Latin, I, 56.) The conflict over the Investitures in 1076 compelled the pope to abandon his projects; the Emperors Nicephorus Botaniates and Alexius Comnenus were unfavourable to a religious union with Rome; finally war broke out between the Byzantine Empire and the Normans of the Two Sicilies.

It was Pope Urban II who took up the plans of Gregory VII and gave them more definite shape. A letter from Alexius Comnenus to Robert, Count of Flanders, recorded by the chroniclers, Guibert de Nogent (“Historiens Occidentaux des Croisades,” ed. by the Académie des Inscriptions, IV, 131) and Hugues de Fleury (in “Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.,” IX, 392), seems to imply that the crusade was instigated by the Byzantine emperor, but this has been proved false (Chalandon, Essai sur le règne d’Alexis Comnène, appendix), Alexius having merely sought to enroll five hundred Flemish knights in the imperial army (Anna Comnena, Alexiad., VII, iv). The honour of initiating the crusade has also been attributed to Peter the Hermit, a recluse of Picardy, who, after a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and a vision in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, went to Urban II and was commissioned by him to preach the crusade. However, though eyewitnesses of the crusade mention his preaching, they do not ascribe to him the all-important rôle assigned him later by various chroniclers, e.g. Albert of Aix and especially William of Tyre. (See Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite Leipzig, 1879.) The idea of the crusade is chiefly attributed to Pope Urban II (1095), and the motives that actuated him are clearly set forth by his contemporaries: “On beholding the enormous injury that all, clergy or people, brought upon the Christian Faith . . . at the news that the Rumanian provinces had been taken from the Christians by the Turks, moved with compassion and impelled by the love of God, he crossed the mountains and descended into Gaul” (Foucher de Chartres, I, in “Histoire des Crois.,” III, 321). Of course it is possible that in order to swell his forces, Alexius Comnenus solicited assistance in the West; however, it was not he but the pope who agitated the great movement which filled the Greeks with anxiety and terror.

II. FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN STATES IN THE EAST

After travelling through Burgundy and the south of France, Urban II convoked a council at Clermont-Ferrand, in Auvergne. It was attended by fourteen archbishops, 250 bishops, and 400 abbots; moreover a great number of knights and men of all conditions came and encamped on the plain of Chantoin, to the east of Clermont, 18–28 November, 1095. On 27 November, the pope himself addressed the assembled multitudes, exhorting them to go forth and rescue the Holy Sepulchre. Amid wonderful enthusiasm and cries of “God wills it!” all rushed towards the pontiff to pledge themselves by vow to depart for the Holy Land and receive the cross of red material to be worn on the shoulder. At the same time the pope sent letters to all Christian nations, and the movement made rapid headway throughout Europe. Preachers of the crusade appeared everywhere, and on all sides sprang up disorganized, undisciplined, penniless hordes, almost destitute of equipment, who, surging eastward through the valley of the Danube, plundered as they went along and murdered the Jews in the German cities. One of these bands, headed by Folkmar, a German cleric, was slaughtered by the Hungarians. Peter the Hermit, however, and the German knight, Walter the Pennyless (Gautier Sans Avoir), finally reached Constantinople with their disorganized troops. To save the city from plunder Alexius Comnenus ordered them to be conveyed across the Bosporus (August, 1096); in Asia Minor they turned to pillage and were nearly all slain by the Turks. Meanwhile the regular crusade was being organized in the West and, according to a well-conceived plan, the four principal armies were to meet at Constantinople.

Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Lower Lorraine at the head of the people of Lorraine, the Germans, and the French from the north, followed the valley of the Danube, crossed Hungary, and arrived at Constantinople, 23 December, 1096.

Hugh of Vermandois, brother of King Philip I of France, Robert Courte-Heuse, Duke of Normandy, and Count Stephen of Blois, led bands of French and Normans across the Alps and set sail from the ports of Apulia for Dyrrachium (Durazzo), whence they took the “Via Egnatia” to Constantinople and assembled there in May, 1097.

The French from the south, under the leadership of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Count of Toulouse, and of Adhemar of Monteil, Bishop of Puy and papal legate, began to fight their way through the longitudinal valleys of the Eastern Alps and, after bloody conflicts with the Slavonians, reached Constantinople at the end of April, 1097.

Lastly, the Normans of Southern Italy, won over by the enthusiasm of the bands of crusaders that passed through their country, embarked for Epirus under the command of Bohemond and Tancred, one being the eldest son, the other the nephew, of Robert Guiscard. Crossing the Byzantine Empire, they succeeded in reaching Constantinople, 26 April, 1097.

The appearance of the crusading armies at Constantinople raised the greatest trouble, and helped to bring about in the future irremediable misunderstandings between the Greeks and the Latin Christians. The unsolicited invasion of the latter alarmed Alexius, who tried to prevent the concentration of all these forces at Constantinople by transporting to Asia Minor each Western army in the order of its arrival; moreover, he endeavoured to extort from the leaders of the crusade a promise that they would restore to the Greek Empire the lands they were about to conquer. After resisting the imperial entreaties throughout the winter, Godfrey of Bouillon, hemmed in at Pera, at length consented to take the oath of fealty. Bohemond, Robert Courte-Heuse, Stephen of Blois, and the other crusading chiefs unhesitatingly assumed the same obligation; Raymond of St-Gilles, however, remained obdurate.

Transported into Asia Minor, the crusaders laid siege to the city of Nicæa, but Alexius negotiated with the Turks, had the city delivered to him, and prohibited the crusaders from entering it (1 June, 1097). After their victory over the Turks at the battle of Dorylæum on 1 July, 1097, the Christians entered upon the high plateaux of Asia Minor. Constantly harrassed by a relentless enemy, overcome by the excessive heat, and sinking under the weight of their leathern armour covered with iron scales, their sufferings were wellnigh intolerable. In September, 1097, Tancred and Baldwin, brothers of Godfrey of Bouillon, left the bulk of the army and entered Armenian territory. At Tarsus a feud almost broke out between them, but fortunately they became reconciled. Tancred took possession of the towns of Cilicia, whilst Baldwin, summoned by the Armenians, crossed the Euphrates in October, 1097, and, after marrying an Armenian princess, was proclaimed Lord of Edessa. Meanwhile the crusaders, revictualled by the Armenians of the Taurus region, made their way into Syria and on 20 October, 1097, reached the fortified city of Antioch, which was protected by a wall flanked with 450 towers, stocked by the Ameer Jagi-Sian with immense quantities of provisions. Thanks to the assistance of carpenters and engineers who belonged to a Genoese fleet that had arrived at the mouth of the Orontes, the crusaders were enabled to construct battering-machines and to begin the siege of the city. Eventually Bohemond negotiated with a Turkish chief who surrendered one of the towers, and on the night of 2 June, 1098, the crusaders took Antioch by storm. The very next day they were in turn besieged within the city by the army of Kerbûga, Ameer of Mosul. Plague and famine cruelly decimated their ranks, and many of them, among others Stephen of Blois, escaped under cover of night. The army was on the verge of giving way to discouragement when its spirits were suddenly revived by the discovery of the Holy Lance, resulting from the dream of a Provençal priest named Pierre Barthélemy. On 28 June, 1098, Kerbûga’s army was effectually repulsed, but, instead of marching on Jerusalem without delay, the chiefs spent several months in a quarrel due to the rivalry of Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Bohemond, both of whom claimed the right to Antioch. It was not until April, 1099, that the march towards Jerusalem was begun, Bohemond remaining in possession of Antioch while Raymond seized on Tripoli. On 7 June the crusaders began the siege of Jerusalem. Their predicament would have been serious, indeed, had not another Genoese fleet arrived at Jaffa and, as at Antioch, furnished the engineers necessary for a siege. After a general procession which the crusaders made barefooted around the city walls amid the insults and incantations of Mohammedan sorcerers, the attack began 14 July, 1099. Next day the Christians entered Jerusalem from all sides and slew its inhabitants regardless of age or sex. Having accomplished their pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre, the knights chose as lord of the new conquest Godfrey of Bouillon, who called himself “Defender of the Holy Sepulchre.” They had then to repulse an Egyptian army, which was defeated at Ascalon, 12 August, 1099. Their position was nevertheless very insecure. Alexius Comnenus threatened the principality of Antioch, and in 1100 Bohemond himself was made prisoner by the Turks, while most of the cities on the coast were still under Mohammedan control. Before his death, 29 July, 1099, Urban II once more proclaimed the crusade. In 1101 three expeditions crossed Europe under the leadership of Count Stephen of Blois, Duke William IX of Aquitaine, and Welf IV, Duke of Bavaria. All three managed to reach Asia Minor, but were massacred by the Turks. On his release from prison Bohemond attacked the Byzantine Empire, but was surrounded by the imperial army and forced to acknowledge himself the vassal of Alexius. On Bohemond’s death, however, in 1111, Tancred refused to live up to the treaty and retained Antioch. Godfrey of Bouillon died at Jerusalem 18 July, 1100. His brother and successor, Baldwin of Edessa, was crowned King of Jerusalem in the Basilica of Bethlehem, 25 December, 1100. In 1112, with the aid of Norwegians under Sigurd Jorsalafari and the support of Genoese, Pisan, and Venetian fleets, Baldwin I began the conquest of the ports of Syria, which was completed in 1124 by the capture of Tyre. Ascalon alone kept an Egyptian garrison until 1153.

At this period the Christian states formed an extensive and unbroken territory between the Euphrates and the Egyptian frontier, and included four almost independent principalities: the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the Countship of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch, and the Countship of Rohez (Edessa). These small states were, so to speak, the common property of all Christendom and, as such, were subordinate to the authority of the pope. Moreover, the French knights and Italian merchants established in the newly conquered cities soon gained the upper hand. The authority of the sovereigns of these different principalities was restricted by the fief-holders, vassals, and under-vassals who constituted the Court of Lieges, or Supreme Court. This assembly had entire control in legislative matters; no statute or law could be established without its consent; no baron could be deprived of his fief without its decision; its jurisdiction extended over all, even the king, and it controlled also the succession to the throne. A “Court of the Burgesses” had similar jurisdiction over the citizens. Each fief had a like tribunal composed of knights and citizens, and in the ports there were police and mercantile courts (see ASSIZES OF JERUSALEM). The authority of the Church also helped to limit the power of the king; the four metropolitan sees of Tyre, Cæsarea, Bessan, and Petra were subject to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, similarly seven suffragan sees and a great many abbeys, among them Mount Sion, Mount Olivet, the Temple, Josaphat, and the Holy Sepulchre. Through rich and frequent donations the clergy became the largest property-holders in the kingdom; they also received from the crusaders important estates situated in Europe. In spite of the aforesaid restrictions, in the twelfth century the King of Jerusalem had a large income. The customs duties established in the ports and administered by natives, the tolls exacted from caravans, and the monopoly of certain industries were a fruitful source of revenue. From a military point of view all vassals owed the king unlimited service as to time, though he was obliged to compensate them, but to fill the ranks of the army it was necessary to enroll natives who received a life annuity (fief de soudée). In this way was recruited the light cavalry of the “Turcoples,” armed in Saracenic style. Altogether these forces barely exceeded 20,000 men, and yet the powerful vassals who commanded them were almost independent of the king. So it was that the great need of regular troops for the defence of the Christian dominions brought about the creation of a unique institution, the religious orders of knighthood, viz.: the Hospitallers, who at first did duty in the Hospital of St. John founded by the aforesaid merchants of Amalfi, and were then organized into a militia by Gérard du Puy that they might fight the Saracens (1113); and the Templars, nine of whom in 1118 gathered around Hugues de Payens and received the Rule of St. Bernard. These members, whether knights drawn from the nobility, bailiffs, clerks, or chaplains, pronounced the three monastic vows but it was chiefly to the war against the Saracens that they pledged themselves. Being favoured with many spiritual and temporal privileges, they easily gained recruits from among the younger sons of feudal houses and acquired both in Palestine and in Europe considerable property. Their castles, built at the principal strategic points, Margat, Le Crac, and Tortosa, were strong citadels protected by several concentric enclosures. In the Kingdom of Jerusalem these military orders virtually formed two independent commonwealths. Finally, in the cities, the public power was divided between the native citizens and the Italian colonists, Genoese, Venetians, Pisans, and also the Marseillais who, in exchange for their services, were given supreme power in certain districts wherein small self-governing communities had their consuls, their churches, and on the outskirts their farm-land, used for the cultivation of cotton and sugar-cane. The Syrian ports were regularly visited by Italian fleets which obtained there the spices and silks brought by caravans from the Far East. Thus, during the first half of the twelfth century the Christian states of the East were completely organized, and even eclipsed in wealth and prosperity most of the Western states.

III. FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE CHRISTIAN STATES (1144–87)

Many dangers, unfortunately, threatened this prosperity. On the south were the Caliphs of Egypt, on the east the Seljuk Ameers of Damascus, Hamah and Aleppo, and on the north the Byzantine emperors, eager to realize the project of Alexius Comnenus and bring the Latin states under their power. Moreover, in the presence of so many enemies the Christian states lacked cohesion and discipline. The help they received from the West was too scattered and intermittent. Nevertheless these Western knights, isolated amid Mohammedans and forced, because of the torrid climate, to lead a life far different from that to which they had been accustomed at home, displayed admirable bravery and energy in their efforts to save the Christian colonies. In 1137 John Comnenus, Emperor of Constantinople, appeared before Antioch with an army, and compelled Prince Raymond to do him homage. On the death of this potentate (1143), Raymond endeavoured to shake off the irksome yoke and invaded Byzantine territory, but was hemmed in by the imperial army and compelled (1144) to humble himself at Constantinople before the Emperor Manuel. The Principality of Edessa, completely isolated from the other Christian states, could not withstand the attacks of Imad-ed-Din, the prince, or atabek, of Mosul, who forced its garrison to capitulate 25 December, 1144. After the assassination of Imad-ed-Din, his son Nour-ed-Din continued hostilities against the Christian states. At news of this, Louis VII of France, Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, and a great number of knights, moved by the exhortations of St. Bernard, enlisted under the cross (Assembly of Vézelay, 31 March, 1146). The Abbot of Clairvaux became the apostle of the crusade and conceived the idea of urging all Europe to attack the infidels simultaneously in Syria, in Spain, and beyond the Elbe. At first he met with strong opposition in Germany. Eventually Emperor Conrad III acceded to his wish and adopted the standard of the cross at the Diet of Spires, 25 December, 1146. However, there was no such enthusiasm as had prevailed in 1095. Just as the crusaders started on their march, King Roger of Sicily attacked the Byzantine Empire, but his expedition merely checked the progress of Nour-ed-Din’s invasion. The sufferings endured by the crusaders while crossing Asia Minor prevented them from advancing on Edessa. They contented themselves with besieging Damascus, but were obliged to retreat at the end of a few weeks (July, 1148). This defeat caused great dissatisfaction in the West; moreover, the conflicts between the Greeks and the crusaders only confirmed the general opinion that the Byzantine Empire was the chief obstacle to the success of the Crusades. Nevertheless, Manuel Comnenus endeavoured to strengthen the bonds that united the Byzantine Empire to the Italian principalities. In 1161 he married Mary of Antioch, and in 1167 gave the hand of one of his nieces to Amalric, King of Jerusalem. This alliance resulted in thwarting the progress of Nour-ed-Din, who, having become master of Damascus in 1154, refrained thenceforth from attacking the Christian dominions.

King Amalric profited by this respite to interpose in the affairs of Egypt, as the only remaining representatives of the Fatimite dynasty were children, and two rival viziers were disputing the supreme power amid conditions of absolute anarchy. One of these disputants, Shawer, being exiled from Egypt, took refuge with Nour-ed-Din, who sent his best general, Shírkúh, to reinstate him. After his conquest of Cairo, Shírkúh endeavoured to bring Shawer into disfavour with the caliph; Amalric, taking advantage of this, allied himself with Shawer. On two occasions, in 1164 and 1167, he forced Shírkúh to evacuate Egypt; a body of Frankish knights was stationed at one of the gates of Cairo, and Egypt paid a tribute of 100,000 dinárs to the Kingdom of Jerusalem. In 1168 Amalric made another attempt to conquer Egypt, but failed. After ordering the assassination of Shawer, Shírkúh had himself proclaimed Grand Vizier. At his death on 3 March, 1169, he was succeeded by his nephew, Salah-ed-Dîn (Saladin). During that year Amalric, aided by a Byzantine fleet, invaded Egypt once more, but was defeated at Damietta. Saladin retained full sway in Egypt and appointed no successor to the last Fatimite caliph, who died in 1171. Moreover, Nour-ed-Din died in 1174, and, while his sons and nephews disputed the inheritance, Saladin took possession of Damascus and conquered all Mesopotamia except Mosul. Thus, when Amalric died in 1173, leaving the royal power to Baldwin IV, “the Leprous,” a child of thirteen, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was threatened on all sides. At the same time two factions, led respectively by Guy de Lusignan, brother-in-iaw of the king, and Raymond, Count of Tripoli, contended for the supremacy. Baldwin IV died in 1184, and was soon followed to the grave by his nephew Baldwin V. Despite lively opposition, Guy de Lusignan was crowned king, 20 July, 1186. Though the struggle against Saladin was already under way, it was unfortunately conducted without order or discipline. Notwithstanding the truce concluded with Saladin, Renaud de Châtillon, a powerful feudatory and lord of the trans-Jordanic region, which included the fief of Montréal, the great castle of Karak, and Aïlet, a port on the Red Sea, sought to divert the enemy’s attention by attacking the holy cities of the Mohammedans. Oarless vessels were brought to Aïlet on the backs of camels in 1182, and a fleet of five galleys traversed the Red Sea for a whole year, ravaging the coasts as far as Aden; a body of knights even attempted to seize Medina. In the end this fleet was destroyed by Saladin’s, and, to the great joy of the Mohammedans, the Frankish prisoners were put to death at Mecca. Attacked in his castle at Karak, Renaud twice repulsed Saladin’s forces (1184–86). A truce was then signed, but Renaud broke it again and carried off a caravan in which was the sultan’s own sister. In his exasperation Saladin invaded the Kingdom of Jerusalem and, although Guy de Lusignan gathered all his forces to repel the attack, on 4 July, 1187, Saladin’s army annihilated that of the Christians on the shores of Lake Tiberias. The king, the grand master of the Temple, Renaud de Châtillon, and the most powerful men in the realm were made prisoners. After slaying Renaud with his own hand, Saladin marched on Jerusalem. The city capitulated 17 September, and Tyre, Antioch, and Tripoli were the only places in Syria that remained to the Christians.

IV. ATTEMPTS TO RESTORE THE CHRISTIAN STATES AND THE CRUSADE AGAINST SAINT-JEAN D’ACRE

The news of these events caused great consternation in Christendom, and Pope Gregory VIII strove to put a stop to all dissensions among the Christian princes. On 21 January, 1188, Philip Augustus, King of France, and Henry II, Plantagenet, became reconciled at Gisors and took the cross. On 27 March, at the Diet of Mainz, Frederick Barbarossa and a great number of German knights made a vow to defend the Christian cause in Palestine. In Italy, Pisa made peace with Genoa, Venice with the King of Hungary, and William of Sicily with the Byzantine Empire. Moreover, a Scandinavian fleet consisting of 12,000 warriors sailed around the shores of Europe, when passing Portugal, it helped to capture Alvor from the Mohammedans. Enthusiasm for the crusade was again wrought up to a high pitch; but, on the other hand, diplomacy and royal and princely schemes became increasingly important in its organization. Frederick Barbarossa entered into negotiations with Isaac Angelus, Emperor of Constantinople, with the Sultan of Iconium, and even with Saladin himself. It was, moreover, the first time that all the Mohammedan forces were united under a single leader; Saladin, while the holy war was being preached, organized against the Christians something like a counter-crusade. Frederick Barbarossa, who was first ready for the enterprise, and to whom chroniclers attribute an army of 100,000 men, left Ratisbon, 11 May, 1189. After crossing Hungary he took the Balkan passes by assault and tried to outflank the hostile movements of Isaac Angelus by attacking Constantinople. Finally, after the sack of Adrianople, Isaac Angelus surrendered, and between 21 and 30 March, 1190, the Germans succeeded in crossing the Strait of Gallipoli. As usual, the march across Asia Minor was most arduous. With a view to replenishing provisions, the army took Iconium by assault. On their arrival in the Taurus region, Frederick Barbarossa tried to cross the Selef (Kalykadnos) on horseback and was drowned. Thereupon many German princes returned to Europe; the others, under the emperor’s son, Frederick of Swabia, reached Antioch and proceeded thence to Saint-Jean d’Acre. It was before this city that finally all the crusading troops assembled. In June, 1189, King Guy de Lusignan, who had been released from captivity, appeared there with the remnant of the Christian army, and, in September of the same year, the Scandinavian fleet arrived, followed by the English and Flemish fleets, commanded respectively by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Jacques d’Avesnes. This heroic siege lasted two years. In the spring of each year reinforcements arrived from the West, and a veritable Christian city sprang up outside the walls of Acre. But the winters were disastrous to the crusaders, whose ranks were decimated by disease brought on by the inclemency of the rainy season and lack of food. Saladin came to the assistance of the city, and communicated with it by means of carrier pigeons. Missile-hurtling machines (pierrières), worked by powerful machinery, were used by the crusaders to demolish the walls of Acre, but the Mohammedans also had strong artillery. This famous siege had already lasted two years when Philip Augustus, King of France, and Richard Coeur de Lion, King of England, arrived on the scene. After long deliberation they had left Vézelay together, 4 July, 1190. Richard embarked at Marseilles, Philip at Genoa, and they met at Messina. During a sojourn in this place, lasting until March, 1191, they almost quarrelled, but finally concluded a treaty of peace. While Philip was landing at Acre, Richard was shipwrecked on the coast of Cyprus, then independent under Isaac Comnenus. With the aid of Guy de Lusignan, Richard conquered this island. The arrival of the Kings of France and England before Acre brought about the capitulation of the city, 13 July 1191. Soon, however, the quarrel of the French and English kings broke out again, and Philip Augustus left Palestine, 28 July. Richard was now leader of the crusade, and, to punish Saladin for the non-fulfilment of the treaty conditions within the time specified, had the Mohammedan hostages put to death. Next, an attack on Jerusalem was meditated, but, after beguiling the Christians by negotiations, Saladin brought numerous troops from Egypt. The enterprise failed, and Richard compensated himself for these reverses by brilliant but useless exploits which made his name legendary among the Mohammedans. Before his departure he sold the Island of Cyprus, first to the Templars, who were unable to settle there, and then to Guy de Lusignan, who renounced the Kingdom of Jerusalem in favour of Conrad of Montferrat (1192). After a last expedition to defend Jaffa against Saladin, Richard declared a truce and embarked for Europe, 9 October, 1192, but did not reach his English realm until he had undergone a humiliating captivity at the hands of the Duke of Austria, who avenged in this way the insults offered him before Saint-Jean d’Acre.

While Capetians and Plantagenets, oblivious of the Holy War, were settling at home their territorial disputes, Emperor Henry VI, son of Barbarossa, took in hand the supreme direction of Christian politics in the East. Crowned King of the Two Sicilies, 25 December, 1194, he took the cross at Bari, 31 May, 1195, and made ready an expedition which, he thought, would recover Jerusalem and wrest Constantinople from the usurper Alexius III. Eager to exercise his imperial authority he made Amaury de Lusignan King of Cyprus and Leo II King of Armenia. In September, 1197, the German crusaders started for the East. They landed at Saint-Jean d’Acre and marched on Jerusalem, but were detained before the little town of Tibnin from November, 1197, to February 1198. On raising the siege, they learned that Henry VI had died, 28 September, at Messina, where he had gathered the fleet that was to convey him to Constantinople. The Germans signed a truce with the Saracens, but their future influence in Palestine was assured by the creation of the Order of the Teutonic Knights. In 1143, a German pilgrim had founded a hospital for his fellow-countrymen; the religious who served it moved to Acre and, in 1198, were organized in imitation of the plan of the Hospitallers, their rule being approved by Innocent III in 1199.

V. THE CRUSADE AGAINST CONSTANTINOPLE (1204)

In the many attempts made to establish the Christian states the efforts of the crusaders had been directed solely toward the object for which the Holy War had been instituted; the crusade against Constantinople shows the first deviation from the original purpose. For those who strove to gain their ends by taking the direction of the crusades out of the pope’s hands, this new movement was, of course, a triumph, but for Christendom it was a source of perplexity. Scarcely had Innocent III been elected pope, in January, 1198, when he inaugurated a policy in the East which he was to follow throughout his pontificate. He subordinated all else to the recapture of Jerusalem and the reconquest of the Holy Land. In his first Encyclicals he summoned all Christians to join the crusade and even negotiated with Alexius III, the Byzantine emperor, trying to persuade him to re-enter the Roman communion and use his troops for the liberation of Palestine. Peter of Capua, the papal legate, brought about a truce between Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur de Lion, January, 1199, and popular preachers, among others the parish priest Foulques of Neuilly, attracted large crowds. During a tournament at Ecry-sur-Aisne, 28 November, 1199, Count Thibaud de Champagne and a great many knights took the cross; in southern Germany, Martin, Abbot of Pairis, near Colmar, won many to the crusade. It would seem, however, that, from the outset, the pope lost control of this enterprise. Without even consulting Innocent III, the French knights, who had elected Thibaud de Champagne as their leader, decided to attack the Mohammedans in Egypt and in March, 1201, concluded with the Republic of Venice a contract for the transportation of troops on the Mediterranean. On the death of Thibaud the crusaders chose as his successor Boniface, Marquis of Montferrat, and cousin of Philip of Swabia, then in open conflict with the pope. Just at this time the son of Isaac Angelus, the dethroned Emperor of Constantinople, sought refuge in the West and asked Innocent III and his own brother-in-law, Philip of Swabia, to reinstate him on the imperial throne. The question has been raised whether it was pre-arranged between Philip and Boniface of Montferrat to turn the crusade towards Constantinople, and a passage in the “Gesta Innocentii” (83, in P. L., CCXIV, CXXXII) indicates that the idea was not new to Boniface of Montferrat when, in the spring of 1202, he made it known to the pope. Meanwhile the crusaders assembled at Venice could not pay the amount called for by their contract, so, by way of exchange, the Venetians suggested that they help recover the city of Zara in Dalmatia. The knights accepted the proposal, and, after a few days’ siege, the city capitulated, November, 1202. But it was in vain that Innocent III urged the crusaders to set out for Palestine. Having obtained absolution for the capture of Zara, and despite the opposition of Simon of Montfort and a part of the army, on 24 May, 1203, the leaders ordered a march on Constantinople. They had concluded with Alexius, the Byzantine pretender, a treaty whereby he promised to have the Greeks return to the Roman communion, give the crusaders 200,000 marks, and participate in the Holy War. On 23 June the crusaders’ fleet appeared before Constantinople; on 7 July they took possession of a suburb of Galata and forced their way into the Golden Horn; on 17 July they simultaneously attacked the sea walls and land walls of the Blachernæ. The troops of Alexius III made an unsuccessful sally, and the usurper fled, whereupon Isaac Angelus was released from prison and permitted to share the imperial dignity with his son, Alexius IV. But even had the latter been sincere he would have been powerless to keep the promises made to the crusaders. After some months of tedious waiting, those of their number cantoned at Galata lost patience with the Greeks, who not only refused to live up to their agreement, but likewise treated them with open hostility. On 5 February, 1204, Alexius IV and Isaac Angelus were deposed by a revolution, and Alexius Murzuphla, a usurper, undertook the defence of Constantinople against the Latin crusaders who were preparing to besiege Constantinople a second time. By a treaty concluded in March, 1204, between the Venetians and the crusading chiefs, it was pre-arranged to share the spoils of the Greek Empire. On 12 April, 1204, Constantinople was carried by storm, and the next day the ruthless plundering of its churches and palaces was begun. The masterpieces of antiquity, piled up in public places and in the Hippodrome, were utterly destroyed. Clerics and knights, in their eagerness to acquire famous and priceless relics, took part in the sack of the churches. The Venetians received half the booty; the portion of each crusader was determined according to his rank of baron, knight, or bailiff, and most of the churches of the West were enriched with ornaments stripped from those of Constantinople. On 9 May, 1204, an electoral college, formed of prominent crusaders and Venetians, assembled to elect an emperor. Dandolo, Doge of Venice, refused the honour, and Boniface of Montferrat was not considered. In the end, Baldwin, Count of Flanders, was elected and solemnly crowned in St. Sophia. Constantinople and the empire were divided among the emperor, the Venetians, and the chief crusaders; the Marquis of Montferrat received Thessalonica and Macedonia, with the title of king; Henry of Flanders became Lord of Adramyttion; Louis of Blois was made Duke of Nicæa, and fiefs were bestowed upon six hundred knights. Meanwhile, the Venetians reserved to themselves the ports of Thrace, the Peloponnesus, and the islands. Thomas Morosini, a Venetian priest, was elected patriarch.

At the news of these most extraordinary events, in which he had had no hand, Innocent III bowed as in submission to the designs of Providence and, in the interests of Christendom, determined to make the best of the new conquest. His chief aim was to suppress the Greek schism and to place the forces of the new Latin Empire at the service of the crusade. Unfortunately, the Latin Empire of Constantinople was in too precarious a condition to furnish any material support to the papal policy. The emperor was unable to impose his authority upon the barons. At Nicæa, not far from Constantinople, the former Byzantine Government gathered the remnant of its authority and its followers. Theodore Lascaris was proclaimed emperor. In Europe, Joannitsa, Tsar of the Wallachians and Bulgarians, invaded Thrace and destroyed the army of the crusaders before Adrianople, 14 April, 1205. During the battle the Emperor Baldwin fell. His brother and successor, Henry of Flanders, devoted his reign (1206–16) to interminable conflicts with the Bulgarians, the Lombards of Thessalonica, and the Greeks of Asia Minor. Nevertheless, he succeeded in strengthening the Latin conquest, forming an alliance with the Bulgarians, and establishing his authority even over the feudatories of Morea (Parliament of Ravennika, 1209); however, far from leading a crusade into Palestine, he had to solicit Western help, and was obliged to sign treaties with Theodore Lascaris and even with the Sultan of Iconium. The Greeks were not reconciled to the Church of Rome; most of their bishops abandoned their sees and took refuge at Nicæa, leaving their churches to the Latin bishops named to replace them. Greek convents were replaced by Cistercian monasteries, commanderies of Templars and Hospitallers, and chapters of canons. With a few exceptions, however, the native population remained hostile and looked upon the Latin conquerors as foreigners. Having failed in all his attempts to induce the barons of the Latin Empire to undertake an expedition against Palestine, and understanding at last the cause of failure of the crusade in 1204, Innocent III resolved (1207) to organize a new crusade and to take no further notice of Constantinople. Circumstances, however, were unfavourable. Instead of concentrating the forces of Christendom against the Mohammedans, the pope himself disbanded them by proclaiming (1209) a crusade against the Albigenses in the south of France, and against the Almohades of Spain (1213), the pagans of Prussia, and John Lackland of England. At the same time there occurred outbursts of mystical emotion similar to those which had preceded the first crusade. In 1212 a young shepherd of Vendôme and a youth from Cologne gathered thousands of children whom they proposed to lead to the conquest of Palestine. The movement spread through France and Italy. This “Children’s Crusade” at length reached Brindisi, where merchants sold a number of the children as slaves to the Moors, while nearly all the rest died of hunger and exhaustion. In 1213 Innocent III had a crusade preached throughout Europe and sent Cardinal Pelagius to the East to effect, if possible, the return of the Greeks to the fold of Roman unity. On 25 July, 1215, Frederick II, after his victory over Otto of Brunswick, took the cross at the tomb of Charlemagne at Aachen. On 11 November, 1215, Innocent III opened the Fourth Lateran Council with an exhortation to all the faithful to join the crusade, the departure being set for 1217. At the time of his death (1216) Pope Innocent felt that a great movement had been started.

VI. THE THIRTEENTH-CENTURY CRUSADES (1217–52)

In Europe, however, the preaching of the crusade met with great opposition. Temporal princes were strongly averse to losing jurisdiction over their subjects who took part in the crusades. Absorbed in political schemes, they were unwilling to send so far away the military forces on which they depended. As early as December, 1216, Frederick II was granted a first delay in the fulfilment of his vow. The crusade as preached in the thirteenth century was no longer the great enthusiastic movement of 1095, but rather a series of irregular and desultory enterprises. Andrew II, King of Hungary, and Casimir, Duke of Pomerania, set sail from Venice and Spalato, while an army of Scandinavians made a tour of Europe. The crusaders landed at Saint-Jean d’Acre in 1217, but confined themselves to incursions on Mussulman territory, whereupon Andrew of Hungary returned to Europe. Receiving reinforcements in the spring of 1218, John of Brienne, King of Jerusalem, resolved to make an attack on the Holy Land by way of Egypt. The crusaders accordingly landed at Damietta in May, 1218, and, after a siege marked by many deeds of heroism, took the city by storm, 5 November, 1219. Instead of profiting by this victory, they spent over a year in idle quarrels, and it was not until May 1221, that they set out for Cairo. Surrounded by the Saracens at Mansurah, 24 July, the Christian army was routed. John of Brienne was compelled to purchase a retreat by the surrender of Damietta to the Saracens. Meanwhile Emperor Frederick II, who was to be the leader of the crusade, had remained in Europe and continued to importune the pope for new postponements of his departure. On 9 November, 1225, he married Isabelle of Brienne, heiress to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the ceremony taking place at Brindisi. Completely ignoring his father-in-law, he assumed the title of King of Jerusalem. In 1227, however, he had not yet left for Palestine. Gregory IX, elected pope 19 March, 1227, summoned Frederick to fulfil his vow. Finally, 8 September, the emperor embarked but soon turned back; therefore, on 29 September, the pope excommunicated him. Nevertheless, Frederick set sail again 18 June, 1228, but instead of leading a crusade he played a game of diplomacy. He won over Malek-el-Khamil, the Sultan of Egypt, who was at war with the Prince of Damascus, and concluded a treaty with him at Jaffa, February, 1229, according to the terms of which Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth were restored to the Christians. On 18 March, 1229, without any religious ceremony, Frederick assumed the royal crown of Jerusalem in the church of the Holy Sepulchre. Returning to Europe, he became reconciled to Gregory IX, August, 1230. The pontiff ratified the Treaty of Jaffa, and Frederick sent knights into Syria to take possession of the cities and compel all feudatories to do him homage. A struggle occurred between Richard Filangieri, the emperor’s marshal, and the barons of Palestine, whose leader was Jean d’Ibelin, Lord of Beirut. Filangieri vainly attempted to obtain possession of the Island of Cyprus. and, when Conrad, son of Frederick II and Isabelle of Brienne, came of age in 1243, the High Court, described above, named as regent Alix of Champagne, Queen of Cyprus. In this way German power was abolished in Palestine.

In the meantime Count Thibaud IV of Champagne had been leading a fruitless crusade in Syria (1239). Similarly the Duke of Burgundy and Richard of Cornwall, brother of the King of England, who had undertaken to recover Ascalon, concluded a truce with Egypt (1241). Europe was now threatened with a most grievous disaster. After conquering Russia, the Mongols under Jenghiz Khan appeared in 1241 on the frontiers of Poland, routed the army of the Duke of Silesia at Liegnitz, annihilated that of Bela, King of Hungary, and reached the Adriatic. Palestine felt the consequences of this invasion. The Mongols had destroyed the Mussulman Empire of Kharizm in Central Asia. Fleeing before their conquerors, 10,000 Kharizmians offered their services to the Sultan of Egypt, meanwhile seizing Jerusalem as they passed by, in September, 1244. The news of this catastrophe created a great stir in Europe, and at the Council of Lyons (June-July, 1245) Pope Innocent IV proclaimed a crusade, but the lack of harmony between him and the Emperor Frederick II foredoomed the pontiff to disappointment. Save for Louis IX, King of France, who took the cross in December, 1244, no one showed any willingness to lead an expedition to Palestine. On being informed that the Mongols were well-disposed towards Christianity, Innocent IV sent them Giovanni di Pianocarpini, a Franciscan, and Nicolas Ascelin, a Dominican, as ambassadors. Pianocarpini was in Karakorum 8 April, 1246, the day of the election of the great khan, but nothing came of this first attempt at an alliance with the Mongols against the Mohammedans. However, when St. Louis, who left Paris 12 June, 1248, had reached the Island of Cyprus, he received there a friendly embassy from the great khan and, in return, sent him two Dominicans. Encouraged, perhaps, by this alliance, the King of France decided to attack Egypt. On 7 June, 1249, he took Damietta, but it was only six months later that he marched on Cairo. On 19 December, his advance-guard, commanded by his brother, Robert of Artois, began imprudently to fight in the streets of Mansurah and were destroyed. The king himself was cut off from communication with Damietta and made prisoner 5 April, 1250. At the same time, the Ajoubite dynasty founded by Saladin was overthrown by the Mameluke militia, whose ameers took possession of Egypt. St. Louis negotiated with the latter and was set at liberty on condition of surrendering Damietta and paying a ransom of a million gold bezants. He remained in Palestine until 1254; bargained with the Egyptian ameers for the deliverance of prisoners; improved the equipment of the strongholds of the kingdom, Saint-Jean d’Acre, Cæsarea, Jaffa, and Sidon; and sent Friar William of Rubruquis as ambassador to the great khan. Then, at the news of the death of his mother, Blanche of Castile, who had been acting as regent, he returned to France. Since the crusade against Saint-Jean d’Acre, a new Frankish state, the Kingdom of Cyprus, had been formed in the Mediterranean opposite Syria and became a valuable point of support for the crusades. By lavish distribution of lands and franchises, Guy de Lusignan succeeded in attracting to the island colonists, knights, men-at-arms, and civilians; his successors established a government modelled after that of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The king’s power was restricted by that of the High Court, composed of all the knights, vassals, or under-vassals, with its seat at Nicosia. However, the fiefs were less extensive than in Palestine, and the feudatories could inherit only in a direct line. The Island of Cyprus was soon populated with French colonists who succeeded in winning over the Greeks, upon whom they even imposed their language. Churches built in the French style and fortified castles appeared on all sides. The Cathedral of St. Sophia in Nicosia, erected between 1217 and 1251, was almost a copy of a church in Champagne. Finally, commercial activity became a pronounced characteristic of the cities of Cyprus, and Famagusta developed into one of the busiest of Mediterranean ports.

VII. FINAL LOSS OF THE CHRISTIAN COLONIES OF THE EAST (1254–91)

No longer aided by funds from the West, and rent by internal disorders, the Christian colonies owed their temporary salvation to the changes in Mussulman policy and the intervention of the Mongols. The Venetians drove the Genoese from Saint-Jean d’Acre and treated the city as conquered territory; in a battle where Christians fought against Christians, and in which Hospitallers were pitted against Templars, 20,000 men perished. In revenge the Genoese allied themselves with Michael Palæologus, Emperor of Nicæa, whose general, Alexius Strategopulos, had now no trouble in entering Constantinople and overthrowing the Latin Emperor, Baldwin II, 25 July, 1261. The conquest of the Caliphate of Bagdad by the Mongols (1258) and their invasion of Syria, where they seized Aleppo and Damascus, terrified both Christians and Mohammedans; but the Mameluke ameer, Bibars the Arbelester, defeated the Mongols and wrested Syria from them in September, 1260. Proclaimed sultan in consequence of a conspiracy, in 1260, Bibars began a merciless war on the remaining Christian states. In 1263 he destroyed the church at Nazareth; in 1265 took Cæsarea and Jaffa, and finally captured Antioch (May, 1268). The question of a crusade was always being agitated in the West, but except among men of a religious turn of mind, like St. Louis, there was no longer any earnestness in the matter among European princes. They looked upon a crusade as a political instrument, to be used only when it served their own interests. To prevent the preaching of a crusade against Constantinople, Michael Palæologus promised the pope to work for the union of the Churches; but Charles of Anjou, brother of St. Louis, whom the conquest of the Two Sicilies had rendered one of the most powerful princes of Christendom, undertook to carry out for his own benefit the Eastern designs hitherto cherished by the Hohenstaufen. While Mary of Antioch, granddaughter of Amaury II, bequeathed him the rights she claimed to have to the crown of Jerusalem, he signed the treaty of Viterbo with Baldwin II (27 May, 1267), which assured him eventually the inheritance of Constantinople. In no wise troubled by these diplomatic combinations, St. Louis thought only of the crusade. In a parliament held at Paris, 24 March, 1267, he and his three sons took the cross, but, despite his example, many knights resisted the exhortations of the preacher Humbert de Romans. On hearing the reports of the missionaries, Louis resolved to land at Tunis, whose prince he hoped to convert to Christianity. It has been asserted that St. Louis was led to Tunis by Charles of Anjou, but instead of encouraging his brother’s ambition the saint endeavoured to thwart it. Charles had tried to take advantage of the vacancy of the Holy See between 1268 and 1271 in order to attack Constantinople, the negotiations of the popes with Michael Palæologus for religious union having heretofore prevented him. St. Louis received the embassy of the Greek emperor very graciously and ordered Charles of Anjou to join him at Tunis. The crusaders, among whom was Prince Edward of England, landed at Carthage 17 July, 1270, but the plague broke out in their camp, and on 25 August, St. Louis himself was carried off by the scourge. Charles of Anjou then concluded a treaty with the Mohammedans, and the crusaders reimbarked. Prince Edward alone, determined to fulfil his vow, and set out for Saint-Jean d’Acre; however, after a few razzias on Saracenic territory, he concluded a truce with Bibars.

The field was now clear for Charles of Anjou, but the election of Gregory X, who was favourable to the crusade, again frustrated his plans. While the emissaries of the King of the Two Sicilies traversed the Balkan peninsula, the new pope was awaiting the union of the Western and Eastern Churches, which event was solemnly proclaimed at the Council of Lyons, 6 July, 1274; Michael Palæologus himself promised to take the cross. On 1 May, 1275, Gregory X effected a truce between this sovereign and Charles of Anjou. In the meantime Philip III, King of France, the King of England, and the King of Aragon made a vow to go to the Holy Land. Unfortunately the death of Gregory X brought these plans to nought, and Charles of Anjou resumed his scheming. In 1277 he sent into Syria Roger of San Severino, who succeeded in planting his banner on the castle of Acre and in 1278 took possession of the principality of Achaia in the name of his daughter-in-law Isabelle de Villehardouin. Michael Palæologus had not been able to effect the union of the Greek clergy with Rome, and in 1281 Pope Martin IV excommunicated him. Having signed an alliance with Venice, Charles of Anjou prepared to attack Constantinople, and his expedition was set for April, 1283. On 30 March, 1282, however, the revolt known as the Sicilian Vespers occurred, and once more his projects were defeated. In order to subdue his own rebellious subjects and to wage war against the King of Aragon, Charles was at last compelled to abandon his designs on the East. Meanwhile Michael Palæologus remained master of Constantinople, and the Holy Land was left defenceless. In 1280 the Mongols attempted once more to invade Syria, but were repulsed by the Egyptians at the battle of Hims; in 1286 the inhabitants of Saint-Jean d’Acre expelled Charles of Anjou’s seneschal and called to their aid Henry II, King of Cyprus. Kelaoun, the successor of Bibars, now broke the truce which he had concluded with the Christians, and seized Margat, the stronghold of the Hospitallers. Tripoli surrendered in 1289, and on 5 April, 1291, Malek-Aschraf, son and successor of Kelaoun, appeared before Saint-Jean d’Acre with 120,000 men. The 25,000 Christians who defended the city were not even under one supreme commander; nevertheless they resisted with heroic valour, filled breaches in the wall with stakes and bags of cotton and wool, and communicated by sea with King Henry II, who brought them help from Cyprus. However, 28 May, the Mohammedans made a general attack and penetrated into the town, and its defenders fled in their ships. The strongest opposition was offered by the Templars, the garrison of whose fortress held out ten days longer, only to be completely annihilated. In July, 1291, the last Christian towns in Syria capitulated, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem ceased to exist.

VIII. THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY CRUSADE AND THE OTTOMAN INVASION

The loss of Saint-Jean d’Acre did not lead the princes of Europe to organize a new crusade. Men’s minds were indeed, as usual, directed towards the East, but in the first years of the fourteenth century the idea of a crusade inspired principally the works of theorists who saw in it the best means of reforming Christendom. The treatise by Pierre Dubois, law-officer of the crown at Coutances, “De Recuperatione Terræ Sanctæ” (Langlois, ed., Paris, 1891), seems like the work of a dreamer, yet some of its views are truly modern. The establishment of peace between Christian princes by means of a tribunal of arbitration, the idea of making a French prince hereditary emperor, the secularization of the Patrimony of St. Peter, the consolidation of the Orders of the Hospitallers and Templars, the creation of a disciplined army the different corps of which were to have a special uniform, the creation of schools for the study of Oriental languages, and the intermarriage of Christian maidens with Saracens were the principal ideas it propounded (1307). On the other hand the writings of men of greater activity and wider experience suggested more practical methods for effecting the conquest of the East. Persuaded that Christian defeat in the Orient was largely due to the mercantile relations which the Italian cities Venice and Genoa continued to hold with the Mohammedans, these authors sought the establishment of a commercial blockade which, within a few years, would prove the ruin of Egypt and cause it to fall under Christian control. For this purpose it was recommended that a large fleet be fitted out at the expense of Christian princes and made to do police duty on the Mediterranean so as to prevent smuggling. These were the projects set forth in the memoirs of Fidentius of Padua, a Franciscan (about 1291, Bibliothèque Nationale, Latin MSS., 7247); in those of King Charles II of Naples (1293, Bib. Nat., Frankish MSS., 6049); Jacques de Molay (1307, Baluze, ed., Vitæ paparum Avenion., II, 176–185); Henry II, King of Cyprus (Mas-Latrie, ed., Histoire de Chypre, II, 118); Guillaume d’Adam, Archbishop of Sultanieh (1310, Kohler, ed., Collect. Hist. of the Crusades, Armenian Documents, II); and Marino Sanudo, the Venetian (Bongars, ed., Secreta fidelium Crucis, II). The consolidation of the military orders was also urged by Charles II. Many other memoirs, especially that of Hayton, King of Armenia (1307, ed. Armenian Documents, I), considered an alliance between the Christians and the Mongols of Persia indispensable to success. In fact, from the end of the thirteenth century many missionaries had penetrated into the Mongolian Empire; in Persia, as well as in China, their propaganda flourished. St. Francis of Assisi, and Raymond Lully had hoped to substitute for the warlike crusade a peaceable conversion of the Mohammedans to Christianity. Raymond Lully, born at Palma, on the Island of Majorca, in 1235, began (1275) his “Great Art,” which, by means of a universal method for the study of Oriental languages, would equip missionaries to enter into controversies with the Mohammedan doctors. In the same year he prevailed upon the King of Majorca to found the College of the Blessed Trinity at Miramar, where the Friars Minor could learn the Oriental languages. He himself translated catechetical treatises into Arabic and, after spending his life travelling in Europe trying to win over to his ideas popes and kings, suffered martyrdom at Bougie, where he had begun his work of evangelization (1314). Among the Mohammedans this propaganda encountered insurmountable difficulties, whereas the Mongols, some of whom were still members of the Nestorian Church, received it willingly. During the pontificate of John XXII (1316–34) permanent Dominican and Franciscan missions were established in Persia, China, Tatary and Turkestan, and in 1318 the Archbishopric of Sultanieh was created in Persia. In China Giovanni de Monte Corvino, created Archbishop of Cambaluc (Peking), organized the religious hierarchy, founded monasteries, and converted to Christianity men of note, possibly the great khan himself. The account of the journey of Blessed Orderic de Pordenone (Cordier, ed.) across Asia, between 1304 and 1330, shows us that Christianity had gained a foothold in Persia, India, Central Asia, and Southern China.

By thus leading up to an alliance between Mongols and Christians against the Mohammedans, the crusade had produced the desired effect; early in the fourteenth century the future development of Christianity in the East seemed assured. Unfortunately, however, the internal changes which occurred in the West, the weakening of the political influence of the popes, the indifference of temporal princes to what did not directly affect their territorial interests rendered unavailing all efforts towards the re-establishment of Christian power in the East. The popes endeavoured to insure the blockade of Egypt by prohibiting commercial intercourse with the infidels and by organizing a squadron for the prevention of smuggling, but the Venetians and Genoese defiantly sent their vessels to Alexandria and sold slaves and military stores to the Mamelukes. Moreover, the consolidation of the military orders could not be effected. By causing the suppression of the Templars at the Council of Vienne in 1311, King Philip the Fair dealt a cruel blow to the crusade; instead of giving to the Hospitallers the immense wealth of the Templars, he confiscated it. The Teutonic Order having established itself in Prussia in 1228, there remained in the East only the Hospitallers. After the capture of Saint-Jean d’Acre, Henry II, King of Cyprus, had offered them shelter at Limasol, but there they found themselves in very straitened circumstances. In 1310 they seized the Island of Rhodes, which had become a den of pirates, and took it as their permanent abode. Finally, the contemplated alliance with the Mongols was never fully realized. It was in vain that Argoun, Khan of Persia, sent the Nestorian monk, Raban Sauma, as ambassador to the pope and the princes of the West (1285–88); his offers elicited but vague replies. On 23 December, 1299, Cazan, successor to Argoun, inflicted a defeat upon the Christians at Hims, and captured Damascus, but he could not hold his conquests, and died in 1304 just as he was preparing for a new expedition. The princes of the West assumed the cross in order to appropriate to their own use the tithes which, for the defrayal of crusade expenses, they had levied upon the property of the clergy. For these sovereigns the crusade had no longer any but a fiscal interest. In 1336 King Philip VI of France, whom the pope had appointed leader of the crusade, collected a fleet at Marseilles and was preparing to go to the East when the news of the projects of Edward III caused him to return to Paris. War then broke out between France and England, and proved an insurmountable obstacle to the success of any crusade just when the combined forces of all Christendom would have been none too powerful to resist the new storm gathering in the East. From the close of the thirteenth century a band of Ottoman Turks, driven out of Central Asia by Mongol invasions, had founded a military state in Asia Minor and now threatened to invade Europe. They captured Ephesus in 1308, and in 1326 Othman, their sultan, established his residence at Broussa (Prusa) in Bithynia under Ourkhan, moreover, they organized the regular foot-guards of janizaries against whom the undisciplined troops of Western knights could not hold out. The Turks entered Nicomedia in 1328 and Nicæa in 1330; when they threatened the Emperors of Constantinople, the latter renewed negotiations with the popes with a view towards the reconciliation of the Greek and Roman Churches, for which purpose Barlaam was sent as ambassador to Avignon, in 1339. At the same time the Egyptian Mamelukes destroyed the port of Lajazzo, commercial centre of the Kingdom of Armenia Minor, where the remnants of the Christian colonies had sought refuge after the taking of Saint-Jean d’Acre (1337). The commercial welfare of the Venetians themselves was threatened; with their support Pope Clement VI in 1344 succeeded in reorganizing the maritime league whose operations had been prevented by the war between France and England. Genoa, the Hospitallers, and the King of Cyprus all sent their contingents, and, on 28 October, 1344, the crusaders seized Smyrna, which was confided to the care of the Hospitallers. In 1345 reinforcements under Humbert, Dauphin of Viennois, appeared in the Archipelago, but the new leader of the crusade was utterly disqualified for the work assigned him; unable to withstand the piracy of the Turkish ameers, the Christians concluded a truce with them in 1348. In 1356 the Ottomans captured Gallipoli and intercepted the route to Constantinople.

The cause of the crusade then found an unexpected defender in Peter I, King of Cyprus, who, called upon by the Armenians, succeeded in surprising and storming the city of Adalia on the Cilician coast in 1361. Urged by his chancellor, Philip de Méziéres, and Pierre Thomas, the papal legate, Peter I undertook a voyage to the West (1362–65) in the hope of reviving the enthusiasm of the Christian princes. Pope Urban V extended him a magnificent welcome, as did also John the Good, King of France, who took the cross at Avignon, 20 March, 1363; the latter’s example was followed by King Edward III, the Black Prince, Emperor Charles IV, and Casimir, King of Poland. Everywhere King Peter was tendered fair promises, but when, in June, 1365, he embarked at Venice he was accompanied by hardly any but his own forces. After rallying the fleet of the Hospitallers, he appeared unexpectedly before the Old Port of Alexandria, landed without resistance, and plundered the city for two days, but at the approach of an Egyptian army his soldiers forced him to retreat, 9–16 October, 1365. Again in 1367 he pillaged the ports of Syria, Tripoli, Tortosa, Laodicea, and Jaffa, thus destroying the commerce of Egypt. Later, in another voyage to the West, he made a supreme effort to interest the princes in the crusade, but on his return to Cyprus he was assassinated, as the result of a conspiracy. Meanwhile the Ottomans continued their progress in Europe, taking Philippopolis in 1363 and, in 1365, capturing Adrianople, which became the capital of the sultans. At the solicitation of Pope Urban V, Amadeus VII, Count of Savoy, took the cross and on 15 August, 1366, his fleet seized Gallipoli; then, after rescuing the Greek emperor, John V, held captive by the Bulgarians, he returned to the West. In spite of the heroism displayed during these expeditions, the efforts made by the crusaders were too intermittent to be productive of enduring results. Philippe de Méziéres, a friend and admirer of Pierre de Lusignan, eager to seek a remedy for the ills of Christendom, dreamed of founding a new militia, the Order of the Passion, an organization whose character was to be at once clerical and military, and whose members, although married, were to lead an almost monastic life and consecrate themselves to the conquest of the Holy Land. Being well received by Charles V, Philippe de Méziéres established himself at Paris and propagated his ideas among the French nobility. In 1390 Louis II, Duke of Bourbon, took the cross, and at the instigation of the Genoese went to besiege el-Mahadia, an African city on the coast of Tunis. In 1392 Charles VI, who had signed a treaty of peace with England, appeared to have been won over to the crusade project just before he became deranged. But the time for expeditions to the Holy Land was now passed, and henceforth Christian Europe was forced to defend itself against Ottoman invasions. In 1369 John V, Palæologus, went to Rome and abjured the schism; thereafter the popes worked valiantly for the preservation of the remnants of the Byzantine Empire and the Christian states in the Balkans. Having become master of Servia at the battle of Kosovo in 1389, the Sultan Bajazet imposed his sovereignty upon John V and secured possession of Philadelphia, the last Greek city in Asia Minor. Sigismund, King of Hungary, alarmed at the progress of the Turks, sent an embassy to Charles VI, and a large number of French lords, among them the Count of Nevers, son of the Duke of Burgundy, enlisted under the standard of the cross and, in July 1396, were joined at Buda by English and German knights. The crusaders invaded Servia, but despite their prodigies of valeur Bajazet completely routed them before Nicopolis, 25 September, 1396. The Count of Nevers and a great many lords became Bajazet’s prisoners and were released only on condition of enormous ransoms. Notwithstanding this defeat, due to the misguided ardour of the crusaders, a new expedition left Aiguesmortes in June, 1399, under the command of the Marshal Boucicault and succeeded in breaking the blockade which the Turks had established around Constantinople. Moreover, between 1400 and 1402, John Palæologus made another voyage to the West in quest of reinforcements.

IX. THE CRUSADE IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

An unlooked-for event, the invasion by Timur and the Mongols, saved Constantinople for the time being. They annihilated Bajazet’s army at Ancyra, 20 July, 1402, and, dividing the Ottoman Empire among several princes, reduced it to a state of vassalage. The Western rulers, Henry III, King of Castile, and Charles VI, King of France, sent ambassadors to Timur (see the account by Ruy Gonçales de Clavijo, Madrid, 1779), but the circumstances were not favourable, as they had been in the thirteenth century. The national revolt of the Chinese that overthrew the Mongol dynasty in 1368 had resulted in the destruction of the Christian missions in Farther Asia; in Central Asia the Mongols had been converted to Mohammedanism, and Timur showed his hostility to the Christians by taking Smyrna from the Hospitallers. Marshal Boucicault took advantage of the dejection into which the Mongol invasion had thrown the Mohammedan powers to sack the ports of Syria, Tripoli, Beirut, and Sidon in 1403, but he was unable to retain his conquests; while Timur, on the other hand, thought only of obtaining possession of China and returned to Samarkand, where he died in 1405. The civil wars that broke out among the Ottoman princes gave the Byzantine emperors a few years’ respite, but Murad II, having re-established the Turkish power, besieged Constantinople from June to September in 1422, and John VIII, Palæologus, was compelled to pay him tribute. In 1430 Murad took Thessalonica from the Venetians, forced the wall of the Hexamilion, which had been erected by Manuel to protect the Peloponnesus, and subdued Servia. The idea of the crusade was always popular in the West, and, on his death-bed, Henry V of England regretted that he had not taken Jerusalem. In her letters to Bedford, the regent, and to the Duke of Burgundy, Joan of Arc alluded to the union of Christendom against the Saracens, and the popular belief expressed in the poetry of Christine de Pisan was that, after having delivered France, the Maid of Orleans would lead Charles VII to the Holy Land. But this was only a dream, and the civil wars in France, the crusade against the Hussites, and the Council of Constance, prevented any action from being taken against the Turks. However, in 1421 Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, sent Gilbert de Lannoy, and in 1432, Bertrand de la Brocquière, to the East as secret emissaries to gather information that might be of value for a future crusade. At the same time negotiations for the religious union which would facilitate the crusade were resumed between the Byzantine emperors and the popes. Emperor John VIII came in person to attend the council convoked by Pope Eugene IV at Ferrara, in 1438. Thanks to the good will of Bessarion and of Isidore of Kiev, the two Greek prelates whom the pope had elevated to the cardinalate, the council, which was transferred to Florence, established harmony on all points, and on 6 July, 1439, the reconciliation was solemnly proclaimed. The reunion was received in bad part by the Greeks and did not induce the Western princes to take the cross. Adventurers of all nationalities enrolled themselves under the command of Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini and went to Hungary to join the armies of János Hunyady, Waywode of Transylvania, who had just repulsed the Turks at Hermanstadt, of Wladislaus Jagello, King of Poland, and of George Brankovitch, Prince of Servia. Having defeated the Turks at Nish, 3 November, 1443, the allies were enabled to conquer Servia, owing to the defection of the Albanians under George Castriota (Scanderbeg), their national commander. Murad signed a ten years’ truce and abdicated the throne, 15 July, 1444, but Giuliano Cesarini, the papal legate, did not favour peace and wished to push forward to Constantinople. At his instigation the crusaders broke the truce and invaded Bulgaria, whereupon Murad again took command, crossed the Bosporus on Genoese galleys, and destroyed the Christian army at Varna, 10 November, 1444. This defeat left Constantinople defenceless. In 1446 Murad succeeded in conquering Morea, and when, two years later, János Hunyady tried to go to the assistance of Constantinople he was beaten at Kosovo. Scanderbeg alone managed to maintain his independence in Epirus and, in 1449, repelled a Turkish invasion. Mohammed II, who succeeded Murad in 1451, was preparing to besiege Constantinople when, 12 December, 1452, Emperor Constantine XII decided to proclaim the union of the Churches in the presence of the papal legates. The expected crusade, however, did not take place; and when, in March, 1453, the armed forces of Mohammed II, numbering 160,000, completely surrounded Constantinople, the Greeks had only 5000 soldiers and 2000 Western knights, commanded by Giustiniani of Genoa. Notwithstanding this serious disadvantage, the city held out against the enemy for two months, but on the night of 28 May, 1453, Mohammed II ordered a general assault, and after a desperate conflict, in which Emperor Constantine XII perished, the Turks entered the city from all sides and perpetrated a frightful slaughter. Mohammed II rode over heaps of corpses to the church of St. Sophia, entered it on horseback, and turned it into a mosque.

The capture of “New Rome” was the most appalling calamity sustained by Christendom since the taking of Saint-Jean d’Acre. However, the agitation which the news of this event caused in Europe was more apparent than genuine. Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, gave an allegorical entertainment at Lille in which solicited the help of knights who pronounced the most extravagant vows before God and a pheasant (sur le faisan). Æneas Sylvius, Bishop of Siena, and St. John Capistran, the Franciscan, preached the crusade in Germany and Hungary; the Diets of Ratisbon and Frankfort promised assistance, and a league was formed between Venice, Florence, and the Duke of Milan, but nothing came of it. Pope Callistus III succeeded in collecting a fleet of sixteen galleys, which, under the command of the Patriarch of Aquileia, guarded the Archipelago. However, the defeat of the Turks before Belgrade in 1457, due to the bravery of János Hunyady, and the bloody conquest of the Peloponnesus in 1460 seemed finally to revive Christendom from its torpor. Æneas Sylvius, now pope under the name of Pius II, multiplied his exhortations, declaring that he himself would conduct the crusade, and towards the close of 1463 bands of crusaders began to assemble at Ancona. The Doge of Venice had yielded to the pope’s entreaties, whereas the Duke of Burgundy was satisfied with sending 2000 men. But when, in June, 1464, the pope went to Ancona to assume command of the expedition, he fell sick and died, whereupon most of the crusaders, being unarmed, destitute of ammunition, and threatened with starvation, returned to their own countries. The Venetians were the only ones who invaded the Peloponnesus and sacked Athens, but they looked upon the crusade merely as a means of advancing their commercial interests. Under Sixtus IV they had the presumption to utilize the papal fleet for the seizure of merchandise stored at Smyrna and Adalia; they likewise purchased the claims of Catherine Cornaro to the Kingdom of Cyprus. Finally, in 1480, Mohammed II directed a triple attack against Europe. In Hungary Matthias Corvinus withstood the Turkish invasion, and the Knights of Rhodes, conducted by Pierre d’Aubusson, defended themselves victoriously, but the Turks succeeded in gaining possession of Otranto and threatened Italy with conquest. At an assembly held at Rome and presided over by Sixtus IV, ambassadors from the Christian princes again promised help; but the condition of Christendom would have been critical indeed had not the death of Mohammed II occasioned the evacuation of Otranto, while the power of the Turks was impaired for several years by civil wars among Mohammed’s sons. At the time of Charles VIII’s expedition into Italy (1492) there was again talk of a crusade; according to the plans of the King of France, the conquest of Naples was to be followed by that of Constantinople and the East. For this reason Pope Alexander VI delivered to him Prince Djem, son of Mahommed II and pretender to the throne, who had taken refuge with the Hospitallers. When Alexander VI joined Venice and Maximilian in a league against Charles VIII, the official object of the alliance was the crusade, but it had become impossible to take such projects as seriously meant. The leagues for the crusade were no longer anything but political combinations, and the preaching of the Holy War seemed to the people nothing but a means of raising money. Before his death, Emperor Maximilian took the cross at Metz with due solemnity, but these demonstrations could lead to no satisfactory results. The new conditions that now controlled Christendom rendered a crusade impossible.

X. MODIFICATIONS AND SURVIVAL OF THE IDEA OF THE CRUSADE

From the sixteenth century European policy was swayed exclusively by state interests; hence to statesmen the idea of a crusade seemed antiquated. Egypt and Jerusalem having been conquered by Sultan Selim, in 1517, Pope Leo X made a supreme effort to re-establish the peace essential to the organization of a crusade. The King of France and Emperor Charles V promised their co-operation; the King of Portugal was to besiege Constantinople with 300 ships, and the pope himself was to conduct the expedition. Just at this time trouble broke out between Francis I and Charles V; these plans therefore failed completely. The leaders of the Reformation were unfavourable to the crusade, and Luther declared that it was a sin to make war upon the Turks because God had made them His instruments in punishing the sins of His people. Therefore, although the idea of the crusade was not wholly lost sight of, it took a new form and adapted itself to the new conditions. The Conquistadores, who ever since the fifteenth century had been going forth to discover new lands, considered themselves the auxiliaries of the crusade. The Infante Don Henrique, Vasco da Gama, Christopher Columbus, and Albuquerque wore the cross on their breast and, when seeking the means of doubling Africa or of reaching Asia by routes from the East, thought of attacking the Mohammedans in the rear; besides, they calculated on the alliance of a fabulous sovereign said to be a Christian, Prester John. The popes, moreover, strongly encouraged these expeditions. On the other hand, among the Powers of Europe the House of Austria, which was mistress of Hungary, where it was directly threatened by the Turks, and which had supreme control of the Mediterranean, realized that it would be to its advantage to maintain a certain interest in the crusade. Until the end of the seventeenth century, when a diet of the German princes was held at Ratisbon, the question of war against the Turks was frequently agitated, and Luther himself, modifying his first opinion, exhorted the German nobility to defend Christendom (1528–29). The war in Hungary always partook of the character of a crusade and, on different occasions, the French nobles enlisted under the imperial banner. Thus the Duke of Mercoeur was authorized by Henry IV to enter the Hungarian service. In 1664 Louis XIV, eager to extend his influence in Europe, sent the emperor a contingent which, under the command of the Count of Coligny, repulsed the Turks in the battle of St. Gothard. But such demonstrations were of no importance because, from the time of Francis I, the kings of France, to maintain the balance of power in Europe against the House of Austria, had not hesitated to enter into treaties of alliance with the Turks. When, in 1683, Kara Mustapha advanced on Vienna with 30,000 Turks or Tatars, Louis XIV made no move, and it was to John Sobieski, King of Poland, that the emperor owed his safety. This was the supreme effort made by the Turks in the West. Overwhelmed by the victories of Prince Eugene at the close of the seventeenth century, they became thenceforth a passive power.

On the Mediterranean, Genoa and Venice beheld their commercial monopoly destroyed in the sixteenth century by the discovery of new continents and of new water-routes to the Indies, while their political power was absorbed by the House of Austria. Without allowing the crusaders to deter them from their continental enterprises, the Hapsburgs dreamed of gaining control of the Mediterranean by checking the Barbary pirates and arresting the progress of the Turks. When, in 1571, the Island of Cyprus was threatened by the Ottomans, who cruelly massacred the garrisons of Famagusta and Nicosia, these towns having surrendered on stipulated terms, Pope Pius V succeeded in forming a league of maritime powers against Sultan Selim, and secured the co-operation of Philip II by granting him the right to tithes for the crusade, while he himself equipped some galleys. On 7 October, 1571, a Christian fleet of 200 galleys, carrying 50,000 men under the command of Don Juan of Austria, met the Ottoman fleet in the Straits of Lepanto, destroyed it completely, and liberated thousands of Christians. This expedition was in the nature of a crusade. The pope, considering that the victory had saved Christendom, by way of commemorating it instituted the feast of the Holy Rosary, which is celebrated on the first Sunday of October. But the allies pushed their advantages no further. When, in the seventeenth century, France superseded Spain as the great Mediterranean power, she strove, despite the treaties that bound her to the Turks, to defend the last remnants of Christian power in the East. In 1669 Louis XIV sent the Duke of Beaufort with a fleet of 7000 men to the defence of Candia, a Venetian province, but, notwithstanding some brilliant sallies, he succeeded in putting off its capture for a few weeks only. However, the diplomatic action of the kings of France in regard to Eastern Christians who were Turkish subjects was more efficacious. The regime of “Capitulations,” established under Francis I in 1536, renewed under Louis XIV in 1673, and Louis XV in 1740, ensured Catholics religious freedom and the jurisdiction of the French ambassador at Constantinople; all Western pilgrims were allowed access to Jerusalem and to the Holy Sepulchre, which was confided to the care of the Friars Minor. Such was the modus vivendi finally established between Christendom and the Mohammedan world.

Notwithstanding these changes it may be said that, until the seventeenth century, the imagination of Western Christendom was still haunted by the idea of the Crusades. Even the least chimerical of statesmen, such as Père Joseph de Tremblay, the confidential friend of Richelieu, at times cherished such hopes, while the plan set forth in the memorial which Leibniz addressed (1672) to Louis XIV on the conquest of Egypt was that of a regular crusade. Lastly, there remained as the respectable relic of a glorious past the Order of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, which was founded in the eleventh century and continued to exist until the French Revolution. Despite the valiant efforts of their grand master, Villiers de l’Isle Adam, the Turks had driven them from Rhodes in 1522, and they had taken refuge in Italy. In 1530 Charles V presented them with the Isle of Malta, admirably situated from a strategic point of view, whence they might exercise surveillance over the Mediterranean. They were obliged to promise to give up Malta on the recovery of Rhodes, and also to make war upon the Barbary pirates. In 1565 the Knights of Malta withstood a furious attack by the Turks. They also maintained a squadron able to put to flight the Barbary pirates. Recruited from among the younger sons of the noblest families of Europe, they owned immense estates in France as well as in Italy, and when the French Revolution broke out, the order quickly lost ground. The property it held in France was confiscated in 1790, and when, in 1798, the Directory undertook an expedition to Egypt, Bonaparte, in passing, seized the Isle of Malta, whose knights had themselves under the protection of the Czar, Paul I. The city of Valetta surrendered at the first summons, and the order disbanded; however, in 1826 it was reorganized in Rome as a charitable association.

The history of the Crusades is therefore intimately connected with that of the popes and the Church. These Holy Wars were essentially a papal enterprise. The idea of quelling all dissensions among Christians, of uniting them under the same standard and sending them forth against the Mohammedans, was conceived in the eleventh century, that is to say, at a time when there were as yet no organized states in Europe, and when the pope was the only potentate in a position to know and understand the common interests of Christendom. At this time the Turks threatened to invade Europe, and the Byzantine Empire seemed unable to withstand the enemies by whom it was surrounded. Urban II then took advantage of the veneration in which the holy places were held by the Christians of the West and entreated the latter to direct their combined forces against the Mohammedans and, by a bold attack, check their progress. The result of this effort was the establishment of the Christian states in Syria. While the authority of the popes remained undisputed in Europe, they were in a position to furnish these Christian colonies the help they required; but when this authority was shaken by dissensions between the priesthood and the empire, the crusading army lost the unity of command so essential to success. The maritime powers of Italy, whose assistance was indispensable to the Christian armies, thought only of using the Crusades for political and economic ends. Other princes, first the Hohenstaufen and afterwards Charles of Anjou, followed this precedent, the crusade of 1204 being the first open rebellion against the pontifical will. Finally, when, at the close of the Middle Ages, all idea of the Christian monarchy had been definitively cast aside, when state policy was the sole influence that actuated the Powers of Europe, the crusade seemed a respectable but troublesome survival. In the fifteenth century Europe permitted the Turks to seize Constantinople, and princes were far less concerned about their departure for the East than about finding a way out of the fulfilment of their vow as crusaders without losing the good opinion of the public. Thereafter all attempts at a crusade partook of the nature of political schemes.

Notwithstanding their final overthrow, the Crusades hold a very important place in the history of the world. Essentially the work of the popes, these Holy Wars first of all helped to strengthen pontifical authority; they afforded the popes an opportunity to interfere in the wars between Christian princes, while the temporal and spiritual privileges which they conferred upon crusaders virtually made the latter their subjects. At the same time this was the principal reason why so many civil rulers refused to join the Crusades. It must be said that the advantages thus acquired by the popes were for the common safety of Christendom. From the outset the Crusades were defensive wars and checked the advance of the Mohammedans who, for two centuries, concentrated their forces in a struggle against the Christian settlements in Syria; hence Europe is largely indebted to the Crusades for the maintenance of its independence. Besides, the Crusades brought about results of which the popes had never dreamed, and which were perhaps the most, important of all. They re-established traffic between the East and West, which, after having been suspended for several centuries, was then resumed with even greater energy; they were the means of bringing from the depths of their respective provinces and introducing into the most civilized Asiatic countries Western knights, to whom a new world was thus revealed, and who returned to their native land filled with novel ideas; they were instrumental in extending the commerce of the Indies, of which the Italian cities long held the monopoly, and the products of which transformed the material life of the West. Moreover, as early as the end of the twelfth century, the development of general culture in the West was the direct result of these Holy Wars. Finally, it is with the Crusades that we must couple the origin of the geographical explorations made by Marco Polo and Orderic of Pordenone, the Italians who brought to Europe the knowledge of continental Asia and China. At a still later date, it was the spirit of the true crusader that animated Christopher Columbus when he undertook his perilous voyage to the then unknown America, and Vasco de Gama when he set out in quest of India. If, indeed, the Christian civilization of Europe has become universal culture, in the highest sense, the glory redounds, in no small measure, to the Crusades.

See also BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES.

LOUIS BRÉHIER

Crutched Friars

(Or Crossed Friars).

An order of mendicant friars who went to England in the thirteenth century from Italy, where they existed for some time, and where they were called “Fratres Cruciferi” (see below). There first appearance in England was at a synod of the Diocese of Rochester in 1244, when they presented documents from the pope and asked to be allowed to settle in the country (Matthew Paris). Each friar carried in his hand a wooden staff surmounted by a cross and also had a cross of red cloth upon his habit, from which circumstances originated the name by which they became commonly known. Their rule was that of St. Augustine and their habit originally brown or black, was later on changed to blue by Pope Pius II. They established eight or nine houses in England, the first being at either Colchester (according to Dugdale), or at Reigate (according to Reyner), founded in 1245.They settled in London in 1249, where they gave their name to the locality, near Tower Hill, still called “Crutched Friars.” Other houses were at Oxford (1348), York, Great Weltham (Suffolk), Barham (a cell to Gt. Weltham), Wotten-under-Edge (Gloucestershire), Brackley (Northants) and Kildale (Yorkshire).

FRATRES CRUCIFERI

The origin of these friars is somewhat uncertain. They claimed to have been founded in the East, in the first century, by St. Cletus, and to have been reconstituted by St. Cyriacus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in the fourth. It is not known when they came to Italy, but they were certainly there in the twelfth century, for in 1169 Pope Alexander III gave them constitutions and a rule of life similar to that of the Augustinians. Pope Pius II prescribed for them a blue habit and substituted a small silver cross for the larger wooden one they had hitherto been accustomed to carry in their hands. It was from this custom that they obtained their name. Their monasteries were at one time numerous in Italy, numbering two hundred and eight, divided into five provinces: Bologna, Venice, Rome, Milan, and Naples. The priory of S. Maria di Morella at Bologna was made chief house of the order by Pope Clement IV, and it was from this that the English Crutched Friars came. In later times corruptions were allowed to creep in, and from that and other causes their numbers dwindled down to no more than fifty houses in 1656, when the order was suppressed by Pope Alexander VII. A similar order of friars, known by the same name and like them claiming to come from the East, also existed in France and the Low Countries, having been introduced or organized in 1211 by Théodore de Celles. Hélyot says their houses were numerous, but the order suffered extinction in the French Revolution. These friars wore a black habit with a red cross upon it. Other Fratres Cruciferi were also to be found in Bohemia in the thirteenth century and some said to have existed in Ireland, but there is practically no reliable information to be obtained about them.

Matthew Paris, Historia Anglorum, Rolls ed. (London 1866), II; Tanner, Notitia Monastica (London 1744); Dugdale, Monasticaon Anglicanum (London 1817–30, VI; Reyner, Apostolatus Benedictinorum in Anglia (Douai, 1626; Gasquet, English Monastic Life (London, 1904); Helyot, Hist. Des ordres religieux (Paris, 1792), II; Heimbucher, Orden und Congregationem (2nd ed., 1907), II, 33–37.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Ramón de la Cruz

Poet, b. at Madrid, Spain, 28 March, 1731; d. in the same city, 4 November, 1795. He was for a time a clerk in the Ministry of Finance, and was a member of the Royal Academy of Seville and of the Arcadians of Rome. Very little is known of his life. He wrote more than three hundred pieces for the stage, many of which were improvised. It was his custom to go to the Prado in the evening and there, seated on one of the stone benches, work out some theme suggested by the scene before him. This he wrote the next day. The theatre anxiously awaited the improvisation, and it was produced within two or three days. In this way he wrote “La Casa de Tócame Roque,” which won immediate favour, and has continued to be a favourite almost to the present day. Cruz at first wrote in the several known styles of dramatic composition, including tragedies, zarzuelas, and comedies, but it is as the inventor of a new form of dramatic writing that he is best remembered. This is the sainete, a short farcical sketch of city life and manners, especially of the middle and lower classes. As a writer of these he has never been equalled. They abound in exuberant humour, jokes, and puns, and describe faithfully the customs and manners of the time. His pictures of the middle and lower classes were produced with such exactness, vivacity, grace, and colouring, that for these qualities rather than for any literary merit they might possess his plays won public favour, and many of them continued to be presented with but slight changes, almost down to our own times. His best sainetes are “La Cosa de Tócame Roque,” just mentioned, “El Prado por la Noche,” “Las Tertulias de Madrid, ó el Por qué de las Tertulias,” and “La Comedia de Maravillas.” There are several editions of the works of Cruz, among which may be mentioned “Ramón de la Cruz, Sainetes” (1 vol., Madrid, 1877), “La Biblioteca Universal” (XXXV), and “Teatro selecto de don Ramón de la Cruz” (1 vol., Madrid, 1882).

VENTURA FUENTES

Crypt

(Or LOWER CHURCH).

The word originally meant a hidden place, natural or artificial, suitable for the concealment of persons or things. When visits to the burial-places without the walls of Rome fell into disuse there ensued a curious change. The Church, no longer able to go out to honour the martyrs, brought the martyrs within the walls, and instead of building churches above the tombs, dug tombs under the churches in which the precious relics were deposited. This was the origin, first of the confessio of the basilicas, and, at a later period, of the crypt which answered the same purpose in the churches of the early Middle Ages. In this way the Romanesque crypt is the direct descendant of the hypogoeum or excavation of the early Christian catacomb. The term crypt is sometimes used to signify the lower story of a two-storied building, e.g. the lower chapel of the Sainte-Chapelle at Paris, and, of the church San Francesco at Assisi; and in England the overground ground crypt of St. Ethelredra’s Chapel in London which is all that remains of the great episcopal palace called Ely Place.

The crypt has a long and venerable history. What was done at Rome set a precedent for Christendom in general. There is an early example of a crypt at Ravenna, at Sant’ Apollinare in Classe (534). At first crypts were sometimes as deepsunk as the cubicula of the catacombs themselves, e.g. in Saint-Germain, at Auxerre, and in the Chartres cathedral. Or they were but partly above ground, and were lighted by small windows windows placed in their side walls, e.g. Ernulph’s crypt at Canterbury. Occasionally their floor was but little below the surface of the ground, as in the eastern crypt at Canterbury; or it was on a level with the pavement of the nave, as in San Miniato, Florence In these latter cases the crypt practically became a second or lower church, e.g. St. Faith’s, under old St. Paul’s, London. Such a crypt, however, entailed a raised choir; hence it is that one ascends high flights of steps to such choirs as those of San Miniato, Rochester, Canterbury, etc. Almost all the crypts now found in England were built during the Norman period, or very early, in the pointed style, That at Glasgow, however, belongs to the perfected style of thirteenth century. Here the crypt extends under and beyond the whole choir. Had there been an opening in the centre of the vault (and it is by no means clear that one was not originally intended), it would be more like a German double church than anything found in England. The earliest crypts in England are those of Hexham and Ripon. In eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries crypts developed into magnificent churches, like those of Gloucester, Rochester, Worcester, Winchester, St. Peter’s at Oxford, Bayeux, Chartres, Saintes, Bourges, Holy, Trinity at Caen, Padua, Florence, Pavia, Palermo and Modena.

GAILHABARD, Ancient and Modern Architecture (London, 1844) II; CARTER, Ancient Architecture of England (London, 18877); BOND, Gothic Architecture in England (New York, 1906); BROWN, From Schola to Cathedral (Edinburgh, 1886); LOWERIE, Monuments of the Early Church (London, 1906); SPENCE, The White Robe of Churches (New York, 1905); BANISTER, A History of Arch. (New York, 1905); PARKER, Glossary of Arch. (London, 1845).

THOMAS H. POOLE

Diocese of Csanád

The Diocese of Csanád includes the counties of Temes, Torontál, Krassó-Szörény, Arad, Csanád, and a part of Csongrád and Békés, Hungary, an area of 13,713 square miles. It is suffragan of Kalocsa, and has a population of 2,060,000 souls, of whom 824,000 are Catholics and 56,000 Uniat Greeks. The diocese has a cathedral chapter, 8 regular and 6 titular canonries, 8 titular abbeys, 1 provostship, 3 titular provostships, 6 archdeaneries, 24 subordinate deaneries, 236 parish churches, 1099 filial churches, 231 parish priests, 122 chaplains, 28 other ecclesiastics, 54 clerics, 8 retired ecclesiastics, 8 priests outside of the diocese. The male orders and congregations have 11 houses and 91 members, divided as follows: Piarists (who also conduct 3 gymnasia), 3 houses; Franciscans, 2; Minorites, 4; Brothers of Charity, 1, and priests of the Order of the Divine Saviour, 1. The School Sisters of Notre-Dame, Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, and Holy Cross Sisters have 28 convents and 484 members in the diocese. There is a seminary for priests (with a lyceum), a preparatory one for boys, and two training-schools, for male and female teachers. The cathedral built in barocco style, 1736–54, is dedicated to St. George. The residence of the bishop is at Temesvar. Csanád is one of the oldest sees of Hungary. It was created by King Stephen in 1035 and its first bishop was the Italian Abbot Gerardus, the tutor of Stephen’s son, Emmerich. In the thirteenth century the diocese suffered greatly from the invasion of the Mongols; in the fourteenth century, after the Turkish conquest of Servia, from the immigration of schismatic Serbs called Rascians into Hungary; in the sixteenth century from the rebellion of the peasants (1514). By order of Dózsa, the leader of the peasants, Bishop Nicholas Csáky was impaled. After the battle of Mohács (1526) in which Bishop Franz Csaholy (1514–26) was killed, almost the entire diocese fell into the hands of Zápolya, the ally of the Turks. When in 1552 Temesvar also was taken by the Turks the diocese was nearly ruined. The see had henceforth merely a nominal existence and the residence of the bishop was transferred in 1574 to Szegedin. It was only after the Treaty of Passarowitz (1718) freed the land from the yoke of the Turks that Bishop Ladislaus Nádasdy (1710–30) re-entered the diocese; the depopulated territory was largely settled anew by German colonists. During the Revolution of 1848 Bishop Joseph Lonovics von Krivina (1834–48) was driven into exile; later the Hungarian minister of worship, Michael Horvath, was appointed bishop but was not consecrated. During the episcopate of Ladislaus Köszeghy (1800–28) the seminary for priests was founded; during that of Alexander Csajághy (1851–60) the School Sisters of Notre-Dame were brought into the diocese, and during the administration of Alexander Bonnaz (1860–89) the seminary for boys was erected.

SCHWICKER, Geschichte des Temeser Banates (Nagy-Becskerek, 1861); NEHER in Kirchenlex., VII, 935–37; Die katholische Kirche und ihre Diener in Wort und Bild (Munich, 1900), II, 623–26; Schematismus cleri dioecesis Csanadiensis (annual).

JOSEPH LINS

Cuba

Cuba, “The Pearl of the Antilles,” is the largest and westernmost island of the West Indies. Its extent, geographical position, the great number of its ports, the fertility of its soil, and its climate make it one of the most interesting countries in the New World. It lies at the entrance to the Gulf of Mexico, between 19° And 23° N. latitude, and 74° And 85° W. longitude. Its western extremity, Cape San Antonio, approaches to within 130 miles of Yucatan, and its easternmost point, Cape Maisí, is within 50 miles of Haiti, the Windward Passage separating the two islands, while the southern end of Florida is less than 100 miles from the northern coast of Cuba. The island thus occupies a very important strategic position, commanding, as it does, the entrances to the Gulf of Mexico. It has a length of almost 750 miles from east to west, and its width varies from 100 miles, at the eastern end, to 30 miles in the western portion. Its area is about 45,000 square miles, including the Isle of Pines, which lies immediately south of its western extremity. It is therefore a little less in size than the State of Virginia, and about the size of England. It is divided politically into six provinces in the following order from west to east: Pinar del Río, Havana, Matanzas, Santa Clara, Puerto Príncipe (Camagüey), and Santiago de Cuba.

NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS

The coast line, especially along the southern shore, is dotted with numerous small islands, while both the north and south coasts have many excellent bays and harbours; those of Bahía Honda, Havana, Matanzas and Cárdenas on the north coast, and Batabanó, Cienfuegos, Santiago de Cuba, and Guantanamo, on the south, being accessible to ships of deep draught. The principal feature in the physical geography of Cuba is a range of mountains which, more or less broken, runs through the central portion of the island from one end to the other. From this backbone the rives run generally north and south, in short course, to the sea. For the most part, low tracts intervene between the central elevation and the sea. The forests are noted for a great variety and abundance of hardwoods, some of which are unsurpassed for their special qualities. Among these are lignum-vitæ, cocoa-wood, which somewhat resembles it, mahogany of superior quality and very abundant, and cedar. Though the forests are extensive and almost impenetrable, there are no large wild animals. There are more than two hundred species of birds, many of the extremely beautiful plumage. The varieties of fish are even more abundant. Insects are extremely numerous and of many troublesome kinds, the most to be feared being the tarantula and scorpion; the most beautiful, the large fire-flies or cucuyos, which emit a mild, steady light. Although the mineral riches of Cuba have not as yet been fully explored, it is known not be deficient in this respect. The precious metals have been found, but not in sufficient quantities to repay the cost of working. There are abundant deposits of copper, alum, iron, marble, and manganese.

Lying just within the tropical zone, Cuba enjoys a arm climate throughout the year. This is tempered, during the summer months, by the cool north-east trade-winds which blow almost every day in the year from early morning until sunset, and also by the rains which are most frequent during those months. The year is divided between the hot, wet season, and the cool, dry season. From May to October rain and thunder are of almost daily occurrence; from November to April is the dry season, during which period the rainfall is comparatively light. The temperature at Havana during the hottest month, August, averages 82° F. fluctuating between a maximum and a minimum of 88 deg F. and 72° F. During January, the coldest month, the average temperature is 72° F., the maximum 78° F. and the minimum 58° F. . The average for the year is about 77° F. In the interior, and especially in the higher portions of the island, the thermometer occasionally drops to the freezing-point, and thin ice may be seen on the surface of pools. Snow, however, is unknown throughout the island. There are no diseases specially endemic to the island. Yellow fever was formerly very common and virulent, especially in Havana and other seacoast towns, though unknown in the interior. During the American occupation, however, such vigorous and thorough sanitary measures were adopted that Havana, from being a plague spot and a menace to the ports of the United States, became one of the cleanest cities in the world.

HISTORY

Cuba was discovered by Columbus during his first voyage, on the 28th of October, 1492. He took possession in the name of the Catholic monarchs of Spain, and named it Juana in honour of the Infante Don Juan. He again visited the island in 1494, and in 1502, and on each occasion explored part of the coast. He then believed that Cuba was part of the mainland, and it was not until 1508 that Sebastian Ocampo, by order of the king, circumnavigated it, and proved it to be an island. IN 1511, Captain Diego Velásquez, who had accompanied Columbus on his second voyage, was sent to Cuba to subjugate and colonize the island. He landed near Cape Maisí, the eastern extremity, and there was founded Baracoa, the first colony in Cuba. In 1514 Velásquez founded Trinidad and Santiago de Cuba on the south coast, Sancti Spiritus, Remedios, and Puerto Príncipe in the central portion; and, on the site of the present city of Batabanó, towards the western extremity of the south coast, San Cristóbal de la Habana; this last name, however, was given, in 1519, to a settlement existing on the present site of Havana. The same year Baracoa was raised to the dignity of a city and a bishopric, and was made the capital, as it continued to be until 1522, when both the capital and bishopric were transferred to Santiago de Cuba. Havana became the capital in 1552, and has remained so ever since.

Upon the death of Ferdinand, 23 January, 1516, Velásquez changed the name of the island to Fernandina in honour of that monarch. Later, the name was changed to Santiago in honour of Spain’s patron saint, and still later, to Ave María in honour of the Blessed virgin. During all these official changes, however, the island continued to be known by its original name of Cuba, given it by natives, and it has retained the name to the present day. The aborigines (Siboneys) whom the Spaniards found in Cuba, were a mild, timid, inoffensive people, entirely unable to resist the invaders of their country, or to endure the hardships imposed upon them. They lived under nine independent caciques or chiefs, and possessed a simple religion devoid of rites and ceremonies, but with a belief in a supreme being, and the immortality of the soul. They were reduced to slavery by the white settlers, among whom, however, the energetic and persevering Father Bartolomé de Las Casas, “The Protector of the Indians,” as he was officially called, earned a high reputation in history by his philanthropic efforts. In 1524, the first cargo of negro slaves was landed in Cuba. Then began the iniquitous traffic in African slaves upon which corrupt officials fattened for many years thereafter. The negroes were subjected to great cruelties and hardships, their natural increase was checked, and their numbers had to be recruited by repeated importations. This traffic constantly increased, until at the beginning of the nineteenth century, slaves were being imported at the rate of over 10,000 per year.

In 1538, Havana was reduced to ashes by the French, and was destroyed a second time in 1554. In 1762, the city was taken by the English, but within a year, under the terms of the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Seven Years War, it was returned to Spain in exchange for Florida. From this time the progress of Cuba was rapid. Luis de Las Casas, who was sent to Cuba as captain general, was especially energetic in instituting reforms, and he did much for the prosperity and advancement of the island. During the nineteenth century, however, Cuba was governed by a succession of captains general, some of whom were honourable in their administration, while others seemed to regard their office solely as the means of acquiring a fortune. Various oppressive measures instituted by some of these governors, such as depriving the native Cubans of political and civil liberty, excluding them from public office, and burdening them with taxation, gave rise to the deadly hatred between the Cubans and the Spaniards, which manifested itself from time to time in uprisings for greater privileges and freedom. Of this kind were the conspiracy of the “Black Eagle” (1829, the insurrection of the black population (1844), and the conspiracy of Narciso López (1849–51), all which gave occasion to repressive measures of great cruelty. The rebellion of 1868–78, however, compelled Spain to promise the Cubans representation in the Cortes, together with other needed reforms. She failed to keep many of her promises, and the general discontent continued, with the result that in 1895, a new and formidable revolt broke out. The insurgents, under able leaders, were able to keep the field, in spite of the extremely energetic and even cruel measured that were adopted to crush them. They were able to maintain the semblance of a government, and their heroic resistance, as well as the conduct of Spain, aroused great sympathy for them throughout the United States.

From the time that Florida became a part of the United States, this government had taken a deep interest in Cuba, fearing that the island might pass from Spain to other hands, especially England or France. In 1848, President Polk had authorized the American minister at Madrid to offer $100,000,000 for the purchase of Cuba, but Spain rejected the offer. The subject had been revived in 1854, following the Ostend Manifesto, but again it came to nothing. During the last uprising of the Cuban people, already mentioned, not only the United States government, but the entire American people were watching the struggle with intense interest, when, on the night of 15 February, 1898, a terrific explosion destroyed the United States battleship Maine in Havana harbour, whither she had gone on a friendly visit by invitation of the Spanish Government. Relations between the two governments became strained, and they finally went to war in April of the same year. The war was of only a few months duration, and as a result of it, under the terms of the Treaty of Paris, (10 December, 1898), Spain relinquished her hold on Cuba, which she had held for over 400 years. Beginning 1 January, 1899, the United States occupied the island and appointed a military governor, pending the formation of a native government. This was eventually installed with the inauguration as president of Don Tomás Estrada Palma (20 May, 1902), and the American occupation formally and definitely ceased on that day. Cuba now seemed to be entering upon an era of peace and prosperity, but it was to be of short duration. Differences between the Moderate and Liberal parties occasioned by the second presidential election, in 1905, culminated, in July, 1906, in a revolutionary movement started by the Liberal leaders. The government soon lost control of the situation, so that in September, 1906, the United States was forced to intervene. A provisional government was then established under authority from Washington, with Charles E. Magoon at its head. During 1907, a new census was undertaken, upon which to base new elections for president and members of Congress.

AGRICULTURE

For two hundred and fifty years after the discovery of the island, cattle raising seems to have been the principal industry, and very little attention was paid to agriculture. Now, however, Cuba is essentially an agricultural country. The principal agricultural products are sugar, tobacco, and fruits. As for coffee, little more is grown than is needed for domestic consumption, although the soil and climate of the eastern portion of the island are adapted to the cultivation of a superior quality of coffee. Oranges, limes, lemons, olives, pineapples, and many other fruits are also grown, as well as all kinds of vegetables, which grow almost the year around. The Cuban orange is noted for its exquisite taste, and its cultivation was an important Cuban industry until Californian and Floridan competition impaired its value. Bananas are grown throughout the island, but the best come from the central and eastern portions. The most important of all the products, however, are sugar and tobacco. The former was introduced into Cuba by its first governor, Velásquez, and from a small beginning the industry grew, with improved methods of cultivation and the introduction of improved machinery, until, just before the last insurrection (1895), the annual output amounted to over 1,000,000 tons. The product next in importance to sugar is tobacco. This, unlike the former, is indigenous in Cuba, and was in use by the natives when the Spaniards first visited the island. Cuban tobacco is universally admitted to be the finest in the world, especially that grown in a section of the province of Pinar del Río known as Vuelta Abajo. Many attempts have been made to reproduce the tobacco of this region in other parts of the world, and even in other parts of Cuba, but always without success, the superiority of the Vuelta Abajo product being probably due to the peculiar topography of the country. In 1894–95, the season in which the best crop was grown previous to the last census (1899), the production for the island amounted to 62,000,000 lbs. valued at $22,000,000.

TRANSPORTATION

Cuba had very few railroads until within recent years, when there has been great activity in building new lines and extending old ones. The completion of the road running through the centre of the island, and connecting Havana with Santiago de Cuba, marks the realization of a long-felt commercial need and the attainment of a political end of great importance.

POPULATION

The official census of 1899 showed a total population of 1,572,797 divided by provinces as follows:—Havana—424,804

Matanzas—202,444

Pinar del Río—173,064

Puerto Príncipe—88,234

Santa Clara—356,536

Santiago de Cuba—327,715

Of the inhabitants 1,400,202 are natives, and 172,535 foreign-born. The white population constitutes 68 per cent. of the total, the remaining 32 per cent. being made up of negroes, mixed elements, and Chinese. The native white population are nearly all descendants of the Spaniards. Although since the evacuation of Cuba by the Spaniards there has been entire freedom of worship, the population is almost exclusively Catholic. Spanish is the official language of Cuba, though it is characterized by certain light local peculiarities of pronunciation.

RELIGION

In 1518 Leo X established the Diocese of all Cuba, which included also the Spanish possessions of Louisiana and Florida. The see was established at Baracoa in Santiago de Cuba, and in 1522, by a Bull of Adrian VI, it was transferred to the city of Santiago de Cuba, where it has remained to the present day. Prior to the nineteenth century, there appears to have been no question regarding the titles of property held by the Church in Spain or in Cuba. But in the beginning of that century, the property held by the Church in Spain was confiscated by the State. This confiscation however, related only to the Church possessions in Spain and did not affect her insular possessions. In 1837, Captain General Tacón sought to make this Spanish confiscation act applicable to the holdings of the monastic orders in Cuba, and in 1841, Valdés, who was then governor, actually seized these properties and diverted them to the uses of the State. Among these seizures were the convent of the Franciscans, which has been used since then as the Custom House; the convent of the Dominicans, used for a time by the University of Havana; the convent of the Augustinians, used as the Academy of Sciences; the convent of San Ysidro, used by the Spaniards as military barracks, and later by the Americans, as a relief station. Up to the time of the American occupation these and other valuable properties, formerly held by the Catholic church, had been held by Spain, subject to the results of a long series of negotiations between the Crown of Spain and the Holy See. The Spanish Government also held a large amount of censos, or mortgages, upon property in different parts of the island which had been given to the church for religious purposes, but which had been taken over by the State for purposes of administration. The Crown, however, annually paid the Church a large sum for its maintenance. With the American occupation these annual payments ceased, and the American Government continued to use the property for the same governmental purposes to which it had been put by the Spaniards. The Church thereupon claimed the right to take back the property. This gave rise to a long discussion and investigation, until the whole matter was finally referred to a judicial commission in 1902. This commission decided in favour of the claims of the Church, and the matter was adjusted to the satisfaction of all. The government of Intervention agreed to pay a rental of 5 per cent. upon the appraised value of the property, which amounted to about $2,000,000, with a five year’s option to the government of Cuba, when organized, to buy the property at the appraised value, receiving credit against the purchase price for 25 per cent. of the rental paid; and the matter of the censos was adjusted by the Government of Intervention taking them at 50 cents on the dollar and permitting the debtors to take them up at the same rate.

The island at present is divided ecclesiastically into one archdiocese and three suffragan dioceses as follows: the Archdiocese of Santiago de Cuba, created as such in 1804, comprising the civil province of the same name and that of Puerto Príncipe; the Diocese of Havana, established in 1788, comprising the civil provinces of Havana and Matanzas; the Diocese of Cienfuegos, established in 1903, which includes the province of Santa Clara; the diocese of Pinar del Río, established at the same time as the preceding in 1903, and comprising the civil province of the same name and the Isle of Pines. In 1899 the remains of Christopher Columbus, which had been brought from Santo Domingo in 1796 and had since then been preserved in the cathedral of Havana, were once more removed, this time to Seville in Spain. The Archbishop of Santiago de Cuba is metropolitan of the island. Francisco Barnaba Aguilar, the first native incumbent of this metropolitan see, was consecrated by Archbishop Chapelle, 1 July, 1899. Under Spanish rule all the bishops, as well as most of the priests of the island were appointed from Madrid. An Apostolic Delegate for Cuba and Porto Rico now resides at Havana. He is not accredited to the Cuban Government, and Cuba has no official representative at the Vatican. The first delegate was Archbishop Chapelle of New Orleans, who was sent by leo XIII to look after the interests of the Church in Cuba during the American occupation. There are in the island 199 secular, and 129 regular priests. Of institutions conducted by religious orders, there are 13 colleges for boys, 17 schools and academies for girls, 5 orphan asylums, 1 reform school, 2 houses of the Good Shepherd, 2 asylums for the aged, and 2 hospitals. The clergy age exempted from military service and jury duty. There are no chapels in the prisons; wills and inheritances are subject only to civil laws; cemeteries are owned in some instances by the municipalities, in others, as at Havana, by the Church. Church property is held in the name of “the Roman Catholic Church.” Both civil and religious marriages are legal and binding and persons may be married according to either or both. Divorce is not legally recognized.

EDUCATION

During the early history of Cuba, the clergy seemed to have been the principal if not the only gents of education. By the Bull of Adrian VI (28 April, 1522), the Scholatria was established at Santiago de Cuba for giving instruction in Latin. In 1689, the college of San Ambrosio was founded in Havana under control of the Jesuits, for the purpose of preparing young men for the priesthood. The foundation of another Jesuit college in Havana was the next step that gave a fresh impulse to education; this was opened in 1724 under the name of the College of San Ignacio. The old College of San Ambrosio was then united with it, although it s till retained its character as a foundation-school for the Church. As early as 1688, the city council of Havana petitioned the royal government to establish a university in that city, in order that young men desirous of pursuing the higher studies might not be compelled to go to Europe to do so. This was not immediately granted, but finally, by a letter of Innocent XIII (12 September, 1721), the fathers of the Convent of San Juan de Letran were authorized to open the institution desired, and, after some years of preparation, the present University of Havana was founded in 1728. The rectors, vice-rectors, counsellors, and secretaries were to be Dominicans. In 1793, under the administration of Don Luis de las Casas, who is always gratefully remembered by the Cubans, was founded La Sociedad Económica de la Habana, which has always been the prime mover in the educational advancement of the island.

Not until the last century was well advanced, was there a free institution in all Cuba were children could be taught to read and write. The first opened was that of the Bethlehemite Fathers in Havana, and that through the generosity of a private citizen.

In 1899, the date of the American occupation, private schools abounded in Cuba, but the benefits of these could be enjoyed only by the children of the rich. The children of the poorer classes who attended the so-called municipal schools, received only a rudimentary education. But soon, after the American intervention the wonderful work of reconstruction was begun. Adequate school buildings were provided, the number of teachers was rapidly increased, and measures were adopted to compel children to attend the classes. When the Cuban government assumed control, it continued the good work along the same lines, so that now it can be said that the public schools are equal, if not superior to the private ones, at least as to furniture and teaching apparatus. Primary education, according to the Constitution, is gratuitous and compulsory. The expenses are paid by the municipality or, in any case of municipal inability to pay, by the Federal Government. Secondary and higher education are controlled by the State. The children of the public schools receive religious instruction in what are known as doctrinas, of which there is one in every parish, and at the head of it is the parish priest. These doctrinas are like Sunday schools, except that sessions are held on Saturday instead of Sunday. The teachers are all volunteers, and are usually ladies who live in the parish. According to the census of 1899, the proportion of illiteracy was about 60 per cent. But with the extraordinary increase in the number of schools and facilities for teaching, this proportion is (in 1908) rapidly decreasing.

Recently the University has been divided into three faculties: Letters and Sciences; Medicine and Pharmacy; Law. The faculty of Letters and Sciences consists of the schools of letters and philosophy, of pedagogy, of sciences, of engineering, electricity, of architecture, and of agriculture. The faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy consists of the schools of medicine, of pharmacy, of dental surgery, and of veterinary surgery. The faculty of Law consists of the schools of civil law, of public law, and of notarial law. There are also in Havana a normal school, a school of painting and sculpture, and a school of arts and trades.

DE LA SAGRA, Historia física, política, y natural de la Isla de Cuba (13 vols., Madrid, 1849–61); VON SIVERS, Cuba, die Perle der Antillen (Leipzig, 1861); CABRERA, Cuba and the Cubans, tr. by GUITERAS (Philadelphia, 1896); ROWAN AND RAMSAY, The Island of Cuba (New York, 1896); CLARK, Commercial Cuba (New York, 1898); PORTER, Industrial Cuba (New York, 1898); CANINI, Four Centuries of Spanish Rule in Cuba (Chicago, 1898); NOA, The Pearl of the Antilles (New York, 1898); CURRIER, Cuba, What shall we do with it? (Baltimore, 1898); Informe sobre el Censo de Cuba, 1899 (Washington, 1900); Senate Documents (1903–04), VII, 58th Congress, 2nd Session; ROBINSON, CUBA AND THE Intervention (New York, 1905). RODRIGUEZ, The Church and Church Property in Cuba in Am. Cath. Quar. Rev. (Philadelphia, 1900), 366 sqq.; CLINCH, Spain and Cuba, ibid. (1897), 809 sqq.

VENTURA FUENTES

Diocese of Cuenca (Conca in Indiis)

DIOCESE OF CUENCA (CONCA IN INDIIS).

A suffragan of Quito, in the Republic of Ecuador, South America, created 13 June, 1779. The episcopal city, which has 30,000 inhabitants, is situated 7700 feet above the sea, in a broad plain of the province of Azuay, about seventy-five miles south-east of Guayaquil. Peruvian antiquities abound in the vicinity. Cuenca is the second see in importance of the Ecuadorian provinces. It includes the civil divisions of Azuay, of which Cuenca is the capital, and Canar, the capital of which is Azogues. The first missions were centred in the eastern portion of the republic owing to the slow progress of civilization elsewhere. The Jesuits were first in the field followed by the Franciscans, Fathers of Mercy, Dominicans, and some secular priests. In 1599 the Jesuit Rafael Ferrer penetrated to Cofanes, and his associates in the Society of Jesus, Lucas de la Cueva and Gaspar Cujia, later organized the work that went on with so much success for religion and civilization during 130 years, until the Society was expelled in 1767. A mission, under the Salesian Fathers, is now in operation in the Vicariate of Gualaquiza, east of Cuenca. To this diocese belonged the Franciscan Vicente Solano (1790–1865), famous as a Catholic controversialist.

The first bishop of the see was José Carrión y Marfil, consecrated in 1786, and he has had nine successors, during whose administrations the faith of the people has been loyally preserved in spite of all difficulties. The organization of the diocese is mainly due to that excellent administrator, Bishop Toral (1861–1883), who also assisted at the Vatican Council. Devotion to the Blessed Sacrament has been so notable a characteristic of the diocese that Cuenca has won the title of the “Eucharistic City.” A special Eucharistic feast known as “The Cuenca Septenary” is kept with great fervour. Owing to the domination of radicalism in national politics the Church is not now able to make very special progress in the republic, and the secular spoliation of ecclesiastical property has given rise to scandalous usurpations of her rights. The effects of continual civil strife have been as disastrous to religious progress as they have been debilitating and destructive to commercial and industrial prosperity. The appointment by the Holy See, after a vacancy of seven years, on 11 January, 1907, of Bishop Manuel Maria Polit has had beneficial results.

STATISTICS

Parishes, 60; priests, secular 130, seminarians 18, regular 60; lay brothers 25; Congregations of women, contemplative 70, active 140, novices 50; 1 college, 120 students; 2 literary academies, 40 pupils; 2 schools, Christian Brothers, 1300 pupils; 55 parish schools (boys), 1500 pupils; 48 (girls), 785 pupils; 2 hospitals; 1 home for aged, 20 inmates, 1 orphan asylum, 15 inmates; 1 House of Good Shepherd, 14 penitents; 1 asylum, 50 children. Catholic population 200,000.

TOMAS ALVARADO

Diocese of Cuenca (Conca)

(Conca)

Diocese in Spain, suffragan of Toledo. The episcopal city (10,756) is also the capital of the civil province of the same name, and the diocese includes, in addition, a portion of the provinces of Guadalajara and Albacete. Cuenca was made a diocese in 1183 by Lucius III, shortly after its reconquest from the Moors by Alfonso IX (1177). The first bishop was Juan Yanez. Among its famous prelates were (1577) the great jurisconsult Diego de Covarruvias y Leyva, Isidoro de Carvajal y Lancaster (1760), and (1858) Cardinal Miguel Paya, Archbishop of Santiago, one of the most distinguished prelates of the Vatican Council. The cathedral of Cuenca is a magnificent Gothic edifice begun at the end of the twelfth and finished in the thirteenth century. One of its chapels bears the name and was built at the expense of the Albornoz family to which belonged the great cardinal Gil de Albornoz. The church of Santa Maria de Gracia, once a synagogue, is remarkable for its fine sculptures

EDUARDO DE HINOJOSA

Diocese of Cuernavaca

DIOCESE OF CUERNAVACA (CUERNAVACENSIS).

The Diocese of Cuernavaca, erected 23 June, 1891, comprises all the State of Morelos in the Republic of Mexico, and is bounded on the north and the west by the Archdiocese of Mexico, on the east by the Archdiocese of Puebla, and on the south by the Bishopric of Chilapa. It has an area of 7184 square kilometers, with a population of 161,697. The Gospel was first preached in the territory of the present diocese by the Franciscans who founded the convent of Cuernavaca in 1526. In 1529 the Dominicans established themselves at Oaxtepec, and the Augustinians in 1534 at Ocuituco. Motolinia, the Franciscan historian, asserts that in 1536 all the inhabitants of this region had been converted to the Faith. In the eighteenth century the churches founded by the religious of these three orders were secularized, that of Cuautla alone remaining to the Dominicans, but this also finally passed into the hands of the secular clergy. The diocese is now enjoying a period of peace. Agriculture, the manufacture of alcohol, and the sugar industry, form the principal means of livelihood for the inhabitants. The non-Catholics, who are about 500 in number, form small communities and are permitted absolute freedom.

The first bishop, Fortino Hipólito Vera was consecrated 29 July, 1894. He died 23 September, 1898, and was succeeded by Francisco Plancarte y Navarrete, consecrated first Bishop of Campeche, 16 September, 1896, and translated to the vacant see of Cuernavaca, 28 November, 1898. He took possession 16 February, 1899.

The diocese is divided into 34 parishes and has 42 secular and 6 regular priests, who have charge of the seminary. Eight Marist Brothers have charge of the schools for boys, and 20 sisters (Hijas de Maria Inmaculada de Guadalupe) those for the girls. There are 12 parochial schools with an attendance of more than one thousand, boys and girls. Besides these there are in the episcopal city a seminary with about 36 boarders, a college for boys attended by 262 students, both boarders and day scholars, an orphan asylum with 40 regular inmates and 274 girls who attend classes there, and a Catholic hospital supported by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. The “Boletín Oficial y Revista Eclesiástica del Obispado de Cuernavaca,” published fortnightly, is the only Catholic publication in the diocese. The episcopal residence is in the city of Cuernavaca, whose foundation antedates the thirteenth century. It has a population of 9564. Conquered by the Aztecs about the middle of the fifteenth century, it was taken by the Spaniards in April, 1521. It was the favourite residence of Hernán Cortés and of the unfortunate Emperor Maximilian. since 1870 it has been the capital of the new State of Morelos.

FRANCISCO PLANCARTE Y NAVARRETE

Juan de la Cueva

Poet and dramatist, b. of a noble family at Seville, Spain, in 1550, d. in 1607. Little is known of his life save that in his later years, he visited the West Indies and lived for some time in Portugal. It is as a dramatic writer that Cueva merits notice. He was a prolific writer for the stage, yet but few of his plays have been preserved. They were represented in 1579 and the years following, and are important because most of them are historical. He must be given credit also for his dramatic initiative, for he ignored Greek and Latin traditions, and developed his plots, chararacters, incidents, and situations with little regard for “the unities” of the classical model. He was thus one of the first to forsake the Classical for the romantic drama. In addition he reduced the number of jornadas, or acts, from five to four, and introduced a number of metrical forms hitherto unknown upon the stage. Several of the plays are on national subjects, such as “La Libertad de Espana por Bernardo del Carpio” and “Los Siete Infantes de Lara.” Among those dealing with ancient history may be mentioned “La Muerta de Ajax,” “Telemon sobre las Armas de Aquiles,” and “La Muerte de Virginia y Apio Claudio.” One of them, “El Saco de Roma y Muerte de Borbon,” deals with a great event which was their recent, and describes the Italian triumphs of Charles V. Another, “El Infamador,” foreshadows in one of its characters Leucino, the type of libertine which Tirso de Molina afterwards immortalized with his Don Juan.

These plays are somewhat crude in structure, and a noticeable fault is that the author makes all the characters, whether of high or low degree, talk in the same lofty vein. Again, he involves his characters in difficulties and situations whence escape seems impossible, and then without regard to plausibility, grasps the first solution that presents itself, such as a murder or some supernatural intervention. Among his non-dramatic works are: a collection of lyric poems and sonnets, published under the title “Obras de Juan de la Cueva” (Seville, 1582); “Coro Febeo de Romances historiales,” a collection of one hundred romances (1587), of which A. Duran has reproduced sixty-three cantos in his “Romancero”; and an epic poem in twenty-four cantos, “La Conquista de la Betica” (Seville, 1603), describing the conquest of Seville by the King Saint Ferdinand.

VENTURA FUENTES

Culdees

A word so frequently met with in histories of the medieval Churches of Ireland and Scotland, and so variously understood and applied, that a well-informed writer (Reeves) describes it as the best-abused word in Scotic church-history. The etymology of the term, the persons designated by it, their origin, their doctrines, the rule or rules under which they lived, the limits of their authority and privileges have all been matters of controversy; and on these questions much learning and ability has been shown, and not a little partizan zeal. In the Irish language the word was written Ceile-De, meaning companion, or even spouse, of God, with the Latin equivalent in the plural, Colidei, anglicized into Culdees; in Scotland it was often written Kelidei. All admit that, in the beginning at all events, the Culdees were separated from the mass of the faithful, that their lives were devoted to religion, and that they lived in community. But the Scotch writers, unwilling to trace the name to an Irish source, prefer to derive it from “cultores Dei,” worshippers of God, or from cuil, a shelter, or from kil, a church. The Irish derivation, however, is the easiest and the most natural, and the one now generally accepted. From Ceile-De the transition is easy to Colideus and Culdee; and in the Irish annals the epithet Ceile-De is appropriately given to St. John, one of the twelve Apostles, to a missioner from abroad whose coming to Ireland is recorded in the Four Masters at the year 806, and to Aengus (q.v.), the well-known monk and author of Tallaght, whose penances and mortifications, whose humility, piety, and religious zeal, would specially mark him out as the companion of God.

Taking him as an example of the class to which he belonged, probably the highest example which could be given, when we remember the character of his life, we find that the Culdees were holy men who loved solitude and lived by the labour of their hands. Gradually they came together in community, still occupying separate cells, still much alone and in communion with God, but meeting in the refectory and in the church, and giving obedience to a common superior. St. Maelruan, under whom Aengus lived, and who died as early as 792, drew up a rule for the Culdees of Tallaght which prescribed the time and manner of their prayers, fasts, and devotions, the frequency with which they ought to go to confession, the penances to be imposed for faults committed. But we have no evidence that this rule was widely accepted even in the other Culdean establishments. Nor could the Culdees at any time be said to have attained to the position of a religious order, composed of many houses, scattered over many lands, bound by a common rule, revering the memory and imitating the virtues of their founder, and looking to the parent house from which they sprang, as the children of Columbanus looked to Luxeuil or Bobbio, or the Columban monks looked to Iona. After the death of Maelruan Tallaght is forgotten, and the name Ceile-De disappears from the Irish annals until 919, when the Four Masters record that Armagh was plundered by the Danes, but that the houses of prayer, “with the people of God, that is Ceile-De,” were spared. Subsequent entries in the annals show that there were Culdees at Clonmacnoise, Clondalken, and Clones, at Monahincha in Tipperary, and at Scattery Island.

To those of the eighth century, such as were represented by Aengus, were soon added secular priests who assumed the name of Culdees, lived in community, subjected themselves to monastic discipline, but were not bound by monastic vows. Such an order of priests had, in the middle of the eighth century, been founded at Metz. As they lived according to rules and canons of councils, they came to be called secular canons and were usually attached to collegiate or cathedral churches. They became popular and quickly extended even to Ireland, and it is significant that in the accounts given of the Culdee establishments at Clones, Devenish, and Scattery Island, Culdee and canon are taken as convertible terms. The Danish wars, which brought ruin on so many proud monastic establishments, easily effected the destruction of the Culdee houses with their feebler resisting powers. Some such as Clondalken and Clones, disappeared altogether, or dragged out a miserable existence which differed little from death. At Clonmacnoise, as early as the eleventh century, the Culdees were laymen and married, while those at Monahincha and Scattery Island being utterly corrupt and unable, or unwilling, to reform, gave way to the regular canons, with their [p. 564] purer morals and stricter discipline. (See CANONS AND CANONESSES REGULAR.)

Those at Armagh were more tenacious of existence. Like their brethren throughout Ireland, they had felt the corrupting influence of the Danish wars; and while lay abbots ruled at Armagh the Culdees had so far departed from their primitive piety that in the twelfth century regular canons were introduced in to the cathedral church and henceforth took precedence of the Culdees. But the latter, six in number, a prior and five vicars, still continued a corporate existence at Armagh. They were specially charged with the celebration of the Divine offices and the care of the church building, had separate lands, and sometimes had charges of parishes. When a chapter was formed, about 1160, the prior usually filled the office of precentor, his brethren being vicars choral, and himself ranking in the chapter next to the chancellor. He was elected by his brother Culdees and confirmed by the primate, and had a voice in the election of the archbishop by virtue of his position in the chapter. As Ulster was the last of the Irish provinces to be brought effectually under English rule, the Armagh Culdees long outlived their brethren throughout Ireland. By the end of Elizabeth’s reign, however, they had died out, and in 1628, a new body was incorporated by Charles I—the “Prior and Vicars Choral” of the cathedral church of Armagh—to which were transferred the lands formerly held by the Culdees. Five years later, the Catholic primate, O’Reilly, announced to Rome that he had been elected “Prior of the College of the Culdees,” and he wanted to know if in assuming the title he had acted in accordance with canon law. We do not know what was the nature of the answer he received, but this is the last mention made of the Irish Culdees.

At York was their only English establishment, where they performed in the tenth century the double duty of officiating in the cathedral church and of relieving the sick and poor. When a new cathedral arose under a Norman archbishop, they ceased their connexion with the cathedral, but, with resources augmented by many donations, they continued to relieve the destitute. The date at which they finally disappeared is unknown. Nor do we know the fate of the single Culdean house in Wales, which existed at Bardsey in the days of Giraldus Cambrensis. In Scotland they were more numerous even than in Ireland. No less than thirteen monastic establishments were peopled by them, eight of which were in connexion with cathedral churches. National pride induced some of the Scotch writers to assert that the Culdees were Scotch and not Irish. But the influence of Ireland on the primitive Christian Church of Scotland was so overwhelming, and facts to show this are so many, that the ablest among the Scotch historians, such as Pinkerton, Innes, and Hill- Burton, are compelled to admit that the first Culdees were Irish, and that from Ireland they spread to Scotland. They were not, however, Columban monks, for there is no mention of any Culdees at any Columban monastery, either in Ireland or in Scotland, until long after Columba was in his grave; nor was it until 1164 that Culdees are mentioned as being in Iona, and then only in a subordinate position. Appearing, then, first in Ireland, they subsequently appeared in Scotland, and in both countries their history and fate are almost identical. Attached to cathedral or collegiate churches, living in monastic fashion, though not taking monastic vows, the Scotch, like the Irish Culdees, were originally men of piety and zeal. The turbulence of the times and the acquisition of wealth sowed the seeds of decay, zeal gave way to indolence and neglect, a celibate community to married men, church property was squandered or alienated, even the altar offering, grasped by avarice, were diverted to personal uses, and by the end of he thirteenth century the Scotch Culdee houses had in almost every case disappeared. Some, like Dunkeld and Abernethy, were superseded by regular canons; others, like Brechin and Dunblane, were extinguished with the introduction of cathedral chapters; and one at least, Monifieth, had passed into the hands of laymen. At St. Andrews they lived on, side by side with the regular canons, and still clung to their ancient privilege of electing the archbishop. But their claim was disallowed at Rome, and in 1273 they were debarred even from voting. Before the Reformation they had finally disappeared, and in 1616 the lands they once held were annexed to the See of St. Andrews.

REEVES, The Culdees in Royal Irish Academy Transactions (Dublin, 1864); LANIGAN, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (Dublin, 1822); STOKES (ed.), The Felire of Aengus in Royal Irish Academy Transactions (Dublin, 1880); STUART, ed. COLEMAN, Historical Memoirs of Armagh (Dublin, 1900); PINKERTON, An Enquiry into the History of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1814), I; COSMO INNES, Scotland in the Middle Ages (Edinburgh, 1860); THOMAS INNES, A Critical Essay on the Ancient Inhabitants of the Northern Parts of Britain and Scotland (London, 1729).

E. A. D’ALTON.

Paul Cullen

Cardinal, Archbishop of Dublin, born at Prospect, Co. Kildare, Ireland, 29 April, 1803; died at Dublin, 24 October, 1878. His first school days were passed at the Shackleton School in the neighboring village of Ballytore. He entered Carlow College as alumnus in 1816, and proceeded, in 1820, to the College of Propaganda in Rome where his name is registered on the roll of students under date of 29 November, 1820. At the close of a distinguished course of studies he was selected to hold a public disputation in the halls of Propaganda on the 11th of September, 1828, in 224 theses from all theology and ecclesiastical history. This theological tournament was privileged in many ways, for Leo XII, attended by his court, presided on the occasion, while no fewer than ten cardinals assisted at it, together with all the élite of ecclesiastical Rome. The youthful Abbate Pecci, the future Leo XIII, was present at the disputation, and referring to it at a later period declared that it made an indelible impression upon him, and that he was filled with admiration for the brilliant talent and singular modesty of the Irish student. During his course of studies, Paul Cullen had acquired a profound knowledge of the classical and Oriental languages, and it was a novel thing to see a young Irish priest immediately on his ordination appointed to the chairs of Hebrew and Sacred Scripture in the schools of Propaganda, and receiving at the same time the charge of the famed printing establishment of the Sacred Congregation. This later charge he resigned in 1832, when appointed rector of the Irish College in Rome, but during the short term of his administration he published a standard edition of the Greek and Latin Lexicon of Hedericus, which still holds its place in the Italian colleges; he also edited the Acts of the Congregation of Propaganda in seven quarto volumes, and other important works.

While rector of the Irish College (1832–1850) he was admitted to the intimate friendship of Gregory XVI and Pius IX. He profited by the influence which he thus enjoyed to safeguard the interests of the Irish Church, and to unmask the intrigues of the British agents who at this period were untiring in their attempts to force their political views upon the Vatican, and to forge fetters for Catholic Ireland. During the troubled period of the Roman Revolution, Dr. Cullen, at the request of the Sacred Congregation, accepted the responsible position of the rector of the College of Propaganda, retaining, however, the charge of Rector of the Irish College. Soon after his appointment the Revolutionary Trimuvirate in the frenzy of their triumph issued orders that within a few hours the College of Propaganda was to be dissolved and the buildings to be appropriated for government purposes. Without a moment’s delay the rector appealed to Lewis Cass the United States minister, for the protection of the citizens of the United States who were students of the college. Within an hour the American flag was floating over the Propaganda College. The mandate of Triumvirs was withdrawn, and a decree was issued to the effect that the Propaganda should be maintained as an institution of world-wide fame of which Rome was justly proud. Thus through the Irish rector and the American flag the venerable college was saved from confiscation.

Dr. Cullen was promoted to the primatial See of Armagh on 19 December, 1849 and was consecrated by the Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda at the church of the Irish College, Rome, 24 February, 1850. A wider field was assigned to his zeal and piety when he was transferred to the See of Dublin 1 May 1852. He was elevated to the cardinalate as Cardinal Priest of San Pietro in Montorio in 1867, being the first Irish bishop on whom that high dignity was ever conferred.

The first great duty which as Delegate of the Apostolic See devolved on the newly appointed Archbishop of Armagh was to convene the Synod of Thurles (1850), the first national synod held with due public solemnity in Ireland since the beginning of the Reformation period. The main purpose of the synod was to restore the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline in Ireland, and this was in the fullest measure attained. Twenty-five years later, Cardinal Cullen, once more as Apostolic Delegate, preside at the national synod held in Maynooth in 1875. This second synod added a crowning grace to the manifold blessings that had accrued to the Irish Church from the First Plenary Synod. Throughout his episcopate it was his most anxious care to check proselytism, to promote the beauty of the House of God, and to multiply institutions of enlightenment, charity and benevolence. In all this his efforts were seconded by the clergy and the various sisterhoods whose devotion to the sacred cause of religion was beyond all praise.

He was particularly intent on bringing the blessings of religious education within reach of the poorest Catholics in the land. The system of national education adopted by the Government for Ireland in 1832 was a great improvement on the proselytising systems hitherto carried on by anti-Catholic agencies receiving government aid. The working of the system, however, was for many years practically left in the hands of the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin (Dr. Whately) and his Presbyterian ally, Rev. James Carlile, both of whom were unceasing in unscrupulous efforts to make it an engine of attack on the Catholic faith of the Irish people. Dr. Cullen from the beginning of his episcopate till its closing hour never relaxed his endeavors, on the one hand to counteract those proselytising agencies and to remove all dangers to the faith of the Catholic children, and on the other to bring gradually the literature and methods of the system into harmony with the national traditions and social requirements of Ireland. His evidence on the national system of education in Ireland, given before the Earl Powis’ Royal Commission in 1869, has been pronounced by experts to be a most complete statement of the Catholic claims in the matter of primary education. The national system of today is no longer what it was in 1849, and almost all the improvements that have been made are on the lines suggested in the evidence of Cardinal Cullen.

From the first days of his episcopate Archbishop Cullen had set his heart on the erection of a Catholic university for Ireland. The project was hailed with enthusiasm by the Irish race at home and abroad, and the beginnings of the institution in Dublin gave promise of success. Countless difficulties, however, arose over which the Archbishop had no control, and hence the Catholic University of Ireland was attended with only partial success (see ). Throughout his whole episcopate he continued to extend his patronage to it. He used often to repeat: “No one can question the justice of Ireland’s claim to a Catholic University.” Even when its fortunes were at the lowest ebb, he would say: “We must keep the flag flying,” being assured of final triumph. Another project most dear to him was a diocesan seminary for Dublin. The great ecclesiastical College of Holy Cross which he erected at Clonliffe in the immediate suburbs of the city will long remain a conspicuous monument to his munificence and a crown of immortal glory to the holy prelate who raised it.

In political matters Cardinal Cullen was quite heedless of popularity, and he made it a rule to support every measure from whatever political party it came that he considered conducive to the interests of Ireland. He condemned the Young Irelanders as sowers of dissension, and a source of ruin to the Irish cause. He highly esteemed the literary merit of many of the writers for “The Nation,” but he felt so convinced that some of those connected with that newspaper were in the secret pay of the British Government that he would have no communication with them, and he regarded them the worst enemies of Ireland. For the same reasons he relentlessly opposed the Fenian movement. It was his constant endeavor to bring together all the friends of Ireland so as to form a united phalanx in order to redress by constitutional means the wrongs of centuries and thus lift up Ireland from her oppressed and prostrate condition.

His policy was attended with success. The Protestant Church in Ireland was disestablished, the condition of the poor in the workhouses was ameliorated, the Industrial Schools’ Act was passed, the laws affecting land tenure were amended, and in many other matters victory after victory crowned the constitutional campaign of Ireland’s friends.

One of the accusations most frequently repeated to stir up popular prejudice against the cardinal was to the effect that he was a frequent visitor at the vice-regal castle in search of favors for himself or friends. As a matter of fact the only such visit he paid was toward the close of 1867. The Fenian leader, General Thomas F. Burke, had been sentenced to death and every effort to obtain a reprieve had been made in vain. He had fought with distinction in the Civil War of the United States, and the British Government was determined to deter other skilled military leaders from enlisting their services in aid of the Irish cause. The orders of execution from London were peremptory. The scaffold was already erected and the next morning General Burke was to be hanged. Through information received from the Archbishop of New York and other American friends the cardinal was convinced of the upright character of the accused who had been betrayed by false reports to engage in tehe fenian enterprise, impelled by the sole motive of love of his native land. At noon on the vigil of the day fixed for the execution, the cardinal accompanied by his private secretary and Monsignor Forde, his vical general, set out for the viceregal castle on the forlorn errand to obtain a reprieve for the brave man. The interview with the viceroy lasted for more than an hour. The cardinal on personal grounds justified his right to be heard in the case, since none had in public or private more strenuously opposed Fenianism than himself. He insisted that the execution of such a brave man would only had fuel to the flame, while the exercise of clemency would serve to open men’s eyes to the recklessness of the whole Fenian enterprise. The viceroy listened the the cardinal’s reasoning with due respect, but at the same time was quite inexorable. He telegraphed, however, the whole matter to headquarters in London. Late at night the response came. The reprieve was granted and the life of the brave man was spared. This was the first and last visit of Cardinal Cullen to the viceregal castle to petition for personal favors.

He paid frequent visits to Rome. He took part in the solemn celebrations connected with the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1854, and with the centenary of the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul in 1867. On these and similar occasions he took up his residence at the Irish College. From the opening of the Vatican Council, Cardinal Cullen took an active part in its deliberations. His first discourse in defence of the perogatives of the Holy See, mainly on historical grounds, in reply to the Bishop of Rottenburg, was regarded as one of the ablest discourses delivered in the council. At its close the hall resounded with applause, and during the afternoon about eighty bishops called at the Irish College to present their congratulations. Pius IX in token of appreciation of the singular ability of the discourse forwarded to the cardinal a gift of a very fine Carrera amrble rilievo representing St. Paul addressing the Areopagus. The work of art now adorns a side chapel in the church attached to the diocesan seminary of Dublin. Towards the close of the sessions of the council at the express wish of the Central Commission, conveyed in person through its secretary, Archbishop Franchi, Cardinal Cullen proposed the precise and accurate formula for the definition of Papal Infallibility. It was a matter of great delicacy, as promoters of the definition were split up into various sections, some anxious to assign a wider range to the pope’s decisions, while others would set forth in a somewhat indefinite way the papal perogative. All accepted the form of definition proposed by Cardinal Cullen to have formulated for all timethe solemn definition of this great article of Faith.

The condition of the Catholic Church in Ireland, in1878, in contrast with what it was in 1850, affords abundant proof of the fruitfulness of Cardinal Cullen’s zeal and of the beneficent results achieved during his episcopate. Those twenty eight years marked a continuous period of triumphant progress in all matters connected with religion, discipline, education and charity. The elequent Dominican Father Thomas N. Burke wrote in 1878: “The guiding spirit animating, encouraging and directing the wonderful work of the Irish Catholic Church for the last twenty eight years was Paul, Cardinal Cullen, and history will record the events of his administration as, perhaps, the most wonderful and glorious epoch in the whole ecclesiastical history of Ireland. The result of his labors was the wonderful revival of Catholic devotion and piety which in our day was restored so much of our ancient glory of sanctity to the land once called the ‘Island of Saints’“. No other Church in Christendom during the same period achieved grander religious results or yielded in richer abundance the choicest fruit of genuine Catholic piety. His remains rest beneath the apse of the Church attached to the diocesan seminary at Clonliffe.

PATRICK FRANCIS CARDINAL MORAN

Diocese of Culm

A bishopric in the north-eastern part of Prussia, founded in 1234, suffragan to Gnessen. The territory on the Vistula and Baltic, which the Teutonic Order had obtained partly by gift and partly by conquest, was divided in this year by the papal legate, William Bishop of Modena, into the four dioceses of Culm, Ermland, Pomesanien, and Samland; in 1255 the Archbishop of Riga became the metropolitan of these dioceses. The Bishopric of Culm embraced the province of Culm, that is, the land between Vistula, Drewenz, and Ossa rivers, and in addition, the city of Löbau and its surrounding district. Pope Innocent IV consecrated as first bishop the Dominican, Heidenreich (1245; died 1263). Originally the seat of the diocese was Culmsee, where Heidenreich began in 1254, the construction of a cathedral. The bishop possessed the highest authority, both spiritual and secular, in his diocese; he was the ruler of the land, but was in some measure dependent on the Teutonic Order. During the episcopate of the first bishop, the cathedral chapter, founded in 1251, followed the Rule of St. Augustine, but the second bishop, Friedrich of Hausen (1264–74), allowed the chapter to enter the Teutonic Order, taking its endowment with it. Not only was Friedrich a member of the Teutonic Order but most of his successors in the episcopal office until 1466 also belonged to it. Under the powerful protection of the Knights rapid progress was made in cultivating the soil and in Christianizing the inhabitants. many flourishing communities and numerous schools and churches were founded, an excellent system of courts was provided, and the Dominican, Franciscan, and Cistercian orders were introduced. As early as the reign of the seventh bishop, Otto (1324–49), who was a secular priest, there were 113 parishes and 538 priests. The most celebrated schools of the diocese were the “Johannes” school at Thorn and the cathedral school at Culm; the latter was changed in 1473 into a studium particulare and had celebrated professors, among whom were Johannes Dantiscus, Eobanus Hessus, etc.

On account of its close connexion with the Teutonic Knights, the diocese was involved in the disputes of the order with Poland. By the second Treaty of Thorn, 1466, the order was obliged to cede the province of Culm, with other territories, to Poland. The bishopric was now reconstructed as a secular diocese, the bishops were named by the kings of Poland, and nobles only were appointed as members of the cathedral chapter. The heresies of Hus and Wyclif found many adherents in the Diocese of Culm in the fifteenth century, and thus the ground was prepared for the religious revolution of the sixteenth. In the larger towns especially, such at Danzig, Elbing, and Thorn, the doctrines of Luther won numerous supporters, against whom the bishop, Johannes IV Konopacki (1508–30), showed himself lacking in moral force. It was only through the exertions of the Dominicans, who had remained loyal, that King Sigismund I took more severe measures against the innovations. The zealous and spiritual-minded Johann V von Höfen, generally called Dantiscus (1530–38), laboured to maintain the Catholic Faith, as did also Tiedemann Giese (1538–49), the friend of Copernicus, and Stanislaus Hosius (1549–51), who, after an episcopate of two years, was transferred to the See of Ermland. Nevertheless Protestantism took firm root in Thorn, Graudenz, Marienburg, and other towns. Peter I Kostka (1574–95) was the reformer of the diocese; through his efforts, a provincial council was held at Gnesen at which the Diocese of Culm was placed under the metropolitan control of Gnesen, the Archbishopric of Riga having been suppressed in 1566. Kostka also held a diocesan synod at Culm in 1583, promulgated the decrees of the Council of Trent, reformed the monasteries of the diocese, and introduced the Jesuits in 1593. The preservation of Catholicism in the diocese, as well as the reconquest of many souls that had gone astray, was due to the effective labours of the Jesuits and of the orders which were successfully re-established.

The fall of the Kingdom of Poland brought the diocese into new relations. In 1772, in consequence of the first Partition of Poland, it came under the control of Prussia, to which, with a short interruption (1807–15), it has ever since belonged. Under Prussian auspices Protestantism again increased largely in the diocese; in 1772, the possessions of the bishop, the cathedral chapter, and many monasteries were confiscated, and Protestant colonists were settled throughout the province. In this way, and also on account of the confusion of the Napoleonic era, the diocese fell into decay. For lack of proper residence, the forty-ninth bishop, Franz Xaver Count Wrbna-Rydzynski, was only once in his diocese. After his death the see was vacant for ten years, and the diocese was administered by the coadjutor bishop, Nalecz Wilkxycki. The Bull “De salute animarum,” 1821, which provided for the reorganization of the Prussian dioceses, gave Culm new boundaries; to the old diocese were added parts of the Dioceses of Leslau, Gnesen, Plock, and of the former Diocese of Pomesanian. In 1824 the seat of the bishop and the chapter was fixed at Pelplin, where it still remains. The new diocese suffered above all from the lack of priests, the supression of the monasteries, and the poverty of the Catholic population. Bishop Ignatius Matthy (1824–32) bent all his energies to the founding of a seminary for priests. Anastasius Sedlag (1834–56) made it his aim to give the diocese a uniform administration, to safeguard the property still remaining to the Church after its great losses, to promote the development of a capable clergy, and to increase the number of priests. In the same way Johannes Nepomuk von der Marwitz (1857–86) devoted his entire attention to the founding of new cures and the reorganization of the old parishes. Unfortunately the diocese suffered greatly during the ecclesiatical struggle (Kulturkampf) with the Prussian Government. After peace had been restored the bishopric prospered again under Leo Redner (1886–98) and Augustinus Rosentreter (consecrated 9 July, 1899). In this period the diocese in some measure recovered from its losses, the supressed monasteries have been refilled with religious, and the new institutions of learning under supervision of the Church have been founded. However, it still suffers from the effects of its earlier losses, and from the lack of labourers in the vineyard of the Lord.

STATISTICS

The present Diocese of Culm includes the Prussian province of West Prussia with the exception of five Government districts; it also includes two districts of East Prussia, two of Pomerania, and that of Bromberg, belonging to Posen. The see embraces altogether 409 square miles. In 1900 it had a Catholic population of 769,166 souls; in 1907, 780,000. The cathedral chapter is composed of two dignitaries, the cathedral provost and the cathedral dean, and eight prebends. In 1907 there were 4 episcopal commissariats, 27 deaneries, 275 parishes, 476 priests, 275 parish churches, 77 dependent churches, 9 other churches, and 37 chapels. Institutions of learning under religious control are: the episcopal seminary for priests at Pelplin with 5 professors; the episcopal seminary for boys with 12 ecclesiastical teachers; the episcopal houses of studies at Clum, Konitz, and Neustadt. In the three towns just mentioned the gymnasia are Catholic in character. The diocese also possesses 4 Catholic seminaries for teachers, and 2 higher schools for girls. Orders for men have not existed in the diocese since the religious struggle (Kulturkampf) with the Government. The orders and congregations for women devote their attention almost exclusively to the care of the sick, the poor, and the children; but they are not permitted to give elementary instruction. In 1906 the orders and congregations of female religious were: Sisters of Mercy of St. Vincent de Paul, 6 houses with 102 religious; Sisters of Mercy of St. Charles Borromeo, 2 houses with 39 religious, Sisters of St. Elizabeth, 12 houses with 103 religious; Sisters of St. Francis, 2 houses with 22 religious. These religious have under their care 11 hospitals and assylums, 8 day-nurseries, 1 housekeeping school, 1 institution for sick and old religious, 1 home for servents, 1 reform institution for girls, 4 orphanages, and 12 stations for visiting nurses.

The cathedral, formerly a Cistercian abbey church, is the most important church building of the diocese; it is a brick Gothic structure with three naves, was erected in the fourteenth century, and completely restored, 1849–99. Other churches of note are: the parish church of Clumsee, built 1254–94 and used as the cathedral until 1824; the parish church of Culm, built in 1223; the churches of St. John, St. James, and St. Mary, all three erected in the thirteenth or fourteenth century. The most frequented places of pilgrimage are Maria-Lonk near Neumark (the miraculous picture of the Mother of God is now in the parish church of Neumark), and Mount Calvary near neustadt with twenty-four chapels.

Schematismus des Bistums Culm mit dem Bischofssitze in Pelplin (Pelplin, 1904) gives exhaustive statistics of the diocese and lists of the bishops of Clum, Pomeanien, and Cujavien (Leslau); Wolky, Katalog der Bischofe von Culm (Braunsburg, 1878); Idem, Urkundenbuch des Bistums Culm (Danzig, 1884–87), II; Fankidejski, Die untergegangenen Kirchen und Kapellen der Diocese Culm (in Polish 1880); Frydrychowicz, Die Culmer Weihbischofe (Danzig, 1905); Consignato totius Cleri saecularis, Sororum piarum Congregationum, etc. (Gedani, 1907); Zeitsschrift des westpreussischen Geschichtsvereins (Danzig, 1880—); Pawlowski, Karte der Cisterciensserabtei Pelplin und ihre Bau-und Kunstdenkmaler (Dusseldorf, 1907); for the churches in general see Bau-und Kunstdenkmaler der Provinz Westpreussen (Danzig, 1884—).

JOSEPH LINS

Jeremiah Williams Cummings

Publicist, b. in Washington, U.S.A., April, 1814; d. at New York, 4 January, 1866.

His father’s death caused his mother to move to New York in his boyhood, and he was there accepted as an ecclesiastical student by Bishop Dubois, who sent him to the College of the Propaganda at Rome to make his theological studies. He displayed much ability, and after winning his doctor’s degree returned to New York, where he was assigned as one of the assistants at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. He there proved himself an accomplished linguist, writer, and musician, and an interesting and popular preacher and lecturer. In 1848 Bishop Hughes selected him to found St. Stephen’s parish, New York, and to erect a church. Dr. Cummings was then, and had been for several years previously, the intimate friend and disciple of Orestes A. Brownson, the philosopher and reviewer. He was instrumental in having Brownson change his residence from Boston to New York, took charge of his lecture arrangements, and wrote frequent contributions for the “Review.” “It was often complained of in Brownson,” says his son (Middle Life, Detroit, 1899, p. 132), “that he was lacking in policy, and no doubt he was in the habit of plain speaking; but Cummings was more so, and some of the most violent attacks on the editor and his ‘Review’ were occasioned by unpalatable truths plainly stated by Cummings.”

Cummings was one of the leading spirits in a little club of priests and laymen, who were opposed to what they called the “Europeanizing” of the Church in the United States by the foreign-born teachers, to the system of teaching in vogue in the Catholic colleges and seminaries, and who were in favour of conciliating those outside the Church by the use of milder polemics. In an article on “Vocations to the Priesthood” that Dr. Cummings contributed to “Brownson’s Review” of October, 1860, he severely criticized the management and mode of instruction in Catholic colleges and seminaries which he styled “cheap priest-factories.” This aroused a bitter controversy, and brought out one of the noted essays by Archbishop Hughes, his “Reflections on the Catholic Press.”

Under the administration of Dr. Cummings St. Stephen’s, which he had completed in March, 1854, became the most fashionable and most frequented church in New York, its sermons and music making it a local attraction. He continued as its pastor till his death, which followed a long illness that incapacitated him for active service. Besides his articles in “Brownson’s Review” he was also a contributor to “Appleton’s Encyclopedia” and published in New York: “Italian Legends” (1859); “Songs for Catholic Schools” (1862); “Spiritual Progress” (1865); “The Silver Stole.”

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Martyrs of Cuncolim

On Monday, 25 July, 1583 (N.S.), the village of Cuncolim in the district of Salcete, territory of Goa, India, was the scene of the martyrdom of five religious of the Society of Jesus: Fathers Rudolph Acquaviva, Alphonsus Pacheco, Peter Berno, and Anthony Francis, also Francis Aranha, lay brother.

Rudolph Acquaviva was born 2 October, 1550, at Atri in the Kingdom of Naples. He was the fifth child of the Duke of Atri, and nephew of Claudius Acquaviva, the fifth General of the Society of Jesus, while on his mother’s side he was a cousin of St. Aloysius Gonzaga. Admitted into the Society of Jesus 2 April, 1568, he landed in Goa 13 September, 1578. Shortly after his arrival he was selected for a very important mission to the court of the Great Mogul Akbar, who had sent an embassy to Goa with a request that two learned missionaries might be sent to Fatehpir-Sikri, his favourite residence near Agra. After spending three years at the Mogul court, he returned to Goa, much to the regret of the whole Court and especially of the emperor. On his return to Goa, he was appointed superior of the Salcete mission, which post he held until his martyrdom.

Alphonsus Pacheco was born about 1551, of a noble family of New Castile, and entered the Society on 8 September, 1567. In September, 1574, he arrived in Goa, where he so distinguished himself by his rare prudence and virtue that in 1578 he was sent to Europe on important business. Returning to India in 1581, he was made rector of Rachol. He accompanied two punitive expeditions of the Portuguese to the village of Cuncolim, and was instrumental in destroying the pagodas there.

Peter Berno was born of humble parents in 1550 at Ascona, a Swiss village at the foot of the Alps. After being ordained priest in Rome, he entered the Society of Jesus in 1577, arrived in Goa in 1579, and was soon appointed to Salcete. He accompanied the expeditions to Cuncolim, and assisted in destroying the pagan temples, destroyed an ant-hill which was deemed very sacred, and killed a cow which was also an object of pagan worship. He used to say constantly that no fruit would be gathered from Cuncolim and the hamlets around it till they were bathed in blood shed for the Faith. His superiors declared that he had converted more pagans than all the other fathers put together.

Anthony Francis, born in 1553, was a poor student of Coimbra in Portugal. He joined the Society in 1571, accompanied Father Pacheco to India in 1581, and was shortly afterwards ordained priest in Goa. It is said that whenever he said Mass, he prayed, at the Elevation, for the grace of martyrdom; and that on the day before his death, when he was saying Mass at the church of Orlim, a miracle prefigured the granting of this prayer.

Brother Francis Aranha was born of a wealthy and noble family of Braga in Portugal, about 1551, and went to India with his uncle, the first Archbishop of Goa, Dom Gaspar. There he joined the Society of Jesus, 1 November, 1571. Being a skilled draughtsman and architect, he built several fine chapels in Goa.

These five religious met in the church of Orlim on the 15 of July, 1583, and thence proceeded to Cuncolim, accompanied by some Christians, with the object of erecting a cross and selecting ground for building a church. Seeing an opportunity of doing away with these enemies of their pagodas, the pagan villagers, after holding a council, advanced in large numbers, armed with swords, lances, and other weapons, towards the spot where the Christians were. Gonçalo Rodrigues one of the party, levelled his gun, but Father Pacheco stopped hirn, saying: “Come, come, Senhor Gonçalo, we are not here to fight.” Then, speaking to the crowd, he said in Konkani, their native language, “Do not be afraid.” The Pagans then fell upon them; Father Rudolph received five cuts from a scimitar and a spear and died praying God to forgive them, and pronouncing the Holy Name. Father Berno was next horribly mutilated, and Father Pacheco, wounded with a spear, fell on his knees extending his arms in the form of a cross, and praying God to forgive his murderers and send other missionaries to them. Father Anthony Francis was pierced with arrows, and his head was split open with a sword. Brother Aranha, wounded at the outset by a Scimitar and a lance, fell down a deep declivity into the thick crop of a rice-field, where he lay until he was discovered. He was then carried to the idol, to which he was bidden to bow his head. Upon his refusal to do this, he was tied to a tree and, like St. Sebastian was shot to death with arrows. The spot where this tree stood is marked with an octagonal monument surmounted by a cross, which was repaired by the Patriarch of Goa in 1885.

The bodies of the five martyrs were thrown into a well, water of which was afterwards sought by people from all parts of Goa for its miraculous healing. The bodies themselves, when found, after two and a half days, allowed no signs of decomposition. They were solemnly buried in the church of Our Lady of the Snows at Rachol, and remained there until 1597, when they were removed to the college of St. Paul in Goa, and in 1862 to the cathedral of Old Goa. Some of these relics have been sent to Europe at various times. All the bones of the entire right arm of Blessed Rudolph were taken to Rome in 1600, and his left arm was sent from Goa as a present to the Jesuit college at Naples. In accordance with the request of the Pacheco family, an arm and leg of Blessed Alphonsus were sent to Europe in 1609. The process of canonization began in 1600, but it was only in 1741 that Benedict XIV declared the martyrdom proved. On the 16th of April, 1893, the solemn beatification of the five martyrs was celebrated at St. Peter’s in Rome. It was celebrated in Goa in 1894, and the feast has ever since then been kept with great solemnity at Cuncolim, even by the descendants of the murderers. The Calendar of the Archdiocese of Goa has fixed 26 July as their feast day.

Along with the five religious were also killed Gonçalo Rodrigues, a Portuguese, and fourteen native Christians. Of the latter, one was Dominic, a boy of Cuncolim, who was a student at Rachol, and had accompanied the fathers on their expeditions to Cuncolim and pointed out to them the pagan temples. His own heathen uncle dispatched him. Alphonsus, an altar-boy of Father Pacheco had followed him closely, carrying his breviary, which he would not part with. The pagans therefore cut off his hands and cut through his knee-joints to prevent his escape. In this condition he lived till the next day, when he was found and killed. This boy, a native of either Margao or Verna, was buried in the church of the Holy Ghost at Margao. Francis Rodrigues, who was also murdered, used to say, when he was reproached by the fathers for slight faults, that he hoped to atone for them by shedding his blood as a martyr. Paul da Costa, another of those who died at the hands of the pagans, was an inhabitant of Rachol, and had been distinguished by his desire of dying for the Faith. Speaking of these fifteen courageous Christians, Father Goldie says:

For reasons which we have now no means of judging, the Cause of these companions of the five Martyrs was not brought forward before the Archbishop of the time, nor since then has any special cultus, or the interposition of God by miracle, called the attention of the Church to them. But we may hope that their blood was in the odour of sweetness before God.

D’ Souza, Oriente Conquistado; Goldie, First Christian Mission to the Great Mogul, The Blessed Martyrs of Cuncolim; Gracias, Uma Donna Portuegueza na Corte do Grao-Mogol (1907).

A. X. D’SOUZA.

Bl. Cunegundes

Poor Clare and patroness of Poland and Lithuania; born in 1224; died 24 July, 1292, at Sandeck, Poland. She was the daughter of King Bela IV and niece of St. Elizabeth of Hungary, and from her infancy it pleased God to give tokens of the eminent sanctity to which she was later to attain. With extreme reluctance she consented to her marriage with Boleslaus II, Duke of Cracow and Sandomir, who afterwards became King of Poland. Not long after their marriage, the pious couple made a vow of perpetual chastity in the presence of the Bishop of Cracow; and Cunegundes, amidst the splendour and pomp of the royal household, gave herself up to the practice of the severest austerities. She often visited the poor and the sick in the hospitals, and cared even for the lepers with a charity scarcely less than heroic. In 1279, King Boleslaus died, and Cunegundes, despite the entreaties of her people that she should take in hand the government of the kingdom, sold all her earthly possessions for the relief of the poor and entered the monastery of the Poor Clares at Sandeck. The remaining thirteen years of her life she spent in prayer and penance, edifying her fellow religious by her numerous virtues, especially by her heroic humility. She never permitted anyone to refer to the fact that she had once been a queen and was foundress of the community at Sandeck.

The cultus of Blessed Cunegundes was approved by Pope Alexander VIII in 1690; in 1695 she was made chief patroness of Poland and Lithuania by a decree of the congregation of Rites, confirmed by Clement XI. Her feast is kept in the Order of Friars Minor on the 27th of July.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Diocese of Cuneo

(CUNEENSIS).

Suffragan to Turin. Cuneo is the capital of the province of that name in Piedmont, Northern Italy, agreeably situated on a hill between the Rivers Stura and the Gesso. Originally the city belonged to the Diocese of Mondovi. In 1817 Pius VII made it an episcopal see. The cathedral is very ancient and beautiful remodelled, however, in the sixteenth century. The painting over the main altar representing St. John the Baptist and St. Michael is the work of the Jesuit Father Pozzi, who painted also at Rome the ceiling of the great Church of St. Ignatius. The first bishop of Cuneo was Amadeo Bruno di Samone. The diocese has a population of 111, 200, with 61 parishes, 190 churches and chapels, 220 secular and 20 regular priests, 3 religious houses of men, 27 of women, and 13 educatinal institutions.

U. BENIGNI

André-Jean Cuoq

Philologist, b. at LePuy, France, 1821; d. at Oka near Montreal, 1898. Jean Cuoq entered the Company of Saint-Sulpice in 1844, and two years later was sent to Canada. In 1847 he was put in charge of the mission at the Lac des Deux-Montagnes. So ambitious was he to fulfil well the duties of his ministry that in a short time he acquired a perfect knowledge of the Iroquois and the Algonquin dialects. His numerous works, all published at Montreal, gained him admission to many scientific societies of Europe and America. We have from his pen: “Le Livre des sept nations” (1861); “Jugement erroné de M. Ernest Renan sur les langues sauvages” (1864); “Etudes philosophiques sur quelques langues sauvages” (1866); “Quels étaient les sauvages que rencontra Jacques Cartier sur les rives du S.-Laurent?” in “Annales de philosophie chrétienne” (1869); “Lexique de la langue iroquoise” (1882); “Lexique de la langue algonquine” (1886); “Grammaire de la langue algonquine, insérée dans les mémoires [IX-X] de la société royale du Canada” (1891–92); “Anoct Kekon” (ibid., 1893); “Nouveau manuel algonquin” (1893). He wrote also many other works destined to further the christianization of the Indians.

Bulletin trimest. des anc. élèves de S.-Sulpice (October, 1898); BERTRAND, Bibl. sulpic. (Paris, 1900). III; Notice biog. sur l’abbé Cuoq (Royal Society of Canada, 1899).

A. FOURNET

Cupola

A spherical ceiling, or a bowl-shaped vault, rising like an inverted cup over a circular, square, or multangular building or any part of it. The term, properly speaking, is confined to the under side, or ceiling, of a dome, and is frequently on a different plane from the dome which surrounds it outside. It is also sometimes applied to the dome (but for this there is no authority), and to a small room, either circular or polygonal, standing on the top of a dome, which is called by some a lantern. A cupola does not necessarily presuppose a dome, and the latter is often found surmounting flat surfaces. The significance of the term is in its form and has nothing to do either with the material used or with its method of construction. According to Lindsay, the cupola of San Vitale, at Ravenna, became the model of all those executed in Europe for several centuries. This cupola is of remarkable construction, being built wholly of hollow earthern pots, laid spirally in cement, a light construction common in the East from early times. The cupolas of the Pantheon at Rome, the cathedral at Florence, the churches of St. Peter at Rome, and Santa Sophia at Constantinople are of solid construction, and the support of the cup-shaped vault is either by pendentives or by a drum. In some cases, however, the cupola is of masonry, and the outer shell of the cupola is of wood covered with lead, as at St. Paul’s, London, and at St. Mark’s, Venice, the five masonry cupolas have the outer shell of wood and metal. The dome of the Invalides, in Paris, has a wood and metal covering above two inner structures of stone. In the later Byzantine buildings of Greece and other parts of the Levant, many of the cupolas have singularly lofty drums, which are pierced with windows, and the cupola proper becomes a mere roof to a tall cylindrical shaft. Cupolas in modern construction are generally of wrought iron, and the space filled in with some tile formation. The term is sometimes applied to a small roof structure, used for a look out or to give access to the roof.

FLETCHER, A History of Architecture (London and New York, 1896); GWILT, Encycl. of Arch. (London 1881); PARKER, Glossary of Arch. (Oxford, 1850); WEALE, Dict. of Terms; LINDSAY, History of Christian Art, I; STURGIS, Dict. of Arch. (London and New York, 1904).

THOMAS H. POOLE

Vicariate Apostolic of Curaçao

Vicariate apostolic; includes the islands of the Dutch West Indies: Curaçao, Bonaire, and Aruba; Saba, St. Eustatius, and the Dutch part of St. Martin (Leeward Islands). These islands are situated in the Caribbean Sea, the former off the Venezuelan coast, 12° N. Lat. and 69° W. long., the latter about 621 miles north-east of the former, in 18° N. lat. and 63° W. long. The former were discovered by Alonzo de Ojeda in 1499. The first missionaries were Spanish Hieronymites (Order of St. Jerome) from Santo Domingo, whose names have been forgotten. Until 1634 Curaçao remained subject to Spain, and Spanish priests attended the mission. Two churches, one at Santa Barbara the other at Groot-Kwartier, bore witness to their zeal.

In 1634 Curaçao came into the possession of the Dutch West-Indian Company, which forbade, under severe penalties, the practice of the Catholic religion. A few Jesuits, among them Father Michael Alexius Schnabel, continued to work with success from 1701 to 1742. In 1772 Curaçao received its first prefect Apostolic, Arnold de Bruin, a secular priest. In 1776 Fathers Pirovani and Schenck, Dutch Franciscans, took up the work, but were obliged to leave it on account of the small number of priests in Holland. The last of these priests died in 1821. In 1824 M. J. Nieuwindt (d. 1860), in every respect a great man, was appointed prefect Apostolic. In 1842 Curaçao was made a vicariate Apostolic, the first vicar Apostolic being Monsignor Nieuwindt. In the same year a Catholic sisterhood came to the mission. In 1868 the vicariate was confided to the care of the Dutch Dominicans. Nine-tenths of the people, especially the lower classes, are Catholics, principally because in the past the slaves were not allowed to have the same religion as their masters (Dutch Protestants); as they had to profess some religion, they were allowed to become Catholics. The relations between Catholics and Protestants are most peaceful. Monsignor Nieuwindt (consecrated 1843) was succeeded as vicar Apostolic by J. F. A. Kistemaker (1860); P. H. J. A. van Ewyk (1869); C. H. J. Reynen (1886); H. A. M. Joosten (1887), and J. J. A. van Baars (1897). The Catholic population of the vicariate is about 45,000; the Protestants number 7000 and the Jews 850. There are in the vicariate 35 priests, 3 seculars and 32 regulars, principally Dominicans; 27 brothers; 191 sisters. The parochial schools number 29, with 2626 boys and 2625 girls. There are 17 churches and 11 chapels.

The institutions under religious direction are: a college for young ladies with 70 pupils; a hospital for the insane, 114 patients; a leper hospital, 19 patients; 2 orphan asylums, 87 orphans; a hospital, 166 patients. The theological seminary for Venezuela (Merida) is at present closed. There are 2 Catholic newspapers, the “Amigoe di Curaçao,” a Dutch weekly, founded in 1883, and “La Cruz,” a weekly in the Papiamento dialect of the island, founded in 1900.

J.J.A. VAN BAARS

Curate

(Lat. curatus, from cura, care)

Literally, one who has the cure (care) or charge of souls, in which sense it is yet used by the Church of England, “All Bishops and Curates.” In France, also, the cognate curé (Spanish, cura) is used to denote the chief priest of a parish. In English-speaking countries, however, the word curate has gradually become the title of those priests who are assistants to the rector, or parish priest, in the general parochial work of the parish or mission to which they are sent by the bishop of the diocese or his delegate. Technically speaking the curate is the one who exercises the cure of souls, and his assistants are vicars and coadjutors; but in this article the word curate is used in its accepted English sense, viz. assistant priest, and corresponds, in a general way, to the vicarius temporalis, auxiliaris presbyter, coadjutor parochi.

In the first three centuries of the Church there was but one church in each diocese, located generally in the principal city, i.e. in the city where the bishop resided. To this church the faithful of the city and surroundings villages went on Sundays and feasts to assist at Mass and receive the sacraments. When the faithful became more numerous as the Church developed, the number of churches was increased not only in the city but also in the surrounding country, and services were performed in these churches by priests, who, however, were not permanently appointed; i.e. the bishop remained the only parish priest, but had a certain number of priests to assist him in the administration of the sacraments in his parochia, or diocese (Lesêtre, La Paroisse, Paris, 1906; Duchesne, The Origin of Christian Worship, London, 1906, 11–13). After the fourth century parishes began to be formed in the rural districts, but it was not until after the year 1000 that they were formed in episcopal cities (Lupi, De parochiis ante annum millesimum, Bergamo, 1788; Vering, Kirchenrecht, 3d ed., 1893, p. 598). From this it will be seen that just as the bishop found his diocese too large for individual ministrations and care, so the parish priest, in the course of time, found it necessary to secure the aid of other priests in attending to the spiritual needs of his people.

In English-speaking countries, also in a number of European states, at the present day, the curate holds his faculties directly from the bishop, but exercises them according to the wish and direction of the parish priest or rector. This applies not only in the case of a true parish priest or a missionary rector (both irremovable), but also in the case of simple rector, who by the authority of the bishop governs a given area styled a mission. Curates are, in general, removal at the will of the bishop. Nevertheless, this power of the bishop ought to be exercised with prudence and charity, and in such a way that the curate shall suffer no loss of reputation, e.g. by being sent without just and reasonable cause from one mission to another, such arbitrary change being legitimately interpreted by common consent as tantamount to a punishment. In such a case, if the curate feels that he has been unfairly treated, he has (in England) the right of appeal to the Commission of Investigation, which exists in each diocese. Meanwhile he must obey the order of the bishop. The form of investigation and trial is the same for curates as for rectors and parish priests (see Wernz, op. cit. below, II, 1052). It is to be noted that the Commission of Investigation provided for the United States by a degree of Propaganda (20 July, 1878; cf. Acta et Decr. Conc. Balt. III, 292–96) was abrogated by the Propaganda Instruction of “Cum Magnopere” of 1884, which provides in each diocese for a summary, but substantially just, process in all criminal and disciplinary causes of ecclesiastics (Conc. Plen. Balt. III. Cap. III, 308–66, cf. Acta et Decreta, 287–92). This instruction obtains in Scotland, and has lately been extended to England for the larger dioceses (Taunton, p. 220).

The general law of the Church with regard to curates is mainly concerned with their appointment and their right to proper support. By common ecclesiastical law the appointment of curates belongs to the parish priest and not the bishop (c. 30, X, 3, 5; Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, cap. Iv, de Ref.). But the bishop can oblige the parish priest to accept a curate when the former cannot do his work, either on account of physical or mental weakness or on account of ignorance; and it belongs to the bishop, and not to the parish priest, to judge whether one or more curates are necessary, also to provide for their examination, approbation, and the issuing of faculties to them. In English-speaking countries, also in France, Spain, Germany, and Austria, curates are appointed by the bishop (or vicar-general), who determines their salary and may remove them from one mission to another. By a particular reply of the Congregation of the Council, 14 August, 1863, it is expressly provided that this custom, derogatory to the common law, shall be observed until the Apostolic See makes other provision.

The bishop can assign to the curate a salary from the income of the church. If the income of the church is not sufficient the parish priest is not to suffer; but according to the common opinion, the bishop, as far as he can, must provide from other sources for the curate. By common law the stole fees (q.v.) belong to the parish priest, therefore the bishop cannot make them part of the salary of the curate. Still, the council of Trent says that the bishop can assign a salary from the fruits of the benefice, or otherwise provide; hence it seems to some that he might use the stole fees as part of the salary of the curate. The custom of each diocese is a sure guide on this point; in any case, there is always the opportunity of appeal to Rome in a case of more than ordinary difficulty. The authority of the curate is gathered from his letter of appointment, the diocesan statutes, and legitimate custom. Its actual limitations may also be gathered from the manuals of canon law most used in the various Catholic countries. As a general rule, curates are not moved without good reason from the churches which they serve; such a reason should be the promotion of the curate, the good of a particular parish, or the general good of the diocese. This latter is fairly comprehensive and gives the bishop a wide discretion. Bishops are advised to act as far as possible, in a manner agreeable to the parish priest or rector.

In England the synods of Westminster provide that in each mission one priest is appointed to be the first (primus), with the duty of attending to the cure of souls and the administration of the church or congregation. Alms given for Masses are the property of each individual priest. Stole fees are not always dealt with in the same was in each mission. It is recommended that a course be followed which is most conducive to lightening the burdens of the mission. Curates ought to inform the head priest as often as they are absent from the presbytery, even for a day; they should not be absent for a Sunday or a Holy Day of obligation without the leave of the bishop or vicar-general, except in case of urgency, in which case the curate, on leaving home, ought as soon as possible to inform the bishop of said urgency, and should leave a suitable priest to supply his place. Curates must not consider that they are freed from work merely because they are not charged with the administration of a mission. It is their duty, under the rector, to help him by preaching, by hearing confessions, by teaching children the catechism, by visiting the sick and administering to them the sacraments, and by fulfilling all the other duties of a missionary. Rarely should curates take meals elsewhere than in the presbytery at a common table; much less should this become habitual. In Ireland the synods of Maynooth forbid any curate to incur a debt of over £20; should he do so, he is liable to censure. If disputes arise between the parish priest and the curate, the matter is to be referred to the bishop, and in the meantime the curate is to abide by the decision of the parish priest. Every week the curate is to meet the parish priest in order to receive from him instructions as to the arrangements for the coming week (it is to be noted that in some parts of Ireland the curate resides apart from the parish priest). Absence from the parish, even for one night is to be notified to the parish priest; absence for three days is to be notified to the bishop. Absence for five days requires the written permission of the bishop, as does also absence on Sunday or a Holy Day of obligation. Certain other statutes are incorporated in the synods of Maynooth which apply equally to curates and parish priests. Thus, no person is to be declared excommunicated unless the bishop has given his written authority for such proceedings. Priests are on no account to make personal remarks about their parishioners in church. All parochial moneys received are to be entered in a book which is kept by the parish priest. Sick priests, before they receive the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, are to hand over to the vicar forane or other responsible priest, the pyx, holy oil vessel, registers, and all other things which pertain to the church; should the priest die, his colleagues are to take the utmost care that all papers, letters, etc. are locked up and so safeguarded from the danger of falling into the hands of unauthorized lay people.

The Second Council of Quebec deals in detail with the ecclesiastical status (rights and duties) of curates in French Canada (see Discipline du Diocèse de Québec, Quebec, 1895, pp. 211, 252, and Gignac, Compend. Jur. Eccl. As usum Cleri Canad., ibid., 1901, De personis, 398 sqq.). In the United States also, and in other English-speaking countries, the statutes of various dioceses and the legislation of some provincial synods (e.g. Fifth New York, 1886) regulate similar detail the duties of a curate, e.g. the continuous residence that his office calls for and other statutory priestly obligations. Apropos of the relations between parish priests and their curates, many modern diocesan and provincial synods repeat with insistence the immemorial principles that govern the exercise of ecclesiastical authority in all that pertains to the cure of souls (cura animarum), viz.: on the part of the parish priest, paternal benevolence and mildness of direction, due recognition of the priestly character of his assistants, equitable distribution of the parochial duties and burdens, good example in religious zeal and works, wise counsel of the young and inexperienced, practical guidance in all that pertains to the spiritual and even the temporal welfare of the parish; on the part of the curate, willing obedience to his superior, due consultation in all matters of importance, filial co-operation, respect for the parish priest’s office and priestly reputation, a peaceful and even patient attitude when the curate seems wronged, and recourse to the diocesan authority only when charity has exhausted her suggestions (Synod of Münster, 1897, 147 sqq., in Laurentius, op. cit. below, pp. 170–71). Similar advice and suggestions are found in many modern writings on the priesthood (e.g. the works of Cardinals Manning, Gibbons, Vaughan, and those of Mach, Keating, etc.). (See COMPETENCY; CONGRUA; PARISH; PARISH PRIEST; VICAR; CHAPLAIN; PRIEST.)

SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1887); LAURENTIUS, Institut. Juris eccl. (Freigburg, 1903), nn. 210–11; WERNZ, Jus Decretal. (Rome, 1899), II, nn. 837–39; BARGILLIAT, Praelect. Juris can. (24th ed., Paris, 1908); BOUIX, De parocho (Paris, 1855); HELFERT, Traité de vicaires paroissiaux in Analecta juris pontif. (1861), 838 sqq; DENEUBOURG, Etude canonique sur les vicaires paroissiaux (Paris, 1871); Archiv. F. kath. Kirchenrecht (1878), XXXIX, 3; (1879), XLII, 410.

For the office and condition of curates in the Church of England, see PHILLIMORE, The Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church of England (London, 1873), 1876); MAKOWER, Constitution of The Church of England (London, 1896); and CRIPPS, A Practical Treatise on the Law Relating to the Church and Clergy (6th ed., London, 1886).

DAVID DUNFORD.

Curator

(Lat. curare).

A person legally appointed to administer the property of another, who is unable to undertake its management himself, owing to age or physical incompetence, bodily or mental. Curators are often confounded with tutors, but they differ in many respects. Tutors are appointed principally for the guardianship of persons, and only secondarily for the care of property; while curators are deputed mainly and sometimes solely for temporal concerns and only incidentally as guardians of persons. Besides, a tutor is appointed for minors, while a curator may have charge of incompetent persons of any age. Finally, a tutor cannot be commissioned for a particular or determined duty, though a curator may receive such an appointment. When the ward of a tutor has reached his majority, the tutor may become curator until the ward is twenty-five years of age, but he cannot be compelled to undertake such a charge. Curators, according to law, are to be constituted for those who are mentally weak, for prodigals, and those addicted inordinately to gambling. The administration of property cannot, however, be taken from a person merely because he lives luxuriously. Curators may also be appointed for captives, for the absent, and the deaf and dumb. A husband may not be constituted curator for his wife. Before the curator enters upon the administration of property, he is obliged to give proper bond for his fidelity. Whatever salary he receives must be determined by a judge. If he did not demand a salary at the beginning of his administration, but later requests one, the judge is to fix the amount of such salary only for the future, not for the past. The obligation of a curator to render an account of his administration after the time of wardship has passed constitutes an ecclesiastical impediment to entrance into the religious state until such obligation has been duly discharged. As regards the administration of property, curators are obliged to take such care of it as would a diligent parent. They are therefore to see that the rents are collected, that the yearly income be not lessened, that less useful goods be sold, and that money be not allowed to lie idle. In case the property of the ward suffer by the administration of the curator, the latter is obliged in conscience to make restitution, if the deterioration was caused by culpable negligence on his part.

FERRARIS, Bibl. Canon., s. v. Tutela (Rome, 1891), VII; ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dict. du droit can. (Paris, 1901).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Cure of Souls

(Lat. cura animarum), technically, the exercise of a clerical office involving the instruction, by sermons and admonitions, and the sanctification, through the sacraments, of the faithful in a determined district, by a person legitimately a ppointed for the purpose. Those specially having cure of souls are the pope for the entire Church, the bishops in their dioceses, and the parish priests in their respective parishes. Others may likewise have part in the cure of souls in subordination to these. Thus in missionary countries where espiscopal sees have not yet been erected, those who labour for the salvation of souls are in a special manner sharers of the particular responsibility of the Vicar of Christ for those regions. In like manner, a parish priest may have curates who attend to the wants of a particular portion of the parish, subordinate to himself. The object of the cure of souls is the salvation of men, and hence it is a continuation of Christ’s mission on earth. As the Reedeemer established a church which was to govern, teach, and sanctify the world, it necessarily follows that those who are to assist in the work of the Church must obtain their mission from her alone. “How shall they preach, unless they be sent?” (Rom., x, 15).

The canonical mission of a priest is derived from the Apostolic succession in the Church. This succession is twofold: Holy orders and authority. The first is perpetuated by means of bishops; the latter by the living magistracy of the Church, of which the head is the pope, who is the source of jurisdiction. Both elements enter into the mission of him who has cure of souls: Holy orders, that he may offer sacrifice and administer the sacraments, which are the ordinary channels of sanctification employe d by the Holy Ghost; and jurisdiction, that he may teach correct doctrine, free his subjects from sins and censures, and govern them in accordance with the canons of the Church. The power of Holy orders is radically common to all priests by virtue of the ir valid oridination, but the power of jurisdiction is ordinary only in pope, bishops, and parish priests, and extraordinary or delegated in others. It is plain, then, that while valid orders may exist outside the Catholic Church, jurisdiction cannot, as its source is the Vicar of Christ and it is possessed only so far as he confers it or does not limit it. The duties of those who have cure of souls are all carefully defined in the sacred cannons. (see Pope; Bishop; Parish Priest.)

We have here touched only upon what is common to the idea of a pastor of the faithful. It is plain that the closer the bond exsisting between the subordinate members of the hierarchy and their superiors, and between pastors and their people, the more ef fective will be the work done for the salvation of souls. If the pastor be earnest in preaching and admonishing, unremitting in the tribunal of penance and visitaion of the sick, charitable to the poor, kind yet firm in his dealings with all the members of his flock, observant of the regulations of the Church as to his office and particularly that of dwelling among his people (see Residence, Ecclesiastical), that he may know them and bring them succour at all times; and if, on the other hand, the people be truly desirous for their own salvation, obedient towards their pastor, zealous to obtain and employ the means of sanctification, and mindful of their obligations as members of a parish to enable their pastor to institute and improve the parochial insti tutions necessary for the proper furtherance of the object of the Church, we shall have the true idea of the cure of souls as intended by Christ and as legislated for in the canons of His Church.

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Diocese of Curityba do Parana

(CURYTUBENSIS DE PARANA)

Diocese; suffragan of São Sebastião (Rio de Janeiro), Brazil. The city of Curityba, on the Iguazú River, was settled in 1654 and became the capital of the State of Paraná in 1831. It lies in a fertile plain 3200 feet above sea-level, and has gold mines in the vicinity. Erected by Bull of Leo XIII, “Ad Universas” (27 April, 1892), the Diocese of Curityba embraces the states of Paraná and Santa Catarina, an area of 114,087 sq. km., and contains a Catholic population of 600,900, with 69 parishes, 68 secular and 21 regular priests, 2 religious orders of men and 3 of women, 1 seminary, 2 colleges, and 1 Catholic school with an attendance of 350.

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (Paris, 1906); Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1908).

F.M. RUDGE

Curium

A titular see of Cyprus, suppressed in 1222 by the papal legate, Pelagius. Koureus, son of Kinyras, is said to have founded Kourion on the southwest coast of Cyprus, west of Cape Kourias (now Gata), and to have settled a colony of Argives there in 1595 B.C. The city became the capital of one of the kingdoms in the island. On the site of the ruins is the modern village of Episkopi (Epischope), near the sea, on the right bank of the Lykos; it was here that Cesnola discovered the many precious antiquities now in the Metropolitan Museum, New York City. In the Middle Ages Episkopi belonged first to the Ibelin family, counts of Jaffa, and later to the Venetian family of Cornaro, who owned valuable sugar-cane plantations there. It is still the centre of a very fertile district. The tomb of St. Hermogenes and his relics are preserved in the church. Only two bishops of Curium are recorded: Zeno, present at the Council of Ephesus (431), and Michael, in 1051. Ricaut (The Present State of the Greek and Armenian Churches, London, 1679, p.94) mentions a Bishop Cosmas who resided there, who was, however, probably a titular or a superannuated bishop.

LEQUIEN, Or. Christ., II, 1057; HACKET, A History of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus, 312, 456; MAS-LATRIE, Histoire de Chypre, passim; IDEM, L’île de Chypre, 22; DI CESNOLA, Cyprus.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

James Curley

An astronomer, b. at Athleague, County Roscommon, Ireland, 26 October, 1796; d. at Georgetown, District of Columbia, U.S., 24 July 1889. His early education was limited, though his talent for mathematics was discovered, and to some extent developed, by a teacher in his native town. He left Ireland in his youth, arriving in Philadelphia, 10 October, 1817. Here he worked for two years as a bookkeeper and then taught mathematics at Frederick, Maryland. In 1826 he became a student at the old seminary in Washington, intending to prepare himself for the priesthood, and at the same time taught one of its classes. The seminary, however, which had been established in 1820, was closed in the following year and he entered the Society of Jesus, 29 September, 1827. After completing his novitiate he again taught in Frederick and was sent (1831) to teach natural philosophy at Georgetown College. He also studied theology and was ordained priest on 1 June, 1833. His first Mass was said at the Visitation Convent, Georgetown, where he afterwards acted as chaplain for fifty years. He spent the remainder of his life at Georgetown, where he taught natural philosophy and mathematics for forty-eight years. He planned and superintended the building of the Georgetown Observatory in 1844 and was its first director, filling this position for many years. One of his earliest achievements was the determination of the longitude of Washington. His results did not agree with those obtained at the Naval Observatory, and it was not until after the laying of the first transatlantic cable in 1858 that his determination was found to be near the truth. The coincidence, however, was partly accidental, as the method which he employed was not susceptible of very great precision. Father Curley was also much interested in botany. He is best remembered, however, as a teacher. He wrote “Annals of the Observatory of Georgetown College, D.C., containing the description of the observatory and the description and use of the transit instrument and meridian circle” (New York, 1852).

Woodstock Letters, XVIII, 3; Shea, History of Georgetown College (Washington, 1891); McLaughlin, College Days at Georgetown (Philadelphia, 1899).

H.M. BROCK

Joseph Curr

A priest, controversialist and martyr of charity, b. at Sheffield, England, in the last quarter of the eighteenth century; d. at Leeds, 29 June, 1847. He was educated at Crook Hall, County Durham, and Ushaw College, was ordained a priest and served for some years the missions in Rook Street and Granby Row, Manchester, where he engaged in controversy with the Protestant Bible Association. Later, after a retirement to La Trappe in France, he returned to Ushaw, going thence to Callaly, Northumberland. About 1840 he was at St. Albans, Blackburn, with Dr. Sharples, until the latter was consecrated Bishop of Samaria in partibus. Father Curr then went to Whitby remaining there until about 1846, when he was appointed to Sheffield. During the typhus fever epidemic 1847, Leeds was almost bereft of priests; Father Curr volunteered for service there, and fell a victim to the disease. His principal works are: “The Instructor’s Assistant,” long used in Manchester Sunday Schools; “Visits to the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Virgin,” from the Italian of Liguori (Manchester); “Spiritual Retreat,” adapted from Bourdaloue; “Familiar Instructions in Catholic Faith and Morality” (Manchester, 1827). There remain two sermons, also several pamphlets and newspaper letters of a controversial character.

Orthodox Journal (1835), 36, 40; Gillow, Bibli. Dict. of Eng. Cath., I, 608.

PATRICK RYAN

John Curry

Doctor of medicine and Irish historian, b. in Dublin in the first quarter of the eighteenth century; d. there, 1780. He studied medicine at Paris and Reims and returned to Dublin to practise his profession. He was an ardent Catholic and, to refute the calumnies levelled against his coreligionists, published in London, in 1747, a “Brief Account from the most authentic Protestant writers of the Irish Rebellion, 1641.” This was bitterly attacked by Walter Harris in a volume published in Dublin, 1752, and in reply Curry published his “Historical Memoirs,” afterwards enlarged and published (1775) under the title “An Historical and Critical Review of the Civil Wars in Ireland.” This is his best work; a new edition of it, enlarged from Curry’s manuscript, was published by Charles O’Connor of Belnagare, in 2 volumes (Dublin, 1786), and in one volume (Dublin, 1810). In this work, after a brief glance over the developments in Ireland after the invasion of Henry II, he takes up the real history at the reign of Elizabeth and carries it down to the Settlement under William III. Curry took a prominent part in the struggle of the Irish Catholics for the repeal of the Penal Laws and was one of the founders of the (Irish) Catholic Committee which met in Essex Street, 1760. Besides the works already mentioned, he published “An Essay on Ordinary Fevers” (London, 1743) and “Some Thoughts on the Nature of Fevers” (London, 1774).

JAMES MACCAFFREY.

Cursing

In its popular acceptation cursing is often confounded, especially in the phrase “cursing and swearing,” with the use of profane and insulting language; in canon law it sometimes signifies the ban of excommunication pronounced by the Church. In its more common Biblical sense it means the opposite of blessing (cf. Num., xxiii, 27), and is generally either a threat of the Divine wrath, or its actual visitation, or its prophetic announcement, though occasionally it is a mere petition that calamity may be visited by God on persons or things in requital for wrongdoing. Thus among many other instances we find God cursing the serpent (Gen., iii, 14), the earth (Gen., iii, 17), and Cain (Gen., iv, 11). Similarly Noe curses Chanaan (Gen., ix, 25); Josue, him who should build the city of Jericho (Jos., vi, 26–27); and in various books of the Old Testament there are long lists of curses against transgressors of the Law (cf. Lev., xxvi, 14–25; Deut., xxvii, 15, etc.). So, too, in the New Testament, Christ curses the barren fig-tree (Mark, xi, 14), pronounces his denunciation of woe against the incredulous cities (Matt., xi, 21), against the rich, the worldling, the scribes and the Pharisees, and foretells the awful malediction that is to come upon the damned (Matt., xxv, 41). The word curse is also applied to the victim of expiation for sin (Gal., iii, 13), to sins temporal and eternal (Gen., ii, 17; Matt., xxv, 41).

In moral theology, to curse is to call down evil upon God or creatures, rational or irrational, living or dead. St. Thomas treats of it under the name maledictio, and says that imprecation may be made either efficaciously and by way of command, as when made by God, or inefficaciously and as a mere expression of desire. From the fact that we find many instances of curses made by God and his representatives, the Church and the Prophets, it is seen that the act of cursing is not necessarily sinful in itself; like other moral acts it takes its sinful character from the object, the end, and the circumstances. Thus it is always a sin, and the greatest of sins, to curse God, for to do so involves both the irreverence of blasphemy and the malice of hatred of the Divinity. It is likewise blasphemy, and consequently a grievous sin against the Second Commandment, to curse creatures of any kind precisely because they are the work of God. If, however, the imprecation be directed towards irrational creatures not on account of their relation to God, but simply as they are in themselves, the guilt is no greater than that which attaches to vain and idle words, except where grave scandal is given, or the evil wished to the irrational creature cannot be separated from serious loss to a rational creature, as would be the case were one to wish the death of another’s horse, or the destruction of his house by fire, for such wishes involved serious violation of charity.

Curses which imply rebellion against Divine Providence, or denial of His goodness or other attributes, such as curses of the weather, the winds, the world, the Christian Faith, are not generally grievous sins, because the full content and implication of such expressions is seldom realized by those who use them. The common imprecations against animate or inanimate objects which cause vexation or pain, those against enterprises which fail of success, so, too, the imprecations that spring from impatience, little outbreaks of anger over petty annoyances, and those spoken lightly, inconsiderately, under sudden impulse or in joke, are, as a rule, only venial sins—the evil being slight and not seriously desired. To call down moral evil upon a rational creature is always illicit, and the same holds good of physical evil, unless it be desired not as evil, but only in so far as it is good, for example, as a punishment for misdeeds, or a means to amendment, or an obstacle to commission of sin; for in such cases the principal intention, as St. Thomas says, is directed per se towards what is good. When, however, evil is wished another precisely because it is evil and with malice prepense, there is always sin, the gravity of which varies with the seriousness of the evil; if it be of considerable magnitude, the sin will be grievous, if of trifling character, the sin will be venial. It is to be noted that merely verbal curses, even without any desire of fulfilment, become grievous sins when uttered against and in the presence of those who are invested with special claims to reverence. A child, therefore, would sin grievously who should curse father, mother, or grandfather, or those who hold the place of parents in his regard, provided he does so to their very face, even though he does this merely with the lips and not with the heart. Such an act is a serious violation of the virtue of piety. Between other degrees of kindred verbal curses are forbidden only under pain of venial sin. To curse the devil is not of itself a sin; to curse the dead is not ordinarily a grievous sin, because no serious injury is done them, but to curse the saints or holy things, as the sacraments, is generally blasphemy, as their relation to God is generally perceived.

LESÊTRE in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, s.v. Malédiction; LEVIAS in Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v.; ST. THOMAS, Sum. Theol., II-II, xxvi; ST. ALPHONSUS, Theol. Moral., IV, tract. ii; BALLERINI-PALMIERI, Tract. vii, sect. ii; LEHMKUHL, Theol. Moral., I, 183; REUTER, Neo-Confessarius (1905), 104; NOLDIN, Quaes. Moral., I, 231.

J. H. FISHER.

Cursores Apostolici

Cursores Apostolici is the Latin title of the ecclesiastical heralds or pursuivants pertaining to the papal court. Their origin is placed in the twelfth century, and they fulfilled for the pontifical government the duties entrusted to heralds by civil states. From the sixteenth century onward they formed part of the Roman Curia in its broader sense, and are at present reckoned members of the pontifical family. Their number is fixed at nineteen, and they are subject to the major-domo. The principal duties of the cursores are to invite those who are to take part in consistories. and functions in the papal chapel; to act as servitors in the pontifical palace and as doorkeepers of the conclave; to affix papal rescripts to the doors of the greater Roman basilicas; to issue the summons for attendance at canonizations, the funerals of cardinals, etc. As the cursores are representatives of the pope, they must be received with the respect becoming the personage in whose name they speak, and their invitation has the force of a judicial summons. In the early ages of the Church, an institution somewhat similar to that of the cursores is found in messengers, chosen from among the clergy, to carry important tidings from one bishop to another or from the bishop to his flock. They were much used in times of persecution and they are frequently referred to in the writings of the Fathers as prœcones, internuntii, etc. As guardians of the assemblies of the faithful, they were called vigiliœ. Despite these resemblances to the modern cursores, however, it seems evident that the latter took their rise from the employment of heralds by civil states, rather than from the prœcones of the early Church. Episcopal courts have likewise cursores or apparitors among their officials.

CRAISSON, Man. jur. can. (Paris, 1899), IV; ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dict. du droit can. (Paris, 1901).

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

Cursor Mundi

(THE RUNNER OF THE WORLD)

A Cursor Mundi is a Middle-English poem of nearly 30,000 lines containing a sort of summary of universal history. From the large number of manuscripts in which it is preserved, it must have been exceptionally popular. It was originally written, as certain peculiarities of construction and vocabulary clearly show, somewhere in the north of England, but of the author nothing can be learnt except the fact, which he himself tells us, that he was a cleric. He must have lived at the close of the thirteenth and at the beginning of the fourteenth century, and his poem is conjecturally assigned to about the year 1300. In form it is written in eight-syllabled couplets, but in his account of the Passion of Christ the author adopts a new metre of lines of eight and six syllables rhyming alternately. Although the poem deals with universal history, the author contrives to give some sort of unity to his work by grouping it around the theme of man’s redemption. He explains in an elaborate prologue how folk desire to read old romances relating to Alexander, Julius Cæsar, Troy, Brutus, Arthur, Charlemagne, etc., and how only those men are esteemed that love “paramours.” But earthly love is vain and full of disappointments.

Therefore bless I that paramour [i. e. Our Lady]

That in my need does me soccour

That saves me on earth from sin

And heaven bliss me helps to win.

Mother and mayden never-the-less

Therefore of her took Jesu flesh.

He goes on to say that his book is written in honour of Mary and purposes to tell about the Old and the New Law and all the world, of the Trinity, the fall of the Angels, of Adam, Abraham, and the patriarchs, then of Christ’s coming, of His birth, and of the three kings, etc., of His public life and of His Passion and Crucifixion, and of the “Harrowing of Hell.” Thence he will go on to the Resurrection and Ascension, the Assumption of Our Lady, the Finding of the Cross, and then to Antichrist and to the Day of Doom. As a sort of devotional appendix he also proposes to deal with Mary’s mourning beneath the Cross and of her Conception. This work he has undertaken.

In to English Tongue to rede

For the love of English lede [people]

English lede of England

For the common [folk] to understand.

This ambitious programme is faithfully carried out with considerable literary skill and a devotional feeling quite out of the common. The author shows himself to have been a man of wide reading. Although his main authority is the “Historia Scholastica” of Peter Comestor he has made himself acquainted with a number of other books in English, French, and Latin, and his work may be regarded as a storehouse of legends not all of which have been traced to their original sources. Special prominence is given throughout the work to the history of the Cross which for some reason (possibly because St. Helena, the mother of Constantine, was reputed to have been of British birth) was always exceptionally popular in England.

After commending the author’s “keen eye for the picturesque,” a recent critic, in the “Cambridge History of English Literature,” remarks, “The strong humanity which runs through the whole work is one of its most attractive features and shows that the writer was full of sympathy for his fellow-men.”

The main authority upon the Cursor Mundi is the elaborate edition of the poem edited by DR. RICHARD MORRIS for the Early English Text Society (1874–1893, 3 vols.), with appendixes and critical appreciations by several other scholars. The Cursor Mundi also receives full attention in all modern histories of English literature, of which the best is the Cambridge History, edited by A. W. WARD, (Cambridge, 1907). See also especially KALUZA in Englische Studien, Vol. XI.

HERBERT THURSTON.

Curubis

A titular see of Africa Proconsularis. The town was fortified about 46 B. C. by P. Attius Varus and C. Considius Longus, generals of Pompey, and proclaimed by Cæsar a Roman colony under the name of Colonia Julia Curubis. It is mentioned in Pliny, Ptolemy, “The Itinerary of Antoninus,” etc. In 257 St. Cyprian was exiled to Curubis for refusing to sacrifice to the gods (Vita Pontii, c. xii, ed. Hartel, III, and the year following he was called thence to Carthage to be put to death. Four bishops are known (one Donatist), from 411 to 646 (Morcelli, Africa christiana, I, 149). Curubis is to-day Kourba, a little village on the coast, east of Tunis, between Cape Mustapha and Ras Mamoura. The region is hilly and woody; it has always been inhabited by more or less savage people, for which reason the Christians were often exiled there.

S. VAILHÉ.

Cusæ

A titular see of Egypt. The Coptic name of this town was Kõskõ; in Greek it becomes Kousos, Akouasa, Akoussa, Kousis, Kousai, Khousai; in Latin we find Cussa, Cusæ, Chusæ, etc. It is now the fellahtown, El-Kousîyet (Alquoussiah, Al-Kussîje, El-Kusîye, Qossieh), on the western bank of the Nile, inland between the railway stations Dêrût esh-Sherif and Montfalût. Near it stands Deir-el-Moharag, the largest, richest, and most peopled of the seven great Coptic monasteries; the Holy Family is said to have sojourned there and it is the centre of an important pilgrimage. The city figures in the “Synecdemus” of Hierocles (730, 9), Georgius Cyprius (764), and Parthey’s “Notitia Prima” (about 840). It was a suffragan of Antinoe in Thebais Prima. Lequien (II, 597) mentions two bishops, Achilles, a Meletian, in 325, and Theonas, present at Constantinople in 553. Cusæ is to be distinguished from Kysis in the southern part of the Great Oasis, now Dûsh el-Kal’a.

BRUGSCH, Geogr. des alten Aegyptens, I, 222; BAEDEKER, Aegypten (1891), part II, 45; JULLIEN, L’Egypte, Souvenirs bibliques et chrétiens (Lille, 1896), 249.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Cush

(Son of Cham; D. V. Chus)

Cush, like the other names of the ethnological table of Genesis, x, is the name of a race, but it has generally been understood to designate also an individual, the progenitor of the nations and tribes known in the ancient world as Cushites. The list of those descendants of Cush is given in Gen., x, 7–8. The country known to the Greeks as Ethiopia is called Cush (Heb. Kûš) in the Bible. In its broadest extension the term designated the region south of Assuan, on the Upper Nile, now known as Nubia, Senaar, Kardofan, and Northern Abyssinia. This region is referred to in Egyptian inscriptions as Keš or Kaš. More often, however, the name Cush was given to a part of the territory just mentioned, called by the Greeks the Kingdom of Meroë, at the confluence of the Nile and the Astaboras (now Tacassi). It is from this kingdom that came the eunuch of Candace, Queen of Ethiopia (Acts. viii, 26–40). Cush was long a powerful nation. In the course of the eighth century, B. C., its Kings became rulers of Egypt. Shabitku, one of them, was the principal opponent of the great Sennacherib, King of Assyria. It was in vain that Isaias warned his people not to place their trust in such princes (Is., xviii, 1; xx, 3, 5).

The African Cush is best known; but there were Cushites in Asia. The “land of Cush” of Gen., ii, 13 (Heb. text), watered by the Gehon, one of the four rivers of Paradise, was doubtless in Asia. Regma, Saba, and Dadan (Gen., x, 7) were in Arabia. The Madianite wife of Moses, Sephora, is called a Cushite (Ex., ii, 16, 21; Num., xii, 1-Heb. text). Nemrod, son of Cush, rules over cities in the valleys of the Euphrates and Tigris (Gen., x, 8–12). This text points to the foundation of the first empire in this region by Cushites. It is chiefly the relics of a Semitic civilization that have been brought to light by archæological discoveries. But traces are not lacking, according to competent scholars, of an older civilization.

RAWLINSON, Five Great Monarchies (London, 1879), I, iii; MASPERO, Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient (Paris. 1905).

W. S. REILLY

Johannes Cuspinian

(Properly SPIESHAYM or SPIESHAM)

Distinguished humanist and statesman, born at Schweinfurt, Lower Franconia, in 1473; died at Vienna, 19 April, 1529. In 1490 he matriculated at the University of Leipzig, went to the University of Vienna (1493) to continue his humanistic studies, and in 1494 entered there on a course of medicine. At this early age he edited the “Liber Hymnorum” of Prudentius, and made a reputation by his lectures on Virgil, Horace, Sallust, and Cicero. He was acquainted with Emperor Frederick III. In 1493, in reward for a panegyric on the life of St. Leopold of Austria, he was crowned as poet laureate and received the title of Master of Arts from Maximilian. Soon after this he was made a doctor of medicine, and in 1500 rector of the university. Maximilian made him his confidential councillor and appointed him curator of the university for life. Cuspinian also received the position of chief librarian of the Imperial Library, and superintendent of the archives of the imperial family. As curator of the university he exercised great influence on its development, although he was not able to prevent the decline caused by the political and religious disturbances of the second decade of the sixteenth century. He was on terms of friendship with the most noted humanists and scholars; the calling of his friend Celtes (q. v.) to Vienna is especially due to him. Celtes and he were the heading spirits of the literary association called the “Sodalitas Litterarum Danubiana.” In 1515 Cuspinian was prefect of the city of Vienna. Emperor Maximilian, also Charles V at a later date, sent him on numerous diplomatic missions to Hungary, Bohemia, and Poland. He brought about a settlement of the disputed succession between the Hapsburg line and the King of Hungary and Bohemia; another of his missions was to accompany Bona Sforza, the bride of King Sigismund of Poland, to Cracow. His literary activity covered the most varied domains. Although his poetical writings are of little importance, and his manuscript “Collectanea medicin.” of no great value, nevertheless he attained a high reputation as a collector and, to some degree, as an editor of ancient and medieval manuscripts. Among other publications, he edited in 1511 L. Florus, in 1515 the “Libellus de lapidibus”of Marboduus, and the medieval chronicler Otto of Freising. Important as a contribution to the study of ancient history is the publication which first appeared, after his death in 1553, namely, the “Fasti consulares,” with which were united the “Chronicle” of Cassiodorus and the “Breviarium” of Sextus Rufus. Another valuable work of Cuspinian is the “History of the Roman Emperors,” prepared during the years 1512–22 (in Latin, 1540, and in German, 1541). For a long time, especially after the battle of Mohács, he busied himself with the Turkish question and printed both political and historical writings on the subject, the most important of which is his “De Turcarum origine, religione et tyrannide.” His best work is “Austria, sive Commentarius de rebus Austriæ” etc., edited by Brusch in 1553 with critical notes. A kind of diary (1502–27), which throws much light on his political activity, was published in “Fontes rerum austriacarum” (1885), I, 1 sqq. A life of Cuspinian, not always reliable, is found in the complete edition of his works by Gerbelius (Commentationes Cusp., Strasburg, 1540); a more complete edition of his works appeared at Frankfort in 1601.

Allg. deutsche Bioqr., IV, 662 sqq.; HASELBACH, Cuspinian als Staatsmann und Gelehrter (Vienna 1867); ASCHBACH, Gesch. der Universität Wien (1877), II, 284–309; BAUCH, Die Reception des Humanismus in Wien (1903), 48 sqq.

JOSEPH SAUER.

Custom (in Canon Law)

A custom is an unwritten law introduced by the continuous acts of the faithful with the consent of the legitimate legislator. Custom may be considered as a fact and as a law. As a fact, it is simply the frequent and free repetition of acts concerning the same thing; as a law, it is the result and consequence of that fact. Hence its name, which is derived from consuesco or consuefacio and denotes the frequency of the action. (Cap. Consuetudo v, Dist. i.

I. DIVISION

(a) Considered according to extent, a custom is universal, if received by the whole Church; or general (though under another aspect, particular), if observed in an entire country or province; or special, if it obtains among smaller but perfect societies; or most special (specialissima) if among private individuals and imperfect societies. It is obvious that the last-named cannot elevate a custom into a legitimate law.

(b) Considered according to duration, custom is prescriptive or non-prescriptive. The former is subdivided, according to the amount of time requisite for a custom of fact to become a custom of law, into ordinary (i. e. ten or forty years) and immemorial.

(c) Considered according to method of introduction, a custom is judicial or extrajudicial. The first is that derived from forensic usage or precedent. This is of great importance in ecclesiastical circles, as the same prelates are generally both legislators and judges, i. e. the pope and bishops. Extrajudicial custom is introduced by the people, but its sanction becomes the more easy the larger the number of learned or prominent men who embrace it.

(d) Considered in its relation to law, a custom is according to law (juxta legem) when it interprets or confirms an existing statute; or beside the law (prœter legem) when no written legislation on the subject exists; or contrary to law (contra legem) when it derogates from or abrogates a statute already in force.

II. CONDITIONS

The true efficient cause of an ecclesiastical custom, in as far as it constitutes law, is solely the consent of the competent legislating authority. All church laws imply spiritual jurisdiction, which resides in the hierarchy alone, and, consequently, the faithful have no legislative power, either by Divine right or canonical statute. Therefore, the express or tacit consent of the church authority is necessary to give a custom the force of an ecclesiastical law. This consent is denominated legal when, by general statute and antecedently, reasonable customs receive approbation. Ecclesiastical custom differs, therefore, radically from civil custom. For, though both arise from a certain conspiration and accord between the people and the lawgivers, yet in the Church the entire juridical force of the custom is to be obtained from the consent of the hierarchy while in the civil state, the people themselves are one of the real sources of the legal force of custom. Custom, as a fact, must proceed from the community, or at least from the action of the greater number constituting the community. These actions must be free, uniform, frequent, and public, and performed with the intention of imposing an obligation. The usage, of which there is question. must also be of a reasonable nature. Custom either introduces a new law or abrogates an old one. But a law, by its very concept, is an ordination of reason, and so no law can be constituted by an unreasonable custom. Moreover, as an existing statute cannot be revoked except for just cause, it follows that the custom which is to abrogate the old law must be reasonable, for otherwise the requisite justice would be wanting. A custom, considered as a fact, is unreasonable when it is contrary to Divine law, positive or natural; or when it is prohibited by proper ecclesiastical authority; or when it is the occasion of sin and opposed to the common good.

A custom must also have a legitimate prescription. Such prescription is obtained by a continuance of the act in question during a certain length of time. No canonical statute has positively defined what this length of time is, and so its determination is left to the wisdom of canonists. Authors generally hold that for the legalizing of a custom in accordance with or beside the law (juxta or prœter legem) a space of ten years is sufficient; while for a custom contrary (contra) to law many demand a lapse of forty years. The reason given for the necessity of so long a space as forty years is that the community will only slowly persuade itself of the opportuneness of abrogating the old and embracing the new law. The opinion, however, which holds that ten years suffices to establish a custom even contrary to the law may be safely followed. It is to be noted, however, that in practice the Roman Congregations scarcely tolerate or permit any custom, even an immemorial one, contrary to the sacred canons. (Cf. Gasparri, De Sacr. Ordin., n. 53, 69 sq.) In the introduction of a law by prescription, it is assumed that the custom was introduced in good faith, or at least through ignorance of the opposite law. If, however, a custom be introduced through connivance (viâ conniventiœ), good faith is not required, for, as a matter of fact, bad faith must, at least in the beginning, be presupposed. As, however, when there is question of connivance, the proper legislator must know of the formation of the custom and yet does not oppose it when he could easily do so, the contrary law is then supposed to be abrogated directly by the tacit revocation of the legislator. A custom which is contrary to good morals or to the natural or Divine positive law is always to be rejected as an abuse, and it can never be legalized.

III. FORCE OF CUSTOM

The effects of a custom vary with the nature of the act which has caused its introduction, i. e. according as the act is in accord with (juxta), or beside (prœter), or contrary (contra) to, the written law.

(a) The first (juxta legem) does not constitute a new law in the strict sense of the word; its effect is rather to confirm and strengthen an already existing statute or to interpret it. Hence the axiom of jurists: Custom is the best interpreter of laws. Custom, indeed, considered as a fact, is a witness to the true sense of a law and to the intention of the legislator. If, then, it bring about that a determinate sense be obligatorily attached to an indeterminate legal phrase, it takes rank as an authentic interpretation of the law and as such acquires true binding-force. Wernz (Jus Decretalium, n. 191) refers to this same principle as explaining why the oft-recurring phrase in ecclesiastical documents, “the existing discipline of the Church, approved by the Holy See,” indicates a true norm and an obligatory law.

(b) The second species of custom (prœter legem) has the force of a new law, binding upon the entire community both in the internal and external forum. Unless a special exception can be proved, the force of such a custom extends to the introduction of prohibitive, permissive, and preceptive statutes, as well as to penal and nullifying enactments.

(c) Thirdly, a custom contrary (contra) to law has the effect of abrogating, entirely or in part, an already existing ordinance, for it has the force of a new and later law. As regards penal ecclesiastical legislation, such a custom may directly remove an obligation in conscience, while the duty of submission to the punishment for transgressing the old precept may remain, provided the punishment in question be not a censure nor so severe a chastisement as necessarily presupposes a grave fault. On the other hand, this species of custom may also remove the punishment attached to a particular law, while the law itself remains obligatory as to its observance.

Immemorial custom, provided it be shown that circumstances have so changed as to make the custom reasonable, has power to abrogate or change any human law, even though a clause had been originally added to it forbidding any custom to the contrary. To immemorial custom is also attached the unusual force of inducing a presumption of the existence of an Apostolic privilege, provided the said privilege be not reckoned among abuses, and the holder of the presumed privilege be a person legally capable of acquiring the thing in question without first obtaining a special and express Apostolic permission for it (cf. Wernz, op. cit., who has been followed particularly in this paragraph). Ferraris notes that no immemorial custom, if it be not confirmed by Apostolic privilege, express or presumptive, can have any force for the abrogation of ecclesiastical liberties or immunities, inasmuch as both canon and civil law declare such custom to be unreasonable by its very nature. In general, it may be said that a valid custom, in both the constitution and the abrogation of laws, produces the same effects as a legislative act.

IV. CONCERNING TRIDENTINE DECREES

A special question has been raised by some canonists as to whether the laws of the Council of Trent may be changed or abrogated by custom, even if immemorial, or whether all such contrary customs should not be rejected as abuses. Some of these writers restrict their denial of the value of contrary customs to ordinary, some also to immemorial ones (cf. Lucidi, De Vis. Sac. Lim., I, ch. iii, n. 111). It is unquestionably a general principle in canon law, that custom can change the disciplinary statutes even of œcumenical councils. The main reason for rejecting this principle in favour of the Tridentine enactments in particular is that any contrary custom would certainly be unreasonable and therefore unjustifiable. It is by no means evident, however, that all such contrary customs must necessarily be unreasonable, as is plain from the fact that some authors allow and others deny the value of immemorial customs in the premises, even when they agree in reprobating the force of ordinary customs. As a matter of fact, there is no decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council which declares, absolutely and generally, that all customs contrary to the laws of the Council of Trent are invalid. Moreover, the Tribunal of the Rota has allowed the force of immemorial customs contrary to the disciplinary decrees of Trent, and the Sacred Congregation of the Council has at least tolerated them in secondary matters. A salient instance of the Roman official view is the statement of the Holy Office (11 March, 1868) that the Tridentine decree on clandestine marriages, even after promulgation, was abrogated in some regions by contrary custom (Collect. S. C. de Prop. Fid., n. 1408). The confirmation of the Council of Trent by Pope Pius IV (26 Jan., 1564; 17 Feb., 1565) abolishes, it is true, all contrary existing customs, but the papal letters contain nothing to invalidate future customs. Owing to the comparatively recent date of the Council of Trent and the urgency of the Holy See that its decrees be observed, it is not easy for a contrary custom to arise, but whenever the conditions of a legitimate custom are fulfilled, there is no reason why the Tridentine decrees should be more immune than those of any other œcumenical council (cfr. Laurentius, op. cit., below, n. 307).

V. CESSATION OF CUSTOMS

Any custom is to be rejected whose existence as such cannot be proved legally. A custom is a matter of fact, and therefore its existence must be tested in the same way as the existence of other alleged facts is tested. In this particular, the decrees of synods, the testimony of the diocesan ordinary and of other persons worthy of credence are of great value. Proofs are considered the stronger the more closely they approximate public and official monuments. If there be a question of proving an immemorial custom, the witnesses must be able to affirm that they themselves have been cognizant of the matter at issue for a space of at least forty years, that they have heard it referred to by their progenitors as something always observed, and that neither they nor their fathers have ever been aware of any fact to the contrary. If the fact of the existence of an alleged custom is not sufficiently proved, it is to be rejected as constituting a source of law. Customs may be revoked by a competent ecclesiastical legislator, in the same way and for the same reasons as other ordinances are abrogated. A later general law contrary to a general custom will nullify the latter, but a particular custom will not be abrogated by a general law, unless a clause to that effect be inserted. Even such a nullifying clause will not be sufficient for the abrogation of immemorial customs. The latter must be mentioned explicitly, for they are held not to be included in any general legal phrase, however sweeping its terms may be. Customs may likewise be abrogated by contrary customs, or they may lose their legal force by the mere fact that they fall into desuetude. Finally, an authentic declaration that a custom is absolutely contrary to good morals (rumpens nervum disciplinœ) and detrimental to the interests of the hierarchy or of the faithful deprives it of its supposed legal value.

BAUDUIN, De Consuetudine in Jure Canon. (Louvain, 1888); WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1898), I; LAURENTIUS, Institutiones Juris Eccl. (Freiburg, 1903); FERRARIS, Bibliotheca Canon. (Rome, 1886), II.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

Custos

(1) an under-sacristan. (See .) (2) A superior or an official in the Franciscan order.

The word has various acceptations in ancient as well as in modern Franciscan legislation. Nor do the three great existing branches of the order—the Friars Minor, Conventuals, and Capuchins—attach the same meaning to the term at the present day. Saint Francis sometimes applies the word to any superior in the order—guardians, provincials, and even to the general (see Rule, IV and VIII, and Testament). Sometimes he restricts it to officials presiding over a certain number of convents in the larger provinces of the order with restricted powers and subject to their respective provincials. It is in this latter sense that he refers (Rule, VIII) to the custodes as having power, conjointly with the provincials, to elect and to depose the minister general.

The convents over which a custos (in this latter sense) presided were collectively called a custodia. The number of custodiae in a province varied according to its extent. Already at an early period it was deemed expedient that only one of the several custodes of a province should proceed to the general chapter with his respective provincial for the election of the minister general, although the rule accorded the right of vote to each custos. This custom was sanctioned by Gregory IX in 1230 (“Quo elongati,” Bull. Rom., III, 450, Turin edition) and by other popes, evidently with the view to prevent unnecessary expense. The custos thus chosen was called Custos custodum, or, among the Observantines until the time of Leo X (“Ite et vos,” Bull. Rom., V, 694), discretus discretorum. This ancient legislation, which has long since ceased in the Order of Friars Minor, still obtains in the Order of Friars Minor Conventuals, as may be seen from their constitutions confirmed by Urban VIII (see below). The present-day legislation on the point among the Capuchins and Friars Minor may be briefly summed up as follows: In the Capuchin Order there are two kinds of custodes—custodes general and custodes provincial. Two custodes general are elected every three years at the provincial chapters. The first of these has a right to vote at the election of the minister general should a general chapter be held during his term of office. Besides, he has the obligation of presenting to the general chapter an official report on the state of his province. The provincial custodes, on the contrary, have no voice in the general chapters, and their rights and duties are much restricted and unimportant. In the constitutions of the Order of Friars Minor there is also mention of two kinds of custodes—one called custos provinciae, the other custos regiminis. The former is elected at the provincial chapter and holds office for three years. Besides having a voice in all capitular acts of his province he takes part in the general chapter, should his provincial be impeded. The custos regiminis is a prelate who rules over a custody, or small province. He possesses ordinary jurisdiction and has all the rights and privileges of a provincial. The number of convents in a custodia regiminis ranges from four to eight.

GREGORY CLEARY

St. Cuthbert

Bishop of Lindisfarne, patron of Durham, born about 635; died 20 March, 687. His emblem is the head of St. Oswald, king and martyr, which he is represented as bearing in his hands. His feast is kept in Great Britain and Ireland on the 20th of March, and he is patron of the Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle, where his commemoration is inserted among the Suffrages of the Saints. His early biographers give no particulars of his birth, and the accounts in the “Libellus de ortu,” which represent him as the son of an Irish king named Muriahdach, though recently supported by Cardinal Moran and Archbishop Healy, are rejected by later English writers as legendary. Moreover, St. Bede’s phrase, Brittania . . . genuit (Vita Metricia, c. i), points to his English birth. He was probably born in the neighbourhood of Mailros (Melrose) of lowly parentage, for as a boy he used to tend sheep on the mountain-sides near that monastery. While still a child living with his foster-mother Kenswith his future lot as bishop had been foretold by a little play-fellow, whose prophecy had a lasting effect on his character. He was influenced, too, by the holiness of the community of Mailros, where St. Eata was abbot and St. Basil prior. In the year 651, while watching his sheep, he saw in a vision the soul of St. Aidan carried to heaven by angels, and inspired by this became a monk at Mailros. Yet it would seem that the troubled state of the country hindered him from carrying out his resolution at once. Certain it is that at one part of his life he was a soldier, and the years which succeed the death of St. Aidan and Oswin of Deira seem to have been such as would call for the military service of most of the able-bodied men of Northumbria, which was constantly threatened at this time by the ambition of its southern neighbor, King Penda of Mercia. Peace was not restored to the land until some four years later, as the consequence of a great battle which was fought between the Northumbrians and the Mercians at Winwidfield. It was probably after this battle that Cuthbert found himself free once more to turn to the life he desired. He arrived at Mailros on horseback and armed with a spear. Here he soon became eminent for holiness and learning, while from the first his life was distinguished by supernatural occurrences and miracles. When the monastery at Ripon was founded he went there as guest-master, but in 661 he, with other monks who adhered to the customs of Celtic Christianity, returned to Mailros owing to the adoption at Ripon of the Roman Usage in celebrating Easter and other matters. Shortly after his return he was struck by a pestilence which then attacked the community, but he recovered, and became prior in place of St. Boisil, who died of the disease in 664. In this year the Synod of Whitby decided in favour of the Roman Usage, and St. Cuthbert, who accepted the decision, was sent by St. Eata to be prior at Lindisfarne, in order that he might introduce the Roman customs into that house. This was a difficult matter which needed all his gentle tact and patience to carry out successfully, but the fact that one so renowned for sanctity, who had himself been brought up in the Celtic tradition, was loyally conforming to the Roman use, did much to support the cause of St. Wilfrid. In this matter St. Cuthbert’s influence on his time was very marked. At Lindisfarne he spent much time in evangelizing the people. He was noted for his devotion to the Mass, which he could not celebrate without tears, and for the success with which his zealous charity drew sinners to God.

At length, in 676, moved by a desire to attain greater perfection by means of the contemplative life, he retired, with the abbot’s leave, to a spot which Archbishop Eyre identifies with St. Cuthbert’s Island near Lindisfarne, but which Raine thinks was near Holburn, where “St. Cuthbert’s Cave” is still shown. Shortly afterwards he removed to Farne Island, opposite Bamborough in Northumberland, where he gave himself up to a life of great austerity. After some years he was called from this retirement by a synod of bishops held at Twyford in Northumberland, under St. Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury. At this meeting he was elected Bishop of Lindisfarne, as St. Eata was now translated to Hexham. For a long time he withstood all pressure and only yielded after a long struggle. He was consecrated at York by St. Theodore in the presence of six bishops, at Easter, 685. For two years he acted as bishop, preaching and labouring without intermission, with wonderful results. At Christmas, 686, foreseeing the near approach of death, he resigned his see and returned to his cell on Farne Island, where two months later he was seized with a fatal illness. In his last days, in March, 687, he was tended by monks of Lindisfarne, and received the last sacraments from Abbot Herefrid, to whom he spoke his farewell words, exhorting the monks to be faithful to Catholic unity and the traditions of the Fathers. He died shortly after midnight, and at exactly the same hour that night his friend St. Herbert, the hermit, also died, as St. Cuthbert had predicted.

St. Cuthbert was buried in his monastery at Lindisfarne, and his tomb immediately became celebrated for remarkable miracles. These were so numerous and extraordinary that he was called the “Wonder-worker of England.” In 698 the first transfer of the relics took place, and the body was found incorrupt. During the Danish invasion of 875, Bishop Eardulf and the monks fled for safety, carrying the body of the saint with them. For seven years they wandered, bearing it first into Cumberland, then into Galloway and back to Northumberland. In 883 it was placed in a church at Chester-le-Street, near Durham, given to the monks by the converted Danish king, who had a great devotion to the saint, like King Alfred, who also honoured St. Cuthbert as his patron and was a benefactor to this church. Towards the end of the tenth century, the shrine was removed to Ripon, owing to fears of fresh invasion. After a few months it was being carried back to be restored to Chester-le-Street, when, on arriving at Durham a new miracle, tradition says, indicated that this was to be the resting-place of the saint’s body. Here it remained, first in a chapel formed of boughs, then in a wooden and finally in a stone church, built on the present site of Durham cathedral, and finished in 998 or 999. While William the Conqueror was ravaging the North in 1069, the body was once more removed, this time to Lindisfarne, but it was soon restored. In 1104, the shrine was transferred to the present cathedral, when the body was again found incorrupt, with it being the head of St. Oswald, which had been placed with St. Cuthbert’s body for safety—a fact which accounts for the well-known symbol of the saint.

From this time to the Reformation the shrine remained the great centre of devotion throughout the North of England. In 1542 it was plundered of all its treasures, but the monks had already hidden the saint’s body in a secret place. There is a well-known tradition, alluded to in Scott’s “Marmion,” to the effect that the secret of the hiding-place is known to certain Benedictines who hand it down from one generation to another. In 1827 the Anglican clergy of the cathedral found a tomb alleged to be that of the saint, but the discovery was challenged by Dr. Lingard, who showed cause for doubting the identity of the body found with that of St. Cuthbert. Archbishop Eyre, writing in 1849, considered that the coffin found was undoubtedly that of the saint, but that the body had been removed and other remains substituted, while a later writer, Monsignor Consitt, though not expressing a definite view, seems inclined to allow that the remains found in 1827 were truly the bones of St. Cuthbert. Many traces of the former widespread devotion to St. Cuthbert still survive in the numerous churches, monuments, and crosses raised in his honour, and in such terms as “St. Cuthbert’s patrimony,” “St. Cuthbert’s Cross,” “Cuthbert ducks” and “Cuthbert down.” The centre of modern devotion to him is found at St. Cuthbert’s College, Ushaw, near Durham, where the episcopal ring of gold, enclosing a sapphire, taken from his finger in 1537, is preserved, and where under his patronage most of the priests for the northern counties of England are trained. His name is connected with two famous early copies of the Gospel text. The first, known as the Lindisfarne or Cuthbert Gospels (now in the British Museum, Cotton MSS. Nero D 4), was written in the eighth century by Eadfrid, Bishop of Lindisfarne. It contains the four gospels and between the lines a number of valuable Anglo-Saxon (Northumbrian) glosses; though written by an Anglo-Saxon hand it is considered by the best judges (Westwood) a noble work of old-Irish calligraphy and illumination, Lindisfarne as is well known being an Irish foundation. The manuscript, one of the most splendid in Europe, was originally placed by its scribe as an offering on the shrine of Cuthbert, and was soon richly decorated by monastic artists (Ethelwold, Bilfrid) and provided by another (Aldred) with the aforesaid interlinear gloss (Karl Bouterwek, Die vier Evangelian in altnordhumbrischer Sprache, 1857). It has also a history scarcely less romantic than the body of Cuthbert. When in the ninth century the monks fled before the Danes with the latter treasure, they took with them this manuscript, but on one occasion lost it in the Irish Channel. After three days it was found on the seashore at Whithern, unhurt save for some stains of brine. Henceforth in the inventories of Durham and Lindisfarne it was known as “Liber S. Cuthberti qui demersus est in mare” (the book of St. Cuthbert that fell into the sea). Its text was edited by Stevenson and Warning (London, 1854–65) and since then by Kemble and Hardwick, and by Skeat (see LINDISFARNE). The second early Gospel text connected with his name is the seventh-century Gospel of St. John (now in possession of the Jesuit College at Stonyhurst, England) found in 1105 in the grave of St. Cuthbert.

EDWIN BURTON.

Cuthbert

Abbot of Wearmouth; a pupil of the Venerable Bede (d. 735). He was a native of Durham, but the dates of his birth and death are unknown. Becoming a monk at Jarrow, he studied under St. Bede and acted as his secretary, writing various works from his dictation. Bede dedicated to him his work “De Arte Metricâ.” He was present when Bede died, and wrote to Cuthwin, one of his fellow-pupils, a detailed account of all that happened. After the death of Huitbert, who succeeded Ceolfrid as Abbot of Wearmouth, Cuthbert was elected in his place. His correspondence with Lullus, the disciple and successor of St. Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz, is still preserved. He is also supposed to have written many other letters now lost. Priscus mentions a manuscript bearing his name which contains an addition to Bede’s Ecclesiastical History. His letter describing Bede’s death is also worthy of note because of the mention therein of the Rogation procession with the relics of the saints.

MABILLON, Annales O. S. B. (Paris, 1703–39), II, 99b, 101a; IDEM, Acta SS. (Venice, 1733, etc.) III, 503, 504, 510 m; CEILLIER, Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés et ecclésiastiques (Paris, 1729–59), s. v. Cuthbert, Abbé de Jarrow; P. L., XCVI, 838, 846.

G.E. HIND

Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury

Date of birth not known; died 25 October, 758. He is first heard of as Abbot of Liminge, Kent. Consecrated bishop by Archbishop Nothelm, he succeeded Wahlstod in the See of Hereford in 736 and was translated to Canterbury about 740. Journeying to Rome he received the palladium, and on his return assisted at the Council of Cloveshoe in 742. At this council Ethelbald, King of Mercia, confirmed many privileges to churches and monasteries. His friendship with St. Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz, accounts for the intimate knowledge that St. Boniface had of the evil life of Ethelbald, which prompted the saint to correspond with the king in the hope of inducing him to reform. Cuthbert, in obedience to the wish of Pope Zachary, called a second Council of Cloveshoe, in 747, which formulated many canons for the guidance of monastic life and the duties of bishops and priests. It especially insisted on catechetical instruction being given in the English tongue. The proceedings of this council were sent to St. Boniface and prompted him to act similarly in Germany. Some have thought that St. Boniface took the initiative and not Cuthbert, but most now admit that the proceedings in Germany for promoting a greater union with Rome took place after this council of Cloveshoe and in imitation of it.

Cuthbert brought about a great change with regard to the precedence of the Cathedral Church of Canterbury. Christ Church, Canterbury, was considered inferior in dignity to the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul where all the archbishops were interred. The pope granted his request for the interment of the archbishops at Christ Church and King Eadbert confirmed this. A chapel was the built at the east end of the cathedral dedicated to St. John the Baptist to serve as the baptistery, the court of the archbishops and their place of burial. Fearing opposition from the monks of Sts. Peter and Paul’s church Cuthbert was stealthily buried in the new chapel several days before his death was generally known. From that time until the Conquest at least, every Archbishop of Canterbury except one was buried at Christ Church. A letter of his to Lullus, Archbishop of Mainz, is still extant and also two short poems preserved by William of Malmesbury. Leland speaks of a volume of his epigrams in the library of Malmesbury Abbey. This volume is now lost.

Ang.-Sax. Chronicle, sub ann. 741, 742, 758; HADDON AND STUBBS, Councils, III, 340–96; GERVASE, Actus Pont. Cant. (Twysden, 1640); SIMEON OF DURHAM, Mon. Hist. Brit., 659, 661; WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY, Gesta Regum (Eng. Hist. Soc.), I, 115, 116; IDEM, Gest. Pontiff, 8,, 9, 15, 299; HOOK, Lives of the Archbishops, I, 217–34; MIGNE, P.L., LXXXIX, 757, 763; Anglia Sacra, II, Metrical Life of Cuthbert.

G.E. HIND

Diocese of Cuyabá

(CUYABENSIS)

Diocese; suffragan of São Sebastião (Rio de Janeiro), Brazil. The city, founded by miners about 1720, became the capital of the province of Matto Grosso in 1840. The present population is somewhat over 18,000. The prelature of Cuyabá, erected by Bull of Benedict XIV, “Candor lucis aeternæ” (6 Dec., 1745), was raised to the rank of a bishopric (Senhor Bom Jesus de Cuyabá) by Bull of Leo XII, “Sollicita catholici gregis” (15 July, 1826). The diocese embraces the province of Matto Grosso, an area of 532,705 sq. miles, and has a Catholic population of 100,700, with 17 parishes, 20 churches, 12 secular priests and 10 regular.

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (1906); HERDER, Konversations-Lex., s.v.; WERNER, Orbis terrarum Cath. (Freiburg im Br., 1890), 213.

F.M. RUDGE

Diocese of Cuzco

Cuzcensis).

Suffragan of Lima, Peru. The city of Cuzco, capital of the department of the same name, is located on the eastern end of the Knot of Cuzco, 11,000 feet above sea level. The original Inca city, said to have been founded in the eleventh century, was destroyd by Pizarro in 1535. There are still remains, however, of the palace of the Incas, the Temple of the Sun and the Temple of the Virgins of the Sun. Among the most noteworthy buildings of the city is the cathedral of Santo Domingo. The diocese, erected by Paul III (5 Sept., 1536), comprises the departments of Cuzco and Apurimac, an area of 21, 677 sq. m., containing a Catholic population of 480,000, with 106 parishes, 650 churches and chapels, 150 priests, a seminary and schools.

BATTANDIER, “Ann. Pont.cath” (Paris, 1906); “Ann. Eccl.” (Rome, 1908).

F.M. RUDGE

Cybistra

A titular see of Cappadocia in Asia Minor. Ptolemy (5, 7, 7) places this city in Lycaonia; Strabo (12, 535) in Cilicia; Cicero (Epist. ad fam., 15, 2, 4) in Cappadocia extrema, near the boundary of Cilicia and not far from Taurus. It is mentioned as a suffragan of Tyana, metropolis of Cappadocia Secunda, in the “Synecdemus” of Hierocles (700), and in some early “Notitiæ episcopatuum.” It was captured by Harun in 805, and by Almamun in 832. Afterwards, probably in the eleventh century, it was made an independent archbishopric (Parthey’s Notitiæ, 10 and 11); it still remained a Byzantine possession after a great part of Cappadocia had passed into Turkish hands. From the eighth to the eleventh centuries we hear often of a fortress Heracleia, now known to have been near Cybistra and united with it in one bishopric (Notitia, 10). The name of this fortress has been preserved in the modern form, Eregli, a poor village and the centre of a caza in the vilayet of Konia. Five bishops are quoted by Lequien (I, 403); the first was present at Nicæa in 325, the last at Constantinople at the end of the twelfth century.

RAMSAY, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, 341.

S. PÉTRIDES

Cyclades

A group of islands in the Ægean Sea. The ancients called by this name only Delos and eleven neighbouring islands, Andros, Tenos, Myknos, Siphnos, Seriphos, Naxos, Syros, Paros, Kythmos, Keos, and Gyaros. According to mythology they were nymphs metamorphosed into rocks for having refused to sacrifice to Poseidon. They are in fact remains of an ancient continent that disappeared in the tertiary epoch. Successively Cretan, Dorian, and Ionian colonies, they were made subject to Athens by Miltiades. Under Byzantine rule the Dodekanesoi (twelve islands) were included in the fifth European theme. Plundered by the Saracens in the seventh and eighth centuries, they became, after the Fourth Crusade, a duchy belonging to the Venetian families of Sanudo and Crispo. The turks conquered them in the sixteenth century. The Cyclades are now a nomos, or department, of Greece, but under this name are comprised also Melos, Kimolos, Sikinos, Amorgos (birthplace of Simonides), Thera or Santorin, Ios, Anaphe, and other islands between them. The population is about 130,000. Silk, wine, cotton, fruit, sponges, marble (Paros), and emery (Naxos), are the chief products. There is also a coasting trade; Hermoupolis in Syros is an important port.

There were in the Cyclades many Greek sees suffragan to Rhodes. Under the Frankish rule, Latin sees were also established at Naxos, Andros, Keos, Syros, Tenos, Mykonos, Ios, Melos, and Thera, as suffragans of Rhodes and Athens, later only of Naxos. The Archdiocese of Naxos includes also Paros and Antiparos. It has 500 Catholics, some 10 churches or chapels, and 10 priests. Among the latter are Capuchins, and Oblates of St. Francis de Sales; Ursuline nuns conduct the schools. Naxos and Paros were Greek bishoprics early united under the name of Paronaxia. It was a metropolitan see in 1088, and its episcopal list is in Lequien (I, 937). Several of its metropolitans united with Rome from the fourteenth to the eighteenth century. The list of the Latin archbishops is in Lequien (III, 1001), Gams (448), and Eubel (I, 375, II, 221). The See of Naxos is now confided to the Archbishop of Athens as administrator Apostolic. Andros was likewise a Greek see; its episcopal list is in Lequien (I, s.v.). The Latin list is found there also (III, 859), in Gams (449), and more complete in Eubel (I, 89, II, 99). From 1702 the see was administered by a vicar-Apostolic dependent directly on Propaganda; and in 1824 it was confided to the Bishop of Tenos.

Melos (Milo) is famous for the statue of Venus found there; it has thermal springs and solfataras, and there are ruins of the ancient city. The Greek episcopal list is in Lequien (I, 945). The Latin list is also in Lequien (III, 1055), and Gams (449); see also EUBEL (I, 355, II, 211). In 1700 the see was united with Naxos and in 1830 with Thera. The list of the Latin bishops of Keos (Cea, Zea) is in Lequien (III, 867), Gams (449), Eubel (I, 194, II, 143). Ios (Nio, Nea), according to tradition the site of Homer’s death, had a series of Latin bishops (see Lequien, III, 1135, and Gams, 448). As to Mykonos (Micone) we know only that the see was united with Tenos as early as 1400. (See SYROS, TENOS, and THERA.)

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Cydonia

A titular see of Crete. According to old legends Cydonia (or Kydonia) was founded by King Kydon, on the northwest shore of Crete. It was afterwards occupied by the Achæans and Æolians, but remained one of the chief cities of the island till it was taken by Q. C. Metellus (A.D. 69). The Venetians rebuilt and fortified it in 1252; it was taken by the Turks in 1645. The Arabs called it Rabdh el-Djebn, the modern Greeks and Turks Khania, the Western peoples Canea. Lequien (II, 272) knows of only two Greek bishops: Sebon, in 458, and Nicetas, in 692. Gams (404) adds Meliton, in 787. After the Frank occupation there was in Crete a Latin see, Agriensis, or Agiensis, which must have been the same as that of Cydonia, or Canea. Lequien (III, 923–928) knows of sixteen Latin bishops, from 1310 to 1645. Eubel (I, 76;II, 93) numbers seventeen for the period from about 1300 to 1481 (see also ibid., II, 312). The last occupant retired to Italy when the city had been taken by the Turks. The population of Canea is now about 20,000, mostly Greeks, with 200 Latins. It was the residence of the Latin Bishop of Candia, after the see had been re-established by Pius IX. The Catholic parish is held by Capuchins. There are some Christian Brothers and Sisters of St. Joseph de l’Apparition, with two schools and an orphanage. Canea still remains a Greek see. (See CANEA; CANDIA.)

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Cyme

A titular see of Asia Minor. Kyme (Doric, Kyma) was a port on the Kymaios Kolpos (Tchandarli Bay), the most important city of Æolis, and was founded by the Æolians about the eleventh or the thirteenth century B.C., according to old traditions, by Pelops on his return from Greece. After defeating Oenomanos and expelling the native inhabitants, he gave to the city the name of Amazon Kyme. Another uncommon name was Phrykonis. Cyme is mentioned in the “Synecdemus” of Hierocles and in the “Notitiae episcopatuum” as late as the thirteenth or fourteenth century. Five bishops are mentioned in Lequien (I, 729), from 431 to 787. There was another, John, in 1216. Cyme is identified with the small village of Lamourt, in the vilayet of Smyrna. The name is sometimes transcribed Cume, or even Cumae, possibly a source of confusion with Cumae in Italy. There was also a Cyme in Ægyptus Secunda, a suffragan of Cabasa.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Cynewulf

That certain Anglo-Saxon poems still extant were written by one Cynewulf is beyond dispute, for the author has signed his name in them by spelling it out in runic letters which may be so read as to make sense in the context of the poem. It is, however, quite uncertain who this Cynewulf was. Despite strong expressions of opinion to the contrary, there seems good reason for identifying him with Cynewulf, Bishop of Lindisfarne, though Professor A. S. Cook of Yale advocates the claims of a certain Cynulf, an ecclesiastic whose signature is attached to the Decrees of the Council of Clovesho in 803, and who may have been a priest of the Diocese of Dunwich. In any case it has been conclusively shown of late that Professor Cook’s chief reason for rejecting the bishop’s claim, viz. the supposed dependence of some of Cynewulf’s poems on Alcuin’s “De Trinitate,” written about 802, is baseless. (See C.F. Brown in Pub’s. of Mod. Lang. Ass’n. of N. Am., XVIII, 308.) Apart from conjecture our only certain knowledge about Cynewulf is derived from what he tells us of himself in the four runic passages. He had received gifts in a hall amid scenes of revelry, which may mean that he had been in youth a sort of gleeman or minstrel. He was converted, and had since then devoted himself to sacred song but now in old age he still dreaded the punishment of past sins. Four poems, the “Christ,” the “Elene,” the “Juliana” and the “Fates of the Apostles” may be attributed to Cynewulf with certainty in virtue of their runic signatures. The “Christ,” as it is preserved in “The Exeter Book,” the only manuscript containing it, is a glorification of three themes, the Advent of Christ, the Ascension, and His second coming upon Doomsday. As in all the other poems the writer shows literary gifts of a very high order and he must evidently, from his knowledge of earlier writers, especially St. Gregory, have been a man of considerable learning. In the “Christ” he paraphrases several of the anthems, known as the great O’s, in the Advent liturgy and in doing so introduces passages of much beauty breathing the most intense devotion to Our Blessed Lady (cf.11. 33–49, 71–103, etc.), and differing little in feeling from the tone of such verses as those of Lydgate, six hundred years later. The poem also contains a remarkable testimony (11. 1307–1326) to the practice of confession. “Juliana,” also preserved to us in “The Exeter Book,” is a poetical version of the Acts of the martyrdom of St. Juliana. The “Elene,” with those next mentioned, became known only in 1836 upon the discovery of the Vercelli codex, an Anglo-Saxon manuscript in prose and verse, which for some unknown reason had found its way to Vercelli in Italy. The “Elene” is generally regarded Cynewulf’s masterpiece. It contains a narrative based on earlier Latin legends of the discovery of the true cross by St. Helen. The “Fates of the Apostles” is a fragment chiefly important as forming a connecting link between Cynewulf who signs it, and the kindred poem “Andreas” in the same manuscript. This also is consequently by most authorities assigned to Cynewulf, though Knapp, its latest editor (Boston, 1906), regards it as the work of an imitator and possibly disciple of Cynewulf. Of the remaining works conjecturally attributed to this poet the beautiful “Dream of the Rood” is the most important. Some verses apparently derived from this allegory and engraved upon the famous Ruthwell Cross have led to much controversy regarding both the date of the monument and the authorship of the poem. Other doubtful works sometimes attributed to Cynewulf are the “Guthlac,” the “Phoenix” and certain riddles in “The Exeter Book.” It is safe to say that unless fresh evidence comes to light the authorship can never be settled.

HERBERT THURSTON

Cynic School of Philosophy

The Cynic School, founded at Athens about 400 B.C., continued in existence until about 200 B.C. It sprang from the ethical doctrine of Socrates regarding the necessity of moderation and self-denial. With this ethical element it combined the dialectical and rhetorical methods of the Eleatics and the Sophists. Both these influences, however, it perverted from their primitive uses; the Socratic ethics was interpreted by the Cynics into a coarse and even vulgar depreciation of knowledge, refinement, and the common decencies, while the methods of the Eleatics and the Sophists became in the hands of the Cynics an instrument of contention (Eristic Method) rather than a means of attaining truth. The Cynic contempt for the refinements and conventions of polite society is generally given as the reason for the name dogs (kúnes) by which the first representatives of the school were known. According to some authorities, however, the name Cynic arose from the fact that the first representatives of the school were accustomed to meet in the gymnasium of Cynosarges.

The founder of the school was Antisthenes, an Athenian who was born about 436 B.C., and was a pupil of Socrates. The best known among his followers are Diogenes of Sinope, Crates, Menedemus, and Menippus. Antisthenes himself seems to have been a serious thinker and a writer of ability. In his theory of knowledge he advocated individualistic sensism as opposed to Plato’s intellectualistic theory of ideas; that is to say, he taught that the sense-perceived individual alone exists and that there are no universal objects of knowledge. In ethics he maintained that virtue is the only good and that pleasure is always and under all conditions an evil. Self-control, he said, is the essence of virtue, and a wise man will learn above all things to despise material needs and the artificial comforts in which worldly men find happiness.

Diogenes, generally referred to as “Diogenes the Cynic,” is one of the most striking figures in Greek history; at least, his personality with its eccentricities, its coarse humour, its originality, and its defiance of the commonplace, has appealed with extraordinary force to the popular imagination. His interview with Alexander, of which the simplest version is to be found in Plutarch, was greatly exaggerated by subsequent tradition. The followers of Diogenes, namely, Crates, Menedemus, and Menippus, imitated all his eccentricities and so exaggerated the anti-social elements in the Cynic system that the school finally fell into disrepute. Nevertheless, there were in the Cynic philosophy elements, especially the ethical element, which later became a source of genuine inspiration in the Stoic School. This element, combined with the broader Stoic idea of the usefulness of intellectual culture and the more enlightened Stoic concept of the scope of logical discussion, reappeared in the philosophy of Zeno and Cleanthes, and was the central ethical doctrine of the last great system of philosophy in Greece.

WILLIAM TURNER

St. Cyprian

Bishop of Toulon, born at Marseilles in 476; died 3 October, 546. He was the favourite pupil of St. Caesarius of Arles by whom he was trained, and who, in 506, ordained him to the diaconate, and, in 516, consecrated him as Bishop of Toulon. St. Cyprian appears to have been present in 524 at the synod of Arles and in the following years to have attended a number of councils. At all these assemblies he showed himself a vigorous opponent of Semipelagianism. Soon after the death of Caesarius (d. 543) Cyprian wrote a life of his great teacher in two books, being moved to the undertaking by the entreaty of the Abbess Caesaria the Younger, who had been the head of the convent at Arles since 529. The life is one of the most valuable biographical remains of the sixth century. Cyprian was aided in his task by the two bishops, Firminus and Viventius, friends of Caesarius, as well as by the priest Messianus and the deacon Stephen. The main part of the work up to the fortieth chapter of the first book was most probably written by Cyprian himself. Within the last few years another writing of his has become known, a letter to Bishop Maximus of Geneva, which discusses some of the disputed theological questions of that age. The feast of St. Cyprian falls on 3 October.

Acta SS., Oct., II, 164–178; Hist. litt. de la France, III, 237–241; WAWRA gives the letter to Maximus in Theolog. Quartalschrift (Tubingen, 1903), LXXXV, 576–594; Mon. Germ. Hist.: Epist., III, 434–436, also gives the letter; the life of St. Caesarius can be found in the following collections: Acta SS., Aug. VI, 64–75; P. L., LXVII, 101–1042; and Mon. Germ. Hist.; KRUSCH, Scriptores Meroving., II, 457–501.

GABRIEL MEIER.

Sts. Cyprian and Justina

Christians of Antioch who suffered martyrdom during the persecution of Diocletian at Nicomedia, 26 September, 304, the date in September being afterwards made the day of their feast. Cyprian was a heathen magician of Antioch who had dealing with demons. By their aid he sought to bring St. Justina, a Christian virgin, to ruin; but she foiled the threefold attacks of the devils by the sign of the cross. Brought to despair Cyprian made the sign of the cross himself and in this way was freed from the toils of Satan. He was received into the Church, was made pre-eminent by miraculous gifts, and became in succession deacon, priest, and finally bishop, while Justina became the head of a convent. During the Diocletian persecution both were seized and taken to Damascus where they were shockingly tortured. As their faith never wavered they were brought before Diocletian at Nicomedia, where at his command they were beheaded on the bank of the river Gallus. The same fate befell a Christian, Theoctistus, who had come to Cyprian and had embraced him. After the bodies of the saints had lain unburied for six days they were taken by Christian sailors to Rome where they were interred on the estate of a noble lady named Rufina and later were entombed in Constantine’s basilica. This is the outline of the legend or allegory which is found, adorned with diffuse descriptions and dialogues, in the unreliable “Symeon Metaphrastes,” and was made the subject of a poem by the Empress Eudocia II. The story, however, must have arisen as early as the fourth century, for it is mentioned both by St. Gregory Nazianzen and Prudentius; both, nevertheless, have confounded our Cyprian with St. Cyprian of Carthage, a mistake often repeated. It is certain that no Bishop of Antioch bore the name of Cyprian. The attempt has been made to find in Cyprian a mystical prototype of the Faust legend: Calderon took the story as the basis of a drama: “El magico prodigioso.” The legend is given in Greek and Latin in Acta SS. September, VII. Ancient Syriac and Ethiopic versions of it have been published within the last few years.

KAULES in Kirchenlex., s.v.; ZAHN, Cyprian von Antiochien und die deutsche Faustsage (Erlange, 1882); RYSSEL, Urtext d. Cyprianschen Legende in Archiv f. neuere Sprachen u. Litt. (1903), XX, 273–311; Bibl. hagiog. lat., 308; see also BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 25 September; and (ibid.) BARING-GOULD, Lives of the Saints.

GABRIEL MEIER.

St. Cyprian of Carthage

(Thaschus Cæcilius Cyprianus).

Bishop and martyr. Of the date of the saint’s birth and of his early life nothing is known. At the time of his conversion to Christianity he had, perhaps, passed middle life. He was famous as an orator and pleader, had considerable wealth, and held, no doubt, a great position in the metropolis of Africa. We learn from his deacon, St. Pontius, whose life of the saint is preserved, that his mien was dignified without severity, and cheerful without effusiveness. His gift of eloquence is evident in his writings. He was not a thinker, a philosopher, a theologian, but eminently a man of the world and an administrator, of vast energies, and of forcible and striking character. His conversion was due to an aged priest named Caecilianus, with whom he seems to have gone to live. Caecilianus in dying commended to Cyprian the care of his wife and family. While yet a catechumen the saint decided to observe chastity, and he gave most of his revenues to the poor. He sold his property, including his gardens at Carthage. These were restored to him (Dei indulgentiâ restituti, says Pontius), being apparently bought back for him by his friends; but he would have sold them again, had the persecution made this imprudent. His baptism probably took place c. 246, presumably on Easter eve, 18 April.

Cyprian’s first Christian writing is “Ad Donatum,” a monologue spoken to a friend, sitting under a vine-clad pergola. He tells how, until the grace of God illuminated and strengthened the convert, it had seemed impossible to conquer vice; the decay of Roman society is pictured, the gladiatorial shows, the theatre, the unjust law-courts, the hollowness of political success; the only refuge is the temperate, studious, and prayerful life of the Christian. At the beginning should probably be placed the few words of Donatus to Cyprian which are printed by Hartel as a spurious letter. The style of this pamphlet is affected and reminds us of the bombastic unintelligibilty of Pontius. It is not like Tertullian, brilliant, barbarous, uncouth, but it reflects the preciosity which Apuleius made fashionable in Africa. In his other works Cyprian addresses a Christian audience; his own fervour is allowed full play, his style becomes simpler, though forcible, and sometimes poetical, not to say flowery. Without being classical, it is correct for its date, and the cadences of the sentences are in strict rhythm in all his more careful writings. On the whole his beauty of style has rarely ben equalled among the Latin Fathers, and never surpassed except by the matchless energy and wit of St. Jerome.

Another work of his early days was the “Testimonia ad Quirinum,” in two books. It consists of passages of Scripture arranged under headings to illustrate the passing away of the Old Law and its fulfillment in Christ. A third book, added later, contains texts dealing with Christian ethics. This work is of the greatest value for the history of the Old Latin version of the Bible. It gives us an African text closely related to that of the Bobbio manuscript known as k (Turin). Hartel’s edition has taken the text from a manuscript which exhibits a revised version, but what Cyprian wrote can be fairly well restored from the manuscript cited in Hartel’s notes as L. Another book of excerpts on martyrdom is entitled “Ad Fortunatum”; its text cannot be judged in any printed edition. Cyprian was certainly only a recent convert when he became Bishop of Carthage c. 218 or the beginning of 249, but he passed through all the grades of the ministry. He had declined the charge, but was constrained by the people. A minority opposed his election, including five priests, who remained his enemies; but he tells us that he was validly elected “after the Divine judgment, the vote of the people and the consent of the bishops.”

THE DECIAN PERSECUTION

The prosperity of the Church during a peace of thirty-eight years had produced great disorders. Many even of the bishops were given up to worldliness and gain, and we hear of worse scandals. In October, 249, Decius became emperor with the ambition of restoring the ancient virtue of Rome. In January, 250, he published an edict against Christians. Bishops were to be put to death, other persons to be punished and tortured till they recanted. On 20 January Pope Fabian was martyred, and about the same time St. Cyprian retired to a safe place of hiding. His enemies continually reproached him with this. But to remain at Carthage was to court death, to cause greater danger to others, and to leave the Church without government; for to elect a new bishop would have been as impossible as it was at Rome. He made over much property to a confessor priest, Rogatian, for the needy. Some of the clergy lapsed, others fled; Cyprian suspended their pay, for their ministrations were needed and they were in less danger than the bishop. Form his retreat he encouraged the confessors and wrote eloquent panegyrics on the martyrs. Fifteen soon died in prison and one in the mines. On the arrival of the proconsul in April the severity of the persecution increased. St. Mappalicus died gloriously on the 17th. Children were tortured, women dishonoured. Numidicus, who had encouraged many, saw his wife burnt to alive, and was himself half burnt, then stoned and left for dead; his daughter found him yet living; he recovered and Cyprian made him a priest. Some, after being twice tortured, were dismissed or banished, often beggared.

But there was another side to the picture. At Rome terrified Christians rushed to the temples to sacrifice. At Carthage the majority apostatized. Some would not sacrifice, but purchased libelli, or certificates, that they had done so Some bought the exemption of their family at the price of their own sin. Of these libellatici there were several thousands in Carthage. Of the fallen some did not repent, others joined the heretics, but most of them clamoured for forgiveness and restoration. Some, who had sacrificed under torture, returned to be tortured afresh. Castus and Æmilius were burnt for recanting, others were exiled; but such cases were necessarily rare. A few began to perform canonical penance. The first to suffer at Rome had been a young Carthaginian, Celerinus. He recovered, and Cyprian made him a lector. His grandmother and two uncles had been martyrs, but his two sisters apostatized under fear of torture, and in their repentance gave themselves to the service of those in prison. Their brother was very urgent for their restoration. His letter from Rome to Lucian, a confessor at Carthage, is extant, with the reply of the latter. Lucian obtained from a martyr named Paul before his passion a commission to grant peace to any who asked for it, and he distributed these “indulgences” with a vague formula: “Let such a one with his family communicate.” Tertullian speaks in 197 of the “custom” for those who were not at peace with the Church to beg this peace from the martyrs. Much later, in his Montanist days (c. 220) he urges that the adulterers whom Pope Callistus was ready to forgive after due penance, would now get restored by merely imploring the confessors and those in the mines. Correspondingly we find Lucian issuing pardons in the name of confessors who were still alive, a manifest abuse. The heroic Mappalicus had only interceded for his own sister and mother. It seemed now as if no penance was to be enforced upon the lapsed, and Cyprian wrote to remonstrate.

Meanwhile official news had arrived from Rome of the death of Pope Fabian, together with an unsigned and ungrammatical letter to the clergy of Carthage from some of the Roman clergy, implying blame to Cyprian for the desertion of his flock, and giving advice as to the treatment of the lapsed. Cyprian explained his conduct (Ep. xx), and sent to Rome copies of thirteen of the letter he had written from his hiding-place to Carthage. The five priests who opposed him were now admitting at once to communion all who had recommendations from the confessors, and the confessors themselves issued a general indulgence, in accordance with which the bishops were to restore to communion all whom they had examined. This was an outrage on discipline, yet Cyprian was ready to give some value to the indulgences thus improperly granted, but all must be done in submission to the bishop. He proposed that libellatici should be restored, when in danger of death, by a priest or even by a deacon, but that the rest should await the cessation of persecution, when councils could be held at Rome and at Carthage, and a common decision be agreed upon. Some regard must be had for the prerogative of the confessors, yet the lapsed must surely not be placed in a better position than those who had stood fast, and had been tortured, or beggared, or exiled. The guilty were terrified by marvels that occurred. A man was struck dumb on the very Capitol where he had denied Christ. Another went mad in the public baths, and gnawed the tongue which had tasted the pagan victim. In Cyprian’s own presence an infant who had been taken by its nurse to partake at the heathen altar, and then to the Holy Sacrifice offered by the bishop, was though in torture, and vomited the Sacred Species it had received in the holy chalice. A lapsed woman of advanced age had fallen in a fit, on venturing to communicate unworthily. Another, on opening the receptacle in which, according to custom, she had taken home the Blessed Sacrament for private Communion, was deterred from sacrilegiously touching it by fire which came forth. Yet another found nought within her pyx save cinders. About September, Cyprian received promise of support from the Roman priests in two letters written by the famous Novatian in the name of his colleagues. In the beginning of 251 the persecution waned, owing to the successive appearance of two rival emperors. The confessors were released, and a council was convened at Carthage. By the perfidy of some priests Cyprian was unable to leave his retreat till after Easter (23 March). But he wrote a letter to his flock denouncing the most infamous of the five priests, Novatus, and his deacon Felicissimus (Ep. xliii). To the bishop’s order to delay the reconciliation of the lapsed until the council, Felicissimus had replied by a manifesto, declaring that none should communicate with himself who accepted the large alms distributed by Cyprian’s order. The subject of the letter is more fully developed in the treatise “De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate” which Cyprian wrote about this time (Benson wrongly thought it was written against Novatian some weeks later).

This celebrated pamphlet was read by its author to the council which met in April, that he might get the support of the bishops against the schism started by Felicissimus and Novatus, who had a large following. The unity with which St. Cyprian deals is not so much the unity of the whole Church, the necessity of which he rather postulates, as the unity to be kept in each diocese by union with the bishop; the unity of the whole Church is maintained by the close union of the bishops who are “glued to one another,” hence whosoever is not with his bishop is cut off from the unity of the Church and cannot be united to Christ; the type of the bishop is St. Peter, the first bishop. Protestant controversialists have attributed to St. Cyprian the absurd argument that Christ said to Peter what He really meant for all, in order to give a type or picture of unity. What St. Cyprian really says is simply this, that Christ, using the metaphor of an edifice, founds His Church on a single foundation which shall manifest and ensure its unity. And as Peter is the foundation, binding the whole Church together, so in each diocese is the bishop. With this one argument Cyprian claims to cut at the root of all heresies and schisms. It has been a mistake to find any reference to Rome in this passage (De Unit., 4).

CHURCH UNITY

About the time of the opening of the council (251), two letters arrived from Rome. One of these, announcing the election of a pope, St. Cornelius, was read by Cyprian to the assembly; the other contained such violent and improbable accusations against the new pope that he thought it better to pass it over. But two bishops, Caldonius and Fortunatus, were dispatched to Rome for further information, and the whole council was to await their return-such was the importance of a papal election. Meantime another message arrived with the news that Novatian, the most eminent among the Roman clergy, had been made pope. Happily two African prelates, Pompeius and Stephanus, who had been present at the election of Cornelius, arrived also, and were able to testify that he had been validly set “in the place of Peter,” when as yet there was no other claimant. It was thus possible to reply to the recrimination of Novatian’s envoys, and a short letter was sent to Rome, explaining the discussion which had taken place in the council. Soon afterwards came the report of Caldonius and Fortunatus together with a letter from Cornelius, in which the latter complained somewhat of the delay in recognizing him. Cyprian wrote to Cornelius explaining his prudent conduct. He added a letter to the confessors who were the main support of the antipope, leaving it to Cornelius whether it should be delivered or no. He sent also copies of his two treatises, “De Unitate” and “De Lapsis” (this had been composed by him immediately after the other), and he wishes the confessors to read these in order that they may understand what a fearful thing is schism. It is in this copy of the “De Unitate” that Cyprian appears most probably to have added in the margin an alternative version of the fourth chapter. The original passage, as found in most manuscripts and as printed in Hartel’s edition, runs thus:

If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. ‘The Lord saith to Peter: ‘I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.’ Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: ‘As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained,’ yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?

The substituted passage is as follows:

. . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, ‘feed My sheep.’ And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?

These alternative versions are given one after the other in the chief family of manuscripts which contains them, while in some other families the two have been partially or wholly combined into one. The combined version is the one which has been printed in man editions, and has played a large part in controversy with Protestants. It is of course spurious in this conflated form, but the alternative form given above is not only found in eighth- and ninth-century manuscripts, but it is quoted by Bede, by Gregory the Great (in a letter written for his predecessor Pelagius II), and by St. Gelasius; indeed, it was almost certainly known to St. Jerome and St. Optatus in the fourth century. The evidence of the manuscripts would indicate an equally early date. Every expression and thought in the passage can be paralleled from St. Cyprian’s habitual language, and it seems to be now generally admitted that this alternative passage is an alteration made by the author himself when forwarding his work to the Roman confessors. The “one chair” is always in Cyprian the episcopal chair, and Cyprian has been careful to emphasize this point, and to add a reference to the other great Petrine text, the Charge in John, xxi. The assertion of the equality of the Apostles as Apostles remains, and the omissions are only for the sake of brevity. The old contention that it is a Roman forgery is at all events quite out of the question. Another passage is also altered in all the same manuscripts which contain the “interpolation”; it is a paragraph in which the humble and pious conduct of the lapsed “on this hand (hic) is contrasted in a long succession of parallels with the pride and wickedness of the schismatics “on that hand” (illic), but in the delicate manner of the treatise the latter are only referred to in a general way. In the “interpolated” manuscripts we find that the lapsed, whose caused had now been settled by the council, are “on that hand” (illic), whereas the reference to the schismatics—meaning the Roman confessors who were supporting Novatian, and to whom the book was being sent—are made as pointed as possible, being brought into the foreground by the repeated hic, “on this hand.”

NOVATIANISM

The saint’s remonstrance had its effect, and the confessors rallied to Cornelius. But for two or three months the confusion throughout the Catholic Church had been terrible. No other event in these early times shows us so clearly the enormous importance of the papacy in East and West. St. Dionysius of Alexandria joined his great influence to that of the Carthaginian primate, and he was very soon able to write that Antioch, Caesarea, and Jerusalem, Tyre and Laodicea, all Cilicia and Cappadocia, Syria and Arabia, Mesopotamia, Pontus, and Bithynia, had returned to union and that their bishops were all in concord (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, v). From this we gauge the area of disturbance. Cyprian says that Novatian “assumed the primacy” (Ep. lxix, 8) and sent out his new apostles to very many cities; and where in all provinces and cities there were long established, orthodox bishops, tried in persecution, he dared to create new ones to supplant them, as though he could range through the whole world (Ep. lv, 24). Such was the power assumed by a third-century antipope. Let it be remembered that in the first days of the schism no question of heresy was raised and that Novatian only enunciated his refusal of forgiveness to the lapsed after he had made himself pope. Cyprian’s reasons for holding Cornelius to be the true bishop are fully detailed in Ep. lv to a bishop, who had at first yielded to Cyprian’s arguments and had commissioned him to inform Cornelius that “he now communicated with him, that is with the Catholic Church,” but had afterwards wavered. It is evidently implied that if he did not communicate with Cornelius he would be outside the Catholic Church. Writing to the pope, Cyprian apologizes for his delay in acknowledging him; he had at least urged all those who sailed to Rome to make sure that they acknowledged and held the womb and root of the Catholic Church (Ep. xlviii, 3). By this is probably meant “the womb and root which is the Catholic Church,” but Harnack and many Protestants, as well as many Catholics, find here a statement that the Roman Church is the womb and root. Cyprian continues that he had waited for a formal report form the bishops who had been sent to Rome, before committing all the bishops of Africa, Numidia, and Mauretania to a decision, in order that, when no doubt could remain all his colleagues “might firmly approve and hold your communion, that is the unity and charity of the Catholic Church.” It is certain that St. Cyprian held that one who was in communion with an antipope held not the root of the Catholic Church, was not nourished at her breast, drank not at her fountain.

So little was the rigorism of Novatian the origin of his schism, that his chief partisan was no other than Novatus, who at Carthage had been reconciling the lapsed indiscriminately without penance. He seems to have arrived at Rome just after the election of Cornelius, and his adhesion to the party of rigorism had the curious result of destroying the opposition to Cyprian at Carthage. It is true that Felicissimus fought manfully for a time; he even procured five bishops, all excommunicated and deposed, who consecrated for the party a certain Fortunatus in opposition to St. Cyprian, in opposition to St. Cyprian, in order not to be outdone by the Novatian party, who had already a rival bishop at Carthage. The faction even appealed to St. Cornelius, and Cyprian had to write to the pope a long account of the circumstances, ridiculing their presumption in “sailing to Rome, the primatial Church (ecclesia principalis), the Chair of Peter, whence the unity of the Episcopate had its origin, not recollecting that these are the Romans whose faith was praised by St. Paul (Rom., i, 8), to whom unfaith could have no access.” But this embassy was naturally unsuccessful, and the party of Fortunatus and Felicissimus seems to have melted away.

THE LAPSED

With regard to the lapsed the council had decided that each case must be judged on its merits, and that libellatici should be restored after varying, but lengthy, terms of penance, whereas those who had actually sacrificed might after life-long penance receive Communion in the hour of death. But any one who put off sorrow and penance until the hour of sickness must be refused all Communion. The decision was a severe one. A recrudescence of persecution, announced, Cyprian tells us, by numerous visions, caused the assembling of another council in the summer of 252 (so Benson and Nelke, but Ritsch and Harnack prefer 253), in which it was decided to restore at once all those who were doing penance, in order that they might be fortified by the Holy Eucharist against trial. In this persecution of Gallus and Volusianus, the Church of Rome was again tried, but this time Cyprian was able to congratulate the pope on the firmness shown; the whole Church of Rome, he says, had confessed unanimously, and once again its faith, praised by the Apostle, was celebrated throughout the whole world (Ep. lx). About June 253, Cornelius was exiled to Centumcellae (Civitavecchia), and died there, being counted as a martyr by Cyprian and the rest of the Church. His successor Lucius was at once sent to the same place on his election, but soon was allowed to return, and Cyprian wrote to congratulate him. He died 5 March, 254, and was succeeded by Stephen, 12 May, 254.

REBAPTISM OF HERETICS

Tertullian had characteristically argued long before, that heretics have not the same God, the same Christ with Catholics, therefore their baptism is null. The African Church had adopted this view in a council held under a predecessor of Cyprian, Agrippinus, at Carthage. In the East it was also the custom of Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Galatia to rebaptize Montanists who returned to the church. Cyprian’s opinion of baptism by heretics was strongly expresses: “Non abluuntur illic homines, sed potius sordidantur, nec purgantur delicta sed immo cumulantur. Non Deo nativitas illa sed diabolo filios generat” (“De Unit.,” xi). A certain bishop, Magnus, wrote to ask if the baptism of the Novatians was to be respected (Ep. lxix). Cyprian’s answer may be of the year 255; he denies that they are to be distinguished from any other heretics. Later we find a letter in the same sense, probably of the spring of 255 (autumn, according to d’Ales), from a council under Cyprian of thirty-one bishops (Ep. lxx), addressed to eighteen Numidian bishops; this was apparently the beginning of the controversy. It appears that the bishops of Mauretania did not in this follow the custom of Proconsular Africa and Numidia, and that Pope Stephen sent them a letter approving their adherence to Roman custom.

Cyprian, being consulted by a Numidian bishop, Quintus, sent him Ep. lxx, and replied to his difficulties (Ep. lxxi). The spring council at Carthage in the following year, 256, was more numerous than usual, and sixty-one bishops signed the conciliar letter to the pope explaining their reasons for rebaptizing, and claiming that it was a question upon which bishops were free to differ. This was not Stephen’s view, and he immediately issued a decree, couched apparently in very peremptory terms, that no “innovation” was to be made (this is taken by some moderns to mean “no new baptism”), but the Roman tradition of merely laying hands on converted heretics in sign of absolution must be everywhere observed, on pain of excommunication. This letter was evidently addressed to the African bishops, and contained some severe censures on Cyprian himself. Cyprian writes to Jubainus that he is defending the one Church, the Church founded on Peter-Why then is he called a prevaricator of the truth, a traitor to the truth;? (Ep. lxxiii, 11). To the same correspondent he sends Epp. lxx, lxxi, lxxii; he makes no laws for others, but retains his own liberty. He sends also a copy of his newly written treatise “De Bono Patientiae.” To Pompeius, who had asked to see a copy of Stephen’s rescript, he writes with great violence: “As you read it, you will note his error more and more clearly: in approving the baptism of all the heresies, he has heaped into his own breast the sins of all of them; a fine tradition indeed! What blindness of mind, what depravity!”—“ineptitude,” “hard obstinacy”—such are the expressions which run from the pen of one who declared that opinion on the subject was free, and who in this very letter explains that a bishop must never be quarrelsome, but meek and teachable. In september, 256, a yet larger council assembled at Carthage. All agreed with Cyprian; Stephen was not mentioned; and some writers have even supposed that the council met before Stephen’s letter was received (so Ritschl, Grisar, Ernst, Bardenhewer). Cyprian did not wish the responsibility to be all his own. He declared that no one made himself a bishop of bishops, and that all must give their true opinion. The vote of each was therefore given in a short speech, and the minutes have come down to us in the Cyprianic correspondence under the title of “Sententiae Episcoporum.” But the messengers sent to Rome with this document were refused an audience and even denied all hospitality by the pope. They returned incontinently to Carthage, and Cyprian tried for support from the East. He wrote to the famous Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Firmilian, sending him the treatise “De Unitate” and the correspondence on the baptismal question. By the middle of November Firmilian’s reply had arrived, and it has come down to us in a translation made at the time in Africa. Its tone is, if possible, more violent than that of Cyprian. (See FIRMILIAN.) After this we know no more of the controversy.

Stephen died on 27 August, 257, and was succeeded by Sixtus II, who certainly communicated with Cyprian, and is called by Pontius “a good and peace-loving bishop.” Probably when it was seen at Rome that the East was largely committed to the same wrong practice, the question was tacitly dropped. It should be remembered that, though Stephen had demanded unquestioning obedience, he had apparently, like Cyprian, considered the matter as a point of discipline. St. Cyprian supports his view by a wrong inference from the unity of the Church, and no one thought of the principle afterwards taught by St. Augustine, that, since Christ is always the principal agent, the validity of the sacrament is independent of the unworthiness of the minister: Ipse est qui baptizat. Yet this is what is implied in Stephen’s insistence upon nothing more than the correct form, “because baptism is given in the name of Christ,” and “the effect is due to the majesty of the Name.” The laying on of hands enjoined by Stephen is repeatedly said to be in poenitentiam, yet Cyprian goes on to argue that the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands is not the new birth, but must be subsequent to it and implies it. This has led some moderns into the notion that Stephen meant confirmation to be given (so Duchesne), or at least that he has been so misunderstood by Cyprian (d’Alès). But the passage (Ep. lxxiv, 7) need not mean this, and it is most improbable that confirmation was even thought of in this connection. Cyprian seems to consider the laying on of hands in penance to be a giving of the Holy Ghost. In the East the custom of rebaptizing heretics had perhaps arisen from the fact that so many heretics disbelieved in the Holy Trinity, and possibly did not even use the right form and matter. For centuries the practice persisted, at least in the case of some of the heresies. But in the West to rebaptize was regarded as heretical, and Africa came into line soon after St. Cyprian. St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Vincent of Lérins are full of praise for the firmness of Stephen as befitting his place. But Cyprian’s unfortunate letters became the chief support of the puritanism of the Donatists. St. Augustine in his “De Baptismo” goes through them one by one. He will not dwell on the violent words quae in Stephanum irritatus effudit, and expresses his confidence that Cyprian’s glorious martyrdom will have atoned for his excess.

APPEALS TO ROME

Ep. lxviii was written to Stephen before the breach. Cyprian has heard twice from Faustinus, Bishop of Lyons, that Marcianus, Bishop of Arles, has joined the party of Novatian. The pope will certainly have been already informed of this by Faustinus and by the other bishops of the province. Cyprian urges:

You ought to send very full letters to our fellow-bishops in Gaul, not to allow the obstinate and proud Marcianus any more to insult our fellowship . . . Therefore send letters to the province and to the people of Arles, by which, Marcianus having been excommunicated, another shall be substituted in his place . . . for the whole copious body of bishops is joined together by the glue of mutual concord and the bond of unity, in order that if any of our fellowship should attempt to make a heresy and to lacerate and devastate the flock of Christ, the rest may give their aid . . . For though we are many shepherds, yet we feed one flock.

It seems incontestable that Cyprian is here explaining to the pope why he ventured to interfere, and that he attributes to the pope the power of deposing Marcanus and ordering a fresh election. We should compare his witness that Novatian usurped a similar power as antipope. Another letter dates perhaps somewhat later. It emanates form a council of thirty seven bishops, and was obviously composed by Cyprian. It is addressed to the priest Felix and the people of Legio and Asturica, and to the deacon Ælius and the people of Emerita, in Spain. It relates that the bishops Felix and Sabinus had come to Carthage to complain. They had been legitimately ordained by the bishops of the province in the place of the former bishops, Basilides and Martialis, who had both accepted libelli in the persecution. Basilides had further blasphemed God, in sickness, had confessed his blasphemy, had voluntarily resigned his bishopric, and had been thankful to be allowed lay communion. Martialis had indulged in pagan banquets and had buried his sons in a pagan cemetery. He had publicly attested before the procurator ducenarius that he had denied Christ. Wherefore, says the letter, such men are unfit to be bishops, the whole Church and the late Pope Cornelius having decided that such men may be admitted to penance but never to ordination; it does not profit them that they have deceived Pope Stephen, who was afar off and unaware of the facts, so that they obtained to be unjustly restored to their sees; nay, by this deceit they have only increased their guilt. The letter is thus a declaration that Stephen was wickedly deceived. No fault is imputed to him, no is there any claim to reverse his decision or to deny his right to give it; it is simply pointed out that it was founded on false information, and was therefore null. But it is obvious that the African council had heard only one side, whereas Felix and Sabinus must have pleaded their cause at Rome before they came to Africa. On this ground the Africans seem to have made too hasty a judgment. But nothing more is known of the matter.

MARTYRDOM

The empire was surrounded by barbarian hordes who poured in on all sides. The danger was the signal for a renewal of persecution on the part of the Emperor Valerian. At Alexandria St. Dionysius was exiled. On 30 August, 257, Cyprian was brought before the Proconsul Paternus in his secretarium. His interrogatory is extant and forms the first part of the “Acta proconsularia” of his martyrdom. Cyprian declares himself a Christian and a bishop. He serves one God to Whom he prays day and night for all men and for the safety of the emperor. “Do you persevere in this?” asks Paternus. “A good will which knows God cannot be altered.” “Can you, then, go into exile at Curubis?” “I go.” He is asked for the names of the priests also, but replies that delation is forbidden by the laws; they will be found easily enough in their respective cities. On September he went to Curubis, accompanied by Pontius. The town was lonely, but Pontius tells us it was sunny and pleasant, and that there were plenty of visitors, while the citizens were full of kindness. He relates at length Cyprian’s dream on his first night there, that he was in the proconsul’s court and condemned to death, but was reprieved at his own request until the morrow. He awoke in terror, but once awake he awaited that morrow with calmness. It came to him on the very anniversary of the dream. In Numidia the measurers were more severe. Cyprian writes to nine bishops who were working in the mines, with half their hair shorn, and with insufficient food and clothing. He was still rich and able to help them. Their replies are preserved, and we have also the authentic Acts of several African martyrs who suffered soon after Cyprian.

In August, 258, Cyprian learned that Pope Sixtus had been put to death in the catacombs on the 6th of that month, together with four of his deacons, in consequence of a new edict that bishops, priests, and deacons should be at once put to death; senators, knights, and others of rank are to lose their goods, and if they still persist, to die; matrons to be exiled; Caesarians (officers of the fiscus) to become slaves. Galerius Maximus, the successor of Paternus, sent for Cyprian back to Carthage, and in his own gardens the bishop awaited the final sentence. Many great personages urged him to fly, but he had now no vision to recommend this course, and he desired above all to remain to exhort others. Yet he hid himself rather than obey the proconsul’s summons to Utica, for he declared it was right for a bishop to die in his own city. On the return of Galerius to Carthage, Cyprian was brought from his gardens by two principes in a chariot, but the proconsul was ill, and Cyprian passed the night in the house of the first princeps in the company of his friends. Of the rest we have a vague description by Pontius and a detailed report in the proconsular Acts. On the morning of the 14th a crowd gathered “at the villa of Sextus,” by order of the authorities. Cyprian was tried there. He refused to sacrifice, and added that in such a matter there was no room for thought of the consequences to himself. The proconsul read his condemnation and the multitude cried, “Let us be beheaded with him!” He was taken into the grounds, to a hollow surrounded by trees, into which many of the people climbed. Cyprian took off his cloak, and knelt down and prayed. Then he took off his dalmatic and gave it to his deacons, and stood in his linen tunic in silence awaiting the executioner, to whom he ordered twenty-five gold pieces to be given. The brethren cast cloths and handkerchiefs before him to catch his blood. He bandaged his own eyes with the help of a priest and a deacon, both called Julius. So he suffered. For the rest of the day his body was exposed to satisfy the curiosity of the pagans. But at night the brethren bore him with candles and torches, with prayer and great triumph, to the cemetery of Macrobius Candidianus in the suburb of Mapalia. He was the first Bishop of Carthage to obtain the crown of martyrdom.

WRITINGS

The correspondence of Cyprian consists of eighty-one letters. Sixty-two of them are his own, three more are in the name of councils. From this large collection we get a vivid picture of his time. The first collection of his writings must have been made just before or just after his death, as it was known to Pontius. It consisted of ten treatises and seven letters on martyrdom. To these were added in Africa a set of letters on the baptismal question, and at Rome, it seems, the correspondence with Cornelius, except Ep. xlvii. Other letters were successively aggregated to these groups, including letters to Cyprian or connected with him, his collections of Testimonies, and many spurious works. To the treatises already mentioned we have to add a well-known exposition of the Lord’s Prayer; a work on the simplicity of dress proper to consecrated virgins (these are both founded on Tertullian); “On the Mortality,” a beautiful pamphlet, composed on the occasion of the plague which reached Carthage in 252, when Cyprian, with wonderful energy, raised a staff of workers and a great fund of money for the nursing of the sick and the burial of the dead. Another work, “On Almsgiving,” its Christian character, necessity, and satisfactory value, was perhaps written, as Watson has pointed out, in reply to the calumny that Cyprian’s own lavish gifts were bribes to attach men to his side. Only one of his writings is couched in a pungent strain, the “ad Demetrianum,” in which he replies in a spirited manner to the accusation of a heathen that Christianity had brought the plague upon the world. Two short works, “On Patience” and “On Rivalry and Envy,” apparently written during the baptismal controversy, were much read in ancient times. St. Cyprian was the first great Latin writer among the Christians, for Tertullian fell into heresy, and his style was harsh and unintelligible. Until the days of Jerome and Augustine, Cyprian’s writings had no rivals in the West. Their praise is sung by Prudentius, who joins with Pacian, Jerome, Augustine, and many others in attesting their extraordinary popularity.

DOCTRINE

The little that can be extracted from St. Cyprian on the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation is correct, judged by later standards. On baptismal regeneration, on the Real Presence, on the Sacrifice of the Mass, his faith is clearly and repeatedly expressed, especially in Ep. lxiv on infant baptism, and in Ep. lxiii on the mixed chalice, written against the sacrilegious custom of using water without wine for Mass. On penance he is clear, like all the ancients, that for those who have been separated from the Church by sin there is no return except by a humble confession (exomologesis apud sacerdotes), followed by remissio facta per sacerdotes. The ordinary minister of this sacrament is the sacerdos par excellence, the bishop; but priests can administer it subject to him, and in case of necessity the lapsed might be restored by a deacon. He does not add, as we should at the present day, that in this case there is no sacrament; such theological distinctions were not in his line. There was not even a beginning of canon law in the Western Church of the third century. In Cyprian’s view each bishop is answerable to God alone for his action, though he ought to take counsel of the clergy and of the laity also in all important matters. The Bishop of Carthage had a great position as honorary chief of all the bishops in the provinces of Proconsular Africa, Numidia, and Mauretania, who were about a hundred in number; but he had no actual jurisdiction over them. They seem to have met in some numbers at Carthage every spring, but their conciliar decisions had no real binding force. If a bishop should apostatize or become a heretic or fall into scandalous sin, he might be deposed by his comprovincials or by the pope. Cyprian probably thought that questions of heresy would always be too obvious to need much discussion. It is certain that where internal questions of heresy would always be too obvious to need much discussion. It is certain that where internal discipline was concerned he considered that Rome should not interfere, and that uniformity was not desirable—a most unpractical notion. We have always to remember that his experience as a Christian was of short duration, that he became a bishop soon after he was converted, and that he had no Christian writings besides Holy Scripture to study besides those of Tertullian. He evidently knew no Greek, and probably was not acquainted with the translation of Irenaeus. Rome was to him the centre of the Church’s unity; it was inaccessible to heresy, which had been knocking at its door for a century in vain. It was the See of Peter, who was the type of the bishop, the first of the Apostles. Difference of opinion between bishops as to the right occupant of the Sees of Arles or Emerita would not involve breach of communion, but rival bishops at Rome would divide the Church, and to communicate with the wrong one would be schism. It is controverted whether chastity was obligatory or only strongly urged upon priests in his day. The consecrated virgins were to him the flower of his flock, the jewels of the Church, amid the profligacy of paganism.

SPURIA

A short treatise, “Quod Idola dii non sint,” is printed in all editions as Cyprian’s. It is made up out of Tertullian and Minucius Felix. Its genuineness is accepted by Benson, Monceaux, and Bardenhewer, as it was anciently by Jerome and Augustine. It has been attributed by Haussleiter to Novatian, and is rejected by Harnack, Watson, and von Soden. “De Spectaculis” and “De bono pudicitiae” are, with some probability, ascribed to Novatian. They are well-written letters of an absent bishop to his flock. “De Laude martyrii” is again attributed by Harnack to Novatian; but this is not generally accepted. “Adversus Judaeos” is perhaps by a Novatianist and Harnack ascribes it to Novatian himself. “Ad Novatianum” is ascribed by Harnack to Pope Sixtus II. Ehrhard, Benson, Nelke, and Weyman agree with him that it was written in Rome. This is denied by Julicher, Bardenhewer, Monceaux. Rombold thinks it is by Cyprian. “De Rebaptismate” is apparently the work attributed by Genadius to a Roman named Ursinus, c. 400. He was followed by some earlier critics, Routh, Oudin, and lately by Zahn. But it was almost certainly written during the baptismal controversy under Stephen. It comes from Rome (so Harnack and others) or from Mauretania (so Ernst, Monceaux, d’Arles), and is directed against the view of Cyprian. The little homily “De Aleatoribus” has had quite a literature of its own within the last few years, since it was attributed by Harnack to Pope Victor, and therefore accounted the earliest Latin ecclesiastical writing. The controversy has at least made it clear that the author was either very early or not orthodox. It has been shown to be improbable that he was very early, and Harnack now admits that the work is by an antipope, either Novatianist or Donatist. References to all the brochures and articles on the subject will be found in Ehrhard, in Bardenhewer, and especially in Harnack (Chronol., II, 370 sqq.).

“De Montibus Sina et Sion” is possibly older than Cyprian’s time (see Harnack, and also Turner in Journal of Theol. Studies, July 1906). “Ad Vigilium Episcopum de Judaica incredulitate” is by a certain Celsus, and was once supposed by Harnack and Zahn to be addressed to the well-known Vigilius of Thapsus, but Macholz has now convinced Harnack that it dates from either the persecution of Valerian or that of Maxentius. The two “Orationes” are of uncertain date and authorship. The tract “De Singularitate clericorum” has been attributed by Dom Morin and by Harnack to the Donatist Bishop Macrobius in the fourth century. “De Duplici Martyrio ad Fortunatum” is found in no manuscript, and was apparently written by Erasmus in 1530. “De Paschâ computus” was written in the year preceding Easter, 243. All the above spuria are printed in Hartel’s edition of Cyprian. The “Exhortatio de paenitentia” (first printed by Trombelli in 1751) is placed in the fourth or fifth century by Wunderer, but in Cyprian’s time or Monceaux. Four letter are also given by Hartel; the first is the original commencement of the “Ad Donatum.” The others are forgeries; the third, according to Mercati, is by a fourth-century Donatist. The six poems are by one author, of quite uncertain date. The amusing “Cena Cypriani” is found in a large number of Cyprianic manuscripts. Its date is uncertain; it was re-edited by Blessed Rhabanus Maurus. On the use of it at pageants in the early Middle Ages, see Mann, “History of the Popes,” II, 289.

The principal editions of the works of St. Cyprian are: Rome, 1471 (the ed. princeps), dedicated to Paul II; reprinted, Venice, 1471, and 1483; Memmingen, c. 1477; Deventer, c. 1477; Paris, 1500; ed. by Rembolt (Paris, 1512); by Erasmus (Basle, 1520 and frequently; the ed. of 1544 was printed at Cologne). A careful critical edition was prepared by Latino Latini, and published by Manutius (Rome, 1563); Morel also went to the manuscripts (Paris, 1564); so did Pamele (Antwerp, 1568), but with less success; Rigault did somewhat better (Paris, 1648, etc.). John Fell, Bishop of Oxford and Dean of Christ Church, published a well-known edition from manuscripts in England (Oxford, 1682). The dissertations by Dodwell and the “Annales Cyprianici” by Pearson, who arranged the letters in chronological order, make this edition important, though the text is poor. The edition prepared by Etienne Baluze was brought out after his death by Dom Prudence Maran (Paris, 1726), and has been several times reprinted, especially by Migne (P.L., IV and V). The best edition is that of the Vienna Academy (C.S.E.L., vol. III, in 3 parts, Vienna, 1868–1871), edited from the manuscripts by Hartel. Since then much work has been done upon the history of the text, and especially on the order of the letters and treatises as witnessing to the genealogy of the codices.

A stichometrical list, probably made in 354, of the Books of the Bible, and of many works of St. Cyprian, was published in 1886 from a manuscript then at Cheltenham by MOMMSEN, Zur lat. Stichometric; Hermes, XXI, 142; ibid. (1890), XXV, 636, on a second MS. at St. Gall. See SANDAY and TURNER in Studia Biblica (Oxford, 1891), III; TURNER in Classical Review (1892), etc.), VI, 205. On Oxford MSS., see WORDSWORTh in Old Lat. Biblical Texts (Oxford, 1886), II, 123; on Madrid MSS., SCHULZ, Th. Lit. Zeitung (1897), p. 179. On other MSS., TURNER in Journal of Th. St., III, 282, 586, 579; RAMSAY, ibid., III, 585, IV, 86. On the significance of the order, CHAPMAN, ibid., IV, 103; VON SODEN, Die cyprianische Briefsammlung (Leipzig, 1904). There are many interesting points in MERCATI, D’alcuni nuovi sussidi per la critica del testo di S. Cipriano (Rome, 1899).

On the life of St. Cyprian: PEARSON, Annales Cyprianici, ed. FELL; Acta SS., 14 Sept; RETTBERG, Th. Caec. Cyprianus (Gottingen, 1831); FREPPEL, Saint Cyprien et l’Eglise d’Afrique (Paris, 1865, etc.); PETERS, Der hl. Cypr. v. Karth. Ratisbon, 1877); Freppel and Peters occasionally exaggerate in the Catholic interest. FECHTRUP, Der hl. Cyprian (Munster, 1878); RITSCHL, Cyprian v. K. und die Verfassung der Kirche (Gottingen, 1885); BENSON, Cyprian, his life, his times, his work (London, 1897). (This is the fullest and best English life; it is full of enthusiasm, but marred by odium theologicum, and quite untrustworthy when controversial point arise, whether against Nonconformists or against Catholics.) MONCEAUX, Hist. litt. de l’Afrique chret. (Paris, 1902), II, a valuable work. Of the accounts in histories, encyclopedias, and patrologies, the best is that of BARDENHEWER, Gesch. der altkirchl. Lit. (Freiburg, 1903), II. PEARSON’s chronological order of the letters is given in HARTEL’s edition. Rectifications are proposed by RITSCHL, De Epistulis Cyprianicis (Halle, 1885), and Cyprian v. Karthago (Gottingen, 1885); by NELKE, Die Chronologie der Korresp. Cypr. (Thorn, 1902); by VON SODEN, op. cit.; by BENSON and MONCEAUX. These views are discussed by BARDENHEWER. loc. cit., and HARNACK, Chronol., II. BONACCORSI, Le lettere di S. Cipriano in Riv. storico-critica delle scienze teol. (Rome, 1905), I, 377; STUFLER, Die Behandlung der Gefallenen zur Zeit der decischen Verfolgung in Zeitschrift fur Kathol. Theol., 1907, XXXI, 577; DWIGHT, St. Cyprian and the libelli martyrum in Amer. Cath. Qu. Rev. (1907), XXXII, 478. On the chronology of the baptismal controversy, D’ALES, La question baptismale au temps de Saint-Cyprien in Rev. des Questions Hist. (1907), p. 353.

On Cyprian’s Biblical text: CORSSEN, Zur Orientierung uber die bisherige Erforschung der klass. Altertumswiss. (1899); SANDAY in Old Latin Bibl. Texts (1886), II; TURNER in Journ. Theol. St., II, 600, 610; HEIDENREICH, Der ntl. Text bei Cyprian (Bamberg, 1900); MONCEAUX, op. cit.; CORSSEN, Der cypr. Text der Acta Ap. (Berlin, 1892); ZAHN, Forschungen (Erlangen, 1891), IV, 79 (on Cyprian’s text of the Apoc.). A new edition (Oxford Univ. Press) is expected of the Testimonia by SANDAY and TURNER. Tentative prolegomena to it by TURNER in Journal Theological Studies (1905), VI, 246, and (1907), IX, 62. The work has been interpolated; see RAMSAY, On early insertions in the third book of St. Cyprian’s Text in Journal of Theol. St. (1901), II, 276. Testimonies of the ancients to Cyprian in HARNACK, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., I; GOTZ, Gesch. der cyprianischen Literatur bis zu der Zeit der ersten erhaltenen Handschriften (Basle, 1891). On the Latin of St. Cyprian an excellent essay by WATSON, The Style and Language of St. Cyprian in Stud. Bibl. (Oxford, 1896), IV; BAYARD, Le Latin de Saint Cyprien (Paris, 1902). The letters of Cornelius are in Vulgar Latin (see MERCATI, op. cit.), and so are Epp. viii (anonymous) and xxi-xxiv (Celerinus, Lucian, Confessors, Caldonius); they have been edited by MIODONSKI, Adversus Alcatores (Erlangen and Leipzig, 1889). On the interpolations in De Unitate Eccl., see HARTEL, Preface; BENSON, pp. 200–21, 547–552; CHAPMAN, Les interpolations dans le traite de Saint Cyprien sur l’unite de l’Eglise in Revue Benedictine (1902), XIX, 246, 357, and (1903), XX, 26; HARNACK in Theo. Litt. Zeitung (1903), no. 9, and in Chronol., II; WATSON in Journal Theol. St. (1904), p. 432; CHAPMAN, ibid., p. 634, etc. On particular points see HARNACK in Texte und Untersuch., IV, 3, VIII, 2; on the letters of the Roman clergy HARNACK in Theol. Abhandl. Carl v. Weisacker gewidmet (Freiburg, 1896).

On Cyprian’s theology much has been written. RITSCHL is fanciful and unsympathetic, BENSON untrustworthy. GOTZ, Das Christentum Cyprians (Giessen, 1896). On his trust in visions, HARNACK, Cyprian als Enthusiast in Zeitschr. fur ntl. Wiss. (1902), III, ibid. On the baptismal controversy and Cyprian’s excommunication, see GRISAR in Zeitschr. fur kath. Theol. (1881), V; HOENSBROECH, ibid. (1891), XV; ERNST, ibid., XVII, XVIII, XIX. POSCHMANN, Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche nach der Lehre des h. Cypr. (Breslau, 1907); RIOU, La genese de l’unite catholique et la pensee de Cyprien (Paris, 1907). To merely controversial works it is unnecessary to refer.

The above is only a selection from an immense literature on Cyprian and the pseudo-Cyprianic writings, for which see CHEVALIER, Bio-Bibl., and RICHARDSON, Bibliographical Synopsis. Good lists in VON SODEN, and in HARNACK, Chronol., II; the very full references in BARDENHEWER are conveniently classified.

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Cyprus

An island in the Eastern Mediterranean, at the entrance of the Gulf of Alexandretta. It was originally inhabited by Phoenicians and Greeks, and was famous for its temples of Aphrodite. Though long autonomous, in the sixth century B.C. dominion over it was disputed by the Egyptians and the Persians, the latter ruling it till the invasion of Alexander the Great. From the Ptolemies of Egypt it passed to the Romans (59 B.C.). Despite Moslem invasions from the seventh to the tenth century, it remained a part of the Eastern Empire until the end of the twelfth. ln 1191 it was conquered by Richard the Lion-Hearted, who gave it to Guy de Lusignan, King of Jerusalem; in 1373 it fell to the Genoese, in 1489 to the Venetians. Finally, in 1571, it became Moslem territory under Sultan Selim II. In 1878 it was occupied by England and is now administered by an English high commissioner, assisted by a board of four English members (Statesman’s Year Book, London, 1908). The island is hilly, with few rivers, and the climate is hot. Its once famous cities have perished; the chief towns are now Larnaca (the best port), Nicosia, and Limasol. Its area is 153,584 square miles. The population in 1901 was 237,000 (51,000 Mussulmans, 1100 Maronites, 850 Latins, 300 Armenians, a few Protestants and Jews, and the rest Greeks). It produces dates, carobs, oranges and other fruits, oil, wine, and corn. It has also sponge fisheries. Gypsum is mined there and copper mines were worked in ancient times. Christianity was successfully preached in Cyprus by St. Paul, St. Barnabas (a native of the island), and St. John Mark. At Paphos the magician Elymas was blinded and the Proconsul Sergius Paulus was converted (Acts, xi, xiii, xv). The Byzantine “Synaxaria” mention many saints, bishops, and martyrs of this early period, e.g. St. Lazarus, St. Heraclides, St. Nicanor (one of the first seven deacons), and others. In the fourth century we find two illustrious names, that of St. Spiridion, the shepherd Bishop of Trimithus, present at the Council of Nicaea in 325 with two other Cypriot bishops, whose relics were removed to Corfù in 1460, and that of St. Epiphanius (d. 403), Bishop of Salamis, the zealous adversary of all heresies and author of many valuable theological works. The Bishop of Salamis (later Constantia) was then metropolitan of the whole island, but was himself subject to the Patriarch of Antioch. During the Arian quarrels and the Eustathian schism, the Cypriote Church began to claim its independence. Pope Innocent I stood out for the rights of the Antiochene patriarch, Alexander I. However, it was not long before the Council of Ephesus (431) in its seventh session acknowledged the ecclesiastical independence of Cyprus: the cause was gained by the metropolitan, Rheginus, who was present at Ephesus with three of his suffragans. In 488 Peter the Dyer (Petrus Fullo), the famous Monophysite patriarch, made an effort to recover the ancient Antiochene jurisdiction over the island. During the conflict, however, the Cypriote metropolitan, Anthimus, claimed to have learned by a revelation that the site of the sepulchre of St. Barnabas was quite near his own city of Salamis; he found there the body of the Apostle with a copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel, brought the relics to Constantinople, and presented them to the Emperor Zeno. Acacius of Constantinople decided in favour of Cyprus against Antioch, since which time the ecclesiastical independence (autocephalia) of the island has no more been called in question, the archbishop, known as exarch, ranking immediately after the five great patriarchs.

From the fifth to the twelfth century the following Archbishops of Constantia (Salamis) are worthy of note: Acadius, biographer of St. Symeon Stylites the Younger, and an uncompromising opponent of the Ecthesis of Heraclius (q.v.); Sergius, who condemned this document in a council and sent the pertinent decree to Pope Theodore I, but became afterwards infected with the very error he had formerly condemned; George, a defender of the holy images (icons); Constantine, who played a conspicuous part in their defence at the Second Nicene Council (787); Nicholas Muzalon, appointed Patriarch of Constantinople in 1147. Another remarkable prelate is St. Demetrianus, Bishop of Chytraea (ninth and tenth century). After the conquest of Cyprus by the Arabs, 632–647, the Christian population with its bishops emigrated to the mainland. Justinian II built for them, near the Hellespont, a city which he called Nea Justinianopolis; their archbishop enjoyed there the rights he had in Cyprus, besides exercising jurisdiction over the surrounding country (Quinisext Council, can. xxxix, 692). After the death of Justinian II the Cypriotes returned to their island with their hierarchy. Under Nicephorus Phocas (963–969) Cyprus was freed completely from the Arabs, who had sometimes treated it more kindly than the Byzantine emperors. Christianity, however, gained by the restoration. To this period belongs the foundation of three great monasteries, Our Lady of Pity (Eleusa) of Kykkos, Machaeras, and the Encleistra, the last founded in the twelfth century by the recluse Neophytus, author of several ascetical works. The Frankish rule, though at first accepted rather willingly, was finally the source of profound disturbance. In 1196 King Amaury obtained from Celestine III a Latin hierarchy for his kingdom: a resident archbishop was placed at Nicosia (Leucosia), with three suffragans at Paphos, Limasol (Temessos), and Famagusta (Ammochostos, formerly Arsinoe). Knights Templars, Carmelites, Dominicans, Franciscans, Augustinians, Benedictines, Cistercians, Carthusians, Regular Canons, Premonstratensian nuns soon had many flourishing monasteries. Splendid churches were built in the Gothic or ogival style, and many Greek churches were changed into Latin ones. Ecclesiastical revenues were assigned (in part) to the Latin clergy; the Greek clergy and the faithful were subordinated to Latin jurisdiction. In the execution of the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) Cardinal Pelagius, legate of Innocent III, showed himself utterly intransigent. Thirteen refractory Greek monks were cruelly put to death. The Greek archbishop, Neophytus, was deposed and exiled, the Greek sees reduced to four, the bishops ordered to reside in small villages and obey the Latin archbishop (1220–1222). Innocent IV and Alexander IV were more favourable to the Greeks (Hergenröther-Kirsch, Kirchengesch., 4th ed., 1904, II, 726), and the Government often defended them against the Latins. The ecclesiastical history of Cyprus during this sad period is one of conflict between the two rival communions, the Greeks being always looked on as more or less schismatic both by the Latins and by the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople. An attempted union of the two Churches in 1405 did not succeed, nor was the Union of Florence (1439) more lasting. In 1489, through the abdication of Queen Caterina Cornaro, the island became subject to Venice, whose rule was even more intolerable to the Greeks, so that, as stated, in 1571 they welcomed the Turkish conquerors as true deliverers.

Among the more conspicuous Latin Archbishops of Nicosia may be mentioned Eustorge de Montaigu (1217–1250) who died at the siege of Damietta, a stern defender of the rights of his Church and a skilful administrator; he increased the splendour of the church services, established schools, built the archiepiscopal palace and the magnificent cathedral of St. Sophia; Ugo di Fagiano (1251–1261), distinguished for his zeal and piety, but a zealous adversary of the Greeks; Gérard de Langres (1274), deposed by Boniface VIII for siding with Philip the Fair; Giovanni del Conte (1312), renowned for his charity; Cardinal Elie de Nabinals (1332), a great reformer; Andreas of Rhodes (1447), present at the Council of Florence; Filippo Mocenigo (1559), who assisted at the closing sessions of the Council of Trent, helped the Venetians against the Turks, and, after the loss of Cyprus, retired to Italy. The Latin bishops of Cyprus showed themselves generally worthy of their mission, by resisting the encroachments of the kings, sometimes also of the Latin Patriarchs of Jerusalem, and even of the pontifical legates. The only reproach they deserve is a want of tact in their behaviour towards the Greeks, and also that their clergy at certain times were guilty of moral laxity. Few saints appear in Latin Cyprus; we hear only of the saintly Franciscan, Ugo di Fagiano, and the Dominican, Pierre de La Palu, Patriarch of Jerusalem and administrator of the See of Limasol. Blessed Pierre Thomas, a Carmelite and papal legate, who strove hard to convert the Greeks, died at the siege of Famagusta in 1366.

After frightful massacres, the Turks allowed the Greeks to reorganize their Church as they liked: viz, with an archbishop styled “Most Blessed Archbishop of Nea Justiniana [a blunder for Justinianopolis] and all Cyprus,” and three bishops at Paphos, Citium, and Karpasia. In the seventeenth century the last-named see was suppressed, and its territory given to the archdiocese; on the other hand the ancient See of Kyrenia was re-established. Cyprus, like the other autocephalous orthodox Churches, has its “Holy Synod,” which consists of four bishops and four priests. In the last three centuries there are few events to mention, apart from simoniacal elections and perpetual domestic quarrels. In 1668 Archbishop Nicephorus held a council against the Protestants. In 1821 the four Greek bishops, with many priests, monks, and laymen, were murdered by the Turks. After 1900 strife arose in the ancient Church of St. Barnabas, and it was found impossible to name a successor to the archbishop who died in that year. The Turkish conquest caused the ruin of the Latin Church: two bishops were then killed with many priests and monks, the churches were profaned, and the Latin Catholics left the island. However, as early as 1572, Franciscans could again reside at Larnaca; after a century they had gathered about 2000 Catholics of various rites. Since 1848 Cyprus has been ecclesiastically dependent on the new Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The Franciscans have stations at Larnaca, Limasol, and Nicosia, with schools and five churches; Sisters of St. Joseph of the Apparition conduct schools in these three towns, and have a hospital and an orphanage at Larnaca.

The Maronites were very numerous during the period of Latin rule, but owing to persecutions of Greeks or Turks have mostly all departed or apostatized. The latter are called Linobambaci; some of them returned to Catholicism. Cyprus, with a part of Lebanon, still forms a Maronite diocese, with 30,000 faithful. They have in the island a few churches and four monasteries, but lack good schools (See MARONITES). Among the resident Armenians there is only an insignificant number (12) of Catholics; the rest obey the Gregorian Patriarch of Jerusalem and have two priests and a monastery. Other Christians of Eastern Rites, who lived in Cyprus during the Middle Ages, subject to their own bishops, have now completely disappeared.

COBHAM, An Attempt at a Bibliography of Cyprus (4th ed. . Nicosia, 1900), about 700 titles; IDEM, A Handbook of Cyprus (London, 1901); MAS-LATRIE, Histoire de l’île de Chypre sous le règne des princes de la maison de Lusignan (Paris, 1861–65); IDEM, Histoire des archevèques latins de l’île de Chypre in Archives de l’Orient latin, II, 207–328; HACKETT, A History of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus (London, 1901); PHRANKUDES, Kypris (Athens, 1890); FORTESCUE, The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907).

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Cyrenaic School of Philosophy

The Cyrenaic School of Philosophy, so called from the city of Cyrene, in which it was founded, flourished from about 400 to about 300 B.C., and had for its most distinctive tenet Hedonism, or the doctrine that pleasure is the chief good. The school is generally said to derive its doctrines from Socrates on the one hand and from the sophist, Protagoras, on the other. From Socrates, by a perversion of the doctrine that happiness is the chief good, it derived the doctrine of the supremacy of pleasure, while from Protagoras it derived its relativistic theory of knowledge. Aristippus (flourished c. 400 B.C.) was the founder of the school, and counted among his followers his daughter Arete and his grandson Aristippus the Younger. The Cyrenaics started their philosophical inquiry by agreeing with Protagoras that all knowledge is relative. That is true, they said, which seems to be true; of things in themselves we can know nothing. From this they were led to maintain that we can know only our feelings, or the impression which things produce upon us. Transferring this theory of knowledge to the discussion of the problem of conduct, and assuming, as has been said, the Socratic doctrine that the chief aim of conduct is happiness, they concluded that happiness is to be attained by the production of pleasurable feelings and the avoidance of painful ones. Pleasure, therefore, is the chief aim in life. The good man is he who obtains or strives to obtain the maximum of pleasure and the minimum of pain. Virtue is not good in itself; it is good only as a means to obtain pleasure. This last point raises the question: What did the Cyrenaics really mean by pleasure? They were certainly sensists, yet it is not entirely certain that by pleasure they meant mere sensuous pleasure. They speak of a hierarchy of pleasures, in which the pleasures of the body are subordinated to virtue, culture, knowledge, artistic enjoyment, which belong to the higher nature of man. Again, some of the later Cyrenaics reduced pleasure to a mere negative state, painlessness; and others, later still, substituted for pleasure “cheerfulness and indifference.” The truth seems to be that in this, as in many other instances, sensism was satisfied with a superficial and loosely-jointed system. There was no consistency in the Cyrenaic theory of conduct; probably none was looked for. Indeed, in spite of the example of the founders of the school, the later Cyrenaics fell far below the level of what was expected from philosophers, even in Greece, and their doctrine came to be merely a set of maxims to justify the careless manner of living of men whose chief aim in life was a pleasant time. But, taken at its best, the Cyrenaic philosophy can hardly justify its claim to be considered an ethical System at all. For good and evil it substituted the pleasant and the painful, without reference, direct or indirect, to obligation or duty. In some points of doctrine the school descends to the commonplace, as when it justifies obedience to law by remarking that the observance of the law of the land leads to the avoidance of punishment, and that one should act honestly because one thereby increases the sum of pleasure. The later Cyrenaics made common cause with the Epicureans. Indeed, the difference between the two schools was one of details, not of fundamental principles.

WILLIAM TURNER

Cyrene

A titular see of Northern Africa. The city was founded early in the seventh century B.C. by a Dorian colony from Thera and named after a spring, Kyre, which the Greeks consecrated to Apollo; it stood on the boundary of the Green Mountains (Djebel Akhaar), ten miles from its port, Apollonia (Marsa Sousa). It was the chief town of the Lydian region between Egypt and Carthage (Cyrenaica, now vilayet of Benghazi), kept up commercial relations with all the Greek cities, and reached the height of its prosperity under its own kings in the fifth century B. C. Soon after 460 it became a republic; after the death of Alexander it passed to the Ptolemies and fell into decay. Apion bequeathed it to the Romans, but it kept its self-government. In 74 B.C. Cyrene became a Roman colony. There were many Jews in the region, with their own synagogue at Jerusalem (Mat., xxvii, 32; Acts, ii, 10; vi, 9, xi, 20, sq.), who rebelled, A.D. 73, against Vespasian and in 115 against Trajan.

Cyrene is the birthplace of the philosophers Aristippus, Callimachus, Carneades, Eratosthenes and Synesius; the latter, a convert to Christianity, died Bishop of Ptolemais. Lequien (II, 621) mentions six bishops of Cyrene, and according to Byzantine legend the first was St. Lucius (Acts, xiii, 1); St. Theodorus suffered martyrdom under Diocletian; about 370 Philo dared to consecrate by himself a bishop for Hydra, and was succeeded by his own nephew, Philo; Rufus sided with Dioscorus at the Robber Synod (Latrocinium) of Ephesus in 449; Leontius lived about 600. Lequien (III, 1151) mentions also six Latin bishops, from 1477 to 1557. The Latin titular see was suppressed by a papal decree of 1894. The old city, ruined by the Arab invasion in the seventh century, is not inhabited, but its site is still called Qrennah (Cyrene). Its necropolis is one of the largest and best preserved in the world, and the tombs, mostly rock-hewn, are of Dorian style.

SMITH AND PORCHER, Discoveries at Cyrene (London, 1864); THRIGE, Res Cyrenensium (Copenhagen, 1828); ROSSBERG, Quæstiones de rebus Cyrenarum prov. rom.; STUDNICZKA, Kyrene (Leipzig, 1890); BORSARI, Geografia . . . della Tripolitana, Cirenaica e Fezzan (Turin, 1888); SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geog. (London, 1878), I, 734–36.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Sts. Cyril and Methodius

(Or CONSTANTINE and METHODIUS).

These brothers, the Apostles of the Slavs, were born in Thessalonica, in 827 and 826 respectively. Though belonging to a senatorial family they renounced secular honours and became priests. They were living in a monastery on the Bosphorous, when the Khazars sent to Constantinople for a Christian teacher. Cyril was selected and was accompanied by his brother. They learned the Khazar language and converted many of the people. Soon after the Khazar mission there was a request from the Moravians for a preacher of the Gospel. German missionaries had already laboured among them, but without success. The Moravians wished a teacher who could instruct them and conduct Divine service in the Slavonic tongue. On account of their acquaintance with the language, Cyril and Methodius were chosen for their work. In preparation for it Cyril invented an alphabet and, with the help of Methodius, translated the Gospels and the necessary liturgical books into Slavonic. They went to Moravia in 863, and laboured for four and a half years. Despite their success, they were regarded by the Germans with distrust, first because they had come from Constantinople where schism was rife, and again because they held the Church services in the Slavonic language. On this account the brothers were summoned to Rome by Nicholas I, who died, however, before their arrival. His successor, Adrian II, received them kindly. Convinced of their orthodoxy, he commended their missionary activity, sanctioned the Slavonic Liturgy, and ordained Cyril and Methodius bishops. Cyril, however, was not to return to Moravia. He died in Rome, 4 Feb., 869.

At the request of the Moravian princes, Rastislav and Svatopluk, and the Slav Prince Kocel of Pannonia, Adrian II formed an Archdiocese of Moravia and Pannonia, made it independent of the German Church, and appointed Methodius archbishop. In 870 King Louis and the German bishops summoned Methodius to a synod at Ratisbon. Here he was deposed and condemned to prison. After three years he was liberated at the command of Pope John VIII and reinstated as Archbishop of Moravia. He zealously endeavoured to spread the Faith among the Bohemians, and also among the Poles in Northern Moravia. Soon, however, he was summoned to Rome again in consequence of the allegations of the German priest Wiching, who impugned his orthodoxy, and objected to the use of Slavonic in the liturgy. But John VIII, after an inquiry, sanctioned the Slavonic Liturgy, decreeing, however, that in the Mass the Gospel should be read first in Latin and then in Slavonic. Wiching, in the meantime, had been nominated one of the suffragan bishops of Methodius. He continued to oppose his metropolitan, going so far as to produce spurious papal letters. The pope, however, assured Methodius that they were false. Methodius went to Constantinople about this time, and with the assistance of several priests, he completed the translation of the Holy Scriptures, with the exception of the Books of Machabees. He translated also the “Nomocanon,” i.e. the Greek ecclesiastico-civil law. The enemies of Methodius did not cease to antagonize him. His health was worn out from the long struggle, and he died 6 April, 885, recommending as his successor Gorazd, a Moravian Slav who had been his disciple.

Formerly the feast of Saints Cyril and Methodius was celebrated in Bohemia and Moravia on 9 March; but Pius IX changed the date to 5 July. Leo XIII, by his Encyclical “Grande Munus” of 30 September, 1880, extended the feast to the universal Church. [Note: The feast of Sts. Cyril and Methodius is currently celebrated on February 14 in the Latin Church.]

L. ABRAHAM.

St. Cyril of Alexandria

Doctor of the Church. St. Cyril has his feast in the Western Church on the 28th of January; in the Greek Menaea it is found on the 9th of June, and (together with St. Athanasius) on the 18th of January.

He seems to have been of an Alexandrian family and was the son of the brother of Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria; if he is the Cyril addressed by Isidore of Pelusium in Ep. xxv of Bk. I, he was for a time a monk. He accompanied Theophilus to Constantinople when that bishop held the “Synod of the Oak” in 402 and deposed St. John Chrysostom. Theophilus died 15 Oct., 412, and on the 18th Cyril was consecrated his uncle’s successor, but only after a riot between his supporters and those of his rival Timotheus. Socrates complains bitterly that one of his first acts was to plunder and shut the churches of the Novatians. He also drove out of Alexandria the Jews, who had formed a flourishing community there since Alexander the Great. But they had caused tumults and had massacred the Christians, to defend whom Cyril himself assembled a mob. This may have been the only possible defence, since the Prefect of Egypt, Orestes, who was very angry at the expulsion of the Jews was also jealous of the power of Cyril, which certainly rivaled his own. Five hundred monks came down from Nitria to defend the patriarch. In a disturbance which arose, Orestes was wounded in the head by a stone thrown by a monk named Ammonius. The prefect had Ammonius tortured to death, and the young and fiery patriarch honoured his remains for a time as those of a martyr. The Alexandians were always riotous as we learn from Socrates (VII, vii) and from St. Cyril himself (Hom. for Easter, 419). In one of these riots, in 422, the prefect Callistus was killed, and in another was committed the murder of a female philosopher Hypatia, a highly-respected teacher of neo-Platoism, of advanced age and (it is said) many virtues. She was a friend of Orestes, and many believed that she prevented a reconciliation between the prefect and patriarch. A mob led by a lector, named Peter, dragged her to a church and tore her flesh with potsherds til she died. This brought great disgrace, says Socrates, on the Church of Alexandria and on its bishop; but a lector at Alexandria was not a cleric (Scr., V, xxii), and Socrates does not suggest that Cyril himself was to blame. Damascius, indeed, accuses him, but he is a late authority and a hater of Christians.

Theophilus, the persecutor of Chrysostom, had not the privilege of communion with Rome from that saint’s death, in 406, until his own. For some years Cyril also refused to insert the name of St. Chrysostom in the diptychs of his Church, in spite of the requests of Chrysostom’s supplanter, Atticus. Later he seems to have yielded to the representations of his spiritual father, Isisdore of Pelusium (Isid., Ep. I, 370). Yet even after the Council of Ephesus that saint still found something to rebuke in him on this matter (Ep. I, 310). But at last Cyril seems to have long since been trusted by Rome.

It was in the winter of 427–28 that the Antiochene Nestorius became Patriarch of Constantinople. His heretical teaching soon became known to Cyril. Against him Cyril taught the use of the term Theotokus in his Paschal letter for 429 and in a letter to the monks of Egypt. A correspondence with Nestorius followed, in a more moderate tone than might have been expected. Nestorius sent his sermons to Pope Celestine, but he received no reply, for the latter wrote to St. Cyril for further information. Rome had taken the side of St. John Chrysostom against Theophilus, but had neither censured the orthodoxy of the latter, nor consented to the patriarchal powers exercised by the bishops of Constantinople. To St. Celestine Cyril was not only the first prelate of the East, he was also the inheritor of the traditions of Athanasius and Peter. The pope’s confidence was not misplaced. Cyril had learnt prudence. Peter had attempted unsuccessfully to appoint a Bishop of Constantinople; Theophilus had deposed another. Cyril, though in this case Alexandria was in the right, does not act in his own name, but denounces Nestorius to St. Celestine, since ancient custom, he says, persuaded him to bring the matter before the pope. He relates all that had occurred, and begs Celestine to decree what he sees fit (typosai to dokoun—a phrase which Dr. Bright chooses to weaken into “formulate his opinion”), and communicate it also to the Bishops of Macedonia and of the East (i.e. the Antiochene Patriarchate).

The pope’s reply was of astonishing severity. He had already commissioned Cassian to write his well known treatise on the Incarnation. He now summoned a council (such Roman councils had somewhat the office of the modern Roman Congregations), and dispatched a letter to Alexandria with enclosures to Constantinople, Philippi, Jerusalem, and Antioch. Cyril is to take to himself the authority of the Roman See and to admonish Nestorius that unless he recants within ten days from the receipt of this ultimatum, he is separated from “our body” (the popes of the day had the habit of speaking of the other churches as the members, of which they are the head; the body is, of course the Catholic Church). If Nestorius does not submit, Cyril is to “provide for” the Church of Constantinople. Such a sentence of excommunication and deposition is not to be confounded with the mere withdrawal of actual communion by the popes from Cyril himself at an earlier date, from Theophilus, or, in Antioch, from Flavian or Meletius. It was the decree Cyril has asked for. As Cyril had twice written to Nestorius, his citation in the name of the pope is to be counted as a third warning, after which no grace is to be given.

St. Cyril summoned a council of his suffragans, and composed a letter which were appended twelve propositions for Nestorius to anathematize. The epistle was not conciliatory, and Nestorius may well have been taken aback. The twelve propositions did not emanate from Rome, and were not equally clear; one or two of them were later among the authorities invoked by the Monophysite heretics in their own favour. Cyril was the head of the rival theological school to that of Antioch, where Nestorius had studied, and was the hereditary rival of the Constantinopolitan would-be patriarch. Cyril wrote also to John, Patriarch of Antioch, informing him of the facts, and insinuating that if John should support his old friend Nestorius, he would find himself isolated over against Rome, Macedonia, and Egypt. John took the hint and urged Nestorius to yield. Meanwhile, in Constantinople itself large numbers of the people held aloof from Nestorius, and the Emperor Theodosius II had been persuaded to summon a general council to meet at Ephesus. The imperial letters were dispatched 19 November, whereas the bishops sent by Cyril arrived at Constantinople only on 7 December. Nestorius, somewhat naturally, refused to accept the message sent by his rival, and on the 13th and 14th of December preached publicly against Cyril as a calumniator, and as having used bribes (which was probably as true as it was usual); but he declared himself willing to use the word Theotokos. These sermons he sent to John of Antioch, who preferred them to the anathematizations of Cyril. Nestorius, however, issued twelve propositions with appended anathemas. If Cyril’s propositions might be might be taken to deny the two natures in Christ, those of Nestorius hardly veiled his belief in two distinct persons. Theodoret urged John yet further, and wrote a treatise against Cyril, to which the latter replied with some warmth. He also wrote an “Answer” in five books to the sermons of Nestorius.

As the fifteenth-century idea of an oecumenical council superior to the pope had yet to be invented, and there was but one precedent for such an assembly, we need not be surprised that St. Celestine welcomed the initiative of the emperor, and hoped for peace through the assembly. (See EPHESUS, COUNCIL OF.) Nestorius found the churches of Ephesus closed to him, when he arrived with the imperial commissioner, Count Candidian, and his own friend, Count Irenaeus. Cyril came with fifty of his bishops. Palestine, Crete, Asia Minor, and Greece added their quotient. But John of Antioch and his suffragans were delayed. Cyril may have believed, rightly or wrongly, that John did not wish to be present at the trial of his friend Nestorius, or that he wished to gain time for him, and he opened the council without John, on 22 June, in spite of the request of sixty-eight bishops for a delay. This was an initial error, which had disastrous results.

The legates from Rome had not arrived, so that Cyril had no answer to the letter he had written to Celestine asking “whether the holy synod should receive a man who condemned what it preached, or, because the time of delay had elapsed, whether the sentence was still in force.” Cyril might have presumed that the pope, in agreeing to send legates to the council, intended Nestorius to have a complete trial, but it was more convenient to assume that the Roman ultimatum had not been suspended, and that the council was bound by it. He therefore took the place of president, not only as the highest of rank, but also as still holding the place of Celestine, though he cannot have received any fresh commission from the pope. Nestorius was summoned, in order that he might explain his neglect of Cyril’s former monition in the name of the pope. He refused to receive the four bishops whom the council sent to him. Consequently nothing remained but formal procedure. For the council was bound by the canons to depose Nestorius for contumacy, as he would not appear, and by the letter of Celestine to condemn him for heresy, as he had not recanted. The correspondence between Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople was read, some testimonies where read from earlier writers show the errors of Nestorius. The second letter of Cyril to Nestorius was approved by all the bishops. The reply of Nestorius was condemned. No discussion took place. The letter of Cyril and the ten anathemaizations raised no comment. All was concluded at one sitting. The council declared that it was “of necessity impelled” by the canons and by the letter of Celestine to declare Nestorius deposed and excommunicated. The papal legates, who had been detained by bad weather, arrived on the 10th of July, and they solemnly confirmed the sentence by the authority of St. Peter, for the refusal of Nestorius to appear had made useless the permission which they brought from the pope to grant him forgiveness if he should repent. But meanwhile John of Antioch and his party had arrived on the 26th and 27th of June. They formed themselves into a rival council of fourty-three bishops, and deposed Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus, and St. Cyril, accusing the latter of Apollinarianism and even of Eunomianism. Both parties now appealed to the emperor, who took the amazing decision of sending a count to treat Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon as being all three lawfully deposed. They were kept in close custody; but eventually the emperor took the orthodox view, though he dissolved the council; Cyril was allowed to return to his diocese, and Nestorius went into retirement at Antioch. Later he was banished to the Great Oasis of Egypt.

Meanwhile Pope Celestine was dead. His successor, St. Sixtus III, confirmed the council and attempted to get John of Antioch to anathematize Nestorius. For some time the strongest opponent of Cyril was Theodoret, but eventually he approved a letter of Cyril to Acacius of Berhoea. John sent Paul, Bishop of Emesa, as his plenipotentiary to Alexandria, and he patched up reconciliation with Cyril. Though Theodoret still refused to denounce the defence of Nestorius, John did so, and Cyril declared his joy in a letter to John. Isidore of Pelusium was now afraid that the impulsive Cyril might have yielded too much (Ep. i, 334). The great patriarch composed many further treatises, dogmatic letters, and sermons. He died on the 9th or the 27th of June, 444, after an episcopate of nearly thirty-two years.

ST. CYRIL AS A THEOLOGIAN

The principal fame of St. Cyril rests upon his defence of Catholic doctrine against Nestorius. That heretic was undoubtedly confused and uncertain. He wished, against Apollinarius, to teach that Christ was a perfect man, and he took the denial of a human personality in Our Lord to imply an Apollinarian incompleteness in His Human Nature. The union of the human and the Divine natures was therefore to Nestorius an unspeakably close junction, but not a union in one hypostasis. St. Cyril taught the personal, or hypostatic, union in the plainest terms; and when his writings are surveyed as a whole, it becomes certain that he always held the true view, that the one Christ has two perfect and distinct natures, Divine and human. But he would not admit two physeis in Christ, because he took physis to imply not merely a nature but a subsistent (i.e. personal) nature. His opponents misrepresented him as teaching that the Divine person suffered, in His human nature; and he was constantly accused of Apollinarianism. On the other hand, after his death Monophysitism was founded upon a misinterpretation of his teaching. Especially unfortunate was the formula “one nature incarnate of God the Word” (mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene), which he took from a treatise on the Incarnation which he believed to be by his great predecessor St. Athanasius. By this phrase he intended simply to emphasize against Nestorius the unity of Christ’s Person; but the words in fact expressed equally the single Nature taught by Eutyches and by his own successor Diascurus. He brings out admirably the necessity of the full doctrine of the humanity to God, to explain the scheme of the redemption of man. He argues that the flesh of Christ is truly the flesh of God, in that it is life-giving in the Holy Eucharist. In the richness and depth of his philosophical and devotional treatment of the Incarnation we recognize the disciple of Athanasius. But the precision of his language, and perhaps of his thought also, is very far behind that which St. Leo developed a few years after Cyril’s death.

Cyril was a man of great courage and force of character. We can often discern that his natural vehemence was repressed and schooled, and he listened with humility to the severe admonitions of his master and advisor, St. Isidore. As a theologian, he is one of the great writers and thinkers of early times. Yet the troubles that arose out of the Council of Ephesus were due to his impulsive action; more patience and diplomacy might possibly even have prevented the vast Nestorian sect from arising at all. In spite of his own firm grasp of the truth, the whole of his patriarch fell away, a few years after his time, into a heresy based on his writings, and could never be regained by the Catholic Faith. But he has always been greatly venerated in the Church. His letters, especially the second letter to Nestorius, were not only approved by the Council of Ephesus, but by many subsequent councils, and have frequently been appealed to as tests of orthodoxy. In the East he was always honoured as one of the greatest of the Doctors. His Mass and Office as a Doctor of the Church were approved by Leo XIII in 1883.

HIS WRITINGS

The exegetical works of St Cyril are very numerous. The seventeen books “On Adoration in Spirit and in Truth” are an exposition of the typical and spiritual nature of the Old Law. The Glaphyra or “brilliant,” Commentaries on Pentateuch are of the same nature. Long explanations of Isaias and of the minor Prophets give a mystical interpretation after the Alexandrian manner. Only fragments are extant of other works on the Old Testament, as well as of expositions of Matthew, Luke, and some of the Epistles, but of that of St. Luke much is preserved in a Syriac version. Of St. Cyril’s sermons and letters the most interesting are those which concern the Nestorian controversy. Of a great apologetic work in the twenty books against Julian the Apostate ten books remain. Among his theological treatises we have two large works and one small one on the Holy Trinity, and a number of treatises and tracts belonging to the Nestorian controversy.

The first collected edition of St. Cyril’s works was by J. Aubert, 7 vols., Paris, 1638; several earlier editions of some portions in Latin only are enumerated by Fabricius. Cardinal Mai added more material in the second and third volumes of his “Bibliotheca nova Patrum,” II-III, 1852; this is incorporated, together with much matter from the Catenae published by Ghislerius (1633), Corderius, Possinus, and Cranor (1838), in Migne’s reprint of Aubert’s edition (P.G. LXVIII-LXVII, Paris, 1864). Better editions of single works include P. E. Pusey, “Cyrilli Alex. Epistolae tres oecumenicae, libri V c. Nestorium, XII capitum explanatio, XII capitum defensio utraquem schohia de Incarnatione Unigeniti” (Oxford, 1875); “De recta fide ad principissasm de recta fide ad Augustas, quad unus Christus dialogusm apologeticus ad Imp.” (Oxford, 1877); “Cyrilli Alex. in XII Prophetas” (Oxford, 1868, 2 vols.); “In divi Joannis Evangelium” (Oxford, 1872, 3 vols., including the fragments on the Epistles). “Three Epistles, with revised text and English translation” (Oxford, 1872); translations in the Oxford “Library of the Fathers”; “Commentary on St. John,” I (1874), II (1885); Five tomes against Nestorius” (1881); R. Payne Smith, “S. Cyrilli Alex. Comm. in Lucae evang. quae supersant Syriace c MSS. apud Mus. Brit.” (Oxford, 1858); the same translated into English (Oxford, 1859, 2 vols.); W. Wright, “Fragments of the Homilies of Cyril of Alex. on St. Luke, edited from a Nitrian MS.” (London, 1874); J. H. Bernard, “On Some Fragments of an Uncial MS. of St. Cyril of Alex. Written on Papyrus” (Trans. of R. Irish Acad., XXIX, 18, Dublin, 1892); “Cyrilli Alex. librorum c. Julianum fragmenta syriaca:, ed. E. Nestle etc. in “Scriptorum grecorum, qui Christianam impugnaverunt religionem,” fasc. III (Leipzig, 1880). Fragments of the “Liber Thesaurorum” in Pitra, “Analecta sacra et class.,” I (Paris, 1888).

The best biography of St. Cyril is, perhaps, still that by TILLEMONT in Mémoires pour servir, etc., XIV. See also KOPALLIK, Cyrillus von Alexandrien (Mainz, 1881), an apology for St. Cyril’s teaching and character. A moderate view is taken by BRIGHT in Waymarks of Church History (London, 1894) and The Age of the Fathers (London, 1903), II, but he is recognized as prejudiced wherever the papacy is in question. EHRHARD, Die Cyril v. Alex. zugeschriebene Schrift, peri tes tou K. enanthropeseos, ein Werdes Theodoret (Tubingen, 1888); LOOFS, Nestoriana (Halle, 1905); WEIGL, Die Heilslehre des Cyril v. Alex. (Mainz, 1905). Of review articles may be mentioned: LARGENT Etudes d’hist. eccl.: S. Cyrille d’Al. et le conc. d’Ephese (Paris, 1892); SCHAFER, Die Christologie des Cyril v. Al. in Theolog. Quartalschrift (Tubingen, 1895), 421; MAHE, Les anathematismes de S. Cyrille in Rev. d’hist eccl. (Oct., 1906); BETHUNE-BAKER, Nestorius and his Teaching (Cambridge, 1908); MAHE, L’Eucharistie d’ apres S. Cyrille d’ Al. in Rev. d’ Hist. Eccl. (Oct., 1907); L. J. SICKING defends Cyril in the affair of Hypatia in Der Katholik, CXXIX (1907), 31 and 121; CONYBEARE, The Armenian Version of Revelation and Cyril of Alexandria’s scholia on the Incarnation edited from the oldest MSS. and Englished (London, 1907).

JOHN CHAPMAN.

St. Cyril of Constantinople

General of the Carmelites, d. about 1235. All that is known is that he was prior of Mount Carmel, some say for twenty-seven, others, more correctly, for three years, and that he had the reputation of being a prophet. One of the pseudo-prophecies, given out towards the end of the thirteenth century by the Franciscan Spirituals, and attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, became known to Guido de Perpignan and other Carmelites at Paris, who ascribed it to their former general, now considered a saint and a doctor of the Church, his feast being introduced in 1399. In the Breviary lessons he was also confounded with Cyril of Alexandria. When the mistake was discovered (1430, but the confusion was maintained in the Venice Breviary, 1542), his title of doctor was justified by attributing to him a work, of which no trace exists, on the procession of the Holy Ghost. The prophecy or angelic oracle “Divinum oraculum S. Cyrillo Carmelitae Constantinopolitano solemni legatione angeli missum (ed. Phllippus a SS. Trinitate, Lyons, 1663), so called because it is supposed to have been brought by an angel while Cyril was saying Mass, is a lengthy document of eleven chapters in incomprehensible language, with a commentary falsely ascribed to Abbot Joachim. It is first mentioned by Arnold of Villanova, c. 1295; Telesphorus of Cosenza applied it to the Western Schism and treated it as an utterance of the Holy Ghost. Another writing erroneously attributed to Cyril is “De processu sui Ordinis,” by a contemporary, probably a French author; edited by Daniel a Virgine Mariâ in “Speculurn Carmelitarurn” (Antwerp, 1680), I, 75.

B. ZIMMERMAN.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem

Bishop of Jerusalem and Doctor of the Church, born about 315; died probably 18 March, 386. In the East his feast is observed on the 18th of March, in the West on the 18th or 20th. Little is known of his life. We gather information concerning him from his younger contemporaries, Epiphanius, Jerome, and Rufinus, as well as from the fifth-century historians, Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret. Cyril himself gives us the date of his “Catecheses” as fully seventy years after the Emperor Probus, that is about 347, if he is exact. Constans (d. 350) was then still alive. Mader thinks Cyril was already bishop, but it is usually held that he was at this date only as a priest. St. Jerome relates (Chron. ad ann. 352) that Cyril had been ordained priest by St. Maximus, his predecessor, after whose death the episcopate was promised to Cyril by the metropolitan, Acacius of Caesarea, and the other Arian bishops, on condition that he should repudiate the ordination he had received from Maximus. He consented to minister as deacon only, and was rewarded for this impiety with the see. Maximus had consecrated Heraclius to succeed himself, but Cyril, by various frauds, degraded Heraclius to the priesthood. So says St. Jerome; but Socrates relates that Acacius drove out St. Maximus and substituted St. Cyril. A quarrel soon broke out between Cyril and Acacius, apparently on a question of precedence or jurisdiction. At Nicaea the metropolitan rights of Caesarea had been guarded, while a special dignity had been granted to Jerusalem. Yet St. Maximus had held a synod and had ordained bishops. This may have been as much as the cause of Acacius’ enmity to him as his attachment to the Nicene formula. On the other hand, Cyril’s correct Christology may have been the real though veiled ground of the hostility of Acacius to him. At all events, in 357 Acacius caused Cyril to be exiled on the charge of selling church furniture during a famine. Cyril took refuge with Silvanus, Bishop of Taraus. He appeared at the Council of Seleucia in 359, in which the Semi-Arian party was triumphant. Acacius was deposed and St. Cyril seems to have returned to his see. But the emperor was displeased at the turn of events, and, in 360, Cyril and other moderates were again driven out, and only returned at the accession of Julian in 361. In 367 a decree of Valens banished all the bishops who had been restored by Julian, and Cyril remained in exile until the death of the persecutor in 378. In 380, St. Gregory of Nyssa came to Jerusalem on the recommendation of a council held at Antioch in the preceding year. He found the Faith in accord with the truth, but the city a prey to parties and corrupt in morals. St. Cyril attended the great Council of Constantinople in 381, at which Theodosius had ordered the Nicene faith, now a law of the empire, to be promulgated. St. Cyril then formally accepted the homoousion; Socrates and Sozomen call this an act of repentance. Socrates gives 385 for St. Cyril’s death, but St. Jerome tells us that St. Cyril lived eight years under Theodosius, that is, from January 379.

WRITINGS

The extant works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem include a sermon on the Pool of Bethesda, a letter to the Emperor Constantius, three small fragments, and the famous “Catecheses.” The letter describes a wonderful cross of light, extending from Calvary to the Mount of Olives, which appeared in the air on the nones of May, after Pentecost, toward the beginning of the saint’s episcopate. The catechetical lectures are among the most precious remains of Christian antiquity. The include an introductory address, eighteen instructions delivered in Lent to those who were preparing for baptism, and five “mystagogical” instructions given during Easter week to the same persons after their baptism. They contain interesting local references as to the finding of the Cross, the position of Calvary in relation to the walls, to the other holy places, and to the great basilica built by Constantine in which these conferences were delivered. They seem to have been spoken extempore, and written down afterwards. The style is admirably clear, dignified, and logical; the tone is serious and full of piety. The subject is thus divided: 1. Hortatory. 2. On sin, and confidence in God’s pardon. 3. On baptism, how water receives the power of sanctifying: as it cleanses the body, so the Spirit seals the soul. 4. An abridged account of the Faith. 5. On the nature of faith. 6–18. On the Creed: 6. On the monarchy of God, and the various heresies which deny it. 7. On the Father. 8. His omnipotence. 9. The Creator. 10. On the Lord Jesus Christ. 11. His Eternal Sonship. 12. His virgin birth. 13. His Passion. 14. His Resurrection and Ascension. 15. His second coming. 16–17 On the Holy Ghost. 18. On the resurrection of the body and the Catholic Church. The first mystagogical catechesis explains the renunciations of Satan, etc. which preceded baptism; the second is on the effects of baptism, the third on confirmation, the fourth on Holy Communion, and the fifth on holy Mass for the living and the dead. The hearers are told to observe the disciplina arcani; Rom. they must repeat nothing to heathens and catechumens; the book also has a note to the same effect.

A few points may be noted. The mythical origin of the Septuagint is told, and the story of the phoenix, so popular from Clement onwards. The description of Mass speaks of the mystical washing of the priest’s hands, the kiss of peace, the “Sursum Corda,” etc., and the Preface with its mention of the angels, the Sanctus, the Epiclesis, the transmutation of the elements by the Holy Ghost, the prayer for the whole Church and for the spirits of the departed, followed by the Paternoster, which is briefly explained. Then come the “Sancta Sanctis” and the Communion. “Approaching do not come with thy palms stretched flat nor with fingers separated. But making thy left hand a seat for thy right, and hollowing thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, responding Amen. And having with care hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, take it, vigilant lest thou drop any of it. For shouldst thou lose any of it, it is as though thou wast deprived of a member of thy own body.” “Then after Communion of the Body of Christ, approach the Chalice of His Blood, not extending thy hands, but bending low, and with adoration and reverence saying Amen, sanctify thyself by receiving also the Blood of Christ. And while thy lips are yet wet, touch them with thy hands, and sanctify thy eyes and thy forehead and thy other senses” (Cat. Myst., v, 22, 21–22). We are to make the sign of the cross when we eat and drink, sit, go to bed, get up, talk, walk, in short, in every action (Cat. iv, 14). Again: “if thou should be in foreign cities, do not simply ask where is the church (kyriakon), for the heresies of the impious try to call their caves kyriaka, nor simply where is the Church (ekklesia), but where is the Catholic Church, for this is the proper name of this holy Mother of all” (Cat. xviii, 26).

DOCTRINE

St. Cyril’s doctrine is expressed in his creed, which seems to have run thus:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten by the Father true God before all ages, God of God, Life of Life, Light of Light, by Whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man. He was crucified . . . and buried. He rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and sat at the right hand of the Father. And He cometh in glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And in one Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, Who spake by the prophets; and in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and in one holy Catholic Church, and in the resurrection of the body, and in life everlasting.

The italicized words are uncertain. St. Cyril teaches the Divinity of the Son with perfect plainness, but avoids the word “consubstantial,” which he probably thought liable to misunderstanding. He never mentions Arianism, though he denounces the Arian formula, “There was a time when the Son was not.” He belonged to the Semi-Arian, or Homoean party, and is content to declare that the Son is “in all things like the Father.” He communicated freely with bishops such a Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste. He not only does not explain that the Holy Trinity has one Godhead, but he does not even say the Three Persons are one God. The one God for him is always the Father. “There is one God, the Father of Christ, and one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the only God, and one Holy Ghost, Who sanctifies and deifies all things” (Cat. iv, 16). But he rightly says: “We do not divide the Holy Trinity as some do, neither do we make a melting into one like Sabellius” (Cat. xvi, 4). Cyril never actually calls the Holy Ghost God, but He is to be honoured together with the Father and the Son (Cat. iv, 16). There is therefore nothing incorrect in his doctrine, only the explicit use of the Nicene formulae is wanting, and these, like St. Meletius and others of his party, he fully accepted at a later date. St. Cyril’s teaching about the Blessed Sacrament is of the first importance, for he was speaking freely, untrammelled by the “discipline of the secret.” On the Real Presence he is unambiguous: “Since He Himself has declared and said of the bread: This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any more? And when He asserts and says: This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?” Of the Transformation, he argues, if Christ could change water into wine, can He not change wine into His own Blood? The bread and wine are symbols: “In the type of bread is given thee the Body, in the type of wine the Blood is given thee”; but they do not remain in their original condition, they have been changed, though the senses cannot tell us this: “Do not think it mere bread and wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the Lord’s declaration.” “Having learned this and being assured of it, that appears to be bread is not bread, though perceived by the taste, but the Body of Christ, and what appears to be wine is not wine, though the taste says so, but the Blood of Christ . . . strengthen thy heart, partaking of it as spiritual (food), and rejoice the face of thy soul.” It is difficult not to see the whole doctrine of Transubstantiation in these explicit words. Confirmation is with blessed chrism: “As the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is not bread, but the Body of Christ, so this holy myrrh is no longer simple, as one might say, after the invocation, but a gift of Christ and capable by the presence of the Holy Ghost of giving His divinity” (ii, 4). St. Peter and St. Paul went to Rome, the heads (prostatai) of the Church. Peter is ho koryphaiotatos kai protostates ton apostolon. The Faith is to be proved out of Holy Scripture. St. Cyril, as the Greek Fathers generally, gives the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament omitting the deutero-canonical books. But yet he often quotes them as Scripture. In the New Testament he does not acknowledge the Apocalypse.

There have been many editions of St. Cyril’s works:—(Vienna, 1560); G. Morel (Paris, 1564); J. Prévot (Paris, 1608); T. Milles (London, 1703); the Benedictine edition of Dom Touttée (Paris, 1720; reprinted at Venice, 1763); a new edition from manuscripts, by G.C. Reischl, 8vo (Munich, 1848; 2nd vol. by J. Rupp, 1860); Migne gives the Bened. ed. in P.G., XXXIII; Photius Alexandrides (2 vols., Jerusalem, 1867–8); Eng. tr. in Library of the Fathers (Oxford).

TILLEMONT, Memoires pour servir, etc., VIII; TOUTTEE in his edition, and REISCHL; Acta SS., March, II; DELACROIX, Saint-Cyrille de Jerusalem (Paris, 1865); MADER, Der hl. Cyrillus, Bischof von Jerusalem (Einsiedein, 1901).

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Cyrrhus

A titular see of Syria. The city of the same name was the capital of the extensive district of Cyrrhestica, between the plain of Antioch and Commagene. The origin of the city is unknown; according to a false tradition, it was said in the sixth century to have been founded by Cyrus, King of Persia; this, however, was only a play upon the name. It became at an early date a suffragan of Hierapolis in Provincia Euphratensis. Eight bishops are known before 536 (Lequien, II, 929; E.W. Brooks, The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, II, 341). The first was present at Nicæa in 325. The most celebrated is Theodoret (423–58), a prolific writer, well known for his rôle in the history of Nestorianism and Eutychianism. (His works are in Migne, P.G., LXXX-LXXXIV.) He tells us that his small diocese (about forty miles square) contained 800 churches, which supposes a very dense population.

At Cyrrhus a magnificent basilica held the relics of SS. Cosmas and Damian, who had suffered martyrdom in the vicinity about 283, and whose bodies had been transported to the city, whence it was also called Hagioupolis. Many holy personages, moreover, chiefly hermits, had been or were then living in this territory, among them SS. Acepsimas, Zeumatius, Zebinas, Polychronius, Maron (the famous patron of the Maronite Church), Eusebius, Thalassius, Maris, James the Wonder-worker, and others. Theodoret devoted an entire work to the illustration of their virtues and miracles. The city was embellished and fortified by Justinian. At the same time it became an independent metropolis, subject directly to Antioch. The patriarch, Michael the Syrian, names thirteen Jacobite bishops of Cyrrhus from the ninth to the eleventh century (Revue de l’Orient chrétien, 1901, p. 194). Only two Latin titulars are quoted by Lequien (III, 1195). The site of the city is marked by the ruins at Khoros, nine miles northwest of Kilis, in the vilayet of Aleppo; these ruins stand near the river Afrin Marsyas, a tributary of the Orontes, which had been banked up by the aforesaid Theodoret.

TILLEMONT, Mémoires, XV, 217–239.

S. VAILHÉ

Sts. Cyrus and John

Celebrated martyrs of the Coptic Church, surnamed thaumatourgoi anargyroi because they healed the sick gratis (Nilles, Kallendarium utriusque Ecclesiæ, Innsbruck, 1896, I, 89). Their feast day is celebrated by the Copts on the sixth day of Emsir, corresponding to 31 January, the day also observed by the Greeks; on the same day they are commemorated in the Roman Martyrology, regarding which see the observation of Cardinal Baronio (Martyrologium Romanum, Venice, 1586). The Greeks celebrate also the finding and translation of the relics on 28 June (see “Menologium Basil.” and “Menaia”). The principal source of information regarding the life, passion and miracles of Sts. John and Cyrus is the encomium written by Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (d. 638). Of the birth, parents, and first years of the saints we know nothing. According to the Arabic “Synaxarium” (Forget, Synax. Alexandrinum, Beirut, 1906, II, 252), compiled by Michael, Bishop of Athrib and Malig, Cyrus and John were both Alexandrians; this, however, is contradicted by other documents in which it is said that Cyrus was a native of Alexandria and John of Edessa. Cyrus practised the art of medicine, and had a work-shop (ergasterium) which was afterwards transformed into a temple dedicated to the three boy-saints, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias. He ministered to the sick gratis and at the same time laboured with all the ardour of an apostle of the Faith, and won many from pagan superstition. This took place under the Emperor Diocletian. Denounced to the prefect of the city he fled to Arabia of Egypt where he took refuge in a town near the sea called Tzoten. There, having shaved his head and assumed the monastic habit, he abandoned medicine and began a life of asceticism.

John belonged to the army, in which he held a high rank; the “Synaxarium” cited above adds that he was one of the familiars of the emperor. Hearing of the virtues and wonders of Cyrus, he betook himself to Jerusalem in fulfillment of a vow, and thence passed into Egypt where he became the companion of St. Cyrus in the ascetic life. During the persecution of Diocletian three holy virgins, Theoctista (Theopista), fifteen years old, Theodota (Theodora), thirteen years old, and Theodossia (Theodoxia), eleven years old, together with their mother Athanasia, were arrested at Canopus and brought to Alexandria. Cyrus and John, fearing lest these girls, on account of their tender age, might, in the midst of torments, deny the Faith, resolved to go into the city to comfort them and encourage them in undergoing martyrdom. This fact becoming known they also were arrested and after dire torments they were all beheaded on the 31st of January. The bodies of the two martyrs were placed in the church of St. Mark the Evangelist where they remained up to the time of St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (412–444). At Menuthis (Menouthes or Menouthis) near Canopus there existed at that time a pagan temple reputed for its oracles and cures which attracted even some simple Christians of the vicinity. St. Cyril thought to extirpate this idolatrous cult by establishing in that town the cultus of Sts. Cyrus and John. For this purpose he transferred thither their relics (28 June, 414) and placed them in the church built by his predecessor, Theophilus, in honour of the Evangelists. Before the finding and transfer of the relics by St. Cyril it seems that the names of the two saints were unknown; certain it is that no written records of them existed (Migne, P.G., LXXXVII, 3508 sq.). In the fifth century, during the pontificate of Innocent I, their relics were brought to Rome by two monks, Grimaldus and Arnulfus-this according to a manuscript in the archives of the deaconry of Santa Maria in the Via Lata, cited by Antonio Bosio (Roma Sotterranea, Rome, 1634, p. 123). Mai, however, for historical reasons, justly assigns a later date, namely 634, under Pope Honorius and the Emperor Heraclius (Spicilegium Rom., III, V). The relics were placed in the suburban church of St. Passera (Abbas Cyrus) on the Via Portuense. In the time of Bosio the pictures of the two saints were still visible in this church (Bosio, op. cit., ib.) Upon the door of the hypogeum, which still remains, is the following inscription in marble:—

Corpora sancta Cyri renitent hic atque Joannis

Quæ quondam Romæ dedit Alexandria magna

Bosio, ib.; Mai, Spic. Rom., loc. cit.). At Rome three churches were dedicated to these martyrs, Abbas Cyrus de Militiis, Abbas Cyrus de Valeriis, and Abbas Cyrus ad Elephantum-all of which were transformed afterwards by the vulgar pronunciation into S. Passera, a corruption of Abbas Cyrus; in the Coptic Difnar, Apakiri, Apakyri, Apakyr; in Arabic, ‘Abaqir, ‘Abuqir (see Armellini, Le Chiese di Roma, Rome, 1891, 179 sq., 563 sq., 681, 945 sq.).

P. J. BALESTRI.

Cyrus of Alexandria

A Melchite patriarch of that see in the seventh century, and one of the authors of Monothelism; d. about 641. He had been since 620 Bishop of Phasis in Colchis when the Emperor Heraclius, in the course of his Persian campaign (626), consulted him about a plan for bringing the Monophysites of Egypt back to the Church and to the support of the empire. The plan, suggested by Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, consisted of confessing the faith of Chalcedon on the two natures of Christ, while practically nullifying it by the admission of one theandric will and operation, . Cyrus hesitated at first, but being assured by Sergius that this formula was opposed to neither the Fathers nor Chalcedon and was destined to achieve great results, he became a stanch supporter of it, and was, in return, raised by Heraclius to the then vacant See of Alexandria (630). Once a patriarch, he set himself vigorously to effect the desired union. In a synod held at Alexandria he proposed what is known as the or “Satisfactio,” an agreement in nine articles, the seventh of which is a bold assertion of the Monothelite heresy. The Monophysites (Theodosians or Severians) welcomed the agreement with, however, the remark that Chalcedon was coming to them, not they to Chalcedon. The union thus effected was adroitly exploited, with a view to win over Pope Honorius to Monothelism; otherwise it proved ineffective, and soon fell into discredit under the name of , contemptuously called the “washy union.” Cyrus persevered none the less in his adhesion to the compromise, and even accepted the Ecthesis, a new imperial formulary of the same error (637). When Omar’s general, Amru, threatened the Prefecture of Egypt, Cyrus was made prefect and entrusted with the conduct of the war. Certain humiliating stipulations, to which he subscribed for the sake of peace, angered his imperial master. He was recalled and harshly accused of connivance with the Saracens; however, he was soon restored to his former authority, owing to the impending siege of Alexandria, but could not avert the fall of the great city (640) and died shortly after.

From Cyrus we have three letters to Sergius and the “Satisfactio,” all preserved in the acts of the Roman Synod of the Lateran and of the Sixth Œcumenical Council (Mansi, X, 1004; XI, 560, 562, 964). The first letter is an acceptation of the Ecthesis; in the second Cyrus describes his perplexity between Pope Leo and Sergius; the conversion of the Theodosians is narrated in the third. The seventh article of the “Satisfactio”—the others are irrelevant—reads thus: “The one and same Christ, the Son, performs the works proper to God and to man by one theandric operation according to St. Dionysius.” Cyrus’ chief opponents, St. Sophronius, d. in 637 (Epistola synodica, Mansi, XI, 480), and St. Maximus, d. in 662 (Epistola ad Nicandrum; disputatio cum Pyrrho, P.G., XCI, 101, 345), reproached him for falsifying the then much-respected text of Dionysius and substituting for (new). They showed, moreover, the inanity of his claim to the support of the Fathers, and explained how the Divine and human natures of Christ, sometimes styled one, because they belong to the same person and work in perfect harmony, can no more by physically identified than the natures from which they proceed. Historians are not agreed as to how Cyrus came by this error. Some think that he was, from the outset, a Monophysite at heart. Others, with more reason, hold that he was led into error by Sergius and Heraclius. Cyrus was condemned as a heretic in the Lateran Council of 649 (Denzinger, Enchiridion, 217, 219) and in 680 at the Third Œcumenical Council of Constantinople (Denzinger, 238; Mansi, XI, 554). (See .)

NEALE, History of the Holy Eastern Church (London, 1847), II; HEFELE, Conciliengesch. (Freiburg, 1877), III; PETAVIUS, Dogmata Catholica (Paris, 1866), V, i, 19; BURT, History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1880); MANN, Lives of the Popes (London, 1902), Vol. I, Pt. I, 330; SCHWANE-DEGERT, Hist. des dogmes (Paris, 1903), II; TURMEL, Hist. de la théol. positive (Paris, 1904).

J.F. SOLLIER

Cyzicus

A titular see of Asia Minor, metropolitan of the ancient ecclesiastical province of Hellespontus. The city was probably founded by Pelasgians from Thessaly; later it received many colonies from Miletus, but its importance began only after the Peloponnesian war, when the decay of Athens and Miletus set in. Alcibiades defeated the Lacedaemonians there (410 B.C.). Alexander captured it from the Persians in 334 B.C.; and Mithridates besieged it with 300,000 men in 74 B.C., but it withstood him stoutly, and the year following was delivered by Lucullus. The Romans favoured it and recognized its municipal independence. Cyzicus was the leading city of Northern Mysia as far as Troas. Under Tiberius it was incorporated with the empire, but remained the capital of Mysia, afterwards of Hellespontus, and became one of the greatest cities in the world. The era of its Olympiads was reckoned from A.D. 135 or 139. Its peculiar coin, the Cyzicenus, was worth 28 drachmae, i.e. nearly five dollars and a half in American money. Cyzicus was captured by the Arabs in 675, and ruined by earthquakes in 443 and 1043; it began to be deserted as early as the eleventh century. Its site is today marked by a huge heap of ruins amid the marshes of Balkiz Serai, in the caza of Erdek, vilayet of Brusa. The walls, dating from the fourth century, are partly preserved; there are also the ruins of a Roman aqueduct and a theatre. The ampitheatre, built in the third century B.C., was one of the largest in the world; its diameter was nearly 500 feet. Colossal foundations of a temple dedicated to Hadrian are still visible: the columns were 21.35 metres high (about 70 feet), while the highest known elsewhere, those at Baalbek in Syria, are only 19.35 metres (about 63 feet). The monuments of Cyzicus were used by Justinian as a quarry for the building of Saint Sophia, and are still exploited by the natives.

As ecclesiastical metropolis of Hellespontus, Cyzicus had a catalogue of bishops beginning with the first century; Lequien (I, 747) mentions fifty-nine. A more complete list is found in Nicodemos, in the Greek “Office of St. Emilian” (Constantinople, 1876), 34–36, which has eighty-five names. We may mention the famous Arian Eunomius; St. Dalmatius; St. Proclus and St. Germanus, who became Patriarchs of Constantinople; and St. Emilian, a martyr in the eighth century. Gelasius, an historian of Arianism, who wrote about 475, was born at Cyzicus. Lequien (III, 941) mentions a Latin bishop in 1477. Cyzicus is still a metropolitan title for the Greeks, the metropolitan residing at Artake (Erdek), a little port on the western shore of the peninsula. Opposite to Artake is another port, Peramos (Perama), where an Assumptionist Father has founded a Greek parish. At Panormos (Panderma), another more important port nine miles south-east of the ruins of Cyzicus (10,000 inhabitants), there is a Catholic Armenian parish. At the Dardanelles, also, there is a Latin parish.

S. VAILHÉ

Czech Literature

The Czech or Bohemian language is spoken by that branch of the Indo-European Slavs who settled in Moravia and Bohemia about the fifth century after Christ. It is closely allied to the Russian, Polish, Bulgarian, and other Slav languages having a common origin. The evolution of Czech literature dates back to 863, when Moravia and Bohemia, through the efforts of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, the apostles of these two countries, were converted to Christianity and thus became participants in the great work of civilization. Of all Slav literature, with the exception of the Bulgarian, the Czech is the oldest and, until the seventeenth century, was also the richest. It may be divided into four periods.

FIRST PERIOD

This era extended from the Christianization of Bohemia to the appearance in public of John Hus, in the year 1404. It may be called the childhood of Czech literature and is characterized by fruitfulness in poetry. From pagan times we have no literary relics, though it is certain that the Bohemians used certain crude characters or letters commonly called the runic. St. Cyril, using the Greek characters as a basis, devised a special Slav alphabet with new marks indicating soft sounds. At the same time he introduced a Slavonic Liturgy and translated part of the Bible. The liturgy, however, was soon superseded by the Latin, written in the Latin language with Roman letters. This was brought about chiefly by the German bishops, who, it is said, feared that this Slavonic Liturgy might finally lead to schism. The Slavonic Liturgy survived longest (until 1055) in the Abbey of Sazava. To re-establish it Emperor Charles I founded an abbey at Prague commonly called “Na Slovanech,” or at the present time Emmaus, inducing Slav Benedictine monks from Croatia to settle there. The monks, however, were scattered during the Hussite wars in 1419 and did not return. The older part of the famous “Reims Gospel,” it is claimed, dates from the eleventh or twelfth century. The newer part was written at Emmaus in 1395, and is the only relic of Old Slavonic extant. This Gospel was carried away by the Hussites, was taken as far as Turkey, and thence to Reims, where it was used by the French kings when pronouncing the coronation oath. Of the oldest period, that is from the tenth to the twelfth century, only a few manuscripts have been preserved, among them two fragments of liturgical translations written in the Glagolitic or Old Slavonic alphabet. The most precious relic of this period is the hymn “Hospodine, pomiluj ny,” a paraphrase of the Kyrie Eleison, which, with its deep choral melody, is very impressive. It is surpassed only by the beautiful song in honour of St. Wenceslaus.

A marked improvement in Czech literature began in the year 1250. The Western lands gave birth to new watchwords, new ideas, and new life. The splendour of tournaments, the pomp of feasts, and the grandeur of knighthood took the fancy of the age, while the Crusades widened the people’s knowledge of other countries and customs. The troubadours of France and the minnesingers of Germany went from castle to castle, glorifying heroic deeds of knighthood. Tendencies of this kind found favour also in Bohemia, and because of their origin in Latin or Roman lands, literature of this period is commonly called romance, The deeds and adventures of the knights were extolled in song and poem after foreign models; the best of these was “Alexandreis,” written by an unknown author. This piece of literature is remarkable for its almost faultless form and elegant diction. Another effect of the Crusades was the extraordinary revival of religious faith among the people, which gave rise to a new class of literature, to legends and to mystery or spiritual plays. In prose were written spiritual romances, legends, and passionals depicting the passion of Our Lord and of the martyrs. The Crusades further enkindled in the hearts of many a desire to see and know new lands and new peoples. This led to works on travel, geography, etc. in great numbers. The veneration of the Blessed Mother developed rapidly and fostered a deeper respect for women and children. The founding of the University of Prague, in 1348, by Emperor Charles I was a mighty factor in the improvement of Bohemian literature in all branches. The moral condition of the Church at that time cannot be called exemplary. There existed certain disorders which called forth reformers, who honestly and sincerely worked for their elimination. Numbers of devotional and moral tracts were written, the best of which were by Tomás Štítný, who fearlessly assailed the abuses wherever he found them. Štítný’s literary activity also made its influence felt in another line. Up to this time the Czech language had been regarded as unfit for scientific writing, the Latin being almost exclusively used here, as in many other countries, for treatises on theological and philosophical subjects. Štítný, however, dispelled this illusion, by using the Czech language even in his scientific writings, and thus created a rich scientific vocabulary. The last of these literary reformers was John Hus. He, however, allowed himself to be led astray by the heresies of John Wyclif and thus become the cause of unhappy dissensions and bloody war in his native country.

SECOND PERIOD

The appearance of John Hus in 1404 marks the second period of Czech literature. During this the Czech language passed from its old form to the medieval stage, and this epoch may be called the golden age of Bohemian literature. Devotional prose was in preponderance. The literary merit of John Hus consists in his establishing a diacritical orthography, making the written language more simple and stable; but, on the other hand, his activity caused dissensions in the Church, which brought on bloody wars and the ruin of literature. These sad conditions improved only during the reign of George of Podiebrad (1458–71). The sect known as the Bohemian Brethren, founded in 1457, imparted a new character to Czech literature and produced many eminent writers. In religious meetings held in the fashion of the early Christians, spiritual reading, meditation, and religious songs formed the greater part of the services. The practice led to the publishing of a great number of devotional songs and hymn-books, and to the founding of printing establishments. Eight leading members of the Brethren translated from the original Hebrew and Greek the whole of the Bible, which is generally known as the Kralická Bible, from the town of Kralice in which it was printed. This translation is excellent and from a literary standpoint it must be called classical. The greatest writer of the Brethren was their last bishop, Jan Amos Komenský (Johann Amos, called Comenius), a pedagogue of renown, who, in his masterpiece, “The Labyrinth of the World and the Heart’s Paradise”—the best devotional and philosophical work in medieval Bohemian literature—proves that all worldly glory, riches, and pleasures are vanities and that true happiness consists only in the possession of God and the fulfilling of His Commandments.

Another important factor in Czech literature was Humanism. As early as the reign of George of Podiebrad (1458–71) many writers turned their attention to the old Roman and Greek literatures. They studied the classics, copied the elegancies of form, and drew upon the verbal riches, many even going so far as to write their works in Latin. But two powerful obstacles stood in the way from the beginning. An article of Hussite dogma condemned the fostering of worldly sciences, and the members of the Bohemian Brethren subscribed to this opinion. For this reason Humanism was cultivated at first only by Catholics. Foremost in this movement must be mentioned the talented poet Bohuslav z Lobkovic and John Hodejovský from Hodejov, who, though not a writer, was a generous patron of literature. When Protestantism superseded Hussitism, John Blahoslav, a member of the Bohemian Brethren, wrote an elaborate defence of humanism, and three religious bodies then began to emulate one another in fostering Humanism: the Catholics, who had suffered greatly during the Hussite wars, the Bohemian Brethren, who at this time were at the zenith of their literary development, and the Protestants, who were growing in force. New schools were founded, of which those conducted by the Brethren were foremost. These, however, were gradually superseded by the Jesuit schools. Humanism indeed revived classic models of poetry, but it was destructive of home, that is Czech, literature, in that Humanistic poetry was exclusively Latin. At the same time it must be acknowledged that through the influence of Humanism Bohemian prose vastly improved, culminating in the works of Daniel Adam of Veleslavín, who rightly wrote: “The Bohemian language, in its present high development, is elegant, rich, graceful, and sublime, and perfectly adapted to the setting forth of any topic, whether in theology or philosophy.” This splendid development terminated suddenly in 1620, at the beginning of the era of decline.

THIRD PERIOD

The Protestant nobility, refusing to recognize Emperor Ferdinand II, chose the Calvinist Elector Frederick V as their king (1619). This rebellion was overthrown at the battle of the White Mountain, 8 Nov., 1620, and the Bohemian nation by the foolhardiness and stubbornness of its nobles was shorn of its independence. The victorious Ferdinand began to enforce the existing motto of the Reformation: Cuius regio illius religio. Some of the leaders of rebellion were executed and their property confiscated, and others were warned either to adopt the Catholic religion or to leave the land. Many left Bohemia and their property was sold or given to German, Spanish, French, or Italian nobles. After the battle of the White Mountain we meet but few writers. Most prominent amongst the Catholic writers of this day was Vilem Slavata of Chlum, who wrote a large history in refutation of that of Skala of Zhor which unduly favoured Protestantism. After the Thirty Years War, however, all literary activity ceased. During the whole of the seventeenth century there was not published a single original work of merit. In the eighteenth century works were written in Latin and German. The German language gradually took the place of the Bohemian, and when, in 1774, Emperor Joseph II excluded it from the schools and from all public offices, it looked as if the Bohemian language was condemned to a gradual but sure death. But just here came a sudden change for the better, and 1780 marks the beginning of the modern period of Bohemian literature.

FOURTH PERIOD

A handful of patriotic priests and teachers took up the heroic task of awakening the nation and succeeded. During the course of one century Bohemian literature grew to such proportions in all its branches that to-day it may well compare with the literature of other nations. Foremost among the pioneers of this era of resurrection must be mentioned Josef Dobrovský, a Jesuit, and Prof. Josef Jungman.

BOHEMIAN WRITERS IN VARIOUS FIELDS

POETRY

Fr. Lad. Celakovský (1799–1852); Boleslav Jablonský, Catholic priest (1813–1881); Jan Kollar (1793–1852); Vitezslav Hálek (1835–1874); Adolf Heyduk (1835); Svatopluk Cech (1846–1908); Josef Sládek (1854), translated nearly all of the plays of Shakespeare and the principal works of Longfellow, Byron, Burns, Bret Harte, etc. Jaroslav Vrchlický (1853) is the most prolific Bohemian poet. He wrote sixty-seven volumes of original poems. Besides this he wrote a number of dramas and translated from nearly all the languages of Europe. He translated “Divina Commedia” of Dante, Ariosto’s “Orlando Furioso,” and a great part of Goethe, Carducci, Andersen, De Amicis, Byron, Hugo, de Lisle, Camoens, Ibsen, Molière, Hamerling, Shelley, etc. Julius Zeyer (1841–1901). Cech, Vrchlický, and Zeyer are the greatest Bohemian poets. The most prominent of the younger generation are:—Otakar Brezina, Jaroslav Kvapil, Jan Machar, Fr. Svoboda; and the following Catholic priests:—Sigismund Bouška, O. S. B.; Xaver Dvorák; Adam Chlumecký and the Bohemian-American poet, Jan Vránek of Omaha, Nebraska.

NOVELS AND ROMANCES

Josef Ehrenberger, Catholic priest (1815–1882); Prokop Chocholoušek (1819–1864); František Pravda, Catholic priest (1817–1904); Fr. Rubeš (1814–1852); Karolina Svetlá (1830–1899); Jan Neruda (1834–1891); Bozena Nemcová (1820–1862); Václav Vlcek (1839); Jakub Arbes (1840); Václav Beneš Trebízský, Catholic priest (1849–1884); Servác Heller (1845); Ignat Herman (1854); Alois Jirásek (1851); Karel Klostermann (1848); Václav Kosmák, Catholic priest (1843–1898); Václav Reznícek, Ph. D. (1861); Antal Stašek (1843); Alois Smilovský (1837–1883). Trebízský and Jirásek are the most famous novelists. The most prominent of the rising generation are:—Bohumil Brodský, Catholic priest (1862); Jan Havlasa (1883); Karel Rais (1859); Matej Šimácek (1860); Alois Dostál, Catholic priest (1858).

DRAMA

Václav Klicpera (1792–1859); Josef Tyl (1808–1856); Fr. Jerábek (1836–1893); Josef Kolár (1812–1896); Emanuel Bozdech (1841–1889); Fr. Stroupeznický (1850–1892); Jos. Štolba, LL. D. (1846). The best dramatists are Bozdech and Stroupeznický.

Of all the branches of scientific Bohemian literature the theological is the richest. The leading writers are:

EXEGESIS

Fr. Sušil, Ph. D. (1804–1868), translated and wrote a very extensive commentary to the New Testament. This is the only work of its kind in all Slav literature. Innocenc Frencl, S. T. D. (1818–1862); Jaroslav Sedlácek, S. T. D.

PASTORAL THEOLOGY

Antonín Skocdopole, Ph. D. (1828); Xaver Blanda, S. T. D. (1838).

APOLOGETICS

Bishops Jan Valerian Jirsík (1798–1883), Eduard Brynych (1846–1902), and Antonín Lenz, S. T. D. (1829–1901), a master of dogmatic theology, apologetics, Mariology, sociology, and Catholic anthropology. He pointed out with unusual clearness the errors of Wyclif, Hus, Chelcický, and Comenius.

CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHY

Jan Kaderábek, S. T. D. (1840); Václav Šimánko, S. T. D. (1844–1897); Pavel Vychodil, O. S. B., Ph. D. (1862); František Konecný; Václav Hlavatý, S. T. D., and Josef Pospíšil, S. T. D.

CANON LAW

Klement Borový, S. T. D. (1838–1897); Alois Jirák, S. T. D. (1848–1906).

MORAL THEOLOGY

Matej Procházka, S. T. D. (1811–1889); Karel Rehák, S. T. D. (1843).

CHRISTIAN SOCIOLOGY

Rudolf Horský, S. T. D., and Rudolf Vrba.

ORIENTAL LANGUAGES

Fr. Ryzlink, S. T. D.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY

Melichar Mlcoch, S. T. D. (1833), and Alois Musil, S. T. D., of wide repute.

HAGIOGRAPHY

František Eckert; Hugo Karlík.

CHURCH HISTORY

Fr. Krásl, S. T. D. (1844); Fr. Kryštufek, S. T. D.; Josef Svoboda, S. J. (1826–1896).

THE LEADING THEOLOGICAL WRITERS (1908) ARE:

Jan Sýkora, S. T. D.; Josef Tumpach, S. T. D.; Antonín Podlaha, S. T. D.

LAW

Albín Bráf, LL. D.; Antonín Randa, LL. D.

PHILOSOPHY AND ÆSTHETICS

Josef Durdík, Ph. D.; Ottokar Hostinský, Ph. D.; Tomáš Masarík, Ph. D.

HIGHER MATHEMATICS

Dr. Fr. Studnicka; Václav Šimerka; Brothers Emil and Eduard Weyr.

MEDICINE

Jan Purkyne, M. D. (1784–1869); Boh. Eiselt, M. D.; Emerich Maixner, M. D.; Josef Thomayer, M. D.

NATURAL SCIENCE

Karel Amerling, M. D. (1807–1884); Jan Pressl M. D. (1791–1849); Jan Krejcí, M. D.; Vladislav Šir, M. D.

ASTRONOMY

Karel Zenger (1830–1908).

TRAVEL

Emil Holub, M. D. (1807–1884); Stanislav Vráz (1859).

HISTORY

František Palacký (1798–1876), who wrote a history of the Bohemian people in eleven volumes from the earliest times down to the year 1526; Václav Vladivoj Tomek (1818–1905); Antonín Rezek Ph. D. (1853).

ARCHŒOLOGY

Jan Erazim Vocel (1802–1871); Pavel Šafarík (1795–1861).

RIEGRUV, Naucný Slovník; OTTUV, Naucný Slovník; VÁC. STANEK, Stucné déjiny literatury ceské.

FRANCIS VANOUS.

D

ARTICLES

D

Claude Dablon

Diocese of Dacca

André Dacier

Dagon

Henri-François Daguesseau

Vicariate Apostolic of Dahomey

Adolphus von Dalberg

John Dobree Dalgairns

Dalila

Diocese of Dallas

William Bede Dalley

Dalmatia

Dalmatic

John Dalton

Diocese of Damão

Damaraland

Damascus

Pope St. Damasus I

Pope Damasus II

Joseph Ferdinand Damberger

Father Damien (Joseph de Veuster)

Damietta

Dan

Danaba

Dance of Death

Dancing

Enrico Dandolo

Daniel

Anthony Daniel

Book of Daniel

Charles Daniel

Gabriel Daniel

John Daniel

St. Daniel and Companions

Daniel of Winchester

Dansara

Dante Alighieri

Ignazio Danti

Vincenzo Danti

Maurus Dantine

Lorenzo Da Ponte

Georges Darboy

Dardanus

Jean Dardel

St. Darerca

Antoine-Elisabeth Dareste de la Chavanne

Darnis

Joseph-Epiphane Darras

William Darrell

Dates and Dating

Gabriel-Auguste Daubrée

Daulia

Georg Friedrich Daumer

Sir William D’Avenant

Christopher Davenport

Diocese of Davenport

St. David

Armand David

Gheeraert David

King David

David of Augsburg

David of Dinant

David Scotus

Ven. William Davies

Dávila Padilla

Æneas McDonnell Dawson

George Day

Sir John Charles Day

Deacons

Deaconesses

Prayers for the Dead

Dead Sea

Dean

Ven. William Dean

Thomas Dease

Preparation for Death

Debbora

Debt

Decalogue

Decapolis

Adolphe Dechamps

Victor Augustin Isidore Dechamps

Decius

Hans Decker

Pontifical Decorations

Decree

Papal Decretals

Dedication

Feast of the Dedication (Scriptural)

Deduction

Abbey of Deer

Defender of the Matrimonial Tie

Theological Definition

Definitor (in Canon Law)

Definitors (in Religious Orders)

Ernst Deger

Degradation

Joseph Deharbe

St. Deicolus

Dei gratia; Dei et Apostolicæ Sedis gratia

Deism

Deity

Charles De La Croix

Ferdinand-Victor-Eugène Delacroix

Hippolyte Delaroche

Delatores

Delaware

Delaware Indians

Delcus

Delegation

François Delfau

Pietro Delfino

Jacques Delille

Ambrose Lisle March Phillipps De Lisle

Guillaume Delisle

Philibert de L’Orme

Bl. Delphine

Martin Anton Delrio

Prefecture Apostolic of the Delta of the Nile

Deluge

Modeste Demers

St. Demetrius

Demetrius

Demiurge

Christian Democracy

Demon

Demoniacs

Demonology

Thomas Dempster

Pierre Denaut

Dénés

Heinrich Seuse Denifle

St. Denis

Johann Nepomuk Cosmas Michael Denis

Joseph Denis

William Denman

Denmark

Jacques-René de Brisay Denonville

Peter Dens

Denunciation

Diocese of Denver

Denys the Carthusian

Francesco Denza

Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger

Deo Gratias

Deposition

Josquin Deprés

De Profundis

Derbe

Anton Dereser

Derogation

Giovanni Battista de Rossi

Diocese of Derry

School of Derry

Paul-Quentin Desains

Pierre-Joseph Desault

René Descartes

Eustache Deschamps

Nicolas Deschamps

Desecration

Desert (in the Bible)

Desertion

George Deshon

St. Desiderius of Cahors

Jean Desmarets de Saint-Sorlin

Pierre-Jean De Smet

Hernando de Soto

Despair

César-Mansuète Despretz

Desservants

Achille Desurmont

Determinism

Detraction

William Detré

Diocese of Detroit

Pope St. Deusdedit

St. Deusdedit

Cardinal Deusdedit

Deus in Adjutorium Meum Intende

Deuteronomy

Martin Deutinger

Charles Stanton Devas

Aubrey Thomas Hunt de Vere

Devil

Devil-Worshippers

Devolution

Giovanni Devoti

Clementine Deymann

Dhuoda

Diaconicum

Diakovár

Dialectic

Diocese of Diamantina

Antonino Diana

Diocese of Diano

Diario Romano

St. Diarmaid

Bartolomeu Dias

Diaspora

Pedro Díaz

Bernal Díaz del Castillo

Juan Díaz de Solís

Dibon

Juan de Dicastillo

Edward Dicconson

Ralph de Diceto

St. Dichu

Dicuil

Didache

St. Didacus

Didascalia Apostolorum

Henri Didon

Didot

Adolphe-Napoleon Didron

Didymus the Blind

Francisco Garcia Diego y Moreno

Wilhelm Diekamp

Diemoth

Abraham van Diepenbeeck

Melchior, Baron (Freiherr) von Diepenbrock

Franz Xaver Dieringer

Dies Iræ

Johann Dietenberger

Diether of Isenburg

Dietrich von Nieheim

George Digby

Kenelm Henry Digby

Sir Everard Digby

Sir Kenelm Digby

Diocese of Digne (Dinia)

Ecclesiastical Dignitary

Diocese of Dijon

University of Dillingen

Arthur-Richard Dillon

Dimissorial Letters

Ven. Sir Thomas Dingley

St. Dinooth

Diocaesarea

Diocesan Chancery

Diocese

Dioclea

Diocletian

Diocletianopolis

Diodorus of Tarsus

Epistle to Diognetus

Dionysias

Pope St. Dionysius

St. Dionysius

Dionysius Exiguus

Dionysius of Alexandria

Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite

Dioscorus

Dioscurus

Papal Diplomatics

Diptych

Spiritual Direction

Catholic Directories

Discalced

Discernment of Spirits

Disciple

Disciples of Christ

Ecclesiastical Discipline

Discipline of the Secret

Religious Discussions

St. Disibod

Disparity of Worship

Dispensation

Dispersion of the Apostles

Heinrich von Dissen

Abbey of Dissentis

Distraction

Distributions

Dithmar

Dives

Divination

Society of Divine Charity

Institute of the Divine Compassion

Sisters of Divine Providence

Daughters of the Divine Redeemer

Society of the Divine Savior

Society of the Divine Word

Procopius Divisch

Divorce

Joseph Dixon

Jan Dlugosz

Marian Dobmayer

Martin Dobrizhoffer

Docetae

Docimium

Doctor

Doctors of the Church

Christian Doctrine

Doctrine of Addai

Dogma

Dogmatic Facts

Jean Dolbeau

Carlo Dolci

Doliche

Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger

Charles Dolman

Dolores Mission

Dolphin

Dome

Emmanuel-Henri-Dieudonné Domenech

Domenichino

Domesday Book

Domicile

St. Dominic

Dominical Letter

Dominican Republic

Bl. Giovanni Dominici

Dominic of Prussia

Dominic of the Mother of God

Marco Antonio de Dominis

Dominus Vobiscum

Domitian

Domitiopolis

Domnus Apostolicus

Patrick Donahoe

Donatello

Donation (1)

Donation (2)

Donation of Constantine

Donatists

Donatus of Fiesole

Peter Donders

Thomas Dongan

Andrew Donlevy

St. Donnan

Georg Raphael Donner

Ferdinand-François-Auguste Donnet

Juan Francesco Maria de la Saludad Donoso Cortés

Pope Donus

Dora

Abbey of Dorchester

Pierre Doré

Andrea Doria

Matthias Döring

Thomas Dorman

Bernard Dornin

St. Dorothea

Anne Hanson Dorsey

Dorylaeum

Dositheans

Pierre-Herman Dosquet

Giovanni Dossi

Douai

Douay Bible

Doubt

Gavin Douglas

Stephen Doutreleau

Dove

George Dowdall

James Dowdall

Dower

Religious Dower

Diocese of Down and Connor

Thomas Downes

Downside Abbey

Doxology

James Warren Doyle

John Doyle

Richard Doyle

David Paul Drach

Drachma

Blossius Æmilius Dracontius

Augusta Theodosia Drane

Interpretation of Dreams

Jeremias Drechsel

Dresden

Lebrecht Blücher Dreves

Drevet Family

Francis Anthony Drexel

Johann Sebastian von Drey

Diocese of Dromore

St. Drostan

Clemens August von Droste-Vischering

Druidism

Gabriel Druillettes

John C. Drumgoole

Ven. Robert Drury

Drusilla

Drusipara

Jean Druys

Gaspar Druzbicki

Druzes

Dryburgh Abbey

John Dryden

Dualism

Archdiocese of Dublin

Guillaume Dubois

Jean-Antoine Dubois

John Dubois

Louis-Guillaume-Valentin Dubourg

St. Dubric

Archdiocese of Dubuque

Fronton du Duc

Charles Dufresne Du Cange

Duccio di Buoninsegna

Philippine-Rose Duchesne

Ven. James Duckett

Phillippe-Charles-Jean-Baptiste-Tronson Du Coudray

Francis Bennon Ducrue

Beda Franciscus Dudik

Duel

Sir Charles Gavan Duffy

Jean-Baptiste Duhamel

Daniel Greysolon, Sieur Du Lhut

Dulia

Diocese of Duluth

Jean-Baptiste Dumas

Francisco Dumetz

Hubert-André Dumont

Charles Dumoulin

William Dunbar

St. Dunchadh

Abbey of Dundrennan

Diocese of Dunedin

Abbey of Dunfermline

Dungal

Martin von Dunin

Diocese of Dunkeld

Bl. John Duns Scotus

St. Dunstan

Felix-Antoine-Philibert Dupanloup

Jacques-Davy Duperron

Louis Ellies Dupin

Pierre-Charles-François Dupin

Peter Stephen Duponceau

Antoine Duprat

Baron Guillaume Dupuytren

François Duquesnoy

Narcisco Duran

Durand Ursin

William Durandus

William Durandus, the Younger

Durandus of Saint-Pourçain

Durandus of Troarn

Archdiocese of Durango (Durangum)

Archdiocese of Durazzo

Elisha John Durbin

Albrecht Dürer

Ancient Catholic Diocese of Durham (Dunelmum

Durham Rite

School of Durrow

Duty

Jean Duvergier de Hauranne

Ludger Duvernay

Antoon Van Dyck

Robert Dymoke

St. Dympna

Dynamism

Claude Dablon

Jesuit missionary, born at Dieppe, France, in February, 1618; died at Quebec, 3 May, 1697. At the age of twenty-one he entered the Society of Jesus, and after his course of studies and teaching in France, arrived in Canada in 1655. He was at once deputed with Chaumonot to begin a central mission among the Iroquois at Onondaga. The diary he kept of this journey and of his return to Quebec in the year following gives a graphic account of the terrifying conditions under which these journeys were made. In 1661 he accompanied Druillettes, the Apostle of Maine, on an expedition overland to Hudson Bay, the purpose of which was to establish missions among the Indians in that region and perchance to discover an outlet through Hudson Bay to the China Sea. The expedition was unsuccessful and is only chronicled as another abortive attempt to find the famous Northwest Passage. In 1668 Dablon was on Lake Superior with Allouez and Marquette, forming with them what Bancroft calls the “illustrious triumvirate,” and he was the first to inform the world of the rich copper mines of that region, so valuable to the commerce of to-day. It was Dablon who appointed Marquette to undertake the expedition which resulted in the discovery of the Upper Mississippi; he also gave Marquette’s letters and charts to the world. In connection with this discovery he called attention to the feasibility of passing from Lake Erie to Florida “by cutting a canal through only half a league of prairie to pass from the end of the Lake of the Illinois [Michigan] to the River of St. Louis” (the Illinois). This canal, projected by Dablon 233 years ago, was the subject of a special message from the Governor of Illinois to the State Legislature in March, 1907. After founding Sault Ste. Marie, Dablon became, in 1670, Superior General of all the Canadian Missions, retaining that office until 1680. He was reappointed in 1686 and remained superior until 1693. His contributions to the “Relations” possess the highest value, his descriptions of places and people and his narration of events being singularly clear and comprehensive.

E. P. SPILLANE

Diocese of Dacca

Dacca, Diocese of (Dacchensis), in Bengal, India. By the Constitution “quam reputamus” Paul III established in 1534 the See of Goa, conferring upon it spiritual jurisdiction over all the Portugese possessions from the Cape of Good Hope to China. Early in the sixteenth century the Portuguese found their way into Eastern Bengal, and the Eurasian and native Christian communities that grew up around the several settlements were, in virtue of the aforesaid Constitution, subject to the ecclesiastical authority of Goa, and later (1606) to the See of Mylapore, suffragan to Goa. When the political power of Portugal was replaced by British rule in India, the Bishop of Mylapore still retained jurisdiction over the Church in Bengal, and seven thousand out of the twenty-two thousand Catholics within the territory of the Diocese of Dacca are still subject to him. In the interest of more effective missionary work, Propaganda, 18 April, 1834, appointed Robert of St. Ledger, a priest of the Society of Jesus, Vicar Apostolic of Calcutta and the territory under its political jurisdiction, which at the time included the entire province of Bengal. In 1850, at the instance of Archbishop Carew, Vicar Apostolic of Bengal, Pius IX divided the province into two vicariates Apostolic, one of Eastern, and other of Western Bengal. A subsequent subdivision (1870) resulted in the establishment of a third allotment, the Vicariate of Central Bengal. The territory of the third vicar Apostolic was taken in part from the Eastern and in part from the Western vicariates.

On the creation of the hierarchy in India, Sept., 1886, the Eastern vicariate became the diocese of Dacca, the district of Arakan (Burma) being substituted for that of Assam, which in 1889 became a prefecture Apostolic. With Dacca City as centre, the diocese is bounded on the north by the Prefecture Apostolic of Assam, on the east by the Vicariates of Northern and Southern Burma, on the south by the Bay of Bengal, and on the west by the Bay of Bengal and the diocese of Kirishnagar. According to he latest Government survey the area thus enclosed measured fifty-nine thousand square miles, the population in the census of 1902 registered slightly above seventeen millions. The first occupant of the new see was Augustine Louage, a priest of the Congregation of the Holy Cross, who on his death in 1894 was succeeded by Bishop Hurth. Except for an interim of twelve years (1876–1888) when the mission was in care of members of the Benedictine Order, religious of the congregation of the Holy Cross have laboured in Eastern Bengal since 1853. Since 1888 the Institute of the Holy Cross has had from Rome exclusive charge of the mission. The nine “centres” into which the Diocese of Dacca is divided give opportunity to the twenty missionaries at work in it to carry on an active propaganda in outlying districts. In each centre there is a school, and in many of the dependent stations there is catechumenate under the immediate supervision of local catechists and the elders of the respective communities. In Dacca, Chittagong, and the Akyab the mission conducts schools in which students, irrespective of religious profession, are prepared for “entrance” or collegiate work. The academy for girls in each of these cities is directed by a staff of 35 nuns, Daughters of Our Lady of the Missions (23), and the Sisters Catechists (12). The diocesan school attendance for 1907 numbered 1768 pupils.

The Church in the Diocese of Dacca experiences all the obstacles common to foreign missionary work the world over. Dacca City is three-fifths Mohammedan, and among the Hindus of Eastern Bengal the traditional caste will oppose, for some time at least, an effective barrier to the rapid spread of the Catholic Faith. As Dacca, however, is the college town of India, the percentage of students being relatively greater here than in any other city of the empire, Catholicism has continually brightening prospects opening before it, in an around the capital of Bengal-Assam. The influential Somaj of Dacca is one of the many present day manifestations of the increasingly accurate appreciation of the part of function of reason in live. The widespread awakening of a critical rationalistic spirit, which has already questioned the feasibility of many caste observances, will eventually work harm to the claims of Hinduism itself. All this augurs well for the cause of truth.

TAVERNIER, Travels in India (1676); BERNIER, Travels in Hindustan (1684); WILKS, Some Account of the City of Dacca (1820); RIORDAN, Directory of the Apostolic Vicariate of Western Bengal (1855); HUNTER, Statistical Account of Bengal (1874), V, VI, IX; BRADLEY BIRT, Romance of an Eastern Capital (1906); numerous references in Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta Review, etc.

P. J. HURTH

André Dacier

Dacier, André, a French philologist, born at Castres, 6 April, 1651; died 18 September, 1722. He was a Huguenot and studied under Tanneguy Lefèvre at Saumur. While visiting Paris, he was presented to the Duc de Montausier who engaged him to edit Pomponius Festus in the collection of Latin author Ad usum Delphini (Paris, 1681; Amsterdam, 1699). In 1683 he married Anne Lefèvre, the daughter of his former preceptor and two years later he and his wife abjured Protestantism. At this time Dacier published a translation of the works of Horace and a commentary on them (Paris, 1681–89), the text being that of Tanneguy Lefèvre published at Saumur in 1671. The translation is quite accurate for the period, but the commentary is far too diffuse and is distinctly illustrative of the taste for allegory that persisted far into the seventeenth century. According to Dacier, Horace knew everything, and the commentator even discovered that the poet had read the books of Moses and followed the method of Solomon in the Book of Proverbs to inspire a horror of adultery. In Dacier, however, are also found good explanations and judicious observations. He was mainly a translator, and his work in this line included “Marcus Antoninus” (Paris, 1690); Aristotle’s “Poetics” (Paris, 1692); the “Oedipus” and “Electra” of Sophocles (Paris, 1692); Plutarch’s “Lives” (five lives, Paris, 1694; complete, Paris, 1721; Amsterdam, 1723); Hippocrates (4 works, Paris, 1697); Plato (selections; Paris, 1699); Pythagoras and Hierocles (Paris, 1706) and Epictetus and Simplicius (Paris, 1715). He was appointed keeper of books in the king’s study and, in 1695 entered the Academy of Inscriptions and the French Academy of which he became the secretary.

Anne Dacier (Née Lefèvre), the wife of André Dacier, born at Saumur in 1651; died 17 April 1720. She received the same instruction as her brother and at the age of twenty-three published an edition of fragments from the Alexandrian poet Callimachus (Paris, 1674). She divided her time between translations (Anacreon and Sappho, 1681; several plays by Plautus and Aristophanes, 1683–1684; Terence, 1688; Plutarch’s “Lives” in her husband’s translations, “The Iliad,” 1699, “The Odyssey,” 1708) and the editions of the collection Ad usum Delphini (Florus, 1674); Dictys and Dares, 1684, and Aurelius Victor, 1681). She had a certain vigour that her husband lacked; “In intellectual productions common to both,” says an epigram used by Boileau, “she is the father.” In the notice of Dacier in the “Siècle de Louis XIV” Voltaire declares: “Madame Dacier is one of the prodigies of the century of Louis XIV,” However, she was no bluestocking and refused to give her opinion in scholarly debates, agreeing with Sophocles that “silence is the ornament of women.” She reared her three children admirably.

But Madame Dacier belongs to the history of French literature and, in a measure, to the history of ideas because of her participation in the dispute about the ancients and moderns. In 1699 Madame Dacier published a translation of “The Iliad” with a preface which was a reply to Homer’s critics. It was only in 1713 that Houdart de la Motte, a wit and unpoetic versifier, published a translation of “The Iliad” in verse. The poem was reduced to twelve cantos, all its so-called prolixity was eliminated and it was revised in accordance with eighteenth century taste and made “reasonable and elegant.” Madame Dacier refuted this attack in “Les causes de la corruption du goût” (Paris, 1714). The dogmatic part of this work consists of an analysis of the “Dialogue on Orators” by Tacitus and Madame Dacier added clever remarks on the influence of climates. La Motte replied humourously and courteously in his “Réflexions sur la critique” (Paris, 1714). In the course of the same year Fénelon, in his letter on the doings of the French Academy, ably and solidly defended the ancients, thus rendering their supporters a signal service. But the quarrel was prolonged, and in 1716 the Jesuit Hardouin published an apology for Homer. It was a new system of interpreting “The Iliad” and Madame Dacier attacked it in “Homère défendu contre l’apologie du P. Hardouin on suite des causes de la corruption du goût” (Paris, 1716).

PAUL LEJAY.

Dagon

A Philistine deity. It is commonly admitted that the name Dagon is a diminutive form, hence a term of endearment, derived from the Semitic root dag, and means, accordingly, “little fish.” The name, therefore, indicates a fish-shaped god. This the Bible also suggests when speaking of the Dagon worshipped in the temple of Azotus (I K., v, 1–7): he had face and hands and a portion of his body resembled that of a fish, in accordance with the most probable interpretation of “the stump of Dagon” (verse 5). From the received text of the Septuagint it would seem that he possessed even feet, although Swete’s edition gives here a different reading; at any rate, this sentence, in the Greek translation, shows all the appearances of a gloss. With the description found in the Bible coincides that which may be seen on the coins of various Philistine or Phœnician cities, on most of which Dagon is represented as a composite figure, human as to the upper part of the body, fish-like as to the lower. From this it may well be inferred that Dagon was a fish-god, a fact not in the least surprising, as he seems to have been the foremost deity of such maritime cities as Azotus, Gaza (the early sites of which are supposed to be buried under the sand-mounds that run along the sea-shore), Ascalon, and Arvad. In the monuments—also most probably in the popular worship—Dagon is sometimes associated with a female half-fish deity, Derceto or Atargatis, often identified with Astarte.

A few scholars, however, waving aside these evidences, consider Dagon as the god of agriculture. This opinion they rest on the following statement of Philo Byblius: “Dagon, that is, corn’ [the Hebrew word for corn is dagan]. “Dagon, after he had discovered corn and the plough, was called Zeus of the plough” (ii, 16). The same writer tells us (in Eusebius, Præp. Evang., i, 6) that, according to an old Phœnician legend, Dagon was one of the four sons born of the marriage of Anu, the lord of heaven, with his sister, the earth. Moreover, on a seal bearing certain symbolic signs, among which is an ear of corn, but not, however, the image of a fish, may be read the name of Baal-Dagon, written in Phœnician characters. It is open to question whether these arguments outweigh those in favour of the other opinion; so much so that the etymology adopted by Philo Byblius might possibly be due to a misapprehension of the name. It should, perhaps, be admitted that, along the Mediterranean shore, a twofold conception and representation of Dagon were developed in the course of time as a result of the presumed twofold derivation of the name. At, any rate, all scholars agree that the name and worship of Dagon were imported from Babylonia.

The Tell-el-Amarna letters (about 1480–1450 B.C.), which have yielded the names of Yamir-Dagan and Dagan-takala, rulers of Ascalon, witness to the antiquity of the Dagon-worship among the inhabitants of Palestine. We learn from the Bible that the deity had temples at Gaza (Judges, xvi, 21, 23) and Azotus (I K., v, 1–7); we may presume that shrines existed likewise in other Philistine cities. The Dagon-worship seems even to have extended beyond the confines of their confederacy. The testimony of the monuments is positive for the Phœnician city of Arvad; moreover, the Book of Josue mentions two towns called Bethdagon, one in the territory of Juda (Jos., xv, 41), and the other on the border of Aser (Jos., xix, 27); Josephus also speaks of a Dagon “beyond Jericho” (Antiq. Jud., XIII, viii, 1; De bell. Jud., I, ii, 3): all these names are earlier than the Israelite conquest, and, unless we derive them from dagan, witness to a wide dissemination of the worship of Dagon throughout Palestine. This worship was kept up, at least in certain Philistine cities, until the last centuries B.C. such was the case at Azotus; the temple of Dagon that stood there was burned by Jonathan Machabeus (1Mach., x, 84; xi, 4).

Unlike the Baals, who, among the Chanaanites, were essentially local deities, Dagon seems to have been considered by the Philistines as a national god (I Par., x, 10). To him they attributed their success in war; him they thanked by great sacrifices, before him they rejoiced over the capture of Samson (Judges, xvi, 23); into his temple they brought the trophies of their victories, the Ark (I K., v, 1, 2), the armour, and the head of Saul (I K., xxxi, 9, 10; I Par., x, 10). A bronze demi-rilievo of Assyro-Phœnician workmanship would also suggest that Dagon played a prominent part in the doctrines concerning death and future life. As to the ritual of his worship, little can be gathered either from the documents or from Scripture. The elaborate arrangements for returning the Ark (I K., v, vi) may have been inspired more by the circumstances than by any ceremonies of the Dagon-worship. We only know from ancient writers that, for religious reasons, most of the Syrian peoples abstained from eating fish, a practice that one is naturally inclined to connect with the worship of a fish-god.

CHARLES L. SOUVAY

Henri-François Daguesseau

(Also rendered d’Aguesseau).

Chancellor of France, born at Limoges, 27 November, 1668; died at Paris, 5 February, 1751. He belonged to a distinguished family which had produced many able magistrates, and was educated by his father, who was intendant of Languedoc and afterwards a councillor of state. Having been appointed advocate-general of the Parlement of Paris at the age of twenty-two, Daguesseau performed the duties of his office in the most satisfactory manner for ten years, his speeches being models of elegant diction and clear reasoning. In 1700 he was promoted to the office of attorney-general. In this position he re-established order in the courts, reformed the management of the hospitals, prevented and corrected abuses. In 1709 war, famine, and public distress gave him an opportunity to display all his energy, judgment and goodness of heart. He was consulted on the most difficult points of administration and drew up many memorials for the king. Towards the end of the reign of Louis XIV, however, he was threatened with disgrace for refusing to register the Bull “Unigenitus,” of which, as he was a strong Gallican, he was a pronounced opponent.

In 1717 the regent, the Duc d’Orléans, appointed Daguesseau chancellor, but before a year had elapsed, the seals were taken from him because he opposed the projects of the notorious John Law. In 1720, after the failure of Law’s schemes, he was recalled to his former office. He repaired the mischief done during his retirement and by his firmness and sagacity prevented total bankruptcy. With a view to conciliation he finally consented to the registration of the Bull “Unigenitus.” He was again disgraced in 1722, through the influence of Cardinal Dubois, and retired to his estate at Fresnes, where he passed five years. Here the Scriptures, which he read and compared in various languages, and the jurisprudence of his own and other countries were the principal objects of his study; the rest of his time he devoted to philosophy, literature, and gardening. Daguesseau was recalled to office in 1727. Chancellor now for the third time, he revived public respect for law, introduced several important enactments regarding donations, testaments, and succession, and effected a greater uniformity in the execution of the laws throughout the several provinces. In 1750 he resigned his position, the king bestowing upon him a pension of 100,000 francs, which he enjoyed until his death.

During his long career Daguesseau was a man of spotless honesty and absolute devotion to the public interest. He was an upright magistrate, a fine orator and jurist, and a remarkable linguist. He used his extensive knowledge and intellectual acquirements in the cause of religion and morals. Saint-Simon speaks of him thus: “Talent, industry, penetration, universal knowledge, dignity, purity, equity, piety and innocence of life are the foundation of M. d’Aguesseau’s character.” The greater part of Daguesseau’s writings and letters were edited by Pardessus, “Oeuvres complètes” (Paris, 1818–1820), 16 vols. 8vo; other letters were edited by M. Rives, “Lettres inédites” (Paris, 1823).

JEAN LE BARS

Vicariate Apostolic of Dahomey

The Vicariate Apostolic of Dahomey, in West Africa, is territorially identical with the French colony of the same name. This colony has a coastline of about 75 miles on the Slave Coast of the Gulf of Guinea, whence it stretches northwards to the French Sudan; it is bounded on the east by the British territory of Lagos and the River Ocpara, and on the west by the German territory of Togo and the river Mono. Its area is estimated at about 59,000 square miles, and its total population in 1902 was probably a little less than half a million. The chief exports of the colony are palm kernels and palm-oil. Its indigenous population is of the pure Negro stock, chiefly of the Fon subdivision of the Ewe family. About the year 1728 the territory now known as Dahomey was subject to three native dynasties, one of which at that date conquered the other two and set up its own despotism under the present territorial designation. This despotism, tempered only by the fear inspired by Fetishism (q.v.), of which Dahomey was said to be the last extant stronghold at the end of the nineteenth century, ended with the capture and exile of King Behanzim by a French military expedition in 1892.

The Faith was first preached in Dahomey in the year 1660, when certain French residents introduced Franciscan missionaries. Against this Catholic enterprise the English adventurers successfully combined with native priests of Fetishism. In 1674 Father Gonsalvez, a Dominican, with two companions, was poisoned; an Augustinian, who visited the coast in 1699, escaped death by flight. No further attempt to plant the Faith in Dahomey is recorded until 1860, when Fathers Borghero and Fernandez, of the then newly founded Lyons Society of African Missions, arrived. Their institute has carried on the work ever since. The French Government, in 1864, obtained in behalf of the missionaries a large territorial concession at Porto Novo, where a flourishing station was soon established. The mission of Agwe, now one of the most flourishing in the vicariate, began its existence in 1874.

The first erection of a Vicariate Apostolic of Dahomey was in 1860, when its jurisdiction was defined to include all the country between the Rivers Niger and Volta. In 1870, however, the title of this vicariate was changed to “The Benin Coasts”; and in 1882 it was divided, the region west of the River Ocpara being then erected into the Prefecture Apostolic of Dahomey, from which, again, the German territory of Togo was ecclesiastically separated in 1892, and the adjacent British possessions in 1894. By decree dated 22 April, 1901, this prefecture of Dahomey was erected into the present Vicariate Apostolic of that name, which is thus seen to differ territorially from that erected in 1860.

The residence of the vicar Apostolic is at the coast town of Whydah, formerly the native capital and a notorious centre of Dahomeyan Fetishism. “Missiones Catholicae” (1907), the official triennial handbook of the Propaganda, gives the following statistics of Dahomey: Total Catholic population, 8900; missionary stations, 6; churches with resident pastor, 4; chapels, 11; total number of priests, 32; catechists, 15; houses of religious women (Sisters of the Queen of the Apostles), 4, with an aggregate of 20 religious; schools for boys, 13 with 1330 pupils; schools for girls, 4, with 480 pupils.

E. MACPHERSON.

Adolphus von Dalberg

Prince-Abbot of Fulda and founder of the university in the same city, born 29 May, 1678; died 3 November, 1737, at Hammelburg on the river Saale in Lower Franconia. After holding the office of provost at Zelle in Hanover for some years he was elected Prince-Abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Fulda in 1724. Though he was not a bishop, Dalberg had quasi-episcopal jurisdiction over the territory belonging to the abbey and held a diocesan synod in 1729. This privilege of quasi-episcopal jurisdiction was granted to the abbots of Fulda by Pope Zachary in 1751. Dalberg spared no pains to improve the Catholic educational facilities of Fulda. Its once famous school, which had suffered severely during the religious upheaval of the sixteenth century, had regained some of its ancient prestige by the united efforts of the Jesuits and Benedictines. Dalberg hoped to restore in all its spendour the ancient seat of learning which had made Fulda world-renowned during the Middle Ages. With this end in view he founded a university at Fulda which came to be known after his own name as the Alma Adolphina. The faculties of philosophy and theology he formed by united the two existing schools of the Jesuits and the Benedictines; for the new faculties of jurisprudence and medicine he engaged other professors. Pope Clement XII granted the charter of foundation on 1 July, 1732, and Emperor Charles VI, the charter of confirmation on 12 March, 1733. The solemn inauguration of the university took place on 19 September, 1733. The Adolphina was, however, not destined to be of long duration. After the suppression of the Jesuit Order by Pope Clement XIV in 1773 the university came entirely into the hands of the Benedictines, who were finally obliged to discontinue it in 1805, in consequence of the secularization of the Benedictine monastery in 1802.

MICHAEL OTT

John Dobree Dalgairns

(In religion FATHER BERNARD).

Born in the island of Guernsey, 21 Oct., 1818; d. 6 April, 1876, at St. George’s Retreat, Burgess Hill, near Brighton, England. He matriculated at Exeter college, Oxford, 1836, and took a second class in literis humanioribus, 1839. Already an ardent follower of Newman, he had written (1838) to the Paris “Univers” a letter signed “jeune membre de l’Université,” on the Catholic movement then spreading in the English Church, which elicited a correspondence with Father Dominic the Passionist. In 1842 he joined Newman at Littlemore; while there he contributed several articles to the “British Critic” and wrote the Lives of St. Stephen Harding, St. Gilbert, St. Helier, St. Aelred, and others for the series of early English saints then being edited by Newman. The grasp of medieval history displayed in these lives, and their picturesque setting evoked high praise even from such a strong Protestant as Dean Milman. Dalgairns’s life, work, and studies had drawn him ever closer to the Church, and in September, 1845, he was received into it by his former correspondent, Father Dominic. He then repaired to the Abbé Jovain, canon of Langres, whose acquaintance he had made in 1841 when the abbé was on a visit to Oxford; in December, 1846, he was ordained priest at Langres. A worthless French translation of Newman’s “Essay on Development” was described by Dalgairns in the “Univers,” 10 Jan., 1847, as “un amas inintelligible de paroles sans idées, et dans lequel en plusieurs endroits le traducteur avait donné une apparence d’hérésie aux phrases de l’auteur,” words strangely prophetic of the use made by certain “Modernist” writers of the same work.

At Easter, 1847, he joined Newman in Rome and entered the new English Oratorian novitiate at Santa Croce. As an Oratorian he was successively at Maryvale, St. Wilfrid’s, Staffordshire, King William Street, London (1849), Birmingham (1853), and South Kensington, London (1856), where he was elected superior on Father Faber’s death, September, 1863. As a preacher he was second only to Faber and as a confessor his knowledge of languages attracted a large circle of penitents, among whom was Queen Marie-Amélie, wife of Louis Philippe. In 1869 he became a member of the Metaphysical Society which was then being formed. With Manning and Ward, Dalgairns had to defend Catholicism against scientific agnostics like Huxley and Tyndall, literary agnostics such as Morley and Leslie Stephen, Thompson the Anglican Archbishop of York, the Unitarian James Martineau, and others of every shade of creed or of no creed. Speaking of these debates Thompson says, “he was more struck by the metaphysical ability of Father Dalgairns and Mr. James Martineau than any of the other debaters.” Hutton, then editor of “The Spectator,” says of Dalgairns and his coreligionists, “there was in their countenance a blending of genuine humility and genuine thankfulness for the authority on which they had anchored themselves and a sense of the redundance of their provisions for the spiritual life, of which almost all the other members seemed to feel they had but a bare and scanty pasturage.” His knowledge of Christian philosophy, and his acquaintance with the writings of German scientists enabled him to meet Huxley successfully on his own grounds. But the attendance at the meetings of the Society broke down Dalgairns’s health. He was struck with paralysis, and he died after a year’s lingering mental illness. Hutton describes him as “a man of singular sweetness and openness of character with something of a French type of playfulness of expression.” His best known works are “The Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus” (London, 1853); “The Holy Communion” (Dublin, 1861); “The German Mystics of the Fourteenth Century” (London, 1858).

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., III, 3; The Tablet and The Weekly Register (London, 15 April, 1875), files; WARD, William George Ward and the Oxford Movement (London, 1889); Vie de l’Abbé Jovain.

SEBASTIAN BOWDEN.

Dalila

Dalila (Heb. Delílâh). Samson, sometime after his exploit at Gaza (Judges, xvi, 1–3), “loved a woman, who dwelt in the valley of Sorec, and she was called Dalila” (verse 4). The village of Sorec was known to Eusebius and to St. Jerome (Onomast.), and rightly placed north of Eleutheropolis near Saraa, the home of Samson. It is now called Khan Silreq. The valley of that name, mentioned in the text, was probably a little lateral valley of the great Wadi Serar, or the Wadi Serar itself (Lagrange, “Le livre des Juges,” 247). The railway from Jaffa to Jerusalem passes through this region a little to the west of the station of Deir Aban. The district was on the borderland between the possessions of the Israelites and those of their principal enemies and oppressors at this period, the Philistines. Sorec may have been inhabited by the latter; and although it is not stated to which people Dalila belonged, the story told in this sixteenth chapter of Judges of her relations with the princes of the Philistines, makes it very unlikely that she was an Israelite. It is not probable either that she became the wife of Samson. The expression above quoted with which Scripture introduces the narrative of her relations with him, and the facility with which the Philistines were brought into her house, not to speak of her readiness to betray the Israelite hero, suggest rather that she was a harlot, an opinion that is now more common among commentators.

The Philistines, thinking that the strength which had made Samson familiar to them must be due to some magical charm, seek to find out what it is. Their princes, probably the five mentioned in Judges, iii, 3, and elsewhere, coming to Dalila, to whose house Samson often resorted—if he did not live there—say: “Deceive him, and learn of him wherein his great strength lieth, and how we may be able to overcome him, to bind and afflict him: which if thou shalt do, we will give thee every one of us eleven hundred pieces of silver” (verse 5). This sum must have appeared enormous to Dalila. She undertakes to discover the secret of Samson’s strength and the means to overcome it. Four different times she asks him to tell her his secret, having each time a number of Philistines on hand to seize him if she can cajole him into betraying it. Samson at first indulges his humor in answers which allow him to laugh at her attempts to bind him; but finally her importunity prevails, and he tells her of his consecration as a Nazarite and of the necessity of keeping his long hair, the mark of that consecration. Dalila then causes this hair to be cut off while Samson sleeps, and hands him over to his enemies who bring him a prisoner to Gaza.

W.S. REILLY

Diocese of Dallas

DIOCESE OF DALLAS (DALLASCENSIS).

The Diocese of Dallas, created 1890, comprises 108 counties in the northern and north-western portion of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and El Paso County in the western section, an area of 118,000 square miles. The city of Dallas has a population of 95,000 and stands in the centre of a circle within whose radius of fifty miles is included nearly one-half of the population of Texas. It was settled chiefly by people from Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, with a sprinkling of foreigners and a considerable number of negroes. It is an important distributing centre, rich in mineral resources and products of the soil (chiefly cotton). As late as 1868 there was only one Catholic family resident there whose members, with several scattering settlers, were attended as a mission station from St. Paul’s, Collin County, by Father Joseph Martinere, later a domestic prelate and vicar-general of the diocese. His visits often necessitated journeys over hundreds of miles through swamp and forest. In 1892 the Catholic population of the diocese had grown to 15,000 with 30 priests ministering to them.

The first bishop, THOMAS FRANCIS BRENNAN, was born October 10, 1853, in the County Tipperary, Ireland [in Bally Cullen—ed.] and ordained priest at Brixen in the Tyrol, 4 July, 1880. He was consecrated at Erie, Pennsylvania, 5 April, 1891. Two years later (1 February, 1893) he was transferred to the titular See of Utilla and made coadjutor of the Bishop of St. John’s, Newfoundland. He was removed December, 1904, and called to Rome, where he resides (1908), having been transferred, 7 October, 1905, to the titular See of Caesarea in Mauretania.

As his successor the Rev. EDWARD JOSEPH DUNNE, rector of the church of All Saints, Chicago, was chosen. He was born in the County Tipperary, Ireland, 23 April, 1848, emigrated to the United States with his parents when a child, and was ordained priest 29 June, 1871, in Baltimore. His consecration took place in Chicago, 30 November, 1893. He foresaw from the first the religious possibilities assured by the location and resources of Dallas, also by the enterprise of the people and by the climate. To his energy, administrative abilities, and zeal is owing the new cathedral, admittedly the finest in the South-Western States. The Vincentian College, St. Paul’s Sanitarium, the Ursuline Academy, novitiate and provincial house (1907), the cathedral parochial school, St. Patrick’s church, the industrial school for coloured children are other monuments of religion erected within a short space of time. Fort Worth, Sherman, El Paso, Denison, Munster, Weatherford, Marshall, and several other cities have substantial and even beautiful churches and religious institutions, educational and charitable.

Religious communities represented in the diocese are: Men.—Benedictine Fathers, five charges; Jesuits, six; Oblates; and Vincentians. Women.—School Sisters of Notre Dame; Sisters of Charity (Emmitsburg); Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word; Sisters of the Holy Cross; Sisters of Loretto; Sisters of St. Mary; Sisters of Divine Providence; White Benedictine Sisters of the Congregation of Mt. Olive; Sisters of St. Rose of Lima; Ursuline Nuns; Sisters of Mercy.

Statistics of the diocese (1908) give 83 priests (50 diocesan and 33 regulars); 52 churches with resident pastors, 51 with missions, 75 stations, 12 chapels; 12 academies for girls, 24 parochial schools with 3180 pupils, 14 ecclesiastical students, 1 industrial school (50 pupils); 1 orphan asylum (83 inmates); 6 hospitals; total Catholic population (estimated) 60,000.

SISTER M. AUGUSTINE ENRIGHT

William Bede Dalley

Lawyer and statesman, born in Sydney, New South Wales, 1831; died there 28 October, 1888. He was educated in part at St. Mary’s College, Sydney, and was called to the Bar in 1856. In 1857 he became a representative of Sydney in the first parliament elected under responsible government in New South Wales; was solicitor-general (1858–9), and attorney-general (1875–7, 1883–5). After the fall of Khartoum (1885) Dalley (then acting-premier) dispatched a contingent of nine hundred men to the Sudan to aid the imperial troops. Dalley, who had declined a knighthood and the office of Chief Justice of New South Wales, was in 1887 appointed a member of the Privy Council—the first Australian on whom that honour was conferred. He was regarded as the foremost lay representative and champion of the Catholic body, was noted for his parliamentary and forensic eloquence, and was endowed with considerable literary ability. Many of his newspaper articles and sketches were reprinted in 1866 in Barton’s “Poets and Prose Writers of New South Wales.”

HENRY W. CLEARY

Dalmatia

A part of the Kingdom of Croatia according to a convention entered into between Croatia and Hungary. It stretches along the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea from Croatia on the north to Montenegro in the south and is bounded by Bosnia and Herzegovina on the east. The Velebic mountains separate it from Croatia, the highest peaks of which are Sveto brdo (5774 ft.) or Holy Mountain, the dwelling of fairies according to popular legend, Viseruna (5350 ft.) and Vaganski vrh (5563 ft.). The eastern frontier lines are formed by the Dinaric Alps, running parallel to the sea, highest elevation being 5940 ft. The highest peak in Dalmatia is Mount Orjen (6225 ft). The coast is steep and rocky and lined by many islands: Pago, Rab, and Krk on the northern Croatian coast; the first rises to a height of 885 ft., the last to 1338 ft. Islands of lesser importance are Cres, Losinj, Osor, Uljan. On the south lies Brac with the mountains of St. Vid (2574 ft.), Hvar with St. Nicholas (2078 ft.), and Korcula (1879 ft.); lastly Lastovo, Mljet, and Vis. The principal natural harbours are: Zadar, Trogir, Sibenik, Gruz, Peljesac, Kotor, Hvar, Vis, and Mljet. Dalmatia is poor in water, though the rainfalls make temporary lakes. The only rivers of importance are: Krka (Titius) and Cetina (Tilurus) flowing from the Dinara mountains; the former has interesting falls and wild scenery. Neretva (Naro) belongs chiefly to Herzegovina. The climate is warm and healthy. The temperature varies between 57° F. at Zadar, 62° at Hvar, and 63° at Dubrovnik. The prevailing wind is the sirocco or south-east, but the terrible Boora or north-east, may blow at any season of the year. The land is fit chiefly for pasture. Barley, wheat, maize, oats, rye, millet, beeroot, hemp, and potatoes are raised in small quantities. Asses and mules are used as beasts of burden. Mines of coal, asphalt, lignite, salt are under development. Among the industries are the distillation of liquors, the manufacture of oil, tile-burning, the raising of timber, wine-growing, and ship-building. Other products of the country are cheese, honey, silk, and sardines. Railroads are nearly unknown in Dalmatia, although there is urgent need of them. Commerce is further hampered by a bureaucratic administration. Coast navigation is gradually taking on greater proportions and extending through the Adriatic and Mediterranean Seas. The capital of Dalmatia is Zadar, where the Diet meets when convoked by the king. It is composed of forty-three members, and is represented in Vienna by eleven delegates elected by direct vote. The archbishop is a member of the Diet. The head of the Royal Dalmation Government is a governor appointed by the king. Dalmatia is the most neglected country under Austrian rule. The population consists of Croats, who are in the majority, Serbs, Italians, and Albanians (about 10 percent). Croatian is now the official language.

RELIGION AND SCHOOLS

The general educational institutions are public schools (with five classes), while in every village or hamlet there is an elementary school. There are also middle schools or gymnasia (with eight classes), colleges and private institutions, a central seminary for priests at Zadar, and a petit séminaire at Dubrovnik. There are also a naval and an agricultural school. The majority of the inhabitants are Catholics. There are also Orthodox Greeks and a few Jews. There are many magnificent churches and ecclesiastical buildings which date back many centuries to the flourishing times of the Church. The archæological museums at Bihac and Knin contain much historical material illustrating early Christianity and the period of the oldest Croatian rulers. There is a literary society, “Matica Dalmatinksa,” which publishes valuable books every year. The “Matica Hrvatska,” at Zagreb, and the St. Jerome Society do the same for popular books. The Catholic press is represented by weeklies and periodicals such as “Academia Paleoslovenica,” at Krk (Veglia). Throughout Dalmatia, including the adjoining islands, as well as on the Croatian coast, the Old Croatian language called Glagolitic is still in use at church services. This comes down from the times of Sts. Cyril and Methodius also. The right to use the Glagolitic language at Mass with the Roman Rite has prevailed for many centuries in all the south-western Balkan countries, and has been sanctioned by long practice and by many popes. The religious orders are well represented in Dalmatia by the Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, and others, as well as by many communities of religious women. In the administration of church affairs the civil authorities accept the principles of canon law. The Concordat was abolished by the laws of 1874, and a civil marriage law was introduced in 1867. The irremovable rectors must contribute to the expenses of worship according to the provisions of the law. The State administers the church property and lays down the conditions for establishing new parishes. The archbishops, bishops, and canons are nominated by the king, and invested by the pope. The ecclesiastical province of Dalmatia was erected by Leo XII in 1828, by the Bull “Locum beati Petri,” when the two Archbishoprics of Spljet and Dubrovnik were suppressed, and Zadar was made the see of the archbishop. The province comprises five bishoprics: Sibenik, Spljet, Hvar, Dubrovnik, and Kotor. The Bishopric of Krk was joined by Pope Pius VIII to the province of Goricza. There are 527,500 Catholics in Dalmatia and 80,900 Greek schismatics with two bishoprics at Zadar and in Kotor.

HISTORY

The meaning of the name Dalmatia or Delmatia, which is of Arnautic origin, is “land of shepherds” (delminium—pasture for sheep). The earliest mention of the name occurs at the time of the fall of the southern Illyric kingdom, 167 B.C. The people who dwelt near the rivers Neretva and Krka formed a league against the advancing Romans. Their principal town was Delminium, on the present plain of Sinj, or possibly Duvno in Herzegovina, and after that city the tribes called themselves Delmati, or Dalmati, 170 B.C. The islands were peopled by the Greeks; but the mainland by the Illyrians. The Dalmatian league soon came into conflict with the Romans. In 153 B.C. the Roman Senate sent envoys to negotiate with the Dalmatians, but they returned complaining that they were received in an unfriendly manner, and that they would have been killed if they had not secretly escaped. During the next year war broke out. Finally Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica conquered the land and demolished the city of Delminium. The Romans’ success was incomplete; they must subdue the neighbouring Illyrians and Celts if they wished to retain the whole of Dalmatia. The two new consuls had to march from Gaul to Illyrium and occupy the city of Segestica, now Sisak, thence to invade Dalmatia and capture the city of Salona. The consul Metellus carried out this plan, defeated the enemy in 118 B.C., and celebrated a triumph at Rome, receiving the title Dalmaticus (117). The Roman Senate now created the large province of Illyricum, extending southward to the River Drim, northward as far as the Julian Alps and the River Sava. The principal strategic point and fortress in this new province was the city of Salona (Solin). But the Dalmatians did not patiently bear the Roman yoke and tribute. Many uprisings broke out until the time of Octavian, who came to Illyricum in 40 B.C., and subjugated all the tribes; he made the rivers Drava and Danube the northern boundaries of the Roman possessions and sailed on them in his triremes. Later, when emporer, he broke the power of the Dalmatian and Pannonian tribes who tried again to throw off the Roman rule. The insurrection started in the year 6 B.C. and ended in A.D. 9. The power of the rebels was crushed and their country devastated. Since the Punic wars Rome had not been in as critical a situation as during this insurrection suppressed by Tiberius.

From this date begins the Romanizing of Illyricum. This province now received the name of Dalmatia and comprised all the land south of the River Sava, within which were many famous watering places, such as Aquæ Jassæ (the Varazdinske toplice of today), Aquæ Balissæ (Lipik in Croatia), and much mineral wealth exploited by them, as appears from their remains today. The Roman rule in Dalmatia ended with the entry of Christianity and the invasion of the northern nations. The Romans persecuted the Christians in Dalmatia and Pannonia, but they flourished nevertheless. St. Paul sent his disciple Titus to Dalmatia, who founded the first Christian see in the city of Salona and consecrated it with his blood A.D. 65. St. Peter sent St. Domnius. Salona became the centre from which Christianity spread. In Pannonia St. Andronicus founded the See of Syrmium (Mitrovica) and later those of Siscia and Mursia. The cruel persecution under Diocletian, who was a Dalmatian by birth, left numerous traces in Old Dalmatia and Pannonia. St. Quirinus, Bishop of Siscia, died a martyr A.D. 303. St. Jerome was born in Strido, a city on the border of Pannonia and Dalmatia. After the fall of the Western Empire in 476, peace never came to Dalmatia. She successively fell into the power of Odoacer, Theodoric, and Justinian. The Goths were Arians, but they did not persecute the Catholics. Two provincial church councils were held at Salona—530 and 532. The Western Empire was succeeded by the Ostro-Goths, after whose fall in 555 Dalmatia came under Byzantine power. In A.D. 598 the khan of the Avars advanced from Syrmium through Bosnia, devastated Dalmatia, and demolished forty cities. In A.D. 600 appeared the Slavs, who entered Dalmatia. Pope Gregory the Great wrote to Maxim, Archbishop of Salona: “Et de Slavorum gente, quæ vobis valde imminet, affligor vehementer et conturbor. Affligor in his, quæ iam in vobis patior; conturbor quia per Istriæ aditum iam Italiam intrare coeperunt.”

In the seventh century Dalmatia received the dominant element of its present population, the Croats. In the ninth century we find the Croatian influence at its height, and the Croatian princes recognized as Kings of Dalmatia. At the time of Thomislav there were held two councils at Spljet for the whole of Dalmatia and Croatia. The legates of the Holy See, John, Bishop of Ancona and Leo, Bishop of Præneste, were present. Pope John X wrote a letter to Thomislav, King of the Croats and all the people of Dalmatia. In this he reminded the king of the Anglo-Saxons, to whom Gregory I sent not only Christianity, but also culture and education. The council met in 925 to decide the question of the primacy of the Sees of Nin and Spljet; to re-establish rules of discipline, to settle administrative questions arising from disputes about the boundaries of dioceses, and finally to show the reason for using the Old Croatian language at Mass. On this occasion Bishop Grgur Ninski energetically defended the right of the Croatians to use that language. Pope Leo VI decreed by his Bull that the primate of Dalmatia and Croatia should be the Archbishop of Spljet. All the decisions of the councils were sent to Rome for confirmation. The See of Nin was suppressed in 928, when the See of Spljet renounced the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople and submitted to the Holy See. At the next council, held 1059–60 at Spljet, permission was given to use the Greek and Latin languages at Mass. The use of the old Croatian language was often forbidden, but never abolished. During the following centuries the history of Dalmatia is closely connected with that of Croatia. In the course of time, however, Venice extended her authority over Dalmatia. Venice never gained the affection of the Dalmatian people. By the treaty of Campo Formio in 1797 she lost Dalmatia, which came under Austrian rule, under which is has continued to the present time with the exception of Napoleonic times (1805–1814). The feeling towards Austria was not friendly, as the outbreak in 1869 shows. This was put down by force of arms in February of the next year. Influential patriots, the members of the home Diet, and the delegates in the Reichstag at Vienna are working to carry out the provisions of the fundamental law requiring the union of Dalmatia with the mother-country, Croatia, which the king promised in a solemn oath at his coronation.

The literature of Dalmatia from its beginning in the eleventh century was inspired by the Catholic Church and remained so until the rise of Humanism. Numerous private and public libraries existed, containing thousands of volumes (1520). The art of printing found its way to Dalmatia as early as the end of the fifteenth century. The first Humanists such as Mencetic, Bobali, Pucic, Gucetic, Marulic wrote in Latin and Croatian and produced many varieties of literature: the drama, lyrics, epics, bucolics, comedies, religious, and gypsy poetry. Dalmatia has in fact been called the cradle of Croatian literature. The city of Dubrovnik was spoken of as another Athens. Architecture flourished greatly, as is proved by the existing monuments.

FORTIS, Travels in Dalmatia (1778); PATON, Highlands and Islands of the Adriatic (1849); LOUVICH, Dei costumi dei Morlaki (1776); KATALINICH, Memorie degli avvenimenti successi in Dalmazia; MITIS, La Dalmazia ai tempi di Lodovico il Grande; (Zara, 1887)1 SCHMIDL, Das Königreich DalmazianI (1843); MASCHEK, Manuale del regno di Dalmazia per l’anno (1875); KOHL, Reisen in Istrien etc. (1850); SCHIFF, Culturbilder ausDalmazien (Vienna, 1875); DON FRANE BULIC, Hrvatski spomenici (Zagreb, 1888); Academia Slavorum Meridionalium,Documenta pars 2, rescripta et synodalia (Zagreb, 1877); LJUBIC, Listine (Zagreb, 1879–1885); GELCICH, Monumenta Ragusina (Zagreb, 1879–1897); GRUBER, Osvajanje Zadra, Vienac, Zagreb (1882); KLAIC, Hrvatski knezovi od plemena Subic (Zagreb, 1897); SURMIN, Hrvatski spomenici (Zagreb); HORVAT, Hrvatska povjest (Zagreb, 1908); MEDINI, Povjest hrvatske knjizevnosti (Zagreb, 1902); VALLA, Povjest novoga viekaI (Zagreb, 1899, 1900); VALLA, Povjest srednjega vieka (Zagreb, 1891, 1893).

M. D. KRMPOTIĆ.

Dalmatic

PRESENT USAGE

The dalmatic is the outer liturgical vestment of the deacon. It is worn at Mass and at solemn processions and benedictions, except when these processions and benedictions have a penitential character, as in Advent, during the period from Septuagesima Sunday to Easter, at the blessing of candles and the procession on Candlemas Day, etc,; this is because the dalmatic has been regarded from the earliest times as a festal garment. The dalmatic is also worn by bishops under the chasuble at solemn pontifical Mass, but not at private Masses. Priests are not permitted to wear the dalmatic under the chasuble unless a special papal privilege to this effect has been granted, and then only on those days and occasions for which the permission, has been given.

At Rome, and throughout Italy, the dalmatic is a robe with wide sleeves; it reaches to the knees, is closed in front, and is open on the sides as far as the shoulder. Outside of Italy it is customary to slit the under side of the sleeves so that the dalmatic becomes a mantle like a scapular with an opening for the head and two square pieces of the material falling from the shoulder over the upper arm. The distinctive ornamentation of the vestment consists of two vertical stripes running from the shoulder to the hem; according to Roman usage these stripes are narrow and united at the bottom by two narrow cross-stripes. Outside of Rome the vertical stripes are quite broad and the cross-piece is on the upper part of the garment. There are no regulations as to the material of the dalmatic; it is generally made of silk corresponding to that of the chasuble of the priest, with which it must agree in colour, as the ordinances concerning liturgical colours include the dalmatic. As the dalmatic is the distinguishing outer vestment of the deacon, he is clothed with it at his ordination by the bishop, who at the same time says: “May the Lord clothe thee with the garment of salvation and with the vesture of praise, and may he cover thee with the dalmatic of righteousness forever.”

HISTORY

According to the “Liber Pontificalis” the dalmatic was introduced by Pope Sylvester I (314–35). It is certain that as early as the first half of the fourth century its use was customary at Rome; then, as today, the deacons wore it as an outer vestment, and the pope put it on under the chasuble. In early Roman practice bishops other than the pope and deacons other than Roman were not permitted to wear the vestment without the express or tacit permission of the pope—such permission, for instance, as Pope Symmachus (498–514) gave to the deacons of St. Cæsarius Arles. The Bishops of Milan most probably wore the dalmatic as early as the fifth century; this is shown by a mosaic of Sts. Ambrosius and Maternus in the chapel of San Satiro near the church of San Ambrogio; mosaics in the church of San Vitale at Ravenna show that it was worn by the archbishops of Ravenna and their deacons at least as early as the sixth century. About the ninth century the dalmatic was adopted almost universally for bishops and deacons in Western Europe, even including Spain and Gaul, where instead of a dalmatic deacons had worn a tunic called an alb. About the tenth century the Roman cardinal-priests were granted the privilege of wearing the dalmatic, at which time also priests outside off Rome, especially abbots, received the same as a mark of distinction. Thus, John XIII in 970 granted the Abbot of St. Vincentius at Metz the right to wear the dalmatic. Benedict VII in 975 granted this privilege to the cardinal-priests of the cathedral of Trier, but limited it to occasions when they assisted the archbishop at a pontifical Mass or celebrated the solemn high Mass in the cathedral as his representatives. According to Roman usage the dalmatic was only worn by prelates at the pontifical Mass, and never under the cope on other occasions, as was often the case in Germany in the later Middle Ages.

The custom of leaving off the dalmatic on penitential days originated, like the vestment itself, in Rome, whence it gradually spread over the rest of Western Europe. In the twelfth century this usage was universal. On such days the deacons either wore no vestment over the alb or put on, instead of the dalmatic the so-called planeta plicata, a dark-coloured chasuble folded in a particular manner. An exception was made in the penitential season for Maundy Thursday on which it had been the custom from ancient times, principally on account of the consecration of the holy oils, to use the vestments appropriate to feast days, In early times the dalmatic was seldom used by deacons at Mass for the dead, but in the latter part of the Middle Ages it was universally worn during solemn requiem Masses. At an early date it was customary at Rome to confer the dalmatic on a deacon at ordination; the usage is recognized in the “Eighth Ordo” (eighth century) and the “Ninth Ordo” (ninth century) of Mabillon. In the rest of Western Europe the custom took root very slowly, and it did not become universal until towards the end of the Middle Ages. The first medieval liturgist to mention it was Sicard of Cremona (c. 1200), from whose language it is evident that the ceremony was not everywhere prevalent. A prayer at the bestowal of the dalmatic was not customary until a later period.

SHAPE AND MATERIAL IN EARLIER AGES

The original form of the vestment as well shown by the remains of the pre-Carolingian period, especially by the mosaics in San Satiro at Milan (fifth century) in San Vitale at Ravenna (sixth century), and in San Venanzo and Sant’ Agnese at Rome (seventh century) also in various frescoes, such as the picture of the four holy bishops in the church of San Callisto at Rome. According to these representations it was a long, wide tunic with very large sleeves and reached to the feet. In the above-mentioned pictorial remains the width of the sleeves equalled the half or at least the third of the length of the vestment. Up to the twelfth century the Italian representations show no change in its form. After this, in the Italian remains, the vestment is shorter and the sleeves narrower although the traces of the change are at first only here and there noticeable. As early as the ninth century the shortening of the vestment and the narrowing of the sleeves had begun in Northern countries, but up to the twelfth century no important modification had taken place. In the thirteenth century the length of the dalmatic was still about 51–55 inches. In Italy this measurement was maintained during the fourteenth century; in the sixteenth century the dalmatic, even in Italy, was usually only about 47 1/4 inches long. In the seventeenth century its length everywhere was only a little more than 43 1/4 inches; in the eighteenth century it was only 39 1/3 inches, and at times about 35 1/2 inches. The shortening of the vestment could hardly go further and, as its length decreased, the sleeves became correspondingly narrower. To facilitate the putting on of the dalmatic slits were made in the sides of the vestment in the pre-Carolingian era, and in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries regularly shaped openings were often substituted for the slits. In the latter part of the Middle Ages, especially in the fifteenth century, the sides were very commonly opened as far as the sleeves, unless the dalmatic was widened below by the insertion of a gore. Now and then, in the fifteenth century, the sleeves appear to have been opened for the sake of convenience, but this custom was not general until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and then it was not observed in Italy, where, in accordance with the Roman usage, the sleeves were always closed.

Originally the dalmatic was made of linen or wool, but when silk became more common and less expensive, the dalmatic was also made of silk. From about the twelfth century, judging from the inventories, the vestment seems to have been made almost altogether of silk, although up to modern times there were also dalmatics made of fine woollen material. Until after the tenth century the dalmatic was always white. From this time on coloured dalmatics are more often found, especially outside of Italy, in countries where old traditions were not so firmly rooted. Coloured dalmatics were the rule when, about 1200, it was determined what colours should be recognized as liturgical and in consequence their use was definitely regulated. As soon as certain colours were prescribed for the chasuble it must have seemed only proper to employ the same for the outer vestment of the deacon. The ornamentation of the dalmatic at first consisted of two narrow stripes, called clavi, which went in a straight line down the front and back, and of a narrow band on the hem of the sleeves. In the beginning the stripes were more purple than red in shade. In the old representations fringe is found on the dalmatic as early as the seventh century; at times it was placed on the sleeves, at other times along the openings on the sides. About the ninth century the curious custom arose of setting tufts of red fringe on the clavi and on the bands of the sleeves; this usage was kept up until the thirteenth century, but it was more common in Northern countries than in Italy. In the later medieval period there was great diversity in the ornamentation of the dalmatic, and very often it received no ornamentation at all. In Italy it was customary to set a costly, and often richly embroidered, band (aurifrisium, parura, fimbria) above the lower hem on the back and front of the vestment and also above the sleeves; at times narrow vertical bands were added to this adornment. In France and Germany the preference was to ornament the two sides of the vestment with broad and elegantly embroidered bands which were united on the breast and back by cross-bands. Occasionally the dalmatic was entirely covered with embroidered figures. A fine specimen of such decoration is preserved in the imperial treasury at Vienna. This dalmatic is completely covered with a costly ornamentation consisting of human figures very artistically executed in fifteenth-century Burgundian embroidery and was one of the rich Mass-vestments of the Order of the Golden Fleece.

ORIGIN AND SYMBOLISM

The dalmatic was taken from a garment of the same name, which originated, to judge from the designation, in Dalmatia, and which came into common use at Rome probably in the course of the second century. But it was only the garment as such, and not the ornamental bands, that Rome imported, for the clavi were an old Roman adornment of the tunic. The secular dalmatic is often mentioned by writers and is frequently seen in the pictorial remains of the later imperial epoch, e.g. in the so-called consular diptychs. It was part of the clothing of the higher classes; consequently it is not surprising that it was taken into ecclesiastical use and afterwards became a liturgical vestment. The earliest symbolical interpretations of the dalmatic occur at the beginning of the ninth century, in the writings of Rabanus (Hrabanus) Maurus and Amalarius of Metz. On account of the cruciform shape and the red ornamental stripes, Rabanus Maurus regarded it as symbolical of the sufferings of Christ and said that the vestment admonished the servant of the altar to offer himself as an acceptable sacrifice to God. Amalarius saw in the white colour a symbol of purity of soul, and in the red stripes the emblem of love for one’s neighbour. What in later times was said of the symbolism of the dalmatic is hardly more than a repetition of the words of Rabanus and Amalarius.

In the Oriental rites deacons do not wear a dalmatic; while instead of the chasuble the bishops wear an outer vestment called the saccòs, which is similar to the dalmatic. The saccòs came into use in the eleventh century.

DALMATIC IN ENGLAND

The English inventories frequently give the dalmatic the same name as that of the wearer: thus (1539. Ludlow Priory. Salop.): “A chasabull and ij deacons of whyte nedell work for lent.” According to the old English Consuetudinary of Sarum (Salisbury) (ch. xcvi) the acolytes, thurifers, etc. of the great cathedrals and minsters wore dalmatics in their ministrations. At York Minster they had sets of four tunicles pro thuribulariis et choristis (for the thurifers and chanters) in each of the four colours, white, red, blue, and green (York Fabric Rolls, pp. 228, 233–4). The dalmatic is still worn by the sovereigns of England at their coronation as supertunic,surcoat, colodium. (For the use of the dalmatic in England consult Rock, “Ages of Faith.”)

BOCK, Geschichte der liturgischen Gewänder (Bonn, 1860), II, 83–100; MARRIOTT, Vestiarium Christianum (London, 1868), Introduction, lv-lx; ROHAULT DE FLEURY, La Messe (Paris, 1888. richly illustrated), VII, 71–109; DE LINAS, Anciens vétements sacerdotaux in Revue de l’art chrétien (1st series, Paris, 1860). 561–77, 627–59; WILPERT, Die Gewandung der ersten Christen (Cologne, 1898), 20, 36–40; KRIEG in KRAUS. Real-Encyk., s.v. Kleidung; BRAUN, Die liturgische Gewandung im Occident und Orient (Freiburg im Br., 1907) 247–302; LOWRIE, Christian Art and Archeology (London, 1901); MACALISTER, Ecclesiastical Vestments (London, 1896).

JOSEPH BRAUN

John Dalton

Irish author and translator from Spanish and German, born in 1814; died at Maddermarket, Norwich, 15 February, 1874. He spent his early years at Coventry, England, and was educated at Sedgley Park School. He then proceeded to Oscott College, where he was ordained priest in 1837. After serving some time on the mission at Northampton (where he established large schools), he laboured at Norwich for three years, and subsequently built a handsome church at Lynn. During his residence in Lynn he published his best-known book, an English translation of “The Life of St. Teresa, written by herself,” showing a perfect mastery of the Spanish language. Father Dalton made an exhaustive study of the life and works of St. Teresa, and caused her writings to become generally known to English readers. On the erection of the Diocese of Northampton, in 1854, he was made a member of the chapter, and lived many years at Bishop’s House in that city. In order to acquire a first-hand acquaintance with the Spanish literature pertaining to the life of the foundress of the Discalced Carmelites, he spent nine months during the years 1858–59 at the English College, Valladolid. On his return to England he settled at St. John’s, Maddermarket, Norwich, where he ended his days. Canon Dalton is described by contemporary writers as most amiable, zealous, and charitable, and a favourite with all creeds and classes. Among his numerous works translated from the Spanish are the following: “Life of St. Teresa” (London, 1851); “The Interior Castle, or the Mansions” (London, 1852); “The Letters of St. Teresa” (London, 1853); “The Book of the Foundations” (London, 1853), etc. He also published translations from Latin and German, including “The Life of Cardinal Ximenes” from the German of Bishop Von Hefele (London, 1860).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

Diocese of Damão

DIOCESE OF DAMÃO (DAMAU, DAMAUN)

Suffragan to Goa, and situated in Portugese India and the British Government of Bombay, was erected by the Bull “HumanÊ Salutis” of Leo XIII, 1 September, 1886, which confirmed the concordat then entered into between the Holy See and Dom Luis I, King of Portugal. This concordat effected a settlement of the opposing claims to jurisdiction in India of the Metropolitan of Goa, on the one part, and the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, on the other (see PADROADO). A pontifical decree, dated 14 March, 1887, confirmed the nomination by the King of Portugal of Dom Antonio Pedro da Costa to be first Bishop of Dam”o with the titular Archbishopric of Cranganor, and that prelate took possession of his see 19 June, 1887. The church of Bom Jesus, at Dam”o, then became the cathedral of the new diocese.

The city of Dam”o, on the Arabian Sea, at the mouth of the Dam”o River, about 100 miles north of Bombay, formerly belonged to the Mohammedan State of Guzerat. It first came to the notice of the Portuguese in 1523, when Diogo de Mello, overtaken by a storm on his way to Ormuz, took refuge in the harbour. In 1529 an expedition sent by Dom Nuno da Cunha, the Portugese viceroy, sacked and burned the city, and in 1541 da Cunha himself, on his way to the conquest of Diu disembarked his whole army at Dam”o and caused Mass to be celebrated there for the first time. But it was not until the feast of the Purification in the year 1558 that another viceroy, Dom Constantino de Braganza, undertook to acquire finally the place for his sovereign; the native garrison, although much more numerous than the attacking force of 3000, fled at their approach, and the capture was effected without bloodshed. The victorious commander at once caused a mosque to be prepared for Christian worship; Father Gonsalo da Silveira, Provincial of the Jesuits, celebrated Mass there, and the mosque became the Jesuit church of S”o Paulo. From that time until its erection as a suffragan diocese, in 1886, Dam”o belonged to the Archdiocese of Goa.

The territory of the diocese extends along the shores of the Arabian Sea from the Narbada River, on the north, to Ratnagiri, on the south, and is bounded on the east by the Western Ghats. Thee are 71,000 Catholics in the diocese, 51 churches, 21 affiliated chapels, and about 85 priests. The stipends of the clergy are for the most part paid by the Portugese Government. The territory is divided into districts as follows: Dam”o, 4 churches, 5 affiliated chapels, Diu, 2 churches, 3 chapels; Thana (Vicariate), 25 churches, 6 chapels; Konkan, 2 churches, 1 chapel; Bassein, 12 churches, 1 chapel; Bombay, 6 churches, 5 chapels. To each of the churches of this diocese a parish school is attached, where instruction is given in Catholic doctrine, music, English, and Portugese, as well as, in some instances, Guzerati and Mahratti. Some of these schools receive subsidies from both the Portugese and the British-Indian governments. The spiritual work of the diocese is very largely helped by means of confraternities, of which there are at least 42 in the Vicariate of Thana alone.

Among the churches in the city of Dam”o the cathedral of Bom Jesus is worthy of note as having been built, in 1559, on the site of an old mosque. At Dam”o Pequeno (Little Dam”o) the church of Nossa Senhora do Mar, founded in 1701, in the old fortress, is still used by local Catholics. Another fortress church is that of the ConceiÁ”o at Diu, which was originally built in 1610 as part of the now extinct convent of S”o Paulo. The vicariate of Thana includes the island of Salsette, of which Thana itself was formerly the capital. Here, before the mogul invasion of 1318, a community of Nestorians existed. The conquering Mohammedans converted both the Nestorian churches and the Hindu temples into mosques for their own worship. It was also at Thana that the Franciscan missionaries Thomas of Tolentino and Giacomo of Padua, with the lay brothers Demetrius and Peter, were martyred early in the fourteenth century. Fra Jordanus, a Dominican, who buried the bodies of these martyrs, was himself also martyred by the Mohammedans, but the Hindus of the vicinity so highly venerated his memory as to set up a bronze statue of him among the gods in one of their temples; this temple was afterwards destroyed, and in the sixteenth century some workmen who were digging on the spot found among the ruins this pagan tribute to a Christian martyr. Thana was also the field of the fruitful labours of Father GonÁalo Rodrigues, one of the companions of St. Francis Xavier, who founded in the neighbourhood a Christian village. This village was destroyed by the Mahrattas, but the ruins of its church, college, and orphanage are still distinguishable. The church of Nossa Senhora do Carmo at Chaul, in the Konkan district, dates from the year 1580. Bassein, first acquired by Portugal in 1534, is memorable for the martyrdom of five religious burned alive in the orphanage by the Mohammedan invaders in 1540, as well as for the apostolic visits of St. Francis Xavier. Lastly, in the Mazagon suburb of Bombay is the church of Nossa Senhora da Gloria, long regarded locally as the Portugese cathedral; here also is the Bombay residence of the Bishop of Dam”o, Titular Archbishop of Cranganor.

DE BRITTO, Esboco Historico de Dam”o; CORREA, Lendas da India, II; WERNER, Orbis Terrarum Cath. (Freiburg im br., 1890).

J. GODINHO.

Damaraland

The middle part of the German colony, German Southwest Africa, between 19° and 23° S. lat., 14° and 20° long. Moving from the Atlantic coast towards the interior the traveller meets first a sand-belt of forty-two miles, stripped of all vegetation and covered with gigantic sand-dunes; then a strip of desert land about ninety miles broad, with rugged, bare mountains and wide, barren sand-plains. Then follows Hereroland proper, which rises to a height of 7000 feet, and in which mountain ranges and solitary peaks succeed long-drawn valleys, deep ravines and high plateaux. Towards the north and east, this mountainous district passes over into the undulating plain of the Omaheke and the Kalahari Desert, which is crossed by dry river-beds and is sparsely inhabited. In general, the country suffers from want of rain; it is arid, and fit for cattle-raising only; agriculture is hardly possible except where the land is artificially irrigated. The population is composed of the Hill Damara and the Herero; besides these there are also some 4000 Kaffirs, Bastards, and Nama, and 1500 Christian Ovambo. The Hill Damara, or Klip Kaffirs, about 20,000 in numbers, were the original possessors of the country, but were robbed of their pastures and flocks by the invading Herero. Down to our times they lived among the Herero as slaves, without rights and protection, poor and despised; at the uprising of the Herero they naturally sided with the German Government and thereby improved their lot considerably.

The Herero, or Ovaherero, are a tribe of the Bantu, and immigrated, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, from the north-east into Damaraland. Their bodies are well built, their skin is chocolate-coloured, their hair wavy and jet black. The clothing of the men consists of an apron, made of the skin of sheep por goats, and wound around the hips; that of the women comprises a leather cap with a veil, a long apron, and a hide thrown over the back; numerous rings of iron and pearls adorn their arms and legs, and a number of pearl strings encircle their necks. The Herero are boastful, vain, avaricious, beggarly, given to lying and cheating, dishonest, and cruel and ferocious in their hatred; on the other hand, they are also hospitable, possess a high sense of honour, and great love for their parents. Their religion consists in an ancestral cult, especially of the deceased chiefs of each tribe, and a gruesome belief in ghosts and specters, to whom they frequently offer sacrifices. True they recognize a God of heaven and earth, but they do no worship him; they think of him, but they do not thank him. Previous to the insurrection of 1904–1906, which almost destroyed them, they were divided into tribes; these were ruled by chiefs, who were at the same time the tribal priests. In the fights with the Nama, all the Herero had acknowledged one commander-in-chief, Maherero Kajamuaha. After his death, in 1890, the German Government chose his younger son, Samuel Maherero, as supreme chief, passing by the rightful heir. Generally speaking, monogamy prevails among the Herero, though the chiefs and the wealthier tribesmen often have several wives.

The acquisition of the present German Southwest Africa by Germany was begun in the year 1883. The Bremen merchant Lüderitz acquired the bay of Angra Pequena and a few strips of land from the native chiefs; in 1884 this territory was placed under the protection of the German Empire. The heir to the rights of Lüderitz, the German Colonial Company for Southwest Africa, obtained more land. As Maherero, the supreme chief of the Herero, had formerly sided with the English against the Germans, he was forced, on 21 October, 1885, to conclude a treaty of protection and amity with Germany, and to acknowledge the German supremacy. As this treaty was in many regards obscure, many quarrels arose between the German Government and the Herero chiefs; small uprisings were, however, easily quelled. The love of freedom, predominant in the Herero, numerous injustices committed by the whites, extortions on the part of the the white traders, and other causes finally led to the great insurrection of the Herero in the beginning of 1904, which soon spread throughout the colony. It took almost three years to subdue the sedition and great sacrifices of men and money had to be made. For the nation of the Herero, who before had numbered between 80,000 and 100,000, the revolt resulted in almost complete annihilation. The Herero who had been taken prisoners were accommodated in camps, where hundreds of them were carried off by virulent diseases. After peace was made, the remnant was handed over to officials, farmers, business and private houses, as servants.

Missions in Damaraland were first begun by Protestants. Since 1844 the Rheinidch-evangelische Missionsgesellschaft laboured in Hereroland without interruption. Before the insurrection it numbered 15 stations with 23 missionaries, 46 schools with 875 boys and 1182 girls, and counted 8300 coloured Christians. The Fathers of the Holy Ghost were the first Catholic missionaries who, at the end of the seventies, made the attempt to found a mission among the Herero; owing to the intolerance of the Protestants, however, they were compelled to abandon the work in 1881 (cf. Katholische Missionen, Freiburg, 1882, pp, 107–111). It was only when German rule had been definitely established, that the Catholic mission was at liberty to work in this field. On 1 August, 1892, the Prefecture Apostolic of Cimbebasia Inferior was erected, and under it was placed the whole of Damaraland and Ovamboland; in 1896 the territory was given in charge of the German Oblates of Mary Immaculate. But by the Colonial Government they were forbidden to work among the Ovambo, Hereros, and Kaffirs, and even after they had been put on the same legal footing with the Protestants they still had to fight against odds. All obstacles were finally removed in September, 1905. The Prefecture Apostolic in 1908 numbered 9 stations with 22 fathers and 18 brothers (all Oblates); 10 sisters (Franciscan Sisters from Nonnenwerth); there are 850 white, 210 blacks Catholics; 9 churches or chapels, 10 schools with 236 pupils, 1 trade school with 14 pupils, 1 high school for boys, 1 academy for girls, 1 orphan asylum, and 2 hospitals.

SCHINZ, Deutsch-Sudwestafrika (Oldenburg 1891); FRANCOIS, Nama and Damara (Margdeburg, 1896); DOVE, Deutsch-Sudwestafrika (Gotha, 1896; Berlin, 1903); SCHWABE, Mit Schwert und pfug in Deutsch-Sudwestafrika (Berlin, 1904); PAUL, Dei Missin in unseren Kolonien (Dresden, 1905); MEYER, Wirtschafit und Recht der Herero (Berlin, 1905); IRLE, Dei Herero (Gutersloh, 1906); LEUTWEIN, Eif Jahre Gouverneur Misin Deutsch-Sudwestafrika (Berlin, 1906); Dei Katholischen Mission (Freiburg. 1906–07), XXXV, 176–183; Jahresberichle uber dei Entwicklung der deutschen Schutzgbielke (Berlin).

JOSEPH LINS

The middle part of the German colony, German Southwest Africa, between 19° and 23° S. lat., 14° and 20° long. Moving from the Atlantic coast towards the interior the traveller meets first a sand-belt of forty-two miles, stripped of all vegetation and covered with gigantic sand-dunes; then a strip of desert land about ninety miles broad, with rugged, bare mountains and wide, barren sand-plains. Then follows Hereroland proper, which rises to a height of 7000 feet, and in which mountain ranges and solitary peaks succeed long-drawn valleys, deep ravines and high plateaux. Towards the north and east, this mountainous district passes over into the undulating plain of the Omaheke and the Kalahari Desert, which is crossed by dry river-beds and is sparsely inhabited. In general, the country suffers from want of rain; it is arid, and fit for cattle-raising only; agriculture is hardly possible except where the land is artificially irrigated. The population is composed of the Hill Damara and the Herero; besides these there are also some 4000 Kaffirs, Bastards, and Nama, and 1500 Christian Ovambo. The Hill Damara, or Klip Kaffirs, about 20,000 in numbers, were the original possessors of the country, but were robbed of their pastures and flocks by the invading Herero. Down to our times they lived among the Herero as slaves, without rights and protection, poor and despised; at the uprising of the Herero they naturally sided with the German Government and thereby improved their lot considerably.

The Herero, or Ovaherero, are a tribe of the Bantu, and immigrated, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, from the north-east into Damaraland. Their bodies are well built, their skin is chocolate-coloured, their hair wavy and jet black. The clothing of the men consists of an apron, made of the skin of sheep por goats, and wound around the hips; that of the women comprises a leather cap with a veil, a long apron, and a hide thrown over the back; numerous rings of iron and pearls adorn their arms and legs, and a number of pearl strings encircle their necks. The Herero are boastful, vain, avaricious, beggarly, given to lying and cheating, dishonest, and cruel and ferocious in their hatred; on the other hand, they are also hospitable, possess a high sense of honour, and great love for their parents. Their religion consists in an ancestral cult, especially of the deceased chiefs of each tribe, and a gruesome belief in ghosts and specters, to whom they frequently offer sacrifices. True they recognize a God of heaven and earth, but they do no worship him; they think of him, but they do not thank him. Previous to the insurrection of 1904–1906, which almost destroyed them, they were divided into tribes; these were ruled by chiefs, who were at the same time the tribal priests. In the fights with the Nama, all the Herero had acknowledged one commander-in-chief, Maherero Kajamuaha. After his death, in 1890, the German Government chose his younger son, Samuel Maherero, as supreme chief, passing by the rightful heir. Generally speaking, monogamy prevails among the Herero, though the chiefs and the wealthier tribesmen often have several wives.

The acquisition of the present German Southwest Africa by Germany was begun in the year 1883. The Bremen merchant Lüderitz acquired the bay of Angra Pequena and a few strips of land from the native chiefs; in 1884 this territory was placed under the protection of the German Empire. The heir to the rights of Lüderitz, the German Colonial Company for Southwest Africa, obtained more land. As Maherero, the supreme chief of the Herero, had formerly sided with the English against the Germans, he was forced, on 21 October, 1885, to conclude a treaty of protection and amity with Germany, and to acknowledge the German supremacy. As this treaty was in many regards obscure, many quarrels arose between the German Government and the Herero chiefs; small uprisings were, however, easily quelled. The love of freedom, predominant in the Herero, numerous injustices committed by the whites, extortions on the part of the the white traders, and other causes finally led to the great insurrection of the Herero in the beginning of 1904, which soon spread throughout the colony. It took almost three years to subdue the sedition and great sacrifices of men and money had to be made. For the nation of the Herero, who before had numbered between 80,000 and 100,000, the revolt resulted in almost complete annihilation. The Herero who had been taken prisoners were accommodated in camps, where hundreds of them were carried off by virulent diseases. After peace was made, the remnant was handed over to officials, farmers, business and private houses, as servants.

Missions in Damaraland were first begun by Protestants. Since 1844 the Rheinidch-evangelische Missionsgesellschaft laboured in Hereroland without interruption. Before the insurrection it numbered 15 stations with 23 missionaries, 46 schools with 875 boys and 1182 girls, and counted 8300 coloured Christians. The Fathers of the Holy Ghost were the first Catholic missionaries who, at the end of the seventies, made the attempt to found a mission among the Herero; owing to the intolerance of the Protestants, however, they were compelled to abandon the work in 1881 (cf. Katholische Missionen, Freiburg, 1882, pp, 107–111). It was only when German rule had been definitely established, that the Catholic mission was at liberty to work in this field. On 1 August, 1892, the Prefecture Apostolic of Cimbebasia Inferior was erected, and under it was placed the whole of Damaraland and Ovamboland; in 1896 the territory was given in charge of the German Oblates of Mary Immaculate. But by the Colonial Government they were forbidden to work among the Ovambo, Hereros, and Kaffirs, and even after they had been put on the same legal footing with the Protestants they still had to fight against odds. All obstacles were finally removed in September, 1905. The Prefecture Apostolic in 1908 numbered 9 stations with 22 fathers and 18 brothers (all Oblates); 10 sisters (Franciscan Sisters from Nonnenwerth); there are 850 white, 210 blacks Catholics; 9 churches or chapels, 10 schools with 236 pupils, 1 trade school with 14 pupils, 1 high school for boys, 1 academy for girls, 1 orphan asylum, and 2 hospitals.

SCHINZ, Deutsch-Sudwestafrika (Oldenburg 1891); FRANCOIS, Nama and Damara (Margdeburg, 1896); DOVE, Deutsch-Sudwestafrika (Gotha, 1896; Berlin, 1903); SCHWABE, Mit Schwert und pfug in Deutsch-Sudwestafrika (Berlin, 1904); PAUL, Dei Missin in unseren Kolonien (Dresden, 1905); MEYER, Wirtschafit und Recht der Herero (Berlin, 1905); IRLE, Dei Herero (Gutersloh, 1906); LEUTWEIN, Eif Jahre Gouverneur Misin Deutsch-Sudwestafrika (Berlin, 1906); Dei Katholischen Mission (Freiburg. 1906–07), XXXV, 176–183; Jahresberichle uber dei Entwicklung der deutschen Schutzgbielke (Berlin).

JOSEPH LINS

Damascus

Damascus, in Syria, is one of the oldest cities in the world. According to Flavius Josephus it was founded by Us, grandson of Shem. It is mentioned in the Bible at the time of Abraham (Gen., xiv, 15; xv, 2); also on the pylons of Karnak, among the Syrian cities captured by the Pharaoh Touthmes III.

KINGDOM OF DAMASCUS

Damascus allied itself with Soba against David, was conquered and obliged to receive a Jewish garrison (II K., viii, 5; I Paral., xviii, 5), but under Solomon it became the capital of an independent kingdom, established by Razon or Rasin (III K., xi, 24). From this time Damascus was frequently at war with the kings of Israel, while it leaned on those of Juda, who sought with its aid to weaken their rivals of Samaria. The most famous of these enemies of Israel was Hazael, who had ascended the throne of Damascus with the help of Elijah and Elisha (III K., xix, 17; IV K., viii, 28; x, 32; xiii 3). His successors were less fortunate. Jeroboam II, King of Samaria, captured Damascus (IV K. xiv, 28). When not engaged in mutual conflict the kings of Damascus and Samaria entered into alliances with the neighbouring princes against the powerful kings of Assyria, hence Damascus, usually at the head of the confederation is often mentioned in cuneiform inscriptions. In 734 B.C. Damascus and Samaria nearly ruined Jerusalem. But Achaz, King of Juda, invoked the help of the Assyrian King Tiglath-Pileser III (Theglathphalasar), who defeated the allies, captured Damascus after a siege of two years, and put an end to the Kingdom of Syria (IV K., xvi, 9–12).

THE GREEK CITY

Thenceforth Damascus seems to have lost its autonomy. Jeremias (xlix, 27) threatens it with new chastisements, a proof that it had risen from its decay; however, it appears only occasionally in the history of the Jews, Greeks and Romans. After the battle of Issus (333 B.C.) the city, which held the wives and treasures of Darius, was betrayed to Parmenion. It soon became, next to Antioch, the most important city of Syria. From 112 to 85 B.C. it was the capital of a little Graeco-Roman kingdom, but fell successively into the power of Aretas III, King of Petra, of Tigranes, King of Armenia, and finally of the Roman general Metellus. In 64 B.C. Pompey received there the ambassadors and gifts of the neighbouring kings; in the following year Syria became a Roman province. Herod the Great built a theatre and a gymnasium at Damascus, though the town was outside his dominion. Its population, though Syrian by race and language, was deeply affected by Greeco-Roman culture, and made rapid progress in trade and industry. Then, as now, Damascus was the chief commercial emporium for the nomad Arabs. In the time of St. Paul there were in Damascus about 50,000 Jews. Most of the women in the upper classes of society had embraced this creed. It was on the road to and near the city that Saul, the severe persecutor of the Christians, recognized and worshipped the Jesus whom he had hated so much. Saul was brought to Damascus, lodged at Juda’s in the Via Recta (today Souk el-Taouil), was baptized by Ananias (who is thought to have been the first Bishop of Damascus), preached Christ, and was obliged to flee by night to Arabia (Acts, ix, 3 sqq., xxii, 6 sqq., xxvi, 12 sqq., Gal. i, 17; II Cor., xi, 32). The city then belonged to Aretas, King of the Arabs. Under Nero the heathen slaughtered by treachery 10,000 Jews in the gymnasium of Herod. After the destruction of the Nabatean Kingdom of Petra by Trajan, Damascus became a Roman city. Under Arcadius the great temple of the local god, Rimmon, was transformed into the magnificent church of St. John the Baptist. In 610 the city was used by Chosroes as his headquarters during the long war he then began against Heraclius.

THE SEE OF DAMASCUS

Damascus was then the metropolis of Pheenicia Secunda, or Libanensis, with eleven suffragan sees, it was subject to the Patriarchate of Antioch and held the sixth rank in the hierarchy. Lequien (Oriens christ., II, 833) was acquainted (from the first to the sixteenth century) with the names of only fourteen Greek bishops, among them St. Peter, who suffered martyrdom at the hands of the Arabs in the eighth century. Numerous Jacobite bishops are also known. Among the many illustrious men born at Damascus, we must mention:

Nicholas, a Greek writer under Augustus,

Damascius, a heathen philosopher of the sixth century,

John Moschus, the author of the charming “Pratum spirituale,”

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (634–638),

St. Andrew, Metropolitan of Crete, orator and hymnographer,

finally, the celebrated Greek theologian, St. John Damascene.

Early in 635 Damascus was captured by the Arabs under Khalid and Abou Obeidah. Free public worship was allowed to the Christians in several churches, also in the western aisle of St. John’s, the eastern aisle being reserved to the Moslems. It was only at the beginning of the eighth century that Abd el-Melek obtained from the Christians the use of the whole building, in return for which he allowed them four churches. From 660 to 753, under the Ommayad caliphs, Damascus was the capital of the Arabian empire, at that date Abu Abbas removed the seat of government to Baghdad. In the following centuries, amid broils and revolutions, Damascus fell into the hands of the Toulounides of Egypt, later into those of the Ikshidites and of the Fatimites. In 1075–1076 it was taken by the Seljuk Turk Aziz. In 1126 the crusaders, commanded by Baldwin of Jerusalem, defeated Prince Toehtekin near and south of the city but were obliged to retreat. Nor were the allied princes, Conrad III of Germany, Louis VII of France, and Baldwin III of Jerusalem, more successful in their siege of Damascus (1148), owing to the treason of the barons of Syria. Nour-ed-Din, Sultan of Aleppo, captured Damascus in 1158. In 1177 Saladin repulsed a new attack of the Christian army. Damascus then became the commercial, industrial, and scientific centre of Syria; it had a school of medicine and an observatory on the Djebel Kasioun. Under Saladin’s successors it had to sustain several sieges; in 1260 it opened its gates to the Mongols of Houlagou. It then fell into the hands of Kotouz, Prince of the Mamelukes of Egypt, whose successor, Bibars, rebuilt its citadel. In 1300 it was plundered and partly burnt by the Tatars commanded by Ghazzen Khan. In 1399 Timur-Leng put to death almost all the inhabitants, except the sword-cutlers. These he brought to Samarkand and Khorassan where they continued to make the beautiful damascened blades, the secret of which has long been lost at Damascus. In 1516 Selim I conquered Syria from the Mamelukes, and Damascus belonged to the Ottoman Empire into the twentieth century. Mention should be made of the Egyptian occupation by Ibrahim Pasha (1832–1840), and the frightful slaughter of the Christians (July, 1860) which caused the flight of many thousands and brought about the occupation of Syria by a French army.

THE TURKISH CITY

Damascus (Arab. Dimisk es-Sham, or simply es-Sham), the eye or the pearl of the East for the Arabs, is now the capital of Syria. The city stands 2267 feet above sea level and enjoys a very mild climate, owing to the Barada, which runs through it and to its numerous fountains or springs. It is surrounded by the groves and gardens of the Ghouta which stretch about ten miles south and east and include twenty-nine villages, the inhabitants of which are devoted to fruit culture (oranges, lemons, etc. especially plums and apricots). Within the city are the tombs of Noured-Din, Saladin, and Bibars, 850 fountains, 64 hammams (baths), 25 bazaars, a stock exchange for the local trade, a half-ruined citadel, 248 mosques, etc. The mosque of the Ommayads (anciently St. John’s church) was burned in 1893, on which occasion many manuscripts and works of art were lost.

RELIGIOUS CONDITIONS

Damascus is a Latin archiepiscopal titular see, and three bishops of the sixteenth century are mentioned in the “Revue benedictine” 1907, (82–85). It is also a metropolitan see for the Catholic (also for the non-Catholic) Melchite Greeks, and for the Catholic Syrians, and finally an episcopal see for the Maronites. Since the sixteenth century the non-Catholic Greek Patriarchs of Antioch have lived at Damascus. The Catholic Greek Patriarch of Antioch, as well as the Syrian Catholic patriarch, also resides at Damascus and governs his diocese through a titular bishop. The Lazarists, who replaced the Jesuits at the time of their suppression, have operated a college there; in 1872, the Jesuits began to occupy the reputed house of St. John Damascene. The Franciscans have the Latin parish church and a school for boys. Other religious orders active in Damascus have included the Sisters of Charity and the Mariamet native sisters.

S. VAILHE

Pope St. Damasus I

Born about 304; died 11 December, 384. His father, Antonius, was probably a Spaniard; the name of his mother, Laurentia, was not known until quite recently. Damasus seems to have been born at Rome; it is certain that he grew up there in the service of the church of the martyr St. Laurence. He was elected pope in October, 366, by a large majority, but a number of over-zealous adherents of the deceased Liberius rejected him, chose the deacon Ursinus (or Ursicinus), had the latter irregularly consecrated, and resorted to much violence and bloodshed in order to seat him in the Chair of Peter. Many details of this scandalous conflict are related in the highly prejudiced “Libellus Precum” (P.L., XIII, 83–107), a petition to the civil authority on the part of Faustinus and Marcellinus, two anti-Damasan presbyters (cf. also Ammianus Marcellinus, Rer. Gest., XXVII, c. iii). Valentinian recognized Damasus and banished (367) Ursinus to Cologne, whence he was later allowed to return to Milan, but was forbidden to come to Rome or its vicinity. The party of the antipope (later at Milan an adherent of the Arians and to the end a contentious pretender) did not cease to persecute Damasus. An accusation of adultery was laid against him (378) in the imperial court, but he was exonerated by Emperor Gratian himself (Mansi, Coll. Conc., III, 628) and soon after by a Roman synod of forty-four bishops (Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, s.v.; Mansi, op. cit., III, 419) which also excommunicated his accusers.

Damasus defended with vigour the Catholic Faith in a time of dire and varied perils. In two Roman synods (368 and 369) he condemned Apollinarianism and Macedonianism; he also sent his legates to the Council of Constantinople (381), convoked against the aforesaid heresies. In the Roman synod of 369 (or 370) Auxentius, the Arian Bishop of Milan, was excommunicated; he held the see, however, until his death, in 374, made way for St. Ambrose. The heretic Priscillian, condemned by the Council of Saragossa (380) appealed to Damasus, but in vain. It was Damasus who induced Saint Jerome to undertake his famous revision of the earlier Latin versions of the Bible (see VULGATE). St. Jerome was also his confidential secretary for some time (Ep. cxxiii, n. 10). An important canon of the New Testament was proclaimed by him in the Roman synod of 374. The Eastern Church, in the person of St. Basil of Cæsarea, besought earnestly the aid and encouragement of Damasus against triumphant Arianism; the pope, however, cherished some degree of suspicion against the great Cappadocian Doctor. In the matter of the Meletian Schism at Antioch, Damasus, with Athanasius and Peter of Alexandria, sympathized with the party of Paulinus as more sincerely representative of Nicene orthodoxy; on the death of Meletius he sought to secure the succession for Paulinus and to exclude Flavian (Socrates, Hist. Eccl., V, xv). He sustained the appeal of the Christian senators to Emperor Gratian for the removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate House (Ambrose, Ep. xvii, n. 10), and lived to welcome the famous edict of Theodosius I, “De fide Catholica” (27 Feb., 380), which proclaimed as the religion of the Roman State that doctrine which St. Peter had preached to the Romans and of which Damasus was supreme head (Cod. Theod., XVI, 1, 2).

When, in 379, Illyricum was detached from the Western Empire, Damasus hastened to safeguard the authority of the Roman Church by the appointment of a vicar Apostolic in the person of Ascholius, Bishop of Thessalonica; this was the origin of the important papal vicariate long attached to that see. The primacy of the Apostolic See, variously favoured in the time of Damasus by imperial acts and edicts, was strenuously maintained by this pope; among his notable utterances on this subject is the assertion (Mansi, Coll. Conc., VIII, 158) that the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Roman Church was based, not on the decrees of councils, but on the very words of Jesus Christ (Matt., xvi, 18). The increased prestige of the early papal decretals, habitually attributed to the reign of Siricius (384–99), not improbably belongs to the reign of Damasus (“Canones Romanorum ad Gallos”; Babut, “La plus ancienne décrétale,” Paris, 1904). This development of the papal office, especially in the West, brought with it a great increase of external grandeur. This secular splendour, however, affected disadvantageously many members of the Roman clergy, whose worldly aims and life, bitterly reproved by St. Jerome, provoked (29 July, 370) an edict of Emperor Valentinian addressed to the pope, forbidding ecclesiastics and monks (later also bishops and nuns) to pursue widows and orphans in the hope of obtaining from them gifts and legacies. The pope caused the law to be observed strictly.

Damasus restored his own church (now San Lorenzo in Damaso) and provided for the proper housing of the archives of the Roman Church (see VATICAN ARCHIVES). He built in the basilica of St. Sebastian on the Appian Way the (yet visible) marble monument known as the “Platonia” (Platona, marble pavement) in honour of the temporary transfer to that place (258) of the bodies of Sts. Peter and Paul, and decorated it with an important historical inscription (see Northcote and Brownlow, Roma Sotterranea). He also built on the Via Ardeatina, between the cemeteries of Callistus and Domitilla, a basilicula, or small church, the ruins of which were discovered in 1902 and 1903, and in which, according to the “Liber Pontificalis,” the pope was buried with his mother and sister. On this occasion the discoverer, Monsignor Wilpert, found also the epitaph of the pope’s mother, from which it was learned not only that her name was Laurentia, but also that she had lived the sixty years of her widowhood in the special service of God, and died in her eighty-ninth year, having seen the fourth generation of her descendants. Damasus built at the Vatican a baptistery in honour of St. Peter and set up therein one of his artistic inscriptions (Carmen xxxvi), still preserved in the Vatican crypts. This subterranean region he drained in order that the bodies buried there (juxta sepulcrum beati Petri) might not be affected by stagnant or overflowing water. His extraordinary devotion to the Roman martyrs is now well known, owing particularly to the labours of Giovanni Battista De Rossi. For a good account of his architectural restoration of the catacombs and the unique artistic characters (Damasan Letters) in which his friend Furius Dionysius Filocalus executed the epitaphs composed by Damasus, see Northcote and Brownlow, “Roma Sotterranea” (2nd ed., London, 1878–79). The dogmatic content of the Damasan epitaphs (tituli) is important (Northcote, Epitaphs of the Catacombs, London, 1878). He composed also a number of brief epigrammata on various martyrs and saints and some hymns, or Carmina, likewise brief. St. Jerome says (Ep. xxii, 22) that Damasus wrote on virginity, both in prose and in verse, but no such work has been preserved. For the few letters of Damasus (some of them spurious) that have survived, see P.L., XIII, 347–76, and Jaffé, “Reg. Rom. Pontif.” (Leipzig, 1885), nn. 232–254.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Pope Damasus II

(Previously called POPPO)

A native of Bavaria and the third German to be elevated to the See of Peter. On the death of Clement II, July, 1047, the Tusculan faction reasserted its power in Rome, and, with the secret aid of Boniface, Margrave of Tuscany, restored its wretched creature Benedict IX, who continued in his wonted manner to disgrace the papacy for a further period of eight months before disappearing entirely from history. On Christmas Day, 1047, an embassy sent by the Roman people brought the tidings of Clement’s death to Henry III, at Pölthe in Saxony, and besought the emperor as Patricius of the Romans to appoint a worthy successor. The envoys, according to their instructions, suggested as a suitable candidate, Halinard, Archbishop of Lyons, who had a perfect command of the Italian tongue and was popular in Rome. Henry, however, in January, 1048, appointed Poppo, Bishop of Brixen, in Tyrol, and at once directed the Margrave Boniface to conduct the pope-designate to Rome. Boniface at first refused, alleging the installation of Benedict, but Henry’s decisive threat soon reduced him to obedience. After Benedict’s removal, the Bishop of Brixen at length entered the city and was enthroned at the Lateran as Damasus II, 17 July, 1048. His pontificate, however, was of short duration. After the brief space of twenty-three days, he died—a victim of malaria—at Palestrina, whither he had gone shortly after the installation to escape the summer heat of Rome. The pope was buried in S. Lorenzo fuori le mura.

Liber Pontif., ed DUCHESNE, II, 274; JAFFÉ, Regesta RR. PP., 2nd ed., I, 528 sq.; Höfler, Die deutschen Päpste (Regensburg, 1839), I, 269 sqq.

THOMAS OESTREICH.

Joseph Ferdinand Damberger

Church historian, born 1 March, 1795, at Passau, Bavaria; died 1 April, 1859, at Schäftlarn. After completing his earlier studies in the public schools of his native town, he pursued the study of law at Landshut, then studied theology at Salzburg, Landshut, and Munich, and was ordained priest in 1818. While at the Munich Lyceum he had also devoted himself very assiduously to historical studies. Until 1837 he was particularly active as a preacher at Landshut and at St. Cajetan’s, Munich. His first historical works appeared at Ratisbon in 1831, three closely related narratives: “Fürstentafel der Staatengeschichte”; “Fürstenbuch zur Fürstentafel der europäischen Staatengeschichte”; Sechzig genealogische, chronologische und statistische Tabellen zur Fürstentafel und Fürstenbuch.”

In 1837 he joined the Society of Jesus, completed his novitiate at Brieg, canton of Valais, Switzerland, where he spent about ten years, partly as a mission-preacher and partly as professor of ecclesiastical history at Lucerne. A collection of his mission sermons was printed (Lucerne, 1842; 2nd ed., 1852), but was violently attacked (Missionsunfug der Jesuiten; Bern, 1842). The defeat of the Sonderbund (1847) brought with it the expulsion of the Jesuits from Switzerland. Damberger then passed several years at Innsbruck and Ratisbon, and in 1853 became confessor at the Convent of Schäftlarn in Bavaria, where he died. In these volumes, “Synchronistische Geschichte der Kirche und der Welt im Mittelalter” (Ratisbon, 1850–63). The last volume was finished and published after his death by Father Daniel Rattinger. The narrative reaches the year 1378. For its day it was an important piece of work, though lacking a sufficient degree of the critical quality. It reveals, nevertheless, close application and extensive learning.

J.P. KIRSCH

Father Damien (Joseph de Veuster)

Missionary priest, born at Tremeloo, Belgium, 3 January 1840; died at Molokai, Hawaii, 15 April 1889.

His father, a small farmer, sent him to a college at Braine-le-Comte, to prepare for a commercial profession; but as a result of a mission given by the Redemptorists in 1858, Joseph decided to become a religious. He entered the novitiate of the Fathers of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary at Louvain, and took in religion the name of Damien. He was admitted to the religious profession, 7 Oct. 1860. Three years later, though still in minor orders, he was sent to the mission of the Hawaiian Islands, where he arrived, 19 March, 1864. Ordained priest at Honolulu 24 May of the same year, he was later given charge of various districts on the island of Hawaii, and, animated with a burning zeal, his robust constitution allowed him to give full play to the impulses of his heart. He was not only the missionary of the natives, but also constructed several chapels with his own hands, both in Hawaii and in Molokai.

On the latter island there had grown up a leper settlement where the Government kept segregated all persons afflicted with the loathsome disease. The board of health supplied the unfortunates with food and clothing, but was unable in the beginning to provide them with either resident physicians or nurses. On 10 May, 1873, Father Damien, at his own request and with the sanction of his bishop, arrived at the settlement as its resident priest. There were then 600 lepers. “As long as the lepers can care for themselves,” wrote the superintendent of the board of health to Bishop Maigret, “they are comparatively comfortable, but as soon as the dreadful disease renders them helpless, it would seem that even demons themselves would pity their condition and hasten their death.” For a long time, however, Father Damien was the only one to bring them the succour they so greatly needed. He not only administered the consolations of religion, but also rendered them such little medical service and bodily comforts as were within his power. He dressed their ulcers, helped them erect their cottages, and went so far as to dig their graves and make their coffins. After twelve years of this heroic service he discovered in himself the first symptoms of the disease. This was in 1885. He nevertheless continued his charitable ministrations, being assisted at this period by two other priests and two lay brothers. On 28 March, 1889, Father Damien became helpless and passed away shortly after, closing his fifteenth year in the service of the lepers.

Certain utterances concerning his morality called forth Robert Louis Stevenson’s well-known philippic against the Rev. Dr. Hyde, wherein the memory of the Apostle of the Lepers is brilliantly vindicated. In addition a correspondence in the “Pacific Commercial Advertiser,” 20 June, 1905, completely removes from the character of Father Damien every vestige of suspicion, proving beyond a doubt that Dr. Hyde’s insinuations rested merely on misunderstandings.

LIBERT H. BOEYNAEMS

Damietta

(Gr. Tamiathis, Arab. Doumiât).

An Egyptian titular see for the Latins and the Catholic Melchite Greeks, in Augustamnica Prima. Damietta, first mentioned by Stephanus Byzantius, was situated at the mouth of the Phatnitic branch of the Nile, on the right bank; its prosperity seems to have coincided with the decline of its religious metropolis Pelusium. Only four bishops are known, from 431 to 879. Under Caliph Omar the Arabs took it by treachery and successfully defended it against the Greeks who tried to recover it, particularly in 739, 821, 921 and 968. The Arabs also repulsed several attacks of Amaury I, King of Jerusalem. It was finally captured by Jean de Brienne, 1219, after a siege of 15 months; of its 70,000 inhabitants only 3000 survived. St. Francis of Assisi visited the camp of the crusaders and went thence to that of Sultan Malek Kemel to preach the Christian Faith. In 1221 the Franks were defeated and obliged to abandon the town. In June, 1249, it was again captured by St. Louis, who transformed into a church the magnificent mosque El-Fatah and established there a Latin bishop, Gilles; but having been taken prisoner with his army, April, 1250, he was obliged to surrender Damietta as ransom. In 1251 the Sultan, hearing that the pious king was preparing a new crusade, ordered the town and its citadel to be destroyed, except the mosque El-Fatah. Later on fishermen built their shelters among the ruins; in this way the modern town has gradually arisen. The site of ancient Damietta is erroneously placed by some historians at Esbeh el-Bordj, six miles from the modern town. Damietta is no longer at the mouth of the Nile, but ten miles from the sea; it is not heavily Moslem in population. Franciscans have resided there since the time of St. Francis. Wealthy inhabitants of Cairo are wont to retire to Damietta during the heated season. The harbour is of little importance. Damietta is also, probably since the fifth century, a see for the Monophysite Copts; moreover, one of the non-Catholic Greek metropolitans subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria bears the title of Pelusium and Damietta.

S. VAILHÉ

Dan

(Heb. dn, Sept. Dán),-(1) The fifth son of Jacob, being the elder of the two sons born to him by Bala, the handmaid of Rachel, and the eponymous ancestor of the tribe bearing the same name. Etymologically, the word is referred to the Hebrew root dyn signifying “to rule” or “judge,” and in the passage, Gen., xix, 17, it is interpreted “judge,” but in Gen. xxx, 6, the explanation of the name rests rather on the passive sense of the word-the child Dan being represented as the result of God’s judgment in favour of Rachel. In accordance with the meaning expressed in the latter passage, Josephus (Antiq., I, xix, 7) gives as the equivalent of the name Dan the Greek Theókritos. A cognate feminine form of the same word, likewise in the passive sense, is recognized in Dina (dynh), name of the daughter of Jacob by Lia, doubtless with reference to the judgment or vindication she received at the hands of her two brothers Simeon and Levi (Gen., xxxiv). Apart from the account connected with his birth in Gen., xxx, the Bible gives very little information concerning Dan the son of Jacob. In Gen., xxxv, 25, his name is mentioned together with those of the other sons of Israel, and in Gen., xlvi, which contains a genealogical list of their immediate descendants, we read (23), “The sons of Dan: Husim.” This last, being a Hebrew plural form, refers most likely not to an individual, but to a clan or tribe. In Numbers, xxvi, 42, we find “Suham” instead of “Husim.” In Jacob’s blessing (Gen., xlix), as well as in Deut., xxxiii, 22, and various other passages, the name Dan refers not to the son of the patriarch, but to the tribe of which he was the acknowledged father.

(2) One of the twelve tribes of Israel. According to the census related in the first chapter of Numbers (a section ascribed to the priestly writer), there were reckoned among the “sons of Dan” in the second year after the Exodus, 62,700 men “able to go forth to war,” being the largest number given to any of the tribes except that of Juda. Confining ourselves to the Biblical data, and prescinding from all criticism of sources, it would appear from these figures that the tribe must have suffered a considerable diminution ere its establishment in Canaan, where, from various indications, it appears as one of the smallest of the twelve. The territory occupied by the tribe lay to the south-west of Ephraim; it was bounded on the south by Juda and on the west by the Shephela. Whether the Danites occupied also the latter or were confined to the mountainous inland district is uncertain. A passage of the Canticle of Debbora (Judges, v, 17) would seem to indicate that the territory extended down to the sea, and moreover, among the towns enumerated in Josue, xix, 40–48 (P.) mention is made of Acron and Joppe. Be that as it may, it was doubtless because of their narrow territorial limits that later the Danites undertook an expedition northward and created a new settlement at Lais. For, notwithstanding the narrative contained in Josue, xix, 40- 48, indicating with detail the district and the cities allotted to Dan in the distribution after the conquest, we find later in the Book of Judges (xviii, 1) that “the tribe of Dan sought them an inheritance to dwell in: for unto that day they had not received their lot among the other tribes.” This was perhaps another way of conveying the idea already set forth in the first chapter, viz. that “the Amorrhite straitened the children of Dan in the mounbtain, and gave them not place to go down to the plain.” Being thus cramped and restricted in their territory, they resolved to seek a home elsewhere. The interesting story of this expedition is told, with many traits characteristic of that period of Hebrew civilization, in the eighteenth chapter of Judges. Having previously sent spies to reconnoitre the ground, the Danites sent a detachment of six hundred men who plundered and burnt the city of Lais, and butchered its inhabitants, after which they “rebuilt the city and dwelt therein.” At least a remnant of the tribe must have remained in the south, as is evidenced in the story of Samson, who was a Danite. Several references to the activities of the tribe of Dan in the early period of the monarchy are found in the Books of Chronicles. Thus, 28,600 armed men of the tribe are represented as taking part in the election of David in Hebron (I Par., xii, 35), and among the skilled artists sent by Hiram of Tyre to Solomon was the metal-worker Hiram, whose mother was of the tribe of Dan (II Par., ii, 13 sq.).

(3) A city of Palestine, originally Lais, or Lesem, and called Dan after it had been destroyed and rebuilt by the six hundred emissaries from the tribe of that name (Judges, xviii). Its location marked the northern boundary of Palestine as did Bersabee the southern extremity, whence the popular expression “from Dan to Bersabee” used to designate the entire extent of the country. Although nothing now remains of the city of Dan, its situation on the confines of Nephthali has been pretty accurately determined by means of various Scriptural and other ancient indications. That Lais was a Sidonian settlement at a distance from the parent city is clear from Judges, xviii, 7, 28, and the great fertility of the spot is affirmed in the same chapter (9, 12). Josephus, who calls the town Dána, and elsewhere Dánon, places it “in the neighbourhood of Mt. Libanus, near the fountains of the Lesser Jordan, in the great plain of Sidon, a day’s journey from the city” (Antiq., V, iii, 1). According to Eusebius and St. Jerome, the village of Dan was situated within four miles of Paneas (Banias, or Cæsarea-Philippi), on the road to Tyre, at the rise of the Jordan. Its proximity to Paneas has led to a confusion of the two towns in certain ancient works, as, for instance, in the Babylonian Talmud; and a few modern scholars, among whom is G. A. Smith, still identify Dan with Banias, but the generally received opinion places it at Tell el-Qadi, and this identification has in its favour, among other reasons, the practical identity of the name, as “Tell el-Qadi” signifies the “hill of the Judge.” This quadrangular mound is situated about a mile and a half south-west of Mt. Hermon, and to the west of Banias. The site and surroundings are remarkably picturesque, and close to the mound on the west is a spring from which clear, cold water flows in abundance, forming a nahr, or torrent, which the Arabs call Nahr Leddân-probably a corruption of ed-Dân. This torrent is the main source of the Jordan, and it is doubtless the “Lesser Jordan” mentioned by Josephus.

Dan is mentioned in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis in connection with the expedition of Abraham against Chodorlahomor, but it is doubtful if the place there referred to is the same as the ancient Lais. Though the identification is affirmed by both Eusebius and Jerome, many modern scholars place the Dan of Genesis, xiv, in the vicinity of Galaad, and identify it with Dan-Yuan mentioned in II Kings, xxiv, 6. The conquest of Lais by the Danites, referred to above under (2), is related in Judges, xviii. The portion of the tribe which took up its abode there was addicted to certain forms of idolatry from the beginning (cf. Judges, xviii, 30, 31), and it was in this frontier town that Jeroboam set up one of the golden calves which were intended to draw the Israelites of the Northern Kingdom away from the Sanctuary in Jerusalem (III Kings, xii, 29, 30; IV Kings, x, 29).

For (1) VIGOROUX, for f(2) and (3) LEGENDRE, both in Dict. de la Bible, s. v.; also for (1) and (2) PEAKE, for (3) MACKIE, both in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible, s. v.

JAMES F. DRISCOLL.

Danaba

A titular see of Phænicia Secunda. Danaba is mentioned by Ptolemy (V, xv, 24) as a town in the territory of Palmyra. According to Peutinger’s table (where it is called Danova) it was a Roman military station between Damascus and Palmyra, twenty miles from Nezala. Danaba figures in an Antiochene “Notitia episcopatuum” of the sixth century as a suffragan of Damascus, and remained so till perhaps the tenth century. Only two bishops are known: Theodore, who attended the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and subscribed the letter of the bishops of the province to Emperor Leo I in 458, and Eulogius, present at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 (Lequien, Or. Christ., III, 847). Today Danaba is probably represented by Hafer, a village five miles southeast of Sadad, in the vilayet of Damascus. About 300 Jacobite Syrians live there, most of whom have been converted to Catholicism.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Dance of Death

(French, Dance Macabre, Germ. Todtentanz)

The “Dance of Death” was originally a species of spectacular play akin to the English moralities. It has been traced back to the middle of the fourteenth century. The epidemics so frequent and so destructive at that time, such as the Black Death, brought before popular imagination the subject of death and its universal sway. The dramatic movement then developing led to its treatment in the dramatic form. In these plays Death appeared not as the destroyer, but as the messenger of God summoning men to the world beyond the grave, a conception familiar both to the Holy Bible and to the ancient poets. The dancing movement of the characters was a somewhat later development, as at first Death and his victims moved at a slow and dignified gait. But Death, acting the part of a messenger, naturally took the attitude and movement of the day, namely the fiddlers and other musicians, and the dance of death was the result.

The purpose of these plays was to teach the truth that all men must die and should therefore prepare themselves to appear before their Judge. The scene of the play was usually the cemetery or churchyard, though sometimes it may have been the church itself. The spectacle was opened by a sermon on the certainty of death delivered by a monk. At the close of the sermon there came forth from the charnel-house, usually found in the churchyard, a series of figures decked out in the traditional mask of death, a close-fitting, yellowish linen suit painted so as to resemble a skeleton. One of them addresses the intended victim, who is invited to accompany him beyond the grave. The first victim was usually the pope or the emperor. The invitation is not regarded with favour and various reasons are given for declining it, but these are found insufficient and finally death leads away his victim. A second messenger then seizes the hand of a new victim, a prince or a cardinal, who is followed by others representing the various classes of society, the usual number being twenty-four. The play was followed by a second sermon reinforcing the lesson of the representation.

The oldest traces of these plays are found in Germany, but we have the Spanish text for a similar dramatic performance dating back to the year 1360, “La Danza General de la Muerte.” We read of similar dramatic representations elsewhere: in Bruges before Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy in 1449; in 1453 at Besançon, and in France in the Cimetière des Innocents near Paris in 1424. That similar spectacles were known in England we infer from John Lydgate’s “Dance of Death” written in the first half of the fifteenth century. In Italy besides the traditional dance of death we find spectacular representations of death as the all-conqueror in the so-called “Trionfo della Morte.” The earliest traces of this conception may be found in Dante and Petrarch. In Florence (1559) the “triumph of death” formed a part of the carnival celebration. We may describe it as follows: After dark a huge wagon, draped in black and drawn by oxen, drove through the streets of the city. At the end of the shaft was seen the Angel of Death blowing the trumpet. On the top of the wagon stood a great figure of Death carrying a scythe and surrounded by coffins. Around the wagons were covered graves which opened whenever the procession halted. Men dressed in black garments on which were painted skulls and bones came forth and, seated on the edge of the graves, sang dirges on the shortness of human life. Before and behind the wagon appeared men in black and white bearing torches and death masks, followed by banners displaying skulls and bones and skeletons riding on scrawny nags. While they marched the entire company sang the Miserere with trembling voices.

Specimens of the dramatic dance of death have been preserved in the Altsfeld Passion Plays, in the French morality entitled “Charité,” and in the Neumarkt Passion Play which opens with the triumph of Death. As the painter’s art developed, the dance of death was in a way made permanent by being painted on the enclosing walls of cemeteries, on charnel-houses, in mortuary chapels, and even in churches. These representations are found in most of the countries of Europe. One of the most famous is the “Triumph of Death” in the cemetery of Pisa, painted between 1450 and 1500. One of the oldest pictures of the dance of death proper is that in the Cemetière des Innocents at Paris (1425). Bäumker, in Herder’s “Kirchenlexikon,” enumerates seven French dances of death dating back to the fifteenth century, three of the sixteenth century, three of the seventeenth century, seven of uncertain date, five in England, and four in Italy. Within the limits of the old German Empire there still exist some thirty painted dances of death scattered throughout Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. In many representations underneath the several couples are found a rhymed dialogue between Death and his victims, being the invitation of the former and the reply of his victim.

ENGRAVINGS

With the development of his art the dance of death naturally became a popular theme for the engraver. Many such prints were produced by various German artists, but the most famous version is that of the younger Holbein, issued in 1538 by the brothers Trechsel at Lyons. It appears to be clear from the researches of Wornum and Woltmann, of Paul Mantz, of W. J. Linton, the Rev. G. Davies, C. Dodgson, and others, that the drawings were undoubtedly the work of Hans Holbein the younger, who was resident in Basle up to the autumn of 1526, before which time the drawings must have been produced. They were distinctly in his manner and of extraordinarily high merit. There is no evidence that Holbein ever cut a block himself, and when these were issued it was expressly stated that the artist or engraver, who is now generally accepted as Hans Lütszelberger, one of the greatest of German engravers, was dead. But little is known of his career. He was certainly dead before 1526. The designs appear to have been cut on the wood eleven years before the book was published, and their issue was probably held back by reason of the unsettled state of religious opinion in Basle. The series comprises forty-two engravings, the subject expressed with masterly dramatic power, marvellous clearness, and marked reticence of line. Technically they are as perfect as woodcuts can be. There are five sets of proof impressions in existence, and the little book passed through nine editions at Lyons and was printed also in Venice, Augsburg, and Basle. There have been many reissues and reproductions of it, and a facsimile of the first edition was published in Munich in 1884.

Besides the “Dance of Death” Holbein designed a series of initials consisting of an alphabet in which it is the motif. Of Holbein’s larger “Dance of Death” more than one hundred editions have appeared. Since Holbein this subject has been treated again and again, especially by German engravers. The most noted of recent dances of death is that by Alfred Rethel, 1848, in which Death is represented as the hero of the Red Republic. Both the conception and the execution of Rethel’s engravings are highly artistic and impressive.

CHARLES G. HERBERMANN & GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Dancing

The origin of dancing is to be sought in the natural tendency to employ gesture either to supplement or to replace speech. Strong emotions, in particular, key up the organs to a pitch of exaltation which spontaneously manifests itself through more or less rhythmical movements that constitute what may be considered as elementary and natural dances. But in the same manner as speech soon developed into poetry and song, so also did these bodily movements gradually develop into the art of dancing. Both spontaneous and artistic dancing may be described as “an expression of the feelings by movements of the body more or less controlled by a sense of rhythm”(J. Millar), and are to some degree practised by all peoples. The Hebrews were no exception; their language contains no less than eight verbs to express the idea of dancing. However, many of the allusions found in the Bible point to mere spontaneous expressions of merriment by leaping, circling, or otherwise. Of this description were very likely the dances of Mary and the women of Israel after the crossing of the Red Sea (Exod., xv, 20), of the people around the golden calf (Exod., xxii, 19), of Jephte’s daughter coming to meet her father after the latter’s victory ( Judges, xi, 34), of the inhabitants of the cities on the way of the army commanded by Holophernes (Judith, iii, 10), even of David before the Ark (II K., vi, 5, 22). From these various places it might be inferred that dancing was a manifestation of joy ordinarily exhibited by women, and we know how David, in the occurrence above referred to, excited Michol’s wonder. In later times dancing was positively looked upon as unbecoming men; such also was the opinion in Rome, where the saying ran that a man, to indulge in dancing, must be either intoxicated or mad.

Dancing as an art was made subservient to various purposes. Its use as an aid to heighten the splendour of religious celebrations should be first considered. Religious dances consisted mostly of slow and stately processions through the streets of the city or around the altar. Usually they were performed by colleges of priests; but occasionally citizens of both sexes and all ranks, without any disparagement to the gravity of their characters or dignity of position, took a part in these exhibitions (Liv., I, xx; Quintil., I, ii, 18; Macrob., Sat. ii, 10). All religious dances, however, were not performed with the gravity above referred to. In Rome, the salii, carrying the sacred shields through the streets, leapt and jumped clumsily “like stamping fullers” (Senec. Ep. xv). The Bible describes likewise the priests of Baal limping (so Heb.; D.V.: “leaping”) around the altar (III K., xviii, 26). Throughout the East sacred dances were a prominent feature in religious worship. In Egypt even colleges of female singers and dancers were annexed to certain shrines. That dancing was also an accompaniment of the Jahweh worship is probable from Judges, xxi, 21, for early times, and clearly evidenced by Pss. cxlix, 3, and cl, 4, for the epoch following the captivity. The texts seem further to indicate that, in the second Temple, persons engaged in dancing and singing in God’s honour formed choirs similar to those of the pagan rites (Cic., Phil., v, 6; Virg., Aen., VIII, 718; Hor., Od., I, i, 31).

War dances, so common among many peoples, and which were frequently introduced to enhance the pageants of public festivities among the Greeks and Romans, have left no trace among the Hebrews and their neighbours, although they are not unknown to modern inhabitants of Palestine and Arabia. Mimetic dances were as little known in the East as those of a military character. They consisted of expressive movements of the features, body, arms, and hands, executed to a musical accompaniment and meant vividly to represent historical or fabulous events and the actions and passions of well-known characters. How much such performances were relished by the Romans, we learn from many passages of Latin writers, such, e.g., as Macrob., Sat. ii, 7; Suet., “Calig.,” 57, “Nero,” 54, “Tit.,” 7; Ovid, “Ars Am.,” I, 595, etc. Still more was scenic dancing in favour in Rome and Greece. It consisted of harmonious movements principally of the arms, body, and feet, intended to show forth all the flexibility, agility, and grace of the human body. Such exhibitions were usually given for the pleasure of the guests, at great banquets, and performed by professional dancers hired for the occasion. Female dancers—there were also male dancers—were preferred. They were generally persons of considerable beauty and indifferent morals, and their performances were calculated to set forth, even at the cost of modesty for which they cared little, all the charms and attractiveness of their graceful figures. This class of persons, common in ancient Greece and Italy, were not altogether unknown in Palestine, at least in later times, if we believe the indication of Ecclus., ix, 4. The author Eccles, impersonating Solomon, relates he had procured for his own enjoyment “singing men and singing women” (ii, 8), that is to say, very likely, dancers, for singing and dancing were scarcely distinct. At any rate, the performance of Herodias’ daughter, recorded in Matt., xiv, 6, and the pleasure it afforded to Herod and his guests, show how Greek and Roman corruption had, about the time of Christ, made headway among the higher classes of Palestine.

Although perhaps less common, and certainly less elaborate than with us, social dancing appears nevertheless to have been a pleasurable diversion in ancient times, at least among the Jews. For, understood in the light of Judges, xxi, 21, such statements as those of Is., xvi, 10, and Jer., xxv, 30, indicate that the vintage season was one of public merriment exhibited in dances. Dancing was likewise indulged in, even by most grave persons (Bab. Talm., Ketuboth, 16b), at weddings and the Feast of Tabernacles. Men and women danced apart, as is still the custom in the East. Social dancing has undergone considerable development in the last few centuries, both as to prevalence and elaborateness. The introduction into modern fashion of the so-called round dances has quickened the interest of the old question anent the morality of dancing. As an exercise of physical culture, aside from the generally unhealthful conditions of dancing-halls, dancing may have advantages; we should not wonder, therefore, that from this viewpoint Plato would recommend it. From the moral standpoint, religious and military dancing has never met with any criticism. Mimetic shows, on the contrary, mostly representing love-stories and mythological subjects, were at times so offensive to modesty that even the pagan emperors deemed it their duty to banish them repeatedly from Italy. In no wise better, as has been shown above, were scenic dances; and male and female dancers were in Rome considered, as are nowadays in Egypt, India, and Japan, the almehs, the bayaderes, and the geishas, as a lower and degraded class. According to Roman law, such persons were infames. Against their performances the Fathers of the Church raised a strong voice. The Decretals went farther, forbidding clerics to attend any mimic or histrionic exhibitions and enacting that any cleric taking active part in them should forfeit all his privileges, and that all persons engaged in professional dancing, mimic or histrionic performances, should incur irregularity and be thereby forever debarred from the clerical state and rendered incapable of receiving orders. As to social dancing, now so much in vogue, whilst in itself it is an indifferent act, moralists are inclined to place it under the ban, on account of the various dancers associated with it. Undoubtedly old national dances in which the performers stand apart, hardly, if at all, holding the partner’s hand, fall under ethical censure scarcely more than any other kind of social intercourse. But, aside from the concomitants—place, late hours, décolleté, escorting, etc.—common to all such entertainments, round dances, although they may possibly be carried on with decorum and modesty, are regarded by moralists as fraught, by their very nature, with the greatest danger to morals. To them perhaps, but unquestionably still more obviously to masked balls, should be applied the warning of the Second Council of Baltimore, against “those fashionable dances, which, as at present carried on, are revolting to every feeling of delicacy and propriety.” Needless to add that decency as well as the oft-repeated decrees of particular and general councils forbid clerics to appear, in any capacity whatever, on public dancing floors.

READ, Characteristic National Dances (London, 1853); TRISTRAM, Eastern customs; RICH, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (London, 1884), s. v. Saltatio, etc.; DARENBERG AND SAGLIO, Dictionnaire des antiquites grecques et romaines (Paris); MASPERO, Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient (Paris, 1895), I, 126; II, 220; DALMAN, Palaestinischer Diwan (Leipzig, 1901); FERRARIS, Bibliotheca canonica (Rome, 1886), s. v. Choreae, Clericus, Irregularitas; Acta et Decreta Conc. Baltimor. II, Pastoral Letter; Decr. n. 472.

CHARLES L. SOUVAY

Enrico Dandolo

Doge of Venice from 1192 to 1205; died, aged about a hundred years, in 1205. He belonged to one of the electoral families who claimed descent from the twelve tribunes by whom the first doge had been elected in 697. In the course of the twelth century one of his relations was Patriarch of Grado for fifty years (Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XIV, 71). Of his life, we only know the role he played in history, but he appears to have been a man of uncommon physical and mental strength. At the age of almost a hundred he took the cross, and led the expedition against Constantinople; a fearless knight and the first to scale the walls of a city, he was also a distinguished diplomat, and his influence seems to have been predominant in the Fourth Crusade. He is first mentioned as taking part in the war between Venice and the Emperor Manuel Comnenus in 1171. The Venetians, decimated by the plague, were at Chios, and Dandolo was sent to Constantinople to make a treaty of peace. According to a tradition quoted by the “Chronicle of Novgrod,” the emperor burnt out his eyes. Andrea Dandolo (1307–1354), a descendant of the same family, makes the statement that he was partly deprived of his sight in the services, of his country (pro salute patriae constanter resistens, visu aliqualiter obtenebratus est, “Chronic.,” ed. Muratori, xii, 298). It would seem that in spite of all the torture he underwent Dandolo was not completely deprived of sight (see Luchaire in “Journal des Savants,” 1907, p. 110). In 1172 he went on a mission to William II of Sicily, then once more to Constantinople. In 1178 Dandolo was one of the forty electors commissioned, for the first time, to elect the doge. He himself was elected doge in his turn (1 June, 1192). In spite of his advanced age he displayed great activity, put an end to the commercial quarrels with Verona, declared war against the inhabitants of Zara for uniting their city to Hungary, and against the Pisans, who had attempted to establish themselves in Istria. In 1198 he concluded a treaty of alliance with the Emperor Alexis III of Constantinople, but as early as 1201 Venice had disagreements with Alexis who broke all his promises and granted numerous privileges to the Genoese and the Pisans.

At this time (March, 1201) the leaders of the Fourth Crusade came to negotiate with Venice for the transport of the troops to the Orient; Dandolo himself took the cross as well as several other Venetian nobles. In consequence of circumstances not yet clearly explained, the crusade, originally directed against Egypt, was turned first against Zara and then against Constantinople. Streit (Venedig und die Wendung des vierten Kreuzzuges, 1877) attributes to Enrico Dandolo the principal role in the intrigues which preceded these events. Riant (Revue des question historiques, XXIII, 109) has pointed out very truly that the initiative of the doge was strictly limited by the Constitution of Venice. If Dandolo directed the negotiations he did it in agreement with the councils of Venice. With this reservation it may be admitted that Dandolo took the leading part in the negotiations which ended in the capture of Constantinople. In fact it was to the interest of Venice to re-establish order and security in the Byzantine Empire. Dandolo proposed the expedition against Zara (October, 1212) to the crusaders, as a way to pay off their debt to Venice. In the council of war held after the capture of Zara, according to the testimony of Robert de Clare, Dandolo was the first to suggest that the preliminary occupation of Greece would greatly facilitate the conquest of the Holy Land. Thereafter, duuring the entire expedition, his influence over the leaders of the Crusade grew from day to day. He presided at the council of war held the Abbey of San Stefano, 23 June, 1203, and gave the wisest advice to the barons. In spite of his age he took an active part in the operations of the siege of Constantinople. While the barons attacked the walls in the Blachernae quarter, Dandolo directed the assault of the Venetians against the sea walls and hoisted the gonfalon of St. Mark on his galley. The city captured, he wished to force Alexis IV to keep the promises made to the crusaders. Upon his refusal, Dandolo boldly defied him and advised the barons to undertake a second siege of the city. In the council of war, 1 May, 1204, Dandolo signed with them the treaty partitioning the empire between Venice and the crusaders.

After the capture of the city he had Boniface of Montferrat driven out of the empire; the barons offered him the imperial crown, but he loyally refused it, so as not to violate the Constitution of Venice. The new emperor Baldwin gave him the title of “Despot,” and he settled in Constantinople. In 1205 he took part in the disastrous expedition against the Bulgarians; he died shortly afterwards and was buried in St. Sophia. Dandolo by his skill and energy established the political and commercial power of Venice in the Orient.

For bibliography see CRUSADES.

LOUIS BREHIER

Daniel

The hero and traditional author of the book which bears his name.

This name (Heb. dnyal or dnal; Sept. Daniél), which is also that of two other persons in the Old Testament [cf. I Paral., iii, 1; I Esd., viii, 2, and II Esd. (Nehem.), x, 6], means “God is my judge,” and is thus a fitting appellation for the writer of the Book of Daniel, wherein God’s judgments are repeatedly pronounced upon the Gentile powers.

Nearly all that is known concerning the Prophet Daniel is derived from the book ascribed to him. He belonged to the tribe of Juda (i, 6), and was of noble, or perhaps of royal, descent (i, 3; cf. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. X, ch. x, § 1). When still a youth, probably about fourteen years of age, he was carried captive to Babylon by Nabuchodonosor in the fourth year of the reign of Joakim (605 B. C.). There, with three other youths of equal rank named Ananias, Misael and Azarias, he was entrusted to the care of Asphenez, the master of the king’s eunuchs, and was educated in the language and learning of the “Chaldeans,” whereby are meant the professors of divination, magic, and astrology in Babylon (i, 3, 4). From this passage Jewish tradition has inferred that Daniel and his companions were made eunuchs; but this does not necessarily follow; the master of the eunuchs simply trained these Jewish youths, among others, with a view to their entering the king’s service (i, 5). Daniel now received the new name of Baltassar (Babyl. Balâtsu-usur, “Bel protect his life”), and, in agreement with Ananias, Misael, and Azarias, who received similarly the new names of Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, respectively, asked and obtained permission not to use the special food from the royal table provided for those under training, and to be limited to vegetable diet. At the end of three years Daniel and his three companions appeared before the king, who found that they excelled all the others who had been educated with them, and thereupon promoted them to a place in his court. Henceforth, whenever the prince tested them, they proved superior to “all the diviners, and wise men, that were in all his kingdom” (i, 7–20). Soon afterwards-either in the second or in the twelfth year of Nabuchodonosor’s reign-Daniel gave a signal proof of his marvellous wisdom. On the failure of all the other wise men, he repeated and interpreted, to the monarch’s satisfaction, the king’s dream of a colossal statue which was made up of various materials, and which, on being struck by a stone, was broken into pieces, while the stone grew into a mountain and filled the whole earth. On this account, Daniel in Babylon, as Joseph of old in Egypt, rose into high favour with the prince, who not only bestowed on him numerous gifts, but also made him ruler of “the whole province of Babylon” and chief governor of “all the wise men.” At Daniel’s request, too, his three friends received important promotions (ii). The next opportunity afforded Daniel to give proof of his wisdom was another dream of Nabuchodonosor which, once more, he alone was able to interpret. The dream was of a mighty tree concerning which the king heard the command given that it should be cut down, and that “seven times” should “pass over” its stump, which had been left standing. This, explained Daniel, portended that in punishment of his pride the monarch would for a while lose his throne, be bereft of his reason, imagining himself an ox, and live in the open fields, but be again restored to his power, finally convinced of the supreme might and goodness of the Most High. With holy freedom, although in vain, the Prophet exhorted the king to forestall such punishment by atoning for his sins by deeds of mercy; and Daniel’s prediction was fulfilled to the letter (iv). For a parallel to this, see Abydenus’ account (second century B.C.) quoted in Eusebius (Præp. Evang. IX, xl).

Nothing is expressly said as to what became of Daniel upon the death of Nabuchodonosor (561 B.C.); it is simply intimated in Daniel, v, 11 sqq., that he lost his high office at the court and lived long in retirement. The incident which brought him to public notice again was the scene of revelry in Baltasar’s palace, on the eve of Cyrus’s conquest of Babylon (538 B.C.). While Baltasar (Heb. Belsh’aççar, corresponding to the Babyl. Balâtsu-usur, “Bel protect the king”) and his lords feasted, impiously drinking their wine from precious vessels which had been taken from the Temple at Jerusalem, there appeared the fingers of a man writing on the wall: “Mane, Thecel, Phares.” These mysterious words, which none of the king’s wise men was able to interpret, were explained by Daniel, who at length had been summoned, and who for his reward became one of the three chief ministers in the kingdom. The prophet, now at least eighty years of age, remained in that exalted position under Darius the Mede, a prince possibly to be identified with Darius Hystaspes (485 B.C.). Darius, moreover, thought of setting him over all the kingdom (vi, 4), when Daniel’s fellow-officers, fearing such an elevation, sought to compass his ruin by convicting him of disloyalty to the Crown. They secured from the king a decree forbidding anyone, under penalty of being cast into the lions’ den, to ask any petition of either god or man, except the monarch, for thirty days. As they had anticipated, Daniel nevertheless prayed, three times a day, at his open window, towards Jerusalem. This they reported to the king, and they forced him to apply the threatened punishment to the violator of the decree. Upon Daniel’s miraculous preservation in the lions’ den, Darius published a decree that all in his realm should honour and revere the God of Daniel, proclaiming that He is “the living and eternal God.” And so Daniel continued to prosper through the rest of the reign of Darius, and in that of his successor, Cyrus the Persian (vi).

Such, in substance, are the facts which may be gathered for a biography of the Prophet Daniel from the narrative portion of his book (i-vi). Hardly any other facts are contributed to this biography from the second, and more distinctly apocalyptic, portion of the same work (vii-xii). The visions therein described represent him chiefly as a seer favoured with Divine communications respecting the future punishment of the Gentile powers and the ultimate setting up of the Messianic Kingdom. These mysterious revelations are referred to the reigns of Darius, Baltasar, and Cyrus, and as they are explained to him by the Angel Gabriel from an ever clearer disclosure of what is to happen in “the time of the end.” In the deuterocanonical appendix to his book (xiii-xiv), Daniel reappears in the same general character as in the first part of his work (i-vi). Chapter xiii sets him forth as an inspired youth whose superior wisdom puts to shame and secures the punishment of the false accusers of the chaste Susanna. The concluding chapter (xiv), which tells the history of the destruction of Bel and the dragon, represents Daniel as a fearless and most successful champion of the true and living God. Outside of the Book of Daniel, Holy Writ has but few references to the prophet of that name. Ezechiel (xiv, 14) speaks of Daniel, together with Noe and Job, as a pattern of righteousness and, in chapter xxviii, 3, as the representative of perfect wisdom. The writer of the First Book fo the Machabees (ii, 60) refers to his deliverance out of the mouth of the lions, and St. Matthew (xxiv, 15) to “the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” As might well be expected, Jewish tradition had been busy with completing the meagre account of Daniel’s life as supplied by the Sacred Scriptures. Allusion has already been made to the tradition of the Jews, accepted by many Fathers of the Church, which states that he was made a eunuch in Babylon. Other Jewish traditions represent him as refusing divine honours profferred to him by Nabuchodonosor; they explain the reason why he was not forced with his three friends to worship that prince’s statue in the plain of Dura (Dan., iii), he had been sent away by the king, who wanted to spare Daniel’s life, for he knew full well that the prophet would never agree to commit such an act of idolatry; they give many fanciful details, as for instance concerning what happened to Daniel in the lions’ den. Others endeavour to account for what they assume to be a fact, viz. that Yahweh’s devout prophet did not return to God’s land and city after the decree of restoration issued by Cyrus; while others again affirm that he actually went back to Judea and died there. Hardly less incredible and conflicting legends concerning Daniel’s life and place of burial are met with in Arabic literature, although his name is not mentioned in the Koran. During the Middle Ages there was a widespread and persistent tradition that Daniel was buried at Susa, the modern Shuster, in the Persian province of Khuzistan. In the account of his visit to Susa in A.D. 1165, Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela narrates that Daniel’s tomb was shown him in the façade of one of the synagogues of that city; and it is shown there to the present day. The Roman martyrology assigns Daniel’s feast as a holy prophet to 21 July, and apparently treats Babylon as his burial-place.

VIGOROUX, La Bible et les découvertes modernes (Paris, 1889), IV, Bk. III; DRANE, Daniel, His Life and Times (London, 1888). See also the commentaries and introductions in bibliography of .

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Anthony Daniel

Huron missionary, born at Dieppe, in Normandy, 27 May 1601, slain by the Iroquois at Teanaostae, near Hillsdale, Limcoe County, Ontario, Canada, 4 July, 1648. After two years’ study of philosophy and one of law, he entered the Society of Jesus in Rome, 1 October, 1621. Sent to Canada in 1633 he was first stationed at Cape Breton, where his brother Captain Daniel had established a French fort in 1629. For two years he had charge at Quebec of a school for Indian boys, but with this exception he was connected with the Mission at Ihonatiria, in the Huron country, from July, 1634, until his death fourteen years later. In the summer of 1648, the Iroquois made a sudden attack on the mission while most of the Huron braves were absent. Father Daniel did all in his power to aid his people. Before the palisades had been scaled he hurried to the chapel where the women, children, and old men were gathered gave them general absolution and baptized the catechumens. Daniel himself made no attempt to escape, but calmly advanced to meet the enemy. Seized with amazement the savages halted for a moment, then recovering themselves they discharged at him a shower of arrows. “The victim to the heroism of charity,” says Bancroft, “died, the name of Jesus on his lips, the wilderness gave him a grave; the Huron nation were his mourners” (vol. II, ch. xxxii). Here Bancroft is in error. The lifeless body was flung into the burning chapel and both were consumed together. Daniel was the second to receive the martyr’s crown among the Jesuits sent to New France, and the first of the missionaries to the Hurons. Father Ragueneau, his superior, speaks of him in a letter to the general of the order as “a truly remarkable man, humble, obedient, united with God, of never failing patience and indomitable courage in adversity” (Thwaites, tr. Relations, XXXIII, 253–269).

EDWARD P. SPILLANE.

Book of Daniel

In the Hebrew Bible, and in most recent Protestant versions, the Book of Daniel is limited to its proto-canonical portions. In the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and many other ancient and modern translations of the Bible, it comprises both its proto- and its deutero-canonical parts, both of which have an equal right to be considered as inspired, and to be included in a treatment of the Book of Daniel. As in the Vulgate nearly all the deutero-canonical portions of that prophetical writing form a kind of appendix to its proto-canonical contents in the Hebrew text. This article will deal first with the Book of Daniel as it is found in the Hebrew Bible, and next, with its deutero-canonical portions.

PROTO-CANONICAL PORTIONS

(1) CONTENTS

The Book of Daniel, as it now stands in the ordinary Hebrew Bibles, is generally divided into two main parts. The first includes a series of narratives which are told in the third person (chaps. i-vi), and the second, a series of visions which are described in the first person (chaps. vii-xii). The opening chapter of the first series may be considered as a preface to the whole work. It introduces to the reader the Hebrew heroes of the book, Daniel and his three fellow-captives, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias, and records the manner in which these noble youths obtained a high rank in Nebuchadnezzer’s service, although they had refused to be defiled by eating of the royal food. The second chapter relates a disquieting dream of the king which Daniel alone was able accurately to set forth and interpret. Nebuchadnezzer’s dream was that of a great statue made up of various materials and broken in pieces by a small stone which became a mountain and filled the whole earth. Daniel’s interpretation was to the effect that the several parts of the statue with their various materials symbolized as many monarchies with their respective power, while the stone which destroyed them and grew into a great mountain prefigured a universal and everlasting kingdom which would break in pieces all the other kingdoms, and which, of course, is no other than that of the Messiah.

The next section (iii, 1–30, Vulgate, iii, 1–23, 91–97) narrates how Daniel’s three companions, having refused to worship a colossal statue set up by Nebuchadnezzer, were cast into a highly-heated furnace in which they were preserved unharmed, whereupon the king issued a decree in favour of their God and promoted them to places of dignity. The following section (iii, 31-iv, Vulgate, iii, 98-iv) contains Nebuchadnezzer’s letter to all peoples and nations, recounting his dream of a mighty tree cut down at God’s bidding, and its interpretation by Daniel, together with its fulfilment in the form of a seven years’ madness which befell the king, and the recovery from which was the occasion of his thankful letter. The fifth chapter (Heb. Bible, v-vi, 1) describes Balthasar’s profane banquet, the mysterious handwriting on the wall, Daniel’s interpretation of that writing, and the overthrow, on that same night, of Balthasar’s kingdom. In the sixth chapter Daniel is represented as the object of the special favour of Darius the Mede, and also of the persistent jealousy of the other officers of the Crown, who finally succeed in having him thrown into the lions’ den, because of his faithfulness in praying to God three times a day; upon Daniel’s miraculous preservation, Darius decrees that all in his kingdom should “dread and fear the God of Daniel.”

The second main part of the book in the Hebrew Bible (vii-xii) is taken up with four visions which Daniel describes in the first person. The first of these visions (ch. vii) is referred to the first year of Balthasar’s reign, and offers a close parallel to the dream set forth and explained in the second chapter of the book. The nightly vision was of four several beasts coming out of the sea, and symbolical of the Gentile powers judged in due time by “the Ancient of days,” and finally replaced by the universal and everlasting Messianic kingdom. Like the first, the second vision (ch. viii) is ascribed to the reign of Balthasar, and represents worldly powers under the figure of animals. Daniel sees a ram with two horns (the Medes and the Persians) pushing victoriously towards the west, north and south, until it is struck by a he-goat (the Greeks) with a great horn (Alexander) between its eyes. This great horn is soon broken in its turn, and gives place to four others (the Greek kingdoms of Egypt, Syria, Macedonia, and Thrace), from one of which grows out a “little horn,” namely Antiochus Epiphanes. This prince is not, indeed, named by the Angel Gabriel, who explains the vision to Daniel, but is clearly designated by the description of the doings of the “little horn” against the host of heaven and its prince (God), desecrating “the sanctuary,” interrupting the daily sacrifice for about three years and a half, and finally “broken without hand.”

The next chapter contains the prophecy of the seventy weeks, which is referred to the first year of Darius, the son of Assuerus. As Daniel was supplicating God for the fulfilment of His promises of mercy in Jeremiah, xxix, 10 sq., or xxv, 11, he was favoured with the vision of the Angel Gabriel. The heavenly messenger explained to him how the seventy years of desolation foretold by Jeremiah should be understood. They are seventy weeks of years, falling into three periods of seven, sixty-two, and one weeks of years, respectively. The first period one of seven weeks, or forty-nine years, will extend from the going forth of “the word” for the rebuilding of Jerusalem to “an anointed one, a prince.” During the second, of sixty-two weeks or four hundred and thirty-four years, the Holy City will be built, though “in straitness of times.” At the end of this period “an anointed one” will be cut off, and the people of a prince who shall come will “destroy” the city and the sanctuary, he will make a firm covenant with many for one week (or seven years), and during a half of this week he will cause sacrifice and oblation to cease and the abomination of desolation to be set up, until he meets with his fate. The last vision, ascribed to the third year of Cyrus, is recorded in chapters x-xii. Its opening part (x-xi, 1) gives a description of the vision with a reference to Media, Persia, and Greece. The second part (xi) announces many events connected with four Persian kings, with Alexander and his successors and more particularly with the deeds of a king of the North, i.e. Antiochus Epiphanes, against Egypt, the Jews, the Temple, etc., until he should come to an end. The conclusion of the vision (xii) declares how Michael (the guardian angel of Israel) will deliver the people. Mention is made of a resurrection of the dead, followed by rewards and punishments. For 1290 days, or about three and one half years, the daily sacrifice will cease and the abomination of desolation will be set up. Blessed is he who continues steadfast till 1335 days.

(2) OBJECT AND UNITY

From these contents it readily appears that the Book of Daniel has not for its object to give a summary historical account of the period of the Babylonian Exile, or of the life of Daniel himself, since both its parts profess to give only a few isolated facts connected with either the Exile or the Prophet’s life. From the same contents it can also be readily seen that the object of that sacred writing is not to record in substance prophetical addresses similar to those which make up the works ascribed to distinct prophets in the Old Testament literature. In respect to both matter and form, the contents of the Prophecy of Daniel are of a peculiar kind which has no exact parallel in the Bible, except in the Apocalypse of St. John. In Daniel, as in this last book of the Bible, one is in presence of contents whose general purpose is undoubtedly to comfort God’s people under the ordeal of a cruel persecution, chiefly by means of symbolical visions bearing on “the time of the end.” This is the obvious purpose of the four visions recorded in the second part of the Book of Daniel (chaps. vii-xii), and also of Nebuchadnezzer’s dream as given and explained in the second chapter of the first part of that inspired writing: the persecution therein in view is that of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the Jews are to be comforted by the assured prospect both of the fate that awaits their oppressor and of the setting up of God’s universal and eternal kingdom. Nor have the narratives in chapters iii-vi a different general purpose: in each and in all of them the generous and constant servants of the true God—Daniel and his fellow captives—triumph in the end, while their oppressors, however mighty or numerous, are ultimately punished or made to acknowledge and promote the glory of the God of Israel. This apocalyptic object of the Book of Daniel is admitted by most scholars of the present day, and is in harmony with the place assigned to that sacred writing in the Hebrew Bible, where it appears not among “the Prophets,” or second great division of the original text, but among “the Writings,” or third main division of that text.

As apocalyptic writings usually bear the impress of compilation, one might naturally be tempted to regard the Book of Daniel—whose apocalyptic character has just been described—as a compilatory work. In fact, many scholars of the last century—some of whom were Catholic—have set forth positive grounds to prove that the author of the book has actually put together such documents as could make for his general purpose. At the present day, however, the opposite view, which maintains the literary unity of the Prophecy of Daniel, is practically universal. It is felt that the uniform plan of the book, the studied arrangement of its subject-matter, the strong similarity in language of its two main parts, etc. are arguments which tell very powerfully in favour of the latter position.

(3) AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF COMPOSITION

Once it is admitted that the Book of Daniel is the work of one single author, there naturally arises the important question: Is this sole writer the Prophet Daniel who composed the work during the Exile (586–536 B.C.), or, on the contrary, some author, now unknown, who wrote this inspired book at a later date, which can still be made out? The traditional view, in vigour chiefly among Catholics, is to the effect that the whole work, as found in the Hebrew Bible, should be directly referred to Daniel, whose name it bears. It admits, indeed, that numerous alterations have been introduced into the primitive text of the book in the course of ages. It maintains, nevertheless, that both the narratives (chaps. i-vi) wherein Daniel seems to be described by some one else as acting as recorded, and the symbolic visions (chaps. vii-xiu) wherein he describes himself as favoured with heavenly revelations, were written, not simply by an author who was contemporary with that prophet and lived in Babylon in the sixth century B.C., but by Daniel himself. Such difference in the use of persons is regarded as arising naturally from the respective contents of the two parts of the book: Daniel employed the third person in recording events, for the event is its own witness; and the first person in relating prophetical visions, for such communications from above need the personal attestation of those to whom they are imparted. Over against this time-honoured position which ascribes to Daniel the authorship of the book which bears his name, and admits 570–536 B.C. as its date of composition, stands a comparatively recent theory which has been widely accepted by contemporary scholars. Chiefly on the basis of historical and linguistic grounds, this rival theory refers the origin of the Book of Daniel, in its present form, to a later writer and period. It regards that apocalyptic writing as the work of an unknown author who composed it during the period of the Machabees, and more precisely in the time of Antiochus IV, Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.).

The following are the extrinsic testimonies which conservative scholars usually and confidently set forth as proving that the Book of Daniel must be referred to the well-known Prophet of that name and consequently to a much earlier date than that advocated by their opponents. Christian tradition, both in the East and in the West, has been practically unanimous from Christ’s time to the present day in admitting the genuineness of the Book of Daniel. Its testimony is chiefly based on Matthew, xxiv, 15: “When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand,” in which passage Christ treats Daniel’s visions as true oracles, and expressly names that Prophet as their writer. In so doing, it is argued, Christ endorsed and confirmed by His authority the view which was then received among the Jews, and which regarded Daniel as the author of the book which bears his name. Jewish tradition, both during and before Christ’s time, bears also distinct witness to the genuineness of the Prophecy of Daniel. In his “Antiquities of the Jews” (Bk. XI, ch. viii, 5), the learned Jewish priest and Pharisee, Josephus (about A.D. 40–100), writes: “When the Book of Daniel was shown to Alexander the Great (d. 323 B.C.), wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended.” Before the Christian Era the First Book of the Machabees (written very early in the first century B.C.) shows acquaintance with the Septuagint version of the Prophecy of Daniel (cf. I Mach., i, 54, with Dan., ix, 27, I Mach., ii, 59, 60 with Dan., iii, vi), whence it is inferred

that at that date the Book of Daniel must have been for some considerable time rendered into Greek, and

that its composition must have preceded this translation by some considerable time more, so that its origin under Antiochus Epiphanes is hardly probable.

Again, the Sibylline Oracles (Bk. III, verses 388 sqq.), supposed to have been written about 170 B.C., contain an allusion to Antiochus IV, and to the ten horns of Dan., vii, 7, 24, and therefore point to an earlier date than that which is proposed by the advocates of the recent theory. More particularly still, the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch, made about 285 B.C., exhibits in Deut., xxxii, 8, a doctrine of guardian angels which it has apparently borrowed from the Book of Daniel, and thus tends to prove the existence of that inspired writing long before the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Finally, according to Josephus (Contra Apion, VIII), the Old Testament Canon of the Jews of Palestine, which has always included Daniel among “the Writings,” was closed by Esdras (middle of the fifth century B.C.), that is to say, at a date so near the composition of the book that its genuineness could then be easily ascertained, and would naturally be the reason for the insertion of the work into the Palestinian Canon. To strengthen the inference drawn from these external testimonies, conservative scholars appeal to the following direct and indirect intrinsic grounds. Throughout the second part of his book Daniel speaks in the first person and thereby gives himself implicitly as the writer of chapters vii-xii. Even more, in the words: “Then he [Daniel] wrote the dream and told the sum of the matters,” we have a statement which ascribes expressly to him the writing of the first vision (chap. vii) and, implicitly, that of the subsequent visions, which are indissolubly bound up with the opening one. Now, if the visions described in the second part of the book were recorded by Daniel himself, the same thing must be admitted in regard to narratives which make up the first part of the book (chaps. i-vi), because of the acknowledged unity of the work. And in this way direct intrinsic evidence is considered as making for the Danielic authorship. The indirect intrinsic grounds point in the same direction, inasmuch as they tend to show that the author of the Book of Daniel was

a resident in Babylon

one who wrote in the period to which the Prophet Daniel belonged, and

one who is best identified with that Prophet himself.

The first of these positions, it is said, is borne out by the close acquaintance which the author evinces in the historical portion of the work (chaps. i-vi) with the manners, customs, history, religion, etc. of the Babylonians the minute details he refers to, the local colouring of his descriptions, his exact references to facts, are such as only a resident in Babylon could be fairly supposed to possess. It is likewise borne out by a comparison of the form of Daniel’s prophecies in chapters vii-xii with the general surroundings of one living in Babylon and with the Babylonian monuments in particular; the imagery of Daniel’s vision in the seventh chapter, for instance, is nearly the same as that found on monuments in the ruins of Ninive; and in chapters viii, 2 (Heb. text), and x, 4, the river banks are most appropriately given as the scenes of Daniel’s visions. While thus very familiar with Babylonia, the author of the Book of Daniel betrays no such special knowledge of Persia and Greece as would be natural to expect if, instead of living in the sixth century B.C., he had been a contemporary of Antiochus Epiphanes. This absence of distinct knowledge of the times subsequent to the Babylonian period has sometimes been urged to prove the second position: that the writer belonged to that period, and to no other. More often, however, and more strongly, the linguistic features of the Book of Daniel have been brought forth to establish that second position. It has been affirmed, on the one hand, that the Hebrew of Daniel with its numerous Aramaisms, bears a close affinity to that of Ezechiel, and is therefore that of the period of the Exile; and, on the other hand, that the Aramaic portions of Daniel (ii, 4-vii) are in wonderful agreement with those of Esdras, while they are distinguished by many Hebrew idioms from the language of the earliest Aramaic Paraphrases of the Old Testament. In particular, the easy transition from the Hebrew to the Aramaic (ii, 4), and the reverse (viii, 1 sqq.), is explicable, we are told, only on the supposition that the writer and the readers of the book were equally familiar with both; this free handling of both languages suits not the Machabean age but that of Daniel, or of the Exile, in which both tongues were naturally in equal use. The intrinsic grounds making for the last position (that the author of the Book of Daniel is best identified with the Prophet of that name), may be summed up in this simple statement: while no other seer during the Babylonian Exile has been, and indeed can be, named as the probable recorder of the visions described in that inspired writing, Daniel, owing to his position at the court of Babylon, to his initiation into the wisdom of the Chaldees, and to the problem of his calling as God had shown it to him, was eminently fitted at that time for writing the prophecies which had been imparted to him for the comfort of the Jews of his time and of subsequent ages.

Scholars who have examined this evidence, closely and without bias, have concluded that rationalistic critics are decidedly wrong in denying totally the historical character of the Book of Daniel. At the same time, many among them still question the absolute cogency of the extrinsic and intrinsic grounds set forth to prove the Danielic authorship. These latter scholars rightly reject as untrue the statement of Josephus, which refers the close of the Old Testament Canon to the time of Esdras; and in the well-known bias of the same Jewish historian for magnifying whatever concerns his nation they have a valid reason for doubting his assertion that the prophecies of Daniel were shown to Alexander the Great when this prince passed through Palestine. The alleged reference to Daniel’s expressions in the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy they easily explain as a later gloss, and the actual acquaintance of the First Book of the Machabees with the Prophecy of Daniel they naturally regard as compatible with the non-Danielic authorship, and indeed with the composition of the Book of Daniel in the time of Antiochus IV. As regards the last external testimony in favour of the genuineness of that sacred writing, viz. Christ’s words concerning Daniel and his prophecy, these same scholars think that, without going against the reverence due to Christ’s Person, and the credence due His words, they have a right not to consider the passage appealed to in Matt., xxiv, 15, as absolutely conclusive: Jesus does not say explicitly that Daniel wrote the prophecies that bear his name to infer this from His words is to assume something which may well be questioned, viz. that in referring to the contents of a book of the Bible, He necessarily confirmed the traditional view of His day concerning authorship; in point of fact, many scholars whose belief in Christ’s truthfulneess and Divinity is beyond question—such Catholics, for instance, as Father Souciet, S.J., Bishop Hanneberg, Francois Lenormant, and others—have thought that Christ’s reference to Daniel in Matt., xxiv 15, does not bear out the Danielic authorship as it is claimed by conservative scholars chiefly on the basis of His words.

Having thus shown, to their own satisfaction, the inconclusive character of the external evidence, or mainstay in favour of the traditional view, the opponents of the Danielic authorship endeavour to prove that internal evidence points decisively to the late origin which they ascribe to the Book of Daniel. Briefly stated, the following are their principal arguments:

As it is now found in the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Daniel contains historical references which tend to prove that its author is not an eyewitness of the events alluded to, as would be the case if he were the Prophet Daniel. Had this author lived during the Exile, it is argued, he would not have stated that “in the third year of the reign of Joakim, king of Juda, Nebuchadnezzer, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem and besieged it” (Dan., i, 1), since this conflicts with Jeremiah, xxxvi, 9, 29.

He would not have repeatedly used the word “Chaldeans” as the name of a learned caste, this sense being foreign to the Assyro-Babylonian language, and of an origin later than the Exile; he would not have spoken of Balthasar as “king” (v, 1, 2 3, 5, etc., viii, 1), as the “son of Nebuchadnezzer” (v, 2, 18, etc.), since Balthasar was never king, and neither he nor his father had any blood-relationship to Nebuchadnezzer;

he would have avoided the statement that “Darius the Mede succeeded to the kingdom” of Balthasar (v. 31), since there is no room for such a ruler between Nabonahid, Balthasar’s father, and Cyrus, the conqueror of Babylon;

he could not have spoken of “the Books” (Dan., ix, 2-Heb. text), an expression which implies that the prophecies of Jeremiah formed part of a well-known collection of sacred books, which assuredly was not the case in the time of Nebuchadnezzer and Cyrus, etc.

The linguistic features of the book, as it exists in the Hebrew Bible, point also, it is said, to a date later than that of Daniel: its Hebrew is of the distinctly late type which followed Nehemias’ time; in both its Hebrew and its Aramaic portions there are Persian words and at least three Greek words, which of course should be referred to a period later than the Babylonian Exile.

Not satisfied with the merely negative inference that the Book of Daniel was not composed during the Captivity, the opponents of the Danielic authorship strive to reach a positive conclusion as to the date of its origin. For this purpose, they examine the contents of that inspired writing, and they think that by viewing both its parts in the light of history, they are led to refer definitely its composition to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. It can be readily seen, we are told, that the interest of the visions which make up the second part of Daniel culminates in the relations subsisting between the Jews and Antiochus. It is this prince who manifestly is the subject of Dan. viii, 9–13, 23–25, and who is very probably “the little horn” spoken of in Dan., vii, 8, 20, 21, 25, while events of his reign are apparently described in Dan., ix, 25–27, and undoubtedly so in xi, 21–45; xii, 6, 7, 10–12. Whoever bears this in mind, it is argued, is led by the analogy of Scripture to admit that the book belongs to the period of Antiochus. The rule is that “even when the prophets of the Old Testament deliver a Divine message for far distant days, they have in view the needs of the people of their own day. They rebuke their sins, they comfort their sorrows, they strengthen their hopes, they banish their fears. But of all this there is no trace in Daniel, if the book was written in the time of Cyrus. Its message is avowedly for the time of the end, for the period of Antiochus and the Machabees.” And this inference is confirmed by the fact that the narratives told in the first part, when studied in reference to the events of Antiochus’s reign are found to impart lessons especially suited to the Jews of that period. The question of eating meat (Dan., i. 8 sqq.) was at that time a test of faith (cf. I Mach., i, 65 sq.; II Mach., vi, 18 sqq.; vii). The lessons of the fiery furnace and the lions’ den (Dan., iii vi) were most appropriate in the time of the Machabees when the Jews were ordered on the pain of death to worship foreign deities (cf. I Mach. i, 43–54). The accounts of the humbling of Nebuchadnezzer (Dan., iv) and the fate of Balthasar (Dan., v) were also particularly calculated to comfort the Jews so cruelly oppressed by Antiochus and his officers. Such a view of the date of the Book of Daniel is in harmony with the apocalyptic character of the whole work, and can be confirmed, it is said, by certain facts in the external history of the book, such for instance as its place among “the Writings” in the Palestinian Canon, the absence of all traces of Daniel’s influence upon the post-exilic literature before the Machabean period, etc. Despite the fact that some of these arguments against the Danielic authorship have not yet been fully disproved, Catholic scholars generally abide by the traditional view, although they are not bound to it by any decision of the Church.

(4) PROPHECY OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS

Several sections of the Book of Daniel contain Messianic predictions, the general import of which has been sufficiently pointed out in setting forth the contents and object of that inspired writing. One of these predictions, however, claims a further notice, owing to the special interest connected with its contents. It is known as the prophecy of the seventy weeks, and is found in an obscure passage (ix, 24–27), of which the following is a literal rendering:

24. Seventy weeks [literally heptads] have been decreed upon thy people and thy holy city, to close transgression and to make an end of sins, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet and to anoint a most holy [literally: holiness of holinesses]. 25. Know then and discern: from the going forth of the word to build again Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince, [there are] seven weeks, and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again [with] broad place and moat, and that in straitness of times. 26. And after the sixty-two weeks an anointed one will be cut off and he will have no . . . [Sept. kai ouk estai]; and the people of a prince who shall come will destroy the city and the sanctuary, and the end thereof [will be] in a flood, and until the end [shall be] war, a sentence of desolations. 27. He will make a firm covenant with many for a week, and for half a week he shall cause sacrifice and oblation to cease, and instead thereof the abomination that makes desolate, and that until the consummation and that which is determined be poured upon the desolator.

The difficulty of rendering this passage of the Hebrew text is only surpassed by that of interpreting its contents. Most commentators admit, indeed, that the seventy weeks are weeks of years, which fall into three periods of 7, 62, and 1 weeks of years, respectively, but they are still at variance with regard to both the exact starting point and the precise terminus of the seventy weeks. Most of them, too, regard the prophecy of the seventy weeks as having a Messianic reference, but even all Catholic interpreters do not agree as to the precise nature of this reference. Some among them, after Hardouin, S.J., Calmet, O.S.B., etc., seeing in the contents of the prophecy a typical reference to Christ, in preference to the literal one which has been, and is still, more prevalent in the Church. Briefly stated, the following are the three principal interpretations which have been given by Dan., ix, 24–27.

The first is the ancient view, which may be called traditional, and which maintains that the prophecy of the seventy weeks refers directly to the appearance of Christ in the flesh, His death, His establishment of the New Covenant, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

The second is that of most recent scholars, chiefly non-Catholic, who refer the whole passage directly to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, with (Christians generally) or without (Rationalists at large) a typical reference to Christ.

The third is that of some Fathers of the Church and some recent theologians who understand the prophecy in an eschatological sense, as a prediction of the development of the Kingdom of God from the end of the Exile to the fulfilment of that kingdom at Christ’s second Advent.

(5) TEXT AND PRINCIPAL ANCIENT VERSIONS

One of the chief reasons of the obscurity which surrounds the interpretation of Dan., ix, 24–27, is found in the imperfect condition in which the original text of the Book of Daniel has come to us. Not only in the prophecy of the seventy weeks, but also throughout both its Hebrew (Dan., i-ii, 4; viii-xii) and its Aramaic (ii, 4-vii) sections, that text betrays various defects which it is easier to notice and to point out than to correct. Linguistics, the context, and the ancient translations of Daniel are most of the time insufficient guides towards the sure restoration of the primitive reading. The oldest of these translations is the Greek version known as the Septuagint, whose text has come down to us, not in its original form, but in that given to it by Origen (died about A.D. 254) for the composition of his Hexapla. Before this revision by Origen, the text of the Septuagint was regarded as so unreliable, because of its freedom in rendering, and of the alterations which had been introduced into it etc., that, during the second century of our era, it was discarded by the Church, which adopted in its stead the Greek version of Daniel made in that same century by the Jewish proselyte, Theodotion. This version of Theodotion was apparently a skilful revision of the Septuagint by means of the original text, and is the one embodied in the authentic edition of the Septuagint published by Sixtus V in 1587. In Dr. H.B. Swete’s edition of the Septuagint, Origen’s revision and Theodotion’s version are conveniently printed side by side on opposite pages (vol. III, pp. 498 sqq.). The version of the proto-canonical portions of the Book of Daniel in the Latin Vulgate is St. Jerome’s rendering from practically the same Hebrew and Aramaic text as is found in the current Hebrew Bibles.

DEUTERO-CANONICAL PORTIONS

The Hebrew and Aramaic sections of the Book of Daniel thus far dealt with, are the only ones found in the Hebrew Bible and recognized by Protestants as sacred and canonical. But besides those sections, the Vulgate, the Greek translations of Daniel (Septuagint and Theodotion) together with other ancient and modern versions, contain three important portions, which are deuterocanonical. These are:

the Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three Children, usual}y inserted in the third chapter between the twenty-third and the twenty-fourth verses;

the history of Susanna, found as ch. xiii, at the end of the book;

the history of the destruction of Bel and the dragon, terminating the book as ch. xiv.

The first of these fragments (Dan., iii, 24–90) consists of a prayer in which Azarias, standing in the midst of the furnace, asks that God may deliver him and his companions, Ananias and Misael, and put their enemies to shame (verses 24–45); a brief notice of the fact that the Angel of the Lord saved the Three Children from all harm, whereas the flame consumed the Chaldeans above the furnace (46–50); and a doxology (52–56) leading on to the hymn familiarly known as the “Benedicite” (57–90). The second fragment (ch. xiii) tells the history of Susanna. She was the faithful wife of a wealthy Jew named Joakim, and resident in Babylon. Accused falsely of adultery by two unworthy elders whose criminal advances she had repelled, she was sentenced to death by the tribunal before which she had been arraigned. As Susanna was led forth to execution, Daniel, moved by God, remonstrated with the people upon permitting without sufficient inquiry the condemnation of a daughter of Israel. He examined himself the two pretended witnesses separately, and proved their testimony to be self-contradictory. In fulfilment of the Law of Moses (Deut., xix, 18, 19), the two elders were put to death, “and Daniel became great in the sight of the people from that day, and thenceforward.” The last deuterocanonical part of Daniel (ch. xiv) contains the narrative of the destruction of Bel and the dragon. It recounts first the clever manner in which Daniel undeceived the king, Cyrus, who regarded a Babylonian idol, called Bel, as “a living god” that actually ate ample offerings, whereas these were really consumed at night by the pagan priests and their families: in consequence, these impostors were put to death, and Bel and its temple destroyed. It records, in the second place, how Daniel caused to die a great dragon that the Babylonians worshipped, and that the king wished him to adore as “a living god.” Enraged at this, the people forced the king to deliver Daniel to them, and cast the Prophet into a lions’ den. Daniel remained there unharmed for six days, and fed by the prophet Habakkuk who was miraculously transported from Judea to Babylon. On the seventh day, the king having found Daniel alive in the midst of the lions, praised aloud the God of Daniel and delivered the Prophet’s accusers to the fate which Daniel had miraculously escaped. The Greek is, indeed the oldest form under which these deutero-canonical parts of the Book of Daniel have come down to us; but this is no decisive proof that they were composed in that language. In fact, the greater probability is in favour of a Hebrew original no longer extant. It is plain that the view which regards these three fragments as not originally written in Greek makes it easier to suppose that they were from the beginning integrant parts of the book. Yet, it does not settle the question of their date and authorship. It is readily granted by conservative scholars (Vigouroux, Gilly, etc.) that the last two are probably from a different and later author than the rest of the book. On the other hand, it is maintained by nearly all Catholic writers, that the Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three Children cannot be dissociated from the preceding and the following context in Dan., iii, and that therefore they should be referred to the time of Daniel, if not to that Prophet himself. In reality, there are wellnigh insuperable difficulties to such an early date for Dan., iii, 24–90, so that this fragment also, like the other two, should most likely be ascribed to some unknown Jewish author who lived long after the Exile. Lastly, although the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel seem to contain anachronisms, they should not be treated—as was done by St Jerome—as mere fables. More sober scholarship will readily admit that they embody oral or written traditions not altogether devoid of historical value. But, whatever may be thought concerning these literary or historical questions, there cannot be the least doubt that in decreeing the sacred and canonical character of these fragments the Council of Trent proclaimed the ancient and morally unanimous belief of the Church of God.

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Charles Daniel

Born 31 December, 1818, at Beauvais, France; died 1 January, 1893, at Paris. He joined the Society of Jesus in 1841, was professor of rhetoric in the novitiate at Saint Acheul, and in 1857, with the assistance of Father Gagarin, founded the “Etudes de théologie et d’ histoire,” a magazine that soon became a monthly publication. Father Daniel edited it with ability until 1870. He was a man of extensive and accurate learning, of unquestionable taste, and he had an unusually receptive and assimilative mind. He contributed to the “Etudes” many articles on philosophical subjects: “Optimism” (1859), “Positivism” (1860), “Leibniz and Saisset” (1861), “The Vatican Council” (1869–1870); “Protestantism: the Crisis of Protestantism in France” (1862), “The Organization of Protestants in France” (1863); biographies of Père Beauregard (1858), Mme. Swetchine (1864), Ch. Lenormand (1860), and P. Léon Ducoudray, martyr of the Paris Commune (1892).

Other more important works are: “Des Etudes classiques dans la société Chrétienne” (1853); “Histoire de la bienheureuse Marguerite Marie et des origines de la dévotion au Sacré Coeur” (1865), translated into Italian, Polish, and Chinese; “La vie du P. Alexis Clerc, marin et Jésuite” (1876, English tr., New York, 1880), and “Les Jésuites instituteurs de la jeunesse au XVIIe et au XVIIIe siècle” (1880). His “Questions actuelles: religion, philosophie, histoire, art et littérature” is preceded by a sketch of the author by Fathers Mercier and Fontaine, S. J. (Poitiers, 1895).

J. LIONNET

Gabriel Daniel

Historian and controversialist, born at Rouen, France, 8 Feb., 1649; died at Paris, 23 June, 1728. He entered the Society of Jesus at Paris in 1667, and after making his last vows at Rennes, 1683, was assigned to the professed house of Paris where his extraordinary talents resulted in his being appointed historiographer of France by Louis XIV. Of the published writings of Father Daniel, consisting of philosophical, theological, and historical treatises, many have been translated into German, English, Spanish, Italian, and Latin. In the first class perhaps the most famous was the oft-reprinted “Voyage du monde de Descartes,” a refutation of the vortex theory of that philosopher. His refutation of Pascal’s “Provincial Letters,” which underwent several revisions and reprints, and his published correspondence with Natalis Alexander respecting the Dominican and Jesuit doctrines of Probabilism, Grace, Predestination, etc., stand out conspicuously among his theological works. He published also many shorter works, principally against the Jansenists, and one volume of a projected course of theology for seminaries.

But it is as the author of the celebrated “Histoire de France” that Father Daniel has achieved his most lasting fame. This work in seventeen volumes was the fruit of his ripest years and was the most complete and accurate history of France that had then appeared (1713). It is still valuable, though overshadowed by more recent works. It went through many editions, and an abridgment of it in eight volumes made by the author was translated into German, English, and Italian. Besides this, a valuable work from original sources, the “Histoire de la milice française,” contributed much to Daniel’s reputation as a scholarly historian. The best edition of his great history is that of Paris (1755–60), in seventeen quarto volumes.

JOHN F. X. MURPHY.

John Daniel

Born 1745; died in Paris, 3 October, 1823; son of Edward Daniel of Durton, Lancashire, and great-nephew of the Rev. Hugh Tootell, better known as Dodd the historian. He was educated first at Dame Alice’s School, Fernyhalgh, and then at Douai, where he was ordained priest and made professor of philosophy (1778) and afterwards of theology. When the president, Edward Kitchen, alarmed by the French Revolution, resigned his office in 1792, Daniel was appointed president, and was soon after, with his professors and students, taken prisoner and confined first at Arras and then at Dourlens. They were taken back, 27 Nov., 1794, to the Irish College at Douai and in February, 1795, were allowed to return to England. It is usually stated that Mr. Daniel was then appointed president of the college at Crook Hall (since removed to Ushaw), but this is difficult to reconcile with contemporary documents in the Westminster diocesan archives; he did not in fact take up residence at Crook Hall, but retired to Lancashire till 1802, when he went to Paris in order to recover the property of Douai College and other British establishments. After 1815 compensation amounting to half a million pounds was paid by the French Government, but the English Government confiscated this money, neither returning it to France nor allowing the English Catholics to receive it. Mr. Daniel was the last de facto president of Douai, though the Rev. Francis Tuite was appointed titular president, to succeed him in prosecuting the claims. Mr. Daniel wrote an “Ecclesiastical History of the Britons and Saxons” (London, 1815, 1824).

EDWIN BURTON

St. Daniel and Companions

Friars Minor and martyrs; dates of birth unknown; died 10 October, 1227. The martyrdom of St. Berard and his companions in 1219 had inflamed many of the religious of the Order of Friars Minor with the desire of preaching the Gospel in heathen lands; and in 1227, the year following St. Francis’s death, six religious of Tuscany, Agnellus, Samuel, Donulus, Leo, Hugolinus, and Nicholas, petitioned Brother Elias of Cortona, then vicar-general of the order, for permission to preach the Gospel to the infidels of Morocco. The six missionaries went first to Spain, where they were joined by Daniel, Minister Provincial of Calabria, who became their superior. They set sail from Spain and on 20 September reached the coast of Africa, where they remained for a few days in a small village inhabited mostly by Christian merchants just beyond the walls of the Saracen city of Ceuta. Finally, very early on Sunday morning, they entered the city, and immediately began to preach the Gospel and to denounce the religion of Mahomet. They were soon apprehended and brought before the sultan who, thinking that they were mad, ordered them to be cast into prison. Here they remained until the following Sunday when they were again brought before the sultan, who, by promises and threats, endeavoured in vain to make them deny the Christian religion. They were all condemned to death. Each one approached Daniel, the superior, to ask his blessing and permission to die for Christ. They were all beheaded. St. Daniel and his companions were canonized by Leo X in 1516. Their feast is kept in the order on the thirteenth of October.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Daniel of Winchester

(Danihel), Bishop of the West Saxons, and ruler of the See of Winchester from 705 to 744; died in 745. The prominent position which he held among the English clergy of his time can best be appreciated from the fact that he was the intimate friend of St. Aldhelm at Sherborne, of the Venerable Bede at Jarrow and of St. Boniface in Germany. Daniel was consecrated to succeed Bishop Hedda of Wessex whose vast diocese was then broken up;. Dorsetshire, Wiltshire, Somerset, and Berkshire became the see of Sherborne under St. Aldhelm, while Daniel retained only Hampshire, Surrey, and Sussex, and of these Sussex soon after was constituted a separate diocese. Daniel like Aldhelm (q.v.) had been educated under the Irish scholar Maildubh at Malmesbury and it was to Malmesbury that he retired in his old age when loss of sight compelled him to resign the bishopric. There, no doubt, he had also learnt the scholarship for which he was famous among his contemporaries and which made Bede turn to him as the man best able to supply information regarding the church history of the south and west of Britain. Daniel, however, is best remembered for his intimate connection with St. Boniface. It was from Daniel that the latter received commendatory letters when he started for Rome, and to Daniel he continually turned for counsel during his missionary labours in Germany. Two letters of the Bishop of Winchester to Boniface are preserved (see Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils,” III, 304 and 343) and give an admirable impression of his piety and good sense. In the second of these epistles, which was written after his loss of sight, Daniel takes a touching farewell of his correspondent: “Farewell, farewell, thou hundredfold dearest one.” Daniel had made a pilgrimage to Rome in 721 and in 731 assisted at the consecration of Archbishop Tatwine. He seems never to have been honoured as a saint. A vision recorded in “Monumenta Moguntina,” No. 112, perhaps implies that he was considered to be lacking in energy; none the less it would follow from William of Malmesbury’s reference (Gest. Pont., I, 357) to a certain stream in which Daniel used to stand the whole night long to cool his passions, that he was a man of remarkable austerity.

HERBERT THURSTON

Dansara

A titular see in Osrhoene. Stephanus Byzantius mentions Dansara as a town near Edessa (Orfa). Procopius (De ædif., II, 6) says it was one of the castles around Theodosiopolis (Rhæsina), which were fortified by Justinian. Dansara, probably at the same time, became an episcopal see suffragan to Edessa, for it figures in the “Notitia episcopatuum” of the Patriarch of Antioch, Anastasius (Vailhé in Echos d’Orient, X, 90 sqq. and 139 sqq.), and its bishop Nonnus was present at the Fifth Oecumenical Council, held at Constantinople in 553 (Lequien, Or. Christ., II, 983). The see must have disappeared on account of the Arabian invasions, as no other bishop is known. It is not certain that it was still in existence in the tenth century (Vailhé in Echos d’Orient, X, 90 sqq.). The site of the city has not been identified. Its name is often written Dausara; such forms as Lansara, etc. are incorrect. The Latin titular see has recently been suppressed.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Dante Alighieri

Italian poet, born at Florence, 1265; died at Ravenna, Italy, 14 September, 1321. His own statement in the “Paradiso” (xxii, 112–117) that he was born when the sun was in Gemini, fixes his birthday between 18 May and 17 June.

He was the son of Alighiero di Bellincione Alighieri, a notary belonging to an ancient but decadent Guelph family, by his first wife, Bella, who was possibly a daughter of Durante di Scolaio Abati, a Ghibelline noble. A few months after the poet’s birth, the victory of Charles of Anjou over King Manfred at Benevento (26 February, 1266) ended the power of the empire in Italy, placed a French dynasty upon the throne of Naples, and secured the predominance of the Guelphs in Tuscany. Dante thus grew up amidst the triumphs of the Florentine democracy, in which he took some share fighting in the front rank of the Guelph cavalry at the battle of Campaldino (11 June, 1289), when the Tuscan Ghibellines were defeated by the forces of the Guelph league, of which Florence was the head. This victory was followed by a reformation of the Florentine constitution, associated with the name of Giano della Bella, a great-hearted noble who had joined the people. By the Ordinances of Justice (1293) all nobles and magnates were more strictly excluded from the government, and subjected to severe penalties for offences against plebeians. To take any part in public life, it was necessary to be enrolled in one or other of the “Arts” (the guilds in which the burghers and artisans were banded together), and accordingly Dante matriculated in the guild of physicians and apothecaries. On 6 July, 1295, he spoke in the General Council of the Commune in favour of some modification in the Ordinances of Justice after which his name is frequently found recorded as speaking or voting in the various councils of the republic.

Already Dante had written his first book, the “Vita Nuova,” or “New Life,” an exquisite medley of lyrical verse and poetic prose, telling the story of his love for Beatrice, whom he had first seen at the end of his ninth year. Beatrice, who was probably the daughter of Folco Portinari, and wife of Simone de’ Bardi, died in June, 1290, and the “Vita Nuova” was completed about the year 1294. Dante’s love for her was purely spiritual and mystical, the amor amicitiae defined by St. Thomas Aquinas: “That which is loved in love of friendship is loved simply and for its own sake.” Its resemblance to the chivalrous worship that the troubadours offered to married women is merely superficial. The book is dedicated to the Florentine poet, Guido Cavalcanti, whom Dante calls “the first of my friends,” and ends with the promise of writing concerning Beatrice “what has never before been written of any woman.”

At the beginning of 1300 the papal jubilee was proclaimed by Boniface VIII. It is doubtful whether Dante was among the pilgrims who flocked to Rome. Florence was in a disastrous condition, the ruling Guelph party having split into two factions, known as Bianchi and Neri, “Whites” and “Blacks,” which were led by Vieri de’ Cerchi and Corso Donati, respectively. Roughly speaking, the Bianchi were the constitutional party, supporting the burgher government and the Ordinances of Justice; the Neri, at once more turbulent and more aristocratic, relied on the support of the populace, and were strengthened by the favour of the pope, who disliked and mistrusted the recent developments of the democratic policy of the republic. The discovery of a plot on the part of certain Florentines in the papal service (18 April) and a collision between the two factions, in which blood was shed (1 May), brought things to a crisis. On 7 May Dante was sent on an unimportant embassy to San Gemignano. Shortly after his return he was elected one of the six priors who for two months, together with the gonfaloniere, formed the Signoria, the chief magistracy of the republic. His term of office was from 15 June to 15 August. Together with his colleagues. he confirmed the anti-Papal measures of his predecessors, banished the leaders of both factions, and offered such opposition to the papal legate, Cardinal Matteo d’Acquasparta, that the latter returned to Rome and laid Florence under an interdict. Guido Cavalcanti had been among the exiled Bianchi; having contracted a fatal illness at Sarzana, he was allowed, together with the rest of his faction, to return to Florence, where he died at the end of August. This, however, was after Dante’s term of office had ended. Enraged at this partial treatment, Corso Donati, in understanding with his adherents in Florence, appealed to the pope, who decided to send a French prince, Charles of Valois, with an armed force, as peacemaker. We find Dante, in 1301, prominent among the ruling Bianchi in Florence. On 19 June, in the Council of the Hundred, he returned his famous answer, Nihil fiat, to the proposed grant of soldiers to the pope, which the Cardinal of Acquasparta had demanded by letter. After 28 September he is lost sight of. He is said to have been sent on a mission to the pope at the beginning of October, but this is disputed. On 1 November Charles of Valois entered Florence with his troops, and restored the Neri to power. Corso Donati and his friends returned in triumph, and were fully revenged on their opponents. Dante was one of the first victims. On a trumped-up charge of hostility to the Church and corrupt practices, he was sentenced (27 January, 1302), together with four others, to a heavy fine and perpetual exclusion from office. On 10 March, together with fifteen others, he was further condemned, as contumacious, to be burned to death, should he ever come into the power of the Commune. At the beginning of April the whole of the White faction were driven out of Florence.

A few years before his exile Dante had married Gemma di Manetto Donati, a distant kinswoman of Corso, by whom he had four children. He never saw his wife again; but his sons, Pietro and Jacopo, and one of his daughters, Beatrice, joined him in later years. At first, he made common cause with his fellow-exiles at Siena, Arezzo, and Forli, in attempting to win his way back to Florence with the aid of Ghibelline arms. Dante’s name occurs in a document of 8 June, 1302 among the exiled Bianchi who at San Godenzo in the Apennines were forming an alliance with the Ubaldini to make war upon the Florentine Republic; but, in a similar agreement signed at Bologna on 18 June, 1303, he no longer appears among them. Between these two dates he had made his resolution to form a party by himself (Par., xvii, 61–68), and had sought refuge in the hospitality of Bartolommeo della Scala, the lord of Verona, where he first saw Can Grande della Scala, Bartolommeo’s younger brother, then a boy of fourteen years, who became the hero of his later days.

Dante now withdrew from all active participation in politics. In one of his odes written at this time, the “Canzone of the Three Ladies” (Canz. xx), he finds himself visited in his banishment by Justice and her spiritual children, outcasts even as he, and declares that, since such are his companions in misfortune, he counts his exile an honour. His literary work at this epoch centres round his rime, or lyrical poems, more particularly round a series of fourteen canzoni or odes, amatory in form, but partly allegorical and didactic in meaning, a splendid group of poems which connect the “Vita Nuova” with the “Divina Commedia.” Early in 1304 he seems to have gone to Bologna. Here he began, but left unfinished, a Latin treatise, “De Vulgari Eloquentia,” in which he attempts to discover the ideal Italian language, the noblest form of the vernacular, and then to show how it should be employed in the composition of lyrical poetry. Even in its unfinished state it is a most illuminating book to all who wish to understand the metrical form of the Italian canzone. On 10 March, 1306, the Florentine exiles were expelled from Bologna. In August we find Dante at Padua, and some weeks later in Lunigiana, where, on 6 October he acted as the representative of the Marquess Franceschino Malaspina in making peace between his family and the Bishop of Luni. About this time (1306–08) he began the “Convivio,” or “Banquet” in Italian prose, a kind of popularization of Scholastic philosophy in the form of a commentary upon his fourteen odes already mentioned. Only four of the fifteen projected treatises were actually written, an introduction and three commentaries. In allegorical fashion they tell us how Dante became the lover of Philosophy, that mystical lady whose soul is love and whose body is wisdom, she “whose true abode is in the most secret place of the Divine Mind.”

All certain traces of Dante are now lost for some years. He is said to have gone to Paris some time between 1307 and 1309, but this is open to question. In November, 1308, Henry of Luxemburg was elected emperor as Henry VII. In him Dante saw a possible healer of the wounds of Italy, a renovator of Christendom, a new “Lamb of God” (the expression is the poet’s) who would take away the sins of the world. This drew him back again into the tempestuous sea of politics and the life of action. It was probably in 1309, in anticipation of the emperor’s coming to Italy, that Dante wrote his famous work on the monarchy, “De Monarchiâ,” in three books. Fearing lest he “should one day be convicted of the charge of the buried talent,” and desirous of “keeping vigil for the good of the world,” he proceeds successively to show that such a single supreme temporal monarchy as the empire is necessary for the well-being of the world, that the Roman people acquired universal sovereign sway by Divine right, and that the authority of the emperor is not dependent upon the pope, but descends upon him directly from the fountain of universal authority which is God. Man is ordained for two ends: blessedness of this life, which consists in the exercise of his natural powers and is figured in the terrestrial paradise; blessedness of life eternal, which consists in the fruition of the Divine aspect in the celestial paradise to which man’s natural powers cannot ascend without the aid of the Divine light. To these two ends man must come by diverse means: “For to the first we attain by the teachings of philosophy, following them by acting in accordance with the moral and intellectual virtues. To the second by spiritual teachings, which transcend human reason, as we follow them by acting according to the theological virtues.” But, although these ends and means are made plain to us by human reason and by revelation, men in their cupidity would reject them, were not they restrained by bit and rein. “Wherefore man had need of a twofold directive power according to his twofold end, to wit, the Supreme Pontiff, to lead the human race in accordance with things revealed, to eternal life; and the Emperor, to direct the human race to temporal felicity in accordance with the teachings of philosophy.” It is therefore the special duty of the emperor to establish freedom and peace “on this threshing floor of mortality.” Mr. Wicksteed (whose translation is quoted) aptly notes that in the, “De Monarchiâ” “we first find in its full maturity the general conception of the nature of man, of government, and of human destiny, which was afterwards transfigured, without being transformed, into the framework of the Sacred Poem.”

The emperor arrived in Italy in September, 1310. Dante had already announced this new sunrise for the nations in an enthusiastic letter to the princes and peoples of Italy (Epist. v). He paid homage to Henry in Milan, early in 1311, and was much gratified by his reception. He then passed into the Casentino, probably on some imperial mission. Thence, on 31 March, he wrote to the Florentine Government (Epist. vi), “the most wicked Florentines within,” denouncing them in unmeasured language for their opposition to the emperor, and, on 16 April, to Henry (Epist. vii), rebuking him for his delay, urging him to proceed at once against the rebellious city, “this dire plague which is named Florence.” By a decree of 2 September (the reform of Baldo d’Aguglione), Dante is included in the list of those who are permanently excepted from all amnesty and grace by the commune of Florence. In the spring of 1312 he seems to have gone with the other exiles to join the emperor at Pisa, and it was there that Petrarch, then a child in his eighth year, saw his great predecessor for the only time. Reverence for his fatherland, Leonardo Bruni tells us, kept Dante from accompanying the imperial army that vainly besieged Florence in September and October; nor do we know what became of him in the disintegration of his party on the emperor’s death in the following August, 1313. A vague tradition makes him take refuge in the convent of Santa Croce di Fonte Avellana near Gubbio. It was possibly from thence that, after the death of Clement V, in 1314, he wrote his noble letter to the Italian cardinals (Epist. viii), crying aloud with the voice of Jeremias, urging them to restore the papacy to Rome.

A little later, Dante was at Lucca under the protection of Uguccione della Faggiuola, a Ghibelline soldier who had temporarily made himself lord of that city. Probably in consequence of his association with Uguccione the Florentines renewed the sentence of death against the poet (6 Nov. 1315), his two sons being included in the condemnation. In 1316 several decrees of amnesty were passed, and (although Dante was undoubtedly excluded under a provision of 2 June) some attempt was made to get it extended to him. The poet’s answer was his famous letter to an unnamed Florentine friend (Epist. ix), absolutely refusing to return to his country under shameful conditions. He now went again to Verona, where he found his ideal of knightly manhood realized in Can Grande della Scala, who was ruling a large portion of Eastern Lombardy as imperial vicar, and in whom he doubtless saw a possible future deliverer of Italy. It is a plausible theory, dating from the fifteenth century, that identifies Can Grande with the “Veltro,” or greyhound, the hero whose advent is prophesied at the beginning of the “Inferno,” who is to effectuate the imperial ideals of the “De Monarchiâ,” and succeed where Henry of Luxemburg had failed.

In 1317 (according to the more probable chronology) Dante settled at Ravenna, at the invitation of Guido Novello da Polenta. Here he completed the “Divina Commedia.” From Ravenna he wrote the striking letter to Can Grande (Epist. x), dedicating the “Paradiso” to him, commenting upon its first canto, and explaining the intention and allegorical meaning of the whole poem. A letter in verse (1319) from Giovanni del Virgilio, a lecturer in Latin at the University of Bologna, remonstrating with him for treating such lofty themes in the vernacular, inviting him to come and receive the laurel crown in that City, led Dante to compose his first “Eclogue” a delightful poem in pastoral Latin hexameters, full of human kindness and gentle humour. In it Dante expresses his unalterable resolution to receive the laurel from Florence alone, and proposes to win his correspondent to an appreciation of vernacular poetry by the gift of ten cantos of the “Paradiso.” A second “Eclogue” was sent to Giovanni after Dante’s death, but it is doubtful whether it was really composed by the poet. This correspondence shows that in 1319 the “Inferno” and “Purgatorio” were already generally known while the “Paradiso” was still unfinished. This was now sent in installments to Can Grande, as completed, between 1319 and 1321. If the “Quaestio de Aqua et Terra” is authentic, Dante was at Verona on 20 January, 1320, where he delivered a discourse on the relative position of earth and water on the surface of the globe; but, although the authenticity of this treatise has recently found strenuous defenders, it must still be regarded as doubtful. In July, 1321, Dante went on an embassy from Guido da Polenta to Venice. Two months later he died, at Ravenna, on the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, and was buried in the church of San Francesco in that city. The whole of the “Divina Commedia” had been published, with the exception of the last thirteen cantos of the “Paradiso,” which were afterwards discovered by his son Jacopo and forwarded by him to Can Grande.

The “Divina Commedia” is an allegory of human life, in the form of a vision of the world beyond the grave, written avowedly with the object of converting a corrupt society to righteousness: “to remove those living in this life from the state of misery, and lead them to the state of felicity.” It is composed of a hundred cantos, written in the measure known as terza rima, with its normally hendecasyllabic lines and closely linked rhymes, which Dante so modified from the popular poetry of his day that it may be regarded as his own invention. He is relating, nearly twenty years after the event, a vision which was granted to him (for his own salvation when leading a sinful life) during the year of jubilee, 1300, in which for seven days (beginning on the morning of Good Friday) he passed through hell, purgatory, and paradise, spoke with the souls in each realm, and heard what the Providence of God had in store for himself and to world. The framework of the poem presents the dual scheme of the “De Monarchiâ” transfigured. Virgil, representing human philosophy acting in accordance with the moral and intellectual virtues, guides Dante by the light of natural reason from the dark wood of alienation from God (where the beasts of lust pride, and avarice drive man back from ascending the Mountain of the Lord), through hell and purgatory to the earthly paradise, the state of temporal felicity, when spiritual liberty has been regained by the purgatorial pains. Beatrice, representing Divine philosophy illuminated by revelation, leads him thence, up through the nine moving heavens of intellectual preparation, into the true paradise, the spaceless and timeless empyrean, in which the blessedness of eternal life is found in the fruition of the sight of God. There her place is taken by St. Bernard, type of the loving contemplation in which the eternal life of the soul consists, who commends him to the Blessed Virgin, at whose intercession he obtains a foretaste of the Beatific Vision, the poem closing with all powers of knowing and loving fulfilled and consumed in the union of the understanding with the Divine Essence, the will made one with the Divine Will, “the Love that moves the sun and the other stars.”

The sacred poem, the last book of the Middle Ages, sums up the knowledge and intellectual attainment of the centuries that passed between the fall of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Renaissance; it gives a complete picture of Catholicism in the thirteenth century in Italy. In the “Inferno,” Dante’s style is chiefly influenced by Virgil, and, in a lesser degree, by Lucan. The heir in poetry of the great achievement of St. Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas Aquinas in christianizing Aristotle, his ethical scheme and metaphysics are mainly Aristotelean while his machinery is still that of popular medieval tradition. It is doubtful whether he had direct acquaintance with any other account of a visit to the spirit world, save that in the sixth book of the “Æneid.” But over all this vast field his dramatic sense played at will, picturing human nature in its essentials, laying bare the secrets of the heart with a hand as sure as that of Shakespeare. Himself the victim of persecution and injustice, burning with zeal for the reformation and renovation of the world, Dante’s impartiality is, in the main, sublime. He is the man (to adopt his own phrase) to whom Truth appeals from her immutable throne, as such, he relentlessly condemns the “dear and kind paternal image” of Brunetto Latini to hell, though from him he had learned “how man makes himself eternal” while he places Constantine, to whose donation he ascribes the corruption of the Church and the ruin of the world in paradise. The pity and terror of certain episodes in the “Inferno”—the fruitless magnanimity of Farinata degli Uberti, the fatal love of Francesca da Rimini, the fall of Guido da Montefeltro, the doom of Count Ugolino—reach the utmost heights of tragedy.

The “Purgatorio,” perhaps the most artistically perfect of the three canticles, owes less to the beauty of the separate episodes. Dante’s conception of purgatory as a lofty mountain, rising out of the ocean in the southern hemisphere, and leading up to the Garden of Eden, the necessary preparation for winning back the earthly paradise, and with it all the prerogatives lost by man at the fall of Adam, seems peculiar to him; nor do we find elsewhere the purifying process carried on beneath the sun and stars, with the beauty of transfigured nature only eclipsed by the splendour of the angelic custodians of the seven terraces. The meeting with Beatrice on the banks of Lethe, with Dante’s personal confession of an unworthy past, completes the story of the “Vita Nuova” after the bitter experiences and disillusions of a lifetime.

The essence of Dante’s philosophy is that all virtues and all vices proceed from love. The “Purgatorio” shows how love is to be set in order, the “Paradiso” shows how it is rendered perfect in successive stages of illumination, until it attains to union with the Divine Love. The whole structure and spiritual arrangement of Dante’s paradise, in which groups of saints make a temporary appearance in the lower spheres in token of the “many mansions,” is closely dependent upon the teachings of the Pseudo-Dionysius and St. Bernard concerning the different offices of the nine orders of angels. It is doubtful whether he knew the “Celestial Hierarchy” of Dionysius at first hand, in the translation of Scotus Erigena; but St. Bernard’s “De Consideratione” certainly influenced him profoundly. Dante’s debt to the Fathers and Doctors of the Church has not yet been investigated with the fullness of research that has been devoted to elucidating his knowledge of the classical writers. His theology is mainly that of St. Thomas Aquinas, though he occasionally (as when treating of primal matter and of the nature of the celestial intelligences) departs from the teaching of the Angelical Doctor. On particular points, the influence of St. Gregory, St. Isidore, St. Anselm, and St. Bonaventure may be traced; that of Boethius is marked and deep throughout. His mysticism is professedly based upon St. Augustine, St. Bernard, and Richard of St. Victor, while in many places it curiously anticipates that of St. John of the Cross. Mr. Wicksteed speaks of “many instances in which Dante gives a spiritual turn to the physical speculations of the Greeks.” Even in the “Paradiso” the authority of Aristotle is, next to that of the Scriptures, supreme; and it is noteworthy that, when questioned by St. John upon charity, Dante appeals first of all to the Stagirite (in the “Metaphysics”) as showing us the cause for loving God for Himself and above all things (Par., xxvi, 37–39). The harmonious fusion of the loftiest mysticism with direct transcripts from nature and the homely circumstance of daily life, all handled with poetic passion and the most consummate art, gives the “Divina Commedia” its unique character. The closing canto is the crown of the whole work sense and music are wedded in perfect harmony; the most profound mystery of faith is there set forth in supreme song with a vivid clearness and illuminating precision that can never be surpassed.

Dante’s vehement denunciation of the ecclesiastical corruption of his times, and his condemnation of most of the contemporary popes (including the canonized Celestine V) to hell have led to some questioning as to the poet’s attitude towards the Church. Even in the fourteenth century attempts were made to find heresy in the “Divina Commedia,” and the “De Monarchiâ” was burned at Bologna by order of a papal legate. In more recent times Dante has been hailed as a precursor of the Reformation. His theological position as an orthodox Catholic has been amply and repeatedly vindicated, recently and most notably by Dr. Moore, who declares that “there is no trace in his writings of doubt or dissatisfaction respecting any part of the teaching of the Church in matters of doctrine authoritatively laid down.” A strenuous opponent of the political aims of the popes of his own day, the beautiful episodes of Casella and Manfred in the “Purgatorio,” no less than the closing chapter of the “De Monarchiâ” itself, bear witness to Dante’s reverence for the spiritual power of the papacy, which he accepts as of Divine origin. Not the least striking testimony to his orthodoxy is the part played by the Blessed Virgin in the sacred poem from the beginning to the end. It is, as it were, the working out in inspired poetry of the sentence of Richard of St. Victor: “Through Mary not only is the light of grace given to man on earth but even the vision of God vouchsafed to souls in Heaven.”

Our earliest account of the life and works of Dante is contained in a chapter in the “Croniche Fiorentine” of Giovanni Villani (d. 1348), who speaks of the poet as “our neighbour.” There are six commentaries extant on the “Divina Commedia,” in whole or in part, composed within ten years of the poet’s death. Three of these by Graziolo de’ Bambaglioli, then chancellor of the commune of Bologna; an unidentified Florentine known as Selmi’s Anonimo, and Fra Guido da Pisa, a Carmelite extend to the “Inferno” alone; those by Jacopo Alighieri, the poet’s second son, Jacopo della Lana of Bologna, and the author of the “Ottimo Commento” deal with the entire poem. Graziolo appears as the first defender of Dante’s orthodoxy (then fiercely assailed in Bologna); the author of the “Ottimo” (plausibly identified with a Florentine notary and poet, Andrea Lancia) professes to have actually spoken with Dante, and gives us various interesting details concerning his life. About 1340 Dante’s elder son, Pietro Alighieri, set himself to elucidate his father’s work; two versions of his Latin commentary have been preserved, the later containing additions which (if really his) are of considerable importance. Some time after 1348, Giovanni Boccaccio wrote the first formal life of Dante, the “Trattatello in laude di Dante,” the authority of which once much derided, has been largely rehabilitated by more recent research. His commentary on the “Inferno” is the substance of lectures delivered at Florence in 1373. A few years later came the commentaries of Benvenuto da Imola and Francesco Buti, which were originally delivered as lectures at Bologna and Pisa respectively. Benvenuto’s is a living book, full of humour and actuality as well as learning. The little “Life” by Leonardo Bruni (d. 1444), the famous chancellor of the Florentine Republic, which supplements Boccaccio’s work with fresh information and quotes letters of the poet other than those which are now known and the slighter notice by Filippo Villani (c. 1404), who is the first commentator who refers in explicit terms to the “Letter to Can Grande,” bring the first age of Dante interpretation to an appropriate close. The title of father of modern Dante scholarship unquestionably belongs to Karl Witte (1800–83), whose labours set students of the nineteenth century on the right path both in interpretation and in textual research. More recently, mainly through the influence of G.A. Scartazzini (d. 1901), a wave of excessive scepticism swept over the field, by which the traditional events of Dante’s life were regarded as little better than fables and the majority of his letters and even some of his minor works were declared to be spurious. This has now happily abated. The most pressing needs of Dante scholarship today are more textual study of the “Divina Commedia,” a closer and more thorough acquaintance with every aspect of the minor works and a fuller investigation of Dante’s position with regard to the great philosophies of the Middle Ages; such as will justify or restate the pregnant opening of the epitaph that Giovanni del Virgilio composed for his tomb: Theologus Dantes, nullius dogmatis expers quod foveat claro philosophia sinu (“Dante the theologian, skilled in every branch of knowledge that philosophy may cherish in her illustrious bosom”).

Dante may be said to have made Italian poetry, and to have stamped the mark of his lofty and commanding personality upon all modern literature. It can even be claimed that his works have had a direct share in shaping the aspirations and destinies of his native country. His influence upon English literature begins with the poetry of Chaucer, who hails him worthily in the “Monkes Tale,” and refers his readers to him as “the grete poete of Itaille that highte Dant.” Eclipsed for a while in Tudor times by the greater popularity of Petrarch, he was afterwards ignored or contemned from the Restoration until the end of the eighteenth century. The first complete translation of the “Divina Commedia” into English, the work of an Irishman, Henry Boyd, was published in 1802 (that of the “Inferno” having been issued in 1785). Dante came again into his heritage among us with the great flood of noble poetry that the beginning of the nineteenth century witnessed. The eloquent tributes rendered to him by Shelley (in “Epipsychidion,” the “Triumph of Life,” and “A Defence of Poetry”) and by Byron (especially in the “Prophecy of Dante”) as after them by Browning and Tennyson, need not be repeated here. Through Dante Gabriel Rossetti and the Pre-Raphaelites, he has been a fruitful influence in art no less than in letters. In the interpretation and criticism of Dante, English-speaking scholars at present stand second only to the Italians.

Never, perhaps, has Dante’s fame stood so high as at the present day, when he is universally recognized as ranking with Homer, Æschylus, Sophocles, and Shakespeare, among the few supreme poets of the world. It has been well observed that his inspiration resembles that of the Hebrew prophet more than that of the poet as ordinarily understood. His influence moreover, is by no means confined to mere literature. A distinguished Unitarian divine has pointed out that the modern cult of Dante is “a sign of enlarging and deepening spiritual perception as well as literary appreciation,” and that it is one of the chief indications of “the renewed hold which the later Middle Ages have gained upon modern Europe” (Wicksteed, “The Religion of Time and of Eternity”). The poet’s own son Pietro Alighieri, declared that, if the Faith were extinguished, Dante would restore it, and it is noteworthy today that many serious non-Catholic students of life and letters owe a totally different conception of the Catholic religion to the study of the “Divina Commedia.” The power of the sacred poem in popularizing Catholic theology and Catholic philosophy, and rendering it acceptable, or at least intelligible to non-Catholics, is at the present day almost incalculable.

The place of honour among Dante societies belongs unquestionably and in every sense to the “Societa Dantesca Italiana,” an admirably conducted association with its headquarters at Florence, which welcomes foreign students among its members, and is distinguished for its high and liberal scholarship. In addition to courses of lectures delivered under its auspices in various Italian cities, it publishes a quarterly “Bulletino,” a survey of contemporary Dante literature, and has begun a series of critical editions of the minor works. Of these latter, volumes dealing with the “De Vulgari Eloquentia” and the “Vita Nuova,” by Pio Rajna and Michele Barbi respectively, have already appeared, and may be truly said to mark an epoch in the critical and textual study of Dante’s Latin and Italian writings alike. The association known as the “Dante Alighieri,” on the other hand, is essentially a national and political society, and is only indirectly concerned with the poet whose name it bears. Of Dante societies other than Italian, the “American Dante Society” of Cambridge, Massachusetts, stands first in importance. The small but distinguished “Oxford Dante Society” does work of a high order of scholarship. The “Dante Society of London” is noteworthy for its large number of members, and publishes its sessional lectures in volume form; but its aims appear to be social rather than scholarly.

EDMUND G. GARDNER.

Ignazio Danti

Mathematician and cosmographer, b. at Perugia, Italy, 1537; d. at Alatri, 19 Oct., 1586. As a boy he learned the rudiments of painting and architecture from his father and aunt, but mathematics and science were his favorite studies. He received the Dominican habit 7 March, 1555, changing his baptismal name Pellegrino to Ignazio. After completing his philosophy and theology he gave some time to preaching, but soon devoted himself zealously to mathematics, astronomy, and geography. About 1567 he was invited to Florence by Cosmo I, Duke of Tuscany, who wished to avail himself of his services in reviving mathematical and astronomical studies in his newly acquired dominion. About the same time Pope Sixtus V, who belonged to the Order of Preachers, is said to have commissioned him to furnish plans for the construction of a Dominican church and convent at Bosco. During his stay in Florence Danti taught mathematics with much success and may be said to have prepared the way for Galileo and his contemporaries. He resided at the convent of Sta Maria Novella, and designed the first gnomon on the facade of its church in 1572. He was chosen to direct the building of a canal which was to place Florence in communication with both the Mediterranean and the Adriatic. Cosmo did not live to carry out his project and shortly after his death (1574) Danti became professor of mathematics at the University of Bologna. While occupying this chair he spent some time in his native city, at the invitation of the governor, where he prepared maps of the Perugian republic.

On account of his mathematical attainments Gregory XIII invited him to Rome, appointed him pontifical mathematician and made him a member of the commission for the reform of the calendar. He also placed him in charge of the painters whom he had summoned to the Vatican to continue the work so brilliantly begun by Raphael during the reign of Leo X and at the same time desired him to make a number of maps of ancient and modern Italy. When the pontiff commissioned the architect Fontana to repair the Claudian harbour it was Danti who furnished the necessary plans. While at Rome Danti published a translation of a portion of Euclid with annotations and wrote a life of the architect Vignola, preparing also notes for the latter’s work on perspective. In recognition of his labours Gregory, in 1583, made him Bishop of Alatri in the Campagna. Danti showed himself a zealous pastor in his new office. He convoked a diocesan synod, corrected many abuses, and showed great solicitude for the poor. Shortly before his death Sixtus V summoned him to Rome to assist in the erection of the grand obelisk in the piazza of the Vatican. Besides the works already mentioned, Danti was the author of “Trattato del’uso e della fabbrica dell’astrolabo con la giunta del planifero del Raja”; “Le Scienze matematiche ridotte in tavole,” also a revised and annotated edition of “La Sfera di Messer G. Sacrobosco tradotta da Pier Vincenzio Danti.”

H.M. BROCK

Vincenzo Danti

Sculptor, brother of Ignazio, b. at Perugia, 1530; d. 24 May, 1576. He also enjoyed some reputation as a goldsmith, a military architect, and a poet. The statue of Pope Julius III on the cathedral square at Perugia is one of his early works. Later he modelled the “Decapitation of St. John the Baptist” over the south portal of the baptistery at Florence, and finished Andrea Sansovino’s noble group of the “Baptism of Christ” over the east gate of the same baptistery. He competed against Cellini and Gian Bologna for the statue of Neptune in the fountain of Piazza della Signoria, which was ultimately given to an inferior artist, and he executed a marble group at the entrance to the Boboli Gardens in Florence, a youth raising and attempting to carry an old man bound hand and foot. This is supposed to be an allegory of the victory of honesty over deceit.

M. L. HANDLEY.

Maurus Dantine

Benedictine of the Congregation of Saint-Maur, and chronologist, born at Gourieux near Namur, Belgium, 1 April, 1688; died in the monastery of the “Blancs-Manteaux,” Paris, 3 November, 1746. Like many of the members of his congregation he was one of the so-called Appelants who in 1713 did not accept the Bull “Unigenitus,” but appealed to a general council. Dantine’s chief merit is the work he did in chronology; he can, in reality, be called on of the founders of this important branch of history, on account of the carefully elaborated plan he drew up for the great publication: “L’Art de vérifier les dates historiques, des chartes, des chroniques et autres monuments, depuis la naissance de J.-C..” He did most of the preparatory work for this publication, constructing more exact chronological tables and introducing a better method for calculating historical dates. On account of illness, however, he was not able to continue his labours and was obliged to leave their completion to other members of his order, his chief successor being Clémencet. Besides this, he devoted himself to thorough linguistic studies and as a result of these published a translation with commentary of the Psalms under the title: “Les psaumes traduits sur l’hébreu avec des notes” (Paris, 1739). This work attracted so much attention that in the same year a second, and in the following year a third, edition became necessary. In collaboration with Dom Carpentier he prepared a new edition of the great lexicon originally published in 1678 by Du Cange, and afterwards continued by the Maurists, its first Benedictine editor being Dom Guesnié, who was followed by Nicolas Toustain and Louis Le Pelletier. The edition of Dantine and Carpentier, half as large again as that of Du Cange, appeared in six volumes at Paris, 1733–36, under the title: “Glossarium ad scriptores mediæ et infimæ latinitatis, editio locupletior operâ et studio monachorum O.S.B.” Dantine’s labours greatly increased the value of this admirable work, which is not only of the utmost importance for the knowledge of Latin, but is also a rich source for the study of law and morals in the Middle Ages.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Lorenzo Da Ponte

Poet, b. at Cenada, Italy, 1749; d. in New York, 17 Aug., 1838. He was the son of a Jew and was at first named Emmanuel Conegliano. When he was fourteen years old his father and the other members of the family embraced Christianity and were baptized, 20 Aug., 1763, in the cathedral of Ceneda. The bishop of the see, Lorenzo Da Ponte, seeing the talents of the lad, gave him his own name and sent him to the local seminary to be educated. Here Da Ponte remained for five years, and then went to teach in the University of Treviso. Political complications sent him to Vienna, where he met Mozart and composed for him the librettos of the operas “Le Nozze di Figaro,” “Don Giovanni,” and “Cosi fan tutte.” He did not remain long in Vienna, but went to London, whence, after a somewhat chequered career, he emigrated to New York. Unsuccessful commercial ventures and unprofitable efforts to establish opera in that city followed, and he then settled down as a teacher of Italian with a nominal connection with Columbia College. Da Ponte enjoys the distinction of being the first teacher in America to lecture on Dante’s “Divina Commedia.” He was buried in the old Catholic cemetry in East Eleventh Street, and as the grave was never marked it cannot now be located. His daughter married Dr. Henry James Anderson, for many years professor of mathematics and astronomy in Columbia College, and a prominent Catholic philanthropist.

MARCHESAN, Della vita e delle opere di Lorenzo da Ponte (Treviso, 1900); GROVE, Dictionary of Music and Musicians (London, 1904), III; U.S. Cath. Hist. Soc. Hist., Records and Studies (New York, Nov., 1907), V, Part I.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Georges Darboy

Archbishop of Paris and ecclesiastical writer, b. at Fayl-Billot, near Langres, 1813; killed by Communists at Paris, 24 May, 1871. Ordained priest in 1836, he served for a time as curate of Notre-Dame at Saint-Dizier and as professor at the Grand Séminaire of Langres, then joined Mgr. Affre at Paris, 1845, where from “prêtre auxiliaire à la maison des carmes” and chaplain of the Lycée Henri-IV, he soon rose to the position of canon of Notre-Dame, vicar-general and archdeacon of Saint-Denis, having previously been made prothonotary Apostolic. In 1859 he was appointed to the See of Nancy. During his three years as incumbent of that see, he took a special interest in educational matters, established the Ecole-Saint-Léopold, enlarged the Grand Séminaire, and wrote (1862) his famous letter, “Sur la nécessité de l’étude.” Promoted by an imperial decree of 10 January, 1863, to the Archbishopric of Paris, made vacant by the death of Mgr. Morlot, he consecrated within a year the basilica of Notre-Dame, then completely restored, and was honoured with the titles of Grand Almoner, Senator, and Imperial Councillor. Though lacking the independence of Mgr. Affre, the administrative skill of Mgr. Sibour, and the affability of Cardinal Morlot, Darboy was a learned, conscientious, and respected prelate. With the help of such men as Buquet, Isoard, Langénieux, Meignan, and Foulon, he gave a new impetus to the somewhat remiss administration of his aged predecessor. The Gallicanism of Darboy made him unduly subservient to imperial wishes and caused him to assume against the exemptions of the religious an attitude which Rome (1869) compelled him to abandon. It was his chief motive for siding, during the Vatican Council, with the minority which deemed inopportune the definition of papal infallibility, his reasons being more of a political than of a theological nature. Darboy was one of those who suggested diplomatic intervention as a means of ending difficulties. He left Rome before the final vote of 18 July, 1870, and expressed sentiments which, however, he generously retracted when, several months after the definition, he subscribed to it. During the siege of Paris Darboy showed himself a true pastor and won the admiration of all. Arrested 4 April, 1871, by order of the Commune, and confined to Mazas Prison, the best efforts of his friends failed to save him; he was shot at Roquette, 24 May, and died blessing his executioners. As soon as order could be restored a national funeral was celebrated for him and the other victims of the Commune. The Abbé Perraud delivered his eulogy at Paris, and Père Didon at Nancy. Darboy was the author of the following works: “OEuvres de saint Denys l’Aréopagite, traduites du grec” (Paris, 1845); “Les femmes de la Bible” (Paris, 1846–9); “Les saintes femmes” (Paris, 1850); “Lettres à Combalot” (Paris, 1851); “Jérusalem et la terre sainte” (Paris, 1852); “L’imitation de Jésus-Christ, traduction nouvelle” (Paris, 1852); “Statistique religieuse du diocèse de Paris” (Paris, 1856); “Saint Thomas Becket” (Paris, 1858). He also contributed to the “Correspondant” (1847–1855) and was for a year (1850) director of the “Moniteur Catholique.” His pastoral works (2 vols., Paris, 1876) were edited by his biographer, Foulon.

FOULON, Histoire de la vie et des oeuvres de Mgr Darboy (Paris, 1889); JÉROME in L’épiscopat français, 1802–1905 (Paris, 1907), 390; PISANI (ibid., 463) gives an exhaustive bibliography; Darboy et le Saint-Siège, documents inédits in Rev. d’hist. et de lit. relig. (May-June, 1907).

J.F. SOLLIER

Dardanus

A titular see in the province of Hellespont, suffragan of Cyzicus. Four or five bishops are known, from 431 or 451 to 879 (Lequien, Or. Christ., I, 775). Dardanus figures in “Notititiæ episcopatuum” as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century. The town seems to have been situated some seven miles south-west of the Dardanelles, near Kefez Bournou. However, the town called Dardanelles (Gr. Dardanellia; Turk. Kaleh-i-Sultanieh, “imperial fortress”; and commonly Tchanak Kaleh, “the fortress of pottery”) is the modern representative of the ancient Dardanus. It is an important port on the straits which unite the Marmora with the Mediterranean (Straits of Dardanelles, the ancient Hellespont). The population is about 8000 (Turks, Greeks, Jews, a few Armenians, and Europeans). The little Catholic parish is conducted by a secular priest and the school is under Georgian Sisters, Servants of Mary. There is also an American Protestant mission. Dardanelles is the chief town of a sanjak, which depends directly on the Sublime Porte, and is strongly fortified. Every ship entering or quitting the straits must stop at Dardanelles and show the imperial firman, or permit, to enter or leave. Trade is rather active. Industry is represented by curious earthenware. Not far from the town is the hill of Hissaalik, the scene of some of Schliemann’s important excavations. The entire region is covered with interesting ruins.

CUINET, La Turquie d’Asie (Paris, 1894), III, 689 sqq.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Jean Dardel

Friar Minor of the French province of the order, chronicler of Armenia in the fourteenth century, adviser and confessor to King Leo V (or VI) of Armenia. Nothing is known regarding him except what he himself tells us in his “Chronique d’Arménie,” a work unknown until recent times. Dardel was born at Estampes, and became a Franciscan about the middle of the fourteenth century. Not earlier than 1375 he went with other pilgrims to Jerusalem and Mount Sinai. Arriving at Cairo he found the unhappy Leo, last King of Armenia (Cilicia), who after a nine-months siege in the fortress of Gaban was made prisoner by the Emir of Aleppo and brought to Jerusalem: and from there sent, together with his family, to Cairo (July, 1375). In Cairo Dardel accepted the invitation of the imprisoned monarch to act as his adviser, confessor, and secretary. With Dardel was a companion named Brother Anthony da Monopoli. Dardel saw the king frequently and said Mass before him, a privilege easily obtained from the sultan. He remained at Cairo till 1379, and, as he tells us, wrote some of the letters which the king sent to Europe seeking to procure his freedom. Eventually King Leo entrusted him with his royal seal and letters of credence, and sent him as ambassador to King Peter IV of Aragon, and, failing success with him, to all the other kings of Christendom to obtain his freedom. Dardel and his companion, Brother Anthony, set out from Cairo II Sept., 1379, and reached Barcelona, 1 March, 1380. After travelling over half of Europe he barely succeeded in inducing the King of Aragon to send an embassy with gifts to the sultan. Under the leadership of the pilgrim Gian-Alfonso di Loric, with some support from John I, King of Castile, the release of King Leo was thus secured, and he arrived at Venice, 12 December, 1382. He set out for France, paid homage there to Clement VII (the antipope), and then went on to Spain where the King of Castile received him royally.

Clement VII appointed Dardel Bishop of Tortiboli in the Kingdom of Naples, 11 April, 1383, as a reward for his labours on behalf of the Armenian king. He has left us an important “Chronique d’Arménie,” hitherto unknown to Orientalists. It was discovered by Canon Ulysse Robert, who came across the MS. in the Library of Dôle in France, and it has recently been published by the Institut des belles lettres of France in the second tome of the “Recueil des Historiens des Croisades.”

Original text in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades: Documents Arméniens (Paris, 1906), II, 274–1038; Armenian version by G. ERGEANTZ, Jowhannu Dardeli Zhamanakagruthiun Hajoz (St. Petersburg, 1891); ROBERT, La Chronique d’Arménie de Jean Dardel, evêque de Tortoboli in Archives de l’Orient Latin (1884), II, 1–15; TEZA, Leone VI e frate Giovanni in Atti del R. Instituto Veneto di scienze, LXVI, ser. VIII, vol. IX, pt. II, 322–328; MAYER in Romania (July, 1907), 450–455.

GIROLAMO GOLUBOVICH

St. Darerca

St. Darerca, of Ireland, a sister of St. Patrick. Much obscurity attaches to her history, and it is not easy to disentangle the actual facts of her history from the network of legend which medieval writers interwove with her acts. However, her fame, apart from her relationship to Ireland’s national apostle, stands secure as not only a great saint but as the mother of many saints. When St. Patrick visited Bredach, as we read in the “Tripartite Life,” he ordained Aengus mac Ailill, the local chieftain of Moville, now a seaside resort for the citizens of Derry. Whilst there he found “the three deacons,” his sister’s sons, namely, St. Reat, St. Nenn, and St. Aedh, who are commemorated respectively on 3 March, 25 April, and 31 August. St. Darerca was twice married, her second husband, Chonas, founded the church of Both-chonais, now Binnion, Parish of Clonmany, in the barony of Inishowen, County Donegal. She had families by both husbands, some say seventeen sons, all of whom, according to Colgan, became bishops. From the “Tripartite Life of St. Patrick” it is evident that there were four sons of Darerca by Chonas, namely four bishops, St. Mel of Ardagh, St. Rioc of Inisboffin, St. Muinis of Forgney, County Longford, and St. Maelchu. It is well to note that another St. Muinis, son of Gollit, is described as of Tedel in Ara-cliath.

St. Darerca had two daughters, St. Eiche of Kilglass and St. Lalloc of Senlis. Her first husband was Restitutus the Lombard, after whose death she married Chonas the Briton. By Restitutus she was mother of St. Sechnall of Dunshaughlin; St. Nectan of Killunche, and of Fennor (near Slane); of St. Auxilius of Killossey (near Naas, County Kildare); of St. Diarmaid of Druim-corcortri (near Navan); of Dabonna, Mogornon, Drioc, Luguat, and Coemed Maccu Baird (the Lombard) of Cloonshaneville, near Frenchpark, County Roscommon. Four other sons are assigned her by old Irish writers, namely St. Crummin of Lecua, St. Miduu, St. Carantoc, and St. Maceaith. She is identical with Liamania, according to Colgan, but must not be confounded with St. Monennia, or Darerca, whose feast is on 6 July. St. Darerca is honoured on 22 March, and is patroness of Valencia Island.

STOKES, The Tripartite Life of St. Patrick (Rolls Series, London, 1887); COLGAN, Trias Thaumaturga (Louvain, 1647); ARCHDALL, Monasticon Hibernicum, ed. MORAN (Dublin, 1873–76); COLGAN, Acta Sanctorum Hiberniæ (Louvain, 1645); Martyrology of Donegal (Dublin, 1864); O’HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints(Dublin, 1879), III; HEALY, Life and Writings of St. Patrick (Dublin, 1905).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

Antoine-Elisabeth Dareste de la Chavanne

Historian and professor, b. in Paris, 25 October, 1820; d. at Lucenay-lès-Aix, 6 August, 1882. Having completed his studies in the Ecole Normale and taken his degree of Doctor of Literature, he taught history at the lyceums of Versailles and Rennes and at the College Stanislas, the largest Catholic school in Paris. In 1847 he was given a professorship at the University of Grenoble, and two years after was appointed to the chair of history at the University of Lyons. This latter position he retained for twenty years, being elected dean of the faculty of literature in 1865. While discharging with the greatest zeal and ability the duties of his position, he wrote a number of works, several of which received an award from the French Academy. Among them are “Eloge de Turgot” (Paris, 1847); “Histoire de ladministration en France depuis Philippe-Auguste” (Paris 1848, 2 vols. in 8 vo); Histoire des classes agricoles en France depuis saint Louis jusqu à Louis XVI (Paris, 1853); “Histoire de France depuis ses origines jusqu à nos jours” (Paris, 1865–1873, 8 vols.; 2nd ed., 1879, 9 vols.) All his writings are clear, accurate and complete without being diffuse. Although somewhat imbued with Gallican ideas, he invariably does justice to the Roman Church and the popes. In 1873 he was appointed rector of the academy at Lyons, but was placed on the unattached list in 1878, because of his devotion to Catholic interests, and the active part he took in the establishment of the Catholic University of Lyons.

HEINRICH, Notice biographique sur M. Dareste de la Chavanne (Lyons, 1883).

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Darnis

A metropolitan titular see of Libya, in Egypt. Ptolemy (IV, 4, 2; 5; 6) and Ammian. Marcell., (XXII, 16, 4) locate it in Pentapolis. It became a civil and later the religious metropolis of Libya Secunda, on Inferior, i.e. Marmarica (Hierocles, “Synecdemus” 734,3; Lequien, “Orens. Christ.,” II, 631; Gelzer, “Georgii Cyprii descripto orbis Romani,” 142). Darne is another form of the name; Dardanis is due to an eror. Only three, perhaps four, bishops are known, from the fourth or sixth century to about 600. The city is now known as Derneh or Dernah, Terneh or Ternah, and is a little port at the end of a bay formed by the Mediterranean, where the French admiral Gantheaume landed in 1700. It is situated east of Benhasi in the vilayet of that name (Tripolitana), and has 2000 inhabitants, who live by fishing and the coasting trade.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Joseph-Epiphane Darras

Church historian, b. at Troyes, France, 1825; d. at Paris, Nov. 8, 1878. He completed his classical training and his theological studies in the Petit Seminaire and the Grand Seminaire of Troyes, in the former of which he became a teacher after his ordination to the priesthood, but had to resign apropos of a panegyric on the Bishop of Troyes, Etienne-Antoine de Boulogne (1809–1825), disgraced by Napoleon I, for his firm attitude on the occasion of the assembly of the French bishops in 1811. He then became tutor of Prince Eugene de Bauffremont, devoted himself to historical studies, and after the education of his pupil continued to live with the de Bauffremont family. He was a zealous antagonist of Gallicanism and devoted to the honour and the rights of the Holy See. He was at Rome during the Vatican Council as secretary to the meetings of the French bishops. His first literary work was the translation of Pallavicino’s “Storia del Concilio Tridentino” for the Migne collection. To the same period belongs the “Légende de Notre-Dame” (Paris, 1848), written under the influence of Montalembert. The early theological studies of Darras did not include a good foundation in ecclesiastical history; this defect he sought to make good by private studies. His “Histoire générale de l’Eglise” in four volumes appeared at Paris in 1854 (14th ed., 1890). It follows the reigns of the popes, but betrays in the author a lack of methodical training and critical skill, defects noticeable also in his other works. In the following years Darras published a “Histoire de St. Dénis l’Aréopagite, premier évêque de Paris” (Paris, 1863); a “Histoire de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ” (Paris, 1864), two volumes, and a “Notice biographique de Mgr. Jager” (Paris, 1868). He collaborated with Collin in the “Grande Vie des Saints” (Paris, 1873–75) twenty-five volumes. In the meantime he had prepared the material for his chief work: “Histoire de l’Eglise depuis la création,” the first twenty-five volumes of which appeared before his death (Paris, 1875–77). They brought the narrative down to the twelfth century. After his death, J. Bareille continued the work to the pontificate of Clement VII (volumes XXVI-XXXII, Paris, 1879–84). It was completed by J. Fevre to the pontificate of Leo XIII, inclusive (volumes XXXIII-XLIV, Paris, 1884–1907, with two volumes of Index). This work discloses the defects mentioned above. For a sharp criticism of it by the Bollandist Charles de Smedt, S.J., see the latter’s “Principes de la critique historique” (Liège, 1885), 137 sqq., 285.

J.P. KIRSCH

William Darrell

Theologian, b. 1651, in Buckinghamshire, England; d. 28 Feb., 1721, at St. Omer’s, France. He was a member of the ancient Catholic family of Darrell of Scotney Castle, Sussex, being the only son of Thomas Darrell and his wife, Thomassine Marcham. He joined the Society of Jesus on 7 Sept., 1671, was professed 25 March, 1689. He wrote: “A Vindication of St. Ignatius from Phanaticism and of the Jesuits from the calumnies laid to their charge in a late book (by Henry Wharton) entitled The Enthusiasm of the Church of Rome” (London, 1688); “Moral Reflections on the Epistles and Gospels of every Sunday throughout the Year” (London, 1711, and frequently reprinted); “The Gentleman Instructed in the conduct of a virtuous and happy life” (10th ed., London, 1732; frequently reprinted and translated into Italian and Hungarian); “Theses Theologicæ” (Liège, 1702); “The Case Reviewed” in answer to Leslie’s “Case Stated” (2nd ed., London, 1717); “A Treatise of the Real Presence” (London,1721). He translated “Discourses of Cleander and Eudoxus upon the Provincial Letters from the French” (1701). Jones in his edition of Peck’s “Popery Tracts” (1859), also attributes to Father Darrell: “A Letter on King James the Second’s most gracious Letter of Indulgence” (1687); “The Layman’s Opinion sent . . . to a considerable Divine in the Church of England” (1687); “A Letter to a Lady” (1688); “The Vanity of Human Respects” (1688).

FOLEY, Records Eng. Prov. S. J. (London, 1878), III, 477, VII, i, 196; PECK, Catalogue of Popery Tracts (1735),ed. JONES (Chetham Society, 1859); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1886), II; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog. (London, 1888), XIV.

EDWIN BURTON

Dates and Dating

In classical Latin even before the time of Christ it was usual for correspondents to indicate when and where their letters were written. This was commonly done by such words as dabam Romanæante diem quartum Kalendas Januarias, i.e. I gave or delivered this at Rome on December 29th. For this the later formula was data Romæ (given at Rome). Hence data, the first word of the formula, came to be used for the time and place therein specified. The principle that imperial decrees and charters must be “dated” as a condition of validity, i.e. that they must bear upon them the indication of the day and year when they were delivered, may be traced back to the time of Constantine. In the course of the Middle Ages this principle was generally admitted, and we find, for example, that at Cologne in the twelfth century the validity of a certain instrument was contested because it lacked a date. “Those who have seen it say that the document which John brought does not bear the day or the indiction . . . now the Roman decrees lay down that letters which lack the day and the indiction have no binding force.” (Westdeutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichte, I, 377.) But although this principle was recognized in theory it was not always carried out in practice. Even down to the beginning of the twelfth century not only royal and imperial letters but even charters (Urkunden), properly so called, were occasionally through the carelessness of officials sent out without a date. (Bresslau, Handbuch, I, 891.) In this matter the Italian chancery officials seem to have been much more careful than those of the rest of Europe. The same is true with regard to the correctness of the dates which do appear in official documents, especially those of the early Middle Ages. As a rule the charters emanating from the chancery of the Western Emperors are much more liable to this form of error than those of the Holy See (Bresslau, ib., 844). But even the bulls of such a pontiff as Innocent III are not unfrequently at fault, and as Léopold Delisle has shown, an erroneous calculation of the indiction may be perpetuated through a whole series of authentic documents (Bib. de l’Ecole des chartes, 1858, p. 55). In any case it remains certain and is admitted by all serious writers upon diplomatics that the mere fact that an erroneous date occurs in a document, especially when we are dealing with the earlier Middle Ages, cannot by itself be accepted as a proof, or even a presumption, of the spuriousness of the document.

THE CHRISTIAN ERA

The point of main interest in this connection is to determine the source and period of the introduction of our present system of dating by the Christian Era. Although, as explained in the article GENERAL CHRONOLOGY, the monk known as Dionysius Exiguus, when resident in Rome, c. 527, seems to have been the first to initiate the practice of calculating years from the birth of Christ and although it was undoubtedly he who identified the year of Christ’s birth with the year 753 of the foundation of Rome, as is still done in our current chronology, nevertheless it was not until long after the age of Dionysius Exiguus that the system came into common use. For example, no trace of it will be found in that great historian of the Gallic Church, St. Gregory of Tours, the contemporary of our St. Augustine of England; and in the writings of Pope St. Gregory the Great the Dionysian Era is not adopted. It was the pope’s habit to date his letters by the regnal years of the emperor and letters so dated may be seen in Bede’s “Ecclesiastical History,” just as they were copied from the Roman archives. Apparently it was the Englishman Bede himself who was the first to bring the Dionysian system into general use, for it was through him that it was adopted in literature, having been employed systematically not only in his “De Temporum Ratione” but especially in his “Ecclesiastical History.” What is more, we may notice the striking fact that the regular employment of the Christian Era in English charters began just at the period of Bede’s pre-eminent influence. It is only from about the year 679 that we are able to appeal to English charters of indisputable authenticity. Taking eight such documents, the eight earliest which we can quote with confidence and dated respectively 679, 692, 697, 732, 734, 736, 740, 759, we may notice says Professor Earle (Land Charters, Introduc., p. xxxiii) that “of this series the first five though all more or less dated, whether by the month or the regnal year, or by the Indiction, or by all these at once, have not the Anno Domini. On the other hand, the last three agree in using the Christian Era and from this time the practice is continuous. In the intervening year which breaks this series into two parts falls the death of Bede A.D. 735.” Very noteworthy is the decree of an English synod held in 816, wherein it is prescribed that the bishop shall put the acts of the synod into writing and date them by the Era of the Incarnation. This points no doubt to a time “when ecclesiastics knew the era well enough but had not yet acquired the punctual habit of using it.” It is in any case certain that neither in the papal chancery nor in that of the Western Empire was the system introduced until considerably later. In the empire it only became general in the latter part of the ninth century, while although it occurs occasionally in papal documents of the time of John XIII (965–972), it was not the rule before the twelfth century. But for the dating of papal documents and for the so-called “double date” see the article BULLS AND BRIEFS.

RECKONING OF YEARS

Before the Christian Era was generally adopted in the dating of documents various other systems were employed at different periods and in different countries. The best known of these was the counting by “indictions.” The indiction was a cycle of fifteen years, the first of these cycles being conceived to have started at a point three years before the beginning of the present Christian Era. It was usual to indicate only the position of the year in the current indiction, and no notice was taken of the number of cycles already completed. Thus, for example, indictio quarta meant the fourth year of some particular indiction and not the fourth cycle of fifteen years after B.C. 3; from which it follows that merely to know the year of the indiction is useless for determining the absolute date of any document unless we know otherwise approximately the period to which the document belongs. In reckoning the beginning and consequently the determining-point of the indiction-cycles four different systems were adopted: the indictio Græca according to which the indiction began on September 1st; the indictio Cæsarea (or indiction of Bede) beginning September 24th; the indictio Romana beginning December 25th or January 1st; and the indictio Senensis beginning September 8th. The indictio Græca was the oldest of these and it remained in use in papal bulls until 1087 and in imperial documents until 832. It was partly supplanted, especially in the Carlovingian sphere of influence, by the indictio Cæsarea.

Concurrently with the year of the indiction it was customary both in papal and imperial documents to mention the regnal year of the pope or emperor. So far as regards the emperors this was prescribed by Justinian (Novella xlvii). In the case of the popes we do not know any instance earlier than 787. Generally speaking (though the rule admitted of many exceptions, especially later) the regnal year was calculated from the day of coronation or consecration. In the official acts of most of the countries of Christendom, and notably in England, the regnal year of the sovereign was always given and sometimes this was the only indication of the year. As a continuous system of year enumeration the oldest era in practical use appears to have been that known as the “Era of the Martyrs” or “of Diocletian” (anni Diocletiani). Its starting-point was the accession of the Emperor Diocletian, 29 August, 284. The Spanish Era (æra Hispanica) was in familiar use in Spain from the fifth century down to late in the Middle Ages. It adds about thirty-eight years to the ordinary numbering of the Christian Era. Where Byzantine influences prevailed the years were generally numbered from the beginning of the world (ab origine mundi). This era was calculated from 1 September, and the birth of Christ, which is the point of departure of our present chronology, took place in the year 5509 of the Byzantine system. Several other methods of reckoning, of which the best known is the Era of the Hegira followed in Mahommedan countries, have also prevailed in various localities, but they cannot be discussed in detail here. After the Christian Era had been universally adopted an important source of confusion as regards the dating of documents still remained in the diversity of practice about the beginning of the year. For the details of this the reader must be referred to the article GENERAL CHRONOLOGY, but we may notice here that among the Anglo-Saxons, as also at many different periods in the papal chancery, the new year was calculated to begin on December 25th. On the other hand, in England from the twelfth century onwards, largely under Norman influences, the years were numbered from the 25th of March. This arrangement was often called the mos Anglicanus or computatio Anglicana, though it also prevailed in Florence, Siena, Pisa, and at least occasionally in other parts of the Continent as well as in many papal documents. In England it lasted on down to the eighteenth century, though after Elizabethan times it became increasingly common in the dating of letters to indicate the system of dating adopted, N.S. often standing for the New or Continental Style in which the year began on January 1st, and 0.S. for the Old Style in which the year was counted from March 25th. Further N.S. was still more frequently used for dates which followed the reformed calendar of Gregory XIII, as explained in the article GENERAL CHRONOLOGY.

THE RECKONING OF DAYS

The early converts to Christianity in the West not unnaturally retained the method of indicating the days of the month which was current among their pagan contemporaries. According to this, three fixed points were taken in each month, the kalends on the first day, the ides on the thirteenth (or in some months on the fifteenth), and the nones on the ninth day before the ides and consequently on the fifth or seventh. The dates which fell between these fixed points were designated by the number of days by which they fell short of the next fixed point. Thus the twenty-fourth of May was called ante diem nonum kalendas Junias (i.e. the ninth day before the kalends of June). During the early Middle Ages this system was retained practically unaltered except that the long Roman form was somewhat contracted, for example decimo kalendas Julii was written instead of the ante diem decimum kalendas Julias.

A curious arrangement prevailed at Bologna (it was called from its place of origin the consuetudo Bononiensis) and extended over a large part of the north of Italy. According to this the first half of the month was numbered forwards and called menses intrans, but the last half of the month was called mensis exiens and numbered backwards, as in the Roman system; thus the seventeenth of May was called die quinto decimo exeuntis mensis Maii. Our present system of numbering the days straight on from the first of each month began to appear in the sixth century and gradually became more prevalent throughout the Middle Ages, but it never came into general use on account of the custom of indicating the day by the feasts of the local calendar. Not only did the common festivals serve for this purpose, but the Sundays were also often used, and were designated by the first words of their Introit in the Mass. For instance in Dominica lætare means on the Sunday whose Introit begins with Lætare in Domino, i.e. the fourth Sunday of Lent. Moreover the vigil of a feast, or the previous day, or the octave, or a specified day within the octave, were all familiarly designated by their relation to the feast, e.g. in pervigilio Nativitatis Beatæ Mariæ; postridie Sancti Laurentii; in octava Sti. Laurentii, etc. In this method of dating, which was constantly employed both in Latin and ill the vernacular, the use of the English word utas for octave should be noticed. This method of dating by saints’ days, as will be readily understood, depended much upon local conditions and was always apt to become both complicated and inexact.

HERBERT THURSTON

Gabriel-Auguste Daubrée

French geologist, b. at Metz, 25 June, 1814; d. at Paris, 29 May, 1896. He studied mining engineering at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris and in 1834 entered the Government service. After being sent on commissions to England, Sweden, and Norway, he was attached to the department of the Lower Rhine. He was a close observer of geological phenomena and during this time published a paper on the ore deposits of Scandinavia which attracted the attention of Berzelius, and also issued his “Description géologique et minéralogique du département du Bas-Rhin.” His appointment as professor of geology and mineralogy at Strasburg furnished him with a laboratory suitable for his experimental work in synthetic geology, begun in 1849. His brilliant experimental researches at Strasburg, and later at Paris, extended over a number of years and have served to make him famous in the annals of geology. They comprised the artificial production of minerals, the geological action of superheated aqueous vapour, the effect of mutual abrasion, the influence of pressure and strain in mountain-making, etc. During the years 1857–61 he made a detailed study of the hot springs of Plombières, observing at the same time the chemical action of thermal waters. In 1861 he was admitted to the Académie des Sciences and succeeded Cordier as professor of geology at the Museum of Natural History in Paris and curator of the collections; to the latter he made extensive additions, particularly of meteorites. It may be mentioned in this connexion that daubréelite (CrS), a grayish granular mineral found in meteoric iron, was named after him. From 1862 he also lectured on mineralogy at the Ecole des Mines of which he became director in 1872. Daubrée’s career was a long and active one. He was one of the foremost of Catholic geologists, and was much esteemed for his amiability and nobility of character. One of his friends and admirers was Dom Pedro, Emperor of Brazil. Besides the works already mentioned, he was the author of: “Observations sur le métamorphisme” (Paris, 1858); “Etudes synthétiques de géologie expérimentale” (Paris, 1879); “Les eaux souterraines” (Paris, 1887); “La classification des météorites du Muséum,” and many articles in the “Journal des savants” and the “Revue des deux mondes.”

LAPPARENT in Revue des quest. scientifiques, XL, 89; VON ZITTEL, History of Geology and Palæontology (London, 1901); KNELLER, Das Christenthum u. die Vertreter der neueren Naturwissenschaft (Freiburg, 1904), 264.

HENRY M. BROCK

Daulia

A titular see of Greece. Daulis, later Daulia, Dauleion, often Diauleia, even Davalia, was a town of Phocis, on the Cephissus, fifteen Roman miles north-east of Delphi. It is mentioned by Hierocles (Synecd., 643, 10), and at the end of the seventh century had become a suffragan of Athens. In 1393 Talantion was cut off from Daulia and made a distinct see: this was a town at the foot of Mount Knemis, the ancient name of which was Atalante. The bishops of Daulia long protested against this division; at last, about the end of the fifteenth century the two sees were reunited as “Daulia and Talantion”; they remained so, except for a brief period about 1567. In 1653 the double see was made an archbishopric, owing to the influence of a Turkish pasha, but after two years was reduced to its former status. Talantion was then commonly named in the first place, and finally was the only name in use. The bishop resided there, as Daulia was almost in ruins. The See of Daulia was suppressed in 1833, when the Church of the Kingdom of Greece was organized on an independent basis. We know about fifteen Greek bishops of Daulia, the first of whom, Germanos, died in 919; the last, Neophytos Metaxas, died as Metropolitan of Athens. As early as 1205 Daulia became a Latin see; many of the bishops are known from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century, among them one William, bearer, in 1384, of a letter from Urban VI to the Patriarch Nilus, concerning the reunion of the Churches. Since 1441, at least, the see has been titular.

BOUSQUET, L’évêché de Daulia-Talantion in Echos d’Orient (1907). X, 295–299.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Georg Friedrich Daumer

German poet and philosopher, b. at Nuremberg, 5 March, 1800; d. at Wurzburg, 14 December, 1875. He was educated at the gymnasium of his native city, at that time directed by the famous philosopher Hegel. In 1817 he entered the University of Erlangen as a student of theology, but abandoned that study for philosophy. For a number of years Daumer was professor at the gymnasium of Nuremberg; owing to ill-health he was pensioned in 1832 and henceforth devoted himself entirely to literary work. While at Erlangen he came strongly under the influence of Pietism. Soon, however, he became sceptical and exhibited decided leanings towards pantheism. From an orthodox Protestant he gradually became a bitter enemy of Christianity, which he attacked in a number of writings and for which he strove to substitute a new religion “of love and peace,” formulated in his work “Religion des neuen Weltalters” (Hamburg, 1850). Previous to this he had published a number of works, all of a distinctly anti-theological tendency, of which the more important are: “Philosophie, Religion, und Altertum” (Nuremberg, 1833); “Züge zu einer neuen Philosophie der Religion und Religionsgeschichte” (Nuremberg, 1835); “Der Feuer-und Molochdienst der Hebraer” (Brunswick, 1842); “Die Geheimnisse des christlichen Altertums” (Hamburg, 1847). Shortly after 1850 Daumer left Nuremberg and settled at Frankfort, where a great change soon came over him. In 1858 at Mainz he publicly embraced the Catholic Faith and thenceforth became its zealous defender. Among the works written after his conversion are: “Meine Konversion” (Mainz, 1859); “Aus der Mansarde” (1860–62); “Das Christentum und sein Urheber” (Mainz, 1864); “Das Wunder, seine Bedeutung, Wahrheit und Notwendigkeit” (Ratisbon, 1874). The last mentioned work is directed expressly against the opinions of David Strauss.

Undoubtedly the best part of Daumer’s work is his poetry. His “Hafis” (Hamburg, 1846; a second collection, 1852) contains graceful but very free imitations of the songs of the famous Persian poet. In fact, these poems are really original productions, and some of them have become widely known through the musical settings of Brahms. This collection, as well as “Mahomed und sein Werk” (Hamburg, 1848), is distinctly directed against the hypocrisy and asceticism which at that time Daumer believed to be inseparable from orthodox Christianity. Among other poems may be mentioned: “Glorie der heiligen Jungfrau Maria” (Nuremberg, 1841); “Frauenbilder und Huldigungen” (Leipzig, 1853); “Marianische Legenden und Gedichte” (Munster, 1859) and “Schone Seelen” (Mainz, 1862).

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Sir William D’Avenant

Poet and dramatist, b. Feb., 1605–6, at Oxford, England; d. in London, 7 April, 1668. He was the second son of John D’Avenant, a prosperous vintner and owner of an inn afterwards known as the Crown Tavern, where Shakespeare frequently stayed. The story which would make William D’Avenant the natural son of Shakespeare seems to have no real foundation, though he may have been the poet’s godson. D’Avenant was educated at the grammar school of All Saints, Oxford, and went for a short time to Lincoln College. Then he became page to Frances, Duchess of Richmond, and was afterwards taken into the service of Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke. In 1628 he began writing plays and ten years later succeeded Ben Jonson as Poet Laureate. He took up warmly the side of the king in the Civil War, and was knighted by Charles I in 1643. After the king’s defeat, in 1644, he took refuge in France where he became a Catholic. He was employed by Queen Henrietta Maria in her correspondence with the king in England, and was faithful to the royal cause to the end. More than once he was imprisoned and in danger of losing his life, but was finally released in 1651. In 1656 he was instrumental in reviving theatrical performances in England which had ceased since 1641. After the Restoration he was patronized by Charles II and continued, to the end of his life, to write and superintend the production of plays. His poetical work consists of the epic of “Gondibert” with other shorter poems (Chalmer, English Poets, London, 1810, vi), together with nearly thirty plays (Edinburgh, 1872–4, 5 vols., edited by Maidment and Logan). “Gondibert” is an unfinished poem in fifteen hundred heroic stanzas. Modern critics find it dull, but it has its place in English literature as marking a stage in the movement towards the so-called classical school of poetry which culminated in Dryden and Pope. D’Avenant’s dramas do not rise much above mediocrity, but they are considered “exceptionally decorous and moral” for their time.

LEE in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; Prefatory Memoir to above edition of plays; DOWNES, Roscius Anglicanus, ed. KNIGHT (London, 1886); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of Eng. Cath., s.v.

K. M. WARREN.

Christopher Davenport

Also known as FRANCISCUS À SANCTA CLARA and sometimes by the alias of FRANCIS HUNT and FRANCIS COVENTRY.

Theologian, b. 1598, at Coventry, England, d. 31 May, 1680. He was the son of Alderman John Davenport and Elizabeth Wolley, and from the grammar school at Coventry went to Dublin where he spent fifteen months, leaving it 22 Nov., 1611. In 1613 he and his brother John proceeded to Merton College, Oxford, entering as “battelers” and taking Cook’s commons; but the warden required them to enter as commoners or to leave the college; whereon in 1614 they migrated to Magdalen Hall. Here Christopher became B. A. on 28 May, his Dublin residence being allowed to count. (Oxford University Register.) John subsequently became a noted Puritan divine and emigrated to New England, where with a band of colonists he founded the city of New Haven, Connecticut (1638). Christopher was converted to Catholicism by a priest living near Oxford and in 1615 went to Douay. Attracted by the efforts restore the English Franciscan Province, he joined the Flemish Franciscans at Ypres, 7 Oct., 1617. When he was professed (under the name of Franciscan à Sancta Clara) he joined the English Recollects at the newly-established convent of St. Bonaventure at Douay (18 Oct., 1618). He was sent to the University of Salamanca in Spain, where he took is degree in divinity and won reputation theologian. Returning to Douay, he became first professor of theology at St. Bonaventure’s and filled the office of guardian. At length he was sent to England and was appointed chaplain to Queen Henrietta Maria, in which capactity he attended the Court and became acquainted with King Charles I, Archbishop Laud, Montague, Bishop of Norwich, and Goodman, Bishop of Gloucester. Inspired with the idea of converting England by means of corporate reunion, he wrote a treatise to show that the Thirty-nine Articles were susceptible of an interpretation more in accordance with Catholic teaching than was usually supposed. This was the “Paraphrastica Expositio Articulorum Confessionis Anglicanae,” published as an appendix to his book, “Deus, Nature, Gratia,” in 1634. It offended many Catholics and was put on the Index in Spain, though a condemnation at Rome was averted by Panzani, the pope’s nuncio in London.

On 19, June, 1637, Davenport was elected provincial of the order, an office to which he was subsequently re-elected, 10 July 1650, and 4 June, 1665. After the Restoration he was appointed chaplain to Queen Catharine of Braganza, and returned to London, where he spent most of his remaining years with occasional visits to Flanders. His intellectual ability and attractive manner won him the friendship of many, and aided in reconciling numerous converts, among whom was Anne, Duchess of York. He lived to celebrate three jubilees—of religious profession, of the priesthood, and of the mission.

His works are:

“Epistolium, continens confutationem duarum proposititionem astrologicarum” (Douay, 1626);

“Deus, Natura, Gratia” with the important appendix described above (Lyons, 1634);

“Apologia Episcoporum” (Cologne, 1640);

“The Practice of the Presence of God” (Douay, 1642);

“Systema Fidei” (Liège, 1648);

“De Definibilitate Controversiae Immaculate Conceptionis Dei Genitricis Opusculum” (Douay, 1651);

“Explanation of the Mundo Peripatetico” (Antwerp, 1652);

“An Echiridion of Faith” (Douay, 1655);

“Explanation of the Catholic Belief” (1656);

“Manuale Missionariorum Regularium praecipue Anglorum Ordinis Sacti Francisci” (Douay, 1658, 1661);

“Fragmenta: seu Historia Minor. Provine. Angl. Fratrum Minorum”;

“Tractatus de Schismate praesertim Anglicano”;

“Vindication of Roman Catholics” (1659);

“Liber Dialogorum” (Douay, 1661);

“Problemata Scholastica et controversialia speculativa”;

“Corollarium Dialogi de Medio Aninarum Statu,”

“Religio Philosophia Peripati discutienda” (Douay, 1662, 1667);

“Opera omnia Francisci a S. Clara” (Douay, 1665–1667);

“Disputatio de antiqua Provinciae Praecedentia” (1670);

“Supplementum Historiae Provinciae Angliae” (Douay, 1671).

ANTHONY A WOOD Athenæ Oxonieneses, ed. BLISS (London, 1817), III, 1221; Gillow. Bibl. Dict. Cath., s. v.; Oxford Historical Society, Oxford University Register (Oxford, 1887), X. 374; PERRY in Dict. Nat. Biog. (London, 1888), XIV; Foster, Alumni Oxonienses (Oxford, 1891), I. 376; Shahan, Christopher Davenport in U. S. Cath. Hist. Magazine (Philadelphia, April, 1888), II, 153.

EDWIN BURTON

Diocese of Davenport

DIOCESE OF DAVENPORT (DAVENPORTENSIS)

The Diocese of Davenport, erected 8 May, 1881, embraces the four southern tiers of counties of the State of Iowa, U.S.A., an area of about 22,873 square miles. From the time of the Louisiana Purchase down to 1827 the present Diocese of Davenport was included in the Diocese of New Orleans; from 1827 to 1837 it formed part of the Diocese of St. Louis; and from 1837 to 1881 it belonged to the Diocese of Dubuque. When Bishop Loras arrived in Dubuque in April, 1839, his diocese contained two churches. St. Raphael’s in Dubuque, built in 1836, and St. Anthony’s in Davenport, built in 1838. In all the vast territory subject to him there was but one priest, the Rev. Samuel Mazzuchelli, O.P., who had been labouring in the territory since 1835 and under whose direction the two churches referred to had been built. Bishop Loras brought with him two priests, the Rev. Joseph Cretin, afterwards first Bishop of St. Paul, and the Rev. J. A. M. Pelamourgues, whom the people of St. Anthony’s parish, Davenport, and indeed of the whole Diocese of Davenport, venerate as their first resident pastor. Father Pelamourgues, the first citizen of Davenport in his day, a leader in every good work, was pastor of St. Anthony’s from 1839 to 1868. Of the generous, zealous laity associated with him in his work in those early days, Mr. and Mrs. Antoine Le Claire deserve special mention. Notable among their benefactions was the donation to the church of the block of ground in the heart of the city on which St. Anthony’s church was built.

GROWTH OF CATHOLICISM

Bishop Loras and his successors in the See of Dubuque did much to promote the immigration to Iowa of German and Irish Catholics, with the result that Iowa has a large Catholic rural population. Between the years 1840 and 1850 the number of resident pastors in the present Diocese of Davenport increased from one to five. By the year 1860 the number had increased to thirteen, and by 1870 to twenty. During the decade following 1870 the tide of Catholic immigration was heavy, and at the time of its formation, in 1881, the diocese contained seventy priests and a Catholic population estimated at 45,000. Since its formation the diocese has had a continuous, healthy growth.

BISHOPS

(1) JOHN McMULLEN, was born in Ballynahinich, Co. Down, Ireland, 8 January, 1832, and ordained priest in Rome, 20 June, 1858. He was consecrated, 25 July, 1881, at Chicago, where at the time of his appointment to Davenport, he was vicar-general. He entered with zeal and vigour into the work of organizing the new diocese. The cause of Catholic education was his especial concern. St. Ambrose College was founded by him in September, 1882. His health soon failed, and he died 4 July, 1883.

(2) HENRY COSGROVE, second bishop, was born at Williamsport, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., 19 December, 1834. He emigrated to Dubuque in 1845 and was ordained priest 7 August, 1857. He was assigned at once to St. Marguerite’s, Davenport, with which church he was ever afterwards connected. When bishop McMullen went to Davenport, he chose St. Marguerite’s for his cathedral church and made Father Cosgrove his vicar-general. Father Cosgrove was consecrated Bishop of Davenport, 14 September, 1884, and for more than twenty-two years gave his best efforts to the cause of religion in his diocese. Under his guidance many new churches were erected; schools and other institutions established or enlarged. Worthy of special mention are the Sacred Heart cathedral, St. Vincent’s home for orphans, and St. Ambrose College.

(3) Two years before his death, Bishop Cosgrove, enfeebled in health, was given a coadjutor in the person of his vicar-general, the Very Rev. James Davis. Bishop Davis was born in Ireland in 1852, ordained priest in 1878, was consecrated coadjutor to bishop Cosgrove, 30 Nov., 1904, and on the death of the latter became Bishop of Davenport.

STATISTICS

The religious communities represented in the diocese include the Benedictines, who have charge of four parishes, and the Redemptorists who have one; the Sisters of St. Benedict, Sisters of Charity B.V.M., Sisters of Charity of St. V. de Paul, Hospital Sisters of St. Francis, School Sisters of St. Francis, Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, Sisters of the Holy Humility of Mary, Sisters of Mary, School Sisters of Notre Dame, Sisters of St. Francis of Assisi, Sisters of the Holy Cross. The number of priests in 1908 was 138, and the number of Catholics 75,518. The diocese then contained 154 churches, 105 of which had resident pastors, 43 parochial schools, 9 hospitals, 7 academies for young ladies, 1 college for boys, and 1 orphan asylum.

WM. P. SHANNAHAN

St. David

(DEGUI, DEWI).

Bishop and Confessor, patron of Wales. He is usually represented standing on a little hill, with a dove on his shoulder. From time immemorial the Welsh have worn a leek on St. David’s day, in memory of a battle against the Saxons, at which it is said they wore leeks in their hats, by St. David’s advice, to distinguish them from their enemies. He is commemorated on 1 March. The earliest mention of St. David is found in a tenth-century manuscript Of the “Annales Cambriae,” which assigns his death to A.D. 601. Many other writers, from Geoffrey of Monmouth down to Father Richard Stanton, hold that he died about 544, but their opinion is based solely on data given in various late “lives” of St. David, and there seems no good reason for setting aside the definite statement of the “Annales Cambriae,” which is now generally accepted. Little else that can claim to be historical is known about St. David. The tradition that he was born at Henvynyw (Vetus-Menevia) in Cardiganshire is not improbable. He was prominent at the Synod of Brevi (Llandewi Brefi in Cardiganshire), which has been identified with the important Roman military station, Loventium. Shortly afterwards, in 569, he presided over another synod held at a place called Lucus Victoriae. He was Bishop (probably not Archbishop) of Menevia, the Roman port Menapia in Pembrokeshire, later known as St. David’s, then the chief point of departure for Ireland. St. David was canonized by Pope Callistus II in the year 1120.

This is all that is known to history about the patron of Wales. His legend, however, is much more elaborate, and entirely unreliable. The first biography that has come down to us was written near the end of the eleventh century, about 500 years after the saint’s death, by Rhygyfarch (Ricemarchus), a son of the then bishop of St. David’s, and is chiefly a tissue of inventions intended to support the claim of the Welsh episcopate to be independent of Canterbury. Giraldus Cambriensis, William of Malmesbury, Geoffrey of Monmouth, John de Tinmouth, and John Capgrave all simply copy and enlarge upon the work of Rhygyfarch, whilst the anonymous author of the late Welsh life printed in Rees, “Cambro-British Saints” (Cott. MS. Titus, D. XXII) adds nothing of value. According to these writers St. David was the son of Sant or Sandde ab Ceredig ab Cunnedda, Prince of Keretica (Cardiganshire) and said by some to be King Arthur’s nephew, though Geoffrey of Monmouth calls St. David King Arthur’s uncle. The saint’s mother was Nonna, or Nonnita (sometimes called Melaria), a daughter of Gynyr of Caergawch. She was a nun who had been violated by Sant. St. David’s birth had been foretold thirty years before by an angel to St. Patrick. It took place at “Old Menevia” somewhere about A.D. 454. Prodigies preceded and accompanied the event, and at his baptism at Porth Clais by St. Elvis of Munster, “whom Divine Providence brought over from Ireland at that conjuncture,” a blind man was cured by the baptismal water. St. David’s early education was received from St. Illtyd at Caerworgorn (Lanwit major) in Glamorganshire. Afterwards he spent ten years studying the Holy Scriptures at Witland in Carmarthenshire, under St. Paulinus, (Pawl Hen), whom he cured of blindness by the sign of the cross. At the end of this period St. Paulinus, warned by an agnel, sent out the young saint to evangelize the British. St. David journeyed throughout the West, founding or restoring twelve monasteries (among which occur the great names of Glastonbury, Bath, and Leominster), and finally settled in the Vale of Ross, where he and his monks lived a life of extreme austerity. Here occurred the temptations of his monks by the obscene antics of the maid-servants of the wife of Boia, a local chieftan. Here also his monks tried to poison him, but St. David, warned by St. Scuthyn, who crossed from Ireland in one night on the back of a sea-monster, blessed the poisoned bread and ate it without harm. From thence, with St. Teilo and St. Padarn, he set out for Jerusalem, where he was made bishop by the patriarch. Here too St. Dubric and St. Daniel found him, when they came to call him to the Synod of Brevi “against the Pelagians.” St. David was with difficulty persuaded to accompany them; on his way he raised a widow’s son to life, and at the synod preached so loudly, from the hill that miraculously rose under him, that all could hear him, and so eloquently that all the heretics were confounded. St. Dubric resigned the “Archbishopric of Caerleon,” and St. David was appointed in his stead. One of his first acts was to hold, in the year 569, yet another synod called “Victory,” against the Pelagians, of which the decrees were confirmed by the pope. With the permission of King Arthur he removed his see from Caerleon to Menevia, whence he governed the British Church for many years with great holiness and wisdom. He died a the great age of 147, on the day predicted by himself a week earlier. His body is said to have been translated to Glastonbury in the year 966.

It is impossible to discover in this story how much, if any, is true. Some of it has obviously been invented for controversial purposes. The twelve monasteries, the temptation by the women, the attempt on his life, all suggest an imitation of the life of St. Benedict. Wilder legends, such as the Journey on the Sea-Monster, are commonplaces of Celtic hagiography. Doubtless Rhygyfarch and his imitators collected many floating local traditions, but how much of these had any historical foundation and how much was sheer imagination is no longer possible to decide.

“Annales Cambriae,” ed. AB ITHEL in “Rolls Series” (London, 1860), 3–6; “Acta SS., March 1, 38–47; “Buhez Santez Nonn” ed. SIONNET (Paris, 1837); CHALLONER, “Britannia Sancta” (London, 1745), I, 140–45; HOLE in “Dict. Christ. Biog.” (London, 1877), I, 791–93; BRADLEY in “Dict. Nat. Biog.,” s.v.: GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS, “Opera,” ed. BREWER in “Rolls Series” (London, 1863), III, 375–404; HADDON AND STUBBS, “Councils and Ecclesiastical documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland” (Oxford, 1869), I, 121, 143, 148; “Lives of the Cambro-British Saints,” ed. REES (Llandovery, Wales, 1853), 102–44, 412–48; MONTALEMBERT, “Les moines d’Occident” (Paris, 1866), III, 48–55; NEDELEC, “Cambria Sacra” (London, 1879), 446–479; REES, “Essay on the Welsh Saints” (London, 1836), 43, 162, 191, 193; STANTON, “Menology of England and Wales” (London, 1887), 92–93, 203; WHARTON, “Anglia Sacra” (London, 1691), II, 628–53.

LESLIE A. ST.L. TOKE

Armand David

Missionary priest and zoologist, b. 1826; d. 1900. He entered the Congregation of the Mission in 1848, having already displayed great fondness for the natural sciences. Ordained in 1862, he was shortly afterwards sent to Peking, and began there a collection of material for a museum of natural history, mainly zoological, but in which botany and geology and palæontology were also well represented. At the request of the French Government important specimens from his collection were sent to Paris and aroused the greatest interest. The Jardin des Plantes commissioned him to undertake scientific journeys through China to make further collections. He succeeded in obtaining many specimens of hitherto unknown animals and plants, and the value of his comprehensive collections for the advance of systematic zoology and especially for the advancement of animal geography received universal recognition from the scientific world. He himself summed up his labours in an address delivered before the International Scientific Congress of Catholics at Paris in April, 1888. He had found in China altogether 200 species of wild animals, of which 63 were hitherto unknown to zoologists; 807 species of birds, 65 of which had not been described before. Besides, a large collection of reptiles, batrachians, and fishes was made and handed over to specialists for further study, also a large number of moths and insects, many of them hitherto unknown, were brought to the museum of the Jardin des Plantes. What Father David’s scientific journeys meant for botany may be inferred from the fact that among the rhododendrons which he collected no less than fifty-two new species were found and among the primulæ about forty, while the Western Mountains of China furnished an even greater number of hitherto unknown species of gentian. The most remarkable of hitherto unknown animals found by David was a species of bear (ursus melanoleucus, the black-white bear) which is a connecting link between the cats and bears. Another remarkable animal found by him received the scientific name of elaphurus davidianus. Of this animal the Chinese say that it has the horns of the stag, the neck of the camel, the foot of the cow, and the tail of the ass. It had disappeared with the exception of a few preserved in the gardens of the Emperor of China, but David succeeded in securing a specimen and sent it to Europe. In the midst of his work as a naturalist Father David did not neglect his missionary labours, and was noted for his careful devotion to his religious duties and for his obedience to every detail of his rules.

BERTHOLD, Katholische Studien, Die Forschungsreisen des französischen Missionärs und Naturforschers Armand David (Würzburg, 1878); Revue des Deux Mondes (1861); Annales de la Congrégation de la Mission (Paris, 1901), XLVI; Congrès Scientifique International des Catholiques (Paris, 1888).

JAMES J. WALSH

Gheeraert David

Son of John David, painter and illuminator, b. at Oudewater, South Holland, c. 1450, d. 13 August, 1523, at Bruges, where he had been admitted, 14 January, 1484, as master-painter into the Guild of St. Luke, of which, after filling minor offices, he was elected dean in 1501. It is not known where he learned his art, probably at Haarlem. On the completion of his apprenticeship, he no doubt, as was the custom, travelled to improve himself, working as an assistant under various masters wherever he found employment. He probably travelled to Italy, as his works show traces of Florentine and Venetian influence. Their landscape backgrounds prove that he knew the valley of the Meuse. On his way to Flanders he would not have failed to visit Louvain and study the works of his fellow-countryman, Dirk Bouts, nor to halt a while at Ghent to admire the polyptych of the Van Eycks. At Bruges he found the churches full of paintings by all the great masters, and one of these, Hans Memling, still living. He probably worked under him until he himself received commissions, for which he had not long to wait. In 1496 he married Cornelia Cnoop, daughter of the dean of the guild of goldsmiths, by whom he had one daughter, Barbara. Gheeraert was buried in the church of Our Lady, at the foot of the tower. He was not one of the greatest masters, nor did he strike out any new line like Van der Goes, but he gathered up all the best traditions of his predecessors, to which he faithfully adhered all through his life. His saints and angels compared with those of Memling are more sedate. One new type he created, the charming figure of the Child Jesus, which made a lasting impression on the succeeding generation of painters. His portraits are very good, his brocaded stuffs, embroidery, and jewellery have never been surpassed, and his landscapes are remarkably fine. His works show that he was a great religious painter; he was also a pious and charitable man. One of his finest paintings, the “Virgo inter Virgines,” now in the museum at Rouen, was presented by him in 1509 to the Carmelite nuns of Sion at Bruges, to whom he lent a large sum of money free of interest. Gheeraert excelled in miniature-painting and illumination, which arts his wife also practised with success. David’s principal works are in the National Gallery, London (2), National Gallery, Dublin (1), Town Gallery, Bruges (5), Town Gallery, Rouen (1), Museum, Sigmaringen (2), Imperial Gallery, Vienna (1).

W.H. JAMES WEALE

King David

In the Bible the name David is borne only by the second king of Israel, the great-grandson of Boaz and Ruth (Ruth, iv, 18 sqq.). He was the youngest of the eight sons of Isai, or Jesse (I Kings, xvi, 8; cf. I Par., ii, 13), a small proprietor, of the tribe of Juda, dwelling at Bethlehem, where David was born. Our knowledge of David’s life and character is derived exclusively from the pages of Sacred Scripture, viz., I K., xvi; III K., ii; I Par., ii, iii, x-xxix; Ruth, iv, 18–22, and the titles of many Psalms. According to the usual chronology, David was born in 1085 and reigned from 1055 to 1015 B.C. Recent writers have been induced by the Assyrian inscriptions to date his reign from 30 to 50 years later. Within the limits imposed it is impossible to give more than a bare outline of the events of his life and a brief estimate of his character and his significance in the history of the chosen people, as king, psalmist, prophet, and type of the Messias.

The history of David falls naturally into three periods: (1) before his elevation to the throne; (2) his reign, at Hebron over Juda, and at Jerusalem over all Israel, until his sin; (3) his sin and last years. He first appears in sacred history as a shepherd lad, tending his father’s flocks in the fields near Bethlehem, “ruddy and beautiful to behold and of a comely face.” Samuel, the Prophet and last of the judges, had been sent to anoint him in place of Saul, whom God had rejected for disobedience. The relations of David do not seem to have recognized the significance of this unction, which marked him as the successor to the throne after the death of Saul.

During a period of illness, when the evil spirit troubled Saul, David was brought to court to soothe the king by playing on the harp. He earned the gratitude of Saul and was made an armour-bearer, but his stay at court was brief. Not long afterwards, whilst his three elder brothers were in the field, fighting under Saul against the Philistines, David was sent to the camp with some provisions and presents; there he heard the words in which the giant, Goliath of Geth, defied all Israel to single combat, and he volunteered with God’s help to slay the Philistine. His victory over Goliath brought about the rout of the enemy. Saul’s questions to Abner at this time seem to imply that he had never seen David before, though, as we have seen, David had already been at court. Various conjectures have been made to explain this difficulty. As the passage which suggests a contradiction in the Hebrew text is omitted by Septuagint codices, some authors have accepted the Greek text in preference to the Hebrew. Others suppose that the order of the narratives has become confused in our present Hebrew text. A simpler and more likely solution maintains that on the second occasion Saul asked Abner only about the family of David and about his earlier life. Previously he had given the matter no attention.

David’s victory over Goliath won for him the tender friendship of Jonathan, the son of Saul. He obtained a permanent position at court, but his great popularity and the imprudent songs of the women excited the jealousy of the king, who on two occasions attempted to kill him. As captain of a thousand men, he encountered new dangers to win the hand of Merob, Saul’s eldest daughter, but, in spite of the king’s promise, she was given to Hadriel. Michol, Saul’s other daughter, loved David, and, in the hope that the latter might be killed by the Philistines, her father promised to give her in marriage, provided David should slay one hundred Philistines. David succeeded and married Michol. This success, however, made Saul fear the more and finally induced him to order that David should be killed. Through the intervention of Jonathan he was spared for a time, but Saul’s hatred finally obliged him to flee from the court.

First he went to Ramatha and thence, with Samuel, to Naioth. Saul’s further attempts to murder him were frustrated by God’s direct interposition. An interview with Jonathan convinced him that reconciliation with Saul was impossible, and for the rest of the reign he was an exile and an outlaw. At Nobe, whither he proceeded, David and his companions were harboured by the priest Achimelech, who was afterwards accused of conspiracy and put to death with his fellow-priests. From Nobe David went to the court of Achis, king of Geth, where he escaped death by feigning madness. On his return he became the head of a band of about four hundred men, some of them his relations, others distressed debtors and malcontents, who gathered at the cave, or stronghold, of Odollam (Adullam). Not long after their number was reckoned at six hundred. David delivered the city of Ceila from the Philistines, but was again obliged to flee from Saul. His next abode was the wilderness of Ziph, made memorable by the visit of Jonathan and by the treachery of the Ziphites, who sent word to the king. David was saved from capture by the recall of Saul to repel an attack of the Philistines. In the deserts of Engaddi he was again in great danger, but when Saul was at his mercy, he generously spared his life. The adventure with Nabal, David’s marriage with Abigail, and a second refusal to slay Saul were followed by David’s decision to offer his serves to Achis of Geth and thus put an end to Saul’s persecution. As a vassal of the Philistine king, he was set over the city of Siceleg, whence he made raids on the neighbouring tribes, wasting their lands and sparing neither man nor woman. By pretending that these expeditions were against his own people of Israel, he secured the favour of Achis. When, however, the Philistines prepared at Aphec to wage war against Saul, the other princes were unwilling to trust David, and he returned to Siceleg. During his absence it had been attacked by the Amalecites. David pursued them, destroyed their forces, and recovered all their booty. Meanwhile the fatal battle on Mount Gelboe (Gilboa) had taken place, in which Saul and Jonathan were slain. The touching elegy, preserved for us in II Kings, i, is David’s outburst of grief at their death.

By God’s command, David, who was now thirty years old, went up to Hebron to claim the kingly power. The men of Juda accepted him as king, and he was again anointed, solemnly and publicly. Through the influence of Abner, the rest of Israel remained faithful to Isboseth, the son of Saul. Abner attacked the forces of David, but was defeated at Gabaon. Civil war continued for some time, but David’s power was ever on the increase. At Hebron six sons were born to him: Amnon, Cheleab, Absalom, Adonias, Saphathia, and Jethraam. As the result of a quarrel with Isboseth, Abner made overtures to bring all Israel under the rule of David; he was, however, treacherously murdered by Joab without the king’s consent. Isboseth was murdered by two Benjamites, and David was accepted by all Israel and anointed king. His reign at Hebron over Juda alone had lasted seven years and a half.

By his successful wars David succeeded in making Israel an independent state and causing his own name to be respected by all the surrounding nations. A notable exploit at the beginning of his reign was the conquest of the Jebusite city of Jerusalem, which he made the capital of his kingdom, “the city of David,” the political centre of the nation. He built a palace, took more wives and concubines, and begat other sons and daughters. Having cast off the yoke of the Philistines, he resolved to make Jerusalem the religious centre of his people by transporting the Ark of the Covenant (q.v.) from Cariathiarim. It was brought to Jerusalem and placed in the new tent constructed by the king. Later on, when he proposed to build a temple for it, he was told by the prophet Nathan, that God had reserved this task for his successor. In reward for his piety, the promise was made that God would build him up a house and establish his kingdom forever.

No detailed account has been preserved of the various wars undertaken by David; only some isolated facts are given. The war with the Ammonites is recorded more fully because, whilst his army was in the field during this campaign, David fell into the sins of adultery and murder, bringing thereby great calamities on himself and his people. He was then at the height of his power, a ruler respected by all the nations from the Euphrates to the Nile. After his sin with Bethsabee and the indirect assassination of Urias, her husband, David made her his wife. A year elapsed before his repentance for the sin, but his contrition was so sincere that God pardoned him, though at the same time announcing the severe penalties that were to follow. The spirit in which David accepted these penalties has made him for all time the model of penitents. The incest of Amnon and the fratricide of Absalom (q.v.) brought shame and sorrow to David. For three years Absalom remained in exile. When he was recalled, David kept him in disfavour for two years more and then restored him to his former dignity, without any sign of repentance. Vexed by his father’s treatment, Absalom devoted himself for the next four years to seducing the people and finally had himself proclaimed king at Hebron. David was taken by surprise and was forced to flee from Jerusalem. The circumstances of his flight are narrated in Scripture with great simplicity and pathos. Absalom’s disregard of the counsel of Achitophel and his consequent delay in the pursuit of the king made it possible for the latter to gather his forces and win a victory at Manahaim, where Absalom was killed. David returned in triumph to Jerusalem. A further rebellion under Seba at the Jordan was quickly suppressed.

At this point in the narrative of II Kings we read that “there was a famine in the days of David for three years successively,” in punishment for Saul’s sin against the Gabaonites. At their request seven of Saul’s race were delivered up to be crucified. It is not possible to fix the exact date of the famine. On other occasions David showed great compassion for the descendants of Saul, especially for Miphiboseth, the son of his friend Jonathan. After a brief mention of four expeditions against the Philistines, the sacred writer records a sin of pride on David’s part in his resolution to take a census of the people. As a penance for this sin, he was allowed to choose either a famine, an unsuccessful war, or pestilence. David chose the third and in three days 70,000 died. When the angel was about to strike Jerusalem, God was moved to pity and stayed the pestilence. David was commanded to offer sacrifice at the threshing-floor of Areuna, the site of the future temple.

The last days of David were disturbed by the ambition of Adonias, whose plans for the succession were frustrated by Nathan, the prophet, and Bethsabee, the mother of Solomon. The son who was born after David’s repentance was chosen in preference to his older brothers. To make sure that Solomon would succeed to the throne, David had him publicly anointed. The last recorded words of the aged king are an exhortation to Solomon to be faithful to God, to reward loyal servants, and to punish the wicked. David died at the age of seventy, having reigned in Jerusalem thirty-three years. He was buried on Mount Sion. St. Peter spoke of his tomb as still in existence on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles (Acts, ii, 29). David is honoured by the Church as a saint. He is mentioned in the Roman Martyrology on 29 December.

The historical character of the narratives of David’s life has been attacked chiefly by writers who have disregarded the purpose of the narrator in I Par. He passes over those events that are not connected with the history of the Ark. In the Books of Kings all the chief events, good and bad, are narrated. The Bible records David’s sins and weaknesses without excuse or palliation, but it also records his repentance, his acts of virtue, his generosity towards Saul, his great faith, and his piety. Critics who have harshly criticized his character have not considered the difficult circumstances in which he lived or the manners of his age. It is uncritical and unscientific to exaggerate his faults or to imagine that the whole history is a series of myths. The life of David was an important epoch in the history of Israel. He was the real founder of the monarchy, the head of the dynasty. Chosen by God “as a man according to His own heart,” David was tried in the school of suffering during the days of exile and developed into a military leader of renown. To him was due the complete organization of the army. He gave Israel a capital, a court, a great centre of religious worship. The little band at Odollam became the nucleus of an efficient force. When he became King of all Israel there were 339,600 men under his command. At the census 1,300,000 were enumerated capable of bearing arms. A standing army, consisting of twelve corps, each 24,000 men, took turns in serving for a month at a time as the garrison of Jerusalem. The administration of his palace and his kingdom demanded a large retinue of servants and officials. Their various offices are set down in I Par., xxvii. The king himself exercised the office of judge, though Levites were later appointed for this purpose, as well as other minor officials.

When the Ark had been brought to Jerusalem, David undertook the organization of religious worship. The sacred functions were entrusted to 24,000 Levites; 6,000 of these were scribes and judges, 4000 were porters, and 4000 singers. He arranged the various parts of the ritual, allotting to each section its tasks. The priests were divided into twenty-four families; the musicians into twenty-four choirs. To Solomon had been reserved the privilege of building God’s house, but David made ample preparations for the work by amassing treasures and materials, as well as by transmitting to his son a plan for the building and all its details. We are told in I Par. how he exhorted his son Solomon to carry out this great work and made known to the assembled princes the extent of his preparations.

The prominent part played by song and music in the worship of the temple, as arranged by David, is readily explained by his poetic and musical abilities. His skill in music is recorded in I Kings, xvi, 18 and Amos, vi, 5. Poems of his composition are found in II Kings, i, iii, xxii, xxiii. His connection with the Book of Psalms, many of which are expressly attributed to various incidents of his career, was so taken for granted in later days that many ascribed the whole Psalter to him. The authorship of these hymns and the question how far they can be considered as supplying illustrative material for David’s life will be treated in the article PSALMS.

David was not merely king and ruler, he was also a prophet. “The spirit of the Lord hath spoken by me and his word by my tongue” (II Kings, xxiii, 2) is a direct statement of prophetic inspiration in the poem there recorded. St. Peter tells us that he was a prophet (Acts, ii, 30). His prophecies are embodied in the Psalms he composed that are literally Messianic and in “David’s last words” (II K., xxiii). The literal character of these Messianic Psalms is indicated in the New Testament. They refer to the suffering, the persecution, and the triumphant deliverance of Christ, or to the prerogatives conferred on Him by the Father. In addition to these his direct prophecies, David himself has always been regarded as a type of the Messias. In this the Church has but followed the teaching of the Old Testament Prophets. The Messias was to be the great theocratic king; David, the ancestor of the Messias, was a king according to God’s own heart. His qualities and his very name are attributed to the Messias. Incidents in the life of David are regarded by the Fathers as foreshadowing the life of Christ; Bethlehem is the birthplace of both; the shepherd life of David points out Christ, the Good Shepherd; the five stones chosen to slay Goliath are typical of the five wounds; the betrayal by his trusted counsellor, Achitophel, and the passage over the Cedron remind us of Christ’s Sacred Passion. Many of the Davidic Psalms, as we learn from the New Testament, are clearly typical of the future Messias.

JOHN CORBETT

David of Augsburg

DE AUGUSTA).

Medieval German mystic, b. probably at Augsburg, Bavaria, early in the thirteenth century; d. at Augsburg, 19 November, 1272. He entered the Franciscan Order probably at Ratisbon, where a monastery of this order was in existence as early as 1226; the Franciscan monastery at Augsburg was not erected until 1243. At Ratisbon David filled the position of master of novices and wrote for the spiritual benefit of the latter his celebrated “Formula Novitiorum.” Whether the distinguished Franciscan preacher Berthold of Ratisbon was one of his pupils is at least very doubtful. In 1246 Berthold and David were appointed inspectors of the convent of Niedermünster at Ratisbon. From about 1250 David accompanied Berthold on his missionary tours and most probably took part in the preaching himself; he also had a share in the proceedings of the Inquisition against the Waldenses. On the day of David’s death it is said that Berthold, who was preaching in a distant place, stopped in the midst of his sermon and quoted, in reference to his friend who had just passed away, the following lines of the hymn, “Iste Confessor”:—

Qui pius, prudens, humilis, pudicus,

Sobriam duxit sine labe vitam

—etc. David wrote both in Latin and German. For a long period his Latin works were attributed to others, at times to St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Bonaventure, a proof of the high esteem in which they were held. The most striking case of this mistaken ascription is that of the “Formula Novitiorum” which in addition to two letters of David form three books: (1) “De Compositione hominis exterioris” (treats of the external life of the member of an order); (2) “De Reformatione hominis interioris”; (3) “De septem processibus regiliosorum.” This work, of which the different parts often appeared separately, is a rational and progressive introduction to monastic and mystical life. It was first published under the name of St. Bonaventure (Brescia, 1485; Venice, 1487; Antwerp,1591; Cologne, 1618); it appeared also in the editio Vaticana of the works of St. Bonaventure (Rome, 1588–96), and consequently in all of the reprints of this edition. It also appeared in the “Magna Bibliotheca veterum Patrum” (Cologne, 1618), vol. XIII, in the “Maxima Bibliotheca vet. Patr.” (Lyons, 1675, vol. XXV, and, in part, among the doubtful works of St. Bernard of Clairvaux in Migne, P. L., CLXXXIII, col. 1189. The Latin edition published at Augsburg in 1596 was issued in German at the same place in 1597. The latest and by far the best edition is that which appeared at Quaracchi (1889), in the introduction to which the work is positively ascribed to Brother David of Augsburg; a list of 370 manuscripts is also given. David’s treatise “De hæresi pauperum de Lugduno” was erroneously issued, in an incomplete form, by Martène and Durand (Thesaurus novus anecdot., V, 1777 sqq.) under the name of the Dominican Yvonnet; but it has been proved by Pfeiffer and Preger to be one of David’s writings and the full text was edited by Preger for the first time. Extracts from David’s “Expositio Regulæ,” an explanation of the monastic rules of St. Francis of Assisi, have been edited by E. Lempp.

Attention was first called to David’s German writings by Pfeiffer, who in 1845 published the following eight treatises and ascribed them to David: (1) “Die sieben Vorregeln der Tugend”; (2) “Der Spiegel der Tugend”; (3) “Christi Leben unser Vorbild” (to this treatise Pfeiffer found later a continuation five times larger than the part published); (4) “Die vier Fittiche geistlicher Betrachtung”; (5) “Von der Anschauung Gottes”; (6) “Von der Erkenntnis der Wahrheit”; (7) “Von der unergründlichen Fülle Gottes; (8) “Betrachtungen und Gebete.” Preger raised doubts as to the correctness of ascribing these tractates, with the exception of the firt three, to David, but his attack proved a failure and Pfeiffer’s views have been successfully defended by Hecker and Telinegg. It must, however, be acknowledged that the eighth contains much that was common property in the Middle Ages. David’s German treatises are fine examples of German prose and assure him a permanent place in the history of German literature. Like the radiance of a gently burning flame they attract the heart and spirit of the reader to the beautiful and the Divine. They turn the mind from vice and error with most convincing eloquence and kindle in it the love of God. In these writing, as in the treatises for novices, David is at all times the circumspect mystic, averse to fantastic ecstasy and exaggeration. A sober good sense pervades his profound yet animated expositions, which have nothing in common with the vagaries of the German mystics of the fourteenth centuiry, although David’s influence on the latter is not to be denied. His writings exerted some influence also on the “Schwabenspiegel” (Swabian Mirror), the well-known compilation of civil law used in Southern Germany, which appeared about 1268. Personally David belonged to the earlier school mystics.

PFEIFFER, Deutsche Mystiker des XIV. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig, 1845–57), I; IDEM in HAUPT, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum (Leipzig, 1853), IX, 1 sqq.; PREGER, Gesch. der deutschen Mystik im M. A. (Leipzig, 1874–93), I, 268 sqq.; DENIFLE in Historisch-politische Blätter, LXXV, 679 sqq.; LEMPP in Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch. (1898), XIX, 345 sqq.; DAVID OF AUGSBURG, De exterioris et interioris hominis compositione libri III (Quaracchi, 1899), Introduct., 4 sqq.; Ger. tr. by THOMAS VILLANOVA, Wegweiser zur christ. Vollkommenheit von D. von A., with supplementary matter; PREGER, Der Tractat des D. von A. über die Waldenser in Abhandlungen der k. Akademie der Wiss. (Munich, 1878), cl. III, vol. XIV, Pt. II, 183–235, also published separately; RIEDER, Das Leben Bertholds von Regensburg (Freiburg, 1901), 10–16; MICHAEL, Gesch. des deutschen Volkes vom XIII. Jahrhunderts bis zum Ausgang des M. A. (Freiburg im Br., 1897—), II, III, passim; TELLINEGG, David von Augsburg, dessen deutsche Schriften auf ihre Echtheit untersucht (St. Paul, 1904, 1905), not completed; HECKER, Kritische Beiträge zu D. von A. Persönlichkeit und Schriften (Hamburg, 1905).

MICHAEL BIHL

David of Dinant

A pantheistic philosopher who lived in the first decades of the thirteenth century. Very little is known about his life. It is not certain whether he was born at Dinant in Belgium, or at Dinan in Brittany. He is believed to have lived for some time at the Roman Court under Innocent III. He was a magister, or teacher, perhaps at Paris; at any rate, it was at Paris that his work, entitled “Quaternuli” (little note-books), was condemned by a provincial council in 1210, a condemnation which was confirmed in 1215 by a letter of Cardinal Robert Courçon, papal legate. From a work ascribed to Albert the Great, “Compilatio de Novo Spiritu,” in the Munich Library (MS. lat. 311, fol. 92 b), we learn further that in consequence of the condemnation, David fled from France, and so escaped punishment. When and where he died is unknown; all we are warranted in saying is that he died after the year 1215. Besides the “Quaternuli,” condemned in the council of 1215, and ordered to be burned “before Christmas,” another work entitled “De Tomis, seu Divisionibus” is mentioned. It is not improbable, however, that this was merely another title for the “Quaternuli.” The effect of the order issued by the council was to cause all the writing of David to disappear. Whatever is known, therefore, about his doctrines is derived from the assertions of his contemporaries and opponents, chiefly Albert the Great and St. Thomas. From these sources we learn that David was a Pantheist. He identified God with the material substratum of all things, materia prima (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, Q. iii, a. 8). He reduced all reality to three categories, namely bodies, minds, and eternal separate substances. The indivisible substrate or constituent of bodies is matter (yle); of minds, or souls, intellect (nous); and of eternal separate substances, God (Deus). These three, matter, intellect, and God, are one and the same. Consequently all things, material, intellectual, and spiritual, have one and the same essence—God (St. Thomas, In II Sent., dist. xvii, Q. i; Albert the Great, Sum. Theol., II, Tract. xii, Q. lxxii, a. 2). The phraseology, which must be David’s own, as well as the title above mentioned, “De Tomis,” suggests at once the influence of John Scotus Eriugena, an influence which cannot be denied. Eriugena’s work must have been widely known and read in the first decades of the thirteenth century, as is evident from many undeniable facts. Whether David was influenced also by Amalric of Chartres (see ) is a matter of debate. Albert, who was a contemporary of David, says that David merely renewed the heresy of Alexander, “who taught that God and intellect and matter are one substance.” It is impossible to determine whom Albert here means by Alexander, “a disciple of Xenophanes”; probably the reference is to some Arabian work that went under the name of a Greek philosopher. There were several works of that kind current in the early part of the thirteenth century. Some critics, however, put forward the surmise that David’s immediate source was Avicebron’s “Fons Vitæ,” or the work “De Unitate,” written by Archdeacon Gundisalvi of Segovia, who was well versed in Arabian philosophical literature. Whatever the source, the doctrines were, as all our authorities concur in describing them, the expression of the most thoroughgoing pantheism. This of itself would justify the drastic measures to which the Council of Paris had recourse. There were, moreover, circumstances which rendered summary condemnation necessary. On the one hand the University of Paris was being made the scene of an organized attempt to foist the Arabian pantheistic interpretation of Greek philosophy on the schools of Latin Christendom. Texts, translations, and commentaries were introduced every day from Spain, in which doctrines incompatible with Christian dogma were openly taught. On the other hand, there was the popular movement in the South of France which found its principal expression in the Albigensian heresy, while in learned and ascetic communities in the North, the anti-hierarchical mysticism of the Calabrian Joachim of Floris was being combined with the more speculative pantheistic mysticism of John Scotus Eriugena. In view of these conditions the condemnation of the errors of David of Dinant, the complete extirpation of the sect of Amalricians to which he apparently belonged, and the unwonted harshness of St. Thomas’s reference to him cannot be judged untimely or intemperate.

ST. THOMAS and ALBERT THE GREAT, loc. cit.; Chartular. Univ. Paris., ed. DENIFLE, I, 70. 71; BARDENHEWER, Die pseudoaristotelische Schrit über das reine Gute (Freiburg, 1882), 214 sqq.; UEBERWEG-HEINZE, Gesch. der Phil., 9th ed., II, 226; BÄUMKER, Jahr. f. Phil. u. spek. Theol. (1893); HAURÉAU, Hist. de la phil. scol. (Paris, 1880), II, i, 73 sqq.; DE WULF, Hist. de la phil. médiévale, 225 sqq.; TURNER, History of Philosophy (Boston, 1903), 307 sqq.

WILLIAM TURNER

David Scotus

A medieval Irish chronicler, date of birth unknown; d. 1139. Early in the twelfth century there was at Würzburg an ecclesiastic and teacher known as David. His surname Scotus shows that he very probably came from Ireland; perhaps from Wales, if he is identical with the homonymous Bishop of Bangor (see below). According to Ekkehard (Chronicon, ed., Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., VI, 243), Emperor Henry V received him, was charmed with his virtue and knowledge, and made him one of the imperial chaplains. With other scholars David accompanied the king on his expedition to Italy in 1100, and was appointed royal historiographer for the occasion. His work in three books is now known only from excerpts of it in later historians, especially in Ekkehard (op. cit. above) and William of Malmesbury. The latter (Gesta regum Anglorum, in P. L., CLXXIX, 1375) says that David described the expedition with partiality for the king. A certain David was consecrated Bishop of Bangor in Wales, 4 April, 1120; according to Malmesbury (loc. cit.) he was none other than the chaplain, David Scotus. As bishop he took part in several English synods, and probably died in 1139, since his successor was then consecrated. But it is not easy to reconcile with the foregoing, the statement of a later historian (Trithemius, Annales Hirsaugienses, I, 349), that David became a monk under St. Macharius in the monastery of St. James in Würzburg, as this abbey was not founded until 1140.

TOUT in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; FABRICIUS, Bibliotheca Latina (FLORENCE, 1858), I, 433; HURTER, Nomenclator, (3rd ed. Innsbruck, 1906), II, 63.

J.P. KIRSCH

Ven. William Davies

Martyr, one of the most illustrious of the priests who suffered under Queen Elizabeth, b. in North Wales, probably and Crois in Yris, Denbighshire, date uncertain; d. At Beaumaris, 27 July, 1593. He studied at Reims, where he arrived 6 April 1582 just in time to assist a the first Mass of the venerable martyr Nicholas Garlick. He received tonsure and minor orders 23 Sept., 1583, together with seventy-three other English students. Ordained priest in April, 1585, he laboured with wonderful zeal and success in Wales till March, 1591–2, when he was arrested at Holyhead with four students whom he was sending via Ireland to the English College at Valladolid. He was thrown into a loathsome dungeon in Beaumaris Castle and separated from his companions, having frankly confessed that he was a priest. After a month his sanctity and patience gained him some relaxation of his close confinement and he was able to join the students for and hour in the day, and even to celebrate Mass. By degrees the jailor became so indulgent that they might have escaped had they so willed. The fame of the priest’s sanctity and wisdom brought Catholics from all parts to consult him and Protestant ministers came to dispute with him. At the assizes he and his companions were condemned to death, on which the martyr intoned the “Te Deum,” which the others took up. The injustice of the sentence was so apparent that to still the people’s murmurs the judge reprieved the condemned till the queen’s pleasure be known. Sent to Ludlow, to be examined by the Council of the Marches, Father Davies had to submit to fresh assaults by the ministers. Here too he foiled the artifices of his enemies who took him to the church under pretext of a disputation, and then began the Protestant service. He at once began to recite the Latin Vespers in a louder voice than the ministers,’ and afterwards publicly exposed the trick of which he had been a victim. From Ludlow he was sent to Bewdley, where he had to share a foul dungeon with felons, and from thence to other prisons until at last he was sent back to Beaumaris, where, to their mutual consolation, he rejoined his young companions. For some six moths he lived with them the life of a religious community, dividing the time between prayer and study, “with so much comfort to themselves that they seemed to be rather in heaven than in prison.” At the summer assizes it was decided that the priest must die as a traitor, though he was offered his life if he would go but once to church. In spite of the then open opposition of the people, who honoured him as a saint, the cruel sentence was carried out and he was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Beaumaris. As he put the rope round his neck, the martyr said: “ Thy yoke, O Lord is sweet and Thy burden is light.” His cassock stained with his blood was brought by his companions and preserved as a relic. They, though condemned to imprisonment for life, managed in time to escape, and the youngest found his way at last to Valladolid, where he recounted the whole story to Bishop Yepes, who wrote it in his “Historia particular de la Persecucion en Inglaterra.” There is now a chapel in Anglesey built as a memorial to the martyr.

Challoner, Missionary Priests (London, 1741); Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., II, s v.; Douay Diaries (London, 1878); Yepes, Hist. de la Persecucion en Inglaterra; Camm, In the Brave Days of Old (London, 1899).

BEDE CAMM.

Dávila Padilla

(AGUSTÍN)

A native of the City of Mexico, b. 1562; d. 1604. At the age of sixteen he graduated at the University of Mexico as master of arts and soon after entered the Dominican Order. He held the chairs of philosophy and theology at Puebla and Mexico. He was successively definitor and procurator of the Mexican province of his order and was sent to Rome and Madrid as its representative. In 1601 he was made Bishop of Santo Domingo, where he died. Dávila Padilla was not a prolific writer. He left, however, one very important, though unfortunately rare, work, the “Historia de la Fundacion y Discurso de la Provincia de Santiago de México” (Madrid, 1596; Brussels, 1625). Beristain mentions a third edition of 1634. While not free from mistakes, it still stands as the foremost chronicle of the Dominican Order and its missions in America up to the end of the sixteenth century.

NICOLÁS ANTONIO, Bibliotheca hispana nova (2d ed., Madrid, 1733–1738); LEÓN Y PINELO, Epitome de la Biblioteca oriental y occidental (2d ed., Madrid, 1737); EGUIARA, Biblioteca mexicana (Mexico, 1755); BERISTAIN DE SOUZA, Biblioteca hispano-americana (2d ed., Mexico, 1883); YCAZBALCETA, Bibliografia mexicana (Mexico, 1886); Diccionario universal de Historia y Geografía (Mexico); GIL GONZALES DÁVILA, Teatro eclesiástico de la primitiva Iglesia de las Indias occidentales (Madrid, 1654).

A.D. . F. BANDELIER

Æneas McDonnell Dawson

Author, b. in Scotland, 30 July, 1810; d. in Ottawa, Canada, 29 Dec., 1894. He studied at the seminary of Paris and was ordained priest in 1835. Until 1840 he laboured on the mission of Dumfries, Scotland, and subsequently in Edinburgh. Before emigrating to Canada in 1855 he had charge successively of the Counties of Fife, Kinross, and Clackmannan, during all this time rendering valuable service to the cause of the Church. On his arrival in Canada he was given the parish of St. Andrew’s, Ottawa, and later became preacher at the cathedral. Father Dawson was a lecturer of repute and a frequent contributor to the provincial press. He is the author of “The Temporal Sovereignty of the Pope” (Ottawa and London, 1860), the first book printed and published in Ottawa; “St. Vincent de Paul: A Biography” (London, 1865); “Seven Letters together with a Lecture on the Colonies of Great Britain” (Ottawa, 1870); “The Late Hon. Thomas D’Arcy McGee. A Funeral Oration” (Ottawa, 1870); “Our Strength and Their Strength: The Northwest Territory and Other Papers, Chiefly Relating to the Dominion of Canada” (Ottawa, 1870)—the first title heads a refutation of Goldwin Smith’s anti-clerical views; under the last comes a series of poems, discourses, lectures, critical reviews; “Pius IX and his Time” (London, 1880). He translated from the French: (1) “Maître Pierre. Conversations on Morality, by M. Delcasott” (Paris, 1836); (2) “The Parish Priest and His Parishioners, or Answer to Popular Prejudices against Religion, by M. B. D’Exauvillez” (Glasgow, 1842), reviewed in “The Tablet,” London, 12 Feb., 1842; (3) Letters of same author on the Spanish Inquisition (London, 1848); (4) “Count Joseph de Maistre’s celebrated work on the Pope” (London, 1850), and his “Soirées de S. Pétersbourg” (London, 1851), “an excellent and careful translation. . . . Another instance of enlightened zeal from one of the small band of Scottish Catholics” (“The Tablet,” London, 23 Nov., 1850). A list of his poems and other works is given in the “Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada” (1894, XII, 23), of which he was a member.

MORGAN, Bibliotheca Canadensis, or Manual of Canadian Literature (Ottawa, 1867); JAMES, Bibliography of Canadian Poetry (Toronto, 1899); Public Testimonial to the Rev. Æ. McD. Dawson (Ottawa, 1890); TANGUAY, Répertoire Général du Clergé Canadien (Quebec, 1868). In this Tanguay inaccurately gives the date of Father Dawson’s birth as 1830.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

George Day

Bishop of Chichester; b. in Shropshire, England, c. 1501; d. 2 August, 1556. He was graduated at Cambridge in 1520–1 and admitted Fellow of St. John’s, 19 September, 1522. Though apparently always a Catholic in belief, Day submitted like too many others to the assumption by Henry VIII of ecclesiastical supremacy. He was made Master of St. John’s in 1537, Vice-Chancellor of the University, and Provost of King’s College (though not a fellow of it) by special exercise of the royal authority, in 1538. Consecrated Bishop of Chichester in 1543 by Cranmer, he firmly opposed the spread of the Reformation under Edward VI. He answered in a Catholic sense Cranmer’s written questions on the “Sacrament of the Altar,” defended the Catholic doctrine in the House of Lords, and voted against the bills for Communion under both kinds, and for the introduction of the new Prayer Book. In his own diocese his preaching was so effective that, in October, 1550, the Council felt it necessary to send “Dr. Cox, the king’s almoner, to appease the people by his good doctrine, which are troubled through the seditious preaching of the Bishop of Chichester and others,” and, in the following December, Day was brought before the Council to answer for his disregard of an injunction to have “all the altars in every church taken down, and in lieu of them a table set up,”—himself preaching on the occasion, if possible in his cathedral. After repeated interrogations, his final answer was that “he would never obey to do this thing, thinking it a less evil to suffer the body to perish than to corrupt the soul with that thing that his conscience would not bear.” For this “contempt” he was imprisoned in the Fleet, and after further questionings was deprived of his bishopric in October, 1551. From the Fleet he was transferred in June of 1552 into the keeping of Bishop Goodrich of Ely, then Lord Chancellor, in whose custody he remained until the death of Edward VI. Queen Mary restored him at once to his dignity, besides naming him her almoner. In re-establishing the ancient worship she had, however, to proceed cautiously. Thus contemporary chroniclers record that Cranmer conducted Edward’s funeral “without any cross or light,” and “with a communion in English,” though “the Bishop of Chichester preached a good sermon.” Day again preached at Mary’s coronation. His previous sufferings prove the sincerity of his conversion from the schism, and his reconciliation to the Church had doubtless already been privately effected. His formal absolution and confirmation in his bishopric by Cardinal Pole, as Papal Legate, is dated 31 January, 1555. His death occurred only a year and a half later and he was buried in Chichester cathedral.

Privy Council Acts, III, IV (London, 1891); GASQUET AND BISHOP, Edward VI and the Common Prayer Book (London, 1890); CAMDEN SOCIETY, Grey Friar’s and Wriothesley’s Chronicles (London, 1852–1877); STOWE, Annals (London, 1615), II; ESTCOURT, Anglican Ordinations (London, 1873); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; GAIRDNER, Eng. Church in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1902).

G.E. PHILLIPS

Sir John Charles Day

Jurist, b. near Bath, England, 1826; d. 13 June, 1908, at Newbury. He was educated at Rome and at Fribourg, finally with the Benedictines at Downside, who prepared him to graduate with honours at the London University and attain subsequent distinction at the Bar. He was called to the Middle Temple, 1849; took silk, 1872; Bencher of the Middle Temple, 1873; raised to the Bench as Judge of the Queen’s Bench Division of High Court of Justice and knighted, 1882; resigned, 1901; created Privy Councillor, 1902. His first ten years at the Bar were a constant struggle, and then his book, “Common Law Procedure Acts,” brought him fame and fortune. As a judge his severe sentences, especially for crimes of violence, made him the terror of evildoers, among whom he was in consequence nicknamed “Day of Reckoning” and “Judgment Day.” He was also eminent as an art connoisseur and his collection of pictures by painters of the Barbizon School was one of the best in England. In 1888–90 he served as a judge on the famous Parnell Special Commission. Two of his sons, Henry and Arthur, joined the Society of Jesus and a third, Samuel, selected the law. Judge Day also edited Roscoe’s “Evidence at Nisi Prius” (1870).

The Tablet (London, 20 June, 1908); The Catholic Times (London, 19 June, 1908); The Catholic Who’s Who (London, 1908).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Deacons

The name deacon (diakonos) means only minister or servant, and is employed in this sense both in the Septuagint (though only in the book of Esther, e.g. 2:2; 6:3) and in the New Testament (e.g. Matthew 20:28; Romans 15:25; Ephesians 3:7; etc.). But in Apostolic times the word began to acquire a more definite and technical meaning. Writing about 63 A.D. St. Paul addresses “all the saints who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” (Philippians 1:1). A few years later (1 Timothy 3:8 sq.) he impresses upon Timothy that “deacons must be chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience.” He directs further that they must “first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime,” and he adds that they should be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children and their own houses. For they that have ministered well shall purchase to themselves a good degree, and much confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” This passage is worthy of note, not only because it describes the qualities desirable in candidates for the diaconate, but also because it suggests that external administration and the handling of money were likely to form part of their functions.

ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY OF THE DIACONATE

According to the constant tradition of the Catholic Church, the narrative of Acts 6:1–6, which serves to introduce the account of the martyrdom of St. Stephen, describes the first institution of the office of deacon. The Apostles, in order to meet the complaints of the Hellenistic Jews that, “their widows were neglected in the daily ministrations” (diakonia), called together

the multitude of the disciples and said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve (diakonein) tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continuously to prayer, and to the ministry of the word (te diakonia tou logou). And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost

(with six others who are named). These they placed “before the Apostles; and they, praying, imposed hands upon them.” Now, on the ground that the Seven are not expressly called deacons and that some of them (e.g. St. Stephen, and later Phillip (Acts 21:8) preached and ranked next to the Apostles, Protestant commentators have constantly raised objections against the identification of this choice of the Seven with the institution of the diaconate. But apart from the fact that the tradition among the Fathers is both unanimous and early—e.g. St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, xii, 10 and IV, xv, 1) speaks of St. Stephen as the first deacon—the similarity between the functions of the Seven who served the tables and those of the early deacons is most striking. Compare, for example, both with the passage from the Acts with 1 Timothy 3:8 sq., quoted above, the following sentence from Hermas (Sim., IX, 26):

They that have spots are the deacons that exercised their office ill and plundered the livelihood of widows and orphans and made gains for themselves from the ministrations they had received to perform.

Or, again, St. Ignatius (Ep. ii to the Trallians):

Those who are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ must please all men in all ways. For they are not deacons of meats and drinks [only] but servants of the church of God.

St. Clement of Rome (about A.D. 95) clearly describes the institution of deacons along with that of bishops as being the work of the Apostles themselves (Ep. Clem., xlii). Further, it should be noted that ancient tradition limited the number of deacons at Rome to seven (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xliii), and that a canon of the council of Neo-Caesarea (325) prescribed the same restriction for all cities, however large, appealing directly to the Acts of the Apostles as a precedent. We seem, therefore, thoroughly justified in identifying the functions of the Seven with those of the deacons of whom we hear so much in the Apostolic Fathers and the early councils. Established primarily to relieve the bishops and presbyters of their more secular and invidious duties, notably in distributing the alms of the faithful, we need not do more than recall the large place occupied by the agapae, or love feasts, in the early worship of the Church, to understand how readily the duty of serving at tables may have passed into the privilege of serving at the altar. They became the natural intermediaries between the celebrant and the people. Inside the Church they made public announcements, marshaled the congregation, preserved order, and the like. Outside of it they were the bishop’s deputies in secular matters, and especially in the relief of the poor. Their subordination and general duties of service seem to have been indicated by their standing during the public assemblies of the Church, while the bishops and priests were seated. It should be noticed that along with these functions probably went a large share in the instruction of catechumens and preparation of the altar services. Even in the Acts of the Apostles (8:38) the Sacrament of Baptism is administered by the deacon Phillip.

An attempt has recently been made, though regarded by many as somewhat fanciful, to trace the origin of the diaconate to the organization of those primitive Hellenistic Christian communities, which in the earliest age of the Church had all things in common, being supported by the alms of the faithful. For these it is contended that some steward (oeconomus) must have been appointed to administer their temporal affairs. (See Leder, Die Diakonen der Bischöfe und Presbyter, 1905). The full presentment of the subject is somewhat too intricate and confused to find place here. We must content ourselves with noting that less difficulty attends the same writer’s theory of the derivation of the judicial and administrative functions of the archdeacon from the duties imposed upon one selected member of the diaconal college, who was called the bishop’s deacon (diaconus episcopi) because to him was committed the temporal administration of funds and charities for which the bishop was primarily responsible. This led in time to a certain judicial and legal position and to the surveillance of the subordinate clergy. But for all this see .

DUTIES OF DEACONS

1. That some, if not all, members of the diaconal college were everywhere stewards of the Church funds and of the alms collected for widows and orphans is beyond dispute. We find St. Cyprian speaking of Nicostratus as having defrauded widows and orphans as well as robbed the Church (Cypr., Ep. xlix, ad cornelium). Such speculation was all the easier because the offerings passed through their hands, at any rate to a large degree. Those gifts which the people brought and which were not made directly to the bishop were presented to him through them (Apost. Const., II, xxvii) and on the other hand they were to distribute the oblations (eulogias) which remained over after the Liturgy had been celebrated among the different orders of the clergy according to certain fixed proportions. It was no doubt that from such functions as these that St. Jerome calls the deacon mensarum et viduarum minister (Hieron. Ep. Ad. Evang.). They sought out the sick and the poor, reporting to the bishop upon their needs and following his direction in all things (Apost. Const., III, xix, and xxxi, xxxii). They were also to invite aged women and probably others as well, to the agapae. Then with regard to the bishop they were to relieve him of his more laborious and less important functions and in this way they came to exercise a certain measure of jurisdiction in the simpler cases which were submitted to his decision. Similarly, they sought out and reproved offenders as his deputies. In fine, as the Apostolic Constitutions declare (II, xliv) they were to be his “ears and eyes and mouth and heart,” or, as it is laid down elsewhere, “his soul and his senses.” (psyche kai aisthesis) (Apost., Const., III, xix).

2. Again, as the Apostolic Constitutions further explain in some detail, the deacons were the guardians of order in the church. They saw that the faithful occupied their proper places, that none gossiped or slept. They were to welcome the poor and aged and to take care that they were not at a disadvantage as to their position in church. They were to stand at the men’s gate as janitors to see that during the Liturgy none came in or went out, and as St. Chrysostom says in general terms: “if anyone misbehave let the deacon be summoned” (Hom. xxiv, in Act. Apost.). Besides this they were largely employed in the direct ministry of the altar, preparing the sacred vessels and bringing water for the ablutions, etc., though in later times many of these duties devolved upon clerics of an inferior grade. Most especially were they conspicuous by their marshaling and directing the congregation during the service. Even to the present day, as will be remembered, such announcements as Ite, missa est, Flectamus genua, Procedamus in pace, are always made by the deacon; though this function was more pronounced in the early ages. The following from the newly discovered “Testament of Our Lord,” a document of the end of the fourth century, may be quoted as an interesting example of a proclamation such as was made by the deacon just before the Anaphora:

Let us arise; let each know his own place. Let the catechumens depart. See that no unclean, no careless person is here. Lift up the eyes of your hearts. Angels look upon us. See, let him who is without faith depart. Let no adulterer, no angry man be here. If anyone be a slave of sin let him depart. See, let us supplicate as children of the light. Let us supplicate our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

3. The special duty of the deacon to read the Gospel seems to have been recognized from an early period, but it does not at first appear to have been so distinctive as it has become in the Western Church. Sozomen says of the church of Alexandria that the Gospel might only be read by the archdeacon, but elsewhere ordinary deacons performed that office, while in other churches, again it devolved upon the priests. It may be this relation to the Gospel which led to the direction in the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, iv), that the deacons should hold the book of the Gospels open over the head of a bishop elect during the ceremony of his consecration. With the reading of the Gospel should also probably be connected the occasional, though rare, appearance of the deacon in the office of preacher. The second Council of Vaison (529) declared that a priest might preach in his own parish, but that when he was ill a deacon should read a homily by one of the Fathers of the Church, urging that deacons, being held worthy to read the Gospel were a fortiori worthy of reading a work of human authorship. Actual preaching by a deacon, however, despite the precedent of the deacon Philip, was at all periods rare, and the Arian bishop of Antioch, Leontius, was censured for letting his deacon Aetius preach. (Philostorgias, III, xvii). On the other hand, the greatest preacher of the East Syrian Church, Ephraem Syrus, is said by all the early authorities to have been only a deacon, though a phase in his own writings (Opp. Syr., III, 467, d) throws some doubt upon the fact. But the statement attributed to Hilarius Diaconus, nunc neque diaconi in popolo praedicant (nor do the deacons now preach to the people), undoubtedly represents the ordinary rule, both in the fourth century and later.

4. With regard to the great action of the Liturgy it seems clear that the deacon held at all times, both in East and West, a very special relation to the sacred vessels and to the host and chalice both before and after consecration. The Council of Laodicea (can, xxi) forbade the inferior orders of the clergy to enter the diaconicum or touch the sacred vessels, and a canon of the first Council of Toledo pronounces that deacons who have been subjected to public penance must in future remain with the subdeacons and thus be withdrawn from the handling of these vessels. On the other hand, though the subdeacon afterward invaded their functions, it was originally the deacons alone who

presented the offerings of the faithful at the altar and especially the bread and wine for the sacrifice,

proclaimed the names of those who had contributed (Jerome, Com. in Ezech., xviii)

carried away the remnants of the consecrated elements to be reserved in the sacristy, and

administered the chalice and, on occasion, the sacred host, to communicants.

A question arose as to whether deacons might give communion to priests but the practice was forbidden as unseemly by the first Council of Nicaea (Hefele-LeClercq, I, 610–614). In these functions which we may trace back to the time of Justin Martyr (Apol., I, lxv, lxvii; cf. Tertullian, De Spectac., xxv, and Cyprian, De Lapsis, xxv) it was repeatedly insisted, in restraint of certain pretensions, that the deacon’s office was entirely subordinate to that of the celebrant, whether bishop or priest (Apost. Const., VIII, xxviii, xlvi; and Hefele-LeClercq, I, 291 and 612). Although certain deacons seem locally to have usurped the power of offering the Holy Sacrifice (offerre), this abuse was severely repressed in the Council of Arles (314), and there is nothing to support the idea that the deacon was in any proper sense was held to consecrate the chalice, as even Onslow (in Dict. Christ., Ant., I, 530) fully allows, though a rather rhetorical phrase of St. Ambrose (De Offic., Min., I, xli) has suggested the contrary. Still the care of the chalice has remained the deacon’s special province down to modern times. Even now in a high Mass the rubrics direct that when the chalice is offered, the deacon is to support the foot of the chalice or the arm of the priest and to repeat with him the words: Offerimus tibi, Domine, calicem salutris, etc. As a careful study of the first “Ordo Romanus” shows, the archdeacon of the papal Mass seems in a sense to preside over the chalice, and it is he and his fellow-deacons who, after the people have communicated under the form of bread, present to them the calicem ministerialem with the Precious Blood.

5. The deacons were also intimately associated with the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism. They were not, indeed, as a rule allowed themselves to baptize apart from grave necessity (Apost. Const., VII, xlvi expressly rejects any inference that might be drawn from Philip’s baptism of the eunuch), but inquiries about the candidates, their instruction and preparation, the custody of the chrism—which the deacons were to fetch when consecrated—and occasionally the actual administration of the Sacrament as the bishop’s deputies, seem to have formed part of their recognized functions. Thus, St. Jerome writes: “sine chrismate et episcopi jussione neque presbyteri neque diaconi jus habiant baptizandi.” (Without chrism and the command of the bishop neither presbyters nor deacons have the right of baptizing.—“Dial. c. Luciferum,” iv) Analogous to this charge was their position in the penitential system. As a rule their action was only intermediary and preparative, and it is interesting to note how prominent is the part played by the archdeacon as intercessor in the form for the reconciliation of penitents on Maundy Thursday still printed in the Roman Pontifical. But certain phrases in early documents suggest that in cases of necessity the deacons sometimes absolved. Thus St. Cyprian writes (Ep., xviii, 1) that if “no priest can be found and death seems imminent, sufferers can also make the confession of their sins to a deacon, that by laying his hand upon them in penance they may come to the Lord in peace” (ut mano eis in poenitetiam imposita veniant ad dominum cum pace). Whether in this and similar cases their can have been question of sacramental absolution is much debated, but certain Catholic theologians have not hesitated about returning an affirmative answer. (See, e.g. Rauschen, Eucharistie und Buss-Sakrament, 1908, p.132) Their can be no doubt that in the Middle Ages confession in case of necessity was often made to the deacon; but then it was equally made to a layman, and, in the impossibility of Holy Viaticum, even grass was devoutly eaten as a sort of spiritual communion.

To sum up, the various functions discharged by the deacons are thus concisely stated by St. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, in his epistle to Leudefredus: “To the deacons it belongs to assist the priests and to serve [ministrare] in all that is done in the Sacraments of Christ, in baptism, to wit, in the holy chrism, in the paten and chalice, to bring the oblation to the altar and to arrange them, to lay the table of the Lord and to drape it, to carry the cross, to declaim [proedicare] the Gospel and Epistle, for as the charge is given to lectors to declaim the Old Testament, so it is given to deacons to declaim the New. To him also pertains the office of prayers [officium precum] and the recital of the names. It is he who gives warning to open our ears to the Lord, it is he who exhorts with his cry, it is he also who announces peace.” (Migne., P.L., LXXXII, 895) In the early period, as many extant Christian epitaphs testify, the possession of a good voice was a qualification expected in candidates for the diaconate. Dulcea nectareo promebat mella canore was written of the deacon Redemptus in the time of Pope Damasus, and the same epitaphs make it clear that the deacon then had much to do with the chanting, not only of the Epistle and Gospel, but also of the psalms as a solo. Thus of the archdeacon Deusdedit in the fifth century it was written:

Hic levitarum primus, in ordine vivens

Davidici cantor carminis iste fuit.

But Pope Gregory the Great in the council of 595 abolished the privileges of the deacons in regard to the chanting of Psalms (Duchesne, Christian Worship, vi) and regular cantors succeeded to their functions. However, even as it is, some of the most beautiful chants in the Church’s Liturgy are confided to the deacon, noteably, the proeconium paschale, better known as the Exultet, the consecratory prayer by which the paschal candle is blessed on Holy Saturday. This has often been praised as the most perfect piece of Gregorian music, and it is sung throughout by the deacon.

DRESS AND NUMBER OF DEACONS

The early developments of ecclesiastical costume are very obscure and are complicated by the difficulty of identifying securely the objects indicated merely by a name. It is certain, however, that in both East and West a stole, or orarium (orarion) which seems to have been in substance identical with what we now understand by the term, has been from an early period the distinctive attire of the deacon. Both in East and West also, it has been worn by the deacon over the left shoulder, and not round the neck, like that of a priest. Deacons, according to the fourth Council of Toledo (633), were to wear a plain stole (orarium—orarium quia orat, id est, proedicat) on the left shoulder, the right being left free to typify the expedition with which they were to discharge their sacred functions. It is interesting to note as a curious survival of an ancient tradition that the deacon during a Lenten high Mass in the Middle Ages took off his chasuble, rolled it up, and placed it over his left shoulder to leave his right arm free. At the present day he still takes off his chasuble during the central part of the Mass and replaces it with a broad stole. In the East, the Council of Laodicea, in the fourth century, forbids subdeacons to wear the stole (orarion), and a passage in St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Fil. Prod.) refers to the light fluttering draperies over the left shoulder of those ministering at the altar, evidently describing the stoles of the deacons. The deacon still wears his stole over the left shoulder, only, although, except in the Ambrosian Rite at Milan, he now wears it under his dalmatic. The dalmatic itself, which is now regarded as distinctive of the deacon, was originally confined to the deacons of Rome, and to wear such a vestment outside of Rome was conceded by early popes as a special privilege. Such a grant was apparently made, for example, by Pope Stephen II (752–757) of Abbot Fulrad of St-Denis, allowing six deacons to array themselves in the stola dalmaticae decoris (sic) when discharging their sacred functions (Braun, die liturgische Gewandung, p.251) According to the “Liber Pontificalis,” Pope St. Sylvester (314–335) constituit ut diaconi dalmaticis in ecclesia uterentur (ordained that deacons should use dalmatics in church), but this statement is quite unreliable. On the other hand it is practically certain that dalmatics were worn in Rome both by the pope and by his deacons in the latter half of the fourth century (Braun, op. cit., p.249). As to the manner of wearing, after the tenth century it was only in Milan and southern Italy that deacons carried the stole over the dalmatic, but at an earlier date, this had been common in many parts of the West.

As regards the number of deacons, much variation existed. In more considerable cities there were normally seven, according to the type of the Church of Jerusalem in Acts 6:1–6. In Rome there were seven in the time of Pope Cornelius, and this remained the rule until the eleventh century, when the number of deacons was increased from seven to fourteen. This was in accord with canon xv of the Council of Neo-Caesarea incorporated in the “Corpus Juris.” The “Testament of Our Lord” (I, 34) speaks of twelve priests, seven deacons, four subdeacons, and three widows with precedence. Still, this rule did not remain constant. In Alexandria, for example, even as early as the fourth century, there must apparently been more than seven deacons, for we are told that nine took the part of Arius. Other regulations seem to suggest three as a common number. In the Middle Ages nearly every use had its own customs as to the number of deacons and subdeacons that might assist at a pontifical Mass. The number of seven deacons and seven subdeacons was not infrequent in many dioceses on days of great solemnity. But the great distinction between the diaconate in the early ages and that of the present day lay probably in this, that in primitive times the diaconate was commonly regarded, possibly on account of the knowledge of music which it demanded, as a state that was permanent and final. A man remained a simple deacon all his life. nowadays, except in the rarest cases (the cardinal-deacons sometimes continue permanently as mere deacons), the diaconate is simply a stage on the road to the priesthood. [Note: The permanent diaconate was restored in the Latin Rite after the Second Vatican Council.]

SACRAMENTAL CHARACTER OF THE DIACONATE

Although certain theologians such as Cajetan and Durandus, have ventured to doubt whether the Sacrament of Order is received by deacons, it may be said that the decrees of the Council of Trent are now generally held to have decided the point against them. The council not only lays down that order is truly and properly a sacrament but it forbids under anathema (Sess. XXIII, can. ii) that anyone should deny “that there are in the Church other orders both greater and minor as which as by certain steps advance is made to the priesthood,” and it insists that the ordaining bishop does not vainly say “receive ye the Holy Ghost,” but by that a character is imprinted by the rite of ordination. Now, not only do we find in the Acts of the Apostles, as noticed above, both prayer and the laying on of hands in the initiation of the Seven, but the same sacramental character suggestive of the imparting of the Holy Spirit is conspicuous in the ordination rite as practiced in the early Church and at the present day. In the Apostolic Constitutions we read:

A deacon thou shalt appoint, O Bishop, laying thy hands upon him, with all the presbytery and the deacons standing by thee; and praying over him thou shalt say: Almighty God. . . . let our supplication come unto Thy ears and make Thy face to shine upon this Thy servant who is appointed unto the office of deacon [eis diakonian] and fill him with the Spirit and with power, as Thou didst fill Stephen, the martyr and follower of the sufferings of Thy Christ.

The ritual of the ordination of deacons at the present day is as follows: The bishop first asks the archdeacon if those who are to be promoted to the diaconate are worthy of the office and then he invites the clergy and people to propose any objections which they may have. After a short pause the bishop explains to the ordinandi the duties and the privileges of a deacon, they remaining the while upon their knees. When he has finished his discourse they prostrate themselves, and the bishop and the clergy recite the litanies of the Saints, in the course of which the bishop thrice imparts his benediction. After certain other prayers in which the bishop continues to invoke the grace of God upon the candidates, he sings a short preface, which expresses the joy of the Church to see the multiplication of her ministers. Then comes the more essential part of the ceremony. The bishop puts out his right hand and puts it upon the head of each of the ordinandi, saying, “Receive the Holy Ghost for strength, and to resist the devil and his temptations, in the name of the Lord.” Then stretching out his hand over all the candidates together he says: Send down upon them, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the Holy Ghost by which they may be strengthened in the faithful discharge of the work of Thy ministry, through the bestowal of Thy sevenfold grace.” After this the bishop delivers to the deacons the insignia of the order which they have received, to wit, the stole and the dalmatic, accompanying them with the formulae which express their special significance. Finally, he makes all the candidates touch the book of the Gospels, saying to them: “Receive the power of reading the Gospel in the Church of God, both for the living and for the dead, in the name of the Lord.” Although the actual form of words which accompanies the laying on of the bishop’s hands, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum ad robur, etc., cannot be traced back further than the twelfth century, the whole spirit of the ritual is ancient, and some of the elements, notably the conferring of the stole and the prayer which follows the delivery of the book of the Gospels, are of much older date. It is noteworthy that in the “Decretum pro Armenis” of Pope Eugene IV the delivery of the Gospels is spoken of as the “matter” of the diaconate, Diaconatus vero per libri evangeliorum dationem (traditur).

In the Russian Church the candidate, after having been led three times around the altar and kissed each corner, kneels before the bishop. The bishop lays the end of his omophorion upon his neck and marks the sign of the cross three times upon his head. Then he lays his hand upon the candidate’s head and says two prayers of some length which speak of the conferring of the Holy Ghost and of strength bestowed upon the ministers of the altar and recall the words of Christ that “he who would be first among you must become as a servant” (diakonos): then there are delivered to the deacon the insignia of his office, which, besides the stole, include the liturgical fan, and as each of these is given the bishop calls aloud, axios, “worthy,” in a tone increasing in strength with each repetition (see Maltzew, Die Sacramente der orthodox-katholische Kirche, 318–333).

In later times the diaconate was so entirely regarded as a stage of preparation for the priesthood that interest no longer attached to its precise duties and privileges. A deacon’s functions were practically reduced to the ministration at high Mass and to exposing the Blessed Sacrament at Benediction. But he could, as the deputy of the parish priest, distribute the Communion in case of need. Of the condition of celibacy, see the article, CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.

DEACONS OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

It is only in the Church of England and in the Episcopal communions of Scotland and North America that a deacon receives ordination by the imposition of hands of a bishop. In consequence of such ordination, however, he is considered empowered to perform any sacred office except that of consecrating the elements and pronouncing absolution, and he habitually preaches and assists in the communion-service. Among the Lutherans, however, in Germany, the word deacon is generally applied to assistant, though fully ordained, ministers who aid the minister in charge of a particular cure or parish. However, it is also used in certain localities for lay helpers who take part in the work of instruction, finance, district visiting, and relieving distress. This last is also the use of the word which is common in many nonconformist communions of England and America.

Seidl in Kirchenlex., s. v. Diacon; Idem, Der diaconat in der kath. Kirche (Ratisbon, 1884); Onslow, in Dict. of Christ. Antiq., s. v. Deacon; Zoeckler, Diaconen und Evangelisten in Biblische und Kirchenhistorische Studien (Munich, 1893); II, Bruder, Verfassung der Kirche (Freiburg, 1904), 348 sqq.; Lamothe-Tenet, Le Diaconat, (Paris, 1900); Leder, Der Diaconen, Bischöfe, und Presbyter (Stuttgart, 1905); Achelis in Realencyk. f. prot. Theol., s. v. Diakonen; Thomassin, Vetus et Nova Eccl. Dicipl., Part I, Bk. II; Hefele-LeClercq, Les Conciles, I, 610–614; Münz in Kraus, Real-Encyk., s.v. Diakon; Gasparri, Tractatus Canonicus de Sacra Ordinatione; Wernz, Jus Decretalium, II.

HERBERT THURSTON

Deaconesses

We cannot be sure that any formal recognition of deaconesses as an institution of consecrated women aiding the clergy is to be found in the New Testament. There is indeed the mention of Phebe (Romans 16:1), who is called diakonos, but this may simply mean, as the Vulgate renders it, that she was “in the ministry [i.e. service] of the Church,” without implying any official status. Again, it is not improbable that the “widows” who are spoken of at large in I Timothy 5:3–10, may really have been deaconesses, but here again we have nothing conclusive. That some such functionaries were appointed at an early date seems probable from Pliny’s letter to Trajan concerning the Christians of Bithynia (Ep. X, 97, A.D. 112) There he speaks of obtaining information by torture from two ancillae quae ministrae dicebantur, where a technical use of words seems to be implied. In any case there can be no question that before the middle of the fourth century women were permitted to exercise certain definite functions in the Church and were known by the special name of diakonoi or diakonissai.

HISTORY AND CONSECRATION

Most Catholic scholars incline to the view that it is not always possible to draw a clear distinction in the early Church between deaconesses and widows (cherai). The Didascalia, Apostolic Constitutions and kindred documents undoubtedly recognize them as separate classes and they prefer the deaconess to the widow in the duty of assisting the clergy. Indeed, the Apostolic Constitutions (III, 6) enjoin the widows to be obedient to the deaconesses. It is probable also, as Funk maintains, that in the earlier period it was only a widow who could become a deaconess, but undoubtedly the strict limits of age, sixty years, which were at first prescribed for widows, were relaxed, at least at certain periods and in certain localities, in the case of those to be appointed to be deaconesses; for example, the Council of Trullo in 692 fixed the age at forty. Tertullian speaks with reprobation of a girl of twenty in viduatu ab episcopo collocatam, by which he seems to mean ordained as a deaconess. There can again be no question that the deaconesses in the fourth and fifth centuries had a distinct ecclesiastical standing, though there are traces of much variety of custom. According to the newly discovered “Testament of Our Lord” (c. 400), widows had a place in the sanctuary during the celebration of the liturgy, they stood at the anaphora behind the presbyters, they communicated after the deacons, and before the readers and subdeacons, and strange to say they had a charge of, or superintendence over the deaconesses. Further it is certain that a ritual was in use for the ordination of deaconesses by the laying on of hands which was closely modeled on the ritual for the ordination of a deacon. For example, the Apostolic Constitutions say:

Concerning a deaconess, I, Bartholomew enjoin O Bishop, thou shalt lay thy hands upon her with all the Presbytery and the Deacons and the Deaconesses and thou shalt say: Eternal God, the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the creator of man and woman, that didst fill with the Spirit Mary and Deborah, and Anna and Huldah, that didst not disdain that thine only begotten Son should be born of a woman; Thou that in the tabernacle of witness and in the temple didst appoint women guardians of thy holy gates: Do thou now look on this thy handmaid, who is appointed unto the office of a Deaconess and grant unto her the Holy Spirit, and cleanse her from all pollution of the flesh and of the spirit, that she may worthily accomplish the work committed unto her, to thy glory and the praise of thy Christ.

Comparing this form with that given in the same work with that for the ordination of deacons we may notice that the reference to the outpouring of Holy Ghost in the latter case is much more strongly worded: “fill him with the spirit and with power as thou didst fill Stephen the martyr and follower of the sufferings of thy Christ.” Moreover, in the case of the deacon, prayer is made that he “may be counted worthy of a higher standing,” a clause which not improbably has reference to the possibility of advance to a higher ecclesiastical dignity as priest or bishop, no such praise being used in the case of the deaconess.

The subject of the precise status of the deaconess is confessedly obscure and confused, but two or three points at any rate seem worth insisting on. In the first place there were no doubt influences at work at one time or another which tended to exaggerate the position of these women-helpers. This tendency has found expression in certain documents which have come down to us and of which it is difficult to gauge the value. Still there is no more reason to attach importance to these pretensions than there is to regard seriously the spasmodic attempts of certain deacons to exceed their powers and to claim, for example, authority to consecrate. Both in the one and the other case the voice of the Church made itself heard in conciliar decrees and the abuse in the end was repressed without difficulty. Such restrictive measures seem to be found in the rather obscure 11th canon of Laodicea, and in the more explicit 19th canon of the Council of Nicaea, which last distinctly lays down that deaconesses are to be accounted as lay persons and that they receive no ordination properly so called (Hefele-LeClercq, Conciles, I, 618). In the West there seems always to have been considerable reluctance to accept the deaconesses, at any rate under that name, as a recognized institution of the Church. The Council of Nismes in 394 reproved in general the assumption of the levitical ministry by women, and other decrees, notably that of Orange in 411 (can. 26) forbid the ordaining of deaconesses altogether. It follows from what has been said that the Church as a whole repudiated the idea that women could in any proper sense be recipients of the Sacrament of Order. None the less in the East, and among the Syrians and Nestorians much more than among the Greeks (Hefele-LeClercq, Conciles, II, 448), the ecclesiastical status of deaconesses was greatly exaggerated.

Another source of confusion has always been introduced by those who have interpreted the word diaconissae, on the analogy of presbyterae and presbytides, episcopae and episcopissae, as the wives of deacons who, living apart from their husbands, acquired ipso facto an ecclesiastical character. No doubt such matrons who generously accepted this separation from their husbands were treated with special distinction and were supported by the Church, but if they became deaconesses, as in some cases they did, they had, like other women to fulfill certain conditions and to receive a special consecration. With regard to the duration of the order of deaconesses we note that when adult baptism became uncommon, this institution, which seems primarily to have been devised for the needs of women catechumens, gradually waned and in the end died out altogether. In the time of Justinian (d. 565) the deaconesses still held a position of importance. At the church of St. Sophia in Constantinople the staff consisted of sixty priests, one hundred deacons, forty deaconesses, and ninety subdeacons; but Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch about A.D. 1070 states that deaconesses in any proper sense had ceased to exist in the Church though the title was borne by certain nuns (Robinson, Ministry of Deaconesses, p. 93), while Matthew Blastares declared of the tenth century that the civil legislation concerning deaconesses, which ranked them rather among the clergy than the laity had then been abandoned or forgotten (Migne, P.G., CXIX, 1272). In the West in spite of the hostile decrees of several councils of Gaul in the fifth and sixth centuries, we still find mention of deaconesses considerably after that date, though it is difficult to say whether the title was more than an honorific name attributed to consecrated virgins and widows. Thus we read in Fortunatus that St. Radegund was “ordained deaconess” by St. Medard (about A.D. 540—Migne, P.L., LXXXVIII, 502) So also the ninth Ordo Romanus mentions, as forming part of the papal procession, the “feminae diaconissae et presbyterissae quae eodem die benedicantur” and diaconissae are mentioned in the procession of Leo III in the ninth century (Duchesne, Lib. Pont., II, 6) Further the Anglo-Saxon Leofric missal in the eleventh century still retained a prayer ad diaconissam faciendam which appears in the form Exaudi Domine, common to both deacons and deaconesses. The only surviving relic of the ordination of deaconesses in the West seems to be the delivery by the bishop of a stole and maniple to Carthusian nuns in the ceremony of their profession.

FUNCTIONS OF DEACONESSES

There can be no doubt that in their first institution the deaconesses were intended to discharge those same charitable offices, connected with the temporal well being of their poorer fellow Christians, which were performed for the men by the deacons. But in one particyular, viz., the instruction and baptism of catechumens, their duties involved service of a more spiritual kind. The universal prevelance of baptism by immersion and the annointing of the whole body which preceded it , rendered it a matter of propriety that in this ceremony the functions of the deacons should be discharged by women. The Didascalia Apostolorum (III, 12; see Funk, Didascalia, etc., I, 208) explicitly direct that the deaconesses are to perform this function. It is probable that this was the starting point for the intervention of women in many other ritual observances even in the sanctuary. The Apostolic Constitutions expressly attribute to them the duty of guarding the doors and maintaining order amongst those of their own sex in the church, and they also (II, c. 26) assign to them the office of acting as intermediaries between the clergy and the women of the congregation; but on the other hand, it is laid down (Const. Apost., VIII, 27) that “the deaconess gives no blessing, she fulfills no function of priest or deacon,” and there can be no doubt that the extravagances permitted in some places, especially in the churches of Syria and Asia, were in contravention of the canons generally accepted. We hear of them presiding over assemblies of women, reading the Epistle and Gospel, distributing the Blessed Eucharist to nuns, lighting the candles, burning incense in the thuribles, adorning the sanctuary, and anointing the sick (see Hefele-LeClercq, II, 448). All these things must be regarded as abuses which ecclesiastical legislation was not long in repressing.

DEACONESSES IN PROTESTANT COMMUNIONS

Outside the Catholic Church the name of deaconesses has been adopted for a modern revival which has had great vogue in Germany and to some extent in the United States. It was begun in 1833 by the Lutheran pastor Fliedner at Kaiserswerth near Düsseldorf. His first inspiration is said to have been derived from the Quakeress Elizabeth Fry, and though the celebrated Miss Florence Nightingale, who organized a staff of nurses in the Crimean War and who had previously been trained at Kaiserswerth, the revival at a later date attracted a good deal of attention in England. The main work of deaconesses is the tending of the sick and poor, instruction and district visiting, but with more subordination to parish needs than is usually compatible with the life of an Anglican sisterhood. In the United States more particularly, community life is usually not insisted upon, but a good deal of attention is given to training and intellectual development. Both in the Anglican Church, and in the Protestant Episcopal Church, and Methodist Episcopal Church of America, deaconesses are “admitted” in solemn form by the bishop with benediction and the laying on of hands. In Germany the movement has taken such hold that the Kaiserswerth organization alone claims to number over 16,000 sisters, but it is curious that relatively to the population the institution is more popular in Catholic districts, where probably the familiar spectacle of Catholic nuns has accustomed the people to the idea of a community life for women.

Permaneder and Hundhausen in Kirchenlex., III, 1675–1692; Kraus, R. Encyc. d. Christ. Alterthum., s.v. Diakonissen, I, 358–361; and Vidua, II, 947–951; Hefele-LeClercq, Conciles, (Paris, 1907), I, 615 sq., and especially II, 447–452, where the subject is treated very fully, but not without inaccuracies; Onslow in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s.v. Deaconess; Wordsworth, The Ministry of Grace, (London, 1901), 264–282; Robinson, The Ministry of Deaconesses, (London, 1898); Schaefer, Die Weib, Diakonie (Hamburg, 1887–1894); Zscharnack, Dienst der Frau in d. erst. Christ. Jahrh. (Gottingen, 1902); Goltz, Dienst der Frau in d. Christ. Kirche (Leipzig, 1905) Achelis, in R.E.f. Prot. Theol., IV, 616–620; Reville, Le Role des Veuves, etc. Bibliotheque des Hautes Etudes et Sciences Religieuses, V, 231–251; Church Quarterly Review (1899).

HERBERT THURSTON

Prayers for the Dead

I. GENERAL STATEMENT AND PROOF

Catholic teaching regarding prayers for the dead is bound up inseparably with the doctrine of purgatory and the more general doctrine of the communion of the saints, which is an article of the Apostle’s Creed. The definition of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV), “that purgatory exists, and that the souls detained therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar,” is merely a restatement in brief of the traditional teaching which had already been embodied in more than one authoritative formula—as in the creed prescribed for converted Waldenses by Innocent III in 1210 (Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 3 73) and more fully in the profession of faith accepted for the Greeks by Michael Palaeologus at the Second Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1439: “[We define] likewise, that if the truly penitent die in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for their sins of commission and omission, their souls are purified by purgatorial pains after death; and that for relief from these pains they are benefitted by the suffrages of the faithful in this life, that is, by Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and by the other offices of piety usually performed by the faithful for one another according to the practice [instituta] of the Church” (ibid., n. 588). Hence, under “suffrages” for the dead, which are defined to be legitimate and efficacious, are included not only formal supplications, but every kind of pious work that may be offered for the spiritual benefit of others, and it is in this comprehensive sense that we speak of prayers in the present article. As is clear from this general statement, the Church does not recognize the limitation upon which even modern Protestants often insist, that prayers for the dead, while legitimate and commendable as a private practice, are to be excluded from her public offices. The most efficacious of all prayers, in Catholic teaching, is the essentially public office, the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Coming to the proof of this doctrine, we find, in the first place, that it is an integral part of the great general truth which we name the communion of saints. This truth is the counterpart in the supernatural order of the natural law of human solidarity. Men are not isolated units in the life of grace, any more than in domestic and civil life. As children in Christ’s Kingdom they are as one family under the loving Fatherhood of God; as members of Christ’s mystical body they are incorporated not only with Him, their common Head, but with one another, and this not merely by visible social bonds and external co-operation, but by the invisible bonds of mutual love and sympathy, and by effective co-operation in the inner life of grace. Each is in some degree the beneficiary of the spiritual activities of the others, of their prayers and good works, their merits and satisfactions; nor is this degree to be wholly measured by those indirect ways in which the law of solidarity works out in other cases, nor by the conscious and explicit altruistic intentions of individual agents. It is wider than this, and extends to the bounds of the mysterious. Now, as between the living, no Christian can deny the reality of this far-reaching spiritual communion; and since death, for those who die in faith and grace, does not sever the bonds of this communion, why should it interrupt its efficacy in the case of the dead, and shut them out from benefits of which they are capable and may be in need? Of very few can it be hoped that they have attained perfect holiness at death; and none but the perfectly holy are admitted to the vision of God. Of few, on the other hand, will they at least who love them admit the despairing thought that they are beyond the pale of grace and mercy, and condemned to eternal separation from God and from all who hope to be with God. On this ground alone it has been truly said that purgatory is a postulate of the Christian reason; and, granting the existence of the purgatorial state, it is equally a postulate of the Christian reason in the communion of saints, or, in other words, be helped by the prayers of their brethren on earth and in heaven. Christ is King in purgatory as well as in heaven and on earth, and He cannot be deaf to our prayers for our loved ones in that part of His Kingdom, whom he also loves while He chastises them. For our own consolation as well as for theirs we want to believe in this living intercourse of charity with our dead. We would believe it without explicit warrant of Revelation, on the strength of what is otherwise revealed and in obedience to the promptings of reason and natural affection. Indeed, it is largely for this reason that Protestants in growing numbers are giving up today the joy-killing doctrine of the Reformers, and reviving Catholic teaching and practice. As we shall presently see, there is no clear and explicit warrant for prayers for the dead in the Scriptures recognized by Protestants as canonical, while they do not admit the Divine authority of extra-Scriptural traditions. Catholics are in a better position.

A. ARGUMENTS FROM SCRIPTURE

Omitting some passages in the Old Testament which are sometimes invoked, but which are too vague and uncertain in their reference to be urged in proof (v.g. Tobias, iv, 18; Ecclus., vii, 37; etc.), it is enough to notice here the classical passage in II Machabees, xii, 40–46. When Judas and his men came to take away for burial the bodies of their brethren who had fallen in the battle against Gorgias, “they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had ben committed might be forgotten . . . And making a gathering, he [Judas] sent twelve [al. two] drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep in godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” For Catholics who accept this book as canonical, this passage leaves nothing to be desired. The inspired author expressly approves Judas’s action in this particular case, and recommends in general terms the practice of prayers for the dead. There is no contradiction in the particular case between the conviction that a sin had been committed, calling down the penalty of death, and the hope that the sinners had nevertheless died in godliness—an opportunity for penance had intervened.

But even for those who deny the inspired authority of this book, unequivocal evidence is here furnished of the faith and practice of the Jewish Church in the second century B.C.—that is to say, of the orthodox Church, for the sect of the Sadducees denied the resurrection (and, by implication at least, the general doctrine of immortality), and it would seem from the argument of which the author introduces in his narrative that he had Sadducean adversaries in mind. The act of Judas and his men in praying for their deceased comrades is represented as if it were a matter of course; nor is there anything to suggest that the procuring of sacrifices for the dead was a novel or exceptional thing; from which it is fair to conclude that the practice—both private and liturgical—goes back beyond the time of Judas, but how far we cannot say. It is reasonable also to assume, in the absence of positive proof to the contrary, that this practice was maintained in later times, and that Christ and the Apostles were familiar with it; and whatever other evidence is available from Talmudic and other sources strongly confirms this assumption, if it does not absolutely prove it as a fact (see, v.g., Luckock, “After Death,” v, pp. 50 sq.). This is worth noting because it helps us to understand the true significance of Christ’s silence on the subject—if it be held on the incomplete evidence of the Gospels that He was indeed altogether silent—and justifies us in regarding the Christian practice as an inheritance from orthodox Judaism.

We have said that there is no clear and explicit Scriptural text in favour of prayers for the dead, except the above text of II Machabees. Yet there are one or two sayings of Christ recorded by the Evangelists, which are most naturally interpreted as containing an implicit reference to a purgatorial state after death; and in St. Paul’s Epistles a passage of similar import occurs, and one or two other passages that bear directly on the question of prayers for the dead. When Christ promises forgiveness for all sins that a man may commit except the sin against the Holy Ghost, which “shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come” (Matt., xii, 31–32), is the concluding phrase nothing more than a periphrastic equivalent for “never”? Or, if Christ meant to emphasize the distinction of worlds, is “the world to come” to be understood, not of the life after death, but of the Messianic age on earth as imagined and expected by the Jews? Both interpretations have been proposed; but the second is far-fetched and decidedly improbable (cf. Mark, iii, 29); while the first, though admissible, is less obvious and less natural than that which allows the implied question at least to remain: May sins be forgiven in the world to come? Christ’s hearers believed in this possibility, and, had He Himself wished to deny it, He would hardly have used a form of expression which they would naturally take to be a tacit admission of their belief. Precisely the same argument applies to the words of Christ regarding the debtor who is cast into prison, from which he shall not go out till he has paid the last farthing (Luke, xii, 59).

Passing over the well-known passage, I Cor., iii, 14 sq., on which an argument for purgatory may be based, attention may be called to another curious text in the same Epistle (xv, 29), where St. Paul argues thus in favour of the resurrection: “Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized form them?” Even assuming that the practice here referred to was superstitious, and that St. Paul merely uses it as the basis of an argumentum ad hominem, the passage at least furnishes historical evidence of the prevalence at the time of belief in the efficacy of works for the dead; and the Apostle’s reserve in not reprobating this particular practice is more readily intelligible if we suppose him to have recognized the truth of the principle of which it was merely an abuse. But it is probable that the practice in question was something in itself legitimate, and to which the Apostle gives his tacit approbation. In his Second Epistle to Timothy (i, 16–18; iv, 19) St. Paul speaks of Onesiphorus in a way that seems obviously to imply that the latter was already dead: “The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus”—as to a family in need of consolation. Then, after mention of loyal services rendered by him to the imprisoned Apostle at Rome, comes the prayer for Onesiphorus himself, “The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day” (the day of judgment); finally, in the salutation, “the household of Onesiphorus” is mentioned once more, without mention of the man himself. The question is, what had become of him? Was he dead, as one would naturally infer from what St. Paul writes? Or had he for any other cause become separated permanently from his family, so that prayer for them should take account of present needs while prayers for him looked forward to the day of judgment? Or could it be that he was still at Rome when the Apostle wrote, or gone elsewhere for a prolonged absence from home? The first is by far the easiest and most natural hypothesis; and if it be admitted, we have here an instance of prayer by the Apostle for the soul of a deceased benefactor.

B. ARGUMENTS FROM TRADITION

The traditional evidence in favour of prayers for the dead, which has been preserved

in monumental inscriptions (especially those of the catacombs),

in the ancient liturgies, and

in Christian literature generally, is so abundant that we cannot do more in this article than touch very briefly on a few of the more important testimonies.

1. Monumental inscriptions The inscriptions in the Roman Catacombs range in date from the first century (the earliest dated is from A.D. 71) to the early part of the fifth; and though the majority are undated, archaeologists have been able to fix approximately the dates of a great many by comparison with those that are dated. The greater number of the several thousand extant belong to the ante-Nicene period—the first three centuries and the early part of the fourth. Christian sepulchral inscriptions from other parts of the Church are few in number compared with those in the catacombs, but the witness of such as have come down to us agrees with that of the catacombs. Many inscriptions are exceedingly brief and simple (PAX, IN PACE, etc.), and might be taken for statements rather than prayers, were it not that in other cases they are so frequently and so naturally amplified into prayers (PAX TIBI, etc.). There are prayers, called acclamatory, which are considered to be the most ancient, and in which there is the simple expression of a wish for some benefit to the deceased, without any formal address to God. The benefits most frequently prayed for are: peace, the good (i.e. eternal salvation), light, refreshment, life, eternal life, union with God, with Christ, and with the angels and saints—e.g. PAX (TIBI, VOBIS, SPIRITUI TUO, IN AETERNUM, TIBI CUM ANGELIS, CUM SANCTIS); SPIRITUS TUUS IN BONO (SIT, VIVAT, QUIESCAT); AETERNA LUX TIBI; IN REFREGERIO ESTO; SPIRITUM IN REFRIGERIUM SUSCIPIAT DOMINUS; DEUS TIBI REFRIGERET; VIVAS, VIVATIS (IN DEO, IN [Chi-Rho] IN SPIRITO SANCTO, IN PACE, IN AETERNO, INTER SANCTOS, CUM MARTYRIBUS). For detailed references see Kirsch, “Die Acclamationen,” pp. 9–29; Cabrol and Leclercq, “Monumenta Liturgica” (Paris, 1902), I, pp. ci-cvi, cxxxix, etc. Again there are prayers of a formal character, in which survivors address their petitions directly to God the Father, or to Christ, or even to the angels, or to the saints and martyrs collectively, or to some one of them in particular. The benefits prayed for are those already mentioned, with the addition sometimes of liberation from sin. Some of these prayers read like excepts from the liturgy: e.g. SET PATER OMNIPOTENS, ORO, MISERERE LABORUM TANTORUM, MISERE(re) ANIMAE NON DIG(na) FERENTIS (De Rossi, Inscript. Christ., II a, p. ix). Sometimes the writers of the epitaphs request visitors to pray for the deceased: e.g. QUI LEGIS, ORA PRO EO (Corpus Inscript. Lat., X, n. 3312), and sometimes again the dead themselves ask for prayers, as in the well-known Greek epitaph of Abercius (see ABERCIUS, INSCRIPTION OF), in tow similar Roman epitaphs dating form the middle of the second century (De Rossi, op. cit., II, a, p. xxx, Kirsch, op. cit., p. 51), and in many later inscriptions. That pious people often visited the tombs to pray for the dead, and sometimes even inscribed a prayer on the monument, is also clear form a variety of indications (see examples in De Rossi, “Roma Sotteranea,” II, p. 15). In a word, so overwhelming is the witness of the early Christian monuments in favour of prayer for the dead that no historian any longer denies that the practice and the belief which the practice implies were universal in the primitive Church. There was no break of continuity in this respect between Judaism and Christianity. 2. Ancient liturgies

The testimony of the early liturgies is in harmony with that of the monuments. Without touching the subject of the various liturgies we possess, without even enumerating and citing them singly, it is enough to say here that all without exception—Nestorian and Monophysite as well as Catholic, those in Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic as well as those in Greek and Latin—contain the commemoration of the faithful departed in the Mass, with a prayer for peace, light, refreshment and the like, and in many cases expressly for the remission of sins and the effacement of sinful stains. The following, from the Syriac Liturgy of S.t James, may be quoted as a typical example: “we commemorate all the faithful dead who have died in the true faith . . . We ask, we entreat, we pray Christ our God, who took their souls and spirits to Himself, that by His many compassions He will make them worthy of the pardon of their faults and the remission of their sins” (Syr. Lit. S. Jacobi, ed. Hammond, p. 75).

3. Early Christian literature

Turning finally to early literary sources, we find evidence in the apocryphal “Acta Joannis,” composed about A.D. 160–170, that at that time anniversaries of the dead were commemorated by the application of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Lipsius and Bonnet, “Acta Apost. Apocr.,” I, 186). The same fact is witnessed by the “Canons of Hippolytus” (Ed. Achelis, p. 106), by Tertullian (De Cor. Mil., iii, P. L., II, 79), and by many later writers. Tertullian also testifies to the regularity of the practice of praying privately for the dead (De Monogam., x, P.L., II, 942); and of the host of later authorities that may be cited, both for public and private prayers, we must be content to refer to but a few. St. Cyprian writes to Cornelius that their mutual prayers and good offices ought to be continued after either should be called away by death (Ep. lvii, P. L., III, 830 sq.), and he tells us that before his time (d. 258) the African bishops had forbidden testators to nominate a priest as executor and guardian in their wills, and had decreed, as the penalty for violating this law, deprivation after death of the Holy Sacrifice and the other offices of the Church, which were regularly celebrated for the repose of each of the faithful; hence, in the case of one Victor who had broken the law, “no offering might be made for his repose, or any prayer offered in the Church in his name” (Ep. lxvi, P. L. , IV, 399). Arnobius speaks of the Christian churches as “conventicles in which . . . peace and pardon is asked for all men . . . for those still living and for those already freed from the bondage of the body” (Adv. Gent., IV, xxxvi, P. L., V, 1076). In his funeral oration for his brother Satyrus St. Ambrose beseeches God to accept propitiously his “brotherly service of priestly sacrifice” (fraternum munus, sacrificium sacerdotis) for the deceased (“De Excessu Satyri fr.,” I, 80, P. L., XVI, 1315); and, addressing Valentinian and Theodosius, he assures them of happiness if his prayers shall be of any avail; he will let no day or night go past without remembering them in his prayers and at the altar (“De Obitu Valent.,” 78, ibid., 1381). As a further testimony from the Western Church we may quote one of the many passages in which St. Augustine speaks of prayers for the dead: “The universal Church observes this law, handed down from the Fathers, that prayers should be offered for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their proper place at the Sacrifice” (Serm. clxxii, 2, P.L., XXXVIII, 936). As evidence of the faith of the Eastern Church we may refer to what Eusebius tells us, that at the tomb of Constantine “a vast crowd of people together with the priests of God offered their prayers to God for the Emperor’s soul with tears and great lamentation” (Vita Const., IV, lxxi, P. G., XX, 1226). Acrius, a priest of Pontus, who flourished in the third quarter of the fourth century, was branded as a heretic for denying the legitimacy and efficacy of prayers for the dead. St. Epiphanius, who records and refutes his views, represent the custom of praying for the dead as a duty imposed by tradition (Adv. Haer., III, lxxx, P. G., XLII, 504 sq.), and St. Chrysotom does not hesitate to speak of it as a “law laid down by the Apostles” (Hom., iii, in Philipp., i, 4, P.G., LXII, 203).

OBJECTIONS ALLEGED

No rational difficulty can be urged against the Catholic doctrine of prayers for the dead; on the contrary, as we have seen, the rational presumption in its favour is strong enough to induce belief in it on the part of many whose rule of faith does to allow them to prove with entire certainty that it is a doctrine of Divine revelation. Old-time Protestant objections, based on certain texts of the Old Testament and on the parable of Dives and Lazarus in the New, are admitted by modern commentators to be either irrelevant or devoid of force.

The saying of Ecclesiastes (xi, 3) for instance, “if the tree fall to the south, or to the north, in what place soever it shall fall, there shall it be,” is probably intended merely to illustrate the general theme with which the writer is detailing in the context, viz. the inevitableness of natural law in the present visible world. But even if it be understood of the fate of the soul after death, it can mean nothing more than what Catholic teaching affirms, that the final issue—salvation or damnation—is determined irrevocably at death; which is not incompatible with a temporary state of purgatorial purification for the saved.

The imagery of the parable of Lazarus is too uncertain to be made the basis of dogmatic inference, except as regards the general truth of rewards and punishments after death; but in any case it teaches merely that one individual may be admitted to happiness immediately after death while another may be cast into hell, without hinting anything as to the proximate fate of the man who is neither a Lazarus nor a Dives.

II. QUESTIONS OF DETAIL

Admitting the general teaching that prayers for the dead are efficacious, we are naturally led on to inquire more particularly:

What prayers are efficacious?

For whom and how far are they efficacious?

How are we, theoretically, to conceive and explain their efficacy?

What disciplinary laws has the Church imposed regarding her public offices for the dead?

We shall state briefly what is needful to be said in answer to these questions, mindful of the admonition of the Council of Trent, to avoid in this matter those “more difficult and subtle questions that do not make for edification” (Sess. XXV).

A. WHAT PRAYERS ARE EFFICACIOUS?

The Sacrifice of the Mass has always occupied the foremost place among prayers for the dead, as will be seen from the testimonies quoted above; but in addition to the Mass and to private prayers, we have mention in the earliest times of almsgiving, especially in connection with funeral agapae, and of fasting for the dead (Kirsch, Die Lehre von der Gemeinschaft der Heiligen, etc., p. 171; Cabrol, Dictionnaire d’archeologie, I, 808–830). Believing in the communion of saints in which the departed faithful shared, Christians saw no reason for excluding them from any of the offices of piety which the living were in the habit of performing for one another. The only development to be noted in this connection is the application of Indulgences for the dead. Indulgences for the living were a development from the ancient penitential discipline, and were in use for a considerable time before we have any evidence of their being formally applied for the dead. The earliest instance comes from the year 1457. Without entering into the subject here, we would remark that the application of Indulgences for the dead, when properly understood and explained, introduces no new principle, but is merely an extension of the general principle underlying the ordinary practice of prayer and good works for the dead. The church claims no power of absolving the souls in purgatory from their pains, as on earth she absolves men from sins. It is only per modum suffragii, i.e. by way of prayer, that Indulgences avail for the dead, the Church adding her official or corporate intercession to that of the person who performs and offers the indulgenced work, and beseeching God to apply, for the relief of those souls whom the offerer intends, some portion of the superabundant satisfactions of Christ and His saints, or, in view of those same satisfactions, to remit some portion of their pains, in what measure may seem good to His own infinite mercy and love.

B. FOR WHOM AND HOW FAR ARE THEY EFFICACIOUS?

To those who die in wilful, unrepented mortal sin, which implies a deliberate turning away from God as the last end and ultimate good of man, Catholic teaching holds out no hope of eventual salvation by a course of probation after death. Eternal exile from the face of God is, by their own choice, the fate of such unhappy souls, and prayers are unavailing to reverse that awful doom. This was the explicit teaching of Christ, the meek and merciful Saviour, and the Church can but repeat the Master’s teaching (see HELL). But the Church does not presume to judge individuals, even those for whom, on other grounds, she refuses to offer her Sacrifice and her prayers [see below, (4)], while it may happen, on the contrary, that some of those for whom her oblations are made are among the number of the damned. What of such prayers? If they cannot avail to the ultimate salvation of the damned, may it at least be held that they are not entirely unavailing to procure some alleviation of their sufferings, some temporary refrigeria, or moments of mitigation, as a few Fathers and theologians have suggested? All that can be said in favour of this speculation is, that the Church has never formally reprobated it. But the great majority of theologians, following St. Thomas (In Sent. IV, xlv, q. ii, a. 2), consider it rash and unfounded. If certain words in the Offertory of the Mass for the Dead, “Lord Jesus Christ, deliver the souls of all the faithful departed from the pains of hell, and the deep abyss,” seem originally to have suggested an idea of deliverance from the hell of the damned, this is to be understood not of rescue, but of preservation from that calamity. The whole requiem Office is intensely dramatic, and in this particular prayer the Church suppliant is figured as accompanying the departed soul into the presence of its Judge, and praying, ere yet sentence is pronounced, for its deliverance from the sinner’s doom. On the other hand, prayers are needless for the blessed who already enjoy the vision of God face to face. Hence in the Early Church, as St. Augustine expressly assures us (Serm. cclxxv, 5, P.L., XXXVIII, 1295), and as is otherwise abundantly clear, prayers were not offered for martyrs, but to them, to obtain the benefit of their intercession, martyrdom being considered an act of perfect charity and winning as such an immediate entrance into glory. And the same is true of saints whom the Church has canonized: they no longer need the aid of our prayers on earth. It is only, then, for the souls in purgatory that our prayers are really beneficial. But we do not and cannot know the exact degree in which benefits actually accrue to them, collectively or individually. The distribution of the fruits of the communion of saints among the dead, as among the living, rests ultimately in the hands of God, and is one of the secrets of His economy. We cannot doubt that it is His will that we should pray not only for the souls in purgatory collectively, but individually with whom we have been bound on earth by special personal ties. Nor can we doubt the general efficacy of our rightly disposed prayers for our specially chosen ones as well as for those whom we leave it to Him to choose. This is sufficient to inspire and to guide us in our offices of charity and piety towards the dead; we may confidently commit the application of their fruits to the wisdom and justice of God.

C. HOW ARE WE, THEORETICALLY, TO CONCEIVE AND EXPLAIN THEIR EFFICACY?

For a theoretical statement of the manner in which prayers for the dead are efficacious we must refer to the articles MERIT and SATISFACTION, in which the distinction between these terms and their technical meanings will be explained. Since merit, in the strict sense, and satisfaction, as inseparable from merit, are confined to this life, it cannot be said in the strict sense that the souls in purgatory merit or satisfy by their own personal acts. But the purifying and expiatory value of their discipline of suffering, technically called satispassio, is often spoken of in a loose sense as satisfaction. Speaking of satisfaction in the rigorous sense, the living can offer to God, and by impetration move Him graciously to accept, the satisfactory value of their own good works on behalf of the souls in purgatory, or in view of it to remit some part of their discipline; in this sense we may be said to satisfy for the dead. But in order that the personal works of the living may have any satisfactory value, the agents must be in the state of grace. The prayers of the just are on this account more efficacious in assisting the dead than the prayers of those in sin, though it does not follow that the general impetratory efficacy is altogether destroyed by sin. God may hear the prayers of a sinner for others as well as for the supplicant himself. The Sacrifice of the Mass, however, retains its essential efficacy in spite of the sinfulness of the minister; ad the same is true in lesser degree, of the other prayers and offices offered by the Church’s ministers in her name.

D. CHURCH LAWS REGARDING PUBLIC OFFICES FOR THE DEAD

There is no restriction by Divine or ecclesiastical law as to those of the dead for whom private prayer may be offered—except that they may not be offered formally either for the blessed in heaven or for the damned. Not only for the faithful who have died in external communion with the Church, but for deceased non-Catholics, even the unbaptized, who may have died in the state of grace, one is free to offer his personal prayers and good works; nor does the Church’s prohibition of her public offices for those who have died out of external communion with her affect the strictly personal element in her minister’s acts. For all such she prohibits the public offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass (and of other liturgical offices); but theologians commonly teach that a priest is not forbidden to offer the Mass in private for the repose of the soul of any one who, judging by probable evidence, may be presumed to have died in faith and grace, provided, at least, he does not say the special requiem Mass with the special prayer in which the deceased is named, since this would give the offering a public and official character. This prohibition does not extend to catechumens who have died without being able to receive baptism (see, v.g., Lehmkuhl, “Theol. Moralis,” II, n. 175 sq.). For other cases in which the Church refuses her public offices for the dead, the reader is referred to the article CHRISTIAN BURIAL. (See also MASS; INDULGENCE; PURGATORY.)

III. PRACTICE IN THE BRITISH AND IRISH CHURCHES

The belief of our forefathers in the efficacy of prayers for the dead is most strikingly shown by the liturgy and ritual, in particular by the collects at Mass and by the burial service. See, for instance, the prayers in the Bobbio Missal, the Durham Ritual, Leofric’s Missal, the Salisbury Rite, the Stowe Missal, etc. But it should also be noted that this belief was clearly formulated, and that is was expressed by the people at large in numerous practices and customs. Thus, Venerable Bede declares that “some who for their good works have been preordained to the lot of the elect, but whom because of some bad deeds stained with which they went forth out of the body, are after death seized upon by the flames of the purgatorial fire, to be severely chastised, and either are being cleansed until the day of judgment from the filth of their vices by this long trial, or, being set free from punishment by the prayers, the alms-deeds, the fasts, the tears of faithful friends, they enter, undoubtedly before that time, into the rest of the blessed” (Homily xlix, ed. Martène, Thes. Aneed., p. 326).

The Council of Calcuth (816) ordained that at a bishop’s death the bell of every parish church should call the people together to sing thirty Psalms for the soul of the departed (Wilkins, Concilia, I, 171.). In the Missal of Leofric (d. 1072) are found special prayers varying according t the condition and sex of the departed. Archbishop Theodore (d. 690), in the penitential ascribed to him, and St. Dunstan (d. 988), in his “Concordia,” explain at length the commemoration of the departed on the third, seventh, and thirtieth day after death. The month’s mind (moneth’s mynde) in that age signified constant prayer for the dead person during the whole month following his decease. In every church was kept a “Book of Life,” or register of those to be prayed for, and it was read at the Offertory of the Mass. This catalogue was also known as the “bead-roll” and the prayers as “bidding the beads.” The “death-bill” was a list of the dead which was sent around at stated times from one monastery to another as a reminder of the agreement to pray for the departed fellow-members. These rolls were sometimes richly illustrated, and in passing from one religious house to another they were filled in with verses in honour of the deceased. The laity also were united in the fellowship or prayer for the dead through the guilds, which were organized in every parish. These associations enjoined upon their members various duties in behalf of the departed, such as taking part in the burial services, offering the Mass-penny, and giving assistance to the alms-folks, who were summoned at least twice a day to bid their beads at church for the departed fellows of the guild. Among other good works for the dead may be mentioned: the “soul-shot,” a donation of money to the church at which the funeral service took place, the “doles,” i.e. alms distributed to the poor, the sick, and the aged for the benefit of a friend’s soul; the founding of chantries (q.v.) for the support of one or more priests who were to offer Mass daily for the founder’s soul; and the “certain,” a smaller endowment which secured for the donor’s special benefit the recitation of the prayers usually said by the priest for all the faithful departed. The universities were often the recipients of benefactions, e.g. to their libraries, the terms of which included prayers for the donor’s soul; and these obligations are set down in the university statutes. These various forms of charity were practised not only by the common people but also, and on a very generous scale, by the nobility and royalty. Besides the bequests they made, they often provided in their will for granting freedom to a certain number of bondmen, and left lands to the Church on condition that the anniversary of their death should be kept by fasting, prayer, and the celebration of Masses. For a more complete account see Lingard, “History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church,” ch. ix; and Rock, “The Church of Our Fathers” (London, 1852), II, III.

Strange as it must seem to any one acquainted with the history of Ireland, various attempts have been made to prove that in the early Irish Church the practice of praying for the dead was unknown. Notable among these is Ussher’s “Discourse of the Religion anciently professed by the Irish and British” (1631; Vol. IV of “Complete Works,” Dublin, 1864). Cf. Killen, “The Ecclesiastical History of Ireland” (London, 1875), I; and Cathcart, “The Ancient British and Irish Churches” (London, 1894). The weakness of Ussher’s argument has been shown by several Catholic writers, e.g. Lanigan, “Ecclesiastical History of Ireland” (Dublin, 864), appendix. More careful study has convinced competent non-Catholic writers also that “to pray for the dead was a recognized custom in the ancient Celtic as in every other portion of the primitive Church” (Warren, The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church, Oxford, 1881). This statement is borne out by various documents. The Synod of St. Patrick (“Synodus alia S. Patricii” in Wilkins, “Concilia”) declares, ch. vii: “Hear the Apostle saying: “there is a sin unto death; I do not say that for it any one do pray.” And the Lord: “Do not give the holy to dogs.” For he who did not deserve to receive the Sacrifice during life, how can it help him after his death?” The reference to the custom of offering Mass for the departed is obvious; the synod discriminates between those who had observed, and those who had neglected, the laws of the Church concerning the reception of the Eucharist.

Still more explicit is the declaration found in the ancient collection of canons known as the “Hibernensis” (seventh or eighth century): “Now the Church offers to the Lord in many ways; firstly, for herself, secondly for the Commemoration of Jesus Christ who says “Do this for a commemoration of me,” and thirdly, for the souls of the departed” (Bk. II, ch. ix; Wasserschleben, “Die irische Kononensammlung,” 2nd. ed., Leipzig, 1885). In the fifteenth book of the “Hibernensis,” entitled “On Care for the Dead,” there is a first chapter “On the four ways in which the living assist the dead.” Quoting from Origen, it is said that “the souls of the departed are released in four ways: by the oblations of priests or bishops to God, by the prayers of Saints, by the alms of Christians, by the fasting of friends.” There follow eight chapters entitled: (2) On those for whom we should offer; (3) On sacrificing for the dead; (4) On prayer for the dead; (5) On fasting for the dead; (6) On almsgiving for the dead; (7) On the value of a redeemed soul; (8) On not seeking remission after death when it has not been sought for in life; (9) On the care of those who have been snatched away by sudden death (Wasserschleben, op. cit.). Each of these chapters cites passages from the Fathers—Augustine, Gregory, Jerome—thus showing that the Irish maintained the belief and practice of the Early Church. that prayers were to be offered only for those who died in the Faith is evident from certain prescriptions in St. Cummian’s Penitential according to which a bishop or abbot was not to be obeyed if he commanded a monk to sing Mass for deceased heretics; likewise, if it befell a priest singing Mass that another, in reciting the names of the dead, included heretics with the Catholic departed, the priest, on becoming aware of this was to perform a week’s penance. In the Leabhar Breae, various practices on behalf of the faithful departed are commended. “There is nothing which one does on behalf of the soul of him who has died that doth not help it, both prayer on knees, and abstinence and singing requiems and frequent blessings. Some are bound to do penance for their deceased parents.” (Whitley Stokes, Introd. to “Vita Tripartita”). It is not, then, surprising that the Irish Culdees of the eighth century has as part of their duty to offer “intercessions, in the shape of litanies, on behalf of the living and the dead” (Rule of the Culdees, ed. Reeves, Dublin, 1864, p. 242). The old Irish civil law (Senchus Mor, A.D. 438–441) provided that the Church should offer requiem for all tenants of ecclesiastical lands. But no such enactments were needed to stir up individual piety.

Devotion to the souls departed is a characteristic that one meets continually in the lives of the Irish saints. In the life of St. Ita, written about the middle of the seventh century, it is related that the soul of her uncle was released from purgatory through her earnest prayers and the charity which, at her instance, his eight sons bestowed (Colgan, Acta SS. Hiberniae, pp. 69–70).

St. Pulcherius (Mochoemog), in the seventh century, prayed for the repose of the soul of Ronan, a chieftain of Ele, and recommended the faithful to do likewise. In the life of St. Brendan, quoted, singularly enough, by Ussher, we read, “that the prayer of the living doth profit much the dead.” In the “Acta S. Brendani,” edited by Cardinal Moran, the following prayer is given (p. 39):

Vouchsafe to the souls of my father and mother, my brothers, sisters, and relations, and of my friends, enemies and benefactors, living and dead, remission of all their sins, and particularly those persons for whom I have undertaken to pray.

At the death of St. Columbanus (615), his disciple, St. Gall, said: After this night’s watch, I understood by a vision that my master and father, Columbanus, today departed out of the miseries of this life into the joys of paradise. For his repose, therefore, the sacrifice of salvation ought to be offered; and “at a signal from the bell [the brethren] entered the oratory, prostrated themselves in prayer and began to say masses and to offer earnest petitions in commemoration of the blessed Columbanus” (Walafrid Strabo, Vita B. Galli, I, Cap. xxvi). Cathcart (op. cit., 332) cites only the words narrating the vision, and says: “they show conclusively that heaven was the immediate home after death of all the early Christians of Great Britain and Ireland.” But the truth is that praying for the dead was a traditional part of the religious life. Thus, when St. Gall himself died, a bishop who was his intimate friend offered the Holy Sacrifice for him—“pro carissimo salutares hostias immolavit amico” (ibid., ch. xxx). The same is recorded of St. Columba when he learned of the death of Columbanus of Leinster (Adamnan, Vita S. Col., III, 12). These facts are the more significant because they show that prayers were offered even for those who had been models of holy living. Other evidences are furnished in donations to monasteries, ancient inscriptions on gravestones, and the requests for prayers with which the writers of manuscripts closed their volumes. These and the like pious practices were after all but other means of expressing what the faithful heard day by day at the memento for the dead in the Mass, when prayer was offered for those “who have gone before us with the sign of faith and rest in the sleep of peace” (Stowe Missal). (See Salmon, “The Ancient Irish Church,” Dublin, 1897; Bellesheim, “Gesch. d. katholischen Kirche in Irland,” Mainz, 1890, I, and bibliography there given.) In addition to works mentioned in the text see, among theologians: BELLARMINE, De Purgatorio, Bk. II: PERRONE, Praelectiones Theol., De Deo Creatore, n. 683 sq.; JUNGMANN, De Novissimis, n. 104 sq.; CHR. PESCH, Praelectiones Dogmat., IX, n. 607 sq.; also BERNARD and BOUR, Communion des Saints in Dict. de theologie cath.; GIBBONS, The Faith of Our Fathers (Baltimore, 1871), xvi. To the historical authorities mentioned should be added ATZBERGER, Geschichte der christlichen Eschatologie innerhalb der vornicanischen Zeit (Freiburg im Br., 1896). Cf. also OXENHAM, Catholic Eschatology (2nd ed., London, 1878), ii; and among Anglicans, LUCKOCK, After Death (new ed., London, 1898), Part I; and PLUMPTRE, The Spirits in Prison and other Studies on the Life after Death (popular ed., London, 1905), ix.

P. J. TONER.

Dead Sea

The name given to the lake that lies on the south-eastern border of Palestine. The Old Testament makes frequent reference to it under a variety of titles; once only, however, by its present one. The Vulgate’s rendering of Josue (iii, 16) reads, mare solitudinis (quod nunc vocatur Mortuum) translated in the D.V. “the sea of the wilderness (which now is called the Dead Sea).” In the Septuagint the verse reads ten thalassan Araba, thalassan halos, which the A.V. gives thus: “towards the sea of the plain, even the salt sea” and the R.V., “the sea of the Arabah, even the salt sea.” In Joel (ii, 20) the prophet speaks of “the east sea”; and the apocryphal Fourth Book of Esdras (v, 7) speaks of the mare Sodomiticum—the Sodomitish Sea. Josephus, Pliny, and other profane writers, among other names, called it the Lake of Asphalt; Asphaltitis limne and Lacus Asphaltites. The present-day inhabitants of its vicinity call it Bahr Lut—the Sea of Lot.

The Dead Sea is the final link of the chain of rivers and lakes that lies in the valley of the Jordan. Taking its rise on the southern slopes of Mt. Hermon, the Jordan in its southern course first spreads out into Lake Merom, emerging from which it flows into the Lake of Tiberias, whence it descends into the Dead Sea. To convey a proper idea of the size and shape of the Dead Sea travellers often compare it to the Lake of Geneva. The resemblance between the two is striking in almost every particular. The great lake of the Holy Land is forty-seven miles long and about ten miles across at its widest part. Its area is approximately 360 square miles. The surface of the water is 1292 feet below the level of the Mediterranean, which is only a few miles to the west. This extraordinary feature alone singles out the Dead Sea from all other bodies of water. A low-lying peninsula about ten miles wide, called el-Lisan, “the tongue,” which runs out from the south-eastern shore to within three miles of the opposite shore, divides the sea into two unequal parts. The northern and larger part is very deep, reaching at one point a depth of 1310 feet. The southern bay is, on the contrary, very shallow, averaging hardly a depth of thirteen feet. In two places it is possible to cross from the peninsula to the opposite shore by means of two fords which are known to the Arabs.

The water in the Dead Sea is salt. Every day the Jordan and other affluents pour into it over six and one half million tons of fresh water. There is, however, no outlet to the ocean, and the sole agent whereby this increase is disposed of is evaporation. The power of the sun’s rays in this great pit is, however, so intense that save for a small fluctuation between the wet and dry seasons, the level of the sea does not change, despite the great volume that is added to it. In the water that remains after evaporation solid matters make up 26 per cent of the whole; 7 per cent being chloride of sodium (common salt), the rest being chiefly chlorides of magnesium, calcium, and derivatives of bromium. The chloride of magnesium gives the water a very loathsome taste; the chloride of calcium an oily appearance. The specific gravity of the water is 1.166. The presence of so much salt explains well the weird name of the sea, since save for a few microbes, no organic life can exist in it. Even fish from the ocean perish when put into it. The human body will not sink below the surface. Bathing, however, in the Dead Sea can hardly be styled a pleasure, as the water is very irritating to the skin and eyes. There is, it need hardly be said, no foundation for the statement sometimes made, that birds cannot fly across the water, as occasionally sea-birds can be seen resting on its surface. From time to time large quantities of bitumen rise to the surface from the bottom. Bitumen is also found along the shores and is referred to in Genesis (xiv, 10) where it speaks of the puteos multos bituminis—“many pits of slime.” This feature caused the ancients to speak of the sea as the “Lake of Asphalt.”

The Dead Sea is mentioned in the Old Testament mostly as a boundary. Its formation comes into discussion in the Book of Genesis (xiv, 3) where, speaking of the kings against whom Chodorlahomor fought, the text says: “All these came together into the woodland vale, which is now the salt sea.” According to the geologists who have explored the region, the formation of this depression of the earth’s surface does not date from any historical period, but from the later tertiary or early quaternary period. Their theory is that at some remote time the western part of this region, owing to some profound disturbance of the strata, sank far below the eastern part, thus causing the great dissimilarity of the strata of the two sides of the sea. Besides this, the beds of gypsum, marl, flint, and alluvium found at different heights all along the Jordan valley indicate at that one time the entire valley, from the Lake of Tiberias to the Dead Sea, was a lake. Just what were the conditions at the time of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha is only a matter of conjecture. But the words of the text, taken as they stand, prove that in the great catastrophe there was an inundation from the sea. The mooted question as to the sites of Sodom and Gomorrha does not properly enter into this article.

It is a very strange sight that this region presents to the eye, especially when seen from some height. On the eastern and western sides great mountains rise up in some places sheer from the water. To the north, the silvery line of the Jordan can be traced as far as the eye can reach. To the south, the hills of solid salt, called Jebel Usdum—Mt. Sodom—and, on a clear day, mountains close to the Red Sea may be seen. Now all is deserted and dead. No vegetation or sign of human occupation greets the traveller. In other days the scene was different. Vessels plied the surface of the sea and many people lived near its shores. The prophecies of Esechiel (xlvii) and of Zacharies (xiv, 8) give one subject of thought on the scene here when the life-giving streams pouring forth from the Temple will have transformed it anew.

SMITH, Hist. Geog. of the Holy Land (London, 1895); BULL, Memoir on the Physical Geology and Geography of Arabia Petrœa, Palestine, etc. (London, 1886, Mount Seir, 1889); LYNCH, Narrative of the U. S. Expedition to . . . the Dead Sea (Washington, 1849); Official Report of the U. S. Expedition, etc. (Washington, 1852); DE LUYNES, Voyage d’ Exploration à la Mer Morte (1875 LARTET, Geologie, in Vol. III of the collection of Duc de Luynes; DE SAULCY, Voyage autour de la Mer Morte (1853); TRISTRAM, The Land of Israel (London, 1882); VIGOUROUX, Manuel Biblique (Paris, 1901), I, 678; Les Livres Saints et la critique rationaliste, 5th ed., IV, 311; GAUTIER in Ency. Biblica, I, col. 1042.

JOSEPH V. MOLLOY.

Dean

(Gk. déka, ten; Lat. decanus).

One of the principal administrative officials of a diocese. The term was first used to denote a military officer having authority over ten soldiers; in the fourth century it came to be used as a title for certain minor officials in the imperial household. A completely civil aspect was given to the office in Anglo-Saxon times in England, the dean having jurisdiction within his district or tithing for trials of first instance.

In the monastic life we find the term used by St. Benedict (Rule, c. xxi) to denote a monk who was placed over ten other monks, his duty being to see that their work was properly done and that they observed the rules of the house in which they were living. The custom which the monks thus introduced soon found its counterpart in diocesan pastoral work. The early Christian communities were always desirous of uniting themselves to the urban bishop, but for people who lived far away from the city communication with the bishop was naot always easy; hence they were provided for by the appointment of a priest or deacon whose position was sometimes permanent, sometimes temporary. These ecclesiastics were merely assistants to the bishop and in the early fourth century became known as chorepiscopi. Special decrees were made concerning them at the Councils of Ancyra (314) and Antioch (341). The chorepiscopi, though frequently having the charge of several parishes, were nevertheless always subject to the bishop of that city from whom they received their jurisdiction. They could only confer minor orders. Most of them were simple priests, but they had extensive faculties. (See Gillmann, “Die Chorbischöfe im Orient,” Munich, 1903.) For the East the office of chorepiscopus was abolished at the Council of Laodicea (between 343 and 381) because episcopal rights had been usurped by many who held the office; in their place (can. lvii) were substituted circuitores, visitatores. But it was only in and after the eighth century that it finally disappeared in the East, though yet customary among the Jacobites. In the West, during and after the tenth century, there appeared another representative officer, the archdeacon, who took the chief burden in administering the temporal affairs of the diocese and enjoyed, after the bishop, the greatest consideration. He was present at councils as the representative of the bishop, and on the death of the bishop he became the administrator of the diocese, to which he usually succeeded.

The immediate administrative necessities of the numerous rural parishes were provided for by the appointment of several archpriests, who represented either the bishop or the archdeacon, and were originally the priests having charge of baptismal churches. In the West, after the restoration of the vita canonica in the latter half of the eighth century, their number and influence grew. They were charged with the supervision of ecclesiastical life and conduct, with the execution of episcopal commands, and were wont to convoke more or less frequently the clergy of their district (capitula ruralia, concilia, calendœ;). They made a yearly report to the bishop. It is to these ancient offices that the modern dean has succeeded (see Sägmüller, Entwickelung des Archipresbyterats, 1898). There are at present two classes of deans: deans of chapters (cathedral or collegiate) and deans of parochial districts. The latter act as representatives of the bishop in certain matters, as heads of aggregations of parishes, either urban or rural. The dean is also known by the name of vicar forane (vicarius foraneus).

RURAL DEANS

In the Catholic Church it is to be noted that the dean has only delegated jurisdiction, restricted to a particular area and to certain matters specified by the bishop. His powers are generally determined by the diocesan statutes, by custom, or by special mandate of the bishop. In countries where canon law is in full force deans have power to dispense and absolve in certain cases. They can also institute an inquiry or informative process to be afterwards transmitted to the bishop. Furthermore, they are to see that the churches in their district are well-ordered both in spiritual and in temporal affairs, and they can grant leave of absence to priests for short periods. They also have charge of the solemn installation of parish priests, care for them in grave illness, and provide for their decent burial. They possess also, in some places, certain honorary rights, e.g. precedence, and occasionally some distinction in dress. In countries where canon law is not in full vigour the powers and rights of rural deans vary greatly; in fact, each diocese may be said to have its own peculiar customs and regulations. In some English dioceses the deans merely preside at the monthly conference; in others the bishop gives them faculties to dispense in certain cases, and they have care of the temporalities of the churches in their districts when there is a change of rector. In Ireland the deans can grant certain dispensations, and absolve from reserved sins; they also have to guard against the growth of abuses among the clergy. They transmit to the clergy the orders of the bishop and render to him an annual account as to the state of the parishes in their care. Quite similar are the provisions of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (cap. iv, nos. 27–30) for the office of dean in the United States.

DEANS OF CHAPTERS

The first dignitary of a chapter is variously styled. Sometimes he is called archdeacon, or archpriest; in other places he is called the provost or dean. The office is in the appointment of the pope. The dean takes precedence of all the other members of the chapter in choir and processions and deliberations. His rights or prerogatives are to celebrate Mass when the bishop is prevented from so doing. He also administers the last sacraments to the ordinary and celebrates the funeral Mass. During Divine Office he gives the signal to commence etc., and he also corrects mistakes and remedies abuses at variance with the diocesan decrees and local approved custom. He is bound to be present in choir and to give a good example to the chapter, both in his behaviour and in the manner in which he recites or sings the various portions of the Divine liturgy.

In modern Catholic universities the dean is an officer chosen by the professors of his faculty to represent them as a body, to preside over their meetings, and to supervise the regularity of the ordinary academic exercises. His authority is based partly on the papal documents of foundation, partly on the enactments of the university authorities, and partly on custom.

The following are the decanal offices now existing in the Church of England: honorary deans, e. g. the dean of the Chapels Royal; dean of peculiars, i.e. having jurisdiction but no cure of souls; provincial dean, an office always held by the (Protestant) Bishop of London; deans of chapters, who rule over the canons of cathedral or collegiate churches, and are bound to be in residence for eight months in the year; rural deans who act as deputies for the bishop or archdeacon. In the English universities (Cambridge, Oxford), the dean has the care of the discipline of the college and the arranging of the chapel services.

(See also;;; . For the office of Dean of the Sacred College, see CARDINAL.)

Bargilliat, Prœ;lect. Jur. eccl. (24th ed., Paris, 1907); Deshayes, Memento Juris eccl. (Paris, 1897); AThomassen, Vetus ac nova ecc. discipl. III, lib. II; Benedict XIV, De synodo diœ;cesanâ III, 3; Bouis, De capitulis (Paris, 1862); Wernz, Jus decretalium, II, 1013 sqq.; Von Scherer, Handbuch d. Kirchenrechts (Graz, 1886), I, 618–22; Rev. cath. de Louvain, 1863, III; Phillimore, Eccl. Laws of the Church of England (London, 1873). See the fActa et Decreta of the Synods of Westminster, Maynooth (1900), the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884), and the important Acts of the Roman Council of 1725; Canon Law, Rural Deans in Am. Eccl. Rev. (Philadelphia, 1890), 90–97.

DAVID DUNFORD.

Ven. William Dean

Born in Yorkshire, England, date uncertain, martyred 28 August, 1588. He studied at Reims and was ordained priest at Soissons, 21 December, 1581, together with the martyrs George Haydock and Robert Nutter. Their ordination coincided with the time that the news of Campion’s martyrdom reached the college. Dean said his first Mass 9 January and left for England 25 January, 1581. He is called by Champney “a man distinguished by the soundness of his morals and learning.” He was banished with a number of other priests in 1585, put ashore on the coast of Normandy, and threatened with death if he dared to go back to England. Nevertheless he quickly returned to his labours there and was again arrested, tried, and condemned for his priesthood, 22 August, 1588. The failure of the Spanish Armada, in spite of the loyalty manifested by English Catholics at that crisis, brought about a fierce persecution and some twenty-seven martyrs suffered that year. Six new gibbets were erected in London, it is said at Leicester’s instigation, and Dean, who had been condemned with five other priests and four laymen, was the first to suffer on the gallows erected at Mile End. With him suffered a layman, the Venerable Henry Webley, for relieving and assisting him. At the martyrdom Dean tried to speak to the people, “but his mouth was stopped by some that were in the cart, in such a violent manner that they were like to have prevented the hangman of his wages.” Seven martyrs suffered on the same day. Leicester died on 5 September, within a week of their execution.

CHALLONER, Missionary Priests (1741), I, 209; STOW, Annales (1615), 749; Douay Diaries; MORRIS, Troubles of Our Catholic Forefathers, II, 72, 156, 157.

BEDE CAMM

Thomas Dease

Born in Ireland, 1568; died at Galway, 1651. He sprang from an ancient Irish family at one time possessing considerable landed property in Cavan and Westmeath. In youth he acquired some proficiency in the Irish language, in which language he wrote some poems. Having determined to become a priest, he proceeded to Paris, where after ordination he spent the first years of his priesthood. During this time he became rector of the Irish Seminary, the precursor of the present Irish College. In 1622 he was consecrated Bishop of Meath, returning to Ireland the same year. In spite of persecution and penal laws he continued loyal to England and preached loyalty to his flock. He regarded with disfavour the Confederation of Kilkenny, and resisted all the arguments and entreaties of the primate to join it. This conduct brought him toleration, if not favour, from the Government, though it made him unpopular with his Catholic fellow-countrymen. And it specially annoyed the nuncio, Rinuccini, who charged him with having sown the seeds of enmity between the Confederate generals Preston and O’Neill. The news of Dease’s death was therefore received, in 1648, by the nuncio with little regret. But the news turned out false, and the nuncio writing to Rome reported that the bishop still lived “to try the patience of the good.”

BRADY, Episcopal Succession (Rome, 1876); MEEHAN, Irish Hierarchy in the Seventeenth Century (Dublin, 1872); GILBERT, History of Irish Affairs (Dublin, 1880); BOYLE, The Irish College in Paris (Dublin, 1901); HUTTON, The Embassy to Ireland (Dublin, 1873).

E. A. D’ALTON.

Preparation for Death

The basic preparation for death

When should a priest be called?

Winding up our earthly affairs

Confession

Viaticum

Extreme Unction

The “last blessing”

As death approaches

Cases of special need

In medieval England

THE BASIC PREPARATION FOR DEATH

Spiritual writers are as one in declaring that ordinarily the only adequate preparation for death is a righteous life. It is a commonplace with them that the tendency to think of this preparation as a set exercise without much, if any, reference to one’s previous career represents a miserable error. There is no way, of course, to combat the obviousness of this position.

Nevertheless, in what follows here we are contemplating that array of actions, mental and moral attitudes, ministrations, etc. which are commonly rated as the proximate making ready for the coming of the supreme moment. No matter how carefully conformed to the law of God and the precepts of the Church one’s life may have been, no Christian will want to enter eternity without some immediate forearming against the terrors of that last passage.

WHEN SHOULD A PRIEST BE CALLED?

We shall deal first with the case of those to whom the dread summons comes after an illness which has not bereft them of consciousness. The Roman Ritual is explicit in its injunction to the pastor to hasten to the bedside of the sick person at the first intimation that one of his flock is ill. This he is to do without even waiting for an invitation: “Cum primum noverit quempiam ex fidelibus curae suae commissis aegrotare, non exspectabit ut ad eum vocetur, sed ultro ad eum accedat” (I, cap. iv). Indeed, it is impossible to unduly accentuate the importance of this timely coming of the priest to offer opportune spiritual succours to the one who is ill. Practically, in the actual conditions of modern life, it must often happen that the priest can only know of this need for his services through information furnished by the relatives or friends of the sick person. They, therefore, have a very definite obligation in this matter.

Too often there is a mistaken interpretation of the claims of affection or, even worse, a weakly surrender to a lamentable human respect, and so the minister of God is sent for, if at all, only when the patient is unconscious, and death is imminent. For the Catholic Christian, getting ready for death is not simply the being submitted passively to the administration of certain religious rites. It is, as far as may be, the conscious, deliberate employment of prayer; the forming or deepening of a special temper of soul and acceptance of such sacramental help as will fit the human spirit to appear with some confidence before its Judge.

Hence the failure to call the clergyman in time may, far from being an exhibition of tenderness or consideration, be the most irreparable of cruelties. To be sure it is not always necessary that the patient should be told that his case is past remedy; even when the approach of death is fairly discernible, and even when such distressing information must for any reason be conveyed, there is room for the exercise of a great deal of prudence and tact. It may be that the sick person will have important affairs to set in order, and that a hint of the probability of a fatal issue of his illness will be the only adequate stimulus to quicken him into a discharge of his obligations. In such instances it may be not only a kindness but a duty to impart such knowledge straightforwardly, but gently. It is plain that a special measure of delicacy is necessary when this office falls to the attending priest to perform.

WINDING UP OUR EARTHLY AFFAIRS

Beyond question it is of paramount importance that all such matters as the disposition of temporalities, payment of debts, satisfaction of burdens of restitution, etc. should have been settled so as to leave an undivided attention for the momentous considerations which are to engage the mind of the one who is presently to pass through the portals of death into eternity.

CONFESSION

So far as priestly assistance goes the first step in the process of preparation for death is the receiving of the patient’s confession and the conferring of sacramental absolution. Indeed, inasmuch as it offers the ordinary means of reconciliation with God, it is the most indispensable factor in helping the soul to qualify for its departure from the body. The Roman Ritual (I, cap. iv, 8) indicates that the priest is to draw upon all the resources of his prudence and charity in order to obtain a confession from the sick person, even though the danger apprehended be as yet remote.

The confession need not necessarily be of the sort that is described as general, unless, of course, the reasons exist that would make it obligatory at any other time of life as well. It will often be useful where, with due regard to the remaining strength of the stricken penitent, it is possible to make, at least in some sense, this general avowal of the sins of one’s life. Whether there be question of a general confession or merely the ordinary one, the clergyman has often to remember that in this trying juncture the Divine precept exacting entirety in the recital of offenses admits of more than usually benignant interpretation.

Where the person is incapable of sustained mental effort without serious prejudice to his failing powers, the priest need give himself no scruple about being satisfied with incomplete, or less specific, forms of accusation. The law of integrity is not to be rigorously urged under such circumstances. Even when nothing but the most general acknowledgment of one’s sinful condition can be obtained, it is incontrovertible that in the premises this is a valid substitute for a more detailed confession.

VIATICUM

After the confession comes the reception of the Holy Eucharist as viaticum (per modum viatici). “Sacred writers,” according to the Catechism of the Council of Trent, “called it ‘the Viaticum,’ as well because it is the spiritual bread by which we are supported in our mortal pilgrimage, as also because it prepares for us a passage to eternal glory and happiness.” The concordant teaching of theologians, as well as the inference from the uniform discipline of the Church, is that there is a Divine precept binding one to receive the Holy Eucharist when in danger of death.

At this time the communicant is exempted from the traditional natural fast. The Council of Constance witnesses to the custom of the Church in this matter, and the Roman Ritual (I, cap. iv, 4) says: “potest quidem Viaticum brevi morituris dari non jejunis.” This privilege may be enjoyed repeatedly by the dying person during the illness. Strictly speaking, it is not extended to persons whose danger of death comes from a cause other than sickness, such as soldiers about to engage in battle or criminals about to be executed= Still, even they, as appears from a declaration of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, 21 July, 1841, may receive the Viaticum even though they are not fasting, if they find any considerable difficulty in observing the law.

So far as is possible, nothing should be omitted which can help to confer upon the administration of the Viaticum becoming solemnity. This is all the more desirable in that sometimes the demeanor of those who are present on such occasions, and even of the sick person, is not such as to betray any very alert sense of the Presence that has come to hallow this last stage of life’s journey. It is needless to add that whatever the enlightened zeal of the priest or the careful piety of the bystanders can suggest ought to be done to awaken in the communicant a special degree of fervour, a more than ordinarily penetrating faith and ardent love on the occasion of what may be his final eating of the Bread of Life.

EXTREME UNCTION

There follows the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, or anointing, as it is popularly designated.

Here the clergyman may find himself confronted with prejudices which in spite of reiterated explanations seem to have an extraordinary vitality. His announcement that he purposes to anoint the sick person is often accepted by the patient and his friends as the reading of the death-warrant. It is necessary to point out that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction gives health not only to the soul, but also sometimes to the body. The basis for the teaching is of course to be found in the well-known utterance of St. James (v, 14, 15): “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him.”

Anciently it was the custom to confer this sacrament before the Viaticum; the maintenance of the existing usage has been prescribed by the Roman Ritual (V, cap. i, 2). Although the existence of a precept to receive this sacrament cannot be established, still the failure to avail oneself of its efficacy out of sheer sloth would be a venial sin. It cannot be administered more than once during the same illness, unless, after some notable betterment which has either certainly or probably taken place, a new danger should supervene. In chronic diseases, therefore, such as tuberculosis, it will often happen that the sacrament may and ought to be repeated because of the recurrence of what is, morally speaking, a new danger.

According to the discipline in vogue in the Latin Church, the unctions essential to the validity of the sacrament are those of the organs of the five senses—the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, and hands. There is a diversity in the custom as to the unctions to be added to those already enumerated; in the United States, besides the parts mentioned, only the feet are anointed=

The sick-room ought to be made ready for the visit of the priest on the occasion of his giving the last sacrament, it can at least be cleaned and aired. On a table covered with a white cloth there ought to be a lighted blessed candle, a crucifix, a glass of water, a spoon, a vessel containing holy water, and a towel. According to the rubric of the Roman Ritual the priest is to remind those who are present to pray for the sick person during the anointing, and it suggests that the Seven Penitential Psalms with the litanies might be employed for this purpose.

Extreme unction, like other sacraments, produces sanctifying grace in the soul. It has, however, certain results proper to itself. Of these the principal one seems to be the getting rid of that spiritual torpor and weakness which are the baneful output of actual sin, and which would be such a serious handicap in this supreme moment. From the viewpoint of the Christian, the struggle to be maintained with the devil is now more formidable than ever, and a special endowment of heaven-sent strength is necessary for the soul’s final victory.

THE “LAST BLESSING”

The anointing is ordinarily succeeded by the conferring of the Apostolic benediction, or “last blessing,” as it is commonly called. To this blessing a plenary indulgence is attached, to be gained, however, only at the hour of death, i e. it is given nunc pro tunc. It is conferred in virtue of a special faculty granted to the bishops and by them delegated quite generally to their priests. The conditions requisite for gaining it are the invocation of the Holy Name of Jesus at least mentally, acts of resignation by which the dying person professes his willingness to accept all his sufferings in reparation for his sins and submits himself entirely to the will of God.

AS DEATH APPROACHES

The cardinal disposition of soul at the approach of death are: a frequent eliciting of the acts of faith, hope, love, and contrition; a striving towards a more and more perfect conformity with the will of God and the constant maintaining of a penitential spirit. The words of St. Augustine are in point: “ However innocent your life may have been, no Christian ought to venture to die in any other state than that of the penitent.”

As the hour of the agony approaches, the clergyman, according to the Roman Ritual, is to be called to pronounce the pathetically beautiful “Recommendation of a departing soul.” Where the presence of the priest cannot for any reason be had, these prayers ought not to be omitted; they are nowadays easily obtainable in the vernacular and ought to be recited by those who watch beside the deathbed. The dying person should be invited to join in these petitions, without, however, harassing or fatiguing him.

As the person is about to expire, the Ritual directs those who are by to pray more earnestly than ever; the Holy Name of Jesus is to be invoked, and such ejaculations as the following whispered in his ear: “Into thy hands, Lord, I commend my spirit”; “O Lord, Jesus Christ, receive my spirit”; “Holy Mary, pray for me”; “Mary Mother of grace, Mother of mercy, do thou protect me from the enemy and receive me at the hour of my death.”

CASES OF SPECIAL NEED

When death is apprehended as imminent after a sudden seizure even in the act of sin, an accident, attempted suicide, and the like, and the person is meanwhile deprived of consciousness, the method of proceeding is as follows: Conditional absolution is imparted, Viaticum of course is omitted, as it is likewise when the person, though in possession of his senses, is subject to an almost unintermittent vomiting. Extreme unction and the last blessing are given as usual. In such an extremity, when the person is unable to make a confession, extreme unction may prove to be the most effective and necessary means of alleviation.

It is interesting to note that recent investigations have made it plain that it is no longer possible to determine even within a considerable margin the precise moment of death. Father Ferreres, S. J., in his work, gathers as the conclusion of his researches that the only absolutely certain sign of death is decomposition. The practical value of this statement is that absolution and extreme unction may be given conditionally for some time after the person would have hitherto been reputed to be dead.

In what has been said, it is taken for granted that the person to be gotten ready for death is baptized. If this is not so, or if there be a doubt about it, either as to fact or validity, then of course baptism must first be administered, either absolutely or conditionally, as the case warrants after some instruction on the principal truths of religion. Baptism may be conferred conditionally on those who are unconscious in as far as they can be presumed to have the desire of receiving it.

It is perhaps worth while to add here that, when there is question of the dying, it is the mind of the Church that her minister should avail himself of any sort of probability, no matter how slight, in order to be able to give absolution, at least conditionally. He then applies with great amplitude the principle, Sacramenta propter homines. Practically, therefore, the only case in which the priest in these circumstances may not absolve is when the person refuses the sacraments, or is manifestly discerned to have a perverse disposition of soul.

IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND

Lingard, in his “Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church,” gives a description of the discipline in force among the Anglo-Saxons of the medieval period with regard to the preparation of the dying for the end.

He says: “At the first appearance of danger, recourse was had to the ministry of the parish priest or of some distinguished clergyman in the neighborhood. He was bound to obey the summons and no plea but that. of inability could justify his negligence. Attended by his inferior clergy, arrayed in the habits of their respective orders, he repaired to the chamber of the sick man, offered him the sacred rites of religion and exhorted him to prepare his soul to appear before the tribunal of his Creator.

“The first duty which he was bound to require from his dying disciple was the arrangement of his temporal concerns. Till provision had been made for the payment of his debts and the indemnification of those whom he had injured, it was in vain to solicit the succours of religion, but as soon as these obligations had been fulfilled the priest was ordered to receive his confession, to teach him to form sentiments of compunction and resignation, to exact from him a declaration that he died in peace with all mankind, and to pronounce over him the prayer of reconciliation.

“Thus prepared he might with confidence demand the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. With consecrated oil the principal parts of the body were successively anointed in the form of a cross; each unction was accompanied with an appropriate prayer and the promise of St. James was renewed, ‘that the prayer of faith should save the sick man and if he be in sins they should be forgiven.’

“The administration of the Eucharist concluded these religious rites at the termination of which the friends of the sick man ranged themselves around his bed, received the presents which he distributed among them as memorials of his affection, and gave him the kiss of peace and bade him a last and melancholy farewell.”

Dr. Lingard mentions a curious attitude with regard to extreme unction as prevalent among the illiterate Anglo-Saxons of this time. He says, “It [extreme unction] appears to have been sometimes received with reluctance by the illiterate from an idea that it was a kind of ordination which induced the obligation of continency and abstinence from flesh on those who afterwards recovered. The clergy were ordered to preach against the erroneous notion.”

(See also VIATICUM; EXTREME UNCTION.)

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Debbora

Prophetess and judge: she was the wife of Lapidoth and was endowed by God with prophetic gifts which secured for her the veneration of the divided Israelitic tribes and gave her great authority over them. Her wisdom was first displayed in settling litigious matters submitted to her: “She sat under a palm-tree, which was called by her name, between Rama and Bethel, in Mount Ephraim, and the children of Israel came up to her for all judgment” (Judges, iv, 5). Debbora was thus a judge in the ordinary sense of the word. In the case of the other persons whose history is recorded in the book of Judges, the title seems to be given them as “deliverers and leaders” of the chosen people, no mention being made of ordinary judicial functions; but it was rather the confidence inspired by Debbora in the discharge of such functions which enabled her to bring about the deliverance of the nation, which was then suffering under the oppression of the Chanaanites.

The main army of the enemy was rendered particularly formidable by the fact that it possessed nine hundred iron chariots. It was commanded by Sisara, whose headquarters were at Haroseth, probably identical with the actual el Haritiyeh, between Haifa and Nazareth, on the banks of the Nahr Muquatt’a (Cison) in the plain of Esdraelon. Occupying this position in the centre of the country, the Chanaanites could harass the tribes to the north and south, and render it very difficult for them to unite in a common effort. For “twenty years” the enemy had “grievously oppressed” the children of Israel, when Debbora declared it was God’s will that His people should be freed. This will of God she first made known to Barac, who dwelt in Cedes of Nephthali, today Qedeis, one of the principal ruins of Northern Galilee. She charged him to gather and lead to Thabor, a mountain to the east of the plain of Esdraelon, an army of ten thousand men, promising him that God would deliver into his hand Sisara and the Chanaanite army. Barac undertook to carry out those instructions only on the condition that the prophetess herself should accompany him. She agreed to do so, foretelling, however, that the glory of ridding the land of Sisara would belong to a woman. This prophecy refers not to Debbora herself, but to Jahel whose story is told in the last part of the fourth chapter. Debbora, however, did certainly share in the glory of Barac. The call to battle was not merely issued to the northern tribes of Nephthali and Zabulon; the “Canticle of Debbora,” given in chapter fifth, praises the tribes of Ephraim and Benjamin, in the midst of which the prophetess had lived, as well as the tribes of West Manasses and Issachar, for furnishing their contingents, while it reproves Ruben, Gad, and Aser for their refusal to take part in the contest. Juda and Simeon were apparently not called upon.

In the battle of Thabor, which marked an era in the history of Israel, Debbora had an important part. She indicated the time to attack the enemy, and encouraged Barac to go down boldly from the mountain to fight in the plain notwithstanding the advantages which the chariot troops gave the Chanaanites on level ground. God justified this assurance which He had inspired by the prophetess. A violent rain storm swelled the torrent of Cison and rendered the ground unfit for the movements of the dreaded chariots. A panic seized upon Sisara’s army, and its rout was complete. The general himself died at the hands of Jahel. The “Canticle of Debbora” is in the sacred text attributed to Barac and Debbora. This very early poem is one of the most precious documents for the history of the period of the Judges. The faith in the God of Sinai of the still loosely connected tribes finds vivid expression in the song. It strikingly describes the distress of the land “until Debbora arose, a mother arose in Israel,” and the heroic fight for freedom to which she aroused her countrymen. After the deliverance “the land rested for forty years.” We are not told what part was taken by Debbora in the affairs of her country during this period of peace; but it is likely that her influence was increased by the glorious event to which her name ever remained attached.

LAGRANGE, Le livre des Juges (Paris, 1903); DE HUMMELAUER, Commentarius in libros Judicum et Ruth (Paris, 1888); PALIS in VIG. Dict. de la Bible, s. v.; VON ORELLI in Realencyk. für prot. Theol., s. v.

W.S. REILLY

Debt

(debitum)

That which is owed or due to another; in general, anything which one person is under an obligation to pay or render to another. In a wide sense of the word this obligation may arise from a variety of sources. Thus we say that one who has received a favour from another lies under a debt of gratitude to make him some return for it. The superfluous wealth of the rich is due to the poor; it is a debt to the payment of which, according to the expression of many Fathers and theologians, the poor have a right, not of justice but of charity. We here take the word in the ordinary and strict sense, according to which it signifies something which is due to another in justice. We treat the matter, too, from the ethical rather than from the legal point of view, and so we consider debts of honour as true debts though they cannot be enforced in the civil court.

A debt arises not merely from a contract of borrowing; something may be due to another in justice for many different reasons, but all these may be reduced to two. When one has wilfully caused unjust damage to another, he is bound to make good the loss which he has inflicted, and when he finds himself in possession of what belongs to another, he must restore the property to its owner. Justice requires this, that each one should have his own, and one who has suffered loss unjustly at the hands of another has not his own, as long as the loss is not made good, any more than one whose property is unjustly detained by another. A state of indebtedness, then, of one to another arises from either of these two roots, as theologians call them. A debt must be paid to the owner of the property or to one who has the right to receive payment for him. Sometimes, however, the true owner is unknown, and then payment must be made to the poor or to charitable purposes. At any rate, one who is the unjust cause of wrong to another cannot be allowed to become a gainer by injustice, and inasmuch as society is injured by injustice, if reparation cannot be made to the individual who has been wronged, it must be made to society, and this cannot be done better than by paying the debt to charitable purposes or to the poor. In general, debts must be paid as they become due, or at the time and in the manner agreed upon. If the debtor is unable to meet his obligations at the proper time he will be made a bankrupt, his property will vest in the official receiver or trustee, and will be distributed among the creditors in proportion to their claims. Certain debts, however, have priority over others by law. In England the order among these is as follows: rates and taxes; the wages or salary of any clerk or servant not exceeding fifty pounds in respect of services rendered during four months prior to the receiving order; wages of any labourer or workman not exceeding twenty-five pounds for services, whether time- or piece-work, rendered during two months prior to the date of the receiving order. If the assets are sufficient for the purpose these debts must be paid in full before all others, otherwise they will abate equally among themselves. In the United States the National Bankruptcy Act of 1898, as amended in 1903, gives priority to certain debts in the following order: all taxes legally due and owing by the bankrupt to the United States, State, County, District, or Municipality; costs of preserving the estate subsequent to filing the petition; the filing fees; the costs of administration; wages due to workmen, clerks, or servants which have been earned within three months before the date of the commencement of proceedings, not exceeding three hundred dollars to each claimant; and finally debts owing to any person who by the laws of the States or of the United States is entitled to priority. Similarly, the debts of a person lately deceased must be paid by the executor or administrator in the order prescribed by law. According to English law funeral expenses and the expenses of probate or taking out administration come first. Then the debts of the deceased in the following order: Crown debts; debts having priority by statute; debts of record; debts by specialty and simple contract. Similarly also in the United States, after costs of administration and funeral expenses the debts due to the general government come next. Then follow other debts similar to those mentioned above as having priority in English law, but the order is not identical in all the States.

In certain circumstances the obligation of paying a debt ceases. This will be the case when a creditor freely condones the debt, as of course he may do if he chooses. Moreover, physical or moral impossibility excuses the debtor from paying the debt as long as the impossibility lasts. If a man has no money and no means of getting any, he is excused on the ground of impossibility from paying his debts. Even if he could not pay without reducing himself and his family to beggary, it will be held morally impossible for him, as long as those conditions last, to satisfy his obligations. Even justice must take account of other virtues and obligations. (How far a discharge in bankruptcy excuses from payment of debts in full out of subsequently acquired property is laid down in the article BANKRUPTCY.) The popes have sometimes for just cause used their authority as the supreme heads of Christian society to grant partial remissions or compositions for debts due to unknown creditors. One of the clauses of the Bulla Cruciayœ granted to the Spanish dominions confers such a privilege on the recipient on certain conditions. When a debt is barred by lapse of time, the civil authority refuses its help to enable the creditor to recover what is due to him, but the debtor is not freed in conscience; he is still under a moral obligation to pay his debt. Finally, it may be mentioned that by ecclesiastical law those who have incurred heavy debts which they are unable to pay are prohibited from entering a religious order, at least if they have been reduced to that state through grave fault of their own.

BALLERINI, Opus Morale (Prato, 1892), III; LEHMKUHL, Theologia Moralis (Freiburg, 1898), I; SLATER, A Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908), I.

T. SLATER.

Decalogue

(Greek deka, ten and logos, word).

The term employed to designate the collection of precepts written on two tables of stone and given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. The injunctions and prohibitions of which it is composed are set forth in Exodus (20:1–17) and in Deuteronomy (5:6–21). The differences discernible in the style of enumerating them in Exodus as contrasted with Deuteronomy are not essential and pertain rather to the reasons alleged for the precepts in either instance than to the precepts themselves. The division and ordering of the commandments in use in the Catholic Church is that adopted by St. Augustine (Quæstiones in Exodum, q. 71). That which is commonly in vogue amongst Protestants seems to have Origen for its sponsor. He regarded Exodus 20:3–6, as containing two distinct commandments and in this hypothesis in order to keep the number ten, verse 17 would have but one. The practice now universally adhered to among Catholics is just the reverse. See COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Decapolis

(From Gr. Deka, ten, and polis, city)

Decapolis is the name given in the Bible and by ancient writers to a region in Palestine lying to the east and south of the Sea of Galilee. It took its name from the confederation of the ten cities that dominated its extent. The Decapolis is referred to in the New Testament three times: Matt., iv, 25; Mark, v, 20; vii, 31. Josephus, Ptolemy, Strabo, Pliny, and other ancient geographers and historians make frequent reference to it.

At the disruption of the army of Alexander the Great, after his burial at Sidon, great numbers of his veterans, their occupation gone, settled down to a life of peace. The coast towns being already peopled, many of the Greeks sought homes farther inland. There they either laid out new cities or rebuilt and transformed older ones. In 218 B. C., according to Polybius, several of these towns were looked upon as strong fortresses. As long as the Seleucidæ ruled in the North and the Ptolemies in the South, the influence of the Greeks remained paramount in Syria; but when, with the rise of the Romans, the power of the descendants of Alexander’s soldiers weakened, the Greek cities were in sore straits. Especially perilous was the plight of these towns in Palestine after the successful rise of the Machabees. In the years 64–63 B. C., however, Pompey overran Syria and made it a Roman province. The Grecian cities, being regarded as bulwarks of Roman rule against any native uprisings, were granted many favours. They enjoyed the right of coinage, preserved their municipal freedom, and were allowed a certain sway over the near-by country.

It was after Pompey’s conquest that the league of the Decapolis was formed. There is no record of the year, and although most likely it was soon after the coming of Pompey, yet it may not have been until Herod’s time. The earliest list of the ten cities of the Decapolis is Pliny’s, which mentions Scythopolis, Pella, Hippo, Dion, Gerasa, Philadelphia, Raphana, Canatha, and Damascus. Later, Ptolemy enumerates eighteen cities, thus showing that the term Decapolis was applied to a region. The importance of this league was greatly strengthened by the advantageous positions of the principal towns. Scythopolis, the capital of the Decapolis, lay at the head of the plain of Esdraelon, to the west of the Jordan, guarding the natural portal from the sea to the great interior plateau of Basan and Galaad. The other cities were situated to the east of the Jordan on the great routes along which passed the commerce of the whole country. To-day the cities of the Decapolis, with the exception of Damascus, are deserted and in ruins. Yet even in their ruined state they offer a striking contrast to the near-by cities of the Semites. Their temples, theatres and forums built on a lavish scale, give even to this day clear indication of the genius of the people who built them.

Among the cities of the Decapolis of special interest are: Damascus, so often referred to in the Old and New Testament; Gadara, on the Sea of Galilee, whose inhabitants were the Gerasens of the Evangelists—the Gadarenon of one reading of Matt., viii, 28—whose swine were driven by the devil into the sea; and Pella, the city in the valley of the Jordan to which the Christians withdrew at the first siege of Jerusalem.

SMITH in Encyc. Biblica (New York, 1899), 1, and Historical Geography of Holy Land (1896), c. 28; CONDER, Handbook to the Bible; JOSEPHUS, Autobiography, 65, 74; IDEM, History of the Jewish War, ix, 7.

JOSEPH V. MOLLOY.

Adolphe Dechamps

Belgian statesman and publicist, brother of Cardinal Dechamps, born at Melle near Ghent, 17 June, 1807, died at Manage, 19 July, 1875. He entered public life about 1830 and soon became popular through his brilliant contributions to several Catholic newspapers. Having founded with his friend de Decker “La Revue de Bruxelles,” he advocated in that paper a system of parliamentary government which was termed “government of the centres,” The ministries were to be composed of Catholics and Liberals and to be supported by the moderate elements of the two parties. The scheme was not without merit under the circumstances, and it worked successfully for some years, but no great political shrewdness was needed to foresee that, unless the Catholics were willing to surrender their principles, they must sooner or later part company with the Liberals. In 1834 Dechamps was elected to the Chamber of Representatives, where his talent as an orator and his practical sagacity soon secured him a prominent position. In 1836 he participated very actively in the discussion of the bill on the organization of the communes, and in 1839 he opposed the treaty with Holland. The great Powers had imposed that treaty on Belgium and Holland in 1834, but the latter had delayed accepting it in the hope that she might eventually obtain better conditions, Dechamps, with many others, held that by this delay Holland had forfeited her right to the advantages granted her by the Powers and they urged the Government to appeal to arms rather than to surrender any part of Belgian territory. This warlike policy, however, would have been unwise in view of the opposition of the Powers, and peace was finally signed with Holland.

The most remarkable event of Dechamps’s political career is perhaps the leading part he played in the passing of the bill on elementary instruction. Up to 1842 there had been no elementary public schools in Belgium, although there were numerous schools organized under the direction of the clergy. One of the provisions of the new bill enacted that religious instruction was to form an essential part of public education and to be under the control of the clergy. The bill was passed almost unanimously by the votes of both Catholics and Liberals; From 1843 to 1848 Dechamps was a member of several ministries and showed himself a competent administrator. After the defeat of his party in 1848 he became the leader of the Catholic minority in the Chamber of Representatives and retained that position for several years. In 1864 he retired from politics and engaged in financial enterprises, but his ventures proved unfortunate. The following are his most important works: “Le second Empire” (Brussels, 1859); “Le second Empire et l’Angleterre” (Brussels, 1865); “Jules César; l’empire jugé par l’empereur” (Brussels, 1865); “La France et l’Allemagne” (Brussels, 1865); “La Convention de Gastein” (Brussels, 1865); “Les partis en Belgique et le nouveau règne” (Brussels, 1866); “L’école daBs ses rapports avec l’Eglise, l’Etat et la liberté” (Brussels, 1869); “Le prince de Bismarck et l’entrevue des trois empereurs” (Brussels, 1873).

HYMANS, Histoire Parlementaire de la Belqique (Brussels, 1878–82); GOBLET D’ALVIELLA, Cinquante ans de liberté. La. vie politique (Brussels, 1880); THONISSEN, La Belgique sous Léopold 1er (Louvain, 1861); HYMANS, La Belgique Contemporaine (Brussels. 1884).

PIERRE MARIQUE.

Victor Augustin Isidore Dechamps

Cardinal, Archbishop of Mechlin, and Primate of Belgium; born at Melle near Ghent 6 Dec., 1810; died 29 Sept., 1883, at Mechlin. He and his brothers made rapid progress in science under their father’s direction. One, Adolphe, entered on a political career. Victor pursued his ecclesiastical studies first at the seminary of Tournai and then in the Catholic University begun at Mechlin and afterwards transferred to Louvain. Ordained priest 20 Dec., 1834, he entered the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer in 1835, and made his vows 13 June, 1836. The next four years he spent at Wittem as prefect of students and lector in dogmatic theology. In 1840 he began his missionary life and in 1842 was nominated rector at Liége. He took an active part in the founding of the Confraternity of the Holy Family, which he considered his most salutary work. In the historic jubilee of Liège he had a large share both by his “Le plus beau souvenir de l’histoire de Liège,” and by his preaching (1845–46). He visited England and saw the wonderful effects of the Tractarian movement. In 1849 he was nominated consultor general of his congregation, and took up his residence at Pagani near Naples just when Pius IX was in exile at Gaeta. He had several audiences with the pope and was instrumental in arranging the transfer of the superior general from Pagani to Rome. This was not effected till 1855, when Pius IX invited Father Dechamps to the first general chapter held in Rome. The question of his appointment to the See of Liège was considered in 1852, but the pope, touched by his personal appeal, did not insist. In 1865 Dechamps bee ame Bishop of Namur, whence he was transferred in 1875 to the Archdiocese of Mechlin and made primate. At all times devoted to the Church and the pope, he took an active part in the formation of the pontifical zouaves, and persuaded General Lamoricière to offer his services to Pius IX. But his prominence in the history of his country and of the Church is due to his battle for Catholic schools and his defence of papal infallibility before and during the Vatican Council. Manning and Dechamps were indefatigable; and they became cardinals in the same consistory, 15 March, 1875. Dechamps worked to the very end. He said Mass on 28 Sept., 1883, and died the day following in the arms of a Redemptorist who happened to be present. He was buried, as he had desired, by the side of Venerable Passerat at Rumilliers.

The complete works of Dechamps, revised by himself, were published in Seventeen volumes at Mechlin. In presenting fourteen of the seventeen volumes to Leo XIII on 7 Feb., 1879, the author writes: “There is one thing that consoles me, Holy Father, in sending you my poor works: they are all consecrated to the truths of our holy Faith. . . . Volume I is consecrated to the truths of faith; II to Our Lord Jesus Christ; V to the Blessed Virgin Mary; III and IV to the Church and St. Peter; VI to the pope and his infallibility; VII, VIII, and IX to the refutation of modern errors; X, XI, XII, XIII, and XIV to my preaching as bishop and to acts by which I governed my diocese.” Of the remaining volumes, XV, “Mélanges,” deals with many important questions; XVI and XVII contain letters on questions in philosophy, theology, and other subjects. Cardinal Dechamps’s brother, Adolphe, was made Prime Minister of Belgium, 4 April, 1843. He was also minister of public works, and minister of foreign affairs from 30 July, 1845, to 12 June, 1847.

SAINTRAIN, Vie du Cardinal Dechamps, C. SS. R. Archevêque de Malines et Primat de Belgique (Tournai, 1884); LEJEUNE, L’Archiconfrérie de la Sainte Famille, son histoire et ses fruits (Bruges, 1894) Bibliographie catholique, XVII, 110; XX, 282; XXVI, 151; XXVII, 272; VAN WEDDINGEN, Revue genérale (1881); XXXIV, 793.

J. MAGNIER.

Decius

(CAIUS MESSIUS QUINTUS TRAJANUS DECIUS).

Roman Emperor 249–251. He was born, date uncertain, near Sirmium in Pannonia of a Roman or a Romanized family. Practically nothing is known about his career, but the greater part of his life seems to have been passed in the army. He was the first of the great soldier-emperors from the Danubian provinces under whom the senatorial regime ended and the government became an absolute monarchy. No sooner was his position as emperor made certain by the defeat of Philip at Verona, than Decius commenced to put into effect extensive plans for the reorganization of the empire. Problems of administration, internal as well as external, at once claimed his attention. To the latter he principally devoted his own energies and consequently the greater part of his reign was spent at the head of the legions attempting to repel the Gothic invaders from the Balkan lands. After several campaigns during which he gave no evidence of military genius he met with a signal defeat in the marshes of the Dobrudscha in which he lost his life. This overthrow, attributed by some writers to the treachery of some of the Roman generals, was so complete that the emperor’s body was never recovered. In the administration of the internal affairs of the empire, Decius showed himself to be an unstatesmanlike theorist. He conceived the unpractical policy of reforming the morals of his time by a forcible restoration of the old religion. He revived the obsolete office of censor as a sop to the senatorial party, permitted them to name its first incumbent, whom he invested with the most autocratic prowers in matters of civil service and over the private lives of the citizens. Oblivious of the changes wrought by time and the march of ideas, he pinned his faith to the almost abandoned paganism of old Rome as the solution of the problems of his time. Such sweeping reforms necessarily brought into prominence the growing power of the Christian Church, and made it clear that any attempt to realize or enforce the absolutism of earlier Roman politics must necessarily be futile as long as any considerable body of citizens professing the Christian creed was allowed the free exercise of their religion. Belief in the freedom on conscience and the higher estimate of religion found among the Christians could find no part in such schemes as those of Decius and would necessarily prove an insuperable obstacle to the complete realization of his plans. Various reasons have been assigned for the emperor’s hatred of Christianity, some seeing in it an evidence of innate cruelty, others a desire to be avenged on the friends of his predecessor; but there can be little doubt that the main motives for his hostility were political, conceived not in the form of fanaticism but in purposes of political expediency. The scope of the anti-Christian legislation of Decius was broader than that of his predecessors and much more far-reaching in its effects. The text of his edicts has not survived but their general tenor can be judged from the manner in which they were executed. The object of the emperor was not the extermination of the Christians, but the complete extinction of Christianity itself. Bishops and priests were unconditionally punished with death. To all others was given an opportunity to recant and, to ensure the abandonment of Christianity, all were compelled to submit to some test of their loyalty to Paganism, such as the offering of sacrifice, the pouring of libations, or the burning of incense to the idols. The unexpectedness of the attack, coupled with the fact that an appalling amount of laxity and corruption had manifested themselves during the long peace which the Church had just enjoyed, produced the most deplorable effect in the Christian fold. Multitudes presented themselves to the magistrates to express their compliance with the imperial edict and to these apostates tickets were issued attesting the fact that they had offered sacrifice (sacrificati) or burned incense (thurificati), while others, without actually performing these rites, availed themselves of the venality of the magistrates to purchase certificates attesting their renunciation (libellatici). These defections, though numerous, were more than counterbalanced by the multitudes who suffered death, exile, confiscation, or torture in all parts of the empire. The Decian persecution was the severest trial to which the Church up to that time had been subjected and the loss suffered by the Church in consequence of apostasy was almost as damaging as the losses by martyrdom. The problem of deciding on what conditions the lapsi should be admitted to the church and what weight was to be attached to the pardon of confessors, produced the bitterest dissensions and led directly to two dangerous schisms.

DUCHESNE, Histoire ancienne de l’église (Paris, 1906), I, 367–368; ALLARD, Histoire des persécutions pendant la premiére moitié du IIIe siècle (Paris, 1885–090; 2nd ed. 1892); GREGG, The Decian Persecution (Edinburgh, 1897).

P.J. HEALY.

Hans Decker

A German sculptor of the middle of the fifteenth century. Very little is recorded concerning Decker, but that his home was in Nuremberg. His name is mentioned in a register for the year 1449, and certain early productions in the years 1432 and 1437 are attributed to him. Though his carving in stone is rather rough, he stands alone among his contemporaries for his energy and realism. The few works known to us appear to inaugurate a new style. His principal sculptures are the colossal statue of St. Christopher with the Child Christ on his shoulder, at the south-west portal of the church of St. Sebald, a memorial of the Schlüsselfeld family, and the great “Entombment,” dated 1446, in the chapel of St. Wolfgang, in the church of St. Egidius. The group is composed of eight figures of heroic proportions powerfully disposed. In the body of Christ the handling is hard, but there is a distinct attempt at correct anatomy. The head is noble and manly; Mary is full of grief; John raises his Master’s arm to kiss it. The draperies are simple and finely arranged. This work is not only a masterpiece in itself, but is so full of the new naturalistic tendency, that it may be said to open up the second epoch of sculpture in Nuremberg.

LÖBKE, History of Sculpture (London, 1872); BODE, Gesch. der deutschen Plastik (Berlin, 1887); NAGLER, Künstler-Lexicon (Stuttgart, 1857); Deutsche Biographie (Leipzig, 1877).

M. L. HANDLEY

Pontifical Decorations

Pontifical decorations are the titles of nobility, orders of Christian knighthood and other marks of honour and distinction which the papal court confers upon men of unblemished character who have in any way promoted the interests of society, the Church, and the Holy See. The titles range all the way from prince to baron inclusive, and are bestowed by the pope as temporal sovereign. The title ordinarily conferred is that of count prefixed to the family name, which title is either merely personal or transferable by right of primogeniture in the male line. Bishops assistant at the throne are de jure Roman counts. There is another title which is usually called Count Palatine, but the true designation is Count of the Sacred Palace of Lateran, which is attached to many offices in the papal court. The papal orders of knighthood, ranking according to their importance and dignity, are:

Supreme Order of Christ;

Order of Pius IX;

Order of St. Gregory the Great;

Order of St. Sylvester;

Order of the Golden Militia, also called of the Golden Spur;

Order of The Holy Sepulchre (semi-official note of the Cardinal Chancellor of Equestrian Orders, “Osservatore Romano,” 12 Feb., 1905).

Pius X decreed that the Orders of Christ and the Golden Militia should have only one, the other four orders, three grades or classes (“Multum ad excitandos”; 7 Feb., 1905); that occasionally, but very rarely, in matters of special importance and by special papal permission, a commander eminently distinguished might be allowed to wear the badge (smaller size than that of the first class) on the left breast. According to critical historians, these orders do not antedate the Crusades. After the Crusades, the kings of Europe founded and placed under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Saints, orders of chivalry. Of these, some were intended to protect their kingdoms from the incursions of the infidel, and were in reality religious military orders; others were designed as a desirable and honourable recompense for eminent services to king and country. The lavish and indiscriminate creation of knights of the latter orders led in course of time to a loss of prestige and desire on the part of men of eminent merits to be knighted. The Roman pontiffs, in their dual capacity of spiritual and temporal rulers, either founded or approved, or remodelled and restored to their pristine glory, the six papal orders afore-mentioned.

SUPREME ORDER OF CHRIST

The Supreme Order of Christ is of Portuguese origin (see CHRIST, ORDER OF THE KNIGHT OF). The papal and Portuguese order are one and the same, for a two-fold reason; the pope is the head of every religious order and can admit to solemn profession in any order without the permission of its superior general, and, further, in the Bull of approvals he reserved to himself and his successors the right to create knights of the order, a right which was exercised by the popes and recognized by the kings of Portugal. The decoration is a long red cross, bordered with a narrow gold band, whose extremities are of a trapezoidal form, surmounted by a royal crown, which, in turn, is surmounted by a military trophy attached to the ribbon. Upon the centre of the long red cross is superimposed a small, simple, white enamelled Latin cross. The white upon the red symbolizes the triumph of the Immaculate Lamb of God, by His blood, over the world of sin. Until within a few years ago, this decoration was worn suspended by a red ribbon which encircled the wearer’s neck. Pope Pius X, in memory of the ancient collar composed of alternate swords and tiaras which the knights of old wore, decreed that the decoration should henceforth be worn suspended from a collar composed of shields bearing alternately the cross of the order and the papal emblems connected with golden knots. The “plaque,” or badge, worn on the breast, is a silver eight-rayed star ornamented with jewels, bearing on its centre the cross of the order, which is encircled by a crown of gold oak leaves wound with a green fillet. The uniform is of a bright scarlet with facings of white cloth and rich gold embroideries on the collar, breast and cuffs (Moroni, Diz., XVIII, 216). Knee breeches of white smooth silk with gold side stripes, shoes of white silk with gold buckles, hat with white plumes and ornamented with a knot of twisted gold cord terminating in tassels of gold, and a sword with a gold ornamented mother-of-pearl hilt and pendant tassels of twisted gold cord complete this official costume (Pius X, 3 May 1905). The official dress of a professed knight of this order when it was a religious military body was white.

ORDER OF PIUS IX

This had for its founder (17 June, 1847) the pope whose name it bears. Its object is to fittingly reward noble and conspicuous deeds which merit well of Church and society, and to stimulate others to follow the illustrious example set them. At first it comprised only two classes, knights of the first class, who, upon receiving the decoration, were made nobles with hereditary succession, and knights of the second class, whose title of nobility was personal. Shortly after (17 June, 1849, “Cum hominum mentes”) the order was divided into four classes, viz.:

Knights of the Great Ribbon;

Commanders with the Badge;

Commanders, and

Knights.

Knights of the Great Ribbon wear a wide ribbon extending from the left shoulder saltier-wise to the right side where from a rosette attached to the ribbon the star of the order is suspended. They also wear on the breast the large badge set with diamonds. Commanders wear the decoration at the neck. Commanders with the Badge, besides the star at the neck, wear a badge of smaller design than the large plaque on the breast, and simple knights wear the star on the left breast. The decoration is an eight-pointed blue enamelled star. The spaces between the rays are filled in with undulating golden flames. On the centre is a white enamelled medallion on which is engraved the words PIUS IX and around it, in a golden circle, are stamped in characters of blue, the motto, VIRTUTI ET MERITO. The reverse is identical with the obverse side except that the inscription ANNO 1847 is used instead of PIUS IX. There are two forms of badges. One is a large silver medal similar to the star, and the other is of the same design but larger and adorned with brilliant gems. The ribbon of the decoration is dark blue silk bordered with red. The official costume (rarely worn) is a dark blue evening dress coat closed in front by one row of gold buttons. The collar and cults and breast of the coat are covered with golden embroideries more or less elaborate, according to the grade or class of the wearer. Golden epaulettes, white trousers with gold side stripes, a bicornered hat with white plumes, complete the official dress. This order may be conferred also upon non-Catholics.

ORDER OF ST. GREGORY THE GREAT

Gregory XVI founded this order to reward the civil and military virtues of subjects of the Papal States by brief “Quod Summis,” 1 Sept., 1831, and placed it under the patronage of the great pope whose name it bears. It has two divisions, civil and military, and each division is divided into four classes, viz.:

Grand Cross Knights of the First Class;

Grand Cross Knights of the Second Class;

Commanders, and

simple Knights.

The decoration is a bifurcated or eight-pointed red enamelled gold cross, in the centre of which is a blue medallion on which is impressed in gold the image of St. Gregory, and at the side of his head near the right ear is a dove; in a circle around the image appears in golden letters “S. Gregorius Magnus.” On the reverse side is the device, “Pro Deo et Principe,” and in the centre around it, GREGORIUS XVI. P. M. ANNO. 1. The badge is the cross of the order surrounded with silver rays. The ribbon of the order is red with orange borders. The cross worn by a knight of the military division is surmounted by a military trophy; the cross of a knight of the civil division is surmounted by a crown of gold oak leaves. The costume of ceremony is a dress coat of dark green open in front, and covered on breast and back with embroideries in the form of oak leaves. White trousers with silver side stripes, a bicornered ornamented hat, and the usual knightly sword, complete the costume, which is rarely worn.

ORDER OF ST. SYLVESTER, BEFORE THE REGULATIONS OF PIUS X

This was the Order of the Golden Militia under a new name. Prior to the year 1841 it was known as the Militia of the Golden Spur or Golden Militia, and though it is not historically established who among the many supposed founders is the true one, yet it undoubtedly is the oldest and, at one time, was one of the most prized of the papal orders. Faculties granted to the Sforza family (Paul III “Hinc est quod nos,” 14 Apr., 1539), to the College of Abbreviators (Leo X Const. 14 “Summi”) and to bishops assistant at the throne (Julius III, 6 Apr., 1557) to create Knights of the Golden Militia resulted in lavish bestowal and diminished prestige of the decoration. Pope Gregory XVI (“Quod hominum mentes,” 31 Oct., 1841), retaining the ancient name, placed the order under the patronage of St. Sylvester (one of its alleged founders), withdrew all faculties to whom and by whomsoever given, and forbade the use of the title or the decoration to all knights created by other than by papal Brief. The better to restore it to its ancient glory and splendour, he limited the number of commanders to one hundred and fifty and knights to three hundred (for Papal States only), and appointed the Cardinal of Apostolic Briefs as Chancellor of the Order, with the duty of preserving the name, grade, number and date of admission of each knight. He divided it into two classes, commanders and knights. The former wore the large sized decoration suspended at the neck, the latter the small sized one on the left side of the breast. The decoration, according to the Gregorian Brief, was an eight-pointed gold cross with an image of St. Sylvester wearing the tiara on its white enamelled centre, and around this centre a blue enamelled circle bearing in letters of gold the inscription SANC. SYLVESTER P. M. On the reverse side, in golden characters, was stamped MDCCCXLI GREGORIUS XVI RESTITUIT. A golden spur hung suspended from the sides of the bifurcated foot of the cross of the order to mark the unity of the Sylvestrine order with that of the Golden Militia. The ribbon of the decoration was of silk composed of five strands, three of which were red, and two black. Commanders wore the decoration at the neck, the knights on the breast. The ribbon of the former was larger than that of the latter, the cross of the former was also more elegant than that of the latter. The official costume was a red evening dress coat with two rows of gold buttons with green collar and facing. The gold embroideries of the coat were of a more ornate design for commanders than for knights. White trousers, with gold side bands, hat with white plumes and a sword with a silver hilt and also gilt spurs, completed this rarely used costume. Knights of both classes wore around the neck a gold chain from which was suspended a tiny golden spur commemorative of the ancient order of that denomination. Pius X (Motu Proprio, “Multum ad excitandos,” 7 Feb., 1905) divided the Sylvestrine into two orders of knighthood, one retaining the name of St. Sylvester and the other taking the ancient name of the order, i. e. Order of the Golden Militia, or Golden Spur.

ORDER OF ST. SYLVESTER, SINCE THE REGULATIONS OF PIUS X

The order now has three classes of knights:

Knights Grand Cross,

Commanders, and

Knights.

The present decoration is a gold cross of white enamelled surface, in the centre of which is impressed the image of St. Sylvester P. M., surrounded by a blue enamelled circle bearing the inscription in letters of gold SANC. SYLVESTER P. M. On the opposite side, in the centre, are the pontifical emblems with the date of the Gregorian restoration, MDCCCXXXXR, and that of the Pius X renovation, MDCCCCV, impressed in characters of gold upon a blue circle. The badge is the cross of the order attached to a silver star. The new costume consists of a black (formerly red) coat with one row (formerly two) of gilt buttons, and cuffs and collar of black velvet embroidered in gold; black trousers, with gold stripes, a bicornered hat of rough silk adorned with papal-coloured cockade, and finally a sword with a hilt of mother-of-pearl ornamented with gold and worn suspended from a gilt belt. The ribbon of the decoration is black silk bordered with red. Simple knights wear the cross on the left breast of the tunic. Commanders wear a larger cross suspended by the ribbon of the order encircling the neck, and the Knights of the Grand Cross wear a cross of largest form pendant from the right shoulder and the badge on the left side of the breast. The hat of the commander is adorned with a black, that of the grand cross knight with a white, plume.

THE ORDER OF THE GOLDEN MILITIA, OR THE GOLDEN SPUR

Pius X, in commemoration of the high prestige to which this order had attained long years before it was absorbed into the Gregorian Order of St. Sylvester, and as a souvenir of the golden jubilee of the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception of the B. V. M., gave back to it the separate existence, name and grade of ancient days, and rendered it still more illustrious by placing it under the patronage of the Immaculate Conception. To this order are to be admitted only those who have distinguished themselves in an eminent degree, and either by feat of arms, or by their writings, or by any other conspicuous work, have spread the Catholic Faith, and by their bravery have safeguarded, or by their learning made illustrious, the Church of God. To insure its continued high grade of excellence and desirability, its founder limited it to one class and one hundred knights for the entire world (“Multum ad excitandos,” 7 Feb., 1905). It can be conferred on those already knighted in the highest orders, even that of Christ, as well as on those who have never received any order of knighthood. The honour is bestowed by a “Motu Proprio” (Pope’s own motion) and as such is expedited through the secretariat of State, and free from all chancery fees. The decoration is an eight-pointed or bifurcated yellow enamelled gold cross, with a gold trophy on top and pendent from the inner sides of its bifurcated foot a gold spur. On a small white medal in the centre of the cross the word MARIA surrounded by a golden circle, and on the reverse side in the centre is stamped the year MDCCCCV and in the surrounding circle the inscription PIUS X RESTITUIT. The badge is the cross upon the rays of a silver star. The ribbon used for both decoration and badge is red bordered with white. The knights of to-day do not wear the ancient collar. The cross is worn suspended by the ribbon of the order which encircles the neck. The badge is attached by the ribbon to the left breast of the tunic. The present official dress consists of a red tunic with two rows of gilt buttons, the collar and cuffs of which are black velvet embroidered with threads of gold, long, black cloth trousers with gold side stripes; epaulettes ornamented with gold fringes and surmounted on top with emblems of the order, gold spurs, oblong two-peaked hat fringed with gold and adorned with a gold knob displaying papal colours, a sword whose hilt is a gilt cross and scabbard black, and finally a gilt sword belt with red fringe. All former concessions of noble titles, even that of count palatine to Knights of the Golden Spur, were revoked by Pope Pius X, who desired to have the personal merit and worth of the knights their sole and only title to honour and respect among men.

ORDER OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

St. James, first Bishop of Jerusalem, the Empress St. Helena, Charlemagne, Godfrey of Bouillon and Baldwin I, are among the reputed founders of this order. According to the opinion of critical historians, the order is a branch of the Knights of S. John of Jerusalem which was approved (1113) by Pope Pascal II. Whoever may have been its real founder, it is certain that in the twelfth century there was another order following the Rule of St. Basil that proceeded on a line of action parallel with that of Knights of Jerusalem. Upon the fall of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre were driven out of Palestine, and some of them settled at Perugia. Gradually the order lost its prestige, and was by Pope Innocent VIII (1489) united to the Knights Hospitallers. Pope Alexander VI (1496) restored (Hélyot says, instituted) this order that by offering a most desirable and honourable distinction as a reward for the great labour, fatigue and expense of a journey to the Holy Land, he might incite wealthy and noble Europeans to visit and aid the holy places. He reserved to himself and his successors the title and office of supreme head; but empowered the Franciscan Custodian of Mount Sion, the Commissary Apostolic of the Holy Land—as long, and no longer than, the Jerusalem Latin Patriarchate remained vacant—to confer in the name of the pope the Knighthood of the Holy Sepulchre upon worthy persons. Popes Alexander VII (1665) and Benedict XIII (1727) confirmed the privilege. Benedict XIV (“In Supremo Militantis Ecclesiæ,” 17 Jan., 1746) remodelled the rules of the order, fixed the forms by which the Franciscan Custodian should be guided in bestowing the decoration, renewed its ancient privileges (similar in part to those granted to the Golden Militia), and granted to the Knights the right to use the title of Count of the Sacred Palace of Lateran. Pius IX, upon the restoration of the Latin Jerusalem Patriarchate (1847), withdrew the Alexandrine faculty, and gave it to the new patriarch and his successors. The patriarchs alone can in future create Knights of the Holy Sepulchre, and this they do not of their own right, but in the name and by virtue of the pope’s authority. It was required that a knight should, except in an exceptional case, give an alms of 100 sequins in gold (equal to $200) towards the Holy Places. This money was by decree (S. C. P. F., 1847) ordered to be turned over to the patriarch for the needs of the Holy Land. Pope Pius IX (“Cum multa,” Jan. 24, 1868) remodelled and approved the ancient statutes, and divided the order into three (practically four) classes:

Grand Cross Knights,

Commanders, and

Knights.

Commanders of conspicuous ability and eminent virtue were, in rare cases, and by special papal faculty, permitted to wear the badge on the breast, and so constituted a grade between the grand cross knight and the commander. Pius X “(Quam multa te Ordinemque,” 3 May, 1907) fixed the number of grades at three, granted the privilege of affixing a military trophy to the cross, approved the creation of patriarchal representatives in other lands, as the good of the order may demand, prescribed the uniform for them, reserved to himself and successors the title of grand master, and appointed the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem his lieutenant and administrator in the bestowing of this papal decoration. He also arranged that in the event of the death of the patriarch and the vacancy of the see, the powers of the patriarch as papal lieutenant and administrator of the Order of Holy Sepulchre should by law devolve upon the cardinal secretary of state. The decoration is a large red enamelled gold cross, with a narrow border of gold, and surmounted by a royal crown. Prior to the last century the cross was simply gold without the red enamel. The form of the cross is what is called “potentiate,” that is, crutched or gibbet-shaped. The four extremities are shaped as the large cross and four small red enamelled crosses of simple form are attached. The ribbon is of black watered silk. A mulberry trophy connects the cross with the ribbon. The plaque or badge is an eight-pointed or rayed silver star, on whose centre is the red cross encircled by the two green enamelled branches, one oak and the other Laurel. The collar, worn only on solemn occasions, is composed of little Jerusalem crosses, and rings of burnished gold. Knights of the first class wear the grand cross suspended from the wide black watered silk ribbon running saltier-wise from the right shoulder to the left side, and the badge on the breast. Commanders carry the cross and Ribbon fastened at the neck. Knights wear the badge on the left breast.

Patriarchal representatives, besides the usual decorations, are permitted to wear the grand cross prominently placed on the breast of the uniform, but on the right side of the breast of the civil dress. The costume is a white evening dress coat with collar, cuffs and breast facings of black velvet with gold embroideries, epaulet of twisted gold cord, white trousers with gold side stripes, a sword and plumed hat. Pius X added to the costume a large white woolen mantle with a red Jerusalem cross on the left breast. The knights rarely don this official robe; they content themselves with wearing the decorations on the civil dress. This decoration may be conferred upon ladies who are then styled Dames or Matrons of the Holy Sepulchre. The dames wear the insignia of their grade, no matter what grade it may be, always on the left side of the breast (Leo XIII, 3 Aug., 1888).

In addition to these principal, there are other minor papal distinctions, of which some are temporary and others permanent. Permanent minor decorations are the medals:

The Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice,

Benemerenti,

The Holy Land.

The medal Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice was instituted by Pope Leo XIII (17 July, 1888, “Quod Singulari”) in memory of his golden sacerdotal jubilee, and bestowed on those women and men who had merited well by aiding and promoting, and by other excellent ways and means assisted in making the jubilee and the Vatican Exposition successful. This decoration was made a permanent distinction only in October, 1898 (Giobbio, see below). Its object is to reward those who in a general way deserve well of the pope on account of services done for the Church and its head. The medal is of gold, silver or bronze. The decoration is not subject to chancery fees. The medal is a cross made octangular in form by fleurs-de-lis fixed in the angles of the cross in a special manner. The extremities of the cross are of a slightly patonce form. In the centre of the cross is a small medal with an image of its founder, and encircling the image are the words LEO XIII P. M. ANNO X (tenth year of his pontificate). On the obverse side are the papal emblems in the centre, and in the circle surrounding the emblems the motto PRO DEO ET PONTIFICE is stamped. On the obverse surface of the branches of the cross are comets—which with the fleurs-de-lis form the coat of arms of the Pecci family. On the reverse side are stamped the words, PRIDIE (left branch); KAL. (top branch); JANUAR. (right branch); 1888 (at the foot). The ribbon is purple, with delicate lines of white and yellow on each border. The decoration is worn on the right side of breast.

BENEMERENTI MEDALS

Pope Gregory XVI (1832) instituted two medals which he called merit-medals to reward civil and military daring and courage. The military medal bears on one side the image of the founder, and on the other side an angel holding a scroll with the word BENEMERENTI, surmounted by the papal emblems (sometimes this medal is found encircled by a crown of laurels). It is worn on the breast suspended by a white and yellow ribbon. The civil merit-medal has engraved on its face surface only the word BENEMERENTI, surrounded by a crown of oak leaves. The ribbon is of the papal colours.

MEDAL OF THE HOLY LAND

This was designed by Leo XIII (Dec. S.C.P.F. 2 May. 1901), who empowered the Custodian of the Holy Land to bestow it upon pilgrims who presented a certificate of good, moral Christian life from their parish priest and a genuinely religious intention in making the journey to the Holy Land. It serves as a testimonial and souvenir of the pilgrimage. The decoration is a cross similar to that of the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre, save that the four small crosses are crutched instead of being simple of form. A medallion with the inscription LEO XIII CREAVIT. ANNO M.C.M. occupies the centre of the large cross. On each branch of the large cross are graven figures of the Annunciation, Nativity, Baptism of Christ, and Last Supper respectively. On the crutched-shaped extremities are the words, CHRISTI AMOR CRUCIFIXI TRAXIT NOS. On the reverse side of the cross, the figure of Christ appears in the centre of the medallion. On the branches are representations of the Agony in the Garden, Flagellation, Crowning with Thorns and Crucifixion, and on the extremities of the branches the words SIGNUM SACRI ITINERIS HIERSOLIMITANI. It is worn on the left breast suspended from a red ribbon with four small blue transverse bars bordered with white, which in turn are edged with dark yellow. There are three classes of medals: gold, silver, and bronze, adapted to the condition of pilgrims and the services they have rendered to the Holy Land. The recipient must pay the cost of the medal and bestow an alms of at least two dollars towards the maintenance of the Holy Places. Each year the custodian must inform the Propaganda how many decorations have been bestowed and the amount of the alms given (Dec. S. C. P. F., 10 June, 1901).

Popes Pius VII and Pius IX conferred special decorations which were temporary and not permanent. The former bestowed a medal for military bravery, and another for zeal and courage in stamping out the brigandage, which had taken such hold in the Papal States during the seven years of the French occupation. The latter conferred the Mentana and Castelfidardo medals upon the papal and French soldiers who came to his help at those places.

Pontifical decorations are bestowed either by motu pro prio, and then forwarded by the secretary of state, or upon petition, when they are expedited through the chancery. The most certain and expeditious mode of procuring the coveted decoration is by a petition from the bishop of the diocese of the person to be honoured. The petition must state the name, age, country, in short, a brief history of the life of the applicant, bringing out in relief the eminent labours or work in science, literature, arts, controversial or other religious writings, or generous and self-sacrificing gifts or endowments made or done for society, the Church or its head, which are deemed worthy of papal recognition and reward. This petition must be endorsed by the ordinary of the applicant. The endorsement of another than the diocesan bishop will not suffice. The petition is sent to an agent at Rome, who presents it to the cardinal chancellor of the orders, who not only registers the petition and the endorsement of it by the bishop, but also seeks information from other sources as to the character of the party and his eminent good works.

MORONI, Diz., XI, 6 sqq.; XVIII, 210 sqq.; XLIX, 81 sq q.; LXIV, 91 sqq.; LXVIII, 238 sqq. GIOBBIO, Lezioni di diplomazia ecclesiastica (Rome, 1899), Part I, lib. I, cap. x, art. iv, 514 sqq.; ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dict. de Droit Canonique, III, 83, 501; IV, 361; BATTANDIER, Ann. Pont. Cath., 1901, 483 sqq.; 1902, 468 sqq.; 1908, 646 sq. For list of knights of all the decorations see Ann. for 1905. 1907, and 1908; Pii IX P. M. Acta, Part I, 43 sq., 195 sq.; IV, 391 sq.; BERNASCONI, Acta Gregorii papæ XVI, , 48; III, 179 sq.; Analecta Ecclesiastica (Rome, 1905), 99 sq.; 1907, 189; Leonis XIII Pont. Max. Acta (Rome), VIII, 259, 282; XXI, 74.

P.M.J. ROCK

Decree

(Lat. decretum, from decerno, I judge).

In a general sense, an order or law made by a superior authority for the direction of others. In ecclesiastical use it has various meanings. Any papal Bull, Brief, or Motu Proprio is a decree inasmuch as these documents are legislative acts of the Holy Father. In this sense the term is quite ancient. Pope Siricius speaks (Ep. i, ad Himer., c. ii) of the decreta generalia of Pope Liberius. The Roman Congregations are empowered to issue decrees in matters which come under their particular jurisdiction. Each ecclesiastical province, and also each diocese may issue decrees in their periodical synods within their sphere of authority. The word is also used to denote certain specified collections of church law, e.g. The Decree of Gratian (Decretum Gratiani). In respect of the general legislative acts of the pope there is never doubt as to the universal extent of the obligation; the same may be said of the decrees of a General Council, e.g. those of the Vatican Council. The Council of Trent was the first to apply the term indiscriminately to rulings concerning faith and discipline (decreta de fide, de reformatione). The decrees of the Roman Congregations (q. v.) are certainly binding in each case submitted for judgment. But there are varying opinions as to whether such judgment is to be taken as a rule or general law applying to all similar cases. The common opinion is that when the decisions are enlargements of the law (declaratio extensiva legis) the decisions do not bind except in the particular case for which the decree is made. If, however, the decision is not an enlargement, but merely an explanation of the law (declaratio comprehensiva legis), such decree binds in similar cases. The decrees of a national council may not be promulgated until they have received the approval of the pope. The decrees of a provincial synod have no force until they have been approved by Rome. This approval is twofold: ordinary (in formâ communi), and specific (in formâ specificâ). The former means that there is nothing which needs correction in the decrees of the synod, and they thereby have force in the province. This is the approval generally given to such decrees. If approval is given in formâ specificâ the decrees have the same force as if they emanated from the Apostolic See, though they are binding only in the province for which they are made. The decrees of a diocesan bishop deal with the administration and good order of his diocese. If they are made during a synod, they are diocesan laws, are usually known as “diocesan statutes,” or “synodal statutes,” and bind until revoked by the bishop or his successor. If the decrees are extra-synodal, they have force only during the lifetime of the bishop or until he revokes them himself. For the so-called “Decretum Gelasianum” see GELASIUS I. For the use of judicial decreta in canonical procedure see Permaneder in Kirchenlexikon, III, 1442–44. (See CONSTITUTIONS, ECCLESIASTICAL; RESCRIPTS.)

TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906); SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1886); BENEDICT XIV, De Synodo di cesanâ; BOUIX De Principiis Juris Canonici; FERRARIS Theoria et praxis regiminis di cesani.

DAVID DUNFORD

Papal Decretals

I. DEFINITION AND EARLY HISTORY

(1) In the wide sense of the term decretalis (i.e. epistola decretalis) signifies a pontifical letter containing a decretum, or pontifical decision.

(2) In a narrower sense it denotes a decision on a matter of discipline.

(3) In the strictest sense of the word, it means a rescript (rescriptum), i. e. an answer of the pope when he has been appealed to or his advice has been sought on a matter of discipline.

Papal decretals, therefore, are not necessarily general laws of the Church. But frequently the pope ordered the recipient of his letter to communicate the papal answer to the ecclesiastical authorities of the district to which he belonged; and it was their duty then to act in conformity with that decree when analogous cases arose. It is generally stated that the most ancient decretal is the letter of Pope Saint Siricius (384–398) to Himerius, Bishop of Tarragona in Spain, dating from 385; but it would seem that the document of the fourth century known as “Canones Romanorum ad Gallos episcopos” is nothing else than an epistola decretalis of his predecessor, Pope Damasus (366–384), addressed to the bishops of Gaul (Babut, La plus ancienne décrétale, Paris, 1904). The decretals ought to be carefully distinguished from the canons of the councils; from the epistol dogmatic , i. e. the pontifical documents touching on Catholic doctrine; from the constitutiones, or pontifical documents given motu proprio, that is, documents issued by the pope without his being asked to do so or consulted upon a subject.

(4) Finally, under the name decretals are known certain collections, containing especially, but not exclusively, pontifical decretals. These are the canonical collections of a later date than the “Decretum” of Gratian (about 1150). The commentators on these collections are named decretalists, in contradistinction to the decretists, or those who commented upon the “Decretum” of Gratian. Eventually some of these collections received official recognition; they form what is now known as the “Corpus Juris Canonici.” An account will be given here of the collections of decretals, but particularly of those of Gregory IX.

II. TUE “QUINQUE COMPILATIONES ANTIQUÆ DECRETALIUM”

The “Decretum” of Gratian was considered in the middle of the twelfth century as a corpus juris canonici, i. e. a code of the ecclesiastical laws then in force. As such, however, it was incomplete; moreover, many new laws were made by succeeding popes; hence the necessity of new collections (see CORPUS JURIS CANONICI). Five of these collections exhibited pontifical legislation from the “Decretum” of Gratian to the pontificate of Gregory IX (1150–1227). These are known as the “Quinque compilationes antiquæ.” On account of their importance they were made the text of canonical instruction at the University of Bologna, and, like the “Decretum” of Gratian, were glossed, i. e. notes bearing on the explanation and interpretation of the text were added to the manuscripts. The first collection, the “Breviarium extravagantium,” or summary of the decretals not contained in the “Decretum” of Gratian (vagantes extra Decretum), was the work of Bernard of Pavia (q. v.) and was compiled 1187–1191. It contains papal decretals to the pontificate of Clement III inclusive (1187–1191). The compilation known as the third (Compilatio tertia), written however prior to the second collection (Compilatio secunda), contains the documents of the first twelve years of the pontificate of Innocent III (8 January, 1198—7 January, 1210) which are of a later date than those of the second compilation, the latter containing especially the decretals of Clement III and Celestine III (1191–1198). The “Compilatio tertia” is the oldest official collection of the legislation of the Roman Church; for it was composed by Cardinal Petrus Collivacinus of Benevento by order of Innocent III (1198–1216), by whom it was approved in the Bull “Devotioni vestræ” of 28 December, 1210.

The second compilation, also called “Decretales mediæ” or “Decretales intermediæ,” was the work of a private individual, the Englishman John of Wales (de Walesio, Walensis, or Galensis). About 1216 an unknown writer formed the “Compilatio quarta,” the fourth collection, containing the decretals of the pontificate of Innocent III which are of a later date than 7 January, 1210, and the canons of the Fourth Lateran Council held in 1215. Finally, the fifth compilation is, like the third, an official code, compiled by order of Honorius III (1216–1227) and approved by this pope in the Bull “Novæ causarumn” (1226 or 1227). It must also be noted that several of these collections contain decretals anterior to the time of Gratian, but not inserted by him in the “Decretum.” Bernard of Pavia divided his collection into five books arranged in titles and chapters. The first book treats of persons possessing jurisdiction (judex), the second of the civil legal processes (judicium), the third of clerics and regulars (clerus), the fourth of marriage (connubium), the fifth of delinquencies and of criminal procedure (crimen). In the four other collections the same logical division of the subject-matter was adopted. (For the text see Friedberg, Quinque compilationes antiquæ, Leipzig, 1882.)

III. THE DECRETALS OF GREGORY IX

Gregory IX, in 1230, ordered his chaplain and confessor, St. Raymond of Peñaforte (Pennafort), a Dominican, to form a new canonical collection destined to replace all former collections. It has been said that the pope by this measure wished especially to emphasize his power over the Universal Church. The papacy had, indeed, arrived at the zenith of its power. Moreover, a pope less favourably circumstanced would, perhaps, not have thought of so important a measure. Nevertheless, the utility of a new collection was so evident that it is needless to seek other motives than those which the pope himself gives in the Bull “Rex pacificus” of 5 September, 1234, viz., the inconvenience of recurring to several collections containing decisions most diverse and sometimes contradictory, exhibiting in some cases gaps and in others tedious length; moreover, on several matters the legislation was uncertain.

St. Raymond executed the work in about four years, and followed in it the method of the aforesaid “Quinque compilationes antiquæ.” He borrowed from them the order of the subject-matter, the division into five books, of the books into titles and of the titles into chapters. Of the 1971 chapters which the Decretals of Gregory IX contain, 1771 are taken from the “Quinque compilationes antiquæ,” 191 are due to Gregory IX himself, 7 are taken from decretals of Innocent III not inserted in the former collections, and 2 are of unknown origin. They are arranged, as a general rule, according to the order of the ancient collections, i. e. each title opens with the chapters of the first collection, followed by those of the second, and so on in regular order; then come those of Innocent III and finally those of Gregory IX. Almost all the rubrics, or headings of the titles, have also been borrowed from these collections, but several have been modified as regards detail. This method considerably lightened St. Raymond’s task. However, he did more than simply compile the documents of former collections. He left out 383 decisions, modified several others, omitted parts when he considered it prudent to do So, filled up the gaps, and, to render his collection complete and concordant, cleared up doubtful points of the ancient ecclesiastical law by adding some new decretals. He indicated by the words et infra the passages excised by him in the former collections. They are called partes decis . The new compilation bore no special title, but was called “Decretales Gregorii IX” or sometimes “Compilatio sexta,” i. e. the sixth collection with reference to the “Quinque compilationes antiquæ.” It was also called “Collectio seu liber extra,” i. e. the collection of the laws not contained (vagantes extra) in the “Decretum” of Gratian. Hence the custom of denoting this collection by the letter X (i. e. extra).

Quotations from this collection are made by indicating the number of the chapter, the name the work goes by (X), the number of the book, and that of the title. Usually the heading of the title and sometimes the first words of the chapter are quoted; for instance, “c. 3, X, III, 23,” or “c. Odoardus, X, De solutionibus, HI, 23,” refers to the third chapter, commencing with the word Odoardus, in the Decretals of Gregory IX, book III, title 23, which is entitled “De solutionibus.” If the number of the chapter or of the title is not indicated it will easily be learned on consulting the alphabetical indexes of the rubrics and of the introductory words of the chapters, which are to be found in all editions of the “Corpus Juris Canonici.” Gregory IX sent this new collection to the Universities of Bologna and Paris, and, as already stated, declared, by the Bull “Rex pacificus” of 5 September, 1234, that this compilation was the official code of the canon law. All its decisions have the force of law whether they be authentic or not, whatever the juridical value of the texts considered in themselves, and whatsoever the original text. It is a unique (unica) collection; all its decisions were simultaneously promulgated, and are equally obligatory, even if they appear to contain, or if in fact they do contain, antinomies, i. e. contradictions. In this peculiar case it is not possible to overcome the difficulty by recourse to the principle that a law of later date abrogates that of an earlier period. Finally, it is an exclusive collection, that is to say, it abrogates all the collections, even the official ones, of a later date than the “Decretum” of Gratian. Some authors (Schulte, Launin) maintain that Gregory IX abrogated even those laws prior to Gratian’s time which the latter had not included in his “Decretum,” but this opinion is contested by several others (von Scherer, Schneider, Wernz, etc.). The controversy is no longer of practical interest.

The Decretals of Gregory IX differ widely from our modern codes. Instead of containing in one concise statement a legislative decision, they generally contain, in the beginning, an account of a controversy, the allegations of the parties in dispute, and a demand or the solution of the question. This is the species facti or the pars historica and has no juridical value whatever. The enacting part of the chapter (pars dispositiva) alone has the force of law. It is this part which contains the solution of the case or the statement of the rule of conduct. The rubrics of the titles have the force of law when their sense is complete, as for instance, Ne sede vacante aliquid innovetur (Let there be no innovation while the see is vacant). This is because the headings form an integral part of the official code of the laws. However, they ought always to be interpreted according to the decisions contained in the chapters. The historical indications concerning each chapter are often far from being exact, even since they were corrected in the Roman edition of 1582. It may be regretted that St. Raymond did not have recourse to the original documents themselves, of which a large number must have been at his disposal. The summaries (summaria) which precede the chapters are the work of the canonists and may assist in the elucidation of the text. The partes decis are sometimes of like use, but never when these parts were designedly omitted from a desire to extinguish their legal force or because they contain decisions irreconcilable with the actual text of the law.

As in the case of the former canonical collections, the Decretals of Gregory IX were soon glossed. It was customary to add to the manuscript copies textual explanations written between the lines (glossa interlinearis) and on the margin of the page (glossa marginalis). Explanations of the subject-matter were also added. The most ancient glossarist of the Decretals of Gregory IX is Vincent of Spain; then follow Godefridus de Trano (died 1245), Bonaguida Aretinus (thirteenth century), and Bernard of Botone or Parmensis (died 1263), the author of the “Glossa ordinaria,” i. e. of that gloss to which authoritative credence was generally given. At a later date some extracts were added to the “Glossa ordinaria” from the “Novella sive commentarius in decretales epistolas Gregorii IX” by Giovanni d’Andrea (Johannes Andreæ). After the invention of printing, the Decretals of Gregory IX were first published at Strasburg from the press of Heinrich Eggesteyn. Among the numerous editions which followed special mention must be made of that published in 1582, in dibus populi romani, by order of Gregory XIII. The text of this edition, revised by the Correctores Romani, a pontifical commission established for the revision of the text of the “Corpus Juris,” has the force of law, even when it differs from that of St. Raymond. It is forbidden to introduce any change into that text (Brief “Cum pro munere,” 1 July, 1580). Among the other editions, mention may be made of that by Le Conte (Antwerp, 1570), of prior date to the Roman edition and containing the partes decis; that of the brothers Pithou (Paris, 1687); that of Böhmer (Halle, 1747), which did not reproduce the text of the Roman edition and was in its textual criticism more audacious than happy; the edition of Richter (Leipzig, 1839); and that of Friedberg (Leipzig, 1879–1881). All these authors added critical notes and the partes decis .

To indicate the principal commentators on the Decretals would necessitate the writing of a history of canon law in the Middle Ages. Mere mention will be made of Innocent IV (died 1254), Enrico de Segusio or Hostiensis (died 1271), the “Abbas antiquus” (thirteenth century), Johannes Andreæ, already mentioned, Baldus de Ubaldis (died 1400), Petrus de Ancharano (died 1416), Franciscus de Zabarellis (died 1417), Dominicus a Sancto Geminiano (fifteenth century), Joannes de Imola (died 1436), Nicolò Tudesco also called the “Abbas Siculus,” or “Modernus,” or “Panormitanus” (died 1453). Among the modern commentators, Manuel Gonzalez Tellez and Fagnanus may be consulted advantageously for the interpretation of the text of the Decretals. The Decretals of Gregory IX still form the basis of canon law so far as it has not been modified by subsequent collections and by the general laws of the Church (see CORPUS JURIS CANONICI).

IV. LATER COLLECTIONS OF DECRETALS

The decretals of the successors of Gregory IX were also arranged in collections, of which several were official, notably those of Innocent IV, Gregory X, and Nicholas III, who ordered their decretals to be inserted among those of Gregory IX. In addition to these, several unofficial collections were drawn up. The inconveniences which Gregory IX had wished to remedy presented themselves again. For this reason Boniface VIII made a new collection of decretals which he promulgated by the Bull “Sacrosanctæ” of 3 March, 1298. This is the “Sextus Liber Decretalium”; it has a value similar to that of the Decretals of Gregory IX. Boniface VIII abrogated all the decretals of the popes subsequent to the appearance of the Decretals of Gregory IX which were not included or maintained in force by the new collection; but as this collection is of later date than that of Gregory IX, it modifies those decisions of the latter collection which are irreconcilable with its own. Clement V, also, undertook to make an official collection, but death prevented him from perfecting this work. His collection was published by John XXII on 25 October, 1317, under the title of “Liber septimus Decretalium,” but it is better known under the name of “Constitutiones Clementis V” or “Clementinæ.” This is the last official collection of decretals. The two following collections, the last in the “Corpus Juris Canonici,” are the work of private individuals. They are called “Extravagantes,” because they are not included in the official collections. The first contains twenty Constitutions of John XXII, and is named “Extravagantes Joannis XXII”; the second is called “Extravagantes communes” and contains the decretals of different popes commonly met with in the manuscripts and editions. They were brought to their present form by Jean Chappuis in 1500 and 1503. (See CORPUS JURIS CANONICI; EXTRAVAGANTES; DECRETALS.)

LAURIN, Introductio in corpus juris canonici (Freiburg, 1889); SCHNEIDER, Die Lehre von den Kirchenrechtsquellen (2nd ed., Ratisbon, 1892); SCHULTE, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des kanonischen Rechts (Stuttgart, 1875–1880); TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906); the manuals of canon law of VON SCHERER, WERNZ, SÄGMÜLLER, SMITH.

A. VAN HOVE

Dedication

A term which, though sometimes used of persons who are consecrated to God’s service, is more properly applied to the “setting aside” of places for a special and sacred purpose (cf. Hastings, Dict. of the Bible). The Christian, indeed, believes that God is everywhere and that the Divine Immensity fills all space; but this faith does not exclude the idea of reserving a special spot in which the creature may hold communion with his Creator and worship Him. That the setting aside of this hallowed place was ever done with a certain show and ceremony is evident from the examples of Jacob (Gen., xxviii, 18), of Moses (Lev., viii, 10), and above all, of Solomon (III Kings, viii). This precedent of the Old Law was too obvious to be overlooked in the New, and we may be sure that the modern custom was consecrated by Apostolic usage. In a fragment of a martyrology ascribed to St. Jerome (cf. D’Achéry, Spicilegium IV) this passage occurs: “Romæ dedicatio primæ Ecclesiæ a beato Petro constructæ et consecratæ.” It is not strange, however, that owing to the persecutions of the first three centuries, references to the dedication of churches are extremely rare. The first authentic accounts of this kind are furnished by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., X, iii, iv; De Vitâ Const., IV, xliii, in P. G., XX), and Sozomen (Hist. Eccl., II, xxvi in P. G., XLVII) in regard to the cathedral of Tyre (314) and Constantine’s church at Jerusalem. The well-known historical document entitled “Peregrinatio Silviæ” (Etheria) has a full description of the celebration of the dedicatory festival of the church of Jerusalem as it was witnessed by our pilgrim-authoress in the fourth century (cf. Cabrol, Livre de la prière antique, p. 311). Here it will suffice to emphasize, in connexion with the dedication of churches, (1) the ritual employed, (2) the minister, (3) necessity and effects, and (4) festival and its days.

(1) In the beginning the dedication ceremony was very simple. A letter of Pope Vigilius to the Bishop of Bracara (538) states: “Consecrationem cujuslibet ecclesiæ, in quâ non ponuntur sanctuaria (reliquiæ) celebritatem tantum scimus esse missarum” (We know that the consecration of any church in which shrines (relics) are not placed consists merely in the celebrations of Masses). That the primitive ceremonial consisted mainly in the celebration of Mass, where there were no relics, is also shown from the old “Ordines Romani” (cf. Mabillon, “Museum Italicum,” II in P. L. LXXVIII, 857). Where relics were used the ceremony of translating and depositiing them under the altar formed a notable feature of the dedication rite (cf. “Ordo of St. Amand” in Duchesne, “Christian Worship,” London, 1903, Appendix; “Ordo of Verona” in Bianchini, ed., “Lib. Pont.,” III). The first complete formulary is found in the Gelasian Sacramentary (in P. L., LXXIV), which embodies the Roman liturgical usages of the seventh century. Here the rite consists of prayers, sprinklings with holy water, and blessings. So quickly, however, was this ritual elaborated that in the ninth century it attained the completeness which it enjoys at the present time (cf. the eighth- century “Liber Sacramentorum” in P. L., LXXVIII; “Ordines Romani,” ed. Martène, “De Ant. Eccl. Rit.,” III; Daniel, “Cod. Lit.,” I). The modern dedicatory ceremonial assumes two forms according as a church is simply blessed or solemnly consecrated. In the former case the function consists of prayers, sprinklings of holy water, and Mass (cf. Roman Ritual; Schulte, “Benedicenda,” p. 155, etc.). The solemn rite of consecration is described in the article .

(2) The solemn ceremony of dedication, or consecration is found in the Roman Pontifical and is performed de jure by a bishop (see Consecration). The simpler rite, which is given in the Roman Ritual, is generally reserved to bishops, but may be also undertaken by a priest with episcopal delegation.

(3) All churches, public oratories and semi-public, if destined for Divine worship in perpetuum, must be at least blessed before the Sacred Mysteries can be regularly celebrated in them (Cong. of Rites, Sept., 1871). Purely private or domestic oratories may not be thus dedicated, but simply blessed with the Benedictio loci (cf. Roman Ritual or Missal) on each occasion Mass is said in them. As a rule the principal churches in every district should be consecrated in the solemn manner, but as certain conditions are required for licit consecration that are not always feasible (cf. Irish Ecclesiastical Record, April, 1908, p. 430) the ordinary simple dedication rite is regarded as practically adequate. Both forms render the place sacred, and contribute, as sacramentals, to the sanctification of the faithful, but they differ in this that while a church that is consecrated must, if polluted, be reconciled by a bishop, a church that is simply blessed may be reconciled in similar circumstances by a priest (cf. Roman Ritual).

(4) Another difference in the effects of the two forms of dedication is that a consecrated church is entitled to celebrate each year the anniversary feast of its consecration, which is to be held as a double of the first class with an octave, by all the priests attached to the church. A church that is only blessed has no right to this anniversary feast unless per accidens, that is, when it is included in the special indult granted for the simultaneous celebration of the anniversaries of all the churches in a district or diocese. In this case the Office and Mass must be celebrated in every church, within the limits of the indult independently of their consecration (Cong. of Rites, n. 3863). Though any day may be selected for the dedication of a church, yet the Roman Pontifical suggests those “Sundays and solemn festive days” which admit the dedicatory Office and Mass, as well as the anniversary celebration.

In addition to the authorities cited the following may be usefully consulted: Catalani, Commentarium in Pontificale Romanum (Paris, 1850); Ferraris, Bibliotheca, s. v. Ecclesia (Paris, 1865); De Herdt, Praxis Pontificalis (Louvain, 1905); Bernard, Le Pontifical (Paris, 1902), II; Many, De Locis Sacris (Paris, 1904); Schultz, Benedicendo; Consecranda (New York, 1906), very full on ceremonial.

PATRICK MORRISROE.

Feast of the Dedication (Scriptural)

Also called the Feast of the Machabees and Feast of Lights (Josephus and Talmudic writings), mentioned in the Old Testament (I Machabees 4:56), and in the New (John 10:22). It was instituted by Judas Machabeus (164 B.C.) to be celebrated yearly on the 25th day of the month Kislew and during its octave, in commemoration of the purification of the temple of Jerusalem which had been polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes on that day three years previously (I Machabees 4:41–64; II Machabees 6:2). Unlike the great Hebrew annual feasts, it could be celebrated not only in the temple at Jerusalem, but also in the synagogues of all places. It was observed with manifestations of joy such as accompanied the Feast of Tabernacles, during the celebration of which the dedication of the first temple had taken place. During the celebration of the feast mourning and fasting were not allowed to begin. The Jews assembled in the temple and synagogues bearing branches of trees and palms and singing psalms; the Hallel (Psalms 113–118) being sung every day. The joyful character of the feast was also manifested by illuminations, which may have been suggested by the “lighting of the lamps of the candlestick” when the temple service was first restored (I Machabees 4:50–51), or, according to very early Midrashim, by the miraculous burning throughout the first celebration of the feast of a vial of oil found in the temple. Since the first century a general illumination of Hebrew houses has been customary, every house having at least one light, and some, according to the school of the rabbis, having one light for each person in the house on the first night and twice the number on each succeeding night; others again, having eight lights the first night and a lesser number each night thereafter. Modern Hebrews keep the feast on 12 December, with strictness, but do not forbid servile work. At the daily morning prayer a different portion of Numbers 7 is read in the Synagogue.

LIGHTFOOT, Horæ Hebraicæ (Oxford, 1859), s. v.; The Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v. Hanukkah, the Hebrew name of the feast; SCHÜRER, A Hist. of the Jewish People, etc., 2nd ed. of Eng. tr., I, 217, for complete bibliography.

ARTHUR L. MCMAHON

Deduction

(Lat. de ducere, to lead, draw out, derive from; especially, the function of deriving truth from truth). The topic will be treated in two sections:

I. As an argument or reasoning process: that kind of mediate inference by which from truths already known we advance to a knowledge of other truths necessarily implied in the former; the mental product or result of that process.

II. As a method: the deductive method, by which we increase our knowledge through a series of such inferences.

I. AS AN ARGUMENT OR REASONING PROCESS

The typical expression of deductive inference is the syllogism. The essential feature of deduction is the necessary character of the connexion between the antecedent or premises and the consequent or conclusion. Granted the truth of the antecedent judgments, the consequent must follow; and the firmness of our assent to the latter is conditioned by that of our assent to the former. The antecedent contains the ground or reason which is the motive of our assent to the consequent; the latter, therefore, cannot have greater firmness or certainty than the former. This relation of necessary sequence constitutes the formal aspect of deduction. It can be realized most clearly when the argument is expressed symbolically, either in the hypothetical form:

“If anything (S) is M it is P;

but this S is M;

therefore this S is P,”

or in the categorial form,

“Whatever (S) is M is P;

but this S is M;

therefore this S is P.”

The material aspect of the deductive argument is the truth or falsity of the judgments which constitute it. If these be certain and evident the deduction is called demonstration, the Aristotelian apodeixis. Since the conclusion is necessarily implied in the premises, these must contain some abstract, general principle, of which the conclusion is a special application; otherwise the conclusion could not be necessarily derived from them; and all mediate inferences must be deductive, at least in this sense, that they involve the recognition of some universal truth and do not proceed directly from particular to particular without the intervention of the universal.

AS A METHOD

When, starting from general principles, we advance by a series of deductive steps to the discovery and proof of new truths, we employ the deductive or synthetic method. But how do we become certain of those principles which form our starting-points?

We may accept them on authority as, for example, Christians accept the deposit of Christian revelation on Divine authority and proceed to draw out their implications by the deductive reasoning which has shaped and moulded the science of theology.

Or we may apprehend them by intellectual intuition as self-evident, abstract truths concerning the nature of thought, of being, of matter, of quantity, number, etc., and thence proceed to build up the deductive sciences of logic, metaphysics, mathematics, etc. Down through the Middle Ages enlightened thought was fixed almost exclusively on those two groups of data, both sacred and profane; and that accounts for the fulness of the scholastic development of deduction.

But besides being and quantity, the universe presents change, evolution, regular recurrences or repetition of particular facts, from the careful observation and analysis of which we may ascend to the discovery of a third great class of general truths or laws.

This ascent from the particular to the general is called induction, or the inductive or analytic method. Comparatively little attention was paid to this method during the Middle Ages. Apparatus for the accurate observation and exact measurement of natural phenomena was needed to give the first real impetus to the cultivation of the physical, natural, or inductive sciences. In these departments of research the mind approaches reality from the side of the concrete and particular and ascends to the abstract and general, while in deduction it descends from the general to the particular. But although the mind moves in opposite directions in both methods, nevertheless the reasoning or inference proper, employed in induction, is in no sense different from deductive reasoning, for it too implies and is based on abstract, necessary truths.

P. COFFEY.

Abbey of Deer

A once famous Scotch monastery. According to the Celtic legend St. Columcille, his disciple Drostan, and others, went from Hy (Iona) into Buchan and established an important missionary centre at Deer on the banks of the Ugie on lands given him by the mormaer or chief of the district whose son he had by his prayers freed of a dangerous illness. This happened probably in the last quarter of the sixth century. Columcille soon after continued his missionary journeys and left Drostan as abbot at Deer. Drostan died here about 606. The legend receives confirmation from the fact that the parish of Aberdour venerated St. Drostan as patron. In later years the Normans had little sympathy with the Celtic institutions, so we find the Earl of Buchan in 1219 founding the Cistercian abbey of New Deer about two miles westward of Columcille’s foundation, granting to the new abbey a portion of the lands of Old Deer, the rest going to the maintenance of a parochial church. In 1551 the son of the Earl Marischal succeeded his uncle Robert Keith as titular Abbot of Deer holding the abbey lands in commendam. The flourishing monastery soon fell a prey to the Scottish Reformers. Among its treasures is the venerable document known as the “Book of Deer.” This is one of the oldest monuments of Scottish literature, and was ably edited in 1869 for the Spalding Club by its secretary, Dr. John Stuart. It had become known to scholars in 1858 when it was found in the University of Cambridge. It was then also discovered that the university had come into its possession in 1715 among the books of Dr. John Moore, Bishop of Norwich, which had been purchased by George I and presented by him to the university; how Bishop Moore had obtained it is not known. The manuscript is a small, nearly square octavo numbering eighty-six folios of parchment, written on both sides of the leaf in a dark brown ink, in a hand wonderfully clear and legible. The pages had been ruled with a sharp pointed instrument and the letters had been placed under the lines, not on them. It contains the first six chapters of the Gospel of St. Matthew, a part of the fifth chapter of St. Mark, the entire Gospel of St. John, a part of the office for visiting the sick and the Apostles’ Creed. The text is from the Latin Vulgate with some peculiarities common to Irish Bible editions, and is written in the well-known minuscule lettering of the Irish scribes; the initial letters were greatly enlarged and ornamented with patches of colour in dragonesque forms, and the pages have ornamental borders. There are also full portraits of the Evangelists. The Book then contains entries in the Gaelic tongue, the most important being that giving an account of the foundation of the Abbey of Deer. The author was probably a member of that community and lived perhaps in the eighth century. He gives no clue to his identity, but signs himself a poor wretch and asks for a blessing. The last document in the Book is a Latin charter from the great and good King David.

MONTALEMBERT, Monks of the West (New York, 1896), II, 53; The irish Ecclesiastical Record (1892), 865; O’HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints (Dublin, 1875), VI, 389; BELLESHEIM. Gesch. der kath. Kirche in Schottland (Mainz, 1883), I, 193 and passim (tr. HUNTER-BLAIR); JANAUSCHEK, Orig. Cist. (1877), I, 223; SKENE, Celtic Scotland, II.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN.

Defender of the Matrimonial Tie

(Defensor matrimonii)

The Defender of the Matrimonial Tie is an official whose duty is to defend the marriage-bond in the procedure prescribed for the hearing of matrimonial causes which involve the validity or nullity of a marriage already contracted. Benedict XIV, by his Bull “Dei Miseratione,” 3 November, 1741, introduced this official into the marriage procedure to guard against abuses occurring from the ordinary procedure. An annulment of a marriage might result from the appearance of only one of the married couple who desired freedom to enter upon a new marriage, while the other was apathetic and conniving at the annulment, or at times unable or indisposed to incur expense to uphold the marriage-tie, especially if it implied an appeal to a higher court. Perhaps, too, the judicial decision might induce change of opinion without sufficient warrant. Scandal arose from the frequency of dissolution of marriages with the freedom to enter new contracts. The Bull “Dei Miseratione” requires that in each diocese the ordinary shall appoint a defender of marriage, upright in character, and learned in the law, an ecclesiastic if possible, a layman if necessary. The bishop may suspend him or remove him for cause, and, if he is prevented from taking part in the procedure, substitute one with the requisite qualifications. He must be summoned to any trial in which there is question, before a competent judge, of the validity or nullity of a marriage, and any proceeding will be null if he is not duly cited. He must have the opportunity to examine the witnesses, and, orally or in writing, to bring forward whatever arguments may favour the validity of the marriage. He must be cited even though the party interested in the defence of the marriage be present, and all the acts of the court are always to be accessible to him, and at any time he has a right to bring forward new documents or witnesses favourable to the marriage. On assuming his office he must take an oath to fulfil its duties and he is expected to renew the oath in each case. If the judge decides in favour of the marriage the defender takes no further action unless its opponent appeals to a higher court. Here a defender undertakes anew the defence of its validity. If the judge of first instance decides against the validity of the marriage and no one else appeals, the defender of marriage is required by the Bull “Dei Miseratione” in all cases to appeal to the higher court. If the first two courts agree upon the nullity of a marriage the defender need not appeal, unless his conscience tells him that a serious mistake was made. If he feels it his duty to appeal a new marriage may not be contracted till his plea is heard. The decision in matrimonial cases is never absolutely final; so that if new, serious reason appears for the validity of a marriage, it must be judicially investigated.

This legislation was extended and enforced in the United States by an Instruction of Propaganda in 1883, published with the “Acts and Decrees of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.” Though the Bull “Dei Miseratione” does not require it, the practice of the Roman Congregations extends the intervention of the defender to cases of true marriages not consummated where the Holy See is requested to grant a dispensation for a new marriage. The obligation of the defender to appeal from the decision of first instance, adverse to the validity of a marriage, has been modified by the Holy See in several cases, where the invalidity depends upon facts indisputably proven, through the Congregation of the Holy Office (5 June, 1889) whose decree was declared (16 June, 1894) to extend to the whole Church. Where the decree “Tametsi” of the Council of Trent was binding, requiring the presence of the parish priest for the validity, if only a civil ceremony was used, the bishop may declare the marriage null without the participation of the defender. in view of the new matrimonial legislation contained in the decree “Ne Temere” of Pius X this also holds anywhere if a marriage is attempted only before a civil authority or non-Catholic minister of religion. Yet if an ecclesiastical form had been used, and the nullity from clandestinity was questioned, his presence is required; but if the impediment of clandestinity clearly appears he need not appeal. This is true also if, through absence of ecclesiastical dispensation, there is an impediment of disparity of worship, or of consanguinity, or of affinity from lawful intercourse, or of spiritual relationship, or of certain previous legitimate marriage still existing. In these cases the ordinary may, with the participation of the defender, declare the marriage null, and the defender is not required to appeal. This, however, was declared by the Holy Office (27 May, 1901) to be understood only of cases in which certainly and clearly the impediment is proven; otherwise the defender must proceed to the higher court. The defender is exhorted to exercise his office gratuitously, but he may be compensated from fees imposed by the court or from other diocesan resources.

BENEDICT XIV, Bull “Dei Miseratione” (3 Nov., 1741), in Bullar. Magn., XVI, 48 sq.; Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide, nos. 1572, 1573, 1575; GASPARRI, De Matrimonio (Paris, 1904), ch. viii.; LAURENTIUS, Inst. Jur. Eccl. (Freiburg, 1903), V, no. 159; SMITH, Elements of Eccl. Law (New York, 1886), II; TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906); BASSIBEY, Le Défenseur du lien matr. in Revue des Sciences Ecclés. (May-June, 1899); BOUDINHON, Le Mariage Religieux (Paris, 1900).

R.L. BURTSELL

Theological Definition

The Vatican Council (Sess. iv, cap. iv) solemnly taught the doctrine of papal infallibility in the following terms:

“The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedrâ, that is to say, when in the exercise of his office of pastor and teacher of all Christians he, in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, defines that a doctrine on faith or morals is to be held by the whole Church, by the assistance of God promised to him in the person of Blessed Peter, has that infallibility with which it was the will of Our Divine Redeemer that His Church should be furnished in defining a doctrine on faith or morals.”

From this teaching we obtain an authoritative notion of the meaning of definition in its theological, as distinct from its philosophical, or canonical, sense. It is an irrevocable decision, by which the supreme teaching authority in the Church decides a question appertaining to faith or morals, and which binds the whole Church. From this explanation it will be seen that four conditions are required for a theological definition.

(1) IT MUST BE A DECISION BY THE SUPREME TEACHING AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH

There are two organs of supreme doctrinal authority, viz.: the pope, speaking in his official capacity of pastor and teacher of all Christians, and the bishops of the Catholic Church dispersed throughout the world or assembled in a general council. The pope, as successor of St. Peter, has definitive authority, in the exercise of which he speaks neither as a private individual, nor as a mere theologian, nor as Bishop of the Diocese of Rome, nor as Metropolitan of the Roman Province, nor as Primate of Italy, nor as Patriarch of the Western Church, nor as head of any Roman Congregation, but as supreme pastor of the whole Church. The bishops of the Catholic Church assembled with the pope in a general council have the same doctrinal authority with which the pope is endowed; and so have the bishops dispersed throughout the Catholic world when, in conjunction with the pope, they teach a doctrine of faith or morals to be irrevocably held by all Christians. These two supreme teaching authorities are the organs of active infallibility from which alone a theological definition can proceed.

(2) THE DECISION MUST CONCERN A DOCTRINE OF FAITH OR MORALS

Faith means the speculative doctrines of revelation; morals, the practical doctrines of revelation. Faith is what we have to believe, morals what we have to do, in order to obtain eternal life. Both faith and morals are parts of the deposit which Christ left for the guidance of His Church; so far as the obligation of assent is concerned, there is no difference between them; the distinction is made for the sake of convenience rather than for the sake of any substantial difference between them so far as they are the objects of active infallibility. Doctrines of faith or morals which are formally revealed are called the direct object of infallibility, while doctrines which are only virtually revealed, or are only intimately connected with revelation, such as dogmatic or moral facts, are called the indirect object of infallibility. The Church has authority to issue definitions in connexion with both the direct and the indirect objects of active infallibility. It is not, however, de fide that the Church has infallible authority over the indirect doctrines of faith and morals, though it cannot be denied without theological censure.

(3) THE DECISION MUST BIND THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH

Decrees which bind only a part of the Church are not definitions; but only those which command the assent of all the faithful. It is not, however, absolutely necessary that the decree should be directly sent or addressed to the whole Church; it is quite sufficient if it is made clear that the supreme teaching authority means to bind the Universal Church. Thus, St. Leo addressed his famous dogmatic definition to Flavian, yet it was rightly considered as binding the Universal Church; and Pope Innocent sent his decree to the African Church alone, yet St. Augustine exclaimed: Causa finita est, utinam aliquando finiatur error! (Serm. ii, de Verb. Ap., c. vii).

(4) THE DECISION MUST BE IRREVOCABLE OR, AS IT IS CALLED, DEFINITIVE

Arguments contained in conciliar definitions are proposed by the supreme teaching authority in the Church, they concern faith and morals, and they bind the Universal Church; yet they are not definitions, because they lack this fourth condition—they are not definitively proposed for the assent of the whole Church. Two things are implied by the statement that a decree, to be a definition, must be final and irrevocable. The decree must be the last word of supreme teaching authority; there must be no possibility of re-opening the question in a spirit of doubt; the decree must settle the matter for ever. The decree must also, and in consequence of its final nature, bind the whole Church to an irrevocable internal assent. This assent is at least an assent of ecclesiastical faith; and in doctrines which are formally revealed it is also an assent of Divine faith. When the definition commands an irrevocable assent of Divine faith as well as of ecclesiastical faith, the defined dogma is said to be de fide in the technical sense of this phrase. It is well to note that the definitive nature of a decree does not prevent the defined doctrine from being examined anew and defined again by the pope or a general council; what it excludes is a re-opening of the question in a spirit of doubt about the truth of the doctrine which has been already definitively settled.

It has been sometimes said that it is impossible to know whether or not a theological definition has been issued; but very few words are needed to show that the assertion is without foundation. At times, doubt will remain about the definitive nature of a decree, but as a rule no possibility of doubt is consistent with the terminology of a definitive decree. Thus in the doctrinal teaching of a general council, attached to condemned errors is a certain sign of an infallible definition. Words also like those in which Pius IX solemnly defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin give irrefutable proof of the definitive nature of the decree: “By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine . . . to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful.” No set form of words is necessary; any form which clearly indicates that the four requisite conditions are present suffices to show that the decree is a definition in the strict sense. It should be noted that not everything contained in a definition is infallibly defined. Thus, arguments from Scripture, tradition, or theological reason, do not come under the exercise of definitive authority. Incidental statements, called obiter dicta, are also examples of non-definitive utterances. Only the doctrine itself, to which those arguments lead and which these obiter dicta illustrate, is to be considered as infallibly defined. (See INFALLIBILITY; CENSURES, THEOLOGICAL; DOGMATIC FACTS; BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION; FAITH.)

HUNTER, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology (New York, 1896), I; WILHELM AND SCANNELL, A Manual of Catholic Theology (New York, 1898), I; DENZINGER, Enchiridion (Freiburg, 1899).

J. M. HARTY.

Definitor (in Canon Law)

An official in secular deaneries and in certain religious orders. Among regulars, a definitor is appointed as a counsellor of the provincial or general superior with certain determinate powers. (See DEFINITORS IN RELIGIOUS ORDERS.) Dioceses are usually divided into deaneries, and these deaneries are again sub-divided into districts which are sometimes called definitiones. Over each district is placed an official styled definitor, who oversees the administration of ecclesiastical property and also gives aid to the dean in the more important duties of his office. Such definitors are elected by the rural chapters with the bishop’s approval, or in some cases are directly appointed by the ordinary. Anciently, their principal duty was to care for and divide the revenues of a prebend between the heirs of the deceased and the new occupant, and likewise to determine what proportion of income belonged to outgoing and incoming beneficiaries of a church. The definitor acts as the representative of the dean when the latter is absent or incapacitated by illness or irregularity. It is his duty to announce to the bishop, likewise, the death of the dean and conduct preparations for the election of a successor. It is to be observed that definitors are in no sense necessary officials of a diocese, and that the duties here assigned to them are sometimes fulfilled by others. In some decanal or rural chapters the title given to the definitor is chamberlain or treasurer.

LAURENTIUS, Institutiones Jur. Eccl. (Freiburg, 1903). Corpus Juris Canonici, c. 4, X, I, 24 (c. xiii, Cone. Tiein., an. 850).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Definitors (in Religious Orders)

Generally speaking, the governing council of an order. Bergier describes them as those chosen to represent the order in general or provincial chapters, but this is not altogether correct, for the usage varies in different orders. With the Dominicans all who are sent to represent the provinces in a general chapter are definitors; amongst the Cluniac monks there existed a similar regulation (though normally in the Benedictine Order definitors have no place). On the other hand, in the Franciscan Order, definitors are elected by the general and provincial chapters to assist the general or provincial superiors in the government of the order and a similar rule exists amongst the Carmelites and the Hermits of St. Augustine. But in this case it would seem that the definitors form a sort of executive committee of the chapter, since they are subject to the legislative enactments of the chapter. Definitors, strictly so called, have a decisive vote in congregation equally with the general or provincial superior; in this they differ from mere consultors such as exist in some orders and in the Society of Jesus. Nor may the general or provincial superior act in matters of greater moment without taking the vote of the definitors. A definitor, however, has the right to vote only when present in congregation. When called to give his opinion in congregation he is bound in conscience to speak candidly according to his own judgment, even if he knows his opinion to be contrary to that of the other definitors, and if he fails to do so in matters of gravity, he is held to sin gravely. Yet when the vote is taken, he is bound to sign the declaration of the minority report. In some orders, e.g. the Capuchin, the junior definitor gives his opinion first, that the may not be influenced by the seniors; but in other orders the senior speaks first. Again, in some orders the local superiors are appointed by the definitors; in others they are elected by the local community. Thus, amongst the Franciscans, the provincial superior is selected by the provincial chapter, subject to confirmation by the minister general and his definitors, whereas the superiors of houses are appointed directly by the provincial definitors: whilst amongst the Dominicans all local superiors are elected by the local community.

BERGIER, Dictionnair de theologie (Toulouse, 1819), II; PLATUS, Praelectiones Juris Regularis (Tournai, 1890).

FATHER CUTHBERT.

Ernst Deger

Historical painter, born in Bockenem, Hanover, 15 April, 1809; died in Düsseldorf, 27 Jan., 1885. Little is known concerning his early life. In 1828 he went to the Berlin Academy of Fine Arts to begin the study of art under Professor Wach, and was there so impressed by pictures of the Düsseldorf School that he placed himself under Schadow, the director of the Dusseldorf Academy. Deger, says Dr. Banz, “lived in religion, had a profound conviction of the nobility of his art, and painted what he felt, believed and hoped.” He was only twenty-one when his “Pietà” brought him fame, and thenceforth he devoted himself to religious painting. In 1837 he went to Italy with Ittenbach and the Müller brothers to study the frescoes by the old masters in Florence and Rome. Overbeck, leader of the German pre-Raphaelites and head of the “Nazarene School,” gave advice and encouragement to these young zealots, and Deger especially gained much from contact with this master; Deger was intrusted with the most important frescoes in the church of St. Apollinaris (Remagen), and, fully equipped after his four years’ study, he returned from Rome in 1843 and began the work. In eight years he finished a noble series of paintings, representing the events in the life of Christ; these Apollinaris frescoes, the most remarkable productions of the “Nazarites,” mark the zenith of the German school of religious painting, called by Cardinal Wiseman “the restorer of Christian taste throughout all Europe.”

In 1851 Frederick William IV, King of Prussia, commissioned Deger to paint twelve scenes in the chapel of the castle of Stolzenfels (Coblenz), and for this Deger chose subjects illustrating the redemption of mankind. When this monumental work was finished, Deger settled permanently in Düsseldorf, commenced again to paint in oil, and spent the rest of his life on easel pictures, chiefly Madonnas. Of these the most beautiful are the idyllic “Madonna ‘mid the Green” and the inspiring “Regina Cœli.” He frequently visited Munich where he painted a “Virgin and Child” and an “Ascension” for the Maximilianeum of that city. In 1857 and 1859 two of his notable canvases, both religious subjects, were hung in the Paris Salon. Deger was made professor in the Munich Academy of Fine Arts, a member of the Berlin Academy of Fine Arts, and, in 1869, professor in the Düsseldorf Academy of Fine Arts. His style was vigorous, direct, and simple; his handling careful and precise; his drawing and power of characterization masterful; and his colour rich and harmonious. Deger exerted a powerful influence in ridding German art of its baroque element and in stimulating its votaries to poetry, loftiness, and profound conviction. Two of his notable works are “Adam and Eve,” in the Raczynski Gallery, Berlin, and the “Virgin and Child,” in St. Andrew’s Chapel, Düsseldorf.

ATKINSON, School of Modern Art in Germany (London); BANZ, Ernst Deger, the Religious Painter in Benziger’s Magazine (New York, Sept., 1907); VON KÖNIGSWINTER, Düsseldorfer Künstler (Leipzig, 1854); WIEGMAN, Die Kunstakademie zu Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, 1856).

LEIGH HUNT.

Degradation

(Lat. degradatio).

A canonical penalty by which an ecclesiastic is entirely and perpetually deprived of all office, benefice, dignity, and power conferred on him by ordination; and by a special ceremony is reduced to the state of a layman, losing the privileges of the clerical state and being given over to the secular arm. Degradation, however, cannot deprive an ecclesiastic of the character conferred in ordination, nor does it dispense him from the law of celibacy and the recitation of the Breviary. Degradation is twofold: verbal, i.e. the mere sentence of degradation; and real or actual, i.e. the execution of that sentence. They are not two distinct penalties, but parts of the same canonical punishment. Degradation is a perpetual punishment, and the clergyman so punished has never any right to release from it. It differs from deposition in so far as it deprives, and always totally, of all power of orders and jurisdiction and also of the privileges of the ecclesiastical state, thus in all things subjecting the delinquent to civil authority. While a bishop, even before his consecration can inflict deposition or pronounce a sentence of verbal degradation and can reinstate those so punished, it is only a consecrated bishop who can inflict actual degradation, and only the Holy See which can reinstate ecclesiastics actually degraded.

Solemn degradation owes its origin to the military practice of thus expelling soldiers from the army; the Church adopted this institution in order to remove grievously delinquent clerics from the ecclesiastical order. The first mention of clerical degradation is found in the eighty-third Novel of Justinian; subsequently it was adopted with its external solemnities by early medieval councils as a repressive measure against heretics. It did not originally differ from deposition, and degraded ecclesiastics were still privileged and remained exclusively subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The laity, however, complained that churchmen, even when degraded, secured in this way impunity for their crimes. Hence, Innocent III (c. viii, Decrim. falsi, X, v, 20) made it a permanent rule that clerical offenders, after degradation, should be handed over to the secular power, to be punished according to the law of the land. Degradation cannot be inflicted except for crimes clearly designated in the law, or for any other enormous crime when deposition and excommunication have been applied in vain, and the culprit has proved incorrigible. According to the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII,c.iv, De ref.), a bishop, when inflicting degradation on a priest, must have with him six mitred abbots as associate judges, and three such prelates for the degradation of a deacon or subdeacon. If abbots cannot be had, a like number of church dignitaries of mature age, and skilled in canon law, may take their place. All these must give their vote, which is decisive, and must be unanimous for the imposition of so grave a penalty.

The ceremony of actual degradation consists chiefly in bringing before the ecclesiastical superior the culprit vested in the robes corresponding to his order; in gradually divesting him of his sacred vestments, beginning with the last he received at his ordination; finally, in surrendering him to the lay judge (who must always be present) with a plea for lenient treatment and avoidance of bloodshed. The words pronounced by the ecclesiastical superior during the ceremony, also other rubrical details, are laid down by Boniface VIII (c. Degradatio, ii, de poenis, in VI) and by the Roman Pontifical (pt. III, c.vii). Degradation is now rarely, if ever, inflicted; dismissal, with perpetual deprivation, takes its place.

For bibliography see Deposition.

S. LUZIO.

Joseph Deharbe

Theologian, catechist, b. at Straburg, Alsace, 11 April, 1800; d. at Maria-Laach, 8 November, 1871. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1817 and after teaching for eleven years at the Jesuit College at Brieg, Switzerland, he became in 1840 a missionary and catechist in Cöthen. With Father Rohe, S.J., he established at Lucerne in 1845 the academy of St. Charles Borromeo. When in 1847 a persecution broke out against the Jesuits in Switzerland, Deharbe barely escaped with his life. After that he was chiefly engaged in giving missions in Germany. As a catechist in Cöthen he felt very keenly the lack of a good catechism, and was encouraged by his superior, Fr. Devis, to compose a serviceable textbook, but always hesitated, feeling himself incompetent. His superior, knowing Deharbe’s spirit of obedience, simply commanded him to undertake the task. As a model he took the Mainz catechism of 1842 and made use also of other good textbooks, notably of Bossuet’s catechism. He completed his first catechism, called “Katholischer Katechismus oder Lehrbegriff” in 1847. In 1848 it appeared anonymously at Ratisbon and immediately won universal approval. Bishop Blum of Linsburg introduced officially into his diocese the same year; the following year the bishops of Trier and Hildesheim did likewise for their dioceses. In 1850 the Bavarian bishops resolved to introduce a common catechism for the entire kingdom, and accepted Deharbe’s catechism, which was then introduced in 1853. Other German dioceses adopted it as follows: Cologne, 1854; Main and Paderborn, 1855; Fulda, 1858; Ermland, 1861; Culm, 1863; Gnesen-Posen, 1868. At the same time it spread outside of Germany, in Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, and the United States. It was translated in 1851 into Magyar, then into Bohemian, Italian, and French; into Swedish and Marathi, 1861; into Polish and Lithuanian, 1862; into Slovenian, 1868; into Danish, 1869; and later repeatedly into Spanish and Portuguese. It was reintroduced into Bavaria in 1908; and it is still in use in most German dioceses, in Denmark and Sweden, in Brazil, Chile, East India, and in many schools in the United States. In a revised form, Austria adopted it in 1897. Deharbe himself prepared and published at Ratisbon four extracts of his first work, entitled(1) “Katholischer Katechismus” (1847); (2) “Kleiner katholischer Katechismus” (1847); (3) “Anfangsgründe der katholichen Lehre für die kleinen Schüler” (1847); “Kleiner katholischer Katechismus” (1849–50). According to Father Linder, S. J., Deharbe’s catechism possesses theological correctness, brevity of sentences, preciseness of expression, clearness, and good order; according to the same authority, its defects consists of redundancy of memory-matter, abstraction of expression, incomplete sentences. It is to Deharbe’s credit that in his catechism he preserved catechetical tradition, but abandoned the Canisian division, arranging the text-matter under chapters on Faith, Commandments, and Means of Grace. Deharbe’s catechisms have been frequently edited and revised. His other works, all published at Ratisbon, are: “Die vollkommene Liebe Gottes” (1855); “Erklärung des katholischen Katechismus (4 vols., 1857–64, fifth ed., (1880-); “Kürzeres Handbuch zum Religionsunterrichte” (1865–68, sixth ed., Linden ed., 1898).

Spirago-Mesmer, Method of Christian Doctrine (Cincinnati, 1901); Linden, Der mittlere Deharbesche Katischismus (Ratisbon, 1900); Thalhoffer, Entwicklung des katholischen Katechismus in Deutschland (Freiburg, 1899); Rolfus and Pfister, Realencyclopädie des Erziehungs und Unterrichtswesens (Mainz, 1874), passim; Krieg, Katechtik (Freiburg, 1907); Herder, Konversationslexicon, s. v.; Baier, Methodik (Würzburg, 1897).

FRANCIS L. KERZE

St. Deicolus

(DICHUIL)

Elder brother of St. Gall, b. in Leinster, Ireland, c. 530; d. at Lure, France, 18 January, 625. Having studied at Bangor he was selected as one of the twelve disciples to accompany St. Columbanus in his missionary enterprise. After a short stay in England he journeyed to Gaul, in 576, and laboured with St. Columbanus in Austrasia and Burgundy. At Luxeuil he was unwearied in his ministrations, and yet was always serene and even joyous. When St. Columbanus was expelled by Thierry, in 610, St. Deicolus, then eighty tears of age, determined to follow his master, but was forced, after a short time, to give up the journey, and settled in a deserted place called Lutre, or Lure (French Jura), in the Diocese of Besançon, to which he had been directed by a swineherd. Till his death, he was thenceforth the apostle of this district, where he was given a little church and a tract of land by Berthelde, widow of Weifar, the lord of Lure. Soon a noble abbey was erected for his many disciples, and the Rule of St. Columbanus was adopted. Numerous miracles are recorded of St. Deicolus, including the suspension of his cloak on a sunbeam and the taming of wild beasts. Clothaire II, King of Burgundy, recognised the virtues of the saint and considerably enriched the Abbey of Lure, also granting St. Deicolus the manor, woods, fisheries, etc. of the town which had grown around the monastery. Feeling his end approaching, St. Deicolus gave over the government of his abbey to Columbanus, one of his young monks, and spent his remaining days in prayer and meditation. His feast is celebrated on 18 January. So revered was his memory that his name (Dichuil), under the slightly disguised form of Deel and Deela, is still borne by most of the children of the Lure district. His Acts were written by a monk of his own monastery in the tenth century.

COLGAN, Acta Sanctorum Hiberniæ (Louvain, 1645); MABILLON, Annal. Benedict; O’HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints, I; O’LAVERTY, Down and Connor (Dublin, 1880), II; STOKES, Early Christian Art in Ireland (London, 1887).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

Dei gratia; Dei et Apostolicæ Sedis gratia

(By the grace of God; By the grace of God and the Apostolic See)

A formulæ added to the titles of ecclesiastical dignitaries. The first (N. Dei gratiâ Episcopus N.) has been used in that form or in certain equivalents since the fifth century. Among the signatures of the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) we find names to which are added: Dei gratiâ, per gratiam Dei, Dei miseratione Episcopus N. (Mansi, Sacr. Conc. Coll., IV, 1213; VII, 137, 139, 429 sqq.). Though afterwards employed occasionally, it did not become prevalent until the eleventh century. The second form (N. Dei et Apostolicœ Sedis gratiâ Episcopus N.) is current since the eleventh century; but came into general use by archbishops and bishops only since the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The first formula expresses the Divine origin of the episcopal office; the second exhibits the union of the bishops and their submission to the See of Rome. Temporal rulers since King Pepin the Short, in the eighth century, also made use of the first formula; from the fifteenth it was employed to signify complete and independent sovereignty, in contradistinction to the sovereignty conferred by the choice of the people. For this reason the bishops in some parts of Southern Germany (Baden, Bavaria, Wurtemberg) are not allowed to use it, but must say instead: Dei Miseratione et Apostolicœ Sedis gratiâ.

BINTERIM in Katholik (1823), VII, 129 sqq.; IDEM Denkwürdigkeiten (Mainz, 1838), I; THOMASSIN, Disipline de l’eglise (Bar-le-Duc, 1864), I; PERMANEDER in Kirchenlex., s. v. Dei qratiâ; HEFELE in Kirchenlex., s. v. Apostolicœ Sedis gratiâ.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Deism

(Lat. Deus, God).

The term used to denote certain doctrines apparent in a tendency of thought and criticism that manifested itself principally in England towards the latter end of the seventeenth century. The doctrines and tendency of deism were, however, by no means entirely confined to England, nor to the seventy years or so during which most of the deistical productions were given to the world; for a similar spirit of criticism aimed at the nature and content of traditional religious beliefs, and the substitution for them of a rationalistic naturalism has frequently appeared in the course of religious thought. Thus there have been French and German deists as well as English; while Pagan, Jewish, or Moslem deists might be found as well as Christian.

Because of the individualistic standpoint of independent criticism which they adopt, it is difficult, if not impossible, to class together the representative writers who contributed to the literature of English deism as forming any one definite school, or to group together the positive teachings contained in their writings as any one systematic expression of a concordant philosophy. The deists were what nowadays would be called freethinkers, a name, indeed, by which they were not infrequently known; and they can only be classed together wholly in the main attitude that they adopted, viz. in agreeing to cast off the trammels of authoritative religious teaching in favour of a free and purely rationalistic speculation. Many of them were frankly materialistic in their doctrines; while the French thinkers who subsequently built upon the foundations laid by the English deists were almost exclusively so. Others rested content with a criticism of ecclesiastical authority in teaching the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures, or the fact of an external revelation of supernatural truth given by God to man. In this last point, while there is a considerable divergence of method and procedure observable in the writings of the various deists, all, at least to a very large extent, seem to concur. Deism, in its every manifestation was opposed to the current and traditional teaching of revealed religion.

In England the deistical movement seems to be an almost necessary outcome of the political and religious conditions of the time and country. The Renaissance had fairly swept away the later scholasticism and with it, very largely, the constructive philosophy of the Middle Ages. The Protestant Reformation, in its open revolt against the authority of the Catholic Church, had inaugurated a slow revolution, in which all religious pretensions were to be involved. The Bible as a substitute for the living voice of the Church and the State religion as a substitute for Catholicism might stand for a time; but the very mentality that brought them into being as substitutes could not logically rest content with them. The principle of private judgment in matters of religion had not run its full course in accepting the Bible as the Word of God. A favourable opportunity would spur it forward once more; and from such grudging acceptance as it gave to the Scriptures it would proceed to a new examination and a final rejection of their claims. The new life of the empirical sciences, the enormous enlargement of the physical horizon in such discoveries as those of astronomy and geography, the philosophical doubt and rationalistic method of Descartes, the advocated empiricism of Bacon, the political changes of the times—all these things were factors in the preparation and arrangement of a stage upon which a criticism levelled at revelational religion might come forward and play its part with some chance of success. And though the first essays of deism were somewhat veiled and intentionally indirect in their attack upon revelation, with the revolution and the civil and religious liberty consequent upon it, with the spread of the critical and empirical spirit as exemplified in the philosophy of Locke, the time was ripe for the full rehearsal of the case against Christianity as expounded by the Establishment and the sects. The wedge of private judgment had been driven into authority. It had already split Protestantism into a great number of conflicting sects. It was now to attempt the wreck of revealed religion in any shape or form.

The deistical tendency passed through several more or less clearly defined phases. All the forces possible were mustered against its advance. Parliaments took cognizance of it. Some of the productions of the deists were publicly burnt. The bishops and clergy of the Establishment were strenuous in resisting it. For every pamphlet or book that a deist wrote, several “answers” were at once put before the public as antidotes. Bishops addressed pastoral letters to their dioceses warning the faithful of the danger. Woolston’s “Moderator” provoked no less than five such pastorals from the Bishop of London. All that was ecclesiastically official and respectable was ranged in opposition to the movement, and the deists were held up to general detestation in the strongest terms. When the critical principles and freethought spirit filtered down to the middle classes and the masses, when such men as Woolston and Chubb put pen to paper, a perfect storm of counter-criticism arose. As a matter of fact, not a few educated and cultured men were really upon the side of a broad toleration in matters of religion. The “wit and ridicule” by which the Earl of Shaftesbury would have all tested meant, as Brown rightly notes, no more than urbanity and good nature. But Shaftesbury himself would by no means allow that he was a deist, except in the sense in which the term is interchangeable with theist; and Herbert of Cherbury, by far the most cultured representative of the movement, is noted as having been the most moderate and the least opposed of them all to the teachings of Christianity.

One phase through which deism may be said to have passed was that of a critical examination of the first principles of religion. It asserted its right to perfect tolerance on the part of all men. Freethought was the right of the individual; it was, indeed, but one step in advance of the received principle of private judgment. Such representatives of deism as Toland and Collins may be taken as typical of this stage. So far, while critical and insisting on its rights to complete toleration, it need not be, though as a matter of fact it undoubtedly was, hostile to religion.

A second phase was that in which it criticized the moral or ethical part of religious teaching. The Earl of Shaftesbury, for example, has much to urge against the doctrine of doctrine of future rewards and punishments as the sanction of the moral law. Such an attitude is obviously incompatible with the accepted teaching of the Churches. Upon this follows a critical examination of the writings of the Old and New Testaments, with a particular regard to the verification of prophecy and to the miraculous incidents therein recorded. Antony Collins performed the first part of this task, while Woolston gave his attention principally to the latter, applying to Scriptural records the principles put forward by Blount in his notes to the “Apollonius Tyanæus.” Lastly, there was the stage in which natural religion as such was directly opposed to revealed religion. Tindal, in his “Christianity as old as the Creation,” reduces, or attempts to reduce, revelation to reason, making the Christian statement of revelational truths either superfluous, in that it is contained in reason itself, or positively harmful, in that it goes beyond or contradicts reason.

It is thus clear that, in the main, deism is no more than an application of critical principles to religion. But in its positive aspect it is something more, for it offers as a substitute for revealed truth that body of truths which can be built up by the unaided efforts of natural reason. The term deism, however, has come in the course of time to have a more specific meaning. It is taken to signify a peculiar metaphysical doctrine supposed to have been maintained by all the deists. They are thus grouped together roughly as members of a quasi-philosophical school, the chief and distinguishing tenet of which is the relationship asserted to obtain between the universe and God. God, in this somewhat inferential and constructive thesis, is held to be the first cause of the world, and to be a personal God.

So far the teaching is that of the theists, as contrasted with that of atheists and pantheists. But, further, deism not only distinguishes the world and God as effect and cause; it emphasizes the transcendence of the Deity at the sacrifice of His indwelling and His providence. He is apart from the creation which He brought into being, and unconcerned as to the details of its working. Having made Nature, He allows it to run its own course without interference on His part. In this point the doctrine of deism differs clearly from that of theism.

The verbal distinction between the two, which are originally convertible terms—deism, of Latin origin, being a translation of the Greek theism—seems to have been introduced into English literature by the deists themselves, in order to avoid the denomination of naturalists by which they were commonly known. As naturalism was the epithet generally given to the teaching of the followers of the Spinozistic philosophy, as well as to the so-called atheists, deism seemed to its professors at once to furnish a disavowal of principles and doctrines which they repudiated, and to mark off their own position clearly from that of the theists. The word seems however, to have been first employed in France and Italy about the middle of the sixteenth century, for it occurs in the epistle dedicatory prefixed to the second volume of Viret’s “Instruction Chrétienne” (1563), where the reforming divine speaks of some persons who had called themselves by a new name—deists. It was principally upon account of their methods of investigation and their criticism of the traditional Protestant religious teaching that they had also come to to be called rationalists, opposing, as has been pointed out, the findings of unaided reason to the truths held on faith as having come from God through external revelation. Whether it was by ignoring this altogether, or by attempting actively to refute it and prove its worthlessness, rationalism was the obvious term of their procedure. And it was also, in very much the same manner, by their claiming the freedom to discuss on these lines the doctrines set forth in the Bible and taught by the Churches, that they earned for themselves the no less commonly given title of “freethinkers.”

There are notable distinctions and divergences among the English deists as to the whole content of truth given by reason. The most important of these distinctions is undoubtedly that by which they are classed as “mortal” and “immortal” deists; for, while many conceded the philosophical doctrine of a future life, the rejection of future rewards and punishments carried with it for some the denial of the immortality of the human soul. The five articles laid down by Lord Herbert of Cherbury, however, with their expansion into six (and the addition of a seventh) by Charles Blount, may be taken—and especially the former—as the format professions of deism. They contain the following doctrines:

that there exists one supreme God,

who is chiefly to be worshipped;

that the principal part of such worship consists in piety and virtue;

that we must repent of our sins and that, if we do so, God will pardon us;

that there are rewards for good men and punishments for evil men both here and hereafter.

Blount, while he enlarged slightly upon each of these doctrines, broke one up into two and added a seventh in which he teaches that God governs the world by His providence. This can hardly be accepted as a doctrine common to the deists; while, as has been said, future rewards and punishments were not allowed by them all. In general they rejected the miraculous element in Scripture and ecclesiastical tradition. They would not admit that there was any one “peculiar people,” such as the Jews or the Christians, singled out for the reception of a truth-message, or chosen to be the recipients of any special grace or supernatural gift of God. They denied the doctrine of the Trinity and altogether refused to admit any mediatorial character in the person of Jesus Christ. The atonement, the doctrine of the “imputed righteousness” of Christ—especially popular with orthodoxy at the time—shared the fate of all Christological doctrines at their hands. And above all things and upon every occasion—but with at least one notable exception—they raised their voices against ecclesiastical authority. They never tired of inveighing against priestcraft in every shape or form, find they went so far as to assert that revealed religion was an imposture, an invention of the priestly caste to subdue, and so the more easily govern and exploit, the ignorant.

As deism took its rise, in the logical sequence of events, from the principles asserted at the Protestant Reformation, so it ran its short and violent course in a development of those principles and ended in a philosophical scepticism. For a time it caused an extraordinary commotion in all circles of thought in England, provoked a very large and, in a sense, interesting polemical literature, and penetrated from the highest to the lowest strata of society. Then it fell flat, whether because the controversy had lost the keen interest of its acuter stage or because people in general were drifting with the current of criticism towards the new views, it would be difficult to say. With most of the arguments of the deists we are nowadays quite familiar, thanks to the efforts of modern freethought and rationalism to keep them before the public. Though caustic, often clever, and sometimes extraordinarily blasphemous, we open the shabby little books to find them for the most part out-of-date, commonplace, and dull. And while several of the “replies” they evoked may still be reckoned as standard works of apologetics, the majority of them belong, in more senses than one, to the writings of a bygone age.

When Viscount Bolingbroke’s works were published posthumously in 1754, and even when, six years previously, David Hume’s “Essay on the Human Understanding” was given to the public, little stir was caused. Bolingbroke’s attacks upon revealed religion, aimed from the standpoint of a sensationalistic theory of knowledge, were, as a recent writer puts it, “insufferably wearisome”; nor could all his cynicism and satire, any more than the scepticism of the Scottish philosopher, renew general interest in a controversy that was practically dead. The deistical controversy traceable to the philosophy of Hobbes and Locke is preeminently an English one, and it is to the English deists that reference is usually made when there is question of deism. But the same or a similar movement took place in France also. Says Ueberweg,

In the eighteenth century, the prevailing character of French philosophy . . . was that of opposition to the received dogmas and the actual conditions in Church and State, and the efforts of its representatives were chiefly directed to the establishment of a new theoretical and practical philosophy resting on naturalistic principles. (Gesch. d. Philosophie, Berlin, 1901, III, 237)

Men like Voltaire, and even the materialistic Encyclopædists, exemplify a tendency of philosophic thought which has very much in common with what in England ended in deism. It had the same basis, the theory of knowledge propounded by Locke and subsequently pushed to an extreme point by Condillac, and the general advance of scientific thought. From Voltaire’s criticisms of ecclesiastical organization and theology, his unwearying attacks upon Christianity, the Bible, the Church, and revelation, the tendency turned towards pantheism and materialism. Rousseau would have a religion of nature substituted for the traditional forms of revelation, and bring it, as he would bring philosophy and politics, to the point of view of individualism. Helvetius would have the moral system based upon the principle of present self-interest. And thus, as in England the logical development of deism ended in the scepticism of Hume, so in France it came to rest in the materialism of La Mettrie and Holbach.

PROMINENT DEIST WRITERS

Reference has been made above to several of the more important representatives of English deism. Ten or twelve writers are usually enumerated as noteworthy contributors to the literature and thought of the movement, of whom the following brief sketches may be given.

LORD HERBERT OF CHERBURY (1581–1648)

Lord Herbert, a contemporary of the philosopher Hobbes, was the most learned of the deists and at the same time the least disposed to submit Christian revelation to a destructive criticism. He was the founder of a rationalistic form of religion—the religion of nature—which consisted of no more than the residuum of truth common to all forms of positive religion when their distinctive characteristics were left aside. The profession of faith of Herbert’s rationalism is summed up in the five articles given above. His principal contributions to deistical literature are the “Tractatus de Veritate prout distinguitur a Revelatione, a Verisimili, a Possibili et a Falso” (1624); “De Religione Gentilium Errorumque apud eos Causis” (1645, 1663); “De Religione Laici.”

CHARLES BLOUNT (1654–93)

Blount was noted as a critic of both the Old and New Testaments. His methods of attack upon the Christian position were characterized by an indirectness and a certain duplicity that has ever since come to be in some degree associated with the whole deistical movement. The notes that he appended to his translation of Apollonius are calculated to weaken or destroy credence in the miracles of Christ, for some of which he actually suggests explanations upon natural grounds, thus arguing against the trustworthiness of the New Testament. In a similar manner, by employing the argument of Hobbes against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and by attacking the miraculous events therein recorded, he had impeached the accuracy and veracity of the Old Testament. He rejects utterly the doctrine of a mediatorial Christ and contends that such a doctrine is subversive of true religion; while the many falsehoods he perceives in the traditional and positive forms of Christianity he puts down to the political invention (for purposes of power and of easy government) of priests and religious teachers. The seven articles into which Blount expanded the five articles of Lord Herbert have been noticed above. His notes to the translation of Philostratus’ “Life of Apollonius Tyanæus” were published in 1680. He wrote also the “Anima Mundi” (1678–9); “Religio Laici,” practically a translation of Lord Herbert’s book of the same title (1683); and “The Oracles of Reason” (1893).

JOHN TOLAND (1670–1722)

Toland, while originally a believer in Divine revelation and not opposed to the doctrines of Christianity, advanced to the rationalistic position with strong pantheistic tendencies by taking away the supernatural element from religion. His principal thesis consisted in the argument that “there is nothing in the Gospels contrary to reason, nor above it; and that no Christian doctrine can properly be called a mystery. “This statement he made on the assumption that whatever is contrary to reason is untrue, and whatever is above reason is inconceivable. He contended, therefore, that reason is the safe and only guide to truth, and that the Christian religion lays no claim to being mysterious. Toland also raised questions as to the Canon of Scripture and the origins of the Church. He adopted the view that in the Early Church there were two opposing factions, the liberal and the Judaizing; and he compared some eighty spurious writings with the New Testament Scriptures, in order to cast doubt upon the authenticity and reliability of the canon. His “Amyntor” evoked a reply from the celebrated Dr. Clarke, and a considerable number of books and tracts were published in refutation of his doctrine. The chief works for which he was responsible are—”Christianity not Mysterious” (1696); “Letters to Serena” (1704); “Pantheisticon” (1720); “Amyntor” (1699); “Nazarenus” (1718).

ANTONY ASHLEY COOPER, THIRD EARL OF SHAFTESBURY (1671–1713)

The Earl of Shaftesbury, one of the most popular, elegant, and ornate of these writers, is generally classed among the deists on account of his “Characteristics.” He himself would not admit that he was such, except in the sense in which deist is contrasted with atheist; of him Bishop Butler said that, had he lived in a later age, when Christianity was better understood, he would have been a good Christian. Thus, in a preface that Shaftesbury contributed to a volume of the sermons of Dr. Whichcot (1698), he “finds fault with those in this profane age, that represent not only the institution of preaching, but even the Gospel itself, and our holy religion, to be a fraud.” There are also passages in “Several Letters Written by a Noble Lord to a Young Man in the University” (1716) in which he shows a very real regard for the doctrines and practice of the Christian religion. But the “Characteristics of Men, Matters, Opinions, and Times” (1711–1723) gives clear evidence of Shaftesbury’s deistical tendencies. It contains frequent criticisms of Christian doctrines, the Scriptures, and revelation. He contends that this last is not only useless but positively mischievous, on account of its doctrine of rewards and punishments. The virtue of morality he makes to consist in a conformity of our affections to our natural sense of the sublime and beautiful, to our natural estimate of the worth of men and things. The Gospel, he asserts with Blount, was only the fruit of a scheme on the part of the clergy to secure their own aggrandizement and enhance their power. With such professions it is difficult to reconcile his statement that he adheres to the doctrines and mysteries of religion; but this becomes clear in the light of the fact that he shared the peculiar politico-religious view of Hobbes. Whatever the absolute power of the State sanctions is good; the opposite is bad. To oppose one’s private religious convictions to the religion sanctioned by the State is of the nature of a revolutionary act. To accept the established state religion is the duty of the citizen. Shaftesbury’s more important contributions to this literature are the “Characteristics” and the “Several Letters,” mentioned above.

ANTONY COLLINS (1676–1729)

Collins caused a considerable stir by the publication (1713) of his “Discourse of Freethinking, occasioned by the Rise and Growth of a Sect call’d Freethinkers.” He had previously conducted an argument against the immateriality and immortality of the soul and against human liberty. In this he had been answered by Dr. Samuel Clarke. The “Discourse” advocated unprejudiced and unfettered enquiry, asserted the right of human reason to examine and interpret revelation, and attempted to show the uncertainty of prophecy and of the New Testament record. In another work Collins puts forth an argument to prove the Christian religion false, though he does not expressly draw the conclusion indicated. He asserts that Christianity is dependent upon Judaism, and that its proof is the fulfilment of the prophetic utterances contained in the Old Testament. He then proceeds to point out that all such Prophetic utterance is allegorical in nature and cannot be considered to furnish a real proof of the truth of its event. He further points out that the idea of the Messiah among the Jews was of recent growth before the time of Christ, and that the Hebrews may have derived many of their theological ideas from their contact with other peoples, such as the Egyptians and Chaldeans. In particular, when his writings on prophecy were attacked he did his utmost to discredit the book of Daniel. The “Discourse on the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion” (1724) called forth a great number of answers, principal among which were those of the Bishop of Richfield, Dr. Chandler (“Defence of Christianity from the Prophecies of the Old Testament”), and Dr. Sherlock (“The Use and Intent of Prophecy”). It was in Collins’ “Scheme of Literal Prophecy” that the antiquity and authority of the Book of Daniel were discussed. The “prophecies were made to be a record of past and contemporary events rather than a prevision of the future. But the “Scheme” was weak, and though it was answered by more than one critic it cannot be said to have added much weight to the discourse.” Altogether Collins’ attacks upon prophecy were considered to be of so serious a nature that they called forth no less than thirty-five replies. Of his works, the following may be noticed, as bearing especially upon the subject of deism: “Essay Concerning the Use of Reason in Theology” (1707); “Discourse of Freethinking” (1713); “Discourse on the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion” (1724); “The Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered” (1727).

THOMAS WOOLSTON (1669–1733)

Woolston appeared as a moderator in the acrimonious controversy that was being waged between Collins and his critics with his “Moderator between an Infidel and an Apostate.” As Collins had succeeded in allegorizing the prophecies of the Old Testament until nothing remained of them, so Woolston tried to allegorize away the miracles of Christ. During the years 1728–9, six discourses on the miracles of Our Lord came out in three parts, in which Woolston asserted, with an extraordinary violence of language and blasphemy that could only be attributed to a madman, that the miracles of Christ, when taken in a literal and historical sense, are false, absurd, and fictitious. They must therefore, he urges, be received in a mystical and allegorical sense. In particular, he argued at great length against the miracles of resurrection from the dead wrought by Christ, and against the resurrection of Christ Himself. The Bishop of London issued five pastoral letters against him, and many ecclesiastics wrote in refutation of his work. The most noteworthy reply to his doctrines was “The Tryal of the Witnesses” (1729) by Dr. Sherlock. In 1729–30, Woolston published “A Defense of his Discourse against the Bishops of London and St. David’s,” an extremely weak production.

MATTHEW TINDAL (1657–1733)

Tindal gave to the controversy the work that soon became known as the “Deists’ Bible.” His “Christianity as Old as the Creation” was published in his extreme old age in 1730. As its sub-title indicates, its aim was to show that the Gospel is no more than a republication of the Law of Nature. This it undertakes to make plain by eviscerating the Christian religion of all that is not a mere statement of natural religion. External revelation is declared to be needless and useless, indeed impossible, and both the Old and New Testaments to be full of oppositions and contradictions. The work was taken as a serious attack upon the traditional position of Christianity in England, as is evinced by the hostile criticism it at once provoked. The Bishop of London issued a pastoral; Waterland, Law, Conybeare, and others replied to it, Conybeare’s “Defence” creating a considerable stir at the time. More than any other work, “Christianity as Old as the Creation” was the occasion of the writing of Butler’s well known “Analogy.”

THOMAS MORGAN (D. 1743)

Morgan makes professions of Christianity, the usefulness of revelation, etc., but criticizes and at the same time rejects as revelational the Old Testament history, both as to its personages and its narratives of fact. He advances the theory that the Jews “accomodated” the truth, and even goes so far as to extend this “accomodation” to the Apostles and to Christ as well. His account of the origin of the Church is similar to that of Toland, in that he holds the two elements, Judaizing and liberal, to have resulted in a fusion. His principal work is “The Moral Philosopher, a Dialogue between Philalethes, a Christian Deist, and Theophanes, a Christian Jew” (1737, 1739, 1740). This was answered by Dr. Chapman, whose reply called forth a defense on the part of Morgan in “The Moral Philosopher, or a farther Vindication of Moral Truth and Reason.”

THOMAS CHUBB (1679–1746)

Chubb—a man of humble origin and of poor and elementary education, by trade a glove-maker and tallow-chandler—is the most plebeian representative of deism. In 1731 he published “A Discourse Concerning Reason” in which he disavows his intention of opposing revelation or serving the cause of infidelity. But “The True Gospel of Jesus Christ,” in which Lechler sees “an essential moment in the historical development of Deism,” announces Christianity as a life rather than as a collection of doctrinal truths. The true gospel is that of natural religion, and as such Chubb treats it in his work. In his posthumous works a sceptical advance is made. These were published in 1748, and after the “Remarks on the Scriptures” contain the author’s “Farewel to His Readers.” This “Farewel” embraces a number of tracts on various religious subjects. A marked tendency to scepticism regarding a particular providence pervades them. The efficacy of prayer, as well as the future state, is called in question. Arguments are urged against prophecy and miracle. There are fifty pages devoted to those against the Resurrection alone. Finally, Christ is presented as a mere man, who founded a religious sect among the Jews. Chubb published also “The Supremacy of the Father” (1715) and “Tracts” (1730). He is also responsible for the sentiments of “The Case of Deism Fairly Stated,” an anonymous tract which he revised.

HENRY ST. JOHN, VISCOUNT BOLINGBROKE (1678–1751)

Viscount Bolingbroke belongs to the deists chiefly by reason of his posthumous works. They are ponderously cynical in style and generally dull and uninteresting, Containing arguments against the truth and value of Scriptural history, and asserting that Christianity is a system footed upon the unlettered by the cunning of the clergy to further their own ends.

PETER ANNET (1693–1769)

Annet was the author, among other works, of “Judging for Ourselves, or Freethinking the great Duty of Religion” (1739), “The Resurrection of Jesus Considered” (1744), “Supernatural Examined” (1747), and nine numbers of the “Free Inquirer” (1761). In the second of these works he denies the resurrection of Christ and accuses the Holy Bible of fraud and imposture.

HENRY DODGED (D. 1748)

Dodged, who wrote “Christianity not Founded on Argument,” is also generally reckoned, with Annet, as among the representative deists. (See GOD; PROVIDENCE; RATIONALISM; SCEPTICISM; THEISM.)

FRANCIS AVELING

Deity

(Fr. déité; L.L. deitas; Lat. deue, divus, “the divine nature,” “godhead,” “god”).

The original meaning of the word is shown in the Sanskrit dyaus, gen. divas, root div, which root appears in an adjective formation as deva, “bright,” “heavenly”—attributes of God—hence devas, “the bright beings,” or, as a noun substantive, dyaus. In its substantive form, dyaus is either masculine e.g. “heaven,” “sky”—or feminine, as Heaven (personified). Hence, in the Avesta daeva, “evil spirit” Lith. deva, “a god”; Gael. and Irish dia, “god”; O. Teut. tiu; A.S. Tiw (e.g. Tuesday, i.e. Tiwesday); Gr. Zeus (gen. Dios Lat. Jupiter (i.e. Jov-pater). From the same root we have the Lat. names of deities: Diana, Janus, Juno, Dis, the genitive Jovis (Diovis), and the word dies.

The present article is confined to the non-Christian notion of the Deity. The Christian idea is set forth elsewhere under the section GOD. The data, therefore, are drawn from the new science of the history of religions. They embrace written records, customs, laws, life, language. The earliest documents of history show that religion had long existed at the time of their composition. For a long time some deity had been adored, had received sacrifices, and no one could recall the beginning of these ancient rites. Many histories of religion published in recent years are made up of hypotheses pure and simple, often far removed from the facts on which they are based—often absolutely arbitrary. The scientific spirit demands statements of facts verified beyond dispute or inductions in accord with facts. Thus viewed, the history of religions shows on the subject of the Deity:

as an actual fact, the mingling of polytheistic and monotheistic elements;

that the farther back we go in the history of religious thought, the purer becomes the notion, so that traces of a primitive monotheism are forced upon us;

that the ghost-theory, advanced by Spencer and other writers, to account for the origin of the Deity is narrow, partial, and unscientific.

Religion, in its most general sense, is a universal phenomenon of mankind. At times this conception appears lofty and pure, again it is comparatively crude and involved in a mass of superstitious fancy. Yet, however imperfect and childish the expression may seem, it represents the highest idea of the Deity which the mind, for the time and under the circumstances, grasped.

I. DEITY CONCEIVED AS A MIX OF POLYTHEISTIC AND MONOTHEISTIC ELEMENTS

Religious life among savage peoples of today—as among pagan nations before Christianity—resembles the entangled confusion of a forest where trees, brambles, and creepers, of all ages and sizes, are to be seen interlacing, supporting and crushing each other with their earthy growths, while, above the topmost branches, is caught a glimpse of the blue sky of heaven.

The religion of paganism in general is Polytheism, which has been accounted for by theories of Animism, Fetishism, Naturism, and the concrete forms of Anthropomorphism and Idolatry. The advocates of these various theories should be classed as theorists rather than historians. Taking the theory of evolution as a common starting point they hold that man arose from mere animals and that he is an animal gradually transformed. They differ only in the cause and nature of the religious development which resulted in the notion of the Deity. Here we reject all presuppositions and deal only with the historical aspect of the problem. In the words of one scholar, the primitive man of modern anthropology is “a pure fiction, however convenient a fiction he may be.”

Paganism presents not a doctrine, but a grouping of customs and teachings different and often opposed, an incoherent mass of beliefs with various origins. Close analysis enables the student to separate the doctrinal streams and trace them to their proper sources. The luminous truth presented by this study is the corruption of religious ideas on the nature of the Deity by the tangled confusion of human growth. Sir A. C. Lyall (Asiatic Studies, Ser. II, p. 234), while rejecting the theory of a primitive revelation admits that “beyond doubt we find many beliefs and traditions running downward, spreading at a level much below their source.” Following are some of the causes which contributed to produce this tangled profusion in the pagan conception of the Deity.

DEIFICATION OF NATURE AND HER POWERS AND OF SENSIBLE OBJECTS

Of necessity the result was an inexhaustible variety of deities. As time went on, the divine assumed thousands of fanciful and fortuitous images and forms. Deification of the powers of nature led first to the worship of the elements. One divinity of the heavens stood in contrast with one of the earth. Fire, as the warming, nourishing, consuming, and destroying power, was early worshipped as a separate deity. Hence the Vestal Virgins in Rome, the Vedic Agni, the Fire-worshippers of Mazdeism, and the sacred fire of Shintoism. So also moisture or water, not only in general, but in its concrete forms, e.g. sea, lake, river, spring, cloud; and thus was had a fourth elemental deity. In the East, Astrolatry, or Sabaeism—i.e. the worship of the stars that illumine the earth—developed above all the worship of the sun. Where soil and vegetation was rich, the earth was regarded as a nursing mother, and Geolatry in many forms arose. In the Vedic hymns we can trace the transition from natural phenomena into natural deities—e.g. Agni, i.e. fire, Varuna, i.e. heaven, Indra, i.e. the rain-clouds—but even then doubts spring up, and the poetic writers ask themselves whether, after all, there are such things as the Devas. In Homer and Hesiod the forces of nature are conceived as persons—e.g. Uranos (heaven); Nyx (night); Hypnos (sleep), Oneiros (dream), Oceanos (ocean)—the answer of Achilles to the river Scamander “in human form, confessed before his eyes” (Iliad, XXI), and his prayer to the winds Boreas and Zephyrus, that they kindle the flames on the funeral pyre of Patroclus (Iliad, XXIII). Observation of the fact that in nature two energies—one active and generative, the other passive and feminine—combine, led men to associate heaven and earth, sun and moon, day and night, as common primal and motherly deities cooperating in the production of being. Hence the distinction of male divinities—e.g. heaven, ether, sun—and of female divinities e.g. earth, air, moon. From this only a step to the deification of the generative principle and the worship of the phallus.

ANTHROPOMORPHOSIS

The powers of nature were at first worshipped without form or name, afterwards humanized and regarded as persons. Thus Gaia, of ancient Pelasgic worship, appears as Rhea in Cretan traditions, as the Cybele of Asia Anterior, as Hera in Arcadia and Samos, as the goddess of nature Aphrodite, as Demeter. In Rome the Bona Dea of mystic rite, whose proper name was not to be spoken, was later akin to, or identified with, a number of Greek or Italian deities. De la Saussaye writes of ancient Babylono-Assyrian religion: “Among the influential words which could avert or expel evil, the most prominent were the names of the great gods; but these names were considered to be secret, and therefore people appealed to the god himself to pronounce them.” In Samothrace the Cabiri—i.e. great and mighty deities, the supreme powers of nature—were adored at first without specific names. In old Latium the pontifices concealed the names of the gods. Herodotus says the Pelasgian deities were nameless. In the Vedic hymns the sacrificial tree, to which the sacrifices were attached, is thus addressed: “Where thou knowest, O Tree, the sacred names of the gods, to that place make the offerings go.” According to de la Saussaye the deities of the Rig-Veda are but slightly individualized. To the formless gods of nature succeeded the deities of Homeric imagination, in human shape and with human feelings. In the judgment of Herodotus it was Homer and Hesiod who settled the theogony of the Greeks—in fact laid the basis of the later Hellenic religion. The Greeks lavished the rich stores of their intellectual life upon their deities, humanized and severed them from natural phenomena. Hence the whole of nature was pervaded by a family of deities descending from the elements as primal gods, the individual members of which family were of kin to one another and in mutual relations of higher and lower older and younger, male and female, stronger and weaker; so that man, feeling himself surrounded on all sides by deities, discovered in the course of nature, and in her various phenomena, their actions, histories, and manifestations of their will. The conception of these deities was anthropopathic, in their motives and passions they were more powerful and more perfect men, they had a human body and a human countenance, human thoughts and feelings, they resided in the clouds or on a high mountain; they dwelt in a heavenly palace. Such an idea is incoherent and contradictory. In reality the Deity was nature. If its inanimate forms were personified and worshipped, why not animals and plants—e.g. tree-worship?

HUMAN APOTHEOSIS

Human Apotheosis is another cause and equally prolific in later pagan times. Plutarch (in his “Romulus”) enters at length into the question, how the soul, when separated from the body, advances into the state of heroism, and from a hero develops into a demon and from a demon becomes a god. To Cicero the doctrine of Euhemerism is the core and fundamental principle of the mysteries (de Nat. Deor., III xxi). With the Greeks it had been a custom to honour renowned or well-deserving men as heroes after death, e.g. Herakles, Theseus; but to pay divine honours to the living never entered into their minds in early times. Heroes or saintly men were regarded

as sons of the gods, e.g. in Hesiod;

as incarnations of the great gods. The growth of popular Polytheism in modern India is due to the fact that the Brahmins, by their doctrine of divine embodiments (avatara), create holy men into deities actually worshipped. Thus the older gods of India, i.e. nature personifications, are in turn obscured by the swarm of earth-born deifications. Colebrooke says that the worship of deified heroes is a later phase not to be found in the Vedas, though the heroes themselves not yet deified are therein mentioned occasionally.

The hero was identified with one of the great gods. Thus hero-worship was strange to the early Romans. Romulus, according to Plutarch, was not worshipped as a hero properly speaking, but as a god, and that after he had been identified with the Sabine god Quirinus.

Hero-worship properly speaking, e.g. in the Odyssey.

Apotheosis. Plutarch tells us that Lysander (d. 394 B.C.) was the first man to whom the Greeks erected altars and offered sacrifices as to a god. Farnell states that one of the most fruitful offshoots of the older Hellenic system was hero-worship. And Pliny writes, “Of all ways of paying due thanks to men of great desert, the most time-honoured is to enroll them as gods.” The Jaina faith, an offshoot of Buddhism, is nothing but the worship of deified men. In Egypt divine honours were paid to kings even during their lifetime. Cicero makes a formal profession of Euhemerism. “Knowest that thou art a god?” he represents the glorified Scipio addressing himself in a dream (de Rep. VI, xxiv). Men and women after death had been raised to be gods; therefore he would have his daughter Tullia exalted to the same honour, as having best deserved it, and he would dedicate a temple to her (ep. ad Att., xii). The Christian apologists, who stood face to face with Heathendom, positively declared that all the deities of Paganism were deified men. Among the Romans the worship of the genius was to men the deification of manhood, as that of Juno was to women the deification of womanhood. Pliny saw in this belief a formal self-deification, proceeding upon the theory that the genius, or Juno, was nothing else than the spiritual element of man, or woman. Not only the individual, but every place and, above all, the Roman people and Rome itself had its genius. The time-honoured worship of the latter was naturally associated with, and passed into, a worship of the emperor. Thus pre-Christian heathenism culminated in the worship of Augustus. In the Book of Wisdom the various stages in the process of human deification are clearly described (Wis dom, xiv).

ST. AUGUSTINE’S OBSERVATIONS

St. Augustine (Civ. Dei, IV, ii) discusses the opinion of Roman writers that all the manifold gods and goddesses of the Romans were in the final analysis but one Jupiter, for these deities melt away into each other on closer inspection. Thus we have a single god who by the dissection of his nature into various aspects of his powers, and by the personifying of his individual powers, has been resolved into a multiplicity of deities. The Romans thus broke up the idea of deity by hypostasizing particular powers, modes of operation, physical functions, and properties. By this process not only events in nature and in human life, but their various phases, qualities, and circumstances were considered apart as endowed with proper personalities, and worshipped as deities. Thus in the life of a child; Vaticanus opens his mouth, Cunina guards the cradle, Educa and Potina teach him to eat and drink, Fabulinus to speak, Statalinus helps him to stand up, Adeona and Abeona watch over his first footsteps. Since every act required a god, there was scarcely any limit to the inventive work of the imagination. And St. Augustine tells us (Civ. Dei, IV viii) that the Roman farmer was in the hands of a host of deities who assisted him at each stage of ploughing, hoeing, sowing, and reaping. Under such conditions we can understand how easily the cultured Roman could embrace the pantheism of Stoic philosophy, teaching the one creative all-ruling power of Nature—itself a personification—and at the same time permit the ignorant to personify and worship as distinct deities the various acts and phases by which this power was manifested.

POLITICAL ELEMENT

A political element enters into the multiplication of deities in the Pagan world. To make a nation several tribes must unite. Each has its god, and the nation is apt to receive them all equally in its Pantheon. Or in time of war the victorious nation was not content to impose laws and tribute upon the conquered, it must displace the conquered deities by its own. Again, where ancient nations each having its own religion and mythology, were brought by commerce into close contact, the deities who showed a certain similarity were identified, and even their names were adopted by one language from another. According to Max Müller, Durga and Siva are not natural developments, nor mere corruptions of Vedic deities, but importations or adaptations from without. A striking illustration is furnished in the history of Rome. In the earlier times the chief deities were general nature-powers or mere abstractions of the State or family. They had no real personality. Thus the Lares came from Etruria, the chief of them being the Lar Familiaris, the divine head of the family, the personification of the creative power assuring the duration of the family; Vesta, the fire of the domestic hearth the protectress of the family, became identified later with the Greek Hestia. Afterwards, when Rome spread out into a world-power, it received into its Pantheon the deities of the nations conquered by its armies. Again, the political element becomes a more potent factor when deities are created by human enactment. Thus, in ancient Rome the pontifices had the right and care of making new deities. And in China today the Government orders posthumous honours and titles and deifications of men, gives titles and rewards to deities for supposed public service and exercises a control over Buddhist incarnations. The Emperor of China used the monopoly of deification as a constitutional prerogative, like the right of creating peers.

LANGUAGE

A final explanation can be found in language. The words employed by the mind to designate spiritual facts are all drawn from conscious individual experience. In the beginning man naturally expressed the power and attributes of the deity in different words drawn from nature and from life. According to de la Saussaye the opinion is even expressed in the Rig-Veda that the many names of the gods are only different ways of denoting a single being. Now the tendency of language is to become crystallized. Words gradually lose their etymological force, and their original meaning is forgotten. They stand out as distinct and independent facts in our mental life. What was at first a sign becomes itself an object. Thus in the Vedic religion the Sun has many names—Surya, Savitri, Mitra, Pushan, Aditya. Each of these names grew by itself into some kind of active personality after its original meaning had been forgotten. Originally all were meant to express one and the same object viewed from different points, e.g. Surya meant the Sun as offspring of the sky; Savitri the Sun as quickener or enlivener, Mitra the bright Sun of the morn; Pushan the Sun of the shepherds; Varuna was the sky as all-embracing; Aditya the sky as boundless. In this sense the Hindu gods have no more right to substantive existence than Eos or Nyx; they are nomina, not numina, i.e. words, not deities. So also in Egypt the Sun is Horus in the morning, Ra at midday, Tum in the evening, Osiris during the night. In another manner language may lead into error, as when Bancroft remarks that in many of the American languages the same word is used for storm and god. Brinton writes, “The descent is almost imperceptible which leads to the personification of wind as god.” Goldzeher states that the Baghirami in Central Africa use the same term for storm and deity. The Akra people on the Gold Coast of Africa say, “Will God come?” for “Will it rain?” Here we have the same word with two meanings. Thus the Odjis, or Ashantis, call the deity by the same word as the sky, but mean a personal god who created all things and is the giver of all good things.

All pagan religions have zoomorphic, or partially zoomorphic, idols, deities in the shape of lower animals. Especially is this true of the Egyptian deities. But it is the sphere of totem-lore or mythology to explain these strange metamorphoses, which scandalized philosophers, and which Ovid set in verse for the cultured of his time.

II. EARLY MONOTHEISTIC NOTIONS OF DEITY

The human race has at all times and in various ways sought to express the notion of the deity. The history of religions, however, lays bare another truth: that the farther back we go in the history of religious thought, the purer becomes the notion of the deity. In the Rig-Veda, the most ancient of the Hindu sacred books, traces of a primitive monotheism are clearly shown. The Deity is called “the only existing being” who breathed, calmly self-contained, in the beginning before there was sky or atmosphere day or night, light or darkness. This being is not the barren philosophical entity found in the later Upanishads, for he is called “our Father,” “our Creator,” omniscient, who listens to prayers. Father Calmette maintains that the true God is taught in the Vedas. Again, “That which is and is one, the poets call in various ways,” and it is declared to exist “in the form of the unborn being.” Traces of a nature-religion are found in the Vedas. To a later date, however, must be ascribed the mythology of the Vedic hymns in which the “bright ones” (the heavens and earth, the sun and moon, with various elemental powers of storm and wind) are the only distinctly recognized deities. D’Harlez, F.C. Cook, and Phillips hold that the moral and spiritual basis is older. Pictet, A.B. Smith, Banergia, Ellingwood Wilson, Muir do not hesitate to declare that the loftier conceptions of the Vedas are unquestionably the earlier, and that they show clear traces of a primitive monotheism. The use of different divine names in the Vedas does not warrant us in concluding without other evidence that different deities are designated. On this basis we could conclude, with Tiele, that the Jews at different times worshiped three different gods, e.g. Elohim, Yahweh, Adonai. The use of the different names may be due to personification of natural forces or to crystallization of language, but such a use marks a later stage in religious thought. Why could not these names originally be employed to express the many perfections and attributes of the great God? Thus the Vedic poet writes, “Agni, many are the names of Thee, the Immortal One,” and, “The father adoring gives many names to Thee, O Agni, if thou shouldst take pleasure therein.” Of the Egyptian deity Ra it is written, “His names are manifold and unknown, even the gods know them not.” Farnell states that “many deities, some of whom were scarcely known outside a narrow area, were invoked as polyonyme all possible titles of power being summed up in one word.” Thus, the farther back we go in the history of the Indian people the purer becomes the form of religious belief. Idolatry is shown to be a degeneration. “It is true,” says Sir A.C. Lyall, “that in India, as elsewhere, the idea of one Supreme Being, vaguely imagined, stands behind all the phantasmagoria of supernatural personages.” A luminous proof of this inference is furnished by an analysis of the word Jupiter. Jupiter in Latin is Zeus pater in Greek and is Dyaus pitar in Sanskrit. The Teutonic form is Tiu. The meaning is “Heaven-Father.” The designation of the Deity in all these branches of the Aryan family points to a time, 5000 years ago or earlier, when the Aryans before their dispersion, before they spoke Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, or German, united in calling on the Deity as the Heaven-Father. In the Vedas Dyauss-pitar is found, but even in these documents Dyaus is already a fading star, he is crowded out by Indra Rudra, Agni, and other purely Indian deities. In the Vedas Dyaus has two forms—a masculine and a feminine. But the Vedic Dyu or Dyaus-pitar is first of all a masculine, while in later Sanskrit only it becomes exclusively a feminine. Hence it is not true to say that the name originally was a feminine to designate heaven, and that the nation afterwards changed it into a proper name to express the Deity.

The Gathas, the most ancient hymns of the Avesta, form the kernel about which the sacred literature of the Iranians clustered in an aftergrowth. They inculcate belief in Ahura Mazda, the self-existent omnipotent being. He is the all-powerful Lord who made heaven and earth, and all that is therein, and who governs everything with wisdom. Tiele says that the sole really personal being is Ahura, and that the two spirits in antagonism are below him (Elem of the Science of Rel., Ser. I, p. 47). The opposition of Ahriman is of a later date. Pfleiderer holds that originally he was a good spirit created by Ahura (Phil. Of Rel., III, p. 84). The Amesha-Spentos of the Gathas have the nature of abstract ideas or qualities, i.e. attributes of Ahura; afterwards they formed a kind of celestial council. L. H. Mills (New World, March, 1895) holds that the spiritual, unique nature of Ahura is attested beyond question, and he unites with d’Harlez Darmesteter, and Tiele in teaching that the primitive form of Iranian belief was monotheistic. The Paganism of Greece and Rome with its family of deities in human shapes and with human passions bears upon its face evident marks of degradation and corruption. Thus a critical study of the Aryan beliefs convinces the student that in them we find no illustration of an evolution from a primitive, low, to a later, and higher, form. “The religion of the Indo-European race,” writes Darmesteter (Contemp. Rev., Oct., 1879), “while still united, recognized a supreme God, an organizing God, almighty, omniscient, moral. The conception was a heritage of the past.”

The same truth is evident from a study of the religions of Egypt and of China. In the most ancient monuments of Egypt the simplest and most precise conception of one God is expressed. He is one and alone; no other beings are with Him; He is the only being living in truth; He is the self-existing one who made all things, and He alone has not been made. Brugsch accepts this view, but calls it Pantheism. The ethical element in the Deity, however, is adverse to this. Renouf finds a similar Pantheism, but prefers the word Henotheism. De la Saussaye admits that “one can maintain that Egyptian Monotheism and Pantheism have never been denied by any serious enquirer, though the majority do not look on them as general and original.” The sublime portions of the Egyptian religion are not the comparatively late result of a process of purification from earlier and grosser forms. In the outlines of History of Religion Tiele so taught; but in a later work, Egyptian Religion, he expresses the contrary opinion. Lieblein, Ed Meyer, and Renouf admit degeneration in Egyptian religion. Thus de Rougé, Tiele, Pierret, Ellingwood, Rawlinson, Wilkinson hold that belief in one Supreme Deity, the Creator and Lawgiver of men, is a truth clearly expressed in that ancient civilization, and Polytheism is an aftergrowth and corruption. The popular religion of China rests on the worship of natural powers and of ancestral spirits. Underneath, however, is the conviction of the existence of a higher creative power, which, according to Edkins (Religions in China, p. 95), is a tradition handed down from the earliest period of their history. D’Harlez (New World Dec., 1893) and F.M. James (New World June, 1899) teach that the primitive Chinese worshipped Shang-Ti, the Supreme Lord, one, invisible, spiritual, the only true god. Dr. Legge (Religion of China, p. 18) asserts that Ti was the one supreme object of homage as far back as we can go, and unites with d’Harlez, Faber, Happel in declaring that 5000 years ago the Chinese were monotheists. Lenormant bases the Babylono-Assyrian religion on an original monotheism. He claims to have discovered a reliable trace of this in the word Ilu (el in Babel) which is said originally to mean “the only god.” De la Saussaye advances as an objection that “this word is nothing else than the name for the conception of God, just like the Indian Deva and other epithets of the same sort”; yet he holds that “the goddesses of Babylono-Assyrian religion are really only one and the same thing under different names, and these again must be looked on partly as titles.”

Even among the lowest and most barbarous tribes illustrations of the same truth are found. “Nothing in savage religion” writes A. Lang, “is better vouched for than the belief in a Being whom narrators of every sort call a Creator, who holds all things in His power, and who makes for righteousness.” The aborigines of Canada call Him Andouagne, according to Father Le Jeune. This Being is seldom or never addressed in prayer. The fact of an otiose or unworshipped Supreme Being is fatal to some modern theories on the origin and evolution of the deity. Tylor admits that a Supreme Being is known to African natives, but ascribes it to Islam, or to Christian influence. If this were so, we should expect to find prayer and sacrifice. Fraser holds that the deity was invented in despair of magic as a power out of which something could be got. But how could the savage expect anything from a deity he did not address in prayer? Spencer teaches that the deity was a development out of ancestral spirits. But the Maker of things, not approached in prayer as a rule, is said to exist where ancestor spirits are not reported to be worshipped. William Strachey, writing from Virginia in 1611 says that Okeus was only “a magisterial deputy of the great God who governs all the world and makes the sun to shine . . . him they call Ahone. The good and peaceable god requires no such duties [as are paid to Okeus] nor needs to be sacrificed to, for He intendeth all good unto them, He has no image.” Winslow writes from New England in 1622 that the god Kiehtan is a being of ancient credit among the natives. He made all the other gods. Canadians, Algonquins, Virginians, and the natives of Massachusetts had a Great Spirit before the advent of the Christian missionaries.

The Australian mystery-rites reveal a moral creative being whose home is in or above the heavens, and his name is Maker (Baiame), Master (Biamban) and Father (Papang). The Benedictine monks of Australia say that the natives believe in an omnipotent Being, the creator of heaven and earth, whom they call Motogon. The Australian will say, “No, not seen him [i.e. Baiamel, but I have felt him.” Waitz tells us that the religious ideas of the African tribes are so high that if we do not like to call them monotheistic, we may say at least that they have come very near the boundaries of true monotheism. “However degraded these people maybe,” writes Livingstone (Missionary Travels, p. 158), “there is no need telling them of the existence of God or of a future life. These two truths are universally admitted in Africa. If we speak to them of a dead man, they reply: He is gone to God.” Among savage tribes, where the supreme Being is regarded as too remote and impassive, he is naturally supplied with a deputy. Thus, e.g., Ahone has Okeus, Kiehtan has Hobancok, Boyma has Grogoragally, Baiame has Tundun, or in places Daramulun, Nypukupon in West Africa has Bobowissi. Sometimes, as in Australia, these active deputies are sons of the supreme Being. In other cases—e.g. Finnish Num, Zulu Unkulunkulu, and Algonquin Atahocan—this being is quite neglected in favour of spirits who receive sacrifices of meat and grease. In northwest central Queensland Roth describes Mulkari as “a benevolent omnipresent supernatural being, whose home is in the skies.” In Australia the supreme Being cannot have been evolved out of ghost-worship for the natives do not worship ancestral spirits. Sir A.B. Ellis has repudiated his theory of borrowing a god in the case of the Tshi-speaking races. Waitz also denies that the higher religious beliefs of the Australians were borrowed from Christianity. His position is sustained by Howitt, Palmer, Dawson, Ridley, Gunther, and Greenway, who studied the natives on the spot. The esoteric and hidden nature of the beliefs, the usual though not universal absence of prayer, show their indigenous and ancient source.

In “The Golden Bough” (2d ed.), Fraser has raised the question, whether magic has not everywhere preceded religion. Yet among the blacks of Australia, the most backward race known, we find abundant testimony of a belief speculative, moral, emotional, but not practical. These deities are not propitiated by sacrifice and very seldom by prayer, yet they are makers, friends, and judges. In the conception of them the ethical element predominates. An all-knowing Being observes and rewards the conduct of men, He is named with reverence if named at all; His abode is in the heavens; He is Maker and Lord of all things; His lessons soften the heart. Mariner says concerning the Tongan deity Ta-li-y-Tooboo: “Of his origin they had no idea, rather supposing him to be eternal.” In Guinea the natives worship “The Ancient One,” “The Ancient One in Skyland,” “Our Maker,” “Our Father,” “Our Great Father.” Wilson writes that their belief in one supreme Being who made and upholds all things is universal. In America the same truth obtains. To the Indians God is “The Great Spirit.” With some the idea of the Deity is very lofty; again it is found in cruder and lower expression. Darwin’s description of the Patagonians as having very low religious beliefs is refuted by Giacomo Bove. The Pawnees worship A-ti-us ta-kaw-a, i.e. our Father in all places, or Ti-ra-wa, i.e. the Spirit-Father, with whom they expect to live after death. The Zunis speak of the deity as Awonawilona, i.e. the All-Father. The Indians of Missouri worship “Old Man Immortal” “the Great Spirit,” “the Great Mystery.” The Tinne of British America have the term Nayeweri, i.e. “He-who-creates-by-thought.” The Algonquin speaks of Kitche-Maneto who created the world ‘by an act of his will.” If the supreme Being in barbarous tribes is regarded as otiose and inactive, so as to become a mere name and a byword, it is due to the fact that He has been thrust into the background by the competition either of ancestral spirits—e.g. Unkulunkulu of the Zulus—or of friendly and helpful spirits—as, e.g., the Australian Baiame and Mungau-ngaur. Thus in West Africa the natives believe in Motogon who created by breathing, he is long since dead and they pay him no worship. From a study of savage tribes Mr. Lang holds that first in order of evolution came belief in a supreme Being by some way only to be guessed at (to him St. Paul’s explanation is the most probable); that this belief was subsequently obscured and overlaid by belief in ghosts and in a pantheon of lesser deities; that in many cases the savage creative Being has a deputy, often a demiurge, who exercises authority; that when this is the case, where ancestor worship is the working religion, the deputy easily comes to be envisaged as the first man. If to this we add the tradition, universal both among civilized—e.g. Hindus, Greeks, Romans—and savage nations, that formerly heaven was nearer to man than it now is, that the Creator Himself gave lessons of wisdom to human beings, but afterwards withdrew from them to heaven, where He now dwells, the line of reasoning will be even more cogent.

Therefore we can consider as conclusions well established:

That the farther back we go in the history of any religion, the purer becomes the conception of the deity, hence the fact of primitive purity;

That everywhere evident traces are found of the corruption of the primitive belief, hence the fact of degeneracy;

That all nations point in tradition to the time when the Deity was nearer to man, hence traces of primitive revelation.

Tylor concedes that “the degeneration theory, no doubt in some instances with fairness, may claim these beliefs as mutilated and perverted remains of a higher religion” (Primitive Culture, ed. 1871, p. 305).

III. MODERN ANTHROPOLOGICAL NOTIONS OF DEITY

The modern science of anthropology proposed an explanation of its own for the origin and existence of the Deity. It was called the anthropological theory. Its principal advocates were Tylor and Spencer. In purpose they agree, i.e. to show that the Deity has no real existence outside the mind of men; in method only they differed. With Tylor the method was biological, and we have Animism; with Spencer it was psychological, and we have what is termed the ghost-theory. According to Spencer, primitive man derived the conception of spirit from reflections on phenomena of sleep, dreams, shadow, trance, and hallucionation. In these experiences the ghosts of the departed came to him, he grew to dread them, and so worshiped them. From the departed souls of his kindred, first worshipped, the idea was gradually extended; they then became gods; finally, one of these deities in imagmation became supreme and was regarded as the one only God.

It is a fact that ancestor-worship is found in various nations, in China, India, ancient Greece and Rome it is, or was, an organized system. Here it formed the basis of family religion and of civil law. The Romans had their dii manes, i.e. divine ancestral spirits (“Eos leto datos divos habento”—Laws of the Twelve Tables as cited by Cicero in “De Leg.,” II, ii, 22). As lar familiaris, the first ancestor was considered the protector and genius of the house. In Greece the ancestral spirits of families became theoi patrooi i.e. paternal gods. How the ancestor watches. over the race is shown in the “Antigone.” In India we find the pitris, the companions of the devas, and later above the devas. In ancient Persia the fravashis helped Ahura Mazda in all his works. The songs of the Shih-King describe the ancestral festivals of China. With the Slavs was deeply rooted the belief in vampires, the souls of dead people, who suck the blood from the living. Among some savage nations the malignant character of ghosts prevails and gives rise to magic. On these facts Spencer constructs a theory to explain the origin and development of the deity among all nations. The theory is purely materialistic and unscientific.

Superior or supreme beings are found among races who do not worship ancestral spirits. It was not shown, it was denied by Waitz, it was not even alleged by Spencer, that the Australians steadily propitiate or sacrifice at all to any ghosts of dead men. The Dieri of Central Australia pray for rain to the Mura Mura, a good spirit, not a set of remote ancestral spirits. Thus the Australians and Andamanese worship a relatively supreme Being and Maker, and do not worship ghosts.

The Zulus are ancestor-worshippers; yet the recent dead parent, i.e. the father of tie family actually worshipping, is far above all others. Thus the supreme ancestral spirit changes with each generation. If, therefore, ancestors are forgotten in proportion as they recede from their living descendants, how can we on Spencer’s hypothesis maintain that as they gradually recede into the past, they develop into the conception of a supreme Deity and Creator? And how can we explain that savages can forget the very names of their great grandfathers and yet remember traditional persons from generation to generation? The Aborigines of Australia will often, by peculiar devices, avoid mentioning the names of the dead, a practice hostile to the development of ancestor-worship, yet these same people have a belief in a deity and in a future state of some kind. The Wathi-Wathi call this being Tha-tha-pali; the Ta-ta-thi call him Tulong.

The otiose, unworshipped supreme Being, often credited with the charge of future rewards and punishments among ancestor-worshipping peoples, cannot be explained in Spencer’s theory. On the contrary, it shows the corruption of Theism by Animism. “Among the negroes of Central Africa,” writes de la Saussaye “we find belief in a Highest God, the Creator of the world; but of course this God is not worshipped since as a general rule negroes worship cruel dreaded gods much more than friendly gods. Worship of ancestors is also general. In Dahomey and Ashantee huge human hecatombs are offered to deceased rulers.” The Kaffirs acknowledge a deity, Molunga, but neither adore nor pray to him. The Zulu religion, now almost exclusively ancestor-worship, seems to contain a broken and almost obliterated element of belief in a high, unworshisped Deity presiding over a future life. The Zulu Unkulunkulu made things, as the Australian Baiame. Unlike them, he is subject to the competition of ancestral ghosts, the more recent the more powerful, in receipt of prayer and sacrifice. Hence he is neglected, by many believed to be dead or the mere shadow of a children’s tale. Or this being exists in repose, remote from men with whom he acts through a deputy or deputies.

Spencer, to support his theory, appealed to the crude languages of savages; he said that they were unable to say, “I dreamed that I saw,” instead of “I saw.” Now, in many savage speculations are found ideas as metaphysical as in Hegel. Again, the Australian languages have the noun sleep and the verb to see. They make an essential distinction between waking hallucinations and the hallucinations of sleep; anyone can have the latter, only a wizard the former. Furthermore, Spencer contradicted himself; he credited these low savages with great ingenuity and strong powers of abstract reasoning—an admission fatal to his premises. Again Spencer held that the idea of the Deity was formed after the analogy of human rulers. But whence comes the great God in tribes which have neither chief nor king nor distinction of rank, e.g. the Fuegians, Bushmen, Australians? The Deity cannot be a reflection from human kings where there are no kings. Furthermore, Spencer’s assumption was false, viz. that deities improve morally and otherwise according to the rising grades in the evolution of culture and civilization. Usually, the reverse is the case. “In its highest aspect,” writes A. Lang “that simplest theology of Australia is free from the faults of the popular theology in Greece. The God discourages sin, He does not set the example of sinning. He is almost too sacred to be named (except in mythology) and far too sacred to be represented by idols. It would scarcely be a paradox to say that the popular Zeus or Ares is degenerate from Darumulum or the Fuegian being who forbids the slaying of an enemy.”

The real difficulty in Spencer’s theory was to account for the evolution from ghosts of the eternal creative moral Deity found in the belief of the lowest savages. The Bushmen, Fuegians, Australians believe in moral, practically omniscient, deities, makers of things, fathers in heaven, friends, guardians of morality, seeing what is good or bad in the hearts of men. So widely is this belief diffused that it cannot be ignored. The only recourse is to account for these deities as “loan-gods.” This explanation was refuted by A. Lang. Waitz wrote, “Among branches where foreign influence is least to be suspected we discover behind their more conspicuous fetishisms and superstitions something which we cannot strictly call monotheism, but which tends in that direction.” In the belief of the savages morality and religion are united. The savage, who lives in terror of the souls of the dead might worship a devil, not a deity who is moral and benevolent. The Andamanese have Pulusha, “Likefire,” but invisible, never born, and so immortal, who knows the thoughts of the heart, is angered by wrongdoing, pitiful to the distressed, sometimes deigning to grant relief, the judge of souls. Huxley’s contention in “Science and Hebrew Tradition,” that the Australians had merely a non-moral belief in ghost-like entities, usually malignant, and that in this state theology is wholly independent of ethics, is refuted by an exact study of these very beliefs. He claims that the religion of Israel arose from ghost-worship. But how does he explain the silence of the prophets or the Hebrew apparent indifference to the departed soul? Elohim differs from a ghost, in Hebrew belief He is ethical, immortal, and without beginnings. “In all ancient primitive peoples,” writes Wellhausen, “religion furnished a motive for law and morals; in case of none did it become so with such purity and power as in that of the Israelites.” The problem which Spencer’s theory cannot solve is, how the Australians could bridge the gulf between the ghost of a soon-forgotten fighting man and that conception of a Father in Heaven, omniscient, moral, which under various names is found all over a continent. The distinction between the creative supreme Deity of the savage,unpropitiated by sacrifice, and the waning, easily-forgotten, cheaply propitiated ghost of a tribesman is vital and essential.

Finally, the two conceptions (i.e. ghost and god) have different sources. According to de la Saussaye, “The sentiments which men entertain towards spirits and gods are different. Fear and egoistic calculation, which prevail in Animism, have been replaced by more exalted sentiments and a less selfish interest. This by itself would speak against a derivation of the whole belief in gods from Animism.” Spencer spoke of medicine men adored as gods after death; but this supposed the idea of the Deity. In Rome, Greece, and India, ancestor-worship supposes the worship of the great gods. The departed, the fathers, the ancestors, the heroes are admitted to the society of the gods—they are often called “half-gods”—but the gods are always there before them. Again the Deity of savage faith as a rule never died at all; yet the very idea of ghost implies the previous death; a ghost is a phantom of a dead man. Now anthropologists tell us that the idea of death as a universal ordinance is unnatural to the savage (A. Lang; de la Saussaye). Diseases and death once did not exist and normally ought not to exist, the savage thinks. The Supreme Deity of the savage is minus death; he was active before death entered the world, and was not affected by the entry of death. The essential characteristic of Darumutum, of Baiame, of Cogn, of Bunjil is that they never died at all. They belong to the period before death entered the world. Hence between the high deities of savages and the apotheosized first ancestors exists a great gulf, i.e. death.

It is interesting to compare this savage belief with the dii immortales of the Romans, the of the Greeks, theoi athanatoi the Amartya of the Hindus, the deathless gods of Babylonia, and the Egyptian deities, kings over death and the dead. The Banks Islanders have two orders of intelligent beings different from living men: ghosts of the dead and beings who are not, nor ever have been, human. The beings who never were human and who never died are called vui; the ghosts are named tamate. A vui is not a spirit who has been a ghost. This is the usual savage doctrine. The distinction, therefore, between eternal being and ghost is radical and common. The fault of some anthropologists is in neglecting the distinction, in confusing both under the name of spirits, and in deriving both from the ghosts of the dead. In Polynesia the gods are called atua; the spirits and souls of the departed tiki. Their conceptions of the heavenly dwellings of the gods and the underground kingdom of the dead (Po, Pulotu) are greatly developed and not clearly defined. The Fijians have the term kalou, which signifies beings other than men. All gods are kalou, but not all beings that are kalou are gods. Gods are kalou vu, deified ghosts are kalou yalo; the former are eternal the latter subject to infirmity and even death. Their supreme deity, Udengei, is neglected. But so would Jehova have been neglected, and become a mere name, if not for the Prophets. A. Lang says, “The Old Testament is the story of the prolonged effort to keep Jehova in the supreme place. To make and succeed in this was the differentia of Israel.” The Zulus believe their first ancestor Unkulunkulu was the Creator and prior to death. Reville does not understand, in Spencer’s system, “why, in so many places, the first ancestor is the Maker, if not the Creator of the world, Master of life and death, and possessor of divine powers not held by any of his descendants. This proves that it was not the first ancestor who became God, in the belief of his descendants, but rather the Divine Maker and Beginner of all who, in the creed of his adorers, became the first ancestor.” Miss Kingsley maintains that a clear line of demarcation exists between ghosts who are worshipped and gods, that the former never developed into the latter; warns us against confusing the offerings to the dead with sacrifices made to the gods; she says West Africa has never deified ancestors.

Finally, as de La Saussaye states, in Greece other names are applied to the altars, sacrifices, and offerings connected with the dead than those used in the worship of the Olympian gods. The altar of the ancestors is eschara, of the gods Bomos; the offering of sacrifice to the ancestors is enagizein or entemnein to the gods thyein; the libations to the ancestors choai, to the gods spondai. Again, the temples of the gods in Greece were so constructed that the statue in the main shrine should face the rising sun, the temple of the hero opened to the west and looked toward Rebus and the region of gloom. With Aeschylus the homage of the highest gods is kept apart from that of the powers below. The Greeks sacrificed to the gods by day, to the heroes in the evening or by night; not on high altars, but on a low sacrificial hearth, black-colored animals of the male sex were killed for them, and the heads of the victims were not, as in the case of those intended for the gods, turned toward the sky, but pressed down to the ground. M. Müller tells us that in the Vedas the exclamation used in sacrificing to the gods is svaha, to the departed sradha. Rightly, therefore, Jevons holds that the ghost never became a god and rejects the theory that all the deities of the earlier races, without exception, were the spirits of dead men divinized. “If Mr. Spencer,” writes M. Muller, “can find a single scholar to accept this view of the origin of Zeus in Greek or Dyaus in Sanscrit, I shall never write another word on mythology or religion.” Thus the Ghost-theory is needed only for the rise of ghost-propitiation and genuine ancestor worship. It reveals something in man apart and distinct from the material elements of the body. Thus viewed, its arguments are so many reasons for the belief in the future life of the soul after dissolution of the body.

Thus the history of religion reveals

the belief in a powerful, moral, eternal, omniscient Father and Judge of men;

the belief in somewhat of man which exists beyond the grave.

These truths are found in every nation historically known to us. The latter belief, developed into an animistic ghost-worship, obscures, but does not obliterate, the former. “Christianity,” writes A. Lang, “combined what was good in Animism, the care for the individual soul as an immortal spirit under eternal responsibilities, with the One Righteous Eternal of prophetic Israel.”

JOHN T. DRISCOLL.

Charles De La Croix

Missionary, b. at Hoorbeke-St-Corneille, Belgium, 28 Oct., 1792; d. at Ghent, 20 Aug., 1869. He was educated at the seminary in Ghent. With his fellow-students he resisted the bishop forced upon the diocese by Napoleon I and was imprisoned with his brother Joseph in the fortress of Wesel, where the latter died. After the fall of the Empire, De La Croix resumed his studies, was ordained in Ghent by Bishop Dubourg of Louisiana and, with several other seminarians and some Flemish workmen, followed the bishop to the United States. In May, 1818, he was sent to Barrens, Perry County, Missouri, where, beside his missionary duties, he was to superintend the building of a seminary for the Louisiana diocese. After the arrival of Father Rosati, president of the new seminary, Father De La Croix went to Florisant, also called St. Ferdinand, near St. Louis (3 Dec., 1818). Here, with the help of the newly arrived colony of Religious of the Sacred Heart, he laboured zealously and successfully, not only among the Catholic families of the district, but also among the Osage Indians of the Missouri plains. He prepared the way for De Smet and the other Jesuit missionaries, who came to Florissant in 1823. When Father Van Quickenborne, S. J., arrived with his eight companions, all Belgians like himself, De La Croix had almost completed and paid for the brick church, started a farm, and opened a missionary field for the work of the young Jesuits. Having been appointed to St. Michael’s parish in Lower Louisiana, Father De La Croix prepared for the Religious of the Sacred Heart the convent in which they opened a boarding-school in 1828. The following year he went to Belgium, broken in health, but returned to his mission with funds collected in Belgium to build a substantial church which was completed in 1832. In 1833 he went back to Belgium, where he became a canon of the cathedral of Ghent, a position which he held until his death.

DE RIEMAECKER, Joseph et Charles De La Croix: notice biographique (Ghent, 1894); Catholic Directory (1822, 1833); American Catholic Historical Researches (Philadelphia, Jan., 1907).

P.P. LIBERT

Ferdinand-Victor-Eugène Delacroix

French painter, b. at Charenton-St-Maurice, near Paris, 26 April, 1798; d. 13 August, 1863. He was the son of Charles Delacroix, minister of foreign relations under the Convention from 1795 to 1797, and a grandson, by his mother of Aben, the famous pupil of Boulle. From his earliest childhood his love for music was intense and exercised throughout his life a decided influence on his work. He always attributed his success in his representation of the Magdalen (Saint-Denis of the Holy Sacrament), fainting from grief for her crucified Master, to an impression made upon him by the canticles of the month of May; while it was under the emotion produced by the music of the Dies Irae that he brought forth the terrible angel of the fresco of Heliodorus (Saint Sulpice). After his studies at the Lycee Louis-le-Grand, he entered the school of Fine Arts in Paris and studied there under Guérin.

The extreme poverty which fell to the lot of Delacroix after the death of his parents in 1819 drove him to the production of lithographs, caricatures, etc. In the mean time, however (1818), a distinct promise of his future eminence had been manifested in the first of his recorded canvases, “Roman Matrons Sacrificing their Jewelry to Their Country.” Against the advice of his master, Guérin, he exhibited at the Salon of 1822 the “Dante and Virgil,” which had the immediate effect of bringing to its creator notoriety, if not fame, for it aroused a whirlwind of critical controversy. In the then existing state of French public opinion in matters of art, it is not wonderful that Delacroix should have failed to win the much coveted Prix de Rome, for which he was a competitor; but two years later (1824) his “Massacre of Scio” renewed the strife of the critics which his earlier Salon picture had first kindled, and brought him a little nearer to the goal of success. The conservative classicists condemned his work, as they condemned that of all the new romanticists, for its contempt of established traditions; the sublequent triumph of romanticism brought with it in good time his personal triumph, to be eventually signalized and confirmed by the acquisition of the two bitterly criticized early canvases, the “Roman Matrons”and the “Massacre of Scio,” for the national collection of the Louvre. But only after the revolution of 1830 did official recognition and approval visit him. In the year next following that event he travelled through Spain and Morocco, whence he brought back an inspiration of Southern light, colour, and vital force which was to make itself effectively felt in all his later and more widely known work. The new government made him a chevalier of the Legion of Horour; the day of nineteenth-century romanticism had begun in France, and Delacroix, always a leader of this new school, was fairly arrivé. From the exhibition of his “Murder of the Bishop of Liège” in the Salon (1831) his progress was never seriously interrupted, in spite of incessant criticism, until, in 1857, it brought him into the fold of the Institute of France. It was during this quarter of a century of his career that he produced those great compositions on medieval and Arabian themes with which his name is nowadays most commonly associated.

The bitter opposition which Delacroix had all his life to endure drew him into discussions on which he displayed a really literary talent. No one who would arrive at a true idea of the man should omit the perusal of his essays on art and his correspondence. The number of his pictorial works is immense, aggregating about 9140 subjects, classified by Ernest Chesneau as follows: 853 canvases, 1525 pastels, water-colours, etc., 6629 drawings, 24 engravings, 109 lithographs, and 60 albums. The following may be mentioned as marking important moments in the development of his genius: “The 28th of July, 1830” (1830); “Charge of Arab Cavalry” (Montellier Museum-1832); “Algerian Women” (Louvre—1834); “Jewish Wedding in Morocco” (Louvre-1841); “Taking of Constantinople by the Crusaders” (Versailles Museum-1841); “Muley-abd-el-Rahman leaving his palace at Mequinez” (Toulouse Museum-1845); “The Two Foscari” (Collection of the Duc d’Aumale at Chantilly-1855). To his early period belong the famous lithographs of Faust which bought him warm praise from Goethe himself. “Sardanapalus” (Salon, 1828), another early chef-d’oeuvre, drew from Vitet the remark that “Delacroix etait devenu la pierre de scandale des Expositions,” while Delécluze called it “une erreur de peintre.” “Richelieu Saying Mass,” was ordered by the Duke Louis Philippe d’Orléans, while “The Death of Charles the Bold” was ordered by the Minister of the Interior. “The Murder of the Archbishop of Liège,” the canvas which actually assured his contemporary fame, was probably the best of all his pictures. From this on, masterpieces follow one another until adverse criticism could no longer seriously affect his position in the world of art.

APPRECIATION OF HIS WORK

The real founder of the nineteenth-century French School of art, Delacroix stands alone and unsurpassed. The difficulties he had to contend with came from his forcing upon an ignorant public a new school wholly opposed to that of David, which was insincere in its coldness and artificiality, conventional, and absolutely unsympathetic. Though one can find in Delacroix almost all of the best points of men like Rembrandt, Rubens, and Correggio, from the moment he shook off the influence of Géricault—so manifest in “Dante and Virgil”—he threw himself entirely on the resources of his own genius. On the eve of finishing “Massacre of Scio” he had occasion to notice some works of Constable, and there discovered and made his own a principle of art which so many masters have failed to appreciate, viz. that in nature, what seems to be of one colour is really made up of many shades, discovered only by the eye which knows how to see. Thereafter colouring had no secret for him. Delacroix was an artist in a supreme degree. Possessed of a deep knowledge of history, he studied each group and each individual in a series of sketches, which were retouched again and again; only then did they take place in the ensemble. With the instinct of a poet he saw vividly the scene he was painting. His artistic sense kept him from falling into the melodramatic but he remains tragic, and it is for this tragic note, which finds expression in so many bloody themes, that he is generally criticized. Delacroix worked with an unerring instinct of composition, avoiding the monotony of regular line by the varied attitudes of his figures. He excelled in the various branches of his art, and his decorative pictures in the Gallery of Apollo at the Louvre, the drawing-room of the king, the chamber of deputies, and St-Sulpice are as excellent as his canvases. There is hardly a tragedy of the human soul which is not reproduced in his work. He is not popular because the multitude wants pleasure, and Delacroix, like Pascal, does not make one laugh; he terrifies. In the “Murder of the Bishop of Liège,” before admiration comes one has shivered at the vivid portrayal of human ferocity; in the “Christ in the Garden of Gethsemani” there is no human sorrow equal to that. Delacroix is the highest manifestation of French genius in art; he not only honours France, but mankind, and is one of those who emerson said were “representative of humanity.”

GOETHE, “Conversations,” tr. DELEROT; “Les Beaux-Arts en Europe” (Paris, 1856); “Eugène Delacroix” in “Fine Arts Quarterly Review,” III; ATHERTON, “Some Masters of Lithograpy” (1897); “New York Catalogue of Celebrated Paintings”; “L’Oeuvre Complet d’Eugène Delacroix,” ed. ROBERT (1885); TOURNEUX, “Delacroix devant ses contemporains” (Paris, 1886); VACHON, “Etude sur Delacroix” (Paris, 1885); VÉRON, “E. Delacroix” in “Les Artistes célèbres” (Paris).

HENRY ANGER

Hippolyte Delaroche

(Known also as PAUL)

Painter, born at Paris, 17 July, 1797; died 4 November, 1856. A pupil of Watelet, a landscape painter of mediocre ability, and afterwards of Gros, a great painter but a very poor teacher and incapable of harmonizing his doctrines with his genius, Delaroche was consequently badly trained. Without any deep conception of mankind or of life, without style, and lacking even a novel idea along the lines of art or beauty, Delaroche was nevertheless gifted with a certain commonplace skill and aptitude which satisfied the public, and, whilst fully realizing his narrow limitations, he was astute enough to supply the want of artistic ability by an ingenious choice of subjects. Herein lay his genius, if indeed it may so be called. In this he appealed to the taste of the bourgeoisie which, devoid of artistic culture, had in the rôle of Mæcenas succeeded the aristocracy of the old regime and definitively come into power during the Restoration and the July Monarchy. The artist’s debut in the salon of 1819 with “Naphtali in the Desert” passed by unnoticed. Another Biblical subject appeared in the salon of 1822, and in 1824 he won the gold medal. Delaroche discovered his vein and thenceforth, except for the occasional treatment of some current event (The Capture of the Trocadero, 1827), he worked upon that series of historical incidents, that vast repertory of anecdotes generally taken from the civil wars of France and England and which, when multiplied by the engravings of Goupil, the publisher, who thereby made a fortune, became equally valuable to the author in Paris and London. We must admit that Delaroche was admirably served by his engravers, of whom Henriquel Dupont was the best known. His inartistic painting gained much by being translated into engraving as, in this way, only the subject had to be reproduced. It must be admitted that, in all these works, Delaroche shows himself an incomparable scene-setter. In his masterpiece, “The Assassination of the Duke of Guise” (1835, Condé Museum), he is most realistic and furnishes, as it were, the retrospective photograph of a sixteenth-century drama. Therein accuracy of detail, naturalness of composition, and the extremely careful treatment of the decoration copied from the Château of Blois replaced, if indeed they do not equal, the impression made by real art. And yet the unique success of this small picture does not attend the larger ones, which do not so fully reflect the painter’s fancy.

In 1833 there was question of entrusting him with the decoration of the church of the Madeleine, but the large order was divided and the artist refused to accept half of the task that was to have been his in its entirety. By way of compensation he was commissioned to decorate the hemicycle of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. This work, completed in 1841 and which was for some time regarded as a masterpiece of decorative painting, is an ideal assemblage, or œcumenical council, of all the great artists from Ictinus to Bramante, from Cimabue to Velazquez, and from Phidias to Erwin von Steinbach, a composition in which the disconnectedness of the whole rivals the absence of character in each personage taken individually. Few great “machines” convey a more cruel impression of the utter lack of ideas and the incurable debility of the poetic or plastic conception. This frieze, officially praised, marked the decline of the artist in the eyes of competent judges and gave unmistakable evidence of his indigence. Delaroche endeavoured to reinstate himself by working up different familiar and pious subjects. He also followed the vogue of the imperial cult and produced several scenes from the life of Napoleon. But even this ingenious idea did not restore the artist to his pristine glory. Then, as a last resource, he returned to his first subjects: “The Last Prayer of the Children of Edward IV” (1852); “The Last Communion of Mary Stuart” (1854), etc. His declining years were very sad. In 1835 he married the only daughter of Horace Vernet, but she died in 1848. At this time, although retaining popular favour, he was keenly sensible of the contempt of his fellow artists and realized not only that they would never regard him as one of their number but that, despite his glory, his fortunes, and his titles, he must ever remain in their eyes a Philistine painter. He exhibited nothing in the salon subsequently to 1837 and had not the courage to participate in the great manifestation of 1855, which was the dazzling triumph of the French School. His “Christian Martyr” (Louvre, 1855), so feebly delineated and poorly painted, nevertheless exhales exquisite sentiment and is, as it were, the last sigh of a Christian Ophelia. But the shortcomings of the artist should not blind us to the purity of his character and the uprightness of his life. Besides, faulty as his style may be, he nevertheless has the merit of being an inventor. He created anecdotal painting and the special order of illustrations to which we owe, among so many inferior works, the most creditable productions of J.P. Laurens. Delaroche had an “idea,” whatever its value, and this fact alone is unusual enough to be taken into account.

BLANC, Histoire des peintres; DE LOMÉNIE, P. Delaroche par un homme de rien (1844); DELABORDE, Etudes sur les Beaux-Arts, II; DE LALAING, Les Vernet, Géricault et Delaroche; GAUTIER, Portraits contemporains; Œuvre de P. Delaroche reproduit et photographié par Bingham et accompagné d’une notice par H. Delaborde et d’un catalogue raisonné par J. Goddé (Paris, 1858); ROSENTHAL, La Peinture romantique (Paris, 1903).

LOUIS GILLET

Delatores

(Lat. for DENOUNCERS)

A term used by the Synod of Elvira (c. 306) to stigmatize those Christians who appeared as accusers of their brethren. This synod decided (can. lxxiii, Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 2d ed., I, 188) that if any Christian was proscribed or put to death through the denunciation (delatio) of another Christian, such a delator was to suffer perpetual excommunication. No distinction is made between true and false accusation, but the synod probably meant only the accusation of Christianity before the heathen judge, or at most a false accusation. Any false accusation against a bishop, priest, or deacon was visited with a similar punishment by the same synod (can. lxxv, op. cit., 189). The punishment for false witness in general was proportioned by can. lxxiv to the gravity of the accusation. The Council of Arles of 314 issued a similar decree (can. xiv, op. cit., p. 213), when it decided that Christians who accused falsely their brethren were to be forever excluded from communion with the faithful. During the persecutions of the early Christians it sometimes happened that apostates denounced their fellow-Christians. The younger Pliny relates in a letter to Trajan (Apostolic Fathers ed. Lightfoot, 2d ed., I. i, 50 sqq.), that an anonymous bill of indictment was presented to him on which were many names of Christians; we do not know, however, that the author of this libellus was a Christian. According to can. xiii of the Council of Arles (op. cit., 211 sqq.), during the persecution of Diocletian Christians were denounced by their own brethren to the heathen judges. If it appeared from the public acts that an ecclesiastic had done this, he was punished by the synod with perpetual deposition; however, his ordinations were considered valid. In general, false accusation is visited with severe punishments in later synods, e. g. Second Council of Arles (443 or 453, can. xxiv), the Council of Agde (506, can. viii) and others. These decrees appear in the later medieval collections of canons (q. v.). New punitive decrees against calumny were issued by Gregory IX in his Decretals (de calumniatoribus, V, 3 in Corp. Jur. Can). KRÜLL in KRAUS, Real-Encyk. (Freiburg im Br., 1882), I, 361; HINSCHIUS, Kirchenrecht, IV (Berlin, 1888), 699, 770; IV (Berlin, 1893), 20 sqq.

J. P. KIRSCH

Delaware

Delaware, one of the original thirteen of the United States of America. It lies between 38°28’ and 39°47’ of N. lat. and between 74°56’ and 75°46’ of long. West of Greenwich, and is bounded on the N. by the State of Pennsylvania, on the E. by the Delaware River and Bay, and on the S. and W. by the State of Maryland. Its area is 2370 square miles, of which 1965 square miles are of land area, and 405 square miles of water area. Delaware is an agricultural state, its soil is fertile and a large portion of it in a high state of cultivation.

HISTORY

In 1609 Henry Hudson, in the employ of the Dutch East India Company, on his third voyage of discovery, sailed into Delaware Bay. This was the first visit of a European, so far as known, to the territory now called Delaware. The bay was so named about the year 1610 by the Virginians in honour of their first Governor, Thomas West, Lord Delawarr. The Dutch, basing their claims on rights acquired by Hudson’s discovery, made the first attempt at settlement. In 1629, under the authority of the Dutch West India company, and with the countenance of the Governor and council of New Netherlands, a tract of land from Cape Henlopen to the mouth of the Delaware River was purchased from the natives, and a company formed in Holland to colonize it. In the spring of 1631 a ship carrying emigrants reached the Delaware, and a colony was planted near Cape Henlopen, on Lewes Creek, the colonists giving the country the name of Swaanendael. The life of this colony was ended after a few months. Trouble with the Indians arose, and a fort which had been erected was destroyed, and all the colonists murdered. In 1638 an expedition consisting of two ships carrying some fifty Swedish emigrants, and commanded by Peter Minuit, the deposed Governor of the New Netherlands colony, commissioned by the Swedish Queen Christina, entered Delaware Bay, and the present site of Wilmington was chosen as the place for the first settlement. The colony was known as New Sweden. A fort called Christina was built. After about two years of prosperity sickness began to prevail, and the colony was on the eve of breaking up when another Dutch expedition, though under the patronage of the Swedish Company, appeared, and the new colonists located their settlement several miles from fort Christina. The new arrivals revived the spirits of the Swedes, who decided to remain. Additional colonists from Sweden arrived in 1640, and the colony became well established and prosperous. In 1655, on the appearance of a Dutch fleet, all the forts and settlements were surrendered, and such Swedes as would not take the oath of allegiance were sent to the home country. In 1656 the West India company sold its interests on the South River (called South as distinguished from the North River, as the Hudson was then called) to the City of Amsterdam, and the colony was called “New Amstel” and the authority of New Netherlands over it was ended. In 1664, after the surrender of New Amsterdam to the English, the Delaware settlements were also taken. The name of New Amstel was changed to New Castle, and the settlements were annexed as an appendage to New York, then also under English rule.

According to the charter to William Penn in 1681, the territory of Pennsylvania was bounded on the south by a circle drawn twelve miles distant from the town of New Castle northward and westward, the territory on the Delaware as far down as what was then called Cape Henlopen remaining to the Duke of York. In the same year Penn’s authority, with the consent of York, was extended to include this territory also. As early as 1685 a controversy began between Penn and Lord Baltimore as to the ascertainment of the southern and western boundaries of the country along the bay as transferred by York to Penn. Numerous agreements were entered into between the respective proprietors for determining the boundaries, but none gave promise of ever being carried out. This quarrel retarded the settlement of the country and oftentimes caused bloodshed. In 1750 the present boundaries between Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania, as mentioned in an agreement between the heirs of Penn and Baltimore in 1732, were decreed by the English court of Chancery, and in1763, Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, two surveyors, were engaged and sent over from England to mark the lines. In 1764 the work was started. The present south and west lines of Delaware are the result of a part of this work. The east and west line (between the present States of Pennsylvania and Maryland), which they ran and marked, is the historical Mason and Dixon’s Line, the boundary between the former free and slaves States. In 1691, with Penn’s consent, the lower counties, now the State of Delaware, became a separate Government, only to be again united to Pennsylvania in 1693. In 1702 Pennsylvania convened its legislature apart, and the two colonies were never again united. The “Counties of New Castle, Kent and Sussex upon Delaware” as they were called, began to be governed by a separate assembly, and though the authority of the Governor of Pennsylvania was still acknow14edged, the legislature and tribunals were not appreciably affected by any external authority. This was the form of government until a separate constitution was adopted in 1776. The representatives of the three lower counties upon the Delaware were members of the continental Congresses of 1774 and 1775, and voted for the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Among the most noteworthy Articles of the Constitution of 1776 was the following: “There shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this State, in preference to another, and no clergyman or preacher of the gospel of any denomination shall be capable of holding a civil office in the State, or of being a member of either of the branches of the legislature, while they continue in the exercise of the pastoral function.” In 1779 the State’s delegates were instructed to ratify the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union” adopted by Congress.

During the Revolutionary War Delaware enlisted, including Continental soldiers and militia, a total of 3763 men. On 7 Dec., 1787, the Delaware legislature ratified the Federal Constitution, being the first State to give its approval. The population of the State in 1790 was 59,094, of whom 8887 were slaves. Constitutional conventions were held in 1791 and 1831, and the present Constitution was adopted at a convention in 1897. The common law procedure is followed in the courts, and the judges are appointed for terms of twelve years. In the war of 1812 Delaware was well represented in both the land and naval forces, her best known representative in the latter being commodore Thomas Macdonough, the hero of Lake Champlain. Prior to the Civil War, Delaware was classed with the Southern, or slave-holding, States. In the election of November, 1860, the State’s electoral vote was given to John C. Breckinridge, who stood for the constitutional rights of the Southern States, while at the same time all the political parties within the State pledge their loyalty to the Union. In January, 1861, a commissioner from Mississippi appeared before the Delaware legislature and invited the State to join the Southern confederacy. The House unanimously and the Senate by a majority vote, expressed their disapproval of such a remedy for existing difficulties. While there was considerable respect and some sympathy for the rights of the seceding States, there was at all times constant adherence to the National government. Delaware being a border State, there was some distrust on the part of the Government, particularly as to the souther portion, and at times martial law prevailed. Out of a total white population in the State in 1860 of 90,589, the aggregate number of troops furnished to the Union army during the war by Delaware was 13,651. Admiral Samuel F. Dupont was one of the ranking officers in the Union service credited to Delaware. On 5 Feb., 1867, the State legislature in accordance with the Governor’s recommendation rejected the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. At the legislative session of 1869 the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution was also rejected.

POPULATION

The estimated population of the State in 1906 was 194,479. Wilmington, with an estimated population in 1906 of 85,140, is the largest city. In 1900, in a population of 184,735 there were 94,158 males and 90,577 females. Classified by race, there were 153,977 whites, 30,697 negroes and 61 persons of other races; 170,925 of the population were natives and 13,810 were foreign born. There were 40,029 males of military age, and 54,018 males of voting age, of whom 45,592 were whites, and 8,374 were negroes. The total number of families was 39,446 and the average number of persons to a family was 4.7.

EDUCATION

The first school in the State was opened before 1700, under the direction of the pastor of Old Swedes’ Church. During the last half of the eighteenth century, the leading educational institution in the State was the Wilmington Academy, which was built in 1765. Prior to the constitution of 1791, no provision was had for free schools in the State. In that instrument provision was made “for establishing schools and promoting the arts and sciences,” and in 1796 an act was passed by the legislature applying all the moneys received from marriage and tavern licenses to a school fund. This was the beginning of the public school system in the State. In 1829 a “Free School Law” was passed, which divided the counties into many self-governing school districts, each district being the judge of the tax requisite for its own needs. The present school law was passed in 1875, and provided for a fixed tax to be raised annually in each district fore the support of the schools therein. Each country has a superintendent of schools, who as such is a member of the State Board of Education. In addition to the tax raised in each school district, there is the income of a large permanent school fund, and regular legislative appropriations. The constitution ordains that not less than $100,000 annually shall be provided by the legislature, which, with the income of the permanent school fund, shall be used exclusively for payment of teachers’ salaries, and for furnishing free text-books. Separate schools are provided for coloured children. In 1900 the total attendance in the free schools of the State was 28,753, nearly equally as to sex, of which number 24,868 were whites, and 3883 were negroes. The total amount expended on the free schools of the State for the school year 1905–1906, including amounts derived from school tax, legislative appropriations, and income from school fund, was $501,745.80.

In 1907 a compulsory education law was passed providing for the continuous attendance for at least five months in each year, at either public or private school in which the common English branches are taught, of all children between the ages of seven and fourteen years, unless excused for certain reasons specified. Delaware college, the chief institution of learning in the State, is located at Newark. Chartered in 1833, it was opened in 1834, and has had a very successful career. It is governed by a board of trustees, one-half of whom are named by the State. In 1869 the legislature adopted this college as the institution to be provided as an Agricultural college in accordance with the congressional Enabling Act of 1862. Technological and agricultural, as well as classical courses of instruction are provided. The number of professors and teachers is twenty- two, and the number of students in attendance is 158. Women are excluded from attendance at the college. Wilmington Conference Academy (Methodist), located at Dover, was founded in 1873. St. Mary’s College, founded in Wilmington in 1841, by the Rev. Patrick Reilly, became a well-known institution, and numbered some of the best-known Catholics in the country among its graduates. In 1857 there were 120 resident students. It prospered till the opening of the Civil War, and in 1866 closed its doors. There are a number of excellent private schools and academies scattered through the State. A State College for coloured students founded in 1892, is located at Dover. Manual and agricultural, as well as classical and technical, instruction is there furnished. Reform schools for both boys and girls are supported in part by the State. There is also a State Hospital and Insane Asylum. Delaware having no institution for the instruction of the deaf and dumb or the blind, the State bears the expense of having a certain number of them cared for and instructed in proper institutions in other States.

CATHOLIC PROGRESS

Prior to 1772 no definite records are obtainable regarding any regularly established Catholic church in the present State of Delaware. The Catholics in the State prior to the latter part of the eighteenth century were very few in number. In 1730 Cornelius Hallahan, an Irish Catholic, settled in Mill Creek Hundred, in New Castle country, on an estate called by him Cuba Rock, near the present location of Mount Cuba. The first Catholic services in the State were probably held at his house. The Apoquiniminck Mission, in the lower part of New Castle Country, was established before 1750 by Jesuits from St. Xavier’s Mission in Cecil County, Maryland. The latter mission, founded in 1706 by Father Thomas Mansell, S. J., near the junction of the Great and Little Bohemia Rivers, is still in existence, and known as Bohemia Manor. In a report from the Episcopal Mission at Dover (Kent Country) to the clergymen of the Pennsylvania province, made in 1748, it is stated that the “Quakers and Roman Catholics were long accustomed to bury their dead at their own plantations.” Again in 1751 a like report from the Dover Mission states: “There are about five or six families of Papists, who are attended once a month from Maryland with a priest.” In January, 1772, Father Matthew Sittensperger, a Jesuit known at the Bohemian Mission under the name of Manners, purchased a farm in Mill Creek Hundred, which was known as coffee Run, and here a log chapel called St. Mary’s and a residence were erected. Father Sittensperger was succeeded by the Rev. Stephen Faure, who, with other Frenchmen, driven from St. Domingo by negro uprisings, settled at Wilmington. He was assisted by the Rev. John Rosseter, an officer in Rochambeau’s army during the Revolutionary War, and then an Augustinian. In 1798 he was succeeded by the Rev. Mr. Cibot, who had been Vice-Prefect Apostolic in St. Domingo. In 1800 the Rev. Charles Whelan became pastor, to be succeeded in 1805 by the Rev. Patrick Kenny. From this church the Catholics of the surrounding country as far as at West Chester, Pennsylvania, and Wilmington, were attended. Father Kenny was assisted for a time by the Rev. George A. Carrell, who afterwards became Bishop of Covington, Kentucky. The arduous labours and personality of Father Kenny have made him probably the best known priest in the early Catholic history of the State. Some portions of Coffee Run Church are still standing. The site of the church is about six miles from Wilmington on the Lancaster Pike. In 1785 Delaware was one of the four states (the others being Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia) where Catholics were not virtually under civil disabilities.

From its earliest settlement, at no time did religious intolerance ever appear in the government of the Swedish colony which grew into the State of Delaware. In 1816 St. Peter’s, the second church in the State, was built by Father Kenny. This church, often enlarged and beautified since, is now the cathedral of the diocese. Father Kenny was first assisted in 1834, and later succeeded by the Rev. Patrick Reilly, who, as priest and educator, was one of the most respected clergymen in the country. In 1830 the first Catholic Orphan Asylum in the state was opened in Wilmington. In 1839 the first parochial school in the State was built adjoining St. Peter’s. Until 1868 the State formed a portion of the Diocese of Philadelphia, but in that year the present Diocese of Wilmington was created. It comprises the State of Delaware and the Eastern Shore counties of Maryland and Virginia. The Right Rev. Thomas A. Becker was the first bishop. Bishop Becker, on being transferred to Georgia in 1886, was succeeded by the Right Rev. Alfred A. Curtis, who, after a service of ten years, resigned, and was succeeded by the Right Rev. John J. Monaghan, 26 January, 1897. The Delaware diocese from its creation has been distinguished by the excellences in ability and temperament of its bishops. The years 1825 to 1860 marked the first important period of Catholic immigration, and the chief nationality found among the Catholic population has been the Irish. The Catholic population of the diocese (1908) is 31,000, of whom 500 are negroes. The Catholic population of the State is 25,000. There are 46 churches in the diocese, of which 20 are in Delaware. The one Catholic church for negroes is situated in Wilmington. The number of priests in the diocese is 43, and the number in the State is 34. Of the whole number in the diocese 30 are seculars and 13 belong to various orders. There are twelve parochial schools in the State, with an attendance of 3100. Orphan asylums for white boys and girls, for former near Delaware City and the latter at Wilmington, are under the care, respectively, of the sisters of St. Francis and the Sisters of charity. A coloured orphan asylum in Wilmington is conducted by the Josephite Fathers. A coloured Industrial and Agricultural School is also maintained by the Josephite Fathers at Clayton. A Home for the Aged, at Wilmington, is under the care of the Little sisters of the Poor. All these institutions are well housed, admirably managed, and speak well for Catholic benevolence in the state. A Summer Home for the teaching orders of the Sisters in the State and for poor girls has been opened at Rehobeth, a seaside town. Salesianum, a preparatory school, located at Wilmington, under the care of the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, and the Ursuline Academy, a boarding and day school for girls, are the present chief Catholic educational institutions in the State. Within the diocese is a novitiate of the order of Oblates of St. Francis de Sales and a convent of Visitation nuns.

OTHER RELIGIONS

The first religion in the State was that brought by the Swedish settlers, namely, the Lutheran. The first church erected was in 1638 within Fort Christina, and the second in 1643 near New Castle. Dutch and Swedes worshipped there. Old Swedes’ Church, built in 1698 under the direction of the celebrated Swedish minister Bjork, is still in use and in a splendid state of preservation. After the arrival of the English, the Swedish and English churches were, for the greater part of the time, attended by the same minister. About 1791 the Swedish Lutheran Church merged into the Protestant Episcopal. The Society of Friends erected their first meeting house in Delaware about 1687, and for the greater part of the State’s history, they were probably the most influential and respected class in the State, particularly in the northern portion. The first Presbyterian church in the State is known to have ben established with elders and trustees as early as 1705, but the precise year of its institution is not known. The Baptist Church in the State was founded in 1703 by emigrants from South Wales, who settled upon the “Welsh Tract,” a portion of the Penn grant in Pencader Hundred, New Castle county, and erected a meeting house. This was the third Baptist meeting house erected in America. Meetings of the Methodist denomination were held at Wilmington as early as 1766, and in 1780 “Barratt’s Chapel” in Kent County (still in use) was erected. This was one of the cradles of the Methodist church in America, and here the first General Conference of American Methodism was appointed. The active church membership and the Sunday-school membership of the leading Protestant denominations are (1908): Methodist Episcopal, 40,000; Protestant Episcopal, 6280; Baptist, 5000; Presbyterian, 12,700. There are many churches for coloured people in the State, among which the Baptist and Methodist, particularly the latter, predominate. Among other creeds and denominations represented in the State, are the Lutheran, Unitarian, Swedenborgian, Christian Science, Methodist Protestant, various divisions of the Baptist Church, Seventh Day Adventist, and Hebrew.

LEGISLATION

The first article of the State constitution, adopted in 1897, states, “No man shall or ought to be compelled to attend any religious worship, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of worship, or to the maintenance of any ministry, against his own free will and consent”; and also states that “No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State.” This same language is found in the constitution adopted in 1831. Blasphemy is punishable as a misdemeanour. By statute any worldly employment, labour or business (works of necessity or charity excepted), peddling goods, droving, fishing, fowling, gaming, horseracing, cock fighting or hunting game, and playing and dancing, on the Sabbath day, are all prohibited and made punishable as misdemeanours. The usual form of oath is swearing upon the Holy Evangels of Almighty God. A person believing in any other than the Christian religion may be sworn according to the peculiar ceremonies of his religion, if there be any such. A person conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath may be permitted to affirm to the truth of the matters to be testified. A chaplain is appointed by either branch of the legislature, and the daily sessions (by force of custom only) are opened with prayer. Christmas and Sunday are the only religious holidays recognized as legal holidays. There is neither statute nor court decision in the State, regarding the seal of confession.

Prior to 1893 the provisions of one statute covered the incorporation of congregations or societies of whatsoever denomination. At that time, a statute was passed providing exclusively for the incorporation of Catholic congregations. It gives a simple method for incorporating a church congregation. Under a statute, all real and personal property belonging to any church or religious society is not liable to assessment and taxation for public purposes, unless the property is in the form of a school where the tuition is not free. The constitution provides: “No portion of any fund now existing, or which may hereafter be appropriated or raised by taxation, for educational purposes, shall be appropriated to, or used for, or in aid of any sectarian church or denominational school, provided, that 11real or personal property used for school purposes where tuition is free, shall be exempt from taxation and assessment for public purposes.” The right of any charitable or educational corporation to take by devise or bequest in undoubted. While the language of the statute under which Catholic congregations are formed into church corporations is not beyond cavil in this regard, the assumption is that such a corporation may take by devise or bequest, without qualification or condition. In this respect, the rights of Catholic church corporations are clearer and more liberal than those enjoyed by church corporations of any other denomination. Ordained minsters of the Gospel are not liable to serve as jurors. Military service is voluntary. By the constitution, no divorce may be granted except by the judgment of a court. Annulment of marriage for certain causes, existing at the time of marriage, is provided for. For divorce, the reasons are adultery, bigamy, imprisonment, cruelty, desertion, habitual drunkenness, and hopeless insanity. Hearings and trials in divorce matters must in all cases be had before the court and in public. Marriage within the degrees of the established table of consanguinity, or between whites and blacks, is unlawful and void, and the parties thereto are guilty of a misdemeanour. A regularly issued license is a condition precedent to marriage, unless the banns are published at some place of stated religious worship, within the Hundred of the woman’s residence on two Sabbaths, and no objection made to such marriage.

The sale of liquor is licenses by the State, but with many restrictions. The State is divided into four local option districts, in two of which prohibition laws are now in force.

Legacies for religious, charitable and educational purposes are not subject to taxation. The right to dispose of property by will may be exercised by any person of the age of twenty-one years or upwards who is of sound mind. Such will must be in writing except a nuncupative will, by which an estate not exceeding $200 may be disposed of. Cemetery corporations are now formed under the provisions of a general incorporation law. No taxes are paid on lands used for cemetery purposes.

The constitution places no limit to direct taxation, but no State tax on assessed property is levied. County and municipal assessment and taxation is employed. There is no tax on income. A collateral inheritance tax is collected, where the recipient is a stranger in blood, and the estate exceeds $500.

FERRIS, History of the Original Settlements on the Delaware (Wilmington, 1846); BANCROFT, History of the United States (New York, 1881); SCHARF, History of Delaware (Philadelphia, 1888); CONRAD, History of Delaware (Wilmington, 1908); PERRY, Historical Collections (Hartford, 1886); SHEA, Catholic Church in Colonial Days (New York, 1886); Penn. Historical Society Memoirs (Philadelphia, 1864); U. S. Twelfth Census (Washington, 1901); Bulletin 71, Estimates of Population, ibid. (Washington, 1907); Bulletin 31, Census of Manufactures, ibid., (Washington, 1906); Del. Laws, Revised Code.

CHARLES F. CURLEY.

Delaware Indians

An important tribal confederacy of Algonquian stock originally holding the basin of the Delaware River, in Eastern Pennsylvania, U.S.A., together with most of New Jersey and Delware. They call themselves Lenapé or Leni-lenapé, about equivalent to “real men.” The English knew them as Delawares, from the name of the river; the French called them Loups (wolves); under which term they included also the cognate Mahican; while to most of their Algonquian neighbours they were known as Wapanaki (Easterners). By reason of being the parent body of a number of cognate tribes, and holding the ancestral territory, they were accorded precedence in intertribal assemblies, under the respectful title of “grandfather.”

The Lenapé proper consisted of three tribes-Munsee, Unami, and Unalaqtgo-symbolized respectively under the totems of the Wolf, Turtle, and Turkey. Of these the Munsee held the Upper Delaware and were considered the defenders of the frontier against the incursions of the hostile Iroquois. Their dialect differed considerably from that of the other two. The Unami held the middle course of the river, together with the hereditary chieftaincy, while the third tribe occupied the lower country. Each tribe was organized into clans or gentes, numbering about thirty-five in all, with descent in the female line, as usual among the Eastern Indians. In habit they were sedentary, depending chiefly upon agriculture rather than upon hunting, cultivating large quantities of corn, beans, squashes, and tobacco. Their houses, consisting of a framework of poles covered with bark or mats woven of rushes, were of wagon-top shape and accommodated several families each.

The most ancient traditions of the Lenapé are contained in the sacred pictograph record known as the Walam Olum or “Red Score,” first brought to notice by Rafinesque in 1836 and published with translation and notes by Brinton in 1885. They made their first treaty, with Penn, in 1682, at Shackamaxon within the present limits of Philadelphia. To this period belongs their noted chief Tamenend, from whom the Tammany Society derives its name. As the whites pressed upon them the Delawares gradually retired westward, first to the Susquehanna and thence to the Alleghany, until in 1751 they began to make settlements in Ohio, where the greater part of the tribe was established at the outbreak of the French and Indian war in 1754. In common with all the other tribes of the Ohio region, they sided with the French against the English in this war and continued the struggle independently for some time after the French garrisons had been withdrawn. Throughout the Revolution and the war of 1812 they were allies of the English against the Americans. As early as 1746 zealous Moravian missionaries had begun work in the tribe in Eastern Pennsylvania, and succeeded in winning a considerable number to Christianity, despite persecutions and removals forced upon them by the whites, culminating in the massacre of an entire community of Christian Delawares at Gnadenhutton, in Ohio, in 1782.

The war of 1812 was followed by treaty cessions and other removals, most of the Christian Delawares emigrating to Canada, while the others, after various halts by different bands in Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, and Kansas, were finally collected chiefly in the present Oklahoma, the main body incorporating with the Cherokee in 1867. They have greatly decreased, but number (1908) altogether about 1900 souls, including about 870 with the Cherokee and 95 more with the Wichita, in Oklahoma; about 250 Munsee in Wisconsin and some 50 more in Kansas; and the rest, under the names of Munsees and Moravians, on reservations in Ontario, Canada.

BRINTON, The Lenapé and their Legends (Philadelphia, 1885); DRAKE, Aboriginal Races of North America (Book of the Indians), (15th ed., New York, 1882); HECKEWELDER, Indian Nations of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1876); RUTTENBER, Indian Tribes of Hudson’s River (Albany, 1872); THOMPSON, Moravian Missions (New York, 1890).

JAMES MOONEY

Delcus

A titular see of Thrace, suffragan of Philippopolis. The Greek name of the place was Delkos or Delkoi, later Derkos or Derkoi; the latter forms have prevailed. The Turkish and common name is Derkos. It is now a little village south-west of Kara Bournou, a promontory on the Black Sea, and on the southern bank of Lake Derkos, the waters of which are brought to Constantinople by an aqueduct. There are about 300 inhabitants. The see, though some have connected its origin with the preaching of St. Andrew, is not mentioned before the eighth century; however a rather obscure record of Balsamon (P. G., CXXXVII. 548) permits the supposition that it was established shortly after the Trullan Council of 692; The first known bishop is Gregory, who attended the Second Council of Nicæa in 787. In the records of the councils under Photius are found the signatures of his partisan Neophytus and of Macarius, the partisan of St. Ignatius. About 840 the see stood twentieth among the autocephalous archbishoprics. Its archbishop, John, subscribed a synodal sentence in 997. Balsamon (P. G., CXXXVIII, 273) speaks of another prelate who sought permission to reside in the larger and richer city of Phileas. Another was reproached in the Holy Synod by the Patriarch Michael with having ordained a bishop native of Constantinople and before the canonical age (ibid., 213); he was perhaps the John who was present in 1166 at the council of Constantinople, known as “Pater major me est.” One Gregory subscribed another council in 1193. In 1316 the see was given to the Archbishop of Nymphæum, who had been deprived of his own (Miklosich and Müller, “Acta et diplomata græca,” I ,50). Luke was archbishop in 1329 (ibid., 98). In 1356 the see was per adjunctionem in the hands of the Metropolitan of Bizye (ibid., 355). In 1365 it had again an occupant, and its bishop in 1379 and 1381 was Paul; in 1389 Joseph was bishop (op. cit., II, 6, 39, and 129). In 1466 it was and probably had long been ruled directly by the Patriarch of Constantinople [Kambouroglous, Monuments for History of Athens (Gr.), II, 354]. It was not re-established until the beginning of the seventeenth century, when the titular resided at Therapia on the Bosphorus. Delcus was made a metropolis in 1655. In October, 1746, it was raised to the eighth rank of the Greek hierarchy (Mansi, Col. concil., XXXVIII, 527). The diocese now includes 41 villages in the vicinity of Constantinople and along the shores of the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmora, among them San Stefano, Makri-Keui, and Beuyuk-Déré, with Catholic parishes conducted by Capuchins, Dominicans, and Minor Conventuals.

LEQUIEN, Oriens christianus, I, 1163; GEDEON, Engraved Stones and Bricks (Constantinople, 1893), 169–175; BAKALOPOULOS, Eastern Calendar for 1896 (Constantinople, 1895), 103–34; IDEM, Calendar of the National Philanthropic Establishments for 1906 (Constantinople, 1905), 145–58.

L. PETIT.

Delegation

(Lat. delegare)

A delegation is the commission to another of jurisdiction, which is to be exercised in the name of the person delegating. Jurisdiction is defined as the power of anyone who has public authority and pre-eminence over others for their rule and government.

I. In ancient Roman law, delegation was the substitution of one debtor for another; the second debtor making payment in the name of the first. In modern civil law, the term delegations is used for committees of representatives or judges, who in the name of the parliament of the judiciary consider and determine the special matters confided to them. In canon law, delegation is the spiritual jurisdiction or power which a person exercises in virtue of a commission from one having ordinary jurisdiction (see JURISDICTION), with the understanding that such delegate must act in the name of the one delegating. The canons distinguish between delegation ab homine, and delegation a jure. The former is that which comes from a person in the strict sense of the word; while the latter may have its source in a juridical or moral person. Thus, it is through delegation a jure, that is in virtue of jurisdiction granted by the Council of Trent, that bishops have certain powers in regard to exempted regulars. Whenever the common law designates a person as having powers which belong to another by ordinary right, the one upon whom they are conferred is said to be a delegate a jure. If bishops exercise such powers “as delegates of the Apostolic See,” an appeal against their actions would have to be made to the pope, for it is really his jurisdiction they are employing; while if the common law refers to them as acting “also as delegates of the Holy See,” an appeal could be taken to the metropolitan, as in such a case the bishop acts in virtue of both ordinary and delegated jurisdiction. Historically, the origin of canonical delegation is to be sought most probably in the fifth (in the Latin version, the seventh) canon of the Council of Sardica (A. D. 347), which speaks of judges delegated for Roman appeals. From the fifth century onwards, instances of appointment of delegates by the popes are distinctly recorded, and such delegation became more frequent as time went on, particularly since the pontificate of Gregory I (590–604).

II. Anyone having ordinary jurisdiction may delegate another, unless such power be expressly withheld from him. It is necessary to mention this restriction, for although parish priests have ordinary jurisdiction for the tribunal of penance, yet they cannot strictly delegate another for that task, because the hearing of confessions belongs to the external forum and all confessions need episcopal approbation. The person delegated by the lawful superior must be a cleric well versed in the matter for which he receives delegation, and he must not be excommunicate. While the age of twenty years is prescribed by law for the delegate, it is also provided that the age of eighteen will suffice, if those concerned are satisfied. Several delegates may be appointed for the same matter. In this case each may receive such a commission that if he undertake the matter alone the other delegates may no longer interfere, unless the first be hindered from determining it (delegatus in solidum); or the power in a cause may be delegated to several persons so that they must act together to make the effect of their delegation valid (delegatus simpliciter). If the delegate be commissioned by the pope, he should ordinarily be an ecclesiastical dignitary or a cathedral canon, and the case should be heard in a city or place of some religious or civic distinction. It is evident, however, that the sovereign pontiff may, if he choose, derogate from these laws in all their aspects. General defects disqualifying a person to receive delegation are infamy, deafness, insanity, dumbness, slavery, and the like. It was stated that the person delegated should be a cleric; for neither bishops nor those inferior to them can delegate a layman for spiritual matters or for criminal causes of ecclesiastics. It is disputed whether a delegation made by them to lay judges to determine even civil causes of clerics would be valid. The pope, however, may delegate laymen for such cases when there is question of an individual instance. Reiffenstuel says that to commit in general all causes of ecclesiastics to laymen, would be to do away with the forensic privilege of clerics (privilegium fori) and therefore is outside the sphere of papal prerogatives, as the exemption of clerics is probably of Divine right. The granting of a delegation may be verbal, except in cases where the law expressly prescribes that it be in writing. The delegation must also be the free act of the superior, for delegated faculties obtained absolutely against the will of the donor would be invalid. If, however, they be extorted by fear, they will not be void, for then they would not be absolutely against the will of the superior.

III. Delegated powers are necessary, either for the liceity or validity of an act performed by the delegate. If there be question only of the liceity of an act, permission reasonably presumed is sufficient. This would be the case, for example, in the administration of the sacraments, except penance and possibly matrimony. If, however, it be a question of the validity of an act, the delegation must be express, or at least rest upon a presumption of outward signs indicating actual consent. Such, for example, would be the delegation requisite for valid absolution in the tribunal of penance. In general, a delegate may not proceed to the exercise of his power until it be formally notified to him, for, according to an axiom of law, jurisdiction is acquired only by one knowing and accepting. In certain cases, this knowledge and acceptance may be only implicitly implied, but it is then considered sufficient. The fact of delegation must be proved to those concerned in the matter at stake, either by showing them the written instrument or exhibiting unexceptionable testimony that the power has been received. The delegate must also carefully observe the form of procedure specified by the superior who has empowered him to act. In case of grievance, an appeal may be made against the delegate to the tribunal of the person who delegated him. This fact shows that the power of the vicar-general of a diocese is not delegated power, for there is no appeal from his tribunal to that of the bishop, because their tribunal is declared to be one and the same. The power of a vicar-general is most correctly characterized as quasi-ordinary, for on the one hand, he holds an office to which certain faculties are annexed, and on the other, he exercises his powers in the name of another. Some canonists, however, maintain that a vicar-general has delegated, and others that he has ordinary jurisdiction. Finally, no inferior ordinaries can delegate their entire authority to others in perpetuity without the license of the Roman pontiff, because such delegation would be equivalent to abdication, which is not permissible without the consent of the supreme authority. What has been said in this respect of inferior ordinaries, holds good also for those delegated to certain classes of cases in general (ad universitatem causarum). As the powers delegated by the Holy See are generally for very important matters, the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, c. 10, de ref.) made an effort to provide by law for a certain number of qualified persons whom the pope could appoint as his delegates. The council ordered that several such ecclesiastics should be elected in provincial synods and that their names should be forwarded to Rome by the bishops. The decree, however, was seldom acted on and gradually became entirely obsolete.

IV. Delegated jurisdiction can sometimes be subdelegated to others. If the delegate was appointed by the pope, even for a particular case, he has the power of subdelegation. The latter is prohibited only when the matter has been committed to his personal care in an especial manner, or when it is of unusual importance or of a merely executive nature. Hence, when a confessor has received by Apostolic privilege the faculty of absolving all the faithful from certain sins and censures, or of dispensing in certain irregularities and vows, he can not subdelegate this ministry. In like manner, one who has been charged with the execution of matrimonial dispensations may not subdelegate the ministry itself, yet he may employ others to assist him in matters connected with his delegated jurisdiction, provided their work be only supplementary, not principal. If the delegate was appointed by an ordinary other than the pope, he can not subdelegate, unless he has been commissioned ad universitatem causarum, or when the person delegating has given him the special authority to subdelegate. The subdelegate cannot make a new delegation, but he can call in the assistance of others for the details of his work. When a delegate has confided all his authority in a particular matter to a subdelegate an appeal from the decision of the latter does not lie to the delegate, but to the superior who had originally commissioned the delegate.

V. Delegation ceases if the work assigned to the delegate has been completed; if the delegate abdicates his power or declares the rescript of his appointment invalid; if the term fixed for the conduct of the matter has expired, unless in a contentious case both parties have agreed to a prorogation; if the delegation be revoked; if the delegate die, unless he was one of a number of delegates simpliciter and their commission had provided for its continuance in such an emergency; if the person delegating die, and the case had not yet begun; if the person die on whose account the delegation was constituted, unless some matter concerning the Church or a prelacy be at stake. SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1895); LAURENTIUS, Institutiones Jur. Eccl. (Freiburg, 1903); FERRARIS, Bibliotheca Canonica (Rome, 1886), III.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

François Delfau

Theologian, born 1637 at Montel in Auvergne, France; died 13 Oct., 1676, at Landevenec in Normandy. He joined the Order of St. Benedict when he was seventeen years of age, and made his solemn profession at the Abbey of St. Allire, 2 May, 1656. He was a profound student of the Fathers of the Church and the history of the councils. Constant application to study speedily matured the powers of his exceptionally keen and brilliant mind, and he soon came to be looked upon as a foremost authority on all questions connected with patristic theology. When the Congregation of St. Maur in 1670 determined to undertake a critical edition of the works of St. Augustine, Delfau was commissioned by his superiors to prepare it. The task was a difficult one, but together with six other members of the order, among them his intimate friend Dom Robert Guérard, he began with energy and courage this great labour of love, and prosecuted it with an ardour truly Benedictine. In 1671 he prepared an elaborate prospectus, setting forth the general scope and character of the new edition and the principles by which the editors were to be guided. Manuscripts came to the learned Maurists from various countries, and Pope Clement X even sent them priceless codices of the Vatican Library together with all the materials that had been gathered there under Clement VIII for a projected edition of the Opera Augustini. When the first two volumes were about to be printed, the work was suddenly arrested, 18 Sept., 1675, by two lettres de cachet from Louis XIV, decreeing the banishment of both Delfau and Guérard from Paris. The occasion for this drastic measure seems to have been Delfau’s book “L’abbé commendataire,” published at Cologne, 1673, in which the young monk had severely commented on the abuses connected with the system of commendam as it was then shamelessly carried on in France to the great detriment of the Church. The fearless work greatly aroused the king’s anger, of which the enemies of the Maurists did not fail to take advantage. Delfau was obliged to withdraw to the monastery of Landevenec; he lived there but little more than a year when, at the early age of thirty-eight, he was drowned as he was crossing to the Carmelite convent at Brest, where he was to deliver a eulogy on the feast-day of St. Teresa. Delfau’s works are: “Apologia Cardinalis Fürstenbergii”; a masterly epitaph on Casimir, King of Poland, who died as Abbot of St. Germain des Prés; and a dissertation on the authorship of the “Imitatio Christi,” in his edition of that book (Paris, 1673).

BÄUMER, Johannes Mabillon (Augsburg, 1592). 97 Sq.; TASSIN, Hist. littéraire de la Congrégation de Saint-Maur (Paris, 1770); ZIEGELBAUER, Hist. rei lit. O. S. B. (Augsburg. 1754), III, 395 sq.

THOMAS OESTREICH

Pietro Delfino

A theologian, born at Venice in 1444; died 16 Jan., 1525. He entered the Camaldolese Monastery of San Michele at Murano, and in 1479 was elected abbot of the same community. The following year he was made general of the order and held that office until the year 1513 when he resigned in favour of his fellow-countryman Blessed Paul Giustiniani, whom he had invested with the Camaldolese habit in 1510. Delfino was the forty-sixth general from St. Romuald, the founder of the Camaldolese and the last elected for life, the office after him being held for three years only. In 1488 he received the votes of his countrymen in Venice for the cardinalate, but refused to accept this dignity from Innocent VIII. The letters of Delfino, which number more than four thousand, addressed to different religious of his own and other orders and to various secular dignitaries, are valuable not only on account of the trustworthiness of their author, but more especially because of the accounts they contain of contemporary events in his own order and the Church in general. A collection of his Latin letters was published at Venice in 1524. Several others that had been omitted in the Venetian editions were included later in Martène’s “Veterum Scriptorum amplissima collectio.” The “Apothegmata Patrum” and the “Dialogues” on Savonarola are still unedited.

MARTENE, Veterum Scriptorum et monumentorum ecclesiasticorum et dogmaticorum amplissima collectio, III, 915.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Jacques Delille

French abbé and litterateur, born at Aigueperse, 22 June, 1738; died at Paris, 1 May, 1813. He received his education at the Collège de Lisieux in Paris and became an instructor at the Collège de la Marche in the same city. His translation into verse of Virgil’s “Georgics,” which appeared in 1770, had very great success and eventually won for him a seat in the French Academy. He was afterwards appointed to the chair of poetry in the Collège de France and through the patronage of the Count d’ Artois he received as a benefice the Abbey of Saint-Severin, but took only minor orders. In 1786 he accompanied the Count de Choiseul to Constantinople and visited Greece; his stay in the East does not seem, however, to have much influenced his literary career. The French Revolution deprived him of his position and benefice, and in 1794 he had to leave France; his exile was spent in Switzerland, Germany, and England. He returned to France in 1802 and again took his seat in the French Academy. For some years Delille was considered a great poet, Voltaire at one time even going so far as to call him the French Virgil; but he did not enjoy very long this unwarranted reputation. All agree to-day that he was a wonderful versifier, having at his command all the secrets of his art, but it is also recognized that his long descriptive poems betray a complete lack of poetic feeling and inspiration. They are a striking illustration of the difference between versification and poetry. His best known works are: “Traduction des géorgiques de Virgile” (Paris, 1770); “Dithyrambe sur l’immortalité de l’âme” (Paris, 1793); “L’Imagination” (Paris, 1806); “Les Trois Règnes de la nature” (Paris, 1806); “La Conversation” (Paris, 1812).

SAINTE-BEUVE, Portraits Littéraires (Paris, 1846); LINGAY, Eloge de Delille (Paris 1814); LIANÇON, Histoire de la littérature française (Paris, 1895).

PIERRE MARIQUE

Ambrose Lisle March Phillipps De Lisle

Born 17 March, 1809; died 5 March, 1878. He was the son of Charles March Phillipps of Garendon Park, Leicestershire, and Harriet Ducarel, a lady of Huguenot descent. He assumed the name of de Lisle in 1862, when on the death of his father he inherited the estates of the ancient family of de Lisle.

He spent his earliest years at his birthplace and was brought up as a member of the Church of England, receiving his first religious instruction from his uncle, William March Phillipps, a high-church clergyman. In 1818 Ambrose was sent to a private school at South Croxton, whence he was removed in 1820 to Maizemore Court School, near Gloucester, kept by the Rev. George Hodson; The Bishop of Gloucester, having married Sophia March Phillipps, was his uncle by marriage, and so the boy had the advantage of spending Sundays and holidays at the bishop’s palace. At school he met for the first time a Catholic, the Abbé Giraud, a French émigré priest, whose holy life struck the boy as inconsistent with what he had always heard of Catholics. On one of his journeys to Gloucester he took the opportunity of questioning the priest as to the real belief of Catholics. The answers he received so excited his interest that he began to read all the books on the subject he could find in his father’s library. A visit to Paris in 1823 gave him his first acquaintance with Catholic liturgy. The effect on his mind was shown on his return home when he persuaded the Anglican rector to place a cross on the communion table, but this first effort to restore the cross to English churches was promptly suppressed by the Bishop of Peterborough as savouring of Popery. At this time an incident occurred which left an indelible impression on his mind, and which he thus related to his subsequent biographer: “One day in the year 1823, as I was rambling along the foot of the hills in the neighbourhood of the school, and meditating, as was my wont in those boyish days, over the strange Protestant theory that the Pope of Rome is the Anti-Christ of Prophecy, all of a sudden I saw a bright light in the heavens, and I heard a voice which said: ‘Mahomet is the Anti-Christ, for he denieth the Father and the Son.’ On my return home in the next holidays I looked for a Koran and there I found those remarkable words, ‘God neither begetteth nor is begotten.’“

About this time Mr. Hodson’s school was removed to Edgbaston, near Birmingham, and here it was that the boy, now sixteen years old, had a remarkable dream “in which Our Lord seemed to reproach him with not having fully complied with the light he had received.” Moved by this, he wrote to a Catholic priest, the Rev. Thomas Macdonnell, asking him to meet him at Loughborough and receive him into the Catholic Church. Mr. Macdonnell met him and was surprised to find him so thoroughly instructed in Catholic doctrine, and after a few days he considered him sufficiently prepared to be received into the Church. Ambrose informed both his father and his schoolmaster, with the result that he was immediately removed from Mr. Hodson’s school, at that gentleman’s desire, and returned home with his father, who arranged for him to continue his preparation for the university under the private tuition of the Rev. William Wilkinson. He was obliged every Sunday to attend the Protestant church, but did not join in the service. His own account of his conversion will be found in Appendix I, in the first chapter of his biography below.

Ambrose Phillipps went into residence at Trinity College, Cambridge, 16 October, 1826. He found at the university a congenial friend in Kenelm Digby (q. v.), author of “Mores Catholici” and “The Broadstone of Honour,” and, like himself, a recent convert. There was no Catholic chapel then at Cambridge, and every Sunday for two years these two young Catholics used to ride over, fasting, to St. Edmund’s College, Old Hall, a distance of twenty-five miles, for Mass and Communion. It was on one of these visits to St. Edmund’s, in April, 1828, that Phillipps was seized with a serious illness, having broken a blood-vessel on the lungs. The doctors recommended his father to take him to Italy for the winter, and this necessarily cut short his Cambridge career, so that he had to leave the university without taking his degree. On his return to England in 1829, he became acquainted with the Hon. and Rev. George Spencer, then an Anglican clergyman, and his conversation was largely instrumental in leading to Spencer’s conversion, as the latter admits in his “Account of my Conversion”—“I passed many hours daily in conversation with Phillipps and was satisfied beyond all expectations with the answers he gave me to the different questions I proposed about the principal tenets and practices of Catholics.” The following winter (1830–1831) he again spent in Italy, on which occasion he met Rosmini, who made a great impression on him.

On 25 July, 1833, Ambrose Phillipps married Laura Mary, eldest daughter of the Hon. Thomas Clifford, son of Hugh, fourth Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. The marriage proved a most happy union, and on this occasion Mr. Charles March Phillipps gave his son possession of the second family estate, the manor of Grace-Dieu in Leicestershire, which before the Reformation had been a priory of Augustinian nuns. Here Ambrose Phillipps built a new manor-house during the years 1833–34, and in the mean time he and his wife resided at Leamington, or at Garendon Park. Marriage made no difference to the ardour with which he devoted himself to the interests of the Church and the spread of Catholicism, and this at a time when the great influences of later days had not made themselves felt. Writing a few years before his death (Letter to the Rev. W. R. Brownlow, 10 Dec., 1869, Life, I, 349) he thus summed up the chief aims of his own life: “There were three great objects to which I felt after my own conversion as a boy of fifteen specially drawn by internal feeling for the whole space of forty-five years which have since elapsed. The first was to restore to England the primitive monastic contemplative observance, which God enabled me to do in the foundation of the Trappist monastery of Mount St. Bernard. The second was the restoration of the primitive ecclesiastical chant, my edition of which is now recommended by the Archbishop of Westminster for the use of churches and chapels. The third was the restoration of the Anglican Church to Catholic Unity.” In the foundation of the Cistercian Abbey he received generous support from his friend John, Earl of Shrewsbury, but it was he himself who conceived the idea, believing it necessary that the ascetic aspect of Catholic life should be presented to the English people. He gave both land and money, even crippling his own resources in providing the necessary buildings. This work was begun in 1835 and completed in 1844, while, during the same period, he founded missions at Grace-Dieu and Whitwick. His disappointment was great when he found that the Trappists were prevented by their rule from undertaking active missionary work, because he attached the greatest importance to a supply of zealous missionary priests who would labour in English villages. “I would have them go about and preach everywhere on the foreign plan, in the fields or in the high roads even” (Letter to Lord Shrewsbury, 1839; Life, I, 105).

Besides the material assistance thus given to the spread of Catholicism, he devoted himself with persistent energy and faith to spiritual means in which he believed even more strongly. In 1838 he joined his friend Rev. George Spencer in establishing and propagating the Association of Universal Prayer for the Conversion of England. This remarkable crusade, the results of which cannot be estimated, met with deserved success due to the untiring efforts which Spencer and Phillipps put forth. The sanguine hopes which both entertained of a speedy, if not immediate, return of England to the Catholic Faith lent force to the vehemence with which they urged their point, and accounts for the co-operation they everywhere met with. In a continental tour they made together, accompanied by Mrs. Phillipps and two of her children, in 1844, they passed through Belgium, Germany, and North Italy, meeting many distinguished Catholics and everywhere enlisting the sympathy of prelates and clergy in the cause. Wiseman was co-operating in Rome, and soon the movement spread widely through the Catholic world. In this work Mr. Phillipps laboured without ceasing; by interviews and by letters he aroused the interest and awakened the enthusiasm of others, so that he became the lay apostle of prayer for the conversion of England; It is natural to see the first-fruits of this prayer in the numerous conversions that resulted from the Oxford Movement, and in that movement Mr. Phillipps played a unique part. He was for some time the only Catholic who was in confidential correspondence with the leaders of the party at Oxford; His ideal of the conversion of England had always been corporate reunion; the reconciliation of the Anglican Church as a body, rather than individual conversions however numerous; and in the Oxford Movement his sanguine spirit saw the beginning of this process. Accordingly, he set himself to remove obstacles on both sides and to act as a mediator, the more useful as he was unofficial; This he looked upon as his vocation, as his son has stated (Life and Letters, I, 254, note): “National Conversion by means of Corporate Reunion he likened unto the Apostolic practice of fishing with a net ‘gathering in multitudes of all kinds of fishes.’ And this he considered to be his own special call from on High, to prepare the way and hasten the time when the Divine Word should again be spoken to Peter, ‘Cast your nets into the deep.’” With this end in view Mr. Phillipps did much to obviate misunderstandings by promoting at Oxford fuller knowledge of Catholic life; This he did by personal intercourse and correspondence with Newman and others, and by receiving several Oxford men as his guests at Grace-Dieu. His efforts were rewarded by the numerous conversions that took place and the impetus given to the Catholic cause.

The restoration of the hierarchy in 1850 was an event after his own heart, and he exerted himself to reconcile to it some of the Catholic laymen who thought it inexpedient. During the excitement that ensued throughout the country he wrote two pamphlets which met with much success: “A Letter to Lord Shrewsbury on the Re-establishment of the Hierarchy and the Present Position of Catholic Affairs,” and “A few words on Lord John Russell’s Letter to the Bishop of Durham.” The progress of events raised his hopes so high that he regarded the reconciliation of the Anglican Church to the Holy See as imminent, and to hasten its fulfilment entered on a new crusade of prayer, in which the co-operation of non-Catholics was desired. “The Association for promoting the Unity of Christendom,” known as A. P. U. C., was founded on 8 September, 1857, by fourteen persons including Father Lockhart, Fr. Collins, O. Cist., and Mr. de Lisle; the rest were Anglicans, with one exception, a Russo-Greek priest. The only obligation incumbent on members, who might be either Catholics, Anglicans, or Greeks, was to pray to God for the unity of the baptized body. At first the association progressed rapidly. Mr. de Lisle writing to Lord John Manners (Life, I, 415) said: “We soon counted among our ranks many Catholic Bishops and Archbishops and Dignitaries of all descriptions from Cardinals downwards; the Patriarch of Constantinople and other great Eastern prelates, the Primate of the Russlart Church. . . . I do not think any Anglican Bishops joined us, but a large number of clergy of the second order.” He gave the number of members as nine thousand. The formation of this association was, however, regarded with distrust by Dr. Manning (afterwards Cardinal and Archbishop of Westminster) and other Catholics, who also took exception to Mr. de Lisle’s treatise “On the Future Unity of Christendom.” The matter was referred to Rome and was finally settled by a papal rescript addressed “Ad omnes episcopos Angliæ,” dated 16 September, 1864, which condemned the association and directed the bishops to take steps to prevent Catholics from joining it. This was a great blow to Mr. de Lisle, who considered that “the authorities had been deceived by a false relation of facts” (Letter to Editor of Union Review, 20 Dec., 1864; Life, I, 400). He however withdrew his name from the A. P. U. C. “under protest, as an act of submission to the Holy See.” The ground on which the association was condemned was that it subverted the Divine constitution of the Church, inasmuch as its aim rested on the supposition that the true Church consists partly of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome, “partly also of the Photian Schism and the Anglican heresy, to which equally with the Roman Church belong the one Lord, the one faith and one baptism” (Rescript, in Life, I, 388). Mr. de Lisle’s own pamphlet was not censured, but the condemnation of the A. P. U. C. was regarded by him as the death-blow of his hopes for the reunion of Christendom during his own lifetime. But his own belief in it persevered and influenced his views in other Catholic affairs. Thus he warmly supported the attendance of Catholics at the English universities, and he even approved of the abortive project of a Uniat English Church.

The rest of his life passed without any very special incident, though he continued ever to take an interest in public affairs as affecting the fortunes of the Church, and in the same connexion he carried on intimate and cordial correspondence with men so different as Newman, Gladstone, and Montalembert. He counted among his friends John, Earl of Shrewsbury, Cardinal Wiseman, Pugin, Faber, and many other well-known Catholics, and though he differed on many points from Cardinal Manning and Dr. W. G. Ward he remained on friendly terms with both. He died a holy death at Garendon, leaving his saintly wife and eleven of his sixteen children surviving him. Besides the pamphlets mentioned above he wrote a remarkable work, “Mahometanism in its relation to Prophecy; or an Inquiry into the prophecies concerning Anti-Christ, with some reference to their bearing on the events of the present day” (1855). He also translated Father Dominic’s “Lamentations of England” (1831); Manzoni’s “Vindication of Catholic Morality” (1836); Montalembert’s “St. Elizabeth of Hungary” (1839); Rio’s “La petite Chouannerie” (1842); “Maxims and Examples of the Saints” (1844); and he compiled: “Manual of Devotion for the Confraternity of the Living Rosary” (1843); “Catholic Christian’s Complete Manual” (1847); “The Little Gradual” (1847); “Thesaurus animæ Christianæ” (1847); “Sequentiæ de Festis per Annum” (1862). He also wrote many articles for the press, of which many were issued in pamphlet form, but a complete bibliography has not hitherto been compiled.

PURCELL, Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, edited and finished by EDWIN DE LISLE (2 vols., London, 1900); ANON., Two Sermons Preached on the Death of Ambrose Lisle March Phillipps de Lisle, Esq., preceded by a short sketch of his life (privately printed. 1878); ANON., Life of Blessed Paul of the Cross (London, 1853), containing some letters; Life of Fr. Ignatius of St. Paul (Dublin, 1866); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Enq. Cath., II, 38 (London, 1885); COOPER ln Dict. Nat. Biog., XIV (London, 1888); WARD, Life of Cardinal Wiseman, II, 479 (London, 1897); CRUIKSHANK, Laura de Lisle, her Life and Character (1897).

EDWIN BURTON.

Guillaume Delisle

Reformer of cartography, born 28 February, 1675, in Paris; died there 25 January, 1726. His father, Claude Delisle (1644–1720), having completed his law studies, settled in Paris as private teacher in geography and history, and afterwards filled the office of royal censor; He was also a cartographer, and in 1696 drew up a map in manuscript and also took part in his son’s first works, “The Map of the World” and “The Map of the Continents,” both published in 1700. These and the terrestrial maps produced subsequently, which surpassed all similar publications, established the son’s fame. In 1702 he became élève, in 1716 adjoint, and in 1718 associé of the Académie des Sciences; and, as the young king’s instructor in geography, received the title of First Royal Geographer with a fixed salary, an office which was then created for the first time.

Guillaume Delisle adopted entirely new principles in cartography and set about making a thorough reform in that subject. The map-publishers of the time did not know how to utilize the material supplied mainly by the French astronomers of the latter half of the seventeenth century, and Delisle recognized that the new methods of measuring by scale and of marking the places were very valuable for cartography; with this help he therefore produced a new and perfect picture of the world. When his astronomical information fell short he carefully examined and sifted all the books of travel and all the maps he could find, and the products of this reading were dovetailed neatly into the facts which he had already at hand. According to a fixed method he worked up the several continents and countries one by one, France in particular. In disputed points he named his source on the map or wrote additional notes, the majority of which were published in the writings of the Academy; One particular recommendation of his charts is that he employed a fixed scale of measurement for regions closely connected with one another. No less famous than his astronomical corrections are the completeness of his topography and the care displayed in the orthography of the names.

An accurate summary of his charts and treatises with the highest commendation is given by CHRISTIAN SANDLER, Die Reformation der Kartoqraphie um 1700 (Munich, 1905).

OTTO HARTIG

Philibert de L’Orme

Celebrated architect of the French Renaissance, born at Lyons, c. 1515 or a little later; died at Paris, 8 January, 1570; Of the exact date of his birth there exists no documentary evidence; He was the son of Jehan de L’Orme, a master builder of Lyons, from whom he received his training. At an age when he speaks of himself as being “of great youth” Philibert was at Rome, where his curiously careful and scientific study of classic antiquities attracted the attention of the learned Cardinal of Santa Croce, then a bishop, later Pope Marcellus II, through whose influence he was employed by Paul III. From this service he was recalled to Lyons two years later, in 1536, by Guillaume du Bellay and his brother Cardinal Jean du Bellay. Soon after his return de L’Orme was made military controller, an office he held until 1545, when he was named by the king “master architect and general conductor of buildings works and fortifications.” In this capacity he ingeniously averted a threatened attack of the English upon the dismantled château of Brest by means of mock cannon and an improvised soldiery. At various subsequent periods, he was endowed by royal favour with the title of counsellor and almoner ordinary of the king, and was made Abbé of Géveton, of Barthélemy, of Saint-Eloy-les-Noyon, besides receiving other such sinecures; he was also appointed a canon of Notre-Dame at Paris. Though it was the usage of the time for the king to bestow upon laymen the title and benefices of an abbé as reward or salary, it has been conjectured from the double title of king’s almoner and canon of Notre-Dame, that de L’Orme had received minor orders. Between the years 1541 and 1559, during which he held the position of royal architect under Francis I and Henry II, de L’Orme altered, enlarged, and restored numerous châteaux, notably those of Villers-Cotterets, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Fontainebleau, and Vincennes. His first individual achievement of importance, however, was the château of Saint-Maur-les-Fossés, originally designed for Cardinal du Bellay, Bishop of Paris, but afterwards taken over by Catherine de’ Medici. Of this notable work almost nothing remains. In 1552 the château d’Anet, regarded as the best example of de L’Orme’s genius, was begun for Diana of Poitiers, mistress of Henry II. Benvenuto Cellini’s famous bronze Diana, now in the Louvre, was executed for this building and other eminent artists assisted in its decoration.

The death of Henry II (1559) marked the turning-point of de L’Orme’s prosperity. His large revenues, as well as his rugged independence had made for him envious and contentious enemies, not the least formidable of whom was the poet Ronsard. During the period of unpopularity which succeeded he issued, in 1561, the work “Nouvelles inventions pour bien bastir et a petits fraiz” (How to Build Well and at Small Expense). This was subsequently a part of his notable treatise on architecture which contains much lively autobiography; the first volume of this work appeared at Paris in 1567 under the title: “Le premier tome de 1’architecture de Philibert de L’Orme.” In 1564 he laid the foundations of the historic château of the Tuileries for Catherine de’ Medici. The initial part of the structure, however, suffered a complete change under other hands. The Tuileries was the last important undertaking of the architect, who was buried with the honours of a canon of Notre-Dame. The claim has been made by some biographers that de L’Orme designed for Saint-Denis the Valois Chapel, now destroyed; there is much doubt as to his exact share in various other works with which he is known to have been associated. The only great work of de L’Orme now actually remaining is the tomb of Francis I in Saint-Denis at Paris.

DILKE, Renaissance of Art in France (London, 1879); BERTY, Les grands architectes français de la Renaissance (Paris, 1860); PASSERON, Philibert de L’Orme in Bibliographie des artistes lyonnais (Lyons, 1835); CALLET, Notice historique sur la vie artistique et les ouvrages de quelques architectes français du XVIe siècle (Paris, 1842); DESTAILLEUR, Notice sur quelques artistes français (Paris, 1863): DU CERCEAU, Les plus excellents bastiments de France (Paris, 1870); VACHON, Philibert de L’Orme in Les artistes célèbres (Paris, 1887); ROUSSEL, Le château de Diane de Poitiers à Anet (Paris, 1883); CHARVET, Philibert de L’Orme à Saint-Denis in Biographies d’architectes.

CHARLES D. MAGINNIS.

Bl. Delphine

A member of the Third Order of St. Francis, born in Provence, France, in 1284; died 26 November, 1358. Left an orphan in her infancy, she was placed under the guardianship of her uncles, and under the direction of her aunt, the Abbess of St. Catherine of Sorbo. She grew up in the practice of every virtue, and took a vow of virginity which she kept faithfully to the end of her life. In her twentieth year she was married to Elzéar, Count of Sarban, and the couple, having received the habit of the Third Order of St. Francis, lived together in the edifying practice of prayer, penance, and charity towards the poor until the death of St. Elzéar in 1323. After the death of her husband, Blessed Delphine sold all her vast possessions for the benefit of the poor and retired first to Naples and then to Cabrières. She finally returned to Apt where her husband had been buried. During the last years of her life she endured the greatest sufferings without the slightest complaint or sign of impatience. The cult that had long been paid to Blessed Delphine was confirmed by Pope Urban V, godson of St. Elzéar. Her feast is kept in the Franciscan Order on the twenty-seventh of November.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Martin Anton Delrio

Scholar, statesman, Jesuit theologian, born at Antwerp, 17 May, 1551; died at Louvain, 19 October, 1608. He studied at Paris, Douai, Louvain, and Salamanca where he received the degree of Doctor of Law in 1574. Returning to the Low Countries with the reputation of being “the miracle of his age,” a title given him by Justus Lipsius, he held the offices of senator, auditor of the army, vice-chancellor, and procurator general. In 1580 he entered the Society of Jesus, made his novitiate at Valladolid, and returned to Louvain for further studies. He afterwards held the chairs of philosophy, moral theology, and Scripture at the Universities of Douai, Liège, Louvain, Graz, and Salamanca. He possessed a speaking-knowledge of at least nine languages, wrote in a pure though somewhat diffuse style, and was careful to the extreme in the preparation of his books, as may be seen from the fact that his second work, published at the age of twenty-three, contains citations from nearly eleven hundred authors. His principal works comprise: Commentaries on Claudius, Ennius, Florus, and Seneca; on the ancient geographer and historian, C. J. Silvius Polyhistor; notes on the Christian poets, St. Orientius and St. Aldhelm; an exhaustive treatise on civil law; a “Historia Belgica,” on the contemporary disorders in the Low Countries; some controversial pamphlets written against Joseph Scaliger; commentaries on Genesis, on the Canticle of Canticles, and on the Lamentations of Jeremias; an explanation of various proverbial expressions in the Old Testament called “Adagialia sacra Veteris Testamenti”; panegyrics and other works on the virtues of the Blessed Virgin; and a treatise on magic, called “Disquisitionum magicarum libri sex.” This last work, the one by which Delrio is best known, was much praised in its day and went through many editions, but can no longer be accepted in full.

DELAULNAYE in Biog. Univ., s. v.; HURTER, Nomenclator, I, 191; DÜX in Kirchenlex., III, 1493; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c. de. J., s. v.; SOMMERVOGEL in Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s. v.

J. H. FISHER.

Prefecture Apostolic of the Delta of the Nile

The Prefecture Apostolic of the Delta of the Nile is situated in the north of Egypt and comprises four of the six provinces forming Lower Egypt, namely: Gharbieh, Charkieb, Menufieh, and Kalyiubieh. Prior to the establishment of the prefecture, the four provinces contained 1000 Catholics belonging to different rites. The prefecture was erected by Propaganda, 17 March, 1887. In 1888 the Rev. Augustin Duret of the Lyons Society for African Missions was appointed first prefect Apostolic and the prefecture confided to the care of this society. It had at first only two missionary posts, one at Tantah and the other at Zagazig, but a new post was founded at Zifteh in 1887 and another at Mahalla-el-Kebir in 1891. About this time the city of Cairo, which had already outgrown its former limits, developed considerably on the north, and populous quarters grew up within the Prefecture of the Delta. For the convenience of resident Catholics a Latin parish was formed in the Choubra quarter in 1894 and given to the Fathers of the Society for African Missions; in 1896 another Latin parish under the same direction was established at Zeïtoun for the outlying districts of Koubbeh, Zeïtoun, and Matarieh.

STATISTICS

The last official census (1897) gave for the four provinces of the Delta a total population of 3,282,457; 73,365 being schismatics of different rites; 3091 Catholics of various rites; and 241 Protestants. These figures do not distinguish the population of the quarters or outskirts from that of Cairo; on the basis of other returns, the total population of the prefecture may be estimated at about 3,500,000; 100,000 of this number being schismatics and 15,000 Catholics of various rites; over 5000, perhaps, belonging to the Latin Rite.

CLERGY AND RELIGIOUS

Priests of the African Missions, 49; Jesuits, 47; Brothers of the Christian Schools, 17; Petits Fréres de Marie, 8; Sisters of Notre-Dame des Apôtres, 92; Sisters of the Good Shepherd of Angers, 77; Ladies of the Sacred Heart, 34; Religious of Marie Réparatrice, 14; Filles de la Charité, 14; Filles de Notre-Dame des Douleurs, 9; Pieuses Mères de la Nigritie, 16.

PARISHES

There are 4 Latin parishes: at Choubra (Cairo quarter), Zeïtoun (suburb of Cairo), Tantah, and Zagazig; 2 succursal parishes (mission churches): at Mahalla-el-Kebir, and Zifteh.

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

1 Jesuit college with 450 pupils; 3 schools conducted by the Priests of the African Missions; at Tantah (231), Zeïtoun (75), and Zifteh (50); 2 Christian Brothers’ schools at Choubra (250), and Zagazig (50); the Sisters of Notre-Dame des Apôtres have 6 institutions: at Tantah (249), Zagazig (150), Zeïtoun (110), Zifteh (100), Mahalla (80), and Matarieh (38); 1 boarding-school conducted by the Ladies of the Sacred Heart (60); and 1 institution of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd of Angers (220), making a total of 2113 pupils.

CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS

3 hospitals: 1 conducted by the Filles de la Charité, and 2 by the Pieuses Mères de la Nigritie (150 to 200 sick); 2 orphanages: 1 for boys, conducted by the Filles de la Charité (60 orphans), and 1 for girls by the Sisters of the Good Shepherd of Angers (78 orphans); 5 dispensaries in charge of the Sisters of Notre-Dame des Apôtres, where several hundreds of sick daily receive gratuitous treatment; I home for the aged conducted by the Filles de Notre-Dame des Douleurs where from 50 to 60 inmates, both men and women, are cared for gratuitously; 1 house of refuge in charge of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd of Angers.

The Prefecture of the Delta owes its development chiefly to the prodigious growth of the city of Cairo which, in extending its limits, had to stretch out upon prefectorial territory. Here, as in all cosmopolitan and growing centres, the missionaries have found their chief obstacle in religious indifference.

Gerarchia Cattolica (Rome, 1908); Missiones Catholicœ (Rome, 1907), 352–54; LANE, Modern Egyptians (London, 1871); BAEL Cairo of To-day (London, 1902); DICEY, The Eqypt of the Future (London, 1906).

AUGUSTIN DURET.

Deluge

Deluge is the name of a catastrophe fully described in Gen., vi, 1-ix, 19, and referred to in the following passages of Sacred Scripture: Wisd., x, 4; xiv, 6–7; Ecclus., xvi, 8, xliv, 17–19; Is., liv, 9; Matt., xxiv, 37–39; Luke, xvii, 26–27; Hebr., xi, 7; I Peter, iii, 20–21; II Peter, ii, 5. In the present article we shall consider:

I. The Biblical Account;

II. Its Historicity;

III. The Universality of the Flood;

IV. Collateral Questions.

I. BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE DELUGE

The Book of Genesis gives the following brief account of the Deluge: God sees the wickedness of men, and determines to destroy them excepting Noe and his family (vi, 1–8). He reveals his decree to Noe and instructs him how he may save himself and the seed of all animal life by means of an ark to be built according to certain dimensions (vi, 9–22). Seven days before the Flood, God commands the patriarch to enter the ark (vii, 1–5). Noe completes his entrance into the ark on the very day on which the Flood begins; the rain falls for forty days and nights; all living things outside the ark are destroyed; the waters prevail upon the earth a hundred and fifty days (vii, 6–24). The waters decrease, the earth dries up; Noe ascertains its condition by means of a raven and a dove sent out from the ark (viii, 1–14). Noe obeys the Divine command to leave the ark, builds an altar, offers sacrifice, makes a covenant with God, and begins to be a husbandman (ix, 1–27).

Simple as this account seems to be, the Biblical critics maintain that it is a mosaic made up of two Flood stories, differing in authorship and in contents. They assign one to the Yahwistic writer usually designated by the letter J; the other, to the post-exilic priestly writer generally known as P. According to Kautzsch, the sections vi, 1–8; vii, 1–5, 7–10, 12, 16b-17, 22–23; viii, 2b-3a, 6–12, 13b, 20–22; ix, 18–27, belong to J, while P claims vi, 9–22; vii, 6, 11, 13–16a, 18–21; vii, 24-viii, 2a; viii, 3b-5, 13a, 14–19; ix, 1–17. This division of the text is based on the following grounds:

J uses the divine name Yahweh, P employs Elohim;

J and P narrate the same series of events;

J and P differ in language;

J and P disagree in their statements.

The composite character of the Flood story does not conflict with its Mosaic authorship. The most conservative Bible student will grant that Moses was not an eye-witness of the Deluge. Prescinding from Divine revelation, he must have derived his information about the event either from tradition or from written documents. If Biblical criticism has succeeded in restoring the main sources utilized by Moses in his history of the Flood, it has rendered a most signal service to exegesis. Happily we are in the position to be able to control the value of the critical conclusions by means of the Babylonian or Akkadian account of the Deluge. Without delaying over its form as contained in the fragments of Berosus which are of comparatively recent date, we find that the version given in a cuneiform inscription on tablets preserved in the British Museum, and first deciphered by George Smith in 1872, contains a combination of the P and J elements of the Flood story. This version is said by experts to date back at least to about 3000 B. C. It is certain, therefore, that the so-called P and J documents reconstructed by the critics were combined long before the Biblical text was put in writing. This fact is confirmed by a Deluge story contained in Scheil’s recently discovered fragment, which cannot be dated much later than 2140 B. C. Critics can no longer deny the existence of a Flood tradition similar to the history contained in the Book of Genesis, antedating our Biblical account. In order to uphold their division of the inspired text into the so-called J and P documents, they maintain that the Akkadian story was copied partially in the J and partially in the P documents, and that the Biblical “Redactor” reunited these two partial accounts into one. This series of assumptions, however, is at best an awkward attempt to explain away a fact which stands in the way of their theory. But we are prepared to admit the critical division of the Flood account in spite of its disagreement with the results of recent discoveries, if the critical arguments are really cogent.

(1) We are told the J uses the Divine name Yahweh, while P employs Elohim. But the following considerations must be kept in mind: First, we are hardly sufficiently sure of the use of the Divine names in the primitive inspired text to build a solid argument on their occurrence in the present text-form. Secondly, in the present text-form Elohim occurs twice in the Yahwistic document, vi, 2, and vii, 9. Thirdly, six passages in the section vii, 16-viii, 20, are assigned to the Yahwistic writer, though the name Yahweh does not occur once. Fourthly, the variation of the Divine names in the Deluge story can be explained satisfactorily without resorting to the violent measure of dividing up the text between two distinct writers.

(2) It is alleged that J and P report the same events. If we examine the two documents as reconstructed by the critics, in the light of this contention, we find that they are fragmentary and that they do not contain two series of events. J passes from God’s determination to destroy the world (vi, 1–8) to the Divine command that Noe should enter the ark without telling him where to find or how to procure an ark (vii, 1–5). Noe builds an altar and offers burnt offerings without leaving the ark (viii, 20). P does not inform us of the real nature of the corruption of all flesh (vi, 9–12); he knows of God’s order to save the animals, but knows nothing of God’s command concerning Noe and his family (vi, 17–22; vii, 13); even eleven months after the beginning of the Flood and two months after the appearance of the tops of the mountains, he knows of no attempt on the part of Noe to ascertain the condition of the earth (viii, 13 sq.); finally, he gives no ethical motive for the Divine blessing bestowed on Noe (ix, 1, sqq.). The critics are aware of these gaps in the two documents, and explain them by supposing that the “Redactor,” who had the original Flood stories before him, did not insert their complete text into the Biblical account. But if the “Redactor” omitted certain parts of the original documents in order to avoid repetitions, why did he not omit the repetitions discovered by the critics? Or are we to assume that he introduced certain repetitions, while he carefully avoided others? Is it not more likely that he considered the repetitions alleged by the critics as mere rhetorical devices, as recapitulary transitions, e. g. (vi, 9–12). or gradations (vii, 17–20; vii, 21–23), or amplifications (vii, 7, 13–16a)?

(3) J and P are said to differ in language; but the critical division being what it is, it would be strange if the two documents did not differ in language. The sections which contain chronological, systematic, and scientific material are attributed to P, the rest is left to J. Is it surprising that J does not describe the measurements of the ark, seeing that the critics do not give him any ark to describe? Or is it remarkable that P lacks the poetic style found in J’s description of the raven and the dove, seeing that no section is assigned to him, which would admit such a treatment? The care with which only set subjects and determined expressions are assigned to J and P respectively is well illustrated by the fact that in spite of their minute dissection of the Flood story, the critics must remove part of vi, 7; vii, 3, 7, 17, 22, 23; ix, 18, 22, 23, 26; and the whole of vii, 8, 9, from the J document, and part of vi, 17; vii, 6; ix, 4, from the P document, in order not to allow inconsistencies in their sources.

(4) Finally, J and P are said to disagree with regard to the animals to be taken into the ark, as to the duration of the flood, and as to God’s behaviour towards man after the Flood. In vi, 19, indeed, P records God’s command, “thou shalt bring two of a sort into the ark”; but is it inconsistent with this, if 120 years later, when Noe is about to enter the ark, J relates the more accurate Divine specification, “of all clean beasts take seven and seven . . . but of the beasts that are not clean two and two” (vii, 2, 3)? It cannot be said that the fulfilment shows that only two of every kind were taken into the ark; both vii 9 and vii, 15, 16, read “two and two . . . male and female,” so that they express couples fit for generation rather than any absolute number. The discrepancy as to chronology between J and P is more artificial than true; there is no inconsistency in the chronology of the Biblical account of the Flood, so that the discrepancy between the documents, if there be one, is of critical manufacture. Besides, a simple reading of the J document taken separately will show that its chronology is not satisfactory. Finally, if in ix, 15, P knows of a Divine covenant which according to J is the result of the self-deliberation of Yahweh in consequence of the patriarch’s sacrifice (viii, 21–22), the two documents are rather supplementary than contradictory; J supplies the ethical motive for God’s action as described by P.

II. HISTORICITY OF THE BIBLICAL DELUGE ACCOUNT

It has been contended that the Flood story of the Bible and the Flood legends of other peoples, looked at from a merely historical point of view, stand on a similar footing, the Biblical account being a mere late variant of one of them. And on inquiring into their origin, we find that four theories have been advanced:

The Flood story is a mere product of fancy. This theory contradicts the analogy of similar legends among all peoples.

The Deluge story is by others considered as a nature-myth, representing the phenomena of winter, which in Babylonia especially is the time of rain. This nature-myth again is by some writers believed to have grown out of an archaic ether-myth, according to which the sun was imagined as a man voyaging on a boat in the heavenly ocean. The fact that the sea was to be found on the earth, not in heaven, and the damage wrought by the incessant winter-rain and the inundation of great rivers, transferred the myth from heaven to earth, changing the ether-myth into a nature-myth. But this theory, too, neglects the numerous Flood stories existing among many nations, which do not lend themselves to a similar explanation.

Connected with the preceding theory is the explanation which makes the Deluge story a cosmogonic fable. It has been seen that the hero rescued in the ship must have been the sun-god (cf. the ether-myth). Thus the Deluge becomes ultimately a variant of the Babylonian creation-myth. It is for this reason that the mythological text published by Peiser calls the time of the Deluge “the year of the great serpent.” For this “great serpent” is the personified ocean which on old Babylonian maps encircles Babylonia, just as leviathan is the world-encircling ocean personified as a serpent; it is the same monster which is a central figure in the Creation story. We need not add that this theory too leaves the great bulk of the existing Flood traditions unexplained.

It has been inferred from the improbability of the preceding theories, that the Flood story must be a poetical or legendary presentation of some natural occurrence. Furthermore, it is maintained that the immediate basis of the legend is a local disturbance. It may have been a great inundation caused by an overflow of the Tigris and Euphrates, or the incursion of a tidal wave resulting from an earthquake south of the mouth of the two rivers. But however terrible the ruin wrought by such inundations may be, this theory does not account for the universality of the Flood tradition, unless we suppose that the ruin affected the ancestors of all human races.

Thus far we have considered the Biblical Flood story from a merely historical point of view. But the student who believes in the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures and admits the value of tradition in their exegesis can hardly rest satisfied with the results thus far obtained. It will not even be enough to grant that the ancient Flood legend became the vehicle of religious and spiritual truth by means of a divinely guided religious feeling and insight of the inspired writer. The Deluge is referred to in several passages of Scripture as a historical fact; the writings of the Fathers consider the event in the same light, and this view of the subject is confirmed by the numerous variants under which the Flood tradition lives in the most distant nations of the earth.

(a) The following are some of the New Testament passages which imply that the Deluge was a real historical event: “And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark, and they knew not. till the flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be” (Matt., xxiv, 37–39). In these words Christ regards the Flood with its circumstances as being not less real than the last days will be of which He speaks in the passage. The same view concerning the Flood, Christ implies in Luke, xvii, 26–27. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi, 7) the inspired writer is not less clear about the historicity of the Flood: “By faith, Noe having received an answer concerning those things which as yet were not seen, moved with fear, framed the ark for the saving of his house, by the which he condemned the world; and was instituted heir of the justice which is by faith.” St. Peter (I Peter, iii, 20) too refers to the ark and the Flood as historical facts: “When they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.” He returns to the same teaching in II Peter, ii, 5. We might appeal to Is., liv, 9; Nah., i, 8; Ezech., xiv, 14; Ecclus., xliv, 18 sq.; Ps. xxviii, 10; xxxi, 6; but what has been said sufficiently shows that the Bible urges the historicity of the Deluge story.

(b) As to the view of Christian tradition, it suffices to appeal here to the words of Father Zorell who maintains that the Bible story concerning the Flood has never been explained or understood in any but a truly historical sense by any Catholic writer (cf. Hagen, Lexicon Biblicum). It would be useless labour and would exceed the scope of the present article to enumerate the long list of Fathers and Scholastic theologians who have touched upon the question. The few stray discordant voices belonging to the last fifteen or twenty years are simply drowned in this unanimous chorus of Christian tradition.

(c) The historicity of the Biblical Flood account is confirmed by the tradition existing in all places and at all times as to the occurrence of a similar catastrophe. F. von Schwarz (Sintfluth und Völkerwanderungen, pp. 8–18) enumerates sixty-three such Flood stories which are in his opinion independent of the Biblical account. R. Andree (Die Flutsagen ethnographisch betrachtet) discusses eighty-eight different Flood stories, and considers sixty-two of them as independent of the Chaldee and Hebrew tradition. Moreover, these stories extend through all the races of the earth excepting the African; these are excepted, not because it is certain that they do not possess any Flood traditions, but because their traditions have not as yet been sufficiently investigated. Lenormant pronounces the Flood story as the most universal tradition in the history of primitive man, and Franz Delitzsch was of opinion that we might as well consider the history of Alexander the Great a myth, as to call the Flood tradition a fable. It would, indeed, be a greater miracle than that of the Deluge itself, if the various and different conditions surrounding the several nations of the earth had produced among them a tradition substantially identical. Opposite causes would have produced the same effect.

III. UNIVERSALITY OF THE DELUGE

The Biblical account ascribes some kind of a universality to the Flood. But it may have been geographically universal, or it may have been only anthropologically universal. In other words, the Flood may have covered the whole earth, or it may have destroyed all men, covering only a certain part of the earth. Till about the seventeenth century, it was generally believed that the Deluge had been geographically universal, and this opinion is defended even in our days by some conservative scholars (cf. Kaulen in Kirchenlexikon). But two hundred years of theological and scientific study devoted to the question have thrown so much light on it that we may now defend the following conclusions:

(1) THE GEOGRAPHICAL UNIVERSALITY OF THE DELUGE MAY BE SAFELY ABANDONED.

Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.

(a) The words of the original text, rendered “earth” in our version, signify “land” as well as “earth”; in fact, “land” appears to have been their primary meaning, and this meaning fits in admirably with Gen., iv, v, and Gen., x; why not adhere to this meaning also in Gen., vi-ix, or the Flood story. Why not read, the waters “filled all on the face of the land,” “all flesh was destroyed that moved in the land,” “all things wherein there is the breath of life in the land died,” “all the high mountains under the whole heaven (corresponding to the land) were covered”? The primary meaning of the inspired text urges therefore a universality of the flood covering the whole land or region in which Noe lived, but not the whole earth.

(b) As to the cogency of the proof from tradition for the geographical universality of the Flood, it must be remembered that very few of the Fathers touched upon this question ex professo. Among those who do so there are some who restrict the Deluge to certain parts of the earth’s surface without incurring the blame of offending against tradition.

The earthly paradise, e.g., was exempted by many, irrespective of its location on the top of a high mountain or elsewhere;

the same must be said of the place in which Mathusala must have lived during the Flood according to the Septuagint reading;

St. Augustine knows of writers who exempted the mountain Olympus from the Flood, though he himself does not agree with them;

Pseudo-Justin hesitatingly rejects the opinion of those who restrict the Flood to the parts of the earth actually inhabited by men;

Cajetan revived the opinion that the Flood did not cover Olympus and other high mountains, believing that Genesis spoke only of the mountains under the aerial heaven;

Tostatus sees a figure of speech in the expression of the Bible which implies the universality of the Flood; at any rate, he exempts the earthly Paradise from the Deluge, since Henoch had to be saved.

If the Fathers had considered the universality of the Flood as part of the body of ecclesiastical tradition, or of the deposit of faith, they would have defended it more vigorously. It is true that the Congregation of the Index condemned Vossius’s treatise “De Septuaginta Interpretibus” in which he defended, among other doctrines, the view that the Flood covered only the inhabited part of the earth; but theologians of great weight maintained that the work was condemned on account of its Protestant author, and not on account of its doctrine. (c) There are also certain scientific considerations which oppose the view that the Flood was geographically universal. Not that science opposes any difficulty insuperable to the power of God; but it draws attention to a number of most extraordinary, if not miraculous phenomena involved in the admission of a geographically universal Deluge.

First, no such geological traces can be found as ought to have been left by a universal Deluge; for the catastrophe connected with the beginning of the ice-age, or the geological deluge, must not be connected with the Biblical.

Secondly, the amount of water required by a universal Deluge, as described in the Bible, cannot be accounted for by the data furnished in the Biblical account. If the surface of the earth, in round numbers, amounts to 510,000,000 square kilometres, and if the elevation of the highest mountains reaches about 9000 metres, the water required by the Biblical Flood, if it be universal, amounts to about 4,600,000,000 cubic kilometres. Now, a forty days’ rain, ten times more copious than the most violent rainfall known to us, will raise the level of the sea only about 800 metres; since the height to be attained is about 9000 metres, there is still a gap to be filled by unknown sources amounting to a height of more than 8000 metres, in order to raise the water to the level of the greatest mountains.

Thirdly, if the Biblical Deluge was geographically universal, the sea water and the fresh water would mix to such an extent that neither the marine animals nor the fresh-water animals could have lived in the mixture without a miracle.

Fourthly, there are serious difficulties connected with the animals in the ark, if the Flood was geographically universal: How were they brought to Noe from the remote regions of the earth in which they lived? How could eight persons take care of such an array of beasts? Where did they obtain the food necessary for all the animals? How could the arctic animals live with those of the torrid zone for a whole year and under the same roof?

No Catholic commentator will repudiate an explanation merely for fear of having to admit a miracle; but no Catholic has a right to admit Biblical miracles which are not well attested either by Scripture or tradition. What is more, there are traces in the Biblical Flood story which favour a limited extent of the catastrophe: Noe could have known the geographical universality of the Deluge only by revelation; still the Biblical account appears to have been written by an eye-witness. If the Flood had been universal, the water would have had to fall from the height of the mountains in India to the level of those in Armenia on which the ark rested, i.e. about 11,500 feet, within the space of a few days. The fact that the dove is said to have found “the waters . . . upon the whole earth,” and that Noe “saw that the face of the earth was dried,” leaves the impression that the inspired writer uses the word “earth” in the restricted sense of “land.” Attention has been drawn also to the “bough of an olive tree, with green leaves” carried by the dove in her mouth on her second return to the ark.

(2) THE DELUGE MUST HAVE BEEN ANTHROPOLOGICALLY UNIVERSAL, I.E. IT MUST HAVE DESTROYED THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE.

After limiting the extent of the Flood to a part of the earth, we naturally ask whether any men lived outside the region covered by its waters. It has been maintained that not all men can have perished in the Flood for the following reasons: Tribes which certainly sprang from Noe were preceded in their earliest settlements by other tribes whose origin is unknown to us: the Dravidic tribes preceded the Aryans in India; the proto-Medians preceded the Medians; the Akkadians preceded the Cushites and Semites in Chaldea; the Chanaanites were preceded in Palestine by other races. Besides, the oldest Egyptian monuments present the Negro race just as we find it to-day, so that even at that remote age, it was wholly different from the Caucasian race. Again, the languages of the races springing from Noe are said to be in a state of development different from that in which we find the languages of the peoples of unknown origin. Finally, the Biblical account of the Flood is said to admit a restriction of its anthropological universality as readily as a limitation of its geographical completeness; for if “land” be substituted in our translation for earth, the Book of Genesis speaks only of the men inhabiting a certain district, and not of the men of the whole earth, as being the victims of the waters. Considerations like these have induced several Catholic writers to regard as quite tenable the opinion that the Deluge did not destroy all men outside the ark.

But if the reason advanced for limiting the Flood to a certain part of the human race be duly examined, they are found to be more specious than true. The above scientific arguments do not favour a partial destruction of the human race absolutely, but only in so far as the uninterrupted existence of the various races in question gives them more time for the racial development and the historical data that have to be harmonized with the text of Genesis. Those who urge these arguments grant, therefore, implicitly that the allowance of a proper length of time will explain the facts on which their arguments are based. As there is nothing in the teaching of the Bible preventing us from assigning the Flood to a much earlier date than has usually been done, the difficulties urged on the part of science against the anthropological universality of the Flood may be easily evaded. Nor can the distribution of the nations as described in the tenth chapter of Genesis be appealed to, seeing that this section does not enumerate all races of the earth, but confines itself probably to the Caucasian.

Science, therefore, may demand an early date for the Deluge, but it does not necessitate a limitation of the Flood to certain parts of the human race. The question, whether all men perished in the Deluge, must be decided by the teaching of the Bible, and of its authoritative interpreter. As to the teachings of the Bible, the passage which deals ex professo with the Flood (Gen., vi-ix), if taken by itself, may be interpreted of a partial destruction of man; it insists on the fact that all inhabitants of the “land,” not of the “earth,” died in the waters of the Deluge, and it does not explicitly tell us whether all men lived in the “land.” It may also be granted, that of the passages which refer incidentally to the flood, Wis., x, 4; xiv, 6; Ecclus., xliv, 17 sqq., and Matt., xxiv, 37 sqq., may be explained, more or less satisfactorily, of a partial destruction of the human race by the inundation of the Deluge; but no one can deny that the prima facie meaning of I Peter, iii, 20 sq., II Peter, ii, 4–9, and II Peter, iii, 5 sqq., refers to the death of all men not contained in the ark. The explanations of these passages, offered by the opponents of the anthropological universality of the Deluge, are hardly sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt. We turn, therefore, to authority in order to arrive at a final settlement of the question. Here we are confronted, in brief, with the following facts: Up to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the belief in the anthropological universality of the Deluge was general. Moreover, the Fathers regarded the ark and the Flood as types of baptism and of the Church; this view they entertained not as a private opinion, but as a development of the doctrine contained in I Peter, iii, 20 sq. Hence, the typical character of both ark and Flood belongs to the “matters of faith and morals” in which the Tridentine and the Vatican Councils oblige all Catholics to follow the interpretation of the Church.

IV. COLLATERAL QUESTIONS

These may be reduced to the time of the Deluge, its place, and its natural causes.

(1) TIME OF THE DELUGE

Genesis places the Deluge in the six-hundredth year of Noe; the Masoretic text assigns it to the year 1656 after the creation, the Samaritan to 1307, the Septuagint to 2242, Flavius Josephus to 2256. Again, the Masoretic text places it in B. C. 2350 (Klaproth) or 2253 (Lüken), the Samaritan in 2903, the Septuagint in 3134. According to the ancient traditions (Lüken), the Assyrians placed the Deluge in 2234 B. C. or 2316, the Greeks in 2300, the Egyptians in 2600, the Phoenicians in 2700, the Mexicans in 2900, the Indians in 3100, the Chinese in 2297, while the Armenians assigned the building of the Tower of Babel to about 2200 B. C. But as we have seen, we must be prepared to assign earlier dates to these events.

(2) PLACE OF THE FLOOD

The Bible teaches only that the ark rested on a mountain in Armenia. Hence the Flood must have occurred in a place whence the ark could be carried towards this mountain. The Babylonian tradition places the Deluge in the lower valley of the Tigris and Euphrates.

(3) NATURAL CAUSES OF THE FLOOD

Scripture assigns as the causes of the Deluge the heavy forty days’ rains, the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, and the opening of the flood-gates of heaven. This does not exclude the opinion that certain natural forces were at play in the catastrophe. It has been suggested that the axis of the earth was shifted on account of the earth’s collision with a comet, or that powerful volcanic eruptions raised new mountains in the sea, or that an earthquake caused a tidal wave to overrun certain portions of the dry land. Thus, Süss speaks of the frequency of earthquakes and of storms in the Gulf of Persia; but this would enclose the Flood within too narrow limits both of space and of time. Another conjecture has been proposed by von Schwartz. He supposes that an inland Mongolian sea, in size about equal to the Mediterranean, situated at a height of about 6000 feet above the level of the ocean and 5000 feet above the surrounding Aralo-Caspian plain, at the time of an earthquake broke through one of its walls, and sent its 3,000,000 cubic kilometres of water into the region north of Persia, Armenia, and the Caucasus, covering the whole plain, until the waters were drained by way of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean into the Atlantic Ocean. Here we have the breaking of the bonds of the great deep, we have an outflow of water lasting for several months, and we find that the ark must have been carried westward by the general drift of the waters till it rested on the mountains of Armenia. But not to mention the improbability of the supposition urged by several scientists, we do not understand why the tops of the mountains should not have been visible even after the mooring of the ark. A number of other hypotheses have been proposed in order to explain by natural causes the phenomena implied in the Biblical account of the Deluge, but thus far they have not satisfied the various details given in the Book of Genesis.

Complete bibliographies may be found in VON HUMMELAUER, Commentarius in Genesim (Paris,1895); MANGENOT in Vig., Dict. de la Bible (Paris 1899) II; CORNELY, Introductio (2nd ed. Paris, 1887), II, Pt. I, 161; HAGEN, Lexicum Biblicum (Paris, 1907), II; DE RÉGNON, Le déluge biblique et les races antédiluviennes; SCHÖPFER, Geschichte d. A. T. (3rd ed. Brixen, 1902); WOODS, Dict. of the Bible (New York, 1900), II; LÜKEN, Die Traditionen des Menschengeschlechts (Münster, 1869); ANDREE, Die Flutsagen ethnographisch betrachtet (Brunswick, 1891); VON SCHWARZ, Sintfluth und Völkerwanderungen (Stuttgart. 1894); PRESTWICH, On Certain Phenomena Belonging to the Close of the Last Geological Period (New York, 1895); SÜSS, Das Antlitz der Erde (Prague, 1883); MILLER, Testimony of the Rocks, 1858; KAULEN in Kirchenlexikon; REUSCH, Bibel und Natur (4th ed., Bonn, 1876); The Tablet (London, 1884), flIes.

A.J. MAAS

Modeste Demers

An apostle of the Pacific Coast of North America, and the first Catholic missionary among most of the Indian tribes of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia; born at St. Nicholas, Quebec, 11 Oct., 1809; died at Victoria, B. C., 21 July, 1871. His father, Michel Demers, and his mother, Rosalie Foucher were two worthy representatives of the French Canadian farmer class. Endowed with a delicate conscience and a distinctly religious disposition, young Demers resolved to enter the ecclesiastical state, and studied first privately and then at the seminary of Quebec. He was ordained 7 Feb., 1836, by Bishop Signay, and after fourteen months passed as assistant priest at Trois-Pistoles, he volunteered for the far-off mission of Oregon, where the white population, made up mostly of French Canadian employés of the Hudson Bay Company, was clamouring for the ministrations of a priest. Having crossed the American continent in the company of the Rev. F. N. Blanchet, his superior, he reached Walla-Walla, on the lower Columbia, 18 Nov., 1838, and immediately applied himself to the care of the lowliest, that is the Indian tribes, which were then very numerous and not any too meek. He studied their languages and visited their homes regularly, preaching, catechizing the adults, and baptizing the children, especially those whose habitat lay to the north of the Columbia. His apostolic zeal even led him on along the coast of British Columbia, and in 1842 he proceeded inland as far north as Stuart Lake, evangelizing as he went all the interior tribes of that province.

His companion, the Rev. F.N. Blanchet, having been elevated to the episcopate, Demers had to submit to what he considered a burden beyond his strength. He was consecrated bishop on 30 Nov., 1847, and appointed to the spiritual care of Vancouver Island, making the incipient town of Victoria his headquarters. As a bishop he continued his favourite work among the Indians, though he soon had to give his best attention to the rough and cosmopolitan element which now formed his white flock. For its benefit he procured in 1858 the services of the Sisters of St. Anne, who established schools at Victoria and elsewhere, and of the Oblate Fathers, who took in hand the evangelization of the natives and also founded a college in his cathedral city. In 1866 he assisted at the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, and shortly afterwards he was one of the fathers of the cumenical Council of the Vatican. He died soon after his return, beloved alike by Protestants and Catholics, and revered for his gentleness and his apostolic zeal on behalf of the poor and lowly.

Historical Sketches of the Catholic Church in Oregon (Portland, 1878); PAQUET, Fragments de l’histoire de la paroisse de Saint-Nicolas (Lévis, 1894).

A. G. MORICE

St. Demetrius

Bishop of Alexandria from 188 to 231. Julius Africanus, who visited Alexandria in the time of Demetrius, places his accession as eleventh bishop after St. Mark in the tenth year of Commodus (tenth of Severus, Eus. His. Eccl., VI, ii, is a slip). A legendary history of him is given in the Coptic “Synaxaria,” in an Abyssinian poem cited by the Bollandists, and in the “Chronicon Orientale” of Abraham Ecchellensis the Maronite. Three of their statements, however, may have some truth: one that he died at the age of 105 (born, therefore, in 126); another, found also in the Melchite Patriarch Eutychius [Sa’id Ibn Batrik, (d. about 940), Migne, P.G., CXI, 999], that he wrote about the calculation of Easter to Victor of Rome, Maximus (i.e. Maximinus) of Antioch and Gabius or Agapius (?) of Jerusalem (cf. Eus., H.E., V, xxv). Eutychius relates that from Mark to Demetrius there was but one see in Egypt, that Demetrius was the first to establish three other bishoprics, and that his successor Heraclas made twenty more.

At all events Demetrius is the first Alexandrian bishop of whom anything is known. St. Jerome has it that he sent Pantaenus on a mission to India, but it is likely that Clement had succeeded Pantaenus as the head of the famous Catechetical School before the accession of Demetrius. When Clement retired (c. 203–4), Demetrius appointed the young Origen, who was in his eighteenth year, in Clement’s place. Demetrius encouraged Origen when blamed for his too literal execution of an allegorical counsel of our Lord, and is said to have shown him great favour. He sent Origen to the governor of Arabia, who had requested his presence in letters to the prefect of Egypt as well as to the bishop. In 215–16 Origen was obliged to take refuge in Caesarea from the cruelty of Caracalla. There he preached at the request of the bishops present. Demetrius wrote to him complaining that this was unheard of presumption in a layman. Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Caesarea wrote to defend the invitation they had given, mentioning precedents; but Demetrius recalled Origen. In 230 Demetrius gave Origen a recommendation to take with him on his journey to Athens. But Origen was ordained priest at Caesarea without leave, and Demetrius with a synod of some bishops and a few priests condemned him to banishment, then from another synod sent a formal condemnation of him to all the churches. It is impossible to doubt that heresy, and not merely unauthorized ordination, must have been alleged by Demetrius for such a course. Rome accepted the decision, but Palestine, Phoenicia, Arabia, Achaia rejected it, and Origen retired to Caesarea, whence he sent forth letters in his own defence, and attacked Demetrius. The latter placed at the head of the Catechetical School the first pupil of Origen, Heraclas, who had long been his assistant. But the bishop died very soon, and Heraclas succeeding him, Origen returned to Alexandria.

Acta SS., 9 Oct.; Westcott in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Demetrius; Harnack, Gesch. der altchr. Lit., I, 330, II, ii (i.e. Chronol., II), 23; Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirchl. Lit., II, 158; see also Origen; on the Alexandrian succession and the date see Harnack, Gesch. der altchrist. Lit., II, i, 202–7; Chapman in Rev. bened. (Jan., 1902), 34. On the Creation of New Sees by Heracla: Lightfoot, Comm. on Philippians (1895), 230; the essay on the Christ. Ministry is reprinted in his Biblical Essays; Michiels, Origine de l’episcopat (Louvain, 1901), 348; Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, II, 79, 90, 308 (tr., London and New York, 1905). A fragment ascribed to Demetrius by Pitra in his Analecta Sacra, II, 345, is probably by a certain Demetrius Callatianus mentioned by Strabo.

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Demetrius

The name of two Syrian kings mentioned in the Old Testament and two other persons in the New Testament.

1. DEMETRIUS SOTER (“SAVIOUR”)

So called because he saved the Babylonians from the tyranny of the satrap Heraclides, reigned from 162 to 150 B.C. He was the son of Seleucus Phlopator, and spent his early years as a hostage in Rome, petitioning the Senate in vain for permission to return to his country. With the assistance, however, of his friend, the historian Polybius, he escaped to Tripolis in Phoenicia, formed a party, murdered Antiochus V, his cousin, with Lysias, the chancellor, ascended the throne of the Seleucidae, and was acknowledged by Rome. A Jewish party, dissatisfied with Judas Machabeus, invited Demetrius to interfere in their favour. Demetrius appointed Alcimus as high-priest and sent his general Bacchides with an army in his support. Soon after, as Alcimus’ position seemed secure, Bacchides left. As Judas, however, grew stronger, Alcimus again appealed for help. Demetrius sent as general Nicanor, who first tried to capture Judas by strategy, but then met him at Kapharsalama and lost the battle. Nicanor entered Jerusalem, vented his wrath on the priests, and threatened to destroy the Temple. Judas met Nicanor again at Beth-Horon and utterly routed his army. Nicanor fell in the battle (161 B.C.). Two months later Demetrius, for the third time, sent a Syrian army into Palestine under Bacchides, who defeated and slew Judas in the battle of Berea, garrisoned some Jewish towns, and returned. A Syrian army entered Palestine under the same Bacchides for the fourth time in 158 B.C., but the Machabean party had recovered its strength, and a treaty ended the campaign. Meanwhile a pretender had arisen to the Syrian throne in the person of Alexander Balas. Both Demetrius and Alexander were anxious to gain the support of the Jews. Alexander offered to Jonathan Machabeus the purple and a diadem, which he accepted in 153 B.C. Demetrius subsequently offered still greater privileges to the Jews and their leader, but the Jews remained faithful to Alexander. In 150 B.C. Alexander and his allies defeated Demetrius, “who valiantly fought with undaunted courage in the thick of the battle and was slain.” (I Mach., vii, ix, x; II Mach., xiv, xv; Justin, XXXV, i.)

2. DEMETRIUS NIKATOR (“CONQUEROR”)

Son of the above, succeeded four years after the death of his father in gaining the Syrian throne. Jonathan Machabeus, remaining faithful to Alexander unto the end, had opposed the succession of Demetrius II. Demetrius’ viceroy, Apollonius, who ruled over Coelesyria, held Joppe and Ashdod for his king, but was driven out and defeated by Jonathan, who destroyed Ashdod and brought a rich booty to Jerusalem. Jonathan tried to throw off the Syurian yoke altogether and besieged the fortress of Jerusalem. Demetrius first cited Jonathan to Ptolemais to answer for his rebellion, relying upon a pro-Syrian party among the Jews; but Jonathan boldly continued the siege of Jerusalem and then, nothing daunted, faced Demetrius at Ptolemais. He demanded an extension of territory and several privileges for the Jews, and supported his demand by costly gifts. Demetrius did not dare to refuse, but agreed to the addition of three Samaritan districts, Ephraim, Lydda, and Ramathaim, to Judea; he freed this extension of Judea from all taxes and confirmed Jonathan in all his dignities. Demetrius had thus escaped further danger from his Jewish vassal but soon after had to encounter Trypho, a former general of Alexander Balas. This man proclaimed Alexander’s son Antiochus VI king, though as yet only a boy, and the threatening attitude of the people of Antioch brought the throne of Demetrius II into imminent danger. In his distress he appealed to Jonathan, who sent 3000 men to quell the insurrection at Antioch. Demetrius promised to hand over Jerusalem and some other fortresses of Judea to Jonathan. Jonathan stamped out the revolution at Antioch, but Demetrius did not fulfil his promise. Shortly after, Trypho and Antiochus the Pretender captured Antioch and sought the assistance of Jonathan. As Demetrius II had proved himself faithless, Jonathan left his side and went over to Trypho. In consequence Demetrius gathered an army against Jonathan, to punish his defection, but never risked a battle. Then Trypho had murdered Antiochus VI, Jonathan returned to Demetrius’ allegiance. Trypho was finally defeated by the brother of Demetrius, but Demetrius was mad prisoner in a campaign against the Parthians, in whose hands he remained for ten years, the daughter of whose king Mithridates he received in marriage and by whom, under Phraates, he was restored to the Syrian throne after defeating his brother Antiochus Sidetes. He was then persuaded to attack the King of Egypt, Ptolemy Physcon. This caused the rise of another Syrian pretender, Alexander Zabinas, who defeated Demetrius near Damascus. Demetrius fled to Tyre, and on landing was there assassinated in 128 B.C. His wife Cleopatra is said to have been privy to the crime. (I Mach., xiii, 41; x, 67; xiv, 3.)

3. DEMETRIUS OF ACTS 19:24

Acts 19:24 mentions Demetrius, a silversmith (argyrokopos), who made silver shrines for Diana at Ephesus. These shrines (naous; in D.V. “temples”) were probably little silver models either of the temple or of the actual shrine (sacellum) in which the idol was placed, and were used as amulets or objects of piety and souvenirs carried away by thousands of pagan pilgrims. Finding his trade diminished through the spread of Christianity and the decline of heathen worship, he and his fellow-craftsmen caused the uproar against St. Paul as narrated in Acts, loc. cit.

4. DEMETRIUS OF III JOHN 5:12

St. John the Apostle, in his Third Epistle (v. 12), praises Demetrius to whom “testimony is given by all, and by the truth itself” and apparently opposes him to Diotrephes, who did not receive St. John, and cast out of the Church those that did (verses 9, 10). Nothing more is known of him. Possibly he was the bearer of the letter.

For Demetrius Soter, see JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, XII, x; XIII, ii; Histories, III, v; XXXI, xii, xix; XXXII, iv; XXXIII, xiv sqql; JUSTIN, Hist. Phil. Lib. XXXIX, i; APPIAN, Syriaca, lxviii. SCHURER, Geschichte des jud. Volk. (4th ed., Leipzig, 1901), I, 216–48; MILMAN, History of the Jews, X, The Asmoneans.

J.P. ARENDZEN

Demiurge

The word means literally a public worker, demioergós, demiourgós, and was originally used to designate any craftsman plying his craft or trade for the use of the public. Soon, however, technítes and other words began to be used to designate the common artisan while demiurge was set aside for the Great Artificer or Fabricator, the Architect of the universe. At first the words toû kósmou were added to distinguish the great Workman from others, but gradually demiourgós became the technical term for the Maker of heaven and earth. In this sense it is used frequently by Plato in his “Timæus.” Although often loosely employed by the Fathers and others to indicate the Creator, the word never strictly meant “one who produces out of nothing” (for this the Greeks used ktístes), but only “one who fashions, shapes, and models.” A creator in the sense of Christian theology has no place in heathen philosophy, which always presupposes the existence of matter. Moreover, according to Greek philosophy the world-maker is not necessarily identical with God, as first and supreme source of all things; he may be distinct from and inferior to the supreme spirit, though he may also be the practical expression of the reason of God, the Logos as operative in the harmony of the universe. In this sense, i.e. that of a world-maker distinct from the Supreme God, Demiurge became a common term in Gnosticism. The Gnostics, however, were not satisfied merely to emphasize the distinction between the Supreme God, or God the Father, and the Demiurge, but in many of their systems they conceived the relation of the Demiurge to the Supreme God as one of actual antagonism, and the Demiurge became the personification of the power of evil, the Satan of Gnosticism, with whom the faithful had to wage war to the end that they might be pleasing to the Good God. The Gnostic Demiurge then assumes a surprising likeness to Ahriman, the evil counter-creator of Ormuzd in Mazdean philosophy. The character of the Gnostic Demiurge became still more complicated when in some systems he was identified with Jehovah, the God of the Jews or of the Old Testament, and was brought in opposition to Christ of the New Testament, the Only-Begotten Son of the Supreme and Good God. The purpose of Christ’s coming as Saviour and Redeemer was to rescue us from the power of the Demiurge, the lord of the world of this darkness, and bring us to the light of the Good God, His Father in heaven. The last development in the character of the Demiurge was due to Jehovah being primarily considered as he who gave the Law on Sinai, and hence as the originator of all restraint on the human will. As the Demiurge was essentially evil, all his work was such; in consequence all law was intrinsically evil and the duty of the children of the Good God was to transgress this law and to trample upon its precepts. This led to the wildest orgies of Antinomian Gnosticism.

According to Valentinus the Demiurge was the offspring of a union of Achamoth (he káta sophía or lower wisdom) with matter. And as Achamoth herself was only the daughter of Sophía the last of the thirty Æons, the Demiurge was distant by many emanations from the Propatôr, or Supreme God. The Demiurge in creating this world out of Chaos was unconsciously influenced for good by Jesus Soter; and the universe, to the surprise even of its Maker, became almost perfect. The Demiurge regretted even its slight imperfection, and as he thought himself the Supreme God, he attempted to remedy this by sending a Messias. To this Messias, however, was actually united Jesus the Saviour, Who redeemed men. These are either hulikoí, or pneumatikoí. The first, or carnal men, will return to the grossness of matter and finally be consumed by fire; the second, or psychic men, together with the Demiurge as their master, will enter a middle state, neither heaven (pleroma) nor hell (hyle); the purely spiritual men will be completely freed from the influence of the Demiurge and together with the Saviour and Achamoth, his spouse, will enter the pleroma divested of body (húle) and soul (psuché). In this most common form of Gnosticism the Demiurge had an inferior though not intrinsically evil function in the universe as the head of the psychic world. According to Marcion, the Demiurge was to be sharply distinguished from the Good God; the former was díkaios, severely just, the latter agathós, or loving-kind; the former was the God of the Jews, the latter the true God of the Christians. Christ, though in reality the Son of the Good God, pretended to be the Messias of the Demiurge, the better to spread the truth concerning His heavenly Father. The true believer in Christ entered into God’s kingdom, the unbeliever remained forever the slave of the Demiurge. To this form of Gnosticism, the Demiurge has assumed already a more evil aspect. According to the Naassenes the God of the Jews is not merely díkaios, but he is the great tyrant Jaldabaoth, or Son of Chaos. He is Demiurge and maker of man, but as a ray of light from above enters the body of man and gives him a soul; Jaldabaoth is filled with envy; he tries to limit man’s knowledge by forbidding him the fruit of knowledge in paradise. The Demiurge, fearing lest Jesus, whom he had intended as his Messias, should spread the knowledge of the Supreme God, had him crucified by the Jews. At the consummation of all things all light will return to the pleroma; but Jaldabaoth, the Demiurge, with the material world, will be cast into the lower depths. Some of the Ophites or Naassenes venerated all persons reprobated in the Old Testament, such as Cain, or the people of Sodom, as valiant resisters of the Demiurge. In these weird systems the idea of the world-maker was degraded to the uttermost. Amongst the Gnostics, however, who as a rule set some difference between the Demiurge and the Supreme God, there was one exception; for according to the Ebionites, whose opinions have come down to us in the Pseudo-Clementine literature, there is no difference between the Highest God and the Demiurge. They are identical, and the God Who made heaven and earth is worthy of the adoration of men. On the other hand the Gnostic system is tainted with pantheism, and its Demiurge is not a creator but only a world-builder. (See GNOSTICISM; VALENTINUS; MARCION.)

J. P. ARENDZEN

Christian Democracy

In Christian Democracy, the name and the reality have two very different histories, and therefore they must be carefully distinguished.

THE REALITY

What Christian democracy is was authoritatively laid down by Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical “Graves de communi” wherein it is declared to be the same as “popular Catholic action.” Such a definition is certainly intensive so that not everything done by Catholics, among the people or for the people, can be technically termed Christian democracy, or popular Catholic action. Action in this definition is taken to mean an organized movement with a definite programme to deal with the pressing problems that come before it. Popular has reference to the people, not inasmuch as they are a nation or collective whole, but as the fourth estate: the plebs, the tenuiores, and the tenuissimi of classical antiquity. Lastly, Catholic (and therefore Christian through and through) signifies that this organized action in favour of the people (plebs) is the work of Catholics as such. Popular Catholic action, therefore, means that the scope mapped out for the activity of the organization is the well-being of the people; and that the movement proceeds along Catholic lines, under the guidance of Catholic leaders. Having stated this, it is easy to understand that the existence of Christian democracy is not a thing of yesterday. In the very nature of Christianity, in the spirit of the Church, in the mission of the clergy (cf. Benigni, Storia sociale della Chiesa, Milan, 1907, I) lies the germ of popular Catholic action technically so called; in other words, of Christian democracy. As soon, therefore, as political and social circumstances allowed it, the Church set her hand to this work, and she has continued without interruption her traditional action in behalf of the people. To prove this there is no need of distorting the facts of history. Even if we exclude the marvellous economic organization of the Church of the first three centuries (see the last part of the “Storia” referred to above), it is certain that from the time of Constantine the Church began the practical work of Christian democracy, when the clergy showed their zeal in establishing hospices for orphans, for the aged and infirm, and for wayfarers.

Constantine in a period of famine chose the bishops rather than the civil officials to distribute corn among a starving people, and thus showed his appreciation of Christian democracy. Julian the Apostate showed even a clearer insight when in his famous letter to the pagan high-priest of Galatia he urged him strongly to admonish the pagan priesthood that they must rival the Christian clergy in this field of popular work. But when the fall of the Empire of the West under the shock of the barbarian invasion brought civilization to the verge of ruin and shook the very foundation of the people’s welfare; when it became necessary to build up again laboriously the neo-Roman culture of the West out of the remnants that escaped the catastrophe and the raw material of the scarcely civilized races, then shone forth in its real light the true Christian democracy of the Catholic Church. Suffice it to say that an entire system of laws and customs in furtherance of the civil and material well-being of the people was established, or at least strengthened and developed, by the united action of clergy and laity. The right of sanctuary, the art guilds and trade guilds, the relentless war against usury, the numberless benevolent institutions, the protection afforded to labour in general, and the special provision made for the unemployed, all these form a golden thread of Christian democracy that runs through the whole course of medieval Church history, unbroken and untarnished amid its surroundings of iron and stone. The Truce of God (which proclaimed the inviolability of the lands and dominions of a lord who had gone to the Crusades) was not only a safeguard of that lord’s interests, but above all of his people, who, in the absence of their military chief could offer but a sorry defence against the frequent inroads of neighbouring lords or princes. The montes pietatis, too, were an admirable Catholic institution that delivered the poor from the clutches of the extortioner from whom they were obliged to borrow. The many thousand confraternities scattered up and down Europe were religious associations, but in nearly every instance they had a common fund for the benefit and protection of their members. Thus, in the Papal States, up to the time of the French Revolution, many guilds (such as shoemakers, carpenters, etc.) had a notary public and a lawyer who were bound to transact for a few pence the legal business of the members of the guild. These few examples, chosen from widely different fields, suffice to show that an organized action, really Catholic and really of the people, is one of the time-honoured traditions of Catholicism.

But the last definitive stage of Christian democracy, and one that has given the name a fixed and technical meaning, dates from the time that elapsed between the fall of Napoleon I and the international Revolution of 1848. Among the many calumnies heaped upon the Church during the French Revolution was the charge that she was anti-democratic, and this not only in a political, but also in a larger social sense it meant that the Church favoured the great and mighty, and sided with the monarchical oligarchy against the just political and economic demands of the middle and lower classes. The horrors of the Revolution and, later on, the illusions of the Restoration, drove the clergy and a number of the thinking laity into the movement of the Counter-Revolution, which, in the hands of politicians like Metternich, developed into a “reaction,” i.e. it was not deemed sufficient to struggle against the evil of revolution and uphold the social order; it was thought necessary to restore the old regime, bury everything good and bad that savoured of democracy, and thereby deprive the people of a means of improving their politico-economic conditions. This reactionary programme looked on the social question as one to be solved by fear of the Government’s armed hand, by charitable subsidies, and by the creation of holidays. This programme found support in a saying attributed to the King of Naples: To rule the mob you must use three f’s: feste, farina, and forca (festivals, food, and gallows). But a new revolution was in the air. The Carbonari began their work in 1821 and kept on until it resulted in the general upheaval of 1848. The mass of the clergy and of militant Catholics stood by the “reaction” as far as it was a counter-revolution in the better sense of the word; but in the general public opinion the clergy and the Catholics, partly through mistakes of their own, but chiefly through the malice of their enemies, came to be looked upon as reactionaries who favoured the oppression of the people.

Then there began among Catholics “a reaction against reaction,” and there arose, especially in France, the de Lamennais party which had as a mouthpiece the newspaper known as “L’Avenir,” and for its motto, “God and Liberty.” There is no doubt that Ozanam, with his conferences of St. Vincent de Paul, had the true practical idea of charity, at once thoroughly Christian and thoroughly adapted to actual needs; he was not content with the passing touch of the hand that gave and the hand that received, but he sent the charitable into the very homes of the needy and brought them face to face with the hard reality in order to give them a better understanding and a stronger sense of brotherhood. De Lamennais had an insight, confused but keenly felt, into a popular Catholic action not restricted to works of material and immediate beneficence, but extending beyond these to an assertion of justice and social equity for the lower classes. De Lamennais, therefore, was in reality a pioneer of Christian democracy. Unfortunately, he also led the way in errors that even to-day we deplore. By involving the ethico-juridical and economical action of Christian democracy in political agitation, he fell into a mistake which was the more unfortunate as the parties of his day made use of it to bring about a violent political crisis. He was wrong, too, in believing that liberty was the positive foundation of everything; hence the justice of the reproach cast upon his formula, “God and Liberty”: either Liberty was superfluous, since that is already implied in God, or the phrase was illogical, since there can be no question of liberty unless it harmonizes with social order. And so de Lamennais and his movement ended in failure.

The revolution of 1848 and the consequent reaction of 1850 hindered the Catholics from availing themselves of such good as there was in de Lamennais’ attempt. Then came the political and religious struggles which the Church had to face during the long pontificate of Pius IX and the early years of Leo XIII’s rule. But the latter pontiff soon issued his Encyclicals on the political, ethical, juridical, and economical questions of the day, and in dealing with the social question in its popular aspects he published, 15 May, 1891, the immortal “Rerum Novarum” which has become the Magna Charta of Christian democracy. Measures were at once taken to secure popular Catholic action; and it quickly appeared how unequal most Catholics were to the doctrinal and practical requirements of the situation. On the one hand, many of them, terrified by the evils of the Revolution (especially in Latin countries), would not hear of the burning questions of the day or of new organizations, but confined themselves to the old traditional methods of material and spiritual assistance, occasionally venturing on the establishment of conferences of St. Vincent de Paul and of workingmen’s mutual benefit societies, such as were already widely organized by the middle-class liberal party. On the other hand, there were some who thought that the best means of combating Socialism was to imitate it; and they encouraged ideas, attitudes, and expressions of a socialistic type, which resulted in a distorted viewpoint and an undisciplined activity, to the great injury of genuine popular Catholic action.

But these various turnings in the course of modern Christian democracy are hardly as yet matters of history; they are rather items in a chronicle that is still being written; and this is not the place to discuss them. Only let it be noted that Leo XIII over and over again, especially in receiving pilgrimages of workingmen, laid down clearly the limits and the nature of popular Catholic action, and that Pius X has repeatedly confirmed and approved of them. Christian democracy is the ensemble of Catholic doctrine, organization, and action in the field of popular social questions, i. e. the vast field occupied by the proletariat, called by some (inexactly, because the term is not wide enough) the labour question. Christian democracy recognizes in principle and in fact that the popular social question cannot be limited to the question of justice, nor of charity; but that it ought to establish a harmony between the claims of the first and the pleadings of the second, avoiding the excesses of anarchistic individualism as well as those of communism, socialistic or otherwise. Christian democracy, then, disapproves of the conduct of those “socialistic” Catholics who despise or minimize the social function of Christian charity; just as it disapproves the position of those other Catholics who would ignore and disregard the question of social justice in such matters as minimum salary and maximum number of working hours, obligatory insurance of workingmen, and proportionate sharing of profits. But real Christian democracy seeks to be, and is, absolutely neutral on political matters. It is not, and never can be monarchical, or republican, or oligarchical, or parliamentarian, or partisan in politics. So much follows from its very nature. On this foundation Christian democracy, emerging from the present crisis, will develop its vast programme for the moral and material redemption of the people, and will be one of the grandest and most fortunate applications of the programme of Pius X, “to restore all things in Christ.”

THE NAME

After the appearance of the Encyclical “Rerum Novarum,” the rapid growth of popular Catholic action called for a suitable name to describe it. The old name, indeed, “Popular Catholic Action,” was both accurate and comprehensive; but a discussion arose as to selecting a nom de guerre, and the choice eventually lay between “Catholic Socialism” and “Christian Democracy.” The discussion was carried on especially in Belgium, where popular Catholic action had been highly developed. Those in favour of “Catholic Socialism” pointed out that the name socialism signified purely social questions, while democracy implied the idea of government and therefore savoured of politics. Their opponents answered that socialism was a branded word, and belonged to the materialistic and revolutionary party known by that name, while democracy had lost its political meaning and actually signified nothing else than” popular question” or merely “popularity”; so much so that a king who loves his people and is loved by them is called a “democratic” king. In the end the word democracy won; and Leo XIII in the Encyclical “Graves de communi” (18 January, 1901) declared as acceptable and accepted the expression “Christian democracy” as meaning neither more not less than popular Catholic action and as having for its aim to comfort and uplift the lower classes (studium solandœ erigendœque plebis), excluding expressly every appearance and implication of political meaning. Thus the name was officially accepted at once (e. g. by the “Opera dei Congressi e Comitati Cattolici d’Italia”) in the sense laid down by the encyclical. But unfortunate complications soon arose through the action of a few, who were not unjustly likened to the Roman revolutionaries of 1848 who besought Pius IX to give them a constitution, nothing but a constitution, and, when they got it, wanted to pass off anything and everything under the name of the Constitution. There were formed soon (in France, Italy, and Belgium) groups of “Christian Democrats” who made it their business to war against conservative Catholics and to consort with Socialists. On their leaflets and calendars the Italian demo-Christians printed the dilemma: “either Bourbonist or Christian-Democrats,” as though to be a Bourbon in politics hindered one from belonging to the party of popular Catholic action, i. e. to Christian Democracy. While insisting that it is still at the chronicle stage, we may state in conclusion that the term Christian Democracy seems to have been seriously compromised by the action of those who distorted its meaning from that laid down in the Encyclical “Graves de communi”; it therefore inclines to lose the meaning of “popular Catholic action,” and tends more and more to denote a school and a political party. (See BELGIUM; FRANCE; GERMANY; ITALY; SPAIN.)

Acta Leonis XIII (Rome. 1903); Acta Pii X (Rome, 1904); Rivista internazionale di studi sociali (Rome, 1893).

U. BENIGNI

Demon

(Greek daimon and daimonion, Lat. daemonium).

In Scripture and in Catholic theology this word has come to mean much the same as and denotes one of the evil spirits or fallen angels. And in fact in some places in the New Testament where the Vulgate, in agreement with the Greek, has daemonium, our vernacular versions read devil. The precise distinction between the two terms in ecclesiastical usage may be seen in the phrase used in the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council: “Diabolus enim et alii daemones” (The devil and the other demons), i.e. all are demons, and the chief of the demons is called the devil. This distinction is observed in the Vulgate New Testament, where diabolus represents the Greek diabolos and in almost every instance refers to Satan himself, while his subordinate angels are described, in accordance with the Greek, as daemones or daemonia This must not be taken, however, to indicate a difference of nature; for Satan is clearly included among the daemones in James 2:19 and in Luke 11:15–18. But though the word demon is now practically restricted to this sinister sense, it was otherwise with the earlier usage of the Greek writers. The word, which is apparently derived from daio “to divide” or “apportion,” originally meant a divine being; it was occasionally applied to the higher gods and goddesses, but was more generally used to denote spiritual beings of a lower order coming between gods and men. For the most part these were beneficent beings, and their office was somewhat analogous to that of the angels in Christian theology. Thus the adjective eydaimon “happy,” properly meant one who was guided and guarded by a good demon. Some of these Greek demons, however, were evil and malignant. Hence we have the counterpart to eudamonia “happiness,” in kakodaimonia which denoted misfortune, or in its more original meaning, being under the possession of an evil demon. In the Greek of the New Testament and in the language of the early Fathers, the word was already restricted to the sinister sense, which was natural enough, now that even the higher gods of the Greeks had come to be regarded as devils.

We have a curious instance of the confusion caused by the ambiguity and variations in the meaning of the word, in the case of the celebrated “Daemon” of Socrates. This has been understood in a bad sense by some Christian writers who have made it a matter of reproach that the great Greek philosopher was accompanied and prompted by a demon. But, as Cardinal Manning clearly shows in his paper on the subject, the word here has a very different meaning. He points to the fact that both Plato and Xenophon use the form daimonion, which Cicero rightly renders as divinum aliguid, “something divine.” And after a close examination of the account of the matter given by Socrates himself in the reports transmitted by his disciples, he concludes that the promptings of the “Daemon” were the dictates of conscience, which is the voice of God.

It may be observed that a similar change and deterioration of meaning has taken place in the Iranian languages in the case of the word daeva. Etymologically this is identical with the Sanskrit deva, by which it is rendered in Neriosengh’s version of the Avesta. But whereas the devas of Indian theology are good and beneficent gods, the daevas of the Avesta are hateful spirits of evil. (See also DEMONOLOGY.)

W.H. KENT

Demoniacs

(See also DEMONOLOGY, EXORCISM, EXORCIST, POSSESSION.)

(Gr. daimonikos, daimonizomenos, possessed by a demon).

The idea of demonic possession by which a man becomes demonized, that is possessed or controlled by a demon, was present in many ancient ethnic religions, and in fact it is found in one form or another wherever there is a belief in the existence of demons, and that is practically everywhere (cf. DEMONOLOGY). Here, however, we are chiefly concerned with the demonic possession in the New Testament, for this is in many ways the most worthy of special attention, and serves as a standard by which we may judge of cases occurring elsewhere. Further questions in regard to these other cases and the general practice of the Church in dealing with those who are possessed by evil spirits will be treated in other articles (EXORCISM, OBSESSION).

Among the many miracles recorded in the synoptic Gospels, special prominence is given to the casting out of devils or demons (daimon, daimonion). Thus, in St. Mark, the first of all the wonders is the casting out of the devil from a demoniac, the man “with an unclean spirit” (en pneumati akatharto) in the synagogue at Capharnaum. And St. Peter thus describes the mission and the miracles of Christ: “Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost, and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the devil” (tous katadynasteuomenous upo tou diabolou—Acts 10:38).

The reason for the stress thus laid on this casting out of the devils is not far to seek. For the miracles of Christ, as St. Augustine says, are both deeds and words. They are works done in testimony of His power and His Divine mission—and they are words because they have a deep significance. In both these aspects the casting out of devils seems to have a special preeminence. Few, if any, of the wonders can be said to give such a striking proof of a power above the order of nature. And for this reason we find that the disciples seem to have been more impressed by this than by the other powers given to them: “Even the devils are subject to us.” And as, when He calmed the storm at sea, they cried: “Who do you think this is this, who commands both the winds and the sea, and they obey Him?” (Luke, viii, 25). So those who saw the devil cast out at Capharnaum asked: “What thing is this? What is this new doctrine? For with power He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him” (Mark, i, 27). In the same way it may be said that these wonders speak in a special manner and show forth the meaning of His mission, for He had come to break the power of Satan and deliver men from their state of servitude. It is thus that Christ Himself, on the eve of His Passion, speaks of the great victory which He was about to accomplish by His Cross on Calvary: “Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out” (John, xii, 31). That casting-out is symbolized in the deliverance of every demoniac. They might also be in the slavery of sin and in need of forgiveness. They might possibly have some bodily infirmity and need healing; still, it was not for this that they were said to be demoniacs, but because an evil spirit had literally entered into, and taken possession of, them to control and direct, or perhaps hinder their physical powers, e.g. to speak through their vocal organs, or to tie their tongues. And though this possession might be associated with sin, this was not necessarily the case; for sometimes this affliction might befall an innocent person, as in the case of the boy who had been possessed from his infancy (Mark 9:20). So neither is it necessary to suppose that there was any bodily infirmity in the victim distinct from the demonic possession itself, even in the case of those who are described as being blind or dumb as well as being possessed by a devil. For it may be—and in some places it may seem that this is intimated by the text—that the dumbness or other infirmity is not due to any defect in the organs, but to the fact that their normal activity is hindered by the possessing devil. Hence, when once his influence and restraint is taken away, the infirmity immediately disappears.

It is in this way that these cases of demonic possession have been constantly understood by Catholic commentators, that is to say, the words of Scripture have been taken literally, and understood to mean that an evil spirit, one of the fallen angels, has entered into the demoniac, that this spirit may speak through the voice of the demonized person, but that it is not the man, but the spirit, who is speaking, and that by the command of Christ or that of one of His servants the evil spirit may be cast out, and the possessed person set free. And though our commentators and theologians have treated the subject of obsession with their wonted fullness of detail and critical discrimination, for a long time there was little occasion for any determined defense of this literal interpretation and acceptance of the Scriptural doctrine on this matter. For even in the days of the first Reformers, when so many traditional doctrines were rudely called in question, there was no disposition to dispute the reality of demonic possession. The primitive Protestants might not accept the claims of the Church to the power of exorcizing evil spirits, as they plainly denied the higher sacramental powers of the Christian priesthood but they had no mind to doubt or deny the existence of evil spirits and the reality of Satanic influence and activity. Nor is this surprising, since the beginning of Protestantism was marked by an increase in practices of superstition, and for a long while, both in Catholic and in Protestant countries, men were prone to be too credulous in these matters, and to exaggerate the extent of obsession, witchcraft, and intercourse with evil spirits.

Needless to say, the whole traditional doctrine on this matter was rejected by the Sceptical philosophers of the eighteenth century. And with the spread of new ideas in the age of revolution and political economy and practical science, it seemed, for a time at any rate, in the early nineteenth century, that the old superstitious beliefs in spirits and witchcraft were dying a natural death. Most educated men were incredulous of any diabolical agency in this world, even if they retained some shadowy belief in the existence. of the evil spirits in another sphere. But with a happy inconsistency, many who rejected as superstitious all other alleged cases of obsession still professed their belief in the Gospel narrative, with its numerous demoniacs and its miraculous exorcisms. Of course it was possible, at least in the abstract, and without i making a too curious examination of the facts, to hold a theory that possession had really happened of old and had since ceased altogether. For all must admit that in any case it does not occur with the same frequency in all ages or in every land alike. But it is one thing to dispute the fact and another to deny the possibility of demonic possession in medieval or modern times. It may be a great mistake, but there is no contradiction involved in saying that obsession did happen of old but does not happen now; it is surely another matter if we say that these things cannot happen now, that they are intrinsically impossible. And though they may not be fully conscious of their own motives it is to be feared that this is really the position adopted by those who reject all cases of demonic possession except those that are recorded in the New Testament. It is true that some are provided with a theological, or Biblical, reason for this limitation. For they tell us that possession was indeed possible before the Death of Christ, but that since that great victory the power of Satan has been broken, or, in the language of Scripture, he has been bound, so that he can no longer gain possession of the bodies of men. It may be freely allowed that there is no contradiction or inconsistency involved in admitting the Gospel cases of obsession and denying the others, if this be the real reason for making the distinction. But it is difficult to believe that this is really the ground on which all later instances are rejected as unreal. For after all, this doctrine about the binding of Satan and the consequent ceasing of obsession is at best a theological conjecture (see DEVIL) and a plausible interpretation of a mysterious text, and as such it can hardly afford a basis for a certain conclusion. And it may be safely said that those who deny all modern or medieval cases of obsession are generally very certain of their conclusion. There is a further difficulty in the fact that cases of obsession are recorded in the New Testament as having taken place after the death of Christ.

It was no doubt due to the force of these objections or to a desire to find some means of meeting or evading them, that the Rationalistic school of German Biblical criticism set about the task of providing a new interpretation of the Gospel cases of demonic possession. Older free-thinking philosophers and assailants of revealed religion had bluntly denied the fact of obsession, and asserted that the demoniacs were merely madmen, that they were suffering from epilepsy, or mania, or some other form of mental alienation, and that Jewish superstition had ascribed the disease to the presence of an evil spirit. The earlier school of German Rationalist theologians endeavoured to modify this view of the matter and so interpret the Sacred Text as to reconcile the naturalistic explanation with due reverence for the Gospel and for the wisdom of the Divine Redeemer. Thus they accepted the view that the demoniacs were merely lunatics, and that it was only popular superstition that imagined that they were possessed by devils. So far these theologians agreed with the infidel writers. But, instead of making the confusion between lunacy and possession a ground of attack on the Gospel, they went on to explain that Christ indeed knew the truth and only accommodated Himself to the ideas of His ignorant hearers, who were incapable of grasping the true facts, and that this was the wisest way to lead them on to the truth. One of these interpreters seeks to explain the answers to the evil spirit at Capharnaum by the method adopted by doctors in dealing with those who are suffering under a delusion. The best means of curing them is often found in an affected adoption of the patient’s delusion, e.g., if he imagines that he has to undergo some operation, the doctor will pretend to perform it. In the same way it is suggested that the superstitious belief in demonic possession prevailed among the Jews in the time of Christ (and whether true or false it certainly did prevail among them), and in these circumstances a lunatic might very well be under the delusion that he was a subject of this imaginary obsession—and thus a wise physician might cure the delusion by means of an affected exorcism of the non-existent evil spirit.

The fallacy of this crude Rationalism was searchingly criticized and exposed by Strauss in his critical Life of Christ in the nineteenth century (Das Leben Jesu, ix). He points out that such interpretations not only have no basis in the text, but that there is much there that plainly contradicts them. The critic, he observes, is really ascribing the ideas of his own time to those who lived in the first century. And indeed a closer scrutiny of the evidence may well be enough to show that this Rationalistic exegesis is inconsistent in itself and in conflict with the testimony of the very documents on which it professes to be founded. It may be admitted that there is an element of truth in the general notion that there may be some condescension or accommodation where an enlightened teacher is addressing a rude and uncultured audience, and one who cannot in some measure adapt himself to their crude conceptions and habits of thought and expression might as well address them in a foreign tongue. It may be added that in the case of a Divine teacher there must needs be some condescension or accommodation to the lowly ways of men. And for this reason St. Gregory Nazianzen likens the inspired words of Holy Scripture to the simple language in which a mother speaks to her lisping little ones. It need not surprise us, therefore, did we find that Christ accommodated His words to the limitations of those who heard Him. But this principle will not serve to explain His manner of speaking and acting in regard to this matter of demonic possession, for it simply will not fit the facts. It is not a question of some isolated and possibly ambiguous action or utterance, but of many and various acts and utterances all consistent with each other, and with the belief or knowledge that there is real demonic possession, and utterly incompatible with the interpretation that has been put upon them by these critics. It may be a wise course to humour a madman who imagines himself to be possessed, by pretending to accept his belief and bidding the devil depart from him, and in the case of some modern missionary, of whom we knew no more than the fact that he had used some words in a case of supposed possession there might be room to doubt whether he himself believed in the possession, or was merely seeking to pacify a lunatic by making use of his delusion. But it would surely be otherwise if we found the same missionary speaking in this way about demons and demonic possession to others who were not lunatics suffering from this painful monomania: if we found him teaching how evil spirits enter into a man and how, when they are cast out, they wander in desolate places. Yet this is what we actually find in the Gospels, where Christ not only addresses the devils and bids them depart or be silent, and thus treats them as personalities distinct from the man who is the subject of possession, but speaks of them in the same way to His disciples, to whom he teaches a doctrine about demonic possession. So again, it may sometimes be a wise course for a religious teacher to deal gently with the beliefs of the ignoranth; may feel that it is impossible to do all at once, and that some errors can only be destroyed by gentle means and gradual enlightenment. It may be that the best and most enlightened teacher, who found him self in the midst of a simple, credulous, and superstitious population, would shrink from adopting harsh and drastic measures to get rid of these cherished superstitions and popular errors. And though on this point we must speak with some reserve, it is possible that in such a case the teacher, in endeavouring to make himself understood by his hearers, will use their own language and convey his own message of truth through the medium of words and phrases which, taken literally, may seem to give some countenance to these popular errors. But whether this be permissible or no, it may be safely asserted that a wise and good teacher will not carry his accommodation to the point of confirming his hearers in their delusions. And these critics themselves can hardly question the fact that the whole treatment of demonic possession in the Gospels has had this effect and has confirmed and perpetuated the belief in real demonic possession.

And at least in these latter days there must be many who would have abandoned all belief in the reality or even the bare possibility of any such possession, but that they felt constrained to believe it on the authority of Christ and the testimony of the Gospels. Certainly, if it were possible to accept this interpretation of the early Rationalists, and regard the attitude of Christ as an accommodation to popular beliefs and superstitions, it must be confessed that the alleged economy has had very unfortunate consequences. Later Rationalists, who see the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of reconciling this view with the evidence of the Gospels, have turned to other ways of escape, and, like the other supernatural and miraculous elements in the Gospel narrative, the instances of demonic possession and the casting out of devils have been explained as parts of a mythical legend that has grown up around the figure of Christ or again they have furnished grounds for disputing tie fullness of His knowledge, or the authenticity and veracity of the narrative. This is not the place to deal with these problems of apologetics; but it may be well to say a word on the true ground for the rejection of belief in real demonic possession. The tendency has been to deny the possibility of miracles or demonic possession. And it is sometimes curious that critics who are so bold in setting limits to the knowledge of Christ are often strangely oblivious of their own natural knowledge. On metaphysical principles we can have no valid ground for deciding that such a thing as demonic obsession is impossible, and it is a more reasonable, as well as a more modest, course to keep to means of knowledge within our reach and examine the evidence adducible for the actual occurrence of obsession. If any one has examined this evidence and found it insufficient, his denial of demonic agency, whether we accept it or not, is at any rate entitled to respect. But few of those who have been most decided in their rejection of obsession or other preternatural or miraculous manifestations have taken any pains to examine the adducible evidence. On the contrary, they have generally dismissed it with contempt, as unworthy of serious consideration. And Baader is surely well warranted when he complains of what he calls “Rationalistic obscurantism and dogmatism” in this matter (Werke, IX, 109). Of late years the magnetism to which this acute thinker was calling the attention of philosophers in the work we have cited, and more recently the phenomena of hypnotism and spiritism, have helped to bring the critics to a more rational attitude. And with the weakening of this credulous prejudice many of the difficulties raised against the demonic possession in the New Testament will naturally disappear.

The instances of obsession mentioned in the New Testament may be roughly divided into two classes. In the first group we are given some facts which, even apart from the use of demonized or some equivalent term might suffice to show that it is a case of demonic possession properly so called. Such are the cases of the “man with an unclean spirit” in the synagogue at Capharnaum (Mark, i) and the Gerasene demoniac (Luke, xi). In both of these instances we have evidence of the presence of an evil spirit who betrays knowledge beyond the ken of the demonized person or (in the latter case) manifests his power elsewhere after he has been cast out. In the second group may be placed those cases in which we are not given such distinct and unmistakable signs of true demonic possession, e.g. the woman who had a spirit of infirmity (Luke, xiii, 11). Here, apart from the words, spirit and whom Satan hath bound, there is apparently nothing to distinguish the case from an ordinary healing of infirmity. A careful consideration of the medical aspect of demonic possession has often been associated with a denial of the demonic agency. But this is by no means necessary, and, rightly understood, the medical evidence may even help to establish the truth of the record. This was done by Dr. Wm. Menzies Alexander in his “Demonic Possession in the New Testament: Its Relations, Historical, Medical and Theological” (Edinburgh, 1902). In his view, the Gospel records of the chief eases of demonic possession exhibit all the symptoms of such diseases as epilepsy, acute mania, and so on with such accuracy of detail that the narrative can only owe its origin to a faithful report of the actual facts. At the same time Dr. Alexander is equally impressed by the cogency of the evidence for real demonic possession at least in these cases. Even those readers who are unable to accept his conclusions—and in regard to later instances of obsession we are unable to follow him—will find the book helpful and suggestive and it may be commended to the attention of Catholic theologians.

W.H. KENT

Demonology

As the name sufficiently indicates, demonology is the science or doctrine concerning demons. Both in its form and in its meaning it has an obvious analogy with theology, which is the science or doctrine about God. And with reference to the many false and dangerous forms of this demonic science we may fitly adapt the well-known words of Albertus Magnus on the subject of theology and say of demonology, A daemonibus docetur, de daemonibus docet, et ad daemones ducit (“It is taught by the demons, it teaches about the demons, and it leads to the demons”). For very much of the literature that comes under this head of demonology is tainted with errors that may well owe their origin to the father of falsehood, and much of it again, especially those portions which have a practical purpose (what may be called the ascetical and mystical demonology) is designed to lead men to give themselves to the service of Satan.

There is, of course, a true doctrine about demons or evil spirits, namely, that portion of Catholic theology which treats of the creation and fall of the rebel angels, and of the various ways in which these fallen spirits are permitted to tempt and afflict the children of men. But for the most part these questions will be dealt with elsewhere in this work. Here, on the contrary, our chief concern is with the various ethnic, Jewish, and heretical systems of demonology. These systems are so many that it will be out of the question to deal with them all or to set forth their doctrines with completeness. And indeed a full treatment of these strange doctrines of demons might well seem somewhat out of place in these pages. It will be enough to give some indication of the main features of a few of the more important systems in various lands and in distant ages. This may enable the reader to appreciate the important part played by these ideas in the course of human history and their influence on the religion and morals and social life of the people. At the same time some attempt may be made to distinguish the scattered elements of truth which may still be found in this vast fabric of falsehood—truths of natural religion, recorded experience of actual facts, even perhaps remnants of revealed teaching that come from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures or from primitive tradition. This point has some importance at the present day, when the real or apparent agreement between heathen legend and Christian theology is so often made a ground of objection against the truth of revealed religion.

Perhaps the first fact that strikes one who approaches the study of this subject is the astonishing universality and antiquity of demonology, of some belief in the existence of demons or evil spirits, and of a consequent recourse to incantations or other magical practices. There are some things which flourished in the past and have long since disappeared from the face of the earth; and there are others whose recorded origin may be traced in comparatively modern times, and it is no surprise to find that they are still flourishing. There are beliefs and practices, again, which seem to be confined to certain lands and races of men, or to some particular stage of social culture. But there is something which belongs at once to the old world and the new, and is found flourishing among the most widely different races, and seems to be equally congenial to the wild habits of savages and the refinements of classical or modern culture. Its antiquity may be seen not only from the evidence of ancient monuments, but from the fact that a yet more remote past is still present with us in the races which remain, as one may say, in the primitive and prehistoric condition. And even amid these rude races, apparently innocent of all that savours of science and culture, we may find a belief in evil spirits, and some attempts to propitiate them and avert their wrath, or maybe to secure their favour and assistance. This belief in spirits, both good and evil, is commonly associated with one or other of two widespread and primitive forms of religious worship—and accordingly some modern folklorists and mythologists are led to ascribe its origin either to the personification of the forces of nature—in which many have found a “key to all the mythologies”—or else to Animism, or a belief in the powerful activity of the souls of the dead, who were therefore invoked and worshipped. On this last theory all spirits were at first conceived of as being the souls of dead men, and from this aboriginal Animism there were gradually developed the various elaborate systems of mythology, demonology, and angelology. But here it is well to distinguish between the facts themselves and the theory devised for their interpretation. It is a fact that these rude forms of worship are found among primitive peoples. But the manner in which they began and the motives of the first prehistoric worshippers are and must remain matters of conjecture. In the same way, with regard to the later phases, it is a fact that these primitive beliefs and practices have some features in common with later and more elaborate ethnic systems—e.g. the Iranian demonology of the Avesta—and these again have many points which find some counterpart in the pages of Scripture and Catholic theology; but it by no means follows from these facts that these facile theories are right as to the nature of the connection between these various ethnic and Christian systems. And a further consideration of the subject may serve to show that it may be explained in another and more satisfactory manner.

ASSYRIAN AND AKKADIAN DEMONOLOGY

Some idea of the antiquity of demonology and magical practices might be gathered from notices in the Bible or in classic literature, to say nothing of the argument that might be drawn from the universality of these beliefs and practices. But still more striking evidence has been brought to light by the decipherment of the cuneiform hieroglyphics which has opened a way to the study of the rich literature of Babylon and Assyria. In consequence of their bearing on the problems of Biblical history, attention has been attracted to the evidence of the monuments in regard to such matters as the cosmology, the tradition of the Deluge, or the relations of Assyria and Babylon with the people of Israel. And possibly less interest has been taken in the religious beliefs and practices of the Assyrians themselves. In this question of demonology, however, some of the Assyrian monuments may be said to have a special importance. From certain cuneiform texts which are more especially described as “religious,” it appears that besides the public and official cult of the “twelve great gods” and their subordinate divinities, the Assyrians had a more sacred and secret religion, a religion of mystery and magic and sorcery. These “religious” texts, moreover, together with a mass of talismanic inscriptions on cylinders and amulets, prove the presence of an exceedingly rich demonology. Below the greater and lesser gods there was a vast host of spirits, some of them good and beneficent and some of them evil and hurtful. And these spirits were described and classified with an exactness which leads some to liken the arrangement to that of the choirs and orders of our own angelic hierarchy. The antiquity and importance of this secret religion, with its magic and incantations of the good spirits or evil demons, may be gathered from the fact that by order of King Assurbanipal his scribes made several copies of a great magical work according to an exemplar which had been preserved from a remote antiquity in the priestly school of Erech in Chaldea. This work consisted of three books, the first of which is entirely consecrated to incantations, conjurations, and imprecations against the evil spirits. These cuneiform books, it must be remembered, are really written on clay tablets. And each of the tablets of these first books which has come down to us ends with the title, “Tablet No.—of the Evil Spirits.” The ideogram which is here rendered as kullulu—“accursed” or “evil”—might also be read as limuttu—“baneful.” Besides being known by the generic name of udukku—“spirit”—a demon is called more distinctly ecimmu, or maskimmu. One special class of these spirits was the sedu, or divine bull, which is represented in the well-known figure of a man-headed bull so common on the Assyrian monuments. This name, it may be remarked, is probably the source of the Hebrew word for demon. The Assyrian sedu, it is true, was more commonly a beneficent or tutelary spirit. But this is hardly an obstacle to the derivation, for the good spirits of one nation were often regarded as evil by men of rival races.

IRANIAN DEMONOLOGY

In many ways one of the most remarkable demonologies is that presented in the Avesta, the sacred book of the Mazdean religion of Zoroaster. In this ancient religion, which unlike that of the Assyrians, still exists in the Parsee community, the war between light and darkness, good and evil comes into greater prominence. Over against the good God, Ahura Mazda, with his hierarchy of holy spirits, there is arrayed the dark kingdom of demons, or daevas, under Anro Mainyus (Ahriman), the cruel Evil Spirit, the Demon of Demons (Daevanam Daeva), who is ever warring against Ahura Mazda and his faithful servants such as Zoroaster. It may be remarked that the name of Daeva is an instance of that change from a good to a bad sense which is seen in the case of the Greek word daimon. For the original meaning of the word is “shining one,” and it comes from a primitive Aryan root div, which is likewise the source of the Greek Zeus and the Latin deus. But while these words, like the Sanskrit deva, retain the good meaning, daeva has come to mean “an evil spirit.” There is at least a coincidence, if no deeper significance, in the fact that, while the word in its original sense was synonymous with , it has now come to mean much the same as . There is also a curious coincidence in the similarity in sound between daeva, the modern Persian dev, and the word devil. Looking at the likeness both in sound and in significance, one would be tempted to say that they must have a common origin, but for the fact that we know with certainty that the word devil comes from diabolus (diabolos—diaballein) and can have no connection with the Persian or Sanskrit root.

Although there are marked differences between the demons of the Avesta and the devil in Scripture and Christian theology (for Christian doctrine is free from the dualism of the Mazdean system), the essential struggle between good and evil is still the same in both cases. And the pictures of the holiness and fidelity of Zoroaster when he is assailed by the temptations and persecutions of Anro Mainyus and his demons may well recall the trials of saints under the assaults of Satan or suggest some faint analogy with the great scene of the temptation of Christ in the wilderness. Fortunately for English readers, a portion of the Vendidad (Fargard xix), which contains the temptation of Zoroaster, has been admirably rendered in a doctrinal paraphrase in Dr. Casartelli’s “Leaves from my Eastern Garden.” The important part played by the demons in the Mazdean system may be seen from the title of the Vendidad, which is the largest and most complete part of the Avesta, so much so that when the sacred book is written or printed without the commentaries it is generally known as Vendidad Sade which means something that is “given against the demons”—vidaevodata, i.e. contra daimones datus or antidaemoniacus.

JEWISH DEMONOLOGY

When we turn from the Avesta to the Sacred Books of the Jews, that is to say to the canonical Scripture, we are struck by the absence of an elaborate demonology such as that of the Persians and Assyrians. There is much, indeed, about the angels of the Lord, the hosts of heaven, the seraphim and cherubim, and other spirits who stand before the throne or minister to men. But the mention of the evil spirits is comparatively slight. Not that their existence is ignored, for we have the temptation by the serpent, in which Jews as well as Christians recognize the work of the Evil Spirit. In Job, again, Satan appears as the tempter and the accuser of the just man; in Kings it is he who incites David to murder the prophet; in Zacharias he is seen in his office of accuser. An evil spirit comes upon the false prophets. Saul is afflicted or apparently possessed, by an evil spirit. The activity of the demon in magic arts is indicated in the works wrought by the magicians of Pharaoh, and in the Levitical laws against wizards or witches. . The scapegoat is sent into the wilderness to Azazael, who is supposed by some to be a demon (see ATONEMENT, DAY OF), and to this may be added a remarkable passage in Isaias which seems to countenance the common belief that demons dwell in waste places: “And demons and monsters shall meet, and the hairy ones shall cry out one to another, there hath the lamia lain down, and found rest for herself” (Isaias, xxxiv, 14). It is true that the Hebrew word here rendered by “demons” may merely mean wild animals. But on the other hand, the Hebrew word which is rendered very literally as “hairy ones” is translated “demons” by Targum and Peshitta, and is supposed to mean a goat shaped deity analogous to the Greek Pan. And “lamia” represents the original Lilith, a spirit of the night who in Hebrew legend is the demon wife of Adam.

A further development of the demonology of the Old Testament is seen in the Book of Tobias, which though not included in the Jewish Canon was written in Hebrew or Chaldean, and a version in the latter language has been recovered among some rabbinical writings. Here we have the demon Asmodeus who plays the part assigned to demons in many ethnic demonologies and folk-legends. He has been identified by some good authorities with the Aeshmo Daeva of the Avesta; but Whitehouse doubts this identification and prefers the alternative Hebrew etymology. In any case Asmodeus became a prominent figure in later Hebrew demonology, and some strange tales told about him in the Talmud are quite in the vein of “The Arabian Nights.” The rabbinical demonology of the Talmud and Midrashim is very far from the reticence and sobriety of the canonical writings in regard to this subject. Some modern critics ascribe this rich growth of demonology among the Jews to the effects of the Captivity, and regard it as the result of Babylonian or Persian influence. But though in its abundance and elaboration it may bear some formal resemblance to these external systems, there seems no reason to regard it as simply a case of appropriation from the doctrines of strangers. For when we come to compare them more closely, we may well feel that the Jewish demonology has a distinctive character of its own, and should rather be regarded as an outgrowth from beliefs and ideas which were present in the mind of the chosen people before they came into contact with Persians and Babylonians. It is certainly significant that, instead of borrowing from the abundant legends and doctrines ready to their hand in the alien systems, the rabbinical demonologists sought their starting point in some text of their own scriptures and drew forth all they wanted by means of their subtle and ingenious methods of exegesis. Thus the aforesaid text of Isaias furnished, under the name of Lilith, a mysterious female night spirit who apparently lived in desolate places, and forthwith they made her the demon wife of Adam and the mother of demons. But whence, it may be asked, had these exponents of the sacred text any warrant for saying that our first father contracted a mixed marriage with a being of another race and begot children other than human? They simply took the text of Genesis, v: “And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness.” This explicit statement they said, plainly implies that previous to that time he had begotten sons who were not to his own image and likeness; for this he must needs have found some help meet of another race than his own, to wit a demon wife, to become the mother of demons. This notice of a union between mankind and beings of a different order had long been a familiar feature in pagan mythology and demonology, and, as will presently appear, some early Christian commentators discovered some countenance for it in Genesis, vi, 2, which tells how the sons of God “took to themselves wives of the daughters of men.” One characteristic of Jewish demonology was the amazing multitude of the demons. According to all accounts every man has thousands of them at his side. The air is full of them, and, since they were the causes of various diseases, it was well that men should keep some guard on their mouths lest, swallowing a demon, they might be afflicted with some deadly disease. This may recall the common tendency to personify epidemic diseases and speak of “the cholera fiend,” “the influenza fiend,” etc. And it may be remarked that the old superstition of these Jewish demonologists presents a curiously close analogy to the theory of modern medical science. For we now know that the air is full of microbes and germs of disease, and that by inhaling any of these living organisms we receive the disease into our systems.

DEMONOLOGY OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS

Whatever may be said of this theory of the Rabbis, that the air is full of demons, and that men are in danger of receiving them into their systems it may certainly be said that in the days of the early Christians the air was dangerously full of demonologies, and that men were in peculiar peril of adopting erroneous doctrines on this matter. It must be remembered, on the one hand, that many of the Gospel miracles, and particularly the casting out of devils, must in any case have given the faithful a vivid sense of the existence and power of the evil spirits. At the same time, as we have seen, Scripture itself did not furnish any full and clear information in regard to the origin and the nature of these powerful enemies; on the other hand, it may be observed that the first Christian converts and the first Christian teachers were for the most part either Jews or Greeks, and many of them were living in the midst of those who professed some or other of the old Oriental religions. Thus, while they naturally wished to know something about these matters, they had but little definite knowledge of the truth, and on the other hand their ears were daily filled with false and misleading information. In these circumstances it is scarcely surprising to find that some of the earliest ecclesiastical writers, as St. Justin, Origen, and Tertullian, are not very happy in their treatment of this topic. There was, moreover, one fruitful source of error which is rather apt to be forgotten. Now that common consent of Catholic commentators has furnished a better interpretation of Genesis, vi, 2, and conciliar definitions and theological arguments have established the fact that the angels are purely spiritual beings, it may seem strange that some early Christian teachers should have supposed that the phrase, sons of God, could possibly mean the angels or that these pure spirits could have taken unto themselves wives of the daughters of men. But it must be borne in mind that the old commentators, who read the Septuagint or some derivative version, did not put this interpretation on the passage; the word itself was in the text before them, that is to say, the old Greek Bible expressly said that “the Angels of God took wives of the daughters of men.” This unfortunate reading was certainly enough to give a wrong direction to much of the demonology of early Christian writers and those who went astray in other matters also naturally adopted peculiar ideas on this subject. In some ways one of the most remarkable examples of this mistaken demonology is that to be found in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies (Hom. viii, ix). The writer gives a very full account of the mysterious episode of Genesis, vi, 2, which, in common with so many others, he takes to be the origin of the demons who were in his view, the offspring of the supposed union of the angels of God and the daughters of men. But on one point, at any rate, he improves the story and does something to lighten our initial difficulty. The first objection to the legend was, that the angels as pure spirits, were plainly incapable of feeling sensual passions; and it was possibly a keen sense of this difficulty that led some who had adopted the story to deny the spirituality of the angelic nature. But the moralist evades it in a more ingenious manner. According to his account, the angels were not overpowered with the passion of sensual love while they were as yet in their purely spiritual state; but when they looked down and witnessed the wickedness and ingratitude of men whose sins were defiling the fair creation of God, they asked of their Creator that they might be endowed with bodies like those of men, so that coming down to earth, they might set things right and lead a righteous life in the visible creation. Their wish was granted, they were clothed in bodies and came down to dwell on earth. But now they found that with their raiment of mortal flesh they had acquired also the weakness and passions which had wrought such havoc in men, and they too, like the sons of men, became enamoured of the beauty of women and, forgetting the noble purpose of their descent to earth, gave themselves up to the gratification of their lust, and so rushed headlong to their ruin. The offspring of their union with the daughters of men were the giants—the mighty men of superhuman build and superhuman powers, as became the sons of incarnate angels, yet at the same time mortal, like their mortal mothers. And when these giants perished in the Flood their disembodied souls wandered through the world as the race of demons.

MEDIEVAL AND MODERN DEMONOLOGY

Throughout the Christian Middle Ages the external systems of demonology among the uncultured races or in the ancient civilizations of the East continued their course, and may still be found flourishing in the home of their origin or in other lands. Within the Catholic fold there was less scope for the worse form of the old errors. The early heresies had been cast out, and theological speculation had been directed in the true way by the decision of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (545), which condemned certain Origenist errors on the subject of demons. But while the theologians of the great scholastic period were setting forth and elucidating the Catholic doctrine concerning angels and devils there was withal a darker side in the popular superstitions, and in the men who at all times continued to practise the black arts of magic, and witchcraft, and dealing with the devil. In the troubled period of the Renaissance and the Reformation there appears to have been a fresh outbreak of old superstitions and evil practices, and for a time both Catholic and Protestant countries were disturbed by the strange beliefs and the strange doings of real or supposed professors of the black arts and by the credulous and cruel persecutors who sought to suppress them. In the new age of the Revolution and the spread of practical ideas and exact methods of science it was at first thought by many that these medieval superstitions would speedily pass away. When men, materialized by the growth of wealth and the comforts of civilization, and enlightened by science and new philosophies, could scarce find faith to believe in the pure truths of revealed religion, there could be little room for any belief in the doctrines of demons. The whole thing was now rudely rejected as a dream and a delusion. Learned men marvelled at the credulity of their fathers, with their faith in ghosts, and demons, and black magic, but felt it impossible to take any serious interest in the subject in their age of enlightenment. Yet in fact there was still stranger delusion in the naive faith of the early Rationalists, who fondly fancied that they had found the key to all knowledge and that there were no things in heaven or earth beyond the reach of their science and philosophy. And much of the history of the last hundred years forms a curious comment on these proud pretentions. For far from disappearing from the face of the earth, much of the old occultism has been revived with a new vigour, and has taken new form in modern Spiritism At the same time, philosophers, historians, and men of science have been led to make a serious study of the story of demonology and occultism in past ages or in other lands, in order to understand its true significance.

CONCLUSION

With all their variations and contradictions, the multitudinous systems of demonology yet have much in common. In some cases this may be accounted for by the fact that one has freely borrowed from another. Thus, the demonology of early Christian writers would naturally owe much both to the systems of Jewish and Greek demonology, and these in their turn can hardly have been free from other foreign influences. And since not only heretical opinions, but orthodox teaching on this subject has at any rate some elements in common with the ethnic systems—from the Animism of the simple savage to the elaborate demonology of the Chaldeans and Iranians—the mythologist or folklorist bids us come to the conclusion that all are from the same source, and that the Biblical and Catholic doctrine on evil spirits must be no more than a development from Animism and a more refined form of ethnic demonology. But it may be well to observe that at best this solution is but a plausible hypothesis and that the facts of the case may be explained just as well by another hypothesis which some philosophic writers do not seem to have considered, to wit: the hypothesis that the teaching of revealed religion on this topic is true after all. Can it be said that if this were so there would be no trace of belief in demons among races outside the Christian fold or in religious systems older than the Bible? If, as our theology teaches, the fallen angels really exist and are permitted to try and tempt the sons of men, should we not expect to find some belief in their existence and some traces of their evil influence in every land and in every age of human history? Should we not expect to find that here as elsewhere the elements of truth would be overlaid with error, and that they should take different shapes in each nation and each succeeding age, according to the measure of knowledge, and culture, and new ideas current in the minds of men? This hypothesis, to say no more, will fit well all the facts—for instance, the universality of the belief in evil spirits and any evidence adducible for actual influence on men, whether in the records of demonic possession and magic in the past or in the phenomena of modern Spiritism. And we can scarcely say the same of the other hypothesis.

W. H. KENT.

Thomas Dempster

Savant, professor, author; b., as he himself states at Cliftbog, Scotland, 23 August, 1579; d. at Bologna Italy, 6 September 1625: son of Thomas, Baron of Muresk, Auchterless, and Killesmont, Aberdeenshire, and Jane Leslie, sister to the Baron of Balquhain; educated t the schools of Turriff and Aberdeen. His troubulous life began early. On leaving school, aged ten he went to Cambridge, leaving it shortly for Paris. Illness occasioned his removal to Louvain, whence, having attracted the notice of a representative of the Holy See, he was taken to Rome, and there provided with a pension for his education in a papal seminary. Through failing health he returned northwards to Tournai, but was immediately transferred to Douai, means being forthcoming through royal bounty. On completion of a three years’ course he returned to Tournai as professor of humanities. Tournai, however, he forsook for Paris, where, after graduating in canon law, he occupied at the age of seventeen, a professorial chair in the College de Navarre. He could not remain here either, and, after an interval in Poitou, he became professor of humanities again, this time at Toulouse. Before long, zeal in local dissentions sent him adrift once more. Declining a chair of philosophy at Montpellier, he successfully competed for one of oratory at Nimes. From this he was suspended, a lawsuit followed in vindication of his integrity. The post of tutor to the son of Marechal de Saint-Luc he lost through unfriendly relations with the family of his patron. Once more adrift, he visited Scotland vainly begged assistance from Kith and kin, and, through Protestant intrigue, failed to recover his family estates, which had been parted with by his father. Seven years of professorship followed in Paris, at the end of which he was invited to reside in London in the capacity of historian to James I. He married in England, but only to bring on himself domestic misfortune. Anglican influence having procured royal dismissal, he left for Italy, and occupied under grand ducal auspices the chair of Civil law in Florence. Further trouble led to his last change. In disgrace with the grand duke, he passed through Bologna, and there was provided with a chair in humanities. Even here he had his troubles, and had to clear himself of a suspicion of unorthodoxy before the Inquisition. He lies buried in the church of St. Dominic at Bologna,

Dempster’s worth as an autobiographer and historian is much discounted by manifest errors and by immoderate self-praise and zeal for the exaltation of his country. An unrestrained temper and resentful disposition, added to a harsh exterior, were, in spite of learning and good qualities, the cause of his unpopularity and many misfortunes. The seventeenth century Irish ecclesiastical historians generally resented Dempster’s dishonest attempts to claim for Scotland many saints and worthies of Irish birth. John Colgan, John Lynch and Stephen White, all eminent scholars entered against him (see W.T. Doherty, Inis-Owen and Triconnell, Dublin 1895, pp108–16).

The chief of his many writings are: “Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Scotorum” published posthumously at Bologna, 1627; republished by Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh, 1829; “Antiquitatum Romanarum Corpus Absolutissimum” “(Paris, 1613,1743); “De Erutruria Regali,” brought out during the Florentine professorship (latest edition, 1723–4); “Keraunos kai Hobellos” in Glossam librorum IV. Institutionum Justiniani” (Bologna, 1622), edition of Claudian; annotated edition of Benedetto Accolti’s “De Bello a Christianis contra Barbaros Gesto” (Florence, 1623; Groningen, 1731); annotated edition of Aldrovandi’s “Quadrupedum omnium bisulcorum Historia” (Florence, 1623,1647). His minor works include: tragedies, poems, especially “Musica Recidiva” thrice reprinted during his life.

DEMPSTER, Autobiography., n. 1210 in Hist Eccl Scotia(Edinburgh 1829); IRVING, Preface to DEMPSTER,Hist Eccl Scotae; CHAMBERS,Dictionary of Eminent Scotsmen (Edinburgh, 1855); BRADLEY in Dict. of Nat Biog.(London, 1888),s.v.; BAYLE, Dictionary.

JEROME POLLARD-URQUHART

Pierre Denaut

Tenth Bishop of Quebec, b. at Montreal, 20 July, 1743; d. at Longueuil in 1806. After studying at Montreal and Quebec, he was ordained priest in 1767, and appointed pastor of Soulanges, when only twenty-four years old. During the American invasion (1775) he maintained his flock faithful to their sovereign. Transferred to Longueuil (1787), appointed vicar-general (1791), he succeeded Bishop Bailly as coadjutor to Bishop Hubert, and was consecrated 29 June, 1795. He remained at Longueuil even after his appointment to the See of Quebec (1797), always taking a predominant part in the government of the diocese, with the efficacious cooperation of Bishop Plessis, appointed coadjutor in 1801. He visited his entire diocese, travelling through Upper Canada on his way to Detroit, in 1801 and 1802. In 1803, via Burlington and Boston, he visited the Maritime Provinces, where the Acadians and Indians beheld a bishop for the first time. An enlightened patron of education, he founded Nicolet College (1803), and aided in enlarging Montreal College in 1804. He resisted the encroachments of a British governor claiming the right of presentation to parishes, and opposed the “Royal Institution” investing Protestants with the control of public instruction. Courteous towards temporal authorities and firm in the defence of episcopal rights, he prepared the way for the civil recognition of the Bishop of Quebec and the freedom of the Church.

TETU, Les évêques de Québec (Quebec, 1889); Archives of the archbishop’s palace, Quebec.

LIONEL LINDSAY

Dénés

(men or people, in most of their dialects)

An aboriginal race of North America, also called Athapaskans and known earlier among earlier ethnologists as Tinne or Tinneh. They are the northernmost of American Indians, and, as regards territorial extension, may perhaps be considered as the most important native family on the American Continent. They are divided into three groups; the Southern, composed of the Apaches and the Navahoes, to whom in The Catholic Encyclopedia, special articles are devoted to their habitat; the Pacific Dénés composed mainly of the remnants of the tribes in Washington, Oregon and Northern California; and the Northern Dénés, by far the most important division, which covers the territory extending from the Churchill River and the Northern branch of Saskatchewan to the confines of the Eskimo fishing grounds. In British Columbia they range from 51°30’ N. lat., and are likewise to be found over the whole of Alaska with the exception of its coasts. The southern branch of the family is today in a thriving condition and relatively numerous; but the uncertainty of life in the dreary wastes or dense forests which have long been the home of the Northerners precludes the possibility of a population even distantly commensurate with the enormous area claimed by them. The latest and most reliable statistics give the following figures for the numbers of the three divisions: Southern Dénés 27,365; Pacific Dénés, 846; Northern Dénés, 19,390. It is but fair to add that the whole tribes or septs were almost wiped out of existence by epidemics and disorders consequent on the advent of the whites among them. The principal Northeren tribes are: the Loucheux, neighbors to the Eskimos in Alaska and the lower Mackenzie, contiguous to which are, from north to south; the Hares, the Dog-Ribs, the Slaves, the Yellow Knives and the Chippewayans. Ignoring several intermediate or Rocky Mountain tribes we find in Northern British Colombia the Nahanais, the Sekanais, the Babines, the Carriers, and the Chilcotins. The Yellow knives receive their name from the tools of native copper which were common among them in in prehistoric times; the Babines are so called from wearing labrets, wood or stone ornaments inserted in the lip, and the Carriers owe their name to the custom of the women caring on their back s the charred remains of their husbands.

Though the Navahos have at last adopted pastoral life, all the Déné tribes were originally made up of hunters and have remained so in the north. Yet in British Columbia the abundance of fish, especially of salmon, had made fishing of at least as great economic importance to the Dénés stationed there as hunting. Most of the hard work was done by the women, who generally occupied a low place in the social scale. They were united to the men by ties, which were never considered indissoluble, and polygamy was everywhere prevalent. As to society itself, it was of the crudest description. The original form of government among the entire stock was a sort of anarchy tempered by patriarchal proclivities. The septs were led by the most influential fathers of the families, whose children succeeded in the male line of their rank, such as it was, and inherited their earthly belongings. But contact with aliens made the Western tribes adopt in course of time, matriarchy or mother-right, and its consequent institutions: the clans with their petty chiefs, the totems, and more or less elaborate social observances. These totems, or emblems, were of at least two kinds, gentile and personal. The former represented the clan, and though probably evolved from the latter, they came to be regarded as more social than religious in import. The nature of the personal totem is better understood by a reference to the theogonistic and cosmogonic notions of the Indians. In common with most American aborigines they believed in a twofold world; t he one visible and purely material now inhabited by man; the other invisible, though in some way coexistive with the first, which is the home of the spirits. Of these there are two kinds, good and bad, all more or less under the control of a Supreme Being whose personality and attributes are not well defined. By some he is known as “he” (or it) whereby the earth exists, or simply “the powerful”; others, like the Hares designate him as “he that sees in front and behind,” while the prehistoric Carriers knew him as “that which is on high,” apparently confounding him with the dynamic forces of nature and the cause of rain, snow, wind and the other celestial phenomena. As to the spirits, the noxious ones are constantly lurking among men and cause disease and all evils. The good ones are closely connected with the various elements of the created world, and are ever ready to adopt and protect individuals in return for some sort of respect and implied veneration of the animal, tree, plant celestial body, or terrestrial entity which is their normal seat or representative. These are the personal totems or tutelary genii, of which every Déné has at least one, communion with which is supposed to be established through the agency of dreams, apparitions etc.

It sometimes happens that the totem suddenly prostrated the native while awake and rendered him unconscious. The individual thus affected was believed to have commune with some powerful spirit and, on being restored to consciousness by means of a loud chanting and the rhythmical beating of drums, was considered as endowed with supernatural powers over the evil spirits and their works. Hence his services were called into requisition to cast out the evil spirits from those who were afflicted with illness, or to obtain some particular end in the order of nature, such as calm in tempestuous weather, a plentiful run of salmon, a successful hunt, and the like. These ideas were so firmly rooted among the tribes that they long remained proof against the influence of civilization. The first encounter of the Dénés with this was in the south, as shown in the articles on the Apaches and the Navahoes. In the north, the fur of the animals on whose flesh they mostly subsisted and whose skins were utilized as garments was the principal cause of the intrusion of the white races on their desolate wilderness. As early as 1670was established the celebrated Hudson Bay Company, whose agents were gradually drawn into close intercourse with the easternmost tribes. One of these agents, Samuel Hearne, was the first to penetrate any considerable inland distance. In the years 1769–72 he discovered Lake Athabascs, and went as far north as the mouth of the Coppermine with a horde of Eastern Dénés who proved to be unruly, brutal, and lustful as the explorer himself was timid and gentlemanly. On the other hand the latter extols the virtue and meekness of their women. Then came the Northwest Fur Trading Company, a member of which, Laurent Leroux, was the first to visit Great Slave Lake (1784). This energetic corporation soon dotted the country with trading establishments, whereupon the Hudson Bay Company began a keen competition, which was the source of many disorders among the natives, intoxicants being used by each party to win them over to its own side. Then came the explorations of Mackenzie in 1789 and 1792–93; Franklin’s in 1820–22; Back’s in 1833–35; and a number of other journeys in the course of which the Dénés proved valuable, if somewhat fickle helpers. They were strictly honest, anxious to please the whites and to adopt their ways as far as compatible with their own condition.

The Dénés had already learned something of the Catholic religion through the French Canadian traders and voyagers. From the very beginning they showed themselves ready converts, which is not to be wondered at when we consider that the Déné, when of pure stock, is by nature eminently religious. The first missionaries were Catholic priests. In 1842 the Rev. J. B. Thibault, one of the pioneers of the Red River Settlement (now Manitoba) reached the Rocky Mountains in his apostolic wanderings and must have evangelized some of the border tribes. Three years later he visited the Chippewayans of Ile-à-la-Crosse, which locality was soon to become the center of far reaching missionary operations. That very year there arrived at St. Boniface the first two representatives of the Oblate order, which has since had charge of the evangelization of all the Northern Déné tribes. In 1847 Father (afterwards archbishop) Taché visited Lake Athabasca, where he was kindly received and accomplished much good. Year after year the sphere of religious activity was enlarged, new missions being established, until that of Our Lady of Good Hope was founded by Father Grollier, 32 Aug., 1859, within the Arctic Circle. Thence apostolic excursions were made into Alaska, first Father Petitot in 1870, and then by Bishop I Clut in 1872. But the Western Loucheux remained hostile to Catholicism by itinerant Protestant ministers and fanatical traders, proved generally rebellious. Serious Protestant missionary efforts among the Dénés date from 1858. The Rev. J. Hunter then made reconnoitering visit to the Mackenzie, and as a result a mission was established on that stream at Fort Simpson. After this work was undertaken among the Loucheauz of the Yukon with some measure of success. However, in spite of the assertions of the late Anglican bishop, W.C. Bompas, that “the number under instruction of each Church many not greatly differ” (Diocese of Mackenzie, London, 1888, p.108) among the Northern Dénés taken as a whole the number of Protestant Dénés is insignificant compared with those who have embraced the Catholic Faith. In British Columbia they are practically all Catholic, and East of the Rocky Mountains there is not one Protestant among the natives who repair to some fifteen Hudson Bay Company’s fur-trading posts. Even at Fort Simpson, the headquarters of the Church of England in the Mackenzie, half of the aboriginal population is Catholic.

PETITOT, Monographie des Déné-Dindjie (Paris 1876); IDEM, Traditions indiennes du Canada nord-ouest(Paris 1883); IDEM, Quinze ans sous le cercle polaire (Paris, 1889): IDEM, Autour du grand lac des Esclaves (Paris 1891); IDEM, Exploration de la région du grand lac des Ours (Paris, 1893), and many other works. MORICE, The Western Dénés (Toronto 1889); IDEM Notes on the Western Dénés (Toronto 1894); IDEM Au pays de l’ours noir (Paris 1897) IDEM, The Great Déné Race (2 vols., Vienna Austria), and about a dozen monographs on the Dénés.

A. G. MORICE.

Heinrich Seuse Denifle

(Baptized JOSEPH.)

Paleographer and historian, born at Imst in the Austrian Tyrol, 16 Jan., 1844, d. at Munich, 10 June, 1905. His father, who was the village schoolmaster and church organist, had him educated in the episcopal seminary of Brixen. On his reception, at Graz, 22 Sept., 1861, into the Dominican Order, he took the name of Heinrich. His studies of Aristotle and St. Thomas were begun in Graz and continued in Rome and Marseilles. After his return to Graz, Father Denifle taught philosophy and theology for ten years (1870–1880), and during this period also he was one of the best preachers in Austria. A course of apologetic sermons delivered in Graz cathedral “Die katholische Kirche und das Ziel der Menschheit” was printed in 1872. Denifle, who had loved music from his boyhood and composed pieces at fifteen, also published in 1872, as his first literary essay, an article on the Gregorian Chant: “Schonheit und Würde des Chorals.” That even then his mind was occupied with a subject about which his last and perhaps his greatest work was destined to be written, is evident from a series of articles entitled “Tetzel und Luther,” which appeared in 1873. From that time onward, though he preached occasionally, the biography of Denifle is the description of his literary achievements. His life therefore may be divided into four periods characterized respectively by work on theology and mysticism, medieval universities, the Hundred Years War between France and England with its consequences to the Church, and Luther and Lutheranism.

A subject to which in early years he devoted much of his attention was the relation existing between scholastic theology and medieval mysticism. It was comparatively unknown, and had in fact been grossly misrepresented by some flippant writers according to whom the German mystics were the precursors of the German Reformers. Denifle’s researches put the matter in its true light. He discovered in various libraries of Austria, Germany, and Switzerland copious materials in fourteenth century manuscripts, and a selection of 2500 texts was given to the public in his book “Das geistliche Leben. Eine Blumenlese as den deutschen Mystikern des 14. Jahrhunderts” (Graz, 1873). He also began a critical edition of Blessed Henry Suso’s works (the first and only volume of Denifle’s edition appeared in 1888—another edition is in progress 1908), and on Suso and other mystics he wrote several articles (fifteen in all with appendices) published in various periodicals from 1873 to 1889. His fame as a palæographer, German philologist, and textual critic arose from these investigations and especially from his studies on Tauler, Eckhart, and Blessed Henry Suso. Up to 1875 the most disputed problem in the history of German mysticism was that of the “Gottesfreund” and his marvellous influence. Denifle solved it simply by showing that the “Gottesfreund” was a myth. This discovery, which created quite a sensation, and several others brought him into controversy with Preger and Schmidt, who had till then been looked up to as authorities on the history of mysticism, and also into controversy with Jundt. He proved and demonstrated that Catholic mysticism rests on scientific theology. Denifle’s remarks were often sharp, but there could be no doubt that his arguments and his destructive criticism were unanswerable. Catholic and non-Catholic savants. alike, as Schrörs, Kirsch, Müller, Schönbach, etc., have recognized that he was immeasurably superior to his adversaries. This was owing to his intimate knowledge of the Fathers, of theology—both scholastic and mystic—of medieval history, and lastly of Middle-High German with its dialects.

In 1880 Denifle was made socius, or assistant, to the general of his order, and summoned to Rome, where a new field of inquiry awaited him. Leo XIII had commanded that a critical edition of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas should be begun, and Denifle was commissioned to search for the best manuscripts. He visited the libraries in Italy, Austria, Germany, Bavaria, Holland, England, France, Spain, and Portugal. Nothing escaped his eagle eye, and while preparing for the new edition, before his return to Italy in 1883, he had also gathered abundant materials for his own special study. In the autumn of 1880 Leo XIII had opened the secret archives of the Vatican to scholars; he had in 1789 appointed as archivist Cardinal Hergenröther. On the latter’s recommendation the pope now (1 Dec., 1883) mace Denifle sub-archivist, a post which he held till his death. Since the beginning of his residence in Rome, Denifle, who found nothing there for his contemplated history of mysticism, had been investigating the career of a celebrated prophet, i.e. the Abbot Joachim, and the reasons of the condemnation of his “Evangelium Æternum” by the University of Paris. This led him to study the controversy between the university and the mendicant orders. As he found du Boulay’s history of the university inaccurate, Denifle, who was a foe to adventurous statements and hasty generalizations, resolved to write a history based on original documents, and as an introduction to it, to commence with a volume on the origin of the medieval university system, for which he already had prepared copious transcripts and notes. His leading idea was that to appreciate the mystics one should understand not only the theology they had learned, but also the genius of the place where it was commonly taught. The first and only volume appeared in 1885 under the title “Die Universitäten des Mittelalters bis 1400” (xlv-814). The wealth of erudition it contains is extraordinary. The work was everywhere applauded; it led, however, to a somewhat bitter controversy. G. Kaufmann attacked it, but was worsted by the erudite and unsparing author. The most copious collection on the subject to be found in any archives is that possessed by the Vatican, and this Denifle was the first to use. Munich, Vienna, and other centres supplied the rest. Among his discoveries two may be mentioned, namely, that the universities did not, as a rule, owe their origin to cathedral schools, and that in the majority of them at first theology was not taught. The University of Paris formed an exception. Denifle had planned four other volumes; viz. a second on the development of the organization of universities, a third on the origin of the University of Paris, a fourth on its development to the end of the thirteenth century, and a fifth on its controversies with the mendicant orders. But the Conseil Général des Facultés de Paris, which had in 1885 decided on publishing the “Chartularium,” or records of the University of Paris, resolved on 27 March, 1887, to entrust the work of Denifle, with Emile Chatelain, the Sorbonne librarian, as collaborateur. This quite suited Denifle, for he had resolved not to write before he had collected all the relevant documents, so with the assistance of Chatelain he began his gigantic task. In less than ten years four folio volumes of the “Chartularium” appeared as follows: 1889, volume I, A.D. 1200–1286 (xxxvi-714 pp.), 530 original documents, with fifty-five from the preparatory period, 1163–1200; 1891, volume II, 1286–1350 (xxiii-808 pp.), 661 documents; 1894, volume III, 1350–1384 (xxxvii-777 pp.), 520 documents; 1897, volume IV, 1384–1452 (xxxvi-835 pp.), 988 documents, and two volumes of the “Auctarium.” This monumental work, the “Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis,” contains invaluable information regarding its inner life, organization, famous professors and students, relations with popes and kings, controversies, etc., during the period when this university was the chief centre of theological learning. “With its aid,” as Kirsch remarks, “a history of medieval theology has at last become possible.” Some idea of the labour involved in its preparation may be gathered from the fact that all the great libraries and archives in Europe were visited, that Denifle travelled from Paris to Rome forty times, and that in the Vatican archives alone he examined 200,000 letters, of which he utilized 80,000 in his notes (see II, p. 17), though of course more material was found in Paris than in Rome. In order to preserve the unity of the “Chartularium,” any reference to the “nations” was relegated to the “Auctarium.” The two volumes published contain the “Liber Procuratorum Nationis Anglicanæ 1333–1446.” Fournier, who rashly criticized Denifle and Chatelain, fared badly at their hands. After Denifle’s death the materials he had collected for another volume were entrusted to Chatelain, so that the work right be continued. Owing to the vastness and completeness of his research and to his amazing erudition, what Denifle gave to the world, even though for him it was only a preliminary study, has sufficed to make him the great authority on medieval universities. (See Merkle, Dreves, etc., or Rashdall’s “Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages,” Oxford, 1895.) In order to publish valuable texts which he had deciphered and the results of his studies on various subjects, together with Father Ehrle, S. J., the sub-librarian of the Vatican, he founded in 1885 the “Archiv für Literatur und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters.” The two friends were the only contributors. The first five years of this serial contain several articles from his pen, on various universities, on Abelard and other scholars, on religious orders, on popes, etc., Denifle’s extensive acquaintance with manuscripts and his skill in palæography were also put at the service of beginners in the art of deciphering by his annotated “Specimina palæographica Regestorum Pontificum ab Innocentio III ad Urbanum V” (Rome, 1888). Among its sixty-four plates, that representing the Vatican transcript of the “Unam Sanctam” is especially valuable. The work was the offering of the papal archivists to Leo XIII on his golden jubilee.

A work of another kind suggested itself to him while gathering in the Vatican archives materials for his annotations on the “Chartularium’ . Denifle noticed in the three hundred volumes of “Registers of Petitions” addressed to Clement VI and Urban V, between 1342 and 1393, that many came from France during the Hundred Years War between that country and England. So for the sake of a change of occupation, or “un travail accessoire” as he calls it, Denifle went again through these volumes (each about 600 pages folio). In 1897 he published: “La désolation des églises, monasteres, hôpitaux, en France vers le milieu du XVe siècle “. It contains a harrowing description of the state of France, based on 1063 contemporary documents, most of which were discovered in the Vatican. Then, in order to give an explanation a similar account of the cause of all these calamities, he published in 1889: “La guerre de cent ans et la désolation des églises, monastères, et hôpitaux, tom. I, jusqu’à la mort de Charles V” (1385). Though the work was not continued the enormous amount of recondite information brought together and illustrated for the first time makes the volume indispensable to historians (see e.g., his account of the Battle of Crécy and the Black Prince).

Denifle had for years been studying the history of medieval theology and mysticism, as well as the lives of saints and scholars by whom in both departments progress had been effected, on the other hand his investigations revealed the decadence of ecclesiastical life during the Hundred Years War and caused him to amass documents (about 1200) showing the many abuses then prevalent among the clergy both secular and regular. The contrast was marked. As was his wont he resolved to solve the problem that arose, to see what could have been the result of such moral corruption. These new researches were not confined to France, they gradually extended to Germany. Denifle found proof that in both countries, with praiseworthy exceptions, during the fourteenth century things went from bad to worse, but he saw that the end had not been reached yet. He traced the downward course of profligacy to the third decade of the sixteenth century, and there he stopped for he had found the abyss. Crimes which ecclesiastics and religious were ashamed of in the preceding era now became to one section a cause of self-glorification, and were even regarded as miracles and signs of sanctity. At the beginning of this painful investigation Denifle had not a thought about Luther, but now he saw that he could not avoid him; to estimate the new departure it was necessary to understand Luther, for of this appalling depravity he was the personification as well as the preacher. So Denifle devoted many years to the task of ascertaining for himself how, and why, and when Luther fell. The Vatican archives and various libraries, particularly those of Rostock and Kiel, supplied original documents to which this independent study was confined. As usual Denifle made a series of discoveries. His work, which is divided into three parts, if we take its second edition, is in no sense a biography. The first part is a critique of Luther’s treatise on monastic vows. It examines his views on the vow of chastity in detail, and convicts him of ignorance, mendaciousness, etc. The second part which is entitled “a contribution to the history of exegesis, literature and dogmatic theology in the Middle Ages,” refutes Luther’s assertion that his doctrine of justification by faith, i.e. his interpretation of Rom., i, 17, was the traditional one, by giving the relevant passages from no fewer than sixty-five commentators. Of these works many exist only in manuscript. To discover them it was necessary to traverse Europe; this part which appeared posthumously is a masterpiece of critical erudition. The third part shows that the year 1515 was the turning point in Luther’s career, and that his own account of his early life is utterly untrustworthy, that his immorality was the real source of his doctrine, etc. No such analysis of Luther’s theology and exegesis was ever given to the learned world for which it was written.

For some time previous it had been known that Denifle was engaged on such a work, but when in 1904 the first volume of 860 pages of “Luther und Luthertum in der ersten Entwicklung quellenmässig darstellt” appeared, it fell like a bomb into the midst of the Reformer’s admirers. The edition was exhausted in a month. The leading Protestants and rationalists in Germany, Seeberg, Harnack, and seven other professors, besides a host of newspaper writers attempted to defend Luther, but in vain. Denifle’s crushing answer to Harnack and Seeberg, “Luther in rationalistischer und christlicher Beleuchtung” appeared in March, 1904, and two months afterwards he issued a revised edition of the first part of the first volume; the second was brought out in 1905 and the third in 1906 by A. Weiss, O.P. He has the second volume on Lutheranism, for which the author left materials, ready (1908) for the press.

Denifle has been censured by some and praised by others for the tone of this work. Perhaps if it were less indignant the amazing erudition displayed would produce a greater effect. There was no need of hard words in a work, to use the words of Cambridge University when it honoured Denifle, on “Lutherum ab eodem ad fidem documentorum depictum.” He has thrown more light on Luther’s career and character than all the editors of Luther’s works and all Luther’s biographers taken together. Denifle wished to offend no man, but he certainly resolved on showing once and for all the Reformer in his true colours. He makes Luther exhibit himself. Protestant writers, he remarks betray an utter lack of the historical method in dealing with the subject, and the notions commonly accepted are all founded on fable. As he pointedly observes: “Critics, Harnack and Ritschl more than others, may say what they like about God Incarnate; but let no one dare to say a word of disapproval about Luther before 1521.” Denifle’s impeachment is no doubt a terrible one, but apart from some trifling inaccuracies in immaterial points it is established by irrefragable proofs.

Denifle, who was beloved by Leo XIII and Pius X was a conductor of the cardinalitial Commission of Studies, a member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences (Vienna), and of those of Paris, Prague, Berlin, Göttingen, honorary Doctor of the Universities of Münster and Innsbruck, member of the Legion of Honour, of the Order of the Iron Crown, etc. He was on his way to Cambridge, where he and his friend Father Ehrle were to be made Honorary Doctors of that university, when he was struck down by the hand of death.

Denifle’s Works in Acta Cap. Gen. Ord. Praed. 1907 (official obituary notice); KIRCH, Le P. Henri Suso Denifle O.P. (reprint Louvain, 1905); GRABMANN, P. Heinrich Denifle, O.P., Eine Würdigung seiner Forschungearbeit (Mainz, 1905); GRAUERT, P. Heinrich Denifle, O.P., Ein Wort zum Gedächtniss und zum Frieden. Ein Beitrag auch zum Luther-Streit (Freiburg 1906); WEISS, Lutherpsychologie als Schlüssel zur Lutherlegende—Denifle’s Untersuchungen kritisch nachgeprüft (Mainz, 1906).

REGINALD WALSH.

St. Denis

Bishop of Paris, and martyr. Born in Italy, nothing is definitely known of the time or place, or of his early life. His feast is kept on 9 October. He is usually represented with his head in his hands because, according to the legend, after his execution the corpse rose again and carried the head for some distance. That, however, while still very young he was distinguished for his virtuous life, knowledge of sacred things, and firm faith, is proved by the fact that Pope Fabian (236–250) sent him with some other missionary bishops to Gaul on a difficult mission. The Church of Gaul had suffered terribly under the persecution of the Emperor Decius and the new messengers of Faith were to endeavour to restore it to its former flourishing condition. Denis with his inseparable companions, the priest Rusticus and the deacon Eleutherius, arrived in the neighbourhood of the present city of Paris and settled on the island in the Seine. The earliest document giving an account of his labours and of his martyrdom (Passio SS. Dionsyii, Rustici et Eleutherii), dating from the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh century and wrongly attributed to the poet Venantius Fortunatus, is interwoven with much legend, from which, however, the following facts can be gleaned.

On the island in the Seine Denis built a church and provided for a regular solemnization of the Divine service. His fearless and indefatigable preaching of the Gospel led to countless conversions. This aroused the envy, anger and hatred of the heathen priests. They incited the populace against the strangers and importuned the governor Fescenninus Sisinnius to put a stop by force to the new teaching. Denis with his two companions were seized and as they persevered in their faith were beheaded (about 275) after many tortures. Later accounts give a detailed description of the confessors’ sufferings. They were scourged, imprisoned, racked, thrown to wild beasts, burnt at the stake, and finally beheaded. Gregory of Tours simply states: “Beatus Dionysius Parisiorum episcopus diversis pro Christi nomine adfectus poenis praesentem vitam gladio immente finivit” (Hist. Franc. I, 30). The bodies of the three holy martyrs received an honourable burial through the efforts of a pious matron named Catulla and a small shrine was erected over their graves. This was later on replaced by a beautiful basilica (egregium templum) which Venantius celebrated in verse (Carm. I, ii).

From the reign of King Dagobert (622–638) the church and the Benedictine monastery attached to it were more and more beautifully adorned; the veneration of St. Denis became by degrees a national devotion, rulers and princes vying with one another to promote it. This development is due in no small degree to an error prevailing throughout the Middle Ages, which identified St. Denis of Paris with St. Dionysius the Areopagite, and with the Pseudo-Dionysius, the composer of the Areopagitic writings. The combining of these three persons in one was doubtless effected as early as the eighth or perhaps the seventh century, but it was only through the “Areopagitica” written in 836 by Hilduin, Abbot of Saint-Denis, at the request of Louis the Pious, that this serious error took deep root. The investigations of Launoy first threw doubt on the story and the Bollandist de Bye entirely rejected it. Hilduin was probably deceived by the same apocryphal Latin and Greek fictions. The possession of the Areopagitic writings (since 827 in Saint-Denis) strengthened his conviction of this truth. Historiographers of the present day do not dispute this point. All attempts of Darras, Vidieu, C. Schneider, and others to throw some light on the subject have proved fruitless.

JOS. STIGLMAYR.

Johann Nepomuk Cosmas Michael Denis

Bibliographer and poet, b. at Schärding, Bavaria, 27 September, 1729; d. at Vienna, 29 Sept., 1800. He received his early training in the gymnasium at Passau, conducted by the Jesuits, and became a member of the Society of Jesus at Vienna in 1747. For some years he taught Latin and rhetoric, first at Graz, then at Klagenfurt. After four more years devoted to the study of theology at Graz he was ordained priest in 1757, and began preaching at Pressburg. In 1759 he was made professor of belles-lettres at the famous Theresian Academy in Vienna where he remained until 1773, when the Society of Jesus was suppressed. Denis now became assistant library at the Garelli Library connected with the Theresianum, and when the academy ceased to exist in 1784, he was appointed assistant librarian of the imperial court library and in 1791 was advanced to be chief librarian, receiving at the same time the title of privy councillor. He is specially known as a poet, as he was one of the chief members of the group of so-called bards whose aim was to revive German patriotism by treating subjects connected with Germanic antiquity. Confusing Germanic and Celtic materials they conceived themselves as bards, in the belief that these were ancient German poets, and adopted fanciful bardic names. Thus Denis called himself “the bard Sined,” the anagram of his name. They were all admirers of Klopstock and of Ossian, whose poems had been made known only a few years before by the Scotchsman Macpherson, and which had been translated into German in 1764. Ossian was really the inspiration of the bardic movement. Denis’s first poems appeared in 1760 under the title “Poetische bilder der meisten kriegerischen Vorgänge in Europa seit dem Jahre 1756.” These are poems celebrating the events of the Seven Year’s War, and, as the German poems of a Jesuit, created quite a stir. His German translations of Ossian appeared in three volumes (1768–69). A second collection of poems, “Die Lieder Sineds des Barden,” followed in 1772. A new edition, including his version of Ossian, was published at Vienna in five volumes under the title, “Ossian und Sineds Lieder” (Vienna, 1784–85). Besides the purely bardic poems these collections contain many poems composed for special occasions, for Denis was held in high esteem by the Court. A number of religious poems had been published separately as “Geistliche Lieder” in 1774. The quality of these poetical efforts is not high, but Denis certainly deserves praise for his efforts to bring the literature of Austria into contact with that of northern Germany. For both Klopstock and Gellert he felt great enthusiasm, and largely helped to make them known in Austria.

As a bibliographer he compiled a number of important works, notably “Einleitung in der Bucherkunde,” part I, bibliography (1777); part II, “Literaturgeschicte,” (1778); “Die Murkwürigkeiten der Garellischen Bibliotek” (Vienna, 1780); “Wiens Buchdruckergeschicte bis MDLX” (Vienna, 1782–83). His posthumous works were published by his pupil, J. F. de Retzer, “Nachlese zu Sineds Liedern” (Vienna, 1802).

Hoffman-Wellenhoff, Michael Denis, ein Beitrag zur deutsch-österreichischen Litteraturgeschichte des XVIII. Jahrhunderts (Innsbruck, 1881); Hamel in Kürrsschner, Deutsche National-Litteratur, XLVIII, 149 sqq.

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Joseph Denis

(Baptized JACQUES).

Born 6 November, 1657, at Three Rivers, Canada; died 25 January, 1736. He was the first Canadian to join the Recollects of the Friars Minor. His father, Pierre Denis de la Ronde and his mother Catherine Leneuf de la Poterie, were natives of Normandy. In 1669 he entered the seminary at Quebec and on 9 May, 1677, joined the Recollects in the same city, taking in religion the name of Joseph. When professed he went to France to study theology. After being ordained he returned to Canada in 1682, where in 1685, he completed the installation of the Recollects at Ile Percée. He founded the house of the order at Plaisance in 1689 and that at Montreal in 1692. After holding the office of provincial commissary, superior of the convent of Quebec, and master of novices, he was named, in 1709, superior of the Recollects and parish priest of Three Rivers, where he rebuilt in stone the old church. In 1719 he carried to France, to be forwarded to Rome, the Acts of Brother Didace (Les actes du tres-religieux Frere Didace), a Canadian Recollect whose confessor he was for many years. He died shortly after his return to New France.

ODORIC-M. JOUVE.

William Denman

Publisher, b. in Edinburgh, Scotland, 17 March, 1784; d. in Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A., 12 September, 1870. His father was a German, his mother an Alsatian, and he claimed to have been in the English army before he emigrated to New York in 1824. He was an associate of William E. Andrews, the London publisher, and after settling down in New York, he began, in conjunction with George Pardow, on 2 April, 1825, the publication of “The Truth Teller,” the first Catholic paper issued there. It was a weekly, and for a time enjoyed considerable local influence which gave Denman political prominence. Tainted, however, with the prevailing error of trusteeism, it lost the support of the local ecclesiastical authorities, rival publications were started and its prestige waned until he sold the paper 31 March, 1855, to the proprietors of “The Irish American,” who merged it in that journal a short time after. Three of his sons were in the United States service: Adjutant Frederic J. Denman, of the Artillery, killed by accident in Texas in 1854; Ensign Joseph A. Denman, of the Navy, died 1862; Colonel Charles L. Denman, who served in the Mexican War and as consul in South America, died 17 March, 1893. The youngest son, William was for some years editor of the New York “Tablet.”

U.S. CATH. HIST. Soc., Hist. Records and Studies (New York, Jan., 1903), III, part I.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Denmark

(Lat. Dania).

This kingdom had formerly a much larger extent than at present. It once included the southern provinces of Sweden: Skåne, Halland, Blekinge, Bohuslån (till 1658); the Duchies of Schleswig (Sönderjylland) and Holstein (till 1864); the Kingdom of Norway (from 1537 till 1814). The present kingdom comprises 16,000 square miles (between lat. 54°33’ and 57°45’ N.; long. 8°4’ and 15°10’ E.). It now includes the northern part of Jutland (anciently the Cimbric Chersonese) between the North Sea, Skager Rack, and Cattegat, whose southern part borders on the German Empire; the islands which lie between the Baltic and Cattegat (partly also in the latter)—Zealand (Själland), Falster, Möen, Laaland, Fünen (Fyan), Ærö, Samsö, Anholt, Læsö—together with a few smaller isles (Amager, Saltholm, Seierö, etc.) and Bornholm, which lies far towards the east in the Baltic. To this must be added the group of the Faroe Islands (q. v.), situated in the Atlantic Ocean, 180 miles north-west of the Shetland Islands and 410 miles west from Bergen, and finally Iceland (q. v.), whose northern coast is washed by the Arctic Ocean, and which, though very extensive (40,000 square miles), is but thinly inhabited (80,000 souls). Iceland is very loosely connected with Denmark, is independent in its laws and government, and since 1874 has its own constitution. Other Danish possessions are Greenland (q. v.), which in size is almost a continent, but is very sparsely settled (only 12,000 souls), and the three islands in the West Indies, St. Croix, St. John, and St. Thomas, with a total area of 120 square miles and a population of 30,000.

The physical character of Denmark, which geologically is a continuation of the plain of Central Europe, shows only moderate contrasts. The Baltic Islands, surrounded by arms of the sea that are nowhere deeper than 200 feet and contain little salt, are partly monotonous flats, partly rolling ground. Only a few points, as Gyldenloeveshoei on Zealand, Aborrebjerg on Möen and Froebjerg on Fünen, rise to a height of 400 feet and more. Similar conditions prevail in Jutland. The high plateau that crosses it in a northerly direction slopes abruptly down towards the east. Here are elevations of 486 to 573 feet (Himmelsbjerg, Ejers Bavnehoej), lines of low, wooded hills, deep-cut valleys, fertile fields and meadows, bubbling rivulets, and beautiful lakes. On the other hand the dune-bound west coast of Jutland from Blaavandshuk to Skagen presents nothing to the eye but heath and moor. Bornholm resembles in its structural character the neighbouring Sweden. The northern and eastern coasts rise abruptly out of the sea, and the southern shore and the interior are monotonous, although the hill of Rytterknägten reaches a height of 543 feet. There are no large rivers in Denmark, but with its numerous islands and peninsulas—its coast-line aggregating a length of 3100 miles—there is no lack of deep brooks, and the River Gudenaa, in Jutland, is over 100 miles long. The lakes are numerous, but small and shallow, only that known as the Furusee having a depth of 300 feet. The climate is comparatively mild, hardly differing from that of South Germany, but somewhat more severe in Jutland than on the islands. Only one-seventh of the soil is woodland. In the last few decades, however, successful measures have been taken to husband the forest. Beech and birch trees, ash and alder, some oaks, linden, and pines are found. Three-fourths of the total area of the islands and of the east coast of Jutland is tilled land; the cultivation of grain, potatoes, and beets yields a large return. Walnuts and mulberries ripen in due season, and in some places juicy grapes ripen on trellises. The flora of Denmark, with its 1500 species of wild-growing plants, is quite extensive but the same cannot be said of its fauna. The larger beasts of prey are extinct; even the red deer and wild boar have almost disappeared. Foxes, martens, roes, and hares are still numerous, and along the shores seals may be seen. Its birds, amphibia, and fishes resemble those of Germany. In the Little Belt, between Jutland and Fünen, the pilot whale (grindhval) is sometimes found. The domestic animals are those of Central Europe. As the soil is for the most part made up of marl—though there are also other strata on Bornholm—the country is not rich in minerals. It yields common clay, kaolin, chalk, and some lignite. The absence of metals and still more of good anthracite coal is greatly felt. Luckily, extensive turf-bogs provide the necessary fuel.

Denmark is inhabited by 2,600,000 people, most of them natives. Together with the Swedes and Norwegians, the Danes belong to the Germanic stock (North Germans, Scandinavians), and in body as well as character differ but little from the North Germans. Their written language has much in common with Low German. The language of the common people is divided into a number of strikingly divergent dialects. Nearly all of the population (981/2 per cent) belong officially to the Evangelical Lutheran Church, which, as the Established Church, enjoys Government support. In 1849 complete freedom of religious belief was legally guaranteed. Since then many have joined the Baptists, Irvingites, the Reformed Church, and other sects. Particularly gratifying is the modern revival of Catholicism, which had disappeared from Denmark for three centuries (see below under RELIGIOUS HISTORY). With regard to general education, Denmark compares well with other States. Education is compulsory. The primary schools are kept up by the municipalities. Latin schools and modern high schools provide the necessary preparation for the university in the capital, the polytechnic institute, and the agricultural college. Very useful institutions are the “people’s high schools,” private continuation schools for the rural population. There is no lack of libraries, art collections, and collections of antiquities, nor of literary and artistic societies with ideal aims. Many Danish scholars and poets, sculptors, and musicians have acquired fame that has spread far beyond the narrow limits of their country. We need mention only the names of Oersted, Woorsaae, Madvig, Oehlenschläger, Thorvaldsen, Gade. The relatively small number of Danish-speaking people forces many writers to compose their works in one of the four better-known languages, German, English, French, Spanish, or at least to translate them into one of these.

Denmark is a constitutional monarchy with strong democratic tendencies. By the national constitution of 1849, revised in 1866, Landsthing and Folkething share the government with the king, who has a civil list of a little more than 1,000,000 kroner ($268,000). The national colours are red, white, red; the flag shows the Danebrog, i. e., an upright white cross on a red field. Justice is administered by irremovable judges who are subject to the supreme court in Copenhagen (Hoeiesteret), and who conduct trials orally and in public. The executive power is vested in the king alone. For the sake of political administration the country is divided into eighteen districts, presided over by district judges. The larger cities have self-government and their own police. A general supervision is exercised by the head of the Copenhagen police.

The established Evangelical Church is divided into seven dioceses: Zealand, Fünen-Ærö, Laaland-Falster, Aalborg, Viborg, Aarhus, and Ribe. At the head of each diocese is a superintendent who is called “bishop,” a name that has been preserved from Catholic times. The Bishop of Zealand is primus inter pares. The dioceses are made up of provostships and parishes. The provost exercises his office under the supervision of the bishop.

Since 1892 the Catholics of Denmark, who (including about 7000 Polish labourers) number 57,000, are under a vicar Apostolic (Johannes von Euch, Titular Bishop of Anastasiopolis). Of these 3000 live in Copenhagen, and they are found in other important towns. Communities of good size are found in Fredericksborg (1500), Aarhus, Odense, Horsens, Fredericia, Ordrup, Sundby (400). Besides these, missions have been established in Aalborg, Esbjerg, Glorup, Grenaa, Elsinore, Kolding, Köge, Ledreborg, Næstved, Randers, Ringsted, Röskilde, Silkeborg, Slagelse, Struer, Svendborg, Thisted, Vejle and Viborg, also in Bornholm and Iceland. These are equipped with churches or chapels, some of them handsome, in which secular or regular clergy act as pastors. Among the cities Copenhagen (q. v.) far surpasses all others in importance. Its population, including that of the suburbs, was in 1906 over half a million. It is the residence of the king, the seat of the ministries of public affairs and of the state university; it is the centre of industry and commerce, of science and the arts. Formerly unprotected, it was a few years ago strongly fortified. Besides Copenhagen, only few places claim particular attention: Randers in Jutland, for its domestic trade; Aarhus, for its commerce and cathedral; Aalborg, for its ancient buildings; Horsens for its manufactures; Odense for its cathedral and commerce; Svendborg on Fünen for its manufactures. The ancient towns of Ribe, Viborg, and Röskilde bask in the glory of the past; their stately churches, built in the time of Catholicism, are yet reminders of their former splendour.

Bimetallism prevails in Denmark. The standard coin is the krone ($0.268). In weights and measures the country has not yet adapted itself to the decimal system of Southern and Central Europe. The Government finances are in a good condition; the national debt is small. The principal means of livelihood is agriculture. Its products (oats, barley, rye, wheat) represent a value of 400 million kroner ($107,200,000). Of late, a change is going on in favour of cattle-raising and of dairy industry (domestic animals, 1903: horses 490,000; beeves 1,900,000; hogs 1,600,000; sheep 900,000; goats 40,000; chickens 12,000,000. In 1903, 300 million pounds of pork and butter alone were exported. Eggs to the value of 24 million kroner were shipped to foreign countries. The fishing industry is less prominent than might be expected; still, the total income from this branch amounts to 10 million kroner. Manufactures give occupation to about one-fourth of the population and are rapidly increasing. However, only the smaller part of the products is exported; by far the greater part is used to supply the home demand. In some branches of manufacture Denmark excels, and the royal porcelain factory of Copenhagen rivals successfully those of the best establishments in France and Germany.

The high standing of Denmark as a commercial country may be inferred from the one fact that its yearly business transactions are almost one-half of those of Italy, which is thirteen times as large. In 1903 the merchant marine could boast a total of 430,000 tons, and it increases from year to year. To safeguard navigation, which is exposed to many dangers, especially along the coasts of Jutland, there are 350 lighthouses, 15 lightships, and 50 life-saving stations. Being shallow, most of its harbours admit only small vessels. For the same reason the canals are of small importance, but 2000 miles of railways, telegraph connexions, etc. amply supply the country with the conveniences of modern traffic.

Beside the gigantic armies and fleets of Germany and England, Denmark’s fighting strength appears insignificant. Military service is compulsory. The period of service is, however, considerably shorter than in other states. The peace footing is 800 officers and 9000 men; the war strength is given as 1500 officers, 60,000 rank and file. The naval strength aggregates 50,000 tons, about 80,000 horse power, and 400 guns. Army and navy combined entail an outlay of 20 million kroner.

The Royal House belongs to the dynasty of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and is, consequently, of German origin. At present (1908), Frederick VIII (born 3 June, 1843) wears the crown, having succeeded his father, Christian IX, 29 January, 1906. His consort, Louise, is a princess of Sweden; his son Charles governs the Kingdom of Norway under the name of Haakon VII. His brother William has occupied the throne of Greece as King George since 6 June, 1863. A second brother of the sovereign, Prince Waldemar, is married to the Catholic Princess Marie of Orléans Bourbon; their sons are, according to the constitution, brought up in the Protestant faith, while their daughter Margaret follows the religion of her mother.

RELIGIOUS HISTORY

The first attempts to win the rough Danish warriors over to the mild yoke of Christ are said to have been made by the Frisian Bishop Willibrord, who died in 739. But for this there is no reliable evidence. A missionary journey which Archbishop Ebbo of Reims undertook to Jutland, in 823, proved a failure. But when, a few years later, the Danish chief Harold (Klack) went to Ingelheim to ask aid from Louis the Pious, he was baptized with his whole retinue, and on his return took the Frankish monk Ansgar (Anschar, q. v.) as missionary. Interior disturbances made it impossible for the apostle to work successfully. In 831 the zealous priest was nominated Bishop of Hamburg and thereby recognized as Apostolic delegate to the Scandinavian nations. In 849 he was also appointed to the see of Bremen. From this place he laboured untiringly for the extension of the Faith and was able to consecrate a church in Schleswig (Hedeby). Owing to the expulsion of Erik (854), who had favoured his cause, heathenism regained its ground for a while, and many of the faithful lost their lives and property. Two years later affairs took a turn for the better. The church in Schleswig was reopened, and a new one was built in Ribe. When the saintly man died, in 865, he beheld a flourishing band of Christians around him. So far, Christianity had gained no no entrance to the islands, and when Gorm the Old, a fanatical worshipper of Odin, succeeded in extending his power over Jutland, he raged with fire and sword against the Christians. He met his master in Henry I of Germany, who conquered him, in 934, in a bloody battle, and forced him to at least tolerate Christianity. Gorm himself died a heathen. Under his son Harold (Bluetooth), who was compelled to acknowledge the supremacy of Otto I, it became possible to erect the dioceses of Schleswig, Ribe, and Aarhus. During the reign of Canute the Great (1014–35) Christianity gradually spread all over the country. The new dioceses of Viborg and Börglum were formed in Jutland, and to these were added Odense in Fünen and Röskilde in Zealand. At this time also the first monasteries arose. When, under Sven Estridson, the Diocese of Lund was founded, the whole kingdom had been won for the Faith. Under Canute II (the Saint) the bishops became powerful feudal lords, ecclesiastical dignitaries, and commanders of armies. Absorbed by their secular occupations, they not seldom lost sight of their spiritual duties. Some, like Bishop Absalon (Axel) of Lund and Odense, who died at Soröe, 1201, largely contributed to the extension and influence of the State by their shrewdness and energy. Others, however, became involved in conflicts with king himself, in which cases the Roman See often imposed the severest spiritual punishments. At the same time the number of monasteries increased almost too rapidly, so that towards the end of the Middle Ages there were 134 belonging to different orders.

The external constitution of the Church in Denmark was settled definitely in 1104, when the country was separated from the metropolitan See of Hamburg-Bremen, and its seven bishops were subordinated to the Archbishop of Lund as primate. About the religious life of the clergy and laity we are not sufficiently informed, much historical material having been lost during the later changes in ecclesiastical government. The conditions were, however, hardly satisfactory. The higher ecclesiastics, supported by the lower clergy and the people, led a sumptuous life and did little to cultivate the minds and morals of their flocks. We must not forget, however, that, previous to the invention of the printing press, education, as we understand it at present, was not possible. Only thus can we explain the fact that the earlier zeal of the Danish people, proved by the erection of many splendid churches, rich donations, and countless foundations for the benefit of the poor, was swept away, as it were, in a few years by the hurricanes of the Reformation. Christian II was the first who tried to overthrow the power of the princely hierarchy, and for this purpose invited (1520) a German, Martin Reinhard, to preach in Copenhagen in the spirit of Luther, but as the people did not understand him, he remained in the country only a short time. His successor, the notorious Karlstadt, met with the same fate. After the deposition of King Christian, his uncle Frederick I ascended the throne. Contrary to his sworn promise at the election, he at once allowed the Lutheran preachers to spread the new creed. Prominent among them was a disciple of Luther, Hans Tausen, who seems to have found a worthy and effective adversary in only one man, the learned Carmelite Paulus Eliæ (Helgesen), the first historian of Denmark. Soon (1526) the king openly professed the Lutheran heresy, and after he had secured its triumph in the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, he proclaimed at the Diet of Odense (1527) religious freedom for Denmark proper, but, as a matter of fact, systematically undermined the Church. Three years later the adherents of the new doctrine accepted the Confessio Hafnica as their symbol. It was Frederick’s son, Christian III, who after the overthrow of his political enemies made Lutheranism the established religion. On the same day he cause all bishops to be imprisoned and to be deprived of their possessions; the monks and nuns were permitted to leave the monasteries; if they preferred to remain, they were forced to admit Lutheran preachers and to suffer all possible persecution. The church property, when not appropriated by the nobility, was confiscated and added to the royal treasury. In 1539 John Bugenhagen came to Denmark with the avowed purpose of establishing a new liturgy and to consecrate Lutheran bishops. A Danish translation of the Bible, done in the spirit of the prophet of Wittenberg, was begun and completed in 1550. (For an earlier Danish translation see below.) With the exception of Bishop Joachim Roöñow of Röskilde, all the prelates yielded to force; one of them even became a Protestant. Many religious fell away and married, but most of them went into exile. A shining example of loyalty to their faith was set by the nuns of St. Bridget at Maribo on Laaland. Also several priests and monks, like Iversen, a canon of Lund, the Carmelite prior Kristinsen, the Franciscan Ludolf Naaman, of Flensburg, the parish priest Anders Jepsen, and numerous laymen clung to the true Church in spite of all persecutions.

The Catholic customs and usages never died out completely. Thus the Protestant historian Vedel (d. 1616) held himself bound by the commandment of fasting. To some extent the rural population even yet believe in the assistance of the saints; the Lutheran names for religious persons and ceremonies have never been in common use; as in former times, the people speak of bishops and priests, of saying mass, etc. The ministers wear vestments similar to those used in the Catholic Church, and the altars are decorated with lighted candles. For a long time the elevation of the Host, auricular confession, and the ancient hymns were retained. All this was calculated to confirm the people in the belief that nothing essential had been changed in their religion.

Though, towards the end of the sixteenth century, Catholicism may in general be considered as suppressed in the Danish kingdom, it still counted some adherents in the higher circles, whose sons occasionally frequented the Jesuit college of Braunsberg, and there were strengthened in their faith or led back to it. At the beginning of the seventeenth century therefore, an attempt was made by the Propaganda to provide in a regular way for the spiritual welfare of the scattered faithful, and several mission stations were established. We are not sufficiently informed about these missions, but they seem to have been by no means insignificant. The royal rescript of 10 June, 1613, which forbade Catholic priests to perform any religious functions, under penalty of death, and the Danske Lov of Christian V (1683), which threatened converts with the confiscation of their property and with banishment, were evidently intended to prevent conversions. While the Catholic religion was thus excluded for a time from Denmark proper, it could never be wholly extirpated in Holstein, then a Danish province, but within the German Empire. As early as 1597 a small Catholic community was formed at Altona, followed, in 1625, by a second at Friedrichstadt. To these was added, in 1661, a church on Nordsrand; in 1662 a chapel at Glückstadt. As to Denmark proper, French diplomacy succeeded (1630) in obtaining permission to erect at Copenhagen a chapel for the French embassy; Catholic services were allowed at Fredericia in 1682.

After the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which abolished the jurisdiction of bishops over the North-German Protestant territory, an Apostolic vicariate was erected to govern these scattered parishes and those in Scandinavia. Valerius Maccioni, Titular Bishop of Morocco, was the first vicar; his successor was the famous Danish scholar and convert Niels Steno. The duties of this office were subsequently discharged by the Bishop of Hildesheim (1686) and by the Bishop of Osnabrück; in 1761 the vicariate was entrusted to Joseph Gondola, Bishop of Paderborn. When Dr. Lüpke, coadjutor of Osnabrück, was chosen Pro-vicar Apostolic of the North German missions (1841), he was allowed to exercise his authority only under severe restrictions. The number of Catholics amounted at that time to 865, of whom 550 lived in Copenhagen and 58 on Fredericia; the rest were scattered in the cities and over the country. So far conditions had been deplorable; they underwent, however, an unforeseen change when, by the new Danish constitution (Danmarks Riges Grundlov) of 5 June, 1849, complete religious freedom was granted, and political and ecclesiastical equality was guaranteed to all dissenters. Even before the enactment of this law the Catholics had succeeded in building at Copenhagen (1843) a church in honour of St. Ansgar. New religious life began to spring up under the pastors Zurstrassen and Grüder; in 1853 the latter, for the first time since the Reformation, preached a Catholic sermon in Danish. The number of the faithful now grew visibly. Several societies and fraternities sprang into life. A Catholic paper (now the “Nordisk Ugeblad”) endeavoured to unite the Catholics more closely and at the same time to enlighten Protestants. The beginnings of a Catholic literature appeared (translations of the Scriptures, catechisms, polemics). In the summer of 1859 the Bishop of Osnabrück (later cardinal), Melchers, made his first visit as pro-vicar Apostolic, and on several occasions officiated clad in his episcopal robes. A mission held by the Jesuits in 1862 bore rich fruit.

Conditions in Schleswig-Holstein, where the Danish constitution was not in force, improved only after its annexation by Prussia in 1866 (see Kleffner-Woker, “Der Bonifatiusverein,” Paderborn, 1899). Progress was rapid in Denmark itself. As early as 1867 the station of Odense was founded, in 1870 Randers; 1872 saw Horsens added; 1873, Aarhus; and several missions quickly followed. Pius IX raised the mission (1869) to a prefecture (first prefect, Hermann Grüder, d. 1883). Leo XIII made it (1892) a vicariate, and nominated the prefect, Johannes von Euch, Bishop of Anastasiopolis and vicar Apostolic. Thereby were secured the necessary conditions for a solid growth of the Church. Since then the number of Catholics has considerably increased. To-day it is estimated at over 8000, to which number we must add 7000 Polish workmen. There are in Copenhagen three parishes and four chapels with connected institutions. In the Stenosgade the Jesuits have established a high school and, close to the city, the fine college of St. Andrew at Ordrupshoi, both institutions numerously attended by pupils of every denomination. For a complete list of the present stations see above. Among the secular clergy there are several native Danes and converts. The regular clergy are represented by foundations of the Society of Jesus, Redemptorists, Marists, Lazarists, Premonstratensians, Camillans, etc. Hundreds of sisters are engaged in teaching and in nursing the sick in the hospitals. Among the converts are prominent Count Holstein-Ledreburg and family, Count Moltke Hvitfeld, and the gifted author and poet John Jörgensen.

How little the religion of Luther has penetrated the hearts of the Danish people, is witnessed by the Protestant Bishop Pontoppidan almost 200 years after the establishment of heresy. This bishop expressly admits in a pastoral (translated into German by Schonfeldt, Rostock, 1756) that an “almost pagan blindness” prevailed throughout the country. This is easily understood when we bear in mind that at the end of the seventeenth century the mass of the country population were unable to read and write, catechetical instruction was lacking, and the sermons, mostly of a polemical nature, were not understood by the people. On the other hand this state of affairs had prevented the formation of sects. For a time all spiritual life appeared to have died among the clergy, completely subject to the will of the royal “Sumepiskopus.” Towards the end of the eighteenth century, rigid Lutheran orthodoxy gave way quite generally to a rationalistic tendency. Bishop Balle of Zealand (1783–1808) and his successor Jacob Peter Münster tried in vain to stem this current. Grundtvig (d. 1872) was the first who earnestly endeavoured to restore to their former position of honour the Libri Symbolici, or ecclesiastical creeds. Afterwards he changed his views and came so near the Catholic doctrine that he found himself forced to renounce entirely the Protestant view of the Bible. His contemporary Sören Kierkegaard (d. 1875), at first an opponent of both Rationalism and the orthodox theology, then an enemy of the State Church and of official, or rather of all positive, Christianity, did more than Grundtvig to shatter to its very foundation the Danish Church as reconstructed by the kings of the Reformation period. As mentioned above, the legislation of 1849 and 1852 granted complete religious liberty. Thereby the Evangelical-Lutheran church ceased to be the “established church.” Since, however, the greater part of the nation exteriorly still adheres to it, the State guaranteed to it a subsidy as being the people’s Church; this leaves the Church subordinate to the civil authority; its ministers may be nominated and deposed by the Government. It exercises no influence over its own legislation. Its laws are made by the majority of the Reichstag, which has already enacted many that threaten an internal dissolution. Attendance in the city churches is slender, and the frequentation of the Lord’s Supper is not large. The people incline strongly to infidelity and Socialism, or find a substitute for religion in secret societies. Of the Protestant sects the following may be mentioned: Baptists, Mormons, Methodists, and Irvingites. A few thousand Jews are scattered over the land.

The Protestant clergy is divided, generally speaking, into three parties: the infidel-rationalistic school, no longer very numerous; the conservative majority, holding fast to the “symbolic books,” or creeds, of the sixteenth century; lastly, the Grundtvigites, who recognize the necessity of an ecclesiastical tradition in addition to the Bible, and in this way come closer to the Catholic Church. The revival of Catholicism not unnaturally called forth protests. The first to raise his voice was Bishop Martensen, who published divers little pamphlets and in particular a small work translated into German (Gütersloh, 1874). The feud was also taken up by the Copenhagen preacher Schepelern, more particularly by Professor, now Bishop, Nielsen, the author of various polemical works and essays (cf. Hermens-Kohlschmidt, “Protest. Taschenbuch,” col. 508). In conclusion it may be mentioned that, at the request of Frederick IV, the first Protestant mission was opened (1705) at Trankebar (East India) and another followed (1730) in Greenland.

POLITICAL HISTORY

Many thousands of years ago the northern countries were were covered with slowly moving masses of ice and snow, just as inland ice occupies the greater part of Greenland even to-day. Only after these masses had melted could the land be settled. At the end of the Glacial Period, the Baltic was at first one immense landlocked sea, for South Sweden was still joined to Denmark and Germany. The ocean later forced its way through and separated the Danish islands by the Sound and the two Belts. Frequent risings and subsidences of the ground gave it its present appearance. Denmark was settled very early. In Maglemoor near Mullerup, on Zealand, a habitation was discovered which was built during the Stone Age, and numerous are the Kjükkenmödinger (piles of refuse) from that age, which contain not only remnants of meals—clams, shells, bones of fishes and other animals—but also implements of flint, kaolin, and horn. The so-called Later Stone Age must be placed between 5000 and 2000 B. C. That forestry, fishing, and agriculture were then flourishing, is shown by axes, sickles of flint, nets, and similar finds. The attention paid to the repose of the dead and the sacrifices at the graves indicate that a life after death was recognized. At some period between 2000 B. C. and 500 B. C. stone was superseded by bronze, which was thenceforth used for vessels, tools, weapons, and ornaments. The dead were commonly buried in oaken coffins. Chairs, bowls, boxes, and similar articles were constructed of wood. The art of weaving clothes from wool and of making caps was not unknown, as excavations at Trindhöi and Borum-Eshöi, in Jutland, have shown. Scandinavian bronze objects, the raw material for which was imported, were always cast. The Iron Age lasted from 500 B. C. to about A. D. 1100, and is divided into four periods: the ante-Roman, the Roman, the time of the migrations, the Viking epoch. At first the use of bronze prevailed. In the course of time, however, iron became more general. As early as in the fourth century B. C. vessels were built of wood, like those which are in use nowadays.

It seems that the Germanic North began hostilities with the civilized nations of Europe at a comparatively late date. A serious conflict arose for the first time when Charlemagne, after the overthrow of the Saxons, set his face against the Danes who, as allies of the Saxons, had inflicted great damage on him (see CHARLEMAGNE). After their warlike king Gottfried had been assassinated, the war was ended (811). It was decided that in future the Eider River should be the boundary between the two kingdoms. Quarrels shortly arose in the interior; one of the pretenders (Harold) sought the protection of Louis the Pious and was baptized. At his request, Ansgar, a monk of Corbie (q. v.), preached for the first time, though with small success, the Christian Faith among the heathen nations of the North. Even before his arrival, some of them had begun the so-called viking expeditions, predatory incursions under their chiefs, which were directed as well against the Slavic kingdoms in the East as against the German and Roman peoples in the West and South. The Danish freebooters infested especially the coasts of England and of France. In time they gained a footing in both countries and founded new States which gradually coalesced with the native, civilized population into one powerful whole. This cut off the possibility of predatory expeditions for their fellow-tribesmen who had remained at home.

Meanwhile the German Empire had acquired new strength, and King Henry I endeavoured, no less from conviction than from political prudence, to persuade his northern neighbour to embrace the Christian religion. Gorm the Old, under whom the famous Danawerk was built as a protection against the Germans, was the last pagan King of Denmark. Under his successors, Christianity became firmly established and outwardly well organized (see above). After the treacherous murder of Canute Lavard, son of King Erik Ejgod (1131), bloody civil wars broke out, which ravaged the country for more than twenty-eight years and greatly weakened its strength. It was not until Waldemar the Great ascended the throne (1157) that better times dawned, especially through the co-operation of Archbishop Absalon of Lund (q. v.), who was equally prominent as prince of the Church, statesman, and warrior. The fleets of Wendish sea-robbers were destroyed, the Wends themselves were attacked in their own land, and the island of Rügen subdued. At the same time, the power of the ecclesiastical dignitaries and nobles increased, a fact which on the one hand ensured better order, but on the other also provoked the hatred of the oppressed classes. Waldemar’s son, Canute VI, added to his possessions Pomerania and Mecklenburg, and assumed the title of King of the Slavs. This childless prince was succeeded by his brother, Waldemar II (1202), who extended his sway along the Baltic especially by means of a crusade against Esthonia, for which feat he became known as Sejr (Conqueror). This apparently splendid power was, however, of short duration. One of the German vassals, Count Henry of Schwerin, raised the standard of revolt and made prisoner his Danish lord (1223), whereupon the subjugated nations cast off the yoke. Later on Waldemar sought revenge, but lost the battle of Bornhöved in Holstein (1227). Most of his conquests eventually melted away, and the Eider became once more the southern boundary. This noble king, who deserves great praise for his improvement of the laws of Denmark, died in 1241. His sons Erik, Abel, and Christopher waged war with one another, and all died a violent death. Murder and arson were of daily occurrence, and the land groaned under the wickedness of its rulers, who brought it to the brink of ruin. Erik Glipping, Christopher’s successor, died at the hands of an assassin (1286). His heir apparent, Erik Menved, succeeded in restoring order for a time. Meanwhile important parts of the kingdom were pledged to German nobles, whose power was steadily on the increase. His brother, Christopher II, was compelled to swear to a capitulation, at his election, and, since he did not abide by it, was expelled by the magnates under Count Gert of Holstein, who obtained the election of his sister’s son, Duke Waldemar, as the third king of that name. The legitimate prince indeed soon recovered his dominions, but held only the shadow of sovereignty. The real power lay in the hands of the nobles. New civil wars ended with the victory of the Danish element, which chose again, in Christopher’s youngest son, Waldemar IV, a national ruler. By diplomacy and force he regained the pledged districts and added Gotaland to his kingdom; thereby, however, he became involved in a war with the Hanseatic League, Sweden, and the Count of Holstein. Hard conditions were imposed on him in the Treaty of Stralsund (1370). Waldemar IV died in 1375.

Meanwhile Danish affairs had undergone a great change. King Hakon of Norway and Sweden had married (1362) Waldemar’s daughter, Margaret, a child of eleven, and thus the three Scandinavian kingdoms had become united. In 1389 this able woman caused her relative, Duke Erik of Pomerania, who was only seven years old, to be acknowledged as King of Norway. Seven years later the Swedes and Danes also paid him homage. At Calmar (1397) representatives of the three kingdoms swore allegiance to him. But Margaret’s attempt to perpetuate the Union of Calmar proved unsuccessful. She succeeded, however, by reclaiming fiefs, in strengthening the power of the Crown, and in compelling the adhesion of both ecclesiastical and secular magnates. Erik’s imprudence thwarted her plans and sapped the promising structure. As early as 1410 new conflicts arose with the Counts of Holstein, which, after Margaret’s death (1412), led to a sanguinary war, lasting twenty-five years; at its close the Counts of Holstein retained their Schleswig possessions, and the Hanseatic cities their ancient privileges. While Erik’s rule was thus unfortunate abroad, his avarice and harshness alienated the hearts of his subjects. The Swedes were the first to fall away; then an insurrection broke out in Norway, and the Danes themselves assumed such a threatening attitude that he thought it best to leave the kingdom. Abjuring their allegiance, the vassals now besought his sister’s son, Duke Christopher of Bavaria (of the house of Wittelsbach) to take up the reins of government. The Swedish crown also fell to his lot, but under conditions that greatly limited his power. With the help of the nobility he checked the uprising in Jutland. It was Christopher, also, who in 1443 removed the residence of the Danish kings from Röskilde to Copenhagen. Though a German by birth, he tried to check the power of the Hanseatic League, but did not succeed. He met with an untimely end in 1448.

Immediately the weak bond which had united Sweden and Denmark was rent. In the former kingdom Charles Knutsson was raised to the throne; in Denmark and in Norway Count Christian of Oldenburg, the husband of Christopher’s widow, and with him the house of Oldenburg, succeeded to the sovereignty. A feud sprang up between the countries. In 1452 the Swedes ravaged Skåne; the following year the Danes sought revenge, but in vain. A conspiracy among his nobles drove Knutsson from Sweden, which was subdued by Christian. During the latter’s reign the union between Holstein and Schleswig, which was later to have such disastrous consequences for Denmark, became an acknowledged fact. Christian’s rule over Sweden was only nominal. Internal troubles made it illusory, and after the battle of Brunkeberg, near Stockholm, he was obliged to evacuate the kingdom. Even in his own State he was hated for his extravagance. He deserves credit, however, for founding the University of Copenhagen (1479). His son Hans succeeded him in Denmark, while Frederick remained Duke of Holstein. The former was also acknowledged King of Sweden and Norway (1483), but with notable restrictions. Thus, in Sweden, the regent Sten Sture was the actual ruler until an unlucky campaign against the Russians drew on him the contempt of the people. King Hans thereupon recovered his authority, but maintained it only for a short time, as Bishop Hemminggad of Linköping succeeded in arousing his countrymen against the foreigner. King Hans died before he was able to overpower the rebels. His son Christian II relied on the middle class, tried to break the power of the nobles, and in repeated expeditions against the Swedes, succeeded in crushing their resistance (1521). But his excessive cruelty towards the Swedish leaders caused the Swedes to rise unanimously against him. Gustavus I (Gustavus Vasa) not only drove the Danes out of the Swedish provinces, but moreover invaded their country. Christian’s efforts in favour of the peasantry led to a conspiracy among the nobles. With their aid his uncle Frederick seized the reins of government, and even forced his nephew to flee to a foreign country (1523). After the former’s death the Hanseatic League made an attempt to restore Christian to the throne. He conquered, indeed, the greater part of his country, but the activity of Gustavus Vasa, on the one hand, and the combined action of the nobility on the other, soon changed the condition of affairs. In spite of this, Christian III, son of the deceased Frederick, could take Copenhagen only after a siege of twelve months (1536).

Under King Frederick, the teachings of Luther had already struck root in Denmark, but they did not entirely prevail either here or in Norway until the reign of his son. Immediately after the capture of Copenhagen the bishops were imprisoned, the churches confiscated, the monks and nuns expelled, and a new form of worship introduced (see above). Instead of the relatively mild rule of the bishops, the country now suffered under the galling tyranny of the nobles, who kept the lion’s share of the ecclesiastical property and reduced the peasantry to helpless helots. Despite these facts, partial Protestant writers still laud Christian III as the benefactor of his people, as a noble and godly man; Scandinavian historians blame him only for introducing too many Germans and for sharing Schleswig-Holstein with his brothers. He died in 1559. His successor, Frederick II, was a very warlike character. His four-year’s war with Sweden, in which the countries on the Baltic took part, ended in the barren Treaty of Stettin (1570). Christian IV, his son, and recognized as the heir apparent during the lifetime of his father, succeeded him, though a minor (1588), but did not enter upon the government till 1596. During his long life (he died in 1648) he left nothing undone to perfect the administration of the country and to increase its power. He advanced trade and industry, founded colonies in India and supplied them with missionaries. He established higher institutions of learning, and did everything in his power to improve the condition of the peasantry. Hostile complications with Sweden began anew. They ended with the Peace of Knäröd, which proved favourable to Denmark. As Duke of Holstein the king belonged to the Estates of the lower Saxon circle. These relations to North Germany obliged Christian to take an active part in the Thirty Years’ War. His hesitation was his bane. When, in spite of the repeated warnings of Tilly, the general of the Catholic League, he did not discontinue his military preparations, Tilly crossed the Weser with his troops (June, 1625). After some minor engagements and long manoeuvrings, a decisive battle was fought near Lutter (27 Aug., 1626), which ended in the total defeat of Christian. Wallenstein, Tilly’s successor, changed the defensive into an offensive war. He fought his way into Holstein, stormed Rendsburg, Flensburg, and subdued the whole of Jutland. Nothing remained to the king but to retreat to the islands, and he was forced to conclude the relatively favourable Treaty of Lübeck. The subsequent thirteen years of peace so restored Denmark’s military strength that in 1643 it could resist honourably, if not successfully, the unjust attack of its Swedish neighbor. The peace of Brömsebro nevertheless demanded fresh sacrifices from the unhappy kingdom (1645). Hardly ten years had elapsed, when the Swedes fell again upon Christian’s successor, Frederick III, without any previous declaration of war. King Charles X (Gustavus) marched 8,000 picked Swedish troops into Jutland and, profiting by an unusually hard frost, which had covered the straits between the Danish islands with a thick crust of ice, crossed over to Zealand. He forced the capital to surrender and the king to accept the peace of Röskilde (1658), by which Denmark forever lost the provinces of Skåne, Halland, Blekinge, Bohuslän. Not content with these successes, Charles immediately regretted his leniency towards King Frederick, embarked at Kiel, and landed again on Zealand. Too weak to storm the capital at once, he was compelled to wait and in the meantime behold his adversary’s active measures of defence. A Dutch fleet also approached, forced its way through the Sound, brought troops and provisions to the defenders, and obliged the Swedes to erect a fortified camp. Meanwhile an auxiliary army, consisting of Poles, Austrians, and Brandenburgers, drove the Swedish garrisons out of Jutland. Moreover, the population of the newly acquired provinces assumed a menacing attitude; on Bornholm all the Swedes were slain in one night. Nevertheless Charles Gustavus did not give up the siege of Copenhagen, and in February, 1659, undertook a night attack which was repelled by the heroism of the besieged. Soon after, the allies crossed over to Fünen and captured the Swedish garrison. The early death of the Swedish king (13 Feb., 1660) preserved Denmark from impending ruin; the guardians of the Swedish heir apparent, then only five years of age, were content that the Peace of Copenhagen (1660) guaranteed them the possession of the newly acquired territory with the exception of Bornholm and a few Norwegian districts. These disastrous years had one good effect on the Danish people: the clergy, middle classes, and peasants upheld their king; his crown was declared hereditary, and with their help he annihilated the power of the nobility and secured for himself absolute authority. The government was altered to meet the needs of the times; the tax system was regulated, and the growing revenue made it possible to increase the nation’s military strength. At the same time the pitiful condition of the peasants remained unchanged. Christian V (1670–1699) adopted the French regime as far as possible, invited German nobles into his country, and granted them extensive privileges. Naturally, the youthful sovereign attempted to bring back to Denmark its former greatness; in 1675 he began war with Sweden. His fleet destroyed that of the enemy off Oeland (1676). He himself crossed over to Skåne, and his Norwegian troops made an inroad into Westgötland. The loss of the battle of Lund (8 Dec., 1676) forced him to make peace in that city. Sweden kept its possessions, and Denmark received only a small indemnity (1679). King Christian survived these events twenty peaceful years. His son, Frederick IV (1690–1730), had to take an active part in the Northern War; but no great battles took place, nor was Denmark subject to grievous devastation. Eventually (1720) the Gottorp section of Schleswig was retained by Denmark. Frederick was succeeded by the pietistic Christian VI, under whose rule hardly any changes took place. His consort induced him, however, to erect extravagant structures, which proved a heavy burden on the finances. Under Frederick V (1746–1766) commerce and industry, sciences and arts throve, though the economic situation was very unsatisfactory. His son, Christian VII, ruined himself by his debaucheries. The infidel German physician Strünse, in whom the queen reposed her entire confidence, gained a great, and partly baleful, influence over the administration. He fell a victim to a conspiracy, whereupon the queen had to leave Denmark. The crown prince, who had been actual ruler during the lifetime of his father, reigned fifty-five years as Frederick VI. In concert with his excellent minister Bernstorff, he devoted himself to the welfare of his people, abolished serfdom (1788), and advanced, as far as lay in him, the happiness of his subjects. In 1801, however, he was involved in a conflict with Great Britain, which resented Denmark’s resolution to remain neutral in the conflict between Great Britain and France. An indecisive naval engagement took place before Copenhagen. After the Treaty of Tilsit, England sought to paralyze Denmark, then under the influence of Russia and France, and disembarking 30,000 men near Copenhagen, forced the Danes to surrender their splendid fleet. The ensuing war with Great Britain ruined Denmark financially. Moreover, it was forced to cede Norway to Sweden by the treaty of Kiel (1814). The modern tendency towards the increase of civil liberty prevailed also in Denmark. In 1835 the monarch granted a constitution which remained in force under King Christian VIII (1838–48). In the latter reign occurred the first friction of the Danes with the German element in Schleswig, where the latter constituted a strong majority. Still, an open rupture was avoided during the king’s life. The contest began in earnest when Frederick VII ascended the throne. The Germans desired that the two duchies of Schleswig and Holstein should be made one State, which should belong to the German Confederation and be connected with Denmark only by a personal union. The Government sought to counteract this movement by various measures, partly of an odious character. Representatives of the German party at last (23–24 March, 1848) proclaimed the independence of the duchies and appointed a provisional government whose head was Prince Frederick of Sonderburg-Augustenburg. The garrisons at Kiel, Eckernförde, and Glückstadt went over to him, and the fortress of Rendsburg fell into his hands without a blow. Volunteers from all sides rallied round his standard. As the King of Denmark did not yield to the wishes of the rebels, war began. The army of Schleswig-Holstein was at first worsted (at Bau and Flensburg), but when Prussian reinforcements under Wrangel arrived, the Danes were forced to retreat. The intervention of King Oscar of Sweden brought about the truce of Malmö, but its negotiations proved fruitless. Hostilities began again in the spring of 1849, and were continued with varying success (defeat of the Danes at Eckernförde, Düppel, Kolding, their victory of Fredericia). The diplomatic intrigues of the Great Powers compelled Prussia to make peace with Denmark (2 July, 1850) and to withdraw her soldiers. Unassisted, the small army of the duchies now opposed the Danes, but was completely routed in the battle of Idstedt (29 July, 1850). On 27 August of the same year the European Powers signed a declaration at London by which the unity of the Danish monarchy was guaranteed. An Austrian contingent occupied Holstein, restored Danish rule, and dissolved the army of the duchies.

During the truce of Malmö (1848) the first Danish Parliament was assembled by the king. After long and excited debates, a really liberal constitution was accepted 5 June, 1849, according to which the administrative power is substantially divided between the king and the representatives of the people (Folkething and Landsthing). All efforts to regulate the relations with the duchies were fruitless. In the autumn of 1863, therefore, the Government proposed a bill according to which Denmark and Schleswig should receive a common constitution, while Holstein-Lauenburg, as a member of the German Confederacy, was not included. This so-called “November Law,” which was to go into effect the first day of January, 1864, was accepted by an overwhelming majority. After the death of Frederick VII, King Christian IX, in spite of many warnings, approved of this new law. For this reason complications arose with the German Confederacy and later with its principal members, Prussia and Austria. Saxon and Hanoverian troops now occupied Holstein. An army consisting of Prussians and Austrians crossed the Eider (6 Feb., 1864) and, within three months, occupied the whole of Schleswig and Jutland as far as Lymfjord. A conference in London produced no results, and the war started anew. Düppel soon fell, Alsen was occupied, and even the island of Fünen was threatened. At this juncture the Treaty of Vienna was signed, by which the duchies were ceded to Austria and Prussia. By its victorious war of 1866 Prussia became finally the sole possessor of these Danish territories.

The loss of Schleswig having made useless the November law, the Constitution of 1849 was modified 26 July, 1866, and it is this revised and more liberal constitution which is still in force. Years of internal discord now followed, as the Radicals strove constantly to diminish the rights of the king, and as he was compelled to adopt extraordinary measures owing to his non-acceptance of the proposed budget. Not till the resignation of the conservative ministry of Estrup (1894) was there a temporary cessation of strife. Party rivalries and the steadily increasing propaganda of Socialism kept the country in a state of turmoil, and caused no little difficulty both to Christian IX and to Frederick VIII, who succeeded to the throne on the death of his aged father (29 January, 1906).

LITERARY HISTORY

It is manifest that no literature proper could exist in Denmark in pre-Christian times. There exist, however, some 200 rune-stones, some of whose inscriptions possess historical value. The exploits of the vikings were first recorded by Saxon and some Icelandic chroniclers. These records are not always original, but are partly influenced by foreign myths. The principal subject is piratical exploits. With the adoption of Christianity the influence and use of the Latin tongue becomes predominant. The first products (twelfth century) here, as everywhere else, were lives of saints, followed in Lund and Röskilde by annalistic necrologies. The energetic Archbishop Absalon (q. v.), a man of much intellectual power, fostered greatly the growth of historical literature. To his initiative we owe two important works: the “Compendiosa historia regum Daniæ,” by Svend Aageson, and the voluminous “Gesta Danorum,” by Saxo Grammaticus, the latter part of which chronicles events of his own personal experience or such as were related to him by eyewitnesses, while its introductory chapters often rest on pure tradition. Among the poetical creations of the earliest times must be mentioned the didactic poem “Hexaemeron,” by Anders Suneson (b. 1165), who also composed a poem, now lost, on the seven sacraments, and various hymns. The first attempts to put the ancient “folk-law” into writing were made in the thirteenth century. The “Jydske Lov,” also accepted in Schleswig, was reduced to writing by order of Waldemar the Victorious (1241). Simultaneously the ancient laws of Skåne and Zealand were written down. The ecclesiastical law also was soon a subject for literary treatment. The thirteenth century, moreover, saw the appearance of popular treatises on herbs and stones, cookery-books, and a kind of encyclopedia, the “Lucidarius,” whose pages contain not only catechetical instruction, but also information as to geography and nature. Fanciful descriptions of voyages and translations of French romances of knightly adventures gained a wide circle of readers. The “Rhymed Chronicle” (supposed to be written by a monk of Soröe) sought to kindle in the hearts of its readers love for their country. From Peter Laale’s “Collection of Proverbs” we obtain a fairly definite picture of the contemporary civilization of Denmark.

Religious literature owes much to the Brigittines (see BRIDGET OF SWEDEN). Apart from the “Revelations” of their foundress, they produced homilies, prayer-books, lives of the saints, hymns to the Blessed Virgin; a translation of the Bible was also undertaken (1480). The most important religious poet of the Danish Middle Ages was Michael Nicolai, parish priest of St. Alban’s at Odense. There is still extant a large work by him entitled “Rosary of the Most Bl. Virgin” (1496), not entirely original, however. He also composed short poems. Some of his writings, printed at Copenhagen (1514), were incorporated with changes in the Lutheran hymn-book.

In literature, Denmark, for easily intelligible reasons, has accomplished less than the great nations of Europe. Folk-songs of varied character, however, were always abundant. These compositions were not written down till late, and even now they are a rich mine for Danish poets. When the religious upheaval carried Denmark away from the Catholic Church, the Scandinavians had reached a comparatively low degree of culture. Since 1497 there had been a university at Copenhagen, but this was scarcely more than an enlarged cathedral-school, and was even discontinued for a time (1531). The Reformation did little to raise the plane of general culture. After the property of the Church had been confiscated, literature and science were no longer maintained, and there arose a universal complaint of the encroachment of barbarism. Few were willing to send their children to school; still smaller was the number of those who matriculated at the university. More than half of the forty professors whom Christian III appointed at its reopening were Germans. The king and his court never used the Danish language. Students of theology were forced to frequent Wittenberg or Rostock. A denationalized civilization and an exaggerated interest in theology were the natural consequences. For literature it was a poor and barren epoch, and in it, apart from Bible-translations, church hymns, and polemical essays, there appeared only lifeless academic dramas and spiritless, imperfect poetry.

Towards the middle of the seventeenth century theology lost its sway over men’s minds. Other fields, especially the exact sciences, began to absorb the attention of scholars. During this period Denmark produced men like Steno and his relative Minslöw (both of whom became Catholics), Tycho Brahe, and others, all of whom may be regarded as pioneers in their respective branches. At the same time, a keen interest was displayed in antiquarian research, and called forth the first editions of Icelandic sagas. By contact with other countries, secular poetry, uncultivated during the Reformation period, began to awake. However, the poets of the seventeenth century were unable to rise above the purely formal conception of poetry; they slavishly followed German writers and were satisfied with translations and adaptations. Even the hymn-writer Ringo was not free from foreign influence. At last the conflict between English utilitarianism and the rapidly growing pietism under Christian IV prepared the way for genuine national poetry. The first Danish poet, in the proper sense of the word, is Holberg (1684–1754). His comedies and epistles faithfully mirror the conceptions of the Danish provincial townsman. The sensualism of Bellman and other Swedish poets did not find a favourable soil in Denmark. Neither did the French illuministic literature at first strike deep roots. It was not till the end of the French Revolution that the new tendencies found an enthusiastic champion in Heiberg, who created a stir as a satirist and composer of political poems. Then, also, was inaugurated the necessary reaction against the undue intellectual sway of Germany. Though the dramatist John Ewald (1743–1781) was unable to throw off the yoke of German influence, he succeeded in eliciting purely national strains from his lyre. The same is true of Hens Baggesen (b. 1764), whose tales show clearly the influence of Wieland. Married to a German lady, and on friendly terms with the prominent German poets of his time, he produced almost as many and as good lyrics in that language as in his mother tongue. Both in success and popularity he was surpassed by the greatest poetical genius of Denmark, Adam Gottlob Oehlenschläger (1779–1850), the son of a German father. Oehlenschläger first became famous as a lyric poet, then treated myths in an epic form, and later cultivated the drama. It was his purpose, no less than his merit, to breathe new life into the heroic tales of olden times. But even he did not use Danish exclusively. Rich in honour and glory, he died in 1850, at Copenhagen. J. G. Hauch (1790–1872) a writer of mystical drama succeeded him. Ad. Will. Schack of Stafeld (1764–1826), whose ancestors were German, won renown as a lyric poet. While these men may be regarded as fathers and representatives of romanticism in Denmark, Nik. Fred. Sev. Grundtvig (1783–1872) was more “Old Scandinavian” than Ohlenschläger, and of course occasionally blundered. Far superior to his dramatic works are his religious and secular songs. (For his relation to Christianity and theology, see above.)

The path pointed out by Oehlenschläger was pursued by many younger writers. Among them Ingemann (1789–1862), by his elegant dramas and popular historical romances, was the acknowledged favourite of large circles, especially of ladies. Some became famous outside of their country. Bredahl (1784–1860), an imitator of Shakespeare; Blicher (1782–1842); and the poet of sensual love, Winther (1796–1876), whose novels strikingly reproduce the peculiar charms of the Danish landscape. A world-wide fame rewarded the renowned author of fairy-tales, Hans Christian Andersen (1805–1875). In opposition to the poetry of the Romanticists. Louis Heiberg (1791–1860) wrote his satires and theatrical pieces. Frederick Paludan Müller (1809–1876) showed traces of the influence of Byron. The vigorous, highly original Soeren Kirkegaard (1815–65) showed how poor a substitute for religion is æsthetics. Molbech, Boegh, Rumohr, Etlar, finally the Danish Jew Meir Goldschmidt and William Bergsoe must be considered as the heralds and pioneers of that Anglo-Gallic realism which under the favour of the Jewish critic George Brandes (b. 1842) found its way to the North, and has ever since influenced the literature of Denmark in every direction. Its controlling power is seen in the novels of the pessimist Jacobsen, whose “Marie Grubbe” and “Niels Lyhne” created a new school. Among other representatives of this school of literature (Gyennembruds literature) may be mentioned the lately deceased marine painter and poet Holger Drachmann, Sophus Schandorf, Erik Gram, Hermann Bang. Drachmann (b. 1846) was in his youth influenced by Socialism, but later changed his views and wrote lyrics and prose successfully. Great popularity was attained by his patriotic work “Derovre fra Gransen” and his collections of poems “Sange ved Havet,” “Ranker och Roser,” “Gamle Guder og nye.” Schandorf’s power lies in his vivid portrayal of peasants and the lower middle class. Erik Gram, in his novel “Gertrude Colbjörnsen,” follows in the footsteps of Jacobsen, while a warm patriotism breathes in his book “Hinsides Grensen.” Hermann Bang’s writings have force, but his style is at times obscure. He has shown his many-sidedness as a dramatist, journalist, critic, actor, and lecturer.

Among the many modern Danish authors may be mentioned Pontoppidan, Topso, Mariager, Bauditz, Nielsen, and Amalie Skram (novels); von der Recke, Magdalene Thoresen (lyrics and dramas), Budde (juvenile works), Lange (translations). Within the last two decades have appeared numerous works of more or less value in different fields. We mention here only two Catholics: John Jörgensen and John Fredericksen; the former is now reckoned among the most fertile writers of his nation, while the delicate “Digte” (poems) of the latter are worthy of wider recognition.

THE FINE ARTS

A. ARCHITECTURE

As mentioned above, the first Christian temple on Danish soil was the church at Hedeby (Schleswig). According to Adam of Bremen (d. 1075), Denmark possessed in his time 300 churches in Skåne, 250 in Zealand, 100 on Fünen; probably all were constructed of wood. Even the cathedral of Röskilde was originally of this material. The same holds good for the churches ad S. Mariam and ad S. Albanum at Odense, in which Saint Canute met his death and which was not torn down till after the Reformation. The wooden cathedral of St. Olaf at Aarhus fell down in 1548. Wooden churches remained long in use in South Jutland (Schleswig). But in North Jutland and on the islands, as early as the middle of the twelfth century, other material was used, according as the quarries were close at hand or easily accessible, e. g. granite, sandstone, limestone, or chalk-stone; sometimes tufa from the Rhine was employed. Frequently only the exterior of the walls was constructed of stronger material, the intervals were filled up with a mixture. The use of burned brick was soon adopted everywhere. Waldemar I (d. 1182) substituted for the wooden palisades of the Danawerk (see above) a wall of brick. After him most of the new buildings were exclusively constructed of this material, e. g., the churches at Aarhus, Randers, Elsinore, Röskilde, Ringsted, Næstved, Maribo, etc. Often free-stone was used for the foundations (up to a certain height), while walls and arches were built of brick. In some places (e. g. in Kjöge) layers of different stone alternate. The variations of style (basilica, round arches, pointed arches) succeed each other as in the rest of Europe, though they were partly influenced by Cistercian and Brigittine forms. Alongside of churches with parallel naves are others with transepts, and even round churches. Church steeples seem to have occasionally served as means of defence. After the religious schism, people confined themselves in the main to preserving the existing buildings. The beautiful temples now used in Protestant worship were all built in Catholic times. On the other hand, the Evangelical kings spent large amounts in erecting and furnishing splendid castles, among which we may mention Kronborg (sixteenth) and Frederiksborg (seventeenth century). Only Copenhagen exhibits important edifices of modern times, e. g. St. Mary’s church, the Thorwaldsen museum; Peter Fenger, who won fame as a designer of churches and as an author; Chr. Fr. Hansen, builder of churches and public buildings; Theophilus Hansen, an eminent master whose works embellish Austria and Greece; Henry Hansen, whose influence on artistic handicrafts in Denmark can hardly be over-estimated; finally, Harsdorf, Melbye, and Uldall; the last deserves special credit as the historian of bell-casting.

B. SCULPTURE

That the art of carving and chiselling was practised diligently and with some success ever since the introduction of Christianity, is proved by altars, crucifixes, choir stalls, etc. still found in churches or museums. The names of the masters can, however, rarely be ascertained with any degree of certainty. We know, e. g., that a certain Liutger is the maker of a very fine crucifix carved from a walrus-tooth. This cross now adorns the Danish National Museum and bears the inscription: “Qui in Christum crucifixum credunt, Liutgeri memoriam orando faciant.” The sixteenth century seems to have been barren of skilful sculptors. We only know that a certain Berg, a German born in Lübeck, carved beautiful ivory ornaments and also distinguished himself as a painter. Many artists from various countries worked either permanently or temporarily in Denmark (Germans: as Rössler, Preisler, Reinhardt, Schwabe; Englishmen: as Stanley; Frenchmen: as Villars, Boudan, Prieur; Italians: as Gianelli, Miani, Guioni; Spaniards: as Molinedo, de Corte; Dutchmen: as Vermehren, van Egen; Jews: as Levi, Levisohn, Saly, Salamon). Among the native sculptors, Bissen, Jerichau, Peters, and Wiedewelt deserve mention, and above all the famous Thorwaldsen (1770–1844); the engravers Clemns and Lund; the engravers Adzer and Christiansen.

C. PAINTING

There was never a lack of painters in Denmark. This is proved by the great number of beautiful frescoes in the cathedrals of Aarhus, Ribe, Röskilde, Viborg, etc., whitewashed in the sixteenth century, but re-discovered of late and restored at great cost. Abildgaard (1743–1809), himself a notable artist (historical painter), must be considered as the father of the Danish school of painting in modern times, which has produced excellent works of art along various lines. Among the historical painters are Eckersberg, C. C. C. Hansen, Christ, Höyer, Marstrand, Müller, Paulsen, Simonsen, and Albert Küchler (died a Catholic and Franciscan lay-brother at Rome 1886). The pictures of his youth exhibit a joyous mood; the creations of his later life show a deep earnestness. Skilful portrait-painters are Bache, Bendz, Baerentzen, Copmann, H. Hansen, Juel, Roed; genre painters are Exner, Hammer, Sönne; Ottesen was distinguished as a flower-painter; miniature-painters: Höyer as a miniaturist. Especial preference is given to landscapes, marine and animal canvases. Excellent landscape painters were (or are) Aegard, Kröyer, Lundbye, Hens Müller, Skovgaard; marine painters: Larsen, Melbye, Neumann; beautiful reproductions of animal life are to be credited to Gebauer and Lundbye.

GEOGRAPHY.—TRAP, Beskrivelse af Kongeriget Danmark (1898—); LÖFFLER, Omrids af Geographien (Denmark, 1893–98); ID., Danmarks Natur und Volk (Copenhagen, 1905, with literary notes on the Faroe Islands and Iceland, 111–114).

RELIGIOUS HISTORY.—H. PETERSEN, Om Nordboernes og Gudetro i Heldenold (Copenhagen, 1876); JOERGENSSEN, Den nordiske Kirkes Grundlaeggelse og Förste Udvikling (Copenhagen, 1874); MÜNSTER, Kirchengeschichte v. Dänemark und Norwegen (Leipzig, 1823); KARUP (convert), Geschichte der katholischen Kirche in Dänemark, tr. from the Danish (Münster, 1863); JENSEN, Schleswig-Holsteinische Kirchengeschichte, ed. by MICHELSEN (4 vols., Kiel, 1873–79; index, 1881); WITT, Der Katholizismus in Schleswig-Holstein seit der Reformation, in Proceedings of the Society for Schleswig-Holstein Church-History, 2d series, number 5; HELVEG, Den danske Kirkes Historie til Reformationen (1862–70); KOCH, Den danske Kirkes Historie, 1801–1854 (1879–83); FUNK, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte (4th ed., 1902); CORNELIUS, Kristna Kyrkans historia (5th ed., Stockholm, 1809); Det nittonde århundradets Kyrkohistoria (2d ed., Upsala, 1899); ENGELN (Catholic), Den Kristne Kirkes Historie (2d ed., Copenhagen, 1896), a popular treatise, but based on original sources; BERLAGE in Kirchenelex. s. v. Dänemark; Katholische Missionen (Freiburg, 1880, 1881, 1883, 1891, 1897, 1898, 1900–1901, 1904–1905, 1906–1907); Nordisk Ugeblad for Katholske Kristne—former title, Nordisk Kirketidende (published since 1856); O. ANDERSEN, Varden (1903—), a literary periodical; Kirkehistoriske Samlinger utg. af Selskabet for Danmarks Kirkenhistorie (Copenhagen, 1849—); DAUGAARD, Om de danske Klostre i Middelalderen (Copenhagen, 1830); HELVEG, De danske Domkapitler für Reformationen (Copenhagen, 1855); BAXTER in The Ave Maria (Notre Dame, Ind.), LXIV, no. 22.

POLITICAL HISTORY.—LANGEBECK, Scriptores rerum Danicarum medii ævi cont. by SUHM (Copenhagen, 1772–92); 8th vol. by ENGELSTOFT AND WERLAUFF (Copenhagen, 1834); RÖRDAM ed., Monumenta historiæ Danicæ (Copenhagen, 1871–84); Regesta diplomatica hist. Danicæ (Copenhagen, 1847–85); BRICKA, Dansk biographisk Lexicon (Copenhagen, 1877); ALLEN, Haandbog i Fäderneslandets Historie, 18th ed. (Copenhagen, 1881), German tr. by FALK (2d ed., Kiel, 1846); WHITTE, Fädrelands Historie (Copenhagen, 1884); STEENSTRUP, ERSLEY, AND OTHERS, Danmarks Riges Historie (Copenhagen, 1896); ODHNER, Laerobok i Sveriges, Norges och Danmarks Historia (Stockholm, 1886—a very good outline); DAHLMANN-SCHÄFER, Geschichte Dänemarks in the Geschichte der europischen Staaten, of HEEREN UCKERT. For Schleswig-Holstein, the wars waged on its account, and the relations of the Hanseatic League to Denmark, see DAHLMANN-WAITZ, Quellenkunde (7th ed., Leipzig, 1906–07); LAVISSE-RAMBAUD ed., Histoire générale du 4e siècle à nos jours (12 vols., Paris, 1893–1901); NILSSON, The Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia, ed., with introduction, by LUBBOCK (London, 1868); MONTELIUS, Kultursgeschichte Schwedens (Leipzig, 1906); ENGELHARDT, Denmark in the Early Iron Age (London, 1866); PETERSEN, Danmarks Historie i Hedenold (2d ed., 1854–56); WORSAAE, Danmarks Oldtid (Copenhagen, 1843); ID., Den danske Kultur i Vikingstiden (Copenhagen, 1873); ID., Den danske Erobring af England og Normandiet (Copenhagen, 1873); BUGGE, Vikingerne (Copenhagen, 1904); STYFFE, Skandinavien under unionstiden (Stockholm, 1880); THRIGE, Danmarks Historie i vort Aarhundrede (2 vols., Copenhagen, 1889–90); GOSCH, Denmark and Germany since 1815 (London, 1862); THORSANDER, Dansk-tyska Kriget, 1864 (Stockholm, 1888); ROSENVINGE, Samlingar af gamle danske Love (Copenhagen, 1821–46); MATZEN, Forelaesninger over den danske Retshistorie (Copenhagen, 1893–97); VAUPELL, De danske Hoers Historie (Copenhagen, 1872–76); GARDE, Den dansknorske Sjoemagts Historic, 1534–1814 (Copenhagen, 1852–61); Aarböger for Nord Oldkyndighed (Copenhagen, 1866); Hist. Tidskrift (Copenhagen, 1870).

LITERATURE.—For the extensive historical literature of the past century, as far as it concerns Catholics, see PERGER, in Kirchenlex., III, 1319 sqq., where is also given the specifically Catholic literature which developed from 1849 to 1884. Since then it has grown in a gratifying way, both in volume and depth; see FORTEGNELSE, Dansk Katholsk Litteratur som faas igennem (Copenhagen,—); MIKKELSEN, Dansk Sproglaere (Copenhagen, 1894); WIMMER, De danske Runemindsmaeker (Copenhagen, 1895–1904), I-III; VOLDEMAR, Helteliv (Copenhagen, 1904); GRUNDTVIG, Danmarks gamle Folkeviser (Copenhagen, 1843–1904), I-VIII; PALUDAN, Renaissance-bevoegelsen i Danske Litteraturen (Copenhagen, 1887); BERNARDINI, La littérature scandinave (Paris, 1894); M. AND W. HOWITT, The Literature and Romance of Northern Europe (London, 1852); HANSEN, Illustr. Dansk Litteratur-Historie (Copenhagen, 1902); W. OETERGAARD, Illustr. Dansk Litt. Historie (Copenhagen, 1907); SCHWEITZER, Geschichte der skandinavischen Literatur (Leipzig, 1885—detailed account of the literature, with characteristics of the authors and extracts from their writings in German version, but superficial and full of Protestant prejudices); SCHUCK, Sveriges Literaturhistoria (Stockholm, 1890); ID., Die Anfänge der neuskandinavischen Literatur in Internat. Wochenschr. f. Wissensch. und Technik, I, Nos. 12–13 (short but very clear sketch).

FINE ARTS.—DEHIO-BEZOLD, Die kirchliche Baukunst des Abendlands, p. 397—its introductory chapters contain a detailed literature, e. g. monographs on Ribe (HELMS), Röskilde (LÖFFLER, LANGE, KERNERUP), Odense (Momme, Lauritsen); LÖFFLER, Udsigt over Danmarks Kirkebygninger fra den tidligere Middelalder (Copenhagen, 1883); DIETRICHSOHN, De Norske Stavkirker (Christiania, 1892); WRANGEL, Tegelarkitektur i norra Europa (Antqu. Tidskr. für Sverige); STEFFEN, Romanska smakirker i Oestersjöländerna (Bidrag till var odlings häfder, Stockholm, 1901); WEILBACH, Nyt Dansk Kunstnerlexikon (Copenhagen, 1896–97).

P. WITTMAN.

Jacques-René de Brisay Denonville

(JACQUES-RENE DE BRISAY, SEIGNEUR AND MARQUIS DE DENONVILLE)

Born in 1638 at Denonville in the department of Eure-et-Loir, France; died 1710. Nothing is known of him prior to his arrival in Canada, except that he was colonel of a regiment of dragoons and in 1668 had married Catherine Courtin, daughter of Germain Courtin, Seigneur de Tanqueux, Beauval, Moncel, etc., and of Catherine Laffemas. Appointed governor of New France, Denonville, accompanied by his wife and two young daughters, left La Rochelle early in June, 1685, and arrived at Quebec 1 August. His special mission was to win the sympathies of the Indians, establish peace with them, and make war upon the Tsonnontouans, a branch of the Iroquois who were even more to be feared than the Agniers. Denonville soon realized that he did not have troops enough at his disposal, and asked assistance from France. Moreover, a powerful enemy confronted him in the person of Thomas Dongan, Governor of New York, who was constantly urging the Iroquois against the French. During the winter of 1686–87 preparations were under way for a campaign in the following summer; forts were put in a state of defence, and the savage allies of the French, such as the Miami, the Illinois, and the Ottawas, were asked to send warriors to Niagara there to join the main body in the early part of July. In the spring of 1687, 800 naval recruits reached Quebec under the command of the Chevalier de Vaudreuil, and on 11 June about 2000 men, under Denonville, repaired to Catarocony, thence to invade the country of the Tsonnontouans. Had he been less humane Denonville could have completely subjected the Tsonnontouans, but he erred by allowing them too much liberty. The position of the colony was consequently still insecure, and the other Iroquois tribes, affected but little or not at all by the routing of the Tsonnontouans, continued their attacks and depredations. Denonville believed that the Iroquois would come of their own accord and propose peace. But Sir Edmund Andros, governor of New England, still less tractable than Governor Dongan, had agitated the question of boundaries between the possessions of the King of England and those of France, the climax to his claims being his seizure of Fort Saint-Castin (1688). New peace negotiations took place between the French and the Iroquois, but the diplomacy of a Huron chief Tionnontate, called Kondiaronk, or the “Rat,” upset everything. By the autumn of 1688 the colony was in a lamentable state, sickness had decimated its troops, 1400 of the 12,000 who formed the entire population of New France had fallen victims to the destructive scourge, and the forts were abandoned.

The winter of 1688–89 was one of wild alarms, especially in the vicinity of Montreal, which was easiest of access to the Iroquois, and during the summer these merciless barbarians, to the number of 1400, invaded the island of Montreal and slew the inhabitants of Lachine. This onslaught caused the utmost consternation among the colonists. Great joy prevailed when it was announced that the Comte de Frontenac, who had already governed the colony for ten years (1672–82), would replace the Marquis de Denonville. When Denonville left the country he was looked upon as lacking in ability to deal with the savages, besides being too much inclined to follow every one’s advice; nevertheless, he was a fine soldier, a good Christian, and a governor admirably disposed towards the colony, which he was most eager to rescue from the clutches of the Iroquois. On his return to France the king gave him further proof of his confidence by appointing him assistant tutor to the children of the royal household.

N. E. DIONNE.

Peter Dens

Theologian, b. at Boom, near Antwerp, Belgium, 12 September, 1690; d. at Mechlin, 15 February, 1775. He completed his earlier studies under the direction of the Fathers of the Oratory at Mechlin, and in 1711 became a master of arts of the University of Louvain, where he afterwards devoted himself to the study of theology. He lectured on this subject to the religious of the Afflighem Abbey (1717–1723), and after receiving the licentiate in theology at the University of Louvain (5 October, 1723), he was successively professor of theology at the seminary of Mechlin (until 1729), pastor of the metropolitan church there (1729–1737), president of the seminary (1735–1775), canon and Scholasticus (1737), then penitentiary (1751), and finally archpriest of the chapter (1754–1775). The work which he had undertaken of enlarging the seminary compelled him to relinquish the chair of theology which he had again occcupied 1741–1747. He was always distinguished by his simplicity, solid piety, and love for the poor, and above all by his zeal for the moral and scientific training of the clergy. The organization of the concursus for the collation of the cures and the reform of the theological instruction in the Diocese of Mechlin were in great measure his work. He is not the author of the complete course of theological lectures entitled “Theologia ad usum seminariorum” which was pulished under his name in 1777, and is still published, though greatly modified, by the professors fo the seminary of Mechlin (Theologia ad usum seminarii Mechliniensis, olim sub nomine P. Dens edita); but he published a treatise on penance and on the virture of religion (Supplementum theologiae Laur. Neesen. De virtute religionis; Dictata de sacramento Poenitentiae. Mechlin, 1758), and several tracts against the Recollet John Tomson, in favour of the custom existing in some parishes of the Diocese of Mechlin, of asking and inscribing in a register the names of those who went to confession (Reponsio P. Dens ad dissertationem et apologiam Joannis Tomson. Mechlin, 1759), and against the Augustinian monk Maugis, professor at the University of Louvain (Collectio scriptorum quae separatim in lucem edita sunt circa quaestionem theologicam an sacerdos vel beneficiarius recitans horas canonicas in affectu peccati mortalis satisfaciat praecepto seu obligationi recitandi horas canonicas. Louvain, 1765).

Biographical notice in the first volume of the oldest editions of the Theologia ad usum seminariorum Journal historique et litteraire (Liege, 1839), VI, 243; DEWALQUE in Biographie nationale (Brussels, 1876), V 599; HURTER, Nomenclator literarius, III, 41; BAETEN Naamrollen betrekkelijk de kerkelijke geschiedenis van het aartsbisdom van Mechelen (Mechlin, 1881), I, 308.

A. VAN HOVE

Denunciation

Denunciation (Lat. denunciare) is making known the crime of another to one who is his superior. The employment of denunciation has its origin in the Scriptures. Christ ordains (Matt., xviii, 15–17), “If thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” As the object of this denunciation was the bettering of one’s neighbour, by admonition, not vindictive punishment, it has re- ceived the name of charitable or evangelical denunciation. The term paternal correction is also applied to it.

After the Church had obtained an official status before the world, it built up a process of criminal law, and judicial denunciation took the place of evangelical. The difference consists in this, that the judicial declaration is made not merely for the reformation, but also for the punishment of the guilty person. By ordinary process of law, it is an accuser who evokes the dormant power of the judge. If the charge be false, such accuser is obliged to sustain the punishment that would have been inflicted on the guilty party. In modern ecclesiastical law proceedings, however, this law of reprisals has gone into desuetude, and in diocesan courts the promotor fiscalis takes the place of the accuser. The difference between the accuser and denouncer is that the latter does not assume the obligation of proving the charge which he brings, and so is not amenable to the law of risks or retaliation. To avoid, however, the multiplication of unfounded charges, a denouncer whose accusation can not be proved, is ordinarily suspended from his benefice and dignities until it is made manifest that his denunciation did not proceed from malice. If the person denounced be declared judicially innocent of the crime laid to him, then the denouncer must make oath that he acted in good faith in bringing the charges. It is allowed to the denouncer to appear also as a witness in the trial. The person denounced is, by that very fact, considered to have suffered in his good name and as a consequence he becomes incapable for a year of receiving any sacred order or benefice, unless he be found innocent. It is to be remarked that denunciation is not supposed to take place until private admonitions have been tried fruitlessly. Denunciation in the strict sense of the law has practically gone in into desuetude, and its place is taken by a simple statement to a superior who has the right of proceeding canonically against delinquents, without subjecting the informer to the obligations incumbent on denouncers.

There is a special obligation imposed by a decree of the Holy Office to denounce heretics, magicians, those who have abused the Sacrament of Penance (see SOLICITATION) and others guilty of similar crimes to the Inquisition (see INQUISITION). Where Catholics, however, live in places where they are mixed with heretics, they are not bound to denounce the latter. The term denunciation is also applied to matters connected with the Sacrament of Matrimony (see BANNS). Finally, as to the obligation of denouncing transgressors, every person is bound to do so, when he can fulfil the duty without grave detriment to himself and with corresponding utility to society or individuals. In certain cases only, is denunciation strictly prescribed, as in those relating to matrimonial impediments, to abuse of the confessional, and to the names of leaders of secret societies.

Laurentius, Institutiones Jur. Can. (Freiburg, 1903); Ferraris, Bibl. Canon. (Rome, 1886), III; Reiffenstuel, Jus Canonicum (Paris, 1865), VI.

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Diocese of Denver

(DENVERIENSIS).

A suffragan of the Archdiocese of Santa Fé, erected in 1887 and comprising the entire State of Colorado, an area of 103,645 square miles. The first permanent civilized settlement within its borders was made in 1852, when a Spanish colony from New Mexico settled in what is now the southern part of Colorado on the Conejos River, where they built the first church in 1858. Similar settlements followed during the fifties, their spiritual needs being provided for by priests, sent by Bishop Lamy of Santa Fé, whose diocese then extended as far north as the Arkansas River, the boundary of the Mexican cession. The discovery of gold, in 1858, near the site of the present city of Denver, soon brought a great increase of population from the Eastern States. Mining camps and towns sprang up in great numbers throughout the whole Pike’s Peak region. This territory was then a part of the vicariate of Bishop Miège of Leavenworth, and that prelate visited Denver in 1860. Finding it practically impossible to attend these distant missions, Bishop Miège secured their transfer to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Santa Fé. Bishop Lamy sent his vicar-general, the Very Rev. Joseph P Machebeuf, and a young priest, Rev, John B. Raverdy, to care for the mining regions and the new settlements. Father Machebeuf had spent eleven years in the missions of Northern Ohio, and ten years in similar work in New Mexico and Arizona, and was thus admirably adapted for the work before him. The two missionaries arrived at Denver in October, 1860, and for over seven years they laboured, almost unaided, visiting the immense territory confided to them, building churches wherever the prospects warranted such an undertaking.

The increase of population was so great during those early years, and the prospects of permanency became so favourable that the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore recommended to the Holy See the creation of the Vicariate Apostolic of Colorado and Utah. Consequently Father Machebeuf was nominated to that office and was consecrated titular Bishop of Epiphania at Cincinnati by Archbishop Purcell, 16 August, 1868. The new prelate was born 11 August, 1812, at Riom, Puy-de-Dome, France. He was ordained priest 21 December, 1836, at Clermont-Ferrand, the see of his native diocese. When he took charge as Vicar Apostolic he had but three priests within his jurisdiction, but he returned to the field of his work and redoubled his own efforts, visiting every portion of his vast vicariate, doing the work of priest and bishop and endeavouring at the same time to secure priests for the rapidly increasing population. His zeal for religion was shown also by his many efforts to secure locations for future churches, charitable and educational institutions, several of which were built in his own time-notably, the Loretto Academy at Denver, in 1864, and later St. Joseph’s Hospital, the House of the Good Shepherd, and the College of the Sacred Heart. In 1871 his burdens were somewhat lightened by the transfer of the Territory of Utah to the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of San Francisco.

By Brief of 16 August, 1887, the Vicariate of Colorado was made a diocese with the episcopal see at Denver; and the Rev. Nicholas C. Matz appointed coadjutor with right of succession (19 August, 1887). He was consecrated titular Bishop of Telmessa, at Denver, by Archbishop Salpointe of Santa Fé, 28 October, 1887. Bishop Machebeuf nevertheless relaxed but little of his missionary work after this, and retained the administration of the diocese until his death, on 10 July, 1889, leaving in the diocese 34 secular and 30 regular priests, 112 churches and chapels, 1 college, 9 academies, 9 hospitals, 2 asylums, and over 3000 children in Catholic schools.

Bishop Matz, who was born 6 April, 1850, at Munster, Lorraine, France, and ordained priest at Denver, 31 May, 1874, continued the good work of his predecessor.

The diocese contains (1908) 62 secular priests, 71 priests of religious orders: Jesuits, Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, Redemptorists, Servites, and Theatines, engaged in parish and educational work, 2 colleges for young men with 261 students, 531 religious women of 15 different institutes: the Sisters of Loretto, Charity (Mt. St. Joseph, Ohio), Charity (Leavenworth, Kansas), St. Joseph, Mercy, the Good Shepherd, Third Order of St. Dominic, St. Francis, St. Benedict (Chicago, Illinois), Charity B.V.M. (Dubuque, Iowa), St. Francis of the Perpetual Adoration, Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart, St. Benedict (Erie, Pennsylvania), St. Joseph (Wichita, Kansas), St. Francis of Assisi. There are 4 orphan asylums with 588 children; an industrial and reform school with 225 inmates, a home, 15 hospitals with 11,300 patients annually, 10 academies with 900 pupils and 25 parish schools with 6600 children. The theological students number 10. There are 60 churches, 91 chapels, 140 stations, and a Catholic population of 99, 485. The Sacred Heart Orphanage at Pueblo sheltering 150 children, owes its existence and partial endowment to the generosity of Captain John J. Lambert of Pueblo, an exemplary Catholic prominent in works of charity and zeal. The English language is generally used, but in many of the mining districts and industrial centres there is a necessity for the Italian and Slav languages, while Spanish is usually spoken in the southern parishes. There is no diocesan debt, and the individual churches and institutions are solvent and prosperous.

HOWLETT, Life of Bishop Machebeuf (Denver, 1908); REUSS, Biog. Cycl. Of the Cath. Hierarchy of the U.S. (Milwaukee, 1898).

W.J. HOWLETT

Denys the Carthusian

(DENYS VAN LEEUWEN, ALSO LEUW OR LIEUWE).

Born in 1402 in that part of the Belgian province of Limburg which was formerly comprised in the county of Hesbaye; died 12 March, 1471. His birthplace was Ryckel, a small village a few miles from Saint-Trond, whence ancient writers have often surnamed him Ryckel or à Ryckel. His parents, historians say, were of noble rank; he himself says, however, that when a child he kept his father’s sheep. His remarkable aptitude for intellectual pursuits and his eagerness to learn induced his parents to give him a liberal education, and they sent him to a school at Saint-Trond. In 1415 he went to another school at Zwolle (Overijssel), which was then of great repute and attracted many students from various parts of Germany. He there entered upon the study of philosophy and became acquainted with the principles and practice of religious life, which the rector, John Cele, a very holy man, himself taught. Shortly after the rector’s death (1417) he returned home, having learnt all that the masters of the school could teach him. His feverish quest for human science and the success his uncommon intellectual powers had rapidly obtained seem, according to his own account, to have rather dulled his piety. Nevertheless a supernatural leaning to cloistral life, which had taken root in his mind from the early age of ten and had grown stronger during his stay at Zwolle, finally triumphed over worldly ambition and the instincts of nature, and at the age of eighteen he determined to acquire the “science of saints” in St. Bruno’s order

Having applied for admittance at the Carthusian monastery at Roermond (Dutch Limburg), he was refused because he had not reached the age (twenty years) required by the statutes of the order; but the prior gave him hopes that he would be received later on, and advised him to continue meanwhile his ecclesiastical studies. So he went forthwith to the then celebrated University of Cologne, where he remained three years, studying philosophy, theology, the Holy Scriptures, etc. After taking his degree of Master of Arts, he returned to the monastery at Roermond and this time was admitted (1423). In his cell Denys gave himself up heart and soul to the duties of Carthusian life, performing all with his characteristic earnestness and strength of will, and letting his zeal carry him even far beyond what the rule demanded. Thus, over and above the time-about eight hours-every Carthusian spends daily in hearing and saying Mass, reciting Divine Office, and in other devotional exercises, he was wont to say the whole Psalter-his favourite prayer book-or at least a great part of it, and he passed long hours in meditation and contemplation; nor did material occupations usually hinder him from praying. Reading and writing took up the rest of his time. The list he drew up, about two years before his death, of some of the books he had read while a monk bears the names of all the principal ecclesiastical writers down to his time. He had read, he says, every summa and every chronicle, many commentaries on the Bible, and the works of a great number of Greek, and especially Arab, philosophers, and he had studied the whole of canon as well as civil law. His favourite author was Dionysius the Areopagite. His quick intellect seized the author’s meaning at first reading and his wonderful memory retained without much effort all that he had ever read.

It seems marvellous that, spending so much time in prayer, he should have been able to peruse so vast a number of books; but what passes all comprehension is that he found time to write, and to write so much that his works might make up twenty-five folio volumes. No other pen, whose productions have come down to us, has been so prolific. It is true that he took not more than three hours’ sleep a night, and that he was known to spend sometimes whole nights in prayer and study. There is evidence, too, that his pen was a swift one. Nevertheless the mystery still remains insolvable, and all the more so that, besides the occupations already mentioned, he had, at least for some time, others which will be presently noted, and which alone would have been enough to absorb the attention of any ordinary man. He began (1434) by commenting the Psalms and then went on to comment the whole of the Old and the New Testament. He commented also the works of Boethius, Peter Lombard, John Climacus, as well as those of, or attributed to, Dionysius the Areopagite, and translated Cassian into easier Latin. It was after seeing one of his commentaries that Pope Eugene IV exclaimed: “Let Mother Church rejoice to have such a son!” He wrote theological treatises, such as his “Summa Fidei Orthodoxæ”; “Compendium Theologicum,” “De Lumine Christianæ Theoriæ,” “De Laudibus B. V. Mariæ,” and “De Præconio B. V. Mariæ” (in both of which treatises he upholds the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception), “De quatuor Novissimus,” etc.; philosophical treatises, such as his “Compendium philosophicum,” “De venustate mundi et pulchritudine Dei” (a most remarkable æsthetic dissertation), “De ente et essentiâ,” etc.; a great many treatises relating to morals, asceticism, church discipline, liturgy, etc.; sermons and homilies for all the Sundays and festivals of the year, etc. His writings, taken as a whole, show him to be a compiler rather than an original thinker; they contain more unction and piety than deep speculation. He was no innovator, no builder of systems, and especially no quibbler. Indeed he had a decided dislike for metaphysical subtleties of no positive use, for he was of far too practical a turn of mind to waste time in idle dialectic niceties, and sought only to do immediate good to souls and tend their spiritual needs, drawing them away from sin and guiding and urging them on in the path to heaven.

As an expounder of Scripture, he generally does no more than reproduce or recapitulate what other commentators had said before him. If his commentaries bring no light to modern exegetics they are at least an abundant mine of pious reflections. As a theologian and a philosopher he is a servile follower of no one master and belongs to no particular school. Although an admirer of Aristotle and Aquinas, he is neither an Aristotelian nor a Thomist in the usual sense of the words, but seems inclined rather to the Christian Platonism of Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Augustine, and St. Bonaventure. As a mystical writer he is akin to Hugh and Richard of St. Victor, St. Bonaventure, and the writers of the Wildesheim School, and in his treatises may be found summed up the doctrine of the Fathers of the Church, especially of Dionysius the Areopagite, and of Eckart, Suso, Ruysbroeck, and other writers of the German and Flemish Schools. He has been called the last of the Schoolmen, and he is so in the sense that he is the last important Scholastic writer, and that his works may be considered to form a vast encyclopedia, a complete summary of the Scholastic teaching of the Middle Ages; this is their primary characteristic and their chief merit.

His renown for learning and especially for saintliness, drew upon him considerable intercourse with the outer world. He was consulted as an oracle by men of different social standing, from bishops and princes downwards; they flocked to his cell, and numberless letters came to him from all parts of the Netherlands and Germany. The topic of such correspondence was often the grievous state of the Church in Europe, i. e. the evils ensuing from relaxed morals and discipline and from the invasion of Islam. Deploring these evils he exerted himself to the utmost, like all pious Catholics of that day, to counteract them. For that purpose, soon after the fall of Constantinople (1453), impressed by revelations God made to him concerning the terrific woes threatening Christendom, he wrote a letter to all the princes of Europe, urging them to amend their lives, to cease their dissensions, and to join in war against their common enemy, the Turks. A general council being in his eyes the only means of procuring serious reform, he exhorted all prelates and others to unite their efforts to bring it about. He wrote also a series of treatises, laying down rules of Christian living for churchmen and for laymen of every rank and profession. “De doctrinâ et regulis vitæ Christianæ,” the most important of these treatises, was written at the request, and for the use, of the famous Franciscan preacher John Brugman. These and others which he wrote of a similar import, inveighing against the vices and abuses of the time, insisting on the need of a general reform, and showing how it was to be effected, give a curious insight into the customs, the state of society, and ecclesiastical life of that period. To refute Mohammedanism he wrote two treatises: “Contra perfidiam Mahometi,” at the request of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. The latter, named papal legate by Nicholas V to reform the Church in Germany and to preach a crusade against the Turks, took Denys with him during a part, if not the whole, of his progress (Jan., 1451-March, 1452), and received from his tongue and his pen valuable assistance, especially in the work of reforming monasteries and of rooting out magical and superstitious practices. This mission was not the only charge which drew Denys from his much-loved cell. He was for some time (about 1459) procurator of his monastery, and in July, 1466, was appointed to superintend the building of a monastery at Bois-le-Duc. A three- years’ struggle against;the inextricable difficulties of the new foundation broke down his health, already impaired by a long life of ceaseless work and privations, and he was obliged to return to Roermond in 1469. His treatise “De Meditatione” bears the date of the same year and was the last he wrote.

The immense literary activity of Denys had never been detrimental to his spirit of prayer. On the contrary he always found in study a powerful help to contemplation; the more he knew, the more he loved. While still a novice he had ecstasies which lasted two or three hours, and later on they lasted sometimes seven hours and more. Indeed, towards the end of his life he could not hear the singing of “Veni Sancte Spiritus” or some verses of the Psalms, nor converse on certain devotional subjects without being lifted off the ground in a rapture of Divine love. Hence posterity has surnamed him “Doctor ecstaticus.” During his ecstasies many things were revealed to him which he made known only when it could profit others, and the same may be said of what he learnt from the souls in purgatory, who appeared to him very frequently, seeking relief through his powerful intercession. Loving souls as he did, it is no wonder that he should have become odious to the great hater of souls. His humility responded to his learning, and his mortification, especially with regard to food and sleep, far excelled what the generality of men can attain to. It is true that in point of physical austerities, virtue was assisted by a strong constitution, for he was a man of athletic build and had, as he said, “an iron head and a brazen stomach.”

During the last two years of his life he suffered intensely and with heroic patience from paralysis, stone, and other infirmities. He had been a monk for forty-eight years when he died at the age of sixty-nine. Upon his remains being disinterred one hundred and thirty-seven years after, day for day (12 March, 1608), his skull emitted a sweet perfume and the fingers he had most used in writing, i. e. the thumb and forefinger of the right hand, were found in a perfect state of preservation. Although the cause of his beatification has never yet been introduced, St. Francis de Sales, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and other writers of note style him “Blessed”; his life is in the “Acta Sanctorum” of the Bollandists (12 March), and his name is to be found in many martyrologies. An accurate edition of all his works still extant, which will comprise forty-one quarto volumes, is now being issued by the Carthusian Press at Tournai, Belgium.

Loer, Vita Dionysii Cartus, (Tournai, 1904); Mougel, Denys le Chartreux (Montreuilsurmer, 1896); Welters, Denys le Chartreux (Roermond, 1882); Albers, Dyonysius de Kartuizer (Utrecht, 1897); Krogh-Tonning, Der letzte Scholstiker (Freiburg im Br., 1904); Keiser, Dionys des Kartaüsers Leben und pädagogische Schriften (Freiburg im Br., 1904); Siegfried, Dionysius the Carthusian in Am. Eccl. Review (Philadelphia, 1899), 512–27; Stiglmayr, Neuplatonisches bei Dionysius dem Karthäuser in Hist. Jahrbuch (1899), XX, 367–88.

EDMUND GURDON.

Francesco Denza

Italian meteorologist and astronomer, b. at Naples, 7 June, 1834; d. at Rome, 14 December, 1894. He joined the Barnabites at the age of sixteen, and during his theological course at Rome studied at the same time meteorology and astronomy under Father Secchi. From 1856 until 1890 he was attached to the Barnabite college at Moncalieri where he became widely known for his work in meteorology, a science which he greatly advanced not merely by his personal observations and studies but also by the interest which he roused in it throughout Italy. In 1859 Denza founded the “Bullettino mensile di Meteorolgia,” which was continued until 1894, and established a meteorological observatory at Moncalieri; it was largely through his influence that similar observatories, more than 200 in number, were gradually built in various parts of Italy. The success which attended his efforts gave him a national reputation, and in 1866 Senator Matteucci and Signor Berti, minister of public instruction, urged him to take charge of the department of meteorology at Florence. Denza did not accept the post, but in the following year, at Berti’s invitation,he read a paper on meteors at the “Instituto Superiore” in Florence. In 1872 he began a series of researches on terrestrial magnetism with special reference to magnetic declination, which illness, however, prevented him from completing. In 1883 the Duke of Aosta invited him to take charge of the scientific education of his three sons. In the same year he was director of the literary and scientific section of the National Exposition at Turin and chairman of its jury of awards. He represented Leo XIII in 1884 at the Congress of Scientific Societies of France, presiding over the meteorological section. He visited England and Holland on this occasion, where he was received with much honour. He likewise represented the pope at the Paris astronomical congress of 1887, when the plan was formulated of making a photographic map of all the stars in the heavens down to the fourteenth magnitude; through his influence the Vatican observatory was one of the eighteen chosen to carry out this important project. Denza was appointed director of the Vatican Observatory in September, 1890, and thenceforth lived at the Vatican. Here he inaugurated the work of this observatory in stellar photography. At the time of his death, which was due to apoplexy, he was President of the Accademia dei Nuovi Lincei. In character Denza was a man of simple piety and humility.

Among his published works may be mentioned: “Meteore cosmiche” in “Scienza di populo” (Milan, 1869); “Stelle cadente del periodo di Agosto 1868” (ibid.); “Le aurore pol. d. 1869 ed i fonom. cosmiche che accompagnarono” (1869); “Distribuzione di pioggia in Italia” (1871–72); “Valeurs de l’électricité et l’ozone à Moncalieri à l’époque du choléra” in “Comptes Rendus” (1868) LXVI; “Le armonie dei cieli, Nozioni di astron.” (1881); “Amplitudes d’oscillations diurn. magnet. à Moncalieri 1880–81”; “Osserv. di declin. magnet. ad Aosta, Moncalieri e Firenze in occas. d’eclisse sol 26/5 1873” in “Proc. Acc. dei Nuov. Lincei.”

Civiltà cattolica, Ser. 16 (1895), I, 93, 94; KNELLER, Das Christenthum u. die Vertreter der neueren Naturwissentschaft (Freiburg, 1904).

HENRY M. BROCK

Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger

One of the leading theologians of the modern Catholic German school and author of the “Enchiridion” universally used, b. 10 Oct., 1819, at Liege; d. 19 June, 1883, at Würzburg. In 1831 his father, who was a professor at the Liege University, took him to Würzburg, the original home of the family. Here he attended the gymnasium and studied philosophy at the university, where he received the Ph. D. degree. In 1838 he entered the Würzburg seminary, went to the German College at Rome in 1841, was ordained priest in 1844, and the following year took a degree in theology. On his return home he was first curate at Hassfurt-on-the-Main, became professor extraordinary of dogmatic theology at Würzburg in 1848, and ordinary professor in 1854. He continued to occupy this position, in spite of ill-health, till his death. Denzinger was one of the pioneers of positive theology and historical dogmatic (Dogmengeschichte) in Catholic Germany. In the generation after Johann Adam Mohler (d. 1838) and Dollinger (1799–1890) he carried on their methods and helped to establish what is the special character of the German school, exact investigation of the historical development of theology, rather than philosophical speculation about the corollaries of dogma. Nearly all his important works are in the nature of historic theology. The best-known and most useful is his “Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum” (first ed., Würzburg, 1854), a handbook containing a collection of the chief decrees and definitions of councils, list of condemned propositions, etc., beginning with the oldest forms of the Apostles’ Creed. It has often been republished, with considerable additions, of which the most important are part of the Bull defining the Immaculate Conception (Ineffabilis Deus, 1854), the Syllabus of 1864, and the Vatican decrees. After Denzinger’s death Professor Ignatius Stahl continued the work of re-editing the “Enchiridion” with additional decrees of Leo XIII. A revised and enlarged edition (10th ed., Freiburg, 1908), prepared by Clemens Bannwart, S. J., includes decrees of Pius X. Other works are “Ritus Orientalium, Coptorum, Syrorum et Armenorum” (2 vols., Würzburg, 1863–1864), a long treatise on Eastern rites; “Vier Bücher von der religiosen Erkenntniss” (2 vols., Würzburg, 1856–1857), “Ueber die Aechtheit des bisherigen Textes der Ignatianischen Briefe” (Würzburg, 1849), “Die spekulative Theologie Günthers” (Würzburg, 1853). He also wrote a number of shorter treatises, on Philo Judaeus (1840, his first work), on the Immaculate Conception (1855), and papal infallibility (1870). At the time of his death he was preparing a complete compendium of dogmatic theology. He edited a number of medieval theological works: Habert, “Theologia Graecorum Patrum vindicata circa materiam gratiae” (1853); De Rubeis, “De peccato originali,” (1857); P. Marani, “Divinitas D. N. Jesu Christi” (1859). He was appointed a consultor of Propaganda for Eastern rites in 1866.

Hurter, Nomenclator Litterarius, III, 1178–1179; Hettinger, Dreifaches Lehramt, Gedachtnissrede auf H.J.D. Denzinger (Freiburg, 1883); Der Katholik (Mainz), 1883, II, 428.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Deo Gratias

(“Thanks be to God”). An old liturgical formula of the Latin Church to give thanks to God for graces received. It is found in Scripture, I Cor., xv, 57 and II Cor., ii, 14.

IN LITURGY

Deo Gratias occurs in the Mass

as an answer of the server to the Epistle or Prophecies; in High Mass this answer should not be sung by the choir. In the Mozarabic and Old Gallican Liturgy the Deo Gratias follows the title of the Epistle or the Prophecy; at its end the Amen is said. The Greek and its daughter churches do not use this formula in connection with the Epistle. In the Latin Church the Deo Gratias is not said on Ember Saturday after the fifth lesson, which is followed by the canticle of the Three Young Men in the furnace, in order not to interrupt the sense; neither is it said after the lessons on Good Friday or after the Prophecies on Holy Saturday and the eve of Pentecost;

in answer to the Ite Missa est and the Benedicamus Domino, in thanksgiving for the graces received at Mass;

after the last Gospel; after the first Gospel the server answer Lau tibi Christe. Quarti (Rubr. Miss. Rom. Comment. illustr., 2, 12, ad 4) says that the first Gospel signifies the preaching of Christ, wherefore we praise Christ by saying: Laus tibi Christe; the second Gospels signifies the preaching of the Apostles, wherefore only Deo Gratias is answered, but such interpretations are artificial and arbitrary;

in the Breviary the Deo Gratias is used more frequently; in Matins (except the last three days of Holy Week and the office of the Dead) after every lesson answering to the invocation: Tu autem Domine miserere nobis; also after the capitula, the short lesson in Prime and Compline; and in answer to the Benedicamus Domino Compline; and in answer to the Benedicamus Domino at the close of every Hour. The Mozarabic Breviary puts the Deo Gratias after the title of the lesson, the Amen to the end.

OUTSIDE OF LITURGY

The formula Deo Gratias was used in extra-liturgical prayers and customs by the Christians of all ages. The rule of St. Benedict prescribes that the doorkeeper shall say Deo Gratias, as often as a stranger knocks at the door or a beggar asks for assistance. When St. Augustine announce to the people the election of his coadjutor and successor Evodius, they called out Deo Gratias thirty-six times (St. Aug., Ep. ccxiii al. cx, De Actis Eraclii). In Africa it was the salutation used by the Catholics to distinguish themselves from the Donatists who said: Deo laudes (St. Aug., In Ps. cxxxi). Therefore in Africa Deo Gratias occurs as a Catholic name, e.g. St. Deogratias, Bishop of Carthage (453–456). The name of the deacon for whom St. Augustine wrote his treatise “De catechizandis rudibus,” was Deogratias. St. Felix of Cantalizio (1515–87) used this interjection so often, that the people called him Brother Deogratias.

F.G. HOLWECK

Deposition

A deposition is an ecclesiastical vindictive penalty by which a cleric is forever deprived of his office or benefice and of the right of exercising the functions of his orders. Of its own nature this punishment is perpetual and irremissible in the sense that those on whom it is inflicted, even after having done full penance, have no right to be released from it, though the superior may, if he wishes, reinstate them if truly amended. Deposition can be inflicted only on ecclesiastics, secular or regular; it may be either total or partial, according as it deprives them of all powers of orders and jurisdiction or of only a portion of them. It differs from simple privation because in addition to the deprivation of benefices and offices it disqualifies an ecclesiastic from obtaining them in future; from suspension because it is always a perpetual vindictive penalty, not a mere suspension of the use of the powers of orders and jurisdiction, but an entire and perpetual withdrawal of them; from actual degradation in as much as it never deprives of the privileges of the ecclesiastical state.

This punishment can be traced to the early centuries of the Church when ecclesiastics guilty of heinous crimes were expelled from their rank and removed to lay communion. Although preserving the character of their orders, they were then considered, for all purposes and in the eyes of the law, as ordinary laymen, and were bound to appear with the ordinary faithful when receiving Holy Communion. The word deposition, it is alleged, was first used in the Synod of Agde (506, can. xxxv) to indicate such a penalty. Down to the twelfth century the expressions deposition and degradation meant one and the same canonical punishment. We know, for instance, that Paul, Patriarch of Alexandria (541), and Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople (861), met with the same kind of punishment; yet in the first case it is styled deposition and in the second degradation. Moreover, deposition always deprived ecclesiastics of the office they held by the ordinary title of ordination, and it was nearly always coupled with the ceremony of divesting delinquents of the garments used in the functions of their sacred ministry. In process of time, when, first by custom and subsequently by decree of Alexander III (c. At si clericis, IV, De judiciis), bishops were allowed to dispense from that penalty in crimes of lesser gravity than adultery, the solemn stripping of the sacred vestments was discontinued, to save the trouble of restoring their use in case of reinstatement. The new practice created uncertainty and variety in the execution of deposition, hence Boniface VIII (c. ii. De pœnis, in VI†) at the request of the Bishop of Béziers decreed that the formal removal of vestments, which now means and effects total exclusion from the ecclesiastical state, was to take place only in cases of actual degradation.

As stated above, total deposition prohibits the exercise of powers conferred by ordination, and effects a complete and perpetual deprivation of ecclesiastical offices, benefices, and dignities. It also disqualifies from obtaining them in future, while public disgrace or infamy and irregularity are inflicted on those who disregard this punishment. The character impressed by ordination being indelible, deposition from orders can only deprive a person of the right of exercising them. Deposition from office always effects the loss of the benefice annexed to it, as benefices are given on account of the spiritual office. On the other hand, deposition from benefice never renders an ecclesiastic incapable of licitly exercising his ministry; it is maintained, however, that it deprives him even of the right to a share of the temporal emoluments for his decent support. According to the present discipline of the Church deposition is inflicted only for enormous crimes, such as cause public scandal and do great harm to religion or morals, e. g. murder, public concubinage, blasphemy, a sinful and incorrigible tenor of life, etc. It is largely left, however, to the prudent judgment of the superior to determine in each case the gravity of the crime which deserves this punishment. In fact, deposition is now rarely inflicted; simple dismissal, together with perpetual suspension, usually takes its place. (See LAY COMMUNION.)

SMITH Elem of Eccl. Law (New York, 1889); STREMLER, Traité des peines ecclésiastiques (Paris, 1860); HOLLWECK, Kirchl. Strafgesetze (Mains, 1899); VON KOBER, Deposition und Degradation, etc. (Tübingen, 1867); GENNARI, Privazione del beneficio ecclesiastico (Rome, 1905); all commentators on the title De Pœnis, X (V, 37); HERGENROTHER, The Papal Depriving Power (1876); Roma Sacra in The Dublin Review (London, July, 1907).

S. LUZIO

Josquin Deprés

Diminutive of “Joseph”; latinized Josquinus Pratensis.

Born probably c. 1450 at Condé, Hainault, Belgium; died there 27 August, 1521. He was the most gifted and most learned contrapuntist and composer before Palestrina and was the head of the Second Netherland School. At an early age he became choir boy in the collegiate church of Saint-Quentin in his native town. After his voice changed he studied counterpoint under Okeghem (1430–1494). In 1471 he was at the court of the Sforza in Milan and, in 1480, in the service of Lorenzo the Magnificent in Florence. From 1486 to 1494 (except the year 1487–1488, which he spent in Ferrara), Josquin was a member of the papal choir under Pope Innocent VIII. He then entered the service of King Louis XII of France. The opinion that, towards the end of his career, he was identified with the musical personnel of the court of the Emperor Maximilian I lacks confirmation. Deprés dominated the musical world of his time, not only on account of his learning and skill but particularly because of his originality. His vivid conception of the meaning and dramatic possibilities of the sacred texts, as well as his great inventiveness, enabled Josquin to free himself more than any other composer before Palestrina from the conventions of his time. In consequence, most of the works of Deprés show the storm and stress of a transition period, in contrast to the productions of his successor, Palestrina, which breathe serenity and repose. Josquin’s fame was overshadowed by Palestrina and his school, and the subsequent change in taste caused his works to be neglected and finally forgotten. The present age, however, is doing justice to those early masters in music who laid the foundation for that which is greatest in sacred polyphony. Josquin wrote thirty-two masses, seventeen of which were printed by Petrucci (1466–1539) in Fossombrone and Venice. Others were preserved in Manuscript in the archives of the papal choir in Rome and in the libraries of Munich, Vienna, Basle, Berlin, the Ratisbon cathedral, and Cambrai. Motets by Deprés were published by Petrucci, Pierre Attaignant (1533), Tylman Susato (1544), and by Le Roy and Ballard (1555). Numerous fragments and shorter works are reproduced in the historical works of Forkel, Burney, Hawkins, Busby, and in Choron’s collection.

AMBROS, Gesch. der Musik (Leipzig, 1881), III; MÉNIL, Josquin de Prés et son école (Paris, 1896); HABERL, Die römische Schola Cantorum (Ratisbon, 1888).

JOSEPH OTTEN

De Profundis

(“Out of the depths”). First words of Psalm 129. The author of this Psalm is unknown; it was composed probably during the Babylonian Exile, or perhaps for the day of penance prescribed by Esdras (I Esd., ix, 5–10). The hard school of suffering during the Exile had brought the people to the confession of their guilt an had kindled in their hearts faith and hope of the Redeemer and confidence in the mercy of God. The De profundis is one of the fifteen Gradual Psalms, which were sung by the Jewish pilgrims of their way to Jerusalem, and which are still contained in the Roman breviary. It is also one of the seven Penitential Psalms which, in the East and the West, were already used as such by the early Christians. In the Divine Office the De profundis is sung every Wednesday at Vespers, also at the second Vespers of Christmas, the words Apud Dominum misericordia et copiosa apud eum redemptio, reminding us of the mercy of the Father Who sent His Son for the redemption of mankind. It is also used in the ferial prayers of Lauds and in the Office of the Dead at Vespers. The Church recites this psalms principally in her prayers for the dead; it is the psalm of the holy souls in purgatory, the words of the Psalmist applying well to the longing and sighing of the souls exiled from heaven. It is recited at funerals by the priest, before the corpse is taken out of the house to the church.

F.G. HOLWECK

Derbe

A titular see of Lycaonia, Asia Minor. This city was the fortress of a famous leader of banditti, when it was captured by Amyntas, the last King of Galatia (Strabo, XII,i, 4; vi, 3; Dio Cassius, XLIX, xxxii). In Roman times it struck its own coins. It was successfully evangelized by St. Paul and St. Barnabas (Acts, xiv, 6, 20, 21), and again visited by St. Paul (Acts, xvi, 1). Derbe became a suffragan see of Iconium; it is not mentioned by later “Notitiæ Episcopatuum,” and we know but four bishops, from 381 to 672 (Lequien, Oriens Christ., I, 1081). The site of the city has not yet been surely identified; the discussions are based on the above-mentioned texts of Strabo and Dio Cassius. It has been placed at Bin Bir Kilissé, at Divlé, south of Ak Göl (the White Lake), between Bossola and Zosta, and at Güdelissin in the vilayet of Konia, which seems more probable.

LEAKE, Journal of a Tour in Asia Minor (London, 1824), 101; HAMILTON, Researches in Asia Minor (London, 1842), II, 313; STERRET, The Wolfe Expedition in Asia Minor (Boston, 1888), 23; RAMSAY, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor (London, 1890), 336; IDEM, The Church and the Roman Empire (London, 1894), 54–56.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Anton Dereser

(Known also as THADDAEUS A S. ADAMO).

Born at Fahr in Franconia, 3 February, 1757; died at Breslau, 15 or 16 June, 1807. He was a Discalced Carmelite, professed at Cologne 18 Oct., 1777. During his studies at Heidelberg, where he graduated, acquired such renown that contrary to the custom of the order he was allowed to accept a professorship in hermeneutics and oriental languages, first at his own alma mater, then at Bonn (1783–1791). In the last-named year he was sent to Strasburg where he also filled the posts of preacher and of rector at the episcopal seminary. Having refused the Constitutional oath he was imprisoned and sentenced to death, but the capital punishment was commuted into one of deportation. It is not quite clear whether this was put into execution; certain it is that with the fall of Robespierre he regained his liberty and returned with shattered health to the convent at Heidelberg (1796). The Margrave of Baden withholding his consent to Dereser’s acceptance of the office of coadjutor to the Bishop of Strasburg, he was transferred with the whole university to Freiburg (1807), but having given offence by a funeral sermon (1810) had to leave suddenly for Constance. Thence he went to Lucerne as professor and rector of the seminary, but was expelled on account of his rationalistic teaching, and turned, on invitation, to Breslau as canon and professor (1815). Dereser’s combative character got him in trouble everywhere, and, though believing himself a good Catholic, he was imbued with rationalistic, anti- Roman spirit, and with the shallow Rationalism of his time, explaining away everything supernatural in Scripture and religion. All his writings are thus tainted, thought only one, and that without the name of the author, has been placed on the Index, “Commentario biblica in . . . Tu es Petrus” (Bonn, 1789). His principal work, the continuation of Dominic de Brentano’s German Bible (Frankfort, 1815–1828, 16 vols.) received permanent value only through the revision by J. M. A. Scholz (1828–1837, 17 vols.). Other works, chiefly Latin, were on the “Necessity of the Knowledge of Oriental Languages for the Study of Scripture” (Cologne, 1783); Hermeneutics of the Old and New Testament (1784 and 1786); Dissertations on the Destruction of Sodom (1784); on St. John Baptist (1785); on the Power and Duties of the Pope according to St. Bernard (1787); on a number of books and portions of the Old Testament with translations (partly metrical) and annotations; on the “Temptation of Christ (1789); on His Divinity and on Pharisaism” (Strasburg, 1791); on the “Foundation of the University of Bonn (1786); a “German Breviary” (Augsburg, 1793, several times reprinted) and a “German Prayer Book (Rottenburg, 1808). He also edited A. Frenzel’s Treatise on Matrimony (Breslau, 1818), in which the indissolubility is denied; the author afterwards retracted it.

B. ZIMMERMAN.

Derogation

(Latin derogatio).

The partial revocation of a law, as opposed to abrogation or the total abolition of a law. This definition of derogation first introduced by the Roman jurisconsult Modestinus (XVI, 102, De verb. significatione) was soon adopted in the canonical legislation. Even yet, however, derogation in a loose sense means also abrogation, hence the common saying: Lex posterior derogat priori, i.e. a subsequent law imports the abolition of a previous one. Dispensation differs from derogation principally in the fact that the latter affects the law itself which is thereby partially revoked, while the former affects the persons bound by the law, from whose obligation some of them are in particular cases totally or partially released. Derogation is often accomplished by special clauses inserted in papal documents, e.g. Non obstantibus etc. (see RESCRIPTS). The absence of such derogatory clauses as are always employed in papal rescripts makes them defective in form. The following rules are helpful for the interpretation of derogations:

Apart from special cases, derogations are to be strictly interpreted, any correction of the law being regularly of an odious nature.

A simple derogation, that imposes no obligation contrary to that of the existing law, does not require a formal promulgation.

No clause expressly derogatory of the existing law is requisite in making derogations from any kind of general ecclesiastical laws; exception is made only when it is proposed to derogate from the rules of the Apostolic Chancery.

Derogations couched in general terms are not upheld; they must be made in specific and formal terms.

The rule of law that a special enactment is derogatory of the previous general one (Generi derogatur per speciem; Reg. 34 in VI) means that a particular law which is a derogation of a general one must always produce its derogatory effect, it being immaterial whether it was issued before the general law or after it. In the latter case the special law is maintained as it was intentionally made by the competent superior; nor in the former instance does it lose its value, because the superior had no intention of abolishing it by a subsequent general law, it being a presumption that superiors are not cognizant of particular laws or customs. (see CUSTOM; LAW).

S. LUZIO.

Giovanni Battista de Rossi

A distinguished Christian archaeologist, best known for his work in connection with the Roman catacombs, born at Rome, 23 February, 1822; died at Castel Gandolfo on Lake Albano, 20 September, 1894. De Rossi, the modern founder of the science of Christian archaeology, was well-skilled in secular archaeology, a master of epigraphy, an authority on the ancient and medieval topography of Rome, an excellent historian, and a very productive and many-sided author. In addition to his professional acquaintance with archaeology De Rossi had a thorough knowledge of law, philology, and theology. He was the son of Commendatore Camillo Luigi De Rossi and Marianna Marchesa Bruti, his wife, who had two sons, Giovanni and Michele Stefano. Two days after birth Giovanni was baptized in the parish church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva and, according to Roman custom was confirmed while still very young, by Cardinal Franzoni, Prefect of the Propaganda. Up to 1838 De Rossi attended the preparatory department of the well-known Jesuit institution, the Collegio Romano, and through his entire course ranked as its foremost pupil. From 1838 to 1840 he studied philosophy there, and jurisprudence (1840–44) at the Roman University (Sapienza), where he was a disciple of the celebrated professors Villani and Capalti. At the close of his university studies he received, after a severe examination, the degree of doctor utriusque juris ad honorem.

De Rossi showed so strong an interest in Christian antiquity that on his eleventh birthday his father wished to give him the great work of Antonio Bosio, “La Roma Sotterranea.” In 1843, before he received the doctor’s degree, he matured a plan for a systematic and critical collection of all Christian inscriptions. In 1841, notwithstanding the protests of his anxious father, he visited, for the first time, under the guidance of the Jesuit Father Marchi, one of the then much neglected catacombs. After this De Rossi and Marchi pursued their archaeological studies together, so that they were no as the inseparable friends,” though the difference in years was great. As soon as he had finished his studies De Rossi was appointed scriptor at the Vatican Library and bore this modest but honourable title, in which he took especial pride, all his life. Great credit is due him for his careful cataloguing of hundreds of Vatican manuscripts. The free use of the treasures of the Vatican Library and archives was a rich source of development for his intellectual powers, especially in the sense of breadth and catholicity of interest. His official duties were not heavy, and he was able to carry on his private studies without hindrance. In 1838, in company with his parents, he went on his first journey and visited Tuscany, where the innumerable treasures of art completely absorbed his attention. During the summers of 1844–50 he visited the territory of the ancient Hernici in Latium and also Naples; in this way the knowledge he attained of the period of the Roman Republic was not purely theoretical. In 1853 he travelled for the first time by himself and went again to Tuscany, also to the Romagna, Lombardy, and Venice. In 1856 he visited Liguria, Piedmont, Switzerland, France, and Belgium; in 1858 he went again to Piedmont, visited the western part of Switzerland, and the district of the Rhine as far as Cologne; from Cologne he went by way of Aachen, Trier, and Frankfort to Bavaria and Austria, and back to Rome by way of Venice and the Romagna. On a second trip to France in 1862 he visited the northern part of that country, and after going for a short time to London returned by way of Paris and Switzerland to Rome. In 1864 he went to Naples for a second time, and in 1865 was in France for the third time, visiting particularly the southern French cities. In 1868 he was again in France, and in 1869 and 1870 he went to Tuscany and Umbria; in 1872–75 he explored the vicinity of Rome; in 1876 and 1879 he investigated the treasures of Naples and the surrounding country, and in 1878 he made a trip again to Venice and Lombardy.

These journeys of De Rossi are of much importance for the proper appreciation of his scientific labours. Such long and fatiguing expeditions were undertaken solely in order to inspect museums, libraries, galleries, archives, and other institutions of learning and art, to form personal relations with the scholars of the countries visited, and to increase the range of his mental outlook, always fixed on a subject as a whole. De Rossi’s extraordinary knowledge of the most obscure monuments of the civilized countries of Europe, and his thorough familiarity with manuscript sources, made it possible for him, as undisputed leader and master, to guide the science of Christian archaeology, during several decades, into new paths. These journeys help to explain De Rossi’s remarkable literary productiveness, when considered in connection with his minute investigation of all the monuments, both on the surface and underground, of the city of Rome and the Roman Campagna. These investigations covered the ancient pagan life of Rome, the early Christian period, also the Middle Ages.

De Rossi’s personal relations with the leading scholars of Italy and other countries began in his early youth. When he was fourteen the famous Cardinal Mai, Librarian of the Holy Roman Church, found him copying Greek inscriptions in the inscription gallery of the Vatican and became greatly interested in the lad; the acquaintance later ripened into a warm friendship. In 1847 began his connection as a scholar with the famous egpigraphist Bartolommeo Borghesi of San Marino; at a later date Borghesi’s works were issued at the expense of Napoleon III under De Rossi’s direction. A few years after forming the acquaintance of Borghesi a correspondence was begun between De Rossi and the Benedictine Dom Pitra, of Solesmes, later Cardinal, and Librarian the Holy Roman Church, which ended in a warm friendship with Pitra. This, however, led to an estrangement between Leo XIII and De Rossi. Father Bruzza, the learned Barnabite, was also an intimate friend of De Rossi. Wilhelm Henzen, long director of the German archaeological institute at Rome, lived in friendship and daily communication with De Rossi for forty years. When the Berlin Academy of Sciences, urged by Theodor Mommsen, undertook its monumental publication, the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,” it sent a flattering letter to De Rossi to request his co-operation. This led to an intimate friendship with Mommsen. The latter’s numerous collaborators on the “Corpus,” among them Edwin Bormann, the noted authority of epigraphy, found De Rossi ever ready to assist and guide them. Martigny, the editor of the Bullettino (see below), as well as Paul Allard, editor of the French edition of “Roma Sotterranea,” and Desbassyns de Richemont, were all closely united to De Rossi by the interests of their common work. To these must be added Louis Duchesne, the brilliant director of the Ecole de Rome, and collaborator with De Rossi on the recent edition (1894) of the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum.” Léopold Delisle, the celebrated savant, palaeographer, and historian, for many years the head of the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, was a man of the same learned tastes as De Rossi; their meeting led to a very active scientific correspondence, and later to a strong attachment, based on their scholarly interests. When, about 1850, Edouard Le Blant formed the acquaintance of De Rossi, he was totally ignorant of archaeology, but an accidental remark of De Rossi led him to take up this science; eventually he became a distinguished archaeologist and the director of the Ecole de Rome.

Among German Catholics De Rossi’s closest friendship as a scholar was with Franz Xaver Kraus. The cool reception he had from Döllinger, whom he once met at Munich, prevented the forming of any lasting relations. From 1884 Joseph Wilpert came into closer relations with De Rossi, who, up to his death, gave this scholar all the possible aid and showed the younger man the greatest friendship. The same may be said of Johann Peter Kirsch, archaeologist, patrologist, and historian. De Rossi also encouraged the labours of Anton de Waal, the founder and editor of the “Römische Quartalschrift,” and was a helpful friend to numerous other German scholars. For many years De Rossi’s relations were especially intimate with Giuseppe Gatti, his assistant in various kinds of learned work. Gatti’s fine scholarship enabled De Rossi to carry on daily confidential discussions of learned questions which, after the death of Henzen, had apparently come to an end. Gatti continues De Rossi’s labours in the province of ancient inscriptions. Henry Stevenson, who died too soon, Mariano Armellini, an enthusiast in archeology, Luigi Scagliosi, the numismatist, Orazio Marucchi, a popularizer of Christian archeology, Cosimo Stornaiolo, the “Grecian,” besides many other Italians, among whom Gennaro Aspreno Galante of Naples deserves to be named, found in De Rossi a fatherly friend and counsellor. Among his English disciples and friends were especially J. Spencer Northcote and W. R. Brownlow who made known to the English-speaking world the results of De Rossi’s scholarly investigations and publications. For years Northcote and Brownlow, and Lewis at Oxford, were in constant correspondence with De Rossi.

Stress is thus laid on the important personal acquaintance and friendships of De Rossi, in order to emphasize with what skill he stimulated interest in Christian archeology in all directions. Equally important, perhaps, were the relations established by him in the years 1850–70 during which he conducted many strangers, often of high rank, through the catacombs, or acted as their guide among the monumental ruins of Rome. The friendships thus made often secured for him the loan of monuments and documents which otherwise would never have been sent, even temporarily to a foreign country, but which were brought to him at Rome by the diplomatic couriers of all countries, not excepting Russia, using his opportunity to examine these objects at his leisure. The immediate superiors of De Rossi in the Vatican Archives treated him always as a friend and an equal, and allowed him entire freedom in all his studies. Pius IX honoured him with a fatherly affection, striking evidence of which was given on more than one occasion. Though the science of Christian archaeology was rather foreign to the mental temper of Leo XIII that pope often showed that, on the proper occasion, he could do justice to De Rossi’s great reputation. In Rome De Rossi was exceedingly popular; nearly all the educated citizens, as well as the foreign residents, knew and honoured him. Without some knowledge of these facts De Rossi’s learned labours and extraordinary success would be only superficially understood.

By his peculiar training, therefore, De Rossi was well fitted to understand sympathetically the early Christian literature, as well the rise and development of the Roman State as shown in the monuments it has left. In regard to the Roman State, he never held the somewhat mechanical and no longer undisputed theory of Mommsen. He penetrated also with marvellous insight the growth of the primitive Christian hierarchy. Amid his books and papers De Rossi pondered over the ruins of the temples and palaces of antiquity; reviewed his own subterranean explorations; followed the early Christians in their thoughts, wishes, hopes, and ideals; contemplated the triumph of the Church, liberated by Constantine the Great and entering triumphantly the basilicas; and gathered from yellowed manuscripts the traditions that a learned multitude of pious and painstaking monks had written concerning the Christian past, and in addition the accounts they have left us of their own times. In this way De Rossi was soon universally acknowledged, even in his lifetime, as the prince of Christian archaeologists.

Owing to his extraordinary literary productivity, which was the natural result of the conditions outlined above, a distinction must be drawn between his minor and his greater works. The list of his minor writings (monographs) begins in 1849 with the memoir: “Inscrizione onoraria di Nicomaco Flaviano,” which appeared in the Annali dell Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica (pp. 283–363). These archaeological and ecclesiastico-historical papers number 203, not including the so- called literary letters in which De Rossi answered the questions addressed him by various scholars. Most of these letters were given publicity in books or periodicals by those to whom they were sent. Nor does this total include an almost countless series of Latin inscriptions, expressions of literary homage, congratulatory epigrams, etc. Most of the monographs, often quite lengthy, appeared in “Bulletino dell Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica”; “Bullettino archeologico Napolitano”; “Revue archéologique”; “Bullettino della commissione archeologica communale di Roma”; “Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes”; “Ephemeris epigraphica”; “Studi e documenti di storia e diritto”; “Dissertazioni dell accademia romana pontificia di archeologia”; “Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’école française de Rome”; “Römische Quartalschrift,” and in other Italian and foreign periodicals and reviews. A few of these papers appeared as separate volumes or as learned tributes on anniversary occasions. They vary in length from one to one hundred and thirty-two printed pages.

The titles of his larger and monumental works are as follows:

“Inscriptiones christianae Urbis Romae septimo saeculo antiquiores” (vol. I, Rome, 1861; part I of vol. II, Rome, 1888); Giuseppe Gatti is completing this work (cf. “Archivio dell R. SocietàRomana di storia patria,” 1887, 696 sqq.; also the same society’s “Conferenze pel corso di metodologia della storia,” part III, Rome, 1888).

“La Roma Sotterranea Cristiana” (vol. I with an atlas of forty plates, Rome, 1864; vol. II with an atlas of sixty-two and A, B, C, D plates, Rome, 1867; vol. III with an atlas of fifty-two plates, Rome, 1877). The plates for the fourth volume were already printed in part when De Rossi died (see “Bullettino di archeologia cristiana,” 1864, I, 1864, 63–64; 1867, II, 89–90; 1876, III, 155—57).

“Bullettino di archeologia cristiana”; the first series, in quarto, appeared in monthly numbers (1863–69), with illustrations in the text and coloured plates; it consisted of one hundred and twenty-six monographs and communications. The second series, in octavo, appeared quarterly (1870–75), with twelve lithographic plates in each volume, and contained altogether fifty-three papers. The third series, also in octavo, appeared (1876–81), in quarterly numbers, each volume having twelve lithographic plates; the papers numbered altogether fifty-one. The fourth series, in octavo, appeared in yearly volumes (1882–89), each volume having twelve lithographic plates; the six volumes contain altogether forty-three papers. The fifth series, in octavo, appeared annually (1889–94), with zincotype plates and illustrations in the text; the last number was issued in 1894 by Giuseppe Gatti. The final volume of each series contained a full index which De Rossi prepared with the greatest care.

“Musaici delle chiese di Roma anteriori al secolo XV” (Rome, 1872), an imperial folio consisting of chromolithographic plates with a text in French and Italian. The work closed with the twenty-fifth number, issued after De Rossi’s death.

“Codicum latinorum bibliothecae Vaticanae,” vol. X, Pt. I, Nos. 7245–8066, Pt. II, Nos. 8067–8471; vol. XI, Nos. 8472–9019; vol. XII, Nos. 9020–9445; vol. XIII, Nos. 9446–9849. The indexes to vols. XI, XII, XIII, “Codicum lat. Vat.” are: Pt. I, index of authors; Pt. II, index of places, things, and persons. These manuscript indexes are used as reference books in the Vatican Library.

“Inscriptiones Urbis Romae latinae. Collegerunt Gulielmus Henzen et Johannes Baptista de Rossi. Ediderunt Eugenius Bormann et Gulielmus Henzen” (Berlin, 1876—). This constitutes the sixth volume of the “Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum consilio et auctoritate academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae editum” (Berlin). The invitation to De Rossi to act as one of the leading editors was given 22 January, 1854.

The five annual reports (1854–58), concerning the preparatory work for the above-mentioned “Corpus Inscriptionum,” which appeared in the monthly bulletins of the Royal Academy of Science of Berlin. The other annual reports have not been published; this is also the case with De Rossi’s synopses of the epigraphical manuscripts in the libraries of Italy, France, Germany Switzerland, and Austria. The last named summaries are of the greatest importance.

“Oeuvres complètes de Bartolommeo Borghesi” (9 vols., Paris, 1862–84). Napoleon III entrusted the task of collecting and editing the works and letters of the celebrated Borghesi to a committee of French, German, and Italian scholars, among whom De Rossi may be said to have been the most important and assiduous.

“Martyrologium Hieronymianum,” prepared and edited in collaboration with Louis Duchesne in vol. 1, November, of the Acta SS. (Brussels, 1894). This edition is a masterpiece and most of the objections raised against it by German scholars are of little importance.

The works briefly described above give some conception of the learned labours De Rossi carried on during his life. They are proofs of the genius with which he grasped a subject, of his extraordinary industry, his learned mastery of the most varied subjects, and the unwavering determination with which he unearthed obscure points; they also show the triumphs with which his toils were so richly crowned. The estimation in which his work was field is proved by the two international celebrations in 1882 and 1892 upon his sixtieth and seventieth birthdays.

De Rossi’s father died in 1850, and his mother in 1861. In the latter year he married Costanza, daughter of Count Pietro Bruno di San Giorgio Tornafort of Piedmont, by whom he had two daughters; Marianna, the elder, died in 1864. The second, Natalia, born in 1866, married the Marchese Filippo Ferraioli. De Rossi’s brother Michele Stefano was his zealous assistant in the exploration of the catacombs; the geological questions connected with these subterranean places of burial and all kindred subjects are treated by Michele in separate papers in “Roma Soterranea.” He also prepared the very accurate plans of the catacombs De Rossi was a portly man of fine appearance, somewhat over the middle height. The full, well-proportioned face was surrounded by a grayish beard which left the chin free. The clear, calm eyes lost much of their strength, so that he could not always supervise properly the work of his painters and this explains the numerous inaccurate illustrations in his works which Wilpert has corrected. The smoothly brushed hair gave greater prominence to the high domed forehead. In walking De Rossi bent slightly forward, which mannerism gave to his gait an appearance of much deliberateness. On the street he was generally busy with a book or pamphlet. De Rossi heard Mass every day and went to Communion nearly every week. Generous, unobtrusive charity was a second nature with him. Every evening he gathered all the members of his household about him for the recitation of the rosary. Although he very often received tempting offers to desert the cause of the Holy See and join the party of United Italy, he rejected all such proposals, even when they came from the highest authorities. On this point he was absolutely immovable. A few months after the international celebration of his seventieth birthday in 1892, De Rossi had an attack of apoplexy from which he never entirely recovered. Unable after this to use his right hand he continued to write with the left for the “Bullettino” and in making the corrections to the “Martyrologium.” But his days were numbered. In the summer of 1894 Leo XIII offered him the use of an apartment in the papal palace at Castel Gandolfo, where he peacefully passed away, a true son of the Church. He was buried in the Agro Verano (general cemetery) at Rome.

PAUL MARIA BAUMGARTEN.

Diocese of Derry

DIOCESE OF DERRY (DERRIENSIS).

Includes nearly all the County Derry, part of Donegal, and a large portion of Tyrone, Ireland; it is a suffragan of Armagh. The diocese owes its origin to the monastic establishment founded there by St. Columba between 546 and 562. But there does not seem to have been a bishop resident at Derry before Gervase O’Cervallen (c. 1230). The entry in the “Annals” by which O’Brolchain is represented as Bishop of Derry is due to a mistranslation. He was merely the superior of the Columban monastic houses, and was accorded the honour of a seat in the assembly of the bishops. The present Diocese of Derry was formed by a union of the old Sees of Rathlure and Ardstraw founded by St. Eugene, at what time cannot be accurately determined, and it was fully defined about the middle of the thirteenth century. The ancient monastery of Derry was one of the most important in Ireland, and eventually the chief house of the Columban monks. Gilla MacLeag (Gelasius) who succeeded St. Malachy as Archbishop of Armagh (1136) had been abbot of the monastery.

After the formation of the diocese in the thirteenth century the succession of bishops was uninterrupted till the Reformation period. Redmond O’Gallagher, appointed bishop in 1569, was one of the leading ecclesiastics in the province of Armagh at that period. He was appointed Administrator of Armagh during the absence of the primate in 1575, and according to a State paper (1592) he seems to have been the most active upholder of the Catholic Church in Ulster. He was killed by a body of soldiers in 1601. From 1601 till 1683 the Diocese of Derry was administered by vicars. From the appointment of Bernard O’Cahan in 1683, the line of bishops in Derry has been continued without interruption.

The population of Derry according to the census of 1901 was 222,505, 127,387 of whom were Catholics. It is divided into thirty-nine parishes, two of these being mensal parishes; the remainder are held by parish priests. The number of priests in the diocese is about 108. There is no chapter (1908), nor is there any house of the regular clergy in the diocese. The seat of the bishop is in the city of Derry where are also situated the new cathedral and St. Columb’s College which serves at the same time the purpose of a seminary and a general intermediate school, and is one of the most successful educational establishments in Ireland. There is also a flourishing intermediate school at Omagh conducted by the Irish Christian Brothers. The Sisters of Mercy have convents in Derry, Moville, Strabane, and Carndonagh; the Loretto Community have a house at Omagh, while the Sisters of Nazareth conduct a home for the aged of both sexes and one for children in Derry. The primary schools are conducted according to the rules of the Board of National Education, while the Model Schools in Derry have been completely boycotted by the Catholic population.

JAMES MACCAFFREY.

School of Derry

This was the first foundation of St. Columba, the great Apostle of Scotland, and one of the three patron saints of Ireland. When a terrible plague, known as the Buidhe Connaill or the Yellow Plague, dispersed the monks of the monastery of Glasnevin in the year 544, Columba instinctively turned his footsteps towards his native territory, and, full of the spirit of monasticism, bethought himself of founding his first monastery there, amongst his own kith and kin. An excellent site of 200 acres was offered to him by his princely cousin, Aedh, son of Ainmire, and the necessary permission of his master, St. Mobhi Clarainech, given with his dying breath, was immediately forthcoming. And so, a few miles from Ailech, “the stone-hill fortress of the Hy-Neill,” and close beside a beautiful oak grove which gave the place its name—Doire Colgaigh, or the oak wood of Colgagh—Columba built his church and several cells for his first monks and disciples. This, according to the “Annals of Ulster,” was in the year 545 (correctly, 546). Students both clerical and lay flocked hither from all sides attracted by the immediate fame of the new school, and the character of its founder. For several years Columba himself guided its destinies, and then, in pursuance of his apostolic vocation, he left to establish and govern the second of his great schools amid the oak woods of Durrow in the King’s County. But whether in Derry or away from it, in Durrow or Kells, or in distant Iona, the saint’s heart was ever with his first foundation, and often in the tenderest poetry he poured out his love for “My Derry, mine own little grove,” with its “crowds of white angels from one end to the other.”

For centuries after Columba’s death the School of Derry continued to flourish, and in the twelfth century, it was said to be the most important of the Columban foundations in Ireland. To this period, the most glorious of its history, belong the names of several members of the illustrious family of Brolchain—saints, scholars, and builders—as well as that of the illustrious Gelasius, successor of St. Malachy in the primacy of Ireland. Like all similar institutions it suffered severely from the ravages of the Danes. It survived these, to disappear completely, however, in the general devastation of monasteries that took place in Ireland in the sixteenth century. (See COLUMBA, SAINT.)

ADAMNAN, Vita Columbæ, ed. FOWLER (London, 1895); WHITLEY STOKES, Lives of Saints from the Book of Lismore, in Anecdota Oxonien (Oxford, 1890), V; HEALY, Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1890).

JOHN HEALY

Paul-Quentin Desains

Physicist, b. at St-Quentin, France, 12 July, 1817; d. at Paris, 3 May, 1885. He made his literary studies at the Collège des Bons-Enfants in his native town and then entered the Lycée Louis-le-Grand in Paris. Here he distinguished himself, taking the first prize in physics. In 1835 he entered the science section of the Ecole Normale where his brother Edouard had preceded him. He made the acquaintance there of La Provostaye who was at the time a surveillant and who became his lifelong friend and his associate in his researches. After completing his course, he accepted a professorship in 1839 at Caen, and in 1841 returned to Paris where he received similar appointments, first at the Lycée St-Louis and later at the Lycée Condorcet, where he succeeded La Provostaye who was forced to retire on account of ill-health. His growing reputation won for him in 1853 the chair of physics at the Sorbonne which he held for thirty-two years. His lectures were characterized by great clearness and precision and many of his experimental illustrations were devised or improved by him.

Between 1858 and 1861 he made many observations in connexion with terrestrial magnetism. His most important contributions to physics, however, were his researches on radiant heat made in conjunction with La Provostaye. With rare experimental skill the two physicists proved that radiant heat, like light, , is a disturbance set up in the ether and propagated in all directions by transverse waves. They showed in a series of “Mémoires” published in the “Annals de Chimie et de Physique” that it manifests the characteristic phenomena of reflection, refraction, and polarization, as well as of emission and absorption. They also made a study of the latent heat of fusion of ice, and a careful investigation of the range of applicability of the formula of Dulong and Petit representing the law of cooling. Of no less importance, however, was Desain’s work in connexion with the establishment and development of laboratory instruction in physics. When the “Ecole pratique des hautes études” was founded in 1869 he was commissioned to organize the physical laboratory. He made it a model of its kind both in completeness and in convenience of detail. During the siege of Paris in 1870, he succeeded after many difficulties in establishing electrical communication with d’Alméida who was outside the lines. The exposure he underwent brought on a rheumatism which greatly weakened his constitution. Desains published a “Traiteé de Physique” (Paris, 1855) and numerous articles, chiefly with La Provostaye. Among them are: “Recherches sur la chaleur latente de fusion de la glace” (Ann. de chim. et de phys. [3], VIII, 5); “Notes et mémoires sur les lois du rayonnement de la chaleur” (ibid., XII, 129, XVI, 337, XXII, 358); “Mémoire sur la polarisation de la chaleur” (ibid., XXVII, 109, 232, XXVIII, 252, XXX, 159); “Mémoire sur les anneaux colorés” (ibid., XXX, 276); “Mémoires sur la détermination du pouvoir absorbant des corps pour la chaleur rayonnante” (XXX, 431); etc.

TROOST in Comptes-Rendus, ix, 1259; MÉZIÈRES, ibid.

H. M. BROCK

Pierre-Joseph Desault

Surgeon and anatomist, b. at Magny-Vernois a small town of Franche-Comté, France, in 1744; d. 1 June, 1795. His parents were poor and he received his education from the Jesuits. He began his studies for the priesthood but gave this up for the study of medicine. His means not permitting him to go to a regular school of medicine he became an assistant to the barber-surgeon of his native village and then took a similar post at the military hospital of Belfort. His favourite studies were anatomy and mathematics and he applied mathematical principles to his anatomical investigations. Borelli had done this with excellent results and Desault translated Borelli’s “De Motu Animalium” with notes and illustrations. He was not yet twenty when he went to Paris where, in 1766, after two years, he opened a school of anatomy. So practical and thorough were his methods of teaching that he soon had three hundred students, many of them older than himself. In order to protect himself form professional jealousy, as he had no degree, he opened his school under the name of a man already privileged to teach but whose name is not now known. Teaching brought him reputation but not much profit, and when in 1776 he was admitted to the Academy of Surgeons, he was allowed to pay his fees by instalments. In 1782 he became chief surgeon to the Charity Hospital and not long after surgeon to the Hôtel-Dieu. He was now looked upon as the most prominent surgeon in Paris and founded a school of clinical surgery which attracted students from all sides. In 1793 he was imprisoned by the revolutionary authorities but after three days was liberated through the influence of his patients. He died from pneumonia, the result of exposure while attending the Dauphin in the Temple. He wrote a treatise on surgical operations in three volumes; a treatise on fractures and luxations, edited by Xavier Bichat, was published after his death and was translated into English in 1805 going through three American editions. Desault’s contributions to surgery are contained in the “Journal de Chirurgie” published by himself and pupils.

PETIT, Eloge de Desault (Lyons, 1795); GUÉRIN, Discours in Bulletin de l’Académie de médicine (Paris, 1876).

JAMES J. WALSH

René Descartes

(Renatus Cartesius), philosopher and scientist, born at La Haye France, 31 March, 1596; died at Stockholm, Sweden, 11 February 1650. He studied at the Jesuit college of La Flèche, one of the most famous schools of the time. In 1613 he went to Paris, where he formed a lasting friendship with Father Mersenne, O. F. M., and made the acquaintance of the mathematician Mydorge. He afterwards enlisted in the armies of Maurice of Nassau, and of the Duke of Bavaria. On 10 November, 1619, he felt a strong impulse to set aside the prejudices of his childhood and of his environment, and to devote his life to the restoration of human knowledge, which was then in a state of decadence; and for him this mission took on quite a mystical character. He had a dream which he interpreted as a revelation, and he became convinced that “it was the Spirit of Truth that willed to open for him all the treasures of knowledge.” After much journeying in Brittany, Poitou, Switzerland, and Italy, he returned to Paris in 1625. There he remained for two years during which it was his fortune to meet Cardinal Bérulle who encouraged him in his scientific vocation. But as Paris offered neither the peace nor the independence his work demanded, he set out in 1629 for Holland, and there in the midst of a commercial people he enjoyed the advantage of living as quietly as in a desert. From this retreat he gave to the world his “Discours de la méthode” (1637), “Méditations” (1641), “Principes” (1644), and “Passions”(1649). “Le Monde” had been completed in 1633, but the condemnation of Galileo frightened Descartes who preferred to avoid all collision with ecclesiastical authority. He deferred the publication of this clever work without, however, losing hope of eventually bringing it out. In 1649, yielding to the entreaties of Queen Christina, he went to Sweden, and died at Stockholm of inflammation of the lungs.

Descartes’ work is important rather because of its quality than of its quantity. Let us see first of all wherein his method is new. He observed, as Bacon had already done before him, that there is no question on which men agree. “There is nothing,” he says “so evident or so certain that it may not be controverted. Whence then this widespread and deep-rooted anarchy? From the fact that our inquiries are haphazard” (Règles pour la direction de l’esprit, 4e Règle). The first problem, then, is to discover a scientific method. How is success in this difficult task to be assured? To begin with, we must cease to rely on authority; and for two principal reasons. “In whom can we trust” when “there is hardly a statement made by one man, of which the opposite is not loudly supported by some other?” And even “if all were agreed, the knowledge of their teaching would not suffice us.” “Had we by rote all the arguments of Plato and Aristotle, we should not be any the more philosophers unless we were able to bring to bear on any given question a solid judgment of our own. We should have indeed learned history but not mastered a science” (3e Règle) Philosophy presupposes the understanding of problems—and consequently its method cannot be external, it must be essentially immanent. The true method is to seek for reasonable evidence and the norm of such evidence is to be found in the science of mathematics (Discours de la méthode, 2e partie). “It is not that arithmetic and geometry are the only sciences to be learned, but that he who would progress on the road to truth must not delay over any object about which he cannot have a certainty equal to that given by arithmetical and geometrical demonstrations” (2e Règle).

Is everything, then, capable of being known in this way, and consequently can human knowledge become the complete counterpart of reality? Descartes says so over and over again; it is his controlling idea; and he endeavours to prove it both from the nature of our thought and from the universal connexion of things. The mind is equally intelligent however diverse the objects it considers; and those objects because of their perfect enchainment are always equally intelligible. There is, therefore, no question “so far removed from us as to be beyond our reach or so deeply hidden that we cannot discover it,” provided only that we persevere and follow the right method (Disc. de la méth. 2e partie; 4e Règle). Such is the rationalism of Descartes, surpassing even that of Plato, in which under the name of “the Infinite” three-fourths of reality remains for ever unknowable. How then is this mathematical evidence to be obtained. Two methods, dangerous at once and sterile, must be avoided. We cannot build on the experience of our senses; “for they are often deceptive,” and consequently need a control which they have not in themselves. Bacon was misled on this point (2e Règle). Neither can we adopt the syllogistic method; for this is not, as was formerly thought, a means of discovery. It is simply a process in which, two terms being given, we find by means of a third that the former two are linked together, i. e. that they have some common characteristic. Now if they have this common characteristic it is useless to search for it with any light other than their own. Let them pass under direct scrutiny; let their natures be studied, and in time the common trait will reveal itself. This is the mind’s straight road to discovery, passing on from one idea to another without the aid of a third. The syllogism is of no use until the discovery has been made; it simply serves the purpose of exposition (14e Règle). There are but two ways leading to mathematical evidence: intuition and deduction (3e Règle). Intuition “is the conception formed by an attentive mind so clear and distinct that it admits of no doubt: or what amounts to the same thing, it is the clear conception of a sound and attentive mind, the product of unaided reason” (3e Règle). Intuition is not, therefore, perception by the senses—it is an act of the understanding brought to bear on an idea. The senses do not supply the object but merely the occasion. A movement, for instance, awakens in us the idea of motion, and it is that idea we must regard as the object of intuition. In very simple matters intuition acts quickly; thus “everyone can know intuitively that he exists; that a triangle is terminated by three angles, neither more nor less, and that a globe has but one surface” (3e Règle; 12e Règle; Rép. aux deux objections). In the case of objects more or less complex, intuition proceeds by way of analysis. Since it deals with ideas, and ideas are but one aspect of thought, everything must be reduced to clear and distinct elements, to ultimate or “indecomposable” parts. These ultimate parts must be inspected one after another, until the object is exhausted, “by passing from those that are easily known to those that are less easily known” (6e Règle). In the long run everything will be spread out in full light.

Deduction is the process in which by a continuous movement of thought we draw from a thing that we certainly know the conclusions that of necessity flow from it. This procedure may be carried on in two ways. “If, for instance, after various calculations I discover the relation between the quantities A and B, between B and C, between C and D, and lastly between D and E, I do not yet know the relation between A and E”; but I can infer it by retracting the several steps of the series. This is the first form of deduction (7e Règle). There is a second form in which, the connecting links of the series being too numerous to enter the mental field of vision all at once, we are content to draw conclusions from the general impression we have of the series (7e Règle). Deduction is an intellectual process, but it differs from intuition by bringing in memory as a factor. And this is noteworthy in view of the important role that memory plays in the Cartesian explanation of certitude, and the desperate effort he makes to defend this procedure. From the conspicuous place that reason holds in the Cartesian method, one might infer that there was no room for experience. Nothing could be less true. For Descartes, as for Bacon, the one purpose of science is utility. He also expects from it a continual betterment of the conditions of human life, and his hopes in that direction go very far, as, for instance, when he says of medicine that in the end it would procure us the boon of immortality (Disc. de la méth. 6e partie). And as he who wills the end wills the means also, Descartes accepts in its entirety the experimental part of the Baconian method (letter to Mersenne, 1631), and acts accordingly. He put himself in touch with all the experimental work of his day (letter, April, 1632), urged others to take up research (letter to Mersenne, 1632), and carried on experiments of his own that covered a wide range of subjects: the weight of air (letter, 2 June, 1631), the laws of sound and light (letter, 1633); the essential differences between oils, spirits, eaux-de-vie, common waters, aquafortis, and salts. He dissected the heads of various animals to show the workings of memory and imagination (cf. letters to Mersenne, 1633 April, 1637; 13 November, 1639; 4 January, 1643, ed. Cousin, Paris, 1826). There was hardly a fact that escaped this apologist of Reason nor anything into whose hidden nature he did not inquire; even the “Chasse de Pan” he followed with his accustomed ardour.

But if the mind, moving as it does in the realm of intelligible objects, have a power of intuition sufficient to master them all, why these researches? Are they not a hindrance rather than a help? Let deduction but go on to the end, and it must assuredly attain that exhaustive knowledge which is the goal of investigation, but such is not the case. Experiment helps reasoning in more ways than one. It supplies the fact that calls forth in our intelligence the idea of the problem to be solved. That idea once aroused, the intelligence takes hold of it, and may produce many others, according to the nature of which experience and reason play reciprocal, yet different, roles. The idea of a problem may be so simple as to allow a mathematical deduction of the properties of the object in question and nothing more. In this case experiment is called in only by way of illustration, as happens, for instance, in the study of the laws of motion. (Cf. Principes, 2e partie.) But again the idea of a problem may be so complex as to suggest various hypotheses, since principles as a rule are so fruitful that we can draw from them more than we see in the world around us. We must then choose from among the hypotheses presented by the intellect that which corresponds most nearly to the facts: and experiment is our only resource. It acts as a sort of guide to rational deduction. It sets up, so to say, a number of sign-posts which point out, at the cross-roads of logic the right direction to the world of facts. Finally, we may be confronted with two or more hypotheses equally applicable to the known facts, observations must then be multiplied until we discover some peculiarity which determines our choice: and thus experiment becomes a real means of verification (Principes, 4e partie.) In every case experiment is, as it were, the matter, while calculation becomes the form. In the physical world there is nothing but motion and extension, nothing but quantity. Everything can be reduced to numerical proportions, and this reduction is the final object of science. To understand means to know in terms of mathematics. When this final stage is reached, intelligence and experience unite in closest bonds: the intellect setting its seal on experience and endowing it with intelligibility.

Such is the method of Descartes. There remains to be seen what use he makes of it. Recourse must be had to provisional doubt as the only means of distinguishing the true from the false in the labyrinth of contradictory opinions which are held in the schools and in the world at large. We must needs imitate those builders who, in order to erect a lofty structure, begin by digging deep, so that the foundations may be laid on the rock and solid ground (Remarques sur les 7es objections, ed. Charpentier, Paris; cf. Disc. de la m´thode, 3e partie.) And this provisional doubt goes very deep indeed. We may reject the evidence of the senses for they are deceptive, “and it is but the part of prudence never to trust absolutely what has once deceived us” (1re Méditation). We may even question whether there be “any earth or sky or other extended body”; for, supposing that nothing of the sort exist, I can still have the impression of their existence as I had before; this is plain from the phenomena of madness and dreams. What is more, the very simplest and clearest truths are not free from suspicion.” How do I know that God has not so arranged it that I am deceived each time I add two and three together, or number the sides of a square, or form some judgment still more simple, if indeed anything more simple can be imagined” (3e Méditation). What then remains intact? One thing only, the fact of my thought itself. But if I think it is because I exist, for from the one to the other of these terms we pass by simple inspection—Cogito, ergo sum: Behold the long-sought rock on which the edifice of knowledge must be built (Disc. de la méth., 4e partie, 2e Méd.). But how is this to be done? how are we to make our way out of the abyss into which we have descended? By analysing the basic fact, i. e. the content of our thought. I observe that, since my thought gropes amid doubt, I must be imperfect: and this idea calls forth this other, viz. of a being that is not imperfect, and therefore is perfect and infinite (Disc. de la méth., 4e partie.) Let us consider this other idea. It must necessarily include existence otherwise something would be wanting to it; it would not be perfect or infinite. Therefore, God exists, and “I know no less clearly and distinctly that an actual and eternal existence belongs to His nature than I know that whatever I can demonstrate of any figure or number belongs truly to the nature of that figure or number “ (Disc. de la méth., 4e partie; 5e Médit.; Rép. aux premières obj.).

God, therefore, is known to us at the outset, the moment we take the trouble to look into the nature of our own minds; and this is enough to eliminate the hypothesis of an evil genius that would take pleasure in deceiving us; it is enough also to secure the validity of all our deductions, whatever be their length, for “I recognize that it is impossible that He should ever deceive me, since in all fraud and deceit there is a certain imperfection” (4e Méd.). Otherwise how would this idea of God be anything more than an idle fancy? It has immensity; it has infinity, and therefore it must of itself be capable of existing. Spinoza, and after him Hegel, will teach that the possible infolds, as it were, an essential tendency to existence, and that this tendency is greater in proportion as the possible is perfect. It is on this principle that they will build their vast synthetic systems. Descartes anticipates them and when closely pressed he replies just as do these later philosophers. (Rép. aux premières objections.) It is a fact worth noting with reference to the genesis of modern systems.

The presence in us of this idea of God must also be explained; and here we find a new ray of light. The objective reality of our ideas must have some cause, and this is readily found when there is question of secondary qualities; these may be illusory or they may result from the imperfection of our nature. The question also can be solved without too much difficulty when it concerns primary qualities. May not these arise perchance from some depth of my own mental being that is beyond the control of my will? But such explanations are of no avail when we try to account for the idea of a being infinite and perfect. I myself am limited, finite; and from the finite, turn it about as we may, we can never derive the infinite the lesser never gives us the greater (3e Méd. cf. Princ., 7e partie). Considered from any and every point of view, the idea of God enlightens us as to His existence. Whatever the manner of our questioning it gives us always from the depth of its fulness the one reply, Ego sum qui sum. Since then the veracity of God Himself guarantees our faculties in their natural exercise, we may go forward in our inquiry; and the first question that meets us concerns the subject in which the process of thought takes place, i.e. the soul. Understanding, conceiving, doubting, affirming, denying, willing, refusing, imagining, feeling, desiring—these are the activities of what I call my soul. Now all these activities have one common quality: they cannot take place without thought or perception, without consciousness or knowledge. Thought then is the essential attribute of the soul. The soul is “a thing that thinks” (2e Méd., Princ., 1re partie) and it is nothing else. There is no substratum underlying and supporting its various states; its whole being issues in each of its activities; thought and soul are equivalent (12e Règle).

Is thought, then, always in some mode of activity? Descartes leans to the belief that it is. “I exist,” he says, “but for how long? Just as long as I am thinking; for perhaps if I should wholly cease to think, I should at the same time altogether cease to be” (2e Méd.). It is only with reluctance and under the pressure of objections that he concedes to the soul a simple potentia or power of thinking (5es Obj.); and, as may be easily seen, the concession is quite illogical. Thought, though in itself a unitary process, takes on different forms; it begins with confused ideas or perceptions which require the co-operation of the body; such are the feelings of pleasure and pain, sensations imagination, and local memory. Then the soul has clear and distinct ideas, which it begets and develops within itself as immanent activities. Under this head come the ideas of substance, duration, number, order extension, figure, motion, thought, intelligence, and will (6e Méd.; Princ., I).

These clear and distinct notions constitute of themselves the object of the understanding, and one may say that they are all involved in the idea of perfect being. Whether I understand, or pass judgment or reason, it is always that idea which I perceive and my understanding could have no other object, seeing that its sphere of action is always the infinite, the eternal and the necessary. To advance in knowledge is to progress in the knowledge of God Himself. (Rep. aux 2es obj.) But thought has another dominant form, viz. freedom. For Descartes this function of the mind is a fact “of which reason can never convince us,” but one which “we experience in ourselves,” and this fact is so evident” that it may be considered one of the most generally known ideas” (Rep. aux 3es obj.; Rep. aux 5es obj.- Princ., 1re partie). Not only is this freedom a primordial and undeniable datum of consciousness: it is, in a way, infinite like God, “since there is no object to which it cannot turn.” (4e Méd.; Princ., 1re partie.) It does not creep round in a sort of semi-ignorance, as St. Thomas Aquinas holds, but it grows as the influencing motives become clearer; indifference is but its lowest stage (letter to Mersenne, 20 May, 1630). The part it plays in our lives is considerable: it enters into each of our judgments, and it is the formal cause of all our errors. It makes itself felt in every part of our organism, and through this it influences the external world. Nevertheless, the sum total of motion in the world is always constant; for while our wills may change the direction of movement they do not affect its quantity. (Letter to Regius.) Confronting the soul is the external world: but the soul does not see it as it really is. Heat, odour taste, light, sound, resistance, weight are qualities which we attribute to bodies but which are really in ourselves, since we only conceive them in relation to ourselves. In reality there is nothing in the physical world but motion and extension. Motion imitates as far as possible the immutability of God who is its first cause; hence its principal laws, viz. that the sum of motion in the world is always constant; that a body will continue in its actual state unless disturbed by some other body outside itself; that “once a body is in motion we have no reason for thinking its present velocity will ever cease provided it impinges on no other body which would slacken or destroy its motion.” All movement is primarily rectilinear (on this point Aristotle was mistaken). When two bodies moving in different directions collide, a change takes place in their directions, but “such change is always the least possible.” When two moving bodies impinge on each other, one cannot transmit any motion to the other without losing what it transmits (Princ., 2e partie). Extension is not infinite in duration but it is infinite in space. “It seems to me that one cannot prove or even conceive that there are limits to the matter of which the world is composed, for I find it is composed of nothing but extension in length, breadth, and depth. So that whatever possesses these three dimensions is a portion of such matter”: and however far back in imagination we push the limits of space we still find these three dimensions; they are bounded by no limits (letter to Chanut; letter to Marus). Extension is therefore one block, continuous from end to end; and this proves at the same time that there is no such thing as a vacuum, either in bodies or between them. Moreover extension is divisible ad infinitum since the divided particles, however small, are still extended. It is everywhere homogeneous, since it is made up of spatial dimensions only, and these of themselves give rise to no qualitative differences. And this brilliant idea suggested to Descartes many hypotheses that were to prove fruitful. In his view the matter of the earth and of the stars was the same; and spectrum analysis subsequently proved that he was correct. He held that the primordial state of the sun and planets was nebulous, that under the influence of a cooling process the heavenly bodies formed their crusts, and to changes in these crusts is due the variation in brilliance of the stars and the emergence of the continents on our earth. (Cf. Traité du Monde; Princ., 3e and 4e p.) It does not follow that the world is self-sufficient; but the finality, of which so much is said, leads to nothing. God gave matter a first impulse and the rest followed in the course of nature’s laws. “Even if the chaos of the poets be granted, one could always show that, thanks to the laws of nature, this confusion would eventually work itself out to our present order”; the laws of nature being such that “matter is constrained to pass through all the forms of which it is capable.”

The older Descartes grew, the more he busied himself with morals, and his aim was to end up with a treatise on ethics. As a matter of fact, we have his treatise on the passions, and a few brief disquisitions scattered among his letters to Chanut and to the Princess Elizabeth. The passions are perceptions generated and nurtured in the soul “through the medium of the nerves” (Passions, 1re partie, art. 3–22). The nerves are bundles of fine threads: these threads contain the animal spirits which are the subtlest parts of the blood: and they all meet at the pineal gland which is the seat of the soul. By means of this mechanism the thinking subject receives impressions from the world without, perceives them, and transforms them into passions (Pass., 1re p, art. 31). And though our organism thus contains the cause of our passions, it is not their subject either entirely or partially; on this point also Aristotle was mistaken. There are perceptions arising from the body and localizing themselves in one or other portion of it—such as hunger, thirst, pain—but the passions are different. They originate in the body, but belong to the soul alone; they are purely psychological facts (Passions, 1re p., art.25). There are as many passions as there are ways in which objects capable of affecting our senses may be hurtful or profitable to us. The primary passions to which all others may be reduced are the six following:

admiration or surprise, produced by an object as to which we are as yet ignorant whether it is useful or hurtful;

love and hate, caused by the impression produced on our organs of sense by objects which are already known to us as beneficial or harmful;

desire, which is but the love or the hate we bear an object considered as future;

joy and sadness, which result from the presence of an object that is loved or hated (Passions, 2e partie, art. 52).

Perhaps on the whole St. Thomas and Bossuet will be found to have surpassed Descartes, by reducing all the passions to love. In the Cartesian teaching the passions are good in themselves, but they must be kept in subjection to the law of moral order. What this law is he does not clearly indicate; he gives only some scattered precepts in which one may discern a noble effort to build up a Stoico-Christian system of ethics. The foregoing account may perhaps give the impression that Descartes was a great savant rather than a great philosopher; but the significance of his scientific work should be properly understood. What remains of value is not so much his theories, but the impetus given by his genius, his method, his discoveries. His quantitative conception of the world is being gradually abandoned, and today men’s minds are turning to a philosophy of nature wherein quality plays a controlling part.

CLODIUS PIAT.

Eustache Deschamps

Also called MOREL, on account of his dark complexion; b. at Vertus in Champagne between 1338 and 1340; d. about 1410. After having finished his classical studies at the episcopal school of Reims, under the poet Guillaume de Marchault, who was a canon of Reims, he studied law at the University of Orléans. He then travelled for some time as the king’s messenger in various parts of Europe, in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt; in the last country, it is said, he was made a slave. On his return to France he was appointed gentleman-usher by Charles V, and was confirmed in his position by Charles VI, whom he accompanied in that capacity on various campaigns in Flanders. In 1381 King Charles VI made him governor of the town of Fismes, and in 1388 bailiff of Senlis; at a later date he lost the position of bailiff, together with his pension and his office at court. Deschamps was a poet of no little merit. His numerous poems, ballads, rondels, lays, and virelays are full of valuable information concerning the political and moral history of his time. He was an honest, religious man, and although a courtier was also a moralist who did not hesitate to condemn the injustice and wrongs that he had seen and experienced. His style is somewhat heavy, but it is vigourous and not lacking in grace.

SARRADIN, Etude sur Eustache Deschamps (Paris, 1879); PETIT DE JULLEVILLE, Histoire de la langue et de la literature franÁaises (Paris, 1894), II; DE QUEUX AND RAYNAUD, åuvres complËtes d’Eustache Deschamps (Paris, 1878–1891).

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Nicolas Deschamps

Polemical writer, born at Villefranche (Rhône), France, 1797; died at Aix-en-Provence, 1872. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1826; taught literature and rhetoric in several colleges and wrote extensively. apart from a few didactic and devotional books like “Cours élémentaire de littérature” (Avignon, 1860) and “Les fleurs de Marie” (Paris, 1863), his works are largely polemical and bear on all the burning questions of his day, the monopoly of the University of France, the state faculties of theology, the Organic Articles, the liberty of association, Communism, Paganism in education, etc. The most important is undoubtedly “Les Sociétés secrètes” published after the author’s death (Avignon, 1874–1876), re-edited and brought up to date by Claudio Janet (Paris, 1880 and 1881). Deschamps sees in European Freemasonry, whose origins he traces back to Manichæism, a baneful force working, under the cover of philanthropy, not only against religion but also against the social order, patriotism, and even morality. If his conclusions are severe, they are not advanced at random, but supported by numerous facts and grave authorities.

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., II, 1956; Janet, introd. to his edition of Les Sociétés secrètes. See also Polybiblion (1874 and 1876).

J.F. SOLLIER

Desecration

Desecration is the loss of that peculiar quality of sacredness, which inheres in places and things in virtue of the constitutive blessing of the Church. When material objects are destined for purposes of Divine worship they are set aside with a view to this end by the solemn form of consecration or by the simpler formula of a blessing, so that they assume a sacred and inviolable character which renders unlawful their employment for profane uses. Now when they lose this stamp or character of sacredness they are said to become desecrated. As a general principle it may be set down that places and things, which have been either consecrated or blessed, retain their consecration and blessing so long as they remain, morally speaking, the same as they were in the beginning, and consequently, so long as they continue fit to serve the purposes for which they were originally destined. The opinion was formerly held by some that sacred utensils, such as chalices, which are anointed with holy oil should, before being sent to a mechanic for repairs, be deprived of their sacred character by a special ceremony of desecration. This view was condemned by the Congregation of Rites (n. 2620, ed. 1900). Such a ceremony is entirely superfluous. For if a sacred utensil becomes broken and unfit for use it thereby loses its consecration; while if it is still fit for use but requires regilding, no ceremony could desecrate it. In this instance permission, express or implied, should be obtained from the ordinary to hand it over to a mechanic for repairs (cf. Gardellini, Commentary on Decrees of C. S. R., 225). Should consecrated vessels become altogether unfit for altar use, they may be melted down and devoted to profane uses. But vestments, altar cloths and linens must, in similar circumstances, be destroyed, because they retain the form under which they were originally blessed (cf. Gardellini, loc. cit).

The word desecration is commonly used in regard to churches, altars, chalices, etc.

(1) A church loses its consecration or blessing when the building is destroyed either wholly or in greater part, or when an addition is made to it of larger extent than the original edifice. It does not become desecrated:

(a) if a portion of the walls and roof falls in, provided the main portion stands, or

(b) if all the interior plastering becomes detached, or

(c) if all the crosses disappear, or

(d) if all the walls are gradually renewed, provided on each occasion the old part is greater than the new, or

(e) if converted for a while to profane uses, provided it is not polluted (cf. Many, De Locis Sacris).

(2) An altar (fixed) loses its consecration:

(a) by a notable fracture of table or its support; as, for instance, if the table were broken into two large pieces, or if an anointed corner were broken off, or if the support were seriously impaired, or if one of the columns were displaced;

(b) by removal of the table from its support, so as to disjoint them;

(c) by displacing the relics, or cover of the sepulchre (cf. Schulte, Consecranda, p. 222).

(3) An altar-stone loses its consecration:

(a) by removal of the relics;

(b) by fracture or removal of the cover of the sepulchre;

(c) by a notable fracture of the stone;

(d) by breakage of the anointed corner of stone.

(4) As to the chalice and paten, see ALTAR, under subtitle Loss of Consecration.

Decretalium, III, Tit., xl, xlviii; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1901), Tit., xvii; MANY, De Locis Sacris (Paris, 1904); SCHULTE, Consecranda (New York, 1907).

PATRICK MORRISROE.

Desert (in the Bible)

The Hebrew words translated in the Douay Version of the Bible by “desert” or “wilderness,” and usually rendered by the Vulgate desertum, “solitude,” or occasionally eremus, have not the same shade of meaning as the English word desert. The word wilderness, which is more frequently used than desert of the region of the Exodus, more nearly approaches the meaning of the Hebrew, though not quite expressing it. When we speak of the desert our thoughts are naturally borne to such places as the Sahara, a great sandy waste, incapable of vegetation, impossible as a dwelling-place for men, and where no human being is found except when hurrying through as quickly as he can. No such ideas are attached to the Hebrew words for desert. Four words are chiefly used in Hebrew to express the idea:

(1) MIDBAR

The more general word. It is from the root dabar, “to lead” (cattle to pasture) [cf. German Trift from treiben]. Hence midbar among its other meanings has that of tracts of pasturage for flocks. So Joel, ii, 22: “The beautiful places of the wilderness are sprung,” or literally: “The pastures of the wilderness shoot forth.” So, too, the desert was not necessarily uninhabited. Thus (Is., xlii, 11) we read: “Let the desert (midbar) and the cities thereof be exalted: Cedar shall dwell in houses,” or rather, “the villages that Cedar doth inhabit.” Not that there were towns in the desert occupied by a stable population. The inhabitants were mostly nomads. For the desert was not a place regularly cultivated like the fields and gardens of ordinary civilized districts. Rather, it was a region in which was to be found pasturage, not rich, but sufficient for sheep and goats, and more abundant after the rainy season. The desert, too, was looked upon as the abode of wild beasts—lions (Ecclus., xiii, 23), wild asses (Job, xxiv, 5), jackals (Mal., i, 3), etc. It was not fertilized by streams of water, but springs were to be found there (Gen., xvi, 7), and in places cisterns to collect the rainfall. Midbar is the word generally used in the Pentateuch for the desert of the Exodus; but of the regions of the Exodus various districts are distinguished as the desert of Sin (Ex., xvi, 1), the desert of Sinai (Ex., xix, 1), the desert of Sur (Ex., xv, 22), the desert of Sin (zin) (Num., xiii, 22), etc. Moreover, it is used of other districts, as in Western Palestine of the wilderness of Juda (Judges, i, 16), and again in the east of the desert of Moab (Deut., ii, 8).

(2) ‘ARABAH

‘Arabah, derived from the root ‘arab, “to be arid,” is another word for desert, which seems to express more than one of its natural characteristics. The word means a steppe, a desert plain; and it conveys the idea of a stretch of country, arid, unproductive, and desolate. In poetic passages it is used in parallelism with the word midbar. Thus Is., xxxv, 1: “The land that was desolate [midbar] and impassable shall be glad, and the wilderness [‘arabah] shall rejoice”; cf. also Jer., xvii, 6, etc. Although the Septuagint frequently renders the word by eremos, it often uses other translations, as ge dipsosa and elos. The Vulgate employs the words solitudo, desertum. Very frequently the word ‘arabah has a mere geographical sense. Thus it refers to the strange depression extending from the base of Mount Hermon, through the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea, to the Gulf of Akabah. So, too, there are the Arboth Moab (Num., xxii, 1), the Arboth Jericho (Jos., iv, 13), etc., referring to the desolate districts connected with these places.

(3) HORBAH

Horbah, derived from the root harab, “to lie waste,” is translated in the Septuagint by the words eremos, eremosis, eremia. In the Vulgate are found the renderings ruinœ, solitudo, desolatio. A strange translation occurs in Ps. ci, 7. The word in the Greek is oikopedon and in the Vulgate domicilium; and the passage in which the word occurs is rendered in the Douay version: “I am like a night raven in the house.” St. Jerome, however, in his translation of the Psalm direct from the Hebrew employs the word solitudinum, which seems more correct: “I am like a night raven of the wastes.” The lexicon of Gesenius gives as the first meaning of horbah, “dryness”; then as a second meaning, “a desolation,” “ruins.” A combination of these senses seems to have been the reason why in the poetical books the word is used of the wilderness. The word conveys the idea of ruin or desolation caused by hostile lands, as when God says to Jerusalem (Es., v, 14): “I will make thee desolate”; or when the Psalmist, referring to the punishment inflicted by Jehovah, says (Ps., ix, 7): “The enemy are consumed, left desolate for ever.”

(4) JESHIMON

Jeshimon, derived from jasham, “to be desolate.” It was looked upon as a place without water, thus Is., xliii, 19: “Behold I shall set up streams in the desert [jeshimon].” It was a waste, a wilderness. In poetical passages it is used as a parallel to midbar, cf. Deut., xxxii, 10; Ps., lxxviii, 40 (Heb.): “How often did ye provoke him in the wilderness [midbar], and grieve him in the desert [jeshimon]?” Frequently it is used of the wilderness of the Exodus. Besides such uses of the word, it seems when used with the article often to have assumed the force of a proper name. In such cases it refers at times to the wilderness of the Exodus (cf. Ps,, lxxviii, 40; cvi, 14—Heb.; etc.). Parts of the waste region about the Dead Sea are called the jeshimon; and to the north-east of the same sea there is a place called Beth-Jeshimoth (cf. Num., xxxiii, 49), where the Israelites are said to have encamped at the end of the wanderings. These are the principal words used for desert in the Bible. There are, however, others less frequently used, only one or two of which can be mentioned here: such as tohu, used in Gen., i, 2: “the earth was void.” In Deut., xxxii, 10, it is used in parallelism with midbar, and in Ps. cvii, 40 it refers to the desert directly. Such also is çiyyah, which means, literally, dryness, but refers at times to the desert: so, ‘areç çiyyah, “a land of drought,” or “a desert” (Osee, ii, 5).

BIBLICAL DESERTS

A word may be said here concerning the chief deserts referred to in the Bible. Perhaps the most interesting is that of Exodus. In the Pentateuch this tract is treated as a whole as “the desert,” but, as a rule, special parts of it are referred to, as the desert of Sin, the desert of Sinai, the desert of Cades, the desert of Pharan, etc. Books have been written to discuss the geography of this region. Suffice it to say that it comprises the ground over which the Israelites travelled from their crossing of the Red Sea till their arrival in the Promised Land. We do not enter into the question raised by modern critics as to whether the geography of the Exodus had different meanings in different parts of the Pentateuch. The desert of Juda, too, plays an important part in the Bible. It lies to the west of the ‘arabah, the Jordan, and the Dead Sea. To it belong the deserts of Engaddi, that of Thecua, and that of Jericho, near the city of the same name. To the east of Palestine are the deserts of Arabia, Moab, and the desert of Idumea, near the Dead Sea. We are told (Ex., iii, 1) that Moses fed the flocks of Jethro, and led them to the interior parts of the desert. This desert was in the land of Madian, close to the Red Sea, and in it was Mount Horeb, which St. Jerome says was the same as Sinai. The desert to which David fled from Saul (cf. I Kings, xxiii, 14) was the desert of Ziph, which lies south of the Dead Sea and Hebron. John the Baptist lived and taught in the desert of Judea, west of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, near Jericho. Finally, the scene of Christ’s temptation (Matt., iv, 1–11), of which St. Mark adds (i, 13): “He was with wild beasts,” was most likely in the ‘arabah to the west of the Jordan. But this is only speculation.

SMITH, Historical Geography of the Holy Land (London, 1897); CHEYNE, Encyclopedia Biblica (London, 1899); HASTINGS. Dict. of the Bible; VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible.

J.A. HOWLETT

Desertion

The culpable abandonment of a state, of a stable situation, the obligations of which one had freely accepted. In civil life the word usually designates the offence committed by a soldier who, by flight, forsakes his military obligations. As regards Christian life, desertion may have for its object any state, from the highest to the lowliest, to which Christians may be called. The first kind of deserton is the abandonment of the state and obligations imposed by baptism and is known as apostasy (apostasia a fide). A second kind of desertion is when the baptized has been admitted by ordination to the ranks of the clergy and thereafter abandons his clerical state and its obligations (apostasia ab ordine). The abandonment of the religious state is still another kind of apostasy (apostasia a religione). (See APOSTASY.) But this expression is used only in connexion with those orders which take solemn vows; abandonment of the religious life as followed in congregations under simple vows, is mere desertion, although by some it is incorrectly designated as apostasy. This desertion does not incur the excommunication to which religious apostates are sentenced, though it entails suspension for clerics (Decr. Auctis admodum of the S.C. of Bishops and Regulars, 4 Nov., 1892), and generally terminates in dismissal or expulsion.

The term desertion is also applied to a cleric’s abandonment of his benefice, whether it be residential or non-residential. If the benefice be residential, there is occasion to proceed against the culprit according to the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, c. i; Sess. XXIII, c. i; Sess. XXIV, c. xii). The first text applies to bishops and provides that, after six months, the abasent prelate be deprived ipso facto of a quarter of the annual revenue of his benefice; that if he remain absent for six additional months he be denied another quarter’s revenue and finally, that if he fail to return to his charge the metropoolitan or the suffragan bishops must denounce him to the pope within three months, and his punishment may even amount to the privation of his benefice. The second text concerns parish priests and other clerics having the care of souls: it deprives the guilty party of the revenue of his benefice in proportion to the length of absence; at the same time the bishop can proceed against the absentee by ecclesiastical censures, and finally deprive him of his benefice if he does not return within six months after receiving a warning or official summons. The third text relates to canons and other clerics who possess even a simple benefice, obliging them to residence for the choir-office, the celebration of Mass and other analogous charges: the absentee loses ipso facto the daily distributions (see BENEFICE); the number of days of absence may not exceed three months in any year; otherwise he forfeits half the revenue of his benefice; if he repeats the offence a second year, he forfeits all the revenue; and if his absence be still prolonged he can be deprived of the benefices by canonical sentence. For the very rare case of non-residential benefice which the beneficiary has totally abandoned, canonists consider that it becomes vacant after ten years, according to the terms of c. viii, De cler. non resid., III, tit. iv.

In judicial matters there is desertion of suit or of appeal when the plaintiff, after instituting a proceeding or lodging an appeal, fails to comply withinn the required time with the judicial acts demanded by the court. In the first instance, the judge, having established the neglect of the plaintiff, declares the suit abandoned. The judge from whom appeal is taken should appoint a time for the apellant to present his appeal to the new judge (c. xxxiii, and Clem., iv, De appell., II, tit. xxviii). The appeal should be terminated within a year or two (c. v, and Clem., iii, De appell.). However, this system is not strictly observed.

Finally, since the married state supposes that man and wife dwell together, desertion is the unjustified abandonment of the conjugal domicile by one or the other, especially by the wife who is bound to follow her husband to his new domicile. This desertion, which recent civil legislation considers a legitimate cause for separation and even for divorce, is considered by canon law merely a delict that gives the deserted party the right to recall the fugitive through judicial authority, either ecclesiastical or secular (c. xiii, De restit. spol., II tit. xiii). If the wife separates for a legitimate reason, on account of the adultery or heresy of her husband, because of ill-treatment by him or in order to escape a serious danger that would result from continued dwelling with him, such desertion is not held to be malicious; it is, however, the duty of the proper judge to pass upon it.

For the first case see the canonnists, De clericis non residentibus, III, tit. iv; for the second, De appellationibus, II, tit. xxviii; for the third, SANCHEZ, De Matrimonio, 1, ix, disp. iv; ESMEIN, Le mariage en droit canonique (Paris, 1891), II, 96, 308.

A. BOUDINHON

George Deshon

Priest of the Congregation (or Institute) of St. Paul the Apostle, b. at New London, Conn., U.S.A., 30 January, 1823; d. in New York, 30 December, 1903. He was a graduate (1843) of the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he was a classmate and roommate of General U.S. Grant. His standing in class was high (second) and he afterwards taught mathematics and ethics at the Academy. Deshon was promoted to the rank of captain, but resigned his commission, was received into the Church in 1851, and soon after became a novice in the Redemptorist Order. He was ordained priest in 1855 and became associated with Fathers Hecker, Walworth, Hewit, and Baker, all regularly employed in missionary work. With them he obtained in 1858 a dispensation from his vows as a Redemptorist, and assisted in the formation of the new Paulist Institute, the first house and church of which were built in New York in 1859. He remained in this house during the rest of this life, being novice-master for several years, and afterwards assistant superior and in charge generally of the temporal interests of the community, which owed much to his business ability. He also superintended throughout the building of the church of St. Paul the Apostle, in which his skill and knowledge as an engineer, acquired at West Point, were of great service.

Father Deshon spent a considerable part of his time on the missions, in which he was specially eminent in the practical instructions, though his sermons were also most effective. A volume of his parochial sermons was issued in 1901. He published in 1860 a book entitled “Guide for Catholic Young Women,” which acquired an abiding popularity. Father Deshon was elected superior general of the Paulist Institute in 1897. At that time houses had been founded in San Francisco, and at Winchester, Tennessee. The last important act of his life was the founding of the Paulist house in Chicago, for which he arranged with Archbishop Quigley in the fall of 1903. Though his life-work was so largely practical, he was noted for his interior spirituality, his favourite saints being the hermits and cenobites of the desert, and his spare time was always devoted to recollection and spiritual reading, in which he had evidently been occupied on the last night of his life, before retiring. He died suddenly of heart failure about midnight, having been just able to ring for assistance, and to receive the last rites of the Church.

SEARLE, The Very Rev. George Deshon, C.S.P., in The Catholic World (1904), LXXXVIII, 569–73. See also contemporary files, The Catholic News (New York).

GEORGE M. SEARLE

St. Desiderius of Cahors

Bishop, b. at Obrege (perhaps Antobroges, name of a Gaulish tribe), on the frontier of the Provincia Narbonnensis, of a noble Frankish family from Aquitaine, which possessed large estates in the territory of Albi; d. 15 Nov., 655—though Krusch has called this date in question. In his childhood Desiderius was profoundly impressed by the religious atmosphere of his home. His father Salvius was a pious Christian, and his mother Herchenefreda shows herself a woman of serious religious sentiment in three letters to her son, mentioned in his “Vita.” With his two brothers, Rusticus and Syagrius, the boy Desiderius came to the court of the Frankish king Chlotar II (584–629; from 613 sovereign of the whole Frankish Empire), and with other boys o noble family received an excellent education at the Merovingian court-school, whence in the seventh century went forth many capable and holy bishops. Rusticus became a priest and finally Bishop of Cahors; Syagrius became count of the territory of Albi and prefect of the city of Marseilles; Desiderius stayed on at the court where he held the important office of royal treasurer, an office that he retained under the new king, Dagobert (629–639), whose confidant he was. After the death of Syagrius (629), he is said to have obtained also the prefectship of Marseilles, but this is not certain.

Faithful to the admonitions of his pious mother, Desiderius led at court the serious holy life of a monk, and administered his office with great fidelity. In 630 his brother Resticus, the Bishop of Cahors, was murdered, whereupon the clergy and people of that city requested from the king Desiderius as his successor. By a letter of 8 April, 630, Dagobert made known his consent, and Desiderius was consecrated Bishop of Cahors. His close relations with the Court he used in the interests of his Church. With the most important bishops of his time, many of them educated with him at the royal court, he maintained an active intercourse, as his letters prove. He was a zealous promoter of monastic life and founded a monastery in the vicinity of Cahors, the church of which was dedicated to St. Amantius; later on the convent was called after its founder St. Géry (i.e. Dierius, from Desiderius). He directed also a convent of women, as we see from a letter written by him to the Abbess Aspasia. Under him and with his support was likewise founded in his diocese the monastery of St. Peter of Moissac, later so celebrated. Desiderius was very zealous for Divine service and the perfection of the religious life; he built three large basilicas in and near Cahors (St. Maria, St. Peter, St. Julian) and an oratory in honour of St. Martin. For the clergy he was a severe disciplinarian, but was himself foremost with the example of a holy life. He also promoted the temporal welfare of the inhabitants of Cahors, built an aqueduct, and erected or restored the walls and towers that protected the city. Desiderius persuaded the nobles of his diocese to endow richly the churches and monasteries. By his testament (649–650) he gave all his possessions to the cathedral, the churches, and the monasteries of his episcopal city. While resident on his estates in the district of Albi he fell ill and died at his villa of Wistrilingo, which he had presented to the monastery of St. Amantius. His body was carried to Cahors and interred in the church of St. Amantius. We possess a “Vita” of Desiderius written shortly after his death, a collection of his letters, also of letters addressed to him, and an account of miracles that took place at his tomb. His feast is celebrated on the 15th of November.

Vita Desiderii, Cadurcae urbis episcopi, ed. HRUSCH, in Mon. Germ. Hist: Script. (Hanover, 1902), IV, 547–602; ed. Migne, P.L., LXXXVII, 219–239; Miracula, ed. MIGNE, loc. cit., 239–246; Desiderii episcopi Cadurcensis epistolae, ed. ARNDT in Mon. Germ. Hist: Epistolae (Berlin, 1892), III, 191–214; MABILLON, Dissertatio de anno et die ordinationis itemque obitus Desiderii episc. Cadurcensis in Analecta vet., III, 528 sqq.; VACANDARD, La Schola du palais merovingien in Revue des questions histor. (1897), LXI, 498 sqq.; CABIE, Rapports de S. Didier, eveque de Cahors, et de S. Didier, eveque D’Auzerre, avec l’Albigeois in Annales du Midi (Toulouse, 1894), 407 sqq.

J.P. KIRSCH

Jean Desmarets de Saint-Sorlin

A French dramatist and novelist, born in Paris, 1595, died there, 1676. Early in life he held various offices at court, was counsellor of the king, and secretary of the marine in the Levant. He became a member of the salon of the Hôtel Rambouillet, and contributed the well-known verses on the violet for the “Guirlande de Julie.” Later he became a member of the French Academy and its first chancellor. Cardinal Richelieu, his protector, induced him to write for the theatre. His first tragedy “Aspasie,” although a work of no great merit, had a brilliant success, 1636, owing to the cardinal’s protection. Among the plays that followed we may mention: “Les Visionnaires,” “Scipion,” “Roxane,” “Mirame,” and “L’Europe.” The plots of the last two had evidently been inspired by the cardinal; “L’Europe” gives a picture of Richelieu’s conception of the political situation in Europe. Of his novel, “Ariane,” La Fontaine declares that its plot is very good; another novel, “Roxane,” was left unfinished.

In 1645 he became a devout Christian, and thereafter he devoted his literary abilities chiefly to pious works. He wrote a metrical version of the Office of the Blessed Virgin, and of the “Imitation of Christ,” and other religious poems, e. g. “Marie-Magdeleine” or “Grâce Triomphante.”

In his “Clovis ou la France chrétienne,” an epic poem in twenty-six cantos, he attempts to describe the Divine origin of the French monarchy. In this, his greatest work, in spite of its many faults, his patriotism and his love of old legends, which pervade the poem, often give it a peculiar charm. Owing to the criticism of Boileau, who opposed the introduction of the miraculous in literature, the poem proved a failure. In its defence Desmarets wrote an essay comparing French prose and poetry with that of the Greeks and Latins, and thus opened the celebrated controversy between the ancients and the moderns which lasted for many years. In this work he maintained that the French language is superior to all others, that modern can surpass ancient literature, and that the miraculous intervention of Providence is to be preferred to the machinery of the pagan poets. Desmarets was a consistent adversary of the Jansenists of Port-Royal.

PELLISSON, Histoire de l’Académie française; BAILLET, Jugements des savants (La Haye, 1690); BEAUCHAMPS. Recherches sur le théâtre français; PETIT DE JULLEVILLE, La Littérature française (Paris, 1900); KERVILLER, J. Desmaretz (Paris, 1879).

FRANCIS L. ROUGIER

Pierre-Jean De Smet

Missionary among the North American Indians, b. at Termonde (Dendermonde), Belgium, 30 Jan., 1801; d. at St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A., 23 May, 1873. He emigrated to the United States in 1821 through a desire for missionary labours, and entered the Jesuit novitiate at Whitemarsh, Maryland. In 1823, however, at the suggestion of the United States Government a new Jesuit establishment was determined on and located at Florissant near St. Louis, Missouri, for work among the Indians. De Smet was among the pioneers and thus became one of the founders of the Missouri Province of the Society of Jesus.

His first missionary tour among the red men was in 1838 when he founded St. Joseph’s Mission at Council Bluffs for the Pottawatomies. At this time also he visited the Sioux to arrange a peace between them and the Pottawatomies, the first of his peace missions. What may be called his life work did not begin, however, until 1840 when he set out for the Flathead country in the Far North-west. As early as 1831, some Rocky Mountain Indians, influenced by Iroquois descendants of converts of one hundred and fifty years before, had made a trip to St. Louis begging for a “black-robe.” Their request could not be complied with at the time. Curiously enough, the incident excited Protestant missionary enterprise, owing to the wide dissemination of a mythical speech of one of the delegation expressing the disappointment of the Indians at not finding the Bible in St. Louis. Four Indian delegations in succession were dispatched from the Rocky Mountains to St. Louis to beg for “black-robes” and the last one, in 1839, composed of some Iroquois who dwelt among the Flatheads and Nez Percês, was successful. Father De Smet was assigned to the task and found his life-work.

He set out for the Rocky Mountain country in 1840 and his reception by the Flatheads and the Pend d’Oreilles was an augury of the great power over the red men which was to characterize his career. Having imparted instruction, surveyed the field, and promised a permanent mission he returned to St. Louis; he visited the Crows, Gros Ventres, and other tribes on his way back, travelling in all 4814 miles. In the following year he returned to the Flatheads with Father Nicholas Point and established St. Mary’s Mission on the Bitterroot river, some thirty miles south of [present-day] Missoula, visiting also the Coeur-d’Alênes. Realizing the magnitude of the task before him, De Smet went to Europe in 1843 to solicit funds and workers, and in 1844 with new labourers for the missions, among them being six Sisters of Notre-Dame de Namur, he returned, rounding Cape Horn and casting anchor in the mouth of the Columbia River at Astoria. Two days after, De Smet went by canoe to Fort Vancouver to confer with Bishop Blanchet, and on his return founded St. Ignatius Mission among the Kalispels of the Bay, who dwelt on Clark’s Fork of the Columbia river, forty miles above its mouth. Ten years later the mission was transferred to its present site in Missoula County, Montana [present-day Lake County—Ed.].

As the Blackfeet were a constant menace to other Indians for whom De Smet was labouring, he determined to influence them personally. This he accomplished in 1846 in the Yellowstone valley, where after a battle with the Crows, the Blackfeet respectfully listened to the “black-robe.” He accompanied them to Fort Lewis in their own country where he induced them to conclude peace with the other Indians to whom they were hostile, and he left Father Point to found a mission among this formidable tribe. His return to St. Louis after an absence of three years and six months marks the end of his residence among the Indians, not from his own choice but by the arrangement of his religious superiors who deputed him to other work at St. Louis University. He coadjutors in his mission labours, Fathers Point, Mangarini, Nobili, Ravalli, De Bos, Adrian and Christian Hoecken, Joset and others, made De Smet’s foundations permanent by dwelling among the converted tribes.

De Smet was now to enter upon a new phase of his career. Thus far his life might be called a private one, though crowded with stirring dangers from man and beast, from mountain and flood, and marked by the successful establishment of numerous stations over the Rocky Mountain region. But his almost inexplicable and seemingly instantaneous ascendancy over every tribe with which he came in contact, and his writings which had made him famous in both hemispheres, caused the United States Government to look to him for help in its difficulties with the red men, and to invest him with a public character. Henceforth he was to aid the Indians by pleading their cause before European nations and by becoming their intermediary at Washington. In 1851 owing to the influx of whites into California and Oregon, the Indians had grown restless and hostile. A general congress of tribes was determined on, and was held in the Creek Valley near Fort Laramie, and the Government requested De Smet’s presence as pacificator. He made the long journey and his presence soothed the ten thousand Indians at the council and brought about a satisfactory understanding.

In 1858 he accompanied General Harney as a chaplain in his expedition against the Utah Mormons, at the close of which campaign the Government requested him to accompany the same officer to Oregon and Washington Territories, where, it was feared, an uprising of the Indians would soon take place. Here again his presence had the desired effect, for the Indians loved him and trusted him implicitly. A visit to the Sioux country a the beginning of the Civil War convinced him that a serious situation confronted the Government. The Indians rose in rebellion in August, 1862, and at the request of the government De Smet made a tour of the North-west. When he found that a punitive expedition had been determined on, he refused to lend to it the sanction of his presence. The condition of affairs becoming more critical, the government again appealed to him in 1867 to go to the red men, who were enraged by white men’s perfidy and cruelty, and “endeavour to bring them back to peace and submission, and prevent as far as possible the destruction of property and the murder of the whites.” Accordingly he set out for the Upper Missouri, interviewing thousands of Indians on his way, and receiving delegations from the most hostile tribes, but before the Peace Commission could deal with them, he was obliged to return to St. Louis, where he was taken seriously ill.

In 1868, however, he again started on what Chittenden calls (Life, Letters and Travels of Pierre Jean De Smet, p. 92), “the most important mission of his whole career.” He travelled with the Peace Commissioners for some time, but later determined to penetrate alone into the very camp of the hostile Sioux. General Stanley says (ibid.): “Father De Smet alone of the entire white race could penetrate to these cruel savages and return safe and sound.” The missionary crossed the Bad Lands, and reached the main Sioux camp of some five thousand warriors under the leadership of Sitting Bull. He was received with extraordinary enthusiasm. His counsels were at once agreed to, and representatives sent to meet the Peace Commission. A treaty of peace was signed, 2 July, 1868, by all the chiefs. This result has been looked on as the most remarkable event in the history of the Indian wars. Once again, in 1870, he visited the Indians, to arrange for a mission among the Sioux. In such a crowded life allusion can be made only to the principal events. His strange adventures among the red men his conversions and plantings of missions, his explorations and scientific observations may be studied in detail in his writings. On behalf of the Indians he crossed the ocean nineteen times, visiting popes, kings, and presidents, and traversing almost every European land. By actual calculation he travelled 180,000 miles on his errands of charity.

His writings are numerous and vivid in descriptive power, rich in anecdote, and form an important contribution to our knowledge of Indian manners, customs, superstitions, and traditions. The general correctness of their geographical observations is testified to by later explorers, though scientific researches have since modified some minor details. Almost childlike in the cheerful bouyancy of his disposition, he preserved this characteristic to the end, though honoured by statesmen and made Chevalier of the Order of Leopold by the King of the Belgians. That he was not wanting in personal courage is evinced by many events in his wonderful career. Though he had frequent narrow escapes from death in his perilous travels, and often took his life in his hands when penetrating among hostile tribes, he never faltered. But his main title to fame is his extraordinary power over the Indians, a power not other man is said to have equalled. To give a list of the Indian tribes with whom he came in contact, and over whom he acquired an ascendancy, would be to enumerate almost all the tribes west of the Mississippi. Even Protestant writers declare him the sincerest friend the Indians ever had. The effects of his work for them were not permanent to the extent which he had planned, solely because the Indians have been swept away or engulfed by the white settlers of the North-west. If circumstances had allowed it, the reductions of Paraguay would have found a counterpart in North America. The archives of St. Louis University contain all the originals of De Smet’s writings known to be extant. Among these is the “Linton Album,” containing his itinerary from 1821 to the year of his death, also specimens of various Indian dialects, legends, poems, etc. The principal works of Father De Smet are: “Letters and Sketches, with a Narrative of a Year’s Residence among the Indian Tribes of the Rocky Mountains” (Philadelphia, 1843), translated into French, German, Dutch, and Italian; “Oregon Missions and Travels over the Rocky Mountains in 1845–46” (New York, 1847), translated into French and Flemish; “Voyage au grand désert en 1851” (Brussels, 1853); “Western Missions and Missionaries” (New York, 1863), translated into French; “New Indian Sketches” (New York, 1865).

CHITTENDEN AND RICHARDSON, Life, Letters and Travels of Pierre Jean De Smet, S.J. (New York, 1905). It contains many hitherto unpublished letters and a map of De Smet’s travels; DEYNOODT, P. J. De Smet, missionaire Belge aux Etas-Unis (Brussels, 1878); PALLANDINO, Indian and White in the North-west (Baltimore, 1894); U.S. CATH. HIST. SOC., Hist. Records and Studies (New York, 1907), VII.

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Hernando de Soto

Explorer and conqueror, born at Villanueva de la Serena, Badajoz, Spain, 1496 or 1500; died on the banks of the Mississippi the latter part of June, 1542.

He was given the rank of captain of a troop of horsemen in 1516 by Pedrarias Dávila (also known as Pedro Arias de Avila), governor of Darien, who admired his courage, and he took an active part in the conquest of portions of Central America. In 1523 he accompanied Francisco Fernández de Córdoba who, by order of Pedrarias, set out from Panama with an expedition which explored Nicaragua and Honduras, conquering and colonizing the country as they proceeded. In 1532 he joined the expedition of Francisco Pizzaro starting from Panama for the conquest of Peru. Recognizing his importance, Pizzaro made de Soto second in command, though this caused some opposition from Pizzaro’s brothers. In 1533 he was sent at the head of a small party to explore the highlands of Peru, and he discovered the great national road which led to the capital. Soon afterwards he was selected by Pizzaro as ambassador to visit the Inca Atahualpa, lord of Peru, and he was the first Spaniard who spoke with that chief. After the imprisonment of Atahualpa, de Soto became very friendly with him and visited him often in his confinement. De Soto played a prominent part in the engagements which completed the conquest of Peru, including the battle which resulted in the capture of Cuzco, the capital. Upon his return from an expedition, he learned that Pizzaro had treacherously ordered Atahualpa to be put to death in spite of Atahualpa’s having paid a large ransom. He was much displeased at the crime, and, becoming disgusted with Pizzaro and his brothers, he returned to Spain in 1536, taking back with him about 18,000 ounces of gold which represented his share of the booty taken from the Incas.

He settled in Seville, and with the gold he had brought home, he was able to set up an elaborate establishment with ushers, pages, equerry, chamberlain, and other servants required for the household of a gentleman. In 1537 he married Inés de Bobadilla (sometimes called Leonor or Isabel), the daughter of his former patron, Pedrarias Dávila. He had settled down in Seville to enjoy life quietly, when the exaggerated accounts of Cabeza de Vaca concerning the vast region then called Florida fired his ambition to undertake the conquest of this land which he considered no less rich than Peru. He therefore sold all his property, and devoted the proceeds to equipping an expedition for this purpose. He readily obtained from Charles V, to whom he had lent some money, the titles of Adelantado of Florida and Governor of Cuba, and in addition, the title of marquis of a certain portion of the territory he might conquer, said portion to be chosen by himself.

The expedition consisted of 950 fighting men, eight secular priests, two Dominicans, a Franciscan and a Trinitarian, all to be transported in ten ships. To this armada was added one of twenty more ships which was on its way to Vera Cruz, but was to be under the orders of de Soto while the courses of the two fleets lay along the same route. The whole squadron set sail from Sanlúcar, 6 April, 1538. On Easter Sunday morning, fifteen days later, they arrived safely at Gomera, one of the Canary Islands, where they stopped for one week and then continued their way without incident. When near Cuba, the twenty vessels destined for Mexico separated from the others and proceeded on their way. The ten ships of de Soto shortly after arrived in the harbour of Santiago de Cuba where the members of the expedition were well received by the Cubans, whose fêtes in honour of the new-comers lasted several weeks. The new governor visited the towns in the vicinity of Santiago and did every thing in his power to better their condition. At the same time, he gathered as many horses as he could, and, as good ones were plentiful in Cuba, it was not long before he had a fair number of mounts for the men of the Florida expedition. Just about this time, the city of Havana was sacked and burned by the French, and de Soto, upon learning of it, despatched Captain Aceituno with some men to repair the ruins. As he was contemplating an early departure for his conquest of Florida, he named Gonzalo de Guzmán as lieutenant-governor to administer justice in Santiago and vicinity, while for affairs of state, he gave full powers to his wife. Meanwhile, he continued his preparations for the expedition to Florida. In the latter part of August, 1538, the ships sailed for Havana, while de Soto started by land with 350 horses and the remainder of the expedition. The two parties arrived at Havana within a few days of each other, and de Soto immediately made plans for the rebuilding of the city. He also entrusted to Captain Aceituno the building of a fortress for the protection of the harbour and the city from any possible future attack. At the same time he ordered Juan de Añasco, a skilled and experienced sailor, to set out in advance to explore the coasts and harbours of Florida so that it would facilitate matters when the main expedition sailed. Añasco returned at the end of a few months and made a satisfactory report.

The expedition was finally made ready, and on 18 May, 1539, de Soto set sail with a fleet of nine vessels. He had with him 1000 men exclusive of the sailors, all well armed and making up what was considered to be the best equipped expedition that had ever set out for conquest in the New World. They proceeded with favourable weather until 25 May, when land was seen and they cast anchor in a bay to which they gave the name of Espiritu Santo (now Tampa Bay). The army landed on Friday, 30 May, two leagues from an Indian village. From this point the Spaniards began their explorations of the wild unknown country to the north and west which lasted for nearly three years. They passed through a region already made hostile by the violence of the invader Narvaez, and they were constantly deceived by the Indians, who tried to get them as far away as possible by telling them stories of great wealth which was to be found at remote points. They wandered from place to place, always disappointed in their expectations, but still lured onward by the tales they heard of the vast riches which lay just beyond. They treated the Indians brutally whenever they met them, and they were, as a result, constantly at war with them. Setting out from Espiritu Santo, de Soto, with considerable loss of men, went through the provinces of Acuera, Ocali, Vitachuco, and Osachile (all situated in the western part of the Florida peninsula), with the purpose of finally reaching the territory of Apalache (situated in the northwestern part of Florida on the Gulf of Mexico), as he considered the fertility and maritime conditions of that country well suited to his purposes. He finally reached the province, and after some fighting with the Indians, subjugated it. In October, 1539, de Soto sent Juan Añasco with thirty men to Espiritu Santo Bay where he had left his ships and a portion of his expedition, with orders to start from there with the ships and follow the coast until he reached the bay of Aute (St. Marks on Apalachee Bay) in the province of Apalache. Here he was to be joined by Pedro Calderón, who had orders to proceed by land with the remainder of the expedition and the provisions and camp equipment that had been left on the coast. At the same time, Gómez Arias was to sail to Havana to acquaint de Soto’s wife with the progress of the expedition. After many hardships, Añasco reached Espiritu Santo Bay, whence he started with the ships to carry out de Soto’s orders. He arrived at Aute in safety, and was there joined by Calderón with the land forces according to arrangement. Meanwhile, Gómez Arias had fulfilled his mission to Havana and the triumphs of the Spaniards in Florida were fitly celebrated in that city. De Soto now ordered Diego Maldonado, a captain of infantry who had served him well, to give up his command, and take two ships with which he was to explore the coast of Florida for a distance of one hundred leagues to the west of Aute, and map out its bays and inlets. Maldonado did his work successfully and upon his return, in February, 1540, was sent to Havana, with orders to inform the Governor’s wife and announce to the Cubans as well all that they had seen and done. De Soto gave him further orders to return in October and meet him in the Bay of Achusi which Maldonado had discovered during his exploration. He was to bring back with him as many ships as he could procure, and also munitions of war, provisions, and clothing for the soldiers. But de Soto was destined never to see Maldonado again, nor was he to have the benefit of the supplies for which he was sending him, for, though Maldonado was able to carry out his orders to the letter, when he arrived at Achusi in the fall he found neither trace nor tidings of de Soto. He waited for some time and explored the country quite a distance, but without finding him, and was forced to return to Havana. He tried again the next year and againa the following, but always with the same result.

Meanwhile, de Soto had started in March, 1540, from the province of Apalache with the intention of exploring the country to the north. He explored the provinces of Altapaha (or Altamaha), Achalaque, Cofa, and Cofaque, all situated in eastern and northern Georgia, meeting with fair success. He then worked his way in a southwesterly direction, intending to reach the coast at Achusi where he had agreed to meet Maldonado with the supply ships. But when he reached the province of Tuscaluza in southern Alabama, where he had been told there were immense riches, the Indians in large numbers offered a more stubborn resistance and gave him the worst battle he had yet had. The battle lasted nine hours and was finally won by the Spaniards, though nearly all the officers and men, including de Soto himself, were wounded. According to Barcilasso, there were 70 Spaniards and 11,000 Indians killed in the battle, and in addition the town of Mauvila (now Mobile) was destroyed by a fire which also consumed the provisions of the Spaniards. While in Tuscaluza, de Soto heard of some Spanish ships which were on the coast at Achusi. These were the ships which Maldonado had brought back from Havana with the supplies. De Soto thought he would be able to reach them in a short time for he had been informed that he was then but thirty leagues from the coast. But his troops were so exhausted that he was forced to rest for a few days. Worn out by the long marches and the hardships they had undergone, and disappointed at not finding any treasure, some of de Soto’s followers secretly plotted to abandon him, make their way to Achusi, and sail to Mexico or Peru. Learning of this, de Soto changed his plans, and, instead of marching toward the coast to join Maldonado, he led his men toward the interior in a westerly direction, knowing that they would not dare to desert him with the ships so far away. He hoped to reach New Spain (Mexico) by land. In a night battle (December, 1540), he lost forty men and fifty horses besides having many wounded, and during the next four months he was attacked almost nightly. In April, 1541, he came upon a fort surrounded with a stockade, and in storming it nearly all his men were wounded and many were killed. It is said that over 2000 Indians were killed in this battle, but so many of the Spaniards were wounded that de Soto was compelled to stop for a few days in order to care for them. Notwithstanding his repeated losses de Soto continued toward the interior, traversing several provinces constituting the present Gulf States, until he reached the Mississippi at a point in the northern part of the present state of Mississippi.

He crossed the river and pushed on to the northwest until he reached the province of Autiamque in the northwestern corner of Arkansas, where he passed the winter of 1541–42 on the Dayas River, now the Washita. In the spring of 1542, retracing his steps, he reached the Mississippi in May or June. Here, on 20 June, 1542 (according to some authorities on 21 May), he was stricken with a fever, and prepared for death. He made his will, named Luis de Moscoso de Alvarado as his successor in command of the expedition, and took leave of all. On the fifth day de Soto succumbed without having reached New Spain by land. His companions buried the body in a large hole which the natives had dug near one of their villages to get materials to build their houses. However, as de Soto had given the Indians to understand that the Christians were immortal, they afterwards disinterred the body, fearing the hostile savages might possibly discover it, and, finding him dead, make an attack. They then hollowed out the trunk of a large tree and, placing the body in it, sank it in the Mississippi which they called the Grande. The shattered remnant of the expedition under Moscoso then attempted to work their way eastward, but, driven back by the Indians, they floated down the Mississippi and, after many hardships, finally reached Pánuco in Mexico. This expedition of de Soto, though it ended so disastrously, was one of the most elaborate and persistent efforts made by the Spaniards to explore the interior of North America. It was the first extensive exploration of at least six of the Southern states: South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas, and their written history often begins with narratives which tell the story of de Soto’s expedition. From these same narratives we also get our first description of the Cherokees, Seminoles, Creeks, Appalachians, Choctaws, and other famous tribes of southern Indians. The story of this expedition also records the discovery of the Mississippi and the first voyage of Europeans upon it. It must be noted that Alonso de Pineda discovered the mouth of the Mississippi in 1519, and that Cabeza de Vaca crossed it near its mouth in 1528.

SMITH tr., Narrative of the Career of Hernando de Soto in the Discovery of Florida, by a Knight of Elvas (New York, 1866); SHIPP, History of Hernando de Soto (Philadelphia, 1881); BANCROFT, History of the United States (New York, 1883–85); LOWERY, The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of the United States (1901); GRAHAM, Hernando de Soto (1903); BOURNE, A Narrative of de Soto (New York, 1904).

VENTURA FUENTES

Despair

(Latin desperare, to be hopeless.)

Despair, ethically regarded, is the voluntary and complete abandonment of all hope of saving one’s soul and of having the means required for that end. It is not a passive state of mind: on the contrary it involves a positive act of the will by which a person deliberately gives over any expectation of ever reaching eternal life. There is presupposed an intervention of the intellect in virtue of which one comes to decide definitely that salvation is impossible. This last is motived by the persuasion either that the individual’s sins are too great to be forgiven or that it is too hard for human nature to cooperate with the grace of God or that Almighty God is unwilling to aid the weakness or pardon the offenses of his creatures, etc.

It is obvious that a mere anxiety, no matter how acute, as to the hereafter is not to be identified with despair. This excessive fear is usually a negative condition of soul and adequately discernible from the positive elements which clearly mark the vice which we call despair. The pusillanimous person has not so much relinquished trust in God as he is unduly terrified at the spectacle of his own shortcomings of incapacity.

The sin of despair may sometimes, although not necessarily, contain the added malice of heresy in so far as it implies an assent to a proposition which is against faith, e.g. that God has no mind to supply us with what is needful for salvation.

Despair as such and as distinguished from a certain difference, sinking of the heart, or overweening dread is always a mortal sin. The reason is that it contravenes with a special directness certain attributes of Almighty God, such as His goodness, mercy, and faith-keeping. To be sure despair is not the worst sin conceivable: that evil primacy is held by the direct and explicit hatred of God; neither is it as great as sins against faith like formal heresy or apostasy. Still its power for working harm in the human soul is fundamentally far greater than other sins inasmuch as it cuts off the way of escape and those who fall under its spell are frequently, as a matter of fact, found to surrender themselves unreservedly to all sorts of sinful indulgence.

Nolkin, Summa Theologiae Moralis (Innsbruck, 1904); Rickaby, Aquinas Ethicus (London, 1896); Genicot, Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Louvain, 1898).

JOSEPH F. DELANY

César-Mansuète Despretz

Chemist and physicist, b. at Lessines, Belgium, 11 May, 1798; d. at Paris, 11 May, 1863. He was appointed early in life master of studies in the lyceum of Bruges, and later went to Paris to complete his studies. Here he attracted the attention of Gay-Lusac, who had him appointed tutor of the chemical course which the former was then giving at the Ecole Polytechnique. In 1824 Despretz was made adjunct and the titular professor of physics at the College Henri IV, and in 1837 received the chair of physics at the Sorbonne. He was naturalized as a Frenchman in 1838, and in 1841 he was elected to the Academy of Sciences in the division of general physics, being the successor of Savart. The researches of Despretz did much to establish the foundation of modern physics, notably in the domain of heat. In 1818 he investigated latent heat and the elasticity of vapours. In 1821, following the same line, he studied the heat-conductivity of solids, vapour density, and the latent heat of steam at different pressures; his memoir of 1822 on the causes animal heat was crowned by the Academy. In 1823 the results of his investigation of the compressibility of liquids were published, and in 1827 his researches on the density of gases at different pressures; the latter investigation proved that Mariotte’s law was not exactly followed by gases. The titles of some of his leading memoirs and their dates of publication are as follows: “The Heat of Combustion” (1828); “Investigation of the Mercurial Thermometer” (1837); “The Laws of Conductivity of Heat in Liquids” (1838); “The limit of Appreciable Sound” (1845).

After this he turned his attention the voltaic cell and voltaic arc. By uniting the heat from a very large burning glass with the heat of the voltaic arc and with the oxy-hydrogen flame, he experimented on the diffusion and volatilization of refractory solids, performing some experiments of remarkable interest in those days when electricity was not so highly developed as at the present time. Under the discharge of the Ruhmkorff coil he approximated the formation of diamonds. Among his books may be cited “Recherches expérimentales su les causes de la chaleur animale” (Paris, 1824); “Traité élémentaire de physique” (Paris, 1825, and many later editions); “Eléments de chimie théorique et pratique” (Paris, 1828–30); in addition to these some fifty memoirs were published by him between 1817 and 1863, the list of which is given in the “Catalogue of Scientific Papers of the Royal Society” (London, 1868), VII. Despretz was a true Catholic; he constantly resisted assaults upon the Church and the clerical body, was always ready to lead in their defence, and died a devout member of the Church.

Dictionnaire Larousse, s. v.; Moigno in Les Mondes (Paris, 1863), I.

T. O’CONOR SLOANE

Desservants

The name of a class of French parish priests. Under the old regime, a priest who performed the parochial duties in a vacant parish, or where the parish priest was under censure of some kind (Héricourt, Les lois ecclesiastiques de France, II, xv, Paris, 1771) was known as a desservant; he was the vicar, or économe-curé, whom the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, c. xviii, De ref.) desired to be appointed in each vacant parish. After the Concordat of 1801, however, the name desservants was applied to a second class of parish priests who were named by the bishop without the sanction of the Government, but could also be removed at any time by the bishop. This institution owed its origin to custom rather than any law, though later on it was fully legalized. Article 9 of the new concordat decreed that “the bishops are to make a new circumscription of the parishes in their dioceses, which will only go into effect after the consent of the Government is obtained.” Article 10 adds: “bishops shall make the appointments to parishes; they shall choose only persons approved by the Government.” Finally, art. 14 provides “a suitable salary for bishops and parish priests.” These clauses applied to only one kind of parish and parish priests; but the Organic Articles, added by the Government to the concordat, established parishes of a second order, succursal parishes (mission churches), whose titulars were not canonically parish priests (curés) and received no remuneration from the State. Organic Articles 31, 60, 61, 63 provide that “there shall be at least one parish for every justice of the peace,” that “the bishop in conjunction with the prefect shall regulate the number and extent of succursal parishes”; that “the officiating priests in succursal parishes shall be appointed by the bishop”; that they shall also be removable by him; preference nevertheless should be given to ecclesiastics pensioned by the Assemblee Constituante (art. 68). By degrees the succursal parishes increased and equalled in number the municipalities of France; gradually, also, the Government allowed these desservants a small salary. From an ecclesiastical point of view, they were parish priests except for the removability clause.

This condition of affairs, which the concordat had not anticipated, was advantageous to the Church, because it left the bishops free to appoint to most parishes without consulting the State; it was also of advantage to the episcopal administration, which would have been much hampered had all the parish priests been irremovable. It was not formally approved by Rome, however, until May, 1845, under Gregory XVI (reply of the Congregation of the Council to the Bishop of Liège). The pope authorized the continuance of the existing situation until the Holy See decided otherwise. From various quarters, however, arose protests in favour of canonical irremovability of the desservants. In 1839 the Allignol brothers published “De l’état actuel du clergé de France, et en particulier des curés ruraux, appelés desservants” (The present condition of the clergy of France, particularly of the rural parish priests, known as desservants). It was the cause of several meetings of the French bishops at Rome and finally of the aforesaid rescript of Gregory XVI. Later on (5 Oct., 1864) the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars reproved a similar work by the Abbé Dagomer, “Réhabilitation du desservant.” Occasionally, some of the desservants refused to give up their places at the bishop’s order, maintaining a common-law right of irremovability; but in this they were always unsuccessful. In this respect the ecclesiastical discipline of France had become fixed and accepted; nor was it modified by the Separation Law of 1905; except that some bishops have ceased to use the terms succursale and desservant, replacing them by parish and parish priest, both, however, long since in ordinary ecclesiastical use.

A. BOUDINHON

Achille Desurmont

Ascetical writer, b. at Tourcoing, France, 23 Dec., 1828; d. 23 July, 1898. He attended first the college of the Jesuits at Brugelette, Belgium, and afterwards (1848) the theological college of Cambrai. Drawn to the religious state, he was received into the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer in 1850, made his profession the following year, and was ordained priest 24 Sept., 1853. His talent was at once recognised and he was appointed prefect of students and professor of theology, which offices he retained till 1865, when he became superior of the French province. He was a man of surpassing energy and an excellent organiser, his kindness winning him the affection and confidence of his subjects, whom he directed with prudence and fatherly firmness. Under his care subjects and foundations multiplied; the congregation spread into Spain for a second time, and he made foundations in Peru, Ecuador, Chile, and Colombia in South America. Forced to transfer his numerous religious from France to Holland, he so communicated to others his own spirit of faith and confidence that in all their troubles not one of his subjects failed him. On his return to France he soon organized missions and retreats as before. In 1887, he was given the important work of Apostolic visitor to the Little Sisters of the Poor. As a preacher few surpassed him in the retreats he gave to priests and religious all over France. At the age of seventy he was again nominated provincial. Although in poor health, he set to work with his wonted activity, but the result was a complete break-down. He wrote much and well. He was the founder (1875) of the ascetical review, “La Sainte Famille,” and a constant contributor to it. His works are edited in three series: 1. Vie Chrétienne.—“L’Art d’ assurer son Salut”; “Le Credo et la Providence”; “Le Monde et l’Evangile”; “La Vie vraiment chrétienne”; “Dévotions de l’âme chrétienne”; “Le Vén. Passarat et les Rédemptoristes.” 2. Vie Religieuse.—“Exercises Spirituels” (Retraites).—“Renouvellements spirituels” (Retraites); “Conversion quotidienne et retour continuel à Dieu” (Retraites); “Une Vertu pour chaque mois de l’année”; “La Vie vraiment religieuse”; “Manuel de méditations quotidiennes.” 3. Vie Sacerdotale.—“Dieu et la parole de Dieu”; “Discours et plans de retraites ecclésiastiques”; “L’esprit Apostolique”; “L’art de sauver les âmes”; “La charité sacerdotale” (Paris, Libraire de la “Sainte Famille,” 1907–8).

La Sainte Famille (1898), 450; Archives Congr. SS. R.

J. MAGNIER.

Determinism

Determinism is a name employed by writers, especially since J. Stuart Mill, to denote the philosophical theory which holds—in opposition to the doctrine of free will—that all man’s volitions are invariably determined by pre-existing circumstances. It may take diverse forms, some cruder, some more refined. Biological and materialistic Determinism maintains that each of our voluntary acts finds its sufficient and complete cause in the physiological conditions of the organism. Psychological Determinism ascribes efficiency to the psychical antecedents. In this view each volition or act of choice is determined by the character of the agent plus the motives acting on him at the time. Advocates of this theory, since Mill, usually object to the names, Necessarianism and Fatalism, on the ground that these words seem to imply some form of external compulsion, whilst they affirm only the fact of invariable sequence or uniform causal connectedness between motives and volition. Opposed to this view is the doctrine of Indeterminism, or what perhaps may more accurately be called Anti-determinism, which denies that man is thus invariably determined in all his acts of choice. This doctrine has been stigmatized by some of its opponents as the theory of “causeless volition,” or “motiveless choice”; and the name Indeterminism, is possibly not the best selection to meet the imputation. The objection is, however, not justified. The Anti-determinists, while denying that the act of choice is always merely the resultant of the assemblage of motives playing on the mind, teach positively that the Ego, or Self, is the cause of our volitions; and they describe it as a “free” or “self-determining” cause. The presence of some reason or motive, they ordinarily hold, is a necessary condition for every act of free choice, but they insist that the Ego can decide between motives. Choice is not, they maintain, uniformly determined by the pleasantest or the worthiest motive or collection of motives. Nor is it the inevitable consequent of the strongest motive, except in that tautological sense in which the word strongest simply signifies that motive which as a matter of fact prevails. Determinism and the denial of free will seem to be a logical consequence of all monistic hypotheses. They are obviously involved in all materialistic theories. For Materialism of every type necessarily holds that every incident in the history of the universe is the inevitable outcome of the mechanical and physical movements and changes which have gone before. But Determinism seems to be an equally necessary consequence of monistic Idealism. Indeed the main argument against monistic and pantheistic systems will always be the fact of free will. Self-determination implies separateness of individuality and independence in each free agent, and thus entails a pluralistic conception of the universe. (See DUALISM; MONISM.) In spite of the assertions of Determinists, no true logical distinction can be made between their view and that of Fatalism. In both systems each of my volitions is as inexorably fated, or pre-determined, in the past conditions of the universe as the movements of the planets or the tides. The opponents of Determinism usually insist on two lines of argument, the one based on the consciousness of freedom in the act of deliberate choice, the other on the incompatibility of Determinism with our fundamental moral convictions. The notions of responsibility, moral obligation, merit, and the like, as ordinarily understood, would be illusory if Determinism were true. The theory is in fact fatal to ethics, as well as to the notion of sin and the fundamental Christian belief that we can merit both reward and punishment. (See FREE WILL; ETHICS; FATALISM.)

MICHAEL MAHER.

Detraction

(From Latin detrahere, to take away).

Detraction is the unjust damaging of another’s good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer. An important difference between detraction and calumny is at once apparent. The calumniator says what he knows to be false, whilst the detractor narrates what he at least honestly thinks is true. Detraction in a general sense is a mortal sin, as being a violation of the virtue not only of charity but also of justice. It is obvious, however, that the subject-matter of the accusation may be so inconspicuous or, everything considered, so little capable of doing serious hurt that the guilt is not assumed to be more than venial. The same judgment is to be given when, as not unfrequently happens, there has been little or no advertence to the harm that is being done.

The determination of the degree of sinfulness of detraction is in general to be gathered from the consideration of the amount of harm the defamatory utterance is calculated to work. In order to adequately measure the seriousness of the damage wrought, due regard must be had not only to the imputation itself but also to the character of the person by whom and against whom the charge is made. That is, we must take into account not only the greater or lesser criminality of the thing alleged but also the more or less distinguished reputation of the detractor for trustworthiness, as well as the more or less notable dignity or estimation of the person whose good name has been assailed. Thus it is conceivable that a relatively small defect alleged against a person of eminent station, such as a bishop, might seriously tarnish his good name and be a mortal sin, whilst an offence of considerable magnitude attributed to an individual of a class in which such things frequently happen might constitute only a venial sin, such as, for instance, to say that a common sailor had been drunk. It is worthy of note that the manifestation of even inculpable defects may be a real defamation, such as to charge a person with gross ignorance, etc. When this is done in such circumstances as to bring upon the person so disparaged a more than ordinary measure of disgrace, or perhaps seriously prejudice him, the sin may even be a grievous one.

There are times, nevertheless, when one may lawfully make known the offense of another even though as a consequence the trust hitherto reposed in him be rudely shaken or shattered. If a person’s misdoing is public in the sense that sentence has been passed by the competent legal tribunal or that it is already notorious, for instance, in a city, then in the first case it may licitly be referred to in any place; in the second, within the limits of the town, or even elsewhere, unless in either instance the offender in the lapse of time should have entirely reformed or his delinquency been quite forgotten. When, however, knowledge of the happening is possessed only by the members of a particular community or society, such as a college or monastery and the like, it would not be lawful to publish the fact to others than those belonging to such a body. Finally, even when the sin is in no sense public, it may still be divulged without contavening the virtues of justice or charity whenever such a course is for the common weal or is esteemed to make for the good of the narrator, of his listeners, or even of the culprit. The right which the latter has to an asumed good name is extinguished in the presence of the benefit which may be conferred in this way.

The employment of this teaching, however, is limited by a twofold restriction. (1) The damage which one may soberly apprehend as emerging from the failure to reveal another’s sin or vicious propensity must be a notable one as contrasted with the evil of defamation. (2) No more in the way of exposure should be done than is required, and even a fraternal admonition ought rather to be substituted if it can be discerned to adequately meet the needs of the situation. Journalists are entirely within their rights in inveighing against the official shortcomings of public men. Likewise, they may lawfully present whatever information about the life or character of a candidate for public office is necessary to show his unfitness for the station he seeks. Historians have a still greater latitude in the performance of their task. This is not of course because the dead have lost their claim to have their good name respected. History must be something more than a mere calendar of dates and incidents; the causes and connection of events are a proper part of its province. This consideration, as well as that of the general utility in elevating and strengthening the public conscience, may justify the historian in telling many things hitherto unknown which are to the disgrace of those of whom they are related.

Those who abet another’s defamation in a matter of moment by directly or indirectly inciting or encouraging the principal in the case are guilty of grievous injustice. When, however, one’s attitude is simply a passive one, i.e. that of a mere listener, prescinding from any interior satisfaction at the blackening of another’s good name, ordinarily the sin is not mortal unless one happens to be a superior. The reason is that private persons are seldom obliged to administer fraternal correction under pain of mortal sin (see CORRECTION, FRATERNAL). The detractor having violated an unimpeachable right of another is bound to restitution. He must do his best to put back the one whom he has thus outraged in possession of the fair fame which the latter hitherto enjoyed. He must likewise make good whatever other loss he in some measure foresaw his victim would sustain as a result of this unfair defamation, such as damage measurable in terms of money. The obligation in either instance is perfectly clear. The method of discharging this plain duty is not so obvious in the first case. In fact, since the thing alleged is assumed to be true, it cannot be formally taken back, and some of the suggestions of theologians as to the style of reparation are more ingenious than satisfactory. Generally the only thing that can be done is to bide one’s time until an occasion presents itself for a favorable characterization of the person defamed. The obligation of the detractor to make compensation for pecuniary loss and the like is not only personal but becomes a burden on his heirs as well.

NOLDIN, Summa Theologiae Moralis (Innsbruck, 1905); GENICOT, Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Louvain, 1898); LEHMKUHL, Theologia Moralis (Freiburg, 1887).

JOSEPH F. DELANY

William Detré

Missionary, b. in France in 1668, d. in South America, at an advanced age, date uncertain. After his admission to the Society of Jesus, he was sent by his superiors to the missions of South America in 1706, and seven years later was appointed superior-general and visitor of all the missions of the Amazon embracing a tract of over 3000 miles. He is credited with translating the catechism into eighteen different languages for the various Indian tribes under his jurisdiction. It was he who sent to Europe the celebrated map of the Amazon drawn by Father Samuel Fritz, S.J., and engraved at Quito in 1707. In 1727 he was appointed rector of the College of Cuenca, where he continued the zealous exercise of the foundations of the ministry. He left an interesting “Relation” dated 1 June 1731, giving curious details about the uncivilized races of the Amazon. It is inserted in volume XXIII of the “Lettres Edifiantes,” original edition.

Michaud, Biog. Univ. (Paris, 1814); Sommervogel, Bibl. de la C. de J. (Brussels, 1892), s.v. Samuel Fritz, III, 1003.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Diocese of Detroit

(Detroitensis)

Diocese established 8 March, 1838, comprises the counties of the lower peninsula of the State of Michigan, U.S.A., south of the Counties of Ottawa, Kent, Montcalm, Gratiot, and Saginaw, and east of the Counties of Saginaw and Bay; an area of 18,558 miles. Suffragan of Cincinnati.

To the martyr Father Isaac Jogues and his fellow Jesuit Father Charles Raynbaut, belongs the honour of planting the Cross in Michigan when, in 1642, they began their mission to the Chippeways of the Sault Ste. Marie. Father René Menard, also a Jesuit, followed them in 1660, and was martyred the next year by a band of prowling savages. His death did not deter others of his brethren in the Society of Jesus from hastening to this field of labour, and we find Father Claude Allouez, at Chegoimegon, 1 October, 1665, preaching to the Ottawas and Hurons, and with him these other missionaries: Fathers Claude Dablon, Louis André, Gabriel Druilletes, and the famous Jacques Marquette. The last, in 1671, began at Michilimackinaw, his mission of St. Ignatius, where the first chapel for white men in Michigan was established. France took formal possession of the West in 1671, but England entering the field to dispute for the mastery, political intrigue followed, to the disaster of the old missions among the Indians. Fort St. Joseph, established at Detroit in 1688, developed into the post established there in 1700 by La Mothe Cadillac, who brought with him a number of Canadian families. This mission was served by the Recollects and under the pastorate of the Rev. Nicholas Benedict Constantin de l’Halle, on 26 July, 1701, the church of St. Anne was dedicated. This is the mother-church of the Northwest, and the parish records are preserved in an unbroken series in the archives of the St. Anne’s Church of the present, the building being the sixth of the name in the line of succession. The first entry in this registry is that of the baptism of a child of Cadillac, the founder of the colony. It is asserted that no other parish in the United States can present a similar record. This church was burned by discontented Indians in 1704, and again during an Indian outbreak in 1712. Father de l’Halle was killed by the Indians in 1706.

Other pastors during this period were the Recollect Fathers Bonaventure, Dominic de la Marche, Cherubin Denieau, Hyacinth Pelifresne, and Simplicius Bouquet (1752–82) and the Sulpitian Fathers Calvarin, Mercier, and Thaumur de la Somce. Detroit remained under English domination until 1796, when with the change of political control the spiritual jurisdiction passed to Bishop Carroll of Baltimore, and the Bishop of Quebec recalled his priests from the Michigan territory. Among those ministering at Detroit during the English occupation were Father Thomas Portier, who died in 1781, and Father John Francis Hubert, who was made Coadjutor Bishop of Quebec in June, 1785.

At the dawn of the nineteenth century Detroit, still a military post, had a population of about 2000, mainly French Catholics. St. Anne’s parish then comprised the whole of the present State of Michigan and most of Wisconsin. In 1796 Bishop Carroll sent the Sulpitian Father Michael Levadoux to take charge at Detroit. In June of the same year Fathers Gabriel Richard and Dilhet were appointed to assist him, the latter taking up his residence at Raisin River. Father Levadoux was recalled to Baltimore in 1801. Father Richard succeeded him and became not only pastor of St. Anne’s, but one of the leading figures in the development of the West. This remarkable priest was born at Saintes, France, 15 October, 1767. His father was a government employee, and his mother Geneviève Bossuet, a scion of the same family as the great Bishop of Meaux. He was ordained as a Sulpitian at Paris, in October, 1791. The Revolution drove him from his native land, and with Fathers Maréchal, Ciquard, and Matigonon, he arrived in Baltimore, 24 June, 1792. It was intended that they should be teachers at St. Mary’s Seminary, but they were assigned to missionary work instead, as the seminary was not then ready for them. Father Richard was sent to Prairie du Rocher and Kaskaskia, Illinois, where he spent six years of hardship and privation, but fruitful in the results of his zealous ministrations. When he arrived at Detroit in June, 1798, he found religious conditions far from ideal, the town having been for years an Indian trading centre. He began at once to exert a salutary influence for the reformation of existing abuses and devoted himself also to promoting the welfare of the numerous Indian missions in the surrounding country. In the summer of 1801 he had Bishop Denaut of Quebec visit Detroit on the invitation of Bishop Carroll and confirm 521 persons of ages ranging from thirteen to eighty years. His manuscript list of their names and ages is still kept in St. Anne’s archives. In 1804 he started a Young Ladies’ Academy and a seminary to foster vocations for the priesthood for young men, but a fire which destroyed the town 11 June, 1805, swept these away as well as the church and priests’ residence. So active were his resourceful methods that within three years another church was provided, the Catholic schools of Detroit were again in operation, and tuition given in six primary schools and two academies for girls. He was one of the founders of the University of Michigan, which began with the act of the legislature passed 26 August, 1817, establishing “the Catholepistemiad or University of Michigan” of which he was vice president and professor for six of the thirteen departments of which its curriculum was made up. In 1807 the governor and other officials requested him to lecture to them and thus afforded him the opportunity to be the first priest in the United States to deliver a series of religious lectures to non-Catholics. He spoke to them on the general principles of religion and morality at noon every Sunday in the Council House. Explaining this action to Bishop Carroll, he wrote: “As there was no English minister here of any denomination, I thought it might be of some utility to take possession of the ground.” The following year he went to Baltimore and brought back type and a printing press which he set up in Detroit. From this, on 31 August, 1809, he issued the “Michigan Essay or Impartial Observer,” the first paper published in Michigan and the first Catholic paper in the United States. It had several columns printed in French and the rest in English and had only one advertisement—that of St. Anne’s school. Between 1809 and 1812 he printed on this press seven books of a religious and educational character, one, “The Epistles and Gospels for all the Sundays and Feast-days of the Year,” being the first publication in the Northwest of a part of the Holy Scriptures.

The war of 1812 with England demoralized conditions in Detroit, which fell into the hands of the British. Father Richard was arrested and kept a prisoner in Canada during the contest. On being released he returned to his parish and was at once busy helping everybody to repair the ravages of the war. In 1823 he was elected a Delegate to Congress from Michigan Territory, the only instance in which a priest has held a seat in the House of Representatives. He had five opponents at the polls, but many non-Catholics voted for him, which outweighed the bitter opposition of a number of members of his parish led by one of the trustees who had long been at enmity with him. He gave his salary for the improvement of the church. Just before he left for Washington he was put in prison by one of his parishioners who had obtained a divorce in a civil court and remarried. Father Richard declared him excommunicated, and the man sued for damages to his reputation and business and got a judgment of $1,116. This Father Richard refused to pay, and he was imprisoned until three of his friends gave a bond for him. The judgment was eventually reversed. In Congress he worked assiduously for the interests of Michigan, but the only notable speech he made was that advocating the bill for the opening of a post-road from Detroit to Chicago. He sought re-election at the end of his term, but was defeated, mainly through the exertions of his trustee opponents. When Bishop Fenwick was consecrated first Bishop of Cincinnati in 1822 Michigan passed from Bardstown to that jurisdiction. Father Richard prepared for him a statement of the condition of the Territory, in which he then estimated there were about 6000 Catholics with five churches and two priests—himself and his assistant. An epidemic of cholera broke out in Detroit in the summer of 1832, and the venerable missionary, while unstintingly devoting himself to the help of the suffering, fell a victim to the disease, of which he died, 13 September, 1832. Preparations had been under way even then to raise Detroit to a bishopric, of which, had he lived, he would probably have received the mitre.

BISHOPS

(1) John Frederic Reze (the name is also given as Reese in the German ecclesiastical records), who had been a zealous missionary throughout the territory, was appointed the first bishop 25 February, 1833, and was consecrated at Cincinnati 6 October of the same year. He was born 6 February, 1791, at Viennenberg, Hanover, and enjoys the distinction of being the first German-born bishop of the American hierarchy. Drafted into military service in his youth, he served under Blücher as a dragoon at the battle of Waterloo. He was ordained in Rome, in 1822, and emigrated to the American missions in 1825, affiliating himself with Bishop Fenwick in Ohio. In 1827 he was sent to Europe to secure Gemnan priests and financial aid for the struggling missions and returned in a year, after success in both efforts. Through his exertions the famous Leopoldine Association that gave so much substantial help to the Church in the United States was founded in Austria in 1829. When he look charge of the Diocese of Detroit there were eight churches and the Ottawa Indian mission within its limits. Under his auspices the Poor Glares opened a convent in Detroit and a school at Green Bay (1833). Holy Trinity church was built at Detroit, and parishes established at Monroe, Grand River, and Bertrand. A hospital was opened in Detroit in 1834 during an outbreak of cholera, where also St. Philip’s College, an orphan asylum, Trinity Academy, and a house of the Ladies of Providence were established, with several parochial schools. The bishop, however, was attacked with softening of the brain and expressed in a letter to the Provincial Council of Baltimore, in 1837, a wish to resign or transfer the administration to a coadjutor. He was suspended from all episcopal jurisdiction and went to Rome, where he remained until the disorders in the city by the revolutionists in 1848, and then retired to his native Diocese of Hildesheim, Germany, where he died at the mother-house of the Sisters Of Charity, 30 December, 1871, and was buried in the cathedral of that place.

(2) Peter Paul Lefebre, another active and successful missionary of the Diocese of Cincinnati, was named as the coadjutor and administrator of Detroit, and consecrated titular Bishop of Zella, at Philadelphia, 21 November, 1841. He was born 30 April, 1804, at Roulers, near Ghent, Belgium, and, emigrating to the United States in 1828, was ordained priest at St. Louis, 17 July, 1831. He was in Europe when he was appointed bishop, but returned at once for his consecration. He was a careful and conservative prelate, forecasting the future in his selection of church sites, and devoting himself actively to the expansion of the facilities for the practice of the Faith in his diocese and the spread of sound Catholic education. The Redemptorists and the Religious of the Sacred Heart were established in Detroit, and for the parochial schools the Christian Brothers, the Sisters of Notre Dame, the Sisters of Charity, and the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary were brought into the diocese. In 1844 the creation of the new See of Milwaukee relieved the Bishop of Detroit of the care of that section and enabled him to devote more attention to his Indian missions, which were developed splendidly. In 1857 the separation of the Diocese of Sault-Ste-Marie was made at Bishop Lefebre’s suggestion. With Bishop Spalding he was mainly instrumental in founding, in 1857, the American College at Louvain. He died, 4 March, 1869.

(3) Casper H. Borgess was appointed his successor and consecrated titular Bishop of Calyson and coadjutor and administrator of Detroit, 24 April, 1870. On the death of Bishop Reze, 30 December, 1871, he assumed the title of Detroit. He resigned 16 April, 1888, and died 3 May, 1890.

(4) John Samual Foley was named the fourth bishop and consecrated at Baltimore, 4 November, 1888. He was born in that city 5 November, 1833, and ordained priest in Rome 20 December, 1856. His brother was Bishop Thomas Foley, administrator of Chicago (1870–79). The early settlers of Detroit had been French; these were followed, at different intervals, by Belgians, Germans, Poles, Slavs, and Italians. Bishop Foley established a special seminary for the Poles and secured the ministrations of religious of that nationality. A schism among them of several years’ duration, and of disastrous results, was healed through his forbearance. In 1907 the priests and laity of the diocese, in honour of the golden jubilee of his priesthood, presented Bishop Foley with St. Francis’s Home for Orphan Boys, built at a cost of $250,000.

RELIGIOUS ORDERS

The Congregation of the Sisters Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary was founded at Monroe, Michigan, 28 Nov., 1845, by the Rev. Louis Gillet, C. SS. R. Three young ladies, two from Baltimore and one from Detroit, formed the new community, whose rule was taken from that of St. Alphonsus, and whose secondary object was the education of youth. In 1859 some of the sisters went to Pennsylvania; there are now three distinct mother-houses, one in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, one in the Diocese of Scranton, and the original at Monroe, in the Diocese of Detroit. Besides these the sisters have schools in the Dioceses of Harrisburg, Altoona, Boise, Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Seattle, and Oregon.

The following religious orders and congregations have foundations in the diocese.—Communities of men: Fathers of St. Basil, Capuchins, Fathers of the Holy Ghost, Fathers of the Precious Blood, Redemptorists, Jesuits, Franciscans, Brothers of the Christian Schools, Xaverian Brothers. Communities of women: Sisters of Charity (Mt. St. Joseph, Ohio), Sisters of Charity (Emmitsburg, Md.), Sisters of Christian Charity, Sisters of St. Dominic (New York City), Sisters of St. Dominic (Racine, Wis.), School Sisters of St. Francis, Felician Sisters, Sisters of the Good Shepherd, Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, Sisters Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Sisters of St. Joseph, Religious of the Sacred Heart, Little Sisters of the Poor, School Sisters of Notre Dame, Polish Sisters of St. Joseph, Sisters of St. Dominic of the Perpetual Adoration.

STATISTICS

1 bishop, 237 priests (193 secular and 44 regular), 146 churches with resident priests, 66 missions with churches, 20 stations, 23 chapels, 1 theological seminary for the secular clergy with 320 students, 40 Polish students, 1 theological seminary for religious; 3 colleges and academies for boys, students 600; 7 academies for girls, students 870; 70 parishes and missions with schools, pupils 23,086; 3 orphan asylums, inmates 600; 1 House of the Good Shepherd, inmates in preservation class 125. Total number of children under Catholic care, 23,811; 4 hospitals; 1 home for aged poor, inmates 250; 1 home for feeble-minded; 1 infant asylum, 1 home for working boys. Estimated Catholic population 256,500 (Catholic families 50,041).

Shea, History of Cath. Missions among the Indian Tribes of U.S. New York, 1855); Idem, Life and Times of Most Rev. John Carroll (New York, 1888); Idem, History of Cath. Ch. in U.S. (New York, 1904); Campbell, Pioneer Priests of North America (New York, 1908); U.S. Cath. Hist. Soc., Hist. Records and Studies (New York, November, 1907), V, Pt. I; Reuss, Biog. Cycl. of the Catholic Hierarchy of U.S. (Milwaukee, 1889); Clarke, Lives of Deceased Bishops (New York, 1872); Catholic Directory (1908); Cooley, Michigan: a History of Governments (Boston, 1885); Mclaughlin, History of Education in Michigan (Washington, 1891).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Pope St. Deusdedit

(Adeodatus I).

Date of birth unknown; consecrated pope, 19 October (13 November), 615; d. 8 November (3 December), 618; distinguished for his charity and zeal. He encouraged and supported the clergy, who were impoverished in consequence of the political troubles of the time; and when his diocese was visited by a violent earthquake and the terrible scourge of leprosy he set an heroic example by his efforts to relieve the suffering. The few decretals ascribed to him are unauthenticated. He is said to have been the first pope to use leaden seals (bullæ) for pontifical documents. One dating from his reign is still preserved, the obverse of which represents the Good Shepherd in the midst of His sheep, with the letters Alpha and Omega underneath, while the reverse bears the inscription: Deusdedit Papæ. His feast occurs 8 November.

LEO A. KELLY

St. Deusdedit

A native of Wessex, England, whose Saxon name was Frithona, and of whose early life nothing is known; d. 14 July, 664. He was the sixth Archbishop of Canterbury (655–664), and was the first Anglo-Saxon to hold the primacy. He was consecrated at Canterbury in 655, by Ithamar, the first Saxon Bishop of Rochester, in succession to Honorius, thus commencing the long line of English archbishops, which was broken but once, and that by his immediate successor, Theodore. Little is known of the primacy of Deusdedit. Most of the other bishops during his time were of either Celtic or French origin. Of the seven or eight consecrated during the nine years of his primacy only one received consecration from him, viz. Damian, Bishop of Rochester, consecrated in 656, and this is the sole official act of his that is known with absolute certainly. He is said to have hallowed Wulfhere’s church Medehampstede (Peterborough) in Mercia, the charter of which, dated 657, contains his signature, but from the fact that it also contains the names of Ithamar and Tuda a difficulty arises. Haddan and Stubbs, who print the charter (Councils of Great Britain and Ireland), consider the foundation of this monastery to have been not earlier than 664. The archbishop’s name is given by Simeon of Durham as the consecrator of the seventy nuns of St. Eormenburga’s convent in Thanet, but the statement lacks confirmation. St. Deusdedit died on the same day as Erconbert, King of Kent, and was buried in St. Peter’s porch at Canterbury.

GOZELIN, “Life of Deusdedit,” printed in the BOLLANDISTS under 15 July; HOOK, “Lives of the Abps. Of Canterbury” (London, 1860–75); HOLE in “Dict.Christ. Biog. (London, 1877); STANTON, “Menology of England and Wales” (London, 1887); ARCHER in “Dict. Nt. Biog.” (London, 1888).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Cardinal Deusdedit

Born at Todi, Italy; died between 1097 and 1100. He was a friend of St. Gregory VII and defender of his reformation measures; Deusdedit joined the Benedictine Order and became a zealous promoter of ecclesiastical reforms in the latter half of the eleventh century. Pope Gregory VII raised him to the cardinalate with the title of S. Pietro in Vincoli. According to the superscription of chapter 420 (former reckoning 161) in the fourth book of his “Collectio canonum,” Deusdedit had sojourned in Germany; but it is not known, however, when and from what motive he did so. In 1078, he took part in a Roman synod, at which he represented the opinions of Berengarius of Tours (Mansi, Conc. Coll., XIX, 762). In the long conflict for the freedom of the ecclesiastical authority from the oppression of the civil power Deusdedit sided with Gregory VII, and was one of his chief agents and defenders. At the suggestion evidently of this pope, he undertook the compilation of a collection of canons which he completed in 1087 and dedicated to Victor III (Collectio canonum, ed. Martinucci, Venice, 1869; ed. Victor Wolf von Glanfell, Paderborn, 1905). It consists of four books: the first book (327 chapters) treats of the power of the Roman Church; the second (163 chapters) of the Roman clergy; the third (289 chapters) of ecclesiastical matters; the fourth (437 chapters) of the liberty of the Church and her ministers and of the immunities of the clergy. These canons were partly taken from earlier collections, e. g. that of Burchard of Worms, partly from the original documents found in the archives and the library of the Lateran palace. The sources of the collections are to be found in Holy Scripture, the councils, letters of popes, writings of the Fathers, letters of temporal rulers, and civil laws. He meant this work to defend the rights and liberty of the Church and the authority of the Holy See, in keeping with the measures of Gregory VII and his adherents. At the same time, this Collection reveals Deusdedit as one of the most important of the pre-Gratian canonists. Under Urban II (1088–1099) he published in the interest of the Gregorian reforms another work: “Libellus contra invasores et symoniacos et reliquos schismaticos” (ed. Mai, Nova Bibliotheca Patrum, VII, III, 77–114; ed. Sackur, Mon. Germ. Hist. Libelli de lite, II, 300–365). This work was first published in a short, then in an enlarged form, the latter completed in 1099. In this work, important for the history of the investitures conflict under Urban II, the author points out that the temporal power has no authority in ecclesiastical matters and particularly no right to exercise ecclesiastical investiture. Sackur (see below) has made it probable that the so-called “Dictatus Papæ” (see GREGORY VII) were composed by Deusdedit. These are twenty-seven short theses concerning the privileges of the Roman Church and the pope [ed. Jaffé, Bibl. Rer. Germ., (Berlin, 1864-) II, 174]. Until quite recently Gregory VII himself was generally regarded as the author; Löwenfeld (see below) continued to maintain the authorship of Gregory, but Sackur, however, has shown that the “Indices capitulorum” in the “Collectio canonum” of Deusdedit are closely related to the brief theses known as “Dictatus Papæ” both in respect of sense and verbal text. Most probably, therefore, the latter are taken from the collection of Deusdedit, who put them together from the “Registrum Epistolarum” or letterbook of Gregory. Possibly also Deusdedit was the editor of this famous and important collection of Gregory’s correspondence. In this case, the cardinal appears in a new light as intimate counsellor and intellectual heir of Gregory VII. On 4 April, 1100, a certain Albericus appears as titular priest of S. Pietro in Vincoli; therefore Deusdedit was then no longer alive.

Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit, VON GLANVELL, ed. (Paderborn, 1905); GIESEBRECHT, Die Gesetzgebung der röm. Kirche zur Zeit Gregors VII. in München. Hist. Jahrbuch für 1866, 180 sqq.; STEVENSON, Osservazioni sulla “Collectio canonum” di Deusdedit in Archivio della società romana di sloria patria (1885), 300–398; LÖWENFELD, Die Canonsammlung des Kard. Deusdedit und das Register Gregors VII. in Neues Archiv (1885), 311 sqq.; IDEM, Der Dictatus papœ Gregors VII, und eine Ueberarbeitung desselben im 12. Jahrh., ibid. (1891), 193 sqq.; SACKUR, Der Dictatus papœ und die Canonsammlung des Deusdedit, ibid. (1893), 135 sqq.; IDEM, Zu den Streitschriften des Deusdedit und des Hugo von Fleury, ibid. (1891), 349 sqq.; HIRSH, Kard. Deusdedits Stellung zur Laieninvestitur in Archiv f. kath. Kirchenrecht (1908), 34 sqq.; MIRBT, Die Publizistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII (Leipzig, 1894).

J. P. KIRSCH.

Deus in Adjutorium Meum Intende

“Deus in adjutorium meum intende,” with the response: “Domine ad adjuvandum me festina,” first verse of the sixty-ninth Psalm. These words form the introductory prayer to every Hour of the Roman, monastic, and Ambrosian Breviaries, except during the last three days of Holy Week, and in the Office of the Dead. While they are said, or sung, all present sign themselves with the sign of the cross. Tradition says that St. Benedict introduced this custom into the monastic Office and that St. Gregory I extended it to all the Roman churches; Cassian (Coll., X, 10), however, says that from the earliest Christian times the monks used this introduction very often, probably outside of the liturgical prayers. In placing this supplication at the beginning of every Hour the Church implores the assistance of God against distractions in prayer. In the Roman Rite the “Deus in adjutorium” is preceded in Matins by the “Domine labia mea aperies,” whilst in the monastic Breviary the order is reversed. In Complin it is always preceded by the “Converte nos Deus.” In the Mozarabic Liturgy the Hours commence with the triple Kyrie Eleison. In all the Latin countries north, east, and west of the Alps the introduction to the solemn Vespers of Easter Sunday was formed by the nine Kyrie Eleison and Christe Eleison of the Easter Mass. In the churches which observe the Greek Rite, the Trisagion and other prayers open the Hours. The “Deus in adjutorium” is repeated three times during the conclusional prayers of Prime. In the monasteries Prime was finished immediately after the prayer: “Domine Deus omnipotens”; then the monks went from the choir to the chapter-room, where the Martyrology was read, and the day’s work was given out; before dispersing to their several occupations they sang three times the “Deus in adjutorium,” to emphasize the union of prayer and labour.

WOLTER, Psallite sapienter (Freiburg, 1905), II, 658; Nord-amerikanisches Pastoralblatt (Dec., 1907); BATIFFOL, Tr. BAY-LAY, History of the Roman Breviary (London, 1898); BERNARD, Cours de liturgie romaine: le Breviare (Paris, 1887), II, 148–50.

FREDERICK G. HOLWECK

Deuteronomy

This term occurs in Deut., xvii, 18 and Jos., viii, 32, and is the title of one of the five books of the Pentateuch. In both passages it renders the Latin Deuteronomium, the Greek to deuteronomion, the Hebrew mshnh, and signifies “copy” or “duplicate” rather than “repetition.” The texts themselves appear to demand this meaning; for Deut., xvii, 18 reads: “But after he is raised to the throne of his kingdom, he shall copy out to himself the Deuteronomy of this law in a volume, taking the copy of the priests of the Levitical tribe”; and Jos., viii, 32 relates: “And he wrote upon stones the Deuteronomy of the law of Moses, which he had ordered before the children of Israel.” The Targum of the latter passage favours the same meaning. As title of the fifth book of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy corresponds to the Hebrew alh hrvrys. Pseudo-Athanasius maintains that the title signifies “the second law” promulgated by Moses in accordance with the Divine precept. But it is more commonly understood as meaning “explanation” of the law, or “exhortation” inducing to the observance of the law. The introductory questions concerning the Book of Deuteronomy are treated in the article PENTATEUCH.

HAGEN, Lexicon Biblicum (Paris, 1905).

A. J. MAAS.

Martin Deutinger

Philosopher and religious writer, b. in Langenpreising, Bavaria, 24 March, 1815; d. at Pfäfers, Switzerland, 9 Sept., 1864. He was ordained priest in 1837, and after filling several clerical positions, taught philosophy at Freising (1841), Munich (1846), and Dillingen (1847–52). Like his predecessors, Baader (q. v.) and Anton Günther, he endeavoured to construct a philosophy that should mediate between Catholicism and the idealistic philosophy then prevailing in Germany, and thus conciliate the truths of faith with what he considered the demands of reason. The effort at conciliation, while no more successful than that of his predecessors, involved less sacrifice of the content of Faith and of objective reason. Deutinger’s system is based on a scheme of trilogies. He places anthropology at the centre. Starting with universal methodical doubt, he finds in that doubt the Ego revealed as an independent self-conscious person. Further reflection shows the self to be conditioned by the non-self (nature), while both self and nature suppose a supreme, free cause. Hence the first trilogy—Man, Nature, God. The evolution of the Ego is effected by the interaction of Nature and God, and this results in a triple life. The first element and stage proceeds from nature (the body), the second from God (the spirit), the third, the intermediating ground, is the soul. Hence the second trilogy constituting man’s nature and stages of his development—Body, Soul, Spirit. The attributes of the spirit are being, knowing, willing. But the unity of these attributes is merely subjective; personality is only potentially in them. The spirit comes to actual personality through interaction with nature. The vital process, consisting in the interplay of nature (i.e. the necessitated factor) with the personal (i.e. the free) element, unfolds in three stages: as movement inward from without (thought, Denken); as outward from within (power, Können); and as proceeding from both together (doing, acting, Tun.). Hence the trilogy of human faculty: Thought, Power, Action; and the departments of the philosophical system: science of thought (Denklehre), of art (Kunstlehre) and of conduct (moral philosophy). Outside these departments lie psychology and the philosophy of nature, while on the circumference extend jurisprudence and the philosophy of religion. Sensation and imagination are insufficient to explain the genesis of thought, the concept. The representation wherein the external and the internal factors unite is but one basis of conscious knowledge, the concept; the other lies in the free personal element, inward intuition, the idea. Idea, therefore, and representation must interact in order to engender the concept. Hence cognition is the product of the two opposing factors, representation and idea, between which it intermediates as concept. But just as the antinomy between the free personality and the necessitated outer nature urges to conciliation in action, so the antinomy between subject and object presses towards unification in thought. Now all intermediate unity comes of likeness, unlikeness, and the blending unity. Likeness lies in the subject; unlikeness in the object; unity in the interrelation of these two. From the first we get the principle of identity; from the second that of sequence, or reason; from the third that of disjunction, or exclusion. Hence the final trilogy of the laws of thought.

Each of the foregoing “ternalities” is developed with considerable insight, but with much artificiality and still more mistiness, which is felt at once in the distinction he makes between soul and spirit, and in the genesis of personality by the play of the necessitating nature-object on the free spirit. The similarity to the Hegelian idealism, if not the borrowed influence of that elusive system, is at once apparent.

Deutinger possessed a richly-endowed mind, a soaring, though somewhat exuberant, imagination, an ardent love of the beautiful in nature and in art, and a comprehensive, though not always sufficiently critical, intelligence. He failed in his main purpose not because he lacked philosophical power or energy, but chiefly because he broke with philosophical tradition to go his own way. He is said to have boasted that “he had builded a house of his own in philosophy, regardless of the form and material employed by other builders.” “This is all very fine,” observes Stöckl, “and it may well be that Deutinger wanted to do perfect justice to the faith which he strove to conciliate with a modernised philosophy. But just because he wrought by himself independently of the claims of the Christian philosophical tradition, his system manifests the characteristic of all other modern systems constructed, in a like spirit. Subjectivism predominates throughout, and therefore it enjoyed but an ephemeral existence.” As a critic, Deutinger was brilliant and prolific. His style, though somewhat luxuriant is marked by a sparkling wit and sarcasm that is specially captivating with the young. His works comprise: “Grundlinien der positiven Philosophie” (Ratisbon, 1843–49); “Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie” (Ratisbon, 1852–53); “Bilder des Geistes im Kunst u. Natur” (Augsburg, 1846–49, and Ratisbon, 1851); “Grundriss der Moralphilosophie” (Dillingen, 1847); “Grundriss der Logik” (Dillingen, 1848); “Wallfahrt nach Oberammergau” (Munich, 1851); “Geist der christl. Ueberlieferung” (Augsburg, 1850); “Das Princip der neueren Philosophie und die christl. Wissenschaft” (Ratisbon, 1857); “Ueber das Verhaltniss der Poesie zur Religion” (Augsburg, 1861); “Das Reich Gottes nach dem Apostel Joannes” (Freiburg, 1862); “Renan und das Wunder” (Munich, 1864). Among his posthumous works, edited by his pupil Lorenz Kastner, are: “Der gegenwartige Zustand der deutschen Philosophie”; a third volume of “Das Reich Gottes” (Ratisbon, 1867); and an additional part to the “Bilder des Geistes” (Munich, 1866).

KASTNER, Deutingers Leben und Schriften, (Munich, 1875); STOCKL, Geschichte der neueren Philosophie (Mainz, 1883); NEUDECKER, Das Grundproblem der Erkenntnisstheorie (Nordlingen, 1881), favourable to Deutinger; on the opposite side, BECKER, Die Philosophie Deutingers in ihrem Verhältniss zur Scholastik und Philosophie der Neuzeit in the Katholik (1866) I, 693; II, 156; SCHMID in Kirchenlexikon, s. v.; SATTEL, Deutingers Gotteslehre (Ratisbon, 1905).

F.P. SIEGFRIED

Charles Stanton Devas

Political economist, b. at Woodside, Old Windsor, England, of Protestant parents, 26 August, 1848; d. 6 November, 1906. He was educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford, where he took a first class in the honours School of Law and History. Before proceeding to the university he had been received into the Catholic Church and his subsequent career was entirely devoted to the service of religion. By treating political economy, both in books and lectures, from a definitely Catholic standpoint, he was one of the earliest to oppose the current teaching, which declined to consider history or ethics as relevant to the subject.

“The Groundwork of Economics” (1883), the first work published in his own name (for the translation into English of Hergenröther’s “Church and State” was anonymous), attracted considerable attention and was translated into German in 1896 by Dr. Walter Kämpfe. The “Manual of Political Economy” (Stonyhurst Philosophical Series), published in 1892 (third edition, 1907), has achieved a more permanent success, and is now a recognised textbook in English-speaking schools and seminaries. In 1886 he published “Studies in Family Life,” an historical inquiry into this branch of economics, with a view to justify the contention that Christianity is an essential factor in the problem of social well-being. This book was translated into German in 1887 by Paul Maria Baumgarten. In 1895 he published anonymously in London a poetical version of the story of Sintram.

Besides his books he wrote frequently for “The Dublin Review,” “The Month,” and other periodicals, both English and American, and read papers before The British Association, The Manchester Statistical Society, The Catholic Truth Society, and other bodies. A considerable number of his later essays and lectures dealing with modern social problems have been issued by The Catholic Truth Society in pamphlet form, and his premature death was a severe loss to English Catholics in the confusion of the controversies raised by Socialism. His last, and perhaps his most important, book, “The Key to the World’s Progress,” was published in 1906. This, unlike his earlier works, is directly apologetic, being an elaborate defence of the Catholic Church written with a view to meeting the difficulties and questionings of the twentieth century. A popular edition has been issued since his death.

In 1874 he married Eliza Mary Katherine, the daughter of Francis Ridout Ward. She died in 1889, leaving nine children. Devas was a man of singular piety, a zealous member of the Society of St. Vincent of Paul, and an active friend of the poor; he had no other ambition except to propose the Catholic Faith to the reasonable acceptance of a troubled and sceptical age. He took a leading part in all Catholic enterprises of his time in England—notably in that which enabled Catholics to frequent the universities—and though always unwilling to make himself personally prominent, he exercised considerable influence over the thought and conduct of English Catholics. He was examiner in Political Economy at the Royal University of Ireland from 1889 to 1898.

FRANCIS CHARLES DEVAS

Aubrey Thomas Hunt de Vere

Poet, critic, and essayist, b. at Curragh Chase, County Limerick, Ireland, 10 January, 1814; died there, 21 January, 1902. He was the third son of Sir Aubrey de Vere and Mary Spring Rice, sister of the first Lord Monteagle. Aubrey Vere, second son of the sixteenth Earl of Oxford, was his direct ancestor. Aubrey de Vere early showed his rare poetic temperament. His young imagination was strongly influenced by his friendship with the astronomer, Sir William Rowan Hamilton, through whom he came to a knowledge and reverent admiration for Wordsworth and Coleridge. In 1832 he entered Trinity College, Dublin, where he devoted himself to the study of metaphysics, reading Kant and Coleridge. Later he visited Oxford, Cambridge, and Rome, and came under the potent influence of Newman. He also visited the Lake Country of England, and he afterwards spoke of the days under Wordsworth’s roof as the greatest honour of his life. His veneration for Wordsworth was singularly shown in after life, when he never omitted a yearly pilgrimage to the grave of that poet until advanced age made the journey impossible.

From his study of Coleridge, Aubrey de Vere received his first impulse towards Catholicity, which was developed by events following the conversion of Manning, and he was received into the Church, November, 1857, in the archbishop’s chapel at Avignon. His unusual sweetness of character won for him many friends, and this important change in his life did not separate him from them. Among these friends Sara Coleridge and Sir Henry Taylor are pre-eminent, and his long correspondence with them, with Miss Fenwick, with Gladstone, and many others of literary and political fame, is of marked interest. The famine year in Ireland was one of the most important in his earlier life, and he then showed a practical and vigorous interest in politics. In 1848 he had published a book on English misrule and Irish misdeeds, which was criticized as a work of great value, notably by Mill and Carlyle and Lord John Manners. His brother, Sir Stephen de Vere, the translator of the Odes and Epodes of Horace, also made heroic efforts at this time to better the condition of Irish emigrants; and the intimate friendship between the brothers led to their almost daily correspondence throughout their long lives.

It is as a poet that Aubrey de Vere is best known. His work is in part historical and in part literary, his aim being to illustrate the supernatural in the form of supernatural truth by recording the conversion to Christianity of Ireland and England. The quality of his verse is strong and vigorous, musical, and remarkably spiritual. A critic in the “Quarterly Review” of 1896 says of his poetry, that next to Browning’s it shows the fullest vitality, resumes the largest sphere of ideas, covers the broadest intellectual field since the poetry of Wordsworth. He never strove for ornate effect in his poetry, which is marked by sublime and serious conviction as he traces the progress of spiritual thought in the development of the nations, notably Ireland, in “The Legend of St. Patrick” (London, 1872), and of Spain in his eloquent portrayal of the Cid. “The Children of Lir” is one of the most exquisite lyrics in the language, and his classic knowledge, his richness of imagination, his combined grace and dignity of thought are revealed in his “Search after Proserpine” (London, 1843). In his “Alexander the Great” (London, 1874) he represents the Greek ideal in remarkable purity, and this historical play, with his “Saint Thomas of Canterbury” (ibid.), reveals him as a dramatist unequalled in his century, except by Sir Henry Taylor, Browning, and his father, the elder de Vere. His memorial sonnets are characterized by strong and deep thought, and his odes show a descriptive power, and a spontaneous lyric charm and grace.

In addition to the above-mentioned works, all published in London, he also wrote: “Legends and Records of the Church and Empire” (1887); “May Carols and Legends of Saxon Saints” (1857); “Mediæval Records and Sonnets” (1898); “Legends of the Saxon Saints” (1879); “May Carols” (1857); “Saint Patrick’s Chains” (1888); “Essays Literary and Ethical” (1889); “Essays chiefly on Poetry” (1887); “Picturesque Sketches of Greece and Turkey” (1850).

As a critic, Aubrey de Vere shows discriminating power in the two volumes of “Essays” in which he writes of Sir Henry Taylor, Keats, Landor, and others, and of the power and passion of Wordsworth. He would have been satisfied to be known solely as the interpreter of Wordsworth, whom he considered the greatest poet after Milton. His charm of description is shown in two early volumes of “Sketches of Greece and Turkey.” In a volume of “Recollections” (London, 1897) may be found reminiscences of many notable people and events. The personality of Aubrey de Vere was singularly charming. He was of tall and slender physique, thoughtful and grave in character, of exceeding dignity and grace of manner, and retained his vigorous mental powers to a great age. He was undoubtedly one of the most profoundly intellectual poets of his time. As he never married, the name of de Vere at his death became extinct for the second time, and has been assumed by his nephew.

SIR STEPHEN EDWARD DE VERE

Poet and philanthropist, born at Curragh Chase, 12 July, 1812, died at Foynes Island, 10 November, 1904, second son of Sir Aubrey Hunt de Vere, and brother of the above. At the death of his eldest brother, Sir Vere de Vere, succeeded as fourth baronet to the title, which became extinct at his death. From his early youth he laboured for the amelioration of the conditions, social and political, of the Irish people. In 1847 he made the voyage to Canada in the steerage of a ship, sharing the privations of the emigrants that an accurate report of their treatment might be given to the public and to Parliament. On his return to England in 1848, his letter describing the sufferings he had witnessed was read in the House of Lords, and the “Passenger Act” was amended. Sir Stephen de Vere became a Catholic from his observation of the peasantry whom he had taught, fed, and nursed in his own house. He had his residence at Foynes Island in the river Shannon, where he made his remarkable translations from Horace. He also built there a charming Gothic church, and died at the great age of ninety years. He was of small and slender physique, and, like his brother, was unmarried. He was Member of Parliament for Limerick, 1854–59.

WARD, Aubrey de Vere, A Memoir (London, 1904); The Poetry of the de Veres, in the Quarterly Review (London, April, 1896); GEORGE, Aubrey de Vere in the Atlantic Monthly (Boston, June, 1902); O’KENNEDY, Aubrey de Vere in The Ave Maria (Notre Dame, June, 1902); WALTER GEORGE SMITH, Aubrey de Vere in The Messenger (New York, 1907); The Tablet (London, 25 January, 1902); Odes and Epodes of Horace, translated by Sir Stephen E. de Vere (London); ARNOLD, Recollections of Aubrey de Vere (London).

HELEN GRACE SMITH

Devil

(Greek diabolos; Lat. diabolus).

The name commonly given to the fallen angels, who are also known as demons (see DEMONOLOGY). With the article (ho) it denotes Lucifer, their chief, as in Matthew 25:41, “the Devil and his angels.” It may be said of this name, as St. Gregory says of the word angel, “nomen est officii, non naturæ”—the designation of an office, not of a nature. For the Greek word (from diaballein, “to traduce”) means a slanderer, or accuser, and in this sense it is applied to him of whom it is written “the accuser [ho kategoros] of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night” (Apocalypse 12:10). It thus answers to the Hebrew name Satan which signifies an adversary, or an accuser.

Mention is made of the Devil in many passages of the Old and New Testaments, but there is no full account given in any one place, and the Scripture teaching on this topic can only be ascertained by combining a number of scattered notices from Genesis to Apocalypse, and reading them in the light of patristic and theological tradition. The authoritative teaching of the Church on this topic is set forth in the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council (cap. i, “Firmiter credimus”), wherein, after saying that God in the beginning had created together two creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is to say the angelic and the earthly, and lastly man, who was made of both spirit and body, the council continues:

“Diabolus enim et alii dæmones a Deo quidem naturâ creati sunt boni, sed ipsi per se facti sunt mali.” (“the Devil and the other demons were created by God good in their nature but they by themselves have made themselves evil.”)

Here it is clearly taught that the Devil and the other demons are spiritual or angelic creatures created by God in a state of innocence, and that they became evil by their own act. It is added that man sinned by the suggestion of the Devil, and that in the next world the wicked shall suffer perpetual punishment with the Devil. The doctrine which may thus be set forth in a few words has furnished a fruitful theme for theological speculation for the Fathers and Schoolmen, as well as later theologians, some of whom, Suarez for example, have treated it very fully. On the other hand it has also been the subject of many heretical or erroneous opinions, some of which owe their origin to pre-Christian systems of demonology. In later years Rationalist writers have rejected the doctrine altogether, and seek to show that it has been borrowed by Judaism and Christianity from external systems of religion wherein it was a natural development of primitive Animism (q. v.). As may be gathered from the language of the Lateran definition, the Devil and the other demons are but a part of the angelic creation, and their natural powers do not differ from those of the angels who remained faithful. Like the other angels, they are pure spiritual beings without any body, and in their original state they are endowed with supernatural grace and placed in a condition of probation. It was only by their fall that they became devils. This was before the sin of our first parents, since this sin itself is ascribed to the instigation of the Devil: “By the envy of the Devil, death came into the world” (Wisdom 2:24). Yet it is remarkable that for an account of the fall of the angels we must turn to the last book of the Bible. For as such we may regard the vision in the Apocalypse, albeit the picture of the past is blended with prophecies of what shall be in the future: “And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: and they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him” (Apocalypse 12:7–9). To this may be added the words of St. Jude: “And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day” (Jude 1:6; cf. II Peter 2:4). In the Old Testament we have a brief reference to the Fall in Job 4:18: “In his angels he found wickedness.” But to this must be added the two classic texts in the prophets: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations? And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High. But yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, into the depth of the pit” (Isaiah 14:12–15). This parable of the prophet is expressly directed against the King of Babylon, but both the early Fathers and later Catholic commentators agree in understanding it as applying with deeper significance to the fall of the rebel angel. And the older commentators generally consider that this interpretation is confirmed by the words of Our Lord to his disciples: “I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven” (Luke 10:18). For these words were regarded as a rebuke to the disciples, who were thus warned of the danger of pride by being reminded of the fall of Lucifer. But modern commentators take this text in a different sense, and refer it not to the original fall of Satan, but his overthrow by the faith of the disciples, who cast out devils in the name of their Master. And this new interpretation, as Schanz observes, is more in keeping with the context.

The parallel prophetic passage is Ezekiel’s lamentation upon the king of Tyre:

You were the seal of resemblance, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. You were in the pleasures of the paradise of God; every precious stone was thy covering; the sardius, the topaz, and the jasper, the chrysolite, and the onyx, and the beryl, the sapphire, and the carbuncle, and the emerald; gold the work of your beauty: and your pipes were prepared in the day that you were created. You a cherub stretched out, and protecting, and I set you in the holy mountain of God, you have walked in the midst of the stones of fire. You were perfect in your wave from the day of creation, until iniquity was found in you. (Ezekiel 28:12–15)

There is much in the context that can only be understood literally of an earthly king concerning whom the words are professedly spoken, but it is clear that in any case the king is likened to an angel in Paradise who is ruined by his own iniquity. Even for those who in no way doubt or dispute it, the doctrine set forth in these texts and patristic interpretations may well suggest a multitude of questions, and theologians have not been loath to ask and answer them. And in the first place what was the nature of the sin of the rebel angels? In any case this was a point presenting considerable difficulty, especially for theologians, who had formed a high estimate of the powers and possibilities of angelic knowledge, a subject which had a peculiar attraction for many of the great masters of scholastic speculation. For if sin be, as it surely is, the height of folly, the choice of darkness for light, of evil for good, it would seem that it can only be accounted for by some ignorance, or inadvertence, or weakness, or the influence of some overmastering passion. But most of these explanations seem to be precluded by the powers and perfections of the angelic nature. The weakness of the flesh, which accounts for such a mass of human wickedness, was altogether absent from the angels. There could be no place for carnal sin without the corpus delicti. And even some sins that are purely spiritual or intellectual seem to present an almost insuperable difficulty in the case of the angels. This may certainly be said of the sin which by many of the best authorities is regarded as being actually the great offense of Lucifer, to wit, the desire of independence of God and equality with God. It is true that this seems to be asserted in the passage of Isaiah (14:13). And it is naturally suggested by the idea of rebellion against an earthly sovereign, wherein the chief of the rebels very commonly covets the kingly throne. At the same time the high rank which Lucifer is generally supposed to have held in the hierarchy of angels might seem to make this offense more likely in his case, for, as history shows, it is the subject who stands nearest the throne who is most open to temptations of ambition. But this analogy is not a little misleading. For the exaltation of the subject may bring his power so near that of his sovereign that he may well be able to assert his independence or to usurp the throne; and even where this is not actually the case he may at any rate contemplate the possibility of a successful rebellion. Moreover, the powers and dignities of an earthly prince may be compatible with much ignorance and folly. But it is obviously otherwise in the case of the angels. For, whatever gifts and powers may be conferred on the highest of the heavenly princes, he will still be removed by an infinite distance from the plenitude of God’s power and majesty, so that a successful rebellion against that power or any equality with that majesty would be an absolute impossibility. And what is more, the highest of the angels, by reason of their greater intellectual illumination, must have the clearest knowledge of this utter impossibility of attaining to equality with God. This difficulty is clearly put by the Disciple in St. Anselm’s dialogue “De Casu Diaboli” (cap. iv); for the saint felt that the angelic intellect, at any rate, must see the force of the “ontological argument” (see ONTOLOGY). “If,” he asks, “God cannot be thought of except as sole, and as of such an essence that nothing can be thought of like to Him [then] how could the Devil have wished for what could not be thought of?—He surely was not so dull of understanding as to be ignorant of the inconceivability of any other entity like to God” (Si Deus cogitari non potest, nisi ita solus, ut nihil illi simile cogitari possit, quomodo diabolus potuit velle quod non potuit cogitari? Non enim ita obtusæ mentis erat, ut nihil aliud simile Deo cogitari posse nesciret). The Devil, that is to say, was not so obtuse as not to know that it was impossible to conceive of anything like (i.e. equal) to God. And what he could not think he could not will. St. Anselm’s answer is that there need be no question of absolute equality; yet to will anything against the Divine will is to seek to have that independence which belongs to God alone, and in this respect to be equal to God. In the same sense St. Thomas (I:63:3) answers the question, whether the Devil desired to be “as God.” If by this we mean equality with God, then the Devil could not desire it, since he knew this to be impossible, and he was not blinded by passion or evil habit so as to choose that which is impossible, as may happen with men. And even if it were possible for a creature to become God, an angel could not desire this, since, by becoming equal with God he would cease to be an angel, and no creature can desire its own destruction or an essential change in its being. These arguments are combated by Scotus (In II lib. Sent., dist. vi, Q. i.), who distinguishes between efficacious volition and the volition of complaisance, and maintains that by the latter act an angel could desire that which is impossible. In the same way he urges that, though a creature cannot directly will its own destruction, it can do this consequenter, i.e. it can will something from which this would follow.

Although St. Thomas regards the desire of equality with God as something impossible, he teaches nevertheless (loc. cit.) that Satan sinned by desiring to be “as God,” according to the passage in the prophet (Isaiah 14), and he understands this to mean likeness, not equality. But here again there is need of a distinction. For men and angels have a certain likeness to God in their natural perfections, which are but a reflection of his surpassing beauty, and yet a further likeness is given them by supernatural grace and glory. Was it either of these likenesses that the devil desired? And if it be so, how could it be a sin? For was not this the end for which men and angels were created? Certainly, as Thomas teaches, not every desire of likeness with God would be sinful, since all may rightly desire that manner of likeness which is appointed them by the will of their Creator. There is sin only where the desire is inordinate, as in seeking something contrary to the Divine will, or in seeking the appointed likeness in a wrong way. The sin of Satan in this matter may have consisted in desiring to attain supernatural beatitude by his natural powers or, what may seem yet stranger, in seeking his beatitude in the natural perfections and reflecting the supernatural. In either case, as St. Thomas considers, this first sin of Satan was the sin of pride. Scotus, however (loc. cit., Q. ii), teaches that this sin was not pride properly so called, but should rather be described as a species of spiritual lust.

Although nothing definite can be known as to the precise nature of the probation of the angels and the manner in which many of them fell, many theologians have conjectured, with some show of probability, that the mystery of the Divine Incarnation was revealed to them, that they saw that a nature lower than their own was to be hypostatically united to the Person of God the Son, and that all the hierarchy of heaven must bow in adoration before the majesty of the Incarnate Word; and this, it is supposed, was the occasion of the pride of Lucifer (cf. Suarez, De Angelis, lib. VII, xiii). As might be expected, the advocates of this view seek support in certain passages of Scripture, notably in the words of the Psalmist as they are cited in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “And again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of God adore Him” (Hebrews 1:6; Psalm 96:7). And if the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse may be taken to refer, at least in a secondary sense, to the original fall of the angels, it may seem somewhat significant that it opens with the vision of the Woman and her Child. But this interpretation is by no means certain, for the text in Hebrews, i, may be referred to the second coming of Christ, and much the same may be said of the passage in the Apocalypse.

It would seem that this account of the trial of the angels is more in accordance with what is known as the Scotist doctrine on the motives of the Incarnation than with the Thomist view, that the Incarnation was occasioned by the sin of our first parents. For since the sin itself was committed at the instigation of Satan, it presupposes the fall of the angels. How, then, could Satan’s probation consist in the fore-knowledge of that which would, ex hypothesi, only come to pass in the event of his fall? In the same way it would seem that the aforesaid theory is incompatible with another opinion held by some old theologians, to wit, that men were created to fill up the gaps in the ranks of the angels. For this again supposes that if no angels had sinned no men would have been made, and in consequence there would have been no union of the Divine Person with a nature lower than the angels.

As might be expected from the attention they had bestowed on the question of the intellectual powers of the angels, the medieval theologians had much to say on the time of their probation. The angelic mind was conceived of as acting instantaneously, not, like the mind of man, passing by discursive reasoning from premises to conclusions. It was pure intelligence as distinguished from reason. Hence it would seem that there was no need of any extended trial. And in fact we find St. Thomas and Scotus discussing the question whether the whole course might not have been accomplished in the first instant in which the angels were created. The Angelic Doctor argues that the Fall could not have taken place in the first instant. And it certainly seems that if the creature came into being in the very act of sinning the sin itself might be said to come from the Creator. But this argument, together with many others, is answered with his accustomed acuteness by Scotus, who maintains the abstract possibility of sin in the first instant. But whether possible or not, it is agreed that this is not what actually happened. For the authority of the passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel, which were generally accepted as referring to the fall of Lucifer, might well suffice to show that for at least one instant he had existed in a state of innocence and brightness. To modern readers the notion that the sin was committed in the second instant of creation may seem scarcely less incredible than the possibility of a fall in the very first. But this may be partly due to the fact that we are really thinking of human modes of knowledge, and fail to take into account the Scholastic conception of angelic cognition. For a being who was capable of seeing many things at once, a single instant might be equivalent to the longer period needed by slowly-moving mortals.

This dispute, as to the time taken by the probation and fall of Satan, has a purely speculative interest. But the corresponding question as to the rapidity of the sentence and punishment is in some ways a more important matter. There can indeed be no doubt that Satan and his rebel angels were very speedily punished for their rebellion. This would seem to be sufficiently indicated in some of the texts which are understood to refer to the fall of the angels. It might be inferred, moreover, from the swiftness with which punishment followed on the offense in the case of our first parents, although man’s mind moves more slowly than that of the angels, and he had more excuse in his own weakness and in the power of his tempter. It was partly for this reason, indeed, that man found mercy, whereas there was no redemption for the angels. For, as St. Peter says, “God spared not the angels that sinned” (II Peter 2:4). This, it may be observed, is asserted universally, indicating that all who fell suffered punishment. For these and other reasons theologians very commonly teach that the doom and punishment followed in the next instant after the offense, and many go so far as to say there was no possibility of repentance. But here it will be well to bear in mind the distinction drawn between revealed doctrine, which comes with authority, and theological speculation, which to a great extent rests on reasoning. No one who is really familiar with the medieval masters, with their wide differences, their independence, their bold speculation, is likely to confuse the two together. But in these days there is some danger that we may lose sight of the distinction. It is true that, when it fulfils certain definite conditions, the agreement of theologians may serve as a sure testimony to revealed doctrine, and some of their thoughts and even their very words have been adopted by the Church in her definitions of dogma. But at the same time these masters of theological thought freely put forward many more or less plausible opinions, which come to us with reasoning rather than authority, and must needs stand or fall with the arguments by which they are supported. In this way we may find that many of them may agree in holding that the angels who sinned had no possibility of repentance. But it may be that it is a matter of argument, that each one holds it for a reason of his own and denies the validity of the arguments adduced by others. Some argue that from the nature of the angelic mind and will there was an intrinsic impossibility of repentance. But it may be observed that in any case the basis of this argument is not revealed teaching, but philosophical speculation. And it is scarcely surprising to find that its sufficiency is denied by equally orthodox doctors who hold that if the fallen angels could not repent this was either because the doom was instantaneous, and left no space for repentance, or because the needful grace was denied them. Others, again, possibly with better reason, are neither satisfied that sufficient grace and room for repentance were in fact refused, nor can they see any good ground for thinking this likely, or for regarding it as in harmony with all that we know of the Divine mercy and goodness. In the absence of any certain decision on this subject, we may be allowed to hold, with Suarez, that, however brief it may have been, there was enough delay to leave an opportunity for repentance, and that the necessary grace was not wholly withheld. If none actually repented, this may be explained in some measure by saying that their strength of will and fixity of purpose made repentance exceedingly difficult, though not impossible; that the time, though sufficient, was short; and that grace was not given in such abundance as to overcome these difficulties.

The language of the prophets (Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28) would seem to show that Lucifer held a very high rank in the heavenly hierarchy. And, accordingly, we find many theologians maintaining that before his fall he was the foremost of all the angels. Suarez is disposed to admit that he was the highest negatively, i.e. that no one was higher, though many may have been his equals. But here again we are in the region of pious opinions, for some divines maintain that, far from being first of all, he did not belong to one of the highest choirs—Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones—but to one of the lower orders of angels. In any case it appears that he holds a certain sovereignty over those who followed him in his rebellion. For we read of “the Devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), “the dragon and his angels” (Apocalypse 12:7), “Beelzebub, the prince of devils”—which, whatever be the interpretation of the name, clearly refers to Satan, as appears from the context: “And if Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? Because you say that through Beelzebub I cast out devils” (Luke 11:15, 18), and “the prince of the Powers of this air” (Ephesians 2:2). At first sight it may seem strange that there should be any order or subordination amongst those rebellious spirits, and that those who rose against their Maker should obey one of their own fellows who had led them to destruction. And the analogy of similar movements among men might suggest that the rebellion would be likely to issue in anarchy and division. But it must be remembered that the fall of the angels did not impair their natural powers, that Lucifer still retained the gifts that enabled him to influence his brethren before their fall, and that their superior intelligence would show them that they could achieve more success and do more harm to others by unity and organization than by independence and division.

Besides exercising this authority over those who were called “his angels,” Satan has extended his empire over the minds of evil men. Thus, in the passage just cited from St. Paul, we read, “And you, when you were dead in your offenses and sins, wherein in times past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief” (Ephesians 2:1, 2). In the same way Christ in the Gospel calls him “the prince of this world.” For when His enemies are coming to take Him, He looks beyond the instruments of evil to the master who moves them, and says: “I will not now speak many things to you, for the prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not anything” (John 14:30). There is no need to discuss the view of some theologians who surmise that Lucifer was one of the angels who ruled and administered the heavenly bodies, and that this planet was committed to his care. For in any case the sovereignty with which these texts are primarily concerned is but the rude right of conquest and the power of evil influence. His sway began by his victory over our first parents, who, yielding to his suggestions, were brought under his bondage. All sinners who do his will become in so far his servants. For, as St. Gregory says, he is the head of all the wicked—”Surely the Devil is the head of all the wicked; and of this head all the wicked are members” (Certe iniquorum omnium caput diabolus est; et hujus capitis membra sunt omnes iniqui.—Hom. 16, in Evangel.). This headship over the wicked, as St. Thomas is careful to explain, differs widely from Christ’s headship over the Church, inasmuch as Satan is only head by outward government and not also, as Christ is, by inward, life-giving influence (Summa III:8:7). With the growing wickedness of the world and the spreading of paganism and false religions and magic rites, the rule of Satan was extended and strengthened till his power was broken by the victory of Christ, who for this reason said, on the eve of His Passion: “Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out” (John 12:31). By the victory of the Cross Christ delivered men from the bondage of Satan and at the same time paid the debt due to Divine justice by shedding His blood in atonement for our sins. In their endeavours to explain this great mystery, some old theologians, misled by the metaphor of a ransom for captives made in war, came to the strange conclusion that the price of Redemption was paid to Satan. But this error was effectively refuted by St. Anselm, who showed that Satan had no rights over his captives and that the great price wherewith we were bought was paid to God alone (cf. ATONEMENT).

What has been said so far may suffice to show the part played by the Devil in human history, whether in regard to the individual soul or the whole race of Adam. It is indicated, indeed, in his name of Satan, the adversary, the opposer, the accuser, as well as by his headship of the wicked ranged under his banner in continual warfare with the kingdom of Christ. The two cities whose struggle is described by St. Augustine are already indicated in the words of the Apostle, “In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God appeared, that He might destroy the works of the devil” (John 3:10, 8). Whether or not the foreknowledge of the Incarnation was the occasion of his own fall, his subsequent course has certainly shown him the relentless enemy of mankind and the determined opponent of the Divine economy of redemption. And since he lured our first parents to their fall he has ceased not to tempt their children in order to involve them in his own ruin. There is no reason, indeed, for thinking that all sins and all temptations must needs come directly from the Devil or one of his ministers of evil. For it is certain that if, after the first fall of Adam, or at the time of the coming of Christ, Satan and his angels had been bound so fast that they might tempt no more, the world would still have been filled with evils. For men would have had enough of temptation in the weakness and waywardness of their hearts. But in that case the evil would clearly have been far less than it is now, for the activity of Satan does much more than merely add a further source of temptation to the weakness of the world and the flesh; it means a combination and an intelligent direction of all the elements of evil. The whole Church and each one of her children are beset by dangers, the fire of persecution, the enervation of ease, the dangers of wealth and of poverty, heresies and errors of opposite characters, rationalism and superstition, fanaticism and indifference. It would be bad enough if all these forces were acting apart and without any definite purpose, but the perils of the situation are incalculably increased when all may be organized and directed by vigilant and hostile intelligences. It is this that makes the Apostle, though he well knew the perils of the world and the weakness of the flesh, lay special stress on the greater dangers that come from the assaults of those mighty spirits of evil in whom he recognized our real and most formidable foes—”Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places . . . Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, having on the breastplate of justice, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; in all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one” (Ephesians 6:11, 16).

W.H. KENT

Devil-Worshippers

The meaning of this compound term is sufficiently obvious, for all must be familiar with the significance of its two component parts. But the thing denoted by the name is by no means so easy to understand. For there is such a strange startling incompatibility between the notion of devil and that of an object of worship, that the combination in this case may well present a grave difficulty. And the more we are able to understand about the character and history of the Devil and about the true nature of worship, the more difficult is it to believe that men can have been led, even in the utmost extremity of folly and wickedness, to worship the Devil. Yet, incredible as it may seem, it is unfortunately true that some worship of this kind has prevailed at many times and among widely different races of mankind. The following considerations may help in some degree to lighten the difficulty presented by this singular phenomenon.

In the first place it may be well to recall the analogy between the worship given to a divine being and the tribute paid to a king. Both alike are sensible proofs of service and subjection. In the case of kings, besides the willing service paid to a just and legitimate sovereign, there may be tribute paid to some alien oppressors or blackmail grudgingly given to some pirate Chief or marauder in order to deprecate the evils that may be feared at his hands. And so in the case of religious worship, we may find that in the rude polytheism of barbarous races, where the gods were not only many in number but various in character, besides the willing worship given to good and beneficent beings in the service of love and gratitude, there is a sort of liturgical blackmail offered to the evil and malignant gods or demons in order to placate them and avert their anger. In like manner, when we pass from Polytheism to the philosophic Dualism—where the worlds of light and darkness, good and evil, sharply defined, are constantly warring against each other over against the good men, who offer worship to the good god, Ahura Mazda, there are the wicked Daeva-worshippers who sacrifice to the Demons and to Ahriman their chief, the principle of evil.

Another source of this strange worship may be found in the fact that in the early days each nation had its own natural gods; hence racial rivalry and hatred sometimes led one nation to regard the protecting divinities of its enemies as evil demons. In this way many who merely worshipped gods whom they themselves regarded as good beings would be called devil worshippers by men of other nations. Such may be the case with the Daeva-worshippers in the Avesta. In the same way the Greeks and Romans may have worshipped their divinities, fondly believing them to be good. But the Christian Scriptures declare that all the gods of the Gentiles are demons.

This declaration, it may be added, was not the utterance of a rival race but the teaching of Holy Scripture. For as the Fathers and theologians explain the matter, the fallen angels besides tempting and assailing men in other ways have, by working on their fears or exciting their cupidity, brought them to give worship to themselves under the guise of idols. If not in all cases, it would seem that much of the heathen idolatrous worship, especially in its worst and most degraded forms, was offered to the devils. This may explain some of the manifestations in the old pagan oracles. And something of the same kind occurs in the demonic manifestations among the modern demonolaters in India. Nor has this been confined to heathen nations, for in connection with magical practices and occultism some forms of devil worship appear in the heresy history of medieval Europe. Görres, in his great work on Christian Mysticism, gives some curious and repulsive details of their obscene ceremonial. Of late years there seems to have been a recrudescence of this evil superstition in certain countries of Europe. While there is some authentic evidence as to the existence of these evil practices, the truth is overlaid with a mass of legend, many charges of this kind are false or grossly exaggerated, and a number of innocent persons have been cruelly put to death on charges of witchcraft or devil worship. It is well also to remember St. Augustine’s words: “Non uno modo sacrificatur traditoribus angelis”; and possibly calumny and cruelty may be more dangerous forms of devil worship than all the dark rites of African Medicine men or medieval magicians.

W. H. KENT

Devolution

(Lat. devolutio from devolvere)

Devolution is the right of an ecclesiastical superior to provide for a benefice, when the ordinary patron or collator has failed to do so, either through negligence or by the nomination of an improper candidate. There is no permanent loss of right in such a case, but only for the time being and for that particular instance. The right of devolution passes to the bishop of the diocese when the chapter or private individuals who have the right of patronage do not present a new and acceptable beneficiary within six months of the vacancy. When the bishop himself is negligent, the right devolves upon the metropolitan. Where, however, the right of appointing belongs to both the bishop and the chapter, if only one of the parties has been found wanting in the exercise of the right, the law declares that the power of nomination remains to the other. When there is a vacancy in an episcopal see, the metropolitan appoints a vicar capitular to rule the vacant diocese, if the cathedral chapter has failed to elect such an official within eight days. In case of negligence on the part of metropolitans or exempt bishops, the right devolves upon the pope of providing for the benefices not conferred within the legal time or when the election was uncanonical. Chapters having power to elect an archbishop, bishop, or abbot must do so within three months, or the appointment devolves upon the Roman pontiff. The same holds for the case where an election was not celebrated according to canonical prescriptions. Custom, however, allows a second election by the chapter when the first has been declared void. In countries where a concordat exists between the Holy See and the civil government, the right of devolution is often either to be held in abeyance or certain restrictions are placed upon it. In France no right of devolution was recognized by the State. In some ecclesiastical provinces of Germany and of Holland and Belgium, it is expressly stipulated that in the event of an uncanonical election of an archbishop or bishop, the chapters are to be allowed to proceed to another election. In case the right of presentation to archiepiscopal and episcopal sees has been conceded to the civil government, the latter does not lose the right by the nomination of an unacceptable candidate, nor does the election devolve upon the pope when a bishopric has not been filled within the canonical term of three months, unless such has been expressly stipulated in the concordat. When the pope, himself, does not exercise the right of devolution within the canonical term of months, the power of conferring the benefice returns to the ordinary patron. Canonists deduce this conclusion not from any explicit law, but from the common regulations governing the provisions for filling benefices and dignities. In practice this custom is observed by the Holy See. Historically, the law of devolution does not seem to be more ancient than the Third Council of the Lateran (1179) for benefices, and the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) for elective prelacies. The object of the law is both to provide through higher authority a remedy for the correction of abuses or negligences on the part of inferiors and also to punish them for the improper use of their powers.

KREMSKI, De Jure Devolutionis (Berlin, 1853); LAURENTIUS, Institutiones Jur. Eccl. (Freiburg, 1903); WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899), II.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

Giovanni Devoti

Devoti, Giovanni, canonist, b. at Rome, 11 July, 1744; d. there 18 Sept., 1820. At the age of twenty he occupied a chair of canon law at the Roman University (Sapienza). After twenty-five years service in this position Pius VI appointed him Bishop of Anagni, which see he resigned in 1804, to become titular Archbishop of Carthage, As such he filled several important positions at Rome. He also accompanied Pius VII during his exile in France. His works are: “De notissimis in jure legibus libri duo” (Rome, 1766); “Juris canonici universi publici et privati libri quinque,” an unfinished work of which only three volumes appeared (Rome, 1803–1815; new edition, Rome, 1827), containing an introduction to canon law and a commentary on the first and second book of the Decretals; “Institutionum canonicarum libri quatuor” (Rome, 1785; fourth ed., Rome, 1814). This last work is distinguished by its clearness and conciseness, and by its numerous historical notes, attributed, but without any reason, to Cardinal Castiglione, afterwards Pius VIII. In 1817, the King of Spain made obligatory the study of the “Institutiones” of Devoti at the University of Alcalá in 1836, the University of Louvain accepted it as a classical manual of canon law. The work is now more useful for the history than for the practice of canon law.

SCHULTE, Geschichte der Quellen und Litteratur des canonischen Rechts (Stuttgart, 1880), III, 1, 528; HURTER, Nomenclator Literarius (1895), III, 677; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1898), I, 401.

A. VAN HOVE.

Clementine Deymann

Born at Klein-Stavern, Oldenburg, Germany, 24 June, 1844; died at Phoenix, Arizona, U. S. A., 4 December, 1896. He came to America with his parents in 1863, studied at Teutopolis, Illinois, received the habit of St. Francis and the name Clementine at the same place, 8 December, 1867, finished his theological studies, and was ordained priest at St. Louis, Missouri, 19 May, 1872. Father Clementine was stationed as professor at the college of Teutopolis until July, 1879, when he was transferred to Joliet, to act as chaplain of the State prison. At Joliet he was also spiritual director of the School Sisters of St. Francis. In August, 1880, he was appointed superior and pastor of the German parish of Joliet, and in July, 1882, he received a like position at Chillicothe, Missouri. In 1885 and in 1891 Father Clementine was elected definitor of the Franciscan province of the Sacred Heart; in 1886 he was made superior of the boys’ orphanage at Watsonville, California. He was appointed 22 July, 1896, the first commissary for the newly erected Franciscan commissariat of the Pacific Coast, but died shortly after receiving this office and was buried at Santa Barbara. Father Clementine was a very industrious man, who in his spare time translated a number of useful works, some of which have been published. Among these are: “The Seraphic Octave,” or “Retreat” (1883); “Life of St. Francisco Solano”; “Life of Blessed Crescentia Hoess”; “May Devotions” (1884). His original writings are: “Manual for the Sisters of the Third Order” (1884); “St. Francis Manual” (1884). He also wrote for several periodicals, and left in manuscript translations from the Spanish of the lives of Father Junipero Serra and Father Antonio Margil.

ENGLEHARDT, The Franciscans in California (1897); Archives of the Province and Commissariat of the Sacred Heart.

ZEPHYRIN ENGELHARDT.

Dhuoda

Wife of Bernard, Duke of Septimania. The only source of information on her life is her “Liber Manualis” which was written for the education of her son William. The name Dhuoda which is indicated in the “Manual” is latinized by her as Dodana, Duodana, and Dhuodana; Dhuoda was a member of a noble family, and married, 24 June, 824, Bernard, son of St. William of Gellone, godson and favourite of King Louis the Pious, Duke of Septimania, and also, either at that time or a little later, Count of Barcelona. Her first son, William, was horn 29 November, 826, and the second, Bernard, 22 March, 841. The “Manual” was begun 30 November, 841, at Uzès (now Department of Gard), and completed 2 February, 843; She was then separated from both her husband and her two sons, William being at the Court of Charles the Bald, and Bernard having been taken away before baptism to his father in Aquitaine. Probably Dhuoda did not live long after completing her work, as she speaks of herself as weak and near death, expresses her sorrow at the thought that she will not see William in his manhood, and writes herself the epitaph which she desires him to engrave on her tomb. Thus she may have been spared the sorrow of knowing her husband’s condemnation for rebellion (844), and the death of her two sons who were also killed, William in 850, and Bernard in 872, after wilfully disregarding their mother’s good lessons. The “Manual,” consisting of seventy-three chapters (not including the introduction, invocation, prologue, etc.), is an important document for general history and especially for the history of education; It was published by Bondurand in 1887 from a manuscript of the seventeenth century in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, and from fragments of a manuscript of the Carlovingian epoch, found in the library of Nîmes. Before that date, only a few passages had been published by Mabillon and reproduced in Migne’s “Patrology.” it is a treatise on Christian virtues, revealing the author’s remarkable qualities of heart and mind, her intense affection for her sons and her husband, notwithstanding the latter’s intrigues at the Court (see Martin, Histoire de France, II, 386 sqq;); We find numerous quotations from Holy Scripture, allusions to Scriptural facts, and some references to profane writers. The expression is in some instances obscure and even incorrect from the point of view of classical latinity, but the many images, comparisons, and allegories, the use in some chapters of verse and acrostics, the beauty and nobleness of the thoughts, the earnestness and love of the writer which are manifest throughout the whole work, always keep the reader’s interest alive. It was really a “honeyed beverage” which Dhuoda had prepared for her son:—Istum [libellum] tibi et fratri, ut prosit, quod collegi festinans,

Velut mellifluum potum, favisque permixtum,

In cibum oris, ut degustes semper adhortor.

BONDURAND. Le Manuel de Dhuoda (Paris, 1887); Comptesrendus de l’Académie des inscriptions (Paris, 1885), 223, 236; KUNZ, Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik (Freiburg, 1890), III, 52 (German translation of the Manual with a short introduction); MABILLON, Acta sanctorum ord. S. Bened. (Venice, 1735), sæc. IV, pars I, 704; MIGNE, P. L., CVI, 109; Histoire littéraire de la France (Paris, 1733-), V, 17.

C. A. DUBRAY.

Diaconicum

(Gr. diakonikon)

The Diaconicum in the Greek Church is the liturgical book specifying the functions of the deacon; it is also the name given to the Orationes pro pace (diakonika) to be said by him before the people. Primarily, however, the word denoted an annex to the Christian basilica, where necessary supplies for the service of the altar were kept and preparations were made for the Holy Sacrifice. The diaconicum is distinct from the prothesis, a small room where the offerings of the people were received. In large churches the diaconicum majus comprised several rooms: the salutatorium, for reception and audiences of the bishop; the thesaurarium, where sacred vessels and books were kept; and the diaconicum properly so called. Possibly the Greek pastophorion, where the Holy Eucharist was reserved, was simply the diaconicum. Prothesis and diaconicum are ordinarily on either side of the apse. In Syrian churches, where they are regularly found, they are built on a rectangular plan and have two stories. They also exist in Byzantine churches, in the basilicas of Africa and frequently even in the churches of other regions.

KRAUS, Geschichte der christlichen Kunst (Freiburg im Br., 1896), I, 300; IDEM, Real-Encyckl. d. christl. Alterthümer (Freiburg, 1882), I, 358.

R. MAERE.

Diakovár

(Croatian, Djakovo).

See of the Bishop of the united Dioceses of Bosnia or Diakovár and Syrmia (Szerem) (Bosniensis seu Diacovensis et Sirmiensis), a municipality of Slavonia (Austria-Hungary), in the county of Virovititz (Hungarian Verocze). Diakovár is also the seat of a district court; in 1900 it contained 6824 inhabitants, mostly Catholics, of whom 65 per cent were Serbs and 28 per cent Germans. The fine cathedral, completed in 1883 by Friedrich Schmidt from the plans of Karl Rösner, is a Romanesque-Gothic edifice, 256 feet long and 197 feet wide; it has two towers, each about 276 feet high, and, in addition, a cupola about 203 feet high. The interior is decorated with frescoes by Seitz, father and son, and the organ has 3000 pipes. Among the other important buildings are the episcopal seminary founded by Bishop Mandic in 1807 and altered in 1858 by Bishop Strossmayer, the provincial house of the Sisters of Charity of the Holy Cross, and the episcopal palace. Diakovár is of Roman origin. On the imperial road from Sissek to Sirmium there was a large station named Certissa, which disappeared during the migrations of the fourth and fifth centuries. The site is not again mentioned before the thirteenth century, when Coloman, brother of King Béla IV, gave the “Possessio Diaco” to the Bishop of Bosnia. After the re-establishment of the Diocese of Syrmia (q.v.) by Gregory IX, 20 January, 1229, the bishop lived at Bosna Seraj in Bosnia, but in 1246 he transferred his see to Diakovár after Gregory IX, on account of the troubles with the Bogomili, withdrew the Diocese of Bosnia from its subjection to the Archdiocese of Ragusa and made it a suffragan to the Archdiocese of Kalocsa.

In 1735 the territory of the Diocese of Bosnia became the Vicariate Apostolic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (q.v.), while by a Bull of Clement XIV of 9 July, 1773, the See of Syrmia was united in perpetuity with Diakovár. Since this date the Bishops of Diakovár have borne the title “of Bosnia, or Diakovár and Syrmia.” Since 1852 the diocese has been a suffragan of Agram (Zágráb), which was founded in that year.

Among the most important medieval bishops of Diakovár were Blessed Johannes Teutonicus (1233–41) who died in 1253 as fourth Master General of the Dominican Order, and the Franciscan Blessed Peregrinus (1349–56). In the nineteenth century Bishop Joseph Georg Strossmayer (q.v.) exceeded all his predecessors, not only in the length of his episcopate (1849–1905), but also in the fruitful results of his labours for his diocese, especially as a patron of art and learning. After his death the see was administered by the vicar capitular, Dr. Engelbert Vorsak. The cathedral chapter, established in 1239, disappeared after the invasion of the Turks in 1453. It was restored in 1773 by Maria Teresa and it consists of 8 regular and 6 honorary canons. Since 1881 the diocese is limited to the Croatian-Slavonian counties of Verovititz (Verocze), Szerém, and Pozhega, and includes, according to the statistics for 1908: 4 archdeaconries; 11 vice-archdeaconries; 90 parishes with 376 dependent chapels and stations, and 4 expositures; 174 secular and regular priests; 294,674 Catholics and 6205 Uniat Greeks in a total population of 515,897. The male religious orders in the diocese are: Franciscans, 6 monasteries; Capuchins, 1 monastery in Esseg (Eszek or Osjek) with 6 religious. The female communities include 37 Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, and 39 Sisters of Charity of the Holy Cross. Besides the seminary for priests at Diakovár, mentioned above, there is a seminary for boys at Esseg established by Bishop Strossmayer in 1899. The most celebrated place of pilgrimage in the Diocese of Diakovár is Mariaschnee near Peterwardein. The patron saint for Diakovár is St. Elias, for Szerem, St. Demetrius.

GREGOR REINHOLD

Dialectic

[Greek dialektike (techne or methodos), the dialectic art or method, from dialegomai I converse, discuss, dispute; as noun also dialectics; as adjective, dialectical].

(1) In Greek philosophy the word originally signified “investigation by dialogue,” instruction by question and answer, as in the heuristic method of Socrates and the dialogues of Plato. The word dialectics still retains this meaning in the theory of education.

(2) But as the process of reasoning is more fundamental than its oral expression, the term dialectic came to denote primarily the art of inference or argument. In this sense it is synonymous with logic. It has always, moreover, connoted special aptitude or acuteness in reasoning, “dialectical skill”; and it was because of this characteristic of Zeno’s polemic against the reality of motion or change that this philosopher is said to have been styled by Aristotle the master or founder of dialectic.

(3) Further, the aim of all argumentation being presumably the acquisition of truth or knowledge about reality, and the process of cognition being inseparably bound up with its content or object, i. e. with reality, it was natural that the term dialectic should be again extended from function to object, from thought to thing; and so, even as early as Plato, it had come to signify the whole science of reality, both as to method and as to content, thus nearly approaching what has been from a somewhat later period universally known as metaphysics. It is, however, not quite synonymous with the latter in the objective sense of the science of real being, abstracting from the thought processes by which this real being is known, but rather in the more subjective sense in which it denotes the study of being in connection with the mind, the science of knowledge in relation to its object, the critical investigation of the origin and validity of knowledge as pursued in psychology and epistemology. Thus Kant describes as “transcendental dialectic” his criticism of the (to him futile) attempts of speculative human reason to attain to a knowledge of such ultimate realities as the soul, the universe, and the Deity; while the monistic system, in which Hegel identified thought with being and logic with metaphysics, is commonly known as the “Hegelian dialectic.”

A. THE DIALECTIC METHOD IN THEOLOGY

[For dialectic as equivalent to logic, see art. LOGIC, and cf. (2) above. It is in this sense we here speak of dialectic in theology.] The traditional logic, or dialectic, of Aristotle’s “Organon”—the science and art of (mainly deductive) reasoning—found its proper application in exploring the domain of purely natural truth, but in the early Middle Ages it began to be applied by some Catholic theologians to the elucidation of the supernatural truths of the Christian Revelation. The perennial problem of the relation of reason to faith, already ably discussed by St. Augustine in the fifth century, was thus raised again by St. Anselm in the eleventh. During the intervening and earlier centuries, although the writers and Fathers of the Church had always recognized the right and duty of natural reason to establish those truths preparatory to faith, the existence of God and the fact of revelation, those praeambula fidei which form the motives of credibility of the Christian religion and so make the profession of the Christian Faith a rationabile obsequium, a “reasonable service,” still their attitude inclined more to the Crede ut intelligas (Believe that you may understand) than to the Intellige ut credas (understand that you may believe); and their theology was a positive exegesis of the contents of Scripture and tradition. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, however, rational speculation was applied to theology not merely for the purpose of proving the praeambula fidei, but also for the purpose of analysing, illustrating and showing forth the beauty and the suitability of the mysteries of the Christian Faith. This method of applying to the contents of Revelation the logical forms of rational discussion was called “the dialectic method of theology.” Its introduction was opposed more or less vigorously by such ascetic and mystic writers as St. Peter Damian, St. Bernard, and Walter of St. Victor; chiefly, indeed, because of the excess to which it was carried by those rationalist and theosophist writers who, like Peter Abelard and Raymond Lully, would fain demonstrate the Christian mysteries, subordinating faith to private judgment. The method was saved from neglect and excess alike by the great Scholastics of the thirteenth century, and was used to advantage in their theology. After five or six centuries of fruitful development, under the influence, mainly, of this deductive dialectic, theology has again been drawing, for a century past, abundant and powerful aid from a renewed and increased attention to the historical and exegetical studies that characterized the earlier centuries of Christianity.

B. DIALECTIC AS FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHY OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE

[cf. (3) above]

(1) THE PLATONIC DIALECTIC

From the beginnings of Greek philosophy reflection has revealed a twofold element in the contents of the knowing human mind: an abstract, permanent, immutable element, usually referred to the intellect or reason; and a concrete, changeable, ever-shifting element, usually referred to the imagination and the external senses. Now, can the real world possess such opposite characteristics? Or, if not, which set really represents it? For Heraclitus and the earlier Ionians, stability is a delusion; all reality is change—panta hrei. For Parmenides and the Eleatics, change is delusion; reality is one, fixed, and stable. But then, whence the delusion, if such there be, in either alternative? Why does our knowledge speak with such uncertain voice, or which alternative are we to believe? Both, answers Plato, but intellect more than sense. What realities, the latter asks, are revealed by those abstract, universal notions we possess of being, number, cause, goodness, etc., by the necessary, immutable truths we apprehend and the comparison of those notions? The dialectic of the Platonic “Ideas” is a noble, if unsuccessful, attempt to answer this question. These notions and truths, says Plato, have for objects ideas which constitute the real world, the mundus intelligibilis, of which we have thus a direct and immediate intellectual intuition. These beings, which are objects of our intellectual knowledge, these ideas, really exist in the manner in which they are represented by the intellect, i. e. as necessary, universal, immutable, eternal, etc. But where is this mundus intelligibilis? It is a world apart (choris), separate from the world of fleeting phenomena revealed to the senses. And is this latter world, then, real or unreal? It is, says Plato, but a shadowy reflex of reality, a dissolving-view of the ideas, about which our conscious sense-impressions can give us mere opinion (doxa), but not that reliable, proper knowledge (episteme) which we have of the ideas. This is unsatisfactory. It is an attempt to explain an admitted connection between the noumenal and the phenomenal elements in knowledge by suppressing the reality of the latter altogether. Nor is Plato any more successful in his endeavour to show how the idea, which for him is a really existing being, can be at the same time one and manifold, or, in other words, how it can be universal, like the mental notion that represents it.

(2) ARISTOTELEAN AND SCHOLASTIC DIALECTIC

Aristotle taught, in opposition to his master Plato, that these “ideas” or objects of our intellectual notions do not exist apart from, but are embodied in, the concrete, individual data of sense. It is one and the same reality that reveals itself under an abstract, universal, static aspect to the intellect, and under a concrete, manifold, dynamic aspect to the senses. The Christian philosophers of the Middle Ages took up and developed this Aristotelean conception, making it one of the cardinal doctrines of Scholastic philosophy, the doctrine of modern Realism. The object of the abstract, universal notion, they taught, is real being; it constitutes and is identical with the individual data of sense-knowledge; it is numerically multiplied and individualized in them, while it is unified as a class-concept or universal notion (unum commune pluribus) by the abstractive power of the intellect which apprehends the element common to the individuals of a class without their differentiating characteristics. The universal notion thus exists as universal only in the intellect, but it has a foundation in the individual data of sense, inasmuch as the content of the notion really exists in these sense-data, though the mode of its existence there is other than the mode in which the notion exists in the intellect: universale est formaliter in mente, fundamentaliter in re. Nor does the intellect, in thus representing individual phenomena by universal notions, falsify its object or render intellectual knowledge unreliable; it represents the Real inadequately, no doubt, not exhaustively or comprehensively, yet faithfully so far as it goes; it does not misrepresent reality, for it merely asserts of the latter the content of its universal notion, not the mode (or universality) of the latter, as Plato did.

But if we get all our universal notions, necessary judgments, and intuitions of immutable truth through the ever-changing, individual data of sense, how are we to account for the timeless, spaceless, changeless, necessary character of the relations we establish between these objects of abstract, intellectual thought: relations such as “Two and two are four,” “Whatever happens has a cause,” “Vice is blameworthy”? Not because our own or our ancestors’ perceptive faculties have been so accustomed to associate certain elements of consciousness that we are unable to dissociate them (as materialist and evolutionist philosophers would say); nor yet, on the other hand, because in apprehending these necessary relations we have a direct and immediate intuition of the necessary, self-existent, Divine Being (as the Ontologists have said, and as some interpret Plato to have meant); but simply because we are endowed with an intellectual faculty which can apprehend the data of sense in a static condition and establish relations between them abstracting from all change.

By means of such necessary, self-evident truths, applied to the data of sense-knowledge, we can infer that our own minds are beings of a higher (spiritual) order than material things and that the beings of the whole visible universe—ourselves included—are contingent, i. e. essentially and entirely dependent on a necessary, all-perfect Being, who created and conserves them in existence. In opposition to this creationist philosophy of Theism, which arrives at an ultimate plurality of being, may be set down all forms of Monism or Pantheism, the philosophy which terminates in the denial of any real distinction between mind and matter, thought and thing, subject and object of knowledge, and the assertion of the ultimate unity of being.

(3) THE KANTIAN DIALECTIC

While Scholastic philosophers understand by reality that which is the object directly revealed to, and apprehended by, the knowing mind through certain modifications wrought by the reality in the sensory and intellectual faculties, idealist or phenomenalist philosophers assume that the direct object of our knowledge is the mental state or modification itself, the mental appearance, or phenomenon, as they call it; and because we cannot clearly understand how the knowing mind can transcend its own revealed, or phenomenal, self or states in the act of cognition, so as to apprehend something other than the immediate, empirical, subjective content of that act, these philosophers are inclined to doubt the validity of the “inferential leap” to reality, and consequently to maintain that the speculative reason is unable to reach beyond subjective, mental appearances to a knowledge of things-in-themselves. Thus, according to Kant, our necessary and universal judgments about sense-data derive their necessity and universality from certain innate, subjective equipments of the mind called categories, or forms of thought, and are therefore validly applicable only to the phenomena or states of sense-consciousness. We are, no doubt, compelled to think of an unperceived real world, underlying the phenomena of external sensation, of an unperceived real ego, or mind, or soul, underlying the conscious flow of phenomena which constitute the empirical or phenomenal ego, and of an absolute and ultimate underlying, unconditioned Cause of the ego and the world alike; but these three ideas of the reason—the soul, the world, and God—are mere natural, necessary products of the mental process of thinking, mere regulative principles of thought, devoid of all real content, and therefore incapable of revealing reality to the speculative reason of man. Kant, nevertheless, believed in these realities, deriving a subjective certitude about them from the exigencies of the practical reason, where he considered the speculative reason to have failed.

(4) THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC.

Post-Kantian philosophers disagreed in interpreting Kant. Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel developed some phases of his teaching in a purely monistic sense. If what Kant called the formal element in knowledge—i. e. the necessary, universal, immutable element—comes exclusively from within the mind, and if, moreover, mind can know only itself, what right have we to assume that there is a material element independent of, and distinct from, mind? Is not the content of knowledge, or in other words the whole sphere of the knowable, a product of the mind or ego itself? Or are not individual human minds mere self-conscious phases in the evolution of the one ultimate, absolute Being? Here we have the idealistic monism or pantheism of Fichte and Schelling. Hegel’s dialectic is characterized especially by its thoroughgoing identification of the speculative thought process with the process of Being. His logic is what is usually known as metaphysics: a philosophy of Being as revealed through abstract thought. His starting-point is the concept of pure, absolute, indeterminate being; this he conceives as a process, as dynamic. His method is to trace the evolution of this dynamic principle through three stages:

the stage in which it affirms, or posits, itself as thesis;

the stage of negation, limitation, antithesis, which is a necessary corollary of the previous stage;

the stage of synthesis, return to itself, union of opposites, which follows necessarily on (1) and (2).

Absolute being in the first stage is the idea simply (the subject-matter of logic); in the second stage (of otherness) it becomes nature (philosophy of nature); in the third stage (of return or synthesis) it is spirit (philosophy of spirit—ethics, politics, art, religion, etc.). Applied to the initial idea of absolute Being, the process works out somewhat like this: All conception involves limitation, and limitation is negation; positing or affirming the notion of Being involves its differentiation from non-being and thus implies the negation of being. This negation, however, does not terminate in mere nothingness; it implies a relation of affirmation which leads by synthesis to a richer positive concept than the original one. Thus: absolutely indeterminate being is no less opposed to, than it is identical with, absolutely indeterminate nothing: or BEING-NOTHING; but in the oscillation from the one notion to the other both are merged in the richer synthetic notion, of BECOMING.

This is merely an illustration of the a priori dialectic process by which Hegel seeks to show how all the categories of thought and reality (which he identifies) are evolved from pure, indeterminate, absolute, abstractly-conceived Being. It is not an attempt at making his system intelligible. To do so in a few sentences would be impossible, if only for the reason, that Hegel has read into ordinary philosophical terms meanings that are quite new and often sufficiently remote from the currently accepted ones. To this fact especially is due the difficulty experienced by Catholics in deciding with any degree of certitude whether, or how far, the Hegelian Dialectic—and the same in its measure is true of Kant’s critical philosophy also—may be compatible with the profession of the Catholic Faith. That these philosophies have proved dangerous, and have troubled the minds of many, was only to be expected from the novelty of their view-points and the strangeness of their methods of exposition. Whether, in the minds of their leading exponents, they contained much, or little, or anything incompatible with Theism and Christianity, it would be as difficult as it would be perhaps idle to attempt to decide. Be that as it may, the attitude of the Catholic Church towards philosophies that are new and strange in their methods and terminology must needs be an attitude of alertness and vigilance. Conscious of the meaning traditionally attached by her children to the terms in which she has always expounded those ultimate philosophico-religious truths that lie partly along and partly beyond the confines of natural human knowledge, and realizing the danger of their being led astray by novel systems of thought expressed in ambiguous language, she has ever wisely warned them to “beware lest any man cheat [them] by philosophy, and vain deceit” (Coloss., ii, 8).

For the use of dialectic in the early Christian and medieval schools, see THE SEVEN LIBERAL ARTS.

P. COFFEY.

Diocese of Diamantina

DIOCESE OF DIAMANTINA (ADAMANTINA).

Located in the north of the State of Minas Geraes, Brazil, South America; created under the Brazilian Empire, 10 Aug., 1853, and confirmed by the Holy See, 6 June, 1854. This territory was part of the ancient Diocese of Marianna (now the Archdiocese of Minas Geraes), which had four suffragans: Marianna, Diamantina, Pouso Alegre and Uberaba, in the centre, north, south and far west of the State of Minas Geraes. The present territory comprises twenty municipalities or townships divided in 106 parishes and 173 districts (an area of 33,708 square miles or half the territory of the State of Minas). According to the last official census (31 Dec., 1900) the population of the Diocese of Diamantina was 829,018. There are about 200 churches in as many villages and towns; and 100 priests, belonging to the regular and parochial clergy of the diocese. A seminary and diocesan college (recognized by a decree of the Federal Government, and modeled on the National Gymnasium of Rio de Janeiro) are directed by the Lazarists, and a college for girls, also in Diamantina, and directed by religious, are the principal educational institutions of the diocese. Premonstratensian missionaries in Montes Claros, and Franciscans in Theophilo Ottoni and Itambacury, are engaged in Christianizing the Indian tribes of Botocudos. About 7,000 have been converted along the Mucury River, and in the mountains of Aimores and forests of Itambacury. In addition to these there are Dutch Redemptorists in Curvello and a few (Spanish and Italian) priests.

Charity hospitals (Diamantina, 2, Curvelho, 1, Montes Claros, 1 Serro, 1 Conceicao, 1) are attended by the Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul, and of Our Lady of Providence. Catholic leagues, charitable societies and confraternities are organized in the parishes; and there is an institution at Serro for invalid or poor priests. There were formerly two missions, in Poaya (forests of Urupuca river and Suassuhy-Grande) and in Figueira (Dom Manoel Harbour), and Indian aldeamentos which prospered under the apostolical zeal of Italian Franciscan missionaries.

Since its erection the Diocese of Diamantina has had three bishops. The first was the Right Rev. Marcos Cardoso de Paiva (a native of Rio de Janeiro). His successor was the Right Rev. Joao Antonio dos Santos who died in Diamantina, 17 May, 1905, after an episcopacy of forty-one years. Born in the village of Rio Preto, 1819, he served as professor of philosophy in the seminary of Marianna before his appointment as Bishop of Diamantina, 1 May, 1864. During the last years of his episcopacy, the Holy See named as his coadjutor the Right Rev. J. Silverio de Sousa who succeeded him, having been consecrated titular Bishop of Bagis, 2 Feb., 1902. He was the author of “Sitios e Personagens,” “O Lar Catholico,” “Novenas do Natal e da Immaculada Conceicao,” “Finezas de Mae e Pastoraes,” all well known works published in Brazil. The Catholic press in the diocese is represented by two periodicals “Estrella Polar” (official) of Diamantina, and “A Verdade,” of Montes-Claros. The latter is in charge of the Premonstratensian priests.

NELSON DE SENNA

Antonino Diana

Moral theologian, born of a noble family at Palermo, Sicily, in 1586; died at Rome, 20 July, 1663. He took his vows as a regular clerk of the Theatine Order in 1630. He became celebrated as a casuists while he was yet a young man, and cases of conscience were sent to him for solution from all parts. His “Resolutiones Morales” met with universal esteem and approbation. The brothers Prost, who brought out the eighth edition of the first three parts of his work at Lyons, in 1635, sent it forth, with a play on the author’s name, as the Diana of him who might be hunting for truth in the woods of moral theology, and as the Diana of the crossways who would show the right path to anyone in doubt or perplexity. Popes Urban VIII, Innocent X, and Alexander VII, esteemed him for his learning, and he was made a consultor of the Holy Office of the Kingdom of Sicily and an examiner of bishops. Diana himself claimed that as a rule his solutions followed the milder opinion. On the frontspiece of the volume just mentioned round a figure of the Cross runs the legend Non ferro sed ligno. According to St. Alphonsus and the common opinion of modern theologians, Diana not infrequently went too far in the direction of laxity. Besides several editions of the unabridged works, epitomes and compendiums of them that began to appear even in the author’s lifetime, in spite of his vigorous protests that his real meaning was being distorted by his too ardent admirers.

T. SLATER.

Diocese of Diano

(DIANENSIS)

Diocese and small city in the province of Salerno, Italy; the ancient Tegianum and seat of the Tegyani, a tribe of Lucania. Pius IX established this see 29 Sept., 1850, at the instance of King Ferdinand II of Naples, and ordered the Bishop of Capaccio to fix his residence in the town of Diano; thenceforth the see was to be known as Capaccio and Diano. But under the second bishop Domenico Fanello (1858–83), Capaccio was again separated from Diano and united with the Diocese of Vallo, in which town the bishop now resides. In 1882 Diano received the name of Teggiano. The see is a suffragan of Salerno, has 44 parishes, about 250 secular priests, 3 religious houses of men and one of women; the population is about 100,000.

Annuario Eccl. (Rome, 1908).

U. BENIGNI

Diario Romano

(It. For “Roman Daybook”)

A booklet published annually at Rome, with papal authorization, giving the routine of feasts and fasts to be observed in Rome and the ecclesiastical functions to be performed in the city.

The Diario for 1908 gives the days on which the Roman Congregations—Index, Rites, Propaganda, etc.—hold their sessions. A table is then given for the ringing of the bell for evening Angelus, which varies with the time of sunset, and ranges from 5.15 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. In quoting the time of day at which an exercised is to take place, the Diario uses the regular style for the morning hours, but says, “before” or “after the Angelus,” for the afternoon. The Diario notes the phases of the moon, the eclipses, the movable feasts, the ember days, the ecclesiastical cycles, the time for the solemnization of marriage, a list of days on which certain specially honoured images of the Blessed Virgin are exposed for veneration, and a list of saints and blessed honoured on each day of the year and of the churches at which the feast is celebrated. In the body of the work the statement is frequently made that images and relics of Christ and of the saints, ordinarily veiled, are uncovered and put in a prominent place. Such relics are: the table on which Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist; the manger or crib in which Christ is said to have been placed after his birth; the heads of Sts. Peter and Paul; the Chair of St. Peter (Cathedra Petri). Next are given the various functions as follows:—

(1) ORDINARY

(a) Daily

In all churches where canons or religious communities reside the canonical Hours of the Breviary are recited and conventual Mass is sung. Mass is said in all the churches, the earliest at 5 o’clock, and the latest at 12, the latter at S. Maria della Pace and always a votive Mass in honour of the Holy Trinity in thanksgiving for the favours conferred by the Blessed Virgin. At S. Giuseppe alla Lungara dei Pii Operai a daily foundation Mass with sermon and “Libera” is offered for the souls in purgatory. The Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament takes place daily at S. Gioacchino ai Monti, at S. Claudia dei Borgognoni, at S. Croce of the convent of S. Maria Riparatrice, at S. Brigida, at the church of Corpus Domini, in the chapel of the Daughters of the Sacred Heart. In these churches and chapels special devotions are held during the day and are always well attended. The recitation of the Rosary is a favourite practice of the Romans; it takes place at Mass in twenty-one churches in which Benediction is then given with the pyx; in the afternoon the Rosary, or, in some instances, the beads of the Seven Dolours or of the Precious Blood, is said daily in thirty-seven churches and chapels, in some of which a sermon is added. On feast days Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament is held in the morning in six churches, Rosary and Benediction in the afternoon in eight; in five also sermon is preached, and in five others the chaplet of the Sacred Heart is added.

(b) Weekly

In the parish churches high Mass and sermon are held at eight or nine o’clock on Sundays, and in the afternoon Christian doctrine is taught. At St. John Lateran there is a procession before Mass; at S. Gioacchino the Blessed Sacrament is exposed at Mass and prayers of reparation are said, in the afternoon Benediction is given after the Rosary has been recited before the Blessed Sacrament. In nine other churches there is Exposition in the morning, to which, at S. Prassede, prayers for a good death are added. Benediction is given in many churches at various times of the day together with an explanation of the Holy Scriptures, an instruction, a sermon, Rosary, etc. The Way of the Cross is made in four churches. The Diario notes the following devotions to be held for Monday: Exposition during Mass at Santi XII Apostoli and Ara Coeli, in the evening at four churches, with special prayers to St. Jude Thaddeus at S. Eusebio. Tuesday: Exposition in the morning for four churches and for the same number in the evening, a devotion to St. Anne, and a meditation. Wednesday: for five churches Exposition in the forenoon; for four in the afternoon, Rosary, chaplet of the Immaculate, chaplet of Sorrows and Joys of St. Joseph, prayers to the Mother of Sorrows. Thursday: Exposition during the whole day at S. Giacchino in Prati with Rosary and Benediction in the evening, Exposition in five other churches, to which a discourse is added at N. S. di S. Cuore; in S. Andrea at the Quirinal catechetical instruction for boys. Friday: Exposition, chaplet of the Sacred Heart, Holy Hour for the dying, prayers in honour of the Passion, Way of the Cross, Way of the Mater Dolorosa, chaplet of the Seven Dolours. Saturday: Exposition, devotion to the Mother of Mercy against lightning, in honour of the Queen of the Holy Rosary, special prayers for the conversion of England, chaplet of the Immaculate, of the Seven Dolours, sermon, singing of the litany, and Benediction.

(c) Monthly

For the first Sunday is ordered, in one church or another: Exposition in the form of the Forty Hours, procession, prayers for a good death, Way of the Cross, Corona dei Morti, Communion of the Pages of Honour of St. Aloysius. For the second Sunday: Exposition in the morning and in the evening, procession of the Blessed Sacrament, at S. Maria sopra Minerva procession with the Bambino and prayers for blasphemers. For the third Sunday: Exposition in the morning or in the evening, and procession. For the fourth Sunday the same is prescribed for several churches, also the Way of the Cross. For the last Sunday: Exposition and procession for two churches in the morning, for others in the evening; Way of the Cross at the Campo Santo. Similarly, the Diario makes announcements for the first Tuesday, the first Wednesday, etc. Among the devotions noted for these days special mention may be made of prayers for obstinate sinners said on the first Wednesday at S. Giacomo in Augusta, Mass of reparation for the insults offered to the Blessed Sacrament, Mass in the morning and Benediction in the evening with prayers for the conversion of England, supplications for the reunion of Christendom, English sermon on the first Friday at S. Giorgio e santi Inglesi.

(2) EXTRAORDINARY DEVOTIONS

Sermon two hours before the angelus on all feasts of Christ and of Our Lady at S. Alfonso on the Esquiline; at S. Andrea delle Fratte Way of the Cross on all Sundays of February, March, November, and December, and on the eight days of Carnival; at S. Agnese Outside the walls Exposition on all Sundays and Holy Days at two hours before the Angelus, with chaplet of the Five Wounds during Lent; at S. Andrea at the Ponte Milvio a Mass is said on all Sundays and Holy Days for the deceased members, two hours before the Angelus; Office of the Dead, absolution given in the adjoining cemetery, then Benediction in church after the recitation of a litany. On Septuagesima Sunday at S. Filippo on the Via Giulia Exposition all day, closing with litany and Benediction. On the Saturday before Sexagesima some churches perform a pious exercise called Carnivale santificato. On the Friday after Sexagesima and on the Fridays of Lent, in nearly all churches, the Way of the Cross is made or the Via Dolorosa. Lenten sermons are preached on Wednesday and Fridays. The Lenten preaches are received in audience by the pope. For the Apostolic Palace a special preacher is appointed. On LÊtare Sunday the holy Father blesses the golden Rose, which he then sends to persons of rank, to cities, or corporations as a token of gratitude; on this Sunday also begin the catechetical instructions prescribed by Benedict XIV as a preparation for Easter. The Holy Week exercises are performed in all the parish churches, and additional devotions are held in many, as the washing of the papal altar at St. Peter’s on Maundy Thursday, sermons on the Passion, Way of the Cross or of the Desolata, or honouring the Hours of the Agony. The Ruthenian Rite is used for the functions of Holy Week at SS. Sergio e Bacco, the Armenian Rite at S. Nicola da Tolentino on 1 January. At S. Andrea della Valle the Veni Creator is sung after Mass and the baptismal vows are renewed; at S. Maria in Campitelli the faithful consecrate themselves to the patron chosen for the year; at S. Carlo a Catinari the spiritual testament of St. Charles Borromeo is read on 5 January. At S. Atanasio water is blessed in the Greek rite and S. Andrea della Valle and at other churches in the Latin Rite. This water the pious faithful take home to sprinkle the sick, their houses, fields, vineyards, and themselves. The 6th of January is the titular feast of the Propaganda; Mass is celebrated in the Oriental Rites, and sermons are preached in the different languages. On 3 February takes place the blessing of throats with a relic of St. Blaise, and in the churches of the Blessed Virgin the pious custom obtains, throughout the year, of anointing the throats with blessed oil. On 31 December, in nearly all the churches and oratories, the year is closed with Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and Te Deum. Formerly greater solemnity was imparted to some feasts by the presence of the Holy Father, who would celebrate the Mass or Vespers, or would assist at them pontifically in one of the greater basilicas and impart the Apostolic blessing to the world from the outer loggia. The Diario mentions some twenty days on which such a cappella papale, as it was called, used to take place before 1870. For the year 1908 only two are noted: for 20 July, the anniversary of the death of Leo XIII, and for 9 August, the anniversary of the coronation of the reigning pontiff [1908], Pius X.

The special feasts of the churches are ushered in by preparatory triduums, novenas, or devotions of seven or of eight days, on which pious exercises are performed in common and Benediction is given; entire months are dedicated to saints or mysteries—as the month of St. Joseph, the month of Mary, of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, of the Precious Blood, of the Sacred Heart of Mary, of the Seven Dolours, of the Rosary and of the Dead. Holy communion for a series of fixed days of the week, together with special prayers, is much in use. We read in the Diario of six Sundays of St. Aloysius, seven of St. Camillus, nine of St. Cajetan, ten of St. Ignatius, fifteen of the Rosary; nine Mondays of the Archangel St. Gabriel; nine Tuesdays of St. Anne, and thirteen of St. Anthony of Padua; seven Wednesdays of Our Lady of Mount Carmel; seven Fridays of the Seven Dolours; seven of St. Juliana Falconieri, nine of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, ten of St. Francis Xavier, thirteen of St. Francis of Paul, thirteen of St. Onuphrius; five Saturdays of the Name of Mary, twelve of the Immaculate conception, fifteen of the Holy Rosary.

To encourage the faithful in the frequent reception of the sacraments, in visiting the churches, venerating the Blessed Sacrament or the relics of the saints, and in performing other acts of devotion, the Church has opened wide her treasure and granted almost innumerable Indulgences. Of special note is the toties quoties Indulgences. The Vatican Basilica has this Indulgence for every day of the year; the church of S. Andrea delle Fratte on the feast of St. Francis of Paul (3 May); the churches of the Trinitarians on Trinity Sunday; SS. Cuore at the Castro Pretorio on the feast of the Sacred Heart; the churches of the Carmelites on 16 July; in several churches the Indulgence of Portiuncula on 2 August; the churches of the Servites on the feast of the Seven Dolours in September; where the Confraternity of the Rosary is canonically established, on Rosary Sunday; in several churches on the feast of the Holy Redeemer; in the Benedictine churches on 2 November. Only lately (20 February, 1908) the Holy Father has granted a toties quoties Indulgence to the pious practice of the Scala Santa (Acta S. Sedis, XLI, 294). Spiritual retreats are given for men twice a year at the Caravita, and once for women; for both sexes at the Crociferi, and a special one preparatory to Easter, for both sexes, at SS. Vincenzo e Anastasio.

Diario Romano for 1908; CHANDLERY, Pilgrim Walks in Rome (St. Louis, Mo., and London, 1905); BELLESHEIM in Kirchenlex., s.v.; SALVATORIANER, Die ewige Stadt (Rome, 1904); GSELL-FELLS, Rom und die Campagna (1887); DE BLESER, Rome et ses monuments (Louvain, 1866).

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

St. Diarmaid

Born in Ireland, date unknown; d. in 851 or 852. He was made Archbishop of Armagh in 834, but was driven from his see by the usurper Foraunan in 835. However, he claimed his rights and collected his cess in Connacht, in 836, as primate. He lived in a stormy age, as the Scandinavian rovers under Turgesius seized Armagh, in 841, and levelled the churches. The “Annals of Ulster” (ed. B. McCarthy, Dublin, 1887; I, 361) describe him as “the wisest of the doctors of Europe.” His feast is celebrated 24 April.

ST. DIARMAID THE JUST

A famous Irish confessor of the mid-sixth century; d. 542. His name is associated with the great monastery of Inisclothran (Iniscleraun) on Lough Ree, in the Dioeese of Ardagh, which he founded about the year 530. He was of princely origin and a native of Connacht. Wishing to found an oratory far from the haunts of men, he selected the beautiful but lonely island associated with the memory of Queen Meave, now known as Quaker Island. Here his fame soon attracted disciples, and among them St. Ciaran of Clonmacnoise. He was not only a good teacher, but also a distinguished writer and poet. On the island seven churches are traditionally said to have been erected, and the traces of six are still in evidence, including Teampul Diarmada, or the church of St. Diarmaid, the saint’s own church an oratory eight feet by seven. His feast is celebrated 10 January. After his death the monastic school kept up its reputation for fully six centuries, and the island itself was famous for pilgrimages in pre-Reformation days.

Martyrology of Donegal (Dublin, 1864); O’HANLON, Lives ot the Irish Saints (Dublin 1875), IV, 476; I, 152; STUART, History of Armagh, ed. COLEMAN (Dublin, 1900); Acta SS., April, III; COLGAN, Acta SS. Hiberniae (LOUVAIN, 1645); BIGGER, Inis clothrarann, its History and Antiquities (Dublin, 1900); STOKES AND STRACHAN, Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus (Cambridge, 1903).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Bartolomeu Dias

A famous Portuguese navigator of the fifteenth century, discoverer of the Cape of Good Hope; died at sea, 29 May, 1500.

Several Portuguese historians state that he was a relative or descendant of João Dias who sailed around Cape Bojador in 1434, and of Diniz Dias who is said to have discovered the Cape Verde Islands. As early as 1481 Bartolomeu Dias had accompanied Diogo d’Azambuja on an expedition to the Gold Coast.

Dias was a cavalier of the royal court, superintendent of the royal warehouses and sailing-master of the man-of-war “San Christovao,” when King John (João) II appointed him on 10 October, 1486, as the head of an expedition which was to endeavor to sail around the southern end of Africa. Its chief purpose was to find the country of the Christian African king known as Prester John, concerning whom recent reports had arrived (1486) through João Alfonso d’Aveiro, and with whom the Portuguese wished to enter into friendly relations.

After ten months of preparation Dias left Lisbon the latter part of July or the beginning of August, 1487, with two armed caravels of fifty tons each and one supply-ship. Among his companions were Pero d’Alemquer, who wrote a description of Vasco da Gama’s first voyage, Leitao, João Infante, Alvaro Martins, and João Grego. The supply-ship was commanded by Bartolomeu’s brother, Pero Dias. There were also two negroes and four negresses on board who were to be set ashore at suitable spots to explain to the natives the purpose of the expedition.

Dias sailed first towards the mouth of the Congo, discovered the year before by Cao and Behaim, then following the African coast, he entered Walfisch Bay, and probably erected the first of his stone columns near the present Angra Pequena. From 29° south latitude (Port Nolloth) he lost sight of the coast and was driven by a violent storm, which lasted thirteen days, far beyond the cape to the south. When calm weather returned he sailed again in an easterly direction and, when no land appeared, turned northward, landing in the Bahia dos Vaqueiros (Mossel Bay). Following the coast he reached Algoa Bay, and then the limit of his exploration, the Great Fish River, which he named after the commander of the accompanying vessel, Rio Infante. It was only on his return voyage that he discovered the Cape, to which, according to Barros, he gave the name of Cabo Tormentoso. King John, in view of the success of the expedition, is said to have proposed the name it has since borne, Cape of Good Hope. In December, 1488, Dias returned to Lisbon after an absence of sixteen months and seventeen days. He had shown the way to Vasco da Gama whom in 1497 he accompanied, but in a subordinate position, as far as the Cape Verde Islands.

In 1500 Dias commanded a ship in the expedition of Cabral; his vessel, however, was one of those wrecked not far from the Cape of Good Hope, which he had discovered thirteen years before. An official report of the expedition to the cape has not yet been found. Besides the account by Barros there is a note written on the margin of page 13 of a manuscript copy of Cardinal Pierre d’Ailly’s “Imago Mundi,” which is of importance, as this copy was once the property of Christopher Columbus. Ravenstein has attempted, and not unsuccessfully, by the aid of contemporary charts to reconstruct the entire voyage with the different stopping-points of the route.

BARROS, Decadas da Asia, Dec. I, bk. III, iv; RAVENSTEIN, The Voyages of Diogo Cao and Bartholomew Dias in The Geographical Journal (London, 1900), XVI, 625–55; BEHRENS, Die erste Umsegelung des Kaps der Guten Hoffnung, durch Bartholomeu Dias in Die Natur (Halle, 1901), L, 7–9, 15 19.

OTTO HARTIG

Diaspora

(Or DISPERSION).

Diaspora was the name given to the countries (outside of Palestine) through which the Jews were dispersed, and secondarily to the Jews living in those countries. The Greek term, diaspora, corresponds to the Hebrew word meaning “exile” (cf. Jer., xxiv, 5). It occurs in the Greek version of the Old Testament, e.g. Deut., xxviii, 25; xxx, 4, where the dispersion of the Jews among the nations is foretold as the punishment of their apostasy. In John, vii, 35, the word is used implying disdain: “The Jews therefore said among themselves: Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? Will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles?” Two of the Catholic Epistles, viz. that of James and I Peter, are addressed to the neophytes of the Diaspora. In Acts, ii, are enumerated the principal countries from which the Jews came who heard the Apostles preach at Pentecost, everyone “in his own tongue.” The Diaspora was the result of the various deportations of Jews which invariably followed the invasion or conquest of Palestine. The first deportation took place after the capture of Samaria by Shalmaneser (Salmanasar) and Sargon, when a portion of the Ten Tribes were carried into the regions of the Euphrates and into Media, 721 B.C. (IV Kings, xvii). In 587 B.C. the Kingdom of Juda was transported into Mesopotamia. When, about fifty years later, Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to their country, only the poorer and more fervent availed themselves of the permission The richer families remained in Babylonia forming the beginning of a numerous and influential community. The conquests of Alexander the Great caused the spreading of Jews throughout Asia and Syria. Seleucus Nicator made the Jews citizens in the cities he built in his dominions, and gave them equal rights with the Greeks and Macedonians. (Josephus, Antiquities, XII, iii,1.) Shortly after the transportation of Juda into Babylonia a number of Jews who had been left in Palestine voluntarily emigrated into Egypt. (Jer., xlii-xliv.) They formed the nucleus of the famous Alexandrine colony. But the great transportation into Egypt was effected by Ptolemy Soter. “And Ptolemy took many captives both from the mountainous parts of Judea and from the places about Jerusalem and Samaria and led them into Egypt and settled them there” (Antiquities, XII, I, 1). In Rome there was already a community of Jews at the time of Caesar. It is mentioned in a decree of Caesar cited by Josephus (Ant., XLV, x, 8). After the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus thousands of Jewish slaves were placed upon the market. They formed the nucleus of settlements in Africa, Italy, Spain, and Gaul. At the time of the Apostles the number of Jews in the Diaspora was exceedingly great. The Jewish author of the Sibylline Oracles (2nd century B.C.) could already say of his countrymen: “Every land and every sea is full of them” (Or. Sib., III, 271). Josephus mentioning the riches of the temple says: “Let no one wonder that there was so much wealth in our temple since all the Jews throughout the habitable earth sent their contributions” (Ant., XIV, vii, 2). The Jews of the Diaspora paid a temple tax, a kind of Peter’s-pence; a didrachma being required from every male adult. The sums transmitted to Jerusalem were at times so large as to cause an inconvenient drainage of gold, which more than once induced the Roman government either to stop the transmittance or even to confiscate it.

Though the Diaspora Jews were, on the whole, faithful to their religion, there was a noticeable difference of theological opinion between the Babylonian and Alexandrine Jew. In Mesopotamia the Jews read and studied the Bible in Hebrew. This was comparatively easy to them since Chaldee, their vernacular, was kindred to the Hebrew. The Jews in Egypt and throughout Europe, commonly called Hellenistic Jews, soon forgot Hebrew. A Greek ver- sion of the Bible, the Septuagint, was made for them. The consequence was that they were less ardent in the punctilious observance of their Law. Like the Samaritans they showed a schismatic tendency by erecting a rival temple to that in Jerusalem. It was built by the son of Onias the high-priest in Leontopolis in Lower Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy Philometor, 160 B.C., and was destroyed 70 B.C. (Ant., XIII, iii, sects. 2, 3). It is a curious fact that whereas Hellenistic Judaism became the soil in which Christianity took root and waxed strong, the colony in Babylonia remained a stronghold of orthodox Judaism and produced its famous Talmud. The deeply-rooted antagonism between the Jews and Greeks made the amalgamation of the two races impossible. Though some of the Seleucids and Ptolemies, such as Seleucus Nicator and Antiochus the Great, were favourable towards the Jews, there was constant friction between the two elements in Syria and Egypt. Occasional pillage and massacre were the inevitable result. Thus on one occasion the Greeks in Seleucia and Syria massacred some 50,000 Jews (Ant., XVIII, ix, 9). On another occasion the Jews, getting the upper hand in Cyprus, killed the Greek inhabitants of Salamis and were in consequence banished from the island (Dio Cassius, LXVIII, 23). In Alexandria it was found necessary to confine the Jews to a separate quarter, or ghetto. The Roman Empire was on the whole well-disposed towards the Jews of the Diaspora. They had everywhere the right of residence and could not be expelled. The two exceptions were the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Tiberius (Ant., XVIII, iii, 5) and under Claudius (Acts, xviii, 2). But both these instances were of short duration. Their cult was declared a religio licita. All communities had their synagogue, proseuchai or sabbateia, which served also as libraries and places of assembly. The most famous was that in Antioch (De bell. Jud., VII, iii 3). They had their cemeteries; in Rome, like the Christians, they buried their dead in catacombs. They were allowed freely to observe their sabbaths, festivals, and dietary laws. They were exempt from the emperor-worship and from military service. Many Jews enjoyed Roman citizenship, e.g. St. Paul (Acts, xvi, 37–39). In many places the Jewish community formed a recognized organization with administrative, judicial, and financial powers. It was ruled by a council called gerousia, composed of elders, presbyteroi, at the head of which was the archon. Another token of the freedom which the Jews enjoyed throughout the empire was their active propagandism (cf. Matt., xxiii, 15). The neophytes were called phoboumenoi or sebomenoi, i.e. God-fearing (Acts, xiii, 16, 26, 43; Antiquities, XIV, vii, 2). Their number appears to have been very great. St. Paul met them in almost all the cities he visited. Josephus, praising the excellence of the Law, says: “the multitude of mankind itself has had a great inclination to follow our religious observances. There is not a city of the Grecians or Sabarians, where our customs and the prohibition as to our food are not observed” etc. (Contra Apion., II, xl). Many of the converts were distinguished persons, e.g. Aguila, the chamberlain of the Queen of Candace (Acts, viii, 26 sq.); Azizus, King of Emesa, and Polemo, King of Cilicia (Ant.,.xx, vii); the patrician lady Fulvia (Ant., XVIII, iii, 5).

Jewish Encyc. s. v. Dispersion; SCHURER, Geschichte des judischen Volkes (Leipzig, 1890); GRATZ, Geschichte der Juden; RENAN, Les Apétres; MOMMSEN, The Provinces of the Roman Empire (tr. London, 1886). A list of the countries of the Diaspora is given by PHILO, Leg. ad Caium, 36.

C. VAN DEN BIESEN

Pedro Díaz

Missionary, b. at Lupedo, Diocese of Toledo, Spain, in 1546; d. in Mexico, 12 Jan., 1618. Though but twenty years of age when he joined the Society of Jesus he had already been a teacher of philosophy for two years. In 1572 he was sent by St. Francis Borgia to Mexico with the first band of Jesuits assigned to that mission, and was the first master of novices in the Province of Mexico. His distinguished merits as a preacher and and a superior were enhanced by a great reputation for holiness. As rector of the colleges of Guadalajara and Mexico, superior of the professed house, provincial, and founder of the colleges of Oaxaca and Guadalajara in Mexico and of Merida in Mexico, and twice procurator to Rome, he occupies a prominent place in the early history of the Jesuits in Mexico. He was also the first to start the mission work of his brethren among the Indians of New Spain. The only contribution we have from his pen is “Letteras de Missionibus per Indiam Occidentalem a Nostris de Societate Institutis per annos 1590 et 1591.” Several biographical encyclopedias confound him with Pedro Dias, a Portuguese Jesuit of the sixteenth century.

Alegre, Historia de la c. de J. en Neuva España (Mexico, 1842), II, 112; Bancroft, History of Mexico (San Francisco, 1883), II, xxxii; Alegamba, Bibl. Scriptorium S. J. (Antwerp, 1643); Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., III, 46; Alcazar, Chron. hist. de 1a prov. de Tolède, II, 401; Boero, Menologia, I, 244–6; de Backer, I, 1588.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Bernal Díaz del Castillo

(Corruption of Bernardo), Spanish historian, one of the chief chroniclers of the conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards, b. at Medina del Campo, Spain, c. 1498; d. after 1568. Born of poor parents, he began his military career as a common soldier. In 1514, he went to America with Pedrarias Dávila who had shortly before been appointed governor of Darien. Thence he betook himself to Cuba and enlisted in the expedition to Yucatan under Francisco de Córdoba in 1517. He proceeded to Mexico with Grijalva in 1518 and returning to Cuba, set out a third time for Mexico under the banner of Hernando Cortés. He took part, he tells us, in 119 battles, and was present at the surrender of the city of Mexico im 1521. As a reward for distinguished services he received a commission as regidor or governor of Santiago de los Caballeros in Guatemala, where he made his home. In 1552, Gómara, secretary and chaplain to Cortés, published at Saragossa his “Crónica de la Conquista de Nueva España,” in which Díaz thought he gave undue credit to Cortés. Díaz, therefore, in 1568 undertook to write his “Verdadera Historia de la Conquista de Nueva España,” and though despairing of his ability to equal Gómara’s literary polish, he determined to write a faithful narrative of the stirring events in which he had taken part, in order to correct the gross inaccuracies of Gómara, who had never even been in America, and to vindicate the valour of himself and others who had been completely overshadowed by the exaggerated reputation of Cortés. The work lay neglected and unpublished until, in 1632, Father Alonso Remón of the Order of Our Lady of Mercy, found it in a private library and had it published at Madrid. The work is crude and devoid of style, and shows the ignorance and vanity of the author, but it will always be read with interest as being the work of an eyewitness and participant in the events described.

In 1689, Francisco de Fuentes, in his history of Guatemala, set forth his claim to be a descendant of Díaz, and gave certain facts concerning him and his work that had been until then unknown. It would seem that, although poor, the family of Díaz was noble and distinguished, for his father was regidor of the important town of Medina del Campo. Fuentes also declared that the work was not published as written by Díaz, as it was not printed from the original manuscript but from an unauthorized copy in the library of one Ramírez del Prado which fell into the hands of Father Remón. The original manuscript, he claims, was in his own possession. “La Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles” (1848–86) of Rivadeneira contains the entire works of Díaz. A German translation by P.J. de Rehfues-Bonn-Marcas was published in 1838.

KEATINGE, Verdadera Historia de ta Conquista de Nueva España (tr. London, 1800); DIAZ DEL CASTILLO, Verdadera Historia de la Conquista de Nueva España (Madrid, 1796); LOCKHART, Memoirs of Bernal Díaz del Castillo, written by himself (London, 1844).

VENTURA FUENTES

Juan Díaz de Solís

Spanish navigator and explorer, b. about 1470 at Lebrija (Seville), or, according to some accounts, in Asturias; d. in South America in 1516. After some explorations in Central America in 1506 and in Brazil in 1508, he succeeded Amerigo Vespucci as pilot-major, upon the latter’s death in 1512. This title had been conferred upon Vespucci by Ferdinand of Spain 22 March, 1509, and carried with it a high salary. Two years after appointment to this office, de Solís prepared an expedition to explore the southern part of the new continent. His ships sailed from Lepe on 8 Oct., 1515, following the eastern coast as far as the mouth of the Rio de la Plata. He went up that river for some distance, and, wishing to take possession of the country in the name of the Crown, landed on the eastern bank of the river, somewhere near the junction of the Uruguay and Paraná Rivers, with two officers and seven men. This region was inhabited by wild tribes, and the little party had not proceeded far when they were attacked from ambush, and Díaz de Solís and most of his folIowers were killed. When he did not come back, those who had remained behind on the ships determined to return to Spain. Francisco de Torres, the brother-in-law of Díaz de Solís, then took charge, and after naming the river Río de Solís, they set sail, arriving in Spain, 4 Sept., 1516. The news of the disastrous ending of the expedition was communicated to Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros who was then regent of Spain. Varnhagen, in his “History of Brazil,” published in Portuguese (Rio de Janeiro, 1854–58), states that Nuño Manuel visited the La Plata before Díaz de Solís. Manuel Trelles gives the same honor to Diego García in a pamphlet published in Buenos Aires in 1879.

FREJEIRO, Juan Díaz de Solís y el Descubrimiento del Rio de la Plata (1879–80); TRELLES, Diego Garcia, Primer Descubridor del Rio de la Plata (Buenos Aires, 1879); BERRA, Bosquejo Historico de la Republica Oriental del Uruguay (Montevideo, 1881).

VENTURA FUENTES

Dibon

A titular see in Palæstina Tertia. Dibôn (Sept., Daibon or Debon) is mentioned in Numbers 33:45 as a station of the Hebrews on their way to the Promised Land. It was soon after occupied and rebuilt by the tribe of Gad (Numbers 32:34). It belonged later to the Rubenites (Joshua 13:17). At the time of the Prophets it was in the power of the Moabites. The ruins of the town stand at Dîbân, one and a half miles west of ‘Arâ’ir (Aroer), ten miles south-east of M’kaôur (Machoerous), in the vilayet of Damascus. The masses of black basalt present a mournful aspect, strangely contrasting with that of the fertile table-land of Moab and vicinity of the Arnon (Wadi Modjib). There are an acropolis, cisterns, sepulchral grottoes, and a few Roman and Christian fragments. It was here also that Clermont Ganneau found the famous stele of Mesa, King of Moab, now at the Louvre. Mesa calls himself “the Dibonite.” Dibon, as far as is known, never was a Greek see, but in the course of time became a Latin titular see.

SAYCE, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, 77; TRISTRAM, The Land of Moab; BLISS in Palestine Explor. Fund, Quart. Statement (1895), 227; SCHICK, a plan of the ruins, in Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, II.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Juan de Dicastillo

Theologian, b. of Spanish parents at Naples, 28 December, 1584; d. at Ingolstadt 6 March, 1653. He entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus in 1600, and was professor of theology for twenty-five years at Toledo, Muricia, and Vienna. In moral questions, Dicastillo followed the principles of the probabilists. His principal works are: “De justiti et jure ceterisque virtutibus cardinalibus libriduo” (Antwerp, 1641); “De Sacramentis in genere disputationes scholastic et morales” (Antwerp, 1646–52); “Tractatus duo de juramento, perjurio, et adjuratione, necnon de censuris et p nis ecclesiasticis” (Antwerp, 1662); “Tractatus de incarnatione” (Antwerp, 1642).

Hurter, Nomenclator; Sommervogel, Biblioth que de la c. de J.,III, col. 49; Langhorst in Kirchenlex., s.v

Edward Dicconson

Titular Bishop of Malla, or Mallus, Vicar Apostolic of the English Northern District; b. 30 Nov., 1670; d. 5 May, 1752. He was the son of Hugh Dicconson of Wrightington Hall, Lancashire. At the age of thirteen or fourteen he was sent to the English College at Douai where he completed his course of philosophy im 1691. He returned to Douai about 1698, having resolved to become a priest, and on being ordained in June, 1701, remained at the college many years as procurator and professor and became vice-president in 1713, while still continuing to teach theology. At Ushaw there is preserved a portion of a diary kept by him at this period, which gives a glimpse of the life he then led at Douai, besides mentioning some other events of interest. In it he has recorded a visit paid by him to Paris in June, 1704, when he and his brother “at St. Germain made the compliments of the College to King and Queen on the King’s birthday.” The king here referred to was James II’s youthful son, who was recognized as king, both by the exiled English Catholics and by Louis XIV of France, and to whom Dicconson’s oldest brother William was tutor. The queen was of course his mother, the widowed Mary of Modena, whose kindly interest in Douai College is shown by more than one entry in the diary. He mentions also a week spent by him in May, 1705, at Cambrai, whither himself and the President of Douai conducted three of the young Howards, then students at the college, to meet their brother the Duke of Norfolk. The illustrious Fenelon was then Archbishop of Cambrai, of whose “extremely obliging and respectful” reception of the duke the diary makes particular mention.

After being employed for some time at Paris in connection with the college funds, Dicconson left Douai to work upon the English mission in 1720, and for some years was chaplain to Mr. Giffard of Chillington in Staffordshire, acting at the same time as vicar-general to Bishop Stonor, Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District. At the time of his own nomination to the Northern Vicariate Dicconson had gone to Rome as envoy-extraordinary of the secular clergy. He was consecrated on 19 March, 1741, at Ghent; passing from there to Douai, he confirmed some of the students besides ordaining others. On reaching his vicariate he fixed his residence at Finch Mill in Lancashire, a place belonging to his family. He had then reached the age of seventy, and in 1750 he had to petition for a coadjutor in the person of Dr. Francis Petrel After an episcopate not marked by any great events he died at Finch Mill and was buried in the family vault beneath the parish church of Standish. In the reports supplied to the Holy See on the several occasions when his name was brought forward for a bishopric, he is described as “a wise man of singular merit, of learning, application to business, and dexterity in managing affairs-though not very successful in the economy of Douai, and with an impediment of tongue, which made preaching difficult.” The fact is also noted that in 1714 “he had accepted the Constitution Unigenitus [against Jansenism], and insisted on its acceptance by the students.” He collected a large number of controversial works of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (now in the Library of Ushaw College), on the fly-leaves of which he wrote valuable biographical and bibliographical comments.

BRADY, Episcopal Succession (Rome, 1877), III; Douai Papers in Ushaw Magazine (December, 1903); Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885), B.V.

G.E. PHILLIPS

Ralph de Diceto

Dean of St. Paul’s, London, and chronicler. The name “Dicetum” cannot be correctly connected with any place in England; it is possible therefore that Ralph was born in France. The date of his birth must be placed between 1120 and 1130; he died 22 Nov., 1202. He was twice a student at Paris. His first preferment was the archdeaconry of Middlesex to which he was nominated in 1152. In 1180 he became dean of St. Paul’s. He was the friend, during fifty years, of the successive bishops of London, including Gilbert Foliot, the leader of the royalist party among the bishops and the adversary of the Archbishop, St. Thomas. This friendship and his admiration for Henry II drew him towards the royalist side in the Becket controversy, but not altogether; he had something of the wide, cosmopolitan, twelfth century outlook, and he showed his sympathy with his archbishop at the Council of Northampton in 1164. He was an active dean and took part in the survey of the lands belonging to the chapter which is known as the Domesday of St. Paul’s. His writings include two substantial historical works: “Abbreviations Chronicorum,” a compilation from many sources going back to 1147, and “Ymagines Historiarum,” a much more important work. It covers the years 1149 to 1202, and in its earlier portion is based on the historical writings of Robert de Monte (or “de Torigny”). It was begunprobably in the closing years of Henry II’s reign. Ralph’s important position in ecclesiastical circles, his friendship with many prominent men, such as William Longchamp and Walter of Coutances, the help he received from them, the documents he incorporates, and his own moderate temper render his work of capital importance in spite of some chronological vagueness. The best edition of Ralph’s historical works is that edited for the “Rolls Series” by Bishop Stubbs in 1876. The prefaces to the two volumes contain an admirable account of the historian, of the society in which he moved, and of the writings themselves.

F. F. URQUHART.

St. Dichu

The son of an Ulster chieftain, was the first convert of St. Patrick in Ireland. Born in the last decade of the fourth century, he succeeded to the petty kingdom of Lecale, which included Saul, in the present County Down. On St. Patrick’s arrival at Tubber Slain (the estuary of the Slaney near Loch Cuan or Strangford Lough), in 432, Dichu, then a pagan, strongly opposed his landing, and even attacked the saint, but was miraculously touched with Divine grace and embraced the Faith of Christ. Thereupon Dichu, after baptism, presented St. Patrick with the Sabhall (Saul), for a church, and thus Saul became the first Irish foundation of the national apostle, being afterwards known as Sabhall-Padhraic. Saul was a particular favorite with St. Patrick, and he frequently sought a resting-place there during his arduous missionary labors. St. Dichu, from the day of his conversion, was a model of sanctity and, from a man of warlike proclivities, became a man of peace. The details of his later career are obscure, but we know that two of his sons, who had been detained as hostages by Laoghaire, King of Ireland, were released at the prayer of St. Patrick. His feast is noted in the “Martyrology of Donegal” as “Diochu of Sabhall,” under date of 29 April. As is well known, it was at Saul that St. Patrick died, and this monastery became in afterdays a famous abbey, under the rule of the Regular Canons of St. Augustine.

COLGAN, Trias Thaumaturga; Acta Sanctorum, III; TODD AND REEVES, Martyrology of Donegal (Dublin, 1864); O’LAVERTY, Down and Connor (Dublin, 1878), I; O’HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints, IV; HEALY, Life and Writings of St. Patrick (Dublin, 1905).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Dicuil

Irish monk and geographer, b. in the second half of the eighth century; date of death unknown. Of his life nothing is known except that he belonged probably to one of the numerous Irish monasteries of the Frankish Kingdom, became acquainted, by personal observation, with the islands near England and Scotland, and wrote between 814 and 816 an astronomical, and in 825 a geographical, work. The astronomical work is a sort of computus in four books, in prose and verse, preserved only in a manuscript which formerly belonged to the monastery of Saint-Amand, and is now at Valenciennes. More famous is the “De mensura Orbis terrae,” a summary of geography, giving concise information about various lands. This work was based upon a “Mensuratio orbis” prepared by order of Theodosius II (435), a manuscript copy of which had found its way to the Carlovingian court. Godescale had already made use of this copy (781–83) in the composition of his celebrated “Evangelistarium.” Dicuil draws also upon Pliny, Solinus, Orosius, Isidore of Seville, and other authors, and adds the results of his own investigations. In the nine sections he treats in turn of Europe, Asia, Africa, Egypt, and Ethiopia, the area of the earth’s surface, the five great rivers, certain islands, the length and breadth of the Tyrrhenian Sea, and the six (highest) mountains. Although mainly a compilation, this work is not without value. Dicuil is our only source for detailed information of the surveys carried out under Theodosius II; his quotations, generally exact, are of service for the textual criticism of the authors mentioned; of great interest, too, are the few reports which he got from the travelers of his time; as, for instance, from the monk Fidelis who (762?) journeyed along the canal then still existing, between the Nile and the Red Sea; and from clerics who had lived in Iceland six months. The manuscript was known to Welser, Isaac Vossius, Salmasius, Hardouin, and Schopflin; it first appeared in print under the title: “Dicuili Liber de mensura orbis terrae ex duobus codd. mss. bibliothecae imperialis nunc primum in lucem editus a Car. Athan. Walckenaer” (Paris, 1807). The latest and best edition is that of G. Parthey (Berlin, 1870).

An excellent commentary is that by LETRONNE in his Recherches geographiques et critiques sur le livre De mensura orbis terrae compose . . . par Dicuil (Paris, 1814).

SCHWEDER, Beitrdge zur Kritik der Chorographie des Augustus (Kiel, 1876), I; DUMMLER, Die handschriftiche Ueberlieferung der lateinischen Dichtunges aus der Zeit der Karolinger in Neues Archiv fur altere deutsche Geschichtskunde (Hanover, 1897), IV, 256–258; ARCHER in Dict. Nat. Biog., TRAUBE, Zur Chorographie des Augustus in Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der K. B. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1891 (Munich, 1892), 406–409.

OTTO HARTIG

Didache

(DOCTRINE OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES)

A short treatise which was accounted by some of the Fathers as next to Holy Scripture. It was rediscovered in 1883 by Bryennios, Greek Orthodox metropolitan of Nicomedia, in the codex from which, in 1875, he had published the full text of the Epistles of St. Clement. The title in the MS. is Didache kyriou dia ton dodeka apostolon ethesin, but before this it gives the heading Didache ton dodeka apostolon. The old Latin translation of cc. i-v, found by Dr. J. Schlecht in 1900, has the longer title, omitting “twelve,” and has a rubric De doctrin’ Apostolorum. For convenience the contents may be divided into three parts: the first is the “Two Ways,” the Way of Life and the Way of Death; the second part is a rituale dealing with baptism, fasting, and Holy Communion; the third speaks of the ministry. Doctrinal teaching is presupposed, and none is imparted.

The Didache is mentioned by Eusebius after the books of Scripture (H. E., III, xxv, 4): “Let there be placed among the spuria the writing of the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd and the Apocalypse of Peter, and besides these the Epistle known as that of Barnabas, and what are called the Teachings of the Apostles, and also . . . the Apocalypse of John, if this be thought fit . . .” St. Athanasius and Rufinus add the “Teaching” to the sapiential and other deutero-canonical books. (Rufinus gives the curious alternative title “Judicium Petri.”) It has a similar place in the lists of Nicephorus, Pseudo-Anastasius, and Pseudo-Athanasius (Synopsis). The Pseudo-Cyprianic “Adversus Aleatores” quotes it by name. Unacknowledged citations are very common, if less certain. The “Two Ways” appears in Barnabas, cc. xviii-xx, sometimes word for word, sometimes added to, dislocated, or abridged, and Barn., iv, 9 is from Didache, xvi, 2–3, or vice versa. Hermas, IrenÊus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen seem to use the work, and so in the West do Optatus and the “Gesta apud Zenophilum.” The Didascalia Apostolorum (q. v.) are founded upon the Didache. The Apostolic church ordinance has used a part, the Apostolic Constitutions have embodied the Didascalia. There are echoes in Justin, Tatian, Theophilus, Cyprian, and Lactantius.

CONTENTS

FIRST PART

The Way of Life is the love of God and of our neighbour. The latter only is spoken of at length. We first find the Golden Rule in the negative form (cf. the “Western” text of Acts, xv, 19 and 29). Then short extracts from the Sermon on the Mount, together with a curious passage on giving and receiving, which is cited with variations by Hermas (Mand., ii, 4–6). The Latin omits ch. i, 3–6 and ch. ii, 1, and these sections have no parallel in Barnabas; they may therefore be a later addition, and Hermas and the present text of the Didache may have used a common source, or Hermas may be the original. The second chapter contains the Commandments against murder, adultery, theft, coveting, and false witness—in this order—and additional recommendations depending on these. In ch. iii we are told how one vice leads to another: anger to murder, concupiscence to adultery, and so forth. This section shows some close likenesses to the Babylonian Talmud. The whole chapter is passed over in Barnabas. A number of precepts are added in ch. iv, which ends: “This is the Way of Life.” The Way of Death is a mere list of vices to be avoided (v). Ch. vi exhorts to the keeping in the Way of this Teaching: “If thou canst bear the whole yoke of the Lord, thou wilt be perfect; but if thou canst not, do what thou canst. But as for food, bear what thou canst; but straitly avoid things offered to idols; for it is a service of dead gods.” Many take this to be a recommendation to abstain from flesh, as some explain Rom., xiv, 2. But the “let him eat herbs” of St. Paul is a hyperbolical expression like I Cor., viii, 13: “I will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother,” and gives no support to the notion of vegetarianism in the Early Church. The Didache is referring to Jewish meats. The Latin version substitutes for ch. vi a similar close, omitting all reference to meats and to idolothyta, and concluding with per d. n. j. C. . . . in sÊcula sÊculorum, amen. This is the end of the translation. We see that the translator lived at a day when idolatry had disappeared, and when the remainder of the Didache was out of date. He had no such reason for omitting ch. i, 3–6, so that this was presumably not in his copy.

SECOND PART

This (vii-x) begins with an instruction on baptism, which is to be conferred “in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” in living water, if it can be had—if not, in cold or even hot water. The baptized and, if possible, the baptizer, and other persons must fast for one or two days previously. If the water is insufficient for immersion, it may be poured thrice on the head. This is said by Bigg to show a late date; but it seems a natural concession for hot and dry countries, when baptism was not as yet celebrated exclusively at Easter and Pentecost and in churches, where a columbethra and a supply of water would not be wanting. Fasts are not to be on Monday and Thursday “with the hypocrites” (i.e. the Jews), but on Wednesday and Friday (viii). Nor must Christians pray with the hypocrites, but they shall say the Our Father thrice a day. The text of the prayer is not quite that of St. Matthew, and it is given with the doxology “for Thine is the power and the glory for ever,” whereas all but a few MSS. of St. Matthew have this interpolation with “the kingdom and the power” etc.

Ch. ix runs thus: “Concerning the Eucharist, thus shall you give thanks: ‘We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the holy Vine of David Thy Child, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be the glory for ever.’ And of the broken Bread: ‘We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the Life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be glory for ever. For as this broken Bread was dispersed over the mountains, and being collected became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom, for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.’ And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but those who have been baptized in the Name of Christ; for of this the Lord said: ‘Give not the holy Thing to the dogs.’” These are clearly prayers after the Consecration and before Communion. Ch. x gives a thanksgiving after Communion, slightly longer, in which mention is made of the “spiritual food and drink and eternal Life through Thy Child.” After a doxology, as before, come the remarkable exclamations: “Let grace come, and this world pass away! Hosanna to the Son of David! If any is holy, let him come. If any be not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.” We are not only reminded of the Hosanna and Sancta sanctis of the liturgies, but also of Apoc., xxii, 17, 20, and I Cor., xvi, 22. In these prayers we find deep reverence, and the effect of the Eucharist for eternal Life, though there is no distinct mention of the Real Presence. The words in thanksgiving for the chalice are echoed by Clement of Alexandria, “Quis div.,” 29: “It is He [Christ] Who has poured out the Wine, the Blood of the Vine of David, upon our wounded souls”; and by Origen, “In i Judic.,” Hom. vi: “Before we are inebriated with the Blood of the True Vine Which ascends from the root of David.” The mention of the chalice before the bread is in accordance with St. Luke, xxii, 17–19, in the “Western” text (which omits verse 20), and is apparently from a Jewish blessing of wine and bread, with which rite the prayers in ch. ix have a close affinity.

THE THIRD PART

The Third Part speaks first of teachers or doctors (didaskaloi) in general. These are to be received if they teach the above doctrine; and if they add the justice and knowledge of the Lord they are to be received as the Lord. Every Apostle is to be received as the Lord, and he may stay one day or two, but if he stay three, he is a false prophet. On leaving he shall take nothing with him but bread. If he ask for money, he is a false prophet. Similarly with the order of prophets: to judge them when they speak in the spirit is the unpardonable sin; but they must be known by their morals. If they seek gain, they are to be rejected. All travellers who come in the name of the Lord are to be received, but only for two or three days; and they must exercise their trade, if they have one, or at least must not be idle. Anyone who will not work is a Christemporos—one who makes a gain out of the name of Christ. Teachers and prophets are worthy of their food. Firstfruits are to be given to the prophets, “for they are your High Priests; but if you have not a prophet, give the firstfruits to the poor.” The breaking of bread and Thanksgiving [Eucharist] is on Sunday, “after you have confessed your transgressions, that your Sacrifice may be pure,” and those who are at discord must agree, for this is the clean oblation prophesied by Malachias, i, 11, 14. “Ordain therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons, worthy of the Lord . . . for they also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers.” Notice that it is for the sacrifice that bishops and deacons are to be ordained. The last chapter (xvi) exhorts to watching and tells the signs of the end of the world.

SOURCES

It is held by very many critics that the “Two Ways” is older than the rest of the Didache, and is in origin a Jewish work, intended for the instruction of proselytes. The use of the Sibylline Oracles and other Jewish sources may be probable, and the agreement of ch. ii with the Talmud may be certain; but on the other hand Funk has shown that (apart from the admittedly Christian ch. i, 3–6, and the occasional citations of the N. T.) the 0. T. is often not quoted directly, but from the Gospels. Bartlet suggests an oral Jewish catechesis as the source. But the use of such material would surprise us in one whose name for the Jews is “the hypocrites,” and in the vehemently anti-Jewish Barnabas still more. The whole base of this theory is destroyed by the fact that the rest of the work, vii-xvi, though wholly Christian in its subject-matter, has an equally remarkable agreement with the Talmud in cc. ix and x. Beyond doubt we must look upon the writer as living at a very early period when Jewish influence was still important in the Church. He warns Christians not to fast with the Jews or pray with them; yet the two fasts and the three times of prayer are modelled on Jewish custom. Similarly the prophets stand in the place of the High Priest.

DATE

There are other signs of early date: the simplicity of the baptismal rite, which is apparently neither preceded by exorcisms nor by formal admission to the catechumenate; the simplicity of the Eucharist, in comparison with the elaborate quasi-Eucharistic prayer in Clem., I Cor., lix-lxi; the permission to prophets to extemporize their Eucharistic thanksgiving; the immediate expectation of the second advent. As we find the Christian Sunday already substituted for the Jewish Sabbath as the day of assembly in Acts, xx, 7 and I Cor., xvi, 2, and called the Lord’s day (Apoc., i, 10), there is no difficulty in supposing that the parallel and consequent shifting of the fasts to Wednesday and Friday may have taken place at an equally early date, at least in some places. But the chief point is the ministry. It is twofold: (1) local and (2) itinerant.—(1) The local ministers are bishops and deacons, as in St. Paul (Phil., i, 1) and St. Clement. Presbyters are not mentioned, and the bishops are clearly presbyter-bishops, as in Acts, xx, and in the Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul. But when St. Ignatius wrote in 107, or at the latest 117, the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons were already considered necessary to the very name of a Church, in Syria, Asia Minor, and Rome. If it is probable that in St. Clement’s time there was as yet no “monarchical” bishop at Corinth, yet such a state of things cannot have lasted long in any important Church. On this ground therefore the Didache must be set either in the first century or else in some backwater of church life. The itinerant ministry is obviously yet more archaic. In the second century prophecy was a charisma only and not a ministry, except among the Montanists.—(2) The itinerant ministers are not mentioned by Clement or Ignatius. The three orders are apostles, prophets, and teachers, as in I Cor., xii, 28 sq.: “God hath set some in the Church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors [teachers]; after that miracles, then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?” The Didache places teachers below apostles and prophets, the two orders which St. Paul makes the foundation of the Church (Eph., ii, 20). The term apostle is applied by St. Paul not only to the Twelve, but also to himself, to Barnabas, to his kinsmen, Andronicus and Junias, who had been converted before him, and to a class of preachers of the first rank. But apostles must have “seen the Lord” and have received a special call. There is no instance in Holy Scripture or in early literature of the existence of an order called apostles later than the Apostolic age. We have no right to assume a second-century order of apostles, who had not seen Christ in the flesh, for the sake of bolstering up a preconceived notion of the date of the Didache. Since in that work the visit of an apostle or of a pretended apostle is contemplated as a not improbable event, we cannot place the book later than about 80. The limit, would seem to be from 65 to 80. Harnack gives 131–160, holding that Barnabas and the Didache independently employ a Christianized form of the Jewish “Two Ways,” while Did., xvi, is citing Barnabas—a somewhat roundabout hypothesis. He places Barnabas in 131, and the Didache later than this. Those who date Barnabas under Vespasian mostly make the Didache the borrower in cc. i-v and xvi. Many, with Funk, place Barnabas under Nerva. The commoner view is that which puts the Didache before 100. Bartlet agrees with Ehrhard that 80–90 is the most probable decade. Sabatier, Minasi, Jacquier, and others have preferred a date even before 70.

As to the place of composition, many suggest Egypt because they think the “Epistle of Barnabas” was written there. The corn upon the mountains does not suit Egypt, though it might be a prayer borrowed from Palestine. There are really no materials even for a conjecture on the subject.

A Latin fragment of the Two Ways was published in 1723 by Pez in Thesaurus Anecdotorum, IV. The first Greek edition is Didache ton dodeka apostolon ek tou Hierosolymitikou CHeirographou noun proton ekdedomene meta prolegomenon kai semeioseon . . . Hypo philotheou Brouenniou, metropolitou Nikomedeias. En Konstantinoupolei (1883). The MS. was reproduced in phototype in the fine edition by Harris, The Teaching of the Apostles, newly edited with facsimile text and a commentary (Baltimore and London, 1887). The Latin version was published by Schlecht, first in a shilling brochure, then in a larger edition with the Greek and notes (Freiburg im Br., 1900–1901). Of the Greek a very large number of editions have appeared, mostly with translations: De Romestin (Oxford, 1884); Spence (London, 1885); Hitchcock and Brown (New York 1884–5); Fitzgerald (New York, 1884); Orris (New York 1884); Schaff (New York, 1884–9); also by Sabatier (Paris, 1885); Jacquier (Lyons, 1881); Minasi (Rome, 1891). It was included in Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra canonem receptum (1884), fasc. iv, and in the editions of the Apostolic Fathers by Lightfoot-Harmer (with Eng. tr., 1891–3-8), Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn (Leipzig, 1900), Funk (T¸bingen, 1901,’ and Vizzini (Rome, 1902). Special notice is called for by the following: Taylor, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, with Illustrations from the Talmud (Cambridge, 1908); Idem, An Essay on the Theology of the Didache (Cambridge, 1889); Idem in Journal of Philol., XVIII, XIX, XXI, and in Journal of Theol. Studies (Oct., 1906); Bartlet in Hastings, Dict. of Bib. (extra vol., 1904); Harnack, Die Lehre der zw-lf Apostel (larger ed., Leipzig, 1884) and Die Apostellehre and die j¸dischen zwei Wege (smaller ed., Leipzig, 1886 and 1896); Idem, Gesch. der altchr. Litt., I, 86 and II (Chronol., I), 428; Funk, Doctrina XII Apostolorum (T¸bingen, 1887); and the introduction to his ed. of the Ap. Fathers, supra; Idem in T¸b. Theol. Quartalschr., LXVI, LXVIII, LXIX LXXVI, LXXIX (1884–86–87–94–97); much of the matter of these articles is republished by Funk in his Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen, (Paderborn, 1899), II. Among other matter also Savi, La Dottrina dei XII Ap., ricerche critiche sull’ origine del testo (Rome, 1893); and in Studi e docum. di storia e diritto (1892), XIII; Hennecke, Die Grundschrift der Didache und ihre Recensionen in Zeitschr. f¸r N.-T. Wiss. (1901), II; Koch, Die Did. bei Cyprian, ibid. (1907), VIII; Chiappelli, Studi di antica letteratura cristiana (Turin 1887); Ladeuze in Rev. d’hist. eccl. (Louvain, 1901), II. On the ministry in the Didache, see RŠVILLE (Prot.) Origines de l’Episcopat (Paris, 1894); Michiels (Cath.), Origine de l’Episc. (Louvain, 1900). On baptism, Bigg in Jour. of Theol. Studies (July, 1904), v. Dr. Bigg (ibid., VI, April, 1905) places the Didache in the fourth century. On the saying (Did., i, 6), “Let thy alms sweat in thy hands, till thou know to whom to give,” see Taylor in Jour. of Philol., XIX (as above); Turner in Jour. of Theol. Studies (July, 1906), VII. On the relation of the Didache to the Didascalia Apostolorum and to the Ap. Constitutions, see also Funk, Die Ap. Const. (Rottenburg, 1891) and his Didasc. et Const. Apost. (Paderborn, 1906). Holzhey, Die Abh”ngigkeit der Syr. Didask. von der Didache (Munich, 1898). This list is but an excerpt from the enormous literature since 1884. Bibliography to 1895 in Chevalier, Topo-bibliographie; summaries in Schlecht, loc. cit., to 1900; in Ehrhard, Altchr. Litt., to 1900; in Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altchr. Litt., to 1902.

JOHN CHAPMAN.

St. Didacus

[Spanish = San Diego.

Lay brother of the Order of Friars Minor, date of birth uncertain; died at Alcalá, Spain, 12 Nov., 1463.

He was born of poor parents who placed him under the direction of a hermit living in the neighborhood of San Nicolas del Puerto, his native town. Feeling himself called to the religious life, he applied for admission to the Franciscan Order at the convent of Arizafa and was received as a lay brother. In 1445 he was chosen guardian of the Franciscan community on the Canary Island of Fortaventura; and though it was an exception to the ordinary rules for a lay brother to be made superior, his great zeal, prudence, and sanctity fully justified his choice by the religious of Castile. He remained superior at Fortaventura until 1449 when he was recalled to Spain, whence he went to Rome to be present at the canonization of St. Bernardine of Siena in 1450. At Rome he fulfilled the humble office of infirmarian in the convent of Ara Coeli; and his biographers record the miraculous cure of many whom he attended, through his pious intercession. He was finally recalled to Spain and was sent by his superiors to Alcalá where he spent the remaining years of his life in penance, solitude, and the delights of contemplation. St. Didacus was canonized by Sixtus V in 1588. His feast is kept in the order on the twelfth of November.

WADDING, Annales Minorum (Rome, 1732), XIII, 281–321; LEO, Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the Three Orders of St. Francis (Taunton, 1887), IV, 53–60.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Didascalia Apostolorum

A treatise which pretends to have been written by the Apostles at the time of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts, xv), but is really a composition of the third century. It was first published in 1854, in Syriac. In 1900 a Latin translation, perhaps of the fourth century, was discovered, more than half of which has perished. The original was in Greek, and this can be to some extent restored by a comparison with the Apostolic Constitutions, the first eight books of which are simply a revised and enlarged edition of the Didascalia. The attempt at restoration made by Lagard was a failure but an excellent guide is now at hand in the new edition (1906) by Funk, in which the Greek of the Apostolic Constitutions is printed side by side with the Latin of the Didascalia, a translation from the Syriac supplying the lacunae of the old Latin version. Everything in the Apostolic Constitutions which is not found in the Didascalia is underlined, so that the relations of the two documents, and to a great extent the original Greek of the Didascalia, can be seen at a glance.

The full title given in the Syriac is “Didascalia, that is, the Catholic doctrine of the twelve Apostles and the holy disciples of our Lord.” The contents are the same as those of the corresponding books of the Apostolic Constitutions. Especially noticeable is the treatment which bishops are ordered to give to penitents. Even great sinners, on repentance, are to be received with kindness. No sins are excepted. The canonical penance is to be of two to seven weeks. This legislation is obviously subsequent to Novatianism; it is not so certainly aimed against Novatianism. The church officials are bishops, deacons, priests, widows (and orphans); deaconesses are also added, in one place rectors, and once subdeacons. These last may have been interpolated. This organization is behind that of Rome under Pope Cornelius in 251; hence Funk in 1891 placed the date of the work in the first half of the third century. But the whole Western system never spread to the East, and the development was uneven. Funk therefore withdrew this opinion in 1901, giving the second half of the century as the true date. The heresies mentioned are those of Simon Magus and Cleobius (this name is given also by Hegesippus), with Gnostics and Ebionites. Against these, Christians must believe in the Trinity, the Scriptures, and the Resurrection. The original Law of Moses is to be observed, but not the Second Law, or Deuterosis, which was given to the Jews on account of the hardness of their hearts. The Old Testament is frequently quoted, and often at great length. The Gospel is cited by name, usually that of St. Matthew, the others less often, and that of St. John least of all, as it was traditionally held to have been written at a much later date than that which the Didascalia claims for itself. Acts and nearly all the Epistles are freely employed, including Hebrews, but the Apocalypse is not cited. None of these could be named. Harnack has gone quite wrong in arguing that the only place in which the Fourth Gospel is quoted formally as the Gospel is an interpolation, with the inference (at which he naturally expresses his surprise) that the author did not know or did not esteem that Gospel. (A quotation of the pericope de adulterâ, John, viii, is important.) Harnack further holds that the gentle treatment of sinners is an interpolation intended against Novatianism, and that the deaconesses as well as the subdeacon are a later addition, He dates the original form in the first half of the third century, and the additions in the last quarter of it; but the reasons given are very weak. Achelis leaves the whole of the century open, but says that the later the work is placed in it, the better he feels he understands it.

The earliest mention of the work is by St. Epiphanius, who believed it to be Apostolic. He found it in use among the Audiani, Syrian heretics. The few extracts he gives do not quite tally with our present text; but then he is notoriously inexact in his quotations. Next we find the whole work incorporated into the Apostolic Constitutions, at the end of the fourth century, and soon afterwards it is quoted in the Pseudo-Chrysostom’s “Opus Imperfectum in Matt.” But the work never had a great vogue, and it was superseded by the Apostolio Constitutions. The place of composition was Syria, though what part cannot be determined. The author was apparently a bishop, and presumably a Catholic. His book is badly put together, without logic, but not without some good sense. It never touches upon dogma but concerns itself entirely with praotice. It has been called the earliest attempt to compile a Corpus juris canonici.

A few specimens of the text in German were published in 1843 by BICKELL in his Gesch. des Kirchenrechts; the whole in Syriac by LAGARDE (under his earlier name of BOTTICHER), Didascalia A postolorum Syriace (Leipzig, 1854). His attempted restoration of the Greek text was published in BUNBEN, Analecta Antenicaena (London, 1854), with the title Didascalia purior, for he gratuitously omitted a good deal as interpolated. Another Syriac ed. from other MSS. by GIBSON, The Didascalia Ap. in Syriac, tr. EADEM, The Didasc. Ap. in English (both at Cambridge Univ. Press, 1903, as Horae Semiticae, I and II); French tr. by NAU, Ancienne litterature syriaque (extrait du Canoniste Contemporain, Feb., 1901, May, 1902). The Latin version, from a palimpsest at Verona, was published by HAULER Didascaliae Apostolorum fragmenta Veronensia latina (Leipzig, 1900). FUNK’S writings on the subject include the monograph Die apostolischen Konstitutionen (Rottenburg, 1891), La date de la Didascalie des Apôtres (Rev. d’hist. eccl., 1891, Oct.), reprinted in German in his Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen (Paderborn 1907), III, 13, articles in the Theol. Quartalschrift (1893, and 1903–4), and the great edition already mentioned, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum edidit F. X. Funk (2 vols. Paderborn, 1906). HARNACK’s views are found in Texte und Untersuchungen, II, i, 2 (1884) and v (1886), IX, ii, 2 (1893), and in Gesch. der atlchr. Lit., I, 515, and II, 2 (i.e. Chronol., II), 488, where a good bibliography will be found; HOLZHEY, Die Abhangigkeit der Syr. Didasc. v. d. Didache (Compterendu du 4me Congres sc. internat. des Cath., 1898, I), Die beiden Rezensionen der Ign. Briefe u. die ap. Didasc.( Theol. Quartalschr., 1898, 380), and Dionys v. Alex. und die Didasc. (Theol.-pract. Monatschr., 1901, 515 he attempts to distinguish three recensions, the first being known to Dionysius, but he has not convinced Funk or Harnack). ACHELIS AND FLEMMING, Die syrische Didascalia ubersetzt und erklart (Texte und Unters., XXV, ii, 1904, an important contribution). See also BABDENHEWER, Gesch. der altkirchl. Lit. II, and EHRHARD, Altchr. Lit. bis 1900, for further bibliography. The so-called Arabic Didascalia is merely a version of the Apostolic Constitutions. Only fragments of it have been published; they will be found in FUNK’S ed. of the Apostolic Constitutions, II (1906), 120, see also p. xxviii, and his earlier monograph (1901), 207; RIEDEL, Die Kirchenrechts Quellen des Patriarchats Alex. (1900). A variety of this version was found lately in the Propaganda library, by BAUMSTARK. He describes it in Oriens Christianus, III, 201 (1903). On this discovery see FUNK in Th. Quartalschr. (1904), 233, reprinted in his Kirchengesch. Abh. (1907), III, xviii.

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Henri Didon

Preacher, writer, and educator, b. 17 March, 1840, at Touvet (Isère), France; d. 13 March, 1900, at Toulouse. At the age of eighteen he left the seminary of Grenoble to enter the Dominican Order at Flavigny. Four years later he went to Rome to complete his studies at the Minerva. Returning to France a lector of sacred theology he taught Scripture for a brief time, and began at Paris in 1868 a brilliant career as a preacher. A sincere desire to communicate his faith to others, coupled with accomplished art, enabled him to make the most of the qualities of an orator with which nature had endowed him. He had a majestic carriage, strong features, a massive forehead, black eyes, a vibrating voice which he perfectly controlled, and an ease in emphasizing his words by superb gestures. Frank, straightforward, and sympathetic, he readily won the hearts of his hearers, whom he dominated by his presence and startled by his boldness. He was essentially a man of his time, an advocate of progress; but withal loyal to the Church whose place in modern civilization he strenuously endeavored to strengthen. He was at his best when preaching on social subjects. He delivered the funeral oration of Archbishop Darboy, of Paris, who had been shot hy the Communists 24 May, 1871. In the following year he preached Lenten and Advent conferences in the principal churches of Paris, many of which he published. In 1879 he was bitterly assailed by the secular press of Paris for the attitude he took in a series of conferences on the burning question of the indissolubility of marriage, which he discontinued at the request of the Archbishop of Paris, but published in book form. A year later he was bitterly attacked by other critics while delivering Lenten conferences on the Church and modern society, and the accusation was made that he was in contradiction with the Syllabus. Although his preaching was orthodox, he was sent by the master general of his order to Corbara in Corsica. There for seven years he labored at a “Life of Christ,” leaving his retreat for an extended visit in Palestine and again for a sojourn at the Universities of Leipsig, Göttingen, and Berlin. In 1887 he returned to France, where, in 1890, he completed his “Life of Christ.” It met with a remarkable sale and was soon translated into several languages: two English translations were made in 1891–2.

In January, 1892 Father Didon reappeared in the French pulpit when he preached at Bordeaux a religious-political sermon in favor of the Republic. He then delivered at the Madeleine in Paris a series of Lenten conferences on Jesus Christ (tr. Belief in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, 1894). Thereafter he gave only occasional sermons and lectures, his time and energies being devoted to the education of youth. At the Dominican colleges in and near Paris, cultivating educational theories but little developed elsewhere in France, he did away with compulsion as much as possible, taught the students that discipline is the way to liberty, fostered in them a spirit of self-reliance together with a loving reverence for authority, and checked the development of a critical spirit. Some of his educational theories may be seen in his work “Les Allemands” (tr. The Germans, 1884), which is a study of the German universities with application to France; others may be found developed at length in his college addresses published in pamphlet form. The deeply religious character of Father Didon is especially manifest in his “Lettres à Mlle Th. V.” (Paris, 1900), which quickly went through thirty editions and appeared in English, in his “Lettres à un ami” (Paris, 1902); and “Lettres a Mère Samuel” (Année Dominicaine, 1907–8). Besides the works mentioned above many of his sermons and addresses have been published in French and some have been done into English.

DE COULANGES, Le Pere Didon, 3d ed. (Paris, 1901); REYNAUD, Le Pere Didon: Sa Vie et son (Euvre (Paris, 1904); BRISSON, L’Envers de la gloire; Enquete de doc. ined. sur Didon (Paris, 1905); CHAPOTIN, Le Pere Didon; ROBlERE, Un Moine Moderne (Paris, 1904), HEINRICH, Le Pere Didon et l’Allemagne in Le Correspondant. Cf. THIEME, Guide Bibliographique de la Litterature Francaise de 1800–1906 (Paris, 1907) for complete list of books, brochures, and magazine articles on Didon, as well as for an incomplete list of his works.

ARTHUR L. MCMAHON

Didot

Name of a family of French printers and publishers.

FRANÇOIS DIDOT

Son of Denis Didot, a merchant, was born in Paris, 1689, and died 1757. In 1713 he opened a bookstore on the Quai des Grands-Augustins, the sign of which was “A la Bible d’or.” The celebrated Abbé de Bernis served for a time there as a clerk, after leaving the seminary. FranFrancoisccedil;ois Didot was a learned man, and held by his colleagues in so great esteem that he was elected to the dignity of Syndic of the Booksellers’ Corporation in 1735. He received his printer’s charter from the king in 1754. Among the. books he published should be mentioned the “Histoire des voyages” (20 vols., quarto), the first seventeen volumes of which are attributed to the Abbé Prévost.

FRANÇOIS-AMBROISE DIDOT

Born 1730, died 1804, succeeded his father FranFrancoisccedil;ois, and was appointed printer to the clergy in 1788. All the lovers of fine books highly appreciate the editions known as “D’Artois” (Recueil de romans français, 64 vols.) and “du Dauphin,” a collection of French classics in 32 vols., edited by order of Louis XVI. He also published a Bible. He invented a new printing-press, improved type-founding, and was the first to print on vellum paper.

PIERRE-FRANÇOIS DIDOT

Born 1732; died 1795, brother of the preceding, founded the paper factory of Essonne and made improvements in type-founding. The most important of his publications are: “L’Imitation de Jésus-Christ” (folio), “Télémaque” (quarto), “Tableau de L’Empire Ottoman” (folio). One of his daughters married Bernardin de Saint-Pierre.

HENRI DIDOT

Born 1765, died 1862, son of Pierre-FranFrancoisccedil;ois, made a name as engraver, founder, and engine-maker. When sixty-six years old, he engraved the microscopic type which was used for the editions of the “Maximes” of La Rochefoucauld and Horace’s works. This type was so small that, to cast it, he had to invent a new mould which he called polyamatype (1819), because it founded one hundred letters at a time. He engraved the assignats, the paper money used during the French Revolution.

SAINT-LÉGER DIDOT

Born 1767; died 1829, second son of Pierre-FranFrancoisccedil;ois, devoted his attention to papermaking in the famous factory of Essonne, and, after ten years of patient experiment, invented a machine to make “endless” paper.

EDOUARD DIDOT

Born 1797; died 1825, son of Saint-Léger, made a good translation of Johnson’s “Lives of the Poets,” which was printed by Jules Didot.

PIERRE DIDOT

Born 1760; died 1853, eldest son of FranFrancoisccedil;ois-Ambroise, obtained a gold medal at the exhibition. of 1798, for his edition of Virgil. By order of the Government, his presses were established in the Louvre, where they remained during the Consulate. The celebrated Louvre editions are Virgil, Racine, Horace, and La Fontaine. The board of examiners of the 1806 exhibition pronounced the Racine edition “ the most perfect typographical production of all ages.” Pierre Didot was also a poet and translated in verse the fourth book of Georgies, the first books of Horace s Odes, and also wrote a number of original poems.

JULES DIDOT

Born 1794; died 1871, son of Pierre, is famous for his invention of round-edged initials, to take the place of the sharp-edged ones. In 1825 he took his printing plant to Brussels and founded the Royal Printing House.

FIRMIN DIDOT

Born 1764; died 1836, second son of FranFrancoisccedil;ois-Ambroise was the inventor of stereotypography, which entirely changed the book trade, and was the first to engrave slips of so-called “English” and round hand-writing. Among the works which issued from his press were “Les ruines de Pompéi,” “Le panthéon égyptien” of Champollion-Figeac, and “Historial du jongleur,” printed in Gothic type, with tail-pieces and vignettes, like the editions of the fifteenth century. In 1827, Firmin Didot gave up business to devote himself to politics and literature. He was a member of the Chamber of Deputies and wrote tragedies (“La Reine de Portugal,” “La Mort d’Annibal”) and essays on literary topics.

AMBROISE-FIRMIN DIDOT

Eldest son of Firmin, born 1790; d. 1876, followed first a diplomatic career and was for a time attache of the French Embassy at Constantinople. He took advantage of his position to visit the East and Greece, being the first to discover the location of Pergamacum. When his father retired in 1827, he, together with his brother Hyacinthe, took the management of the publishing business. They published “Bibliothèque des auteurs Grecs,” “Bibliothèque des auteurs Latins,” and “Bibliothèque des auteurs français,” an immense collection of two hundred and fifty volumes. Their greatest work was a new edition of the “Thesaurus Graecae Linguae,” of Henry Stephens, edited by Boissonade, Dindorf, and Hase (9 vols., 1855–59).

PITON, Famille Firmin-Didot (Paris, 1856); WERDET, Etude biographique sur la famille des Didot (Paris, 1864); BRUNET, Firmin Didot et sa famille (Paris, 1870).

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Adolphe-Napoleon Didron

Also called Didron aîné; archaeologist; together with Viollet-le-Duc and Caumont, one of the principal revivers of Christian art in France; b. 13 March, 1806, at Hautvillers, near Reims, where his father was a collector of taxes, d. at Paris, 13 November, 1867.

After completing his early studies at the preparatory seminaries of Meaux and Reims, he went to Paris in 1826, became there a professor of history, and devoted his leisure hours to following courses of law, medicine, etc. The reading of Victor Hugo’s “Notre Dame de Paris” gave him a taste for the study of the antiquities of the Middle Ages. Having been admitted to the circle of the poet in 1829, he there formed the plan of a tour in Normandy, a province noted above all others for its historical buildings. His reading of the legends of the saints, his knowledge of Scripture, and certain abstract notions of theology directed the young amateur to the study of iconography. In 1835 Guizot named him secretary to the committee entrusted with the publication of the unedited documents concerning the history of France. Didron published, entirely unaided, the first four volumes of the reports of the committee. In 1839 the portion concerning the iconography of the monumental monographs of the cathedral of Chartres was reserved for him. This work did not appear in complete form. In 1838 he opened a course of iconography at the Royal Library. He published (under the title of “Manuel d’Iconographie”) a French version of the famous “Painters’ Book of Mount Athos,” discovered there by him, and wrote the “Histoire de Dieu,” the first part of a more general work. His greatest work is the review known as “Annales archéologiques,” in which are to be found accounts of his travels and numerous studies in iconography. For many years Didron published in the “Univers” letters on archaeology. He also founded a library of archaeological literature, and finally, in 1849, constructed a glass-manufactory, which produced some remarkable pieces of work and continued to exist after his death. He also produced some good examples of work from the goldsmiths’ workshop which he had established in 1858, but which was short-lived.

His principal works are: “Bulletin arehéologique du comité des arts et monuments” (4 vols., Paris, 1840–1847); “Histoire de Dieu, iconographie des personnel divines” (Paris, 1843); “Manuel d’iconographie chrétienne, grecque et latine” (Paris, 1845); “Annales archéologiques” (Paris, 1844–81). See also “Ann. arch.” (1881), XXVIII, 184.

GUILHERMY, Didron in Ann. arch. (1868), XXV, 377–395.

R. MAERE.

Didymus the Blind

Didymus the Blind, of Alexandria, b. about 310 or 313; d. about 395 or 398, at the age of eighty-five. Didymus lost the use of his eyes when four years old, yet he became one of the most learned men of his period. He prayed earnestly in his youth, we are told by Rufinus, not for the sight of his bodily eyes, but for the illumination of the heart. He admitted to St. Anthony that the loss of his sight was a grief to him; the saint replied that he wondered how a wise man could regret the loss of that which he had in common with ants and flies and gnats, and not rather rejoice that he possessed a spiritual sight like that of the saints and Apostles. St. Jerome indeed habitually spoke of him not at “the blind” but as “the Seer.” Didymus studied with ardor, and his vigils were long and frequent, not for reading but for listening, that he might gain by hearing what others obtained by seeing. When the reader fell asleep for weariness, Didymus did not repose, but as it were chewed the cud (says Rufinus) of what he had heard, until he seemed to have inscribed it on the pages of his mind. Thus in a short time he amassed a vast knowledge of grammar, rhetoric, logic, music, arithmetic, and geometry, and a perfect familiarity with Holy Scripture. He was early placed at the head of the famous catechetical school of Alexandria, over which he presided for about half a century. St. Athanasius highly esteemed him. The orator Libanius wrote to an official in Egypt: “You cannot surely be ignorant of Didymus, unless you are ignorant of the great city wherein he has been night and day pouring out his learning for the good of others. He is similarly extolled by his contemporaries and by the historians of the following century, Rufinus was six years his pupil. Palladius visited him four times in ten years (probably 388–398). Jerome came to him for a month in order to have his doubts resolved with regard to difficult passages of Scripture. Later ages have neglected this remarkable man. He was a follower of Origen, and adopted many of his errors. Consequently when St. Jerome quarrelled with Rufinus and made war on Origenism, he ceased to boast of being a disciple of Didymus and was ashamed of the praise he had formerly given to the “Seer.” When Origen was condemned by Justinian and then by the Fifth General Council, Didymus was not mentioned. But he was anathematized together with Evagrius Ponticus in the edict by which the Patriarch Eutychus of Constantinople gave effect to the decree of the council; and he was (perhaps in consequence of this) included in the condemnation of the Origenists by the sixth and seventh councils. But this censure is to be taken as applying to his doctrine and not to his person. It has had the unfortunate effect of causing the loss to us of most of his very numerous writings, which, as the works of a supposed heretic, were not copied in the Middle Ages.

Didymus always remained a layman. the idea that he was married rests on a mistaken identification of him with a Didymus to whom one of the letters of St. Isadore of Pelusium is addressed. He seemed on the contrary to have lived the life of an ascetic, although in the city and not in the desert. A curious story was told by him to Palladius. One day, when dwelling on the thought of Julian as a persecutor, and on this account having taken no food, he fell asleep in his chair and saw white horses running in different directions, while the riders cried out, “Tell Didymus, to-day at the seventh hour Julian died; arise and eat, and inform Athanasius the bishop, that he may also know it.” Didymus noted the hour and the month and the week, and it was even so.

DOCTRINE

Didymus was one of the principal opponents of Arianism. His Trinitarian and Christological doctrine is perfectly;y orthodox; one may even say that he is more explicit than St. Athanasius as to the Unity in Trinity and the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. He has combined the theological vocabulary of St. Athanasius with that of the younger generation, Basil and Gregory Nazianzen. He continually uses the formula treis hypostaseis, mia ousia, which St. Athanasius admitted in his later years, and which has become the catholic watchword. Didymus has been credited with the invention of this formula, and Leipoldt is in favor of the attribution, whereas K. Holl rejects it. Until the fourth century the Greek-speaking Church had no means of expressing the doctrine of the Trinity. the use of hypostasis to express the Latin persona was in itself a clumsy device, for Didymus agrees with St. Jerome (who rejected the expression) that philosophically ousia and hypostasis are synonyms. Didymus, however, carefully safeguarded his doctrine from any wrong interpretation. His work on the Holy Spirit is preserved only in the Latin translation made by St. Jerome. It is free from the reproach of “economy” which attaches to the more famous work of St. Basil, who avoided (as he himself admits) calling the Holy Ghost “God.” A yet more important work is the “De Trinitate,” the three books of which are preserved almost entire; it was composed after 379. A treatise against the Manichæans is also nearly complete. Of the exegetical fragments, those on the Psalms are the most important. A commentary on the Catholic Epistles is known to us through the Latin translation made by a certain Epiphanius for Cassiodorus. Didymus comments on II Peter, and elsewhere frequently quotes that Epistle, although in one place he declares it to be spurious (falsata—the Greek is lost). In his commentaries Didymus shows himself to be much influenced by Origen, both in his care for the text and the grammar, and in his wide allegorizing, but of Origenistic heresies the traces in extant works are slight. He seems to have held the pre-existence of the soul. The doctrine of the “restitution of all things” is attributed to him by St. Jerome; but he speaks very often of eternal punishment, though he seems to teach that the fallen angels and even Satan himself are saved by Christ. He is fond of explaining that God’s punishments are remedial. He deliberately rejects some of Origen’s views and in his Trinitarian and Christological teaching is wholly uninfluenced by his great predecessor. His style is poor and careless. He is gentle in controversy. His earnestness and piety sometimes supply the place of the eloquence and energy which he lacks.

Didymi in omnes Epistolas canonicas enarratio (Cologne, 1531); Mingarellius, veterum testimonia de Didymo Alex. Cæco (Rome, 1764), reprinted in Didymi Alex. libri tres de Trinitate, first edited by J. A. Mingarelli, brother of the preceding (Bologna, 1769); Lucke, Quæstiones et vindiciæ Didymianæ, giving Greek fragments on the Comm. on Cath. Epp. by the side of the Latin (Göttingen, 1829–32); the exegetical fragments are found in Mai, Nova Patrum. Bibl. IV; in the Catenæ of Corderius and Cramer; in Wolf’s A necdota Græca, IV: in J. A. Mingarelli’s ed. of De Trinitate (above); in Junius (Patrick Young) Catena Gr. in Job (London, 1637) and in the Catena of Nicephorus. The only complete collection of Didymus’s works is that of Migne. P.G., XXXIX, 1863, in which the prefatory matter of the two Mingarelii is reprinted. There is a good life in Tillmont, X. The best account, with full catalogue of writings, extant and lost, is by Leipoldt, Didymus der Blinde in Texte und Unters., N. F., XIV, 3, vol. XXVIII, 3, of th e whole series (Leipzig, 1905). The materials for a judgment on the theology of Didymus have been industriously collected in this study (more completely than by Mingarelli), but the decision of the writer is not always quite to be trusted. Holl, in Zeitsch r. für Kirchgeschicte, XXV, 3, (1904), has shown that the work Contra Arium et Sabellium, which goes under the name of Gregory of Nyssa, is probably by Didymus. Funk, in Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen, II, xv, p, 291 (Paderborn, 1899), ascribes to Didymus the fourth and fifth books of Basil, Adv. Eunomium (which are certainly not by Basil), and has been followed by Krüger, Jülicher, and Von Schubert, but Holl and Leipoldt are not convinced. Dräseke, Athanasiana in his Gesammelte Patrist.Untersuchungen (Altoona and Leipzig, 1889), reprinted from Studien und Kritiken, LXII (1889), attributes to Didymus the former of the two books De incarnatione d. n. J. C. contra Apollonarium, the latter being possibly by his scholar Ambrosius; against this view, Stücklen, Athana siana in Texte und Unters., N. F., IV, 4 (1899), and Leipoldt, loc. cit. On the authenticity of the Commentary on the Cath. Epp. see Klostermann, Ueber des Didymus von Alex. in Epp. Canon. enarratio in Texte und Unters., N. F., XIII, 2 (1915).

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Francisco Garcia Diego y Moreno

First bishop of California, b. 17 Sept., 1785, at Lagos in the state of Jalisco, Mexico; d. 30 April, 1846, at Santa Barbara. In 1801 he received the habit of St. Francis at the missionary college of Guadalupe, Zacatecas, made his vows the following year and was ordained priest at Monterey, Nuevo Leon, 13 Nov., 1808. For the next twenty years Father Diego was mainly occupied in preaching missions, and during this period compiled a small work, “Metodo de Misionar,” or “Method for Giving Missions.” From 1816 to 1819 he was master of novices, in 1822 he was made discretos, and in February, 1832, guardian or superior of the missionary college of Guadalupe. At the request of the Mexican Government, which had resolved to expel all Spanish friars from California, the college, whose members were natives, in April, 1832, sent eleven Mexican Franciscans to California, Father Diego going as commissary. They reached Cape San Lucas in September 1832, and Monterey, the head-quarters, in February 1833. The Guadalupan friars took charge of the missions from San Antonio to Sonoma, and on 6 March, Father Diego chose Santa Clara for his field of labor. He remained here until the end of 1835, when he visited Mexico to induce the Government to have a bishop appointed, in order to preserve the Church in California. On 19 Sept., 1836, the Mexican Government decided to petition the pope to create California a diocese and congress at the same time decreed to pay the new bishop an annual salary of $6,000 until the diocese should have a sufficient income. Of the three candidates proposed by the metropolitan chapter on 22 June, 1839, the Mexican Government 6 April, 1840, recommended Father Francisco Garcia Diego.

On 27 April Pope Gregory XVI withdrew California from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Sonora, and at the same time appointed Father Diego first Bishop of Upper and Lower California with the see at San Diego. He was consecrated at the Franciscan church of Guadalupe, Zacatecas, on 4 October, 1840, and on 11 Dec., 1841, landed at San Diego. Owing to the poverty and insignificance of the place, he removed his residence to Santa Barbara on 11 Jan., 1842. When he arrived, there were only seventeen Franciscan Fathers, mostly aged and infirm, in charge of the twenty-one secularized Indian missions and six Spanish towns. The bishop began with great plans and a sincere desire to promote the welfare of the Church in his territory. The Mexican Government had encouraged him by giving him a fixed salary, and entrusting to him the management of the famous “Pious Fund,” but in February, 1842, President Santa Anna confiscated the Fund. The bishop received no aid whatever, so that he was obliged to depend upon the contributions from the few white settlers in the territory, many of whom refused to pay the tithes which he had found it necessary to impose. Nevertheless he opened the first seminary on the Pacific coast at the former mission of Santa Inez, about fifteen miles from the ocean and forty-five miles from Santa Barbara, made one visitation of all the churches in the diocese, and to some places even went a second time. Worn out by hardships and disheartened at the deplorable conditions which he could not remedy, Bishop Diego died, and was buried in the old Mission Santa Barbara.

Archives of the Archbishop (San Francisco), Archives of the Mission of Santa Barbara: SOTOMAYOR, Historia del Colegio de Guadalupe (Zacatecas. 1874); REUSS, Biographical Cyclopoedia (Milwaukee, 1898); BANCROFT, History of California (San Francisco, 1886), V; ENGELHARDT, The Franciscans in California (1897).

ZEPHYRIN ENGELHARDT.

Wilhelm Diekamp

Historian, b. at Geldern, 13 May, 1854; d. at Rome, 25 Dec., 1885. Soon after his birth the parents of Diekamp removed to Münster in Westphalia, where he made his collegiate studies (1867–72). From 1872 to 1875 he studied theology at Würzburg and at Münster. Feeling uncertain, however, as to his ecclesiastical calling, he abandoned his desire of entering the priesthood, and took up the study of philology. In 1877 he graduated as doctor of philosophy with the dissertation: “Widukind, der Sachsenführer nach Geschichte und Sage” (Münster, 1877). Excessive study led to grave pulmonary disease, in spite of which he did not spare himself. For some time he taught in the public schools of Münster, Arnsberg, and Aachen, developing in the meantime his scientific historical training. An excellent evidence of this was his “Vitae S. Ludgeri” (Geschichtsquellen des Bistums Münster, IV, Münster, 1881). In 1881 the Westfalischer Verein fur Geschichte und Altertumskunde confided to him the continuation of the “Westfälisches Urkundenbuch.” Thereupon he returned to Münster and in 1882 he became Privatdozent for history at that academy. Previously, however, he spent a year at Vienna for improvement in diplomatics at the “Institut fur oesterreichische Geschichtsforschung” under the direction of Professor Sickel. At Easter, 1883, he began his teaching at Münster, continuing at the same time his historical investigations, specially on Westphalian documents, the history of the papal chancery, and papal diplomatics. In 1885 he published at Münster the first part of the supplement of the “Westfälisches Urkundenbuch” In the autumn of this year he went to Rome, chiefly to collect in the Vatican archives the material for the large works he had in mind. But typhoid fever carried him off in the midst of his labours. He was buried in the German Campo Santo near St. Peter’s. Diekamp also published between 1878 and 1885 several important studies in different reviews concerning the history of the Middle Ages and diplomatics or official style of the medieval papal documents.

HULSKAMP in Literarischer Handlweiser (1886), 1–10; SCHULTE in Historisches Jahrbuch (1886), 266–277; DAHLMANN in Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, Nachtrage bis /899 (Leipzig, 1903), XLVII, 679 sq.

J.P. KIRSCH

Diemoth

Diemoth, an old German word for the present “Demuth,” the English “humility,” was the name of a pious recluse at the monastery of Wessobrunn in Upper Bavaria, b. about 1060 of a noble Bavarian or Swabian family; d. 30 March, probably in 1130. At an early age she entered the Benedictine nunnery which was connected with the Benedictine monastery of Wessobrunn. After a long period of severe probation in the nunnery she obtained permission to live the life of a recluse and, following the custom of many recluses of those times, had herself enclosed in a cell adjoining the church, where she spent the remainder of her life in prayer and in transcribing valuable books. On account of her exceptionally beautiful handwriting she was styled the beautiful scribe. She copied about 45 volumes the titles of which are given by Becker in his Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui (Bonn 1885), 155–136. The most important are: the Bible, the Moralia and other works of St. Gregory the Great, 7 works of St. Augustine, 4 of St. Jerome, 2 of Origen, and about 15 liturgical works. Diemoth was a great friend of the Blessed Herluka with whom she exchanged numerous letters while the latter was a recluse at the neighboring monastery of Epfach. The letters were long preserved at the monastery of Bernried where Herluka spent the last years of her life, but they unhappily fell a prey to the ravages of the Swedes during the Thirty Years War. A few of Diemoth’s manuscripts are still preserved at the Staatsbibliothek in Munich, whither they were transferred after the secularization of Wessobrunn in 1803. Diemoth was buried in the basilica of Our Lady at Wessobrunn, aside of the bodies of Abbot Thiento and his six companions, who suffered martyrdom at the hands of the Hungarians in 955. In 1709 her remains were transferred to the Abbey Church of St. Peter. Some hagiologists style her “Blessed,” though she has never received public veneration and was never formally beat

HEFNER, Ueber die Nonne Diemud von Wessobrunn und ihr literarisches Wirken, with a facsimile of her handwriting, in Oberbayerisches Archiv (Munich, 1839), I, 355–373; LEUTNER, Historia Monasterii Wessofontani (Augsburg and Freiburg, 1753), 160–175; STEELE, Anchoresses of the West (London and St Louis, 1903), 165 sq.; BRAUNMULLER in Kirchenlex.

MICHAEL OTT

Abraham van Diepenbeeck

An erudite and accomplished painter of the Flemish School, b. at Bois-le-Duc in the Netherlands, 1599; d. at Antwerp, 1675. After having received a classical education he became one of Ruben’s best pupils and assistants. He handled mythological and historical subjects, as well as portraits, with great skill and vigor and was a good, sound colourist. He went to Antwerp about 1629 and made his first successes in painting on glass, among his productions being windows in the cathedral there representing the “Acts of Mercy.” Similar work at the church of the Dominicans shows scenes from the “Life of Saint Paul.” Van Diepenbeeek was admitted to the guild of painters in 1638, and became director of the academy in 1641. It was after a visit to Italy that the artist began to paint chiefly in oil and to illustrate. Among his illustrations are fifty-eight designs engraved by Cornelis Bloemaert for the Abbe de Marolles’ “Tableaux du Temple des Muses.” During the reign of Charles I, van Diepenbeeek was in England where, besides painting portraits of the Duke of Newcastle and his family, the artist illustrated that nobleman’s book on “Horsemanship.”

At the church of the Carmelites in Antwerp is one of the painter’s masterworks, “The Virgin in the Clouds with Saint Ely.” In the cathedral is his “St. Norbert,” while the saint appears with the first Abbot of St. Michel in a church at Deurne. In the galleries are: Louvre, “The Flight of Clcelia” and “Portraits of a Man and a Woman”; Vienna, a “Descent from the Cross” and “Allegory of Mortality”; Munich, “Abraham and the Angels” and “Feeding the Poor”; Dresden, “Neptune and Amphitrite”; Berlin, “The Marriage of St. Catherine” and the “Flight of Clcelia”; Brussels, “St. Francis Adoring the Holy Sacrament”; Antwerp, “The Eestasy of St. Bonaventure”; Brunswick, “The Entombment” and “Children’s Bacchanal”; Frankfort, “Portraits of a Young Man and a Young Woman”; Bordeaux, “The Rape of Ganymede.”

BRYAN, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers (London and New York, 1903–5); CHAMPLIN AND PERKINS, Cyclopedia of Painters and Paintings (New York, 1886).

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Melchior, Baron (Freiherr) von Diepenbrock

Cardinal and Prince-Bishop of Breslau, b. 6 January, 1798, at Boeholt in Westphalia; d. at the castle of Johannisberg in Upper Silesia, 20 January, 1853. He attended the military academy at Bonn and took part in the campaign against France in 1815 as an officer of the militia. Upon his return he was much attracted by the personality of Johann Michael Sailer, a friend of the family, at that time professor at the University of Landshut in Bavaria, and studied public finance at that institution. When Sailer was made Bishop of Ratisbon, Diepenbrock followed him thither, took up the study of theology, and was ordained priest 27 December, 1823. In 1835 he was made dean of the cathedral and vicar-general by the successor of Bishop Sailer. His knowledge of modern languages and his administrative ability, together with his profound understanding of the interior life and his ascetical character, paved the way for his elevation to the episcopal See of Breslau, to which he was elected 15 January, 1845. He at first declined the honor, but finally accepted out of filial obedience to the mandate of Pope Gregory XVI.

From the beginning of his reign he was called to face difficult problems and momentous political events. Sectarian propagandism was especially aggressive in his diocese and was furthered by state officials as well as by the traditional enemies of the Church. The famine in Upper Silesia appealed to his sympathetic and generous nature. The Revolution of 1848 showed him one of the firmest and most loyal supporters of government, law, and order. The pastoral letter which he issued on this occasion was, by order of the king, read in all the Protestant churches of the realm. He devoted his best energies to the training of the clergy, opened a preparatory seminary, and improved the conditions of the higher seminary. He was a watchful guardian of ecclesiastical discipline and, when necessary, employed severe measures to enforce it. He reintroduced, with great success, retreats for the priests and missions for the people.

In 1849 he was appointed Apostolic delegate for the Prussian army and relieved, to a great extent, the sore needs of the Catholic soldiers. He was created cardinal in the consistory of 20 September, 1850, and received the purple 4 November. This event gave occasion to one of the most magnificent public demonstrations ever witnessed in Germany. It was soon followed by another demonstration, equally striking, but sorrowful in character, on the occasion of the cardinal’s death from a disease which had long afflicted him. His will bequeathed his estate to his diocese. Cardinal Diepenbrock’s episcopate was fruitful in blessings for Upper Silesia, he was a champion of Catholicity for the whole of Germany and an ornament to the entire Church. In personal appearance he was of dignified presence, but pleasant and affable to all. The cardinal was a noted preacher and poet, and his writings bear evidence to his talents. His principal publications are: “Spiritual Bouquet, Gathered in Spanish and German Gardens of Poesy” (Sulzbach, 1826); “Life and Writings of Heinrich Suso” (Ratisbon, 1829); “Sermons” (Ratisbon, 1841); “Pastoral Letters” (Munster, 1853); “Personal Letters” (Frankfort, 1860).

CHOWANETZ, Life of Cardinal von Diepenbrock (Osnabruck, 1853); FORSTER, Life of Cardinal von Diepenbrock (Ratisbon, 1859); Cardinal von Diepenbrock (Bonn, 1878); KARKER in Kirchenlex., s.v.

B. LUEBBERMANN.

Franz Xaver Dieringer

Catholic theologian, b. 22 August, 1811, at Rangeningen (Hohenzollern-Hechingen); d. 8 September, 1876, at Veringendorf. He studied theology at Tubingen, was ordained at Freiburg, 19 Sept., 1835, and appointed instructor at the archiepiscopal seminary there. In the autumn of 1840 he became professor of dogma at the ecclesiastical seminary of Speier and at Easter, 1841, was also made professor of philosophy in the lyceum of the same city. In the spring of 1843 he was appointed professor in ordinary of dogma and homiletics at the University of Bonn, and provisional inspector of the preparatory seminary. When at his instance a homiletic-catechetical seminary was established in 1844, he took charge of the homiletic section. The prestige of the faculty of Bonn had suffered sadly because of the inroads of Hermesianism, and this learned theologian, who was eminently qualified for the work of academic teaching, set about to restore its fallen glory. His brilliant and zealous activity, especially during the first two decades of his office, placed him in the first rank among the shining lights of the university. Besides performing the duties of his professorship, he published the “Katholische Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaft und Kunst,” a periodical devoted to science and church interests, which he had founded in 1844 in opposition to the periodical of the Hermesians, and conducted in a truly Catholic spirit.From 1847 to 1849 it appeared as the “Katholische Vierteljahresschrift.” Dieringer took a prominent part in the founding of the Society of St. Charles Borromeo in 1845, of which he was at first secretary and then president from 1846–1871. In 1853, though retaining his professorship and residing at Bonn, he was made canon of Cologne and ecclesiastical councillor. In 1848 he represented the district of Neuss in the parliament at Frankfort.

His name was among those proposed in 1856 for the vacant See of Paderborn and in 1864 for that of Trier, but it was removed by the Prussian Government. Though his earlier teaching, especially in his “Laienkatechismus,” had been in accordance with the doctrine of papal infallibility, he yielded, at the time of the Vatican Council, to personal motives and to the influence of his colleagues at Bonn and joined the opposition. He had no thought, however, of leaving the Church, and, after negotiations of some length, he yielded to the demand of Archbishop Melchers and made his submission. In order to escape from the strained relations which existed among the divided faculty, Dieringer resigned his offices and dignities during the spring of 1871 and took charge of the parish of Veringendorf in Hohenzollern. In 1874 he was among those recommended for the archiepiscopal See of Freiburg, but he could not accede to the demands of the Baden Govermnent. After 1874 he was constantly in failing health.

Dieringer’s principal publications are: “System der göttlichen Thaten des Christenthums, oder, Selbst-begründung des Christenthums, voilzogen durch seine göttlichen Thaten” (Mainz, 1841, 2nd ea., 1857), a work which clearly shows the influence of Staudenmaier, especially in its first edition; and the “Lehrbuch der katholischen Dogmatik” (Mainz, 1847; 5th ed., 1865), a book of great merit and formerly much used. An excellent work on theology in popular form is his “Laienkatechismus über Religion, Offenbarung and Kirche” (Mainz, 1865; 2nd ed. 1868). Another book also in popular style, “Der heil. Karl Borromäus und die Kirchenverbesserung seiner Zeit” (Cologne, 1846), appeared as the first publication of the Society of St. Charles Borromeo and had a wide circulation. Besides these publications there remain to be mentioned the two homiletic works: “Kanzelvorträge an gebildete Katholiken auf alle Sonn- und Festtage des Kirchenjahres” (Mainz, 1844) and “Das Epistelbuch der katholischen Kirche, theologisch erklärt” (Mainz, 1863); the polemical writings: “Offenes Sendschreiben über die kirchlichen Zustände der Gegenwart an Dr. J. B. von Hirscher” (Mainz, 1849, against Hirseher’s publication under the same title); “Dogmatische Erorterungen mit einem Güntherianer” (Mainz, 1852);, “Die Theologie der Vor- und Jetztzeit, ein Beitrag zur Verständigung” (Bonn, 1868; 2nd ed., 1869; against Kleutgen’s “Theologie der Vorzeit”), which appeared first in the “Theologisches Literaturblatt” of Bonn 1868); and: “Expositio doctrinae Tertulliani de republica et de officiis ac iuribus civium christianorum” (University Program; Bonn, 1850).

KAULEN in Kirchenlex., s. v.; REUSCH in Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, s. v.; SCHILL in Freiburger Kathol. Kirchenblatt (1889), Nr. 23, p. 177 sqq.; FRANZ KAUFMANN, Leopold Kaufmann (Cologne, 1903), 154 sqq., 158–61, 170–77; Die Grundung und Thatigkeit des Vereins vom heil. Karl Borromäus, Jubilee number (Cologne, 1895), 53–55, with Portrait.

FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT

Dies Iræ

Dies Iræ Hugh Thomas Henry

This name by which the sequence in requiem Masses is commonly known. They are the opening words of the first verse: Dies iræ, dies illa. The rubrics af the Roman Missal prescribe the recitation of the sequence by the celebrant on the following occasions: (1) in the Mass of All Souls’ Day (In commemoratione Omnium Fidelium Defunctorum); (2) in funeral Masses (In die obitus seu depositionis defuncti);and (3) whensoever in requiem Masses, only one oratio, or collect, is to be said, namely in the anniversary Mass, and when Mass is solemnly celebrated on the third, the seventh, or the thirtieth (month’s mind) day after death or burial. Its recitation in other requiem Masses (In Missis quotidianis defunctorum) is optional with the celebrant. It should be noted here that the decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites (12 August, 1854) permitting the choir to omit such stanzas as do not contain a prayer is not included in the new edition of the “Decreta Authentica S. R. C” (Rome, 1898–1900). From this fact may be inferred that the more ancient rule is now in force and that the whole sequence must either be sung by the choir or be “recited” in a high and clear voice with organ accompaniment (cf. American Ecclesiastical Review, August, 1907, p. 201).

As found in the Roman Missal, the Dies Iræ is a Latin poem of fifty-seven lines in accentual (non-quantitative), rhymed, trochaic metre. It comprises nineteen stanza, of which the first seventeen follow the type of the first stanza:

1. Dies iræ, dies illa,

Solvet sæclum in favilla:

Teste David cum Sibyllâ.

The remaining stanzas discard the scheme of triple rhymes in favour of rhymed couplets, while the last two lines use assonance instead of rhyme and are, moreover, catalectic:

18. Lacrimosa dies illa,

Quâ resurget ex favillft,

Judicandus homo reus.

19. Huic ergo parce Deus:

Pie Jesu Domine,

Dona eis requiem. Amen.

Thus the last two stanzas are printed in the typical 1900) edition of the Missal, and in the Ratisbon edition of the plain-chant setting. The Vatican edition (1907) of the plain-chant melody however, apparently takes account of the fact that the last six lines did not, in all probability, originally belong to the sequence, and divides them into three couplets. This Missal text of the sequence is found, with light verbal variations, in a thirteenth-century manuscript in the Biblioteca. Nazionale at Naples (cf. Haberl, Magister Choralis, Ratisbon, 1900, pp. 237–238). Father Eusebius Clop, O.F.M., in the “Revue du chant Grégorien” (November-December, 1907, p. 49) argues a date between 1253–1255 for the MS.—a. Franciscan Missal whose calendar does not contain the name of St. Clare, who was canonized in 1255, and whose name would have been inserted if the MS. were later date. The same writer would assign (pp. 48, 49) a still earlier date (1250) to a copy of the Dies Iræ inserted at the end of a so-called “Breviary of St. Clare” dating about 1228. Into his arguments it is not necessary to enter here; but it is important to notice that these dates are much anterior to the dates of the MSS. which, until recently, hymnologists had cognizance of when they attempted to fix the probable authorship of the sequence. Thus Mone found none anterior to the fifteenth century; Chevalier mentions only a Magdeburg Missal of 1480 and a MS. Franciscan Misssal of 1477; the first edition of Julian’s “Dictionary of Hymnology” (1892) declared the “oldest form known to the present time” to be found in a Dominican Missal “written at the end of the fourteenth century and apparently for use at Pisa”; Warren, in his “Dies Irae” (London, 1902, p. 5), knows no earlier MS. The second edition of Julian (1907) mentions the Naples MS. in its supplement (p. 1629), but not the “Breviary of St. Clare.” Father Clop describes also a third contemporary MS. (p. 49), Italian, like the others: “Toutes trois enfin appartenant également à la liturgie des Frères Mineurs.” All this renders very probable the conjecture generally entertained by hym nologists, that the Dies Iræ was composed by a Franciscan in the thirteenth century.

Its authorship has been most generally ascribed to Thomas of Celano, the friend, fellow-friar, and biographer of St. Francis. Reasons for this particularity of ascription are given by Keyser (Beiträge zur Geschichte und Erklärung der alten Kirchenhymnen, Paderborn und Münster, 1886, II, 194–196 and 230–235); also by Duffield (Latin Hymn Writers and Their Hymns, New York, 1889, 245–247), an ardent champion of the ascription to Thomas; also in “The Dolphin” (Nov., 1904, 514–516) which corrects a fundamental error in one of Duffield’s main arguments. Ten other names have been suggested by various writers as the probable author of the Dies Iræ: (1) St. Gregory the Great (d. 604); (2) St. Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153); (3) St. Bonaventure (d. 1274); (4) Cardinal Matthew d’Acquasparta (d. 1302); (5) Innocent III (d. 1216) (6) Thurstan, Archbishop of York (d. 1140); (7) Cardinal Latino Orsini, or Frangipani, a Dominican (d. 1296); (8) Humbert, a general of the Dominicans (d. 1277); (9) Agostino Biella, an Augustinian (d. 1491); (10) Felix Haemmerlein, a priest of Zurich (d. 1457). The ascription to Haemmerlein was due to the discovery, after his death, of a variant text of the sequence among his papers. Its eighteenth and nineteenth stanzas are:

18. Latcrimosa dies illa,

Cum resurget ex favillâ

Tamquam ignis ex scintillâ,

19. Judicandus homo reus:

Huic ergo parce, Deus;

Esto semper adjutor meus.

To these are added five stanzas of the same form. This Haemmerlein text is given by Keyser (op. cit., 211), Warren (op. cit., 11), and by others. Still another text, known as tho “Mantuan Marble” text (first printed in 1594), prefaces the Dies Iræ with four similar stanzas, and replaces stanzas 17–19 with the single stanza:

Ut consors beatitatis

Vivam cum justificatis

In ævum æternitatis.

Daniel gives both texts in his Thesaurus Hymnologicus (II, 103–106), except the two concluding stanzas of the Haemmerlein text. Coles (Dies Irae in Thirteen Original Versions, New York, 1868) gives (xv-xxi) both texts together with versified English translation. All of these additional stanzas rather detract from the vigorous beauty of the original hymn, whose oldest known form is, with slight verbal changes, that which is found in the Roman Missal. It appears most likely that this text originally ended with the seventeenth stanza, the first four of the concluding six lines having been found among a series of verses on the responsory “Libera me, Domine” in a MS. of the end of the twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth century (cf. Mone, Lateinische Hymnen des Mittelalters, Freiburg im Br., 1863, I, 406). It is quite probable that the sequence was first intended for private devotion and that subsequently the six lines were added to it in order to adapt it to liturgical use. The composer found his Biblical text in Soph. (i. 15, 16): “Dies iræ dies illa. . . . dies tubæ et clangoris”; and it may be that he obtained a suggestion for his wonderful rhythm (cf. Trench, Sacred Latin Poetry, 3rd ed., London, 1874, p, 302, foot-note) from a tenth-century judgment hymn (given in two forms by Dreves, Analecta Hymnica, Leipzig, 1896, XXIII, pp. 53, 54) containing this rhythmized text of Sophonias:

Dies iræ, dies illa,

Dies nebulæ et turbinis,

Dies tubæ et clangoris,

Dies nebulosa, valde,

Quando tenebrarum pondus

Cadet super peccatores.

The sequence has been translated many times in various tongues, the largest recorded number (234) being English renderings. Among the names of those who have given complete or fragmentary translations are those of Crashaw (1646); Dryden (1696); Scott (1805); Macaulay (1819); Father Caswall (1849). Amongst American translators we find Dr. Abraham Coles, a physician of Newark, credited with eighteen versions; W. W. Nevin, with nine; and Rev. Dr. Samuel W. Duffield, with six. Space will not permit here an analysis of the Dies Iræ or any quotation of the wealth of eulogy passed upon it by hymnologists of every shade of religious conviction, save fragment from the appreciations of Daniel: “Sacræ poeseos summum decus et Ecclesiæ Latinæ keimelion est pretiosissimum” (It is the chief glory of sacred poety and the most precious treasure of the Latin Church); of Orby Shipley, in the “Dublin Review” of Jan., 1883, who, after enumerating some hymns “which are only not inspired, or which, more truly, are in their degree inspired,” says: “But beyond them all, and before them all, and above them all may, perhaps be placed Dies irae, by Thomas of Celano”; of Coles: “Among gems it is the diamond. It is solitary in its excellence “; of Dr. Schaff: “This marvellous hymn is the acknowledged masterpiece of Latin poetry and the most sublime of all uninspired hymns”; of Dr. Neale: “ . . . the Dies iræ in its unapproached glory.”

JULIAN, Dictionary of Hymnology (Revised ed., London, 1907), 295–301, 1551, 1629, gives very serviceable references, but strangely omits WARREN, Dies Iræ (London. 1902), who devotes 170 pages to his theme, prefacing it with references under the heading of Literature of the Dies Iræ. To their lists should be added: SHIPLEY, Annus Sanctus (London, 1884); ANON., The Seven Great Hymns of the Mediæval Church (New York, 1868); HENRY in The Amer. Ecclesiastical Review (April, 1890), 247–261; IDEM in The Dolphin (November, 1904, to May 1905), an extensive series of articles (144 pages) on the history, literary uses, and translations of the Dies iræ: CLOP in Revue du Chant Grégorien (Nov.-Dec., 1907), 48–53, who discusses the authorship and the plain-song melody of the sequence; JOHNER, A New School of Gregorian Chant (New York, 1906), 116.

H.T. HENRY

Johann Dietenberger

Theologian, b. about 1475 at Frankfort-on-the-Main, d. 4 Sept., 1537, at Mainz. He was educated in his native city, joined the Dominican Order, and soon distinguished himself by his attainments, both religious and intellectual. On 3 June, 1511, he registered at Cologne as a theological student; three years later, 23 September, 1514, he was admitted to the licentiate, and the next year, after some time spent at Heidelberg and Mainz, received the doctor’s degree. Towards the end of 1517 Dietenberger was appointed Regens studiorum and interpreter of St. Thomas at Trier, where he opened his lectures 27 January, 1518. In the meantime he had been elected (1516) prior of his convent at Frankfort, and he retained this office until 1526, when he became prior at Coblenz. In 1530 Dietenberger attended the Diet of Augshurg and was chosen a member of the committee of twenty Catholic theologians selected at the meeting of 27 June and presided over by Eck, to draw up a refutation of the Protestant Confession. About the same time he received the appointment of general inquisitor for the Dioceses of Mainz and Cologne. His last years, from 1532, were devoted to teaching theology and exegesis in the Academy of Mainz.

Foremost among Dietenberger’s works stands his catechism: “Evangelischer Bericht und Christliche Unterweisung der furnehmlichsten Stuck des waren heyligen Christlichen Glaubens,” published first at Mainz in 1537 and often re-edited, lastly by Moufang (Die Mainzer Katechismen). Next should be mentioned Dietenberger’s German Bible: “Biblia beider Allt und Newen Testamenten, new verdeutscht “, published at Mainz in 1534. This work, repeatedly corrected, especially by Caspar Ulenberg (Cologne, 1630) and the Jesuit theologians of Mainz (1661), was destined to become for the German people “Die Katholische Bibel,” a title bespeaking its excellence. Dietenberger has been frequently charged with having purloined Luther’s version. True, he used freely the New Testament of Emser (1527), of whom Luther was wont to say that “he had ploughed with his heifers”; he used likewise other translations compiled in pre-Reformation times, and so did Luther. These facts may account for many similarities; moreover, he was well acquainted with the versions of Luther and of Leo of Juda, and confessedly profited by them to improve his own. Besides these two important works, Dietenberger composed fifteen polemical tracts, treating various subjects then much mooted: Mass, confession, vows, faith, etc.

WEDEWER, Johannes Dietenberger, sein Leben und Wirken (Freiburg im Br., 1888); WEDEWER in Kirchenlex., s.v.; PANZER, Versuch einer kurzen Gesch. der romischkathol. deutschen Bibelubersetzung (Nuremberg; 1781); FRITSCHE, Deutsche Bibelubersetzungen in HERZOG’S Real-Encyc. (2d ed.), III, 543.

CHARLES L. SOUVAY

Diether of Isenburg

Archbishop and Elector of Mainz, b. about 1412; d. 7 May, 1482, at Aschaffenburg. He studied at the University of Erfurt, of which he became Rector in 1434. At the age of sixteen he was already canon at the cathedral of Mainz and, somewhat later, held prebends in the cathedrals of Cologne and Trier. In 1442 he became provost in the collegiate churches of St. Victor and St. John in Mainz, and in 1453 custos of the cathedral chapter in the same city. In 1456, Diether aspired to the vacant See of Trier, probably attempting to gain votes through simony; but the majority of the voters decided in favor of John of Baden. But after the death of Dietrich of Erbach, the Archbishop and Elector of Mainz (d. 6 May, 1459), Diether’s ambitious aspirations were realized. Probably through simony he was elected to this see on 18 June, 1459, and entered upon his office without awaiting the approval either of pope or emperor. Pope Pius II was then holding a congress at Mantua with the object of influencing the princes of Europe to undertake a crusade against the Turks, and was greatly disappointed at the small number of princes that appeared at the congress. Upon hearing that Diether did not intend to come to Mantua, but had sent envoys to obtain the papal confirmation, he sent word to him that, if he desired the Bull of confirmation and the pallium, he would have to come to Mantua in person. By pleading sickness and lack of funds, Diether finally prevailed upon Pius II to send the Bull of confirmation and the pallium, but only after promising under oath to appear personally before the papal court within a year and to pay the annates, which amounted to 20,550 Rhenish florins. When Diether kept neither of these promises, the Curia punished him with minor excommunication. Angered at this act, he convened a diet at Nuremberg in February, 1461, at which he made a formal appeal to a future general council, despite the fact that Pius II in his Bull “Exsecrabilis” (18 Jan., 1460) had condemned such appeals as heretical. When all the efforts of the pope to bring about an amicable settlement were frustrated by the rebellious archbishop, the pope excommunicated and deposed Diether in a Bull dated 21 August, 1461, and appointed Adolf of Nassau in his place. Diether tried to retain his see by arms but was compelled to yield to the superior forces of Adolph of Nassau in October, 1463. After submitting to the new archbishop and apologizing to the papal plenipotentiary, Pietro Ferrici, he was absolved from the sentence of excommunication. Upon the death of Adolf of Nassau, on 6 Sept., 1475, Diether was again elected archbishop of Mainz and received both papal and imperial approbation. His past misfortune had made him a better man. He enforced strict ecclesiastical discipline among the clergy, watched carefully over the integrity of faith, and worked strenuously for the advancement of commerce and education. At the northern end of Mainz he erected the Martinsburg as an archiepiscopal residence, and in 1477 founded the University of Mainz, which continued to exist until 1798.

MENZEL, Diether von Isenburg (Erlangen, 1867); Annalen des Vereins fur nassauische Alterthumskunde (Wiesbaden), X and XII; PAST0R, Geschichte der Papste (2 ed., Freiburg 1894), II, 122 sqq., tr. ANTROBUS (London, 1894), III, 164 sqq.; GUNDLACH, Hessen und die Mainzer Stiftsfehde, 1461–63 (Marburger Dissertation, 1898).

MICHAEL OTT

Dietrich von Nieheim

(NIEM).

Born in the Diocese of Paderborn, between 1338 and 1340; d. at Maastricht, 22 March, 1418, a medieval German historian, best known for his contributions to the history of the Western Schism. He took his surname from the little town of Nieheim (in the Prussian district of Minden). Nothing is known about his family, and but little about his life previous to his entry into the service of the papal Curia. He spent some time in Italy in the study of law, but never obtained the degree of Doctor. Under Urban V (1362–70) he came to Avignon, and obtained in the papal chancery the office of notary (notarius s. palati), to keep which he had to take orders, if he had not already taken them. When Gregory XI returned to Rome (1377) Dietrich accompanied him. Urban VI conferred on him the lucrative and important office of abbreviator et scriptor in the papal chancery (see ABBREVIATORS); this post he retained under succeeding popes. Boniface IX made him Bishop of Verden (July, 1395), but he never obtained possession of this German bishopric; probably, as Eubel suggests (Hierarchia catholica medii ævi, I, 553), because Dietrich did not expedite with due promptness the documents of his nomination. In August, 1399, another Bishop of Verden was nominated, Konrad von Soltau; Dietrich remained as before a papal abbreviator. In his writings Dietrich is silent about this Verden incident; in a manuscript of the archives of St. Peter at Rome Dr. Göller has discovered twenty-six letters of the years 1398–99 which refer to Dietrich; when published they will probably cast more light on this period of his life (cf. Römische Quartalschrift, 1905, 82–83). About Easter, 1401, Dietrich was at Erfurt in Germany, where he matriculated at the university; in 1403 we find him again active at Rome as abbreviator. Towards the end of the fourteenth century Johann Peters of Dordrecht had founded at Rome a hospital for German pilgrims, known as Santa Maria dell’ Anima, still in existence and united with the German national church at Rome. Dietrich was an energetic promoter of the new foundation, to such an extent that after Peters he deserves to be considered its chief founder.

Meanwhile the Western Schism, began in 1378, was still dividing the Catholic world. As a member of the papal Curia, Dietrich was thoroughly informed concerning the origin and development of this unhappy division, and was very active in an effort to close the schism. Dissatisfied with the proceedings of the two popes, Gregory XII (1406–15) at Rome, and Benedict XIII (1394–1417) at Avignon, he adhered to the Council of Pisa convoked (1408) by the cardinals. He took no part in the council itself, being then in Germany, but he worked for the party of the council, recognized as legitimate the Pisan pope, Alexander V (1409–160, also his successor, John XXIII (1410–15), and entered their service. During these years his pen was ever active in the interest of ecclesiastical unity. He is certainly the author of the work known as “Nemus Unionis,” in which he describes the various ways (viæ) for putting an end to the schism, and gives important letters and acts (the work was finished 25 July, 1408; ed. Schard, Basle, 1566). He also wrote “Die scismate libri tres,” his most important work, finished in May, 1410 (ed. Erler, Leipzig, 1890), in which he delineates the origin and the history of the schism up to the coronation of John XXIII; the abundance of its materials makes this work one of the most important authorities for the last stages of the schism. His judgments, however, concerning persons and facts must be taken with caution, Dietrich being strongly partisan. To John XXIII himself he addressed (perhaps in 1410) a letter about the proper administration of his office (“Epistola ad dominum Johannem XXIII transmissa de bono Romani pontificis regimine,” ed. Rattinger, in “Historisches Jahrbuch,” 1884, 163–78). This was preceded by a letter of admonition to the cardinals who were to elect John XXIII (“Informatio facta cardinalibus in conclavi ante electionem Papæ Johannis XXIII moderni,” written in 1410; ed. Erler, “Dietrich von Nieheim,” Documents, XXX-XLI). Of other works ascribed to him mention shall be made later.

Towards the end of 1414 was opened the Council of Constance, destined, if not to remedy all the evils of the time, at least to put an end to the schism. From March, 1415, Dietrich was present at Constance and exerted his best efforts for the restoration of ecclesiastical unity. He was dissatisfied with the attitude of John XXIII, and when the latter fled from Constance (20 March, 1415), Dietrich renounced him. Later, in continuation of his aforesaid work on the schism, Dietrich wrote a history of John XXIII to June, 1416 (“Historia de Vitâ Johannis XXIII,” first printed at Frankfort, 1620). This work is at the same time a history of the Council of Constance to the middle of 1416; it is to be noted, however, that the author’s judgment is seriously affected by his passionate opposition to John XXIII. Another violent lampoon against this pope, the “Invectiva in diffugientem e Constantiensi concilio Johannem XXIII” (ed. von der Hardt, “Const. Conc.,” III, XIV, 296–330) is attributed to Dietrich; it is not certain, however, that he is the author of this fierce pamphlet; Finke rejects quite positively the authorship of Dietrich (Römische Quartalschrift für christl. Altertumskunde und für Kirchengesch., 1887, 48 sqq.). During the council Dietrich kept a diary, as he himself mentions in his “Vita Johannis XXIII”; some fragments of it, according to Finke, are still recognizable (op. cit., 1887, 46–58).

Any final judgment on the attitude and influence of Dietrich at Constance must depend on the authorship of three publications often attributed to him, and dealing particularly with the schism and the efforts at reunion. These are: (1) “De necessitate reformationis Ecclesiæ in capite et in membris”; also entitled “Avisamenta pulcherrima de unione et reformatione membrorum et capitis fienda” (written 1414; ed. von der Hardt, in “Constant. Concil.,” I, VII, 277–309; the latter part of it ed. by Finke in “Forschungen zur Geschichte der Konstanzer Konzils,” Paderborn, 1890, 267–268); (2) “De modis uniendi ac reformandi ecclesiam in concilio universali” (written 1410, ed. von der Hardt, op. cit., I, V, 68–142); (3) “De difficultate reformationis Ecclesiæ in concilio universali” (written August, 1410; ed. von der Hardt, op. cit., I, VI, 255–69). Von der Hardt attributed the treatise “De modis uniendi” to Johannes Gerson, the two others to Pierre d’Ailly, but was of the opinion that perhaps Dietrich von Nieheim might be the author of the “De necessitate reformationis.” Schwab has shown (Johannes Gerson, Würzburg, 1858) that neither Gerson nor d’Ailly can be regarded as the author of these works; he ascribed “De modis uniendi” to the Spanish Benedictine abbot and professor at Bologna, Andreas of Randuf. The other two treatises, he believed, were composed by Dietrich von Nieheim. Sägmüller also saw in the aforesaid Abbot Andreas the author of “De modis uniendi” (Historisches Jahrbuch, 1893, 562- 82). Lenz, however, attributes to Dietrich all three works (see below), and his opinion has been accepted by most later historians; Finke, especially, has confirmed it by numerous arguments. Erler, however, to whom we owe a detailed life of Dietrich (see below), does not admit his authorship of the works in question, while Haller agreees with him in respect to the treatise “De modis uniendi.” Mulder has examined (1907) fully (see below) the attitude of Dietrich towards the theological theories prevalent at the council and the contemporary plans for extinction of the schism. He concludes that Dietrich certainly wrote the “De necessitate reformationis” but not the other two treatises. In these three works there is developed a detailed programme of ecclesiastical reform: all three popes are to be removed and the election of the new pope is to be committed to a special electoral assembly. The new pope must execute, during the council, the desired reforms in the administration of the Roman Curia, and the particular practical measures are specified. Erler, as has been seen, denies Dietrich’s authorship of these treatises, and therefore sees in him only a very clever papal functionary, who had no higher aims than the extinction of the schism and a reform of the papal chancery. Finke on the contrary, accepting the authorship of Dietrich, thinks that with time his views grew broader, and that, in spite of his weakness as an historian, his bold and influential ideas on ecclesiastical reforms made him eventually one of the most important figures of the early fifteenth century. He calls him the greatest publicist of the later Middle Ages.

After the council we find Dietrich at Maastricht, where he possessed a canonicate; there he fell ill, and on 15 March, 1418, made his testament, by which he bequeathed his property on the German side of the Alps to the hospital newly built by him at Hameln, and his Italian possessions to the German hospital of Santa Maria dell’ Anima at Rome. He died in the same month, probably, as stated above, 22 March. Besides the works already mentioned Dietrich composed several others, among them an historical work entitled “Privilegia aut jura imperii circa investituras episcopatuum et abbatiarum,” etc. (ed. Schard, Sylloge de jurisdictione imp., Basle, 1566, 785–859), chiefly an account of the Holy Roman Empire. Of the “Chronicon” composed by him only fragments are extant, discovered and published by Sauerland (Mitteilungen des Instituts für œsterr. Gesch., 1885, 589–614; also separately at Frankfort, 1885) and by Mulder (see below). A chronicle of the popes, part of the Liber Pontificalis (Vitæ pontificum Romanorum a Nicolao IV usque ad Urbanum V) formerly ascribed to Dietrich, it is now known, was not written by him. Probably, also, he is not the author of a pamphlet against Cardinal Johannes Dominici (“Epistola Luciferi seu Satanæ ad Johannem Dominici, ord. Præd. presb. card. S. Sixti,” ed. in “Nemus unionis”). A geographical work entitled “De regionibus orbis et qualitatibus habitantium in eisdem” written in 1407–1408 is lost. In 1411 he composed a treatise against the heresies of Wyclif: “Tractatus contra dampnatos Wiclivitas Pragæ” (ed. Erler in “Zeitschrift für vaterländische Gesch. und Altertumskunde,” Münster, 1885, I, 178–98). For the functionaries of the papal chancery he compiled the guide known as “Liber cancellariæ apostolicæ.” He also compiled a short guide to the regular praxis of curial administration, “Stilus palatii abbreviatus” (both edited by Erler, “Der Liber cancellariæ apostolicæ vom Jahre 1380 und der Stilus palatii abbreviatus vom Dietrich von Nieheim,” Leipzig, 1888).

VON DER HARDT, Magnum et ‘cumenicum Constantiense Concilium (6 vols., Helmstadt, 1700); SCHWAB, Johannes Gerson (Würzburg, 1858); SAUERLAND, Das Leben des Dietrich von Nieheim (Göttingen, 1875); IDEM, Anmerkung zu Dietrich von Nieheims Werke de scismate in Historisches Jahrbuch (1886), 59–66; IDEM, Der sogen. Briefwechsel des Trierer Erzbischofs Hillin und Dietrich von Nieheims Chronik in Neues Archiv (1887), 599–601; LENZ, Drei Traktate aus dem Schriftencyclus der Constanzer Concils (Marburg, 1876); KRAUSE, Dietrich von Niem, Konrad von Vechta, Konrad von Soltau, Bischöfe von Verden in Forschungen zur deutschen Gesch., XIX (1879), 592 sqq., XXII (1882), 248 sqq.; HOUBEN, Eine Studie über Theodorich von Nieheim in Der Katholik (1880), I, 62 sqq.;LINDNER, Beiträge zu dem Leben und den Schriften Dietrichs von Niem in Forschungen zur deutsches Gesch., XXI (1881), 67 sqq.; IDEM, Dietrich von Niem in Zeitschrift für allgemeine Gesch. I (1885), 401 sqq., 516 sqq.; FRITZ, Zur Quellencritik der Schriften Dietrichs von Niem (Paderborn, 1886); IDEM, Ist Dietrich v. N. der Verfasser der drei Constanzer Tractate in Zeitschr. für vaterl. Gesch., XLVI, 157 sqq.; ERLER, Dietrich von Nieheim, sein Leben und seine Schriften (Leipzig, 1887); FINKE, Zwei Tagebücher der das Konstanzer Konzil in Römische Quartalschrift für christl. Altertumskunde und für Kirchengesch. (1887), 46 sqq.; IDEM, Zu Dietrich von Niem und Marsilius von Padua, ibid. (1893), 244 sqq.; IDEM, Forschungen und Quellen zur Gesch. des Konstanzer Konzils (Paderborn, 1889), 132 sqq.; SÄGMÜLLER, Der Verfasser des Traktates de modis uniendi vom Jahre 1410 in Historisches Jahrbuch (1893), 562 sqq.; IDEM, Dietrich von Niem und der Liber pontificalis, ibid. (1894), 802 sqq.; IDEM, Über den 5. Traktat des Nemus unionis, ibid. (1904), 531 sqq.; HALLER, Papsttum und Kirchenreform: vier Kapitel zur Gesch. des ausgehenden M. A. (Berlin, 1903), I, 186 sqq., 483 sqq.; SCHMIDLIN, Gesch. der deutschen Nationalkirche in Rom S. Maria dell’ Anima (Freiburg, 1906); MULDER, Dietrich von Nieheim zijn oppvating van het Concilie en zijn Kronik (Amsterdam, 1907); POTTHAST, Bibliotheca historica medii ævi (Berlin, 1906), II, 1051 sqq.

J.P. KIRSCH

George Digby

Second Earl of Bristol, b. at Madrid, Spam, where his father, the first earl, was ambassador, 1612; d. at Chelsea, England, 1677. As a boy of twelve he presented a petition at the bar of the House of Commons on behalf of his father who had been committed to the Tower by the Duke of Buckingham. He was educated at Magdalen College, Oxford, where he became M. A., 31 Aug., 1636. Shortly afterwards he entered into a correspondence with his kinsman, Sir Kenelm Digby, in which he attacked the Catholic Church. In the struggle between king and Parliament he was at first on the side of the Parliament. He was elected member for Dorset in 1640 and was shortly afterwards made a member of the committee which undertook to impeach Strafford. When the impeachment was abandoned for process of attainder, however, he vigorously opposed it and thus incurred unpopularity with his own party. In 1641 he took his seat in the House of Lords as Baron Digby and joined the king’s party. His advice to the king upon the retreat of the five members to the city, that they should be seized by force, was rejected by Charles, but, becoming known, added greatly to his unpopularity. Shortly afterwards, being summoned before the House of Lords to answer for his conduct, he fled to Holland. Returning during the Civil War he fought at Edgehill and Lichfield, but resigned his command by reason of a quarrel with Prinee Rupert. In Sept., 1643, he was made secretary of state and privy councillor, in which offices he was not successful.

In 1645 Digby replaced Rupert as lieutenant-general of the king’s forces north of the Trent, but was de- feated at Carlisle Sands and fled to the Isle of Man. He next took service under the King of France, and he became a 1ieutenant-general in the French army in 1651. On 6 Jan., 1653, he succeeded his father as Earl of Bristol and was made Knight of the Garter. Owing to an unsuccessful intrigue against Mazarin he was ordered to leave France, and he proceeded to the Netherlands, where he visited Charles II then in exile. In 1657 he was reappointed secretary of state but again lost office on his conversion to the Catholic Faith. On the Restoration he returned to England, becoming a political opponent of Clarendon. This displeased the king, and Digby spent two years in concealment, till Clarendon’s fall. Though a Catholic he spoke in favour of the Test Act, drawing a distinction between a “Catholic of the Church of Rome” and a “Catholic of the Court of Rome.” He was high Steward of Oxford University 1643–46 and again 1660–1663. He published “The Lord George Digbie’s Apology for Himself” (1642) and “Elvira, a Comedy” (1667). Many of his speeches and letters were also published.

WOOD, Athenae Oxon.,BLISS ed. (London, 1817), III, 1100 sqq.; CLARENDON, History of the Rebellion, ed. MACRAY (OXFORD, I888); DODD, Church History (Brussels, 1739), III; WALPOLE, Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors (London, 1806); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng., Cath. ., s.v.; RUSSELL BARKER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.

EDWIN BURTON

Kenelm Henry Digby

Miscellaneous writer, b. in Ireland, 1800; d. at Kensington, Middlesex, England, 22 March, 1880. He came of an ancient English stock branching, in Elizabeth’s reign, into Ireland, by the marriage of Sir Robert Digby, of Coleshill, Co. Warwick, with Lettice FitzGerald, only daughter and heir of Gerald, Lord Offaly, eldest son of the eleventh Earl of Kildare. The eldest son of this Robert and Lettice became the first Lord Digby. Their second son, Essex Digby, Bishop of Dromore, was father of Simon Digby, Bishop successively of Limerick and Elphin whose son John Digby, of Landenstown, Co. Kildare, was father of William Digby, Dean of Clonfert. Kenelm Henry Digby was this latter’s youngest son. Thus his early surroundings and associations were strongly Protestant. His father died in 1812, when his eldest brother, William, was already Archdeacon of Elphin. Unlike these, who had graduated in Dublin University, Kenelm Henry matriculated at the University of Cambridge, entering at Trinity College there. His B.A. degree he took in 1819, but he never proceeded M.A. Amid the many venerable and suggestive monuments of Catholic antiquity which Cambridge shows, he gradually gave his mind more and more to those “Ages of Faith” which he had been taught to despise and afterwards to the scholastic system of theology. The result of his deep study of these lofty subjects was his conversion, in youth, to the Catholic Faith. His first book, “The Broadstone of Honour,” he published anonymously in 1822, while still nominally a Protestant, and an enlarged edition, again anonymously, the year following. After his conversion he rewrote the work, dividing it into four volumes, which appeared, each with a separate subtitle, in 1826–7. Two other editions followed, and lastly an edition de luxe, in five volumes, published by Quaritch, in 1876–7. According to its various secondary titles, this masterpiece treats of “the Origin, Spirit, and Institutions of Christian Chivalry,” or “the True Sense and Practice of Chivalry.” Archdeacon Hare, in his “Guesses at Truth,” says that in this work the author “identifies himself as few have ever done with the good and great and heroic and holy in former times, and ever rejoices in passing out of himself into them.”

Digby’s second literary performance, entitled “Mores Catholici, or Ages of Faith,” came out in 1831–40 in eleven volumes, in a later edition reduced to three. In this work he collected, mostly from the original sources, a vast mass of information concerning the religious, social, and artistic life of the medieval peoples of Europe. It is, indeed, a kind of encyclopedia of the medieval life, from the viewpoint of an ardently Catholic soul. It has been well said that in it he collected like a truly pious pilgrim the fragrance of ancient times. Various other publications, some in prose, some in verse, dropped from his prolific pen from time to time down to 1876; but these, in comparison with his “Broadstone of Honour” and “Mores Catholici,” are but minor performances. The most important of them is a work entitled “Compitum, or the Meeting of Ways at the Catholic Church.” The complete list of his published works may be seen in Gillow’s “Dictionary.” His long, studious, and retired life closed at Shaftesbury House, Kensington, in his eighty-first year, after a very short illness. His wife was Jane Mary, daughter of Thomas Dillon, of Mount Dillon, Co. Dublin, who bore him a son and four daughters.

COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog. s. v., Gillow. Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v., Tablet (London, 27 March, 1880); Weekly Register (London, 27 March, 1880); Times, (London, 24 March, 1880); Dublin Review (London), XXV, 463, XLVIII, 526; Athenaeum (London, 1880), I, 411, 440.

C. T. BOOTHMAN.

Sir Everard Digby

Born 16 May, 1578, died 30 Jan., 1606. Everard Digby, whose father bore the same Christian name, succeeded in his fourteenth year to large properties in the Counties of Lincoln, Leicester, and Rutland. Arrived at man’s estate, he was distinguished for his great stature and bodily strength as well as for his accomplished horsemanship and skill in field sports generally, to which he was much devoted. For some time he frequented the court of Queen Elizabeth. In 1596 he married Mary, only daughter and heiress of William Mulsho of Goathurst, Buckingham-shire, with whom he obtained a large accession of fortune, and by whom he had two sons, Kenelm, born in 1603, and John, in 1605. About 1599 Digby, who, although his parents seem to have been Catholics, had been brought up a Protestant, made the acquaintance of the Jesuit Father, John Gerard, with the result that both he and his wife were converted to the Catholic Faith, and he formed with Gerard so close a friendship that they were accustomed to speak of each other as “brothers.” In 1603 he was one of those who assembled at Belvoir Castle to welcome James I on his progress towards London, and he was knighted by the new king on the 23rd of April in that year.

In spite of what might have appeared so auspicious a commencement, there soon followed the fatal Powder Plot, which brought Sir Everard’s career to an ignominious close by a traitor’s death, while yet only in his twenty-eighth year. It is for his share in this, almost exclusively, that he is now remembered. In the “Dictionary of National Biography” he is compendiously described as “Conspirator,” and one of his descendants has recently published his biography under the title “Life of a Conspirator.” In truth, however, of all who had a share in the criminal folly of that deplorable enterprise, there is none to whom the title can less properly be applied, for he had no part either in the conception of the plot, or in the preparation for its accomplishment, and was not even aware of its existence till the eleventh hour. His initiation in the secret was due to the lack of funds. Owing to the delay occasioned by an unexpected prorogation of Parliament, Catesby, the ringleader of the whole design, finding his own treasury exhausted, sought to enlist as associates some men of substance. One of these was Digby, who was inducted and sworn in “about a week after Michaelmas,” 1605, or just a month before the fatal 5th of November.

When the time of action approached, Digby was assigned the part of preparing for the rising which was to follow the explosion in London, and to put the conduct of affairs into the hands of the conspirators once the blow was struck. For this purpose he rented Coughton Hall, the seat of the Throckmortons, near Alcester, and arranged for a great “hunting match” upon Dunsmoor Heath, near Rugby, to which many Catholic gentlemen were to be gathered, and which was fixed for the 5th of November itself. When the news of the catastrophe at Westminster should arrive, it was hoped that the party so assembled, when they heard what had happened, would form the nucleus of a force by means of which the further designs of the conspirators might be carried out.

When, on the evening of the 5th, Catesby and others arrived with tidings of the discovery of their design and the arrest of Faukes, Digby joined them in their desperate attempt to raise a rebellion, and was captured with the survivors of the party at Holbeche on the 8th. At their trial on the 27th of January, Digby, who alone pleaded guilty, was arraigned separately from the rest, but received the same sentence of death, with all the ghastly barbarities usual in cases of treason. Three days later, 30 January, with three of his accomplices, Robert Winter, Grant, and Bates, he suffered in St. Paul’s churchyard, being the first to mount the scaffold where he confessed his guilt, expressed shame for his infatuation, and solemnly protested that his friend, Father Gerard, had no knowledge of the plot, in or out of confession, adding, “I never durst tell him of it, for fear he would have drawn me out of it.” It is a remarkable circumstance, lending some color to the belief that in later days the king did not believe in the genuine character of the danger he was said to have escaped, that Sir Everard’s son, Kenelm, was knighted by James in October, 1623, when he had not completed his twenty-first year. His description of the behavior of James on that occasion has been borrowed by Sir Walter Scott in the “Fortunes of Nigel,” for the knighting of Richard Moniplies. The younger son, John, was knighted by Charles I, in 1635, and fell in the Civil War as a major-general in the royal army.

GARDINER, Hist. of England (1883–84), I; ID., What the Gunpowder Plot Was; JARDINE, Criminal Trials, II; John Gerard. (THE ELDER), ed. MORRIS, Condition of Catholics; The Life of a Conspirator, by one of his Descendants; John Gerard. (THE YOUNGER), What was the Gunpowder Plot; FOLEY, Records of the English Province, S. J., II; Calendar of State Papers.

JOHN GERARD.

Sir Kenelm Digby

Physicist, naval commander and diplomatist, b. at Gayhurst (Goathurst), Buckinghamshire, England, 11 July, 1603; d. in Covent Garden, Westminster, 11 June, 1665. He was the eldest son of Sir Everard Digby, Kt., of Drystoke, Rutland, by Mary, daughter and coheir of William Mulshaw (Mulsho) of Gayhurst. His father was drawn into the Gunpowder Plot and was executed; nevertheless, after litigation, young Kenelm inherited unconfiscated lands worth $15,000 a year. In 1618 he entered Gloucester Hall, now Worcester College, Oxford. Here he was under the care of Thomas Allen, the mathematician and occultist, under whose congenial teaching he made wonderful progress in physical science. Allen eventually bequeathed to his brilliant pupil his books and MSS., which Sir Kenelm gave to the Bodleian Library. In 1620, Digby left Oxford without a degree. By this time he was deeply in love with Venitia, the beautiful daughter of Sir Edward Stanley, Kt., of Tonge Castle, Shropshire. His mother opposing the match, he withdrew to the Continent, visiting France and Italy and finally Spain. In March, 1623, shortly after his arrival at Madrid, the Prince of Wales (afterwards King Charles I) reached that city upon his well-known matrimonial project, and Digby became one of his household, accompanying the prince back to England upon that project’s failure. Digby was now dubbed a knight by King James I. The next momentous event in his career was his marriage with Venitia, which took place privily in 1625. Though the lady’s ante-nuptial reputation was not spotless, yet their conjugal life was happy, and she bore him four sons and a daughter. In 1627 Digby undertook a privateering expedition against the French ships anchored in the Venetian haven of Iskanderun or Alexandretta. Having got King Charles’s leave and taken out letters of marque, he sailed from Deal with two well-equipped ships about Christmas, and after various adventures on the voyage, he reached Iskanderun 10 June, 1628. On the morrow he gave battle to the French and Venetian galleys there found in the bay, coming off victorious and returning leisurely to England, where he landed in the following February.

Digby’s fame was now great, and in 1632 there was even talk of his becoming a secretary of state, but misfortune was nigh. On May Day, 1633, his beloved wife, whose marriage with him had for some years been made public, died suddenly. Various poets, Ben Jonson and William Habington among them, put forth rapturous poems in her praise. Digby withdrew into Gresham College, where he spent two years, leading in strange mourning garb a life of study and seclusion. By this time he had forsaken the Catholic Church, to which, however, he was reconciled in 1636, apparently in France. In 1639 he was back in England, where the times were daily growing worse and worse. His intimacy as a Catholic with the king and queen roused the ire of the Long Parliament, who summoned him to their Bar in 1641, and next year imprisoned him. He was discharged, however, after a while, on condition of his immediate departure for France. His property they afterwards proceeded to confiscate. Digby accordingly transferred his abode to Paris, where in 1644 he brought out his two great philosophical treatises of the “Nature of Bodies” and the “Immortality of Reasonable Souls.” In 1645 he was sent by the English Catholic Committee at Paris upon a diplomatic mission to Rome, whither he went again in 1647, but failed to accomplish anything to the purpose. After another journey to England in 1649 and another banishment, he got leave to return and came back in 1654. He now became intimate with Cromwell, who employed him abroad upon various diplomatic affairs. He returned to England for good at the Restoration. Upon the incorporation of the Royal Society in 1663, Sir Kenelm was appointed one of the council. He died of stone on the anniversary of his sea-fight off Iskanderun, and was buried beside his wife in Christ Church, Newgate. Van Dyck painted several (extant) portraits of Sir Kenelm and Lady Digby, and Cornelius Janssen one of the latter.

LEE in Dict. Nat. Biog., XV, 60 sqq., Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., II, 70.Sqq.; WOOD, Athenae; Oxon., III, 688; Journey of Scanderoon Voyage. ed. CAMDEN SOC. (Westminster, 1868); Evelyn’s Diary, passim.

C. T. BOOTHMAN.

Diocese of Digne (Dinia)

(DINIA; DINIENSIS)

Diocese comprising the entire department of the Basses Alpes; suffragan of the Archbishopric of Aix. By the Concordat of 1801, this diocese was made to include the two departments of the Hautes and Basses Alpes, in addition to the former Diocese of Digne, the Archdiocese of Embrun, the Dioceses of Gap, Sisteron and Senez, a very considerable part of the Dioceses of Glandèves and Riez, and fourteen parishes in the Archdiocese of Aix and the Diocese of Apt. In 1822 Gap was made an episcopal see and, thus divested of the department of the Hautes Alpes, the present Diocese of Digne covers the territory formerly included in the Dioceses of Digne, Senez, Glandèves, Riez, and Sisteron.

FORMER DIOCESE OF DIGNE

This diocese was evangelized by Sts. Domninus and Vincentius who came from Africa in the second half of the fourth century with St. Marcellinus, the Apostle of Embrun. It is not certain that they were bishops. The first historically known bishop was Pentadius who attended the Council of Agde in 506. Among the incumbents of the See of Digne may be mentioned: Elzéar de Villeneuve (1334–41), author of a celebrated form of oath to be taken by Jews; Pierre III de Verceil (1432–39), who represented the clergy and the Count of Provence at the Council of Basle; Guillaume V d’Estoute ville (1439–55), closely connected with the history of the Pragmatic Sanction (q.v.) and later Archbishop of Rouen; Antoine III Hérouet (1552–68), poet and translator of Plato; Forbin Janson (1664–68), afterwards a cardinal and ambassador to Poland; Miollis (1805–38), whose kindness was proverbial, and who was the original of “Mgr. Myriel” in Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables,” and Sibour (1839–48), who died Archbishop of Paris.

DIOCESE OF SENEZ.

Marcellus I, the first known Bishop of the Diocese of Senez, attended the Council of Agde in 506; nevertheless, Senez must have been an episcopal city as early as 439. Jean IV Soanen, the Oratorian, noted for his opposition to the Bull “Unigenitus,” was Bishop of Senez from 1696 until the time of his deposition in 1727.

DIOCESE OF GLANDÈVES

Claudius, the first known bishop of the diocese, ascended the episcopal throne in 541, but Glandèves was probably a see as early as 439. Among its bishops were Symphorien Bullioud (1508–20), also ambassador from Francis I to Julius II and chaplain to Francis I; Francis I Faure (1651–53), the pulpit orator, later Bishop of Amiens, and de Belloy (1752–55), who died a centenarian in 1808, as Archbishop of Paris.

DIOCESE OF SISTERON

Johannes, the first known Bishop of Sisteron, appears early in the sixth century. Owing to the ungracious reception accorded Bishop Gérard by the Chapter of Sisteron, the bishops of that see remained at Forcalquier from 1061 to 1169 and, until the time of the Revolution, the church at Forcalquier bore the title of cathedral. Laffittau, the Jesuit who was agent of Cardinal Dubois, and also an historian, occupied the See of Sisteron from 1719 to 1764.

Diocese of Riez According to an unsupported tradition, the establishment of the Church in this diocese is attributed to the first century and to Eusebius of Eudochius, companion of St. Lazarus. A certain St. Prosper of Reggio in Emilia (at the beginning of the fifth century) figures in the history of Riez and was perhaps its bishop; however, the first certainly known bishop is St. Maximus (433–60), who succeeded St. Honoratus as Abbot of Lérins and who, in 439, held a council at Riez with a view to improving the deplorable condition of the churches of Southern Gaul. His successor, St. Faustus (461–93), also Abbot of Lérins, was noted for his writings against Predestinationists; it was to him that Sidonius Apollinaris dedicated his “Carmen Eucharisticum” in gratitude for hospitality received at Riez. Robert Ceneau, the pulpit orator (1530–32), afterwards Bishop of Avranches and Gui Bentivoglio (1622–25), who was nuncio in France and defender of French interests at Rome and who played an important role under Louis XIII, are also mentioned among the bishops of Riez.

The Diocese of Digne numbers the following saints: St. Thyrsus of Sisteron and St. Promatius of Forcalquier, both perhaps of the third century; the abbots St. Marius and St. Donatus (fifth, sixth centuries), natives of Orléans, and founders of monasteries near Forcalquier and Sisteron; St. Mayeul (or Majolus) (910–94), born at Valensole and noted as Abbot of Cluny and a friend of Emperor Otto II; St. Bevon (tenth century), born at Noyers, helped to deliver Provence from the Saracens; Blessed Gérard, founder of the Hospitallers of Jerusalem, who died in 1120, his relics being preserved at Manosque; St. John of Matha (1160–1213), born at Faucon and founder of the Trinitarians; Blessed Hugh, a great Franciscan preacher who was attached to the doctrines of Joachim of Floris and died in 1255; his sister St. Douceline, who was born at Digne, founded the Beguines of Hyères and died in 1274; St. Elzear of Sabran who died in 1332, and his wife St. Delphina of Sabran (1284–1360); and the Venerable Jacques Chastan (1803–38), born at Marcoux and martyred in Korea. During the Middle Ages the Franciscan convent in Digne produced François de Meyronnes, conspicuous at the Sorbonne and known as the “enlightened doctor,” and Gassendi, the philosopher who, from 1634 to 1655, was provost of the Church of Digne, on which he wrote a learned work. The principal places of pilgrimage are: Notre Dame des Anges at Lure, frequented annually by over 10,000 of the faithful, a shrine founded in the century by a recluse from Orléans; Notre Dame de Romigier at Manosque, dating back to the fifth century, Notre Dame du Roc at Castellane, established in the eighth century; and Notre Dame de Beauvoir at Moustiers Ste Marie. This last named shrine was visited in the time of Sidonius Apollinaris. Two rocks overhang the chapel of Our Lady and are held together by an iron chain, from which is sus pended a golden star presented by a Knight of Rhodes who, having been taken prisoner, invoked Our Lady of Moustiers and was delivered.

Prior to the enforcement of the law of 1905 there were in the diocese, Benedictines, the Missionaries of Ste Garde, the Brothers of Christian Schools and Brothers of Christian Instruction of St. Gabriel. Local orders of women especially worthy of mention are: the Congregation of Our Lady of the Presentation, a teaching order at Manosque, and that of the Sisters of Christian Doctrine of the Holy Childhood, whose mother house is at Digne, and who devote themselves alike to teaching and hospital work. In 1899 the following institutions in the diocese were under the care of religious: 12 infant schools, 2 orphanages for boys and girls, 13 hospitals and hospices, 1 house of retreat and 4 houses for religious nurses. In 1905 (the last year of the Concordatory period) the Diocese of Digne had a population of 115,021, 35 pastorates, 314 succursal parishes (mission churches), and 13 curacies subventioned by the State.

GEORGES GOYAU

Ecclesiastical Dignitary

An Ecclesiastical Dignitary is a member of a chapter, cathedral or collegiate, possessed not only of a foremost place, but also of a certain jurisdiction. These dignitates, as they are called, are usually the provost and the dean (see those articles), sometimes also the custos and the scholasticus. Their nomination and canonical institution, to a great extent reserved to the pope, are governed partly by common ecclesiastical law, partly by special legislation (e. g. concordats) and custom. The dignitates of a chapter differ from the personatus, inasmuch as the latter officers have merely a fixed right of precedence, and again from the officia (e. g. canon theologian, canon penitentiary), inasmuch as these places imply only an administrative charge or duty (see PERSON, ECCLESIASTICAL; CANON; CHAPTER).

WERNZ, Jus Decretalium, II, n. 780 sqq.; LAURENTITIS, Inst. Juris Eccl. (Freiburg, 1903), n. 255; SÄGMÜLLER, Kirchenrecht (Freiburg, 1902), s. v. Dignitas; HILGENREINER, in BUCHBERGER, Kirchl. Handlexikon (Munich, 1907), s. v. Domkapitel.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Diocese of Dijon

The Diocese of Dijon comprises the entire department of Côte-d’Or and is a suffragan of Lyons. According to the Concordat of 1801 it also included the department of Haute-Marne, which, however, it was called upon to relinquish in 1821, owing to the re-establishment of the Diocese of Langres.

Between the years 506 and 540 it was revealed to St. Gregory, Bishop of Langres, and an ancestor of St. Gregory of Tours, that a tomb which the piety of the peasants led them to visit contained the remains of St. Benignus. He had a large basilica erected over it, and soon travellers from Italy brought him the acts of this saint’s martyrdom. These acts are part of a collection of documents according to which Burgundy was evangelized in the second century by St. Benignus, an Asiatic priest and the disciple of St. Polycarp, assisted by two ecclesiastics, Andochius and Thyrsus. The good work is said to have prospered at Autun, where it received valuable support from the youthful Symphorianus; at Saulieu where Andochius and Thyrsus had established themselves; at Langres where the three brothers, Speusippus, Eleusippus, and Meleusippus, were baptized, and finally at Dijon. In the meantime the persecution of Marcus Aurelius broke out, and St. Benignus and his companions were put to death. The doubts first raised by Boulliau and Tillemont in the seventeenth century concerning the authenticity of these acts seem justified by the conclusions of Père Van Hooff and Monseigneur Duchesne, according to which the Acts of St. Benignus and the martyrdom of the three brothers of Langres, on which the aforesaid traditions are based, are apocryphal and copied from Cappadocian legends. This controversy, however, does not alter the fact that before the fifth century a saint named Benignus was venerated by the Christians of Dijon; nor does it dim the splendour of the saint’s miracles, as related by Gregory of Tours and by the “Book of the Miracles of St. Benignus.” During the last generation no question has given rise to more animated polemics among the Catholic scholars of France than the apostolate of St. Benignus.

Under the Merovingians and Carolingians most of the bishops of Langres resided at Dijon, e. g. St. Urbanus (fifth century), St. Gregory, and St. Tetricus (sixth century), who were buried there. When, in 1016, Lambert, Bishop of Langres, ceded the seigniory and county of Dijon to King Robert, the Bishops of Langres made Langres their place of residence. In 1731, Clement XII made Dijon a bishopric. The Abbey of Saint-Etienne of Dijon (fifth century) long had a regular chapter that observed the Rule of St. Augustine; it was given over to secular canons by Paul V in 1611, and Clement XI made its church the cathedral of Dijon; during the Revolution it was transformed into a forage storehouse. The abbatial church of Saint-Bénigne became the cathedral of Dijon early in the nineteenth century. Cardinal Lecot, later Archbishop of Bordeaux, was Bishop of Dijon from 1886 to 1890. Pope Pius X’s request in 1904 for the resignation of Monseigneur Le Nordez, Bishop of Dijon since 1899, was one of the incidents which led to the rupture of relations between France and the Holy See.

Romanesque architecture was very popular in Burgundy; its masterpiece is the Cathedral of Saint-Bénigne of Dijon, consecrated by Paschal II in 1106 and completed in 1288. The Gothic style, although less used, characterizes the churches of Notre-Dame de Dijon (1252–1334), Notre-Dame de Semur, and l’Abbaye Saint-Seine; it was also the style of the Sainte-Chapelle of Dijon, which is no longer in existence. Under the dukes of Burgundy, at the close of the fourteenth and beginning of the fifteenth century, Burgundian art flourished in a surprising degree. The Chartreuse of Champmol, on which Philip the Bold had Claus Sluter, the sculptor, at work from 1389 to 1406, and which was the acme of artistic excellence, was almost totally destroyed during the Revolution; however, two superb traces of it may still be seen, namely the Puits des prophètes and the portal of the church. The Beaune hospital (1443) is a fine specimen of the Gothic style, and the church of Saint-Michel in Dijon (1497) has sixteenth- and seventeenth-century porches covered with fantastic bas-reliefs. The Abbeys of Cîteaux, Fontenay, and Flavigny (where in the nineteenth century Père Lacordaire installed a Dominican novitiate) were all within the territory of Dijon. (See CISTERCIANS and CÎTEAUX.)

The following saints are specially honoured: Saint Sequanus (Seine), b. at Magny, d. 580, founder of the monastery of Réomais around which sprang up the little town of Saint-Seine; St. William (961–1031), a native of Novara, Abbot of Saint Bénigne at Dijon in 990, and reformer of the Benedictine Order in the eleventh century; St. Robert of Molesme, joint founder with Sts. Alberic and Stephen Harding of the monastery of Cîteaux in 1098; St. Stephen Harding, who died in 1134, third Abbot of Cîteaux, under whose administration the monasteries of La Ferté, Pontigny, Clairvaux, and Morimond were established; St. Bernard (1090–1153); St. Jane Frances de Chantal (1572–1641), b. at Dijon, who, having heard St. Francis de Sales’ Lenten discourses at Dijon in 1604, conceived a holy friendship for him; the Venerable Bénigne Joly, canon of Saint-Etienne de Dijon (seventeenth century); and the Venerable Sister Marguerite of the Blessed Sacrament (1619–48), surnamed the “little saint of Beaune,” noted for the apparitions of the Infant Jesus with which she was favoured, in consequence of which the pious association known as the Family of the Holy Child Jesus was organized and later raised by Pius IX to the dignity of an archconfraternity. Among the famous persons of the diocese the Seneschal Philippe Pot (1428–94) is remembered for his exploits against the Turks in 1452 and his miraculous deliverance from his captors. The illustrious Bossuet was a native of Dijon. Hubert Languet, the Protestant publicist (1518–81), was born at Vitteaux.

The chief places of pilgrimage are: Notre-Dame de Beaune, at Beaune (antedating 1120); Notre-Dame du Bon-Espoir at Dijon, dedicated in 1334; Notre-Dame du Chemin, near Serrigny (twelfth or thirteenth century); Notre-Dame de Cîteaux (end of the eleventh century) visited by many famous rulers of Europe and the East; Notre-Dame d’Etang at Vélars (fifteenth century), visited by St. Jane Frances de Chantal, St. Francis de Sales, Louis XIV, and Bossuet; and Notre-Dame de Lée (tenth or eleventh century) visited by St. Benedict Labre. The room in which St. Bernard was born was transformed into a chapel at Fontaine-les-Dijon and visited by Louis XIV, Anne of Austria, Condé, St. Jane Frances de Chantal, St. Francis de Sales, and M. Olier. St. Regina (Reine), who was martyred at Alise in the third century and whose body was transported to Flavigny in 864, is honoured by pilgrims; formerly it was customary to hold a theatrical procession in which the saint and her persecutors were represented.

In 1905, prior to the enforcement of the law against congregations, there were in the diocese Trappists, Jesuits, Dominicans, Sulpicians, and diocesan missionaries, also the following local congregations of women: Sisters of the Good Shepherd, founded at Dijon in the seventeenth century by Venerable Bénigne Joly; Sisters of the Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament; Sisters of Providence, whose mother-house is at Vitteaux, and who conduct a great many schools; the Ursulines, with mother-house at Dijon; the Sisters of St. Martha, devoted alike to hospital work and teaching (founded in 1628) at Dijon. In 1899 the following institutions were conducted by religious: 32 infant schools; 3 orphanages, with agricultural training; 9 orphanages for girls, 5 industrial schools; 1 institution for penitent women; 1 servants’ guild; 18 hospitals or hospices; 25 houses for nursing sisters; 3 houses of retreat; and 1 insane asylum. In 1905 (end of the Concordatory period) the Diocese of Dijon had a population of 361,626; 38 parishes (cures), 447 succursal parishes (mission churches), and 13 curacies subventioned by the State.

BOULLIAU, Diatriba de sancto Benigno (Paris, 1657); Bougaud, Etude historique et critique sur la mission, les actes et le culte de saint Bénigne (Autun, 1859); LUCOTTE, Origines du diocèse de Langres et de Dijon (Dijon, 1888); VAN HOOFF, Introduction to Acta Benigni in Acta SS. (Paris, 1887), Nov., I, 134–94; DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux, I, 48 sqq.; SAUTEREAU, L’évêché de Dijon et ses évêques (Dijon, 1885); DUMAY, Les évêques de Dijon (Dijon, 1889); CHOMPTON, Histoire de l’église Saint-Bénigne de Dijon (Dijon, 1904); CHEVALIER, Le vénérable Guillaume, abbé de Saint-Bénigne de Dijon, réformateur de l’ordre bénédictin au XIe siècle (Dijon, 1875); CORBOLIN, Monographie de l’abbaye de Fontenay (Cîteaux, 1882); GRIGNARD, L’Abbaye de Flavigny en Bourgogne (Autun, 1885); KLEINCLAUSZ, La Bourgogne (Paris, 1905); IDEM, Claus Sluter et la sculpture bourguignonne au 15e siècle (Paris, 1906); IDEM, Dijon (Paris, 1907); CHEVALIER, Rép. hist.: Topo-bibl., 892 sqq.

GEORGES GOYAU

University of Dillingen

Located in Swabia, a district of Bavaria. Its founder was Cardinal Otto Truchsess von Waldburg, Prince-Bishop of Augsburg (1543–1573). He first established it under the title, “College of St. Jerome,” and endowed it with the revenues of several monasteries which had been suppressed at the Reformation. His aim was to provide for the education of the clergy and the protection of the Catholic Faith in an institution which, by the virtue and diligence of its students, should counterbalance the laxity of morals and insubordination so prevalent in other universities of Southern Germany. With this end in view, he drew up special rules regarding the practice of religion, application to study, and conduct which each student bound himself by oath to observe. In 1551 Pope Julius III raised the college to the rank of a university and conferred on it the privileges enjoyed by other universities. Emperor Charles V ratified these privileges, and the formal inauguration took place 21 May, 1554. Some of the professors, as Peter Endavianus, the first rector of Dillingen, came from Louvain; others from Spain, among them the well-known Peter de Soto, O.P., afterwards professor at Oxford. In order to secure the existence of this institution which had been founded with great effort and sacrifice, and to strengthen its intellectual and moral influence over the clergy, Bishop Otto in 1563 gave the Jesuits, whose provincial at that time was Peter Canisius, charge of the instruction in the university, and authorized them to follow their own rules in all that pertained to organization and administration. As, however, the cathedral chapter of Augsburg would not admit the legality of this complete transfer, disputes often arose on questions of right, especially in regard to episcopal visitation, the foundation of chairs of civil law, and the appointment of professors. Nevertheless the chapter paid regularly the sums stipulated in the original document of transfer, and finally accepted the transfer as arranged June 14, 1606, by Bishop Henry von Knöringen (1598–1646), who for that reason is called the second founder of the university. From this date the chapter guaranteed a fixed contribution for the university and convictus (hall for clerical and some lay students). In 1641 Emperor Ferdinand III ratified the new charter in a special document which recognized the great service rendered by the scientific work of the university and by the preparation which it gave young men for their duties toward Church and State. During the Swedish invasion in the Thirty Years War the revenues of the university became less regular, some of its professors were imprisoned, its students scattered, and the lectures discontinued. But after peace had been concluded the institution gradually recovered, and in 1688 a fine building for university lectures was erected under Bishop John Christopher von Freyberg.

The university’s charter guaranteed to all its members freedom from civil and political obligations, separate jurisdictions, and the right of precedenee on public occasions. The exemption from taxes and imposts was frequently disputed by the city council and other officials. The Jesuits, in accordance with the rules of their order, renounced jurisdiction in civil and penal matters. This was exercised by the gubernator, one of the episcopal counsellors well versed in jurisprudence, while matters relating to discipline were in the hands of the rector. The right of precedence at processions and funerals occasioned several bitter feuds between the officials of the episcopal court and the faculty. In 1610 Bishop Henry von Knöringen granted to the rector and the professors of theology the privilege of censorship; in 1747 this was modified to the effect that books printed in Dillingen needed also the approbation of the episcopal censor at Augsburg. The courses which, from the beginning, were given at the university and which were taken over by the Jesuits were humanities, philosophy, and theology. The humanities were taught in the gymnasium, which was at that time a part of the university, and they served as a preparation for the higher studies. In the beginning of the seventeenth century a faculty of jurisprudence was added with one professor of canon and one of civil law. In 1738 church history was included in the curriculum of theology. A department of medicine and surgery, rather loosely connected with the university, was established about the same time.

The statutes concerning degrees were taken from the University of Ingolstadt. The baccalaureate in theology was conferred for the first time in 1564. Between this date and 1770 the degree of bachelor of arts was conferred on 7704, that of master of arts on 5997 which numbers show the flourishing condition of letters at the university. Although the frequent changing of professors was prejudicial to their literary activity, many of them acquired fame in the fields of moral theology, canon law, philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy. Thus Jakob Illsung, Georg Stengel, and Joseph Monschein were distinguished theologians; Christopher Scheiner, professor of mathematics, invented the pantograph; while Paul Laymann, F. X. Schmalzgrueber, and Joseph Biner were famous jurists. In order to foster a truly religious spirit among the students and to secure the faithful performance of their duties, a large and a small sodality were organized besides one for the religious. It was at Dillingen that the first sodality of the Blessed Virgin was established in Upper Germany; this sodality carried on an active correspondence with the original sodality, the B. V. Annuntiatae in Rome, and with various local organizations. Other associations were formed for special purposes, e.g. for the veneration of the Blessed Sacrament. Some of these sodalities numbered several hundred resident members. In the summer of 1585 a seminary was founded by Pope Gregory XIII to provide for the religious needs of Upper Germany. Its students, 20–25 in number, were young men of brilliant parts, who, after completing the course of humanities and dialectics, pledged themselves to take their degrees at the university. The students promised under oath to enter the ecclesiastical state and not to join any religious order without leave from the pope. Their expenses were defrayed by the Holy See. This seminary existed up to the year 1798 and educated more than 4,000 priests. Through the efforts Bishop Henry von Knöringen and several member the secular clergy, a diocesan seminary accommodating twelve students was founded in 1610; its rules were identical with those of the papal seminary. A third seminary under the title of St. Joseph owed its origin to the contributions of Cardinal Otto and other benefactors. It received poor students who could no longer be accommodated in the convictus itself; they lived in special lodgings and were not obliged to receive Holy orders. Finally, another seminary for clerics was built as a supplement to the existing papal seminary; but in 1747 it was transferred to Pfaffenhausen under Bishop Joseph. In 1582 the total number of students, including those in the gymnasium, was 600; in 1618 it was 306, and in the year of the suppression of the Society of Jesus, only 210 attended, of whom 116 were studying theology, 25 jurisprudence, 74 philosophy. The gymnasium counted 125 students. The scholars did not belong exclusively to the Diocese of Augsburg; they came from all parts of Germany, and from Poland, Italy, France, and Switzerland.

In 1773 the Society of Jesus was suppressed, and consequently, in the autumn of the same year, the activity of the Jesuits as professors at the University of Dillingen came to an end. Prince-Bishop Clement Wenceslaus ordered that henceforth the university as well as the convictus should be directly subject to the bishop. For the new scholastic year other professors, some of whom were ex-Jesuits, were installed; but theology and canon law were taught by secular priests exclusively. The former Jesuit college took the name “Academic House.” At first the number of students was nearly the same as formerly, but the institution soon began to labor under severe financial difficulties owing to the confiscation of lands and revenues which had belonged to the Jesuit college. In 1786 a new charter approved by the Holy See was introduced at the university. In conformity with the practice in other universities, deans with a yearly tenure of office were placed at the head of the different faculties. The curriculum and the methods of teaching were adapted to the needs of the time; in theology the difference between primary branches (scholastic theology and philosophy) and secondary branches (canon and civil law and Biblical exegesis) was done away with. The lectures in the three faculties were given partly in Latin as before, partly in German. Rationalism and liberalism were repeatedly checked by episcopal visitations and enactments. Among the best known professors of that period were F. M. Sailer in moral philosophy and pastoral theology, Zimmer in dogmatic theology, and Weber in philosophy and mathematics. A last regulation of the prince-bishop, dated 1799, contained rules regarding attendance at church, discipline, and methods of teaching and studying. The endowments of several institutions and corporations were transferred in 1789 to the “Academic House” in order to relieve its financial difficulties, and its administration was simplified by uniting the St. Joseph Seminary and the convictus. The patronage of the city parish of Dillingen was ceded to the bishop in favor of the university with which it was incorporated. Nevertheless the expenses of the institutions so far exceeded their revenues that the existence of the university became very precarious. Hence it was several times proposed to transfer the university to a religious order, e.g. the Benedictines or the newly organized Societas de Fide Jesu. During the scholastic year of 1798–1799, the number of students had dwindled to 109, of whom 51 were theologians distributed over three courses, 10 were attending the lectures on law and 48 those on philosophy. In 1802 the cathedral chapter of Augsburg and the university were secularized and became part of Bavaria, whose elector, by rescript of 3 Nov., 1803, abolished the University of Dillingen. In its stead a classical gymnasium and a Iyceum for philosophy and theology were founded for the Swabian District, and these institutions are still in existence.

SPECHT. Geschichte der ehemaligen Universitat Dillingen (Freiburg, 1902); EULENBURG, Die Frequenz der deutschen Universituten (Leipzig, 1904).

KARL HOEBER

Arthur-Richard Dillon

A French prelate, b. at St-Germain-en-Laye, near Paris, 1721; d. in London, 1806. The fifth son of Arthur Dillon, an Irish officer who, outlawed as a Jacobite, had passed to the service of France, he was educated for the Church, became cure of Elan near Mezieres; Vicar-General of Pontoise, 1747; Bishop of Evreux, 1753; Archbishop of Toulouse, 1758; Archbishop of Narbonne and Primate of France, 1763. Dillon was a man of broad sympathies and varied accomplishments. A staunch Catholic, he, nevertheless, publicly applauded the recognition of Protestant marriages in the Assembly of the Clergy of 1788, over which he presided. His appointment to the primatial See of Narbonne made him practically Viceroy of Languedoc. He won there great popularity not only as bishop but also as promoter of great public works, such as roads, bridges, canals, harbors, etc. When the French Revolution broke out, Dillon, rather than take the constitutional oath, emigrated to Coblenz with the French nobility, and from Coblenz went to London, where he was at the time the Concordat was signed. Pope Pius VII having requested within ten days the unconditional resignation of all the French bishops, Dillon with thirteen other prelates who, like himself, had sought refuge in England, sent but a wavering and dilatory answer and even signed the “Réclamations canoniques et très-respectueuses addressées à Notre très-Saint Père le Pape” (London, 1803). Such an attitude was prompted not by a spirit of schism, but by an excessive attachment to the old regime and the mistaken Gallican idea that the pope could not take a step of that importance without the deliberation and consent of the French hierarchy. Although Dillon consented to communicate his spiritual jurisdiction to the Concordataire bishop whose territory comprised the suppressed primatial See of Narbonne, nevertheless, by placing himself resolutely at the head of the Anticoncordataires, he not only failed in due obedience to the Holy See but also gave countenance to that incongruous movement which resulted in the “Petite-Eglise.”

AUDIBERT, Le dernier president des etats du’Languedoc (Paris, 1868); SICARD, Les eveques pendant la Revolultion (Paris, 1903); MATHIEU, Le concordat de 1801 (Paris. 1903); DROCHON, La Petite-Eglise (Paris, 1904); MANGENOT, Anticoncordataires in Dict. de theol. cath.; ALGER in Dict. of Nat. Biog. s. v.

J.F. SOLLIER

Dimissorial Letters

(Lat. litteræ dimissoriales, from dimittere), letters given by an ecclesiastical superior to his subjects to have effect in territory outside his jurisdiction. The term is sometimes extended so as to include testimonial letters, which certify to a priest’s freedom from canonical impediments or to the fact that a candidate for a religious order has the requisite qualities, and commendatory letters, which testify that a traveling ecclesiastic is unexceptionable as to morals and doctrine, and letters of excorporation (see EXEAT), by which clerics are freed from the jurisdiction of one diocesan bishop (see EXCARDINATION)that they may be affiliated to another diocese. Properly the name “dimissorial letters” refers to those given by a bishop or regular prelate to his subjects in order that they may be ordained by another bishop. The pope alone may concede such dimissorial letters for the whole world, but any bishop can give them to those under his authority, whether they be so by origin, domicile, or benefice. A bishop, as well as cardinals, can likewise grant them to those who for three years have been actually or equivalently members of his household (familiares). In the absence of the bishop, his vice-general is empowered to grant dimissorial letters, but not while the bishop is at home, unless he has received special permission to do so. During the vacancy of the episcopal see, the vicar capitular cannot give these letters, unless a year has elapsed since the diocese became vacant, except to one who is obliged to receive orders owing to his having acquired a benefice. After the lapse of a year, the vicar capitular, independent of the chapter, has the right to grant dimissorial letters for the reception of Holy orders. If the vicar capitular give the letters illegitimately, the person ordained is not entitled to clerical privileges, if he be in minor orders; and if in major orders, he is suspended from the exercise of them until the future bishop free him from the penalty. Abbots, even though exempt, cannot grant dimissorial letters to seculars who are subject to them. When a bishop grants letters directed to other ordinaries, this phrase does not include exempt abbots. Regular prelates can give letters to those religious who live under their obedience, but such letters must be directed to the diocesan bishop, unless there be a special privilege. In case of the absence of the ordinary bishop, or if he does not desire to hold ordinations, religious superiors may send their subjects to any other bishop. When regulars live in a monastery nullius dioecesis, these letters are to be directed to the neighbouring bishop (vicinior). Religious orders, which have received such special privilege since the Council of Trent, may send their subjects for ordination to any Catholic bishop whatsoever. As regards the city of Rome, those who dwell in the city for four months cannot be ordained outside the city in virtue of dimissorial letters from their ordinary bishops, but they must present themselves to the Cardinal Vicar of Rome for ordination. The Roman pontiff can ordain anyone without letters from his bishop, and the person so ordained cannot later be promoted to higher orders without papal licence Although dimissorial letters be required for ordaining the subject of one bishop in another diocese, yet it does seem necessary to obtain them for the purpose of receiving a benefice in the other diocese, though it is considered proper and expedient.

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Ven. Sir Thomas Dingley

Martyr, prior of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, found guilty of high treason 28 April, 1539, and beheaded on Tower Hill, 9 July, together with the Blessed Sir Adrian Fortescue. He was accused, together with Robert Granceter, merchant, of “going to several foreign princes and persuading them to make war with the King.” He had no trial, and no proof of treasonable practices was ever brought against him. In the same bill of attainder were included many other innocent victims of Henry’s tyranny, including the Blessed Margaret Pole, Countes of Salisbury. There is a discrepancy among the chroniclers as to the date of the martyrdom. Stow gives 10 July, the Gray Friars’ “Chronicle” and Wriothesley, 9 July. For the story of the suppression of the Knights of St. John in England, see Stow, “Chronicle,” pp. 579, 580. The gateway tower and the crypt of the church of their great priory at Clerkenwell are still standing.

BEDE CAMM

St. Dinooth

(DINOTHUS, DUNAWD, DUNOD).

Founder and first Abbot of Bangor Iscoed (Flintshire); flourished between 500 and 542. He was originally a North British chieftain driven by reverses of fortune into Wales. In conjunction with his three sons, Deiniol, Cynwyl, and Gwarthan, and under the patronage of Cyngen, Prince of Powys, he founded the monastery of Bangor on the Dee, which must not be confounded with Bangor in Carnarvonshire, founded by St. Deiniol in 514, and afterwards a cathedral city. The community at Bangor was very numerous, and the laus perennis was established there. The Triads say there were 2400 monks, who in turn, 100 each hour, sang the Divine Service day and night. More is known of this famous monastery than of its founder. He is mentioned by Bede (Hist. Eccl., ii. 2) in connection with the second conference at Augustine’s Oak, but no authority is given for the statement, and there are arguments against its correctness. The Conference was probably held in 602 or 603, at which time St. Dinooth would have been far advanced in years, and the journey from North Wales to the Lower Severn would have been a difficult one for an aged man. It is true that delegates from Bangor attended the conference which was convened by St. Augustine to raise the moral and spiritual condition of the British clergy, to wean them from their old method of computing Easter, to which they clung with great tenacity, and to induce them to co-operate with him in converting the Anglo-Saxons. The document purporting to be St. Dinooth’s “Answer” (printed in Haddan and Stubbs, Councils of Gt. Britain and Ireland, i, 122) is the sole ground for connecting his name with this conference; but it is extremely doubtful whether the “Answer” has anything to do with this conference at all. St. Augustine’s name is not mentioned in it, neither is there any allusion to the evangelization of the English. It contains merely a firm repudiation of papal authority and an assertion of the supremacy of “the Bishop of Caerleon upon Usk” over the British Church. Some time before the supposed date of the document St. David had transferred the primatial See of Wales to Menevia. What is more authentic, however, is the fact that in consequence of the British delegates’ refusal to agree to St. Augustine’s proposals he prophesied their destruction by the English. In 613, when the monks of Bangor were praying for the success of their countrymen in battle against the army of Ethelfrid of Northumbria, twelve hundred of them were slain, being mistaken for combatants. The monastery itself was probably burnt about sixty years later (Haddan and Stubbs, i, 125), and extensive ruins remained for several centuries, which are described by William of Malmesbury, Camden, and Leland.

REES Lives of Cambro-British Saints (Llandovery, 1853); HOLE in Dict. of Christ. Biog., s. v.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Diocaesarea

(SEPPHORIS)

(1) A titular see in Palestina Secunda. Diocaesarea is a later name of the town known to the Rabbis as Sippori, “the bird,” also called Sepphoris. Though not mentioned in the Bible it was in its time one of the largest towns of Galilee. Gabinius established there (56 B.C.) one of the five provincial sanhedrins (Josephus, Ant. Jud., XIV, v, 4). Herod the Great easily retook it from Antigonus, 39 B.C. (Ant. Jud., XIV, xv, 4). In A.D. 3, it was captured by a rebel, Judas, and his banditti, but was retaken by Aretas, the Arab King of Petra and ally of the Romans. He destroyed it completely, and sold the inhabitants as slaves. In the following year Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee, rebuilt the town and dedicated it to the emperor (Ant. Jud., XVIII, ii, 1), at which time it must have been called Diocaesarea. When, in A. D. 66, the great Jewish revolt broke out, the inhabitants would have no share in it, sent away their governor, the celebrated historian Flavius Josephus, and invited Cestius.Gallus, Prefect of Syria to occupy their town with his troops. About 180 the Great Sanhedrin left the neighboring village of Shefr Amar and resided at Sepphoris till it was removed to Tiberias. When Count Joseph, a con- verted Jew, built a church at Sepphoris (323–37) it was not yet an episcopal see (St. Epiph., Adversus haeres., in Migne, P.G., XLI, 409). In 353 the Jews rebelled again, and the town was destroyed by Emperor Gallus (Socrates, Hist. eccl., II, xxxiii Sozomen, Hist. eccl., IV, vii). lt was soon rebuilt (Theodoret, Hist. eccl., IV, xxii). It served as a place of exile for many bishops and monks during the persecution of Valens. When Sepphoris became an episcopal see and suffragan of Scythopolis, is unknown. Only two bishops are known, Marcellinus in 518 and Cyriacus in 536 (Lequien, Or. christ., III, 713). During the Crusades Sepphoris played an important role, though only the necropolis was occupied by a Frankish garrison. The springs, at half an hour’s distance southwest of the town, were naturally the site where the Christian armies awaited the coming of the Saracens from beyond the Jordan, thus King Guy of Lusignan encamped there before the battle of Hattin, which caused the loss of Palestine (July, 1187). There also in April 1799, Kleber and Junot rested their troops before the battle of Mount Thabor. Today Sefourieh, as it is now called, is inhabited by 3000 fanatic Mussulmans; there are preserved the ruins of the former acropolis, a high tower, two synagogues, the beautiful church of Sts. Joachim and Anna, who, according to a medieval tradition, were born at Sepphoris. This church, which has been partly demolished, has three naves and is 115 by 65 feet in dimensions. It belongs to the Franciscans, who say Mass there from time to time. (See Guerin, “Description de la Palestine: Galilée,” Paris, 1880, I, 369–79.)

(2) Another Diocaesarea, the native name of which was Prakana, site unknown (Ramsey, Asia Minor, 364 and 454), was situated in Cilicia and a suffragan of Seleucia. Five Greek bishops are known from 381 to 787 (Lequien, II, 1019); for Succensus, about 433, see Vailhé, in “Echos d’Orient” (IX, 221). Three Latin titular bishops are known in the fifteenth century (Lequien, III, 1239; Eubel, II, 160).

(3) Finally, in the fourth century, Nazianzus was also called Diocaesarea (Lequien, I, 409). S.

S. VAILHÉ

Diocesan Chancery

That branch of administration which handles all written documents used in the official government of a diocese. It is in the diocesan chancery that, under the direction of the bishop or his representative, all documents which concern the diocese are drawn up, copied, forwarded, and a record kept of all official writings expedited or received. The official charged with the execution of these duties is known as the diocesan chancellor. In many dioceses the chancellor exercises some of the faculties which in other dioceses are exclusively reserved to the vicar-general. This happens more frequently in smaller dioceses, administered directly by the bishop himself, and in which the vicar-general (often not resident in the episcopal city) is called on only when the bishop is absent or hindered. In such cases the chancellor is also the confidential secretary of the bishop. A similar system obtains even in many extensive dioceses which are administered by the bishop with the aid of one or more vicars-general and the diocesan chancery. There are, however, some large dioceses in which all matters personally reserved to the bishop are executed by him with the aid of a secretary or chancellor, usually a priest, while the greater part of the diocesan administration is handed over to a body of officials under the direction of the bishop or his vicar-general. For the correspondence, registration, and care of the archives, such administrative bureaux are provided with a secretariat or chancery. The chancery is a necessary element of administration in every diocese. Some provision for its duties must be made, even in missionary dioceses, in Apostolic prefectures and vicariates. Unless the official correspondence were properly cared for, there would be no tradition in diocesan management, important documents would be lost, and the written evidence necessary in lawsuits and trials would be lacking. The famous Apostolic Chancery (Cancellaria Apostolica) developed in time from the chancery of the primitive Bishop of Rome. By reason of the latter’s primacy in the Church, his chancery naturally had far wider relations than that of any other Christian diocese.

It is somewhat strange, given the necessity and, generally speaking, the universality of diocesan chanceries, to find that there is nothing in the common ecclesiastical law concerning their creation and equipment. The explanation lies in the very nature of this law, which provides only for what is general and common, and takes no account of local means of administration, which it abandons to the proper authority in each diocese, the concrete circumstances offering always great variety and calling for all possible freedom of action. Nor has the Apostolic See ever legislated concerning diocesan chanceries; even the appointment of a vicar-general is not made obligatory by the common law. Although, as above described, the methods of diocesan administration exhibit no little variety, there exists on the other hand a certain uniformity. Each diocese, after all, is bound to observe the common law, has an identical range of freedom, and identical limits to its authority. Each diocese, therefore, is likely, a priori, to develop its administration along similar lines, but does so regularly in harmony with others, particularly neighbouring dioceses. In this way the dioceses of a given country come to have similar official administration. In the course of the last century the diocesan system was generally introduced in many countries whose churches had hitherto been under a more or less provisional government (e.g. United States, England, Scotland, India). Naturally, the bishops of these new dioceses sought at once to provide for an orderly administration and the establishment of suitable methods for the same. Thus we see that the more recent national and provincial synods lay much stress on the creation of diocesan chanceries. The First Plenary Council of Baltimore (1852) expressed the wish that in every diocese there should be a chancery, to facilitate ecclesiastical administration and establish for its conduct a more or less identical system. The National Synod of Thurles in Ireland (1850) made provision for the establishment and preservation of diocesan archives. Similarly for England the Provincial Synod of Westminster (1852).

In keeping with these recommendations the diocesan chancery consists of a certain number of officials named by the bishop. In the United States, England, and Australia there are usually, besides the vicar-general, a diocesan chancellor and a secretary. In European dioceses the chancery is organized variously, according to the extent of the diocese. There is generally in each diocese a chancellor or secretary with the necessary personnel. In the dioceses of Germany much of the administration is carried on by an official bureau (Offizialat) as described above, i.e. the vicariate-general, to which are adjoined a secretariat, a registry office, and a chancery. In the Diocese of Breslau there exists an institution known as the “Secret Chancery” (Geheimkanzlei) which expedites only matters decided by the prince-bishop personally or with the advice of this body. The prince-bishop presides over its sessions with the help of the vicar-general. Its members are three priests and one lay counsellor to whom are added a secretary, a chief of the chancery, two private secretaries, a registrar, etc. The ordinary diocesan administration is carried on by two other bureaux, the vicariate-general and the diocesan consistory, mutually independent, but both acting in the name of the prince-bishop. For the office of diocesan chancellor in the United States, see “Acta et Decreta” of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, in index, p. 303, and of the Synod of Maynooth (1900), s. v. “Archiva.” (See also VICAR-GENERAL; ARCHIVES, ECCLESIASTICAL.)

LAMMER, Institutionen des katholischen Kirchenrechts, 2nd ed. (Freiburg, 1892); BAART, Legal Formulary, 3d ed. (New York, 1899); MEISTER, Das Beamtenrecht der Erzdiözese Freiburg(Stuttgart, 1904); MULLER, Die bischöflichen Diözesanbehörden, insbesondere das bischöfliche Ordinariat (Stuttgart, 1905); FOURNIER, Les officialités au moyen-âge, etc. (Paris, 1880); KREUTZWALD in Kirchenlex, s. v. Officialat, IX, 781–83; ANDRE WAGNER, Dict. de droit canon (Paris, 1901), 3d ed., s. v. Official, Officialité.

JOSEPH LAURENTIUS

Diocese

(Lat. diœcesis)

A Diocese is the territory or churches subject to the jurisdiction of a bishop.

I. ORIGIN OF TERM

Originally the term diocese (Gr. dioikesis) signified management of a household, thence administration or government in general. This term was soon used in Roman law to designate the territory dependent for its administration upon a city (civitas). What in Latin was called ager, or territorium, namely a district subject to a city, was habitually known in the Roman East as a diœcesis. But as the Christian bishop generally resided in a civitas, the territory administered by him, being usually conterminous with the juridical territory of the city, came to be known ecclesiastically by its usual civil term, diocese. This name was also given to the administrative subdivision of some provinces ruled by legates (legati) under the authority of the governor of the province. Finally, Diocletian designated by this name the twelve great divisions which he established in the empire, and over each of which he placed a vicarius (Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1903, V, 1, 716 sqq.). The original term for local groups of the faithful subject to a bishop was ekklesia (church), and at a later date, paroikia, i. e. the neighbourhood (Lat. porœcia, parochia). The Apostolic Canons (xiv, xv), and the Council of Nicæa in 325 (can. xvi) applied this latter term to the territory subject to a bishop. This term was retained in the East, where the Council of Constantinople (381) reserved the word diocese for the territory subject to a patriarch (can. ii). In the West also parochia was long used to designate an episcopal see. About 850 Leo IV, and about 1095 Urban II, still employed parochia to denote the territory subject to the jurisdiction of a bishop. Alexander III (1159–1181) designated under the name of parochiani the subjects of a bishop (c. 4, C. X, qu. 1; c. 10, C. IX, qu. 2; c. 9, X, De testibus, II, 20). On the other hand, the present meaning of the word diocese is met with in Africa at the end of the fourth century (cc. 50, 51, C. XVI, qu. 1), and afterwards in Spain, where the term parochia, occurring in the ninth canon of the Council of Antioch, held in 341, was translated by “diocese” (c. 2, C. IX, qu. 3). See also the ninth canon of the Synod of Toledo, in 589 (Hefele, ad h. an. and c. 6, C. X, qu. 3). This usage finally became general in the West, though diocese was sometimes used to indicate parishes in the present sense of the word (see PARISH). In Gaul, the words terminus, territorium, civitas, pagus, are also met with.

II. HISTORICAL ORIGIN

It is impossible to determine what rules were followed at the origin of the Church in limiting the territory over which each bishop exercised his authority. Universality of ecclesiastical jurisdiction was a personal prerogative of the Apostles; their successors, the bishops, enjoyed only a jurisdiction limited to a certain territory: thus Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch, and Polycarp, of Smyrna. The first Christian communities, quite like the Jewish, were established in towns. The converts who lived in the neighbourhood naturally joined with the community of the town for the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries. Exact limitations of episcopal territory could not have engrossed much attention at the beginning of Christianity; it would have been quite impracticable. As a matter of fact, the extent of the diocese was determined by the domain itself over which the bishop exercised his influence. It seems certain on the other hand, that, in the East at any rate, by the middle of the third century each Christian community of any importance had become the residence of a bishop and constituted a diocese. There were bishops in the country districts as well as in the towns. The chorepiscopi (en chora episkopoi), or rural bishops, were bishops, it is generally thought, as well as those of the towns; though from about the second half of the third century their powers were little by little curtailed, and they were made dependent on the bishops of the towns. To this rule Egypt was an exception; Alexandria was for a long time the only see in Egypt. The number of Egyptian dioceses, however, multiplied rapidly during the third century, so that in 320 there were about a hundred bishops present at the Council of Alexandria. The number of dioceses was also quite large in some parts of the Western Church, i. e. in Southern Italy and in Africa. In other regions of Europe, either Christianity had as yet a small number of adherents, or the bishops reserved to themselves supreme authority over extensive districts. Thus, in this early period but few dioceses existed in Northern Italy, Gaul, Germany, Britain, and Spain. In the last, however, their number increased rapidly during the third century. The increase of the faithful in small towns and country districts soon made it necessary to determine exactly the limits of the territory of each church. The cities of the empire, with their clearly defined suburban districts, offered limits that were easily acceptable. From the fourth century on it was generally admitted that every city ought to have its bishop, and that his territory was bounded by that of the neighbouring city. This rule was stringently applied in the East. Although Innocent I declared in 415 that the Church was not bound to conform itself to all the civil divisions which the imperial government chose to introduce, the Council of Chalcedon ordered (451) that if a civitas were dismembered by imperial authority, the ecclesiastical organization ought also to be modified (can. xvii). In the West, the Council of Sardica (344) forbade in its sixth canon the establishment of dioceses in towns not populous enough to render desirable their elevation to the dignity of episcopal residences. At the same time many Western sees included the territories of several civitates.

From the fourth century we have documentary evidence of the manner in which the dioceses were created. According to the Council of Sardica (can. vi), this belonged to the provincial synod; the Council of Carthage, in 407, demanded moreover the consent of the primate and of the bishop of the diocese to be divided (canons iv and v). The consent of the pope or the emperor was not called for. In 446, however, Pope Leo I ruled that dioceses should not be established except in large towns and populous centres (c. 4, Dist. lxxx). In the same period the Apostolic See was active in the creation of dioceses in the Burgundian kingdom and in Italy. In the latter country many of the sees had no other metropolitan than the pope, and were thus more closely related to him. Even clearer is his rôle in the formation of the diocesan system in the northern countries newly converted to Christianity. After the first successes of St. Augustine in England, Gregory the Great provided for the establishment of two metropolitan sees, each of which included two dioceses. In Ireland, the diocesan system was introduced by St. Patrick, though the diocesan territory was usually coextensive with the tribal lands, and the system itself was soon peculiarly modified by the general extension of monasticism (see IRELAND). In Scotland, however, the diocesan organization dates only from the twelfth century. To the Apostolic See also was due the establishment of dioceses in that part of Germany which had been evangelized by St. Boniface. In the Frankish Empire the boundaries of the dioceses followed the earlier Gallo-Roman municipal system, though the Merovingian kings never hesitated to change them by royal authority and without pontifical intervention. In the creation of new dioceses no mention is made of papal authority. The Carlovingian kings and their successors, the Western emperors, notably the Ottos (936–1002), sought papal authority for the creation of new dioceses. Since the eleventh century it has been the rule that the establishment of new dioceses is peculiarly a right of the Apostolic See. St. Peter Damian proclaimed (1059–60) this as a general principle (c. 1, Dist. xxii), and the same is affirmed in the well-known “Dictatus” of Gregory VII (1073–1085). The papal decretals (see DECRETALS, PAPAL) consider the creation of a new diocese as one of the causœ majores, i. e. matters of special importance, reserved to the pope alone (c. 1, X, De translatione episcopi, I, 7; c. 1, X, De officio legati, I, 30) and of which he is the sole judge (c. 5, Extrav. communes, De præbendis et dignitatibus, III, 2). A word of mention is here due to the missionary or regionary bishops, episcopi gentium, episcopi (archiepiscopi) in gentibus, still found in the eleventh century. They had no fixed territory or diocese, but were sent into a country or district for the purpose of evangelizing it. Such were St. Boniface in Germany, St. Augustine in England, and St. Willibrord in the Netherlands. They were themselves the organizers of the diocese, after their apostolic labours had produced happy results. The bishops met with in some monasteries of Gaul in the earlier Middle Ages, probably in imitation of Irish conditions, had no administrative functions (see Bellesheim, Gesch. d. kath. Kirche in Irland, I, 226- 30, and Lôning, below).

III. CREATION AND MODIFICATION OF DIOCESES

We have noticed above that after the eleventh century the sovereign pontiff reserved to himself the creation of dioceses. In the actual discipline, as already stated, all that touches the diocese is a causa major, i. e. one of those important matters in which the bishop possesses no authority whatever and which the pope reserves exclusively to himself. Since the episcopate is of Divine institution, the pope is obliged to establish dioceses in the Catholic Church, but he remains sole judge of the time and manner, and alone determines what flock shall be entrusted to each bishop. Generally speaking, the diocese is a territorial circumscription, but sometimes the bishop possesses authority only over certain classes of persons residing in the territory; this is principally the case in districts where both the Western and the Eastern Rite are followed. Whatever, therefore, pertains to the creation or suppression of dioceses, changes in their boundaries, and the like is within the pope’s exclusive province. As a general rule, the preparatory work is done by the Congregation of the Consistory, by Propaganda when the question relates to territories subject to this congregation, and by the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs when the establishment of a diocese is governed by concordats, or when the civil power of the country has the right to intervene in their creation. We shall take up successively (1) the creation of new dioceses (2) the various modifications to which they are subject, included by canonists under the term Innovatio.

(1) CREATION OF DIOCESES

Strictly speaking, it is only in missionary countries that there can be question of the creation of a diocese, either because the country was never converted to Christianity or because its ancient hierarchy was suppressed, owing to conquest by infidels or the progress of heresy. Regularly, before becoming a diocese, the territory is successively a mission, a prefecture Apostolic, and finally a vicariate Apostolic. The Congregation of Propaganda makes a preliminary study of the question and passes judgment on the opportuneness of the creation of the diocese in question. It considers principally whether the number of Catholics, priests, and religious establishments, i. e. churches, chapels, schools, is sufficiently large to justify the establishment of the proposed diocese. These matters form the subject of a report to Propaganda, to which must be added the number of towns or settlements included in the territory. If there is a city suitable for the episcopal see, the fact is stated, also the financial resources at the disposal of the bishop for the works of religion. There is added, finally, a sketch, if possible accompanied by a map, indicating the territory of the future diocese. As a general rule, a diocese should not include districts whose inhabitants speak different languages or are subject to distinct civil powers (see Instructions of Propaganda, 1798, in Collectanea S. C. de P. F., Rome, 1907, no. 645). Moreover, the general conditions for, the creation of a diocese are the same as those required for dividing or “dismembering” a diocese. Of this we shall speak below.

(2) MODIFICATION (INNOVATIO) OF DIOCESES

Under this head come the division (dismembratio) of dioceses, their union, suppression, and changes of their respective limits.

(A) DIVISION OR DISMEMBERMENT OF A DIOCESE

This is reserved to the Holy See. Since the pope is the supreme power in the Church, he is not bound to act in conformity with the canonical enactments which regulate the dismemberment of ecclesiastical benefices. The following rules, however, are those which he generally observes, though he is free to deviate from them. 0151; First, to divide a diocese, a sufficient reason must exist (causa justa). The necessity, or at least the utility, of the division must be demonstrated. There is sufficient reason for the subdivision of a diocese if it be too extensive, or the number of the faithful too great, or the means of communication too difficult, to permit the bishop to administer the diocese properly. The benefit which would result to religion (incrementum cultus divini) may also be brought forward as a reason for the change. In the main, these reasons are summed up in the one: the hope of forwarding the interests of Catholicism. Dissensions between inhabitants of the same diocese, or the fact that they belong to different nations, may also be considered a sufficient reason. Formerly, the mere fact that the endowment of a diocese was very large—a case somewhat rare at the present day—formed a legitimate reason for its division.

The second condition is suitability of place (locucongruus). There should exist in the diocese to be created a city or town suitable for the episcopal residence; the ancient discipline which rules that sees should be established only in important localities is still observed.

Third, a proper endowment (dos congrua) is requisite. The bishop should have at his disposal the resources necessary for his own maintenance and that of the ecclesiastics engaged in the general administration of the diocese, and for the establishment of a cathedral church, the expenses of Divine worship, and the general administration of the diocese. Formerly it was necessary that in part, at least, this endowment should consist in lands; at present this is not always possible. It suffices if there is a prospect that the new bishop will be able to meet the necessary expenses. In some cases, the civil government grants a subsidy to the bishop; in other cases, he must depend on the liberality of the faithful and on a contribution from the parishes of the diocese, known as the cathedraticum (q.v.).

Fourth, generally for the division of a diocese the consent of the actual incumbent of the benefice is requisite; but the pope is not bound to observe this condition. John XXII ruled that the pope had the right to proceed to the division of a diocese in spite of the opposition of the bishop (c. 5, Extrav. common., De præbendis, III, 2). As a matter of fact, the pope asks the advice of the archbishop and of all the bishops of the ecclesiastical province in which the diocese to be divided is situated. Often, indeed, the division takes place at the request of the bishop himself.

Fifth, theoretically the consent of the civil power is not required; this would be contrary to the principles of the distinction and mutual independence of the ecclesiastical and civil authority. In many countries, however, the consent of the civil authority is indispensable, either because the Government has pledged itself to endow the occupants of the episcopal sees, or because concordats have regulated this matter, or because a suspicious government would not permit a bishop to administer the new diocese if it were created without civil intervention (see Nussi, Conventiones de rebus ecclesiasticis, Rome, 1869, pp. 19 sqq.). At present, the creation or division of a diocese is done by a pontifical Brief, forwarded by the Secretary of Briefs. As an example, we may mention the Brief of 11 March, 1904, which divided the Diocese of Providence and established the new Diocese of Fall River. The motive prompting this division was the incrementum reliqionis and the majus bonum animarum; the Bishop of Providence himself requested the division, and this request was approved by the Archbishop of Boston and by all the bishops of that ecclesiastical province. The examination of the question was submitted to Propaganda and to the Apostolic Delegate at Washington. The pope then created, motu proprio, the new diocese, indicated its official title in Latin and in English, and determined its boundaries, which correspond to political divisions, and, finally, fixed the revenues of the bishop. In the case before us these consist in a moderate cathedraticum to be determined by the bishop (discreto arbitrio episcopi imponendum). According to the practice of Propaganda, all the priests who at the time of the division exercised the ministry in the dismembered territory belong to the clergy of the new diocese (Rescript of 13 April, 1891, in Collectanea S. C. de P. F., new ed., no. 1751).

(B) UNION OF DIOCESES

As in the case of the division of a diocese, the union of several dioceses ought to be justified by motives of public utility, e. g. the small number of the faithful, the loss of resources. As in the case of division, the pope is influenced by the advice of persons familiar with the situation; sometimes he asks the advice of the Government, etc. It is a generally recognized principle in the union of benefices, that such union takes effect only after the death of the actual occupant of the see which is to be united to another; at least when he has not given his consent to this union. Though the pope is not bound by this rule, in practice it must be taken into account. The union of dioceses takes place in several ways. There is, first, the unio œque principalis or œqualis when the two dioceses are entrusted for the purpose of administration to a single bishop, though they remain in all other respects distinct; each of them has its own cathedral chapter, revenues, rights, and privileges, but the bishop of one see becomes the bishop of the other by the mere fact of appointment to one of the two. He cannot resign one without ipso facto resigning the other. This situation differs from that in which a bishop administers for a time, or even perpetually, another diocese; in this case there is no union between the two sees. It is in reality a case of plurality of ecclesiastical benefices; the bishop holds two distinct sees, and his nomination must take place according to the rules established for each of the two dioceses. On the contrary, in the case of two or more united dioceses, the election or designation of the candidate must take place by the agreement of those persons in both dioceses who possess the right of election or of designation. Moreover, in the case of united dioceses, the pope sometimes makes special rules for the residence of the bishop, e. g. that he shall reside in each diocese for a part of the year. If the pope makes no decision in this matter, the bishop may reside in the more important diocese, or in that which seems more convenient for the purposes of administration, or even in the diocese which he prefers as a residence. If the bishop resides in one of his dioceses he is considered as present in each of them for those juridical acts which demand his presence. He may also convoke at his discretion two separate diocesan synods for each of the two dioceses or only one for both of them. In other respects the administration of each diocese remains distinct. There are two classes of unequal unions of dioceses (uniones inœquales): the unio subjectiva or per accessorium, seldom put into practice, and the unio per confusionem. In the former case, the one diocese retains all its rights and the other loses its rights, obtains those of the principal diocese, and thus becomes a dependency. When a diocese is thus united to another there can be no question of right of election or designation, because such a dependent diocese is conferred by the very fact that the principal diocese possesses a titular. But the administration of the property of each diocese remains distinct and the titular of the principal diocese must assume all the obligations of the united diocese. The second kind of union (per confusionem) suppresses the two pre-existing dioceses in order to create a new one; the former dioceses simply cease to exist. To perpetuate the names of the former sees the new bishop sometimes assumes the titles of both, but in administration no account is taken of the fact that they were formerly separate sees. Such a union is equivalent to the suppression of the dioceses.

(C) SUPPRESSION OF DIOCESES

Suppression of dioceses, properly so called, in a manner other than by union, takes place only in countries where the faithful and the clergy have been dispersed by persecution, the ancient dioceses becoming missions, prefectures, or vicariates Apostolic. This has occurred in the Orient, in England, the Netherlands, etc. Changes of this nature are not regulated by canon law.

(D) CHANGE OF BOUNDARIES

This last mode of innovatio is made by the Holy See, generally at the request of the bishops of the two neighbouring dioceses. Among the sufficient reasons for this measure are the difficulty of communication, the existence of a high mountain or of a large river, disputes between the inhabitants of one part of the diocese, also the fact that they belong to different countries. Sometimes a resettlement of the boundaries of two dioceses is necessary because the limits of each are not clearly defined. Such a settlement is made by a Brief, sometimes also by a simple decretum or decision of the Congregation of the Consistory approved by the pope, without the formality of a Bull or Brief.

IV. DIFFERENT CLASSES OF DIOCESES

There are several kinds of dioceses. There are dioceses properly so called and archdioceses. The diocese is the territorial circumscription administered by a bishop; the archdiocese is placed under the jurisdiction of an archbishop. Considered as a territorial circumscription, no difference exists between them; the power of their pastors alone is different. Generally, several dioceses are grouped in an ecclesiastical province and are subject to the authority of the metropolitan archbishop. Some, however, are said to be exempt, i. e. from any archiepiscopal jurisdiction, and are placed directly under the authority of the Holy See. Such are the dioceses of the ecclesiastical province of Rome, and several other dioceses or archdioceses, especially in Italy, also in other countries. The exempt archbishops are called titular archbishops, i. e. they possess only the title of archbishop, have no suffragan bishops, and administer a diocese. The term “titular archbishop,” it is to be noted, is also applied to bishops who do not administer a diocese, but who have received with the episcopal consecration a titular archbishopric. For the better understanding of this it must be remembered that archdioceses and dioceses are divided into titular and residential. The bishop of a residential see administers his diocese personally and is bound to reside in it, whereas the titular bishops have only an episcopal title; they are not bound by any obligations to the faithful of the dioceses whose titles they bear. These were formerly called bishops or archbishops in partibus infidelium, i. e. of a diocese or archdiocese fallen into the power of infidels; but since 1882 they are called titular bishops or archbishops. Such are the vicars Apostolic, auxiliary bishops, administrators Apostolic, nuncios, Apostolic delegates, etc. (see TITULAR BISHOP). Mention must also be made of the suburbicarian dioceses (diœceses suburbicariœ), i. e. the six dioceses situated in the immediate neighbourhood of Rome and each of which is administered by one of the six cardinal-bishops. These form a special class of dioceses, the titulars or occupants of which possess certain special rights and obligations (see SUBURBICARIAN DIOCESES).

V. NOMINATION, TRANSLATION, RENUNCIATION, AND DEPOSITION OF A BISHOP

The general rules relating to the nomination of a residential bishop will be found in the article BISHOP. They are applicable whatever may have been the cause of the vacancy of the diocese, except in the case of a contrary order of the Holy See. The Church admits the principle of the perpetuity of ecclesiastical benefices. Once invested with a see the bishop continues to hold it until his death. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. The bishop may be allowed by the pope to resign his see when actuated by motives which do not spring from personal convenience, but from concern for the public good. Some of these reasons are expressed in the canon law; for instance, if a bishop has been guilty of a grave crime (conscientia criminis), if he is in failing health (debilitas corporis), if he has not the requisite knowledge (defectus scientiœ),if be meets with serious opposition from the faithful (malitia plebis), if he has been a cause of public scandal (scandalum populi), if he is irregular (irregularitas)—c. 10, X, De renuntiatione, I, 9; c. 18, X, De regularibus, III, 32. The pope alone can accept this renunciation and judge of the sufficiency of the alleged reasons. Pontifical authorization is also necessary for an exchange of dioceses between two bishops, which is not allowed except for grave reasons. The same principles apply to the transfer (translatio) of a bishop from one diocese to another. Canonical legislation compares with the indissoluble marriage tie the bond which binds the bishop to his diocese. This comparison, however, must not be understood literally. The pope has the power to sever the mystical bond which unites the bishop to his church, in order to grant him another diocese or to promote him to an archiepiscopal see. A bishop may also be deposed from his functions for a grave crime. In such a case the pope generally invites the bishop to resign of his own accord, and deposes him only upon refusal. As the Holy See alone is competent to try the crime of a bishop, it follows that the pope alone, or the congregation to which he has committed the bishop’s trial (Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, the Propaganda, sometimes the Inquisition), can inflict this penalty or pronounce the declaratory sentence required when the law inflicts deposition as the sanction of a specified delinquency. Finally, the pope has always the right, strictly speaking, to deprive a bishop of his diocese, even if the latter is not guilty of crime; but for this act there must be grave cause. After the conclusion of the Concordat of 1801 with France, Pius VII removed from their dioceses all the bishops of France. It was, of course, a very extraordinary measure, but was justified by the gravity of the situation.

VI. ADMINISTRATION OF THE DIOCESE

The bishop is the general ruler of the diocese, but in his administration he must conform to the general laws of the Church (see BISHOP). According to the Council of Trent he is bound to divide the territory of his diocese into parishes, with ordinary jurisdiction for their titulars (Sess. XXIV, c. xiii, De ref.), unless circumstances render impossible the creation of parishes or unless the Holy See has arranged the matter otherwise (Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, nos. 31–33). The bishop needs also some auxiliary service in the administration of a diocese. It is customary for each diocese to possess a chapter (q. v.) of canons in the cathedral church; they are the counsellors of the bishop. The cathedral itself is the church where the bishop has his seat (kathedra). The pope reserves to himself the right of authorizing its establishment as well as that of a chapter of canons. In many dioceses, principally outside of Europe, the pope does not establish canons, but gives as auxiliaries to the bishop other officials known as consultores cleri diœcesani, i. e. the most distinguished members of the diocesan clergy, chosen by the bishop, often in concert with his clergy or some members of it. The bishop is bound to ask the advice of those counsellors, canons or consultors, in the most important matters. The canons possess, in some cases, the right to nullify episcopal action taken without their consent. The consultores cleri diœcesani, however, possess but a consultative voice (Third Plen. Council of Baltimore, nos. 17–22; Plen. Cone. Americæ Latinæ, no. 246.—See CONSULTORS, DIOCESAN). After the bishop, the principal authority in a diocese is the vicar-general (vicarius generalis in spiritualibus); he is the bishop’s substitute in the administration of the diocese. The office dates from the thirteenth century. Originally the vicar-general was called the “official” (officialis); even yet officialis and vicarius generalis in spiritualibus are synonymous. Strictly speaking, there should be in each diocese only one vicar-general. In some countries, however, local custom has authorized the appointment of several vicars-general. The one specially charged with the canonical lawsuits (jurisdictio contentiosa), e. g. with criminal actions against ecclesiastics or with matrimonial cases, is still known as the “official” it must be noted that he is none the less free to exercise the functions of vicar-general in other departments of diocesan administration. A contrary custom prevails in certain dioceses of Germany, where the “official” possesses only the jurisdictio contentiosa, but this is a derogation from the common law. For the temporal administration of the church the bishop may appoint an œconomus, i. e. an administrator. As such functions do not require ecclesiastical jurisdiction, this administrator may be a layman. The choice of a layman fully acquainted with the civil law of the country may sometimes offer many advantages (Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, no. 75). In certain very extensive dioceses the pope appoints a vicarius generalis in pontificalibus, or auxiliary bishop, whose duty is to supply the place of the diocesan bishop in the exercise of those functions of the sacred ministry which demand episcopal order. In the appointment of this bishop the pope is not bound to observe the special rules for the appointment of a residential bishop. These titular bishops possess no jurisdiction by right of their office; the diocesan bishop, however, can grant them, e. g., the powers of a vicar-general.

The common ecclesiastical law contains no enactments relating to the rights and powers of the chancellor, an official met with in many dioceses (see DIOCESAN CHANCERY). The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (no. 71) advises the establishment of a chancery in every diocese of the United States. The chancellor is specially charged with the affixing of the episcopal seal to all acts issued in the name of the bishop, in order to prove their authenticity. He appears also in the conduct of ecclesiastical lawsuits, e. g. in matrimonial cases, to prove the authenticity of the alleged documents, to vouch for the depositions of witnesses, etc. Because of the importance of his functions, the chancellor sometimes holds the office of vicar-general in spiritualibus. By episcopal chancery is sometimes understood the office where are written the documents issued in the name of the bishop and to which is addressed the correspondence relating to the administration of the diocese sometimes also the term signifies the persons employed in the exercise of these functions. The taxes or dues which the episcopal chancery may claim for the issuing of documents were fixed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, c. i, De ref.); afterwards by Innocent XI (hence their name ), 8 Oct., 1678; finally by Leo XIII, 10 June, 1896. The fiscal of the bishop, also known as promotor or procurator fiscalis, is the ecclesiastic charged with attending to the interests of the diocese in all trials and especially with endeavouring to secure the punishment of all offences cognizable in the ecclesiastical tribunals. An assistant, who is called fiscal advocate (advocatus fiscalis), may be appointed to aid this officer.

Formerly the diocese was divided into a number of archdeaconries, each administered by an archdeacon, who possessed considerable authority in that part of the diocese placed under his jurisdiction. The Council of Trent restricted very much their authority, and since then the office of the archdeacon has gradually disappeared. It exists at the present day only as an honorary title, given to a canon of the cathedral chapter (see ARCHDEACON). On the other hand, the ancient office of vicarii foranei, decani rurales, or archipresbyteri still exists in the Church (see ARCHPRIEST; DEAN). The division of the diocese into deaneries is not obligatory, but in large dioceses the bishop usually entrusts to certain priests known as deans or vicars forane the oversight of the clergy of a portion of his diocese, and generally delegates to them special jurisdictional powers (Third Plen. Council of Baltimore, nos. 27–30). Finally, by means of the diocesan synod all the clergy participates in the general administration of the diocese. According to the common law, the bishop is bound to assemble a synod every year, to which he must convoke the vicar-general, the deans, the canons of the cathedral, and at least a certain number of parish priests. Here, however, custom and pontifical privileges have departed in some points from the general legislation. At this meeting, all questions relating to the moral and the ecclesiastical discipline of the diocese are publicly discussed and settled. In the synod the bishop is the sole legislator; the members may, at the request of the bishop, give their advice, but they have only a deliberative voice in the choice of the examinatores cleri diœcesani, i. e. the ecclesiastics charged with the examination of candidates for the parishes (Third Plen. Council of Baltimore, nos. 23–26). It is because the diocesan statutes are generally elaborated and promulgated in a synod that they are sometimes known as statuta synodalia. In addition to the general laws of the Church and the enactments of national or plenary and provincial synods, the bishop may regulate by statutes, that are often real ecclesiastical laws, the particular discipline of each diocese, or apply the general laws of the Church to the special needs of the diocese. Since the bishop alone possesses all the legislative power, and is not bound to propose in a synod these diocesan statutes, he may modify them or add to them on his own authority.

VII. VACANCY OF THE DIOCESE

We have already explained how a diocese becomes vacant (see V above); here it will suffice to add a few words touching the administration of the diocese during such vacancy. In dioceses where there is a coadjutor bishop with right of succession, the latter, by the fact of the decease of the diocesan bishop, becomes the residential bishop or ordinary (q. v.) of the diocese. Otherwise the government of the diocese during the vacancy belongs regularly to the chapter of the cathedral church. The chapter must choose within eight days a vicar capitular, whose powers, although less extensive, are in kind like those of a bishop. If the chapter does not fulfil this obligation, the archbishop appoints ex officio a vicar capitular. In dioceses where a chapter does not exist, an administrator is appointed, designated either by the bishop himself before his death, or, in case of his neglect, by the metropolitan or by the senior bishop of the province (see ADMINISTRATOR).

VIII. CONSPECTUS OF THE DIOCESAN SYSTEM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The accompanying table of the diocesan system of the Church shows that there are at present throughout the world: 9 patriarchates of the Latin, 6 of the Oriental Rites; 6 suburbicarian dioceses; 163 (or 166 with the Patriarchates of Venice, Lisbon, and Goa, in reality archdioceses) archdioceses of the Latin, and 20 of the Oriental Rites; 675 dioceses of the Latin, and 52 of the Oriental Rites; 137 vicariates Apostolic of the Latin, and 5 of the Oriental Rites; 58 prefectures Apostolic of the Latin Rite; 12 Apostolic delegations; 21 abbeys or prelatures nullius diœcesis, i. e. exempt from the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop. There are also 89 titular archdioceses and 432 titular dioceses.

TABLE OF THE DIOCESAN SYSTEM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (1910)

Patriarchates=A

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Archdioceses=B

Dioceses=C

Exempt Dioceses=D

Apostolic Delagations=E

Vicariates Apostolic=F

Prefectures Apostolic=G

Prelatures and Abbeys Nullius=H

Latin Rite—EUROPE

Austria-Hungary

-

11

40

1

-

-

-

2

Belgium

-

1

5

-

-

-

-

-

Bosnia-Herzegovina

-

1

3

-

-

-

-

-

Bulgaria

-

-

-

1

-

1

-

-

Denmark

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

England

-

1

15

-

-

-

-

-

France

-

17

67

-

-

-

-

-

Germany

-

5

14

6

-

3

2

-

Greece

-

2

6

1

1

-

-

-

Ireland

-

4

25

-

-

-

-

-

Italy

2*

37

156†

75

-

-

-

11

Luxemburg

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

Malta

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

-

Monaco

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

Montenegro

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

Netherlands

-

1

4

-

-

-

-

-

Norway

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

Portugal

1

2

9

-

-

-

-

-

Rumania

-

1

-

1

-

-

-

-

Russia

-

2

14‡

-

-

-

-

-

Scotland

-

1

4

1

-

-

-

-

Servia

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

Spain

1§

9

47

-

-

1

-

1

Sweden

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

Switzerland

-

-

-

5

-

-

2

2

Turkey

-

1

4

2

1

1

-

1

Total

4

96

414

98

2

9

4

17

* Also three titular patriarchs of the Latin Rite reside in Rome.

† The six suburbicarian dioceses must be added to these.

‡ The Russian Government has suppressed three of these.

§ Titular Patriarchate of the West Indies.

Latin Rite—AMERICA

Argentine Republic

-

1

7

-

-

1

1

-

Bolivia

-

1

3

-

-

-

-

-

Brazil

-

4

20

-

-

-

-

2

Canada

-

8

20

-

1

4

-

-

Lesser Antilles

-

1

3

-

-

1

-

-

Chile

-

1

3

-

-

1

1

-

Columbia

-

4

10

-

-

2

3

-

Greater Antilles

-

2

7

2

1

1

-

-

Ecuador

-

1

6

-

-

4

-

-

Central America

-

1

4

-

-

1

-

-

Guianas

-

-

-

-

-

2

1

-

Mexico

-

8

22

-

1

1

-

-

Newfoundland

-

1

2

-

-

-

-

-

Paraguay

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

Peru

-

1

8

-

-

1*

3

-

Saint-Pierre and Miquelon Islands

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

United States

-

14

76

-

1

2

1

-

Uruguay

-

1

2†

-

-

-

-

-

Venezuela

-

1

5

-

-

-

-

-

Total

-

50

199

2

4

21

11

2

* Includes also some Chilean territory.

† Bulls have been issued but these dioceses have not been erected.

Latin Rite—ASIA

China

-

-

1

-

-

36

4

-

Corea

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

India and Indo-China

1

7

22

1

1

15

4

-

Japan

-

1

3

-

-

-

1

-

Persia

-

-

-

1

1

-

-

-

Turkey

1

1

1

1

3*

3

1

-

Total

2

9

27

3

5

55

10

-

* The Apostolic Delegation of Arabia also includes Egypt.

Latin Rite—OCEANICA

Australia

-

4

14

1

-

3

-

1

Malay Archipelago

-

-

-

-

-

1

3

-

New Zealand

-

1

3

-

-

-

-

-

Philippine Islands and Hawaii

-

1

8*

-

1

1

1

-

Polynesia

-

-

-

-

-

11

5

-

Total

-

6

25

1

1

16

9

1

* Though Bulls have been issued four of these dioceses have not been erected.

Latin Rite—AFRICA

Africa

-

2

10*

2

1†

36

24

1

* The Diocese of Ceuta is not enumerated, as it belongs to Cadiz, Spain.

† Delegation of Arabia and Egypt. See above, foot-note to Asia.

Oriental Rite—ARMENIAN

Austria

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

Russia

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

Asia

1

3

13

-

-

-

-

-

Africa

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

Oriental Rite—COPTIC

Africa

1

-

2

-

-

-

-

-

Oriental Rite—GREEK BULGARIAN

Macedonia

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

Thrace

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

Oriental Rite—GREEK MELCHITE

Asia

1

3

9

-

-

-

-

-

Oriental Rite—GREEK RUMANIAN

Austria

-

1

3

-

-

-

-

-

Oriental Rite—GREEK RUTHENIAN

Austria

-

1

6

-

-

-

-

-

Russia

-

-

1

2†

-

-

-

-

Oriental Rite—SYRIAN

Asia

1

3

5

-

-

-

-

-

Oriental Rite—SYRO-CHALDEAN

Asia

1

2

9

-

-

-

-

-

Oriental Rite—SYRO-MALABAR

Asia

-

-

-

-

-

3

-

-

Oriental Rite—SYRO-MARONITE

Asia

1

6

2

-

-

-

-

-

Total

6

20

52

2

-

5

-

-

* The Ruthenian bishop for the United States has neither a

diocese, properly so called, nor ordinary jurisdiction.

† One of these dioceses has been suppressed by the Russian Government.

Dioclea

A titular see of Phyrgia in Asia Minor. Diocleia is mentioned by Ptolemy (V, ii, 23), where the former editions read Dokela; this is probably the native name, which must have been hellenized at a later time; in the same way Doclea in Dalmatia is more commonly called Dioclea. The autonomous rights of Dioclea are proved by its coins struck in the reign of Elagabalus (Head, Hist. Num., 562). It figures in the “Synecdemus” of Hierocles, in Parthey, “Notitiae Episcopatuum” (III, X, XIII), and in Gelzer, “Nova Tactica,” i.e. as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century, as a bishopric in Phrygia Pacatiana, the metropolis of which was Laodicea. Only two bishops are known, in 431, and 451 (Lequien, Or. Christ., I, 823). An inscription found near Doghla, or Dola, a village in the vilayet of Smyrna, shows that it must be the site of Dioclea, though there are no ruins.

RAMSAY, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, 139; IDEM, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 632, 652, 660, 663.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Diocletian

(VALERIUS DIOCLETIANUS).

Roman Emperor and persecutor of the Church, b. of parents who had been slaves, at Dioclea, near Salona, in Dalmatia, A.D. 245; d. at Salona, A.D. 313.

He entered the army and by his marked abilities attained the offices of Governor of Mœsia, consul, and commander of the guards of the palace. In the Persian war, under Carus, he especially distinguished himself. When the son and successor of Carus, Numerian, was murdered at Chalcedon, the choice of the army fell upon Diocletian, who immediately slew with his own hand the murderer Aper (17 Sept., 284). His career as emperor belongs to secular history. Here only a summary will be given. The reign of Diocletian (284–305) marked an era both in the military and political history of the empire. The triumph which he celebrated together with his colleague Maximian (20 Nov., 303) was the last triumph which Rome ever beheld. Britain, the Rhine, the Danube, and the Nile furnished trophies; but the proudest boast of the conqueror was that Persia, the persistent enemy of Rome, had at last been subdued. Soon after his accession to power Diocletian realized that the empire was too unwieldy and too much exposed to attack to be safely ruled by a single head. Accordingly, he associated with himself Maximian, a bold but rude soldier, at first as Cæsar and afterwards as Augustus (286). Later on, he further distributed his power by granting the inferior title of Cæsar to two generals, Galerius and Constantius (292). He reserved for his own portion Thrace, Egypt, and Asia; Italy and Africa were Maximian’s provinces, while Galerius was stationed on the Danube, and Constantius had charge of Gaul, Spain, and Britain. But the supreme control remained in Diocletian’s hands. None of the rulers resided in Rome, and thus the way was prepared for the downfall of the imperial city. Moreover, Diocletian undermined the authority of the Senate, assumed the diadem, and introduced the servile ceremonial of the Persian court. After a prosperious reign of nearly twenty-one years, he abdicated the throne and retired to Salona, where he lived in magnificent seclusion until his death.

Diocletian’s name is associated with the last and most terrible of all the ten persecutions of the early Church. Nevertheless it is a fact that the Christians enjoyed peace and prosperity during the greater portion of his reign. Eusebius, who lived at this time, describes in glowing terms “the glory and the liberty with which the doctrine of piety was honoured,” and he extols the clemency of the emperors towards the Christian governors whom they appointed, and towards the Christian members of their households. He tells us that the rulers of the Church “were courted and honoured with the greatest subserviency by all the rulers and governors.” He speaks of the vast multitudes that flocked to the religion of Christ, and of the spacious and splendid churches erected in the place of the humbler buildings of earlier days. At the same time he bewails the falling from ancient fervour “by reason of exccessive liberty” (Hist. Eccl., VIII, i). Had Diocletian remained sole emperor, he would probably have allowed this toleration to continue undisturbed. It was his subordinate Galerius who first induced him to turn persecutor. These two rulers of the East, at a council held at Nicomedia in 302, resolved to suppress Christianity throughout the empire. The cathedral of Nicomedia was demolished (24 Feb., 303). An edict was issued “to tear down the churches to the foundations and to destroy the Sacred Scriptures by fire; and commanding also that those who were in honourable stations should be degraded if they persevered in their adherence to Christianity” (Euseb., op. cit., VIII, ii). Three further edicts (303–304) marked successive stages in the severity of the persecution: the first ordering that the bishops, presbyters, and deacons should be imprisoned; the second that they should be tortured and compelled by every means to sacrifice; the third including the laity as well as the clergy. The atrocious cruelty with which these edicts were enforced, and the vast numbers of those who suffered for the Faith are attested by Eusebius and the Acts of the Martyrs. We read even of the massacre of the whole population of a town because they declared themselves Christians (Euseb., loc. cit., xi, xii; Lactant., “Div. Instit.,” V, xi). The abdication of Diocletian (1 May, 305) and the subsequent partition of the empire brought relief to many provinces. In the East, however, where Galerius and Maximian held sway, the persecution continued to rage. Thus it will be seen that the so-called Diocletian persecution should be attributed to the influence of Galerius; it continued for seven years after Diocletian’s abdication. (See .)

Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. in P.G., XX; De Mart. Palæstinæ, P.G., XX, 1457–1520; Lactantius, Divinæ Institutiones, V, in P.L., VI; De Mortibus Persecutorum, P.L., VII; Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, xiii, xvi; Allard, Le persécution de Dioclétien et le triomphe de l’eglise (Paris, 1890); Idem, Le christianisme et l’empire romain (Paris, 1898); Idem, Ten Lectures on the Martyrs, tr. (London, 1907); Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l’eglise (Paris, 1907), II.

T.B. SCANNELL.

Diocletianopolis

A titular see of Palaestina Prima. This city is mentioned by Hierocles (Synecdemus, 719, 2), Georgius Cyprius (ed. Gelzer, 1012), and in some “Notitiae Episcopatuum,” as a suffragan of Caesarea. Its native name is unknown, and its site has not been identified. One bishop is known, Elisaeus, in 359 (Lequien, Oriens Christianus, III, 646). (2) Another Diocletianopolis was a suffragan see of Philippopolis in Thrace. Its site is unknown. Two bishops are mentioned, Cyriacus in 431, and Epictetus in 451 and 458. A third, Elias, in 553, is doubtful (Lequien, op. cit., I, 1161). (3) Still another Diocletianopolis was a suffragan of Ptolemais in Thebais Secunda (Parthey, Notit. Episc., I). This city also mentioned by Hierocles (op. cit., 732, 3), and by Georgius Cyprius, 772. Gelzer thinks that Diocletianopolis is a later name of Apollinopolis Minor, the Coptic Kos Bebir, and the Arabian Kûs, still existing near Keft (Coptus). (Amélineau, “Géographie de l’Egypte,” 490, 573, 576) One bishop of Apollinopolis Minor is known, Pabiscus, mentioned in 431 (Lequien, II, 603).

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Diodorus of Tarsus

Date of birth uncertain; d. about A.D. 392. He was of noble family, probably of Antioch. St. Basil calls him a “nursling” of Silvanus, Bishop of Tarsus, but whether this discipleship was at Antioch or at Tarsus is not known. He studied at Athens, then embraced the monastic state. He became head of a monastery in or near Antioch, and St. Chrysostom was his disciple. When Antioch groaned under Arian bishops, he did not join the small party of irreconcilables headed by Paulinus, yet when Bishop Leontius made Aetius a deacon Diodorus and Flavian threatened to leave his communion and retire to the West, and the bishop yielded. These two holy men, though not priests taught the people to sing the Psalms in alternate choirs (a practice which quickly spread throughout the Church), at first in the chapels of the martyrs, then, at Leontius’s invitation, in the churches. When at length, in 361, the Arian party appointed an orthodox bishop in the person of St. Meletius, Diodorus was made priest. He seems to have written some of his works against the pagans as early as the reign of Julian, for that emperor declared that Diodorus had used the learning and eloquence of Athens against the immortal gods, who had punished him with sickness of the throat, emaciation, wrinkles, and a hard and bitter life. In the persecution of Valens (364–78), Flavian and Diodorus, now priests, during the exile of Meletius kept the Catholics together, assembling them on the northern bank of the Orontes, since the Arian emperor did not permit Catholic worship within the city. Many times banished, Diodorus, in 372, made the acquaintance of St. Basil in Armenia, whither that saint had come to visit Meletius. On the return of the latter to his flock, he made Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus and Metropolitan of Cilicia. Theodosius soon after, in a decree, named Diodorus and St. Pelagius of Laodicea as norms of orthodoxy for the whole East. Diodorus was at the Councils of Antioch in 379 and of Constantinople in 381. Sozomen makes him responsible at the latter council for the proposal of Nectarius as bishop of that city, and represents him as one of the chief movers in the appointment of St. Flavian as successor to Meletius, by which the unhappy schism at Antioch was prolonged.

Diodorus came to Antioch in 386 or later, when St. Chrysostom was already a priest. In a sermon he spoke of Chrysostom as a St. John the Baptist, the Voice of the Church, the Rod of Moses. Next day Chrysostom ascended the pulpit and declared that when the people had applauded, he had groaned; it was Diodorus, his father, who was John the Baptist, the Antiochenes could bear witness how he had lived without possessions, having his food from alms, and persevering in prayer and preaching; like the Baptist he had taught on the other side of the river, often he had been imprisoned—nay, he had been often beheaded, at least in will, for the Faith. In another sermon he likens Diodorus to the martyrs: “See his mortified limbs, his face, having the form of a man, but the expression of an Angel!”

St. Basil in 375 asked Diodorus to disown a fictitious letter circulated in his name, permitting marriage with a deceased wife’s sister. In the following year he criticizes the rhetorical style of the longer of two treatises sent him by Diodorus, but gives warm praise to the shorter. Diodorus’s style is praised by Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Photius, but of his very numerous writings of a few unimportant fragments have been preserved, chiefly in Catenae (q.v). He wrote against some of the heresies and still more against heathen philosophy. Photius gives a detailed summary of his eight books “de Fato”; they were evidently very dull from a modern point of view. According to Leontius he composed commentaries on the whole Bible. St. Jerome says that these were imitations of those of Eusebius of Emesa, but less distinguished by secular learning. Diodorus rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Alexandrians, and adhered to the literal sense. In this he was followed by his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia, and by Chrysostom in his unequalled expositions. The Antiochene School of which he was the leader was discredited by the subsequent heresies of Nestorius, of whom his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia was the precursor. Theodoret wrote to exculpate Diodorus, but St. Cyril declared him a heretic. The damning passages cited by Darius Mercator and Leontius seem, however, to belong to a work of Theodore, not of Diodorus; nor was the latter condemned when Theodore and passages of Theodoret and Ibas (the Three Chapters) were condemned by the Fifth General Council (553). It seems certain that Diodorus went too far in his opposition to (the younger) Apollinarius of Laodicea, according to whom the rational soul in Christ was supplied by the Logos. Diodorus, in emphasizing the completeness of the Sacred Humanity, appears to have asserted two hypostases, not necessarily in a heretical sense. If the developments by Theodore throw a shade on the reputation of Diodorus, the praise of all his contemporaries and especially of his disciple Chrysostom tend yet more strongly to exculpate him. It will be best to look upon Diodorus as the innocent source of Nestorianism (q.v.) only in the sense that St. Cyril of Alexandria is admittedly the unwilling origin of Monophysitism through some incorrect expressions. Against this view are Julicher [in Theol. lit. Z. (1902), 82–86] and Funk [in “Rev. d’ hist. eccl.,” III (1902), 947–71; reprinted with improvements in “Kirchengesch, Abhandl.” (Paderborn, 1907), III, 323].

The fragments of his Commentaries on the Old Testament are collected in Migne, P.G., XXXIII, from the Catena of Nicephorus and that published by Corderius (Antwerp, 1643–6), also from Mai, “Nova Patrum Bibl.,” VI. A few more are found in Pitra “Spicilegium Solesmense” (Paris, 1852), I. A long list of the lost works is in Fabricius, “Bibl. Gr.,” V, 24 (reprinted in Migne loc. cit.). Some Syriac dogmatic fragments are in Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca,” (Leipzig and London, 1858). Four treatises of Pseudo-Justin Martyr have been attributed to Diodorus by Harnack (“Texte und Unters.,” N.F., VI, 4, 1901).

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Epistle to Diognetus

(EPISTOLA A.D. DIOGNETUM).

This beautiful little apology for Christianity is cited by no ancient or medieval writer, and came down to us in a single manuscript which perished in the siege of Strasburg (1870). The identification of Diognetus with the teacher of Marcus Aurelius, who bore the same name, is at most plausible. The author’s name is unknown, and the date is anywhere between the Apostles and the age of Constantine. It was clearly composed during a severe persecution. The manuscript attributed it with other writings to Justin Martyr; but that earnest philosopher and hasty writer was quite incapable of the restrained eloquence, the smooth flow of thought, the limpid clearness of expression, which mark this epistle as one of the most perfect compositions of antiquity. The last two chapters (xi, xii) are florid and obscure, and bear no relation to the rest of the letter. They seem to be a fragment of a homily of later date. The writer of this addition describes himself as a “disciple of the Apostles,” and through a misunderstanding of these words the epistle has, since the eighteenth century, been classed with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. The letter breaks off at the end of chapter x; it may have originally been much longer.

The writer addresses the “most excellent Diognetus,” a well-disposed pagan, who desires to know what is the religion of Christians. Idol-worship is ridiculed, and it is shown that Jewish sacrifices and ceremonies cannot cause any pleasure to the only God and creator of all. Christians are not a nation nor a sect, but are diffused throughout the world, though they are not of the world but citizens of heaven; yet they are the soul of the world. God, the invisible Creator, has sent His Child, by whom He made all things, to save man, after He has allowed man to find out his own weakness and proneness to sin and his incapacity to save himself. The last chapter is an exposition, “first” of the love of the Father, evidently to be followed “secondly” by another on the Son, but this is lost. The style is harmonious and simple. The writer is a practiced master of classical eloquence, and a fervent Christian. There is no resemblance to the public apologies of the second century. A closer affinity is with the “Ad Donatum” of St. Cyprian, which is similarly addressed to an inquiring pagan. The writer does not refer to Holy Scripture, but he uses the Gospels, I Peter, and I John, and is saturated with the Epistles of St. Paul. Harnack seems to be right in refusing to place the author earlier than Irenaeus. One might well look for him much later, in the persecutions of Valerian or of Diocletian. He cannot be an obscure person, but must be a writer otherwise illustrious; and yet he is certainly not one of those writers whose works have come down to us from the second or third centuries. The name of Lucian the Martyr would perhaps satisfy the conditions of the problem; and the loss of that part of the letter where it spoke more in detail of the Son of God would be explained, as it would have been suspected or convicted of the Arianism of which Lucian is the reputed father. The so-called letter may be in reality the apology presented to a Judge.

The editio princeps is that of Stephanus (Paris, 1592), and the epistle was included among the works of St. Justin by Sylburg (Heidelberg, 1593) and subsequent editors, the best of such editions is in Otto, “Corpus Apologetarum Christ.” (3d ed., Jena, 1879), III. Tillemont followed a friend’s suggestion in attributing it to an earlier date, and Gallandi included it in his “Bibl. Vett. PP.,” I, as the work of an anonymous Apostolic Father. It has been given since then in the editions of the Apostolic Fathers, especially those of Hefele, Funk (2d ed., 1901), Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn (1878), Lightfoot and Harmer (London, 1891, with English tr.). Many separate editions have appeared in Germany. There is an English translation in the Ante-Nicene Library (London, 1892), I. The dissertations on this treatise are too numerous to catalogue; they are not as a rule of much value. Baratier and Gallandi attributed the letter to Clement of Rome, Bohl to an Apostolic Father, and he was followed by the Catholic editors or critics, Mohler, Hefele, Permaneder, Alzog; whereas Grossheim, Tzsehirner, Semisch, placed it in the time of Justin; Dorner referred it to Marcion; Zeller to the end of the second century, while Ceillier, Hoffmann, Otto, defended the manuscript attribution to Justin; Fessler held for the first or second century. These definite views are now abandoned, likewise the suggestions of Kruger that Aristides was the author, of Draseke that it is by Apelles, of Overbeck that it is post-Constantinian, and of Donaldson that it is a fifteenth-century rhetorical exercise (the manuscript was thirteenth- or fourteenth-century). Zahn has sensibly suggested 250–310. Harnack gives 170–300.

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Dionysias

A titular see in Arabia. This city, which figures in the “Synecdemos” of Hierocles (723, 3) and Georgius Cyprius (1072), is mentioned only in Parthey’s “Prima Notitia,” about 840, as a suffragan of Bostra. Lequien (Or christ., II, 865) gives the names of three Greek bishops, Severus, present at Nicaea in 325, Elpidius at Constantinople in 381, and Maras at Chalcedon in 451. Another, Peter, is known by an inscription (Waddington, Inscriptlons . . . de Syrie, no. 2327). Fifteen or sixteen titular Latin bishops are known throughout the fifteenth century (Lequien, op. cit., III 1309; Eubel, I, 232, II, 160). Waddington (op. cit. 529 sqq.) identifies Dionysias with Soada, now es-Sûwêda, the chief town of a caza in the vilayet of Damascus, where many inscriptions have been found. Soada, though an important city, is not alluded to in ancient authors under this name; inscriptions prove that it was built by a “lord builder Dionysos” and that it was an episcopal see. Noldeke admits this view. Gesenius identifies Dionysias with Shohba (Philippopolis), but this is too far from Damascus.

Gelzer, ed., Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis Romani, 206.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Pope St. Dionysius

Date of birth unknown; d. 26 or 27 December, 268. During the pontificate of Pope Stephen (254–57) Dionysius appears as a presbyter of the Roman Church and as such took part in the controversy concerning the validity of heretical baptism (see Baptism under sub-title Rebaptism). This caused Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria to write him a letter on baptism in which he is described as an excellent and learned man (Eusebius, Hist eccl. VII, vii). Later, in the time of Pope Sixtus II (257–58), the same Bishop of Alexandria addressed Dionysius a letter concerning Lucianus (ibid., VII, ix), who this Lucianus was is not known. After the martyrdom of Sixtus II (6 August, 258) the Roman See remained vacant for nearly a year, as the violence of the persecution made it impossible to elect a new head. It was not until the persecution had begun to subside that Dionysius was raised (22 July, 259) to the office of Bishop of Rome. Some months later the Emperor Gallienus issued his edict of toleration, which brought the persecution to an end and gave a legal existence to the Church (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, xiii). Thus the Roman Church came again into possession of its buildings for worship, its cemeteries, and other properties, and Dionysius was able to bring its administration once more into order. About 260 Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria wrote his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor against Sabellianism in which he expressed himself with inexactness as to the Logos and its relation to God the Father (see Dionysius of Alexandria). Upon this an accusation against him was laid before Pope Dionysius who called a synod at Rome about 260 for the settlement of the matter. The pope issued, in his own name and that of the council, an important doctrinal letter in which, first, the erroneous doctrine of Sabellius was again condemned and, then, the false opinions of those were rejected who, like the Marcionites, in a similar manner separate the Divine monarchy into three entirely distinct hypostases or who represent the Son of God as a created being, while the Holy Scriptures declare Him to have been begotten; passages in the Bible, such as Deut., xxxii, 6, Prov., viii, 22, cannot be cited in support of false doctrines such as these. Along with this doctrinal epistle Pope Dionysius sent a separate letter to the Alexandrian Bishop in which the latter was called on to explain his views. This Dionysius of Alexandria did in his “Apologia” (Athanasius, De sententia Dionysii, V, xiii, De decretis Nicænæ synodi, xxvi). According to the ancient practice of the Roman Church Dionysius also extended his care to the faithful of distant lands. When the Christians of Cappadocia were in great distress from the marauding incursions of the Goths, the pope addressed a consolatory letter to the Church of Caesarea and sent a large sum of money by messengers for the redemption of enslaved Christians (Basilius, Epist. lxx, ed. Garnier). The great synod of Antioch which deposed Paul of Samosata sent a circular letter to Pope Dionysius and Bishop Maximus of Alexandria concerning its proceedings (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, xxx). After death the body of Dionysius was buried in the papal crypt in the catacomb of Callistus.

Liber Pont., ed. Duchesne, I, ccxlviii, 157; Langen, Geschíchte der römischen Kirche (Bonn, 1881), I, 352 sqq.; Hagemann, Die römische Kirche (Freiburg im Br., 1864), 344 sqq., 432 sqq.; Hefele, Konziliengeschichte, 2nd ed., I, 255 sqq.; Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur (Freiburg im Br., 1903), II, 581 sq.

J.P. KIRSCH

St. Dionysius

Bishop of Corinth about 170. The date is fixed by the fact that he wrote to Pope Soter (c. 168 to 176; Harnack gives 165–67 to 173–5). Eusebius in his Chronicle placed his “floruit” in the eleventh year of Marcus Aurelius (171). When Hegesippus was at Corinth in the time of Pope Anicetus, Primus was bishop (about 150–5), while Bacchyllus was Bishop of Corinth at the time of the Paschal controversy (about 190–8). Dionysius is only known to use through Eusebius, for St. Jerome (De viris ill., xxvii) has used no other authority. Eusebius knew a collection of seven of the “Catholic Letters to the Churches” of Dionysius, together with a letter to him from Pinytus, Bishop of Cnossus, and a private letter of spiritual advice to a lady named Chrysophora, who had written to him.

Eusebius first mentions a letter to the Lacedaemonians, teaching orthodoxy, and enjoining peace and union. A second was to the Athenians, stirring up their faith exhorting them to live according to the Gospel, since they were not far from apostasy. Dionysius spoke of the recent martyrdom of their bishop, Publius (in the persecution of Marcus Aurelius), and says that Dionysius the Areopagite was the first Bishop of Athens. To the Nicomedians he wrote against Marcionism. Writing to Gortyna and the other dioceses of Crete, he praised the bishop, Philip, for his aversion to heresy. To the Church of Amastris in Pontus he wrote at the instance of Bacchylides and Elpistus (otherwise unknown), mentioning the bishop’s name as Palmas; he spoke in this letter of marriage and continence, and recommended the charitable treatment of those who had fallen away into sin or heresy. Writing to the Cnossians, he recommended their bishop, Pinytus, not to lay the yoke of continence too heavily on the brethren, but to consider the weakness of most. Pinytus replied, after polite words, that he hoped Dionysius would send strong meat next time, that his people might not grow up on the milk of babes. This severe prelate is mentioned by Eusebius (IV, xxi) as an ecclesiastical writer, and the historian praises the tone of his letter.

But the most important letter is that to the Romans, the only one from which extracts have been preserved. Pope Soter had sent alms and a letter to the Corinthians:

For this has been your custom from the beginning, to do good to all the brethren in many ways, and to send alms to many Churches in different cities, now relieving the poverty of those who asked aid, now assisting the brethren in the mines by the alms you send, Romans keeping up the traditional custom of Romans, which your blessed bishop, Soter, has not only maintained, but has even increased, by affording to the brethren the abundance which he has supplied, and by comforting with blessed words the brethren who came to him, as a father his children.

Again:

You also by this instruction have mingled together the Romans and Corinthians who are the planting of Peter and Paul. For they both came to our Corinth and planted us, and taught alike; and alike going to Italy and teaching there, were martyred at the same time.

Again:

Today we have kept the holy Lord’s day, on which we have read your letter, which we shall ever possess to read and to be admonished, even as the former one written to us through Clement.

The testimony to the generosity of the Roman Church is carried on by the witness of Dionysius of Alexandria in the third century; and Eusebius in the fourth declares that it was still seen in his own day in the great persecution. The witness to the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul, kata ton auton kairon, is of first-rate importance, and so is the mention of the Epistle of Clement and the public reading of it. The letter of the pope was written “as a father to his children.” Dionysius’s own letters were evidently much prized, for in the last extract he says that he wrote them by request, and that they have been falsified “by the apostles of the devil.” No wonder, he adds, that the Scriptures are falsified by such persons.

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Dionysius Exiguus

The surname Exiguus, or “The Little,” adopted probably in self-deprecation and not because he was small of stature; flourished in the earlier part of the sixth century, dying before the year 544. According to his friend and fellow-student, Cassiodorus (De divinis Lectionibus, c. xxiii), though by birth a Scythian, he was in character a true Roman and thorough Catholic, most learned in both tongues-i.e., Greek and Latin-and an accomplished Scripturist. Much of his life was spent in Rome, where he governed a monastery as abbot. His industry was very great and he did good service in translating standard works from Greek into Latin, principally the “Life of St. Pachomius,” the “Instruction of St. Proclus of Constantinople” for the Armenians, the “De opificio hominis” of St. Gregory of Nyssa, the history of the discovery of the head of St. John the Baptist. The translation of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s synodical letter against Nestorius, and some other works long attributed to Dionysius are now acknowledged to be earlier and are assigned to Marius Mercator.

Of great importance were the contributions of Dionysius to the science of canon law, the first beginnings of which in Western Christendom were due to him. His “Collectio Dionysiana” embraces (1) a collection of synodal decrees, of which he has left two editions:-(a) “Codex canonum Ecclesiæ Universæ.” This contains canons of Oriental synods and councils only in Greek and Latin, including those of the four œcumenical councils from Nicæa (325) to Chalcedon (451).-(b) “Codex canonum ecclesiasticarum.” This is in Latin only; its contents agree generally with the other, but the Council of Ephesus (431) is omitted, while the so-called “Canons of the Apostles” and those of Sardica are included, as well as 138 canons of the African Council of Carthage (419).-(c) Of another bilingual version of Greek canons, undertaken at the instance of Pope Hormisdas, only the preface has been preserved. (2) A collection of papal Constitutions (Collectio decretorum Pontificum Romanorum) from Siricius to Anastasius II (384–498).

In chronology Dionysius has left his mark conspicuously, for it was he who introduced the use of the Christian Era (see ) according to which dates are reckoned from the Incarnation, which he assigned to 25 March, in the year 754 from the foundation of Rome (A. U. C.). By this method of computation he intended to supersede the “Era of Diocletian” previously employed, being unwilling, as he tells us, that the name of an impious persecutor should be thus kept in memory. The Era of the Incarnation, often called the Dionysian Era, was soon much used in Italy and, to some extent, a little later in Spain; during the eighth and ninth centuries it was adopted in England. Charlemagne is said to have been the first Christian ruler to employ it officially. It was not until the tenth century that it was employed in the papal chancery (Lersch, Chronologie, Freiburg, 1899, p. 233). Dionysius also gave attention to the calculation of Easter, which so greatly occupied the early Church. To this end he advocated the adoption of the Alexandrian Cycle of nineteen years, extending that of St. Cyril for a period of ninety-five years in advance. It was in this work that he adopted the Era of the Incarnation.

Dionysius, works in P.L., LXVII, and the testimony of Cassiodorus, ibid, LXX. See also Maasen, Quellen der Lit. des can. Rechts im Abendlande (Graz, 1870); Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirch. Lit. (Freiburg im Br., 1902).

JOHN GERARD

Dionysius of Alexandria

(Bishop from 247–8 to 264–5.)

Called “the Great” by Eusebius, St. Basil, and others, was undoubtedly, after St. Cyprian, the most eminent bishop of the third century. Like St. Cyprian he was less a great theologian than a great administrator. Like St. Cyprian his writings usually took the form of letters. Both saints were converts from paganism; both were engaged in the controversies as to the restoration of those who had lapsed in the Decian persecution, about Novatian, and with regard to the iteration of heretical baptism; both corresponded with the popes of their day. Yet it is curious that neither mentions the name of the other. A single letter of Dionysius has been preserved in Greek canon law. For the rest we are dependent on the many citations by Eusebius, and, for one phase, to the works of his great successor St. Athanasius.

Dionysius was an old man when he died, so that his birth will fall about 190, or earlier. He is said to have been of distinguished parentage. He became a Christian when still young. At a later period, when he was warned by a priest of the danger he ran in studying the books of heretics, a vision-so he informs us-assured him that he was capable of proving all things, and that this faculty had in fact been the cause of his conversion. He studied under Origen. The latter was banished by Demetrius about 231, and Heraclas took his place at the head of the catechetical school. On the death of Demetrius very soon afterwards, Heraclas became bishop, and Dionysius took the headship of the famous school. It is thought that he retained this office even when he himself had succeeded Heraclas as bishop. In the last year of Philip, 249, although the emperor himself was reported to be a Christian, a riot at Alexandria, roused by a popular prophet and poet, had all the effect of a severe persecution. It is described by Dionysius in a letter to Fabius of Antioch. The mob first seized an old man named Metras, beat him with clubs when he would not deny his faith, pierced his eyes and face with reeds, dragged him out of the city, and stoned him. Then a woman named Quinta, who would not sacrifice, was drawn along the rough pavement by the feet, dashed against millstones, scourged, and finally stoned in the same suburb. The houses of the faithful were plundered. Not one, so far as the bishop knew, apostatized. The aged virgin, Apollonia, after her teeth had been knocked out, sprang of her own accord into the fire prepared for her rather than utter blasphemies. Serapion had all his limbs broken, and was dashed down from the upper story of his own house. It was impossible for any Christian to go into the streets, even at night, for the mob was shouting that all who would not blaspheme should be burnt. The riot was stopped by the civil war, but the new Emperor Decius instituted a legal persecution in January, 250. St. Cyprian describes how at Carthage the Christians rushed to sacrifice, or at least to obtain false certificates of having done so. Similarly Dionysius tells us that at Alexandria many conformed through fear, others on account of official position, or persuaded by friends; some pale and trembling at their act, others boldly asserting that they had never been Christians. Some endured imprisonment for a time; others abjured only at the sight of tortures; others held out until the tortures conquered their resolution. But there were noble instances of constancy. Julian and Kronion were scourged through the city on camels, and then burnt to death. A soldier, Besas, who protected them from the insults of the people, was beheaded. Macar, a Libyan, was burnt alive. Epimachus and Alexander, after long imprisonment and many tortures, were also burnt, with four women. The virgin Ammomarion also was long tortured. The aged Mercuria and Dionysia, a mother of many children, suffered by the sword. Heron, Ater, and Isidore, Egyptians, after many tortures were given to the flames. A boy of fifteen, Dioscorus, who stood firm under torture, was dismissed by the judge for very shame. Nemesion was tortured and scourged, and then burnt between two robbers. A number of soldiers, and with them an old man named Ingenuus, made indignant signs to one who was on his trial and about to apostatize. When called to order they cried out that they were Christians with such boldness that the governor and his assessors were taken aback; they suffered a glorious martyrdom. Numbers were martyred in the cities and villages. A steward named Ischyrion was pierced through the stomach by his master with a large stake because he refused to sacrifice. Many fled, wandered in the deserts and the mountains, and were cut off by hunger, thirst, cold, sickness, robbers, or wild beasts. A bishop named Chæremon escaped with his súmbios (wife?) to the Arabian mountain, and was no more heard of. Many were carried off as slaves by the Saracens and some of these were later ransomed for large sums.

Some of the lapsed had been readmitted to Christian fellowship by the martyrs. Dionysius urged upon Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, who was inclined to join Novatian, that it was right to respect this judgment delivered by blessed martyrs “now seated with Christ, and sharers in His Kingdom and assessors in His judgment.” He adds the story of an old man, Serapion, who after a long and blameless life had sacrificed, and could obtain absolution from no one. On his death-bed he sent his grandson to fetch a priest. The priest was ill, but he gave a particle of the Eucharist to the child, telling him to moisten it and place it in the old man’s mouth. Serapion received it with joy, and immediately expired. Sabinus, the prefect, sent a frumentarius (detective) to search for Dionysius directly the decree was published; he looked everywhere but in Dionysius’s own house, where the saint had quietly remained. On the fourth day he was inspired to depart, and he left at night, with his domestics and certain brethren. But it seems that he was soon made prisoner, for soldiers escorted the whole party to Taposiris in the Mareotis. A certain Timotheus, who had not been taken with the others, informed a passing countryman, who carried the news to a wedding-feast he was attending. All instantly rose up and rushed to release the bishop. The soldiers took to flight, leaving their prisoners on their uncushioned litters. Dionysius, believing his rescuers to be robbers, held out his clothes to them, retaining only his tunic. They urged him to rise and fly. He begged them to leave him, declaring that they might as well cut off his head at once, as the soldiers would shortly do so. He let himself down on the ground on his back; but they seized him by the hands and feet and dragged him away, carrying him out of the little town, and setting him on an ass without a saddle. With two companions, Gaius and Peter, he ramained in a desert place in Libya until the persecution ceased in 251. The whole Christian world was then thrown into confusion by the news that Novatian claimed the Bishopric of Rome in opposition to Pope Cornelius. Dionysius at once took the side of the latter, and it was largely by his influence that the whole East, after much disturbance, was brought in a few months into unity and harmony. Novatian wrote to him for support. His curt reply has been preserved entire: Novatian can easily prove the truth of his protestation that he was consecrated against his will by voluntarily retiring; he ought to have suffered martyrdom rather than divide the Church of God; indeed it would have been a particularly glorious martyrdom on behalf of the whole Church (such is the importance attached by Dionysius to a schism at Rome); if he can even now persuade his party to make peace, the past will be forgotten; if not, let him save his own soul. St. Dionysius also wrote many letters on this question to Rome and to the East; some of these were treatises on penance. He took a somewhat milder view than Cyprian, for he gave greater weight to the “indulgences” granted by the martyrs, and refused forgiveness in the hour of death to none.

After the persecution the pestilence. Dionysius describes it more graphically than does St. Cyprian, and he reminds us of Thucydides and Defoe. The heathen thrust away their sick, fled from their own relatives, threw bodies half dead into the streets; yet they suffered more than the Christians, whose heroic acts of mercy are recounted by their bishop. Many priests, deacons, and persons of merit died from succouring others, and this death, writes Dionysius, was in no way inferior to martyrdom. The baptismal controversy spread from Africa throughout the East. Dionysius was far from teaching, like Cyprian, that baptism by a heretic rather befouls than cleanses; but he was impressed by the opinion of many bishops and some councils that repetition of such a baptism was necessary, and it appears that he besought Pope Stephen not to break off communion with the Churches of Asia on this account. He also wrote on the subject to Dionysius of Rome, who was not yet pope, and to a Roman named Philemon, both of whom had written to him. We know seven letters from him on the subject, two being addressed to Pope Sixtus II. In one of these he asks advice in the case of a man who had received baptism a long time before from heretics, and now declared that it had been improperly performed. Dionysius had refused to renew the sacrament after the man had so many years received the Holy Eucharist; he asks the pope’s opinion. In this case it is clear that the difficulty was in the nature of the ceremonies used, not in the mere fact of their having been performed by heretics. We gather than Dionysius himeself followed the Roman custom, either by the tradition of his Church, or else out of obedience to the decree of Stephen. In 253 Origen died; he had not been at Alexandria for many years. But Dionysius had not forgotten his old master, and wrote a letter in his praise to Theotecnus of Cæsarea.

An Egyptian bishop, Nepos, taught the Chiliastic error that there would be a reign of Christ upon earth for a thousand years, a period of corporal delights; he founded this doctrine upon the Apocalypse in a book entitled “Refutation of the Allegorizers.” It was only after the death of Nepos that Dionysius found himself obliged to write two books “On the Promises” to counteract this error. He treats Nepos with great respect, but rejects his doctrine, as indeed the Church has since done, though it was taught by Papias, Justin, Irenæus, Victorinus of Pettau, and others. The diocese proper to Alexandria was still very large (though Heraclas is said to have instituted new bishoprics), and the Arsinoite nome formed a part of it. Here the error was very prevalent, and St. Dionysius went in person to the villages, called together the priests and teachers, and for three days instructed them, refuting the arguments they drew from the book of Nepos. He was much edified by the docile spirit and love of truth which he found. At length Korakion, who had introduced the book and the doctrine, declared himself convinced. The chief interest of the incident is not in the picture it gives of ancient Church life and of the wisdom and gentleness of the bishop, but in the remarkable disquisition, which Dionysius appends, on the authenticity of the Apocalypse. It is a very striking piece of “higher criticism,” and for clearness and moderation, keenness and insight, is hardly to be surpassed. Some of the brethren, he tells us, in their zeal against Chiliastic error, repudiated the Apocalypse altogether, and took it chapter by chapter to ridicule it, attributing the authorship of it to Cerinthus (as we know the Roman Gaius did some years earlier). Dionysius treats it with reverence, and declares it to be full of hidden mysteries, and doubtless really by a man called John. (In a passage now lost, he showed that the book must be understood allegorically.) But he found it hard to believe that the writer could be the son of Zebedee, the author of the Gospel and of the Catholic Epistle, on account of the great contrast of character, style and “what is called working out.” He shows that the one writer calls himself John, whereas the other only refers to himself by some periphrasis. He adds the famous remark, that “it is said that there are two tombs in Ephesus, both of which are called that of John.” He demonstrates the close likeness between the Gospel and the Epistle, and points out the wholly different vocabulary of the Apocalypse; the latter is full of solecisms and barbarisms, while the former are in good Greek. This acute criticism was unfortunate, in that it was largely the cause of the frequent rejection of the Apocalypse in the Greek-speaking Churches, even as late as the Middle Ages. Dionysius’s arguments appeared unanswerable to the liberal critics of the nineteenth century. Lately the swing of the pendulum has brought many, guided by Bousset, Harnack, and others, to be impressed rather by the undeniable points of contact between the Gospel and the Apocalypse, than by the differences of style (which can be explained by a different scribe and interpreter, since the author of both books was certainly a Jew), so that even Loisy admits that the opinion of the numerous and learned conservative scholars “no longer appears impossible.” But it should be noted that the modern critics have added nothing to the judicious remarks of the third-century patriarch.

The Emperor Valerian, whose accession was in 253, did not persecute until 257. In that year St. Cyprian was banished to Curubis, and St. Dionysius to Kephro in the Mareotis, after being tried together with one priest and two deacons before Æmilianus, the prefect of Egypt. He himself relates the firm answers he made to the prefect, writing to defend himself against a certain Germanus, who had accused him of a disgraceful flight. Cyprian suffered in 258, but Dionysius was spared, and returned to Alexandria directly when toleration was decreed by Gallienus in 260. But not to peace, for in 261–2 the city was in a state of tumult little less dangerous than a persecution. The great thoroughfare which traversed the town was impassable. The bishop had to communicate with his flock by letter, as though they were in different countries. It was easier, he writes, to pass from East to West, than from Alexandria to Alexandria. Famine and pestilence raged anew. The inhabitants of what was still the second city of the world had decreased so that the males between fourteen and eighty were now scarcely so numerous as those between forty and seventy had been not many years before. A controversy arose in the latter years of Dionysius of which the half-Arian Eusebius has been careful to make no mention. All we know is from St. Athanasius. Some bishops of the Pentapolis of Upper Libya fell into Sabellianism and denied the distinctness of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Dionysius wrote some four letters to condemn their error, and sent copies to Pope Sixtus II (257–8). But he himself fell, so far as words go, into the opposite error, for he said the Son is a poíema (something made) and distinct in substance, xénos kat’ oùsian, from the Father, even as is the husbandman from the vine, or a shipbuilder from a ship. These words were seized upon by the Arians of the fourth century as plain Arianism. But Athanasius defended Dionysius by telaling the sequel of the history. Certain brethren of Alexandria, being offended at the words of their bishop, betook themselves to Rome to Pope St. Dionysius (259- 268), who wrote a letter, in which he declared that to teach that the Son was made or was a creature was an impiety equal, though contrary, to that of Sabellius. He also wrote to his namesake of Alexandria informing him of the accusation brought against him. The latter immediately composed books entitled “Refutation” and “Apology”; in these he explicitly declared that there never was a time when God was not Father, that Christ always was, being Word and Wisdom and Power, and coeternal, even as brightness is not posterior to the light from which it proceeds. He teaches the “Trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity”; he clearly implies the equality and eternal procession of the Holy Ghost. In these last points he is more explicit than St. Athanasius himself is elsewhere, while in the use of the word consubstantial, ‘omooúsios, he anticipates Nicæa, for he bitterly complains of the calumny that he had rejected the expression. But however he himself and his advocate Athanasius may attempt to explain away his earlier expressions, it is clear that he had been incorrect in thought as well as in words, and that he did not at first grasp the true doctrine with the necessary distinctness. The letter of the pope was evidently explicit and must have been the cause of the Alexandrian’s clearer vision. The pope, as Athanasius points out, gave a formal condemnation of Arianism long before that heresy emerged. When we consider the vagueness and incorrectness in the fourth century of even the supporters of orthodoxy in the East, the decision of the Apostolic See will seem a marvellous testimony to the doctrine of the Fathers as to the unfailing faith of Rome.

We find Dionysius issuing yearly, like the later bishops of Alexandria, festal letters announcing the date of Easter and dealing with various matters. When the heresy of Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, began to trouble the East, Dionysius wrote to the Church of Antioch on the subject, as he was obliged to decline the invitation to attend a synod there, on the score of his age and infirmities. He died soon afterwards. St. Dionysius is in the Roman Martyrology on 17 Nov., but he is also intended, with the companions of his flight in the Decian persecution, by the mistaken notice on 3 Oct.: Dionysius, Faustus, Gaius, Peter, and Paul, Martyrs(!). The same error is found in Greek menologies.

The principal remains of Dionysius are the citations in Eusebius, H. E., VI-VII, a few fragments of the books On Natrure in Idem, Præp. Evang., xiv, and;the quotations in Athanasius, De Sententiâ Dionysii, etc. A collection of these and other fragments is in Gallandi, Bibl. Vett. Patrum, III XIV, reprinted in P.G., X. The fullest ed. is by Simon de Magistris, S. Dion. Al. Opp. omnia (Rome, 1796); also Routh, Reliquiæ Sacræ III-IV. Syriac and Armenian fragments in Pitra, Analecta Sacra, IV. A complete list of all the fragments is in Harnack, Gesch. der altchr. Litt., I, 409–27, but his account of the passages from the Catena on Luke (probably from a letter to Origen, On Martyrdom) needs completing from Sickenberger, Die Lucaskatene des Niketas von Heracleia (Leipzig, 1902). For the life of Dionysius see Tillemont, IV; Acta SS., 3 Oct.; Dittrich, Dionysius der Grosse, eine Monographie (Freiburg im Br., 1867); Morize, Denys d’Alexandrie (Paris, 1881). Dom Morin tried unsuccessfully to identify the Canons of Hippolytus with D IONYSIUS” ‘Epistóle diokonikè dià ‘Ippolútou (Euseb., H. E., VI, 45–6) in Revue Bénédictine (1900), XVII, 241. Also Mercati, Note di letteratura bibl. et crist. ant.: Due supposte lettere di Dionigi Aless. (Rome, 1901). For chronology see Hanack, Chronol., I, 202, II, 57. A very good account, with full bibliography, is in Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirchl. Litt., II. On the Chiliastic question see Gry, Le Millénarisme (Paris, 1904), 101.

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite

By “Dionysius the Areopagite” is usually understood the judge of the Areopagus who, as related in Acts, xvii, 34, was converted to Christianity by the preaching of St. Paul, and according to Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, iv) was Bishop of Athens. In the course of time, however, two errors of far-reaching import arose in connection with this name. In the first place, a series of famous writings of a rather peculiar nature was ascribed to the Areopagite and, secondly, he was popularly identified with the holy martyr of Gaul, Dionysius, the first Bishop of Paris. It is not our purpose to take up directly the latter point; we shall concern ourselves here (1) with the person of the Peudo-Areopagite; (2) with the classification, contents, and characteristics of his writing; (3) with their history and transmission; under this head the question as to the genuineness of, origin, first acceptance, and gradual spread of these writings will be answered.

Deep obscurity still hovers about the person of the Pseudo-Areopagite. External evidence as to the time and place of his birth, his education, and latter occupation is entirely wanting. Our only source of information regarding this problematic personage is the writings themselves. The clues furnished by the first appearance and by the character of the writings enable us to conclude that the author belongs at the very earliest to the latter half of the fifth century, and that, in all probability, he was a native of Syria. His thoughts, phrases, and expressions show a great familiarity with the works of the neo-Platonists, especially with Plotinus and Proclus. He is also thoroughly versed in the sacred books of the Old and New Testament, and in the works of the Fathers as far as Cyril of Alexandria. (Passages from the Areopagitic writings are indicated by title and chapter. in this article D.D.N. stands for “De divinus nominibus”; C.H. for “Caelestis hierarchia”; E.H. for “Ecclesiastica hierarchia”; Th.M. for “Theologia mystica,” which are all found in Migne, P.G., vol. III) In a letter to Polycarp (Ep. vii; P.G., III, 1080 A) and in “Cael. hier.” (ix, 3; P.G. III, 260 D) he intimates that he was formerly a pagan, and this seems quite probable, considering the peculiar character of his literary work. But one should be more cautious in regard to certain other personal references, for instance, that he was chosen teacher of the “newly-baptized” (D.D.N., iii, 2; P.G. , III, 681 B); that his spiritual father and guide was a wise and saintly man, Hierotheus by name; that he was advised by the latter and ordered by his own superiors to compose these works (ibid., 681 sq.). And it is plainly for the purpose of deceiving that he tells of having observed the solar eclipse at Christ’s Crucifixion (Ep., vii, 2; P.G., III, 1081 A) and of having, with Hierotheus, the Apostles (Peter and James), and other hierarchs, looked upon “the Life-Begetting, God-Receiving body, i.e., of the Blessed Virgin” (D.D.N., iii, 2; P.G., III, 681 C). The former of these accounts is based on Matt., xxvii, 45, and Mark, xv,33; the latter refers to the apocryphal descriptions of the “Dormitio Mariae.” For the same purpose, i.e., to create the impression that the author belonged to the times of the Apostles and that he was identical with the Areopagite mentioned in the Acts, different persons, such as John the Evangelist, Paul, Timothy, Titus, Justus, and Carpus, with whom he is supposed to be on intimate terms, figure in his writings.

The doctrinal attitude of the Pseudo-Areopagite is not clearly defined. A certain vagueness, which was perhaps intended, is characteristic of his Christology, especially in the question concerning the two natures in Christ. We may well surmise that he was not a stranger to the latter, and rather modified, form of Monophysitism and that he belonged to that conciliatory group which sought, on the basis of the Henoticon issued in 482 by Emperor Zeno (Evagrius, Hist. Eccl., III, iv), to reconcile the extremes of orthodoxy and heresy. This reserved, indefinite attitude of the author explains the remarkable fact that opposite factions claimed him as an adherent. As to his social rank, a careful comparison of certain details scattered through his works shows that he belonged to the class of scholars who were known at the time as scholastikoi.

The writings themselves form a collection of four treatises and ten letters. The first treatise, which is also the most important in scope and content, presents in thirteen chapters an explanation of the Divine names. Setting out from the principle that the names of God are to be learned from Scripture only, and that they afford us but an imperfect knowledge of God, Dionysius discusses, among other topics, God’s goodness, being, life, wisdom, power, and justice. The one underlying thought of the work, recurring again and again under different forms and phrases, is: God, the One Being (to hen), transcending all quality and predication, all affirmation and negation, and all intellectual conception, by the very force of His love and goodness gives to beings outside Himself their countless gradations, unites them in the closest bonds (proodos), keeps each by His care and direction in its appointed sphere, and draws them again in an ascending order to Himself (epistrophe). While he illustrates the inner life of the Trinity by metaphors of blossom and light applied to the Second and Third Persons (D.D.N., ii, 7 in P.G., III, 645 B), Dionysius represents the procession of all created things from God by the exuberance of being in the Godhead (to hyperpleres), its outpouring and overflowing (D.D.N., ix, 9, in P.G., III, 909 C; cf. ii, 10 in P.G., III, 648 C; xiii, 1 in P.G., III, 977 B), and as a flshing forth from the sun of the Deity (D.D.N., iv, 6 in P.G., III,701 A; iv, 1 in P.G., III, 693 B). Exactly according to their physical nature created things absorb more or less of the radiated light, which, however, grows weaker the farther it descends (D.D.N., xi, 2 in P.G., III, 952 A; i, 2 in P.G., III,, 588 C). As the mighty root sends forth a multitude of plants which it sustains and controls, so created things owe their origin and conservation to the All-Ruling Deity (D.D.N., x, 1 in P.G., III, 936 D). Patterned upon the original of Divine love, righteousness, and peace, is the harmony that pervades the universe (D.D.N., chapters iv, viii, xi). All things tend to God, and in Him are merged and completed, just as the circle returns into itself (D.D.N., iv, 14 in P.G., III, 712 D), as the radii are joined in the centre, or as the numbers are contained in unity (D.D.N., v, 6 in P.G., III,, 820 sq.). These and many similar expressions have given rise to frequent charges of Pantheism against the author. He does not, however, a assert a necessary emanation of things from God, but admits a free creative act on the part of God (D.D.N., iv, 10, in P.G., III, 708 B; cf. C.H., iv, 1 in P.G., III, 177 C); still the echo of neo-Platonism is unmistakable.

The same thoughts, or their applications to certain orders of being, recur in his other writings. The second treatise develops in fifteen chapters the doctrine of the celestial hierarchy, comprising nine angelic choirs which are divided into closer groupings of three choirs each (triads). The names of the nine choirs are taken from the canonical books and are arranged in the following order. First triad: seraphim, cherubim, thrones; second triad: virtues, dominations, powers; third triad: principalities, archangels, angels (C.H., vi, 2 in P.G., III, 200 D). The grouping of the second triad exhibits some variations. From the etymology of each choir-name the author labours to evolve a wealth of description, and, as a result, lapses frequently into tautology. Quite characteristic is the dominant idea that the different choirs of angels are less intense in their love and knowledge of God the farther they are removed from him, just as a ray of light or of heat grows weaker the farther it travels from its source. To this must be added another fundamental idea peculiar to the Pseudo-Areopagite, namely, that the highest choirs transmit the light received from the Divine Source only to the intermediate choirs, and these in turn transmit it to the lowest. The third treatise is but a continuation of the other two, inasmuch as it is based upon the same leading ideas. It deals with the nature and grades of the “ecclesiastical hierarchy” in seven chapters, each of which is subdivided into three parts (prologos, mysterion, theoria). After an introduction which discusses God’s purpose in establishing the hierarchy of the Church, and which pictures Christ as its Head, holy and supreme, Dionysius treats of three sacraments (baptism, the Eucharist, extreme unction), of the three grades of the Teaching Church (bishops, priests, deacons), of three grades of the “Learning Church” (monks, people, and the class composed of catechumens, energumens, and penitents), and, lastly, of the burial of the dead [C.H., iii, (3), 6 in P.G., III, 432 sq.; vi, in P.G., III, 529 sq.] The main purpose of the author is to disclose and turn to the uses of contemplation the deeper mystical meaning which underlies the sacred rites, ceremonies, institutions, and symbols. The fourth treatise in entitled “Mystical Theology,” and presents in five chapters guiding principles concerning the mystical union with God, which is entirely beyond the compass of sensuous or intellectual perception (epopteia). The ten letters, four addressed to a monk, Caius, and one each to a deacon, Dortheus, to a priest, Sopater, to the bishop of Polycarp, to a monk, Demophilus, to the bishop Titus, and to the Apostle John, contain, in part, additional or supplementary remarks on the above-mentioned principal works, and in part, practical hints for dealing with sinners and unbelievers. Since in all of these writings the same salient thoughts on philosophy and theology recur with the same striking peculiarities of expression and with manifold references, in both form and matter, from one work to another, the assumption is justified that they are all to be ascribed to one and the same author. In fact, at its first appearance in the literary world the entire corpus of these writings was combined as it is now. An eleventh letter to Apollophanes, given in Migne, P.G., III, 1119, is a medieval forgery based on the seventh letter. Apocryphal, also, are a letter to Timothy and a second letter to Titus.

Dionysius would lead us to infer that he is the author of still other learned treatises, namely: “Theological Outlines” (D.D.N., ii, 3, in P.G., III 640 B); “Sacred Hymns” (C.H., vii, 4 in P.G., III, 212 B); “Symbolic Theology” C.H., xv, 6 in P.G., III,336 A); and treatises on “The Righteous Judgment of God” (D.D.N., iv, 35 in P.G., III, 736 B); on “The Soul” (D.D.N., iv, 2 in P.G., III, 696 C); and on “The objects of Intellect and Sense” (E. H., i, 2 in P.G., III, 373 B). No reliable trace, however, of any of these writings has ever been discovered, and in his references to them Dionysius is as uncontrollable as in his citations from Hierotheus. It may be asked if these are not fictions pure and simple, designed to strengthen the belief in the genuineness of the actually published works. This suspicion seems to be more warranted because of other discrepancies, e.g., when Dionysius, the priest, in his letter to Timothy, extols the latter as a theoeides, entheos, theios ierarches, and nevertheless seeks to instruct him in those sublime secret doctrines that are for bishops only (E.H., i, 5 in P.G., III, 377 A), doctrines, moreover, which, since the cessation of the Disciplina Arcani, had already been made public. Again, Dionysius points out (D.D.N., iii, 2 in P.G., III, 681 B; cf. E.H., iv, 2 in P.G., III, 476 B) that his writings are intended to serve as catechetical instruction for the newly-baptized. This is evidently another contradiction of his above-mentioned statement.

We may now turn to the history of the Pseudo-Dionysian writings. This embraces a period of almost fifteen hundred years, and three distinct turning points in its course have divided it into as many distinct periods: first, the period of the gradual rise and settlement of the writings in Christian literature, dating from the latter part of the fifth century to the Lateran Council, 649; second, the period of their highest and universally acknowledged authority, both in the Western and Eastern Church, lasting till the beginning of the fifteenth century; third, the period of sharp conflict waged about their authenticity, begun by Laurentius Valla, and closing only within recent years.

The Areopagitica were formerly were supposed to have made their first appearance, or rather to have been first noticed by Christian writers, in a few pseudo-epigraphical works which have now been proved to be the products of a much later period; as, for instance, in the following: Pseudo-Origenes, “Homilia in diversos secunda”; Pseudo-Athanasius, “Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem,” Q. viii; Pseudo-Hippolytus, against the heretic Beron; Pseudo-Chrysostom, “sermo de pseudo-prophetis.” Until more recently more credit was given to other lines of evidence on which Franz Hipler endeavoured to support his entirely new thesis, to the effect that the author of the writings lived about the year 375 in Egypt, as Abbot of Rhinokorura. Hipler’s attempts, however, at removing the textual difficulties, ekleipsis, adelphotheos, soma, proved to be unsuccessful. In fact, those very passages in which Hipler thought that the Fathers had made use of the Areopagite (e.g., in Gregory of Nazianzus and Jerome) do not tell in favor of this hypothesis; on the contrary, they are much better explained if the converse be assumed, namely, that Pseudo-Dionysius drew from them. Hipler himself, convinced by the results of recent research, has abandoned his opinion. Other events also, both historical and literary, evidently exerted a marked influence on the Areopagite: (1) the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Christological terminology of which was studiously followed by the Dionysius; (2) the writings of the neo-Platonist Proclus (411–485), from whom Dionysius borrowed to a surprising extent; (3) the introduction (c. 476) of the Credo into the liturgy of the Mass, which is alluded to in the “Ecclesiastical Hierarchy” [iii, 2, in P.G., III, 425 C, and iii, (3), 7 in P.G., III, 436 C; cf. the explanation of Maximus in P.G., IV, 144 B]; (4) the Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno (482), a formula of union designed for the bishops, clerics, monks, and faithful of the Orient, as a compromise between Monophystism and orthodoxy. Both in spirit and tendency the Areopagitica correspond fully to the sense of the Henoticon; and one might easily infer that they were made to further the purpose of the Henoticon.

The result of the foregoing data is that the first appearance of the pseuodo-epigraphical writings cannot be placed earlier than the latter half, in fact at the close, of the fifth century.

Having ascertained a terminus post quem, it is possible by means of evidence taken from Dionysius himself to fix a terminus ante quem, thus narrowing to about thirty years the period within which these writings must have originated. The earliest reliable citations of the writings of Dionysius are from the end of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth century. The first is by Severus, the head of a party of moderate Monophysites named after him, and Patriarch of Antioch (512–518). In a letter addressed to a certain abbot, John (Mai, Script. vett. nov. coll., VII, i, 71), he quotes in proof of his doctrine of the mia synthetos physis in Christ the Dionysian Ep. iv (P.G., III, 1072 C), where a kaine theandrike energeia is mentioned. Again, in the treatise “Adversus anathem. Juliani Halicarn” (Cod. Syr. Vat. 140, fol. 100 b), Severus cites a passage from D.D.N., ii, 9, P.G., III, 648A (abba kai to pases—thesmo dieplatteto), and returns once more to Ep. iv. In the Syrian “History of the Church” of Zacharias (e. Ahrens-Kruger, 134–5) it is related that Severus, a man well-versed in the writings of Dionysius (Areop.), was present at the Synod in Tyre (513). Andreas, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappodocia, wrote (about 520) a commentary on the Apocalypse wherein he quotes the Areopagite four times and makes use of at least three of his works (Migne, P.G., CVI, 257, 305, 356, 780; cf. Diekamp in “Hist. Jahrb,” XVIII, 1897, pp. 1–36). Like Severus, Zacharias Rhetor and, in all probability, also Andreas of Cappodocia,. inclined to Monophysitism (Diekamp, a “Book of Hierotheus”—Hierotheus had come to be regarded as the teacher of Dionysius—existed in the Syrian literature of that time and exerted considerable influence in the spread of Dionysian doctrines. Frothingham (Stephen Bar Sudaili, p. 63 sq.) considers the pantheist Stephen Bar Sudaili as its author. Jobius Monachus, a contemporary of the writers just mentioned, published against Severus a polemical treatise which has since been lost, but claims the Areopagite as authority for the orthodox teaching (P.G., CIII, 765). So also Ephraem, Archbishop of Antioch (527–545), interprets in a right sense the well-known passage from D.D.N., i, 4, P.G., III, , 529 A: ho haplous Iesous synetethe, by distinguishing between synthetos hypostasis and synthetos ousia. Between the years 532–548, if not earlier, John of Scythopolis in Palestine wrote an interpretation of Dionysius (Pitra, “Analect. sacr.,” IV, Proleg., p. xxiii; cf. Loof’s, “Leontius of Byzantium” (p. 270 sq.) from an anti-Severan standpoint. In Leontius of Byzantium (485–543) we have another important witness. This eminent champion of Catholic doctrine in at least four passages of his works builds on the megas Dionysios (P.G., LXXXVI, 1213 A; 1288 C; 1304 D; Canisius-Basnage, “Thesaur. monum. eccles.,” Antwerp, 1725, I, 571). Sergius of Resaina in Mesopotamia, archiater and presbyter (d. 536), at an early date translated the works of Dionysius into Syriac. He admitted their genuineness, and for their defence also translated into Syriac the already current “Apologies” (Brit. Mus. cod. add. 1251 and 22370; cf. Zacharias Rhetor in Ahrens-Kruger, p. 208). He himself was a Monophysite.

By far the most important document in the case is the report given by Bishop Innocent of Maronia of the religious debate held at Constantinople in 533 between seven orthodox and seven Severian spaekers (Hardouin, II, 1159 sq.). The former had as leader and spokesman, Hypatius, Bishop of Ephesus, who was thoroughly versed in the literature of the subject. On the second day the “Orientals” (Severians) alleged against the Council of Chalcedon, that it had by a novel and erroneous expression decreed two natures in Christ. Besides Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Felix and Julius of Rome, they also quoted Dionysius the Areopagite as an exponent of the doctrine of one nature. Hypatius rejected as spurious all these citations, and showed that Cyril never made the slightest use of them, though on various occasions they would have served his purpose admirably. He suspects that these falsifiers are Apollinarists. When the Severians rejoined that they could point out in the polemical writings of Cyril against Diodorus and Theodore the use made of such evidence, Hypatius persisted in the stand he had taken: “sed nunc videtur quoniam et in illis libris [Cyrilli] haeretici falsantes addiderunt ea.” The references to the archives of Alexandria had just as little weight with him, since Alexandria, with its libraries, had long been in the hands of the heretics. How could an interested party of the opposition be introduced as a witness? Hypatius refers again especially to Dionysius and successfully puts down the opposition: “Illa enim testimonia quae vos Dionysii Areopagitae dicitis, unde potestis ostendere vera esse, sicut suspicamini? Si enim eius erant, non potuissent latere beatum Cyrillum. Quis autem de beato Cyrillo dico, quando et beatus Athanasius, si pro certo scisset eius fuisse, ante omnia in Nicaeno concilio de consubstantiali Trinitate eadem testimonia protulisset adversus Arii diversae substantiae blasphemias.” Indeed, as to the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son the Areopagite has statements that leave no room for misinterpretation; and had these come from a disciple of the Apostles, they would have been all the more valuable. Hereupon the Severians dropped this objection and turned to another.

The fact must, indeed, appear remarkable that these very writings, though rejected outright by such an authority as Hypatius, were within little more than a century looked upon as genuine by Catholics, so that they could be used against the heretics during the Lateran Council in 649 (Hardouin, III, 699 sqq.). How had this reversion been brought about? As the following grouping will show, it was chiefly heterodox writers, Monophysites, Nestorians, and Monothelites, who during several decades appealed to the Areopagite. But among Catholics also there were not a few who assumed the genuineness, and as some of these were persons of consequence, the way was gradually paved for the authorization of his writings in the above-mentioned council. To the group of Monophysites belonged: Themistius, deacon in Alexandria about 537 (Hardoiun, III, 784, 893 sq., 1240 sq.); Colluthus of Alexandria (Hardouin, III, 786, 895, 898); John Piloponus, an Alexandrian grammarian, about 546–549 (W. Reichardt, “Philoponus, de opificio mundi”); Petrus Callinicus, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, in the latter half of the sixth century, cited Dionysius in his polemic against the Patriarch Damianus of Alexandria (II, xli, and xlvii; cf. Frothingham, op. cit., after Cod. Syr. Vat., 108, f. 282 sqq.). As examples of the Nestorian group may be mentioned Joseph Huzaja, a Syrian monk, teacher about 580 at the school of Nisibis (Assemani, Bibl. orient., vol. III, pt. I, p.103); aloso Ischojeb, catholicos, from 580 or 581 to 594 or 595 (Braun, “Buch der Synhados,” p. 229 sq.); and John of Apamea, a monk in one of the cloisters situated on the Orontes, belonging most probably to the sixth century (Cod. Syr. Vat., 93). The heads of the Monothelites, Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople (610–638), Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria (630–643), Pyrrhus, the successor of Sergius in Constantinople(639–641), took as the starting point in their heresy the fourth letter of Dionysius to Caius, wherein they altered the oft-quoted formula, theandrike energeia into mia theandrike energeia.

To glance briefly at the Catholic group we find in the “Historia Euthymiaca,” written about the middle of the sixth century, a passage taken, according to a citation of John Damascene (P.G., XCVI, 748), from D.D.N., iii, 2, P.G., III, 682 D: paresan de—epakousas. Another witness, who at the same time leads over to the Latin laiterature, is Liberatus of Carthage (Breviarium causae Nestor. et Euthych., ch. v). Johannes Malalas, of Antioch, who died about 565, narrates, in his “Universal Chronicle,” the conversion of the judge of the Areopagus through St. Paul (Acts, xvii, 34), and praises our author as a powerful philosopher and antagonist of the Greeks (P.G., XCVII, 384; cf. Krumbacher, Gesch. d. byz. Lit.,” 3rd ed., p. 112 sq.). Another champion was Theodore, presbyter. Though it is difficult to locate him chronologically, he was, according to Le Nourry (P.G., III, 16), an “auctor antiquissimus” who flourished, at all events, before the Lateran Council in 649 and, as we learn from Photius (P.G., CIII, 44 sq.), undertook to defend the genuineness of the Areopagitic writings. The repute, moreover, of these writings was enhanced in a marked degree by the following eminent churchmen: Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria (580–607), knew and quoted, among others, the D.D.N., xiii, 2, verbatim (P.G., CIII, 1061; cf. Der Katholic, 1897, II, p. 95). From Eulogius we naturally pass to Pope Gregory the Great, with whom he enjoyed a close and honourable friendship. Gregory the Great (590–604), in his thirty-fourth homily on Like, xv, 1–10 (P.L.L. XXVI, 1254), distinctly refers to the Areopagite’s teaching regarding the Angels: “Fertur vero Dionysius Areopagitica, antiquus videlicet et venerabilis Pater, dicere” etc. (c.f. C.H., vii, ix, xiii). As Gregory admits that he is not versed in Greek (Ewald, Reg., I,28; III, 63; X, 10, 21) he uses fertur not to express his doubt of the genuineness, but to imply that he had to rely on the testimony of others, since at the time no Latin version existed. It is, indeed, most probable that Eulogius directed his attention to the work.

About the year 620, Antiochus Monachus, a member of the Sabas monastery near Jerusalem, compiled a collection of moral “sentences” designed for the members of his order (P.G., LXXXIX, 1415 sqq.0. In the “Homilia (capitulum) LII” we discover a number of similar expressions and Biblical examples which are borrowed from the eighth letter of Dionysius “ad Demophilum” (P.G., III, 1085 sq.). In other passages frequent reference is made to the D.D.N. In the following years, two Patriarchs of Jerusalem, both from monasteries, defend Dionysius as a time-honoured witness of the true doctrines. The first is the Patriarch Modestus (631–634), formerly abbot of the Theodosius monastery in the desert of Judah. In a panegyric on the Assumptio Mariae (P.G., LXXXVI, 3277 sq.) he quotes sentences from the D.D.N., i, 4; ii,10; from the “Theologia Mystica,” i, 1; and from Ep. ii The second, a still brighter luminary in the Church, is the Patriarch Sophronius (634–638), formerly a monk of the Theodosius monastery near Jerusalem. Immediately after his installation he published an epistula synodica, “perhaps the most important document in the Monothelitic dispute.” It gives, among other dogmas, a lengthy exposition of the doctrine of two energies in Christ (Hefele, Conciliengesch., 2nd ed., III, 140 sqq.). Citing from “Eph. iv ad Caium” (theandrike energeia), he refers to our author as a man through whom God speaks and who was won over by the Divine Paul in a Divine manner (P.G., LXXXVII, 3177). Maximus Confessor evidently rests upon Sophronius, whose friendship he had gained while abbot of the monastery of Chrysopolis in Alexandria (633). In accordance with Sophronius he explains the Dionysian term theandrike energeia in an orthodox sense, and praises it as indicating both essences and natures in their distinct properties and yet in closest union (P.G., XCI, 345). Following the example of Sophronius, Maximus also distinguishes in Christ three kinds of actions (theoprepeis, anthropoprepeis and miktai) (P.G., IV, 536). Thus the Monothelites lost their strongest weapon, and the Lateran Council found the saving word (Hefele, op. cit., 2nd ed., III, 129). In other regards also Maximus plauys an important part in the authorization of the Areopagitica. A lover of theologico-mystical speculation, he showed an uncommon reverence for these writings, and by his glosses (P.G., IV), in which he explained dubious passages of Dionysius in an orthodox sense, he contributed greatly towards the recognition of Dionysius in the Middle Ages. Another equally indefatigable of Dyophysitism was Anastasias, a monk from the monastery of Sinai, who in 640 began his chequered career as a wondering preacher. Not only in his “Guide” (hodegos), but also in the “Quaestiones” and in the seventh book of the “Mediations on the Hexaemeron,” he unhesitatingly makes use of different passages from Dionysius (P.G. LXXXIX). By this time a point had been reached at which the official seal, so to speak, could be put on the Dionysian writings. The Lateran Council of 649 solemnly rejected the Monothelite heresy (Hardouin, III, 699 sq.). Pope Martin I quotes from D.D.N., ii, 9; iv, 20 and 23; and the “Ep. ad Caium”; speaks of the author as “beatae memoriae Dionysius,” “Dionysius egregius, sanctus, beatus, and vigorously objects to the perversion of the text: una instead of nova Dei et viri operatio. The influence which Maximus exerted by his personal appearance at the council and by his above-mentioned explanation of theandrike energeia is easily recognized (“Dionysius duplicem [operationem] duplicis naturae compositivo sermone absus est”—Hardouin, III, 787). Two of the testimonies of the Fathers which were read in the fifth session are taken from Dionysius. Little wonder, then, that thenceforth no doubt was expressed concerning the genuineness of the Areopagitica. Pope Agatho, in a dogmatic epistle directed to the Emperor Constantine (680) cites among other passages from the Fathers also the D.D.N., ii, 6. The Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680) followed in the footsteps of the Lateran Synod, again defended “Eph. iv ad. Caium” against the falsification of Pyrrhus, and rejected the meaning which the Monothelite Patriarch Macarius assigned to the passage (Hardouin, III, 1099, 1346, 1066). In the second Council of Nicaea (787) we find the “Celestial Hierarchy” of the “deifer Dionysius” cited against the Iconoclasts (Hardouin, IV, 362). This finishes the first and darkest period in the history of the Areopagitica; and it may be summarized as follows. The Dionysian writings appeared in public for the first time in the Monophysite controversies. The Severians made use of them first and were followed by the orthodox. After the religious debate at Constantinople in 533 witnesses for the genuineness of the Areopagitica began to increase among the different heretics. Despite the opposition of Hypatias, Dionysius did not altogether lose his authority even among Catholics, which was due chiefly to Leontius and Ephraem of Antioch. The number of orthodox Christians who defended him grew steadily, comprising high ecclesiastical dignitaries who had come from monasteries. Finally, under the influence of Maximus, the Lateran Council (649) cited him as a competent witness against Monothelism.

As to the second period, universal recognition of the Areopagitic writings in the Middle Ages, we need not mention the Greek Church, which is especially proud of him; but neither in the West was a voice raised in challenge down to the first half of the fifteenth century; on the contrary, his works were regarded as exceedingly valuable and even as sacred. It was believed that St. Paul, who had communicated his revelations to his disciple in Athens, spoke through these writings ((Histor.-polit. Blatter, CXXV, 1900, p. 541). As there is no doubt concerning the fact itself, a glance at the main divisions of the tradition may suffice. Rome received the original text of the Areopagitica undoubtedly through Greek monks. The oppressions on the part of Islam during the sixth and seventh centuries compelled many Greek and Oriental monks to abandon their homes and settle in italy. In Rome itself, a monastery for Greek monks was built under Stephen II and Paul I. It was also Paul I (757–767) who in 757 sent the writings of Dionysius together with other books, to Pepin in France. Adrian I (772–795) also mentioned Dionysius as a testis gravissimus in a letter accompanying the Latin translation of the Acts of the Nicaean Council (787) which he sent to Charlemagne. During the first half of the ninth century the facts concerning Dionysius are mainly grouped around the Abbot Hilduin of Saint-Denys at Paris. Through the latter the false idea that the Gallic martyr Dionysius of the third century, whose relics were preserved in the monastery of Saint-Denys, was identical with the Areopagite rose to an undoubted certainty, while the works ascribed to Dionysius gained in repute. Through a legation from Constantinople, Michael II had sent several gifts to the Frankish Emperor Louis the Pious (827), and among them were the writings of the Areopagite, which gave particular joy and honour to Hilduin, the influential arch-chaplain of Louis. Hilduin took care to have them translated into Latin and he himself wrote a life of the saint (P.L., CVI, 13 sq.). About the year 858 Scotis Eriugena, who was versed in Greek, made a new Latin translation of the Areopagite, which became the main source from which the Middle Ages obtained a knowledge of Dionysius and his doctrines. The work was undertaken at the instance of Charles the Bald, at whose court Scotus enjoyed great influence (P.L., CXXII, 1026 sq.; cf. Traube, “Poet. lat. aev. Carol.,” II, 520, 859 sq.). Compared with Hilduin’s, this second translation marks a decided step in advance. Scotus, with his keen dialectical skill and his soaring speculative mind, found in the Areopagite a kindred spirit. Hence, despite many errors of translation due to the obscurity of the Greek original, he was able to grasp the connections of thought and to penetrate the problems. As he accompanied his translations with explanatory notes and as, in his philosophical and theological writings, particularly in the work “De divisione naturae,” (P.L., CXXII), he recurs again and again to Dionysius, it is readily seen how much he did towards securing recognition for the Areopagite.

The works of Dionysius, thus introduced into Western literature, were readily accepted by the medieval Scholastics. The great masters of Saint-Victor at Paris, foremost among them the much admired Hugh, based their teaching on the doctrine of Dionysius. Peter Lombard and the great Dominican and Franciscan scholars, Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, adopted his theses and arguments. Master poets, e.g. Dante, and historians, e.g. Otto of Freising, built on his foundations. Scholars as renowned as Robert Grosseteste of Lincoln and Vincent of Beauvais drew upon him freely. Popular religious books, such as the “Legenda aurea” of Giacommo da Varagine and the “Life of Mary” by Brother Philip, gave him a cordial welcome. The great mystics, Eckhadt, Tauler, Suso, and others, entered the mysterious obscurity of Dionysius with holy reverence. In rapid succession there appeared a number of translations: Latin translations by Joannes Sarrazenus (1170), Robert Grosseteste (about 1220), Thomas Vercellensis (1400), Ambrosius Camaldulensis (1436), Marsilius Ficinus (1492); in the sixteenth century those of Faber Stapulensis, Perionius, etc. Among the commentaries that of Hugh of Saint-Victor is notable for its warmth, that of Albertus Magnus for its extent, that of St. Thomas for its accuracy, that of Denys the Carthusian for its pious spirit and its masterly inclusion of all previous commentaries.

It was reserved for the period of the Renaissance to break with the time-honoured tradition. True, some of the older Humanists, as Pico della Mirandola, Marsilius Ficinus, and the Englishmen John Colet, were still convinced of the genuineness of the writings; but the keen and daring critic, Laurentius Valla (1407–1457) in his glosses to the New Testament, expressed his doubts quite openly and thereby gave the impulse, at first for the scholarly Erasmus (1504), and later on for the entire scientific world, to take sides either with or against Dionysius. The consequence was the formation of two camps; among the adversaries were not only Protestants (Luther, Scultetus, Dallaeus, etc.) but also prominent Catholic theologians (Beatus Rhenanus, Cajetan, Morinus, Sirmond, Petavius, Lequien, Le Nourry); among the defenders of Dionysius were Baronius, Bellarmine, Lansselius, Corderius, Halloix, Delario, de Rubeis, Lessius, Alexander Netalis, and others. The literary controversy assumed such dimensions and was carried on so vehemently that it can only be compared to the dispute concerning the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals and the pseudo-Constantinian donation. In the nineteenth century the general opinion inclined more and more towards the opposition; the Germans especially, Mohler, Fessler, Dollinger, Hergenrother, Alzog, Funk, and others made no reserve of their decision for the negative. At this juncture the scholarly professor Franz Hipler came forward and attempted to save the honor of Dionysius. He finds in Dionysius not a flasifier, but a prominent theologian of the fourth century who, through no fault of his own, but owing to the misinterpretation of some passages, was confounded with the Areopagite. Many Catholics, and many Protestants as well, voiced their approval. Finally, in 1895 there appeared almost simultaneously two independent researches, by Hugo Koch and by Joseph Stiglmayr, both of whom started from the same point and arrived at the same goal. The conclusion reached was that extracts from the treatise of the neo-Platonist Proclus, “De malorum subsistentia” (handed down in the Latin translation of Morbeka, Cousin ed., Paris, 1864), had been used by Dionysius in the treatise “De div. nom.” (c. iv, sections 19–35) A careful analysis brought to light an astonishing agreement of both works in arrangement, sequence of thought, examples, figures, and expressions. It is easy to point out many parallelisms from other and later writings of Proclus, e.g. from his “Institutio theologica,” “theologia Platonica,” and his commentary on Plato’s “Parmenides,” “Alcibiades I,” and “Timaeus” (these five having been written after 462).

Accordingly, the long-standing problem seem to be solved in its most important phase. As a matter of fact, this is the decision pronounced by the most competent judges, such as Bardenhewer, Erhard, Funk, Diekamp, Rauschen, De Smedt, S.J., Duchesne, Battifol,; and the Protestant scholars of early Christian literature, Gelzer, Harnack, Kruger, Bonwetsch. The chronology being thus determined, an explanation was readily found for the various objections hitherto alleged, viz. the silence of the early Fathers, the later dogmatic terminology, a developed monastic, ceremonial, and penitential system, the echo of neo-Platonism, etc. On the other hand it sets at rest many hypotheses which had been advanced concerning the author and his times and various discussions—whether, eg., a certain Apollinaris, or Synesius, or Dionysius Alexandrinus, or a bishop of Ptolemais, or a pagan hierophant was the writer.

A critical edition of the text of the Areopagite is urgently needed. The Juntina (1516), that of Basle (1539), of Paris (1562 and 1615), and lastly the principal edition of Antwerp (1634) by Corderius, S.J., which was frequently reprinted (Paris, 1644, 1755, 1854) and was included in the Migne collection (P.G., III and IV with Lat. trans. and additions), are insufficient because they make use of only a few of the numerous Greek manuscripts and take no account of the Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic translations. The following translations have thus far appeared in modern languages: English, by Lupton (London, 1869) and Parker (London, 1894), both of which contain only the “Cael. Hierarchia” and the “Eccles. Hier.”; German, by Engelhardt (Sulzbach, 1823) and Storf, “Kirkliche Hierarchie” (Kempten, 1877); French, by Darboy (Paris, 1845) and Dulac (Paris, 1865).

For the older literature, cf. CHEVALIER, Bio. bibl. (Paris, 1905). Recent works treating of Dionysius: HIPLER, Dionysius der Areopagite, Untersuchungen (Ratisbon, 1861); IDEM in Kirkchenlex., s.v.; SCHNEIDER, Areopagitica, Verteiligung ihrer Echteit (Ratisbon, 1886); FROTHINGHAM, Stephen Bar Sudaili (Leyden, 1886); STIGLMAYR, Der Neuplatoniker Proklus als Vorlage des sog. Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Uebel in Hist. Jahrb. der Gorres-Gesellschaft (1895), pp. 253–273 and 721–748: IDEM, Das Aufkommen der pseudo-dionysischen Scriften und ihr Eindringen in die christliche Literatur bis zum Laterankonzil (Feldkirch, Austria, 1895); KOCH, Der pseudepigraphische Charakter der dionysischen Schriften in Theol. Quartalscrift (Tubingen, 1895), pp. 353–420; IDEM, Proklus, als Quelle des Pseudo-Dionysius, Areop. in der Lehrer vom Bosen in Philologus (1895), pp. 438–454; STIGLMAYR, Controversy with DRASEKE, LANGEN, and NIRSCHL in Byzantinische Zeitschrift (1898), pp. 91–110, and (1899), pp. 263–301, and Histor.-polit. Blatter (1900), CXXV, pp. 541–550 and 613–627; IDEM, Die Lehrer von den Sakramenten und der Kirche nach Pseudo-Dionysius in Zeitschrift fur kath. Theol. (Innsbruck, 1898), pp. 246–303; IDEM, Die Eschatologie des Pseudo-Dionysius, ibid. (1899), pp. 1–21; KOCH, Ps.-Dionysius Areop. in seinen Beziehungen zum Neoplatonismus und Mysterienwesen (Mainz, 1900). See also the articles on Dionysius in the Patrologie of BARDENHEWER (Freiburg, 1901), in the Realencyk. fur prot. Theol., and in the Dict. of Christian Biography.

JOS. STIGLMAYR.

Dioscorus

Antipope, b. at Alexandria, date unknown; d. 14 October, 530. Originally a deacon of the Church of Alexandria he was adopted into the ranks of the Roman clergy, and by his commanding abilities soon acquired considerable influence in the Church of Rome. Under Pope Symmachus he was sent to Ravenna on an important mission to Theodoric the Goth, and later, under Pope Hormisdas, served with great distinction as papal apocrisiarius, or legate, to the court of Justinian at Constantinople. During the pontificate of Felix IV he became the recognized head of the Byzantine party—a party in Rome which opposed the growing influence and power of a rival faction, the Gothic, to which the pope inclined.

To prevent a possible contest for the papacy, Pope Felix IV, shortly before his death, had taken the unprecedented step of appointed his own successor in the person of the aged Archdeacon Boniface, his trusted friend and adviser. When, however on the death of Felix (Sept. 530) Boniface II succeeded him, the great majority of the Roman priests—sixty out of sixty-seven—refused to accept the new pope and elected in his stead the Greek Dioscorus in the basilica of Constantine (the Lateran) and Boniface in the aula (hall) of the Lateran Palace, know as basilica Julii. Fortunately for the Roman Church, the schism which followed was but of short duration, for in less than a month (14 Oct., 530) Dioscorus died and the presbyters who had elected him wisely submitted to Boniface. In December, 530, Boniface convened a synod at Rome and issued a decree anathematizing Dioscorus as an intruder. He at the same time (it is not known by what means) secured the signatures of the sixty presbyters to his late rival’s condemnation, and caused the caused the document to be deposited in the archives of the church. The anathema against Diocorus was however, subsequently removed, and the document burned by Pope Agapetus I (535).

Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE (Paris, 1886), I, 281 sq.; JAFFE, Regesta Romanorum Pontificum (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1885), I, 111–12 In 1883 Amelli discovered the documents bearing on the election of 530, in the chapter library of Novara, and published them with his comments in Scuola Cattolica (Milan), XXI,fascic. 123; CREAGH in Amer. Eccl. Rev., XXVIII (Jan., 1903), 41–50; Theologische Quartalschrift (1903), 91 sq.; GRISAR, Gesch. Roms und der Papste (Freiburg im Br., 1901), I, 494 sq.; WURM, Papstwahl (Cologne, 1902), 12 sq.

THOMAS OESTREICH

Dioscurus

(Also written Dioscorus; Dioscurus from the analogy of Dioscuri).

Bishop of Alexandria; date of birth unknown; d. at Gangra, in Asia Minor, 11 Sept., 454. He had been archdeacon under St. Cyril, whom he succeeded in 444. Soon afterward Theodoret, who had been on good terms with Cyril since 433, wrote him a polite letter, in which he speaks of the report of Dioscurus’s virtues and his modesty. In such a letter no contrary report would be mentioned, and we cannot infer much from these vague expressions. The peace establish between John of Antioch and Cyril seems to have continued between their successors until 448, when Domnus, the successor and nephew of John, had to judge the case of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, who was accused of heresy and many crimes by the Cyrillian party. Domnus awcquited Ibas. The Cyrillian monks of Osrhoene were furious and betook themselves to Dioscurus as their natural protector. Dioscurus wrote to Domnus, complaining that he championed the Nestorian Ibas and Theodoret. Domnus and Theodoret both replied defending themselves, and showing their perfect orthodoxy. The accusers of Ibas went to the court at Constantinople, where the feeble Theodorius II was only too ready to mix in ecclesiastical quarrels. From him the Cyrillians obtain a decree against the Nestorians, in particular against Irenaeus, who had befriended the Nestorians at the Council iof Ephesus, where he was in authority as imperial representative; he was now deposed from the Bishopric of Tyre which he had obtained. Tyheodoret was forbidden to leave his Diocese of Cyrrus. In September a new Bishop of Tyre was appointed, and the Patriarch Domnus, feeling that Dioscurus was about to triumph, wrote to Flavian of Constantinople in order to get his support. Alexandria had of old been the first see of the East and was now only surpassed in power by the imperial city. The Egyptian patriarch had vast civil and political influence, as well as an almost autocratic sway over a hundred bishops and a great army of monks, who were heart and soul devoted to the memory of Cyril, and rather fervent than discriminating in their orthodoxy. Constantinople had been granted the next dignity after Rome by the great Council of 381, and the humiliation of Alexandria had embittered the long standing rivalry between the two sees. Antioch had always tended to support Constantinople, and Domnus was now ready to grant precedence to Flavian. Dioscurus, he said, had already complained that he, Domnus, was betraying the rights of Antioch and Alexandria in admitting the canon of 381, which had never been accepted by Alexandria or Rome. But Flavian was not a helpful ally, for he had neglected to obtain the favour of the eunich Chrysaphiuus, who was all powerful at court. An unforseen incident was now to set the world in a blaze. At a council held by Flavian in November of the same year, 448, Eusebius of Dorylaeum accused the Archimandrite Eusebius of teaching of one nature only in Christ. He was treated with all consideration, but his obstinacy made it unavoidable that he should be deposed and excommunicated. Now Eutyches was godfather to Chrysaphius, and “one nature” was precisely the unfortunate expression of St. Cyril, which his followers were already interpreting in a heretical sense. Eutyches at once therefore became the martyr of Cyrillianism; and though he was not a writer nor a theologian, he has given his name to Monophysite heresy, into which the whole Cyrillian party now plunged once for all.

The Cyrillians were further incensed by the failure of their second attempt to convict Ibas. They had procured an order from the emperor, 25 Oct., 448, for a fresh trial. The bishops who met for this purpose at Tyre in Feb., 449, were obliged by the violence of the Eastern monks to transfer some of their sittings to Berytus. At the end of the month Ibas was exculpated, though the emperor was known to be against him. Dioscurus and his party replied by an unexpected stroke; in March they induced the emperor to issue an invitation to all the greater bishops to attend with their suffragans a general council to be held at Ephesus in August. It was indeed not unreasonable to desire some permanent settlement of the intermittent war, and the pope, St. Leo I, warmly accepted the emperor’s proposition, or rather order. Eutyches had written to him, pretending that he had appealed at the time of his comdemnation, and promising to abide by his judgement. He wrote also to other bishops, and we still possess the reply sent to him by St. Peter Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna, where the court of Valentinian III, the Western emperor, had its headquarters. St. Peter tells him to await the decision of the pope, who alone can judge a case concerning the Faith. St. Leo at first had complained that the matter had not at once been referred to him, then, on finding that a full account sent by St. Flavian had been accidentally delayed, wrote a compendious explanation of the whole doctrine involved, and sent it to St. Flavian as a formal and authoritative decision of the question. He reproves Flavian’s council for want of severity to an expression of Eutyches, but adds that the archimandrite may be restored if he repent. This letter, the most famous of all Christian antiquity, is known as “St. Leo’s Tome.” He sent as legates to the council, a bishop named Julius, a priest, Renatus (he died on the way), and the deacon Hilarus, afterwards pope. St. Leo expresses his regret that the shortness of the notice must prevent the presence of any other bishop of the West. It is probable that his difficulty had been anticipated by Dioscurus, who had answered an appeal from Eutyches in a different strain. He regarded him as a downtrdden disciple of the great Cyril, persecuted by the Nestorian Flavian. As his predecessor Peter had appointed a bishop for Constantinople, and as Theophilus had judged St. Chrysostom, so Dioscurus, with the air of a superior, actually declared Etyches absoved and restored. In April Etyches obtained a slight revision of the Acts of the council which had condemned him. In the same month the case of Ibas was again examined, by the emperor’s order, this time at Edessa itself, and by a lay inquisitor, Cheraeas, the Governor of Osrhoene. The people received him shouts against Ibas. No defense was heard. On the arrival of Cheraeas’s report, the emperor wrote demanding the presence of Ibas’s most famous accuser, the monk Bar Tsaouma (Barsumas), and other monks at the approaching council. In all this we see the influence of Dioscurus dominant. In March Theodosius had prohibited Theodoret from coming to the council. On 6 August he shows some fear that his order may be disregarded, in a letter in which he constitutes Dioscurus president of the synod.

The council met at Ephesus on 8 Aug., 449. It was to have been ecumenical in authority, but it was dubbed by St. Leo a latrocinium, and “The Robber Council” has been its title ever since. A full history of it would be out of place here (see EPHESUS, ROBBER COUNCIL OF). It is only necessary to say that the assembly was wholly dominated by Dioscurus. Flavian was not allowed to sit as a bishop, but was on lis trial. When Stephen, Bishop of Ephesus, wished to give Communion to Flavian’s slergy, he was attacked by soldiers and monks of Eutyches, 300 in number, who cried out that Stephen was the enemy of the emperor, since he received the emperor’s enemies. Eutyches was admitted to defend himself, but the other side was only so far heard that the Acts of the council which had condemned him were read in full. The soldiers and monks were brought into the council, and many bishops were forced to sign a blank paper. The papal legate Hilarus uttered the protest Contradictur, and saved himself by flight. Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum appealed to the pope, and their letters, only lately discovered, were probably taken by Hilarus to Rome, which he reached by a devious route. St. Flavian was thrown into prison and died in three days of the blows and ill usage he received. The bishops who were present gave their testimony, when the Acts were publicly read at the Council of Chalcedon, to the violence used at Ephesus. No doubt they exaggerated somewhat, in order to excuse their own base compliance. But there were too many witnesses to allow them to falsify the whole affair; and we have also the witness of letters of Hilarus, of Eusebius, and of Flavian, and the martyrdom of the latter, to confirm the charges against Diosurus.

No more was read at Chalcedon of the Acts. But at this point begin the Syriac Acts of The Robber Council, which tells us of the carrying out by Dioscurus of a thoroughgoing but short-sited policy. The papal legates came no more to the council, and Domnus excused himself through illness. A few other bishops withdrew or escaped, leaving 101 out of the original 128, and some nine new-comers raised the total to 110. The deposition of Ibas was voted with cries, such as “Let him be burned in the midst of Antioch.” The accused was not present, and no witnesses for the defence were heard. Daniel, Bishop of Haran, nephew of Ibas, was degraded. Irenaeus of Tyre, already deposed, was anathematized. Then it was the turn of the leader of the Antiochene party. Ibas had been accused of immorality and a misuse of ecclesiastical property, as well as of heresy; no such charges could be made against the great Theo doret; his character was unblemished, and his orthodoxy had been admitted by St. Cyril himself. Never the less, his earlier writings, in which he had incautiously and with incorrect expressions attqcked St. Cyril and defended Nestorius, were now raked up against him. None ventured to dissent from the sentence of deposition pronounced by Discurus, which ordered his writings to be burnt. If we may bekieve the Acts, Domnus, from his bed of real or feigned sickness, gave a general assent to all the council had done. But this could not save him from the accusation of favouring Nestorians. He was deposed without a word of defence being heard, and a new patriarch, Maximus, was set up in his place.=20

So ended the council. Dioscurus proceeded to Constantinople, and there made his own secretary, Anatolius, bishop of the city. One foe remained. Dioscurus had avoided reading the pope’s letter to the Council of Ephesus, though he promised more than once to do so. He evidently could not then venture to contest the pope’s ruling as to the Faith. But now, with his own creatures on the thrones of Antioch and Constantinople, and sure of the support of Chrysaphius, he stopped at Nicea, and with ten bishops launched an excommunication of St. Leo himself. It would be vain to attribute all these acts to the desire of his own self aggrandizment. Political motives could not have led him so far. He must have known that in attacking the pope he could have no help from the bishops of the West or from the Western emperor. It is clear that he was genuinely infatuated with his heresy, and was fighting in its interest with all his might.

The pope, on hearing the report of Hilarus, immediately annulled the Acts of the council, absolved all those whom it had excommunicated, and excommunicated the hundred bishops who had taken part in it. He wrote to Theodosius II insisting on the necessity of a council to be held in Italy, under his own direction. The emperor, with the obstinacy of a weak man, supported the council, and paid no attention to the intervention of his sister, St. Pulcheria, nor to that of his colleague, Valentinian III, who, with his mother Galla Placidia, and his wife, the daughter of Theodosius, wrote to him at St. Leo’s suggestion. The reasons given to the pope for his conduct are unknown, for his letters to Leo are lost. In June or July, 450, he died of a fall from his horse, and was succeeded by his sister Pulcheria, who took for her colleague and nominal husband the excellent general Marcian. St. Leo, now sure of the support of the rulers of the East, declared a council unnecessary; many bishops had already signed his Tome, and the remainder would do so without difficulty. But the new emperor had already taken steps to carry out the pope’s wish, by a council not indeed in Italy, which was outside his jurisdiction, but in the immediate neighborhood of Constantinople, where he himself could watch its proceedings and insure its orthodoxy. St. Leo therefore agreed and sent legates who this time were to preside.

The council, in the intention of both pope and emperor, was to accept and enforce the definition given long since from Rome. Anatolius was ready enough to please the emperor by signing the Tome; and at Pulcheria’s intercessiiion he was accepted as bishop by St. Leo. The latter permitted the restoration to communion of those bishops who repented after their conduct at the Robber Council, with the exception of Dioscurus and of the leaders of that synod, whose case he first reserved to the Apostolic See, and then commited to the council. The synod met at Chalcedon, and its six hundred bishops made it the largest of ancient councils (see Chalcedon, Ecumenical Council of). The papal legates presided, supported by lay commissioners supported by the emperor, who were in practice the real presidents, since the legates did not speak Greek. The first point raised was the position of Dioscurus. He had taken his seat, but the legates objected that he was on trial. The commissioners asked for the charge against him to be formulated, and it was replied that he had held a council without the permission of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never been permitted. This statement was difficult to explain, before the discovery of the Syriac Acts; but we now know that Dioscurus had continued his would be general council for many sessions after the papal legates had taken their departure. The commissioners ordered him to sit in the midst as accused. (A sentence in this passage of the Acts is wrongly translated in the old Latin version; this was carelessly followed by Hefele, who thus led Bright into the error of supposing that the commissioners addressed to the legates a rebuke they meant in reality for Dioscurus). The Alexandrian patriarch was now as much deserted by his own party as his victims had been deserted at Ephesus by their natural defenders. Some sixty bishops, Egyptian, Palestinian, and Illyrian, were on his side, but were afraid to say a word in his defence, though they raised a great commotion at the introduction into the assembly of Theodoret, who had been especially excluded from the Council of Ephesus. The Acts of the first session of the Robber Council were read, continually interrupted by the disclaimers of the bishops. The leaders of that council, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Maximus of Antioch, now declared that Flavian was orthodox; Anatolius had long since gone over to the winning side. Dioscurus alone stood his ground. He was at least no time-server, and he was a convinced heretic. After this session he refused to appear. At the second session ( the third, according to the printed texts and Hefele, but the Ballerini are right in inverting the order of the second and third session) the case of Dioscurus was continued. Petitions against him from Alexandria were read. In these he was accused of injustice and cruelty by the family of Cyril and of many other crimes, even against the emperor and the State. How much of this is true it is impossible to say, as Dioscurus refused to appear or to make any defence. The accusations were dropped, and judgemnet must necessarily go against Diocurus, if only for contempt of court. The bishops therefore repeatedly demanded that the legates should deliver judgement. Paschasinus, therefore, the senior legate, recited the crimes of Dioscurus-he had absolved Eutyches contrary to the canons, even before the council; he was still contumacious when others asked for pardon; he had not had the pope’s letter read; he had excommunicated the pope; he had been thrice formally cited and refused to appear-”Wherefore the most holy and blessed Archbishop of elder Rome, Leo, by us and the most holy council, together with the thrice blessed and praiseworthy Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and base of the Catholic Church and the foundation of the orthodox Faith, has stripped him of the episcopal and of all sacerdotal dignity. Wherefore this most holy and great council will decree that which is accordance with the canons against the aforesaid Dioscurus.” All the bishops signified their agreement in a few words and then all signed the papal sentence. A short notice of his deposition was sent to Dioscurus. It is taken almost word for word from that sent to Nestorius by the Council of Ephesus twenty years before. With the rest of the council-its definition of the Faith imposed upon it Pope Leo, its rehabilitation of Theodoret and of Ibas, etc.,—we have nothing to do. Dioscurus affected to ridicule his condemnation, saying that he should soon be restored. But the council decreed that he was incapable of restoration, and wrote in this sense to the emperors, reciting his crimes. He was banished to Gangra in Paphlagonia, where he died three years later. The whole of Egypt revered him as the true representative of Cyrillian teaching, and from this time forth the Patriarchate of Alexandrian was lost to the Church. Dioscurus has been honoured in it as its teacher, and it has remained Eutychian to the present day.

The chief authority for the events which preceded the Robber Council (besides some letters of Theodoret) is the Syriac version of the Acts of that council, published from codex of 535in the Brit. Mus.; Secundam Synodum Ephesinam necnon excerpta quae ad eam pertinent. . . . ,Perry ed. (Oxford, 1875); The Second Synod of Ephesus, from Syriac MSS., tr. . by Perry (Dartford, 1881); German tr. by Hoffman, Verhandlungen der Kirchenversammlung zu Ephesus am xxii. August CDXLIX aus einer syrischen HS. (Kiel, 1873); the best dissertations on it are Martin, Le Pseudo-Synode connu dans l’histoire sous le nom de brigandage d’Ephese, etudie d’apres ses actes, en syriaque (Paris, 1875), and articles by the same in Rev. des Qu. Hist., XVI (1874), and in Rev. des Sciences Eccl., IX-X; also Largent in Rev des Qu. Hist., XXVII (1880); RIVINGTON, The Roman Primacy, 450–451 (London, 1899). Dr. Rivington has well noted the mistakes of Bright, but he has fallen into some himself, e.g. when he calls Dioscurus the nephew of St. Cyril or blames him for ignoring the so-called Constantinopolitan Creed. The appeals of Flavian and Eusebius were first published by Amelli, San Leone Magno e l’Oriente (Rome, 1882, and Montecassino, 1890) and with other documents in his Spicileg. Cassin (Montecassino, 1893); also by MOMMSEN, in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fur altere deutsche Geschichtskunde, XI (1886). The older historians, who wrote before the discovery of the Syriac Acts, are antiquated as regards Dioscurus, including Hefele (but we await the next volume of the new French edition by Leclercq), and Bright, with the exception of his posthumous The Age of the Fathers (London, 1903). For more general literature see CHALCEDON; a fragment of a letter of Dioscurus written from Gangra to the Alexandrians is found in the Antirrhetica of NICEPHORUS in PITRA, Spicileg, Solesm., IV, 380. A panegyric on Macarius of Tkhou, preserved in Coptic, is not genuine [published by AMELINEAU, monum. pour servir a l’hist. Den l’Egypte chr. au 4me et 5me siecles (Paris, 1888), see REVILLOUT in Rev. Egyptol., 1880–2]. A Coptic life has been published in French and Syriac by F. Nau, Histoire de Discore . . . par son disciple Theophiste, in Journal Asiatique, Xme serie (1903) 5,241; Coptic fragments of the Paneg. And the life pub. By Crum, in Proceeding of Soc. Of Bibl. Archaeol. (1907), XXV, 267. A letter to Dioscurus from St. Leo, 21 June, 445 (Ep. xi), is interesting. The Pope, politely but peremptorily, orders all ordinations of priests and deacons to be in the night between Saturday and Sunday; also on festivals when there is a great concourse the Sacrifice is to be repeated as often as the basilica is refilled, that none may be deprived of his devotion.

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Papal Diplomatics

The word diplomatics, following a Continental usage which long ago found recognition in Mabillon’s “De Re Diplomaticâ,” has of late come to denote also in English the science of ancient official documents, more especially of those emanating from the chanceries of popes, kings, emperors, and other authorities possessing a recognized jurisdiction. Etymologically diplomatics should mean the science of diplomas, and diploma, in its classical acceptation, signified only a permit to use the cursus publicus (i. e. the public posting-service), or else a discharge accorded to veteran soldiers and imparting certain privileges. But the scholars of the Renaissance erroneously supposed that diploma was the correct classical term for an sort of charter, and from them the word came into use among jurists and historians and obtained general currency.

HISTORY OF DIPLOMATICS

There is abundant evidence that during the Middle Ages a certain watchfulness, necessitated unfortunately by the prevalence of forgeries of all kinds, was exercised over the authenticity of papal Bulls, royal charters, and other instruments. In this control of documents and in the precautions taken against forgery the Chancery of the Holy See set a good example. Thus we find Gregory VII refraining even from attaching the usual leaden seal to a Bull for fear it should fall into unscrupulous hands and be used for fraudulent purposes (Dubitavimus hic sigillum plumbeum ponere ne si illud inimici caperent de eo falsitatem aliquam facerent.—Jaffé-Löwenfeld, “Regesta,” no. 5225; cf. no. 5242); while we owe to Innocent III various rudimentary instructions in the science of diplomatics with a view to the detection of forgeries (see Migne, P. L., CCXIV, 202, 322, etc.). Seeing that even an ecclesiastic of the standing of Lanfranc has been seriously accused of conniving at the fabrication of Bulls (H. Böhmer, “Die Fälschungen Erzbischof Lanfranks,” 1902; cf. Liebermann’s review in “Deutsche Literaturzeitung,” 1902, p. 2798, and the defence of Lanfrane by L. Saltet in “Bulletin de litt. eccl.,” Toulouse, 1907, 227 sqq.), the need of some system of tests is obvious. But the medieval criticism of documents was not very satisfactory even in the hands of a jurist like Alexander III (see his comments on two pretended privileges of Popes Zacharias and Leo, Jaffé-Löwenfeld, “Regesta,” no. 11,896), and though Laurentius Valla, the humanist, was right in denouncing the Donation of Constantine, and though the Magdeburg Centuriator, Matthias Flacius, was right in attacking the Forged Decretals, their methods, in themselves, were often crude and inconclusive. The true science of diplomatics dates, in fact, only from the great Benedictine Mabillon (1632–1707), whose fundamental work, “De Re Diplomaticâ” (Paris, 1681), was written to correct the misleading principles advocated in the criticism of ancient documents by the Bollandist Father Papenbroeck (Papebroch). To the latter’s credit be it said that he at once publicly recognized the value of his rival’s work and adopted his system. Other scholars were not so discerning, and assailants, like Germon and Hardouin in France, and, in less degree, George Hickes in England, rejected Mabillon’s criteria; but the verdict of posterity is entirely in his favour, so that M. Giry quotes with approval the words of Dom Toustain: “His system is the true one. Whoever follows any other road cannot fail to lose his way. Whoever seeks to build on any other foundation will build upon the sand.” In point of fact., all that has been done since Mabillon’s time has been to develop his methods and occasionally to modify his judgments upon some point of detail. After the issue of a “Supplement” in 1704, a second, enlarged and improved edition of the “De Re Diplomaticâ” was prepared by Mabillon himself and published in 1709, after his death, by his pupil, Dom Ruinart. Seeing, however, that this pioneer work had not extended to any documents later than the thirteenth century and had taken no account of certain classes of papers, such as the ordinary letters of the popes and privileges of a more private character, two other Benedictines of St-Maur, Dom Toustain and Dom Tassin, compiled a work in six large quarto volumes, with many facsimiles etc., known as the “Nouveau Traité de Diplomatique” (Paris, 1750–1765), which, though it marks but a small advance on Mabillon’s own treatise, has been widely used, and has been presented in a more summary form by Dom Vaines and others.

With the exception of some useful works specially consecrated to particular countries (e.g. Maffei, “Istoria diplomatica,” Mantua, 1727, unfinished; and Muratori, “De Diplomatibus Antiquis,” included in his “Antiquitates Italicæ,” 1740, vol. III), as also the treatise of G. Marini on papyrus documents (I papiri diplomatici, Rome, 1805), no great advance was made in the science for a century and a half after Mabillon’s death. The “Dictionnaire raisonné de diplomatique chrétienne,” by M. Quentin, which forms part of Migne’s “Encyclopedia,” is a rather unskilful digest of older works, and the sumptuous “Eléments de paléographie” of de Wailly (2 vols., 4to, 1838) has little independent merit. But within the last fifty years immense progress has been made in all diplomatic knowledge, and not least of all in the study of papal documents. In the bibliography appended to the articles BULLS AND BRIEFS and BULLARIUM, the reader will find references to the more important works. Amongst the pioneers of this revival the names of Léopold Delisle, the chief librarian of the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, and of M. de Mas-Latrie, professor at the Ecole de Chartres, as well as that of Julius von Pflugk-Harttung, the editor of a magnificent series of facsimiles of papal Bulls, deserve to occupy a foremost place; but their work has been carried on in Germany and elsewhere, often by those who are not themselves Catholics. It must be obvious that the photographic reproductions of documents which can now be procured so easily and cheaply have enormously facilitated that process of minute comparison of documents which forms the basis of all palæographic studies. Further, the improvement in the cataloguing and the extension of facilities under Pope Leo XIII in such great libraries as that of the Vatican have made their contents much more accessible and have rendered possible such a calendar of early papal Bulls as has been appearing since 1902, being the results of the researches of Messrs. P. Kehr, A. Brackmann, and W. Wiederhold, in “Nachrichten der Göttingen Gesellsehaft der Wissenschaften.” Of the series of papal regesta now being published by various scholars, especially by members of the Ecole Française de Rome, a sufficient account has been given in the second part of the article BULLARIUM. Still greater progress in the study of diplomatics is no doubt to be looked for from the facilities afforded by the recently founded journal, “Archiv für Urkundenforschung” (Leipzig, 1907), edited by Messrs. Karl Brandi, H. Bresslau, and M. Tangl, all acknowledged masters in this subject.

SUBJECT-MATTER OF PAPAL DIPLOMATICS

As this topic has already been treated in part in the article BULLS AND BRIEFS, it will be sufficient here to recall the principal elements in the process of expediting ancient papal documents, all of which need special attention. We have first of all the officials who are concerned in the preparation of such instruments and who collectively form the “Chancery.” The constitution of the Chancery, which in the case of the Holy See seems to date back to a schola notariorum, with a primicerius at its head, of which we hear under Pope Julius I (337–352), varied from period to period, and the part played by the different officials composing it necessarily varied also. Besides the Holy See, each bishop also had some sort of chancery for the issue of his own episcopal Acts. An acquaintance with the procedure of the Chancery is clearly only a study preparatory to the examination of the document itself. Secondly, we have the text of the document. As the position of the Holy See became more fully recognized, the business of the Chancery increased, and we note a marked tendency to adhere strictly to the forms prescribed by traditional usage. Various collections of these formula, of which the “Liber Diurnus” is one of the most ancient, were compiled at an early date. Many others will be found in the “Receuil général des formules” by de Rozière (Paris, 1861–1871), though these, like the series published by Zeumer (Formulæ Merovingici et Karolini ævi, Hanover, 1886), are mainly secular in character. After the text of the document, which of course varies according to its nature, and in which not merely the wording but also the rhythm (the so-called cursus) has often to be considered, attention must be paid;

to the manner of dating,

to the signatures,

to the attestations of witnesses etc.,

to the seals and the attachment of the seals,

to the material upon which it is written and to the manner of folding, as well as

to the handwriting

Under this last heading the whole science of palæography may be said to be involved.

All these matters fall within the scope of diplomatics, and all offer different tests for the authenticity of any given document. There are other details which often need to be considered, for example the Tironian (or shorthand) notes, which are of not infrequent occurrence in primitive Urkunden, both papal and imperial, and which have only begun of late years to be adequately investigated (see Tangl, “Die tironischen Noten,” in “Archiv für Urkundenforschung,” 1907, I, 87–166). A special section in any comprehensive study of diplomatics is also likely to be devoted to spurious documents, of which, as already stated, the number is surprisingly great.

Besides the books referred to in the course of this article see the bibliography of the article BULLS AND BRIEFS. A larger selection of authorities may be found in such treatises as those of GIRY, Manuel de Diplomatique (Paris, 1894); and BRESSLAU, Handbuch der Urkundenlehre (Leipzig, 1889), I. One very useful work for the study of papal diplomatics, the Practica Cancellariœ Apostolicœ, ed. SCHMITZ-KALLENBERG (Munich, 1904), though confined to the working of the Chancery at the close of the fifteenth century, is valuable for the indirect light thrown on other periods. Consult also the important work of TANGL, Die päpstlichen Kanzlei-Ordnungen von 1200–1500 (Innsbruck, 1894); ERBEN, Urkundenlehre (Munich, 1907); and ROSEMUND, Die Fortschritte der Diplomatik seit Mabillon (Munich, 1897), though these last two books have little directly to do with papal documents. In A. MEISTER’S important work on early ciphers, Die Anfänge der modernen diplomatischen Geheimschrift (Paderborn, 1902), the papal Chancery is hardly mentioned (see, however, p. 34). Finally, the best summary account of papal diplomatics is to be found in the section contributed by SCHMITZ-KALLENBERG to the Grundriss der Geschichtswissenschaft (Leipzig, 1906). vol. I, pp. 172–230.

HERBERT THURSTON.

Diptych

(Or diptychon, Greek diptychon from dis, twice and ptyssein, to fold).

A diptych is a sort of notebook, formed by the union of two tablets, placed one upon the other and united by rings or by a hinge. These tablets were made of wood, ivory, bone. or metal. Their inner surfaces had ordinarily a raised frame and were covered with wax, upon which characters were scratched by means of a stylus. Diptychs were known among the Greeks from the sixth century before Christ. They served as copy-books for the exercise of penmanship, for correspondence, and various other uses. The Roman military certificates, privilegia militum, were a kind of diptych. Between the two tablets others were sometimes inserted and the diptych would then be called a triptych, polyptych, etc. The term diptych is often restricted to a highly ornamented type of notebooks. They were generally made out of ivory with carved work, and were sometimes from twelve to sixteen inches in height. In the fourth and fifth centuries a distinction arose between profane and ecclesiastical (liturgical) diptychs, the former being frequently given as presents by high-placed persons. It was customary to commemorate in this way one’s elevation to a public office, or any event of personal importance, e.g. a marriage. The consuls, on the day of the installation, were wont to offer diptychs to their friends and even to the emperor. Those presented to the latter often had a border of gold and were quite large. Their tablets often exhibited on a central plate the portrait of the sovereign, surrounded by four other plates. The (undated) Barberini ivory at the Louvre is thus constructed and once served as an ecclesiastical diptych (see below). Some believe it to be the binding of a books offered to the emperor. Strzygowski holds it to be of Egyptian origin and thinks that the portrait is that of Constantine the Great, defender of the Faith. The oldest dated consular diptych is that of Probus (406); it is kept in the treasury of the cathedral of Aosta, Piedmont. The latest is that of the Eastern consul, Basilius (541), one tablet of which is at the Uffizi Museum in Florence and the other at the Brera in Milan. The Theodosian Code (384) forbade the offering of ivory diptychs to any but the regular (i.e. not honorary) consuls. The tablet at the Mayer Museum in Liverpool, bearing the image of Marcus Aurelius (d. 180), is prior to this enactment. The consular diptychs are recognizable by their inscriptions or by the figure of the consul which they bear. On the diptych of Boetius at Brescia (487) and several others of the same type the consul is clad in a trabea (a kind of toga); he holds in his left hand the scipio (consular sceptre) and in his right the mappa circensis, or white cloth which he used to wave as the signal for the games in the circus. These games (ludi) or other liberalities offered to the people by the consul were frequently represented on the tablets of the diptychs.

There is less certainty concerning the diptychs of officials other than consuls, e.g. praetors, quaestors, etc. The diptych of Rufius Probianus V.C. (i.e. vir clarissimus) vicarius urbis Romae, in the Berlin Museum, is the most precious relic of this class, and probably dates from the end of the fourth century. Among the diptychs of private individuals that of Gallienus Concessus, discovered at Rome on the Esquiline, exhibits only the name of its owner. Others were richly ornamented and reproduced often some of the masterpieces of ancient art. Thus on a diptych in the Mayer Museum, Liverpool, are seen Aesculapius and Telesphorus Hygieia, and Amor. The most beautiful of the profane diptychs was carved at the time of a marriage between the Symmachi and the Nicomachi (392 to 394, or 401). It represents on each leaf (one of which is at the South Kensington Museum and the other, in a very damaged condition, at Cluny) a woman performing a sacrifice. Many of the profane diptychs were preserved in the treasuries of the churches, where they were eventually used for liturgical purposes or enshrined in bookbindings or in goldsmith work. The diptych of Boetius, among others bears on the interior, some liturgical texts and religious paintings, attributed to the seventh century. The Liege diptych of the consul Anastasius (517), one leaf of which is at Berlin and the other at South Kensington, bears an inscription of forty-two lines and the prayer Communicantes from the Canon of the Mass. Another of the same consul (in the BibliothèqueNationale, Paris) has a list of the bishops of Bourges. At the cathedral of Monza, Lombardy, a diptych represents in the dress of consuls king David and St. Gregory the Great. It is perhaps an ancient consular diptych, transformed in the eighth or ninth century; according to some it appears to be of ecclesiastical origin. Many carved diptychs reproduced purely religious subjects. On a diptych in the treasury of Rouen cathedral the figure of St. Paul is exactly the same as that on a sarcophagus in Gaul. A diptych leaf in the treasury of Tongres was evidently influenced by the carvings on the cathedra of St. Maximinus at Ravenna, and seems to have belonged to an ancient episcopal see. Certain diptychs with religious subjects, e.g. the Holy Sepulchre and the holy women at the Tomb of Christ (Milan), an angel (British Museum), probably date from the fourth or fifth century. Diptych leaves divided into five compartments have generally served as a cover for copies of the Gospels. The diptychs, though often clumsily executed, are important for the history of sculpture, there being a good number of them extant, and several being accurately dated. At different periods in the Middle Ages numerous diptychs or triptychs of ivory were made, to serve as little devotional panels.

The liturgical use of diptychs offers considerable interest. In the early Christian ages it was customary to write on diptychs the names of those, living or dead, who were considered as members of the Church a signal evidence of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. Hence the terms “diptychs of the living” and “diptychs of the dead.” Such liturgical diptychs varied in shape and dimension. Their use (sacrae tabulae, matriculae, libri vivorum et mortuorum) is attested in the writings of St. Cyprian (third century) and by the history of St. John Chrysostom (fourth century), nor did they disappear from the churches until the twelfth century in the West and the fourteenth century in the East. In the ecclesiastical life of antiquity these liturgical diptychs served various purposes. It is probable that the names of the baptized were written on diptychs, which were thus a kind of baptismal register. The “diptychs of the living” would include the names of the pope, bishops, and illustrious persons, both lay and ecclesiastical, of the benefactors of a church, and of those who offered the Holy Sacrifice. To these names were sometimes added those of the Blessed Virgin, of martyrs, and of other saints. From such diptychs came the first ecclesiastical calendars and the martyrologies. The “diptychs of the dead” would include the names of persons otherwise qualified for inscription on the diptychs of the living, e.g. the bishops of the community (also other bishops), moreover priests and laymen who had died in the odour of sanctity. It is to this kind of diptychs that the later necrologies owe their origin. Occasionally special diptychs were made to contain only the names of a series of bishops; in this way arose at an early date the episcopal lists or catalogues of occupants of sees. Whatever their immediate purpose the liturgical diptychs admitted only the names of persons in communion with the Church; the names of heretics and of excommunicated members were never inserted. Exclusion from these lists was a grave ecclesiastical penalty; the highest dignity, episcopal or imperial, would not avail to save the offender from its infliction. The content of the diptychs was read out, either from the ambo (q. v.) or from the altar by a priest or a deacon. In this respect a variety of customs obtained in different churches and at different periods, sometimes the diptychs were simply laid on the altar during Mass, and when read publicly, such reading did not always occur at the same stage of the Mass. The order of which traces are now seen in the Roman Canon of the Mass was the fixed usage of the Roman Church as early as the fifth century. In that venerable document a long passage after the Sanctus corresponding to the ancient recitation of the diptychs of the living; it contains, as is well known, mention of those for whom the Mass is offered, of the pope, of the bishop of the diocese, of the Blessed Virgin, and of several saints. At Easter and at Pentecost the Hanc igitur furnished a proper occasion to mention the names of the newly baptized, now mentioned only as a body. Finally the recitation of the “diptychs of the dead” is still recalled by the Memento which for the consecration.

R. MAERE.

Spiritual Direction

In the technical sense of the term, spiritual direction is that function of the sacred ministry by which the Church guides the faithful to the attainment of eternal happiness. It is part of the commission given to her in the words of Christ: “Going, therefore, teach ye all nations . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt., xxviii, 19 sq.). She exercises this function both in her public teaching, whether in word or writing, and in the private guidance of souls according to their individual needs; but it is the private guidance that is generally understood by the term “spiritual direction.”

I. In one way, the Church requires all her adult members to submit to such private direction, namely, in the Sacrament of Penance. For she entrusts to her priests in the confessional, not only the part of judge to absolve or retain the sins presently confessed, but also the part of a director of consciences. In the latter capacity he must instruct his penitents if ignorant of their duties, point out the wrong or the danger in their conduct, and suggest the proper means to be employed for amendment or improvement. The penitent, on his part, must submit to this guidance. He must also, in cases of serious doubt regarding the lawfulness of his action, ask the advice of his director. For a person who acts in a practical doubt, not knowing whether he is offending God or not, and yet consenting to do what he thinks to be morally wrong, thereby offends his Creator. Such consultation is the more necessary as no one is a good judge in his own cause: a business man is sometimes blind to the injustice of a tempting bargain, and passion often invents motives for unlawful indulgence.

II. Still more frequently is spiritual direction required in the lives of Christians who aim at the attainment of perfection (see PERFECTION). All religious are obliged to do so by their profession; and many of the faithful, married and unmarried, who live amidst worldly cares aspire to such perfection as is attainable in their states of life. This striving after Christian perfection means the cultivation of certain virtues and watchfulness against faults and spiritual dangers. The knowledge of this constitutes the science of asceticism. The spiritual director must be well versed in this difficult science, as his advice is very necessary for such souls. For, as Cassian writes, “by no vice does the devil draw a monk headlong and bring him to death sooner than by persuading him to neglect the counsel of the Elders and trust to his own judgment and determination” (Conf. of Abbot Moses).

III. Since, in teaching the Faith, the Holy Ghost speaks through the sovereign pontiff and the bishops of the Church, the work of the private spiritual director must never be at variance with this infallible guidance. Therefore the Church has condemned the doctrine of Molinos, who taught that directors are independent of the bishops, that the Church does not judge about secret matters, and that God and the director alone enter into the inner conscience (Denziger, Enchiridion, nos. 1152, 1153). Several of the most learned Fathers of the Church devoted much attention to spiritual direction, for instance, St. Jerome, who directed St. Paula and her daughter St. Eustochium; and some of them have left us learned treatises on ascetic theology. But while the hierarchy of the Church is Divinely appointed to guard the purity of faith and morals, the Holy Spirit, who “breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth” (John, iii, 8), has often chosen priests or religious, and even simple laymen and women, and filled them with supernatural wisdom in order to provide for the spiritual direction of others.

IV. Whoever the director be, he will find the principal means of progress towards perfection to consist in the exercise of prayer (q. v.) and mortification (q. v.). But upon the special processes of these two means, spiritual guides have been led by the Holy Spirit in various directions. Different is the type for the solitary in the desert, the cenobite in the community, for a St. Louis or a Blanche of Castile in a palace, St. Frances of Rome in her family, or a St. Zita in her kitchen, for contemplative and for active religious orders and congregations. Another marked difference in the direction of souls arises from the presence or absence of the mystical element in the life of the person to be directed (see MYSTICISM). Mysticism involves peculiar modes of action by which the Holy Ghost illumines a soul in ways which transcend the normal use of the reasoning powers. The spiritual director who has such persons in charge needs the soundest learning and consummate prudence. Here especially sad mistakes have been made by presumption and imprudent zeal, for men of distinction in the Church have gone astray in this matter.

V. Even in ordinary cases of spiritual direction in which no mysticism is involved, numerous errors must be guarded against; the following deserve special notice: (1) The false principles of the Jansenists, who demanded of their penitents an unattainable degree of purity of conscience before they allowed them to receive Holy Communion. Many priests, not members of the sect, were yet so far tainted with its severity as gradually to alienate large numbers of their penitents from the sacraments and consequently from the Church. (2) The condemned propositions summarized under the headings “De perfectione christianâ” in Denziger’s “Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum” (Würzburg, 1900), page 485, which are largely the principles of Quietism. These are specimens: To obtain perfection a man ought to deaden all his faculties; he should take no vows, should avoid external work, ask God for nothing in particular, not seek sensible devotion, not study science, not consider rewards and punishments, not employ reasoning in prayer. (3) The errors and dangers pointed out in the Encyclical of Leo XIII, “Testem Benevolentiæ.” In it the pope singles out for particular condemnation: “First, all external guidance is set aside for those souls which are striving after Christian perfection as being superfluous, or indeed not useful in any sense, the contention being that the Holy Spirit pours richer and more abundant graces into the soul than formerly; so that, without human intervention, He teaches and guides them by some hidden instinct of His own.” In the same document warnings are given against inculcating an exaggerated esteem of the natural virtues, thus depreciating the supernatural ones; also against casting contempt on religious vows, “as if these were alien to the spirit of our times, in that they restrict the bounds of human liberty, and that they are more suitable to weak than to strong minds.”

VI. An important document of Leo XIII bearing specifically on the direction of religious souls is the decree “Quemadmodum” of 1890. It forbids all religious superiors who are not priests “the practice of thoroughly inquiring into the state of their subjects’ consciences, which is a thing reserved to the Sacrament of Penance.” It also forbids them to refuse to their subjects an extraordinary confessor, especially in cases where the conscience of the persons so refused stands greatly in need of this privilege; as also “to take it on themselves to permit at their pleasure their subjects to approach the Holy Table, or even sometimes to forbid them Holy Communion altogether.” The pope abrogates all constitutions, usages, and customs so far as they tend to the contrary; and absolutely forbids such superiors as are here spoken of to induce in any way their subjects to make to them any such manifestations of conscience. (See the decree “Quemadmodum,” with explanations, in the American Ecclesiastical Review, March, 1893.).

VII. Catholic literature is rich in works of ascetic and mystical theology; of which we mention a few below. But it must be noticed that such works cannot be recommended for the use of all readers indiscriminately. The higher the spiritual perfection aimed at, especially when mysticism enters into the case, the more caution should be used in selecting and consulting the guide-books, and the more danger there is that the direction given in them may be misapplied. Spiritual direction is as much a matter for the personal supervision of an experienced living guide as is the practice of medicine; the latter deals with abnormal defects of the body, the former with the acquisition of uncommon perfection by the soul.

SCARAMELLI, Directorium Asceticum, or Guide to the Spiritual Life (Dublin, 1870); IDEM, Directorium Mysticum, or Divine Asceticism; GUILLORÉ, Manière de Conduire les Ames (Lyons and Paris, 1853); FABER, Growth in Holiness (Baltimore); LANCOGNE, Manifestation of Conscience (New York, 1892); SCHRAM, Institutiones Theologiae Mysticae; NEUMAYR, Idea Theologiae Asceticae, or Science of the Spiritual Life (London, 1876); IDEM, Higher Paths in the Spiritual Life (London); ST. TERESA, The Interior Castle (London, 1859); IDEM, Way of Perfection (London, 1860); ST. IGNATIUS, Spiritual Exercises (London, 1900); ST. FRANCIS OF SALES, The Devout Christian (New York); SCRUPOLI, The Spiritual Combat (London); CLARE, Science of the Spiritual Life (London, 1896); ST. LIGUORI, The Christian Virtues (New York); GROU, Manual of Interior Souls (London, 1905); LALLEMANT, Spiritual Doctrine (New York, 1884); LEHMKUHL, Theologia Moralis (Friburg, 1889); SCHIELER-HEUSER, Theory and Practice of the Confessional, Part III, sect. 2, The Office of the Confessor; DUPONT, Guide Spirituel (Paris, 1866); CARDINAL BONA, Traité du Discernement des Esprits (Tournai, 1840); LEWIS OF GRANADA, Sinner’s Guide (Philadelphia, 1877); BELLECIUS, Solid Virtue (New York, 1882).

CHARLES COPPENS

Catholic Directories

The ecclesiastical sense of the word directory, as will be shown later, has become curiously confused with its secular use, but historically speaking the ecclesiastical sense is the earlier. Directorium simply means guide, but in the later Middle Ages it came to be specially applied to guides for the recitation of Office and Mass. For example, in the early part of the fifteenth century one Clement Maydeston, probably following earlier foreign precedents, adopted the title “Directorium Sacerdotum” for his reorganized Sarium Ordinal. In this way the words “Directorium Sacerdotum” came to stand at the head of a number of books, some of them among the earliest products of the printing press in England, which were issued to instruct the clergy as to the form of Mass and Office to be followed from day to day throughout the year. This employment of the word directorium was by no means peculiar to England. To take one convenient example, though not the earliest that might be chosen, we find a very similar work published at Augsburg in 1501, which bears the title: “Index sive Directorium Missarum Horarumque secundum ritum chori Constanciensis diocesis dicendarumn.” As this title suffices to show, a directorium or guide for the recitation of Office and Mass had to be constructed according to the needs of a particular diocese or group of dioceses, for as a rule each diocese has certain saints’ days and feasts peculiar to itself, and these have all to be taken account of in regulating the Office, a single change often occasioning much disturbance by the necessity it creates of transferring coincident celebrations to other days. Out of the “Directorium Sacerdotum” which in England was often called the “Pye,” and which seems to have come into almost general use about the time of the invention of printing, our present Directory, the “Ordo divini Officii recitandi Sacrique peragendi” has gradually developed. We may note a few of the characteristics both of the actual and the ancient usage.

ACTUAL USAGE

It is now the custom for every diocese, or, in cases where the calendar followed is substantially identical, for a group of dioceses belonging to the same province or country, to have a “Directory” or “Ordo recitandi” printed each year for the use of all the clergy. It consists simply of a calendar for the year, in which there are printed against each day concise directions concerning the Office and Mass to be said on that day. The calendar is usually provided with some indication of fast days, special indulgences, days of devotion, and other items of information which it may be convenient for the clergy to be reminded of as they occur. This Ordo is issued with the authority of the bishop or bishops concerned, and is binding upon the clergy under their jurisdiction. The religious orders have usually a Directory of their own, which, in the case of the larger orders, often differs according to the country in which they are resident. For the secular clergy the calendar of the Roman Missal and Breviary, apart from special privilege, always forms the basis of the “Ordo recitandi.” To this the feasts and saints’ days celebrated in the diocese are added, and, as the higher grade of these special celebrations often causes them to take precedence of those in the ordinary calendar, a certain amount of shifting and transposition is inevitable, even apart from the complications introduced by the movable feasts. All this has to be calculated and arranged beforehand in accordance with the rules supplied by the general rubrics of the Missal and Breviary. Even so; the clergy of particular churches have further to provide for the celebration of their own patronal or dedication feasts, and to make such other changes in the Ordo as these insertions may impose. The Ordo is always compiled in Latin, though an exception is sometimes made in the Directories drawn up for nuns who recite the Divine Office, and, as it is often supplemented with a few extra pages of diocesan notices, recent decrees of the Congregation of Rites, regulations for the saying of votive Offices, etc., matters only affecting the clergy, it is apt to acquire a somewhat professional and exclusive character.

How long a separate and annual “Ordo recitandi” has been printed for the use of the English clergy it seems impossible to discover. Possibly Bishop Challoner, Vicar Apostolic from 1741 to 1781, had something to do with its introduction. But in 1759 a Catholic London printer conceived the idea of translating the official “Directorium,” or Ordo, issued for the clergy, and accordingly published in that year: “A Lay Directory or a help to find out and assist at Vespers. . . . on Sundays and Holy Days.” Strange to say, another Catholic printer, seemingly the publisher of the official Ordo, shortly afterwards, conceiving his privileges invaded, produced a rival publication: “The Laity’s Directory or the Order of the (Catholic) Church Service for the year 1764.” This “Laity’s Directory” was issued year by year for three-quarters of a century, gradually growing in size, but in 1837 it was supplanted by “The Catholic Directory” which since 1855 has been published in London by Messrs. Burns & Lambert, now Burns and Oates. The earliest numbers of the “Laity’s Directory” contained nothing save an abbreviated translation of the clerical “Ordo recitandi,” but towards the end of the eighteenth century a list of the Catholic chapels in London, advertisements of schools, obituary notices, important ecclesiastical announcements, and other miscellaneous matters began to be added, and at a still later date we find an index of the names and addresses of the Catholic clergy serving the missions in England and Scotland. This feature has been imitated in the “Irish Catholic Director” and in the Catholic Directories of the United States. Hence the widespread idea that Catholic directories are so called because they commonly form an address book for the churches and clergy of a particular country, but an examination of the early numbers of the “Laity’s Directory” conclusively shows that it was only to the calendar with its indication of the daily Mass and Office that the name originally applied.

FORMER USAGE

In the Middle Ages, and indeed almost down to the invention of printing, the books used in the service of the Church were much more divided up than they are at present. Instead of one book, our modern Breviary for example, containing the whole Office, we find at least four books—the Psalterium, the Hymnarium, the Antiphonarium, and the Legendarium, or book of lessons, all in separate volumes. Rubrics or ritual directions were rarely written down in connexion with the text to which they belonged (we are speaking here of the Mass and Office, not of the services of rarer occurrence such as those in the Pontifical), but they were probably at first communicated by oral tradition only, and when they began to be recorded they took only such summary form as we find in the “Ordines Romani” of Hittorp and Mabillon. However, about the eleventh century there grew up a tendency towards greater elaboration and precision in rubrical directions for the services, and at the same time we notice the beginning of a more or less strongly marked division of these directions into two classes, which in the case of the Sarum Use are conveniently distinguished as the Customary and the Ordinal. Speaking generally, we may say that the former of these rubrical books contains the principles and the latter their application; the former determines those matters that are constant and primarily the duties of persons, the latter deals with the arrangements which vary from day to day and from year to year. It is out of the latter of these books, i. e. the Ordinal (often called Ordinarium and Liber Ordinarius), that the “Directorium,” or “Pye,” and eventually also our own modern “Ordo recitandi” were in due time evolved. These distinctions are not clear-cut. The process was a gradual one. But we may distinguish in the English and also in the Continental Ordinals two different stages. We have, first, the type of book in common use from the twelfth to the fifteenth century, and represented by the “Sarum Ordinal” edited by W. H. Frere, or the “Ordinaria of Laon” edited by Chevalier. Here we have a great deal of miscellaneous information respecting feasts, the Office and Mass to be said upon them according to the changes necessitated by the occurrence of Easter and the shifting of the Sundays, as well as the “Incipits” of the details of the service, e. g. of the lessons to be read and the commemorations to be made. The second stage took the form of an adaptation of this Ordinal for ready use, an adaptation with which, in the case of Sarum, the name of Clement Maydeston is prominent connected. This was the “Directorium Sacerdotum” the complete “Pye” (known in Latin as Pica Sarum), abbreviated editions of which were afterwards published in a form which allowed it to be bound up with the respective portions of the Breviary. The idea of this great “Pye” was to give all the thirty-five possible combinations, five to each Dominical litter (q. v.), which the fixed and movable elements of the ecclesiastical year admitted of, assigning a separate calendar to each, more or less corresponding to our present “Ordo recitandi.” This arrangement was not peculiar to England.

One of the earliest printed books of the kind was that issued about 1475 for the Diocese of Constance, of which a rubricated copy is to be found in the British Museum. It is a small folio in size, of one hundred and twelve leaves, and after the ordinary calendar it supplies summary rules, under thirty-five heads, for drawing up the special calendar for each year according to the Golden Number and the Dominical Letter. Then the Ordo for each of the thirty-five possible combinations is set out in detail. The name most commonly given to these “Pyes” on the Continent was “Ordinarius,” more rarely “Directorium Missæ.” For example, the title of such a book printed for the Diocese of Liège in 1492 runs: “In nomine Domini Amen . . . Incipit liber Ordinarius ostendens qualiter legatur et cantetur per totum anni circulum in ecclesia leodiensi tam de tempore quam de festis sanctorum in nocturnis officiis divinis.” Such books were also provided for the religious orders. An “Ordinarius Ordinis Præmonstratensis” exists in manuscript at Jesus College, Cambridge, and an early printed one in the British Museum. When the use of printing became universal, the step from these rather copious directories, which served for all possible years, to a shorter guide of the type of our modern “Ordo recitandi,” and intended only for one particular year, was a short and easy one. Since, however, such publications are useless after their purpose is once served, they are very liable to destruction, and it seems impossible to say how early we may date the first attempt at producing an Ordo after our modern fashion. The fact that at the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, De Reform., cap. xviii) it was thought necessary to urge that ecclesiastical students should be trained in the understanding of the computus, by which they could determine the ordo recitandi in each year for themselves, seems to imply that such Ordos as we now possess were not in familiar use in the middle of the sixteenth century.

MODERN DIRECTORIES

At the present day it may be said that in every part of the world not only is a printed Ordo provided for the clergy of every diocese and religious institute, but that almost everywhere some adaptation of this is available for the use of the laity. The earliest English attempt at anything of the sort seems to have been a little “Catholic Almanac,” which appeared for three or four years in the reign of James II (see The Month, vol. CXI, 1908). But this was a mere calendar of feasts without any directions for the Office and Mass. In Ireland the work which at present appears under the title “The Irish Catholic Directory and Almanac for 1909, with a complete Directory in English” seems to have existed under various names since 1837 or earlier. It was first called “A Complete Catholic Directory,” and then, in 1846, “Battersby’s Registry,” from the name of the publisher. For Scotland, though the Scottish missions are included in the “Catholic Directory” published in London, there is also a separate “Catholic Directory for the Clergy and Laity of Scotland” which began under a slightly different name in 1868. Catholic Directories also exist for the Australian and Canadian provinces, and occasionally for separate dioceses, e. g. the Diocese of Birmingham, England, possesses an “Official Directory” of its own. Attention may briefly be called, also, to two Roman handbooks of a character somewhat analogous to our Directories, which supply names and details regarding the Catholic hierarchy throughout the world and especially regarding the cardinals, the Roman Congregations and their personnel, the prelates and camerieri, etc., in attendance upon the papal court. The first of these, called since 1872 “La Gerarchia Cattolica e la Famiglia Pontificia,” was first published in 1716 and was long familiarly known as “Cracas” from the name of the publisher. Officially, the early numbers were simply called “Notizie per l’Anno 1716, etc.” (see Moroni, Dizionario, XX, 26 sqq.). The other work, which is very similar in character, but somewhat more ample in its information, has appeared since 1898 under the title “Annuario Ecclesiastico.” Finally we notice the existence of the “Directorium Chori,” a work originally compiled by Guidetti in 1582, possessing a quasi-official character and often reprinted since. It is intended for the use of the hebdomadarius and cantors in collegiate churches, and is quite different in character from the works considered above.

THE UNITED STATES

These publications begin in the United States with an “Ordo Divini Officii Recitandi,” published at Baltimore, in 1801, by John Hayes. It had none of the directory or almanac features. “The Catholic Laity’s Directory to the Church Service with an Almanac for the year,” an imitation of the English enterprise, was the next, in 1817. It was published in New York with the “permission of the Right Rev. Bishop Connolly” by Mathew Field, who was born in England of an Irish Catholic family and left there for New York in 1815. He died at Baltimore, 1832. His son, Joseph M. Field, was six years old when he arrived in New York, and became a prolific and brilliant writer, dying at Mobile in 1856. Joseph’s daughter, Kate Field, was later the well-known author and lecturer. Though both were baptized, neither was a professed Catholic. This Field production, in addition to the ordinary almanac calendars, had a variety of pious and instructive reading-matter with an account of the churches, colleges, seminaries, and institutions of the United States. It made up a small 32mo book of sixty-eight pages. Among other things, it promised the preparation of a Catholic magazine which, however, was never started. Only one issue of this almanac was made. The next effort in the same direction, and on practically the same lines, was also at New York, in 1822, by W. H. Creagh. It was edited by the Rev. Dr. John Power, rector of St. Peter’s church, and says in the preface that it was “intended to accompany the Missal with a view to facilitate the use of the same.” The contents include “Brief Account of the Establishment of the Episcopacy in the United States”; “Present Status of religion in the respective Dioceses”; “A short account of the present State of the Society of Jesus in the U. S.,” and obituaries of priests who had died from 1814 to 1821. This was the only number of this almanac.

In 1834 Fielding Lucas of Baltimore took up the idea and brought out “The Metropolitan Catholic Calendar and Laity’s Directory” for that year, to be published annually. He said in it that he had “intended to present it in 1832 but from circumstances over which he had no control it has been delayed to the present period.” It prints a list of the hierarchy and the priests of the several dioceses, with their stations. In this publication and its various successors the title Directory is used in its purely secular meaning, as the issues include no ecclesiastical calendar or Ordo. James Meyers “at the Cathedral” is the publisher of the subsequent volumes until 1838, when Fielding Lucas, Jr., took hold and changed the name “U. S. Catholic Almanac,” that Meyers had given it, back to “Metropolitan Catholic Almanac.” In the issue of 1845 there is inserted a map of the United States, “prepared at much expense to exhibit at a glance the extent and relative situation of the different dioceses,” with a table of comparative statistics, 1835 to 1845. A list of the clergy in England and Ireland was added in the volume for 1850. “Lucas Brothers” is the imprint on the almanac for 1856–57, and the Baltimore publication then ceased, to be taken up in 1858 by Edward Dunigan and Brother of New York, as “Dunigan’s American Catholic Almanac and List of the Clergy.” All general reading-matter was omitted in this almanac, publication of which was stopped the following year when John Murphy and Co. of Baltimore resumed there the compilation of the “Metropolitan Catholic Almanac.” Owing to the Civil War no almanacs were printed during 1862 or 1863. In 1864 D. and J. Sadlier of New York started “Sadlier’s Catholic Directory, Almanac and Ordo,” which John Gilmary Shea compiled and edited for them. It made a volume of more than 600 pages and gave lists of the clergy in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, and Australasia, with diocesan statistics. This publication continued alone in the field until 1886, when Hoffman Brothers, a German firm of publishers of Milwaukee, brought out “Hoffman’s Catholic Directory,” which the Rev. James Fagan, a Milwaukee priest, compiled for them. In contents it was similar to the New York publication. This directory continued until 1896, when the Hoffman Company failed, and their plant was purchased by the Wiltzius Company, which has since continued the directory. The Sadlier “Directory” ceased publication in 1895.

The Wiltzius “Catholic Directory, Almanac and Clergy List” has reports for all dioceses in the United States, Canada, Alaska, Cuba, Sandwich Islands, Porto Rico, Philippine Islands, Newfoundland, England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, together with statistics of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Belgium, Costa Rica, Guatemala, British Honduras, Nicaragua, San Salvador, German Empire, Japan, Luxemburg, The United States of Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Oceanica, South Africa, The United States of Brazil, Curaçao, Dutch Guiana, Switzerland, and the West Indies. It contains also an alphabetical list of all clergymen in the United States and Canada, as well as a map of the ecclesiastical provinces in the United States. It gives a list of English-speaking confessors abroad, American colleges in Europe, and the leading Catholic societies; statistics of the Catholic Indian and Negro missions, and a list of Catholic papers and periodicals in the United States and Canada.

In the almanac for 1837 it is noted, concerning the statistics, that “the numbers marked with an asterisk are not given as strictly exact, though it is believed they approximate to the truth, and are as accurate as could be ascertained from the statements forwarded to the editor from the several dioceses.” On the same topic “Hoffman’s Directory” for 1890 says: “It is much to be regretted that the statistics are not more carefully kept. In every diocese there are parishes that fail to report and many dioceses report statistics only partially, so that any general summary that can be made up at best is only an approximation.” Dealing with this long-standing and well-founded complaint of inaccurate Catholic statistics, the archbishops of the United States, at their annual conference in 1907, resolved to co-operate with the United States Census Bureau in an effort to collect correct figures. Archbishop Glennon of St. Louis was appointed a special census official by the Government for this purpose, and under his direction an enumeration of the Catholics of every parish in the United States was made. The figures thus obtained were used in the “Directory” for 1909. It is the first, therefore, of these publications giving statistics of population on which any reliance can be placed in respect to accuracy of detail.

CANADA

In 1886 “Le Canada Ecclésiastique, Almanach Annuaire du clergé Canadien,” printed in French. was begun in Montreal. The contents are similar to those of the directories in English. Recent issues have a number of illustrations of local and historical interest, such as a series of portraits of the Bishops of Quebec in the issue for 1908, in commemoration of the centenary celebrations. The Rev. Charles P. Beaubien edited the publication.

See SCHROD in Kirchenlexikon, s. v. Directorium. For the Pye and Ordinal see especially FRERE, The Use of Sarum (Cambridge. 1901), II, Introduction; WORDSWORTH, The Directorium Sacerdotum of Clement Maydeston (Henry Bradshaw Society, London, 1902), especially the Appendixes to vol. II; and also, in the same series, The Tracts of Clement Maydeston (London, 1894); CHEVALIER, Bibliothèque liturgique (Paris, 1897-), in which series the editor has printed the Ordinaria of Laon, Reims, Bayeux, etc. On English directories, see THURSTON, An Old-Established Periodical in The Month (London, Feb., 1882).

Files of these various publications; FINOTTI, Bibliographia Catholica Americana (New York, 1872).

HERBERT THURSTON.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN.

Discalced

(Lat. dis, without, and calceus, shoe).

A term applied to those religious congregations of men and women, the members of which go entirely unshod or wear sandals, with or without other covering for the feet. These congregations are often distinguished of this account from other branches of the same order. The custom of going unshod was introduced into the West by St. Francis of Assissi for men and St. Clare for women. After the various modificiations of the Rule of St. Francis, the Observantines adhered to the primitative custom of going unshod, and in this they were followed by the Minims and Capuchins. The Discalced Franciscans or Alcantarines, who prior to 1897 formed a distinct branch of the Franciscan Order went without footwear of any kind. The followers of St. Clare at first went barefoot, but later came to wear sandals and even shoes. The Colettines and Capuchin Sisters returned to the use of sandals. Sandals were also adopted by the Camaldolese monks of the Congregation of Monte Corona (1522), the Maronite Catholic monks, the Poor Hermits of St. Jerome of the Congregation of Bl. Peter of Pisa, the Augustinians of Thomas of Jesus (1532), the Barefooted Servites (1593), the Discalced Carmelites (1568), the Feuillants (Cistercians, 1575), Trinitarians (1594), Mercedarians (1604), and the Passionists. (See FRIARS MINOR)

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Discernment of Spirits

All moral conduct may be summed up in the rule: avoid evil and do good. In the language of Christian asceticism, spirits, in the broad sense, is the term applied to certain complex influences, capable of impelling the will, the ones toward good, the others toward evil; we have the wordly spirit of error, the spirit of race, the spirit of Christianity, etc. However, in the restricted sense, spirits indicate the various spiritual agents which, by their suggestions and movements, may influence the moral value of our acts.

Here we shall speak only of this second kind. They are reduced to four, including, in a certain way, the human soul itself, because in consequence of the original Fall, its lower faculties are at variance with its superior powers. Concupiscence, that is to say, disturbances of the imagination and errors of sensibility, thwart or pervert the operations of the intellect and will, by deterring the one from the true and the other from the good (Gen., viii, 21; James, i, 14). In opposition to our vitiated nature, or so to speak, to the flesh which drags us into sin, the Spirit of God acts within us by grace, a supernatural help given to our intellect and will to lead us back to good and to the observance of the moral law (Rom., vii, 22–25). Besides these two spirits, the human and the Divine, in the actual order of Providence, two others must be observed. The Creator willed that there should be communication between angels and men, and as the angels are of two kinds, good and bad, the latter try to win us over to their rebellion and the former endeavour to make us their companions in obedience. Hence four spirits lay siege to our liberty: the angelic and the Divine seeking its good, and the human (in the sense heretofore mentioned) and the diabolical its misery. In ordinary language they may, for brevity sake, be called simply the good and the evil spirit.

“Discernment of spirits” is the term given to the judgment whereby to determine from what spirit the impulses of the soul emanate, and it is easy to understand the importance of this judgment both for self-direction and the direction of others. Now this judgment may be formed in two ways. In the first case the discernment is made by means of an intuitive light which infallibly discovers the quality of the movement; it is then a gift of God, a grace gratis data, vouchsafed mainly for the benefit of our neighbour (I Cor., xii, 10). This charisma or gift was granted in the early Church and in the course of the lives of the saints as, for example, St. Philip Neri. Second, discernment of spirits may be obtained through study and reflection. It is then an acquired human knowledge, more or less perfect, but very useful in the direction of souls. It is procured, always, of course, with the assistance of grace, by the reading of the Holy Bible, of works on theology and asceticism, of autobiographies, and the correspondence of the most distinguished ascetics. The necessity of self-direction and of directing others, when one had charge of souls, produced documents, preserved in spiritual libraries, from the perusal of which one may see that the discernment of spirits is a science that has always flourished in the Church. In addition to the special treatises enumerated in the bibliography the following documents may be cited for the history of the subject:

the “Shepherd of Hermas” (1, II, Mand. VI, c. 2);

St. Anthony’s discourse to the monks of Egypt, in his life by St. Anthanasius;

the “De perfectione spirituali” (ch. 30–33) by Marcus Diadochus;

the “Confessions” of St. Augustine;

St. Bernard’s XXIII sermon, “De discretione spirituum”;

Gerson’s treatise, “De diversis diaboli tentationibus”;

St. Theresa’s autobiography and “Castle of the Soul”;

St. Francis de Sales’ letters of direction, etc.

An excellent lesson is that given by St. Ignatius Loyola in his “Spiritual Exercises.” Here we find rules for the discernment of spirits and, being clearly and briefly formulated, these rules indicate a secure course, containing in embryo all that is included in the more extensive treatises of later date. For a complete explanation of them the best commentaries on the “Exercises” of St. Ignatius may be consulted. Of the rules transmitted to us by a saint inspired by Divine light and a learned psychologist taught by personal experience, it will suffice to recall the principal ones. Ignatius gives two kinds and we must call attention to the fact that in the second category, according to some opinions, he sometimes considers a more delicate discernment of spirits adapted to the extraordinary course of mysticism. Be that as it may, he begins by enunciating this clear principle, that both the good and the evil spirit act upon a soul according to the attitude it assumes toward them. If it pose as their friend, they flatter it; if to resist them, they torment it. But the evil spirit speaks only to the imagination and the senses, whereas the good spirit acts upon reason and conscience. The evil labours to excite concupiscence, the good to intensify love for God. Of course it may happen that a perfectly well-disposed soul suffers from the attacks of the devil deprived of the sustaining consolations of the good angel; but this is only a temporary trial the passing of which must be awaited in patience and humility. St. Ignatius also teaches us to distinguish the spirits by their mode of action and by the end they seek. Without any preceding cause, that is to say, suddenly, without previous knowledge or sentiment, God alone, by virtue of His sovereign dominion, can flood the soul with light and joy. But if there has been a preceding cause, either the good or the bad angel may be the author of the consolation; this remains to be judged from the consequences. As the good angel’s object is the welfare of the soul and the bad angel’s its defects or unhappiness, if, in the progress of our thoughts all is well and tends to good there is no occasion for uneasiness; on the contrary, if we perceive any deviation whatsoever towards evil or even a slight unpleasant agitation, there is reason to fear. Such, then, is the substance of these brief rules which are nevertheless so greatly admired by the masters of the spiritual life. Although requiring an authorized explanation, when well understood, they act as a preservative against many illusions.

PAUL DEBUCHY.

Disciple

This term is commonly applied to one who is learning any art or science from one distinguished by his accomplishments. Though derived from the Latin discipulus, the English name conveys a meaning somewhat narrower than its Latin equivalent: disciple is opposed to master, as scholar to teacher, whilst both disciple and scholar are included under the Latin discipulus. In the English versions of the Old Testament the word disciple occurs only once (Is., viii, 16); but the idea it conveys is to be met with in several other passages, as, for instance, when the Sacred Writer speaks of the “sons” of the Prophets (IV K., ii, 7); the same seems, likewise, to be the meaning of the terms children and son in the Sapiential books (e.g. Prov., iv, 1, 10; etc.). Much more frequently does the New Testament use the word disciple in the sense of pupil, adherent, one who continues in the Master’s word (John viii, 31). So we read disciples of Moses (John, ix, 28), of the Pharisees (Matt., xxii, 16; Mark, ii, 18; Luke, v, 33). of John the Baptist (Matt., ix, 14; Luke, vii, 18; John, iii, 25). These, however, are only incidental applications, for the word is almost exclusively used of the Disciples of Jesus.

In the Four Gospels it is most especially applied to the Apostles, sometimes styled the “twelve disciples” (Matt., x, 1; xi, 1; xx, 17; xxvi, 20; the sixteenth verse of chapter xxviii, having reference to events subsequent to Christ’s Passion, mentions only the “eleven disciples”), sometimes merely called “the disciples” (Matt., xiv, 19; xv, 33, 36; etc.). The expression “his disciples” frequently has the same import. Occasionally the Evangelists give the word a broader sense and make it a synonym for believer (Matt., x, 42; xxvii, 57; John, iv, 1; ix, 27, 28; etc.). Besides the signification of “Apostle” and that of “believer” there is finally a third one, found in St. Luke, and perhaps also in the other Evangelists. St. Luke narrates (vi, 13) that Jesus “called unto him his disciples, and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles).” The disciples, in this disciples, in this context, are not the crowds of believers who flocked around Christ, but a smaller body of His followers. They are commonly identified with the seventy-two (seventy, according to the received Greek text, although several Greek manuscripts mention seventy-two, as does the Vulgate) referred to (Luke, x, 1) as having been chosen by Jesus. The names of these disciples are given in several lists (Chronicon Paschale, and Pseudo-Dorotheus in Migne, P.G., XCII, 521–524; 543–545; 1061–1065); but these lists are unfortunately worthless. Eusebius positively asserts that no such roll existed in his time, and mentions among the disciples only Barnabas, Sosthenes, Cephas, Matthias, Thaddeus and James “the Lord’s brother” (His. Eccl., I, xii). In the Acts of the Apostles the name disciple is exclusively used to designate the converts, the believers, both men and women (vi, 1, 2, 7; ix, 1, 10, 19; etc.; in reference to the latter connotation see in particular ix, 36) even such as were only imperfectly instructed, like those found by St. Paul at Ephesus (Acts, xix, 1–5).

CHARLES L. SOUVAY

Disciples of Christ

A sect founded in the United States of America by Alexander Campbell. Although the largest portion of his life and prodigious activity was spent in the United States, Alexander Campbell was born, 12 September, 1788, in the County Antrim, Ireland. On his father’s side he was of Scottish extraction; his mother, Jane Corneigle, was of Huguenot descent. Both parents are reported to have been persons of deep piety and high literary culture. His father, after serving as minister to the Anti-Burgher Church in Ahorey and director of a prosperous academy at Richhill, emigrated to the United States and engaged in the oft-attempted and ever futile effort “to unite All Christians as one communion on a purely scriptural basis,” the hallucination of so many noble minds, the only outcome of which must always be against the will of the Founder, to increase the discord of Christendom by the creation of a new sect. In 1808 Alexander embarked with the family to join his father, but was shipwrecked on the Scottish coast and took the opportunity to prepare himself for the ministry at the University of Glasgow. In 1809 he migrated to the United States, and found in Washington County, Pennsylvania, the nucleus of the new movement in the “Christian Association of Washington,” under the auspices of which was issued a “Declaration and Address,” setting forth the objects of the association. It was proposed “to establish no new sect, but to persuade Christian to abandon party names and creeds, sectarian usages and denominational strifes, and associate in Christian fellowship, in the common faith in a divine Lord, with no other terms of religious communion than faith in and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ.”

An independent church was formed at Brush Run on the principles of the association, and, 1 January, 1812, Alexander was “ordained.” His earnestness is attested by the record of one hundred and six sermons preached in one year; but he wrecked every prospect of success by finding in his reading of the Scriptures the invalidity of infant baptism, and the necessity of baptism by immersion, thus excluding from the Christian discipleship the vast majority of believing Christians. On 12 June, 1812, with his wife, father, mother, and three others, Alexander was rebaptized by immersion. Nothing was left him now but to seek association with one or other of the numerous Baptist sects. This he did, but with the proviso that he should be allowed to preach and teach whatever he learned from the Holy Scriptures. The Baptists never took him cordially; and in 1817, after five years of herculean labours, his followers, whom he wished to be known by the appellation of “Disciples of Christ,” but who were generally styled “Campbellites,” numbered only one hundred and fifty persons. Campbell’s mission as a messenger of peace was a failure; as time went on he developed a polemical nature, and became a sharp critic in speech and in writing of the weaknesses and vagaries of the Protestant sects. Only once did he come in direct contact with the Catholics, on the occasion of his five days’ debate, in 1837, with Archbishop Purcell of Cincinnati, which excited great interest at the time but is now forgotten. His sixty volumes are of no interest. Campbell was twice married and was the father of twelve children. He died at Bethany, West Virginia, where he had established a seminary, 4 March, 1866.

According to their census prepared in 1906 the sect then had 6475 ministers, 11,633 churches, and a membership of 1,235,294. It is strongest in the West and Southwest, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, and Ohio having the largest bodies. J.H. Garrison, editor of their organ “The Christian Evangelist,” outlined (1906) the belief of his sect.

According to their investigations of the New Testament the confession of faith made by Simon Peter, on which Jesus declared he would build His Church, namely “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God,” was the creed of Christianity and the essential faith, and that all those who would make this confession from the heart, being penitent of their past sins, were to be admitted by baptism into the membership of the early Church;

that baptism in the early Church consisted of a burial of a penitent believer in the water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and that only such were fit subjects for baptism;

that the form of church government was congregational;

that each congregation had its deacons and elders or bishops, the former to look after the temporal and the latter the spiritual interests of the church.

They practise weekly communion and consider it not as a sacrament but as a memorial feast.

While they hold both New and Old Testaments to be equally inspired, both are not equally binding upon Christians.

Accepting the Bible as an all-sufficient revelation of the Divine will, they repudiate all authoritative creeds and human grounds of fellowship.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Ecclesiastical Discipline

Etymologically the word discipline signifies the formation of one who places himself at school and under the direction of a master. All Christians are the disciples of Christ, desirous to form themselves at His school and to be guided by His teachings and precepts. He called Himself, and we, too, call Him, Our Master. Such, then, is evangelical discipline. However, in ecclesiastical language the word discipline has been invested with various meanings, which must here be enumerated and specified.

I. MEANING OF DISCIPLINE

All discipline may be considered first in its author, then in its subject, and finally in itself. In its author it is chiefly the method employed for the formation and adaptation of the precepts and directions to the end to be attained, which is the perfect conduct of subjects; in this sense discipline is said to be severe or mild. In those who receive it discipline is the more or less perfect conformity of acts to the directions and formation received; it is in this sense that discipline may be said to flourish in a monastery. Or, again, it is the obligation of subjects to conform their acts to precepts and directions, and is thus defined by Cardinal Cavagnis: Praxis factorum fidei consona—“conduct conforming itself to faith” (Inst. jur. publ. eccl., Bk. IV, n. 147). More frequently, however, discipline is considered objectively, that is, as being the precepts and measures for the practical guidance of subjects. Thus understood ecclesiastical discipline is the aggregate of laws and directions given by the Church to the faithful for their conduct both private and public. This is discipline in its widest acceptation, and includes natural and Divine as well as positive laws, and faith, worship, and morals; in a word, all that affects the conduct of Christians. But if we eliminate laws merely formulated by the Church as the exponent of natural or Divine law, there remain the laws and directions laid down and formulated by ecclesiastical authority for the guidance of the faithful; this is the restricted and more usual acceptation of the word discipline. Nevertheless, it must be understood that this distinction, however justified, is not made for the purpose of separating ecclesiastical laws into two clearly divided categories in so far as practice is concerned; the Church does not always make known to what extent she speaks in the name of natural or of Divine law and with this corresponds the observance of laws by her subjects.

II. OBJECT OF DISCIPLINE

Since ecclesiastical discipline should direct every Christian life, its object must differ according to the obligations incumbent on each individual. The first duty of a Christian is to believe; hence dogmatic discipline, by which the Church proposes what we should believe and so regulates our conduct that it shall not fail to assist our faith. Dogmatic discipline springs from the power of magisterium, i. e. the teaching office, in the exercise of which power the Church can proceed only by declaration; therefore it is ecclesiastical discipline only in a broad sense. The second duty of Christians is to observe the Commandments, hence moral discipline (disciplina morum). Strictly understood the latter does not depend much more upon the Church than does dogmatic discipline, as the natural law is anterior and superior to ecclesiastical law; however, the Church authoritatively proposes to us the moral law, she specifies and perfects it; hence it is that we generally call moral discipline whatsoever directs the Christian in those acts that have a moral value, including the observance of positive laws, both ecclesiastical and secular. Among the chief duties of a Christian the worship of God must be assigned a place apart. The rules to be observed in this worship, especially public worship, constitute liturgical discipline. This cannot be said to depend absolutely upon the Church, as it derives the essential part of the Holy Sacrifice and the sacraments from Jesus Christ; however, for the greater part, liturgical discipline has been regulated by the Church and includes the rites of the Holy Sacrifice, the administration of the sacraments and of the sacramentals, and other ceremonies.

There still remain the obligations incumbent on the faithful considered individually, either on the members of different groups or classes of ecclesiastical society, or, finally, on those who are to any extent whatever depositaries of a portion of the authority. This is discipline properly so called, exterior discipline, established by the free legislation of the Church (not, of course, in a way absolutely independent of natural or Divine law, but outside of, yet akin to this law) for the good government of society and the sanctification of individuals. On individuals it imposes common precepts (the Commandments of the Church); then it states their mutual obligations, in conjugal society by matrimonial discipline, in larger societies by determining relations with ecclesiastical superiors, parish priests, bishops, etc. Special classes also have their own particular discipline, there being clerical discipline for the clergy and religious or monastic discipline for the religious. The government of Christian society is in the hands of prelates and superiors who are subject to a special discipline either for the conditions of their recruitment, for the determining of their privileges and duties, or for the manner in which they should fulfil their functions. We may include here the rules for the administration of temporal goods. Finally, any authority from which emanate orders or prohibitions should have power to ratify the same by penal measures applicable to all transgressors; hence, another object of discipline is the imposing and inflicting of disciplinary sanctions. It must be noted, however, that the object of these measures is to ensure observance or to chastise infractions of the natural and Divine as well as of ecclesiastical laws.

III. DISCIPLINARY POWER OF THE CHURCH

It is evident, therefore, that the disciplinary power of the Church is a phase, a practical application, of its power of jurisdiction, and includes the various forms of the latter, namely, legislative, administrative, judicial, and coercive power. As for the power of order (potestas ordinis), it is the basis of liturgical discipline by which its exercise is regulated. For the proof that the Church is a society and that, as such, it necessarily has the power of jurisdiction which it derives from Divine institution through the Apostolic succession, see CHURCH. Disciplinary power is proved by the very fact of its exercise; it is an organic necessity in every society whose members it guides to their end by providing them with rules of action. Historically it can be shown that a disciplinary power has been exercised by the Church uninterruptedly, first by the Apostles and then by their successors. The Apostles in the first council at Jerusalem formulated rules for the conduct of the faithful (Acts, xv). St. Paul gave moral advice to the Christians of Corinth on virginity, marriage, and the agape (I Cor., vii, xi). The Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul are a veritable code of clerical discipline. The Church, moreover, has never ceased to represent herself as charged by Christ with the guidance of mankind in the way of eternal salvation. The Council of Trent expressly affirms the disciplinary power of the Church in all that concerns liturgical discipline and Divine worship (Sess. XXI, c. ii): “In the administration of the sacraments, the substance of the latter remaining intact, the Church has always had power to establish or to modify whatever she considered most expedient for the utility of those who receive them, or best calculated to ensure respect for the sacraments themselves according to the various circumstances of time and place.” In fact, we need only to recall the numerous laws enacted by the Church in the course of centuries for the maintenance, development, or restoration of the moral and spiritual life of Christians.

IV. MUTABILITY OF DISCIPLINE

That ecclesiastical discipline should be subject to change is natural since it was made for men and by men. To claim that it is immutable would render the attainment of its end utterly impossible, since, in order to form and direct Christians, it must adapt itself to the variable circumstances of time and place, conditions of life, customs of peoples and races, being, in a certain sense, like St. Paul, all things to all men. Nevertheless, neither the actual changes nor the possibility of further alteration must be exaggerated. There is no change in those disciplinary measures through which the Church sets before the faithful and confirms the natural and the Divine law, nor in those strictly disciplinary regulations that are closely related to the natural or Divine law. Other disciplinary rules may and must be modified in proportion as they seem less efficacious for the social or individual welfare. Thomassin aptly says [Vetus et nova Ecclesiæ disciplina (ed. Lyons, 1706), preface, n. xvii]: “Whoever has the least idea of ecclesiastical laws, those that concern government as well as those that regulate morals, knows well that they are of two kinds. Some represent immutable rules of eternal truth, itself the fundamental law, the source and origin of these laws, from the observance of which there is no dispensation, against which no prescription obtains, and which are not modified either by diversity of custom or vicissitudes of time. Other ecclesiastical rules and customs are by nature temporary, indifferent in themselves, more or less authoritative, useful, or necessary according to circumstances of time and place, having been established only to facilitate the observance of the fundamental and eternal law.” As to the variations of discipline concerning these secondary laws, the same author describes them in these terms (loc. cit., n. xv): “While the Faith of the Church remains the same in all ages, it is not so with her discipline. This changes with time, grows old with the years, is rejuvenated, is subject to growth and decay. Though in its early days admirably vigorous, with time defects crept in. Later it overcame these defects and although along some lines its usefulness increased, in other ways its first splendour waned. That in its old age it languishes is evident from the leniency and indulgence which now seem absolutely necessary. However, all things fairly considered, it will appear that old age and youth have each their defects and good qualities.” Were it necessary to exemplify the mutability of ecclesiastical discipline it would be perplexing indeed to make a choice. The ancient catechumenate exists only in a few rites; the Latin Church no longer gives Communion to the laity under two kinds; the discipline relating to penance and indulgences has undergone a profound evolution; matrimonial law is still subject to modifications; fasting is not what it formerly was; the use of censures in penal law is but the shadow of what it was in the Middle Ages. Many other examples will easily occur to the mind of the well-informed reader.

V. DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY

What connexion is there between the discipline of the Church and her infallibility? Is there a certain disciplinary infallibility? It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians unless apropos of the canonization of saints and the approbation of religious orders. It has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching. It is quite permissible, however, to inquire how far this infallibility extends, and to what extent, in her disciplinary activity, the Church makes use of the privilege of inerrancy granted her by Jesus Christ when she defines matters of faith and morals. Infallibility is directly related to the teaching office (magisterium), and although this office and the disciplinary power reside in the same ecclesiastical authorities, the disciplinary power does not necessarily depend directly on the teaching office. Teaching pertains to the order of truth; legislation to that of justice and prudence. Doubtless, in last analysis all ecclesiastical laws are based on certain fundamental truths, but as laws their purpose is neither to confirm nor to condemn these truths. It does not seem, therefore, that the Church needs any special privilege of infallibility to prevent her from enacting laws contradictory of her doctrine. To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform.

From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law; the most remarkable instance of this being the suppression of the chalice in the Communion of the laity. This has often been violently attacked as contrary to the Gospel. Concerning it the Council of Constance (1415) declared (Sess. XIII): “The claim that it is sacrilegious or illicit to observe this custom or law [Communion under one kind] must be regarded as erroneous, and those who obstinately affirm it must be cast aside as heretics.” The opinion, generally admitted by theologians, that the Church is infallible in her approbation of religious orders, must be interpreted in the same sense; it means that in her regulation of a manner of life destined to provide for the practice of the evangelical counsels she cannot come into conflict with these counsels as received from Christ together with the rest of the Gospel revelation. (See ROMAN CONGREGATIONS.)

THOMASSIN, Vetua et nova Ecclesiœ disciplina (ed. Lyons, 1706), preface; JEILER in Kirchenlex., s. v. Disciplin; all treatises on public ecclesiastical law, especially that by CAVAGNIS, Inst. jur. publ. eccl. (Rome, 1906), I. III, ch. ii; the treatise de Ecclesiâ in theological works, especially in HURTER, Theol. dogm. comp. (Innsbruck, 1878), I, thesis xlvi, and WILMERS, De Christi Ecclesiâ (Ratishon, 1897), 469 sq.

A. BOUDINHON

Discipline of the Secret

(Latin Disciplina Arcani; German Arcandisciplin).

A theological term used to express the custom which prevailed in the earliest ages of the Church, by which the knowledge of the more intimate mysteries of the Christian religion was carefully kept from the heathen and even from those who were undergoing instruction in the Faith. The custom itself is beyond dispute, but the name for it is comparatively modern, and does not appear to have been used before the controversies of the seventeenth century, when special dissertations bearing the title “De disciplinâ arcani” were published both on the Protestant and the Catholic side.

The origin of the custom must be looked for in the recorded words of Christ: “Give not that which holy to dogs; neither cast your pearls before swine; lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you” (Matt., vii, 6), while the practice in Apostolic times is sufficiently vouched for by St. Paul’s assurance that he fed the Corinthians “as . . . little ones in Christ,” giving them “milk to drink, not meat,” because they were not yet able to bear it (I Cor., iii, 1–2). With this passage we may compare also Heb., v. 12–14, where the same illustration is used, and it is declared that “solid food is for the perfect; for them who by custom have their senses exercised to the discerning of good and evil.” Although the origin of the custom is thus to be traced back to the very beginnings of Christianity, it does not appear to have been so general, or to have been carried out with so much strictness in the earlier centuries as it was immediately after the persecutions had ceased. This may be due in part to the absence of detailed information with regard to the earlier period, but it is probable enough that the discipline was growing more strict all through the second and third centuries on account of the pressure of persecution, and that, when persecution was at last relaxed, the need for reserve was felt at first, while the Church was still surrounded by hostile Paganism, to be increased rather than diminished. After the fifth or sixth century, when Christianity was thoroughly established and secure, the need of such a discipline was no longer felt, and it passed rapidly away. The practice of reserve (oikonomia) was exercised mainly in two directions, in dealing with catechumens, and with the heathen. It will be convenient to treat of these separately, as the reasons for the practice, and the mode in which it was carried out, differ somewhat in the two cases.

(1) CATECHUMENS

It was desirable to bring learners slowly and by degrees to a full knowledge of the Faith. A convert from heathenism could not profitably assimilate the whole Catholic religion at once, but must be taught gradually. It would be necessary for him to learn first the great truth of the unity of God, and not until this had sunk deep into his heart could he safely be instructed concerning the Blessed Trinity. Otherwise tritheism would have been the inevitable result. So again, in times of persecution, it was necessary to be very careful about those who offered themselves for instruction, and who might be spies wishing to be instructed only that they might betray. The doctrines to which the reserve was more especially applied were those of the Holy Trinity and the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The Lord’s Prayer, too, was jealously guarded from the knowledge of all who were not fully instructed. With regard to the Holy Eucharist and the Lord’s Prayer some relics of the practice still survive in the Church. The Mass of Catechumens, that earlier portion of the Eucharistic service to which learners and neophytes were admitted, and which consisted of prayers or readings from Holy Scripture and sometimes included a sermon, is still quite distinguishable, though the custom no longer survives in the Western Liturgy, as it does in the Eastern, of formally bidding the uninitiated to depart when the more solemn part of the service is about to begin. So also the custom of saying the Lord’s Prayer in silence in all public services, except the latter part of the Mass, when catechumens would according to the ancient use no longer have been present, owes its origin to this discipline.

The earliest formal witness for the custom seems to be Tertullian (Apol. vii): Omnibus mysteriis silentii fides adhibetur. Again, speaking of heretics, he complains bitterly that their discipline is lax in this respect, and that evil results have followed: “Among them it is doubtful who is a catechumen and who a believer; all can come in alike; they hear side by side and pray together; even heathens, if any chance to come in. That which is holy they cast to the dogs, and their pearls, although they are not real ones, they fling to the swine” (Praescr. adv. Haer., xii). Other passages from the Fathers which may be cited are St. Basil (De Spir. Sanct., xxvii): “These things must not be told to the uninitiated”; St. Gregory Nazianzen (Oratio xi, in s. bapt.) where he speaks of a difference of knowledge between those who are without and those who are within, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem whose “Catechetical Discourses” are entirely built upon this principle, and who in his first discourse cautions his hearers not to tell what they have heard. “Should a catechumen ask what the teachers have said, tell nothing to a stranger; for we deliver to thee a mystery . . . see thou let out nothing, not that what is said is not worth telling, but because the ear that hears does not deserve to receive it. Thou thyself wast once a catechumen, and then I told thee not what was coming. When thou hast come to experience the hieght of what is taught thee, thou wilt know that the catechumens are not worthy to hear them” (Cat., Lect. i, 12). St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom in like manner stop short in their public addresses, and, after a more or less veiled reference to the mysteries, continue with: “The initiated will understand what I mean.”

The Lord’s Prayer was in St. Augustine’s time taught eight days before baptism (Hom. xlii; cf. “Enchir.,” lxxi, and the “Apostolic Constitutions,” VII, xliv; St. Chrys. Hom. cc, al. xix, in Matt.). The Creed in like manner was taught just before baptism. So St. Ambrose, writing to his sister Marcellina (Epist xx, Benedict, ed.) says that on Sunday, after the catechumens had been dismissed, he was teaching the Creed in the baptistery of the basilica to those who were sufficiently advanced. (Cf. aslo St. Jerome, Epist. xxxciii, ad. Pammach.) More detailed teaching about the Holy Trinity and about the other sacraments was only given after baptism. Other passages which may be consulted are: Chrys., “Hom. in Matt.,” xxiii, “Hom. xviii, in II Cor.”; Pseud. Augustine, “Serm. ad Neoph.,” i; St. Ambrose, “De his qui mysteriis initiantur”; Gaudentius, “Ser. ii ad Neoph.”; Apost. Constit., III, v, and VIII, xi. The rule of reticence applied to all the sacraments, and no catechumen was ever allowed to be present at their celebration. St. Basil (De Spir. S. ad Amphilochium, xxvii) speaking of the sacraments says: “One must not circulate in writing the doctrine of mysteries which none but the initiated are allowed to see.” For baptism reference may be made to Theodoret (Epitom. Decret., xcviii), St. Cyril of Alexandria (Contr. Julian., i), and St. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. xl, de bapt.).

The discipline with respect to the Holy Eucharist of course requires no proof. It is in involved in the very name of the Missa Catechumenorum, and one can scarcely turn to any passage of the Fathers which deals with the subject in which the reticence to be observed is not expressly stated. Confirmation was never spoken of openly. St. Basil, in the treatise already spoken of (De Spir. S., xxv, 11), says that no one has ever ventured to speak openly in writing of the holy oil of unction, and Innocent I, writing to the Bishop of Gubbio on the sacramental “form” of the ordinance answers: “I dare not speak the words, but I should seem rather to betray a trust than to respond to a request for information” (Epist. i, 3). Holy orders in the same way were never given publicly. The Council of Laodicea forbade it definitely in its speaking of the practice of begging the prayers of the faithful for those who are to be ordained, says that those who understand co-operate with and assent to what is done. “For it is not lawful to reveal everything to those who are yet uninitiated.” So also St. Augustine (Tract xi. in Joann.): “If you say to a catechumen, Dost thou believe in Christ? he will answer, I do, and will sign himself with the Cross . . . Let us ask him, Dost thou eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink the Blook of the Son of Man? He will not know what we mean, for Jesus has not trusted himself to him.”

(2) THE HEATHEN

The evidence for the reserve of Christian writers when dealing with religious questions in books which might be accessible to the heathen is, naturally, to a large extent of a negative character, and therefore difficult to produce. Theodoret (Quaest. xv in Num.) lays down the general principle in terms which are quote clear and unmistakable: “We speak in obscure terms concerning the Divine Mysteries, on account of the uninitiated, but when they have withdrawn we teach the initiated plainly.” That passage alone would suffice to refute the allegation not unfrequently made that the Discipline of the Secret was a confinement of the knowledge introduced in imitation of the heathen “mysteries.” On the contrary all Christians were taught the whole truth, there was no esoteric doctrine, but they were brought to full knowledge slowly, and precautions were taken, as was very necessary, to prevent heathens from learning anything of which they might make an evil use. A very striking example of the way in which the discipline worked may be found in the writings of St. Chrysostom. He writes to Pope Innocent I to say that in the course of a disturbance at Constantinople an act of irreverence had been committed, and “the blood of Christ had been spilt upon the ground.” In a letter to the pope there was no reason for not speaking plainly. But Palladius, his biographer, speaking of the same incident in a book for general reading, says only, “They overturned the symbols” (Chrys. ad Inn., i, 3 in P.G., LII, 534; cf. Döllinger, “Lehre der Eucharistie,” 15). It is, no doubt, on this account that almost all the early apologists, as Minucius Felix Athenagoras, Arnobius, Tatian, and Theophilus, are absolutely silent on the Holy Eucharist. Justin Martyr and to a less degree Tertullian are more outspoken; the frankness of the former has been unduly urged to prove the non-existence of this institution in the first half of the second century. So again, as Cardinal Newman has observed (Development, 87), both Minucius Felix and Arnobius in controversy with heathens deny absolutely that Christians used altars in their churches. The obvious meaning was that they did not use altars in the heathen sense, and they must not be taken as denying the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that, in a Christian sense, “we have an altar.”

The controversial importance of this subject in more recent times is, of course, obvious. The Catholics answered the accusation of Protestant writers, that their special doctrines could not be found in the writings of the early Fathers, by showing the existence of this practice of reserve. If it was forbidden to speak or write publicly of these doctrines, silence was completely accounted for. So again, if here and there in early writings terms were used which seemed to countenance Protestant teaching—as for instance by speaking of the Holy Eucharist as symbols—it became necessary always to examine whether these terms were not used intentionally to conceal the true doctrine from the uninitiated, and whether the same writers did not, under other circumstances, use much more definite language. Protestant controversialists, therefore, endeavoured first of all to deny that the practice had ever really existed, and then when they were driven from this position, they asserted that it was unknown to the earliest Christians, as shown by the freedom with which Justin Martyr speaks on the subject of the Holy Eucharist, and that it was the result of persecution. They alleged therefore that Catholics could not use it to account for the silence of any writer before the latter part of the second century at the earliest. To this Catholics responded that, although no doubt the practice may have been intensified through persecution, it goes back to the very beginnings of Christianity, and to Christ’s own words. Moreover it can be shown to have been in force before St. Justin’s time, and his action must be regarded as an exception, rendered necessary by the need for putting before the emperor an account of the Christian religion which should be true and full.

The monuments of the earliest centuries afford interesting examples of the principle of the Discipline of the Secret. Monuments which could be seen by all could only speak of the mysteries of religion under veiled symbols. So in the catacombs there is scarcely any instance of a painting the subject of which is directly Christian, although all spoke of Christian truth to those who were instructed in their meaning. Jewish subjects typical of Christian truths were commonly chosen, while the representation of Christ under the name and form of a fish made the allusion to the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist possible and plain. There is, for example, the famous Autun inscription (see PECTORIUS): “Take the food, honey-sweet, of the redeemer of the saints, eat and drink holding the Fish in they hands”; words which every Christian would understand at once, but which conveyed nothing to the uninitiated. The inscription of Abercius offers another notable instance.

The need for this reticence became less pressing after the fifth century, as Europe became Christianized and the discipline gradually passed away. We may, however, still trace its effects in the seventh century in the absurd understatements contained in the Koran on the subject of the Blessed Trinity and the Holy Eucharist. This, perhaps, is almost the last instance which could be brought forward. Once the doctrines of the Church had been publicly set forth, any such discipline became impossible and no return to it was practicable. For a refutation of the theory of G. Anrich (Das Antike Mysterienwesen, 1894), that the primitive Christians borrowed this practice from the mysteries of Mithra, see Cumont, “The Mysteries of Mithra” (London, 1903), 196–99.

Schelstrate, De Disciplinâ arcani (Antwerp, 1678); Meier, De reconditâ vet. Eccl. theol. (Helmstedt, 1670); Shollinger, Dissert. de Disc. arc. (Venice, 1756); Lienhardt, De. antiq. liturg. et de disc. arc. (Strasburg, 1823); Toklot, De Disc. arc. (Cologne, 1836); Newman, Arians, i, 3. Among Protestant works: Fromann, De Disc. arc. in vet. Eccl., (Jena, 1833); Rothe, De disc. arc. (Heidelberg, 1841); Credner in Jenaer Literaturzeitung (1844); Bonwetsch, Ueber Wesen, Entstehung u. Fortgang d. Arckanidisziplin in Zeitschr. für hist. hist. Theol. (1873), II, 203–299; cf. also BINGHAM, Antiq. Eccl., and Haddan in Dict. of Christ. Antiq., s.v. The doubts raised by Abbé Batiffol in Etudes d’Hist. et de Théologie positive (Paris, 1902), 1–42, as to the antiquity and customary view of the Disciplina Arcani seem to have been satisfactorily quited by the learned treatise of Ignaz von Funk, Das Alter der Arkanidisziplin in his Theologische Abhandlungen (Paderborn, 1907), III, 42–57; MacDonald, The Discipline of the Secret in The Am. Eccl. Rev. (Philadelphia, 1904), xxx.

ARTHUR S. BARNES

Religious Discussions

(CONFERENCES, DISPUTATIONS, DEBATES)

Religious discussions, as contradistinguished from polemical writings, designate oral dialectical duels, more or less formal and public, between champions of divergent religious beliefs. For the most part, the more celebrated of these discussions have been held at the instigation of the civil authorities; for the Church has rarely shown favour to this method of ventilating revealed truth. This attitude of opposition on the part of the Church is wise and intelligible. A champion of orthodoxy, possessed of all the qualifications essential to a public debater, is not easily to be found. Moreover, it seems highly improper to give the antagonists of the truth an opportunity to assail mysteries and institutions which should be spoken of with reverence. The fact that the Catholic party to the controversy is nearly always obliged to be on the defensive places him at a disadvantage before the public, who, as Demosthenes remarks, “listen eagerly to revilings and accusations.” At any rate, the Church, as custodian of Revelation, cannot abdicate her office and permit a jury of more or less competent individuals to decide upon the truths committed to her care.

St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 7) holds that it is lawful to dispute publicly with unbelievers, under certain conditions. To discuss as doubting the truth of the faith, is a sin; to discuss for the purpose of refuting error, is praiseworthy. At the same time the character of the audience must be considered. If they are well instructed and firm in their belief, there is no danger; if they are simple-minded then, where they are solicited by unbelievers to abandon their faith, a public defence is needful, provided it can be undertaken by competent parties. But where the faithful are not exposed to such perverting influences, discussions of the sort are dangerous. It is not, then, surprising that the question of disputations with heretics has been made the subject of ecclesiastical legislation. By a decree of Alexander IV (1254–1261) inserted in “Sextus Decretalium,” Lib. V, c. ii, and still in force, all laymen are forbidden, under threat of excommunication, to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the Catholic Faith. The text reads: “Inhibemus quoque, ne cuiquam laicæ personæ liceat publice vel privatim de fide catholicâ disputare. Qui vero contra fecerit, excommunicationis laqueo innodetur.” (We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication.) This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public. There are numerous questions, somewhat connected with theology, which many laymen who have received no scientific theological training can treat more intelligently than a priest. In modern life, it frequently happens that an O’Connell or a Montalembert must stand forward as a defender of Catholic interests upon occasions when a theologian would be out of place. But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy.

But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization. In the Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide” (p. 102, n. 294) we find the following decree, issued 8 March, 1625: “The Sacred Congregation has ordered that public discussions shall not be held with heretics, because for the most part, either owing to their loquacity or audacity or to the applause of the audience, error prevails and the truth is crushed. But should it happen that such a discussion is unavoidable, notice must first be given to the S. Congregation, which, after weighing the circumstances of time and persons, will prescribe in detail what is to be done. The Sacred Congregation enforced this decree with such vigour, that the custom of holding public disputes with heretics wellnigh fell into desuetude. [See the decree of 1631 regarding the missionaries in Constantinople; also the decrees of 1645 and 1662, the latter forbidding the General of the Capuchins to authorize such disputes (Collectanea, 1674, n. 302).]

That this legislation is still in force appears from the letter addressed to the bishops of Italy by Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Cong. for Ecclesiastical Affairs (27 Jan., 1902) in which it is declared that discussions with Socialists are subject to the decrees of the Holy See regarding public disputes with heretics; and, in accordance with the decree of Propaganda, 7 Feb., 1645, such public disputations are not to be permitted unless there is hope of producing greater good and unless the conditions prescribed by theologians are fulfilled. The Holy See, it is added, considering that these discussions often produce no result at all or even result in harm, has frequently forbidden them and ordered ecclesiastical superiors to prevent them; where this cannot be done, care must be taken that the discussions are not held without the authorization of the Apostolic See; and that only those who are well qualified to secure the triumph of Christian truth shall take part therein. It is evident, then, that no Catholic priest is ever permitted to become the aggressor or to issue a challenge to such a debate. If he receives from the other party to the controversy a public challenge under circumstances which make a non-acceptance appear morally impossible, he must refer the case to his canonical superiors and be guided by their counsel. We thus reconcile two apparently contradictory utterances of the Apostles: for according to St. Peter (I Pet., iii, 15) you should be “ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you,” while St. Paul admonishes Timothy (II Tim., ii, 14), “Contend not in words, for it is to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.”

HISTORIC DISPUTATIONS IN EARLY TIMES

The disputes of St. Stephen and St. Paul, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, were rather in the nature of Apostolic pleading than of formal discussions. St. Justin’s “Dialogue with Tryphon” was, in all probability, a literary effort after the model of Plato’s dialogues. St. Augustine, the ablest disputant of all time, engaged in several set debates with Arians, Manichæans, Donatists, and Pelagians. An interesting summary of each of these great disputations is preserved among the saint’s works, and ought to be closely studied by those who are called to defend the Catholic cause. Of particular interest is the celebrated Conference of Carthage, convened by order of Emperor Honorius to finish the inveterate schism of the Donatists. It opened 1 June, 411, and lasted three days. The tribune Marcellinus represented the emperor, and in the presence of 286 Catholic and 279 Donatist bishops, St. Augustine, as chief spokesman of the Catholics, so completely upset the sectarian arguments, that the victory was awarded to the Catholics, many prominent members of the sect were converted, and Donatism was doomed to a lingering death. Another memorable disputation took place in Africa a couple of centuries later (645) between St. Maximus, Abbot of Chrysopolis (Scutari) and the Monothelite Patriarch Pyrrhus, who had been driven from Constantinople by popular violence. It was conducted with rare skill and ended with the temporary conversion of Pyrrhus to the orthodox faith.

DURING THE REFORMATION PERIOD

At the outbreak of the Lutheran and Zwinglian revolution, tumultuous discussions of religious subjects grew to be epidemic. Luther opened the revolt by inviting discussion upon his ninety-five theses, 31 Oct., 1517. Although ostensibly framed to furnish matter for an ordinary scholastic dispute, Luther did not seriously contemplate an oral debate; for several of his theses were at variance with Catholic doctrine and could not be discussed at a Catholic university. Instead, they were widely scattered through Europe, everywhere creating confusion. An opportunity of disseminating more openly his peculiar tenets regarding justification by faith alone, the slavery of the human will, and the sinfulness of good works was offered to the Reformer by his order during a convention held at Heidelberg in April, 1518, when he directed a dispute on twenty-eight theological and forty philosophical theses in the presence of many professors, students, citizens, and courtiers. Though his novel tenets were viewed with deep displeasure by the older heads, he was successful in winning over several of his younger hearers, notably Brenz and the Dominican, Martin Bucer. Emboldened by the outcome of the Heidelberg Dispute, and having discovered that the road to success lay in captivating the young, the agitator made futile attempts at organizing disputations at the seats of higher learning; but no university would lend its halls to the dissemination of un-Catholic doctrines.

The imprudence of Dr. Eck, who had become involved in a literary contest with Carlstadt and had hastily challenged his adversary to a public debate, gave Luther his long-looked-for opportunity. With his customary energy, he took the direction of the intellectual duel, encouraged both antagonists to persevere, and arranged the details. The city of Leipzig was chosen as the scene. Although the faculty of the university entered a vigorous protest, and the Bishops of Merseburg and Brandenburg launched prohibitions and an excommunication, the disputation took place under the ægis of Duke George of Saxony. The discontent of the Catholics was increased when they learned that Luther had secured permission to subjoin a controversy with Eck on the subject of papal supremacy. Eck came to Leipzig with one attendant; Luther and Carlstadt entered the city accompanied by an army of adherents, mostly students. The preliminaries were carefully arranged; after which, from 27 June to 4 July (1519) Eck and Carlstadt debated the subject of free will and our ability to cooperate with grace. Eck had the better part of the argument throughout, and forced his antagonist to make admissions which stultified the new Lutheran doctrine. Thereupon Luther himself came forward to assail the dogma of Roman supremacy by Divine right. Sweeping away the authority of decretals, councils, and Fathers, he discovered to his hearers, and possibly also to himself, how completely he had abandoned the basic principles of the Catholic religion. There could no longer remain a doubt that a new Hus had arisen to scourge the Church. The debate on the primacy was succeeded by discussions of purgatory, indulgences, penance, etc. On 14 and 15 July, Carlstadt, regaining courage, resumed the debate on free will and good works. Finally, Duke George declared the disputation closed, and each of the contendents departed, as usual, claiming the victory.

Of the two universities, Erfurt and Paris, to which the final decision had been reserved, Erfurt declined to intervene and returned the documents; Paris sat in judgment upon Luther’s writings, attaching to each of his opinions the proper theological censure. The most tangible outcome of this disputation was that, while it opened the eyes of Duke George to the true nature of Luther’s revolt and attached him unalterably to the Church of his fathers, on the other hand it gained for the Lutheran cause the valuable aid of the youthful Melanchthon, who never understood the merits of the controversy, but was overawed by the vigorous personality of the Reformer.

The Leipzig Disputation was the last occasion on which the ancient custom of swearing to advance no tenet contrary to Catholic doctrine was observed. In all subsequent debates between Catholics and Protestants, the bare text of Holy Writ was taken as the sole and sufficient fountain of authority. This, naturally, placed the Catholics in a disadvantageous position and narrowed their prospect of success. This was particularly the case in Switzerland, where Zwingli and his lieutenants organized a number of one-sided debates under the presidency of town councils already won over to Protestantism. Such were the disputations of Zurich, 1523, of Swiss Baden, 1526, and of Berne, 1528. In all of these the result was invariably the same, the abolition of Catholic worship and the desecration of churches and religious institutions.

Passing over the numerous futile attempts made by the Protestants to heal their intestine quarrels by means of colloquies, we come to the still more hopeless efforts of Charles V to bring the religious troubles of Germany to a “speedy and peaceful termination” by conferences between the Catholic and the Protestant divines. Since the Protestants proclaimed their determination to adhere to the terms of the Augsburg Confession, and, in addition, formally repudiated the authority of the Roman pontiff and “would admit no other judge of the controversy than Jesus Christ,” it was to be foreseen that the result of conferences thus conducted could only be to waste time and increase the acrimony already existing between the parties. This was as clear to Pope Paul III as to Luther, both of whom predicted the inevitable failure. However, since the emperor and his brother, King Ferdinand, persisted in making a trial, the pope authorized his nuncio, Morone, to proceed to Speyer, whither the meeting had been summoned for June, 1540. As the plague was raging in that city the conference took place in Hagenau. Neither the Elector of Saxony nor the Landgrave of Hesse could be induced to attend. Melanchthon was absent through a heavy illness brought on by grief and shame at the ignoble part he had taken in the affair of the Landgrave’s bigamy. The leading Protestant theologians at the conference were Bucer, Myconius, Brenz, Blaurer, and Urbanus Rhegius. The most prominent on the Catholic side were Bishop Faber of Vienna and Dr. Eck. Present and actively intriguing to prevent an accommodation was John Calvin, then exiled from Geneva; he appeared as confidential agent of the King of France, whose settled policy it was to perpetuate religious discord in the domains of his rival. After a month wasted in useless wrangling, King Ferdinand prorogued the conference to reassemble at Worms on 28 October.

Undismayed by the failure of the Hagenau conference, the emperor made more strenuous efforts for the success of the coming colloquy at Worms. He dispatched his minister Granvella and Ortiz, his envoy, to the papal court. The latter brought with him the celebrated Jesuit, Father Peter Faber. The pope sent the Bishop of Feltri, Tommaso Campeggio, brother of the great cardinal, and ordered Morone to attend. They were not to take part in the debates, but were to watch events closely and report to Rome. Granvella opened the proceedings at Worms, 25 Nov., with an eloquent and conciliatory address. He pictured the evils which had befallen Germany, “once the first of all nations in fidelity, religion, piety, and divine worship,” and warned his hearers that “all the evils that shall come upon you and your people, if, by clinging stubbornly to preconceived notions, you prevent a renewal of concord, will be ascribed to you as the authors of them.” On behalf of the Protestants, Melanchthon returned “an intrepid answer”; he threw all the blame upon the Catholics, who refused to accept the new Gospel.

A great deal of time was spent in wrangling over points of order; finally it was decided that Dr. Eck should be spokesman for the Catholics and Melanchthon for the Protestants. The debate began 14 Jan., 1541. A tactical blunder was committed in accepting the Augsburg Confession as the basis of the conference. That document had been drawn up to meet an emergency. It was apologetic and conciliatory, so worded as to persuade the young emperor that there was no radical difference between the Catholics and the Protestants. It admitted the spiritual jurisdiction of the bishops and tacitly acknowledged the supremacy of the pope by laying the ultimate appeal with a council by him convened. But many changes had taken place in the ten intervening years. The bishops had been driven out of every Protestant territory in Germany; the Smalkald confederates had solemnly abjured the pope and scorned his proffer of a council; each petty territorial prince had constituted himself the head and exponent of religion within his domain. For all practical purposes the Augsburg Confession was as useless as the laws of Lycurgus. Moreover, as Dr. Eck pointed out, the Augsburg Confession of 1540 was a different document from the Confession of 1530, having been changed by Melanchthon to suit his sacramentarian view of the Eucharist. Had the theologians at Worms reached an agreement on every point of doctrine, the discord in Germany would have continued none the less; for the princes had not the remotest idea of giving up their lucrative dominion over their territorial churches. Eck and Melanchthon battled four days over the topic of original sin and its consequences, and a formula was drafted to which both parties agreed, the Protestants with a reservation.

At this point Granvella suspended the conference, to he resumed at Ratisbon, whither the emperor had summoned a diet, which he promised to attend in person. This diet, from which the emperor anticipated brilliant results, was called to order 5 April, 1541. As legate of the pope appeared Cardinal Contarini, assisted by the nuncio Morone. The inevitable Calvin was present, ostensibly to represent Luneburg, in reality to foster discord in the interest of France. As collocutors at the religious conference which met simultaneously, Charles appointed Eck, Pflug, and Gropper for the Catholic side, and Melanchthon, Bucer, and Pistorius for the Protestants. A document of mysterious origin, the “Ratisbon Book,” was presented by Joachim of Brandenburg as the basis of agreement. This strange compilation, it developed later, was the result of secret conferences, held during the meeting at Worms, between the Protestants, Bucer and Capito, on one side, and the Lutheranizing Gropper and a secretary of the emperor named Veltwick on the other. It consisted of twenty-three chapters, in which, by an ingenious phraseology, the attempt was made so to formulate the controverted doctrines that each party might find its own views therein expressed. How much Charles and Granvella had to do in the transaction, is unknown; they certainly knew and approved of it. The “Book” had been submitted by the Elector of Brandenburg to the judgment of Luther and Melanchthon; and their contemptuous treatment of it augured ill for its success. When it was shown to the legate and Morone, the latter was for rejecting it summarily; Contarini, after making a score of emendations, notably emphasizing in Article 14 the dogma of Transubstantiation, declared that now “as a private person” he could accept it; but as legate he must consult with the Catholic theologians. Eck secured the substitution of a conciser exposition of the doctrine of justification. Thus emended, the “Book” was presented to the collocutors by Granvella for consideration. The first four articles, treating of man before the fall, free will, the origin of sin, and original sin, were accepted. The battle began in earnest when the fifth article, on justification, was reached. After long and vehement debates, a formula was presented by Bucer and accepted by the majority, so worded as to be capable of bearing a Catholic and a Lutheran interpretation. Naturally, it was unsatisfactory to both parties. The Holy See condemned it and administered a severe rebuke to Contarini for not protesting against it. No greater success was attained as to the other articles of importance.

On 22 May the conference ended, and the emperor was informed as to the articles agreed upon and those on which agreement was impossible. Charles was sorely disappointed, hut he was powerless to effect anything further. The decree known as the “Ratisbon Interim,” published 28 July, 1541, enjoining upon both sides the observance of the articles agreed upon by the theologians, was by both sides disregarded. Equally without result was the last of the conferences summoned by Charles at Ratisbon, 1546, just previously to the outbreak of the Smalkaldic War.

THE COLLOQUY AT POISSY

In 1561 six French cardinals and thirty-eight archbishops and bishops, with a host of minor prelates and doctors, wasted in a barren controversy with the Calvinists an entire month, which might have been spent far more advantageously to the Church and more in consonance with the duties of their offices had they taken their places in the Council of Trent. The conference had been arranged by Catharine de’ Medici, the queen-mother and regent during the minority of her son, Charles IX. Between this typical representative of the Medici and her contemporary, Elizabeth of England, there was little to choose. With both religion was simply a matter of expediency and politics. The Calvinist faction in France, though less than half a million in number, was aggressive and insolent, under the guidance of several princes of the royal blood and members of the higher nobility. The fatal virus of Gallicanism and chronic disaffection towards the Holy See paralysed Catholic activity; and although a general council was in session under the legitimate presidency of the Roman pontiff, voices were heard even among the French bishops, advocating the convocation of a schismatical national synod. We may regard it as an extenuation of the guilt of Catharine and her advisers, that they refused to go the whole length of a schism and chose the alternative of a religious conference under the direction of the civil power. The pope did his utmost to prevent what, under the circumstances, could only he construed as a public defiance of ecclesiastical authority. He dispatched the Cardinal of Ferrara, with Laynez, General of the Jesuits, as his adviser, to dissuade the regent and the bishops. But the affair had gone too far; on 9 Sept. the representatives of the rival religions began their pleadings before a woman and a boy eleven years old. The proceedings were opened by a speech of Chancellor L’Hôpital, in which he emphasized the right and duty of the monarch to provide for the needs of the Church. Even should a general council be in session, a colloquy between Frenchmen convened by the king was the better way of settling religious disputes; for a general council, being, for the most part, composed of foreigners, was incapable of understanding the wishes and the needs of France. Yet these French politicians who refused to submit articles of faith to the decision of a general council because the majority of the Fathers were not French, chose as authoritative expounders of the dogmas of the Church the Genevan Beza and the Italian Vermigli.

It was a deep humiliation for the proud hierarchy of France to be compelled to listen to a long tirade by Beza against the most cherished of Catholic doctrines, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They suppressed their feelings, out of respect for the king, until the hardy Reformer, in the heat of argument, gave utterance to his conviction that the Body and Blood of Christ were as far distant from the bread and wine, as the highest heaven is from the earth. This was too much for the bishops to bear, and they cried out, “He blasphemeth.” It was too much for Catharine herself, and proved to her that the fundamental dogma of the Catholic Church was at stake. Beza’s speech, revised and emended, was scattered broadcast among the people of France. We are told that the Cardinal of Lorraine confuted the heretic at the next session in a masterly address; but since he did not set it down in writing its value cannot be ascertained. The only sensible speech made at this colloquy was that of the Jesuit Laynez, who had the courage to remind the queen that the proper place for ventilating subjects concerning the Faith was Trent, not Paris; that the Divinely appointed judge of the religious controversies was the supreme pontiff, not the Court of France. Catharine wept; but instead of following the Jesuit’s wise counsel, she appointed a committee of five Calvinists and five lukewarm Catholics, who drafted a vague formula which could be interpreted in a Catholic or a Calvinistic sense, and was consequently condemned by both parties.

The spread of Protestantism and the application of its fundamental principle of private judgment naturally produced far-reaching differences in belief. To heal these and so bring about unity, various conferences were held: at Weimar (1560), between the Lutherans, Striegel and Flacius, on free will; at Altenburg (1568–69), between the Jena theologians and those from Wittenberg, on free will and justification; at Montbéliard (1586), between Beza and the Tübingen theologians, on predestination. None of these resulted in harmony; they rather emphasized divergences in belief and intensified partisanship.

DISCUSSIONS IN MODERN TIMES

The conference of Poissy was the last attempt made to reconcile or slur over the radical differences of Catholicity and Protestantism. There have been some notable oral debates between champions of the rival religions in more recent times; but in these each side laboured to establish its own position and prove that of its adversary untenable. The most memorable and successful of these modern disputations was the “Conference on the Authority of the Church” held 8 March, 1679, between Bossuet and the Calvinist minister Jean Claude. This was a model of close debate, in which, with due courtesy, each antagonist kept strictly to the subject in hand, the relation of the Church and the Bible. The fondness of English-speaking peoples for public disputes has often shown itself in challenges, generally delivered by Protestant controversialists, to discuss religious topics in public. As a rule, they have produced no good results, since both sides revived wornout arguments and wandered over too wide a field. Such was the “Controversial Discussion between Rev. Thomas Maguire and Rev. Richard T. Pope,” held in the lecture-room of the Dublin Institution in April, 1827, Daniel O’Connell being one of the presiding officers. It was printed and widely circulated. Of a similar nature was the “Debate on the Roman Catholic Religion,” held in Cincinnati from 13 to 21 Jan., 1837, between Alexander Campbell, the founder of the Campbellite sect, and Bishop John F. Purcell. More satisfactory, because confined within closer limits, was the celebrated “Discussion of the Question, Is the Roman Catholic Religion, in any or in all its Principles or Doctrines, Inimical to Civil or Religious Liberty? and of the Question, Is the Presbyterian Religion, in any or in all its Principles or Doctrines, Inimical to Civil or Religious Liberty?” debated in Philadelphia in 1836 between Rev. John Hughes, later Archbishop of New York, and Rev. John Breckinridge of the Presbyterian Church. Both parties kept their tempers remarkably well; but to judge from the violent riots which broke out not long after, the debate had little effect in extinguishing unreasoning prejudices. With the exception of a debate on the question of St. Peter’s residence in Rome, held in the Eternal City in 1872, there have been no oral religious discussions in recent times and this method of elucidating religious truth may be regarded as discountenanced by modern public opinion.

GÖPFERT in Kirchenlex., s. v. Disputation; SANTI, Prœlectiones Juris Can. (4th ed., Ratisbon, 1906), lib. V. p. 106; LOISELET, Ce que pense l’Eglise des Conférences Contradictoires in Etudes (20 Aug., 1905); PASTOR, Die kirchlichen Reunions-bestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V. (Freiburg, 1879).

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

St. Disibod

Irish bishop and patron of Disenberg (Disibodenberg), born c. 619; died 8 July, 700. His life was written in 1170 by St. Hildegarde, from her visions. St. Disibod journeyed to the Continent about the year 653, and settled in the valley of the Nahe, not far from Bingen. His labours continued during the latter half of the seventh century, and, though he led the life of an anchorite, he had a numerous community, who built bee-hive cells, in the Irish fashion, on the eastern slopes of the mountain. Before his death he had the happiness of seeing a church erected, served by a colony of monks following the Rule of St. Columba, and he was elected abbot-bishop, the monastery being named Mount Disibod, subsequently Disenberg, in the Diocese of Mainz. Numerous miracles are recorded of the saint. Some authors are of the opinion that his death really took place on 8 Sept., whilst the date 8 July is that of the translation of his relics in the year 754, St. Boniface being present.

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Disparity of Worship

(Disparitas Cultus)

A diriment impediment introduced by the Church to safeguard the sanctity of the Sacrament of Marriage. To effect this purpose a law was necessary that would debar Catholics from contracting marriage with persons unfit to receive the sacrament. The unfitness consists in

either non-reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the door to the other six sacraments; or

in an unbelief in the sacramental character of marriage or in either or both of its essential properties (unity and indissolubility); or

in a profession of belief or unbelief that endangers the three ends and threefold substantial blessings or advantages of this “great sacrament . . . in Christ and the church.”

This unfitness, in whole or in part, is to be found in all persons who are not of the Catholic Faith and worship. Disparity of worship, in a general way, signifies a difference of religion or worship between two persons. This state of disagreement may be antecedent to, or consequent upon, their marriage. Consequent disparity occurs in the case of two pagans or unbaptized persons, one of whom, becoming a convert, is baptized in the Catholic Faith or validly baptized in some Christian sect after marriage. The marriage is not affected by this consequent disparity of religion. Another species of consequent diversity of worship which does not militate against the marriage is that of two Catholics, one of whom after their union apostatizes, or turns infidel, Mohammedan, etc. Antecedent disparity is twofold: considered in its strict and proper sense it is called perfect disparity of worship, or simply disparity of worship, and implies a different relation on the part of the contracting parties in the matter of an essential religious rite, to wit, the Sacrament of Baptism. Viewed in a less strict, but still a proper, sense, it is named imperfect disparity of worship or, more commonly, mixed religion (mixta religio), which presupposes an equality as to the reception of baptism, but denotes a divergency as to form of belief and religious observance. Imperfect disparity, or mixed relgion, does not render void the marriage of a Catholic with a baptized non-Catholic; but it does make it (unless dispensation intervenes) illicit and sinful. However, such a marriage may be null and void on account of another diriment impediment, e.g. clandestinity. Disparity of worship, in its strict sense, and as the subject of this article, is that diversity which exists between two persons, one of whom has, and the other has certainly not, received Christian baptism. This disparity exists between a baptized Christian, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, and a pagan, Mohammedan, Jew, or even a catechumen (believer in the Catholic Faith yet not baptized). Imperfect disparity of worship, or mixed religion, might more strictly and aptly be named disparity of faith, since faith (an internal act), and not baptism, is the point of difference; perfect disparity of worship, on the contrary, might more aptly and properly be called disparity of baptism, for the reason that the external act (baptism), and not the internal assent of the mind (faith), is the fixed point of dissimilarity. Baptism has been chosen as the basis of this diriment impediment for a twofold reason:

it is an external ceremony, easy of recognition and proof, and

it is a sacrament which imprints an indelible character upon the soul of the receiver and so presents a personal religious condition which is fixed and unchangeable.

Personal faith, on the contrary, viewed either as the internal assent of the mind or as the outward profession of the internal act, is subject to change and not always easy of demonstration, and hence could not afford a certain and immovable foundation. The primary reason why Catholics are debarred from intermarriage with unbaptized persons is because the latter are not capable of receiving the Sacrament of Matrimony, as baptism is the door to all the other sacraments. Furthermore, according to the more probable opinion, the Catholic party who, with a dispensation, marries an unbaptized person, does not receive the sacrament or the concomitant graces (cf. Sanchez, Bk. II, disp. viii, n. 2; Pirhing, Bk. IV, tit. i, n. 71; Schmalzgrüber, Bk. IV, tit. i, n. 307; Billot, “De Ecclesiæ Sacramentis,” pars posterior, 359 sqq.; Hurter, III, 538, n. 598; and Wernz, who examines the reasons for the opposite opinion and answers them, “Jus Decret.,” IV, 63 sqq.). The Church has not decided this question; hence the opinion of Dominicus de Soto (In IV Sent., art. iii, ad finem), Perrone (II, 306), Rosset, who holds that it is the more probable (De Sacr. Matrimonii, I, 284 sqq.), and Tanquerey (Synopsis Theol. Dogmat., II, 648, n. 31), to wit, that the Catholic does receive the sacrament, is tenable. The marriage, according to both opinions, is certainly sacred (Leo XIII, “Arcanum,” 10 Feb., 1880) and indissoluble.

EXTENT OF THE IMPEDIMENT

This impediment exists only in instances where the disparity is of such nature that one of the contracting parties is, and the other party is certainly not, baptized. Every baptized person, Protestant as well as Catholic, is subject to this disqualifying and annulling impediment, because Christ gave the Church jurisdiction over all who belong to it by baptism. Under the name “Catholic” are here included, besides practical Catholics, children baptized as infants in the Catholic Church but never reared or instructed in her teachings, Catholics who have fallen away or apostatized from the Catholic Faith and have joined other denominations or turned infidel. Once baptized always baptized, and always subject to the laws of Christ and His infallible Church, is axiomatic. Disparity of worship embraces and renders null and void (no dispensation having been granted) the marriage

of a Catholic with pagan, Mohammedan, Jew, or catechumen, and

of baptized non-Catholics, e.g. heretics and schismatics, with unbaptized persons.

It does not extend to, or make void, the marriage

of two certainly unbaptized persons, for, since they do not belong to Christ by baptism, the Church has no jurisdiction over them;

of a Catholic with a baptized Protestant, or schismatic, or apostate Catholic, or Catholic turned infidel;

of baptized non-Catholics with one another.

Seeing that the parties in the second and third classes have been baptized, it is evident that their marriages are outside the domain of the diriment impediment, whose aim is to protect the sacrament. Difficulties as to the marriages of Catholics with non-Catholics, and of non-Catholics with one another, or with pagans or other unbaptized persons have in these days multiplied, due either to absolute omission of baptism, or its careless and often invalid administration even among the so-called Christian denominations. Doubts about the administration (dubium facti) or valid administration (dubium juris) of baptism in these sects are as a consequence frequent, and render complex the question whether or not disparity of worship covers the marriages in these instances. The safe guide in this confusion is the axiom: a doubtful baptism, as regards a marriage already, or about to be celebrated, is presumed to be valid if, after due investigation, the doubt is still insoluble or it is not prudent (on account of delay, etc.) to remove it. This rule, so different from that governing baptism as a necessary means for salvation, is based upon the principle that the right to marry yields but to the evidence (not doubt) of the non-baptism. Accordingly, disparity of worship invalidates the matrimonial union of one doubtfully baptized with another certainly not baptized. The doubt may concern the act of baptizing or the validity of the ceremony. Investigation on these points must proceed in this manner: search must be made of the ritual belonging to the denomination of the party concerning whose baptism there is doubt, and if the ritual teaches the necessity of baptism, and prescribes the use of the valid matter and form in its administration, and, further, if the parents are strict adherents and observers of their religion, there is a certainty (sufficient for marriage) that the baptism was valid. If the ritual prescribes baptism with the necessary matter and form, but, upon investigation, a serious doubt remains, the baptism is still considered valid. If, on the contrary, the sect repudiates baptism, forbids infant-baptism, or admits to baptism only adults of thirty years, or the parents assert that they do not belong or wish to belong to any sect or denomination, but are satisfied with pleasing the Supreme Being by a good, moral life rather than by any fixed form of worship, then there is no certainty, not even a presumption, in favour of the baptism in childhood. Should the parents be careless and negligent in the observances of the sect of which they are members, or belong to a denomination which, whilst not rejecting baptism, yet does not admit its necessity, and in which, ordinarily, baptism is not administered, then there is no presumption for or against the baptism of their offspring, and each individual case must be referred to Rome (Congreg. of the Inquisition, 1 Aug., 1883).

Disparity of worship does not affect the marriage of a Catholic or baptized non-Catholic with one whose baptism, even after careful investigation concerning the baptismal ceremony or its validity, remains doubtful. Neither does it in any way influence the marriage of two who, after diligent examination, are still considered doubtfully baptized. There is a difference of opinion among the jurists and theologians as to the influence of this diriment impediment upon the marriage of two doubtfully baptized, if after investigation it turns out for a certainty that one was certainly unbaptized. The more common opinion is that disparity of worship does not nullify this marriage. Gasparri gives as reason that the consuetudinary law never contemplated this case, and hence does not influence it (De Matrimonio, I, nos. 597 and 601). Wernz (IV, 772, note), Gury-Ballerini (II, 831), and others say that the marriage is valid, but give as reason the Church’s dispensation, either special or general. Lehmkuhl (II, 536) distinguishes and asserts that if a dispensation from the prohibitive impediment of “mixed religion” has been granted antecedent to the marriage, the union is valid; his reason, however, that the Church in dispensing with the prohibitive did not implicitly dispense with the diriment impediment, seems to be at variance with a decree of the Holy Office (29 April, 1840, n. 2) which clearly states that the Holy See dispenses with the impediment of disparity of worship only in express terms. Where no dispensation has been granted, he holds that the marriage is null on account of the existing disparity of worship and must be revalidated. He recognizes, however, as valid the marriage of the doubtfully baptized, if they had been considered and had considered themnselves Catholics, and had followed Catholic practices, and afterwards it was discovered that one of them had not been baptized (loc. cit. in note).

ORIGIN OF THE IMPEDIMENT

This impediment, inasmuch as it is diriment, is not enjoined by the natural, Divine, or written ecclesiastical law, but has been introduced by a universal custom and practice in the Eastern and Western Churches since the twelfth century. The natural and Divine laws do, however, repudiate and prohibit such marriages as tend to frustrate the primary ends of marriage by exposing believers and their offspring to the loss of their Catholic faith, and this prohibition continues in force so long as the danger exists and no proportionately grave cause dictates the necessity of such marriage. The Mosaic Law (Deut., vii, 3) prohibits marriage between the Israelites and the Chanaanites, and even the Samaritans (who kept the Law and had the Book of Moses), on account of the heathenish ceremonies they observed, lest the Jews might be turned away from the service of the true God and cling to the worship of the false gods of their pagan wives. The Pauline injunctions (I Cor., vii, 39), “ . . . let her marry to whom she will but only in the Lord” and (II Cor., vi, 14): “ . . . bear not the yoke with [i.e. do not marry] unbelievers,” do not, indeed, declare invalid the marriages of Christians with unbelievers, but certainly do earnestly forbid the faithful to marry unbelievers unless the ends of Christian marriage are safeguarded and grave and weighty reasons exist for the union. Certainly in the time of St. Paul and immediately afterwards the proportionately small number of Christians was sufficiently grave cause for permitting such intermarriages with the hope of the conversion of the unbelieving partner.

With the development of the Church and its growth in numbers, opportunities for Christian marriage increased, proportionately grave reasons for mixed unions (unless in rare cases) ceased, and then the natural and Divine laws asserted their right to prohibit such marriages as tended to frustrate the ends of the matrimonial sacrament by exposing the Catholic to a weakening or loss of faith, the offspring to a lack of Christian education, and the family to a want of that Christian love which is its very corner-stone. The Christian laity, as well as clergy, realized from sad experience and observation the ordinary tendency of mixed unions to a compromise or loss of faith on the part of the Catholic, and the un-Catholic bringing-up or at least religious indifference, of the children, and, finally, injury to domestic peace and happiness by the constant exposure to disputes, and sometimes bitter quarrels, about the fundamental principles of Catholic Faith, and the consequent weakening, if not total extinction, of Christian love between husband and wife (St. Ambrose, De Abraham, Bk. I, ch. ix, says: “There can be no unity of love where there is no untiy of faith”). At different periods and in different countries (especially Spain and Gaul) particular councils inveighed against them, and although these canons were not strictly observed, and there were many mixed marriages in the days of Sts. Jerome (Lib. I in Jovinianum) and Augustine (Lib. de Fide et operibus, ch. xix), yet after the death of the latter, and especially from the seventh to the twelfth century, the detestation of them so increased, and the conviction that they were not Christian marriages, and therefore to be shunned and not contracted, grew so strong and general throughout the entire Church that as far back as the twelfth century it was a universal custom and practice which even had the force of a universal church law (Bellarmine, De Controversiis, III, De Sacramento Matrimonii, Bk. I, ch. xxiii; Benedict XIV, Constit. “Singulari nobis,” paragraphs 9 and 10).

This impediment is binding on Christians of newly converted or even pagan countries, where there has been no such custom inasmuch as there have been no Catholics. The opinion of Lessius and others to the contrary is clearly refuted by the granting of faculties by Gregory XIII to the Christian missionaries of Japan to dispense with this impediment in the cases of newly converted Japanese Catholics. Many theologians and canonists say that there is one exception to this nullifying law, and that is the instance of an emigrant Catholic family settled in a pagan country without a single Catholic neighbour, forty or fifty days journey removed from the nearest Catholic, and unable on account of the distance or want of means to leave the country or procure a dispensation from the impediment, and thus compelled to remain their whole lives single or marry pagans (Santi-Leitner, IV, 74; Gasparri, De Matrimonio, I, 429). It does not seem that disparity of worship holds in a case of this kind; the ecclesiastical law under such circumstances does not bind a man so as to deprive him of his natural right to marry. Wernz, however (Jus Decret., IV, 775, n. 37), holds the opposite opinion.

DISPENSATION FROM THE IMPEDIMENT

The Church can dispense from this impediment inasmuch as it is of ecclesiastical institution. It never does so unless for gravest reasons and upon the fulfillment of certain conditions and guarantees that safeguard, as far as possible, the ends of the Sacrament of Matrimony. The natural and Divine laws, before permitting mixed marriages, exact the removal of all danger to the faith of the Catholic and to the baptism and Catholic bringing-up of all of the children of the marriage. The Church cannot dispense with this necessary requirement, and, the better to ensure its presence, insists upon certain conditions and promises, which must be committed to writing and signed and, in some instances and countries, also sworn to, by the unbaptized party to the pact. The unbeliever promises faithfully to comply with the requirements of the Church, and the Church on her part grants the permission for the marriage. The promises on the part of the unbaptized party are:

that he (or she) will afford the Catholic partner full and perfect freedom to practise the Catholic Faith, and that he (or she) will abstain from saying or doing aught to weaken or change that faith, and, if he be an inhabitant of a pagan country, that he will not practise polygamy;

that he (or she) will permit all children of their union to be baptized and reared in the Catholic Faith and practice, and that he (or she) will do or say nothing calculated to lessen their faith or turn them away from it or its practices.

The Catholic petitioner for the dispensation must also give promise (usually also written, in order that the dispenser may have a moral certainty of the absence of danger to the substantial ends of the sacrament) that he (or she) will strictly attend to his (or her) personal religious duties and have all the children baptized and properly reared and trained in the Catholic doctrine and practice, and that by prayer and good example and other legitimate and prudent means he (or she) will constantly labour to bring about the conversion to the Catholic Faith of his (or her) unbaptized partner. The promise to strive to effect the conversion of the unbeliever is of special importance, although too frequently lost sight of. The conversion most assuredly eliminates the last vestige of possible perversion of the Catholic party, ensures the primary end of marriage, i.e., the bearing and rearing of children for the Church and heaven, and rounds out, by the perfect unity of the married couple in faith and Christian love, their marriage according to its great type, the union of Christ with the Church. Even with all these promises, written and sworn to as safeguards to Christian marriage, a dispensation cannot be licitly given unless a grave necessity proportionate to the great risks to be encountered, justifies the marriage. This dispensation, in former days very rarely granted in Catholic countries, is now of more frequent occurrence, owing to the existence of “civil marriage” and the growing indifference on the part of parents in the matter of their children’s baptism. The rule of the Church was, and is, not to grant a dispensation from this impediment unless in provinces or countries where the Catholics are largely outnumbered by the non-baptized inhabitants. Rather than dispense from the disparity of worship, the Church will more willingly and readily grant dispensation from the diriment impediments of affinity and consanguinity, precisely for the reason that in the latter cases there is no danger to the faith of either Catholic or offspring, while in the case of the former, even though the necessary promises are made and kept, there is always danger of religious indifference on the part of the Catholic parent, and especially of the children on account of the example of the non-baptized parent. The pope alone sui jure can dispense with this impediment; bishops cannot. They, however, are delegated to do so, but in the pope’s name and by virtue of the delegated authority. Thus the bishops in pagan countries-China, Japan, Africa, etc.-and in countries where the unbaptized largely outnumber the Catholics, as England, United States, etc., have ample faculties in respect of this impediment. To-day the only case (and should there be danger in delay it is not: see Formula T, 11 June, 1907) reserved to Rome in the faculties granted to bishops of the United States is that of a Catholic with an orthodox Jew, i.e. a circumcised follower of Judaism. The case of a Jew uncircumcised, or even circumcised if he has abandoned Judaism, is not reserved.

This delegated faculty to bishops is given only for a specified period of five years or for a certain number of cases and requires that the bishop in granting a dispensation must state that it was conceded by virtue of Apostolic delegation of specified date. Where the impediment is occult, and there is danger in delay, bishops may dispense without express faculty of Rome, which in such cases is presumed to grant it. All bishops can (decrees of Congreg. of Inquis., 20 Feb., 1888, and 1 March, 1889) dispense, and delegate the parish priests to dispense, from the impediment of disparity of worship in the case of one who is in danger of death but is only civilly married or lives in concubinage. The aforesaid promises cannot be omitted. The sick party must promise absolutely to observe the requirements of the natural and Divine laws, and to carry out the injunctions of the ecclesiastical law as far as possible (Collectanea S. C. de Prop. Fide, n. 2188). Bishops cannot dispense in instances where the ends, purposes, and substantial blessings of the sacrament are well protected, unless there also exists a grave and proportionately weighty reason. There are sixteen canonical reasons, some grave and others still more grave (Instruct. S. C. de Prop. Fide, 9 May, 1877). Should the bishop dispense without cause, the dispensation would be null and void. The pope’s dispensation, in a similar case labouring under the same defect, would be valid. The reason of this difference is that a bishop cannot violate the law of his superior (in this instance the universal law), whereas the pope, who is supreme legislator, can dispense from universal ecclesiastical laws. He cannot, however, do so validly with the prohibition of the natural and Divine laws; hence he must have, before conceding the dispensation, a moral certainty that the practice of the Faith by the Catholic, and the Catholic baptism and rearing of the children, are amply protected. The Holy See dispenses from this impediment only for the gravest reasons and only in express terms (Collectanea S. C. de Prop. Fide, n. 948, 2); hence a dispensation from mixed religion instead of disparity of worship would not suffice for the validity of the marriage.

All the European Governments (except Austria) ignore this impediment. The Austrian impediment is different from the ecclesiastical impediment. Its basis is the profession of faith, and not the baptism of the parties, and so far as Catholicism is concerned, this civil impediment is more injurious than otherwise. According to the Austrian law, the marriage of a Catholic with a Jew, or other unbaptized party, is civilly invalid as long as the Catholic remains in the Catholic Church. Should the Catholic leave the Church, and announce that he (or she) held no belief in any faith, the marriage with an unbaptized partner would be civilly valid. Unbaptized parties can, on the other hand, enter into civilly valid marriage with baptized Protestants. The Church in granting dispensation from disparity of worship, thus permitting the marriage of a Catholic and an unbaptized person, by that act dispenses also from all impediments of purely ecclesiastical institution, from which the unbaptized is exempt (except clandestinity; cf. “Praxis Curiæ Romanæ”; “Ne Temere,” 2 Aug., 1907); the Church does this in order that the exemption of the unbaptized may, on account of the indissolubility of the marriage, be communicated to the Catholic party (Congreg. of Inquis., 3 March, 1825). This dispensation never includes dispensation in any degree in the direct line nor in the first degree of the transverse line (Gasparri, op. cit., nos 700, 701). This impediment, which is publici juris, can be invoked by any Catholic to annul a marriage contracted without the necessary dispensation. The burden of proof rests upon the challenger, who must clearly demonstrate that there was either no act of baptismal administration or that the act of administration which actually took place was certainly invalid. The usual canonical laws of evidence are supplemented by special laws laid down for the demonstration of the ceremony or the validity of the baptism. The customary norm (c. iii, X, De presby. non-bap., III, xliii) in case of practical Catholics does not govern the cases of non-Catholics or negligent Catholics. The rules prescribed by the Congreg. of the Inquisition (1 Aug., 1883, and 5 Feb., 1851) for the verification of the fact or non-fact of the baptism, as also of the validity of the act, must be strictly followed.

SCHMALZGRÜBER, Bk. IV, tit. vi, sect. 4; FERRARIS, Bibliotheca (Rome, 1889), V, 301 sq.; PIRHING, Jus. Can. (Dillingen, 1678), Bk. IV, tit. i, sect. 6; FEIJE, De Imped. et Dispen. Matrimonialibus (Louvain, 1874), xx; GASPARRI, De Matrimonio (Paris, 1893), I, 401 sqq.; BALLERINI, Opus Theol. Morale (Prato, 1894), VI, De Matrimonia, 530 sq.; HAINE, Theol. Moralis Elementa (Louvain, 1900), IV, 158 sqq.; WERNZ, Jus Decret. (Rome, 1904), iv, 759–81; ROSSET, De Sacramento Matrimonii (MontreuilsurMer, 1895), III, art. iii; SANTI-LEITNER, Prælect. Jur. Can. (Ratisbon, 1899), IV, 66–75; ANDRÉWAGNER, Empéchements de marriage in De Sponsal. et Matrimonio (Brussels, 1896), 214 sqq.; NOLDIN, De Sacramentis (Innsbruck, 1906), 698 sqq.; PUTZER, Commentarium in Apost. Facul. (New York, 1898), 379 sqq.; Irish Eccl. Record, Series III, vol. X (1889), 924 sqq.; Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide (Rome, 1907), index, s. v. Disparitas.

P. M. J. ROCK

Dispensation

(Lat. dispensatio)

Dispensation is an act whereby in a particular case a lawful superior grants relaxation from an existing law. This article will treat:

I. Dispensation in General;

II. Matrimonial Dispensations.

For dispensations from vows see VOWS and RELIGIOUS ORDERS; and from fasting and abstinence, FAST, ABSTINENCE.

I. DISPENSATION IN GENERAL

Dispensation differs from abrogation and derogation, inasmuch as these suppress the law totally or in part, whereas a dispensation leaves it still in vigour; and from epikeia, or a favourable interpretation of the purpose of the legislator, which supposes that he did not intend to include a particular case within the scope of his law, whereas by dispensation a superior withdraws from the power of the law a case which otherwise would fall under it. The raison d’être for dispensation lies in the nature of prudent administration, which often counsels the adapting of general legislation to the needs of a particular case by way of exception. This is peculiarly true of ecclesiastical administration. Owing to the universality of the Church, the adequate observance by all its members of a single code of laws would be very difficult. Moreover, the Divine purpose of the Church, the welfare of souls, obliges it to reconcile as far as possible the general interests of the community with the spiritual needs or even weaknesses of its individual members. Hence we find instances of ecclesiastical dispensations from the very earliest centuries; such early instances, however, were meant rather to legitimize accomplished facts than to authorize beforehand the doing of certain things. Later on antecedent dispensations were frequently granted; as early as the eleventh century Yves of Chartres, among other canonists, outlined the theory on which they were based. With reference to matrimonial dispensations now common, we meet in the sixth and seventh centuries with a few examples of general dispensations granted to legitimize marriages already contracted, or permitting others about to be contracted. It is not, however, until the second half of the eleventh century that we come upon papal dispensations affecting individual cases. The earliest examples relate to already existing unions; the first certain dispensation for a future marriage dates from the beginning of the thirteenth century. In the sixteenth century the Holy See began to give ampler faculties to bishops and missionaries in distant lands; in the seventeenth century such privileges were granted to other countries. Such was the origin of the ordinary faculties (see FACULTIES, CANONICAL) now granted to bishops.

(1) KINDS OF DISPENSATION

(a) A dispensation may be explicit, tacit, or implicit, according as it is manifested by a positive act, or by silence under circumstances amounting to acquiescence, or solely by its connexion with another positive act that presupposes the dispensation.

(b) It may be granted in foro interno, or in foro externo, according as it affects only the personal conscience, or conscience and the community at large. Although dispensations in foro interno are used for secret cases, they are also often granted in public cases; hence they must not be identified with dispensations in casu occulto.

(c) A dispensation may be either direct or indirect, according as it affects the law directly, by suspending its operation, or indirectly, by modifying the object of the law in such a way as to withdraw it from the latter’s control. For instance, when a dispensation is granted from the matrimonial impediment of a vow, the pope remits the obligation resulting from the promise made to God, consequently also the impediment it raised against marriage.

(d) A dispensation may be in formâ gratiosâ, in formâ commissâ, or in formâ commissâ mixtâ. Those of the first class need no execution, but contain a dispensation granted ipso facto by the superior in the act of sending it. Those of the second class give jurisdiction to the person named as executor of the dispensation, if he should consider it advisable; they are, therefore, favours to be granted. Those of the third class command the executor to deliver the dispensation if he can verify the accuracy of the facts for which such dispensation is asked; they seem, therefore, to contain a favour already granted. From the respective nature of each of these forms of dispensation result certain important consequences that affect delegation, obreption, and revocation in the matter of dispensations (see DELEGATION; OBREPTION; REVOCATION).

(2) THE DISPENSING POWER

It lies in the very notion of dispensation that only the legislator, or his lawful successor, can of his own right grant a dispensation from the law. His subordinates can do so only in the measure that he permits. If such communication of ecclesiastical authority is made to an inferior by reason of an office he holds, his power, though derived, is known as ordinary. If it is only given him by way of commission it is known as delegated power. When such delegation takes place through a permanent law, it is known as delegation by right of law. It is styled habitual, when, though given by a particular act of the superior, it is granted for a certain period of time or a certain number of cases. Finally, it is called particular if granted only for one case. When the power of dispensation is ordinary it may be delegated to another unless this be expressly forbidden. When it is delegated, as stated above, it may not be subdelegated unless this be expressly permitted; exception is made, however, for delegation ad universitatem causarum i. e. for all cases of a certain kind, and for delegation by the pope or the Roman Congregations. Even these exceptions do not cover delegations made because of some personal fitness of the delegate, nor those in which the latter receives, not actual jurisdiction to grant the dispensation, but an appointment to execute it, e. g. in the case of dispensations granted in formâ commissâ mixtâ (see above).

The power of dispensation rests in the following persons:

(A) The Pope He cannot of his own right dispense from the Divine law (either natural or positive). When he does dispense, e. g. from vows, oaths, unconsummated marriages, he does so by derived power communicated to him as Vicar of Christ, and the limits of which he determines by his magisterium, or authoritative teaching power. There is some diversity of opinion as to the nature of the pope’s dispensing power in this respect; it is generally held that it operates by way of indirect dispensation: that is, by virtue of his power over the wills of the faithful the pope, acting in the name of God, remits for them an obligation resulting from their deliberate consent, and therewith the consequences that by natural or positive Divine law flowed from such obligation. The pope, of his own right, has full power to dispense from all ecclesiastical laws, whether universal or particular, even from the disciplinary decrees of œcumenical councils. Such authority is consequent on his primacy and the fullness of his immediate jurisdiction. A part of this power, however, he usually communicates to the Roman Congregations.

(B) THE BISHOP

Of his ordinary right, the bishop can dispense from his own statutes and from those of his predecessors, even when promulgated in a diocesan synod (where he alone is legislator). From the other laws of the Church he cannot dispense of his own right. This is evident from the nature of dispensation and of diocesan jurisdiction. A principle maintained by some authors, viz, that the bishop can grant all dispensations which the pope has not reserved to himself, cannot be admitted. But by derived right (either ordinary or delegated according to the terms of the grant) the bishop can dispense from those laws that expressly permit him to do so or from those for which he has received an indult to that effect. Moreover, by ordinary right, based on custom or the tacit consent of the Holy See, he may dispense:

(a) in a case where recourse to the Holy See is difficult and where delay would entail serious danger;

(b) in doubtful cases especially when the doubt affects the necessity of the dispensation or the sufficiency of the motives;

(c) in cases of frequent occurrence but requiring dispensation, also in frequently occurring matters of minor importance;

(d) in decrees of national and provincial councils, although he may not pronounce a general decree to the contrary;

(e) in pontifical laws specially passed for his diocese.

It should be always remembered that to fix the exact limit of these various powers legitimate custom and the interpretation of reputable authors must serve as guides. Superiors of exempt religious orders (see EXEMPTION) can grant to their subjects, individually, those dispensations from ecclesiastical laws which the bishop grants by his ordinary power. When there is question of the rules of their order they are bound to follow what is laid down in their constitutions (see RELIGIOUS ORDERS).

(C) THE VICAR-GENERAL

He enjoys by virtue of his appointment the ordinary dispensing power of the bishop, also the delegated powers of the latter, i. e. those granted him not personally but as ordinary (according to present discipline, the pontifical faculties known as ordinary); exception is made, however, for those powers which require a special mandate like those of the chapter Liceat, for dealing with irregularities and secret cases. The vicar capitular likewise has all the dispensing power which the bishop has of his own right, or which has been delegated to him as ordinary.

(D) PARISH PRIEST

By his own ordinary right, founded on custom, he may dispense (but only in particular cases, and for individuals separately, not for a community or congregation) from the observance of fasting, abstinence, and Holy Days. He can also dispense, within his own territory, from the observance of diocesan statutes when the latter permit him to do so; the terms of these statutes usually declare the extent of such power, also whether it be ordinary or delegated. Dispensation being an act of jurisdiction, a superior can exercise it only over his own subjects, though as a general rule he can do so in their favour even outside his own territory. The bishop and the parish priest, except in circumstances governed by special enactments, acquire jurisdiction over a member of the faithful by reason of the domicile or quasi-domicile he or she has in a diocese or parish (see DOMICILE). Moreover, in their own territory they can use their dispensing power in respect of persons without fixed residence (vagi), probably also in respect of travellers temporarily resident in such territory. As a general rule he who has power to dispense others from certain obligations can also dispense himself.

(3) CAUSES FOR GRANTING DISPENSATIONS

A sufficient cause is always required in order that a dispensation may be both valid and licit when an inferior dispenses from a superior’s law, but only for the liceity of the act when a superior dispenses from his own law. Nevertheless, in this latter case a dispensation granted without a motive would not (in se), except for some special reason, e. g. scandal, constitute a serious fault. One may be satisfied with a probably sufficient cause, or with a cause less than one that, of itself and without any dispensation, would excuse from the law. It is always understood that a superior intends to grant only a licit dispensation. Therefore a dispensation is null when in the motives set forth for obtaining it a false statement is made which has influenced not only the causa impulsiva, i. e. the reason inclining the superior more easily to grant it, but also the causa motiva, i. e. the really determining reason for the grant in question. For this, and in general for the information which should accompany the petition, in order that a dispensation be valid, see below apropos of obreption and subreption in rescripts of dispensation. Consequently a false statement or the fraudulent withholding of information, i. e. done with positive intention of deceiving the superior, totally annuls the dispensation, unless such statement bear on a point foreign to the matter in hand. But if made with no fraudulent intent, a false statement does not affect the grant unless the object of the statement be some circumstance which ought to have been expressed under pain of nullity, or unless it affects directly the motive cause as above described. Even then false statements do not always nullify the grant; for;

(a) when the dispensation is composed of several distinct and separable parts, that part or element alone is nullified on which falls the obreption or subreption, as the case may be;

(b) when several adequately distinguished motive causes are set forth, the dispensation is null and void only when the obreption or subreption in question affects them all.

It is enough, moreover, that the accuracy of the facts be verified at the moment when the dispensation is granted. Therefore, in the case of dispensations ex gratiâ (or in formâ gratiosâ), i. e. granting favours, the facts must be true when the dispensation is expedited; on the other hand, in the case of dispensations in formâ commissâ (and according to the more general opinion, in those in formâ commissâ mixtâ), the causes alleged must be verified only when the dispensation is actually executed.

(4) FORM AND INTERPRETATION

It is proper, generally speaking, that dispensations be asked for and granted in writing. Moreover, the Roman Congregations are forbidden, as a rule, to receive petitions for dispensations or to answer them by telegram. The execution of a dispensation made on receipt of telegraphic information that such dispensation had been granted would be null, unless such means of communication had been officially used by special authorization from the pope. Except when the interest of a third party is at stake, or the superior has expressed himself to the contrary, the general dispensing power, whether ordinary or delegated, ought to be broadly interpreted, since its object is the common good. But the actual dispensation (and the same holds true of dispensing power given for a particular case) ought to be strictly interpreted unless it is a question of a dispensation authorized by the common law, or one granted motu proprio (by the superior spontaneously) to a whole community, or with a view to the public good. Again, that interpretation is lawful without which the dispensation would prove hurtful or useless to the beneficiary, also that which extends the benefits of the dispensation to whatever is juridically connected with it.

(5) CESSATION OF DISPENSATIONS

(a) A dispensation ceases when it is renounced by the person in whose favour it was granted. However, when the object of the dispensation is an obligation exclusively resulting from one’s own will, e. g. a vow, such renunciation is not valid until accepted by the competent superior. Moreover, neither the non-use of a dispensation nor the fact of having obtained another dispensation incompatible with the former is, in itself, equivalent to a renunciation. Thus, if a girl had received a dispensation to marry Peter and another to marry Paul, she would remain free to marry either of them.

(b) A dispensation ceases when it is revoked after due notice to the recipient. The legislator can validly revoke a dispensation, even without cause, though in the latter case it would be illicit to do so; but without a cause an inferior cannot revoke a dispensation, even validly. With a just cause, however, he can do so if he has dispensed by virtue of his general powers (ordinary or delegated); not so, however, when his authority extended merely to one particular case, since thereby his authority was exhausted.

(c) A dispensation ceases by the death of the superior when, the dispensation having been granted in formâ commissâ, the executor had not yet begun to execute it. But the grant holds good if given ex gratiâ (as a favour) and even, more probably, if granted in formâ commissâ mixtâ. In any case, the new pope is wont to revalidate all favours granted in the immediately previous year by his predecessor and not yet availed of.

(d) A conditional dispensation ceases on verification of the condition that renders it void, e. g. the death of the superior when the dispensation was granted with the clause ad beneplacitum nostrum (at our good pleasure).

(e) A dispensation ceases by the adequate and total cessation of its motive causes, the dispensation thereupon ceasing to be legitimate. But the cessation of the influencing causes, or of a part of the motive causes, does not affect the dispensation. However, when the motive cause, though complex, is substantially one, it is rightly held to cease with the disappearance of one of its essential elements.

II. MATRIMONIAL DISPENSATIONS

A matrimonial dispensation is the relaxation in a particular case of an impediment prohibiting or annulling a marriage. It may be granted:

(a) in favour of a contemplated marriage or to legitimize one already contracted;

(b) in secret cases, or in public cases, or in both (see IMPEDIMENTS OF MATRIMONY);

(c) in foro interno only, or in foro externo (the latter includes also the former). Power of dispensing in foro interno is not always restricted to secret cases (casus occulti).

These expressions, as stated above, are by no means identical. We shall classify the most important considerations in this very complex matter, under four heads:

(1) general powers of dispensation;

(2) particular indults of dispensation;

(3) causes for dispensations;

(4) costs of dispensations.

(1) GENERAL POWERS OF DISPENSATION

(A) THE POPE

The pope cannot dispense from impediments founded on Divine law-except, as above described, in the case of vows, espousals, and non-consummated marriages, or valid and consummated marriage of neophytes before baptism (see NEOPHYTES). In doubtful cases, however, he may decide authoritatively as to the objective value of the doubt. In respect of impediments arising from ecclesiastical law the pope has full dispensing power. Every such dispensation granted by him is valid, and when he acts from a sufficient motive it is also licit. He is not wont, however, out of consideration for the public welfare, to exercise this power personally, unless in very exceptional cases, where certain specific impediments are in question. Such cases are error, violence, Holy orders, disparity of worship, public conjugicide, consanguinity in the direct line or in the first degree (equal) of the collateral Line, and the first degree of affinity (from lawful intercourse) in the direct line. As a rule the pope exercises his power of dispensation through the Roman Congregations and Tribunals.

Up to recent times the Dataria was the most important channel for matrimonial dispensations when the impediment was public or about to become public within a short time. The Holy Office, however, bad exclusive control in foro externo over all impediments connected with or juridically bearing on matters of faith, e. g. disparity of worship, mixta religio, Holy orders, etc. The dispensing power in foro interno lay with the Penitentiaria, and in the case of pauperes or quasi-pauperes this same Congregation had dispensing power over public impediments in foro externo. The Penitentiaria held as pauperes for all countries outside of Italy those whose united capital, productive of a fixed revenue, did not exceed 5370 lire (about 1050 dollars); and as quasi-pauperes, those whose capital did not exceed 9396 lire (about 1850 dollars). It likewise had the power of promulgating general indults affecting public impediments, as for instance the indult of 15 Nov., 1907. Propaganda was charged with all dispensations, both in foro inferno and in foro externo, for countries under its jurisdiction, as was the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs for all countries depending on it, e. g. Russia, Latin America, and certain vicariates and prefectures Apostolic.

On 3 November, 1908, the duties of these various Congregations received important modifications in consequence of the Constitution “Sapienti,” in which Pope Pius X reorganized the Roman Curia. Dispensing power from public impediments in the case of pauperes or quasi-pauperes was transferred from the Dataria and the Penitentiaria to a newly established Congregation known as the Congregatio de Disciplinâ Sacramentorum. The Penitentiaria retains dispensing power over occult impediments in foro interno only. The Holy Office retains its faculties, but restricted expressly under three heads:

(1) disparity of worship;

(2) mixta religio;

(3) the Pauline Privilege [see DIVORCE (IN MORAL THEOLOGY)].

Propaganda remains the channel for securing dispensations for all countries under its jurisdiction, but as it is required for the sake of executive unity, to defer, in all matters concerning matrimony, to the various Congregations competent to act thereon, its function is henceforth that of intermediary. It is to be remembered that in America, the United States, Canada and Newfoundland, and in Europe, the British Isles are now withdrawn from Propaganda, and placed under the common law of countries with a hierarchy. The Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs loses all its powers; consequently the countries hitherto subject to it must address themselves either to the Holy Office or to the Congregatio de Disciplinâ Sacramentorum according to the nature of the impediment.

It should be noted that the powers of a Congregation are suspended during the vacancy of the Holy See, except those of the Penitentiaria in foro interno, which, during that time, are even increased. Though suspended, the powers of a Congregation may be used in cases of urgent necessity.

(B) THE DIOCESAN BISHOPS

We shall treat first of their fixed perpetual faculties, whether ordinary or delegated, afterwards of their habitual and temporary faculties. By virtue of their ordinary power (see JURISDICTION) bishops can dispense from those prohibent impediments of ecclesiastical law which are not reserved to the pope. The reserved impediments of this kind are espousals, the vow of perpetual chastity, and vows taken in diocesan religious institutes (see RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS), mixta religio, public display and solemn blessing at marriages within forbidden times, the vetitum, or interdict laid on a marriage by the pope, or by the metropolitan in a case of appeal. The bishop may also dispense from diriment impediments after the following manner:—(a) By tacit consent of the Holy See he can dispense in foro interno from secret impediments from which the pope is wont to exercise his power of dispensing, in the three following cases:

(1) in marriages already contracted and consummated, when urgent necessity arises (i. e. when the interested parties cannot be separated without scandal or endangering their souls, and there is no time to have recourse to the Holy See or to its delegate)—it is, however, necessary that such marriage shall have taken place in lawful form before the Church, and that one of the contracting parties at least shall have been ignorant of the impediment;

(2) in marriages about to be contracted and which are called embarrassing (perplexi) cases, i. e. where everything being ready a delay would be defamatory or would cause scandal;

(3) when there is a serious doubt of fact as to the existence of an impediment; in this case the dispensation seems to hold good, even though in course of time the impediment becomes certain, and even public. In cases where the law is doubtful no dispensation is necessary; but the bishop may, if he thinks proper, declare authentically the existence and sufficiency of such doubt.

(b) By virtue of a decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition or Holy Office (20 February, 1888) diocesan bishops and other ordinaries (especially vicars Apostolic, administrators Apostolic, and prefects Apostolic, having jurisdiction over an allocated territory, also vicars-general in spiritualibus, and vicars capitular) may dispense in very urgent (gravissimum) danger of death from all diriment impediments (secret or public) of ecclesiastical law, except priesthood and affinity (from lawful intercourse) in the direct line.

However, they can use this privilege only in favour of persons actually living in real concubinage or united by a merely civil marriage, and only when there is no time for recourse to the Holy See. They may also legitimize the children of such unions, except those born of adultery or sacrilege. In the decree of 1888 is also included the impediment of clandestinity. This decree permits therefore (at least until the Holy See shall have issued other instructions) to dispense, in the case of concubinage or civil marriage, with the presence of the priest and of the two witnesses required by the Decree “Ne temere” in urgent cases of marriage in extremis. Canonists do not agree as to whether bishops hold these faculties by virtue of their ordinary power or by general delegation of the law. It seems to us more probable that those just described under;

(a) belong to them as ordinaries, while those under

(b) are delegated.

They are, therefore, empowered to delegate the former; in order to subdelegate the latter they must be guided by the limits fixed by the decree of 1888 and its interpretation dated 9 June, 1889. That is, if it is a question of habitual delegation parish priests only should receive it, and only for cases where there is no time for recourse to the bishop.

Besides the fixed perpetual faculties, bishops also receive from the Holy See habitual temporary indults for a certain period of time or for a limited number of cases. These faculties are granted by fixed “formulæ,” in which the Holy See from time to time, or as occasion requires it, makes some slight modifications. (See FACULTIES, CANONICAL.) These faculties call for a broad interpretation. Nevertheless it is well to bear in mind, when interpreting them, the actual legislation of the Congregation whence they issue, so as not to extend their use beyond the places, persons, number of cases, and impediments laid down in a given indult. Faculties thus delegated to a bishop do not in any way restrict his ordinary faculties; nor (in se) do the faculties issued by one Congregation affect those granted by another. When several specifically different impediments occur in one and the same case, and one of them exceeds the bishop’s powers, he may not dispense from any of them. Even when the bishop has faculties for each impediment taken separately he cannot (unless he possesses the faculty known as de cumulo) use his various faculties simultaneously in a case where, all the impediments being public, one of them exceeds his ordinary faculties, it is not necessary for a bishop to delegate his faculties to his vicars-general; since 1897 they are always granted to the bishop as ordinary, therefore to the vicar-general also. With regard to other priests a decree of the holy Office (14 Dec., 1898) declares that for the future temporary faculties may be always subdelegated unless the indult expressly states the contrary. These faculties are valid from the date when they were granted in the Roman Curia. In actual practice they do not expire, as a rule, at the death of the pope nor of the bishop to whom they were given, but pass on to those who take his place (the vicar capitular, the administrator, or succeeding bishop). Faculties granted for a fixed period of time, or a limited number of cases, cease when the period or number has been reached; but while awaiting their renewal the bishop, unless culpably negligent, may continue to use them provisionally. A bishop can use his habitual faculties only in favour of his own subjects. The matrimonial discipline of the Decree “Ne temere” (2 Aug., 1907) contemplates as such all persons having a true canonical domicile, or continuously resident for one month within his territory, also vagi, or persons who have no domicile anywhere and can claim no continuous stay of one month. When a matrimonial impediment is common to both parties the bishop, in dispensing his own subject, dispenses also the other.

(C) VICARS CAPITULAR AND VICARS-GENERAL

A vicar capitular, or in his place a lawful administrator, enjoys all the dispensing powers possessed by the bishop in virtue of his ordinary jurisdiction or of delegation of the law; according to the actual discipline he enjoys even the habitual powers which had been granted the deceased bishop for a fixed period of time or for a limited number of cases, even if the indult should have been made out in the name of the Bishop of N. Considering the actual praxis of the Holy See, the same is true of particular indults (see below). The vicar-general has by virtue of his appointment all the ordinary powers of the bishop over prohibent impediments, but requires a special mandate to give him common-law faculties for diriment impediments. As for habitual temporary faculties, since they are now addressed to the ordinary, they belong also ipso facto to the vicar-general while he holds that office. He can also use particular indults when they are addressed to the ordinary, and when they are not so addressed the bishop can always subdelegate him, unless the contrary be expressly stated in the indult.

(D) PARISH PRIESTS AND OTHER ECCLESIASTICS

A parish priest by common law can dispense only from an interdict laid on a marriage by him or by his predecessor. Some canonists of note accord him authority to dispense from secret impediments in what are called embarrassing (perplexi) cases, i. e. when there is no time for recourse to the bishop, but with the obligation of subsequent recourse ad cautelam, i. e. for greater security; a similar authority is attributed by them to confessors. This opinion seems yet gravely probable, though the Penitentiaria continues to grant among its habitual faculties a special authority for such cases and restricts somewhat its use.

(2) PARTICULAR INDULTS OF DISPENSATION

When there is occasion to procure a dispensation that exceeds the powers of the ordinary, or when there are special reasons for direct recourse to the Holy See, procedure is by way of supplica (petition) and private rescript. The supplica need not necessarily be drawn up by the petitioner, nor even at his instance; it does not, however, become valid until he accepts it. Although, since the Constitution “Sapienti,” all the faithful may have direct recourse to the Congregations, the supplica is usually forwarded through the ordinary (of the person’s birthplace, or domicile, or, since the Decree “Ne temere,” residence of one of the petitioners), who transmits it to the proper Congregation either by letter or through his accredited agent; but if there is question of sacramental secrecy, it is sent directly to the Penitentiaria, or handed to the bishop’s agent under a sealed cover for transmission to the Penitentiaria. The supplica ought to give the names (family and Christian) of the petitioners (except in secret cases forwarded to the Penitentiaria), the name of the Ordinary forwarding it, or the name of the priest to whom, in secret cases, the rescript must be sent; the age of the parties, especially in dispensations affecting consanguinity and affinity; their religion, at 1east when one of them is not a Catholic; the nature, degree, and number of all impediments (if recourse is had to the Congregatio de Disciplinâ Sacramentorum or to the Holy Office in a public impediment, and to the Penitentiaria at the same time in a secret one, it is necessary that the latter should know of the public impediment and that recourse has been had to the competent Congregation). The supplica must, moreover, contain the causes set forth for granting the dispensation and other circumstances specified in the Propaganda Instruction of 9 May, 1877 (it is no longer necessary, either for the validity or liceity of the dispensation, to observe the paragraph relating to incestuous intercourse, even when probably this very thing had been alleged as the only reason for granting the dispensation). When there is question of consanguinity in the second degree bordering on the first, the supplica ought to be written by the bishop’s own hand. He ought also to sign the declaration of poverty made by the petitioners when the dispensation is sought from the Penitentiaria in formâ pauperum; when he is in any way hindered from so doing he is bound to commission a priest to sign it in his name. A false declaration of poverty henceforth does not invalidate a dispensation in any case; but the authors of the false statement are bound in conscience to reimburse any amount unduly withheld (regulation for the Roman Curia, 12 June, 1908). For further information on the many points already briefly described the reader is referred to the special canonical works, wherein are found all necessary directions as to what must be expressed so as to avoid nullity. When a supplica is affected (in a material point) by obreption or subreption it becomes necessary to ask for a so-called “reformatory decree” in case the favour asked has not yet been granted by the Curia, or for the letters known as “Perinde ac valere” if the favour has already been granted. If, after all this, a further material error is discovered, letters known as “Perinde ac valere super perinde ac valere” must be applied for. See Gasparri, “Tractatus de matrimonio” (2nd ed., Rome, 1892), I, no. 362.

Dispensation rescripts are generally drawn up in formâ commissâ mixtâ, i. e. they are entrusted to an executor who is thereby obliged to proceed to their execution, if he finds that the reasons are as alleged (si vera sint exposita). Canonists are divided as to whether rescripts in formâ commissâ mixtâ contain a favour granted from the moment of their being sent off, or to be granted when the execution actually takes place. Gasparri holds it as received practice that it suffices if the reasons alleged be actually true at the moment when the petition is presented. It is certain, however, that the executor required by Penitentiaria rescripts may safely fulfil his mission even if the pope should die before he had begun to execute it. The executor named for public impediments is usually the ordinary who forwards the supplica and for secret impediments an approved confessor chosen by the petitioner. Except when specially authorized the person delegated cannot validly execute a dispensation before he has seen the original of the rescript. Therein it is usually prescribed that the reasons given by the petitioners must be verified. This verification, usually no longer a condition for valid execution, can be made, in the case of public impediments, extra-judicially or by subdelegation. In foro interno it can be made by the confessor in the very act of hearing the confessions of the parties. Should the inquiry disclose no substantial error, the executor proclaims the dispensation, i. e. he makes known, usually in writing, especially if he acts in foro externo, the decree which dispenses the petitioners; if the rescript authorizes him, he also legitimizes the children. Although the executor may subdelegate the preparatory acts, he may not, unless the rescript expressly says so, subdelegate the actual execution of the decree, unless he subdelegates to another ordinary. When the impediment is common to, and known to, both parties, execution ought to be made for both; wherefore, in a case in foro interno, the confessor of one of the parties hands over the rescript, after he has executed it, to the confessor of the other. The executor ought to observe with care the clauses enumerated in the decree, as some of them constitute conditions sine quâ non for the validity of the dispensation. As a rule, these clauses affecting validity may be recognized by the conditional conjunction or adverb of exclusion with which they begin (e. g. dummodo, “provided that”; et non aliter, “not otherwise”), or by an ablative absolute. When, however, a clause only prescribes a thing already of obligation by law it has merely the force of a reminder. In this matter also it is well to pay attention to the stylus curiœ, i. e. the legal diction of the Roman Congregations and Tribunals, and to consult authors of repute.

(3) CAUSES FOR GRANTING DISPENSATIONS

Following the principles laid down for dispensations in general, a matrimonial dispensation granted without sufficient cause, even by the pope himself, would be illicit; the more difficult and numerous the impediments the more serious must be the motives for removing them. An unjustified dispensation, even if granted by the pope, is null and void, in a case affecting the Divine law; and if granted by other bishops or superiors in cases affecting ordinary ecclesiastical law. Moreover, as it is not supposable that the pope wishes to act illicitly, it follows that if he has been moved by false allegations to grant a dispensation, even in a matter of ordinary ecclesiastical law, such dispensation is invalid. Hence the necessity of distinguishing in dispensations between motive or determining causes (causœ motivœ) and impulsive or merely influencing causes (causœ impulsivœ). Except when the information given is false, still more when he acts spontaneously (motu proprio)and “with certain knowledge,” the presumption always is that a superior is acting from just motives. It may be remarked that if the pope refuses to grant a dispensation on a certain ground, an inferior prelate, properly authorized to dispense, may grant the dispensation in the same case on other grounds which in his judgment are sufficient. Canonists do not agree as to whether he can grant it on the identical ground by reason of his divergent appreciation of the latter’s force.

Among the sufficient causes for matrimonial dispensations we may distinguish canonical causes, i. e. classified and held as sufficient by the common law and canonical jurisprudence, and reasonable causes. i. e. not provided for nominally in the law, but deserving of equitable consideration in view of circumstances or particular cases. An Instruction issued by Propaganda (9 May, 1877) enumerates sixteen canonical causes. The “Formulary of the Dataria” (Rome, 1901) gives twenty-eight, which suffice, either alone or concurrently with others, and act as a norm for all sufficient causes. They are: smallness of place or places; smallness of place coupled with the fact that outside it a sufficient dowry cannot be had; lack of dowry; insufficiency of dowry for the bride; a larger dowry; an increase of dowry by one-third; cessation of family feuds; preservation of peace; conclusion of peace between princes or states; avoidance of lawsuits over an inheritance, a dowry, or some important business transaction; the fact that a fiancée is an orphan; or has the care of a family; the age of the fiancée over twenty-four; the difficulty of finding another partner, owing to the fewness of male acquaintance, or the difficulty the latter experience in coming to her home; the hope of safeguarding the faith of a Catholic relation; the danger of a mixed marriage; the hope of converting a non-Catholic party; the keeping of property in a family; the preservation of an illustrious or honourable family; the excellence and merits of the parties; defamation to be avoided, or scandal prevented; intercourse already having taken place between the petitioners, or rape; the danger of a civil marriage; of marriage before a Protestant minister revalidation of a marriage that was null and void; finally, all reasonable causes judged such in the opinion of the pope (e. g. the public good), or special reasonable causes actuating the petitioners and made known to the pope, i. e. motives which, owing to the social status of the petitioners, it is opportune should remain unexplained out of respect for their reputation. These various causes have been stated in their briefest terms. To reach their exact force, some acquaintance is necessary with the stylus curiœ and the pertinent works of reputable authors, always avoiding anything like exaggerated formalism. This list of causes is by no means exhaustive; the Holy See, in granting a dispensation, will consider any weighty circumstances that render the dispensation really justifiable.

(4) COSTS OF DISPENSATIONS

The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, cap. v, De ref. matrim.) decreed that dispensations should be free of all charges. Diocesan chanceries are bound to conform to this law (many pontifical documents, and at times clauses in indults, remind them of it) and neither to exact nor accept anything but the modest contribution to the chancery expenses sanctioned by an Instruction approved by Innocent XI (8 Oct., 1678), and known as the Innocentian Tax . Rosset holds that it is also lawful, when the diocese is poor, to demand payment of the expenses it incurs for dispensations. Sometimes the Holy See grants ampler freedom in this matter, but nearly always with the monition that all revenues from this source shall be employed for some good work, and not go to the diocesan curia as such. Henceforth every rescript requiring execution will state the sum which the diocesan curia is authorized to collect for its execution.

In the Roman Curia the expenses incurred by petitioners fall under four heads:

(a) expenses (expensœ) of carriage (postage, etc.), also a fee to the accredited agent, when one has been employed. This fee is fixed by the Congregation in question;

(b) a tax (taxa) to be used in defraying the expenses incurred by the Holy See in the organized administration of dispensations;

(c) the componendum, or eleemosynary fine to be paid to the Congregation and applied by it to pious uses;

(d) an alms imposed on the petitioners and to be distributed by themselves in good works.

The moneys paid under the first two heads do not affect, strictly speaking, the gratuity of the dispensation. They constitute a just compensation for the expenses the petitioners occasion the Curia. As for the alms and the componendum, besides the fact that they do not profit the pope nor the members of the Curia personally, but are employed in pious uses, they are justifiable, either as a fine for the faults which, as a rule, give occasion for the dispensation, or as a check to restrain a too great frequency of petitions often based on frivolous grounds. And if the Tridentine prohibition be still urged, it may be truly said that the pope has the right to abrogate the decrees of councils, and is the best judge of the reasons that legitimize such abrogation. We may add that the custom of tax and componendum is neither uniform nor universal in the Roman Curia.

I. Dispensations in General: SUAREZ, De legibus (Naples, 1882), Bk. VI, x sqq., and Opera Omnia (Paris, 1856), VI; PYRRHUS CORRADIUS, Praxis dispensationum apostolicarum (Venice, 1699); KONINGS-PUTZER, Commentarium in facultates apostolicas (New York, 1898), pt. I; the commentators on the Decretals, especially SCHMALZGRUEBER, Jus ecclesiasticum universale (Rome, 1843), Bk. I. tit. ii; WERNZ, Jus decretalium (Rome, 1905), I, tit. iv, 138; VON SCHERER, Handbuch des Kirchenrechts (Graz, 1898), I, 172; HINSCHIUS. System d. kath. Kirchenr. (Berlin, 1869), I. 744, 789; the moral theologies, under the treatise De legibus, particularly ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, Theologia Moralis (Rome, 1905), I, iv, Dub. 4; D’ANNIBALE, Summula Theologiœ Moralis (Rome, 1908), I, tr. iii, 220; BALLERINI, Opus Morale (Prato, 1889), I, 363; OJETTI, Synopsis rerum moralium et juris pontificii (Rome, 1904), s. v. Dispensatio; THOMASSIN, Ancienne et nouvelle discipline de l’Eglise touchant les bénéfices (Paris, 1725), II, p. II, 1, 3, xxiv-xxix; STIEGLER, Dispensation, Dispensationwesen, und Dispensationsrecht in his Kirchenrecht (Mainz, 1901). I, and in Archiv f. kath. Kirchenr., LXXVII, 3; FIEBAG, De indole ac virtute dispensationum secundum principia jur. canonici (Breslau, 1867).

II. Matrimonial Dispensations: PYRRHUS CORRADIUS, op. cit.; DE JUSTIS, De dispens. matrim. (Venice, 1769); GIOVINE, De dispens. matrim. (Naples, 1863); PLANCHARD, Dispenses matrim. (Angoulème, 1882); FEIJE, De imped. et dispens. matrim. (Louvain, 1885); ZITELLI, De dispens. matrim. (Rome, 1887); VAN DE BURGT, De dispens. matrim. (Bois-le-Duc, 1865); POMPEN, De dispens. et revalidatione matrim. (Amsterdam, 1897); ROUSSET, De sacramento matrimonii (Saint-Jean de Maurienne, 1895), IV, 231; KONINGS-PUTZER, Op. cit., 174 sqq., 376 sqq.; SANCHEZ, De s. matrimonii sacramento (Viterbo, 1739), Bk. VIII; GASPARRI, Tract. canonicus de matrimonio (Paris, 1892), I, iv, 186; MANSELLA, De imped. matrim. (Rome, 1881), 162; LEITNER, Lehrb. des kath. Eherechts (Paderborn, 1902), 401; SCHNITZER, Kath. Eherecht (Freiburg, 1898), 496; SANTILEITNER, Prœlectiones juris canonici (Ratisbon, 1899), IV, appendix I; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1908), IV, tit. xxix FREISEN Geschichte des kanon. Eherechts bis zum Verfall der Glossenlitteratur (Tübingen, 1888), and in Archiv für kath. Kirchenr., LXXVII, 3 sqq., and LXXVIII, 91; ESMEIN, Le mariage en droit canonique (Paris, 1891), II, 315; ZHISMAN, Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche (Vienna, 1864), 190, 712.

JULES BESSON.

Dispersion of the Apostles

(Lat. Divisio Apostolorum), a feast in commemoration of the missionary work of the Twelve Apostles. It is celebrated as a double major on 15 July. The first vestige of this feast is found in the sequence composed for it by a certain Godescalc (d. 1098) while a monk of Limburg on the Haardt; he also introduced this feast at Aachen, when provost of the church of Our Lady. The sequence is authentic beyond doubt. It is next mentioned by William Durandus, Bishop of Mende (Rationale Div. Off. 7.15) in the second half of the thirteenth century. Under the title, “Dimissio,” “Dispersio,” or Divisio Apostolorum” it was universally celebrated during the Middle Ages in Spain and Italy. The object of the feast (so Godescalcus) is to commemorate the departure (dispersion) of the Apostles from Jerusalem for the various parts of the world, some fourteen years after the Ascension of Christ. According to Durandus some of his contemporaries honoured this feast the (apocryphal) division of the relics (bodies) of St. Peter and St. Paul by St. Sylvester. The feast is now kept with solemnity by modern missionary societies, in Germany and Poland, also in some English and French dioceses and in the United States by the ecclesiastical provinces of St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Dubuque, and Santa Fé.

F.G. HOLWECK

Heinrich von Dissen

Born 18 Oct., 1415, at Osnabrück, in Westphalia; died at Cologne, 26 Nov., 1484. After studying philosophy and theology at Cologne under Heinrich von Gorinchem (Gorkum), a celebrated divine of that time and vice-chancellor of the university, he became a monk in the Carthusian monastery of the same place, and took his solemn vows 14 Jan., 1437. He remained there all his life, which was a very laborious one, for he read much, copied many books for the library of the monastery, and composed a good many works. He was appointed subprior 23 March, 1457, and continued in that office until his death. His literary productions, all in Latin, comprise commentaries on the Psalms, on the Apocalypse, on the Gospels of Sundays and Festivals, on the Creed of St. Athanasius, on the Lord’s Prayer. and a great number of sermons and homilies, treatises, and devotional writings, such as “De Sacerdotii dignitate,” “De multiplici bonorum verecundia,” “Quo pacto hæreticorum fraudes deprehendi queant,” “Expositio in totum Missale,” “Expositio Antiphonarii,” “Consolationes in Cantica Canticorum,” “De XIII mansionibus,” etc. It does not appear that any of these works have ever been printed.

Le Vasseur, Ephemerides Ord. Cartus (Montreuil, 1892), IV, 434; Petreius, Bibliotheca Cartus. (Cologne, 1609); Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1899), IV, 911.

EDMUND GURDON.

Abbey of Dissentis

A Benedictine monastery in the Canton Grisons in eastern Switzerland, dedicated to Our Lady of Mercy. Tradition ascribes its foundation to Sts. Placid and Sigebert, in the year 614, but Mabillon places the date two years earlier. The history of the abbey has been somewhat chequered, but it has at times risen to positions of great importance and influence. It was destroyed by the Avars in 670, when its abbot and thirty monks suffered martyrdom, but was rebuilt by Charles Martel and Abbot Pirminius in 711. Charlemagne visited the abbey on his return journey from Rome in 800 and bestowed upon it many benefactions. Abbot Udalric I (1031–1055) was the first of its superiors to be made a prince of the empire, which dignity was subsequently held by several other of its abbots; many of them also became bishops of the neighbouring sees. In 1581 the abbey was honoured by a visit from St. Charles Borromeo. After enjoying independence for a thousand years it was incorporated into the newly formed Swiss Congregation in 1617, since which date it has, in common with the other five Benedictine abbeys of Switzerland, been subject to the jurisdiction of the president of that Congregation. In 1799 it was burned and plundered by the soldiers of Napoleon’s army, when amongst other valuable treasures, a seventh century manuscript chronicle of the abbey perished. The printing press that had been set up in 1729 was also destroyed at the same time, but much of the melted type and other metal was saved and from it were made the pipes of the organ of St. Martin’s church at Dissentis, which is still in use. The abbey was rebuilt by Abbot Anselm Huonder, the last of its superiors to enjoy the rank and title of Prince of the Empire. During the nineteenth century the monastery suffered greatly from misfortunes of various kinds, and so great was the relaxation of discipline in consequence that its recovery was almost despaired of. Abbot Paul Birker came from his abbey of St. Boniface at Munich to assist in restoring regular observance, but so little success attended his efforts that he left Dissentis in 1861 and returned to Munich as a simple monk. The abbey has, however, survived those evil times and is in a satisfactory and flourishing condition. Dom Benedict Prevost, the eightieth who has ruled over its fortunes, was abbot in 1908 of a community of between thirty and forty monks, who, among their other duties, served five public oratories and conducted successfully a gymnasium of nearly a hundred boys.

Mabillon, Annales Ordinis Sancti Benedicti (Paris, 1703–1739); Yepez, Chronicon Generale Ord. S. P. N. Benedicti (Cologne, 1603); Brunner, Ein Benediktinerbuch (Würzburg, 1880); Album Benedictinum (St. Vincent’s, Penn., 1880).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Distraction

Distraction (Lat. distrahere, to draw away, hence to distract) is here considered in so far as it is wont to happen in time of prayer and in administering the sacraments. It hardly needs to be noted that the idea of mental prayer and mind-wandering are destructive of each other. So far as vocal prayer is concerned, the want of actual interior attention, if voluntary, will take from its perfection and be morally reprehensible. Distractions, however, according to the commonly accepted teaching, do not rob prayer of its essential character. To be sure one must have had the intention to pray and therefore in the beginning some formal advertence; otherwise a man would not know what he was doing, and his prayer could not be described even as a human act. So long, however, as nothing is done outwardly which would be incompatible with any degree whatever of attention to the function of prayer, the lack of explicit mental application does not, so to speak, invalidate prayer. In other words, it keeps its substantial value as prayer, although, of course, when the dissipation of thought is wilful our addresses to the throne of mercy lose a great deal of efficacy and acceptability. This doctrine has an application, for example, in the case of those who are bound to recite the canonical Office and who are esteemed to have fulfilled their obligation substantially even though their distractions have been abundant and absorbing. Voluntary distractions, that is the conscious deliberate surrender of the mind to thoughts foreign to prayers, are sinful because of the obvious irreverence for God with Whom at such times are presuming to hold intercourse. The guilt, however, is judged to be venial. In the administration of the sacraments their validity cannot be assailed merely because the one who confers them fails to, here and now, think of what he is doing. Provided he has the required intention and posits the essentials of the external rite proper to each sacrament, no matter how taken over he may be by outside reflections, his act is distinctly a human one and as such its value cannot be impugned. Such as state of mind, however, when it is wilful, is sinful, but the guilt is not mortal unless one has thereby laid himself open to the danger of making a mistake in what is regarded as essential for the validity of the sacrament in question.

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Distributions

Distributions (from Lat. distribuere), canonically termed disturbtiones quotidianae, are certain portions of the revenue of a church, distributed to the canons present at Divine service. There are many regulations concerning these distributions in the “Corpus Juris.” The latest law on the subject is found in the decrees of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, Cap. iii, De ref.), where it is ordained that bishops have power to set aside one-third of the revenues of officials and dignitaries of cathedral and collegiate chapters and convert this third into distributions for those who satisfy exactly their obligation of being personally present every day at the service to which they are bound. Canons retired on account of their age retain their right to the distributions, as do also capitulars who have received coadjutors, and supernumerary canons who are waiting a regular stall in the chapter. To earn these distributions it is necessary to chant the Office in common, according to the custom of the particular church to which the beneficiary belongs. A mere corporal presence, however, without mental application to the services performed, will not entitle one in conscience to these emoluments.

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Dithmar

(Thietmar).

Bishop of Merseburg and medieval chronicler, b. 25 July, 975; d. 1 Dec., 1018.He was the son of Count Siegfried of Walbeck and a relative of the imperial family of the Saxon Ottos. After receiving his education in the monastic schools of Quedlinburg, Bergen, and Magdeburg, he became, in 1002, provost of the monastery of Walbeck which had been founded by his grandfather, was ordained priest in 1003 and consecrated fourth Bishop of Merseburg on 24 April, 1009. As bishop he worked with great energy for the spiritual and temporal restoration of his diocese which had been almost ruined by Giseler, the second Bishop of Merseburg, in his unholy ambition to become Archbishop of Magdeburg in 981. At the same time he fearlessly defended the canonical liberty of ecclesiastical elections against the encroachments of the secular princes.

While Bishop of Merseburg he composed his famous chronicle “Chronicon Thietmari,” which comprises in eight books the Saxon Emporers Henry I (called the Fowler), the three Ottos, and Henry II (the Saint). The first three books covering the reigns of Henry I and the first two Ottos, are largely based on previous chronicles, most of which are still in extant; the fourth book, comprising the reign of Otto III, contains much original matter; while the remaining four books, which describe the reign of Henry II to the year 1018, are the independent narrative of Dithmar. As councilor of the emperor and participant in many important political transactions, he was well equipped for writing a history of his times. The spirit of sincerity which pervades his chonical is abundant compensation for the barbarous expressions which occasionally mar the literary style. The last four books, besides being the principal source for Saxon history during the reign of the holy emperor Henry II, contain valuable information, not to be found elsewhere, regarding the contemporary history and civilization of the Slavic tribes east of the river Elbe, especially the Poles and Hungarians. Dithmar’s original manuscript, with corrections and additions made by himself, is still preserved at Dresden. A facsimile edition of it was prepared by L. Schmidt (Dresden, 1905). The chronicle was also published by Kurze in “Script. Rer. Germ.” (Hanover, 1889), and by Lappenberg in “Mon. Germ. Hist. Script.” III, 733–871, whence it was reprinted in Migne, P.L., CXXXIX, 1183–1422. A German translation was made by Laurent (Berlin, 1848, and Leipzig, 1892).

KURZE in N. Archiv. Der Gesellsch. Fur altere deutsche Geschichte (Hanover, 1888), XIV, 59–86; WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter (7th ed., 1904), I; HURTER, Nomenclator (3rd ed., Innsbruck, 1903), I, 950 sq; WELTE in Kirchenlex., s.v.

MICHAEL OTT.

Dives

(Latin for rich).

The word is not used in the Bible as a proper noun; but in the Middle Ages it came to be employed as the name of the rich man in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke, XVI, 19–31. It has often been thought that in this lesson on the use of riches Christ spoke of real persons and events. The “House of Dives” is still pointed out in Jerusalem; but, of course, if such a house ever existed, it must have long since disappeared.

W.S. REILLY

Divination

The seeking after knowledge of future or hidden things by inadequate means. The means being inadequate they must, therefore, the supplemented by some power which is represented all through history as coming from gods or evil spirits. Hence the word divination has a sinister signification. As prophecy is the lawful knowledge of the future divination, its superstitious counterpart, is the unlawful. As magic aims to do, divination aims to know. Divination is practically as old as the human race. It is found in every age and country, among the Egytians, Chaldeans, Hindus, Romans, and Greeks; that tribes of Northern Asia had their shamans, the inhabitants of Africa their mgangas, the Celtic nation their druids, the aborigines of America their medicine-men—all recognized diviners and wizards. Everywhere divination flourished and nowhere, even to-day, is it completely neglected. Cicero’s words were, and apparently always will be, true, that there is no nation, civilized or barbarian, which does not believe that there are signs of the future and persons who interpret them. Cicero divided divination into natural and artificial. Natural (untaught, unskilled) included dreams and oracles in which the diviner was a passive subject of inspiration, and the prediction that from a power supposed to be then and there within him. Artificial (taught, studied) comprised all foretelling from signs found in nature or produced by man. Here the diviner was active, and the divination came apparently from his own skill and observation. This division is almost the same as that given by St. Thomas with respect to the invocation of demons: divination with express invocation of spirits, embracing dreams, portents, or prodigies, and necromacy, and divination with tacit invocation through signs and movements observed in objects in nature, such as stars, birds, figures, etc., or through signs and arrangements produced by man, such as molten lead poured in water, casting of lots, etc. Dreams here mean those expressly prepared and prayed for with hope of intercourse with gods or the dead. Portents or prodigies are unusual and marvellous sights coming from the lower world. Here we are considering artificial divination.

METHODS

The variety of divinatory methods is very great. Scarcely an object or movement in the heavens, on the earth, or in the air or water escaped being metamorphosed into a message of futurity. Add to these the invention of man, and there is a glimpse of the immense entanglement of superstitions in which pagan people groped their way. They can, however, be grouped into three classes, as seen from St. Thomas’s division. A detailed list has been given by Cicero, Clement of Alexandria in his “Stromata,” and others of the Fathers.

Under the first class, express invocation, come oneiromancy or divination by dreams; necromancy, by so-called apparitions of the dead or spiritism; apparitions of various kinds, which may be either external or in imagination, as Cajetan observes; Pythonism or by possessed persons, as the Delphic Pythoness; hydromancy, by signs in water; aeromancy, by signs in air; geomancy, by signs in terrestrial substances (geomancy has also another meaning); aruspices, by signs in the entrains of victims, etc.

The second class, tacit invocation and signs found ready-made in nature, embraces judicial or genethliac astrology, pretending to tell the future through the stars; augury, through the notes of birds, and later covering prediction through their mode of acting, feeding, flying, and also the neighing of horses and sneezing of men, etc.—with us it comprises all foretelling by signs; by omens, when chance words are turned into signs; chiromancy, when the lines of the hand are read; and many similar modes.

The third class, tacit invocation and signs prepared by man, includes geomancy from points or lines on paper or pebbles thrown at random; drawing of staws; throwing dice; cutting cards; letting a staff fall or measuring it with the fingers saying, “I will or I will not”; opening a book at random, called Sortes Virgilianae, so much was the Æneid used in this fashion by the Romans; etc. This last transferred to the Bible is still common in Germany and elsewhere. Hypnotism is also used for purposes of divination.

HISTORY

To attempt to trace the origin of divination is a waste of time, since like religion it is universal and indigenous in one form or another. Some nations cultivated it to a higher degree than others, and their influence caused certain modes of divination to spread. By its practice they gained a wide reputation for occult power. Pre-eminent in history stand the Chaldeans as seers as astrologers, but the ancient Egyptians and Chinese were also great adepts in elaborate mysterious rites. Which of them had priority therein is still an open question, though the larger share in the development of divination, especially in connection with celestial phenomena, is attributed to the Chaldeans, a vague term embracing here both Babylonians and Assyrians. In Greece from the earliest historical times are found diviners, some of whose methods came from Asia and from the Etruscans, a people famous for the art. While the Romans had modes of their own, their intercourse with Greece introduced new forms, and principally through these two nations they spread in the South and West of Europe. Before Christianity divination was practised everywhere according to rites native and foreign. In early days priest and diviner were one, and their power was very great. In Egypt the pharaoh was generally a priest; in fact, he had to be initiated into all the secrets of the sacerdotal class, and in Babylonia and Assyria almost every movement of the monarch and his courtiers was regulated by forecasts of the official diviners and astrologers. The cuneiform inscriptions and the papyri are filled with magical formulae. Witness the two treatises, one on terrestrial and the other on celestial phenomena compiled by Sargon several centuries before our era. In Greece where more attention was paid to aerial signs the diviners were held in high esteem and assisted at the public assemblies. The Romans, who placed most reliance in divination by sacrifices, had of official colleges of augurs and aruspices who by an adverse word could postpone the most important business. No war was undertaken, no colony sent out without consulting the gods, and at critical moments the most trifling occurrence, a sneeze or a cough, would be invested with meaning. Alongside all this official divining there were practised secret rites by all kinds of wizards, magicians, wise men, and witches. Chaldean soothsayers and strolling sibyls spread everywhere telling fortunes for gain. Between the regulars and the irregulars there was a very bitter feeling, and as the latter often invoked gods or demons regarded as hostile to the gods of the country, they were regarded as illicit and dangerous and were often punished and prohibited from exercising their art. From time to time in various countries the number and influence of the regular diviners were diminished in account of their pride and oppression, and no doubt at times they in turn may have adroitly mitigated the tyranny of rulers. With an increase of knowledge the fear and respect of the cultivated people for their mysterious powers so decreased that their authority suffered greatly and they became objects of contempt and satire. Cicero’s “De Divinatione” is not so much a description of its various forms as a refutaton of them; Horace and Juvenal launched many a keen arrow at diviners and their dupes, and Cato’s saying is well known, that he wondered how two augurs could meet without laughing at each other. Rulers, however, retained them and honoured them publicly, the better to keep the people in subjection, and outside classical lands, workers of magic still held sway.

Wherever Christianity went divination lost most of its old-time power, and one form, the natural, ceased almost completely. The new religion forbade all kinds, and after some centuries it disappeared as an official system though it continued to have many adherents. The Fathers of the Church were its vigorous opponents. The tenets of Gnosticism gave it some strength, and neo-Platonism won it many followers. Within the Church itself it proved so strong and attractive to her new converts that synods forbade it and councils legislated against it. The Council of Ancyra (c. xxiv) in 314 decreed five years penance to consulters of diviners, and that of Laodicea (c. xxxvi) about 360, forbade clerics to become magicians or to make amulets, and those who wore them were to be driven out of the Church. A canon (xxxvi) of Orleans 511) excommunicates those who practised divination auguries, or lots falsely called Sortes Sanctorum (Bibliorum), i.e. deciding one’s future conduct by the first passage found on opening a Bible. This method was evidently a great favourite, as a synod of Vannes (c. xvi) in 461 held forbidden it to clerics under pain of excommunication, and that of Agde (c. xlii) in 506 condemned it as against piety and faith. Sixtus IV, Sixtus V, and the Fifth Council of Lateran likewise condemned divination. Governments have at times acted with great severity. Constantius decreed the penalty of death for diviners. The authorities may have feared that some would-be prophets might endeavour to fulfil forcibly their predictions about the death of sovereigns. When the races of the North, which swept over the old Roman Empire, entered the Church, it was only to be expected that some of their lesser superstitions should survive. All during the so-called Dark Ages divining arts managed to live in secret, but after the Crusades they were followed more openly. At the time of the Renaissance and again preceding the French Revolution, there was a marked growth of noxious methods. The latter part of the nineteenth century witnessed a strange revival, especially in the United States and England, of all sorts of superstition, necromancy or spiritism being in the lead. Today the number of persons who believe in signs and seek to know the future is much greater than appears on the surface. They abound in communities where dogmatic Christianity is weak.

The natural cause of the rise of divination is not hard to discover. Man has a natural curiosity to know the future, and coupled with this is the desire of personal gain or advantage, some have essayed, therefore, in every age to lift the veil, at least partially. These attempts have at times produced results which cannot be explained on merely natural grounds, they are so disproportionate or foreign to the means employed. They can not be regarded as the direct work of God nor as the effect of any purely material cause; hence they must be attributed to created spirits, and since they are inconsistent with what we know of God, the spirits causing them must be evil. To put the question directly: can man know future events?

Let St. Thomas answer in substance: Future things can be known either in their causes or in themselves.

Some causes always and necessarily produce their effects, and these effects can be foretold with certainty, as astronomers announce eclipses.

Other causes bring forth their effects not always and necessarily, but they generally do so, and these can be foretold as well-founded conjectures or sound inferences, like a physician’s diagnosis or a weather observer’s prediction about rain.

Finally there is a third class of of causes whose effects depend upon what we call chance or upon man’s free will, and these cannot be foretold from their causes. We can only see them in themselves when they are actually present to our eyes. Only God alone, to whom all things are present in His eternity, can see them before their occur. Hence we read in Isaias (41:23), “Show the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that you are gods.”

Spirits can know better than men the effects to come from the second class of causes because their knowledge is broader, deeper, and more universal, and many occult powers of nature are known to them. Consequently they can foretell more events and more precisely, just as a physician who sees the causes clearer can better prognosticate about the restoration of health. The difference, in fact, between the first and second classes of causes is due to the limitations of our knowledge. The multiplicity and complexity of cause prevent us from following their effects. Future contingent things, the effects of the third class, spirits cannot know for certain, except God reveal them, though they may wisely conjecture about them because of their wide knowledge of human nature, their long experience, and their judgents based upon our thoughts as revealed to them by our words, countenances, or acts. Unless we wish to deny the value of human testimony, it cannot be doubted that diviners foretold some contingent things correctly and magicians produced at times superhuman effects. The very survival of divination for so many centuries would otherwise be inexplicable and its role in history an insoluble problem. On religious grounds to say that divination and kindred arts were complete impostures would be to contradict Scripture. In it we read laws forbidding magic, we have facts like the deeds of Jannes and Mambres before Pharaoh, and we have a declaration of God showing it possible for a sign or wonder to be foretold by false prophets and to come to pass (Deuteronomy 13:1–12). But, except when God gave them knowledge, their ignorance of the future resulted in the well-known ambiguity of the oracles.

Attempts to give artificial divination a merely natural basis have not succeeded. Chrysippus (de Divinatione, ii, 63) spoke about a power in man to recognize and interpret signs, and Plutarch (de Oraculis) wrote on the special qualifications an augur should have and the nature of the signs, but a preternatural influence was recognized in the end. Some modes, may have been natural in their origin, especially when necessary causes were concerned, and many a prediction made without occult intervention, but these must have been comparatively rare, for the client, if not always the seer, generally believed in supernatural assistance. That some analogy may be traced between an eagle and victory, an owl and sadness—though to the Athenians a welcome omen—and that to lose a tooth is to lose a friend, may readily be admitted, but to try to connect these with future contingent events would be to reason badly from a very slight analogy, just as to stab an image, to injure the person it represents, would be to mistake an ideal connection for a real one. Human instinct demanded a stronger foundation and found it in the belief in an intervention of some supernatural agency. Reason demands the same. A corporeal sign is either an effect of the same cause of which it is a sign, as smoke of fire, or it proceeds from the same cause as the effect which it signifies as the falling of the barometer foretells rain, i.e., the change in the instrument and the change in the weather come from the same cause. Man’s future actions and signs in nature stand in no such relation. The sign is not an effect of his future act; neither do the sign and his act proceed from the same cause. The other kinds of signs from the living creatures can be passed over by almost the same reasoning. From those who believed in fatalism, or pantheism or that man, gods, and nature were all in close communion, or that animals and plants were divinities, a belief in omens and auguries of all kinds might be expected (see ANIMISM). Everywhere, as a matter of fact, divination and sacrifice were so closely connected that no strict line could have been drawn in practice between divination with and without express invocation of gods or demons. The client came to offer sacrifice, and the priest, the diviner, tried to answer all his questions, while the private wizards boasted of their “familiar spirits.”

THEOLOGICAL ASPECT

From a theological standpoint divination supposes the existence of devils who have great natural powers and who, actuated by jealousy of man and hatred of God, ever seek to lessen his glory and to draw man into perdition, or at least to injure him bodily, mentally, and spiritually. Divination is not, as we have seen, foretelling what comes from necessity or what generally happens, or foretelling what God reveals or what can be discovered by human effort, but it is the usurpation of knowledge of the future, i.e. arriving at it by inadequate or improper means. This knowledge is a prerogative of Divinity and so the usurper is said to divine. Such knowledge may not be sought from the evil spirits except rarely in exorcisms. Yet every divination is from them either because they are expressly invoked or they mix themselves up in these vain searchings after the future that they may entangle men in their snares. The demon is invoked tacitly when anyone tries to acquire information through means which he knows to be inadequate, and the means are inadequate when neither from their own nature nor from any Divine promise are they capable of producing the desired effect. Since the knowedge of futility belongs to God alone, to ask it directly or indirectly from demons is to attribute to them Divine perfection, and to ask their aid is to offer them a species of worship; this is superstition and a rebellion against the providence of God Who has wisely hidden many things from us. In pagan times when divining sacrifice was offered it was idolatry, and even now divination is a kind of demonolatry or devil worship (d’Annibale). All participation in such attempts to attain knowledge is derogatory to dignity of a Christian, and opposed to his love and trust in Providence, and militates against the spread of the Kingdom of God. Any method of divination with direct invocation of spirits is grievously sinful, and worse still if such intervention ensues; with tacit invocation divination is in itself a grievous sin, though in practice, ignorance, simplicity, or want of belief may render it venial. If, however, notwithstanding the client’s disbelief the diviner acts seriously, the client cannot be easily excused from grievously sinful cooperation. If in methods apparently harmless strong suspicion of evil intervention arises it would be sinful to continue if only a doubt arise as to the natural or diabolical character of the effect protest should be made against the intervention of spirits; if in doubt as to whether it be from God or Satan, except a miraculous act be sought (which would be extremely rare), it should be discontinued under pain of sin. A protestation of not wishing diabolical interference in modes of divination where it is expressly or tacitly expected is of no avail, as actions speak louder than words. A scientific investigator in doubt about the adequacy of the means can experiment to see if such superhuman intervention be a fact, but he should clearly express his opposition to all diabolical assistance. The divining-rod, if used only for metals of water, may perhaps be explained naturally; if used for detecting guilty persons, or things lost or stolen as such (which may be metals), it is certainly a tacit method. To believe in most of the popular signs simply ignorance or weakness of mind (see SUPERSTITION).

DIVINATION IN THE BIBLE

The Hebrews coming from Egypt—a land teeming with diviners—and dwelling in a country surrounded by superstitious tribes, would have their inborn desire for foreknowledge intensified by the spirit of the times and their environments; but God forbade them repeatedly to have anything to do with charmers, wizards, diviners, necromancers, etc., all of whom were abomination in His sight (Deut., xviii, 10, 11). The ideal was in Balaam’s day when “there is no soothsaying in Jacob, nor divination in Israel” (Numbers 23:23), and to preserve this, the soul that went aside after diviner God declared He would destroy (Lev., xx, 6) and the man or woman in whom there was a divining spirit was to be stoned to death (Lev., xx, 27). God, however, as St. Chrysostom puts it, humoured the Hebrews like children, and to preserve them from excessive temptation, lots were allowed under certain conditions (Jos., vii, 14; Num., xxvi, 55; Prov., xvi, 33; in N.T. See also LOTS). Hebrew seers were permitted to answer when it pleased Him (Origen, c. Cels. I, xxxvi, xxxvii), prophets might be consulted on private affairs (I K. ix. 6), and the high priest could respond in greater matters by the Urim and Thummim. Gifts were offered to seers and prophets when consulted, but the great prophets accepted no reward when they acted as God’s representatives (IV K., v. 20). When the Hebews fell into idolatry, divination, which always accompanied idolatry, revived and flourished, but all during their history it is evident that secretly and again more openly wrongful arts were used and as a result condemnations were frequent (1 K., xv, 23; IV K., xvii, 17; Zach. x. 2; Is. xliv, 25 etc.). It should be borne in mind that their history is very long one, and when we reflect how completely other nations were given over to all kinds of impious arts and silly observances we shall readily admit that the Hebrews were in comparison remarkably free from superstitions. When later these flourished more strongly and permantly it was during the decay of faith preceding and following the time of Christ (see Jos. Ant. Jud. XX, v, i, viii, 6; Bell. Jud. VI, v, 2). The Talmud shows the downward tendency.

The various methods of divinig and kinds of diviners are not always clearly distinguished in Scripture, the Hebrew words being differently interpreted and sometimes merely synonyms. The following list is based on mainly upon Lesetre’s article in Vigouroux’s “Dict. de la Bible”:—

Divination by consulting the Teraphim, small household gods of which we first read in the time of Abraham and Laban (Gen. xxxi, 19). How they were consulted is not known. It was apparently Chaldean form, as Laban came from that country. They are met with in Judges, xvii, 5; IV K., xxiii, 24, and elsewhere. They sometimes deceived their inquirers (Zach., x, 2).

The Hartummim, a name translated by “interpreters” (Vulg. conjectores) in the Douay version (Gen., xli, 8), elsewhere (Dan., ii, 2) by “diviners” (Vulg. arioli) and other names, especially “Chaldeans.”

The Hakamim are the wise men (Vulg. sapientes) of the Bible (Gen., xli, 8), a name given those skilled in divination in Egypt, Idumea (Abd., 8), Persia (Esth., i, 13), Babylon (Jer., 1, 35).

Qesem or Miqsam designated divination in general and is always used in the Scripture in a bad sense except in Prov., xvi, 10. By it the witch of Endor raised up the dead Samuel (I K., xxviii, 8). “The king of Babylon stood in the highway, at the head of two ways, seeking divination (qesem), shuffling arrows; he inquired of the idols (teraphim), and consulted entrails” ( Ezech., xxi, 21). The arrows bore the signs or names of towns, and the first name drawn was the one to be attacked. This was Babylonian mode. The Arabs practised it so: three arrows were prepared and the first inscribed “The Lord wills it,” the second “The Lord wills it not,” and the third was blank. If the blank came a new drawing followed until an inscribed arrow was taken. The last method mentioned in text quoted was aruspicy (Vulg. exta consuluit).

Nahash is soothsaying (Vulg. augurium) in the Bible (Num., xxii, 23). The precise method signified by it is in dispute. The versions make it equivalent to divination by the flight of of birds, but this mode, so common among the Greeks and Romans, was apparently not used by the Hebrews except towards the time of Christ. From its derivation, as commonly accepted, it would mean divination by serpents, ophiomancy, but on the other hand it is never in this in the Scriptures. Balaam’s divination by animal sacrifices is so termed (Num., xxiv, 1) and also Joseph’s (Gen., xliv, 5, 15) which remains a vexed question in spite of Calmet’s triumphant solution (Dict. of the Bible, III, p. 30) except reasonable explanation of Grotius be accepted (Hummelauer, Com. in Gen., p. 561).

Mekashsheph is the magician (Vulg. maleficus) in Ex., vii, 11, and the wizard in Deut, xviii, 10, who not only seeks the secrets of the future but works wonders. St. Paul mentions two of their leaders, Jannes and Mambres, and their modes are styled sorceries (Vulg. veneficia) in IV K., ix, 22 and (Vulg. maleficia) Micheas, v, 11.

The word obh signifies the spirit called and the person calling him, the necromancer. In Deut., xviii, 11, it is expressed by “seeking the truth from the dead” (the best known case is that of the witch of Endor) and elsewhere by Pythons (Is., viii, 19), divining spirits (I K., xxviii, 7). The Septuagint translates the words by “ventriloquist” because when the necromancers failed or wished to deceive the people they muttered as if from under the ground as though spirits so spoke; it recalls Shakespeare’s of “squeak and gibber.” (Cf. Is., xxix, 4.) A bottle or skin water-bag is obh; the use of the word here may come from the diviners containing the spirit or being inflated by it.

The Yidde ‘onim were diviners whom we generally find connected with necromacers, and the two terms are perhaps practically synonymous (I K., xxviii 3; IV K., xxi, 6; etc).

Divining by Me’onen included apparently many methods: divination by chance words, as when Abraham’s servant sought a wife for lsaac (Gen., xxiv, 14; I K., xiv, 9; III K., xx, 33); auguries (Is., xi, 6); observers of dreams (Deut., xviii, 10), etc. There were also modes by charming serpents (Jer., viii, 17), astrology (Is, xlvii, 13), and by consulting the Ephod (I K., xxiii, 9).

In the N.T. diviners are not specifically mentioned except in Acts, xvi, 16, concerning the girl who had a pythonical spirit, but it is altogether likely that Simon Magus (Acts, viii, 9), Elymas (Acts, xiii, 6), and others (II Tim., iii, 13), including the possessors of the magical books burnt at Ephesus (Acts, xix, 19), practised divination and that it is included in the wonders by which Antichrist will seduce many (Apoc., xix, 20). Under the New Law all divination is forbidden because, placed on a higher plane than under the Old Dispensation we are taught not to be solicitous for the morrow (Matt., vi, 34), but to trust Him perfectly Who numbers the very hairs of our heads (Matt., x, 30). In divination, apart from the fraud of the Father of Lies, there was much merely human fraud and endless deception the predictions were generally as vague and as worthless as modern fortune-telling, and the general result then as now favoured vice and injured virtue. (See ASTROLOGY.)

E. P. GRAHAM.

Society of Divine Charity

Divine Charity, Society of (Societas Divinæ Charitatis), founded at Maria-Martental near Kaisersesch, in 1903 by Josepth Tallmanns for the solution of the social question through the pursuit of agriculture and trades (printing, etc.) as well as by means of intellectual pursuits. The society consists of both priests and laymen.

Tillmanns and Oehmen, Die wahre Lösung der sozialen (Martental, 1905).

Sisters of Divine Charity, founded at Besançon, in 1799, by a Vincentian Sister, and modelled on the Sisters of Mercy of St. Vincent de Paul. The motherhouse, originally at Naples, is now in Rome, and there are many filial establishments in Italy, in Malta, and Gozzo. The sisters have charge of educational institutions, orphanages, hospitals, and insane asylums.

Daughters of Divine Charity, founded at Vienna, 21 November, 1868, by Franziska Lechner (d. 1894) on the Rule of St. Augustine, and approved by the Holy See in 1884 and definitively confirmed 22 July, 1891. The purpose of the congregation is to furnish girls without positions, shelter, care and the means of obtaining a position, without compensation, likewise to care for servants no longer able to work. The sisters are also engaged in schools, orphan asylums, and kindergartens. The motherhouse and novitiate are at Vienna; the congregation has 36 filial houses, 766 sisters, and 59 postulants.

F. M. RUDGE

Institute of the Divine Compassion

Founded in the City of New York, USA, by the Rt. Rev. Thomas Stanislaus Preston. On 8 September 1869, Father Preston began a semi-weekly gathering of the poor and abject children of the street in one of the most wretched quarters of the city; after this came the opening of a house for the reformation of young girls not yet hardened in vice, and the preservation of children and older girls from the moral danger in which they lived. The founded called it the House of the Holy Family and became its spiritual director. The work was fostered by many prominent Catholic ladies of New York, under the name of The Association for Befriending Children and Young Girls. Foremost among these ladies was Mrs. Mary C.D. Starr (in religion Mother Veronica; d. 9 Aug., 1904), who became the president of the association and devoted all her time and energies to this work of charity under the direction of Father Preston. Seeing the necessity of a religious community which should be trained to this work and perpetuate it, Father Preston compiled a rule of life for those who desired to devote their lives to it. The first draft was written 5 September, 1873, and was observed in its elemental form until 1886, when it was elaborated and obtained the informal approbation of the Archbishop of New York. The constitutions, which are an enlargement of the rule, and represent the norm of living in the institute, were written gradually, as it developed, and reached their completion in 1899. On the 29th of September, 1990, both rule and constitutions received the express canonical aprobation of Archbishop Corrigan of New York. The object of the institute is (1) the reformation of erring girls; and (2) the training, religious, mental, and industrial of girls in moral danger from ignorance, indolence, or waywardness, or dangerous influences. The institute is composed of two classes, choir sisters and little (or lay) sisters. In addition to the House of the Holy Family the sisters are in charge of a training home in New York City. The institute comprises about 40 sisters in charge of 215 girls.

Sisters of Divine Providence

I. SISTERS OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENCE OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL

Founded at Molsheim, in Diocese of Strasburg, by Vicar Ludwig Kremp (1783). After the Revolution the community reassembled at Bindernheim and, in 1807, received both ecclesiastical and civil approbation, the former from Archbishop of Strasburg, the latter from Napoleon I. In 1819, the mother-house was definitely located at Rappoltsweiler, and in 1869 the institute received papal confirmation. The congregation has (1908) 1800 members, over 1200 of them teachers in 357 primary schools of Alsace. The sisters have over 44,000 children under instruction; they conduct boarding and day schools, orphan asylums, reformatories, a housekeeping school, a high school for girls, and a deaf and dumb institution. Attached to the novitiate are a teacher’s seminary and practice school.

II. THE SOCIETY OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE

Founded, in 1842, at St. Mauritz near Münster by Eduard Michelis, chaplain and private secretary to archbishop Droste zu Vischering of Cologne. He shared the imprisonment of his Archbishop and on his return went to St. Mauritz, where, with the help of two other priests, he founded an orphan asylum. He selected several teachers whom he sent to the Sisters of Divine Providence at Rappoltsweiler to be trained in the religious life. The rule followed there was adopted with a few alterations by the new community and received episcopal approbation. The congregation took as its special work the care of the poor, neglected, and orphaned children, as well as teaching in general. In 1878 the work of the sisters was interrupted by the Kulturkampf, and they were forced to take refuge at Steyl, Holland. In 1887, when they resumed their work in Germany, the mother-house was removed to Friedrichsburg near Münster, where a boarding and a trade school were opened. In the city of Münster the sisters have charge of the domestic management of five episcopal institution, and in the city and diocese they conduct boarding schools, orphan asylums, protectories, trade schools, elementary schools, Sunday schools, a working women’s home (Rheine) and a Magdelan asylum (at Marienburg). In Bremen they direct an elementary school, Sunday school, and orphanage. The congregation has 50 branch houses in Germany, and 14 in Holland, among the latter the convent of St. Joseph at Steyl, that of Maria-Roepaan at Ottersum, and of St. Aloysius at Kessel. In 1895 a colony of sisters went to Brazil, where they now have six institutions. The congregation numbers (1908) 1115 members.

III. SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE

Founded at Finthen near Mainz (whence they are sometimes called the Finthen Sisters) in 1851 by Bishop Wilhelm Emmanuel Freiherr von Ketteler. The first superior was sent to the Sisters of Divine Providence at Ribeauvillee, Alsace, to be formed in the religious life, and the rule followed there was made the basis of the new institute, which later received the papal approbation. The congregation was founded primarily for the work of teaching and for the care of the sick so far as consonant with their duties as teachers. The right of corporation was not obtained until 1858, but as early as 1856 the Finthen Sisters had charge of the orphan asylum of Neustadt. At the time of the Kulturkampf they had 21 foundations in the Grand Duchy of Hesse. When they were allowed to resume their activities they devoted themselves less to purely educational work and took charge of hospitals, children’s asylums, homes for girls, industrial and housekeeping schools, orphan asylums, servant’s homes, endowed infirmaries, and almshouses. Connected with the mother-house at Mainz are 76 branch houses with 730 members, 70 in the Diocese of Mainz, and 6 in that of Limburg. In Mainz the sisters conduct a boarding school with housekeeping and trade courses. At Oberursel they direct the Johannesstift for abandoned children founded by Joannes Janssen. Wherever these sisters have houses they care for the sick in their homes.

IV. SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE

Mother-house at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., founded in 1876 by six sisters from Mainz (see III), who were later joined by other sisters from Mainz. The congregation now numbers about 200, in charge of 20 schools in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, one in Wheeling and 2 in the Columbus Diocese.

V. CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE

Founded in Lorraine, 1762, by the Venerable Jean-Martin Moye (b. 1730; d, 1793), priest of the Diocese of Metz, afterwards missionary to China, for “the propagation of the faith, the ensuring of a Christian education to children, especially those of the rural population, for the care of the sick, and other works of mercy.” Approved by the Bishop of Metz in 1762, and recommended by the solicitude of his clergy, within six years the congregation had exceeded the limits of his diocese and planted itself on the banks of the Vosges. Marie Morel was the first superior. Suppreseed in 1792, the congregation was re-established after the Revolution; in 1816 the Rules and Constitution were formally approved by Louis XVIII. The mother-house general is at St.-Jean-de-Bassel, in the Diocese of Metz, Lorraine, with establishments in Lorraine, Alsace, Belgium, and the United States. There are about 500 sisters in the Diocese of Metz, and 300 in the Diocese of Strasburg, who direct schools, boarding schools, industrial schools, domestic economy institutes, hospitals, etc. At St-Jean-de-Bassel there is a normal institute devoted exclusively to the training of the young teachers of the congregation, generally 185 in number, and connected with this institute is a model school, all under the supervision of the educational boards of the German Imperial Government. In Belgium there are about 100 sisters. At Pecq, near Tournai, they direct a normal school and a boarding school. Elsewhere they have charge of schools and kindergartens.

SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE

Of Kentucky; incorporated American provincial house at Mt. St. Martin’s convent, Newport, Kentucky. Mother Anna Houlne, superior general (d. 1903) of the congregation succeeded in placing the Sisters of St-Jean-de-Bassel in the foremost ranks of teachers in Alsace-Lorraine, and then, Moye, long to see them labour for the Christian education of youth in America, where she rightly judged the labourers to be few. In 1888 Bishop Maes of Covington, Kentucky, visited the mother-house general at St-Jean-de-Bassel, and arranged to have the sisters introduced into his diocese. Accordingly, in August, 1889, three sisters arrived in Covington and took up residence in one of the historical mansions of northern Kentucky, now know as Mt. St. Martin’s convent. The growth of the American branch has necessitated the building of a new convent. In October, 1908, a considerable estate was acquired at Melbourne, Kentucky, the site of a new St. Ann’s Convent, where it is designed to erect the new provincial house. Mother Anna visited the American Province in 1892. There are 215 sisters; until 1903 occasional small colonies were added from the mother-house general; about one third of the subjects are American. At Mt. St. Martin’s convent are the novitiate and normal school for the province. Teaching is primary object of the sisters. They conduct an academy and many parish schools, an infant asylum, a home for French emigrant and working girls, and a home for the aged. The sisters are working in the Diocese of Covington, Providence, and Cleveland, and the archdioceses of New York, Baltimore, and Cincinnati.

VI. SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE

Founded at Castroville, Texas, U.S.A., 1868, by Sister St. Andrew from the mother-house at St-Jean-de-Bassel, Lorraine, at the instance of Bishop Dubuis of Galveston. In 1896 the mother-house was transferred to San Antonio. The Constitutions were approved by Pope Leo X, 28 May, 1907 (?) The sisters have charge (1908) of 67 schools and academies in Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.

VII. SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE OF ST. ANDREW

Founded at Hambourg-la-Forteresse, in 1806, by Father Anton Gapp, “for the Christian instruction of children in the primary schools and higher schools for girls.” The congregation received the authorization of the French Government in 1826, and the mother-house was established at Forbach, Lorraine, but in 1839 was removed to Peltre. Destroyed in 1870 by the flames which swept the whole district, it was rebuilt after the close of the Franco-Prussian War. The congregation has now in Lorraine 138 institutions, among them 7 higher schools for girls, 20 trade and several housekeeping schools, and 9 hospitals. In Belgium they have 35 foundations. There are altogether 900 sisters, who teach 17,000 children in Lorraine and 4000 in Belgium.

CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE: Archives and Unpublished Annals of Congregation; Directoire des Soeurs de la Providence (St-Germain-en-Laye, 1858); Weyland, Une ame apotre (Metz, 1901); Marchal, Vie de M. l’Abbe Moye (Paris, 1872).

SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE OF ST. ANDREW: HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationem (Paderborn, 1908), III; IDEM in Kirchenlex., s.v. Vorschung.

F.M. RUDGE

SISTER M. THERESIA

SISTER M. CAMILLUS

MOTHER MARY FLORENCE

Daughters of the Divine Redeemer

Motherhouse at Oedenburg, Hungary; founded in 1863 from the Daughters of the Divine Saviour of Vienna. This congregation has 37 filial houses and 300 sisters, who conduct schools of all kinds and care for the sick.

Society of the Divine Savior

Founded at Rome, 8 Dec., 1881, by Johann Baptist Jordan (b. 1848 at Gartweil im Breisgau), elected superior general as Father Francis Mary of the Cross. The original name, Society of Catholic Instruction, was changed some years after its foundation to the present title. The first papal approbation was granted in the “Decretum laudis” of 27 May 1905. The founder imposed on his congregation, in addition to the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, a fourth of apostolic mission work. The rules and constitution are based largely on those of the Society of Jesus. The habit is black with a black cincture, in which four knots are tied to remind the wearer of his four vows. In tropical countries the habit is white and the cincture is red.

On 13 Dec., 1889, the newly erected Prefecture Apostolic of Assam was placed in charge of the society, which has now 7 principal and 32 dependent stations, served by 13 missionaries, aided by 12 native catechists. The Fathers have published many books in the Khasi dialect, and since September, 1906, a periodical, “Ka iing Khristan.” At Lochau, near Bregenz, a German college was established 15 Sept., 1893; in the same year a station was founded at Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.; in 1896 several members began work in Brazil. At present (1908) missions are given in thirteen languages from the various centres. The Salvatorians have establishments in Italy, Sicily, Austria, Poland, Moravia, Galicia, Hungary, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, England, and the United States, Brazil, and Columbia. The congregation numbers 400 members, 175 priests, the rest scholastics, lay brothers, novices, in 35 foundations, of which 28 are Marian Colleges and 7 mission centres.

Among the periodicals issued by the society, in addition to the “Apostel-kalendar” (in German and Hungarian), are the “Nuntius Romanus,” “Il Missionario” (in German “der Missionar, since 1907 “Illustrierte Monatshefte furs christl. Haus”; also in Polish), “L’amico dei fanciulli” (in German “Manna fur Kinder”; also in Polish), and the Salvatorianische Mitteilungen” (German and Polish), containing reports of the work of the society. Connected with the society are a Third Order for lay men and women; the “Academia litteratorium,” the members of which cooperate with the fathers in the advancement of Catholic knowledge and literature; the Angel Sodality, founded 8 Dec., 1884, for children under fourteen, which has as its organ “L’amico dei fanciulli,”, and a membership of 40,000.

SISTERS OF THE DIVINE SAVIOR

Founded 8 Dec., 1888, by Father Jordan, to supplement the work of the Salvatorian Fathers, and placed under the Third Rule of St. Francis. The mother-house is in Rome and there are stations in Assam (where the sisters conduct 6 orphan asylums), Austria, Hungary, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Sicily, British Burma, and in the United States. They conduct orphan asylums, and schools, and visit the sick in their homes. The congregation numbers about 200.

DAUGHTERS OF THE DIVINE SAVIOR

Mother-house at Vienna, a branch of the Niederbrunn Sisters of the Most Holy Saviour, establish 1857. The congregation has over 1200 sisters, choir and lay, who care for the sick in hospitals, and in their own homes, and conduct schools for girls, primary and grammer schools, trade schools, kindergartens, etc. The sisters have 72 houses in the Dioceses of Vienna, St. Polten, Seckau, Koniggratz, Brunn, Gran, Raah, and Parenzo-Pola.

HEIMBUCHER, Orden and Kongregationem (Paderborn, 1908); Die Gesellschaft des gottlichen Heilandes (Rome, 1903); MUNZLOHER, Die up. Prafektur Assam (Rome, 1899).

F.M. RUDGE

Society of the Divine Word

(SOCIETAS VERBI DIVINI)

The first German Catholic missionary society established. It was founded in 1875 during the period of the at Steyl, near Tegelen, Holland, by a priest, Rev. Arnold Janssen (d. 15 January, 1909), for the propagation of the Catholic religion among pagan nations. It is composed of priests and lay brothers. On the completion of their philosophical studies the students make a year of novitiate, at the end of which they take the ordinary vows binding them for three years. Before ordination the members of the society take perpetual vows. The coadjutor brothers renew their vows every three years for nine years, when they take perpetual vows.

The first mission of the society was established in 1882 on Southern Shantung, China, a district containing 158 Catholics and about 10,000,000 pagans. According to the statistics 1906–07, this mission numbered 35,378 Catholics, 36,367 catechumens, 1 seminary with 64 seminarians, 46 European priests, 12 Chinese priests, 13 coadjutor brothers of the society, 3 teaching brothers and 19 nuns. The second mission was founded in Togo, West Africa, in 1892. There were then scarcely a hundred Catholics in the district. In 1906 the mission had a prefect Apostolic, 31 European priests, 12 coadjutor brothers, 14 nuns, 53 native teachers, and 68 mission stations. There were nearly 3000 children attending the schools; the Catholics numbered 3300. The third mission was in German New Guinea. It is a comparatively new colony. Dangerous fevers are common. The natives are Papuans (Negritos). They are all savages, recognizing no form of authority, having no fixed customs, or administration of justice. The greatest difficulty experienced by missioners is the incredible number of languages. Thus in the entire mission district, 467 sq. m., probably more than a hundred languages are spoken. The first Catholic missionaries arrived in German New Guinea in August 1896. At the close of 1906, there were in the mission a prefect Apostolic. 16 European priests, 13 coadjutor brothers, 18 nuns, 1000 native Catholics, and 400 children in the schools.

In the Argentine Republic the society numbers 51 priests, 31 coadjutor brothers, and 41 nuns. They have charge of colleges, seminaries, and of 12 parishes in the four Dioceses of Buenos Aires, La Plata, Santa Fé, and Paraná. Part of the mission district includes the territory once occupied by the famous Jesuit Reductions of Paraguay. The mission was established in 1898. In Brazil there are 39 priests, 14 coadjutor brothers, and 13 nuns. The society also has a mission in the United States, at Shermerville Techny, Cook Co., Illinois. There are 13 priests, and 37 coadjutor brothers in charge of a technical school, and 30 nuns who conduct a home for the aged. In Europe the society has six houses or colleges with 126 priests, 546 coadjutor brothers, and 1089 students for the society. The training convent for the nuns has 231 members. The colleges in Europe are: (1) St. Michael, at Steyl near Tegelen, Holland, founded 8 Sept., 1875. The superior general resides here with 47 priests, 314 coadjutor brothers, and 282 students for the society. (2) Heiligkreuz (Holy Cross) near Neisse, Silesia, founded 24 Oct., 1892. There are 23 priests, 84 coadjutor brothers, and 241 students. (3) St. Wendel, in the Diocese of Trier, with 18 priests, 68 coadjutor brothers, and 185 students. (4) St. Gabriel, near Vienna, established 4 Oct., 1889. There are 26 priests, 370 novices and students of philosophy and theology, and 80 coadjutor brothers. (5) St. Raphael, Rome, with 5 priests and one coadjutor brother. (6) Bischofshofen, near Salzburg in Austria, established 17 Aug., 1904.

Nuns

The Society of the Servants of the Holy Ghost (Societas Servarum Spiritus Sancti) was founded in 1889, at Steyl, Holland, by the Rev. Arnold Janssen. It numbers about 300 nuns who help the fathers in their missions, chiefly by teaching.

HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen der katholischen Kirche (Paderborn, 1808, III, 510–15).

EB. LIMBROCK.

Procopius Divisch

Premonstratensian, b. at Senftenberg, Bohemia, 26 March, 1698; d. at Prenditz, Moravia, 21 December, 1765. He was christened Wenceslaus, but took the name of Procopius when he became a religious. He began his studies at the Znaym Gymnasium and later entered the cloister school of the Premonstratensians at Bruck, Styria. In 1726 he was ordained and soon after became professor of philosophy at the school. His lectures on physics were illustrated by numerous interesting experiments. he received the doctorate in theology at Salzburg in 1733, his thesis being “Tractatus de Dei unitate sub inscriptione (Alpha) et (Omega).” In 1736 he took charge of the little parish of Prenditz near Znaym. Here he had sufficient leisure for work and experiment in his favourite subjects, hydraulics and electricity, constructing the necessary instruments himself. His fame soon spread abroad, and he was called to Vienna to repeat his electrical experiments before the Emperor Francis an the Empress Maria Theresa. He was one of the first to apply electricity in the treatment of disease. In 1750, prior to the publication of the French translation of Franklin’s letters to Collinson (1751), he knew of the discharging property of pointed rods and applied his knowledge to the performance of curious tricks. The first lightning-rod was erected by Divisch at Prenditz, in 1754, before Franklin’s suggestions were known and before they had been carried out elsewhere. Divisch’s device is quite different from that proposed by the Philadelphian. He petitioned the emperor in 1755 to put up similar rods all over the country and thus protect the land from lightning. This proposal was rejected on the advice of the mathematicians of Vienna. He also constructed the Denydor (Denis, “Divisch,” d’or, “of gold”), a musical instrument, imitating string and wind instruments and producing orchestral effects. His theories are expounded in his published work, “Theoretischer Tractat oder die längst verlangte Theorie von der meteorologischen Electricität” (Tübingen, 1765; Frankfort, 1768; Bohemian tr. Prague, 1899).

PELZL, Abbildungen böhm, and mähr. Gel. (Vienna, 1777); NUSL, Prokop Divis (Prague, 1899); POGGENDORFF, Gesch. d. Physik (Leipzig, 1879).

WILLIAM FOX

Divorce

This subject will be treated here under two distinct heads: First, divorce in moral theology; second, divorce in civil jurisprudence.

The term divorce (divortium, from divertere, divortere, “to separate”) was employed in pagan Rome for the mutual separation of married people. Etymologically the word does not indicate whether this mutual separation included the dissolution of the marriage bond, and in fact the word is used in the Church and in ecclesiastical law in this neutral signification. Hence we distinguish between divortium plenum or perfectum (absolute divorce), which implies the dissolution of the marriage bond, and divortium imperfectum (limited divorce), which leaves the marriage bond intact and implies only the cessation of common life (separation from bed and board, or in addition separation of dwelling-place). In civil law divorce means the dissolution of the marriage bond; divortium imperfectum is called separation (séparation de corps).

The Catholic doctrine on divorce may be summed up in the following propositions:

In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by Christ Himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can never be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been consummated;

Non-Christian marriage can be dissolved by absolute divorce under certain circumstances in favour of the Faith;

Christian marriage before consummation can be dissolved by solemn profession in a religious order, or by an act of papal authority;

Separation from bed and board (divortium imperfectum) is allowed for various causes, especially in the case of adultery or lapse into infidelity or heresy on the part of husband or wife.

These propositions we shall explain in detail.

A. In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by Christ Himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can never be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been consummated.

1. The Original Indissolubility of Marriage and Its Restoration by Christ.

The inadmissibility of absolute divorce was ordained by Christ Himself according to the testimony of the Apostles and Evangelists: “Whoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery” (Mark, x, 11, 12. -Cf. Matt., xix, 9; Luke, xvi, 18). In like manner, St. Paul: “To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife” (I Cor., vii, 10, 11). In these words Christ restored the original indissolubility of marriage as it had been ordained by God in the Creation and was grounded in human nature. This is expressly stated by Him against the Pharisees, who put forward the separation allowed by Moses: “Moses by reason of hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives”“: but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt., xix, 8); “He who made man from the beginning, made them male and female. And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder” (Matt., xix, 4–6). The indissolubility of all marriage, not merely of Christian marriage, is here affirmed. The permanence of marriage for the whole human race according to natural law is here confirmed and ratified by a Divine positive ordinance.

No Catholic can doubt that even according to the natural law of marriage is in a certain sense indissoluble. The following proposition is condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX (Proposition LXVII): “According to the natural law, the bond of marriage is not indissoluble, and in certain cases divorce in the strict sense can be sanctioned by civil authority.” The meaning of this condemnation is clear from the document whence it has been taken. This is the papal Brief (“Ad apostolicæ sedis fastigium,” 22 August, 1851, in which several works of the Turin professor, J. N. Nuytz, and a series of propositions defended by him were condemned, as is expressly said, “deApostolicæ potestatis plenitudine.” A certain dissolubility of marriage whenever contracted must therefore be admitted, even according to the natural law, at least in the sense that marriage, unlike other contracts, may not be dissolved at the pleasure of the contracting parties. Such dissolubility would be in direct contradiction with the essential purpose of marriage, the proper propagation of the human race, and the education of the children. That in exceptional cases, in which continued cohabitation would nullify the essential purpose of marriage, the dissolubility may nevertheless not be permitted, can hardly be proved as postulated by the natural law from the primary purpose of marriage. However, even such dissolubility would not be in accord with the secondary purposes of marriage, and it is therefore regarded by St. Thomas (IV Sent., dist. xxxiii, Q, ii, a. 1) and most Catholic scholars as against the secondary demands of the natural law. In this sense, marriage, considered merely according to the natural law, is intrinsically indissoluble. That it is also extrinsically indissoluble, i.e. that it cannot be dissolved by any authority higher than the contracting parties, cannot be asserted without exception. Civil authority, indeed, even according to the natural law, has no such right of dissolving marriage. The evil consequences which would follow so easily, on account of the might of passion, in case the civil power could dissolve marriage, seem to exclude such a power; it is certainly excluded by the original Divine positive law: “What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder” (Matt., xix, 6). However, that part of the proposition condemned by Pius IX, in which it is asserted, “And in certain cases divorce in the strict sense can be sanctioned by civil authority,” need not necessarily be understood of marriage according to the purely natural law, because Nuytz, whose doctrine was condemned, asserted that the State had this authority in regard to Christian marriages, and because the corresponding section of the Syllabus treats of the errors about Christian marriage. (Cf. Schrader, Der Papst und die modernen Ideen, II (Vienna, 1865), p. 77. ]

2. Divorce among the Israelites

In spite of the Divine law of the indissolubility of marriage, in the course of time divorce, in the sense of complete dissolution of marriage, became prevalent to a greater or less extent among all nations. Moses found this custom even among the people of Israel. As lawgiver, he ordained in the name of God (Deut., xxiv, 1): “If a man take a wife, and have her, and she find not favour in his eyes, for some uncleanness: he shall write a bill of divorce, and shall give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.” The rest of the passage shows that this divorce was understood as justifying the wife in the marriage with another husband, hence as a complete annulment of the first marriage. Some regard it only as a freedom from penalty, so that in reality the remarriage of the divorced wife was not allowed, and was adultery, because the bond of the first marriage had not been dissolved. This opinion was held by the Master of the Sentences, Peter Lombard (IV Sent., dist. xxxiii, 3), St. Bonaventure (IV Sent., dist. xxxiii, art. 3, Q, I), and others. Others again, however, believe that there was a real permission, a dispensation granted by God, as otherwise the practice sanctioned in the law would be blamed as sinful in some part of the Old Testament. Moreover, Christ (loc. cit.) seems to have rendered illicit what was illicit in the beginning, but what had really been allowed later, even though it was allowed “by reason of the hardness of your heart” (St. Thomas, III, Supplem., Q. lxvii, a. 3; Bellarmine, “Controvers. de matrim.,” I, xvii; Sanchez, “ De matrim.,” X, disp. i. n. 7; Palmieri, “De matrimonio christ.,” Rome, 1880, 133 sqq.; Wernz, “Jus decretalium,” IV, n. 696, not. 12; etc). This second opinion maintains and must maintain that the expression “for some uncleanness” does not mean any slight cause, but a grievous stain, something shameful directed against the purpose of marriage or marital fidelity. A separation at will, and for slight reasons, at the pleasure of the husband, is against the primary principle of the natural moral law, and is not subject to Divine dispensation in such a way that it could be make licit in every case. It is different with separation in serious cases governed by special laws. This, indeed, does not correspond perfectly with the secondary purposes of marriage, but on that account it is subject to Divine dispensation, since the inconvenience to be feared from such a separation can be corrected or avoided by Divine Providence. In the time of Christ there was an acute controversy between the recent, lax school of Hillel and the strict, conservative school of Schammai about the meaning of the phrase Hebrew phrase. Hence the question with which the Pharisees tempted Our Lord: “Is it lawful . . . for every cause?” The putting-away of the wife for frivolous reasons had been sharply condemned by God through the Prophets Micheas (ii, 9) and Malachias (ii, 14), but in later days it became very prevalent. Christ abolished entirely the permission which Moses had granted, even though this permission was strictly limited; He allowed a cause similar to “uncleanness” as reason for putting away the wife, but not for the dissolution of the marriage bond.

3. The Dogmatic Basis and Practical Application of The Complete Dissolubility of Consummated Marriage within the Catholic Church

(a) Its Foundation in Scripture—The complete exclusion of absolute divorce (divortium perfectum) in Christian marriage is expressed in the words quoted above (Mark, x; Luke, xvi; I Cor., vii). The words in St. Matthew’s Gospel (xix, 9), “except it be for fornication,” have, however, given rise to the question whether the putting-away of the wife and the dissolution of the marriage bond were not allowed on account of adultery. The Catholic Church and Catholic theology have always maintained that by such an explanation St. Matthew would be made to contradict Sts. Mark, Luke, and Paul, and the converts instructed by these latter would have been brought into error in regard to the real doctrine in Christ. As this is inconsistent both with the infallibility of the Apostolic teaching and the innerancy of Sacred Scripture, the clause in Matthew must be explained as the mere dismissal of the unfaithful wife without the dissolution of the marriage bond. Such a dismissal is not excluded by the parallel texts in mark and Luke, while Paul (I Cor., vii, 11) clearly indicates the possibility of such a dismissal: “And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.” Grammatically, the clause in St. Matthew may modify one member of the sentence (that which refers to the putting-away of the wife) without applying to the following member (the remarriage of the other), though we must admit that the construction is a little harsh. If it means, “Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commiteth adultery,” then, in case of marital infidelity, the wife may be put away; but that, in this case, adultery is not committed by a new marriage cannot be concluded from these words. The following words, “And he that shall marry her that is put away”—therefore also the woman who is dismissed for adultery—“committeth adultery,” say the contrary, since they suppose the permanence of the first marriage. Moreover, the brevity of expression in Matthew, xix, 9, which seems to us harsh, is explicable, because the Evangelist had previously given a distinct explanation of the same subject, and exactly laid down what was justified by the reason of fornication: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the causes of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery” (Matt., v, 32). Here all excuse for remarriage or for the dissolution of the first marriage is excluded. Even the mere dismissal of the wife, if this is done unjustly, exposes her to the danger of adultery and is thus attributed to the husband who has dismissed her—“he maketh her commit adultery.” It is only in the case of marital infidelity that complete dismissal is justified—“excepting for the cause of fornication.” In this case not he, but the wife who has been lawfully dismissed, is the occasion, and she will therefore be responsible should she commit further sin. It must also be remarked that even for Matthew, xix, 9, there is a variant reading supported by important codices, which has “maketh her to commit adultery” instead of the expression “comitteth adultery.” This reading answers the difficulty more clearly. (Cf. Knabenbauer, “Comment, in Matt.,” II, 144).

Catholic exegesis is unanimous in excluding the permissibility of absolute divorce from Matthew 19, but the exact explanation of the expressions, “except it be for fornication” and “excepting for the cause of fornication,” has given rise to various opinions. Does it mean the violation of marital infidelity, or a crime committed before marriage, or a diriment impediment? (See Palmieri, “De matrim. Christ.,” 178 sqq.; Sasse, “De sacramentis,” II, 418 sqq.) Some have tried to answer the difficulty by casting doubt on the authenticity of the entire phrase of Matthew 19, but the words are in general fully vouched for by the more reliable codices. Also, the greater number, and the best, have “committeth adultery.” (See Knabenbauer, loc. cit., and Schanz, “Kommentar über das Evang. d. hl. Matth.,” 191, 409.) That absolute divorce is never allowable therefore clear from Scripture, but the argument is cogent only for a consummated marriage. For Christ found His law on the words: “They two shall be in one flesh,” which are verified only in consummated marriage. How far divorce is excluded, or can be allowed, before the consummation of the marriage must be derived from other source.

(b) Tradition and the Historical Development in Doctrine and Practice—The doctrine of Scripture about the illicitness of divorce is fully confirmed by the constant tradition of the Church. The testimonies of the Fathers and the councils leave us no room for doubt. In numerous places they lay down the teaching that not even in the case of adultery can the marriage bond be dissolved or the innocent party proceed to a new marriage. They insist rather that the innocent party must remain unmarried after the dismissal of the guilty one, and can only enter upon new marriage in case death intervenes.

We read in Hermas (about the year 150), “Pastor,” mand. IV, I, 6: “Let him put her (the adulterous wife) away and let the husband abide alone; but if after putting away his wife he shall marry another, he likewise committeth adultery (ed. Funk, 1901). The expression in verse 8, “For the sake of her repentance, therefore, the husband ought not to marry,” does not weaken the absolute command, but it gives the supposed reason of this great command. St. Justine Martyr (d. 176) says (Apolog., I, xv, P.G., VI, 349), plainly and without exception: “He that marrieth her that has been put away by another man committeth adultery.” In like manner Athenagoras (about 177) in his “Legatio pro christ.,” xxxiii (P.G., VI, 965): “For whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, committed adultery”; Tertullian (d. 247), “De monogamiâ,” c, ix (P.L., II, 991): “They enter into adulterous unions even when they do not put away their wives, we are not allowed to even marry although we put our wives away”; Clement of Alexandria (d. 217), “Strom.,” II, xxiii (P.G., VIII, 1096), mentions the ordinance of Holy Scripture in the following words; “You shall not put away your wife except for fornication, and [Holy Scripture] considers as adultery a remarriage while the other of the separated persons survives.” Similar expressions are found in the course of the following centuries both in the Latin and in the Greek Fathers, e.g. St. Basil of Cæsarea, “Epist. can.,” ii, “Ad Amphilochium,” can. xlviii (P.G., XXXII, 732); St. John Chrysostom, “De libello repud.” (P.G., LI, 218); Theodoretus, on I Cor., vii, 39, 40 (P.G., LXXXII, 275); St. Ambrose, “in Luc.,” VIII, v, 18 sqq. (P.L., XV, 1855); St. Jerome, Epist, lx (ad Amand.), n. 3 (P.L., XXII, 562); St. Augustine, “De adulterinis conjugiis,” II, iv (P.L., XL, 473), etc., etc. The occurrences of passages in some Fathers, even among those just quoted, which treat the husband more mildly in case of adultery, or seem to allow him a new marriage after the infidelity of his spouse, does not prove that these expressions are to be understood of the permissibility of a new marriage, but of the lesser canonical penance and of exemption from punishment by civil law. Or if they refer to a command on the part of the Church, the new marriage is supposed to take place after the death of the wife who was dismissed. This permission was mentioned, not without reason, as a concession for the innocent party, because at some periods the Church’s laws in regard to the guilty party forbade forever any further marriage (cf. can. vii of the Council of Compiègne, 757). It is well known that the civil law, even of the Christian emperors, permitted in several cases a new marriage after the separation of the wife. Hence, without contradicting himself, St. Basil could say of the husband, “He is not condemned,” and “He is considered excusable” (ep. clxxxviii, can. ix, and Ep. cxcix, can. xxi, in P.G., XXXII, 678, 721), because he is speaking distinctly of the milder treatment of the husband than of the wife with regard to the canonical penance imposed for adultery. St. Epiphanius, who is especially reproached with teaching that the husband who had put away his wife because of adultery or another crime was allowed by Divine law to marry another (Hæres, lix, 4, in P.G., XLI, 1024), is speaking in reality of a second marriage after the death of the divorced wife, and whilst he declares in general that such a second marriage is allowed, but is less honourable, still he makes the exception in regard to this last part in favour of one who had long been separate from his first wife. The other Fathers of the following centuries, in whose works ambiguous or obscure expressions may be found, are to be explained in like manner.

The practice of the faithful was not indeed always in perfect accord with the doctrine of the Church. On account of defective morality, there are to be found regulations of particular synods which permitted unjustifiable concessions. However, the synods of all centuries, and more clearly still the decrees of the popes, have constantly declared that divorce which annulled the marriage and permitted remarriage was never allowed. The Synod of Elvira (A.D. 300) maintains without the least ambiguity the permanence of the marriage bond, even in the case of adultery. Canon ix decreed: “A faithful woman who has left an adulterous husband and is marrying another who is faithful, let her be prohibited from marrying; if she has married, let her not receive communion until the man she has left shall have departed this life, unless illness should make this an imperative necessity” (Labbe, “Concilia,” II, 7). The Synod of Arles (314) speaks indeed of counseling as far as possible, that the young men who had dismissed their wives for adultery should take no second wife” (ut, in quantum possil, consilium eis detur); but it declares at the same time the illicit character of such a second marriage, because it says of these husbands, “They are forbidden to marry” (prohibentur nubere, Labbe, II, 472). The same declaration is to be found in the Second Council of Mileve (416), canon xvii (Labbe, IV, 331); the Council of Hereford (673), canon x (Labbe, VII, 554); the Council of Friuli (Forum Julii), in northern Italy (791), canon x (Labbe, IX, 46); all of these teach distinctly that the marriage bond remains even in case of dismissal for adultery, and that new marriage is therefore forbidden.

The following decisions of the popes on this subject deserve special mention: Innocent I, “Epist. ad Exsuper.,” c. vi, n. 12 (P.L., XX, 500): “Your diligence has asked concerning those, also, who, by means of a deed of separation, have contracted another marriage. It is manifest that they are adulterers on both sides.” Compare also with “Epist. ad Vict. Rothom.,” xiii, 15, (P.L., XX, 479): “In respect to all cases the rule is kept that whoever marries another man, while her husband is still alive, must be held to be an adulteress, and must be granted no leave to do penance unless one of the men shall have died.” The impossibility of absolute divorce during the entire life of married people could not be expressed more forcibly than by declaring that the permission to perform public penance must be refused to women who remarried, as to a public sinner, because this penance presupposed the cessation of sin, and to remain in a second marriage was to continue in sin.

Besides the adultery of one of the married parties, the laws of the empire recognized other reasons for which marriage might be dissolved, and remarriage permitted, for instance, protracted absence as a prisoner of war, or the choice of religious life by one of the spouses. In these cases, also, the popes pronounced decidedly for the indissolubility of marriage, e.g. Innocent I, “Epist. ad Probum,” in P.L. XX, 602; Leo I, “Epist. ad Nicetam Aquil.,” in P.L., LIV, 1136; Gregory I, “Epist. ad Urbicum Abb.,” in P.L., LXXVII, 833, and “Epist. ad Hadrian. notar.,” in P.L., LXXVII, 1169. This last passage, which is found in the “Decretum” of Gratian (C. xxvii, Q, ii, c. xxii), is as follows: “Although the civil law provides that, for the sake of conversion (i.e., for the purpose of choosing the religious life), a marriage may be dissolved, though either of parties be unwilling, yet the Divine law does not permit it to be done.” That the indissolubility of marriage admits of no exception is indicated by Pope Zacharias in his letter of 5 January, 747, to Pepin and the Frankish bishops, for in chapter vii he ordains “by Apostolic authority,” in answer to the questions that had been proposed to him: “If any layman shall put away his own wife and marry another, or if he shall marry a woman who has been put away by another man, let him be deprived of communion” [Monum. Germ. Hist.: Epist., III:Epist. Merovingici et Karolini ævi, I (Berlin, 1892), 482]

(c) Laxer Admissions and their Correction—Whilst the popes constantly rejected absolute divorce in all cases, we find some of the Frankish synods of the eighth century which allowed it in certain acute cases. In this regard the Council of Verberie (752) and Compiègne (757) erred especially. Canon ix of the first council is undoubtedly erroneous (Labbe, VIII, 407). In this canon it is laid down that if a man must go abroad, and his wife, out of attachment to home and relatives, will not go with him, she must remain unmarried so long as the husband is alive whom she refused to follow; on the other hand, in contrast to the blameworthy woman, a second marriage is allowed to the husband: “If he has no hope of returning to his own country, if he cannot abstain, he can receive another wife with a penance.” So deeply was the pre-Christian custom of the people engraven in their hearts that is was believed allowance should be made for it to some degree. Canon v seems also to grant the unauthorized permission for a second marriage. It treats of the case in which the wife, with the help of other men, seeks to murder her husband, and he escapes from the plot by killing her accomplices in self-defence. Such a husband is allowed to take another wife: “That husband can put away that wife, and, if he will, let him take another. But let that woman who made the plot undergo a penance and remain without hope of marriage.” Some explain this canon to mean that the husband might marry again after the death of his first wife, but that the criminal wife was forbidden forever to marry. This last is in agreement with the penitential discipline of the age, because the crime in question was punished by life-long canonical penance, and hence by permanent exclusion from married life.

In its thirteenth canon (according to Labbe, VIII, 452; others call it the sixteenth), the Council of Compiègne gives a somewhat ambiguous decision and may seem to allow absolute divorce. It says that a man who has dismissed his wife in order that she might choose the religious life, or take the veil, can marry a second wife when the first has carried out the resolution. Nevertheless, the intended choice of the state of Christian perfection seems to imply that this canon must be limited to a marriage that has not been consummated. Hence it gives the correct Catholic doctrine, of which we shall speak below. This must also be the meaning of canon xvi (Labbe, VIII, 453; others, canon xix), which allows the dissolution of a marriage between a leper and a healthy woman, so that the woman is authorized to enter upon a new marriage, unless we supose that here there is a question of the diriment impediment of impotence. If these canons were really intended in any other sense, then they are contrary to the general doctrine of the Church. Other canons, in which separation and second marriage are allowed, refer undoubtedly to the diriment impediments of affinity and spiritual relationship, or to a marriage contracted in error by persons one of whom is free and the other not free. Hence they have no reference to actual divorce, and cannot be interpreted as a lax concession to popular morals or to passion. It is true that several of the Penitential Books composed about this time in the Frankish regions contain the cases mentioned by these two synods and add others in which the real dissolution of the marriage bond and a new marriage with another wife might be allowed. The following cases are mentioned in several of these Penitential Books: adultery, slavery as punishment for crime, imprisonment in war, wilful desertion without hope of reunion, etc. (Schmitz, “Bussbücher,” II, 129 sqq.). These Penitential Books had indeed no official character, but they influenced for a time the ecclesiastical practice in these countries. However, their influence did not last long. In the first decades of the ninth century, the church began to proceed energetically against them (cf. the Synod of Châlons, in the year 813, canon xxxviii; Labbe, IX, 367). They were not completely suppressed at once, especially as a general decay of Christian morality took place in the tenth and early part of the eleventh century. Towards the end of the eleventh century, however, every concession to the laxer practice as regards divorce had been corrected. The complete indissolubility of Christian marriage had become so firmly fixed in the juridical conscience that the authentic collections of church laws, the Decretals of the twelfth century, do not even see the necessity of expressly declaring it, but simply suppose it, in other juridical decisions, as a matter of course and beyond discussion. This is shown in the entire series of cases in IV Decretal., xix. In all cases, whether the cause be criminal plotting, adultery, loss of faith, or anything else, the bond of marriage is regarded as absolutely indissoluble and entrance upon a second marriage as impossible.

(d) Dogmatic Decision on the Indissolubility of Marriage—The Council of Trent was the first to make a dogmatic decision on this question. This took place in Session XXIV, canon v: “If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of hersy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of wilful desertion; let him be anathema,” and in canon vii: “If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party—not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery—can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema.” The decree defines directly the infallibility of the church doctrine in regard to indissolubility of marriage, even in the case of adultery, but indirectly the decree defines the indissolubility of marriage. Doubts have been expressed here and there about the dogmatic character of this definition (cf. Sasse, “De Sacramentis,” II, 426). But Leo XIII, in his Encyclical “Arcanum,” 10 February, 1880; calls the doctrine on divorce condemned by the Council of Trent “the baneful heresy” (hoeresim deterrimam). The acceptance of this indissolubility of marriage as an article of faith defined by the Council of Trent is demanded in the creed by which Orientals must make their profession of faith when reunited to the Roman Church. The formula prescribed by Urban VIII contains the following section: “Also, that the bond of the Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble; and that, although a separation tori et cohabitationis can be made between the parties, for adultery, heresy, or other causes, yet it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage.” Exactly the same declaration in regard to marriage was made in the short profession of faith aproved by the Holy Office in the year 1890 (Collectanea S. Congr. de Prop. Fide, Rome, 1893, pp. 639, 640). The milder indirect form in which the Council of Trent pronounced its anathema was chosen expressly out of regard for the Greeks of that period, who would have been very much offended, according to the testimony of the Venetian ambassadors, if the anathema had been directed against them, whereas they would find it easier to accept the decree that the Roman Church was not guilty of error in her stricter interpretation of the law (Pallavicini, “Hist. Conc. Trid.,” XXII, iv).

(e) Development of the Doctrine on Divorce outside of the Catholic Church—In the Greek Church, and the other Oriental Churches in general, the practice, and finally even the doctrine, of the indissolubility of the marriage bond became more and more lax. Zhishman (Das Eberecht der orientalischen Kirchen, 729 sqq.) testifies that the Greek and Oriental Churches separated from Rome permit in their official ecclesiastical documents the dissolution of marriage, not merely on account of adultery, but also “of those occasions and actions the effect of which on married life might be regarded as similar to natural death or to adultery, or which justify the dissolution of the marriage bond in consequence of a well-founded supposition of death or adultery.” Such reasons are, first, high treason; second, criminal attacks on life; third, frivolous conduct giving rise to suspicion of adultery; fourth, intentional abortion; fifth, acting as sponsor for one’s own child in baptism; sixth, prolonged dissapearance; seventh, incurable lunacy rendering cohabitation impossible; eight, entrance of one party into a religious order with the permission of the other party.

Among the sects that arose at the time of Reformation in the sixteenth century, there can hardly be question of any development of church law about divorce. Jurisdiction in matrimonial affairs was relegated, on principle, to the civil law, and only the blessing of marriage was assigned to the Church. It is true that the interpretation of the so-called ecclesiastical officials, their approbaton or disapprobation of the civil marriage laws, might find expression in certain cases should they refuse to bless an intended marriage of people who had been divorced when the reason for the divorce seemed to them to be too much opposed to Scripture. It is not surprising that in this respect the tendency should have been downwards, when we remember that, in the various sects of Xrotestanism the growth of liberalism has advanced even to the denial of Christ [Dr. F. Albert, Verbrechen und Strafen als Ehescheidungsgrund nach evangel, Kirchenrecht (in Stutz, Kirchenr. Abhandlungen, Stuttgart, 1903), I, IV].

4. Declaration of Nullity

The declaration of nullity must be carefuly distinguished from divorce proper. It can be called divorce only in a very improper sense, because it presupposes that there is and has been no marriage. However, as there is question of an alleged marriage and of a union which is considered by the public as a true marriage, we can understand why a previous ecclesiastical judgement should be required, declaring the presence of a diriment impediment and the consequent invalidity of a supposed marriage, before the persons in question might be free to separate or to enter upon a new marriage. It is only when the invalidity of a marriage becomes publicly known and further cohabitation gives scandal, or when other important reasons render a prompt separation of domicile necessary or adivisable, that such a separation should take place at once, to be made definitive by a later judicial sentence. When the invalidity of a marriage is publicly known, official procedure is necessary, and ecclesiastical process of nullification must be introduced. In the case of impediments which refer exclusively to the rights of the husband and wife, and which can be removed by their consent, only the one of the supposed spouses whose right is in question is permitted to impugn the marriage by complaint before the ecclesiastical court, provided it is desired to maintain this right. Such cases are the impediments of fear or violence, of essential error of impotence on the part of the other not fully established, and failure to comply with some fixed condition. In cases of the other possible impediments, every Catholic, even a stranger, may enter a complaint of nullity if he can bring proofs of such nullity. The only plaintiffs excluded are those who, on account of private advantage, were unwilling to declare the invalidity of the marriage before its dissolution by death, or who knew the impediment when the banns or marriage were proclaimed and culpably kept silence. Of course it is allowed to the married parties to disprove the reasons alleged by strangers against their marriage (Wernz, “Jus decretalium,” IV, n. 743).

That separation and remarriage of the separated parties may not take place merely on account of private convictions of the invalidity of a supposed marriage, but only in consequence of an ecclesiastical judgement was taught by Alexander III and Innocent III in IV Decretal., xix, 3 and II Decretal., xiii, 13. In earlier centuries the summary decision of the bishops sufficed; at present the Constitution of Benedict XIV, “Dei miseratione,” 3 November, 1741, must be followed. This prescribes that in matrimonial cases a “defender of the matrimonial tie” (defensor matrimonii) must be appointed. If the decision is for the validity of the marriage, there need be no appeal in the second instance. The parties can be satisfied with the first decision and continued in married life. If the decision is for the invalidity of the marriage, an appeal must be entered, and sometimes even a second appeal to the court of third instance, so that it is only after two concordant decisions on the invalidity of marriage in question that itcan be regarded as invalid, and the parties are allowed to proceed to another marriage. (Cf. III Conc. plen. Baltim., App. 262 sqq.; Conc. Americ. latin., II, n. 16; Laurentius, “Instit. iuris eccl.,” 2nd ed., n. 696 sqq.; Wernz, “Jusdecretal.,” IV, n. 744 sqq.) Sometimes, however, in missionary countries, Apostolic prefects are permitted to give summary decision of cases in which two concordant opinions of approved theologians or canonists pronounce the invalidity of the marriage to be beyond doubt. Moreover, in cases of evident nullity, because of a manifest impediment of blood-relationship or affinity, of previous marriage, of the absence of form, of lack of baptism on the part of one party, a second sentence of nullity is no longer demanded (Decr. of the Holy Office, 5 June, 1889, and 16 June, 1894. Cf. Acta S. Sedis, XXVII, 141; also Decr. of the Holy Office, 27 March, 1901, Acta S. Sedis, XXXIII, 765). The court of first instance in the process of nullication is the episcopal court of the diocese, of second instance the metropolitan court, of third instance the Roman See. Sometimes, however, Rome designates for the third instance a metropolitan see of the country in question (Laurentius, above, 697, not. 6). No one, however, is prohibited from immediate application in the first instance to the Holy See. Custom reserves to the Holy See matrimonial cases of reigning princes.

In the Decretals the declaration of nullity is treated under the title “De Divortiis.” But it is important that these matters should be carefully distinguished from one another. The lack of exact distinction between the expressions “declaration of invalidity” and “divorce,” and the different treatment of invalid marriages at different periods, may lead to incorrect judgements of ecclesiastical decisions. Decisions of particular Churches are too easily regarded as dissolutions of valid marriages, where in fact they were only declarations of nullity; and even papal decisions, like those of Gregory II communicated to St. Boniface and of Alexander III to Bishop of Amiens, are looked on by some writers as permissions granted by the popes to Frankish Churches to dissolve a valid marriage in certain cases. The decision of Gregory II, in the year 726, was embodied in the collection of Gratian (C. xxxii, Q. vii, c. xviii), and is printed in “Mon. Germ. Hist.,” III: Epist. (Epist. Merovingici et Karolini ævi I), p. 276; the decision of Alexander III is given in the Decretals as pars decisa, i.e., a part of the papal letter (IV Decretal., xv, 2) left out in the Decretal itself. In both cases there was question of a declaration of the invalidity of a marriage which was invalid from the very beginning because of antecedent impotence. A certain concession to Frankish Churches was, however, made in these cases. Accoding to Roman custom such supposed husband and wife were not separated, but were bound to live together as brother and sister. In Frankish Churches, however, a separation was pronouced and permission to contract another marriage was allowed to the one not afflicted with absolute impotence. This custom Alexander III granted to the Frankish Churches for the future. If therefore, the union in question is spoken of a legitima conjunctio, or even as a legitimum matrimonium, this is done only on account of the external form of the marriage contract. That in such cases a diriment impediment according to the natural law was present, and an actual marriage was impossible, was well understod by the pope. He says this expressly in the part of his letter that has been embodied in the Decretals (IV Decretal., xv, 2. Cf. Sägmüller, “Die Ehe Heinrichs II” in the Tübingen “Theol. Quartalschr.,” LXXXVII, 1905, 84 sqq.). That in similar cases decision has been given sometimes for separation and sometimes against it, need excite no surprise, for even at the present day the ecclesiastical idea of impotence on the part of the woman is not fully settled (cf. controversy in “The American Eccl. Review,” XXVIII, 51 sqq.).

B. NON-CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE CAN BE DISSOLVED BY ABSOLUTE DIVORCE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IN FAVOUR OF THE FAITH.

1. The Pauline Privilege

The Magna Charta in favour of Christian faith is contained in the words of the Apostle, I Cor., vii, 12–15: “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And if any woman hath a husband that believeth not, and he consent to dwell with her, let her not put away her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband: otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace.” (On the interpretation of these words see Cornely on I. Cor., 175 sqq.). The exegetical controversy, as to whether these words are dependent on the proceeding sentence, “For to the rest I speak, not the Lord,” or whether that sentence refers to the one preceding it, is of no importance in this question. In the first supposition, we should seem to have here an ordinance which is not immediately Divine, but was established by the Apostle through the power of Christ. In the second supposition, it may be an immediately Divine ordinance.

These words of the Apostle tell us that in all cases when one of the married parties have received the Christian Faith, and the other remains an infidel and is not willing to live in peace with the Christian, the believer is not bound but is free. The Apostle does not indeed say expressly and formally that the marriage bond has been dissolved, but if it were not at least in the power of the Christian to dissolve the previous bond and to enter upon another marriage, the words would not have their full truth. Hence the Church has understood the words in this sense, and at the same time has fixed more exactly how and under what conditions this so-called Pauline privilege may be exercised. Innocent III declares authoritatively (IV Decretal., xix, 7, in cap.”Quanto”) that the convert is justified in entering upon another marriage if he will, provided the non-Christian is unwilling either to live with the other or such cohabitation would cause the blasphemy of the Divine name or be an incentive to moral sin: “Si enim alter infidelium conjugum ad fidem convertatur, altero vel nullo modo, vel non sine blasphemiâ divini nominis, vel ut eum pertrahat ad mortale peccatum ei cohabitare volente: qui relinquitur, ad secunda, si voluerit, vota transibit: et in hoc casu intelligimus quod ait Apostolus: Si infidelis discedit, etc., et canonem etiam in quo dicitur: Contumelia creatoris solvit jus matrimonii circa eum qui relinquitur.” According to the Church’s interpretation and practice, the dissolution of marriage that was contractd before the conversion is not effected by the separation of the married parties, but only when a new marriage is contracted by the Christian party because of this privilege. The Holy Office says this expressly in the decree of 5 August, 1759, ad 2: “Then only may the yoke of the matrimonial bond with an infidel be understood to be loosed when the convert spouse . . . proceeds to another marriage with a believer” (Collectan. S. Congr. de Prop. F., n. 1312). The manner of obtaining this right to enter upon a new marriage is fixed by the Church under penalty of invalidity, and consists in a demand (interpellatio) made of the non-Christian party whether he or she be willing to live with the other in peace or not. If this interpellation is not possible, and Apostolic dispensation ab interpellatione must be obtained (Collectanea, n. 1323). If the spouse that remains in infidelity agrees to live in peace, but later on acts contrary to this agreement by abusing the Christian religion, or tempting the Christian to infidelity, or preventing the children from being educated in the Christian Faith, or becomes a temptation for the Christian to commit any mortal sin, the latter regains the right to proceed to a new marriage after any lapse of time. This consequence which follows from the very nature of the privilege was expressly declared by the Holy Office in the decree of 27 September, 1848, and was confirmed by Pius IX (Colectan., n. 1227; Ballerini-Palmieri, “Opus theol. Mor.,” 3d ed., VI, n. 468). If, however, the non-Christian party refuses to continue further in married life, not from hatred of the Faith or for other sinful reasons, but because the Christian, by sinful conduct (for instance by adultery), has given just reason for separation, the Christian would not be justified in entering upon a new marriage. The privilege, however, would still be his if the non-Christian party wished to maintain as reason for separation adultery committed before the time of the conversion. (Collectan., n. 1312, 1318, 1322) The interpellation of the non-Christian party, which must take place before the remarriage of the Christian, must as a general rule be about living together in peace or not, but as peaceful cohabitation can only be imagined in a case where there are no serious dangers, and such dangers may arise in certain circumstances from continued living with the non-Christian party, it is readily understood that the Holy See is justified in making the interpellation mean, whether the non-Christian party be willing to accept the Christian Faith; and in case the non-Christian refuses after careful deliberation, then, as a result of this refusal, permission may be granted to the Christian party to enter upon a new marriage and thereby to dissolve the previous one. This procedure, allowed by Sixtus V, received new confirmation and direction under Leo XIII by the decree of the Holy Office, 29 November, 1882 (Collectan., n. 1358, ad 3).

The Pauline privilege is said to be in favour of the Christian Faith, but the meaning of the privilege and the right in such cases to absolute divorce is not exactly defined thereby. Doubt might arise in regard to catechumens, and also in regard to such as join a Christian denomination but do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church. The solution to these doubts is contained in the following proposition: the Pauline privilege is attached to baptism. That the privilege is granted to nobody before the actual reception of baptism is beyond question from the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, 16 January, 1803 (Collectan., n. 1319), and also from the decree of the Holy Office, 13 March, 1901 (Acta S. Sedis, XXXIII, 550). Even the interpellation of the non-Christian party ought to be postponed until after the baptism of the other. It requires a papal dispensation to proceed to such an interpellation validly before baptism (Cf. Instructio S. Officii, under the authorization of Pius IX, 3 June, 1874, in Collectan., n. 1357). It is also certain that the dissolubility here in question is not limited to the marriages of pagans, but to all marriages of unbaptized persons, even though they should belong to some non-Catholic Christian denomination (Acta S. Sedis, loc. cit). Whether, however, the privilege is so joined to baptism that it belongs to Christian adherents of a non-Catholic denomination when they profess the Christian Faith by the reception of baptism is a question disputed by theologians. Some theologians of repute assert that the privilege is granted in this case, and that a practical decision to this effect has been made by a Roman Congregation, according to the testimony of Koenings, “Theol. mor.,” II, 394 (New York, 1878). (Cf. Palmieri, “De matrim. christ.,” th. xxvii, p. 224; Tarquini in “Archiv für decretal.,” IV, n. 702, not. 59; Gasparri, “De matrim.,” II, n. 1331; Ballerin-Palmieri, “Opus theol. mor.,” 3d ed., VI, 457 sqq.) Even in the early ages the Venerable Bede and St. Augustine seem to have understood the passage from St. Paul (I Cor.) in this sense.

2. The Papal Authority to Dissolve a Non-Christian Marriage

From the ecclesiastical decisions that have been already quoted, it is clear that the Church has at least the authority of explaining the Pauline privilege, of limiting and extending it. This would give rise to no difficulties if the Pauline privilege, as expressed in I Cor., vii, 15, were an immediate Apostolic ordinance and only mediately Divine, inasmuch as Christ would have granted the power in general in a case of necessity to dissolve in favour of the Faith a marriage contracted in infidelity. For the entire Apostolic power passed to the supreme head of the Church, and as the Apostle could determine fixed rules and conditions for the dissolution of the marriages in question, the pope would have precisely the same authority. Yet on this point there is a diversity of opinion among theologians, and the Church has not settled the dispute. For, even if the privilege as promulgated by St. Paul was of immediate Divine right, the Church’s power to make at least modifications in case of necessity can readily be explained because such a power belongs to her without a doubt in the other matters that are of Divine right. The first opinion seems to have been held in the fourteenth century by eminent scholers like P. de Palude and de Tudeschis, and in the fifteenth century by St. Antoninus; in recent times it is defended by Gasparri, Rossi, Fahrner, and others. The second opinion is held by Th. Sanchez, Benedict XIV, St. Alphonsus, Perrone, Billot, Wernz, and others. The instruction of the Holy Office, 11 July, 1866 (Collectan., n. 1353), calls the privilege a Divine privilege “promulgated by the Apostle.” However, in spite of the disagreement in regard to the Pauline privilege, the defenders of both opinions agree that there is another method for the dissolution of the marriage of infidels when one of the parties receives baptism, namely, by papal authority. This power is indeed not admitted by all theologians. Even Lambertini (who later became Pope Benedict XIV) doubted it when he was secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, in the causa Florentina, in the year 1726. But earlier papal decisions, as well as the actual decision in this very case, leave no room for doubt that the popes attribute to themselves this power and act accordingly.

If the Pauline privilege alone be applied, it will follow that when a pagan is converted who has been living in polygamy, he can be permitted to choose anyone of his wives who may be willing to receive baptism, provided his first wife is unwilling to live with him in peace or, under the circumstances, to be converted to the Faith. Hence it is that the answers of Roman Congregations based on the Pauline privilege always include the phrase nisi prima voluerit converti. Now several of the popes have at times granted permission to whole nations to choose any one of the several wives, without adding the clause “unlesss the first be willingt o be converted.” This was done for India by St. Pius V, 2 August, 1571, in the Constitution “Romani Pontificis.” Urban VIII, 20 October, 1626, and 17 September, 1627, did the same for the South American nations, and expressly declares: “Considering that such pagan marriages are not so firm that in case of necessity they cannot be dissolved”; similarly, Gregory XIII, 25 January, 1585 (cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, “Opus theol. mor.” 3d ed., VI, nn. 444, 451, 452). The theological proof of this papal authority is easy for those who, as has been said, regard the Pauline privilege as an immediate Apostolic ordinance. For it is then expressly testified by Holy Scripture that the Apostolic, hence also the papal authority, can allow in favour of the Faith the dissolution of marriage contracted in infidelity. The method of procedure and the precise application in various cases would naturally be committed to the bearer of the Apostolic authority. Those who consider that the Pauline privilege is an immediate Divine determination of the case in which marriage may be dissolved, prove the papal authority in another way. Since it follows from I Cor., vii, 15, that marriage contracted in infidelity is not absolutely indissoluble according to Divine right, it follows from the general power of loosing which was granted to the successor of St. Peter, Matt., xvi, 19—“Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”—that this power extends also to our present matter. Moreover, the successor of St. Peter are themselves the best interpreters of their power. Whenever the exercise of an authority that has not hitherto been clearly recognized occurs, not merely on one occasion but frequently, there can be no more doubt that such authority is rightfully exercised. Now this is precisely what took place in the grants of Pius V, Gregory XIII, and Urban VIII for the vast territories of India, the West Indies, etc.

3. The Dissolution of Marriage Contracted in Infidelity by Profession in a Religious Order

When the doctrine explained above, which now is practically admitted beyond doubt, has been established, the question, whether a marriage contracted in infidelity can be dissolved by the religious profession of the converted party, is not very important. It is so to be understood that the baptized party may choose the religious life, even against the will of the one still unbaptized, and, in consequence of this, the other may enter upon a new marriage. According to the doctrine we have just explained, it is clear that the pope, at least in single cases, can permit this. Whether, according to general law, and by immediate Divine ordinance, without the intervention of the pope, this privilege belongs to the baptized party, is somewhat connected with another question, viz., for what reason Christian (i.e., sacramental) matrimony, not yet consummated, can be dissolved by religious profession. This leads us to the third proposition about this subject of divorce.

C. CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE BEFORE CONSUMMATION CAN BE DISSOLVED BY SOLEMN PROFESSION IN A RELIGIOUS ORDER, OR BY AN ACT OF PAPAL AUTHORITY.

1. Dissolution by Solemn Profession

The fact that religious profession causes the dissolution of the marriage bond, provided the marriage has not been consummated, is distinctly taught in the Extrav. Joan. XXII(tit. VI, cap. unic.), and was solemnly defined by the Council of Trent (Sess, XXIV, can. vi). The reason why this dissolution takes place is a theological question. The definition reads: “If anyone shall say that a marriage contracted, but not consummated, is not dissolved by the solemn religious profession of either one of the parties to the marriage, let him be anathema.” The expression, by the solemn profession, is important. Neither the mere entrance into a religious order, nor life in the novitiate, nor the so-called profession of simple vows, even though they be for life, as is customary in modern congregations, is capable of dissolving a previous marriage. The simple vows which are pronounced in the Society of Jesus, either as vows of scholastic or as vows of formed coadjutors, do not dissolve a marriage which has been contracted and not yet consummated, though they cause a diriment impediment in regard to any future marriage. The question as to how and for what reason such marriage is dissolved by solemn religious profession is answered by some by pointing to an immediate Divine right, as if God himself had so ordained immediately. Others, however, ascribe it to the power which the Church has received from God, and to its ordinance. The first opinion is defended by Dominic Soto, Th. Sanchez, Benedict XIV, Perrone, Rosset, Palmieri, and others; the second by Henry de Segusia (commonly called Hostiensis), Suarez, Laymann, Kugler, the Würzburg theologians, Wernz, Gasparri, Laurentius, fahrner, and others. The tradition of the Christian Church for centuries bears witness that Christian marriage before consummation has not the same indissolubility as a consummated marriage. Scholars, however, are not unanimous about the limits of its dissolubility. Many facts from the lives of the saints, of St. Thecla, St. Cecilia, St. Alexius, and others, such for example as are narrated by Gregory the Great (III Dialog., xiv, in P.L., XXXIII) and by the Venerable Bede (Hist. Angl., xix, in P.L., XCV, 201 sqq.), are proof of the universal Christian conviction that, even after marriage had been contracted, it was free for either of the married parties to separate from the other in order to choose a life of evangelical perfection. Now this would be a violation of the right of the other spouse if in such circumstances the marriage bond were not dissolved, or at least could not easily be dissolved under certain conditions, and thereby the right granted to the other to enter upon another marriage. The precise conditions under which this dissolution of the marriage bond actually took place, and stil takes place, can only be decided with certainty by the authentic declaration of the Church. Such a declaration was made by Alexander III, according to III Decretal., xxxii, 2: “After a lawfully accorded consent affecting the present, it is allowed to one of the parties, even against the will of the other, to choose a monastery (just as certain saints have been called from marriage), provided that carnal intercourse shall not have taken place between them; and it is allowed to the one who is left to proceed to a second marriage.” A similar declaration was made by Innocent III, op. cit., cap. xiv. From this latter declaration we learn that religious profession alone has this effect, and that therefore those who wished to practise a life of higher perfection in any other manner could be obliged by the other spouse either actually to choose the religious state or else to consummate the marriage. Under earlier ecclesiastical conditions, no long delay was imposed upon the other party before entering upon another marriage, because religious profession might be made without a long novitiate. The introduction of a novitiate of at least a year by the Council of Trent, and the time of three years prescribed by Pius IX and Leo XIII for simple vows before the solemn professsion, and the general restriction of solemn profession by the establishment of simple profession, which does not dissolve the marriage bond, have rendered difficult the dissolution of unconsummated marriage by religious profession. So that now it seems practically necessary that if one of the married parties should choose the state of evangelical perfection before the consummation of the marriage, the marriage bond should be dissolved by papal authority.

2. Dissolution by the Pope of Marriage not yet Consummated.

The pope’s authority as supreme head of the Church to dissolve Christian marriage not yet consummated is proved on the one hand from the wos of Christ to Peter, Matt., xvi, 19 (see above, under B, 2), and on the other, from the dissolubility of such a marriage by religious profession, inasmuch as this profession must be solemn, for according to the declaration of Boniface VIII (III Sexti Decretal., xv, c. unic.), solemn vows as such depend entirely upon the ordinance of the Church—“voti solemnitas ex solâ constitutione Ecclesiæ est inventa.” Hence it follows without a doubt that the dissolution of a marriage by solemn profession could never take place without the exercise of the Church’s authority. Now if the Church can cause such a dissoltuion according to a general law, a fortiori she can do this in single cases—not indeed arbitrarily, but for grave reasons—because this power has been granted by God to dispense in matters of Divine right, and a delegated authority may not be exercised without a sufficient reason (cf. Wernz, “Just decretal.,” IV, n. 698, not. 39). The actual exercise of this power on the part of the popes, which has become constant and general, is a further proof of its propriety and its actual existence. Clear instances occur during the pontificates of Martin V (1417–31) and Eugene IV (1431–47). St Antoninus tells us that he had seen several Bulls of the popes which granted such a dispensation of a dissolution of a marriage that had not been consummated, so that thereafter they might proceed to a new marriage. (Summa theol., III, tit. i, c. xxi). We can find traces of such a practice even in much earlier times. A decretal of Alexander III, namely, IV Decretal., xiii, 2, seems, according to a probable interpretation, to refer to a possible concession of such a dissolution. Perhaps the decision of Gregory II to St. Boniface, in 726 (see above under A. 4) might possibly be explained in the same sense, though it is very uncertain, for it seems to refer neither to the dissolution of a consummated marriage, as some supposed, nor to the dissolution of a real marriage that had not been consumated, but rather to a declaration of invalidity. For several centuries the exercise of this power of dissolving such marriages has belonged to the ordinary functions of the Holy See, and is exlusively papal, for the work of the Roman Congregations in such cases is only preparatory. However, exceptional instances occur when it has been delegated to bishops (Wernz, op. cit., n. 698, not. 41). The judicial procedure in such cases was exactly prescribed by Benedict XIV in his Bull of judicial procedure (“Dei miseratione,” 3 November, 1741 (section 15), obligatory on the whole Latin Church. Any uncertainty about this ecclesiastical power (cf. Fahrner;Geshichte des Unauflöslichkeitsprincips, p. 170 sqq.) was removed bythis Bull; for if this power did not belong to the Church, then the Bull in question would have approved and originated an institution against all good morals. It is, however, inconceivable that the pope could issue an attack on morality and could formally sanction bigamy in certain cases. Several of the older canonists, especially those of Bologna, brought forward some special reasons which are supposed to justify the dissolution of a marriage before consummation. If thereby they wish to assert the right of dissolution by private authority, then they erred. If they intended to speak of a dissolution that could be granted by the Church, that is, by its supreme head, and the permission for a new marriage, then they had merely collected the cases in which such a dissolution might take place in virtue of the papal authority just spoken of, but they had not given a new title to such dissolution. Some held the erroneous opinion of private dissolubility, because they regarded such a union as no real marriage, but simply as betrothal, and therefore they treated it according to the juridical principles in regard to betrothal. This theory of marriage, however, was not often defended, and has long dissapeared from theological schools; neither does it deserve any consideration at present, because it is in conflict with established Catholic dogmas.

D. LIMITED DIVORCE, OR SEPARATION FROM BED AND BOARD (DIVORTIUM IMPERFECTUM) IS ALLOWED FOR VARIOUS CAUSES, ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF ADULTERY OR LAPSE INTO INFIDELITY OR HERESY ON THE PART OF HUSBAND OR WIFE.

A separation of married parties leaving the marriage bond intact is mentioned by St. Paul, I Cor., vii, 11: “If she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.” From the very nature of the case it follows that occasions may arise in which further cohabitation is unadvisable or even unseemly and morally impossible. If such circumstances do not bring about a dissolution of the marriage bond, at least a cessation of married life must be permitted. Hence it is that the Council of Trent, immediately after its definition of the indissolubility of the marrriage bond, even in case of adultery, added another canon (Sess. XXIV, can. viii): “If anyone shall say that the Church errs when she, for many causes, decrees a separation of husband and wife in respect to bed and dwelling-place for a definite or an indefinite period; let him be anathema.” The cessation of married life in common may have different degrees. There can be the mere cessation of married life (separatio quoad torum), or a complete separation as regards dwelling-place (separatio quoad cohabitationem). Each of these may be permanent or temporary. Temporary abstinence from married life, or separatio a toro, may take place by mutual private consent from higher religious motives, not, however, if such continence be the occasion of moral danger to either of the parties. Should such danger threaten either, it would become their duty to resume married life. The Apostle speaks of this in I Cor., vii, 5: “Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourself to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.”

1. The Choice of Evangelical Perfection

For a permanent separation on account of entrance into the state of Christian perfection, i.e., entrance into religious life on the part of the wife or of the husband, or by the reception of Holy orders on the part of the husband, there is required not only mutual consent, but also some arrangement on the part of ecclesiastical authority, according to the laws about such cases. This holds in regard to the reception of the major orders immediately after the contraction of marriage, even before it consummated. In regard to the choice of religious life, it holds only after consummated marriage. For, as we have said above, by the religious life marriage which has not yet consummated can be dissolved, and on that account newly-married parties have the right to a delay of two months to consider the choice of the state of perfection, and during which the consummation of the marriage may be refused (St. Alphonsus, “Theol. mor.,” VI, n. 958). In case the marriage is not dissolved, the reception of Holy orders or religious profession cannot take place before provision has been made for a continent life on the part of the other party. In accordance with the judgment of the diocesan bishop, he or she must either enter a religious order, or, if age and other circumstances remove all suspicion and all danger of incontinency, at least take a private vow of perpetual chastity. In no case can it ever be allowed that the husband who should receive Holy orders might dwell in the same house with the wife bound only by a private vow (cf. Laurentius, “Instit. jur. eccl.” 2nd ed., n. 694).

2. Adultery of One of the Parties

Cause for the cessation of complete community of life, which in itself is perpetual, is given to the innocent party by adultery of the spouse. In order, however, that this right may exist, the adultery must be, first, proven; second, not attributable to the other spouse either entirely or as accomplice; third, not already condoned; fourth, not, as it were, compensated by the adultery of the other party (cf. IV Decretal., xiii, 6, and xix, 4, 5; Wernz, “Jus decret.,” IV, n. 707 sqq.; St. Alphonsus, VI, n. 960). If the innocent party is certain of the sin of the other, he or she has a right immediately to refuse the continuation of married life. If the crime is manifest, then the innocent party is justified in leaving at once the guilty one, or in dismissing him or her from the house. If, however, the crime is not known, or not proved with certainty, then complete separation can follow only after a judicial investigation and a judicial decision, which must be made by ecclesiastical authority (IV Decretal., xix, 4, 5;I, 9; Wernz, “Jus decretal.,” IV, n. 711). All sexual intercourse outside of married life is regarded equivalent to adultery in justifying complete separation, even the unnatural sins of sodomy and bestiality. As proof of the crime may be alleged what are called suspiciones vehementes. In the first centuries of the Church, there was often a commandment, and the duty was imposed on the innocent party, to separate from the party guilty of adultery. There never, however, was any such general legislation. The duty, however, of separation was founded partly on the canonical penance imposed for adultery that was publicly known (and this penance was incompatible with marital life), and partly on the duty of avoiding scandal, as continued living with a husband or wife addicted to adultery might seem to be a scandalous approval of this criminal life. For this latter reason, even nowadays, circumstances may arise making the dismissal of the guilty party a duty (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, n. 963 sqq.). Commonly, however, at least for a single violation, there is no duty of separation; still less is there any duty of permanent separation; in fact, charity may in certain cases demand that after a temporary separation the contrite party might be invited or admitted to a renewal of the married life. There is, however, never any obligation of justice to receive again the guilty party. The most that some theologians recognize is any obligation of justice when the party originally innocent has meanwhile become guilty of the same crime. The innocent party always retains the right in justice to recall or to demand the return of the guilty party. If the innocent husband or wife wishes to give up this right forever, then he or she can enter a religious order, or he may receive Holy orders, without the necessity of consent on the part of the guilty wife or husband who has been dismissed, or without any further obligation being imposed upon this party (III Decretal., xxxii, 15, 16). The guilty party can, however, proceed to the religious life or to the reception of Holy orders only with the consent of the innocent. This consent must either be granted expressly or be deduced with certainty from the constant refusal to be reconciled. It is the business of ecclesiastical authority to decice in any case, whether such certainty exists or not. A further obligation, such as the vow of perpetual chastity, is not imposed upon the innocent party, but the freedom to remarry is allowed after the death of the other spouse (cf. III Decretal., xxxii, 19; Wernz, op. cit., n. 710), not. 126; St. Alphonsus, VI, n. 969).

3. Heresy or Defection from the Faith

Next to adultery, a reason for separation almost equivalent to it is defection from the Faith, whether by rejection of Christianity or, by heresy (IV Decretal., xix, 6, 7). However, there are some important differences to be noted:

(a) In the case of adultery, a single action, if proven, is enough for permanent separation, but in the case of infidelity or heresy, a certain persistence in the sin is required (cf. St. Thomas, IV Sent., dist. xxxv, Q. i, a. 1), such for example as adhesion to a non-Catholic denomination.

(b) An ecclesiastical sentence is necessary in this case for the right of permanent separation. If this has not been obtained, the innocent party is bound to receive the guilty party after conversion and reconciliation with the Church. This is expressly decided by IV Decretal., xix, 6. When, however, the right to permanent separation has been granted, the innocent party can proceed at once to the religious life or receive Holy orders, and thereby render it impossible to return to married life. It need hardly be mentioned that infidelity or heresy, as such, gives no just cause of separation of any kind, and if a dispensation from the impediment of disparity of worship between a baptized and non-baptized person has been granted, or if a valid marriage, even without ecclesiastical dispensation, has taken place between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic. In such cases, passage from one denomination to another does not give a reason for separation.

4. Danger to Body or Soul

Besides these special cases of separation founded on ecclesiastical law, many other cases may arise, which, of their nature, justify temporary separation. They are summed up under the general notion of “danger to body or soul” (periculum corporis aut animæ). There must, of course, be question of approximate danger of great harm, because this very important right of the other party may not be set aside, or even partially limited, for trivial reasons. The reasons for a temporary separation are as various as the evils which may be inflicted. To judge the gravity correctly, reasonable consideration is demanded of all the circumstances. Danger to the soul, which is given as a reason for separation, almost always supposes a crime on the part of the other party. It consists in temptation to some mortal sin, either to the denial of the Catholic Faith, or the neglect of the proper education of the children, or to some other grievous sin and violation of the mortal law. Dangerous solicitation, or pressure, or intimidation, or threats inflicted either by, or with the consent of, one party, or silent approbation to induce the other to a grievous violation of duty would give justification—and even the obligation, if the danger were great—to proceed to separation, which sould last as long as the danger exists. Such a reason as this might later on justify a separation in the case of a mixed marriage. Danger to the body, which is a further reason for a separation, means any great danger to life or health, as well as other intolarable conditions. Such are, without doubt, plotting against one’s life, ill-treatment which in the circumstances should be regarded as gross, well-grounded fear of dangerous contagion, insanity, serious and constant quarelling, etc. It is to be noted that in every case, there must be a very serious evil to justify separation for any length of time. Other inconveniences must be borne with Christian patience. Great crimes of one party, provided they are not against marital fidelity, or do not include any incentive to sin on the part of the other, do not, according to Catholic law, of themselves give any right to separation; neither do punishments that might be inflicted on the guilty party in consequence of such crimes, even when this punishments be joined with dishonour. The Catholic view of this matter is directly opposed to the non-catholic, which, as we have seen above under A. 3. (e), permits in such cases the dissolution of the marriage bond.

By private authority, i.e., without previous application to an ecclesiastical court, and its decision, a temporary separation may take place when delay would bring danger. The church law does not allow a separation in other cases (Wernz, “Jus Decret.,” IV, n. 713; St. Alphonsus, “Theol. mor.,” VI, n. 971), although, where there are evident and public reasons for separation, the non-observance of the Church’s regulations can more easily be overlooked. Separation because of the mere decision of a civil judge is never allowed to Catholics. (Cf. III Conc. plen. Baltim., tit. IV, c. ii).

FAHRNER, Geschichte de Ehesheidung (Freiburg, 1903), I; SCHNEEMANN, Die Irrtümer über die Ehe in Die Encyclica Pius IX, vom 8 Dez., 1864 (Freiburg, 1866), III; AVOGRADO, Teorica dell’ Instuzione del matrimonio (Turin, 1853–1860); PERRONE, De matrimonio christiano (rome, 1858); PALMIERI, De matrimonio christiano (Rome, 1880); BALLERINI-PALMIERI, Opus theol. mor. (Prato, 1990), VI; SASSE, De sacramentis (Freiburg, 1898); PESCH, Prælectiones dogmat. (Freiburg, 1900), VII; ST. ALPHONSUS, Theologia moral., VI; WERNZ, Jus decretalium, IV: Just matrimoniale (Romo, 1904), ESMEIN, Le mariage en droit canonique (Paris, 1891); LAURENTIUS, Institutiones juris eccles. (Friburg, 1908); GASPARRI, De matrimonio tract. canon. (Paris, 1904); ROSSET, De matrimonii tract. dogm. etc. (Paris, 1895–1896); FREISEN, Geschichte de kath. Eherechts bis zum Verfall der Glossenliteratur (Tübingen, 1888); GIGOI, Die Unauflöslichkeit der chirstl. Ehe und die Ehescheidung nach Schrift und Tradition (Paderborn, 1895); CORNELY, Commentar. in Ep. ad Rom. (Paris, 1896); KNABENBAUER, Commentar. in Matth. (Paris, 1903); PRAT, La théologie de S. Paul (Paris, 1908); SCHANZ, Kommentar über das Evang. d. hl. Matth. (Freiburg, 1879); SCHMITZ, Die Bussbücher und die Bussdisciplin der Kirche (Mainz, 1883; Düsselforf, 1893); Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide (Rome, 1893); ZHISHMAN, Das Eherecht der orientalischen Kirchen (Vienna, 1864); SLATER, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908), II, 278 sqq.: DEVINE, The law of of Christian Marriage (New York, 1908), 85–114. For divorice among the Jews: AMRAM, The Jewish Law of Divorce (Philadelphia, 1896; London, 1897); Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v. Divorce (New York and London, 1901–1906); SELDEN, Uxor Ebraica absolvens nuptias et divortia Ebræorum (Wittenberg, 1712).

AUG. LEHMKUHL.

Divorce is defined in jurisprudence as “the dissolution or partial suspension by law of the marriage relation” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary). Strictly speaking, there is but one form of absolute divorce, known, under the name derived from the civil and canon law, as divorce a vinculo matrimonii; i.e., from the marriage tie. In the states where it is administered this form of divorce puts an end legally to the marriage relation. There is, however, a limited form of divorce which is, more accurately speaking, a suspension, either for a time or indefinitely, of the marriage relation, and is known as divorce a mensâ et toro, or from bed and board. In addition, in some states courts grant decrees declaring marriages absolutely void, ab initio, i.e., from the beginning. Such marriages never having been valid, the parties cannot be said to have been divorced; however, proceeding for nullity are frequently provided for under divorce statutes.

PRE-CHRISTIAN DIVORCE LEGISLATION AMONG THE HEBREWS, GREEKS, AND ROMANS

Before the adoption of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire, it would appear that divorce in some form existed among all ancient peoples from whom European civilization is derived. Among the Hebrews no precedent for divorce can be found prior to the Mosaic Law. It became frequent afterwards, though it would seem that the husband alone possesed the power, at least until the reign of Herod. Divorce was prevalent among the Greeks, especially in Athens, but the party suing had to appeal to the magistrate, state the grounds of complaint, and submit to his judgement; if the wife was the prosecutor, she was obliged to appear in person. The lax customs of Spartans made divorce rare. Among the Romans the law of Romulus permitted divorce to men, but refused it to women. Adultery, poisoning of children, and falsification or counterfeiting of keys, were sufficient grounds. While divorce was so far free that there was no one authorized by the civil power to oppose it, this freedom was restrained by the moral feeling of the people and their respect for the marriage bond. It was necessary to consult the family council and there was fear of the authority of the censors. There were three forms of marriage among the Romans; the confarreatio, which was celebrated with certain highly religious ceremonies peculiar to that form of wedding; the conventio in manum, effected by a simulated purchase (coemptio), a much more simple ceremony; and the usus or prescription, where, after living with her husband for one year without being absent for three days, the woman came, and in the other forms of marriage, in manum mariti, that is to say, under the control of her husband. No instance of divorce is known before A.U.C. 520 or 523. It is thought by many that this was the first instance of divorce under the Roman Republic, but it would seem probable that it was the first divorce for the special purpose of retaining the wife’s dower (dos). This is the suggestion of Becker, who points out that the divorce of Antonius took place in A.U.C. 447, and states that other proof exists that in much earlier times divorce was properly established and strictly ordained by laws. He quotes also from Cicero (Phil., ii, 28) where he says jokingly of Antonius, who had dimissed his wife Cytheris under the same formalities as those of divorce, “that he commanded her to have her own property according to the Twelve Tables; he took away her keys and drove her out.”

The causes of divorce on the part of the woman were capital offences, adultery, and drinking. After the Punic wars the number of divorces reached scandalous proportions. Sulla, Cæesar, Pompey, Cicero, Antony, Augustus, and Tiberius all put away their wives. Under Augustus an effort was made to curb the licence of divorce. In the interest of publicity that emperor made it necessary for the party seeking a divorce to make his declaration in the presence of seven witnesses, all Roman citizens of full age. Divorce remained, however, a private legal act. Women could obtain divorce without any fault of their husbands. Under the Roman law of the early imperial period, there was a separation pronounced, first, between parties whose marriage engagement was not legally contracted; second, where parties were separated when the contract of espousals had been made but not cosummated by the actual marriage. This was known as repudium. Divortium was a separation of persons already married, and included divorce a mensâ et toro and a vinculo matrimonii.

IMPERIAL CHRISTIAN LEGISLATION

In 331 Constantine the Great restricted the causes for divorce to three on the part of the man, viz., if he was a murderer, a poisoner, or a robber of graves;and three on the part of the woman, viz., if she was an adulteress, a poisoner, or a corupter of youth. Among soldiers an absence of four years was sufficient to entitle the petitioner to a divorce. This edict was ratified by Theodosius the Great and Honorius. Under Justinian several reasons for divorce were added, and liberty of divorce by mutual consent was restored by his nephew Justin (565–78). No change was now made in the Roman law until after a lapse of 340 years, when Leo the Philosopher (886–912) made a collection of laws known as the “Libri Basilici,” from which he excluded the edicts of Justin.

ENGLISH LEGISLATION

According as Catholic doctrine penetrated more profoundly the medieval life, the laws of European nations were gradually accommodated to its demands. In this way, for example, the teaching of the Council of Trent (1563), which anathematized the error that matrimony could so far be dissolved by divorce that it was lawful to marry again, was universally accepted among the nations adhering to the Catholic Church. This council, however, introduced thereby no essential change in the divorce law of the Church. Originally, under the common law of England, there was no jurisdiction on the subject of divorce excepting in the ecclesiastical courts, they having jurisdiction in all matters relating to marriage and divorce, the restitution of conjugal rights, suits for limited divorce and for annulment of marriage. This followed from the Catholic doctrine that marriage, being a sacrament, could not be dossolved; for the same reason any question relative to its validity or to a suspension of conjugal relations must necessarily pertain to the ecclesiastical courts. The ecclesiastical law of England, though originating differently from the other branches of the common law and distinguished by special rules, was part of the unwritten law of the State, just as what are technically called the common law, the law of admiralty, and equity.

The Protestant Reformers rejected the sacramental theory of marriage, and agreed that absolute divorce should be granted for adultery and for malicious desertion, and that the innocent party might then remarry. As they also rejected the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts it was for some time a question among them whether marriage was dissolved ipso facto by the commission of one of these offences, or whether it was necessary to have the dissolution declared by public authority. Luther recommended that parish priest as the proper tribunal. Appeals were sometimes taken to the prince or soverign. Gradually “consistorium courts” were created, of both lay and ecclesiastical members, under sanction of the civil power. In England under Henry VIII, after his separation from the Catholic Church, the law relative to divorce remained practically unchanged. An effort was made in the time of Edward VI to secure the adoption of a new code of ecclesiastical laws, drafted mainly by Cranmer, under which separation a mensa et toro was not recognized and complete divorce was granted in cases of extreme conjugal faithlessness; in cases of conjgal desertion or cruelty; in cases where a husband not guilty of desertion of his wife, had been several years absent from her, provided there were reason to believe him dead; and in cases of such violent hatred as rendered it in the highest degree improbable that the husband and wife would survive their animosities and again love one another. Divorce was denied when both parties were guilty of unfaithfullness, and when only one was guilty the innocent party might marry again. The ecclesiastical court was to decide all questions concerning these causes. It is said by Howard (Hist. of Matrim. Institutions, p. 80) that the principles of this code, known as the “Reformatio Legum,” were carried out in practice, though not enacted into law. He adds that “according to the ancient form of judgment divorce was probably still pronounced only a mesa et thoro; but whatever the shape of the decrees, there is strong evidence that from about 1548 to 1602, except for the short period of Mary’s reign, ‘the community, in cases of adultery, relied upon them as justifying a second act of matrimony’“. He says also that throughout nearly the whole of Elizabeth’s reign new marriages were freely contracted after obtaining divorce from unfaithful partners. However, in 1602 the Star Chamber pronounced a marriage invalid which had been contracted after separation from bed and board by the degree of an ecclesiastical judge (Foljambe’s case, 3 Salk. 138).

Following this decision the canon law was administered in the English spiritual courts with such rigour that it required an Act of Parliament to permit a remarriage after divorce. In the tenth year of James I (1613) an Act was passed to restrain remarriage by one party while the other was alive, excepting, however, cases where sentences had been pronounced by an ecclesiastical courts. There were some cases where, after sentences had been pronounced by an ecclesiastical court, a second marriage was upheld, but the decisions are generally to the effect that a perfect marriage cannot be dissolved excepting by death. Oughton says (tit. 215) “that the marriage tie once perfected cannot be dissolved by man, but only by natural death. The parties may be separated, but they remain man and wife.” The Puritans of England strongly advocated the right of divorce, but without effect, and until 1857 there were no English statute which permitted the granting of a decree of absolute divorce by any court, the only jurisdiction being vested in Parliament. Precedents of divorce by Parliament strictly so called are not found earlier than 1698, but it came to be understood that if a divorce a mensâ had been granted by the spiritual court, a divorce would be granted by Parliament absolutely dissolving the marriage, though only for the cause of adulterty on the part of the wife. By the Act of 1857 the entire jurisdiction in matrimonial questions was transferred to a new civil court for divorce and matrimonial causes, and since the judicature Act of 1873 this jurisdiction has been vested in the probate, divorce, and admiralty division of the High Court of Justice. Its power is restricted, however, to England alone. The principles upon which divorce legislation may be based and which may be traced in the legislation by those countries that permit divorce, are stated by Bishop (Marriage, Divorce, and Separation, §46, ed. of 1891) as follows:—“Matrimony is natural right, to be forfeited only by some wrongful act. Therefore the government should permit every suitable person to be the husband or wife of another, who will substantially perform the duties of the matrimonial relation; and when it is in good faith entered into, and one of the parties without the other’s fault so far fails in those duties as practically to frustrate its ends, the government should provide some means whereby, the failure being established and shown to be permanent, the innocent party may be freed from the mere legal bond of what has in fact ceased to be marriage, and left at liberty to form another alliance. The guilty party would have no claim to be protected in a second marriage; and whether it should be permitted to him or not is a question, not of right with him, but of public expediency, upon which there is considerable diversity of opinion.”

MODERN EUROPEAN LEGISLATION

A full collection of laws and statistics relating to marriage and divorce in European countries will be found in the report of the United States Commissioner of Labor Carroll D. Wright, for 1889. It is therein stated that “prior to 1868 the ecclesiastical courts had in most of the countries named more or less complete jurisdiction over matrimonial causes, but the civil courts have now exclusive jurisdiction over such matters in all of them.” In Austria-Hungary absolute divorce is not allowed to members of the Catholic Church. Prior to 1 January, 1876, all the cantons of Switzerland had their own peculiar laws of divorce, but subsequent to that date a general law governing the subject took effect. In Germany perpetual separation equivalent to limited divorce was abolished throughout the empire, and the causes for such separation were made causes for absolute divorce. In Hungary divorce has been legal for Protestants since 1786 and for Hebrews since 1863. The laws of their respective churches apply to Latin Catholics, Greek Catholics, and Orthodox Greeks. Question of divorce or validity of marriage among Protestants are subject to the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Excepting for Protestants and Hebrews, the ecclesiastical court of other bodies have jurisdiction. In case of mixed marriage the court of the defendant’s confession has jurisdiction. In Italy, Spain, and Portugal, still Catholic countries, no absolute divorce is permitted. In Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Mexico, and Cuba, limited divorce alone is permitted.

The following causes in Austria and in Hungary for absolute divorce are typical: in Austria, adultery; commission of a crime punishable by five years imprisonment; malicious abandonment or non-appearance after one year’s solicitation where the absentee’s residence is known; assault endangering life or health; repeated cruelty; unconquerable aversion, on account of which both parties demand a divorce. In the last case a limited divorce or separation from bed and board must first be obtained. In Belgium, where the husband is at least twenty-five years of age and the wife twenty-one, and the parties have been married two years or longer, divorce may be obtained by mutual consent on certain terms and conditions, but must be approved by the courts. In France divorce was introduced by the law of 1792. This law was modified in 1798 and in 1803 (Code Napoléon), was subsequently abrogated in 1816, and reintroduced in 1884; the grounds of divorce being adultery of either party; excesses, cruelty, grave injury inflicted by one spouse on the other; condemnation to infamous penalty of either of the spouses; mutual and persevering agreement of the wedded to separate, if said consent is expressed and established as prescribed. By recent legislation, after a lapse of a fixed period of time, a decree of separation can be changed into a judgement of divorce on the application of either of the parties. (Civil Code., Sec. 307). In the German Empire perpetual judicial separations have been abolished, and all subjects of the empire, without regard to their religious status may avail themselves of the laws of divorce which exist in their respective states. In Prussia there are seven causes known as major causes for divorce and six as minor causes. Among the major causes are: false accusations of serious crimes preferred by one of the parties against the other, and endangering the life, honour, or office of the other spouse; among the minor causes are: insanity, disorderly conduct or mode of living, refusal of maintenance or support by the husband. It may be noted that in the divorce laws of European states there exists much similarity as regards the causes of divorce. In Scotland divorce was granted for adultry and malicious dessertion; the former since 1560; the latter since 1573. The injured party has the right to choose either a judicial separation or an absolute divorce. In Ireland the civil courts have no jurisdiction to grant decrees of absolute divorce. In Canada exclusive authority was conferred upon the Parliament by the Britain North America Act of 1867 (Sec. 91). At that time courts of divorce existed in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia, and they still continue to exercise their functions. Excepting in Prince Edward Island, the divorce courts appear to have been modelled upon the England court of divorce and matrimonial causes. A court of divorce and alimony was established in Prince Edward Island as early as 1836. In other provinces of Canada no divorce court has ever been constituted and divorces are granted only by special Act of Federal-Parliament. The courts of Quebec, however, can grant séparation de corps under the English divorce court practice and annul marriage on the ground of impotence.

In Australia, at the time of the formation of the federal Commonwealth, there were divorce courts in all or almost all of the constituent states. Under the Constitution (Act 63–64, Vict., ch. xii, part V, Sec. 51), power was granted to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, comprising the states of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, and Western Australia, with respect to divorce and matrimonial causes and in relation to parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants. The object of this subsection is stated to have been to avoid “the great mistake made by the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America, who left the question to the states to deal with as they respectively thought proper” and “to provide for uniformity in the law of divorce” (Quick and Garran, Aust. Const., pp. 262–609). The local statutes in the various states still prevail, however, with the right of appeal to the High Court with respect to judgements of the Supreme Court of a state (Act of 1903, 2 Com. Stat., p. 148). In New Zealand, which does not form a part of the Australian Commonwealth, divorce is allowed for adultery on the part of the wife, and adultery with certain aggravating circumstances, or with cruelty, on the part of the husband (New Zealand Statutes, Vol. I, p. 229).

DIVORCE IN THE UNITED STATES

Colonial Period (1607–1787)

At the time of the settlement of the various colonies which subsequently declared their independence of Great Britain, there were no ecclesiastical courts; as in England, therefore, the practice of special acts of legislature obtained. Sometimes it was in the form of a private statute directly dissolving the marriage; sometimes the court was empowered to investigate the cause and grant the divorce if the complaint was sustained. There are many instances of legislative divorces granted in the New England colonies, all being divorces a vinculo. Adultery and desertion were sufficient reasons, though male adultery would require additional circumstances. In the Southern colonies there was no court having jurisdiction to grant divorce, though in some of them an appeal for alimony would be considered in a court of equity. Under the Dutch government of New York divorce jurisdiction was exercised by the courts for absolute, as well as for limited, separation, but when the English took possession of the colony, this jurisdiction was no longer recognized. In Pennsylvania under the “Great Law of 1682” divorce was authorized for adultery. The legislature also granted divorces. In New Jersey there was no divorce jurisdiction granted the courts. It may be said, therefore, that outside of New England during the colonial period there was no such thing as a judicial divorce.

From 1787–1906

The Constitution of the United States does not grant the Federal Government any power over the subject of divorce. In this matter, therefore, Congress can legislate only for the District of Columbia and for the territories. The organic acts creating the territories give power to their legislatures over all “rightful subjects of legislation not inconstitent with the constitution of the laws of the United States”; special and general divorce laws are, therefore, within the power of territoral legislature, but by the Act of 30 July, 1886, all special divorce acts have been expressly forbidden. The various states of the Union succeeded to the full sovereign rights exercised by the Parliament of England over all subjects related to marriage and divorce, but in the absence of special divorce statutes, there being no tribunal having jurisdiction, the law would remain the same as in the colonies prior to the Revolution. However, all states of the Union have adopted divorce statutes, excepting the South Carolina, and have clothed the courts with full jurisdiction to administer relief. In most of the states and territories divorces a vinculo and a mensâ et toro are provided for, and in some of the states courts of equity take jurisdiction over special proceedings for a decree of nullity of marriage. In some states, however, decrees a mensâ are expressly forbidden. The causes for which decree may be granted vary from single cause of adultery on the part of either husband or wife (law of New York and the District of Columbia) to nine separate causes in the State of Washington, the last being known as the “omnibus provision,” which permits a divorce for any other cause deemed by the court sufficient, provided that the court shall be satisfied that the parties can no longer live together. In most of the states there is no restriction upon the parties remarrying after divorce, though in some, as in New York, the court may forbid the guilty party to remarry during the lifetime of the innocent, and in others, as in Pennsylvania, marriage of the guilty party with a paramour during the lifetime of the innocent party is null and void.

Great uncertainty as to the effect of the divorce statutes of the different states has arisen where relief has been sought by a party whose husband or wife was resident of a different state from that in which the proceeding was brought. While it is a fundamental principle that the courts of any state have entire control over the citizens of that state in divorce proceedings, a different question arises where the husband is a resident of one state and the wife of another. The English doctrine that the domicile of the husband is that of the wife, irrespective of where she may actually be living during coverture, does not prevail in the United States. For the purposes of a divorce proceeding the wife may have a domicile separate from that of her husband. In consequence of this rule of American law it has frequently happened that actions for divorce have been initiated and carried to a conclusion without the respondent receiving any actual notice of the proceeding. This is made possible by provisions in the state statutes providing for service of notice by publication, where actual service cannot be had upon a respondent by reason of absence from the state. While decrees granted in accordance with the statutes of any particular state are valid in that state, there is no power to enforce a recognition of their validity in other states, and in consequence it frequently happens that a divorce may be valid in one state and invalid in another; the children of a second marriage legitimate in one state and illegitimate in another; the property rights of the former husband and wife terminated in one state and in full force in another. The Constitution of the United States (Art. IV, Sec. I) provides that “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state, and the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” This provision, however, does not require the recognition of a divorce where one of the parties is not a citizen of the state that has granted the decree. Thus in case where a husband abandoned his wife without justifiable cause, and removed to another state and acquired a domicile therein, and the wife remained in the matrimonial domicile, since her domicile did not follow that of her husband when he sued for a divorce in the state of his new domicile, and a decree was rendered upon a merely constructive service of process, it was held by the Supreme Court of the United States that the court of the husband’s domicile did not acquire such jurisdiction over the wife as would entitle a decree to obligatory enforcement in the state of her domicile, though the state in which the decree was rendered had power to enforce it within its borders, and the state of the wife’s domicile had the power to give the decree efficacy if it saw fit to do so. (Haddock vs Haddock, 201, U.S., 562.) While the courts of the states called upon to administer divorce statutes receive their jurisdiction by reason of the theory adopted by the legislatures representing the actually predominant sentiment of the various communities that marriage results from a civil contract, bringing about a civil status with certain rights and duties appertaining to husband and wife, they by no means accept the theory that it is such a relation or status that the parties by their own agreement can dissolve it. The difference between the marriage relation and that of a contract is set out by Bishop in the following language:—“Because the parties cannot mutually dissolve it; because an act of God incapacitating one to discharge its duties will not release it; because there is no accepted performance that will end it; because a minor of marriagable age can no more recede from it than an an adult; because it is not dissolved by failure of the original consideration; because no suit for damages will lie for the non-fulfillment of its duties; and because none of its other elements are those of contract but are all of status.” (I, Marriage and Divorce, §46).

Keeping this distinction in mind, it will be perceived that a suit for divorce is not an action on a contract, but is a proceeding sui generis founded on the violation of duty enjoined by law and resembling more an action of tort than of contract. The law looks upon marriage as a permanent status, to be ended only by the death of one of the parties, a promise of competent persons to marry at their pleasure requiring a marriage licence merely to attest their competency. To change this status by divorce it is necessary to satisfy the court that the purpose of the marriage relation has been ended by the fault of the guilty party, and that greater evil will follow from maintaining the marriage status than from terminating it. Therefore, in theory, the divorce statutes embrace only such causes as are recognized as being of such a nature as to defeat the ends for which the marriage was entered into. In the great majority of the United States six causes as are included in this category: (1) adultery, (2) bigamy, (3) conviction of crime in certain classes of cases, (4) intolerable cruely, (5) wilful desertion for two years, (6) habitual drunkenness. These are recognized as just causes, either for absolute divorce or for divorce a mensâ. The following causes are also considered such impediments to a lawful marriage that upon their being made to appear, the courts will decree such marriages null and void, in some jurisdictions under a separate proceeding of nullity, and in others under the form of a proceeding for divorce. These causes are (1) impotence, (2) consanguinity and affinity properly limited, (3) existing marriage, (4) fraud, force, or coercion, (5) insanity unknown to the other party.

The growth of divorce in the United States under the general divorce law has been unprecedented, and exceeds in number those of any other modern nation, excepting Japan. An analysis of the statistics prepared by Carrol D. Wright, Commissioner of Labor, in 1889, showed the total number of divorces for a period of twenty years, from 1867 to 1887, to be 328, 716, and increase of 157 per cent, while the increase in population for the same period was 60 per cent. The Census Bulletin, upon marriage and divorce in the United States, issued by the Department of Labor and Commerce under authority of an Act of Congress, in 1908, shows that the total number of divorces for the entire country from 1887 to 1906 inclusive was 945, 625. For the earlier investigation covering the twenty years, from 1867 to 1886 inclusive, the number reported was 328, 716 or hardly more that one-third of the number reported in the second twenty years.

At the beginning of the forty-year period covered by the two investigations, divorces occurred at the rate of 10, 000 a year. At the end of that period the annual number was about 66, 000. This increase, however, must be considered in connection with the increase in population. An increase of 30 per cent in population between the years 1870 to 1880, was accompanied by an increase of 79 per cent in the number of divorces granted. In the next decade, 1880 to 1890, the population increased 25 per cent and divorces 70 per cent. In the following decade, 1890 to 1900, an increase of 21 per cent in population was accompanied by an increase of 66 per cent in the number of divorces. In the six years from 1900 to 1906, population, as estimated, increase 10. 5 per cent and divorces 29. 3 per cent. It thus appears at the end of the forty-year period that divorces were increasing about three times as fast as the population, while in the first decade, 1870 to 1880, they increased only about two and two-thirds as fast.

The divorce rate per 100, 000 population increased from 29 in 1870 to 82 in 1905. In the former year there was one divorce for every 3441 persons and in the latter year one for every 1218. The rate per 100, 000 married population was 81 in the year 1870 and 200 in the year 1900. This comparison indicates that divorce is at present two and one-half times as common, compared with married population, as it was forty years ago. Divorce rates appear to be much higher in the United States that in any of the foreign countries for which statistics relating to this subject have been obtained. Two-thirds of the total number of divorces granted in the twenty-year period covered by this investigation were granted to the wife. The most common single ground for divorce is desertion. This accounts for 38. 9 per cent of all divorces (period 1887 to 1906), 49. 4 per cent or almost one-half of those granted to the husband, and 33. 5 per cent or one-third of those granted to the wife. The next most important ground of divorce is, for husbands, adultery, and for wives, cruelty. Of the divorces granted to husbands (1887 to 1906), 28. 8 per cent were for adultery, and of those granted to wives 27. 5 per cent were cruelty. Only 10 per cent of the divorces granted to wives were for adultery of the husband, and 10. 5 per cent of divorces granted to husbands were for cruelty on the part of the wife. Drunkenness was the ground for divorce in 5. 3 per cent of the cases for which the wife brought suit, and in 1. 1 per cent of the cases in which the suit was brought by the husband. Intemperance was reported as an indirect or contributory cause for divorce in 5 per cent of the divorces granted to the husband, and in 18 per cent of the divorces granted to the wife, and appeared as a direct or indirect cause in 19. 5 per cent of all divorces, and 26. 3 per cent of those granted to wives, and 6. 1 per cent of those granted to husbands. Only 15 per cent of the divorces were returned as contested and probably in many of these cases the contesting was hardly more than a formality. Alimony was demanded in 18 per cent of the divorces granted to the wife and was granted in 12. 7 per cent. The proportion of husbands who asked for alimony was 2. 8 per cent and the proportion obtaining it was 2 per cent. The average duration of marriages terminated by divorce is about ten years. Sixty per cent or three-fifths last less than ten years and forty per cent last longer. Of the divorced couples known to have been married in the United States 88. 5 percent were married in the same state in which they were divorced. Of the divorced couples known to have been married in foreign countries 36. 9 per cent were married in Canada, 12. 7 per cent in England, 16. 1 per cent in Germany and 1. 9 per cent in Ireland. Children were reported in 39. 8 per cent of the total number of divorced cases. The proportion is much larger for divorces granted to the wife than for divorces granted to the husband; children being present in 46. 8 per cent of the former class of divorces and 26 per cent of the latter. A reason suggested for this is that the children are assigned by the court to the mothers, and to her, therefore, divorce does not imply separation from her children, while to the husband it involves a severance of the parental as well as the marital relation. In Canada during 1900 there were eleven divorces; in 1901 nineteen. In England there were 284 in 1902, as compared with 177 in 1901. In Germany at the same time there were about 10, 000 annually, and in France 21, 939 with a tendency towards a rapid increase. Among the Japanese there are about 100, 000 divorces per annum. It is estimated that about fifty per cent of divorced couples have children, and it is urged “that consideration for the children of divorced people should be a first concern in stimulating restrictive legislation.” It has been stated that three-quarters of boys in two reformatories, one in Ohio and one in Illinois, come from families broken up by death or divorce “mainly by divorce” (The Divorce Question in New Hampshire, Rev. W. Stanley Emery).

Divorce Congress of 1906

A well concerted effort was made in 1906, upon the initiative of the State of Pennsylvania, to secure uniform legislation by the various states and territories of the Union so as to eliminate as far as possible fraudulent proceedings for divorce. It resulted in the meeting of a Divorce Congress in the City of Washington, where all of the states, excepting Nevada, Mississipi, and South Carolina, were presented, in addition to the District of Columbia and the territory of New Mexico. The outcome of this congress was the adoption of a form of statute designed to overcome flagrant evils arisong from lack of unifomity, and also from inherent objections to various existing methods of precedure. A summary of these points will shoe how far the existing statutes were considered to need amendement. Having in mind the evils that have arisen from migratory divorce (that is, where the plaintiff has left his or her own state to obtain a residence for the purpose of divorce in another) the congress recommended that all suits for divorce should be brought and prosecuted only in the state where one of the parties has a bona fide residence; that when the cours are given congizance of suits where the plaintiff was domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction at the time the cause of complaint arose, relief should not be granted unless the cause be included among those recognized in the foregin domicile, and the same rule should apply in the case of the defendant. At least two years residence should be required of one of the parties before jurisdiction should be assumed. The defendant should be given every opportunity to appear and make defence, and one accused as co-respondent should be permitted to defend in the same suit. Hearings and trials should always be before the court and not before a delegated representative of it, and in all uncontested cases, and in any other case where in the judgment of the court it is wise, a disinterested attorney should be assigned to defend the cause. No decree should be granted on affirmative proof aside from the admission of the respondent. A decree dissolving marriage so as to permit remarriage of either party should not become operative until the lapse of a reasonable time after hearing or trial upon the merits of the case. In an inhabitant of one state should go into another state or territory to obtain a divorce for a cause which occurred in the matrimonial domicile, or for a cause which would not authorize a divorce by the laws of the domicile, such divorce should have no force or effect in the state of the domicile. Fraud or collusion in obtaining or attempting to obtain divorces should be made a statutory crime. The legitimacy of chilren born during overture, except in the case of bigamous marriages, should not be affected by divorce of the parents. On the subject of the causes each state should legislate for its own citizens and the common sentiment of that state should be properly expressed by the enumeration of causes in its own statute. Those heretofore given are recognized as representing the view of the great majority as covering offences against the marriage contract of so serious a character as to defeat the purpose of the marital relation. The congress expressed the hope that the number of causes for divorce would be reduced rather than increased and declared its opinion that in such jurisdictions as New York and the District of Columbia, where the only cause is adultery, no change is called for. It was recommended that where conviction of crime is made a cause, it must be followed by imprisonment for two years, but no absolute divorce should be granted for insanity, and that desertion should not be a cause unless persisted in for at least two years. Practically the same causes for divorce a mensâ et toro were enumerated. The provisions of this statute have already been adopted in Delaware and New Jersey and are under consideration (1908) in other states. While the reforms thus suggested will not put an end to what is known as the divorce evil, it is believed that they will have the effect of safeguarding trials and abating fraud upon the courts.

Philosophical thinkers recognize the fact that the prevalence of divorce in the United States arises from two causes. The first of these causes is the gradual change in the attitude of society towards women in the recognition of their individual rights to their own property, and of their capacity to earn their own living in many vocations heretofore closed to them. The legal fiction that the identiy of th woman was merged in that of her husband has given place to a growing recognition of her individuality in all relations of life. This has weakened the dependence of women upon their husbands for support and has affected the concept of the family relation. The theory of the Protestant leaders of the sixteenth century, that marriage is but a civil contract, devoid of sacramental character, has been strenghtened by the vicissitudes of modern life, while the facility with which divorces can be obtained has tended to a constant increase of their number. Marriage, not being accounted as sacrament by non-Catholic Christians, is entered into with greater ease than a contract of far less moment affecting property alone. The knowledge that in case of disagreement the parties may obtain a divorce no doubt has its effect. The second cause is the gradual increase and development of irreligion and materialism among non-Catholic members of the community. Leaders of the Protestant Churches in the United States have become alarmed at the progress of divorce, and have been endeavouring in their various denominations to adopt such regulations as would restrict it to flagrant cases or abolish it entirely. It is evident that the prevalence of divorce is an indication of an unsound condition of society. Those who now endeavour to reform the civil statutes in the interest of honest trials, may suceed in abating some of the evils flowing from lax methods of administering the divorce statutes in some of the states, and in obtaining restrictive legislation in all of them, but it is not probable that the demoralization will be stopped until the majority of the people of the civilized nations return to the belief in the supernatural sanction of marriage and “that it is a sacramental union, productive of the graces necessary to bear with one another’s shortcomings; and indissoluble union as that of soul and body, which can be dissoved only in death. This means a return to the Catholic view of marriage, and this return alone can remove the national evil of divorce.” (SEE MARRIAGE; WOMAN; PARENTS; also the articles on the various states and countries for divorce legislation.)

TEBB, Essay on Adultery and Divorce; BECKER, Gallus and Charicles (for Roman and Greek customs and conditions); KENT, Commentaries on Am. Law; BISHOP, Marriage, Divorce and Separation; HOWARD, History of Matrimonial Institutions; WALTON, Scope and Interpretation of the Civil Code of Lower Canada; GEMMILL in Canadian Law Times (March, 1888); Report of the U. S Commissioner of Labor (Washington, 1889); Am. and English Encyl. of Law; Proceedings of the Nat. Divorce Congress (Washington, Philadelphia, 1906); Otten in The Messenger (April, 1904). For a full literature of the subject see Marriage and Divorce Bibliography of the World (Comparative Law Bureau of the American Bar Association, 1908).

WALTER GEORGE SMITH.

Joseph Dixon

Archbishop of Armagh, Ireland, born at Coalisland, Co. Tyrone, in 1806; died at Armagh, 29 April, 1866. Having entered Maynooth College at the age of sixteen he was ordained priest in 1829. In 1834 he was appointed to the chair of Sacred Scripture and Hebrew, a post he worthily occupied for the next eighteen years. His class had an average of 200 students, amongst whom was John McEvilly, afterwards Archbishop of Tuam and a distinguished writer on Scriptural subjects. Dr. Dixon’s professorship was signalized by his “Introduction to the Sacred Scriptures,” a work highly praised by Cardinal Wiseman and which was very much needed at the time. The first edition appeared in 1852 and a second in 1875. As Primate of Armagh he held an important synod in 1854, at which all the bishops of the northern province assisted with their theologians. In the same year he began the heavy task of completed the unfinished cathedral of Armagh and almost accomplished the work before his death. In 1856 he formed the diocesan chapter consisting of thirteen members. During his incumbancy he brought some religious congregations into the diocese, viz. the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul (1855), who opened a house in Drogheda; the Marist Fathers (1851) who opened a college and novitiate in Dundalk, and the Vincentian Fathers who were placed in charge of the ecclesiastical seminary the same year. The primate was a stanch and fearless defender of the rights of the Holy See and at a public meeting in Drogheda denounced Napoleon III for complicity in the acts of the Italian revolutionists. His speech and subsequent letter to the “Freeman’s Journal” created a great sensation and the emperor made them a subject of complaint to Pius IX. The primate was the organizer of the Irish Brigade in the papal service.

AMBROSE COLEMAN.

Jan Dlugosz

(Lat. LONGINUS).

An eminent medieval Polish historian, b. at Brzeznica, 1415; d. 19 May, 1480, at Cracow. He was one of the twelve sons born to John and Beata. He received his primary education in Nowy Korczyn, then entered the Academy of Cracow, where he studied literature and philosophy. He was ordained priest in 1440, and appointed secretary of Cardinal Zbigniew Olesnicki, Bishop of Cracow. Later he became a prelate of the cathedral and preceptor for the children of the Polish King, Casimir IV, Jagielonczyk. He was employed as the ambassador of the Polish king to different foreign countries, and especially to Bohemia and Hungary, where he settled political disturbances. His ecclesiastical superiors sent him as their representative to Pope Eugenius IV, and as delegate to the Council of Basle. He decline the Archbishopric of Prague, but shortly before his death was appointed Archbishop of Lemberg. Dlugosz expended his great income for religious and philantrophic purposes; he founded both churches and monasteries, also burses for the maintenance of poor scholars.

The most beautiful church which he founded, and beneath which he was buried, is in Cracow, and is called Na Skalce (meaning, “Upon Rock,” as the church was built on an enormous rock). As a Polish historian he outranks all who preceded him. He was not content to repeat the statements made by other chroniclers, but examined for himself the oldest Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian, Ruthenian, and German documents, to understand which thoroughly he studied, in his old age, several foreign languages. His works offer abundant and reliable material not only for Polish, but also for general, history.

Dlugosz paid less attention to beauty of style than to veracity of statement, and wrote in a philosophic manner, as one who saw the action and purposes of Providence in all historical events. His great history of Poland (Historia Polonica in twelve volumes) was composed by order of his friend and master Cardinal Olesnicki. The works of Dlugosz were first published incompletely in 1614, and fully in 1711. The best edition is that in fourteen volumes by Carl Mecherzynski: “Joannis Dlugosz Senioris Canonici Cracoviensis Opera Omnia” (Cracow, 1863–87). It includes his heraldic work “Banderia Prutenorum,” also his “Life of St. Stanislaus,” “Life of St. Kinga,” lives of many Polish bishops (Sees of Wroclaw, Poznan, Plock, Cracow, etc.), “Liber beneficiorum diœcesis Cracoviensis,” “Lites ac rec gestæ inter Polonos ordinemque Cruciferorum,” “Annales seu cronicæ incliti regni Poloniæ.”

JOHN GODRYCZ

Marian Dobmayer

A distinguished Benedictine theologian, born 24 October, 1753, at Schwandorf, Bavaria; died 21 December, 1805, at Amberg, Bavaria. He first entered the Society of Jesus, and after its suppression in 1773 joined the Benedictines in the monastery of Weissenohe, Diocese of Bamberg, where he was professed in 1775, and in 1778 ordained priest. He was successively professor of philosophy at Neuberg, Bavaria (1781–87), of dogmatic theology and ecclesiastical history at Amberg (1787–94), and of dogmatic theology and patrology at the University of Ingolstadt (1794–99). On the reorganization of the latter school in 1799 he returned his monastery of Weissenohe, where he remained until its secularization. He them retired to Amberg, where he taught theology until his death. In 1789 he published at Amberg a “Conspectus Theologiæ Dogmaticæ.” His chief work is the “Systema Theologiæ Catholicæ,” edited after his death by Th. P. Senestrey in eight volumes (Sulzbach, 1807–19). The work is very learned and devoid of all harshness in its controversial parts.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Martin Dobrizhoffer

Missionary, b. in Graz, Styria, 7 Sept., 1717; d. in Vienna, 17 July 1791. He became a Jesuit in 1736, and twelve years later set out for the missions of South America, where he laboured among the Guaranis and the Abipones for eighteen years. On the expulsion of the Jesuits from the Spanish possessions in 1767, he returned to his native land. The Empress Maria Theresa frequently sent for Dobrizhoffer that she might hear his adventures from his own lips; and she is said to have taken great pleasure in his cheerful and animated conversation. He is the author of a work in three volumes entitled “Historia de Abiponibus, equestri bellicosaque Paraguaina natione” etc. (Vienna, 1783–1784), a German translation of which, by Professor Keil of the University of Pesth, was published in Vienna the same year. This work is of great ethnological value. In the preface he says, “A seven years residence in the four colonies of the Abipones has afforded me opportunities of closely observing the manners, customs, superstitions, military discipline, slaughters inflicted and received, political and economical regulations, together with the vicissitudes of the colonies.” He further declares that what he learned amongst the Paraguayans in the course of eighteen years, what he himself beheld in the colonies of the Indians and the Spaniards, in frequent and long journeys, through woods, mountains, plains and vast rivers, he sets forth, if not in an eloquent and brilliant narrative, certainly in a candid and an accurate one, which is at least deserving of credit. In the course of the work, Dobrizhoffer frequently takes occasion to refute and expose the erroneous statements of other writers respecting the Jesuits in Paraguay, and the malicious calumnies by which the ruin of their institutions in that country was unhappily effected. The English translation (An Account of the Abipones, an Equestrian People of Paraguay, London. 1822), commonly ascribed to Southey, is the work of Sara Coleridge, daughter of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who judged it a performance “unsurpassed for pure mother-English by anything I have read for a long time.” Dobrizhoffer in 1733 was appointed preacher to the Court in Vienna, a post which he held till his death.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Docetae

(Greek Doketai.)

A heretical sect dating back to Apostolic times. Their name is derived from dokesis, “appearance” or “semblance,” because they taught that Christ only “appeared” or “seemed to be a man, to have been born, to have lived and suffered. Some denied the reality of Christ’s human nature altogether, some only the reality of His human body or of His birth or death. The word Docetae which is best rendered by “Illusionists,” first occurs in a letter of Serapion, Bishop of Antioch (190–203) to the Church at Rhossos, where troubles had arisen about the public reading of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. Serapion at first unsuspectingly allowed but soon after forbade, this, saying that he had borrowed a copy from the sect who used it, “whom we call Docetae.” He suspected a connection with Marcionism and found in this Gospel “some additions to the right teaching of the Saviour.” A fragment of apocryphon was discovered in 1886 and contained three passages which savoured strongly of Illusionism. The name further occurs in Clement of Alexandria (d. 216), Strom., III, xiii, VII, xvii, where these sectaries are mentioned together with the Haematites as instances of heretics being named after their own special error. The heresy itself, however, is much older, as it is combated in the New Testament. Clement mentions a certain Julius Cassianus as ho tes dokeseos exarchon, “the founder of Illusionism.” This name is known also to St. Jerome and Theodoret; and Cassianus is said to be a disciple of Valentinian, but nothing more is known of him. The idea of the unreality of Christ’s human nature was held by the oldest Gnostic sects and can not therefore have originated with Cassianus. As Clement distinguished the Docetae from other Gnostic sects, he problably knew some sectaries the sum-total of whose errors consisted in this illusion theory; but Docetism, as far as at present known, as always an accompaniment of Gnosticism or later of Manichaeism. The Docetae described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, i-iv, X, xii) are likewise a Gnostic sect; these perhaps extended their illusion theory to all material substances.

Docetism is not properly a Christian heresy at all, as it did not arise in the Church from the misundertanding of a dogma by the faithful, but rather came from without. Gnostics starting from the principle of antagonism between matter and spirit, and making all salvation consist in becoming free from the bondage of matter and returning as pure spirit to the Supreme Spirit, could not possibly accept the sentence, “the Word was made flesh,” in a literal sense. In order to borrow from Christianity the doctrine of a Saviour who was Son of the Good God, they were forced to modify the doctrine of the Incarnation. Their embarrassment with this dogma caused many vacinations and inconsistencies; some holding the indwelling of an Aeon in a body which was indeed real body or humanity at all; others denying the actual objective existence of any body or humanity at all; others allowing a “psychic,” but not a “hylic” or really material body; others believing in a real, yet not human “sidereal” body; others again accepting the of the body but not the reality of the birth from a woman, or the reality of the passion and death on the cross. Christ only seemed to suffer, either because He ingeniously and miraculously substituted someone else to bear the pain, or because the occurence on Calvary was a visual deception. Simon Magus first spoke of a “putative passion of Christ and blasphemously asserted that it was really he, Simon himself, who underwent these apparent sufferings. “As the angels governed this world badly because each angel coveted the principality for himself he [Simon] came to improve matters, and was transfigured and rendered like unto the Virtues and Powers and Angels, so that he appeared amongst men as man though he was no man and was believed to have suffered in Judea though he had not suffered” (passum in Judea putatum cum non esset passus—Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I, xxiii sqq.). The mention of the demiurgic angels stamps this passage as a piece of Gnosticism. Soon after a Syrian Gnostic of Antioch, Saturninus or Saturnilus (about 125) made Christ the chief of the Aeons, but tried to show that the Savior was unborn (agenneton) and without body (asomaton) and without form (aneideon) and only apparently (phantasia) seen as man (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., XXIV, ii).

Another Syrian Gnostic, Cerdo, who came to Rome under Pope Hyginus (137) and became the master of Marcion, taught that “Christ, the Son of the Highest God, appeared without birth from the Virgin, yea without any birth on earth as man.” All this is natural enough, for matter not being the creation of the Highest God but of the Demiurge, Christ could have none of it. This is clearly brought out by Tertullian in his polemic against Marcion. According to this heresiarch (140) Christ, without passing through the womb of Mary and endowed with only a putative body, suddenly came from heaven to Capharnaum in the fifteenth year of Tiberius; and Tertullian remarks: “All these tricks about a putative corporeality Marcion has adopted lest the truth of Christ’s birth should be argued from the reality of his human nature, and thus Christ should be vindicated as the work of the Creator [Demiurge] and be shown to have human flesh even as he had human birth” (Adv. Marc., III, xi). Tertullian further states that Marcion’s chief disciple, Apelles, sightly modified his master’s system, accepting indeed the truth of Christ’s flesh, but strenously denying the truth of His birth. He contended that Christ had an astral body made of superior substance, and he compared the Incarnation to the appearance of the angel to Abraham. This, Tertullian sarcastically remarks, is getting from the frying pan into fire, de calcariâ in carbonariam. Valentinus the Egyptian attempted to accommodate his system still more closely to Christian doctrine by admitting not merely the reality of the Saviour’s body but even a seeming birth, saying that the Saviour’s body passed through Mary as through a channel (hos dia solenos) though he took nothing from her, but had a body from above. This approximation to orthodoxy, however, was only apparent, for Valentinus distinguished between Christ and Jesus. Christ and the Holy Ghost were emanations from the Aeons together proceeded Jesus the Saviour, who became united with the Messias of the Demiurge.

In the East, Marinus and the school of Bardesanes, though not Bardesanes himself, held similar views with regard to Christ’s astral body and seeming birth. In the West, Ptolemy reduced Docetism to a minimum by saying that Christ was indeed a real man, but His substance was a compound of the pneumatic and the psychic (spiritual and ethereal). The pneumatic He received from Achamoth or Wisdom, the psychic from the Demiurge, His psychic nature enabled him to suffer and feel pain, though He possessed nothing grossly material. (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., I, xii, II, iv). As the Docetae objected to the reality of the birth, so from the first they particularly objected to the reality of the passion. Hence the clumsy attempts at substitution of another victim by Basilides and others. According to Basilides, Christ seemed to men to be a man and to have performed miracles. It was not, however, Christ, who suffered but Simon of Cyrenes who was constrained to carry the cross and was mistakenly crucified in Christ’s stead. Simon having received Jesus’ form, Jesus returned Simon’s and thus stood by and laughed. Simon was crucified and Jesus returned to his father (Irenaeus, Adv. Char., 1, xxiv). According to some apocrypha it was Judas, not Simon the Cyrenean, who was thus substituted. Hippolytus describes a Gnostic sect who took the name of Docetae, though for what reason is not apparent, especially as their semblance theory was the least pronounced feature in their system. Their views were in close affinity to those of the Valentians. The primal Being is, so to speak, the seed of a fig-tree, small in size but infinite in power; from it proceed three Aeons, tree, leaves, fruit, which, multiplied with the perfect number ten, become thirty. These thirty Aeons together fructify one of themselves, from whom proceeds the Virgin-Saviour, a perfect representation of the Highest God. The Saviour’s task is to hinder further transference of souls from body to body, which is the work of the Great Archon, the Creator of the world. The Saviour enters the world unnoticed, unknown, obscure. An angel announced the glad tidings to Mary. He was born and did all the things that are written of him in the Gospels. But in baptism he received the figure and seal of another body besides that born of the Virgin. The object of this was that when the Archon condemned his own peculiar figment of flesh to the death of the cross, the soul of Jesus—that soul which had been nourished in the body born of the Virgin—might strip off that body and nail it to the accursed tree. In the pneumatic body received at baptism Jesus could triumph over the Archon, whose evil intent he had eluded.

This heresy, which destroyed the very meaning and purpose of the Incarnation, was combated even by the Apostles. Possibly St. Paul’s statement that in Christ dwelt the fullness of the Godhead corporaliter (Col., i, 19, ii, 9) has some reference to Docetic errors. Beyond doubt St. John (I John, i, 1–3, iv, I-3; II John, 7) refers to this heresy; so at least it seemed to Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius, H. E., VII, xxv) and Tertullian (De carne Christi, xxiv). In sub-Apostolic times this sect was vigorously combated by St. Ignatius and Polycarp. The former made a warning against Docetists the burden of his letters; he speaks of them as “monsters in human shape” (therion anthropomorphon) and bids the faithful not only not to receive them but even to avoid meeting them. Pathetically he exclaims: If, as some godless men [atheoi], I mean unbelievers, say, He has suffered only in outward appearance, they themselves are nought but outward show. why am I in bonds? Why should I pray to fight with wild beasts? Then I die for nothing, then I would only be lying against the Lord” (Ad Trall. x; Eph., vii, xviii; Smyrn., i-vi). In St. Ignatius’ day Docetism seems to have been closely connected with Judaism (cf. Magn viii, 1 x, 3; Phil, vi, viii). Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians re-echoes I John, iv 2- 4; to the same purpose. St. Justin nowhere expressly combats Docetic errors, but he mentions several Gnostics who were notorious for their Docetic aberrations, as Basilideans and Valentinians, and in his “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” he strongly emphasizes the birth of Christ from the Virgin. Tertullian wrote a treatise “On the flesh of Christ” and attacked Docetic errors in his “Adversus Marcionem.” Hippolytus in his “Philosophoumena” refutes Docetism in the different Gnostic errors which he enumerates and twice gives the Docetic system as above referred to.

The earlier Docetism seemed destined to die with the death of Gnosticism, when it received a long lease of life as parasitic error to another heresy, that of Manichaeism. Manichaean Gnostics started with a two-fold eternal principle, good (spirit) and evil (matter). In order to add Christian soteriology to Iranian dualism, they were forced, as the Gnostics were, to tamper with the truth of the Incarnation. Manichees distinguished between a Jesus patibilis and a Jesus impatibilis or Christ. The latter was the light as dwelling in, or symbolized by, or personified under, the name of the Sun; the former was the light as imprisoned in matter and darkness; of which light each human soul was a spark. Jesus patibilis was therefore but a sign of the speech, an abstraction of the Good, the pure light above. In the reign of Tiberius Christ appears in Judea, Son of the Eternal Light and also Son of Man; but in the latter expression “man” is a technical Manichaean term for the Logos or World-Soul; both anthropos and pneuma are emanations of the Deity. Though Christ is son of man He has only a seeming body, and only seemingly suffers, His passion being called mystical fiction of the cross. It is obvious that this doctrine borrowed from that of the Incarnation nothing but a few names. Scattered instances of Docetism are found as far West as Spain among the Priscillianists of the fourth and the fifth century. The Paulicians in Armenia and the Selicians in Constantinople fostered these errors. The Paulicians existed even in the tenth century, denying the reality of Christ’s birth and appealing to Luke, vii, 20. God, according to them, sent an angel to undergo the passion. Hence they worshipped not the cross but the Gospel, Christ’s word. Among the Slavs the Bogomilae renewed the ancient fancy that Jesus entered Mary’s body by the right ear, and received from her but an apparent body. In the West a council of Orléans in 1022 condemned thirteen Catharist heretics for denying the reality of Christ’s life and death. In modern theosophic and spiritist circles this early heresy is being renewed by ideas scarcely less fanstastic than the wildest vagaries of old.

J.P. ARENDZEN

Docimium

A titular see of Phrygia in Asia Minor. This city, as appears from its coins where the inhabitants are called Macedonians, must have been founded by Antigonos Dokimos. Its name is written Dokimeion, Dokimia Kome, Dokimaion, later Dokimion. It was famous for its marble-quarries, and is now identified with Istcha Kara Hissar, a village north-east of Afion Kara Hissar, in the vilayet of Brusa. On this site have been found many Christian inscriptions, later than Constantine. Docimium was a suffragan of Synnada in Phrygia Salutaris. Six or seven bishops are known, from 344 to 879 (Lequien, Or. Christ., I, 853); another bishop is mentioned in an inscription.

TEXIER, Description de l’Asie Mineure, I, 149; LEAKE, Asia Minor, 54; RAMSAY, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, passim and 742; IDEM in Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire (Rome, 1882), II, 290; PERDRIZET in Bulletin de correspondance hellénique (1900), XXIV, 291.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Doctor

(Lat. docere, to teach)

The title of an authorized teacher. In this general sense the term occurs in the O.T.; the “doctors” are mentioned with the “princes and ancients” (Deut., xxix, 10; xxxi, 28), and Azarias prophesies (II Paral., xv, 3) that “many days shall pass in Israel, without the true God, and without a priest a teacher, and without the law” (absque sacerdote doctore, et absque lege). It was the duty of these doctors to expound the law, and this they performed at the time of Christ, who was found in the Temple “in the midst of the doctors” (St. Luke, ii, 46). Another meeting of Our Lord with the “doctors of the law” is recorded in St. Luke, v, 17. The later Jewish teachers also received the title (doctor gemaricus, doctor mischnicus—see Talmud). Under the New Law the doctors are those who have received a special gift or charisma (see CHARISMATA) such as the “prophets and doctors” of the Church at Antioch (Acts, xiii, 1), and of whom St. Paul says that “God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors (1 Cor., xii, 28; Eph., iv, 11). St. Paul speaks of himself as a doctor of the Gentiles in faith and truth (I Tim., ii, 7), and Doctor gentium is one of the titles given him in the liturgy. In the early Church, teachers in the catechetical schools were known as doctores audientium (Cyprian, Ep. xxix, ed. Hartel); and finally, in the course of time, some of the most illustrious theologians were designated as “Doctors of the Church” (q.v.).

The use of Doctor as an academic title dates from the founding of the medieval universities. Before these were regularly organized, any teacher who gathered about him a number of students was a doctor, dominus, or magister. During the first half of the twelfth century, the title Doctor acquired a more special significance, though it still implied personal excellence rather than official position. The “Four Doctors” who succeeded Irnerius at Bologna were the distinguished jurists, Martinus (died before 1166), Bulgarus (died 1166), Hugo (died 1168), and Jacobus (died 1178). But when the doctors formed a collegium they prescribed conditions on which other persons might become members of the teaching body, and thus laid the foundation of the system of academic degrees. The doctorate was first granted in civil law (doctores legum), later in canon law (doctores decretorum), and, during the thirteenth century, in medicine, grammar, logic, and philosophy. The doctorate in music was conferred at Oxford and Cambridge in the fifteenth century. For graduates in arts and theology, magister was more generally employed than doctor, but for a long time these titles were synonymous. The English universities, adopting the usage of Paris, at first designated teachers of law as doctors, and professors of theology as masters; but in the course of time the former title was given to all the superior faculties, and the latter was reserved for grammar and arts. In Germany, doctor and magister were interchangeable (Kaufmann, “Geschichte” etc., II, 268 sqq.), and though the mastership is no longer conferred as a separate degree, a trace of the medieval practice is still found in the diploma which styles its recipient “Doctor of Philosophy and Master of Arts.”

Bologna at first conferred only the doctorate, but Paris and the English universities very soon introduced the preparatory degrees of baccalaureate and licentiate. Later, it is true, the licentiate was granted in the Italian university also at the first examination (privata); but this merely implied permission to proceed to the second, more formal, examination (publica) in which the licentia docendi was given. At Paris, the licentiate meant a real authorization to teach, besides being a pre-requisite for admission to the final examination (inceptio) at which the doctorate was conferred. There was a corresponding difference in the length of the course for the degree. Bologna required six years of study for the doctorate in canon law, and seven or eight for the doctorate in civil law; the student might begin his course at the age of fourteen and become a doctor at twenty or twenty-one. At Paris the statutes drawn up in 1215 by the Cardinal Legate Robert de Courçon provided that no one should lecture in theology as a master unless he was thirty-five years of age, had studied for eight years, and taken a five-years’ course in theology. According to Denifle (Universitäten, 100–102), the eight years meant three years in arts and five years in theology. (Cf. Rashdall, “Universities,” I, 462 sqq.) At Oxford, candidates who had already taken the M. A. degree were required to study theology seven years more for the licentiate. In medicine, M. A. candidates had a six-years’ course for the doctorate. For the subjects required in these courses see UNIVERSITY. (Cf. Rasbdall, op. cit., II, 452 sq.)

In regard to examinations there seems to have been considerable leniency: at times they were reduced to mere formalities, at other times they were dispensed with. The degree was awarded by the chancellor on the advice of the regent masters of the faculty as to the candidate’s fitness. The ceremony of inception was conducted by a regent; it consisted in the tradition of the book and ring, the imposition of the biretta, and the kiss of fellowship. At Paris, however, the degree in theology was conferred by the chancellor himself, who placed the biretta upon the candidate’s head with the words, “Incipiatis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.” Then followed a disputation (aulica) in which the chancellor, the masters, and one of the bachelors took part. It was customary also to hold, on the evening before inception, an elaborate disputation known as vesperiœ (see, for details, “Chartularium,” II, App., p. 693).

Among the various doctorates, that in theology ranked first. It was no uncommon thing for those who had received the degree in the other faculties to take additional courses for the S. T. D. In the German universities, for instance, licentiates in law or medicine might become bachelors in theology after five years of theological study; they would then be obliged to pursue the course prescribed for the other candidates. Conversely, theologians were sometimes permitted to follow courses in civil law and medicine. This privilege was granted to Bologna by Clement V (10 March, 1310) for a period of ten years but it applied only to ecclesiastical persons other than priests, religious, and bishops elect. It was renewed twice by John XXII (1317 and 1330); but when the university (1343–44) petitioned for an indefinite extension of the privilege, Clement VI refused. Innocent VI, however, renewed it (30 June, 1360) for ten years (Denifle, op. cit., 209).

The chief significance of the doctorate lay in the fact that it authorized the recipient to teach everywhere without undergoing further examination—jus ubique docendi. This prerogative developed gradually out of the licentia docendi which the degree itself implied, i. e. the right to teach in the university which conferred the doctorate. But as the older universities, Bologna, Paris, and Oxford, grew in importance and attracted students from all parts, the idea naturally spread that their graduates had the right to teach everywhere. Subsequently, this authorization was expressly granted to newly founded universities: by Gregory IX to Toulouse (1233), and by Alexander IV to Salamanca (1255). It was long, however, before the universities came to a mutual recognition of their degrees. Paris held tenaciously to its rights; Oxford was more liberal, but would not permit a Parisian doctor to teach merely on the strength of his degree. The doctors themselves were not always anxious to exercise their prerogative; the teaching devolved in large measure upon the bachelors, and the masters were classified as regents (those who taught) and as nonregents, who were content with the prestige implied by their degree or were eager for other occupations.

The essential meaning of the doctorate as fixed by the medieval universities is preserved in modern academic usage; the degree implies a qualification to teach. It has, however, undergone various modifications which are due partly to the development of the sciences and partly to changes in educational theory and practice. The degree, Doctor of Laws, is often conferred as an honorary title. The doctorate in theology, or divinity, has been retained by Catholic institutions as a degree to be given either after a course of study and an examination or as a distinction (honoris causa); while the tendency among non-Catholic universities is to confer it only as an honorary degree. Of late the doctorate in philosophy has attained great importance, and its value has been enhanced as the result of stricter requirements. For this and for the other doctorates, research is now generally considered the principal qualification, and in consequence the candidate’s work is becoming more specialized.

The influence of the Holy See, in regard to the doctorate, especially in theology, has been exerted in various ways, e.g. by authorizing universities to confer the degree, by prescribing through papal legates the conditions for obtaining it, and by correcting abuses, notably laxity of requirements, which crept in from time to time. The historical details will be found in the article UNIVERSITY. Legislation concerning the ecclesiastical side of the subject may be summarized as follows:—

1. The power of creating doctors belongs to the pope; but he may, and often does, delegate it to universities, seminaries, and other institutions of learning. Charters granted by civil authority are valid; but to obtain canonical recognition, doctorates in theology and canon law must be conferred in virtue of pontifical authorization.

2. The candidate for the degree must he a baptized Christian and must subscribe to the profession of faith formulated by Pius IV. As a rule, only priests receive the doctorate in theology and canon law. It is not, however, necessary that the recipient should be in Sacred orders. Laymen as well as priests are allowed to appear as advocates before the Roman tribunals (Rota, Signatura) and they are required to have the doctorate at least in Canon law (Const. “Sapienti consilio,” 29 June, 1908).

3. The doctoral biretta, or four-cornered cap, may be worn on academic occasions, but not in choir (Cong. of Rites, “In Venusina,” 1844, and reply to the Archbishop of Santiago de Chile, 6 Sept., 1895); the ring may be worn at all times except at Mass and other ecclesiastical functions (Cong. of Rites, 12 Feb., 1892).

4. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, c. ii, “de Ref.”) decreed that a bishop must be either doctor or licentiate in theology or in canon law; if a religious, he should have proper testimonials from his superiors. It enacted the same requirement for the archdeacon (Sess. XXIV, c. xii, “de Ref.”). Regarding the vicar capitular and, the pœnitentiarius, it prescribed that they should either have the degree or be otherwise well qualified. The Congregation of Studies recently decided (7 March, 1908) that the penitentiary and theologian of the cathedral chapter, if not already doctors, must receive the degree within a year. The Const. “Sapienti consilia” (29 June, 1908) prescribes the doctorate in theology and Canon law for the officials of the Rota and Signatura. It has been a matter of controversy whether the vicar-general is obliged to be a doctor and whether the Tridentine decree concerning the archdeacon is still in force. For the diversent opinions, see Card. Gennari, “Questioni Canoniche” (Rome, 1908), pp. 372, 292. The whole tenor of ecclesiastical legislation has been in favour of requirements which secure scientific qualifications in those who are appointed to official positions in the Church.

ERMAN-HORN, Bibliographie d. deutschen Universitäten (Leipzig, 1904), I, 252; DENIFLE, Die Universitäten des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1885); KAUFMANN, Die Gesch. d. deutschen Universitäten (Stuttgart, 1888); RASHDALL, The Universities of Europe, etc. (Oxford, 1895); LAURIE, The Rise and Early Constitution of Universities (New York, 1898); BATTANDIER, Annuaire Pontifical (Paris, 1906).

E.A. PACE

Doctors of the Church

(Lat. Doctores Ecclesiae)—Certain ecclesiastical writers have received this title on account of the great advantage the whole Church has derived from their doctrine. In the Western church four eminent Fathers of the Church attained this honour in the early Middle Ages: St. Gregory the Great, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome. The “four Doctors” became a commonplace among the Scholastics, and a decree of Boniface VIII (1298) ordering their feasts to be kept as doubles in the whole Church is contained in his sixth book of Decretals (cap. “Gloriosus,” de relique. et vener. sanctorum, in Sexto, III, 22).

In the Eastern Church three Doctors were pre-eminent: St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. The feasts of these three saints were made obligatory throughout the Eastern Empire by Leo VI, the Wise, the deposer of Photius. A common feast was later instituted in their honour on 30 January, called “the feast of the three Hierarchs.” In the Menaea for that day it is related that the three Doctors appeared in a dream to John, Bishop of Euchaitae, and commanded him to institute a festival in their honour, in order to put a stop to the rivalries of their votaries and panegyrists. This was under Alexius Comnenus (1081–1118; see “Acta SS.,” 14 June, under St. Basil, c. xxxviii). But sermons for the feast are attributed in manuscripts to Cosmas Vestitor, who flourished in the tenth century. The three are as common in Eastern art as the four are in Western. Durandus (i, 3) remarks that Doctors should be represented with books in their hands. In the West analogy led to the veneration of four Eastern Doctors, St. Athanasius being very properly added to the three hierarchs.

To these great names others have subsequently been added. The requisite conditions are enumerated as three: eminens doctrina, insignis vitae sanctitas, Ecclesiae declaratio (i.e. eminent learning, a high degree of sanctity, and proclamation by the Church). Benedict XIV explains the third as a declaration by the supreme pontiff or by a general council. But though general councils have acclaimed the writings of certain Doctors, no council has actually conferred the title of Doctor of the Church. In practice the procedure consists in extending to the universal church the use of the Office and Mass of a saint in which the title of doctor is applied to him. The decree is issued by the Congregation of Sacred Rites and approved by the pope, after a careful examination, if necessary, of the saint’s writings. It is not in any way an ex cathedra decision, nor does it even amount to a declaration that no error is to be found in the teaching of the Doctor. It is, indeed, well known that the very greatest of them are not wholly immune from error. No martyr has ever been included in the list, since the Office and the Mass are for Confessors. Hence, as Benedict XIV points out, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, and St. Cyprian are not called Doctors of the Church.

The proper Mass of Doctors has the Introit “In medio,” borrowed from that of the Theologus par excellence, St. John the Evangelist, together with special prayers and Gospel. The Credo is said. The principal peculiarity of the Office is the antiphon to the Magnificat at both Vespers, “O DOCTOR OPTIME,” and it is rather by this antiphon than by the special mass that a saint is perceived to be a doctor (S.R.C., 7 Sept., 1754). In fact, St. John Damascene has a Mass of his own, while Athanasius, Basil, Leo, and Cyril of Jerusalem have not the Gospel of Doctors, and several have not the collect.

The feasts of the four Latin Doctors were not added to until the sixteenth century, when St. Thomas Aquinas was declared a Doctor by the Dominican St. Pius V in his new edition of the Breviary (1568), in which the feasts of the four Greek Doctors were also raised to the rank of doubles. The Franciscan Sixtus V (1588) added St. Bonaventure.

St. Anselm was added by Clement XI (1720), St. Isidore by Innocent XIII (1722), St. Peter Chrysologus by Benedict XIII (1729), St. Leo I (a well-deserved but belated honour) by Benedict XIV (1754), St. Peter Damian by Leo XII (1828), and St. Bernard by Pius VIII (1830). Pius IX gave the honour to St. Hilary (1851) and to two more modern saints, St. Alphonsus Liguori (1871) and St. Francis de Sales (1877). Leo XIII promoted (1883) the Easterns, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. John Damascene, and the Venerable Bede (1899). [Editor’s note: Benedict XV added St. Ephraem (1920). Pius XI promoted St. Peter Canisius (1925), St. John of the Cross (1926), St. Robert Bellarmine (1931), and St. Albertus Magnus (1931), Pius XII added St. Anthony of Padua (1946). John XXIII named St. Lawrence of Brindisi (1959), and in 1970 Paul VI added St. Teresa of Avila and St. Catherine of Siena. John Paul II added St. Thérèse of Lisieux in 1997.]

Leo XIII, when, in 1882, he introduced the simplification of double feasts, made an exception for Doctors, whose feasts are always to be transferred.

There are therefore now [1997] thirty-three Doctors of the Church, of whom eight are Eastern and twenty-four Western. They include two Carmelites, two Jesuits, three Dominicans, three Franciscans, a Redemptorist, and five Benedictines. For some of these the Office had previously been granted to certain places or orders—St. Peter Damian to the Camaldolese, St. Isidore to Spain, St. Bede to England and to all Benedictines. St. Leander of Seville and St. Fulgentius are kept as Doctors in Spain, and the former by Benedictines also, as he was in earlier times claimed as a monk. St. Ildephonsus has the Introit “In medio” in the same order (for the same reason) and in Spain without the rank of Doctor.

POHLE in Kirchliches Handlexikon (Munich, 1907). II, 384; FESSLER-JUNGMANN, Instit. Patrologiae (Innsbruck, 1890); BARDENHEWER, Patrology, tr. SHAHAN (Freiburg im Br., St. Louis, 1908), 2–3. On the early Latin Doctors see WEYMAN in Hist. Jahrbuch (1894), XV, 96; and in Rev. d’hist. et de litt. religieuses (1898) III, 562; for the Greek Doctors see NILLES in Zeitschrift f. kath. Theologie (1894), XVIII, 742. See also BOUVY, Les Peres de l’Eglise in Rev. Augustinienne (1904) 461–86, and PESCH Praelect. Dogmat. (Freiburg, 1903), 346 sqq.

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Christian Doctrine

Taken in the sense of “the act of teaching” and “the knowledge imparted by teaching,” this term is synonymous with CATECHESIS and CATECHISM. Didaskalia, didache, in the Vulgate, doctrina, are often used in the New Testament, especially in the Pastoral Epistles. As we might expect, the Apostle insists upon “doctrine” as one of the most important duties of a bishop (I Tim., iv, 13, 16; v, 17; II Tim., iv, 2, etc.).

The word katechesis means instruction by word of mouth, especially by questioning and answering. Though it may apply to any subject-matter, it is commonly used for instruction in the elements of religion, especially preparation for initiation into Christianity. The word and others of the same origin occur in St. Luke’s Gospel: “That thou mayest know the verity of those things in which thou hast been instructed” (katechethes, in quibus eruditus es—i, 4). In the Acts, xviii, 25, Apollo is described as “instructed [katechemenos, edoctus] in the way of the Lord.” St. Paul uses the word twice: “I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct [katecheso, instruam] others also” (I Cor., xiv, 19); and “Let him that is instructed [ho katechoumenos, is qui catechizatur] in the word, communicate to him that instructeth [to katechounti, ei qui catechizat] him, in all good things” (Gal., vi, 6). Hence the word, with its technical meaning of oral religious instruction, passed into ecclesiastical use, and is applied both to the act of instructing and the subject-matter of the instruction. The word catechism was also formerly used for the act of instructing (“To say ay, and no, to these particulars, is more than to answer in a catechism”—As You Like It, act iii, sc. 2), as catéchisme is still used in French; but it is now more properly applied to the little printed book in which the questions and answers are contained. The subject will be treated in this article under the three heads:

I. HISTORY OF CATECHETICS;

II. PRACTICAL CATECHETICS,

III. MODERN CATECHISMS.

I. HISTORY OF CATECHETICS

(1) Oral instruction by means of questions and answers has occupied a prominent place in the scholastic methods of the moral and religious teachers of all countries and of all ages. The Socratic dialogues will occur to every one as brilliant examples. But many centuries before Socrates’ day this method was practised among the Hebrews (Exod., xii, 26; Deut., vi, 7, 20, etc.). They had three forms of catechizing: domestic, conducted by the head of the family for the benefit of his children and servants; scholastic, by teachers in schools; and ecclesiastical by priests and Levites in the Temple and the synagogues. Proselytes were carefully instructed before being admitted to become members of the Jewish faith. The regular instruction of children began when they were twelve years old. Thus we read of Christ “in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers” (Luke, ii, 46, 47). During His public life He frequently made use of the catechetical method to impart instruction: “What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?” “Whom do men say that the son of man is? . . . Whom do you say that I am?” etc. In His final charge to His Apostles He said: “Teach ye [matheteusate, “make disciples, or scholars”] all nations;. . . . Teaching [didaskontes, “instructing”] them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt., xxviii, 19). And after this instruction they were to initiate them into the Church, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (ibid.).

(2) In obedience to Christ’s command, St. Peter, “standing up with the eleven,” declared to the Jews on Pentecost day, and proved to them from the Scriptures that Jesus, whom they had crucified, was “Lord and Christ.” When they had been convinced of this truth, and had compunction in their heart for their crime, they asked, “What shall we do?” And Peter answered, “Do penance, and be baptized. . . . in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins.” “And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them” (Acts, ii). We have here an abridgment of the first catechetical instruction given by the Apostles. It is both doctrinal and moral—the hearers are to believe and to repent. This twofold element is also contained in St. Peter’s second discourse after healing the lame man in the Temple (Acts, iii). St. Stephen goes further, and brings out that belief in Jesus as the Christ (Messias) meant the ending of the Old Covenant and the coming in of a New (Acts, vi, vii). St. Philip the Deacon preached “of the kingdom of God, in the name of Jesus Christ”; and the Samaritans “were baptized, both men and women” (Acts, viii). Furthermore, St. Peter and St. John came from Jerusalem and “prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost”; and doubtless declared to them the doctrine of that Holy Spirit (ibid.). The same deacon’s discourse to the eunuch deals with the proof from Scripture, and notably Isaias (liii, 7), that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” and the necessity of baptism. No mention is made of penance or repentance, as the eunuch was a just man anxious to do God’s will. So, too, Cornelius, “a religious man, and fearing God with all his house, giving much alms to the people, and always praying to God,” did not need much moral instruction; accordingly St. Peter speaks to him of Jesus Christ who “is lord of all . . . Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost, and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things that he did in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed, hanging him upon a tree. Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest . . . even to us who did eat and drink with him after he arose again from the dead; and he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he who was appointed by God to be judge of the living and of the dead. To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him” (Acts, x). In this discourse we have the chief articles of the Creed: the Trinity (God, Jesus Christ “Lord of all things,” the Holy Ghost), the Crucifixion, Death, and Resurrection of Our Lord; His coming to judge the living and the dead, and the remission of sins. These are also the subjects of St. Paul’s discourses, though, of course, in addressing the pagans, whether peasants at Lystra or philosophers at Athens, he deals with the fundamental truths of the existence and attributes of God (Acts, xiii, xiv, xvii). As he himself summed up the matter, he taught “publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and Gentiles penance towards God, and faith in [eis] our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts, xx). We find also that though Apollo was “instructed [katechemenos] in the way of the Lord,” Priscilla and Aquila “expounded to him the way Of the Lord more diligently” (akribesteron—Acts, xviii.—See APOSTLES’ CREED).

(3) The materials for describing the catechetical teaching of the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles are scanty. The books of the New Testament were available, and all that would be needed would be to supplement these. Thus, in the Didache we find little but moral instruction; but it is clear that those to whom it is addressed must have already received some knowledge of what they were to believe. Later on we find more explicit dogmatic teaching, for instance, in St. Justin’s Apologies and in the writings of Clement of Alexandria. Still, even this is not much more advanced than what we have seen above as taught by St. Peter, except that Justin dwells on the Creation and proves the Divinity of Christ, the Logos and only-begotten Son of the Father.

(4) In the ages of persecution it became necessary to exercise great caution in admitting persons to membership in the Church. The danger of falling away, or even of betrayal, must be guarded against by a careful doctrinal and moral training. Hence the institution of the catechumenate and the Discipline of the Secret. The work of the Apologists had been to remove prejudices against Christianity, and to set forth its doctrines and practices in such a way as to appeal to the fair-minded pagan. If anyone was moved to embrace the true religion, he was not at once admitted, as in the days of the Apostles. At first he was treated as an inquirer, and only the fundamental doctrines were communicated to him. As soon as he had given proof of his knowledge and fitness he was admitted to the catechumenate proper, and was further instructed. After some years spent in this stage he was promoted to the ranks of the Competentes, i. e. those ready for baptism. As might be expected, he was now instructed more especially in the rites for this purpose. Even when he had been initiated, his instruction was not yet at an end. During the week after Easter, while the grace of first fervour was still upon him, the various rites and mysteries in which he had just participated were more fully explained to him.

In considering the catechetical writings of the Fathers we must bear in mind the distinction of these different grades. When addressing a mere inquirer they would naturally be more guarded and less explicit than if they had to do with one who had passed through the catechumenate. Sometimes, indeed, the language was so chosen that it conveyed only half the truth to the catechumen, while the initiated could understand the whole. The distinction between the elementary and advanced instruction is noted by St. Paul: “As unto little ones in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet” (I Cor., iii, 2). For our present purpose it will be best to take as typical examples of catechesis in the patristic times the works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386) and St. Augustine (354–430), merely noting by the way the work done by St. Ambrose (the instructor of St. Augustine) and St. Gregory of Nyssa (“The Catechetical Oration,” ed. J. II. Strawley, 1903). We have from St. Cyril twenty-four catechetical discourses, forming together a complete course of moral and doctrinal instruction. In the first of these, called the “Procatechesis,” he sets forth the greatness and efficacy of the grace of initiation into the Church. The “Catecheses” proper (numbered i to xviii) are divided into two groups: i-v, repeating the leading ideas of the “Procatechesis,” and treating of sin and repentance, baptism, the principal doctrines of the Christian religion, and the nature and origin of faith; vi-xviii, setting forth, article by article, the baptisimal Creed of the Church of Jerusalem. The “Procatechesis” and the eighteen discourses were intended for the competentes during Lent, in immediate preparation for reception into the Church. The remaining discourses (19–24), called the “Catecheses Mystagogic,” were delivered during Easter week to those who had been baptized at Easter; and these, though much shorter than the others, treat clearly and openly of baptism, confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist, the veil of secrecy being now removed. This is not the place to point out how completely in accord with Catholic teaching are the doctrines of St. Cyril (see CYRIL OF JERUSALEM; TRANSUBSTANTIATION), and what valuable information he gives of the details of the Liturgy in his day. In studying these “Catecheses” we should bear in mind that they were intended for grown-up persons; hence they are not couched in the simple language which we have to use in our instructions to our children. They resemble, rather, the instruction given to converts, for which purpose they are still of great use. The same remark applies to all the catechetical writings of the Fathers.

St. Augustine’s treatise “De Catechizandis Rudibus” deals with both the theory and the practice of catechizing. It is divided into twenty-seven chapters: 1–14 theory, 15–27 practice. This short work, written about the year 400, shows that the great Doctor did not disdain to devote most careful attention to the work of instructing those who wished to learn the rudiments of the Faith. It could be written only by one who had much experience of the difficulties and tediousness of the task, and who had also pondered deeply on the best method of dealing with the different classes of converts. The Deogratias, who had consulted Augustine on the subject, complained (as so many of us still do) of the weariness of going over the same old ground, and of his inability to put any fresh life into his instructions. St. Augustine begins by words of encouragement, pointing out that we must judge of our discourses not by their effect upon ourselves, but by their effect upon our healers. The story may be familiar enough to us, who go on repeating it over and over again, but it is not so to those who are listening to it for the first time. Bearing this in mind, the catechist should put himself in the position of the hearer, and speak as though he were telling something new. Hilaritas, a bright and cheerful manner, must be one of the chief qualifications of an instructor; “God loveth a cheerful giver” applies to the giving of the word as well as to the giving of wealth. He should so speak that the hearer hearing should believe, believing should hope, and hoping should love (Quidquid narras ita narra, ut ille cui loqueris audiendo credat, credendo speret, sperando amet—iv, 11). But the foundation of all is the fear of God, “for if seldom, or rather never, happens that anyone wishes to become a Christian without being moved thereto by some fear of God.” If he comes from some worldly motive he may be only pretending, though indeed a mere pretender may sometimes be turned into a genuine convert by our efforts. Hence, continues the holy Doctor, it is of great importance to ascertain the state of mind and the motives of those who come to us. If we are satisfied that they have received a Divine call, we have a good opening for instruction on the care of God for us. We should go briefly through the story of God’s dealings with men, from the time when He made all things even to our own days; showing especially that the Old Testament was a preparation for the New, and the New a fulfillment of the Old (in veteri testamento est occultatio novi, in novo testamento est manifestatio veteris). This is a theme developed at greater length in the “De Civitate Dei.” After we have finished our story we should go on to excite hope in the resurrection of the body—a doctrine as much ridiculed in St. Augustine’s day as it was in St. Paul’s day, and as it is in ours. Then should come the account to be rendered at the last judgment, and the reward of the just, and the punishment of the wicked. The convert should be put on his guard against the dangers and difficulties in trying to lead a good life, especially those arising from scandals within as well as without the Church. Finally, he should be reminded that the grace of his conversion is not due either to his merits or to ours, but to the goodness of God. So far the saint has been speaking of persons of little or no education. In chap. viii he goes on to deal with those who are well educated, and are already acquainted with the Scriptures and other Christian writings. Such persons require briefer instruction, and this should be imparted in such a way as to let them see that we are aware of their knowledge of the Faith. Doubtless St. Augustine had in mind his own case, when he presented himself to be received into the Church by St. Ambrose. We note, too, the wisdom of this piece of advice, especially when we have to deal with Anglican converts. But though less instruction is needed in such cases, continues the holy Doctor, we may rightly inquire into the causes which have induced these persons to wish to become Christians; and in particular as to the books which have influenced them. If these are the Scriptures or other Catholic books we should praise and recommend them; but if these are heretical we should point out wherein they have distorted the true faith. Throughout our instruction we should speak with modesty, but also with authority, that he who hears us may have no scope for presumption but rather for humility. Humility is also the principal virtue to be urged upon that intermediate class of converts who have received some education but not of the higher sort. These are disposed to scoff at Christian writings, and even at the Scriptures for their want of correctness of language. They should be made to see that it is the matter rather than the language which is of importance; it is more profitable to listen to a true discourse than to one which is eloquent. The whole of this chapter should be taken to heart by many who join the Church nowadays. After dealing with these different classes of inquirers, the saint devotes no less than five lengthy chapters (x to xiv) to the causes of weariness (the opposite of hilaritas) and the remedies for it. This portion is perhaps the most valuable of the whole treatise, at least from a practical point of view. Only the merest outline of St. Augustine’s advice as to the remedies can be given here. We must bring ourselves down to the level of the lowest of our hearers, even as Christ humbled Himself and took upon Himself “the form of a servant.” We must vary the subjects, and we must increase in earnestness of manner so as to move even the most sluggish. If it seems to us that the fault is ours, we should reflect, as already pointed out, that the instruction, though not up to our ideal, may be exactly suited to our hearer and entirely fresh and new to him; in any case the experience may be useful as a trial to our humility. Other occupations may be pleasanter, but we cannot say that they are certainly more profitable; for duty should come first, and we should submit to God’s will and not try to make Him submit to ours. After laying down these precepts, St. Augustine goes on to give a short catechetical instruction as an example of what he has been inculcating. It is supposed to be addressed to an ordinary type of inquirer, neither grossly ignorant nor highly educated (xvi to xxv), and might well be used at the present day. What specially strikes one in reading it is the admirable way in which the saint brings out the prophetical and typical character of the Old-Testament narrative, and insinuates gradually all the articles of the Creed without seeming to reveal them. The sketch of Christ’s life and passion, and the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments are also noteworthy. The discourse ends with an earnest exhortation to perseverance. This short work has exercised the greatest influence on catechetics. In all ages of the Church it has been adopted as a textbook.

(5) When all fear of persecution had passed away, and the empire had become almost entirely Christian, the necessity for a prolonged period of trial and instruction no longer existed. About the same time the fuller teaching on the subject of original sin, occasioned by the Pelagian heresy, gradually led to the administration of baptism to infants. In such cases instruction was, of course, impossible, though traces of it are still to be seen in the rite of infant baptism, where the godparents are put through a sort of catechesis in the name of the child. As the child grew, it was taught its religion both at home and at the services in church. This instruction was necessarily more simple than that formerly given to grown-up catechumens, and gradually came to be what we now understand by catechetical instruction. Meantime, however, the barbarian invaders were being brought into the Church, and in their case the instruction had to be of an elementary character. The missionaries had to go back to the methods of the Apostles and content themselves with exacting a renunciation of idolatry and a profession of belief in the great truths of Christianity. Such was the practice of St. Patrick in Ireland, St. Remigius among the Franks, St. Augustine in England, St. Boniface in Germany. We should bear in mind that in those ages religious instruction did not cease with baptism. Set sermons were rarer than in our time; the priest spoke rather as a catechist than as a preacher. We may take the practice among the Anglo-Saxons as typical of what was done in other countries. “Among the duties incumbent on the parish priest the first was to instruct his flock in the doctrines and duties of Christianity, and to extirpate from among them the lurking remains of paganism . . . He was ordered to explain to his parishioners the ten commandments; to take care that all could repeat and understand the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed; to expound in English on Sundays the portion of Scripture proper to the Mass of the day, and to preach, or, if he were unable to preach, to read at least from a book some lesson of instruction” (Lingard, “Anglo-Saxon Church,” c. iv). The laws enacting these duties will be found in Thorpe, “Ecclesiastical Institutes,” i, 378; ii, 33, 34, 84, 191.

(6) It is the custom with non-Catholic writers to assert that during the Middle Ages, “the Ages of Faith,” religious instruction was entirely neglected, and that the Protestant Reformers were the first to restore the practice of the Early Church. In the “Dict. de théol. cath.,” s.v. “Catéchisme,” and in Bareille, “Le Catéchisme Romain,” Introd., pp. 36 sqq., will be found long lists of authorities showing how false are these assertions. We must here content ourselves with stating what was done in England. Abbot Gasquet has thoroughly gone into the subject, and declares that “in pre-Reformation days the people were well instructed in their faith by priests who faithfully discharged their plain duty In their regard” (Old English Bible and other Essays, p. 186). In proof of this he quotes the constitutions of John Peckham, Archbishop of Canterbury (1281), in which it is enjoined that every priest shall explain to his people in English, and without any elaborate subtleties (vulgariter absque cujuslibet subtilitatis texturâ fantastic ), four times a year, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, the two precepts of the Gospel (viz. love of God and man), the seven deadly sins, the seven chief virtues (theological and cardinal), and the seven sacraments. In these constitutions is contained a brief instruction on all these heads, “lest anyone should excuse himself on the ground of ignorance of these things which all the ministers of the Church are bound to know.” This legislation, after all, was nothing but an insisting on a practice dating from Saxon days, as we have already seen. Moreover, it is constantly referred to in subsequent synods and in countless catechetical writings. One of Peckham’s predecessors, St. Edmund Rich (1234–1240), was not only a man of great learning, but also a zealous teacher of Christian doctrine among the people. He wrote familiar instructions on prayer, the seven deadly sins, the Commandments, and the sacraments. Cardinal Thoresby, Archbishop of York, published in 1357 a catechism in Latin and English, the “Lay Folks Catechism,” for the purpose of carrying out Peckham’s Constitutions, and it is based on Peckham’s instruction. The two, with the English translation in rude verse, have been reprinted by the Early English Text Society, No. 118. In the episcopal Registers and Visitations we read how the people were asked whether their pastor fulfilled his duties, and they constantly answer that they are taught bene et optime. Chaucer’s Poor Parson may be taken as a type:

But riche he was of holy thought and work.

He was also a lerned man, a clerk,

That Christes Gospel trewly wolde preche,

His parischens devoutly wolde he teche.

His tale is practically a treatise on the Sacrament of Penance. As regards catechetical manuals we need only mention the “Pars Oculi Sacerdotis” (about the middle of the fourteenth century) which was very popular; “Pupilla Oculi,” by John de Burgo (1385); “Speculum Christiani,” by John Wotton, containing simple English rhymes as well as the Latin text. “One of the earliest books ever issued from an English press by Caxton. . . . was a set of four lengthy discourses, published, as they expressly declare, to enable priests to fulfill the obligation imposed on them by the Constitutions of Peckham” (Gasquet, op. cit., p. 191). The part which pictures, statues, reliefs, pageants, and especially miracle plays took in the religious instruction of the people must not be forgotten. All of these give proof of an extensive knowledge of sacred history and an astonishing skill in conveying doctrinal and moral lessons. If is enough to refer to Ruskin’s “Bible of Amiens,” and to the Townley, Chester, and Coventry miracle plays. (Cf. Bareille, op. cit., pp. 42 sqq.) (7) The invention of printing and the revival of learning naturally had great influence on catechetical instruction. The first great name to be mentioned, though indeed it belongs to a slightly earlier period, is that of John Gerson (1363–1429). He realized that the much-needed reform of the Church should begin by the instruction of the young; and though he was chancellor of the University of Paris he devoted himself to this work. He composed a sort of little catechism entitled “The A B C of Simple Folk.” To enable the clergy to catechize he also composed the “Opus Tripartitum de Pr eceptis Decalogi, de Confessione, et de Arte bene Moriendi,” in which he briefly explained the Creed, the Commandments of God, the sins to be mentioned in confession, and the art of dying well. This was printed many times and was translated into French. It was the forerunner of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. In the year 1470, before Luther was born, a German catechism, “Christenspiegel” (the Christian’s Mirror), written by Dederich, was printed, and at once became very popular. Two other catechisms, “The Soul’s Guide” and “The Consolation of the Soul,” were printed a little later and issued in many editions. Tn Janssen’s great “History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages” will be found a complete refutation of the popular notion that the Protestant Reformers, and especially Luther, were the first to revive catechetical instruction and to print catechisms. It is, however, proper to acknowledge their activity in this matter, and to note that this activity stirred up the zeal of the Catholics to counteract their influence. Luther’s famous “Enchiridion,” which was really the third edition of his smaller catechism, was published in 1529, and speedily ran through a number of editions; it is still used in Germany and in other Protestant countries. In 1536 Calvin composed a catechism in French: “Le formulaire d’instruire les enfans en la chrestienté, fait en manière de dialogue oú le ministre interroge et l’enfant répond.” He candidly admits that it was always the custom in the Church to instruct children in this way. Of course he takes care to introduce the chief points of his heresy: the certainty of salvation, the impossibility of losing justice (righteousness), and the justification of children independently of baptism. It is noteworthy that as regards the Eucharist he teaches that we receive not merely a sign, but Jesus Christ Himself, “really and effectually by a true and substantial union.” In England the first Book of Common Prayer (1549) contained a catechism with a brief explanation of the Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer. The explanation of the sacraments was not added until the year 1604. If this catechism be compared with that of Cardinal Thoresby, mentioned above, it will be seen that the instruction given to Protestant children in the middle of the sixteenth century was far inferior to that given in pre-Reformation days. In 1647 the Westminster Assembly of Divines drew up the Presbyterian “Larger” and “Smaller” Catechisms.

On the Catholic side Blessed Peter Canisius published three catechisms, or rather one catechism in three forms: major (1555), minor (1558), and minimus (1556). Taking as his foundation Ecclus., i, 33, he divides his treatment into two great parts: wisdom and justice. In the first he deals with Faith (the Creed), Hope (the Lord’s Prayer and the Hail Mary), Charity (the Commandments). In the second he deals with avoiding evil (sin and the remission of sin) and doing good (prayer, fasting and almsdeeds, the cardinal virtues, the gifts and fruits of the Holy Ghost, the beatitudes, the evangelical counsels, and the Four Last Things). To obtain and to preserve both wisdom and justice the sacraments are necessary, and hence he places the treatment of the sacraments between the two parts. After the Council of Trent (1563) Canisius added a chapter on the Fall and Justification. The form of the three books is that of questions and answers, some of the latter being as long as four or five pages. In striking contrast to the Protestant catechisms, the tone throughout is calm, and there is an absence of controversial bitterness. The success of Canisius’ catechisms was enormous. They were translated into every language in Europe, and were reprinted in many hundreds of editions, so that the name Canisius came to be synonymous with Catechism (Bareille, op. cit., p. 61).

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Catechismus Romanus) is not a catechism in the ordinary sense of the word. It is rather a manual of instruction for the clergy (Catechismus ad Parochos) to enable them to catechize those entrusted to their spiritual care. The fathers of the council “deemed it of the utmost importance that a work should appear, sanctioned by the authority of the Holy Synod, from which parish priests and all others on whom the duty of imparting instruction devolves may be able to seek and derive certain precepts for the edification of the faithful; that as there is ‘one Lord one Faith’ so also there may be one common rule and prescribed form of delivering the faith, and instructing the Christian people unto all the duties of piety” (Pr f., viii). The composition of the work was entrusted to four distinguished theologians (two of them archbishops and one a bishop), under the supervision of three cardinals. St. Charles Borromeo was the presiding spirit. The original draft was turned into elegant Latin by Pogianus and Manutius, and this version was translated by command of the pope (St. Pius V) into Italian, French, German, and Polish. Brought out under such conditions (1566), the authority of this catechism is higher than that of any other, but is, of course, not on a level with that of the canons and decrees of a council, As to its value Cardinal Newman’s estimate may be gathered from these words: “I rarely preach a sermon, but I go to this beautiful and complete Catechism to get both my matter and my doctrine” (Apologia, p. 425). (See ROMAN CATECHISM.)

Cardinal Bellarmine’s Catechism was ordered by Clement VIII to be used in the Papal States, and was recommended for use throughout the world. It appeared in two forms: “Dottrina Cristiana Breve” (1597) and “Dichiarazione più Copiosa della Dottrina Cristiana” (1598). The first is for scholars, the second for teachers; in the first the teacher asks the questions and the scholar replies, whereas in the second this process is reversed. The first, which is meant to be learnt by heart, contains eleven chapters and ninety-five questions, and is arranged in the following order: the Calling of the Christian and the Sign of the Cross; the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Hail Mary; the Commandments of God, the Commandments of the Church, and the Counsels; the Sacraments, the Theological and Cardinal Virtues, the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, the Works Of Mercy, Sins, the Last Things, and the Rosary. It is an improvement on Canisius’ catechisms, and hence it was recommended at the Vatican Council to serve as a model for the projected universal catechism.

The first catechism in English after the Reformation was “A Catechisme or Christian Doctrine necessarie for Children and Ignorante People, briefly compiled by Laurence Vaux, Bacheler of Divinitie”; 1st ed., 1567; reprinted 1574, 1583 (twice), 1599, 1605; 18mo. This has been reprinted for the Chetham Society, new series, vol. IV, Manchester, 1883. Next came a small volume, “A Briefe Instruction by way of Dialogue concerning the principall poyntes of Christian religion gathered out of the Holy Scriptures, Fathers and Councels. By the Reverend M. George Doulye, Priest. Imprinted at Louvaine by Laurence Kellam, anno 1604”: “A Shorte Catechisme of Cardinal Bellarmine illustrated with Images.” In Augusta, 1614: “A briefe Christian Doctrine to be lerned by heart”; “A Summe of Christian Doctrine composed in Latin by Father Petrus Canisius of the Society of Jesus with an Appendix of the Fall of Man and Justification. Translated into English [by Fr. Garnet?) at St. Omers for John Heigham. With permission of Superiors: 1622”; “A Catechisme of Christian Doctrine in fifteen Conferences. Paris: 1637,” 2nd ed., 1659. The author was Thomas White, alias Blacklow, of Lisbon and Douai. The most important, however, was the book which came to be known as “The Doway Catechism,” “An Abridgement of Christian Doctrine with proofs of Scripture for points controverted. Catechistically explained by way of question and answer,” printed at Douai, 1st ed., 1649; again 1661, and so constantly. The last editions mentioned by Gillow are London, 1793, and Dublin, 1828; the author was Henry Turberville, a Douai priest. There was also a smaller edition, “An Abstract of the Douay Catechism. For the use of children and ignorant people. London, printed in the year 1688”; it was reprinted many times, and continued in use until the Douai students came to England. In 1625, the Franciscan Florence O’Conry published an Irish catechism at Louvain, entitled “Mirror of a Christian Life.” This, like the catechisms of O’Hussey (Louvain, 1608) and Stapleton (Brussels, 1639), was written for the benefit of the Irish troops serving in the Netherlands. In the same century another member of the Franciscan order, Father Francis Molloy, a native of the County Meath, Ireland, and at the time professor of theology in St. Isidore’s College, Rome, published a catechism in Irish under the title “Lucerna Fidelium” (Rome, Propaganda Press, 1676). We should also mention Andrew Donlevy’s “The Catechism or Christian Doctrine by way of question and answer. Paris, 1742.” This was in English and Irish on opposite pages. “The Poor Man’s Catechism or the Christian Doctrine explained with short admomitions,” 1st ed., 1752; it was edited by the Rev. George Bishop. The author’s name does not appear, but a later work tells who he was: “The Poor Man’s Controversy, By J. Mannock, O. S. B., the author of the Poor Man’s Catechism, 1769.” Dr. James Butler Archbishop of Cashel, published his catechism in 1775, and it was soon adopted by many Irish bishops for their dioceses. An account of it was given by Archbishop Walsh in the “Irish Eccl. Record,” Jan., 1892. In 1737 Bishop Challoner published “The Catholic Christian instructed in the Sacraments, Sacrifice, Ceremonies, and Observances of the Church by way of question and answer. By R. C. London 1737.” There is also “An Abridgement of Christian Doctrine with a Short Daily Exercise,” “corrected by the late Bishop Challoner,” 1783. Bishop Hay’s admirable works: “The Sincere Christian instructed in the Faith of Christ from the Written Word” (1781); “The Devout Christian instructed in the Faith of Christ” (1783); and “The Pious Christian” are catechisms on a large scale in the form of question and answer.

During the eighteenth century catechetical instruction received a fresh impulse from Pope Benedict XIII, who issued (1725) three ordinances prescribing in detail the methods: division into small classes and special preparation for confession and Communion. Against the rationalistic tendencies in the pedagogical movement of the century, Clement XIII uttered a protest in 1761. Pius VI wrote (1787) to the Orientals, proposing for their use a catechism in Arabic prepared by the Propaganda. In Germany the “Pastoral Instruction” issued by Raymond Anton, Bishop of Eichst dt (1768; new ed., Freiburg, 1902) emphasized the need and indicated the method of instruction (Tit. XIV, Cap. V). Prominent among the writers on the subject were Franz Neumayr, S. J. in his “Rhetorica catechetica” (1766); M.I. Schmidt, “Katechisten,” and J.I. von Felbiger, “Vorlesungen über die Kunst zu katechisieren” (Vienna, 1774). In France, during the same century, great activity was shown, especially by the bishops, in publishing catechisms. Each diocese had its own textbook, but though occasional attempts were made at uniformity, they were not successful. Several catechisms composed by individual writers other than the bishops were put on the Index (see Migne, “Catéchismes,” Paris, 1842). The French original of “An Abridgment of the Quebec Catechism” (Quebec, 1817) appeared in Paris (1702) and Quebec (1782).

The pedagogical activity of the nineteenth century naturally exerted an influence upon religious instruction. German writers of the first rank were Overberg (d. 1826), Sailer (d. 1832), Gruber (d. 1835), and Hirscher (d. 1865), all of whom advocated the psychological method and the careful preparation of teachers. Deharbe’s “Catechism” (1847) was translated between 1853 and 1860 into thirteen languages, and his “Erkl rungen des Katechismus” (1857–61) has passed through numerous editions. In France, Napoleon (1806) imposed upon all the churches of the empire uniformity in the matter of catechisms and, in spite of the opposition of Pius VII, published the “Imperial Catechism,” containing a chapter on duties towards the emperor. This was replaced after the fall of the empire by a large number of diocesan catechisms which again led to various plans for securing uniformity. Dupanloup, one of the foremost writers on education, published his Catéchisme chrétien” in 1865. At the time of the Vatican Council (1869–1870) the question of having a single universal catechism was discussed. There was great diversity of opinion among the Fathers, and consequently the discussion led to no result (see Martin, “Les travaux du concile du Vatican,” pp. 113–115). The arguments for and against the project will be examined when we come to speak of catechisms in the third part of this article. The most important event in the recent history of catechetics has been the publication of the Encyclical “Acerbo nimis” on the teaching of Christian doctrine (15 April, 1905). In this document Pius X attributes the present religious crisis to the widespread ignorance of Divine truth, and lays down strict regulations concerning the duty of catechizing (see below). For the purpose of discussing the best methods of carrying out these orders a number of catechetical congresses have been held: e. g., at Munich, 1905 and 1907; Vienna, 1905 and 1908; Salzburg, 1906; Lucerne, 1907; Paris, 1908, etc. At these gatherings scientific, yet practical, lectures were delivered, demonstrations were given of actual catechizing in school, and an interesting feature was the exhibition of the best literature and appliances. Two periodicals have likewise appeared: “Katechetische Blätter” (Munich) and “Christlich-pädagogische Blätter” (Vienna).

In the United States, the few priests who in the early days toiled in this vast field were so overburdened with work that they could not produce original textbooks for religious instruction; they caused to be re-printed, with slight alterations, books commonly used in Europe. Others were composed in the manner described by Dr. England, first Bishop of Charleston, who, in 1821, published a catechism which, he writes, “I had much labor in compiling from various others, and adding several parts which I considered necessary to be explicitly dwelt upon under the peculiar circumstances of my diocese.” The first to edit a catechism, so far as is known, was the Jesuit Father Robert Molyneux, an Englishman by birth and a man of extensive learning, who, till 1809, laboured among the Catholics in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Copies of this work are not known to exist now, but, in letters to Bishop Carroll, Father Molyneux mentions two catechisms which he issued—one in 1785, “a spelling primer for children with a Catholic catechism annexed.” In 1788 a catechism was published in New York which in all likelihood was a reprint of “Butler’s Catechism” mentioned above. Bishop Hay’s “Abridgement of Christian Doctrine” (152 pp ) appeared in Philadelphia in 1800; another edition (143 pp.) in 1803, and one with some alterations in the language in Baltimore in 1809 (108 pp.). Many editions were published of the catechism entitled “A Short Abridgement of Christian Doctrine, Newly Revised for the Use of the Catholic Church in the United States of America.” The size of these small catechisms is from 36 to 48 pages. One edition, with title page torn, bears on the last page the record: “Bought September 14, 1794.” The Philadelphia edition of 1796 is styled the thirteenth edition; that of Baltimore, 1798, the fourteenth. Whether all these editions were printed in America, or some of the earlier ones in Europe, cannot be ascertained.

This “Short Abridgement of Christian Doctrine,” approved by Archbishop Carroll, was generally used throughout the United States until about 1821. In that year Bishop England published his catechism for his own diocese, and in 1825 appeared the “Catechism of the Diocese of Bardstown,” recommended as a class-book by Bishop Flaget of Bardstown, Kentucky. The author of the latter catechism was Jean-Baptiste David, coadjutor of Bishop Flaget. It comprised the “First or Smail Catechism for Little Children” (13 pp.), and the “Second Catechism” (149 pp.). The English were criticized by Archbishop Mar chal and others. Still more defective and inexact in language was the catechism of Bishop Conwell of Philadelphia, and, at the request of the archbishop, the author suppressed the book. An old English catechism, the “Abridgement of Christian Doctrine,” by Henry Turberville, first published at Douai in 1649, was reprinted in New York in 1833. Whereas this edition preserved the quaint old language of the original, another edition of the same book appeared in Philadelphia, as “revised by the Right Rev. James Doyle and prescribed by him for the united dioceses of Kildare and Leighlin” (Ireland). In the New England States the “Boston Catechism” was used for a long time, the “Short Abridgement of Christian Doctrine,” newly revised and augmented and authorized by Bishop Fenwick of Boston. But the catechisms which were used most exclusively during several decades were Butler’s “Larger Catechism” and “Abridged Catechism.” In 1788 Samuel Campbell, New York, published “A Catechism for the Instruction of Children. The Seventh Edition with Additions, Revised and Corrected by the Author.” This seems to be the first American edition of Butler’s Catechism; for Dr. Troy, Bishop of Ossory, wrote, soon after Butler’s Catechism had appeared: “It has been printed here under the title: ‘A Catechism for the Instruction of Children,’ without any mention of Dr. Butler.” Butler’s Catechism became very popular in the United States, and the First Provincial Council of Canada (1851) prescribed it for the English-speaking Catholics of the Dominion. Some other American catechisms may be briefly mentioned: the so-called “Dubuque Catechism” by Father Hattenberger; the Small and the Larger Catechism of the Jesuit missionary, Father Weninger (1865); and the three graded catechisms of the Redemptorist Father Müller (1874). Far more extensively used than these was the English translation of Deharbe. From 1869 numerous editions of the small, medium, and large catechisms, with various modifications, were published in the United States. An entirely new and much improved edition was issued in New York in 1901.

Repeated efforts have been made in the United States towards an arrangement by which a uniform textbook of Christian Doctrine might be used by all Catholics. As early as 1829, the bishops assembled in the First Provincial Council of Baltimore decreed: “A catechism shall be written which is better adapted to the circumstances of this Province; it shall give the Christian Doctrine as explained in Cardinal Bellarmine’s Catechism, and when approved by the Holy See, it shall be published for the common use of Catholics” (Decr. xxxiii). The clause recommending Bellarmine’s Catechism as a model was added at the special request of the Congregation of Propaganda. It may be mentioned here that Bellarmine’s “Small Catechism,” Italian text with English translation, was published at Boston, in 1853. The wish of the bishops was not carried out, and the First and Second Plenary Councils of Baltimore (1852 and 1866) repeated the decree of 1829. In the Third Plenary Council (1884) many bishops were in favour of a “revised” edition of Butler’s Catechism, but finally the matter was given into the hands of a committee of six bishops. At last, in 1885, was issued “A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Prepared and Enjoined by Order of the Third Council of Baltimore.” Although the council had desired a catechism “perfect in every respect” (Acta et Decr., p. 219), theologians and teachers criticized several points (Nilles, “Commentaria,” II, 265, 188). Soon various editions came forth with additions of word-meanings, explanatory notes, some even with different arrangements, so that there is now a considerable diversity in the books that go by the name of Catechism of the Council of Baltimore. Besides, in recent years several new catechisms have been published, “one or two a decided improvement over the Council Catechism” (Messmer, “Spirago’s Method,” p. 558). Among the recent catechisms are the two of Father Faerber, the large and small catechisms of Father Groenings, S. J., and the “Holy Family Series of Catholic Catechisms,” by Francis H. Butler, of the Diocese of Boston (1902). The three graded catechisms of this series give on the left page the questions and answers, on the right a “Reading Lesson),” dealing in fuller, and connected, form with the matter contained in the questions and answers. Some very practical features (reading part, followed by questions and answers, appropriate hymns, and pictorial illustrations) mark the “Text-books of Religion for Parochial and Sunday Schools,” edited since 1898 by Father Yorke. These last two series to some extent depart from the traditional method and indicate a new movement in catechetical teaching. A more radical change in the style of the catechism, namely the complete abandonment of the question-and-answer method, has recently been proposed (see below, under II and III of this article, and “Am. Eccl. Rev.,” 1907; Jan., and Feb., 1908). The First Plenary Council of Baltimore (1852) appointed Bishop Neumann to write, or revise, a German catechism the use of which, after its approbation by the archbishop and all the German-speaking bishops, should be obligatory. This decree shared the fate of the council’s demand for a uniform English catechism. The Third Plenary Council (1884) decreed that the catechism to be issued by its order should be translated into the languages of those parishes in which religious instruction is given in any other than the English tongue. But the translation of the council catechism met with little favour. Another regulation, however, contained in the same decree of the council (ccxix), was gradually carried into effect. The bishops assembled expressed an earnest desire that in schools where English was not used the Christian Doctrine should be taught not only in the foreign tongue there used, but also in English. Undoubtedly this was a wise provision. For the young people of the second or third generation find it difficult to understand the native language of their parents; hearing discussions or attacks on their religion, they are hardly able to answer if they have not learnt the catechism in English. Moreover, after leaving school many young people have to live among English-speaking people, in places where there is no congregation of their own nationality; if they have not been taught religion in English they are tempted not to attend sermons, they feel embarrassed in going to confession, and thus may gradually drift away from the Church. In order to obviate these dangers, various catechisms (Deharbe, Faerber, Groenings, etc.) have been published with German and English texts on opposite pages. Similarly, there are Polish-English, Bohemian-English, and other editions with double text. In most Italian schools catechism is taught chiefly in English, and only the prayers in Italian. Unwise as it would be to force a change of languages in catechetical teaching, it would be equally injudicious to artificially retard the natural development. The slow but steady tendency is towards the gradual adoption of the English language in preaching and teaching catechism, and it seems but reasonable to think that some day there will be among the Catholics in the United States not only unity in faith in the substance of the catechism, but also in its external form and language.

A number of German immigrants entered Pennsylvania about 1700, a considerable portion of them being Catholics. In 1759 the German Catholics in Philadelphia outnumbered those of the English tongue, and in 1789 they opened the church of the Holy Trinity, the first, exclusively national church in the United States. Since 1741 German Jesuits have ministered to the spiritual needs of their countrymen, and Catholic schools have been established in the Pennsylvania settlements. It was natural that the German Jesuits should introduce the Catechism of Canisius, which for centuries had been universally used throughout Germany. The best Known American edition of this famous catechism is that printed in Philadelphia, in 1810: “Catholischer Catechismus, worin die Catholische Lehre nach den f nf Hauptst cken V. P. Petri Canisii, aus der Gesellschaft Jesu, erkl rt wird.” The author or editor of this book was Adam Britt, pastor of the Holy Trinity Church, Philadelphia, who died at Conewaga (1822) as a member of the Society of Jesus. During several decades the Catechism of Canisius was generally used by the German Catholics in the United States. The Redemptorists came to this country in 1833 and soon had charge of flourishing German parishes in nearly all the more important cities. The Venerable John N. Neumann, afterwards Bishop of Philadelphia, wrote, while rector of the Redemtorist house at Pittsburg, about the year 1845, a small and a large catechism. These texts, also known as the “Redemptorist Catechisms,” had a wide circulation, whereas those written later by Father Weninger, S. J., and Father Müller, C. SS. R., never became popular. The second half of the nineteenth century may be called the era of Deharbe’s Catechism. In 1850 the “Katholischer Katechismus der Lehrbegriffe” was issued in Cincinnati, which by this time had become a centre of German Catholic population with flourishing parochial schools. Bishop Purcell declares in the approbation that the German catechisms previously published were not to be reprinted, but that this “Regensburg [Ratisbon] Catechism, long in use in Germany,” was to be the only one in his diocese. Although the name of the author was not given, it was in reality Father Deharbe’s “Large Catechism.” Since that time numerous editions of the different catechisms of Deharbe appeared with various adaptations and modifications, and for nearly fifty years Deharbe reigned supreme. This supremacy has been challenged within the last two decades. Father Müller, C. SS. R., in the preface to his catechism, severely criticized Deharbe’s as a book “which it is difficult for children to learn and to understand.” Father Faerber, who devoted forty years to catechetical instruction, produced in 1895 a textbook which commends itself by its simplicity and clearness, although the critics, who charged it with incompleteness and a certain lack of accuracy, were not altogether wrong. Almost simultaneously with Father Faerber’s book appeared an excellent, thoroughly revised, edition of Deharbe’s texts, from which many defects had been expunged. Finally, in 1900, Father Groenings, S. J., published two catechisms, a small and a large one.

Development of Catechizing after the Council of Trent—Mindful that the work of catechizing was more important than the issue of catechisms, the Council of Trent decreed that “the bishops shall take care that at least on the Lord’s day and other festivals the children in every parish be carefully taught the rudiments of the faith and obedience to God and their parents” (Sess. IV, De Ref., c. iv). In 1560 the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine was founded in Rome by a Milanese, and was approved by St. Pius V in 1571. St. Charles Borromeo in his provincial synods laid down excellent rules on catechizing; every Christian was to know the Lord’s Prayer, the Hail Mary, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments; confessors were ordered to examine their penitents as to their knowledge of these formularies (V Prov. Concil., 1579). He also established schools in the villages, in addition to increasing the number in the towns. Besides the renewed activity of the older orders, the Jesuits, the Barnabites, and the Clerks Regular of Pious Schools (Piarists), who devoted themselves to the education of the young, took special care of the religious instruction of those entrusted to them. In this connection three names are especially worthy of mention: St. Vincent de Paul, St. Francis de Sales, and M. Olier. One of St. Francis’s first acts as a bishop was to organize catechetical instruction throughout his diocese, and he himself took his turn with his canons in this holy work. St. Vincent founded his congregation of Priests of the Mission for the purpose of instructing the poor, especially in the villages. The missionaries were to teach the catechism twice a day during each mission. In his own parish of Ch tillon he established the Confraternity for the Assistance of the Poor, and one of the duties of the members was to instruct as well as to give material aid. So, too, the Sisters of Charity not only took care of the sick and the poor but also taught the children. M. Olier, both in the seminary and in the parish of Saint-Sulpice, laid special stress on the work of catechizing. The method which he introduced will be described in the second part of this article. The Brothers of the Christian Schools, founded by St. Jean-Baptiste de la Salle, devoted themselves especially to religious as well as secular instruction. Finding that the very poor were unable to attend school on weekdays, the saintly founder introduced secular lessons on Sundays. This was in 1699, nearly a century before such teaching was given in Protestant England.

II. PRACTICAL CATECHETICS

Catechizing (catechesis), as we have seen, is instruction which is at once religious, elementary, and oral.

Catechizing is a religious work not simply because it treats of religious subjects, but because its end or object is religious. The teacher should endeavour to influence the child’s heart and will, and not be content with putting a certain amount of religious knowledge into its head; for, as Aristotle would say, the end of catechizing is not knowledge, but practice. Knowledge, indeed, there must be, and the more of it the better in this age of widespread secular education; but the knowledge must lead to action. Both teacher and child must realize that they are engaged in a religious work, and not in one of the ordinary lessons of the day. It is the neglect to realize this that is responsible for the little effect produced by long and elaborate teaching. Religious knowledge comes to be looked upon by the child merely as a branch of other knowledge, and having as little to do with conduct as the study of vulgar fractions. “When the child is fighting its way through the temptations of the world, it will have to draw far more largely on its stock of piety than on its stock of knowledge” (Furniss, “Sunday School or Catechism?). The work of a teacher in the Church will be directed chiefly to this, that the faithful earnestly desire ‘to know Jesus Christ and Him crucified,’ and that they be firmly convinced and with the innermost piety and devotion of heart believe, that ‘there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved,’ for ‘He is the propitiation for our sins.’ But as in this we do know that we have known Him, if ‘we keep His commandments,’ the next consideration and one intimately connected with the foregoing, is to show that life is not to be spent in ease and sloth, but that we ‘ought to walk even as He walked,’ and with all earnestness ‘pursue justice, godliness, faith, charity, mildness’; for He ‘gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a people acceptable, pursuing good works’; which things the Apostle commands pastors to ‘speak and exhort.’ But as our Lord and Saviour has not only declared, hut has also shown by His own example, that the Law and the Prophets depend on love, and as also, according to the confirmation of the Apostle, ‘the end of the commandments and the fulfillment of the Law is charity, no one can doubt that this, as a paramount duty, should be attended to with the utmost assiduity, that the faithful people be excited to a love of the infinite goodness of God towards us; that, inflamed with a sort of divine ardour, they may be powerfully attracted to the supreme and all-perfect good, to adhere to which is solid happiness” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Pref., x).

The persons concerned in catechizing (teachers and taught) and the times and places for catechizing can hardly be treated apart. But it will be best to begin with the persons. The duty of providing suitable religious instruction for children is primarily incumbent on their parents. This they may fulfill either by teaching them themselves or by entrusting them to others. Next to the natural parents the godparents have this duty. The parish priest should remind both the parents and godparents of their obligation; and he, too, as the spiritual father of those entrusted to his care, is bound to instruct them. In Pius X’s Encyclical Letter on the teaching of Christian doctrine it is enacted

“(1) that all parish priests, and in general, all those entrusted with the care of souls, shall on every Sunday and feast day throughout the year, without exception, give boys and girls an hour’s instruction from the catechism on those things which every one must believe and do in order to be saved; (2) at stated times during the year they shall prepare boys and girls by continued instruction, lasting several days, to receive the sacraments of penance and confirmation; (3) they shall likewise and with special care on all the weekdays in Lent, and if necessary on other days after the feast of Easter, prepare boys and girls by suitable instruction and exhortations to make their first Communion in a holy manner; (4) in each and every parish the society, commonly called the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, shall be canonically erected; through this the parish priests, especially in the places where there is a scarcity of priests, will have lay helpers for the catechetical instruction in pious lay persons who will devote themselves to the office of teaching.”

In countries where there are Catholic schools religious instruction is given on weekdays either before or after the secular instruction. As is well known, for the sake of this privilege the faithful have contributed enormous sums of money to build and support schools. Where this is the case the difficulty is only a financial one. Nevertheless, the First Provincial Council of Westminster warns the pastor not to make over this duty of catechizing “so far to others, however good or religious they may be, as not to visit the schools frequently and instill into the tender minds of youth the principles of true faith and piety.” We see, then, that the work of giving religious instruction belongs to the parents, to priests with the care of souls, to the teachers in Catholic schools, and to other lay helpers. Turning now to those who are to be taught, we may consider first the young and then those who are grown up. The young may be divided into those who are receiving elementary education (primary scholars) and those who are more advanced (secondary scholars). Although in many dioceses the scholars are arranged in classes corresponding to the secular classes, we may consider them for our present purpose as divided into three groups: those who have not been to confession; those who have been to confession but have not made their first Communion; and those who have made their first Communion. In the case of the first group the instruction must be of the most rudimentary kind; but, as already pointed out, this does not mean that the little ones should be taught nothing except the first part of some catechism; they should have the Creed and the Commandments, the Our Father and the Hail Mary, explained to them, together with the forgiveness of sin by the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance. The principal events in the life of Christ will be found to be an ever-interesting subject for them. How far it is wise to talk to them about Creation and the Fall, the Deluge and the stories of the early patriarchs, may be a matter of discussion among teachers. In any case great care should be taken not to give them any notions which they may afterwards have to discard. If is of importance at this stage to tell the children in the simplest language something about the services of the Church, for they are now beginning to be present at these. Any one who has charge of them there, or, better still, who will recall his own early memories, will understand what a hardship it is to a child to have to sit through a high Mass with a sermon. The second group (those preparing for first Communion) will of course be able to receive more advanced instruction in each of the four branches mentioned above, with special reference to the Holy Eucharist. In instructing both groups the subjects should be taught dogmatically, that is, authoritatively, appealing rather to the children’s faith than to their reasoning powers. The after-Communion instruction of elementary scholars will be almost similar to the instruction given to younger secondary scholars, and will consist in imparting wider and deeper knowledge and insisting more upon proofs. When they grow up their difficulty will be not only the observance of the law, but the reason of it. They will ask not only, What must I believe and do? but also, Why must I believe it or do it? Hence the importance of thorough instruction in the authority of the Church, Scripture texts, and also appeals to right reason. This brings us to the subject of catechizing grown-up persons. Pius X goes on to speak of this matter, after laying down the regulations for the young: “In these days adults not less than the young stand in need of religious instruction. All parish priests, and others having the care of souls, in addition to the homily on the Gospel delivered at the parochial Mass on all days of obligation, shall explain the catechism for the faithful in an easy style, suited to the intelligence of their hearers, at such time of the day as they may deem most convenient for the people, but not during the hour in which the children are taught. In this instruction they shall make use of the Catechism of the Council of Trent; and they shall so order if that the whole matter of the Creed, the Sacraments, the Decalogue, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Precepts of the Church shall be treated in the space of four or five years.”

The subjects to be treated of are laid down by Pius X: “As the things divinely revealed are so many and so various that it is no easy task either to acquire a knowledge of them, or, having acquired that knowledge, to retain them in the memory, . . . our predecessors have very wisely reduced this whole force and scheme of saving doctrine to these four distinct heads: the Apostles’ Creed; the Sacraments; the Ten Commandments; and the Lord’s Prayer. In the doctrine of the Creed are contained all things which are to be held according to the discipline of the Christian Faith, whether they regard the knowledge of God, or the creation and government of the world, or the redemption of the human race, or the rewards of the good and the punishments of the wicked. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments comprehends the signs and as it were the instruments for obtaining divine grace. In the Decalogue is laid down whatever has reference to the Law, ‘the end’ whereof ‘is charity.’ Finally, in the Lord’s Prayer is contained whatever can be desired, hoped, or salutarily prayed for by men. It follows that these four commonplaces, as it were, of Sacred Scripture being explained, there can scarcely be wanting anything to be learned by a Christian man” (ib., xii). It must be borne in mind that catechetical instruction should be elementary; but this of course is a relative term, according as the pupil is an adult or a child. This difference has been dealt with above in speaking of the persons concerned in catechizing. It may be pointed out here, however, that elementary knowledge is not the same as partial knowledge. Even young children should he taught something of each of the four divisions mentioned above, viz., that they have to believe in God and to do God’s will, and to obtain His grace by means of prayer and the sacraments. Further instruction will consist in developing each of these heads. Besides what is ordinarily understood by Christian doctrine, catechizing should treat of Christian history and Christian worship. Christian history will include the story of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Church. Christian worship will include the Church’s calendar (the feasts and fasts) and her services and devotions. These three—doctrine, history, and worship—are not altogether distinct, and may often be best taught together. For example, the second article of the Creed should be taught in such a way as to bring out the doctrine of the Incarnation, the beautiful story of Christ’s birth and childhood, and the meaning and the services of Advent and Christmas. The Bible history and the history of the Church will afford countless instances bearing on the various doctrines and heresies of the doctrinal part of the catechism, and the virtues and contrary vices of the practical part.

The question of catechetical methods is difficult and has given rise to much controversy. Father Furniss long ago, in his “Sunday School or Catechism?” and Bishop Bellord later on, in his “Religious Education and its Failures,” passed a wholesale condemnation on our present method, and attributed to it the falling away of so many Catholics from the Faith. “The chief cause of the ‘leakage’ is the imperfection of our systems of religious instruction. Those methods seem to be antiquated, injudicious, wasteful, sometimes positively injurious to the cause” (Bp. Bellord, op. cit., p. 7). Part of the blame is laid upon catechizing, and part upon the catechisms. Of the latter we shall speak presently. Again, the blame is twofold and is not altogether consistent. The children are declared not to know their religion, or, knowing it quite well, not to put it into practice. In either case they are of course lost to the Church when they grow up. Both the bishop and the redemptorist complain that religious instruction is made a task, and so fails either to be learnt at all, or, if it is learnt, it is learnt in such a way as to become hateful to the child and to have no bearing on his conduct in after-life. Both are especially severe on the attempt to make the children learn by heart. The bishop quotes a number of experienced missionary priests who share his views. It seems to us that, in considering the methods of catechizing, we have to bear in mind two very different sets of conditions. In some countries religious instruction forms part of the daily curriculum, and is mainly given on weekdays by trained teachers. Where this is the case it is not difficult to secure that the children shall learn by heart some official textbook. With this as a foundation the priest (who will by no means restrict his labours to Sunday work) will be able to explain and illustrate and enforce what they have learnt by heart. The teachers’ business will be chiefly to put the catechism into the child’s head; the priest must get it into his heart. Very different are the conditions which Father Furniss and Bishop Bellord are dealing with. Where the priest has to get together on a Sunday, or one day in the week, a number of children of all ages, who are not obliged to be present; and when he has to depend upon the assistance of lay persons who have no training in teaching; it is obvious that he should do his best to make the instruction as simple, as interesting, and as devotional as possible. As in other branches of instruction we may follow either the analytical or the synthetical method. In the former we take a textbook, a catechism, and explain it word for word to the scholar and make him commit it to memory. The book is of prime importance; the teacher occupies quite a secondary place. Though it might convey a wrong impression to call this the Protestant method, yet it is exactly in accordance with the Protestant system of religious teaching generally. The written, printed word (Bible or Catechism) is to them all in all. The synthetical method, on the other hand, puts the teacher in the forefront. The scholars are bidden to look up to him and listen to his voice, and receive his words on his authority. “Faith cometh by hearing.” After they have thoroughly learnt their lesson in this way, a book may be then set before them, and be explained to them and committed to memory, as containing in a fixed form the substance of what they have received by word of mouth. Whatever may be said of the relative advantages of the two methods in the teaching of secular subjects, there can be no doubt that the synthetical method is the proper one for catechetical instruction. The office of catechizing belongs to the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority), and so is best exercised by the living voice. “The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth” (Mal., ii, 7).

A. THE SULPICIAN METHOD

The Sulpician Method of catechizing is celebrated throughout the world, and hits produced wonderful fruits wherever it has been employed. We cannot, therefore, do better than give a short account of it here.

The whole catechism consists of three principal exercises and three secondary ones. The principal are:

the recitation of the letter of the catechism, with an easy explanation of it by way of question and answer;

the instruction;

the reading of the Gospel and the homily.

The secondary exercises are:

the admonitions from the head catechist;

the hymns;

prayers.

These should be interspersed with the former. The duration fixed by St. Francis de Sales for a complete catechism is two hours. The place should be the church, but in a separate chapel rather than in the body of the church, Great importance is attached to the “game of the goodmark” (le jeu du bon point) and the analyses. The former consists in selecting the child who has answered best in the first part (the questioning on the catechism), and putting to him a series of short, clear, and definite questions upon the matter in hand and doing this as a sort of challenge to the child. The other children are roused to interest at the notion of a contest between the catechist and one of themselves, and this gives occasion for a better understanding of the subject under treatment. If the child is considered to have won, he receives a small card of reward (le bon point). “For the success of the game of the bon point it is important to prepare beforehand and to write down the questions which are to be put to the children, even the commonest ones.” The children should be made to write out a short account of the instruction given after the questioning. These analyses should be corrected by the teacher, and a mark (“fair,” “good,” “very good”) should be attached to each. In order to secure regular attendance, registers should be carefully kept, and rewards (pictures, medals, etc.) should be given to those who have not missed a catechism. Treats and feasts should also be given. The spirit of emulation should be encouraged both for attendance and good answering and analyses. Various minor offices should be conferred upon the best children. Punishment should very seldom be resorted to. Though the Sulpician method insists upon a thorough knowledge of the letter of the catechism, it is clear that the teacher is of prime importance rather than the book. Indeed, the success or failure of the catechism may be said to depend entirely upon him, If is he who has to do the questioning and give the instruction and the homily on the Gospel. Unless he can keep the attention of the children fixed upon him, he is bound to fail. Hence, the greatest care should be taken in selecting and training the catechists. These are sometimes seminarists or nuns, but lay persons must often be taken. By far the larger portion of “The Method of Saint Sulpice” is devoted to the instruction of the catechists (cap. iv, “Of the instruction of the children”; cap v, “Of the sanctification of the children”; cap. vi, “Of the necessity of making the catechism pleasant to the children, and some means for attaining this object”; cap. vii, “How to turn the catechism into exercises of emulation”; cap. viii, “How to maintain good order and ensure the success of the catechisms”).

So far the “Method” has dealt with the catechisms generally. Next comes the division of the catechisms. These are four in number: the Little Catechism, the First-Communion Catechism, the Weekday Catechism, and the Catechism of Perseverance. The Weekday Catechism is the only one which requires any explanation here. A certain time before the period of first Communion a list is made out of such children as are to be admitted to the Holy Table, and these are prepared by more frequent exercises, held on weekdays as well as on Sundays. As a rule, only children who have attended for twelve months are admitted to the weekday catechisms, and the usual age is twelve years. The weekday catechism is held on two days of the week and for about three months. The order is much the same as that of the Sunday catechism, except that the Gospel and the homily are omitted. The children are examined twice during the weekday catechisms: the first time about the middle of the course; the second, a week before the retreat. Those who have often been absent without cause or who have answered badly, or whose conduct has been unsatisfactory, are rejected.

A complete account of the method will be found in “The Method of Saint Sulpice” (Tr.), and also in “The Ministry of Catechising” (Tr.) by Mgr. Dupanloup.

B. THE MUNICH METHOD

In 1898 Dr. A. Weber, editor of the “Katechetische Blätter” of Munich, urged the adaptation of the Herbart-Ziller system in teaching Christian doctrine. This system requires, “first, a division of the catechetical matter into strict methodical units, so that those questions are co-ordinated which are essentially one. Secondly, it insists on a methodical following of the three essential steps, viz., Presentation, Explanation, and Application—with a short Preparation before Presentation, then Combination after Explanation, as more or less nonessential points. It therefore never begins with the catechetical questions, but always with an objective Presentation—in the form of a story from life or the Bible, a catechetical, Biblical or historical picture, a point of liturgy, church history, or the lives of the saints, or some such objective lesson. Out of this objective lesson only will the catechetical concepts be evolved and abstracted, then combined into the catechism answer and formally applied to life. These catechists aim at capturing the child’s interest from the start and preserving his good-will and attention throughout” (Amer. Eccl. Rev., March, 1908, p. 342). “Preparation turns the attention of the pupil in a definite direction. The pupil hears the lesson-aim in a few well-chosen words. At this stage of the process the pupil’s ideas are also corrected and made clearer. Presentation gives an object-lesson. If at all possible, use one such object only. There are sound psychological reasons for this, although it becomes occasionally useful to employ several. Explanation might also be called concept-formation, Out of the objective lesson are here construed, or evolved, the catechetical concepts. From the concrete objective presentation we here pass to the general concept. Combination gathers all the ideas derived from the lesson into the text of the catechism. Application finally strengthens and deepens the truths we have gathered and variously widens them for purposes of life. We can here insert further examples, give additional motives, apply the lessons to the actual life of the child, train the child in judging his own moral conduct, and end with some particular resolution, or an appropriate prayer, song, hymn, or quotation” (Amer. Eccl. Rev., Apr., 1908, p. 465). In the same number of the Review (p. 460) will be found an excellent lesson on “Sin,” drawn up on the lines of the Munich Method. Further information will be found in Weber’s “Die Münchener katechetische Methode,” and Göttler’s “Der Münchener katechetische Kurs, 1905.”

INSTRUCTION OF CONVERTS

The careful instruction of those who apply for admission into the Church, or who wish information about her doctrines and practices, is a sacred duty incumbent at times on almost every priest. No one may prudently embrace the Christian religion unless he sees clearly that it is credible. Hence the motives of credibility, the sure arguments that convince the understanding and move the will to command the assent of faith, must be clearly set forth. The higher the social or intellectual position of inquirers, the more thorough and diligent should be the instruction. Each one is to be guided not merely to understand the Church’s dogmas, as far as he can, but to practise the exercises of Christian perfection. Before the usual profession of faith, converts ought to be examined on their knowledge of all matters that must be known in order to be saved. This should be done with great care, for at this time they are docile. After their admission to the sacraments some may easily fancy themselves fully instructed, and for want of further study remain ignorant until death, unable to train properly their children or dependents. In the case of uneducated persons who are drawn to the Church, the prudent director will avoid such controversy as might lead his pupil to defend errors hitherto unknown. Better educated inquirers are to be fully satisfied on all points that they have held against Catholic doctrine and must be provided with the means of resisting both internal and external temptations. The length of time and the character of the instruction will vary with each individual.

It follows from what has been said that the times and places will vary according to the different sorts of persons to be instructed and the habits of the different countries. Speaking generally, however, at least some instruction should be given on Sundays and in the church, so as to bring out the religious character of catechizing.

III. MODERN CATECHISMS

When speaking of the history of catechetics we saw that, though the method was originally and properly oral, the custom soon arose of composing catechisms—i.e. short manuals of elementary religious instruction, usually by means of questions and answers.

A catechism is of the greatest use both to the teacher and the scholar. To the teacher it is a guide as to the subjects to be taught, the order of dealing with them, and the choice of words in which the instruction should be conveyed; above all, it is the best means of securing uniformity and correctness of doctrinal and moral teaching. The use which the teacher should make of if must be understood in connection with what has been said above about the methods of catechizing. To the scholar a catechism gives in a brief form a summary of what the teacher has been imparting to him; and by committing it to memory he can be sure that he has grasped the substance of his lesson. As already observed, this is not a difficult matter where there are Catholic schools under trained expert teachers accustomed to making the children learn by heart; but where the teaching has to be done in evening or Sunday schools by inexperienced persons, and the scholars are not under the same control as in the day schools, the portions to be committed to memory must be reduced to a minimum.

A good catechism should conform strictly to the definition given above. That is to say, it should be elementary, not a learned treatise of dogmatic, moral, and ascetical theology; and it should be simple in language, avoiding technical expressions as far as consistent with accuracy. Should the form of question and answer be maintained? No doubt it is not an interesting form for grown-up persons; but children prefer it because it lets them know exactly what they are likely to be asked. Moreover, this form keeps up the idea of a teacher and a disciple, and so is most in conformity with the fundamental notion of catechizing. What form the answers should take—Yes or No, or a categorical statement—is a matter of disagreement among the best teachers. It would seem that the decision depends on the character of the different languages and nations; some of them making extensive use of the affirmative and negative particles, while others reply by making statements. Archbishop Walsh of Dublin, in his instructions for the revision of the catechism, recommended “the introduction of short rending lessons, one to be appended to each chapter of the catechism. These reading lessons should deal, in somewhat fuller form, with the matter dealt with in the questions and answers of the catechism. The insertion of such lessons would make if possible to omit without loss many questions the answers to which now impose a heavy burden on the memory of the children. . . . If these lessons are written with care and skill, and in a style attractive as well as simple, the children will soon have them learned by heart, from the mere fact of repeatedly reading them, and without any formal effort at committing them to memory” (Irish Eccl. Record, Jan., 1892). An excellent means of assisting the memory is the use of pictures. These should be selected with the greatest care; they should be accurate as well as artistic. The catechism used in Venice when Pius X was patriarch was illustrated.

As there are three stages of catechetical instruction, so there should be three catechisms corresponding with these. The first should be very short and simple, but should give the little child some information about all four parts of religious knowledge. The second catechism, for those preparing for first Communion, should embody, word for word, without the slightest change, all the questions and answers of the first catechism. Further questions and answers, dealing with a more extensive knowledge, should be added in their proper places, after the earlier matter; and these will have special reference to the sacraments, more particularly the Holy Eucharist. The third catechism, for those who have made their first Communion, should in like manner embody the contents of the first and second catechisms, and add instruction belonging to the third stage mentioned above. For scholars beyond the elementary stages this third catechism may be used, with additions not in the form of question and answer and not necessarily to be learnt by heart. The great idea running through all the catechisms should be that the later ones should grow out of the earlier ones, and that the children should not be confused by differently worded answers to the same questions. Thus, the answer to the questions: What is charity? What is a sacrament? should be exactly the same in all the catechisms. Further information can be introduced by fresh questions. In some rare cases additions may be made at the end of the earlier answers, but never in the middle.

It was mentioned in the historical portion of this article that at the time of the Vatican Council, a proposal was made for the introduction of a uniform catechism for use throughout the Church. As the proposal was not carried out, we may here discuss the advantages and disadvantages a universal catechism. There can be no doubt that the present system of allowing each bishop to draw up a catechism for use in his diocese is open to strong objection. Happily, in these days there is no difficulty on the head of diversity of doctrine. The difficulty arises rather from the importance attached to learning the catechism by heart. People do not nowadays remain stationary in the neighbourhood in which they were born. Their children, in passing from one diocese to another, are obliged to unlearn the wording of one catechism (a most difficult process) and learn the different wording of another. Even where all the dioceses of a province or country have the same catechism the difficulty arises in passing into a new province or country. A single catechism for universal use would prevent all this waste of time and confusion, besides being a strong bond of union between the nations. At the same time it must be recognized that the conditions of the Church vary considerably in the different countries. In a Catholic country, for instance, it is not necessary to touch upon controversial questions, whereas in non-Catholic countries these must be thoroughly gone into. This will notably be the case with regard to the introduction of texts in the actual words of the Holy Scriptures. Thus, in the Valladolid Catechism there is not a single quotation from the Old or New Testament except the Our Father and the first part of the Hail Mary—and even of these the source is not mentioned. The Commandments are not given in the words of Scripture. There is no attempt to prove any doctrine; everything is stated dogmatically on the authority of the Church. A catechism on these lines is clearly unsuited for children living among Protestants. As already pointed out, the instruction of those who have made their first Communion should embrace proof as well as statement. The Fathers of the Vatican Council recognized the difficulty, and endeavoured to meet it by a compromise. A new catechism, based upon Bellarmine’s Catechism and other catechisms of approved value, was to be drawn up in Latin, and was to be translated into the different vernaculars with the authority of the bishops, who were empowered to make such additions as they might think fit; but these additions were to be kept quite distinct from the text. The unhappy events of the latter part of the year 1870 prevented this proposal from being carried out.

(a) The present pontiff [1909], Pius X, has prescribed a catechism for use in the Diocese of Rome and in its ecclesiastical province, and has expressed a desire that it should be adopted throughout Italy. It has been translated into English, French, Spanish, and German, and a movement has begun with a view to extending its use to other countries besides Italy, especially to Spain, where the conditions are similar. (See “Irish Eccl. Record,” March, 1906, p. 221; “Amer. Eccl. Rev.,” Nov., 1906.) This catechism consists of two parts, or rather two distinct books: one for “lower classes” and one for “higher classes.” The first, or “Shorter Catechism,” is meant for those who have not made their first Communion; the second, or “Longer Catechism,” for those who have already been through the other. Both are constructed on the same lines: an introductory portion, and then five sections treating in turn of the Creed, Prayer, the Commandments, the Sacraments, the Virtues, etc. The “Longer Catechism” contains, in addition, in catechetical form, an instruction on the feasts of Our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints, and a short “History of Religion” (the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Church) in the form of a narrative. But though the two catechisms are on the same main lines, they have very little connection with each other. Hardly any of the questions and answers are the same; so that a knowledge of the wording of the first is of little use, but rather an obstacle, in learning the second. It is worthy of note that, though texts of Scripture are not quoted, the second catechism contains a large number of questions and answers relating to the Holy Scriptures, among others the following: “Is the reading of the Bible necessary to all Christians?—The reading of the Bible is not necessary to all Christians, because they are taught by the Church; still, the reading of it is very useful and recommended to all.” Many of the answers in the second catechism are much longer than those in other catechisms. The catechism itself, without counting the lengthy instruction on the feasts and the “History of Religion,” fills more than 200 pages 12mo in Bishop Byrne’s translation.

(b) Throughout Great Britain only one catechism is officially in use. It was drawn up by a committee appointed by the Second Provincial Council of Westminster (1855), and is based upon the Douai Catechism. It has undergone several revisions, the last of these being for the purpose of eliminating the particles Yes and No, and making all the answers distinct categorical statements. If is remarkable for its frequent appeal to proofs from Holy Scripture. Though it has been subject to many attacks, it is justly considered to be a clear and logical statement of Catholic belief and practice, fitted to the needs of both children and grown-up persons seeking instruction. Perhaps it has this latter class too much in view, and hence it is sometimes wanting in simplicity. The omission of Yes and No and the avoidance of pronouns in the answers have been carried to a pedantic excess. Besides this ordinary catechism there is a smaller catechism, for younger children, which goes over the whole ground in a more elementary form; it is to some extent free from the objection just mentioned; but this advantage involves some verbal differences between the answers of the two catechisms. There is no official advanced catechism. For the more advanced classes a number of excellent “Manuals” are in use, e. g. “Instructions in Christian Doctrine”; Wenham’s “Catechumen”; Carr’s “Lamp of the Word”; Cafferata’s “The Catechism, Simply Explained”; Fander’s (Deharbe’s) “Catechism.” Howe’s “Catechist” and Spirago’s “Method of Christian Doctrine” (ed. Messmer) are used by those who are being trained to be teachers. Short Bible Histories, none of them official, are used in the more elementary classes, especially Formby’s volumes; in the higher classes, Wenham’s “New Testament Narrative,” Richards’ “Scripture History,” and Knecht’s “Practical Commentary.” There are also separate books of the New Testament, edited by Mgr. Ward and by Father Sydney Smith, etc. It should be added that the elementary schools and the training colleges, besides many of the secondary schools and colleges, are examined in religious knowledge by inspectors appointed by the bishops.

(c) In Ireland the catechism most commonly used at the present time is the “Catechism ordered by the National Synod of Maynooth. . . . for General Use throughout the Irish Church.” After a short Introduction on God and the creation of the world and on man and the end of his creation, it treats in turn of the Creed, the Commandments, Prayer, and the Sacraments. The answers are short and clear, and, though Yes and No are excluded, the form of the answers is not always a rigid repetition of the words of the question. Various important improvements have been suggested by Archbishop Walsh (see “Irish Eccl. Record,” Jan., 1892, and following numbers). There is also a smaller edition of the Maynooth Catechism. The manuals used in the advanced classes are much the same as those used in Great Britain, together with the “Companion to the Catechism” (Gill). Religious inspection is general.

(For the United States, see above under HISTORY OF CATECHETICS.)

(d) The First Provincial Council of Quebec (1852) ordered two catechisms for use in Canada: Butler’s Catechism for those speaking English, and a new French catechism for those speaking French. The latter is called “The Quebec Catechism,” and is also issued in an abridged form.

(e) In Australia the Maynooth Catechism is generally used. But the bishops in the Plenary Council of 1885 decreed that a new catechism should be drawn up for use throughout Australia.

From this enumeration it will be seen how far we are from having any uniform catechism for the English-speaking peoples. If we consider the Continent of Europe, we find that in France, Germany, and Spain different catechisms are in use in the different dioceses. In the German-speaking provinces of Austria there is one single catechism for all the dioceses, approved by the whole episcopate in 1894. It is issued in three forms: small, middle, and large. All of these are arranged on exactly the same lines: a short introduction, Faith and the Apostles’ Creed, Hope and Prayer, Charity and the Commandments, Grace and the Sacraments, Justification and the Last Things. The middle catechism contains all the questions and answers of the small, in exactly the same words, and adds a considerable number of fresh ones. In like manner, the large catechism makes further additions. The small catechism has no texts from Scripture; the other two contain many texts, usually placed in notes at the foot of the page. The chief difference between the middle and large catechisms is that the latter deals more with reasons and proofs, and consequently gives a greater number of Scripture texts. Austria is, therefore, better off than most countries in the matter of the catechism. She has none of the difficulties arising from a multiplicity of manuals, and her single textbook is in the three forms described above as the ideal for all countries. Schuster’s excellent Bible History is also in universal use, and is arranged by means of different type and signs so as to be accommodated to the three stages of the catechism. Religious training in Austria has, however, been severely criticized by Dr. Pichler, a high authority in that country. He considers the catechism as cumbersome, the work of a good theologian but a poor catechist; he advocates the compilation of a new Bible History on the lines of Knecht’s manual; and he advocates the adoption of inductive methods. See “Unser Religionsunterricht, seine Mängel und deren Ursachen.”

One of the best of the German catechisms is that of the Diocese of Augsburg, mainly the work of Kinsel and Hauser, and published in 1904. It is on the lines of Deharbe, but much simplified, and copiously illustrated. So, too, is the new Hungarian catechism (1907), which is issued in three editions: one for the first and second grade of elementary schools, one for the remaining four grades, and one for the high schools. Bishop Mailath of Transylvania has had the direction of the work. Poland has not been behindhand in reforming her catechetical teaching. A catechism has just been drawn up for the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades by Bishop Likowski and Valentine Gadowski. The answers to be learnt by heart are limited to forty in each year, and are short and simple. Each is followed by a fairly long explanation. This catechism contains 215 illustrations.

It should be noted that all Continental reformers have dropped the idea of making the answers theologically complete. The subsequent explanations supply what may be wanting. The answers are complete sentences, Yes and No being seldom used by themselves, and the order of the words in the answers follows that in the questions.

On the History of Catechetics: BAREILLE, Le Catéchisme Romain, Introduction (Montr jeau, 1906); HÉZARD, Histoire du catéchisme depuis la naissance de l’Eglise jusqu’a nos jours; THALHOFER, Entwicklung des katholischen Katechismus in Deutschland von Canisius bis Deharbe; PROBST, Geschichte der katholischen Katechese (Paderborn, 1887); (SPIRAGO, Method of Christian Doctrine, tr. MESSMER (New York, 1901), vi; BAREILLE in Dict. de théol. cath., s.v. Cat ch se; MANGENOT, ibid., s.v. Catéchisme; KNECHT in Kirchenlex., s. vv. Katechese, katechetik, Katechismus.

On Catechizing, Methods, etc.: DUPANLOUP, Method of Catechising (tr.); The Method of S. Sulpice (tr.); SPIRAGO ut supra; WALSH, Irish Eccl. Record, Jan., 1892; LAMBING, The Sunday School Teacher’s Manual (1873); FURNISS, How to Teach at Catechism; Sunday School or Catechism; BELLORD, Religious Education and its Failures (Notre Dame, 1901); BAREILLE, MANGENOT, and KNECHT, ut supra; GLANCY, Preface to KNECHT, Bible Commentary for Schools (Freiburg, 1894); GIBSON, The Catechism made Easy (London, 1882); CARR, A Lamp of the Word and Instructor’s Guide (Liverpool, 1892); Howe, The Catechist: or Headings and Suggestions for the Explanation of the Catechism (Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1895); SLOAN, The Sunday School Teacher’s Guide to Success (New York, 1907); Amer. Eccl. Rev., Jan.-May, 1908; WEBER, Die Münchener katechetische Methode; G TTLER, Der Münchener katechetische Kurs, 1905 (1906).

Catechisms, Manuals, etc.

It would not be possible to give anything like a complete list of these. We shall content ourselves with mentioning a few of the best-known in use in English-speaking countries. Some have already been mentioned in the article.—A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, prepared and enjoined by order of the Third Council of Baltimore (1885); The Catechism ordered by the National Synod of Maynooth and approved of by the Cardinal, the Archbishops, and the Bishops of Ireland for General Use throughout the Irish Church (Dublin, s. d.); A Short Catechism extracted from the Catechism ordered, etc. (Dublin, s. d.); A Catechism of Christian Doctrine approved by Cardinal Vaughan and the Bishops of England (London, 1902); The Explanatory Catechism of Christian Doctrine (the same with notes); The Little Catechism; an Abridgement of the Catechism of Christian Doctrine (London, s. d.); BUTLER, Catechism (Dublin, 1845); DEHARBE, Catechism of the Christian Religion (also known as Fander’s Catechism)(New York, 1887); Companion to The Catechism (Dublin); SPIRAGO, The Catechism Explained, ed. CLARKE; GERARD, Course of Religious Instruction for Catholic Youth (London, 1901); De ZULUETA, Letters on Christian Doctrine; CAFFERATA, The Catechism Simply Explained (London, 1897); A Manual of Instruction in Christian Doctrine—approved by Cardinal Wiseman and Cardinal Manning, much used in the higher schools and training colleges in the British Isles (London, 1861, 1871); WENHAM, The Catechumen, an Aid to the intelligent knowledge of the Catechism (London, 1881); POWER, Catechism: Doctrinal, Moral, Historical, and Liturgical (5th ed., Dublin, 1880).

Anglican: MACLEAR, A Class Book of the Catechism of the Church of England (London 1886).

There are many Bible Histories in use, but none of them officially recommended, though published with episcopal approval. The best-known are: The Children’s Bible History for Home and School Use (a small elementary work of which nearly a million and a half have been printed; it is capable of improvement) (London, 1872); FORMBY, Pictorial Bible and Church History Stories, including Old Testament History, the Life of Christ, and Church History (London, 1871); KNECHT, Bible Commentary for Schools, ed. GLANCY (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1894); WENHAM, Readings from the Old Testament, New Testament Narrative (London, 1907); RICHARDS, Manual of Scripture History (London, 1885); COSTELLO, The Gospel Story (London, 1900); Scripture Manuals for Catholic Schools, ed. SMITH (London, 1899); St. Edmund’s College Series of Scripture Manuals, WARD ed. (London, 1897).

T. B. SCANNELL.

Doctrine of Addai

(Lat. Doctrina Addoei).

A Syriac document which relates the legend of the conversion of Edessa. It begins with the story of the letter of King Abgar to Christ and the reply of the latter, with some variations from the account drawn by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., I, xiii) from the Edessene archives. The reply was not a letter, as Eusebius says, but a verbal message, together with a portrait of Christ (not in Eusebius). After the Ascension Judas Thomas sent Addai, one of the seventy-two disciples, to Abgar. Addai (Thaddeus in Eusebius) healed the king of his sickness, and preached before him, relating the discovery of the True Cross by Protonice, wife of the Emperor Claudius; this, with all that follows, is later than Eusebius, being founded on the story of St. Helena. Addai then preaches to the people, who are converted. The heathen altars are thrown down, and the people are baptized. King Abgar induces the Emperor Tiberius to chastise the Jews for having crucified the Saviour. Churches are built by Addai, and he makes deacons and priests. On his death-bed he appoints Aggai his successor, ordains the deacon Palut priest, and gives his last admonitions. He was buried in the sepulchre of the king’s ancestors. Many years after his death, Aggai, who ordained holy priests for the country, was martyred as he taught in the church by a rebellious son of Abgar. His successor, Palut, was obliged to go to Antioch in order to get episcopal consecration, which he received from Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, who “himself also received the hand from Zephyrinus, Bishop of the city of Rome, from the succession of the hand of the priesthood of Simon Cephas, which he received from Our Lord, who was there Bishop of Rome twenty-five years, in the days of the C sar, who reigned there thirteen years” (evidently Nero is meant, who reigned from October, 54, to June, 68). The anxiety of the writer to connect the Edessene succession with Rome is interesting; its derivation from the Petrine See of Antioch does not suffice him.

The doctrine of the book is not unorthodox, though some expressions might be understood in an Apollinarian sense. The mention of Holy Scripture must be noticed: “They read in the Old Testament and the New, and the Prophets, and the Acts of the Apostles, every day they meditated on them”; “a large number of people assembled day by day and came to the prayer of the service, and to [the reading] of the Old and New Testament, of the Diatessaron”; “But the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel, which ye read every day before the people, and the Epistles of Paul, which Simon Peter sent us from the city of Rome, and the Acts of the twelve Apostles, which John, the son of Zebedee, sent us from Ephesus, these books read ye in the Churches of Christ, and with these read not any others, as there is not any other in which the truth that ye hold is written, except these books, which retain you in the faith to which ye have been called.” The canon therefore excludes the Apocalypse and all the Catholic Epistles; in this it agrees with Aphraates, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Syriac stichometrical list of Cod. Sin. 10 (in Mrs. Lewis’s Catalogue of Sinai Manuscripts), and probably with Ephrem. The Syriac Church, indeed, never accepted the Apocalypse and the four shorter Catholic Epistles; the three longer were admitted at all events later than 400, at an uncertain date. The Diatessaron was employed by the Syriac Church from its composition by Tatian c. 160 until it was proscribed by the famous Bishop of Edessa, Rabbula (d. 435).

We seem to find firm historical ground in the statement that Palut was consecrated bishop by Serapion, who was Bishop of Antioch c. 191–212 and really a contemporary of Pope Zephyrinus. But this shows that Addai, who made Palut a priest, was not one of the seventy-two Disciples of Christ. The first Christian King of Edessa was in reality Abgar IX (179–214) who was converted soon after 201, and this date tallies with that of Palut. It is possible that Palut was the first Bishop of Edessa; but it is surely more likely that there was already a Church and a bishop under the pagan kings in so important a city. An early date for the Abgar legend is sometimes based upon the promise in the message of Christ: “Thy city shall be blessed, and no enemy shall again become master of it forever.” It is argued that this could not have been invented after the sacking of the city under Trajan in 116; but the writer might have passed over this event after a century and a half. The confusion of dates can hardly have arisen before the latter half of the third century, and the Edessene Acts used by Eusebius were probably not very old when he wrote. The “Doctrine of Addai” is yet later. The Finding of the Cross must be dated some time later than St. Helena; the miraculous picture of Christ was not seen by the Abbess Etheria when she visited Edessa c. 385. Hence the date of the work may be c. 400.

The “Doctrine of Addai” was first published in Syriac in a fragmentary form by Cureton, “Ancient Syriac documents” (London, 1864, a posthumous work), with a translation; another translation in “Ante-Nicene Chr. Libr.,” XX. The full Syriac text was published by Phillips, with a translation (London, 1876). An Armenian version and (separately) a French translation, by the Mechitarist Father Leo Alishan, “Laboubnia, Lettre d’Abgar” (Venice, 1868).

The literature of the subject (including the Abgar legend, the Finding of the Cross, the Greek legend in the Acta Thadd i, and the origins of the Church of Edessa) is very large. The following works may be specially mentioned: LIPSIUS, Die edessenische Abgarsage kritisch untersucht (Brunswick, 1880); TIXERONT, Les origines de l’Eglise d’Edesse et la 1gende d’Abgar (Paris, 1888); MARTIN, Les origines de l’Eglise d’Edesse et des glises syriennes (extr. from Revue des sc. eccl., Paris. 1889); BURKITT, Early Eastern Christianity (London, 1904); NESTLE, De sancta cruce (Berlin, 1889); on the picture of Christ, VON DOBSCH TZ, Christusbilder (Leipzig, 1899). Further references will be found in BARDENHEWER, Gesch. der altkirchl. Litt., I, 458; CHEVALIER, R pertoire, s.v. Abgar.

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Dogma

I. DEFINITION

The word dogma (Gr. dogma from dokein) signifies, in the writings of the ancient classical authors, sometimes, an opinion or that which seems true to a person; sometimes, the philosophical doctrines or tenets, and especially the distinctive philosophical doctrines, of a particular school of philosophers (cf. Cic. Ac., ii, 9), and sometimes, a public decree or ordinance, as dogma poieisthai.

In Sacred Scripture it is used, at one time, in the sense of a decree or edict of the civil authority, as in Luke, ii, 1: “And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree [edictum, dogma] from Caesar Augustus” (cf. Acts, xvii, 7; Esther, iii, 3); at another time, in the sense of an ordinance of the Mosaic Law as in Eph., ii 15: “Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees” (dogmasin), and again, it is applied to the ordinances or decrees of the first Apostolic Council in Jerusalem: “And as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto them the decrees [dogmata] for to keep, that were decreed by the apostles and ancients who were at Jerusalem” (Acts, xvi, 4).

Among the early Fathers the usage was prevalent of designating as dogmas the doctrines and moral precepts taught or promulgated by the Saviour or by the Apostles; and a distinction was sometimes made between Divine, Apostolical, and ecclesiastical dogmas, according as a doctrine was conceived as having been taught by Christ, by the Apostles, or as having been delivered to the faithful by the Church.

But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church—but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church.

The three classes of revealed truths. Theologians distinguish three classes of revealed truths: truths formally and explicitly revealed; truths revealed formally, but only implicitly; and truths only virtually revealed.

A truth is said to be formally revealed, when the speaker or revealer really means to convey that truth by his language, to guarantee it by the authority of his word. The revelation is formal and explicit, when made in clear express terms. It is formal but only implicit, when the language is somewhat obscure, when the rules of interpretation must be carefully employed to determine the meaning of the revelation. And a truth is said to be revealed only virtually, when it is not formally guaranteed by the word of the speaker, but is inferred from something formally revealed.

Now, truths formally and explicitly revealed by God are certainly dogmas in the strict sense when they are proposed or defined by the Church. Such are the articles of the Apostles’ Creed. Similarly, truths revealed by God formally, but only implicitly, are dogmas in the strict sense when proposed or defined by the Church. Such, for example, are the doctrines of Transubstantiation, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, some of the Church’s teaching about the Saviour, the sacraments, etc. All doctrines defined by the Church as being contained in revelation are understood to be formally revealed, explicitly or implicitly. It is a dogma of faith that the Church is infallible in defining these two classes of revealed truths; and the deliberate denial of one of these dogmas certainly involves the sin of heresy. There is a diversity of opinion about virtually revealed truths, which has its roots in a diversity of opinion about the material object of faith (see ). It is enough to say here that, according to some theologians, virtually revealed truths belong to the material object of faith and become dogmas in the strict sense when defined or proposed by the Church; and according to others, they do not belong to the material object of faith prior to their definition, but become strict dogmas when defined; and, according to others, they do not belong to the material object of Divine faith at all, nor become dogmas in the strict sense when defined, but may be called mediately-Divine or ecclesiastical dogmas. In the hypothesis that virtually revealed conclusions do not belong to the material object of faith, it has not been defined that the Church is infallible in defining these truths, the infallibility of the Church, however, in relation to these truths is a doctrine of the Church theologically certain, which cannot lawfully be denied—and though the denial of an ecclesiastical dogma would not be heresy in the strict sense, it could entail the sundering of the bond of faith and expulsion from the Church by the Church’s anathema or excommunication.

II. DIVISIONS

The divisions of dogma follow the lines of the divisions of faith. Dogmas can be (1) general or special; (2) material or formal; (3) pure or mixed; (4) symbolic or non-symbolic; (5) and they can differ according to their various degrees of necessity.

(1) General dogmas are a part of the revelation meant for mankind and transmitted from the Apostles; while special dogmas are the truths revealed in private revelations. Special dogmas, therefore, are not, strictly speaking, dogmas at all; they are not revealed truths transmitted from the Apostles; nor are they defined or proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful generally.

(2) Dogmas are called material (or Divine, or dogmas in themselves, in se) when abstraction is made from their definition by the Church, when they are considered only as revealed; and they are called formal (or Catholic, or “in relation to us,” quoad nos) when they are considered both as revealed and defined. Again, it is evident that material dogmas are not dogmas in the strict sense of the term.

(3) Pure dogmas are those which can be known only from revelation, as the Trinity, Incarnation, etc.; while mixed dogmas are truths which can be known from revelation or from philosophical reasoning as the existence and attributes of God. Both classes are dogmas in the strict sense, when considered as revealed and defined.

(4) Dogmas contained in the symbols or creeds of the Church are called symbolic; the remainder are non-symbolic. Hence all the articles of the Apostles’ Creed are dogmas—but not all dogmas are called technically articles of faith, though an ordinary dogma is sometimes spoken of as an article of faith.

(5) Finally, there are dogmas belief in which is absolutely necessary as a means to salvation, while faith in others is rendered necessary only by Divine precept; and some dogmas must be explicitly known and believed, while with regard to others implicit belief is sufficient.

III. OBJECTIVE CHARACTER OF DOGMATIC TRUTH;

INTELLECTUAL BELIEF IN DOGMA

As a dogma is a revealed truth, the intellectual character and objective reality of dogma depend on the intellectual character and objective truth of Divine revelation. We will here apply to dogma the conclusions developed at greater length under the heading of revelation. Are dogmas considered merely as truths revealed by God, real objective truths addressed to the human mind? Are we bound to believe them with the mind? Should we admit the distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental dogmas?

(1) Rationalists deny the existence of Divine supernatural revelation, and consequently of religious dogmas. A certain school of mystics has taught that what Christ inaugurated in the world was “a new life.” The “Modernist” theory by reason of its recent condemnation calls for fuller treatment. There are different shades of opinion among Modernists. Some of them do not, apparently, deny all intellectual value to dogma (cf. Le Roy, “Dogme et Critique”). Dogma, like revelation, they say, is expressed in terms of action. Thus when the Son of (God is said “to have come down from heaven,” according to all theologians He did not come down, as bodies descend or as angels are conceived to pass from place to place, but the hypostatic union is described in terms of action. So when we profess our faith in God the Father, we mean, according to M. Le Roy, that we have to act towards God as sons; but neither the fatherhood of God, nor the other dogmas of faith, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of Christ, etc. imply of necessity any objective intellectual conception of fatherhood, Trinity, Resurrection, etc., or convey any idea to the mind. According to other writers, God has addressed no revelation to the human mind. Revelation, they say, began as a consciousness of right and wrong—and the evolution or development of revelation was but the progressive development of the religious sense until it reached its highest level, thus far, in the modern liberal and democratic State. Then, according to these writers, the dogmas of faith, considered as dogmas, have no meaning for the mind, we need not believe them mentally; we may reject them—it is enough if we employ them as guides for our actions. (See .) Over against this doctrine the Church teaches that God has made a revelation to the human mind. There are, no doubt, relative Divine attributes, and some of the dogmas of faith may be expressed under the symbolism of action, but they also convey to the human mind a meaning distinct from action. The fatherhood of God may imply that we should act towards Him as children towards a father—but it also conveys to the mind definite analogical conceptions of our God and Creator. And there are truths, such as the Trinity, the Resurrection of Christ, His Ascension, etc. which are absolute objective facts, and which could be believed even if their practical consequences were ignored or were deemed of little value. The dogmas of the Church, such as the existence of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of Christ, the sacraments, a future judgment, etc. have an objective reality and are facts as really and truly as it a fact that Augustus was Emperor of the Romans, and that George Washington was first President of the United States.

(2) Abstracting from the Church’s definition, we are bound to render to God the homage of our assent to revealed truth once we are satisfied that He has spoken. Even atheists admit, hypothetically, that if there be an infinite Being distinct from the world, we should pay Him the homage of believing His Divine word.

(3) Hence it is not permissible to distinguish revealed truths as fundamental and non-fundamental in the sense that some truths, though known to have been revealed by God, may be lawfully denied. But while we should believe, at least implicitly, every truth attested by the word of God, we are free to admit that some are in themselves more important than others, more necessary than others, and that an explicit knowledge of some is necessary while an implicit faith in others is sufficient.

IV. DOGMA AND THE CHURCH

Revealed truths become formally dogmas when defined or proposed by the Church. There is considerable hostility, in modern times, to dogmatic religion when considered as a body of truths defined by the Church, and still more when considered as defined by the pope. The theory of dogma which is here expounded depends for its acceptance on the doctrine of the infallible teaching office of the Church and of the Roman pontiff. It will be sufficient to notice the following points, (1) the reasonableness of the definition of dogma; (2) the immutability of dogma; (3) the necessity for Church unity of belief in dogma (4) the inconveniences which are alleged to be associated with the definition of dogma.

(1) Against the theory of interpretation of Scripture by private judgement, Catholics regard as absolutely unacceptable the view that God revealed a body of truths to the world and appointed no official teacher of revealed truth, no authoritative judge of controversy; this view is as unreasonable as would be the notion that the civil legislature makes laws, and then commits to individual private judgment the right and the duty of interpreting the laws and deciding controversies. The Church and the supreme pontiff are endowed by God with the privilege of infallibility in discharge of the duty of universal teacher in the sphere of faith and morals; hence we have an infallible testimony that the dogmas defined and delivered to us by the Church are the truths contained in Divine revelation.

(2) The dogmas of the Church are immutable. Modernists hold that religious dogmas, as such, have no intellectual meaning, that we are not bound to believe them mentally, that they may be all false, that it is sufficient if we use them a guides to action; and accordingly they teach that dogmas are not immutable, that they should be changed when the spirit of the age is opposed to them, when they lose their value as rules for a liberal religious life. But in the Catholic doctrine that Divine revelation is addressed to the human mind and expresses real objective truth, dogmas are immutable Divine truths. It is an immutable truth for all time that Augustus was Emperor of Rome and George Washington first President of the United States. So according to Catholic belief, these are and will be for all time immutable truths—that there are three Persons in God, that Christ died for us, that He arose from the dead, that He founded the Church, that He instituted the sacraments. We may distinguish between the truths themselves and the language in which they are expressed. The full meaning of certain revealed truths has been only gradually brought out; the truths will always remain. Language may change or may receive a new meaning; but we can always learn what meaning was attached to particular words in the past.

(3) We are bound to believe revealed truths irrespective of their definition by the Church, if we are satisfied that God has revealed them. When they are proposed or defined by the Church, and thus become dogmas, we are bound to believe them in order to maintain the bond of faith. (See ).

(4) Finally, Catholics do not admit that, as is sometimes alleged, dogmas are the arbitrary creations of ecclesiastical authority, that they are multiplied at will, that they are devices for keeping the ignorant in subjection, that they are obstacles to conversions. Some of these are points of controversy which cannot be settled without reference to more fundamental questions. Dogmatic definitions would be arbitrary if there were no Divinely instituted infallible teaching office in the Church; but if, as Catholics maintain, God has established in His Church an infallible office, dogmatic definitions cannot be considered arbitrary. The same Divine Providence which preserves the Church from error will preserve her from inordinate multiplication of dogmas. She cannot define arbitrarily. We need only observe the life of the Church or of the Roman pontiffs to see that dogmas are not multiplied inordinately. And as dogmatic definitions are but the authentic interpretation and declaration of the meaning of Divine revelation, they cannot be considered devices for keeping the ignorant in subjection, or reasonable obstacles to conversions, on the contrary, the authoritative definition of truth and condemnation of error, are powerful arguments leading to the Church those who seek the truth earnestly.

V. DOGMA AND RELIGION

It is sometimes charged that in the Catholic Church, in consequence of its dogmas, religious life consists merely in speculative beliefs and external sacramental formalities. It is a strange charge, arising from prejudice or from lack of acquaintance with Catholic life. Religious life in conventual and monastic establishments is surely not a merely external formality. The external religious exercises of the ordinary Catholic layman, such as public prayer, confession, Holy Communion, etc. suppose careful and serious internal self-examination and self-regulation, and various other acts of internal religion. We need only to observe the public civic life of Catholics, their philanthropic works, their schools, hospitals, orphanages, charitable organizations, to be convinced that dogmatic religion does not degenerate into mere external formalities. On the contrary, in non-Catholic Christian bodies a general decay of supernatural Christian life follows the dissolution of dogmatic religion. Were the dogmatic system of the Catholic Church, with its authoritative infallible head, done away with, the various systems of private judgment would not save the world from relapsing into and following pagan ideals. Dogmatic belief is not the be-all and end-all of Catholic life; but the Catholic serves God, honours the Trinity, loves Christ, obeys the Church, frequents the sacraments, assists at Mass, observes the Commandments, because he believes mentally in God, in the Trinity, in the Divinity of Christ, in the Church, in the sacraments and the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the duty of keeping the Commandments, and he believes in them as objective immutable truths.

VI. DOGMA AND SCIENCE

But, it is objected, dogma checks investigation, antagonizes independence of thought, and makes scientific theology impossible. This difficulty may be supposed to be put by Protestants or by unbelievers. We will consider it from both points of view.

(1) Beyond scientific investigation and freedom of thought Catholics recognize the guiding influence of dogmatic beliefs. But Protestants also profess to adhere to certain great dogmatic truths which are supposed to impede scientific investigation and to conflict with the findings of modern science. Old difficulties against the existence of God or its demonstrability, against the dogma of Creation, miracles, the human soul, and supernatural religion have been dressed in a new garb and urged by a modern school of scientists principally from the discoveries in geology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, comparative anatomy, and physiology. But Protestants, no less than Catholics, profess to believe in God, in the Creation, in the soul, in the Incarnation, in the possibility of miracles; they too, maintain that there can be no discord between the true conclusions of science and the dogmas of the Christian religion rightly understood. Protestants, therefore, cannot consistently complain that Catholic dogmas impede scientific investigation. But it is urged that in the Catholic system beliefs are not determined by private judgment, behind the dogmas of the Church there is the living bulwark of her episcopate. True, behind dogmatic beliefs Catholics recognize ecclesiastical authority; but this puts no further restraint on intellectual freedom—it only raises the question as to the constitution of the Church. Catholics do not believe that God revealed a body of truths to mankind and appointed no living authority to unfold, to teach, to safeguard that body of Divine truths, to decide controversies; but the authority of the episcopate under the supreme pontiff to control intellectual activity is correlative with, and arises from their authority to teach supernatural truth. The existence of judges and magistrates does not extend the range of our civil laws—they are rather a living authority to interpret and apply the laws. Similarly, episcopal authority has for its range the truth of revelation, and it prohibits only what is inconsistent with the full scope of that truth.

(2) In discussing the question with unbelievers we note that science is “the observation and classification, or co-ordination, of the individual facts or phenomena of nature.” Now a Catholic is absolutely free in the prosecution of scientific research according to the terms of this definition. There is no prohibition or restriction on Catholics in regard to the observation and co-ordination of the phenomena of Nature. But some scientists do not confine themselves to science as defined by themselves. They propound theories often unwarranted by experimental observation. One will maintain as a “scientific” truth that there is no God, or that His existence is unknowable—another that the world has not been created; another will deny in the name of “science” the existence of the soul; another, the possibility of supernatural revelation. Surely these denials are not warranted by scientific methods. Catholic dogma and ecclesiastical authority limit intellectual activity only so far as may be necessary for safeguarding the truths of revelation. If non-believing scientists in their study of Catholicism would apply the scientific method, which consists in observing, comparing, making hypotheses, and perhaps formulating scientific conclusions, they would readily see that dogmatic belief in no way interferes with the legitimate freedom of the Catholic in scientific research, the discharge of civic duty, or any other form of activity that makes for true enlightenment and progress. The service rendered by Catholics in every department of learning and of social endeavour, is a fact which no amount of theorizing against dogma can set aside. (See , , , , .)

Acta et Decreta Concilii Vaticani in Coll. Lac. (Freiburg im Br., 1870–90), VII; SUAREZ, Opera Omnia: De Fide Theologicâ; DE LUGO, Pera: De fide; VACANT, Etudes théologiques sur les constitutions du concile du Vatican (Paris, 1895); GRANDERATH, Constitutiones dogmaticae Sacrosancti Ecumenici Concilii Vaticani ex ipsis ejus actis explicatae atque illustratae (Freiburg im Br., 1892); SCHEEBEN, Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik (Freiburg im Br., 1873); SCHWANE, Dogmengeschichte (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1895); MAZZELLA, De Virtutibus Infusis (Rome, 1884); BILLOT, Tractatus de Ecclesiâ Christi (Rome, 1903); IDEM, De Virtutibus Infusis (Rome, 1905); NEWMAN, Idea of a University (London, 1899).

DANIEL COGHLAN

Dogmatic Facts

(1) DEFINITION

By a dogmatic fact, in wider sense, is meant any fact connected with a dogma and on which the application of the dogma to a particular case depends. The following questions involve dogmatic facts in the wider sense: Is Pius X, for instance, really and truly Roman Pontiff [1909], duly elected and recognized by the Universal Church? This is connected with dogma, for it is a dogma of faith that every pontiff duly elected and recognized by the universal Church is a successor of Peter. Again, was this or that council ecumenical? This, too, is connected with dogma, for every ecumenical council is endowed with infallibility and jurisdiction over the Universal Church. The question also whether canonized saints really die in the odour of sanctity is connected with dogma, for every one who dies in the odour of sanctity is saved. In the stricter sense the term dogmatic fact is confined to books and spoken discourses, and its meaning will be explained by a reference to the condemnation by Innocent X of five propositions taken from the posthumous book of Jansenius, entitled “Augustinus.” It might be asked, for example, whether the pope could define that Jansenius really was the author of the book entitled “Augustinus.” It is conceded that he could not. He may speak of it as the work of Jansenius, because, in general repute, at least, it was regarded as the work of Jansenius. The precise authorship of a book is called a personal fact. The question turned on the doctrine of the book. The Jansenists admitted that the doctrine enunciated In the condemned propositions was heretical; but they maintained that the condemned doctrine was not taught in the “Augustinus.” This brings us to what are called “particular facts of doctrine.” Thus it is a fact that God exists, and that there are Three Persons in God; here the same thing is fact and dogma. The Jansenists admitted that the pope is competent to deal with particular facts of doctrine, but not to determine the meaning of a book. The controversy was then carried to the meaning of the book. Now it is conceded that the pope cannot define the purely internal, subjective, perhaps singular meaning, which an author might attach to his words. But the pope, in certain cases, can determine the meaning of a book judged by the general laws of interpretation. And when a book or propositions from a book are condemned, “in the sense of the author,” they are condemned in the sense in which the book or propositions would be understood when interpreted according to the ordinary laws of language. The same formula may be condemned in one author and not in another, because, interpreted by the context and general argument of the author, it may be unorthodox in one case and not in another. In the strict sense, therefore, a dogmatic fact may be defined as “the orthodox or heterodox meaning of a book or proposition”; or as a “fact that is so connected with dogma that a knowledge of the fact is necessary for teaching and conserving sound doctrine.” When we say that a book contains unorthodox doctrine, we convey that a certain doctrine is unorthodox; here we have close connection between fact and dogma.

(2) The Church and Dogmatic Facts

Jansenists distinguished between “fact” and “dogma.” They held that the Church is infallible in defining revealed truth and in condemning errors opposed to revealed truth; but that the Church is not infallible in defining facts which are not contained in Divine revelation, and consequently that the Church was not infallible in declaring that a particular doctrine, in a particular sense, was found in the “Augustinus” of Jansenius. This would confine the infallible teaching of the Church to mere abstract doctrines, a view that cannot be accepted. Theologians are unanimous in teaching that the Church, or the pope, is infallible, not only in defining what is formally contained in Divine revelation, but also in defining virtually revealed truths, or generally in all definitions and condemnations which are necessary for safe-guarding the body of revealed truth. Whether it is to be regarded as a defined doctrine, as a doctrine de fide, that the Church is infallible in definitions about dogmatic facts, is disputed among theologians. The reason of this difference in opinion will appear below (3). The Church, in all ages, has exercised the right of pronouncing with authority on dogmatic facts; and this right is essential to her teaching office. She has always claimed the right of defining that the doctrine of heretics, in the sense in which it is contained in their books, or in their discourses, is heretical; that the doctrine of an orthodox writer, in the sense in which it is contained in his writings, is orthodox. We can scarcely imagine a theory like that of the Jansenists advanced within the sphere of the civil authority. We can scarcely conceive it to be held that a judge and a jury may pronounce on an abstract proposition of libel, but cannot find that a particular paragraph in a book or newspaper is libellous in the sense in which it is written. If the Church could not define the orthodox or unorthodox sense of books, sermons, conferences, and discourses generally, she might still be infallible in regard to abstract doctrine, but she could not fulfil her task as practical teacher of humanity, not protect her children from actual concrete dangers to their faith and morals.

(3) Faith and Dogmatic Facts

The more extreme Jansenists, distinguishing between dogma and fact, taught that the dogma is the proper object of faith but that to the definition of fact only respectful silence is due. They refused to subscribe the formula of the condemnation of Jansenism, or would subscribe only with a qualification, on the ground that subscription implied internal assent and acquiescence. The less extreme party, though limiting the Church’s infallibility to the question of dogma, thought that the formula might be signed absolutely and without qualification, on the ground that, by general usage, subscription implied assent to the dogma, but, in relation to the fact, only external reverence. But the definitions of dogmatic facts demand real internal assent; though about the nature of the assent and its relation to faith theologians are not unanimous. Some theologians hold that definitions of dogmatic facts, and especially of dogmatic facts in the wider acceptation of the term, are believed by Divine faith. For instance, the proposition, “every pope duly elected is the successor of Peter,” is formally revealed. Then, say these theologians, the proposition, “Pius X has been duly elected pope,” only shows that Pius X is included in the general revealed proposition that “every pope duly elected is the successor of Peter.” And they conclude that the proposition, “Pius X is successor to Peter,” is a formally revealed proposition; that it is believed by Divine faith; that it is a doctrine of faith, de fide; that the Church, or the pope, is infallible in defining such doctrines. Other theologians hold that the definitions of dogmatic facts, in the wider and stricter acceptation, are received, not by Divine faith, but by ecclesiastical faith, which some call mediate Divine faith. They hold that in such syllogisms as this: “Every duly elected pontiff is Peter’s successor; but Pius X, for example, is a duly elected pontiff; therefore he is a successor of Peter,” the conclusion is not formally revealed by God, but is inferred from a revealed and an unrevealed proposition, and that consequently it is believed, not by Divine, but by ecclesiastical faith. It would then also be held that it has not been formally defined de fide that the Church is infallible in the definition of dogmatic facts. It would be said technically to be theologically certain that the Church is infallible in these definitions; and this infallibility cannot lawfully be questioned. That all are bound to give internal assent to Church definitions of dogmatic facts is evident from the correlative duties of teacher and persons taught. As it belongs to the duty of supreme pastor to define the meaning of a book or proposition, correlatively it is the duty of the subjects who are taught to accept this meaning.

DANIEL COGHLAN

Jean Dolbeau

Recollect friar, born in the Province of Anjou, France, 12 March, 1586; died at Orléans, 9 June, 1652. He entered the order at the age of nineteen at Balmette, near Angers, and was one of the four Recollects who were the first missionaries of Canada. He landed at Quebec in May, 1615, and celebrated the first Mass ever said there. He became commissionary provincial of the mission in 1618 and preached the first jubilee accorded to Canada. This zealous missionary built the first monastery of the Recollects at Quebec in 1620. He returned to France in 1625, taking with him a young Indian boy who was later baptized at Angers. Endowed with many striking qualities, Father Dolbeau was remarkable for extraordinary spiritual insight and profound humility. He was successively master of novices, guardian, definitor, and provincial delegate at the general chapter of the order held in Spain in 1633. He died in the forty-seventh year of his religious life.

ODORIC M. JOUVE.

Carlo Dolci

Painter, born in Florence, Italy, 25 May, 1616; died 17 January, 1686. The grandson of a painter, he seems to have inherited a talent for art. He studied under J. Vignali, and when only eleven years old he attracted attention by the excellence of his work, notably a figure of St. John and a head of the Infant Jesus. The precocious youth made a carefully-finished picture of his mother, and thereafter was kept busy filling the numerous commissions he received in Florence, a city he seldom left during his long life, which he devoted to art. Dolci was one of the few masters whose pictures were eagerly sought for by his countrymen during his lifetime. He was very pious and painted religious works exclusively. It is recorded that in every Passion week he painted a picture of the Saviour. He limited his brush to heads—usually of Christ and the Virgin—and seldom undertook a large-sized canvas. He is celebrated for the soft, gentle, and tender expression of his faces, the transparency of his colour, the excellent management of chiaroscuro, and the careful and ivory-like finish of his pictures. The simplicity and tranquillity on the faces of his paintings of Christ and the Virgin seem little short of inspired. Hinds calls him mawkish and affected; but Dolci was the last of the Florentine School, the last real “master of the Renaissance”; and as decadent sweetness permeated all Italian art, his pictures but reflected the dominant character of the close of the seventeenth century. Patient and slow, he painted pictures that are perfectly finished in every detail. His masterpiece (1646) is “St. Andrew praying before his Crucifixion” (Pitti Gallery, Florence). It is one of the few works where his figures, always well drawn and standing out in beautiful relief, are life-size. Next in excellence to this is the “St. John writing his Gospel” (Berlin). His “Mater Dolorosa” called “Madonna del Dito” (of the thumb) is known throughout the civilized world because of its many reproductions. In 1662 Dolci saw with chagrin Giordano accomplish in a few hours what would have taken him weeks, and it is said he was thereupon seized with melancholy, which ultimately led to his death. Loma, Mancini, Mariani, and Agnese Dolci (his daughter) were a few of his pupils and imitators. Contemporary copyists have filled European collections with spurious Dolcis. Angese Dolci, who died the same year as her father, not only made marvellous copies of the master’s pictures, but was herself an excellent painter. Her “Consecration of the Bread and Wine” is in the Louvre. Other works by him are: “Virgin and Child,” National Gallery, London; “The Saviour seated with Saints,” Florence; “Madonna and Child,” Borghese Gallery, Rome.

LEIGH HUNT

Doliche

A titular see of Commagene (Augusto-Euphratesia). It was a small city on the road from Germanicia to Zeugma (Ptolemy, V, 15, 10; Itiner. Anton., 184, 189, 191, 194; Tab. Peuting.), famous for its temple of Zeus Dolichenus; it struck its own coins from Marcus Aurelius to Caracalla. The ruins stand at Tell Dülük, three miles northwest of Aintab, in the vilayet of Aleppo. Doliche was at an early date an episcopal see suffragan of Hierapolis (Mabboug, Membidj). Lequien (Or. Christ., II, 937) mentions eight Greek bishops: Archelaus, present at Nicaea in 325, and at Antioch in 341; Olympius at Sardica in 344; Cyrion at Seleucia in 359; Maris at Constantinople in 381; Abibus, a Nestorian, in 431, deposed in 434; Athanasius, his successor; Timothy, a correspondent of Theodoret, present at Antioch in 444 and at Chalcedon in 451; Philoxenus, a nephew of the celebrated Philoxenus of Hierapolis, deposed as a Severian in 518, reinstated in 533 (Brooks, The sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, London, 1904, II, 89, 90, 345–350, 352). The see figures in the first “Notitia Episcopatuum” ed. Parthey, about 840. At a later time Doliche took the place of Hierapolis as metropolis (Vailhé, in Echos d’Orient, X, 94 sqq. and 367 sqq.). For a list of fourteen Jacobite Bishops of Doliche (eighth to ninth century), see “Revue de l’Orient chrétien,” VI, 195.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger

A historian and theologian, born at Bamberg, Bavaria, 28 February, 1799; died at Munich, 10 January, 1890.

FAMILY AND EDUCATION

Döllinger’s father was a professor of medicine in the University of Bamberg, and his son was influenced, in an unusual degree, by the family traditions and his whole environment. The medical faculty of the University of Bamberg owed its foundation to his grandfather, whose son, the father of Ignaz (as Döllinger was usually called), became regular professor of medicine in the same university in 1794 but in 1803 was called to Wurzburg. It was only natural that amid surroundings predominantly academic the youthful Ignaz should acquire a strong love of books, the best of which were then written in French, which language the future historian of the Church learned from his father. In the Gymnasium he acquired a knowledge of Italian. A Benedictine monk taught him English privately and he learned Spanish at the university. An orderly acquisition of learning and the full development of all his rich gifts would have led to extraordinary achievements. He had also sufficient means to satisfy any reasonable wishes for foreign travel and the purchase of books. All these circumstances, doubtless, combined to render his mind particularly receptive; at the same time the multitude of impressions daily made on the young student led him to outline a plan of studies by far too comprehensive.

On entering the University of Wurzburg at the age of sixteen, he took up at once history, philosophy, philology and the natural sciences. In this choice there is already evident a certain mental irregularity the more remarkable if we recall what he said, two years later, apropos of his choice of a vocation, viz., that, “no professor in the faculty of philosophy had been able to attract him to his particular science.” The conversion of such men as Eckhart, Werner, Schlegel, Stolberg, and Winkelmann turned his thoughts to theology, which he took up in 1818, but without abandoning botany, mineralogy, and entomology, to which studies he continued for many years to devote considerable time. We quote from Friedrich the following noteworthy utterance of Döllinger: “To most other students theology was only a means to the end. To me, on the contrary, theology, or science in general based on theology, was the end, the choice of a vocation only the means.” During his student days he seldom attended the regular lectures on theology but he was assiduous at the lectures in the faculty of philosophy and law; privately, however, he read many works on theology. His studies were better regulated when in 1820 he entered the ecclesiastical seminary at Bamberg and followed the theological courses given at the Iyceum. The year and a half spent in this manner made up, but not sufflciently, for the previous lack of a systematic training in theology. He was ordained priest 22 April, 1822, spent the summer at his home, and in November, was appointed chaplain at Markscheinfeldt in Middle Franconia. Despite the profound grasp of dogma and moral theology that his works at times exhibit, his career gives evidence enough that he never took the pains to round out satisfactorily the insufficiency of his early training in theology. The elder Döllinger had hoped to see his son follow an academic career and opposed his choice of the priesthood; among the reasons for his opposition was the conviction, openly expressed (and then prevalent enough among the German clergy), that for physiological reasons a celibate life was impossible.

CAREER

Döllinger’s father soon obtained (November, 1823) for him a place as professor of canon law and church history in the lyceum of Aschaffenburg. It was here that in 1826 he published his first work “Die Eucharistie in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten” an eloquent and solid treatise, still much appreciated. It obtained for him from the theological faculty of the Bavarian University of Landshut the title of Doctor of Theology in absentiâ. In the same year he was called to Munich as professor extraordinary of canon law and church history, and in 1827 was made professor in ordinary. In 1839 the king gave him a canonry in the royal chapel (Hofkollegiatstift) of St. Cajetan at Munich, and on 1 Jan 1847, he was made mitred provost or head of that body of canons. In the same year he was dismissed from his chair, in punishment of his protest as representative of the university on the Bavarian Landtag, to which he had been appointed in 1844, against the dismissal of several university professors. But in 1848 he was chosen representative to the Frankfort Parliament and remained in attendance until the middle of 1849. Then followed (24 Dec., 1849, according to some authorities 1 Jan., 1850) his reappointment as professor, which office he held until 18 April, 1871, when Archbishop von Scherr publicly excommunicated him. Thereupon he laid down his ecclesiastical charges, recognized the binding force of his excommunication and, though he held his professorate another year, taught only a course of modern history. In 1868 King Louis II of Bavaria had appointed him royal councillor, and maintained him in his office as provost of St. Cajetan, even after his excommunication; practically, this meant only the continuance to him of the revenue of the position. Döllinger received in 1873 another evidence of the royal favour when, on the death of the famous chemist Liebig, he was named by the king to the presidency of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Sciences and general conservator of the scientific collections of the State. As early as 1837 he had been made member extraordinary of the Academy, in 1843 a regular member, and from 1860 was secretary of its historical section.

Many attempts were made, by ecclesiastics and laymen, to induce Döllinger to return to the Church. The personal conviction of the latter may be read in his correspondence (edited by Friedrich, Munich, 1899–1901) with Archbishop Steichele and the nuncio Monsignor Ruffo-Scilla. In 1886 and 1887 both of these prelates together with Bishop von Hefele of Rottenburg besought Döllinger to abandon his Old-Catholic attitude and be reconciled with the Church. His response to the archbishop contained these words “Ought I (in obedience to your suggestion) to appear before the Eternal Judge, my conscience burdened with a double perjury?” At the end of his letter to the nuncio he said: “I think that what I have written so far will suffice to make clear to you that with such convictions one may stand even on the threshold of eternity in a condition of inner peace and spiritual calm.” He died aged ninety-one, still outside the communion of Church.

LIFE AND WRITINGS

It was at Munich that Döllinger began his life-work. Formally, he was professor of canon law and ecclesiastical history, but was soon burdened with the teaching of dogma and New Testament exegesis, a task to which a weaker or inferior mind would not have proved equal. He declined in 1829, a call to Breslau, although King Louis I heartiiy wished him out of Bavaria; he also refused a later call to Freiburg in the Breisgau. He was offered in 1839, a professorship at an English college, but preferred to remain in Munich. To facilitate the coming of Johann Adam Mohler from Tubingen to Munich (1835), he gave over to him the courses of ecclesiastical history and New Testament exegesis, and when Mohler died (12 April, 1838) he collected a number of essays of this great theologian which for the most part were already in print but were widely scattered, and published them on two volumes (1839) under the title “Gesammelte Schriften und Aufsätze.” While Mohler taught at Munich, Döllinger lectured on the history of dogma (Historische Dogmatik). At the request of Abel, Minister of the Interior, Döllinger began in 1838, a course of lectures in the Faculty of Philosophy on the philosophy of religion in opposition to the teaching of the honorary professor Von Baader, the theosophist, and of Schelling. He continued, however, to lecture on dogma and ecclesiastical history. From November, 1846 to February, 1848 Bavarian public affairs were disturbed by the royal attachment to Lola Montez, a Spanish ballerina; the Abel ministry was dismissed, and professors Lasaulx, Moy, Urtsr, Phillips, Höfler and Deutinger either dismissed or reprimanded; Doilinzer, finally as stated above, was removed from his office. After his restoration in 1860 he continued to the end as professor of church history. In 1862 he has made knight of the Order of Maximilian for science and art.

Apart from the aforesaid officers of canon and provost, Döllinger held but one other ecclesiastical office in Munich. After the conflict concerning mixed marriages (1832), he was made defensor matrimonii in the matrimonial court of first instance, later in that of second instance, which office he held until 1862. His circle of friends frorn the beginning quite extensive; the physicians and professors of the natural sciences who frequented his father’s house were themselves men of distinction. As a student he formed the acquantance of the poet, Graf Voll Platen, and of Victor Aimé Huber. Later Platen wished to study Sanskrit with Döllinger, and visited him twice at Marktscheinfeld. In the ecclesiastical seminary of Bamberg he met Prince Alexander van Hohenlohe (q.v.), of whose miraculous cures he said later: “Cures there were, but such as often happen in the history of the Church; the deep stirring of the emotions suffices easily enough to explain them,” a remark that fails to account for the presence of deep emotions in the absent sick. On a visit to Platen at Erlangen, in 1822, he met Pfaff, Schubert, and Schelling, the last a friend of his father. In his early days at Munich he was much in the company of the above-mentioned philosopher, Franz von Baader. When in 1827, the famous Joseph Görres came to Munich as professor of history, there formed about him at once a sympathetic circle of scholars, among them the youthful Döllinger. Döllinger’s relations with Lamennais, more particularly with Count Montalembert, gave occasion in 1832 to a violent attack in the Bavarian Parliament on Gorres and his friends. Lamennais at that time contemplated the establishment at Munich of a house of studies for young Frenchmen (Oeuvre des études allemandes), who might thus come under the influence of Gorres, Baader, and others, and on their return to France stand manfully for the defence of the Church. In the meantime Döllinger had met Andreas Räss, the founder (1821) of “Der Katholik” (still published at Mainz), who in 1828 was rector of the ecclesiastical seminary at Strasburg as well as professor of dogma and homiletics; with Döllinger he projected various literary enterprises which, through pressure of other work, were never realized.

At this time Monsignor Wiseman, later Cardinal, and Archbishop of Westminster, then professor at the Roman University (Sapienza) and rector of the English College, saw the necessity of strenghtening Catholicism in the development of its new opportunities in England, and for this reason was minded to effect closer relations with the learned clergy of Germany. Döllinger seemed to him the proper mediator; he therefore visited Munich in 1835, made the acquaintance of the distinguished professor, and spoke with him of his hopes and plans. Wiseman, already well known in Europe by his “Horae Syriae” arouse in Döllinger so deep an interest, that the next year the latter visited England. His biographer, Friedrich, describes the result of this visit as follows: “Döllinger had a life-long hatred for bureaucracy both in the Church and State; the large independence, therefore, of English public life delighted him and filled him with an admiration that was often excessive. Thenceforth he remained always in close touch with England, kept constantly in his home, and at considerable sacrifice, a number of young English students, and directed the studies of others whom he could not keep under his own roof.” In 1850 the youthful Sir John Emerich Edward Acton (q.v.) entered his house as a student, to become later his intimate friend. Later, as John Lord Acton and Regius Professor of modern history at Cambridge he remained in close touch with the Old Catholics, though he never formally severed his connection with the Church. We do not as yet possess accurate knowledge concerning Acton’s share in the work known as “Letters from Rome” concerning the Vatican Council (Römische Briefe vom Konzil) published by Döllinger in the Augsburg “Allgemeine Zeitung.”

As a rule Döllinger observed with his pupils a strict academic dignity and reserve; among the few whom he treated as intimate friends Acton was easily the foremost. Among those who in this early period exerted the greatest influence over Döllinger was Karl Ernest Jarcke, founder and editor (since 1832) of the Berlin “Politische Woehenblatter,” confidant of Metternich, and a frequent visitor to the Bavarian capital. In 1838 came the foundation of the “Historisch-politische Blätter” by Guido Görres, Phillips, and Jarcke; the new organ soon greatly augmented the influence of Gorres and his circle of friends, the most loyal and earnest of whom at this time was Döllinger.

The dispute over the question of mixed marriages in Prussia, known as the Kölner Streit (1831), followed close upon that in Bavaria (1831); both were fought out dramatically, and brought Döllinger and his Munich friends to the front as vigorous defenders of Catholic rights. The first estrangement of Döllinger from Görres and his friends came about through the publication of an important manual of canon law by Philips (from 1834 to 1847 professor of canon law at Munich). To Döllinger it seemed that the latter emphasized excessively the extent of the papal prerogative. Nevertheless, he continued for a decade to collaborate on the “Historisch-politische Blatter”; it was only slowly and almost imperceptibly that the change in his opinions came about. Gradually, owing to his opposition to the Jesuits and particulrly to the Roman Curia, he sought and found newer friends in Liberal circles. As member of the Frankfort Parliament (1848) he sat with the Right, among men like Radowitz, Lichnowsky, Schwerin, Vincke, and others, he also belonged to the Club “Zum steinernen Haus.”

The change that had come about in Döllinger’s views during the preceding years may best be measured by the fact that his colleagues in Frankfort obtained his consent to the following plan. General von Radowitz, in the name of the Catholic deputies, was to make this declaration in Parliament: “The orders, including the Jesuit Order, are not a part of the living organism of the Catholic Church; the Jesuit Order is no wise necessary in Germany; the German episcopate and the German clergy do not need its help to fulfil their obligations; German learning [die deutsche Wissenoschaft] needs no aid of this nature. The possible advantages for the Catholic Church accruing from the co-operation of the Jesuit Order should be greatly outweighed by the disturbances and perils that its presence would create. If it were proposed to introduce the Jesuits into any Geman State, moved the higher interests of the Catholic Church, we would protest most decidedly againt the execution of any such plan.”

The relations of Döllinger with the German episcopate were frequent, particularly after the meeting of the German and Austrian prelates at Würzburg (22 Oct to 16 Nov., 1848). His report concerning the national church and national synods as submitted to this important assembly, aroused deep interest, was received with approval in many episcopal circles, and assured him the leadership in the acute ecclesiastico-political discussions then impending. Between 1852 and 1854 he visited Northern and Central Italy, and in 1857 Rome. Apart from his learned researches on these occasions, he profited by these journeys to: strengthen his existing relations with numerous Italians, ecclesiastics and laymen, also to new aquaintances and friendships. While Döllinger sought in every way to retain the favour of King Maximilian II, the cleft between him and his former friends as well as his own past continued to widen. For a while the farnous professor seemed to stand almost alone, particularly after the stormy scenes of the Munich congress of Catholic savants (28 sept. to 1 oct., 1863). Daniel Bonifatius von Haneberg, Abbot of St. Boniface in Munich, opened this Congress of eighty-four members mostly German theologians, on which occasion Döllinger delivered his famous discourse, “Die Vergangenheit und Gegervart der katholischen Theologie” (The Past and Present of Catholic Theology). Many of those present, among them Haneberg, saw with sorrow that they could not follows Döllinger along the new path he was taking. He held no longer to the universal idea of Catholicism as a world-religion; in its place, nourished by the court atmosphere he loved so well, arose a strictly nationalistic concept of the catholic Church. All ecclesiastical measures he henceforth criticized from the narrow angle of Gallicanism, and ridiculed in anonymous articles and other writings. He was daily in closer communion with the principal Bavarian statesmen, and amid these relations conceived an idea of the Church’s office which in the end could not be other than un-Catholic. It may be noted here that his intimacy with the philosopher Johann Huber, a disciple of Schelling, had attracted attention long before this. Nevertheless (and it was a sign of the strong tension of those days and the mental temper of many) a number of German bishops still held to Döllinger, although they had long since parted company with Joseph Hubert Reinkens, professor of church history at Breslau and later first bishop of the Old Catholics. It was not until 18 July, 1870, when the dogma of Papal Infallibility was proclaimed at Rome, that there was a sharp division in the ranks of German Catholics. This compelled Döllinger henceforth to seek friends and allies exclusively among the leaders of the Kulturkampf and the Old Catholics, as also among anti-Catholic statesmen and princes.

Döllinger, as is well known, wrote much and admirably, and his writings exhibit, with a rare fidelity, every phase of his mental conflict. He was still a young man when his profound learning and brilliant diction, coupled with an unusal ease and rapidity in the critical treatment of whatever historical thesis lay before him, earned for him an international reputation. He lacked, however, the methodical training necessary for the scientific editing of original texts and documents, in which respect his deficiencies were occasionally only too evident. He was not content with bare investigation of the fact, and problems of Christian antiquity, or of modieval and modern but sought always a satisfactory solution for the difficulties that confronted the student. His diction was always charming whether the subject were one demanding strictly scientific and well-ordered narrative or the light and rapid style called for by the pressing, but ephemeral, needs of the hour. He was likewise skillful as a public speaker, not only when delivering a carefully prepared discourse but also when called on for an extemporaneous address. A typical example of his ability in this respect was his extempore discourse in St. Paul’s Church, Frankfort, on Church and State, apropos of Article III of the fundamental articles (Grundreche) of the Constitution: several of the best speakers had preceded him, and, in order to closely follow their line of thought his whole address had to be extemporized; nevertheless, it was admitted by all that, both in form and logic, his address was by far the best delivered on that occasion. The admiration of his students, no doubt, was due in great measure to the beautiful diction in which he was wont to dress the facts of history.

The writings of Döllinger may be divided into purely scientific and political or ecclesiastico-political. They exhibit for the most part, however, a mutual interdependence and often complete one another. To avoid repetition it seems better to follow the chronological order. It is worthy of note that when writing anonymously his tone was frequently bitter, occasionally even violent, writing over his own name he usually avoided such extremes. His first work (1826) “Die Eucharistie in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten,” has already been mentioned. ln 1828 he published the first volumes of Hortig’s “Kirchengeschichte,” from the Reformation to the end of the eighteenth century. He also wrote frequently at this time for “Eos,” a new review founded by his friends, Baader and Görres; most of the articles dealt with contemporary subjects. According to Friedrich he also prepared “Umrisse zu Dante’s Paradies von P. von Cornelius,” i.e. an introduction to that writer’s edition of Dante’s “Paradiso.” His journalistic activity, however, was far from pleasing to the ministerial councillor, Joseph Freiherr von Hormayr, a somewhat erratic but influential, person who so influenced the king that he wished Döllinger well out of Bavaria, as has been seen in the case of his call to Breslau.

In these years, also, he defended with vigour the matrimonial legislation of the Church, in connection with the “Mixed Marriages” conflict (1831) in the Upper House of the Bavarian Parliament, and he was author of an anonymous work “Ueber die gemischten Ehen”; at the same time he suggested as a means of avoiding all conflict, that the civil marriage be separated from the religious ceremony. Meanwhile he continued to collect the material for his scientific works. In 1833 and 1835 respectively he published the first and second parts of his “Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte” (to the end of seventh century). The next year (1836) he brought out the first volume, and in 1838 the first half of the second volume of his “Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte” (to the end of the fifteenth century). The essay “Muhammeds Religion, eine historische Betrachtung” was read before the Munich Academy about the time he published the aforesaid work on mixed marriages; early in 1838 he published his “Beurtheilung der Darlegung des geheimen Rathes Bunsen: eine Stimme zum Frieden.” A long controversy with Professor Thiersch followed this entrance of Döllinger into the Prussian conflict over mixed marriages (Kölner Streit), his articles were printed in the Augsberg “Allgemeine zeitung” and are apparently his earliest contributions to the Journal which thirty-one years later he was to consummate his apostasy. Karl Von Abel, Minister of Interior, now asked him to publish a popular “Weltgeschichte” or universal history, from the Catholic point of view, also a manual of religion (Religionslehrbuch) for the gymnasia or high-schools; he began these works but, feeling himself unsuited to their composition, persuaded the minister to relieve him from the undertaking. Later on he undertook to explain his failure in the Parliament, his explanation, however, seems quite improbable, and may be looked on as either a meaningless piece of malice or a case of self-deception.

A royal order (1838) that compelled all soldiers to genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament was soon the cause of much friction; in 1843 the matter came before the Upper House, where representatives of the non-Catholic soldiers protested against the measure as contrary to liberty of conscience. Döllinger defended the king and the Government in an anonymous work entitled: “Die Frage der Kniebeugung der Protestanten von der religiösen und staatsrechtlichen Seite erwogen,” wherein he treated the question from both the religious and politics point of view; this was followed by a long controversy with the Protestant deputy, Harless. In the meantime he was chosen by the University of Munich as its representative in the Bavarian Parliament, where he protested against the admission of the Jesuits and defended the emancipation of the Jews, both of which acts drew upon him the enmity of many. During this political agitation, and while Lola Montez still held the king infatuated, appeared the first volume of his great work “Die Reformation, ihre innere Entwicklung und ihre Wirkungen im Umfange des lutherischen Bekenntnisses,” i.e. on the origin, development, and consequences of the Reformation in Lutheran circles; the second volume appeared in 1847; the third in 1848. A second edition of the first volume was printed in 1851. This work unfortunately remained incomplete; Friedrich says that Döllinger’s friends prevented him from publishing the corresponding three volumes, i.e. an account of the conditions within the Catholic Church in the same period. This work long exercised a powerful influence and still remains its value. Johannes Janssen (q.v.) was inspired by it to undertake the exhaustive studies which have done so much to destroy the traditional legends that so long did duty as a history of the Reformation.

The foolish attempt of some zealots to have the temporal power of the pope proclaimed a dogma (Dogmatisierung des Kirchenstaates) excited Döllinger to an extraordinary degree. He became firmly persued that theological science could be saved only by the German Catholic Church, not by the Catholic Church in Germany. By theological science he meant chiefly historical theology. All other ecclesiastical interests seemed to this great scholar quite subordinate. His aversion to the education of clergy in seminaries, later quite pronounced, was another result of this mental attitude, the trend of which he revealed on various occasions at the Frankfort Parliament, and in the above-mentioned report (1848) of the Wurzburg meeting of the German and Austrian bishops. Gradually he came to be looked upon as a Gallican, nor was this because of his frequently expressed and strong dislike of the Jesuits. Many persons, among them the best and most loyal supporters of the Church, looked henceforth with a certain anxiety on the course of Döllinger. It could not be said that the nuncios at Munich admired him unreservedly. On the other hand, throughout the ranks of the German and Autrian clergy there was still only a mediocre theological knowledge, the legacy of an earlier period of infidelity and rationalism, and the concept of Catholic doctrine and discipline differed widely from the true ecclesiastical ideal of both.

To understand fully the profound changes working in the mind of Döllinger during the critical years from 1847 to 1852 it is well to recall his discourses at the general meetings of the “Katholischer Verein” at Ratisbon (1849) and Linz (1850), also those in the Upper House of the Bavarian Parliament in St. Paul’s at Frankfort, and at the meetings of the German hierarchy at Wurzburg (1849) and Freising (1850). To some extent, also, disappointment was responsible for his new mental attitude; his friends and admirers had tried in vain to obtain for him an important German see. It is worthy of note also that about 1855 the author of the work on the Reformation began gradually to modify his views to such an extent that eventually (in 1889) he wrote a panegyric on Protestantism.

The Greek patristic text entitled “Philosophoumena, or Refutation of all Heresies,” discovered in 1842 and edited by Miller (Oxford, 1851), at once fascinated Döllinger, and he devoted to its study all the rich powers of his erudition, critical skill, and insight. In 1853 he published the result of his labours in “Hippolytus und Kallistus, oder die romische Kirche in der ersten Halfte des dritten Jahrhunderts,” etc, a study of the Roman Church from 200 to 250, in reply to the interpretations of the “Philosophoumena” published by Bunsen, Wordsworth, Baur, and Gieseler. Despite the contrary arguments of De Rossi, Döllinger’s opinion has prevailed, and it is now generally acknowledged that Hippolytus is the author of the work in question. Döllinger’s essay in the “Historisch-Politische Blatter” (1853) entitled “Betrachtungen uber die Frage der Kaiserkronung,” considerations on the imperial coronation, contributed not a little to deter Pius IX from crowning Napoleon III. Concerning the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception Döllinger exhibited a prejudiced mind and a rather superficial historical grasp of the question; the defects in his theological equipment were here most noticeable. Indeed, he was much less concerned with the doctrine itself than with the person who wished to proclaim it as a dogma of faith. It was also his first open protest against a pope who was soon to proclaim that Papal Infallibility which seemed to Döllinger an utterly intolerable doctrine, from his view-point of exaggerated esteem for historical theology.

The year 1857 was marked by the appearance of his “Heidenthum und Judenthum, Vorhalle des Christenthums” (Heathenism and Judaism, the Vestibule of Christianity), the first part of his long contemplated history of the Church, the second part followed in 1860 (2nd ed., 1868) as “Christenthum und Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung,” dealing with the Apostolic period. The work, as he had planned, was never completed. Most of the abundant material he had collected for an exhaustive history of the papacy was afterwards utilized in an ephemeral journalistic way. The work itself he never undertook, and had he done so, it is possible that he would have come into conflict with the Holy See much sooner than he did.

In 1861 some of the principal ladies of Munich requested him to deliver a series of public discourses on Temporal Power; to this he acceded with pleasure, and the discourses given in the Royal Odeum were followed with deep attention by crowded audiences. His utterances, however, were so imprudent and so clearly inspired by Liberalism that in the midst of one of them papal nuncio, Monsignor Chigi, arose with indignation and left the hall. The impression made by these discourses on the Catholic world was painful in the extreme. Döllinger himself was deeply troubled by the agitation aroused; to justify himself in some measure, also to strengthen his position, now seriously compromised in great haste and issued during the same year his “Kirche und Kirchen, Papstthum und Kirchenstaat.” It seems incredible that the opinions and judgements one reads in this work are really Döllinger’s own; the reader is haunted by suspicion that he has before him a remarkable mixture of Byzantinism and hypocrisy.

The Catholic academic circles of Germany in the meantime deeply agitated by the discussions incident to the renaissance of Scholaticism (see NEO-SCHOLASTICISM) in theology and philosophy, and those over the merit of the episcopal seminaries as against the theological faculties of the universities for the education of candidates to the priesthood. There were excesses on both sides that intensified the situation, whereupon it seemed to many that an academical congress would be a helpful measure. An Assembly of Catholic scholars met in 1863 at Munich, before which, as already stated, Döllinger delivered (28 September) the discourse “Die Vergangenheit und Gegenwart der katholischen Theologie” (The Past and Present of Catholic Theology). His views as expressed in this occasion, were calculated to irritate and embitter his opponents, and a reconciliation seemed further away than before. Shortly afterwards, in the thirteenth thesis of the papal Syllabus of 8 Dec., 1864 (see QUANTA CURA) certain opinions of Döllinger were condemned.

It was unfortunate, but not surprising, therefore, that the “Papstfabeln des Mittelalters,” medieval fables about the popes (Munich, 1863; 2nd ed. 1890) received no impartial appreciation from his opponents; the pages (131–53) on the Monothelism of Pope Honorius were considered particularly offensive. From this period to the publication of the “Janus” letters, the pen of Döllinger produced mostly anonymous articles, in which his approaching apostasy was daily more clearly foeshadowed. He gave also much thought to the plan of a universal German biography, the “Allgemeine deutsche Biographie.” Though it was finally von Rancke who induced the Munich Academy to undertake the now practically finished work which, unfortunately, still shows frequent traces of partisanship, it was Döllinger’s ardour and insistence that first moved the Academy to consider the proposition. There is even yet a very widespread conviction, and it was believed by the great Christian archaeologist De Rossi, who was quite accurately informed on all the details of the Vatican Council, that Döllinger would scarcely have left the Church if he had been invited to take an honorable share in the preliminary work for the council. Nor does this seem at all improbable to those who understand his character. It is, in any case, very regrettable that on this point the influence of Cardinal Reisach should have outweighed that of Cardinal Schwarzenberg, and availed to exclude the Munich historian.

Scarcely had the first detailed accounts of the council’s proceedings appeared, when Döllinger published in the Ausburg “Allgemeine Zeitung” his famous “March articles,” reprinted anonymously in August of that year under the title: “Janus, der Papst, und das Konzil.” The accurate knowledge of papal history here manifested easily convinced most readers that only Döllinger could have written the work. At this time he provoked the “Hohenlohe theses” and followed them up with an anonymous work, “Erwägungen fur die Bischöfe des Konzils uber die Frage der Unfehlbalkeit,” considerations concerning papal infallibility for the bishops of the council. This work was translated into French, and a copy sent to every bishop. In the meantime Cardinal Schwarzenberg, in unison with French sympathizers, urged him to be present at Rome in his private capacity during the council; he preferred, however, to remain at Munich, where he prepared for the aforesaid “Allgemeine Zeitung,” with materials sent him regularly from Rome (even by bishops), the well-known Roman correspondence (Briefe vom Knzil), each letter of which fell in Rome like a bomb, but whose real author no one knew. When Döllinger wrote for the same journal, over his own name, the articles “Einige Worte uber die Unfehlbarkeitsaddresse der Konzilsmajoritat” (a few words on the address of the majority of the bishops concerning papal infallibility) and “Die neue Gesehäftsordnung im Konzil” (the council’s new order of business), he was denounced in Rome as a heretic. Bishop Ketteler addressed to him an open letter quite brusque in tone, while other bishops urged him to keep silent. Döllinger yielded, and on 18 July, 1780, the personal infallibility of the pope and his universal pastoral office were declared articles of faith. The foregoing presentation of the actual situation in that critical time is taken from the life of Döllinger by Johann Friedrich, the theologian of Cardinal Hohenlohe during the council and to whom, despite his oath of silence concerning the affairs of the council, Döllinger was indebted for the materials of the “Letters.” The declaration of papal infallibility meant naturally for Döllinger a severe internal conflict. The facts however do not justify the statement that he had long previously determined never to accept the dogma. The Archbishop of Munich, however, insisted on a public declaration of his attitude, and Döllinger weakly yielded to the pressure of those who were bent on apostasy, and wrote to the archbishop, 29 March, 1871, declaring his refusal to accept the dogma and stating his reasons in his character as Christian, theologian, historian, and citizen.

Leo XIII and Pius X have both declared, with all due formality and solemnity, that Church and State each within its own limits, are mutually independent; the Döllinger portrait of an infallible pope domineering over the State is, therefore, a caricature. For the great scholar it was dies ater when he wrote these words, for the theologian a period of profound mental confusion, for the Christian a succumbing to spiritual arrogance, for the citizen a full confession of the bureaucratic omnipotence of the State, a kind of belated resurrection of the memories of his youth.

Döllinger had definitely severed connection with the Church. Three weeks later (18 April, 1871) both Döllinger and Friedrick were publicly declared excommunicated. The action of the archbishop, under the circumstances unavoidable, aroused much feeling; on the one side it was hailed as a decisive step that ended a situation grown scandalous and intolerable, on the other many rejoiced that the world-renowned scholar had not bent his neck under the yoke of Rome. This marked the rise of the sect of the Old Catholics. At Pentecost of the same year (1871) a declaration was published, chiefly the work of Döllinger, setting forth the need of an ecclesiastical organization. Döllinger also signed a petition to the Government asking for one of the churches of Munich. Hitherto the opposition of this party to the Church had been mostly of a philosophico-historical character, and the dominant statesmen of the time could turn it to little practical account. It was now the hour for a number of inimical canonists whose opportunity lay in the anti-Catholic tendencies of the governments of the period. Prince Bismarck’s plan of a National German Catholic Church, as independent of Rome as it was possible to make it (foreshadowed by Döllinger in 1849), corresponded now with the wishes of he apostate catholics, henceforth governed absolutely by the canonist von Schulte (see OLD CATHOLICS). The first assembly of these opponents of the Vatican Council was held at Munich, 22–24 Sept. 1871. On the suggestion of von Schulte, and despite the opposition and warnings of Döllinger, it was decided to establish the “Old Catholic Church.” Thenceforth Döllinger followed a policy of vacillation, avoiding on the one hand any formal relationship to the new Church, on the other helpful to it by counsel and deeds; at one time disapproving positively important decisions of the sect, and again placing at its disposal all his influence and prestige. The new “Church” lacked distinction and was personally very distasteful to him; in public, however, though with measured reserve, he defended it. Henceforth formally excommunicated from the Catholic Church, he recognized the validity and legality of that act, at the same time he held it beneath his dignity to submit to the jurisdiction of Bishop Reinkens, for whom the Old Catholics had obtained consecration from the Jansenists in Holland. He stood, therefore, between the two camps, and looked on it as almost a calumny that the most insignificant members of the new sect considered him, more or less, an intimate adherent and sharer of their trials.

The next seven years he spent in pacifying his conscience, or, in his own words in a process of internal criticism; until 1887 he did nothing of importance, apart from a few essays, his academic discourses, and the work “Ungedruckte Berichte und Tagebucher zur Geschichte des Konzils von Trient,” unedited reports and diaries useful for a history of the Council of Trent (1876). In 1887 he edited, with Reusch, the autobiography of Bellarmine up to 13 June, 1613, in German; with Reusch also he published (1889–90) in two volumes “Geschichte der Moralstreitigkeiten in der romisch-katholischen Kirche seit dem sechszehnten Jahrhundert, mit Beitragen zur Geschichte und Carakteristik des Jesuitenordens,” or a history of the moral-theological discussions in the Roman Catholic Church since the sixteenth century, including studies on the history and characteristics of the Jesuit Order. About the same time he published in two volumes his “Beitrage zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters”; after his death appeared (1891) the third volume of is “Akademische Vortrage,” or academic discourses.

He retained to the end a remarkable physical and mental strength. Though his latest writings met with a kindly reception in scientific circles they were not considered as superior in merit, either from the view-point of scientific criticism or as historical narrative. Seldom has it been so clearly proven that whenever a man turns completely from a glorious and honourable past, however stormy, his fate is irrevocably sealed.

PAUL MARIA BAUMGARTEN.

Charles Dolman

Publisher and bookseller, b. at Monmouth, England, 20 Sept., 1807; d. in Paris, 31 December, 1863. He was the only son of Charles Dolman, a surgeon of Monmouth, and Mary Frances his wife, daughter of Thomas Booker, a Catholic publisher in London. Educated at St. Gregory’s, the Benedictine college at Downside, near Bath, he later, while residing at Preston, Lancashire, studied architecture under Joseph A. Hansom, intending to follow that profession, but abandoned the idea on being invited by the Bookers, publishers and booksellers, into which family his father had married, to go to London. When Joseph Booker died in 1837, he was induced to carry on the business with his aunt, Mary Booker, and his cousin, Thomas Booker. In 1840 the name of the firm was changed to Booker & Dolman and finally the business was continued in his name only. His career as a publisher of periodical literature began when in 1838 he brought out a new series of “The Catholic Magazine,” which up to that time had been known as “The Edinburgh Catholic Magazine,” in contradistinction to “The Catholic Magazine,” a much older publication which had gone out of existence in 1835. Dolman’s publication was discontinued in June, 1844, but his name had become so widely known that in March, 1845, he brought out a new periodical called “Dolman’s Magazine and Monthly Miscellany of Criticism.” This was at first under the sole management of its publisher, but later the Rev. Edward Price succeeded him. Like the others it was short-lived and in 1849 it was merged with “The Catholic Weekly and Monthly Orthodox” under the title “The Weekly Register.” It first appeared under the new name, 4 August, 1849, published by Thomas Booker. From this time on Dolman abandoned the publication of periodicals and devoted himself solely to works that had never before been brought out by the Catholic press. His many efforts to raise the standard of the Catholic press ended in failure. Disheartened by his ill-success and broken down in health, he retired to Paris, where he died. He was survived by his wife and an only son, the Very Rev. Charles Vincent Dolman, of Hereford, canon of Newport.

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE

Dolores Mission

(Or Mission San Francisco De Asis De Los Dolores)

In point of time the sixth in the chain of twenty-one California Indian Missions; formally opened 9 Oct., 1776. The date intended for the celebration was 4 Oct., the feast of St Francis of Asissi, but owing to the absence of the military commander of the neighboring presidio, which had been established on 17 Sept., the feast of the stigmata of St. Francis, the formal founding was delayed. The first Mass on or near the site was celebrated in a tent by Father Francisco Palou, on the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul, 29 June, and on 28 July, the first Mass was offered up in the temporary chapel. Father Palou on the title pages of the mission records gives 1 August as the day of foundation. The early missionaries, however, always celebrated the 4th of October as the patronal feast of the mission. The appellation “Dolores” was added because the mission was established on a streambed which Father Pedro Font, O.F.M., and Captain Juan Bautista de Anza had discovered on 28 March, 1776, and in honor of the Blessed Virgin had called Arroyo de Nuestra Señora de los Dolores. In all official documents, reports, and in the records, the mission bears no other name than San Francisco de Asis; but after 1824, when the Mission San Francisco Solano was established at Sonóma, to avoid confusion, it was popularly called Dolores, that is to say, the mission on the Dolores. The founders of the mission were Father Francisco Palou, the historian, and Father Pedro Benito Cambon. The other missionaries stationed here in the course of time were the Franciscan Fathers Tomás de la Peña, Miguel Giribet, Vincente de Santa Maria, Matías Noriega, Norberto de Santiago, Diego Garcia, Faustino de Solá, Antonio Dantí, Martin de Landaeta, Diego de Noboa, Manuel Fernández, José de Espí, Ramón Abella, Luis Gil, Juan Sainz, Vincente Oliva, Juan Cabot, Blas Ordaz, José Altimira, Tomás Esténega, Lorenzo Quijas, José Gutierrez, José Mercado, José Real, Miguel Muro. The Rev. Prudencio Santillan, the first secular priest, took charge in 1846.

The cornerstone of the present church, the oldest building in San Francisco, and which survived the earthquake of 1906 practically without damage, was laid in 1782 and finished with a thatched roof. In 1795, tiles replaced the thatch. The mission buildings as usual were erected in the form of a square. The church stood in the south-east corner fronting the east. The wings of the square contained the rooms of the missionaries, two of whom were always there until about June, 1828, the shops of the carpenters, smiths, saddlers, rooms for melting tallow and making soap, for the agricultural implements, for spinning wool and weaving coarse fabrics. There were twenty looms in constant operation, and two mills moved by mule-power ground the grain. Most of the neophytes were engaged in agriculture and stock-raising. Owing to the barren nature of the soil and the high winds in the neighborhood, sowing and planting was done ten or twelve miles down the peninsula. The stock also grazed far away from the mission. About one hundred yards from the church stood the neophyte village, composed of eight rows of one-story dwellings. The girls lived at the mission proper under the care of a matron (see California Missions). A school was in operation in 1818. The highest number of Indians living at the mission was reached in 1820, when 1242 neophytes made their home with the missionaries and received food, clothing, and instruction. The first baptism of an Indian occurred on 24 June, 1777. From that date till October, 1845, when the last Franciscan departed, 7200 names were entered into the baptismal record, about 500 of which represented white people. During the same period, 5503 deaths occurred and 2156 marriages were blessed; about eighty of the latter were those of white couples. From 1785 to the end of 1832, for which period we have the reports, the mission raised 120,000 bushels of wheat, 70,226 bushels of barley, 18,260 bushels of corn, 14,386 bushels of beans, 7296 bushels of peas, and 905 bushels of lentils and garvanzos or horse beans. The largest number of animals owned by the mission was as follows: cattle, 11,340 head in 1809; sheep, 11,324 in 1814; goats, 65 in 1786; horses, 1239 in 1831; mules, 45 in 1813.

Records of Mission San Francisco, Ms.; Archives of Mission Santa Barbara, Ms.; Font, Diario at Berkeley University, Ms. (Berkeley, CA.); Palou, Noticias (San Francisco, 1874). II, IV; Palou, Vida del Fray Junípero Serra (Mexico, 1787); Bancroft, History of California (San Francisco, 1886) I, V; Engelhardt, The Franciscans in California (Harbor Springs, Mich., 1897).

ZEPHYRIN ENGELHARDT.

Dolphin

(Lat. delphinus).

The use of the dolphin as a Christian symbol is connected with the general ideas underlying the more general use of the fish. The particular idea is that of swiftness and celerity symbolizing the desire with which Christians, who are thus represented as being sharers in the nature of Christ the true Fish, should seek after the knowledge of Christ. Hence the representation is generally of two dolphins tending towards the sacred monogram or some other emblem of Christ. In other cases the particular idea is that of love and tenderness. Aringhi (Roma Subterr., II, 327) gives an example of a dolphin with a heart, and other instances have some such motto as PIGNUS AMORIS HABES (i.e. thou hast a pledge of love). It is sometimes used as an emblem of merely conjugal love on funeral monuments. With an anchor the dolphin occurs frequently on early Christian rings, representing the attachment of the Christian to Christ crucified. Speaking generally, the dolphin is the symbol of the individual Christian, rather than of Christ Himself, though in some instances the dolphin with the anchor seems to be intended as a representation of Christ upon the Cross.

ARTHUR S. BARNES

Dome

(Lat. domus, a house).

An architectural term often used synonymously with cupola. Strictly speaking it signifies the external part of a spherical or polygonal covering of a building, of which the cupola (q.v.) is the inner structure, but in general usage dome means the entire covering. It is also loosely used, as in the German Dom and the Italian Duomo, to designate a cathedral, or at times, to signify some other building of importance. A dome may be of any material, wood, stone, metal, earthenware, or it may be built of a single mass or of a double or even triple series of concentric coverings. The dome is a roof, the base of which is a circle, an ellipsis, or a polygon, and its vertical section a curved line, concave towards the interior. Hence domes are called circular, elliptical or polygonal, according to the figure of the base. The most usual form is the spherical, in which case its plan is a circle, the section a segment of a circle. Domes are sometimes semi-elliptical, pointed, often in curves of contrary flexure, bell-shaped, etc. Except in the earlier period of the development of the dome, the interior and exterior forms were not often alike, and, in the space between, a staircase to the lantern was generally made.

Domes are of two kinds, simple and compound. In the simple dome, the dome and the pendentives are in one, and the height is only a little greater than that of an intersecting vault formed by semicircular arches. The dome over the central part of the tomb of Galla Placidia, at Ravenna, and those over some of the aisles of Saint Sophia, Constantinople, are of this description. In the compound dome two methods were followed. In both methods greater height is obtained, and the compound dome was consequently the one used on all important buildings of the later period. In one, the dome starts directly from the top of the circle formed by the pendentives; in the other, a cylindrical wall or “drum” intervenes between the pendentives and the dome, thus raising the latter considerably. In churches with domes without drums, the windows are in the dome itself immediately above the springing; otherwise, they are in the drum, and the surface of the dome is generally unbroken. At the monastery of St. Luke, Phocis, Greece, are two churches of the eleventh century, side by side, the smaller of which has a drum with windows in it, whereas the larger church has no drum, and the windows are in the dome. The drum is universal in all domed churches of the Renaissance, at which time it received special treatment and became a most important feature. Many of these drums are not circular in plan externally, but are many-sided, and the angles are often enriched by marble shafts, etc. The carrying-up of the walls vertically is a good expedient constructionally, as it provides weight above the haunches of the dome and helps to neutralize its thrusts. In the churches of the second period, at Constantinople, Salonica, Athens, and other parts of Greece, in which the true drum occurs, it is of considerable height and is generally eight-sided. Windows come at each, and over the windows are arches which cut into the dome itself.

A primitive form of the dome and the barrel vault is of great antiquity. In some districts men were compelled to build in stone or brick or mud, because there was no wood, as in Assyria; in other districts because they had not the tools to work wood. In all such cases some form of dome or tunnel vault had to be devised for shelter. In tracing the growth of the dome in historical times, it has been regarded as an outcome of the architecture of the Eastern Empire, because it was at Constantinople and in the Byzantine provinces that it was first employed in ecclesiastical structures. But it was the Romans who in reality developed the use of the dome, as of all other applications of the semicircular arch. From Rome it was carried to Constantinople and from the same source to different parts of the Western Empire. In Eastern Christendom the dome became the dominant factor in church design; whether a single dome, as at Saint Sophia, Constantinople (built, 532–537), or a central dome encircled by other domes, as at St. Mark’s, Venice, or a row of domes, as at AngoulÍme. The plan and domes of AngoulÍme are reproduced in the new Catholic cathedral at Westminster. The Roman dome was a hemisphere supported by a circular wall. Its finest example was the Pantheon, Rome. Equally characteristic, though smaller, examples abound, e.g. at Rome, the temple of Minerva Medica, the tomb of Constantia, now the church of Santa Costanza, etc. Viollet-le-Duc in writing of the dome of the Pantheon says, “This majestic cupola is the widest, the most beautiful, the best constructed, and most stable of all the great domes of the world.” The inside diameter of the dome is 142 1/2 feet. Previous to the building of the Pantheon in its present domical form, during the reign of Hadrian about A.D. 123, the history of the dome is for the most part a blank.

The primitive Eastern dome seems to have been on a very small scale, and to have been used for subordinate purposes only. It was a common architectural feature in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. In later times the dome was largely employed in architecture by the Persian Sassanids, Mohammedans, and the Byzantines. From the first domed churches built for Christian worship sprang Byzantine architecture and its offshoots. The builder of the earliest domed church of any magnitude was Constantine; its locality the famous city of Antioch in Syria. The problem of the Christian domed church, so far at least as its interior is concerned, received in Saint Sophia its full solution. The dome is the prevailing conception of Byzantine architecture, and M. Choisy, in his “Art de b’tir chez les Byzantins” traces the influence of this domical construction on Greek architecture to show how from their fusion the architecture of the Eastern Empire became possible. Domes were now, from the time of the construction of Saint Sophia, placed over square apartments, their bases being brought to a circle by means of pendentives, whereas, in Roman architecture, domes as a rule were placed over a circular apartment. The grouping of small domes round a large central one was very effective, and one of the peculiarities of Byzantine churches was that the dome had no additional outer covering. The dome was rarely used by medieval builders except when under oriental influence, hence it was practically confined to Spain and Italy. The dome of the cathedral at Pisa, the first model of the Tuscan style of architecture, was begun in the eleventh century, and in the thirteenth was founded the cathedral at Florence. Its dome equals in size that of St. Peter’s at Rome, and was its model. During the Italian Renaissance, domed construction became again of the first importance, possibly on account of its classical precedent, and it is interesting to note that the Pantheon became once more the starting-point of a new development which culminated in the domes of St. Peter’s, Rome, and St. Paul’s, London.

The substructure of the dome of St. Peter’s is a round drum, which serves as a stylobate and lifts it above the surrounding roofs. On this stands the ringwall of the drum, decorated with a Corinthian order and carrying an attic; on this sits the oval mass of the noblest dome in the world. The drum, fifty feet high, is pierced by sixteen square-headed windows. The enormous thickness of the stylobate allows an outside offset to receive the buttresses which are set between the windows, in the shape of spurwalls with engaged columns at the corners, over which the entablature is broken. The curve of the dome is of extraordinary beauty. Between its ribs, corresponding to the buttresses below, are three diminishing tiers of small dormer windows. The lantern above, with an Ionic order, repeats the arrangement of windows and buttresses in the drum below, and is surmounted by a Latin cross rising 448 feet above the pavement. The foremost Renaissance church in Florence is the church of the Annunziata, and is remarkable for a fine dome carried on a drum resting directly on the ground. To the latest time of the Renaissance in Venice belongs the picturesque domed church of Santa Maria della Salute. The two finest domes in France are those of the HÙtel des Invalides and the Panthéon (formerly the church of Sainte GeneviËve) at Paris. Domes built in the early part of the twelfth century are to be found at Valencia, Zamora, Salamanca, Clermont, Le Puy, Cahors. They are also found in Poitou, Périgord, and Auvergne; at Aachen, Cologne, Antwerp, and along the banks of the Rhine; at Aosta, Pavia, Como, Parma, Piacenza, Verona, Milan, etc. There are, besides, the bulbous domes of Russia and the flattened cupolas of the Saracens. The dome became the lantern in English Gothic, and the octagon of Ely cathedral is said to be the only true Gothic dome in existence. The central octagon of the Houses of Parliament, London, is the best specimen of a modern Gothic dome. Arab domes are mostly of the pointed form such as are derived from the rotation of the Gothic arch or bulbous, the section being a horse-shoe arch. Very beautiful examples are seen in the buildings known as the tombs of the caliphs at Cairo. Among the finest examples of domed buildings in the East are the Tombs of Mohammedan sultans in the south of India and at Agra. The largest dome in America is that of the Capitol at Washington. It is built of iron.

Fletcher, A History of Architecture (New York, 1905); Bond, Gothic Architecture in England (New York, 1906); Cummings, A History of Architecture in Italy (Boston, 1901); Brown, From Schola to Cathedral (Edinburgh, 1886); Smith, Architecture, Gothic and Renaissance (London, 1898); Simpson, A History of Architectural Development (New York, 1905); Walcott, Sacred Archaeology (London, 1869).

THOMAS H. POOLE

Emmanuel-Henri-Dieudonné Domenech

Abbé, missionary and author, b. at Lyons, France, 4 November, 1826; d. in France, June, 1886. In the spring of 1846, before completing his seminary studies and when not yet twenty years of age, he left France in response to an urgent appeal for missionaries to help develop the Church in the wilds of Texas, then rapidly filling up with American and European immigration. He went first to St. Louis, where he spent two years completing his theological course, studying English and German, and gathering knowledge of missionary requirements. In May, 1848, he was assigned to duty at the new German settlement of Castroville in Texas, from which he was transferred later to Brownsville. The war with Mexico was just concluded; raiding bands of Mexicans and rangers were ravaging on both sides of the Rio Grande, while outlaws from the border States and almost equally lawless discharged soldiers filled the new towns, and hostile Indians hovered constantly in the background. A cholera epidemic added its horrors. Nevertheless the young priest went bravely to work with such energy that he soon became an efficient power for good throughout all Southern Texas. In 1850 he visited Europe and was received by the pope. Returning to Texas, he continued in the mission field two years longer, when he returned to France with health broken and was appointed titulary canon of Montpellier. When the French troops were dispatched to Mexico in 1861 he was selected to accompany the expedition as almoner to the army and chaplain to the Emperor Maximilian. After the return to France he devoted his remaining years to European travel, study, and writing, and the exercise of his ecclesiastical functions. In 1882–3 he again visited America.

Among his numerous works dealing with travel, history, and theology, may be noted: “Journal d’un missionnaire au Texas et au Mexique” (Paris, 1857); “Voyage dans les solitudes américaines” (Paris, 1858); “Histoire du jansénisme”; “Histoire du Mexique” (Paris, 1868); “Souvenirs d’outre-mer” (Paris, 1884). His principal works have appeared also in English translation. In regard to his much-controverted “Manuscrit pictographique americain” (Paris, 1860), an examination of the supposed Indian pictographs leaves no doubt that in this case the unsuspecting missionary was grossly deceived.

JAMES MOONEY

Domenichino

Properly DOMENICO ZAMPIERI.

An Italian painter, born in Bologna, 21 Oct., 1581; died in Naples, 16 April, 1641. He began his art studies in the school of Calvaert, but being ill-treated there, his father, a poor shoemaker, placed him in the Carracci Academy, where Guido Reni and Albani were also students. Domenichino was a slow, thoughtful, plodding youth whom his companions called the “Ox,” a nickname also borne by his master Ludovico. He took the prize for drawing in the Carracci Academy gaining thereby both fame and hatred. Stimulated by success, he studied unremittingly, particularly the expression of the human face, so that Bellori says “he could delineate the soul.”

His student days over, he first visited Parma and Modena to study Correggio, and then went to Rome, where his earliest friend and patron, Cardinal Agucchi, commissioned him to decorate his palace. In Rome he assisted the Carracci with their frescoes in the palace of Cardinal Farnese, who became such an admirer of Domenichino that he had him execute many of the pictures in the Basilian Abbey of Grotta Ferrata. Domenichino’s best frescoes are in this church. With Guido he painted, for Cardinal Borghese, in S. Gregorio; for Cardinal Aldobrandini he executed ten frescoes at Villa Franscati; for Cardinal Montalto he decorated S. Andrea della Valle; and for Cardinal Bandini he painted four pictures for S. Silvestro which rank among his best productions.

He immortalized his name by painting (1614) for the altar of S. Girolamo della Carità, the “Communion of St. Jerome,” a copy of which, in mosaics, is in St. Peter’s. This is one of the great pictures of the world and was considered second only to Raphael’s “Transfiguration.” He received about fifty dollars for it. Napoleon took it to Paris but the Allies returned it. Jealousy of Domenichino long accumulating now burst forth, and he was accused of copying his masterpiece from Agostino Carracci. Weary of attacks, the artist went to Bologna but later returned to Rome, where Pope Gregory XV made him painter and architect of the Apostolic Camera (pontifical treasury). In 1630 he settled in Naples and there opened a school, but was harassed, as in Rome, by envious artists (cabal of Naples), who disfigured his paintings. Mental suffering, perhaps poison, hastened his death. Domenichino, although not a master of great originality and inspiration, was a prominent figure in the Bolognese School. Potent in fresco he also excelled in decorative landscapes; his colour was warm and harmonious, his style simple, his chiaroscuro superbly managed, and his subordinate groups and accessaries well adjusted and of great interest. The most famous masters of the burin engraved his works, which are: “Portrait of Cardinal Agucchi,” Uffizi, Florence; “Life of St. Nilus” (fresco) in Grotta Ferrata near Rome; “Condemnation of Adam and Eve,” Louvre, Paris; “St. George and the Dragon,” National Gallery, London; “St. John,” Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

RICHTER, Catalogue of the Dulwich Gallery (London, 1880); DOHMER, Kunst and Kunstler des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit (Leipzig, 1877); BRYAN, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers.

LEIGH HUNT

Domesday Book

The name given to the record of the great survey of England made by order of William the Conqueror in 1085–86. The name first occurs in the famous “Dialogus de Scaccario,” a treatise compiled about 1176 by Richard Fitznigel, which states that the English called the book of the survey “Domesdei,” or “Day of Judgement,” because the inquiry was one which none could escape, and because the verdict of this register as to the holding of the land was final and without appeal. Certain it is that native English resented William’s inquisition. “It is shame to tell,” wrote the chronicler, “what he thought it no shame for him to do. Ox, nor cow, nor swine was left that was not set down upon his writ.” The returns give full information about the land of England, its ownership both in 1085 and in the time of King Edward, its extent, nature, value, cultivators, and villeins. The survey embraced all England except the northernmost counties. The results are set down in concise and orderly fashion in two books called the “Exchequer Domesday.” Another volume, containing a more detailed account of Wilts, Dorset, Somerset, Devon, and Cornwall, is called the “Exon Domesday,” as it is in the keeping of the cathedral chapter of Exeter.

The chief interest of the Domesday Book for us here lies in the light which it throws upon church matters. As Professor Maitland has pointed out, a comparison of Domesday with our earliest charters shows not only that the Church held lands of considerable, sometimes of vast, extent, but that she had obtained these lands by free grant from kings or underkings during the Saxon period. We find, for example, that four ministers, Worcester, Evesham, Pershore, and Westminster, were lords of seven-twelfths of the soil of Worcestershire, and that the Church of Worcester alone was lord of one-quarter of that shire besides other holdings elsewhere. It is probable, however, that this did not imply absolute ownership, but only superiority and a right to certain services (Maitland, “Domesday Book and Beyond,” pp. 236–42). This must be borne in mind when we see it stated, and so far correctly, on the authority of Domesday, that the possessions of the Church represented twenty-five per cent of the assessment of the country in 1066 and twenty-six and one-half per cent of its cultivated area in 1086. These lands were in any case very unequally distributed, the proportion of church land being much greater in the South of England. The record does not enable us to tell clearly how far the parochial system had developed, and though in Norfolk and Suffolk all the churches seem to have been entered, amounting to 243 in the former, and 364 in the latter, county, the same care to note the churches was obviously not exercised in the West of England. Much church property seems to have been of the nature of a tenancy held from the king upon conditions of some service to be rendered, often of a spiritual kind. Thus we read; “Alwin the priest holds the sixth part of a hide,” at Turvey, Beds, “and held it tempore regis Edwardi, and could do what he liked with it; King William afterwards gave it to him in alms, on condition that he should celebrate two ferial masses [ferias missas] for the souls of the King and Queen twice a week.” Valuable as is the information which the Domesday Book supplies, many questions suggested by it remain obscure and are still keenly debated. A facsimile of the whole record was brought out some years ago by photozincography, and at the end of the eighteenth century an edition was printed in type specially cast to represent the contractions of the original manuscript.

The most convenient introduction to the subject is BALLARD, The Domesday Inquest (London, 1906). The more advanced student may be referred to MAITLAND, Domesday Book and Beyond (new ed., London, 1907); to ROUND, Feudal England (London, 1895); and to EYTON, Domesday Studies. But there are many minor essays dealing with questions of local interest.

HERBERT THURSTON

Domicile

(Lat. jus domicilii, right of habitation, residence).

The canon law has no independent and original theory of domicile; both the canon law and all modern civil codes borrowed this theory from the Roman law; the canon law, however, extended and perfected the Roman theory by adding thereto that of quasi-domicile. For centuries ecclesiastical legislation contained no special provision in regard to domicile, adapting itself quite unreservedly on this point both to Roman and Barbarian law. It was only in the thirteenth century, after the revival at Bologna of the study of Roman law, that legists and then the canonists, returned to the Roman theory of domicile, introducing it first into the schools and then into practice. Not that the Church had “canonized,” so to speak, this particular point of Roman law more than others, but civil law, being more ancient, formed a basis for canon law, which accepted it, at least in so far as it was not at variance with later decrees of pontifical law. So true is this that there exists no document in which the theory of domicile has been completely and officially expounded by an ecclesiastical legislator.

I. ROMAN LAW

We must therefore revert to Roman law, which established domicile as the extension or communication of a pre-existent legal status of individuals-origin (origo, jus originis). In the theory of the Roman lawyers each man belongs to his municipality, to his city, where, as he contributes his share to the expenses and taxes, so he has a right to the common advantages. Children naturally follow their father’s condition and belong likewise to the city, even though born at a distance. Such is the Roman origo, quite akin to what we call nationality, except that the origo relates to the restricted locality of one’s birth, and nationality to one’s native land. Hence it is birth, the legal birthplace, that determines one’s origo, i.e not the actual site of birth but the place where each one should have been born, the municipality to which the father belonged (L. 1. ff. Ad municip.). Let us now suppose a man settled for a long time in a city of which he is not a native. Partly in return for the taxes he pays, and partly to permit him to exercise local civic duties, he is granted the status of a real citizen, without loss, however, of his own origo or municipal right. Such, then, is the primitive concept of domicile in Roman law: the communication to a man, born in one municipality but residing permanently in another, of the civil rights normally reserved to citizens who are natives of the locality. To become as one of the latter, the stranger must crreate for himself a domicile, and it was this that necessarily led jurists to define domicile and the conditions upon which it could be acquired. Hence the celebrated definition of domicile given by the Emperors Diocletian and Maximianus (L. 7, G. de incol.): “It is certain that each one has his domicile in the place where he has established his home and business and has his possessions; a residence which he does not intend to abandon, unless called elsewhere, from which he departs only as a traveller and by returning to which he ceases to be a traveller.” The juridical element constitutive of domicile is the intention, the will definitively to settle oneself in a place, this will being deduced from the circumstances and especially the conditions of installation. It implies indefinite stability, not perpetuity in the restricted sense of the word, as though one renounced the right to change domicile. Another domicile may at any time be acquired on the same conditions as the first; it is lost when the intention of abandoning it is coupled with the fact of desertion. Since, therefore, domicile conferred the same rights as origo, its importance became gradually more and more marked.

We can now better understand the words that so often recur in Roman law and have been adopted by canonists: those who belong to a municipality by right of birth are citizens (cives), though these terms are used almost synonymously by legists and canonists; those who have spent a sufficient time there without, however, acquiring a domicile, are strangers (advenæ), though to them canonists concede a quasi-domicile. Finally, those who make but a passing sojourn there are transients (peregrini; cf. L. 239, de Verb. sign.). To these categories canonists have added one which the Roman origo, being permanent, could not recognize, namely the wanderers (vagi), who have no fixed residence or who, having definitely abandoned one domicile, have not as yet acquired another.

II. DEVELOPMENT OF DOMICILE IN CANON LAW

In the troublous times that prevailed after the Barbarian invasions, the domicile of Roman law was lost sight of, and even the word itself disappeared from the juridical language of the time. However, this does not mean that persons inhabiting certain limited districts had wholly ceased to be connected with local authority, whether civil or religious, nor that all acts were regulated exclusively, after the barbarian concept, by a personal code. The material fact of habitation could not, it is true, be ignored, but it no longer served for a theory of domicile. The medieval ecclesiastical canons say that each Catholic (fidelis) should pay his tithes in the church where he was baptized and that his obsequies should be held wherever he pays his tithes, etc., but there is no mention of domicile.

The Roman theory was again restored to honour by the glossarists of the Bolognese School, expecially by Accursius in the beginning of the thirteenth century. Whether it was because they mistook the real meaning of origo or desired to explain it in a way that suited the customs of their time, they interpreted it as a sort of domicile resulting from one’s birthplace, and if one were born there per accidens, from the place of one’s father’s birth. Except for this inaccuracy, the Roman theory was well expounded. Moreover, according to the favourite principles of their time, the glossarists brought into prominence the double constitutive element of domicile (or, properly speaking, of acquired domicile): the material element (corpus), i.e. habitation, and the juridical or formal element (animus), i.e. the intention to remain in this habitation indefinitely. Although they did not contribute directly to this revival of domicile, canonists nevertheless adopted it and it was definitively admitted in the gloss of “Liber Sextus” (cc. 2 and 3, de sepult.). They applied these rules to the acts of Christian life: baptism, paschal Communion and Viaticum, confession, extreme unction, funerals, interments, then also to ordination and juridical competency. The actual canonical rules on domicile are about the same.

In the meantime almost the only development of canon law in this matter has been the creation of the quasi-domicile theory, foreign alike to Roman and modern civil law. As its name implies, quasi-domicile is closely patterned on domicile and consists in a sojourn in some one place during a sufficient length of time. Not only does it not call for abandonment of the real domicile, but can co-exist with the latter and even suppose the intention of returning thither. It was evident that the ordinary acts of the Christian life, the rights and obligations of a parishioner, could not be confined to permanent residents only; hence the necessity of assimilating to such residents those who sojourn in the place for a certain length of time. The canonists soon concluded that whoever has a quasi-domicile in a place may receive there the sacraments and perform there legitimately all the acts of the Christian life without forfeiting any of his rights in the place of his real domicile; he may even thus become subject to the judicial authority of his place of quasi-domicile. The only restrictions are, as we shall see, for ordinations and, to a certain extent, for funerals. For a long time, however, the theory remained vague and undetermined. Authors could scarcely agree as to precisely what was meant by the “sufficient length” of time (non breve tempus) required for quasi-domicile, and they hesitated to pronounce on the various possible reasons for a sojourn and the degree in which they could create presumption of an intention to acquire quasi-domicile. Strictly speaking, the question was really important only in regard to thosse marriages whose validity depended on the existence of a quasi-domicile in countries where the Tridentine decree “Tametsi” had been published; in this way, as we shall see below, new legislation became necessary. The quasi-domicile theory was not definitively settled until the appearance of the Instruction of the Holy Office addressed to the Bishops of England and the United States, 7 June, 1867, in which quasi-domicile is patterned as closely as possible on domicile. Like the latter, it is made up of the double element of fact and right, i.e. of residence and the intention of abiding in it for a sufficient length of time, this time being clearly stated as a period covering more than six months-per majorem anni partem. As soon as these two conditions coexist, quasi-domicile is acquired and immediately involves the legal use of rights and competencies resulting therefrom. (See below for a recent restriction in regard to marriage.) Finally, quasi-domicile is lost by the simultaneous cessation of both its constitutive elements, i.e. by the abandonment of residence without any intention of returning to it. Suffice it to add that in this matter the canon law, yielding to custom, tends easily to adapt itself to the provisions of civil law, e.g. as regards the legal domicile of minors, wards, and other analogous provisions.

III. PRESENT LAW

From the preceding explanation there results a very important conclusion which throws a strong light on canonical legislation concerning domicile and which we must now set forth. It is this: the law does not deal with domicile for its own sake, but rather on account of its consequences; in other words, on account of the personal rights and obligations attached thereto. This explains why domicile must meet divers requirements more or less severe according to the case in point, e.g. marriage, ordination, juridical competency. Keeping therefore in view the legal consequences of domicile and its various forms it may be defined as a stable residence which entails submission to local authority and permits the exercise of acts for which this authority is competent. To this definition the laws and their commentators confine themselves, without touching on the legal effects of domicile. As we have already seen, domicile, properly so called, is the place one inhabits indefinitely (locus perpetuæ habitationis), such perpetuity being quite compatible with more or less transitory residence elsewhere. It matters not whether one be the owner or simply the occupant of the house in which one dwells or whether one owns more or less property in the locality. The place of one’s domicile is not the house werein one resides but the territorial district in which the house or home stands. This district is usually the smallest territory possessing a distinct, self-governing organization. All authors agree that, from a civil viewpoint, the municipality is the place of domicile and, canonically considered, the parish or territorial division replacing it, e.g. mission or station. It is in the municipality that the acts and rights of civil life are exercised, and in the parish those of the Christian life. Strictly speaking, one cannot acquire domicile in a ward or hamlet or in any territorial division which does not form a self- governing group. Of course there are certain acts that do not depend, or that no longer depend, on local authority; in this sense, it is possible to speak of domicile in a diocese when it is question e.g. of ordination, or of domicile in a province apropos of the competency of a tribunal. But these exceptions are merely apparent; they imply that one has a domicile in some parish within a given diocese. The canon law has never recognized as domicile an unstable residence in different parts of a diocese without intent to establish oneself in some particular parish. Canon law (c. 2, de sepult. in VI), like Roman law (L. 5, 7, 27, Ad municip.), allows a double domicile, provided there be in both places a morally equal installation; the most ordinary example of this being a winter domicile in the city and a summer domicile in the country.-There are three kinds of domicile: domicile of origin, domicile of residence or acquired domicile, and necessary or legal domicile. The domicile of origin, a somewhat inexact imitation of the Roman origo, is that assigned to each individual by his place of nativity unless he be accidentally born outside of the place where his father dwells; practically it is the paternal domicile for legitimate and the maternal domicile for illegitimate children. Again, in reference to the spiritual life, domicile of nativity is the place where adults and abandoned children are baptized.-The domicile of residence or acquired domicile is that of one’s own choice, the place where one establishes a residence for an indefinite period. It is acquired by the fact of material residence joined to the intention of there remaining as long as one has no reason for settling elsewhere; this intention being manifested either by an express declaration or by circumstances. Once acquired, domicile subsists, despite more or less prolonged absences, until one leaves it with the intention of not returning.-Finally, necessary or legal domicile is that imposed by law; for prisoners or exiles it is their prison or place of banishment; for a wife it is the domicile of the husband which she retains even after becoming a widow; for children under age it is that of the parents who have authority over them; for wards it is that of their guardians; lastly, for whoever exercises a perpetual charge, e.g. a bishop, canon, or parish priest, etc., it is the place where he discharges his functions.

Quasi-domicile is of one kind only, namely of residence and choice and cannot be acquired in any other way. It is acquired and lost on the same conditions as domicile itself and is deduced mainly from such reasons as justify a sojourn of at least six months, e.g. the pursuit of studies, or even for an indefinite period, as in the case of domestics. Quasi-domicile is presumed, especially for marriage, after a month’s sojourn according to the Constitution “Paucis abhinc” of Benedict XIV, 19 March, 1758; but this presumption yields to contrary proof, except however when it is transformed into a presumption juris et de jure, which admits of no contrary proof; such is the case for the United States in virtue of the indult of 6 May, 1886, granted at the request of the Council of Baltimore in 1884 (Acts et Decreta, p. cix) and extended to the Diocese of Paris, 20 May, 1905. This being so, quasi-residents are regarded as subjects of the local authority just as are permanent residents, being therefore parishioners bound by local laws and possessing the same rights as residents, with this difference, that, if they so choose, they may go and use their rights in their own domicile. They can, therefore, apply to the local parish priest, as to their own parish priest, not only for those sacraments administered to every one who presents himself, e.g. Holy Eucharist and penance, but also for the baptism of their children, for first Communion, paschal Communion, Viaticum, and extreme unction. Their nuptials may also be solemnized in his presence and, except when they have chosen to be buried elsewhere, their funerals should take place from the parish church of their quasi-domicile. Finally, the quasi-domicile permits of their legitimate citation before a judge competent for the locality. As regards marriage, the quasi-domicile affected its validity in parishes subject to the decree “Tametsi” until the decree “Ne temere” of 2 August, 1907, rendered the competency of the parish priest exclusively territorial, so that all marriages contracted in his presence, within his parochial territory, are valid; for a licit marriage, however, one of the two betrothed must have dwelt within the parish for at least a month.

On the other hand those who have neither a domicile nor a quasi-domicile in a parish, who are only there as transients (peregrini), are not counted as parishioners; the parish priest is not their pastor and they should respect the pastoral rights of their own parish priest at least in so far as possible. The restrictions of former times, it is true, have been greatly lessened and at present no one would dream of obtaining parochial rights for annual confession, paschal Communion or the Viaticum. Something, however, still remains: for marriage transients must ask the delegation or authorization of the parish priest of their domicile (regularly of the bride) if the contracting parties have not already sojourned for a month within the parish where they seek to contract marriage; funerals also belong to the parish priest of the domicile, i.e. if the interested parties desire to, and can transport to the parish church the body of the deceased; in any event the parish priest may demand the parochial dues known as quarta funeralis. Generally speaking, transients (peregrini) are not subjects of the local ecclesiastical authority; they are not held to the observance of local laws except inasmuch as these affect public order, nor do they become subjects of the local judicial authority.

As to the domicile requisite for ordination there are special rules formulated by Innocent XII, in his Constitution “Speculatores,” 4 November, 1694. The candidate for orders depends upon a bishop, first by reason of his origin, that is to say, of the place where his father had a domicile at the time of his son’s birth; second by reason of his own acquired domicile. But the conditions which this domicile must satisfy are rather severe: the candidate must have already resided in the diocese for ten years or else have transported most of his movable goods to a house in which he has resided for three years; moreover, in both cases, he must affirm under oath his intention of definitively establishing himself in the diocese. This is a qualified domicile, the conditions of which must not be extended to other cases.

Benedict xiv, Ep. Paucis abhinc: Id. Instit. Can. 33, 88; Sanchez, De matrim., III; Fagnanus, Comment. in Decretal. in cap. Significavit, III, tit. xxix; Bassibey, La clandestinité dans le mariage (Bordeaux, 1904); Fourneret, Le domicile matrimonial (Paris, 1906); D’Annibale, Summula Theologiæ moralis (Rome, 1908), I, n. 82–86; O’Neill in Am. Eccles. Rev. (Philadelphia, April, 1908).

A. BOUDINHON

St. Dominic

Founder of the Order of Preachers, commonly known as the Dominican Order; born at Calaroga, in Old Castile, c. 1170; died 6 August, 1221. His parents, Felix Guzman and Joanna of Aza, undoubtedly belonged to the nobility of Spain, though probably neither was connected with the reigning house of Castile, as some of the saint’s biographers assert. Of Felix Guzman, personally, little is known, except that he was in every sense the worthy head of a family of saints. To nobility of blood Joanna of Aza added a nobility of soul which so enshrined her in the popular veneration that in 1828 she was solemnly beatified by Leo XII. The example of such parents was not without its effect upon their children. Not only Saint Dominic but also his brothers, Antonio and Manes, were distinguished for their extraordinary sanctity. Antonio, the eldest, became a secular priest and, having distributed his patrimony to the poor, entered a hospital where he spent his life minis ministering to the sick. Manes, following in the footsteps of Dominic, became a Friar Preacher, and was beatified by Gregory XVI.

The birth and infancy of the saint were attended by many marvels forecasting his heroic sanctity and great achievements in the cause of religion. From his seventh to his fourteenth year he pursued his elementary studies tinder the tutelage of his maternal uncle, the archpriest of Gumiel d’lzan, not far distant from Calaroga. In 1184 Saint Dominic entered the University of Palencia. Here he remained for ten years prosecuting his studies with such ardour and success that throughout the ephemeral existence of that institution he was held up to the admiration of its scholars as all that a student should be. Amid the frivolities and dissipations of a university city, the life of the future saint was characterized by seriousness of purpose and an austerity of manner which singled him out as one from whom great thin might be expected in the future. But more than one he proved that under this austere exterior he carried a heart as tender as a woman’s. On one occasion he sold his books, annotated with his own hand, to relieve the starving poor of Palencia. His biographer and contemporary, Bartholomew of Trent, states that twice he tried to sell himself into slavery to obtain money for the liberation of those who were held in captivity by the Moors. These facts are worthy of mention in view of the cynical and saturnine character which some non-Catholic writers have endeavoured to foist upon one of the most charitable of men. Concerning the date of his ordination his biographers are silent; nor is there anything from which that date can be inferred with any degree of certainty. According to the deposition of Brother Stephen, Prior Provincial of Lombardy, given in the process of canonization, Dominic was still a student at Palencia when Don Martin de Bazan, the Bishop of Osma, called him to membership in the cathedral chapter for the purpose If assisting in its reform. The bishop realized the importance to his plan of reform of having constantly before his canons the example of one of Dominic’s eminent holiness. Nor was he disappointed in the result. In recognition of the part he had taken in converting its members into canons regular, Dominic was appointed sub-prior of the reformed chapter. On the accession of Don Diego d’Azevedo to the Bishopric of Osma in 1201, Dominic became superior of the chapter with the title of prior. As a canon of Osma, he spent nine years of his life hidden in God and rapt in contemplation, scarcely passing beyond the confines of the chapter house.

In 1203 Alfonso IX, King of Castile, deputed the Bishop of Osma to demand from the Lord of the Marches, presumably a Danish prince, the hand of his daughter on behalf of the king’s son, Prince Ferdinand. For his companion on this embassy Don Diego chose Saint Dominic. Passing through Toulouse in the pursuit of their mission, they beheld with amazement and sorrow the work of spiritual ruin wrought by the Albigensian heresy. It was in the contemplation of this scene that Dominic first conceived the idea of founding an order for the purpose of combating heresy and spreading the light of the Gospel by preaching to the ends of the then known world. Their mission having ended successfully, Diego and Dominic were dispatched on a second embassy, accompanied by a splendid retinue, to escort the betrothed princess to Castile. This mission, however, was brought to a sudden close by the death of the young woman in question. The two ecclesiastics were now free to go where they would, and they set out for Rome, arriving there towards the end of 1204. The purpose of this was to enable Diego to resign his bishopric that he might devote himself to the conversion of unbelievers in distant lands. Innocent III, however, refused to approve this project, and instead sent the bishop and his companion to Languedoc to join forces with the Cistercians, to whom he had entrusted the crusade against the Albigenses. The scene that confronted them on their arrival in Languedoc was by no means an encouraging one. The Cistercians, on account of their worldly manner of living, had made little or no headway against the Albigenses. They had entered upon their work with considerable pomp, attended by a brilliant retinue, and well provided with the comforts of life. To this display of worldliness the leaders of the heretics opposed a rigid asceticism which commanded the respect and admiration of their followers. Diego and Dominic quickly saw that the failure of the Cistercian apostolate was due to the monks’ indulgent habits, and finally prevailed upon them to adopt a more austere manner of life. The result was at once apparent in a greatly increased number of converts. Theological disputations played a prominent part in the propaganda of the heretics. Dominic and his companion, therefore, lost no time in engaging their opponents in this kind of theological exposition. Whenever the opportunity offered, they accepted the gage of battle. The thorough training that the saint had received at Palencia now proved of inestimable value to him in his encounters with the heretics. Unable to refute his arguments or counteract the influence of his preaching, they visited their hatred upon him by means of repeated insults and threats of physical violence. With Prouille for his head-quarters, he laboured by turns in Fanjeaux, Montpellier, Servian, Béziers, and Carcassonne. Early in his apostolate around Prouille the saint realized the necessity of an institution that would protect the women of that country from the influence of the heretics. Many of them had already embraced Albigensianism and were its most active propagandists. These women erected convents, to which the children of the Catholic nobility were often sent-for want of something better-to receive an education, and, in effect, if not on purpose, to be tainted with the spirit of heresy. It was needful, too, that women converted from heresy should be safeguarded against the evil influence of their own homes. To supply these deficiencies, Saint Dominic, with the permission of Foulques, Bishop of Toulouse, established a convent at Prouille in 1206. To this community, and afterwards to that of Saint Sixtus, at Rome, he gave the rule and constitutions which have ever since guided the nuns of the Second Order of Saint Dominic.

The year 1208 opens a new epoch in the eventful life of the founder. On 15 January of that year Pierre de Castelnau, one of the Cistercian legates, was assassinated. This abominable crime precipitated the crusade under Simon de Montfort, which led to the temporary subjugation of the heretics. Saint Dominic participated in the stirring scenes that followed, but always on the side of mercy, wielding the arms of the spirit while others wrought death and desolation with the sword. Some historians assert that during the sack of Béziers, Dominic appeared in the streets of that city, cross in hand, interceding for the lives of the women and children, the aged and the infirm. This testimony, however, is based upon documents which Touron regards as certainly apocryphal. The testimony of the most reliable historians tends to prove that the saint was neither in the city nor in its vicinity when Béziers was sacked by the crusaders. We find him generally during this period following the Catholic army, reviving religion and reconciling heretics in the cities that had capitulated to, or had been taken by, the victorious de Montfort. it was p-bbly I September, 1209, that Saint Dominic first came in contact with Simon de Montfort and formed with him that intimate friendship which was to last till the death of the brave crusader under the walls of Toulouse (25 June, 1218). We find him by the side of de Montfort at the siege of Lavaur in 121 1, and again in 1212, at the capture of La Penne d’Ajen. In the latter part of 1212 he was at Pamiers labouring, at the invitation of de Montfort, for the restoration of religion and morality. Lastly, just before the battle of Muret. 12 September, 1213, the saint is again found in the council that preceded the battle. During the progress of the conflict, he knelt before the altar in the church of Saint-Jacques, praying for the triumph of the Catholic arms. So remarkable was the victory of the crusaders at Muret that Simon de Montfort regarded it as altogether miraculous, and piously attributed it to the prayers of Saint Dominic. In gratitude to God for this decisive victory, the crusader erected a chapel in the church of Saint-Jacques, which he dedicated, it is said, to Our Lady of the Rosary. It would appear, therefore, that the devotion of the Rosary, which tradition says was revealed to Saint Dominic, had come into general use about this time. To this period, too, has been ascribed the foundation of the Inquisition by Saint Dominic, and his appointment as the first lnquisitor. As both these much controverted questions will receive special treatment elsewhere in this work, it will suffice for our )resent purpose to note that the Inquisition was in operation in 1198, or seven years before the saint took part in the apostolate in Languedoc, and while ie was still an obscure canon regular at Osma. If he was for a certain time identified-with the operations of the Inquisition, it was only in the capacity of a theologian passing upon the orthodoxy of the accused. Whatever influence he may have had with the judges of that much maligned institution was always employed on the side of mercy and forbearance, as witness the classic case of Ponce Roger.

In the meantime, the saint’s increasing reputation for heroic sanctity, apostolic zeal, and profound learning caused him to be much sought after as a candidate for various bishoprics. Three distinct efforts were made to miss him to the episcopate. In July, 1212, the chapter of Béziers chose him for their bishop. Again, the canons of Saint-Lizier wished him to succeed Garcias de l’Orte as Bishop of Comminges. Lastly, in 1215 an effort was made by Garcias de l’Orte himself, who had been transferred from—Comminges to Auch, to make him Bishop of Navarre. But Saint Dominic absolutely refused all episcopal honours, saying that he would rather take flight in the night, with nothing but his staff, than accept the episcopate. From Muret Dominic returned to Carcassonne, where he resumed his preaching with unqualified success. It was not until 1214 that he returned to Toulouse. In the meantime the influence of his preaching and the eminent holiness of his life had drawn around him a little band of devoted disciples eager to follow wherever he might lead. Saint Dominic had never for a moment forgotten his purpose, formed eleven years before, of founding a religious order to combat heresy and propagate religious truth. The time now seemed opportune for the realization of his plan. With the approval of Bishop Foulques of Toulouse, he began the organization of his little band of followers. That Dominic and his companions might possess a fixed source of revenue Foulques made him chaplain of Fanjeaux and in July, 1215, canonically established the community as a religious congregation of his diocese, whose mission was the propagation of true doctrine and good morals, and the extirpation of heresy. During this same year Pierre Seilan, a wealthy citizen of Toulouse, who had placed himself under the direction of Saint Dominic, put at their disposal his own commodious dwelling. In this way the first convent of the Order of Preachers was founded on 25 April, 1215. But they dwelt here only a year when Foulques established them in the church of Saint Romanus. Though the little community had proved amply the need of its mission and the efficiency of its service to the Church, it was far from satisfying the full purpose of its founder. It was at best but a diocesan congregation, and Saint Dominic had dreamed Of a world-order that would carry its apostolate to the ends of the earth. But, unknown to the saint, events were shaping themselves for the realization of his hopes. In November, 1215, an ecumenical council was to meet at Rome “to deliberate on the improvement of morals, the extinction of heresy, and the strengthening of the faith.” This was identically the mission Saint Dominic had determined on for his order. With the Bishop of Toulouse, he was present at the deliberations of this council. From the very first session it seemed that events conspired to bring his plans to a successful issue. The council bitterly arraigned the bishops for their neglect of preaching. In canon X they were directed to delegate capable men to preach the word of God to the people. Under these circumstances, it would reasonably appear that Dominic’s request for confirmation of an order designed to carry out the mandates of the council would be joyfully granted. But while the council was anxious that these reforms should be put into effect as speedily as possible, it was at the same time opposed to the institution of any new religious orders, and had legislated to that effect in no uncertain terms. Moreover, preaching had always been looked upon as primarily a function of the episcopate. To bestow this office on an unknown and untried body of simple priests s seemed too original and too bold in its conception to appeal to the conservative prelates who influenced the deliberations of the council. When, therefore, his petition for the approbation of his infant institute was refused, it could not have been wholly unexpected by Saint Dominic.

Returning to Languedoc at the close of the council in December, 1215, the founder gathered about him his little band of followers and informed them of the wish of the council that there should be no new rules for religious orders. Thereupon they adopted the ancient rule of Saint Augustine, which, on account of its generality, would easily lend itself to any form they might wish to give it. This done, Saint Dominic again appeared before the pope in the month of August, 1216, and again solicited the confirmation of his order. This time he was received more favourably, and on 22 December, 1216, the Bull of confirmation was issued.

Saint Dominic spent the following Lent preaching in various churches in Rome, and before the pope and the papal court. It was at this time that he received the office and title of Master of the Sacred Palace, or Pope’s Theologian, as it is more commonly called. This office has been held uninterruptedly by members of the order from the founder’s time to the present day. On 15 August, 1217, he gathered the brethren about him at Prouille to deliberate on the affairs of the order. He had determined upon the heroic plan of dispersing his little band of seventeen unformed followers over all europe. The result proved the wisdom of an act which, to the eye of human prudence at least, seemed little short of suicidal. To facilitate the spread of the order, Honorius III, on 11 Feb., 1218, addressed a Bull to all archbishops, bishops, abbots, and priors, requesting their favour on behalf of the Order of Preachers. By another Bull, dated 3 Dec., 1218, Honorius III bestowed upon the order the church of Saint Sixtus in Rome. Here, amid the tombs of the Appian Way, was founded the first monastery of the order in Rome. Shortly after taking possession of Saint Sixtus, at the invitation of Honorius, Saint Dominic begin the somewhat difficult task of restoring the pristine observance of religious discipline among the various Roman communities of women. In a comparatively short time the work was accomplished, to the great satisfaction of the pope. His own career at the University of Palencia, and the practical use to which he had put it in his encounters with the Albigenses, as well as his keen appreciation of the needs of the time, convinced the saint that to ensure the highest efficiency of the work of the apostolate, his followers should be afforded the best educational advantages obtainable. It was for this reason that on the dispersal of the brethren at Prouille he dispatched Matthew of France and two companions to Paris. A foundation was made in the vicinity of the university, and the friars took possession in October, 1217. Matthew of France was appointed superior, and Michael de Fabra was placed in charge of the studies with the title of Lecturer. On 6 August of the following year, Jean de Barastre, dean of Saint-Quentin and professor of theology, bestowed on the community the hospice of Saint-Jaques, which he had built for his own use. Having effected a foundation at the University of Paris, Saint Dominic next determined upon a settlement at the University of Bologna. Bertrand of Garrigua, who had been summoned from Paris, and John of Navarre, set out from Rome, with letters from Pope Honorius, to make the desired foundation. On their arrival at Bologna, the church of Santa Maria della Mascarella was placed at their disposal. So rapidly did the Roman community of Saint Sixtus grow that the need of more commodious quarters soon became urgent. Honorius, who seemed to delight in supplying every need of the order and furthering its interests to the utmost of his power, met the emergency by bestowing on Saint Dominic the basilica of Santa Sabina.

Towards the end of 1218, having appointed Reginald of Orléans his vicar in Italy, the saint, accompanied by several of his brethren, set out for Spain. Bologna, Prouille, Toulouse, and Fanjeaux were visited on the way. From Prouille two of the brethren were sent to establish a convent at Lyons. Segovia was reached just before Christmas. In February of the following year he founded the first monastery of the order in Spain. Turning southward, he established a convent for women at Madrid, similar to the one at Prouille. It is quite probable that on this journey he personally presided over the erection of a convent in connexion with his alma mater, the University of Palencia. At the invitation of the Bishop of Barcelona, a house of the order was established in that city. Again bending his steps towards Rome he recrossed the Pyrenees and visited the foundations at Toulouse and Paris. During his stay in the latter place he caused houses to be erected at Limoges, Metz, Reims, Poitiers, and Orléans, which in a short time became centres of Dominican activity. From Paris he directed his course towards Italy, arriving in Bologna in July, 1219. Here he devoted several months to the religious formation of the brethren he found awaiting him, and then, as at Prouille, dispersed them over Italy. Among the foundations made at this time were those at Bergamo, Asti, Verona, Florence, Brescia, and Faenza. From Bologna he went to Viterbo. His arrival at the papal court was the signal for the showering of new favours on the order. Notable among these marks of esteem were many complimentary letters addressed by Honorius to all those who had assisted the Fathers in their vinous foundations. In March of this same year Honorius, through his representatives, bestowed upon the order the church of San Eustorgio in Milan. At the same time a foundation at Viterbo was authorized. On his return to Rome, towards the end of 1219, Dominic sent out letters to all the convents announcing the first general chapter of the order, to be held at Bologna on the feast of the following Pentecost. Shortly before, Honorius III, by a special Brief, had conferred upon the founder the title of Master General, which till then he had held only by tacit consent. At the very first session of the chapter in the following spring the saint startled his brethren by offering his resignation as master general. It is needless to say the resignation was not accepted and the founder remained at the head of the institute till the end of his life.

Soon after the close of the chapter of Bologna, Honorius III addressed letters to the abbeys and priories of San Vittorio, Sillia, Mansu, Floria, Vallombrosa, and Aquila, ordering that several of their religious be deputed to begin, under the leadership of Saint Dominic, a preaching crusade in Lombardy, where heresy had developed alarming proportions. For some reason or other the plans of the pope were never realized. The promised support failing, Dominic, with a little band of his own brethren, threw himself into the field, and, as the event proved, spent himself in an effort to bring back the heretics to their allegiance to the Church. It is said that 100,000 unbelievers were converted by the preaching and the miracles of the saint. According to Lacordaire and others, it was during his preaching in Lombardy that the saint instituted the Militia of Jesus Christ, or the third order, as it is commonly called, consisting of men and women living in the world, to protect the rights and property of the Church. Towards the end of 1221 Saint Dominic returned to Rome for the sixth and last time. Here he received many new and valuable concessions for the order. In January, February, and March of 1221 three consecutive Bulls were issued commending the order to all the prelates of the Church-. The thirtieth of May, 1221, found him again at Bologna presiding over the second general chapter of the order. At the close of the chapter he set out for Venice to visit Cardinal Ugolino, to whom he was especially indebted for many substantial acts of kindness. He had scarcely returned to Bologna when a fatal illness attacked him. He died after three weeks of sickness, the many trials of which he bore with heroic patience. In a Bull dated at Spoleto, 13 July, 1234, Gregory IX made his cult obligatory throughout the Church.

The life of St. Dominic was one of tireless effort in the, service of god. While he journeyed from place to place he prayed and preached almost uninterruptedly.—His penances were of such a nature as to cause the brethren, who accidentally discovered them. to fear the effect upon his life. While his charity was boundless he never permitted it to interfere with the stern sense of duty that guided every action of his life. If he abominated heresy and laboured untiringly for its extirpation it was because he loved truth and loved the souls of those among whom he laboured. He never failed to distinguish between sin and the sinner. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, if this athlete of Christ, who had conquered himself before attempting the reformation of others, was more than once chosen to show forth the power of God. The failure of the fire at Fanjeaux to consume the dissertation he had employed against the heretics, and which was thrice thrown into the flames; the raising to life of Napoleone Orsini; the appearance of the annals in the refectory of Saint Sixtus in response to his prayers, are but a few of the supernatural happenings by which God was pleased to attest the eminent holiness of His servant. We are not surprised, therefore, that, after signing the Bull of canonization on 13 July, 1234, Gregory IX declared that he no more doubted the saintliness of Saint Dominic than he did that of Saint Peter and Saint Paul.

JOHN B. O’CONNOR.

Dominical Letter

A device adopted from the Romans by the old chronologers to aid them in finding the day of the week corresponding to any given date, and indirectly to facilitate the adjustment of the “Proprium de Tempore” to the “Proprium Sanctorum” when constructing the ecclesiastical calendar for any year. The Church, on account of her complicated system of movable and immovable feasts (see CHRISTIAN CALENDAR), has from an early period taken upon herself as a special charge to regulate the measurement of time. To secure uniformity in the observance of feasts and fasts, she began, even in the patristic age, to supply a computus, or system of reckoning, by which the relation of the solar and lunar years might be accommodated and the celebration of Easter determined. Naturally she adopted the astronomical methods then available, and these methods and the methodology belonging to them, having become traditional, are perpetuated in a measure to this day, even the reform of the calendar, in the prolegomena to the Breviary and Missal.

The Romans were accustomed to divide the year into nundinae, periods of eight days; and in their marble fasti, or calendars, of which numerous specimens remain, they used the first eight letters of the alphabet to mark the days of which each period was composed. When the Oriental seven-day period, or week, was introduced in the time of Augustus, the first seven letters of the alphabet were employed in the same way to indicate the days of this new division of time. In fact, fragmentary calendars on marble still survive in which both a cycle of eight letters—A to H—indicating nundinae, and a cycle of seven letters -A to G-indicating weeks, are used side by side (see “Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,” 2nd ed., I, 220. -The same peculiarity occurs in the Philocalian Calendar of A.D. 356, ibid., p. 256). This device was imitated by the Christians, and in their calendars the days of the year from 1 January to 31 December were marked with a continuous recurring cycle of seven letters: A, B, C, D, E F, G. A was always set against 1 January, B against 2 January, C against 3 January, and so on. Thus F fell to 6 January, G to 7 January; A again recurred on 8 January, and also, consequently, on 15 January, 22 January, and 29 January. Continuing in this way, 30 January was marked with a B, 31 January with a C, and 1 February with a D. Supposing this to be carried on through all the days of an ordinary year (i. e. not a leap year), it will be found that a D corresponds to 1 March, G to 1 April, B to 1 May, E to 1 June, G to 1 July, C to 1 August, F to 1 September, A to 1 October, D to 1 November, and P to 1 December—a result which Durandus recalled by the following distich:

Alta Domat Dominus, Gratis Beat Equa Gerentes

Contemnit Fictos, Augebit Dona Fideli.

Now, as a moment=92s reflection shows, if 1 January is a Sunday, all the days marked by A will also be Sundays; If 1 January is a Saturday, Sunday will fall on 2 January which is a B, and all the other days marked B will be Sundays; if 1 January is a Monday, then Sunday will not come until 7 January, a G, and all the days marked G will be Sundays. This being explained, the Dominical Letter of any year is defined to be that letter of the cycle A, B, C, D, E, F, G, which corresponds to the day upon which the first Sunday (and every subsequent Sunday) falls. It is plain, however, that when a leap year occurs, a complication is introduced. February has then twenty-nine days. Traditionally, the Anglican and civil calendars added this extra day to the end of the month, while the Catholic ecclesiastical calendar counted 24 February twice. But in either case, 1 March is then one day later in the week than 1 February, or, in other words, for the rest of the year the Sundays come a day earlier than they would- in a common year. This is expressed by saying that a leap year has two Dominical Letters, the second being the letter which precedes that with which the year started. For example, 1 January, 1907, was a Tuesday; the first Sunday fell on 6 January, or an F. F was, therefore, the Dominical Letter for 1907. The first of January, 1908, was a Wednesday, the first Sunday fell on 5 January, and E was the Dominical Letter, but as 1908 was a leap year, its Sundays after February came a day sooner than in a normal year and were D=92s. The year 1908, therefore, had a double Dominical Letter, E-D. In 1909, 1 January was a Friday and the Dominical Letter was C. In 1910 and 1911, 1 January fell respectively on Saturday and Sunday and the Dominical Letters are B and A.

This, of course, is all very simple, but the advantage of tile device lies, like that of an algebraical expression, in its being a mere symbol adaptable to any year. By constructing a table of letters and days of the year, A always being set against I January, we can at once see the relation between the days of the week and the day of any month, if only we know the Dominical Letter. This may always be found by the following rule of De Morgan=92s, which gives the Dominical Letter for any year, or the second Dominical Letter if it be leap year:

Add 1 to the given year.

Take the quotient found by dividing the given year by 4 (neglecting the remainder).

Take 16 from the centurial figures of the given year if that can be done.

Take the quotient of III divided by 4 (neglecting the remainder).

From the sum of I, II and IV, subtract III.

Find the remainder of V divided by 7: this is the number of the Dominical Letter, supposing A, B, C, D, E, F, G to be equivalent respectively to 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.

For example, to find the Dominical Letter of the year 1913:

(Steps 1, 2, & 4) 1914 + 478 + 0 = 2392

(3) 19—16 = 3

(4) 2392—= 2389

(5) 2389 / 7 = 341, remainder 2.

Therefore, the Dominical Letter is E. But the Dominical Letter had another very practical use in the days before the “Ordo divini officii recitandi” was printed annually, and when, consequently, a priest had often to determine the “Ordo” for himself (see CATHOLIC DIRECTORIES). As will be shown in the articles EPACT and EASTER CONTROVERSY, Easter Sunday may be as early as 22 March or as late as 25 April, and there are consequently thirty-five possible days on which it may fall. It is also evident that each Dominical Letter allows five possible dates for Easter Sunday. Thus, in a year whose Dominical Letter is A (i. e. when 1 January is a Sunday), Easter must be either on 26 March, 2 April, 9 April, 16 April, or 23 April, for these are all the Sundays within the defined limits. But according as Easter falls on one or another of these Sundays we shall get a different calendar, and hence there are five, and only five, possible calendars for years whose Dominical Letter is A. Similarly, there are five possible calendars for years whose Dominical Letter is B, five for C, and so on, thirty-five possible combinations in all. Now, advantage was taken of this principle in the arrangement of the old Pye or directorium which preceded our present “Ordo.” The thirty-five possible calendars were all included therein and numbered, respectively, primum A, secundum A, tertium A, etc.; primum B, secundum B, etc. Hence for anyone wishing to use the Pye the first thing to determine was the Dominical Letter of the year, and then by means of the Golden Number or the Epact, and by the aid of a simple table, to find which of the five possible calendars assigned to that Dominical Letter belonged to the year in question. Such a table as that just referred to, but adapted to the reformed calendar and in more convenient shape, will be found at the beginning of every Breviary and Missal under the heading, “Tabula Paschalis nova reformata.”

The Dominical Letter does not seem to have been familiar to Bede in his “De Temporum Ratione,” but in its place he adopts a similar device of seven numbers which he calls concurrentes (De Temp. Rat., cap. liii). This was of Greek origin. The Concurrents are numbers denoting the days of the week on which 24 March falls in the successive years of the solar cycle, 1 standing for Sunday, 2 ( feria secunda) for Monday, 3 for Tuesday, and so on. It is sufficient here to state that the relation between the Concurrents and the Dominical Letter is the following:

Concurrents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Concurrent 1 = F (Dominical Letter)

Concurrent 2 = E

Concurrent 3 = D

Concurrent 4 = C

Concurrent 5 = B

Concurrent 6 = A

Concurrent 7 = G

HERBERT THURSTON

Dominican Republic

(SAN DOMINGO, SANTO DOMINGO).

The Dominican Republic is the eastern, and much larger political division of the island now comprehensively known as Haiti, which is the second in size of the Greater Antilles. The territory of this republic, estimated at 18,045 square miles, is divided from that of the Republic of Haiti, on the west, by a serpentine line running from the mouth of the Yaqui River, on the north coast, to a point not far from Point Beata, on the south. Its northern shores are washed by the Atlantic Ocean, its southern by the Caribbean Sea, while on the east the Mona Passage separates it from the Island of Porto Rico. In proportion to its size, San Domingo is much less densely settled than Haiti. Ethnologically, the Dominicans contrast with the Haitians in being a Spanish-speaking people, mostly of mixed negro and European descent, the Haitians being pure negro and speaking French. The climate in San Domingo is in some parts bad, in others remarkably good, notably in and around the city of San Domingo where, in spite of bad sanitation, it is said that “nobody need die of anything but old age.” During the dry season, November to March, the mean diurnal variation on the south coast is from 70 to 80 degrees Fahr.; during the rainy seasons (summer and autumn) it is from 80 to 92. These figures, like most statistics of contemporary San Domingo, are necessarily conjectural.

GENERAL HISTORY

From the date of its discovery until the French Revolution, the civil and ecclesiastical history of the territory now occupied by the Dominican Republic are inseparably conjoined. In December, 1492, Christopher Columbus, having failed in his expectation of identifying the island of Cuba with Japan (Cipango), had shaped his course homeward when the accident of prevailing wind brought him in sight of the island he named Hispaniola (Little Spain). On 6 December, 1492, he landed on Môle St. Nicholas (now Haitian territory), then, passing along the north coast of the island to the Bay of Samana, landed again and penetrated inland as far as the summit of Santo Cerro (Holy Hill), where, looking down upon the magnificent upland plain which he named La Vega Real, he planted a wooden cross to commemorate his discovery. His first landing had been unopposed, but at the eastern end of Hispaniola the Ciguayen tribe received the Spaniards with a volley of arrows, from which adventure the gulf now called Samana was named by Columbus Golfo de la Flechas (Gulf of Arrows). The island had been known to its inhabitants as Haiti; there were of the Arawak stock, and were accustomed to fight against the piratical Caribs, though themselves of a rather pacific character. That they worshipped idols appears from the fact that the first Bishop of Santo Domingo sent an idol of aboriginal workmanship as a present to Leo X (Moroni, Dizionario, XX, s. v. Domingo).

The first Spanish settlement, Isadora, was on the north coast. But in 1496, when Miguel Dias reported to the admiral the existence of much gold in and about the Hayna River, as well as the remarkable salubrity of the country of the Ozamas, on the south coast, Isabella, which had been found unhealthy, was abandoned. On the mouth of the Ozamas River, and on its left bank, Bartolomé Colón began the settlement of Nueva Isabella, which was not long afterwards replaced by San Domingo, on the opposite bank. Thus, the present capital of the Dominican Republic, the oldest Christian city in the New World, was already established as the capital of the “New Spains” in the last year of the fifteenth century. Leo X erected the see of San Domingo—the mother church of all Spanish America, and the oldest bishopric in the New World—in 1513. In 1514, under Alessandro Geraldini, its first bishop, the present cathedral church of San Domingo was begun; it was completed in 1540. In this cathedral, about 200 feet in length by 90 in width, the remains of several members of the Columbus family—and possibly even of the great admiral himself—still repose; here, too, is still reverently preserved a fragment of the cross which Columbus set up on Santo Cerro, and about which miraculous legends have grown up in the course of four centuries. The catalogue of adelantados of the island includes the names of Diego Colón (immediate successor to his uncle Bartolomé), of Bobadillo, and Ovando. There Columbus himself lived for many years, there he was imprisoned by his enemies, and thence he set out on his last voyage to Spain. To San Domingo Ojedo returned from his last voyage of discovery and conquest in 1500. His grave is still shown in the main doorway of the Franciscan church. In 1547 Paul III made San Domingo the metropolitan see of the New World. Meanwhile houses of the Friars Preachers, the Franciscans, and the Mercedarians sprang up rapidly, and in this West Indian port, the population of which could never have exceeded 20,000, the ruins of not fewer than half a dozen convents are still to be seen. The Jesuit college, now used as a theatre, was not founded until a later period.

While all this activity lasted, the seeds of social and political decay were being sown in Hispaniola. The aborigines were either killed or driven into hiding among the Cibao mountains; the importation of negro slaves became a regular institution. The Spanish settlers were men of the losing, not the conquering type; their blood mingled with that of the negro and, in some degree, the aboriginal, to produce the San Domingan of modern times. In 1586 Francis Drake drove the Spanish garrison out of San Domingo and burned section after section of the city until a ransom of 30,000 crowns was paid to him. In the next century French adventurers—the original boucaniers—began to use the little island of Tortuga, near the north-west coast of Hispaniola, as a piratical rendezvous; from Trotuga they gradually spread over the eastern end of Hispaniola, creating a claim of occupation which Spain recognized in the treaty of Ryswick (1691). It was in April, 1655, that an English force, conveyed thither in the fleet commanded by Admiral Penn, was driven away, after affecting a landing about thirty miles west of the capital. The natural resources of Hispaniola still enriched Spain, and the mint at Concepcion de la Vega continued to coin gold from the Hayna. After the peace of Ryswick, Hispaniola might almost have been forgotten, if an English cabinet-maker had not (about the year 1766), discovered the value of mahogany. The demand, first created by a shipment from Jamaica, was largely supplied by the Spanish island.

The French Revolution reacted upon Hispaniola. The white and mulattos of San Domingo, under Spanish leaders, attempted to restore the old regime in the Spanish colony, but in 1795 all Hispaniola was ceded to France. The Spanish authority transferred San Domingo to the representative of the French republic, who was the mulatto General Toussaint L’Ouverture. Until the Treaty of Paris (1814), the French whites, the white and colored partisans of Spain, the blacks of Haiti, and now and then a British expeditionary force fought for supremacy in San Domingo. The treacherous capture of L’Ouverture, and his mysterious death in prison at Besançon, in 1803, were followed by a general massacre of the whites in Haiti in March, 1804. The Haitian blacks now compelled the submission of San Domingo to the authority of their first president, Dessalines. At last, in 1814, the Treaty of Paris restored to Spain her oldest possession in the New World.

ACTUAL CONDITIONS

Out of the political chaos, which had lasted for more than half a century, arose the present Dominican Republic. Its constitution was proclaimed 18 December, 1844, and its first president was Pedro Santana; it was recognized by France in 1848, and by Great Britain in 1850. An attempt to restore Spanish rule, in 1861, in defiance of the Monroe doctrine, ended with a final Spanish evacuation in 1865. In 1897 the foreign debt of the republic had reached the amount of more than $21,000,000, the interest on which was supposed to be secured by customs receipts; following a default of interest (1 April, 1899), the Government of the United States intervened to obtain an equitable settlement, and its efforts led to the convention of 1905 (ratified in 1907), by which an agent, always a citizen of the United States, is to be permanently empowered to act as general receiver of the Dominican customs, in the interest of the foreign bondholders. Since 9 July 1905, all lands owned by the Dominican Government have been open for settlement, free for ten years, and after that at a rent of five cents per acre. Although there can be little doubt that the national resources of the republic still include large quantities of gold, silver, and copper ore, and even iron, the actual products are only vegetable: sugar (183,759 acres under cultivation in 1906); tobacco (nearly 15,000,000 pounds of leaf exported annually); cocoa; coffee. The actual timber output is insignificant. In 1907 the total length of railroad was 112 miles.

The Constitution of the Dominican Republic is said to be modelled on that of Venezuela; the president, elected for four years, is assisted by a council of ministers; the legislature is a single chamber elected by popular vote in twenty-four departments. The supreme court of the republic (a president and four judges) is appointed by the national congress, its “minister fiscal,” however, being appointed by the chief executive; for courts of first instance, the republic is divided into eleven judicial districts, each presided over by an alcalde. By the terms of the Constitution education is gratuitous and compulsory.

The ancient city of San Domingo (population 16,000), is still the seat of the civil government, as well as the see of the archbishop, who, however, no longer has any suffragans. The relations between the Church and the State are (1908) very cordial. The Constitution of the Republic, in which religious liberty is an article, guarantees the church freedom of action which, nevertheless is curtailed by the law providing that the civil solemnization of marriages must precede the canonical. The municipal cemeteries are consecrated in accordance with the Church’s requirements, though in some important centres of population there are non-Catholic cemeteries besides. In the Dominican Republic (with which the Archdiocese of San Domingo is coextensive) there are 600,000 Catholics, upwards of 1,000 Protestants, and very few Jews, while the Masonic lodges number about thirteen. The total number of parishes is 56, each with its own church, in addition to which there are 13 chapels and 82 mission stations. The (ecclesiastical) Conciliar seminary, at the capital, is under the care of the Eudist Fathers (Congregation of Jesus and Mary) who administer the cathedral parish. Another college under ecclesiastical control is that of San Sebastian in La Vega. A diocesan congregation of religious women numbers 30 members; these sisters, who have charge of a hospital, care for orphan children and the infirm aged.

KEIM, San Domingo (Philadelphia, 1870); HAZARD, Santo Domingo, Past and Present (New York, 1873); DEL MONTE y TEJADA, Historia de S. Domingo (Madrid, 1860); MORONI, Dixionario, s. v. Domingo; SCHOMBERGE, Notes on St. Domingo in Proceedings of British Association, 1851; Statesman’s Year-Book, 1908.

E. MACPHERSON.

Bl. Giovanni Dominici

(BANCHINI or BACCHINI was his family name).

Cardinal, statesman and writer, born at Florence, 1356; died at Buda, 10 July, 1420. He entered the Dominican Order at Santa Maria Novella in 1372 after having been cured, through the intercession of St. Catherine of Siena, of an impediment of speech for which he had been refused admission to the order two years before. On his return from Paris, where he completed his theological studies, he laboured as professor and preacher for twelve years at Venice. With the sanction of the master general, Blessed Raymond of Capua, he established convents of strict observance of his order at Venice (1391) and Fiesole (1406), and founded the convent of Corpus Christi at Venice for the Dominican Nuns of the Strict Observance. He was sent as envoy of Venice to the conclave of 1406 in which Gregory XII was elected; the following year the pope, whose confessor and counsellor he was, appointed him Archbishop of Ragusa, created him cardinal in 1408 and sent him as ambassador to Hungary, to secure the adhesion of Sigismund to the pope. At the Council of Constance Dominici read the voluntary resignation which Gregory XII had adopted, on his advice, as the surest means of ending the schism. Martin V appointed him legate to Bohemia on 19 July, 1418, but he accomplished little with the followers of Hus, owing to the supineness of King Wenceslaus. He was declared blessed by Gregory XVI in 1832 and his feast is observed 10 June. Dominici was not only a prolife writer on spiritual subjects but also a graceful poet, as his many vernacular hymns, or Laudi, show. His “Regola del governo di cura familiare,” written between 1400 and 1405, is a valuable pedagogical work (edited by Salvi, Florence, 1860) which treats, in four books, of the faculties of the soul, the powers and senses of the body, the uses of earthly goods, and the education of children. This last book has been translated into German by Rosler (Herder’s Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik, VII, Freiburg, 1894). His “Lucula Noctis” (R. Coulon, O.P., Latin text of the fifteenth century with an introduction, Paris, 1908) in reply to a letter of Nicola di Piero Salutati, is the most important treatise of that day on the study of the pagan authors. Dominici does not flatly condemn classical studies, but strenuously opposes the paganizing humanism of the day.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Dominic of Prussia

A Carthusian monk and ascetical writer, born in Poland, 1382; died at the monastery of St. Alban near Trier, 1461. According to the account he wrote of himself his first teacher was the parish priest, a pious Dominican; later he was a student at the University of Cracow where he was noted for his intelligence. Falling into bad habits he led a vagabond life until twenty-five years of age, when he reformed through the influence of Adolf of Essen, prior of the Carthusian monastery of St. Alban, near Trier. Dominic now became a Carthusian, entering the order in 1409. His monastic life was one of severe penance and religious fervour. The spiritual favours he received were numerous, and many visions are ascribed to him. Among the positions he filled were those of master of novices at Mainz and vicar of the monastery of St. Alban, where he died. As an author Dominic composed seventeen treatises, which have been preserved in various libraries. In the “Libri duo experientiarum” he relates the events of his own life; the “Tractatus de Contempu mundi,” “Remedium tentationum,” “De verae obedientiae,” and “Sonus epulantis” he prepared during his solitary repasts. A further work is his “Letters of Direction.”

Dominic of Prussia is frequently mentioned in the discussions as to the origin of the Rosary, and what has been improperly called “the Carthusian Rosary” is ascribed to him. To the one hundred fifty Ave Marias which in those days formed the “Psalter of Mary” he had the thought of adding meditations on the life of Christ and of His Holy Mother. As in his time the Ave Maria terminated with the words; “Fructus ventris tui, Jesus,” he joined to each sentence to recall to mind the mystery, such as “quem Angelo nuntiante de Sancto Spiritu concepisti,” “quo concepto, in montana ad Elizabeth ivisti,” etc. Both Dominic and his friend Adolf sought to spread the use of this form of prayer in the Carthusian Order and among the laity. For these reasons it is held by some authors that the “Psalter” of Dominic was the form, or one of the original forms, from which the present Rosary developed.

AMBROSE MOUGEL.

Dominic of the Mother of God

(CALLED IN SECULAR LIFE DOMENICO BARBERI)

A member of the Passionist Congregation and theologian, b. near Viterbo, Italy, 22 June, 1792; d. near Reading, England, 27 August, 1849. His parents were peasants and died while Dominic was still a small boy. There were six children, and Dominic, the youngest child, was adopted by his maternal uncle, Bartolomeo Pacelli. As a boy he was employed to take care of sheep, and when he grew older he did farm work. He was taught his letters by a kind Capuchin priest, and learned to read from a country lad of his own age; although he read all the books he could obtain, he had no regular education until he entered the Congregation of the Passion. He was deeply religious from childhood, felt himself distinctly called to join the institute he entered, and believed that God, by a special manifestation, had told him that he was destined to announce the Gospel truth and to bring back stray sheep to the way of salvation.

He was received into the Congregation of the Passion in 1814, and ordained priest, 1 March, 1818. After completing the regular course of studies, he taught philosophy and theology to the students of the congregation as lector for a period of ten years. He then held in Italy the offices of rector, provincial consultor, and provincial, and fulfilled the duties of these positions with ability. At the same time he constantly gave missions and retreats. He founded the first Passionist Retreat in Belgium at Ere near Tournai in 1840; in 1842, after twenty-eight years of effort, he established the Passionists in England, at Aston Hall, Staffordshire. During the seven years of his missionary life in England he established three houses of the congregation. He died at a small railway station near Reading and was buried under the high altar of St. Anne’s Retreat, Sutton, St. Helen’s. Among the remarkable converts whom he received into the Church may be mentioned John Dobree Dalgairns, John Henry Newman, and Newman’s two companions, E. S. Bowles and Richard Stanton, all of whom were afterwards distinguished Oratorians. The reception in 1845 of Newman and his friends must have been the greatest happiness of his life. In 1846 Father Dominic received the Hon. George Spencer, in religion Father Ignatius of St. Paul, into the Congregation of the Passion.

Among Father Dominic’s works are: courses of philosophy and moral theology; a volume on the Passion of Our Lord; a work for nuns on the Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin, “Divina Paraninfa”; a refutation of de Lamennais; three series of sermons; various controversial and ascetical works. In 1841 he addressed a Latin letter to the professors of Oxford in which he answered the objections and explained the difficulties of Anglicans. An English translation of the letter is given in the appendix to the life of Father Dominic by Father Pius Devine.

Lives of Father Dominic: Italian, by Padre Felippo (1807); Lucca de San Giuseppe (Genoa, 1877); English, by Pius Devine (London, 1898); Camm, Father Dominic and the Conversion of England in Catholic Truth Society publications (1900); Father Dominic’s letters and correspondence concerning his mission to England are published as a supplement to the 3rd vol. of the Oratorian life of St. Paul of the Cross (London, 1853).

ARTHUR DEVINE.

Marco Antonio de Dominis

Dalmatian ecclesiastic, apostate, and man of science, b. on the island of Arbe, off the coast of Dalmatia, in 1566; d. in the Castle of Sant’ Angelo, Rome, September, 1624. Educated at the Illyrian College at Loreto and at the University of Padua, he entered the Society of Jesus and taught mathematics, logic, and rhetoric at Padua and Brescia. On leaving the Jesuits (1596), he was, through imperial influence, appointed Bishop of Zengg (Segna, Seng) and Modrus in Dalmatia (Aug., 1600), and transferred (Nov., 1602) to the archiepiscopal See of Spalato. He sided with Venice, in whose territory his see was situated, during the quarrel between Paul V and the Republic (1606–7). That fact, combined with a correspondence with Fra Paolo Sarpi and conflicts with his clergy and fellow-bishops which culminated in the loss of an important financial case in the Roman Curia, led to the resignation of his office in favour of a relative and his retirement to Venice. Threatened by the Inquisition, he prepared to apostatize, entered into communication with the English ambassador to Venice, Sir Henry Wotton, and having been assured of a welcome, left for England in 1616. On his way there, he published at Heidelberg a violent attack on Rome: “Scogli del Cristiano naufragio,” afterwards reprinted in England. He was received with open arms by James I, who quartered him upon Archbishop Abbot of Canterbury, called on the other bishops to pay him a pension, and granted him precedence after the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. De Dominis wrote a number of anti-Roman sermons, published his often reprinted chief work, “De Republicâ Ecclesiasticâ contra Primatum Papæ (Vol. 1, 1617; vol. II, 1620, London; Vol. III, 1622, Hanover), and took part, as assistant, in the consecration of George Montaigne as Bishop of Lincoln, 14 Dec., 1617. In that same year, James I made him Dean of Windsor and granted him the Mastership of the Savoy.

In 1619 De Dominis published in London the first edition of Fra Paolo Sarpi’s “History of the Council of Trent”; the work appeared in Italian, with an anti-Roman title page and letter dedicatory to James I. His vanity, avarice, and irascibility, however, soon lost him his English friends; the projected Spanish marriage of Prince Charles made him anxious about the security of his position in England, and the election of Gregory XV (9 Feb., 1621) furnished him with an occasion of intimating, through Catholic diplomatists in England, his wish to return to Rome. The king’s anger was aroused when De Dominis announced his intention (16 Jan., 1622), and Star-Chamber proceedings for illegal correspondence with Rome were threatened. Eventually he was allowed to depart, but his chests of hoarded money were seized by the king’s men, and only restored in response to a piteous personal appeal to the king. Once out of England his attacks upon the English Church were as violent as had been those on the See of Rome, and in “Sui Reditus ex Anglii Consilium” (Paris, 1623) he recanted all he had written in his “Consilium Profectionis” (London, 1616), declaring that he had deliberately lied in all that he had said against Rome. After a stay of six months in Brussels he proceeded to Rome, where he lived on a pension assigned him by the pope. On the death of Gregory XV (8 July, 1623) the pension ceased, and irritation loosened his tongue. Coming into conflict with the Inquisition he was declared a relapsed heretic, was confined to the Castle of Sant’ Angelo, and there died a natural death. His case was continued after his death, his heresy declared manifest, and his body burned together with his works on 21 Dec., 1624.

In 1611 he published, at Venice, a scientific work entitled: “Tractatus de radiis visus et lucis in vitris, perspectivis et iride,” in which, according to Newton, he was the first to develop the theory of the rainbow, by drawing attention to the fact that in each raindrop the light undergoes two refractions and an intermediate reflection. His claim to that distinction is, however, disputed in favour of Descartes.

Much information may be obtained from his own works; GOODMAN, The Court of King James the First, ed. BREWER (London, 1839), I, 336–354; FULLER, Church History of Britain, ed. NICHOLS (London, 1868), III, 332–343; WHEWELL, History of the Inductive Sciences (London, 1837), II, 347 sqq.; PERRY in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; VON REUMONT, Beitrage sur ital. Geschichte (1857), VI, 315–329; REUSCH, Index d. verbot. Bücher, II, 402, 904.

EDWARD MYERS

Dominus Vobiscum

An ancient form of devout salutation, incorporated in the liturgy of the Church, where it is employed as a prelude to certain formal prayers. Its origin is evidently Scriptural, being clearly borrowed from Ruth, ii, 4, and II Par., xv, 2. The same idea is also suggested in the New Testament, e. g., in Matt., xxviii, 20: “Ecce ego vobiscum sum,” etc. The ecclesiastical usage dates probably from Apostolic times. Mention of it is made (ch. iii) by the Council of Braga (563). It also appears in the sixth or seventh-century “Sacramentarium Gelasianum.” The phrase is pregnant with a deep religious significance; and therefore intensely expressive of the highest and holiest wishes. For is not the presence of the Lord—the Source of every good and the Author of every best gift—a certain pledge of Divine protection and a sure earnest of the possession of all spiritual peace and consolation? In the mouth, therefore, of the priest, who acts as the representative and delegate of the Church, in whose name and with whose authority he prays, this deprecatory formula in pre-eminently appropriate. Hence its frequent use in the public prayers of the Church’s liturgy. During the Mass it occurs eight times, namely, before the priest ascends the altar, before the two Gospels, the collects, the Offertory, the Preface, the Post-Communion oratio, and the blessing. On four of these occasions the celebrant, whilst saying it, turns to the people, extending and joining his hands; on the other four he remains facing the altar. In the Divine office this formula is said before the principal oratio of each Hour by priests, even in private recitation, because they are supposed to pray in union with, and in behalf of, the Church. Deacons say it only in the absence of a priest or with his permission if present (Van der Stappen, De officio divino, 43), but subdeacons use instead the “Domine exaudi orationem meam.” Contrary to general usage, the “Dominus Vobiscum” does not precede the prayer of the Blessed Sacrament before Benediction is given. Gardellini (Comment. in Inst. Clem., =1531, n. 5) explains this anomaly on the ground that the blessing with the Sacred Host in the monstrance effectively contains all that is implied in the formula. Bishops use the “Pax Vobis” (q.v.) before the collects in Masses where the Gloria is said. The response to the “Dominus Vobiscum” is “Et cum spiritu tuo” (cf. II Tim., iv, 22; Gal., vi, 18; Phil., iv, 23). Formerly this answer was rendered back with one voice by the entire congregation. Among the Greeks there is a corresponding form “Pax omnibus” (Liturgy of St. Basil). The Council of Braga, already mentioned, ordained (Mansi, IX, 777) that priests, as well as bishops, to whom alone the Priscillianist sought to restrict it, should adopt this formula.

SAINT PETER DAMIAN, treatise on the “Dominus Vobiscum” in P.L., CXLV, 231 sqq.; ANGELUS ROCCA, De Salutatione Sacerdotis in Missa et in divinis officiis, I, 236, in his Thesaurus Antiquitatum (2nd ed., Rome, 1745); BONA, Rerum Liturgicarum Libri duo (Turin, 1747), II, v; GUHR in Kirchenlex., s.v.; VAN DER STAPPEN, De officio Divino (Mechlin, 1904); BERNARD, Cours de Liturgie Romaine: Le Breviarire (Paris, 1887), II, 168–73; KRULL in KRAUS, Real-Encyk., s.v.

PATRICK MORRISROE.

Domitian

(TITUS FLAVIUS DOMITIANUS).

Roman emperor and persecutor of the Church, son of Vespasian and younger brother and successor of the Emperor Titus; b. 24 Oct., A.D. 51, and reigned from 81 to 96. In spite of his private vices he set himself up as a reformer of morals and religion. He was the first of the emperors to deify himself during his lifetime by assuming the title of “Lord and God.” After the revolt of Saturninus (93) he organized a series of bloodthirsty proscriptions against all the wealthy and noble families. A conspiracy, in which his wife joined, was formed against him, and he was murdered, 18 Sept., 96.

When the Acts of Nero’s reign were reversed after his death, an exception was made as to the persecution of the Christians (Tertullian, Ad Nat., i, 7). The Jewish revolt brought upon them fresh unpopularity, and the subsequent destruction of the Holy City deprived them of the last shreds of protection afforded them by being confounded with the Jews. Hence Domitian in his attack upon the aristocratic party found little difficulty in condemning such as were Christians. To observe Jewish practices was no longer lawful; to reject the national religion, without being able to plead the excuse of being a Jew, was atheism. On one count or the other, as Jews or as atheists, the Christians were liable to punishment. Among the more famous martyrs in this Second Persecution were Domitian’s cousin, Flavius Clemens, the consul, and M’ Acilius Glabrio who had also been consul. Flavia Domitilla, the wife of Flavius, was banished to Pandataria. But the persecution was not confined to such noble victims. We read of many others who suffered death or the loss of their goods (Dio Cassius, LXVII, iv). The book of the Apocalypse was written in the midst of this storm, when many of the Christians had already perished and more were to follow them (St. Irenæus, Adv. Hæres., V, xxx). Rome, “the great Babylon,” “was drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Apoc., xvii, 5, 6; ii, 10, 13; vi, 11; xiii, 15; xx, 4). It would seem that participation in the feasts held in honour of the divinity of the tyrant was made the test for the Christians of the East. Those who did not adore the “image of the beast” were slain. The writer joins to his sharp denunciation of the persecutors’ words of encouragement for the faithful by foretelling the downfall of the great harlot “who made drunk the earth with the wine of her whoredom,” and steeped her robe in their blood. St. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians was also writtens about this time; here, while the terrible trials of the Christians are spoken of, we do not find the same denunciations of the persecutors. The Roman Church continued loyal to the empire, and sent up its prayers to God that He would direct the rulers and magistrates in the exercise of the power committed to their hands (Clem., Ep. ad Cor., c. lxi; cf. St. Paul, Rom., xiii, 1; I Pet., ii, 13). Before the end of his reign Domitian ceased to persecute. (See .)

Eusebius, H. E. ., III, xvii sqq. in P.G., XX; Irenæus, Adv. Hæreses, V in P.G., VII; Allard, Hist. des Persécutions pendant les deux premiers siècles (Paris, 1892); Ten Lectures on the Martyrs (tr. London, 1907); Le Christianisme et l’Empire Romain (Paris, 1898).

T. B. SCANNELL.

Domitiopolis

A titular see of Isauria in Asia Minor. The former name of this city is unknown; it was called Domitiopolis or Dometioupolis after L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (Ramsay, in Revue numismatique, 1894, 168 sqq.). Ptolemy (V, vii, 5) places it in Cilicia; according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De themat., I, 15) it was one of the ten cities of the Isaurian Decapolis (cf. Georgius Cyprius, ed. Gelzer, 852). It figures in Parthey’s “Notitiæ episcopatuum,” I and III, and in Gelzer’s “Nova Tactica,” 1618, as a suffragan of Seleucia. Lequien (Oriens christ., II, 1023) mentions five bishops, from 451 to 879. Domitiopolis is to-day Dindebol, a village on the Ermenek Su, in the vilayet of Adana (cf. Sterrett, in Papers of the American School, Athens, III, 80).

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Domnus Apostolicus

Domnus Apostolicus (Dominus Apostolicus), a title applied to the pope, which was in most frequent use between the sixth and the eleventh centuries. The pope is styled Apostolic because he occupies an Apostolic see, that is, one founded by an Apostle, as were those of Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth, etc. (cf. Tertullian, De præscript., xxxvi). Rome being the only Apostolic Church of the West, Sedes apostolica meant simply the Roman See, and Domnus Apostolicus the Bishop of Rome. In Gaul, however, as early as the fifth century the expression sedes apostolica was applied to any episcopal see, bishops being successors of the Apostles (cf. Sidonius Apollinaris, Epp., lib. VI, i, etc.). By the sixth century the term was in general use, and many letters from the Merovingian kings are addressed Domnis sanctis et apostolicâ sede dignissimis. Thus the bishops of Gaul were given the title of Domnus Apostolicus (cf. Venantius Fortunatus, “Vita S. Mart.,” IV; “Formulæ Marculfi,” II, xxxix, xliii, xlix). Many examples are also found in wills and deeds (e.g. P.L., LXXX, 1281, 1314, etc.), and one occurs in a letter of introduction given by Charlemagne to St. Boniface (Epp. Bonifac., xi). However, in the Acts of Charlemagne and of the councils held during his time, even outside the Frankish Empire, as in England, the term Domnus Apostolicus, in its exact usage, meant simply the pope. Perhaps the only example of it found in Greek authors is in the second letter of Theodore the Studite to Leo III, kyrio apostoliko. Long before this, however, the word Apostolicus alone had been employed to designate the pope. Probably the earliest example is in the list of popes compiled at the time of Pope Vigilius (died 555), which begins “Incipiunt nomina Apostolicorum” (P.L., LXXVIII, 1405). The expression recurs frequently in documents of the Carlovingian kings, as well as in Anglo-Saxon writings. Claude of Turin gives a curious explanation—Apostoli custos. At the Council of Reims held in 1049 the Bishop of Compostela was excommunicated “quia contra fas sibi vendicaret culmen apostolici nominis” (because he wrongly claimed for himself the prestige of an Apostolic name), thinking himself the successor of St. James the Greater, and it was thereupon laid down “quod solus Romanus Pontifex universalis Ecclesiæ Primas esset et Apostolicus” (that only the pontiff of the Roman See was primate of the universal Church and Apostolicus). To-day the title is found only in the Litany of the Saints. There are also the expressions apostolicatus (pontificate) and the ablative absolute apostolicante (during the pontificate of). It is to be noted that in ecclesiastical usage the abbreviated form domnus signifies a human ruler as against Dominus, the Divine Lord. Thus at meals monastic grace was asked from the superior in the phrase Jube Domne benedicere, i. e.; “Be pleased sir to give the blessing.”

DU CANGE. Gloss. med. et infim. Lat., ed. FAVRE (Paris-Niort, 1833–88), s. v.

U. BENIGNI.

Patrick Donahoe

Publisher, born at Munnery, County Cavan, Ireland, 17 March, 1811; died at Boston, U.S.A., 18 March, 1901. He emigrated to Boston when ten years of age with his parents, and at fourteen was apprenticed to a printer. He worked on “The Jesuit” when that paper was started by Bishop Fenwick in 1832, and after the bishop relinquished its ownership, he carried it on for some time with H.L. Devereaux under the new title of “The Literary and Catholic Sentinel.” In 1836 he began the publication of “The Pilot,” a weekly paper devoted to Irish American and Catholic interests, which in succeeding years became the organ of Catholic opinion in New England. He established in connection with it a publishing and book-selling house from which were issued a large number of Catholic books. Later he organized a bank. All his ventures proved successful and the wealth he acquired was generously given to advance Catholic interests. The great Boston fire of 1872 destroyed his publishing plant. Another fire in the following year and injudicious loans to friends made him lose so much more that his bank failed in 1876. Archbishop Williams purchased “The Pilot” to help to pay the depositors of the bank, and Mr. Donahoe then started a monthly “Donahoe’s Magazine” and an exchange and passenger agency. In 1881 he was able to buy back “The Pilot” and devoted his remaining years to its management. During the Civil War he actively interested himself in the organization of the Irish regiments that volunteered from New England. In 1893 the University of Notre Dame gave him the Laetare Medal for signal services to American Catholic progress.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Donatello

(DONATO DI NICOLÒ DI BETTO BARDI)

One of the great Tuscan sculptors of the Renaissance, born at Florence, c. 1386; died there, 13 Dec., 1466. He was the son of Niccolò di Betto Bardi, and was early apprenticed to a goldsmith to learn design. At the age of seventeen he accompanied his friend Brunellesco to Rome, and the two youths devoted themselves to drawing and to making excavations in their pursuit of the antique. Half the week they spent chiselling for a livelihood. Brunellesco’s occupation was architecture; Donatello, though understanding the interrelation of the two arts, always, whether in conjunction with Brunellesco or, as later, with Michelozzo, made sculpture paramount. It is hard to place his work chronologically. While still a mere boy, he carved the wooden crucifix in Santa Croce, Florence; On his return from Rome to Florence he was engaged for years on the statues for Giotto’s belfry and the buildings then in progress. For the Campanile he did “The Baptist,” “Jeremias,” “Habakkuk,” a group representing Abraham and Isaac, and the famous “David” called the “Zuccone” (Bald-head), so lifelike that Donatello is said to have himself cried to it, “Why don’t you speak?”; for the Duomo, “St. John the Evangelist” and “The Singing-gallery”; for Or San Michele, “St. Peter” and “St. Mark,” and the “St. George,” which he executed at the order of the Guild of Armourers—Donatello’s most ideal and perfect work. The socle-relief of “St. George and the Dragon and the King of Cappadocia’s Daughter” is absolutely Greek in simplicity and plastic beauty. Other fine reliefs are the bronze doors for the sacristy of San Lorenzo; the medallions for the ceiling; and the “Annunciation” in the same church, with its noble figures of the Blessed Virgin and the archangel. In the Loggia de’ Lanzi is the somewhat ill-proportioned group of “Judith and Holofernes.” The marble “David” in the Bargello, uniting the delicacy of the adolescent “Baptist” of Casa Martelli with a classic fashion of wreath-bound hair, seems a link between two of the phases in Donatello’s development. Purely Renaissance and yet conceived in the antique spirit are the “Amorino” (Cupid) and the bronze “David” of the National Museum, Florence. Both are instinct with life and the potent vitality of youth, jubilant or contained. Pope John XXIII, a personal friend of the sculptor, died in Florence, 1419. Donatello made his tomb, a recumbent portrait-statue in the baptistery. In the Duomo of Siena he performed the same office for Bishop Pecci. In Siena also he made several rare statuettes and reliefs for the christening-font of San Giovanni. At Prato, for the open-air pulpit of the Duomo, he carved the casement with groups of playing children (putti). He is believed to have been in Rome again in 1433. A tabernacle of the Blessed Virgin in St. Peter’s is said to be by Donatello, and also the tombstone of Giovanni Crivelli in Santa Maria in Ara Cœli. In 1443 he went to Padua to build the choir-gallery, and remained there some ten years. First he carved his “Christ on the Cross,” the head a marvel of workmanship and expression; then statuettes of the Blessed Virgin, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony, and other saints; also a long series of reliefs for the high altar. While in Padua Donatello was commissioned to make a monument to the Venetian Condottiere (General) Gattamelata (Erasmo de’ Narni), and he blocked out the first great equestrian statue since classic times. The last known statue of Donatello is “St. Louis of Toulouse” in the interior of Santa Croce.

Donatello became bedridden in his latter years, and some of his works were completed by his pupils. Piero de’ Medici provided for him. Donatello had always been lavish with his fellow-workers and assistants, and took no forethought for himself. His character was one of great openness and simplicity, and he had an ingenuous appreciation of his own value as an artist. Unassuming as he was, his pride of craft and independence of spirit would lead him to destroy a masterpiece at one blow if his modest price were haggled over. He was buried beside his patron Cosimo de’ Medici in the church of San Lorenzo in Florence. Donatello was a thorough realist and one of the first modellers with whom character and personality in the subject meant more than loveliness. His Apostles and saints were generally close likenesses of living persons. He had a vivid faculty for individual traits and expression and a method of powerful handling that makes it impossible to forget his creations. In such figures as the “Baptist” and the “Magdalen” of the baptistery of Florence he apparently studied emaciation for its anatomic value; His busts of contemporaries (such as that of Nicolò da Uzzano, “Youth with Breastplate,” etc;) look like casts from life. One of the most graceful pieces is the “San Giovannino,” a relief of a child, in sandstone, in the Bargello, Florence. Minor works are the “Marzocco” (original in the National Museum, Florence)—the lion, the emblem of Florence, with the fleur-de-lys florencée shield—and the Martelli escutcheon on the staircase of their house.

LÜBKE, History of Sculpture (tr. London, 1872); PERKINS, Handbook of Italian Sculpture (New York, 1883); REA, Donatello (London, 1900); BALCARRES, Donatello (London, 1903); MÜNTZ, Les Précurseurs de la Renaissance (Paris, 1900); VASARI, Lives of the Painters (tr. London, 1881).

M. L. HANDLEY.

Donation (1)

(IN CANON LAW)

Donation, the gratuitous transfer to another of some right or thing. When it consists in placing in the hands of the donee some movable object it is known as a gift of hand (donum manuale, an offering or oblatio, an alms). Properly speaking, however, it is a voluntary contract, verbal or written, by which the donor expressly agrees to give, without consideration, something to the donee, and the latter in an equally express manner accepts the gift. In Roman law and in some modern codes this contract carries with it only the obligation of transferring the ownership of the thing in question; actual ownership is obtained only by the real traditio or handing over of the thing itself, or by the observation of certain juridically prescribed formalities (L. 20, C. De pactis, II, 3). Such codes distinguish between conventional (or imperfect) and perfect donation, i. e. the actual transfer of the thing or right. In some countries the contract itself transfers ownership. A donation is called remunerative when inspired by a sentiment of gratitude for services rendered by the donee. Donations are also described as inter vivos if made while the donor yet lives, and causâ mortis, when made in view or contemplation of death; the latter are valid only after the death of the donor and until then are at all times revocable. They much resemble testaments and codicils. They are, however, on the same footing as donations inter vivos once the donor has renounced his right to revoke. In the pursuit of its end the church needs material aid; it has the right therefore to acquire such aid by donation no less than by other means. In its quality of a perfect and independent society the Church may also decide under what forms and on what conditions it will accept donations made to works of religion (donationes ad pias causas); it pertains to the State to legislate for all other donations.

HISTORY OF ECCLESIASTICAL DONATIONS

Even before the Edict of Milan (313) the Church was free to acquire property by donation either as a juridically recognized association (collegium) or as a society de facto tolerated (note that the right to acquire property by last will and testament dates only from 321 in the reign of Constantine). Nevertheless, the Church was held to observe the pertinent civil legislation, though on this head it enjoyed certain privileges; thus, even before the traditio, or handing over, of the donation to a church or a religious institution, the latter acquired real rights to the same (L. 23, C. De sacrosanctis ecclesiis, I, 2). Moreover, the insinuatio or declaration of the gift before the public authority was required only for donations equivalent in value to 500 solidi (nearly twenty-six hundred dollars) or more, a privilege later on extended to all donations (L. 34, 36, C. De donationibus, VIII, 53). Finally, bishops, priests, and deacons yet under parental power were allowed to dispose freely, even in favour of the Church, of property acquired by them after ordination [L. 33 (34) C. De episcopis et clericis, I, 3]. The Franks, long quite unaccustomed to dispose of their property by will, were on the other hand generous in donations, especially cessiones post obitum, similar to the Roman law donations in view of death but carrying with them the renunciation on the donor’s part of his right of revocation; other Frankish donations to the Church reserved the usufruct. The institution known as precaria ecclesiastica was quite favourable to the growth of donations. At the request of the donor the Church granted him the use of the donated object for five years, for his life, or even a use transferable to the heirs of the first occupant. Synods of this epoch assert to some extent the validity of pious donations even when the legal requisites had not been observed, though as a rule they were not omitted. Generally speaking, the consent of the civil authority (princeps) was not indispensable for the acquisition of property by religious corporations. The restrictions known as the “right of amortization” (see MORTMAIN) are of later date, and are the outcome of theories elaborated in the Middle Ages but carried to their logical issue in the modern civil legislation (of Continental countries) concerning biens de mainmorte, or property held by inalienable tenure, i. e. the property of religious corporations, they being perpetual. The Church does not accept such legislation; nevertheless the faithful may act accordingly in order to secure to their donations the protection of the law.

CANONICAL LEGISLATION

Donations are valid and obligatory when made by persons capable of disposing of their property and accepted by the administrators of ecclesiastical institutions. No other formality is required, neither notarial act nor authorization of the civil power. The declaration before the public authority, required by Roman law, is not obligatory in canon law. Nor are the faithful obliged to heed the restrictions which are placed by some modern civil codes in the way of a free disposition of their property. On the other hand the donation must be accepted by the donee; it is not true, as some have maintained, that every donation for works of religion (ad pias causas) implies a vow, i. e. an act in itself obligatory independently of the acceptance of the donee. If the administrators of an ecclesiastical institution refuse to accept a donation, that institution can always obtain in canon law a restitutio in integrum, whereby it is again put in a condition to accept the refused donation. The canonical motives for the revocation or diminution of a donation are the birth of children to the donor and the donatio inofficiosa, or excessive generosity on the latter’s part, whereby he diminishes the share of inheritance that legitimately belongs to his children. In both cases, however, the donation is valid in Canon law to the degree in which it respects the legitimate share of the donor’s children. It is worthy of note that while ecclesiastical and religious establishments may give alms, they are bound in the matter of genuine donations by the provisions of the canon law concerning the alienation of ecclesiastical property.

CIVIL LEGISLATION

In most European countries the civil authority restricts in three ways the right of the Church to accept donations:

(1) by imposing the forms and conditions that the civil codes prescribe for donations;

(2) by reserving to itself the right of saying what institutions shall have civil personality and be thereby authorized to acquire property;

(3) by exacting the approval of the civil authority, at least for important donations.

Austria recognizes a juridical personality not only in those religious institutions which are charged with the maintenance of public worship, but also, through easily granted approval, in religious associations of any kind. The so-called amortization laws (against the traditional inalienability of tenure on the part of religious corporations) have so far remained only a threat, though the Government reserves the right to establish such legislation. Religious communities, however, are required to make known to the civil authorities all their acquisitions of property. In Germany, even since the promulgation of the Civil Code of the Empire (1896), the legislation varies from State to State. In all, however, property rights are recognized by the law in only those ecclesiastical institutions that are recognized by the State. As a rule, donations must be authorized by the civil power if they exceed the value of five thousand marks (1250 dollars, or 250 pounds sterling) though in some states this figure is doubled. In Prussia civil authorization is requisite for all acquisition of real property by a diocese, a chapter, or any ecclesiastical institution. In Italy every donation must be approved by the civil authority, and only the institutions recognized by the State are allowed to acquire property; note, however, that simple benefices (see BENEFICE) and religious orders cannot acquire this latter privilege. With few exceptions, ecclesiastical institutions in Italy are not allowed to invest in any other form of property than Government bonds. In France the associations cultuelles, or worship-associations, are recognized by the State as civil entities for the conduct of public worship; it is well known, however, that Pius X forbade the Catholics of France to form such associations. That country, it is true, recognizes the civil personality of licit associations organized for a non-lucrative purpose, but declares illicit every religious congregation not approved by a special law. At the same time, it refuses to approve the religious congregations which have sought this approval, and is gradually suppressing all those which were formerly approved. (See PROPERTY, ECCLESIASTICAL.)

FÉNELON, Les fondations et les établissements ecclésiastiques (Paris, 1902); FOURNERET, Reasources dont l’Eglise dispose pour reconstituer son patrimoine (Paris, 1902); KNECHT, System des justinianischen Kirchenvermögensrechte (Stuttgart, 1905); BONDROIT, De capacitate possidendi ecclesiœ œtate merovingicâ (Louvain, 1900); LOENING, Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts (Strasburg, 1898), II, 653 sq.; SCHMALZGRUEBER, Jus ecclesiasticum universum (Rome, 1844), III, ii, 430–460; SANTI, Prœlectiones juris canonici (Rome, 1898), III, 206; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1901), III, 270 sq.; AICHNER, Compendium juris ecclesiastici (Brixen, 1900), 814–815; SILBERNAGL, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Ratisbon, 1903), 692 sq.; GEIGER, Der kirchenrechtliche Inhalt der bundesstaatlichen Ausführungsgesetze zum bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch für das deutsche Reich in Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht (Mainz, 1901), LXXXI, 650.—For the juridical condition of the Church in the different nations of the world in respect of property see the articles on various countries in THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA; also a series of articles in Revue catholique des institutions et du droit (Paris, 1907), Series II, vols. XXXVIII and XXXIX; also in Bulletin de la société de législation comparée (Paris, 1905–1907), XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI.

A. VAN HOVE.

Donation (2)

(IN CIVIL JURISPRUDENCE)

Donation, the gratuitous transfer, or gift (Lat. donatio), of ownership of property. The Latin word munus also signified a gift, but “a gift on some special occasion such as births or marriages” (Roby, Roman Private Law, Cambridge, 1902, I, 86). The person transferring ownership by donation is termed the donor, the person to whom the transfer is made, the donee. In contemplation of law donation is “based upon the fundamental right everyone has of disposing of his property as he wills” (125 New York Court of Appeals Reports, p. 579), a right, however, deemed from ancient times an appropriate subject for legal regulation and restraint (see Johns, Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, etc., New York, 1904, XXI). Donation requires the consent not only of the donor to transfer the ownership, but also that of the donee to accept and assume it, “as I cannot,” remarks Pothier (Treatise on Obligations, 4), “by the mere act of my own mind transfer to another a right in my goods, without a concurrent intention on his part to accept them.” Donations are usually classified as (1) inter vivos (among the Living) and (2) mortis causa (in view of death).

(1) INTER VIVOS

Sir William Blackstone explains (in his Commentaries, II, 441) that in English law mutual consent to give and to accept is not a gift, but is an imperfect contract void for want of consideration. Yet delivery and acceptance being added to the ineffectual consent, the transaction becomes an irrevocable transfer by donation inter vivos, regarded in law as an executed contract, just as if the preliminary consents had constituted an effectual “act in the law” (see Pollock, Principles of Contract, New York, 1906, 2). “Every gift,” remarks Chancellor Kent, “which is made perfect by delivery, and every grant, are executed contracts, for they are founded on the mutual consent of the parties in reference to a right or interest passing between them” (Commentaries on American Law, II, 437); and Milton (Paradise Lost, XII, 67) says:—He gave us only over beast, fish, fowl,

Dominion absolute; that right we hold

By his donation.

According to English law, writing under seal, known as a deed, so far transfers personal property without actual delivery that ownership vests upon execution of the deed, and the donation is irrevocable until disclaimed by the donee (J. W. Smith The Law of Contracts, 36, Philadelphia, 1885). Not only movable things, defined in English law as personal property, but land (real estate) may be the subject of this donation (24 Vermont Reports, 591; 115 New York Court of Appeals Reports, 295). The legislation of the Emperor Justinian abolished requirements which by Roman law had previously been necessary to perfect a donation, and thenceforth, by force of this legislation, the donor’s informal agreement to give, bound him to make delivery. Donations, were, however, rendered revocable by the same legislation for a failure to comply with their conditions, and also for gross ingratitude (Leage, Roman Private Law, London, 1906, 145). The English law “controls,” to quote Chancellor Kent, “gifts when made to the prejudice of existing creditors” (Commentaries, II, 440); and a donation may be avoided if the donor “were under any legal incapacity . . . or if he were drawn in, circumvented or imposed upon by false pretences, ebriety or surprise” (Blackstone, Commentaries, II, 441). But English law does not annul donations for ingratitude nor for various other causes mentioned in the Roman law. English law “does not,” according to Chancellor Kent, “indulge in these refinements” (op. cit.). Donations between husband and wife were contrary to the policy of the Roman law which permitted donatio propter nuptias before marriage only (Leage, op. cit., 95). By English common law there accrued to a husband full ownership of his wife’s personal property, and possession for their joint lives of her real property. And because English law deemed husband and wife one person (Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Married Women, Boston, 1873, I, 231), a gift of personal property from husband to wife was “impossible according to the old and technical common law” (ibid., 730). But the commentator adds that “it is otherwise in equity” (ibid., 731). By the French Code Civil, donations inter vivos, designated entre vifs, are recognized; but they are subjected to many restrictions.

(2) MORTIS CAUSA

A donation of this kind is made when a person “in his last sickness,” to quote Blackstone (Commentaries, II, 514), “apprehending his dissolution near, delivers or causes to be delivered to another the possession of any personal goods to keep in case of his decease.” The same donation may also be made in presence of any other impending peril of death. The “Institutes” of Justinian cite a classic example: sic et apud Homerum Telemachus donat Pirœo (II, VII). This donation differs strikingly from donation inter vivos in not being absolute, but conditional on the donor failing to recover from the sickness or to escape the peril; also in being dependent on his not having exercised the right which remains to him, of revoking the donation. The transfer is thus perfected by death only. Roman law permitted such donations between husband and wife because these were donations quœ conferuntur in tempus soluti matrimonii (Pothier, Pandectæ Justinianeæ, XXIV, t. i, xix). Nor were donations of this kind from husband to wife forbidden by the English common law (24 Vermont Reports, 596). As the danger in view of which the donation is made must be actually present, therefore a transfer from an owner “not terrified by fear of any present peril, but moved by the general consideration of man’s mortality,” cannot be sustained as a donation mortis causa. A transfer of ownership of real estate cannot be effected by this form of donation. And any donation mortis causa expressly embracing the whole of the donor’s property has been said to be illegal, being deemed to be an attempt to escape disposition by last will (American Law Register, I, 25). The grounds already referred to on which a donation inter vivos may be avoided seem also grounds for avoiding a donation mortis causa. In every instance the evidence establishing such a donation as against a donor’s representatives must “be clear and convincing, strong and satisfactory” (125 New York Court of Appeals Reports, 757). For this “death-bed disposition of property,” as it is termed by Blackstone (op. cit.), is not a favourite of the law. Many years ago a lord chancellor of England, profoundly learned in the law and noted for his conservatism suggested that if “this donatio mortis causa was struck out of our law altogether it would be quite as well” (American Law Register, I, II). And by the Code Civil it has been “struck out” of the law of France.

STORY, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence (Boston, 1886), 607, 608; PARSONS, The Law of Contracts (Boston, 1904), I, 254–60; 2 Vesey Jrs. Reports (Boston, 1844), 119; 4 Wheaton’s Reports, Sup. Ct. U. S. (New York, 1819), 518; 49 New York Court of Appeals Reports, 17: La Grande Encyc., s. v.

CHARLES W. SLOANE

Donation of Constantine

(Lat., Donatio Constantini).

By this name is understood, since the end of the Middle Ages, a forged document of Emperor Constantine the Great, by which large privileges and rich possessions were conferred on the pope and the Roman Church. In the oldest known (ninth century) manuscript (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, MS. Latin 2777) and in many other manuscripts the document bears the title: “Constitutum domni Constantini imperatoris.” It is addressed by Constantine to Pope Sylvester I (314–35) and consists of two parts. In the first (entitled “Confessio”) the emperor relates how he was instructed in the Christian Faith by Sylvester, makes a full profession of faith, and tells of his baptism in Rome by that pope, and how he was thereby cured of leprosy. In the second part (the “Donatio”) Constantine is made to confer on Sylvester and his successors the following privileges and possessions: the pope, as successor of St. Peter, has the primacy over the four Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, also over all the bishops in the world. The Lateran basilica at Rome, built by Constantine, shall surpass all churches as their head, similarly the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul shall be endowed with rich possessions. The chief Roman ecclesiastics (clerici cadinales), among whom senators may also be received, shall obtain the same honours and distinctions as the senators. Like the emperor the Roman Church shall have as functionaries cubicularii, ostiarii, and excubitores. The pope shall enjoy the same honorary rights as the emperor, among them the right to wear an imperial crown, a purple cloak and tunic, and in general all imperial insignia or signs of distinction; but as Sylvester refused to put on his head a golden crown, the emperor invested him with the high white cap (phrygium). Constantine, the document continues, rendered to the pope the service of a strator, i.e. he led the horse upon which the pope rode. Moreover, the emperor makes a present to the pope and his successors of the Lateran palace, of Rome and the provinces, districts, and towns of Italy and all the Western regions (tam palatium nostrum, ut prelatum est, quamque Romæ urbis et omnes Italiæ seu occidentalium regionum provinicas loca et civitates). The document goes on to say that for himself the emperor has established in the East a new capital which bears his name, and thither he removes his government, since it is inconvenient that a secular emperor have power where God has established the residence of the head of the Christian religion. The document concludes with maledictions against all who dare to violate these donations and with the assurance that the emperor has signed them with his own hand and placed them on the tomb of St. Peter.

This document is without doubt a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850. As early as the fifteenth century its falsity was known and demonstrated. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (De Concordantiâ Catholicâ, III, ii, in the Basle ed. of his Opera, 1565, I) spoke of it as a dictamen apocryphum. Some years later (1440) Lorenzo Valla (De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatio, Mainz, 1518) proved the forgery with certainty. Independently of both his predecessors, Reginald Pecocke, Bishop of Chichester (1450–57), reached a similar conclusion in his work, “The Repressor of over much Blaming of the Clergy,” Rolls Series, II, 351–366. Its genuinity was yet occasionally defended, and the document still further used as authentic, until Baronius in his “Annales Ecclesiastici” (ad an. 324) admitted that the “Donatio” was a forgery, whereafter it was soon universally admitted to be such. It is so clearly a fabrication that there is no reason to wonder that, with the revival of historical criticism in the fifteenth century, the true character of the document was at once recognized. The forger made use of various authorities, which Grauert and others (see below) have thoroughly investigated. The introduction and the conclusion of the document are imitated from authentic writings of the imperial period, but formulæ of other periods are also utilized. In the “Confession” of faith the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is explained at length, afterwards the Fall of man and the Incarnation of Christ. There are also reminiscences of the decrees of the Iconoclast Synod of Constantinople (754) against the veneration of images. The narrative of the conversion and healing of the emperor is based on the apocryphal Acts of Sylvester (Acta or Gesta Sylvestri), yet all the particulars of the “Donatio” narrative do not appear in the hitherto known texts of that legend. The distinctions conferred on the pope and the cardinals of the Roman Church the forger probably invented and described according to certain contemporary rites and the court ceremonial of the Roman and the Byzantine emperors. The author also used the biographies of the popes in the Liber Pontificalis (q.v.), likewise eighth-century letters of the popes, especially in his account of the imperial donations.

The authorship of this document is still wrapped in obscurity. Occasionally, but without sufficient reason, critics have attributed it to the author of the False Decretals (q.v.) or to some Roman ecclesiastic of the eighth century. On the other hand, the time and place of its composition have lately been thoroughly studied by numerous investigators (especially Germans), though no sure and universally accepted conclusion has yet been reached. As to the place of the forgery Baronius (Annales, ad. an. 1081) maintained that it was done in the East by a schismatic Greek; it is, indeed, found in Greek canonical collections. Natalis Alexander opposed this view, and it is no longer held by any recent historian. Many of the recent critical students of the document locate its composition at Rome and attribute the forgery to an ecclesiastic, their chief argument being an intrinsic one: this false document was composed in favour of the popes and of the Roman Church, therefore Rome itself must have had the chief interest in a forgery executed for a purpose so clearly expressed. Moreover, the sources of the document are chiefly Roman. Nevertheless, the earlier view of Zaccaria and others that the forgery originated in the Frankish Empire has quite recently been ably defended by Hergenröther and Grauert (see below). They call attention to the fact that the “Donatio” appears first in Frankish collections, i.e. in the False Decretals and in the above-mentioned St-Denis manuscript; moreover the earliest certain quotation of it is by Frankish authors in the second half of the ninth century. Finally, this document was never used in the papal chancery until the middle of the eleventh century, nor in general is it referred to in Roman sources until the time of Otto III (983–1002, i.e. in case the famous “Diploma” of this emperor be authentic). The first certain use of it at Rome was by Leo IX in 1054, and it is to be noted that this pope was by birth and training a German, not an Italian. The writers mentioned have shown that the chief aim of the forgery was to prove the justice of the translatio imperii to the Franks, i.e. the transfer of the imperial title at the coronation of Charlemagne in 800; the forgery was, therefore, important mainly for the Frankish Empire. This view is rightly tenable against the opinion of the majority that this forgery originated at Rome.

A still greater divergency of opinion reigns as to the time of its composition. Some have asserted (more recently Martens, Friedrich, and Bayet) that each of its two parts was fabricated at different times. Martens holds that the author executed his forgery at brief intervals; that the “Constitutum” originated after 800 in connection with a letter of Adrian I (778) to Charlemagne wherein the pope acknowledged the imperial position to which the Frankish king by his own efforts and fortune had attained. Friedrich (see below), on the contrary, attempts to prove that the “Constitutum” was composed of two really distinct parts. The gist of the first part, the so-called “Confessio,” appeared between 638 and 653, probably 638–641, while the second, or “Donatio” proper, was written in the reign of Stephen II, between 752 and 757, by Paul, brother and successor of Pope Stephen. According to Bayet the first part of the document was composed in the time of Paul I (757–767); the latter part appeared in or about the year 774. In opposition to these opinions most historians maintain that the document was written at the same time and wholly by one author. But when was it written? Colombier decides for the reign of Pope Conon (686–687), Genelin for the beginning of the eighth century (before 728). But neither of these views is supported by sufficient reasons, and both are certainly untenable. Most investigators accept as the earliest possible date the pontificate of Stephen II (752–757), thus establishing a connection between the forgery and the historical events that led to the origin of the States of the Church and the Western Empire of the Frankish kings. But in what year of period from the above-mentioned pontificate of Stephen II until the reception of the “Constitutum” in the collection of the False Decretals (c. 840–50) was the forgery executed? Nearly every student of this intricate question maintains his own distinct view. It is necessary first to answer a preliminary question: Did Pope Adrian I in his letter to Charlemagne of the year 778 (Codex Carolinus, ed. Jaffé Ep. lxi) exhibit a knowledge of the “Constitutum”? From a passage of this letter (Sicut temporibus beati Silvestri Romani pontificis a sanctæ recordationis piisimo Constantino magno imperatore per eius largitatem sancta Dei Catholica et Apostolica Romana ecclesia elevata et exaltata est et potestatem in his Hesperiæ partibus largiri dignatus, ita et in his vestris felicissimis temporibus atque nostris sancta Dei ecclesia, id est beati Petri apostoli, germinet atque exultet. . . . ) several writers, e.g. Döllinger, Langen, Meyer, and others have concluded that Adrian I was then aware of this forgery, so that it must have appeared before 778. Friedrich assumes in Adrian I a knowledge of the “Constitutum” from his letter to Emperor Constantine VI written in 785 (Mansi, Concil. Coll., XII, 1056). Most historians, however, rightly refrain from asserting that Adrian I made use of this document; from his letters, therefore, the time of its origin cannot be deduced.

Most of the recent writers on the subject assume the origin of the “Donatio” between 752 and 795. Among them, some decide for the pontificate of Stephen II (752–757) on the hypothesis that the author of the forgery wished to substantiate thereby the claims of this pope in his negotiations with Pepin (Döllinger, Hauck, Friedrich, Böhmer). Others lower the date of the forgery to the time of Paul I (757–767), and base their opinion on the political events in Italy under this pope, or on the fact that he had a special veneration for St. Sylvester, and that the “Donatio” had especially in view the honour of this saint (Scheffer-Boichorst, Mayer). Others again locate its origin in the pontificate of Adrian I (772–795), on the hypothesis that this pope hoped thereby to extend the secular authority of the Roman Church over a great part of Italy and to create in this way a powerful ecclesiastical State under papal government (Langen, Loening). A smaller group of writers, however, remove the forgery to some date after 800, i.e. after the coronation of Charlemagne as emperor. Among these, Martens and Weiland assign the document to the last years of the reign of Charlemagne, or the first years of Louis the Pious, i.e. somewhere between 800 and 840. They argue that the chief purpose of the forgery was to bestow on the Western ruler the imperial power, or that the “Constitutum” was meant to indicate what the new emperor, as successor of Constantine the Great, might have conferred on the Roman Church. Those writers also who seek the forger in the Frankish Empire maintain that the document was written in the ninth century, e.g. especially Hergenröther and Grauert. The latter opines that the “Constitutum” originated in the monastery of St-Denis, at Paris, shortly before or about the same time as the False Decretals, i.e. between 840 and 850.

Closely connected with the date of the forgery is the other question concerning the primary purpose of the forger of the “Donatio.” Here, too, there exists a great variety of opinions. Most of the writers who locate at Rome itself the origin of the forgery maintain that it was intended principally to support the claims of the popes to secular power in Italy; they differ, however, as to the extent of the said claims. According to Döllinger the “Constitutum” was destined to aid in the creation of a united Italy under papal government. Others would limit the papal claims to those districts which Stephen II sought to obtain from Pepin, or to isolated territories which, then or later, the popes desired to acquire. In general, this class of historians seeks to connect the forgery with the historical events and political movements of that time in Italy (Mayer, Langen, Friedrich, Loening, and others). Several of these writers lay more stress on the elevation of the papacy than on the donation of territories. Occasionally it is maintained that the forger sought to secure for the pope a kind of higher secular power, something akin to imperial supremacy as against the Frankish Government, then solidly established in Italy. Again, some of this class limit to Italy the expression occidentalium regionum provincias, but most of them understand it to mean the whole former Western Empire. This is the attitude of Weiland, for whom the chief object of the forgery is the increase of papal power over the imperial, and the establishment of a kind of imperial supremacy of the pope over the whole West. For this reason also he lowers the date of the “Constitutum” no further than the end of the reign of Charlemagne (814). As a matter of fact, however, in this document Sylvester does indeed obtain from Constantine imperial rank and the emblems of imperial dignity, but not the real imperial supremacy. Martens therefore sees in the forgery an effort to elevate the papacy in general; all alleged prerogatives of the pope and of Roman ecclesiastics, all gifts of landed possessions, and rights of secular government are meant to promote and confirm this elevation, and from it all the new Emperor Charlemagne ought to draw practical conclusions for his behaviour in relation to the pope. Scheffer-Boichorst holds a singular opinion, namely that the forger intended primarily the glorification of Sylvester and Constantine, and only in a secondary way a defence of the papal claims to territorial possessions. Grauert, for whom the forger is a Frankish subject, shares the view of Hergenröther, i.e. the forger had in mind a defence of the new Western Empire from the attacks of the Byzantines. Therefore it was highly important for him to establish the legitimacy of the newly founded empire, and this purpose was especially aided by all that the document alleges concerning the elevation of the pope. From the foregoing it will be seen that the last word of historical research in this matter still remains to be said. Important questions concerning the sources of the forgery, the place and time of its origin, the tendency of the forger, yet await their solution. New researches will probably pay still greater attention to textual criticism, especially that of the first part or “Confession” of faith.

As far as the evidence at hand permits us to judge, the forged “Constitutum” was first made known in the Frankish Empire. The oldest extant manuscript of it, certainly from the ninth century, was written in the Frankish Empire. In the second half of that century the document is expressly mentioned by three Frankish writers. Ado, Bishop of Vienne, speaks of it in his Chronicle (De sex ætatibus mundi, ad an. 306, in P.L., CXXIII, 92); Æneas, Bishop of Paris, refers to it in defence of the Roman primacy (Adversus Græcos, c. ccix, op. cit., CXXI, 758); Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, mentions the donation of Rome to the pope by Constantine the Great according to the “Constitutum” (De ordine palatii, c. xiii, op. cit., CXXV, 998). The document obtained wider circulation by its incorporation with the False Decretals (840–850, or more specifically between 847 and 852; Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianæ, Leipzig, 1863, p. 249). At Rome no use was made of the document during the ninth and the tenth centuries, not even amid the conflicts and difficulties of Nicholas I with Constantinople, when it might have served as a welcome argument for the claims of the pope. The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the “Donatio” to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood. Thenceforth the “Donatio” acquires more importance and is more frequently used as evidence in the ecclesiastical and political conflicts between the papacy and the secular power. Anselm of Lucca and Cardinal Deusdedit inserted it in their collections of canons. Gratian, it is true, excluded it from his “Decretum,” but it was soon added to it as “Palea.” The ecclesiastical writers in defence of the papacy during the conflicts of the early part of the twelfth century quoted it as authoritative (Hugo of Fleury, De regiâ potestate et ecclesiasticâ dignitate, II; Placidus of Nonantula, De honore ecclesiæ, cc. lvii, xci, cli; Disputatio vel defensio Paschalis papæ, Honorius Augustodunensis, De summâ gloriæ, c. xvii; cf. Mon. Germ. Hist., Libelli de lite, II, 456, 591, 614, 635; III, 71). St. Peter Damian also relied on it in his writings against the antipope Cadalous of Parma (Disceptatio synodalis, in Libelli de lite, I, 88). Gregory VII himself never quoted this document in his long warfare for ecclesiastical liberty against the secular power. But Urban II made use of it in 1091 to support his claims on the island of Corsica. Later popes (Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV) took its authority for granted (Innocent III, Sermo de sancto Silvestro, in P.L., CCXVII, 481 sqq.; Raynaldus, Annales, ad an. 1236, n. 24; Potthast, Regesta, no. 11,848), and ecclesiastical writers often adduced its evidence in favour of the papacy. The medieval adversaries of the popes, on the other hand, never denied the validity of this appeal to the pretended donation of Constantine, but endeavoured to show that the legal deductions drawn from it were founded on false interpretations. The authenticity of the document, as already stated, was doubted by no one before the fifteenth century. It was known to the Greeks in the second half of the twelfth century, when it appears in the collection of Theodore Balsamon (1169 sqq.); later on another Greek canonist, Matthæus Blastares (about 1335), admitted it into his collection. It appears also in other Greek works. Moreover, it was highly esteemed in the Greek East. The Greeks claimed, it is well known, for the Bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) the same honorary rights as those enjoyed by the Bishop of Old Rome. By now, by virtue of this document, they claimed for the Byzantine clergy also the privileges and perogatives granted to the pope and the Roman ecclesiastics. In the West, long after its authenticity was disputed in the fifteenth century, its validity was still upheld by the majority of canonists and jurists who continued throughout the sixteenth century to quote it as authentic. And though Baronius and later historians acknowledged it to be a forgery, they endeavoured to marshal other authorities in defence of its content, especially as regards the imperial donations. In later times even this was abandoned, so that now the whole “Constitutum,” both in form and content, is rightly considered in all senses a forgery. See FALSE DECRETALS; SYLVESTER I; STATES OF THE CHURCH; TEMPORAL POWER.

The text of the Donatio has often been printed, e.g. in LABBE, Concil., I, 1530; MANSI, Concil. col., II, 603; finally by GRAUERT (see below) and ZEUMER in Festgabe für Rudolf von Gneist (Berlin, 1888), 39 sqq. See HALLER, Die Quellen zur Geschichte der Entstehung des Kirchenstaats (Leipzig and Berlin, 1907) 241–250; CENNI, Monumenta dominationis Pontificiæ (Rome, 1760), I, 306 sqq.; cf. Origine della Donazione di Costantino in Civilta Cattolica, ser. V, X, 1864, 303 sqq. The following are non-Catholic: ZINKEISEN, The Donation of Constantine as applied by the Roman Church in Eng. Hist. Review (1894), IX, 625–32; SCHAFF, Hist. of the Christ. Church (New York, 1905), IV, 270–72; HODGKIN, Italy and Her Invaders (Oxford, 1899), VII, 135 sqq. See also COLOMBIER, La Donation de Constantin in Etudes Religieuses (1877), XI, 800 sqq.; BONNEAU, La Donation de Constantin (Lisieux, 1891); BAYET, La fausse Donation de Constantin in Annuaire de la Faculté des lettres de Lyon (Paris, 1884), II, 12 sq.; DÖLLINGER, Papstfabeln des Mittelalters (Munich, 1863), Stuttgart, 1890), 72 sqq.; HERGENRÖTHER, Katholische Kirche und christlicher Staat (Freiburg im Br., 1872), I, 360 sqq.; GENELIN, Das Schenkungsversprechen und die Schenkung Pippins (Leipzig, 1880), 36 sqq.; MARTENS, Die römische Frage unter Pippin und Karl dem Grossen (Stuttgart, 1881), 327 sqq.; IDEM, Die falsche Generalkonzession Konstantins des Grossen (Munich, 1889); IDEM, Beleuchtung der neuesten Kontroversen über die römische Frage unter Pippin und Karl dem Grossen (Munich, 1898), 151 sqq.; GRAUERT Die konstantinische Schenkung in Historisches Jahrbuch (1882), 3 sqq. (1883), 45 sqq., 674 sqq. (1884), 117 sqq.; LANGEN, Entstehung und Tendenz der konstantinischen Schenkungsurkunde in Historische Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht (1889), 137 sqq., 185 sqq.; BRUNNER, Das Constitutum Constantini in Festgabe für R. von Gneist (Berlin, 1888), 3 sqq.; FRIEDRICH, Die konstantinische Schenkung (Nördlingen, 1889); SCHEFFER-BOICHORST, Neuere Forschungen über die konstantinische Schenkung in Mitteilungen des Instituts fürösterr. Geschichtsforsch. (1889), 302 sqq. (1890), 128 sqq.; LAMPRECHT, Die römische Frage von Konig Pippin bis auf Kaiser Ludwig den Frommen (Leipzig, 1889), 117 sqq.; LOENING, Die Entstehung der konstantinischen Schenkungsurkunde in Histor. Zeitschrift (1890), 193 sqq.; BÖHMER, Konstantinische Schenkung in Realencyclopadie für prot. Theol. (Leipzig, 1902), XI, 1 sqq.

J.P. KIRSCH

Donatists

The Donatist schism in Africa began in 311 and flourished just one hundred years, until the conference at Carthage in 411, after which its importance waned.

CAUSES OF THE SCHISM

In order to trace the origin of the division we have to go back to the persecution under Diocletian. The first edict of that emperor against Christians (24 Feb., 303) commanded their churches to be destroyed, their Sacred Books to be delivered up and burnt, while they themselves were outlawed. Severer measures followed in 304, when the fourth edict ordered all to offer incense to the idols under pain of death. After the abdication of Maximian in 305, the persecution seems to have abated in Africa. Until then it was terrible. In Numidia the governor, Florus, was infamous for his cruelty, and, though many officials may have been, like the proconsul Anulinus, unwilling to go further than they were obliged, yet St. Optatus is able to say of the Christians of the whole country that some were confessors, some were martyrs, some fell, only those who were hidden escaped. The exaggerations of the highly strung African character showed themselves. A hundred years earlier Tertullian had taught that flight from persecution was not permissible. Some now went beyond this, and voluntarily gave themselves up to martyrdom as Christians. Their motives were, however, not always above suspicion. Mensurius, the Bishop of Carthage, in a letter to Secundus, Bishop of Tigisi, then the senior bishop (primate) of Numidia, declares that he had forbidden any to be honoured as martyrs who had given themselves up of their own accord, or who had boasted that they possessed copies of the Scriptures which they would not relinquish; some of these, he says, were criminals and debtors to the State, who thought they might by this means rid themselves of a burdensome life, or else wipe away the remembrance of their misdeeds, or at least gain money and enjoy in prison the luxuries supplied by the kindness of Christians. The later excesses of the Circumcellions show that Mensurius had some ground for the severe line he took. He explains that he had himself taken the Sacred Books of the Church to his own house, and had substituted a number of heretical writings, which the prosecutors had seized without asking for more; the proconsul, when informed of the deception refused to search the bishop’s private house. Secundus, in his reply, without blaming Mensurius, somewhat pointedly praised the martyrs who in his own province had been tortured and put to death for refusing to deliver up the Scriptures; he himself had replied to the officials who came to search: “I am a Christian and a bishop, not a traditor.” This word traditor became a technical expression to designate those who had given up the Sacred Books, and also those who had committed the worse crimes of delivering up the sacred vessels and even their own brethren.

It is certain that relations were strained between the confessors in prison at Carthage and their bishop. If we may credit the Donatist Acts of the forty-nine martyrs of Abitene, they broke off communion with Mensurius. We are informed in these Acts that Mensurius was a traditor by his own confession, and that his deacon, Caecilian, raged more furiously against the martyrs than did the persecutors themselves; he set armed men with whips before the door of the prison to prevent their receiving any succor; the food brought by the piety of the Christians was thrown to the dogs by these ruffians, and the drink provided was spilled in the street, so that the martyrs, whose condemnation the mild proconsul had deferred, died in prison of hunger and thirst. The story is recognized by Duchesne and others as exaggerated. It would be better to say that the main point is incredible; the prisoners would not have been allowed by the Roman officials to starve; the details—that Mensurius confessed himself a traditor, that he prevented the succoring of the imprisoned confessors—are simply founded on the letter of Mensurius to Secundus. Thus we may safely reject all the latter part of the Acts as fictitious. The earlier part is authentic: it relates how certain of the faithful of Abitene met and celebrated their usual Sunday service, in defiance of the emperor’s edict, under the leadership of the priest Saturninus, for their bishop was a traditor and they disowned him; they were sent to Carthage, made bold replies when interrogated, and were imprisoned by Anulinus, who might have condemned them to death forthwith. The whole account is characteristic of the fervid African temperament. We can well imagine how the prudent Mensurius and his lieutenant, the deacon Caecilian, were disliked by some of the more excitable among their flock.

We know in detail how the inquiries for sacred books were carried out, for the official minutes of an investigation at Cirta (afterwards Constantine) in Numidia are preserved. The bishop and his clergy showed themselves ready to give up all they had, but drew the line at betraying their brethren; even here their generosity was not remarkable, for they added that the names and addresses were well known to the officials. The examination was conducted by Munatius Felix, perpetual flamen, curator of the colony of Cirta. Having arrived with his satellites at the bishop’s house—in Numidia the searching was more severe than in Proconsular Africa—the bishop was found with four priests, three deacons, four subdeacons, and several fossores (diggers). These declared that the Scriptures were not there, but in the hands of the lectors; an in fact the bookcase was found to be empty. The clergy present refused to give the names of the lectors, saying they were known to the notaries; but, with the exception of the books, they gave in an inventory of all possessions of the church: two golden chalices, six of silver, six silver cruets, a silver bowl, seven silver lamps, two candlesticks, seven short bronze lamp-stands with lamps, eleven bronze lamps with chains, eighty-two women’s tunics, twenty-eight veils, sixteen men’s tunics, thirteen pairs of men’s boots, forty-seven pairs of women’s boots, nineteen countrymen’s smocks. Presently the subdeacon Silvanus brought forth a silver box and another silver lamp, which he had found behind a jug. In the dining-room were four casks and seven jugs. A subdeacon produced a thick book. Then the houses of the lectors were visited: Eugenius gave up four volumes, Felix, the mosaic worker gave up five, Victorinus eight, Projectus five large volumes and two small ones, the grammarian Victor two codices and five quinions, or gatherings of five leaves; Euticius of Caesarea declared that he had no books; the wife of Coddeo produced six volumes, and said that she had no more; and a search was made without further result. It is interesting to note that the books were all codices (in book form), not rolls, which had gone out of fashion in the course of the preceding century.

It is to be hoped that such disgraceful scenes were infrequent. A contrasting instance of heroism is found in the story of Felix, Bishop of Tibiuca, who was hauled before the magistrate on the very day, 5 June 303, when the decree was posted up in that city. He refused to give up any books, and was sent to Carthage. The proconsul Anulinus, unable by close confinement to weaken his determination, sent him on to Rome to Maximian Hercules.

In 305, the persecution had relaxed, and it was possible to unite fourteen or more bishops at Cirta in order to give a successor to Paul. Secundus presided as primate, and in his zeal he attempted to examine the conduct of his colleagues. They met in a private house, for the Church had not yet been restored to the Christians. “We must first try ourselves,” said the primate, “before we can venture to ordain a bishop.” To Donatus of Mascula he said: “You are said to have been a traditor.” “You know,” replied the bishop, “how Florus searched for me that I might offer incense, but God did not deliver me into his hands, brother. As God forgave me, do you reserve me to His judgment.” “What then,” said Secundus, “shall we say of the martyrs? It is because they did not give up anything that they were crowned.” “Send me to God,” said Donatus, “to Him will I give an account.” (In fact, a bishop was not amenable to penance and was properly “reserved to God” in this sense.) “Stand on one side,” said the president, and to Marinus of Aquae Tibilitanae he said: “You also are said to be a traditor.” Marinus said: “I gave papers to Pollux; my books are safe.” This was not satisfactory, and Secundus said: “Go over to that side”; then to Donatus of Calama: “You are said to be a traditor.” “I gave up books on medicine.” Secundus seems to have been incredulous, or at least he thought a trial was needed, for again he said: “Stand on one side.” After a gap in the Acts, we read that Secundus turned to Victor, Bishop of Russicade: “You are said to have given up the Four Gospels.” Victor replied: “It was the curator, Valentinus; he forced me to throw them into the fire. Forgive me this fault, and God will also forgive it.” Secundus said: “Stand on one side.” Secundus (after another gap) said to Purpurius of Limata: “You are said to have killed the two sons of your sister at Mileum” (Milevis). Purpurius answered with vehemence: “Do you think I am frightened by you as the others are? What did you do yourself when the curator and his officials tried to make you give up the Scriptures? How did you manage to get off scot-free, unless you gave them something, or ordered something to be given? They certainly did not let you go for nothing! As for me I have killed and I kill those who are against me; do not provoke me to say anymore. You know that I do not interfere where I have no business.” At this outburst, a nephew of Secundus said to the primate: “You hear what they say of you? He is ready to withdraw and make a schism; and the same is true of all those whom you accuse; and I know they are capable of turning you out and condemning you, and you alone will then be the heretic. What is it to you what they have done? Each must give his account to God.” Secundus (as St. Augustine points out) had apparently no reply against the accusation of Purpurius, so he turned to the two or three bishops who remained unaccused: “What do you think?” These answered: “They have God to whom they must give an account.” Secundus said: “You know and God knows. Sit down.” And all replied: Deo gratis.

These minutes have been preserved for us by St. Augustine. The later Donatists declared them forged, but not only could St. Optatus refer to the age of the parchment on which they were written, but they are made easily credible by the testimonies given before Zenophilus in 320. Seeck, as well as Duchesne (see below), upholds their genuineness. We hear from St. Optatus of another fallen Numidian bishop, who refused to come to the council on the pretext of bad eyes, but in reality for fear his fellow-citizens should prove that he had offered incense, a crime of which the other bishops were not guilty. The bishops proceeded to ordain a bishop, and they chose Silvanus, who, as a subdeacon, assisted in the search for sacred vessels. The people of Cirta rose up against him, crying that he was a traditor, and demanded the appointment of a certain Donatus. But country people and gladiators were engaged to set him in the episcopal chair, to which he was carried on the back of a man named Mutus.

CAECILIAN AND MAJORINUS

A certain Donatus of Casae Nigrae is said to have caused a schism in Carthage during the lifetime of Mensurius. In 311 Maxentius obtained dominion over Africa, and a deacon of Carthage, Felix, was accused of writing a defamatory letter against the tyrant. Mensurius was said to have concealed his deacon in his house and was summoned to Rome. He was acquitted, but died on his return journey. Before his departure from Africa, he had given the gold and silver ornaments of the church to the care of certain old men, and had also consigned an inventory of these effects to an aged woman, who was to deliver it to the next bishop. Maxentius gave liberty to the Christians, so that it was possible for an election to be held at Carthage. The bishop of Carthage, like the pope, was commonly consecrated by a neighbouring bishop, assisted by a number of others form the vicinity. He was primate not only of the proconsular province, but of the other provinces of North Africa, including Numidian, Byzacene, Tripolitana, and the two Mauretanias, which were all governed by the vicar of prefects. In each of these provinces the local primacy was attached to no town, but was held by the senior bishop, until St. Gregory the Great made the office elective. St. Optatus implies that the bishops of Numidia, many of whom were at no great distance from Carthage, had expected that they would have a voice in the election; but two priests, Botrus and Caelestius, who each expected to be elected, had managed that only a small number of bishops should be present. Caecilian, the deacon who had been so obnoxious to the martyrs, was duly chosen by the whole people, placed in the chair of Mensurius, and consecrated by Felix, Bishop of Aptonga or Abtughi. The old men who had charge of the treasure of the church were obliged to give it up; they joined with Botrus and Caelestius in refusing to acknowledge the new bishop. They were assisted by a rich lady named Lucilla, who had a grudge against Caecilian because he had rebuked her habit of kissing the bone of an uncanonized (non vindicatus) martyr immediately before receiving Holy Communion. Probably we have here again a martyr whose death was due to his own ill-regulated fervour.

Secundus, as the nearest primate, came with his suffragans to Carthage to judge the affair, and in a great council of seventy bishops declared the ordination of Caecilian to be invalid, as having been performed by a traditor. A new bishop was consecrated. Majorinus, who belonged to the household of Lucilla and had been a lector in the deaconry of Caecilian. That lady provided the sum of 400 folles (more than 11,000 dollars), nominally for the poor; but all of it went into the pockets of the bishops, one-quarter of the sum being seized by Purpurius of Limata. Caecilian had possession of the basilica and the cathedra of Cyprian, and the people were with him, so that he refused to appear before the council. “If I am not properly consecrated,” he said ironically, “let them treat me as a deacon, and lay hands on me afresh, and not on another.” On this reply being brought, Purpurius cried: “Let him come here, and instead of laying on him, we will break his head in penance.” No wonder that the action of this council, which sent letters throughout Africa, had a great influence. But at Carthage it was well known that Caecilian was the choice of the people, and it was not believed that Felix of Aptonga had given up the Sacred Books. Rome and Italy had given Caecilian their communion. The Church of the moderate Mensurius did not hold that consecration by a traditor was invalid, or even that it was illicit, if the traditor was still in lawful possession of his see. The council of Secundus, on the contrary, declared that a traditor could not act as a bishop, and that any who were in communion with traditors were cut off from the Church. They called themselves the Church of the martyrs, and declared that all who were in communion with public sinners like Caecilian and Felix were necessarily excommunicate.

THE CONDEMNATION BY POPE MELCHIADES

Very soon there were many cities having two bishops, the one in communion with Caecilian, the other with Majorinus. Constantine, after defeating Maxentius (28 October, 312) and becoming master of Rome, showed himself a Christian in his acts. He wrote to Anulinus, proconsul of Africa (was he same as the mild proconsul of 303?), restoring the churches to Catholics, and exempting clerics of the “Catholic Church of which Caecilian is president” from civil functions (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. X, v 15, and vii, 2). he also wrote to Caecilian (ibid., X, vi, 1) sending him an order for 3000 folles to be distributed in Africa, Numidia, and Mauretania; if more was needed, the bishop must apply for more. He added that he had heard of turbulent persons who sought to corrupt the Church; he had ordered the proconsul Anulinus, and the vicar of prefects to restrain them, and Caecilian was to appeal to these officials if necessary. The opposing party lost no time. A few days after the publication of these letters, their delegates, accompanied by a mob, brought to Anulinus two bundles of documents, containing the complaints of their party against Caecilian, to be forwarded to the emperor. St. Optatus has preserved a few words from their petition, in which Constantine is begged to grant judges from Gaul, where under his father’s rule there had been no persecution, and therefore no traditors. Constantine knew the Church’s constitution too well to comply and thereby make Gallic bishops judges of the primates of Africa. He at once referred the matter to the pope, expressing his intention, laudable, if too sanguine, of allowing no schisms in the Catholic Church. That the African schismatics might have no ground of complaint, he ordered three of the chief bishops of Gaul, Reticius of Autun, Maternus of Cologne, and Marinus of Arles, to repair to Rome, to assist at the trial. He ordered Caecilian to come thither with ten bishops of his accusers and ten of his own communion. The memorials against Caecilian he sent to the pope, who would know, he says, what procedure to employ in order to conclude the whole matter with justice. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., X, v, 18). Pope Melchiades summoned fifteen Italian bishops to sit with him. From this time forward we find that in all important matters the popes issue their decretal letters from a small council of bishops, and there are traces of this custom even before this. The ten Donatist bishops (for we may now give the party its eventual name) were headed by a Bishop Donatus of Casae Nigrae. It was assumed by Optatus, Augustine, and the other Catholic apologists that this was “Donatus the Great,” the successor of Majorinus as schismatic Bishop of Carthage. But the Donatists of St. Augustine’s time were anxious to deny this, as they did not wish to admit that their protagonist had been condemned, and the Catholics at the conference of 411 granted them the existence of a Donatus, Bishop of Casae Nigrae, who had distinguished himself by active hostility to Caecilian. Modern authorities agree in accepting this view. But it seems inconceivable that, if Majorinus was still alive, he should not have been obliged to go to Rome. It would be very strange, further, that a Donatus of Casae Nigrae should appear as the leader of the party, without any explanation, unless Casae Nigrae was simply the birthplace of Donatus the Great. If we assume that Majorinus had died and had been succeeded by Donatus the Great just before the trial at Rome, we shall understand why Majorinus is never again mentioned. The accusations against Caecilian in the memorial were disregarded, as being anonymous and unproved. The witnesses brought from Africa acknowledged that they had nothing against him. Donatus, on the other hand, was convicted by his own confession of having rebaptized and of having laid his hands in penance on bishops—this was forbidden by ecclesiastical law. On the third day the unanimous sentence was pronounced by Melchiades: Caecilian was to be maintained in ecclestiastical communion. If Donatist bishops returned to the Church, in a place where there were two rival bishops, the junior was to retire and be provided with another see. The Donatists were furious. A hundred years later their successor declared that Pope Melchiades was himself a traditor, and that on this account they had not accepted his decision; though there is no trace of this having been alleged at the time. But the nineteen bishops at Rome were contrasted with the seventy bishops of the Cathaginian Council, and a fresh judgment was demanded.

THE COUNCIL OF ARLES

Constantine was angry, but he saw that the party was powerful in Africa, and he summoned a council of the whole West (that is, of the whole of his actual dominions) to meet at Arles on 1 August, 314. Melchiades was dead, and his successor, St. Sylvester, thought it unbecoming to leave Rome, thus setting an example which he repeated in the case of Nicaea, and which his successors followed in the cases of Sardica, Rimini, and the Eastern oecumenical councils. Between forty and fifty sees were represented at the council by bishops or proxies; the Bishops of London, York, and Lincoln were there. St. Sylvester sent legates. The council condemned the Donatists and drew up a number of canons; it reported its proceedings in a letter to the pope, which is extant; but, as in the case of Nicaea, no detailed Acts remain, nor are any such mentioned by the ancients. The Fathers in their letter salute Sylvester, saying that he had rightly decided not to quit the spot “where the Apostles daily sit in judgment”; had he been with them, they might perhaps have dealt more severely with the heretics. Among the canons, one forbids rebaptism (which was still practised in Africa), another declares that those who falsely accuse their brethren shall have communion only at the hour of death. On the other hand, traditors are to be refused communion, but only when their fault has been proved by public official acts; those whom they have ordained are to retain their positions. The council produced some effect in Africa, but the main body of the Donatists was immovable. They appealed from the council to the emperor. Constantine was horrified: “O insolent madness!” he wrote, “they appeal from heaven to earth, from Jesus Christ to a man.”

THE POLICY OF CONSTANTINE

The emperor retained the Donatist envoys in Gaul, after at first dismissing them. He seems to have thought of sending for Caecilian, then of granting a full examination in Africa. The case of Felix of Aptonga was in fact examined by his order at Carthage in February, 315 (St. Augustine is probably wrong in giving 314). The minutes of the proceedings have come down to us in a mutilated state; they are referred to by St. Optatus, who appended them to his book with other documents, and they are frequently cited by St. Augustine. It was shown that the letter which the Donatists put forward as proving the crime of Felix, had been interpolated by a certain Ingentius; this was established by the confession of Ingentius, as well as by the witness of Alfius, the writer of the letter. It was proved that Felix was actually absent at the time the search for Sacred Books was made at Aptonga. Constantine eventually summoned Caecilian and his opponents to Rome; but Caecilian, for some unknown reason, did not appear. Caecilian and Donatus the Great (who was now, at all events, bishop) were called to Milan, where Constantine heard both sides with great care. He declared that Caecilian was innocent and an excellent bishop (Augustine, Contra Cresconium, III lxxi). He retained both in Italy, however, while he sent two bishops, Eunomius and Olympius, to Africa, with an idea of putting Donatus and Caecilian aside, and substituting a new bishop, to be agreed upon by all parties. It is to be presumed that Caecilian and Donatus had assented to this course; but the violence of the sectaries made it impossible to carry it out. Eunomius and Olympius declared at Carthage that the Catholic Church was that which is diffused throughout the world and that the sentence pronounced against the Donatists could not be annulled. They communicated with the clergy of Caecilian and returned to Italy. Donatus went back to Carthage, and Caecilian, seeing this, felt himself free to do the same. Finally Constantine ordered that the churches which the Donatists had taken should be given to the Catholics. Their other meeting-places were confiscated. Those who were convicted (of calumny?) lost their goods. Evictions were carried out by the military. An ancient sermon on the passion of the Donatist “martyrs,” Donatus and Advocatus, describes such scenes. In one of them a regular massacre occurred, and a bishop was among the slain, if we may trust this curious document. The Donatists were proud of this “persecution of Caecilian,” which “the Pure” suffered at the hands of the “Church of the Traditors.” The Comes Leontius and the Dux Ursacius were the special objects of their indignation.

In 320 came revelations unpleasant to the “Pure.” Nundinarius, a deacon of Cirta, had a quarrel with his bishop, Silvanus, who caused him to be stoned—so he said in his complaint to certain Numidian bishops, in which he threatened that if they did not use their influence in his behalf with Silvanus, he would tell what he knew of them. As he got no satisfaction he brought the matter before Zenophilus, the consular of Numidia. The minutes have come to us in a fragmentary form in the appendix of Optatus, under the title of “Gesta apud Zenophilum.” Nundinarius produced letters from Purpurius and other bishops to Silvanus and to the people of Cirta, trying to have peace made with the inconvenient deacon. The minutes of the search at Cirta, which we have already cited, were read and witnesses were called to establish their accuracy, including two of the fossores then present and a lector, Victor the grammarian. It was shown no only that Silvanus was a traditor, but that he had assisted Purpurius, together with two priests and a deacon, in the theft of certain casks of vinegar belonging to the treasury, which were in the temple of Serapis. Silvanus had ordained a priest for the sum of 20 folles (500 to 600 dollars). It was established that none of the money given by Lucilla had reached the poor for whom it was ostensibly given. Thus Silvanus, one of the mainstays of the “Pure” Church, which declared that to communicate with any traditor was to be outside the Church, was himself proved to be a traditor. He was exiled by the consular for robbing the treasury, for obtaining money under false pretences, and for getting himself made bishop by violence. The Donatists later preferred to say that he was banished for refusing to communicate with the “Caecilianists,” and Cresconius even spoke of “the persecution of Zenophilus.” But it should have been clear to all that the consecrators of Majorinus had called their opponents traditors in order to cover their own delinquencies.

The Donatist party owed its success in great part to the ability of its leader Donatus, the successor of Majorinus. He appears to have really merited the title of “the Great” by his eloquence and force of character. His writings are lost. His influence with his party was extraordinary. St. Augustine frequently declaims against his arrogance and the impiety with which he was almost worshipped by his followers. In his lifetime he is said to have greatly enjoyed the adulation he received, and after death he was counted as a martyr and miracles were ascribed to him.

In 321 Constantine relaxed his vigorous measures, having found that they did not produce the peace he had hoped for, and he weakly begged the Catholics to suffer the Donatists with patience. This was not easy, for the schismatics broke out into violence. At Cirta, Silvanus having returned, they seized the basilica which the emperor had built for the Catholics. They would not give it up, and Constantine found no better expedient that to build another. Throughout Africa, but above all in Numidia, they were numerous. They taught that in all the rest of the world the Catholic Church had perished, through having communicated with the traditor Caecilian; their sect alone was the true Church. If a Catholic came into their churches, they drove him out, and washed with salt the pavement where he had stood. Any Catholic who joined them was forced to be rebaptized. They asserted that their own bishops and ministers were without fault, else their ministrations would be invalid. But in fact they were convicted of drunkenness and other sins. St. Augustine tells us on the authority of Tichonius that the Donatists held a council of two hundred and seventy bishops in which they discussed for seventy-five days the question of rebaptism; they finally decided that in cases where traditors refused to be rebaptized they should be communicated with in spite of this; and the Donatist bishops of Mauretania did not rebaptize traditors until the time of Macarius. Outside Africa the Donatists had a bishop residing on the property of an adherent in Spain, and at an early period of the schism they made a bishop for their small congregation in Rome, which met, it seems, on a hill outside the city, and had the name of “Montenses.” This antipapal “succession with a beginning” was frequently ridiculed by Catholic writers. The series included Felix, Boniface, Encolpius, Macrobius (c. 370), Lucian, Claudian (c. 378), and again Felix in 411.

THE CIRCUMCELLIONS

The date of the first appearance of the Circumcellions is uncertain, but probably they began before the death of Constantine. They were mostly rustic enthusiasts, who knew no Latin, but spoke Punic; it has been suggested that they may have been of Berber blood. They joined the ranks of the Donatists, and were called by them agnostici and “soldiers of Christ,” but in fact were brigands. Troops of them were to be met in all parts of Africa. They had no regular occupation, but ran about armed, like madmen. They used no swords, on the ground that St. Peter had been told to put his sword into its sheath; but they did continual acts of violence with clubs, which they called “Israelites.” They bruised their victims without killing them, and left them to die. In St. Augustine’s time, however, they took to swords and all sorts of weapons; they rushed about accompanied by unmarried women, played, and drank. They battle-cry was Deo laudes, and no bandits were more terrible to meet. They frequently sought death, counting suicide as martyrdom. They were especially fond of flinging themselves from precipices; more rarely they sprang into the water or fire. Even women caught the infection, and those who had sinned would cast themselves from the cliffs, to atone for their fault. Sometimes the Circumcellions sought death at the hands of others, either by paying men to kill them, by threatening to kill a passer-by if he would not kill them, or by their violence inducing magistrates to have them executed. While paganism still flourished, they would come in vast crowds to any great sacrifice, not to destroy the idols, but to be martyred. Theodoret says a Circumcellion was accustomed to announce his intention of becoming a martyr long before the time, in order to be well treated and fed like a beast for slaughter. He relates an amusing story (Haer. Fab., IV, vi) to which St. Augustine also refers. A number of these fanatics, fattened like pheasants, met a young man and offered him a drawn sword to smite them with, threatening to murder him if he refused. He pretended to fear that when he had killed a few, the rest might change their minds and avenge the deaths of their fellows; and he insisted that they must all be bound. They agreed to this; when they were defenceless, the young man gave each of them a beating and went his way.

When in controversy with Catholics, the Donatist bishops were not proud of their supporters. They declared that self-precipitation from a cliff had been forbidden in the councils. Yet the bodies of these suicides were sacrilegiously honoured, and crowds celebrated their anniversaries. Their bishops could not but conform, and they were often glad enough of the strong arms of the Circumcellions. Theodoret, soon after St. Augustine’s death, knew of no other Donatists than the Circumcellions; and these were the typical Donatists in the eyes of all outside Africa. They were especially dangerous to the Catholic clergy, whose houses they attacked and pillaged. They beat and wounded them, put lime and vinegar on their eyes, and even forced them to be rebaptized. Under Axidus and Fasir, “the leaders of the Saints” in Numidia, property and roads were unsafe, debtors were protected, slaves were set in their masters’ carriages, and the masters made to run before them. At length, the Donatist bishops invited a general named Taurinus to repress these extravagances. He met with resistance in a place named Octava, and the altars and tablets to be seen there in St. Optatus’s time testified to the veneration given to the Circumcellions who were slain; but their bishops denied them the honour due to martyrs. It seems that in 336–7 the proefectus proetorio of Italy, Gregory took some measures against the Donatists, for St. Optatus tells us that Donatus wrote him a letter beginning: “Gregory, stain on the senate and disgrace to the prefects.”

THE “PERSECUTION” OF MACARIUS

When Constantine became master of the East by defeating Licinius in 323, he was prevented by the rise of Arianism in the East from sending, as he had hoped, Eastern bishops to Africa, to adjust the differences between the Donatists and the Catholics. Caecilian of Carthage was present at the Council of Nicea in 325, and his successor, Gratus, was at that of Sardica in 342. The conciliabulum of the Easterns on that occasion wrote a letter to Donatus, as though he were the true Bishop of Carthage; but the Arians failed to gain the support of the Donatists, who looked upon the whole East as cut off from the Church, which survived in Africa alone. The Emperor Constans was an anxious as his father to give peace to Africa. In 347 he sent thither two commissioners, Paulus and Macarius, with large sums of money for distribution. Donatus naturally saw in this an attempt to win over his adherents to the Church by bribery; he received the envoys with insolence: “What has the emperor to do with the Church?” said he, and he forbade his people to accept any largess from Constans. In most parts, however, the friendly mission seems to have been not unfavourably received. But at Bagai in Numidia the bishop, Donatus, assembled the Circumcellions of the neighbourhood, who had already been excited by their bishops. Macarius was obliged to ask for the protection of the military. The Circumcellions attacked them, and killed two or three soldiers; the troops then became uncontrollable, and slew some of the Donatists. This unfortunate incident was thereafter continually thrown in the teeth of the Catholics, and they were nicknamed Macarians by the Donatists, who declared that Donatus of Bagai had been precipitated from a rock, and that another bishop, Marculus, had been thrown into a well. The existing Acts of two other Donatist martyrs of 347, Maximian and Isaac, are preserved; they apparently belong to Carthage, and are attributed by Harnack to the antipope Macrobius. It seems that after violence had begun, the envoys ordered the Donatists to unite with the Church whether they willed or no. Many of the bishops took flight with their partisans; a few joined the Catholics; the rest were banished. Donatus the Great died in exile. A Donatist named Vitellius composed a book to show that the servants of God are hated by the world.

A solemn Mass was celebrated in each place where the union was completed, and the Donatists set about a rumour that images (obviously of the emperor) were to be placed in the altar and worshipped. As nothing of the sort was found to be done, and as the envoys merely made a speech in favour of unity, it seems that the reunion was effected with less violence than might have been expected. The Catholics and their bishops praised God for the peace that ensued, though they declared that they had no responsibility for the action of Paulus and Macarius. In the following year Gratus, the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, held a council, in which the reiteration of baptism was forbidden, while, to please the rallied Donatists, traditors were condemned anew. It was forbidden to honour suicides as martyrs.

THE RESTORATION OF DONATISM BY JULIAN

The peace was happy for Africa, and the forcible means by which it was obtained were justified by the violence of the sectaries. But the accession of Julian the Apostate in 361 changed the face of affairs. Delighted to throw Christianity into confusion, Julian allowed the Catholic bishops who had been exiled by Constantius to return to the sees which the Arians were occupying. The Donatists, who had been banished by Constans, were similarly allowed to return at their own petition, and received back their basilicas. Scenes of violence were the result of this policy both in the East and the West. “Your fury,” wrote St. Optatus, “returned to Africa at the same moment that the devil was set free,” for the same emperor restored supremacy to paganism and the Donatists to Africa. The decree of Julian was considered so discreditable to them, that the Emperor Honorius in 405 had it posted up throughout Africa for their shame. St. Optatus gives a vehement catalogue of the excesses committed by the Donatists on their return. They invaded the basilicas with arms; they committed so many murders that a report of them was sent to the emperor. Under the orders of two bishops, a party attacked the basilica of Lemellef; they stripped off the roof, pelted with tiles the deacons who were round the altar, and killed two of them. In Maruetania riots signalized the return of the Donatists. In Numidia two bishops availed themselves of the complaisance of the magistrates to throw a peaceful population into confusion, expelling the faithful, wounding the men, and not sparing the women and children. Since they did not admit the validity of the sacraments administered by traditors, when they seized the churches they cast the Holy Eucharist to the dogs; but the dogs, inflamed with madness, attacked their own masters. An ampulla of chrism thrown out of a window was found unbroken on the rocks. Two bishops were guilty of rape; one of these seized the aged Catholic bishop and condemned him to public penance. All Catholics whom they could force to join their party were made penitents, even clerics of every rank, and children, contrary to the law of the Church. some for a year, some for a month, some but for a day. In taking possession of a basilica, they destroyed the altar, or removed it, or at least scraped the surface. They sometimes broke up the chalices, and sold the materials. They washed pavements, walls, and columns. Not content with recovering their churches, they employed pagan functionaries to obtain for them possession of the sacred vessels, furniture, altar-linen, and especially the books (how did they purify the book? asks St. Optatus), sometimes leaving the Catholic congregation with no books at all. The cemeteries were closed to the Catholic dead.

The revolt of Firmus, a Mauretanian chieftain who defied the Roman power and eventually assumed the style of emperor (366–72), was undoubtedly supported by many Donatists. The imperial laws against them were strengthened by Valentinian in 373 and by Gratian, who wrote in 377 to the vicar of prefects, Flavian (himself a Donatist), ordering all the basilicas of the schismatics to be given up to the Catholics. St. Augustine shows that even the churches which the Donatists themselves had built were included. The same emperor required Claudian, the Donatist bishop at Rome, to return to Africa; as he refused to obey, a Roman council had him driven a hundred miles from the city. It is probable that the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, Genethlius, caused the laws to be mildly administered in Africa.

ST. OPTATUS

The Catholic champion, St. Optatus, Bishop of Milevis, published his great work “De schismate Donatistarum” in answer to that of the Donatist Bishop of Carthage, Parmenianus, under Valentinian and Valens, 364–375 (so St. Jerome). Optatus himself tells us that he was writing after the death of Julian (363) and more than sixty years after the beginning of the schism (he means the persecution of 303). The form which we possess is a second edition, brought up to date by the author after the accession of Pope Siricius (Dec., 384), with a seventh book added to the original six. In the first book he describes the origin and growth of the schism; in the second he shows the notes of the true Church; in the third he defends the Catholics from the charge of persecuting, with especial reference to the days of Macarius. In the fourth book he refutes Parmenianus’s proofs from Scripture that the sacrifice of a sinner is polluted. In the fifth book he shows the validity of baptism even when conferred by sinners, for it is conferred by Christ, the minister being the instrument only. This is the first important statement of the doctrine that the grace of the sacraments is derived from the opus operatum of Christ independently of the worthiness of the minister. In the sixth book he describes the violence of the Donatists and the sacrilegious way in which they had treated Catholic altars. In the seventh book he treats chiefly of unity and of reunion, and returns to the subject of Macarius.

He calls Parmenianus “brother,” and wishes to treat the Donatists as brethren, since they were not heretics. Like some other Fathers, he holds that only pagans and heretics go to hell; schismatics and all Catholics will eventually be saved after a necessary purgatory. This is the more curious, because before him and after him in Africa Cyprian and Augustine both taught that schism is as bad as heresy, if not worse. St. Optatus was much venerated by St. Augustine and later by St. Fulgentius. He writes with vehemence, sometimes with violence, in spite of his protestations of friendliness; but he is carried away by his indignation. His style is forcible and effective, often concise and epigrammatic. To this work he appended a collection of documents containing the evidence for the history he had related. This dossier had certainly been formed much earlier, at all events before the peace of 347, and not long after the latest document it contains, which is dated Feb., 330; the rest are not later than 321, and may possibly have been put together as early as that year. Unfortunately these important historical testimonies have come down to us only in a single mutilated manuscript, the archetype of which was also incomplete. The collection was freely used at the conference of 411 and is often quoted at some length by St. Augustine, who has preserved many interesting portions which would otherwise be unknown to us.

THE MAXIMIANISTS

Before Augustine took up the mantle of Optatus together with a double portion of his spirit, the Catholics had gained new and victorious arguments from the divisions among the Donatists themselves. Like so many other schisms, this schism bred schisms within itself. In Mauretania and Numidia these separated sects were so numerous that the Donatists themselves could not name them all. We hear of Urbanists; of Claudianists, who were reconciled to the main body by Primianus of Carthage; of Rogatists, a Mauretanian sect, of mild character, because no Circumcellion belonged to it; the Rogatists were severely punished whenever the Donatists could induce the magistrates to do so, and were also persecuted by Optatus of Timgad. But the most famous sectaries were the Maximianists, for the story of their separation from the Donatists reproduces with strange exactitude that of the withdrawal of the Donatists themselves from the communion of the Church; and the conduct of the Donatists towards them was so inconsistent with their avowed principles, that it became in the skilled hands of Augustine the most effective weapon of all his controversial armoury.

Primianus, Donatist Bishop of Carthage, excommunicated the deacon Maximianus. The latter (who was, like Majorinus, supported by a lady) got together a council of forty-three bishops, who summoned Primianus to appear before them. The primate refused, insulted their envoys, tried to have them prevented from celebrating the Sacred Mysteries, and had stones thrown at them in the street. The council summoned him before a greater council, which met to the number of a hundred bishops at Cebarsussum in June, 393. Primianus was deposed; all clerics were to leave his communion within eight days; if they should delay till after Christmas, they would not be permitted to return to the Church even after penance; the laity were allowed until the following Easter, under the same penalty. A new bishop of Carthage was appointed in the person of Maximian himself, and was consecrated by twelve bishops. The partisans of Primianus were rebaptized, if they had been baptized after the permitted delay. Primianus stood out, and demanded to be judged by a Numidian council; three hundred and ten bishops met at Bagai in April, 394; the primate did not take the place of an accused person, but himself presided. He was of course acquitted, and the Maximianists were condemned without a hearing. All but the twelve consecrators and their abettors among the clergy of Carthage were given till Christmas to return; after this period they would be obliged to do penance. This decree, composed in eloquent style by Emeritus of Caesarea, and adopted by acclamation, made the Donatists hence-forward ridiculous through their having readmitted schismatics without penance. Maximian’s church was razed to the ground, and after the term of grace had elapsed, the Donatists persecuted the unfortunate Maximianists, representing themselves as Catholics, and demanding that the magistrates should enforce against the new sectaries the very laws which Catholics emperors had drawn up against Donatism. Their influence enabled them to do this, for they were still far more numerous than the Catholics, and the magistrates must often have been of their party. In the reception of those who returned from the party of Maximian they were yet more fatally inconsequent. The rule was theoretically adhered to that all who had been baptized in the schism must be rebaptized; but if a bishop returned, he and his whole flock were admitted without rebaptism. This was allowed even in the case of two of the consecrators of Maximian, Praetextatus of Assur and Felixianus of Musti, after the proconsul had vainly tried to expel them from their sees, and although a Donatist bishop, Rogatus, had already been appointed at Assur. In another case the party of Primianus was more consistent. Salvius, the Maximianist Bishop of Membresa, was another of the consecrators. He was twice summoned by the proconsul to retire in favour of the Primianist Restitutus. As he was much respected by the people of Membresa, a mob was brought over from the neighbouring town of Abitene to expel him; the aged bishop was beaten, and made to dance with dead dogs tied around his neck. But his people built him a new church, and three bishops coexisted in this small town, a Maximianist, a Primianist, and a Catholic.

The leader of the Donatists at this time was Optatus, Bishop of Thamugadi (Timgad), called Gildonianus, from his friendship with Gildo, the Count of Africa (386–397). For ten years Optatus, supported by Gildo, was the tyrant of Africa. He persecuted the Rogatists and Maximianists, and he used troops against the Catholics. St. Augustine tells us that his vices and cruelties were beyond description; but they had at least the effect of disgracing the cause of the Donatists, for though he was hated throughout Africa for his wickedness and his evil deeds, yet the Puritan faction remained always in full communion with this bishop, who was a robber, a ravisher, an oppressor, a traitor, and a monster of cruelty. When Gildo fell in 397, after having made himself master of Africa for a few months, Optatus was thrown into a prison, in which he died.

SAINT AUGUSTINE

St. Augustine began his victorious campaign against Donatism soon after he was ordained priest in 391. His popular psalm or “Abecedarium” against the Donatists was intended to make known to the people the arguments set forth by St. Optatus, with the same conciliatory end in view. It shows that the sect was founded by traditors, condemned by pope and council, separated from the whole world, a cause of division, violence, and bloodshed; the true Church is the one Vine, whose branches are over all the earth. After St. Augustine had become bishop in 395, he obtained conferences with some of the Donatist leaders, though not with his rival at Hippo. In 400 he wrote three books against the letter of Parmenianus, refuting his calumnies and his arguments from Scripture. More important were his seven books on baptism, in which, after developing the principle already laid down by St. Optatus, that the effect of the sacrament is independent of the holiness of the minister, he shows in great detail that the authority of St. Cyprian is more awkward than convenient for the Donatists. The principal Donatist controversialist of the day was Petilianus, Bishop of Constantine, a successor of the traditor Silvanus. St. Augustine wrote two books in reply to a letter of his against the Church, adding a third book to answer another letter in which he was himself attacked by Petilianus. Before this last book he published his “De Unitate ecclesiae” about 403. To these works must be added some sermons and some letters which are real treatises.

The arguments used by St. Augustine against Donatism fall under three heads. First we have the historical proofs of the regularity of Caecilian’s consecration, of the innocence of Felix of Aptonga, of the guilt of the founders of the “Pure” Church, also the judgment given by pope, council, and emperor, the true history of Macarius, the barbarous behaviour of the Donatists under Julian, the violence of the Circumcellions, and so forth. Second, there are the doctrinal arguments: the proofs from the Old and New Testaments that the Church is Catholic, diffused throughout the world, and necessarily one and united; appeal is made to the See of Rome, where the succession of bishops is uninterrupted from St. Peter himself; St. Augustine borrows his list of popes from St. Optatus (Ep. li), and in his psalm crystallizes the argument into the famous phrase: “That is the rock against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail.” A further appeal is to the Eastern Church, and especially to the Apostolic Churches to which St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. John addressed epistles—they were not in communion with the Donatists. The validity of baptism conferred by heretics, the impiety of rebaptizing, are important points. All these arguments were found in St. Optatus. Peculiar to St. Augustine is the necessity of defending St. Cyprian, and the third category is wholly his own. The third division comprises the argumentum ad hominem drawn from the inconsistency of the Donatists themselves: Secundus had pardoned the traditors; full fellowship was accorded to malefactors like Optatus Gildonianus and the Circumcellions; Tichonius turned against his own party; Maximian had divided from Primatus just as Majorinus from Caecilian; the Maximianists had been readmitted without rebaptism.

This last method of argument was found to be of great practical value, and many conversions were now taking place, largely on account of the false position in which the Donatists had placed themselves. This point had been especially emphasized by the Council of Carthage of Sept., 401, which had ordered information as to the treatment of the Maximianists to be gathered from magistrates. The same synod restored the earlier rule, long since abolished, that Donatist bishops and clergy should retain their rank if they returned to the Church. Pope Anastasius I wrote to the council urging the importance of the Donatist question. Another council in 403 organized public disputations with the Donatists. This energetic action roused the Circumcellions to new violence. The life of St. Augustine was endangered. His future biographer, St. Possidius of Calama, was insulted and ill-treated by a party led by a Donatist priest, Crispinus. The latter’s bishop, also named Crispinus, was tried at Carthage and fined ten pounds of gold as a heretic, though the fine was remitted by Possidius. This is the first case known to us in which a Donatist is declared a heretic, but henceforth it is the common style for them. The cruel and disgusting treatment of Maximianus, Bishop of Bagai, is also related by St. Augustine in detail. The Emperor Honorius was induced by the Catholics to renew the old laws against the Donatists at the beginning of 405. Some good resulted, but the Circumcellions of Hippo were excited to new violence. The letter of Petilianus was defended by a grammarian named Cresconius, against whom St. Augustine published a reply in four books. The third and fourth books are especially important, as in these he argues from the Donatists’ treatment of the Maximianists, quotes the Acts of the Council of Cirta held by Secundus, and cites other important documents. The saint also replied to a pamphlet by Petilianus, “De unico baptismate.”

THE “COLLATIO” OF 411

St. Augustine had once hoped to conciliate the Donatists by reason only. The violence of the Circumcellions, the cruelties of Optatus of Thamugadi, the more recent attacks on Catholic bishops had all given proof that repression by the secular arm was absolutely unavoidable. It was not necessarily a case of persecution for religious opinions, but simply one of the protection of life and property and the ensuring of freedom and safety for Catholics. Nevertheless the laws went much further than this. Those of Honorius were promulgated anew in 408 and 410. In 411 the method of disputation was organized on a grand scale by order of the emperor himself at the request of the Catholic bishops. Their case was now complete and unanswerable. But this was to be brought home to the people of Africa, and public opinion was to be forced to recognize the facts, by a public exposure of the weakness of the separatist position. The emperor sent an official named Marcellinus, an excellent Christian, to preside as cognitor at the conference. He issued a proclamation declaring that he would exercise absolute impartiality in his conduct of the proceedings and in his final judgment. The Donatist bishops who should come to the conference were to receive back for the present the basilicas which had been taken from them. The number of those who arrived at Carthage was very large, though somewhat less that the two hundred and seventy-nine whose signatures were appended to a letter to the president. The Catholic bishops numbered two hundred and eighty-six. Marcellinus decided that each party should elect seven disputants, who alone should speak, seven advisers whom they might consult, and four secretaries to keep the records. Thus only thirty-six bishops would be present in all. The Donatists pretended that this was a device to prevent their great numbers being known; but the Catholics did not object to all of them being present, provided no disturbance was caused.

The chief Catholic speaker, besides the amiable and venerable Bishop of Carthage, Aurelius, was of course Augustine, whose fame had already spread through the whole Church. His friend, Alypius of Tagaste, and his disciple and biographer, Possidius, were also among the seven. The principal Donatist speakers were Emeritus of Caesarea in Mauretania (Cherchel) and Petilianus of Constantine (Cirta); the latter spoke or interrupted about a hundred and fifty times, until on the third day he was so hoarse that he had to desist. The Catholics made a generous proposal that any Donatist bishop who should join the Church, should preside alternately with the Catholic bishop in the episcopal chair, unless the people should object, in which case both must resign and a new election be made. The conference was held on the 1, 3, and 8 June. The policy of the Donatists was to raise technical objections, to cause delay, and by all manner of means to prevent the Catholic disputants from stating their case. The Catholic case was, however, clearly enunciated on the first day in letters which were read, addressed by the Catholic bishops to Marcellinus and to their deputies to instruct them in the procedure. A discussion of important points was arrived at only on the third day, amid many interruptions. It was then evident that the unwillingness of the Donatists to have a real discussion was due to the fact that they could not reply to the arguments and documents brought forward by the Catholics. The insincerity as well as the inconsequence and clumsiness of the sectaries did them great harm. The main doctrinal points and historical proofs of the Catholics were made perfectly plain. The cognitor summed up in favor of the Catholic bishops. The churches which had been provisionally restored to the Donatists were to be given up; their assemblies were forbidden under grave penalties. The lands of those who permitted Circumcellions on their property were to be confiscated. The minutes of this great conference were submitted to all the speakers for their approval, and the report of each speech (mostly only a single sentence) was signed by the speaker as a guarantee of its accuracy. We possess these manuscripts in full only as far as the middle of the third day; for the rest only the headings of each little speech are preserved. These headings were composed by order of Marcellinus in order to facilitate reference. On account of the dullness and a length of the full report, St. Augustine composed a popular resume of the discussions in his “Breviculus Collationis,” and went with more detail into a few points in a final pamphlet, “Ad Donatistas post Collationem.”

On 30 Jan., 412, Honorius issued a final law against the Donatists, renewing old legislation and adding a scale of fines for Donatist clergy, and for the laity and their wives: the illustres were to pay fifty pounds of gold, the spectabiles forty, the senatores and sacerdotales thirty, the clarissimi and principales twenty, the decuriones, negotiatores, and plebeii five, which Circumcellions were to pay ten pounds of silver. Slaves were to be reproved by their masters, coloni were to be constrained by repeated beatings. All bishops and clerics were exiled from Africa. In 414 the fines were increased for those of high rank: a proconsul, vicar, or count was fined two hundred pounds of gold, and a senator a hundred. A further law was published in 428. The good Marcellinus, who had become the friend of St. Augustine, fell a victim (it is supposed) to the rancour of the Donatists; for he was put to death in 413, as though an accomplice in the revolt of Heraclius, Count of Africa, in spite of the orders of the emperor, who did not believe him guilty. Donatism was now discredited by the conference and proscribed by the persecuting laws of Honorius. The Circumcellions made some dying efforts, and a priest was killed by them at Hippo. It does not seem that the decrees were rigidly carried out, for the Donatist clergy was still found in Africa. The ingenious Emeritus was at Caesarea in 418, and at the wish of Pope Zosimus St. Augustine had a conference with him, without result. But on the whole Donatism was dead. Even before the conference the Catholic Bishops in Africa were considerably more numerous than the Donatists, except in Numidia. From the time of the invasion of the Vandals in 430 little is heard of them until the days of St. Gregory the Great, when they seem to have revived somewhat, for the pope complained to the Emperor Maurice that the laws were not strictly enforced. They finally disappeared with the irruptions of the Saracens.

DONATIST WRITERS

There seems to have been no lack of literary activity among the Donatists of the fourth century, though little remains to us. The works of Donatus the Great were known to St. Jerome, but have not been preserved. His book on the Holy Spirit is said by that Father to have been Arian in doctrine. It is possible that the Pseudo-Cyprianic “De singularitate clericorum” is by Macrobius; and the “Adversus aleatores” is by an antipope, either Donatist or Novatianist. The arguments of Parmenianus and Cresconius are known to us, though their works are lost; but Monceaux has been able to restore from St. Augustine’s citations short works by Petilianus of Constantine and Gaudentius of Thamugadi, and also a libellus by a certain Fulgentius, from the citations in the Pseudo-Augustinian “Contra Fulgentium Donatistam.” Of Tichonius, or Tyconius, we still possess the treatise “De Septem regulis” (P.L., XVIII; new ed. by Professor Burkitt, in Cambridge “Texts and Studies,” III, 1, 1894) on the interpretation of Holy Scripture. His commentary on the Apocalypse is lost; it was used by Jerome, Primasius, and Beatus in their commentaries on the same book. Tichonius is chiefly celebrated for his views on the Church, which were quite inconsistent with Donatism, and which Parmenianus tried to refute. In the famous words of St. Augustine (who often refers to his illogical position and to the force with which her argued against the cardinal tenets of his own sect): “Tichonius assailed on all sides by the voices of the holy pages, awoke and saw the Church of God diffused throughout the world, as had been foreseen and foretold of her so long before by the hearts and mouths of the saints. And seeing this, he undertook to demonstrate and assert against his own party that no sin of man, however villainous and monstrous, can interfere with the promises of God, nor can any impiety of any persons within the Church cause the word of God to be made void as to the existence and diffusion of the Church to the ends of the earth, which was promised to the Fathers and now is manifest” (Contra Ep. Parmen., I, i).

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Donatus of Fiesole

Irish teacher and poet, Bishop of Fiesole, about 829–876. In an ancient collection of the “Vitae Patrum,” of which an eleventh-century copy exists in the Laurentian library of Florence, there is an account of the life of Donatus, from which we glean the following facts. Donatus was born in Ireland, of a noble family. About 816 he visited the tombs of the Apostles in Rome. On his journey northwards he was led by Divine Providence to the city of Fiesole, which he entered at the moment when the people were grouped around their altars praying for a bishop to deliver them from the evils, temporal and spiritual, which afflicted them. Raised by popular acclaim to the See of Fiesole, Donatus instituted a revival of piety and learning in the Church over which he was placed. He himself did not disdain to teach “the art of metrical composition.” The “Life” is interspersed with short poems written by the saintly bishop. The best known of these is the twelve-line poem in which he describes the beauty and fertility of his native land, and the prowess and piety of its inhabitants. Donatus also composed an epitaph in which he alludes to his birth in Ireland, his years in the service of the princes of Italy (Lothair and Louis), his episcopate at Fiesole, and his activity as a teacher of grammar and poetry.

WILLIAM TURNER

Peter Donders

Missionary among the lepers, b. at Tilburg in Holland, 27 Oct., 1807; d. 14 Jan., 1887. He desired from his early childhood to be a priest, but he had to begin life as a worker in a factory. He afterwards became a servant in a college where he learned a little and made great progress in virtue. Later a benefactor enabled him to pursue his theological studies in the College of Herlaar. A chance reading of the “Annals of the Propagation of the Faith” determined his vocation for foreign missions. He was accepted in 1839 for Dutch Guiana as a missionary, ordained priest the following year, and in 1842 arrived at Paramaribo to begin his long apostolic career. He laboured with success among the blacks in the plantations, and by 1850 had instructed and baptized 1200. In the epidemic of 1851 his labours were superhuman, till, like his fellow-priests, he too became a victim. Before he was convalescent he not only resumed his work among the blacks, but extended it to the Indians of Saramaca. In 1855 he took up his residence in Batavia where for nearly thirty-two years he ministered to 600 lepers. He left them only to visit the blacks and Indians. In 1865 the whole colony was confided to the Redemptorist Fathers by the Holy See and the King of Holland. Father Donders at once asked to be of their number and was received in Paramaribo, in 1867, by Monsignor Swinkels, the first Redemptorist vicar Apostolic. After this he went back to his charge. He studied music to cheer his afflicted children, and though given an assistant he laboured to the end. The process for his beatification has been placed before the Congregation of Sacred Rites.

J. MAGNIER.

Thomas Dongan

Second Earl of Limerick, b. 1634, at Castletown Kildrought, now Celbridge, County Kildare, Ireland; d. at London, 1715. He was the youngest son of Sir John Dongan, Baronet, Member of the Irish Parliament; an uncle, Richard Talbot, was afterwards created Earl of Tyrconnel, Lieutenant-Governor of Ireland; and another, Sir Robert, married Grace, daughter of Lord Calvert, Baron of Baltimore. At the death of Charles I, the family, devoted to the Stuarts, removed to France. Thomas served in an Irish regiment, participated in all Turenne’s campaigns under the name of D’Unguent and rose to the rank of colonel in 1674. After the Treaty of Nimeguen (1678) he returned to England in obedience to the order of the English Government recalling all British subjects in French service. Through the Duke of York, a fellow-officer under Turenne, he was appointed to high rank in the army designated for service in Flanders, and was granted an annual pension of £500. The same year (1678) he was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Tangiers. In 1682 the Duke of York, the Lord Proprietor, selected Dongan to govern the Province of New York, then bankrupt and in a state of rebellion. In this office Dongan proved himself an able lawgiver, and left an indelible mark on political and constitutional history. He convened the first representative assembly of New York Province on 14 Oct., 1683, at Fort James within the present boundaries of the city of New York. This assembly, under the wise supervision of Dongan, passed an act entitled “A Charter of Liberties”; decreed that the supreme legislative power under the Duke of York shall reside in a governor, council, and the people convened in general assembly; conferred upon the members of the assembly rights and privileges making them a body coequal to and independent of the British Parliament; established town, county, and general courts of justice; solemnly proclaimed the right of religious liberty; and passed acts enunciating certain constitutional liberties, e.g. no taxation without representation; taxes could be levied only by the people met in general assembly; right of suffrage; no martial law or quartering of the soldiers without the consent of the inhabitants; election by majority of votes; and the English law of real property.

Thus to Dongan’s term as governor can be dated the Magna Charta of American constitutional liberties, for his system of government became the programme of continuous political agitation by the colonists of New York Province during the eighteenth century. It developed naturally into the present state government, and many of its principles passed into the framework of the Federal Government. Moreover, a rare tribute to his genius, the government imposed by him on New York Province, 1683, was adopted by England after the American War of Independence as the framework of her colonial policy, and constitutes the present form of government in Canada, Australia, and the Transvaal. Dongan signed the Charter of Liberties 30 Oct., 1683, and on the following day solemnly proclaimed it at the City Hall of New York City. The Duke of York signed and sealed the Charter 4 Oct., 1684; but never returned it, probably for reasons of prudence, for at the time Charles II had, by a quo warranto proceeding, abolished the Charters of New England, and the Charter of Pennsylvania granted in 1684 distinctly admits the right of Parliament to tax the colonies. Dongan established the boundary lines of the province by settling disputes with Connecticut on the East, with the French Governor of Canada on the North, with Pennsylvania on the South, thus marking out the present limits of New York State. By treaty with the Indians made at Albany, New York, 1684, in presence of Lord Howard, Governor of Virginia, Dongan obtained the written submission of the Iroquois to the Great Sachem Charles, on two white deer-skins, and outlined the masterly Indian policy which kept the Five Nations friends of England and a barrier between the English and French possessions in North America, a policy afterwards maintained with success by Sir William Johnson. At the death of Charles II, 1685, James Duke of York was proclaimed king, and New York became a royal province.

The Board of Trade and Plantations, under whose supervision the province passed, vetoed the Charter of Liberties and James approved the veto. The colonists were disappointed, but such was the moral strength of Governor Dongan that we find no trace of popular resentment. In 1685 Dongan established a post office in New York for the better correspondence of the colonies in America. In 1686 he granted charters to the cities of New York and Albany; the former remained unchanged for 135 years and forms the basis of the existing city government; the latter was superseded only in 1870, notwithstanding the extraordinary development in civil and political institutions. Dongan established a college under the direction of the Jesuit Fathers Harvey (his own private chaplain), Harrison, and Gage in New York City, and advised that the King’s Farm, a tract beyond the walls of the then existing city, be set aside for its maintenance. The king vetoed the grant, and in 1705 this land became the property of Trinity Church. He planned that a mission of English Jesuits be permanently established at Saratoga, New York, on land purchased by him for the purpose; that a settlement of Irish Catholics be founded in the centre of the Province; and that an expedition be made to explore the Mississippi River and take possession of the great valley then made known by the explorations of La Salle. These plans were set aside by the king.

In 1687, the Assembly of New York was dissolved by the king, and in 1688 Andros was appointed Governor of the consolidated Provinces of New York and New England. Dongan refused command of a regiment with the rank of major-general, retired to his estate on Staten Island, New York, but was obliged to flee for safety in the religious persecution aroused by Lesler in 1689. In 1691 he returned to England. By the death of his brother William (1698), late Governor of the Province of Munster, Ireland, whose only son, Colonel Walter, Lord Dongan, was killed at the battle of the Boyne, Dongan became Earl of Limerick. In 1702 he was recognized as successor to his brother’s estates, but only on payment of claims of the purchasers from the Earl of Athlone. Dongan died poor and without direct heirs. By will, dated 1713, he provided that he be buried at an expense of not over £100, and left the residue of his estate to his niece, wife of Colonel Nugent, afterwards Marshal of France. The tribute of history to his personal charm, his integrity, and character, is outspoken and universal. His public papers give evidence of a keen mind and a sense of humour. He was a man of courage, tact, and capacity, an able diplomat, and a statesman of prudence and remarkable foresight. In spite the brief term of five years as Governor of New York Province, by virtue of the magnitude, of the enduring and far-reaching character of his achievements, he stands forth as one of the greatest constructive statesmen ever sent out by England for the government of any of her American colonial possessions.

Colonial Laws of New York State (Albany, 1894); New York Colonial Documents, III, London Documents (Albany, 1853); IX, Paris Documents (Albany, 1855); O’CALLAGHAN, Documentary History of New York, 4 Vol. Ed. (Albany, 1850), I, III; Ecclesiastical Records of New York (Albany), II, p. 877; SMITH, History of New York (London, 1776); BRODHEAD, History of State of New York (New York, 1859), II; Great Britain’s Calendar of State Papers, 1681–85; COLDEN, History of the Five Nations (3d ed., London, 1775), I; CHALMER, Revolt of the Colonies (Boston, 1845); LAMB, History of City of New York (New York, 1877); WILSON, Memorial History of New York (New York, 1892); WINDSOR , Narrative and Critical History of America (Boston, 1884), II; DOYLE, The Middle Colonies (London, 1907); DANAHER, Thomas Dongan, Second Earl of Limerick (Albany, 1889); OSGOOD, The American Colonies in the XVII Century (London, 1907), III; BRUCE, The Empire State in Three Centuries (New York), I; DRISCOLL, The Charter of Liberties and the New York Assembly of 1683, in U.S. CATHOLIC HISTORICAL SOCIETY, Records and Studies (New York, 1906), IV; DEALY in Mag. Of Am. Hist. (Feb., 1882), p. 106; CLARKE in Catholic World, IX, 767; Journal of Co. Kildare Archæological Society, IV, No. 5.

JOHN T. DRISCOLL.

Andrew Donlevy

Educator, b. in 1694, probably in Sligo, Ireland; date and place of death uncertain. Little is known about his early life. With the penal laws then rigorously enforced it was difficult to obtain an education at home; and when he went abroad to study for the priesthood he must have gone in disguise, going abroad for any such purpose being a crime. However, he reached Paris in 1710 and became a student at the Irish College. His clerical course finished, he was ordained priest, and in 1728 was appointed prefect in the college, an office he held till 1746. He had also attended lectures at the university, graduating both in theology and law. While holding the office of prefect, he drew up a new code of rules for the government of the college, placing it under the control of the Archbishop of Paris and subject to the university. He also published in 1742 an Irish-English catechism of the Christian Doctrine, an edition of which appeared in Dublin in 1848.

E. A. D’ALTON.

St. Donnan

There were apparently three or four saints of this name who flourished about the seventh century.

(1) ST. DONNAN, ABBOT OF EIGG, and ST. DONNAN OF AUCHTERLESS are regarded by both the Bollandists and Dempster as different personages, but there is so much confusion in their chronology and repetition in what is known of them, that it seems more probable that they were identical. Reeves (Adamnan’s Life of St. Columba), moreover, accepts them as the same without discussion. According to Irish annals St. Donnan was a friend and disciple of St. Columba, who followed him from Ireland to Scotland toward the end of the sixth century. Seeking a solitary retreat, he and his companions settled on the island of Eigg, off the west coast of Scotland, then used only to pasture sheep belonging to the queen of the country. Informed of this invasion, the queen ordered that all should forthwith be slain. Her agents, probably a marauding band of Picts, or pirates according to one account, arrived during the celebration of Mass on Easter eve. Being requested to wait until the Sacrifice was concluded, they did so, and then St. Donnan and his fifty-one companions gave themselves up to the sword. This was in 617. Reeves mentions eleven churches dedicated to St. Donnan; in that at Auchterless his pastoral staff was preserved up to the Reformation and is said to have worked miracles. The island of Eigg was still Catholic in 1703 and St. Donnan’s memory venerated there (Martin, Journey to the Western Islands, London, 1716).

(2) SON OF LIATH, and nephew and disciple of St. Senan, in whose life it is related that by his uncle’s direction he restored to life two boys who had been drowned. This St. Donnan succeeded St. Ciaran of Clonmacnoise as Abbot of Aingin, an island in Lough Ree, on the Shannon (now Hare Island). He flourished about the middle of the sixth century.

(3) ST. DONNAN THE DEACON, son of Beoadh and brother of St. Ciaran. He was a monk in his brother’s monastery at Cluain, or Clonmacnoise, in Ireland, in the sixth century.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Georg Raphael Donner

Austrian sculptor, b. at Essling, Austria, 25 May, 1692; d. at Vienna, 15 February, 1741. It is said his fancy was first kindled by the works of art at Heiligenkreuz. He received his technical training in the Academy at Vienna; in 1724 he entered the imperial service, and in 1729 passed to that of Prince Esterházy. Donner’s work stands out with prominence in a period given over to mannerism, but he is sometimes more mindful of elegance than of character in his subject. He had a true sense of the beautiful, was lifelike and noble in his conceptions, and represents for South Germany and Austria a classic reaction against rococo methods. Among his productions are the marble statue of Charles VI and two bronze reliefs in the Belvedere at Vienna, the fountain for the old Town Hall, Vienna, representing “Andromeda and Perseus,” the marble reliefs of “Hagar” and the “Samaritan Woman,” and many busts and statues in different palaces and gardens. In Pressburg he made the equestrian statue of St. Martin, and the decorations for the burial chapel of the Primate Emmerich Esterházy. Youthful productions (1726) are the marble figures at Mirabell Castle, Salzburg. Donner is best known to-day by his famous fountain (1738–1739) of the Neuen Markt, Vienna; “Providence” or “Foresight,” a classic female figure, forms the apex, while lower down four sporting children, each holding a water-spouting fish, embody the four rivers of Austria proper that flow into the Danube. Donner’s two brothers, Sebastian and Matthäus, are generally numbered among his scholars. Sebastian was a talented sculptor, and produced various works, mostly in lead.

MATTHÄUS DONNER

Brother of the above, also a sculptor, b. 1704; d. 1756. He is known chiefly for his relief carvings and medals. He was appointed court-medallist, professor, and later rector of the Academy, and was employed by various princes. Among his medals may be mentioned one of Charles Albert of Bavaria, 1727, and various ones representing Maria Theresa. His medals are signed D. or M. D.

M. L. HANDLEY.

Ferdinand-François-Auguste Donnet

A French cardinal, b. at Bourg-Argental (Loire), 1795; d. at Bordeaux, 1882. He studied in the seminary of St. Irenaeus at Lyons, taught at the college of Belley, was ordained priest in 1819, and, after some time spent at the Maison des hautes etudes founded by Cardinal Fesch, went to Irigny as pastor. From 1821 to 1827 he engaged in missionary work and then returned to Lyons to be made pastor of Villefranche. Appointed coadjutor to the Bishop of Nancy, 1835, he evinced such sterling qualities that two years later he was called to the archiepiscopal See of Bordeaux. During the forty-one years of his administration he showed a prodigious activity in every line of work, religious, social, and even material. To him are due the resumption of provincial councils; the restoration of many shrines like Arcachon, Verdelais, Notre-Dame de la fin-des-terres; the reconstruction of the Pey Berland tower, etc. Cardinal in 1852, and Senator of the Empire, he used his influence in favour of the pope, the liberty of teaching, and the repression of the irreligious press. At the Vatican Council he openly sided with the Ultramontanes like Plantier, Pie, etc. His affable disposition and cheerful character endeared him to his people, and few bishops have been loved and regretted as Donnet was. His eulogy was pronounced by Canon Laprie at the cathedral of Bordeaux, 1883, and by M. Boué at the academy of the same place, 1884. Cardinal Donnet’s works comprise twelve volumes (8vo) of “Instructions pastorales, mandements, lettres, discours”; also “Lettres, discours et autres documents relatifs a la question romaine” (Bordeaux, 1865).

J.F. SOLLIER

Juan Francesco Maria de la Saludad Donoso Cortés

Marquess of Valdegamas, author and diplomat, born 6 May, 1809, at Valle de la Serena in the province of Estremadura, Spain; died 3 May, 1853, at Paris. His father, Pedro Donoso Cortés, was a descendant of Hernando Cortés, the conquistador. At the age of eleven, Donoso Cortés had finished his humanities, and at twelve had begun the study of law at the University of Salamanca; at sixteen he received his degree of licentiate from the University of Seville, and at eighteen became professor of literature at the College of Caceres. Carried away by the rationalism prevalent in Spain following upon the French invasions, he ardently embraced the principles of Liberalism and fell under the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whom he later characterized as “the most eloquent of sophists.” In 1830 he went to Madrid and, with his characteristic energy, engaged in the political controversies of the day, espousing the cause of the reigning dynasty. A memoir addressed to Ferdinand VII on the situation of the Spanish monarchy, advocating the abolishment of the Salic Law, attracted wide attention and procured for him an official position under the Minister of Justice. But the revolutionary events of 1834 led him to reconsider the ground of his political liberalism, and drew a second brochure from his pen scathingly criticizing the revolutionary movement. On the death of Ferdinand, he remained a faithful adherent of the queen-mother Maria Cristina and of her infant daughter Isabella, whose title was disputed by Don Carlos in virtue of the Salie Law against the succession in the female line to the Spanish throne. In 1836, under the ministry of Mendizabal, he became secretary of the Council. In this same year he gave a brilliant course of lectures on political rights at the Athenæum of Madrid. In 1837 he was elected deputy to the Cortes from Cadiz. In 1840, following upon the revolution headed by Espartero, Duke of Victoria, he followed the exiled queen Maria Cristina to Paris in the post of private secretary. He accompanied her on her return after the overthrow of Espartero, 1843, and was appointed to the office of secretary and director of the studies of the young queen, Isabella, was created Marquess of Valdegamas, and entered the Senate. For his eloquent advocacy of the “Spanish marriages” (the simultaneous alliance of Isabella with Francesco of Assisi and of her sister with the Duke of Montpensier) he was made an officer of the Legion of Honour by Louis Philippe.

The death of a dearly beloved brother at this time made a profound impression upon Donoso Cortés. The mystery of human destiny assumed for him a new aspect, and from this time he became an ardent champion of the Catholic Church. On the 4th of January, 1849, he pronounced a remarkable discourse in the Cortes in which he publicly repudiated his Liberalistic principles, branding them as “sterile and disastrous ideas in which are comprehended all the errors of the past three centuries, intended to disturb and disrupt human society.” In 1849 he represented Spain as minister plenipotentiary at the court of Berlin, and afterwards at Paris (1850–53), where he died.

The complete works of Donoso Cortés, with a biographical sketch by Gabino Tejado, were published in 1854–55 (Madrid). A translation into French of his principal works, with an introduction by Louis Veuillot, was published at Paris (1858–59). His most notable work is his “Ensayo sobre El Catolicismo, El Liberalismo y El Socialismo” (English translation, Philadelphia, 1862; Dublin,-). This work was written at the instance of Louis Veuillot, who was an intimate friend of the author, and places Donoso Cortés in the first rank of Catholic publicists. It is an exposition of the impotence of all human systems of philosophy to solve the problem of human destiny and of the absolute dependence of humanity upon the Catholic Church for its social and political salvation. Upon its publication the work was acrimoniously attacked by the Abbé Gaudel, Vicar-General of Orléans, in a series of articles in the “Ami de la Religion” and as vigorously defended by Louis Veuillot in “L’Univers.” Donoso Cortés at once submitted his work to the Holy See, which refused to interdict it or any of the propositions declared heretical by the Abbé Gaudel. It remains to-day one of the most brilliant and profound expositions of the influence of Catholic truth upon human society from the pen of a publicist. In a notable series of letters, from 1849–53, to Count Raczyski, at that time Prussian ambassador at Madrid, Donoso Cortés gives a penetrating analysis of the social, political, and religious conditions of Europe, and with almost prophetic insight predicts the unification of Germany in a great empire under the Prussian monarchy as well as the political decadence of France and the latter’s loss of Alsace and Lorraine.

TEJADO in Preface of complete works (Madrid, 1891); LEROUX in Les Contemporains, Année II, Vol. IV (Paris), p. 83.

CONDÉ B. PALLEN.

Pope Donus

(Or DOMNUS).

Son of a Roman called Mauricius; he was consecrated Bishop of Rome 2 Nov., 676, to succeed Adeodatus II, after an interval of four months and seventeen days; d. 11 April, 678. Of his life and acts but little is known. The “Liber Pontificalis” informs us that he paved the atrium or quadrangle in front of St. Peter’s with great blocks of white marble. He also restored the church of St. Euphemia on the Appian Way, and repaired the basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, or, according to Duchesne’s conjecture, the little church on the road to St. Paul’s, which marks the spot where Sts. Peter and Paul are said to have parted on their way to martyrdom. During the pontificate of Donus, Reparatus, the Archbishop of Ravenna, returned to the obedience of the Holy See, thus ending the schism created by Archbishop Maurus who had aimed at making Ravenna autocephalous. In the time of this pope a colony of Nestorian monks was discovered in a Syrian monastery at Rome—the Monasterium Boetianum. The pope is said to have dispersed them through the various religious houses of the city, and to have given over their monastery to Roman monks. After a brief reign of one year, five months, and ten days, Donus died and was buried in St. Peter’s. His portrait in mosaic was at one time to be seen in the church of St. Martina in the Forum.

THOMAS OESTREICH

Dora

A titular see of Palestina Prima. The name (Dôr) in Semitic languages means “dwelling,” “abode.” On the coming of the Hebrews, the King of Dora or Dor entered into the confederation against Josue and was defeated with the confederates (Jos., xi, 2; xii, 23). The town was first allotted to the tribe of Aser (Jos., xvii, 11), then given to Manasses (Judges, i, 27; I Par., vii, 29), who failed to expel the inhabitants and imposed on them a tribute; the Israelites may have captured only the upper city (Nafat Dôr), called Napheddor or Phenneddor by the Septuagint, and regiones or provincia Dor by the Vulgate. The Egyptian King Rameses III set up a Phœ;necian colony at Dora; according to Stephan of Byzantium the Phœ;necians settled there because the coast abounded in the shells that produced the famous Tyrian purple dye. Dora was united by David to the Kingdom of Israel and governed under Solomon by Benabinadab, one of the twelve prefects (III Kings, iv, 11). Later it underwent successively the rule of the Persians, the Greeks, and the Lagides. In 217 B.C. it was unsuccessfully besieged by Antiochus the Great; at a later date it was taken by the kings of Syria. In 139 B.C. the usurper Tryphon, who had taken refuge at Dora, was besieged by Antiochus (VII) Sidetes with a fleet, 120,000 foot, and 8000 horse (I Mach., xv, 13). The city then fell into the hands of a private individual called Zoilus, at whose death it was added by Alexander Jammæus to his Kingdom of Judea. When Pompey conquered Syria, he granted Dora an autonomous constitution; from this time dates its peculiar era, 64–63 B.C., known chiefly through numerous coins. As Dora had suffered much from the Jews, Gabinius rebuilt it (56 B.C.). In 42 of the Christian Era its inhabitants were still disputing with the Jews, whom they seem to have specially hated. In the time of Pliny the town was in a state of utter decay; St. Jerome speaks of “the ruins of that city (Dora) which had been formerly so powerful.” He may have exaggerated its decay, or the city may have risen from its ruins.

As early as the fifth century it was the residence of a bishop, Sidus, and suffragan to Cæsarea; there is record also of Barachius in 518, John in 536, Stephen, the friend of St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem and the great opponent of Monothelism. In the Middle Ages Dora was called Pirgul, a corruption of Greek púrgos, “tower,” according to Foucher of Chartres (Gesta Dei per Francos, ed. Bongars, 396); it was also known as Merla (Rey, Les colonies franques de Syrie, Paris, 1883, 422). There are records of five Latin bishops during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (Eubel, I, 235; II, 161). Another is mentioned in “Revue bénédictine” (1904), p. 62. Its modern Arabic name is Tantourah. Dora is a village of about 1500 inhabitants, on the seashore between Caifa and Cæsarea, nearer the latter. The harbour is frequented by small boats; the old port, situated more to the north, was enclosed by two headlands lengthened by two piers. To the east are vast quarries and the ancient necropolis. The ruins of the ancient city cover a space about four-fifths of a mile long by one-third broad. Many Jewish colonists have recently settled in the vicinity.

GUÉRIN, Description de la Palestine: Samarie (Paris, 1875), II, 305—315; LEGENDRE in Dict. de la Bible, II, 1487–92; Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs (London, 1882), II, 7–11; Palestine Exploration Fund, Quart. Statement (1874), 12; (1887), 84.

S. VAILHÉ

Abbey of Dorchester

Founded in 1140 by Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln, for Canons of the Order of St. Augustine (or Black Canons). Dorchester, an important Roman city of Mercia, about nine miles from Oxford, had been the seat of a bishopric from A.D. 634, when St. Birinus, the first bishop, was sent to that district by Pope Honorius, until 1085, when the See of Mercia was transferred to Lincoln. The abbey, founded fifty-five years later, was dedicated in honour of Sts. Peter, Paul, and Birinus, was richly endowed out of the lands and tithes of the former bishopric, and had twelve parishes subject to it, being included in the Peculiar of Dorchester, until the suppression of peculiars. The first abbot appears to have been Alured, whose name occurs in 1146 and again in 1163; the last was John Mershe, who was elected in 1533, and in the following year subscribed to the king’s supremacy, with five of his canons, and was given a pension of £22 a year. The revenues of the abbey were valued at the time of its suppression at about £220. Henry VIII reserved the greater part of the property of the house for a college, erected by him in honour of the Holy Trinity, for a dean and prebendaries; but this was dissolved in the first year of his successor. No register or cartulary of Dorchester Abbey is now known to exist, and only a single charter, confirming the donation of a church by King John, is given by Dugdale. Edmund Ashefeld was the first impropriator of the abbey site and precincts, which afterwards passed through various hands. The stately church of Dorchester Abbey, as it stands today, was built entirely by the Augustinian Canons, although there are traces on the north side of Saxon masonry, probably part of the ancient cathedral. The whole length of the church is 230 feet, its width seventy, and its height fifty-five feet. The north transept with its doorway is of the Norman period; the north side of the nave and chancel arch, early English, the south side of nave, south aisle, and choir, Decorated; the south porch, late Perpendicular. The extraordinarily rich sanctuary, with its highly decorated windows (including the famous northern one known as the “Jesse” window) and beautifully carved sedilia and piscina, dates from 1330. One of the very few existing leaden fonts in England is in this church.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Pierre Doré

(AURATUS)

Controversialist, b. at Orleans about 1500; d. at Paris, 19 May, 1559. He entered the Dominican Order in 1514 and won his degrees at Paris, in 1532, after a brilliant examination. Though elected to the office of prior at Blois in 1545, Doré continued to preach throughout the provinces. At Chalons the bishop, who had been captivated by his zeal and eloquence, entrusted him with the reform of the Carthusian monastery of Val des Choux (Vallis Caulium). For the same reasons, Claude de Lorraine, Duke of Guise, and his consort, Antoinette de Bourbon, chose him as confessor. He wrote thirty-five ascetico-theological works, which some think are only redactions of his sermons. Chief among these is “Les voies du Paradis enseignees par notre Sauveur Jesus-Christ en son evangile,” which appeared twice at Lyons in 1538 (Paris, 1540; Lyons, 1586; Rome, 1610). In his “Paradoxa ad profligandas haereses ex divi Pauli epistolis selecta,” he refuted the Huguenots, but soon turned to writing ascetical commentaries on the Psalms. When Henry II entered Paris in 1548, Doré wrote a Latin ode which won for him the post of court preacher and royal confessor. His famous defence of the Eucharist appeared in 1549, and two years later he published two other apologies on the same subject and another on the Mass. At the same time he prepared his defence of the Faith in three volumes, as also another refutation of the Calvinists. He closed his literary career with two works on Justification.

Though Doré used the vernacular very loosely, and indulged in far-fetched descriptions, which Rabelais (Pantagruel, ch. xxii) ridicules, his works have always been held in high esteem for originality and unassailable orthodoxy. His literal translations of the Eucharistic hymns of St. Thomas Aquinas, his Latin poems, and the Office for a Feast of St. Joseph, which he composed at the command of Paul III, have always been greatly admired.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Andrea Doria

Genoese admiral and statesman, b. at Oneglia, Italy, 1468; d. at Genoa, 1560. His family belonged to the magnae quatuor prosapiae who disputed among themselves for the supremacy in Genoa, but the Adorni and Fregosi of the opposing faction excluded the Doria from power. At first Genoa sought union with France; then, in 1464, Louis XI ceded it to the Duke of Milan. Doria’s early years were trying ones; his father died young, and his mother placed him under the guardianship of a relation who was captain of the guard to Pope Innocent VIII. Thus began the active, adventurous career that was destined to make Andrea Doria one of the most important personages of Europe in the sixteenth century.

Like many Italians of his day, Doria was at first a condottiere. He commenced by serving (1487–1492) in the guards of Innocent VIII, then in the Neapolitan army of Alfonso of Aragon, to whom he alone remained faithful after the conquest of Naples by Charles VIII (1495). He next joined the Order of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem and made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land; after this he entered the service of Jean de La Rovère, leader of the French troops of the Kingdom of Naples, and had as his opponent Gonsalvo de Cordova, the most renowned general of the time. In 1503 Doria was able to re-enter Genoa, where order had been restored by Louis XII, and set out to subdue the Corsicans, then in revolt. On his return the Genoese entrusted him with the reorganization of their fleet. Doria now abandoned land service for that of the sea and, arming eight galleys at his own expense, constituted himself an independent naval power. During the years 1507 to 1519 he traversed the Western Mediterranean with his fleet, and, having overpowered the Barbary Corsairs and captured several of their chiefs, among them the famous Cadolin, returned to Genoa laden with booty.

On account of the civil discords in Genoa, Doria withdrew with twelve corsair galleys that he had seized, the crews of which would now acknowledge no other chief, and entered the service of Francis I, who appointed him “governor-general of the galleys of France.” In 1524 he raised the blockade of Marseilles, then besieged by Charles V, and, after the battle of Pavia, gathered together the remnants of the French army (1525). He then became commander of the galleys of Clement VII; in 1527 re-entered the service of France and compelled Genoa to acknowledge the authority of Francis I. But in 1528 he quarrelled with the King of France, who did not pay him faithfully. Recalling Filippo Doria, his nephew, who was besieging Naples with his uncle’s fleet, Andrea agreed to enter the service of Charles V, and began to re-establish order in Genoa, where he was received with enthusiasm (12 September, 1528). After breaking up the ancient noble clans, he set up a new social division and an aristocratic constitution which continued in force, with but few modifications until 1798. Absolute head of the naval forces of the house of Austria, he directed the maritime struggle against the Turks and the Barbary pirates; in 1532, just when Solyman threatened Hungary, Doria landed on the coast of Greece, took Coron and Patras, and even meditated an attack on Constantinople. In 1535 he co-operated in the siege of Tunis; in 1536 as head of the united squadron, made up of the ships of the pope, Venice, and the Knights of Malta, he surprised the famous Barbarossa in the Gulf of Arta and then allowed him to escape. Loaded with honours by Charles V, Doria retired to the territory of Genoa and lived in the beautiful palace he had built at Fassolo, where he dispensed royal hospitality to Charles V and Philip II. He was greatly revered by his fellow-citizens, yet, in 1547, he suppressed with much cruelty the conspiracy formed by some discontented nobles, the Fieschi and the Cibò. Doria’s tomb, decorated by Montorsoli, is in the church of San Matteo, but his colossal statue, which was erected in 1540, was overthrown and broken in 1797.

LOUIS BREHIER

Matthias Döring

Historian and theologian, b. between 1390 and 1400, at Kyritz, in Brandenburg; d. there 24 July, 1469. He joined the Friars Minor in his native place, studied at Oxford, was graduated (1424) at Erfurt as doctor of theology, and for some years taught theology and Biblical exegesis. In 1427 he was elected provincial of his order for Saxony. In the disputes between the Conventuals and those of the Observance he took an active part. In 1443 at Berne the Conventuals elected him minister general. This position he held for six years, receiving approbation from the assembly of prelates still posing as the General Council of Basle. In this council he had been prominent since 1432 as an over-zealous reformer and an adherent of the supremacy of a general council over the pope. He was sent by it to Denmark, to win over the king and the people, and assisted in the deposition (1439) of Eugene IV and the election of the antipope, Felix V. Excommunicated by the Archbishop of Magdeburg he appealed to Rome. In 1461 he resigned his office and spent the last years of his life in literary work at the convent of Kyritz.

Döring is said to be the author of the “Confutation primatus Papae,” written (1443) anonymously and without title. Name and title were added when the article was edited in 1550 by Matthias Flacius Illyricus. It is in part an extract from the “Defensor pacis” of Marsilius of Padua (printed in Goldast, Monarchia, I, 557 sqq.). Other works attributed to Döring are “Defensorium postillae Nicolai Lyrani,” against the Spanish bishop, Paul of Burgos, since 1481 frequently printed with the “Postillae”; “Liber perplexorum Ecclesiae” (lost); continuation (1420 to 1464) of the Chronicle of Dietrich Engelhus. He also wrote on the so-called “Donation of Constantine” and (1444) on the relics of the Precious Blood of Wilsnack.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Thomas Dorman

Theologian, b. at Berkhampstead, Hertfordshire, England, date uncertain; d. at Tournai, 1572 or 1577. He received his early education through his uncle, Thomas Dorman of Agmondesham, now Amersham, Buckinghamshire. His master at Berkhampstead was Richard Reeve, a noted Protestant schoolmaster. He was also known to Thomas Harding, the Catholic scholar, then professor of Hebrew at Oxford, who took great interest in the boy and sent him to Winchester school in 1547. From Winchester Dorman went to New College at Oxford, of which Harding was a fellow, and here he was elected a probationer fellow. During the Catholic revival under Mary he was appointed fellow of All Souls College (1554) and on 9 July, 1558, took the degree B.C.L. A year or two after Elizabeth’s accession, finding that he could not live in England without conforming to the new religion, he sacrificed his fellowship and his patrimony and went to Antwerp, where he met Harding who was also an exile for the Faith. Harding persuaded him to resume his studies, and Dorman accordingly went to Louvain and devoted himself to the study of theology. In 1565 he became B.D. in the University of Douai and finally received the doctorate there. During this period he engaged in controversy with the Anglican divines, Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, and Nowell, Dean of St. Paul’s. In 1569, at the invitation of Dr. Allen, he joined the band of scholars at the newly founded English College at Douai which he assisted both by his services and his private means. He died at Tournai where he had been given an important benefice. His works are: “A proufe of certeyne articles in Religion denied by M. Juel” (Antwerp, 1564); “A Disproufe of M. Nowelle’s Reproufe” (Antwerp, 1565); “A Request to Mr. Jewel that he keep his promise made by solemn Protestation in his late Sermon at Paul’s Cross” (London, 1567; Louvain, 1567).

EDWIN BURTON

Bernard Dornin

First publisher in the United States of distinctively Catholic books, b. in Ireland, 1761; d. in Ohio, 1836. He was forced to leave his native land, in 1803, because of political troubles and, arriving in New York soon after, began a book-selling and publishing concern. He got out a New Testament, printed for him in Brooklyn, in 1805, and an edition of Pastorini’s “History of the Church,” in 1807. He moved to Baltimore, in 1809, and from there to Philadelphia in 1817. During many years he was the leading Catholic publisher of the country, and as such enjoyed the friendship of Archbishop Carroll and of other members of the hierarchy, who esteemed him as a vigorous and gifted writer and editor. In the early thirties he disposed of his business in Philadelphia, where he had published a number of Catholic books, and went to Ohio to reside near his daughter.

THOMAS ALOYSIUS DORNIN

Son of Bernard, b. in Ireland, 1800; d. at Savannah, Georgia, U.S.A., 22 April, 1874. He entered the United States Navy, 2 May, 1815, as a midshipman, from Maryland. Commissioned a lieutenant in 1825, he made a five-years’ cruise around the world. In 1841 he was promoted commander and helped to successfully carry out an expedition to prevent the invasion of Mexican territory by the filibusterer William Walker. After being commissioned captain, in 1855, he engaged in destroying the slave-trade. During the Civil War he attained the rank of commodore on the retired list, 16 July, 1862, and at its close was put in charge of the fifth lighthouse district.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

St. Dorothea

(1) Virgin and martyr, suffered during the persecution of Diocletian, 6 February, 311, at Caesarea in Cappadocia. She was brought before the prefect Sapricius, tried, tortured, and sentenced to death. On her way to the place of execution the pagan lawyer Theophilus said to her in mockery: “Bride of Christ, send me some fruits from your bridegroom’s garden.” Before she was executed, she sent him, by a six-year-old boy, her headdress which was found to be filled with a heavenly fragrance of roses and fruits. Theophilus at once confessed himself a Christian, was put on the rack, and suffered death. This is the oldest version of the legend, which was later variously enlarged. Dorothea is represented with an angel and a wreath of flowers. She is regarded as the patroness of gardeners. On her feast trees are blessed in some places. In the West she has been venerated since the seventh century.

(2) ST. DOROTHEA OF MONTAU, recluse, born at Montau, 6 February, 1347, d. at Marienwerder, 25 June, 1394. At the age of seventeen she married the sword-cutler Albrecht of Danzig, a hot-tempered man, whose nature underwent a change through her humility and gentleness. Both made grequent pilgrimages to Cologne, Aachen, and Einsiedeln, and they intended (1390) to visit Rome also; but Albrecht was prevented by illness and remained at home where he died, while Dorothea journeyed to Rome alone. Of their nine children all died, except one daughter who joined the Benedictines. In the summer of 1391 Dorothea moved to Marienwerder, and on 2 May, 1393, with the permission of the chapter and of the Teutonic Order, established a hermitage near the cathedral. She led a very austere life. Numerous visitors sought her advice and consolation, and she had wonderful visions and revelations. Her confessor, the deacon John of Marienwerder, a learned theologian, wrote down her communications and composed a Latin biography in seven books, “Septililium,” besides a German life in four books. She was never canonized, but the people honoured her as the guardian of the country of the Teutonic Knights and Patroness of Prussia.” Her feast is celebrated on 25 June, in some places on 30 October. The church at Marienwerder is now in the hands of the Lutherans; her relics cannot be found.

GABRIEL MEIER.

Anne Hanson Dorsey

Novelist, born at Georgetown, District of Columbia, U.S.A., 1815; died at Washington, 26 December, 1896. She was the daughter of the Rev. William McKenney, a chaplain in the United States Navy, and Chloe Ann Lanigan McKenney. In 1837 she was married to Lorenzo Dorsey, and in 1840 became a convert to the Catholic Faith. From this period, for more than half a century, she devoted her exceptional talent to Catholic fiction. She was a pioneer of light Catholic literature in the United States and a leading writer for the young. While deeply religious in tone, her stories are full of living interest and a knowledge of the world gained by clear insight and wide experience. Mrs. Dorsey’s only son was killed while serving in the Union Army during the Civil War. She left three daughters. Pope Leo XIII twice sent her his benediction, and the University of Notre Dame conferred upon her the Lætare medal. Her chief works are: “The Student of Blenheim Forest”; “Flowers of Love of Memory”; “Guy, the Leper”; “Tears of the Diadem”; “Tale of the White and Red Roses”; “Woodreve Manor”; “Conscience, or the Trials of May Brooke”; “Oriental Pearl”; Cocaina, the Rose of the Algonquins”; “The Flemings”; “Nora Brady’s Vow”; “Mona, the Vestal”; “The Old Gray Rosary”; “Tangled Paths”; “The Old House at Glenarra”; “Adrift”; “Ada’s Trust”; “Beth’s Promise”; “The Heiress of Carrigmona”; “Warp and Woof”; “The Palms.”

MARY T. WAGGAMAN

Dorylaeum

A titular see of Phrygia Salutaris, in Asia Minor. This city already existed under the kings of Phrygia and is mentioned by most of the ancient geographers. It was situated at Karadja Hissar, six miles south-west of the modern Eski Shehir. About the end of the fourth century B.C. it was removed to Shehir Euyuk, at the ruins north of the same Eski Shehir; there it remained during the Byzantine period. Seven bishops are known from the fourth to the ninth century, the most famous being Eusebius, who denounced successively the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches (Lequien, Oriena christ., I, 837). The see is mentioned as late as the twelfth century among the suffragans of Synnada, but must have been suppressed soon after. Dorylaeum was taken and destroyed by the Seljuk Turks, probably in 1070. It was there (1 July, 1097) that the crusaders won their great victory over the Turks. The city was rebuilt in 1175 by Manuel Comnenus and fortified as well as possible. At this time John Cinnamus (“Histor.,” VII, 2–3) and Nicetas Choniates (“De gestis Man. Comn.,” VI, 1) write enthusiastically about it as one of the most beautiful cities of Asia Minor. The next year it fell again into the hands of the Turks; in 1240 it passed to Erthogroul, father of Othman, the founder of the Osmanli dynasty (his tomb is at Seughud near Eski Shehir). Meanwhile the city stretched away from the hill of Shehir Euyuk and developed along the Poursak (ancient Tembris or Thymbris), under the name of Eski Shehir. The modern town is situated at an altitude of 783 metres, on a vast and fertile plateau, about 400 kilometres from Constantinople. Eski Shehir is the chief town of a caza in the vilayet of Brusa. The population is about 40,000: 2000 Greeks, 2000 Armenians, 200 Latins, a few Catholic Armenians, Protestants, and Jews, the rest being Mussulmans. Since 1891 the Assumptionists have conducted a mission with a school for boys, and the Oblate Sisters of the Assumption two schools for girls. There is also a Catholic Armenian parish. Eski Shehir has hot springs that are used for baths. Fish, especially gigantic silures, swarm in the Poursak. The meerschaum industry flourishes there; the chief known mine of this mineral is at Mikhalitch in the district of Eski Shehir.

S. VAILHÉ

Dositheans

Followers of Dositheus, a Samaritan who formed a Gnostic-Judaistic sect, previous to Simon Magus. Although the name of Dositheus is often coupled with that of Simon Magus as the first of all heretics, we possess but scant information concerning him. He is not mentioned in Justin or Irenæus, but first occurs in Pseudo-Tertullian’s “Adv. Hær.,” a Latin rendering of the lost “Syntagma” of Hippolytus (about A.D. 220). “I pass over in silence,” says the author, “the heretics of Judaism, I mean Dositheus the Samaritan, who first dared to reject the Prophets, as not having spoken in the Holy Ghost. I pass over the Sadducees, who, springing from this root of error, dared in addition to this heresy to deny even the resurrection of the flesh” (ch. i). If, however, the Sadducees sprang from Dositheus, he must have begun to teach sometime previous to the Christian Era, and cannot properly be counted amongst heretics of Christianity. St. Jerome, who copied Pseudo-Tertullian, distinctly speaks of “those who before the coming of Christ undid the Law.” An independent witness to the same fact is found in the Pseudo-Clementine “Recognitions,” I, 54: “the author of this [Sadducee] opinion was first Dositheus and then Simon.” On the other hand in “Recognitions,” II, 8, we read that Dositheus founded a sect after the death of John the Baptist. Origen states that “Dositheus the Samaritan, after the time of Jesus, wished to persuade the Samaritans that he himself was the Messias prophesied by Moses” (Contra Celsum, VI, ii); and he classes him with John the Baptist, Theodas, and Judas of Galilee as people whom the Jews mistakenly held to be the Christ (Hom. xxv in Lucam; Contra Celsum, I, lvii). He informs us that the Disotheans gave out that they possessed some books of Dositheus and told some tales about him as being still alive in this world, and he further accuses Dositheus of having mutilated the Scriptures. It is not certain, however, whether Origen did not confound Dositheus the Pseudo-Messias with an Encratite sectary who lived somewhat later. This is suggested especially by a passage in Origen’s “De Principiis,” IV, vii, where he ascribes to Dositheus the Samaritan and others some absurdly strict observance of the Sabbath. This is also, probably, the reason why Dositheus is placed by Hegesippus after Simon Magus instead of before. In Talmudic literature (Pirke d. R. Eliezer, xxxviii, and Tanhuma Vayyusheb, ii) there occurs a Samaritan of the SyroMacedonian period named dwshay, and it has been plausibly argued that the patristic references which connect Dositheus with the Sadducees arise from a confusion of Dositheus the Samaritan Pseudo-Messias with this early Jewish heretic. If this be true, there would have been three persons of this name, one at the time of Alexander the Great, another at the time of Christ, and a third, a generation later. But the mention of a fourth, at the time of Salmanasar (about 700 B. C.) makes one cautious of Talmudic information. It is certain, however, that a Jewish sect, mentioned by several Arabic and other historians under the name of Dusitamya or Dostân, continued to exist till the tenth century, and that they were considered similar to the Kutîm, or Samaritans. But they seem never to have possessed any importance in the Christian world, in which from the earliest times there existed but a vague reminiscence of their name, though they continue to be mentioned in descriptions and lists of heresies, such as the “Hæreses” of Epiphanius and similar collections.

KRAUS,Dosithée et les Dosithéens in Revue des Etudes Juives (Paris, 1901), 27–42; BÜCHLER, Les Dosithéens dans le Midrash, ibid., (1901), 220–31 and (1902), 50–71; HILGENFELD, Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums (Leipzig, 1884), 155–1161.

J.P. ARENDZEN

Pierre-Herman Dosquet

Fourth Bishop of Quebec, b. at Liège, Flanders, 1691; d. at Paris, 1777. He studied at the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice, Paris, and entered that congregation. After two years in Canada (1721–23) he was appointed superior of the Seminary of Lisieux in France, and helped to preserve that institution from Jansenism. While acting in Rome as procurator-general for the Oriental Missions of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost, he was made vicar Apostolic of a portion of India and consecrated titular Bishop of Samos by Benedict XIII (1725). He remained in Rome until appointed coadjutor to Bishop Mornay of Quebec (1729). Bishop Dosquet had to solve many difficulties that had arisen towards the close of the life of Bishop St. Vallier. He legislated wisely in behalf of the religious communities of women and was zealous for the suppression of the liquor traffic. In 1733, after Bishop Mornay’s resignation, he succeeded to the See of Quebec, where he promoted education, primary and classical. A patron and benefactor of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost, he confided almost exclusively to its missionaries Acadia, the islands of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, and probably Labrador. He rewarded that congregation by generous endowments, including Sarcelle, a property near Paris, which until the Revolution yielded an annual revenue of 3000 livres. In 1735 ill health forced him to leave Quebec, but his resignation was accepted only in 1739. Thenceforth he resided chiefly in Rome, attending to the interests of his former diocese, especially after the English conquest.

LIONEL LINDSAY

Giovanni Dossi

Actually named GIOVANNI DI NICOLO DI LUTERO, but also called Dosso Dossi.

An Italian painter, b. about 1479; d. at Ferrara in 1542. Dossi belonged to the School of Ferrara and was a pupil of Lorenzo Costa in Mantua. He is believed to have derived his name from the village of Dosso, in which it has been stated he was born. In conjunction with his brother Battista (1480–1548) Dossi visited Rome and Venice and passed eleven years in these places studying especially the works of Giorgione and Titian, but forming his own style, which was distinguished by romantic treatment, imaginative power, rich, brilliant, and often novel colouring. He and his brother were frequently employed by Alfonso I, Duke of Ferrara, and by his successor, Ercole II. His greatest work is the altar-piece in the Ferrara Gallery. He also painted the cartoons for the tapestry in the cathedral of that city, for those in the church of San Francesco, and in the ducal palace at Modena. Many of his frescoes still remain in the ducal palace at Ferrara and his paintings can be studied in the cathedral and churches of Modena, in the Louvre, and in the galleries of Dresden, Berlin, Milan, and Vienna. He painted a portrait of Ariosto and the poet enrolled his name, in conjunction with those of Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, and Titian, in the poem of “Orlando Furioso,” but the portrait cannot now be identified, although many other portraits by Dossi are still in existence. The landscape backgrounds of his pictures are marked by beauty of colouring and fine imaginative quality. On his return from Venice he appears to have settled down in Ferrara. His work has a close kinship with that of the Venetian School.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Douai

(TOWN AND UNIVERSITY OF DOUAI)

(DOUAY, DOWAY)

The town of Douai, in the department of Nord, France, is on the River Scarpe, some twenty miles south of Lille. It contains about 30,000 inhabitants and was formerly the seat of a university. It was strongly fortified, and the old ramparts have only been removed in recent years. The town flourished in the Middle Ages, and the church of Notre-Dame dates from the twelfth century.

To English Catholics, the name Douai will always be bound up with the college founded by Cardinal Allen during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, where the majority of the clergy were educated in penal times, and to which the preservation of the Catholic religion in England was largely due. Several other British establishments were founded there—colleges for the Scots and the Irish, and Benedictine and Franciscan monasteries—and Douai became the chief centre for those who were exiled for the Faith. The University of Douai may be said to date from 31 July, 1559, when Philip II of Spain (in whose dominions it was then situated) obtained a Bull from Pope Paul IV, authorizing its establishment the avowed object being the preservation of the purity of the Catholic Faith from the errors of the Reformation. Paul IV died before he had promulgated the Bull, which was, however, confirmed by his successor, Pius IV, 6 January, 1560. The letters patent of Philip II, dated 19 January, 1561, authorized the establishment of a university with five faculties; theology, canon law, civil law, medicine, and arts. The formal inauguration took place 5 October, 1562, when there was a public procession of the Blessed Sacrament, and a sermon was preached in the market-place by the Bishop of Arras.

There were already a considerable number of English Catholics living at Douai, and their influence made itself felt in the new university. In its early years, several of the chief posts were held by Englishmen, mostly from Oxford. The first chancellor of the university was Dr. Richard Smith, formerly Fellow of Merton and regius professor of divinity at Oxford; the regius professor of canon law at Douai for many years was Dr. Owen Lewis, Fellow of New College, who had held the corresponding post at Oxford; the first principal of Marchiennes College was Richard White, formerly Fellow of New College; while Allen himself, after taking his licentiate at Douai in 1560, became regius professor of divinity. It is reasonable to suppose that many of the traditions of Catholic Oxford were perpetuated at Douai. The university was, however, far from being even predominantly English; it was founded on the model of that of Louvain, from which seat of learning the majority of the first professors were drawn. The two features already mentioned—that the university wa founded during the progres of the Reformation, to combat the errors of Protestantism, and that it was to a considerable extent under English influences—explain the fact that William Allen, when seeking a home for a projected English college abroad, turned his eyes towards Douai. The project arose from a conversation which he had with Dr. Vendeville, then regius professor of canon law in the University of Douai, and afterwards Bishop of Tournai, whom he accompanied on a pilgrimage to Rome in the autumn of 1567; and the foundation took definite shape when Allen made a beginning in a hired house on Michaelmas Day, 1568. His object was to gather some of the numerous body of English Catholics who, having been forced to leave England, were scattered in different countries on the Continent, and to give them facilities for continuing their studies, so that when the time came for the re-establishment of Catholicism, which Allen was always confident could not be far distant, there might be a body of learned clergy ready to return to their country. This was of course a very different thing from sending missionaries over in defiance of the law while England still remained in the hands of the Protestants. This latter plan was an afterthought and a gradual growth from the circumstances in which the college found itself, though eventually it became its chief work.

Allen’s personality and influence soon attracted a numerous band of scholars, and a few years after the foundation of the college the students numbered more than one hundred and fifty. A steady stream of controversial works issued form Douai, some by Allen himself, others by such men as Thomas Stapleton, Richard Bristowe, and others almost equally well known. The preparation of the Douay Bible was among their chief undertakings. It is estimated that before the end of the sixteenth century more than three hundred priests had been sent on the English mission, nearly a third of whom suffered martyrdom; and almost as many had been banished. By the end of the persecution the college counted more than one hundred and sixty martyrs. Allen had at first no regular source of income, but depended on the generosity of a few friends, and especially upon the neighbouring monasteries of Saint-Vaast at Arras, Anchin, and Marchiennes, which, at the suggestion of Dr. Vendeville, had from time to time subscribed towards the work. Many private donations were also received from England. After a few years, seeing the extreme need of the college and the importance of the work it was doing, Allen applied to Pope Gregory XIII, who in 1565 granted a regular pension of one hundred gold crowns a month, which continued to be paid down to the time of the French Revolution. Allen himself gave his whole salary as regius professor of divinity. The work of the college was not allowed to proceed without opposition, which at one time became so strong that Allen’s life was in danger, and in 1578 the English were all expelled from Douai. The college was established temporarily at Reims; but possession was retained of the house at Douai, and in 1593 it was found possible to return there. By this time Allen had been called to reside in Rome, where he died 16 Oct., 1594. Under his successor, Dr. Richard Barrett, the work was extended to include a preparatory course in humanities, so that it became a school as well as a college. In 1603 under Dr. Worthington, the third president, a regular college was built, opposite the old parish church of St-Jacques, in the Rue des Morts, so called on account of the adjoining cemetery. The town at this time formed a single parish. In the eighteenth century it was divided into four parishes, and the present church of St-Jacques dates from that time.

The English College was the first to be opened in connexion with the university. The Collège d’Anchin was opened a few months later, endowed by the Abbot of the neighbouring monastery of Anchin, and entrusted to the Jesuits. In 1570 the Abbot of Marchiennes founded a college for the study of law. The Abbot of Saint-Vast founded a college of that name. Later on, we find the College of St. Thomas Aquinas, belonging to the Dominicans, the Collège du Roi, and others. The remaining British establishments were all exclusively for ecclesiastics. The Irish College was originally a Spanish foundation. It was established before the end of the sixteenth century, and endowed with 5,000 florins a year by the King of Spain. The course of studies lasted six years and the students attended lectures at the university. The Scots’ College has an unfortunate notoriety in consequence of the long dispute between the Jesuits and the secular clergy which centred round it in later times. It was established in 1594, not as a new foundation, but as the continuation of a secular college at Pont- à-Mousson in Lorraine, which, owing to the unhealthfulness of the site, had to seek a new home. In 1506, however, it moved again, and it was not till after several further migrations that it settled finally at Douai in 1612. The college was devoid of resources, and it was due to the zealous efforts of Father Parsons in Rome and Madrid, and of Father Creighton in France and Flanders, that numerous benefactions were given, and it was placed on a permanent footing. For this reason, the Jesuits afterwards claimed the property as their own, although it was admitted that in its early years secular clergy had been educated there. Appeals and counter-appeals were made, but the question was still unsettled when the Jesuits were expelled from France in 1764. The French Government, however, recognized the claims of the Scotch secular clergy and allowed them to continue the work of the college under a rector chosen from their own body. The Benedictine and Franciscan houses at Douai were near together and were both bound up in their history with the restoration of the respective orders in England. The Franciscan monastery was founded mainly through the instrumentality of Father John Gennings, the brother of the martyr. It was established in temporary quarters in 1618, the students for the time attending the Jesuit schools; but by 1621 they had built a monastery and provided for all necessary tuition within their own walls. The Benedictines began in 1605, in hired apartments belonging to the Collège d’Anchin, but a few years later, through the generosity of Abbot Caravel of the monastery of Saint-Vaast, they obtained land and and built a monastery, which was opened in 1611. The house acquired a high reputation for learning, and many of the professors of the university were at different times chosen from among its members.

Returning now to the English College, we come upon the unfortunate disputes between the seculars and regulars in the seventeenth century. Dr. Worthington, though himself a secular priest, was under the influence of Father Parsons, and for a long time the students attended the Jesuit schools and all the spiritual direction was in the hands of the society. A visitation of the college, however, laid bare many shortcomings in its administration and in the end Worthington was deposed. His successor, Dr. Kellison (1631–1641), succeeded in restoring the reputation of the college, while he gradually arranged for the necessary tuition to be given within its walls. In the latter half of the seventeenth and the early years of the eighteenth century, the English College went through a troubled time. During the presidency of Dr. Hyde (1646–1651), the University of Douai obtained certain controlling rights over the college, which claim, however, he successfully withstood. His successor, Dr. George Leyburn (1652- 1670), fell out with the “Old Chapter,” in the absence of a bishop, governing the Church in England. He attacked one Mr. White (alias Blacklo), a prominent member of their body, and procured a condemnation of his writings by the University of Douai. In the end, however, he himself found it necessary to retire in favour of his nephew, Dr. John Leyburn, who was afterwards vicar Apostolic. Hardly was the dispute with the “Blackloists” (as they were called) finished, when a further storm of an even more serious nature arose, the centre being Dr. Hawarden who was professor of philosophy and then of theology at the English College for seventeen years. His reputation became so great that when a vacancy occurred in 1702 he was solicited by the bishop, the chief members of the university, and the magistrates of the town to accept the post of regius professor of divinity. His candidature, however, was opposed by a party headed by the vice-chancellor. The Jesuits also declared against him, accusing him, and through him the English College, of Jansenism. In the end, Dr. Hawarden retired from Douai and went on the mission in England; and a visitation of the college, made by order of the Holy See, resulted in completely clearing it of the imputation. In 1677, Douai was taken by Louis XIV, and since that date has been under French control, except for the short time that it was held by the English after the siege of the Duke of Marlborough in 1710; but it was retaken by the French the following year.

During the rest of the eighteenth century, there were no important political changes until the Revolution broke out. The hopes which the English Catholics had rested on the Stuart family had now vanished, and the only prospect open to them lay in their foreign centres of which Douai was the chief. To these centres they devoted the greater part of their energy. Under the presidency of Dr. Witham (1715–1738) who is considered a second founder, the English College at Douai was rebuilt on a substantial scale and rescued from overwhelming debt; it had lost nearly all its endowment in the notorious Mississippi scheme, or “South Sea Bubble.” The Irish College was rebuilt about the middle of the century, and the English Benedictine monastery between 1776 and 1781. But all were destined to come to an end a few years after this, under the Reign of Terror.

As a town, Douai suffered less than many others at the beginning of the Revolution. The university kept up its Catholic character to the end, and it was one of the five typical Catholic universities to which Pitt appealed for an authoritative declaration as to the Catholic doctrine on the “deposing power” of the pope. During the Reign of Terror, however, it suffered the same fate as many similar establishments. When all the clergy of the town were called upon in 1791 to take the “Civic Oath,” the members of the British establishments claimed exemption in virtue of their nationality. The plea was allowed for a time; but after the execution of Louis XVI, when war was declared between England and France, it was not to be expected that this immunity would continue. The superiors and students of most of the British establishments took flight and succeeded in reaching England. The members of the English College, with their president, Rev. John Daniel, remained in the hope of saving the college; but in October, 1793, they were taken to prison at Doullens in Picardy, together with six Anglo- Benedictine monks who had remained for a similar purpose. After undergoing many dangers and hardships, they were allowed to return to Douai in November, 1794, and a few months later, by the exertions of Dr. Stapleton, President of St. Omer (who with his students had likewise been imprisoned at Doullens), they were set at liberty and allowed to return to England. The English collegians never returned to Douai. The Penal Laws had recently been repealed, and they founded two colleges to continue the work of Douai—Crook Hall (afterwards removed to Ushaw) in the North, and St. Edmund’s, Old Hall, in the South. The Roman pension was divided equally between these two until the French occupied Rome in 1799, when it ceased to be paid. Both these colleges exist at the present day. After the Revolution, Bonaparte united all the British establishments in France under one administrator, Rev. Francis Walsh, an Irishman. On the restoration of the Bourbons, a large sum of money was paid to the English Government to indemnify those who had suffered by the Revolution; but none of this ever reached Catholic hands, for it was ruled that as the Catholic colleges were carried on in France for the sole reason that they were illegal in England, they must be considered French, not English, estqablishments. The buildings, however, were restored to their rightful owners, and most of them were sold. The Anglo-Benedictines alone retained their ancient monastery; and as the community of St. Gregory was then permanently established at Downside, they handed over their house at Douai to the community of St. Edmund, which had formerly been located in Paris. These Benedictines carried on a school at Douai until 1903, when in consequence of the Associations’ Law passed by the Government they were forced to leave. They returned to England, and settled at Woolhampton, near Reading.

DODD, Church History of England; IDEM, ed. TIERNEY, R. C., Hist. of Eng. Col., Douay, ed. DODD (1713); BUTLER, Reminiscences (1822); KNOX, Douay Diaries (1878); IDEM, Letters of Cardinal Allen (1882); J. GILLOW, Haydock Papers (1888); H. GILLOW, Chapels of Ushaw; WARD, History of St. Edmund’s College (1893); HUSENBETH, Eng. Colleges and Convents on the Continent (1849); CAMERON, The Catholic Church in Scotland (Glasgow, 1869); BOYLE, Irish College in Paris (1901); BURT, Downside (1902); THADDEUS, Franciscans in England (1898); Calendar of English Martyrs (1876); DAUCOISNE, Etablissements Britanniques à Douai (Douai, 1881); HANDECŒUR, Histoire du Collège Anglais, Douai (Reims, 1898); TAILLIAR, Chroniques de Douai (1875); Catholic Magazine (1831). Also many unpublished MSS. in the Westminster archives, and in those of the “Old Brotherhood” (formerly the “Old Chapter”).

BERNARD WARD

Douay Bible

The original Douay Version, which is the foundation on which nearly all English Catholic versions are still based, owed its existence to the religious controversies of the sixteenth century. Many Protestant versions of the Scriptures had been issued and were used largely by the Reformers for polemical purposes. The renderings of some of the texts showed evident signs of controversial bias, and it became of the first importance for the English Catholics of the day to be furnished with a translation of their own, on the accuracy of which they could depend and to which they could appeal in the course of argument. The work of preparing such a version was undertaken by the members of the English College at Douai, in Flanders, founded by William Allen (afterwards cardinal) in 1568. The chief share of the translating was borne by Dr. Gregory Martin, formerly of St. John’s College, Oxford. His text was revised by Thomas Worthington, Richard Bristowe, John Reynolds, and Allen himself—all of them Oxford men. A series of notes was added, designed to answer the theological arguments of the Reformers; these were prepared by Allen, assisted by Bristowe and Worthington.

The object of the work was, of course not limited to controversial purposes; in the case of the New Testament, especially, it was meant for pious use among Catholics. The fact however, that the primary end was controversial explains the course adopted by the translators. In the first place they translated directly, not from the original Hebrew or Greek, but from the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome. This had been declared authoritative for Catholics by the Council of Trent; but it was also commonly admitted that the text was purer than in any manuscripts at that time extant in the original languages. Then, also, in the translation, many technical words were retained bodily, such as pasch, parasceve, azymes, etc. In some instances, also where it was found difficult or impossible to find a suitable English equivalent for a Latin word, the latter was retained in an anglicized form. Thus in Phil., ii, 8, we get “He exinanited himself,” and in Heb., ix, 28, “Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many.” It was considered that an ordinary reader, finding the word unintelligible, would pause and inquire its meaning and that this was preferable to satisfying him with an inadequate rendering. In other cases latinisms seem to have crept in unawares, as in Luke, x, 1, “Our Lord designed also other seventy-two” or in Phil., ii, 10, “In the name of Jesus, every knee bow of the celestials, terrestrials and infernals.” The proper names are usually (though not always) taken from the Vulgate; but the word Dominus is rendered throughout Lord. The general result was a version in cumbersome English, so full of latinisms as to be in places hardly readable, but withal scholarly and accurate.

In the year 1578, owing to political troubles, the college was temporarily transferred from Douai (which was then in the dominions of the King of Spain) to Reims, and during its sojourn there, in 1582, the New Testament was published, and became consequently known as the “Rheims Testament.” It contained no episcopal imprimatur, but a recommendation was appended signed by four divines of the University of Reims. The Old Testament was delayed by want of means, until the whole Bible was eventually published in two quarto volumes, in 1609 and 1610, by which time the college had returned to Douai, and the recommendation was signed by three doctors of that university. Thus the New Testament appeared nearly thirty years before the Anglican “Authorized Version,” and although not officially mentioned as one of the versions to be consulted, it is now commonly recognized to have had a large influence on the King James Version (see Preface to R. V., i, 2; also, Carleton, “Rheims and the English Bible”). The Reims Testament was reprinted twice at Antwerp—in 1600 and 1621—and a fourth edition was issued at Rouen in 1633. Then it was allowed to rest for over a century, before a fifth edition appeared, with some slight changes, dated 1728, but without any place of publication stated. It is believed to have been printed in London and was edited by Dr. Challoner (afterwards bishop), and Father Blyth, a Carmelite. The Douay Bible was never after this printed abroad. A sixth edition of the Reims Testament was printed at Liverpool in 1788, and a seventh dated Dublin, 1803, which was the last Catholic edition. Several Protestant editions have appeared, the best known being a curious work by Rev. William Fulke, first published in 1589, with the Reims text and that of the Bishops’ Bible in parallel columns. A Protestant edition of the Reims Testament was also brought out by Leavitt of New York, in 1834.

Although the Bibles in use in the twentieth century by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749–52. His object was to meet the practical want felt by the Catholics of his day of a Bible moderate in size and price, in readable English, and with notes more suitable to the time. He brought out three editions of the New Testament, in 1749, 1750, and 1752 respectively, and one of the Old Testament in 1750. The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they “almost amounted to a new translation.” So also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, “To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published.” In nearly every case Challoner’s changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version, though his three editions of the New Testament differ from one another in numerous passages. The best known version published in England in modern times was perhaps Haydock’s, which was first issued at Manchester in fortnightly parts in 1811–12. The Irish editions are mostly known by the names of the bishops who gave the imprimatur: as Dr. Carpenter’s New Testament (1783); Dr. Troy’s Bible (1791); Dr. Murray’s (1825); and Dr. Denvir’s (1836)—the last two of which have often been reprinted, and were circulated largely in England and Ireland. Around the turn of the century, the issue of the sixpenny New Testament by Burns and Oates of London, by its large circulation, made the text adopted therein—Challoner’s of 1749—the standard one, especially as the same was adopted in Dr. Murray’s and Dr. Denvir’s Bibles. In America an independent revision of the Douay Version by Archbishop Kenrick (1849–59) was much used.

BERNARD WARD

Doubt

(Lat. dubium, Gr. aporí, Fr. doute, Ger. Zweifel).

A state in which the mind is suspended between two contradictory propositions and unable to assent to either of them. Any number of alternative propositions on the same subject may be in doubt at the same time; but, strictly speaking, the doubt is attached separately to each one, as between the proposition and its contradictory, i.e. each proposition may or may not be true. Doubt is opposed to or the adhesion of the mind to a proposition without misgiving as to its truth; and again to opinion, or a mental adhesion to a proposition together with such a misgiving. Doubt is either positive or negative. In the former case, the evidence for and against is so equally balanced as to render decision impossible; in the latter, the doubt arises from the absence of sufficient evidence on either side. It is thus possible that a doubt may be positive on the one side and negative on the other (positivo-negative or negativo-positive), i.e. in cases where evidence on one side only is attainable and does not, of itself, amount to absolute demonstration, as, for instance, in circumstantial evidence. Again, doubt may be either theoretical or practical. The former is concerned with abstract truth and error; the latter with questions of duty, or of the licitness of actions, or of mere expediency. A further distinction is made between doubt concerning the existence of a particular fact (dubium facti) and doubt in regard to a precept of law (dubium juris). Prudent doubts are distinguished from imprudent, according to the reasonableness or unresonableness of the considerations on which the doubt is based. It should be observed that doubt is a purely subjective condition; i.e. it belongs only to the mind which has to judge of facts, and has no application to the facts themselves. A proposition or theory which is commonly called doubtful is, therefore, one as to which sufficient evidence to determine assent is not forthcoming; in itself it must be either true or false. Theories which have at one time been regarded as doubtful for want of sufficient evidence, frequently become certainly true or false by reason of the discovery of fresh evidence.

As certitude may be produced either by reason (which deals with evidence) or by faith (which rests on authority), it follows that theoretical doubt may be in like manner concerned with the subject-matter of either reason or faith, that is to say, with philosophy or with religion. Practical doubt is concerned with conduct; and since conduct must be guided by principles afforded by reason or by faith, or by both conjointly, doubt concerning it regards the application of principles already accepted under one or other of the foregoing heads. The resolution of doubt of this kind is the province of moral theology, in regard to questions of right and wrong and in regard to those of mere practical expediency, recourse must be had to the scientific or other principles which properly belong to the subject-matter of the doubt. Thus, for example, doubt as to the actual occurrence of an historical event can only be resolved by consideration of the evidence; doubt as to the doctrine of the sacraments, by ascertaining what is of faith on the subject; doubt as to the morality of a commercial transaction, by the application of the authoritative decisions of moral theology; while the question of the wisdom or the reverse of the transaction in regard to profit and loss must be determined by comercial knowledge and experience. The legitimacy, or the reverse, of doubt in regard to matters of fact is made evident by the forms of logic (induction and deduction), which, whatever may be the extent of their function as a means of acquiring knowledge, are indispensably necessary as a test of the correctness of conclusions or hypotheses already formed.

DOUBT IN PHILOSOPHY

The validity of human perception and reasoning in general as guides to objective truth has been frequently called in question. The doubt thus raised has been sometimes of the character called methodic, fictitious, or provisional, and sometimes real, or sceptical, as embodying the conclusion that objective truth cannot be known. Doubt of the former kind is the necessary preliminary to all inquiry, and in this sense philosophy is said by Aristotle (Metaph., III, i) to be “the art of doubting well.” Sir W. Hamilton points out (Lect. on Metaphysics, v) that doubt, as a preliminary to philosophical inquiry is the only means by which the necessary removal of prejudice may be effected; as the Baconian method insisted on the primary necessity of putting aside the “idols,” or prejudices, by which men’s minds are naturally influenced. Thus the Scholastic proof of a proposition or thesis begins by the statement of “doubts,” or contrary arguments; after which the evidence for the thesis is given, and finally the doubts are resolved. This, it need hardly be said, is the method pursued in the “Summa” of Saint Thomas Aquinas and still in use in the formal disputations of theological students. An instance of this kind of doubt is the Sic et Non (Yes and No) of Abelard, which consists of a long series of propositions on theological, Scriptural, and philosophical subjects, with a counter-proposition attached to each. The solution of the doubts in the sense of the orthodox thesis, which was clearly intended to follow, was never written; or if so, has not been preserved. (See Victor Cousin’s “Fragments Philosophiques.”) The philosophical system of Descartes begins with a universal methodic doubt; the famous cogito, ergo sum, on which the whole system is based, is the solution of the philosopher’s fundamental doubt of his own existence. This solution had been anticipated by St. Augustine; who took the subjective certainty of one’s own existence as the ground of all certainty, e.g.,

Tu, qui vis te nosse, scis esse te? Scio. Unde scis? Nescio. Cogitare te scis? Scio. (Sol., II, i); Utrum aëris sit vis vivendi, an ignis, dubitaverunt homines; vivere se tamen et meminisse et intelligere et velle et cogitare et scire et judicare quis dubitet? Quandoquidem etiam si dubitet vivit; si dubitat, dubitare se intelligit, etc. (De Trin., X, xiv).

In general it may be said that doubt, either expressed or implied, is involved in all intellectual research. Among the systems in which doubt as to the trustworthiness of human faculties is not merely provisionally assumed, but is genuine and final, those which find in a supernatural revelation the guide to truth which natural reason fails to provide must be distinguished from those which hold doubt to be the final conclusion of all inquiry into truth. The former depreciate reason in the interests of faith; the latter take reason as the only possible guide, but find no ground for confidence in it. To the former class belongs Nicholas of Cusa (1440), who was the author of two sceptical treatises on human knowledge; certainty is to be found, according to his view, only through the mystical knowledge of God. The scepticism of Montaigne made a reservation (whether sincerely or not is uncertain) in favour of revealed truth; and the same principle was advocated by Charron, Sanchez, and Le Vayer. Hume, in his sceptical essays on miracles and immortality, also attributed a final authority to revelation; but with obvious insincerity. The sceptical views of Hobbes, combined with his peculiar theory of government, made all conviction, including that of religious truth, dependent on the civil authority. Glanvill’s “The Vanity of Dogmatizing,” or “Scepsis Scientifica,” grounded a serious defense of revealed religion on the uncertainty of natural knowledge. Balfour’s “Defense of Philosophic Doubt,” based on the indemonstrability of ultimate truths, is an attempt in the same direction. (See FIDEISM.)

In the second class are to be reckoned the various systems of genuine skepticism. This appeared in Greek philosophy at a very early date. Heraclitus held the senses to be untrustworthy (kakoí mártures) and misleading, though he also conceived a supersensuous knowledge of the universal reason, immanent in the cosmos, to be attainable. Zeno of Elea defended the doctrine of the unity and permanence of being by propounding a series of “hypotheses,” each of which resulted in a contradiction, and by means of them sought to demonstrate the unreality of the manifold and changing. The subjective principle of the Sophists (Protagoras, Gorgias, and others of less note) that “man is the measure of all things” implies doubt, or skepticism, as to all objective reality. Knowledge is resolved by Protagoras into mere variable opinion; and Gorgias asserts that nothing really exists, that if anything existed, it could not be known, and that if such knowledge were possible it would be incommunicable. The Pyrrhonists, or Sceptics, held everything in doubt, even the fact of doubting. The Middle Academics, whose chief representatives were Arcesilaus and Carneades, while doubting all knowledge, held, nevertheless, that probability could be recognized in varying degrees. The “Encyclopedia” of Diderot and d’Alembert comments on the odd self-contradiction of Montaigne, who claimed a higher degree of probability for the Pyrrhonist than for the Academic opinion. Sextus Empiricus advanced the theory, often since maintained, that the syllogism is really a petitio principii, and that demonstration is therefore impossible. Bayle, in his celebrated “Dictionary,” subjected the philosophy of his time to severe destructive criticism, but was confessedly unable to supply its deficiencies. Hume’s position was purely negative for him, neither the existence of the external world nor that of the mind by which it is known was capable of demonstration; and the conclusion of Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason,” that the “thing in itself” (Ding an sich) is unknowable though certainly existing, is evidently sceptical (though the author himself rejected the title), since it embodies a purely negative doubt as to the nature of “transcendent” reality. Kant’s argument for the existence of God, as rationally indemonstrable, but postulated by the practical reason, necessarily results in a very limited conception of the Divine nature. Lamennais made general consent, or the common sense of mankind, the only ground of certitude; the individual reason he held to be incapable of attaining it. “Nothing is so evident to us today that we can be sure we shall not find it either doubtful or erroneous to-morrow” (Essai sur l’indifférence, II, xiii).

It may be observed that theories which deny the validity of simple experience as a guide to truth are really instances of doubt, because, though they assert dogmatically the inadequacy of widely accepted evidence, they are nevertheless in that state of suspense by which doubt is properly characterized in regard to the reality commonly held to be made known by experience. Thus the mental attitude which received from Professor Huxley the name of Agnosticism is a strictly doubtful one towards all that lies beyond sense-experience. The doubt is purely negative in this view; whatever is not cognizable by the aid of the senses is held to be unknowable; God may exist, or He may not, but we can neither affirm His existence nor deny it. Again, the system or method known as Pragmatism regards all reality as doubtful; truth is the correspondence of ideas with one another, and cannot be regarded as anything final, but must perpetually change with the progress of human thought; knowledge must be taken at its “face value” from moment to moment, as a practical guide to well-being, and must not be regarded as having any necessary correspondence with definite and permanent reality.

DOUBT IN REGARD TO RELIGION

In regard to relgion, doubt has at different times assumed a variety of forms. It is perhaps uncertain how far the ancient mythologies received or even demanded exact belief; it is at any rate certain that they were, as a rule, not considered worthy of serious attention by the philosophers of any school. The atheism which formed part of the charge on which Socrates was condemned was an offense against the State rather than against religion in itself (see Lecky, Hist. of European Morals, ii). The faith demanded by the Christian Revelation stands on a different footing from the belief claimed by any other religion. Since it rests on divine authority, it implies an obligation to believe on the part of all to whom it is proposed; and faith being an act of the will as well as of the intellect, its refusal involves not merely intellectual error, but also some degree of moral perversity. It follows that doubt in regard to the Christian religion is equivalent to its total rejection, the ground of its acceptance being necessarily in every case the authority on which it is proposed, and not, as with philosophical or scientific doctrines, its intrinsic demonstrability in detail. Thus, whereas a philosophical or scientific opinion may be held provisionally and subject to an unresolved doubt, no such position can be held towards the doctrines of Christianity; their authority must be either accepted or rejected. The unconditional, interior assent which the Church demands to the Divine authority of revelation is incompatible with any doubt as to its validity. Gregory XVI, by the Brief “Dum acerbissimas,” 26 Sept., 1835, condemned the teaching of Hermes that all theological inquiry should be based on positive doubt (Denzinger, 10th ed., no. 1619); and the Vatican Council declared (Sess. II, ch. sxxi):

“revelata vera esse credimus, non propter intrinsecam rerum veritatem naturali rationis lumine perspectam, sed propter auctoritatem ipsius Dei revelantis, qui nec falli nec fallere potest,” i.e. we believe the things that are revealed to be true, not because of an intrinsic truth which reason perceives, but because of the authority of God Who is the Author of Revelation, and Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Heresies have, however, generally had the character rather of dogmatic assertion than of mere doubt, though they arose from a more or less prevalent state of doubt as to doctrines imperfectly understood or not yet authoritatively defined. The devotion to classical studies which followed upon the fall of Constantinople in 1463 and the dispersion of its literary treasures gave rise to the humanism, or literary revival, of the Renaissance, and in many cases resulted in a skeptical attitude towards religion. This skepticism, however, was by no means universal among the Humanists, and was due rather to lack of interest in theological as compared with literary and philosophical, study, than to any reasoned criticism of religious doctrine. (See Pastor, “History of the Popes,” chapters on the Renaissance.) It helped to prepare the way however, for the Reformation which, beginning with a revolt against ecclesiastical authority, called all the doctrines of Christianity in question, rejecting those which failed to gain the approval of the different leaders of the movement. Thus among Protestants in general there is great variety of opinion on religious doctrines, those which are firmly held by some being considered doubtful by others, and by others again, rejected as false. Anglicanism, especially, leaves open many of the tenets which the Catholic Church holds as of faith, and thus endeavours to comprehend within its boundaries persons who differ widely from one another on important subjects. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, pronounces authoritatively as to the truth or falsehood of opinions, by means of general councils, professions of faith, infallible decisions of the supreme pontiff, and the ordinary teaching of her Doctors. As St. Avitus, in the sixth century, declared, “it is the law of the councils that if any doubt have arisen in matters which regard the state of the Church, we are to have recourse to the chief priest of the Roman Church” (Ep. xxxvi in P. L., LIX, 253). Doubt as to the Faith is thus impossible in the Catholic Church without infringing the principle of authority on which the Church itself depends. The field, however, which is open to a variety of opinions on questions not directly involving the essential doctrines of the Faith is still a very wide one; and though its extent may be further limited by future dogmatic decisions, it is probable on the other hand that it will be increased in the future, as in the past, by the emergence of doubtful questions as to the exact bearing of dogmatic truth upon fresh discoveries or theories of all kinds. It will be evident from what has been said that doubt cannot coexist either with faith or knowledge in regard to any given subject; faith and doubt are mutually exclusive, and knowledge which is limited by a doubt, becomes, in regard to the subject or part of a subject to which the doubt applies, no longer knowledge but opinion. A moral certainty—that is, one which is founded on the normal course of human action—does not strictly exclude doubt, but, as excluding prudent doubt, must be considered a sufficient practical guide (cf. Butler, “Analogy of Religion,” introduction, and pt. II, ch. vi). Thus doubt is sometimes said to imply belief; though such belief or practical certainty cannot properly be held to rise above the most probable kind of opinion. The rhetorical conception of the faith that “lives in honest doubt” (Tennyson, In Memoriam) must be taken to signify that truthful and serious habit of mind which refuses to submit to deception on motives furnished by intellectual sloth or the desire of worldly advantage. Catholic philosophy is entirely opposed both to the Pyrrhonist doubt of external reality and to that form of Idealism which is closely connected with the Kantian method on its sceptical side, and which seeks to reduce all dogma to the mere expression of subjective religious conceptions, relegating the objective facts with which dogma is concerned to the domain of symbol and parable. In the view of the Scholastic system human experience is a true perception of external reality through the senses and the intellect; phenomena being the object both of the senses, which they directly affect, and, after a different manner, of the intellect, which apprehends through sensible impressions the true nature and principles of the reality which causes those impressions. The facts of revelation to which the Church bears witness are in this sense real and objective, and may neither be explained away nor set aside by any system of historical or scientific criticism. Such is the purport of the Encyclical “Pascendi Dominici gregis” (1907), which both controverts and condemns the attempt to evacuate dogma of its true significance made by the method of religious speculation known as Modernism.

PRACTICAL DOUBT

Practical doubt, or doubt as to the lawfulness of an action is, according to the teaching of moral theology, incompatible with right action; since to act with a doubtful conscience is obviously to act in disregard of the moral law. To act with a doubtful conscience is therefore, sinful; and the doubt must be removed before any action can be justified. It frequently happens, however, that the solution of a practical doubt is not attainable, while some decision is necessary. In such cases the conscience may obtain a “reflexive” certainty by adopting an approved opinion as to the lawfulness of the action contemplated, apart from the intrinsic merits of the question. The question has been much discussed among different schools of theologians whether the opinion so followed must be of greatly preponderating authority in favour of liberty in order to justify an action the lawfulness of which appears intrinsically doubtful, whether it must be merely more probable than the contrary one, or equally probable, or merely probable in itself, even though less so than its contrary. (See MORAL THEOLOGY; PROBABILISM.) The fast, however, is the theory now generally accepted for all practical purposes; and the principle that lex dubia non obligat—i.e. that a law which is doubtful in its application to the case in hand does not bind—is universally admitted. It must be observed, however, that where the question is one not merely of positive law but of securing a certain practical result, only the “safer” course may be followed. No opinion however probable, is allowed to take precedence of the most certain means of securing such ends; e.g. in providing for the validity of the sacraments, in discharging obligations of justice, or in avoiding injury to others. Thus doubtful baptisms and ordinations must be repeated conditionally. (See AGNOSTICISM; CERTITUDE; EPISTEMOLOGY; FAITH; HERESY; INFALLIBILITY; SCEPTICISM.)

A.B. SHARPE

Gavin Douglas

Scottish prelate and poet, born about 1474; died 1522; he was the third son of Archibald, Fifth Earl of Angus, known as “Bell-the-Cat.” Educated for the Church at the universities of St. Andrews and Paris, he held for some years a benefice in East Lothian, and during this period composed most ofthe poetical works which have made his name famous. In 1501 he became provost of the collegiate church of St. Giles, Edinburgh, and subsequently,through the influence of Queen Margaret, who had married his nephew, theyoung Earl of Angus, he obtained the abbacy of Arbroath and later the Bishopric of Dunkeld. The queen’s efforts to have him promoted to the primacy were unsuccessful; and when the popular indignation at her marriage with Angus resulted in her being deprived of the regency, Douglas was brought to trial by the new regent, the Duke of Albany, for intriguing with the queen to obtain ecclesiastical promotion without the consent of Parliament. He was imprisoned for a year in Edinburgh Castle, and after his release continued for a time in the administration of his diocese. When, however, Margaret separated from her husband and sided with Albany against the Douglasses, Gavin was deprived of his see. He fled to England in 1521 and was kindly received by Henry VIII, but he died of plague in the following year. He was buried in the Savoy Church in London.

It was unfortunate for Douglas’s future reputation that his high birth and family connections plunged him into the political turmoil of his time, and thus prematurely closed his career as a poet and scholar of the first order. His participation in the internal divisions by which Scotland was torn during most of his life ended, as far as he was concerned, in failure, exile, and death; it is as a literary genius, rather than a churchman or a statesman, that he lives in Scottish history. It was during his quiet life as a country parson that he wrote the gorgeous allegory called the “Palice of Honour,” whose wealth of illustration and poetical embellishments at once won renown for its author; and a little later he produced the translation of Virgil’s “Æneid,” which gives him his chief claim to literary immortality. The translation is a rather free adaptation of the Roman poet, written in the “Scottis” language then current, while to each book is prefixed an original prologue in verse. It was printed (for the third time) by the Bannatyne Club in 1839. Douglas wrote two other poems, “King Hart” and “Conscience,” and translated also Ovid’s “De Remedio Amoris.” His complete works were first collected and published in Edinburgh (ed. Small), in 1874.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Stephen Doutreleau

Missionary, born in France, 11 October, 1693; date of death uncertain. He became a Jesuit novice at the age of twenty-two and migrated to Louisiana, U.S.A., with the Ursuline nuns in 1727. Soon after his arrival he was sent to the Illinois mission, for in 1728 he seems to have been at Post Vincennes, “the fort on the Wabash,” which was established about that time. On 1 January, 1730, he set out for New Orleans on business connected with the mission. The Natchez Indians, only a few weeks before, had massacred all the inhabitants of the little French village of Natchez, and the Yazoos, a neighbouring Indian tribe, had followed their example. Two Jesuit missionaries perished in these uprisings. Ignorant of the state of the country and accompanied by four or five French voyageurs, Father Doutreleau landed at the mouth of the Yazoo River to offer up the Holy Sacrifice. The Indians attacked the little party killing one of the Frenchmen and wounding the missionary in the arm. Doutreleau escaped to his canoe with two of his companions and began their flight down the Mississippi. After many dangers they reached the French camp at Tonica Bay, where they were received with great kindness; their wounds were dressed and after a night’s rest they proceeded unmolested to New Orleans. A journey of four hundred leagues through a hostile country had been accomplished. Shortly after, Father Doutreleau became chaplain of the French troops in Louisiana, and in this capacity accompanied them on one expedition. At his own request he was sent back to the Illinois Indians, but how long he remained is uncertain. He was at one time chaplain of the hospital at New Orleans. In 1747 he returned to France after labouring as a missionary in the Mississippi Valley for twenty years.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Dove

(Latin columba).

In Christian antiquity the dove appears as a symbol and as a Eucharistic vessel.

AS AN ARTISTIC SYMBOL

As a Christian symbol it is of very frequent occurrence in ancient ecclesiastical art.

As a symbol of the Holy Spirit it appears especially in representations of the baptism of Our Lord (Matt., iii, 16) and of Pentecost. St. Gregory the Great (590–604) is generally shown with a dove on his shoulder, symbolizing inspiration or rather Divine guidance. A dove of gold was hung up in the baptistery at Reims after the baptism of Clovis; in general the symbol occurs frequently in connexion with early representations of baptism. In ancient times a dove-like vessel was frequently suspended over the baptismal font and in that case

As a symbol of martyrdom it indicated the action of the Holy Spirit in bestowal of the fortitude necessary for the endurance of suffering.

As a symbol of the Church, the agent through which the Holy Spirit works on earth. When two doves appear the symbolism may represent, according to Macarius (Hagioglypta, 222), the Church of the circumcision and that of the Gentiles.

On a sarcophagus or on other funeral monuments the dove signifies:

the peace of the departed soul, especially if, as is often the case in ancient examples, it bears an olive branch in its beak;

the hope of the Resurrection.

In each case the symbolism is derived from the story of Noah and the Flood. Such is the meaning of the dove (columbula, palumba sine felle) in numerous epitaphs of the Roman catacombs. Occasionally funeral lamps were made in the shape of a dove. Two doves on a funeral monument sometimes signify the conjugal love and affection of the parties buried there. The dove in flight is the symbol of the Ascension of Christ or of the entry into glory of the martyrs and saints (cf. Ps. cxxiii, 7: “Our soul is escaped as a bird from the snare of the hunters, the snare is broken and we are delivered.” In like manner the caged dove signifies the human soul yet imprisoned in the flesh and held captive during the period of mortal life. In general, the dove as a Christian emblem signifies the Holy Spirit either personally or in His works. It signifies also the Christian soul, not the human soul as such, but as indwelt by the Holy Spirit; especially, therefore, as freed from the toils of the flesh and entered into rest and glory.

AS A EUCHARISTIC VESSEL

The reservation of the Holy Eucharist for the use of the sick was, certainly since early medieval times, effected in many parts of Europe by means of a vessel in the form of a dove, suspended by chains to the baldachino and thus hung above the altar. Mention may be made here of the (two) doves occasionally represented in the Roman catacombs as drinking from a Eucharistic chalice (Schnyder, “Die Darstellungen des eucharist. Kelches auf altchr. Grabinschriften,” in “Stromation Archaeologicon,” Rome, 1900, 97–118). The idea of the Eucharistic vessel was probably taken from the dove-like receptacle used at an early period in the baptisteries and often suspended above the fonts. These vessels were usually made of gold or silver. This was no doubt always the case if the vessel was designed to be the immediate holder of the Blessed Sacrament, since the principle that no base material ought to be used for this purpose is early and general. But when, as seems generally to have been the case in later times, the dove was only the outer vessel enshrining the pyx which itself contained the Blessed Sacrament, it came about that any material might be used which was itself suitable and dignified. Mabillon (Iter Ital., 217) tells us that he saw one at the monastery of Bobbio made of gilded leather, and one is shown to this day in the church of San Nazario at Milan which is enameled on the outside and silver gilt within. The exact time at which such vessels first came into use is disputed, but it was certainly at some early date. Tertullian (C. Valentinian. cap. iii) speaks of the Church as columbae domus, the house of the dove, and his words are sometimes quoted as exhibiting the use of such vessels in the third century. The reference, however, is clearly to the Holy Spirit. In the life of St. Basil, attributed to St. Amphilochius, is perhaps the earliest clear mention of the Eucharistic dove. “Cum panem divisisset in tres partes . . . tertiam positam super columbam auream, desuper sacrum altare suspendit” (When he had divided the bread into three pieces . . . the third part placed in a golden dove, he suspended, etc., Vita Bas., P. G., XXXIX). St. Chrysostom’s expression concerning the Holy Eucharist, convestitum Spiritu Sancto, clothed with the Holy Spirit (Hom. xiii, ad pop. Antioch.), is generally taken to allude to this practice of reserving the Holy Eucharist in a dove, the emblem of the Holy Spirit. The same idea is expressed by Sedulius (Epist. xii) in the verses, “Sanctusque columbae Spiritus in specie Christum vestivit honore”—“And the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove has robed Christ in honour.”

The general, and certainly the earliest custom, both East and West, was to suspend the dove from the ciborium or baldachino. At a later period in some parts of the West, especially in Rome, a custom grew up of placing a tower of precious material upon the altar, and enclosing the dove with the Blessed Sacrament within this tower. Thus, in the “Liber Pontificalis” which contains ample records of the principal gifts made to the great basilicas in the fourth and succeeding centuries, we never find that the dove was presented without the tower as its complement. Thus in the life of Pope Hilary it is said that he presented to the baptistery at the Lateran turrem argenteam . . . et columbam auream. In the life of St. Sylvester (ibid.) Constantine is said to have given to the Vatican Basilica pateram . . . cum turre et columba. Innocent I (ibid.) gave to another church turrem argenteam cum columba.

ARTHUR S. BARNES

George Dowdall

Archbishop of Armagh, b. at Drogheda, County Louth, Ireland, in 1487; d. at London, 15 August, 1558. He entered the Order of Crutched Friars, and was the last prior of their monastery at Ardee. On the suppression of the monastery by Henry VIII, in 1539, he received a pension of £20 a year. After the death of Primate Cromer, four years later, he was appointed to the See of Armagh by the king, but his appointment was not recognized by the pope. Dowdall acknowledged Henry VIII as supreme head of the Church on earth, and denounced the real primate, Robert Wauchope, to the Government. Though a schismatic, he nevertheless vigorously opposed the introduction of Protestantism into Ireland in the following reign and became the leader of the Catholic party. His opposition proving fruitless, he withdrew from public life in disgust and shortly afterwards retired to the Continent. On the death of Primate Wauchope, Dowdall, having renounced the schism, was appointed in 1553 by the pope to the very see of which he had been the schismatical archbishop. Ruling during nearly all the reign of Queen Mary, he exerted himself to repair the ravages to religion wrought in the preceding reigns. He held an important synod in Drogheda in 1554 in which decrees were passed against priests who had presumed to marry.

AMBROSE COLEMAN

James Dowdall

Martyr, date of birth unknown; executed for his faith at Exeter, England, 20 September, 1600.

He was a merchant of Drogheda, Ireland, though several authorities, including Challoner, describe him as a native of Wexford. Further confusion is added by reason of the fact that another contemporary, James Dowdall, died a confessor. According to Rothe, however, the martyr belonged to Drogheda, and traded with England and the Continent.

In the summer of 1598, when returning from France, his ship was driven by stress of weather onto the coast of Devonshire, and he was arrested by William Bourchier, Earl of Bath, who had him under examination. Dowdall publicly avowed that he rejected the queen’s supremacy, and only recognized that of the Roman pontiff. The earl forwarded the examination to Sir Robert Cecil, and had Dowdall committed to Exeter jail. Whilst in prison he was tortured and put to the rack, but continued unchanged in his fidelity to the ancient faith. On 18 June, 1599, the Earl of Bath wrote to Sir Robert Cecil for instructions in regard to James Dowdall, who had been detained in prison almost a year. Accordingly he was tried at the Exeter assizes, and was ordered to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. His name is included in the Apostolic Process of the Irish Martyrs whose cause is at present before the Congregation of Sacred Rites.

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Dower

(Lat. doarium; Fr. douaire)

A provision for support during life accorded by law to a wife surviving her hustand. Being for the widow and being accorded by law, dower differs essentially from a conventional marriage portion such as the dos of the old Roman law, the French dot, or the English dowry. Dower is thought to have been suggested by the marriage gift which Tacitus found to be usual among the Germans. This gift he terms dos, but contrasts it with the dos of the Roman law, which was a gift on the part of the wife to the husband, while in Germany the gift was made by the husband to the wife (Larousse, Grand dictionnaire universel, Paris, 1870, s. v. Douaire). There was indeed in the Roman law what was termed donatio propter nuptias, a gift from the family of the husband, but this was only required if the dos were brought on the part of the wife. So too in the special instance of a widow (herself poor and undotated) of a husband rich at the time of his death, an ordinance of the Christian Emperor Justinian secured her the right to a part of her husband’s property, of which no disposition of his could deprive her.

But the general establishment of the principle of dower in the customary law of Western Europe, according to Maine (Ancient Law, 3rd Amer. ed., New York, 1887, 218), is to be traced to the influence of the Church, and to be included perhaps among its most arduous triumphs. Dower is an outcome of the ecclesiastical practice of exacting from the husband at marriage a promise to endow his wife, a promise retained in form even now in the marriage ritual of the Established Church in England. (See Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” II, 134, note p.) In an ordinance of King Philip Augustus of France (1214), and in the almost contemporaneous Magna Charta (1215), dower is referred to. But it seems to have already become customary law in Normandy, Sicily, and Naples, as well as in England. The object of both ordinance and charter was to regulate the amount of the dower where this was not the subject of voluntary arrangement, dower by English law consisting of a wife’s life estate in one-third of the lands of the husband “of which any issue which she might have had might by possibility have been heir” (Blackstone, op. cit., 131).

During the pre-Reformation period, a man who became a monk and made his religious profession in England was deemed civilly dead, “dead in law” (Blackstone, op. cit., Bk. II, 121); consequently his heirs inherited his land forthwith as though he had died a natural, instead of a legal, death. Assignment of dower in his hand would nevertheless be postponed until the natural death of such a religious. For only by his wife’s consent could a married man be legally professed in religion. And she was not allowed by her consent to exchange her husband for dower. After the Reformation and the enactment of the English statute of 11 and 12 William III, prohibiting “papists” from inheriting or purchasing lands, a Roman Catholic widow was not held to be debarred of dower, for dower accruing by operation of law was deemed to be not within the prohibitions of the statute. By a curious disability of old English law a Jewess born in England would be debarred of dower in land which her husband, he having been an Englishman of the same faith and becoming converted after marriage, should purchase, if she herself remained unconverted.

There is judicial authority of the year 1310 for the proposition that dower was favoured by law (Year Books of Edward II, London, 1905, Vol. III, 189), and at a less remote period it was said to be with life and liberty one of three things which “the law favoreth.” But an English statute of the year 1833 has impaired the inviolability of dower by empowering husbands to cut off by deed or will their wives from dower. It was the law of dower unimpaired by statute, which according to the American commentator, Chancellor Kent, has been “with some modifications everywhere adopted as part of the municipal jurisprudence of the United States” (Commentaries on American Law, IV, 36). But while the marriage portion, dot, is, yet dower is not, known to the law of Louisiana, and it has now been expressly abolished in some other States and in some territories. The instances of legislative modifications are numerous and important.

Of dower (douaire) as it existed in the old French law no trace is to be found in the existing law of France. But brought to Canada from the mother country in pre-Revolutionary times, customary dower accruing by operation of law is yet recognized in the law of the former French Province of Quebec. The civil death which by English law seems to have applied to men only, might be by the French law incurred by women taking perpetual religious vows. A widow, therefore, thus entering into religion, would lose her dower, although in some regions she was allowed to retain a moderate income. (See Larousse, op. cit.) And now by the law of Quebec a widow joining certain religious orders of the province is deemed civilly dead and undoubtedly would suffer loss of dower.

MAINE, Lectures on the Early History of Institutions (6th ed., London, 1893), 219, 336, 337; MACKELDY, Handbook of the Roman Law, tr. DROPSIE (Philadelphia, 1883), §§ 572, 679; GLOSSON, in La Grande Encycl., s. v. Douaire; STEPHEN, New Commentaires on the Laws of England (14th ed., London, 1903), 153, 155, 157, 159; HOWARD, Several special cases on the laws against the further growth of ‘Popery’ in Ireland (some cases on the English statute, etc.) (Dublin, 1775), 303; PARK, A Treatise on the Law of Dower (Philadelphia, 1836), 149; CRABBE, Treatise on the Law of Dower (2nd ed., Philadelphia, 1883), 14–58; BEAUCHAMP, The Civil Code of the fProvince of Quebec (Montreal, 1905), §§ 1431, 1434, 1462, note to §34.

CHARLES W. SLOANE

Religious Dower

(Lat. dos religiosa).

Because of its analogy with the dower that a woman brings to her husband when she marries, the name “religious dower” has been given to the sum of money or the property that a religious woman, or nun (religiosa) brings, for her maintenance, into the convent where she desires to make her profession. It is not a question here of the more or less generous donations made by the young woman or her family either to the convent or to some of the good works that it carries on, nor of the amount paid in for the support of the postulant or novice until the time of her profession, but of a sum (usually a fixed one) set apart for the support of a religious who, by her profession, has become a member of the community.

The custom of religious dower was not in vogue in the ancient Church. Introduced occasionally for nuns under solemn vows (the only vows that existed in ancient times), it became gradually the rule in all communities, particularly in congregations under simple vows, these being now the most numerous. According to common ecclesiastical law, every convent had formerly to be provided, at the time of its foundation, with the resources necessary for the maintenance of a fixed number of nuns, not less than twelve. These were received gratuitously and without dower and, although in no wise prohibited from presenting the monastery with a portion of their property, were supported out of the revenues assigned to the monastery for this purpose. That is why the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, c. iii, De Regul.) established in this regard the following rule: “Let only such a number [of religious] be determined, and henceforth maintained, as can be fittingly supported, either by the proper revenue [of each house] or by the customary alms” [in the case of mendicant orders]. The determination of this number belongs to the bishop, who, if there be occasion, will act together with the regular superior (Gregory XIII, Constitution, Deo sacris, 15 Dec., 1572). The Council of Trent does not speak of religious dower. However, from the end of the sixteenth century the prescription relative to the fixed number of religious had fallen into desuetude, and the dower came into use; and this for two reasons. The first was the acceptance of “supernumerary” religious, that is of a larger number than the resources of the convent warranted; hence it was but just that the amount required for their maintenance should be demanded of them. The second reason lay in the decrease of the resources of the ancient convents and in the absence of property for the many new houses founded towards the end of the sixteenth century. An evidence of the simultaneous existence of these two causes is found in the general decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 6 Sept., 1604 (in Bizzarri, Collectanea, 269), ordaining that the supernumerary religious should deposit a dower equal to twice that of the others and amounting to at least 400 écus (about $400). This was the minimum, and each house was to set its own figure, to be regulated according to circumstances. Though deposited at the time of receiving the habit, the convent did not acquire possession of the dower until the ceremony of profession, and if the novice left before being professed, it was restored to her (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, cap. xvi). Dispensation from solemn vows was, it may almost be said, unknown, and the obligatory restitution of dower had not been provided for in the case of a religious leaving her community; it was the result of equity rather than law. But since the decree “Perpensis” of 3 May, 1902, which requires of all religious under solemn vows a probationary period of three years under simple vows, this restitution has become a rule. Article X says: “The dower established for each monastery should be deposited before the profession of simple vows”; and Article XII continues: “If a sister who has professed simple vows retires from the monastery, either after being dispensed from her vows by the Holy See or after sentence of dismissal (before the solemn vows), the capital of her dower is to be restored to her, but not the interest.”

Such is also the general rule for congregations under simple vows. Stipulations concerning the dower are very clearly set forth in the “Normæ,” rules in use by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars for the approbation of religious under simple vows, published 28 June, 1901, ch. vii, articles 91–94. Each congregation of nuns should settle in its statutes the dower, equal in all cases, for the choir religious; it should even establish a lesser dower (but the same for each one) to be deposited by the lay, or assistant, sisters. The superior cannot receive a religious without a dower or with an insufficient dower, except by permission of the bishop, if the congregation be diocesan, or by that of the Congregation of Religious, if the institute be approved by Rome. The required dower must be duly pledged to the congregation prior to the taking of the habit and must be deposited shortly before the profession. Thus deposited, such a dower cannot be alienated, that is, it cannot be used by the congregation in whatever way it may deem fit, as, for instance, to meet building expenses or discharge debts, but must be prudently and advantageously invested. Even though the funds be administered by the mother-house or the provincial, the income from each dower must be given to the house where the religious resides who brought in that dower. Although no longer the property of the nun, the dower becomes entirely the property of the institute only at the death of the subject, for whom, until then, it must remain set apart, so that, should a religious withdraw from a community either on the expiration of her temporary vows, or after a dispensation, or finally on account of dismissal, the capital of her dower must be restored to her.

Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, s. v. Moniales, art. 11; Battandier, Guide canonique pour les constitutions des sœurs à vœux simples (Paris, 1905), nos. 135–140; Bastien, Directoire canonique à l’usage des congrégations à vœux simples (Maredsous, 1904), nos 109–114, 198, 214; Prümmer, Manuale juris ecclesiastici (Freiburg im Br., 1907), II, 43.

A. BOUDINHON.

Diocese of Down and Connor

DIOCESE OF DOWN AND CONNOR (DUNENSIS ET CONNORENSIS)

A line drawn from Whitehouse on Belfast Lough due west to the Clady River, thence by the river itself to Muckamore and Lough Neagh, marks the boundary between the Diocese of Down and the Diocese of Connor. North of this line to the sea and the Bann, including the greater part of the County Antrim and a small portion of Derry, is the Diocese of Connor. South of the line, the remainder of Antrim, except the parish of Aghalee, belonging to Dromore, belongs to the Diocese of Down, as also the whole of the County Down, except the baronies of Iveagh and part of Kinelearty. The extent of the united dioceses is 597,450 Irish acres (about 576 sq. Miles).

Each diocese was a collection of ancient sees. Within the limits of Down, and founded in St. Patrick’s time, there were: Raholp, founded by St. Tassach, Gortgrib by Vinoch, Bright by Loarn, Mahee Island by St. Mochay, Moghera by St. Donard. There were also: Moville, founded by St. Finnian, and Bangor by St. Comgall, the later an abbey, but often ruled in aftertimes by a bishop. St. Fergus is named as first Bishop of Down. In ancient times the place was called Dun Celtair, Celtair being one of the Red Branch knights. Afterwards it was called Dun-da-Leth-Glaisse, “the fort of the two half-chains.” According to tradition, two young chiefs had long pined in King Laeghaire’s prison. St. Patrick miraculously struck off the chain which bound them, and the prisoners, thus released, hastened to their father’s residence at Dun Celtair, flinging from them the pieces of the severed chain; hence the new name. A further change occurred after St. Patrick’s death. Dying at Saul (493), he was buried at Down, which then contained no church. Subsequently the remains of St. Brigid were brought there from Kildare, as were some relics of St. Columba from Iona. Meanwhile the ancient Dun Celtair had become Downpatrick, a town overshadowing all the neighboring towns, the capital also of the Diocese of Down, which in process of time absorbed all the surrounding sees.

Like Down, Connor, founded in 480 by St. Macnisse, was a collection of smaller sees. These were Kilroot, Drumtullagh, Culfeightrim, Coleraine, Inispollen, Armoy, and Rashee. The date of the founding of each of these sees is uncertain, as also the dates of their absorption; nor can a regular succession of bishops be discovered. By the twelfth century all the sees had ceased to exist except Connor. Its western boundary then was the Roe; but by the synod of Rath-Breasail (1118), when the number and limits of the Irish dioceses were fixed, the Bann was made the western boundary of Connor, and Down was joined to it, but only for a brief period. In 1124 St. Malachy became Archbishop of Armagh; but when he resigned the primacy, in 1137, he became Bishop of Down, again dividing the two sees. This separation was recognized by the Synod of Kells (1152), and continued till 1441, when John Cely, Bishop of Down, was deprived for having violated his vow of chastity. Meanwhile the annals record the death of many distinguished men, bishops and others, connected with both dioceses. It is further recorded that in 831 Connor was plundered by the Danes, and Down in 942; that in 1177 Downpatrick was captured by John de Courcy, who imprisoned the bishop; that in 1183 de Courcy turned the secular canons out of the cathedral and replaced them by Benedictine monks from Chester; that in 1186 the relics of St. Patrick, St. Brigid, and St. Combra were discovered there and reinterred in the church with great solemnity; that in 1315 a great battle was fought at Connor; and that the whole extent of the two dioceses suffered grievously during the invasion of Edward Bruce.

The primate John Prene resisted the union of Down with Connor in 1441, and it did not finally take effect till 1451. Since that date both dioceses, recognized as one, have remained under the rule of one bishop. During the troubled times of the Reformation and the wars of the O’Neills, the Ulster counties suffered much, though the old Faith was still maintained. But the plantation of Ulster replaced the greater number of the Catholics by English Protestants and Scotch Presbyterians. Later on, in the contests of the seventeenth century, the tide of war frequently rolled over Antrim and Down, with consequent destruction of Catholic property. The penal laws followed; and such was the combined effect of plantation and proscription that in 1670 in the whole of Down and Connor there were but 2500 Catholic families. For nearly sixty years subsequently the diocese was ruled by vicars. When at length the pressure of penal legislation was removed Catholicism revived rapidly. In the period from 1810 to 1840 no less than forty new Catholic churches were built. The progress thus made under Dr. Crolly (1825–1835) and Dr. Denvir (1835–65) was continued under Dr. Dorrian (1865–86) and Dr. MacAlister (1886–95); nor did any of his predecessors show greater energy and zeal than Dr. Henry, whose death occurred with such tragic suddenness early in 1908. During the nineteenth century splendid churches were built at Newtownards, Hollywood, Balymoney, and Belfast, and on every side visible signs of Catholic progress appeared.

This prosperity is largely due to the rapid growth of Belfast. Situated on the shores of Belfast Lough, its site was occupied in the sixteenth century only by a strong castle, then in the hands of the O’Neills of Clannaboy. From them it passed at the close of the century to the British Government, and in 1603 the castle and land adjoining were granted by King James to Sir Arthur Chichester. He laid out and planted a small town, which, in 1613, was made a corporation by royal charter. Its growth was slow, and during the seventeenth century it was entirely overshadowed by the neighboring town of Carrickfergus. About 1700, Belfast had a population of 2000, and a good deal of trade; in 1757 a population of 8000. Henceforth its rise was rapid and continuous. Its population in 1871 was 174,000; in 1881, 208,122; in 1891, 255,950; in 1901, with an enlarged city area, 348,876. It sends four members to Parliament, and is ruled by a lord mayor, fifteen aldermen, and forty-five councilors. In commerce and shipping, in trade and manufactures, it is the first city in Ireland. Catholicism has more than kept pace with the general advance of the city. In 1708 there were but seven Catholics in Belfast, and not till 1783 was there a Catholic church. Belfast is now the episcopal seat, with ten city parishes, a flourishing diocesan seminary, and many educational and charitable institutions. Among the remarkable men of the diocese the following may be mentioned: St. Macnisse, the patron saint of Connor, and St. Malachy, the patron saint of Down; St. Tassach, who attended St. Patrick in his last illness; St. Comgall, who founded the monastery of Bangor; St. Finnian, founder of Moville; St. Colman Ela, founder of Muckamore in Antrim; St. Mochay, Bishop on Nendrum; St. Donard, Bishop of Maghera; St. Dochona, Bishop of Connor. In the sixteenth century the notorious Miler Magrath was Bishop of Down and Connor; and in the next century the martyred Cornelius O’Devanny, and the fighting bishop, Herber MacMahon, who also met a martyr’s fate.

Statistics (1908): Parishes, 60; secular clergy, 167; regular clergy, 21; churches 114; colleges, 2; monasteries, 5; convents 16; total Catholic population (1901), 156,693; total population of all creeds, 671,266.

O’Laverty, A Historical Account of the Diocese of Down and Connor (Dublin, 1878–95); Reeves, Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Down, Connor and Dromore (Dublin, 1847); Brady, Episcopal Succession (Rome, 1876); Lanigan, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (Dublin, 1822); Healy, Life and Writings of St. Patrick (Dublin, 1905); Meehan, Irish Hierarchy (Dublin, 1872); Benn, History of Belfast (London, 1877–80); Irish Catholic Directories.

E. A. D’ALTON.

Thomas Downes

Downes (alias Bedingfeld, Mountford and Mumford), Thomas, son of Thomas Downes of Bodney in Norfolk, b. in 1617; d. December 21, 1678. His mother was Mary, daughter of John Bedingfeld of Redlingfield in Suffolk. He was educated at St. Omer, but completed his studies at the English College at Valladolid, and entered the Society of Jesus, January 8, 1639. From the novitiate he passed to the college of the English Province at Liege, but went for his theology to Pont-a-Mousson and was professed of the four vows January 16, 1656. In 1671 he was chaplain to the Duke of York, afterwards James II. When the duke as admiral of the fleet put to sea againstthe Dutch he asked for “Father Mumford” as confessor on board his flagship. During an encounter between the two fleets Father Downes won for himself a great reputation by exposing himself for many hours to a heavy fire while ministering to the wounded anddying. In 1678 he fell a victim to the infamous Oates conspiracy by means of forged letters delivered to him at Windsor but intended to be intercepted, and purporting to have been written by the provincial and Fathers of the Society. He handed the letters to the Duke of York who showed them to the king. The latter was convinced of the fraud, and testified openly to Father Downes’s innocence, but was unable to protect him from the malice of the plotters who succeeded in getting him arrested and sent to the Gatehouse prison where he died.

J. M. STONE.

Downside Abbey

Near Bath, Somersetshire, England, was founded at Douai, Flanders, under the patronage of St. Gregory the Great, in 1605 by the Venerable John Roberts, first prior, and some other English monks who had received the habit and taken vows in the Spanish Benedictine Congregation. In 1611 Dom Philip de Caverel, Abbot of Saint Vaast’s at Arras, built a monastery for the community in Douai, and consequently is revered as its founder. For some years the foundation wa embroiled in attacks from without, and also in disputes as to a union with other English Benedictines, all of which were settled in 1633 by the Bull “Plantata” of Urban VIII.

From the first a school or college for lay pupils, sons of English Catholic gentry, has been an integral part of the institution. This undertaking, conducted on traditional English public school lines, has always absorbed much of the energies of the community, whose other chief external work has consisted in supplying various missions or parishes in England. When Charles II established for his queen a Catholic chapel royal at St. James’s palace, the community to serve it was supplied from St. Gregory’s at Douai, and certain relics and church-plate then presented are still in existence at Downside. On the outbreak of the French Revolution the school was disbanded and the monks put in prison, where they remained nearly two years. At length in March, 1795, they were allowed to proceed to England where an asylum was supplied by Sir Edward Smythe, fifth Baronet, a former pupil, who lent his Shropshire seat of Acton Burnell to his old masters for use as a monastery and school., In 1814 the establishment was moved to Mount Pleasant, Downside, a small manor-house with sixty-six acres of land, bought for £7000, largely the savings of the economy of the previous nineteen years. In 1823 Dr. Baines, Vicar Apostolic of the Western District, proposed to the community that they should abandon the monastic state and become a kind of diocesan seminary under himself. This extraordinary suggestion being rejected, the bishop applied to the Holy See for the suppression of the monastery on the ground of some alleged flaw in its canonical erection; after much litigation the pope decided in favour of the monks on every point. Since then the establishment has increased steadily in size and importance, new buildings being added in 1823, 1853, and almost continually since 1870. In 1899 Pope Leo XIII raised the priory to abbatial rank, the forty-fifth prior, Dom Edmund Ford, being elected first abbot, on whose resignation in 1906, Dom Cuthbert Butler was chosen to succeed him.

Six monks of St. Gregory’s have died martyrs for the Catholic Faith and are already pronounced Venerable, viz. Dom George Gervaise, martyred 1608; Dom John Roberts, the first prior, 1610; Dom Maurus Scot, 1612; Dom Ambrose Barlow, 1641; Dom Philip Powell, 1646; and Brother Thomas Pickering, 1679. Besides these the community has given to the Church three archbishops, Dom Bede Polding and Dom Bede Vaughan, the first two archbishops of Sydney, New South Wales; and Dom Bernard Ullathorne, first bishop of Birmingham and titular Archbishop of Cabasa, well known as an ascetical writer. Also six bishops, Dom Philip Ellis, Dom Laurence York, and Dom Gregory Sharrock, all three successively Vicars Apostolic of the Western District; more recently Dom Placid Morris, Vicar Apostolic of Maritius and for many years assistant to Cardinal Wiseman; Dom Joseph Brown, first Bishop of Newport and Menevia; and Dom Henry Davis, Bishop of Maitland, New South Wales. From many other notable names may be mentioned Dom Serenus Cressy, author of the “Church History of Brittany”; Dom John Huddlestone, who was instrumental in saving Charles II after Worcester and reconciled him to the Church on his death-bed; the Abbot Sweeney, the well-known preacher; Dom Jerome Vaughan, founder of the Abbey of Fort Augustus, N. B.; Dom Aidan Gasquet the historian, Abbot President of the English Benedictines and also head of the Pontifical Commission for the revision of the Vulgate. Among the alumni of St. Gregory’s School, though not monks in the community, were Bishop Charles Walmesley, who consecrated Dr. Carroll the first Bishop of Baltimore, U.S.A.; John Steevens, editor of Dugdale’s “Monasticon”; Henry Carey, author of “God save the King”; Sir John Day, one of the best known English judges; and Bishop Patrick J. Donahue, of Wheeling, U.S.A.

The abbey buildings now consist of a monastery for about fifty monks; school buildings for 1340 boarders; guest-house, the original building bought in 1814; and the abbey church, for exterior view of which see THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, I, 14. The last-named building consists at present of transepts, choir, and fifteen side chapels only; it is 230 feet long, and 70 feet high internally Even in its unfinished state it ranks as one of the finest modern Gothic buildings in England, and contains the tomb of the Irish martyr, Venerable Oliver Plunket, Archbishop of Armagh. The community numbers eighty-four choir monks; there are no lay brothers. About half the monks work on the twenty-two missions or parishes in various parts of England, which are dependent on the abbey. Besides the school attached to the monastery, Downside has two other schools at Ealing, London, W, and at Gorey, Co. Wexford, Ireland; a house of studies for its monks at Cambridge University and another for students in London, near the British Museum. The “Downside Review,” a periodical now in its twenty-eighth year, devoted chiefly to local, monastic, and liturgical interests, and in which are many articles of value, is published every four months. The “Downside Masses” and “Downside Motets” indicate the abbey’s interest in the revival of polyphonic music; a similar interest in Christian art being shown in the “Downside Prints,” a series of small devotional pictures reproduced from ancient masters. Attached to the abbey are the titular Abbacies of Glastonbury and St. Alban’s, and the cathedral priories of Canterbury, Bath, Coventry, and Norwich. The arms of Downside are: Or a cross moline gules; the abbot’s seal bears an effigy of Bl. Richard Whiting, martyr, the last abbot of the neighbouring Abbey of Glastonbury.

WELDON, Chronological Notes on English Congregation O. S. B. (Privately printed, Worcester, 1881); TAUNTON, English Black Monks of St. Benedict (London, 1897), II; BIRT, Downside (London, 1902); SNOW, Necrology of English Benedictines (London, 1883); Sketches of Old Downside (London, 1903); HUDLESTON, Guide to Downside Abbey Church (London, 1905); Illustrated articles in Christian Art, I, 135; Architectural Review, (XXIII, 40; Downside Review, I-XXVII, many articles passim.

G. ROGER HUDDLESTON

Doxology

In general this word means a short verse praising God and beginning, as a rule, with the Greek word Doxa. The custom of ending a rite or a hymn with such a formula comes from the Synagogue (cf. the Prayer of Manasses: tibi est gloria in sæcula sæculorum. Amen). St. Paul uses doxologies constantly (Rom., xi, 36; Gal., i, 5; Eph., iii, 21; etc.). The earliest examples are addressed to God the Father alone, or to Him through (dia) the Son (Rom., xvi, 27; Jude, 25; I Clem., xli; Mart. Polyc., xx; etc.) and in (en) or with (syn, meta) the Holy Ghost (Mart. Polyc., xiv, xxii, etc.). The form of baptism (Matt.,xxviii, 19) had set an example of naming the three Persons in parallel order. Especially in the fourth entury, as a protest against Arian subordination (since heretics appealed to these prepositions; cf. St. Basil, “De Spir, Sancto,” ii-v), the custom of using the form: “Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost,” became universal among Catholics. From this time we must distinguish two doxologies, a greater (doxologia maior) and a shorter (minor). The greater doxology is the Gloria in Excelsis Deo (q.v.) in the Mass. The shorter form, which is the one generally referred to under the name “doxology,” is the Gloria Patri. It is continued by an answer to the effect that this glory shall last for ever. The form, eis tous aionas ton aionon is very common in the first centuries (Rom., xvi, 27; Gal., i, 5; I Tim., i, 17; Heb., xiii, 21; I Peter, iv, 11; I Clem., xx, xxxii, xxxviii, xliii, xlv, etc.; Mart. Polyc., xxii, etc.). It is a common Hebraism (Tob., xiii, 23; Ps lxxxiii, 5; repeatedly in the Apocalypse: i, 6, 18; xiv, 11; xix, 3; etc.) meaning simply “for ever.” The simple form, eis tous aionas, is also common (Rom., xi, 36; Doctr. XII Apost., ix, x; in the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, passim) Parallel formulæ are: eis tous mellontas aionas (Mart. Polyc., xiv); apo geneas eis genean (ibid.); etc. This expression was soon enlarged into: “now and ever and in ages of ages” (cf. Heb., xiii, 8; Mart. Polyc., xiv, etc.). In this form it occurs constantly at the end of prayers in the Greek Liturgy of St. James (Brightman, Eastern Liturgies, pp. 31, 32, 33, 34, 41, etc.). and in all the Eastern rites. The Greek form then became: Doxa patri kai yio kai hagio pneumati, kai nun kai aei kai eis tous aionas ton aionon. Amen. In this shape it is used in the Eastern Churches at various points of the Liturgy (e.g. in St. Chrysostom’s Rite; see Brightman, pp. 354, 364, etc.) and as the last two verses of psalms, though not so invariably as with us. The second part is occasionally slightly modified and other verses are sometimes introduced between the two halves. In the Latin Rite it seems originally to have had exactly the same form as in the East. In 529 the Second Synod of Vasio (Vaison in the province of Avignon) says that the additional words, Sicut erat in principio, are used in Rome, the East, and Africa as a protest against Arianism, and orders them to be said likewise in Gaul (can. v.). As far as the East is concerned the synod is mistaken. These words have never been used in any Eastern rite and the Greeks complained of their use in the West [Walafrid Strabo (9th century), De rebus eccl., xxv]. The explanation that sicut erat in principio was meant as a denial of Arianism leads to a question whose answer is less obvious than it seems. To what do the words refer? Everyone now understands gloria as the subject of erat: “As it [the glory] was in the beginning,” etc. It seems, however, that originally they were meant to refer to Filius, and that the meaning of the second part, in the West at any rate, was: “As He [the Son] was in the beginning, so is He now and so shall He be for ever.” The in principio, then, is a clear allusion to the first words of the Fourth Gospel, and so the sentence is obviously directed against Arianism. There are medieval German versions in the form: “Als er war im Anfang.”

The doxology in the form in which we know it has been used since about the seventh century all over Western Christendom, except in one corner. In the Mozarabic Rite the formula is: “Gloria et honor Patri et Filio et Spiritui sancto in sæcula sæculorum” (so in the Missal of this rite; see P.L., LXXXV, 109, 119, etc.). The Fourth Synod of Toledo in 633 ordered this form (can. xv). A common medieval tradition, founded on a spurious letter of St. Jerome (in the Benedictine edition, Paris, 1706, V, 415) says that Pope Damasus (366–384) introduced the Gloria Patri at the end of psalms. Cassian (died c. 435) speaks of this as a special custom of the Western Church (De instit. coen., II, viii). The use of the shorter doxology in the Latin Church is this: the two parts are always said or sung as a verse with response. They occur always at the end of psalms (when several psalms are joined together as one, as the sixty-second and sixty-sixth and again the one hundred and forty-eighth, one hundred and forty-ninth and one hundred and fiftieth at Lauds, the Gloria Patri occurs once only at the end of the group; on the other hand each group of sixteen verses of the one hundred and eighteenth psalm in the day Hours has the Gloria) except on occasions of mourning. For this reason (since the shorter doxology, like the greater one, Gloria in Excelsis Deo, in naturally a joyful chant) it is left out on the last three days of Holy Week; in the Office for the Dead its place is taken by the verses: Requiem æternam, etc., and Et lux perpetua, etc. It also occurs after canticles, except that the Benedicite has its own doxology (Benedicamus Patrem . . . Benedictus es Domine, etc.—the only alternative one left in the Roman Rite). In the Mass it occurs after three psalms, the “Judica me” at the beginning, the fragment of the Introit-Psalm, and the “Lavabo” (omitted in Passiontide, except on feasts, and at requiem Masses). The first part only occurs in the responsoria throughout the Office, with a variable answer (the second part of the first verse) instead of “Sicut erat,” the whole doxology after the “Deus in adjutorium,” and in the preces at Prime; and again, this time as one verse, at the end of the invitatorium at Matins. At all these places it is left out in the Office for the Dead and at the end of Holy Week. The Gloria Patri is also constantly used in extraliturgical services, such as the Rosary. It was a common custom in the Middle Ages for preachers to end sermons with it. In some countries, Germany especially, people make the sign of the cross at the first part of the doxology, considering it as chiefly a profession of faith.

ERMELIUS, Dissertatio historica de veteri christianâ doxologia (1684); SCHMIDT, De insignibus veteribus christianis formulis (1696); A SEELEN, Commentarius ad doxologiæ solemnis Gloria Patri verba: Sicut erat in principio in his Miscellanea (1732); BONA, Rerum liturgicarum libri duo (Cologne, 1674), II, 471; THALHOFER, Handbuch der kath. Liturgik, I, 490 sq.; IDEM in Augsburger Pastoralblatt (1863), 289 sq.; RIETSCHEL, Lehrbuch der Liturgik, I, 355sq.; KRAUS, Real-Encyk., I, 377 sq.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

James Warren Doyle

Irish bishop; b. near New Ross, County Wexford, Ireland, 1786; d. at Carlow, 1834. He belonged to a family, respectable but poor, and received his early education at Clonleigh, at Rathconrogue, and later at the Augustinian College, New Ross. Shortly after 1800 he joined the Augustinian Order and was sent to Coimbra in Portugal, and there, at the university, first manifested his great intellectual powers. In the university library he read everything, Voltaire and Rousseau among the rest. As a consequence his faith became unsettled; but his vigorous intellect soon asserted itself, and subsequently he became the fearless champion of the Church in which he was born. During the French invasion he did sentry work at Coimbra, and accompanied the English to Lisbon as interpreter, and such was the impression he made at the Portuguese Court that he was offered high employment there. He declined the offer, however, and, returning to Ireland in 1808, was ordained priest the following year. Then for eight years he taught logic at the Augustinian College, New Ross. In 1817 he became professor at Carlow College, and two years later the priests of Kildare and Leighlin placed him dignissimus for the vacant see. Their choice was approved at Rome, and thus, in 1819, Doyle became bishop. At that date the effects of the Penal Laws were still visible in the conduct of the Catholics. Even the bishops, as if despairing of equality and satisfied with subjection, often allowed Protestant bigotry to assail with impunity their country and creed. This attitude of timidity and acquiescence was little to Dr. Doyle’s taste, and over the signature of “J. K. L.” (James, Kildare and Leighlin) he vigorously repelled an attack made on the Catholics by the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin. He also published an extremely able pamphlet on the religious and civil principles of the Irish Catholics; and a series of letters on the state of Ireland, in which the iniquities of the Church Establishment, the exactions of the landlords, the corrupt administration of justice were lashed with an unsparing hand. The clearness of style, the skilful marshaling of facts, the wide range of knowledge astonished all. And not less remarkable was his examination before two Parliamentary committees in London. Seeing his readiness and resource, the Duke of Wellington remarked that Doyle examined the committee rather than was examined by them. He joined the Catholic Association, and when O’Connell was about to contest Clare, Doyle addressed him a public letter hoping “that the God of truth and justice would be with him.” After Emancipation these two great men frequently disagreed, but on the tithe question they were in accord, and Doyle’s exhortation to the people to hate tithes as much as they loved justice became a battle-cry, in the tithe war. Meantime nothing could exceed the bishop’s zeal in his diocese. He established confraternities, temperance societies, and parish libraries, built churches and schools, conducted retreats, and ended many abuses which had survived the penal times. He also waged unsparing and incessant war on secret societies. He died young, a martyr to faith and zeal.

E. A. D’ALTON

John Doyle

Born in Dublin, Ireland, 1797; died in London, 2 January, 1868; English portrait-painter and caricaturist. This clever artist studied under Gabrielli, and Comerford, the miniature-painter. He came to London in 1821 and started as a portrait-painter, but gave his attention to drawing caricatures in 1827 or 1828, and developed his well-known signature, “H.B.,” by means of two sets of initials “J.D.” placed one above the other. In 1829 he commenced his famous series of drawings which he continued to produced until 1851, caricaturing in brilliant style all the political movements of the day. His drawings differ completely from the caricatures which preceded them, notably those of Rowlandson and Gillray, inasmuch as they are marked by reticence, courtesy, and a sense of good breeding. They are extraordinarily clever and at times stinging in their bitter epigrammatic quality; but Thackeray under-estimated their power when he spoke of them as “genteel” and said that they would “only produce a smile and never a laugh.” There are some six hundred of them in the British Museum, and taken altogether they form a most interesting and graphic representation of the political history of England of the time. Doyle retired from professional work seventeen years before his death. He preserved his incognito to the very last and few people were aware of the fact that the initials on the caricatures formed his signature. He produced several pencil sketches of well-known personages and made use of the sketches themselves constitute in several instances the most life-like representations of the person in question which exist.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Richard Doyle

English artist and caricaturist, b. in London, September, 1824; d. there 11 December, 1883. The second son of John Doyle, he inherited much of his father’s talent and exceeded the elder Doyle in skill and in power as a draughtsman. From a very early age he amused himself with making drawings. He prepared an account of the Eglinton Tournament when he was but fifteen, and at the age of sixteen commenced his famous Journal, now preserved in the British Museum, The journal is a manuscript book containing many small sketches in pen and ink, executed with skill and brilliance, and marked by powers of observation and by a sense of humour hardly equalled and certainly not exceeded in later years, “This extraordinary work was reproduced in facsimile in 1885 with an introduction by J.H. Pollen, and is a remarkable proof of Richard Doyle’s precocity as an artist. In 1843 he became a contributor to “Punch” and continued on the staff of that paper till 1850. He produced many cartoons, but his name will be especially remembered from the fact that he designed the cover for “Punch” which has continued in use down to the present time. He also wrote for “Punch” a series of articles entitled “Manners and Customes of ye Englyshe.” A very devout Catholic, he resigned his position on the staff of the paper in 1850 in consequence of its hostility to what was termed “papal aggression,” and devoted the remainder of his career to preparing drawings for book illustration and to painting in watercolour. His chief series of illustrations were those for “The Newcomes,” “The King of the Golden River,” “In Fairyland,” and “The Foreign Tour of Brown, Jones and Robinson.” His watercolour drawings were marked by much poetic feeling, and were executed in harmonious low-toned schemes of colour. His genius has been well described as “kindly, frolicsome, graceful, and sportive.” He was full of imagination and delighted in romantic fancy, while his caricatures are exquisitely drawn, amusing and graceful, lacking perhaps the strength of his father’s works but far exceeding them in charm and in quality of amusement. There are many of his drawings in the British Museum, and some of his sketch-books are in the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge.

The Month (London, March 1884); Everitt, English Caricaturists (London, 1886); Binyon, Drawings in the British Museum (London, 1900); Dobson, in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

David Paul Drach

Convert from Judaism, b. at Strasburg, 6 March, 1791; d. end of January, 1868, at Rome. Rosenthal’s “Convertitenbilder” (III, 48) prefaces the autobiography of Drach with the following words: “The conversion of this learned Jewish proselyte is undoubtedly one of the most important conversions effected by the grace of God during this century in France and became the source of salvation to many of his coreligionists.” This conversion, affecting one who enjoyed the highest esteem as an author and a learned rabbi, produced a most profound impression on all active and earnest minds of the rising generation, and incited them to the study of the more serious problems of life. His endeavours to lead his coreligionists to the living fountain of truth, to the acknowledgment of Jesus as the real and true Messias, crystallized in numerous writings and were blessed by God. Herein lies the net result of this scholar’s conversion.

Drach received his first instruction at the hands of his father, a renowned Hebraist and Talmudic scholar, whose linguistic talents the son inherited. At the age of twelve Drach entered the first division of the Talmudic school in Edendorf near Strasburg. This course of study, lasting ordinarily for three years, he completed in one year, and entered the second division of the Talmudic school in Bischheim in the following year. He graduated in eighteen months and then matriculated in Westhofen to qualify as a teacher of the Talmud. When only sixteen years of age he accepted the position of instructor at Rappoltsweiler, remaining there three years; afterwards he followed the same profession in Colmar. Here the ambitious youth devoted himself zealously to the study of secular sciences to which he had already seriously applied himself while prosecuting his Talmudic studies. Having obtained the rather unwilling permission of his father, he went to Paris, where he received a call to a prominent position in the Central Jewish Consistory and at the same time fulfilled the duties of tutor in the household of a distinguished Jew. The marked results of his method of teaching induced even Christian families to entrust their children to his care. It was under these circumstances that he received the first impulse towards a change of his religious views which ultimately resulted in his conversion. He writes: “Stirred by the edifying examples of Catholic piety continually set before me to the furtherance of my own salvation, the tendency towards Christianity, born in earlier life, acquired such strength that I resisted no longer.” He now applied himself studiously to patristic theology and specialized in the study of the Septuagint with a view towards ascertaining the truth of the unanimous reproach of the Fathers, viz. that the Jews had falsified the Hebrew text. These studies resulted in his unquestioned belief in the Divinity and Messiahship of Jesus Christ. On Maundy Thursday, 1823, he renounced Judaism in the presence of Archbishop Quélen, in Paris, was baptized the following (Holy) Saturday, and on Easter morning received his first Holy Communion and the Sacrament of Confirmation. Two daughters and an infant son were also baptized. His wife, the only member of the family who adhered stanuchly to the old faith, abducted the children. They were returned, however, after two years.

After a few years Drach went to Rome, where he was appointed librarian of the Propaganda (1827), which office he held at his death. Among the many converts who trace their conversion to the influence of Drach’s example are the Libermann brothers; Franz Maria Paul Libermann was especially indebted to Drach for his sound advice and active assistance in the establishment of the “Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” Of Drach’s numerous writings the following deserves particular mention: “Lettres d’un rabbin converti aux Israélites, ses frères” (Paris, 1825). He also published the “Bible de Vence,” with annotations (Paris, 1827- 1833) in 27 volumes octavo. He remodelled the Hebrew-Latin Dictionary of Gesenius, and published a Catholic Hebrew-Chaldaic dictionary of the Old Testament (ed. Migne, Paris, 1848). He wrote, moreover, “Du divorce dans la synagogue” (Rome, 1840); “Harmonie entre l’église et la synagogue” (Paris, 1844); and “La Cabale des Hébreux” (Rome, 1864).

PAUL AUGUSTIN DRACH

Son of the preceding; born 12 August, 1817; died 29 October, 1895; canon of Notre-Dame and exegete of importance. He studied at the Propaganda College in Rome and was ordained priest there in 1846. We owe to him a large French Bible commentary (La Sainte Bible, Paris, 1869) in which he himself wrote on the Pauline Epistles (1871), the Catholic Epistles (1879), and the Apocalypse (1879).

ROSENTHAL, Convertitenbilder, III, 48; GRUBEL in Kirchenlex., III, 2011; HURTER, Nomenclator; PITRA, Life of the Ven. Servant of God, Franz Maria Paul Libermann, Ger. tr. MÜLLER (Stuttgart, 1893).

N. SCHEID

Drachma

(Gr. drachmé), a Greek silver coin. The Greeks derived the word from drássomai, “to grip,” “to take a handful”; cf. drágma, manipulus, “a handful.” Thus the term originally signified a handful of grain (Liddell and Scott; Riehm, “Handwörterbuch,” Smith, “Dict. of Antiq.”). But in Vigouroux, “Dict. de la Bible,” the term is derived from daraq-mana, the name of a Persian coin equivalent to the Hebrew drkmwn, dárkemôn. The Persian word darag, Assyrian darku, means “degree,” “division.” Thus the words daraq-mana and drachma would signify a part of a mina. The darag-mana was also called a Daric because it was first struck by the emperor Darius Hystaspis. The drachma contained six oboli. It was the fourth part of a stater, the hundredth part of a mina, and the six-thousandth part of a talent. The precise value of the drachma differed at various times. The two principal standards of currency in the Grecian states were the Attic and the Æginetan. The Attic drachma had the greater circulation after the time of Alexander the Great. Its weight was about 66 grains, its value was a little less than twenty cents (nine pence, three farthings), and its size was about that of a quarter. On the one side it had the head of Minerva, and on the reverse her emblem, the owl, surrounded by a crown of laurels. The Æginetan drachma weighed about 93 grains and was equivalent to one and two-thirds Attic drachmas. It was current in the Peloponnessus (Corinth excepted, Riehm, “Handwörterb.”) and in Macedonia until Alexander the Great. The drachma is mentioned in the Old Testament (II Machabees, xii, 43), when Judas sends 12,000 drachmas to Jerusalem that sacrifices may be offered for the dead. In the New Testament (Luke, xv, 8, 9), Christ used the word in the parable of the woman that has ten drachmas (D. V. “groats”) and loses one.

RIEHM, Handwörterbuch; BEURLIER in VIG. Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Drachme; BABINGTON in Dict. of the Bible s. v. Mondy; WEX, Métrologie grecque et romaine (Paris, 1886).

C. VAN DEN BIESEN

Blossius Æmilius Dracontius

A Christian poet of the fifth century. Dracontius belonged to a distinguished family of Carthage and was the pupil of a noted grammarian named Felicianus. He was called clarissimus (most illustrious), won the favour of the proconsul Pacideius, and led a prosperous life by means of inherited riches and the income of his law practice until he incurred the ill will of the Vandal king, Gunthamund. The cause of this misfortune seems to have been the expression of sentiments of Romano-Byzantine patriotism; for these utterances Dracontius suffered a long imprisonment. Nothing more is known of his history except that he was still alive when Thrasamund ascended the throne in 496.

His works are the “Romulea,” three books on God (De laudibus Dei), and a poem entitled “Satisfactio.” The latter two were written in prison; the first-mentioned is a collection of pieces composed at various times and written in the style of rhetorical school exercises. Thus, one of these poems represents a rich man and a poor man as enemies; as a reward for the exploits of the rich man his statue is erected in the public square and accorded the right of sanctuary. Later, in recompense for additional services, the rich man asks for the head of the poor one, whereupon the latter flees to the statue for safety and a formal process ensues. In another poem Achilles deliberates as to whether or not he shall sell the body of Hector. When Dracontius deals with themes of his own day, as in the eulogy on his former teacher, and the “Epithalamia” for two couples who were friends, his style is occasionally less conventional. The writings forming the “Romulea” contain but little suggestion of a Christian poet; on the other hand, the “Satisfactio” and the “De laudibus Dei” manifest an ardent and sometimes eloquent faith. The “Satisfactio,” written about 490, was intended to be instrumental in obtaining the royal pardon; the “De laudibus Dei,” produced between 486 and 496, is a recital of God’s benefits. The first book of the “De laudibus Dei” has for its main contents a description of the creation; the chief theme of the second is the Incarnation and the Redemption, it also contains vehement attacks on Arianism; the third compares, by appropriate examples, the hope of the Christian who denies himself in order to love God with the cheerless prospect of the pagan who counts on no future reward. This poem, like the others, is full of ideas taken from other sources; the episodes drawn from the Bible, profane history, and mythology are as varied as the textual reminiscences of the Latin poets, both Christian and pagan. However, the excellent pupil of Felicianus was not a thorough master of Latin diction and prosody; his writings give frequent evidence in their form of the surrounding barbarism.

The collection named “Romulea” is incomplete. Probably it should also contain two small poems, one on the months and the other on the origin of the rose; perhaps, further, the “Orestis tragœdia,” which is called a tragedy, though in reality it is an epic poem of some thousand verses, wherein the author follows a unique ancient version of the myth; finally, though with less certainty, the “Ægritudo Perdicæ” (Perdica’s Malady). The subject of this little poem of 290 hexameters is interesting from the point of view of folk-lore. Perdica, a student of Athens, has neglected the worship of Venus and by way of revenge this goddess inspires him with a guilty love for his mother, Castalia. Perdica fails into a decline and his physicians are unable to understand his ailment, but Hippocrates, who ascertains that Perdica’s heart beats more violently when Castalia approaches, recognizes the real nature of the malady. There is no remedy for the trouble and Perdica hangs himself (see Rohde, Der grischisch. Roman, p. 54). The works of Dracontius were not known in their real form until 1791 and 1873. His Christian poems were very popular in the sixth and seventh centuries. They were revised by Eugenius, Bishop of Toledo (died 657), but these revisions made great changes in the author’s statements. What Eugenius failed to understand he altered; moreover, he corrected the doctrine of Dracontius. The latter had said that God deliberately created good and evil at the same time (Satisfactio, 15); Eugenius made him say that God tolerated evil. It was in this recension that both the Christian poems were known until 1791. The larger part of the secular poems of Dracontius were first published in 1873.

VOLLMER in PAULY-WISSOWA. Realencykl. d. clase. Altertumswiss. (Stuttgart, 1905), s. v. Dracontius; first edition of Christian poems in original form, AREVALO ed. (Rome, 1791), reprinted in P. L., LX; first edition of secular poems, ed. VON DUHN (Leipzig, 1873), best edition by VOLLMER in Mon. Germ. Hist. (Berlin, 1905), except for Ægritudo Perdicœ, which is edited by BÄHRENS in Poetœ latini minores (Leipzig, 1883). V, 112.

PAUL LEJAY

Augusta Theodosia Drane

In religion MOTHER FRANCIS RAPHAEL, O.S.D.; b. at Bromley near London, in 1823; d. at Stone, Staffordshire, 19 April, 1894. Her parents were both Protestants, her father being managing partner in an East India mercantile house. Her remarkable natural gifts were developed by wide reading at a very early age. In 1837 she moved with her family to Babbicombe, Devonshire, where she read much of the early literature of the Oxford Movement. Burnet’s “History of the Reformation,” she declared, was the real cause of her conversion. It was not, however, till 1847 that she grew uneasy as to her religious beliefs, whereupon she consulted Keble and Pusey, but without satisfaction. The influence of Maskell, then Vicar of St. Mary Church, helped her more and she confided to him a scheme called “Ideal of a Religious Order.” He told her that such an order existed in the Catholic Church, naming the Third Order of St. Dominic. This made a profound impression on her mind and gradually she was drawn to the Church. She was received at Tiverton, 3 July, 1850, and in 1852 entered the Third Order of St. Dominic at Clifton. On 8 Dec., 1853, she was professed at the new convent of Stone, Staffordshire, and was there employed in teaching and in writing various books, meanwhile making great spiritual progress. In 1860 she was appointed mistress of novices, but in 1863 became mistress of studies instead, thus obtaining more leisure for writing. In 1872 she became prioress under her friend, Mother Imelda Poole, and on the death of the latter in 1881 succeeded her as provincial (25 Nov., 1881), thus taking charge of the whole congregation and the convents of Stoke-on-Trent, Bow, and St. Mary Church. Her character was well summed up by Bishop Ullathorne, when he described her as “one of those many-sided characters who can write a book, draw a picture, rule an Order, guide other souls, superintend a building, lay out grounds, or give wise and practical advice with equal facility and success.” She continued to grow in remarkable sanctity till her death, which took place a fortnight after she had ceased to be provincial.

Her works include: “The Morality of Tractarianism” (1850), published anonymously; “Catholic Legends and Stories” (1855); “Life of St. Dominic” (1857); “Knights of St. John” (1858); “Three Chancellors, Wykeham, Waynflete and More” (1859); “Historical Tales” (1862); “Tales and Traditions” (1862); “History of England for Family Use” (1864); “Christian Schools and Scholars” (1867); “Biographical Sketch of Hon. H. Dormer” (1868); “Songs in the Night” (1876); “New Utopia” (1876); “History of St. Catherine of Siena” (1880); “History of St. Dominic” (1891); “The Spirit of the Dominican Order” (1896), and some smaller pieces. She translated the “Inner Life of Père Lacordaire” (1868), edited a “Life of Mother Margaret Mary Hallahan” (1869), “Archbishop Ullathorne’s Autobiography” (1891), and “Letters of Archbishop Ullathorne” (1892).

EDWIN BURTON

Interpretation of Dreams

There is in sleep something mysterious which seems, from the earliest times, to have impressed man and aroused his curiosity. What philosophy of sleep sprang from the observation of phenomenon, we do not know; but like all phenomena the causes of which are not obvious, sleep came, in the course of time, to be considered as the effect of the Divine agency and as something sacred. We should very likely see a vestige of this simple and primitive philosophy in the reverence shown at all times by the Arabs to a man sleeping.

But the mystery of sleeping is enhanced by the phenomenon of dream which accompanies it. Primitive people, unable to explain the psychology of dreaming or to discover the causes of sleep, observed that, whereas man can, when awake, control his thoughts and fancies, yet he is utterly incapable, when in sleep, either of bringing about such dreams as he might wish, or of directing and ruling those that offer themselves to his faculties; hence they were led to attribute dreams to outside and supernatural agencies. The gods, whose power was believed to manifest itself in natural effects, such as thunderstorms and earthquakes, whose message were supposed to be written by signs in the heavens, could as well send their communication to men in dreams. Hence the persuasion arose that persons favoured by frequent dreams were sacred and chosen intermediaries between the deity and man.

Far from being cast aside by advancing civilization, these ideas developed with it, and were to a certain extent even systematized, as appears in particular from the records of the ancient peoples of the East. These all took it for granted that every dream expressed a Divine message. Most dreams came unsought; but occasionally supernatural communications were solicited by “incubation.” The person desirous of obtaining a prophetic dream then betook himself to the temple of the deity from whom he expected instructions, and there slept, after some ritual preparation. Among the shrines known in antiquity for vouchsafing oracles to sleeping worshippers, the temple of Aesculapius at Epidaurus, where dreams were obtained in which remedies were revealed to cure diseases, the cave of Trophonius, the temple of Serapis, and that of Hathor, near the turquoise mines of the Sinai Peninsula, are the best known. As a last means to wrest the dream from a reluctant deity, magic was also resorted to. An interesting example of magical formulae used for this purpose is contained in a Gnostic papyrus of relatively late date preserved in the Leyden Museum; it is entitled “Agathocles’ Recipe for sending a Dream,” and may be read in Wiedemann’s Religion der alten Egypter (p.144).

The meaning of the Divine message conveyed in dreams was sometimes obvious and unmistakable, as when the facts to be known were plain revealed by the deity himself or through the ministry of some messenger. Thus Thomas IV was instructed by Ra Hormakhu in a dream to dig out of the sand the statue of the Great Sphinx, near the place where he was sleeping. In like manner the early Babylonian king, Gudea, received the command to erect the temple Erinnu to Ninib. Of this description also were the dreams recorded in the annals of King Asshurbanipal. From these documents we learn that Asshur appeared in a dream to Gyges, King of Lydia, and said to him: “Embrace the feet of Asshurbanipal, King of Assyria, and thou shalt conquer thy enemies by his name.” Forthwith Gyges dispatched messengers to the Assyrian ruler to narrate this dream and pay him homage, and henceforth succeeded in conquering the Kimmerians. Another passage relates that, in the course of an expedition against Elam, as the Assyrian troops were afraid to cross the Itti River, Ishtar of Arba-ilu appeared to them in their sleep and said: “I go before Asshurbanipal, the king whom my hands have made.” Encouraged by this vision, the army crossed the river (“West, As. Inscr.,” vol.III; G, Smith, “Hist. Of Ashurbanipal”). The Divinely sent dream might also at times foreshow some coming event. Moreover, its meaning was not always clear and might be shrouded in symbols, or, if conveyed through oral communication, wrapped up in figures of speech. In either case, the knowledge of the significance of dream would depend on the interpretation. And as most dreams portend no clear message, the task of unfolding dream symbols and figures gradually grew into an art, more or less associated with soothsaying. Elaborate rules were laid down and handbooks compiled for the guidance of the priests in explaining the portent of the visions and symbols perceived by the inquirer in his sleep.

Many such manuals have been found in Assyria and Babylonia, the contents of which enable us to understand the principles followed in dream-interpretation. From Dan.,ii,2 sqq., it would seem that the potherim or dream-interpreters, might be called upon even to discharge the perplexing task of recalling dreams forgotten by the dreamer. The instance here recorded cannot, however, be much insisted upon, as the context distinctly intimates that this task, impossible “except to the gods,” yet imposed upon the Babylonian diviners by a whim of the king, was beyond their acknowledged attributions. Most of the Egyptian magic books likewise contain incantations either to procure or to explain dreams. There incantations had to be recited according to fixed cantillations, and the soothsayer’s art consisted in knowing them thoroughly, copying them faithfully, and applying them properly. Side by side with this religious view of dreams, which regarded them as the expression of the will of god, there existed the superstitious view, according to which all dreams were considered as omens. Assuming “that things causally connected in thoughts are causally connected in fact” (Jevons), people blindly believed that their dreams had a bearing on their own fate, and eagerly strove to discover their significance.

Like the Eastern peoples, the Greeks and the Romans attached a religious significance to dreams. Of his belief many traces may be found in classical literature. Homer and Herodotus thought it natural that the gods should send dreams to men, even to deceive them, if need be, for the accomplishment of their higher ends (Agamemnon’s dream). The same indications may be found also in the works of the dramatists (e.g. Clytemnestra’s dream in the “Agamemnon” of Aeschylus.) Plato, whilst regarding it as inconceivable that a god should deceive men, admitted nevertheless that dreams may come from the gods (Tim., cc, xlvi, xlvii). Aristotle was similarly of the opinion that there is a divinatory value in dreams (De Divin, per somn., ii). The teaching o Stpocs was along the same lines. If the gods, they said, love man and are omniscient as well as all-powerful, they certainly may disclose their purposes to man in sleep. Finally, in Greece and Rome, as well as in the East, the popular views of dreams went a great deal farther and developed into superstition. It was accordance with these views, and to gratify the cravings which they created that Daldianus Artemidorus compiled his “Oneirocritica,” in which rules were laid down whereby any one could interpret his own dreams.

In the light of the belief and practices of the ancient peoples, we are better able to judge the belief and practices recorded in the Bible. That God may enter into communication with man through dreams is asserted in Numbers 12:6, and still more explicitly in Job 33:14 sqq.: “God speaketh once . . . By a dream in a vision by night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, and they are sleeping in their beds: then he openeth the ears of men, and teaching instructeth them in what they are to learn.” As a matter of fact, Divine revelation through dreams occurs frequently in the Old and in the New Testament. In most of the cases recorded the dream is expressly said to come from God; of this description are, e.g., the dreams of Abimelech (Gen.,xx,3); of Jacob (Gen.,xxviii,12;xxxi,10); of Solomon (IIIK.,iii,5–15); of Nabuchodonosor (Dan.,ii,19); of Daniel (Dan., vii,1); of Joseph (Matth.,i,20;iii,13); of St. Paul (Acts,xxiii,11;xxvii,23), unless we should interpret these passages as referring to visions granted to the Apostle while awake. God is said to appear Himself only in a few instances, as to Abimelech, to Jacob, to Solomon,and to Daniel, if, as is generally admitted, the “Ancient of days,” spoken of in this connection, should be understood to be God; in other instances He is said to speak through an angel, as in dreams narrated by St. Matthew and St. Paul. The Bible records other dreams, which, though prophetic, are not distinctly said to come from God (Gen,xxxvii,6; x1,5;xli,1; Judges,vii,13; II Mach., xv,11). It appears, however, from the circumstances and from their prophetic import, that their Divine origin cannot be doubted; at least their interpretation is declared (Gen., x1,8) to “belong to God.” Accepting the historical truth of these facts, there is no reason indeed why God should not use dreams as a means of manifesting His will to man. God is omniscient and all-powerful, and He loves man; He may, therefore, in order to disclose his purposes, choose natural as well as supernatural means. Now dreaming, as a natural psycho-physiological phenomenon, has undoubtedly its laws, which, however obscure they may be to man, are established by God, and obey His bidding. But since man may be easily deluded, it is needful that God in using natural causes should supply such evidences as will make His intervention unmistakable. Sometimes these evidences are manifested to the dreamer, at other times to the interpreter, if one be necessary; but they will never fail. The analogy of the foregoing reasons with those brought forward by theologians to prove the possibility of revelation is readily perceived. In fact, there is here more than a mere analogy; for communication by dreams is but one of the many ways God may select to manifest His designs to man; there is between them a relation of species to genus, and one could not deny either without denying the possibility of a supernatural order.

All the dreams actually recorded in Holy Writ came unsought. Some scholars infer from the words of Saul (I K.,xxviii,15): “God is departed from me, and would not hear me, neither by the hand of prophets, nor by dreams,” that the practice of deliberately seeking supernatural dreams was not unknown in Israel. The words just quoted, however, do not necessarily imply such a meaning, but may as well be interpreted of unsought prophetic dreams. Still less can it be asserted that the Israelites would seek prophetic dreams by resorting to a well-known sanctuary and sleeping there. The two instances sometimes adduced in this connection, namely the dream of Jacob at Bethel (Gen.,xxviii,12–19) and that of Solomon at Gabaon (III.K.,iii,5–15), do not bear out such an affirmation. In both cases the dream far from being sought, was unexpected; moreover, with regard to the former, it is evident from the narration that Jacob was quite unaware beforehand of the holiness of the place he slept in. His inference on the next morning as to its sacredness was inspired by the object of the dream, and his conduct in this circumstance seems even to betray some fear of having unknowingly defiled it by sleeping there.

It should be concluded from the above remarks that there were no errors with regard to dreams and dream-interpretation in the minds of individual Israelites. Like their neighbours, they had a tendency to consider all dreams as omens, and attach importance to their significance. But this tendency was constantly held in check by the more enlightened and more religious part of the nation. Besides the prohibition to “observe dreams,” embodied in the Law (Lev.,xix,26; Deut.,xviii,10), the Prophets, from the eighth century B.C. onwards, repeatedly warned the people against giving “heed to their dreams which they dream” (Jer.,xxix,8). “Dreams follow many cares,” says Ecclesiastes (v,2); and Ben Sirach wisely adds that “dreams have deceived many, and they have failed that put their trust in them” (Ecclus.,xxxiv,7). This was, according to II Par., xxxiii,6, one of the faults which brought about the downfall of Manasses. Above all, the Israelites were warned in every manner against trusting in the pretended dreams of false prophets: “Behold, I am against the prophets that have lying dreams, saith the Lord” (Jer.,xxiii,32;cf. Zach.,x,2;etc). From these and other indications it appears that the religion of Israel was kept pure from superstition connected with dreams. True, a mere glance at the respective dates of the above-quoted passages suggest that the zeal of the prophets was of little avail, at least for certain classes of people. The evil opposed by them continued in vogue down to the Exile, and even after the Restoration; but it is scarcely necessary to remark how unjust it would be to hold the Jewish religion responsible for the abuses of individual persons. Neither did there exist at any time in Israel a class of diviners making it their business to interpret the dreams of their country-men; there were no potherim among the temple-officials, nor later around the synagogues. The very few dream-interpreters spoken of in the Bible, as Joseph and Daniel, were especially commissioned by God in exceptional circu mstances. Nor did they resort to natural skills or art; their interpretations were suggested to them by the Divine intellect enlightening their minds; “interpretation belongs to God,” as Joseph declared to his fellow-prisoners. Undoubtedly there were among the people some soothsayers ever ready to profit by the curiosity of weaker and credulous minds; but as they possessed no authority and as they were condemned both by God and by the higher religious consciousness of the community, they practised their art in secret.

That certain dreams may be caused by God seemed to be acknowledged without controversy by the early Fathers of the Church and the ecclesiastical writers. This opinion they based mainly on Biblical authority; occasionally they appearled to the authority of classical writers. Agreeably to this doctrine, it was admitted likewise that the interpretation of supernatural dreams belongs to God who sends them, and who must manifest it either to the dreamer or to an authorized interpreter. The divine intervention in man’s dreams is an exceptional occurrence; dreaming, on the contrary, is a most common fact. We may inquire, therefore, how the official guardians of Faith viewed ordinary and natural dreams. In general they repeated to the Christians the prohibitions and warnings of the Old Testament, and denounced in particular the superstitious tendency to consider dreams as omens. It may suffice in this connection to recall the names of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory the Great, whose teaching on the question at issue is clear and emphatic. A few, however, held opinions somewhat at variance with the traditional view. Among them the most noteworthy is Synesius of Cyrene (about 370–413), who is the author of a very strange treatise on dreams. Starting from the Platonic anthropological trichotomy, and from certain psychological hypotheses of Plato and Plotinus, he attributed the imagination a manifestly exaggerated role. Above all the arts of divination, the lawful use of which he did not seem to doubt, he extolled dreaming as the simplest and surest mode of prophesying. We know that he had accepted the episcopacy only on the condition that he might continue to hold certain favourite philosophic ideas; and it is reasonable to suppose that his theories on dreams were included in the compact.

Medieval theologians added to the reasonings of their predecessors a more careful, and to some extent more scientific, study of the phenomena of sleep; but they found no reason to depart from the moral principles contained in the writings of the Fathers. Suffice it here to quote St. Thomas Aquinas, who summarizes the best teaching of the Schoolmen. To the query: Is divination through dreams unlawful?—he replies: The whole question consists in determining the cause of dreams, and examining whether the same may be the cause of future events, or at least come to the actual knowledge of them. Dreams come sometimes from internal, and sometimes from external, causes. Two kinds of internal causes influence our dreams: one animal, inasmuch as such images remain in a sleeping man’s fantasy as were dwelt upon by him while awake; the other found in the body: it is indeed a well-known fact that the actual disposition of the body causes a reaction on the fantasy. Now it is self-evidence that neither of these causes has any influence on individual future events. Our dreams may likewise be the effects of a twofold external cause. This is corporeal when exterior agencies, such as the atmospheric conditions or others, act on the imagination of the sleeper. Finally dreams may be caused by spiritual agents, such as God, directly, or indirectly through his angels, and the devil. It is easy to conclude thence what chances there are to know the future from dreams, and when divination will be lawful or unlawful (II-II:95:6).

Modern theologians, whilst profiting by the progress of psychological research, continue to admit the possibility of dreams supernatural in their origin, and consequently the possibility of dream-interpretation depending on supernatural communications. As to ordinary dreams, they readily grant that, because the imaginative faculties of man acquire sometimes a keenness which they do not possess otherwise, it is possible in such cases to conjecture with a certain degree of probability some future events; but in all other cases, by far the most common, it is useless and illogical to attempt any interpretation. As a matter of fact dreams are now—we speak of civilized peoples—seldom heeded; only very ignorant and superstitious persons ponder over the “dictionaries of dreams” and the “keys to the interpretation of dreams” once so much in favour. “As idle as a dream” has become a proverb expressive of the popular mind on the subject, and indicating sufficiently that there is little need nowadays to revive the laws and canons enacted in past ages against divination through dreams.

BOUCHE-LECLERCQ, Histoire de la Divination (Paris, 1879); LENORMANT, la divination et la science des presages chez les Chaldeens (Paris, 1875); LEHMANN, Aberglaube und Zauberei (Stuttgart, 1898); SCHANZ in Kirhenlex.,s.v. Traumdeuterei; LADD, Doctrine of Sacred Scripture (New York, 1883); REYNOLDS, Natural History of Immortality (1891).

CHARLES L. SOUVAY

Jeremias Drechsel

(Also Drexelius or Drexel.)

Ascetic writer, b. at Augsburg, 15 August, 1581; entered the Society of Jesus 27 July, 1598; d. at Munich, 19 April, 1638. He was professor of humanities and rhetoric at Augsburg and Dillengen, and for twenty-three years court preacher to the Elector of Bavaria. His writings enjoyed an immense popularity. Chief among them was his “Considerationes de Æternitate” (Munich, 1620), of which there were nine editions; in addition to these Leyser printed 3200 copies in Latin and 4200 in German. It was also translated into English (Cambridge, 1632; Oxford, 1661; London, 1710 and 1844) and into Polish, French, and Italian. His “Zodiacus Christianus” or “The Twelve Signs of Predestination” (Munich, 1622) is another famous book but there seems to have been an edition anterior to this; in 1642 eight editions had already been issued and it was translated in several European languages. “The Guardian Angel’s Clock” was first issued at Munich, 1622, and went through seven editions in twenty years; it was also translated extensively. “Nicetas seu Triumphata conscientia” (Munich, 1624) was dedicated to the sodalists of a dozen or more cities which he names on the title page; “Trismegistus” was printed in the same year and place; “Heliotropium” or “Conformity of the Human Will with the Divine Will” came out in 1627; “Death the Messenger of Eternity” also bears the date 1627. His fancy for odd titles shows itself in other books also. Thus there are the “Gymnasium of Patience”; “Orbis Phaëton, hoc est de universis vitiis Linguæ.” The only work he wrote in German was entitled “Tugendtspregel oder Klainodtschatz” (Munich, 1636). He has also a “Certamen Poeticum”; Rosæ selectissimarum virtutum”; “Rhetorica Coelestis”; “Gazophyacium Christi.” There are in all thirty-four such books. Other works are “Res bellicæ expeditionis Maximiliani” (1620), and some odes and sermons.

De Backer, Bibl. de la c. de J., 1646–55; Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., III, 181 sqq.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Dresden

The capital of the Kingdom of Saxony and the residence of the royal family, is situated on both sides of the Elbe, which is here crossed by five bridges, and is surrounded by pleasing heights. Including the suburbs which now form a part of it, the city contained (1 December, 1905) 516,996 inhabitants, of whom 462,108 were Evangelical Lutherans, 2885 Evangelical Reformed, 44,079 Catholics, 3514 Jews, etc. Dresden is the residence of the vicar Apostolic for Saxony and is the seat of the Catholic ecclesiastical consistory and of the vicarial court. In 1907 there were in Dresden 24 ecclesiastics, including the vicar Apostolic, who is a titular bishop, 7 rectors, 4 court preachers, and 1 military chaplain. Dresden has 6 Catholic parish churches, of which 2 are only chapels, 1 garrison church, which is also used for Protestant worship, the church attached to St. Joseph’s Institute, built in 1746, and 6 chapels. The most important of these edifices is the court church, one of the finest Rococo structures of Germany. It was built by the Italian master-builder, Gaetano Chiaveri, in the years 1739–51, for Frederick Augustus II (1733–63). The church has a finely painted ceiling, a high altar with altar-painting by Raphael Mengs, and valuable silver ornamentation; since 1823 the members of the royal family have been buried in the crypt. Among the other churches should be mentioned, the parish church of Dresden-Neustadt, built, 1852–53, in Romanesque style and containing finely painted windows, and the chapel in the royal palace.

The Catholic schools of Dresden consist of a pro-gymnasium with 4 ecclesiastical teachers and about 70 scholars, 1 middle-class school with nearly 300 scholars, and 5 district schools with 3300 pupils. For girls there are also St. Joseph’s Institute, founded in 1746 by Maria Josepha, wife of King Augustus III, to give poor Catholic girls food, clothing and instruction, and the institution for noble young ladies, founded in 1761 by Freiherr von Burkersroda, in which Catholic young women of noble birth receive a home and an education. As houses of male orders are forbidden throughout Saxony, Dresden has only convents of female congregations; these are: 2 houses of Grey Sisters who have charge of a hospital; St. Joseph’s Institute, a home for servants, 2 kitchens for the poor, etc.; 1 convent of the Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo who conduct the Amalia home and a boarding home for working-women. Among the Catholic societies of Dresden should be mentioned: the Catholic Press Association, the Teachers’ Association, 2 workingmen’s societies, the People’s Association (Volksverein) of Catholic Germany, the journeymen’s society (Gesellenverein) which carries on a boarding home, the Merchants’ Association, 3 associations for youths, 2 societies of St. Charles Borromeo, the Catholic Casino, and 20 religious societies and brotherhoods. The only Catholic daily newspaper for Dresden and Saxony is the “Saechsische Volkszeitung.”

Dresden was originally a village of the Sorbs, who in the sixth century settled on both sides of the Elbe. In the tenth century the territory was conquered by the Germans, and the Diocese of Meissen was erected in 968 for the conversion of the pagan Sorbs. The first church of Dresden, the church of Our Lady, was built about 1080. Towards the end of the twelfth century the Germans made a settlement, not far from the Sorbs, which is first mentioned in a deed of 1206 and is spoken of as a city as early as 1216. This new settlement, which gradually absorbed the other, received many privileges and rights from Margrave Heinrich the Illustrious (1230–88). The edifices still existing, which were founded in the time of this ruler, are: the St. Maternus infirmary, the St. Batholomaeus infirmary, the Franciscan monastery, the church of which forms part of the present Protestant church of St. Sophia, and the church of the Holy Cross, which in 1234 received a piece of the True Cross and consequently became a great resort for pilgrims. After the death of Heinrich, besides the Margrave of Meissen, both the Bishop of Meissen and the monastery of Hersfeld laid claim to Dresden; in 1319 the city finally came into the possession of the margraves. Margrave Wilhelm I made Dresden his place of residence; he enlarged the castle, granted the rights of a city to the old settlement called Alt-Dresden (Old Dresden) on the right bank of the Elbe, and founded there in 1404 a monastery of Hermits of St. Augustine. The intention of this ruler to establish a cathedral chapter in Dresden was not, however, carried out. In 1449 the city was besieged by the Hussites and badly damaged. Among the most remarkable events of the following period was the presence at Dresden of St. John Capistran, who in 1452 preached repentance here with great success.

When the lands of the House of Wettin were divided in 1485 between the two brothers, Albrecht and Ernst, Dresden was included in the possessions of Albrecht, to whose successors it has ever since belonged. Soon after this, in 1491, a great fire laid waste the city, burning to the ground the church of the Holy Cross and 270 houses, but the town recovered quickly. The city developed rapidly under Duke George the Bearded (1500–39), who was a strong opponent of the religious innovations of Luther. Soon after his death, however, his brother Heinrich introduced the Reformation into Dresden (1539). The monasteries of the Franciscans and Augustinians were suppressed; twenty-seven altars of the church of the Holy Cross were destroyed and the paintings were removed; the vessels of gold and silver were taken from the churches by the council, and the holding of Catholic church services was soon after this entirely forbidden.

During the reign of Duke Maurice, who attained the electoral dignity, the two towns were consolidated in 1550; in the time of Maurice and his successors Dresden became one of the most beautiful cities of Germany. After the sufferings of the Thirty Years War Dresden was adorned by its rulers, Johann Georg, Augustus the Strong, and Frederick Augustus II, with fine edifices and numerous treasures of art, so that it competed with Paris in its attractions. The Seven Years War brought intense misery to the city, the population of which fell from 63,000 to the fourth part of this number. Scarcely had the place recovered when the Napoleonic Wars with their enormous burdens, to which hunger and disease were added, again brought the greatest suffering on the city. After the Wars of Liberation the development of the city steadily progressed until it was interrupted again by the Revolution of 1849 which led to the erection of barricades and to bloody strife. Since then there has been a constant and rapid growth of the city, which rivals the other great centres of the German Empire in elegance and beauty and in the activity of its industries and commerce.

After the introduction of the Reformation into Dresden Catholicism could not exist openly. Catholics were forbidden to settle in it even as late as 1680; the few Catholics who lived there could only hear Mass in the chapel of the imperial embassy. This oppressed condition of the Catholics was not much improved when Augustus the Strong in 1697 became a convert; he gave the chapel of the hunting castle Moritzburg for Catholic worship, and in 1708 the court church of the Holy Trinity was consecrated; but public church services were still forbidden to Catholics. It was not until the Peace of Posen, 11 December, 1806, that the Catholics of Saxony were granted the same freedom of worship as the Lutherans and that the Catholic and Protestant subjects of the king received the same civil and political rights. Since this date the Catholic Church in Dresden has increased, though slowly, as Saxony, notwithstanding the Catholicism of the reigning family, is strongly Protestant and has little toleration for the Church; thus, for example, the founding of monasteries is forbidden by the Constitution of 1831. The losses of the Church in Dresden annually exceed the conversions more than tenfold.

J.E. Richter, Litteratur der Landes- und Volkskunde des Koenigreichs Sachsen, which contains a full bibliography (1889); V Supplements (1892–1905); Reformationsgesch. der Residenzstadt Dresden (Meissen, 1827); Urkundenbuch der Staedte Dresden und Pirna in Codex diplomaticus Saxoniae regiae, Pt. II, Vol. V (Leipzig, 1875); DIBELIUS, Die Einfuehrung der Reformation in Dresden, (Dresden, 1889); O. RICHTER, Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgesch. der Stadt Dresden (Dresden, 1885–91); IDEM, Atlas zur Gesch. Dresdens (Dresden, 1898); IDEM, Gesch. der Stadt Dresden (Dresden, 1900), I; IDEM, Gesch. der Stadt Dresden, 1871–1902 (Dresden, 1903); GURLITT, Beschreibende Darstellung der Bau- und Kunstdenkmaeler Sachsens (Dresden, 1900–03), Pts. XXI-XXIII; IDEM, Dresden (Dresden, 1907); Handbuch der Wohltaetigkeit und Wohlfahrtspflege in Dresden (Dresden, 1906). Periodicals.—Mitteilungen des Vereins fuer Gesch. Dresdens (Dresden) XX Pts. to 1908; Dresdener Geschichtsblaetter (Dresden), XVI vols. to 1908; St. Benno-Kalender (Dresden), LVII vols. to 1908.

JOSEPH LINS

Lebrecht Blücher Dreves

Poet, b. at Hamburg, Germany, 12 September, 1816; d. at Feldkirch, 19 Dec., 1870. The famous Prussian General Blucher was his baptismal sponsor, whence his name. At fifteen he wrote German and Latin poems faultless in rhyme and metre. Four years later he submitted a good-sized volume of poems to the critical judgment of A. von Chamisso and Gustav Schwab, and both expressed favourable opinions. This was followed shortly by another volume entitled “Lyrische Anklange” (Lyrical Melodies), and although these “Melodies” were grafted on the music of his favourites, Chamisso, Uhland, Heine, Rückert, Schwab, and others, they were not devoid of a sweetness all their own. His studies in jurisprudence, prosecuted during the three succeeding years and rewarded by the degree of doctor of laws summâ cum laude, failed to extinguish the love of his favourite study of poetry. Another volume, entitled “Vigilien” (Vigils), fulfilled the earlier promises of this child-phenomenon. About this time, however, the seamy side of life presented itself to him, trouble growing apace with financial difficulties in the young lawyer’s family. Hitherto, although a strict Protestant, his entire religion had been summed up in the word poetry. Impending poverty destroyed this rather roseate view. His mental and bodily troubles, however, were more or less dissipated by his reception into the Catholic church on Candlemas Day, 1846. A subsequent appointment as notary raised him above immediate want. It was during these darker periods that he was most prolific as an author. In 1843 he had already published anonymously a third volume of poems “Schlichte Lieder” (Unpretentious Songs) embodying his battle-songs, “Lieder eines Hanseaten.” Previous to this, when unhampered by the dread of poverty, he had written (1868) the two-act comedy “Der Lebensretter” (The Life-Saver) inscribing it: “A manuscript printed for (improvised) private theatricals.”

The change of view involved in his conversion brought him two advantages, a loftier conception of his literary work and an enlarged circle of friends. His “Lieder der Kirche” (Church Hymns) paved his way to becoming a model translator of hymns (2d ed., 1868). He also dedicated his virile pen to the cause of religion in his native town by writing a “History of the Catholic Congregations in Hamburg and Altona.” He likewise translated the “Nachtigallenlied” by the Pseudo-Bonaventura and St. Rembert’s life of St. Ansgar, Apostle of the North. He undertook the thankless task of editing (1867) the important sources of the history of his native city in the “Annuae Missionis Hamburgensis 1589–1781.” About this time he revised and republished his own poetical works. This work was made easy for him by the advice and aid of the poet von Eichendorff who had become his warm friend. Meantime he had become the father of a happy family, and to secure for his promising son a good education he determined to remove to Feldkirch in the Vorarlberg. To compensate for the loss of his friend von Eichendorff he gained a new one, the poet Father Gall Morel. The most distinguished of his children is his son, Dr. G. Dreves, editor of the “Analecta hymnica medii aevi,” a vast collection of medieval hymnology, which has already reached its fiftieth volume.

N. SCHEID

Drevet Family

The Drevets were the leading portrait engravers of France for over a hundred years. Their fame began with Pierre, and was sustained by his son, Pierre-Imbert, and by his nephew, Claude.

PIERRE DREVET

Pierre Drevet, the Elder, b. at Loire in the Lyonnais in 1663; d. in Paris, 1738, was the son of Estienne Drevet, a man of excellent family, and began his studies with Germain Audran at Lyons, continuing them with Gérard Audran in Paris. So rapid was his progress, so quickly did he imbibe and assimilate knowledge, and with such precision and delicacy did he manage the graver, that in 1696 he was made court engraver. In 1707 he was admitted to membership in the Académie des Beaux-Arts, his reception picture being an engraving of Robert de Cotte.

Rigaud’s portraits were in high favour at the end of the seventeenth century and Drevet was the first to encounter and surmount the difficulties of translating into black and white the natural appearance of texture and materials which the brilliant oils readily presented. He was an excellent draughtsman, and he treated flesh and fabrics, the flash of jewels and the shimmer of steel, with painter-like realism, surpassing all his predecessors in these effects. With all his elegance of detail he produced an harmonious ensemble, combining artistic feeling with skilful technic. Although his work with the burin was like that of the great Nanteuil, he attained a style of his own. Previous engravers sacrificed much to make the head prominent, but Drevet made everything salient, though never violently so. Always engraving after oil-paintings, Drevet was at times uneven, but this was because the originals were uneven. Orders poured in upon him faster than he could fill them, and throughout his life he had command of every important work produced in France. His engravings were mainly the portraits of distinguished people. Among his many superb plates a portrait of Colbert (1700) marks the acme of his art; and next in point of excellence come the portraits of Louis XIV and Louis XV, both after Rigaud. Other celebrated works of his are a Crucifixion, after Coypel, and a portrait of Charles II of England. During the last years of his life Drevet worked with his son and they produced plates together.

PIERRE-IMBERT DREVET

Pierre-Imbert Drevet, called the Younger Pierre, was born in Paris, 1697; died there, 1739. His father, the elder Drevet, gave him such assiduous instruction that at the age of thirteen he produced a superb little plate which indicated his future eminence. At first he engraved after Lebrun, but he soon developed a style of his own, spontaneous, sincere, and brilliant. Under his facile, sure, and soft graver every detail was rendered, every shade of colour and every variety of texture. The result was always an harmonious unit. He was his father’s constant companion and worked with unwearying patience with him. In 1723 Pierre-Imbert finished his portrait of Bossuet after Rigaud, “perhaps the finest of all the engraved portraits of France” (Lippman). In 1724 the portrait of Cardinal Dubois was engraved. Both of these are treated broadly and freely, show magnificent handling of draperies, and possess exquisite finish. The great plate of Adrienne Lecouvreur (1730) and that of Samuel Bernard are by many authorities ranked with the Bossuet. For Bernard’s portrait Rigaud himself made the drawing, a most unusual event in eighteenth-century engraving. Besides his masterly portraits, Pierre-Imbert produced many religious and historical plates, chiefly of Coypel. A sunstroke (1726) resulted in intermittent imbecility, and the talented and hardworking master—the last of the pure-line men—had thirteen years of such madness before his death. He kept on engraving, however, until the end. He was a member of the Académie de Peinture and the king assigned him apartments in the Louvre. Among his pupils were François and Jacques Chéreau and Simon Vallée.

The following are among his principal works: “Presentation of the Virgin,” after Le Brun; “Presentation in the Temple,” after L. Boullogne; portraits of the Archbishop of Cambrai (after Vivien); and René Pucelle, his last work, after Rigaud.

CLAUDE DREVET

A French engraver, b. at Lyons, 1705; d. in Paris, 1782. He was a nephew and pupil of Pierre the Elder and at first followed the traditions of the two Pierres, forming about him a coterie of engravers who endeavoured to keep alive their great traditions. Later he became very hard and precise with the graver, and his work lost all its artistic and painter-like quality, everything being sacrificed for a brilliant technic. Nevertheless, many of his plates possess great charm and delicacy. Claude seemed indifferent to his art and produced but little compared with the other members of the family. When Pierre-Imbert died, his rooms in the Louvre were given to Claude, who proceeded to squander nearly all the money left him by his uncle and his cousin.

He engraved portraits of Henri Oswald, Cardinal d’Auvergne, after Rigaud, and of De Vintimille, Archbishop of Paris, also after Rigaud.

FIRMIN-DIDOT, Les Drevet (Paris, 1876); PAWLOWSKY, Catalogue raisonné; DILKE, French Engravers and Draughtsmen of the XVIII Century (London, 1902); LIPPMAN, Engraving and Etching (New York, 1906); PERNETTY, Les Lyonnais dignes de mémoire, II, 139.

LEIGH HUNT

Francis Anthony Drexel

Banker, b. at Philadelphia, U.S.A., 20 June, 1824; d. there 15 Feb., 1885. He was the oldest son of Francis Martin Drexel, a Tyrolese by birth, and by profession a portrait-painter and musician, who in 1837 turned his attention to finance, and founded the house of Drexel & Co. in Philadelphia with connexions with the firms of J. S. Morgan & Co. of New York, and Drexel, Harjes & Co. of Paris. Associated with him were his sons Francis Anthony, Anthony Joseph, and Joseph William. Francis Anthony began his financial career at the age of thirteen, and at his father’s death in 1863 became the senior member of the firm, and was recognized as one of Amnerica’s foremost financiers. The house of Drexel & Co. was in the public estimation unalterably associated with the strictest integrity and the most broadminded liberality. At critical periods it came generously to the support of the public credit. Francis A. Drexel’s growing fortune did not alienate him from religion or harden his heart against the appeals of charity. He remained to the end poor in spirit, and regarded his vast wealth merely as a Divinely lent instrument for doing good. In his exercises of piety and his copious distribution of charities, he was ably seconded by his second wife, Emma Bouvier Drexel, who died before him. His children by his first wife, who was Hannah J. Langstroth, were Elizabeth, who died 26 September, 1890, and was the wife of Walter George Smith, of Philadelphia, and Katherine, who entered religion and founded the congregation of the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament for Indians and Coloured People (q.v.). Another daughter, Louise, wife of Edward Morrell, was the only child of his second marriage. In his will Mr. Drexel followed the Biblical injunction of bequeathing a tithe ($1,500,000) of his great estate to religious and charitable purposes, with the further proviso that in case his daughters should leave no issue, the entire estate should be distributed among the institutions specified in the will. His daughters continued to walk in the footsteps of their father. Among their own benefactions, Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Morrell founded the St. Francis Industrial School at Eddington, Pennsylvania. The Francis A. Drexel Chair of Moral Theology in the Catholic University of America was founded by his daughters in honour of Mr. Drexel.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Johann Sebastian von Drey

A professor of theology at the University of Tübingen, born 16 Oct., 1777, at Killingen, in the parish of Röhlingen, in the then ecclesiastical principality of Ellwangen; died 19 Feb., 1853. The parish priest of Röhlingen, an ex-Jesuit, noting the boy’s talents, instructed him in the elements of Latin, and persuaded his parents to send him, in 1787, in spite of their extreme poverty, to the gymnasium of Ellwangen. There he lived partly on the charity of the townspeople and partly by tutoring, especially in Latin, mathematics, and physics. He studied theology, 1797–1799, at Augsburg; after 1799 he lived in the diocesan seminary at Pfaffenhausen and was ordained in the summer of 1801. During his five years as assistant in his native place, Drey studied the then paramount philosophy of Kant, Fichte, and Schelling, and the philosophical erudition which he acquired in this study appears clearly in his scientific works. His position, from 1806, as professor of philosophy of religion, mathematics, and physics in the Catholic academy of Rottweil, formed a good preparation for his subsequent academical career. When in 1812 King Frederick I of Würtemberg founded the University of Ellwangen as a Catholic national university for his recently acquired Catholic territory, Drey was called to lecture there on dogmatics, history of dogma, apologetics, and introduction to theology. There he published two Latin dissertations: “Observata quædam ad illustrandam Justini M. de regno millenario sententiam” (1814), and “Dissertatio historico-theologica originem et vicissitudinem exomologeseos in ecclesiâ. catholicâ ex documentis ecclesiasticis illustrans” (1815), the latter of which was denounced to Rome, but without serious consequences for its author, at least for the time being.

When King William I (1817) incorporated the University of Ellwangen with the old national University of Tübingen as its Catholic faculty of theology, Drey with his colleagues, Gratz and Herbst, joined the staff of the new school and founded (1819), together with them and his new colleague, Hirscher, the “Theologische Quartalschrift” of Tübingen, still flourishing; he took a prominent part in its publication and wrote for it a number of essays and reviews. In the same year he published: “Kurze Einleitung in das Studium der Theologie mit Rücksicht auf den wissenschaftlichen Standpunkt und das katholische System.” An effort to make Drey first bishop of the newly founded Diocese of Rottenburg failed, among other reasons because of the distrust with which he was regarded in Rome owing to his above-named work on confession. Somewhat as a recompense the first position at the cathedral was reserved for him, which however, he never filled. In 1832 appeared his “Neue Untersuchungen über die Konstitutionen und Kanones der Apostel,” a work of such thoroughness that only recent investigations, especially those of von Funk, have gone beyond it. After convalescing from a severe illness, be was relieved from his office as teacher of dogmatic theology (1838). Just then his principal work, in three volumes, appeared: “Die Apologetik als wissenschaftliche Nachweisung der Göttlichkeit des Christentums in seiner Erscheinung” (1838–1847). Still comparatively robust, though well advanced in years, Drey was pensioned in 1846, almost against his will; he continued, however, to write for Wetzer and Welte’s “Kirchenlexikon” and for the “Theologische Quartalschrift” of Tübingen. With Möhler, Drey was the founder of the so-called Catholic School of Tübingen. Like Möhler, Hefele, and von Funk, he was a truly critical historian. But Drey also gave to the systematic theology of this school its peculiar stamp, equi-distinct from Traditionalism and Rationalism, recognizing on the one hand the objective facts in the history of Revelation and the tradition from generation to generation, maintaining on the other the rights of our natural reason and of philosophical speculation, with all due loyalty to dogma. Kuhn and Schanz faithfully followed in the path marked out by Drey.

Theologische Quartalschrift, XXXV (1853), 340 sqq, LXXX (1898), 18 sq.

JOHANN BAPTIST SÄGMÜLLER.

Diocese of Dromore

(DROMORENSIS, and in ancient documents DRUMORENSIS)

Dromore is one of the eight suffragans of Armagh, Ireland. It includes portions of the counties of Down, Armagh, and Antrim, and contains eighteen parishes, of which two, Newry and Clonallon, are mensal parishes. It takes its name from Dromore (Druim Mor, great ridge), a small town in the northwest of County Down, sixty-three miles north of Dublin, twenty-five miles east of Armagh, and fourteen miles south-west of Belfast, which is built on the same river, the Lagan. The See of Dromore was founded in the sixth century by St. Colman (called also Mocholmoc), one of the many holy men (more than a hundred) bearing that name in the calendars of Irish saints. From a prophecy said to have been uttered by St. Patrick, sixty years before, Archbishop Healy (“Life and Writings of St. Patrick,” p. 494) infers that St. Patrick claimed no immediate spiritual jurisdiction over the territory of Iveagh which forms mainly the Diocese of Dromore, but willed that territory to be reserved for a bishop of the native race of Dal-Araide—namely, St. Colman, who founded his see there about the year 514, some sixty years after St. Patrick founded the See of Armagh. Dromore has had its own independent jurisdiction ever since. The old cathedral of Dromore, which had been taken by the Protestants, was burnt down by the Irish insurgents in 1641, and rebuilt by Bishop Taylor twenty years later; but it has been far surpassed by the Catholic church recently erected. The seat of the cathedral, however, was transferred some two hundred years ago to Newry, the largest town of County Down, and a place of great historical interest, situated at the head of Carlingford Lough. In this town, when the severity of the Penal Laws began to relax, in the latter half of the eighteenth century, the Catholics built in a retired suburb a very plain church which is still in use; but just before Catholic Emancipation an edifice worthy of the name of cathedral was begun in 1825 and completed by Dr. Michael Blake (1833–1860) who had been Vicar-General of Dublin and the restorer of the Irish College at Rome. This cathedral was greatly enlarged and beautified by Bishop Henry O’Neill, who succeeded Bishop McGivern in 1901.

Under Dr. McGivern’s predecessor, Dr. John Pius Leahy, O.P. (1860–1890), a Dominican priory was founded on the Armagh side of Newry, and a very handsome church erected. The Poor Clares, who went to Newry from Harold’s Cross, Dublin, in 1830, were for many years the only nuns north of the Boyne. The Sisters of Mercy founded a convent at Newry in 1855, and have now flourishing establishments in Lurgan, Rostrevor, and Warrenpoint. There is a large diocesan college at Violet Hill near Newry which is under the patronage of St. Colman. To this patron saint of the diocese and its first bishop, besides the church at Dromore already referred to, are also dedicated the parish churches at Tullylish, Kilvarlin, in the parish of Magheralin, and Barnmeen near Rathfriland in the parish of Drumgath. Few ecclesiastical antiquities have survived the ravages of time, war, and heresy. Abbey Yard in Newry marks the site of the Cistercian abbey founded in the year 1144 by St. Bernard’s friend, St. Malachy O’Morgair, and endowed in 1157 by Maurice O’Loughlin, King of All Ireland. It is called in the annals Monasterium de Viridi Ligno—a name given to Newry from the yew-tree said to have been planted there by St. Patrick, the Irish name being Niubar (and sometimes Newrkintragh, “the yew at the head of the strand”) which is latinized Ivorium or Nevoracum, but more commonly as above Viride Lignum. There are the ruins of an old church half a mile east of Hilltown. In the adjoining parish of Kilbroney (church of St. Bronach, a virgin saint of the district) half a mile north-east of Rostrevor is a graveyard with the venerable ruins of a church, an ancient stone cross, and a little to the west St. Brigid’s well. Imbedded in a tree in this graveyard, a very antique bell was found about a hundred years ago and is now carefully preserved.

The first Protestant Bishop of Dromore was John Tod, on whom it was bestowed in commendam in 1606, while he was at the same time Bishop of Down and Connor. It was an unfortunate beginning; for the Protestant historian, Sir James Ware, says Tod was degraded for incontinence and poisoned himself in prison in London. Two of his successors distinguished themselves more creditably: Jeremy Taylor, who was bishop of these three dioceses from 1661 to 1667, an eloquent preacher and a writer of genius, and Thomas Percy, Bishop of Dromore from 1782 to 1811, whose “Reliques of Ancient Poetry” had a great and enduring influence on English literature.

There are 18 parishes, 42 churches, and 53 priests, a diocesan seminary and a convent of Dominicans at Newry; also 5 convents of Sisters of Mercy, one of Poor Clares, and a college of the Christian Brothers (Newry). The Catholic population is (1908), 43,014; non-Catholic, 71,187.

O’HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints (Dublin, s. d.), VI, 224; WARE-HARRIS, Antiquities of Ireland (Dublin, 1739–45); MAZIERE BRADY, Episcopal Succession in England, Scotland, and Ireland (Rome, 1876), I, 296; ARCHDALL, Monasticon Hibernicum, ed. MORAN (Dublin, 1873), I, 285; HEALY, Life and Writings of St. Patrick (Dublin, 1905), 324, 494; REEVES, Down, Connor, and Dromore (Dublin, 1847), 303; O’LAVERTY, Bishops of Down and Connor (Dublin, 1895), 300.

MATTHEW RUSSELL.

St. Drostan

(DRUSTAN, DUSTAN, THROSTAN)

A Scottish abbot who flourished about A.D. 600. All that is known of him is found in the “Breviarium Aberdonense” and in the “Book of Deir,” a ninth-century MS. now in the University Library of Cambridge, but these two accounts do not agree in every particular. He appears to have belonged to the royal family of the Scoti, his father’s name being Cosgrach. Showing signs of a religious vocation he was entrusted at an early age to the care of St. Columba, who trained him and gave him the monastic habit. He accompanied that saint when he visited Aberdour (Aberdeen) in Buchan. The Pictish ruler of that country gave them the site of Deir, fourteen miles farther inland, where they established a monastery, and when St. Columba returned to Iona he left St. Drostan there as abbot of the new foundation. On the death of the Abbot of Dalquhongale (Holywood) some few years later, St. Drostan was chosen to succeed him. Afterwards, feeling called to a life of greater seclusion, he resigned his abbacy, went farther north, and became a hermit at Glenesk. Here his sanctity attracted the poor and needy, and many miracles are ascribed to him, including the restoration of sight to a priest named Symon. After his death his relics were transferred to Arberdour and honourably preserved there. The “Breviary of Aberdeen” celebrates his feast on 15 December. The monastery of Deir, which had fallen into decay, was rebuilt for Cistercian monks in 1213 and so continued until the Reformation.

DEMPSTER, Hist. Eccl. Gent. Scot. (Edinburgh, 1829); Breviarium Aberdonense (London, 1854); INNES, Scotland in the Middle Ages (Edinburgh, 1860); FORBES, Kalendar of Scottish Saints (Edinburgh, 1872); GAMMACK in Dict. of Christ. Biog. (London, 1877).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Clemens August von Droste-Vischering

Archbishop of Cologne, born 21 Jan., 1773, at Münster, Germany; died 19 Oct., 1845, in the same city. Besides attending the University of Münster, he had as private tutor the well-known church historian Theodore Katerkamp (died 1834). At an early age he was introduced into the circle of learned men that gathered around Baron von Fürstenberg and the pious and refined Princess Amelia Von Gallitzin, where he imbibed the thoroughly Catholic principles which characterized him while Archbishop of Cologne. After completing his studies he began, in June, 1796, an extensive educational journey under the direction of Katerkamp, through Germany, Switzerland, and Italy, returning to Münster in Aug., 1797. The following year, on 14 May, he was ordained priest by his brother Caspar Maximilian, then Auxiliary Bishop of Münster. In accordance with the wish of the aged Baron von Fürstenberg, Vicar-General and Administrator of the Diocese of Münster, the cathedral chapter elected Clemens August as his coadjutor on 18 Jan., 1807, and when Fürstenberg resigned six months later, Clemens August became his successor. As administrator he founded in 1808 an independent congregation of Sisters of Mercy, the so-called Klemens-Schwestern, who, though practically confined to the Diocese of Münster, numbered 81 houses and 1126 members in 1904. When in 1813 Münster became part of Napoleon’s monarchy, the emperor appointed Baron von Spiegel as Bishop of Münster without the knowledge of the pope, but after Napoleon’s fall the pope restored Clemens August to his former office in March, 1815. Under Prussian rule the administrator repeatedly came into conflict with the Government on account of his attitude towards mixed marriages and the supervision of theological studies. When by an agreement between the Holy See and the Prussian Government the dioceses of Prussia were again supplied with bishops, Clemens August, who was not persona grata to the Prussian Government, withdrew from public life and devoted himself to works of piety and charity. He remained in seclusion even after being consecrated Auxiliary Bishop of Münster with the titular See of Calama in 1827.

After the death of Baron von Spiegel, the incumbent of the metropolitan See of Cologne, the Prussian Government, to the surprise of Catholics and Protestants alike, desired Clemens August as his successor. This unexpected move on the part of the Government was intended to conciliate the Catholic nobility of Westphalia and Rhenish Prussia as well as the Catholic clergy and laity, who began to lose confidence in the fairmindedness of the Government and justly protested against the open favouritism shown to Protestants in civil and ecclesiastical affairs. The cathedral chapter of Cologne, which had become accustomed to act as a passive instrument in the hands of the Government, elected Clemens August as Archbishop of Cologne on 1 Dec., 1835. He received the papal confirmation on 1 Feb., 1836, and was solemnly enthroned by his brother, Maximilian, Bishop of Münster, on 29 May. Soon after this he came into conflict with the adherents of Hermes (died 1831), whose doctrines (see HERMES AND HERMESIANISM) had been condemned by Pope Gregory XVI on 26 Sept., 1835. When many professors at the University of Bonn refused to submit to the papal Bull, Clemens August refused the imprimatur to their theological magazine, forbade the students of theology to attend their lectures, and drew up a list of anti-Hermesian theses to which all candidates for sacerdotal ordination and all pastors who wished to be transferred to new parishes were obliged to swear adherence. The Government was angered because the archbishop had enforced the papal Bull without the royal approbation, but gave him to understand that it would allow him free scope in this affair, provided he would accede to its demands concerning mixed marriages. Before Clemens August became archbishop he was asked by an agent of the Government whether, if he should be set over a diocese, he would keep in force the agreement regarding mixed marriages, which was made “in accordance with the papal Brief of 25 March, 1830,” between Archbishop von Spiegel and Minister Bunsen on 19 June, 1834. Clemens August did not then know in what this agreement consisted, and misled by the words “in accordance with the papal Brief,” answered in the affirmative. After becoming archbishop he discovered that the agreement in question, far from being in accordance with the papal Brief, was in some essential points in direct opposition to it. The papal Brief forbade Catholic priests to celebrate mixed marriages unless the Catholic training of the children was guaranteed, while in the agreement between von Spiegel and Bunsen no such guarantee was required. Under these circumstances it was the plain duty of the archbishop to be guided by the papal Brief, and all attempts of the Government to the contrary were futile. His conscientious devotion to duty finally caused the Government to have recourse to the most drastic measures.

Advised by Minister Bunsen, Frederick William III ordered the arrest of the archbishop. The order was carried out in all haste and secrecy on the evening of 20 Nov., 1837, and Clemens August was transported as a criminal to the fortress of Minden. If the Government thought it could overawe the Catholics of Prussia by thus trampling under foot the religious liberty of its subjects, it speedily discovered its mistake. The Bishops of Münster and Paderborn, fired by the example of Clemens August, recalled the assent they had formerly given to the agreement; while Martin von Dunin, the Archbishop of Gnesen and Posen, was imprisoned at Kolberg for the same offence that had sent Clemens August to Minden. In an Allocution of 10 Dec., 1837, Pope Gregory XVI praised the course of the Archbishop of Cologne and solemnly protested against the action of the Government. The slanderous “Darlegung,” or exposé, in which the Government attempted to defend its course by accusing the archbishop of treason, was refuted by Joseph Görres in his great apologetical work “Athanasius,” and a declaration of the true state of affairs was published at Rome by order of the pope. The Government saw its mistake and the archbishop was set free on 22 April, 1839. He was permitted to retain the title of Archbishop of Cologne, but, in order to uphold the authority of the State in the public eye, was prevailed upon to select a coadjutor in the person of Johann von Geissel (q. v.), Bishop of Speyer, who henceforth directed the affairs of the archdiocese. The slanderous accusations of the above-mentioned “Darlegung” were publicly retracted by Frederick William IV, who had meanwhile succeeded Lo the throne. In 1844 the archbishop went to Rome, where he was most kindly received by the pope and the Curia. The cardinalate, which was offered him by the pope, he refused with thanks and returned to Münster in October. Clemens August is the author of a few ascetical and ecclesiastico-political works. The most important is an exposition of the rights of Church and State entitled “Ueber den Frieden unter der Kirche und den Staaten,” published at Münster in 1843.

BRÜCK, Geschichte der kath. Kirche in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert (Münster, 1903), II, 298 sqq.; KAPPEN, Clemens August, Erzbischof von Köln (Münster, 1897); MUTH in Deutschlands Episcopat in Lebensbildern (Würzburg, 1875), III, no. 5.

MICHAEL OTT.

Druidism

The etymology of this word from the Greek drous, “oak,” has been a favorite one since the time of Pliny the Elder; according to this the druids would be the priests of the god or gods identified with the oak. It is true that the oak plays an important part as the sacred tree in the ancient cult of the Aryans of Europe, and this etymology is helped out by the Welsh word for druid, viz. derwydd. But there is a difficulty in equating the synonymous Irish draoi and Welsh derwydd.

Probably the best-substantiated derivation of the word is from the root vid, “to know,” and the intensive prefix dru. According to this etymology, the druids would be the “very wise and learned ones.” But this, like the others, is merely a conjecture, and it has been surmised that the word as well as the institution was not of Celtic origin.

Although the druids are mentioned with more or less fullness of account by a score of ancient writers, the information to be derived from their statements is very meagre, and very little of it is at first hand. Even Caesar, who probably came more in contact with the druids than any other writer, does not seem to speak of the druids of his time in particular, but of the druids in general. With the ancient writers the word druid had two meanings; in the stricter sense it meant the teachers of moral philosophy and science; in the wider sense it included the priests, diviners, judges, teachers, physicians, astronomers, and philosophers of Gaul. They formed a class apart and kept the people, who were far inferior to them in culture, in subjection. They were regarded as the most just of men, and disputes both public and private were referred to them for settlement. Thus their influence was much more a social than a religious one, in spite of the common opinion that they were exclusively a priestly class or Gaulish clergy. They enjoyed certain privileges, such as exemption from military service and the payment of taxes; and the ancient authors are unanimous in speaking of the great honours which were shown them.

Above all, the druids were the educators of the nobility. Their instruction was very varied and extensive. It consisted of a large number of verses learned by heart, and we are told that sometimes twenty years were required to complete the course of study. They held that their learning should not be consigned to writing. They must have had a considerable oral literature of sacred songs, formulae of prayers, rules of divination and magic, but all of this lore not a verse has come down to us. Either in their own language or in the form of translation, nor is there even a legend that we can call with certitude druidic. Pomponius Mela is the first author who says that their instruction was secret and carried on in caves and forests. It is commonly believed that the druids were the stubborn champions of Gaulish liberty and that they took a direct part in the government of the nation, but this is an hypothesis which, however probable, is not supported, for the early period at least, by any text or by the statement of any ancient author.

“The principal point of their doctrine,” says Caesar, “is that the soul does not die and that after death it passes from one body into another.” But, as is well known, the belief in the immortality of the soul was not peculiar to the teachings of the philosophers of ancient Gaul. Just what was the nature of that second life in which they believed is not quite clear. Some of the Greek authors, struck by the analogy of this doctrine with that of Pythagoras, believed that the druids had borrowed it from the Greek philosopher or one of his disciples. The practice of human sacrifice, which has often been imputed to the druids, is now known to have been a survival of a pre-druidic custom, although some members of the druidic corporation not only took part in, but presided at, these ceremonies. Nor has it been proved that the druids had gods of their own or had introduced any new divinity or rites into Gaul, with the exception perhaps of the Dispater, who, according to Caesar, was regarded by the druids as the head of the nation, and who may have owed his origin to their belief. The druids, in addition to teaching, which was their most important occupation, seem to have been content to preside over the traditional religious ceremonies and to have acted as intermediaries between the gods, such as they found them, and men. It is certain that they had a philosophy, but it is very unlikely that their doctrines had penetrated into the great mass of the population.

Although the only positive information we possess on the druids is to the effect that their institution existed in Gaul and Britain between the years 53 B.C. and A.D. 77, there is evidence to show that it must have existed from a much earlier time and lasted longer than the limits fixed by these dates. It seems reasonable to suppose that the influence of the druids was already at its decline when Caesar made his campaigns in Gaul, and that to them was due the civilization of Gaul in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. We may affirm that references to the druids and signs of the existence of their institution, in the germ at least, are found which would date them as early as the third century B.C. With the Roman conquest of Gaul the druids lost all their jurisdiction, druidism suffered a great decay, and there is no reason to believe that it survived long after A.D. 77, the date of the last mention of the druids as still in existence. The opening of the schools of Marseilles, Bordeaux, and Lyons put an end to their usefulness as teachers of moral philosophy; and if some of them remained scattered here and there in Gaul, most of them were obliged to emigrate to Britain. The Emperors Tiberius and Claudius abolished certain practices in the cult of the druids, their organization, and their assemblies, but their disappearance was gradual and due as much to the romanization of the land as to any political measure or act of violence or persecution on the part of Rome. Yet there can be no doubt that Rome feared the druids as teachers of the Gallo-Roman youth and judges of trials. In Gaul in the third century of the Christian Era there is mention of women who predicted the future and were known as druidesses, but they were merely sorcerers, and we are not to conclude from the name they bore that druidism was still in existence at that late date. According to Caesar, it was a tradition in Gaul in his time that the druids were of British origin and that it was to Great Britain that they went to make a thorough study of their doctrine, but the authors of antiquity throw very little light on the institution and practices of druidism in the island of Britain.

Our information concerning the druids of Ireland is drawn from what the Christian hagiographers have written of them and what can be gathered from the casual references to them in the epic literature of Ireland. We have only fragmentary notices of the matter of their teachings, but it is clear that there were the most striking resemblances between the druids of Ireland and those of Gaul. In both lands they appear as magicians, diviners, physicians, and teachers, and not as the representatives of a certain religion. In the saga tales of Ireland they are most often found in the service of kings, who employed them as advisers because of their power in magic. In the exercise of this they made use of wands of yew, upon which they wrote in a secret character called ogham. This was called their “keys of wisdom.” In Ireland, as in Gaul, they enjoyed a high reputation for learning, and some Irish druids held a rank even higher than that of the king. But they were not exempt from military service nor do they seem to have formed a corporation as in Gaul. In the earliest Christian literature of Ireland the druids are represented a the bitterest opponents of Christianity, but even the Christians of the time seem to have believed in their supernatural power of prophecy and magic. The principal thesis in M. Alexandre Bertrand’s book on the religion of the Gauls is that druidism was not an isolated institution in antiquity, without analogy, but that its parallel is to be looked for in the lamaseries which still survive in Tatary and Tibet. He maintains that great druidic communities flourished in Gaul, Britain, and Ireland many centuries before the Christian Era, and that these were the models and the beginnings of the abbeys of the Western monks. In this way he would explain the literary and scientific superiority of the monasteries of Ireland and Wales in the early Middle Ages. However ingenious and attractive this hypothesis may be, it is not supported by any historical documents, and many negative arguments might be brought to bear against it.

RHYS, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by Celtic Heathendom in Hibbert Lectures (London, 1886); ANWYL, Celtic Religion in Pre-Christian Times (London, 1906); BERTRAND, La Religion des Gaulois (Paris, 1897); D’ARBOIS DE JUBAINVILLE, Cours de Litterature celtique (Paris, 1883), I, 83–240; DOTTIN, La Religion des Celtes (Paris, 1904).

JOSEPH DUNN

Gabriel Druillettes

(Or DREUILLETS)

Missionary, b. in France, 29 September, 1610; d. at Quebec, 8 April, 1681. Druillettes entered the Society of Jesus at Toulouse, 28 July, 1629, and went to Canada in 1643. After studying the Algonquin tongue, he accompanied the Indians on their winter hunting expeditions, sharing in all their privations. Parkman calls attention to the extraordinary piety of those Montagnais, who were mostly Christians, as well as to the great sufferings undergone by the missionary. On the same day that Jogues was sent to the Mohawks, 26 August, 1646, Druillettes was given a mission among the Abnaki, on the Kennebec. He ascended the Chaudière, reached what is now Moosehead Lake by portage, and then entered the Kennebec. Continuing down the river he arrived at the English post of Coussinoc, now Augusta, where he met the agent, John Winslow, who became his life-long friend. From Coussinoc he journeyed on until he reached the sea and then travelled along the coast as far as the Penobscot, where he was welcomed by the Capuchins who had established a mission there. Druillettes was the first white man to make this remarkable journey from the St. Lawrence. Retracing his steps, he established a mission on the Kennebec about a league above Coussinoc. Subsequently it grew into the famous Norridgework, where Father Rasla was slain. He returned to Quebec in June, but as the Capuchins considered that the entire district of Maine was under their jurisdiction, the Jesuits resolved to abandon the mission. In 1648, however, both the Capuchins and Abnaki asked Druillettes to return. But he did not resume his work until 1650, and when he left Quebec the second time it was as envoy of the Government to negotiate a treaty at Boston with the Puritans of New England for commercial purposes, as well as for mutual protection against the Iroquois. He was received with great kindness by the principal men in the English colonies, notably by the famous missionary John Eliot, and by Major-General Gibbons, who kept him at his house. Druillettes speaks in the highest terms of Endicott. Shea is of the opinion that Father Druillettes said Mass privately in Boston, in December, 1650. He returned to the Kennebec in January, and in the following June was again sent as French commissioner to attend a meeting of the representatives of the English colonists at New Haven, September, 1651. Failing to induce the deputies to make a treaty, he resumed his labours among the Abnaki, returning finally to Quebec in March, 1652.

After this date he laboured among the Montagnais Indians, and at Sillery and Three Rivers. In 1658 he embarked with Father Garreau on an Indian flotilla to go to the Ottawas near Lake Superior; but the party was attacked near Montreal, Garreau was slain, and the expedition seems to have been abandoned. Druillettes and Father Dablon then attempted to reach the North Sea. In 1660 they paddled up the Saguenay, reached Lake St. John and continued their course up a tributary, which they called the River of the Blessed Sacrament, finally coming to Kekouba, which was twenty-nine days from Tadousac. As the Indians refused to go any farther north and the country offered no prospect of a mission the travellers returned to Quebec. In 1670 he was at Sault Sainte Marie and was one of those who participated with Allouez and Marquette in the famous “taking possession” of the country by Saint-Lusson in May, 1671. He laboured chiefly among the Mississauga, besides attending to other dependent missions towards Green Bay. Druillettes was regarded as a man of great sanctity, and miracles are attributed to him. He was remarkable for his knowledge of the Indian languages, and Marquette, before going West, was sent to study Algonquin under his direction at Three Rivers. His work among the Indians extended over a period of thirty-eight years. There is a great diversity in the spelling of his name; Charlevoix writes it Dreuillets. He is also called Droullettes and even Brouillettes.

T.J. CAMPBELL

John C. Drumgoole

Priest and philanthropist, b. at Granard, Co. Longford, Ireland, 15 August, 1816; d. in New York, 28 March, 1888. He emigrated to New York in 1824, and to support his widowed mother worked as a shoemaker. His piety and zeal attracted the notice of the pastor of St. Mary’s church who made him the sexton of that parish in 1844. He had always cherished an aspiration to study for the priesthood, and to provide the means for this and to maintain his mother he conducted a small book-store. In 1863 he left St. Mary’s to carry out his intention of entering the seminary; after making preliminary studies at St. Francis Xavier’s and St John’s Colleges, he was admitted as an ecclesiastical student at the seminary of Our Lady of Angels, Suspension Bridge, New York, in 1865. He was ordained priest there 24 May, 1869, and assigned as an assistant at St. Mary’s where he had formerly been sexton. From here he was appointed to take charge of a lodging-house for boys which the St. Vincent de Paul Society had opened some time previously. The caring for homeless and destitute children appealed to him specially, and he volunteered to take up the direction of this work which had languished until then. Under his sympathetic and prudent management success was at once assured. He started St. Joseph’s Union for the support of the institution and soon extended its membership all over the world. The first location of the lodging-house became inadequate to the needs and he purchased land at Great Jones Street and Lafayette Place and built an imposing structure which was opened as the Mission of the Immaculate Virgin in December, 1881. In the following year a farm was bought on Staten Island, and Mount Loretto, the country-place of the Mission, where trade schools and other buildings were built, their care being given to a community of Franciscan sisters. These buildings cost more than a million dollars and were large enough to care for 2000 destitute children annually; at his death, which occurred after a very short illness, Father Drumgoole left them entirely free of debt. He accomplished all this without any great personal talents apart from a simplicity and earnestness of charity that won him friends everywhere. He had singular success in managing boys, and, like his great prototype, Don Bosco, he believed and said that it was all due to his rule: “in looking after the interests of the child it is necessary to cultivate the heart.”

MALLICK J. FITZPATRICK.

Ven. Robert Drury

Martyr (1567–1607), was born of a good Buckinghamshire family and was received into the English College at Reims, 1 April, 1588. On 17 September, 1590, he was sent to the new College at Valladolid; here he finished his studies, was ordained priest and returned to England in 1593. He laboured chiefly in London, where his learning and virtue made him much respected among his brethren. He was one of the appellants against the archpriest Blackwell, and his name is affixed to the appeal of 17 November, 1600, dated from the prison at Wisbech. An invitation from the Government to these priests to acknowledge their allegiance and duty to the queen (dated 5 November, 1602) led to the famous loyal address of 31 January, 1603, drawn up by Dr. William Bishop, and signed by thirteen of the leading priests, including the two martyrs, Drury and Cadwallader. In this address they acknowledged the queen as their lawful sovereign, repudiated the claim of the pope to release them from their duty of allegiance to her, and expressed their abhorrence of the forcible attempts already made to restore the Catholic religion and their determination to reveal any further conspiracies against the Government which should come to their knowledge. In return they ingenuously pleaded that as they were ready to render to Caesar the things that were Caesar’s, so they might be permitted to yield to the successor of Peter that obedience which Peter himself might have claimed under the commission of Christ, and so to distinguish between their several duties and obligations as to be ready on the one hand “to spend their blood in defence of her Majesty,” but on the other “rather to lose their lives than infringe the lawful authority of Christ’s Catholic Church.” This bold repudiation of the pope’s deposing power was condemned by the theological faculty of Louvain; bit it is noteworthy that its author was selected by the pope himself as the very man in whose person he would revive the episcopal authority in England; Dr. William Bishop being nominated Bishop of Chalcedon and first vicar Apostolic in that country in 1623.

The results of the address were disappointing; Elizabeth died within three months of its signature, and James I soon proved that he would not be satisfied with any purely civil allegiance. He thirsted for spiritual authority, and, with the assistance of an apostate Jesuit, a new oath of allegiance was drawn up, which in its subtlety was designed to trouble the conscience of Catholics and divide them on the lawfulness of taking it. It was imposed 5 July, 1606, and about this time Drury was arrested. He was condemned for his priesthood, but was offered his life if he would take the new oath. A letter from Father Persons, S.J., against its lawfulness was found on him. The oath declared that the “damnable doctrine” of the deposing power was “impious and heretical,” and it was condemned by Pope Paul V, 22 September, 1606, “as containing many things contrary to the Faith and Salvation.” This brief, however, was suppressed by the archpriest, and Drury probably did not know of it. But he felt that his conscience would not permit him to take the oath, and he died a martyr at Tyburn, 26 February, 1606–7. A curious contemporary account of his martyrdom, entitled “A true Report of the Arraignment . . . of a Popish Priest named Robert Drewrie” (London, 1607), which has been reprinted in the “Harleian Miscellany,” calls him a Benedictine, and says he wore his monastic habit at the execution. But this “habit” as described proves to be the cassock and cap work by the secular clergy. The writer adds, “There were certain papers shown at Tyburn which had been found about him, of a very dangerous and traitorous nature, and among them also was his Benedictine faculty under seal, expressing what power and authority he had from the pope to make men, women, and children here of his order; what indulgence and pardons he could grant them,” etc. He may have been a confrater or oblate of the order.

BEDE CAMM.

Drusilla

Daughter of Herod Agrippa I, was six years of age at the time of her father’s death at Caesarea, A.D. 44. She had already been betrothed to Epiphanes, the son of Antiochus, King of Commagene. Herod had stipulated that Epiphanes should embrace the Jewish religion. The prince finally refused to abide by his promise to do so, and the brother of Drusilla, Herod Agrippa II, gave her in marriage to Azizus, Kind of Emesa, who, in order to obtain her hand, consented to be circumcised. It was shortly after this marriage, it would appear, that Felix, the Roman procurator of Judea, met the beautiful young queen. This meeting very likely took place at the court of Herod Agrippa II, for we can gather from Josephus that Berenice, the elder sister, whose jealousy the Jewish historian mentions as an explanation of Drusilla’s conduct, lived with her brother at this time. Felix was struck by the great beauty of Drusilla, and determined to make her his wife. In order to persuade a Jewess, who had shown attachment to her religion, to be divorced from her husband and marry a pagan, the unscrupulous governor had recourse to the arts of a Jewish magician from Cyprus whose name, according to some manuscripts of Josephus, was Atomos, according to other, Simon. The ill-advised Drusilla was persuaded to accede to the solicitations of Felix. She was about twenty-two years of age when she appeared at the side of the latter, during St. Paul’s captivity at Caesarea (Acts, xxiv, 24–25). Like her husband, she must have listened with terror as the Apostle “treated of justice, and chastity and of the judgment to come.” It is said that during the reign of Titus a son of Felix and Drusilla perished together with his wife in the eruption of Vesuvius. But there is no information about the life of Drusilla herself after the scene described in Acts.

Josephus, Antiq. Jud in Fl. Josephi Opera, ed. Niese (Berlin, 1887–1895), XIX, ix, 1–2; vii 1–2; Schurer, Gesch. des judichen Volkes (Leipzig, 1901), I, 555, 557, 564, 573, 577; Beurlier in Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s.v. Drusille.

W.S. REILLY

Drusipara

A titular see in Thracia Prima. Nothing is known of the ancient history of this town, which, according to Ptolemy, III, II, 7, and Itiner. Anton., was situated on the route from Adrianople to Byzantium. Under Maximian, St. Alexander suffered martyrdom there (Acta Sanct., May, III, 15). In the time of Emperor Mauritius the city was captured by the Khakan of the Avars, who burned the church and destroyed the relics of the martyr (Theophyl. Simocatta, VII, 14, 15). Drusipara was at first an episcopal see, suffragan of Heraclia (Lequien, Or. Christ., 1, 1131, etc.); in the eighth and ninth centuries it became an independent archbishopric, which must have been suppressed during the Bulgarian invasions. In two “Notitiae Episcopatuum” Mesene appears as a later name for Drusipara; at Mesene in 1453 died the wife of the famous Grand Duke Notaras (Ducas, Hist. Byz., 42). Mesene is today a little village, with 500 inhabitants, east of Karishtiran in the vilayet of Adrianople.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Jean Druys

(Lat. DRUSIUS)

Thirtieth Abbot of Parc near Louvain, Belgium, b. at Cumptich, near Tirlemont; d. 25 March, 1635. He studied successively at St-Trond, Liege, Namur, and Louvain, and entered the Norbertine Abbey of Parc in 1587. Ordained priest, he was sent to the Norbertine College at Louvain and obtained his licentiate in 1595. Recalled to the abbey, he was made sub-prior and professor of theology to the young religious at the abbey, chaplain to Abbot Ambrose Loots at the Refuge, which the abbey possessed at Brussels during the troublous times at the end of the sixteenth century, and at the death of Abbot Loots his successor. Four years later he was appointed vicar-general to the Abbot-General of Prémontré, and was later named by Archduke Albert a member of the States of Brabant and of his private council. The University of Louvain having suffered much from the religious and political disturbances of the time, Druys was appointed, with a layman, visitor to the university, with full power to reform abuses, a task which was not completed until 1617. He was also made visitor to the University of Douai (1616) and to the Celestine monastery at Héverlé. In addition he restored and enlarged his own abbey, which had suffered much from the vandalism of the soldiers, and provided better educational advantages for his religious. At the general chapter held at Prémontré in 1628, Abbot Druys was commissioned to revise the statutes of the order and conform them to the prescriptions of the Council of Trent, a revision which was approved at the general chapter of 1630. Druys prefixed a preface, “Praefatio ad omnes candidissimi et canonici ordinis religiosos,” which Foppens characterizes as longam, piam, eruditam. He had a tree of the saints of the order made by the skilful engraver, C. Mallery. He also published a small work entitled “Exhortatio ad candidi ordinis religiosos.” Abbot Druys was deputed by the general chapter of 1630 to bring back several abbeys of Spain into union and observance, but was unsuccessful. While on this mission he conferred with Phillip IV on the sad state of affairs in Brabant. A ring presented to him by this monarch is preserved at Parc, as is also a letter from Henrietta Maria, Queen of England.

MARTIN GEUDENS.

Gaspar Druzbicki

Ascetic writer, b. at Sierady in Poland, 1589; entered the Society of Jesus, 20 August 1609; d. at Posen, 2 April, 1662. After some years of teaching, he became master of novices, and subsequently rector of colleges of Kalisz, Ostrog, and Posen. He was twice provincial and was in the seventh and tenth general congregations of the order. Almost all his works are posthumous and have been drawn from his “Opera Ascetica.” It has been found impossible to arrange them in chronological order. Among them are a brief defense of the Society against a writer in the Cracow Academy (1632); books of meditations on the Life and Passion of Christ, some in Polish, some in Latin; “The Tribunal of Conscience,” translated in Latin for the “Quarterly Series” edited by the English Jesuits (London, 1885); “Provisiones Secetutis” (Ingolstadt, 1732). There are also “Considerations for Every Sunday and Feast of the Year” (Kalisz, 1679); “The Sacred Heart, the Goal of Hearts” (Angers, 1885), translated for the English “Messenger,” probably by Father Dignam (1890); “Exercises for Novices” (Prague, 1890); “The Religious Vows” (Posen, 1690), translated into Spanish and found in the Library of Guadalajara, Mexico; “Solid Jesuit Virtue,” (Prague, 1696); “Lapis Lydius” (Mainz, 1875), translated into French by the Redemptorist Father Ratti (Paris, 1886) and into German by the Benedictine Gütrabber (Salzberg, 1740). A complete list of Druzbicki’s works occupies twelve columns in Sommervogel.

De Backer, Bibl. de la c. de J., I, 1659–64, III, 2149; Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., III. 212.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Druzes

Small Mohammedan sect in Syria, notorious for their opposition to the Maronites, a Catholic people dwelling on the slopes of the Lebanon. Their name is derived as a plural form of Dorazy, the proper name of a Persian at the court of El Hakim in Egypt (about 1015). They subsequently repudiated all connection with this Mohammed Ibn Ismail el-Dorazy, and styled themselves Unitarians, or Muwahhedin, on account of the emphasis they lay on the unity of God. Their history begins with the arrival of Dorazy in the Wady el-Teim, after his flight from Egypt. This Persian had had the audacity to read to a large multitude in a mosque a book tending to prove that El Hakim, the mad Fatimite caliph, was an incarnation of God. Escaping from the crowd, who were enraged at this blasphemy, he fled to the valley between Hermon and the Southern Lebanon, and with the support of his master preached his doctrine to these mountaineers, already given to Batenite doctrine and therefore predisposed to accept a further incarnation of the Deity. He was soon superseded by another Persian, Hamzeh Ibn Ahmed El Hady, who became the real founder of the sect and the author of its sacred books. After the assassination of El Hakim, Hamzeh wrote a treatise to prove that El Hakim had not really died but only disappeared to test the faith of his followers. This disappearance and ultimate return of El Hakim are the cardinal points of the Druze faith to-day. The sacred books of the Druzes, successfully hidden from the world for eight centuries, have since the middle of the last century found their way into European libraries. They are written in Arabic and effect the style of the Koran. They consist of six volumes containing 111 treatises of a controversial character or explanatory epistles to individual persons. Each book takes its name from its first treatise. Their speculations strongly reflect their Persian origin.

The Druze doctrine concerning God is characterized by its abstraction from all Divine attributes; these, it declares, would imply limitation in the Supreme Being. God, however, manifested Himself first in the Universal Mind, then in the Universal Soul, and again in the Word. These three form the first great manifestation. The second great manifestation began with the residence of the Universal mind in Adam for a thousand years; after which Enoch took his place, and in turn was followed by the seven ministers, Noe, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Ibn Ishmail; the seventh is unknown. God appeared ten times in human form, for the last time in El Hakim. The Druzes teach a distinction between Jesus, the son of Joseph, and the Christ. Christ instructed Jesus, but finally Jesus disobeyed Christ and was crucified in consequence. Christ, who was concealed under the form of one of the disciples of Jesus, stole the body of Jesus from the grave, and gave out the report that Christ had risen, in order that the true Druzes might be concealed for awhile in the religion of Jesus. The Druzes are firm believers in the transmigration of souls, and this transmigration will never end; after the Judgment Day death will continue, but it will be painless for the saved, who will live to the age of 120 years, and whose souls will forthwith be reborn and re-enter a life of peace and pleasure. The Druze are unshakably convinced that the whole of China is peopled with adherents of their religion. The Judgment Day, or rather the golden age for the Druzes, will be at hand when the Christians wax greater than the Mohammedans, some nine hundred years after the disappearance of El Hakim. Then the Christians, aided by the King of Abyssinia, a sort of Antichrist named “The Antagonist,” will march against the Caaba in Mecca. The hosts of Christ and Mohammed will meet, but only to be both overcome by 2,500,000 Chinese Druzes. Moslems and Christians will both be reduced to everlasting slavery, and the Unitarians will reign forever. The Druze religion contains several moral precepts: veracity, love of the brethren, forsaking of idolatry, repudiation of devils, acknowledgement of God’s unity at all times, secrecy in religion, and resignation to the will of God.

The Druzes are divided into two main classes: the Ukkal, or initiated, and the Juhhal, or uninitiated; among the former the Iwayid profess the strictest Druze principles. They meet on Thursday evenings for worship, which consists almost exclusively in reading their sacred books. They often comply with the outward observances of Islam and even make pretense of being Mohammedans, but they are officially designated as unbelievers. They live mostly ion the Lebanon, but are also found in the Hauran and in the districts near Damascus; their total number is estimated at 100,000 or a few thousand more. Encouraged by Turkish authorities, the Druze in 1860 attacked the Catholic Marionites, and are said to have massacred some then thousand of them. The massacres were stayed mainly through English and French intervention.

Wortabet, Researchers into the Religions of Syria (London, 1860); Churchill, the Druze and Marionites (London, 1862); Socin in Realencyk.für prof. Theol. (Leipzig, 1898), s.v. Drusen; Neumann, Das Volk des Drusen (Vienna, 1878).

J.P. ARENDZEN

Dryburgh Abbey

A monastery belonging to the canons of the Premonstratensian Order (Norbertine or White Canons), situated four miles south-east of Melrose, Scotland. It was founded about 1150 by Hugo de Morville, Constable of Scotland, who brought a community from Alnwick in Northumberland. The situation is beautiful, a wooded promontory, around three sides of which sweeps the River Tweed. The church was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. The monastery was burnt to the ground by Edward II, who encamped in the grounds when retreating from Scotland in 1322; but it was restored under Robert I, who himself contributed largely. At the Dissolution it was created a temporal lordship, and conferred by James VI on the Earl of Mar, who made it over to his third son, ancestor of the Earl of Buchan. It has again come into the hands of the last-named family in recent times by purchase.

The general style of the existing remains of Dryburgh is Early English, with some older (Norman) work. Of the church only the western gable, the ends of the transept, and part of the choir remain; but considerable portions of the conventual buildings have been preserved, including the refectory, with a beautiful rose window. James Stuart, of the Darnley family, is buried under the high altar; and various members of the Buchan family lie in one of the chapels. The principal object of interest to visitors is the tomb of Sir Walter Scott, in St. Mary’s Aisle (part of the north transept). Sir Walter’s maternal ancestors, the Haliburtons, at one time owned Dryburgh. His wife and eldest son are also interred here.

D. O. HUNTER-BLAIR

John Dryden

Poet, dramatist, critic, and translator; b. 9 August, 1631, at Oldwinkle All Saints, Northamptonshire, England; d. at London, 30 April, 1700. He was the son of Erasmus Dryden (or Driden) and Mary Pickering, daughter of the Rev. Henry Pickering. Erasmus Dryden was the son of Sir Erasmus Dryden, and was a justice of the peace under Cromwell. On both sides Dryden’s family were of the Parliamentary party. He received his early education as a king’s scholar at Westminster and while there his first published work appeared. This was an elegy contributed in 1649 to the “Lachrymæ Musarum,” a collection of tributes in memory of Henry, Lord Hastings. He entered Trinity College, Cambridge, 18 May, 1650, being elected to a scholarship on 2 October. He graduated as Bachelor of Arts, January, 1653–4, and after inheriting from his father a small estate worth £60 annually, he returned to Cambridge, living there until 1655. The “Heroic Stanzas” on the death of Oliver Cromwell, his first important work (1658), are smooth and vigorous, and while laudatory, are not meanly so. There is no attack on royalty and no mention of Cromwell’s religion. Dryden always was in favour of authority and of peace from civil strife, and consequently when disorders broke out upon Cromwell’s death, he, with the rest of the nation, welcomed the return of Charles II. He celebrated the king’s return with his poem of “Astræa Redux” (1660), in which he already showed his mastery of the rhymed couplet. Then followed his poems on the “Coronation” (1661); “To Lord Clarendon” (1662); “To Dr. Charleton” (1663); “To the Duchess of York” (1665); and “Annus Mirabilis” (1667). His great prose “Essay on Dramatick Poesie” appeared in 1668. Meantime, in 1662, Dryden had been elected to the Royal Society, and on 1 December, 1663, he was married to Lady Elizabeth Howard, eldest daughter of the Earl of Berkshire.

In 1662 he began his dramatic career with “The Wild Gallant,” a comedy of humours, influenced by Spanish sources. In 1663 appeared “The Rival Ladies,” a tragi-comedy, also from a Spanish model. To this Dryden prefixed the first of the famous prefaces in which he laid down his principles of dramatic criticism. “The Indian Emperor,” a heroic play, his first original drama, appeared in 1665. In 1667 he produced “The Maiden Queen,” a comedy in which some blank verse us seen alongside of the rhymed couplet and prose; “Sir Martin Marall,” a prose comedy based on “L’Etourdi” of Molière; and an adaptation of “The Tempest” with Davenant. “The Mock Astrologer” (1668) was an imitation of “Le feint astrologue” of Thomas Corneille, influenced by Molière’s “Dépit amoureux.” About this time Dryden entered into an agreement with the King’s Theatre Company. According to this he was to produce three plays a year, for which he was to receive one and one-quarter shares out of a total of twelve and three-quarters. In the winter of 1668–9, “Tyrannic Love, or the Royal Martyr,” a rhymed heroic tragedy, was played, and in 1670 his greatest heroic tragedy, the first and second parts of “Almanzor and Almahide, or the Conquest of Granada.”

Dryden was given the degree of M. A. by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1668; in 1670 he was made poet laureate and royal historiographer, which brought him an annual income of £200. In 1671 he was satirized in “The Rehearsal,” a play written by Buckingham, Butler, and others. “Marriage à la Mode,” a comedy in prose and rhyme,was played in 1672, as well as “The Assignation, or Love in a Nunnery,” a prose comedy, interspersed with a little blank verse. “Amboyna” (1673) was a prose tragedy on the subject of the Dutch outrages, and “The State of Innocence” (1674) was an unsuccessful attempt to treat the theme of Paradise Lost. “Aurengzebe” (1676) is a rhymed tragedy in which the run-on lines show a tendency toward blank verse, which becomes triumphant in the next play, “All for Love” (1678). This is Dryden’s masterpiece, a play based on the story of Anthony and Cleopatra which he wrote to satisfy his own standards. It is a play worthy of comparison with Shakespeare’s “Anthony and Cleopatra,” surpassing it in unity of time and motive, and in the part of Ventidius adding one of the great characters of the English drama. “Limberham” (1678), a prose comedy, was unsuccessful and was withdrawn after three nights. After the production of “Oedipus,” a tragedy in blank verse written in collaboration with Lee in 1679, Dryden seems to have quarrelled with the King’s Company, and his next play, “Troilus and Cressida,” (1679), an adaptation in blank verse of Shakespeare’s play, was produced by the Duke’s Company. With the “Spanish Friar” (1681) he closed for a time his dramatic career. He had in the meantime suffered as well as profited by his fame. The Earl of Rochester, suspecting that Dryden had aided Lord Mulgrave in his attack of Rochester in the “Essay on Satire,” caused Dryden to be beaten by hired ruffians as he passed through Rose Street, Covent Garden, while returning from Will’s coffee house to his own house in Gerrard Street. It is characteristic of the unfair attitude taken by Dryden’s enemies that this cowardly assault was held by them to reflect upon his character.

In November, 1681, Dryden began, in the first part of “Absalom and Achitophel,” the series of satires in the rhymed couplet which placed him at the head of English satirical poets. “Absalom and Achitophel” was the most important literary expression of the party which prevented the exclusion of the Duke of York from the succession to the throne. It is also one of the greatest of English satires, especially in its portraiture of the characters of the Duke of Monmouth and the Earl of Shaftesbury, both of whom the author has represented allegorically in the title of the poem. Then followed, in March, 1682, “The Medal,” an assault upon Shaftesbury. These poems occasioned many attacks on Dryden, and to one of them, the “Medal of John Bayes” by Thomas Shadwell, Dryden replied, in October, 1682, by “MacFlecknoe,” a vigorous satire which dismissed Shadwell as the “last great prophet of tautology.” In November, 1682, appeared the second part of “Absalom and Achitophel,” in which Nahum Tate collaborated. In “Religio Laici” (1682) Dryden presented an argument for the faith of the Church of England, and in 1685, on the death of Charles II, he wrote an ode called “Threnodia Angustalis.” In 1684 at Charles’ request he had also translated “The History of the League” from the French of Maimbourg. Dryden’s position at the death of Charles was not an enviable one. His income from play-writing had ceased, his pensions were not regularly paid, though they were continued by James II, and in answer to his appeal for some of the arrears, which amounted to £1000 in 1683, he had received £75 and an appointment as collector of customs of the port of London, the emoluments of which office are not known. He was converted to Catholicism in 1686. This step was the natural outcome of his investigation into theology, the first result of which had been “Religio Laici.” This poem, while a defence of the Church of England, showed a desire for an infallible guide in religious matters and indicates the direction in which Dryden’s thoughts were turning. The accession of James gave him the additional incentive of belonging to the king’s religion, a powerful motive in Dryden’s case, for he was a devoted adherent to authority in Church and State. Dryden was accused of time-serving by his enemies, but this charge is easily disproved by his perseverance in his conversion during the next reign, when he refused even to dedicate his translation of Virgil to William III, lest he should be suspected of denying his religious or political principles.

Dryden published in April, 1687, “The Hind and the Panther,” in some ways his most important work. It is divided into three parts; the first describes the different sects in England under the allegorical figures of beasts; the second deals with a controversy between the Hind (the Catholic Church) and the Panther (the Church of England); the third continues this dialogue and develops personal and doctrinal satire. In this poem Dryden succeeded in the difficult task of rendering argument in verse interesting. Especially noteworthy are lines 499–555 (second part), in which he describes the foundation and the authority of the Church, and lines 235–50 (third part), in which he defends his own course of action. In 1688 Dryden translated the “Life of St. Francis Zavier” from the French (1682) of Père Dominique Bouhours, S. J., and when an heir to the throne was born he celebrated the event in his poem of “Britannia Rediviva.” The Revolution of 1688 deprived him of his laureateship, and other lucrative posts, on account of his refusal to take the oaths of allegiance to the new government, and left him practically dependent upon his own literary exertions. He turned once more to the stage and produced in 1690 “Don Sebastian,” a tragi-comedy in blank verse and prose which rivals “All for Love” for the supreme place among his plays, and in the same year “Amphitryon,” a comedy, based on Molière, though with several original situations. In 1691 followed “King Arthur,” an opera-masque; in 1692 “Cleomenes,” in which Dryden in the course of the blank verse relapses into rhyme; in 1694 “Love Triumphant,” a tragi-comedy in blank verse and prose, the last of his plays. In 1693 he published another of his great critical essays, “A Discourse concerning the Original and Progress of Satire,” and in 1695 “A Parallel of Poetry and Painting,” prefixed to his translation of Du Fresnoy’s “Art of Painting.”

With his remarkable power of adaptation Dryden now gave his attention to another literary form, that of translation. He had before this, in 1680, made some translations of Ovid; and in the “Miscellanies” of 1684 and 1685, and of 1693 and 1694 there are specimens of Ovid, Horace, Homer, Theocritus and Lucretius, which, together with his more complete translations of Virgil and Juvenal, make a total of about 30,000 lines. In July, 1697, the “Pastorals,” the “Georgics,” and the “Æneid” of Virgil were published, and the edition was sold off in about six months. Meanwhile, in 1692, Dryden had composed an elegy on Eleonora, Countess of Abingdon, for which he received 500 guineas. About this time, also, he wrote his famous address to Congreve on the failure of the “Double Dealer.” In 1699, at the close of his life, he published his “Fables.” This volume contained five paraphrases of Chaucer, three of Boccaccio, besides the first book of the “Iliad,” and “Alexander’s Feast,” perhaps his greatest lyrical poem, written in 1697 for a musical society in London which celebrated St. Cecilia’s day. Dryden had also written the ode for the celebration in 1687 by the same society. Dryden did not long survive the publication of his last book. He died of inflammation caused by gout, and was buried in Westminster Abbey.

Dryden’s position in the history of English literature is one of supreme importance. He brought the rhymed couplet as a means of satire to a brilliancy and a point never surpassed before or since his time; as a close and logical reasoner in verse he has never been equalled. As a dramatist he did much good work and in some cases, as in “All for Love” or “Don Sebastian,” he achieved supreme distinction as a lyrist. He has left many exquisite songs and at least two of the finest odes in the language. As a translator and adaptor he ranks high, while as a prose writer he not only produced a body of criticism which established him as one of the greatest of English critics, but he also clarified English prose and marked the way for future development. As a man, he shared the faults of his time, but the scandals heaped upon him by his enemies have fallen away under critical examination, and the impression remains of a brave, honest Englishman, earnest in every cause he championed, who loved to praise who befriended him, and who could suffer reverses in silence and dignity. The standard edition of Dryden’s works is that edited by Walter Scott in 18 volumes in 1808 and re-edited by George Saintsbury (Edinburgh, 1882–93).

CHARLES DRYDEN

Eldest son of John Dryden the poet, b. at Charlton, in Wiltshire, England, in 1665 or 1666; d. in 1704. He was educated at Westminster, and elected to Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1683, but could not enter, being a Catholic. He contributed to the second volume of his father’s “Miscellany” of 1685, and turned into English the seventh satire for the translation of Juvenal in 1692. He then went to Italy and became chamberlain to Pope Innocent XII, coming back to England in 1697 or 1698. He was drowned in the Thames and was buried at Windsor, 10 August, 1704. GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.

For lives of Dryden, see SAINTSBURY, Dryden in English Men of Letters Series (1881); CHRISTIE, Memoir in Globe Edition of Dryden’s Poems (London, 1870); IDEM in Dryden’s Satires (Oxford, 1871, 5th ed., 1893); COLLINS, Memoir in The Satires of Dryden (London, 1893). See also KER in Introduction to the Essays of John Dryden (Oxford, 1900), II; ROOT, Dryden’s Conversion to the Roman Catholic Faith in Publications of the Modern Language Association of America (June, 1907), new series, XV, Pt. II; BELJAME, Le public et les hommes de lettres en Angleterre au dix-huitième siècle (Paris, 1883).

ARTHUR H. QUINN.

Dualism

(From Lat. duo, two).

Like most other philosophical terms, has been employed in different meanings by different schools.

First, the name has been used to denote the religious or theological system which would explain the universe as the outcome of two eternally opposed and coexisting principles, conceived as good and evil, light and darkness, or some other form of conflicting powers. We find this theory widely prevalent in the East, and especially in Persia, for several centuries before the Christian Era. The Zend-Avesta, ascribed to Zoroaster, who probably lived in the sixth century B.C. and is supposed to be the founder or reformer of the Medo-Persian religion, explains the world as the outcome of the struggle between Ormuzd and Ahriman. Ormuzd is infinite light, supreme wisdom, and the author of all good; Ahriman is the principle of darkness and of all evil. In the third century after Christ, Manes, for a time a convert to Christianity, developed a form of Gnosticism, subsequently styled Manichaeism, in which he sought to fuse some of the elements of the Christian religion with the dualistic creed of Zoroastrianism (see MANICHAEISM and ZOROASTER). Christian philosophy, expounded with minor differences by theologians and philosophers from St. Augustine downwards, holds generally that physical evil is the result of the necessary limitations of finite created beings, and that moral evil, which alone is evil in the true sense, is a consequence of the creation of beings possessed of free wills and is tolerated by God. Both physical and moral evil are to be conceived as some form of privation or defect of being, not as positive entity. Their existence is thus not irreconcilable with the doctrine of theistic monism.

Second, the term dualism is employed in opposition to monism, to signify the ordinary view that the existing universe contains two radically distinct kinds of being or substance—matter and spirit, body and mind. This is the most frequent use of the name in modern philosophy, where it is commonly contrasted with monism. But it should not be forgotten that dualism in this sense is quite reconcilable with a monistic origin of all things. The theistic doctrine of creation gives a monistic account of the universe in this sense. Dualism is thus opposed to both materialism and idealism. Idealism, however, of the Berkeleyan type, which maintains the existence of a multitude of distinct substantial minds, may along with dualism, be described as pluralism.

Historically, in Greek philosophy as early as 500 B.C. we find the Eleatic School with Parmenides as their chief, teaching a universal unity of being, thus exhibiting a certain affinity with modern German monism. Being alone exists. It is absolutely one, eternal, and unchangeable. There is no real becoming or beginning of being. Seeming changes and plurality of beings are mere appearances. To this unity of being, Plato opposed an original duality—God and unproduced matter, existing side by side from all eternity. This matter, however, was conceived as indeterminate, chaotic, fluctuating, and governed by a blind necessity, in contrast with mind which acts according to plan. The order and arrangement are due to God. Evil and disorder in the world have their source in the resistance of matter which God has not altogether vanquished. Here we seem to have a trace of the Oriental speculation. Again there is another dualism in man. The rational soul is a spiritual substance distinct from the body within which it dwells, somewhat as the charioteer in the chariot. Aristotle is dualistic on sundry important topics. The contrast between the fundamental conceptions of matter and form—a potential and an actualizing principle—runs through all branches of his system. Necessarily coeternal with God, Who is pure actuality, there has existed the passive principle of matter, which in this sense, however, is mere potentiality. But further, along with God Who is the Prime Mover, there must also have existed from all eternity the World moved by God. In his treatment of cognition Aristotle adopts the ordinary common-sense view of the existence of individual objects distinct from our perceptions and ideas of them. Man is an individual substantial being resulting from the coalescence of the two principles—form (the soul) and matter.

Christianity rejected all forms of a dual origin of the world which erected matter, or evil, or any other principle into a second eternal being coexistent with God, and it taught the monistic origin of the universe from one, infinite, self-existing spiritual Being who freely created all things. The unfamiliar conception of free creation, however, met with considerable opposition in the schools of philosophy and was abandoned by several of the earlier heresies. The neo-Platonists sought to lessen the difficulty by emanastic forms of pantheism, and also by inserting intermediate beings between God and the world. But the former method implied a materialistic conception of God, while the latter only postponed the difficulty. From the thirteenth century, through the influence of Albertus Magnus and still more of St. Thomas Aquinas, the philosophy of Aristotle, though subjected to some important modifications, became the accredited philosophy of the Church. The dualistic hypothesis of an eternal world existing side by side with God was of course rejected. But the conception of spiritual beings as opposed to matter received fuller definition and development. The distinction between the human soul and the body which it animates was made clearer and their separability emphasized; but the ultra-dualism of Plato was avoided by insisting on the intimate union of soul and body to constitute one substantial being under the conception of form and matter.

The problem of dualism, however, was lifted into quite a new position in modern philosophy by Descartes (q.v.). Indeed, since his time it has been a topic of central interest in philosophical speculation. His handling of two distinct questions, the one epistemological, the other metaphysical, brought this about. The mind stands in a cognitional relation to the external world, and in a causal relation to the changes within the body. What is the precise nature of each of these relations? According to Descartes the soul is res cogitans. Its essence is thought. It is simple and unextended. It has nothing in common with the body, but is connected with it in a single point, the pineal gland in the centre of the brain. In contrast with this, the essence of matter lies in extension. So the two forms of being are utterly disparate. Consequently the union between them is of an accidental or extrinsic character. Descartes thus approximates to the Platonic conception of charioteer and chariot. Soul and body are really two merely allied beings. How then do they interact? Real reciprocal influence or causal interaction seems impossible between two such disparate things. Geulincx and other disciples of Descartes were driven to invent the hypothesis of occasionalism and Divine assistance, according to which it is God Himself who effects the appropriate change in either body or mind on the occasion of the corresponding change in the other. For this system of miraculous interferences Leibniz substituted the theory of pre-established harmony according to which God has coupled pairs of bodies and souls which are destined to run in parallel series of changes like two clocks started together. The same insoluble difficulty of psycho-physical parallelism remains on the hands of those psychologists and philosophers at the present day who reject the doctrine of the soul as a real being capable of acting on the body which it informs. The ultra-dualism of Descartes was immediately followed on the Continent by the pantheistic monism of Spinoza, which identified mind and matter in one infinite substance of which they are merely “modes.”

The cognitional question Descartes solves by a theory of knowledge according to which the mind immediately perceives only its own ideas or modifications. The belief in an external world corresponding to these ideas is of the nature of an inference, and the guaranteeing of this inference or the construction of a reliable bridge from the subjective world of thought to the objective world of material being, was thenceforth the main problem of modern philosophy. Locke similarly taught that the mind immediately apprehends only its own ideas, but he assumed a real external world which corresponds to these ideas, at least as regards the primary qualities of matter. Berkeley, accepting Locke’s assumption that the mind immediately cognizes only its own ideas, raised the question: What grounds have we for believing in the existence of a material world corresponding to those ideas? He concludes that there are none. The external cause of these ideas is God Who awakens them in our minds by regular laws. The dualistic opposition between mind and matter is thus got rid of by denying an independent material world. But Berkeley still postulates multitude of real substantial minds distinct from each other and apparently from God. We have thus idealistic pluralism. Hume carried Berkeley’s scepticism a step farther and denied the existence of permanent spiritual substances, or minds, for grounds similar to those on which Berkeley rejected material substances. All we know to exist are ideas of greater or less vividness. Kant repudiates this more extreme scepticism and adopts, at least in the second edition of his chief work, a form of dualism based on the distinction of phenomena and noumena. The mind immediately perceives only its own representations. These are modified by innate mental forms. They present to us only phenomena. But the noumena, the things-in-themselves, the external causes of these phenomenal representations, are beyond our power of cognition. Fichte rejected things-in-themselves outside the mind, and reduced the Kantian dualism to idealistic monism. The strongest and most consistent defenders of dualism in modern philosophy have been the Scotch School, including Reid, Stuart, and Hamilton. Among English writers in more recent times Martineau, McCosh, Mivart, and Case have carried on the same tradition on similar lines.

The problem of dualism, as its history suggests, involves two main questions:

Does there exist a material world outside of our minds and independent of our thought?

Supposing such a world to exist, how does the mind attain to the cognition of it?

The former question belongs to epistemology, material logic, or general philosophy; the latter to psychology. It is true that dualism is ultimately rejected by the materialist who reduces conscious states to functions, or “aspects” of the brain; but objections from this standpoint will be more suitably dealt with under materialism and monism. The idealist theory since Berkeley, in all its forms, maintains that the mind can only know its own states or representations, and that what we suppose to be an independent, material world is, in the last analysis, only a series of ideas and sensations plus belief in the possibility of other sensations. Our conviction of the objective reality of a vivid consistent dream is analogous to our conviction of the validity of our waking experience. Dualism affirms, in opposition to all forms of idealism, the independent, extramental reality of the material world. Among its chief arguments are the following:

Our belief in the existence of other minds is an inference from their bodies. Consequently the denial of an external material world involves the rejection of all evidence for the existence of other minds, and lands the idealist in the position of “Solipsism.”

Physical science assumes the existence of a material world, existing when unperceived, possessing various properties, and exerting various powers according to definite constant laws. Thus astronomy describes the movements of heavenly bodies moving in space of three dimensions, attracting each other with forces inversely proportioned to the square of the distance. It postulates the movement and action of such bodies when they are invisible as well as when they are visible through long periods of time and over vast areas of space. From these assumptions it deduces future positions and foretells eclipses and transits many years ahead. Observations carried out by subsequent generations verify the predictions. Were there not an extramental world whose parts exist and act in a space and time truly mirrored by our cognitions and ideas, such a result would be impossible. The branches of science dealing with sound, light, heat, and electricity are equally irreconcilable with idealism.

The teachings of physiology and psycho-physics become peculiarly absurd in the idealist theory. What, for instance, is meant by saying that memory is dependent on modifications in the nervous substance of the brain, if all the material world, including the brain, is but a collection of mental states?

Psychology similarly assumes the extramental reality of the human body in its account of the growth of the senses and the development of perception. Were the idealist hypothesis true its language would be meaningless. All branches of science thus presuppose and confirm the dualistic view of common sense.

Granted, then, the truth of dualism, the psychological question emerges: How does the mind come to know the material world? Broadly speaking there are two answers. According to one the mind immediately perceives only its own representations or ideas and from these it infers external material objects as the cause of these ideas. According to the other, in some of its acts it immediately perceives extended objects or part of the material world. As Hamilton says: “What we directly apprehend is the Non-ego, not some modification of the Ego.” The theory which maintains an immediate perception of the non-ego he calls natural dualism or natural realism. The other, which holds a mediate cognition of the non-ego, as the inferred cause of a representation immediately apprehended, he terms hypothetical dualism or hypothetical realism. The doctrine of immediate or presentative perception is that adopted by the great body of Scholastic philosophers and is embodied in the dictum that the idea, concept, or mental act of apprehension is non id quod percipitur sed medium quo res percipitur—not that which is perceived but the medium by which the object itself is perceived. This seems to be the only account of the nature of knowledge that does not lead logically to idealism; and the history of the subject confirms this view. But affirmation of the mind’s capacity for immediate perception of the non-ego and insistence on the distinction between id quod and id quo percipitur, do not dispose of the whole difficulty. Modern psychology has become genetic. Its interest centres in tracing the growth and development of cognition from the simplest and most elementary sensations of infancy. Analysis of the perceptive processes of a later age, e.g. apprehension of size, shape, solidity, distance, and other qualities of remote objects, proves that operations seemingly instantaneous and immediate may involve the activity of memory, imagination, judgment, reasoning, and subconscious contributions from the past experience of other senses. There is thus much that is indirect and inferential in nearly all the percipient acts of mature life. This should be frankly admitted by the defender of natural dualism, and the chief psychological problem for him at the present day is to sift and discriminate what is immediate and direct from what is mediate or representative in the admittedly complex cognitional operations of normal adult life. IN FAVOUR OF NATURAL DUALISM:—RICKABY, First Principles of Knowledge (New York and London, 1901); CASE, Physical Realism (New York and London, 1881); UEBERWEG, Logic, tr. (London, 1871); HAMILTON, Metaphysics (Edinburgh and London, 1877); McCOSH, Exam. of Mill (New York, 1875); MARTINEAU, A Study of Religion (Oxford, 1888): MIVART, Nature and Thought (London, 1882); MAHER, Psychology (New York and London, 1908); FARGES, L’Objectivit de la Perception (Paris, 1891). AGAINST NATURAL DUALISM:—BERKELEY, Principles of Human Knowledge, ed. FRASER (Oxford, 1871): ed. KRAUTH (Philadelphia, 1874); MILL, An Exam. of Sir W. Hamilton (London, 1865); BRADLEY, Appearance and Reality (New York and London, 1899).

MICHAEL MAHER.

Archdiocese of Dublin

(DUBLINIUM; DUBLINENSIS).

Archdiocese; occupies about sixty miles of the middle eastern coast of Ireland, and penetrates inland, about forty-six miles, including all the County of Dublin, nearly all of Wicklow, and parts of Kildare and Wexford, with three suffragans: Kildare and Leighlin, Ferns, and Ossory. It covers an area of 698,277 statute acres.

Ptolemy, who flourished in the first half of the second century, on his famous map places Eblana civitas under the same parallel of latitude as the present city of Dublin. The first mention of Duibhlinn in any extant Irish chronicles is found in the “Annals of the Four Masters,” under date of 291, where the name, which in English signifies a black pool, is quoted as that of a river on the bank of which a battle was fought by the King of Ireland against the Leinstermen. A river still empties into the Liffey at Dublin, now known as the Poddle River, but formerly designated the Pool or Pole, clearly a survival of the earlier Black-Pool. The natives distinguished the locality as Ath-Cliath, i.e. “The Ford of Hurdles,” from the wicker bridge or ford by which the great road from Tara was conducted across the Liffey into Cualann (South County Dublin and Wicklow).

In 852, when Aulaf (Olaf) the Dane invaded Ireland and subjected all the contending tribes of Danes, he erected a fortress on the triangle of elevated land formed by the confluence of the Duibhlinn with the Liffey, a site now occupied by Dublin Castle. This fortress, taking its name from the river over which it stood, was called in Scandinavian Dyflin. In Anglo-Norman charters of the time of Henry II it became Duvelina; the legal scribes of King John brought it nearer to the name Dublin, which it has ever since retained. The fortress once established, there is no difficulty in imagining a town or city growing up and clustering around it, which after some time was furnished with a defensive wall, some remnants of which are yet visible.

EARLY CHRISTIAN HISTORY

The Christian Faith was preached in this territory, first by Palladius and then by St. Patrick. The stay of Palladius in Ireland was very short, scarcely a year, yet during that brief space he established three Christian communities, Teach-Renan (Tigroney), and Donard in County Wicklow, with Ceille-Finne in County Kildare. When the death of Palladius was known at Rome in 431, Patrick was immediately selected and consecrated bishop for this Irish mission. To him, therefore, thenceforth regarded as the Apostle of Ireland, the See of Dublin looks as to its founder. His first visit after brief landings at Wicklow, Malahide, and Holmpatrick, was to his old slave-master in the northern parts of the country. But so soon as he was able to gain the sanction of Leoghaire, King of Ireland, to preach the Gospel throughout the land, he visited every part of the island and made innumerable converts. At Kilcullen, in the Dublin Diocese, he established a bishop, and another at Lusk; while there are few parishes in the diocese that do not lay claim to a visit from him. Soon after his death in 492, the monastic system, which Patrick had himself partly initiated, became the settled form of ecclesiastical organisation in Ireland. The number of tribes into which the country was divided, and the fierce inter-tribal jealousy that prevailed at all times, rendered this system the more desirable. Each tribe had its own monastic establishment with a portion of the tribe lands set apart for its endowment, and in most of these centres a bishop was to be found, frequently (but not necessarily) the ruler of the community. It was in such establishments that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction was centred. In this way we meet mention from time to time of bishops at Kilcullen, Lusk, Swords, Finglas, Glendalough, Taney, Clondalkin, Castledermot, and Bray. We have no existing records and but scant traditions of any monastic establishment known as Duibhlinn; but a tribe did lie scattered along the valley of the Coombe, which may have taken its name, as did the Danish fortress later on, from the Duibhlinn which meandered through its midst. The old church-dedications, which were certainly Celtic, of Patrick, Bridget, Kevin, and MacTaill in this very neighbourhood, would point to such a conclusion. Such a tribe would undoubtedly have had its monastery with its resident bishop. If this surmise be correct, it would help to explain a list of bishops given in Harris’s edition of Ware’s “Antiquities of Ireland,” and described as Bishops of Dublin; whilst from the invariable practice they all seem to have adopted, of embarking in some foreign missionary enterprise, they can scarcely be regarded as diocesan bishops in the accepted sense of the term, i.e. as prelates wedded to their sees.

The first of these bishops that we meet with is St. Livinus. He travelled into Belgium, where he converted many, and was at length crowned with martyrdom, 12 November, 663, in which month his feast is celebrated. To him succeeded Disibod, who being driven out by violence went to Germany, and after forty years labour in the neighbourhood of Disibodenberg named after him, died a very holy death. He flourished about 675. St. Wiro is next. He emulated the example of Livinus and passed over into Gaul. The at the request of Pepin of Heristal, he established himself about 700 at Roermond in Holland, where a portion of his relics is preserved under the high altar the cathedral dedicated to him. St. Gualafer is mentioned as bishop in the eighth century, but of him nothing is known except that he baptised and instructed his successor, who figures more conspicuously. St. Rumold was certainly Irish-born, and reputed to have been some time Bishop of Dublin. He cherished an ardent desire for martyrdom, and setting out for Rome there received the pope’s blessing. On his return journey he preached at Mechlin with great zeal and success. Having had occasion to rebuke certain public sinners, he met at their hands the longed-for martyrdom. He is the patron of Mechlin, whose splendid cathedral is dedicated to him, and his relics are preserved there in a sumptuous silver shrine. St. Sedulius, who died in 785, is given by some writers as “Bishop of Dublin,” by others as “Abbot of Dublin.” In all probability he filled both offices. In or about 890 there is mention of Cormac as bishop. Ware could learn nothing about him. D’Alton says he was bishop when Gregory, King of Scotland, besieged and captured Dublin.

DANISH PERIOD

The year 815 is commonly assigned as the date when Scandinavian invaders began to make permanent settlements in Ireland. Hitherto their repeated visits had been mere piratical expeditions. They landed, plundered, and departed. But that year Turgesius and his followers came to stay. The “Annals of the Four Masters” tell us that in 849 the Duibhgoill or “black foreigners” arrived at Ath Cliath and made a great slaughter of the Finngoill or “white foreigners.” In 850 the former gained a still more decisive victory. Finally in 852 Aulaf (Olaf) invaded Ireland, “and all the foreign tribes submitted to him.” Thus was founded the Danish city and kingdom of Dublin. Aulaf was succeeded by Ivar in 870, and as the latter was at the same time King of Northumbria, this dual sovereignty of the Danish kings of Dublin was with occasional brief interruptions maintained throughout a period of nearly a century and a half. Paganism was of course the cult of these rude Norsemen. They sedulously practised the worship of Thor and Woden, and thus during a great portion of their prolonged rule in Dublin its Christian history becomes a blank, varied at intervals by doleful recitals of the burning and plundering of celebrated monasteries, such as Glendalough, Lusk, Swords, Clondalkin, etc. The first of the Danish kings to embrace Christianity was Sitric, who was baptized in England, and married King Athelstan’s daughter in 925. But he very soon abjured the Faith, abandoned his wife, and died a pagan. His son, however, Aulaf Cuarann, on visiting England, was there converted in 943, and received at baptism by King Edmund. He remained firm in the Faith, and going to Iona on a pilgrimage in 980, died there “after penance and a good life.” It was the conversion of this Aulaf and his family, aided by the efforts of Northumbrian monks whom he had brought over with him, that led to the conversion of the Danes of Dublin which chroniclers assign to 948.

The great victory won by King Brian Born on the plain of Clontarf in 1014 broke for ever the power of the Danes in Ireland, but it did not dispossess them of Dublin. Their kings continued to rule there for a century and a half; nevertheless, the completeness of the victory, together with the civilising effects of Christianity, disposed the contending races to more friendly intercourse, and enabled Celt and Dane henceforward to live tog ether in comparative peace. In 1038, little more than twenty years after the battle of Clontarf, we find another King Sitric (II) at Dublin, who, seeing that his subjects had all become Christians, was moved to organise the Church on a proper hierarchical basis. Wherefore in that year he founded and endowed a cathedral dedicated to the Holy Trinity (since Queen Elizabeth’s time appropriated to Protestant worship and known as Christ Church). To minister in his cathedral he had a bishop appointed and consecrated; with this first bishop of the Danish Christians in Dublin, the See of Dublin may be said to have been formally founded. Having received their Christianity from Northumbria, the Danes looked to Canterbury for their spiritual government; and had their first bishop, Donatus, consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Except in faith and general discipline they were in no way identified with the rest of Christian Ireland.

Donatus died in 1074 and was succeeded by Patrick, who bore commendatory letters to Lanfranc and was consecrated by him in St. Paul’s, London. After ruling the diocese for about ten years he perished at sea in 1084. Donat O’Haingly, evidently an Irishman, came next. He was a Benedictine monk in Lanfranc’s monastery at Canterbury. By consent of the king and of the clergy of Dublin he was consecrated by Lanfranc in 1085. He died of the plague in 1095. To him succeeded his nephew Samuel O’Haingly, a Benedictine monk of St. Alban’s. He was consecrated at Winchester by Saint Anselm on the Sunday after Easter, 1096, and died in 1121. It was to this prelate that St. Anselm administered the sharp rebuke for having removed the monks from his church, from which we may infer that it was at this period that a chapter of secular canons was established in the cathedral, its clergy having been previously monastic. Gregory was chosen as successor. He is described as a wise man and well skilled in languages. He was consecrated at Lambeth by Ralph, Archbishop of Canterbury.

TWELFTH-CENTURY REFORMS

During Gregory’s incumbency great and far-reaching changes were wrought in the ecclesiastical organisation of Ireland. Up to this time, except in the Danish towns of Dublin, Waterford, and Limerick, the old system of centring jurisdiction in the monastery of the clan with a bishop resident, almost universally prevailed, but Gillebert (Gilbert), Bishop of Limerick, who had travelled much, and had made the acquaintance of St. Anselm, received a strong letter from the latter exhorting him to do his utmost, in union with the Irish bishops, to reform certain abuses and bring the system of ecclesiastical government more into conformity with the prevailing practice of Christendom. Whereupon Gillebert having received legatine powers from Paschal II convoked a synod which met at Rath-Breassail in 1118. At this synod the number of sees was fixed at twenty-four, Dublin excluded. Glendalough, the church founded by St. Kevin in the sixth century, was definitely erected into a diocese, but the Danish See of Dublin was ignored, or if referred to, it is described a being in the Diocese of Glendalough, for the latter came up to the very walls of Dublin and surrounded them on all sides. St. Malachy, consecrated Bishop of Connor about 1127, followed up the work of Gillebert, and on the occasion of a journey to Rome, besought Innocent II to constitute the Bishops of Armagh and Cashel metropolitans and transmit the pallium to them. Before his request could be fully considered, Malachy on a second journey fell sick on the way, and died at Clairvaux in the arms of St. Bernard (1148). The object of his journey, however, was not lost sight of, and in 1151, Eugene III commissioned Cardinal Paparo to proceed to Ireland and establish there four metropolitans, giving him the palliums with which each was to be invested. The cardinal on his arrival convoked a general synod at Kells in 1152. At this synod Armagh, Dublin, Cashel, and Tuam, were created archiepiscopal sees, with canonical jurisdiction over their suffragans, and each of the new archbishops received the pallium. In this way Gregory became the first Archbishop of Dublin, and had assigned to him as suffragans the Sees of Kildare, Ossory, Leighlin, Ferns, and Glendalough In a document drawn up by the then Archbishop of Tuam, in 1214 the cardinal is described as finding on his arrival in Ireland, a bishop dwelling in Dublin, who at the time exercised his episcopal office within the walls. “He found in the same Diocese another church in the mountains, which likewise had the name of a city [Glendalough] and had a certain chorepiscopus. But he delivered the pallium to Dublin which was the best city and appointed that the diocese [Glendalough] in which both these cities were should be divided, and that one part thereof should fall to the metropolitan.” This severed the North County Dublin known as Fingall, from Glendalough Diocese and annexed it to Dublin. Thus was the Church in Ireland reorganised in strict hierarchical form, and all dependence upon Canterbury was brought to an end.

Archbishop Gregory died in 1161 and was buried in the Holy Trinity Cathedral. To him succeeded Lorcan (latinized Laurentius) O’Toole, son of Muriartach, Prince of Imaile. His mother was an O’Byrne, so that he was Irish of the Irish. Entrusted at an early age to the care of the Bishop of Glendalough he grew up a pious and exemplary youth and eventually became a monk there. When but twenty-five years old he was elected abbot and a few years later bishop of the see. This choice, however, he successfully withstood. But his resistance did not long avail him. As soon as the See of Dublin was vacated both clergy and people turned their eyes on the Abbot of Glendalough and would not be refused. He was consecrated in Dublin cathedral by Gelasius of Armagh in 1162. His first act was to induce the canons of his chapter to become canons regular according to the rule of the priory of Aroasia. He himself assumed the religious habit with them and scrupulously conformed to the rule. He was indefatigable in his work and boundless in his charity. In 1167 he attended a great convention held at Athboy at the request of King Roderic O’Conor, and helped there to enact several decrees affecting ecclesiastical discipline. In the following year the ill-starred Dermot MacMurrough set out for England to negotiate the betrayal of his country. In 1169 the first expedition of the Anglo-Normans landed in Ireland, and Wexford and Waterford soon fell before them. They then marched on Dublin, and in this expedition Strongbow was joined by the army of Dermot. Hasculf, the Danish king, made a sturdy defence, but eventually the city was captured and Hasculf and his followers escaped to their ships. In 1171 they returned with a number of Norwegians collected at Orkney and the Isles, and attacked the eastern gate of the city. St. Laurence implored King Roderic to come to their aid; the latter did assemble an army, but their operations were ineffective, and the grip of the Norman fastened on Dublin, never again to be relaxed. King Henry II of England landed this same year, and received at Dublin the fealty of most of the native princes. Thenceforward Ireland became an appendage of the English Crown.

Early in the following year a synod was held in Cashel by order of Henry, at which Laurence assisted and where among other disciplinary regulations, the system of tithes was introduced, as is commonly believed. With the aid of Strongbow and other Norman chiefs he was enabled to enlarge and beautify Christ Church, i.e. Holy Trinity Cathedral, and the transepts and one bay of the choir remain to this day evidences of his work. In 1177 Cardinal Vivian arrived in Ireland as papal legate, summoned a meeting of bishops and abbots, and inculcated obedience to the conquerors. In 1179 Archbishop Laurence went to Rome to attend the Third General Council of the Lateran under Alexander III. The pope received him with marked kindness, took his see under his protection, confirmed its possessions, and extended its boundaries on the south as far as Bray. He also appointed him his legate in Ireland. Some time in 1180 the archbishop again crossed to England for the purpose of interviewing King Henry in the interests of his people, but Henry had no wish to see him and fled into Normandy. Laurence, nothing daunted, quickly pursued him, but had scarcely landed on the Norman coast when he fell seriously ill. He asked to be brought to the community of Canons Regular established at Eu, and there died peacefully 14 November, 1180. He was canonised by Honorius III in 1226, and his relics, being transferred, were placed over the high altar in a costly shrine where they are still devoutly venerated. His feast is celebrated in Dublin each recurring 14 November with great pomp and solemnity, and a parish church in a city is specially dedicated to him.

NORMAN-ENGLISH ARCHBISHOPS

With the passing of St. Laurence, the Irish character of the newly constructed hierarchy, as far as Dublin was concerned was brought to a premature close. The conquerors brought with them a colony of Bristol men and settled them in Dublin, and also brought all their feudal privileges and customs, prominent among which was the right of the English monarch to nominate to vacant sees within his dominion, this with the concurrence of the Holy See. In the exercise of this prerogative, Henry II named John Comyn, an Englishman, as successor to Laurence O’Toole. Henceforward, for full four centuries, the see was occupied by an unbroken line of twenty-five archbishops, all English men, born, bred, and beneficed in England. Comyn proceeded to Rome where he was first ordained priest, and then consecrated bishop, by Lucius III at Velletri. He did not take up his residence in Dublin until 1184. The king conferred additional lands upon him to be held in barony tenure, by virtue of which he became a Lord of Parliament. In 1185 he received Prince John on his landing in Ireland, and in the same year the Diocese of Glendalough was united to Dublin; this union, however, was not to take effect until after the death of the governing bishop, William Piro. In 1186 he assembled a provincial synod in Christ Church cathedral at which several important canons were enacted. In 1190 he undertook the work of building a new church just outside the city wall. He erected it on the site of an old Celtic church dedicated to St. Patrick, but preserved the original dedication and opened it with great solemnity on Patrick’s Day, 1191. In connection with this church he founded and endowed a collegiate chapter of thirteen canons and erected an episcopal residence close by, which became known as St. Sepulchre’s.

Archbishop Comyn died in 1212 and was succeeded by Henry de Loundres, Archdeacon of Stafford. Two years later William Piro, Bishop of Glendalough, died, whereupon the union of the sees promised by King John took place. De Loundres’s principal work was the conversion of the collegiate chapter established by his predecessor in connection with St. Patrick’s, into a cathedral chapter, with four dignities and an increased number of prebendaries. This change presented the singular spectacle of a city having two cathedrals, with two chapters, one monastic, the other secular, an arrangement which fed to a good deal of friction and gave much trouble to succeeding archbishops. In 1228 de Loundres was succeeded by Archbishop Luke, brought over from London. Flourishing as he did in the period of cathedral building, we need not be surprised to learn that he caught the infection, and practically re-erected St. Patrick’s as we have it to-day, and put the nave to Christ Church as we see it in its restored condition. It scarcely necessary to go through nominatim the series of English bishops who filled the see during the medieval period. Suffice it to mention, that as most of them held some government post, such as lord chancellor, or lord treasurer, in conjunction with the arch-bishopric, their spiritual influence was thereby rendered obnoxious to the native clans of the O’Byrnes and O’Tooles, when they shook off the English yoke during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The Holy See, not to leave the natives without episcopal care, was compelled to provide a bishop for them, titularly of Glendalough, and the rubricelle in the Vatican Library furnish a list of six such bishops who presided over the mountainous region of the diocese well into the reign of Henry VIII.

THE ANGLICAN SCHISM

This monarch, unhappily as is well known, dislocated everything in Church and State. The foul murder of Archbishop Alan, author of the valuable “Liber Niger” and “Repertorium Viride,” by the followers of Silken Thomas in 1534, afforded the king the much desired opportunity of introducing his religious vagaries into Ireland. He kept the see vacant for nearly a year, and then filled it without any reference to the pope, by the appointment of George Browne. Browne had been provincial of the suppressed Augustinian Hermits in England, and was the bond slave of Henry, ready to do his master’s bidding. He was consecrated by Cranmer, 19 March, 1535–6, and took up his residence in Dublin in August, 1536. The antecedents of Browne and the schismatical character of his appointment did not recommend him to the Dublin clergy. He complained of their resistance to his injunctions and was compelled to send round his own servants in order to cancel the pope’s name in the service-books. A sharp warning from the king stirred him up to more demonstrative action, and forthwith he had all holy relics preserved in Christ Church cathedral, including St. Patrick’s crosier known as the “Staff of Jesus,” gathered into a heap and burned. He co-operated only too gladly in the suppression of all the religious houses, in changing the prior and convent of Christ Church into a secular dean and chapter, and in the total suppression of St. Patrick’s chapter. Under Edward VI he introduced that monarch’s new liturgy, as found in his first “Book of Common Prayer,” into the cathedral, and finished by taking a wife.

With the accession of Queen Mary all things Catholic were restored, and Browne, being convicted of being a married bishop, was deposed. The queen filled the vacant see by nominating Hugh Curwen, Dean of Hereford, yet another Englishman, and the royal nomination was confirmed at Rome. She also reestablished the dean and chapter of St. Patrick’s. While the queen survived, unhappily not long, Curwen behaved as a Catholic, but on the accession of Elizabeth, he was ready to worship the rising sun, to accept her royal supremacy and Act of Uniformity, and eventually a transfer to the See of Oxford as its Protestant bishop. This apostasy, coupled with the severe persecution of Catholics which continued through the whole of Elizabeth’s reign, left the See of Dublin without a Catholic bishop for full forty years. The compensations were, however, a firm and faithful clergy and people, and a long roll of martyrs and confessors.

END OF PERSECUTION

Some attempt was made by the Holy See to provide a bishop in 1585 by appointing a certain Donald or Donatus, but he did not live to take possession, and not until 1600 was his successor appointed in the person of Matthew d’Oviedo, a Spanish Franciscan. Though he came to Ireland, he dared not set foot in his diocese, but governed it through vicars-general, three of whom successively ended their days in prison. Finally about 1611 d’Oviedo returned to Spain and resigned the see, being succeeded by Dr. Eugene Matthews, transferred from Clogher. Dr. Matthews laboured hard and in most difficult times. In 1615 he called a provincial synod in Kilkenny wherein, amongst other enactments, the parochial system was reorganised and order evolved out of chaos. He narrowly escaped imprisonment more than once, and eventually betook himself to Rome where he died in 1623. Early in 1625 his successor Dr. Thomas Fleming, a Franciscan, was appointed. After the outbreak of 1641 and when the Confederation of Kilkenny was initiated, he was appointed a member of the supreme council and took part in its deliberations. But the arrival and victory of the Cromwellians in Dublin in 1649 closed the gates of his cathedral city against him; he took refuge in Galway and died there in 1651 or 1652. Dr. Edmund O’Reilly, his vicar-general, was proposed as vicar Apostolic, but his imprisonment and subsequent exile rendered this proposal abortive, and in 1656 Dr. James Dempsey, vicar capitular of Leighlin, was appointed to this office. In his first report to the Holy See, after the horrors of war, pestilence, and banishment, he states “that in the diocese of Dublin there were not enough Catholics to form three parishes.”

The restoration of Charles II to the throne occurred during Dr. Dempsey’s administration and would probably have resulted in some benevolent policy of toleration had not the intrigues of the Franciscan friar, Peter Walsh, brought new troubles upon the suffering members of the Faith. The assembly of clergy held in Dublin in 1666 at the instance of. Walsh and out manoeuvred by him, did not bring peace. Dr. Dempsey died in 1667, and the see was again vacant until 1669 when the Holy See appointed Dr. Peter Talbot of the Malahide family. He was consecrated at Ghent, 2 May. In 1670 he held a diocesan synod, and a meeting of bishops was held in Dublin in the same year which furnished the occasion, by a claim for precedence, for the first contention between Armagh and Dublin concerning the primacy. In 1673 he was banished the kingdom; it was not until. 1677 when broken in health, that he was allowed to return; he was, however, immediately committed a close prisoner to Dublin Castle where after lingering for two years he died. He was a learned man and a prolific writer. In 1683 Dr. Patrick Russell, a native of the County Dublin, succeeded him. The advent of a Catholic king raised the hopes of the afflicted Catholics of Ireland, and with liberty restored to the Church they took heart to make a strong march forward. A provincial synod was assembled in 1685, another in 1688; in 1686 and 1689 diocesan synods were held. The metropolitan chapter, which had never died, was reorganised and the precedence of its members settled. Many other works were projected by Dr. Russell, but the disastrous defeat at the Boyne, in 1690, and the flight of King James put an end to all hope and reduced the Catholics to a worse condition than ever. Dr. Russell was apprehended and cast into prison, where he died in 1692. King James, still recognised by the Holy See, claimed the exercise of the royal prerogative of nominating to vacant sees; the claim being admitted, he named Peter Creagh, Bishop of Cork, as Archbishop of Dublin. Dr. Creagh was an exile in France, and was obliged to govern through a vicar general. He went himself as auxiliary to the Bishop of Strasburg where he died in 1705. Of the six archbishops who filled the see in the seventeenth century, two could never set foot in the diocese, two died in exile, and two in prison. When the penal laws commenced their ferocious career (1705) Ireland was reduced to a single bishop, the Bishop of Dromore, and he was confined in Newgate Prison, Dublin. The new hierarchy sprang from his prison cell. Therein was consecrated (1707) Dr. O’Rorke, Bishop of Killala, and once established in the Apostolic office, he imposed hands on the newly chosen Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Edmund Byrne, parish priest of St. Nicholas.

The population and extent of Dublin had been steadily increasing ever since the Restoration, and new quarters had grown up. Dr. Byrne’s first care was to erect these into parishes. To him owe their origin St. Mary’s, St. Paul’s, and St. Andrew’s. In 1710 the oath of abjuration, aimed against the Stuarts, but full of other objectionable matter, raised a new storm of persecution, and Dr. Byrne for a time was forced to hide with his relatives in Kildare. With varying vicissitudes he continued to rule the diocese until his death in January, 1723–4. He was succeeded by Dr. Edward Murphy, transferred from Kildare. This archbishop continued to date his letters, according to the well-known formula of hunted bishops: e loco refugii nostri, i.e. from our place of refuge. He died in 1729 and was followed by Dr. Luke Fagan, translated from Meath, who died in 1734, and had for his successor Dr. John Linegar, a native of Dublin, who lived until 1757, when his coadjutor Dr. Richard Lincoln, also a native of the city, succeeded him. In 1763 he died, and was followed by Dr. Patrick Fitzsimon who governed the see until 1770, when Dr. John Carpenter succeeded. With him may be said to commence the modern history of the diocese, for he was the first of the archbishops, since Archbishop Alan’s time, who left behind him, carefully compiled, detailed records of the diocese. He died on 29 October, 1786.

RESTORATION OF CATHOLIC LIFE

With a rapidity extraordinary for that time, Dr. John Thomas Troy, a Dominican, was transferred 9 December, 1786, from Ossory to the Archbishopric of Dublin. For thirty-seven years he governed the Church of Dublin well and wisely. He witnessed the first assertion of Catholic rights, took part in the foundation of Maynooth College, and laid the foundation stone of the metropolitan church in Marlborough Street, which still does duty as pro-cathedral. Archbishop Troy saw the beginnings of the Christian Brothers and the restoration of the Jesuits, while churches and schools multiplied under his eyes. He died in 1823 and was buried in the vaults of the new metropolitan church not yet quite ready for use. His coadjutor, Dr. Daniel Murray, a native of Wicklow, succeeded him. Educated in Salamanca, he was an eloquent, cultured, and pious ecclesiastic, described by his panegyrist as “the Francis de Sales of Ireland.” To him belong the completion of the pro cathedral, the founding of the Irish Sisters of Charity and the communities of Loretto. He witnessed the achievement of Catholic Emancipation in 1829, the wonderful career of the Liberator, Daniel O’Connell of the great temperance movement under Father Mathew, and the establishment of a system of national (primary) education of which he himself was appointed a commissioner. The awakening of a nation and of a church to a new life and increased responsibilities was accomplished in his time. He died in 185, regretted by all, and was buried in the Marlborough Street vaults, where in the church above them, a beautiful kneeling statue by Sir Thomas Farrell, adorn the northern transept.

Archbishop Murray was followed by Dr. Paul Cullen (q. v.), then Archbishop of Armagh, who in June, 1852, was solemnly enthroned in Dublin. He founded the diocesan seminary and the Mater Misericordiae Hospital. He inaugurated innumerable new churches, colleges, and schools, and became the recognised champion of Catholic education all the world over. In 1866 he was made cardinal-Ireland’s first cardinal. In 1870 he took a distinguished part in the Vatican Council, and in 1875 presided over the National Synod of Maynooth. In 1878 he went to Rome to assist at the conclave which elected Leo XIII, but arrived late, and in October of that year passed to his reward. He is interred in the crypt of the college chapel at Clonliffe; a fine marble statue perpetuates his memory in the pro cathedral.

In October, 1878, Dr. Edward McCabe, consecrated assistant bishop in 1877, was raised to the archiepiscopal office. His administration was short. In 1882 Pope Leo conferred on him the dignity of cardinal. Never in very robust health, he died in February, 1885. He was interred at Glasnevin where a handsome mausoleum is erected to his memory. In July, 1885, the Most Rev. William J. Walsh was appointed to succeed him.

STATISTICS

The status of the diocese (1908) is as follows: archbishop 1: bishop (of Canea) 1; par ishes, 74; parish priests, 70; administrators, 4; Curates etc., 190; in diocesan seminary, 9; chaplains, 21; secular clergy, 293; regular clergy, 247; public churches, chapels, and oratories, 193; convents, 93. Catholic population (Census of 1901), 407,514; non-Catholic population, 112,498; total, 520,012.

The religious orders are very well represented in Dublin by houses of Augustinians, Capuchins, Carmelites, Dominicans, Franciscans, Holy Ghost Fathers, Jesuits, Lazarists, Marists, Oblates, and Passionists. Dublin is the residence of the Superior General of the Irish Christian Brothers and the seat of their novitiate. Numerous sisterhoods, both within and without the city (Sisters of Charity, Mercy, Loretto, Dominican, Presentation, Carmelite, Holy Faith, Sacred Heart, Poor Clares, Assumption, Bon Secours, Poor Servants, Heart of Mary, etc.) devote themselves to the usual works of education and charity (hospitals, orphanages, asylums for the aged poor, for the blind and for deaf-mutes of both sexes, industrial schools, homes, refuses, lunatic asylums, etc.).

The Catholic University of Ireland, founded in 1854, consists (since 1882) of the following (6) colleges located for the most part near Dublin: St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth; University College, St. Stephen’s Green (Jesuits); University College, Blackrock (Holy Ghost Fathers); St. Patrick’s College, Carlow; Holy Cross College, Clonliffe; and the School of Medicine, Dublin. Each of these colleges retains its own independent organisation. (For the history of this university see CULLEN; MACHALE; NEWMAN; IRELAND.) Other colleges are conducted by the Jesuits (Belvedere College), the Holy Ghost Fathers (Rathmines), the Carmelites (Terenure), and the Lazarists (Castleknock). The Holy Cross College (Clonliffe) is the diocesan college or seminary for aspirants to the priesthood. For the ecclesiastical seminary of St. Patrick’s, Maynooth, see MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.

By the New Universities Act passed in 1908, the official existence of the Catholic University of Ireland was brought to a close. This Act suppressed the Royal University of Ireland, and created two new universities in Ireland, both strictly undenominational. One had its seat in Belfast, and absorbed the Queen’s College already existing there; the other had its seat in Dublin, with a new college founded there, and absorbing the Queen’s Colleges in Cork and Galway. The new Colleges of Dublin, Cork, and Galway, although undenominational under the Act, principally subserved Catholic interests, Dublin University (Trinity College) being left undisturbed and mostly frequented as well as governed by members of the Protestant Church. The Archbishop of Dublin is nominated, though not ex officio, a member of the Senate of the new university having a seat in Dublin, and also a member of the Statutory Commission charged by the Crown with the duty of revising and approving of the statutes of the several colleges comprised in the university.

GILBERT, Crede Mihi (Dublin, 1897); IDEM, History of the City of Dublin (Dublin, 1859); WARE, ed. HARRIS, Antiquities of Ireland (Dublin. 1764); d’ALTON, Memoirs of the Archbishops of Dublin (Dublin, 1838); MORAN, History of the Catholic Archbishops of Dublin (Dublin, 1864); IDEM, Spicilegium Ossoriense (Dublin, 1874); RENEHAN, Collections on Irish Church History (Dublin, 1861); SHEARMAN, Loca Patriciana (Dublin, 1874); HALLIDAY, Scandinavian History of Dublin (Dublin, 1864); Reports 20th, 23rd and 24th, Public Records in Ireland (Dublin. 1888, 1891, and 1892; LEWIS, Topographical Dictionary of Ireland (2 vols., Dublin, 1839), I, 525–65.

NICHOLAS DONNELLY

Guillaume Dubois

A French cardinal and statesman, born at Brive, in Limousin, 1656; died at Versailles, 1723. He was the son of an honourable physician and received his first education from the Fathers of the Christian Doctrine in his native place, whence he went in 1672, as beneficiary, to the Collège Saint-Michel in Paris. He had been engaged some nine years in private teaching when he was appointed (1683) sub-preceptor to the Duke of Chartres, nephew of Louis XIV, the full tutorship following four years later. When the Duke of Chartres became Duke of Orléans (1700), Dubois was made his secretary. During the regency of Philippe d’Orléans he rose in rapid succession to the high positions of state councillor (1716), secretary of foreign affairs (1717), Archbishop of Cambrai (1720), cardinal and surintendant des postes (1721), member of the Conseil de régence, and soon after, ministre principal (1722). The French Academy admitted him the same year and the Assembly of the French Clergy elected him president in 1723, the year of his death.

Owing to his humble birth, his stanch opposition to Jansenism, and his bold reversal of the aristocratic regime prevalent under Louis XIV, Dubois was disliked by the noblemen of his day. On the authority of contemporary libels and Saint-Simon’s memoirs, historians of France have long repeated against him such charges as corrupting the morals of his pupil, accepting money from England, seeking, though unworthy, ecclesiastical dignities, etc. The publication by Sévelinges of Dubois’s memoirs and correspondence together with the careful study of contemporary documents by Seilhac, Wiesener, and Bliard—e. g. the diplomatic papers preserved in the archives of the French, English, and Spanish foreign offices—have thrown a new light on the subject and partly verified the words of Fontenelle at the time of the reception of Cardinal Dubois into the French Academy: “Les siècles suivants en sauront davantage; fiez-vous à eux.” Far from catering to his pupil’s wantonness, Dubois did what he could to check it, and his Plan d’éducation pour le duc de Chartres shows a competent and conscientious tutor. The expediency of his foreign policy, resulting in the Triple Alliance of France, England, and Holland against Spain, like the contrary policy of Cardinal de Bernis, must be largely a matter of opinion. In so far as Dubois was concerned, it was the best way of serving the interests of France and counteracting the intrigues of Alberoni. Stair and Stanhope had a high regard, almost amounting to friendship, for the minister of France, but on both sides the charge that bribery was resorted to is untrue. That Dubois was not set against the natural amity between France and Spain was shown later, when, after Alberoni’s fall and the restoration of peace, he successfully negotiated the treaty of 1721 and the marriage of Louis XV with the Infanta and that of the Prince of the Asturias with Mlle de Montpensier. Dubois’s career as a churchman is not above reproach. While there is no foundation for the oft-repeated assertion of his secret marriage, his gross licentiousness, and notorious impiety even at the hour of his death, still it cannot be denied that he sought and used ecclesiastical dignities principally as props to his political prestige. Tonsured at the age of thirteen he bethought himself of sacred Orders only in his old age, when, the better to secure the long coveted and long denied red hat, he asked for the Archbishopric of Cambrai merely as a stepping stone to the cardinalate.

The “Mémoires du cardinal Dubois” published by P. Lacroix (Paris, 1829) are apocryphal. His genuine writings were edited by Sévelinges: “Mémoires secrets et correspondance inédite du cardinal Dubois” (Paris, 1815).

SAINT-SIMON, Mémoires, ed. CHÉRUEL (Paris, 1858), with remarks of CHÉRUEL; Relations de Saint-Simon el de l’Abbé Dubois in Rev. Hist., I, 140; SEILHAC, L’Abbé Dobois, premier ministre de Louis XV (Paris, 1862); WIESENER, Le Régent, l’Abbé Dubois et les Anglais (Paris, 1893); BLIARD, Dubois, cardinal el premier ministre (Paris, 1902), reviewed by SHAHAN in Catholic Univ. Bulletin, VIII, 350. See also HARDWICKE, State Papers (London, 1778); COXE, Memoirs of the Life of Walpole (London, 1798); GRAHAM, The Stair Annals (Edinburgh, 1875); HASSALL, Alberoni and Dubois in Periods of European history (New York, 1903), VI, 25.

J. F. SOLLIER.

Jean-Antoine Dubois

French missionary in India, b. in 1765 at St. Remèze (Ardèche); d. in Paris, 17 Feb., 1848. The Abbé Dubois was a director of the Seminary of the Foreign Missions, a member of the Royal Societies of Great Britain and Paris, and of the Literary Society of Madras. At the outbreak of the French Revolution he went to India to preach Christianity to the natives, whose favour he soon won by his affability and patience. For their instruction he composed elementary treatises on Christian doctrine which won general commendation. Though he remained thirty-two years in that arduous field, his labours were all fruitless and he returned convinced that the conversion of the Hindus with the deep-rooted prejudices of centuries was impossible under the existing conditions. This opinion which he broached in “Letters on the State of Christianity in India” etc. (London, 1823), was vigorously attacked in England. Two Anglican ministers, James Hough and H. Townley, published, respectively, “A Reply to the Letters of the Abbé Dubois” etc. (London, 1824) and “An Answer to the Abbé Dubois” (London, 1824). “The Friend of India,” a journal of Calcutta (1825), contained a refutation of his letters, to which the abbe rejoined in a letter of much gravity and moderation. It found its way into the “Bulletin des Sciences,” May, 1825, and the first volume of the “Asiatic Journal” (1841). Besides these letters he wrote: “Description of the Character, Manners and Customs of the People of India, and of their Institutions, religious and civil” (London, 1816). This work was bought by the East India Company for twenty thousand francs and printed at their expense. The author published an enlarged edition in French under the title “Moeurs, institutions, et cérémonies des peuples de l’Inde” (Paris, 1825, 2 vols.), which is considered the best and most complete work on the subject. “Exposé de quelques-uns des principaux articles de la théologie des Brahmes” (Paris, 1825); “Le Pantcha-tantra ou les cinq ruses, fables du Brahme Vichnou-Sarma” (Paris, 1826). Abbé Dubois was one of the collaborators of the “Bulletin Universel des Sciences” of the Baron de Férussac.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE.

John Dubois

Third Bishop of New York, educator and missionary, b. in Paris, 24 August, 1764; d. in New York, 20 December, 1842. His early education was received at home until he was prepared to enter the Collége LouisleGrand, where he had for fellow-students Robespierre and Desmoulins. Ordained priest at the Oratorian Seminary of St-Magloire, 22 Sept., 1787, by Archbishop de Juigné, of Paris, he was appointed an assistant to the curé of St-Sulpice, and chaplain to the Sisters of Charity (Hospice des Petites Maisons). Forced in May, 1791, by the French Revolution to leave France, he escaped in disguise to America, and landed at Norfolk, Virginia, Aug., 1791, bearing commendatory letters from the Marquis de Lafayette to James Monroe, the Randolphs, Lees, Beverlys, and Patrick Henry. He was cordially received, resided for some time in the house of Mr. Monroe, received instruction in English from Patrick Henry, and even celebrated Mass in the State House at Richmond. In 1794 he became pastor of Frederick where he built the first church and ministered to Western Maryland and Virginia. His career as an educator began in 1808, when, joining the Society of St-Sulpice, he withdrew from the Frederick mission and opened a school on the mountain, at Emmitsburg, as a petit séminaire. This he soon discovered impracticable, and, in its place, founded there the present Mt. St. Mary’s College. Father Dubois was also of invaluable assistance, material and spiritual, to Mother Seton, foundress of the American Sisters of Charity, when she established (1809) a convent of her community a short distance from the college.

On the death of the Rt. Rev. John Connolly, second Bishop of New York, 6 Feb., 1825, Father Dubois was chosen his successor and consecrated the third Bishop of New York by Archbishop Maréchal in Baltimore, 29 Oct., 1826. Three days later he took possession of his diocese, which covered the whole State of New York, and half the State of New Jersey, with a Catholic population of about 150,000, eighteen priests, and some twelve churches. A visitation of his diocese revealing the pressing need of priests and of a seminary, he went to France and Rome for aid in 1829, and obtained substantial help from the Society for the Propagation of the Faith and the Congregation of Propaganda. He made three unsuccessful attempts to establish a seminary. Fire destroyed one when just completed at Nyack; another projected on a site chosen in Brooklyn was never begun; and a third in Lafargeville, in the northern part of the State, was closed because too remote and inaccessible. Another serious problem confronted the bishop in the lay trustee system controlling the churches. On one occasion, when the trustees of the cathedral threatened to withhold his salary, he made this memorable reply “I am an old man, and do not need much. I can live in a basement or in a garret. But whether I come up from the basement or down from the garret, I shall still be your Bishop” (see TRUSTEEISM; NEWYORK, ARCHDIOCESE OF). Enfeebled by age and hard work, he asked for a coadjutor, the diocese having grown to include 38 churches, 12 stations, and 40 priests, and the Rev. John Hughes of Philadelphia was appointed titular Bishop of Basilinopolis and coadjutor of New York in 1837. Bishop Dubois’s infirmities increasing, Bishop Hughes was made administrator in 1839, and the old bishop passed the last days of a life of apostolic zeal in retirement. His body rests in the crypt of St. Patrick’s old Cathedral, New York.

SHEA, History of Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1890), III; HERBERMANN in U. S. Cath. Hist. Soc., Historical Records and Studies (New York, 1900), I, part II; SMITH, The Catholic Church in New York (New York, 1905–8), I; FARLEY, The History of St. Patrick’s Cathedral (New York, 1908); MCCAFFREY, The Jubilee of Mount St. Mary’s (New York, 1859).

P.J. HAYES

Louis-Guillaume-Valentin Dubourg

Second Bishop of Louisiana and the Floridas, Bishop of Montauban, Archbishop of Besançon, b. at Cap Franç, Santo Domingo, 16 February, 1766; d. at Besançon, France, 12 December, 1833. His theological studies were made at Paris, where he was ordained in 1788 and entered the Company of Saint Sulpice. He was superior of the seminary of Issy when the French Revolution broke out, and retired at first to Bordeaux. In 1794 he emigrated to the United States where he was welcomed by Bishop Carroll. He was president of Georgetown College from 1796 to 1799. After an unsuccessful trip to Havana where he attempted to open a school, he returned to Baltimore and became the first superior of Saint Mary’s College.

On 18 August, 1812, he was appointed Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Louisiana and the Floridas to succeed Bishop Peñalvar y Cardenas promoted (1801) to the archiepiscopal See of Guatemala. The position was by no means an easy one and Father Dubourg was forced, at the beginning of his administration to take up his residence outside New Orleans. However, he gradually overtcame his opponents. On 28 January, 1815, on the threshold of the New Orleans cathedral, he bestowed on General Jackson the laurels of victory.

After settling in a satisfactory way the affairs of the diocese Father Dubourg proceeded to Rome where he was consecrated Bishop of Louisiana and the Floridas, 24 September, 1815. He returned to America in 1817 and took up his residence in St. Louis where he founded a theological seminary and college at “The Barrens.” He also founded the St. Louis Latin Academy which developed into the present well-known St. Louis University. The Religious of the Sacred Heart simultaneously opened their first American convent, St. Charles’s Academy (1818), and soon after a second one at Florissant. These institutions gave a great impulse to religion in what was then known as Upper Louisiana. The bishop visited yearly the southern part of his diocese, and when Bishop Rosati was appointed his coadjutor, New Orleans became again his residence. In 1826 Bishop Dubourg went again to Europe. He was a brilliant and learned man, but was reluctant to enforce his authority against the cathedral trustees who continually opposed him; therefore he tendered his resignation of the See of New Orleans (November, 1826), thinking that another incumbent would be more successful.

He was not, however, allowed to live in retirement, but was transferred, 2 October, 1826, to the Diocese of Montauban; then on 15 February, 1833, he was promoted to the archiepiscopal See of Besançon. Archbishop Dubourg was one of the first patrons and beneficiaries of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, but was not, as has been said, its founder. This society was organized at a meeting held at Lyons by the Abbé Inglesi, Bishop Dubourg’s vicar-general, but the chief rôle in its creation is due to a pious woman of Lyons, (q. v.).

Shea, History of the Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1890), III, passim; Idem, The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1886); Guasco, L’Œuvre de la Propagation de la Foi (Paris); Member of the Order of Mercy, Vie de M. Emery (Paris).

CÉLESTIN M. CHAMBON.

St. Dubric

(DYFRIG, DUBRICIUS)

Bishop and confessor, one of the greatest of Welsh saints; d. 612. He is usually represented holding two crosiers, which signify his jurisdiction over the Sees of Caerleon and Llandaff. St. Dubric is first mentioned in a tenth-century MS. of the “Annales Cambriae,” where his death is assigned to the year 612. This date appears also in the earliest life of the saint that has come down to us. It was written about 1133, to record the translation of his relics, and is to be found (in the form of “Lectiones”) in the “Liber Landavensis.” It may contain some genuine traditions, but as it appeared at least five hundred years after St. Dubric’s death, it cannot claim to be historical. According to this account he was the son (by an unnamed father) of Eurddil, a daughter of Pebia Claforwg, prince of the region of Ergyng (Erchenfield in Herefordshire), and was born at Madley on the River Wye. As a child he was noted for his precocious intellect, and by the time he attained manhood was already known as a scholar throughout Britain. He founded a college at Henllan (Hentland in Herefordshire), where he maintained two thousand clerks for seven years. Thence he moved to Mochros (perhaps Moccas), on an island farther up the Wye, where he founded an abbey. Later on he became Bishop of Llandaff, but resigned his see and retired to the Isle of Bardsey, off the coast of Carnarvonshire. Here with his disciples he lived as a hermit for many years, and here he was buried. His body was translated by Urban, Bishop of Llandaff, to a tomb before the Lady-altar in “the old monastery” of the cathedral city, which afterwards became the cathedral church of St. Peter.

A few years after the “Liber Landavensis” was written, there appeared the “Historia Regum Britanniae” of Geoffrey of Monmouth, and this romantic chronicle is the source of the later and more elaborate legend of St. Dubric, which describes him as “Archbishop of Caerleon” and one of the great figures of King Arthur’s court. Benedict of Gloucester and John de Tinmouth (as adapted by Capgrave) developed the fictions of Geoffrey, but their accounts are of no historical value. There is no record of St. Dubric’s canonization. The “Liber Landavensis” assigns his death to 14 November, but he was also commemorated on 4 November. The translation of his body, which the same authority assigns to 23 May, is more usually kept on 29 May.

LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE

Archdiocese of Dubuque

Archdiocese of Dubuque (Dubuquensis), established, 28 July, 1837, created an archbishopric, 1893, comprises that part of Iowa, U.S.A., north of Polk, Jasper, Poweshiek, Iowa, Johnson, Cedar, and Scott, and east of Kossuth, Humboldt, Webster, and Boone Counties; an area of 18,084 sq. miles. The city is picturesquely situated on the Mississippi, at the base of noble bluffs that rise 300 feet above the river; many of these eminences are crowned with Catholic institutions and fine residences. The city is named after Julien Dubuque, a Canadian who lived there from 1788 to 1811, mining lead and trading with the Indians. His grave was marked by a cross and recently has been adorned with a rugged round tower of native limestone.

The first white men to visit Iowa were Jesuit Marquette and the Franciscan Hennepin. Later missionaries sent from Quebec laboured among the Indians of Wisconsin and Iowa, and kept alive the Faith among the scattered pioneers. Iowa became United States territory by the Louisiana Purchase, and in 1883, after treaty with the Indians, was opened to settlement. The lead mines at Dubuque attracted many, and the fertile prairies many more, and the population increased rapidly. The earliest Catholic settlers were French, German, and Irish, coming directly from their native lands or from the Eastern States; soon the whole state was dotted with thriving villages and prosperous farms. The attitude of non-Catholics has been uniformly friendly; the coming of a priest and the building of a church were generally met with favor and even with generous contributions. At present the Catholic people of the Archdiocese of Dubuque are about equally divided between agriculture and urban pursuits, and hold a prominent position in social, business, and professional life. The principal parishes outside the city of Dubuque presided over by irremovable rectors are Clinton, Cedar Rapids, Independence, Marshalltown, Waterloo, Dyersville, Mason City, Lansing, Ackley, Cascade, New Vienna, and Waukon.

The diocese of Dubuque was created in 1837 by a division of that of St. Louis, and embraced the area north of Missouri to Canada, and east of the Mississippi to the Missouri. One priest, a zealous Dominican, Samuel Mazzuchelli, ministered to a scattered population of less than 3000; three churches had been built; St. Raphael’s at Dubuque, one in Davenport, and one at Sugar Creek, Lee County. Today in that same territory the church numbers 1,000,000 souls with two archbishops, a score of bishops, and thousands of priests and religious workers.

BISHOPS

(1) Pierre-Jean-Mathias Loras, the first bishop, was born in Lyons, France, 30 August, 1792; his father and uncle were guillotined during the Revolution. Mathias, who had as a schoolmate the Blessed Curé d’Ars, was ordained priest 12 November 1815, and for years was superior of the seminary of Largentiere. His zeal led him in 1829 to Mobile, Alabama, U.S.A., where he labored as pastor of Sand Spring Hill until 1837. Consecrated Bishop of Dubuque, at Mobile, 10 December, 1837, by Bishop Portier of Mobile, he familiarized himself by letters with the needs of his diocese, and went to France for priests; he returned 21 April, 1839, with six men of heroic mould, whose names are inseparably linked with the Catholic North-West: Joseph Cretin, who in 1851 was consecrated first Bishop of St. Paul, A. Ravoux, a noted Indian missionary, J.A.M.Pelamourgues, the patriarch-priest of Davenport, L. Galtier, R. Petiot, and J. Causse, pioneer priests of Minnesota. At Dubuque the bishop was received, 19 April, 1839, with great joy by all classes. His administration was marked by piety, zeal, and providential prudence. He multiplied his priests, encouraged immigration from the crowded cities of the East, welcomed the Trappists and various orders of sisters, chose and purchased tracts of land in the wilderness, that are now flourishing parishes. He was constantly engaged in visitation s and preaching missions. By personal example and formation of societies, he advanced the cause of temperance. In his work the generosity of the people was supplemented by contributions from France. In a letter of 1839 to the Society of the Propagation of the Faith of Lyons, he acknowledged a gift of $10,500 for his diocese. In 1850 St. Bernard’s diocesan seminary was opened, which flourished for five years; among its students was Henry Cosgrove, who became Bishop of Davenport. In 1854 Bishop Loras visited Ireland and France in quest of priests. In 1855 he requested and obtained as coadjutor the Rev. Clement Smyth, superior of the Trappist community at New Melleray. Bishop Loras died at Dubuque, 20 February, 1858. Where he found one priest and a scattered little flock, he left 48 priests with 60 churches and 54,000 Catholics.

(2) Clement Smyth was b. 24 February, 1810, at Finlea, County Clare, Ireland; educated at Trinity College, Dublin, he entered the Cistercian Order and was ordained, 29 May, 1841. He was sent to the United States and founded New Melleray monastery, twelve miles from Dubuque, on land donated by Bishop Loras. He was consecrated, 3 May, 1857, by Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis. Bishop Smyth was a man whose deep piety and boundless charity won the devotion of priests and people. He held a synod whose canons remained unaltered till 1902. Under him immigration continued, but owing to hard times and the Civil War, not much progress was made in church-building, but the spiritual edifice was strengthened. At his death, 22 September 1865, there were 90,000 Catholics in Iowa.

(3) Bishop Smyth was succeeded in 1866 by the Rt. Rev. John Hennessy, b. 20 August, 1825, in the County Limerick, Ireland. He entered Carondelet seminary near St. Louis, and was ordained in 1850. He became president of the seminary, and in 1858 was sent to Rome as representative Archbishop Kenrick. From 1860 to 1866 he was pastor of St. Joseph, Missouri. As a priest he manifested extraordinary prudence, learning, and eloquence. He was consecrated by Archbishop Kenrick, at Dubuque, 30 Sept., 1866. Bishop Hennessy received many priests from Germany and Ireland, and in 1873 founded St. Joseph’s College and Theological Seminary in Dubuque. Existing parishes were systematically divided and he directed his energies especially to Christian education. Wherever possible schools were built and heroic sacrifices were made that every Catholic child should be educated by Catholic teachers. Considerable and continued opposition was offered by some Catholics, not only for economic reasons, but also because they considered the programme an attack on the public schools. The wisdom of the bishop was shown by the prosperous condition of the parochial schools, which at the time of his silver Jubilee, showed 12,257 pupils enrolled. Bishop Hennessy assisted at the Vatican Council, and was prominent in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. In 1893 he was made first Archbishop of Dubuque, with Davenport, Omaha, Wichita, and Sioux Falls as suffragan sees. His death occurred 4 March, 1900.

(4) The Most Rev. John J. Keane, titular Archbishop of Damascus and formerly Bishop of Richmond, Virginia, and Rector of Catholic University of America, was named to succeed Archbishop Hennessy, 24 July, 1900. Archbishop Keane was b. 12 Sept., 1839, at Ballyshannon, Co. Donegal, Ireland; ordained 2 July, 1866, at Baltimore; consecrated bishop at Baltimore, 25 August, 1878. Synods in 1902, 1905, and 1908 applied the Baltimore decrees to local conditions. Conferences of the clergy were held semi-annualy in every deanery. Complete annual reports from every parish were made through the chancery. His zeal for total abstinence founded an archdiocesan union, and in the field of education he encouraged postgraduate courses for priests, doubled the faculty and buildings of St. Joseph’s College, the preparatory seminary of the archdiocese, which now enrolls 200 classical students, established a missionary band of diocesan priests, welcomed the Sisters of the Good Shepherd and the Sisters of the Order of St. Dominic, and the Brothers of Mary. Thus with indefatigable zeal he continued the work of his predecessors. In 1902 the western portion of the archdiocese was erected into the new Diocese of Sioux City.

Among the early missionaries and priests were Rev. John McMahon, C.P. Fitzmaurice, Daniel Maloney, Maurice Flavin, John Shields, James O’Gorman, who became vicar Apostolic at Omaha, M. Flannery, A.Hattneberger, H. Meis, Charles McGauran, John Brazil, T.M. Lenihan, later bishop of Cheyenne, C. Johannes, Patrick McCabe, and T. Donahue. Prominent among Catholic laymen were: Charles Corkery, Postmaster under President Buchanan, Patrick Quigley, Gen. Geo.W. Jones, United States Senator, 1848–1859, and Minister to New Granada, Dennis A. Mahoney, Eugene Shine, Maurice Brown, Thomas Connolly, Cornelius Mullen, Patrick Clark, Gen. John Lawler, of Prairie-du-Chen, who gave many church sites in Iowa, Senas Huegal, Anton Heeb, Gerard Becker, Charles Gregoire, John Mullaney,Wm. Ryan, Wm. Neuman, and David Hennessey.

The Sisters of Charity of the B.V M. went to Dubuque in 1844 from Philadelphia. The mother-house is now located there and they conduct two academies and eleven schools in various centres, besides having sent communities to four other states. The Sisters of Mercy located in 1868 in Davenport, and now have independent houses in Dubuque, Cedar Rapids, and Independence. The Presentation Nuns arrived from Ireland in 1875, and have 65 members. The Visitation Nuns conduct an academy in Dubuque; they number 31 members. The Sisters of St. Francis came from Westphalia, Germany, and 320 of them are employed in schools throughout Iowa. Other sisterhoods represented in the archdiocese are Third Order of St. Dominic, Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, Sisters of St. Francis of Assisi, M.C., School Sisters of St. Francis, Sisters of the Holy Ghost, Sisters of the Holy Humility of Mary, and the School Sisters of Notre Dame.

STATISTICS

Official reports for 1908 give these figures: 222 diocesan and 9 regular priests, 165 parish churches, 63 mission churches, 50 chapels (in religious institutions); 1 college for men with 380 students; 25 academies for higher education of young women, attended by 4,000; 96 parochial schools, with 25,000 pupils; 1 orphanage with 225 inmates; 7 hospitals each accommodating 30–150 patients; one industrial home with 50 inmates; one home of the Good Shepherd. Catholic population, 111,112 in a total of 693,400. About 650 sisters of religious communities are engaged in teaching, and about 130 are in hospitals and other charitable work.

SHEA, History of the Catholic Church in U.S. (New York, 1889–1892); de Cailly, Life of Bishop Loras (New York, 1897); Kempker, History of Catholics in Iowa (Iowa City, 1887); Souvenir Volume of Silver Jubilee of Archbishop Hennessy; Souvenir Volume of Installation of Archbishop Keane; Reuss, Biographical Cyclopedia of Catholic Hierarchy in the U.S. (Milwaukee, 1898).

J.C. STUART

Fronton du Duc

(Called in Latin Ducæus.)

A French theologian and Jesuit, b. at Bordeaux in 1558; d. at Paris, 25 September, 1624. At first he taught in various colleges of the Society and wrote for the dramatic representations encouraged by the Jesuits the “Histoire tragique de la pucelle de Domrémy, autrement D’Orléans” (Nancy, 1581). which was acted at Pont-à-Mousson before Charles III, Duke of Lorraine. At a later date he took part in the theological discussions of the age and is the author of “Inventaires des faultes, contradictions, faulses allégations du Sieur Plessis, remarquées en son livre de la Sante Eucharistie, par les théologiens de Bordeaux” (Bordeaux, 1599–1601). This is one of the many refutations of the treatise on the Eucharist issued in 1598 by the Huguenot theologian Du Plessis-Mornay. The Protestant publicist made a reply to which Fronton de Duc rejoined in 1602.

At the suggestion of Casaubon, Henry IV contemplated the publication of manuscripts of the royal library. The clergy of France decided to confide the revision of the Greek Fathers to the Jesuits, and Fronton du Duc was chosen by the Society to labour on this project. Accordingly he published the works of St. John Chrysostom (Paris, 1609–1624) and a “Bibliotheca veterum Patrum” (Paris, 1624, 2 vols. in folio). The “Bibliotheca” contains a large number of the Greek Fathers with Latin translations (see the list in Sommervogel, III, 245), and serves as a supplement to the great collection of Margarin de la Bigne known as the “Sacra Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum.” After the death of Fronton du Duc there was issued an edition of Nicephorus Callistus (Paris, 1620, 2 vols. in folio) which he had undertaken. This edition follows a Vienna manuscript that had belonged to the library of Matthias Corvinus; its publication had been delayed by a series of curious complications in which the political schemes of Richelieu were involved. Fronton du Duc had also occupied himself with the Greek texts of the Bible and had begun a revision of the text, but this was not completed. Librarian from 1604 of the Collège de Clermont, he reorganized the library, which had been scattered during the period in which the Jesuits had been obliged to abandon the school. While holding this position he also taught (1618–23) positive theology.

Oudin, in Nicéron, Memoires pour servir à l’historie des hommes illustres de la république des lettres (Paris, 1737), XXXVIII, 103; Sommervogel, Bibliothéque de la c. de J. (Paris, 1897), III, 233–249.

PAUL LEJAY

Charles Dufresne Du Cange

Historian and philologist, b. at Amiens, France, 18 Dec., 1610; d. at Paris, 1688. His father, who was a magistrate, had him educated by the Jesuits at Amiens, and the young man afterwards studied law at Orléans and was admitted to the Bar before the Parlement of Paris, 11 Ausust, 1631. But the legal profession failing to satisfy him, he returned to Amiens, married there in 1638 and in 1645 purchased the position of Treasurer of France held by his father-in-law. Obliged to leave Amiens in 1668 on account of the plague, he settled in Paris, where he died. Neither his official duties nor his family cares (he was the father of ten children) prevented him from following scholarly pursuits. Conversant with many languages, he was consulted on all sides, and he obtained much information through his correspondence. His unremitting energy was largely expended on the history of France and that of Constantinople. To insure a solid basis for his researches, he began by mastering the languages of the texts and was unceasing in his efforts to increase his knowledge of Byzantine Greek and Low Latin.

Two great and useful works were the outcome of this preparation and even yet suffice to secure the scholarly reputation of their author; they were the “glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae latinitatis” (Paris, 3 vols. fol. 1678; new edition with addenda by Dom Carpentier, Paris, 7 vols., 4to, 1840–1850; 10 vols., 1882–1887), and the “Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae graecitatis” (Paris, 2 vols. fol. 1688). Chief among his other works are: “Histoire de l’Empire de Constantinople sous les empereurs francois” (Paris, 1657, 1 vol. fol.); “Traité historique du chef de saint Jean-Baptiste” (Paris, 1666, 4to); “Histoire de Saint Louis” (Paris, 1688, 2 vols. fol.); the “Historia Byzantina” (Paris, 1680, 2 vols. fol.), editions of the Byzantine historians, notably of Zonaras (Paris, 1686, 2 vols. fol.); and the “Chronicon Paschale” (Paris, 1689, fol.). He left many manuscripts which, after being widely scattered, were collected toward the middle of the eighteenth century by his grand-nephew Dufresne d’Aubigny and are now nearly all preserved in the National Library, Paris. From these have been compiled the “Histoire de la ville d’Amiens (published by Hardouin at Amiens, 1840) and “Les familles d’outre-mer” (published by Rey in the “Documents inédits de l’histoire de France,” Paris, 1869).

PAUL LEJAY

Duccio di Buoninsegna

Painter, and founder of the Sienese School, b. about 1255 or 1260, place not known; d. 3 August, 1319. About this time Siena was at the zenith of her political power. She had just defeated Florence on the field of Montaperti (4 September, 1260), and an era of marvellous development followed this conquest. Then was begun the huge task of building the cathedral, where, in 1266, was commenced the incomparable pulpit sculptured by Nicholas of Pisa, and it was under these flourishing conditions that Duccio received his artistic education. However, he owed nothing to the Gothic style nor to the naturalistic renaissance of Nicholas of Pisa: he allied himself exclusively with Byzantine tradition. Duccio has been called the “Last of the Greeks,” and his genius consisted in giving exquisite expression to the refined sentiment of the masters of Byzantium, discovering its original meaning despite the barbarous, hideous imitations made by a degenerate school.

Duccio is first mentioned in 1278, when he was engaged upon minor work, such as painting the coffers of the archives and the tablettes (memorandum-books) of the Biccherna, one of them for the year 1293 now in the Industrial Museum of Berlin. But his great work at this time was the famous “Madonna de’ Ruccellai”—one of the most illustrious specimens of Italian painting—preserved at Florence in a side-chapel of Santa Maria Novella and, on the authority of Vasari, so long considered one of Cimabue’s master-pieces. But that the painting was Duccio’s is now beyond question, as Milanesi has published the text of a contract drawn up for this picture, 15 April, 1285, between the artist and the rectors of the Confraternity of the Virgin. Although still hieratical and archaic, Duccio’s “Madonna,” when compared, for instance, with that of Guido of Siena, painted in 1221 and shown to-day in the Palazzo Pubblico of Siena, seems fully to deserve its celebrity.

But it was in 1311 that Duccio achieved his principal work, the glory of which is destined to remain traditional, the great reredos for the high altar of the Siena cathedral. This panel, removed in the fifteenth century, may now be seen in the museum of the Opera del Duomo. The day of its installation was observed as a public feast; shops were closed and bells were rung and the people of the city, carrying lighted candles, solemnly escorted the picture from the artist’s residence at the Porta Stalloreggi to the cathedral. This painting was indeed a national masterpiece and in this regard is comparable only to the reredos by Van Eyck in Flemish painting. The two sides represent the two Testaments of the school. The back comprises twenty-six scenes from the life of Jesus between the entry into Jerusalem and the Ascension. The steps, now taken apart, were decorated with twenty other scenes representing Christ’s childhood, and His miracles, and the life of the Virgin. In fact, the theme was the same as that treated by Giotto in 1305 in the Arena of Padua. But Duccio consulted Byzantine formularies only, and his compositions resemble the famous miniatures of the “Evangelistarium” of Rossano, or those of the great Benedictine school of Mont’ Amiata. However, apart from his perfect taste in colour and in style, Duccio excelled in the essentially Greek elegance of his portrayal of ordinary life. He abounds in genre pictures as pure as some of the selections in the Anthology. The scene of “Peter before the High-Priest,” the dialogue of the holy women with the angel at the Sepulchre, and the “Pilgrims of Emmaus” are models of poetic conception expressed in a familiar, true-to-life, lyric fashion. On the front of the great panel is the “Madonna Maestà” (Majesty), which is in reality the “Madonna de’ Ruccellai” more amply, richly, and harmoniously developed. Never did Byzantine painting attain greater plasticity of expression. But here the form is animated by a new sentiment, a tenderness that manifests itself in the distich engraved on the step of the Virgin’s throne:—

MATER SANCTA DEI, SIS CAUSSA SENIS REQUIEI

SIS DUCCIO VITA, TE QUIA PINXIT ITA.

(Holy Mother of God, give peace unto Siena; obtain for me that, as I have painted Thee so fair, I may live eternally.)

Duccio painted only frame (and panel) pictures and, without doubt, miniatures, and hence the oblivion into which he fell in a country where monumental painting alone is glorified. Nevertheless his is the first of the great names in Italian painting. He preceded Giotto by a score of years and had the honour of founding an original Sienese school at a time when there were as yet no painters in Florence: since, in 1285, it was to him that the Florentines had to have recourse. And the most magnificent work of the Sienese School, the “Maest . . .” by Simone di Martino, in the Palazzo Pubblico (1315) is but an enlargement of Duccio’s. His type of beauty and his poetic ideal were indelibly impressed upon this charming school. Duccio seems to have been gay and light-hearted. In 1313 he was imprisoned for debt and at another time fined for refusing to mount guard. Some of his lesser works are preserved in various collections in the Siena Museum, the National Gallery, London, and at Windsor.

MILANESI, Documenti per la storia dell’arte senese (Siena, 1854), I; CROWE AND CAVALCASELLE, Storia della pittura in Italia (2nd ed., Florence, 1899), III; LANGTON DOUGLAS, History of Siena (London, 1902); VENTURI, Storia dell’arte Italiana (Milan, 1907), V; PERATÉ, Duccio in Gazette des Beaux-Arts (Feb. and Sept., 1893); LISINI, Notizie di Duccio pittore (Bollettino senese di storia patria, 1898); LANGTON DOUGLAS, Duccio in Monthly Review (Aug., 1903); RICHTER, Lectures on the National Gallery (London, 1898).

LOUIS GILLET

Philippine-Rose Duchesne

Founder in America of the first houses of the society of the Sacred Heart, born at Grenoble, France, 29 August, 1769; died at St. Charles, Missouri, 18 October, 1852. She was the daughter of Pierr-Francois Duchesne, an eminent lawyer. Her mother was a Périer, ancestor of Casimir Périer, President of France in 1894. She was educated by the visitation Nuns, entered that order, saw its dispersion during the Reign of Terror, vainly attempted the re-establishment of the convent of Ste-Marie-d’en-Haunt, near Grenoble, and finally, in 1804, accepted the offer of Mother Barat to receive her community into the Society of the Sacred Heart. From early childhood the dream of Philippine had been the apostolate of souls: heathen in distant lands, the neglected and poor at home. Nature and grace combined to fit her for this high vocation; education, suffering, above all, the guidance of Mother Barat trained her to become the pioneer of her order in the New world. In 1818 Mother Duchesne set out with four companions for the missions of America. Bishop Dubourg welcomed her to New Orleans, whence she sailed up the Mississippi to St. Louis, finally settling her little colony at St. Charles. “Poverty and Christian heroism are here,” she wrote, “and trials are the riches of priests in this land.” Cold, hunger, and illness; opposition, ingratitude, and calumny, all that came to try the courage of this missioner, served only to fire her lofty and indomitable spirit with new zeal for the spread of truth. Other foundations followed, at Florissant, Grand Côteau, New Orleans, St. Louis, St. Michael; and the approbation of the society in 1826 by Leo XII recognized the good being done in these parts. She yearned to teach the poor Indians, and old and broken as she was, she went to labour among the Pottowatomies at Sugar Creek, thus realizing the desire of her life. Stirred by the recitals of Father De Smet, S.J., she turned her eyes towards the Rocky Mountain missions; but Providence led her back to St. Charles, where she died. Thirty-four years of mission toil, disappointment, endurance, self-annihilation sufficed, indeed, to prove the worth of this valiant daughter of Mother Barat. She had opened the road, others might walk in it; and the success hidden from her eyes was well seen later by the many who rejoiced in the rapid spread of her order over North and South America. Sincere, intense, generous, austere yet affectionate, endowed with large capacity for suffering and work, Mother Duchesne’s was a stern character that needed and took the moulding of Mother Barat. Preliminary steps for her beatification have already been taken.

CATHERINE M. LOWTH.

Ven. James Duckett

Martyr, b. at Gilfortrigs in the parish of Skelsmergh in Westmoreland, England, date uncertain, of an ancient family of that county; d. 9 April, 1601. He was a bookseller and publisher in London. His godfather was the well-known martyr James Leybourbe of Skelsmergh. He seems, however, to have been brought up a Protestant, for he was converted while an apprentice in London by reading a Catholic book lent him by a friend. Before he could be received into the Church, he was twice imprisoned for not attending the Protestant service, and was obliged to compound for his apprenticeship and leave his master. He was finally reconciled by a venerable priest named Weekes who was imprisoned in the Gatehouse at Westminster. After two or three years he married a Catholic widow, but out of his twelve years of married life, no less than nine were spent in prison, owing to his zeal in propagating Catholic literature and his wonderful constancy in his new-found faith. His last apprehension was brought about by Peter Bullock, a bookbinder, who betrayed him in order to obtain his own release from prison. His house was searched on 4 March, 1601, Catholic books were found there, and Duckett was at once thrown into Newgate. At his trial, Bullock testified that he had bound various Catholic books for Duckett, which the martyr acknowledged to be true. The jury found him not guilty, but Judge Popham at once stood up and bade them consider well what they did, for Duckett had had bound for him Bristowe’s “motives,” a controversial work peculiarly odious to Anglicans on account of its learning and cogency. The jury thereupon reversed its verdict and brought in the prisoner guilty of felony. At the same time three priests, Page, Tichborne, and Watkinson were condemned to death. Bullock did not save himself by his treachery, for he was conveyed in the same cart as Duckett to Tyburn, where both were executed, 19 April, 1601. There is an account, written by his son, the Prior of the English Carthusians at Nieuport (Flanders) of James Duckett’s martyrdom. On the way to Tyburn he was given a cup of wine; he drank, and desired his wife to drink to Peter Bullock, and freely to forgive him. At the gallows, his last thoughts were for his betrayer. He kissed him and implored him to die in the Catholic Faith.

BEDE CAMM.

Phillippe-Charles-Jean-Baptiste-Tronson Du Coudray

Soldier, b. at Reims, France, 8 September, 1738; d. at Philadelphia, U.S.A., 11 September, 1777. He was educated for the army and showed great merit as an engineer. He was adjutantgeneral of artillery and considered one of the best military experts in France when, in 1776, he volunteered to go to America to assist the colonists in their revolt against England. Silas Deane and Benjamin Franklin, the American agents, promised him a commission as major-general with command of the artillery. This stipulation gave great offence to the officers already attached to the army when he arrived from France, in May, 1777, with twenty-nine other officers and twelve sergeants of artillery. Several of the more prominent threatened to resign. As a compromise he was made inspector-general 11 August, 1777, with the rank of major-general, and assigned to command the works along the Delaware. On 11 Sept., 1777, he was drowned while crossing the Schuylkill River at Philadelphia, the horse on which he was seated becoming frightened and dragging him overboard. Congress gave him an official funeral and attended his requiem Mass, 18 Sept., 1777, in St. Mary’s church. This was one of the four occasions on which Congress was officially present at Mass during the Revolution, the others being the requiem on 8 May, 1780, for Don Juan de Miralles, the agent of the Spanish Government, and the Te Deums on 4 July, 1779, and 4 November, 1781, all being celebrated at St. Mary’s, Philadelphia. Du Coudray was buried in St. Mary’s churchyard, but the grave is now unknown.

GRIFFEN, Catholics and the American Revolution (Ridley Park, Pennsylvania, 1907); Cyclopedia of Am. Biog., s. v.; SHEA, Hist. of Cath. Ch. in U. S. (New York, 1889–92); HEITMAN, Historical Register of the Officers of the Continental Army (Washington, 1893).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Francis Bennon Ducrue

Missionary in Mexico, b. at Munich, Bavaria. of French parents, 10 June 1721; d. there 30 March, 1779. He became a member of the Society of Jesus in 1738, and ten years later was sent to California, where he laboured zealously until the expulsion of the order in 1767. When that untoward event took place, Ducrue was the superior of all the California missions. He submitted uncomplainingly to the decree of expulsion and even cooperated with the royal commission in enforcing its provisions. The Jesuits withdrew, taking with them only their clothes and a few books; this was all the wealth they carried away from California after seventy years of work in its missions. Ducrue eventually returned to his native land. He wrote in Latin “A Journey from California through the district of Mexico to Europe in the year 1767” which was translated into German for the “Nachrichten von verschiedenen Ländern des spaniscvhen Amerika” of Christoph von Murr (vol.XII, p. 217–276), and was translated into French and published by Fr. carayon in his “Documents Inédits” (Paris, 1876). Murr also gives some interesting specimens of the language of California, which were communicated to him by Ducrue.

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., III, 253, and Supplement; Michaud, Biog. Univ. (Paris, 1852, XI, 419; Carayon, Documents Inédits (Poitiers, 1876); De Backer, Bibl. des éscriv. de la c. de J., I, 1677; Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas (San Francisco; 1884), I, 476, 478; Clinch, California and Its Missions (San Francisco, 1884), I, ch. ix, 178 sqq.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Beda Franciscus Dudik

Moravian historian, b. at Kojetein near Kremsier, Moravia, 29 January, 1815; d. as abbot and titular bishop at the monastery of Raigern, 18 January, 1890. After studying at the philosophical school at Brünn he attended the University of Olmutz. In 1836 he entered the Benedictine Order and in 1840 was ordained priest at Raigem. From this latter date until 1854 he taught first the classical languages and then history at the gymnasium of Brünn. In 1855 he became Privatdozent for historical research at the University of Vienna; in 1859 he was appointed historiographer of Moravia, and in 1865 was made a member of the Academy of Sciences of Vienna. For purposes of historical research he went in 1851 to Sweden, in 1852 to Rome, in 1870 to France, Belgium, and Holland, in 1874 to Russia, a country which he later repeatedly visited. Between the years 1853 and 1859 he established at Vienna the main historical library of the Teutonic Order. Dudik was a prolific writer and diligent investigator; his works have a lasting value on account of the sources from which he drew. His chief works in chronological order are: “Geschichte des Benediktinerstiftes Raigern” (2 vols., Brünn, 1849; 2nd ed., Vienna, 1868); “Mährens Geschichts-quellen” (Brünn, 1850); “Forschungenin Schweden fur Mährens Geschichte” (Brünn, 1852); “Iter Romanum” (2 vols., Vienna, 1855); “Des Herzogtums Troppau ehemalige Stellung zur Markgrafschaft Mähren” (Vienna, 1857); “Waldsteins Korrespondenz” (Vienna, 1865–66); “Waldstein von seiner Enthebung bis zur abermaligen Uebernahme des Armeekommandos” (Vienna, 1858); “Des hohen Deutschen Ritterordens Münzsammlung in Wien” (Vienna, 1858, a special edition with 32 copper plates); “Kleinodien des Deutschen Ritterordens” (Vienna, 1866); “Archive im Konigreich Galizien und Lodomerien” (Vienna, 1867); “Erinnerungen aus dem Feldzug in Italien 1866” (Vienna, 1867); “Preussen in Mähren im Jahre 1742” (Vienna, 1869); “Schweden in Böhmen und Mähren 1640–1660” (Vienna, 1879); “Geschichtliche Entwickelung dor Buchdruckerkunst in Mähren von 1486 bis 1621” (Brünn, 1879).

Dudik’s most important publication is: “Mährens allgemeine Geschichte” (12 vols., Brünn, 1860–89); it treats the history of Moravia up to 1350. Volumes VIII-X, which give an account of Moravia during the period of the Przemyslian dynasty, have been translated into Czech. He also published several papers in the transactions of the Academy of Sciences; in vol. LIV appeared: “Korrespondenz Ferdinands II. mit seinen Beichtvätern Becanus and Lamormain.”

Revue benedictine, VII, 179.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Duel

(Duellum, old form of bellum).

This word, as used both in the ecclesiastical and civil criminal codes today, generally signifies every contest with deadly weapons which takes place by agreement between two persons on account of some private quarrel. Thus a contest with weapons is essential to the conception of a duel. Further, the contest must take place by agreement, and the weapons used must be capable of inflicting deadly wounds. Although generally demanded by custom, similarity of weapons is not essential; neither are witnesses, seconds, etc. Finally it is essential to a duel that it take place on account of some private matter, such as wounded honour. Consequently the customary duel of today differs from those public duels which took place for some public reason by the arrangement of the authorities, as the conflict between David and Goliath. Between contending nations there is no higher court than the appeal to arms; therefore war must decide, and there may be instances in which it is allowable to substitute for a battle between two armies a contest between two persons selected for the purpose.

HISTORY

Duelling was unknown to the civilized nations of antiquity. The contests of the Roman gladiators were not, like the duels of today, a means of self-defence, but bloody spectacles to satisfy the curiosity and cruelty of an effeminate and degenerate people. On the other hand the custom of duelling existed among the Gauls and Germans from the earliest era, as Diodorus Siculus (Biblioth. history Lib. V, ch. xxviii), Velleius Paterculus (Histor. rom., II, cxviii) and others relate. The duel is, therefore, undoubtedly of heathen origin, and was so firmly rooted in the customs of the Gauls and Germans that it persisted among them even after their conversion. The oldest known law of Christian times that permitted the judicial duel is that of the Burgundian King Gundobald (d. 516). With few exceptions the judicial duel is mentioned in all old German laws as a legal ordeal. It rested on a twofold conviction. It was believed, first, that God could not allow the innocent to be defeated in a duel; hence it was held that the guilty party would not dare primarily to appeal to the judgment of God in proof of his innocence and then enter upon the fight under the weight of perjury; the fear of Divine wrath would discourage him and make victory impossible.

The Church soon raised her voice against duelling. St. Avitus (d. 518) made an earnest protest against the law of the above-mentioned Gundobald, as is related by Agobard (d. 840), who in a special work on the subject points out the opposition between the law of Gundobald and the clemency of the Gospel; God might very easily permit the defeat of the innocent. The popes also at an early date took a stand against duelling. In a letter to Charles the Bald, Nicolas I (858–67) condemned the duel (monomachia) as a tempting of God. In the same century his example was followed by Stephen VI, later by Alexander II and Alexander III, Celestine III, Innocent III and Innocent IV, Julius II, and many others. In addition to the judicial, non-judicial combats also occurred, in which men arbitrarily settled private grudges or sought to revenge themselves. The tournaments, especially, were often used to satisfy revenge; on account of this misuse the Church early issued ordinances against the excesses committed at tournaments, although these were not always obeyed. The more the judicial combat fell into disuse, the more the old instinct of the Germanic and Gallic peoples, by which each man sought to gain his rights with weapon in hand, showed itself in personal contests and at tournaments. From the middle of the fifteenth century duelling over questions of honour increased so greatly, especially in the Romanic countries, that the Council of Trent was obliged to enact the severest penalties against it. It decreed that “the detestable custom of duelling which the Devil had originated, in order to bring about at the same time the ruin of the soul and the violent death of the body, shall be entirely uprooted from Christian soil” (Sess XXIV, De reform, c. xix). It pronounced the severest ecclesiastical penalties against those princes who should permit duelling between Christians in their territories. According to the council those who take part in a duel are ipso facto excommunicated, and if they are killed in the duel they are to be deprived of Christian burial. The seconds and all those who advised the duel or were present at it are also excommunicated. These ecclesiastical penalties were at a later date repeatedly renewed and even in parts made more severe. Benedict XIV decreed that duellists should also be denied burial by the Church even if they did not die on the duelling ground and had received absolution before death. All these penalties are substantially in force today. Pius IX in the “Constitutio Apostolicae Sedis” of 12 October, 1869, decreed the penalty of excommunication against “all who fight duels, or challenge to a duel or accept such challenge; as well as against all who are accessory to the or who in any way abet or encourage the same; and finally against those who are present at a duel as spectators [de industria spectantes], or those who permit the same, or do not prevent it, whatever their rank, even if they were kings or emperors.”

Like the Church, the State also took steps against the evil of duelling. In 1608 an edict against the practice was issued by Henry IV of France. Whoever killed his opponent in a duel was to be punished with death; severe penalties were also enacted against the sending of a challenge and the acceptance of the same. Unfortunately transgressors against this law were generally pardoned. In 1626, during the reign of Henry’s successor, Louis XIII, the laws against duelling were made more stringent and were strictly carried out. Notwithstanding these measures the custom of duelling increased alarmingly in France. The great number of French noblemen who fell in duels about the middle of the seventeenth century, is shown by the statement of the contemporary writer Theophile Raynaud that within thirty years more men of rank had been killed in duels than would have been needed to make up an entire army. Olier, the founder of the Congregation of Saint-Sulpice, with the aid of St. Vincent de Paul, formed an association of distinguished noblemen, the members of which signed the following obligation: “The undersigned publicly and solemnly make known by this declaration that they will refuse every form of challenge, will for no cause whatever enter upon a duel, and will in every way be willing to give proof that they detest duelling as contrary to reason, the public good, and the laws of the State, and as incompatible with salvation and the Christian religion, without, however, relinquishing the right to avenge in every legal way any insult offered them as far as position and birth make such action obligatory.” Louis XIV aided these efforts at reform by the severe enactment against duelling which he issued early in his reign. For a long time after this duelling was infrequent in France.

In other countries too severe measures were taken against the constantly spreading evil. In 1681 the Emperor Leopold I forbade the fighting of duels under the severest penalties; Maria Theresa ordered not only the challenger and the challenged but also all who had any share in a duel to be beheaded, and in the reign of the Emperor Joseph II duellists received the punishment of murderers. Frederick the Great of Prussia tolerated no duellists in his army. The present penal code of Austria makes imprisonment the punishment of duelling; the penal code of the German Empire commands confinement in a fortress. The penalty is, without doubt, entirely insufficient and constitutes a form of privilege for the person who kills his adversary in a duel. Theoretically these penal laws are also applicable to the respective armies, but unfortunately in the case of officers they are not carried out; indeed, up to the present time, an officer who refuses to fight a duel in Germany and Austria is in danger of being dismissed from the army. In 1896 when, in consequence of the fatal issue of a duel, the Reichstag by a large majority called upon the Government to proceed by all the means in its power against the practice of duelling, as opposed to the criminal codes the emperor issued a cabinet order on 1 January, 1897, which established courts of honour to deal with disputes in the army concerning questions of honour. Unfortunately the decree leaves it open to the court of honour to permit or even to command a duel to take place. Furthermore, on 15 January, 1906, General von Einem, Prussian Minister of War, stated that the principle of the duel was still in force, and Chancellor von Bulow added to this:

“ . . . the of army officers can tolerate no member in its ranks who is not ready, should necessity arise, to defend his honour by force of arms.”

In the army, as a result of this principle, a conscentious opponent of duelling is constantly exposed to the danger of being expelled for refusing to fight. In England duelling is almost unknown, and no duel has occurred, it is said, in the British army for the last eighty years. English jurisprudence contains no special ordinances against duelling, the wounding or killing of another in a duel is punishable according to common law. On the Continent also public opinion on the subject of duelling seems to be gradually changing. The demand for the abolition, even in the army, of this abuse is growing louder and louder. Some years ago, at the instance of the Infante Alfonso of Bourbon and Austria-Este, an anti-duelling league was formed in order to carry on systamatically the opposition to duelling. A preliminary convention, held at Frankfort-on-the Main in the spring of 1901, issued an appeal for support in its struggle against this evil. In a few weeks a thousand signatures were received, mostly those of men of influence from the most varied ranks of society. A convention to draw up a constitution met at Cassel 11 January, 1902, and Prince Carl zu Lowenstein was elected president. A committee was also appointed to direct affairs and to conduct the agitation. The league has made most satisfactory progress; in 1908 it established a permanent bureau at Leipzig. Concerning the aims of the league the declaration subscribed by the members states the following:

The undersigned herewith declare their rejection, on principle, of duelling as a custom repugnant to reason, conscience, the demands of civilization existing laws, and the common good of society and the State.

WRONGFULNESS OF DUELLING

After what has been said above there can be no doubt that duelling is contrary to the ordinances of the Catholic Church and of most civilized countries. By the wording of its ordinance against duelling, the Council of Trent plainly indicated that duelling was essentially wrong and since then theologians have almost universally charactorized it as a sinful and reprehensible course of action. However there were always a few scholars who held the opinion that cases might arise in which the unlawfulness of duelling could not be proved with certainty by mere reason. But this opinion has not been tenable since Pope Benedict XIV in the Bull “Detestabilem” of the year 1752 condemned the following propositions:

“A soldier would be blameless and not liable to punishment for sending or accepting a challenge if he would be considered timid and cowardly, worthy of contempt, and unfit for military duty, were he not to send a challenge or accept such, and who would for this reason lose the position which supported him and his family, or who would be obliged to give up forever the hope of befitting and well-earned advancement.”

“Those persons are excusable who to defend their honour or to escape the contempt of men accept or send a challenge when they know positively that the duel will not take place but will be prevented by others.”

“A general or officer who accepts a challenge through fear of the loss of his reputation and his position does not come under the ecclesiastical punishment decreed by the Church for duellists.”

“It is permissible under the natural conditions of man to accept or send a challenge in order to save one’s fortune, when the loss of it can not be prevented by any other means.”

“This permission claimed for natural conditions can also be applied to a badly guided state in which especially, justice is openly denied by the remissness or malevolence of the authorities.”

Like his predecessors, Leo XIII in his letter “Pastoralis officii,” of 12 September, 1891, to the German and Austro-Hungarian bishops, laid down the following principles: “From two points of view the Divine law forbids a man as a private person to wound or kill another, excepting when he is forced to it by self-defence. Both natural reason and the inspired Holy Scriptures proclaim this Divine law.” The intrinsic reason why duelling is in itself sinful and reprehensible is that it is an arbitrary attack on God’s right of ownership as regards human life. Only the owner and master of a thing has the right at pleasure to destroy it or expose it to the danger of destruction. But man is not the owner and master of his life; it belongs, instead, entirely to his Creator. Now man can only call that his property and treat it as such which is intended in the first instance for his benefit, so that he has the right to exclude others from the use of the same. Man, however, is not created primarily for himself but for the glory and service of God. Here below he is to serve his Creator and Lord as long as the Lord wills and thus attain his own salvation. For this end God has given man life, maintains it for him, and has bestowed on him the instinct of self-preservation. But if man is not the master of his life, he has not the right to expose it at pleasure to destruction or even deliberately to seek such danger. In order rightfully to expose the life to danger there must be a justifiable reason, and even then the risking of life is only permissible, not the end to be sought in itself. What is said of one’s own life applies also to the life of one’s fellow-man. Every man has the right in case of necessity forcibly to defend himself against an unlawful attack on his life, even if it cost the life of the assailant; this is a requirement of public safety; but apart from such defence no man has the right as a private individual to injure the life of his fellow-man or at pleasure to expose his own to similar danger. Hence it is easy to perceive that a duellist unjustifiably exposes both his own life and that of his fellow-man consequently is guilty of a wrongful assumption of the right of God, the Lord of life and death. To make this clear it is only necessary to examine the pretexts used to palliate duelling, or, what is the same, to look into the aims to sought to be attained by this custom. One of the principal reasons given in justification of duelling is the obtaining of satisfaction. A man is insulted or injured in reputation, and in order to obtain satisfaction challenges the defamer. But besides the offence against civil law in seeking to establish one’s rights with weapons, thus evading the authority of the State, a duel is totally unsuited to the attainment of satisfaction and in addition is wrongful. Satisfaction consists in the offender withdrawing his insult and treating the offended person with respect and honour. This end cannot, however, be attained by duelling. When the one who has given the provocation accepts the challenge he does not thereby withdraw the insult; he intends, rather, to maintain it by weapons and greater wrongdoing to the first, inasmuch as he may severely wound or even kill the challenger. Moreover, who would allow to the man whom he wishes to compel to make good a wrong the same chance of victory as to himself, i.e. who should give the offender the opportunity to add to the wrong he has already done an even more heinous injury? Yet this is what the challenger does in granting his adversary the same weapons and the same chance for success as he claims for himself.

Another reason offered in justification of duelling is self-defence. The duellist desires to avoid the loss of the respect of his peers and thus to retain his office and his income, or, as is said, to defend his honour and his social position. It is unfortunately only too true that to-day the conscientious opponent of duelling, especially in the army, must often suffer great losses. Nevertheless duelling cannot be justified as self-defence. Honour and respect of others cannot be preserved by the use of arms, nor in a duel is there any actual vindication of these. The duel implies that the honour of the challenger has already been injured, and consequently that this injury is an accomplished fact; besides, the duel takes place according to agreement, so that it is not a case of self-defence against sudden attack. But the word self-defence is used in a broader sense. According to the prejudices existing in certain circles, the person who does not answer an insult by a challenge or who declines a challenge is held to be dishonourable and cowardly; thus it may be that a man’s entire social position is at stake. Yet, from its very nature, a duel is an unsuitable and illicit method of preserving or rehabilitating honour. Look at a duel first from the point of view of the person injured. He must it is said, send a challenge because he has been insulted. Two cases, however, are here possible. Either his moral character and good name have been attacked, or the specific charge of cowardice has been made against him. If the former be the case, the duel is manifestly unsuited to defend the injured man’s honour. A duel can never prove that the person attacked is a person of honour or a simpleton, has not committed adultery, or the like. A man without character or morals can be just as skilful in handling weapons as his honourable opponent. If the quarrel hinges on the charge of cowardice, a duel is apparently a proper means of disproving the same. But in this instance the challenger directly endangers his life in order to prove that he is no coward. Consequently he cannot say that he only suffers his life to be endangered, he deliberately seeks this danger in order to show his courage. And, according to our former statements, this is to dispose of one’s life unlawfully. It cannot be said in reply that the injured person merely intends the rehabilitation of his honour. That is certainly the final aim of the duel, but the first and direct aim is to prove one’s courage by fighting the duel. Is it permissible, however, to risk one’s own life and that of one’s fellow-man merely as a means of proving one’s courage? If this be correct, it would be equally allowable to enter a lion’s cage, sword in hand, if public opinion demanded such proof of personal bravery. Hence it follows that the duel is not in reality a proper means to demonstrate one’s courage, for true courage, for true is a moral virtue which is not blind and foolhardy but exposes itself to danger only if reason demand it. What has been said of the injured party is applicable also to the party giving the provocation, the one who is challenged. If he has acted unjustly he should as a man of honour offer reparation; that is his duty, and the refusal to perform this duty plainly gives him no right to fight a duel with his opponent. If he is not in the wrong he ought to refuse the challenge. The only ground for which a challenge might be accepted could be fear of the accusation of cowardice; that this reason is, however, not tenable has already been shown. It surely is the basest cowardice to do, through fear of being accused of want of courage, what sober reflection would lead any man of sense to condemn as immoral and wrong.

The conclusion necessarily to be drawn from the above is: whoever is killed in a duel is indirectly guilty of self-murder, because he has for no justifiable reason risked his life, and whoever slays his adversary in a duel is guilty of unjustifiable homicide, because he has taken the risk of causing death without any right to do so; this holds true even though he did not directly intend his opponent’s death. The above applies not only to duels undertaken by private individuals of their own free will, but also to duels fought on account of personal grievances by order of State authorities. Those in authority have not the right to dispose at their pleasure of the life of the subject. Should a dispute be laid before them, they should examine the matter judicially and punish the guilty party. If the guilt cannot be proved the accused should be acquitted; in such a case the authorities have no right to command a duel and thus expose the innocent to the same peril as the guilty. This has all the more force as duels often take place on account of wrongs which are not today punished with death by civil law.

V. CATHREIN

Sir Charles Gavan Duffy

Politician and author, b. at Monaghan, Ireland, 12 April, 1816; d. at Nice, France, 9 Feb., 1903. Educated in his native town, he contributed, at an early age, to the “Northern Herald,” and in 1836 joined the staff of the Dublin “Morning Register” of which he shortly afterwards became sub-editor. In 1839, being appointed editor of the newly established Ulster Catholic paper, “The Vindicator,” he went to Belfast, where he resided till 1842. Going to Dublin in the summer of that year, he met two young barristers, Thomas Davis and John Dillon, and in conjunction with them he founded “The Nation,” the first number of which appeared in October. Duffy was editor, Dillon and Davis were among its contributors, and what with the ability of editor and contributors, the freshness and vigour of style, and the manly and militant tone adopted on public questions, the paper soon became a power. Its whole-hearted support of Repeal filled the meetings and the coffers of the Repeal Association, and O’Connell gratefully recognized its assistance. Peel also noted its influence, and when O’Connell was prosecuted in 1844, Duffy was with him in the dock and subsequently his fellow-prisoner in Kilmainham. Later, in the struggles between the Young and the Old Irelanders, Duffy took sides with the former against O’Connell, and was one of those who helped to found the Irish Confederation. He specially resented O’Connell’s alliance with the Whigs, as he did the intolerance and presumption of John O’Connell. The failure of the Repeal movement, the horrors of the famine, and the death of O’Connell weakened his faith in constitutional action, and for a time, in 1848, he advocated revolutionary measures. The Government, in consequence, seized his paper and threw Duffy into prison; but, though tried four times in succession, the prosecution failed, owing chiefly to the great ability of his lawyer, Isaac Butt. In the revived “Nation,” in 1849, Duffy reverted to constitutional agitation, and with Lucas and others established in 1850 the Tenant League, which at the general election of 1852 returned forty members of parliament pledged to Tenant Right and Independent Opposition, Duffy himself being returned for New Ross, County Wexford. The treachery of the place-hunters, Keogh and Sadlier, soon wrecked the party, and, when Lucas died, Duffy in despair resigned his seat and left for Melbourne, Australia, where he arrived early in 1856. Though determined to avoid politics, he was induced to enter the Victorian Parliament, where his great abilities made him at once a prominent figure. He filled in succession the position of minister of public works and minister of public lands, and for a brief period was prime minister. Ultimately he became speaker, receiving also the honour of knighthood. These honours and dignities he reached without ever denying either his country or faith, or ever failing to defend them when assailed. He consistently championed the labourers and the farmers against the capitalists and the squatters, and when he left Victoria in 1880 the whole colony regarded him as one of the ablest and most useful of her public men. His last years were devoted to writing several valuable historical works: “Young Ireland” (Dublin, 1884); also his “Four Years of Irish History” (London, 1883); “The League of North and South” (London, 1886); and “My Life in Two Hemispheres” (London, 1903).

E. A. D’ALTON.

Jean-Baptiste Duhamel

A French scientist, philosopher, and theologian, b. at Vire, Normandy (now in the department of Calvados), 11 June, 1624; d. at Paris, 6 August, 1706. He began his studies at Caen and completed them at Paris. In 1642, being only eighteen years of age, Duhamel published an explanation of the work of Theodosius called “Spherics,” to which he added a treatise on trigonometry. The following year he entered the Congregation of the Oratory, which he left ten years later to take charge of the parish of Neuilly-sur-Marne. Resigning this position in 1663, he became chancellor of the church of Bayeux. When Colbert founded the Académie of Sciences (1666), he appointed Duhamel its first secretary. Duhamel held this office until 1697, when he resigned and, upon his own recommendation, was succeeded by Fontenelle. With Colbert’s brother, Marquis de Croissy, he went, in 1668, first to Aix-la-Chapelle for the peace negotiations, and later to England, where he came in touch with the foremost scientists, especially with the physicist Boyle.

Duhamel’s works are “Philosophia moralis christiana” (Angers, 1652); “Astronomia physica” (Paris, 1659); “De meteoris et fossilbus” (Paris, 1659); “De consensu veteris et novæ philosphiæ” (Paris, 1663), a treatise on natural philosophy in which the Greek and scholastic theories are compared with those of Descartes; “De corporum affectionibus” (Paris, 1670); “De mente humanâ” (Paris, 1672); “De corpore animato” (Paris, 1673); “Philosophia vetus et nova ad usum scholæ accommodata” (Paris, 1678). This last work, composed by order of Colbert as a textbook for colleges, ran through many editions. He also published: “Theologia speculatrix et practica” (7 vols., Paris, 1690), abridged in five volumes for use as a textbook in seminaries (Paris, 1694); “Regiæ scientiarum Academiæ historia” (Paris, 1698; enlarged edition, 1701); “Institutiones biblicæ” (Paris, 1698), in which are examined the questions of the authority, integrity, and inspiration of the Bible, the value of the Hebrew text and of its translations, the style and method of interpretation, Biblical geography, and chronology; “Biblia sacra Vulgatæ editionis” (Paris, 1705), with introductions, notes, chronological, historical, and geographical tables. In his choice of opinions, Duhamel shows great impartiality and unbiased judgment. His admiration for empirical science does not make him despise the speculations of his predecessors, but he examines and criticizes both sides carefully, tries to reconcile them, and, if this be impossible, gives his own opinion. Brucker, in his history of philosophy, calls him “vir et judicii laude clarissimus et doctrinæ copia celeberrimus.” Fontenelle praises his noble character and his disinterestedness; his charity, which “was exercised too frequently not to become known, notwithstanding his care to conceal it”; his humility, which was not only on his lips, but was “a feeling based on science itself.”

VIALARD, J.-B. Duhamel (Paris, 1884); MORIN-LAVALLÉE, Bibliographie viroise (Caen, 1879); FONTENELLE, Histoire du renouvellement de l’Académie royale des sciences en MDCXCIX, et les Eloges historiques de tous les Académiciens morts depuis ce renouvellement (Paris, 1706); CHALMERS, Biographical Dictionary (London, 1814), XVII, 84; BRUCKER, Historia critica philosophiæ (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1767), IV, 760; DUPIN, Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques (2nd ed., Paris and Mons, 1703-), XVIII, 297.

C.A. DUBRAY

Daniel Greysolon, Sieur Du Lhut

(DULUTH).

Born at Saint-Germain-en-Laye about 1640; died at Montreal, 26 Feb., 1710. He first served in the French army, becoming a lieutenant in 1657 and a gendarme of the King’s Guard in 1664. He also took part in the campaign in Flanders and was present at the battle of Senef in 1674. During that year he went to Canada, whither he had been preceded by several members of his family, amongst them his cousins, the Tontys. At first he settled in Montreal, but in 1678 left for the West accompanied by his brother, La Tourette, and six soldiers. In 1679 he took possession of the Sioux country in the name of the King of France. He also explored Lake Superior and the high inland plateau where the Mississippi, the Red River, and the St. Lawrence rise, erected the fortified post of Kaministiquia (now Fort William) and afterwards built Fort La Tourette on Lake Nepigon. Du Lhut was the first Canadian to explore the West and it was his privilege to save Father Hennepin from captivity when this famous Recollect missionary, having become separated from La Salle’s expedition, was wandering about in the wilderness near Saint-Antoine. On account of his intrepidity, Du Lhut had great influence over the savages, who admired and feared him; he kept them loyal to France and obliged them to join the expeditions which La Barre and Denonville organized against the Iroquois in 1684 and 1687. In 1686 he laid the foundation of the post of Detroit and in 1696, having been made captain after twenty years of service, was in command of Fort Frontenac. Here, in 1707, he was succeeded by Tonty, his cousin. He died three years later and was buried in the church of the Recollects at Montreal.

Du Lhut was one of the most dauntless pioneer rangers (coureurs de bois) in Canada during the French regime. For thirty years he succeeded in keeping the country to the west of the Great Lakes under French control. Notwithstanding that he had every chance of becoming wealthy, he died poor and Governor Vaudreuil testified to his having been a very upright man. The city of Duluth, Minnesota, takes its name from him. Du Lhut wrote accounts of his journeys (1676–1678), but unfortunately they have been lost; however, we have a plan that he designed for a chain of posts to be erected for the purpose of keeping the lake-route clear of savages and thus facilitating communication between Canada and the western and southern parts of the continent (1683–95). This plan was published by Margry (Decouvertes et Etablissements, V, 3–72). In the Library of Congress at Washington may also be found extracts from his account of Detroit.

Sulte in La Revue Canadienne (1893), 480–489, 541–550; McLennan in Harper’s Magazine (September. 1893); Transactions Royal Soc. Canada (1903), new series, IX, 39.

J. EDMOND ROY

Dulia

(Greek doulia; Lat. servitus), a theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints, while means worship given to God alone, and hyperdulia the veneration offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary. St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, X, ii, 1) distinguishes two kinds of servitus: “one which is due to men . . . which in Greek is called dulia; the other, latria, which is the service pertaining to the worship of God.” St. Thomas (II-II:103:3) bases the distinction on the difference between God’s supreme dominion and that which one man may exercise over another. Catholic theologians insist that the difference is one of kind and not merely of degree; dulia and latria being as far apart as are the creature and the Creator. Leibniz, though a Protestant, recognizes the “discrimen infinitum atque immensum between the honour which is due to God and that which is shown to the saints, the one being called by theologians, after Augustine’s example, latria, the other dulia”; and he further declares that this difference should “not only be inculcated in the minds of hearers and learners, but should also be manifested as far as possible by outward signs” (Syst. theol., p. 184). A further distinction is made between dulia in the absolute sense, the honour paid to persons, and dulia in the relative sense, the honour paid to inanimate objects, such as images and relics. With regard to the saints, dulia includes veneration and invocation; the former being the honour paid directly to them, the latter having primarily in view the petitioner’s advantage. More detailed explanation of dulia and the reasons for which it is shown to persons or things will be found in the articles IMAGES, RELICS, SAINTS. See also ADORATION and WORSHIP.

E. A. PACE

Diocese of Duluth

DIOCESE OF DULUTH (DULUTHENSIS)

Diocese, established 3 Oct., 1889, suffragan of the Archdiocese of St. Paul, U.S.A., comprises the counties of Aitkin, Becker, Beltrami, Carlton, Cass, Clay, Clearwater, Cook, Crow Wing, Hubbard, Itasca, Kittson, Lake, Marshall, Norman, Pine, Polk, Roseau, Red Lake, Mahnomen, Koochiching, and St. Louis, in the State of Minnesota, an area of 39,439 square miles.

The first white men and the first Catholics to visit this region were the French fur-traders who, under Groseilliers, are recorded as having shipped furs from there in 1660. Daniel Greysolon Du Lhut, the French officer, adventurer, and fur-trader after whom the see city is named, was there in 1679. After a varying existence as trading post and frontier settlement, Duluth was incorporated as a town in May, 1857. The first priest in Minnesota was the famous Father Hennepin, who in 1680 was a prisoner among the Sioux. He explored the Mississippi and at St. Paul named the falls in honour of St. Anthony, writing a glowing description of them in 1683. Wandering missionaries made infrequent visits to the Indian tribes and scattered Catholics of the region down to 1839, when the Rev. Joseph Crétin (q. v.), a zealous French priest, began an active and successful missionary career.

The Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore (1849) recommended to Rome the erection of a new see at St. Paul for the Territory of Minnesota and the appointment of Father Crétin as its first bishop, which plan was carried out. Father Crétin had been in the territory for some time, trying to revive the old Indian missions and evangelize the Canadian voyageurs who went there for the fur trade. The numerous Indians roaming in the wilderness had nearly forgotten the doctrines of Christianity preached to their ancestors by the Recollects and Jesuits more than a century before, but they were still anxious to have the “black-robes” come among them once more. In 1875 the Vicariate Apostolic of Northern Minnesota was established, and these two divisions of the whole State continued until 4 May, 1888, when St. Paul was raised to the rank of an archdiocese with the four suffragan sees of Duluth, Winona, Jamestown (now Fargo), and St. Cloud, the last-named being the new title for the Vicariate of Northern Minnesota. Duluth, the see city, was within these old limits of the vicariate. In 1866 the few Catholics there were brought together by a visiting missionary. They numbered only about two dozen families in 1870, and Father John Chebul, an Austrian by birth, attended them as a mission from Superior and built the first frame chapel for their use. Other priests of the formative period were Fathers G. Keller, a German, J. B. M. Génin, a French Oblate, Joseph Buh, Charles Verwyst, Joseph Staub, Christopher Murphy, and G. J. Goebel.

THE REV. JAMES McGOLRICK, a member of the council of Bishop Ireland of St. Paul and rector of the church of the Immaculate Conception, Minneapolis, was nominated as the first bishop of the new see and consecrated at St. Paul, 27 Dec., 1889. He was born 1 May, 1841, at Borrisokane, County Tipperary, Ireland, and ordained for the American mission at All Hallows Seminary, near Dublin, 11 June, 1867. Emigrating to the United States, he began his work at St. Paul as an assistant at the cathedral. He was next appointed to establish a parish in the then rising town of Minneapolis and remained there for twenty-two years as pastor of the church of the Immaculate Conception. He found, on taking charge of his new diocese, a Catholic population of about 19,000, of which 3000 were Indians. There were 20 priests, 15 secular and 5 regular; 34 churches, 10 stations, and 8 Chippewa Indian missions attended by Benedictine, Franciscan, and Jesuit missionaries.

The first railroad from Duluth to St. Paul ran only in 1870, and in 1882 the first iron-range road, on which industry the chief reliance for material prosperity rested. The commercial panics of 1872 and 1893 were great blows to this section, but in ten years the priests had increased to 38 and the missions and stations to 74 with 30 Indian missions and stations. The Sisters of St. Benedict had been introduced and were in charge of 9 parish and 2 Indian schools, with 1400 children. They also managed 2 hospitals and a home for the aged. The Catholic population had also increased to 23,000. Since then conditions have bettered, and the statistics of the diocese for 1908 give these figures: priests 65, 44 secular, 21 regular; churches with resident priests 50; missions with churches 36; stations 45; chapels 15; academies for girls 3, with 395 pupils; parish schools 10, with 1586 pupils; Indian industrial schools 2, with 192 pupils; orphan asylum 1; hospitals 6; Catholic population 54,300, White 50,000, Indian 4300. The religious communities represented in the diocese are the Benedictine and the Oblate Fathers, the Christian Brothers, the Benedictine Sisters, and the Sisters of St. Joseph. The Benedictine Fathers have charge of the Indian missions, and the Benedictine Sisters attend to the needs of the schools established for the benefit of the Indian children, their industrial schools on the Red Lake and White Earth reservations being especially successful in spite of scant means and other disadvantages. The constant good done by these institutions, for the girls of the tribes especially, has been manifested by every test applied to their operation. The Christian Brothers have a high school attached to the cathedral in Duluth.

REUSS, “Biog. Cycl. of the Hierarchy of U.S.” (Milwaukee, 1898); “Catholic News” (New York, Dec., 1889), files; “Directory of Cathedral Parish” (Duluth, 1905); “Catholic Directory U.S.” (Milwaukee, 1889–1909); THEBAUD, “Forty Years in the U.S.” (New York, 1904); RAVOUX, “Memoirs” (St. Paul, 1892); Documents in archives of Archdiocese of St. Paul and St. Paul Catholic Historical Society.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Transcribed for John E. Coons

Jean-Baptiste Dumas

Distinguished French chemist and senator, b. at Alais, department of Gard, 14 July, 1800; d. at Cannes, 10 April, 1884. Like many other distinguished chemists, Dumas began his career as a pharmacist, and at Geneva, where he went when a very young man, he obtained a position in the Le Royer pharmacy. Here in connexion with Prévost he published a memoir on the physiology of the nervous system which attracted attention and is still well known. This led to an invitation to go to Paris, where he became tutor of Thénard’s course of lectures in chemistry at the Ecole Polytechnique and was appointed professor at the Athénée. While engaged in these positions his published researches concerning the vapour density of the elements, those on the formulæ of alcohols and ethers, his memoirs on the law of substitution in organic compounds, and his work on chemical types gave him an illustrious position in chemical investigation. The first researches on the replacing of hydrogen by chlorine in organic bodies is due to him; this was supplemented by researches as to the atomic weight of carbon, his labours doing much to establish the relations of the hydro-carbon compounds in organic chemistry. With Boussingault he studied the composition of water and of the atmosphere. With Stas he investigated the composition of carbon dioxide, and later his memoirs on hydrogen and the amide compounds brought him at once into the first rank among the chemists of the nineteenth century.

In 1829 he founded the Ecole Centrale des Arts et Manufactures with Péclet, Lavallié, and Olivier. Brilliant lecture courses in the Sorbonne won him further renown. He replaced Thénard as professor at the Ecole Polytechnique, was professor at the Sorbonne and dean of the faculty of sciences. Originally a very poor speaker, by practice and study he acquired elocutionary powers that brought him great celebrity. Dumas also became professor at the Ecole de Médecine, a position he resigned in favour of Wurtz, one of his most distinguished pupils. His scholars included such illustrious men as H. Sainte-Claire Deville, Wurtz, Debray, Pasteur, and others. Turning his attention to politics, Dumas was elected a deputy from the department of Nord in 1849; among the proposed laws in which he was interested were various ones treating the recoining of money, stamped paper, forgery of public acts, taxes on salt, sugar, etc. In 1851 he was appointed minister of agriculture and commerce by Louis Napoléon, and after the coup d’etat was made senator. From 1832 he was a member of the Institute, being elected to the Academy of Sciences, and in 1868 he was made a perpetual secretary; in 1878 he became a member of the French Academy. In 1858–59 he carried on an animated controversy as to the nature of the elements with Despretz; in the course of the discussion Dumas’ energetic methods in attacking his opponent’s views excited some criticism. His abandonment of chemical research for politics was considered a misfortune by the scientific world, as he ceased his brilliant investigations when in the very prime of his powers.

Dumas was a consistent Catholic, and remained true to his faith all his life. When it was necessary, he never hesitated to defend Christianity against the attacks of materialism. Examples of his views in this regard may be found in his various addresses, as: his address on Bérard; his commemorative address on Farady, and the speech in which he extended the greetings of the Academy to the historian Taine. The Count d’Haussonville, at the funeral of Dumas, gave eloquent testimony to the latter’s religious belief. Dumas was a prolific writer. Among his works may be mentioned: “Traité de chimie appliquée aux arts” (8 vols., 1828–45); “Précis de chimie physiologique et médicale”; “Leçons sur la philosophie chimique” (1837); “Essai de statique chimique des êtres organsés” (1841), the last work written in collaboration with Boussingault. Besides the publications just mentioned there were numerous papers in scientific journals and in the transactions of the Academy of Sciences. A list of his papers was published in the “Catalogue of Scientific Papers of Royal Society, London.”

MAINDRON, L’OEuvre de Jean-Baptiste Dumas (1886); Dictionnaire Larousse, s. v.

T. O’CONOR SLOANE

Francisco Dumetz

Date of birth unknown; died 14 Jan., 1811. He was a native of Mallorca (Majorca), Spain, where he entered the Franciscan Order. In May, 1770, he went to Mexico with forty-eight other Franciscans to join the famous Franciscan missionary college of San Fernando in the City of Mexico. On volunteering for the Indian missions, he was sent to California in October, 1770. Sailing from San Bias, Jalisco, with ten friars in January, 1771, he reached Monterey in May and was assigned to Mission San Diego. In May, 1772, he was transferred to Mission San Carlos, and in May, 1782, was appointed for Mission San Buenaventura, where he continued his unostentatious labours for the Indians until August, 1797, when he was directed to found Mission San Fernando. Father Dumetz remained there from its founding on 8 September to the end of 1805, except during 1803 and 1804 when apparently he resided at San Gabriel. From January, 1806, to the time of his death, Father Dumetz was stationed at San Gabriel. His remains were buried in the mission church on 15 January. Dumetz was the last of the pioneer friars who did so much for California, where he toiled without interruption for forty years.

Palou, Noticias (San Francisco, 1874), 1; IDEM, Vida del Fray Junipero Serra (Mexico, 1787), Records of Missions, San Carlos San Buenaventura, San Fernando, San Gabriel; ENGEL HARDT, The Franciscans in California (Harbor Springs, Mich., 1897).

ZEPHYRIN ENGELHARDT.

Hubert-André Dumont

Belgian geologist, b. at Liège, 15 Feb., 1809; d. in the same city, 28 Feb., 1857. When only twenty years old he received the gold medal of the Academy of Brussels for his “Description géologique de la province de Liège.” This memoir marked an important advance in stratigraphical geology. In 1835 he won a doctorate in mathematical and physical science and in the same year was appointed professor of geology and mineralogy at the University of Liège. He held this position until his death, serving also for a time as rector of the university. His native city has erected a statue in his honour. Dumont was a devout Catholic, and one of his sons entered the Society of Jesus. His principal achievement was his geological map of Belgium, the preparation of which engaged his attention for a number of years. The first edition was issued in 1849. Later and more complete editions followed, the last being “La carte geologique de la Belgique et des contriees voisines representant lea terrains qui se trouvent en dessous du limon hesbayen et du sable campinien au 800,000e.”

Dumont’s work, together with that of Gosselet on the palaeozoic rocks of Belgium, served as a foundation for a subsequent research in that region. The former in 1848 had divided the Terrain Ardennais into the Devillien, Revinien, and Salmien groups, the Terrain Rhenan into the Gedinnien, Coblentzien, and Ahrien groups, and the Terrain Anthraxifere into the Eifelien, Condrusien, and Houiller groups. This classification, though based on purely local characteristics, was an excellent one both from a lithological and a stratigraphical point of view. He did not, however, deem it necessary to make any extended comparison between the subdivisions which he had distinguished in Belgium and similar groups in other countries. It was his opinion that the same fauna never extended over the whole earth, so that extreme caution was necessary in establishing a parallel between widely separated rocks on the basis of fossils contained in them. Besides the works already mentioned, Dumont was the author of a number of papers characterized by careful observation and great clearness. Among them are: “Notice sur une nouvelle espèce de phosphate ferrique” (Bull. de l’Acad. de Belgique, V); Observations sur la constitution géologique des terrians tertiaires de l’Angleterre comparés à ceux de la Belgique” (Ibid., XIX); “Mémoire sur les terrians traisique et jurassique de la province de Luxemburg” (Mém. de1”Acad., XV). “Etude sur les terrians ardennais et rhénan de l’Ardenne, du Rhin, du Brabant, et du Condroz” (Ibid., XX-XXII).

Fayno, André Dumont, sa vie et ses travaux (Liège, 1858); D’Omalius D’Halloy, Notice sur André Dumont (Brussels, 1858); Zittel, History of Geology and Palaeontology (London, 1901); Kneller, Das Christentum u. die Vertreter der neuren Naturwissenschaft (Freiburg, 1904).

HENRY M. BROCK

Charles Dumoulin

(Or DUMOLIN; latinized MOLINAEUS).

French jurist, b. at Paris in 1500; d. there 27 December, 1566. He was a descendant of a noble family related to Anne Boleyn, the mother of Elizabeth of England. The life of Dumoulin was full of vicissitudes. After taking the degree of Doctor of Law, he first lectured on that subject at Orléans in 1521, and afterwards became an advocate of the Parlement of Paris (the highest court of France). He soon abandoned this position, devoted himself exclusively to the study of law, and gained a great reputation by his works on jurisprudence. He liked to call himself the jurisconsult of France and Germany. It is related that he said: “Ego qui nemini cedo nee a nemine doceri possum” (I yield to no one nor is anyone able to teach me). His hatred for the papacy led him into apostasy. In 1542 he embraced Calvinism, but soon passed over to Lutheranism. His violent attacks on the papacy compelled him to seek refuge in Germany. In 1553 he lectured on law at Tübingen, and afterwards at Strasburg, Dôle, and Besançon; returning to Paris in 1557, he was soon obliged to quit that city and went successively to Orléans and Lyons. From 1564, he resided again in Paris; on his death-bed he abjured his heresy and was reconciled to the Church. The following are his principal works upon civil law: “Commentarii in consuetudines Parisienses”; “Extricatio labyrinthi dividui et individui”; “Tractatus de eo quod interest.” His chief work on canon law is a critical edition of the “Decree of Gratian” with the gloss, accompanied by notes (postillae or notae) hostile to the pope. Amongst his polemical works may be mentioned: “Commentarius ad edictum Henrici II, contra parvas datas et abusus curiae Romanae” (1552); “Conseil sur le fait du Concile de Trente, réception ou rejet d’icelui” (1564), which work caused him to be cast into prison; “Consilium super commodis et incommodis novae sectae Jesuitarum” (edited 1604). His “Opera omnia” were published in three volumes at Paris, in 1612; the best edition, however, is that of Paris, 1681, in five volumes.

A. VAN HOVE.

William Dunbar

Scottish poet, sometimes styled the “Chaucer of Scotland,” born c. 1460; died c. 1520(?). He graduated B.A. at St. Andrews University in 1479. Educated for the Church, according to his own statement he became a Franciscan novice, and as such traversed the whole of England, preached in various towns, and crossed over for a time to Picardy in France. About 1490 he returned to Scotland and entered the service of James IV, who employed him on various embassies to Paris and elsewhere, and settled a small pension on him. He celebrated James’s marriage to Margaret of England by his well-known poem “The Thrissil and the Rois” (The Thistle and the Rose, 1503), symbolizing the amity between the two kingdoms. The poet received gifts in money from the king on this and on other occasions, such as the celebration of his first Mass in 1504, but though he often petitioned both the king and queen for a benefice (limiting his wishes, as he said, to a small country kirk covered with heather) he never obtained one, and seems always to have lived in poverty. The best known of his other poems were the “Goldyn Targe,” an allegory illustrating the victory of love over reason; a “Dance” (of the seven deadly sins), a work of much gloomy power; and many other pieces, some humorous and disfigured by the coarseness of the time, others of a religious and ascetic type. A few were printed during his lifetime; and in 1834 an admirable edition of his complete works was published, edited by Dr. David Laing. In 1511 Dunbar is mentioned among Queen Margaret’s train on one of her journeys; but nothing is heard of him after 1513, the year of the battle of the Flodden. Laing conjectures that he may have fallen at that fight, but other writers suppose him to have survived until about 1520.

D. O. HUNTER-BLAIR.

St. Dunchadh

(DUNICHAD, DUNCAD, DONATUS)

Confessor, Abbot of Iona; date of b. unknown, d. in 717. He was the son of Ceannfaeladh and grandson of Maelcobha of the house of Conall Gulban. He is first heard of as Abbot of Killochuir on the coast of S.E. Ulster (perhaps Killough, County Down). There is considerable dispute as to the year in which he became Abbot of Hy (Iona). The “Annals of Ulster” first mention him in that capacity under the year 706 (really 707); but Conamhail was abbot from 704 to 710. It may be that St. Dunchadh was coadjutor to Conamhail (the phrase is principatum tenuit). Or perhaps there was some schism in the monastery over the paschal question, for though St. Dunchadh is said to have ruled from 710 till 717, in 713 the death of “St. Dorbaine Foda, Abbot of Ia” is recorded by the “Annals of the Four Masters,” and the same authority relates the appointment of “Faelchu, son of Dorbene” to the abbacy in 714. It was this Faelchu who was certainly abbot from 717 to 724. Both of these, however, may have been really coadjutors to St. Dunchadh, or priors, or even bishops, for there were certainly bishops in Iona at that period, and the phrase employed is cathedram Iae obtinuit. However this may be, the paschal controversy was settled at Iona by the adoption of the Roman usage, while St. Dunchadh was abbot. This took place at the instance of St. Egbert, a Northumbrian priest, who had been educated in Ireland. He came to Iona in 716, and was at once successful in persuading the community to abandon the Celtic Easter and tonsure.

LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE

Abbey of Dundrennan

In Kirkcudbrightshire, Scotland; a Cistercian house founded in 1142 by King David I and Fergus Lord of Galloway for monks brought from Rievaulx in Yorkshire. The name (Dun-nan-droigheann) means “fort of the thorn-bushes,” and the monastery commands a fine view of the Solway Firth. Queen Mary fled to Dundrennan after the battle of Langside and spent her last night in Scotland there before embarking for England from the neighbouring Port Mary. In 1587 the abbey and lands passed to the Crown, and in 1621 it was annexed to the royal chapel at Stirling. For many years the buildings were used as a quarry for the erection of houses in the vicinity, but in 1842 steps were taken to repair and preserve what was left of them. The cruciform church had a nave of six bays 130 feet long, and choir 45 feet long, 175 feet in all; and there was a central tower 200 feet high. The style is transition between Norman and First Pointed. Among the tombs which remain is that of Alan Lord of Galloway (c. 1250), much mutilated, in the east aisle of the north transept, as well as those of several of the abbots and priors. The finest remains architecturally are those of the chapter-house, with its beautiful cinequfoil arched doorway between two windows, and its roof supported by octagonal columns, of which only fragments are left. Of the domestic buildings of the abbey nothing but a remnant has been preserved. The abbey estate now belongs to the family of Maitland of Dundrennan.

D. O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Diocese of Dunedin

(DUNEDINENSIS)

Dunedin comprises the provincial district of Otago (including the Otago part, Southland, and Stewart Island, as well as other adjacent islands). The diocese contains the most picturesque lake and fiord scenery in New Zealand. Its area is about 24,000 sq. miles, of which some 4000 sq. miles are gold-fields, and 2340 forest. This part of New Zealand was visited (perhaps discovered) by Captain Cook in 1770. Beyond a few traders, there was, however, no white population in the Otago provincial district till 1840, when some families settled on land at Waikouaiti. In 1848 the district was first colonized systematically and on a considerable scale by the Otago Association, under the auspices of the Free Church of Scotland. It was desired to retain the province as a Free Kirk reserve, and the immigration of Catholics was at first resented. The last barriers of religious exclusiveness were, however, swept away by the rush of population that flowed into the province from all parts of Australasia when, in 1861, rich gold was discovered at Gabriel’s Gully and elsewhere. The new conditions thus brought about led to a rapid development of the mineral, pastoral, agricultural, and forest resources of Otago. All New Zealand formed part of the Vicariate Apostolic of Western Oceania, which was erected in 1835. The first vicar, Dr. Pompallier, arrived in the country, with the pioneer (Marist) missionaries, in 1838. All New Zealand remained within his spiritual charge till 1848.

From 1848 till 1869 the territory now comprised in the Diocese of Dunedin was included in the episcopal See of Wellington. In the latter year the Diocese of Dunedin was established. Its first bishop was the Right Rev. Patrick Moran, translated thither from the Cape of Good Hope, 3 December, 1869; died 22 May, 1895. He was succeeded by the Right Rev. Michael Verdon, consecrated 3 May, 1896. In 1840 Dr. Pompallier, with Fathers Comte and Pezant, visited and instructed the native villagers and a few white Catholic whalers at Otakou and Moeraki. Up to 1859, however, there was no Catholic church or school or resident priest in the whole southern province, and only about ninety scattered Catholics, who were periodically visited, on foot, by the saintly Marist, Father Petitjean. Early in the gold-rush of the sixties, another devoted Marist missionary, Father Moreau, was appointed resident priest in Dunedin, with charge of the whole province. He built, at Dunedin, the first Catholic church and presbytery in that part of New Zealand. Soon after the arrival of Bishop Moran, ìn 1871, Father Moreau and a few of his fellow-religious who had been for some time labouring in Otago, were recalled to the Diocese of Wellington.

The Dominican nuns and the secular clergy were introduced by the new bishop in 1871, the Christian Brothers in 1874. The “New Zealand Tablet” was established in 1873, and strenuous work was done in extending the facilities for religion and education, a sum of over £80,000 (about $388,000) having been expended for these causes during the first fifteen years of the episcopate of Bishop Moran. When the secular system of public instruction was established by law in 1876, he became, and remained to the close of his life, an eloquent champion of the rights of the Catholic schools to a share in the moneys devoted by the State to the education of youth. The extension of the external organization of religion has more than kept pace with the increase of Catholic population, and Dunedin is one of the best equipped of the smaller dioceses of Australasia. The first Sisters of Mercy were introduced in 1890, the second and larger division in 1897, the Marist Brothers in 1897, the Sisters of St. Joseph in 1897–8, and the Little Sisters of the Poor in 1904. A provincial ecclesiastical seminary for all New Zealand was opened at Mosgiel (near Dunedin) in 1900, and has been greatly enlarged in later years.

At the beginning of 1908 there were in the diocese 20 parochial districts, 65 churches, 32 secular priests, 8 brothers, 160 nuns, 1 ecclesiastical seminary, 4 boarding schools for girls, 6 superior day schools, 20 primary schools, 1 orphanage, 1 home for aged poor, and at the census of 1906 there were 22,685 Catholics in a total white population of 180,974.

THOMSON, Story of New Zealand (London, 1859); MCNAB, Murihiku and the Southern Islands (Invercargill, 1907); POMPALLIER, Early History of the Catholic Church in Oceania (Auckland, 1888); MORAN, History of the Catholic Church in Australasia (Sydney, s. d) PYKE, History of the Early Gold Discoveries in Otago (Dunedin, 1887).

HENRY W. CLEARY.

Abbey of Dunfermline

In the south-west of Fife, Scotland. Founded by King Malcolm Canmore and his queen, Margaret, about 1070, it was richly endowed by him and his sons, and remodelled as a Benedictine abbey by his successor, David I, who brought an abbot and twelve monks from Canterbury. The monastic buildings, which were of such extent and splendour that three sovereigns and their retinues might (says Matthew Paris) have been lodged there together, were burned down by Edward I of England in 1304, but were afterwards restored. The tombs of Malcolm and Margaret are still to be seen within the ruined walls of the Lady chapel, and were repaired and enclosed by order of Queen Victoria. Dunfermline Abbey was one of the richest Scottish houses, owning almost all Western Fife, as well as property in other counties. It possessed, within its own domains, civil and criminal jurisdiction equal to that of the Crown. The church succeeded Iona as the burial-place of kings, and was thus the Westminster Abbey of Scotland. Besides Malcolm and Margaret, David I and Robert Bruce, with his queen and daughter, were interred there. After the Dissolution, the property passed through the hands of the Pitcairn family, Lord Gray, and Seton Earl of Dunfermline, to the Marquises of Tweeddale. The splendid church was destroyed in 1560 by the Reformers, all but the nave, which they refitted for Presbyterian worship. It is a fine example of Anglo-Norman architecture, with a beautiful western doorway. The remains of the church and palace are now Crown property.

D. O. HUNTER-BLAIR.

Dungal

Irish monk, teacher, astronomer, and poet who flourished about 820. He is mentioned in 811 as an Irish priest and scholar at the monastery of St-Denis near Paris. In that year he wrote a letter to Charlemagne explaining the eclipse of the sun which was supposed to have taken place in 810. In one of Alcuin’s letters (M. G., Epp., IV, 437) he is alluded to as a bishop. In 823 he is mentioned in a “capitulary” of Lothair, and in 825 in an imperial decree by which he was appointed “master” of the school at Pavia. This is the last mention of Dungal in the public records of the empire. In 827 or 828 he appeared against Claudius, Bishop of Turin, in a work defending the veneration of images. From the fact that he bequeathed his books to the library of St. Columbanus at Bobbio it is inferred that he spent his last days in the Irish monastery on the Trebbia. The date of his death is unknown. His books, many of them at least, were transferred by Cardinal Federigo Borromeo to the Ambrosian Library in Milan, where they now are.

Some historians doubt whether the Dungal of St-Denis and the adversary of Claudius are one person. The prevalent opinion, however, is that they are one and the same. In his letter to Charlemagne Dungal brings to bear on the question of eclipses a knowledge of astronomy far beyond the current ideas of the time. His “Reply” to Claudius is enriched with many citations from the Greek and Latin Fathers and from the liturgical hymns of the Church. The poems ascribed in most manuscripts to Exul Hibernicus are believed by Dümmler, editor of the “Poetæ Ævi Carolini,” to have been written by Dungal, who like many of his fellow-exiles from Ireland styles himself peregrinus, exul, pauper et peregrinus. Only three of them bear the name Dungal. They are interesting from many points of view, especially from that of the historian who searches the records of Charlemagne’s reign for the all too scanty references to the personal feelings and the attitude of mind of the Irish scholars who flocked to the Continent of Europe in the ninth century. Yet they do not enable us to determine when and where Dungal was born, though from the fact that among his books which he presented to the Library of Bobbio is the “Antiphonary of Bangor,” it is inferred that he spent the ears of his student life in Ireland at the famous Bangor school. Mabillon published a ninth-century poem from which it appears that Dungal enjoyed among his contemporaries a reputation for more than ordinary learning.

Neues Arciv der Gesllsch. f. deutsche Geschichskunde, IV, 254; Poetæ ævi Carolini, (Berlin, 1881), I, 393; MURATORI, Antiq. Ital., III, dis. xliii; TIRABOSCHI, Storia della letter. italiana, III, 163; Catholic University Bulletin (Washington, 1907), XIII, 11 sqq.

WILLIAM TURNER

Martin von Dunin

Archbishop of Gnesen and Posen, born 11 Nov., 1774, in the village of Wat near the city of Rawa, Poland; died 26 Dec., 1842. in the city of Posen. He studied theology in the Collegium Germanicum at Rome (1793–97), and was ordained priest in Sept., 1797. After some service in the Diocese of Cracow, he was made a canon of Wloclawek by the Bishop of Cujavia, in 1808 canon of Gnesen, in 1815 chancellor of its cathedral chapter, in 1824 canon of Posen and counsellor to the Government in matters of education. On the death of Archbishop Theophilus von Wolicki (1829) Von Dunin became administrator of the Archdiocese of Gnesen and Posen, was appointed archbishop in 1831, and consecrated 10 July of the same year. He endeavoured at once to reorganize his vast diocese, a work rendered necessary by the vicissitudes of Poland in the eighteenth century, the consequent reunion of the Dioceses of Gnesen and Posen, and the secularization or suppression of the monasteries. He reconstructed on a new plan the ecclesiastical seminaries of Gnesen and Posen, travelled throughout the two dioceses administering the Sacrament of Confirmation and dedicating new churches, and discharged faithfully the other duties of his pastoral ministry. In the exercise of these duties he came into conflict with the Prussian Government on the question of mixed marriages. The conditions laid down by Benedict XIV (1740–58) in the Constitution “Magnæ nobis” (29 June, 1748), by which marriages between Catholics and members of other Christian denominations became lawful, had been well observed in Catholic Poland. But in a treaty concluded in 1768 with various European powers the Prussian Government undertook to enforce another order of things. Mixed marriages were no longer forbidden; male children born of such marriages were to be brought up in the religion of their father, the female offspring in that of the mother. The marriage was to be blessed by the ecclesiastical minister, under whose jurisdiction the bride was; if a Catholic priest should refuse to solemnize the marriage, the minister of the other party was to officiate. Similar provisions were contained in the code of Prussian law extended to Prussian Poland in 1797. By a royal decree of King Frederick William III (1797–1840), 21 Nov., 1803, they were further modified in an anti-Catholic sense: all the children of mixed marriages were to be raised in the religion of the father.

Such legislation was unquestionably hostile to Catholic interests. It often happened, therefore, that Catholic priests blessed mixed marriages without first requiring the usual promise concerning the free exercise of religion for the Catholic party and the education of all offspring in the Catholic Faith. The bishops were silent; both priests and bishops seemed to believe that they must endure what they could not prevent. Penalties were inflicted by the Government on all priests who refused to bless mixed marriages contracted without any of the above conditions. The Catholic conscience was finally aroused by the Brief “Litteris altero abhinc” of Pius VIII (1829–30), 25 March, 1830, forbidding priests to bless a mixed marriage if no promise were given relating to the education of the children in the Catholic Faith. In case of such refusal Pius VIII agreed to tolerate a passive assistance (assistentia passiva) on the part of the priest. Realizing the harm done to the Catholic religion by the lax practice observed so far, Archbishop Von Dunin resolved to break with it. In January, 1837, he requested from the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs in Berlin permission to publish the Brief of Pius VIII, or at least to direct his clergy to obey its provisions. His request was refused. A petition sent directly to Frederick William III, 26 Oct., 1837, was similarly treated. Determined not to betray his high office he sent an instruction to his priests, 30 Jan., 1838, in which he inculcated the principles of the Church relating to mixed marriages; Soon after (27 Feb.) he suspended ipso facto any priest of his diocese who should henceforth bless a mixed marriage without previous assurance as to the Catholic education of the offspring. The king was notified of these acts, 10 March, 1838. While the instructions of the archbishop were well received throughout his diocese, the Government was highly indignant and sought by all means to render them ineffectual. They were declared null and void; the archbishop was asked to recall them, and finally (in July, 1838) a regular trial was commenced against him in the Court of Posen, to which, however, he always objected as conducted by a non-competent authority. In the midst of this struggle he received much consolation from the unanimous support of his clergy, and from an Allocution in his favour by Gregory XVI, 13 Sept., 1838. At the conclusion of his trial in 1839 he was summoned to Berlin where he arrived 5 April. A last ineffectual attempt was made to have him recant; finally the sentence of the court proclaiming his deposition from office, inability ever to hold one, and a confinement of six months in a fortress, was read to him. He appealed directly to the king for clemency, but nothing was changed except that he was detained in Berlin instead of being sent to a fortress.

Meanwhile the archbishop began to think of the needs of his diocese, and being unable to obtain permission to return, he departed secretly from Berlin and arrived in Posen, 4 October. In less than two days, during the night of 5–6 Oct., he was arrested and taken to the fortress of Colberg, where he remained until the death of Frederick William III (7 June, 1840). After his departure the diocese put on public mourning; the bells and the organs remained silent during the celebration of the Holy Mysteries; on all Sundays and feast days public prayers were said for the speedy return of the archbishop; and both the clergy and the nobility of Posen made several fruitless attempts to obtain his release. With the accession of the peaceful king, Frederick William IV (1840–61), matters changed. On 3 Aug., 1840, Von Dunin was set free, and on the 5th of the same month he arrived in Posen amid the rejoicing of his faithful flock. According to an agreement reached with the Government he issued a pastoral letter, 25 Aug., in which his previous instructions were somewhat modified, without detriment, however, to Catholic principle. He recommended his clergy not to insist absolutely on the fulfilment of the usual conditions required for mixed marriages, but at the same time to abstain from all active participation in such marriages, if the usual promises were not given. No mention was made of any punishment in the case of contravention. Later on (21 Feb., and 26 Sept., 1842) he issued new instructions relating to the manner of dealing in confession with the husband or wife of a mixed marriage. The priests were directed to be indulgent towards those who tried their best to influence their children in favour of the Catholic Faith, and to distinguish them from those who were altogether careless in the discharge of this sacred duty. With this the whole controversy ceased. Archbishop Von Dunin did not long survive these conflicts. His memory is held in respect for his unswerving loyalty to Catholic principles, and for his courage, frankness, and prudent moderation displayed in their defence.

POHL, Martin Von Dunin, Erzbischof von Gnesen und Posen (Marienburg, 1843); BRÜCK, Gesch. der kath. Kirche in Deutschl. im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Münster, 1903), II; POHL in Kirchenlex., s. v.; MIRBT in Realencyklopädie, s. v.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Diocese of Dunkeld

(DUNKELDENSIS)

Located in Scotland, constituted, as far back as the middle of the ninth century, the primatial see of the Columban Church by King Kenneth Mac Alpine, who rebuilt there the church and monastery founded by King Constantine (afterwards destroyed by the Danes), and translated thither St. Columba’s relics. The first occupant of the see is styled in the Annals of Ulster (A. D. 865) Bishop of Fortrenn, the name by which the kingdom of the Southern Picts was then known. He was also Abbot of Dunkeld, with jurisdiction, formerly enjoyed by Iona, over the other Columban monasteries in Scotland. The seat of the primacy was, however, subsequently transferred to Abernethy, and then to St. Andrews, and Dunkeld became subject to lay abbots, from one of whom, Crinan, sprang Malcolm III and his successors on the throne of Scotland. In 1127 King Alexander, who had already founded the Diocese of Moray farther north, erected Dunkeld into a cathedral church and replaced the Columban monks by a chapter of secular canons. The new bishopric included a great part of what afterwards became the Dioceses of Argyll and Dunblane, and retained its jurisdiction over various churches representing old Columban foundations. The Abbots of Iona remained, as heretofore, subject to the ancient primatial See of Dunkeld, until Iona became the seat of the Bishop of the Isles at the end of the fifteenth century. About the same time Dunkeld (together with Dunblane, Galloway, and Argyll) became a suffragan of the newly-constituted Archbishopric of Glasgow; but during the primacy of Archbishop Foreman of St. Andrews (1513–1522) it was restored to the metropolitan province. Thirty-five bishops occupied the See of Dunkeld from its foundation in 1107 until the extinction of the ancient hierarchy in the sixteenth century. Of this line of prelates the most distinguished were James Kennedy (1438–1440), illustrious for his birth, learning, and piety, who was translated, after two years at Dunkeld, to the Bishopric of St. Andrews; the famous poet-prelate Gavin Douglas (1516–1521), who died in exile in England; and John Hamilton (1545–1547), who succeeded the murdered Cardinal Beaton at St. Andrews, and closed his troubled career on the scaffold at Stirling in 1571. The last pre-Reformation Bishop of Dunkeld was Robert Crichton (nephew of a former occupant of the see), who survived until 1586.

For close on three centuries, the Diocese of Dunkeld, like the other Scottish bishoprics, remained vacant, until, on 4 March, 1878, it was restored by Leo XIII by his Bull, “Ex supremo apostolatus apice.” The diocese, as then re-constituted, is one of the suffragan sees of the archiepiscopal province of St. Andrews, and includes the counties of Perth, Forfar, Clackmannan, Kinross, and the northern part of Fife. Since the revival of the see, it has been held by three bishops: George Rigg (died 1887); James G. Smith (transferred to St. Andrews in 1900); and the Right Rev. Angus Macfarlane, consecrated 1901. The bishop’s pro-cathedral is in Dundee, the residence of the great majority of the Catholics of the diocese, and the cathedral chapter, erected in 1895, consists of a provost and eight canons. The total number of secular priests in the diocese (1908) is 35; regulars (Redemptorists), 12. The missions and chaplaincies number 17, the churches, chapels, and stations 31, and the parochial schools 15. There are two monasteries of men (Redemptorists and Marists), four convents of women (Sisters of Mercy, Little Sisters of the Poor, Ursulines, and Sisters of Charity), and the Catholic institutions comprise a home for aged poor, a house of mercy for servants, and a working girls’ home. The Catholic population of the diocese is estimated to be rather more than 30,000. The old cathedral of Dunkeld, beautifully situated on the Tay amid wooded hills, was erected between 1220 and 1500. The building was much damaged in the reign of Robert II, and suffered later at the hands of the Earl of Buchan, styled the “Wolf of Badenoch.” It fell partly into ruins in the sixteenth century, since when the choir has been used for Presbyterian worship. The Dukes of Atholl, long the owners of the building, have spent a good deal on its preservation and repair, and an extensive restoration of the choir was carried out in 1908, chiefly at the cost of Sir Donald Currie. There is now no Catholic church or resident priest in the village of Dunkeld.

SKENE, Celtic Scotland (Edinburgh, 1876–80), II, 370; MYLN, Vitœ Episc. Dunkeld. (Edinburgh, 1831); FORDUN Scotichronicon, ed. GOODALL (Edinburgh, 1759), XVI, xxvii; THEINER, Vet. Mon. Hibern. atque Scot. (Rome, 1864), 506; Dunkeld: Historical and Descriptive (Dunkeld, 1879); WALCOTT, The Ancient Church of Scotland (London, 1874), 208–217; Catholic Directory for Scotland (1908).

D. O. HUNTER-BLAIR.

Bl. John Duns Scotus

Surnamed DOCTOR SUBTILIS, died 8 November, 1308; he was the founder and leader of the famous Scotist School, which had its chief representatives among the Franciscans. Of his antecedents and life very little is definitely known, as the contemporary sources are silent about him. It is certain that he died rather young, according to earlier traditions at the age of thirty-four years (cf. Wadding, Vita Scoti, in vol. I of his works); but it would seem that he was somewhat older than this and that he was born in 1270. The birthplace of Scotus has been the subject of much discussion and so far no conclusive argument in favour of any locality has been advanced. The surname Scotus by no means decides the question, for it was given to Scotchmen, Irishmen, and even to natives of northern England. The other name, Duns, to which the Irish attach so much importance, settles nothing; there was a Duns also in Scotland (Berwick). Moreover, it is impossible to determine whether Duns was a family name or the name of a place. Appeal to supposedly ancient local traditions in behalf of Ireland’s claim is of no avail, since we cannot ascertain just how old they are; and their age is the pivotal point.

This discussion has been strongly tinged with national sentiment, especially since the beginning of the sixteenth century after prominent Irish Franciscans like Mauritius de Portu (O’Fihely), Hugh MacCaghwell, and Luke Wadding rendered great service by editing Scotus’s works. On the other hand, the English have some right to claim Scotus; as a professor for several years at Oxford, he belonged at any rate to the English province; and neither during his lifetime nor for some time after his death was any other view as to his nationality proposed. It should not, however, be forgotten that in those days the Franciscan cloisters in Scotland were affiliated to the English province, i.e. to the custodia of Newcastle. It would not therefore be amiss to regard Scotus as a native of Scotland or as a member of a Scottish cloister. In any case it is high time to eliminate from this discussion the famous entry in the Merton College MS. (no. 39) which would make it appear that Scotus was a member of that college and therefore a native of Northern England. The statutes of the college excluded monks; and as Scotus became a Franciscan when he was quite younger he could not have belonged to the college previous to joining the order. Besides, the entry in the college register is under the date of 1455, and consequently too late to serve as an argument.

The case is somewhat better with the entry in the catalogue of the library of St. Francis at Assisi, under date of 1381, which designates Duns Scotus’s commentary on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard as “magistri fratris Johannis Scoti de Ordine Minorum, qui et Doctor Subtilis nuncupatur, de provincia Hiberniæ” (the work of master John Scotus of the Franciscan Order known as the subtle doctor, from the province of Ireland). This, though it furnishes the strongest evidence in Ireland’s favour, cannot be regarded as decisive. Since Scotus laboured during several years in England, he cannot, simply on the strength of this evidence, be assigned to the Irish province. The library entry, moreover, cannot possibly be accepted as contemporary with Scotus. Add to this the geographical distance and it becomes plain that the discussion cannot be settled by an entry made in far-off Italy seventy-three years after Scotus’s death, at a time too when geographical knowledge was by no means perfect. Finally, no decisive evidence is offered by the epitaphs of Scotus; they are too late and too poetical. The question, then, of Scotus’s native land must still be considered an open one. When he took the habit of St. Francis is unknown; probably about 1290. It is a fact that he lived and taught at Oxford; for on 26 July, 1300, the provincial of the English province of Franciscans asked the Bishop of Lincoln to confer upon twenty-two of his subjects jurisdiction to hear confessions. The bishop gave the permission only to eight; among those who were refused was “Ioannes Douns.” It is quite certain, too, that he went to Paris about 1304 and that there he was at first merely a Bachelor of Arts, for the general of the Franciscans, Gonsalvus de Vallebona, wrote (18 November, 1304) to the guardian of the college of the Franciscans at Paris to present John Scotus at the university for the doctor’s degree. The general’s letter mentions that John Scotus had distinguished himself for some time past by his learning ingenioque subtilissimo. He did not teach very long in Paris; in 1307 or 1308 he was sent to Cologne, probably as a professor at the university. There he died, and was buried in the monastery of the Minorities. At the present time (1908) the process of his beatification is being agitated in Rome on the ground of a cultus immemorabilis.

Duns Scotus’s writings are very numerous and they have often been printed; some, in fact, at a very early date. But a complete edition, in 12 folio volumes, was published only in 1639 by Wadding at Lyons; this, however, included the commentaries of the Scotists, Lychetus, Poncius, Cavellus, and Hiquæus. A reprint of Wadding’s edition, with the treatise “De perfectione statuum” added to it, appeared 1891–95 at Paris (Vives) in 26 vols. 4to. Whether all the writings contained in these editions are by Duns Scotus himself is doubtful; it is certain, however, that many changes and additions were made by later Scotists. A critical edition is still wanting. Besides these printed works, some others are attributed to Scotus, especially commentaries on several books of Scripture. The printed writings deal with grammatical and scientific, but chiefly with philosophical and theological subjects. Of a purely philosophical nature are his commentaries and quæstiones on various works of Aristotle. These, with some other treatises, are contained in the first seven volumes of the Paris edition. The principal work of Scotus, however, is the so-called “Opus Oxoniense,” i.e. the great commentary on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, written in Oxford (vols. VIII-XXI). It is primarily a theological work, but it contains many treatises, or at least digressions, on logical, metaphysical, grammatical, and scientific topics, so that nearly his whole system of philosophy can be derived from this work. Volumes XXII-XXIV contain the “Reportata Parisiensia,” i.e., a smaller commentary, for the most part theological; on the “Sentences.” The “Quæstiones Quodlibetales,” chiefly on theological subjects, one of his most important works, and the above-mentioned essay, “De perfectione statuum,” fill the last two volumes. As to the time when these works were composed, we know nothing for certain. The commentaries on Aristotle were probably his first work, then followed the.”Opus Oxoniense” and some minor essays, last the “Quæstiones Quodlibetales,” his dissertation for the doctor’s degree. The “Reportata” may be notes written out after his lectures, but this is merely a surmise.

Scotus seems to have changed his doctrine in the course of time, or at least not to have been uniformly precise in expressing his thought; now he follows rather the sententia communis as in the “Quæstiones Quodlibetales”; then again he goes his own way. Many of his essays are unfinished. He did not write a summa philosophica or theologica, as did Alexander of Hales and St. Thomas Aquinas, or even a compendium of his doctrine. He wrote only commentaries or treatises on disputed questions; but even these commentaries are not continuous explanations of Aristotle or Peter Lombard. Usually he cites first the text or presupposes it as already known, then he takes up various points which in that day were live issues and discusses them from all sides, at the same time presenting the opinions of others. He is sharp in his criticism, and with relentless logic he refutes; the opinions, or at least the argument, of his opponents. In his fervour he sometimes forgets to set down his own view, or he simply states the reasons for various tenable opinions, and puts them forward as more or less probable; this he does especially in the “Collationes.” Hence it is said that he is no systematizer, that he is better at tearing down than at building up. It is true that none of his writings plainly reveals a system; while several of them, owing no doubt to his early death, betray lack of finish. His real teaching is not always fully stated where one would naturally look for it; often enough one finds instead the discussion of some special point, or a long excursus in which the author follows his critical bent. His own opinion is to be sought elsewhere, in various incidental remarks, or in the presuppositions which serve as a basis for his treatment of other problems; and it can be discovered only after a lengthy search. Besides, in the heat of controversy he often uses expressions which seem to go to extremes and even to contain heresy. His language is frequently obscure; a maze of terms, definitions, distinctions, and objections through which it is by no means easy to thread one’s way. For these reasons the study of Scotus’s works was difficult; when undertaken at all, it was not carried on with the requisite thoroughness. It was hard to find a unified system in them. Not a few unsatisfactory one-sided or even wrong opinions about him were circulated and passed on unchallenged from mouth to mouth and from book to book, growing more erroneous as they went. Nevertheless, there is in Scotus’s teaching a rounded-out system, to be found especially in his principal work, a system worked out in minutest details. For the present purpose, only his leading ideas and his departures from St. Thomas and the sententia communis need be indicated.

SYSTEM OF PHILOSOPHY

The fundamental principles of his philosophical and theological teaching are his distinctio formalis and his idea of being. The distinctio formalis is intermediate between the distinctio rationis tantum, or the distinction made by the intellect alone, and the distinctio realis or that which exists in reality. The former occurs, e.g., between the definition and the thing defined, the latter, within the realm of created reality, between things that can exist separately or at least can be made to exist separately by Divine omnipotence, as, e.g., between the different parts of a body or between substance and accident. A thing is “formally distinct” when it is such in essence and in concept that it can be thought of by itself, when it is not another thing, though with that other it may be so closely united that not even omnipotence can separate it, e.g. the soul and its faculties and these faculties among themselves. The soul forms with its faculties only one thing (res), but conceptually it is not identical with the intellect or the will, nor are intellect and will the same. Thus we have various realities, entities, or formalities of one and the same thing. So far as the thing itself exists, these entities have their own being; for each entity has its own being or its own existence. But existence is not identical with subsistence. The accident e.g., has its own being, its own existence, which is different from the existence of the substance in which it inheres, just because the accident is not identical with the substance. But it has no subsistence of its own, since it is not a thing existing by itself, but inheres in the substance as its subject and support; it is not an independent being. Moreover, only actually existing; things have real being: in other words, being is identical with existence. In the state of mere ideality or possibility, before their realization, things have an essence, an ideal conceivable being, but not an actual one; else they could not be created or annihilated, since they would have had an existence before their creation. And since being is eo ipso also true and good, only those things are really good and true which actually exist. If God, therefore, by an act of His free will gives existence to the essences, He makes them by this very act also true and good. In this sense, it is quite correct to say that according to Scotus things are true and good because God so wills. By this assertion, however, he does not deny that things are good and true in themselves. They have an objective being, and thence also objective truth and goodness, because they are in the likeness of God, Whose being, Goodness, and truth they imitate. At the same time, in their ideal being they are necessary; the ideas of them are not produced by the Divine free will, but by the Divine intellect, which, without the co-operation of God’s will, recognizes His own infinite essence as imitable by finite things and thus of necessity conceives the ideas. In this ideal state God necessarily wills the things, since they cannot but be pleasing to Him as images of His own essence. But from this it does not follow that He must will them with an effective will, i.e. that He must realize them. God is entirely free in determining what things shall come into existence.

God alone is absolutely immaterial, since He alone is absolute and perfect actuality, without any potentiality for becoming other than what He is. All creatures, angels and human souls included, are material, because they are changeable and may become the subject of accidents. But from this it does not follow that souls and angels are corporeal; on the contrary they are spiritual, physically simple, though material in the sense just explained. Since all created things, corporeal and spiritual, are composed of potentiality and actuality, the same materia prima is the foundation of all, and therefore all things have a common substratum, a common material basis. This materia, in itself quite indeterminate, may be determined to any sort of thing by a form—a spiritual form determines it to a spirit, a corporeal form to a material body. Scotus, however, does not teach an extreme Realism; he does not attribute to the universals or abstract essences, e.g. genus and species an existence of their own, independent of the individual beings in which they are realized. It is true, he holds that materia prima, as the indeterminate principle, can be separated from the forma, or the determining principle, at least by Divine omnipotence, and that it can then exist by itself. Conceptually, the materia is altogether different from the forma; moreover, the same materia a can be determined by entirely different forms and the same form can be united with different materiæ, as is evident from the processes of generation and corruption. For this reason God at least can separate the one from the other, just as in the Holy Eucharist He keeps the accidents of bread and wine in existence, without a substance in which they inhere. It is no less certain that Scotus teaches a plurality of forms in the same thing. The human body, e.g., taken by itself, without the soul, has its own form; the forma corporeitatis. It is transmitted to the child by its parents and is different from the rational soul, which is infused by God himself. The forma corporeitatis gives the body a sort of human form, though quite imperfect, and remains after the rational soul has departed from the body in death until decomposition takes place. Nevertheless, it is the rational soul which is the essential form of the body or of man; this constitutes with the body one being, one substance, one person, one man. With all its faculties, vegetative sensitive and intellectual, it is the immediate work of God, Who infuses it into the child. There is only one soul in man, but we can distinguish in it several forms; for conceptually the intellectual is not the same as the sensitive, nor is this identical with the vegetative, nor the vegetative with that which gives the body, as such, its form; yet all these belong formally, by their concept and essence, to the one indivisible soul. Scotus also maintains a formal distinction between the universal nature of each thing and its individuality, e.g. in Plato between his human nature and that which makes him just Plato—his Platoneity. For the one is not the other; the individuality is added to the human nature and with it constitutes the human individual. In this sense the property or difference, or the hæccitas, is the principium individuationis. Hence it is clear that there are many points of resemblance between matter and form on the one hand and universal natures and their individualization on the other. But Scotus is far from teaching extreme Realism. According to his view, matter can exist without form, but not the universal essence without individuation; nor can the different forms of the same thing exist by themselves. He does not maintain that the uniform matter underlying all created things is the absolute being which exists by itself, independent of the individuals, and is then determined by added forms, first to genera, then to species, and lastly to individuals. On the contrary, materia prima, which according to him can exist without a form, is already something individual and numerically determined. In reality there is no materia without form, and vice versa. The materia which God created had already a certain form, the imperfect form of chaos. God could create matter by itself and form by itself, but both would then be something individual, numerically, though not specifically, different from other matter and other forms of the same kind. This matter, numerically different from other matter, could then be united with a form, also numerically different from other forms of the same kind; and the result would be a compound individual, numerically different from other individuals of the same kind. From such individualized matter, form, and compound we get by abstraction the idea of a universal matter, a universal form, a universal compound, e.g. of a universal man. But by themselves universal matter and universal form cannot exist. The universal as such is a mere conception of the mind; it cannot exist by itself, it receives its existence in and with the individual; in and with the individual it is multiplied, in and with the individual it loses again its existence. Even God cannot separate in man the universal nature from the individuality, or in the human soul the intellectual from the sensitive part, without destroying the whole. In reality there are only individuals, in which, however, we can by abstraction formally separate both the abstract human nature from the individuality and the several faculties from one another. But the separation and distinction and formation of genera and species are mere processes of thought, the work of the contemplating mind.

The psychology of Scotus is in its essentials the same as that of St. Thomas. The starting-point of all knowledge is the sensory or outer experience, to which must be added the inner experience, which he designates as the ultimate criterion of certitude. He lays stress on induction as the basis of all natural sciences. He denies that sense perception, and a fortiori intellectual knowledge, is merely a passive process; moreover, he asserts that not only the universal but also the individual is perceived directly. The adequate object of intellectual knowledge is not the spiritual in the material, but being in its universality. In the whole realm of the soul the will has the primacy since it can determine itself, while it controls more or less completely the other faculties. The freedom of the will, taken as freedom of choice, is emphasized and vigorously defended. In presence of any good, even in the contemplation of God, the will is not necessitated, but determines itself freely. This doctrine does not imply that the will can decide what is true and what is false, what is right and what is wrong, nor that its choice is blind and arbitrary. Objects, motives, habits, passions, etc. exert a great influence upon the will, and incline it to choose one thing rather than another. Yet the final decision remains with the will, and in so far the will is the one complete cause of its act, else it would not be free. With regard to memory, sensation, and association we find in Scotus many modern views.

SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY

It has been asserted that according to Scotus the essence of God consists in His will; but the assertion is unfounded. God, he holds, is the ens infinitum. It is true that according to him God’s love for Himself and the spiration of the Holy Ghost by Father and Son are not based upon a natural instinct, so to say, but upon God’s own free choice. Every will is free, and therefore God’s will also. But His will is so perfect and His essence so infinitely good, that His free will cannot but love it. This love, therefore, is at once free and necessary. Also with regard to created things Scotus emphasizes the freedom of God, without, however, falling into the error of merely arbitrary, unmotived indeterminism. It has been asserted, too, that according to Scotus, being can be attributed univocally to God and creatures; but this again is false. Scotus maintains that God is the ens per essentiam, creatures are entia per participationem—they have being only in an analogical sense. But from the being of God and the being of creatures, a universal idea of being can be abstracted and predicated univocally of both the finite and the infinite; otherwise we could not infer from the existence of finite things the existence of God, we should have no proof of God’s existence, as every syllogism would contain a quaternio terminorum. Between God’s essence and His attributes, between the attributes themselves, and then between God’s essence and the Divine Persons, there is a formal distinction along with real identity. For conceptually Divinity is not the same as wisdom, intellect not the same as will; Divinity is not identical with paternity, since Divinity neither begets, as does the Father, nor is begotten, as is the Son. But all these realities are formally in God and their distinction is not annulled by His infinity; on the other hand it remains true that God is only one res. The process constituting the Blessed Trinity takes Place without regard to the external world. Only after its completion the three Divine Persons, as one principle, produce by their act of cognition the ideas of things. But quite apart from this process, God is independent of the world in His knowledge and volition, for the obvious reason that dependence of any sort wood imply imperfection.

The cognition, volition, and activity of the angels is more akin to ours. The angels can of themselves know things; they do not need an infused species though in fact they receive such from God. The devil is not necessarily compelled, as a result of his sin always to will what is evil; with his splendid natural endowments he can do what in itself is good; he can even love God above all things, though in fact he does not do so. Sin is only in so far an infinite offense of God as it leads away from Him; in itself its malice is no greater than is the goodness of the opposite virtue.

In his Christology, Scotus insists strongly on the reality of Christ’s Humanity. Though it has no personality and no subsistence of its own, it has its own existence. The and the are explained in accordance with the doctrine of the Church, with no leaning to either Nestorianism or Adoptionism. It is true that Scotus explains the influence of the hypostatic union upon the human nature of Christ and upon His work differently from St. Thomas. Since this union in no way changes the human nature of Christ, it does not of itself impart to the Humanity the beatific vision or impeccability. These prerogatives were given to Christ with the fullness of grace which He received in consequence of that union. God would have become man even if Adam had not sinned, since He willed that in Christ humanity and the world should be united with Himself by the closest possible bond. Scotus also defends energetically the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. All objections founded on original sin and the universal need of redemption are solved. The merits of Christ are infinite only in a broader sense, but of themselves they are entirely sufficient to give adequate satisfaction to the Divine justice; there is no deficiency to be supplied by God’s mercy. But there is needed a merciful acceptation of the work of Christ, since in the sight of God there is no real merit in the strictest sense of the word.

Grace is something entirely supernatural and can be given only by God, and, what is more, only by a creative act; hence the sacraments are not, properly speaking, the physical or instrumental cause of grace, because God alone can create. Sanctifying grace is identical with the infused virtue of charity, and has its seat in the will; it is therefore conceived rather from the ethical standpoint. The sacraments give grace of themselves, or ex opere operato, if man places no obstacle in the way. The real essence of the Sacrament of Penance consists in the absolution; but this is of no avail unless the sinner repent with a sorrow that springs from love of God; his doctrine of attrition is by no means lax. As to his eschatology it must suffice to state that he makes the essence of beatitude consist in activity, i.e. in the love of God, not in the Beatific Vision; this latter is only the necessary condition.

In ethics Scotus declares emphatically that the morality of an act requires an object which is good in its nature, its end, and its circumstances, and according to the dictate of right reason. It is not true that he makes God’s free will decide arbitrarily what is good and what is bad; he only asserts that the Commandments. Of the second table of the Decalogue are not in such strict sense laws of nature as are those of the first table; because God cannot grant a dispensation from the laws of the first, whereas He can dispense from those of the second; as in fact He did when He commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. But the precepts of the second table also are far more binding than the other positive laws of God. In the present order of things God cannot permit manslaughter universally, taking the property of others, and the like. There are also indifferent actions in individuo. Absolutely speaking, man should direct all his actions towards God; but God does not require this, because He does not wish to burden man with so heavy a yoke. He obliges man only to observe the Decalogue; the rest is free. Social and legal questions are not treated by Scotus ex professo; his works, however, contain sound observations on these subjects.

RELATION BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY

Scotus does not, as is often asserted, maintain that science and faith can contradict each other, or that a proposition may be true in philosophy and false in theology and vice versa. Incorrect, also, is the statement that he attaches little importance to showing the harmony between scientific knowledge and faith and that he has no regard for speculative theology. Quite the contrary, he proves the dogmas of faith not only from authority but, as far as possible, from reason also. Theology presupposes philosophy as its basis. Facts which have God for their author and yet can be known by our natural powers especially miracles and prophecies, are criteria of the truth of Revelation, religion, and the Church. Scotus strives to gain as thorough an insight as possible into the truths of faith, to disclose them to the human mind, to establish truth upon truth, and from dogma to prove or to reject many a philosophical proposition. There is just as little warrant for the statement that his chief concern is humble subjection to the authority of God and of the Church, or that his tendency a priori is to depreciate scientific knowledge and to resolve speculative theology into doubts. Scotus simply believes that many philosophical and theological proofs of other scholars are not conclusive; in their stead he adduces other arguments. He also thinks that many philosophical and theological propositions can be proved which other Scholastics consider incapable of demonstration. He indeed lays great stress on the authority of Scripture, the Fathers, and the Church but he also attaches much importance to natural knowledge and the intellectual capacity of the mind of angels and of men, both in this world and in the other. He is inclined to widen rather than narrow the range of attainable knowledge. He sets great value upon mathematics and the natural sciences and especially upon metaphysics. He rejects every unnecessary recourse to Divine or angelic intervention or to miracles, and demands that the supernatural and miraculous be limited as far as possible even in matters of faith. Dogmas he holds are to be explained in a somewhat softened and more easily intelligible sense, so far as this may be done without diminution of their substantial meaning, dignity, and depth. In Scripture the literal sense is to be taken, and freedom of opinion is to be granted so far as it is not opposed to Christian Faith or the authority of the Church. Scotus was much given to the study of mathematics, and for this reason he insists on demonstrative proofs in philosophy and theology; but he is no real sceptic. He grants that our senses, our internal and external experience, and authority together with reason, can furnish us with absolute certainty and evidence. The difficulty which many truths present lies not so much in ourselves as in the objects. In itself everything knowable is the object of our knowledge. Reason can of its own powers recognize the existence of God and many of His attributes, the creation of the world out of nothing, the conservation of the world by God, the spirituality, individuality, substantiality, and unity of the soul, as well as its free will. In many of his writings he asserts that mere reason can come to know the immortality and the creation of the soul; in others he asserts the direct opposite; but he never denies the so-called moral evidence for these truths.

Theology with him is not a scientific study in the strictest sense of the word, as are mathematics and metaphysics, because it is not based upon the evidence of its objects, but upon revelation and authority. It is a practical science because it pursues a practical end: the possession of God. But it gives the mind perfect certainty and unchangeable truths; it does not consist in mere practical, moral, and religious activity Thus Scotus is removed from Kant and the modern Gefühlstheologen, not by a single line of thought but by the whole range of his philosophical speculation. Scotus is no precursor of Luther; he emphasizes ecclesiastical tradition and authority, the freedom of the will, the power of our reason, and the co-operation with grace. Nor is he a precursor of Kant. The doctrine regarding primacy of the will and the practical character of theology has quite a different meaning in his mind from what it has in Kant’s. He values metaphysics highly and calls it the queen of sciences. Only as a very subtle critic may he be called the Kant of the thirteenth century. Nor is he a precursor of the Modernists. His writings indeed contain many entirely modern ideas, e.g. the stress he lays on freedom in scientific and also in religious matters, upon the separateness of the objective world and of thought, the self-activity of the thinking subject, the dignity and value of personality; yet in all this he remains within proper limits, and in opposition to the Modernists he asserts very forcibly the necessity of an absolute authority in the Church, the necessity of faith, the freedom of the will; and he rejects absolutely any and every monistic identification of the world and God. That he has so often been misunderstood is due simply to the fact that his teaching has been viewed from the standpoint of modern thought.

Scotus is a genuine Scholastic philosopher who works out ideas taken from Aristotle, St. Augustine, and the preceding Scholastics. He is universally recognized as a deep thinker, an original mind, and a sharp critic; a thoroughly scientific man, who without personal bias proceeds objectively, stating his own doctrines with modesty and with a certain reserve. It has been asserted that he did more harm than good to the Church, and that by his destructive criticism, his subtleties, and his barbarous terminology he prepared the ruin of Scholasticism, indeed that its downfall begins with him. These accusations originated to a great extent in the insufficient understanding or the false interpretation of his doctrines. No doubt his diction lacks elegance; it is often obscure and unintelligible; but the same must be said of many earlier Scholastics. Then too, subtle discussions and distinctions which to this age are meaningless, abound in his works; yet his researches were occasioned for the most part, by the remarks of other Scholastic philosophers, especially by Henry of Ghent, whom he attacks perhaps even more than he does St. Thomas. But the real spirit of scholasticism is perhaps in no other Scholastic so pronounced as in Scotus. In depth of thoughts which after all is the important thing, Scotus is not surpassed by any of his contemporaries. He was a child of his time; a thorough Aristotelean, even more so than St. Thomas; but he criticizes sharply even the Stagirite and his commentators. He tries always to explain them favourably, but does not hesitate to differ from them. Duns Sootus’s teaching is orthodox. Catholics and Protestants have charged him with sundry errors and heresies, but the Church has not condemned a single proposition of his; on the contrary, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which he so strongly advocated, has been declared a dogma.

PARTHENIUS MINGES

St. Dunstan

Archbishop and confessor, and one of the greatest saints of the Anglo-Saxon Church; b. near Glastonbury on the estate of his father, Heorstan, a West Saxon noble. His mother, Cynethryth, a woman of saintly life, was miraculously forewarned of the sanctity of the child within her. She was in the church of St. Mary on Candleday, when all the lights were suddenly extinguished. Then the candle held by Cynethryth was as suddenly relighted, and all present lit their candles at this miraculous flame, thus foreshadowing that the boy “would be the minister of eternal light” to the Church of England. In what year St. Dunstan was born has been much disputed. Osbern, a writer of the late eleventh century, fixes it at “the first year of the reign of King Aethelstan,” i.e. 924–5. This date, however, cannot be reconciled with other known dates of St. Dunstan’s life and involves many obvious absurdities. It was rejected, therefore, by Mobillon and Lingard; but on the strength of “two manuscripts of the Chronicle” and “an entry in an ancient Anglo-Saxon paschal table,” Dr. Stubbs argued in its favour, and his conclusions have been very generally accepted. Careful examination, however, of this new evidence reveals all three passages as interpolations of about the period when Osbern was writing, and there seem to be very good reasons for accepting the opinion of Mabillon that the saint was born long before 925. Probably his birth dates from about the earliest years of the tenth century.

In early youth Dunstan was brought by his father and committed to the care of the Irish scholars, who then frequented the desolate sanctuary of Glastonbury. We are told of his childish fervour, of his vision of the great abbey restored to splendour, of his nearly fatal illness and miraculous recovery, of the enthusiasm with which he absorbed every kind of human knowledge and of his manual skill. Indeed, througout his life he was noted for his devotion to learning and for his mastery of many kinds of artistic craftsmanship. With his parent’s consent he was tonsured, received minor orders and served in the ancient church of St. Mary. So well known did he become for devotion of learning that he is said to have have been summoned by his uncle Athelm, Archbishop of Canterbury, to enter his service. By one of St. Dunstan’s earliest biographers we are informed that the young scholar was introduced by his uncle to King Aethelstan, but there must be some mistake here, for Athelm and probably died about 923, and Aethelstan did not come to the throne till the following year. Perhaps there is confusion between Athelm and his successor Wulfhelm. At any rate the young man soon became so great a favourite with the king as to excite the envy of his kingfolk court. They accused him of studying heathen literature and magic, and so wrought on the king that St. Dunstan was ordered to leave the court. As he quitted the palace his enemies attacked him, beat him severely, bound him, and threw him into a filthy pit (probably a cesspool), treading him down in the mire. He managed to crawl out and make his way to the house of a friend whence he journeyed to Winchester and entered the service of Bishop Aelfheah the Bald, who was his relative. The bishop endeavoured to persuade him to become a monk, but St. Dunstan was at first doubtful whether he had a vocation to a celibate life. But an attack of swelling tumours all over his body, so severe that he thought it was leprosy, which was perhaps some form of blood-poisoning caused by the treatment to which he had been subjected, changed his mind. He made his profession at the hands of St. Aelfheah, and returned to live the life of a hermit at Glastonbury. Against the old church of St. Mary he built a little cell only five feet long and two and a half feet deep, where he studied and worked at his handicrafts and played on has harp. Here the devil is said (in a late eleventh legend) to have tempted him and to have been seized by the face with the saint’s tongs.

While Dunstan was living thus at Glastonbury he became the trusted adviser of the Lady Aethelflaed, King Aethelstan’s niece, and at her death found himself in control of all her great wealth, which he used in later life to foster and encourage the monastic revival. About the same time his father Heorstan died, and St. Dunstan inherited his possessions also. He was now become a person of much influence, and on the death of King Aethelstan in 940, the new King, Eadmund, summoned him to his court at Cheddar and numbered him among his councillors. Again the royal favour roused against him the jealousy of the courtiers, and they contrived so to enrage the king against him that he bade him depart from the court. There were then at Cheddar certain envoys from the “Eastern Kingdom,” by which term may be meant either East Anglia or, as some have argued, the Kingdom of Saxony. To these St. Dunstan applied, imploring them to take him with them when they returned. They agreed to do so, but in the event their assistance was not needed. For, a few days later, the king rode out to hunt the stag in Mendip Forest. He became separated from his attendants and followed a stag at great speed in the direction of the Cheddar cliffs. The stag rushed blindly over the precipice and was followed by the hounds. Eadmund endeavoured vainly to stop his horse; then, seeing death to be imminent, he remembered his harsh treatment of St. Dunstan and promised to make amends if his life was spared. At that moment his horse was stopped on the very edge of the cliff. Giving thanks to God, he returned forthwith to his palace, called for St. Dunstan and bade him follow, then rode straight to Glastonbury. Entering the church, the king first knelt in prayer before the altar, then, taking St. Dunstan by the hand, he gave him the kiss of peace, led him to the abbot’s throne and, seating him thereon, promised him all assistance in restoring Divine worship and regular observance.

St. Dunstan at once set vigorously to work at these tasks. He had to re-create monastic life and to rebuild the abbey. That it was Benedictine monasticism which he established at Glastonbury seems certain. It is true that he had not yet had personal experience of the stricter Benedictinism which had been revived on the Continent at great centres like Cluny and Fleury. Probably, also, much of the Benedictine tradition introduced by St. Augustine had been lost in the pagan devastations of the ninth century. But that the Rule of St. Benedict was the basis of his restoration is not only definitely stated by his first biographer, who knew the saint well, but is also in accordance with the nature of his first measures as abbot, with the significance of his first buildings, and with the Benedictine prepossessions and enthusiasm of his most prominent disciples. And the presence of secular clerks as well as of monks at Glastonbury seems to be no solid argument against the monastic character of the revival. St. Dunstan’s first care was to reerect the church of St. Peter, rebuild the cloister, and re-establish the monastic enclosure. The secular affairs of the house were committed to his brother; Wulfric, “so that neither himself nor any of the professed monks might break enclosure.” A school for the local youth was founded and soon became the most famous of its time in England. But St. Dunstan was not long left in peace. Wihin two years after the appointment King Eadmund was assassinated (946). His successor, Eadred, appointed the Abbot of Glastonbury guardian of the royal treasure of the realm to his hands. The policy of the government was supported by the queen-mother, Eadgifu, by the primate, Oda, and by the East Anglian party, at whose head was the great ealddorman, Aethelstan, the “Half-king.” It was a policy of unification, of conciliation of the Danish half of the nation, of firm establishment of the royal authority. In ecclesiatical matters it favoured the spread of regular observance, the rebuilding of churches, the moral reform of the secular clergy and laity, the extirpation of heathendom. Against all this ardour of reform was the West-Saxon party, which included most of the saint’s own relations and the Saxon nobles, and which was not entirely disinterested in its preference for established customs. For nine years St. Dunstan’s influence was dominant, during which period he twice refused an bishopric (that of Winchester in 951 and Credition in 953), affirming that he would not leave the king’s side so long as he lived and needed him.

In 955 Eadred died, and the situation was at once changed. Eadwig, the elder son of Eadmund, who then came to the throne, was a dissolute and headstrong youth, wholly devoted to the reactionary party and entirely under the influence of two unprincipled women. These were Aethelgifu, a lady of high rank, who was perhaps the king’s foster-mother, and her daughter Aelfgifu, whom she desired to marry to Eadwig. On the day of his coronation, in 956, the king abruptly quit the royal feast, in order to enjoy the company of these two women. The indignation of the assembled nobles was voiced by Archbishop Oda, who suggested that he should be brought back. None, however, were found bold enough to make the attempt save St. Dunstan and his kinsman Cynesige, Bishop of Lichfield. Entering the royal chamber they found Eadwig with the two harlots, the royal crown thrown carelessly on the ground. They delivered their message, and as the king took no notice, St. Dunstan compelled him to rise and replace his crown on his head, then, sharply rebuking the two women, he led him back to the banquet-hall. Aethelgifu determined to be revenged, and left no stone unturned to procure the overthrow of St. Dunstan. Conspiring with the leaders of the West-Saxon party she was soon able to turn his scholars against the abbot and before long induced Eadwig to confiscate all Dunstan’s property in her favour. At first Dunstan took refuge with his friends, but they too felt the weight of the king’s anger. Then seeing his life was threatened he fled the realm and crossed over to Flanders, where he found himself ignorant alike of the language and of the customs of the inhabitants. But the ruler of Flanders, Count Arnulf I, received him with honour and lodged him in the Abbey of Mont Blandin, near Ghent. This was one of the centres of the Benedictine revival in that country, and St. Dunstan was able for the first time to observe the strict observance that had had its renascence at Cluny at the beginning of the century. But his exile was not of long duration. Before the end of 957 the Mercians and Northumbrians unable no longer to endure the excesses of Eadwig, revolted and drove him out, choosing his brother Eadzar as king of all the country north of the Thames. The south remained faithful to Eadwig. At once Eadgar’s advisers recalled St. Dunstan, caused Archbishop Oda to consecrate him a bishop, and on the death of Cynewold of Worcester at the end of 957 appointed the saint to that see. In the following year the See of London also became vacant and was conferred on St. Dunstan, who held it in conjunction with Worcester. In october, 959, Eadwig died and his brother was readily accepted as ruler of the West-Saxon kingdom. One of the last acts of Eadwig had been to appoint a successor to Archbishop Oda, who died on 2 June, 958. First he appointed Aelfsige of Winchester, but he perished of cold in the Alps as he journeyed to Rome for the pallium. In his place Eadwig nominated Brithelm, Bishop of Wells. As soon as Eadgar became king he reversed this act on the ground that Brithelm had not been able to govern even his former diocese propely. The archbishopric was conferred on St. Dunstan, who went to Rome 960 and received the pallium from Pope John XII. We are told that, on his journey thither, the saint’s charities were so lavish as to leave nothing for himself and his attendants. The steward remonstrated, but St. Dunstan merely suggested trust in Jesus Christ. That same evening he was offered the hospitality of a neighbouring abbot.

On his return from Rome Dunstan at once regained his position as virtual ruler of the kingdom. By his advice Aelfstan was appointed to the Bishopric of London, and St. Oswald to that of Worcester. In 963 St. Aethelwold, the Abbot of Abingdon, was appointed to the See of Winchester. With their aid and with the ready support of King Eadgar, St. Dunstan pushed forward his reforms in Church and State. Throughout the realm there was good order maintained and respect for law. Trained bands policed the north, a navy guarded the shores from Danish pirates. There was peace in the kingdom such as had not been known within memory of living man. Monasteries were built, in some of the great cathedrals ranks took the place of the secular canons; in the rest the canons were obliged to live according to rule. The parish priests were compelled to live chastely and to fit themselves for their office; they were urged to teach parishioners not only the truths of the Catholic Faith, but also such handicrafts as would improve their position. So for sixteen years the land prospered. In 973 the seal was put on St. Dunstan’s statesmanship by the solemn coronation of King Eadgar at Bath by the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York. It is said that for seven years the king had been forbidden to wear his crown, in penance for violating a virgin living in the care of the nunnery of Wilton. That some severe penance had been laid on him for this act by St. Dunstan is undoubted, but it took place in 961 and Eadgar wore no crown till the great day at Bath in 973. Two years after his crowning Eadgar died, and was succeeded by his eldest son Eadward. His accession was disputed by his step-mother, Aelfthryth, who wished her own son Aethelred to reign. But, by the influence of St. Dunstan, Eadward was chosen and crowned at Winchester. But the death of Eadgar had given courage to the reactionary party. At once there was an determined attack upon the monks, the protagonists of reform. Throughout Mercia they were persecuted and deprived of their possessions by Aelfhere, the ealdorman. Their cause, however, was supported by Aethelwine, the ealdorman of East Anglia, and the realm was in serious danger of civil war. Three meetings of the Witan were held to settle these disputes, at Kyrtlington, at Calne, and at Amesbury. At the second place the floor of the hall (solarium) where the Witan was sitting gave way, and all except St. Dunstan, who clung to a beam, fell into the room below, not a few being killed. In March, 978, King Eadward was assassinated at Corfe Castle, possibly at the instigation of his step-mother, and Aetheled the Redeless became king. His coronation on Low Sunday, 978, was the last action of the state in which St. Dunstsn took part. When the young king took the usual oath to govern well, the primate addressed him in solemn warning, rebuking the bloody act whereby he became king and prophesying the misfortunes that were shortly to fall on the realm. But Dunstan’s influence at court was ended. He retired to Canterbury, where he spent the remainder of his life. Thrice only did he emerge from this retreat: once in 980 when he joined Aelfhere of Mercia in the solemn translation of the relics of King Eadward from their mean grave at Wareham to a splendid tomb at Shaftesbury Abbey; again in 984 when, in obedience to a vision of St. Andrew, he persuaded Aethelred to appoint St. Aelfheah to Winchester in succession to St. Aethelwold; once more in 986, when he induced the king, by a donation of 100 pounds of silver, to desist from his persecution of the See of Rochester.

St. Dunstan’s life at Canterbury is characteristic; long hours, both day and night, were spent in private prayer, besides his regular attendance at Mass and the Office. Often he would visit the shrines of St. Augustine and St. Ethelbert, and we are told of a vision of angels who sang to him heavenly canticles. He worked ever for the spiritual and temporal improvement of his people, building and restoring churches, establishing schools, judging suits, defending the widow and the orphan, promoting peace, enforcing respect for purity. He practised, also, his handicrafts, making bells and organs and correcting the books in the cathedral library. He encouraged and protected scholars of all lands who came to England, and was unwearied as a teacher of the boys in the cathedral school. There is a sentence in the earliest biography, written by his friend, that shows us the old man sitting among the lads, whom he treated so gently, and telling them stories of his early days and of his forebears. And long after his death we are told of children who prayed to him for protection against harsher teachers, and whose prayers were answered. On the vigil of Ascension Day, 988 he was warned by a vision of angels that he had but three days to live. On the feast itself he pontificated at Mass and preached three times to the people: once at the Gospel, a second time at the benediction (then given after the Pater Noster), and a third time after the Agnus Dei. In this last address he announced his impending death and bade them farewell. That afternoon he chose the spot for his tomb, then took to his bed. His strength failed rapidly, and on Saturday morning (19 May), after the hymn at Matins, he caused the clergy to assemble. Mass was celebrated in his presence, then he received Extreme Unction and the Holy Viaticum, and expired as he uttered the words of thanksgiving: “He hath made a remembrance of his wonderful works, being a merciful and gracious Lord: He hath given food to them that fear Him.” They buried him in his cathedral; and when that was burnt down in 1074, his relics were translated with great honour by Lanfranc to a tomb on the south side of the high altar in the new church. The monks of Glastonbury used to claim that during the sack of Canterbury by the Danes in 1012, the saint’s body had been carried for safety to their abbey; but this claim was disproved by Archbishop Warham, by whom the tomb at Canterbury was opened in 1508 and the holy relics found. At the Synod of Winchester in 1029, St. Dunstan’s feast was ordered to be kept solemnly throughout England on 19 May. Until his fame was overshadowed by that of St. Thomas the Martyr, he was the favourite saint of the English people. His shrine was destroyed at the Reformation. Throughout the Middle Ages he was the patron of the goldsmiths’ guild. He is most often represented holding a pair of smith’s tongs; sometimes, in reference to his visions, he is shown with a dove hovering near him, or with a troop of angels before him.

LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE

Felix-Antoine-Philibert Dupanloup

Bishop of Orléans, France, b. at Saint-Félix; Savoie, 2 June, 1802; d. at Lacombe, Isère, 11 October, 1878. His mother, Anne Dechosal, to whom he ever remained tenderly devoted, gave him his early education. The better to screen his future from the disgrace of his illegitimate birth, she took him when only seven years old to Paris where, by dint of work and privations, she succeeded in keeping him for some time at the Collège Sainte-Barbe. After various attempts in other directions, Félix chose the ecclesiastical career, studying grammar at the Petite Communauté, humanities at the preparatory seminary of Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet, philosophy at Issy, and theology at Saint-Sulpice. Ordained priest 18 Dec., 1825, he went as curate to the Madeleine where he founded the famous Catéchismes de l’Assomption and the Académie de St-Hyacinthe, being entrusted meanwhile with the religious education of the Duc de Bordeaux and of the Princes d’Orléans. The novelty and success of his catechizing methods drew upon him the ill will of his pastor. Transferred to Saint-Roch (1834), he soon won a reputation as pulpit orator and director. As superior of the preparatory seminary of Saint-Nicolas (1837–45), he so completely transformed the institution that admission into it was eagerly sought by members of the best families of France. “During those few years,” says Renan, himself a pupil of Saint-Nicolas (Souvenirs d’enfance et de jeunesse), “the old house of the rue St-Victor became the school in France which sheltered the greatest number of historical or well-known names.” At Saint-Nicolas Dupanloup was truly the ideal educator later described in his famous book: “La haute éducation intellectuelle.” Absorbed as he was in his professional work, he did not completely give up the direction of souls. Through one of his penitents, Pauline de Périgord, he brought about the conversion of Talleyrand (1838). A course in sacred eloquence which he had brilliantly inaugurated at the Sorbonne was discontinued after the eleventh lecture, owing to the excitement occasioned by the lecturer’s severe criticism of Voltaire and Villemain’s unwillingness to enforce order. In 1844, in connexion with the Villemain educational bill, which was scarcely more satisfactory to the Catholics than its numerous predecessors, Dupanloup inaugurated with Montalembert and Ravignan that long struggle for liberty of education which resulted in the loi Falloux. It was at his suggestion that Ravignan wrote “De l’existence et de l’institut des Jésuites,” in order to put down the still active bugbear of the hommes noirs called up by Bérenger. He also actively supported Montalembert in the formation of the Committee for the Defence of Religious Liberty, and when later Thiers spoke in favour of another unacceptable educational bill, Dupanloup wrote in reply “Des associations religieuses,” a pamphlet which became later the book “De la pacification religieuse.” A difference of views with Archbishop Affre, in connexion with the above-mentioned polemics and the direction of Saint-Nicolas, ended in Dupanloup’s transfer from the seminary to a canonicate at Notre-Dame, 1845.

The four years of his canonicate were by no means years of leisure. In spite of his increasing activity in confessional and pulpit, he found time for public interests. The elections of 1846 sent to the French Parliament some 150 deputies friendly to liberty of education, and for these Dupanloup wrote “L’état de la question,” a moderate but clear assertion of Catholic claims. As the Salvandy project of 1847 fell short of these claims, he again published a series of pamphlet “Du nouveau projet de loi,” “Des petits-séminaires,” among others; and the better to control public opinion, he undertook the work of a Catholic daily paper finally purchasing “L’ami de la religion.” In 1848 when Falloux, yielding to Dupanloup’s persuasion, accepted a portfolio under President Louis Napoleon, he appointed a commission to draft an educational bill, and made Dupanloup a member. Dupanloup’s courtesy and undeniable competence won over to the Catholic view such men as Thiers and Cousin, thus insuring the enactment of 1850. “He made me minister against my will,” said Falloux speaking of Dupanloup; “I have made him bishop against his will.” Appointed to the See of Orléans, he took possession of it 11 Dec., 1849, and during the twenty-eight years of his episcopate showed incredible activity. His administration, minutely described by Cochard, touched on every vital interest of the diocese: the holding of synods, parish visitations, organization of catéchismes and petits-séminaires along the lines adopted in Paris, development of charitable works, encouragement of ecclesiastical studies among priests, completion of the cathedral of Ste-Croix, introduction of the Roman Liturgy, etc. Still his energy was not exhausted. Wherever the interests of religion were at stake, he gave them vigorous support. In the question of the classics he stood for the broader view and entered upon a lively discussion with Louis Veuillot. Profiting by his membership in the French Academy, to which he had been elected 8 May, 1854, Dupanloup prevented the award of the prix Bodin to Taine’s “History of English Literature” and opposed the admission of Littré into that body. The reorganization of “Le Correspondant,” with Falloux, Foisset, Cochin, and de Broglie at its head, was also largely his work. The Pucelle d’Orléans (Jeanne d’Arc) found in him an ardent champion; twice he pronounced her panegyric at Orléans, and it was he who introduced in Rome the cause of her beatification and raised the first funds towards a new monument in her honour.

Dupanloup was always held in high esteem by the Irish people. In 1862, on the occasion of one of the periodical Irish famines, he preached a charity sermon in the Church of St-Roch at Paris, which netted the sum of thirty thousand francs. The grateful Irish returned this with interest during the Franco-Prussian war when they remitted to the eloquent Bishop of Orléans the sum of two hundred thousand francs in response to his appeal for the needs of France. On the occasion of the centenary (1875) of Daniel O’Connell, whom he had always admired and often praised publicly, Dupanloup was formally invited by the centenary authorities to take part in the celebration. Though too ill at the time to accept the honourable invitation, he wrote in reply two letters, memorable for their eloquence, to the Lord-Mayor of Dublin arid to Cardinal McCabe, and which were printed in “Le Monde,” 9 and 10 Aug., 1875 (Lagrange, Vie de Dupanloup, Paris, 1894, II, 347–48; III, 317). His “Letter on Slavery,” written on the occasion of the Civil War in the United States, is another evidence of Dupanloup’s broad sympathy, and helps to account tor his popularity in English-speaking countries.

Dupanloup’s main efforts, however, were directed towards the defence of the Holy See, menaced in its independence by the ambition of the House of Savoy and the ill-disguised connivance of Napoleon III. Salomon says (Mgr Dupanloup, p. 58): “For eight years, he did not lay down his arms. From Villafranca to Mentana, he never took off his breast-plate.” During this phase of his life, besides endeavouring to enlist pontifical zouaves and to increase the Peter’s-pence, he wrote the “Protestation,” against the impending spoliation of the pope; the “Lettre à un catholique sur la brochure ‘Le pape et le congrès’“; “La souveraineté pontificale,” in which he cited a declaration made by Cousin in favour of the temporal power of the pope; two other pamphlets, one against the Convention of 15 Sept., 1864, and the other in defence of the Encyclical of 8 Dec. and of the Syllabus; several letters to Ratazzi, Minghetti, etc. The Vatican Council and the Franco-Prussian War exhibit Dupanloup in two very different lights. At the council he was the leader of that minority which for political reasons stood, if not against the papal infallibility itself, at least against the opportuneness of its definition. The papal Bull of indiction, in which no mention was made of infallibility, he welcomed with joy and transmitted to his flock in a dignified pastoral letter; but when the Catholic sentiment, voiced by such organs as the “Civiltà Cattolica” and the “Univers,” began to petition for the definition, he appended to his pastoral letter certain observations which, by making known in advance the position he intended to take, involved him in a petty controversy with Louis Veuillot. Once in Rome he never swerved from his position but used all the resources of his fiery nature to win others over to his views. It was he who, on the eve of the final vote, advised the minority to vote neither placet nor non-placet, but to abstain and withdraw. That he appealed to the secular arm and threatened the council with diplomatic intervention has been both asserted and denied. This much is vouched for by Ollivier, then minister of Napoleon III: “No bishop of the minority, Dupanloup or other, ever demanded the evacuation of the pontifical territory” (Le Correspondant, 10 Dec., 1892). In justice to him it should be added that, once the dogma was defined, he was neither slow to acquiesce in what he called “the victory of truth and of God” nor half-hearted in declaring his adherence. During the Franco-Prussian War Dupanloup showed himself a worthy successor of Saint-Aignan and like him won the title of defensor civitatis. His prestige enabled him to have the severe conditions imposed by the victors on the city of Orléans either withdrawn or mitigated. In gratitude his people sent him to the National Assembly. As a member he took an effective part in securing the passage of the law which restored the military chaplains (1874) and of that which authorized the Catholic institutes (1875). He was made Senator in 1875, and one of his last public acts was to deter the French Government from officially taking notice of the centenary of Voltaire (1878). A malady which had long undermined his health resulted in his death while at the château Lacombe. His remains were laid to rest in the cathedral of Orléans and his heart conveyed to Saint-Félix, his native place. As a clause of his last will forbade any funeral oration, Bishop Bougaud pronounced only a few words of eulogy, the oration being delivered in 1888 by Bishop Besson at the unveiling of Dupanloup’s monument.

Dupanloup was without question one of the ablest French bishops of his day. He repeatedly refused higher positions. In many things a conservative and even a legitimist, he was one of the first who thought of appealing, in behalf of the Catholic cause, to common law and public liberties before a generation no longer able or willing to recognize the Divine right of the Church. The criticisms passed on him by Catholics of a different, school were more than offset by numerous papal Briefs of encouragement and episcopal letters of approval from all parts of the world. A man of action, he was also a prolific writer. A complete list of his writings is given by Lagrange, his biographer. Some of his polemical pamphlets have already been noticed. In his educational writings Dupanloup enunciates some of the most important principles which are now generally accepted. Among these are his conception of education as a process of developing mental activity instead of injecting knowledge into the mind, and his; insistence on the duty of the teacher to respect the freedom of the pupils and to cultivate; in them a spirit of honour. He advocates physical education by means of games, and warns against the danger of forcing precocious children. Education, he holds, is intellectual, moral, religious, and physical; but it is essentially one, and to neglect any of its purposes would be fatal.

His more important works are:—catechetical: “L’oeuvre par excellence” (1869); educational: “L’éducation en général,” “La haute éducation intellectuelle” (1850), “La femme studieuse” (1869), and “Lettres sur l’éducation des filles” (1878); historical: “Vie de Mgr Borderies” (Paris, 1904); oratorical: panegyrics of Jeanne d’Arc (1855 and 1869), St. Martin (1862), and St. Vincent de Paul (1863); funeral orations of Père de Ravignan (1858), the volunteers (1860), Mgr Menjaud (1861), and Lamoricière (1865); pastoral: “Lettres pastorales et mandements” (in the archives of the episcopal palace of Orléans).

DUPANLOUP, Journal intime, ed. in part, BRANCHEREAU (Paris, 1902); LAGRANGE, Vie de Mgr Dupanloup (Paris, 1883; 7th ed., 1894); SALOMON, Mgr. Dupanloup in Les Grands Hommes de l’Eglise au XIXe siècle (Paris, 1907). VI; COCHARD, Dupanloup in L’épiscopat français (1802–1905) (Paris,1907), s.v. Orléans; THUREAU-DANGIN, Hist. de la monarchie de Juillet (Paris, 1892), V; LECANUET, L’Eglise de France sous la troisième république (‘Paris, 1907); GRIMAUD, Liberté d’enseignement en France (Paris, 1907); OLLIVIER, l’Eglise l’Etat au Concile du Vatican (Paris, 1879). See also E. VEUILLOT, Louis Veuillot (Paris, 1901); LECANUET, Vie de Montalembert (1895–1901); PONTLEVOY, Vie du R. P. Xavier de Ravignan (Paris, 1860); LEDOS, Vie du R.P. Lacordaire (Paris, 1902).

J.F. SOLLIER

Jacques-Davy Duperron

A theologian and diplomat, born 25 Nov., 1556, at St-Lô (Normandy), France; died 5 Sept., 1618, at Batignolles, a suburb of Paris. His parents were Calvinists and on account of persecution sought refuge in Switzerland soon after his birth. Having received a thorough literary, scientific, and philosophical education, he applied himself to the study of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, especially St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, and in 1577 or 1578 was converted to the Catholic Faith. He enjoyed the favour and confidence of King Henry III, to whom he had been presented in 1576, and later that of Henry IV. The latter’s conversion was to a great extent due to Duperron’s instructions and influence, and his absolution from heresy was obtained from the pope by Duperron and Cardinal d’Ossat (1595). While in Rome for that purpose, Duperron was consecrated Bishop of Evreux, a see to which King Henry IV had already appointed him in 1591, though he was not yet in Holy orders. Immediately after his conversion Duperron began to work with untiring zeal for the conversion of Protestants. By his science, eloquence, and power of argument he won many victories in controversies and conferences with ministers of the reformed sects. In 1600 the famous Fontainebleau conference took place with the leader of French Calvinism, Duplessis-Mornay, who had been accused by Duperron of mutilating, falsifying, and misinterpreting texts from the Fathers in his work on the Eucharist. Of the judges three were Catholics, and three Calvinists. On 4 May nine passages were examined concerning which the commission decided against Duplessis. The latter’s real or feigned sickness and his departure prevented further meetings.

Duperron was created a cardinal in 1604. The same year he went to Rome, and was invited to assist at the meetings of the Congregatio de Auxiliis which Clement VIII had summoned to end the discussions on grace and freedom. Meanwhile he took an important part in the election of Leo XI and Paul V. The decision of Paul V not to condemn the Molinistic system was due largely to Duperron’s advice. Duperron became Archbishop of Sens in 1606. In 1611 he stopped the decision of the Parliament condemning one of Bellarmine’s works, and defended the latter’s thesis of the pope’s infallibility and superiority over councils. At a synod held at Paris (1612) he condemned the work “De ecclesiastica et politicâ potestate” by Edmond Richer, syndic of the Sorbonne. In 1614–15, at the meeting of the States General at Paris, he urged, against the Third Estate, the acceptance of the decrees of the Council of Trent on discipline and reform. Duperron’s knowledge and eloquence were so great that Pope Paul V said of him: “Let us pray that God may inspire Duperron, for he will persuade us of whatever he pleases.”

His works were collected in three volumes (Paris, 1620 and 1622). The first volume contains his “Traité du sacrement de l’Eucharistie “ written against Duplessis-Mornay. Its three books deal with;

(1) a comparison of the Eucharist and the other sacraments of the New Law with those of the Old Law;

(2) the tradition of the Fathers, to which is added a special study of St. Augustine’s doctrine;

(3) the practice of the Church concerning the adoration of the Eucharist.

The second volume is the “Réplique à la Réponse du Roy de la Grande-Bretagne.” James I of England claimed that he belonged to the Catholic Church, as he believed all truths considered necessary by the first Christians. In his answer Duperron treats of the characteristics of the Catholic Church, of some articles which the king did not look upon as essential, the preservation and integrity of the doctrine and discipline of the Church, the Eucharist as a sacrament and a sacrifice, the invocation of the Saints, the use of Latin, translation of Holy Scripture, etc. The third volume contains various works among which are a treatise on vocation, the Acts of the Fontainebleau conference, a refutation of the work of Tilenus on Apostolic traditions, some moral and spiritual treatises, and poems both Christian and profane. Duperron’s secretary, César de Ligny, wrote “Ambassades et négociations du cardinal Duperron” (Paris, 1618). Under the title of “Perroniana,” remarks on theological, political, and literary subjects were published by Christophe du Puy from the notes of his brother, who had been with Duperron for a long time.

FÉRET, Le cardinal Duperron (Paris, 1877); DE BURIGNY, Vie du cardinal Duperron (Paris, 1768); DUPIN, Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques (Paris, 1710), XVII, 25; RÄSS, Die Convertiten seit der Reformation (Freiburg, 1866), II, 226, 441, III, 384; Gallia christiana (2d ed., Paris, 1870), XI, 612, XII, 96; SEIDL in Kirchenlexicon, IV, 26.

C. A. DUBRAY.

Louis Ellies Dupin

(also DU PIN)

A theologian, born 17 June, 1657, of a noble family in Normandy; died 6 June, 1719. His mother, a Vitart, was the niece of Marie des Moulins, grandmother of the poet Jean Racine. At the age of twenty Dupin accompanied Racine who made a visit to Nicole for the purpose of becoming reconciled to the gentlemen of Port Royal. But, while not hostile to the Jansenists, Dupin’s intellectual attraction was in another direction; he was the disciple of Launoy, a learned critic and a Gallican. Dupin took his theological course at the Sorbonne, and received there the degree of bachelor in 1680, and of doctor in 1684.

From the beginning of his studies he had accumulated notes on the works and teachings of the Fathers. In 1686 there appeared the first volume of the “Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques,” covering the first three centuries. In it Dupin had treated simultaneously biography, literary criticism, and the history of dogma; in this he was a pioneer leaving far behind him all previous efforts, Catholic or Protestant, which were still under the influence of the Scholastic method. He was also the first to publish such a collection in a modern language. Unfortunately he was young and worked rapidly. In this way errors crept into his writings and his productions were violently attacked. Mathieu Petit-Didier, a Benedictine, published an anonymous volume of “Remarques sur la bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques de M. Du Pin” (Paris, 1691), and this was followed by two other volumes to which the author’s name was appended (Paris, 1692 and 1696). Dupin answered him in his fifth volume and Petit-Didier replied in the fore part of his second volume of “Remarques.” Petit-Didier’s observations were often inspired by contemporaneous prejudice. Thus Dupin had placed in the fourth century, to which indeed he rightly belongs, St. Macarius the Egyptian. Petit-Didier discovered Semipelagianism in this author’s works, in reality ideas professed by many before St. Augustine, but from which the adversary of Dupin concluded that Macarius should come after Pelagius and St. Augustine (II, 198).

A more formidable enemy appeared in Bossuet, who, during a public thesis at the College of Navarre in 1692, condemned the audacity of the critic. Dupin answered him and Bossuet appealed to the civil authority, denouncing Dupin to Chancellor Boucherat and to Archbishop de Harlay. Bossuet simply enumerated the points that he disapproved in the “Bibliothèque” concerning original sin, purgatory, the canonicity of the Sacred Scriptures, the eternity of hell’s torments, the veneration of saints and of their relics, the adoration of the Cross, grace, the pope and the bishops, Lent, divorce, the celibacy of the clergy, tradition, the Eucharist, the theology of the Trinity, and the Council of Nicæa. He demanded a censure and a retractation.

Like Petit-Didier Bossuet would not admit that any of the Greek or Latin Fathers differed from St. Augustine on the subject of grace, nor that this matter could be called subtle, delicate, and abstract. Between Dupin and Bossuet there was a still wider difference. “The liberty M. Dupin takes of so harshly condemning the greatest men of the Church should, in general, not be tolerated” (Bossuet, Œuvres, XXX, 513). On the other hand Bossuet strongly contended that heretics could not be too severely dealt with: “It is dangerous to call attention to passages that manifest the firmness of these people without also indicating wherein this firmness has been overrated: otherwise they are credited with a moral steadfastness which elicits sympathy and leads to their being excused” (op. cit., XXX, 633).

Dupin submitted but was nevertheless condemned by the Archbishop of Paris (14 April, 1696). He continued his “Bibliothèque,” which was put on the Index long after his death (10 May, 1757), though other works of his were condemned at an earlier date. He had also to suffer the criticism of Richard Simon (Paris, 1730, 4 vols.). Simon and Dupin had similar views and methods so that when Bossuet was writing the “Défense de la Tradition et des Saints Pères” (which did not appear, however, until 1743), he included both in his invectives against the “haughty critics” who inclined to rabbinism and the errors of Socinus. Although Dupin spoke favourably of Arnauld and signed the “Cas de conscience,” he was not a Jansenist. On these matters he rather shared the opinion of Launoy who “had found a way to be at once both demi-Pelagian and Jansenist” (Bossuet, Œuvres, XXX, 509). Dupin was pre-eminently a Gallican. It was probably on this account that Louis XIV had him exiled to Châtellerault, on the occasion of the “Cas de conscience.” Dupin retracted and returned, but his chair in the College of France was irretrievably lost. Later Dubois, who aspired to the cardinalate and sought therefore the favour of Rome, made similar accusations against Dupin. Dupin was on friendly terms with Wake, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, who hoped for a union of the two Churches. The correspondence was looked on with suspicion, and in 1718 the regent had Dupin’s papers seized. This act led to calumnies against the writer, who really had had no other aim than the reconciliation of the separated Anglicans. A similar purpose animated the “mémoires” he presented to Peter the Great during the latter’s residence in France. Dupin died shortly after.

Besides the “Nouvelle bibliothèque ecclésiastique” (58 vols. 8vo with tables), the “Remarques” by Petit-Didier, and the “Critique” by R. Simon reprinted in Holland (19 vols. 4to), Dupin edited the works of Gerson (Paris, 1703), Optatus of Mileve (Paris, 1700), the Psalms with annotations (1691), and published “Notes sur le Pentateuque” (1701), an abridgment of “L’histoire de l’Eglise” (1712), “L’histoire profane” (1714–1716), “L’histoire d’Apollonius de Tyane” (1705, under the name of M. de Clairac), a “Traité de la puissance ecclésiastique et temporelle,” a commentary on the Four Articles of the clergy of France (1707), the “Bibliothèque universelle des historiens” (1716), numerous works and articles on theology, reprints of former works, etc. Dupin was no pedant. Etienne Jordan, a contemporary who saw him, said: the morning he would grow pale over books and in the afternoon over cards in the pleasant company of ladies. His library and adjoining apartment were marvellously well kept.”

NICÉRON, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire des hommes illustres (Paris, 1727–1745), II, 31; BOSSUET. Œuvres (Versailles, 1817), XXX, 475; REUSCH, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher (Bonn, 1885), II, 586; MARGIVAL, R. Simon in Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses (Paris, 1899), IV, 435; SAINTE-BEUVE, Port-Royal, VI, 129, 174, 365; MOSHEIM AND MACLAINE, Histoire ecclésiastique ancienne et moderne (1776), VI, 135; also ET. JORDAN, Recueil de littérature, de philosophie et d’histoire (Amsterdam, 1730), 66.

PAUL LEJAY

Pierre-Charles-François Dupin

Known as BARON CHARLES DUPIN.

A French mathematician and economist, b. at Varzy, Nièvre, 6 October, 1784; d. at Paris, 18 January, 1873. At the age of twenty-three he entered the Ecole polytechnique, and after three years of successful studies under the famous Monge, he received the degree of naval engineer. He then served in that capacity in the navy and showed so much ability that he was later appointed inspector-general of the navy. In 1813 he published a pamphlet, “Développement de géométrie pour faire suite à la géométrie pratique de Monge” (Paris, 1813, containing many new and brilliant theories, the most important of which were one relating to the indicatrix of curved surfaces and another on orthogonal surfaces. He was elected to the Academy of Sciences in 1818. The next year Dupin received a professorship at the Conservatoire des arts et metiers; during this period he wrote various pamphlets on scientific topics, such as: “Applications de géométrie et de mécanique à la marine” (Paris, 1822); “Diverses lecons sur l’industrie, le commerce, la marine” (Paris, 1825), and also numerous memoirs for the Academy of Sciences, which were highly spoken of. Notwithstanding his brilliant prospects as a mathematician, he soon preferred to devote himself to political economy. His “Voyages en Grande Bretagne de 1816 a 1819 (6 vols., Paris, 1820–1824), which were the result of a personal inquiry into the commerce and industry of England placed him in the foremost rank of statisticians. In his “Carte de la France eclairee” (Paris, 1824), he was the first to use different colours to show the development of education in various parts of France. Charles X gave him the title of baron in 1824. Dupin gradually turned to politics and for forty years was a member of legislative assemblies. Under the Restoration, in spite of the honour bestowed upon him by the Bourbons, he sided with the Liberals and took his seat at the Left of the Chamber; under the Monarchy of July, he sat with the Centre, and finally with the Right, under the Republic of 1848. He rallied to the Second Empire and was appointed senator by Napoleon III. In his political career he showed himself a man of ability, of great industry and activity, and never failed to assert his Catholic convictions. Although a less brilliant man than his brother the Elder Dupin, he may have a more lasting reputation on account of his discoveries in geometry.

ANONYMOUS, Notice historique sur le baron Charles Dupin (Paris, 1857); Les Mondes (Paris, 1873), XXX, 135; Revue des questions historiques (1881), IX, 517–500.

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Peter Stephen Duponceau

A jurist and linguist, b. at St-Martin de Ré, France 3 June, 1760; d. at Philadelphia, U.S.A., 1 April, 1844. Educated in a Benedictine college, he exhibited a marked taste for languages, and in 1777 accompanied Baron Steuben to America, serving as his secretary in the Revolutionary army, with rank of captain, until compelled by ill-health to resign in 1781. He settled in Philadelphia, studied law, and was admitted to the Bar. Throughout a long life he was identified with public affairs and was also author or translator of a number of legal or historical treatises, but his fame rests chiefly upon his studies of the native American languages at a period when ethnology was as yet hardly recognized as a science. Most of his linguistic papers appeared in volumes of the American Philosophical Society (Philadelphia), of which he was a member from 1791 and president from 1827 until his death. His memoir on the grammatical system of the Indian languages (Mémoire sur le systeme grammatical des langues de quelques nations Indiennes de l’Amérique du Nord) won the Volney prize of the French Institute in 1835.

JAMES MOONEY

Antoine Duprat

(1) ANTOINE DUPRAT

Chancellor of France and Cardinal, b. at Issoire in Auvergne, 17 January, 1463; d. at the Chateau de Nantouillet near Meaux, 9 July, 1535. Educated for the law he won a high position in his profession and in 1507 became first president of the Parliament of Paris (the highest court of France). In 1515 Francis I made him chancellor and prime minister. In 1517, after his wife’s death, he took Sacred orders and gradually rose in the hierarchy: first as bishop of several dioceses held by him in plurality; then as Archbishop of Sens, 1525; cardinal, 1527, and legate a latere, 1530. Duprat’s influence extended much beyond the departments of justice and finance placed under his direct control. Hanotaux, in the introduction to his “Recueil des instructions,” calls Duprat “one of the most notable men of ancient France, second only to Richelieu in the decisive influence he exercised on the destinies of his country.” This influence was constantly exerted to strengthen royal absolution; it was felt in the stern measures he took against the grands Seigneurs and in his elaborate fiscal system. Duprat’s influence was also manifested together with his perfect orthodoxy, in those measures which affected the relations of France with the Church, namely, the signing of the Concordat of 1516, and the checking of nascent Protestantism. The Concordat, which Duprat himself negotiated with Leo X at Bologna, did away with the schismatical principles of the “Pragmatic Sanction”; on the other hand, by causing the appointment of the French hierarchy to rest on royal nomination instead of the old canonical elections, it vested in the civil power an easily abused authority over Church affairs. Duprat’s uncompromising attitude towards Protestantism was dictated both by his political sense and his orthodoxy. The wiles of Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin did not deceive him; even so the well-known Protestant sympathies of Marguerite d’Angouleme, the Duchesse d’Etampes, and the Minister du Bellay failed to move him. The Sorbonne and the Parliament were instructed to exclude the writings of the innovators; in 1534 the posting of subversive pamphlets at the door of the royal apartments cost the perpetrators their lives. Duprat left no writings, but took a leading part in the compilation of the “Coutumes d’Auvergne”; he also did much to encourage the renaissance of letters.

(2)GUILLAUME DUPRAT

Son of the foregoing, b. at Issoire, 1507; d. at Beauregard, 1560. Appointed Bishop of Clermont in 1529, he led a zealous and saintly life and is favourably known by the leading part he took in the last sessions of the Council of Trent as well as by his patronage of the Jesuits. Not only did he receive them in his diocese, where they were put in charge of the colleges of Billom and Mauriac, but, in face of much opposition, he helped them financially and in other ways to found in Paris the College de Clermont, so called after Duprat’s episcopal city.

DUPRAT, Vie d’Antoine Dupret (Paris, 1857); HANOTAUX, Etudes historiques sur les XVI et XVII siecles (Paris, 1886); IDEM, Recueil des instructions donnees aux ambassadeurs (Paris, 1888). I; BAUDRILLART, Quartre cents ans de concordat (Paris, 1905); FOURNIER, Guillaume Duprat in Etudes religieuses, 1904.

J.F. SOLLIER

Baron Guillaume Dupuytren

French anatomist and surgeon, born 6 October, 1777, at Pierre-Buffière, a small town in the Limousin, France; died in Paris, 8 February, 1835. His parents were so poor that he received his education at the Collège de la Marche through charity. By competitive examination he gained the position of prosecutor in anatomy at the newly established Ecole de Médecine, Paris, when he was but eighteen. In 1803 he was appointed assistant surgeon to the Hôtel-Dieu. In 1811 he became professor of operative surgery, and in 1815 professor of clinical surgery at the Ecole de Médecine and head surgeon to the Hôtel-Dieu. He was indefatigable in his devotion to his profession and had one of the largest surgical practices of all time. He amassed fortune established at $1,5000,000. He succeeded in accomplishing all this in spite of a consumptive tendency against which he had to battle all his life and which finally carried him off. In his will he endowed the chair of anatomy at the Ecole de Médecine and established a home for physicians in distress. A curious contraction of the fascia of the palm of the hand, which cripples the fingers, is called after him, bears his name. The most important of his writings is his treatise on artificial anus. He published also a treatise on gunshot wounds and clinical lectures on surgery. Dupuytren was not an original investigator in surgical subjects, but he was an excellent observer and a great worker, who knew how to adopt and adapt others’ ideas very practically.

JAMES J. WALSH

François Duquesnoy

(CALLED ALSO FRANÇOIS FLAMAND, AND IN ITALY IL FLAMINGO).

Born at Brussels, Belgium, 1594; died at Leghorn, Italy, 12 July, 1646. Duquesnoy was son of an excellent Dutch scultor from whom he received his first lessons. At an early age he carved the figure of justice on the portal of the chancellerie at Brussels, and two angels for the entrance of the Jesuit church of that city. In 1619, at the age of twenty-five, he was sent by the Archduke Albert to study in Rome, and there he resided many years, executing various works of importance. To him we owe the handsome baldachinum over the high altar in St. Peter’s, the colossal statue of St. Andrew with his cross, also in st. Peter’s, and the Santa Susanna in the church of S. Maria di Loreto. In the cathedral of Ghent is his rococo tomb for Bishop Triest a good work in its own style. Duquesnoy was a contemporary of Bernini and a friend of Le Poussain, who recommended him to Cardinal Richelieu. The sculptor was about to start for Paris when death overtook hirn at Leghorn. It is reported that he was poisoned by his own brother, Jérôme, who was also a clever sculptor (b. 1612, burned for unnatural crime, 24 Oct., 1654). François is famous for his beautiful sporting children in marble and bronze, his ivory carvings for drinking-cups, etc. The figure known to the populace of Brussels as the “Mannecken” is commonly attributed to him.

M. L. HADLEY.

Narcisco Duran

Born 16 December, 1776, at Castellon de Ampurias, Catalonia, Spain; died 1 June, 1846. He entered the Franciscan Order at Gerona, 3 May 1792, volunteered for the Indian Missions, was incorporated into the Franciscan Missionary College of San Fernando in the City of Mexico, and in 1806 came to California. He was assigned to Mission San José and toiled there among the Indians until April, 1833, when he retired to Mission Santa Barbara. As early as 1817 Father Sarriá, the comisario prefecto, recommended Duran for higher offices. Father Payeras, the comisario prefecto in 1820, likewise held him worthy and capable of any office. Towards the end of 1824 the College of San Fernando elected him presidente of the missions, which post held with the exception of one term (1828–1831) until 1838. From 1844 till his death in 1846 he again held this office, and from 1837 to 1843 he was also comisario prefecto of the Fernandinos, i.e. Franciscans subject to the college in Mexico, who were in charge of the missions in Southern California. During the troublous times of the secularization and sale of the missions it was Father Duran who fought the pillagers step by step, though in vain, and fearlessly unmasked the real aims of the despoilers. His numerous letters to the Government on the subject are masterpieces of close reasoning, pungent sargueroa recommended the exile of Father, Duran, but the Mexican Government allowed him to remain unmolested at Mission Santa Barbara until his death. Six weeks previous to this the dying Bishop of California had appointed Father Duran vicar-general, and for a month he held the office of administrator of the diocese. His body was placed in the vault beneath the sanctuary of the mission church. He was almost the last survivor of the Fernandinos, and for virtue, learning, and missionary zeal ranks with the most brilliant of his predecessors.

ZEPHYRIN ENGELHARDT

Durand Ursin

A Benedictine of the Maurist Congregation, b. 20 May, 1682, at Tours; d. 31 Aug., 1771, at Paris. He took vows in the monastery of Marmoutier at the age of nineteen and devoted hirnself especially to the study of diplomatics. In April, 1709, he joined his confrère Edmond Martène, who was making a literary tour through France with the purpose of collecting material for a new edition of a “Gallia Christiana.” After searching the archives of more than eight hundred abbeys and one hundred cathedral churches, they returned in 1713 to the monastery of St-Germain-des-Prés, laden with all kinds of valuable historical documents, many of which were included in “Gallia Christiana,” while the others were published in a separate work, entitled “Thesaurus novus Anecdotorum” (5 vols. folio, Paris, 1717). In 1718 the two Maurists started on a new literary tour through Germany and the Netherlands to collect material for Bouquet’s “Rerum Gallicarum et Francicarum Scriptores.” Besides collecting valuable material for Bouquet’s work they gathered an immense mass of other historical documents which they publisbed in a large work entitled “Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum historicorum, dogmatiorum et moralium amplissima collectio” (9 vols. fol. Paris, 1724–33). They also jointly published in French a learned account of their journeys: “Voyage littéraire de deux Religieux Bénédictins de la Congrégation de St. Maur” (2 vols. Paris, 1717 and 1724). In addition to the works which Durand published jointly with Martène, he also collaborated with Dantine and Clémencet in a French work on diplomatics, entitled “L’Art de vérifier les dates,” continued Constant’s “Collection of Papal Letters,” assisted Sabatier with the edition of the “Itala” and contributed to many other Maurist publications. In 1734 he was banished from the monastery of St-Germain-des-Prés as a Jansenist “Appellant,” at the instance of Cardinal de Bissy. He was sent to the monastery of St. Eloi in Noyon. After two years he was permitted to repair to the monastery of Blancs-manteaux in Paris; where he spent the remainder of his life in literary pursuits.

MICHAEL OTT

William Durandus

(Also: Duranti or Durantis). Canonist and one of the most important medieval liturgical writers; born about 1237, at Puimisson in the Diocese of Béziers, Provence; died at Rome, 1 November, 1296. He was called Speculator from the title of one of his works, Speculum Judiciale. He studied law at Bologna under Bernard of Parma and then taught it at Modena. Clement IV (Guy Foulques, 1265–1268, also a Provençal) summoned Durandus to Rome, ordained him subdeacon, and gave him titular canonries at Beauvais and Chartres. He was then attached to the papal curia as Auditor generalis causarum sacri palatii. He accompanied Gregory X (1271–1276) to the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and as the pope s secretary, drew up its decrees. In 1279 he was made dean of Chartres, but did not reside there. At about the same time he went to Romagna as papal governor and succeeded in subduing a rebellion under Guy of Montefeltro. He destroyed Guy’s fortress della Ripa and founded in its place the town of Urbania In 1286 he was elected bishop by the chapter of Mende (Mimatum) in the province of Narbonne, but did not go into residence till 1291. Meanwhile his diocese was administered by his nephew, William Durandus the younger. In 1295 he was again in Italy (under Boniface VIII, 1294–1303) as governor of Romagna and Ancona, where the Ghibellines were again in rebellion. He refused the pope’s offer to make him Archbishop of Ravenna, came to Rome, and died there. There is no reason to suppose that Durandus belonged to any religious order, though he has been claimed by both the Dominicans and the Austin Canons. He is buried at Rome in Santa Maria Sopra Minerva, where a long epitaph tells the story of his life and gives a list of his works.

Of these works the most famous is the Rationale divinorum officiorum (first ed. by Fust and Schoeffer at Mainz, 1459, and reprinted frequently). It was written in 1286. Its eight books contain a detailed account of the laws, ceremonies, customs, and mystical interpretation of the Roman Rite.

Book I treats of the church, altar, pictures, bells, churchyard, etc.;

II of the ministers;

III of vestments;

IV of the Mass;

V of the canonical hours;

VI of the Proprium Temporis;

VII of the Proprium Sanctorum; and

VIII of the astronomical calendar, manner of finding Easter, Epacts, etc.

Durandus’s Rationale is the most complete medieval treatise of its kind; it is still the standard authority for the ritual of the thirteenth century and for the symbolism of rites and vestments. The allegorical explanation of vestments, for instance, as signifying virtues or the garments worn by Christ in His Passion, is taken from its third book. Other works are Speculum Legatorum , afterwards enlarged into Speculum Judiciale (four books), a treatise on the canonical rights of legates and the forms of canonical processes (first ed. at Strasburg in 1473; Frankfort, 1668); Breviarium, sive Repertorium juris canonici (Rome, 1474), Breviarium glossarum et textuum juris canonici (Paris, 1519), both commentaries on the decretals, arranged in the same order, and Commentarius in canones Concilii Lugdunensis II (Fano, 1569, with a life of the author by Simon Majolus), a semi-official exposition of the canons of the Second Council of Lyons. Durandus s epitaph also mentions a Pontificale , which is now lost. For works wrongly attributed to him see Schulte (op. cit. infra.), II, 155–156.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

William Durandus, the Younger

Died 1328, canonist, nephew of the famous ritualist and canonist of the same name (with whom he is often confounded). He was at first archdeacon of Mende, Languedoc, under his uncle and was appointed bishop of that see by Boniface VIII, in 1296, after the uncle’s death. He was present at the Council of Vienne in 1311–1312. the pope (John XXII, 1316–1334) and the King of France (Charles IV, 1316–1328) sent him on an embassy to the Sultan Orkhan (1326–1360) at Brusa, to obtain more favourable conditions for the Latins in Syria. He died on the way back, in Cyprus (1328). He wrote, by command of Clement V (1305–1314), a work: “Tractatus de modo concilii generalis celebrandi et de corruptelis in ecclesia reformandis,” in three books. It is a treatise on the canonical process of summoning and holding general councils, gathered from approved sources with many quotations and illustrations from the Fathers and from church history, together with attacks on various abuses and corruptions that were common in the fourteenth century among ecclesiastical persons. The first edition was printed at Lyons in 1531, then again at Paris by Philip Probus, a canonist of Bourges, in 1545, and dedicated to Pope Paul III (1534–1549) as a help towards the Council of Trent. Other editions, Paris, 1671, etc.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE.

Durandus of Saint-Pourçain

Philosopher and theologian, b. at Saint-Pourçain, Auvergne France; d. 13 September, 1332, at Meaux. He entered the Dominican Order at Clermont and obtained the doctor’s degree at Paris in 1313. John XXII called him to Avignon as Master of the Sacred Palace, where he expounded the Scriptures. In 1318 he was consecrated Bishop of Le Puy-en-Velay and was transferred to Meaux in 1326. He is known as Doctor Resolutissimus owing to his strenuous advocacy of certain opinions novel to the Schoolmen of his day. His writings include commentaries on the “Sentences” (Paris, 1508); “De origine jurisdictionum” (Paris, 1506); and a treatise on the condition of holy souls after their separation from the body. His nominalism was so much opposed to the contemporary philosophic realism that the third period of Scholasticism is made to begin with him. He rejects both the sensible and the intelligible species, introduced, he says, to explain sense-perception, as also the active intellect. He denies the principle of individuation as distinct from the specific nature of the individual. In theology he argues for a separation of natural knowledge from that obtained through faith and revelation. Certain dogmas, as that of the Trinity, cannot be shown not to contain impossibilities, but to believe them, withal increases the merit of faith. Because the miracles of Christ do not prove His Divinity, His acceptance by the faithful enhances the merit of believing. After all, he says, theology is not strictly a science, since it rests on faith, not on the first principles of knowledge. In theology it is sufficient to know the idea of him who, being inspired, cannot err. He teaches, besides, that all actions proceed from God Who gives the power to act, but this is no immediate influx of the Creator upon the actions of the creature. The sacraments are only causes without which grace is not conferred. Marriage is not strictly a sacrament. He also insinuates that Christ could be present in the Eucharist with the substances of bread and wine remaining. Throughout, Durandus shows admirable submission to the corrective prerogative of the Church, the exercise of which was not unnecessary. By order of John XXII the treatise “De statu animarum” was examined and was found to contain eleven errors.

QUÉTIF-ECHARD, Scriptores O. P., I, 586; STÖCKL, Geschichte der Philosophie im M. A., II, 976; HAURÉAU, De la philosophie scolastique, Pt. II (Paris, 1880), II 3446; MORTIER, Histoire de mâitres géneraux de l’Ordre da Frères Prêcheurs (Paris, 1907) III, 69–86; La faculté de théologie de Paris et ses docteurs la plus célèbres, III, 401–408.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Durandus of Troarn

French Benedictine and ecclesiastical writer, b. about 1012, at Le Neubourg near Evreux; d. 1089, at Troarn near Caen. Affiliated from early childhood to the Benedictine community of Mont-Sainte-Cathérine and of Saint-Vandrille, he was made abbot of the newly founded Saint-Martin of Troarn by William, Duke of Normandy, in whose esteem he stood on a par with Lanfranc, Anselm, and Gerbert. Ordericus Vitalis calls him ecclesiastici cantus et dogmatis doctor peritissimus. Of his achievements in sacred music we know nothing beyond that mention, but we have his “Liber de Corpore et Sanguine Domini” (P.L., CXLIX, 1375) against Berengarius. The ninth and last part of it contains precious historical information about the heresiarch. In Durandus’s mind Berengarius is a figurist pure and simple, after the manner of Scotus Eriugena, whose now lost book he is said to have possessed and used. In the rest of his book Durandus follows Paschasius, whom he somewhat emphatically styles Divini sacramenti scrutator diligentissimus discussorque catholicus, and from whom he borrows both his patristic apparatus and his theological views. Turmel, however, notes that Durandus quotes new texts of Bede, Amalarius, Fulbert de Chartres, and St. John Chrysostom. His presentation of the Eucharistic dogma is frankly Ambrosian, i.e. he maintains with Paschasius and Gerbert the conversion of the bread and wine into the identical body and blood of Christ, thus excluding the Augustinian theory of the Praesentia spiritalis still held by some of his contemporaries and contributing to prepare the definition of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). Durandus explains with skill the Augustinian texts, chiefly in the “De doctrinâ christianâ” and the “Letter to Boniface,” misused by Berengarius; but in the last analysis he appeals to the argument of authority already used by Guitmond (P.L., CXLIX, 1415): “The saintly Doctor of Hippo, wearied by the labours of composition, fails at times to clearly bring out his thought. Hence he may appear obscure to the unlearned and even become a source of error. If perchance he should have erred in so great a mystery, we should then bethink ourselves of the Apostolic saying: ‘But though an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which you have received, let him be anathema’“ (loc. cit., 1415). Durandus wrote also against Berengarius a poem of 900 verses, of which twenty-five preface the above treatise and thirteen are quoted in Mabillon’s “Annales” (LXIV, 119), the rest being unpublished. Migne (loc. cit.) appends to the “Liber” two epitaphs composed by Durandus, one for Abbot Ainard and the other for the Countess Mabile. (See BERENGARIUS OF TOURS.)

J. F. SOLLIER.

Archdiocese of Durango (Durangum)

(DURANGUM)

Archdiocese located in north-western Mexico. The see was created 28 Sept., 1620, seventy-two years after the Friars Diego de la Cadena and Gerónimo de Mendoza had established the San Juan Bautista de Analco mission in the valley of the Sierra Madre. The city of Durango was founded in 1554 by the Spanish captain Ibarra, and served at once as a centre for numerous missionaries, whose efforts to convert the natives were so successful that under Philip III the Diocese of Guadalajara was divided by Paul V, and Durango was raised to episcopal rank. The first bishop, Gonzalo Hernandez y Hermosillo, devoted much time to the evangelization and spiritual welfare of the Indians. In the beginning the Diocese of Durango included New Mexico (Santa Fe), Chihuahua, and Sonora; eventually these were made independent sees. Durango was made an archdiocese by Leo XIII (23 June, 1891), and now includes all the State of Durango and part of Zacatecas, with Sonora, Chihuahua, and Sinaloa for suffragans. The first archbishop was Vicente Salinas. Among the remarkable bishops of the see were the scholarly Gorospe, to whom the city owes its canal; the famous writer Legaspi, who began the cathedral that was finished and consecrated by Antonio Zubiría y Escalante, and lately decorated anew by Archbishop Santiago Zubiría y Manzanera. The Catholic press is represented by “El Domingo,” and the “Boletin Eclesiastico.” Besides the Escuelas Guadalaupanas there are two colleges, the Colegio Guadalupano and a college of the Brothers of Mary. The territory of the diocese is quite mountainous and is watered only by a few streams, but is well adapted for grazing. There are many rich mines of gold, silver, and iron. In 1900 the population of the State of Durango was 307,274, that of the city 31,092. The latter, known also as Guadiana and Ciudad de Victoria, stands picturesquely at 6700 feet above sea-level, and has several important industries and a large trade in cattle and leather.

REGINALDO GUERECA.

Archdiocese of Durazzo

ARCHDIOCESE OF DURAZZO (DYRRACHIENSIS).

The Archdiocese of Durazzo in Albania, situated on the Adriatic, has a good port, and is the chief town of a sandjak in the vilayet of Scutari; the population is about 9000. According to Appian it was founded by a barbarian king, Epidamnus, after whom it was called Epidamnum; it then took the name of Dyrrachium, from Dyrrachus, nephew of a daughter of Epidamnus, to whom was due its port. According to Thucydides and Strabo it was more probably a colony of Coreyra. It was one of the causes of the Peloponnesian War. Conquered by the kings of Illyria, when attacked by the Romans, it surrendered to the latter and received from Rome many privileges. Its port was important for communication with Greece. Cicero and Pompey in their disgrace took refuge at Dyrrachium. When towards the end of the fourth century the empire was divided into two parts, the city fell to the Eastern empire. The Byzantine emperors made it a strong fortress, and Anastasius I, was born there. After the seventh century it was the centre of a theme; in 1011 its governors received the title of dukes. Under Michael the Paphlagonian (1034–1041) it was occupied by the Bulgarians; in 1042 it was retaken by the Greeks. In 1082 it was captured by Robert Guiscard, who defeated Alexius Comnenus under its walls; at the death of Robert it fell again into the power of the Greeks, who held it till the capture of Constantinople by the Latins (1204). From 1206 to 1294 it belonged to the despots of Epirus. It was then conquered by the Angevin kings of Naples, who gave it as a fief to princes of their family; the descendants of these rulers kept the title of “Duras” even when they no longer held the city. The effective lordship passed to the Thopias about the middle of the fourteenth century. In 1373 the city was occupied by the Balsas of the Zetta, in 1386 by the Venetians, and finally, in 1501, by the Turks.

The church of Durazzo is the most ancient in Albania. According to local tradition the first bishop of the country was St. Caesarius, one of the Seventy Disciples. St. Astius, his successor, is said to have suffered martyrdom under Trajan about A.D. 100. A list of the Greek bishops is in Lequien (Oriens Christianus, II, 240–247), but it is very incomplete. Durazzo is even yet a metropolis for the Greeks. Under Eucharius, who attended the Council of Ephesus, 431, it was the metropolis of Epirus Nova or Illyria Graeca. The see, long disputed between the Greeks, the Bulgarians, and Serbs, remained finally in the hands of the first named. Its bishops, who as early as 519 had sided with Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople, against Pope Hormisdas, followed the schism of Michael Caerularius in the eleventh century. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, after the Latin conquest of Constantinople, a Latin see was established there (1209). The Latin succession was often interrupted, on account of political changes; the actual (1908) archbishop is the fifty-second of the list (Lequien, III, 950–954; Gams, I, 407; II, 87; Eubel, I, 241; II, 164). The episcopal residence was likewise subject to several removals; after the Turkish conquest the archbishops transferred it to Corbina (1509), then to Canovia; to-day they reside at Delbenisti. Durazzo had originally but one suffragan, Cernicum or Tzernicum, site unknown. Later it had Prisca, Croia, Alessio, and Canovia. To-day Alessio only is subject to the Archbishop of Durazzo, but his power over it has been so limited by Propaganda that he may be considered an archbishop without a suffragan.

There are in the archdiocese about 250,000 inhabitants, of whom about 140,000 are Mussulmans (Turks and chiefly Albanese), 95,000 Greeks or Graecized Albanese, 14,000 Catholics (Albanese, except a few Italians and Austrians). There are also at Elbassan about 150 recently converted Greeks. The diocese has no seminary, but some students are sent to the seminary of Scutari. It has 20 priests, of whom 13 are secular priests, 22 parishes, 46 churches or chapels, 39 stations, 5 schools for boys and 1 for girls (the latter conducted by Sisters of Charity of Agram). Franciscan friars have charge of several parishes.

L. PETIT.

Elisha John Durbin

The “Patriarch-priest of Kentucky,” born 1 February, 1800, in Madison County, in that State, of John D. Durbin, son of Christopher Durbin, pioneer, and Patience, Logsdon; died in 1887 at Shelbyville, Kentucky. In 1816 he was sent to the preparatory seminary of St. Thomas, in Nelson County, where he spent about four years of manual labour and study under such distinguished missionaries as David Flaget, Felix de Andreis, and Joseph Rosati; thence he went to the near-by Seminary of St. Joseph, at Bardstown, where, in 1821–1822, he had as an instructor Francis Patrick Kenrick, later Bishop of Philadelphia and Archbishop of Baltimore. He was ordained priest in Bardstown, by Bishop David, 21 September, 1822. Early in 1824 Bishop Flaget entrusted him the pastoral care of western and southwestern Kentucky, about thirty counties, with an area of over 11,000 square miles, nearly one-third of the State. Then began a missionary career of over sixty years hardly paralleled in the United States, and that subsequently won for him the names of “Apostle of Western Kentucky” and “Patriarch-Priest of Kentucky.” Union County was the centre of his mission. From it he journeyed on horseback over his vast territory, erected churches, established stations, formed congregations, and visited isolated families. In the beginning duty called him beyond his mission proper into Indiana, and once a year to Nashville, Tennessee. He traversed his extensive and sparsely settled mission incessantly for over sixty years, his churches, stations, and the rude homes of his poor flock his only abiding places. Occasionally a communication from him would appear in the press, and then only in defence of truth or outraged justice. When he did write, he wrote cogently and elegantly. Enfeebled by age, his sturdy constitution gave way in 1884, when his bishop, yielding to his entreaties, assigned him the small mission at Princeton, Kentucky. After a stroke of paralysis he was given, in 1885, the chaplaincy of an academy, at Shelbyville, Kentucky, where he died.

LOUIS G. DEPPEN

Albrecht Dürer

Celebrated painter and engraver, born at Nuremberg, Germany, 21 May, 1471; died there, 6 April, 1528. Dürer left his native city, then famous for its commerce, learning, and art, but three times in his life. His first journey was undertaken after he had completed his apprenticeships both to his father, a goldsmith, and to the painter and engraver Wohlgemut; on this occasion, he traveled through Germany and visited at Colmar and Basle the family of the recently deceased Schongaur; in 1505–07 he spent some time in Venice; in 1520–21 he went to the Netherlands, visiting especially Antwerp.

FIRST PERIOD (BEFORE 1505)

After the earliest works of his youth (portraits, Madonnas, coats-of-arms, landscape-sketches) he set up in 1494 a studio of his own. In the same year he married Agnes Frey but they had no children. Among his Nuremberg friends the learned humanist Willibald Pirkheimer held the first place. Besides great advancement in learning, Dürer owed to Pirkheimer the happiness of a lifelong friendship and the acquaintance with classical antiquity which he occasionally drew upon in his work. Dürer’s art, however, with its sources in the German Middle Ages, remained essentially German; the influence of the art of Italy and the Netherlands was merely supplementary. In his own century there were few chances for mural paintings; but the demand for altar-pieces and portraits was all the greater. His woodcuts were eagerly sought after by the general public, his engravings on copper by connoisseurs. Among his fine compositions are: the Baumgartner altar-painting, the central panel of which represents the Adoration of the Christ Child, the wings the donors as Sts. George and Eustacious; the “Lamentation of Christ” in which the pathos is noteworthy; and the remarkable picture of himself (1500). These are preserved in the Alte Pinakothek in Munich. The portrait of himself just mentioned is greatly idealized as is also that of a lady of the Furleger family. On the other hand in the portraits of his father and mother realism predominates. But here, as in the “Prodigal Son.” and in his drawings, Dürer seeks to elevate his naturalism by sweet simplicity, depth of feeling, and grandeur of conception. The “Adoration of the Magi” in the Uffizi at Florence will bear comparison, at least for German taste, with the masterpieces of Italy and the Netherlands. Dürer’s own woodcuts have a quality entirely their own; though without colouring, they yet produced the effect of colour. “The Apocalypse” (15 cuts) is distinguished by its daring fancy and grandeur of composition . The most striking of the series are: the “Four Riders,” the “Angels of the Euphrates,” and the “Battle of the Angels with the Dragon.” To the same period belong, for the most part, the powerful “Larger Passion” (7, later 20, cuts) as well as the beautiful “Life of the Virgin” (16, later 20, cuts), in which the scenes from the life of the Holy Family in Egypt have all the sweetness of a charming idyll. Mention should be made of the so-called “Green Passion” in the Albertina Museum at Vienna, a series of twelve drawings with pen on green paper, also of the “Smaller Passion” of a later date in 37 woodcuts, and of the 17 copperplate engravings on the same subject. For the fifth time the artist came back to the Passion of Christ eight years before his death; a few sketches are to be found in the Uffizi at Florence and in the Albertina at Vienna. Wood and copperplate engraving were brought to great perfection by Dürer; the latter, and etchings as well, by his own work; the former by his directions to the wood-engravers who carried out his designs.

SECOND PERIOD (1505–1520)

In “The Festival of the Rosary,” painted in Venice for German merchants residing there, he competes, not unsuccessfully, with the Italian colourists, though it may be said that colour was not his strong point. The painting (Abbey of Strahow, Prague) is damaged, but a good copy is preserved in the Imperial Museum at Vienna. An oil painting of the same period, “Christ on the Cross,” and other works that followed, e.g. “Adam and Eve” (Madrid and Florence), show that Dürer’s trip to Italy and the acquaintance made there with Giovanni Bellini were not without profit to his art; but Dürer’s nationality and the independence of his genius are always evident. Another work much admired was the so-called Heller altar-piece, destroyed in Munich in 1674 by fire. Valuable studies for this picture and an indistinct copy are still extant. One of the finest examples of German art is the “Adoration of the Trinity” or “All Saints” (1511). Placed beside the “Disputa” of Raphael or the Sistine paintings of Michaelangelo, produced in the same year, it would not suffer from the comparison. God the Father sits upon a throne and holds forth the Cross with the Crucified; above both of them, in the form of a dove, the Holy Ghost hovers. About them the saints of heaven in two companies with the Mother of God and John the Baptist at their head kneel in adoration. In the upper part of the picture, above the blessed hosts, choirs of angels surround the Holy Trinity; in the lower part, the Church Militant, led by the powerful figure of a pope and an emperor, takes part in the adoration. As an idealization of the world this multitude stands above the clouds. At the very bottom and to one side, as though left behind, is seen the humble figure of the painter. This work deserves no less praise for its perfection of finish than for its sublimity of conception. The frame, carved in Renaissance style from drawings by Dürer, is still preserved at Nuremberg. In the same year, 1511, Dürer produced the “Virgin with the Pear,” one of the finest of his Madonnas. In the years 1513–14 he executed three great copperplate engravings: these may, perhaps, be looked upon as ideal representations of a fearless knight, an unsatisfied searcher for knowledge, and a saint happy in God and are called: “The Knight with Death and the Devil”; “Melancholia”; “Saint Jerome in His Study.” To these must be added various paintings, e.g. of Charlemagne, Sigmund, and Albrecht of Brandenburg; further, the marginal drawings, displaying much fancy and humour, made for Maximillian’s “Prayer Book,” and the “Triumphal Arch of Maximillian” belong to the same time. Later, Dürer worked also on the “Triumph of Maximillian,” and produced the large “Triumphal Car,” for the emperor.

THIRD PERIOD (1520–1528)

Admirable sketches for “St. Jerome with the Skull,” lately discovered by Anton Weber in Lisbon, give ample proof of the artist’s diligence during his stay in the Netherlands. The striking head of the saint is very like the “Head of an Old Man” in the Albertina. After his return to Nuremberg, Dürer painted a noteworthy “Head of Christ,” and portraits of Pinkheimer, Erasmus, and Holzschuher. His last work of importance (1526) was the “Four Apostles,” Peter with John and Paul with Mark; these paintings which are now in Munich, are much admired for the individuality of character expressed by the figures and the fine treatment of the drapery. From the inscription under these pictures, despite the fact that Peter is represented as holding the keys of heaven, and from other circumstances that prove little, some have wished to infer that towards the end of his life became attached to the doctrines of Luther. But even the Protestants van Eye, A. W. Becker, C, Kinkle, and others, do not share in this opinion, and M. Thausing, the great Dürer scholar, has now rejected it. No doubt many well-disposed persons of the time saw the necessity of ecclesiastical reform and hoped it would be hastened by Luther’s stand. But they were deceived and acknowledged it, as Pirkheimer did for himself and his friend: “I confess that in the beginning I believed in Luther, like our Albert of blessed memory . . . but as anyone can see, the situation has become worse.” In the years 1525–27, Dürer wrote three books: on geometry, the proportions of the human figure, and the art of fortification.

SINGER, Versuch einer Dürer Bibliographie in Studien sur deutches Kunstgeschichte (1905); CONWAY, Literary Remains of Albrecht Dürer (Cambridge 1889); CUST, Albrecht Dürer, A Study of His Life and Works (London 1897); KNACKFUSS, A. Dürer (6th ed., 1899), tr. DODGESON (LONDON, 1900); WEBER, A. Dürer (3rd ed. Ratisbon, 1903); Collection of drawings by LIPPMANN (4 vols.); of woodcuts LUTZOW; of copperplates and etchings LUTZOW and SOLDAU; of letters and diaries, THAUSUNG.

G. GIETMANN

Ancient Catholic Diocese of Durham (Dunelmum

Ancient Catholic Diocese of Durham (Dunelmensis).

This diocese holds a unique position among English bishoprics. Owing to its geographical position on the Scottish border, the successive bishops were led to assume constitutional and political functions in addition to their spiritual office. Consequently their rights and privileges were peculiar and extensive; and even to this day the Anglican Bishop of Durham has precedence over all other English prelates except those of Canterbury, York, and London. The diocese is the lineal continuation of the Anglo-Saxon See of Lindisfarne, founded by St. Aidan in 635, when he came from the monastery of Iona at the request of St. Oswald, King of Northumbria, to evangelize that newly conquered heathen kingdom. He built his monastery on the Island of Lindisfarne, now Holy Island, off Northumbria. Thus Northumbrian Christianity was of Celtic origin and followed the Celtic use as to the observance of Easter and other matters. But in the south the Roman use prevailed and conflict became inevitable. The controversy arose in the time of St. Colman, the third bishop, and was settled in 664 at the Synod of Whitby when the Roman use was adopted. Shortly after, St. Colman resigned the episcopate and the see was transferred to York, with St. Wilfrid as bishop.

In 678, St. Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, cut off from it two new sees, one for the Lundiswaras of Lincolnshire and the other for Bernicia. In 680 the Bernician see was subdivided into the Dioceses of Lindisfarne and Hexham, while finally a separate bishopric was created for the Southern Pics. So that when St. Cuthbert became Bishop of Lindisfarne the diocese was only a fragment of what it had been under St. Aidan. In the ninth century when the Danes repeatedly harassed Northumbria, the Diocese of Hexham ceased to have a separate existance, and about 820 was merged in that of York. In 875, Eardulf, Bishop of Lindisfarne, was driven from his see, and taking the body of St. Cuthbert, he with his monks fled from the Danes. After wandering seven years they found a resting place at Chester-le-Street (882); and from here Eardulf and his eight immediate successors ruled the see. In 995 Bishop Aldhun again found himself defenseless before the Danes and fled with St. Cuthbert’s body to Ripon. When peace was restored, he was returning to Chester-le-Street when miraculous signs were given that the body of the saint was to remain where the city of Durham now stands. A stone chapel was built to receive the remains of St. Cuthbert’s body and Aldhun began a great church where the cathedral now is, which was finished and consecrated in 999. In this way Aldhun became the first Bishop of Durham.

The followins a list of the bishops with the dates of their accession.

Bishops of Lindisfarne

St. Aidan, 635

St. Finan, 652

St. Colman, 661

Tuda, 664

St. Eata, 678

St. Cuthbert, 685

St. Eadbert, 688

Eadfrid, 698

St. Ethelwold, 724

Cynewulf, 740

Higbald, 780

Egbert, 803

Heathured (otherwise Egfrid), 821

Ecgred, 830

Eanbert, 845

Eardulf, 854

Chester-le-Street

Cutheard, 900

Tilred, 915

Wilgred, 928

Uchtred, 944

Sexhelm, 947

Aldred, 947

Elfdig, 968

Aldhun or Aldwin, 990

Bishops of Durham

Aldhun came to Durham, 995

Vacancy, 1018

Eadmund, 1021

Eadred, 1041

Egelric, 1042

Egelwin, 1056

Walcher, 1071

William de S. Carilef, 1080

Vacancy, 1096

Rannulf Flambard, 1099

Vacancy, 1129

Galfrid Rufus (Lord Chancellor), 1133

Vacancy and usurpation

of Cumin, 1140

William de S. Barbara, 1143

Hugh de Pudsey, 1153

Vacancy, 1194

Philip de Pictavia (el. 1195, cons. 1197)

Vacancy, 1208

Richard de Marisco (Lord Chancellor), 1217

Vacancy, 1226

Richard Poor, 1228

Vacancy, 1237

Nicholas de Farnham, 1241

Walter de Kirkham, 1249

Robert de Stitchill, 1260

Robert de Insula, 1274

Antony Beck, 1283

Richard de Kellaw, 1311

Lewis de Beaumont, 1318

Richard de Bury (Lord Chancellor), 1333

Thomas de Hatfield, 1345

John Fordham, 1382

Walter Skirlaw, 1388

Thomas Langley (Lord Chancellor) (afterwards Cardinal), 1406

Robert Neville, 1438

Laurence Booth (Lord Chancellor), 1457

William Dudley, 1476

Vacancy, 1483

John Sherwood, 1485

Richard Fox, 1494

William Sever, 1502

Vacancy, 1505

Christopher Bainbridge (Afterwards Cardinal), 1507

Vacancy, 1508

Thomas Ruthall, 1509

Thomas Wolsey (already Cardinal and Abp. Of York), 1523

Cuthbert Tunstall, 1530

THE CATHEDRAL

The first Norman bishop, Walcher, was murdered by the people in 1080, and was succeeded by William de S. Carilef, who began the present cathedral, the foundation being laid 29 July, 1093. He also replaced the secular cathedral clergy by Benedictine monks from Jarrow and Wearmouth. The situation of the cathedral is very remarkable, as it stands high on the cliff overhanging the river, and the building itself is most imposing,, with its noble proportions, and what Dr. Johnson called its appearance of “rocky solidity and of indeterminate duration.” Bishop Carilef died shortly after beginning it; but the building was carried on with energy by the next bishop, the infamous Rannulf Flambard. He built the nave and aisles and the lower part of the west front, and in 1104 the shrine of St. Cuthbert was transferred to the new cathedral. In 1143 the see was usurped by William Cumin, chancellor of the King of Scotland, who for sixteen months violently kept the rightful bishop out of possession. This interfered with the building, but the next bishop, Hugh de Pudsy, was a great builder, and among his additions is the “Galilee Chapel,” a unique specimen of transitional work. Another special feature of Durham cathedral is the eastern transept, know as the “Chapel of Nine Altars,” built by Bishop Poor about 1230. The central tower (214 feet) was rebuilt towards the end of the fifteenth century. The bishops also built their own half-regal residence, Durham Castle, and the extensive buildings of the monastery, portions of which still remain. The relations between the bishops and the monks were frequently very strained, especially in the time of the warrior-prelate, Antony Beck, though bishops like Richard Poor, Richard de Kellaw, or the scholar Richard de Bury, lived in harmony with them.

CIVIL JURISDICTION OF THE BISHOPRIC OF DURHAM

The twofold jurisdiction of the bishops of Durham was clearly recognized by the law from early times. In the reign of Edward I the Rolls of Parliament state: “Episcopus Dunelmensis duos habet status, videlicet, statem episcopi quoad spiritualia et statum comitis palacii quoad tenementa sua temporalia.” But the original of this civil jurisdiction has never been ascertained. According to one theory it represents local survival of the old Northumbrian Kingdom. According to another view it was conferred by grant of some king, Alfred or, more plausibly, William the Conqueror. There is however, no historical trace of such grant, and recent research makes it more probable that it is a development of immunities granted to the Bishopric of Durham. Even before the Conquest the bishops held large endowments of land known as the patrimony of St. Cuthbert, Terra or Patrimonium Sancti Cuthbert. Therefore the diocese possessed large franchise or immunity both as against the sovereign power of the King of England and the local rights of the Earl of Northumberland. Thus the bishopric was not included in the Domesday Book, and even at the time of the Conquest the county of Durham was governed by the bishop with almost complete local independence. These extreme rights were strengthened by the fact that the bishops frequently had to repel Scottish invasions, by their own forces and at their own expense, which fostered both the military and financial independence of the palatinate. The strong feeling of Northumbrian independence also prevented the formation of any firm ties with the English sovereigns, until the masterful policy of Henry II brought Durham into subordination to the central government. But this subordination was exceedingly limited even then, and the bishopric escaped the deprivation of its privileges which befell many other franchises at that time. This was due to Bishop Hugh de Pudsey, who was the king’s cousin and personal friend, and who took care as time went on to obtain the charters necessary to safeguard the liberties of his see.

These were most considerable. First, the bishop had within the bishopric every right that the king had in the country: Quicquid rex habet extra episcopus habet intra. He was therefore the head of the civil government, with appointment of all civil officers. The bishop’s writ, not the king’s, ran within the bishopric, and the “Bishop’s peace” was regarded as different from the “King’s peace” until the time of Henry VIII. Offenders and lawbreakers were tried in the bishop’s court and if necessary punished by his officials. Forfeiture for treason and forfeitures of war were both his right, and he could create corporations, and erect fairs and markets. He did not, however, have the right of making treaties with foreign powers, though instances of attempted secret treaties with Scotland are not wanting. The bishops had their own mint, and their coinage bears their initials on the reverse of each coin. From the feudal point of view the bishops were very strong, as he was the universal landlord, and all land was held mediately or immediately of him and not of the king. From this follows his rights of wardship, rights to all mines and to treasure-trove, as well as his extensive forest rights. At law he could stay procedure against offenders, grant pardons, and even suspend the application of a statute. He had courts of common law, equity, and admiralty, besides his spiritual courts; and he regulated the relations between the latter and the temporal courts.

Thus, in theory, the bishop was as a king in his bishopric, but in practice his power was limited by the sovereign. In some instances the king actually infringed upon his rights, and in other cases there was conflict of jurisdiction. Up to the end of the thirteenth century the episcopal power developed in every way, then followed a period during which the kings somewhat unwillingly tolerated the position, for the sake of the convenience of having what amounted to a buffer state between England and Scotland, and also because it was difficult to solve a problem so beset with complications both ecclesiastical and feudal. Although it is sometimes stated that the bishops had a council in the nature of a parliament, it is becoming increasingly clear that we have here a confused tradition of two separate bodies—the assembly and the council. The assembly (communitas) was practically the same gathering as the shiremoot in other counties. It raises money by taxation at both the request of the king and the bishop, and sometimes for its own purposes. But it was not a legislative assembly, since all general legislation applied to the palatinate, although Durham was not represented in Parliament till the time of the Stuarts. When Acts were not intended to apply to Durham express exemption was stated. The council was in origin a feudal body, chosen from the bishop’s immediate followers and officials, the functions entrusted to it being the general administration of the palatinate, financial affairs, and the duty of advising the bishop. The judicial courts of the palatinate arose out of this body. Much of the civil and judicial independence of the palatinate was destroyed by the Act of Resumption passed in 1536, at the will of Henry VIII. By this act the bishop’s semi-regal power was abolished. The see at this time was held by Cuthbert Tunstall, the venerable prelate who was the last Catholic bishop and who lived to witness the suppression of the monasteries, The Pilgrimage of Grace (1536), and finally the surrender of Durham Abbey (1540) which involved the spoliation of St. Cuthbert’s shrine. During the reign of Edward VI he was imprisoned and an Act of Parliament was passed dissolving the bishopric and forming it into a county palatinate. After the brief respite of Mary’s reign. Bishop Tunstall was deprived of his see by Elizabeth, July, 1559. With his death in confinement, on 18 Nov., the line of Catholic bishops ended. Ten years later during the “Rising of the North” the Catholics seized Durham cathedral, restored the altar, and publicly celebrate Mass, thus making it the last of the old English cathedrals in which Mass has been said.

In the bishopric there were six collegiate churches, Auckland, Darlington, Chester-le-Street, Lanchester, Norton, and Staindrop. The Benedictines held Durham Abbey, with the dependent houses of Jarrow, Wearmouth, and Finchale. There were Augustinians at Hexham and Brinkburn; Cistercians at Newminster; and Premonstratensians at Blanchland. Durham College (now Trinity), at Oxford, was greatly protected and helped by various bishops and priors of Durham, and possibly was originally a Durham foundation. The arms of the see are: azure, a cross between four lions rampant, or. The miter over the arms is encircled by a ducal coronet.

The Historical Works of Symeon of Durham in R.S.(1882–1885), the chief authority for the history of the see down to 1153. Subsequent events are recorded by Geoffrey of Coldingham, Liber de Statu Ecclaisiae Dunhelmensis (1152–1214); Robert de Graystanes, Historia de Statu Ecc. Dunhelm. (1214–1336); William de Chambre, Continuatio Historiae Dunhelmensis—all three ed. By Raine and pub. By Surtees Society in Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres (London 1839), IX. Many other volumes of the SURTEES SOCIETY throw light on the history of the see. HUTCHINSON, History of the County of Durham (Newcastle, 1785–1794); SURTEES, History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, (London, 1816–1840); RINE, History and Antiquities of North Durham, (1852); LOW, Durham in S.P.C.K., Diocesan Hist. Series, (London, 1881); BYEGATE, Durham: the Cathedral and See (London, 1889); LAPSLEY, The County Palatine of Durham in Harvard Historical Studies (London, 1900); VIII, a most valuable work on the constitutional powers of the bishops of Durham, with very full bibliography and an appendix on the Records of the Palatinate.—For Durham Liturgy see Rituale Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, SURTEES Soc. (London, 1839),X, and Rites of Durham, SURTEES Soc. (London, 1842), XV. The Durham Breviary is announced for publication by the HENRY BRADSHAW SOCIETY.—For the Episcopal Coinage see RUDING, Annals of the Coinage of Great Britain, II; LEAKE, Historical Account of English Money; NOBLE, Two Dissertations on the Mint of the Episcopal-Palatines of Durham; BARTLETT. Episcopal Coins of Durham in Archaeologia (1778), reprinted (Newcastle, 1817), and LAPSLEY, op. Cit., VII. The general literature on the subject is very large. See THOMPSON, Reference Catalogue of Books on Durham and Northumberland (Newcastle-on-Tyne,1888).

EDWIN BURTON

Durham Rite

The earliest document giving an account of liturgical services in the Diocese of Durham is the so-called “Rituale ecclesiæ Dunelmensis,” also known as the “Ritual of King Ælfrith” [the King of Northumberland, who succeeded his brother Ecgfrith in 685, and who was a vir in scripturis doctissimus (Bede, Hist. Eccl., IV, xxvi)]. The Manuscript (in the library of Durham cathedral, A, IV, 19) is of the early ninth century. It contains capitula, chants, and especially collects, from the Epiphany to Easter, then a proprium sanctorum, a commune sanctorum, and many forms for blessings. The greater part has an interlinear Anglo-Saxon translation. At the end various scribes have used up the blank pages to write out a miscellaneous collection of hymns and exorcisms and a list of contractions used in books of canon law. Its connexion with Durham and Northumberland is shown by various allusions, such as that to St. Cuthbert in a collect (intercedente beato Cudbertho Sacerdote; p. 185 of the Surtees Soc. edition). This fragment represents the fusion of the Roman and Gallican uses that had taken place all over North-Western Europe since the Emperor Charles the Great (768–814) or even earlier (Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien, 2nd ed., 89–99). Many parts of it exactly correspond to the Gregorian Sacramentary sent by Pope Adrian I to the emperor (between 784 and 791; Duchesne, op. cit., 114–119).

The great Benedictine monastery of Durham was founded by William of St. Carileph in 1083; he brought monks from Wearmouth and Jarrow to fill it. These monks served the cathedral till the suppression in 1538. The foundation of the cathedral was laid in 1093 and St. Cuthbert’s body was brought to its shrine in 1104. A catalogue drawn up at Durham in 1395 gives a list of the books used by the monks for various services. Of such books not many remain. A Gradual of about the year 1500 with four leaves of a Tonarium is at Jesus College, Cambridge (Manuscript 22; Q. B. S.), and a Durham Missal written in the fourteenth century is in the British Museum (Harl. 5289). The parts of this Missal that correspond to Holy Week and Easter are printed in vol. CVII of the Surtees Society’s publications (pp. 172–191; see also the “Westminster Missal,” III, 1424, Henry Bradshaw Soc., 1897, where the Durham variants are given). But the most important document of this kind is the volume called “The Ancient Monuments, Rites and Customs of the Monastical Church of Durham before the Suppression.” This book, written in 1593, exists in several manuscript copies and has been printed and edited on various occasions, lastly by the Surtees Society (vol. CVII, 1903; see bibliography). It is a detailed description, not only of the fabric of the cathedral, but also of the various rites, ceremonies, and special customs carried out by the monks who served it. From it we see that the Durham Rite was practically that of the North of England (corresponding in all its main points to that of York), with a few local modifications such as one would expect to find in a great and flourishing monastic church. The treatise begins with a description of the famous nine altars (ed. Surtees Soc., p. 7) and of the choir and high altar. The Blessed Sacrament was reserved in a silver pelican hung over the High Altar. It should be noted that a pelican in her piety was assumed as his arms by Richard Fox (Bishop of Durham, 1494–1502) and was constantly introduced into monuments built by him (so at Winchester and at Corpus Christi College, Oxford). The great paschal candlestick was a conspicuous and splendid feature of Easter ritual at Durham; it and the rite of the paschal candle are described in chapter iv (ed. cit., p. 10). The Office for Palm Sunday does not differ from that of Sarum and the other English uses (ed. cit., p. 179). On Maundy Thursday there was a procession with St. Cuthbert’s relics. A special feature of the Good Friday service was the crucifix taken by two monks from inside a statue of Our Lady, for the Creeping to the Cross. On the same day the Blessed Sacrament was enclosed in a great statue of Christ on a side altar and candles were burned before it till Easter Day. The Holy Saturday service in the Durham Missal is given on pp. 185–187 of the Surtees Society edition. The monks sang the “Miserere” while they went in procession to the new fire. When the paschal candle is lit they sing a hymn, “Inventor rutili,” with a verse that is repeated each time. There are only five Prophecies, and then follow the litanies. When “Omnes Sancti” is sung those who are to serve the Mass go out. The word Accendite is said and the candles are lighted. It is repeated three times; at the third repetition the bishop comes out to begin the Mass. All the bells (signa) are rung at the Kyrie eleison, the Gloria, and the Alleluia. Between three and four o’clock in the morning of Easter Day the Blessed Sacrament was brought in procession to the high altar, while they sang an antiphon, “Christus resurgens ex mortuis, iam non moritur,” etc. Another statue of Christ Risen remained on the high altar during Easter week. On Ascension Day, Whit-Sunday, and Trinity Sunday processions went round the church, on Corpus Christi round the palace green, and on St. Mark’s Day to Bow Church in the city (chs. lv, lvi). The rogation-days (three cross-daies) also had their processions. In all these the relics of St. Bede were carried and the monks appeared in splendid copes. The prior, especially, wore a cope of cloth of gold so heavy that he could only stand in it when it was supported by “his gentlemen” (ed. cit., p. 85). The prior had the right of wearing a mitre since Prior Berrington of Walworth (ch. lvi, ed. cit., p. 107).

Throughout the year the chapter Mass was sung at nine o’clock, Vespers at three p. m. On Thursdays, except in Advent, Septuagesima, and Lent, the Office of St. Cuthbert was sung in choir (ed. cit., p. 191). On Fridays there was a “Jesus-Mass” (a votive mass of the Holy Name), and the “Jesus-Antiphon” was sung after Complin (ed. cit., p. 220). This was also the custom at York, Lincoln, Lichfield, and Salisbury. On St. Cuthbert’s Day (20 March) there was, naturally, a great feast and his relics were exposed. Chapter x (ed. cit., p. 16) describes the great book containing names of benefactors (Liber Vitæ) that was kept on the high altar, chapter xxi the forms for giving sanctuary to accused persons. They had to use the knocker, still shown to visitors, and, when they were received, to wear a black gown with a yellow cross “of St. Cuthbert” on the left shoulder (ed. cit., p. 41). No woman was allowed to approach the saint’s tomb beyond a line of blue marble traced on the floor. To explain this, chapter xviii tells a legend about a king’s daughter who falsely accused him and was eventually swallowed up by the earth. In the “Galilee” was a chapel of Our Lady for women (ch. xxii, ed. cit., p. 42). When a monk died his body was carried to St. Andrew’s chapel, two monks watched before it all the time; after the dirge and the requiem Mass it was buried in the sanctuary garth with a chalice of wax laid on the breast (ch. xxiii). Priors were buried in the abbey church (xxv) and bishops in the sanctuary (xxvii). (See DURHAM, DIOCESE OF.)

The Anglo-Saxon Rituale ecclesiœ, Dunelmensis is published (from the Manuscript at Durham) by the SURTEES SOCIETY (vol. X, 1840), and was re-edited by SWEET in his Oldest English Texts (1885). The Ancient Monuments, Rites and Customs of the Monastical Church of Durham before the Suppression exists in a Manuscript of 1620 in the Cosin library at Durham (Manuscripts, B, II, 11) and in a Manuscript of 1656 belonging to Sir John LAWSON, Bart., of Brough Hall, Catterick (Fol., pp. 1–93). From these two texts the edition of the SURTEES SOCIETY has been printed (vol. CVII Rites of Durham, 1903). Other editions are: one curtailed and modernized by DAVIES (London, printed for W. Hensman in 1672); HUNTER, Durham Cathedral as it was before the dissolution of the monasteries (Durham, by J. ROSS for Mrs. Waghorn, 1733; reprinted, Durham, 1733); and SANDERSON, The Antiquities of the Abbey or Cathedral Church of Durham (Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1767). The Durham Obituary Roll (c. 1468) was edited by RAINE for the Surtees Society (vol. XXXI, 1856) and the Liber Vitœ, Ecclesiœ, Dunelmensis, from a ninth-century MANUSCRIPT, by STEVENSON for the same society (vol. XIII, 1841). The Surtees Society Catalogue (pp. 38, 115) gives a Durham Canon Missœ, bound up with a psalter, hymnary, and journal, of 1391 and 1416. Part of the Missal of the fourteenth century in the British Museum (Harl. 5289) is printed in vol. CVII of the Surtees Society (pp. 172–191). Occasional references to the Durham Rite will be found in ROCK, Church of our Fathers, ed. HART AND FRERE (4 vols., London, 1904). and in WORDSWORTH AND LITTLEDALE, The Old Service-books of the English Church (London, 1904).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE.

School of Durrow

(Irish Dairmagh, Plain of the Oaks)

The School of Durrow is delightfully situated in the King’s County, a few miles from the town of Tullamore. St. Columba, who loved to build in close proximity to oak-groves, because of their natural beauty, as well as perhaps to divest them of their Druidic associations, found here, as in Derry, a site just after his heart. It was freely given to him by Aedh, son of Brendan, lord of the soil, in 553, and the saint lost no time in founding his monastery, which, with more or less constant personal supervision, he ruled till 563. When, in that year, either as a matter of penance, or as Adamnan says, “of choice for Christ’s sake,” he became an exile in the wilds of Scotland, he appointed a most estimable monk, Cormac Ua Liathain, to take his place. But owing to the jealousies that existed between the northern and the southern tribes, especially on the borderland, Cormac found it impossible to retain the office of prior, and so he fled from the monastery, leaving in charge a first cousin of Columba, Laisren by name, who, acceptable to both sides, governed the institution with conspicuous success. Durrow, during Columba’s life and for centuries after his death, was a famous school, at one time being esteemed second to none in the country. The Venerable Bede styles it Monasterium nobile in Hiberniâ, and, at a later period, Armagh and itself were called the “Universities of the West. It will be ever noted for the useful and admirable practice of copying manuscripts, especially of the Sacred Scriptures, which had become quite a fine art amongst the masters and disciples there. Columba himself, who was an expert scribe, is generally credited with having written with his own hand the incomparable copy of the Four Gospels now known as the “Book of Durrow.” It is a piece of the most exquisite workmanship, charming the mind as well as the eye with its intricate and highly ornamental details. An entry on the back of one of the folios of this remarkable book, which is now to be seen in Trinity College, Dublin, prays for a “remembrance of the scribe, Columba, who wrote this evangel in the space of twelve days”

Columba dearly loved Durrow. It held a place in his affections next to his own Derry, and while in Iona he manifested the tenderest interest in everything that concerned its welfare. When he was urging Cormac Ua Liathain to return to the monastery there, he recounted for him the manifold beauties of that “city devout, with its hundred crosses, without blemish, and without transgression,” and added, “I pledge thee my unerring word, which may not be impugned, that death is better in reproachless Erin than life forever in Alba,” Durrow, like Clonard, Derry, and the rest, was frequently ravaged by the Danish invaders, but its complete devastation was left for the fierce Norman invader, Hugh de Lacy. In 1186 he began the building of a castle for himself out of the stones of the dismantled monastery, but the axe of an Irish labouring man cut him short in his unholy work. The church and the school are long since gone; not a stone of the original building may now be found. There are, however, still to be seen at Durrow a churchyard, probably marking the ancient site, a Celtic cross, and a holy well, which will serve to keep the name and the fame of St. Columba fresh in the minds of the people forever.

ADAMNAN, Life of Columba, ed. REEVES (Dublin, 1857); also bY FOWLER (London, 1905); Life in The Book of Lismore; HEALY, Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1890); GILBERT, Facsimiles of Irish National MSS.; WHITLEY STOKES in Anecdota Oxoniensia (Oxford, 1890).

JOHN HEALY

Duty

The definition of the term duty given by lexicographers is: “something that is due,” “obligatory service”; “something that one is bound to perform or to avoid.” In this sense we speak of a duty, duties; and, in general, the sum total of these duties is denoted by the abstract term in the singular. The word is also used to signify that unique factor of consciousness which is expressed in the foregoing definitions by “obligatory,” “bound,” “ought” by and “moral obligation.” Let us analyse this datum of consciousness. When, concerning a contemplated acts one forms the decision “I ought to do it,” the words express an intellectual judgment. But unlike speculative judgments, this one is felt to be not merely declaratory. Nor is it merely preferential; it asserts itself as imperative and magisterial. It is accompanied by a feeling impelling one, sometimes effectively, sometimes ineffectively to square his conduct with it. It presumes that there is a right way and a wrong way open, and that the right is better or more worthy than the wrong. All moral judgments of this kind are particular applications of a universal judgment which is postulated in each one of them: right is to be done; wrong is to be avoided. Another phenomenon of our moral consciousness is that we are tuted a hierarchical order among our feelings, appetites, and desires. We instinctively feel, for example, that the emotion of reverence is higher and nobler than the sense of humour; that it is more worthy of us as rational beings to find satisfaction in a noble drama than in watching a dog-fight; that the sentiment of benevolence is superior to that of selfishness. Furthermore we are conscious that, unless it has been weakened or atrophied by neglect, the sentiment attending moral judgments asserts itself as the highest of all; awakens in us the feeling of reverence; and demands that all other sentiments and desires, as motives of action, shall be reduced to subordination to the mural judgment. When action is conformed to this demand, there arises a feeling of self-approbation while an opposite course is followed by a feeling of self-reproach. Starting from this analysis we may expose the theory of duty according to Catholic ethics.

DUTY IN CATHOLIC ETHICS

The path of activity proper and congenial to every being is fixed and dictated by the nature which the being possesses. The cosmic order which pervades all the non-human universe is predetermined in the natures of the innumerable variety of things which make up the universe. For man, too, the course of action proper to him is indicated by the constitution of his nature. A great part of his activity is like the entire movements of the non-human world, under the iron grip of determinism; there are large classes of vital functions, over which he has no volitional control; and his body is subject to the physical laws of matter. But, unlike all the lower world, he is himself the master of his action over a wide range of life which we know as conduct. He is free to choose between two opposite courses; he can elect, in circumstances inumerable, to do or not to do; to do this action, or to do that other which is incompatible with it. Does then, his nature furnish no index for conduct? Is every form of conduct equally congenial and equally indifferent to human nature? By no means. His nature indicates the line of action which is proper, and the line which is abhorrent to it. This demand of nature is delivered partly in that hierarchical order which exists in our feelings and desires as motives of action partly through the reflective reason which decides what form of action is consonant with the dignity of a rational being, comprehensively, and with immediate practical application to actions in those moral judgments involving the “ought.” This function of reason, aided thus by good will and practical experience, we call conscience (q.v.).

We have now reached the first strand of the bond which we know as moral obligation, or duty. Duty is a debt owed to the rational nature of which the spokesman and representative is conscience, which imperatively calls for the satisfaction of the claim. But is this the be-all and the end-all of duty? The idea of duty, of indebtedness, involves another self or person to whom the debt is due. Conscience is not another self, it is an element of one’s own personality. How can one be said, except through a figure of speech, to be indebted to oneself? Here we must take into consideration another characteristic of conscience. It is that conscience in a dim, undefinable, but very real way, seems to set itself over against the rest of our personality. Its intimations awake, as no other exercise of our reason does, feelings of awe, reverence, love, fear, shame, such as are called forth in us by other persons, and by persons only. The universality of this experience is testified to by the expressions men commonly employ when speaking of conscience; they call it a voice, a judge, they say that they must answer to conscience for their conduct. Their attitude towards it is as to something not completely identical with themselves; its whole genesis is not to be accounted for by describing it as one function of life. It is the effect of education and training, some say. Certainly education and training may do a great deal to develop this impression that in conscience there is another self implicated beyond ourselves. But the quickness with which the child responds to its instructor or educator on this point proves that he feels within himself something which confirms his teacher’s lesson. Ethical philosophers and conspicuously among them Newman, have argued that to him who listens reverently and obediently to the dictates of conscience, they inevitably reveal themselves as emanating, originally, from “a Supreme Governor, a Judge, holy, just, powerful, all-seeing, retributive.” If, however, we accept Newman’s view as universally true, we cannot easily admit that, as is generally asserted and believed, many men obey conscience and love righteousness who nevertheless, do not believe in a personal, moral ruler of the universe. Why may not the most uncomprimising theist admit that the moral guide which the Creator has implanted in our nature is powerful enough successfully to discharge its function at least in occasional cases, without fully unfolding its implications? One of the leading Unitarian moralists has eloquently expressed this opinion.

The profound sense of the authority and even sacredness of the moral law is often conspicuous among men whose thoughts apparently never turn to superhuman things, but who are penetrated by a secret worship of honour, truth and right. Were this noble state of mind brought out of its impulsive state and made to unfold its implicit contents, it would indeed reveal a source higher than human nature for the august authority of righteousness. But it is undeniable that that authority may be felt where it is not seen—felt as if it were the mandate of a Perfect Will, while yet there is no overt recognition of such a Will: i.e., conscience may act as human, before it is discovered to be divine. To the agent himself its whole history may seem to lie in his own personality and his visible social relations; and it shall nevertheless serve as his oracle, though it be hid from him Who it is that utters it. (Martineau, A Study of Religion, Introduc., p. 21.)

Nevertheless it must be admitted that such persons are comparatively few; and they, too, testify to the implication of another self in the intimations of consciousness; for they, as Ladd says

personify the conception of the sum-total of ethical obligations, they are fain to spell the words with capitals and swear allegiance to this purely abstract conception. They hypostatize and deify an abstraction as though it were itself existent and divine. (Ladd, Philosophy of Conduct, p. 385.)

The doctrine that conscience is autonomous, independent, sovereign, a law-giver deriving its authority from no higher source, will neither, logically speaking, satisfy the idea of duty, nor sufficiently safeguard morality. One cannot, after all, owe a debt to himself, he cannot lay a command on himself. If moral judgments can claim no higher origin than one’s own reason, then under close, severe inspection they must be considered as merely preferential. The portentous magisterial tone in which conscience speaks is a mere delusion; it can show no warrant or title to the authority which it pretends to exercise when, under stress of temptation, a man who believes in no higher legislator than conscience, finds arising in his mind the inevitable question, Why am I bound to obey my conscience when my desires run in another direction? he is perilously tempted to adjust his moral code to his inclinations; and the device of spelling duty with a capital will prove but a slender support to it against the attack of passion. Reason solves the problem of duty, and vindicates the sanctity of the law of righteousness by tracing them to their source in God. As the cosmic order is a product and expression of the Divine Will so, likewise, the moral law which is expressed on the rational nature. God wills that we shape our free action or conduct to that norm. Reason recognizing our dependence on the Creator, and acknowledging His ineffable majesty, power, goodness, and sanctity, teaches us that we owe Him love, reverence, obedience, service, and, consequently, we owe it to Him to observe that law which He has implanted within us as the ideal of conduct. This is our first and all-comprehensive duty in which all other duties have their root. In the light of this truth conscience explains itself, and is transfigured. It is the accredited representative of the Eternal; He is the original Imponent of moral obligation; and disobedience to conscience is disobedience to Him. Infraction of the moral law is not merely a violence done to our rational nature; it is also an offence to God, and this aspect of its malice is designated by calling it sin. The sanctions of conscience, self-approbation, and self-reproach, are reinforced by the supreme sanction, which, if one may use the expression, acts automatically. It consists in this, that by obedience to the law we reach our perfection, and compass our supreme good; while, on the other hand the transgressor condemns himself to miss that good in the attainment of which alone lies the happiness that is incorruptible. To obviate a possible misapprehension it may be remarked here that the distinction between right and wrong hangs not upon any arbitrary decree of the Divine Will. Right is right and wrong is wrong because the prototype of the created order, of which the moral law forms a part, is the Divine Nature itself the ultimate ground of of all truth intellectual and and moral.

ERRONEOUS ETHICS

We have already touched upon the main weakness of the Kantian theory, which is to treat conscience as autonomous. Another mistake of Kant is that in his system duty and right are made coterminous. A moment’s reflection is sufficient to perceive that this is an error. There are many conceivable good actions which one can do, and which it would be highly praiseworthy to perform, yet which no reasonable person, however rigorous his ideal of conduct might be would say one is bound to perform. Duty and right are two concentric circles. The inner one, duty, embraces all that is to be observed under penalty of failing to live rationally. The outer contains the inner, but, stretching far beyond, permits an indefinite extension to the paths of virtue that lead to consummate righteousness and sanctity. Every philosophic system which embraces as one of its tenets the doctrine of determinism thereby commits itself to the denial of the existence of moral obligation. Duty implies that the subject of it possesses the power to observe the law, or to disobey, and the power to choose between these alternatives what reproach can a determinist mentor logically address to one who has committed a wrong action? “You ought not to have done so”? The culprit can reply: “But you have taught me that free will is a delusion; that no one can act otherwise than he does. So, under the circumstances in which I found myself, it was impossible for me to refrain from the notion which you condemn. What, then, can you mean by saying that I ought not to have meted as I did? You reproach me; as well reproach a tiger for having eaten his man or a volcano for having ruined a village.”

With regard to the existence of duty every form of pantheism, or monism, logically finds itself in the camp of determinism. When man is looked upon as one with the Infinite his actions are not really his own, but belong properly to the Universal Being. The part assigned to him in his activities, is similar to that played by a carbon burner in relation to the electric current generated by a dynamo. The Divine power passing through him clothes itself with only a seeming individuality, while the whole course of action, the direction which it takes, and the results in which it culminates, belong to the Supreme Being. If this were true, then lying, debauchery, theft, murder were equally as worthy as truthfulness chastity, honesty, benevolence; for all would be equally manifestations of the one universal Divinity. Then a classification of conduct into two opposite categories might still be made from the standpoint of results; but the idea of moral worth, which is the very core of the moral life and the first postulate of duty, would have vanished. Hedonism of every shade—epicurean, utilitarian, egoistic, altruistic, evolutionary—which builds on one or another form of the “greatest happiness” principle and makes pleasure and pain in discriminating norm of right and wrong, is unable to vindicate any authority for duty, or even to acknowledge the existence of moral obligation. No combination of impulses, if they are estimated from the merely biological or purely empirical standpoint, can, by any juggling of words, be converted into a moral hierarchy. The hedonist is doomed to find all his endeavour to establish the basis of the moral order terminate in “is,” but never in “ought,” in a fact, but never in an ideal. Lecky has neatly summed up the hedonist solution of the problem of duty: “All that is meant by saying we ought to do an action is that if we do not do it we shall suffer.”

Pleasure, say the epicurean and the egoist, is the only motive of action; and actions are good or bad accordingly as they produce a surplus of pleasure over the pain, or contribute to or diminish welfare. Then, we ask, must I always pursue what seems to me the most pleasurable or the most remunerative? If the answer is yes, we are again landed in determinism. If the reply is that I can choose, but that I ought to choose what produces the most happiness, then I ask, why ought I to choose the course which produces most happiness or pleasure if I prefer to do otherwise? To this question the epicurean and the egoist have no answer. Besides, the most pleasurable conduct may be one that all reasonable men condemn as wrong, because it is injurious to some one else. Here the egoist is compelled to hand the difficulty over to the altruist. The latter endeavours to dispose of it by pointing out that the object of good conduct is not merely the agent’s own happiness, but that of everybody concerned. But again, why am I bound to take into account the welfare of others? and the altruist is silent. The evolutionist of the Spencerian type intervenes with a ponderous theory that in gauging the measure in which actions produce welfare or diminish it not merely the immediate, but also and more especially, the remote results must be considered. He then proceeds to show that, as an hereditary consequence of our ancestors’ experience that remote results are more important than immediate, we have come to fancy that remote results have a certain authoritativeness. Also, from unpleasant experiences of our ancestors, we inherit a tendency, when thinking of injurious actions, to think too of the external penalties which were attached to such actions. These two elements blending into one, give rise, we are told, to the feeling of moral obligation. So the common conviction that moral obligation has really any binding authority is a mere delusion. Spencer is honest enough to draw the inevitable corollary of the doctrine which is that our sense of duty and moral obligation is transitory and defined to disappear. Ethical writers of the “independent morality” schools have devised a beautifully simple way of escaping from the embarrassment of accounting for the validity of moral obligation. They ignore the subject altogether and refer the disappointed inquirer to the metaphysician. Ethics, they blandly declare, is a descriptive, not a normative science; hence that imposing array of works professing to treat scientifically of morals, yet calmly ignoring the pivotal factor of the moral life.

HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE IDEA OF DUTY

To trace the development of the concept of duty would be to review the history of the human race. Even in the lowest races there is to be found some moral code, however, crude and erroneous. Another universal fact is that the race has, everywhere and always, placed morals under a religious or quasi-religious, sanction. The savage, in a measure corresponding to his crude moral and intellectual development, witnesses to this universal impulse by observing inumerable customs because he believes them to have some sanction higher than that of his fellow tribesmen or their chief. The great nations of antiquity, Chinese, Chaldean, Babylonlan, Egyptian, saw in their deities the source or sanction of their moral codes—at least until the religious and the moral ideal became simultaneously corrupted. In Greece and Rome, likewise religion and morals were intimately associated, until religion proved false to its trust. The same phenomenon is found in the Aryan race of India and Persia, while the Semitic peoples, especially the Jews, always continued to look to religion for the reason of their moral codes. When classic pagannism had introduced among the gods the vices of men, the ancient tradition continued to be vindicated by the poets, and by some of the philosophers. The magnificent testimonies of the Greek tragic poets, of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero to the superhuman origin of the moral law and duty need not be quoted here. But when religious tradition lost its force and philosophy became the guardian of morality a conflict of rival schools, none ot which possessed sufficient authority to make its tenets prevail with the mass of the people, was the inevitable result; and as religious faith declined, the tendency to find a non-religious basis for duty became more pronounced. The consequence was that the idea of duty faded, and systems arose, which, like our present day “independent morality,” had no place for moral obligation.

The unity of the moral and religious ideal was restored and rendered perfect by Christianity. The Gospel vindicated the the Divine origin of duty, and declared that its fulfilment constituted the very essence of religion. This idea has been the chief motor force to raise the Western world out of the moral chaos into which denying paganism had dragged it. The doctrine that every man is an immortal being created by God to be united with Himself in an endless existence, provided that he observe the law of righteousness, in which God’s will is expressed, sets forth the dignity of man and the sacredness of duty in their full nobility. The wickedness of moral delinquency reveals itself in this, that it is a sin against the Most High—an idea scarcely known to antiquity outside the Hebrew people. The Christian religion brought out more clearly and taught with the authority of God, the code of the natural law, much of which unaided reason developed only in hesitating accents and without the anthority necessary to impose it effectively as obligatory on all. The Christian was taught that the fulfilment of duty is the one supreme concern of life to which all other interests must be made to bow and that its fulfilment is enforced by the most trementrous sanctions conceivable. The Gospel gave a satisfactory solution to the anomaly which had perplexed philosophers and misled them to erroneous doctrines concerning the meaning of the moral life. How can virtue be man’s perfection, good, and end, when the fulfilment of duty means in many cases, the frustration of many natural desires and wants? The history of duty, replies the Christian, lies not all within the confines of earthly life; its ultimate goal is beyond the grave. The Christian doctrine of the Fatherhood of God and the sonship of man leads to a clearer perception of the chief duties and of their importance. Human life is seen to be a sacred, inviolable thing in ourselves and in others; woman the equal, not the slave of man; the family is ordained of God, and its cornerstone is monogamous marriage. The State, too, is placed on a firmer basis, since Christian doctrine teaches that it draws the warrant of its existence not from force, or a more consensus of human wills, but from God. Finally, the Christian law of love correlates the outer circle of righteousness with the inner one of strict duty. Love of God becomes the adequate motive for striving after the highest personal sanctity; love of our neighbour for the widest exercise of benevolence far beyond the limits of strict duty. In the person of the Master, Christianity offers to us the lawless Exemplar of the moral ideal, the perfect conformity of will and action to the Divine Will. His example has proved potent enough to inspire with heroic loyalty to duty “the millions who countless and nameless, the stern hard path have trod.” The moral standards of our civilization have been developed and maintained by the efficiency of the Christian idea of duty. Contemporary conditions furnish unmistakable indications that these standard become debased and discredited when they are torn from the ground whence they sprang.

DUTIES

The obligation of living according to our rational nature is the parent of all particular duties. These are generally divided into three groups: (1) duties to God, (2) duties towards ourselves, and (3) duties to others.

(1) To God, the Supreme Master of the universe, our Creator, the All Holy, All Good, we owe honour, service, obedience, and love. These duties are comprehended under the general term religion. Since He is Truth itself, we owe it to Him to believe whatever He has revealed to us in a supernatural manner; to worship Him in the way which in revelation, He has taught us is most pleasing to Him; and to obey the authority which He has constituted (see CHURCH). Reverence due to Him forbids all profanity and blasphemy of Him or whatever is sacred to Him. Lying is an offence against His Divine nature, which is Truth itself. These generic duties cover all the specific duties that we owe to God, and embrace, besides, those duties which devolve upon us as members of the Catholic Church.

(2) Our duties towards ourselves may all be included under one principle: life, the goods of person, mental and physical, have been given to us in trust, with the obligation of using them to obtain our supreme good and end. Hence we may not destroy them, or abuse them as if we were independent master of them. Therefore suicide, abuse of our faculties, mental or physical, exposing our life or health to danger without a reasonable motive, are prohibited; as also are all actions incompatible with the reverence that we owe to our moral nature. We are bound to strive for the development of our intellect and for temporal goods as far as these are necessary to the fulfilment of the moral law. As duty is a debt to some one other than ourselves, we cannot, strictly speaking, use the term duties to ourselves. They are due to God; they regard ourselves.

(3) All our duties towards others are implicitly contained in Christian precept: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” God wills the welfare of all men; hence the obligation of making His will the rule of mine binds me to will their welfare, and to order my conduct towards them with a due respect to the rational nature which they possess, and to the obligations which that nature imposes on them. The application of this principle gives birth to duties towards the minds and wills of others (prohibition of scandal and lying); to the lives of others (prohibition of murder, etc.); to their good reputation (prohibition of insult, detraction, or defamation of character).

As material goods are necessary to us in order to live according to the rational law, evidently God in imposing moral obligation wills also that we have at our disposal the means necessary to fulfil our duty. Hence arises that moral control over things which called a fight. The needs of a moral life requite that some things should be permanently under our control; hence the rights of ownership. Now a right in one person is nugatory unless others are bound to respect it. So to every right there is a corresponding duty.

Thus far we have sketched the line of duty incumbent on each one towards others as individuals. Besides these there are social duties. The primary society, the family, which is the unit of civil society, has its foundation in our nature; and the relations which constitute it give rise to two groups of rights and correlative duties—conjugal and parental. Besides the family, a wider, broader, association of man with his fellows is needed, generally speaking, in order that he may develop his life with all its needs and potencies, in accordance with the dictates of reason. God has intended man to live in civil society, and man becomes the subject of duties and rights with regard to the society of which he is a member. The society, too, acquires a moral unity or personality which is also the by the society to impose laws which constitute a binding obligation. This right, called authority, is derived from the natural law, ultimately from God. For, since He wills civil society as a means for the due development of human nature, He wills that authority without which it cannot exist. As the lower and animals cannot be the subject of rights we do not owe them any duties; but we owe duties to God in their regard. (see ETHICS; LAW; OBLIGATIONS).

JAMES J. FOX.

Jean Duvergier de Hauranne

(Or DU VERGER), JEAN; also called SAINTCYRAN from an abbey he held in commendam).

One of the authors of Jansenism, b. at Bayonne, France, 1581; d. in Paris, 1643. After studying the humanities in his native place, and philosophy at the Sorbonne, he went to Louvain, not to the university but to the Jesuit college, where he graduated, 1604, with a brilliant thesis admired by Justus Lipsius. His acquaintance with the future theologian of the Jansenist sect, Cornelius Jansen (Jansenius), a young disciple of the Baianist Jacques Janson, probably began at Louvain. In 1605 the two were in Paris, attending together the lessons of the Gallican, Edmond Richer, and studying Christian antiquity with a view to restoring it to its place of honour, usurped, as they claimed, by Scholasticism. These studies of patristic and especially Augustinian literature were pursued with incredible energy for wellnigh twelve years, at Paris, till 1611, and then at Campiprat (Cantipré), the home of Hauranne, under the protection of Bertrand d’Eschaux, Bishop of Bayonne, who made Duvergier canon of his cathedral, and Jansen principal of a newly-founded college. Owing, no doubt, to the translation of d’Eschaux from Bayonne to Tours, the two friends left Bayonne in 1617, Jansen returning to Louvain and Duvergier going to Poitiers where Bishop de la Rocheposay, a disciple of Scaliger and an enthusiastic humanist, received him as a friend, appointed him to a canonry and the priory of Bonneville, and later, 1620, resigned in his behalf the Abbey of Saint-Cyran-en-Brenne. The new commendatory prelate resided little in his abbey. In 1622 he returned definitively to Paris, the metropolis affording him better opportunities to further his plans. During the years 1617–1635 an assiduous correspondence was kept up between Duvergier and Jansen, of which there remain only “Lettres de Jansénius à Duverger de Hauranne,” seized at the time of Saint-Cyran’s incarceration. These letters, wherein conventional ciphers are frequently used, constantly mention the affaire principale, projet, cabale, that is, first and foremost, the composition of the “Augustinus” by Jansen, Saint-Cyran employing himself to enlist patrons for the so-called Augustinian system (see ).

For greater security the two innovators occasionally met to discuss the progress of their joint work. One of these meetings probably gave rise to the much-debated Projet de Bourg-Fontaine. In his “Relation juridique de ce qui s’est passé à Poitiers touchant la nouvelle doctrine des Jansénistes” (Poitiers, 1654), Filleau stated on the authority of one of the conspirators then repentant, that six persons had secretly met in 1621 at the chartreuse of Bourg-Fontaine, near Paris, for the purpose of overthrowing Christianity and establishing deism in its stead. The names of the conspirators, only initialled by Filleau, were given in full by Bayle (Dict., s. v. “Arnauld”); that of SaintCyran heads the list. The Jansenists always protested against this story. Arnauld called it a “diabolical invention,” and Pascal ridiculed it in his “Seizième lettre à un provincial.” The Jesuit Father Souvage’s argument in his “Réalité du projet de Bourg-Fontaine démontrée par l’exécution” (Paris, 1755) was refuted by D. Clémencet in “La verité et l’innocence victorieuses de la calomnie ou huit lettres sur le projet de Bourg-Fountaine” (Paris, 1758). Although Clémencet’s book was burned by order of the Parliament of Paris, still it never was answered. Guizot’s remark that “the adepts of Jansenism passed insensibly from the tenets of Saint-Cyran and Montgeron to atheism and the worship of reason” (Civilisation en Europe, Lec. xii) may apply to some of the later Jansenists, but the charge of rationalism is obviously untenable when brought against the Jansenists of the first generation. Stripped of unsupported details and deductions, Filleau’s narrative and Sauvage’s arguments show, what is borne out by the letters of Jansenius and other documents of the time, a covert yet definite purpose, as early as 1621, to deeply modify the dogmas, moral practices, and constitution of the Church, St. Augustine being made responsible for such changes.

As noticed above, Duvergier’s share was to win high influence in favour of the religious revolution. While at Poitiers he had met Richelieu, de Condren, and Arnauld d’Andilly. At Paris he sought out such men as Vincent de Paul, founder of the Congregation of the Mission; Olier, founder of Saint-Sulpice; Bérulle, superior of the French Oratory; Tarisse, superior of Saint-Nicholas, and many more. It cannot be denied that these men were at first attracted by Saint-Cyran’s affected asceticism, but when they understood his true aim they recoiled from him. The terse expression applied in the Roman Breviary to St. Vincent de Paul, Sensit simul et exhorruit (he shuddered on hearing), could be said of them all, with the exception of Bérulle and Arnauld d’Andilly. Bérulle never shared the errors of Duvergier and Jansen, but, being indebted to these two for the establishment of the French Oratory in the Netherlands, he failed to detect their real purpose and gave them a hold on his order which they never released. Owing to his Gallicanism and strong prejudices against the Jesuits, Arnauld d’Andilly fell an easy prey to Saint-Cyran’s wiles and declamations, and even brought with him the whole Arnauld family, along with the Bernardine nuns of Port-Royal (q. v.). Adroitly and persistently Saint-Cyran pushed his way into this celebrated monastery, till, in 1636, he became its sole director. Not only were his innovations and rigorism eagerly accepted by the nuns, but Port-Royal became the centre of Jansenism, drawing a host of ecclesiastics, lawyers, writers, etc., all vying with one another to place themselves under the “spiritual domination” of the Abbé de Saint-Cyran. His incredible success and nefarious work are well described by M. Sépet (in Rev. des quest. hist., xlv, 534): “Taking advantage of the moral enthusiasm aroused by the religious awakening, an ardent and sombre sectarian, Saint-Cyran undertook to win souls over for the proud doctrine of absolute predestination to either salvation or damnation, also to an excessive rigorism to which the initiated easily accommodated themselves, while simple-hearted folk like Pascal risked life and reason in its practice.”

Saint-Cyran was at the summit of his influence when an order of Richelieu sent him (1638) to the donjon of Vincennes. His incarceration has been variously explained both by friends and enemies. Richelieu gave the true reason when he said: “Saint-Cyran is more dangerous than six armies. . . . If Luther and Calvin had been arrrested when they began to dogmatize, much trouble would have been spared the nations.” (See Marandé, “Inconvénients d’etat procédant du Jansénisme,” Paris, 1653.) Jansenist writers unduly insist on the rigour of Saint-Cyran’s captivity. As a matter of fact, he was given liberty enough to receive his friends, to read the first printed copy of “Augustinus,” to collaborate with Antoine Arnauld on the “Fréquente Communion,” published in 1643, to write his “Théologie familière” and the voluminous “Lettres chrétiennes et spirituelles,” and even to make new recruits. In 1643, after Richelieu’s death, Saint-Cyran recovered his liberty and returned in triumph to Port-Royal. The triumph, however, was clouded by the announcement that the “Augustinus” had been condemned at Rome. When the author heard of the condemnation he angrily protested that “Rome was going too far and ought to be taught a lesson”; a stroke of apoplexy, however, carried him off before he could execute his threat. Pierre de Pons, parish priest of Saint-Jacques du Haut-Pas, in a note quoted by Rapin (Hist. du Jans., p. 305), testified that Saint-Cyran died while being anointed, but had asked for neither absolution nor Viaticum, notwithstanding a certificate to the contrary, delivered by Mulsey, when importuned and bribed by the Jansenists.

Saint-Cyran was a prolific writer. His manuscripts, seized at the time of his arrest, formed no less than thirty-two thick folios. Amid the numerous writings ascribed to him by the “Dictionnaire des livres Jansénistes” (Antwerp, 1755), it is difficult to distinguish his genuine works, for he generally wrote anonymously, or under a false name, or in collaboration with others. Apart from two frivolous pamphlets written by Duvergier in his youth, “Question royale” (Paris, 1609), an apology for suicide under certain circumstances, and “Apologie pour . . . de la Rocheposay” (Poitiers, 1615), a thesis intended to show that bishops have a right to use arms, his principal works are: (1) “Somme des fautes . . . du P. Garasse” (Paris, 1626), with several additional pamphlets in support of it; the book itself was a vile attack on the Jesuits on occasion of a somewhat incautious book written by one of them, the heroic Father Garasse; (2) “Petrus Aurelius de hierarchiâ ecclesiasticâ” (Paris, 1631), written in collaboration with Duvergier’s nephew, Barcos, and others. This book purports to be a defence of Richard Smith, vicar Apostolic in England, against the alleged machinations of the English Jesuits; in fact it aims at winning over to the Jansenist error the Catholic hierarchy whose prerogatives it exaggerates to the detriment of the Roman See. The scientific portion of it is taken from the “De republicâ christianâ” (1617) of the apostate Marc’ Antonio de Dominis; the rest consists mainly of abuse of the Jesuits. By a singular inconsistency, SaintCyran bases the episcopal power not so much on the Sacrament of Orders as on the interior spirit. The Evêque intérieur, remarks Sainte-Beuve, is simply the Directeur, a name and office much coveted by Saint-Cyran. The clergy of France, taken by surprise, paid the expenses of the book but later ordered Sainte-Marthe’s eulogy of Duvergier expunged from the “Gallia Christiana.” (3) “Chapelet secret du très Saint-Sacrement” (Paris, 1632), a series of Quietist remarks on the attributes of Christ. This booklet, having become a kind of storm-centre, was prudently repudiated by Saint-Cyran who nevertheless wrote several tracts in its defence. (4) “Théologie familière” (Paris, 1642), a series of theologico-devotional tracts, the Jansenists’ catechism, teeming with errors on nearly every subject, condemned by the Holy Office, 23 April, 1654. (5) “Lettres chrétiennes et spirituelles” (Paris, 1645); another series (Paris, 1744). Bossuet calls them dry and overwrought (spiritualité sèche et alambiquée). With the “Théologie familière” they exhibit a fair specimen of Saint-Cyran’s galimatias and obscure asceticism. Saint-Cyran’s writings were collected in his “Œuvres” (Lyons, 1679).

Besides a mass of unreliable Jansenist memoirs, e.g. by LANCELOT (Utrecht, 1738), DU FOSSÉ (Utrecht, 1739), ARNAULD D’ANDILLY (Utrecht, 1751), etc., see Lettres de C. Jansénius á J. DuVerger de Hauranne, ed. GERBERON (Cologne, 1703); Saint-Cyran in Diction. des Jansénistes, ed. MIGNE (Paris, 1847); RAPIN Hist. du Jansénisme (Paris, 1865); IDEM, Mémoires (Paris, 1865); SAINTEBEUVE, Port- Royal (Paris, 1871), corrected by FUZET, Les Jansénistes et leur dernier historien Sainte- Beuve (Paris, 1876); JUNGMANN, De Jansenismo in Dissert. selectæ in hist. eccl. (Bruges, 1886), VI, 217; DALGAIRNS, Introduction to Devotion oto the Sacred Heart (London, 1853); KROLL, Causes of the Jansenist Heresy in Am. Cath. Quart. Rev., 1885; MATHIEU, Jansénius et SaintCyran in Pages d’histoire: Renaissance et Réforme (Paris, 1905); MAYNARD, Vie de Saint Vincent de Paul; FAILLON, Vie de M. Olier. For a lengthy bibliography see BRUNIETIÈRE, Hist. de la litt. française (Paris, 1899).

J.F. SOLLIER

Ludger Duvernay

A French-Canadian journalist and patriot, born at Verchères, Quebec, 22 January, 1799; died 28 November, 1852. A printer by trade, he founded ad edited successively at Three Rivers, Quebec, “La Gazette des Trois-Rivières”: (1817), “Le Constitutionnel” (1823), and “L’Argus” (1826). In 1827, with A. N. Morin, he founded in Montreal “La Minerve,” one of the prominent papers of French Canada. He was imprisoned (1832) for protesting with Dr. Daniel Tracey, editor of the “Vindicator,” against the arbitrariness of the Legislative Council. A medal was presented him in acknowledgment of his devotedness to the public good. Duvernay’s chief title to fame is the foundation of the Society of St. John the Baptist (1834). The choice of the Precursor for the patron saint of the French-Canadians accorded with a time-honored tradition mentioned in the Jesuit “Relations” (1646) as contemporary with the beginning of New France and inherited from the mother country. The maple leaf, now accepted by Canadians of every origin, was chosen as the national emblem and the motto adopted by Duvernay was “Notre langue, nos institutions et nos lois.” Elected for Lachenaie in 1837, he was forced to leave the country for participating in the Canadian Rebellions, and he took up his residence at Burlington, Vermont, where he founded “Le Patriote Canadien” (1849). The union of the two Canadas having been voted by the British Parliament and the principle of representative government adopted, peace was restored and political exiles were allowed to return. Duvernay began again the publication of “La Minerve,” in which he extolled the introduction of responsible government, and criticized the Act of Union destined, by its authors, to absorb Lower Canada.

LIONEL LINDSAY

Antoon Van Dyck

Dyck, Antoon (Antonis), Van, usually known as Sir Anthony Van Dyke, Flemish portrait-painter, b. at Antwerp, 22 March, 1599; d. in London, 9 December, 1641. This great painter was the seventh child of a family of twelve, being the son of Frans Van Dyck, merchant in silk, linen, and kindred materials, and of Maria, daughter of Dirk Cuypers and Catherina Conincx. While still a boy he was placed, on the advice of Jan Brueghel, as a pupil in the studio of Hendrick Van Balen, who had been a pupil of Rubens. The young artist’s development as a painter was rapid, for it is recorded that at the age of fourteen he painted a portrait of an old man, and a lawsuit in 1660 revealed the fact that he had also produced when quite a youth a series of heads exceedingly well painted. A proof of his skill is the fact that in 1618, before he was twenty, he was admitted to the freedom of the guild of St. Luke in Antwerp, an unusual distinction for a youthful painter. The tradition that Van Dyck was apprenticed to Rubens or was ever his pupil must be dismissed. Investigations have proved that he was regarded as a master in his art when he was introduced to the studio of Rubens. Here Van Dyck made one of the group of young men who assisted the master in his decorative works, which it would have been quite impossible for him to complete by himself.

In 1620, at the request of the Countess of Arundel, Van Dyck appears to have come to England and to have received commissions from James I for which he was paid in February, 1621. After executing these orders he returned to Antwerp and then determined to visit Italy, leaving in October, 1621, and remaining abroad for five years. He spent some time at Genoa, moved on to Rome, and then visited Florence; from here he went to Bologna, and later by way of Mantua to Venice. After this he was at Milan and finally in 1623 in Rome. The records of this journey remain in the famous “Chatsworth Sketch Book.” His life in Rome was unsatisfactory, for he made many enemies, and soon left the Eternal City and settled in Genoa, where he was exceedingly popular. His portraits of the great nobility of Genoa rank among the finest in the world and form a magnificent and unrivalled series. In 1624 he visited Palermo, painting the portrait of Emmanuel of Savoy, Viceroy of Sicily, and some church pictures, but returned to Genoa and in 1626 left for Antwerp, probably on account of some complications with regard to the division of his father’s estate. He visited Aachen and is believed to have gone on to Paris, while tradition states that he made a second visit to England. However, nothing definite is known of his movements until 1630 when he was at The Hague, and shortly afterwards back in his native town. Another tradition, which speaks of the rivalry between Rubens and Van Dyck, has to be discredited. Mr. Lionel Cust and others have shown that the two painters were not only on terms of equality with regard to their art, but that a generous and cordial friendship existed between them.

In 1632 Van Dyck went again to England and was graciously received by Charles I. He appears to have passed into the king’s service immediately, as a warrant was issued on 21 May, 1632, for the payment of an allowance to him, and a residence given him in Blackfriars. He had also a summer residence in the palace of Eltham, was knighted on 5 July, presented with a chain and medal of great value, and granted a pension of £200 a year to be paid quarterly. From the moment of his arrival commenced his great success as a portrait painter in England. The king and queen sat to him frequently, and he was overwhelmed with commissions. In 1634–5 he received a pressing invitation to visit the court at Brussels and accepted it, but in 1635 he was back at Antwerp and in the same year returned to England, taking again his position as portrait-painter to Charles I and to Henrietta Maria. Of the king he painted no less than thirty-six portraits and about twenty-five of Queen Henrietta Maria, but perhaps the most beautiful works executed for the royal family were those in which he depicted the children of the royal pair. To this period belong the wonderful portraits of members of the English aristocracy to be found in so many of the great English houses. He prepared a scheme for decorating the walls of the banqueting-house at Whitehall, the sketches for which still exist, but the royal exchequer could not afford the work. In 1640 he decided to return to Antwerp. Rubens had died and Van Dyck was acknowledged the head of the Flemish School and entertained with great magnificence. He was disposed to settle permanently at Antwerp, but first went to Paris, desiring to obtain the commission to decorate the gallery of the Louvre. The work was, however, given to French artists and Van Dyck returned to London for a while, later on in the year, however, visiting Antwerp and Paris, and then coming back to London. When he arrived his health was in a critical condition, and despite the attention of the royal physician he died at his house in Blackfriars eight days after his wife had given birth to a daughter. He was buried in St. Paul’s Cathedral, and a monument was erected to his memory by order of the king, but the grave and monument perished with the cathedral in the great fire of 1666.

In portraiture Van Dyck is the greatest artist of Europe after Titian, and in works of decorative splendour perhaps only rivalled by Rubens. He was a man of luxurious and somewhat indolent habits, ambitious, proud, sensitive, and quick to take offence. In his portraits the elegance of the composition, the delicate expression of the heads, the truth and purity of his colouring, and the strong lifelike quality of expression give him the very highest position, and he is one of the few painters whom all critics have placed in the front rank. In a consideration of his art the brilliant and vigorous etchings must not be overlooked.

CUST, Anthony Van Dyck (London, 1900); IDEM, The Chatsworth Sketch-Book (London, 1902); IDEM, Van Dyck (London, 1903); DUPLESSIS, Eaux-fortes de Van Dyck (Paris, 1874); MICHIELS, Van Dyck et ses élèves (Paris, 1881); GUIFFREY, Antoine Van Dyck (Paris, 1882); LEMCKE, Anton Van Dyck (Leipzig, 1875); MUTHER, Modern Painting (London, 1905); MÜNTZ, Histoire de la peinture (Paris, 1881).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Robert Dymoke

Confessor of the Faith, date of birth uncertain; d. at Lincoln, England, 11 Sept., 1580. He was the son of Sir Edward Dymoke (d. 1566) of Scrivelsby, Lincolnshire, hereditary King’s Champion. In 1579 Dymoke received the martyr-priest, blessed Richard Kirkman, at Scrivelsby, and maintained him as schoolmaster to his sons. He was himself, at the time, an occasional conformist to the State-religion but was reconciled in 1580 either by Kirkman or by blessed Edmund Campion. In July, 1580, Dymoke and his wife, the Lady Bridget, eldest daughter and coheiress of Edward Clinton, Earl of Lincoln, were indicted for hearing Mass and for recusancy. Though he was quite helpless owing to paralysis, Dymoke was ordered by Bishop Cooper of Lincoln to be carried off to gaol, where he died, faithful to the end. He was much tormented in his last hours by the Protestant ministers who endeavoured to pervert him, and who, even when the dying man was half-unconscious, refused to leave him in peace. He left several children, his eldest son, Edward, being more than twenty-one years of age at the time of his father’s death.

BEDE CAMM

St. Dympna

Dympna (Dimpna), Saint, virgin and martyr. The earliest historical account of the veneration of St. Dymphna dates from the middle of the thirteenth century. Under Bishop Guy I of Cambrai (1238–47), Pierre, a canon of the church. of Saint Aubert at Cambrai, wrote a “Vita” of the saint, from which we learn that she had been venerated for many years in a church at Gheel (province of Antwerp, Belgium), which was devoted to her. The author expressly states that he has drawn his biography from oral tradition. According to the narrative Dymphna, the daughter of a pagan king of Ireland, became a Christian and was secretly baptized. After the death of her mother, who was of extraordinary beauty, her father desired to marry his own daughter, who was just as beautiful, but she fled with the priest Gerebernus and landed at Antwerp. Thence they went tot the village of Gheel, where there was a chapel of St. Martin, beside which they took up their abode. The messengers of her father however, discovered their whereabouts; the father betook himself thither and renewed his offer. Seeing that all was in vain, he commanded his servants to slay the priest, while he himself struck off the head of his daughter. The corpses were put in sacrophagi and entombed in a cave where they were found later. The body of St. Dymphna was buried in the church of Gheel, and the bones of St. Gerebernus were transferred to Kanten. This narrative is without any historical foundation, being merely avariation of the story of the king who wanted to marry his own daughter, a motif which appears frequently in popular legends. Hence we can conclude nothing from it as to the history of St. Dymphna and the time in which she lived. That she is identical with St. Damhnat of Ireland cannot be proved. There are at Gheel fragments of two simple ancient sarcophagi in which tradition says the bodies of Dymphna and Gerebernus were found. There is also a quadrangular brick, said to have been found in one of the sarcophagi, bearing two lines of letters read as DYMPNA. The discovery of this sarcophagus with the corpse and the brick was perhaps the origin of the veneration. In Christian art St. Dymphna is depicted with a sword in her hand and a fettered devil at her feet. Her feast is celebrated 15 May, under which date she is also found in the Roman martyrology.

From time immemorial, the saint was invoked as patroness against insanity. The Bollandists have published numerous accounts of miraculous cures, especially between 1604 and 1668. As a result, there has long been a colony for lunatics at Gheel; even now there are sometimes as many as fifteen hundred whose relatives invoke St. Dymphna for their cure. The insane are treated in a peculiar manner; it is only in the beginning that they are placed in an institution for observation; later they are given shelter in the homes of the inhabitants, take part in their agricultural labours, and are treated very kindly. They are watched without being conscious of it. The treatment produces good results. The old church of St. Dymphna in Gheel was destroyed by fire in 1489. The new church was consecrated in 1532 and is still standing. Every year on the feast of the saint and on the Tuesday after Pentecost numerous pilgrims visit her shrine. In Gheel there is also a fraternity under her name.

J.P. KIRSCH

Dynamism

Dynamism is a general name for a group of philosophical views concerning the nature of matter. However different they may be in other respects, all these views agree in making matter consist essentially of simple and indivisible units, substances, or forces. Dynamism is sometimes used to denote systems that admit not only matter and extension, but also determinations, tendencies, and forces intrinsic and essential to matter. More properly, however, it means exclusive systems that do away with the dualism of matter and force by reducing the former to the latter. Here we shall limit ourselves to this strict form of dynamism, first, indicating its chief advocates and its characteristic presentations, secondly, comparing these in order to see the points of agreement and of difference.

I. We have but a vague and incomplete knowledge of the doctrines held by the Pythagorean School, but it seems that they may rightly be considered as at least the forerunners of modern dynamism. From Aristotle’s “Metaphysics” we gather that the Pythagoreans, imbued with a mathematical spirit and accustomed to mathematical methods, came to look upon the principles (archai) of numbers as the principles of things themselves, to assert that the elements (stoicheia) of numbers were also the elements of reality, and that the whole heaven was a harmony and a number. Various geometrical figures are but different combinations of numbers, the unit being a point; from points are formed lines, from lines, surfaces, and from surfaces, solids; and geometrical figures are the very substance of things. Hence, finally, “physical bodies are composed of numbers.” Among the Arabian philosophers, the Mutacallimûn were atomists. The atom is the only substance and all atoms are perfectly identical in nature. The identity, however, is not of a positive, but of a merely negative character, for these primitive elements of matter are simple substances and nothing else. They have no determinations whatever, no weight, no shape, no quantity, no extension. The atom is an indivisible and simple substantial point, the necessary subject of all accidents or determinations, and incapable of existing without them.

Leibniz’s doctrine is a reaction against both the material mechanicism of Descartes and the substantial monism of Spinoza. The essence of matter cannot be extension. The laws of mechanics cannot themselves be understood without using the notion of force. Moreover, “a substance is a being capable of action,” and “what does not act does not deserve the name of substance.” Hence substance implies unity and individuality, and the real substance cannot be the “mate” atom (atome de matière). Having extension, such an atom is composed of parts and divisible without limit; it has no real unity. The elements which compose material substances are “formal” or “substantial” atoms (atomes de substance), simple and without parts. They are called monads. Bodies are “multitudes” and “aggregates,” and the simple substances are units and elements. As they have no parts, monads have “neither extension, nor shape, nor possible divisibility. They are the true atoms of nature, and, in a word, the elements of things.” Since it is impossible for two beings to be perfectly alike, every monad is different from every other. Monads have no external, but only an internal, activity, which is twofold: perception and appetition. All monads are, in various degrees, representations of the whole universe, but this representation or perception becomes clearly conscious (apperception), and is accompanied with attention, memory, and reflection, only in higher monads. Appetition is the activity of the internal principle by which the passage from one perception to another is effected. The relative perfection of the monads depends on the degree of clearness of their perceptions. Some unite to form an organism whose centre of unity is a higher monad or soul. This system is completed by the supposition of a pre-established harmony. The order and harmony of the world are the result not of an interaction between monads, but of a pre-arranged plan of the Creator who has endowed them with their power of internal evolution. In the main, Christian Wolff reproduced and systematized Leibniz’s theory.

According to Boscovich (q. v.) “the first elements of matter are points absolutely indivisible and without any extension. They are spread throughout an immense vacuum in such a way as to be always at some distance from one another. The distance may increase or decrease indefinitely, but can never disappear completely without a compenetration of the points themselves, for contact between them is impossible” (Theoria Philosophiæ Naturals, no. 7). Hence there can be no continuous extension. The elements are all homogeneous, and, by their numbers, distances, arrangements, activities, and relations produce the diversity of material substances. They have no perception and no appetition. According to their distances, they have a determination to diminish or to increase the interval that separates them. This very determination Boscovich calls force, attractive in the former case, repulsive in the latter. The law of these forces is the following: if the distance between them is infinitesimal, they are repulsive, and the more so in proportion as the distance is smaller; if the distance, although remaining always very small, is increased a little, the repulsive force becomes first less intense, then null, and at a still larger distance is changed into an attractive force. This attraction again, with the increase of distance, goes on augmenting, then diminishing, till it becomes again null, and changes into a repulsion, which, in turn, by the same gradual process becomes attraction. Such changes may be repeated several times, but only while the distance, though increasing, remains infinitesimal. At greater distances the force is exclusively attractive. To explain the interaction of the points, Boscovich had to admit an actio in distans; yet he also admits the possibility of a Divinely pre-established harmony and even of occasionalism.

In his pre-critical period, Kant admitted physical monads, that is, simple and indivisible substances. His later views may be summed up as follows: matter is divisible without limit, but not actually divided into separate atoms. Matter is what fills up a space, and to fill up a space is to defend it against any mobile which should try to penetrate it. Hence matter is essentially resistance and force. It is not impenetrable, in the absolute or mathematical sense of the Cartesians, but in a relative sense and in varying degrees; it may be compressed and condensed. There are two distinct forces, repulsion and attraction. The former is the primary constituent of matter, since by it other things are excluded from the space it occupies. It produces extension, and, without it, matter would be reduced to a geometrical point. However, attraction is also essential to the occupancy of an assignable space, for otherwise matter would be scattered without limit. Repulsion can act only by contact; attraction may also act at a distance. From these two forces Kant derives all the properties of matter. It must be remembered that this theory is an explanation of the phenomenon only, the noumenon being inaccessible to our mind. This idealistic feature was carried still further by the German Transcendentalists; among them Schelling proposes a view the main lines of which agree with that of Kant. In more recent times, Herbart, Lotze, von Hartmann, Renouvier, to mention only a few names among many, also hold dynamic theories modified by their special points of view and philosophical systems. To these may be added some Catholic philosophers, e. g. the Sulpician Branchereau, and the Jesuits Carbonnelle and Palmieri. Among scientists, Ampère, Cauchy, Faraday, and others are also in favour of dynamism. Faraday’s theory is substantially the same as that of Boscovich. That theory, namely, that “atoms . . . are mere centres of forces or powers, not particles of matter in which the powers themselves reside,” has “a great advantage over the more usual notion.” “A mind just entering on the subject may consider it difficult to think of the powers of matter independent of a separate something to be called the matter, but it is certainly far more difficult, and indeed impossible, to think of or imagine that matter independent of the powers. Now the powers we know and recognize in every phenomenon of the creation, the abstract matter in none; why, then, assume the existence of that of which we are ignorant, which we cannot conceive, and for which there is no philosophical necessity?” (A Speculation touching Electric Conduction and the Nature of Matter, pp. 290, 291).

Today there is a tendency to substitute the concept of energy for that of force. Hence Professor Ostwald’s “energetic theory.” Matter is to be looked upon as a complex of energies arranged together in space. The concept of matter resolves itself into that of energy, since the manifestations of energy are all we know of the external world. Energy is the common substance, for it is that which exists in space and time; it is also the differentiating principle of whatever exists in space and time. Recent scientific discoveries, especially those in the field of radio-activity, seem to strengthen philosophical reason and lead to a more specific dynamism. The atom (q. v.) can no longer be considered as being what its name implies, namely indivisible. Atoms of different chemical elements are spheres of positive electrification enclosing a number of corpuscles, all homogeneous, having identical properties, and negatively electrified. Some physicists still attribute to these corpuscles a real, though infinitesimal, extension; they admit a nucleus or carrier of the electric charge, and this nucleus alone is what we call matter. But this is denied by others for whom the corpuscle contains nothing material in the sense in which we commonly use that term. It is all electricity and nothing but electricity. Indeed the only reason for admitting anything else would be the necessity of explaining the mass and inertia of the corpuscle. But electricity itself possesses mass and inertia; or rather the mechanical inertia of matter is identical with the self-induction of the electric current, and the mass results from the velocity of the current. It has been calculated that the whole mass and inertia of the corpuscle are accounted for by its electrical charge alone and its velocity. Hence the name “electron” given to the corpuscle; it is the ultimate unit of so-called matter. This is known as the electronic theory of matter.

II. The preceding outline shows that the term dynamism, like all other general names of philosophical systems, is very vague, and applies to a number of widely different views originating from different considerations and supported by different arguments, namely:

Extension being essentially divisible, the ultimate unit must lack extension, otherwise it would be itself composed of parts, divisible and not one.

Matter is essentially active; to reduce it to mere extension is to ignore one of its fundamental aspects.

Even extension manifests itself exclusively through forces, and

matter as such is unknowable and unthinkable.

Scientific facts lead to an electronic theory.

Matter is, therefore, to say the least, absolutely useless, and dynamism, being a simpler, yet adequate, explanation, is preferable.

Without entering into a discussion of the system, we may note briefly that the extension which is infinitely divisible is abstract, not concrete, mathematical, not physical, extension. For Aristotle and the Scholastics, physical matter is composed of two essential and inseparable principles, primary matter and substantial form (q. v.), the latter being the principle of unity and activity. Moreover, to admit the essential activity of matter does not necessarily imply that matter is nothing but activity. And if matter does not manifest itself to the senses except through forces and energies, it does not follow that it is not the necessary subject and carrier of these forces. In order to establish dynamism, it is not sufficient to overthrow materialism. If there is no matter, it is difficult to understand the forces themselves; for then, what is attracted? what moves, rotates, vibrates, etc.? Do not forces require a subject? It is clear that simple elements cannot give real extension. Can they even explain the phenomenon itself of extension, when not only physical bodies but the organism itself and the sense-organs are denied real extension? The facts and nature of radio-activity are not as yet sufficiently explored to furnish a safe basis for a definite theory of matter. Further, the necessity of admitting an actio in distans is also considered as an objection against some forms at least of dynamism. Dynamism is opposed to the objective dualism of matter and energy, and also to mechanical materialism, according to which, matter, endowed with extension, is of itself an inert and indifferent vehicle of motion. It is not opposed to atomism in general, but only to some forms of it. Some dynamists, like Kant, admit the continuity of the forces constituting matter, but the majority admit centres or atoms of forces acting on one another. Atomism, therefore, is either material or dynamic, and dynamism may admit atomism or continuity. How far even dynamism is irreconcilable with hylomorphism (q. v.) in its most general meaning, it is difficult to determine. Leibniz speaks of primary matter and of substantial form, or entelechy. And the common elements of all things must be conceived as being only in potentiâ with regard to the actual diverse substances which they constitute. Again, the dynamic elements may be purely physical, or, as with Leibniz, they may have, in various degrees, a psychical nature, thus implying a sort of panpsychism. Leibniz also considers them as essentially different; commonly they are considered as identical in nature. Dynamism in general may be adapted to and modified by such philosophical systems as determinism or freedom, substantialism or phenomenalism, idealism or realism, monism or theism, etc. In itself, it is not inconsistent with any essential Catholic doctrine.

In conclusion, it may be interesting to note the contrast between the modern and the Aristotelean terminology. Aristotle’s dynamis and energeia (see ACTUS ET POTENTIA) are essentially opposed. Today, they have come to be almost synonymous, and energetism is one of the dynamic views of matter.

LEIBNIZ, Oeuvres philosophiques (Paris, 1867). especially Monadologie; Principes de la nature et de la grâce; Système nouveau de la nature; Théodicée; Nouveaux essais sur l’entendement; WOLFF, Cosmologia generalis (new ed. Frankfort and Leipzig, 1737). especially secs. 176 sqq., 221 sqq.; BOSCOVICH, Theoria philosophiæ naturalis (Venice, 1763); KANT, Werke (Berlin 1902), especially Monadologia physica, I, 473 and Metephysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft, IV, 465; FARADAY, Experimental Researches in Electricity (London, 1839–1855), especially Thoughts on Ray-vibrations, III, 448 and A Speculation touching Electric Conduction and the Nature of Matter II, 284, both reprinted from Philosophical Magazine, XXIV, XXVIII; OSTWALD, Vorlesungen über Naturphilosophie (2nd ed. Leipzig, 1902); MABILLEAU, Hist. de la phil. atomistique (Paris, 1895); NYS, Cosmologie (2nd ed. Louvain, 1906). Cf. also histories of philosophy, Works on radio-activit by CURIE, RUTHERFORD, LODGE, THOMSON, LE BON, etc. and the less technical presentation of DUNCAN, The New Knowledge (New York, 1906) and JONES, The Electrical Nature of Matter and Radioactivity (New York, 1906); EISLER, Wörterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe (2nd ed. Berlin, 1904), s. v, Monade, Materie, etc.

C.A. DUBRAY

E

ARTICLES

E

Eadmer

Eanbald

Easter

Eastern Churches

Easterwine

Adam Easton

St. Eata

Ebbo

Thomas Ebendorfer

Matthias Eberhard

Eberhard of Ratisbon

Ebionites

Ebner

Ecclesiastes

Ecclesiastical Art

Ecclesiasticus

Samuel Eccleston

Thomas of Eccleston

Jacques Echard

Baltasar de Echave

Echinus

Abbey of Echternach

Julius Echter von Mespelbrunn

Johann Eck

Anselm Eckart

Eckebert

Johann Georg von Eckhart

Johann, Meister Eckhart

Joseph Hilarius Eckhel

Eclecticism

Ecstasy

Ecuador

Edda

Edelinck

Edesius and Frumentius

Edessa

Henry Essex Edgeworth

Editions of the Bible

Congregation of Saint Edmund

Ven. Edmund Arrowsmith

Bl. Edmund Campion

St. Edmund Rich

St. Edmund the Martyr

Education

Catholic Educational Association

Education of the Blind

Education of the Deaf and Dumb

Edward III

St. Edward the Confessor

St. Edward the Martyr

St. Edwin

Edwy

Boetius Egan

Michael Egan

St. Egbert

Egbert

Egbert, Archbishop of Trier

Egbert, Archbishop of York

Egfrid

Frederick W. von Egloffstein

Lamoral, Count of Egmont, Prince of Gâvre

Egoism

St. Egwin

Egypt

Egyptian Church Ordinance

Josef Karl Benedikt, Freiherr von Eichendorff

Diocese of Eichstätt

St. Eimhin

Einhard

Abbey of Einsiedeln

Martin Eisengrein

St. Eithene

St. Eithne

Ekkehard

Ekkehard of Aura

Elæa

Elba

Elcesaites

George Elder

William Henry Elder

Eleazar

Elect

Election

Pope St. Eleutherius